A confidential letter (DO No.

43/Spl/CJS) dated 22/04/2004 written by the then Chief Justice Of Punjab and Haryana High Court, Justice BK Roy to the then chief justice of India Justice V N Khare, three days after the strike on April 19, listed out the "conduct (misconduct?) of Justice Singhvi of P&H HC in prima facie ante-dating his orders/judgments..." The letter, received by Justice Khare a few days before he retired, gives the details of cases, complete with xerox copies of records. The records show Singhvi took years to pronounce judgment. Even though Chief Justice Lahoti who succeeded Justice Khare had recommended the name of Justice GS Singhvi for elevation to the Supreme Court, his name is not being cleared by the government, as Law Minister HR Bharadwaj wants another nominee. He was instead transferred to Gujarat HC in January 2005. The letter of Justice Roy listed out the "conduct (misconduct?) of Justice Singhvi of P&H HC in prima facie ante-dating his orders/judgments..." This letter provides an insightful narrative on the strike and of the judges grouping together and holding meetings under Justice GS Singhvi, who was the senior most judge after him, the subsequent mutiny against the Constitution, of the real possibility of the High Court nearly shutting down. The letter, received by Justice Khare a few days before he retired, gives the details of cases, complete with xerox copies of records. The records show Singhvi took years to pronounce judgment. He was transferred to Gujarat HC in January this year. Roy's letter listed out 10 cases in which judgments/orders passed by Singhvi were received by the HC office long after the date which these judgments/orders bore. The delay on this count ranges from six months to four years. It is this delay which Roy had in mind when he charged Justice Singhvi with "prim Keeping the aphorism of justice delayed is justice denied in mind, the Supreme Court in a leading case had said, " Constitution believed that no HC judge would cause such long and distressing delays. "But unfortunately, the later years have shown slackness on the part of a few judges of the superior courts in India with the result that once arguments in a lis (dispute) concluded before them the records remain consigned to hibernation. Judges themselves normally forget the details of the acts and niceties of the legal points advanced In some cases, the judgments were received by the HC office after the retirement of the judge who heard the case with Singhvi in a division Bench. In certain cases, orders on behalf of the division Bench were passed by Singhvi alone. Singhvi delayed matters even on the administrative side. An additional judge's representation against adverse remarks in his annual confidential report (ACR) remained pending with Singhvi for almost four years (3 years, 11 months, 25 days) before Roy reminded him on January 7, 2004, to dispose it of one way or the other. It was only then that Singhvi sent his order on the representation to the registrar-general's office which bore the date February 13, 2001. At an emergency meeting of the Bar Association on April 19 2004, lawyers condemned the en masse leave by Judges "crippling and paralysing the judicial work in the High Court and creating a grave and unprecedented situation". The association called upon the President and the CJI to transfer immediately all local Judges from the High Court. The meeting pointed out that one of the dissenting Judges, Justice Singhvi, who allegedly persuaded the other Judges to join the `strike', had given a 38-page judgment less than two years ago declaring that strikes that shut down courts are "illegal and wholly unjustified". Source: The Economic Times INDIAN EXPRESS STORY OF THE STRIKE January 27, 2004: The management of the controversial Forest Hill Club discloses to the Punjab and Haryana High Court the free membership given to two of its judges, Justice Viney Mittal and Justice Virender Singh.

 April 2: High Court Chief Justice B K Roy writes to those two judges asking them to give their response within three days to the disclosure of their free membership. April 5: Justices Mittal and Virender Singh write back saying Justice Roy had no authority to question them. April 8: In his reply, Justice Roy asserts his authority by quoting a 1990 resolution of Chief Justices and a 1995 Supreme Court judgment on judicial accountability. April 9: 21 judges led by Justice G S Singhvi write to Justice Roy saying that they were shocked to read the letter he had written to Justices Mittal and Virender Singh and alleged that it showed his bias and mala fides. April 10: Justice Roy writes to Justice Singhvi denying the charges and alleging in turn that he and the other 20 judges were holding a brief for the club owners. April 19: 25 high court judges go on mass casual leave on the very day a bench headed by Justice Roy was due to hear the PIL in which the names of Justices Mittal and Virender Singh surfaced. The striking judges lent support to the contention of Justices Mittal and Virender Singh that the Chief Justices attempt to hold them accountable for their membership in the club was entirely without jurisdiction and authority. The judges took objection to Justice Roys reported observations in the court telling the CBI time and again to register corruption cases against the two judges in question. According to those 21 judges, the way and manner in which Justice Roy had addressed his letters to the two judges showed his continued bias and mala fides and that he had already pre-judged the issue. Ending their letter on a foreboding note, the judges said that it would be appropriate for Justice Roy not to engage in any further correspondence in that regard. The Chief Justice replied to Justice Singhvi the very next day, April 10, saying: I shall continue to discharge my duties, both judicial and administrative, as usual without any fear of anyone. Denying as baseless the charges against him for sending notices to Justices Mittal and Virender Singh, Justice Roy said that their recourse to such allegations indicated that Justice Singhvi and the other signatories were holding a brief for the owners of clubs and that the guilty mind is always suspicious. Justice Roy also took a serious view of the comments the 21 judges made on the PIL he had initiated early this year on the collusion between the club and an array of public servants, including judges. The Bar Association of India President and Rajya Sabha MP Fali S Nariman in a letter to Chief Justice of India R.C. Lahoti, also questioned the transfer of Guwahati High Court Chief Justice B.K. Roy to the Sikkim High Court, saying it amounted to a punitive action frau ght with grave consequences. Describing Mr Justice Roy as a man of high integrity and deadly honest as per the inquiries made by him from very reliable sources, Nariman said I do believe that transferring not merely a judge but the Chief Justice of a High Court in a state as Chief Justice of another state is a matter fraught with grave consequences - particularly the judges and Bar in the other state.