[Reader-list] How true is Justice Sabharwal? Probe demanded.

[Bikash Ballabh Singh]

Former Chief Justice of India (CJI) Justice YK Sabarwal is in the midst of a
controversy, with senior lawyers and former CJIs demanding a probe into the
allegations. A Report...

by Abhishek Behl
http://www.merinews.com/catFull.jsp?articleID=126536

HE SEALED the fate of many a people in Delhi, with his strict orders on
'Sealing' the illegal buildings in the Indian capital.

But 'sealing' today came back to haunt the former Chief Justice of India
(CJI), Justice Y K Sabharwal, when questions were raised over his
professional conduct into the entire sealing episode.

Raising serious allegations over the professional demeanour of the former
CJI, the Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Judicial Reforms (CJAJR),
a group of jurists and social activists, demanded a probe into the manner in
which his Lordship accrued pecuniary benefits for his sons, through his
judicial orders over the sealing issue, on Wednesday (September 19).

We need to approach the serious allegations against the former CJI with
caution and care. Is Justice Sabharwal being singled out for some reason or
is there any iota of truth in these charges? In fact, a section of the legal
fraternity feels that Justice Sabharwal should himself demand an impartial
probe into the serious allegations. They added that other former CJIs,
judges and senior lawyers' demand for a fair probe into these charges needs
to be viewed in the light of utter fairness and objectivity.

Addressing media persons in Delhi, senior lawyer Prashant Bhushan demanded
that an independent probe should be ordered by the Supreme Court of India to
find out the truth.

"We want the truth to come out and for this the Supreme Court has to take
the lead", he said, alleging that Justice Sabharwal's two sons had colluded
with the builders to take advantage of the real estate market influenced by
the sealing drive.

Making a point-by-point rebuttal of Justice Sabharwal's statement published
in the media, Prashant demanded that the Justice Sabharwal be charged under
prevention of corruption act.

The Judicial Reforms Group further stated that they would initiate an
independent inquiry if the Supreme Court did nothing in this regard.

A time of reckoning for Indian Judiciary has come and it is time the Apex
Court rises to the occasion and faces the challenge, said former Law
Minister and veteran lawyer, Shanti Bhushan.

"A number of former Chief Justices including Justice V K Krishna Iyer,
Justice PB Sawant, Justice JC Verma have called for a probe into this matter
and same will bring forth the truth.

Noted social activists Swami Agnivesh and Arvind Kejriwal, who were present
on the occasion, also demanded an impartial probe into the affairs of
Justice Sabharwal.

On this occasion, a document, in the form of a press release, was issued by
the Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Judicial Reforms detailing the
alleged irregularities.

Here it must be mentioned that former Chief Justices of India including
Justice J C Verma, Justice VN Khare, Justice PB Sawant and Justice V R
Krishna Iyer had called for a voluntary probe to put an end to this
controversy. They had said that an independent probe would bring out the
truth and restore the credibility of Indian judiciary.

A few days earlier, Justice Sabharwal had, however, strongly denied any
wrongdoing on his part or on the part of his two sons, in the media.

The document (press release), is reproduced verbatim, issued by Campaign for
Judicial Accountability and Judicial Reforms (CJAJR), on Wednesday:

Justice Sabharwal finally broke his silence in a signed piece in the Times
of India. His defence proceeds by ignoring and sidestepping the inconvenient
and emphasizing the irrelevant if it can evoke sympathy. To examine the
adequacy of his defence, we need to see his defence against the gravamen of
each charge against him.

*Charge No. 1:* That his son's companies had shifted their registered
offices to his official residence.

*Justice Sabharwal's response:* That as soon as he came to know he ordered
his son's to shift it back.

*CJAJR's Rejoinder:* This is False. In April 2007, in a recorded interview
with the Midday reporter MK Tayal he feigned total ignorance of the shifting
of the offices to his official residence. Copy of the CD containing the said
conversation is attached hereto as Annexure I. In fact, the registered
offices were shifted back from his official residence to his Punjabi Bagh
residence exactly on the day that the BPTP mall developers became his sons'
partners, making it very risky to continue at his official residence. Copies
of the document showing the date of induction of Kabul Chawla, the promoter
and owner of BPTP in Pawan Impex Pvt. Ltd., one of the companies of Jutstice
Sabharwal's sons, and Form no. 18 showing the shifting of the registered
office from the official residence of Justice Sabharwal to his family
residence on 23rd October 2004 are attached hereto as Annexure II (Colly).

*Charge No. 2:* That he called for and dealt with the sealing of commercial
property case in March 2005, though it was not assigned to him. It is only
the Chief Justice who can assign pending cases to various judges. He was not
the CJI at that time. Copy of the order dated 17th March 2005 is attached
hereto as Annexure III.

*Justice Sabharwal's response:* Justice Sabharwal does not answer this
charge.

*Charge No. 3:* That he did this exactly around the time that his sons got
into partnerships with Mall and commercial complex developers, who stood to
benefit from his sealing orders. The chain of events is as follows:

On 23rd October 2004, Kabul Chawla, the promoter of one of the biggest
developers of shopping malls and commercial complexes, was inducted in Pawan
Impex as a 50% shareholder and Director. On 12.02.2005, Kabul Chawla's wife,
Anjali Chawla was also inducted as Director of Pawan Impex. On 17th March
2005, Justice Sabharwal ordered that the case dealing with the sealing of
commercial establishments should also be heard along with the writ of M.C.
Mehta, which was being heard by him. On 8th April 2005, Chetan Sabharwal and
Nitin Sabharwal, two sons of Justice Sabharwal, set up another company,
Harpawan Constructors, with the object of constructing Commercial complexes.
On 25th October 2005, Purshottam Bagheria, one of the big builders on
shopping malls and commercial complexes of Delhi was inducted as a partner
in Harpwan Construtors. On 16th Februrary 2006, Justice Y. K. Sabharwal, who
by that time had become the Chief Justice of India, passed a detailed order
in the aforementioned case setting into motion the demolition and sealing in
Delhi.

*Justice Sabharwal's response:* That they were his sons friends. That
Harpawan Constructors, which was set up by his sons with the Mall developer
Purshottam Bagheria did not do any business. In fact the courts under him
got Bagheria's 1 MG road mall demolished. That his sons are not developing
shopping malls but only an IT Park.

*CJAJR's Rejoinder:* If so many Mall and commercial complex developers were
his sons' close friends, then he should not have dealt with the case anyway
since that creates an immediate conflict of interest. Moreover, why should
they go into partnership with these developers who stood to benefit from
Justice Sabharwal's orders, and that too exactly at the time when he seizes
control of the sealing of commercial property case and starts dealing with
it. He says that the company set up by his sons in partnership with Bagheria
has not done any business. If so, why was this new company set up for
developing commercial complexes in partnership with this builder? In an
interview with ZNews Justice Sabhawal claims credit for the judiciary under
him ordering the demolition of the illegal 1 MG road mall owned by Bagheria.
But then why do his sons enter into partnerships with such an illegal
builder whose buildings have had to be demolished by the Judiciary? And
immediately after this partnership with the Sabharwals, Bagheria went on to
announce the construction of "Square 1 mall" in Saket as the most
fashionable mall in India. And all the fashion designers who had their shops
and outlets at 1 MG road went on to buy space in the Square I mall. What is
important to note here is that Bagheria and his partners at 1 MG road had
already parted with all the space on 1 MG Road. The demolition thus hurt the
designers and others who had bought shops there, but did not hurt Bagheria
who may have in fact benefited from it by clearing the land of his tenants
and getting them to buy space at his new malls at Saket and elsewhere.
An IT park is also a commercial complex like any other. Many commercial
establishments sealed were IT centres and BPOs, which were forced to buy
space in, IT parks like that being constructed by his sons and their
partners.

*Charge No. 4:* That the Union Bank of India gave a loan of 28 crores to his
sons' company Pavan Impex on a collateral of plant and machinery and other
moveables at the site of their proposed IT Park, which were non-existent.

*Justice Sabharwal's response*: That his sons' had a credit facility of 75
crores.

*CJAJR's Rejoinder:* If that were the case, what was the need for mortgaging
non-existent assets for obtaining this loan? Moreover, the Banks' senior
manager is on record saying that the loan was given on the basis of
projected sales to prospective customers. The conversation with the Bank
Manager is in the CD attached hereto as Annexure I.

*Charge No. 5:* That because of the obvious conflict of interest, he could
not have dealt with this case.

*Justice Sabharwal's response:* That his orders have never benefited his
sons.

*CJAJR's Rejoinder:* His orders of sealing lakhs of commercial properties
clearly forced those establishments to buy or rent space in commercial
complexes like those that his sons' companies were constructing; and
shopping malls etc that their friends and partners were constructing. There
was a clear conflict of interest and his orders have clearly benefited his
sons and their partners.

*Charge No. 6:* That a large number of industrial and commercial plots were
allotted in Noida by the UP government to his sons' companies, at prices far
below the market price. In particular several huge plots were allotted
between December 2004 and November 2006 by the Mulayam Singh/Amar Singh
government, while he was dealing with Amar Singh's tapes case, and had
stayed the publication of those tapes on the behest of Amar Singh.

*Justice Sabharwal's response:* That some of the plots were allotted by
earlier different governments. That the prices were not far below the market
price. That the allotments were made in the normal course to his sons who
were entrepreneurs and were providing employment to hundreds of people in
Noida.

*CJAJR's Rejoinder:* Even if one were to look at only the last two
allotments of 12,000 metres each made in December 2004 and November 2006,
made by the Mulayam Singh/Amar Singh governments, it is obvious that the
allotments are definitely not in the normal course. Consider the allotment
to Pawan Impex. The company has Nil turnover and Nil business (as declared
in their application) on the date of application on 30/12/04. The very next
day they receive a letter from Noida Authority asking them to come for an
interview within 4 days on 5/11/04. On that day the authority notes that
they want 12,000 sq m in Sector 125 or Sector 132. The minutes note that
because the work of development of Sector 125 is not complete and because in
sector 132 the plot size available is only upto 11,000 sq metres, the matter
is deferred for the next meeting. In the next meeting on 13/12/04, though
Sector 125 is still not developed, a decision is taken to allot them a
12,000 Sq. metre plot in Sector 125 for a BPO. All this without a word about
how and why a company with nil business is worthy of being allotted one of
the largest plots of 12,000 sq. meters. The previous application of M/s
Softedge Solutions Pvt. Ltd for an IT park is rejected on the ground that
they could not satisfactorily answer questions about their previous
experience in IT and their technical tie up. But Pawan Impex represented by
Chetan Sabharwal with Nil business, no previous track record in IT and no
technical tie up sails through with no questions asked. All in the normal
course, of course! Copies of the profit and loss accounts of Pawan Impex
Pvt. Ltd. for the year ended 31.03.2003 and 31.03.2004 showing its income
nil are attached hereto as Annexure IV (Colly). Justice Sabharwal says that
the allotment price of Rs. 3,700/sq M was not below the market price. The
current circle rate in Sector 125 is Rs. 11,000/sq metre and the market
price is over Rs. 30,000/sq meter there.

Similarly, the huge plot of 3 acres, No. 12 A in Sector 68 alloted to Sabs
Exports in November 2006 at a throw away price of Rs. 4000 per square meter
is also not in the normal course and was similarly made within days of
application and a bogus interview, without any other system. Today, within
10 months of allotment, even the circle rate of plots in Sector 68 is Rs.
8,000 per sq. meter and the market rate is Rs. 20-22,000 per sq. meter.
Moreover this allotment has been made at a time when he was dealing with
Amar Singh's tapes case and had stayed the publication of the tapes.

*Charge No. 7:* That his sons have purchased a 1150 square meter house in
Maharani bagh, New Delhi in March 2007 for a consideration of 15.46 crores.
The source of money for this is unexplained and in the sale deed they seek
to conceal their relationship with Justice Sabharwal by writing his name as
Yogesh Kumar and giving their factory address instead of the residential
address.

*Justice Sabharwal's response:* That 90 per cent of the money for the
purchase of this house was from four banks; that his sons concealed his full
name in the sale deed in order to avoid taking advantage of their
association with him.
* *
*CJAJR's Rejoinder:* Banks do not normally advance loans of 90% of the value
of a property on its security. Otherwise they would end up holding
inadequate security if the property prices fall by even 15%. If they have
done so in this case, it is either because of an undue favour as in the case
of the loan of 28 Crores to Pawan Impex, or they valued the property higher
than the declared purchase price. His explanation for concealing his name in
the sale deed is hilarious and unbelievable since his sons did not hesitate
to use his official residence as the registered office of their companies.
Moreover, this was in a registered sale deed with a private party, where
there was no occasion for taking any advantage by using his name.