Former Chief Justice of India B R Gavai has stressed the need to maintain judicial discipline while dealing with complaints against judges, saying serious allegations must be examined and acted upon on the basis of facts and circumstances of each case.
Gavai was responding to questions Saturday on the controversy involving Supreme Court judge Justice Sandeep Mehta and Rajasthan High Court Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma. Speaking after delivering the Yashraj Samant Memorial Annual Arbitration Lecture at the Rajasthan International Centre in Jaipur, he said he had initially been surprised on learning that Justice Mehta had written letters raising allegations against the Acting Chief Justice.
Gavai said Justice Mehta, whom he described as a friend and a judge who had worked with him when he was a junior judge, explained his reasons when questioned about the letters. Quoting Mehta, Gavai said: “The Rajasthan High Court is like a mother to me. How can I remain silent if my mother is being mistreated? I have run out of patience.”
‘Situation was shocking’
Gavai said he subsequently spoke to some people associated with the Rajasthan High Court to understand the situation and that what he heard changed his initial impression that Justice Mehta had acted improperly.
“What I heard about the situation in the Rajasthan High Court was really shocking,” he said. At the same time, the former CJI underlined that allegations involving judges should ordinarily be dealt with institutionally and such communications should not be placed in the public domain. Serious complaints, however, could not simply be ignored and had to be considered on their merits, he said.
Recalling an instance from his tenure in the Supreme Court, Gavai said a complaint against a High Court judge had come before the Collegium when Justice Sanjiv Khanna was CJI. Khanna called a Collegium meeting the same day, the allegations were examined and a decision was taken to transfer the judge on the basis of the facts, he said. Gavai said there could be no uniform policy for every complaint involving a judge, with the response depending on the facts and circumstances of the individual case.
Three letters to CJI
The Rajasthan High Court controversy erupted after Justice Mehta reportedly wrote three letters, dated August 2, 10 and 17, to Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, raising concerns over the judicial and administrative functioning of Justice Sharma.
Justice Mehta alleged misuse of administrative authority and roster powers, favouritism and irregularities in the functioning of the High Court. He also alleged that Justice Sharma threatened fellow judges with transfers while invoking his proximity to the CJI. The allegations have not been established.
Justice Mehta sought the appointment of a regular Chief Justice from another High Court and Justice Sharma’s transfer out of Rajasthan, arguing that the situation was damaging the institution.
Justice Sharma has rejected the allegations as false and baseless and attributed them to personal grievances. He has submitted a written response to the CJI along with material in support of his position.
CJI Surya Kant has said the allegations are being examined through the established institutional mechanism and stressed that complaints against a sitting judge cannot be treated as findings merely because they have been made.
The Centre has since notified the appointment of Justice Sanjay Kumar Agrawal as Chief Justice of the Rajasthan High Court, following a recommendation by the Supreme Court Collegium.