Then, during the hearing of the PIL in the infamous Forest Hill Golf and Country Club case, the club management informed the court that it had given honorary membership to two judges—Justice Varinder Singh and Justice Viney Mittal. When Justice Roy issued notices to the two judges, it united all the others against him and led to an unprecedented strike on April 19 this year. And when he delivered a hard-hitting judgement, indicting the judiciary severely, fellow judges took it as yet another affront.
Besides, as Master of Roster, the chief justice has been exercising his right to introduce random changes in the listing of cases before judges. This, says lawyer Ranjan Lakhanpal, eliminates chances of advocates manipulating the listing of their cases before friendly judges. Particularly in criminal matters and bail applications, lawyers can never be sure that the judge who has issued a notice would be the same who would eventually hear the case. "If the chief justice has stopped shops being run by some judges, has he done any wrong?" asks Lakhanpal. Even CBI cases have been taken away from judges and entrusted to three single-judge benches, one of which Roy himself heads.
One episode turned particularly unsavoury when Justice Roy questioned a ruling of two judges. The case, a constable's petition against a 'punitive' transfer, had a history: an earlier complaint by him against a lady judicial officer, Jitendra Walia, over a petty sum. A bench comprising Justices Nirmal Singh and H.S. Bedi, hearing the case on May 13, summarily quashed his transfer plea. It also ruled, apropos of nothing directly in the case, that "no further inquiries shall be held against Walia".
Since this had a bearing on the court's own administrative probe against Walia, Roy said the two had "transgressed their roster". He then constituted a five-judge bench headed by himself, including the two judges, to review their own order.
The infuriated duo took umbrage at this and withdrew. They also dictated a written order that details, inter alia, private conversations they had with Justice Roy and other judges over their differences. "We told the CJ that as we had made the order on the judicial side, it was not open to him and for that matter to anyone else to question us with regard thereto on the administrative side," says their August 17 order. And though not pronounced in open court, the order somehow found its way into the local press.
On August 23, Roy retaliated by withdrawing from this bench but not before publicly pronouncing an order which detailed his reasons for withdrawing. "I do not think private conversations between members of the judicial family...ought to affect their detachment in court while hearing cases any more than the possibility of judges being in error ought to affect their detachment when they are called upon to review their own orders. The breach of judicial collegiality cannot but be regretted," he noted.
In fact, so bad have things become between Roy and the judges that the latter have started boycotting functions attended by Justice Roy. As during the inauguration of the Law Bhawan building in September, when despite being invited, no judge turned up and Justice Roy was the lone representative from the high court judiciary. Says Bar Association president Anmol Rattan Sidhu, "Due to this unhealthy stalemate, we are unable to plan either the farewells of outgoing judges or even the 50th anniversary celebrations of the high court due in March."
Yet, even though his own colleagues are behaving thus, Justice Roy is drawing overwhelming support from the bar despite being an outsider from Bihar. Even his detractors admit that his directive on the relatives issue is a step in the right direction. The Committee on Judges Transfer supported by the High Court Bar Association is also seeking reconsideration of his transfer recommendation and has written to the President, Union law minister H.R. Bharadwaj and the Chief Justice of India. "The HC has reached its nadir in terms of probity and integrity," they write. "The clout (of relatives) has lately gripped the judgements made by this HC, which is evident from the fact that in a majority of the cases slps against the decision were allowed or admitted in the Supreme Court."
Referring to the April 19 strike, the thousand-odd practising advocates say that "the Union law minister had felt confident that the CJI will take punitive action against errant judges. But even though the proposal for transfer of the judges who initiated the strike has not reached the law minister, there has been uncalled-for haste in moving the transfer case of the Chief Justice."
Interestingly, Justice Roy's transfer has been recommended despite the 1981 transfer policy which is categoric that no chief justice can be transferred to his home state.Law minister Bharadwaj clarifies that transfers of chief justices as recommended by the Chief Justice of India are "not punitive and are in public interest". But agitated lawyers who are planning to convene a meeting of the Bar Association next week to take up the issue wonder how transferring a bold and committed chief justice can be in public interest.
