Where there’s smoke there’s fire

In the current saga of diaries, the common man often gets confused as to whether the entries in a diary can be considered as conclusive proof or not. The answer is quite simple and does not require a high-level of acumen to understand. The dictum: if there is smoke, there is fire. This explains well the point in question.

Right from the era of Jain Hawala case, the diaries have found a place in the apex court’s proceedings. Augusta and Sahara-Birla cases too were diary-dominated cases.

Now comes the case of Govind Raju, an MLC and high functionary of the Congress in Karnataka. His diaries seized during the IT raid on his residence reveal the receipts and payments details of the alleged unaccounted money running to over Rs 600 crore! The names of the persons involved are written in abbreviations.

While the political parties of all hues have taken their convenient stands, legal pundits are seemingly busy in hair-splitting game.

While the courts including the Supreme Court, have examined the question of admissibility of diaries or their lose sheets time and again, all of their findings have been based upon the provisions of Criminal Procedure Code and Indian Evidence Act.

Accordingly, the law mandates that the burden of proving a document as true basically lies on the party producing the same in the court. The other party obviously would take the pleas that the document is fake, forged or fabricated.

The other party would also deny the handwritings and signature. In such a situation, a document is to stand the scrutiny of court and it should be proved as true and genuine beyond doubt.

For this, the party may request the court to send the disputed document to a handwriting expert or the forensic laboratory to determine scientifically the genuineness of the document.

Besides, the court itself has discretion to compare the handwritings, signatures, etc. of a document with the admitted ones. The principle of preponderance of probabilities also can be gainfully applied by the courts in civil matters.

True, the diaries by themselves cannot prove an allegation, but they have ample corroborative value to bring home a point. Still with the help of modern scientific tools nowadays it has become almost impossible for a wrong-doer to hoodwink the law and get away from its clutches.

Pul’s suicide the dramatic turn of events in Kalikho Pul’s suicide case shows that is much more to the situation than meets the eye. Former Arunachal Pradesh Chief Minister Pul who committed suicide on August 9, 2016 has purportedly written a 60-page suicide note alleging, inter alia, high- level corruption in administration, politics and also the judiciary.

He has also named two judges of the apex court alleging they had demanded bribe to the tune of Rs 86 crore from him to pass a favourable judgment.

Pul’s widow Dangwimsal subsequently wrote a two-page letter to the Chief Justice of India demanding a CBI probe against the judges named in the suicide note.

In turn the CJI on February 21 ordered the letter to be treated as a writ petition and posted before a bench of Justice A.K Goel and Justice U U Lalit.

Accordingly the matter came up before the said bench on February 23 but to the dismay and surprise to all the Counsel for the petitioner withdrew the petition saying the prayer in the petition was for an administrative inquiry.

According to media reports the petitioner’s counsel also expressed his displeasure over entrusting the case to two judges who were comparatively junior. The court granted permission to withdraw the petition.

This sordid incident raises several important questions. First, whether the Supreme Court was wrong in ordering the petition for hearing as a writ petition. Second, whether there was any bar on Justice A K Goel and Justice U U Lalit on hearing the petition converted as a writ petition.

Third, whether the Supreme Court was not empowered to order an administrative inquiry as prayed for by the petitioner even after treating the petition as a writ petition and last but not the least, Fourth, whether the Supreme Court would not have ordered an inquiry into the allegations of corruption by its two judges.

Obviously, the answers to these questions would be, first, there was nothing wrong in treating a representation as a writ petition by the Supreme Court. The history is replete with such instances when the apex court has treated letters, post cards and telegrams as writ petitions.

In fact, a writ petition affords greater scope to render justice. Secondly, obviously there can be no bar on a judge of the apex court or a High Court, as the case may be, to hear a writ petition assigned to him.

The only situation when a judge is expected to recuse himself from a particular case is when he or any of his family members are interested in that matter. Thirdly, the writ jurisdiction is definitely wider than a mere representation.

The apex court would have considered the prayer for an administrative inquiry as it is the case with any writ petition. Lastly, the fourth, the apex court has the powers to initiate an inquiry into the allegations of corruption against a fellow judge as per its earlier judgment in Veeraswami’s case decided in the year 1991.

In fact, the whole matter smacks of a conspiracy. There are reasons to believe this theory. After having approached the apex court with a 60-page suicide note of her late husband his widow would have allowed the law to take its own course.

The widow was perhaps not briefed properly by her lawyer/s that it would not make any difference if her petition was treated as a writ petition by the court. Or was there any fear on the part of the petitioner that she would be exposed by some unpalatable revelations like mud-slinging on the judiciary if she failed to establish the charges of corruption by Supreme Court judges beyond doubt?

In any case, as the charges are very serious and purportedly have been levelled by a former Chief Minister in his suicide note, both the government as well as the apex court are duty-bound to reveal the truth to the people of India.