Re: Fwd: [Assam] The State of Justice/ From the Tehelka

[umesh sharma]

I'll be glad to see this judge get transferred to Gauhati. Why does he see it as a punishment posting-if he is so righteous?

 

Umesh

Chan Mahanta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Dear BK:

Please read this. And I will respond to your last note afterwards.

Regards,

c



>Confidential letter justice cries for Justice denied
>
>VN Khare
> Former Chief Justice of India
>'I have been on record speaking against
>corruption. All judges must be saintly once they
>take oath. I have never believed in transferring
>judges'
>
>
>At War: BK Roy (extreme right) and other judges
>of the Punjab and Haryana High Court
>
>Vikram Jit Singh scoops an internal communication from aggrieved
> Justice BK Roy to Chief Justice of India RC
>Lahoti imploring the country's highest judicial
>authority to strike at those who give the
>judiciary a bad name, not at those who have
>tried to cleanse the filth
>
>'I also put o! n record that during my discussions
>with then Hon'ble CJI Mr Justice VN Khare and
>Hon'ble Mr Justice Rajendra Babu, I was told
>that since I have not committed any wrong, where
>is the question of my transfer and if at all,
>the transfer has to be of the errant judges'
>
>Vikram Jit Singh scoops an internal
>communication from aggrieved Justice BK Roy to
>Chief Justice of India RC Lahoti imploring the
>country's highest judicial authority to strike
>at those who give the judiciary a bad name, not
>at those who have tried to cleanse the filth
>
>*'Am I now being punished for doing my duty by
>the Constitution, for holding court (along with
>another, but only one other judge of the high
>court) on April 19, even as all my other
>colleagues on the bench wilfully deserted the
>fortress of justice? Has the distinction between
>right and wrong, between ! duty and desertion,
>between truth and falsehood been completely
>blurred?'
>
>*'The problem of nepotism - judges' close
>relatives practising at the Bar� I passed an
>Administrative Order� giving effect to a remedy
>for the malaise� Aimed at preventing the
>emergence of � a mutual cooperative society on
>the bench. Within a fortnight of the
>Administrative Order, I received Your Lordship's
>letter� intimating the proposal of my transfer.'
>
> Painful and despairing words these for Justice
>Binod Kumar Roy, as he wrote to Chief Justice of
>India RC Lahoti on the eve of his impending
>transfer from the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
>In his detailed response to the proposal to
>shunt him out to the Gauhati High Court, an
>anguished Justice Roy wrote to the CJI seeking
>an answer that would never come. For a man who
>had decisively tilted the s! cales of justice
>towards ensuring judicial integrity and weeding
>out corruption, he found the proposal to
>transfer him particularly hard to stomach and
>even more difficult to fathom.
>
> Tehelka got exclusive access to the letter
>written on January 21, 2005, possibly the
>strongest words ever put to pen in the history
>of the country's hallowed higher judiciary.
>Justice Roy reminded the CJI: "With anguish I
>convey that as per my information derived from
>my discussions with several former CJIs, no
>transfer of a chief justice has ever been made
>without his consent. I also put on record that
>during my discussions with then Hon'ble CJI Mr
>Justice VN Khare and Hon'ble Mr Justice Rajendra
>Babu, who later on himself became the Hon'ble
>CJI, I was told that since I have not committed
>any wrong, where is the question of my transfer
>and if at! all, the transfer has to be of the
>errant judges. I was also told by Hon'ble CJI
>Justice VN Khare that because of paucity of
>time, committees of three judges could not be
>constituted by him to probe the conduct of some
>of the judges in regard to the allegations made
>against some of them reported by me� In the
>circumstances it is, with respect, surprising
>that I am now being proposed to be transferred
>(to the Gauhati HC) in breach of the established
>convention that no chief justice has ever been
>transferred without his consent� I regret to
>convey, as already conveyed to Your Lordship in
>my meeting on November 28, 2004, that my
>transfer from Punjab and Haryana High Court
>appears to be punitive (sic)."
>
> For over two years beginning October 2002,
>Justice Roy dazzled many by authoring decisive
>judgements that pierced the power structures of
>the states of Punjab and Haryana, and Chandigarh
>(see box). In the process, the chief justice,
>who has now taken over at the Gauhati HC, also
>made many a powerful foe. His tenure also marked
>the watershed in Indian judiciary: the infamous
>Black Day of April 19 when 25 of the 27 HC
>judges present went on strike. The classical
>example that a man who dares the system,
>perishes. Yet musters enough defiance to strum
>out a swansong that is nearly drowned by the
>stern message the system seeks to send. "Am I
>not entitled to know as to what were/are the
>precise reasons for the proposal to transfer me
>from Punjab and Haryana High Court? I would be
>obliged if I am made aware of the real reasons
>for my transfer so that I could effectively give
>my response thereto for objective consideration
>by Your Lordship and the other four
>distinguis! hed members of the collegium (sic),"
>Justice Roy wrote to Justice Lahoti.
>
> The die had been cast for the chief justice a
>long time back. But Justice Roy is not an
>eminence given to calling a spade anything else.
>"On Sunday, July 11, 2004, I met Your Lordship
>for the first time after Your Lordship's
>elevation as CJI and had detailed talks.
>Finally, Your Lordship asked me as to whether
>after the turmoil in the high court I would like
>to be shifted 'for your peace?' My answer was in
>the negative. But it was obvious that Your
>Lordship had already made up his mind to
>transfer me out of Chandigarh (sic)," read the
>letter to the CJI.
>
> Justice Roy came to Chandigarh at a time when
>the high court was rocked with charges that
>certain judges had secured favours for their
>children from the infamous Ravi Sidhu-headed
>Punjab Pub! lic Service Commission (PPSC). Justice
>Roy took over from Chief Justice AB Saharya, who
>also stood isolated on account of his inquiry
>into the allegations against judges regarding
>the PPSC scam. To restore the faith of the
>public in the administration of justice, Chief
>Justice Roy took inspiration from the legendary
>HM Seervai, India's finest scholar of
>constitutional law. Justice Roy passed an
>Administrative Order that the entire judiciary
>across the country could well have emulated.
>"The problem of nepotism - judges' close
>relatives practising at the Bar and the
>resultant damage to the integrity of the
>judicial system and erosion of public confidence
>in the system - has for long been a major
>concern of the Punjab and Haryana High Court Bar
>Association and the basis for their repeated
>demand for transfer of all such judges. In order >to save the judges from further embarrassment on
>this count, and to restore the sagging
>confidence of the Bar and the general public, I
>passed an Administrative Order on September 25,
>2004, in exercise of my inherent powers as
>Master of the Roster, giving effect to a remedy
>for the malaise proposed by none other than the
>late Shri HM Seervai in his work on the
>Constitutional Law of India. None of the judges
>who have any relative(s), within the meaning of
>Rule 6 of the Bar Council of India Rules,
>practising in the high court could henceforth
>hear any case in which the relative of any other
>judge was/is appearing as counsel for any party.
>Aimed at preventing the emergence of what Shri
>Seervai has chosen to call 'a mutual cooperative
>society' on the Bench, the order has been widely
>welcomed by the Bar even though it has, not
>surprisingly,! created ripples elsewhere� Within
>a fortnight of the Administrative Order, I
>received Your Lordship's letter of October 8,
>2004, intimating the proposal of my transfer,"
>wrote Justice Roy in his letter.
>
>Presidential Rebuff
>
>When the President returned the proposal of the
>Supreme Court collegium to transfer Chief
>Justice BK Roy to the Gauhati High Court in
>December last, he cited the memorandum showing
>the procedure of appointment and transfer of
>chief justices and judges of the high courts.
>Para 25.3 of the memorandum states: "The views
>on the proposed transfer of a judge or a chief
>justice of a high court should be expressed in
>writing and should be considered by the Chief
>Justice of India and the four seniormost judges
>of the Supreme Court. The personal factors
>relating to the concerned judge, including the
>chief just! ice and his response to the proposal,
>including the preference of places, should
>invariably be taken into account by the Chief
>Justice of India and the first four puisne
>judges of the Supreme Court before arriving at a
>conclusion on the proposal.
>
>'On July 11, 2004, I met Your Lordship for the
>first time after Your Lordship's elevation as
>CJI. Your Lordship asked me whether I would like
>to be shifted 'for your peace?' My answer was in
>the negative. But it was obvious Your Lordship
>had already made up his mind to transfer me out
>of Chandigarh'
>
>To the last day of his tenure, Justice Roy stood
>in magnificent isolation even at cremations.
>Justice Roy could be seen alone and defiant with
>the rest of his colleagues standing away as the
>pyres smouldered. Just what could have brought
>this upon the high court?
>
> "From the ! changes made by me from time to time
>as Master of the Roster (which power of the
>chief justice stands emphatically,
>comprehensively and eloquently reaffirmed by the
>Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan vs Prakash
>Chand) to appointments and posting of Judicial
>Officers as Registrar General, Registrar
>(Judicial), Registrar (Administration), etc in
>the high court under Article 229 of the
>Constitution (which power of the chief justice
>has, again, been strongly upheld by the apex
>court in HC of judicature for Rajasthan vs
>Ramesh Chand Paliwal, setting all doubts at
>rest) to the even more onerous, sensitive and
>delicate task of looking into the many
>complaints received against brother judges and
>in the case of the graver of the complaints
>seeking their comments thereon with a view to
>sifting the grain from the chaff and placing
>after due a! nd careful verification, the
>necessary information before the Hon'ble Chief
>Justice of India (as per the inhouse procedure
>laid down by the Supreme Court in Ravichandran
>Iyer vs Justice AM Bhattacharjee), every
>important action taken by me in good faith in
>the interest of better administration of justice
>was sought to be obstructed by the judges,
>acting in concert and in reckless disregard of
>the constitutional imperatives of judicial
>discipline, ethics and accountability and
>heedless of the damage to the credibility and
>image of the institution of which we all are
>part (sic)," wrote Justice Roy to the CJI, in a
>summation of the core issues that showed up the
>rifts running through the judicial monolith.
>
>
>The Arbitrator: Chief Justice of India RC Lahoti
>
>'On July 11, 2004, I met Your Lordship for the
>first time after! Your Lordship's elevation as
>CJI. Your Lordship asked me whether I would
>like to be shifted 'for your peace?' My answer
>was in the negative. But it was obvious Your
>Lordship had already made up his mind to
>transfer me out of Chandigarh'
>On October 8, 2004, the Supreme Court
>collegium's proposal to transfer Justice Roy to
>the Patna High Court for the 'better
>administration of justice' was conveyed to him
>by the CJI. Justice Roy accepted the proposal
>citing the Chief Justices' Conference of 2004,
>which recommended a policy that would allow a
>local judge to become the chief justice of his
>home state. However, the policy of the
>Government of India as laid down in 1983 was not
>to appoint a local judge as chief justice. On
>November 23, 2004, the CJI informed Justice Roy:
>"The Government of India has not agreed with
>your transfer as chie! f justice of Patna High
>Court in view of the policy decision taken by
>the Government of India in 1983. It is proposed
>to transfer you as the chief justice of the
>Gauhati High Court. This is for your
>information."
>
> This stung Justice Roy, a man known in inner
>circles as deeply sensitive and uncompromising
>on the entwined issues of morality and
>corruption. He wrote back: "I felt surprised and
>humiliated when I was thus apprised by Your
>Lordship of the proposal to transfer me to
>Gauhati High Court without asking for my
>response." No less an entity than the President
>of India, APJ Abdul Kalam, felt constrained to
>reject the proposal of the Supreme Court
>collegium to transfer Justice Roy to Gauhati HC.
>The President returned the proposal in late
>December 2004 as Justice Roy's views on the
>transfer to Guwahati had not been sought by ! the
>collegium as required under the Memorandum of
>Procedure. Roy's views were then sought by the
>CJI and the thus came the letter dated January
>21.
>
> This was not the first time the President had
>come to the rescue of the beleaguered chief
>justice. After the strike by the judges in
>April, the President wrote to the then CJI VN
>Khare, expressing his anguish at such a turn of
>events in the portals of justice. This response
>was also a first such intervention by a
>President in the history of India's higher
>judiciary.
>
> In his letter to the CJI, Justice Roy provides
>an insightful narrative on those dark days that
>led to the strike. Of judges grouping together
>and holding meetings under Justice GS Singhvi,
>who was the seniormost judge after him, the
>subsequent 'mutiny against the Constitution', of
>the real possibil! ity of the high court nearly
>shutting down.
>
> "Following the discharge by me of my
>supervisory responsibility as Chief Justice and
>my efforts to inculcate both discipline and
>accountability in the administration of justice
>in the high court and the subordinate courts,
>both on the judicial and administrative sides,
>with particular focus on maintaining and weeding
>out corruption at all levels, puisne judges of
>the Punjab and Haryana High Court not only
>denied me their support and cooperation but
>following the transfer of Mr Justice NK Sodhi to
>the Kerala High Court in late November 2003 and
>his departure from Chandigarh for that reason,
>got together to organise and announce a boycott
>of all work of Inspection of Subordinate Courts
>vide their letter dated December 10, 2003,
>stating that 'it is not possible for us to look
>after t! he administrative work of the districts'.
>The work thus boycotted is the constitutional
>obligation and responsibility of every high
>court judge under Article 235 of the
>Constitution. Beginning February 26, 2004, they
>also boycotted all committees constituted in
>relation to various matters (sic)," revealed
>Justice Roy.
>
> "On April 19, 2004, the blackest day in the
>history of the Indian judiciary, as many as 25
>of the 27 judges� took leave en masse. On the
>morning of April 19, 2004, itself, I sent a
>letter to the then Hon'ble CJI Mr Justice VN
>Khare, apprising his Lordship of the action of
>the judges and concluding as under:
>
> 'I have definite information that the judges
>under the leadership of Mr Justice GS Singhvi
>have been holding meetings and had yet another
>meeting yesterday before they sent their
>intimations to ! me. Their intimations that they
>shall not be holding court from 19th April to
>23rd April is an extremely unfortunate step of
>theirs just to paralyse the judicial functions
>of the court in order to bring me to disrepute
>and nothing but a pressure tactic on me in
>regard to my functions - judicial and
>administrative� So far as today is concerned, at
>least one judge, Mr Justice Amar Dutt, has
>informed me that he has not gone on leave and
>shall be coming to court. Accordingly, I have
>constituted a Special Division Bench of his and
>mine till lunch so that the urgent cases could
>be taken up and after lunch we will be sitting
>singly to take up urgent cases of single judges�
>I am extremely sorry to bother Your Lordship but
>I am left with no option and with heavy heart to
>inform and with regrets that what will happen if
>all judges except me go on leave! . I assure Your
>Lordship that being the chief justice, I cannot
>allow my court not to function but if I fall ill
>then I will be left with no option but to close
>my high court," he wrote.
>
> Justice Roy was transferred to the Gauhati High
>Court after he expressed his views through his
>letter to the CJI. But the question still
>remains. What were the precise reasons for his
>transfer out of the Punjab and Haryana High
>Court?
>
> Roy in Courtroom
>
>The Petitioner: BK Roy
>
>
>
>'Following my efforts to inculcate both
>discipline and accountability in the
>administration of justice in the high court and
>the subordinate courts, puisne judges of the
>Punjab and Haryana High Court got together to
>organise and announce a boycott of all work'
>* On the last day of his holding court, a
>Division Bench headed ! by Chief Justice BK Roy
>pronounced judgement in the Chandigarh Law
>Institute case, marking the culmination of
>nearly two-and-a-half years of his crusade
>against corruption in all organs of the State.
>The judgement struck down the allotment of
>government land at a loss of Rs 139 crore to a
>private company floated by two sons of a sitting
>judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. He
>asked the Union Territory Administrator to
>initiate disciplinary action against those
>involved in the act.
>
>* Just four months back, a full Bench comprising
>Justice Roy, Justice Rajiv Bhalla and Justice
>Surya Kant had quashed the selection of DSPs
>under the sports quota as it was manipulated by
>Chief Minister Amarinder Singh's office. "The
>fact that the principal secretary to the chief
>minister was made chairman of the selection
>committee, a son of ! another officer from the
>staff associated with the chief minister was
>selected� castigates upon the independence and
>fairness of the selection committee," the judges
>held. The principal secretary concerned was SK
>Sinha. The Bench also initiated contempt
>proceedings against Singh's aide BIS Chahal,
>whose son was selected, for interfering in the
>administration of justice by attempting to
>prevent the sports department from producing the
>entire record before the court.
>
>* A Division Bench under Justice Roy framed
>charges under the Contempt of Courts Act against
>CM Munjal, the chairman of the Bar Council of
>Punjab and Haryana, who was also an additional
>advocate general in Punjab. While defending a
>criminal case, Munjal had misrepresented a
>judge's 'oral order' to the police to stay the
>arrest of his relative, while no such order had
>actually been passed. Munjal had to quit as
>council chairman. Close on the heels of Justice
>Roy's transfer, another Division Bench accepted
>Munjal's apology.
>
> * Enforcing rigour in the administration of
>criminal justice, a full Bench headed by Justice
>Roy disagreed with the idea mooted by another
>judge, Justice VK Bali, that FIRs of
>non-compoundable criminal offences could be
>quashed by the HC if the parties entered into a
>compromise. "This court," held Justice Amar
>Dutt, with whom Justice Roy concurred, "will
>necessarily have to bear in mind the various
>statutes� and ensure that indiscriminate
>exercise of these powers does not encourage the
>abuse of the process of law." Regretting that
>Justice Bali had failed to prepare his opinion
>for more than six months, Roy also disapproved
>of the practice of pronouncing orders w! ithout
>giving detailed reasons.
>
> *Justice Roy's tenure is vividly associated
>with the Forest Hill golf resort case. A
>Division Bench comprising Justice Roy and
>Justice Surya Kant ordered the closure of the
>resort, constructed in violation of Central and
>state forest and land ceiling laws. The hearings
>revealed the names of the ruling politicians,
>bureaucrats and two sitting judges of the HC, to
>whom the club had offered memberships. The bench
>ordered a CBI probe into the affair.
>
> On April 2, 2004, Justice Roy issued notices to
>the two judges, Justice Viney Mittal and Justice
>Virender Singh, who had accepted 'ex-officio'
>membership of the resort. The two judges wrote
>back, denying his jurisdiction to raise the
>issue. On April 9, 19 other judges and the two
>judges involved wrote to the chief justice
>accusing him of seek! ing to "demoralise and
>harass the judges". In his rejoinder to them the
>very next day, Justice Roy spoke of their
>holding "a brief for the owners of clubs" and
>that a "guilty mind is always suspicious". On
>April 18, 25 judges sent in their letters saying
>they would remain on leave on April 19.
>
>
>
>April 02, 2005
>
>
>
>
>
>Print this story
>Feedback
>Add to favorites
>Email this story
>
>
>
>
>
>Back to top
> Home | Feedback | Contact Us | Team Tehelka
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Tehelka.com is a part of Agni Media Pvt. Ltd.
> copyright � 2004 tehelka.com
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Assam mailing list
>Assam@pikespeak.uccs.edu
>http://pikespeak.uccs.edu/mailman/listinfo/assam
>
>Mailing list FAQ:
>http://pikespeak.uccs.edu/assam/assam-faq.html
>To unsubscribe or change options:
>http://pikespeak.uccs.edu/mailman/options/assam
>

_______________________________________________
Assam mailing list
Assam@pikespeak.uccs.edu
http://pikespeak.uccs.edu/mailman/listinfo/assam

Mailing list FAQ:
http://pikespeak.uccs.edu/assam/assam-faq.html
To unsubscribe or change options:
http://pikespeak.uccs.edu/mailman/options/assam

Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

_______________________________________________
Assam mailing list
Assam@pikespeak.uccs.edu
http://pikespeak.uccs.edu/mailman/listinfo/assam

Mailing list FAQ:
http://pikespeak.uccs.edu/assam/assam-faq.html
To unsubscribe or change options:
http://pikespeak.uccs.edu/mailman/options/assam