N.Ram on P.Chidambaram

N.Ram of The Hindu confidently claims there is 'no evidence against Chidambaram.' He may well be right. However, his conclusion that 'monstrous injustice' has been done to P.C. is monumentally wrong. While talking about Chidambaram, Ram becomes as clever as the former. He only says there is no evidence of wrong-doing; he does not say that P.C. did not indulge in wrong-doing.

Why am I saying this? There is a report in The Economic Times today ( The Hindu does not believe in publishing such relevant news) regarding the invoices sent by Chess Management Services Private Ltd to INX Media for payment after FIPB absolved INX Media. Some of these invoices were drawn by Advantage Strategic Consultants Private Ltd. These original invoices were returned to CMSPL later, on their advice. These invoices would prove the connection between these two companies and PC's son and such evidence would expose the scam. Therefore, the scamsters were cleverly ensuring that any palpable evidence would be out of the reach of any future investigator. Thus the modus-operandi was "Commit the crime, make money, but destroy the evidence." So, Ram is absolutely right in saying there is no evidence! There cannot be, when the criminals are thoughtfully clever!

Ram also claims that the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court came to wrong decisions. These courts were privy to confidential information provided by investigating authorities. We may not know what this information is; but Ram would know because he has access to all confidential and secret notes (remember Rafale Notes?). Would The Hindu reveal what this confidential information is? Without this information, Ram could not have concluded that the two courts erred in their judgments.

Lord Ram is known for protecting anyone ,even if most sinful, once the person offers Saranagathi to Him. Narasimhan Ram probably feels that it is his duty to protect his friend. Let him be faithful to his friend. But let him not accuse the honourable courts of perpetrating injustice. Ram's grievance that PC is wronged for political reasons does not entitle him to demonise the judiciary. He has advised that a review petition or a curative petition has to be moved immediately, as if Kapil Sibal and Manu Singhvi are ignorant !

Transfer of the senior-most HC judge

The Chief Justice of the Madras High Court, Vijaya Kamlesh Tahilramani is under orders of transfer to the Meghalaya High Court. The former has 75 judges and the latter 3 judges. Therefore there is no doubt that this is a punitive transfer. She is the senior-most High Court judge now and in the normal course would have been elevated to the Supreme Court in the near future.

According to NDTV, she is transferred on the basis of feedback from the Madras High Court. This is as enigmatic as anything can be. The transfer recommendation has been made by the Supreme Court collegium. Foreclosing one's opportunity to become a judge of the apex court is not a trifling matter. The collegium must have thought twice before making this portentous recommendation. The proposal is mysterious because Tahilramani has generally been considered non-controversial.

Tahilramani is likely to resign as she feels victimised. It is incumbent on the collegium to clear the air surrounding this mystery. It has made its recommendation "in the interest of better administration of justice." It has also rejected her plea for reconsideration. So, it strongly feels that Tahilramani's continued presence in the Madras High Court is not desirable.

Did the collegium come under governmental pressure? If it acted under pressure, the quintet forming the collegium at present do not deserve to be judges. Thus it is in their own interest that the collegium owes a clarification to the nation which is anxious that judiciary must not wilt under any kind of pressure.

There is onus on the part of the government also to explain what has happened. It cannot wash its hands off on the plea that it only acted on the collegium recommendation. The Law Minister, Ravi Shankar Prasad needs to remember that he had often claimed that the government is not just a post office conveying the collegium's recommendation to the President and that it duly applies its mind. Did it occur to the Law Minister that there is something sinister about the collegium proposal? Or is he the author of the proposal? Both the collegium and the government will do well to come clean on this apparently mischievous move. If the honourable judge had invited this action through her below-par performance, she must not be allowed to play the victim card. Whichever way you look at this sordid development, there is a crying need for clarification.