Four questions for Ranjan Gogoi
A Chief Justice of India, like Caesar’s wife should be above suspicion. But certain recent developments in India’s Supreme Court, the latest being the inordinate delay and repeated adjournments in hearing the Ram Janmabhumi case,( fixing dates for fixing a date etc) has caused murmurings and raised questions about the conduct of the present Chief Justice of India, which are best answered and cleared up by him himself.
(Justice Markandey Katju)
As a former Judge of the Supreme Court I am deeply concerned about what is going on in the sacred institution I had the honor of serving, and on behalf of the people of India I ask Ranjan Gogoi, the present CJI the following questions which he should publicly answer. After all, in a democracy the people are supreme, and all state authorities and institutions (including even the CJI) are servants of the people and accountable to them :
1. Gogoi’s daughter married the son of Justice Valmiki Mehta, judge of Delhi High Court. There were serious allegations against Valmiki Mehta, which were enquired into by the then CJI Justice Thakur and found to be true. Hence in March 2016 the Supreme Court Collegium presided over by Justice Thakur recommended transfer of Justice Valmiki Mehta to another High Court.
Usually such a recommendation is implemented by the government of India in a couple of weeks. But strangely enough in this case the Government. of India put the file containing the recommendation in the cold storage for about one year. In the meantime, the then CJI Thakur fumed repeatedly about the non-implementation of the recommendation, often in open court, and even threatened to tell the Chief Justice of Delhi High Court to withdraw judicial work from Valmiki Mehta in view of the very serious allegations against him, but all to no avail. It was only after Justice Thakur retired in January 2017, and a more amenable Justice Kehar became the CJI that the file was returned by the government to the Supreme Court (instead of forwarding it to the President of India for his signature), and thereafter the new Collegium headed by the new CJI Kehar revoked the earlier recommendation, with the result that Valmiki Mehta remains a judge of the Delhi High Court till date. What is the truth behind this mystery?
The information I have, but whose correctness or otherwise only Gogoi can answer, is this: on getting to know of the recommendation of his sambandhi’s transfer, Gogoi went to the PM Modi (or a senior Cabinet minister) and begged that Valmiki Mehta be not transferred. Since by dint of seniority Gogoi was in line of becoming a CJI, the government acceded to his request, and kept the file in cold storage, instead of forwarding it to the President of India for his signature.
If this version is correct, obviously Gogoi has taken a favor from the BJP government which he has to return, and that would explain many of the happenings in the Supreme Court.
Gogoi is now the Chief Justice of India, so all the records in the Supreme Court registry are accessible to him. Let him therefore place in the public domain (1) the recommendation of the Collegium headed by the then CJI Thakur for transfer of Valmiki Mehta (2) the letters of the then CJI Thakur to the government of India asking why the transfer recommendation was not being implemented, and the replies of the government (3) The letter of the government sending the recommendation back to the Supreme Court headed by the new CJI Kehar ( 4) The resolution of the Collegium headed by Justice Kehar revoking the recommendation for Justice Mehta’s transfer
2. The son of Valmiki Mehta (son-in-law of Gogoi) is a lawyer. It is believed his practice and income suddenly soared by leaps and bounds after his marriage. So, let Gogoi mention what was his son-in-law’s income before and after his marriage
3. Three judges of Delhi High Court, Justice Pradeep Nandrajog (presently CJ Rajasthan High Court), Justice Gita Mittal (presently CJ J&K High Court) and Justice Ravindra Bhat, who were all senior to Justice Sanjiv Khanna in Delhi High Court were superseded. Why? I was Chief Justice of Delhi High Court, and personally knew that all 3 (who were puisne judges of the High Court at that time) had impeccable records of integrity and competence, and in fact Justice Nabdrajog had been recommended by the Supreme Court Collegium which met on 12.12.2018 to be elevated to the Supreme Court. That recommendation had been signed by all 5 of the Collegium members, but thereafter CJI Gogoi simply pocketed the recommendation paper and did not send it to the Government of India, as is usually done. Why ? I spoke to Justice Lokur who was in that Collegium (and was next in seniority after Gogoi) and he told me that after the recommendation was made and signed, he telephoned Gogoi’s residence repeatedly to ask whether the recommendation had been forwarded to the government, but every time some secretary would pick up the phone and say that the CJI was not well, and Gogoi never returned the call. Later, Gogoi said that the recommendation had not been sent to the government because consultation with the consulting judges had not been done, though such consultation takes only a day or two (as I know from personal experience ).
This supersession of three meritorious judges reminds one of the supersessions of three senior Supreme Court judges by Indira Gandhi’s government, and it has sent a very wrong message throughout the judiciary, apart from having a very demoralizing effect on those three judges. A senior Supreme Court lawyer has in fact insinuated that it was done at the behest of the BJP government. There were no doubt other judges in the Collegium which recommended Justice Khanna, but they weakly surrendered to Gogoi who bulldozed Justice Khanna’s name offering little resistance ( as I was informed by several Supreme Court Judges whom I personally contacted and spoke to ).
If there was anything against these 3 judges senior to Justice Khanna the public is entitled to know. If there was nothing against Justice Nandrajog on 12.12.2018 when the then Collegium recommended his name for elevation, did something crop up within 3 weeks? It is all a mystery.
Moreover, Justice Maheshwari, who has now been elevated, had been specifically rejected by the Collegium which met on 12.12.2018 (as Justice Lokur who was on that Collegium informed me). Did he suddenly become competent within three weeks ?
4. Why is the Ramjanmabhumi case being adjourned again and again on one pretext or the other? And why are dates being fixed for fixing a date? Again, a mystery. Is this some kind of quid pro quo? Only Gogoi can answer.
[Justice Markandey Katju is former Judge, Supreme Court of India and former Chairman, Press Council of India. The views expressed are his own]
courtesy : indicanews.com
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Deepika Kumari leads Indian recurve archery team to dramatic World Cup gold
Shanghai (PTI): The Indian trio of Deepika Kumari, Ankita Bhakat and teenager Kumkum Mohod held their nerve in a tense shoot-off to beat home favourites China and clinch the women's recurve team gold medal at the Archery World Cup Stage 2 here on Sunday.
In a final marked by fluctuating fortunes, India edged past the home side 5-4 (28-26) in the shoot-off after the four-set regulation ended 4-4.
The victory was especially sweeter as India had earlier stunned record 10-time Olympic champions South Korea in the semifinals en route to their first World Cup women's team gold since 2021.
Deepika, who was also part of India's World Cup-winning teams in Guatemala City and Paris in 2021, now has seven World Cup team gold medals to her name since 2010.
It was also the Indian women recurve team's first World Cup medal in three years, its previous podium finish coming in Stage 4 in Paris in 2023 where Ankita was a member of the winning team.
India's campaign in Shanghai has thus already yielded two medals after compound archer Sahil Jadhav opened the country's account, securing a bronze on Saturday.
India also remained in contention for another podium finish later in the day with recurve archer Simranjeet Kaur set to compete in the semifinals. She is a win away from her maiden individual World Cup medal.
Travelling without a full-time national coach amid the continuing impasse over appointments, it was the vastly experienced Deepika who led from the front, constantly motivating her teammates during breaks and changeovers.
Prafull Dange, who was the designated women's recurve coach after his ward Kumkum topped the national trials, largely remained in the background as Deepika guided the side through the pressure moments against a hostile home crowd and vocal Chinese support staff.
Against a young Chinese side comprising Zhu Jingyi, Huang Yuwei and teenage archer Yu Qi, who all made their World Cup debuts only last year, India looked in control initially but nearly let the match slip after taking the opening set (54-53).
Shooting last in the Indian order, Deepika set the tone with successive 10s as India edged the first set despite Ankita (8-8) and 17-year-old Kumkum (10-8) putting up an inconsistent show.
Deepika continued her fine rhythm in the second set with another perfect 10 as India briefly held a one-point advantage (28-27) midway through the end. But China responded strongly with two 9s and a 10 in their final three arrows of the second set to post 55.
Ankita replied with a 9, but Kumkum managed only an 8, leaving Deepika needing a 10 to level the set.
The four-time Olympian, however, slipped to a 7 as India lost the set 52-55 and China drew level at 2-2.
The hosts then moved ahead in the third set. The teams were initially tied at 56, but a review upgraded China's final arrow from 8 to 9, handing them the set 57-56 and a 4-2 lead.
India appeared on the verge of defeat in the fourth set despite Deepika rediscovering her touch with two 10s. Kumkum's final arrow landed in the 7-ring as India posted a modest 54.
China required two 10s and a 9 from their last three arrows to seal the match.
Zhu and Huang delivered perfect 10s, leaving 18-year-old Yu Qi needing a 9 for victory in front of the home crowd.
But the youngster shot an 8, allowing India a dramatic escape and forcing a shoot-off.
The Indians peaked at the right moment in the decider. Ankita opened with a 9, Kumkum followed with a superb 10, and Deepika calmly delivered a 9 when only an 8 was needed to seal the title.
