JUSTICE UNDER TRIAL

The cash-at-door case that had come to light last year has taken a new turn with a special CBI court expressing dissatisfaction over the case closure report. It will be recalled that the case involves the delivery of Rs 15 lakh to the residence of Punjab and Haryana High Court judge Justice Nirmaljit Kaur by a clerk of the then Haryana Additional Advocate-General Sanjeev Bansal on August 13, 2008. The money was purportedly meant for another judge, Justice Nirmal Yadav, and was wrongly delivered to Justice Kaur's residence. It is alleged that the cash was sent on behest of Delhi-based hotelier Ravinder Singh. Following these revelations, the Chief Justice of India appointed a three-judge committee to inquire into the matter. The committee on its part concluded that there was prima facie truth in the allegations against Justice Yadav, even though she asserted that she was being framed. The CBI which had registered a case against the accused — Justice Yadav, Sanjeev Bansal, Ravinder Singh and Nirmal Singh — sent its preliminary investigation report to former Attorney-General Milon Banerjee. But the latter was of the opinion that there was insufficient evidence against Justice Yadav. The Law Ministry too saw things Mr Banerjee's way. The investigation agency was forced to submit its closure report in the case after it received a letter from Ministry Joint Secretary DR Meena explicitly stating that no further action was required in the case.


But the special CBI court's dissatisfaction with the closure report has created room for doubt. The court has also asked the CBI as to why a closure was being filed against Justice Yadav's co-accused in whose case prosecution does not require any sanction. It must be conceded that the court has a valid point. Given the history of the case, it will be extremely unfortunate if it were to be terminated now. For, there are several questions that need answering. Why did the three-judge committee that was appointed earlier to probe the case find merit in the accusations against Justice Yadav? What it is that compelled the committee to come to this conclusion? Also, given the way the CBI has gone about filing the closure report, it seems that the investigation agency is simply following procedure. But procedure is exactly what the people are afraid has been manipulated. That Justice Yadav is currently a sitting judge of the Uttarakhand High Court makes it all the more necessary that all doubts regarding the case be comprehensively disproved. The judiciary is the backbone of any democratic society. It is absolutely paramount that this institution remains free of any taint. Therefore, if there is even the slightest of doubt that there has been an attempt to buy the 'good wishes' of a sitting judge, the incident must be thoroughly investigated and the culprits, if any, exposed and punished. This is what justice demands.