In defense of the accused Delhi High Court Justice Yashwant Khanna, now you see Akhilesh Yadav, has come. He says that perhaps the judge might have taken ‘udhar’ (hand loan). How low the Opposition leaders can go is evident from this ‘udhar’ theory. Even if that is true, then why don’t a man of judge stature admit that he had taken a loan of this amount from so-and-so? Only the most discredited Akhilesh Yadav of the Samajwadi Party can dare defend the indefensible with such a bizarre argument.
Does anyone dare keep such money at home, unless it is possessed through illegal sources? If this is the mindset of the Indian Opposition, how can one expect India to accomplish its objective to weed out corruption? Is it not true that the entire Opposition is led by the Congress, who quite gang up to protect each other’s interests but show their bitterness during elections? Why? What is more disturbing is Akhilesh’s attempt to give the ‘cash burning’ incident at the Delhi High Court judge a political color. ‘Aap gaur se video ko dekhiya, vusme bhagwa kapda (saffron) dikhayi dera) (Have a close look one can find a piece of saffron cloth.) What does he wish to indicate? Why he had no courage to say that it was the handiwork of ‘x’ or ‘y’ party?
And, even the accused judge Yashwant Verma’s defiance too finds amazing. Expressing innocence over what his store room has doesn’t suit to the stature of a judge as he too wouldn’t have pardoned or justified if an accused bureaucrat or politician would have made while he was sitting on the judgment table. What is more intriguing is that the accused judge dared say like any other accused criminal even after none other than the chief justice of India Justice Rajiv Khanna putting all facts, including the video showing the currency notes burning in the court’s official website.
Although the collegium might have stripped the judge from discharging his duties and order for a probe by a three-member panel picking up from different state high courts, the public suspicion of a possible ‘cover up’ effort cannot be ruled out. Only if the three-member panel finds their own colleague Justice Yashwant Verma guilty, the public perception of the case may change. Although the lost faith in the judiciary cannot be restored to the past, people may feel happy and jubilant that some within the judiciary are still honest enough to call their own colleagues guilty of their crimes.
If such a thing happens, shouldn’t Collegium recommend to the Union government not only dismiss the judge from office but also of his law degree so that he cannot practice any more anywhere in the country and be fit to hold public office? One expects the Collegium even to recommend to stop all post-retirement benefits as he was found guilty and may send for imprisonment. Only such a step by the Collegium will help people to regain their faith in the judiciary. Or else, the question on everyone’s mind is; ‘when I can buy a judge, why I should I go to court.”
As I said in these and editorial columns, this incident has caused irreparable damage to the judiciary as never before. And the faux pas of the Collegium has further eroded the people’s trust in the judiciary, including the apex court. That led to public outrage to abolish Collegium and form a 3-member panel as in case of appointment of Election Commissioner of other independent Constitutional wings chiefs, drawing people with impeccable personal credibility from legislature and bureaucracy, which shall be headed by the Prime Minister.
