Cash-in-bag case: Nirmal Yadav did not volunteer but was asked to recuse from work by CJ

CHANDIGARH: Contrary to the general perception that controversial Justice Nirmal Yadav accused in the cash-in-bag case, had volunteered to recuse herself from judicial work, it was the then chief justice, who asked her to recuse herself from her duty, following which she remained out of work for around 17 months. During that period, Justice Yadav wrote several times to the chief justice requesting him to restore judicial work to her, but her request was not heeded.
The revelations surfaced on Thursday during the resumed hearing of a petition filed before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, by Justice Yadav against her prosecution sanction in the corruption case.While arguing before the bench, her counsel, senior Supreme Court lawyer, KTS Tulsi informed the bench that his client had written several times to the then CJ of the HC to restore judicial work to her.
However, Justice Permod Kohli, who was hearing the case, observed that as per his information, Justice Yadav had voluntarily recused and "recusal and withdrawal of work makes a huge difference". Responding to that, Tulsi stated that as per instructions from his client, she was asked to recuse from judicial work by the then CJ.
Following that, Justice Kohli asked that the said argument is deviation from the issue and irrelevant to the ongoing matter.
Importantly, when the name of Justice Yadav surfaced in the cash-in-bag scam, she recused from the judicial work on August 22, 2008, and remained without work for more than 17 months till she was transferred to Uttrakhand high court on February 11, 2010. She finally retired from Uttarakhand HC on March 3, 2011.
While arguing further against the prosecution sanction accorded to prosecute Justice Yadav in corruption case, senior advocate Tulsi contended that once the then Chief Justice of India (CJI), KG Balakrishanan had denied prosecution sanction, the present CJI had no power to review the earlier decision and grant a fresh sanction.
He also argued that orders of present CJI did not refer to earlier CJI`s orders and there was no application of mind on relevant facts by the present one while granting prosecution sanction. " The CJI seems to be oblivious that sanction once denied, there is no power to review or reconsideration. There must be finality in the statutory powers and no one should be at the whims and fancies of changing incumbents" Tulsi argued.
After Thursday`s hearing, the court adjourned the case till August 30.