Justice Altamas Kabir seeks apology from Justice Sathasviam, if remarks in JP Associates case are true

Former Chief Justice of India, Justice Altamas Kabir spoke to Karan Thapar in Devil's Advocate on CNN-IBN. Live Law brings to you the full text of the interview along with the video.Karan Thapar: First, we shall be speaking of the issues connected to your Chief Justice tenure, before we come to wider issues connected with the judiciary. It has been alleged that the recent ‘NEET judgment’ was leaked through private medical colleges two weeks officially before you delivered it. Is that true?Justice Altamas Kabir: I wouldn’t know because I don’t know that it was leaked. I have no knowledge whatsoever.Karan Thapar: I’ll tell you why people ask this question; because the leading Supreme Court Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayan, on his blog, before the judgment was officially delivered, actually predicted that it would be in favor of private medical colleges, he predicted the basis and grounds for that inclusion, and he also predicted that justice Dave would dissent and people say, if he’s got so much correct before the judgment is delivered, surely it proves that the judgment was leaked.Justice Altamas Kabir: Right, let me put this in another way. Who gains by this leak; number one. Number two is, how did he know that Justice Dave was going to dissent. If it had to be, say suppose it was leaked from my Chamber, from my Chamber here in the Court, or in the residence where the judgment was prepared, supposed it happened here. How would anybody know that Justice Dave is going to dissent? So its, my view is simply its some kind of speculation.Karan Thapar: So, infact what you’re saying is that there is no question of a leak but just some sort of a co-incidence that Gopal Sankaranarayan predicted so accurately what the outcome would be?Justice Altamas Kabir: Not very accurately. What he did predict, to some extent it was true, was that it would be above a hundred and ninety pages.Karan Thapar: He predicted that you would be found in favor of private medical colleges, he predicted that you would conclude that the Medical Council of India would have no jurisdiction, he predicted that Justice Dave would dissent, all three of them are correct.Justice Altamas Kabir: Err, yes they are. But at the same time I would repeat, that Justice Dave was going to dissent was something that was not known to us.Karan Thapar: That maybe the co-incidence?Justice Altamas Kabir: Either it’s a co-incidence or a leak, but it is not from here.Karan Thapar: You are absolutely confident that there was no leak, either from your Chamber, or at your home, or from the Supreme Court?Justice Altamas Kabir: Absolutely.Karan Thapar: Now a set of issues connected with the NEET judgment, was that in his dissent, your colleague Justice Dave said, that he had to be quick and therefore short, because of paucity of time, and he also said there was no prior discussion with you and perhaps he did not have proper time for reflection and that worries people when a Judge doesn’t have adequate time.Justice Altamas Kabir: Well, if I remember correctly, the copy of the judgment- the draft was made over to Justice Dave for atleast about ten days or one week. Atleast one week before the judgment was delivered.Karan Thapar: In your words, Justice Dave had adequate time, and to complain of paucity of time, is wrong.Justice Altamas Kabir: Absolutely. Apart from that, what was the main issue involved? The main issue involved in this case was not whether it benefitted students, benefitted people; it was not that at all. It was a legal question. The legal question was simply this, does the Medical Council of India have the right or the jurisdiction, or the authority under the law, to impose a single window exam.Karan Thapar: Quite right. So what you’re saying is, I’m repeating it again because it is so important to be categorically correct. You’re saying that when Justice Dave in his judgment, he says that he has to be quick and therefore also short, and talks about paucity of time, that paucity of time is untrue, he had a clear ten days.Justice Altamas Kabir: See, he had sufficient time if we put it this way, to look into the judgment, and the very first opening lines as you would find in the judgment like this, it set out what were the actual issues involved. Just one more thing, those were the issues which he did not address. He went by a personal emotional feeling, if I can understand from his judgment. What he has said is, he believed that a single window examination would be beneficial for the people, but that is not the law.Karan Thapar: You’re saying that he went by an emotional response rather than the legal point of the issue.Justice Altamas Kabir: Correct.Karan Thapar: Let’s leave that aside. A second matter that arises from your tenure as Chief Justice is the criticism that you often, wrongly and improperly, took in hands matters that were actually the concerns of other existing Benches’ of the Supreme Court and your critics say that you did this with some connection ...

Justice Altamas Kabir seeks apology from Justice Sathasviam, if remarks in JP Associates case are true

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Justice Altamas Kabir seeks apology from Justice Sathasviam, if remarks in JP Associates case are true

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers