Outgoing Chief Justice of India Justice Y K Sabharwal said today that while there is no “friction” between the judiciary and the legislature and both need to be in “harmony” for the “smooth working of democracy,” it would be “dangerous” if the two developed a “cosy relationship.”Speaking to reporters a day before he retires handing over charge to Justice K G Balakrishnan, Justice Sabharwal said: “There is a difference of perception but it is healthy for judiciary. Relationship between judiciary, legislature and executive should not be cosy. It is very dangerous if the relationship is cosy (between them) as it may come in the way of taking independent decisions.”His remarks come just two days after a Constitution Bench unanimously expanded the scope of judicial review and underlined the Supreme Court as the ultimate arbiter of Constitutional provisions vis-a-vis Parliament. It ruled that even laws protected in the Ninth Schedule can be invalidated if they violate fundamental rights and the basic structure of the Constitution.At a time when a section of the political establishment has openly alleged that the Supreme Court is too often stepping on the Legislature’s toes, Justice Sabharwal said: “I do not think there is any tension if you see the history of the last 200 years. We have dealt with this to some extent in the judgment delivered on January 10,” he said. This was an apparent reference to the verdict in the cash-for-query scam where the apex court upheld the Parliament’s decision to expel the MPs. “Roles (of each organ) are specified and the Constitution which is supreme, has specified the powers. Judiciary will interpret the laws while the Parliament will be there to frame laws. It cannot be changed,” he said.On the appointment of Justice Vijender Jain as Chief Justice of Punjab and Haryana High Court, an appointment where President A P J Abdul Kalam had raised objections to the CJI’s recommendation and returned the file, Justice Sabharwal said: “I do not think there was any mistrust between me and the President. In fact, I have the utmost respect for the honorable President of India.”While he called it a “matter of past (that).must be buried,” Justice Sabharwal said it was important to clear the air of “for his (Justice Jain’s) future.” “Justice Vijender Jain has been a judge for last 13-14 years. However, there was just one complaint against him, which took this shape.” Sabharwal recalled. He said that Justice Jain had decided a case involving a one Hari Ram, whose grand-daughter’s wedding took place at the judge’s residence. “I would be forced today to name the fellow judge, Justice Arun Kumar, who on behalf (of Hari Ram, a close relative) requested Justice Vijender Jain to arrange for the wedding at the lawns of his house. As it is a customary thing in the High Court here, if there is a wedding in the close relative of a judge, one may ask to get it arranged there. The incident was in 2001,” said Justice Sabharwal. Then, in 2004, “nobody told or apprised Justice Jain about it. It is a virtually impossible task (for) the judges to read the names of the litigants and then recuse themselves from hearing those matters,” Justice Sabharwal said. “I do not think that a case of a disgruntled litigant and (the) view of few members of Bar should affect the appointment of a judge,” he said and asked the assembled reporters: “Have you heard of any other complaint against him (Justice Jain) in the last 14 years?” Justice Sabharwal also backed Justice Jagdish Bhalla of the Allahabad HC. He said that Justice Bhalla’s wife was alleged to have bought properties worth Rs 2 lakh while the value was in crores. Keeping in mind the “perception of the local Bar is most important to decide the conduct of the Judge,” Justice Sabharwal said. He said that many senior lawyers of the Lucknow Bar came and met him. “I was shown several documents and papers pointing a higher value so that people can get more compensation, so here I was faced with a Bar talking in one voice about Justice Bhalla and a few lawyers in Delhi against him,” he admitted as he went with the Bar there. “No Bar would favour a corrupt judge so the best barometer is the local Bar,” Justice Sabharwal indicated. Observing that “we must be tough in dealing with corruption” in all institutions, including judiciary, the outgoing Chief Justice said it “deserved to be remembered by all, including the media, that conventionally judges do not have any forum and I am happy that they do not have any forum to go to the press and go on issuing clarifications.” ‘Doomsday if convictions are based on media opinion’Outgoing CJI Sabharwal:• On “media trial”: Grateful that media’s spotlight results in “authorities realizing the delay in cases” but judges “will rise above media’s opinion” and decide the case after weighing the evidence. “It will be Doomsday if convictions are based on media opinions,” he said.• On death sentence: In my personal opinion, I am not in favour of death sentence. But whatever decision we take is as per law.The President, like me, favoured its abolition. But there are people who think differently.• On RTI: Judiciary has to have a separate wing to deal with RTI cases. As far as SC is concerned, I have already constituted a committee to chalk out the parameters. • On backlog: High Court normally takes 5-10 years for disposal of a criminal appeal, while some courts take up to 20 years, which is a person’s entire lifespan. This gives rise to situations like witnesses or their families being purchased and even turning hostile, particularly in cases where the accused is influential. All criminal cases, involving the high and mighty — in politics or bureaucracy — should be put on the fast track. My blood boils in cases like the attack on the life of former Chief Justice A N Ray — dating 1979 still pending trial.
