Ranjan Gogoi reveals reasons behind controversial Collegium decisions during his tenure as CJI
"Transfer of judges has often been alleged to be a weapon of revenge used by members of the Collegium" - Former Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi, "Justice for the Judge"
Former Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi, for the first time, has spoken on several controversial decisions taken by the Supreme Court Collegium under him over the elevations and transfers of High Court judges in his autobiography 'Justice for the Judge'. Though reasons behind decisions taken by the Collegium are not published in the public domain, Gogoi's memoir has laid bare the facts and circumstances behind several key elevations and transfers, including those of Justice Akil Kureshi, Justice VK Tahilramani, Justice Pradeep Nandrajog and Justice Rajendra Menon.
JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, (THEN) CHIEF JUSTICE, RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Justice Gogoi reveals that on 12 December 2018, in a Collegium meeting presided over by him as the CJI with Justices Madan B. Lokur, A.K. Sikri, S.A. Bobde and N.V. Ramana, it was agreed upon to recommend the name of Justice Pradeep Nandrajog, then Chief Justice of Rajasthan High Court for elevation to the Supreme Court of India.
On the evening of 12th, at a social gathering, Justice Gogoi said the decisions taken at the five-judge Collegium meeting had been discussed and congratulatory messages had been sent to those who had been recommended. CJI Gogoi had expressed his strong disapproval at the leakage of the Collegium decisions before they had been formalized. Due to this, the decision was kept in abeyance.
READ: Former CJI Ranjan Gogoi's autobiography - What to expect | Exclusive
During this time, Justice Gogoi received written communication regarding a case decided by the Delhi High Court in 2015 which was decided by a bench headed by Justice Nandrajog (F. Hoffman La Roche Ltd and Anr vs Cipla Ltd).
On looking into the details of the case, Justice Gogoi found that though the case had been decided by Justice Nandrajog on November 27, 2015, there was a second judgment in the case dated December 8, 2015, which had deleted 34 paragraphs of the previous judgment (Paragraphs 4-38). As it turns out, a law intern associated with the bench was tasked with drafting the judgment and the intern had copied paragraphs 4-38 from an article published in a journal in the year 2013. The copied paragraphs were included verbatim in the judgment and on December 8, the bench was compelled to pass orders apologizing to the authors of the article. Against this backdrop, when the Supreme Court in January reconsidered the earlier proposal of recommending Justice Pradeep Nandrajog to the Supreme Court, it was decided in the negative. Two months later, in March 2019, the Collegium recommended his transfer to the Bombay High Court.
JUSTICE RAJENDRA MENON, (THEN) CHIEF JUSTICE, DELHI HIGH COURT
Even as the developments on Justice Nandrajog's front were unfolding, Justice Gogoi in his book says that he was informed that the Collegium of the Patna High Court in 2018 (when Justice Rajendra Menon was the Chief Justice) had recommended four names for elevation, of which three did not meet the income criteria. Six more names were recommended by the Patna High Court Collegium headed by Justice Menon in July, out of which, three names once again did not meet the income criteria. Justice Gogoi says that in his capacity as the Chief Justice of India, he ordered discrete enquiries into the matter and he found that Justice Menon may not have been making the recommendations fairly on merit.
"The CJI makes enquiries in different ways; some of these are unique and at times rather unconventional methods are also used. There are no set parameters in this regard and wide discretion is vested in the Chief Justice to choose an appropriate method to unravel the facts and come to a reasonable conclusion. These discreet enquiries are conducted informally," Justice Gogoi says.
Surprisingly, he goes on to reveal that his enquiries found that a former CJI who had also served as the Chief Justice of Patna High Court may have been the one suggesting the names to Justice Menon for the High Court vacancies.
JUSTICE SURYA KANT, (THEN) JUDGE, PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Justice Surya Kant (currently a sitting judge of the Supreme Court), was elevated as the Chief Justice of the Himachal Pradesh High Court before his senior Justice Ajay Kumar Mittal. The reason behind this was because a view was recorded by Justice Jasti Chelameswar during the Collegium proceedings under CJI JS Khehar. Justice Chelameswar had at the time said that to his knowledge, Justice Mittal was "not fit to be a Chief Justice".
Justice Gogoi writes "In these circumstances, did my Collegium do anything wrong in opting for Justice Surya Kant over Justice Mittal? Justice Mittal was later (during my tenure as CJI) elevated as Chief Justice of the Meghalaya High Court and thereafter transferred as Chief Justice of the Madhya Pradesh High Court from where he retired. If the view of Justice Chelameswar had been made public, could Justice Mittal have become a Chief Justice at all?
The extent of avoidable embarrassment that the so-called 'lack of transparency' prevented is evident. Populist notions will necessarily have to be consciously guarded against".
Justice Mittal has since retired as the Chief Justice of Madhya Pradesh High Court.
TRANSFER OF JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI, (THEN) JUDGE, GUJARAT HIGH COURT
In 2018, one day before the then Chief Justice of Gujarat High Court (Justice R.S. Reddy) took oath as a judge of the Supreme Court, the senior-most judge of the Gujarat High Court, Justice Akil Kureshi (next in line to become the High Court Chief Justice) was transferred to the Bombay High Court. Though Justice Kureshi was to remain at Gujarat High Court till November 15, he was not appointed as the Acting Chief Justice. Justice Gogoi, in his book, stated that he had called the Law Minister on the morning of November 1 and insisted that they issue new orders appointing Justice Kureshi as the Acting Chief Justice till November 15. The next day, the government issued a new notification.
A few months later, in May 2019, the Collegium recommended Justice Kureshi's name for appointment as the Chief Justice of the Madhya Pradesh High Court. This was objected to by the Union Government. CJI Gogoi reveals that "The objection was based on a negative perception flowing from certain judicial orders passed by Justice Kureshi. "
In November of 2019, Justice Kureshi was appointed as the Chief Justice of Tripura High Court (a much smaller High Court in comparison to Gujarat or Madhya Pradesh). Justice Gogoi says "It would have done nobody any good if the objection of the government had come into the public domain. The learned judge, at that time, still had several years of service left. I, therefore, requested a senior member of the Collegium to take up the matter with the government. It is to the credit of all concerned that we could avoid a confrontation between the two constitutional bodies (Government and the Judiciary)".
He further goes on to say "A Chief Justice, regardless of the size of the High Court, is a Chief Justice and becomes eligible for consideration for elevation to the Supreme Court. Justice Kureshi thus continues to be eligible for consideration for elevation to the Supreme Court until the end of his High Court tenure in March 2022."
TRANSFER OF JUSTICE V.K. TAHILRAMANI, (THEN) CHIEF JUSTICE, MADRAS HIGH COURT
The transfer of Justice Tahilramani from the Madras High Court to the Meghalaya High Court in 2019 created a huge uproar. Justice Tahilramani had refused the transfer and resigned as a result.
Justice Gogoi in his book reveals that the decision to transfer Justice Tahilramani was first taken in August 2019 after "Information, adverse in nature, pertaining to the learned Chief Justice, including her irregular and infrequent sittings in court, was received by the members of the Collegium. On cross-checking, some authenticity was found in these complaints". As a result, the Collegium decided to transfer her to the Meghalaya High Court "where there was less work". After the judge resigned in September, the Supreme Court Collegium made headlines for several days.
Justice Gogoi says in his book "I believe the time has come to lay bare a few facts".
Justice Gogoi states that after the resignation of Justice Tahilramani, a complaint was received by the CJI office alleging the illegal acquisition of property in Chennai by Justice Tahilramani. The complaint, amongst other things, also alleged questionable exercise of administrative power. Justice Gogoi also says that much of the contents of the complaint had been verified for him by the judge who had proposed the decision to transfer her.
The complaint was handed over by CJI Gogoi to the Director of the Intelligence Bureau and the Director, prima facie, reported some truth to the allegations.
UNNAMED JUDGE, (THEN) JUDGE, DELHI HIGH COURT
Though in this instance, Justice Gogoi has chosen not to specifically name the judge (probably due to the fact that he is the sitting Chief Justice of a High Court), he has mentioned enough details in the timeline for the reader to draw the inference of who is being spoken of. The judge's transfer from the Delhi High Court to the Punjab and Haryana High Court in February 2020 created ripples. Though the judge was transferred after Justice Gogoi had retired as the CJI, the autobiography reveals that his transfer was first proposed by Justice Gogoi during his tenure in September 2018.
In August 2018, an order was passed by the Delhi High Court Bench headed by the judge through which bail was granted to an accused (Neeraj Singhal) who was arrested by the Serious Fraud Investigation Office in the course of an investigation into the affairs of Bhushan Steel Ltd and associated companies. Immediately the next day, the Centre challenged the bail before the Supreme Court and a request for an urgent hearing was made. The Supreme Court agreed to hear the matter the very next day. Despite the fact that the High Court judge was informed that the Supreme Court was set to hear the matter the next day, at 5:20 pm he passed another order giving effect to the bail and implementing the release of the accused in the case. The Supreme Court had later expressed its disapproval and expressed "propriety demanded that High Court should have shown deference".
It was in these circumstances, says Justice Gogoi, that he listed the proposal for the transfer of the said judge before the Collegium. At the time, though all members of the Collegium agreed to the transfer, Justice Sikri requested that it be deferred until after his retirement in March 2019. But after Justice Sikri's retirement, due to objection from a new Collegium member, the name of the said judge for transfer could not be recommended during CJI Gogoi's tenure.
Ranjan Gogoi also clarifies, however, that, "His subsequent transfer to the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which attracted a lot of attention, was after my retirement, for reasons not known to me".