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.
Comments