Joshi tried to mislead: Courtz

8220;When an affidavit is filed in court especially by a public functionary in the rank of the office of the chief minister, we expect him to be absolutely frank,8221; ruled the bench saying that the former CM had resorted to 8220;pettyfogging8221; as a 8220;petty officer to obfuscate facts and mislead the court8221;.

Justice Srikrishna said that it would be hardly surprising if respondent no 5, ie Manohar Joshi, had ascertained his rights as the Minister of Urban Development and had come clean in the court. 8220;It would be hardly surprising if the respondent no 5 had said that he had acted within his rights as the Minister of Urban Development in calling for the files, whatever the consequences8221;.

The bench held that it was in public interest litigations of this manner where the highest public authority is accused of misuse of power that 8220;when the files areperused by the ministers8221; are important. Referring to the note sent by Mane8217;s private secretary, Justice Srikrishna said that 8220;it suggests that the minister in charge of Urban Development, who can officially summon a file for perusal, resorted to secretive steps to get a copy of a vital document in the file8221;.

Since the copy was 8220;promptly8221; sent to the CM, the court inferred that it was not 8220;an idle curiosity on the part of the CM8221;. 8220;This leads us to the conclusion that respondent no 5 was very much interested in knowing the progress in the case of final plot no 110 and wanted to apprise himself of the commissioner8217;s report8221;.

The bench was ruling on the actions of the former chief minister in the light of the strong defence made by Joshi8217;s counsel, Harish Salve that no inferences of malafides could be drawn against his client till the court has 8220;inescapable conclusions8221; in the regard.

8220;We agree with Salve,8221; dictated Justice Srikrishna, 8220;that the findings of malafides in the actions of publicauthorities should not be lightly drawn8230;We will examine the facts in this case and no inferences will be drawn unless they are found to be inescapable conclusions8221;.

Having said that, the bench launched into the actions of the former chief minister who had to be given a notice by the High Court for filing his affidavit. 8220;We may straightaway point out that as a position of law a public authority who has serious allegations against him in a PIL of this nature, cannot take the stand of an accused in a criminal trial and adopt silence as defence8221;, he said.

In our view, it is the duty of the public authority to advise the court in an affidavit his explanations and place before the court all material to which only he has access8230;Anything short of this, could make the conduct suspect and drive the court to draw adverse inferences8221; he continued.

8220;Do we infer that it was idle curiosity or nosing around like mediapersons for a scoop, or an interest in the case? If it is the latter, why is the CM and theminister of urban development interested in only one part of the case? What public policy decision could be achieved by scrutinising one random report in a case the existence of which he denies?8221;, the court asked.

The bench held that 8220;unless the court is naive8221;, it could not infer anything but the fact that the CM called for the files, only because he had an interest in doing so.