The controversy surrounding Delhi High Court Justice Yashwant Varma has left the entire country, including the legal circles in shock. Following the revelation of unreported cash found in his residence during a fire incident on 14th March, everyone is questioning the accountability of Judiciary. The Supreme Court also confirmed the incident and released a report which included images and footage of the burnt cash.
The Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna then formed a three-member commitee to look into the matter and instructed Delhi High Court Chief Justice D K Upadhyaya not to assign any judicial work to the accused judge. The panel consists of Justices Sheel Nagu (Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court), G S Sandhawalia (Chief Justice of the Himachal Pradesh High Court) and Karnataka High Court Judge Anu Sivaraman. Recommendation of his transfer to the Allahabad High Court has also been made.
The case has captured the attention of the entire nation and has raised concerns about the extent of corruption within the judiciary, however, this is not the first instance in which a Judge has faced scrutiny. A political and judicial storm in the early 1990s centered around Justice (retired) V. Ramaswami who passed away this year. He was the first judge to be subjected to an impeachment motion and if the Lok Sabha had accepted the resolution which was presented by the opposition, on 11th May 1993, he would have been the first Supreme Court justice to be removed from office.
He stood as the first and only judge selected through the endorsement of his father-in-law who was a chief justice and later resigned during the Emergency after the CBI (Central Bureau of Investigation) found undeclared money in his home. Ramaswami’s appointment caused quite a stir when he entered the Madras High Court in 1971 because of this extraordinarily unusual move.
Afterward, his career got tarnished by allegations of impropriety, including his profligacy, which led to the impeachment move. He ran into trouble after it was unveiled in the media that while serving as Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Chandigarh, he had incurred egregiously extravagant expenses for his official residence. He misused government vehicles and resources and bought pricey furniture, carpets and other goods with public money for his own gain. A motion demanding his impeachment was also approved by the Supreme Court Bar Association.
Ramaswami had been promoted to the Supreme Court by the time of the investigation. After reviewing the accusations, Sabyasachi Mukharji, the Chief Justice of India at the time, advised him to refrain from serving till the matter was resolved. He received the official letter on 18th July 1990, and immediately requested a six-week leave of absence, effective 23rd July 1990.
A committee composed of three Supreme Court Judges (BC Ray, KJ Shetty and MN Venkatachaliah JJ) was then appointed by the Chief Justice of India to investigate the facts and determine whether the accusations had any prima facie truth that would have prevented the judge from performing his duties. It was founded solely to evaluate the facts in a preliminary way. It was not a committee of inquiry into the charges.
The panel stated, following an investigation, that it did not find evidence of improper behavior constituting moral turpitude. It then examined whether Ramaswami might be asked to stop serving as a Judge before a formal probe is launched. It held that he could not be compelled to abstain from performing his judicial duties as long as the constitutional warrant designating him as a Supreme Court Judge remained in effect.
Committee found Ramaswami guilty
108 Lok Sabha members, afterward, moved the Speaker of the 9th Lok Sabha to address the President on 28th February 1991, asking for the removal of the Judge in accordance with Article 124(4) of the Constitution and the Judges (Inquiry) Act of 1968. A notice to file a resolution in the Lok Sabha was put out by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and Left parties, during the Viswanath Pratap Singh government.
On 12th March 1991, Rabi Rai, the speaker of the Lok Sabha at the time, approved the motion and established an inquiry committee. It consisted of Justice P B Sawant of the Supreme Court, Justice P D Desai of the Bombay High Court, and Justice O Chinnappa Reddy, a retired Supreme Court judge was established.
They assessed that he had engaged in “willful and gross misuse of office, intentional and habitual extravagance at the cost of the public exchequer, moral turpitude by using public funds for private purposes and reckless disregard of statutory rules” pronouncing him guilty on 11 of the 14 charges. He, on the other hand, refused to appear before the committee. Ramaswami’s case was argued by Congress stalwart and senior counsel Kapil Sibal. On 10th May 1993, the proposal was brought up for discussion in the Lok Sabha after the committee determined that the accusations had merit.
“Justice Sawant is my junior in the Supreme Court. Therefore, I do not accept it,” Ramaswami was quoted by senior advocate and CPI (Communist Party of India) leader Somnath Chatterjee who had moved the motion in the Lok Sabha. Chatterjee added that aspersions were cast on the members of the panel and technical issues were raised instead of providing cooperation. “No, no. I would not accept your jurisdiction. Therefore, I would not put questions. They will suggest questions for others to be put,” Ramaswami stated after he was told to send his attorneys if he could not appear before the panel. “There was no defence given on merit,” the CPI MP outlined.
It was claimed that Ramaswami had relocated to Chandigarh during the height of the Punjab militancy and had enthusiastically taken on cases involving the insurgency. However, several previous judges and even politicians disagreed with the submission. According to reports, prior to becoming Prime Minister, even former Prime Minister Narasimha Rao attempted to speak with Rai to prevent the impeachment resolution. Furthermore, Kapil Sibal alleged that since his client never visited Punjab and knew no one in the state, he could not be aware of any dealers in Chandigarh.
The house had 401 members, but only 196 of them voted in favor. It was not opposed by anyone. The motion failed because 205 Members of Parliament from the Congress and a few other parties abstained. According to the law, the motion must have the support of at least two-thirds of all members who are present and voting. However, Chatterjee pointed out that “no MP is against this motion,” as there were no negative votes and highlighted, “Therefore, the Judge should understand that there is only one view.”
The ruling Congress initially maintained that after hearing both sides, its members would be free to use their discretion and cast their votes any way they deemed appropriate. Union Minister for Parliamentary Affairs and Water Resources, VC Shukla, told reporters that “by not asking the members to vote in a particular manner, we want to uphold the highest tradition” in reference to the decision of the Congress Parliamentary Party under the leadership of Narasimha Rao. A year later, Ramaswami retired and never rendered his resignation.
Congress leaders spoke in support of Ramaswami
The debate on the impeachment motion lasted 16 hours over two days. Senior attorney and Congress leader Debi Prasad Pal opposed accepting the probe committee’s conclusions, which were suggested by Jaswant Singh, another prominent lawyer and senior leader of the Bharatiya Janata Party. “This is not the law under section 6 of the Judges Enquiry Act. The report is to come before the house for consideration.” He added that it is merely a report by a group of people, “however, highly placed they may be” to investigate the charges.
He further referred to the Supreme Court decisions and conveyed, “It is a statutory committee and not disciplinary tribunal or a court whose verdict is binding upon everybody. Like a fact finding enquiry in a proceedings, the authority gives its report. The disciplinary authority might accept that report or might modify or reject it. This committee’s report stands on no better position or footing than this and is only a recommendation.”
The former minister of state for finance insisted, “You cannot accept it as a biblical truth. You, as a judge, has got to consider how far it is acceptable or not.”
Congress veteran Mani Shankar Aiyar alleged that the change in the government and the political landscape of the country “and in that atmosphere, an interal audit report, which has subsequently been found to be erroneous on a large number of points of fact, was leaked to the press and a controversery was started against the interests of Justice Ramaswami.” He claimed that he promply left for leave after Chief Justice Sabyasachi Mukherjee asked him, in an effort to counter the charges levelled against Ramaswami.
He also credited Ramaswami for going to Punjab in the aftermath of “Operation Black Thunder ।” and claimed, “At that extremely sensitive time every judge was subjected to an overall and generalised threat.” He mentioned that a proxy war was launched against India by the country’s hostile neighbour and other vested interests. “I do not need to (name them) because everybody here nows that enemies of India with crores and crores in their hands, not crores of rupees but dollars, were willing to subvert our judiciary which is part and parcel of the totality of the system.
He then lauded Ramaswami and announced that he was proud of the Judge who “proved himself to be Indian first by conducting himself and the affairs of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in such a manner from November 1987 through October 1989 that even in the surcharged political atmosphere of 1990 and 1991, nobody has suggested that there was an element of impropriety of corruption, of treachery about his actions as a judge.”
“I do not think that a model of rectitude in a court, without a single stain upon his character when he steps into the official portion of the residence, suddenly becomes a monster, a demon and rakshasha when he goes into his private bed room,” he then dramatically claimed.
He also endorsed Ramaswami’s decision to snub the inquiry panel and added that “it was explained to us by Mr. Kapil Sibal that the reason why he had to present all his arguments for the first time here in this house was because he had chosen not to accept the jurisdiction of the committee of judges. A man is innocent until proved guilty. He has every right to defend himself and he has every right to the determine procedure by which he will defend himself.”
Congress MP CK Kuppuswamy declared Ramaswami, while presenting arguments in favour of him. He asked, “What did Justice Ramaswamy do? He had purchased certain things which was used by him in his official residence and later on continued to be used by his brother judge who came there after his transfer. These sort of frivolous charges should not have been made against an honourable judge of the highest court of the country.” He even slammed “The Indian Express” for mocking him as “Carpet Ramaswami.”
He even attacked George Femandes in a disparaging manner and accused, “I would like to refer to his conduct of an honourable member of this house. During emergency he was at large. What did do? He was living with the Sandalwood Smugglers. That member was in the hiding for about 15 days in Veerapandi near Trippur. Such a member is claiming that he stands for sincerity, honesty and integrity. Such people are accusing Ramaswami.”
Congress leader and author Kartikeswar Patra pointed out that the probe panel formed its report without presenting Ramaswami’s side (because he didn’t appear before them) and voiced, that “without having heard the guilty person, the committee has submitted its report. I would like to know whether it is mandatory on the part of the august house to consider the report of that committee. The august house should freshly hear the guilty person and consider it freshly. But, l am afraid, whether we can do wrong or some sort of justice at this stage.”
Ramaswami’s controversial career and profound connection with Congress
There were many disputes during Ramaswami’s time as a Judge in Madras. He kept about ten buffaloes in his garden for dairy, reported India Today. His decision to rule on a matter involving his wife, Sarojini, in 1986 spurred a row. It was about a set of petitions that contested the purchase of land. Ramaswami, who was in charge of a division bench, allowed the others but removed his wife’s name off the list. The following day, her petition was heard by a single Judge who was constrained by the division bench’s judgment.
Additionally, Ramaswami came under fire for some of his conclusions about his Naidu community. Due to his prejudice, a lecturer who was involved in a lawsuit with his Naidu-run PSG College of Technology in Coimbatore in the early 1980s asked him not to hear the case. As expected, he was found in contempt. A newspaper, Sigappu Nada, was taken to task for making a similar implication in its criticism of a ruling that remarked employees could not participate in a company’s winding up proceedings. The business was owned by R. Prabhu who was a Naidu and a Congress (Indira Gandhi faction) MP.
Prabhu was the most vocal advocate of Ramaswami and was instrumental in rallying Tamil Nadu MPs against the “North Indian conspiracy” during the impeachment procedures. M. Krishnaswamy, another Naidu MP, contested the validity of the impeachment motion on behalf of the Judge in the lengthy legal fights before the Supreme Court and the inquiry committee. His son, Sanjay Ramaswami, a Congress MLA who is also married to the sister of late movie actress Sridevi, strengthened the family’s ties to the Congress (I). The party tended to support him since non-Congress parties had attempted to impeach him in 1991.
Bogus claims of patriotism
The Supreme Court heared all appeals against the appointed sessions court’s judgments. Regardless, during Ramaswami’s two-year tenure in Chandigarh, no one was convicted and TADA (Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Prevention Act) accused were consistently released on bond. Lavish Independence Day celebration on the grounds of the High Court is the sole “patriotic” thing that Ramaswami is renowned for in Chandigarh. As they were all required to arrive in a procession wearing their gowns and escorted by carriers of silver maces, over half of the Judges chose not to attend the event.
His successor overturned several of his decisions, including the organisation of this function. Likewise, he hired roughly ten female translators after interviewing them in Shimla. The ‘IAS girls’ or ‘interviewed at Shimla’ girls were the nicknames given to this group. They were all fired shortly after the Judge was transferred. Ramaswami’s indifference made him unpopular among his Chandigarh peers. He never joined them for the usual lunch in the common room, which they didn’t appreciate. According to Supreme Court Justice Dharam Veer Sehgal, who left the bench in December 1988 owing to disagreements with Ramaswami, “He was intelligent but not Judge-like.”
He disbanded the division benches led by certain senior judges because of animosity towards them. Lawyers protested to him as the number of writ petitions pending admission increased due to fewer division benches. This paved the way for a remarkable situation that enabled Ramaswami to issue orders on dozens of petitions every day without even considering the cases. He would merely declare: “Numbers 1-4 admitted, number 5 dismissed, numbers 6-14 admitted and stay order granted” each morning as hundreds of attorneys poured into his courtroom.
A group of bureaucrats combed over the petitions and provided him with a summary, which he used to make his conclusions. Since most of the petitions were accepted, attorneys did not object to this extralegal process. “We used to call it the Ramaswami bumper draw,” Chandigarh advocate Anupam Gupta stated. All of this, however, backfired on Ramaswami, who was under fire even after being promoted to the Supreme Court in 1989 without the then-chief justice of India’s approval. Afterward, audit findings on his excesses in Chandigarh surfaced in April 1990.
There hadn’t been any relief for him since, and the scandal made sure he never served on any of the Constitution benches that handled important issues but he never repented for his actions.
