Date:07/11/2009 URL: http://www.thehindu.com/2009/11/07/stories/2009110761700100.htm

National

Clean chit for Justice Yadav in cash-at-door case

J. Venkatesan

New Delhi: Justice Nirmal Yadav of the Punjab and Haryana High Court has been given a clean chit in the “Rs. 15 lakh cash-at-door scam”, 15 months after she was relieved of judicial work.

The Supreme Court collegium headed by Chief Justice of India K. G. Balakrishnan accepted the report of the Union Law Ministry that no case had been made out for prosecuting her and there was no evidence of her involvement in the scam.

It recommended that she be transferred as a judge of the Uttarakhand High Court with immediate effect. Law Ministry sources said the transfer would materialise within a fortnight.

It was alleged that Rs. 15 lakh in cash delivered at the residence of Justice Nirmaljit Kaur in Chandigarh on August 13, 2008, was meant for Justice Nirmal Yadav but was wrongly delivered at Justice Nirmaljit Kaur’s residence. However, Justice Nirmal Yadav had maintained that the cash was not meant for her and that she was made a scapegoat because of similarity in their names.

Soon after the scam came to light, the CJI appointed a three-judge committee to inquire into the matter and Justice Yadav proceeded on leave.

In its report, the committee, an internal mechanism evolved by the judiciary, concluded that there was prima facie truth in the allegations of corruption against Justice Yadav. The CJI issued her show-cause.

In her reply, Justice Yadav requested the CJI to reject the inquiry report as the probe was lopsided.

“I do not know, nor am I aware till now, whether the sum of Rs. 15 lakh delivered at Ms. {Justice} Nirmaljit Kaur’s residence was for her or for someone else. But I am certain it was always intended to be delivered at her residence. I have been made a scapegoat merely because my first name is similar to the judge {Justice Nirmaljit Kaur} to whom the cash was delivered,” she said.

Meanwhile, the Central Bureau of Investigation also registered a case under Section 8 (taking gratification to influence public servants) and Section 9 (taking gratification to exercise personal influence) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and 120-B (criminal conspiracy) of the IPC.

After getting permission from the CJI, the CBI examined Justice Nirmaljit Kaur and Justice Nirmal Yadav and sent its preliminary report to former Attorney-General Milon Banerjee for his opinion.

Mr. Banerjee in his opinion concluded that there was insufficient evidence to initiate prosecution against Justice Yadav.

The Law Ministry concurred with Mr. Banerjee’s opinion and dropped the move to prosecute her for lack of evidence.

The Law Ministry conveyed this to the CJI. The collegium after considering the Ministry’s report, Mr. Banerjee’s opinion and Justice Yadav’s reply took the decision to transfer her as a Judge of the Uttarakhand High Court.