RAJYASABHA
After Para 126
Home
PETITION BEFORE PARLIAMENT
After Para 51
After Para 71
After Para 101
After Para 126
VOHRA COMMITTEE REPORT
LETTER TO PRESIDENT, VP, PM AND HM OF INDIA

126. That in considerations of such certified copy of order, Petitioner decided to place the matter in the notice of the Hon’ble Court and as such on 12th February 1996 the Petitioner filed another Writ Petition (Civil) D-2595/96 calling attention of the Hon’ble Court about such anomaly and with prayer interalia to pass Judgment in all petitions on the same issue. But, when on 11th March 1996 Hon’ble Chief Justice’s Court presided by A.M.Ahmadi C.J. as his Lordship then was, dismissed the Petition.

127. That this was the complete injustice against the Petitioner in respect of the rights covered by the principle of the copy right laws as innovation of the prayers referred in the said Writ Petition (Civil) No.559/95 by the Petitioner though have been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court by order dated 2nd May, 2002 in Civil Appeal No. 7178 of 2001 (Union of India V Association for Democratic reforms and another) directing to the Election Commission is directed to call for information on affidavit by issuing necessary order in exercise of its power under Art 324 of the Constitution of India from each candidate seeking election to Parliament or a State Legislature as a necessary part of his nomination paper, furnishing therein, information on the following aspects in relation to his/her candidature, but name of innovator of the said idea the Petitioner were not recognised for the same. The Judgment dated 2nd May, 2002 in Civil Appeal No. 7178 of 2001 (Union of India V Association for Democratic reforms and another) should have been passed in Writ Petition (Civil) No.559 of 1995 filed by the Petitioner.

128. That on 6th December 1995 the Petitioner filed a Public Interest Litigation being Writ Petition (Criminal) No.3/96, with the interalia following prayers:-

( i) Issue direction to the Respondent No.1 to 8 (therein) to make their respective Reports and facts lying with their Departments/Sub-ordinates relating to the matters referred under Annexure ‘D’ to ‘N’, before Hon’ble Court for appropriate direction, declaration or order;

(ii) Issue direction to the Respondent No.6 (therein) (Central Bureau of Investigation) to investigate in the matter referred under Annexure ‘O’ and ‘P’ hereinabove and (to) submit its Report before Hon’ble Court for appropriate direction or declaration or order;

(iii) Issue direction to the Respondent No.8 (therein) (Calcutta Municipal Corporation) not to issue completion certificate with regards to constructions are made at the Premises No.5/1/1A and 5/1/1B, Cornfield Road, Calcutta, till final hearing of the Writ Petition.

129. That the said Writ Petition, was a Public Interest Litigation, but in the Paragraph 6 under 4th line at page 14 of the Petition, Petitioner submitted interalia that "The Petitioner crave leave to file a separate Writ Petition for appropriate reliefs for himself as such for the brevity he is not mentioning all details relates to his victimization, but just to support his pleadings he annexed herewith the photo-copies of the following communications without their annexures,". When the Writ Petition was listed before the Hon’ble Court presided G. N. Ray J, as his Lordship then was, and after hearing of the same leave G. N. Ray J, as his Lordship then was, observed that this leave appears that the matters referred in the Writ Petition have been clubbed together, with regards to the matters of the public interest, as well as of the infringement of the fundamental rights of the Petitioner himself, so it is better that petitioner should withdraw his Writ Petition to file a fresh Writ Petition. Therefore, in considerations of such observation made by the G. N. Ray J, as his lordship then was, Petitioner withdrawn his said Writ Petition on 19th January 1996 to file a fresh.

130. That on 7th February 1996 Petitioner filed a Public Interest Litigation being Writ Petition (Civil) No. 151/96 with the prayers interalia as follows:-

MAKE, necessary Rules under sub-clause ( C) Under Clause (1) Under Article 145 for filing of Writ Petition definable as "appropriate proceedings" of the Civil in nature in compliance of clause (1) of Article 32 to ensure that the right to remedy for enforcement of the Fundamental Rights is guaranteed and to ensure the hearing of the matters relating to violation of Fundamental Rights on merit’

ISSUE, directions to the STATE to make appropriate change and/or amendment in law within one year as suggested under Schedule "A" therein

Under the aforesaid Schedule petitioner made detailed suggestions to change and amend the law relates to Representatives of People’s Act, Section 197 of Criminal Procedure Code, Official Secrets Act, and also filed a Model draft of Civil Procedure Code, which was also forwarded by the Petitioner on 3rd March 1995 Registered Post to A.M.Ahmadi, CJ., as His Lordship then was, as referred hereinbefore.

131. That on 29th March 1996 upon hearing of the Petition Hon’ble Chief Justice’s Court presided by A. M. Ahmadi C.J. as his lordship then was, observed that the Petitioner has done a very good work and advised to the Petitioner to forward his model of new Civil Procedure Code to the Chairman of the Law Commission of India. When Petitioner ask, whether he can refer Hon’ble Court’s observations, Hon’ble Court says that Court have no objection in it. Accordingly, Petitioner forwarded the said Model of the Civil Procedure Code, by Registered Post to the Hon’ble Chairman of the Law Commission of India. However, Hon’ble Court passed the following order in the said Writ Petition:-

"Place this petition before Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India on the administrative side to consider the regulations of Public Interest Litigation Petitions."

132. That the Petitioner understood that the said Order passed in Writ Petition (Civil) No.151 of 1996 was not in accordance with the provisions provided under Article 145(1) ( c) of the Constitution, nor any order was passed to frame the Rules and Guidelines as suggested by the Petitioner to deal with each and every Writ Petition filed Under Article 32 of the Constitution before their listing for hearing by a Bench to fulfill the objective of Article 32 of the Constitution and to ensure expectations of the founding fathers of the Constitution, and to prevent vicious Writ Petitions.

133. That this was a matter of the fact that in the said Writ Petition (Civil) No.151 of 1996 a Model of a New Civil Procedure Code was suggested in detail by the Petitioner. This Model was created and developed by and was based on original thought of the Petitioner. In fact in the year of 1983 Petitioner forwarded the same to the then Law Minister of India Shri Asok Sen, by Registered Post. As it already stated that before referring the said Model in the said Writ Petition, the Petitioner also forwarded the same to A. M. Ahmadi, CJ, as the then His Lordship was, by letter dated 3rd March 1995. In the aforesaid order with regard to the said Model there were no directions or order were issued, but, subsequently, on the same subject one Committee headed by Learned Dr. Abhisek Singhvi, Senior Lawyer of the Supreme Court was constituted by A.M.Ahmadi C.J. as his lordship then was. This is matter of the great concerned that whether innovator of anything should be entitled to recognised for that particular work or the same should be recognised in the account of others. This is a grate injustice against the Petitioner that a Committee was constituted on the basis of the Writ Petition filed by the Petitioner, but without recognising him. This was further gross injustice with the Petitioner that recent amendments in Civil Procedure Code were adopted from the Model Draft filed before the Supreme Court, through the said Writ Petition, but his work was not recognised against the principle prevailing worldwide.

134. That on 20th March 1996 the petitioner filed a Petition before the Election Commission of India that in the consideration of Article 324 (1) read with Article 326 of the Constitution "Commission invite following information on oath or affirmation from the intending candidates for such elections to furnish along with nomination papers:-

    1. Whether any Criminal Proceeding in any Court of law is pending? if yes ; please state:

      2. (i ) Name of the Police Station, within Constituency or outside the Constituency ;

      (ii) Number of Crime in respective Police Station?

      (iii) Date of Crime according to F.I.R. registered in Police Station ?

      (iv) reference of law under which crime is registered ?

    2. Whether, Charge Sheet is filed by the investigating authority in the above referred Crime Number? If, yes, please state: -

      1. Name of the Court, in which charge sheet is filed?

      2. Number of the Crime Registered in the Court?

      3. Date of Charge Sheet?

      4. Reference of Law under which Charge Sheet is filed?

    3. The present status of the proceedings?

    4. If the Criminal Proceedings are pending more than one, similar informations should be provided in respect of each such proceeding."

The Three Copies of the said Petition were deposited in the Office of the Election Commission of India, against Acknowledgement.

135. That after delivery of the said Petition to the Election Commission issued a Notification asking the intending candidates to give certain details with reference to criminal cases, if pending or disposed off against them, but, in a surprising manner one amongst the then Election Commissioners Mr. G.V.G. Krishnamurthy, stolen the aforesaid idea from the paragraph 9 of the said Petition and claimed that Notification issued by the Commission in that respect was based on ideas developed by him. Such situation was developed due to lack of appropriate law making Public Servants accountable before the law.

136. That in considerations of the proceedings held in the aforesaid Writ Petitions, Petitioner on 15th May 1996 filed Writ Petition (Civil) No. D-8304/96. Till recently, when he go through the Judgment dated 10th April 2002, Petitioner was not aware about the principle of finality of orders of the Supreme Court decided by the Nine Judge Bench, but in consideration of the scheme of the Constitution and most important core principle of the jurisprudence that Justice must be above all, in the said Writ Petition A.M.Ahmadi C.J. as his Lordship then was made as sole respondent. Otherwise, for his own interest Petitioner should have restrained to do so, considering that Hon’ble judges are also Human being and making A.M.Ahmadi C.J. as his Lordship then was, as sole respondent in the said Writ Petition may prompt other Judges of the Hon’ble Court to become bias against the Petitioner, or prompt them to abuse the Judicial Proceedings against the Petitioner. The Petitioner, say and submit that although in the aforesaid Writ Petition (Civil) No. D-8304/96 A.M.Ahmadi, C.J., as then his Lordship was, made sole respondent, but in no way the object of the Petitioner was to cause any disregards for the Judiciary or for any Hon’ble Judge of the Supreme Court, including A.M.Ahmadi, C.J., as then his Lordship was. As already stated that being severally aggrieved from the aforesaid proceedings, petitioner was not aware that what should be the remedial proceeding, other than a Writ Petition in which A. M. Ahmadi, C.J., as then his Lordship was, to be made sole Respondent. The only object of the Petitioner was to get Justice as Guaranteed under Article 32 of the Constitution.

137. That on the same day i.e. 15th May 1996 the Petitioner also filed another Writ Petition (Civil) No. D-8305/96 praying therein interalia to issue Directions upon the Election Commission of India interalia to suspend and / or withheld the name of any person from the Electoral Rolls, if he is an accused in any Criminal Proceeding and Investigating Authority Prima-facie satisfied about his crime by filing Charge Sheet, till he will be not declared innocent person by a Court of Law, immediately after such informations about such Criminal Proceedings received by the Commission.

138. That in considerations of withdrawal of his said earlier Writ Petition (Criminal) No.3/96 from the Hon’ble Court, and observations made by G.N.Ray, J. as then his Lordship was, on 21-05-1996, Petitioner, filed fresh Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 8495/96, with object to get restored his Rights to Remedies against blackmailing activities run by the said Mafia Sanjay Kumar Jhunjhunwala and his associates, with interalia following prayers:-

    1. ISSUE, directions to the Respondent (therein) Nos. 1 to 8 to take corrective measures in respect of all illegal Orders, Directions, Notifications, Contracts, Agreements, Sanction or otherwise issued in favour of any of the Company of the Respondent (therein) No.9 his relations or associates under the signature of any authority of the Respondent (therein) No.1 to 8 by disobeying the directions of the law for the pecuniary advantage of the Respondent (therein) No.9;

    2. ISSUE, directions to appoint an Court Commissioner to go through all documents relating to all matters referred in the Writ Petition and submit its report before the Hon’ble Court with the list of the Public Servants who are responsible for the disobedience of the directions of the Law for appropriate directions by the Hon’ble Court;

139. That the said earlier Writ Petition (Criminal) No.3/96 was withdrawn by the Petitioner under observations from the G. N. Ray, J. as then his Lordship was, in considerations of reference of such leave from which it was apparent that the matters relating to Public Interests along with the infringements of the Petitioner’s own fundamental Rights were clubbed together, as such when he filed said fresh Writ Petition (Criminal) No.D-8495/96, as was understood by the Petitioner, the said earlier Writ Petition, after its withdrawal was not exist, as such petitioner in his fresh Writ Petition not mentioned any reference with regards to said earlier Writ Petition(Criminal) No.3/96. When on 15th May 1996 Petitioner filed a writ Petition in which A. M. Ahmadi, C.J., as then his Lordship was, made sole Respondent, therefore, within 6 days there from, on 21st May 1996 there cannot be any reason for intentional hiding of such fact. But, according to the Office Report, not mentioning of such facts relates to withdrawal of earlier Writ Petition was wrong. Without admitting, but for argument sake, even if this was wrong on the part of the Petitioner, even in such case Registry must have listed the matter before the same Court, wherefrom the earlier Writ Petition was withdrawn. But, for the reasons best known to the concerned personnel of the Registry of the Supreme Court, said matter was listed along with aforesaid Two other Writ Petitions filed by the Petitioner, before the Hon’ble Court headed by Dr.A.S.Anand, J as then his Lordship was, otherwise said matter should have been listed for the Court of Hon’ble Mr. G. N. Ray, J. as then His Lordship was.

140. That the Hon’ble Bench of Supreme Court headed by Dr. A.S.Anand, J. as then his Lordship was, on 5th August 1996 in the said Writ Petition (Civil) No. D-8304/96 passed the following order:

Upon hearing the petitioner the Court made the following order:

In the writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, Hon’ble Chief Justice of India has been impleaded as the only respondent. The submission of the petitioner stripped to its bare essentials, is to set aside the orders of this Court dated 29.8.95; 29.1.96; 11.3.96 and 29.3.96 dismissing Writ Petition (Civil) Nos. 559/9; D-18372/95; D-2585/96 and 151/96 passed by a Bench presided over by the learned Chief Justice of India and to restore those Writ Petitions to their original numbers to be heard on merits. The petition is misconceived and untenable. The understanding of the petitioner of the meaning, scope and ambit of Article 32 of the Constitution is, to say the least, wholly fallacious. The writ petition is devoid to merits. It is accordingly dismissed.

141. That from the above order itself this can be presumed that the Petitioner no way have intended to disregard any Hon’ble Judge of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. If there were any mistake in the said Writ Petition have been occurred on the part of the Petitioner in the said Writ Petition, then this mistake was that the A.M.Ahmadi, C.J., as His Lordship then was, should not have been made sole respondent in the said Writ Petition. If the Petitioner could have aware about the principle of the finality of the final order of the Supreme Court, without ensuring the most important core principles of the jurisprudence that "Justice Must be above all" and that "the whoever he may be the law is still above him" then instead of filing such Writ Petition in which A.M.Ahmadi, C.J., as His Lordship then was made sole respondent, Petitioner might have filed Writ Petition against the said Judgment holding the principle of the finality of the orders of the Supreme Court, overruling the most important core principles of the jurisprudence that "Justice Must be above all" and that "the whoever he may be the law is still above him". But, since A.M.Ahmadi, C.J., as His Lordship then was made the sole respondent, in the said Writ Petition, Dr. A.S. Anand, J., as His Lordship then was, dismissed the Writ Petition (Criminal) No.D-8495 of 1996, (which was filed as a fresh Writ Petition as per suggestion by means of the observation made by G. N. Ray, J as then His Lordship was, after withdrawing the earlier Writ Petition), on 5th August 1996 passed following orders:-

Upon hearing the petitioner the Court made the following ORDER:

Recourse to filing a writ petition under Article 32 for the reliefs sought in the petition is impermissible. That apart W.P. (Crl) No.3 of 1996 filed by the petitioner earlier was dismissed as withdrawn by a Bench of this Court on 19th January 1996. In that writ Petition more or less self-same allegations and reliefs were sought for. That fact has not been disclosed in this writ petition. This is to say the least objectionable. The writ petition is dismissed.

142. That since the Petitioner have suffered same experience as was referred by the Vohra Committee that:

"These syndicates have acquired substantial financial and muscle power and social respectability and have successfully corrupted the government machinery at all levels and yield enough influence to make the task of investigating agencies extremely difficult; even the members of the judicial system have not escaped the embrace of the mafia."

and that the said unscrupulous Businessman turned Mafia Sanjay Kumar Jhunjhunwala and his associates, have tried their best level to embrace a large number of Judicial Officers to legalise their misdeeds and mafia activities against the Petitioner and also influenced several Advocates to help them in their illegal and criminal activities. Such conduct the said Mafia Mr. Sanjay Kumar Jhunjhunwala and his associates in large scale was not an easy task and could not have been possible without support from the powerful politicians, who were acted behind the scene.

143. That Five Judge Constitution Bench in its Judgment Dated 10th April 2002 at paragraph-62 (2002) 4 SCC 419) pronounced a very important Judgment and at para 52 and 54 allowed to file curative Writ Petitions, opening the scope to file fresh Writ Petitions in respect of aforesaid matters, but Petitioner has experienced as were referred, the scope of filing of curative Writ Petition were vanished under imposed condition to file a Certificate from Senior Lawyer of the Supreme Court, which was not in conformity with the interalia following observations at para 62 of the same Judgment (2002) 4 SCC 388) dated 10th April 2002:

"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".

nor was in conformity with the Original Scheme of Article 32 of the Constitution, which allowed filing of Writ Petitions without any support from any Advocate.

144. That as the Supreme Court of India without defining the powers, jurisdictions, scope, meaning and ambit of Article 32 of the Constitution departed from its responsibilities recognised by the Six Judge Bench (AIR:1950, Sc: 124, Kania CJ, Fazl Ali, Patanjali Sastri, Mahajan, B.K.Mokherjea, And Das JJ.), which accepted the responsibilities of the Supreme Court upholding that:

"The Supreme Court is thus constituted the protector and guarantor of fundamental rights, and it cannot, consistently with the responsibility so laid upon it, refuse to entertain applications seeking protection against infringement of such rights.";

but, such scope provided under Article 32 of the Constitution to ensure enforcement of fundamental right of the Petitioner were compromised, as were proved when his Writ Petitions were dismissed, beyond the scope, meaning and ambit of Article 32 of the Constitution, when Five Judge Constitutional Bench Judgment Per Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, J, (for C.J., himself, Variava and Patil JJ.)in the Judgment (2002) 4 SCC Page 413-414) dated 10th April 2002 holds that:

"it is a settled position in law that no judicial order passed by any superior court in judicial proceeding can be said to violate any of the fundamental rights enshrined in Part III",

145. That in view of severe experience gained by the Petitioner, and opinion of learned Mr. Gopal Subramanium, Senior Lawyer, the impact caused by the Judgment Dated 10th April 2002, is virtually beyond the scope of his rights of remedies ensured under Article 32 of the Constitution, to file and move such petition. In fact learned Mr. Rajiv Dhawan, Senior Lawyer of Supreme Court, after going through the facts referred in a letter by the Petitioner, by his letter dated 4th December 1995 replied interalia that "Many thanks for your letter, which combines juristic concern with the intensity of one having suffered personal atrocity". In fact said letter of learned Mr. Rajiv Dhawan Senior Lawyer and aforesaid correspondence with learned Mr. Gopal Subramanium, Senior Lawyer, are not less than any Certificate. But, in view of the experiences suffered by the petitioner, under the conditionality imposed by the aforesaid Judgment to furnish a Certificate from a Senior Lawyer, Justice was not restored for the Petitioner.

146. That in considerations of the some of the observations made in the said Judgment, Petitioner’s hope was restored that he may get justice, and as such on 4th September 2002 vide filing Diary No. 17454/2002, I filed a Civil Writ Petition, which was refused to register a Writ Petition under Rule 5 Order XVIII of the Supreme Court Rules 1966 (inserted in 1997, based on the Petitioner himself as referred hereinbefore). Thereafter, Petitioner further filed a Writ Petition challenging the Constitutional validity of the said Rule, which was also refused to use.

147. That in considerations of the contradictory observations appeared from the said judgment, and refusal to register his Petition as Writ Petition, on 20th December 2002 Petitioner sent a Letter Petition, addressed jointly to Hon’ble President of India Dr. A. P. J. Kalam, and Hon’ble Chief Justice of India Mr. Visheshwar Nath Khare, interalia submitting therein interalia that:

"This is my humble request to Your Excellencies in the greater national and democratic interests about a very important question "whether Supreme Court unknowingly or otherwise has developed one extra Jurisdictions, under which injustice at the cost of Core Principles of the Jurisprudence is ensured?" should see that the same may be examined by a larger Bench of the Supreme Court. This is my Humble submissions that a particular situation has been developed because the principle of the finality of the final order of the Supreme Court by Nine Judge Bench (AIR 1967 SC 1:(1966) 3, SCR 744), has been imposed without taking appropriate measures to prevent abuse of the Judicial process, miscarriage of justice or orders without jurisdiction or under bias. Such principle has caused very grave concerns with the Core Principle 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’, as were observed by five Judge Constitutional Bench by its Judgment dated 10th April 2002 per Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, J, (for C.J., himself, Variava and Patil JJ.) (2002) 4 SCC Page 413-414) at para 42, initially admitted that "The concern of this Court for rending justice in a cause is not less important than the principle of finality of its judgment. We are faced with competing principles—ensuring certainty and finality of a judgment of the Court of last resort and dispensing justice on reconsideration of a judgment on the ground that it is vitiated being in violation of the principles of natural justice or giving scope for apprehension of bias due to a Judge who participated in the decision-making process not disclosing his links with a party to the case, or on account of abuse of the process of the court. Such a judgment, far from finality, will always remains under the cloud of uncertainty. Almighty alone is the dispenser of absolute justice—a concept which is not disputed but by a few. We are of the view that though Judges of highest court do their best, subject of course to the limitation of human fallibility, yet situation may arise, in the rarest of the rare cases, which would require reconsideration of a final judgment to set right miscarriage of justice complained of. In such case it would not only be proper but also obligatory both legally and morally to rectify the error. After giving our anxious consideration to the question, we are persuaded to hold that the duty to do justice in these rarest of rare case shall have to prevail over the policy of certainty of judgment" while, in the same judgment per Banerjee J. observed that: "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".

With reference to above context I may be permitted to put on record that I have suffered similar "manifest injustice rendering the order a mockery of justice" under the impact of the said principle of the finality, under which Supreme Court has been converted in to a "Court" for the powerful people. In a democracy, protection of the fundamental rights of each individual citizen is essential to protect the democracy itself. With such objects founding fathers of the Constitution has provided most important and Supreme Jurisdiction, with Supreme Powers, even more than the Parliament, to the Supreme Court of India, to act as a Guardian of the Fundamental Rights of Individuals against misuse of the Powers of the authorities, thus provided right to individuals to move Supreme Court –even without any help of a Legal luminary-, against infringement of his Fundamental Rights, as enshrined under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. But, gradually Supreme Court through various judgments / orders, diverted its emphasis towards public interest matters ignoring the protection of the fundamental rights of the individuals, thus reduced the Scope, Meaning and Ambit of Article 32 of the Constitution of India, as also seems from the observations made in the said Judgment dated 10th April 2002.

On 4th September 2002 I have filed one Writ Petition (Civil), before the Supreme Court. In the said Writ Petition, I have referred names of few, very powerful person who acted under Criminal misconduct, using their name and fame at the cost of the Core Principles of the Jurisprudence. Possibly in considerations of influence of such powerful person, and to appease them the Registrar (Judicial) of Supreme Court, refused to receive my said Writ Petition for Registration as a Writ Petition, under Rule 5 Under Order XVIII of the Supreme Court Rules 1966, and informed me by Memo Letter dated 22nd October 2002. The said Rule were inserted in the year of 1997, after permission from the President, but framed in clear violation of the Fundamental Right to move before the Supreme Court and totally belying the expectations of the founding fathers of the Constitution, and also in violation of the Six Judge Bench Judgment (AIR:1950, Sc: 124, Kania CJ, Fazl Ali, Patanjali Sastri, Mahajan, B.K.Mokherjea, And Das JJ.), which uphold interalia that:

"The Supreme Court is thus constituted the protector and guarantor of fundamental rights, and it cannot, consistently with the responsibility so laid upon it, refuse to entertain applications seeking protection against infringement of such rights."

The said Rule also framed and inserted in serious violation of the Core Principle 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’ causing concerns to the independence of the Judiciary as were observed in the Judgment of Criminal Appeal Case No. 400 0f 1979 pronounced on July 25, 1991 B. C. Ray, J in paragraph 7 of the Judgment in the following manner: -

"The concept of independence of the judiciary is a noble concept which inspires the constitutional scheme and constitutes the foundation on which rests the edifice of our democratic polity. If there is one principle which runs through the entire fabric of the Constitution, it is the principle of the rule of law and under the Constitution, it is the judiciary which is entrusted with the task of keeping every organ of the State within the limits of the law and thereby making the rule of law meaningful and effective. It is to aid the judiciary in this task that the power of judicial review has been conferred upon the judiciary and it is by exercising this power which constitutes one of the most potent weapons in armoury of the law, that the judiciary seeks to protect the citizen against violation of his constitutional or legal rights or misuse or abuse of power by the State or its officers. The judiciary stands between the citizen and State as a bulwark against executive excesses and misuse or abuse of power by the executive and therefore it is absolutely essential that the judiciary must be free from executive pressure or influence and this has been secured by the Constitutional makers by making elaborate provisions in the Constitution to which detailed reference has been made in the judgments in Sankalchand Sheth case. But it is necessary to remind ourselves that the concept of independence of the judiciary is not limited only to independence from executive pressure or influence but it is a much wider concept which takes within its sweep independence from many other pressures and prejudices. It has many dimensions, namely, fearlessness of other power centers, economic or political, and freedom from prejudices acquired and nourished by the class to which the Judges belong. If we may again quote the eloquent words of Justice Krishna Iyer:

‘Independence of the judiciary is not genuflexion; nor is it opposition to every proposition of government. It is neither Judiciary made to opposition of government. It is neither Judiciary made to opposition measure nor government’s pleasure. The tycoon, the communalist, the parochialist, the faddist, the extremist and redical reactionary lying coiled up and sub-consciously shaping judiciary mentations are menaces to judicial independence when they are at variance with Part III and IV of the Paramount Parachment.’

Judges should be stern stuff and tough fibre, unbending before power, economic or political, and they must uphold the core principle of the rule of law which says, ‘Be you ever so high, the law is above you.’ This is principle of independence of the judiciary which is vital for the establishment of real participatory democracy, maintenance of the rule of law as a dynamic concept and delivery of social justice to the vulnerable sections of the community. It is this principle of independence of the judiciary which we must keep in mind interpreting the relevant provisions of the Constitution."

However, the said Rule also opened the doors of corruption in the Registry of the Supreme Court, thus bound to cause indirect severe damage to independence of the Judiciary. The expectations of the Founding Fathers of the Constitution can be reflected at least from what was stated by one of the very important Member of the Constituent Assembly Shri M. Ananthasayanam Ayyangar (who subsequently elected as the first Speaker of the Lok Sabha) said interalia that: (QUOTE) "Mr. Vice-President, Sir, the Supreme Court according to me is the Supreme guardian of the citizen's rights in any democracy. I would even go further and say that it is the soul of democracy. The executive which comes into being for the time being is apt to abuse its powers, and therefore the Supreme Court must be there, strong and un-trammelled by the day to day passions which may bring a set of people into power and throw them out also in a very short time. In less than three or four years during which a parliament is in being, many governments may come and go, and if the fundamental rights of the individual are left to the tender mercies of the Government of the day, they cannot be called fundamental rights at all. On the other hand, the judges appointed to the Supreme Court can be depended upon to be the guardians of the rights and privileges of the citizens, the majority and the minority alike. So far as the fundamental rights are concerned, my humble view is that there is no difference between the rights and privileges of individual citizens, whether they belong to the majority community or to the minority community. Both must be allowed to exercise freedom of religion, freedom of conscience, must be allowed to exercise their language and use the script which naturally belongs to them. These and other rights must be carefully watched and for this purpose the Supreme Court has been vested with the supreme ultimate jurisdiction." (UN-QUOTE).

Since the said Rule directly infringed the individual’s (my) fundamental right to "Move before Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution", as such I filed another Writ Petition against Registrar General of Supreme Court of India challenging the Constitutional validity of the said Rule, and Order of Registrar (Judicial) of Supreme Court refusing to receive my Writ Petition for registration as a Writ Petition. The said fresh Writ Petition was sent by Registered Post on 6th November 2002, to Joint Registrar (Filing Section), Supreme Court. But, it appears that under the whimsical mindset Supreme Court Registry not registered even the said fresh Writ Petition against Registrar General of Supreme Court. Since the person named in the aforesaid Writ Petitions are very powerful and renowned in the whole of the Country, as such under the collapsed system in the country, their each and every wrong doings are covered by immunity.

148. That besides all such steps Petitioner forwarded number-less representations against growth of the Mafiadom under its Nexus with Powerful politicians. But, Government of India, taken no cognizance on any of such representations, proving that the said Mafia Sanjay Kunar Jhunjhunwala, because of his contacts with Shri Jyoti Basu and other powerful politicians is much powerful than the law, as were admitted by the Vohra Committee in its Report. The Petitioner crave leave to refer various including following documents and News items, which will justify that the said Mafiadom is much more powerful than Law.

    1. Open Letter to Parliament sent in September 1997, through the Then Chairman Rajya Sabha and others.

    2. Application Dated 19th January 1998 (having in pages 122) to Hon’ble Chief Justice of India.

    3. Letter No. MP/AJ/1120/95 dated 6th April 1995 to the Prime Minister of India, from one Member of Parliament.

    4. Letter dated 15th march 1995 from the Private Secretary to Shri Jaswant Singh the then M. P., and present Finance Minister of India.

    5. Letter Dated 19th April 1995 to Shri Harkishan Singh Surjeet, the General Secretary of CPI(M) Party, with copies to authorities.

    6. Letter dated 27th August 1990 to Bar Council of India.

    7. Letter No.383/C5/CC/3P-!/89 IV. Dated 18th March 1989 from the Government of West Bengal, directing to Municipal Authorities to take appropriate action against illegal constructions, which were never taken.

    8. Letter dated 18th May 1994 to the Chief Justice of India.

    9. Memorandum dated 30th November 1990 to the President and Prime Minister of India.

    10. Letter dated 27th September 1988 to the Governor of West Bengal and others.

    11. Letter dated 12th September 1988 to the Mayor of Kolkata Municipal Corporation and others.

    12. Two News items published on 18th and 19th December 1990.

    13. News item published on 7th May 1990.

    14. Two News Items published on 2nd 3rd November 1995.

    15. One news Item published on or about 8th February 1990.

    16. Two News Items published on 4th and 5th October 1994.

    17. One news published on 9th August 1996 under heading "I cant break politics-crime-nexus, says Indrajit".

149. The Criminal miscreants are still ready to kill the plaintiff and his family members, as stated hereinbefore, if they can trace out them. As such Petitioner repeatedly requested to Union of India to ensure safety and security of life and properties of the Petitioner and his family members. Intelligence Branch holds enquiries for several times, but provided no security.

150. That for the survival of a democracy this should be the Constitutional, Statutory and Legal duty of the "STATE" that under any circumstances whatsoever it may be, Rule of Law should and must not be violated by any public servant and / or State, and that any public servant and State should not be a party to any wrong doings of any individual, which may cause infringement of the Fundamental, Statutory or Legal Rights of another individual. Any act contrary to Rule of Law by any public servant holding Office of the State shall be liable for all consequences thereof.

151. That the knowing non-actions, by the authorities in the matters, placed or referred or noticed to them, are equally dangerous and can cause similar severe impact, as may be caused by violation of Rule of Law, as such knowing non-actions by the authorities should be also treated as violation of Rule of Law.

152. The Vohra Committee rightly ascertained that: "The existing criminal justice system, which was essentially designed to deal with the individual offences/crimes, is unable to deal with the activities of the mafia; the provisions of law in regards to economic offences are weak; there are insurmountable legal difficulties in attaching/confiscation of the property acquired through Mafia activities"

153. That the union of India taken no cognizance in respect of the important issues referred by the Vohra Committee: "Identification of the nature and dimensions of these linkages and the modus operandi of their operations." "Assessment of the impact of these linkages on the various institutions viz., the electoral, political, economic, law and order and the administrative apparatus." "Necessary action to show effective action to counteract/neutralise the Mafia activities." "Political and legal constrains in dealing with the covert/illegal functioning of the linkages."

154. The draft innovated by the Petitioner for a new Law "RIGHTS OF THE CITIZEN AND ACCOUNTABILITY OF PUBLIC SERVANTS ACT 2003", if enacted, can ensure remedy against criminal misconduct by criminal means by the public servants, under their Nexus with and to support wrong doer’s. It is strong belief of the Petitioner that corruption particularly based on misuse of the powers and abuse of the authority under Politics-Crime-Nexus can be checked effectively.

155. That in view of the facts and circumstances stated herein this is a Fit Petition to be examined in detail by the Petition Committee in larger Public Interests.

and accordingly Petitioner prayer that in the larger public interests the facts referred herein should be examined by the Petition Committee, and in the light of same it should examine the provisions of the Law suggested by the Petitioner as "RIGHTS OF THE CITIZENS AND ACCOUNTABILITY OF PUBLIC SERVANTS ACT 2003" and should recommend to Parliament of India to enact a Law, with reference to said proposed draft of the law referred under the Schedule hereunder.

Name of the Petitioner

Address

Signature or Thumb Impression

MILAP CHORARIA

A-47, Pal Mohan Plaza, 11/56, D. B. Gupta Road,

Karol Bagh,

Delhi-110005.

  

Delhi the Dated 11th August 2003

Enter content here

Enter supporting content here

PETITION BEFORE PARLIAMENT WITH DRAFT OF A LAW PROPOSED BY MILAP CHORARIA
“RIGHTS OF THE CITIZENS AND ACCOUNTABILITY OF PUBLIC SERVANTS ACT 2003”

PREAMBLE AND OBJECTS

The basic object of the Act is to ensure Fundamental Rights of the Remedies and Justice of the Citizen, deprived under the impact of the Politics-Bureaucratic-Crime-Nexus.