 I am a journalist so I will give you some facts or you can make your own deductions based on those facts. There is a Supreme Court judge, a very senior judge at that right now who was appointed as a judge in the Vajpayera. And there was an adverse IB report against him and that IB report said corrupt person. I have that IB report in my mobile. Sometime back that judge has written a six or seven page note against a senior high court judge saying, and annexing a complaint basically against that judge. Nowhere does that complaint say or quote the judge as being corrupt. It's just an annexation and he's trying to stall the elevation of that judge as high court Chief Justice. So you have this instance of a guy who should not have been appointed a judge in the first place, but he was appointed and I have all the documents I will give you only facts. Who was appointed only because the then law minister of this country went and personally met the then president, briefed him and got this guy appointed. And today this person is sitting in the Supreme Court and issuing notes trying to stall a senior judge's appointment as High Court Chief Justice. We are all aware what is happening in the case of Indu Malhotra and Chief Justice of Uttarakhand Justice Joseph. Let me also give you another interesting fact on 10th of January when the meeting of the Collegium was held. So I have written about it. So there were some names that were floated by the Chief Justice of India, Justice Deepak Mishra. The other members of the Collegium told Justice Mishra and since I am sure this is getting recorded somewhere. So I know what I am talking about. They told him we will send just one name. And the reason they had decided to recommend just one name was because they were aware or possibly aware of what the reaction of this government would be to Justice Joseph's name. In the end the Chief Justice of India brought out one more name just Miss Indu Malhotra's name and these people said as long as she is not a judge we have no issues. And the Supreme Court needs a woman judge and she is a good lawyer. So we are okay with that. After some time this government also tried because they didn't want to clear this name of the Uttarakhand Chief Justice because of a judgment that is given against this government to segregate the two names. And again they were stalled because there is an old letter written by a previous Chief Justice of India, Justice Loda in the matter of appointment of Justice of Mr. Gopal Subramaniam was there in which he had told the government you cannot proceed with the appointment of the other judges, other names without the Supreme Court Collegium telling you to do so. And we all are aware what happened in the case of Mr. Subramaniam. He withdrew his consent and as things stand now and we are all aware Miss Malhotra has started practicing her games. So there is a very fair chance that she may also withdraw her consent. IB report. This is one weapon that this government or the previous government also let me assure all of you I have nothing against this government in a previous newspaper that I worked in the next phase. I was instrumental or my reporting was instrumental in the resignation of the then law minister of this country in the Colgate scam. So I am neither for Congress nor against the BJP. And I say this very often that judges are like journalists because by definition they are supposed to be anti-establishment. IB report. There is a recently appointed judge in the Delhi High Court in whose case the IB report was negative. It reached the government. Possibly somebody forgot to tell the IB guys that his report needs to be sent properly and they sent a negative report. And after that report reached the government it was sent back. The IB amended its report and in a matter of few days that person became a judge and that person is a judge right now. So IB reports can also be managed. Now an IB report is a very interesting phenomena that it can be used, misused by any government. And we are all aware how the IB functions. So if the government does not want to appoint a person as a judge it simply has to pick up the phone, call up the IB chief. I have met a number of them in my lifetime. And they are unable to pull in pressures. They are okay with the government telling them because many of them are looking for post retirement jobs. So the government simply has to pick up the phone and tell the IB chief his report is wrong. And the kind of collegium systems that we have right now, judges who are from in the collegium. There is an unwritten rule now. If the IB report says and again this is a fact, if the IB report says this person the integrity is doubtful. The collegium will not clear that name. But if the IB report says this person's lawyer's performance is not up to the mark then the judges will take a call accordingly. But in several cases it has happened that the government has actually picked up the phone and told the IB guys to send an adverse report and that has been happening. Collegium system, you know, I sometimes I am the only person in a TV studio defending the collegium system and I will give you a very fair example. The reason why I support the collegium system. It's not a fair system. I have no doubt about that. It needs a lot of changes. It needs more transparency. I've been writing about that. But it is a better system than the previous one as will be a new system if and when that happens. But the final decision should and must rest with the judges. The prime minister of this country often talks about 2002. And we all know there was and I believe this. Again, this is a fact. There were attempts at certain levels to fix him. I don't think there is, you know, possibly he was involved in those rights. Possibly he was not. But there was no proof that is the job of the investigators. But he's right when he says there was an attempt by the previous government to fix me. The same judges appointed by the collegium system protected this prime minister. And what does this prime minister do? The moment he becomes the prime minister. He tries and brings a new system where collegium will no longer have primacy. Judges will no longer have primacy. There will be outsiders who will come and decide and dictate who will become judges. The day independence of judiciary finished, in my opinion. You know, several years ago there used to be a chief election commissioner. Many of you would be aware of him, Mr. Gill. The day he decided he became a congressman after the meeting office, became a minister in the UPA government. I thought that was the day the independence of our election regulator went out of the window. The day you had a former Chief Justice of India, who as Chief Justice was going from one minister to another, seeking a government job. And I wrote about it before he demated office and I got a call from him. I'll take his name also. I have always done my journalism based on facts. So I got a call from him after I wrote that he's going to be the next NHRC chief. So he said, Mr. Chibber, what is this? Why have you written this? I'm not interested. I said, sir, I'll gladly publish an apology and I'll gladly publish whatever you say. You just have to say you're not going to accept it. So he did not. He went on to become the NHRC chief and then very soon I wrote another small item saying that this judge, former Chief Justice of India, who has handled some of the most important crucial cases in this country and is now NHRC chief, wants to go as governor of a state. Again I got a call from him and I also got a call from the NHRC information officer who's a friend. So my response to that was, if you're angry, then what do I have to do? But this judge is now a governor. And three days before he accepted the job of the governor, he was attending the marriage of the BJP president's son. You know how this government works? Or any government? I'm not quite this government or the previous government. Every government, all politicians want to control the judges and they have several ways of doing this. But in the case of this government, it's a very interesting phenomenon that I'm observing. These people, they addressed four judges, addressed a press conference. Before that, I was aware of the name of the son of just one judge. Three days later, via WhatsApp, I became aware of the names of the sons, their wives, their girlfriends, if they have their daughters, husbands, and even the judges' wives. And a whisper campaign started. This judge's son was active. This judge's son was active. This judge's father was first in Congress. This judge's father was the judge. Suddenly in this age of WhatsApp, you must read, we have published it today. Mr. Karan Thapar, yesterday he was given an award in the memory of a big journalist, former journalist, Mr. Reddy. And in that speech, Mr. Karan Thapar, many of you would be aware, has been for several years a TV journalist. He writes an occasional column also, but he is mainly a TV journalist. In that speech, if you go to the print website, I'm sure it is there. He says that there are some newspapers whose credibility I can vouch for, but there is not even a single TV channel whose credibility I can talk about. And he is, mind you, a TV journalist. So in this age of WhatsApp forwards and, you know, Facebook and, you know, what not, where every rumor becomes news, sometimes my dear friend Sudhir Chaudhary in the Zee, he actually did a program with those arc in note with chip. So once I had a fight with him, so I told him, boss, people are still looking for chips in note with chip. Tell me, where is it? So suddenly all this becomes news and all of the gossip, all of the rumor mongering, it becomes news, it becomes a fact. So if you want to assail a judge, a sitting high court or Supreme Court judges, credentials, if you want to raise questions over his integrity, all you have to start saying is say that his son is eating money in that case. And you don't need facts. In half a day, it becomes, just give me two minutes. And, you know, about, I think Mr. Bhattacharya spoke about the possibility of the next chief being superseded. I am from Jammu and one of the previous Chief Justice of India, Justice Thakur, is also from Jammu and I know him very well. He was my father's student and all that. So I met him a few weeks ago. And I said, sir, is there a possibility of Justice Gogoi being superseded? So he said, it shouldn't happen. I said, it can happen. So then he did not answer that, but he did tell me a small story, which is not actually a story. It's a fact. Again, as I said, I'm a journalist. It relates to, there's a case, Rajendra Singh Rana versus JNK, or vice-versa, state of JNK versus Rajendra Singh Rana. Rajendra Singh Rana, for those who might not know, was the father of the present minister of state in the prime minister's office, Jitinder Singh, who's a BJP MP from Katwa district, which is in Jammu. Rajendra Singh Rana was a chief engineer. So and now, I'll speak in Hindi because it's a lot of fun. So Rajendra Singh Rana was awarded an award for honesty and professionalism on the day of the 26th. Within a few weeks, the government falls and Mr. Jagmohan takes over as governor. So Mr. Jagmohan, when he takes over as governor of JNK, he decides that I have to do something big, give some message to people that the government has changed and the way of working for the government has also changed. So what better way of doing that, achieving that, sending that signal than to kick out some deadwood from your administration. There's a list on top of that list, Rajendra Singh Rana, which you have awarded six weeks ago. So then they decide and he is removed from his post as chief secretary. He is removed from government service because he is allegedly corrupt. Matter goes to court, JNK high court rules in favor of Rajendra Singh Rana. Who's the lawyer? Justice Thakur, who at that time and daily became a judge was Jammu's number one lawyer. After that the matter comes to Supreme Court and you'll have to do your, many of you are lawyers, you'll have to, this is an exercise you should do, take out the name of the lawyer who represented JNK government in the Supreme Court. So that lawyer said, Is there a complaint against him? He said, yes, these complaints are against the corrupt. I am sure, though I work for a private company, there must be a complaint against me. So there were complaints against him. And apparently there were 20 odd, 30 odd complaints. Nothing had been found in those complaints. But when the matter came to Supreme Court, the lawyer said, Sir, look at the complaints against him. Integrity is very doubtful. Supreme Court has upheld that, his ouster from government service. And that I think is the answer to our question. Can the government use anything against Justice Gogh going to stall his elevation as Chief Justice of India? As lawyers, you know, I am also a lawyer. I have never practiced that. I did my law in the times when you did law because you didn't want to do anything else. So when I did my law, so I'm sure all of you will understand that even if a corrupt judge decides to hang somebody for an offense, there are never questions that are asked. And that is the faith that people of this country have in judiciary. But the day our judges, our Chief Justices, start calling people, start attending parties, start inviting the Prime Minister and the ministers to their children's weddings. That is the day when judiciary will be in peril. And that is the day when you and I should start worrying. Thank you.