Spreading the light of humanity & freedom
Name : ...........................NAGARAJA.M.R.
Address : ...................LIG-2 / 761 , HUDCO FIRST STAGE , OPP
WATER WORKS OFFICE , LAKSHMIKANTANAGAR , HEBBAL , MYSORE - 570017 INDIA
Professional / Trade Title : S.O.S - e – Voice For Justice
Periodicity : WEEKLY
Circulation : FOR FREE DISTRIBUTION ON WEB
Donations : NOT ACCEPTED. Self financing . Never accepted any donations , subscriptions either for ourselves or on behalf of other organizations / individuals .
Monetary gains : nil , never made any monetary gain by way of advertisements on my websites or web news paper or otherwise.
Owner/editor/printer/publisher : NAGARAJA.M.R.
Nationality : INDIAN
Body Donation : Physical Body of Nagaraja M R , Editor , S.O.S- e – clarion of Dalit & S.O.S-e-Voice for Justice is donated to JSS Medical College , Mysore ( Donation No. 167 dated 22 / 10 / 2003 ) , In case of either Unnatural death or Natural Death at the hands of criminal nexus , my body must be handed over to JSS Medical College , Mysore for the study purposes of medical students.
Eye Donation : Both EYES of Nagaraja M R , Editor , S.O.S- e – clarion of Dalit & S.O.S-e-Voice for Justice are donated to Mysore Eye Bank , Mysore , In case of either Unnatural death or Natural Death at the hands of criminal nexus , my eyes must be handed over to Mysore Eye Bank , Mysore WITHIN 6 Hours for immediate eye transplantation to the needy.
Home page :
http://evoiceofhumanrightswatch.wordpress.com/ , http://indiapolicelaw.blogspot.com/ ,
http://naghrw.tripod.com/evoice/ , http://e-voiceofhumanrightswatch.blogspot.com ,
Contact : firstname.lastname@example.org , email@example.com ,
Cell : 91 9341820313
I ,NAGARAJA.M.R. hereby do declare that information given above are true to the best of my knowledge & belief. If i am repeatedly called to police station or else where for the sake of investigations , the losses i do incurr as a result like loss of wages , transportation , job , etc must be borne by the government. prevoiusly the police / IB personnel repeatedly called me the complainant (sufferer of injustices) to police station for questioning , but never called the guilty culprits even once to police station for questioning , as the culprits are high & mighty . this type of one sided questioning must not be done by police or investigating agencies . if anything untoward happens to me or to my family members like loss of job , meeting with hit & run accidents , loss of lives , death due to improper medical care , etc , the jurisdictional police together with above mentioned accussed public servants will be responsible for it. Even if criminal nexus levels fake charges , police file fake cases against me or my dependents to silence me , this complaint is & will be effective.
If I or my family members or my dependents are denied our fundamental rights , human rights , denied proper medical care for ourselves , If anything untoward like hit & run cases , murder attempts , unnatural deaths , etc happens to me or to my dependents or to my family members - In such case Chief Justice of India together with the jurisdictional revenue & police officials will be responsible for it , in such case the government of india is liable to pay Rs. TWO crore as compensation to survivors of my family. if my whole family is eliminated by the criminal nexus ,then that compensation money must be donated to Indian Army Welfare Fund. Afterwards , the money must be recovered by GOI as land arrears from the salary , pension , property , etc of guilty police officials , guilty Judges , guilty public servants & guilty Constitutional fuctionaries.
date : 10.06.2013..………………………..Your's sincerely,
place : India…………………………............Nagaraja.M.R.
To my numerous appeals , HRW’s appeals to you ,you have not yet replied. It clearly shows that you are least bothered about the lives of people or justice to them .it proves that you are hell bent to protect the criminals at any cost. you are just pressurising the police to enquire me ,to take my statement, to repeatedly call me to police station all with a view to silence me.all of you enjoy “legal immunity privileges” ,why don’t you have given powers to the police / investigating officer to summon all of you for enquiry ?or else why don’t all of you are not appearing before the police voluntarily for enquiry ?at the least why don’t all of you are not sending your statement about the case to the police either through legal counsel or through post? you are aiding criminals ,by denying me job oppurtunities in R.B.I CURRENCY NOTE PRESS mysore , city civil court ,bangalore , distict court , mysore ,etc & by illegally closing my newspaper.
there is a gross, total mismatch between your actions and your oath of office. this amounts to public cheating & moral turpitude on your part.
1.you are making contempt of the very august office you hold.
2.you are making contempt of the constitution of india.
3.you are making contempt of citizens of india.
4.you are sponsoring & aiding terorrism & organized crime.
5.you are violating the fundamental & human rights of the citizens of india and of neighbouring countries.
6.you are violating & making contempt of the U.N HUMAN RIGHTS CHARTER to which india is a signatory.
7.you are obstructing me from performing my fundamental duties as a citizen of india.
you are hereby called upon to Pay damages to me and SHOW-CAUSE within 30 days , why you cann’t be legally prosecuted for the above mentioned crimes .
if anything untoward happens to me or my dependents , the government of india is liable to pay Rs. TWO crore as compensation to survivors of my family. if my whole family is eliminated by the criminal nexus ,then that compensation money must be donated to Indian Army Welfare Fund. afterwards , the money must be recovered by GOI as land arrears from the salary , pension , property , etc of guilty judges , police officials , public servants & Constitutional fuctionaries. Thanking you. Jai Hind , Vande Mataram.
Place : Mysore , India………………………………………….Nagaraja M R
The Supreme Court yesterday refused to extend order passed by the predecessor bench, which granted interim protection to Jai Prakash Associates Limited from paying 25 Crores.
This civil appeal in the Supreme Court arises from a writ petition that was filed by Himprivesh Environment Protection Society before the High Court of Himachal Pradesh against setting up of cement plant and thermal plant by Jai Prakash Associates Limited (JAL). The High Court gave a judgment against JAL on 4th May, 2012 and imposed huge damages on the company. In the judgment, the High Court observed that the entire project of JAL was based on a “tissue of lies” and at every stage JAL has either given wrong information or has tried to mislead the authority.
It was found that JAL was guilty of making false statements for obtaining environmental clearances for all its projects. High Court quashed the environment clearance in respect of thermal plant. The High Court observed that even environment clearance with regard to cement plant is liable to be quashed but keeping in view livelihood of thousands of villagers, the same was allowed.
The Court further said, “After having discussed the matter in detail above and finding JAL guilty of deceit, we must make sure that neither JAL nor any other Company in the future behaves in such a manner. We have, therefore, decided to impose damages on JAL.” Damages worth Rs. 100 crores was imposed on JAL and that was supposed to be paid in four instalment of Rs. 25 crores each; the first to be paid by 31st August 2012; second by 31st March, 2013, third by 31st March 2014 and the last instalment by 31st March 2015.
JAL approached the Supreme Court against this order through a special leave petition. A Bench of Justices A K Patnaik and H L Gokhale on 26th November 2012, granted leave to appeal but a stay on the High Court order was refused. On 20th March, 2013 a Bench comprising of then Chief Justice of India, Justice Altamas Kabir gave extension of time for payment of 25 crores (which was supposed to be paid on 31st March, 2013) till 20th April, 2013. On 17th April, 2013 a Bench presided by Justice Kabir allowed the ‘interim order’ dated 20th March, 2013 to continue operation and the matter was listed for 8th May, 2013. On 8th May, 2013 the Court in its Order mentioned, “The stay granted shall continue till then”. However there was no ‘stay’ actually granted by the Court in any of the proceedings till then, though the 8th May order mentioned about a ‘stay’.
On 10th July, 2013 a Bench presided by Justice Kabir said, “Having heard learned counsel for the parties and since it has not been possible for this Bench to take up the matter, let it stand over till 23rd July, 2013, and be placed before the Bench presided over by Hon’ble the Chief Justice. Till then, the payment of the installment shall continue to be deferred.”
Yesterday, senior counsels Abhishek Manu Singhvi and V K Gupta sought for deferring payment of the installment. Justices P Sathasivam and Ranjan Gogoi after going through the order dated 26th November, 2012 passed by Justices Justices A K Patnaik and H L Gokhale refusing a stay, came down heavily and refused to defer payment.
A complaint has been filed against District and Sessions judge of Porbandar for allegedly harassing his daughter-in-law for dowry, police said here on Sunday.
Darshana Dave, a native of Amreli, has filed a complaint against her husband Kinnar, father-in-law and district judge Arvind Dave, mother-in-law Pratibha and brother-in-law Prashant, the police added.
Darshana married Kinnar two years ago. Her complaint says that she was harassed from the beginning, and was even beaten up by the husband and in-laws, who were demanding Rs 10 lakh as dowry.
She has also alleged that she was thrown out of the house a few months back, and her husband is now seeking divorce, the police said.
Amreli Superintendent of Police H R Muliyana confirmed to have received the complaint against the judge and others. He said that action will be taken after verifying the complaint.
This is the second complaint related to dowry harassment filed against a judge in the state in the recent past.
Earlier, a woman had filed a complaint against additional sessions judge of Jetpur after her daughter and the judge's wife committed suicide.
Gurgaon's Chief Judicial Magistrate Ravneet Garg, booked for the murder of his wife, will also face dowry harassment charge, police here said Monday.
Police have issued notices to the CJM's father K.K. Garg and mother Rachna Garg, who have also been named in the dowry harassment case.
The CJM's father reached here Monday morning from Haryana's Panchkula town and contacted police, who wanted to question him.
"We had called CJM's parents...K.K. Garg was questioned by special investigation team (SIT)," Gurgaon Police Commissioner Alok Mittal said.
Mittal said on the basis of written complaint filed by the parents of the CJM's wife Geetanjali, penal sections of dowry harassment and extra-marital affair were included in the FIR lodged against the CJM Saturday.
Geetanjali, 24, bore three bullet wounds - on her chin, chest and stomach - but no bullets were found in her body that was recovered here Thursday. The CJM's licensed firearm was found near the body, police said.
Mittal said two bullets were seized from the scene of crime and would be sent for ballistic examination Monday, a day after ballistic experts examined the crime spot.
"The SIT Sunday questioned two women relatives of Ravneet Garg for hours at his government allotted house here in the Officers Colony," said Mittal.
"We have asked CJM to produce supporting evidences to prove his statement," he said.
The CJM allegedly said that his driver and domestic help may throw some light on his wife's death.
Judge Garg's in-laws alleged that two cars were provided to the accused on his and his family's demand. Rs.2 lakh were also delivered to him at the time of the admission of his daughters in school in May.
Geetanjali's brother Pradeep Aggarwal Saturday lodged a first information report against Garg and his parents, accusing them of murder.
"Ravneet and Geetanjali got married in November 2007. Everything was fine for a few years but the attitude of Ravneet and his parents towards Geetanjali started changing after she delivered two baby girls (now aged around four and a half and three years)," Aggarwal said in his complaint.
He demanded a probe by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) into his sister's murder.
valid) in a democracy ?
Off late there have been reports galore regarding judges being offered sites or houses under the discretionary quota of the Chief Minister. Recently there was an expose at the Orissa High Court. Prior to this there were reports from Karnataka and also another report which spoke about how the Narendra Modi government had offered prime lands to judges of the High Court.
The big question is whether judges deserve such treatment from the state government considering the fact that the government is the biggest litigant before any court in the country? Is this an illegality or is it corruption?
PHOTOS: THE HINDU, JEEMON JACOB
Who can refuse a good piece of land in Chennai city? It’s a way of rewarding people for good work done. No inquiry has been conducted in this matter so far. Discretionary quota is the prerogative of the government. After RTI came into existence, several activists are taking up the matter in court. Basically, there is no control mechanism or checks and balances. There is little transparency while awarding the GDQ — the plots are allotted without formal applications.
Yes, I was allotted a plot in Thiruvanmiyur Extension. Initial payment for the plot was Rs. 25 lakh. I never had that much money. So I requested the government to reduce the price. But there was no response. I did not want a house to compromise my integrity. So I never took possession. Later, in 2009, the government ordered a vigilance inquiry against me and cancelled the allotment. Frankly, I was not aware about the TNHB rules that bars a person having a plot, a flat or a house from claiming another plot.
Yes, it is a way of making you a part of the syndicate. Plots or flats are given to those civil servants, judges or relatives of the bureaucrats or politicians for complying with certain requirements. There is no procedure for IAS or IPS officers to get a land or plot or flat in a transparent manner. So everybody uses short cuts.
MY LORDS, THERE’S A CASE AGAINST YOU
Former Union law ministers are spearheading a campaign against sitting judges they accuse of being corrupt. What is the higher judiciary doing to clear itself of these grave charges?
The campaign by some senior lawyers and former law ministers who have questioned the integrity of sitting high court judges is set to ratchet up the growing confrontation between the legislative and the judicial arms of the government. Former Union law ministers Shanti Bhushan and Ram Jethmalani are leading the battle against what they claim are corrupt practices in the highest echelons of the judiciary.
Bhushan has categorically condemned the rot he feels has set in the judicial system. “The judiciary of this country is not merely unaccountable, but corrupt and brazenly so,” he wrote in a letter to President APJ Abdul Kalam on December 17. Bhushan has demanded that the President initiate impeachment proceedings against Justice Jagdish Bhalla of the Lucknow Bench of the Allahbad High Court. On December 14, a Supreme Court (SC) collegium recommended that Justice Bhalla be appointed the Chief Justice of the Kerela HC.
Bhushan and Jethmalani, along with noted lawyers and former justices, including Rajendra Sachar, Indira Jaisingh and Hardev Singh, have formed the Committee on Judicial Accountability (COJA) and presented documents to the Chief Justice of India (CJI), YK Sabharwal, to support their complaint against the sitting judges. COJA complained to the CJI on July 11 that Justice Jagdish Bhalla had amassed several illegal properties in the name of his wife and other close relatives. Justice Vijender Jain, the former senior Judge in the Delhi High Court, who was recently appointed the CJ of Punjab and Haryana HC, is also in COJA’s line of fire.
By questioning the integrity of Justices Bhalla and Jain, Bhushan has thrown open the much larger question of judicial accountability. (See interview) “Leave aside taking any action against corrupt judges like Justice Jagdish Bhalla and Justice Vijender Jain, the CJI has been actually avoiding even properly investigating charges against them,” says Bhushan. According to documents produced by COJA on 21 July 2003, Renu Bhalla bought a 7,200 sq. metre plot near the Noida-Greater Noida expressway. On 28 March 2005, Uday Shankar, dsp, Gautam Buddha Nagar (Noida’s official name) submitted a report to the area dm in which he states that the sellers of the plot belong to the “land mafia”. In an enquiry submitted to the dm on 26 June 2005, RK Singh, the area sdm, also described the sellers as belonging to the “land mafia”. According to the two reports, the plots constituted a portion of the gram samaj (joint village property) land, illegally grabbed by the “land mafia”. (All the documents relating to the transaction are in possession of Tehelka)
The SDM’s report says that at the time of the transaction, the plot was worth Rs 7.20 crore in the open market, whereas Renu Bhalla paid Rs 5 lakh for it. The two reports also state that the sellers of the plot have been charged in several criminal cases, and had sold plots to several influential people to curry favour with them. Renu Bhalla is the wife of Justice Jagdish Bhalla.
Bhushan has also drawn attention to the July 2005 draw of lots for allotment of plots in Sector 44 in Greater Noida. When the computerised draw threw up several influential names, a few people approached the Allahabad HC alleging foulplay. In October 2005, the HC decided that the case warranted a fresh draw of lots and ordered a cbi inquiry into the scam. Among those who had been allotted plots in the scrapped list were Aarohi Bhalla and Sheeba Sabharwal. Aarohi Bhalla, who is the son of Justice Bhalla, was allotted plot number f-52, while Sheeba Sabharwal, daughter-in-law of the CJI YK Sabharwal was allotted plot number f-78. In November 2005, the Supreme Court stayed the Allahabad HC judgement, putting the cbi enquiry and the HC’s order to hold a fresh draw of lots on hold.
Members of COJA have offered to discuss the matter in person with the CJI but they say that they are still waiting to hear from him. Five months after their initial request, they sent another application to the CJI in November. This time they sought his permission to register an FIR against Justice Bhalla, claiming that their initial evidence was enough to register an offence against him under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
“The CJI did not even call us to hear our point,” says Bhushan. “I don’t know why Justice Sabharwal is shielding Justice Bhalla!” Bhushan is equally critical of Justice Vijender Jain.
Justice Jain, who took oath as the new CJ of Punjab and Haryana HC in November, had to endure many delays before he could be appointed to the post. The CJI had to make three efforts to promote Justice Jain. A collegium headed by the Chief Justice of India first recommended Justice Jain’s name for the post in July. However, President APJ Abdul Kalam returned the file, causing a minor embarrassment to the CJI and the Union government. When the collegium reiterated its recommendation through the government in November, the President had to sign the file.
Earlier in May, a proposal by the CJI to make Justice Jain CJ of the Maharsahtra HC was stonewalled by a judge in the three-member collegium who questioned Justice Jain’s integrity. The member on the panel cited a complaint made to former CJI RC Lahoti against Justice Jain in January 2005. The CJI revived the proposal a month later, but again a judge on the collegium opposed his appointment. Finally, a fortnight later, in July 2006, the CJI made his third attempt to promote Jain, this time to the Punjab and Haryana HC.
This time around, to address dissenting voices, the CJI also consulted other SC judges who happened to be former chief justices of the Delhi High Court. According to reliable sources, Justice Jain’s former seniors also questioned his integrity. However, on the basis of a majority, the proposal to promote him was forwarded to the Union government for the President’s assent.
A major hurdle in promoting Justice Jain continued on page 8 continued from page 6 was a complaint by one Subhash Agrawal who approached then CJI RC Lahoti in January 2005 with the complaint that Justice Jain had violated the code of conduct for judges. Agrawal claimed that Justice Jain gave a judgement in favour of someone with whom he had “family relations”. He produced a copy of the invitation card of the litigant’s granddaughter’s wedding, held in April 2001. According to the card, the venue of the wedding was the official residence of Justice Jain. (Tehelka has obtained a copy of the wedding card from the Central Information Commission). In November 2004, Justice Jain, hearing an appeal, decided a civil suit in favour of the person who had held his granddaughter’s wedding at his official residence.
When there was no response to his complaint in October 2005, Agrawal approached the SC to find out the status of his complaint under the rti Act. He was told that his complaint was in the relevant HC file. Not satisfied, Agrawal approached the Central Information Commission. On the commission’s insistence, the SC finally told Agrawal that his complaint had not actually been forwarded to the HC, as the SC has “no administrative jurisdiction” over high court judges. Therefore, the complaint was pending before the CJI, YK Sabharwal. The commission asked the CJI to act on the application. The CJI finally settled the complaint, saying he found no merit in it. When Agrawal asked for reasons behind the decision, he drew a blank.
It’s not just Bhushan who feels the need to bring about accountability and transparency in the judiciary. Janata Dal (U) president Sharad Yadav says the issue will be discussed when the Judicial Accountability Bill is tabled in Parliament. “When the government tables the bill, all its aspects will be discussed,” Yadav told Tehelka.
CJI YK Sabharwal could not be reached for his comments. Despite conciliatory notes from him there are all indications that the clamour surrounding judicial misdemeanour and the demand for greater accountability will only increase in the days to come.
Dec 30 , 2006
Burn After Reading
BRIJESH PANDEY and SANJAY DUBEY track the Supreme Court’s lack of urgency in investigating charges of judicial corruption
WHEN SPECIAL CBI judge Rama Jain received an anonymous letter in January 2008, telling her that the provident funds of Class 3 and Class 4 employees of the Ghaziabad court were being siphoned off, she had no idea that she had stumbled onto the biggest judicial scam in the history of independent India.
As she was the designated vigilance officer at the Ghaziabad court, she first conducted an inquiry on her own, which uncovered the involvement of at least three judges and the Central Nazir in the embezzlement of funds. She reported the matter to the Allahabad High Court, which, in turn, ordered a vigilance inquiry. Holding that the report, prima facie, had merit, the court directed her to file an FIR.
Central Nazir Ashutosh Asthana was arrested on the basis of the FIR on April 10, 2008. His interrogation revealed that Asthana was not a solo player. He claimed that he was first introduced to the scam by a district judge himself. What followed was so shocking that even the Ghaziabad police was on the backfoot. Asthana confessed that from the Rs 7 crore embezzled, he had given cash and gifts such as airconditioners, refrigerators, expensive clothes, jewellery and furniture to as many as 36 judges, including about 10 High Court judges and one Supreme Court judge. In a sworn statement before a magistrate, Asthana revealed that this fraud had run from 2001 to 2007 with the active connivance of district judges. Every month, Asthana even paid bribes to various judges, from Rs 25,000 to a whopping Rs 1.5 lakh.
When these excerpts from Asthana’s confession became public, the public image of the judiciary touched a new low. In perhaps the biggest moment of crisis for the Indian judiciary, Asthana, the main accused, has in turn named judges from the Ghaziabad District Court to the Allahabad High Court, right up to the Supreme Court. This was not all.
These revelations stunned the Ghaziabad police. Clearly out of their depth and (justifiably) wary of taking on the powerful judiciary, they requested the Ghaziabad court to hand over the probe to the CBI. In September 2008, the Supreme Court transferred the case to the CBI, but with a rider: Investigate, but give us a sealed report. The PF scam, as it had come to be known, gave the judiciary a wonderful opportunity to redeem itself in the eyes of the people but the case remained shrouded in secrecy. Cynics then said that the whole matter would be given a quiet burial. Eighteen months after the scam became public and four CBI status reports later, the cynics appear to have had the last laugh.
This delay and secrecy in such a highprofile scam raises various uncomfortable questions for the Indian Judiciary. Legal luminaries believe that this is symptomatic of a larger malaise which ails the judiciary. Says jurist Ram Jethmalani, “The reputation of a judge is more important than the actual fact of his honesty. In fact, if a judge has a bad reputation, even if it is undeserved, he should not be appointed because then nobody will have confidence in his judgements,” adding, “When the judiciary expedites cases concerning the executive branch or even most prominent cases, why is such urgency not displayed here, when the matter is extremely serious. Why this delay?”
A VALID QUESTION. Asthana named 36 judges (a list of which is with TEHELKA). Other than the fact that a few have retired, virtually nothing is known about the fate of the judges of the Allahabad High Court and the Supreme Court judge. Whether or not the apex court is planning to initiate or has initiated, criminal charges against any of the judges — sitting or retired — are questions that only the Supreme Court can answer.
And the apex court should answer, argues former Union law minister and senior advocate Shanti Bhushan. “I don’t appreciate this sealed-cover business except in very rare cases when making something public might be detrimental to the public interest — mainly if there is an army secret. Whether it is the judiciary or the executive, all officers are appointed on the behalf of the people. It is on the people’s behalf that the judiciary exercises its powers. How can you keep investigations in the PF scam secret? The people have every right to know what is going on.”
VN Khare, former Chief Justice of India, concurs. “These kind of things should not be allowed to linger. This shakes the confidence of the people in the judiciary. If there is an allegation or misconduct, it must be inquired into immediately and strict action should be taken against the erring judges. Why should the reputation of most judges suffer for no fault of theirs?”
The biggest question which arises from this scam is the lack of will on the part of the judiciary to rein in errant judges. Let alone the judges named by Asthana, what about the fate of the three Ghaziabad District Judges named by vigilance officer of the district court Special CBI Judge Rama Jain herself? Legal luminaries say this hesitancy on the part of judges to act against fellow judges involved in wrongdoing clearly illustrates the prevailing mindset of the judiciary.
“I know of a retired Chief Justice of India who is one of the most honest judges I have ever seen. It’s difficult to imagine a more honest person. However, when a responsible minister made complaints to him against a corrupt High Court Judge, he did not grant permission for an investigation because he felt that as the head of the judicial family, it was his job to protect judges, be they corrupt or not,” says Shanti Bhushan. Ram Jethmalani chips in sarcastically, “This is the reason why judges call each other ‘brother judge.’”
IT IS not only cases like the PF scam which taints the image of the judiciary, but also the extreme reluctance on the part of the judiciary to be open and transparent. Reams and reams of paper have gone towards pious exhortations by the judiciary asking the government to refrain from corruption and work in an efficient manner. But sadly, no judge has held forth at length on the need for the judiciary to refrain from corruption. Even attempts to exercise the Right to Information with respect to the office of the CJI came a cropper as the CJI’s office was always declared out of bounds. It took a historic verdict by the Delhi High Court to declare that the office of the CJI was not immune from accountability and outside the purview of the RTI Act. Senior lawyers and retired chief justices feel that if the judiciary is not transparent or accountable, it only means that they are trying to hide something. Justice Khare feels, “Judges are more accountable than other persons because they hold a very high post. The very existence of the judiciary is based on the faith of the common man in it. If that faith is not there, how can the judiciary function?”
What incenses them is the behaviour of the government with regard to the Judges’ Assets Declaration Bill which the government tried to introduce in 2009. The opposition erupted in protest and forced the government to defer the bill. Jethmalani terms the government’s approach to this bill as a “conspiracy of corruption”. “The government is scared to take on the judiciary. It’s clear that the executive wants to cosy up to the judiciary.” Agrees retired CJI V N Khare, “Why should there be any hesitancy to declare assets at all on the part of judiciary? The whole episode is beyond me.” In a recent development, the Supreme Court has reiterated before the Delhi High Court that the CJI’s office is outside the purview of the RTI Act.
Another assault on the public image of the judiciary is the Dinakaran episode. Currently, judges are appointed to the Supreme Court by the Supreme Court Collegium, a group of judges chaired by the Chief Justice of India. When Chief Justice Dinakaran of the Karnataka High Court was elevated to the Supreme Court, the state Bar and legal luminaries rose up in protest because the Collegium appeared to have dismissed, or, at least, not have considered the serious allegations of corruption against him. According to Senior Advocate Soli Sorabjee, “The Dinakaran episode shows that the Collegium is not working satisfactorily. You must have a national commission for judges which should be made up of judges, eminent jurists and senior government officials. This council should have the power to get independent information and evaluate it.” Shanti Bhushan feels that as judges are extremely busy with hearing cases, there should be a full-time commission whose sole function is to pick judges for the High Court and the Supreme Court and feels that the commission should also have its own bureau of investigation. They should not be dependent on either the local police, who might be afraid to investigate judges, or on an overburdened CBI.
But all this is very hard to achieve. Jurists feel that the judges of the higher courts have converted themselves into a union of sorts and are trying to protect each other. “Their approach is to sweep every allegation under the carpet. Don’t allow the public to know about it. Let the public believe that our judiciary is very honest. But this has been counterproductive. It has given a shield of total immunity to the judges and they think they can get away with anything. This has led to an increase in corruption in the judiciary,” states Shanti Bhushan. Time and again, opportunities have arisen for the judiciary to reinvent itself in a new avatar. And time after time, it has failed. Caesar’s wife, they say, should be above suspicion. Whatever the cost it might take to ensure it.
From Tehelka Magazine, Vol 6, Issue 41, Dated October 17, 2009
His companion justices of the Supreme Court of India
The humble application of the Petitioners above named.
2. Justice K.N. Singh,
3. Justice M.H. Kania,
4. Justice L.M. Sharma,
5. Justice M.N. Venkatchalliah,
6. Justice A.M. Ahmadi,
7. Justice J.S. Verma,
8. Justice M.M. Punchhi,
9. Justice A.S. Anand,
10. Justice S.P. Bharucha,
11. Justice B.N. Kripal,
12. Justice G.B. Patnaik,
13. Justice Rajendra Babu,
14. Justice R. C. Lahoti,
15. Justice V.N. Khare,
16. Justice Y.K SabharwalOut of these, in the applicant’s opinion, eight were definitely corrupt, six were definitely honest and about the remaining two, a definite opinion cannot be expressed whether they were honest or corrupt. The signed lists identifying these eight, six and two Chief Justices of India are being enclosed in a sealed cover which is being annexed here to as Annexure B.
In a decision termed “rarest of rare” by a city court, a trial court judge found a public prosector on the wrong side of the law.
DEALS IN COURTS & POLICE STATIONS READ :
ACCUSED Chief Justice of India
The inquiry revealed that leave extended from a few hours to even a couple of days.
It also found that this practice had been going on at the jail for nearly three years.
According to a senior official, “Most of the information sought has not only confirmed the veracity of the incident but the government has crosschecked it with another police agency. Both the reports match.”
The incident was widely reported in the media. What has surprised the Centre is the “dogged refusal” of the Karnataka police to confirm the incident. “Mysore Police Commissioner C. Chandrasekhar first denied that the incident ever took place. Only when a public notice was issued through the high court registrar seeking information on the Mysore scandal, did the facts come out in the open. Public protest helped a lot,” says the source.
What transpired at the resort, says the source, “cannot be expected from anyone in civil society, leave alone persons sworn to upholding the law”. According to him, “The IB report consists of unmentionable facts and also makes it amply clear that the Mysore incident is not the first time such things have happened. Can anyone expect upholders of the law to pick a fight with people who complained to the police when caught in a compromising position?”
In a related development, Karnataka High Court Chief Justice N.K. Jain has written to Chief Justice of India Justice G.B. Pattanaik asking that three judges be transferred. Jain has proposed that Justice N.S. Veerabhadraiah be transferred to the Patna High Court, Justice Chandrasekharaiah to Jammu & Kashmir and Justice V. Gopala Gowda to the Gauhati High Court.
While Jain is understood not to have given any reasons, highly placed sources say the proposal for transfers is linked to the Mysore incident.
However, the source says that now the government is worried about the appropriate “remedial measures”. In such cases, transferring a judge to a remote high court doesn’t always work. He says, “Bar associations and the people of northeastern states were up in arms when some judges of the Punjab and Haryana high courts were transferred there. We expect similar protests if the CJI accepts Justice Jain’s proposal to transfer the three judges of the Karnataka High Court.”
The Bar Council of India on Friday, while expressing its anguish at the Karnataka incident, called for “follow-up action”.
“Unless prompt and appropriate action is taken, it will erode the faith of public in the only institution considered to be the bastion of our fighting faith in democracy,” it said in a statement. The BCI has “lamented” inaction in this case by “the higher judiciary and the government”.
Read more: IB confirms Mysore sex scandal – The Times of India http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/bangalore/IB-confirms-Mysore-sex-scandal/articleshow/29801662.cms#ixzz1B7PtvFdU
Registrar General Dinesh Gupta said, “The district judge of Budaun has been asked to send a detailed report into the allegations. Appropriate action would be taken on the basis of the report.”
District Judge Suresh Kumar Srivastava said, “I have asked the Bareilly district police to send a report about the matter. The report on the basis of the police inquiry would be sent to the Allahabad High Court Registrar General.”
“I am not aware about the matter, as the Bareilly police did not intimate me before initiating the probe against the civil judge. They should have informed me when they had received any such complaint,” the judge added.
Meanwhile, Bareilly CO II Raj Kumar, who is investigating the case, today recorded the statement of the victim. “I have collected the call details of the cellphone used for sending the SMSes, but I have yet to get the address of the person who is subscriber of the SIM card,” he said.
“The probe is on to verify if the accused in the case were present on the location recorded in the call details when the SMSes were sent. The details of the findings of the investigation would be sent to the Budaun district court to seek the direction,” the CO added.
Asked if the investigation was earlier conducted into the matter, Raj Kumar said, “The SP (Crime) had initiated probe into the matter, but I am not aware if the investigation had reached to any conclusion.”
The woman lecturer had lodged an FIR at the Mahila police station on Thursday alleging she had received obscene SMSes on her cellphone involving her colleague Vivek Gupta. The preliminary inquiry into the case by the police yesterday had found that the mobile phone used in the crime belongs to the civil judge.
The Maharashtra government had on Friday ordered an inquiry into allegations that besides Salve and Wani, senior police inspector Tulsidas Khakkad, a police inspector of anti-extortion cell and a constable from Chembur police station had attended the party.
"I have recommended to the state government to initiate disciplinary action against the five policemen and suspend them pending inquiry," Sivanandan said.
He said there were "CCTV footages and photographs which may prove" that the officials were present at the party held at a private gymkhana in suburban Chembur.
The party was reportedly organised to celebrate the release of some top-ranking members of the gang. Among them were dreaded D K Rao, who was released from jail after 13 years of imprisonment, Farid Tanasha and Sunil Poddar.
Maharashtra Home Minister R R Patil had on Friday ordered the inquiry after photographs and grainy video footage purportedly showing them were aired on TV channels.
Meanwhile, Wani vehemently denied the accusation, claiming the video clippings and photographs were doctored.
"This is a conspiracy against me. I am a member of the gymkhana and had gone there with my wife for dinner and not to party with any gang members," he said.
The party was reportedly thrown by Paulson Joseph, a close aide of Chota Rajan, who is said to be looking after the underworld don's business interests in Mumbai's suburbs.
Sources at the gymkhana said Joseph was a member of the upmarket club, which charges a membership fee of Rs five lakh, and used to go there regularly to play cards and party.
Speaking strictly on condition of anonymity, they said that a member could bring along any number of guests after paying Rs 30 for each of them.
"So many people visit the club on the Christmas-eve and it is not possible to ascertain the identity of each one of them," they said, when asked if they had spotted any police officer at Joseph's bash.
"We have handed over the case to the SOG of the Rajasthan Police. It's a serious matter that Tandon not been arrested since 1997. We want to arrest him and find out why he's not been arrested so far," state Home Minister Shanti Dhariwal told reporters here.
A Rajasthan Police party arrived in Noida in Uttar Pradesh Wednesday to investigate the matter and visited the property that earlier belonged to Tandon.
Dhariwal has also sought all the files relating to the case.
"I have asked the police to bring all the files relating to Tandon to me... I want to know the details," he said.
Malli Devi, a resident of Bandikui in Dausa district has alleged that on Jan 21, 1997 she was abducted and taken to Noida where she was allegedly raped by former DIG Tandon, then posted in the police headquarters and who is now reported to be absconding.
Khayali Ram, the husband of the victim who was a constable attached to the DIG said: "It has been 13 years that he ruined me and my family."
"Tandon had summoned my wife to Jaipur from the village on the pretext that an accident has happened in my family. When she arrived in Jaipur she was forcefully taken to Noida, to the DIG's residence, where she was victimised," said Ram.
"I was forced out of the service when I refused to withdraw the case against Tandon in 2000," he added.
Tandon was suspended in 2002, five years after first FIR was lodged against him and a magisterial court in Dausa had ordered all his property including his house in Noida to be attached.
1949: Mr. Justice Sinha only Judge impeached; courtesy Good Judges &
Constitution Framers: Our Fore-Fathers represented by Constituent
Assembly of India framers of Constitution of India then in 1949 (year
before Consitution came into existence) impeached Mr. Justice Sinha;
finding him "guilty of improper exercise of Judicial functions, the
cumulative effect of which was to lower the dignity of his office and
undermine the confidence of the public in the administration of
Such/ similar acts/ behaviours by whom-so-ever including Judges is
since 1971 is covered as an act of Criminal Contempt of Court
[041.05 ]. Not a single Judge is either Impeached or hauled-up for
Contempt till 1991.
Peoples' Inner Hope Courts to maintain their Majesty & Dignity will
prosecute 1000 Judges in context, who have tarnished & undermined the
Fair image of Judiciary.
Let Judges relish Jail for months if not years ; to asses personally
the convinences-N-comforts provided even to innocent citizens or
persons who were not having Rs. 100 to give as Bail. Then they will be
in better position to Transform Jails into Reformation Centres.
Jailing corrupt Judges by Judges , we hope will instill confidence of
people in Courts & law. Who-is-who of India then only will scare to
get into any scam nor Criminals will think of becoming Legislators.
1979 : Chief Justice Mr. K. Veeraswami ; Chief Justice of India
permitted Central Bureau of India to file case of Dis-proportionate of
Income / wealth against Chief Justice Madras High Court Mr. K.
Veeraswami ( father-in-law of Mr. Justice V. Ramaswami ). 30 years
elaped. Sheltered by Courts' easy-go-tactic. [049.04] [059.05 ]
1991-93: Mr. Justice V. Ramaswami ( son-in-law of Chief Justice Mr. K.
Veeraswami [049.04 ] ) : SAWANT COMMITTEE REPORT had held he is guilty
of several charges. Supreme Court of India also upheld guilty of 3-4
charges ; & recommended to Parliament for further action.
Parliamentarians failed in their Duty to Impeach the Sitting Judge of
Supreme Court Mr. Justice V. Ramaswami ; not rising to the Heights of
Eminent Constitution makers ; but chose to have unholy alliance with
Corruption in Judiciary vis-a-vis Legislature & Government.[008.00 ].
Supreme Court which upheld Charges of Mis-Behaviour also , we opine ,
failed to prosecute him under Contempt of Court Act & relevant Laws .
It also failed " To Do Complete Justice" by invoking Article142 .
Criminal Judge was allowed to go scot-free; both by Parliament &
Supreme Court !
Good precedent for other Judges ? If so What kind of message to we-
innocent-Citizens ? For almost complete proceedings in SC &
Parliament: [008.00 ]
1995 A.M. BHATTACHARJEE: The chief justice of the Bombay High
Court was forced to resign in 1995 after it was found that he had
received Rs.70 lakh as book advance from a publishing firm known to
have links with the underworld.
1996 AJIT SENGUPTA: The Calcutta High Court judge made it a
routine to issue ex parte, ad interim stay orders on anticipatory bail
pleas from smugglers having links with the Mumbai underworld. He was
arrested in 1996 for FERA violations after retirement
1994 to 1997: A.M. AHMADI: When he was Chief Justice of India
(October 1994-March 1997), his daughter, a lawyer in the Delhi High
Court, caused eyebrows to be raised for getting "special" treatment
from certain judges. When some members of the bar sought a resolution
banning lawyer relatives of judges from staying in the same house, the
CJI got members to defeat the motion.
2000 A.S. ANAND: As Chief Justice of India. (a) He was accused of
using his position to get the subordinate judiciary to rule in favour
of his wife and mother-in-law in a suit that had been barred by
limitation for two decades.For more: [049.05] [049.05A] [049.05B]
[049.05C] [049.05D] [049.05E ] called as TANGLED PLOT. Also read Ram
Jethmalani's " BIG EGOS, small men ". (b) Supreme Court , while he
was CJI,directed a CBI probe after a dispute arose over his age in
2000. The investigation report was not made public.This arose due to
scan copy published in Ram Jethmalani's " BIG EGOS, small men ".
2002: SEX FOR ACQUITTAL
In November 2002, Sunita Malviya, a Jodhpur-based doctor, alleged that
a deputy registrar of the Rajasthan High Court had sought sexual
favours for himself and for Justice Arun Madan to "fix" a case in her
favour. Justice Mr.Â• Arun Madan . Case of Lady Sunita Malviya.STATUS:
A committee set up by former CJI G.B. Pattanaik found prima facie
evidence against Madan, who does not attend court anymore. Judge
CASH-FOR-JOB :Three judges of the Punjab and Haryana High Court sought
the help of disgraced PPSC chief R.P. Sidhu to ensure that their
daughters and other kin topped examinations conducted by the
commission . Judges are M.L. Singh , Mehtab Sing Gill & Amarbir Singh
STATUS: Two inquiry panels indicted the judges. Gill and Amarbir Singh
have resigned M.L. Singh continues, though no work is allotted to
2002-03: 3 Judges Mysore Sex Scandal ( alleged ) : On Sunday, November
3, 2002, three judges of the Karnataka High Court, along with two
women advocates, allegedly got involved in a brawl with a woman guest
at a resort. The police arrived but reportedly didn't take action.
Judges are N.S. Veerabhadraiah , V. Gopalagowda &Â•
Chandrashekaraiah .STATUS: The three-judge inquiry committee appointed
by the CJI filed its report. Gave clean chit.
March 2003 - Delhi High Court Judge resigns: Suspected of collusion
with Property Developers. Raids by CBI on corrupt higher officials in
Delhi Development Authority (DDA), found Draft Judgement-N-Court
E(I)nquiry-in-camera or In-House Inquiry was & is contrary to Law . Is
ultra vires Article 14 of Constitution of India: " The State shall not
deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of
the laws within the territory of India"
Following Questions / Issues, inter alia , arise
( a ) Enquiry in-camera was held contrary to the observations made by,
Constituent Assembly of India in 1949. In its' Impeachment Order had
held thus:"While we are alive to the desirability, in the interests of
the public, of investigating charges against a Judge in open court, we
held the Enquiry in-camera in view of the allegation made in the
affidavits and the circumstances of the case. This mode of proceeding
should not, however, be regarded as a precedent." [008.07 ].
( b) In the case of similar In-House Inquiry held under the Orders of
Chief Justice of India in Jusice V. Ramaswami's case , Justice
Ramaswami had held that " Inquiring Committee" as well as " Inquiry"
have no basis & force of law. It is reflected in the Report , which
was read-out by CJI to Advocates & publicised , submitted by 3 Judges
Committee thus" Indeed Justice Ramaswami had made it clear to the
Chief Justice that he did not recognise any such Jurisdiction in any
body or authority."
(c) It will not be out-of place to mention here that Two of "Three
Judges Committee " appointed by CJI in Re. V. Ramaswami's case are
alleged to be involved in Judges Plot 4 Plot.[014.00]. It is like
Criminal investigating another criminal .
( d ) If so how sure can we be that " 3 Judges Committee " appointed
to invetigate " 3 Judges Mysore Sex Scandal " were un-biased or were
above Board & have presented an accurate Report ?
Queries to Supreme Court , Parliament of India & Central Government
In Re. Judges' Mysore Sex Scandal
( a)" Will the Supreme Court Publicise Report of " 3 Judges Committee
" ( all & sundry material); morefully to know whether any evidence
adduced by many in support of Scam is informed to CJI & Supreme
(b) What is the Guarantee that despite prima facie evidence Judges of
Supreme Court which consists of Few corrupt Judges seved in Karnataka
are not inclined to take stern action ?
(c) Investigation of a Crime comitted by Minister or anyone lies
within Executive Domain like the case Justice K.Veeraswami, in this
case CBI . Is it not a case of hushing-up & messing-up of " 3 Pillars
of Constitution " ?.
(d) How long will you try keeping suppressed Crimes of Judges of
Supreme Court & High Courts when Union Law Minister Mr. P. Shiva
Shankar , on 28th Nov.1987 said " Supreme Court is filled with FERA
violators & Bride Burnersâ€¦" ( AIR 1988 SC 1208 ). When Chief Justice
Of India Justice E.S. Venkataramaiaha admits that "in every High Court
there are 3-4 Judges who are out every evening to Party in Foreign
Embassiies or at Advocates' placesâ€¦drinkâ€¦dineâ€¦" (1990 Cr LJ
2179 ) [041.09].
(e) 20% of Judges are corrupt , indirectly said Chief Justice of India
Mr. Justice S.P. Bharucha , in other words admitted that 80% of Judges
of India are not corrupt & are above board to be bribed or influnced ?
Then why cases are not filed against 20% of Judges ?