Balakrishnan insists that Raja's name was not mentioned

Now that this controversy comes into the open, let them make public the report by Mr. Gokhale (along with the enclosed letter of Mr. Reghupati), and any written communication to Mr. Gokhale or Mr. Moily by Mr. Balakrishnan then CJI in pursuance of the same. That will clear many doubts and clarify the positions.

In one sense both Mr. Balakrishnan, ex CJI and Mr. Gokhale, ex-CJ of Madras HC, may be correct. Though Mr. Gokhale sent a report enclosing a letter by Mr. Justice Reghupati wherein that judge mentioned the name of Raja, perhaps the report itself by inadvertence or otherwise did not specifically contain the name of Raja and so Mr. Balakrishnan may be technically right in saying the report did not mention the name of Raja. If there is omission of Raja's name in the report (in contrast to its existence in the enclosed letter of Reghupati J.) perhaps some adverse inference could have also been drawn by the recipient of the report (i.e. Mr. Balakrishnan, then CJI) that the writer of the report (Mr. Justice Gokhale) did not fully concur with allegation of his brother judge (Mr. Reghupati) at least in the naming of Raja. So he might have not mentioned the name of Raja in his letter to Moily. Moreover, actually, Balakrishnan might have had at his heart sympathy to Raja and wanted to help him for any other reasons and so might have ignored Mr. Justice Reghupati's letter. After all, who is witness to the incident but Mr. Justice Reghupati and the person (sr. advt.) lobbying on behalf of Raja and Raja himself. Obviously the other two would contradict and reject the allegations and so the evidence of one (the judge himself) would prove to be a weak piece of evidence. Of course, these are technicalities and we should lament that people meet the judges in chambers to ask for all sorts of undue favours in connection with ongoing litigation and the judges also accommodate in some or many cases - this is also a sort of corruption.

I am a practising advocate since from about 20 years basically from visakhapatnam bar association. IN THE 2G SPECTRUM SCAM THEN CJI STATEMENT AND NOW LAW MINISTERS STATEMENT ARE CORROBARATED BUT THEN CJ OF TN AND THEN CJI COMMENTS ARE NOT BEEN CORROBORATED. WHAT THE CONSPIRACY BEHIND THAT THEN CJI WAS RETIRED AND HOLDING THE OFFICE OF THE NATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION CHAIRMAN, THEN CJ OF TN HOLDING THE JUSTICE IN SUPREME COURT. TOP JUDICIARY WHETHER THEY ARE POSITION OR IN RETIRED, THEY MUST HAVE CONFERRED THE DIGNITY AND DECORAM OF THE JUDICIARY. THEY SHOULD NOT BE INFLUENCED BY ANY OF THE FRACTION. TN BAR ASSOCIATION CHAIRMAN INFLUENCED THE THEN CJ OF TN THROUGH A RAJA BY WAY OF GIVING HIS MOBILE TO JUSTICE, HE REFUSED TO TAKE AND ACCORDING TO LAW HE MAINTAINED IN THE BAIL PETITION OF RELATIVES OF A RAJA. I AM APPRECIATING THE STYLE OF FUNCTIONING OF HIGHEST OFFICE LIKE CJ OF STATE, WHAT HE MAINTAINED. THAT PARTICULAR JUSTICE IS IN SUPREME COURT AS HIS TRANSPERCY TOOK HIM TO THAT PLACE. SUCH A DIGNIFIED PERSONALITIES NEVER DO WRONG. HE IS THE PERSONALITY OF POSITIVE THINKING, POSITIVE ATTITUDE AND POSITIVE ACTION. HE WILL NOT HURT ANY ONE BY HIS MIND, WORD AND ACT. HOW WE CAN IMAGINE HE MAY DO INJURY TO ANYONE. i came from a orthodox family analyzing the word injury. The word injury denotes any harm whatever illegally caused to any person in body, mind, reputation or property. This was descripted in Our Indian Penal Code,Secetion 44. In a civil matter Injury has no proper relief or remedy where as in criminal. In our Upanishads our Ancestors chatted 'NAA HIMSYAT SARVA BHOOTANI' IT MEANT FOR NO HARM TO ANY BODY OR ANY LIVING HUMAN BEING OR ANIMAL OR BIRD. THE WORD INJURY HOW BURNS ASCERTAINED FROM THE BELOW SLOKA. CHITAA CHINTAYOR NAAMA DWAYORMADHYE CHINTAA NAAMA GAREEYASEE CHITAA DHAHATI NIRJEEVAM CHINTAA PRAAANAAYAPUM VAHUM MEANING BETWEEN CHINTAA AND CHITAA THEY BOTH ARE LOOKS SIMILAR BUT MEANING IS MERELY CONTRAVERSY. THAT THE ACT OF FUNERAL IS CHITAA AND PAIN, ANXIETY, OR MENTAL TENSION IS CHINTAA. THAT CHITAA IS THE ACT OF FUNERAL TO DEAD BODY THAT IS LIFE LESS HUMAN OR ANY BEING. WHEREAS CHINTAA IS THE MENTAL TENSION, INJURY, HARM DAMAGE TO THE LIVING BODY BURNING IN HIM/HER UNTIL THE FUNERAL ACT. CHITAA ENDS BY BURRIAL GROUND BUT THE CHINTAA WILL BE ENDED BY THE BURRIAL GROUND OF A LIVING BODY BURING LIVELY TO MAKE DEATH.

IT IS HIGHTIME TO DISCLOSE REGARDING DIGNITY AND DECENCY OF THE TOP JUDICIARY IS IN CONSPIRACY. TODAY;S NEWS PAPERS LAW MINISTER ESPECIALLY COMENTED ON THE SAME ISSUE THAT ANY MINISTERS NAME WAS NOT STATED IN THEN CJI LETTER TO THE MINISTRY. IT WAS CRYSTAL CLEAR THAT THEN CJ OF TN CLEARLY STATED THAT I WAS MENTIONED THE NAME OF A RAJA INFLUENCED THE JUSTICE RAGHUPATHI THROUGH THE BAR ASSOCIATION CHAIRMAN. IT INDICATES THAT THEN CJI, NOW LAW MINISTER AND SOME MORE MAY INVOLVE IN 2G SPECTRUM. IT IS DUTY OF THE CBI WHICH DIRECTED BY THE SUPREME COURT TO ASCERTAIN THE FACTS BEHIND THE DISPUTED STATEMENTS BETWEEN THE LAW MINISTRY AND CJI OFFICE. 2G SPECTRU SCAM INCULCATED INTO 18 COMPANIES AND MANY COUNTRIES. THESE ROOTS ARE VERY STRONG. THE INVESTIGATE AGENCY SHOULD BE TRANSPERCY IN THE INTEREST OF THE NATIONAL INTEREST AND THIS HOLY SOIL.

These exchange of words between members of highest judiciary has grave consequences in public perception and should stop forthwith. Instead, the guardians of law should demonstrate by action that despite these unholy pressure, the dispensation of justice remains unaffected.