contrversy reg letter of Justice R.Reghupathi
B.S.Baidwan
(Querist) 26 December 2010
This query is : Resolved
Dear Experts may I seek your views on my letter:-
Open Letter to the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India.
( emailed on 18th Dec2010 to the CJI)
Sub:- Controversy between Former CJI Mr.K.G. Balakrishnan and former CJ of Madras High court and sitting Judge of Apex Court Mr. H.L. Gokhale with regard to the complaint of Justice R.Reghupathi.
Respected Sir,
The advocates address you as ” My Lord” and by doing so they equate your position with GOD. According to me the Judiciary is the last hope for any civilised society.
High courts and the Supreme Court, in the past, have taken note of various matters relating to executive/ legislative authorities published in print media and have taken SUO-MOTU action and have taken matters to their logical conclusion by considering the published matter as a writ petition. But this time around when a former CJI and a sitting Judge of the Supreme Court are involved in a controversy, why the concerned judicial authorities have not taken SUO-MOTU action to bring the truth before the Nation is not understandable.
Justice H.R.Gokhale has issued a press note on 14th Dec 2010, after verifying the records from your office therefore I presume it to be correct. On the contrary the former CJI has presumably been relying on his memory and that could precisely be the reason that he has given different or incomplete statements in last few days, some of his statements are as under:-
1). “The name of union minister was not mentioned in the report sent by the Chief Justice of Madras High Court.” -Dec 8, 2010.
2). “I had said that Justice Regupathi did not write to me in my capacity of CJI, he wrote to CJ of Madras High Court.” –Dec 14, 2010.
3). “I had said that Justice Gokhale did not mention the name of union minister in his report.” – Dec 15, 2010.
The matter involved is not very complicated and does not require very high level of intelligence or judicial knowledge we just need to use our common sense and find the answer to the following question :-
1).Did the CJI received the letter dated 5th of July, 2009 of Justice Gokhale along with the complaint/ letter dated 2nd of July, 2009 of Justice R.Reghupathi as an enclosure/ attachment.
The answer to the above question, according to me is “YES”.
The answer is derived from the letter of acknowledgement dated 8th Aug,2009 sent by CJI to Justice Gokhale, the then Chief Justice of Madras High Court and also by verifying the records of the office of the CJI, which has already been verified by Justice Gokhale before issuing the press note dated 14th Dec, 2010.
It is therefore obvious that the former CJI has all along been trying to conceal some facts and also tried to put Justice Gokhale and Justice Reghupathi in an awkward position. It is also important to mention that he has failed in his duty to take proper
action on the complaint of Justice Reghupathi. The more shocking is the fact that even after the press note dated 14th Dec 2010, of Justice Gokhale, he is still trying to conceal the correct position with regard to the name of the Union Minister.
He has now said in his press note of 15th Dec that he had informed everything to the Union Law Minister but he is still not telling that he knew that the Union Minister involved in the complaint was Mr.A.Raja. The concerned Union Minister Mr.Moily has categorically stated to the media on 16th Dec 2010 that the report sent by the then CJI did not contain the name of any Union Minister.
The subject controversy has created lot of anxiety and confusion in the mind of the public as to which of the two Judges involved is speaking truth. The subject controversy also has the potential of eroding the faith of the public in judiciary.
In view of the above may I request you to have a look at the three letters dated 2nd & 5th July and 8th Aug 2009 and bring the truth before the nation.
I hope that you will also take care of the other consequential issues connected with the subject controversy.
I salute Justice R.Reghupathi who had shown the courage to lodge complaint against a Union Minister. I also salute Justice H.R.Gokhale for showing the courage to issue the press note dated 14th Dec, 2010.
With Kind Regards,
B.S.Baidwan
Mohali, Punjab.
Email- baidwan51@gmail.com
Mob-09216464100
Advocate. Arunagiri
(Expert) 26 December 2010
Apart from the Judges interviews, one thing is very clear, Mr.A.Raja had not spoken to Justice Regupathy. Only Mr.Chandramohan referred A.Raja's name. The contempt is committed by Mr.Chandramohan only. A.Raja had not committed any contempt of court.
This is my view based on the press reports.
yogesh
(Expert) 26 December 2010
A good move
Devajyoti Barman
(Expert) 26 December 2010
Yes I endorse the view of Mr Arunagiri.
B.S.Baidwan
(Querist) 27 December 2010
Controvery Reg Letter of Jusyice R.Reghupathy.
December 27,2010,
Dear Friends,
Thanks for your comments.
I think some of you have not been able to appreciate my view point. I have not questioned and it is immaterial for the said controversy whether Justice Reghupathi spoke with the union minister or not. Justice Reghupathy has himself stated in his complaint dated 2.7.09 that he refused to take the mobile phone from the advocate to speak with the minister, so he is confirming your point that the union minister did not speak with him, but the fact still remains that as per the statement of the advocate the union minister was on line and was holding the line to speak with Justice Reghupathy. The fact that the union minister was holding the line shows the intentions of the minister to talk to the Judge and seek the favour which the advocate had failed to achieve by using his name. It is entirely a different matter and requires lot of arguments and evidence etc, I do not want to debate that at this point in time but I am capable and willing to discuss this subject if required at a future date and give my views.
The issue/ question raised by me is much more serious and important because it concerns the honesty and integrity of the highest possible judicial authority the CJI and next in line a sitting Supreme Court Judge.
In the current controversy only one person could be factually correct because the question involved is not subjective and does not give any room for discussion or debate or interpretation of a law point, the question is- Whether the then CJI knew the name of the union minister after reading the communication sent by Justice Gokhale the then CJ of Madras HC on 5.7.09? The answer would be yes if the letter of justice Reghupathy dated 2.7.09 was enclosed with the letter of Justice Gokhale. The answer could be found by inspecting the records of the office of the CJI and by also by reading the reply/ acknowledgement letter dated 8.8.09 sent by the CJI to Justice Gokhale the then CJ of Madras HC.
Justice Gokhale, the then CJ of Madras HC and a sitting Judge of the Supreme Court, before issuing the press note dated 14.12.10, has verified the records in the office of the CJI and have also quoted a Para from the reply of the CJI dated 8.8.09 in his press note, wherein the CJI has confirmed that he has also received the letter of Justice Reghupathy dated 2.7.09 along with his letter dated 5.7.09. It is therefore proved that the letter of Justice Reghupathy was received by the CJI and he had the knowledge of its contents, mainly the name of union minister. If you do not agree with my proposition then there could be only one possibility that the sitting judge of SC, Justice Gokhale has issued an incorrect press note dated 14.12.2010, even after verifying the records but I am not ready to buy this argument because he has issued the press note after verifying the facts from the office of the CJI, More over if he was not factually correct then he would never have issued the press note and would have either avoided to answer the questions of media or would have relied on his memory and given incomplete information as is being done by Justice Balakrishnan and could have taken the excuse of failing to correctly remember the facts, if in future he was confronted with the factual position as per records.
I am therefore inclined to take the press note dated 14.12.10 of Justice Gokhale as correct unless proved wrong by the present CJI with supporting documents.
It is in the context of the above that, according to me, in the interest of justice and larger public interest, the CJI, Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.H. Kapadia must take cognizance of the matter and save his brother judge, Justice Gokhale from any further embarrassment.
Try to imagine the plight of Justice Gokhale, he must have been under lot of stress and strain after the statements of Justice Balakrishnan on 8th of Dec 2010, when the media contacted him after the judgment of the Madras High Court by which Advocate Mr. Chandrashekhar was suspended, that the name of union minister was not mentioned in the communication sent by Justice Gokhale, that could only be the reason that he took the extreme step of issuing the press note dated 14.12.2010 and put the controversy to rest but even after this Justice Balakrishnan on 15th/16th Dec 2010 has tried to stick to the similar position that the name of union minister was not mentioned in the communication sent by Justice Gokhale. Has Justice Gokhale not been put under more stress and strain and faces bigger embarrassment then before due to the stand taken by Justice Balakrishnan on 15th Dec 2010? I think the press note dated 14.12.2010 should have been issued under the signatures of the present CJI or he should have put the controversy to rest by giving a statement on or after 15.12.10 that the press note of Justice Gokhale is correct and is as per the records available in his office.
If the matter is still not clarified by the CJI then I am afraid as to how Justice Gokhale will face the lawyers and the litigants in the SC because the former CJI, by giving the statements after the issuance of the press note of Dec 14, 2010, has put him in a position of mistrust in the eyes of the public.
Justice Gokhale might be cursing himself for issuing the press note dated 14.12.10, because his position has become worse then before because Justice Balakrishnan has maintained his earlier stand.
If I was in his position I would not have been able to handle this pressure and embarrassment for more then two to three weeks and would have made available the photocopies of the letters dated July 2nd, 5th and Aug 8th 2009, available to the press through a supplementary press note.
However I very strongly recommend that Justice Kapadia must rise to the occasion and put up the factual position before the nation and uphold the faith of his brother judges in particular and the public in general in the highest seat of the judiciary without any further delay.
Once the factual position is confirmed by the Hon’ble CJI, then the consequential questions like whether Justice Reghupathy, Justice Gokhale and Justice Balakrishnan took the appropriate action as per law or not would be examined by the CJI and the action if any should be taken against those who did not take action as per the law.
I think I have made my views and perception more clear then before and look forward to your comments.
B.S.Baidwan
Mohali, Punjab
baidwan51@gmail.com
