Posts Tagged ‘Investigative Journalism’

News is a tough mistress and journalists are but its one-night stands. Each dawn brings a new claimant to its affections and a new byline. Like a beautiful woman, it also plays hard to get, reveling in chase. “Milli (Found it)?” Short and stocky Purushottam, who haunted the corridors of Town Hall some two decades ago, would ask if I happened to run into him.

Did I ‘find it?’ Did I find ‘news?”

Purushottam was like a magpie that needed to carry off the brightest and the biggest chunk of ‘news’ from Town Hall, so that the next day, his prize may end up on the front page of the newspaper he worked for. Purushottam’s quest epitomizes the life of all journalists. You can find us in the shabby rooms of Shastri Bhawan, chatting up clerks and officers with the same aplomb. Or in the Home Ministry, trying to outsit the others in the OSD’s room in the hope of an ‘exclusive’ comment; under the blazing sun outside Parliament; fighting with cops for the right to enter a barricaded area strewn with blood and gore after a terrorist attack; or in the the shadows of booming guns in a battlefield, chasing that elusive news. When the day is winding down and the sun sinking into blissful sleep, we begin asking ourselves: “Milli?

A journalist learns early  to pursue the big story that started out small. The need to connect the dots, to see where the ladder leads, even at the risk of getting swallowed by a snake, is a passion unlike any. In a journalist’s world, curiosity does not kill the cat. It creates a newshound.

From Meham to Sabharwal- the fight  to do one's job as a journalist. Honestly and fearlessly

From Meham to Sabharwal- the fight to do one’s job as a journalist. Honestly and fearlessly

Like the time I found myself staring at a young man pointing a stengun at me. The only other person in that deserted classroom was a shivering poll clerk, sitting in the teacher’s chair and stamping election ballots with shaking hands as the gunman hovered over his shoulders.

‘How many votes have been cast?” I asked the poll clerk, studiously ignoring the youth with the gun. Petrified with fear, the clerk said nothing and continued to furiously stamp the ballot papers one after another. I then looked at the goon standing inches away from me, his finger on the trigger. “Don’t you know it is illegal to bring firearms into a polling booth?”  I said, sounding ridiculously schoolmarmish. Like the poll clerk, the goon didn’t say anything either. He gnashed his teeth and scowled back at me.

I could do nothing. After standing around for a couple of minutes, when stillness enveloped the room in a suffocating blanket, I left, feeling silly. I could have been shot for asking that absurdly rhetorical question: “Don’t you know it is illegal to bring firearms into a polling booth?” But I had to confront the crook. I couldn’t walk away, surrender meekly to a wrong. That was not what was expected of me in my job. That was not my training or my profession.

This was Meham, Haryana,  in 1990 during a bloody by-election marked by blatant intimidation of voters. There was a huge crowd outside the school where the boothcapturing was on, but nobody wanted to mess with the Green Brigade, an army of gun-toting miscreants patronised by a state government desperate to retain power. A few kilometers away at Bainsi village, a similar drama was getting played out, but with a difference. The villagers had surrounded the school where Green Brigade hoodlums had captured a polling booth. There was a standoff between the villagers and the Haryana police who wanted to help the criminals, led by Abhay Singh Chautala, son of the then chief minister Om Prakash Chautala, escape.  As I hurried towards the village, a Newstrack team stopped my car. “Don’t go there. The villagers are beating up reporters.”

A shameful rescue and a reminder that journalists can only tell a story. The rest depends on the system

A shameful rescue and a reminder that journalists can only tell a story. The rest depends on the system

There was no turning back. If there was news, I had to cover it. Photographer Kamal Narang and I were the only journalists to reach Bainsi village that day and what we saw shocked the entire nation. Nine villagers had been shot dead in a pitched battle with the police.  We watched,as the politician’s son was escorted out of the school by cops under cover of gunfire. Kamal and I were sole witnesses to this shameful rescue, and the horrific killings of unarmed villagers. Our office car was used to take victims to hospital and one of them died on way. We had to hide till our car returned, covering ourselves in blankets given to us by villagers grateful to have allies against a brutal regime. National Herald, where I was chief reporter then, led with our exclusive coverage of the poll violence, ‘Mayhem in Meham.’  The uproar that followed forced the Congress to sack the chief minister and till this day, the headline of that story is used to sum up the complete subversion of democracy in Haryana during the elections in 1990.

I didn’t go gunning for a big story in Meham. The big story was there and I found it, because as a reporter, I wouldn’t walk away from injustice. The same way I wouldn’t walk away when I saw the names of those three companies on a shabby letterbox outside Justice Sabharwal’s house two decades later. The defiance of that white paint on a brown letterbox, which stared at the world with the confidence that it would find no challenger, was entirely misplaced.

Next: Googly

To Be Continued

Puzzling - The same R K Anand who gave this statement to MiD DAY went to court two days later and demanded that we be tried for contempt

Puzzling – The same R K Anand who gave this statement to MiD DAY went to court two days later and demanded that we be tried for contempt

There was one queer duck in the Sabharwal case- senior advocate R K Anand, who initiated the contempt case against me and my three colleagues. Three days before Anand drew the attention of the Delhi High Court to MiD DAY’s Sabharwal reportage, he had castigated the former CJI in that very newspaper, in that very case. I still have no clue to the mystery of Anand’s flip-flop, but here’s how it went:

On May 21, exactly 19 days after our first story on the Sabharwal issue was published, ace criminal lawyer Anand approached the court of Justice R S Sodhi and presented a copy of MiD DAY’s May 18 edition. He drew the court’s attention to our lead story on Justice Sabharwal, Mall-a-Mall, and the allegations contained therein. Acting on Anand’s complaint, Justice Sodhi issued a suo moto notice against City Editor M K Tayal, publisher S K Akhtar, and me, asking us to explain why we should not be prosecuted for contempt of court.

The notice was a serious issue but it did not perplex us. What really confused us was a glaring anomaly in this episode. Three days before  Anand breathed fire and brimstone in court at our effrontery to Justice Sabharwal, MiD DAY had contacted him for his reaction to our exposé. Anand was quite forthright in his comments. “If true, he (Sabharwal) should be brought to book and must be prosecuted. This man demolished the whole of Delhi.” Anand’s reaction was published in the May 19 issue of MiD DAY. Ironically, the same edition carried the cartoon which he later brought to the attention of the court as scurrilous, prompting another notice on MiD DAY’s cartoonist Irfan Khan.

What happened in the time period between Anand’s first statement to us and his demand for our prosecution? We never found out, though after our first hearing, there was a proposal to meet him for a chat. Our team had its differences over that initiative. While one view was that we should at least find out what he had to say, the counterargument was that we should leave all our affairs in the hands of our lawyers. We had frequently used hidden tape recorders and other taping devices for our stories and that always kept us on the alert while discussing important issues with people we didn’t know too well. We, therefore. never met Anand separately.

Senior advocate R K Anand started the case against us, but two years later, was himself convicted of contempt of court in the BMW hit-and-run case

Senior advocate R K Anand started the case against us, but two years later, was himself convicted of contempt of court in the BMW hit-and-run case

Less than a month after he hauled us over the coals for writing the truth, Anand was caught on camera, trying to bribe a key witness in the infamous BMW case in which several people had been mowed to death by the grandson of a former Naval Chief. The TV channel which carried out the sting operation alleged collusion between the prosecution and the defence in the case.  On Aug 21, 2008, the Delhi High Court convicted Anand and senior lawyer I U Khan  and on July 29, 2009, the Supreme Court of India upheld the conviction of Anand for contempt of court.

It was just as well that none of us met him separately.

Our news editor in Mumbai, the unflappable Krishna Warrior, discussed the High Court notice with us. A veteran of many a court battle by virtue of the position he occupied in the volatile newsroom of MiD DAY, Krishna was not unduly perturbed. MiD DAY often walked on the wild side, daring to publish reports other newspapers would blanch at. While the management always stood by its reporters, it was left to senior editors to ensure that all news reports were backed by proof. The Sabharwal stories left nothing to chance by way of evidence and that was all Krishna was concerned with. I was told that the company lawyers would draft a reply to the notice.

The court notice did not signal an end to our investigations and we continued to dig around for more information on the Sabharwal companies. However, our stories were still not drawing any reaction and it was not acceptable to us. If the mountain won’t come to Mohammed, Mohammed must go to the mountain. So we decided to stir the pot a bit and our reporters  began calling up lawyers and jurists, to draw their attention to our stories and to elicit some response from them. We were pleased, and a bit perplexed, to find that every one of the people contacted was well aware of MiD DAY exposés and accepted the truth of our contentions. We spoke to lawyers, legal experts and political leaders. Almost all of the people we contacted deemed an inquiry into the affair as the most logical outcome of our reports. Former additional solicitor general K K Sud, former secretary of the Supreme Court Bar Association Ashok Arora, senior lawyer Prashant Bhushan, who was not associated with the case till then, and Dr Harshwardhan and Ram Babu Sharma, the then Delhi presidents of the two leading political parties, the Bharatiya Janata Party and the Congress respectively, were among those who came on record with their comments, giving us hope that the Sabharwal saga was slowly but surely beginning to nag at the conscience of many.

References:

http://news.oneindia.in/2009/07/29/bmw-case-sc-upholds-rk-anand-conviction.html

http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/ndtv-s-bmw-expose-anand-tenders-apology-to-supreme-court-17408

 

Next: Curiosity Doesn’t Kill the Cat. It Creates a Newshound

To Be Continued

 

 

 

Mall-a-Mall

Well Connected

Familiarity breeds contempt, but realistically speaking, it is far more proficient at nurturing blind spots. BPTP’s offices were located in DCM building, directly opposite Arunachal building on Barakhamba Marg where MiD DAY’s offices had existed for years. Like many things which would come to us later as we chased this story, the huge BPTP hoardings had been staring us in the face all these years but had never been noticed.

A day after our trip to the residence of Anjali and Kabul Chawla at 7A Amrita Shergill Marg,  City Editor M K Tayal, photographer Rajeev Tyagi, and I  went exploring again, this time the DCM building. The sales office of  BPTP was plastered with pictures of different projects of the company, most of them malls and office complexes. While photographer Rajeev Tyagi got busy with his camera, City Editor M K Tayal and I went upstairs to the main offices, with a fake introduction at the reception. We now were prospective tenants. “We want to rent a shop in one of your malls. We have a shop in Kamala Nagar but we want to shift from there to a mall,” we told the smarmy sales executive who met us. I am quite convinced that the man was not taken in by our story, specially when Tayal and I looked completely nonplussed, at a loss for words after he asked us what it was that we sold in our shop.

“Kids’ garments. We sell children’s clothing,” blurted Tayal, whose best friend actually ran a garments’ shop in Kamala Nagar. Perhaps real-life-would-be-renters of a posh mall behave the way we did- intimidated, uncertain, conscious of stretching out several notches above themselves on the economic ladder, and hanging in there by the fingernails.  However, knowing that we were lying through our teeth made matters far worse for us than for any wannabe petty shopkeeper.

The salesperson gave us detailed information about the different malls of BPTP where shops were available. We assured him of our serious interest in renting a premise and left, clutching a colourful folder which contained everything on the company’s activities, its size and the scale of its operations. It also described in detail how leading multi-national brands such as Adidas, McDonalds, Lee, Lee Cooper, Benetton, Levis,Woodland and Nike all chose to have their outlets in malls built by BPTP.

BPTP, the owners of which had partnered with the Sabharwals in their firm with a paid up capital of Rs 1 lakh, was a gargantuan Rs 232 crore company. It had developed landmark malls, including CTC at Najafgarh Road, CBD at Surajmal Vihar in East Delhi, and Shop-In Park at Shalimar Bagh, besides several other commercial and residential complexes. BPTP was also coming up with malls and commercial complexes in Faridabad, Gurgaon and Noida, and the company’s clients included the virtual who’s who of MNCs, looking for a foothold in India to capture its cash-rich middle class.

The very same BPTP had opted to become a partner in a company with a paid up capital of Rs 1 lakh!

We came out with another page one story on Sabharwal on May 18, 2007: ‘Mall-aa-Mall.’ It detailed the close business relationship between the two sons of Justice Sabharwal and BPTP. We duly published the partnership documents between the Chawlas and the Sabharwals, as proof that we were telling the truth and nothing but the truth.

Gol mall hai

Footprints in Stone

This was the first time we played on the word ‘mall’ – which in the English language means a conglomerate of shops but is a vulgar variant of money ( maal) in Hindi. “Mall-aa-Mall” lent itself to interpretation. Our next story the following day, on May 19, 2007, was titled ‘Gol Mall Hai’ (There is Something Fishy). The story showed the footprints which led to MiD DAY’s expose of the links between the Sabharwals and mall developers BPTP, with documentary proof.

We enjoyed the wordplay on ‘mall’, our team of designers, reporters, and sub-editors. The headlines for the Sabharwal series, hammered out in the wee hours of the morning as we crowded around our designers setting out the front page,  were a collective effort, as was most of the Sabharwal story. The teamwork bonded us, as we dug in our heels and prepared for a battle which we were sure would follow our pitchforking on the website of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs.

So why did the Chawlas invest in Pawan Impex, a company with an extremely humble share capital of Rs 1 lakh?

According to the list of shareholders of Pawan Impex available on the Ministry’s website, as of September 30, 2006, Kabul and Anjali held 7.5 lakh shares, valued at Rs 75 lakh each, thereby making a direct investment of Rs 1.5 crore in the company. An extraordinary general meeting of Pawan Impex on June 21, 2006 decided to dramatically increase the authorised share capital of the company from Rs 1 lakh to Rs 3 crore. The company had been showing Rs 1 lakh as its nominal capital ever since its registration in 2002.

We had the online records from the Ministry of Corporate Affairs but we were not satisfied. We wanted to be doubly sure of our facts. Tayal, legal correspondent Praveen Kumar, and I went to the Ministry’s records section to take a look at the physical files relating to the Sabharwal companies. Entry to the records section was restricted.  We were not allowed to carry a camera, cellphone, or even a pen into the dusty and dilapidated room, supervised by a clerk with the skills of an invigilator in an examination centre. He watched us with an eagle eye as another clerk brought out the files we had requested. We sat on long wooden benches, reverentially holding the files before us, and scribbled notes in pencil. All the documents pertaining to the partnership between the Sabharwals and the Chawlas were there in the files. They told us nothing more than what the online records did. But the yellowing papers we shook awake from their eternal slumber in dusty file folders, gave us confidence that there was no digital illusion about the Ministry’s website. The sons of the former chief justice of India were in partnership with leading mall builders at a time when he was the presiding officer in the sealing case.

Lift Kara DeOn May 25, we did another story, producing documents to show that BPTP was a 50 per cent partner in Pawan Impex, the company of the Sabharwals . The story was headlined : ‘Lift Kara De’   and  gave documentary proof that leading builders of the country had invested in the company of Justice  Sabharwal’s sons  when he was directing the demolition drive in Delhi as the chief justice of India.

The headline played on Adnan Sami’s  popular Hindi song of the day, beseeching god for a ‘lift’ in life. It befitted the saga of a small company snagging a multi-billion partnership.

Notice and One Queer Duck

To be Coninued

BPTP - 2The story should have whimpered itself to death, neglected and unnoticed, but it did not. As we idled over the electronic records of   Sabharwals’ companies available on the website of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, we realized the first exposé was not going to be the last on this issue.  Each document listed with the Ministry was a story- independent and at the same time part of a pattern in blatant misuse of position, power, and money.

The documents challenged our intellect, our skills, and we were game.  We pored over every word, intent on teasing out the truth which we sensed lay buried somewhere in the seemingly sterile text of agreements, forms, and registrations.

Once again, it was an address which tantalized us, beckoning us to follow the footprints of a privileged few. The address was 7A Amrita Shergill Marg.

The documents filed by Nitin and Chetan Sabharwal with the Ministry of Corporate Affairs listed Anjali and Kabul Chawla as partners in their company, Pawan Impex Private Limited. While Kabul Chawla became a director in the company on October 23, 2004,  Anjali was taken on board on February 12, 2005. Pawan Impex, which had a measly share capital of Rs 1 lakh, turned into a Rs 3 crore company in 2006 after the Chawlas became equal partners in it. Anjali and Kabul invested Rs 75,00,000 each in the company, at the same time the Sabharwals chose to infuse the firm with similar cash.

Who were these Chawlas? Why would they invest such a huge sum in a company with an extremely modest share capital of Rs 1 lakh? I didn’t have a clue but the street the Chawlas lived onBPTP -3 smelt of money and power. Amrita Shergill Marg is arguably the most expensive area of the Capital, an oasis of luxurious bungalows with Connaught Place as an illustrious neighbour. It is the very heart of the city where the rich and the   famous play out their lives.

We decided to pay the Chawlas a visit, albeit surreptitiously. The tree-shaded Amrita Shergill Marg, with its massive bungalows shuttered in with iron gates and smartly turned out guards, did not invite familiarity. Tayal and I got dropped off some distance away from the Chawlas’ bungalow while Tyagi remained in the car, camera on the ready.

There was a guard in the sentry box at the gates of the bungalow. We had practised our act, and spun out a sorry tale of unemployment, misery and faint hope, which the sympathetic guard readily accepted. We told him we were from Bihar,desperate for a job, and an acquaintance had sent us to the Chawlas for help in finding some work.

“They are not home. Kabul sa’ab and Anjali Memsa’ab have gone to office,” the sentry said. We looked suitably dejected, letting the sentry know that we had left our town with great hopes and now it all seemed futile. Moreover, we had nowhere to go in the city. After a meandering dialogue of this sort, we tried to find out what ‘office’ meant and what exactly did the Chawlas do for a living.

‘ BPTP ka office hai,(Its the office of BPTP)” the guard told us

I did not know what BPTP stood for. I realise I am deserving of contempt from  business journalists and I plead guilty. My brush with financial journalism was limited to playing badminton with the staff of Financial Express in a triangular patch outside the Indian Express building. So BPTP, which would have excited any business journalist, was not known to me, at least not its acronym. I had reported on crime, politics, terrorism, entertainment, and even a limited war with Pakistan, but BPTP never figured in any of my stories. Tayal was equally lost and we returned from Amrita Shergill Marg, scratching our heads over this new puzzle.

 

Let’s Go Malling!

To be Continued

 

Injustice-MiD DAY hit the stands for the first time in Delhi with its no-holds barred story on Justice Sabharwal. By the end of the day, we were quite confused. Was it possible that nobody, not a soul, had read the exposé? How come Justice Sabharwal himself missed the story?

Did our printers use some special ink on page one, invisible to all but us?

Later, much later, I realized I was not the only one to have heard the deafening silence. Speaking at a seminar in the Press Club of India a few months into the Sabharwal storm, Outlook’s managing editor Vinod Mehta said: “As an editor who launched a news magazine, I can imagine how you must have felt when there was no reaction to your launch story. A launch story is the biggest moment in the life of any editor. That’s his test. And here was a story which exposed the alleged misdeeds of no less than a former chief justice of India but when you get no reaction, you start wondering if you had gone wrong somewhere.”

The silence was deafening but something I could cope with. MiD DAY’s managing director, Tariq Ansari, sent a congratulatory note, praising the story. As for the rest of the world- my world comprising scribes who would do anything for a big news break – it went dumb. The Sabharwal story sat there, on the front pages of MiD-DAY and nary a squeak.

Something odd did happen though. A reporter from a prominent TV channel called up, wanting to interview me on the story. The camera crew reached MiD DAY’s offices, set up shop in our tiny conference room, and as we began to shoot, the reporter received a phone call.  I watched on, quite bemused, as he completed what appeared to be a ‘yes sir, yes sir’ conversation on his mobile; asked the cameraman to pack up; and left in a hurry. No apologies or excuses- just like that! Scram, run, scoot.. whatever.

After a couple of months, the same channel carried an exclusive interview of Sabharwal on the MiD DAY stories. We never got a chance to say our piece but the subject of our exposé was on prime time, defending himself. The interview was peppered with bites from two prominent lawyers, red with indignation at the temerity of the fourth estate to level charges against a former chief justice of India. They had little to say about the contents of the story or the charges made in it. Their defence rested on a ‘How dare you!’

“How dare anyone raise an accusing finger at the highest judicial officer of the country.”

We dared because there never was any other option. There couldn’t have been any other option in a democracy that is founded on the principle of Satyamev Jayate, Truth Conquers All.

On the heels of Injustice and on the second day of MiD DAY’S existence in Delhi, I did another cover story. It was aboutaishwarya rai marriage photos abhishek2 former cine star and then member of Parliament Shatrughan Sinha refusing to accept sweets from Amitabh Bachchan following the marriage of his son, Abhishek Bachchan, with actress Aishwarya Roy. Shatru was miffed at not having been invited to the wedding and spurned the sweets which the Bachchans sent to him following the celebrations.

TV channels went wild, running the story over and over again with comments from the lead players in this Bollywood drama. Clips of old Shatru-Amitabh starrers were used as a backdrop, as earnest anchors educated viewers about this latest, and by far the most, conclusive proof of the strained relations between the two veteran stars. Parliament was in session and Shatru was besieged by camera crews for comments as he made his way into the House that day.

In the evening, an elated and harassed Bihari Babu called me up. “Vitusha, what have you done? I am being mobbed since this morning.”

What a contrast and what a comment on the way in which the two stories were treated by the media. I had both the stories ready for the launch edition- the one on Sabharwal and the other giving luscious details of the feud between the two superstars. I withheld the Shatru story, choosing with great caution to launch MiD DAY in Delhi with the Sabharwal exposé which I thought was far more newsworthy.

All followed the celluloid gods, the appetite for voyeurism forever seeking satiation. There were no takers for that other story- the one told by a letterbox outside a judge’s house, begging for attention and screaming: “Injustice!’.

But it helped, this reaction to the Shatrughan-Bachchan feud splashed on our front pages. It told me that MiD DAY had indeed arrived in Delhi and the silence over the Sabharwal scoop had nothing to do with the paper’s limited visibility at the launch. The silence was an indication that the tabloid had fiddled with the forbidden. My enfant terrible had gone where not many had dared to go before.

To Be Continued

Next : A New Trail – Follow the Money!

IMG_2913

The amazing MiD DAY team which worked as one to bring the story together.

What we found out next just blew us over.

Another set of documents showed that for a period of ten months, the three companies run from Sabharwal’s Punjabi Bagh house, had also been registered at 6 Motilal Nehru Place, the official residence of Justice Sabharwal at a time when he was one of the senior most judges of the Supreme Court.

The companies had filed three individual Form 18 with the Department of Company Affairs on January 6, 2004, giving notice that the situation of their registered office had changed from 3/81 Punjabi Bagh to 6 Motilal Nehru Place. After ten months, on October 23, 2004, the companies’ registered office was once again shifted back to 3/81, Punjabi Bagh.

We knew then, that we had a watertight case. While Delhiites were being made to face demolition squads, lathis, and bullets for running commercial establishments from their homes, here was the case of a former CJI who had blithely used his government-allotted bungalow for his sons’ companies. Nothing could ever justify this transgression of law by a keeper of the law.

Still, to be doubly sure, we checked out the requirements for a registered office under the Registration of Companies Act. The Act clearly specified that the registered office of a company had to be a physical entity where crucial documents relating to the company needed to be available at all times. A registered office could not be a mere postal address.

City Editor M K Tayal and I rummaged the net for information on Pawan Impex and Sab Exports and once we had the addresses of the two companies, we paid them a visit with Rajeev Tyagi and his trusted camera.

We had no idea of what to expect when we left our office for Sab Exports and Pawan Impex. Till then, these were just names, painted on the letter box of a modest house in Punjabi Bagh.  Our first sight of the sprawling buildings, sitting on massive chunk of real estate in Noida, was mindboggling. It took all of Tyagi’s skills to get a wide shot of Sab Exports, so large was its frontage. From our web search, we knew the companies were in the business of garments export.

It was time to catch the bull by the horns. We first called up 3/81. The phone was received by Sabharwal’s older brother, Jagmohan. After we introduced ourselves as MiD DAY reporters, we asked him whether the three companies whose names were on the letterbox, Pawan Impex, Sug Exports and Sab Exports, were being run from the premises. He said the house was only a ‘postal address’ for the companies. “It is a postal address. It is for the purpose of receiving post that the registered office is there. No commercial activity takes place here,” he said.

We then called up the former CJI from the office phone with a recorder attached to it. Sabharwal was not home and the person who received our call said he had gone out for a walk and would be back soon.

The story was scheduled for the morning edition and our deadline was knocking on the door. As minutes ticked by and Sabharwal did not return our call, we called him once again. This time, the former CJI came on the line, the one and only time we managed to speak with him. Justice Sabharwal asserted that the house was only a postal address for the three companies. When TayaIMG_2905l pointed out to him that the registered offices of the three companies were also shifted to his official bungalow at 6 Motilal Nehru Place for nearly ten months, he denied any knowledge of this. “I don’t know whether it was ever shifted (from Punjabi Bagh to Motilal Nehru Place) or not. Who told you it was shifted? I don’t think it was shifted. When was it shifted? Give me the dates,” Sabharwal said. “I cannot help it if nobody understands the legal point. The postal address is not barred anywhere. Letters come. Registered office (of the three companies) is for postal purposes,” he added. When asked if the shifting of the registered office to his official residence as a Supreme Court judge at 6,Motilal Nehru Place was legal, Justice Sabharwal hung up.

Tayal was left holding the phone with a long beep signalling the premature end of our only interaction with Justice Sabharwal.

The Supreme Court bench, headed by the then CJI Sabharwal, had said on November 7, 2006 :

“None can be permitted to place a dagger on the neck of the person and seek relief. None can be permitted to hold the city, law and order, and the law abiding citizens to ransom and then ask for relief.”

“Is this governance?It is their (the government’s) manner of handling the issue which is causing harassment to the residents of Delhi. Every time you issue notification a day before, you bring to nought the orders of this court. This lip service should stop.”

On February 16, 2006, the court had said: “This court can not remain a mute spectator when the violations also affect the environment and healthy living of law-abiders.”

If the court could not be a mute spectator to violations of the law, why were we, in the media, expected to remain mute when confronted with similar violations by a former Supreme Court judge, who had held the highest judicial seat of the country as CJI?

Our story was complete, well researched, and backed by impeccable proof. It was also ready a few minutes shy of the deadline for the launch of the Delhi edition. We hit the stands on May 2, 2007, with a tale which for the first time ever, gave conclusive evidence that there was something rotten in the state of our courts. As became our practice from then on, we published the documents which proved each of the charges made in our expose. Truth would be our defence.

Next – Invisible Ink

To be continued