The Lalit Modi saga is far from over. Not only did top politicians from across parties help out the former IPL czar , even a former Supreme Court judge had endorsed the alleged economic offender's claim that he was hounded by the UPA government and helped him stay on in London after his multiple entry visitor's visa expired in 2012. MAIL TODAY has found out that former SC judge, late Umesh C Banerjee, who was the chief justice of Andhra Pradesh HC before, had extended legal opinion in favour of Lalit which helped him extend his stay in the UK. According to international lawyer Hemant Batra, founder of the law firm Kaden Boriss Partners, which was part of the team that handled Lalit Modi's immigration case, the former IPL boss was backed by three legal opinions from eminent people to prove a case for extension of stay in England: two from India and one from an internationally acclaimed jurist. Modi obtained the last from England, while the one in India was given by Justice Banerjee. Justice Banerjee agreed to give his opinion once he was convinced of the merits of the case. Incidentally, Batra is also Secretary General of SAARC's regional apex body SAARCLAW.

As per the signed copy of Justice Banerjee's legal opinion, which MAIL TODAY has accessed, the late judge had supported Modi's bid to stay on in the UK on the ground that he was being politically hounded by Indian authorities at the behest of the then government, and the BCCI. Also, the judge found merit in Modi's assertion that his life was not secure in India on account of several threats from Dawood Ibrahim, which he claimed had been ignored and police protection withdrawn after he rubbed the then UPA regime the wrong way. Lalit had alleged that Congress minister Shashi Tharoor was involved in the IPL scam. Batra told MAIL TODAY, "All the legal luminaries extending opinion in favour of Modi were convinced at that time that he was being unduly harassed by Indian authorities ranging from enforcement directorate (ED), Mumbai passport office to directorate of revenue intelligence (DRI) at the behest of the then political masters. His passport was revoked unduly to force him to return to India. What Banerjee wrote led to UK quasi-judicial authorities take a sympathetic approach towards Modi's asylum plea."

Defending Lalit

On August 2, 2010, a summons was issued to Modi by the ED in connection to an investigation under Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA). Modi had argued then that he had imminent threat to his life from Dawood and could not appear in person in front of the ED , though he was ready to be questioned via videolink. The ED remained adamant on his physical presence and the regional passport office in Mumbai issued Modi a show-cause notice, allegedly at the behest of the ED . On this, Justice Banerjee observed, "The first point I want to make is that the Enforcement Directorate has been specifically insisting on a personal appearance by Mr Modi, but in law the Enforcement Directorate has no authority to insist on that. Nor does it have the legal authority to ask the Passport Officer to commence action under the Passport Act, 1967."

"It is a matter of great surprise to me that one statutory agency (the Regional Passport Office) is being guided by another agency (the Enforcement Directorate) to take such actions," Justice Banerjee added. "...that the act or acts of the Passport Office stand wholly without jurisdiction...," he maintained in the letter. Elsewhere in the letter of opinion, he also said, "It is also important to note that the ED's investigation could have been quite properly and adequately conducted without the physical presence of Mr Modi in front of the investigators of the ED at their offices in Mumbai. The Regional Passport Officer ignored the fact that under FEMA, there is no concept of custodial interrogation."

Justice Banerjee also castigated the then home minister P Chidambaram and BCCI president N Srinivasan. He observed, "I note the media references to a vendetta and harassment of Mr Lalit Modi from people within the Indian Government. I further note that if press reports are to be given any credence, the current BCCI President and the current Home Affairs Minister of the country would welcome Mr Modi being put behind bars."

Justice Banerjee held that revocation of Modi's passport in 2010 as illegal and smelt a conspiracy. "...for the reasons I have given there must be at least a prima facie concern about the legality of the purported revocation of the passport: there simply was no power in law to revoke it in the prevailing circumstances (the statue requires, for example, an actual criminal conviction). This must put in issue the legality of the Indian authorities forcing Mr Modi to return to India (if at all) on a one way Laissez passer, and it must mean that on the face of it, by virtue of unlawful measures taken against him, Mr Modi will be prevented in practice from leaving India again for as long as it takes to establish the illegality of the passport revocation," he said.

The eminent jurist observed the way the Mumbai police had withdrawn Modi's security after his infamous tweet that had led to Shashi Tharoor's resignation as Minister of State for External Affairs in the UPA government. "I refer to a letter dated 17th December 2010 from the Commissioner of Police for Mumbai stating that the Police protection given to Mr Modi has been withdrawn. One cannot lose sight of the threats that Mr Modi received from the underworld and the fact that his presence in India may put his life in serious jeopardy. It is noteworthy that the security provided to Mr Modi was withdrawn without sufficient indication of the threat having receded substantially. This might suggest that security was withdrawn as a vindictive action against Mr Modi."

Under these circumstances, Justice Banerjee thought it was "practically impossible" for Lalit to return to India and file for a UK visa from here. Finally, the ex-judge vouched that Lalit Modi was not convicted in any case. "It is a fact that Mr Modi has no convictions. It is also a fact that there are currently no charges against him - i.e. that there is no indictment against him awaiting prosecution at a pending trial. There are only allegations short of an indictment, all of which (save for the Chennai FIR) have been made in Rajasthan. Even in respect of such allegations, however, I observe that all the indications point to weak cases, not strong cases," Justice Banerjee maintained.

JUDGE'S DIARY

Umesh Chandra Banerjee (November 18, 1937-November 5, 2012)



-Banerjee served as the chief justice of the Andhra Pradesh High Court and also as a permanent judge of the Calcutta High Court.

-He was appointed a judge in the Supreme Court of India in 1998 and retired in 2002.



-Banerjee was one of the founder members and later president of SAARCLAW.

-In 2005,he was the chairman of a committee constituted by the government of India on the fire in Sabarmati Express at Godhra in Gujarat that led to 59 deaths. He had concluded the fire was accidental and not started by Muslim mob.

-In 2006, the Gujarat High Court termed the appointment of the high-level Justice UC Banerjee panel that probed the Godhra train carnage as "unconstitutional, illegal and void".



-Banerjee also served as a governing council member at National Law School of India University at Bangalore, and at the Nalsar University of Law in Hyderabad.

