Editorial with Sujit Nair | Yashwant Varma Case: Ex-Judge Found Guilty By House Panel In Cash Row

[00:00:00] Do you remember Justice Yashwant Varma? He is a judge. He judges you. And he, according to the probe, was not giving satisfactory answers. Which means, in crude language, he was lying. He was lying. Because he is a judge, no police action, no FIR, no ED, no IT, nothing. Nothing. Why? Are you a judge? If this was a common man, if this was you, what would have happened to you? Can you even think about it?

[00:00:36] Namaskar! Welcome to another episode of Editorial. You know, my production team always tells me that, listen, you know what? Your first line should be very punchy. If your first line is punchy, then people watch you. If your first line is mundane, if your first line is cliché, then people don't watch you. So my first line is very cliché.

[00:00:54] My question that I want to discuss tonight is, is justice equal for all? Is everybody treated the same way in the eyes of justice? Is our society treating every person the same way when it comes to justice?

[00:01:10] And yeah, the answer obviously is no. In fact, I want to discuss a case today. Do you remember Justice Yashwant Verma? The same justice whose house unfortunately got burnt and there were crores of rupees. You are watching that on your screen. There were crores of rupees getting burnt with his house. Crores of rupees.

[00:01:37] The question was, where did this money come from? How did a judge get so much money? A judge salary is not that much. A judge can't have that kind of cash lying inside his house. In fact, if Narendra Modi ji ki mano, nobody can have that kind of cash lying in their houses. That is wrong. Digital era. Where does this money come from? Obviously that is black money. These were the questions that were asked. But then what happened? What happened?

[00:02:06] You see, 146 MPs of the Lok Sabha had moved a removal motion against this judge. And there was a parliamentary panel, probe panel set up to investigate this judge. And today the results came.

[00:02:25] The parliamentary inquiry committee has found that Justice Verma was unable to explain the present source or ownership of the huge quantity of unexplained cash found in his office residence. And that he interfered with material evidence and furnished misleading explanation to the committee.

[00:02:48] This was the observation. Now there are three things that they mentioned. There are three very strong observations that I want to get to your notice. The first charge is related to the discovery and possession of substantially unexplained rupees 500 denomination currency note in a storeroom at his official residence and his failure to explain the lawful source.

[00:03:29] The second charge accused him of failing to preserve material evidence and causing interference with it leading to unexplained disappearance of the burnt currency notes before they could lawfully seize it. Just to add something to this point, I remember the police had gone to do panch nama. His assistant was not later on.

[00:03:55] And the police went back and went the next day. This was the initial report. I remember I reporting this. This is how justice, criminal justice system and etc. treated this entire case. So the fact remains that the money is vanished according to the probe committee. The third point which they raised is that he furnished evasive and misleading explanation that lacked the condor and transparency expected of a constitutional functionary.

[00:04:23] That means the money, we don't know where it came from. The money, we don't know where it went. And thirdly, what he was saying, what he was interpreting, what answers he was giving were completely unsatisfactory. He is a judge. He judges you. And he, according to the probe, was telling, was not giving satisfactory answers. Which means in crude language, he was lying. He was lying.

[00:04:48] You see, after all of this, can you believe that there has been no technical action taken against him? He was not sacked. He was not sacked. He resigned. He resigned. He was not sacked. Because he is a judge, no police action, no FIR, no ED, no IT, nothing. Nothing. Why? If this was a common man, if this was you, what would have happened to you? Can you even think about it?

[00:05:17] Can you even think about it? My first question. Is justice equal? Look at it. We would have to go through hell. We would have had by now, we would have been inside ED custody, CBI custody, police custody, every custody. But 10 IT rates would have happened by now. Nothing. Nothing. Why? Because he is a judge. He is a judge. So he is okay.

[00:05:46] Now they are wondering, Next. Did anybody announce, has police gone to him after this report? Has there been an FIR against him after this report? Nothing. The report came in yesterday. Nothing. This is why I am asking you, Is justice equal for all? Is justice equal for all? What crime have we done? We are citizens of this country like he is.

[00:06:15] He is getting paid from the tax money we are paying. Paid money, the official salary that he gets. I don't know if he gets anything more. This money must have just landed from heaven. That also is possible. One doesn't know. But the point that I am still trying to make is, Listen. It is, Just because he is a judge, Everything is slow. Everything moves at snail pace. An FIR not happened. Nothing happened. People are not even willing to call him guilty.

[00:06:44] People are not even willing to ask questions. Isn't that very unfortunate? Isn't that very unfortunate? Isn't that absolute discrimination? British left. But they left all these colonial powers on our head. Where they can do anything. We can't. What is the difference? We speak about travesty of justice during, During the old Vedic period. We talk about travesty of justice. In olden times in India.

[00:07:14] In colonial times in India. And where is the difference? The travesty of justice exists. The tone and tenor and the form must have changed. But travesty of justice even exists today. You and I are on the bottom pyramid. Bottom base of the pyramid. Do something. And there will be thousand notices on you. That's the point I wanted to make.

[00:07:42] I want you to hear this justification that Kapil Sipil had given. I had done an editorial on this. And I had spoken about Kapil Sipil. Here is the justification of Kapil Sipil for a minute. And I can say. With the utmost of responsibility. That he is one of the finest judges that I have argued before. You ask any lawyer. Any lawyer in the high court.

[00:08:12] Any lawyer in the supreme court. There is not a whiff of any wrongdoing. Of this judge. You ask any lawyer in Allahabad. Don't rely upon us. You ask others. You know. That judges. Know their lawyers. Even those who write columns. And we lawyers. Also know the judges.

[00:08:45] We know against whom there are rumors. We know. For a fact. Those against whom there cannot be rumors. And it is shocking. That you are targeting a judge. Against whom there is no evidence. And you are protecting a judge. Against whom there is no evidence required. This is how. His lawyer. Kapil Sipil. Tried to justify him. Which is fine.

[00:09:15] I mean. He is a lawyer. And that's his job to do that. But he is also an MP. By the way. Please. Understand that. While I say that. That is what Mr. Sipil believes. And he has all the right to say it. But the point is. This is how it is looked at it. Something which. Should have otherwise been an open and shut case. My. Point is. My point is. You see. There are two issues. That. We need to. Kind of be mindful of.

[00:09:44] As far as this particular case is concerned. Issue number one. Is. Is he going to get. An easy way out. Is he going to get. Is he. Is everything going to be adjusted. Brushed under the carpet. To ensure. That you know. He is. He safely retires. And goes. And everything. Is. Changasi. Is that. What's going to happen. And if it happens. Then. What criminal justice system. Are we talking about. What governance. Are we talking about. What civil society. Are we talking about. Number one. Number two. Why.

[00:10:14] Is that. A common man. There are people. Who are still. Languishing in jail. Without even a trial. There are cases. When people. Were caught. And put behind bars. For stealing. A loaf of bread. There are cases. Why are we seeing. Our own people. So differently. Why are we seeing. Our own people. So differently. What equality. Are we talking about. What democracy. Are we talking about. More importantly. What freedom. Are we talking about. What freedom. Are we talking about. I think.

[00:10:44] It is high time. That the judge. And a peon. In a. In a. In a local office. And a. And a. Auto rickshaw puller. And a. And a. Fisherman. And a businessman. And a. Trader. And. People. Should be seen. As equal. A judge is no different. To any other citizen. Of this country. He is doing his job. I am doing mine. There is no difference. Between him and me. Or her and me. It is time. We de-eologize. Judges.

[00:11:13] My honor. My lord. We de-eologize them. Because. End of the day. They are just us. Let us be very clear. What message. Are we sending. To the society. And the fact is. This is being misused. Whatever the reasons are. It is being misused. Misused grossly. And that's. Unacceptable. And the more you are going to make these. One section of people. Look like kings. And gods. And non-biological. Beings. And all of that. You are going to have. More. Of this.

[00:11:44] You are going to have. More of this class difference. And this also includes bureaucrats. This also includes bureaucrats. Let's stop. Treating these people like god. Let's stop. Treating leaders like god. Let's stop. Treating. Treating ministers. And prime ministers like god. They are human beings. They are supposed to work for us. And let's be mindful of that. That's the point I wanted to make. Till I see you next time. That's tomorrow at 10. Namaskar.