The Colour of Justice

Paul Daniel Dinakaran has resigned as Chief Justice of the Sikkim High Court. 

Two years of feet dragging and then the green light shines, but he’s not waiting to be ousted. Given that he’s not as lucky as the former big chief, who is parrying allegations of misuse of his office with regard to the disproportionate wealth acquired by his brother and sons-in law, after he retired from office, Dinakaran figured he may as well go gently instead of being taken out – kicking and screaming. 

With one year of his term left and with Kalmadi having already taken the dementia route, even that line of defense is closed. Just in case it ever crossed his mind.

But then to fire one last salvo as he departs, the Hon’ble Judge claims bias –

“I have a sneaking suspicion that my misfortune was because of my circumstances of my birth in the socially oppressed and underprivileged section of society. Integrity of members of these communities who attain high office is always baselessly questioned through innuendo, sneering and spreading false rumours while the privileged are treated by the vested interests as embodiment of all virtues.”

This after charges of land grabbing, accumulation of unaccounted assets, and passing judicial orders for extraneous considerations, were laid at his door.

Still, bearing in mind the glorious principle of the law that the presumption of innocence is to prevail, unless otherwise proved, we would have given him the benefit of doubt… in line with the stand taken by the Rajya Sabha constituted committee probing the allegations and even by the Supreme Court when it entertained his petition against one of the members of the committee – senior advocate P.P. Rao.

In his writ petition [(civil) No. 217 of 2011], Justice Dinakaran claimed that respondent no. 3 (Adv Rao) had pre-judged his guilt and was therefore prejudiced against him. The Apex Court in its ruling stated that despite the fact that the petitioner (Justice Dinakaran) was aware of the inclusion of respondent no. 3 on the committee in January 2010, since the respondent had himself asked to be relieved from the committee following newspaper reports that he had given legal opinion to the petitioner in December 2009 – an allegation refuted by the respondent in his letter to the committee, the petitioner had not raised any objections to his inclusion at that time and chose to do so only in March 2011 after receiving notice from the committee of the charges against him, along with the list of documents and witnesses. 

The Court therefore held that the belated raising of objection to the inclusion of respondent no. 3 seemed to be a calculated move on the petitioner’s part, given that the respondent had done nothing which a person of reasonable prudence would construe as him being “ill-disposed” towards the petitioner. However the Court in keeping with the principles of fairness, advised the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha, Vice President Hamid Ansari to nominate another eminent jurist to replace Adv Rao on the committee, at the same time turning down Dinakaran’s plea to declare the constitution of the committee a nullity. 

Refusing to quash the allegations against Dinakaran, the court declared – “We hold that belated raising of objection against inclusion of respondent No.3 in the Committee under Section 3(2) appears to be a calculated move on the petitioner’s part. He is an intelligent person and knows that in terms of Rule 9(2)(c) of the Judges (Inquiry) Rules, 1969, the Presiding Officer of the Committee is required to forward the report to the Chairman within a period of three months from the date the charges framed under Section 3(3) of the Act were served upon him. Therefore, he wants to adopt every possible tactic to delay the submission of report which may in all probability compel the Committee to make a request to the Chairman to extend the time in terms of proviso to Rule 9(2) (c). This Court or, for that reason, no Court can render assistance to the petitioner in a petition filed with the sole object of delaying finalisation of the inquiry.”

This ruling of the Supreme Court effectively released the brakes on the impeachment proceedings and Justice Dinakaran finding that he had run out of options finally decided to bow out. But not before alleging bias yet again, this time on the grounds of his birth – “in a socially oppressed and underprivileged section of society”.

Considering that Justice Dinakaran is and has been a privileged member of the higher judiciary these allegations seem out of place, and reek of desperation, especially when you consider the nature of the allegations at his door.