YECHURY'S REPLY TO DEBATE ON IMPEACHMENT MOTIONS FOR THE REMOVAL OF JUSTICE SOUMITRA SEN

'ESTABLISH NATIONAL JUDICIAL COMMISSION ALONG WITH THE LOKPAL'

Below are excerpts of the speech made by CPI(M) leader in Rajya Sabha on August 18, 2011 in reply to the discussion on the two motions moved by him in Rajya Sabha a day earlier for removal from office of Justice Soumitra Sen of the Calcutta High Court. The motions were passed with 189 votes in favour and 17 against.

WE are reaching conclusion of a historic debate on the motions that I had moved which is on the brink of creating history, not only in the history of parliament but, I think, also in the history of our democracy. As I said at the outset, I had moved these motions, not as an indictment or a reflection of our opinion of the judiciary as a whole, but I had moved these motions in order to strengthen the independence of the judiciary, in order to establish the integrity of the judiciary which was getting besmirched by the acts of one particular individual.

RESOLVE TO FIGHT CORRUPTION

While moving these motions, I had also said that we are doing this with no jubilation or elation, neither vindictiveness nor vendetta, but we are invoking legitimate Constitutional provisions to ensure that the sanctity of our Constitution is maintained and the supremacy or the centrality of our Constitution, which is the sovereignty of the people, is established through their elected representatives, that is the parliament. In doing so, I think, we have today, in a sense, also reflected the general mood that is there in the country. We have seen the waves of protests against corruption at high places. We have seen the concern and the actual disgust that many in our country are reflecting in their own ways against this sort of corruption; and, in the midst of that, the parliament rising to the occasion and saying that we will invoke our Constitution, we will invoke the supremacy of the parliament in order to ensure that corruption in high places will be checked and when anything wrong is brought before us, we will act to correct it. That, I think, is a very important element today to convey to the country and our people — the will and resolve of this House in tackling corruption at high places. I think, this is something the debate has established. That is why I am truly impressed with the richness of the debate and this only further strengthens my own confidence that when the occasion demands, this august House will rise to the occasion, and has risen to the occasion in a splendid manner with no acrimony or personal attacks. We have discussed an issue as serious as this and on the merits of it; it is a matter to note that we have the leader of the House, the prime minister, sitting through the entire debate; we had the leader of the Opposition not only being present but also contributing richly to the content of this debate which was shared by all, cutting across the political-lines. I think, the richness of the debate also naturally transcended the limited purpose of the motions. It naturally transcended the barriers of these motions in talking of the separation of powers between the legislature, the executive and the judiciary. It talked of the issues of separation of these powers, what should be the role of the judiciary, how the

appointments should be done and I am very glad that these issues have been brought into public domain and in the discussion of the parliament so that in the coming days we should address them in all seriousness.

ON PROVED MISBEHAVIOUR

But, there have been some questions that have been raised. Notably, my distinguished friend and colleague, Satish Chandra Misra, and also by my distinguished colleagues, Bharat Singh Raut and others, on the question of the word and the concept of misbehaviour. Now, the question of what was the role of Soumitra Sen after he became a judge? That has been answered by Jethmalani and Ravi Shankar Prasad and I do not want to repeat it. But there is the word ‘misbehaviour’. The Inquiry Committee actually goes into the genealogy of this particular word, which due to paucity of time, I did not read out at the time of introducing the motions, but I will read out now. It is a short passage. It says, “The word ‘misbehaviour’ in the context of the judges of the High Courts in India was first introduced in proviso (b) to Section 202 of the Government of India Act, 1935.” Under the 1935 Act, it was initially the Privy Council and later the Federal Court of India that had to report to India’s Governor General when charges were made of misbehaviour against a judge of a High Court. In the Report of the Federal Court in respect of charges made against Justice S P Sinha, a judge of the High Court of Allahabad, one of the charges made by the Governor General against the judge were, “That Justice S P Sinha has been guilty of conduct outside the court, which is unworthy of and unbecoming of the holder of such a high office,” which was then particularised. Since this charge was not substantiated against the Judge by evidence, it was held to have been not established. But the charge as they framed has tersely but correctly described the scope and ambit of the word ‘misbehaviour’, namely, guilty of such conduct whether inside or outside the court, i.e., “Unworthy and unbecoming of the holder of such a high office.” The same word ‘misbehaviour’ now occurs in the Constitution of India in Article 124(4) when read in context with proviso (b) to Article 217(1). These provisions state that a judge of the High Court shall not be removed from his office except on the grounds of proved misbehaviour. The prefix ‘proved’, (which my friend had quoted) only means proved to the satisfaction of the requisite majority of the appropriate House of the parliament, if so recommended by the Inquiry Committee. The words ‘proved misbehaviour’ in Article 124 have not been defined. Advisedly so because the phrase ‘proved misbehaviour’ means such behaviour which, when proved, is not befitting of a judge of the High Court.”

The entire discussion we have had in the last two days here has only proved that there is a misbehaviour on the part of Justice Soumitra Sen. We will decide upon through a vote subsequently, and if we come to that conclusion, that is the meaning of proved misbehaviour. And that proving we have to do. Are we convinced about that proving? That is what we have to stand up to, and that is what we have to do. If you just go through the Inquiry Committee Report, there are, at least, four major sections and, at least, seven sub-sections where the the misbehaviour of Justice Soumitra Sen, after becoming a judge, has been established. This is all there on record from pages 22 to 26,

and it is all there on record, and as part of the evidence. So, today, it is not a question of our passing judgement or discussing about Soumitra Sen as an advocate and not as a judge. And, also, as I said, when I was moving the motion, it is no longer tenable to say that these charges were made against Soumitra Sen before he became a judge, therefore, the Judges Inquiry Act does not apply to him since it was not when he was a judge. That has also been established under law, that it is not the question of what is established on the issue of misbehaviour that I have just quoted to you; it is not a question of when you are a judge or when you are not; it is not a question whether it happens in the court or outside. But the question is whether your behaviour will cast aspersions not only on your character and integrity but the character and integrity of the entire judiciary. You are liable to be drawn under this section.

MISAPPROPRIATION OF FUNDS

This is what the Inquiry Committee has said on the Division Bench. It says, "The observation in the judgment dated September 25, 2007, of the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court to the effect that there was no misappropriation of Receiver funds by Justice Soumitra Sen was, after considering the uncontested Affidavit filed on his behalf by his mother which categorically asserted that the entire sum received by him from the sale of goods i.e., Rs. 33,22,800 was invested in M/s Lynx India Limited and that the company has gone into liquidation a couple of years later. This statement, along with further misleading and false statements, in Ground 13 of the Memorandum of Appeal that they have appended to this Report were material misrepresentation made by and on behalf of Justice Soumitra Sen before the Division Bench of the High Court of Calcutta. The finding by the Division Bench in its judgment of July 25, 2007, that Justice Soumitra Sen was not guilty of any misappropriation was made on a totally erroneous premise induced by the false representation made on behalf of Justice Soumitra Sen." I don't think you require a greater clarity than this. Therefore, what was the misbehaviour or what was misappropriation that was done has to be understood.

Ram Jethmalani has referred to Section 403 of IPC. What was the deal? Why did he pay back the money when he was asked to pay back? It is only to escape imprisonment. The questions were raised on the question of misappropriation. Is diversion a misappropriation? Does using that money temporarily for some purpose constitutes misappropriation? We have heard the labours of Soumitra Sen yesterday when he said, 'you tell me one paisa that is there in my account. Have I made any money at all from holding this money? So, therefore, there is no misappropriation that I have committed.' But what is the definition of 'misappropriation' under Section 403 of IPC? Section 403 of IPC says, 'Whoever dishonestly misappropriates or..." -- please underline – "...converts to his own use.....shall be punishable with imprisonment..." It clearly says if a person 'converts to his own use.' Then it goes on to clarify in the explanation, "A dishonest misappropriation for a time only is a misappropriation within the meaning of this section." So, whether it is for a short time or whether it is for personal use only to be returned even if you are a fiduciary and a trustee. If money is deposited with me, I cannot borrow that money even temporarily. I may be very honest and return back that money. But, the very act of borrowing that money makes me guilty of misappropriation. That is the Indian law. Our laws are very clear -- it is both the acts of omission and commission. You cannot say, 'I don't have any money that I have put in my bank accounts and, therefore, I am not guilty.' But, your acts of omission that have led to such acts of guilt are actually breach of law. Therefore, on all these counts – whatever matters that we have discussed earlier -- he is guilty. In 1984 he was appointed as Receiver and the matter finally settled in 2006. In 2002, SAIL asked for the accounts as to what happened to that money. He does not reply immediately. Yesterday he was telling us in a much laboured manner. In the whole two hours of his presentation, there was only one mention about SAIL and that one mention came in terms of reference to the learned counsel of the SAIL. When the whole case of misappropriation centers around the money of dispute between SAIL and the SCIL, he was made the trustee of it and for that there is no reference. But, he, of course, asked me to go back to my workers and find out if they have been paid. I am grateful if that had happened. Sometimes, justice can be done by these courts also and by such judges. If the workers have been paid, it is good. But, that is not the issue. The issue is, who gave you the right to divest Rs 25 lakhs of the Rs 70 lakhs given to you to pay to the workers and invest that amount in a private company which was going into liquidation? Is there any scam involved in this? That needs to be investigated. You have divested Rs 25 lakhs of money that was meant and set aside for wages and compensation to the workers to be invested in a private company which goes burst within a couple of years! Was it done with knowledge that it is going to go into liquidation? What is the feedback there? That also needs to be investigated today. So, these are various issues which have come up on record now. We all came to know how fictitious accounts have been recorded, how cheques have been issued for the payment of credit cards. Therefore, keeping this in mind, the case, according to me, is a closed case.

Finally, the point I want to make is, the labour behind the entire argument yesterday was that there was a great conspiracy against him. What is the conspiracy? You have the Chief Justice of India. You have noted judges like Justice A P Shaw, Justice A K Patnaik and Justice R M Lodha. Have they all conspired against Justice Soumitra Sen? You have the Chief Justice Justice B N Agarwal and Justice Ashok Bhan. They are all the senior most judges. Do you mean to say that they have conspired against Sen? And, now, do you mean to say that Justice Sudarshan Reddy, Mukul Mudgal and Fali Nariman have all conspired against Sen. To question the integrity of such people and to say that all of them have colluded in a great conspiracy to prosecute Soumitra Sen is a great conspiracy theory that has been woven yesterday and that conspiracy theory needs to be broken.

NEED TO TACKLE

LARGER ISSUES

Therefore, finally, I think the issues that have been raised by the Leader of the Opposition, echoed by many other members, here on the larger issues connected with judiciary, executive and the legislature, this motion today has to be adopted and should be used as the trigger for us to continue with these discussions, so that we, as parties -- CPI(M) has always been asking and continues to ask even now -- have to ask for establishment of the National Judicial Commission along with the Lokpal. We think that both should go together. And, these are the issues, finally, we have to take up, because our constitutional scheme of things talks of judicial review, not judicial activism. And, that is where, the judges will interpret the law. The power to make law lies with parliament and that is the supremacy. And, it is that supremacy we should uphold.

Finally, let me quote what Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru has said during the Constituent Assembly debates. He said, 'No Supreme Court and no judiciary can stand in judgement over the sovereign will of the parliament representing the will of the entire community. If we go wrong here and there, it (the judiciary) can point it out. But, in the ultimate analysis, where the future of the community is concerned, no judiciary can come in the way. Ultimately, the fact remains that the legislature must be supreme and must not be interfered with by the court of law in measures of social reform." So, this is something which we will have to uphold. I thank all those who participated, and, through you, urge that the motions that I have moved yesterday be accepted.

Courtesy: People's Democracy

REMOVAL OF JUSTICE SOUMITRA SEN IS FOR STRENGTHENING OF JUDICIARY - Sitaram Yechury

Below are excerpts of the speech made by Sitaram Yechury, CPI(M) leader in Rajya Sabha while moving two motions for removal from office of Justice Soumitra Sen of the Calcutta High Court in Rajya Sabha on August 17 2011

I RISE to move these motions in response to the call of duty to my country and my Constitution. Particularly, I rise at a time when waves of protests are taking place all across the country on the issue of corruption at high places. But, I think, though by accident and not by design, these motions are coming up for debate before us in this august House very fortuitously and it is happening at a time when the parliament can also exercise its will and resolve of fighting corruption in high places. And it is in that context I rise to move these motions, as you have mentioned, fully conscious of the solemnity of the occasion. I also rise with a deep sense of anguish to move these motions.

I shall return to these aspects a little later. Let me first move these motions. I beg to move the following motion:

This House resolves that an address be presented to the President for removal from office of Justice Soumitra Sen of the Calcutta High Court on the following two grounds of misconduct:-

(iii) Misappropriation of large sums of money, which he received in his capacity as receiver appointed by the High Court of Calcutta; and

(iv) Misrepresented facts with regard to the misappropriation of money before the High Court of Calcutta.

I also move the following motion:

This House do consider the Report of the Inquiry Committee in regard to investigation and proof of the misbehaviour alleged against Soumitra Sen, judge, High Court of Calcutta which was laid on the Table of the House on the 10th November, 2010.

As I have said earlier, I moved these motions fully conscious of the solemnity of the occasion. This arises from the fact that it is for the first time that this august House is considering the invocation of our Constitutional provisions for the adoption of such motions. This has not happened in our history so far. I also wish to categorically state that by moving this motion we are not moving against the judiciary as a whole which we hold in the highest of esteem.

This is not a motion questioning the integrity of the judiciary. This is a motion against one judge who has been found to have indulged in conduct that constitutes the definition of misbehaviour within the meaning of our Constitution. It thus makes this judge unsuitable to occupy the exalted office of a judge of a High Court.

Individual acts of misbehaviour cannot find refuge behind the integrity of the judiciary as a whole. The issue is one of infallibility and, therefore, the integrity of one individual judge and not the integrity of the judiciary as a whole. This motion is, therefore, moved, as I have said, not to question the integrity but to strengthen that very integrity of our judiciary from being besmirched by one act of a single judge.

Our Constitution very rightly provides the judiciary with a very important position and role. People’s faith in the independence and integrity of our judiciary is a very crucial element in the functioning and maturing of our democracy. It would be a very sad day if this faith of the people is undermined due to the acts of conduct of an individual member. The judiciary is held in high esteem by both the people and the system as it dispenses with justice and is one of the important organs of our State. The judges are correctly assumed to be people of character, honesty and integrity who discharge their duties and functions without fear or favour in the spirit of upholding justice. It is, therefore, a call of duty to the nation to correct any aberration that may lead to the undermining of this faith. I have moved this motion in response to this call of duty.

As I have said, I moved these motions also with a deep sense of anguish. There is no sense of frivolity or elation, neither is there any sense of vindictiveness or retribution. These motions are, therefore, moved with full sanction of our Constitution and in accordance with these provisions. My grandfather retired as a judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court when I was eight years old and I learnt at that time that a judge is not a judge only in the court, but a judge is a judge everywhere else in the society and that his acts, inside or outside the court, are a reflection on the judiciary as a whole.

PROVED MISBEHAVIOUR

I think this spirit has been contained in the Inquiry Report. I quote from the Inquiry Committee Report. It says, "A judge of the High Court is placed on a high pedestal in our Constitution simply because judges of High Courts like judges of the Supreme Court have functions and wield powers of life and death over citizens and inhabitants of this country, such as are not wielded by any other public body or authority. It is a power coupled with a duty, on the part of the judge to act honourably at all times whether in court or out of court. Citation of case law is superfluous because the categories of 'misbehaviour' are never closed.

“In interpreting Articles 124 (4) and (5) and the provisions of the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 and when considering any question relating to the removal of a judge of the higher Judiciary from his office, it must not be forgotten that it was to secure to the people of India a fearless and independent judiciary that the judges of Superior Courts were granted a special position in the Constitution with complete immunity from premature removal from the office except by the cumbersome process prescribed in Articles 124 (4) and (5) read with the law enacted by parliament, the Judges Inquiry Act, 1968. The very vastness of the powers vested in the Higher Judiciary and the extraordinary immunity granted to judges of the High Courts and of the Supreme Court require that judges should be fearless and independent and that they should adopt a high standard of rectitude so as to inspire confidence in members of the public who seek redress before them. While it is necessary to protect the judges from motivated and malicious attacks, it is also necessary to protect the fair image of the institution of the Judiciary from such of those judges who choose to conduct themselves in a manner that would tarnish this image. The word 'misbehaviour' after all is the antithesis of 'good behaviour'. It is a breach of the condition subsequent upon which the guarantee of a fixed judicial tenure rests. High judicial office is essentially a public trust and it is the right of the people through its representatives in the parliament to revoke this trust but only when there is 'proved misbehaviour'."

This is what I think the Inquiry Committee has proven in its report that it submitted to the chairman of this House and which has been laid on the Table of the House. The Constitution also provides specific provisions which are not only essential for the independence of the judiciary, but also for safeguards in the process of the removal of a judge. These provisions, in my opinion, are aimed at strengthening independence of the judiciary rather than undermining it.

The provisions for removal, however, are the most stringent and come into effect only in the case of 'proved misbehaviour'. I think, this House must refresh itself with strict safeguards that have been provided by the Constitution in order to ensure that no particular member of the judiciary is moved against in a spirit of vendetta or vindictiveness. These are: (1) At least 50 Members of the Rajya Sabha or 100 Members of the Lok Sabha must bring a motion in either House; (2) The chairman or the speaker will apply his or her mind before admitting the motion; (3) Once admitted, the chairman or the speaker will constitute a high level inquiry committee under the Judges Inquiry Act; the concerned judge will have full opportunity for defence before this Committee; (4) If the Committee does not find the judge guilty, then the matter ends there with no scope of any parliamentary or judicial review. It is only when the Committee finds the concerned judge guilty, will the matter come up before the parliament; (5) The parliament cannot decide the matter by a simple majority; a two-thirds majority is required. The concerned judge will have the opportunity to make his defence once again before the parliament, in that House where it is moved.

Sixthly, both the Houses of parliament will have to decide, by two-thirds of majority, separately and within the same session of parliament. Finally, even after his removal by the president of India, following the decision, when we adopt these Motions today, taken up by both the Houses, the judge in question, in accordance with the Supreme Court’s directives, can seek redress from the Supreme Court by way of a judicial review. Thus, there is very little ground to apprehend that justice will not be done to these safeguards. Therefore, as far as the present case is concerned, we have reached the fifth stage.

The Report of the Inquiry Committee has been laid before parliament, on the 10th of September, as I have said, and the Report, unambiguously upholds these charges. I quote: “Whether the grounds of misconduct, which Justice Soumitra Sen has been charged with, if proved, amount to misbehaviour under article 124 (4) read with article 217 (1) of proviso (b). In the opinion of the Committee, the grounds of misconduct, when proved, would amount to misbehaviour under the relevant articles.” Then, it proceeds to establish this unambiguously. It enlightens us how this entire concept of misbehaviour had come in the Act of 1935, in the Constituent Assembly Debates, and how, under the present constitutional provisions, both the charges against Justice Soumitra Sen have been held to be valid and unambiguously correct. I quote: “In view of the findings on Charge I and Charge II above, the Inquiry Committee is of the opinion that Justice Soumitra Sen of Calcutta High Court is guilty of misbehaviour under article 124 read with proviso (b) to article 127 (1) of the Constitution of India.” So, after this, I think, the matter needs to be treated as closed. I would like to refer to one of the aspects that Justice Soumitra Sen has referred to in his defence. He invokes, from French history, the Dreyfus Affair. Then, he proceeds to say, “The march of time has witnessed thousands, all over the world, wrongly persecuted in the name of justice and for upholding the rule of law.”

He then proceeds to cast aspersions on the then chief justice of India, whose letter to the prime minister, seeking removal of Justice Soumitra Sen, was appended to our Motion, and other members of the highest judiciary who have either pronounced or opined against him, to try and establish that “the verdict was already reserved even before the trials commenced.” Now, the invocation of Dreyfus Affair, I think, is thoroughly inappropriate. The Dreyfus Affair, all of us will know, was brought into public domain by the famous French intellectual and writer, Emile Zola. It was brought about at a time when the entire battle was taking place in Europe over the formation of the nation States. It was brought about at a time when secularism and separation of the Church from the State was a big affair in the history of Europe. And, at that point of time, somebody caught in the crossfire cannot be treated as an example of somebody being wronged, and abstracted from this history. I think, it will be completely out of context to have brought this in here. But it is from this process of evolution of human civilization, you have the French philosopher, Charles Montesquieu, who laid down the benchmark, in a modern democracy, for checks and balances between these three important organs, namely, the executive, the legislature and the judiciary.

And, it is on that basis that our Constitution has also been drawn up. And, while working out the mechanics of the three wings to play a joint participatory role in our Constitution, we define the centrality of the will of the people. The Preamble begins by saying, “We, the people”. This centrality of the will of the people is expressed through its elected representatives in parliament, and this centrality is supreme in our constitutional scheme of things. And it is with this supremacy today that we are taking up this matter. And I wish, instead of quoting the Dreyfus Affair, we would have rather recollected what we stand for today, on the basis of what law, and whether these laws are being violated.

But if at all you want to go back into history, I think it is more appropriate to recollect the debate in the British parliament on the Censure Motion against Robert Clive when he was charged with amassing huge amounts of money after the Battle of Plassey and the loot of Kolkata. Thomas Babington Macaulay, the same Macaulay who is known for his infamous minute on education in colonial India, noted, Clive at that time was trying to justify what he did to the rapacious loot of Kolkata by saying that this was a city waiting to be taken. Justifying his loot Clive had stated “People welcomed me with both extended hands, one laden with gold, the other laden with gems and jewellery. By God, Mr Chairman, at this moment, I stand astonished at my own moderation". Now, according to the law of the land, at that point of time you have violated that law and you have committed acts of misbehaviour.

Another historic case is the impeachment of Warren Hastings. For seven long years the House of Lords heard the case of Warren Hastings after the House of Commons had impeached him. Edmond Burke in one of his most memorable orations, when he introduced this case to the House of Lords stated "Law and arbitrary power are in eternal enmity". And, then, he proceeds to define judges thus: "Judges are guided and governed by the eternal laws of justice to which we are all subject. We may bite our chains if we will, but we shall be made to know ourselves and be taught that man is born to be governed by law and that he who substitutes will in the place of law is an enemy of God." This was more than two centuries ago. Where we affirm faith in our Constitution, the faith was affirmed in God then. So, do not misunderstand when this quotation is quoted here.

FACTS OF THE CASE

The labour of argument of Justice Sen's reply has been that the motion moved by me and 57 other colleagues does not contain any specific amounts of money that have been misappropriated. Yes, the motion does not contain; the motion was appended with the letter of the then chief justice of India to the prime minister where the entire case was argued. We appended that letter not as a recommendation that you should accept our motion. We appended that letter because it contains all the facts which need not be repeated. If the contention is that these facts are not there, I think, that is wrong. I can read out from the letter of the then CJI which details all these charges.

The letter says, “On 10th September, 2007, I had asked Justice Soumitra Sen to furnish his fresh and final response to the judicial observations made against him. After seeking more time for this purpose, he furnished his response on 28th Septebmer, 2007 requesting that he may be allowed to resume duties in view of the order of the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court. Since I felt that a proper probe was required to be made into the allegations to bring the matter to a logical conclusion, I constituted a three-member committee consisting of Justice A P Shah, the then chief justice of the Madras High Court, Justice A K Patnaik, the then chief justice of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh and Justice R N Lodha, judge of the Rajasthan High Court. The in-house procedure adopted by the Supreme Court and various High Courts is as envisaged in this procedure to conduct a fact-finding inquiry. The committee submitted its report on such and such date, etc.” Then, it concluded by saying, I will read out the main charges: “(1) Shri Soumitra Sen did not have honest intentions right from the year 1993. Since he mixed the money received as a receiver and his personal money and converted receiver’s money to his own use, there has been a misappropriation at least temporarily of the sale proceeds. (a) He received Rs 24, 57,000 between 25th February, 1993 to 10th January, 1995. But, the balance in his account number so and so and dated so and so was only Rs 8, 83,963.05. (b) Further, a sum of Rs 22,83,000 was then transferred by him into so and so account number, name so and so, and the entire amount was withdrawn in a couple of months reducing the balance to a bare minimum of Rs 811, diverting the sale proceeds for his own use with dishonest intentions. (c) He gave false explanation to the court that an amount of Rs 25 lakhs was invested from the account where the sale proceeds were kept whereas in fact the amount of Rs.25 lakhs was withdrawn from Special Officer’s account number so and so and not from the account number so and so in which the sale proceeds were deposited. (d) Mere monetary deposit under the compulsion of judicial orders does not obliterate breach of trust and misappropriation of receiver’s funds for personal gain. (e) The conduct of Shri Soumitra Sen has brought disrepute to the high judicial office and dishonour for the institution of judiciary undermining the faith and confidence reposed by the public in the administration of justice.” Then, he goes on to say, “A detailed representation was made by Justice Soumitra Sen on 25th February, 2008 and a collegium consisting of himself, that is, chief justice of India, Justice B N Aggarwal and Justice Ashok Bahl, senior most judges of the Supreme Court, gave a hearing to Shri Soumitra Sen and reiterated the advice given to him to submit his resignation or seek voluntary retirement on or before 2nd April, 2008. However, vide his letter dated 26th March, 2008, Justice Soumitra Sen expressed his inability to tender resignation or seek voluntary retirement.”

INVIOLABLE JUSTICE

So, the charges are very specific and an in-house Inquiry Committee consisting of two chief justices and a justice of a High Court has gone into it and established it. A collegium of senior most judges of the Supreme Court has re-established them. Now, the Inquiry Committee constituted by chairman of Rajya Sabha has, once again, unambiguously established it. So, I do not think there is any degree of ambiguity on the veracity of these charges. Since they stand established by three separate, independent and duly constituted authorities, I think, this is a matter that should be accepted by us as the final issue that these charges have been now proved.

Therefore, in view of this, I feel that there is no other option but for us to proceed with these motions. We have to move against a judge in order to strengthen the integrity and safeguard the institution of our judiciary. I would like to appeal and go back to the speech of Edmund Burke in the House of Lords when he finally makes the appeal to the Lordships, and I quote, “My Lords, if you must fall, you may so fall. But if you stand, and stand, I trust you will, may you stand as unimpeached in honour as in power. May you stand not as a substitute for virtue, but as an ornament of virtue, as a security for virtue? May you stand as a sacred temple for the perpetual residence of inviolable justice?” And this is the inviolable justice that this House today represents when it converts itself into a Bar, when it takes up these Constitutional provisions; it is the temple of inviolable justice.

And, therefore, a sacred temple for the perpetual residence of inviolable justice, that is what this House must be. Justice and temple are used in the terms that Pandit Nehru used after Independence when he talked of our important public sector constructions as the temples of modern India. These are the temples of modern India that our Republic created. I say this with all honour at my command and all the commitment at my command that the Republic that was founded in India, I was born after that, was a far-reaching vision in modern civilisation and society. Way back, more than six decades ago, we had given universal adult franchise in our country, which was then considered absolutely abnormal and unusual. We must recollect, when the president of USA comes and signs in our Golden Book in our Central Hall, all of us are very happy, when he says, “Greetings from the oldest democracy to the largest democracy”. But, remember, the African Americans in the USA had the universal right to vote granted to them one year after president Obama was born. One year after he was born, they were given the universal right to vote. We gave it way back in 1950. That is the faith that we had in our people, we have in our people. And that is the faith that has to be exercised in our constitutional scheme of things through the elected representatives, and it is that faith that today unfortunately is being questioned by some quarters that this august parliament is not competent or not capable enough to deal with corruption in high places, and, therefore, it cannot and will not move against corruption in high places. Therefore, we must set the precedent. We must give that confidence to the people of India. We owe it to the people of India that we will take action on these motions precisely in order to strengthen our Republic and it is for strengthening of our Republic, I would now commend these motions for adoption by this House, and commend them to make sure that we convey not only to the people of India but also to the people of the world and modern human civilisation that the Indian parliament is a sacred temple, it is the perpetual residence of an inviolable justice. And this has to be established. With this appeal, I commend these motions for your consideration and adoption by this House.

Courtesy: People’s Democracy