Justice Siddharth Mridul recently demitted office as Chief Justice of the Manipur High Court during one of the most turbulent periods in the State's history..Before his stint at Manipur, Justice Mridul served as a Delhi High Court judge for over 14 years, around the same time Justice Yashwant Varma served..The recent allegations of cash discovery near Justice Varma's residence have led to a furore, with the public raising questions about corruption in the judiciary. Even as the in-house committee appointed by Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna prepares its report in the matter, Justice Mridul defends his former colleague.In the first part of this interview with Bar & Bench's Debayan Roy, the former judge talks about the reputational damage to Justice Varma, the need for the probe to be concluded speedily, larger questions surrounding independence of the judiciary, and more..[Watch Video].DR: You were a senior judge of the Delhi High Court at the same as Justice Yashwant Verma. What was your first reaction when the news of the alleged discovery of cash at his residence broke?Justice Mridul: I was aghast and incredulous, because from what I remember of Justice Yashwant Varma as a colleague, I don't think I would believe the allegations that are now being made against him. Having known him, although for a very brief period, I wouldn't have believed those allegations. I have seen the video, but the point is that the jury is still out on the video. We do not know whether the video is authentic, when was it shot. Whether it is a piece of evidence that is admissible is yet to be established. We don't know who recorded it, we don't know when it was recorded, we don't know where it was recorded. I am sure this is being considered by the in-house inquiry..DR: What is the role of the in-house committee in this?Justice Mridul: The in-house inquiry committee only looks into the matter from the perspective of whether it requires a further investigation. The in-house inquiry report is submitted to the Chief Justice of India, who is required to take a call on whether it warrants further investigation by an independent agency, or whether there is no evidence at all. That’s it. It's in the nature of a preliminary inquiry..DR: Do you think it was correct on the part of the Supreme Court to release the video publicly?Justice Mridul: My view is that it was done keeping in mind that there is clamour for the judiciary to be more transparent in its affairs. I'm sure the Chief Justice of India, for the sake of transparency, put it all in the public domain. If I were ever called upon to defend Justice Verma, I would say that it prejudiced him, because there it turned into a trial by the media, and without considering whether that is evidence at all. Whether there is any evidence relevant to Justice Yashwant Varma in that video, will require investigation. He has already suffered the adverse consequences of the inferences being drawn from that video by everybody. In a sense, we have judged him even before he has been charged.I am not saying it was not the correct move, it was done with the intention to deflect the severe criticism that the judiciary faces for being opaque. The intention was definitely laudable; I completely subscribe to that. But one didn't at that point of time realise that it would, in a manner of speaking, jeopardise not just Justice Varma's reputation, but his defence..DR: The video led to a perception among the common public that it might not be a one-off case. The live video of burned cash at the residence of a judge sparked immense discussion and debate on social media. Do you think it bodes well for the Judiciary’s image?Justice Mridul: Not at all, far from it. Which is why I believe that the report of the in-house inquiry committee should be expedited and that too should be put in the public domain so that if there is any belief that there was any wrongdoing, the law takes its course. If it turns out that it's just a red herring, then Justice Varma deserves to be exonerated from such serious charges. I'm not sure whether you can restore his dignity or reputation.The inference that because of this video tape, the entire institution is corrupt, it is completely baseless. Every individual who is accused of wrongdoing is entitled to a fair trial. They are entitled to be heard. They are entitled to face their accusers and know what the charges are against them and to defend themselves. So there has to be a trial. The trial has to be fair. In this case, considering that he is a constitutional appointee, the best way forward is to do this quickly. This is an important case and the Supreme Court has all along said that when it comes to people who hold high offices, whatever they are accused of, they should be tried expeditiously. If there has to be a trial of any kind, including being subjected to an in-house inquiry, it should be done quickly. I think that they did the right thing by immediately ordering an in-house inquiry..DR: Do you think an in-house inquiry is the way to go in cases where judges face allegations or should the cases be given to the police or a specialised investigative agency itself? Justice Mridul: The in-house inquiry is a preliminary inquiry. It has to be done, because that is the law of the land today. My personal take is that every citizen must be treated equally. Equality before the law and equal protection of the law is the cornerstone of our Constitution. Which is why I said that if there has to be a preliminary inquiry against those who hold high positions. It should be conducted expeditiously. Assuming that the inquiry report recommends that there is something more to be investigated, then it should be done at the earliest.Investigation of the kind that is done by agencies in relation to offences -including those under the Prevention of Corruption Act - cannot be done by an in-house inquiry committee, as far as I understand the law. It can only be done by an agency authorised by the law to do it..DR: There is a perception that judges of the higher judiciary have become influenced by the executive in the recent past.Justice Mridul: I completely disagree with that. I do not think so. The judiciary has always been independent. It will remain independent. I have said this before. I was asked a question in an interview by the BBC whether when the government is strong, the judiciary becomes weak. The judiciary never becomes weak. The institutions don't become weak. We have aberrations. We have individuals who may occasionally succumb to some kind of pressure or the other, but as an institution we have always been very strong. If you look at the track record of the judiciary, it has has always acted in accordance with the Constitution and done its duty independently. I am not saying everybody is immune to pressure. I am saying as an institution, we are immune to pressure..DR: Have ever faced any executive pressure during your career?Justice Mridul: I haven't..DR: We have seen High Court judges joining the ruling party. What is your take on this?Justice Mridul: You can't bar a judge from doing what he wants to do post-retirement. I retired at the ripe old age of 62. I believe I am going to be productive for the next 25 years. Surely, you cannot expect me to sit at home. I choose to practice law, but some others may want to get into politics. Once they have served their term, they should be free to choose what they wish to do......I am sure judges have demitted office and joined the opposition parties as well. It's just that they may not be in the limelight but I'm sure they have. Just because we are not aware of it and we are only aware of those who have joined the ruling party, doesn't mean that retired judges haven't joined opposition political parties. I do not see anything wrong with it, unless their conduct as a judge is impeached in any manner. How can you prevent them from becoming a part of the political process?.DR: When you, as a judge, are dealing with political cases, and you later join a certain political party after demitting office, it can lead to a conflict of interest, right?Justice Mridul: I fail to see the connection. Unless there is some element of wrongdoing. The exception is when you can establish that it's a quid pro quo. That it's a case of “you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours”. But as a principle, you cannot bar judges from joining political parties. There is no bar from holding posts or positions post-retirement. Why should there be any bar at all?
