Late CM Kalikho Pul’s Tainted SC Judges and Fixed Vetting Process

Unreliable vetting process for judges allows corrupt ones to “slip through” the judicial net, reports Chandan Nandy.

Senior IB officers are pressured to submit unreliable vetting reports on judge nominees. (Photo: Harsh Sahani/ The Quint)

Even as the Narendra Modi government and the Supreme Court continue to disregard the explosive suicide note left behind by Arunachal Pradesh’s late Chief Minister Kalikho Pul, it has emerged that judges of the higher judiciary routinely apply pressure on Intelligence Bureau officers to either quash or write favourable vetting reports of “favoured” nominees.

The 60-page suicide note, made public by Pul’s widow in Delhi yesterday, names two topmost sitting Supreme Court judges, and two retired Chief Justices, for taking bribes in crores from Arunachal Pradesh politicians, including the late Kalikho Pul.

President Pranab Mukherjee administers oath of office to Justice J.S. Khehar, as Chief Justice of India, at a swearing-in ceremony, in Rashtrapati Bhavan on 4 January 2017. (Photo: IANS)

Speaking to The Quint on the condition of anonymity, a former top IB officer who previously served in three states and has handled about 100 cases of vetting of judges and senior lawyers nominated for judgeship, “as soon as any high court collegium formalises nominations, in many instances, some of the persons concerned approach chiefs of Subsidiary Intelligence Bureaus (SIB) and try to influence him to clear his nomination.”

The common refrain among a number of top IB officials The Quint spoke to on “fixing of the vetting procedure”, said the proposed nominees “keep track” of the progress of the process related to their appointment. “It has been extremely embarrassing for the IB officers that when the nominees become aware of adverse reports against them, they would, either directly or indirectly, confront the SIB station chiefs,” a former IB officer said.

(Seated centre) Chief Justice of India JS Khehar. (Photo Courtesy: mizoslsa.mizoram.gov.in)

In one case of an advocate, whose file for appointment as a judge in the Punjab and Haryana High Court was sent thrice by different Chief Justices, it was found that the nominee “lacked integrity and possessed certain other negative traits in his character”. This nominee managed to procure a copy of the vetting report to an SIB chief and “pestered” him to “send a revised report” claiming that the allegations made in the IB report was incorrect.

The advocate never made it as a judge but went on to become the advocate general of Punjab thrice. When his vetting case was pending with the SIB, he “attempted to influence” the then SIB chief by applying pressure indirectly. When the SIB chief did not budge, he lodged a “formal complaint” against the IB.

Justice H L Dattu addressing a press conference in Patna. (Photo: IANS)

IB sources said that it was surprising how at least two of the four judges named in Pul’s suicide note, against whom there were previous suspicions involving corruption, “slipped through” the vetting procedure, which is not institutionalised and is undertaken on a case-to-case basis, depending on specific requisitions from the collegia of the Supreme Court and high courts.

In this context, IB sources revealed that in most cases, “clean chit” is given to nominees whose names are proposed for judgeship. “It is the easiest approach for an enquiry officer as no questions would be asked of him. Officers conducting vetting enquiries avoid submitting adverse reports as they would be closely questioned by their superiors about the veracity of the information,” an official said.

The vetting procedure involves the collegium of the Supreme Court or of a high court sending notes about specific individuals to the Law Ministry, which then forwards them to the Home Ministry’s Judicial Department, which in turn sends the queries to the IB. However, a senior IB official said, on most occasions, “judicial managers” don’t give sufficient time – sometimes as less as 24-48 hours – for vetting reports to reach them.

“Our hands are forced,” another IB official said, adding that “paucity of time and personnel is a serious constraint on the comprehensiveness and fairness of the enquiry process.” Besides, SIBs do not generally conduct “intrusive enquiries” and generally depend on “brief oral interaction of 15-20 minutes, with one or two advocates, known to the enquiring officer who is usually of ASIO (assistant intelligence officer) rank,” sources said.

(Third from left) The former Chief Justice of India, Altamas Kabir. (Photo Courtesy: blogspot.com)

Only on very few occasions has the IB “sent back” reports with negative remarks on the judges proposed for induction or elevation into the higher judiciary. In one case, a panel of 12 names of advocates proposed for induction as judges of a particular high court was returned “since none of them were found to have clean records”. The IB sent negative reports thrice against a senior advocate who practices in the Supreme Court and the Delhi High Court. This senior advocate is a former Congress Rajya Sabha member.

IB sources revealed that there have been “hundreds” of cases where the agency has cleared the names of judge nominees of “doubtful integrity or other adverse traits”, adding that the “actual performance of persons about whom there were initial doubts, which did not reflect on reports because of insufficient corroboration of information, did not have clean image when appointed as judges.”

Also read: The Quint Impact: Kalikho Pul’s Complete Suicide Note Made Public