Jagdish Sharan Verma
This is a collection of articles archived for the excellence of their content. |
A profile
The Times of India, June 27, 2011
‘Wrong people can make it to chief justice’
It was Justice Verma who had envisaged the collegium system of judicial appointments which is now used.
Justice Verma wrote the 1993 Supreme Court judgment that was institutionalized in the form of the collegium — told TV news channel CNN-IBN in an interview that his judgment had not been properly implemented and errors had occurred because of “improper working”. Asked if the greatest error was that “the wrong sort of person has either been elevated or made it to a chief justice”, he bluntly responded, “Correct”. Asked if, as CJI in 1997, he had recommended and then withdrawn approval for a High Court judge to be made chief justice of an HC, Justice Verma said, “Well, the prime minister rang me up and said he’ll clear it, because it has come from me, but he had disturbing reports about his integrity. I said don’t clear it, send it back to me. I withdrew the recommendation and also told two of my colleagues in the Supreme Court who had recommended his appointment that this is not the thing to be done and I also rang up that particular judge himself and told him I’m withdrawing your recommendation.’’
Asked if one of his successors, Justice A S Anand, who knew about this, later promoted the judge and whether the judge was Justice Ashok Agarwal, Justice Verma said, “Well, let us not take names”.
Justice Verma added that several people whom he had not considered suitable were elevated after he retired, giving credence to the belief that judicial appointments were not as fair and transparent as made out to be.
To hold judiciary accountable
Excerpts of J S Verma’s interview to a TV news channel
Q: This also means that Justice Punchhi was elevated to chief justice even though he faced what you call serious allegations that should have been investigated?
A: These are the facts.
Q: One of your successors, Chief Justice KG Balakrishnan, today faces serious allegations.
A: He should have demitted (his post as NHRC chairman) long back and if he doesn’t do it voluntarily, the govt should persuade him to do that...
‘PM should not be under Lokpal’
It would be a “mistake” to bring the judiciary and the prime minister under the Lokpal’s ambit, former chief justice of India J S Verma said, adding this would play “foul with the basic structure of the Constitution”. He also termed as “undemocratic” activist Anna Hazare’s threat to again go on hunger strike on August 16 if the government does not meet civil society’s demands.
Was willing to permit probe into charges against Punchhi’
New Delhi: Former Chief Justice of India J S Verma on Sunday made a startling revelation about the case of Justice M M Punchhi, whose impeachment had been sought by the campaign for judicial accountability. Justice Verma, in an interview on TV news channel CNNIBN, said he was willing to permit the allegations to be probed but the political executive refused to allow this. When asked if former PM Inder Kumar Gujral refused to accept that an FIR be lodged against Punchhi, Justice Verma said, “Well, that’s what he clearly said. And also the President, who did not say it directly, he said it through the prime minister. That was all I could do.’’
Underlining his willingness to have Punchhi probed, Justice Verma explained, “Because the allegations, if proved, were serious and therefore they required to be investigated, so that one could know whether they were true or not.” He acknowledged that Justice Punchhi was later elevated to CJI despite facing what he called “serious allegations”.
Justice Verma was also clear in his stand against former CJI K G Balakrishnan’s continuance as National Human Rights Commission chairman. Asked if Balakrishnan should demit office in the face of allegations of financial irregularities, Justice Verma said, “He should have demitted long back and if he doesn't do it voluntarily, the government should persuade him to do that, otherwise, proceed to do whatever can be done to see that he demits office.’’ Balakrishnan should have quit long back, says ex-CJI
Excerpts of former CJI J S Verma’s interview to a news channel:
So clearly, a man whose integrity was under question, whose recommendation you had knowingly withdrawn, was equally knowingly and deliberately promoted by one of your successors. Was the Chief Justice who promoted this gentleman Justice Anand and was the gentleman himself Ashok Agarwal?
Well, let us not take names.
Let me ask if I have got the story right. You are referring to an instance that happened in 1997-1998 when you were Chief Justice. The campaign for judicial accountability had presented a petition calling for the impeachment of Justice Punchhi, in the end, Justice Punchhi succeeded you as Chief Justice of India, but the truth is that you were prepared to grant permission for an FIR to investigate the allegations against Justice Punchhi, but the prime minister of the day Inder Gujral refused to accept.
Well, that’s what he clearly said. And also the president, who did not say it directly, he said it through the PM. That was all I could do.
But the important thing is that as Chief Justice of India you were prepared for anFIR,youwereprepared to give permission for an FIR to investigate the allegations against Punchhi.
Because the allegation if proved were serious and therefore they required to be investigated, so that one could know whether they were true or not.
This also means that Justice Punchhi was elevated to Chief Justice even though he faced what you call serious allegations that should have been investigated?
These are the facts.
One of your successors, Chief Justice KG Balakrishnan today faces serious allegations and they are indeed serious allegations amounting to corruption. Yet he refuses to resign.Isitokayforhimto continue in office while facing these allegations or should he step aside?
I have said it long back and I have no hesitation repeating. He should have demitted long back and if he doesn’t do it voluntarily, the government should persuade him to do that, otherwise, proceed to do whatever can be done to see that he demits office.
