Chief justice of India (CJI) KG Balakrishnan, who had rubbished the CBI claim that he didn’t allow it to prosecute Punjab and Haryana high court (P&H HC) judge Nirmal Yadav, accused of involvement in the cash-at-judge’s-door scam, now says the matter is confidential.
The central public information officer (CPIO) of the Supreme Court (SC) told the Central Information Commission on Tuesday that it could not reply to an applicant’s query whether CBI approached SC in connection with the scam as the matter was “confidential and exempted from disclosure under section 8 (1) (e) and (j) of RTI Act”.
“You have no right to access the said information,” CPIO told applicant Abhishek Shukla.
Clarifying the position of the highest judicial institution under RTI, an issue that’s been pending before SC for final adjudication, CPIO Raj Pal Arora said, “Further as the information is not held by or under the control of CPIO, Supreme Court, India, your request cannot be acceded to....”
But SC’s secretary general MP Bhadran had earlier said that CBI did not approach CJI.
Justice Yadav’s name had figured in the scam after the recovery of a mysterious bag containing Rs15 lakh at the door of another P&H HC judge Nirmaljit Kaur. The bag was said to have been delivered to her door due to confusion over names.
CBI probed the matter on the orders of the administrator of Chandigarh after Kaur lodged a police complaint, but filed the case closure report after, a CBI court observed, it “failed to get sanction from CJI to prosecute Yadav”.
However, dealing with another sensational case involving around 30 judicial officers and high court judges, who allegedly benefited from the ill-gotten money that the late Ashutosh Asthana, former officer of the government treasury in Ghaziabad, fraudulently withdrew from the accounts of court employees, SC examined his viscera reports to ascertain whether he was poisoned or died due to cardiac arrest inside Dasna Jail.
Ashthana had given a statement before the judicial magistrate two years ago, listing the names of judges who received cash or gifts from him and explaining the modus operandi of his operation which couldn’t have been possible without the active help of some subordinate court judges.
A bench of justices DK Jain, VS Sirpurkar and GS Singhvi noted on Tuesday that the viscera samples did “not indicate poisoning”, as alleged.
