In an exclusive interview with India Today TV's Consulting Editor Rajdeep Sardesai, senior lawyer Abhishek Manu Singhvi discusses the inquiry into the cash recovery from Delhi High Court Justice Yashwant Varma's house.
Category
🗞
NewsTranscript
00:00Let me go to my first guest, he's one of the country's top legal eagles, senior lawyer
00:06at the Supreme Court, also senior member of parliament, Abhishek Manu Singhvi is now joining
00:11me.
00:12Appreciate your joining us, Dr. Singhvi.
00:15Parliament also now getting involved, the chairperson of Rajya Sabha meeting political
00:19leaders.
00:21What do you believe should be done to restore public faith in the higher judiciary given
00:26all that has happened in the last week?
00:28Is this three member panel formed by the Chief Justice enough or is it only a first step
00:32in your view?
00:33Well, I was in the house when the floor leaders left around 4.30 to meet the honorable chairperson
00:41of the Rajya Sabha in his chamber.
00:45Well, the first answer to your question, Rajdeep, is that this is the beginning and the Chief
00:52Justice of India deserves kudos in having started in the right manner, right direction,
00:58right momentum.
00:59Had he not done so, all of us would be in reverse, highly critical of him.
01:05So certainly it may not be enough.
01:07It is a necessary but not a sufficient condition.
01:10Inquiry in the manner promptly done, a transparency quotient, which is extremely high in the last
01:17few days.
01:18And in fact, uncharacteristically so in many Supreme Court proceedings.
01:23And that part I have nothing to fault on.
01:26Number two, I think we should not mix up the transfer part because I think that's largely
01:30inconsequential.
01:32Quite frankly.
01:33How is it?
01:34No, no, no.
01:35Dr. Singh, I'm sorry to interrupt.
01:36How is that inconsequential?
01:37You see, that's the fear.
01:39That's the fear that you're transferring a judge almost as if you're seen either to be
01:43protecting him in some manner or not willing to take tougher action.
01:49Let me tell you why I use the word inconsequential.
01:51I use it in the current context.
01:53Look, a judge, Justice Verma, who actually by most accounts, and I don't know him otherwise,
02:00I've appeared before him, is considered one of the best judges in Delhi High Court, cannot
02:05possibly have any authority to discharge his functions from the bench, whether he sits
02:10here or in Allahabad.
02:11So really, he'd be neither functioning as a judge here nor functioning there.
02:15So in that sense, I thought, I said that the issue of transfer is temporarily inconsequential.
02:21He won't be sitting, he won't be exercising any authority, judicial authority.
02:25But what is important is the Chief Justice did the right thing and very promptly, but
02:30it is certainly not a sufficient condition.
02:32The inquiry must be concluded promptly within reasonable time.
02:37But equally, I'm very careful in saying that the inquiry must follow a reasonable due process.
02:44Don't dam and don't hang without due process, because there are many, many disturbing questions
02:49I have also on the side.
02:52And what are those disturbing, Dr. Singh, what are the disturbing questions?
02:57Because yesterday I had Mukul Rodgi on the show who raised serious question, where is
03:01the police panchnama?
03:02What does the income tax have to say?
03:05Is the currency genuine fake?
03:07What are your disturbing questions?
03:08I didn't speak on this for the last few days, because frankly, I was hesitant.
03:11I don't quite like the idea of, you know, kind of being seen as rubbing my hands in
03:15glee at somebody's discomfiture.
03:17But now that things have settled down, I thought I would speak.
03:20And you should, the committee should take care that when they proceed further, in whatever
03:26manner, they should not make it an irreversible stigma on the judge in case he comes out clean.
03:32That's important.
03:33Now, the disturbing questions are obvious.
03:36One, we have been in social media and elsewhere, hearing figures from 5 to 15 to 50.
03:42Somebody mentioned the other day 700, where is a small part of it?
03:46Question number one.
03:48You cannot say that burnt notes, which you see on videos are cash of so and so amount.
03:53Also, obviously, there is a direct contradiction on other questions, whether the daughter and
03:58the guard telephoned or only the guard telephoned is relatively minor.
04:03But there is a direct 180 degree opposition on the issue of locked or open, access to
04:08all or access to none.
04:10Now, that is something which must be sorted out by reference to CCTVs.
04:15Just note one thing, Rajdeep, it would be very absurd, you know, if A, it is locked,
04:22then you break it.
04:23Even if you come to my house or your house, so breaking require punches, you require witnesses,
04:27you require evidence.
04:29In a judge's house, if you break a locked door, you require a whole amount of recording.
04:33If it is not locked, then it's a totally different ballgame and gives credence to the judge's
04:38defense.
04:39So I think we need to hasten slowly, we meaning the committee, and make sure then again,
04:44Are you suggesting somewhere that you see a setup?
04:47Was the judge set up?
04:49Could there be other forces behind it?
04:51Could there be fixers involved?
04:52No, no, let's be clear, because lots of theories are swirling around.
04:58I have seen the same memories in the same social media, which you have.
05:02And like you, I will not be responsible to start mouthing or parroting what I have seen
05:06or read.
05:08I think the jury is out on a lot of issues, but certainly the core issues are vital for
05:14the independence of the judiciary, for the integrity and reputation of a judge who's
05:18otherwise been blemishless on his judicial conduct on the bench, and also for the system.
05:24Because, you know, there is a totally open place, where is the inventorization, where
05:31is the panchadama, these are things you do for a normal 100 rupee, 1000 rupee theft.
05:36So these are things which this committee is best empowered, I don't have access, you don't
05:40have access.
05:41No, do you fear, let me push you a bit, do you fear, are you not ruling out, are you
05:46saying you are not ruling out the possibility that Justice Verma was set up?
05:51I wouldn't use the word setup, but I would say that I'm not ruling out the possibility
05:55that he's totally unaware or uninvolved, unless these disturbing questions are answered one
06:00way or the other.
06:01It's obvious on just two questions.
06:02No, so then who would be involved then?
06:06That's another matter of inquiry.
06:07It could be a setup.
06:09It need not be a setup.
06:10It could be people who have been doing something else there, and you know, have been caught
06:15and have done some burning, etc.
06:18It could be a number of things.
06:19I mean, this is pure speculation, but certainly these are questions because the problem I
06:24find is the opacity about the fire brigade and the police.
06:30Now I am not saying there is opacity because that might be available to the committee,
06:34but in the public domain, the alacrity with which direct evidence like a video was shared
06:39is not the same alacrity with which the police version and the fire version has been shared.
06:43These are two vital things.
06:44So there are four vital things.
06:46Open or closed door, if locked, how broken, video, panchadama, witnesses, inventorization.
06:53And where is the cash?
06:55Even burnt cash, where is it kept, can it be counted to a certain extent?
07:00These are only committee matters.
07:01So I think they should be very careful and there should be no knee jerk reaction in just,
07:05you know, gloating.
07:06All of us in this society, unfortunately, today, we have great fun when somebody else
07:10is in trouble.
07:11I don't believe in that.
07:12In fact, quite frankly, I keep to it.
07:14It's not gloating.
07:16My final question to you is simply this.
07:18It's not gloating.
07:19I think what the media and others are asking is that there is a fear that judicial corruption
07:23has reached some of the higher reaches of our judiciary.
07:26We hear a lot of speculation over it, about how judges, about bench fixing and worse.
07:32Given all of that, do you concede that what has happened has naturally led people to believe
07:38maybe their worst fears are being proven true?
07:40That's the problem.
07:41Absolutely.
07:43I didn't go to the extent of saying that you are, Rajdeep, using words of studied moderation.
07:47I mean, today, I'm not talking of this case.
07:50And these kind of cases fuel that perception.
07:54Having spent a lifetime, when we started practice, there would be in hushed tones a mention that
07:58sometimes this percentage of so-and-so district judge has this problem.
08:03As time went by, we started hearing of high court judges.
08:05As time goes on further, we hear of Supreme Court judges.
08:08So perceptions are very important for the integrity of the system.
08:12And I agree with you entirely.
08:14This kind of thing shakes the very root in the foundations.
08:17So I'm not taking it lightly, but I'm just saying, be thorough, and these are very good
08:21three judges, you know, chief justices, etc.
08:24I'm sure they will follow that process.
08:26And then be transparent, be thorough.
08:28And then be transparent.
08:29Thereafter, if they start hiding things, there'll be a big problem.
08:33Can I therefore ask you in conclusion, does the political class parliament have any role
08:37at this stage?
08:38Or is parliament also jumping the gun?
08:41Is the chairman playing to the gallery by saying, I'm holding this all-party meeting?
08:45Why does parliament have any role at all?
08:47Two things.
08:49Parliament's role in a discussion model cannot be questioned.
08:54Parliament can discuss.
08:55There is an article in the Constitution which does not allow the conduct of a judge in court
08:59to be discussed in parliament.
09:01And reciprocally, parliament's conduct within the House not to be discussed by the judiciary.
09:07So that doesn't apply for corruption cases.
09:09So discussion is absolutely available and kosher.
09:13But equally, I don't think knee-jerk reactions that we will press a button and change clearly
09:21a stigmatized collegium into, or rather, not too successful collegium, into a brand new
09:29shining NJAC.
09:30And by that press of button, you start having shining good judges.
09:33I don't subscribe to that view.
09:36I would say before you shift all that, you must think carefully.
09:39You must see that executive interference in the judiciary is equally minimized.
09:43And you must see, ultimately, it's the source which has to be good and pure.
09:47When I select you and I select a good man, then it will have an effect down the line.
09:52So it's the selection process which has to be done properly.
09:55And I don't think a press button away from the collegium into NJAC or from NJAC to the
10:00collegium is going to make that easily a difference.
10:03It's the wisdom and the nuance of how you select.
10:06Let me leave it there, Dr. Singhvi.
10:08You've given us your perspective.
10:09You've broken your silence.
10:10It's interesting how more and more senior lawyers are now finally speaking out on the
10:15case.
10:16I hope that many of you join in a wider public discussion which is needed on the state of
10:21our higher judiciary.
10:22I appreciate you joining us, Dr. Singhvi, there on that big story that we've been tracking.