In Mid 2009, a Madras High Court Judge, Justice R. Reghupathy in open Court made a statement which shook the political and judicial world. He made a statement to the in open Court that a Cabinet Minister from UPA Government got in touch with him about a case involving nasty people being investigated by the CBI. The heat bolied and comments from CJI (expect comments on each and every thing from him) poured in.
Then few days down the line came another day when statement was changed. The same Judge said that he was not approached on phone by the minister but an Advocate informed him that a minister was interested. The world's changed. Earlier it was like saying Mr. X was involved in the murder and now Mr. X was praying for the death of the deceased. The difference is tremendeous and visible.
I ask my self, what is the truth. If the first one is the truth, then why the truth was buried. If the second statement is correct, then did the judge lie (oops... I must be polite and must not say the truth as I can be punished for Contempt). Whatever it is, a question remains as to was it a lie or was a truth buried? Why did the CJI not call for investigation? Why was the Judge not asked to clarify the facts?
Whatever way, whatever is the truth, in both cases, the Judiciary has shown the people a new face, which has really put us to think as to why this? what is the truth? who is a liar? what is the fact? why no action? why continue on bench if you cannot speak the truth or burrying the truth or are saying a lie? Is the quality of judiciary down and down under? Is the CJI not going to take action to restore the pride of Judiciary? Is it not a wrong precedent? 1000 questions and no answer..........