'Solicitor-General misled court'

By Our Legal Correspondent

NEW DELHI, DEC. 6. A Supreme Court Bench today referred to a Constitution Bench the writ petition filed by the former Law Minister, Mr. Ram Jethmalani, under Article 32 challenging the constitutional validity of the order dated November 27, directing a CBI probe into the authenticity of all documents pertaining to the age issue of the Chief Justice of India in the possession of person/persons, describing the September 4 document, sent by Mr. S. Behr of the General Council of the Bar in London, as ``prima facie not genuine'' and for a direction to recall the same.

Arguing for Mr. Jethmalani, senior counsel, Mr. Shanthi Bhushan, took exception to the court's order declaring that the document dated September 4 was not genuine. He said ``in this application we are not concerned whether the year of birth of the CJI is 1934 or 1936''. The counsel said the Chairman of the General Council, Mr. Jonathan Hirst, in his letter dated November 2 addressed to the CJI had categorically stated that the letter written by Mr. Behr on September 4 was a genuine one. He said the Solicitor General, Mr. Harish Salve, who was the amicus curiae had suppressed this letter to the court and had misled the court to pass a ``wrong'' order. And for this, the CBI enquiry should be directed against him, he said.

The Bench pointed out that it had not made any reference to Mr. Jethmalani in its order dated November 27. ``When we saw the document through a magnifying glass we found that the year 1936 had been changed as 1934. That is why we got the impression that it was not a genuine document,'' the Bench said.

Mr. Bhushan said ``the whole world knows that the document referred to by the court was the one found in Mr. Jethmalani's book. The orders of the Apex Court had destroyed the reputation of Mr. Jethmalani and had hurt his feeling''. The court should be gracious enough to accept its mistake in passing a wrong order and recall the same.

The Bench said ``if at all our order had hurt somebody, it should be either Mr. Behr or Sohal and Co. and that was understandable and not Mr. Jethmalani. In fact, he should welcome the CBI probe as if after the enquiry it was found that this document was genuine, he would stand vindicated''.

``If the apex court were to declare a genuine document as not genuine, what faith the people of this country will have in the court,'' Mr. Bhushan said and added ``I will leave it to the conscience of the court''.

The court today dispensed with the personal appearance of the advocate, Mr. Sundaram due to his indisposition.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : National
Previous : Furore likely in Parliament over PM's remark
Next     : I am in Europe: Chhota Rajan