KG Balakrishnan

New Delhi, Dec. 15: Former Chief Justice of India K.G. Balakrishnan today released a letter to suggest that A. Raja’s name did not figure in a complaint sent to him, seeking to control the damage a day after a sitting Supreme Court judge contested a similar statement made earlier.

But Balakrishnan, the current chairman of the National Human Rights Commission, did not make any reference to another letter which purportedly suggests in the second paragraph that the then telecom minister tried through a lawyer to influence a judge of Madras High Court in a marksheet forgery case.

The details that emerged from the letter made public today also suggest it will be difficult to pin Raja down. According to the letter, the lawyer dialled a number that he claimed was Raja’s and not the other way round.

Even if that number was established as that of Raja, nothing prevents the former minister from saying anybody can dial his number and he could not be held accountable for that, especially since the judge did not talk to whoever was at the other end of the line.

Sitting judge H.L. Gokhale had yesterday taken the unusual step of issuing a media release to say that high court judge Regupathi’s letter he had forwarded to Balakrishnan on July 5 last year did mention Raja’s name.

Gokhale was the Madras High Court Chief Justice when Regupathi had said a lawyer, R.K. Chandramohan, had approached him with a phone and said that the minister was on the line but the judge had refused to take the call.

Balakrishnan today did not mention that letter, the receipt of which Gokhale said the former CJI acknowledged in August last year.

The former CJI released a letter Gokhale had written to him on August 8, 2009, to show that Raja’s name did not figure anywhere in the complaint. Gokhale apparently sent this letter in response to the then CJI’s letter seeking his views on a memo submitted by some MPs to the Prime Minister.

Balakrishnan said in a statement: “I am certain that in the report received from the Chief Justice of Madras High Court, no name of the Union minister was mentioned, and that there was no case that any minister himself made telephonic talk with the judge or threatened or influenced him. Hence, no action could have been taken based on that report of the Chief Justice of the Madras High Court.

“I maintain that I did not receive any letter from Justice Regupathi addressed to me, as it is not the practice also to have correspondence with the judges, but always seek report from the concerned Chief Justice of the High Court in case any issue brought to the notice of the CJI warrants so, which I did in this case.”

He went to on to say: “In matters of this nature, the CJI can only go by the conclusive report of the Chief Justice of the high court concerned, and that alone could be relied and acted upon. And in this issue, as per the report of the Chief Justice of Madras High Court, there was no cogent ground made out for a case against any Union minister.”

On technical grounds, Balakrishnan’s version holds water. From the accounts so far, Gokhale had forwarded to Balakrishnan a letter from Regupathi, in which Raja’s name was mentioned, that was addressed not to the CJI but to the high court Chief Justice. So, Balakrishnan can say he did not receive any letter from Regupathi addressed to him.

Since Gokhale’s own letter sent later did not mention the minister’s name, Balakrishnan is saying he could not have pursued the matter.

Gokhale today confined himself to saying: “I have already made my statement.”

According to the letter attributed to Gokhale, “the minister did not speak to him (the judge) directly but that the lawyer appearing in the case on behalf of the accused had come to his chamber and informed him that the Union minister would like to speak to him and even dialled the number to facilitate the conversation”.

Gokhale quoted Regupathi’s letter to claim that the “minister had not spoken to him although the advocate wanted him to talk to the minister, and the judge had not entertained the request”.

The letter said the judge had clearly stated that the minister did not speak to him, implying perhaps there was no need for action.

In a statement today, Balakrishnan said: “…if the concerned judge felt that anybody, be it a Union minister, tried to influence his judicial function, he could have proceeded against him, without seeking any direction from the CJI or the CJ of the high court, under contempt of court.”

Balakrishnan said he had forwarded Gokhale’s response to the law ministry. “There was no question of suppressing the report.”

The Supreme Court today stayed a Madras High Court order that suspended Chandramohan, the lawyer who allegedly dialled the phone and tried to influence Regupathi, as chairman of the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu.