Law Minister Anisul Huq has said that there was no reason to bar Chief Justice SK Sinha from going abroad as he went on leave on health grounds while saying that he would come back.
The minister’s remarks came on Sunday while replying to journalists’ queries at the Secretariat about why Justice Sinha was granted leave despite specific complaints against him.
“It is true that he is still the chief justice of the country. The post of chief justice is itself an institution. If any allegation surfaces against the person holding the position, necessary actions should be taken against him. And for this, there are specific legal procedures that need to be followed,” Anisul said.
Actions cannot be taken against a chief justice arbitrarily or hastily, he added.
Earlier this month, Justice Sinha in a letter to the president said he was sick and needed time to recover. However, after seven days, when leaving for Australia, he told journalists that he was not ill.
Anisul said: “We acted on what he said. He left the country on Friday as per the schedule he mentioned in a second letter [to the president]. To me, the letter is authentic and will remain authentic. And I believe the chief justice himself wrote it.
“We did not find any differences in the two letters. There were no such elements in the letters that could raise suspicion about his illness claims.”
The law minister also slammed those who said in television talk shows that he had lied about the chief justice’s illness.
Probe into allegations
Anisul Huq said there was a procedure for filing a case after an allegation surfaces against any person.
He said: “An investigation will be conducted. Next steps will be decided if the allegations are found true following the investigation. Law will run its course. No one is above the law.”
President Abdul Hamid listed 11 major allegations against Justice Sinha, including money laundering, financial scams, corruption and moral degradation. A notice to this effect was also published on the Supreme Court’s website on Saturday.
“You all know who will investigate the charges. Should I remind you of our independent Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC)?” the law minister said.
He said: “Most of the allegations are under the jurisdiction of the ACC. So you understand who will look into the charges.
“I will not talk about the allegations, because talking about them may mean I am taking sides. We want to remain impartial.”
Asked if the government would forward the allegations to the ACC for an inquiry, Anisul said the commission can act on its own and that the government would decide on this later.
Asked if a Supreme Judicial Council can conduct the probe, he said: “There is a debate over whether or not the Supreme Judicial Council exits.”
On July 2, the Supreme Court declared the 16th amendment to the constitution illegal, taking away parliament’s power to impeach judges for their incompetence or misconduct. In its verdict, the apex court also had said the power of impeachment was now automatically transferred to the Supreme Judicial Council.
Disagreeing with the court, the law minister earlier claimed “a court cannot make a law or order retention of its earlier version. It can only define the law.”
He said the investigation is not an issue to be dealt with by the council. “As a vacuum has been created [after the verdict], the president can use the inherent powers vested upon him to deal with the situation.”Supreme Court’s statement
Asked if the statement issued by the Supreme Court tarnished the judiciary’s image, Anisul Huq claimed that any institution faced with controversies can clarify its stance.
He also said he would not talk about the statement as it was out of his jurisdiction.
Anisul claimed other Appellate Division judges had decided not to work with Chief Justice Sinha during court proceedings until or unless he comes up with a satisfactory response to the charges leveled against him.Reshuffle in the judiciary
Earlier, Chief Justice Sinha had said that as per the law, the acting chief justice can perform only routine tasks in his absence.
Asked about the acting chief justice’s authority to reshuffle in the Supreme Court administration, the law minister replied that according to Article 97 of the Constitution, the acting chief justice has the authority to do so.
In absence of the chief justice, an acting chief justice can exercise the same power vested upon the former, he said.
