How can the CBI in the same matter keep changing its stand…coinciding with what ruling party wants

•Shekhar Gupta: And that failure is on the part of the CBI leadership?

J S Verma: Well certainly it is on the people who are manning and working the CBI and I always say that the man at the top the senior people are more responsible because it is the rule of gravity everything percolates from the top to down below. My firm belief is if in every national institution and every public authority or office of high significance you can assure men of absolute integrity then the rest will automatically follow.

•Shekhar Gupta: But is the responsibility with the CBI leadership which is basically police officers or politics?

J S Verma: Well its like this I am one who with lapse of time of course the politicians are to blame but I blame them less for example if I as a judge goes wrong and a politician takes advantage of me well he is at fault but I think I am more at fault

•Shekhar Gupta: Hes a politician; he has to take advantage of situations

J S Verma: Its only a statesman and I am sorry to say at least I dont see any statesmen around.

•Shekhar Gupta: In politics. Sir,since Havalah judgment happened almost 11-10 years ago,take us back a little bit and tell us how you had tried to institutionalise CBIs independence.

J S Verma: Well it was like this,there was of course a general perception and a growing feeling for good reason whenever there was accusation based on reasonable grounds which everyone believed to be true and it involved people in our positions who had some sort of power then the CBI would drag its feet and nothing would happen and statistics were made up of only taking small bribes etc.

•Shekhar Gupta: If you see the CBI website it is very sad that they proudly talk about running a 5000 Rs sting on some station master somewhere

J S Verma: Something the world knows it is in the open that investigate. When this petition was brought to the SC as a PIL then we in the SC thought thats what I said in the judgment I wrote that it is a violation of the entire nations that is we the peoples rights constitutionally guaranteed and fundamental rights under articles 14 and 21. 14 is right to equality,21 is right to dignity. So there is no equal application of laws so you apply that law differentially and invariably leave out the bigger people from the net and ultimately in a developing country and thats what I recall having written if the money meant for public good,for national good,for peoples welfare if it goes to private pockets then it is at the cost of the peoples welfare and therefore the human rights violation that is the right to life and liberty of deprivation of the people is far more. Even the PM Rajiv Gandhi had said that note more than 16 paisa of a rupee goes to development

•Shekhar Gupta: And the specific institution you targeted there was an institution that could bring out equality in terms of enforcing cleanliness in public life

J S Verma: Equal application law which is a constitutional and I am someone who believers that for the same offence committed by a person better of in a higher position the punishment should be greater. You see all offences are bad but a crime committed by me should be treated more severely than a crime committed by someone who is much lower down the …

•Shekhar Gupta: By a junior lawyer in your court or a lawyers driver…

J S Verma: By anyone who is..

•Shekhar Gupta: Sir 11- 12 years down the line you have a feeling that you have failed

J S Verma: Well pardon me for putting it slightly differently. Its not that we have failed I think the mandate has not been able to be implemented by the people who are supposed to. I remember having told then CBI Vijay rama rao..i said look If you cant work without influence even now then you would never be able to do it.

•Shekhar Gupta: Even after your judgment? Because he had the protection of the SC

J S Verma: Yes..yes.. he got 6 months extension not from the government,it was from us in the SC and what did they do…they filed half baked charge sheet to get rid of the monitoring bias because then the ordinary criminal jurisdiction would take over and as some people told me they were only waiting for me to retire.

•Shekhar Gupta: You represented an institution which has been activist and strong even after that

J S Verma: Of course. But then the question is that part of the monitoring was over

•Shekhar Gupta: And protections that could be institutionally provided were provided

J S Verma: Yes they are provided and they are being enforced. My successors and those who continued to be in the SC they are insisting on that very thing and the judicial process of continuing mandamus developed in the havalah case which was being followed

•Shekhar Gupta: Sir have you followed what has happened in many of the recent cases particularly many documented in our newspaper as well. There is the Bofors case- Quattarochi being allowed to get away with this red corner notice,the Tytler case Sajjans

J S Verma: Well I would not like to comment on any particular case more particularly any that might be sub judice. In your own columns in the Indian Express some time back I wrote that piece on the editorial page which you published as the incredible CBI mentioned something about this. What is most intriguing to me is this without looking into the facts and merits of any case how can the CBI in the same matter keep on changing its stand continually even before the and the only thing is that the change somehow coincides with it is too much of a coincidence with what the ruling party at the moment wants. And it does not matter which one is the ruling party. The CBI record in the last decade or so I have seen…in the same matter today they say this man must be prosecuted and tomorrow say no there is no case,withdraw it. Leave it to the public??

•Shekhar Gupta: And afterwards come back again should be prosecuted

J S Verma: And then what is the significant factor. This coincides with the change in perception or requirement of the ruling party of the time and that is why if the people think the CBI is not acting as it should well I cant blame them even I get that suspicion.

•Shekhar Gupta: You find it disgusting.

J S Verma: Well highly depressing and I have been thinking what could be the other remedy? Someone very rightly observed I read in one of the newspapers that we failed to insulate the CBI by providing for prohibitions post retirement. Well that was not something we thought of. What I am saying s this. I think I was very happy when the CEC wrote a letter to the President which was published by your newspaper where in for ten years no CEC no EC should get anything that government in power can give,prohibit them from joining any political party. Because ten years is a long enough period for people to forget these days. I personally believe that without such a prohibition it should apply even more to men like us who are in a position to ?? so CJI,CEC,EC,SC judges and many others

•Shekhar Gupta: Should not be allowed to take any post retirement jobs

J S Verma: There should be a prohibition. One argument which we often hear many of my colleagues say of course very valid though I do not consider it a justification for myself- they say the pensionary benefits are not enough. The alternative is give the salary to the incumbents of the highest office as a lifetime pension. Make this provision and at any rate when we took that office we knew what the salaries will be

•Shekhar Gupta: You live on a very tiny pension in a very tiny flat in Ghaziabad.

J S Verma: But then I dont think I am doing anything unusual. The day I chose to come to the SC as a matter of fact the day I left the Bar in 1972 to accept the HC judgeship I think I made my choice and I cant have the cake and eat it too.

•Shekhar Gupta: Do you regret that you did not settle the law in your time to say that we are giving so much autonomy to CBI directors hence forth they will not accept post retirement jobs

J S Verma: As a matter of fact that will require legislation. The only thing is we could have made an observation just as for the autonomy we made recommendations in our judgment. But I dont think at that point of time we had reached that stage of desperation. I look at it this way for myself I would feel insulted if a law is made to tell me what a law should not do.

•Shekhar Gupta: Particularly in such high position,when the nation gives you such high honor.

J S Verma: Article 124 sub article 7 it says anyone who has been a judge of the SC which obviously means the CJI of India more than anyone else will not act or plead before an authority,court,a tribunal etc. Now if I dont appear personally,I give my written opinion on the merits of a case on my letterhead under my signature which can be produced before under that authority. What is the difference between appearing personally and saying it orally? A Lawyer can do the same. I can understand some friend of yours wants your opinion because of your background for no monetary consideration. You advice him but not to be used under your name.

•Shekhar Gupta: But so many judges make a lot of money writing opinions.

J S Verma: At present it is a matter of individual interpretation and that is why I think this should also be amended to make everything clear so that the interpretation of Art 124 sub article 7 should not be left to our individual interpretation.

•Shekhar Gupta: We are walking a 100 yards from Raisina hill,from north block,south block,parliament of India,we already held?? a former election commissioner who accepted a party membership of a party of upper House and a ministership

J S Verma: Well why blame him also the earlier president also was one of my predecessors,former CJI. Frankly I feel upset. Once when I was in Geneva as the NHRC chairman for world human right committee meeting and former judge of the Canadian SC walked up to me and said chief justice what do you think of and he mentioned this fact. I kept quiet.

•Shekhar Gupta: What do you think of the fact that one of the former CJI became President of India?

J S Verma: Yes. Do you think is right? I kept quiet because I did not want to talk on foreign soil about sth like that. He was very gracious he said I know what you feel your silence is sufficiently eloquently you dont believe in that. So both are bad. I have no problem saying both are bad. I can understand the President nominating any one of them in the category of nominations because you are independent of functions. Personally I look at it this way I have been leader of the team even as a HC judge from 1972 I had my own will which no one could control. Because a HC judge or a civil judge is independent even the CJI of India cant tell him how to decide a case I cant walk behind anyone else and take orders form him which you have to do if you join a party. And those who can make that adjustment well…

•Shekhar Gupta: Whats your advice to M S Gill. He is one example.

J S Verma: I am no one to advice him. Anyway he …

•Shekhar Gupta: He must have asked his conscious.

J S Verma: The only thing I can say because somehow in all these things I have been involved directly or indirectly. When T N Seshan was very much in news not always for the right reasons I happened to be involved in deciding those matters in the SC. Well we had very hopes as far as ethical values were concerned from M S gill I am calling him M S I dont know whether his doctorate is earned or honorary like mine

•Shekhar Gupta: I think his is earned.

J S Verma: Maybe. these days everyone are doctors so I am not sure.

•Shekhar Gupta: Those are self styled doctors.

J S Verma: Well these days Dr Justice so and so. Only a few I know have earned it.

•Shekhar Gupta: Dr Jaylalitha,Dr Vijay Mallya… I maybe naming names..

J S Verma: I can find myself more to my colleagues coz I think we must answer to the severe yardstick

•Shekhar Gupta: Dr M S Gill I will call him,you said you had high expectations of him

J S Verma: Well I would look at it this way I was upset first while in office he accepted a Padma award. I believe anyone in office all these honorary doctorates that people seem to be so fond of conferring on all of us. I refused to accept in while in office. I said if you are giving to the CJI or a SC judge he does not need anything. Those universities kept it pending and after my retirement they said.

•Shekhar Gupta: So he accepted a Padma award being in a constitutional office.

J S Verma: Which everyone knows depends on the government of the day. And it may be very well deserved am not saying that. These offices the person occupying such an office the main strength is credibility in the public eye. And once that people start doubting it even for wrong reasons. But if you say a reasonable person is also this way then we must think about it. And then joining a party there after

•Shekhar Gupta: And then becoming a minister of state.

J S Verma: Once you do that the rest follows. Not that is why the recent acrimony that was there

•Shekhar Gupta: Over the appointment of another EC

J S Verma: Yes. This background am sure people may not have said it but must be going on in the back of their mind. Is he trying to follow the foot steps of an earlier predecessor? I very much appreciate and commend Gopalsami for writing that letter to the president. At least one thing assured h e will follow what he has said.

•Shekhar Gupta: That he will not take an office for ten years.

J S Verma: Thats what I expect him to.

•Shekhar Gupta: And that is your recommendation expectation from others.

J S Verma: From everyone starting with myself,by myself I mean the CJI.

•Shekhar Gupta: Would that be a request also to political leaders. As you said you need statesmen and we dont have statesmen. Would that be your recommendation?

J S Verma: Look at it his way. If there is a wrong committed usually of this kind it is a loss to two people- the giver and the taker. The taker I would blame more coz even of the giver wants to give you dont have to take it.

•Shekhar Gupta: sir,talking about constitutional authorities and people holding high constitutional chairs. There is nothing higher for us than the judiciary. Coz it remains the last bastion of honesty morality and constitutionalism. Many of us have expressed disappointment recently about the judiciarys hesitation to declare its assets to become accountable. To use its own powers to protect itself.

J S Verma: Shekhar now that you mention it I always from day one when I became a judge in the HC then I thought we must self regulate and the peer pressure should take care. There should be no need for law to tell us what we should do and what we should not do. By and large the conventions in the judiciary guided our conduct and thats what we followed. This thing has come up only now. Right from 72 when I became a judge I have been seeing it and we have been following it. It was because of this view of mine that my dissent you see in the Meera Swami case of 1991. My dissent was for this reason that I said now there is a felt need to make a law. Because the conventions and the peer pressure does not seem to…

•Shekhar Gupta: And the law would have been for?

J S Verma: Law for the purpose of enforcing judicial accountability whenever the need arose. That was the broad aspect. the issue was whether the prevention of corruption act applies or not… I said when it was formed in 1947 n one thought of including these ?? In that otherwise the constitution framed after that would have given some indication.

•Shekhar Gupta: But then everybody thought judges can never be corrupt.

J S Verma: Yes. That why there was no need but the majority in Meera Swami thought and that is the law well CJI will be able to take care of this thing and no law is needed and this one can apply. The fact remains that thereafter sanction for prosecution was not given by anyone and I can say this without divulging further particulars I offered to the Govt ask for my permission to record FIR against… fortunately most judges are beyond approach and they are absolutely clean. But a rare aberration needs to be corrected and eradicated.

•Shekhar Gupta: So you offered to the govt

J S Verma: I offered to the PM himself but it was not taken.

•Shekhar Gupta: Mr narasimha rao I assume.

J S Verma: I will not give more information than that. No but Narasimha Rao was not the PM when I became CJI. All that record would be there in the PMs office also and copies of course in the CJIs.

•Shekhar Gupta: But the govt would not take it

J S Verma: Well they were not interested. So therefore on 7 th may 1997 in the SC we adopted unanimously 3 resolutions when I was chief Justice. All 22 judges adopted it unanimously. Three things. One to make a declaration of their assets. Two,an in house procedure for an enquiry into any allegation of misconduct or behavior which the CJI or a senior judges though it worth enquiring. And then restatement of values. We didnt call it a code of conduct we called it a restatement of values because they were the values we practiced. This we adopted. Mind you I made my own declaration. I took oath as CJI on 25th March 1997 I made a declaration immediately thereafter much before the 7th May.

•Shekhar Gupta: And yet sir we had this very unfortunate spectacle of the SC going to a HC to prevent that from happening.

J S Verma: Well I am upset. The only thing I will say is I can understand some argument whether it should be published. I for one has no hesitation and would say publish it tomorrow itself. Let them furnish a copy to all of you.

•Shekhar Gupta: Wouldnt you rather judges voluntarily saying publish it

J S Verma: Of course. One may say I am saying so because I am not in office.

•Shekhar Gupta: If I may say so you dont have many assets either. Except your integrity and reputation which you cant hide

J S Verma: So you see people are talking why judges are not declaring their assets. That is what is disturbing me. Because I know most of them have nothing to hide. There may be a few.

•Shekhar Gupta: Is this an ego issue or is it some kind of institutional insecurity.

J S Verma: All I can tell you is this may judges of the SC also the HC have come and told me Sir we want to declare the assets. My advice to them has been go ahead and make your statement public. It doesnt matter every judge has to decide for himself. He is not sub ordinate to…i didnt consider myself subordinate when I was not CJI and I did not consider myself the boss when I was CJI. There is another reason we are the ones enforcing accountability of everyone else. We are the ones who make an order without any law that every candidate in the elections must declare his assets and antecedents and not only the written candidates. When you file a nomination you must file that for a valid nomination. Now if I expect a candidate at the election to be so transparent well I need to be more transparent to have the moral authority to say that and therefore I dont see nay reason so far as publication is concerned as far as I am concerned I have no hesitation all I can say,I am not saying it just today I have said it several time earlier, Fali Nariman etc invited me about a year back in the SC bar??? I said it there also. I have said not only this transparency and accountability which are two essentials in a democracy to ensure that everyone in authority is functioning properly. Unless you have transparency you cant ensure accountability. Then rumors are there. People with honest reputation are unnecessarily disturbed.

•Shekhar Gupta: Today you cant say that there is no corruption in judiciary.

J S Verma: I said it soon after my retirement.

•Shekhar Gupta: In our paper and I got pulled up for contempt.

J S Verma: And I requested you to name me so I could go and tell them what I had not said.

•Shekhar Gupta: Karnataka HC. We requested them also- justice Verma is not denying what he said so please summon him

J S Verma: Exactly. The other thing I have said publicly and which I repeat again publicly in this interview you are taking. Also publish for public scrutiny all my correspondence of administrative matters including from appointment of a Chaprasi to a SC judge and also my letter for appointment of my successor when I was demitting office as the CJI. I may not be able to divulge all that but I wish it is known coz after the appointment is made,after all any appointment made today even of a HC judge judicially when it is challenged then in judicial review all that record is produced. So why not,,,

•Shekhar Gupta: So you have asking even the record of proceeding and judicial appointments be made public.

J S Verma: Yes..yes..i aM against its disclosure

•Shekhar Gupta: When it is being done. Yes.

J S Verma: I am not for that American method.. You see even without that everyone knows and I know how much right and wrong information keeps on coming. I dont want that .but after an appointment was made let people know why a person was. For example take this case. The former President sent back two proposals for appointment of CJ of HC. They were made later on. My judgment which people say gives no authority to the executive.. knowing fully well they have but when it suits them they pass on the buck..judiciary. My judgment says that area of non appointment is with the executive and if the recommendation is not unanimous.

•Shekhar Gupta: So if the govt of the day wants it then they could have stopped it

J S Verma: Because it was not unanimous. That what the report said. The president sent it back. Now,let people know there maybe good reason for appointment but then let the people know what the argument for closing it.

•Shekhar Gupta: People of India hold the judiciary in such high regard that they are quite settled in their minds about the judiciary holding itself accountable but if the judiciary is not transparent then this will change.

J S Verma: That is my worry and that is the apprehension I wrote in my dissent and I am so sorry and upset so may of my mis apprehension are coming true

•Shekhar Gupta: CBI losing credibility is a calamity but its a small calamity as compared to god forbid the judiciary losing credibility.

J S Verma: As a matter of fact people may not be prepared to talk about it publicly but private conversation does not leave out judiciary and now that more people meet me sometimes they ask some awkward questions. Well and when they say about anyone in the judiciary I think its a reflection on me because after all having once become a judge I am life long in that category. And later on that distinction- does not matter who is that individual. It is the incumbent of your high office and judiciary is the guardian of the rule of law. Rule of law is the bed rock of democracy. Now if the custodians of the rule of law in peoples

•Shekhar Gupta: Those are things you said as chairman of NHRC when you supervised investigation into Gujarat killings.

J S Verma: That is what Mary Robinson told me herself,UN high commissioner and gernal?? At that time,that it was a rare event that Gujarat was not discussed in the UN despite all that happened. They denied the passport to the CM but they didnt discuss. Mary Robinson said see what is being done by

•Shekhar Gupta: The NHRC under you at that point

J S Verma: And she said that tell me what more anyone of us can do.

•Shekhar Gupta: So are you the now happy to see the course now the SC is still continuing to be activist and supervising very strongly.

J S Verma: As a matter of fact the SC had made those orders??? As a matter of fact those orders I remember a Chief Justice telling me that the two orders of 1 April and 31 may 2002 which we had made and the my inspection report of what I had seen annexed to 31may order,he said we have that and that is part of their record. It is interesting if you were to compare all names that have come out so far all are mentioned there…

•Shekhar Gupta: To that extend even the order issued a couple of weeks back asking SIT to specifically Mr Modi and key people,that is a good strong step you feel.

J S Verma: Very appropriate step and commend the SC. Actually this complemetality developed between the SC and the NHRC is the one I believe surest safeguard of protection of HRs in the country.

•Shekhar Gupta: You know Justice Verma when we started I saw sorrow on your face- sorrow,disgust,unhappiness,bitterness,the whole CBI

J S Verma: Not bitterness

•Shekhar Gupta: Well you know a little bit

J S Verma: Anguish

•Shekhar Gupta: Now I see joy on your face a glint in your eye talking about judiciary,activism,independence

J S Verma: And they are doing what people expect them to do and I am so happy

•Shekhar Gupta: Really lights up your eyes and you face

J S Verma: I personally believe that nothing should be personalized it should be institutionalised and the continuing mandamus which was developed in the Haval case has been institutionalised

•Shekhar Gupta: The joy in your face is something to cherish and thats why we need you in public discourse and thats why we are so grateful to you on such a hot day 44 degree I dragged you out of your home at such a short notice I am so grateful.

J S Verma: Thank you Shekhar its been a pleasure talking to you.

•Shekhar Gupta: It was reassuring to spend a few minutes with you.

J S Verma: And I am sure the SC and the NHRC will continue to do that. Once they do that… we took a stand at variance with the govt of India at the international forum at Durban over the Dalit issue

•Shekhar Gupta: And thats our strength.

J S Verma: Yes. Thats what made mary robinson said. the US SC judges,England all of them say that you people are doing things we cant imagine till we see it has been done. Mary Robinson would tell me pls advice all human rights commission. When I insisted on leaving the Chairmanship of the ??? she was very unhappy I said look here I will continue to assist and guide. So thats out strength.

•Shekhar Gupta: Even more dangerous retired.

J S Verma: Thank you

•Shekhar Gupta: Thank you