Letters reveal real story of judges’ mass leave

Ten days before the strike, 21 judges led by Justice G S Singhvi wrote to Justice Roy saying that they were ‘‘shocked’’ to read the letters he had sent on April 2 to Justices Viney Mittal and Virender Singh over their being ‘‘ex officio’’ members of the controversial Forest Hill Golf and Country Club near Chandigarh.

In their two-page letter dated April 9, the 21 judges told Justice Roy that his April 2 letter was ‘‘not a stray example of your designed attempt to demoralise and harass judges’’ but rather part of ‘‘a long chain of events’’ started by him about a year earlier.

They lent support to the contention of Justices Mittal and Virender Singh that the Chief Justice’s attempt to hold them accountable for their membership in the club was ‘‘entirely without jurisdiction and authority.’’

The judges took objection to Justice Roy’s reported observations in the court telling the CBI ‘‘time and again’’ to register corruption cases against the two judges in question.

According to those 21 judges, the ‘‘way and manner’’ in which Justice Roy had addressed his letters to the two judges showed his continued ‘‘bias and mala fides’’ and that he had already ‘‘pre-judged’’ the issue.

Ending their letter on a foreboding note, the judges said that it would be ‘‘appropriate’’ for Justice Roy not to engage in any ‘‘further correspondence’’ in that regard.

The Chief Justice replied to Justice Singhvi the very next day, April 10, saying: ‘‘I shall continue to discharge my duties, both judicial and administrative, as usual without any fear of anyone.’’

Denying as ‘‘baseless’’ the charges against him for sending notices to Justices Mittal and Virender Singh, Justice Roy said that their recourse to such allegations indicated that Justice Singhvi and the other signatories were holding ‘‘a brief for the owners of clubs’’ and that the ‘‘guilty mind is always suspicious.’’

Justice Roy also took a serious view of the comments the 21 judges made on the PIL he had initiated early this year on the collusion between the club and an array of public servants, including judges.

He said the comments were not only ‘‘incorrect (and) mala fide in fact and law but are clear cut contempt of court.’’ He added that he was accusing them of committing contempt despite knowing well the legal position that contempt proceedings could not be initiated against high court judges.

Justice Roy also remarked that the collective effort of the 21 judges to speak on behalf of Justices Mittal and Virender Singh was ‘‘not appreciable.’’

Neither Justice Singhvi nor any of the other 20 judges responded to Justice Justice Roy’s letter. Instead, 25 high court judges, including Justices Mittal and Virender Singh as well as the 21 who had written in their favour, went on mass casual leave the day Justice Roy’s bench was due to hear the PIL for the first time since the correspondence.