Ranjan Gogoi Wishes SC Takes Suo Motto Notice On Aspersions Cast On Its Judgments
Slamming his critics for their remarks that he was rewarded with Rajya Sabha nomination because of his verdicts in favour of NDA government, former Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi wished that the Supreme Court takes suo motto notice about the aspersions cast on its judgments, but said it won’t happen because the entire judiciary today has come into the stranglehold of handful of people.
“I hope and I wish, but I don’t think it will happen, for reasons that I will tell you. The Supreme Court takes suo motto notice and initiates a contempt proceeding against at least the prominent ones, who are making the statements,” he said.
“I don’t think that is going to happen, though it should happen, because the entire judiciary today has come into the stranglehold of handful of people,” Gogoi told Republic Media Network Edior-in-Chief Arnab Goswami in an exclusive interview.
The Opposition had flayed BJP for his nomination to Rajya Sabha. Congress leader PL Punia had alleged that Gogoi was rewarded with a Rajya Sabha nomination because of his verdicts in favour of NDA government.
Kapil Sibal, another Congress leader, had accused Gogoi of “compromising the integrity of the institution.” AIMIM chief Asaduddin Owaisi called it ‘Quid Pro Quo’ further raising questions on how the independence of the judiciary will remain after the inclusion of a former judge into the legislative body.
Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra called Gogoi a “greedy lord” and asked if he was “politician or judge all along?”
He said such criticism is, but natural coming from those Parliamentarians and Supreme Court authorities, who were unhappy about his dealings with them in the capacity of Chief Justice of India.
“I perceive that there are certain section of people in Parliament and Supreme Court. Perhaps they were not happy with the way I dealt with them when I am CJI. So, it is only natural, when I come to Parliament, they will not welcome me,” he told Republic Media Network Edior-in-Chief Arnab Goswami in an exclusive interview.
On Owaisi’s comments, Gogoi said these comments neither bothers him, nor stings him, because the nomination was not a case of quid pro quo. If it was, he would have accepted more meatier post, than being a mere Rajya Sabha member.
“These comments don’t bother me. They don’t sting me, for the simple reason that if it had been quid pro quo, perhaps it would have been something else, not a Rajya Sabha seat. Rajya Sabha sits for 65 days in a year. I have already said yesterday, I am not going to take any emoluments of the office,” he said.
Gogoi also said he could not refuse the offer given by the President because it is in the DNA of a judge that he or she does not say no to the demands of the bench.
Responding to Punia’s statement, Gogoi said, “Did I deliver judgement sitting alone? The statements are highly contemptuous. It casts aspersion on the part of the bench. Are you suggesting that the other members of the bench whose tenure is going to be complete before the tenure of the present government have also guaranteed their post-retirement package?,” he said.
Asked whether the real grouse against him was due to the Ayodhya judgement, Gogoi said it doesn’t bother him one bit because it was an unanimous judgement.
“What effect it has on a political party or a particular segment of the population is something that never comes to the mind of a judge. He decides the case on the basis of the law and the materials available before him. That’s what we did,” he said.
“I will be the last person to be bothered by it. I told you Ayodhya was another case which needed an early resolution, nothing beyond that. How it had helped one? How it had harmed one? This is something beyond my comprehension. A case of this magnitude is bound to have repercussions. We were fully conscious. I hope this repercussion stops with me and does not affect on my brother judges,” he added.
Asked whether he was targeted by the lobby for the position he took in Rafale verdict, Gogoi said it was a unanimous judgement taken by three judges.
“The court did not find any evidence of further inquiry and closed the matter … If there was no prima-facie case for further inquiry, there could not be case for an FIR. That’s the view the two judges took – Justice Joseph differed a little. That judgement speaks for itself,” he said.