CBI Chargesheets Justice Nirmal Yadav in Cash at Door Scam

Justice Yadav

Source : NDTV

Hours before she was meant to retire, Justice Nirmal Yadav was accused formally of corruption, destruction of evidence, and fabrication of evidence. She has become the first judge to be chargesheeted while still in office.

Justice Yadav has spent the last one year at the Uttarakhand High Court. She was transferred there from the Punjab and Haryana High Court after evidence suggested that a 15-lakh bribe would have reached her had it not been for a giant misstep.

In August 2008, a businessman who wanted Justice Yadav to rule in his favour routed the money accidentally to another woman judge named Justice Nirmaljit Kaur. Upon 15 lakhs arriving at her home, she reported the matter to the police, who discovered the money was meant for Justice Yadav.

The Punjab administration asked the CBI to handle the case. Separately, KG Balakrishnan, who was then Chief Justice of India, appointed a committee of judges to study the allegations against Justice Yadav.

While that panel recommended her prosecution, Justice Balakrishnan reportedly advised the government that no action was needed against Justice Yadav. She was asked not to attend office for a few months, and was then packed off to Uttarkhand.

Then, in March last year, a special CBI court in Chandigarh rejected the CBI's request to close the case. The agency said the case could not proceed because it was still waiting for permission to begin prosecuting the judge. The court's decision helped rejuvenate the case.

On February 28 this year, President Pratibha Patil reportedly sanctioned Justice Yadav's prosecution. The sanction to prosecute a sitting High Court judge can only be given by the President who is the appointing authority. The President usually consults the Chief Justice of India (CJI) for whether to proceed. In this case, Chief Justice SH Kapadia advised her to proceed.

WHOSE AMICUS IS Harish Salve?

Can the renowned lawyer do justice to the 2002 Gujarat riot victims while referring business deals to the Narendra Modi government? Tehelka exclusive expose.

Legal eagle Harish Salve has a an enviable clutch of corporate clients

The Special Investigation Team that was formed by the Supreme Court to reinvestigate the Godhra riot cases has long since failed its mandate. It has been unsuccessful in nailing the senior functionaries of the Gujarat government while being content with the cosmetic arraigning of a few inspectors and VHP members with the sole exception of the arrest of BJP MLA Mayaben Kodnani.

It has been left to Zakia Jafri, the 72-year old widow of former Congress MP Ehsan Jafri — who was butchered by a riotous Hindu mob — and a few human rights activists to doggedly pursue the riot cases in the Supreme Court.

Senior Supreme Court lawyer Harish Salve has been the amicus curiae — in simple words, friend of the court — in the petition which resulted in the re-investigation of nine major Gujarat riot cases including the massacres of Naroda Goan, Naroda Patiya and Gulberg Society in Ahmedabad where more than 200 Muslim men, women and children were hacked and burnt to death.

In India, while handling cases of extreme public interest, the courts have often appointed senior advocates with impeccable integrity as amicus curiae. The job of an amicus is to assist the court with objective and impartial analysis so that justice is served and public interest prevails.

In his capacity as an amicus for the past eight years, Salve has been assisting the court in finding the truth of the Gujarat riots. It was Salve who, along with the counsel of the Gujarat government, finalised the names of the police officers who were appointed SIT members.

Read the entire article at Tehelka's Website.

Supreme Court Quashes Thomas Appointment as CVC

Source : Indlaw

The Supreme Court today quashed the appointment of Mr P J Thomas as Central Vigilance Commissioner (CVC) as non est in the eyes of law.

A bench comprising Chief Justice S H Kapadia, Justices K S Radhakrishnan and Swatanter Kumar also disapproved the approach of the three-member selection panel comprising Prime Minister Mammohan Singh, Union Home Minister P Chidambaram and leader of opposition in Lok Sabha Sushma Swaraj and directed that in future the dissenting member of the panel will give reasons in writing and if the majority of the members disagree with the opinion of the dissenting member, it will also give reasons in writing. 

The apex court also ruled that in future the selection panel/High Powered Committee (HPC) will take an informed decision regarding the antecedents of the selected candidate and the choice of the candidate at the time of empanelment of the candidate shall not be confined only to civil servant/bureaucrat. 

The apex court ruled that in the present case the HPC has failed to take into consideration the notings of DoPT (Department of Personnel and Training) during 2000-2004 which recommended imposition of penalty on Thomas.

The apex court also declared CVC as 'integrity institution' and held that impeccable integrity of the candidate selected as head of the top anti-corruption statutory body must be taken into consideration. 

The apex court ruled that the recommendation of the HPC dated December 3,2010 in selecting Thomas as the CVC is illegal and therefore the appointment made on the basis of such recommendation is non est (non existent) in the eyes of law and therefore the appointment also goes and is quashed. 

The apex court cited the functioning of top anti-corruption bodies in countries like US, UK, Australia, Hong Kong etc where such integrity institutions and the appointment of the post of CVC is made. 

In India it is a constitutional post and CVC has to decide and oversee the investigation in corruption cases against public servant and therefore impeccable integrity is a must.


Find the copy of the Judgment here.

Supreme Court Reserves Judgment on Euthanasia Plea

Source : Indlaw

The Supreme Court today reserved its judgement in a landmark case on a petition filed by nurse Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug who is in coma for the last 37 years after being raped on November 27, 1973, seeking permission to end her life as a mercy killing. 

A bench comprising Justices Markandey Katju and Gyan Sudha Misra reserved the judgement after hearing the parties. 

Attorney General G E Vahanvati appearing for the Centre opposed the plea of Ms Pinki Virani who claiming to be the next friend of the victim is seeking permission for euthanasia meaning mercy killing. 

Mr Vahanvati submitted before the court that Aruna Shanbaug has the right to live in her present state and her present condition does not justify terminating her life by withdrawing hydration/food/medical support. Such omissions will be cruel, inhuman and intolerable and such type of so called mercy killing is unknown to Indian law and is also contrary to law. 

The AG also submitted before the court that if such mercy killing is allowed it will be contrary to law and all efforts put in by batches after batches of nurses of KEM hospital, Mumbai, for the last 37 years, will be undermined and it will lead to disheartenment and large scale disillusionment among the nurses. Mr Vahanvati also questioned the locus of Ms Virani.

Aruna was strangled with a dog chain to immobilise her by the rapist Sohanlal who has already served seven years imprisonment. Aruna, who is bedridden for the last 37 years, is presently 63. 

The hospital is also opposed to the petitioner and counsel for the hospital today submitted before the court that the hospital is not fed up or tired of looking after her and she did not have even a single bed sore for the last 37 years. 

Senior counsel Shekhar Naphade, however, submitted before the court that the victim has been in vegetative state for the last 37 years and has no chance of coming out of her present state and therefore she cannot be denied right to die with dignity. 

The apex court had earlier refused permission to a 19-year-old mentally challenged woman to get her pregnancy terminated even when the medical board had recommended the termination of pregnancy as the would-be-mother cannot understand the concept of pregnancy and she is not capable of providing requisite care to the small baby. 

The Supreme Court is expected to lay down guidelines on the issue of right to die when the life has virtually become an endless burden without any hope of revival.