While the judiciary is meant to uphold values and integrity, a row has erupted in the Gujarat High Court over allotment of plots to judges
By R K Misra in Gandhinagar
Gujarat has a way of hogging the national headlines. This time, the hallowed portals of the judiciary are in the midst of a slugfest over government allotment of residential plots to judges at concessional rates. The dirt has hit the ceiling and the fallout may bring into national discourse moral principles and the legitimacy of similar allotment by other states to members of the judiciary.
REVEALING LETTER
The issue was triggered by two retired jud-ges, BJ Shethna and KR Vyas, who alleged in a letter to acting chief justice of Gujarat High Court VM Sahai in the first week of July that there was a “big scam” in the allotment of 400 sqm plots to sitting and retired high court judges at the Neetibaug Cooperative Housing Society in Ahmedabad.
Justice Shethna is a former judge of the Gujarat and Rajasthan High Court, while Justice Vyas is a former chief justice of the Bombay High Court and former judge of the Gujarat High Court.
According to the letter, the government announced the allotment of residential plots to judicial officers in 2003. A government resolution was issued in 2008 announcing the allotment at concessional rates. The high court registrar-general sent a list of 48 names of judges.
However, instead of going through the registrar-general, the government directly began dealing with the judges. It changed the condition of allotment and constituted a cooperative housing society. But, it denied plots to some judges, stating that they had retired before the scheme was announced. In 2014, the matter figured before the Supreme Court, but it refused to hear it and sent it back to the high court to exhaust the option of hearing the petition itself. Now the matter is back before the apex court.
On getting the letter, chief justice Sahai on August 7 wrote to all sitting judges seeking their opinion on his intent to file a suo motu PIL in the case. He set August 10 as the deadline. As it failed to elicit any response, on August 11, a division bench headed by the acting chief justice converted the letter into a PIL. He retired soon after on August 12.
The division bench referred the PIL to a larger bench and also framed questions to set a template for it. It rejected the request from the counsel for the judges as well as the state government for time to look into the issue and also whether such a PIL was maintainable. “The matter relates to judges of this court and because of its seriousness must be decided by a larger bench,” the division bench ruled.
RECUSING THEMSELVES
Even as all this was happening, Justice RP Dholaria recused himself from the case. Then, acting chief justice Sahai and Justice Mohinder Pal, who took over from Dholaria, took the decision to form a larger bench to hear the matter on a day-to-day basis.
The court also issued notices to 27 sitting and retired high court judges, including a sitting Supreme Court judge, besides the state government. The larger three-judge bench comprised of Justices Mohinder Pal, JB Pardiwala and Paresh Upadhayay. But Justice Pardiwala also recused himself for personal reasons, while Justice Upadhayay clarified that he had applied for membership of the housing society in question but had withdrawn it.
However, in a new twist, the Supreme Court stayed proceedings before the high court, deleted the names of the sitting and retired judges as respondents and sought a response from the state government.
The case has left a bitter taste with everyone as hidden dirt was thrown around during arguments in court. Advocate-general Kamal Trivedi, at one point, stated that the bench headed by Sahai should not hear the petition as he himself was interested in a plot which could not be given to him as it was only meant for those who were sitting judges of the high court as on November 6, 2008.
There was also mention of the fact that he had sought Trivedi’s intervention. Angered, Sahai hit back, asking whether he should recount various occasions when he had sought interventions on behalf of the state government. Trivedi also sought widening of the judicial scrutiny to include some appointments made by Justice Sahai to Class III and IV posts in the high court as had been pointed out in a complaint by advocate Bharat Rao. These proceedings have brought into the open fissures within the judiciary, which have so far been the subject of conjecture.
GROWING ROW
Justice Sahai, on his part, stated on record that he had invited judges to discuss issues but in vain. Rao has also put forward a representation in this regard to the President of India and chief justice of the Supreme Court. The Gujarat High Court Advocates Associa-tion has also supported his stand that judges should not accept plots offered by the state government since there are illegalities in the allotment. It has also decided to support his stand against the appointments made by Justice Sahai.
However, Justice Sahai told India Legal: “Some judge had to hear the matter and I decided to do the difficult job. I did what was right. One media report said that I wanted to live in Gujarat but did not have a house in Gujarat and that is why I had to return to Allahabad. The truth is that I always wanted to be back home with my family.”
Meanwhile, Justice Vyas has sought to withdraw his letter, stating that he had no idea it would create such a controversy. The last has not been heard in this matter and legal experts aver that this issue has far-reaching implications for the judiciary.