Author: Sandhya Jain
Publication: Vijayvaani.com
Date: January 4, 2011
URL: http://www.vijayvaani.com/FrmPublicDisplayArticle.aspx?id=1570
That justice must be seen to be done is a
wise adage. As allegations swirl and corroborative evidence surfaces of a
possible quid pro quo in the wealth amassed by the kin of 'uncle judges,'
the Supreme Court must urgently limit the damage to its credibility by revisiting
questionable judgments by controversial or tainted judges.
The writer urged as much in the previous column;
indeed, a quiet judicial review should have begun when senior advocates began
questioning extra-judicial angles to decisions of a former Chief Justice of
India. In September 2010, former Union Law Minister Shanti Bhushan furnished
the court with a list of sixteen former Chief Justices of India, of whom eight
were inarguably corrupt. Mr Bhushan said six of the former CJIs were upright,
but he could not vouch for the remaining two judges, an indication of the
gravity of the rot undermining the last bastion of justice.
Justice R.C. Lahoti shines among the honest
six, yet he was overlooked for the post of chairman, National Human Rights
Commission, because of purported pro-Hindu leanings (read: he was not a certified
anti-Hindu). As Mr. Y.K. Sabharwal was in the eye of the storm over tainted
judges, the UPA kept the post vacant until Justice K.G. Balakrishnan retired
in May 2010, and could take up the job which is reserved for former Chief
Justices of India.
The last judgment delivered by Justice Balakrishnan
before demitting office pertained to the pricing of natural gas in a dispute
between the Ambani brothers. Upholding the government contention that gas
was a national resource whose price it alone could fix, he gave a steep benefit
to one party by directing Reliance Natural Resources Ltd. (RNRL) to pay US$
4.20 per mmBTU to Reliance Industries Ltd (RIL), instead of the contracted
price of US$2.34 per mmBTU. This had the tacit consent of the Petroleum Ministry
that should have pocketed the differential for the good of the common man.
Now the pigeons have come home to roost with
the surfacing of a Nira Radia-Balakrishnan connection. News reports say Delhi-based
journalist Dr. M. Furquan filed a complaint before the Vice President in May
2010, alleging that Justice Balakrishnan's son Pradeep had mediated with Dubai-based
NRI businessman Yusuf Ali to settle the legal battle between the Ambani brothers
over the Krishna Godavari basin gas supply. The complainant alleged that Pradeep,
a practicing lawyer in the Supreme Court, made several trips to Dubai in this
connection. This is something which can and should be speedily verified from
his passport.
The already public Radia tapes mention the
clean chit given by Mr Balakrishnan to then Telecom Minister Andimuthu Raja
in the matter of trying to influence a Madras High Court judge to give bail
to a father-son team in a murder case. On July 7, 2009, Radia told Ratan Tata:
"Yeah, I met Raja today… The Chief Justice has given his clearance
on him and he's happy..."
Dr Furquan further alleged that Mr Balakrishnan
granted relief to CPM leader Pinarayi Vijayan in the SNC-Lavalin scandal at
the behest of his family members who are reputedly friendly with the minister.
Furquan alleged that mining tycoon Janardhana Reddy met Mr. Balakrishnan's
son-in-law P.V. Sreenijin in Kochi for help in cases involving the Reddy brothers.
Eminent Supreme Court judge (retd) V.R. Krishna
Iyer has demanded that Balakrishnan be made to step down as NHRC chairman,
and a probe ordered into proliferating allegations of corruption against him.
The current controversy centres round his lawyer son-in-law P.V. Sreenijin,
who has reportedly amassed staggering wealth in the past three years, according
to a Malayalam television channel. These include flats and landed properties
in prime locations in Ernakulam and Thrissur districts, all currently valued
at over Rs 7 crore. Sreenijin had unsuccessfully contested the 2006 assembly
polls from Njarackkal assembly constituency in Ernakulam, and in his affidavit
to the Election Commission declared a bank balance of Rs 25,000/-, three gold
sovereigns then valued at Rs. 18,000/-, and no landed property.
It is alleged that the wealth of Mr Balakrishnan's
kin rose sharply in the period co-terminus with his supremacy at the apex
court - January 2007 to May 2010. Interestingly, his appointment as Chief
Justice of India was challenged by a Kerala High Court advocate who filed
a petition in the apex court claiming that Mr Balakrishnan was illegally appointed
to the Kerala High Court in 1985 though he lacked the mandatory qualifications
for the post, viz. a minimum of 10 years service as District Judge or 10 years
practice as an Advocate. The petitioner charged that Justice Balakrishnan
had worked merely as Munsif Magistrate from 1973 to 1983, a subordinate judiciary
post, and was thus ineligible to be a High Court Judge. It followed that his
elevation as Chief Justice of India was also illegal. The Supreme Court did
not go into the merits of the petition, which was simply dismissed as belated.
Yet a government servant found appointed against a fake degree is dismissed
from service at the moment of discovery, there being no time bar or amnesty
against an illegal appointment.
Observers say that as the late K. Karunakaran
- an accused in the Palmolein import scam which also embraces Chief Vigilance
Commissioner P.J. Thomas - was instrumental in elevating Mr Balakrishnan to
the High Court, that latter returned the favour by staying the proceedings
in the case indefinitely at Supreme Court level.
It is interesting, though not surprising,
that Justice Balakrishnan had urged Dr Subramanian Swamy not to press his
case for disqualification of Congress president Sonia Gandhi for repeatedly
lying under oath in false affidavits to the Returning Officer of Rae Bareilly
constituency. The judge invoked a 'stale case' doctrine which has no basis
in law, and the issue is of sufficient national interest to merit fresh scrutiny.
Present indications, however, suggest that
the UPA has no intention of tackling the issue of corruption in the higher
echelons of the judiciary, and may let the matter hang fire, as in the case
of tainted CVC P.J. Thomas, who resisted all hints and nudges to resign. In
this eventuality, the Government or Supreme Court must immediately institute
a mechanism whereby whistleblowers can report cases of judicial corruption,
and investigate the same in a time-bound manner. The seizure of disproportionate
assets would be a good idea.
- The writer is Editor, www.vijayvaani.com
