Cauvery – Unjust Order

 

S.O.S   e – Voice For Justice – e-news weekly
Spreading the light of humanity freedom

Editor: Nagaraja.M.R.. Vol.12..Issue.37….….17/09/2016

 

 

Editorial : Supreme Court of India violating Fundamental Rights

 

Drinking water  is   a  basic need , essential for human beings , cattles , live stock to survive.  Following  two PILs seeking drinking water from Cauvery  River  & Mahadayi River is  an effort by public , our publication , a struggle for life, survival.  Right to Life is a Human Right  must be  respected by all law making bodies  and  even supreme court of india. SCI  itself is grossly violating citizen’s fundamental rights , human rights  instead of safe guarding it. Who will prosecute SCI judges ?  God save  my India.

 

Jai Hind. Vande Mataram.

Your’s sincerely,

Nagaraja.M.R.

 

 

PIL –  Store  DRINKING  WATER in Cauvery KRS reservoir

An  Appeal to Honourable Supreme Court of  India & National Human Rights Commission

 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.         OF    2016

IN THE MATTER OF

NAGARAJA . M.R

editor ,  SOS e Clarion of Dalit & SOS e Voice for Justice
# LIG 2 , No 761 ,, HUDCO First Stage , Laxmikantanagar ,
Hebbal , Mysore – 570017 , Karnataka State
.
….Petitioner

Versus

a. Honourable   Cabinet Secretary , Government of India

  1. Honourable Chief Secretary , Government of Karnataka
  2. Honourable Chief Secretary , Government of Tamilnadu
  3. Justice Deepak Mishra , SCI
  4. Justice U.U Lalit , SCI and others

    ….Respondents

    PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 12 to ARTICLE 35 & ARTICLE 51A OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS UNDER ARTICLE 32 & ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.

    To ,
    Hon’ble The Chief Justice of India and His Lordship’s Companion Justices of the Supreme Court of India.

 

The Humble petition of the   Petitioner above named.

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH :

  1. Facts of the case:

Every human being needs drinking water to survive and every Human Being  has got Human Right  to Live by virtue of  his birth itself. Without  access to drinking water  human beings cann’t survive , they will die.  Therefore  Human  Right  to  Drinking water forms  integral  part of  Human Right to Live. United  Nations  has also affirmed  Human Right  to  Safe  Drinking  Water  to  every human being.

The said agreement  regarding  sharing of Cauvery water  by  british presidency  with Rulers of Mysore Kingdom  decades ago is biased in favor of state of tamil nadu.

Even  decades after independence of india , why should we  stick to british era agreement instead of drawing our own mutual agreement based on present needs.

When a judge  presiding  in a case even if remotely associated with any of the parties must withdraw from the case paving the way for a neutral judge. This is to prove  to the public that justice is not  merely  delivered but publicly shown to be delivered.

Judges are not subject experts in irrigation , engineering ,  rain calculation , etc. without taking the  expert opinion  , conducting ground assessment  judges have recently made  orders to release Cauvery river water to tamilnadu state.

While  sharing  a river water TOP  PRIORITY  must be  DRINKING WATER for all parties concerned. Second comes irrigation. Here too it must be on equal footing   first round of water for all parties for first crop , after  completion  of first round  second round must commence for all parties. However here  one party  is given water for two  crops  other is denied water even for TOP PRIRITY DRINKING let alone for crop irrigation.  It is unjust.

Lot of confusion is being created by contradictory statements  made out by  contesting parties , governments regarding the water stored in their reservoirs. Till date why not SCI has deputed an impartial expert tem to assess the  actual stored water in reservoirs , their actual needs , rain fall expected , their contingency plans in case of rain fall failure , etc. To make expert’s report public so that public in all the states will  know the truth , law & order , peace will prevail.

 

  1. Question(s) of Law:

Is  not  denial  of  Drinking water from  Cauvery river  to  people  in   Karnataka ,  a crime by  supreme court judges  Justice Deepak Mishra , Justice U.U . Lalit , government of  india  , government of Tamilnadu  & government of Karnataka ?

Supreme court definitely has jurisdiction to safeguard human rights of people , to ensure drinking water to all parties  but Does the supreme court has  jurisdiction to  order  parties to release water for irrigation , etc ?

  1. Grounds:

Requests for equitable justice. Protection of Human Rights of  Karnataka People , specifically  protection of their human rights to life & drinking water.

4. Averment:

Hereby , I do request the honorable supreme court of India to consider this as a PIL for : “writ of Mandamus” and to issue instructions to the concerned public servants in the following cases to perform their duties.

That the present petitioner has not filed any other petition (which are admitted by courts) in any High Court or the Supreme Court of India on the subject matter of the present petition.

PRAYER:
In the above premises, it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased:
a . Hereby , I do request the honorable supreme court of India to consider this as a PIL for : “writ of Mandamus” and to issue instructions to the  Union Cabinet Secretary , Government of India , chief secretaries of all state governments ,  the concerned public servants  in the present case , to perform their duties.

b . to pass such other orders and further orders as may be deemed necessary on the facts and in the circumstances of the case.

c. to  order government of Karnataka to ensure  supply of drinking water from  Cauvery River to people living in Karnataka and thereby protect their human rights. .

  1. to order  Government of India and  other  riparian states  to  ensure  drinking water  to all people.
  2. to annul the present biased Cauvery river sharing agreement between Karnataka , tamilnadu state and to  constitute expert committee  to  arrive at a scientific formula to ensure drinking water  to all parties concerned. To make that expert’s report public.
  3. As SCI doesn’t have jurisdiction to interfere  in river sharing , to order government of india to  arrange a conciliatory meeting between the parties.

FOR WHICH ACT OF KINDNESS, THE PETITIONER SHALL BE DUTY BOUND, EVER PRAY.

Dated :  13th September  2016 …………………….FILED BY: NAGARAJA.M.R.

Place :   Mysuru , India…………………….            PETITIONER-IN-PERSON

 

 

 

PIL –  Release  DRINKING  WATER  from  Mahadayi  River

An  Appeal to Honourable Supreme Court of  India & National Human Rights Commission

 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.         OF    2016

IN THE MATTER OF

NAGARAJA . M.R

editor ,  SOS e Clarion of Dalit & SOS e Voice for Justice
# LIG 2 , No 761 ,, HUDCO First Stage , Laxmikantanagar ,
Hebbal , Mysore – 570017 , Karnataka State
.
….Petitioner

Versus

Honourable   Cabinet Secretary , Government of India    & Others

….Respondents

PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 12 to ARTICLE 35 & ARTICLE 51A OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS UNDER ARTICLE 32 & ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.

To ,
Hon’ble The Chief Justice of India and His Lordship’s Companion Justices of the Supreme Court of India.

 

The Humble petition of the   Petitioner above named.

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH :

  1. Facts of the case:

Every human being needs drinking water to survive and every Human Being  has got Human Right  to Live by virtue of  his birth itself. Without  access to drinking water  human beings cann’t survive , they will die.  Therefore  Human  Right  to  Drinking water forms  integral  part of  Human Right to Live. United  Nations  has also affirmed  Human Right  to  Safe  Drinking  Water  to  every human being.

  1. Question(s) of Law:

Is  not  denial  of  Drinking water from Mahadayi / Mandovi River  to  people  in northern  Karnataka ,  a crime by government of  india & government of Karnataka ?

Is not  police brutality against people demanding  drinking water and police brutality against  women , aged persons , children , pregnant women  in  Navalgund , Yamanoor  of Karnataka  a crime by Karnataka police ?

  1. Grounds:

Requests for equitable justice. Protection of Human Rights of  Karnataka People , specifically  protection of their human rights to life & drinking water.

4. Averment:

Hereby , I do request the honorable supreme court of India to consider this as a PIL for : “writ of Mandamus” and to issue instructions to the concerned public servants in the following cases to perform their duties.

That the present petitioner has not filed any other petition (which are admitted by courts) in any High Court or the Supreme Court of India on the subject matter of the present petition.

PRAYER:
In the above premises, it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased:
a . Hereby , I do request the honorable supreme court of India to consider this as a PIL for : “writ of Mandamus” and to issue instructions to the  Union Cabinet Secretary , Government of India , chief secretaries of all state governments ,  the concerned public servants  in the present case , to perform their duties.

b . to pass such other orders and further orders as may be deemed necessary on the facts and in the circumstances of the case.

c. to  order government of Karnataka to ensure  supply of drinking water from  Mahadayi  / Mandovi  River to people living in northern Karnataka .

  1. to order  Government of India and  other  riparian states  to  ensure  drinking water  to all people.
  2. to order government of Karnataka , to initiate  legal prosecution of  Karnataka police personnel who committed  excesses  on  women folk , children , aged persons in navalgund , yamanoor of Karnataka state  during  protest  demanding water from mahadayi river.

FOR WHICH ACT OF KINDNESS, THE PETITIONER SHALL BE DUTY BOUND, EVER PRAY.

Dated :  03rd August 2016 …………………….FILED BY: NAGARAJA.M.R.

Place :   Mysuru , India…………………….   PETITIONER-IN-PERSON

 

 

 

The human right to water and sanitation

Eight short facts on the human right to water and sanitation
[ – 388 KB]

 

 

On 28 July 2010, through Resolution 64/292, the United Nations General Assembly explicitly recognized the human right to water and sanitation and acknowledged that clean drinking water and sanitation are essential to the realisation of all human rights. The Resolution calls upon States and international organisations to provide financial resources, help capacity-building and technology transfer to help countries, in particular developing countries, to provide safe, clean, accessible and affordable drinking water and sanitation for all.

In November 2002, the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights adopted General Comment No. 15 on the right to water. Article I.1 states that “The human right to water is indispensable for leading a life in human dignity. It is a prerequisite for the realization of other human rights”. Comment No. 15 also defined the right to water as the right of everyone to sufficient, safe, acceptable and physically accessible and affordable water for personal and domestic uses.

Sources:

         Resolution A/RES/64/292. United Nations General Assembly, July 2010

         General Comment No. 15. The right to water. UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, November 2002

The human right to water and the MDGs

Formarly acknowledging water as a human right, and expressing the willingness to give content and effect to this right, may be a way of encouraging the international community and governments to enhance their efforts to satisfy basic human needs and to meet the Millennium Development Goals.

Source: Water as a Human Right? IUCN, UNDP, 2004

What is…?

         Sufficient. The water supply for each person must be sufficient and continuous for personal and domestic uses. These uses ordinarily include drinking, personal sanitation, washing of clothes, food preparation, personal and household hygiene. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), between 50 and 100 litres of water per person per day are needed to ensure that most basic needs are met and few health concerns arise.

         Safe. The water required for each personal or domestic use must be safe, therefore free from micro-organisms, chemical substances and radiological hazards that constitute a threat to a person’s health. Measures of drinking-water safety are usually defined by national and/or local standards for drinking-water quality. The World Health Organization (WHO) Guidelines for drinking-water quality provide a basis for the development of national standards that, if properly implemented, will ensure the safety of drinking-water.

         Acceptable. Water should be of an acceptable colour, odour and taste for each personal or domestic use. […] All water facilities and services must be culturally appropriate and sensitive to gender, lifecycle and privacy requirements.

         Physically accessible. Everyone has the right to a water and sanitation service that is physically accessible within, or in the immediate vicinity of the household, educational institution, workplace or health institution. According to WHO, the water source has to be within 1,000 metres of the home and collection time should not exceed 30 minutes.

         Affordable. Water, and water facilities and services, must be affordable for all. The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) suggests that water costs should not exceed 3 per cent of household income.

UN initiatives that are helping to raise the issue…

         Human Rights Council Resolution A/HRC/RES/18/1
On 28 September 2011, the UN Human Rights Council passed a new resolution which takes the human right to safe drinking water and sanitation a step further. The Council welcomed the submission of the compilation of good practices on the right to safe drinking water and sanitation, in which the Special Rapporteur put particular emphasis on practical solutions with regard to the implementation of the human right to safe drinking water and sanitation. The resolution calls on States to ensure enough financing for sustainable delivery of water and sanitation services.

         World Health Assembly Resolution 64/24 [ – 24 KB]
In May 2011, the World Health Organization (WHO), through Resolution 64/24, made a call to Member States “to ensure that national health strategies contribute to the realization of water- and sanitation-related Millennium Development Goals while coming in support to the progressive realization of the human right to water and sanitation” and to WHO’s Director General to “to strengthen WHO’s collaboration with all relevant UN-Water members and partners, as well as other relevant organizations promoting access to safe drinking-water, sanitation and hygiene services, so as to set an example of effective intersectoral action in the context of WHO’s involvement in the United Nations Delivering as One initiative, and WHO’s cooperation with the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the human right to safe drinking water and sanitation with a view to improving the realization of the human right to water and Sanitation”.

         Appointment of an independent expert [ – 32 KB]
In March 2008, through resolution 7/22, the Human Rights Council decided “To appoint, for a period of three years, an independent expert on the issue of human rights obligations related to access to safe drinking water and sanitation”. In April 2011, through resolution 16/2, the Human Rights Council decided to extend the mandate for a period of three years. The Independent Expert monitors and reports on States’ implementation of the right to water as well as related violations.

 

 

More Than Bad Maths: Four Big Errors That Let Jayalalithaa Off the Hook

BY SANDHYA RAVISHANKAR

 

 

A day after former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister J Jayalalithaa was acquitted by the Karnataka High Court on May 11 in a high profile corruption case, Special Public Prosecutor BV Acharya revealed arithmetic errors in the judgment. An error in adding up a tabular column of loans considered as income by the High Court judge left a gaping hole of Rs 13.5 crore, which the AIADMK is still trying to explain away.

Now, more serious errors of duplication have been found in Judge CR Kumaraswamy’s verdict. It now appears that the High Court has, erroneously, added loan amounts twice to the income of the defendants. This means that the amount calculated by the judge as ‘explained income’ — the basis on which the court has exonerated Jayalalithaa and others — is a highly inflated figure.

To put it in simple terms, disproportionate wealth is calculated by adding up all the assets and income of the accused and finding out which of the assets and income are from an explained valid source of income. Those assets and income that do not have a satisfactory source are then deemed to be disproportionate wealth.

The trial court, in September 2014, had found Jayalalithaa guilty of possessing disproportionate wealth to the tune of Rs 53.6 crore. Earlier this month the Karnataka HC ruled on her appeal, acquitting her of all charges as it found disproportionate wealth to be only to the tune of Rs 2.82 crore. The High Court cited earlier judgments to argue that 10% of unexplained wealth was permissible as per law and that since only 8.12% of the defendants’ wealth was disproportionate to their income, they were liable to be acquitted as per law.

Duplication of loans

On page 852 of the High Court order, Judge Kumaraswamy has put in place a tabular column showing a list of 10 loans, which, he argues, would constitute additional income, automatically bringing down the total amount of disproportionate income in Jayalalithaa’s case. He then adjusts the sum assessed as income by the prosecution and arrives at a new figure.

Out of the 10 loans, the first one, a loan to Jaya Publications from Indian Bank to the tune of Rs 1.5 crore is clearly shown to have been repaid in full, in the corresponding Page 294 of the trial court order and has been accepted as legitimate expenditure by the lower court. Therefore, it is already factored in.

Of the other nine loans listed, seven of these have already been taken into account by the prosecution. In fact, the trial court order, on pages 126 to 139, delves in detail into each individual loan taken by the defendants and accepts them either completely or partially with reasons.

Legal experts say that this amounts to duplication of income – if, for instance, the trial court has accepted an income of Rs 100 out of these loans, the High Court has erroneously taken the same Rs 100 and added it once again, assuming that the lower court had omitted to do so. This would take the total income to double the actual amount i.e. Rs 200.

In fact, the High Court appears to have made some more glaring errors. Item number 8 in the table on Page 852 is a loan of Rs 1.57 crore in the name of VN Sudhakaran, Jayalalithaa’s foster son and one of the accused. A comparison with Pages 136 and 137 of the trial court order shows the discrepancy. Three pieces of evidence are cited in this particular loan – one, a letter from Sudhakaran to Indian Bank requesting a loan of Rs 1.57 crore. The second evidence is a letter from Indian Bank sanctioning a loan amount of Rs 1.33 crore and not the full amount requested. The third bit of evidence is the statement of accounts from the bank’s records. The trial court has taken the outstanding balance of the loan amount as income. The High Court, however, in a glaring error, takes into account only the first piece of evidence i.e. the loan amount requested by Sudhakaran, which was not even sanctioned in full.

Page 852 of High Court Judge Kumaraswamy’s judgment of May 11, 2015

Other loans show up similar discrepancies in the High Court order.

Another glaring error in the loan table is that of item number 3 – a loan of Rs 90 lakhs taken by Jayalalithaa from Indian Bank. The HC has taken this into account despite that loan having been sanctioned in August 1996, after the ‘check period’ of the case, i.e. after her first term as Chief Minister of the state had ended.

Details of loans listed on pp126-127 in trial court Judge Cunha’s September 2014 verdict finding Jayalalithaa guilty of corruption

Page 127 of trial court Judge Cunha’s verdict of September 2014

Once we discount the duplicated loans, the arithmetic now works out as follows.

Total assets accepted by HC: Rs 37,59,02,466

Total income as calculated by HC (incl loans as under Page 852): Rs 34,76,65,654

Now we deduct the amount of Rs 18,17,46,000 from this since the loans mentioned have already been taken into account by the trial court.

Only one component Item number 9 would be added since it does not reflect in the trial court’s math. 

New total = Old total – loan income

            i.e. Rs 34,76,65,654 – Rs 18,17,46,000

Add Item number 9 as extra loan = Rs 1,65,00,000

New total income = Rs 18,24,19,654

 Now we apply this new total income to the formula used by the HC on Page 914 of the order, to arrive at the percentage of disproportionate wealth.

 Disproportionate assets = Total assets – Total income

     = Rs 37,59,02,466 – Rs 18,24,19,654

                                      = Rs 19,34,82,812

This means the amount of disproportionate assets shoots up to Rs 19.3 crores from Rs 2.82 crores as given in the HC order.

 Percentage =        Disproportionate assets X 100 / Income

                        =           Rs 19,34,82,812 X 100 / 18,24,19,654

The percentage now goes up to 106% as opposed to the 8.12% calculated by the HC, which was the number that acquitted Jayalalithaa and 3 others.

“There are a number of apparent errors in the High Court’s treatment of the funds that need to be gone into,” said Supreme Court lawyer Karuna Nundy. “For instance, the first item in Page 852 of the High Court judgment is a loan of Rs 1.5 cr (Ex.P.1027) – the High Court treats this as income that has been properly explained. The trial court though, examined the bank manager and saw documents that showed that the loan from the Indian Bank had already been paid back.  This leaves an unexplained amount of over 1 crore. There are other gaps – take Ex.P.1330, a Rs 1.57 crore loan taken by VN Sudhakaran, again from Indian Bank. The trial court order clearly shows Sudhakaran only received Rs 1.33 cr of the Rs 1.57 cr, sanctioned.”

“This allegation is incorrect,” said a senior AIADMK leader who did not wish to be named. “We have thoroughly looked through the order and there is no discrepancy,” he said.

The 10% loophole

Jurists are spitting fire at the law used by Judge Kumaraswamy on Page 914 of his order acquitting Jayalalithaa. In this, the judge has cited the Krishnanand Agnihotri case, which states that “when there is disproportionate asset to the extent of 10%, the accused are entitled for acquittal.” He has also cited a circular issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh which states, “Disproportionate asset to the extent of 20% can also be considered as a permissible limit.”

“Is the judiciary giving legal sanction to corruption?” asked a retired High Court judge who did not wish to be named. “Will this 10% sanction apply to its own officers and subordinate judiciary? So a court clerk found taking a bribe of Rs 1000 could be let off since it is less than 10% of his annual salary? Will this 10% be allowed on an annual basis or on the basis of tenure of the staff? And every time a chargesheet is filed henceforth, will this 10% rule apply? Is the judiciary giving a blessing to public servants for violating their oath by giving them 10% leeway?” asked the judge.

“Unfortunately the SC judgment in Krishnanand Agnihotri’s case has been misinterpreted,” said lawyer Nundy. “The HC says “when there is disproportionate asset to the extent of 10%, the accused are entitled for acquittal.” Nowhere does the Supreme Court judgment lay this down as a rule. Agnihotri’s case was explicitly decided in the context of his own offence, which was relatively minor. If the High Court thought Jayalalithaa deserved the benefit for much larger amounts it needed to explain why,” she said.

Legal eagles say that this ruling by the High Court judge could set a bad precedent, one that encourages bribery. Especially when the Supreme Court earlier observed that corruption is “the enemy of the nation” and had exhorted courts to show “zero tolerance” towards this scourge.

“It is an accepted legal precedent,” insisted the AIADMK leader. “The High Court judge is right in his assessment.”

Retired Madras HC judge K Chandru agrees. “The Andhra precedent and the other precedent have been followed in many cases and officers have been let out on the basis of the discount, it has become a judicial precedent by the judge made law. One need not argue specifically on such issues and it is left to the discretion of the court,” he said.

IT returns as proof of income

The Karnataka High Court overturned the guilty verdict of the trial court by arguing that the lower court had not considered the Income Tax returns of the defendants. Judge Kumaraswamy then added this income declared in the IT returns of the defendants to clear them of a large chunk of disproportionate assets.

“There are many prior cases where the Supreme Court has said that in cases involving disproportionate assets, the source of the income must be explained convincingly,” said the retired judge. “Income tax returns are not reliable since they do not verify the source of the income. It is wrong to accept IT returns as proof of income unless the source of the income is proven to be valid,” he said.

Legal experts also point out that in many instances, the High Court has accepted IT returns which have been filed much later, as in the case of Namadhu MGR. On Page 875 of the HC order, the judge agrees that IT returns filed as an afterthought cannot be relied upon. “When Income Tax returns have not been filed for many years, it disentitles the assessee substantially. A doubt arises in the genuineness of the Income Tax returns. But when it is produced before the Income Tax department after a long time and is not produced when its production was warranted, it is a suspicious circumstance against the genuineness of the claim of the assessee in respect of this subscription item i.e. Namadhu MGR.”

Experts say that under the Nallammal vs State ruling of 1999, the term “income” has been clearly defined by the Supreme Court. “… ‘known sources of income’ means income received from any lawful source and such receipt has been intimated in accordance with the provisions of any law, rules or orders for the time being applicable to a public servant.” They say that this would, in effect, rule out IT returns as proof of income, since source of that income is not often verified while assessing returns.

However, Kumaraswamy proceeds to accept the income in part i.e. a sum of Rs 4 crores. “In effect, this is an afterthought explanation that anyone can give in a DA case,” said the retired judge. “So basically I can wait until a chargesheet is filed, then I can add all my unexplained income and file my IT returns after that – I will get away scot free. This judgment can be quoted in cases involving IT returns as well. Jurists should wake up to the impact this could have on the social structure, the economy and political structure. If afterthought IT returns are accepted, this means black money can easily come into the system and be laundered by filing a simple IT return,” he said.

“Under this head, the High Court may be wrong and there was no justification to ignore the findings given by Cunha,” said retired judge Chandru. “Sec 19 (3) (a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act does not allow an appellate court (in this case Karnataka HC) to take a different view from the special court in such matters unless there was a failure of justice,” he said.

The AIADMK says relying on IT returns is a legally sound decision. “The IT department is under an IT law and decisions taken by it are final,” said the AIADMK leader. “There is nothing wrong with relying on IT returns.”

Foreign remittance

Apart from the acceptance of IT returns which were filed belatedly, in the case of birthday gifts too, a curious case of a foreign remittance included in this list draws attention. This Rs 77 lakh remittance is the subject of a CBI investigation. The case was dismissed by the Madras High Court and the matter has been mired in legal technicalities and pending before the Supreme Court since 2012.

“Receiving gifts from foreign countries by a minister is completely prohibited by the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (FERA),” said retired judge Chandru. “It can be accepted as an income for the purpose of the present case if it is shown that it was remitted by a bonafide person.”

The retired judge quoted the Supreme Court to ask whether this means the judiciary encourages politicians to take bribes in kind rather than cash. “If public servants are allowed to accept presents when they are prohibited under a penalty from accepting bribes, they would easily circumvent the prohibition by accepting the bribe in the shape of a present,” he said.

The AIADMK insists that this is an accepted precedent.

Other errors

The legal fraternity points out other errors in the judgement. One is that of a virtual lack of prosecution in the case. After the Supreme Court struck down the appointment of then Special Public Prosecutor Bhavani Singh in January 2015, a new SPP was appointed by the Karnataka government. BV Acharya was given only a day’s time to submit written arguments (“not more than 50 pages” as per Justice Deepak Mishra’s order) and oral arguments were not allowed.

Another error pointed out is that of the HC dismissing government rates for construction materials as being “too high” and thereby reducing the costs of construction and renovation in the properties of the defendants.

“In the absence of other proper evidence, only government rates i.e. rates prescribed by the Public Works Department can be taken into account,” said the retired judge. “It is standard practice in all courts,” he said.

Retired judge Chandru disagrees. “Judge Kumaraswamy even said that when he purchased tiles for constructing his house, it was almost the same as claimed by Jayalalithaa,” he said.

Rental income added by the HC too appears to be unexplained. On Page 833 of the HC order, the judge simply takes into account a sum of Rs 3.22 lakhs. A perusal of the trial court order shows that rental income has been taken into account. Legal experts say this is a mystifying figure.

Image of the judiciary

Jurists warn that the High Court verdict could set many precedents for erroneous verdicts in the future. They say that this is the first time a powerful politician has been brought to book by a trial court and therefore, an important order that should not be taken lightly.

“The Supreme Court has to remember that the world is watching India,” said the retired judge. “This judgment will bring down the image of the Indian judiciary in the world. The apex court must look into this closely and seriously,” he said.

“This case became significant because right from the beginning there were attempts to delay the hearing by opposing the constitution of a special court,” said Chandru. “Then the accused was two times Chief Minister during the investigation and the police was under her Home Ministry. Then the Supreme court intervention on the transfer of the case to another state, appointment of Special Public Prosecutor, fixing time limit for hearing the appeal and even fixing the quantity of stationary to be used for the written brief and not allowing oral arguments. All these make it a unique case involving corruption,” he said.

SC lawyer Nundy agrees. “It’s important that the Supreme Court hear this case in appeal,” she said. “In fact, given the level of detail and the vagaries of prosecution, it might also be a fit case to appoint an amicus curiae, or ‘friend of the court’, to make sure justice is not only done but seen to be done – beyond reasonable doubt,” she added.

And while the Karnataka government dithers over whether or not to head to the Supreme Court on appeal, the legal fraternity is certainly chafing at what has taken place.

 

Flawed Jayalalithaa Verdict Finally Heads to Supreme Court

BY SANDHYA RAVISHANKAR ON 01/06/2015

 

As the Karnataka cabinet decides to move the Supreme Court in appeal, The Wireunearths more errors in the High Court verdict acquitting Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Jayalalithaa

 

The Karnataka cabinet today decided to move the Supreme Court on appeal against the recent Bangalore High Court verdict acquitting J. Jayalalithaa, her close aide Sasikala and two others in a disproportionate assets case.

“I welcome the decision of the Karnataka cabinet,” said BV Acharya, special public prosecutor in the case. “The government has accepted the legal opinions and recommendations given both by the Advocate General as well as by myself,” he said.

Following the decision taken by the Karnataka cabinet, state Law Minister TB Jayachandra told reporters that the cabinet decided to appeal on the basis of merits of the case. “The Supreme Court has specifically said that Karnataka has stepped into the shoes of Tamil Nadu and that the state is the sole prosecuting agency for all matters related to the case,” he said. “Legally on merits we have decided to file the appeal in Supreme Court. BV Acharya will continue to be the special public prosecutor for the appeal as well,” he added.

In his May 11 verdict, Judge CR Kumaraswamy of the Bangalore High Court acquitted the Tamil Nadu Chief Minister and others of all charges in a 19-year-old corruption case. A trial court in Bangalore had, in September 2014, convicted them of holding unexplained wealth to the tune of Rs 53 crores.

The Wire had earlier this month reported on the four main inconsistencies in the High Court’s verdict which had allowed Jayalalithaa and others to be acquitted. But there is one more large and inexplicable error in the High Court verdict, say legal experts.

Since the fundamental determinant of the accused persons’ disproportionate assets hinges on their spending more money during the impugned period than their declared sources of income, the acquittal turned on the curious tabulation of expenditure made by Judge Kumaraswamy — especially the money spent on construction costs

On Page 797 in the High Court order acquitting Jayalalithaa – after a lengthy discussion of the arguments of the prosecution, the defence and the trial court order – Judge Kumaraswamy puts the costs incurred in the construction and renovation of various buildings at Rs 5,10,54,060 (Rs 5.1 crores).

Page 797 of Judge Kumaraswamy’s order

On comparing the High Court’s tally with the written submissions made by the defendants, in this case Jayalalithaa and her close aide Sasikala, a peculiar situation arises.

Item number 51 in the written submission of Jayalalithaa clearly states that she has admitted to expenditure of Rs 3,62,47,700 (Rs 3.6 crores) towards construction costs in Poes Garden and a farmhouse in Hyderabad.

Similarly, a tabular column detailed in the written submission of Sasikala shows that she and another accused, J Elavarasi,  have admitted to expenditure of Rs 5,05,59,419 (Rs 5 crores) towards construction costs of various buildings.

The sum total of the construction costs admitted to by the defence is thus Rs 8,68,07,119 (Rs 8.6 crores).

The Wire cross-checked this tally with the written submissions made by the defendants to the Karnataka High Court. Again, a tabular column under the heading “Value of the assets according to the accused under following heads as shown in Page 711 of the trial court judgement” shows clearly the defence claim on the amount spent towards construction costs. The defence clearly states that they have spent a total of Rs 8,60,59,261 (Rs 8.6 crores) in their submission to the High Court too.

Page 711 or Judge Cunha’s trial court judgment

Strangely enough, the High Court has decided that the defendants have in fact spent less than the amount that they have themselves admitted to. Judge Kumaraswamy has stated in his order that the defendants have spent only Rs 5.1 crores, reducing costs incurred by the defendants by about Rs 3.5 crores.

More costs incurred by the defendants would mean a higher amount of expenditure that would need to be explained to the courts. The trial court on Page 711 held that Jayalalithaa and others had spent Rs 22,53,92,344 (Rs 22.5 crores) on construction and renovation of various buildings. The defendants disagreed and said they had spent Rs 8.6 crores only. The Karnataka High Court disagreed with both and said Jayalalithaa and others had spent only Rs 5.1 crores.

“This is really strange,” said a retired High Court judge. “The judge has gone neither by what the prosecution says, nor by the defendants. This is a clear example of a case where the evidence needs to have been scrutinized thoroughly. Errors like this will creep in otherwise,” he said.

Page from J. Jayalalithaa’s written submission

Page from Sasikala’s submission to the High Court

“This is not the only instance in the order where the High Court has gone beyond the defence,” said Vikram Hegde, a lawyer based in Karnataka. “Even the loan amount, if you look at it, is more than what the defence says.”

Legal experts argue that these errors could have been avoided if a proper prosecution had been made available during the trial period. In January this year, the Supreme Court struck down the appointment of Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) Bhavani Singh as “bad in law” and asked the Karnataka Government to appoint a new SPP. BV Acharya who was subsequently appointed, was given a day’s time to submit written arguments, with no verbal arguments being allowed.

“A proper prosecution would have made a huge difference to this case,” said Hegde. “First, it is an authentic source and second, the court would have had qualified assistance. The role of the prosecutor in a case like this is to take the court through the maze of evidence. The previous prosecutor did not do that in the High Court. I would go so far as to say that the previous prosecutor had not done his job even in the trial court. As a result, the judge has been at a disadvantage and he has not been able to apply his mind,” he said.

Other glaring errors in the judgement include arithmetic mistakes, duplication of loan income, and erroneous use of IT returns as a valid source of income. A fiery debate is also on within legal circles on whether the use of the 10% rule — the quantum of disproportionate assets an accused is allowed before it becomes an offence — as used in Krishnanand Agnihotri  is applicable at all to Jayalalithaa as her case involves crores of rupees with a charge of corruption while in office.

“It is in Jaya’s interest that she gets cleared by the Supreme Court,” said senior Supreme Court lawyer Rajeev Dhavan. “Without that, huge doubts will hang over the Bangalore High Court verdict. It appears that there are grievous blunders – whether in calculation, construction costs or wedding costs. There are huge doubts whether the 10% rule can really be applied when figures are larger than say, Rs 5 lakhs. This matter needs to be agitated before the Supreme Court for reasons of justice as well as reasons of error,” he said.

Jayalalithaa, who took charge once again as Tamil Nadu Chief Minister following her acquittal, will contest a by-election for a Tamil Nadu assembly seat on June 27 even as the decision on Karnataka’s appeal hangs over her head.

The Wire tried reaching a number of AIADMK leaders but none among them was  willing to comment either on the computational errors in the High Court order or the Karnataka government’s decision to move the Supreme Court.

 

 

 

 

Access to Justice is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 14 & 21 of Constitution: SC Constitution Bench

The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court has held that access to Justice is a Fundamental Right guaranteed to citizens by Article 14 and Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The five Judge Bench comprising of Chief Justice of India T.S. Thakur, Justices Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla, A.K. Sikri, S.A. Bobde, and R. Banumathi has made the above observation while answering a reference to it, which arose from Transfer Petitions, eleven seeking transfer of civil cases from or to the State of Jammu and Kashmir while the remaining two seek transfer of criminal cases from the State to Courts outside that State.

 

The Bench further observed that if “life” implies not only life in the physical sense but a bundle of rights that makes life worth living, there is no juristic or other basis for holding that denial of “access to justice” will not affect the quality of human life so as to take access to justice out of the purview of right to life guaranteed under Article 21. “We have; therefore, no hesitation in holding that access to justice is indeed a facet of right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Citizen’s inability to access courts or any other adjudicatory mechanism provided for determination of rights and obligations is bound to result in denial of the guarantee contained in Article 14 both in relation to equality before law as well as equal protection of laws.

 

Absence of any adjudicatory mechanism or the inadequacy of such mechanism, needless to say, is bound to prevent those looking for enforcement of their right to equality before laws and equal protection of the laws from seeking redress and thereby negate the guarantee of equality before laws or equal protection of laws and reduce it to a mere teasing illusion. Article 21 of the Constitution apart, access to justice can be said to be part of the guarantee contained in Article 14 as well.”, the Bench added.

 

ESSENCE OF ACCESS TO JUSTICE According to the Bench the following are the four main facets that constitute the essence of access to justice

  • The need for adjudicatory mechanism: One of the most fundamental requirements for providing to the citizens access to justice is to set-up an adjudicatory mechanism whether described as a Court, Tribunal, Commission or Authority or called by any other name whatsoever, where a citizen can agitate his grievance and seek adjudication of what he may perceive as a breach of his right by another citizen or by the State or any one of its instrumentalities. In order that the right of a citizen to access justice is protected, the mechanism so provided must not only be effective but must also be just, fair and objective in its approach. So also the procedure which the court, Tribunal or Authority may adopt for adjudication, must, in itself be just and fair and in keeping with the well recognized principles of natural justice.
  • (ii) The mechanism must be conveniently accessible in terms of distance: The forum/mechanism so provided must, having regard to the hierarchy of courts/tribunals, be reasonably accessible in terms of distance for access to justice since so much depends upon the ability of the litigant to place his/her grievance effectively before the court/tribunal/court/competent authority to grant such a relief.
  • (iii) The process of adjudication must be speedy. “Access to justice” as a constitutional value will be a mere illusion if justice is not speedy. Justice delayed, it is famously said, is justice denied. If the process of administration of justice is so time consuming, laborious, indolent and frustrating for those who seek justice that it dissuades or deters them from even considering resort to that process as an option, it would tantamount to denial of not only access to justice but justice itself. In Sheela Barse’s case (supra) this Court declared speedy trial as a facet of right to life, for if the trial of a citizen goes on endlessly his right to life itself is violated. There is jurisprudentially no qualitative difference between denial of speedy trial in a criminal case, on the one hand, and civil suit, appeal or other proceedings, on the other, for ought we know that civil disputes can at times have an equally, if not, more severe impact on a citizen’s life or the quality of it. Access to Justice would, therefore, be a constitutional value of any significance and utility only if the delivery of justice to the citizen is speedy, for otherwise, the right to access to justice is no more than a hollow slogan of no use or inspiration for the citizen. It is heartening to note that over the past six decades or so the number of courts established in the country has increased manifold in comparison to the number that existed on the day the country earned its freedom. There is today almost invariably a court of Civil Judge junior or senior division in every taluka and a District and Sessions Judge in every district. In terms of accessibility from the point of view of distance which a citizen ought to travel, we have come a long way since the time the British left the country. However, the increase in literacy, awareness, prosperity and proliferation of laws has made the process of adjudication slow and time consuming primarily on account of the over worked and under staffed judicial system, which is crying for creation of additional courts with requisite human resources and infrastructure to effectively deal with an ever increasing number of cases being filed in the courts and mounting backlog of over thirty million cases in the subordinate courts. While the States have done their bit in terms of providing the basic adjudicatory mechanisms for disposal of resolution of civil or criminal conflicts, access to justice remains a big question mark on account of delays in the completion of the process of adjudication on account of poor judge population and judge case ratio in comparison to other countries.
  • (iv) The process of adjudication must be affordable to the disputants: Access to justice will again be no more than an illusion if the adjudicatory mechanism provided is so expensive as to deter a disputant from taking resort to the same. Article 39-A of the Constitution promotes a laudable objective of providing legal aid to needy litigants and obliges the State to make access to justice affordable for the less fortunate sections of the society.

You can’t improve access to justice if the courts are inefficient: Daksh Co-Founder Harish Narasappa

DAKSH, the Bengaluru-based NGO, is a civil society organisation that undertakes research and activities to promote accountability and better governance in India, founded by citizens from varied backgrounds. It has been working to create inclusive, transparent, self-correcting mechanisms that encourage accountability in all branches of the government. Its two main activities are measuring political and judicial performance. It has designed, developed, and deployed a variety of measures to assess and analyse performance in the political space, such as conducting physical surveys to gather data on people’s perceptions of their elected representatives. The most significant one was a national, physical survey of over 2,65,000 people in 2014, assessing their perceptions of their Members of Parliament (MPs).

 

Daksh embarked on the Rule of Law Project in 2014 in order to evaluate judicial performance and in particular, to study the problem of pendency of cases in the Indian legal system. This project is based on quantitative research that will map the administration of justice in India.The report was released in New Delhi on 11 August in collaboration with EBC LiveLaw interviewed Harish Narasappa, Daksh’s Co-Founder, on Daksh’s latest State of the Indian Judiciary Report. Harish is a lawyer and founding partner of the law firm, Samvad Partners, headquartered in Bengaluru. He is also a member of the Karnataka Election Watch and National Election Watch. Harish has a BA, LLB (Hons.) from the National Law School of India University, Bangalore, a BCL from the University of Oxford (where he was a Radhakrishnan Scholar), and a BA (Philosophy) from the University of London.

 

Excerpts from the interview:

 

LiveLaw: Congratulations on the publication of the State of the Indian Judiciary Report. The Report is a mix of your findings and opinion pieces on the different aspects. On the day when it was released in Delhi, the panelists represented different viewpoints; we had Arvind Datar on the one side, and Indira Jaising and Mohan Gopal on the other. Each one of the panellists had a different take on the state of the Indian Judiciary. Daksh’s stand on these conflicting viewpoints was not clear to the audience.

 

HBN: Thanks for your wishes. We view the report as the first of many outputs that our research will produce.  Actually, our report covers all the different viewpoints that were expressed during the panel discussion. Our data section and functioning of the judiciary section focuses on efficiency and the access to justice section focuses on the difficulties certain classes face in accessing the judiciary. Our view is that they are not independent issues and are linked and the data shows that. You cannot improve access to justice if the courts are inefficient. And inefficiency hurts the poor the most. So, there is no contradiction- it is just that different people have focused on different issues until now.

 

LiveLaw: For an average person wanting to decipher the exact problems of the Indian judiciary, and the remedies that may be effective, what does your report offer? Delay and the lack of judicial access are things which one can easily recognise, but does your report offer any systemic remedies for these problems, which we need to campaign for?

 

HBN: The Report has been written in a form and manner that makes it accessible to non-lawyers as well. We have used a lot of charts and other visual media to make it friendly to the lay person. Systemic remedies are the next step and we are working on identifying two or three easily implementable steps. One of the things we are focusing on is simple steps to increase judicial time by a combination of technology and case flow management. We are trying to run a few pilots to test these possible solutions.

 

LiveLaw: If one reads the report right, it is the lower judiciary whose effectiveness we should aim at. Therefore, the investment in the training of the court staff, and the Judges, does make sense, would you agree?

 

HBN: Yes, the lower judiciary is where the bulk of the cases are held up. Yes, investment in training of court staff and judges makes sense. However, it is not happening at the scale that is required, particularly for the staff.

 

LiveLaw: On the administration side, you appear to support a separate cadre of court administrators. Is it the first time that such a suggestion is being made? What has been the feedback from the judiciary so far?

 

HBN: Yes, we do support a separate cadre of court administrators. The concept of court managers has been implemented in some states, but their impact is not visible, mainly because their roleand powers and their position in the administrative hierarchy has not been adequately defined and identified. Feedback from judiciary has been positive on court administrators. Of course, the main concern is that it should not adversely impact judicial independence and we agree with that.

 

LiveLaw: You are also critical of the judges being involved in the administration of the courts. But if the speeches made at the report release function in New Delhi are any indication, the judges love that kind of work, and are also probably distrustful of others being entrusted with it. Therefore, how will you convince the Judges that administration is not their area, and they should keep away from it.There was also a proposal to transfer the responsibility for administration of courts to professionals from the judges. Will the Judges trust the professionals?

 

HBN: We are critical because of two reasons- a) Judges do not have the time for it as they are busy with judicial functions, so policy level administrative decisions tend to get ignored and keep getting postponed. Conversely, administrative responsibilities should not come in the way of discharging judicial functions efficiently. After all, people become judges because they want to write judgments and be known for that, not for administrative acumen; b) judges are not experts in process and systems, they get appointed as judges because of their legal expertise. So, to expect them to also manage the judicial system is not fair. It is not a question of whether a few them excel in it or like it, it is just that they should not be doing it.  Our judicial system is now vast and requires full time expert attention. Judges do not have the time or expertise to provide that. Of course, there may be exceptions, but that just proves the broad point.As I mentioned earlier, judges recognize the need for professional support. If an appropriate system is proposed, I do not see why they will not accept it.

 

LiveLaw: Does the proposal to create the National Court of Appeals make sense to you? Will it help to relieve the Supreme Court of the burden of routine cases, because of which it is not able to focus on the Constitutional cases?

 

HBN: We have not studied this issue in detail to provide insightful comments.

 

LiveLaw: The controversy over the finalisation of the Memorandum of Appointments to appoint Judges of the higher Judiciary has led to a huge gulf between the Government and the Judiciary. How do you think this can be resolved, and what will be the consequences, if it is not resolved sooner rather than later.

 

HBN: Once the Government has accepted the NJAC judgment, I don’t see why they are trying to win points through the back door. The Government has no choice but to follow the judgment as it is the law of the land. Consequences are already visible. The High Courts cannot function at 50% of their strength. Backlogs are only going to increase. I hope this limbo does not continue.

 

LiveLaw: Specifically, what kind of cases are clogging the system and what can be done about it?

 

HBN: For example, in the civil justice system, land is the big elephant. Our data suggests that about 70% of cases relate to land. There are two factors here- a) the law declared by the SC and the HCs are not implemented properly by lower courts in a number of cases, leading to unnecessary appeals. This is clear if you look at the reported cases. In most of the cases the law is clearly laid down already, and the HC only repeats it. So, we need to address this. b) Second, land law reforms are overdue. Our land laws are more probably the most confusing in the world. That needs to happen. Also, we need to get rid of the powers of revenue authorities which are operating to create confusion on ownership of land. It is a historical relic and needs to be given a burial. Similarly, in High Courts, writs form a significant number of cases filed every year. And most of these are linked to bureaucratic inaction, apathy and deliberate non-compliance with declared law. Unless the higher judiciary comes down heavily on some of these issues, they will continue to add to the numbers before the judiciary.

 

LiveLaw: From your data, is it possible to draw an inference about the efficiency of Judges across the States?

 

HBN: Yes, it is possible to do that. However, we have not ventured into that because data is not uniform across States and patchy even across districts in a particular State. So, it will be an inefficient inference about efficiency. If uniform data is available, it is possible to do it.

 

LiveLaw: What are the factors which can help to maximise judicial time?

 

HBN: First, purely administrative issues in a case should not be brought before judges, for e.g., no translated copies, service has not happened, etc. I appreciate that some issues may require exercise of judicial discretion, but most process issues do not require that. Second, we should limit the number of cases listed every day (and actually most HCs have drafted case flow management rules mandating this, but it has not been implemented even though there is a Supreme Court judgment on the point). This will ensure that judges spend more time on each case in a day. If you multiply the total number of cases before each judge at any given time and do an analysis it is not necessary for 100 matters to be listed for hearing each day. It unnecessarily puts pressure on judges. Also, lawyers know that if they ask for an adjournment they will most probably get it, as the judge is pressed for time. All this not only takes away judicial time, but also adds to the delays.

 

LiveLaw: Your report says that rather than judge-to-population ratio, what should be considered is the litigation-to-population ratio. What then is the ideal litigation-to-population ratio for India, and what is the existing gap between that ideal and the reality? And how this gap could be filled?

 

HBN: Yes, judge to population ratio is not the correct metric. We should focus on litigation to population and the judge per 1000 cases ratios instead. We are working on a comparative ratio currently and will be publishing results shortly.

 

LiveLaw: In the introduction, while summing up Alok Prasanna Kumar‘s essay, you say that the question whether Judges are uncomfortable about deciding certain types of cases, leading to severe delays remains unanswered. Is it because data regarding this is difficult to obtain?

 

HBN: Yes, data is not available. While lawyers know the reasons why some judges do not pass orders on certain kinds of matters, it is not recorded anywhere. And we cannot equate all delay in passing orders to judges being uncomfortable with certain kinds of cases. Therefore, data alone cannot throw light on this issue. Qualitative analysis is required, but that makes it subjective and we end up entering a realm of speculation!

 

 

Burden of enforcing right to life & to speedy trial by SC and the exchequer is worth undertaking: Justice V.N.Sinha

Model Prison Manual 2016 has serious anomalies, may lead to human rights abuses: Activist & Expert Smita Chakraburtty Justice V N Sinha, who retired from Patna High Court, had been Member of National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) on the recommendations of the Chief Justice of India in 2014 and continued as such till he demitted office in 2015.

 

Justice Sinha, commissioned Smita Chakraburtty, to inspect all the 58 prisons of the state of Bihar, to find out about the physical and legal status of each and every prisoner living in the prisons of Bihar. Smitas report was subsequently published by Bihar State Legal Services Authority. Justice Sinha and Smita have jointly presented the Bihar Prison Report in various forums since then.

 

Smita Chakraburtty, is an Independent Researcher and Activist working on Prisoners’ Rights. She is also Consultant Specialist- Court and Criminal Justice System with Azim Premji Philanthropic Initiatives- APPI. (Views held by Smita, are her own and does not reflect any other individual or organization). Both Justice Sinha and Smita Chakraburtty shared their views on issues of interest with Livelaw.

 

Excerpts:

 

Q: The Supreme Court’s recent rejection of the plea by two acquitted prisoners in the Akshardham case for compensation has disappointed those who expected the court to support fundamental rights of citizens who suffered wrongful imprisonment. What is your response to the court’s justification for not entertaining it, though it did not give a reasoned judgment, with the petitioner opting to withdraw his petition.

 

  1. JUSTICE V.N.SINHA : I haven’t read the Akshardham case papers other than as and when reported in the newspapers. However, from what I understand from the media reports after the Supreme Court judgement in the matter, that in the Akshardham case the SC perhaps did not consider the prayer of petitioners for grant of monetary compensation on account of 11 yrs of procrastinated delay in earning clean acquittal. Perhaps the court did not find the petitioners victims within the definition of ‘victim’ as defined in Cr.P.C. 1973 and covered by Victim Compensation Scheme 2011-14, framed under the Cr.P.C. itself. By the constitutional mandate of right to life enshrined in Article 21, speedy trial or trial within a reasonable time is a fundamental right read by the SC in right to life as far back in 1979 in the case of Hussainara Khatun (1979 AIR 1369, 1979 SCR (3) 532). For violation of that right petitioners accused in the Akshardham case underwent agony of trial for 11 years, which period by no means is a reasonable timeline for disposal of a trial. Thereafter, the accused earned a clean acquittal. I am reminded of the case of Rudal Shah [AIR 1983 SC 1086], in which in spite of acquittal he remained in the prison for 14 yrs. For such illegal detention and harassment Rudal Shah was compensated by the State of Bihar on the direction of the SC in its Writ Jurisdiction. Similarly, SC could have considered the prayer of the petitioners in Akshardham case for violation of their right to speedy trial in the manner it thought appropriate. True it is, that the direction by the SC for payment of compensation could have opened the floodgates. As those whose right to speedy trial has been violated would begin to approach the SC with similar prayer which would not only burden the court but also the exchequer. Right to life/ speedy trial is the most coveted amongst the democratic rights, enshrined in Part III of the Constitution. Burden for enforcing the same by the Apex Court and the exchequer however is worth undertaking. In any case the same could have been taken care of by relegating similar persons to approach the HC under Article 226 and directing those who were responsible in causing the delay, to shoulder the expenses of the compensation. Thereby all those who are responsible for the inordinate delay in the investigation/trial which has plagued the Justice Delivery system, could have been alerted, thus ensuring Access to Justice to the most vulnerable amongst the weak in the society as enumerated in section 12 of the Legal Services Authorities Act 1987.

 

SMITA CHAKRABURTTY: Prisoners are treated as the crumbs of the society and imprisonment induces psychological scar. To suffer the burden of the terror tag, and being shunned into silence of confinement for over a decade, is a gross violation of human rights. Prison is a taboo. To the society, a terror accused is a terrorist. Even after a clean acquittal, the released prisoner continues to be considered a terrorist. Under such circumstances the one who has been wronged can only look up to the institution of justice, though no amount of monetary compensation can right the wrongs thus suffered. But it can only acknowledge the fact that a person was wronged. This acknowledgement holds a high moral standing, which keeps the faith alive of the people in the justice delivery system. Moreover, the SC has several jurisdictions civil, criminal, constitutional and others. When an SLP is filed it is invoking only civil, criminal or other jurisdiction. But when a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India is filed by the petitioners, it is invoking Writ Jurisdiction of the Hon’ble SC, for redressal of violation of Fundamental Rights, including right to life as enshrined in Article 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India. When there is a case of gross violation of fundamental rights as in the above mentioned case, the petitioner approaches the Apex Court hoping that the SC under its Writ Jurisdiction will exceed human heights and stand in defence of human rights, in contravention of all other problems such as opening of the floodgates for compensation.

 

Q: The Supreme Court’s recent judgment in the Manipur encounter case has given rise to hopes that there is scope for seeking accountability of security forces. Can we say AFSPA is on the way out?

 

JUSTICE V.N.SINHA: Whether AFSPA is on its way out was not within the scope of the judgement, as in the said case, constitutionality of the charging sections, 3 and 4 of AFSPA was not under challenge. Yet in the said judgement, the SC has recognised right to know in connection with enforced disappearances and extrajudicial killings with reference to the resolution articulated in 62nd session of the Human Rights Commission by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights in paragraph 8. It has specifically mentioned in paragraph 3 itself “without knowing the truth the law can’t be tempered with justice”. SC further observed in paragraph 91 and 92 that there cannot be any justification declaring a particular area as disturbed area for 60 long years by observing “Whatever be the case, normalcy not being restored cannot be a fig leaf for prolonged, permanent or indefinite deployment of the armed forces (particularly for public order or law and order purposes) as it would mock at our democratic process and would be a travesty of the jurisdiction conferred by Entry 2A of the Union List for the deployment of the armed forces to normalize a situation particularly of an internal disturbance”. The most important aspect in the judgement is that SC has questioned the use of excessive force and thereby questioning the impunity enjoyed by the armed forces by observing, “There is a qualitative difference between use of force in an operation and use of such deadly force that is akin to using a sledgehammer to kill a fly; one is an act of self-defence while the other is an act of retaliation”.

 

SMITA CHAKRABURTTY: I second Justice Sinha when he says whether AFSPA is on its way out was not within the present scope of the judgement. But this is certainly a step forward as the strongly worded judgement has broken the fangs of the draconian law by putting impunity enjoyed by the armed forces under the scanner. It has raised questions regarding the use of excessive force. However, considering the long standing movement of the people of Manipur regarding the removal of AFSPA, and the over a decade-long indefinite fast of Irom Sharmila [who has since announced her intention to break her fast, after this interview] demanding the same, this judgement though a welcome judgement is actually too little too late. There shouldn’t be any scope for draconian laws like AFSPA or UAPA in a democracy. Such laws though seen as a normative blight or a necessary evil, only exposes the weakness of an institution and pinpoints to the failures of democracy.

 

Q: You have visited a number of prisons in various states. Can you share with the readers your most lasting impressions in these visits?

 

SMITA CHAKRABURTTY: It is difficult to point out to a particular incident.I have visited several prisons and interacted with thousands and thousands of prisoners. To step inside a prison and witness people live under confinement is in itself a disturbing sight, which can leave a person emotionally rattled. I had met a woman in a prison in Bihar, who alleged to have been raped in prison. She alleged that after that horrific incident she was further subjected to brutality. She was dragged out of the woman ward, stripped and beaten senseless in full view of the male prisoners. Police filed charge sheet in that case after a delay of two years. What caused such a delay when the woman prisoner was in prison and the accused were also easily approachable, as they were from among the ranks and file of the prison staff itself, I cannot tell. When I met the prisoner, she was staying alone in the woman ward of the same prison where the dreaded incident she alleged had occurred. She didn’t weep or shout but remained calm and was convinced that I was of no good to her. I tried to explain to her my purpose of visit and wanted to assure her support but she remained unconvinced. I had never witnessed before such deep cynicism among prison inmates with the institution of justice. She appeared as if she had nothing more to lose and had given up on all hope for justice. I felt deeply ashamed.

 

Q: There have been sporadic reports of prison riots in the country. What, according to you, are the reasons, and how they can be remedied?

 

SMITA CHAKRABURTTY: Confinement is depressing. Prison is an opaque institution, where prisoners are made to live under inhuman conditions, governed by stringent and arbitrary rules and regulations. Prison department is under state domain and is subject to neglect as there is lack of political will to improve prison conditions. Punishment is interpreted as justice thus inhuman treatment meted out to prisoners are justified as justice. Not only prisoners, even prison staff are neglected. Prison staff are under- paid, under- trained and overburdened. Under such circumstances where both the staff and the prisoners are under excessive stress, prisons turn into high tension zones which are prone to outbreak of sporadic riots. There is no easy way out of this situation. But humane treatment meted out to prisoners and serious effort to address prisoner grievances can definitely stop prison riots. Time and again the respective High Courts and the Supreme Court has meticulously insisted upon improvement of prison conditions. One recent such judgement is of the Rajasthan High Court delivered on the 27th of January this year by Justices Mohammad Rafiq and J.K. Ranka. It is noteworthy because the judgement is outstanding in its detailed instructions to improve physical conditions of prisons of the state. Though the judgement is restricted only to the state of Rajasthan, but it definitely has persuasive value in the other states. Moreover, in 2015 in its landmark judgement regarding inhuman conditions prevailing in 1382 prisons, the Supreme Court instructed Ministry of Home Affairs to constitute a multi-disciplinary committee to review the Model Prison Manual 2003, update it and reframe it at par with recent judgements and changes in technology. Accordingly, Model Prison Manual 2016 was drafted, with special chapters dedicated for maintenance of prisoners, repatriation, execution of sentences, education, welfare, legal aid, woman prisoners, young offenders, prison computerisation and remission. Yet MPM-16 is not free from aberrations, which needs immediate intervention.

 

Q: What is wrong with the draft Model Prison Manual 2016? Should the Supreme Court step in to stop the states from adopting it without necessary changes?

 

SMITA CHAKRABURTTY: In spite of consistent effort on the part of the Supreme Court to have an updated prison manual, which would be instrumental in bringing about change in the prison system and make it humane, the one chapter on Prison Discipline has serious anomalies, which creates scope for Human Rights abuses. In Chapter 21, under Prison Offences and Punishments 21.09. it will be considered a prison offence if prisoners complain against prison officials. [Rule (x) “Making false, malicious and groundless, written or verbal, complaints against prison officials”.] Who is to decide whether the complaint filed by the prisoner is false or malicious? But if filing a complaint is seen as a prison offence then it is actually prohibiting prisoner from filing grievances and encouraging breeding resentment, which can prove counter-productive and lead to riot. Similarly, under rule (xxiii) going on a hunger strike is also considered a prison offence! Registering a non-violent form of protest cannot be seen as an offence in a democracy, even inside prison. Again, under Duties of Prisoners, [Rule 21.15], (iii) prisoners are asked to abstain from singing, laughing loudly, talking loudly! And in Rule 21.15 (v) prisoners are prohibited from receiving ganja, which can be understood. But under the same rule prisoners have been prohibited from receiving books or writing material too! Also, under the duties of prisoners in Rule 21.15 (xx) it has been laid down that prisoners are “not to undertake any agitation, organized protest or hunger strike”. In addition to the above mentioned rules under major punishments, Rule 21.11.2 (iv) refers to when a prisoner forfeits earned remission beyond 10 days. Without an upper cap and intervention of an appellate body, forfeiture of remission is cruel and inhumane. If there is any scope for the existence of the above mentioned rules as elaborated in chapter 21, of the MPM-16, then it nullifies and invalidates all progressive reform brought in through the other chapters in an attempt to make prisons humane. The states are in the process of adopting MPM-16. Thus there should be immediate intervention to remove these aberrations from being adopted.

 

Q: What is the scope of remission after the Sriharan @Murugan Judgement of December 2, 2015?

 

JUSTICE V.N.SINHA: In the Murugan judgement constitution bench of the SC by majority, revisited the powers of the appropriate Government. to grant commutation and remission both to prisoners serving life and other sentences. After referring to Section 432(2) of Cr.P.C. it required the appropriate Government. to seek opinion of the sentencing court on the question of grant of remission. Thus further empowering the sentencing court to put a restriction on the powers of the appropriate Government in granting remission thereby endorsing the view taken in Swami Shradhanand case. However, I am afraid section 432(2) of Cr. P.C. may not serve its useful purpose. I have also been informed by Om Prakash, Member Secretary Bihar State Legal Services Authority-BSLSA, that recently Bihar Remission Board had to adjourn the proceedings twice as the report of sentencing court had not reached in time or it was not in accordance with the Supreme Court’s observations in Sriharan @ Murugan. According to Om Prakash, “the opinion of court will be based on the conduct of accused during trial and the Presiding Officer-PO of the court may be unaware about the changes in his conduct in the prison after conviction. Also, the present PO of the sentencing court will have to go through the entire record of the case which was recorded by some other PO more than 14 yrs ago. At times the original records might not be readily available in trial court. Thus unnecessary delay may be caused in giving opinion to the Remission Board. Moreover, opinion based on old facts will hardly serve any useful purpose as the accused may be a changed man after more than 14 years of incarceration.”

 

SMITA CHAKRABURTTY: Remission is hope for the prisoner and is very hard-earned. Any uncertainty regarding remission causes anxiety among prisoners who are already under distress due to prolonged imprisonment. The requirement of seeking report from the PO of the sentencing court might be unworkable due to various technicalities involved. Moreover, the process is an added layer to the already complicated process of considering grant of remission by the remission board and the prisoners are at the receiving end of the delay thus caused. There are some prisoners in Bihar who are from Buxar Open Prison. They too are awaiting remission. The very fact that they are now in Open Prison stands witness of their good conduct in confinement, one wonders why they are made to suffer the delay in obtaining remission. Also, prisons are now considered Correctional Homes, with objective of reform and correction not retribution. Thus after prolonged imprisonment if the inmate is still found unfit to be returned to the society then it is the failure of the Correctional Institution, which requires deep introspection.

 

Q: Recently, there was a news report stating that a three-year old was sent to jail for two weeks in Madurai. How do you react to this?

 

SMITA CHAKRABURTTY: This clearly proves that first physical production in the court within 24 hours of arrest does not happen, even though it is mandatory. This means that the accused is not being taken inside courtroom in front of the judge. During the first physical production, it is the duty of the judge to speak to the accused, then give him or her bail, or send the accused to jail. Had the magistrate done his duty, then he would have seen the kid, and immediately dismissed the case.
 

PIL –   Justice  Delayed  & Justice  Denied

 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

 

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. OF 2016

 

 

IN THE MATTER OF

 

 

NAGARAJA . M.R

 

editor SOS e Clarion of Dalit & SOS e Voice for Justice

# LIG 2 , No 761 ,, HUDCO First Stage , Laxmikantanagar ,

Hebbal , Mysore – 570017 , Karnataka State

.

….Petitioner

 

Versus

 

Honourable  Chief Justice of India    & Others

 

….Respondents

 

 

 

PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 12 to ARTICLE 35 & ARTICLE 51A OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS UNDER ARTICLE 32 & ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.

 

 

To ,

Hon’ble The Chief Justice of India and His Lordship’s Companion

Justices of the Supreme Court of India.

 

 

 

The Humble petition of the   Petitioner above named.

 

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH :

  1. Facts of the case:
  2. Every human being , every Indian citizen  are equal  and guaranteed  equitable justice  as  their  human right and  Constitutional right.

 

  1. In india  mafia of powers that be  and government  ensure  that  cases drag on for years , so that  poor litigant  either dies before  judgement day  or  opts out in  the middle.  Due to this delaying tactics  ,  many poor people  rather suffer injustice  instead of seeking justice in courts.  Mafia  indirectly forces  them  to  keep away from litigation.

 

  1. Due to  occupation induced health problems  my health is deteriorating day by day , some of the  PILs concerning national security , public welfare   I  have  filed are  two decades old , still no justice in sight. Judges   not even  admitted the cases.

 

  1. Actual working hours , working days for judges  are  less in india. Too many case adjournments ,  less number of judges , too many  holidays for  judges like  summer vacation , winter vacation , working hours less than 8 hours per day , etc.

 

  1. Judges  work  less  but  enjoy  5 star  pay & perks at public expense.

 

  1. Due  to  denial of justice  common people suffer injustice for more time or till  their death. Say  some falsely implicated persons  suffer in jail for years till their acquittal by  courts , some petty criminals  whose  crime  attracts  one year imprisonment   suffers in jail for  ten years. Because they are not well connected , cann’t afford  hi fi  advocates , bail fees.

 

  1. Due  to  lethargic  judiciary  , some land  acquisition cases    drag on for years   land  looser  suffers  also  the   project  cost   escalates  by  hundreds  thousands  of  crores  of  rupees.

 

  1. The lethargic  Judiciary  in  India  itself  is the biggest violator  of  common man’s  human rights , fundamental rights. It is the culprit responsible for  loss of thousands of crores of rupees to public exchequer   due  to  project  cost  escalations.

 

  1. when  a common  man’s  human rights , human rights   is  violated  in  the  form  of  delaying  tactics  by court  of  law  , judiciary  , the presiding judge becomes a criminal  and liable to pay damages to the aggrieved.

 

  1. The central government  and  state government  yearly  spend  thousands of  crores of rupees  unnecessarily  like  purchasing  new cars  for  ministers , renovation , interior  decorations  of  minister’s  bungalows ,  foreign jaunts , etc. These are  all not  priority one  spending. Out  of  these  spending   how many  more  judges  could be appointed , paid salaries.

 

  1. when  compared to  project  cost  escalations  of  thousands of  crores  of rupees  caused  due  to  case delays  , is it not wise  on the part of government to  appoint  requisite number of judges  with  additional budget burden of  few  crores  of  rupees.

 

  1. Both  central  and  state governments  are  the biggest  litigants  in the country.

 

  1. Government is manipulating  judicial process by  denying finance  to  appoint more judges , to create more court infrastructures.

 

  1. We common people are  imposed  with time limits  to mandatorily comply with,  in our interactions with other public , with government authorities , with courts itself. For our failures we common people are penalized.

 

  1. Paradoxically , there is no mandatory  time limits  for judges , public servants to finish  specific works concerning public. In most of the cases they adopt delaying tactics  , deny justice still they  are not penalized and  don’t  pay any compensation to the aggrieved public.

 

  1. Due  to delaying tactics  of judges , many  anti national crimes , terror attacks took place  and still continuing  which could have been  well averted in time  if judges  took timely action. For helping  mafia  by  the way of delayed  justice , mafia rewards some of those judges with post retirement postings , promotions , site allotments , etc.

 

  1. The Judiciary has the right , authority , power to order  government  to  allocate finance for  appointing judges , setting up court  infrastructure. If the  government  gives   ruse  of  no  money  in it’s account , courts can  definitely monitor  spending of government , cut down on  waste , non-priority spending of government , divert such money for  appointment of judges , court infrastructure development. No  need  for  CJI  to  weep before prime minister.  Judges  themselves  never  consider  the sufferings  of  weeping  litigants.  It shows the weakness  of  CJI and  a shame to our nation.

 

We  once again appeal to Honourable CJI , Supreme Court of India  to take  action  on the following PILs  ,  to answer the show cause notice  and to order the concerned public servants  to answer RTI questions.  The officials of  SCI don’t even have  etiquette , decorum to reply to our letters. Some of  my  appeals  are  two decades old.

 

Remember  the basic fact  you are all enjoying 5 star pay , perks  at the expense of public and owe your duty to public.  Are  not  judges  drawing  huge  salaries , 5 star  pay , perks on time without fail ,  on 01st of every month? Have they forgotten to take salary in 25 years , but they keep cases pending for  20 – 25  years.  CJI   weeping   before   Prime Minister shows the weakness of  the judiciary & a shame to the nation.  Judges  never consider  sufferings of  weeping  litigants in cases.   Judges themselves are responsible for  long pending cases.

 

Don’t  refer  the case  to police as they don’t  have power , authority to enquire high & mighty people , judges  &  previously they have failed  and  the case  is  to subject  some police officials , judges themselves to enquiry. Referring the case to police  is nothing but attempt to bury the truth , only  supreme court monitored  transparent enquiry by CBI  is right.

 

Delaying  tactics of  judges is only  helping the criminals , anti nationals and terrorists. Please  refer  below mentioned  sample cases  of  Justice delayed for years to innocents , sufferings  of their family members. No judges , police are bothered. Are not the the respective judges , police  guilty of defaming those innocent persons , spoiling their livelihood , gross violation of their civil rights ? why not those guilty judges , police are paying compensation to victims of their wrong actions ?  But  the very same  guilty judges , police are  SHAMELESSLY  enjoying  5 star pay perks from public exchequer  for  decades.

 

Bail system , Parole system are in favour of rich crooks in india , cases of rich crooks move at faster  pace  wheeas the cases of poor which are although older still continues. Judiciary , it’s system are biased. Consider the  sample cases of sanjay dutt , salman khan , jayalaita. Our judges , Police  don’t have spine to  enforce rule of law on rich crooks , while they put full  force , might on poor innocents.

 

 

 

If  anything untoward happens to me or  to my dependents Chief Justice of India  together with jurisdiction police &  District Collector  will be responsible for it.

 

 

 

Rot in judiciary is decades old. Honourable CJI sir , weeping is not right constitution of india has given you  the authority , TAKE ACTION DO YOUR DUTY.  People , History will remember you forever with respect. Anyway you are getting very good 5 star pay & perks , will also get decent pension after retirement from government. First  forget about post retirement  postings , discretionary allotment of sites , etc from government then you can work fearlessly. Both central & state governments are  biggest litigants in the country , IAS babus make wrong application , interpretation of laws  leading to litigations. Start by clearing the rotten eggs within the judiciary. When judiciary & police  in a country strictly uphold law , work impartially that country  surpasses even heaven.

 

Do remember on the D Day , in the   Court of Almighty  everybody CJI , Judges , prime ministers , common man alike  has to bow his head. In who’s  court there is no match fixing , no techinicalities , no vociferous hi fi advocates , no bias based on caste , religion , region , community , etc , only  straight simple account of wrongs & rights. Guess  his judgement in your case. GOD  BLESS US  ALL.

 

 

 

  1. Question(s) of Law:

 

Is it right for  judges  to deny  justice . is it right on the part of judges to delay justice  under various ruses to common man , violate their human rights , fundamental rights.

 

  1. Grounds:

Requests for equitable justice , Prosecution of  judges , police , public servants   responsible for  case delays.

 

 

  1. Averment:

 

Please read details at :

 

Honourable Chief Justice of India TAKE ACTION

 

https://sites.google.com/site/eclarionofdalit/honourable-cji-take-action ,

 

 

 

Hereby , I do request the honorable supreme court of India to consider this as a PIL for : “writ of Mandamus” and to issue instructions to the concerned public servants in the following cases to perform their duties & to answer the questions.

 

 

The Petitioner has sent many letters / appeals / petitions to supreme court of india & other courts through e-mail , DARPG website & through regular mail requesting them to consider those as PILs. But none ofthem were admitted , even acknowledgement for receipts were not given. See How duty conscious ,our judges are & see how our judges are sensitive towards life , liberty of citizens , common men & see how careless our judges are towards anti national crimes , crimes worth  crores  of rupees. That the present petitioner has not filed any other petition (which are admitted by courts) in any High Court or the Supreme Court of India on the subject matter of the present petition.

 

PRAYER:

In the above premises, it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased:

 

 

a . Hereby , I do request the honorable supreme court of India to consider this as a PIL for : “writ of Mandamus” and to issue instructions to the concerned public servants ,  Tax Authorities , Law Enforcement  Agencies , RBI authorities  in the following cases to perform their duties & to answer the below  RTI  questions.

 

b . to pass such other orders and further orders as may be deemed necessary on the facts and in the circumstances of the case.

 

  1. To legally prosecute responsible , concerned    judges , police & public servants.

 

  1. To cancel  winter , summer vacation holidays for  judges.

 

  1. To  bring down  the holidays  of courts  per year  to twelve on the lines of industrial establishments.

 

  1. To make  it mandatory for judges to  conduct  court hearings  for  8  hours per day.

 

  1. To  bring  down unnecessary court adjournments.

 

  1. to reserve  precious  court timings  only for  arguments  , cross examination of litigants , witnesses.

 

  1. to  use information  technology , internet  for  issue  of  notices , summons and  litigants  submitting  documents , applications  instead of wasting court  time.

 

  1. to introduce  working of courts on shift basis  in the same infrastructure.

 

  1. to   appoint  retired judges  immediately to bring down  gaps in judges requirement.

 

  1. to  order  the biggest  litigant  government of india and all state governments   to  frame  laws  strictly  in  accordance   with  constitution.

 

  1. to order  governments  to  give  proper training for public servants , IAS officers , KAS officers , others   about  law of the land.

 

  1. to make  specific public servants  personally responsible for wrong  applications  of law  while  discharging their duties  and  to  make them pay  compensation from their personal pockets.

 

  1. to  order Chief Justice of India to  pay compensation  of Rupees TWO  CRORES  to Nagaraja Mysuru Raghupathi editor  SOS e Clarion of Dalit & SOS e Voice for Justice , towards the damages he has suffered  due to delayed justice.

 

  1. to order the respective judges , police in all cases of case delays more specifically in the below mentioned cases to  pay compensation to innocent victims. Make a guideline for compensation payment. Legally prosecute guilty judges , police.

 

  1. to frame a guideline for bail & parole procedure. When it is violated by judges , police , jail authorities , other public servants order them to pay compensation  and legally prosecute guilty judges , police , jail officials.

 

 

 

 

FOR WHICH ACT OF KINDNESS, THE PETITIONER SHALL BE DUTY BOUND, EVER PRAY.

 

 

 

Dated : 08.06.2016……… ………………….FILED BY: NAGARAJA.M.R.

 

Place :   Mysuru , India…………………….   PETITIONER-IN-PERSON

 

 

 CJI a Criminal ? 

Case of Fence eating the crops ? Guard himself stealing ? Accountability of Judges a MUST

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. OF 2015

IN THE MATTER OF

NAGARAJA . M.R ,

editor , SOS e Clarion of Dalit & SOS e Voice for Justice ,

# LIG 2 , No 761 , HUDCO First Stage , Laxmikantanagar ,

Hebbal , Mysore – 570017 , Karnataka State

…..Petitioner

Versus

Honourable Chief Justice of India & Others

….Respondents

PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 12 to ARTICLE 35 & ARTICLE 51A OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF

MANDAMUS UNDER ARTICLE 32 & ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.

To ,

Hon’ble The Chief Justice of India and His Lordship’s Companion

Justices of the Supreme Court of India. The Humble petition of the Petitioner above named.

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH :

1. Facts of the case:

Our whole hearted respects to honest few in judiciary , parliament & public service. Our salutes to them , due to honest efforts of those few noble persons only at least democracy is surviving in India.

A . “Power will go to the hands of rascals, , rogues and freebooters. All Indian leaders will be of low calibre and men of straw. They will have sweet tongues and silly hearts. They will fight among themselves for power and will be lost in political squabbles . A day would come when even air & water will be taxed.” Sir Winston made this statement in the House of Commons just before the independence of India & Pakistan. Sadly , the forewarning of Late Winston Churchill has been proved right by some of our criminal , corrupt people’s representatives , police , public servants & Judges. Some of the below mentioned judges fall among the category of churchill’s men – Rogues , Rascals & Freebooters.

B . As per the preamble of the constitution of India all the people , all Indian citizens are equal in every respect , equally entitled to justice , equally responsible to uphold constitution . Only People , Citizens of India are supreme No Judges , No Ministers , etc are supreme. Judges , ministers , president etc are all public servants constitutionally mandated to SERVE the public , NOT to master over them. Even after 69 years of independence these judges , ministers have not come out of colonial hangover instead become worse treating general public as their servants.

C . Every institution in india is directly or indirectly accountable to people , however judiciary alone is not transparent not giving accounts of it’s actions to people.

D . Judges enjoy 5 star pay & perks , making merry at the cost of people’s money , public exchequer , but are not giving accounts of their actions to people , not transparent to the public eye. They are not even honouring RTI applications seeking information about actions of judges , because corrupt judges will be caught red handed.

E . Judges are not super humans nor super brains nor from moon or mars , they are ordinary mortals from the society around us and just like us capable of doing good work as well falling prey to human lures like bribe , corruption , favoritism , etc.

F. Judges think they are sole custodians of constitution of india , in fact every citizen of india is a custodian of constitution of india.

G . Collegium of judges is nothing but a coterie , a MAFIA proof – unfit corrupt persons like dinakaran , another judge involved in mysore roost resort sex scandal being selected by SCI collegium promoted to the apex court. It is just the tip of iceberg , behind the judicial veil of secrecy many corrupt judges are hiding. Hereby , I challenge Honourable supreme court of india that subject to conditions I will bring to book corrupt judges who are hiding behind the veil. Are you ready ?

H . When compared to some corrupt judges who are nothing but criminals , a drain , parasites on our public exchequer , society , the child workers who are hard working earning less than rupees 32 a day are far better , great human beings.

I . Ofcourse when the court identifies that intentions of an act of parliament as unconstitutional , it has the right to strike it down to uphold the supremacy of constitution. NJAC Act passed by parliament was in fact filling a legal vaccum about accountability & selection of judges and in turn strengthening the constitution of india. But by striking down NJAC Act of government of india , supreme court of india is weakening constitution of india , making contempt of parliament , constitution & all Indian citizens. If at all supreme court was really sincere it could have suggested more alternatives for transparent , accountable judiciary with appropriate transparent provisions for guarding judicial independence.

J . When government of india passed unconstitutional acts like land acquisition bill , special status to Kashmir , against uniform civil code promoted unequal differing civil laws for various religion people and Bhopal gas victims act , nuclear energy act , etc , did it not dawn on supreme court of india that it is the sole custodian of constitution ? then why not SCI strike down those unconstitutional parliamentary acts ?

K . It is the duty of Supreme Court of India to Protect , Guard the constitutional rights of every Indian citizens . Since 25 years I am appealing to SCI about issues concerning public welfare , national security , etc and as a result suffering injustices , my constitutional rights , human rights are repeatedly violated but SCI is mum even when repeated appeals were made to it. Paradoxically , after these appeals for justice , I have suffered more injustices , attempts on my life were made , physically assaulted , livelihood / jobs were denied , news publication closed , press accreditation denied , received threatening calls , blank calls, even to date rough elements follow us , rough elements scout near home at mid night. Does not these indicate some ties between rough elements & SCI Judges ?

L . Eventhough the information is readily available with SCI , information was denied citing unavailability. If at all information is not truly available , why didn’t the CPIO TRANSFER rti application to concerned departments of SCI , Ministry of Law , Justice , Respective High Courts , etc.

M . Does not court administarative officer posess SERVICE REECORDS of each employee including judges. If not on what basis they give promotions , transfers , salary , etc to judges ? The person who posess SR can give infor mation about guilty judges. Why CPIO not asking that person to share infor mation ?

N . If a commonman is alleged of a petty crime he is immediately arrested , put behind bars. Police spend thousands of rupees for investigation to prosecute that petty criminal. Judges spend hours to hear that case & prepare judgements running into tens of pages sometimes even over & above thousand pages. Fine . When the very same police & judge themselves committ grave crimes detrimental to national security , integrity , etc , no arrests , no prosecution only cover-up , WHY ? Are Judges & Police above Law ? Is Judge’s MAFIA at play ?

O . The action of CPIO SCI amounts to cover up of judges & their crimes. Thereby , CPIO is also committing a crime. With respect to previous RTI Appeals also CPIO & RTI First Appellate Authority SCI have repeatedly committed crimes by covering up judges & their crimes. Billions of indians are barely sustaining on a single piece meal a day , we lower middle class people toiling hard to earn a few hundreds of rupees but still paying tax. Is it not shame to them / shame to JUDGEs that they draw pay & perks amounting to lakhs of rupees from our money , from taxes paid by us still not do their constitutional duties properly.

P . When a Judge Himself Commits Crime , When a POLICE Himself robs , Murders ….

The public servants & the government must be role models in law abiding acts , for others to emulate & follow. if a student makes a mistake it is excusable & can be corrected by the teacher. if the teacher himself makes a mistake , all his students will do the same mistake. if a thief steals , he can be caught , legally punished & reformed . if a police himself commits crime , many thieves go scot-free under his patronage. even if a police , public servant commits a crime , he can be legally prosecuted & justice can be sought by the aggrieved.

just think , if a judge himself that too apex court of the land itself commits crime – violations of RTI Act , constitutional rights & human rights of public and obstructs the public from performing their constitutional fundamental duties , what happens ?

it gives a booster dose to the rich & mighty , those in power , criminals in public service to commit more crimes. that is exactly what is happening in india. the educated public must raise to the occasion & peacefully , democratically must oppose this criminalization of judiciary , public service. then alone , we can build a RAM RAJYA OF MAHATMA GANDHI’S DREAM.

I have shown in the following attachment how justice is bought , purchased , manipulated in INDIA with actual cases. Just see the recent examples of supreme court judges involved in sexual assault case & ROOST Resort Mysore Sex scandal involving judges , if any ordinary fellow had committed the same crimes he would have been hauled over the coal fire. Just take another recent example of Prisoner Movie actor sanjay dutt , TADA provisions were diluted by the judge to favour him and now he is getting parole week after week while the ordinary convicts never get a single parole throught their sentence. What Brilliant Judges , what brilliant police sirji.

2. Question(s) of Law:

Are Judges above Law & can go scot free ? Can judges cheat , rape , swindle others and go scot free without legal prosecution ? Why guilty CJIs were not legally prosecuted in a fair & transparent manner ?

3. Grounds:

Requests for equitable justice , free expression & protection to life & liberty. Transparency , accountability in selection & functioning of Judges.

4. Averment:

GIVE WHAT ACTION HAS BEEN TAKEN AGAINST THE GUILTY JUDGES MENTIONED IN THE BELOW MENTIONED WEB SITES & FOLLOWING ARTICLES.

We salute honest few in public service , Judiciary , police , parliament & state legislative assemblies. our whole hearted respects to them. HEREBY , I DO HUMBLY REQUEST YOU TO GIVE ME WRITTEN STATEMENTS / ANSWERS TO THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS – WHICH IN ITSELF ( ie answers ) ARE THE INFORMATION SOUGHT BY ME. HERE WITH I AM SEEKING NOT THE OPINIONS ABOUT SOME HYPOTHETICAL ISSUES , BUT YOUR OFFICIAL STAND , LEGAL STAND ON ISSUES WHICH ARE OF FREQUENT OCCURRENCE WHICH ARE VIOLATING PEOPLE’S FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS & HUMAN RIGHTS. WE DO HAVE HIGHEST RESPECTS FOR JUDICIARY & ALL PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS , THIS IS AN APPEAL FOR TRUTH , INFORMATION SO THAT TO APPREHEND CORRUPT FEW IN PUBLIC SERVICE, WHO ARE AIDING & ABETTING TERRORISM , UNDERWORLD & CRIMINALS. I HAVE SHOWN IN DETAIL WITH LIVE , ACTUAL CASES , EXAMPLES , HOW INDIAN LEGAL SYSTEM IS MANIPULATED BY CRIMINALS WITHIN JUDICIARY , POLICE , PROSECUTION , ETC. READ DETAILS AT :

Half of former CJIs Corrupt :

https://sites.google.com/site/sosevoiceforjustice/half-of-former-cjis-corrupt ,

https://sites.google.com/site/eclarionofdalit/wheeling-dealing-judges-police ,

Atrocities on Women by JUDGES

https://sites.google.com/site/eclarionofdalit/atrocities-by-judges

A – Z of Manipulation of Indian Legal System

http://www.scribd.com/doc/187575206/A-Z-of-Manipulation-of-India-Legal-System ,

http://www.scribd.com/doc/173854541/Chief-Justice-of-India-A-Criminal ,

Justice Sathasivam – Are you DEAF DUMB & BLIND

https://sites.google.com/site/eclarionofdalit/justice-sathasivam—are-you-deaf-dumb-blind ,

Rajiv Gandhi Assassination Cover-up

https://sites.google.com/site/sosevoiceforjustice/rajiv-gandhi-assassination-cover-up ,

SHAME SHAME MPs & MLAs

https://sites.google.com/site/sosevoiceforjustice/shame-shame-mps-mlas ,

JUDGEs or Brokers of Justice

https://sites.google.com/site/sosevoiceforjustice/judges-or-brokers-of-justice ,

RTI & Land Golmaal

https://sites.google.com/site/sosevoiceforjustice/rti-land-golmaal-in-karnataka ,

https://sites.google.com/site/sosevoiceforjustice/land-grabbers-in-m-u-d-a ,

https://sites.google.com/site/sosevoiceforjustice/judges-cover-up-land-scams ,

Why NOT 3rd degree Torture of Corrupt Doctors , Police & Judges

http://e-clarionofdalit.blogspot.in/2015/10/why-not-3rd-degree-torture-of-doctors.html#links ,

https://sites.google.com/site/sosevoiceforjustice/3rd-degree-torture-by-doctors-police ,

Hereby , we do request CPIO O/O Honourable Chief Justice of India , Supreme Court of India , New Delhi to answer the following questions in public interest , for safeguarding national security , National unity & integrity & to legally apprehend anti-nationals , criminals within the judiciary & police. Judges are not superior human beings , some of them have even became judges through devious means other than merit , integrity. Judges are public servants drawing salary & perks from public exchequer and accountable to public as any other common man is.

We salute our freedom fighters , military personnel & martyrs for all the sacrifices made by them. Let us build a strong , Secular , Democratic India by getting rid off few corrupt elements , anti nationals , traitors among public servants , among judiciary & among police who are greater threat to India’s unity & integrity than Pakistani terrorists or chinese military.

Information input forms part of process of one’s expression. One’s expression in any forms – written , oral , etc becomes information input to the opposite person , in turn he expresses his reply. Information & Expression are inseparable parts & form lifeline of a democracy. That is the reason , Right to Expression is the basic fundamental right as well as human right of every Indian citizen. When a person’s right to expression is violated , his other rights to equality , justice , etc also are violated. Suppression of Information amounts to curbing of Expression.

In a democracy , people have a right to know how the public servants are functioning. However till date public servants are hiding behind the veil of Officials Secrets Act (which is of british vintage created by british to suppress native indians). By this cover-up public servants are hiding their own corruption , crimes , mismanagement , failures , etc. even RTI Act is not being followed intoto by public servants. However the recent delhi high court ruling affirming that CJI is under RTI purview & bound to answer RTI request , is noteworthy.

Our previous RTI request to CJI , union home secretary of GOI, President of India , DG & IGP of GOK and others were not honored. The information I sought were answers to the following questions mentioned in the below mentioned websites . the questions concerned the past , present continuing injustices meted out to millions of Indian citizens , due to wrong / illegal work practices of Indian judges , police & public servants . The information we sought would expose the traitors , anti-nationals , criminals in public service. The information we are seeking are no defense secrets , no national secrets. The truthful information exposes the anti-nationals , traitors in the public service & strengthens our national security , national unity & integrity.

Hereby , i do request the honourable supreme court of india , for a Supreme Court monitored CBI Enquiry into this whole issue as karnataka police are helpless , they don’t have legal powers to prosecute high & mighty , constitutional functionaries. They have not even enquired the guilty VVIPs even once however Under pressure from higher-ups they repeatedly called me the complainant to police station took statements from me all for closing the files.

Hereby , I do request the honorable supreme court of India to consider this as a PIL for : “writ of Mandamus” and to issue instructions to the concerned public servants in the following cases to perform their duties & to answer the questions.

The Petitioner has sent many letters / appeals / petitions to supreme court of india & other courts through e-mail , DARPG website & through regular mail requesting them to consider those as PILs. But none of them were admitted , even acknowledgement for receipts were not given. See How duty conscious ,our judges are & see how our judges are sensitive towards life , liberty of citizens , commonmen & see how careless our judges are towards anti national crimes , crimes worth crores of rupees.

That the present petitioner has not filed any other petition (which are admitted by courts) in any High Court or the Supreme Court of India on the subject matter of the present petition.

PRAYER:

In the above premises, it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased:

(i) Hereby , I do request the honorable supreme court of India to consider this as a PIL for : “writ of Mandamus” and to issue instructions to the concerned public servants in the following cases to perform their duties & to answer the questions.

(ii) Hereby , I do request the honourble supreme court of india to make public all the proceedings of supreme court collegiums and correspondence between SCI , President’s office & government of india regarding selection of judges. To make public all the eligibility criteria followed for selection of judges and who filled what criteria , who didn’t fill which criteria and the final ranking.

(iii) Hereby , I do request the honourble supreme court of india to uphold the constitution of india and to protect the constitutional rights of all Indian citizens including mine.

(iv) Hereby , I do request the honourble supreme court of india to uphold the constitution of india , to protect the constitutional rights , human rights of all Indian citizens including mine and to enable , facilitate all Indian citizens to perform their Fundamental Duties as per constitution.

(v) to pass such other orders and further orders as may be deemed necessary on the facts and in the circumstances of the case.

Read : https://sites.google.com/site/sosevoiceforjustice/pil—writ-of-mandamus-1 ,

FOR WHICH ACT OF KINDNESS, THE PETITIONER SHALL BE DUTY BOUND, EVER PRAY.

Date : 29th October 2015………………………………Filed By : Nagaraja.M.R.

Place : Mysuru India……………………………………Petitioner in person

 

 

 

Mercy Death Plea to Honourable Chief Justice of India 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. OF 2015

IN THE MATTER OF

NAGARAJA . M.R

editor SOS e Clarion of Dalit & SOS e Voice for Justice

# LIG 2 , No 761 ,, HUDCO First Stage , Laxmikantanagar ,

Hebbal , Mysore – 570017 , Karnataka State

.

….Petitioner

Versus

Honourable Chief Justice of India , Supreme Court of India & Others

….Respondents

PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 12 to ARTICLE 35 & ARTICLE 51A OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS UNDER ARTICLE 32 & ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.

To ,

Hon’ble The Chief Justice of India and His Lordship’s Companion

Justices of the Supreme Court of India. The Humble petition of the

Petitioner above named.

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH :

1. Facts of the case:

“Power will go to the hands of rascals, , rogues and freebooters. All Indian leaders will be of low calibre and men of straw. They will have sweet tongues and silly hearts. They will fight among themselves for

power and will be lost in political squabbles . A day would come when even air & water will be taxed.” Sir Winston made this statement in the House of Commons just before the independence of India & Pakistan. Sadly , the forewarning of Late Winston Churchill has been proved right by some of our criminal , corrupt public servants.

2. As a result of fighting for public causes , public good I have individually sufferred numerous injustices and still sufferring injustices. My newspaper publication was illegally closed down , my web news paper not given with press accredition , my job oppurtunities in RBI Note press , PES Engineering college , NIE Engineering college , Mysore district court , etc snatched away illegally , I was beaten up , attempts on my life were made even after bringing threats to my life were brought to notice of supreme court of india. See how duty duty conscious our supreme court judges are ? all these sufferrings for public causes I have raised & to silence me.

2. Question(s) of Law:

Are police & Judges above law ? Can Judges & Police Comitt crimes , go scot free ? Can Judges & Police intentionally neglect ( to aid criminals ) their duties , while shamelessly drawing tens of thousands of rupees monthly salary & perks on time without fail from public exchequer.

3. Grounds:

Requests for equitable justice , Prosecution of corrupt public servants , corrupt judges , corrupt police. Request for supreme court orders to judges & police to perform their duties properly.

4. Averment:

Hereby , I do request the honorable supreme court of India to consider this as a PIL for : “writ of Mandamus” and to issue instructions to the concerned public servants in the following cases to perform their duties & to answer the questions.

Read the actual case details at following web pages involving judges & police in crimes. The criminal network , corruption net work , MAFIA of Judges & Police is strong , whenever one of their members is accussed , others white wash , bury the case in the name of investigation. Transparent , impartial investigation as in the case of common man is not at all done.

We respect the honest few in judiciary , police & public service. Those honest few are also becoming parties to crime by becoming silent , by not doing their duties , by not arresting their corrupt colleagues. Their by they are covering up crime & aiding criminals to commit more crimes.

Due to these type of corrupt judges & corrupt police innocents, commoners land in jails and some are even hanged for crimes not commited by them , while the rich crooks roam free.

The corrupt judges & corrupt police are shameless people , parasites in our society. They take tens of thousands of rupees monthly salary & perks from our money , tax payer’s money and still don’t do their duties properly. The judges give sermons , judgements running into hundreds of pages when their own folk is in the dock , caught for crimes they intentionally fall silent. The police use filthy language , use 3rd degree torture against commoners , innocents when their own folk is in the dock , caught for crimes , dacoity they don’t use filthy language nor they use 3rd degree torture . Even in fit cases where alleged Judges & Police can be given death sentence , they are spared , why ?

Please don’t send police again to my home neither refer my case to police. They don’t have practical powers to inquire high & mighty judges. They will come to my home , call me to police station , will take a statement from me & will close the file by sending it to head quarters. This has happened previously number of times. If you are honest in intent , Please constitute an impartial , transparent empowered Inquiry committee to deal this case.

The judges , police & public servants intentionally delay taking action in cases and withhold giving information in time , so that evidences are buried in time , gets destroyed and time lapse occurs resulting in the case becoming time barred. Some of PILs submitted by us are 20 years old concerning national security and I was also eligible for free legal aid at the time of application – still the judges & police didn’t take appropriate action however they shamelessly took thousands of rupees salary , perks from our money. Till date no justice in sight instead more injustices meted out to me as a result of this crusade. THESE INCAPABLE JUDGES & POLICE ARE UNFIT FOR THE POSITIONS THEY OCCUPY , IF THEY CANN’T PROVIDE JUSTICE ATLEAST GIVE ME MERCY DEATH.

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 , rich crooks , criminals 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 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 , Judges , public servants & Constitutional fuctionaries.

The Petitioner has sent many letters / appeals / petitions to supreme court of india & other courts through e-mail , DARPG website & through regular mail requesting them to consider those as PILs. But none ofthem were admitted , even acknowledgement for receipts were not given. See How duty conscious ,our judges are & see how our judges are sensitive towards life , liberty of citizens , commonmen & see howcareless our judges are towards anti national crimes , crimes worth crores of rupees. That the present petitioner has not filed any other petition (which are admitted by courts) in any High Court or the Supreme Court of India on the subject matter of the present petition.

PRAYER:

In the above premises, it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased:

a . Hereby , I do request the honorable supreme court of India to consider this as a PIL for : “writ of Mandamus” and to issue instructions to the concerned public servants in the following cases to perform their duties & to answer the questions.

b . to pass such other orders and further orders as may be deemed necessary on the facts and in the circumstances of the case.

c. To legally prosecute the public servants who are responsible for not giving press accreditation to my web news papers , myself as a journalist and responsible for closure of my news papers.

d. To legally prosecute authorities of M/s RPG Cables Ltd , who denied job opportunities to me under the behest of criminals responsible for late PM Rajiv Gandhi assassination case.

e. To legally prosecute authorities of M/s PES College of Engineering , who denied job opportunities to me under the behest of criminals responsible for late PM Rajiv Gandhi assassination case.

f. To legally prosecute authorities of M/s National Institute of Engineering , who denied job opportunities to me under the behest of criminals responsible for late PM Rajiv Gandhi assassination case.

g. To legally prosecute authorities of M/s Reserve Bank Note Nudran Pvt Ltd , who denied job opportunities to me under the behest of criminals responsible for late PM Rajiv Gandhi assassination case.

h. To legally prosecute authorities of Mysore District Courts & Bangalore District Courts , who denied job opportunities to me under the behest of criminals responsible for late PM Rajiv Gandhi assassination case.

i. To legally prosecute persons responsible for attempts on my life.

j. to legally prosecute judges , police & CBI officials responsible for cover-up of late PM Rajiv Gandhi assassination case.

K . To provide protection to life , liberty , livelihood , jobs of me , my family members & dependants.

l. To reopen , reinvestigate assassination case of Late PM Rajiv Gandhi.

m. To legally prosecute authorities of supreme court of india for not answering show cause notice issued to them and order them to answer the show cause notice as well as RTI questions given to them by the petitioner.

n. To conduct an impartial , transparent supreme court monitored enquiry into cases mentioned by me.

o. To admit all PILs filed by me in larger public interest.

p. To initiate criminal prosecution of public servants , police & judges who are trying to cover up crime and criminals by denying me information , by not taking action on our appeals , PILs.

q. To award me a compensation of RUPEES TWO CRORES towards the losses I have sufferred and injustices I am still going through for fighting for public causes.

r. To recover compensation amount as land arrears from guilty police , guilty judges & guilty public servants individually.

s. To permit me to work in the investigation team , to assist them in investigation subject to conditions .

t . to pass such other orders and further orders as may be deemed necessary on the facts and in the circumstances of the case.

u. THESE INCAPABLE JUDGES & POLICE ARE UNFIT FOR THE POSITIONS THEY OCCUPY , IF THEY CANN’T PROVIDE JUSTICE ATLEAST GIVE ME MERCY DEATH.

FOR WHICH ACT OF KINDNESS, THE PETITIONER SHALL BE DUTY BOUND, EVER PRAY.

Dated : 16th September 2015 ………………….FILED BY: NAGARAJA.M.R.

Place : Mysuru , India………………………………PETITIONER-IN-PERSON
 

 

 

PIL – Justice to Human Rights Activist 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. OF 2015

IN THE MATTER OF

NAGARAJA . M.R

editor SOS e Clarion of Dalit & SOS e Voice for Justice

# LIG 2 , No 761 ,, HUDCO First Stage , Laxmikantanagar ,

Hebbal , Mysore – 570017 , Karnataka State

.

….Petitioner

Versus

Honourable Chief Justice of India , Supreme Court of India & Others

….Respondents

PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 12 to ARTICLE 35 & ARTICLE 51A OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS UNDER ARTICLE 32 & ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.

To ,

Hon’ble The Chief Justice of India and His Lordship’s Companion

Justices of the Supreme Court of India. The Humble petition of the

Petitioner above named.

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH :

1. Facts of the case:

“Power will go to the hands of rascals, , rogues and freebooters. All Indian leaders will be of low calibre and men of straw. They will have sweet tongues and silly hearts. They will fight among themselves for

power and will be lost in political squabbles . A day would come when even air & water will be taxed.” Sir Winston made this statement in the House of Commons just before the independence of India & Pakistan. Sadly , the forewarning of Late Winston Churchill has been proved right by some of our criminal , corrupt public servants.

2. As a result of fighting for public causes , public good I have individually sufferred numerous injustices and still sufferring injustices. My newspaper publication was illegally closed down , my web news paper not given with press accredition , my job oppurtunities in RBI Note press , PES Engineering college , NIE Engineering college , Mysore district court , etc snatched away illegally , I was beaten up , attempts on my life were made even after bringing threats to my life were brought to notice of supreme court of india. See how duty duty conscious our supreme court judges are ? all these sufferrings for public causes I have raised & to silence me.

2. Question(s) of Law:

Are police & Judges above law ? Can Judges & Police Comitt crimes , go scot free ?

3. Grounds:

Requests for equitable justice , Prosecution of corrupt public servants , corrupt judges , corrupt police.

4. Averment:

Hereby , I do request the honorable supreme court of India to consider this as a PIL for : “writ of Mandamus” and to issue instructions to the concerned public servants in the following cases to perform their duties & to answer the questions.

The Petitioner has sent many letters / appeals / petitions to supreme court of india & other courts through e-mail , DARPG website & through regular mail requesting them to consider those as PILs. But none ofthem were admitted , even acknowledgement for receipts were not given. See How duty conscious ,our judges are & see how our judges are sensitive towards life , liberty of citizens , commonmen & see howcareless our judges are towards anti national crimes , crimes worth crores of rupees. That the present petitioner has not filed any other petition (which are admitted by courts) in any High Court or the Supreme Court of India on the subject matter of the present petition.

PRAYER:

In the above premises, it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased:

a . Hereby , I do request the honorable supreme court of India to consider this as a PIL for : “writ of Mandamus” and to issue instructions to the concerned public servants in the following cases to perform their duties & to answer the questions.

b . to pass such other orders and further orders as may be deemed necessary on the facts and in the circumstances of the case.

c. To legally prosecute the public servants who are responsible for not giving press accreditation to my web news papers , myself as a journalist and responsible for closure of my news papers.

d. To legally prosecute authorities of M/s RPG Cables Ltd , who denied job opportunities to me under the behest of criminals responsible for late PM Rajiv Gandhi assassination case.

e. To legally prosecute authorities of M/s PES College of Engineering , who denied job opportunities to me under the behest of criminals responsible for late PM Rajiv Gandhi assassination case.

f. To legally prosecute authorities of M/s National Institute of Engineering , who denied job opportunities to me under the behest of criminals responsible for late PM Rajiv Gandhi assassination case.

g. To legally prosecute authorities of M/s Reserve Bank Note Mudran Pvt Ltd , who denied job opportunities to me under the behest of criminals responsible for late PM Rajiv Gandhi assassination case.

h. To legally prosecute authorities of Mysore District Courts & Bangalore District Courts , who denied job opportunities to me under the behest of criminals responsible for late PM Rajiv Gandhi assassination case.

i. To legally prosecute persons responsible for attempts on my life.

j. to legally prosecute judges , police & CBI officials responsible for cover-up of late PM Rajiv Gandhi assassination case.

K . To provide protection to life , liberty , livelihood , jobs of me , my family members & dependants.

l. To reopen , reinvestigate assassination case of Late PM Rajiv Gandhi.

m. To legally prosecute authorities of supreme court of india for not answering show cause notice issued to them and order them to answer the show cause notice as well as RTI questions given to them by the petitioner.

n. To conduct an impartial , transparent supreme court monitored enquiry into cases mentioned by me.

o. To admit all PILs filed by me in larger public interest.

p. To initiate criminal prosecution of public servants , police & judges who are trying to cover up crime and criminals by denying me information , by not taking action on our appeals , PILs.

q. To award me a compensation of RUPEES TWO CRORES towards the losses I have sufferred and injustices I am still going through for fighting for public causes.

r. To recover compensation amount as land arrears from guilty police , guilty judges & guilty public servants individually.

s. To permit me to work in the investigation team , to assist them in investigation subject to conditions .

t . to pass such other orders and further orders as may be deemed necessary on the facts and in the circumstances of the case.

FOR WHICH ACT OF KINDNESS, THE PETITIONER SHALL BE DUTY BOUND, EVER PRAY.

Dated : 23rd July 2015 ………………….FILED BY: NAGARAJA.M.R.

Place : Mysuru , India…………………….PETITIONER-IN-PERSON

 

 

 

Edited, printed , published owned by NAGARAJA.M.R. @ # LIG-2  No  761,HUDCO FIRST STAGE ,

OPP WATER WORKS , LAXMIKANTANAGAR , HEBBAL ,MYSURU – 570017  KARNATAKA  INDIA

 

Cell : 91 8970318202

 

Home page :  

 http://in.groups.yahoo.com/group/sosevoiceforjustice/ ,  http://groups.google.co.in/group/hrwepaper / , 

 http://sites.google.com/site/sosevoiceforjustice / , http://evoiceofhumanrightswatch.wordpress.com / ,  

http://naghrw.tripod.com/evoice/  ,  

http://e-voiceofhumanrightswatch.blogspot.com  , 

 http://paper.li/f-1368369249 ,

 

Contact  :  naghrw@yahoo.com   , nagarajhrw@hotmail.com  ,

http://www.amnesty.org/en/user/naghrw  

A   Member  of  Amnesty  International 

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s