Ignoring judicial corruption in Gujarat?
Beginning from the month of April 2008, a
Thereafter, given the specific nature of the allegations printed, there have been no defamation cases filed, by either the former chief justice, or other judges against whom specific charges were printed, nor has there been so far any other contempt petition. However the rest of the media in
Two senior journalists in the state whom the Hoot spoke to admitted that corruption in the judiciary of the state was well known, but dismissed the weekly as being pro-BJP and close to Narendra Modi. Bhimani points out that his weekly has taken on both the chief minister as well as Hindu organizations in
The first article published by Aarpar in an issue dated 14th April 08 used a letter written to the Gujarat Bar Association by the additional Advocate General of state Mihir Joshi. The Government asked Joshi to resign following which the Bar Association passed a resolution documenting facts which supported Joshi¿s main charge, which is that the whenever an important case was listed in the court, the judges would be transferred. The chief justice would make changes in the sitting list of judges.
The magazine quoted from the resolution: "The duties of the judiciary are not distributed according to the rules of the high court. They are in fact always being corrected and changed. The sitting list formed on
The Bar Council of Gujarat appointed a committee of four senior lawyers to study the situation and give a report to the Chief Justice of India. Aarpar carried one article in the series quoting at length from this confidential report. I reproduce that section, its contents are quite extraordinary:
CONFIDENTIAL REPORT (I)
THE CHIEF JUSTICE, JUSTICE Y.R. MEENA
(1) Advocates appearing in the following matters before the Hon¿ble the Chief Justice have informed member/s of the Committee that the manner in which the following matters were conducted by the Chief Justice raised serious doubts in their minds and on inquiry they were informed that a deal had been struck by their clients with the Chief Justice resulting in interim orders in their favour.
(i) Asharam Bapu v/s. State of
Appeal No. 182 of 2007 (ii) Cham Ice & Cold Storage v/s. Trident India Ltd, First
Appeal No. 5300 of 2007 (iii) Rasiklal Maradia v/s. Reliance Industries, Letters Patent
Appeal No. 1947 of 2007
(2) Advocates appearing in the following matters have informed the member/s of the Committee that serious pressure was being brought on them by their clients to proceed with the matter before the Hon¿ble the Chief Justice and an equal keenness was shown by the Chief Justice to proceed with the matters. The advocates believe that in these matters deal had been struck with the Chief Justice.
(i) Jasmin Minerals v/s. State of
No.2091 of 2005 (ii) Gaekwad Investment Corp. v/s. Dr. (Smt.) Mrunalini Devi
Puar of Dhar, O.J. Appeal No. 85 of 2006 (iii) Pioneer Ball Bearing & Engineering Company v/s.
City Co-op. Bank, Letters Patent Appeal No. 1566 of 2007 (iv) Gaekwad Investment Corp. v/s. Jayesh Jagdishchandra Dave, First Appeal No. 201 of 2008.
(3) A Public Interest Litigation bearing Special Civil Application No. 15239 of 2006 was filed by one Shri Nlrav Vinodchandra Shah claiming that the entire Vasna Village bearing Survey Nos. 1 to 134 is an evacuee property and the matter in respect of the same is pending before the Competent Officer under the provisions of Evacuee Properties Separation Act, 1951 since 1957 and is not finally adjudicated upon. The land comprises large tracts wherein constructions have been made since years. The Petitioner therein claimed status quo. Orders passed in the said Special Civil Application and other Civil Applications filed therein certainly raise eyebrows. This matter was conducted by the Bench comprising the Chief Justice.
(4) First Appeal No. 853 of 2008, Maruti Corporation,
(5) The Hon¿ble the Chief Justice, Justice Meena who is retiring on 30.06.2008 has suddenly found urgency to take up matters involving high stakes. This is evident from the following facts:
(A) A Group of Tax Appeals belonging to the Nirma Group of Industries being Tax Appeal No. 1512 of 2006 and cognate matters comprising approximately 900 tax appeals involving addition of income of approximately Rs.43 crores were suddenly placed on the Board and were heard by the Bench comprising the Chief Justice. The Judgment is reserved.
(B) On 02.05.2008, yet another group of Tax Appealsbelonging to the Nirma Group of Industries .were suddenly placed on the board for fixing date of hearing. This group of Tax Appeals comprises 4 Tax Appeals being Tax Appeals No. 946 of 2006 and other cognate matters. These Tax Appeals involve an addition of income of
approximately Rs.500 crores. On 02.05.2008 despite a request being made by the Counsel for the Revenue that it would not be possible for him to handle the matters before vacation as the paper books were not ready, the matters were directed to be placed on the Board for final disposal on 06.05.2008. On 03.05.2008 the Counsel for the Revenue was served with copies of Paper Book running into approximately 565 pages. A further Paper
Book was also served on 05.05.2008. On 05.05.2008, the Counsel for the Revenue filed a note requesting for adjourning the matter in the first week of July 2008 as the
Revenue¿s paper Book was still to be filed and in view of personal difficulty. The Court, however, rejected the request and passed the following order:
"Date :
On 02.05.2008, Mr. Manish R. Bhatt, learned counsel for the Revenue, has requested for adjournment and the matter was adjourned to 06.05.2008, I.e., today.
Today also, Mr. Bhatt prays for time on the ground that he has received Paper Books only yesterday, therefore, he could not prepare the case and asked for adjournment beyond vacation.
If he has received the Paper Books yesterday, there can be adjournment, but there is no justification to adjourn the matter for such a long time, i.e., more than one and half month, in order to prepare the case.
Thus, it appears that Mr. Bhatt is not willing to assist this Court.
Consequently, we adjourn this matter to 12.05.2008 and direct the Commissioner of Income Tax that if Mr. Bhatt is not willing to assist this Court in this matter, assign this matter to some other panel lawyer.
List it on 12.05.2008.
Copy of this order be sent to Commissioner of Income Tax, Ahmedabad, forthwith/¿
On
(C) A 3rd Group of Tax Appeals of Nirma Group of Industries were suddenly listed for fixing date of hearing on 02.05.2008. They are Tax Appeals No.1219 and 1220 of 2006 and involve an addition of income in the sum of Rs.143 crores. No orders were passed on 02.05.2008. On 12.05.2008 oral request was made by the Counsel for the assessee to place these appeals urgently for final disposal. The Hon¿ble the Chief Justice has directed that these appeals will be taken up for final hearing on 13.05.2008 at 02:15 p.m. despite objection by the Counsel for Revenue who pointed that there was no urgency as stay was operating in favour of the assessee.
(D) The above conduct of the Chief Justice is required to be viewed in light of the fact that the Tax Appeals of 2000 and 2001 are still pending for disposal.
(II) JUSTICE A.M. KAPADIA
(1) Advocates appearing in the following matters before Hon¿ble Justice A.M. Kapadia have informed the member/s of the Committee that the manner in which the matters were conducted by Justice A.M. Kapadia raised serious doubts in their mind and on inquiry they were informed that a deai had been struck by their clients with Justice A.M. Kapadia resulting in interim orders in their favour.
(i) Shopper¿s Stop v/s. J.P. Constructions, A.O. No. 102 of 2006 - Order is a verbatim reproduction of written submissions of successful respondents.
(ii) Country Castle Resorts Pvt. Ltd. v/s. IMatvarlal Trikamlal Patel, Appeal from Order No. 185 of 2006
(2) In the following matter pending before the Bench of Hon¿ble Justice A.M. Kapadia and Justice K.A. Puj, serious pressure was brought on the advocate for the appellants to proceed with the matter just before the summer vacation and despite reluctance of Justice K.A. Puj, the matter was proceeded with at the instance of Justice Kapadia. The advocate has informed the member/s of the Committee that he believes that some deal had been struck by his clients with Justice A.M. Kapdia. The following facts justify the belief of the advocate:
In First Appeai No. 3517 of 2000 with Civil Application No. 1661 of 2000 and Civil Application No. 10832 of 2005 (for deletion of some respondents) - Hanshpura Road Co-operative Society -Appellant (Orig. Plaintiff) v/s. Vitthal Mandir Trust and others -Respondents (Orlg. Defendants), at the time of filing of Appeal no stay was granted and only an order of status quo was granted, although the appellants (Plaintiffs in an unsuccessful suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell trust property despite Charity Commissioner¿s refusal to grant sanction to sell) had contended that they are in possession. Just before the summer vacation of 2007 on 27.04,2007, a Civil ¿Application for stay was pressed by the appellants contending that the appellants were always in possession and that this fact should be clarified., The Court (Order by A.M. Kapadia, J.) ordered the matter to be listed peremptorily on 03.05.2007 for hearing of application for stay and for deletion of parties. The hearing was concluded on 03.05.2007 just before the vacation. At the hearing it was evident to the advocates for the appellant and the opponents that Justice Kapadia was favouring the appellants, but Justice Puj was resisting. Subsequently, the advocates for the appellant did not press the application for deletion of some parties due to resistance of Justice Puj. By order dated 20.06.2007, the Court (K.A. Puj, J.) ordered status quo. Interestingly when the matter appeared before another Bench, there was no urgency for the appellants to proceed with the matter. The matter is still pending to the best of our knowledge.
JUSTICE D.M. PATEL
(1) Advocates appearing in the following matters before Hon¿ble Justice D.N. Patel have informed the member/s of the Committee that the manner in which the matter was conducted by Justice D.N. Patel raised serious doubts in their mind and on inquiry they were Informed that necessary talks had already taken place with the concerned Judge.
(i) Reliance Industries Ltd v/s.
(2) Jn the following matter advocates appearing for the appe^ant was informed by the clients that one Mr. Nandlal Thakkar, Advocate, had approached the clients and was assuring that the matter would be decided in their favour by Justice D.N. Patel if necessary arrangement was made by the clients. The advocates strongly opposed any such arrangement being made. The advocates are not aware whether the clients had made any arrangement or not. However, the decision is clearly in favour of their clients.
(i) Rashida Khatun v/s. Heirs of Deceased Vishnubhai Ambalal Patel, A.O. No. 86 of 2007
(3) In a personal matter of Mr. Nandlal Thakkar, Advocate, suddenly a final hearing matter was fixed on the admission board without knowledge of the other side. Thereafter the said matter was listed on the first board and orders were passed in favour of Mr. Nandlal Thakkar, Advocate, The advocate for the opposite party has seen Mr. Nandlal Thakkar entering the chamber of Justice D.N.Patel.
(4) In the following matters which were heard by Justice D.N. Patel, all orders are consistently being passed in favour of Mundra Ports Special Economic Zone Ltd, an Adani Group Company. As per the information received from sources connected to Adani, no orders are likely to be passed against Adani in this Court. There is also an unverified information that some premises at Balaji Avenue, Vastrapur owned by Justice D.N. Patel or a member of his family is rented out to a partnership firm called Advance Exports, where Mr. Rajesh Adani is a partner. There is also unverified information that Justice D.N. Patel¿s trip to
(i) MICT v/s. Mundra Ports Special Economic Zone Ltd, A.O.
No. 95 of 2008 (ii) MICT v/s. Mundra Ports Special Economic Zone Ltd, A.O.
No. 35 of 2008 (iii) MICT v/s. Mundra Ports Special Economic Zone Ltd,
M.C.A. No. 798 Of 2008
(5) One Sajai Jain, who is accused in the Bijal Joshi rape and suicide case, had filed Bail Applications twice once in 2006 (Criminal Misc. Application No.3451 of 2006 and 3452 of 2006) and the second time in 2007 (Criminal Misc. Application No.6575 of 2007 and 6576 of 2007). All these bail applications were rejected by Justice Akshay Mehta. One application seeking temporary bail (Criminal Misc. Application No.5495 of 2006 and 5498 of 2006) on the ground of sister¿s marriage was rejected by Justice Abhilasha Kumari. Being aggrieved by the order of Justice Akshay Mehta, Special Leave Petitions were preferred before the Supreme Court which also came to be rejected. The ground for seeking bail was illness of his wife. On 15.12.2007, Justice Akshay Mehta retired and regular and temporary bail applications were assigned to Justice Shailesh Brambhatt and anticipatory bail applications were assigned to Justice Anant S, Dave. In the
(6) On 06.02.2008, the
Surely there are dozens of stories to be followed up from this document?
One of the examples given above, concerns the Bijal Joshi rape case in which the judgement was announced a couple of weeks ago. Here the media did react with alacrity when the judge who was to hear the application for bail was transferred, and the case was heard by another judge who gave temporary bail to the accused, when numerous bail petitions had been refused earlier by other judges. A media furore ensued.
Aarpar categorised judges of the Gujarat High Court as those whom the Chief Justice liked to assign cases to, and those whom he did not, giving photographs of both.
Bhimani says that while these articles were being published Justice Meena suddenly posted for hearing an old 2003 case relating to "Aarpar," in which the final hearing had never taken place.
A few days before the Chief Justice retired Chief Minister Narendra Modi threw a farewell for him at a hotel in Ahmedabad