(
Reproduced from Times of India September 10, 2008
page 15)
PF scam: SC to
look into judges’ immunity
Dhananjay Mahapatra | TNN
New Delhi: The SSP of
Ghaziabad has blown the lid off Rs 23 crore PF
embezzlement by naming 34 sitting judges as among the
alleged ‘beneficiaries’ of the scam.
The SSP’s report
went on to say, “It has also emerged during
investigation of this case that all the costly items
(split ACs, refrigerators and mobile phones) which
are mentioned in the aforesaid bills were recovered
by Ashutosh Asthana and given to then district
judges, additional district judges etc, who have been
elevated presently as judges in the Supreme Court and
various HCs.’’
The bench, comprising
Justices Arijit Pasayat, V S Sirpurkar and G S
Singhvi, asked the state to give its response to the
plea of the petitioner for a CBI probe into the scam
within two weeks and posted the matter for further
hearing on October 22.
The judges appeared to
be in agreement with senior advocate Anil Devan and
solicitor general G E Vahanvati who, citing the
falling standards, questioned the desirability of
maintaining the immunity judges have from
prosecution. Stating that “the rot has set
in’’, the bench appeared to endorse the
calls for a fresh look at the immunity. “The
time has come because people have started
categorising some judges as very honest despite it
being the foremost qualification of any judge. It is
the system. We have to find the mechanism to stem the
rot,’’ it said.
Further, it asked:
“Has the existing mechanism become outdated?
Could it, with some minor modification, still be
effective?’’
The alacrity may have
contrasted with the widely perceived reluctance of
the judiciary to agree to investigations other than
in-house probes, but was seen as reflecting the
concern that has gripped the judiciary with skeletons
tumbling out of its closets with frightening
frequency.
The earlier hearings
in the Supreme Court were marked by fiery exchanges
between the judges—CJI K G Balakrishnan and
Justice B N Agarwal—on the hand and counsel on
the other. The letter of the SSP of Ghaziabad to his
superiors, which was shown to the court, left little
room for doubt about the need to get to the bottom of
the most serious case of corruption in its ranks.
The officer, showing
remarkable boldness, termed the embezzlement a
“very large scam in judiciary’’ in
which “judges appear to be directly
involved’’—breaking away from the
routine of not letting the arc of probe extend beyond
the low-level functionary. He was also candid in
admitting the handicap that he faced in conducting a
probe of such a scale and spread and involving the
judges before whom the local cop has to appear on a
daily basis and whom he may be loath to offend.
In the letter he wrote
to the UP DGP on June 23 this year, the Ghaziabad SSP
recommended a CBI probe—something that the Bar
Association of Ghaziabad had also demanded.
The issue which first
appeared to be a case of routine corruption took on a
huge dimension after the vigilance judge, Rama Jain,
stumbled upon the involvement of judges, leading to
an investigation and subsequent directive of the
Allahabad HC for registration of an FIR.
The bench was irked by
the fact that the UP government did not share it with
the June 23 recommendation of the SSP for a CBI
probe. Reflecting on the past unpleasantness during
hearings on this issue leading to recusal from the
case first by CJI Balakrishnan and followed by the
seniormost judge, Justice B N Agrawal, the bench said
it did not appreciate the manner in which the state
had conducted itself.
The state was defended
by additional advocate general Shail Kumar Dwivedi,
who told the court that the police have filed
chargesheet against 75 accused, including the key
accused, Ashutosh Asthana, who was the central nazir
during the scam period.
When advocate Viplav
Sharma objected to the ordering of CBI probe into the
PF scam, saying it would harm the independence of
judiciary, the bench trashed it and said: “We
are all concerned for the independence of the
judiciary but at the same time if we find that
someone is acting in a manner that impinges on the
image of judiciary and hurting its independence, then
should we stay aloof?’’
“In the last 42
years, the situation has changed. If somebody,
rightly or wrongly, points a finger at the integrity
of judiciary, can we order a departmental probe and
be happy about it? Can a departmental probe be a
substitute for police investigation under
CrPC?’’ the bench asked.
“In this case,
the PF scam, an FIR has already been lodged on the
directive of the Allahabad high court and a police
investigation is going on. Can we now order a
departmental inquiry to scuttle the police
investigation?’’ it said.
Latest
on this site ... This website informs of actions by
Rogue Police in India.