New Delhi: Former high court judge Abhay Thipsay, a member of the Congress, has defended his decision to appear as an expert witness for fugitive diamantaire Nirav Modi’s defence team in a UK court hearing India’s extradition request.
Speaking to ThePrint, Thipsay said he appeared in court as a legal expert and not to defend Modi. Thipsay also rejected the BJP’s bid to link his role in the trial with his Congress membership, saying his decision to make a statement had nothing to do with the party.
“My deposition is that of an expert witness, though I was called by the law firm defending Modi… The court has recorded my opinion as that of an expert,” said Thipsay. “And in that capacity, I stated the legal proposition. The UK court is not bound to accept it and can always disregard it.”
Nirav Modi and his uncle Mehul Choksi, also a diamond businessman now believed to be in Antigua, are accused of defrauding state-run Punjab National Bank (PNB) of Rs 13,500 crore.
Modi reportedly fled India in January 2018. He was arrested in the UK last year. The extradition proceedings against him began on 11 May, a year after the UK government certified a request from New Delhi in this regard. Since the discovery of the alleged loan fraud against him, the Enforcement Directorate has attached Modi’s properties worth over Rs 1,873 crore (including in Hong Kong, Switzerland, UK, USA, Singapore and UAE) and seized assets worth Rs 489.75 crore. He is also being investigated by the CBI.
The businessman has challenged India’s extradition request. Justice Thipsay made a statement in the UK court on behalf of Modi’s team, via video link, this week. In his statement, he said the charges of criminal conspiracy and cheating, among others, invoked by India against Modi would not stand up under Indian law.
This has led to allegations from the BJP, including a veiled reference by Union Law Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad, that Thipsay was working at the Congress’ behest to derail the proceedings against Modi.
Thipsay said the claim that he defended Modi is “improper”. “This is done by his counsel and not by me. As far my legal advice, it is free to be contradicted,” he added.
He added that an expert legal opinion is akin to that of a handwriting expert or a medical expert.
“During a trial, as it happens in India, opinions are placed before court by both sides. I did the same in discharge of my professional work. As a former judge I am entitled to do so, as is done by many, including some retired Supreme Court judges,” Justice Thipsay added.
Also Read: A billionaire from nowhere: The over ambitious journey of diamond mogul Nirav Modi
‘A professional assignment’
Thipsay said the London-based law firm defending Modi in the extradition proceedings had approached him last year for an “independent legal opinion” as an “expert”. They wanted to know if the allegations levelled against him in the extradition request held up, he added.
The opinion did not rely on the facts as prepared by the accused or the defence counsel, the judge said. “I have no obligation to support his case. I took my professional fee and gave an opinion. Since it supported his case, I was named as an expert witness on their behalf,” he added.
“I was called by the court as an expert witness only after they examined my affidavit filed in December last year, a copy of which was provided to government agencies, as required under the procedure. This was done so that they can prepare a rebuttal to my opinion,” Justice Thipsay said. A reply was given to Justice Thipsay’s opinion as he was cross-examined by the Indian government counsel on his deposition.
‘Government trying to malign me’
The judge joined the Congress in June 2018, a year after he retired from the judiciary in March 2017. He started his judicial career as a principal district judge in Jalgaon in 2007 and was later elevated as a judge in the Bombay High Court (2011) and the Allahabad High Court (2016). As civil and sessions judge, Thipsay presided over the Vadodara Best Bakery retrial — a case stemming from the 2002 Gujarat riots that was transferred to Mumbai.
In 2006, he convicted nine and acquitted eight accused for the arson attack on Best Bakery that reportedly led to the death of four people.
The criticism over his role in the Nirav Modi trial is unwarranted, he said, adding that the government appears to have some “past grudges against him”.
“It is possible that due to some adverse decision I might have hurt them. The minister’s remark is an attempt to malign me,” he said.
“The minister ought to know that it is not unprecedented for lawyers and jurists having membership of a political party to pursue their professional commitments. It is surprising that the union minister should state that my professional work was done at the instance of Congress,” he added.
“People belonging to his party also had affiliations with Modi in professional capacity. No questions were raised then,” he said.
The judge said the government must focus on countering his advice rather than “convincing the press and media that his legal opinion is incorrect and at the behest of the Congress”.
Even the Government of India could have brought a former judge as an expert witness but chose not to do so. “I was expecting them to do it but they preferred not to,” he said.
Also Read: Diamantaire Nirav Modi, wanted for PNB loan fraud, declared fugitive economic offender