Rhythm Anand Bhardwaj

@SauravDassss , stop the gaslighting. In July 2023 you yourself published this thread: xitter.gq/SauravDassss/status/16… You alleged, citing “sources within the administration,” then a sitting Supreme Court judge and collegium member (rumour has it was Justice Kaul) was behind the transfer of Justice Gaurang Kanth out of the Delhi High Court and the “punishment posting” of Justice Siddharth Mridul as Chief Justice of the five-judge Manipur High Court. You claimed these moves were driven by personal issues, denied “favours,” and vendetta. You called the collegium resolutions opaque cover for exactly. That was a specific charge that a sitting judge was using his position to settle scores inside the Delhi High Court. Who was the collegium member, you were referring to? Was is Justice Kaul? If yes, then its rather strange that now you are defending the same Justice Kaul’s private “taper it down” advice as the harmless, kindly counsel of a retired judge at a Diwali function in your house. So answer this directly: Was that advice given in the context of the very reporting in which you accused him of meddling in Delhi High Court transfers? Did you subsequently drop, soften, or kill follow-up on those claims after he spoke to you? And was that the consideration that produced the warm home visit and the current public defence of the man you once implied was weaponising the collegium? You cannot have it both ways. Either the 2023 allegations were reckless and false (in which case you owe an explanation for publishing them under the cover of “sources”), or they were true and you later chose silence after private counsel from the person you had implicated. The Diwali photo and the sudden warmth do not exist in a vacuum. Until you address that sequence, the “private function / private citizen / everyone tells me to taper it down” defence is not principle. It is selective amnesia and a post-facto clean-up. If its the same judge you once suggested was capturing the system is now your source of moral clarity on the judiciary. That is not journalism. That is a transaction.