நீதித்துறை ஊழல் விவகாரம்: நீதிபதி மார்கண்டேய கட்ஜு எழுப்பும் 6 கேள்விகள்

 
தி இந்துசெவ்வாய், ஜூலை 22, 2014

நீதித்துறை ஊழல் விவகாரம் தொடர்பாக முன்னாள் நீதிபதி மார்கண்டேய கட்ஜு, நீதிபதி லஹோத்திக்கு 6 கேள்விகளை முன்வைத்துள்ளார்.

உச்ச நீதிமன்ற நீதிபதியாக இருந்து ஓய்வு பெற்றவரும் பிரஸ் கவுன்சில் தலைவராகவும் உள்ள நீதிபதி மார்கண்டேய கட்ஜு நீதித்துறை ஊழல் குறித்த வெளியிட்ட புகாரை முன்னாள் தலைமை நீதிபதிகள் ஆர்.சி.லஹோதி, கே.ஜி.பாலகிருஷ்ணன் ஆகியோர் மறுத்துள்ளனர்.

இந்நிலையில், முன்னாள் நீதிபதி ஆர்.சி.லஹோதிக்கு 6 கேள்விகளை கட்ஜு முன்வைத்துள்ளார். தனது வலைப்பதிவுத் தளத்தில் கட்ஜு லஹோத்திக்கான 6 கேள்விகளையும் கட்ஜு பதிவேற்றியுள்ளார்.

கேள்வி 1:

நான் சென்னை உயர் நீதிமன்ற தலைமை நீதிபதியாக இருந்த போது, அங்கிருந்த கூடுதல் நீதிபதி ஊழலில் ஈடுபடுவதாக உங்களுக்கு (லஹோத்தி) கடிதம் எழுதினேனா இல்லையா? அதில், ஊழல் குற்றச்சாட்டு தொடர்பாக ரகசிய விசாரணை மேற்கொள்ளுமாறு குறிப்பிட்டிருந்தேனா இல்லையா? மேலும் இதுதொடர்பாக டெல்லி வந்து தங்களை நேரில் சந்தித்து ஆலோசித்ததோடு புலன் விசாரணைக்கு உத்தரவிடுமாறு வலியுறுத்தினேனா இல்லையா?

கேள்வி 2:

எனது கோரிக்கையை ஏற்று நீதிபதி லஹோத்தி ஊழல் குற்றம்சாட்டப்பட்ட நீதிபதி மீது விசாரணைக்கு உத்தரவிட்டது உண்மையா இல்லையா?

கேள்வி 3:

டெல்லி சந்திப்புக்கு சில வாரங்களுக்குப் பின்னர் நான் சென்னை திரும்பிட்யிருந்தபோது என்னை தொலைபேசியில் தொடர்பு கொண்டு, சென்னை உயர் நீதிமன்ற கூடுதல் நீதிபதி ஊழலில் ஈடுபட்டத்தை புலன் விசாரணை உறுதி செய்துள்ளது என லஹோத்தி என்னிடம் தெரிவித்தாரா இல்லையா?

கேள்வி 4:

சென்னை உயர் நீதிமன்ற கூடுதல் நீதிபதி குறித்த புலன்விசாரணை அறிக்கையில் அவர் மீதான குற்றச்சாட்டுகள் உறுதிப்படுத்தப்பட்டிருந்தது. அந்த அறிக்கை கிடைக்கெப்பற்ற பின்னர் அப்போதைய உச்ச நீதிமன்ற தலைமை நீதிபதியாக இருந்த லஹோதி, நீதிபதிகள் சபர்வால், ருமா பால் அடங்கிய மூன்று நீதிபதிகள் அடங்கிய காலெஜியத்தை கூட்டி இது தொடர்பாக ஆலோசனை நடத்தினாரா, இல்லையா?

கேள்வி 5:

சென்னை உயர் நீதிமன்ற கூடுதல் நீதிபதி பதவி நீட்டிப்பு தொடர்பான பரிந்துரையை மூன்று நீதிபதிகள் அடங்கிய உச்ச நீதிமன்ற காலெஜ்ஜியம் மத்திய அரசுக்கு அனுப்பிவைத்த பின்னர், லஹோதி, மற்ற இருவருக்கும் தெரியாமல் தனிப்பட்ட முறையில் மத்திய அரசுக்கு கடிதம் எழுதினாரா இல்லையா? அந்தக் கடிதத்தில், சென்னை உயர் நீதிமன்ற கூடுதல் நீதிபதிக்கு மேலும் ஓராண்டு பதவிக்காலத்தை நீட்டிக்குமாறு அரசுக்கு பரிந்துரைத்தாரா இல்லையா?

கேள்வி 6:

புலன் விசாரணையில், சம்பந்தப்பட்ட அந்த நீதிபதி ஊழல் கறை படிந்தவர் என தெரிவிக்கப்பட்டிருந்தும் நீதிபதி லஹோதி அவருக்கு மேலும் ஓராண்டு பதவி நீட்டிப்பு அளிக்க மத்திய அரசிடம் பரிந்துரைத்தது ஏன்?

காலதாமதம் ஏன்?

கட்ஜு எழுப்பிய குற்றச்சாட்டு நேற்று நாடாளுமன்றத்தின் இரு அவைகளிலும் எதிரொலித்த நிலையில், அவர் ஏன் இவ்வளவு காலத்திற்குப்பின்னர் இந்த சர்ச்சையை கிளப்ப வேண்டும் என கேள்வி எழுப்பியிருந்தனர்.

அதற்கும் கட்ஜு தனது வலைப்பதிவு பக்கத்தில் பதில் அளித்துள்ளார். 

அதில், "சிலர் நான் ஏன் இவ்விவகாரத்தை இவ்வளவு கால தாமதாக எழுப்பியுள்ளேன் என கேட்கின்றனர். எனது பேஸ்புக் பதிவில் நான் நிறைய தகவல்களை பகிர்ந்துகொள்வதால் சென்னை உயர் நீதிமன்றத்தில் எனது அனுபவங்கள் தொடர்பாகவும் பகிர்ந்து கொள்ள வேண்டும் என தமிழர்கள் சிலர் கோரிக்கை விடுத்தனர். அதனாலேயே இதை இப்போது பகிர்ந்து கொண்டிருக்கிறேன்" என கூறியுள்ளார்.

Tell-all note: Manmohan's role exposed

Times Now 22 July 14

After former SC judge Markandey Katju alleged that three ex-Chief Justices of India had allowed a judge under corruption cloud to continue in office, TIMES NOW unearths sensational secret PMO note on the controversial appointment. TIMES NOW accesses former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's secret note to then Law Minister HR Bhardwaj on 'tainted' judge's promotion.

 The secret note reveals that Manmohan Singh had personally intervened on the issue of 'tainted' judge. Manmohan Singh in the secret PMO note demanded an explanation as to why the 'tainted' judge was not recommended. 

This is a never seen before, never acknowledged before note that nails the former PM's complicity.

Former PM Manmohan Singh refused to comment on the claim by Katju that three ex-CJIs made "improper compromises" during UPA rule in retaining a judge in TN under corruption cloud. When contacted for a reaction, Singh said he has nothing to say as former Law Minister H R Bhardwaj has already clarified the issue.

 Bharadwaj earlier insisted that no "undue favours" were given to the judge because proper procedure was followed. "So far as political threats to a coalition government is concerned there were always pressure(from allies) onappointment of judges which I never yielded," he said. 

Former SC judge Markandey Katju yesterday (July 21) created a furore alleging that three ex-Chief Justices of India -- Justice Lahoti, Justices Y K Sabharwal and K G Balakrishnanhad -- made "improper compromises" and "succumbed" to political pressure in the extension of an unnamed additional judge of Madras High Court at the instance of UPA-I government owing to pressure from an ally, a "Tamil Nadu party", apparently DMK, and his confirmation as permanent judge. Katju said when he was heading the Madras High Court he got many reports that the additional judge concerned was allegedly indulging in corruption prompting him to request the then CJI Justice Lahoti to get a secret IB inquiry made

. He claimed that the IB report found the allegations to be true and said the judge should have been sacked.

As Katju, who is now Chairman of the Press Council of India, stood firm on his allegation, AIADMK members protested in Parliament for the second straight day and demanded that the DMK minister who was behind the move to retain the judge during the UPA rule be named. Justice Lahoti is quoted as having said that he has never done anything wrong in his life and that everything is a matter of record while Justice Balakrishnan rejected the allegation against him as "completely baseless and not factually correct". DMK slammed Katju for his allegation, calling it "wild and baseless".

Just 2 judges denied permanent posting in Madras HC

A Subramani,TNN | Jul 22, 2014, 07.06 AM IST

CHENNAI: What does it mean to be a high court judge? This round-the-clock constitutional position brings complete insulation from criminal proceedings except with the permission of Chief Justice of India, Rs 1.28 lakh a month as salary, at least four men to do personal chores, 200 litres of free fuel a month, two leave travel concessions a year, no water and electricity bill, and more. 

The last hurdle to be cleared before a jurist reaches the `permanent' judge post is the two-year probation-like additional judgeship. Legally an additional judge is no less powerful than a permanent judge. Theoretically, an additional judge could be `eased out' at the end of his two-year tenure, whereas the only way to see the back of a permanent judge is impeachment by Parliament. 

In its 152-year history, the Madras high court has had just two known cases of additional judges who failed to become permanent judges on account of serious allegations. In the late 1990s, a district judge from Rajasthan, R R Jain, was elevated to the high court as additional judge. He was immediately transferred to Madras HC as lawyers in Rajasthan protested over Jain's suspected involve ment in a criminal case. The Madras Bar rose in unison against Jain, and he had to be sent back as a district judge. 

The second incident involves N Kannadasan, who was elevated to HC as an additional judge on November 5, 2003. At the end of his two-year tenure, he received neither extension as additional judge nor confirmation as permanent judge. As no one heard anything from Supreme Court, his judgeship was deemed to have lapsed. It took three years, and a helping hand from the DMK government, for Kannadasan to return to court as additional advocate general. 

He courted another round of controversy when he was appointed president of state consumer commission as `former judge of the high court'. There were protests saying that he could not enjoy the privileges of a former judge, as he had been eased out as additional judge itself. He had to quit that statutory post as well. 

Another additional judge, Justice S Ashok Kumar, has the record of being sworn in five times. He was first sworn in as additional judge, along with seven other district judges, on April 3, 2003. Owing to a delay on the part of the SC, the tenure of all the eight was extended at the end of two years. Later, others were made permanent judges, but Justice Kumar was made to continue as additional judge for four months. Finally , he was made permanent in 2008 and transferred to Andhra. He retired on July 17, 2009 and passed away in October 2009. 

Bank manager held for looting Rs 1.5 crore from customers

TNN | Jul 21, 2014, 03.19 AM IST

CHENNAI: Central Crime Branch sleuths arrested a senior official of a nationalised bank for cleaning out at least Rs 1.5 crore from the accounts of customers.

Indian Overseas Bank senior manager M Paasuramamoorthy, 57, of Karpagam Garden in Adyar, siphoned off funds from an NRI's fixed deposit and those of two other customers to cover up the first offense, investigators said.

As manager of IOB's Rajapalayam sub-branch, Parasuramamoorthy used a fake demand draft to withdraw money from the fixed deposit of A K D Kumar, who is based in the United States and had given his brother Venkatramanaraja authority to manage his accounts in his absence.

Parasuramamoorthy then received a transfer to IOB's main branch in Rajapalayam where he was posted as senior manager. Shortly after this, Venkatramanaraja asked Parasuramamoorthy, who had been handling his brother's accounts, to renew the fixed deposit and transfer it to the main branch.

Since Parasuramamoorthy had taken the money from the fixed deposit, he issued a fake receipt for account renewal. Venkatramanaraja then asked the bank manager to pay him the sum from other fixed deposits that had matured. A desperate Parasuramamoorthy took 80 lakh from the account of another customer, Ponnusamy, and used the money to pay Venkatramanaraja.

"Soon after this, in 2013, he took a transfer to the Adambakkam branch of IOB," an investigating officer said. "A couple of months later, Venkatramanaraja wanted to encash other deposits. But Parasuramamoorthy had pilfered from them so he took 61 lakh from the account of another customer, Gomathy, in the Adambakkam branch."

As the bank manager's fraudulent schemes unravelled, the Rajapalayam police received a complaint from Ponnusamy and booked a case of cheating against Parasuramamoorthy. Investigations by CCB revealed that the manager was guilty of multiple offences. Investigating officers are interrogating Parasuramamoorthy to see if he cheated other customers.

An Alandur court has remanded Parasuramamoorthy in judicial custody.

Judgment Day for higher judiciary

 
Illustration: Shinod Akkaraparambil

A Subramani,TNN | Jul 22, 2014, 07.02 AM IST

CHENNAI: A day after The Times of India front-paged his article on corruption in the higher judiciary, Justice Markandey Katju earned, according to some, the description of a whistleblower. In his piece, Justice Katju had alleged that an additional judge of the Madras high court facing corruption allegation was allowed to continue in the post despite adverse Intelligence Bureau reports, and that the UPA government persuaded successive Chief Justices first to extend his tenure and then to make him a permanent judge.

The article triggered an avalanche of debates, walkouts and adjournments in Parliament, conspiracy theories and condemnation of its timing. If Justice Katju's plan was to spark a debate on the opaque procedures for appointment of judges and corruption in the higher judiciary , he was bang on the target.

One thing which has not happened so far is demand for contempt of court proceedings against him.

"If it were you, take it from me, you would have already heard from the court and lawyers," a judge told TOI. Without going into the merit of Justice Katju's statements, he said: "The arrival of a whistleblower to highlight the shoddy affairs in the higher judiciary was long overdue. The establishment has kept quiet because the words come from the mouth of one of the most honest and outspoken figures in the legal fraternity. Others cannot expect this leniency."

Others privileged to have a ringside view agree. "Be it indulgence bordering nepotism, play of extraneous factors in proceedings, unverifiable claims of individuals who flaunt wealth and arbitrary promotions or punishments of staff and subordinate judicial officers, those who wanted to blow the whistle just held their breath fearing consequences," a lawyer said.

"Till eight years ago, even the truth could not have defended you from contempt proceedings. If the judiciary thought you had written or spoken truth undermining the majesty of the institution, you would face contempt. It was in 2006 that Parliament changed the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and amended Section 13. Now, the language is vague. A person is insulated from contempt charges only if he is able to convince the court that the truth was told in public interest," said a senior jurist.
 

The threat of contempt and defamation proceedings has a chilling effect on free discussion of issues concerning courts and lawyers. "This is a land of defamation cases. Between 2001 and 2006, 150 criminal defamation proceedings were initiated against media organizations. DMK, on assuming charge in 2006, dropped all proceedings by a single government order, but started its own cases. Since 2011, nearly 90 new defamation cases have been filed," said a lawyer.

Justice Katju faces no imminent action though he has targeted one former judge of a high court, and at least three former CJIs. If similar tolerance is shown to activists and journalists many more skeletons would tumble out of the judiciary's closets.

US jury punishes cigarette company with $23 billion award to smoker's family

JENNIFER KAY

MIAMI — The Associated Press

Published Saturday, Jul. 19 2014, 11:36 PM EDT

A Florida jury has slammed the nation’s No. 2 cigarette maker, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., with $23.6-billion (U.S.) in punitive damages in a lawsuit filed by the widow of a longtime smoker who died of lung cancer in 1996.

The case is one of thousands filed in Florida after the state Supreme Court in 2006 tossed out a $145-billion class action verdict. That ruling also said smokers and their families need only prove addiction and that smoking caused their illnesses or deaths.

Last year, Florida’s highest court re-approved that decision, which made it easier for sick smokers or their survivors to pursue lawsuits against tobacco companies without having to prove to the court again that Big Tobacco knowingly sold dangerous products and hid the hazards of cigarette smoking.

The damages a Pensacola jury awarded Friday to Cynthia Robinson after a four-week trial come in addition to $16.8-million in compensatory damages.

Robinson individually sued Reynolds in 2008 on behalf of her late husband, Michael Johnson Sr. Her attorneys said the punitive damages are the largest of any individual case stemming from the original class action lawsuit.

“The jury wanted to send a statement that tobacco cannot continue to lie to the American people and the American government about the addictiveness of and the deadly chemicals in their cigarettes,” said one of the woman’s attorneys, Christopher Chestnut.

Reynolds’ vice-president and assistant general counsel, J. Jeffery Raborn, called the damages in Robinson’s case “grossly excessive and impermissible under state and constitutional law.”

“This verdict goes far beyond the realm of reasonableness and fairness, and is completely inconsistent with the evidence presented,” Raborn said in a statement. “We plan to file post-trial motions with the trial court promptly, and are confident that the court will follow the law and not allow this runaway verdict to stand.”

The lawsuit’s goal was to stop tobacco companies from targeting children and young people with their advertising, said Willie Gary, another attorney representing Robinson.

“If we don’t get a dime, that’s OK, if we can make a difference and save some lives,” Gary said.

The verdict comes the same week that Reynolds American Inc., which owns R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, announced it was purchasing Lorillard Tobacco Co., the country’s No. 3 cigarette maker, in a $25-billion deal. That would create a tobacco company second only in the U.S. to Marlboro maker Altria Group Inc., which owns Philip Morris USA Inc. and is based in Richmond, Virginia.

The deal is expected to close in the first half of 2015 and likely will face regulatory scrutiny.

“I would rather see the tobacco industry punished to the tune of $24-billion than see them spend $25-billion to consolidate their power,” said Scott P. Schlesinger, a Fort Lauderdale attorney who has sued tobacco companies in Florida.

He’s won damages ranging from a few million dollars up to $75-million, but he said Friday’s verdict was inspiring.

“I have such admiration because they followed through. They let the jury speak without restricting them. We were afraid — we asked for smaller amounts,” said Schlesinger, who added, “If I get to the punishment phase (in another case), I’m going to be mighty tempted.”

In June, the U.S. Supreme Court turned away cigarette manufacturers’ appeals of more than $70-million in court judgments to Florida smokers. Reynolds, Philip Morris and Lorillard had wanted the court to review cases in which smokers won large damage awards without having to prove that the companies sold a defective and dangerous product or hid the risks of smoking.

The Supreme Court refused to hear another of the companies’ appeals last year, wanting the court to consider overturning a $2.5-million Tampa jury verdict in the death of a smoker.

Other Florida juries have hit tobacco companies with tens of millions of dollars in punitive damages in lawsuits stemming from the original class action lawsuit.

In August, a Fort Lauderdale jury awarded $37.5-million, including $22.5-million in punitive damages against Reynolds, to the family of a smoker who died at age 38 of lung cancer in 1995.

Attorneys for Reynolds said they would appeal, arguing that the woman knew the dangers of smoking because cigarettes had warning labels when she started. The attorney for the woman’s family said teenagers like her were targeted by tobacco companies.

Some large jury verdicts awarding tens of millions of dollars in damages to relatives of smokers have been upheld by appeals courts.

In September, the 3rd District Court of Appeals affirmed $25-million in punitive damages and $10-million in compensatory damages against Lorillard for Dorothy Alexander, whose husband died in 1996 of lung cancer. Lorillard, based in Greensboro, North Carolina, unsuccessfully argued the damages were excessive and raised a number of other claims.

The 1st District Court of Appeals upheld in June 2013 a $20-million punitive damage award to another smoker’s widow, more than a year after reversing a $40.8-million award in the same case against Reynolds, based in Winston-Salem, North Carolina. After the appeals court rejected the first award as excessive the award amount was recalculated. The tobacco company still objected.

How a corrupt judge continued in Madras high court

Markandey Katju | Jul 21, 2014, 12.37 AM IST

This expose is by Justice Markandey Katju, who was chief justice of Madras high court before becoming a Supreme Court judge. He is now chairman of the Press Council of India.

There was an additional judge of the Madras high court against whom there were several allegations of corruption. He had been directly appointed as a district judge in Tamil Nadu, and during his career as district judge there were as many as eight adverse entries against him recorded by various portfolio judges of the Madras high court. But one acting chief justice of Madras high court by a single stroke of his pen deleted all those adverse entries, and consequently he became an additional judge of the high court, and he was in that post when I came as chief justice of Madras high court in November 2004.

That judge had the solid support of a very important political leader of Tamil Nadu. I was told that this was because while a district judge he had granted bail to that political leader.

Since I was getting many reports about his corruption, I requested the Chief Justice of India, Justice RC Lahoti, to get a secret IB inquiry made about him. A few weeks thereafter, while I was in Chennai, I received a call from the secretary of the CJI saying that Justice Lahoti wanted to talk to me. The CJI then came on the line and said that what I had complained about had been found true. Evidently the IB had found enough material about the judge's corruption.


The Madras high court building in Chennai. (Getty Images photo)

Since the two-year term as additional judge of that person was coming to an end, I assumed he would be discontinued as a judge of the high court in view of the IB report. However, what actually happened was that he got another one year's appointment as an additional judge, though six other additional judges who had been appointed with him were confirmed and made permanent judges of the high court.

I later learned how this happened. The Supreme Court collegium consists of five most senior judges for recommending names for appointment as a Supreme Court judge, and three most senior judges for dealing with high courts.

The three most senior judges in the Supreme Court at that time were the Chief Justice of India, Justice Lahoti, Justice YK Sabharwal, and Justice Ruma Pal. This Supreme Court collegium recommended that in view of the adverse IB report the judge should be discontinued as a high court judge after his two-year term was over, and this recommendation was sent to the central government.



The UPA government was at the Centre at that time. Congress was no doubt the largest party in this alliance, but it did not have a majority in Lok Sabha, and was dependent on the support of its allies. One such ally was the party in Tamil Nadu which was backing this corrupt judge. On coming to know of the recommendation of the three-judge Supreme Court collegium they strongly objected to it.

The information I got was that Prime Minister Manmohan Singh was at that time leaving for New York to attend the UN general assembly session. At the Delhi airport, he was told by ministers of the Tamil Nadu party that by the time he returned from New York his government would have fallen as their party would withdraw support to the UPA (for not continuing that additional judge).


Former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. (TOI file photo by Amrendra Jha)

On hearing this, Singh panicked, but he was told by a senior Congress minister not to worry, and that he would manage everything. That minister then went to Justice Lahoti and told him there would be a crisis if that additional judge was discontinued. On hearing this, Justice Lahoti sent a letter to the government of India to give another term of one year as additional judge to that corrupt judge, (I wonder whether he consulted his two Supreme Court collegium members ), and it was in these circumstances this corrupt judge was given another one-year term as additional judge (while his six batch mates as additional judges were confirmed as permanent Judges).

The additional judge was later given another term as additional judge by the new CJI Justice Sabharwal, and then confirmed as a permanent judge by the next CJI Justice KG Balakrishnan, but transferred to another high court.

I have related all this to show how the system actually works, whatever it is in theory. In fact, in view of the adverse IB report the judge should not even have been allowed to continue as additional judge.