|
High Court judge
grills state govt in Virk case
WSN Network
CHANDIGARH: The ongoing case against former DGP S S Virk has
once again landed the Punjab Government in a deep controversy as
Justice Ranjit Singh of the Punjab and Haryana High Court objected
to what he called “disrespectful conduct” of the state government
“towards the court" in introducing an unsigned note. What's more,
the state government even suggested to the judge that he should
withdraw from the case. The judge said he may see it as contempt.
The Judge pointed out that the move aimed at avoiding his
Bench for hearing in a particular case was a red herring “introduced
by some evil mind” having no regard for the courts of justice.
The whole controversy arises from a petition filed by former
CRPF officer Anurag Saxena, who runs a security equipment supply
agency and is co-accused in a case registered against former Punjab
police chief S.S. Virk. Saxena had sought quashing of the FIR
against him, a plea that was rejected.
The issue of
Punjab allegedly suggesting to Justice Ranjit Singh to withdraw
from the case pertains to a
December 23, 2008,
affidavit filed by the Punjab Under Secretary, Department of Home
Affairs and Justice. The Under Secretary had made a reference to a
sealed envelop containing highly sensitive and important documents
regarding the investigation of the case.
The envelop contained a brief handwritten but unsigned note
recovered from former Punjab DGP S.S. Virk in which an entry read,
“Try to win over young MLAs like Pavvy , Sukhpal (Singh Khaira, a
relative of the Judge), Jassi Khangura… who are very active and have
money.” Justice Ranjit Singh said the course adopted and easily
accepted by the Under Secretary would have been on some legal
advice. But, he added, that a legally trained mind was at least
required to ensure that an “unsigned note” was not produced.
“It is a disrespectful conduct towards the court to introduce
an unsigned note and then raise an issue as serious as to tell the
court to recuse from the case. It may be in itself a contempt,” the
Judge observed.
The person or persons responsible for this would have to
answer their conduct in showing disrespect and interfering in the
administration of justice.
Noting that in a “subdued manner” the state counsel had been
bold enough to suggest that the court “may wish to recuse…,” Justice
Ranjit Singh said: “Frankly , this was a rather unfortunate stand.”
“This was unfair too on the part of the state and its functionaries.
It thus became a matter of serious concern for the court. The
obvious impression is that it was aimed at avoiding the Bench.” In a
29-page ruling, Justice Singh stated that he had deeply considered
this aspect over and over, again and again, “but still I have not
been able to see any connection of this note for this court to
recuse...” “On the basis of this infirm, irrelevant, unconnected and
equally unfair and legally unsound submission, the court would not
see any need to recuse, and rather would proceed to decide the
case….” Justice Ranjit Singh held: “This stand could not have been
without consultation with the Chief Law Officer. He may need to go
through the duties that the advocates owe to the court.” Raising a
question mark over the timing of this move, Justice Ranjit Singh
said: “This attempt on the part of the state or its functionaries is
nothing but an attempt to interfere in the administration of
justice, and thus is contemptuous.” Justice Ranjit Singh raised a
number of questions, asking, “Can a litigant, may be a state, be
permitted to behave in this manner? If so, will it be an act having
contemptuous contours?”
“How could the Under Secretary have placed this unsigned note
before the court?” The state Advocate General’s Office said the
state government after going through the judgment had decided to
move the Supreme Court at the earliest.
4
February 2009
|
Read Also