MILAP CHORARIA
Columnist: For DAILY Newspapers in India
Author: A MODEL OF NEW CONSTITUTION
FOR INDIA
(Under a project for Nationwide Debate to formulate public opinion)
Editor: Deepanchi Messenger
________________________________________________________________________________
Member
:
Sub-Groups on Finance and Marketing Constituted under Working Group
for Ninth Five Year for SSI Sector appointed by the Government of India.
Convenor
:
Movement for Accountability to Public (MAP)
Ex-Hoy.Gen.Secy.
:
INDIAN COUNCIL OF SMALL INDUSTRIES (ICSI), Calcutta
President
:
Federation of Aluminium Users Association of India
Secretary
:
Tamkor Vikas Samity (Rajsthan)
Member
:
Transparency International (India), H.O.Berlin (Germany)
Worker
(Member)
:
Servants of the People Society ( DB), Lajpat Bhawan,New Delhi
,, :
Worker’s Committee of Lok Sevak Sangh, Lajpat Bhawan,ND._
A-47, UGF, 11/56, D.B.Gupta Road,
Karol Bagh,
New Delhi-110 005 Dated 26th May 2003
Registered
With A/D.
To,
Dr. A. P. J. Kalam,
His Excellency President
of India,
Rashtrapati Bhawan,
New Delhi-110004
His Excellency Sir,
This is a Constitutional mandate that every Constitutional Authority must “bear true faith and
allegiance to the Constitution of India as established by the law” and “will faithfully discharge the duty which
he about to enter”. But, now a days, for some reasons or otherwise these mandates lost its propriety.
That clause (4) of Article 32 of the Constitution of India guaranteed that even the Supreme Court itself
couldn’t suspend the “Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by Part III of the Constitution”. In
1996 I filed few Public Interest Litigations and Civil Writ Petitions, but in contraventions of the aforesaid Constitutional
Guarantee such Petitions were either rejected/dismissed or materials referred therein used without referring those Writ Petitions.
Such orders were just in conformity with the onservations “there may be circumstances, as mentioned above, wherein
declining to reconsider the judgment would be oppressive to judicial conscience and would cause perpetuation of irremediable
injustice” per Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, J, (for C.J., himself, Variava and Patil JJ.) in the Judgment (2002) 4 SCC Page 388-414) and totally against the Scheme of Article 32 of the Constitution. This is needless
to be mentioned here that most of the important issued raised and related suggestions made in those Petitions, were uphold
by the Supreme Court in some subsequent matters filed by others. Therefore, such Orders were gross injustice to me and with
my Writ Petitions, because subsequent developments virtually has amounted as stealing of my ideas and recognised my ideas
as ideas of others. However, on 20th January 1997 I requested Mr. A. M. Ahmadi, CJ, as then he was Hon’ble
Chief Justice of India and Dr. A. S. Anand J., as then he was Hon’ble Justice of Supreme Court that:
“Therefore, for the restoration of the Scope, meaning and ambit
of Article 32 of the Constitution, Your Lordships should accept the accountability for the violations of the Constitution
and its proprietary, by tendering resignations from the office of the Supreme Court Judges.’’
The issue raised by me in my said letter were not so simple, as such should have been put for judicial
adjudication. But, then Hon’ble Chief Justice Mr. A. M. Ahmadi, instead of admitting or facing the truth, misused His
Judicial Office, and in serious contrast to the important Scheme of Article 32 of the Constitution, thus unconstitutionally
caused changes in the Supreme Court Rules empowering thereby to the Supreme Court Registry to refuse any Writ Petition on
alleged ground of not disclosure of any reasonable cause for its registration. Article 32 does not empower to Supreme Court
to assign any such Powers to any authority to refuse to register any Writ Petition on any grounds whatsoever.
That on 10th April 2002 Constitution Bench, headed by then Hon’ble Chief Justice Mr.S.P.Bharucha,
pronounced a Judgment, observations part of which moved in a very right direction. The observations as appears per Syed
Shah Mohammed Quadri, J, (for C.J., himself, Variava and Patil JJ.) in the Judgment
(2002) 4 SCC Page 388-414) in the paragraph 42 interalia was that “there may be circumstances, as mentioned
above, wherein declining to reconsider the judgment would be oppressive to judicial conscience and would cause perpetuation
of irremediable injustice”, and that “In such case it would not only be proper but also obligatory both
legally and morally to rectify the error” and as it was described in the said Judgment dated 10th April
2002 per Banerjee J.: “does it, however, mean and imply a closed door even if the order of this Court depicts that
the same stands in violation of natural justice adversely and seriously affecting the rights of the parties or the same depicts
manifest injustice rendering the order a mockery of justice”. These observations raises the scope to remove the
human errors causes in passing the orders in the Writ Petitions, filed by me. But under the impact and shadow caused by the
finality of the final order of the Supreme Court, directive part of the said Judgment was not in conformity with the aforesaid
observations itself, as such in considerations of conditionality laid down by the Judgment, the scope of restoration of Guaranteed
right to remedies, were affected, which otherwise in conformity with the aforesaid observations should have been restored.
As such on 4th September 2002 I filed a Writ Petition (Civil) under Filing Diary No. 17454/2002 discosing appropriate
and reasonable cause for filing such Writ Petition, with appropriate prayers therein.
That under the gross misuse of the Powers and to with clear intentions to protect wrong doers and corrupt
people, Mafiadom run under Political-Crime-Nexus, the office of the Supreme Court Registry issued Memo Letter No. Writ Petition
(Civil) Diary No.17454/2002 dated 22.10.2002 under signature of the Section Officer I-B, “that Ld. Registrar (J) on
12.10.2002 when was pleased to lodge the said Writ Petition Under Order XVIII, Rule 5 of Supreme Court Rules, 1966 as the
said Petition does not disclose any reasonable cause to the received for its registration.” Said Writ Petition is posted
at: https://milapchoraria.tripod.com/writpetition. This is my humble submission that if my said Writ Petition is considered as not discloses any
reasonable cause, than in India no Writ Petition can disclose any reasonable cause for its registration to adjudicate under
Article 32 of the Constitution.
Your Excellency will agree that the founding fathers of the Constitution rightly understood
that in the entire democratic world, United States of America is a strong democracy, because, it’s every democratic
Institution, including Judiciary, believes in real working terms that “disobedience is worst of crimes, and if allowed
it can ruin entire Nation” and that a Nation can survive, even if disobedience is prevailing, in some parts of the system,
but cannot survive, if Judiciary itself allows the disobedience of the Core Principles of the Jurisprudence that “Justice
must be above all” and another core principle of the rule of law which says, ‘Be you ever so high, the
law is above you’. But in India belying the expectations of the founding fathers of the Constitution, situation
is moving in total opposite direction, thus moral standard in the society is falling.
Since, I am a man of principle, as such for a long long time, I am fighting against the
Mafiadom having close connections with Powerful Politician, who having close connections in the corridors of the Judiciary
too. In considerations of Your Excellency’s mindset, I expect that Your Excellency in considerations of the importance
of the issue of larger public interest, must intervene against the insertion of the Rule 5 Order XVIII of the Supreme Court
Rules 1966 (inserted in 1997) empowering the Supreme Court Registry in severe contrast to important Scheme of Article 32 of
the Constitution to refuse to receive for registration any Writ Petition on any alleged grounds.
Therefore, this is my Humble Submissions that Your Excellency should evoke the Powers provided Under
Article 143 of the Constitution of India to consult the Supreme Court to examine whether the insertion of the Rule 5 Order
XVIII of the Supreme Court Rules 1966 (inserted in 1997) empowering the Supreme Court Registry is Constitutionally valid and
not in contrast of the important Scheme of Article 32 of the Constitution and whether such refusal to register the aforesaid
Writ Petition by the Supreme Court Registry is in conformity with the provisions provided under Article 32 of the Constitution
of India ?
With Best Regards,
(Milap Choraria)
Copy to Hon’ble Chief Justice of India, through Registrar-General, Supreme Court of India, with
reference to my earlier Letters on the issue.
