Retired Chief Justice Mr. K. G Balakrishnan was corrupt

मैंने यह ब्लॉग जब लिखा था , लोग विश्वास नहि करते थें। आज केरल के एक न्यायालय द्वारा के जी बालाकर्‍ष्णण के परिवार की संपति की जांच का आदेश होने के बाद यह स्पष्ट हो गया की उच्चतम न्यायालय का यह सेवानिवर्‍त जज भ्रष्टाचार में लिप्त था। अगर जांच सही तरीके से की गई तो गैस विवाद में मुकेश अंबानी के पक्ष में दिये गये निर्णय का सच सामने आ जायेगा । गैस विवाद की आग से न मनमोहन बचेंगे न सोनिया और देवडा .

I was least interested to make any remarks about KGB ( Retired CJI of India) but in debate on 2G spectrum, name of Barkha Dutt and Veer sanghavi came in lime light as in conversation between Nira Nadia and A Raja, their name appeared. Mr. Sanghavi , in order to contradict, issued a statement defending himself as well as Barkha and in that respond, he used the Mukesh- Anil Dispute in which, Nira Radia was favouring Mukesh. judgement passed in the said case was controversial to the extend of that, the CJI has to come before media to clarify his stand by saying that this was the most difficult case of his career. In that case, GOV. of India stand with Mukesh. After delivering judgement and retirement, He, KGB, got reward as being appointed head of Human right Commission. what was this? ( i will post the matter in details after 20th November due to my engagement in Bihar election as reporter)

Below is the response of Mr. Sanghavi and the line marked in bold blue color is relevent to my blog.

Friday, 19 November 2010 15:49 B4M भड़ास4मीडिया - प्रिंट .: अपने ब्लाग पर अपना पक्षा रखा : बरखा दत्त - नीरा राडिया बातचीत प्रकरण में बरखा दत्त खुद सामने नहीं आईं बल्कि उनका बचाव एनडीटीवी समूह के सीईओ ने किया. उधर, वीर सांघवी ने अपना बचाव खुद ही करना शुरू कर दिया है. उन्होंने ओपेन मैग्जीन समेत कई जगहों पर उनके व राडिया के बीच बातचीत के टेप प्रसारित होने के तुरंत बाद अपने ब्लाग पर सफाई दी. शीर्षक है- ''My response to the Radia transcripts''. अपनी सफाई में सांघवी ने कहा है कि इस बातचीत में ऐसा कहीं कुछ नहीं है जिससे साबित होता हो कि उन्होंने किसी के लिए लाबिंग की हो. और भी बहुत कुछ कहा है लिखा है लेकिन लिखते लिखते वे कुतर्क करते हुए दिखने लगते हैं. यकीन न हो तो खुद पढ़ लीजिए. उनके ब्लाग पर प्रकाशित उनके पक्ष को साभार लेकर हम यहां नीचे प्रकाशित कर रहे हैं.

My response to the Radia transcripts
-Vir Sanghvi-


Several months ago, stories began appearing in a section of the media suggesting that I – along with other journalists – had lobbied on behalf of A. Raja. As I have never met Mr Raja and have attacked his corruption in both print and TV, these assertions struck me as bizarre. The stories were based on tape-recorded conversations that Niira Radia had with innumerable individuals, including several journalists.

A magazine has now published what purports to be transcripts of those conversations though it says “We are in no position to endorse the contents of the recordings” which presumably means that it is not guaranteeing their authenticity. While nobody can remember verbatim every conversation that took place 19 months ago, these transcripts do not appear to be entirely accurate.

Moreover, there is nothing at all in the transcripts to suggest that I lobbied for Mr Raja. The conversations recorded relate to the phase when there was an impasse between the DMK and the Congress. Ms Radia called several journalists, including me, to ask us to convey a message to any Congress leaders we met in the course of our work. This message was, essentially, that the Congress was communicating with the wrong people in the DMK.

While gathering news, journalists talk to a wide variety of sources from all walks of life, especially when a fast-moving story is unfolding. Out of a desire to elicit more information from these sources, we are generally polite. I received many calls from different sources during that period. In no case did I act on those requests as anybody in the government will know. The second conversation relates to the dispute between the Ambani brothers. I had asked Ms Radia to explain the position of her client, Mukesh Ambani. And I also asked Anil Ambani’s side for its views.This was recorded in the piece. I wrote: “My friend, Tony Jesudasan, who represents Anil, took me out to lunch and made out a case for Anil. I was totally convinced till my friend, Niira Radia, who represents Mukesh, gave me the other side which frankly seemed just as convincing to my inexpert ears”. I also wrote, “Why do the Ambanis think that all of us should take sides in their battle? Or that we should care what happens to them?” That still remains my view.