“Several Loose Ends Need Answers”: Mukul Rohatgi On Judge Cash Case
New Delhi:
Former Attorney General of India Mukul Rohatgi called for a thorough investigation into allegations that a cash stash was found on the premises of Delhi High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma. Mr Rohatgi, in an interview to NDTV, said the matter “does not look like an open and shut case”.
Referring to the Supreme Court confirming the transfer of Justice Varma to the Allahabad High Court, Mr Rohatgi said he was “mystified” by the announcement.The Supreme Court in a press note on Friday said the transfer process of Justice Varma was unrelated to the inquiry into the alleged cash stash row.
Q: The Supreme Court transferred Justice Verma to his parent court, which is the Allahabad High Court. The Supreme Court said the transfer has nothing to do with the cash stash case. How are you viewing this?
A: I have never understood the statement that this transfer proposal has nothing to do with the cash scam. According to me, it is because of the cash scam that he is being proposed to be transferred… Ultimately, the point of the transfer is not that important because he doesn’t have any judicial work. So whether he sits in his house in Delhi or whether he sits in his house in Allahabad, what difference will it make? The real question is that we should come to the bottom of the issue as early as possible whether the judge is a delinquent, is he guilty of moral turpitude, or he is not and his reputation is being damned. There are several loose ends in this case as of now which need to be answered. So I don’t think there is any great thing in saying that the transfer is not connected to the scam. I’m actually mystified by this statement of the Supreme Court.
Q: The issue has reached parliament. MPs are of the opinion that had the person been a non-judge, any other citizen, a politician or a bureaucrat, then it would have led to a criminal investigation. Does it really stop at an investigation which is clearly an in-house investigation by the judiciary?
A: No. Please understand and your viewers also must understand. The position of a judge is entirely different from a bureaucrat or a police officer. Why? Because a judge decides cases day in and day out. Everyday one party to a case is dissatisfied and unhappy with the decision because the decision has gone against one party. So there is a natural reaction in our country which is full of cynics that the judge may have been bought over or is won over by one party or the other. A large number of complaints are made everyday against every judge, whether of the first court, second court, high court, or Supreme Court. And therefore, you can’t start a police investigation in every case where people file such complaints. A judge cannot fearlessly be independent when these swords, several swords are hanging on his heads. Parliament in its wisdom talked about impeachment. There is an in-house procedure for looking at some of these sensitive complaints. 99 per cent complaints are thrown in the dustbin. But some complaints do merit some prima facie investigation or maybe a full-blown investigation. Now that is left to the Chief Justice or the Chief Justice of India to decide because you know otherwise the system of justice will come to an end. It is this difference which makes a difference between the judiciary and other wings of the executive or even parliament. This is how we must perceive it. I am not for a moment trying to say that anybody is above the law. Even a judge can be prosecuted, but it requires a nod from the Chief Justice of India. This was settled in a famous case of a judge of the Supreme Court called K Veeraswami case. So that’s how it goes.