In times like these, nothing is impossible. Nothing, really, some of it befitting a serial or a blockbuster movie. One wonders at times, who fuels whom – is ‘real’ inspired by the cinema trials, or is that movie makers get material from ‘real’ life – from ‘real’ to ‘reel’?
Justice Verma’s case is nothing short of the high drama, that would naturally catch the nation by surprise. Bags of currency are caught, some burnt and some not, in the outhouse of the judge’s official bungalow; a sitting judge who has had an otherwise clean record, what most learned observers say, with well meant delivery in the courts over which he presided. The amount of currency has not been revealed, not even a guestimate. It is the reported fire in the ‘outhouse’ that brought the fire brigade that exposed the shocking currency haul.
What followed thereafter is a series of episodes that have at best baffled most. The ‘outhouse’ was not sealed, there was no FIR, in fact the matter became public only after a few days; not even the media reported it on the actual date of the fire. The hon’ble judge was out of station, has said he was not aware of the ‘outhouse’, virtually claiming he was not responsible for what was going on. There are media stories that suggest that many of the outhouses in these large bungalows remain occupied by servants and staff as a common factor, that works over successive tenants. They become attached to the next occupants, a permanent fixture where the VIP may not even know them.
So, Justice Verma has claimed innocence, disowning both the occupants in his outhouse, or any knowledge of any cash stored in it, even going to the extent, as per media reports, that these allegations are false and motivated.
Some of it does defy logic. Why would anyone in public service store heaps of cash in an ‘outhouse’? Unless there was so much of it that the person does not know what to do with it. It is also said that the usual practice is not to handle cash directly. There is also the idea, that such sums of cash could not be the handiwork of just one individual, there could well be “a merry gang at work”? Was there a larger syndicate at work, either working with, or against, which is another question at large.
At the time of writing this column, the CJI has instituted a high-level enquiry into the matter, and rightly so, it has been emphasised that hasty conclusions are best avoided. Let there be patience, let the enquiry share the story.
Regardless of what gets revealed, and does it satisfy public curiosity, clamour for reforms within the judiciary has taken centre stage. Surfaced again is the old argument that the present system is too opaque, and is not in keeping with contemporary expectations. The judiciary works within itself, recommends choices within themselves, and continues as a collegium that enjoys total secrecy. An expanded ‘collegium’ that allows for greater transparency when selections are made would help. There is also the needle of suspicion over judges in the states (high courts), which is from where the judges then subsequently climb the ladder, making both friends and enemies in the process. Over time, they get entrenched as lobbies, to each his own.
“The Mystery of the ‘Outhouse’ that Burnt into Prominence”, is a strong narrative, a commentary on our present times. When the law must be above fear and favour, when law should take its due course, and must also be ‘seen’ as most fair and punishes whatever is ‘foul’, is the call of our times. As the hon’ble judge seeks justice, so does the public. Let the proof be shared transparently, without any hasty conclusions, sheer evidence is also not always the truth one seeks.