Case Against CJI: Prashant Bhushan Questions ‘Conspiracy’ Claims of Advocate

New Delhi: Senior lawyer Prashant Bhushan has claimed that advocate Utsav Bains — who filed the affidavit with the Supreme Court claiming that sexual harassment charges against the Chief Justice of India (CJI) Ranjan Gogoi are part of a wider “conspiracy” — may have met the CJI twice before he filed the affidavit, reported The Wire.

It was after Bains had submitted the affidavit in the suo motu proceedings initiated by the apex court against the CJI that the SC on April 25 had ordered an inquiry by former Supreme Court judge Justice AK Patnaik into the alleged “conspiracy” to target the CJI. Justice Patnaik is to be assisted by the chiefs of Central Bureau of investigation, Delhi Police and Intelligence Bureau in the inquiry.

Also read: Justice AK Patnaik to Probe Alleged Conspiracy to Target CJI

Bains has alleged that SC ‘fixers and disgruntled employees’ had framed Gogoi and that Bains himself had been offered Rs 1.5 crore by a fixer for that purpose.

A former employee of the apex court has accused the CJI of sexual harassment and persecution, and a special hearing of the matter was held by the SC on April 20.

At 6:50 pm on April 20 , Bains had claimed on Facebook that “a lobby of disgruntled judges, SC fixers, corporate scamsters and a few corrupt politicians” was behind this “conspiracy”.

Later in his affidavit on April 22, Bains had named gangster Dawood Ibrahim, Jet Airways owner Naresh Goyal and Romesh Sharma, an alleged corporate fixer, as among those who might have been involved in the plot against the CJI.

Senior advocate Bhushan told The Wire that Bains had called him on April 20 after the story was reported, and before Bains had posted his allegation on Facebook, to say that “he had met the CJI the previous night (April 19, 2019)” and that Justice Gogoi could still be “saved”.

“When he told me about his conspiracy theory, I told him that I did not think there was any conspiracy and that the lady’s account appeared to be correct,” Bhushan said.

“Bains then said that he would meet me and tell me about this conspiracy,” the senior lawyer said.

Bhushan said after he’d objected to the FB post by Bains, the younger lawyer told Bhushan, in the senior lawyer’s words, that “he would meet me and convince me about the conspiracy”.

Bains kept asking Bhushan to meet him.

Also read: Sexual Harassment: Civil Society Members Demand Independent Probe Into Charges Against CJI

“On the evening of Sunday, April 21, when I was sitting at the office of (a senior advocate), along with advocate Vrinda Grover and her colleague, Bains called me on WhatsApp again,” Bhushan told The Wire.

“He asked me whether he could annexe an IB report with his affidavit that he was about to file in the court. I recorded part of this conversation. On my persistent questioning, he said that the IB report pointed to some larger conspiracy which also involved an attempt to prevent sitting judges from becoming CJI.”

As The Wire report states: “In the partly recorded conversation, which The Wire has reviewed, Bains is speaking about an IB report but does not mention how he got it. But he says that “this IB report is coming from people who the government will call ‘anti-nationals’.”

When Bhushan asked whether Bains’s claims were based on the IB report, the young lawyer said, “No, the narrative is not based on the IB report”. Bains apparently said that the IB report was an old one and was only a part of the conspiracy but it “does not exonerate the Chief Justice. That does not say he is innocent. It is a larger conspiracy.”

Bhushan said that, as stated in The Wire article, “Bains remained unclear and did not answer a single question directly.”

But at one point when Bhushan asked whether the conspiracy was against the CJI, Bains has replied, “…It is not against the Chief Justice, it’s against some judges who will be appointed as the Chief Justices of India.”

Bains hung up claiming that the woman’s allegations against the CJI were meant to “destabilise the SC and judiciary”.

And while Bains promised to meet Bhushan the next morning, Bains never turned up.

But Bains kept texting Bhushan asking to meet, but continued not showing up to meet. After this Bhushan told messaged Bains that he “needn’t meet” him and “should stop communicating” with him and blocked him on WhatsApp.

Also read: Sexual Harassment: Is CJI Ranjan Gogoi Above Law?

The Wire article continues: “Bhushan said that a senior advocate, Nina Gupta Bhasin, told him that she saw Bains outside gate E of the SC on the afternoon of April 22. “She told me that while she was waiting for a car to pick her up, a Jaguar taxi had blocked all other cars. The taxi was stuck there as the security personnel did not allow it entry into the court premises as the car did not have an SC sticker.”” When Nina Gupta enquired with the security guards, she saw Bains come out of the taxi, the article says. “She heard him tell the guards that he was Utsav Bains and that he was called by the CJI,” Bhushan said.

“Bizarrely”, Bhushan told The Wire, “the security people thereafter made some phone calls and after a minute they said that he had been invited inside and he should be allowed in. His taxi was then escorted in.”

Later on the same day, Utsav filed his affidavit.

The Wire contacted Nina Gupta to verify Bhushan’s claims and she did.

Bhushan has said that he will now file an affidavit and present it to Justice A.K. Patnaik, who is heading the probe into the “conspiracy”.

Bains, meanwhile, has denied Bhushan’s charge, “while CJI Gogoi and the court’s secretary general are yet to reply to The Wire’s email seeking a response to this allegation.”

The Wire states that it has sent queries to the CJI and Secretary-General of the Supreme Court “asking whether the CJI met Bains on and April 19 and 22. The story will be updated if and when their responses come.”