The committee report concluded by saying:
“(1) Shri Soumitra Sen did not have honest intentions right since 1993. As he mixed the money received as a receiver and his personal money and converted receiver’s money to his own use, there has been a misappropriation at least temporarily of the sale proceeds.
(a) He received Rs 24,57,000 between February 25, 1993, and January 10, 1995. But, the balance in his account was only Rs 8,83,963.05.
(b) Further, a sum of Rs 22,83,000 was then transferred by him and the entire amount was withdrawn in a couple of months reducing the balance to a bare minimum of Rs 811, diverting the sale proceeds for his own use with dishonest intentions.
(c) He gave false explanation to the court that an amount of Rs 25 lakh was invested from the account where the sale proceeds were kept whereas in fact the amount of Rs 25 lakh was withdrawn from Special Officer’s account and not from the account number in which the sale proceeds were deposited.
(d) Mere monetary deposit under the compulsion of judicial orders does not obliterate breach of trust and misappropriation of receiver’s funds for personal gain.
(e) The conduct of Shri Soumitra Sen has brought disrepute to the high judicial office and dishonour by the institution of judiciary undermining the faith and confidence reposed by the public in the administration of justice.” Then, he goes on to say, “A detailed representation was made by Justice Soumitra Sen on February 25, 2008 and a collegium consisting of himself, that is, Chief Justice of India, Justice B N Aggarwal and Justice Ashok Bahl, seniormost judges of the Supreme Court, gave a hearing to Shri Soumitra Sen and reiterated the advice given to him to submit his resignation or seek voluntary retirement on or before April 2, 2008. However, vide his letter dated March 26, 2008, Justice Soumitra Sen expressed his inability to tender resignation or seek voluntary retirement.”
So, the charges, Sir, are very specific and an in-house inquiry committee consisting of two Chief Justices and a justice of a high court has gone into it and established it. A collegium of judges of seniormost judges of the Supreme Court has re-established them.
Now, the Inquiry Committee constituted by your hon. self has, once again, unambiguously established it. So, I do not think there is any degree of ambiguity on the veracity of these charges. Since they stand established by three separate, independent and duly constituted authorities, this is a matter that should be accepted by us as the final issue that these charges have been now proved. Sir, I would like to appeal and go back to the speech of Edbinburg in the House of Lords when he finally makes the appeal to the Lordship, and I quote, “My Lords, if you must fall, you may so fall. But if you stand, and stand, I trust you will. May you stand as unimpeached in honour as in power. May you stand not as a substitute for virtue, but as an ornament of virtue, as a security for virtue. May you stand as a sacred temple for the perpetual residence of inviolable justice.”
And this, Sir, is the inviolable justice that this House today when it converts itself into a Bar, when it takes up these Constitutional provisions, it is the temple of inviolable justice. And, therefore, Sir, a sacred temple for the perpetual residence of inviolable justice, that is what this House must be, Sir. Justice and temple are used in the terms that Pandit Nehru used after Independence when he talked of our important public sector constructions as the temples of modern India. These are the temples of modern India that our Republic created.
I say this with honour and all the commitment at my command that the Republic that was founded in India, both after the Independence and the Republic, but the Republic that was founded was a far-reaching vision in modern civilisation and society. Way back, more than six decades ago, we had given universal adult franchise, which was then considered absolutely abnormal and unusual. We must recollect when the US President comes and signs in our Golden Book in our Central Hall, all of us are happy, when he says, “Greetings from the oldest democracy to the largest democracy”.
But, Sir, remember, the African Americans in the US had the universal right to vote granted to them a year after Obama was born. We gave it way back in 1950, Sir. That is the faith we had in our people, we have in our people. And that is the faith that has to be exercised in our constitutional scheme of things through the elected representatives, and it is that faith that unfortunately is being questioned today by some quarters that this august Parliament is not competent or not capable enough to deal with corruption in high places, and, therefore, it cannot and will not move against corruption in high places.
