| |
THE NATION:
CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA
Just
Year Say
Jethmalani
finds few takers for his allegation that the Chief Justice of India was
functioning beyond the age of retirement
By
Ashok Damodaran
The
charges seem like those normally witnessed during age-level sports competitions.
The sore loser pointing fingers at the victor, accusing him of fudging
records and indulging in unfair practices to claim something that didn't
rightfully belong to him.
 |
| The
former minister's target is the legal establishment represented by
Sorabjee, Chief Justice Anand and Jaitley |
The dramatis
personae here however are no underage rookies. On one side is former Union
law minister Ram Jethmalani. On the other is Chief Justice of India (CJI)
A.S. Anand. That the then minister and the CJI didn't get along was never
a secret. But since his forced resignation from the Vajpayee Government
in July this year, Jethmalani has been living up to his reputation as
a battering ram. Though the bulk of his ire is aimed at the CJI, others
in the legal establishment don't go unscathed-in particular, Attorney-General
Soli Sorabjee and his successor in the Law Ministry, Arun Jaitley.
While in
office, Jethmalani seldom bared his animosity towards the CJI before the
public. But once forced out, he seemed determined to embarrass the CJI.
In his book Small Men, Big Egos, he found the perfect vehicle.
In the quickie, turned out in less than two months after his ouster from
the Union Cabinet, Jethmalani renewed his battle with the CJI by alleging
that Anand had reached the retirement age for Supreme Court judges, which
is 65, in November 1999. Jethmalani's contention was that Anand was born
on November 1, 1934 and was staying on in office a year past retirement
age. The Government maintains that the CJI's date of birth was November
1, 1936, and that this had been verified by the President at the time
of Anand's elevation as the chief justice of the Madras High Court in
1991.
The point
raised by Jethmalani has in fact dogged Anand for some time. In 1991 itself,
a Chennai-based lawyer, S.K. Sundaram, had challenged Anand's age in the
Madras High Court but the case was dismissed.
Crucially,
it cropped up again only after Jethmalani's ouster from the Cabinet. Since
then, there have been claims and counterclaims, with both sides furnishing
documents to support their respective causes. There were even charges
of documents being doctored. Last week, on the orders of the Supreme Court,
the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) filed a case of forgery. The
CBI was called in after the court felt that the birth date document procured
by Jethmalani's London-based solicitors from the General Council of the
Bar of England and Wales (BEW) was not genuine. The agency was asked to
investigate the origins of the document and to trace those responsible
for it.
Jethmalani
is livid at being accused of forgery. "Instead of addressing the
issue, they are trying to sidetrack it", the former minister fumed.
His charge against the CJI is based on a letter issued by S. Behr of the
Bar Examination Records office of the BEW which, among other things, states
that Anand was "enrolled as a student member of the Inner Temple
on 4 January, 1962 and at that time gave his year of birth as 1934".
It is this document that Jethmalani reproduced in his book.
The Hirst-Morrison
Letters: Between October 23, when Jethmalani released his book containing
the references to Anand's age, and November 20, there was a flurry of
activity in legal circles both in Delhi and London. Though official sources
deny it, a letter dated November 2 from Jonathan Hirst, chairman of the
BEW, acknowledges that even the CJI personally wrote to the BEW requesting
information relating to the record of his date of birth. Two weeks later,
Harish Salve, solicitor-general of India, flew to London to meet the chief
executive of the BEW, Niall Morison, adding a new twist to the tale. On
November 20, four days after their meeting, Morison wrote to Salve. The
thrust of the Hirst-Morison letters was that the records that were sought
by the two Indian groups pertained to a period when these were being looked
after by the council for Legal Education. It was only in 1996 that the
BEW took over the responsibility from the council. Morison wrote: "According
to the original documents produced by the sub-treasurer of the Inner Temple
at the meeting with you on November 16, the date of birth of Dr Anand
given in those documents was 1 November 1936. Mr Behr (who had provided
information to Jethmalani's London-based solicitors) did not have, and
had not seen, the original records held by the Inner Temple and therefore
the information on the date of birth given (by Behr) was incorrect."
If that
was an emphatic repudiation of the hapless Behr's version, Hirst's was
less so. In his November 2 letter to Anand, evidently responding to the
CJI's queries, the BEW chairman explained how old hand written card records
had been scanned and put on CD-ROMs. "These records are held on CD-ROM
files on which the original record cards were scanned approximately two
or three years ago. Having examined the scanned image relating to your
record closely, it appears that the year of birth was recorded as 1934
when the record card was completed in 1962. But unfortunately, all the
record cards were destroyed when the scanning process was undertaken and
therefore it is no longer possible to compare the scanned record with
the original."
Hirst, however,
assures the CJI that the records at the Inner Temple (to which Anand was
admitted as a student member in 1962) showed his date of birth as November
1, 1936. "There is plainly a discrepancy between the Inner Temple
and the Council of Legal Education records which is impossible to explain
over 40 years later."
A similar
discrepancy of more recent vintage exists in Jethmalani's book. While
reproducing in Annexure II on Page 149 the BEW's September 4 letter to
his solicitors in London, the former law minister was careful not to take
liberties with facts, but liberally did so with its design. The letter
does not appear to be in the same format that was sent from London. When
the CBI comes calling this time, it is doubtful Jethmalani will have the
answers ready.
Top
|
|
Enron
symbolises everything that's wrong with the way reforms were handled by
M/s Rao & Manmohan, says INDIA TODAY Associate Editor
