'There Were Allegations Of Inaction And Complicity Against The Government'

Nagendar Sharma: Has the Indian judiciary failed to do justice with the weak in India ?

Justice J.S. Verma: It has not failed, but for completely succeeding in doing justice with the poor and theneedy, a lot needs to be done yet. So to say either that it has failed or has been successful are both extremepositions. I say that a lot has been done, but in the same breath I say that a lot has to be done still.

BBC listener from Jhansi : Justice Verma, after the riots in Gujarat last year, you had visited the statein your capacity as the chief of National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), and you had severely criticised theNarendra Modi govt, and held it responsible for the violence. But later in the elections, that very party wasre-elected with a two thirds majority. Given the verdict of the people, don’t you think today that yourcriticism was unfair and uncalled for?

Justice J.S. Verma: Not at all. These are two totally different things. There may have been different reasonsfor the voters to have voted in that manner, but what we had said from the NHRC was based on facts, and Ithink that nobody was in doubt on what we had said. I feel that linking these two issues would not beappropriate.

Nagendar Sharma: Justice Verma, when institutions like the NHRC face criticism from political parties, how do thosein such institutions feel ?

Justice J.S. Verma: As human beings it is not liked, but we have been trained as judges and it does not affectour work. The assessment of our work is judged by public opinion, and so far as I felt at that time, those whocriticised the NHRC stance were far less than the number of those who felt that we were right.

BBC listener from Mumbai : Sir, a large number of Hindus were killed in Punjab, Kashmir and the North East,nothing was done then, those responsible were not held guilty, why did the NHRC take such a keen interest inGujarat ?

Justice J.S. Verma: Well, see, we do not look upon the issues as that of Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs or Christians.We in the NHRC see that there should not be a violation of human rights of all human beings. If we notice thisor it is brought to our notice, we take appropriate action.

You have compared some states with the situation of Gujarat, here you should keep in mind that in Gujarat,there were allegations of inaction and complicity against the government, in the other regions that you havementioned, such allegations were not levelled against the governments.

Nagendar Sharma: Justice Verma, you were the Chief Justice of India, and the chairman of NHRC as well, and here theissue is of riots, why is it that those responsible for riots are never convicted, never held guilty, whetherbe it the 1984 anti Sikh riots or last year’s Gujarat riots?

Justice J.S. Verma: It is really unfortunate, and we have been saying that till the time all the arms of thejudiciary - investigation, prosecution and the entire trial process - work effectively and properly - thiswould continue. What happens is that till the time such cases reach the court of law, there are lapses in investigation andprosecution, and the court has to decide on the basis of facts before it. But it is not right to blame anyparticular arm of the judiciary for this mess. It is the entire judiciary that is responsible for this. Wewould have to improve the entire system .

Nagendar Sharma: Justice Verma, you had referred to the role of NHRC in Gujarat drawing wide acclaims, but keepingin mind this Gujarat episode, don’t you feel that the NHRC should have some rights, rather than a mererecommendatory or an opinion making role?

Justice J.S. Verma: See, there cannot be two Supreme Courts in this country, it would be one only. There shouldand has to be a difference between the Court and the Commission. When I was the chairman of the NHRC, I had torepeatedly say that now I am not the chief justice of the Supreme Court. So far as the ambit of the NHRC is concerned, I stress that this commission has a role which iscomplimentary to that of the Supreme Court. Both these institutions would have to work together, because thereare some steps which the court cannot take - for example, monitoring, investigation -

Had I been the Chief Justice during Gujarat riots, I could not have gone there in the camps to have a firsthand account of the situation. But as the chairman of the commission, I was able to do that. Yes when the recommendations of thecommission are not accepted, then the solution is to seek directions of the court.

Therefore I feel that this set-up is jurisprudentially correct, and there is no conflict of jurisdiction.We have to understand the complimentarity. When I was in the Supreme Court, I sent many matters to the NHRC, for example I sent the case of Orissastarvation deaths. The court has no better instrument for investigation than the NHRC, to find out the facts,and this facility should be utilised, but complimentarity has to be maintained.

BBC listener from Samastipur : For people like Sanjay Dutt, Veerappan, Dawood Ibrahim, Laloo Yadav, SalmanKhan George Fernandes etc., the talk of judicial process is a joke. Either they cannot be brought within theambit of the law, and if they are, they are released easily. What do you have to say about this ?

Justice J.S. Verma: Your question is absolutely right, but as I have said - all arms of the judiciary wouldhave to work together and effectively for proper results.

It is unfortunate, that the judiciary has not been able to work as effectively as it should have whenaction is to be taken against people sitting in important positions or those who have some other powers. Thereis scope for improvement, and there should be improvement in this sphere.

Nagendar Sharma: Mr Verma, is it also due to lack of accountability in the higher judiciary that such lapses takeplace? Whom are the judges of High Courts and the Supreme Court accountable to?

Justice J.S. Verma: When the constitution of our country came into existence, it was agreed that the higherjudiciary - High Courts and the Supreme Court of the country would be accountable to themselves and they wouldnot require any observation from outside. But I have always felt, even when I used to sit as a judge, that the time has come for an effectivemechanism to enforce accountability at the highest level, in the high courts and the Supreme Court .

But what would have to be kept in mind is that this is not misused. I say this because majority of what issaid about the courts is not factual, but if there is something that is factual, then there should bemechanism for accountability. See the courts are held responsible for everything, this is not right, if the investigation was not proper,there were lapses in prosecution, what can the court do ?

Take Hawala case for example, despite having been monitored by the Supreme Court, if the CBI did notinvestigate the case properly and prosecute, what could the court have done? So we have to look at the overall picture.

Nagendar Sharma: Justice Verma , you have mentioned the Hawala case. You were the Chief Justice of the country, whenthis case was being heard in the Supreme Court, and you had observed that attempts are being made topressurize the judges? Is there pressure at the top level of judiciary ?

Justice J.S. Verma: See what I had said then, I had told that to several people later also, but it was notprojected properly. Since you have asked I am telling you. What I had said was that attempts were made butthese were not successful. Why I had said this in the court was to tell those making such attempts, that theyplease make no further attempts as these would not succeed, and this is what exactly happened, nobody afterthat tried.

The need to make such a statement in the court arose, because attempts were made to approach my fellowjudges on that bench hearing the case, justice Bharucha and justice S C Sen. When they told me this, I told them that being senior and the presiding judge of the bench, it is my dutyto protect others. Therefore I said this in the open court, and it served its purpose, I did not have anyother information apart from this.

BBC listener from Patna : Instead of concentrating on long pending cases, the judiciary today is trying tointerfere in the work of legislature, banning strikes, dictating steps for environmental protection etc., isn’tthe judiciary crossing its limits?

Justice J.S. Verma: Well, the Supreme Court has not interfered in any matter which does not include a legalangle. You have raised questions over environment, it is directly linked to human lifer and its rights. Theright to life is a guaranteed fundamental right under Art 21 of the constitution. Supreme Court has, under Art 32 , original jurisdiction to interfere. If the life of human beings isinvolved, how would the Supreme Court not interfere.

BBC listener from Gujarat : People are losing faith in the judiciary, and there are charges of corruptionin judiciary as well. Leaders like Jayalalitha have been acquitted, and then the Gujarat riots. How wouldpeople have faith in judiciary ?

Justice J.S. Verma: See, every individual should be accountable, and higher the post occupied by an individual,the more accountable he should be. It is expected from those holding high posts that there should be no needfor anyone else to enforce accountability on them. But I have felt that in judiciaries apart from the provision of impeachment provided for by theconstitution, there should also be some other effective mechanism for enforcing accountability.

Nagendar Sharma: But what would that mechanism be ?

Justice J.S. Verma: As I am saying that for such a mechanism, there could also be a need to amend theconstitution. But the mechanism should be such that an inquiry done by the judges, alone should be sufficientto enforce accountability, If the judges’ verdict is guilty, that should be the end.

So far, there was only one case for impeachment and that was of Justice V Ramaswamy. The judges’ verdictwas guilty. But then when it came before the parliament, you all know what happened ! it was a politicaldecision, majority of the members abstained and nothing came out .

Therefore an effective and alternative accountability mechanism is required but at the same time, it wouldhave to be ensured, that it is not misused. I am saying this because, majority of the allegations against the judges are wrong, but if any allegationis serious, it should be probed without delay. I am a firm believer in accountability and I feel that in a democracy, judges should be accountable. When Iwas the Chief Justice, I had written to the Prime Minister of that time, about judicial accountability.

On May 7th, 1997, three resolutions in this regard were passed in my tenure as the Chief Justice. Butthe follow-up of this is still to be done .

BBC listener from West Bengal : I want to know what was the role of NHRC in Gujarat riots, and what sort ofpressure was there from the state as well as Central government in this ?

Justice J.S. Verma: Well, I can assure you that there was no pressure on NHRC, till the time I was the chairmanof this Commission till January 18th this year. Even after that I am hopeful that NHRC would not have comeunder any sort of pressure. I can fully assure you that there is no question of any pressure .

So far as the role of this commission is concerned, I am happy to say that the people, and not me -- butthe people of the country and the international community, even the United Nations High Commissioner said thatthe intervention of the National Human Rights Commission had a positive effect on Gujarat. This was notconfined to making an impact on the establishment of Gujarat, but it was helpful even in the opinion formationat the international level and even in changing the opinion of the UN as well.

I think that saying more than this would not be appropriate for me, I have said what I did as the NHRCchief at that critical time.

BBC listener from Muscat (Oman) : What can be done to dispose the long list of pending cases in the Indiancourts ?

Justice J.S. Verma: Well, my friend, Supreme Court has already shown the way in this regard. When I came to theSupreme Court in 1989, the number of pending cases was one lakh twenty five thousand. When I retired as thechief Justice in 1998, this number was down to nineteen thousand.

Any matter that used to come, was listed for hearing in two weeks time. It was due to the collective effortof the bar and the bench. There was cooperation from everyone. I say that the pendency rate is down in the Supreme Court now, it can be brought down in the High Courts aswell. What is required is that the High Courts should start monitoring work of the lower courts and this problem canbe solved. I am hopeful that this problem of pending cases can be overcome.

Nagendar Sharma: Justice Verma, do you think that the judicial appointments in this country are free of politicalinterference or is there is a need and scope for improvement in the want of fairness ?

Justice J.S. Verma: See, I have been a judge of the High Courts and the Supreme Court for 26 years. Myexperience is that all this depends on the individual concerned.

You can have any system, it is only when an individual’s character is questioned, then the problemarises. There can be a little improvement in the system, but you have to bring people on higher posts, who holdintegrity for that post. In my entire career, I never experienced any pressure..

Transcript courtesy, BBC Hindi Radio