FRONT PAGE | Saturday, July 4, 2009 | Email | Print | 
Judge must reveal Minister’s name, feels legal fraternity
Pioneer News Service | Chennai
Justice R Reghupathy’s open disclosure in Madras High Court that a Union Minister had tried to influence him in a mark-sheet forgery case is seen as a bold step among the law fraternity here. However, it also feels that having gone so far, the judge should have named the Minister, without leaving it open to speculation.
Yet, the incident has brought to light the fact that the judges here are subjected to political pressures, but rarely disclose it like Justice Reghupathy. It is a general trend that whenever there is a hint of political influence, judges often avoid taking up the case. Such cases get tossed over to another judge. The result: Cases drag, benefiting the accused.
“Political influence or threats to judges is not something rare. But rarely do they talk about it in the open. This is more prevalent in lower courts. That way Justice Reghupathy has been honest and brave. Judges often yield to pressures for fear or don’t reveal about attempts at influencing,” said a senior advocate and PUCL vice-president Sudha Ramalingam, who also points out that it is common that most judges function with political blessings.
As in the case of Justice Reghupathy, it is generally difficult to prove who the caller is, especially if it is a Union Minister. “What if the politician denies and claims that someone may have impersonated him? So, people can get away with lies,” she added.
Another noted lawyer R Vaigai, however, says that Reghupathy's case is a rare one and that he should name the Union Minister. “The law provides for criminal proceedings and the Union Minister could be tried for contempt of court. When it comes to ordinary people, judges do not hesitate to take action when similar things happen. Same procedure should be followed for the Minister too,” she said.
Justice Reghupathy has already refused to take up the Pondicherry University mark-sheet forgery case further and asked for its transfer to some other court.
have said that the issue about naming the Union Minister was a closed matter as far as he was concerned. This indicates that he is unlikely to name the Union Minister who spoke to him, asking that the accused in the case be granted anticipatory bail. Justice Reghupathy is said to have left for Theni to attend a function. He is due to retire in a few months.
Political influence and interference in the judicial system is common knowledge, said another senior advocate who requested anonymity. “But the effect of the influence depends on a judge's attitude in soliciting such calls and the judge’s equation with politics and political leaders. But mostly, the judges are reluctant to take up cases that come with political influence. So they seek transfer of such cases to some other court. Often such cases get tossed from one judge to another, ending in a whimper. Justice Reghupathy’s is half step towards boldness, as he has not named the Minister,” said the advocate who was involved in many such cases. He also observes that judges should refrain from overt political remarks in courts like praising a Chief Minister or political opinions.
It is also a question of survival for the judges. The judges in the upper courts like the high court are safer as certain tenures are attached to their career. Even then there are fears of transfers. But in the lower courts and with magistrates, the judges are not secured with the privileges of the high courts and for survival are susceptible to influences.
"Many of the judges are here to enjoy certain status and post retirement benefits. They do not want this to be disturbed before they retire. Therefore, influence does play a role in their verdict sometimes. So they do not discharge (duty/judgement) without fear or favour," the senior lawyer said.
Many feel that unless the judicial system is purged of the corruption and punishments are discharged honestly, people will continue to get away with lies.
The Pondicherry University mark-sheet case involves a medico Kiruba Sridhar and his doctor father C Krishnamurthy, hailing from Perambalur, the native place of Union IT and Communications Minister A Raja. It may be recalled that AIADMK supremo J Jayalalithaa on Thursday named Raja as the Minister who tried to influence Justice Reghupathy in the case, which is with the CBI. The father-son duo sought anticipatory bail, which Justice Reghupathy denied. The two are absconding.
Kiruba Sridhar was making his third and final attempt to pass in ophthalmology at Aarupadai Veedu Medical College under the Pondicherry University. He had scored only 9 out of 40. However, with influence, his answer sheet was replaced with a forged one later that helped him scrape through with 16 out of 40.
Reports from Puducherry indicate that the court disclosure has brought to light the murder case of a data entry operator V Jayaraman who detected not only Sridhar's forgery but also over 600 forged mark-sheets and blew the whistle on the mark-sheet scam. Many administrative officials of the university were said to be involved in the scam. Jayaraman was murdered on May 19, 2008 at his farmhouse. Later, his chamber was set on fire to evade detection of the data he had collected on the forgery.
Here are three examples of cases being transferred from one judge to another either because they involve influential persons or because they were complicated and controversial. The transfers are done with the approval of Chief Justice of the High Court. (These examples are different from cases that go from one judge to another as a natural process).
1. Kodanadu Estate case where AIADMK supremo J Jayalalithaa was involved: In this case (2007) the Tamil Nadu Government (Kodanadu village Panchayat) wanted to lay a road for public use through the estate partly owned by Jayalalithaa and directed that construction in its path be removed. There was a war of words between Jayalalithaa and Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M Karunanidhi over the issue. A petition was filed by the estate manager against the Government. The case was transferred four times. The fifth judge, Justice K Chandru finally disposed the case in favour of the estate owners (co-owned by Jayalalithaa and her friend N Sasikalaa) in May 2008.
2. Saravana Bhavan owner P Rajagopal's involvement in the murder of his former employee: Rajagopal had murdered his former employee Shanthakumar in October 2001 as he wanted to marry his wife Jeevajothi. Because of Rajagopal's influential position there was reluctance to take up the case. Rajagopal had in the Madras High Court challenged the verdict of a lower court that slapped 10-year rigorous imprisonment. The case was transferred three times and in the fourth instance a Division Bench comprising Justices PK Mishra and R Banumathi disposed the case by enhancing Rajagopa's 10-year RI to life term on March 19, 2009.
3. Uthangarai (Dharmapuri) women Naxalites case: 26 Naxalites, including five women and two juveniles, were arrested under POTA on November 24, 2002 from the mangroves of Uthangarai in Dharmapuri district. The women members of the group applied for bail. But their bail petition case was transferred to seven different divisional benches in 2005. This was because the judges were not comfortable in dealing with POTA cases.
Email | Print | Rate:
|