List of Dates enclosed with the Letter is not referred here as the most of dates were covered in Writ Petition
Letter Dated 30th January
2004 to Hon'ble Chief Justice of India
Honble Chief Justice of India Mr. Visheshwar Nath Khare,
Through Registrar General,
Supreme Court of India,
This has with reference to my Letter dated 9th September 2003 under the Subject caption: "I
may be compelled to commit suicide to record my stiff protest against denial of Justice." by Registered Post to Honble
President of India Dr. A. P. J. Kalam, and Your Lordship, with copies by Registered Post for informations to Attorney General
of India Mr. Soli J. Sorabjee, President, Supreme Court Bar Association, Chairman, Bar Council of India, Shri S. D. Sharma,
Chairman Lok Sevak Sangh, Transparency International; India Chapter, and through E-Mail to Amnesty International and other
International Human Right organizations, Few Senior Lawyers of Supreme Court, and Few important Journalists. I was compelled
to take such a decision to commit suicide if Justice is denied to me, because I am a man of principle and I never compromise
for the principles.
From the leading News item dated 29th January 2004 "Sting shows justice on sale"
published in the Times of India it appears that respective incident have opened the eyes of the Honble Supreme Court, particularly
of Your Lordship. I am writing this letter, because I am a severe sufferer from the embracement of Judicial Officers/Advocates
based on the justice-on-sale against me not in one single matter, but in several matters, caused under influence of Politics-Crime-Nexus,
as referred in detail in Writ Petition (Civil) filed under Filling Diary No. 22474/2003 dated 29th October 2003.
Three months have been elapsed, but matter is still not registered as a Writ Petition because Supreme Court Registry, particularly
the Section 1-B, for the reasons best known to them, but ignoring the Rule 7 and 8 of the Part IV ORDER XXXV of the Supreme
Court Rules, 1966 get caused to refuse to register my earlier Writ Petition filed in 2002, as a Writ Petition, and once again
might be eager to cause such a situation to refuse to register my aforesaid Writ Petition. In my Writ Petition (Containing
about 400 Pages) I have referred in detail that since 1983 how I am suffering because of the embracement of several Judicial
Officers and renowned Advocates, miscarriage of Justice in the Supreme Court. I have learned values of the morals and principles
from my childhood as I belongs to a great family in which world famous spiritual leader Acharya Mahapragnya ji was borne,
to whom present President of India Dr. A. P. J. Abdul Kalam meets thrice, in last one year, to discuss the moral related issues,
and His Excellency specifically referred His Holinesss name in his Eve-Republican day address of 25th January 2004
to the Nation. My two of own sisters are saints. My Lords, I written more than 250 articles, based on my own severe but grave
experiences and sufferings from the system, which now completely polluted by the mafia-politics-nexus. My Articles were published
in most of Hindi Newspapers covering entire country and few English Newspapers which correctly corroborating by the recent
views of the Retiring Chief Election Commissioner J.M. Lyngdoh that Indian Politics and Politicians are turned as a cancer.
Some time in or about 1997, I under the leadership of respected Shri S. D Sharma and along with two others sat on Fast unto
death on demand of enactment of Lokpal Law, out side Lajpat Bhawan, New Delhi. However, after two days of our fasting Learned
Mr. Soli Sorabjee, Justice (Retd.) Mr. Rajinder Sacher, Mr. Raj Mohan Gandhi and Shri Kuldeep Nayyar, persuaded to withdraw
the fast. When we were not ready to withdraw, Learned Mr. Soli J. Sorabjee, committed that if necessary, in future he will
sit along with us, then only we broken our Fast.
Honble Lordships, first time in Judicial History of India the Constitutional Bench headed by Mr. Justice
S. P. Bharucha (CJI) shown courage to admit that miscarriage of justice is going on in the Supreme Court. In this respect
I must submit before Your Lordship that till the principle of "Be you ever so high, the law is above you"
is not made applicable in strict terms, in respect of all the matters, irrespective of whoever involved in the respective
matter, till then situation cannot be changed.
In this context, I must refer the Writ Petition (Civil) No. 559 of 1995 and Writ Petition (Civil) No. 151
of 1996 both filed by me and if miscarriage of justice would not have been happened, then the situation must have been different,
then issuance of false and unwarranted warrants issued by the Judicial Magistrate. We must keep in mind that majority of the
crimes are based on Civil disputes. Therefore, until and unless Civil Dispute Justice system is not corrected the rate of
crimes would be in high side. Secondly, principle that "Be you ever so high, the law is above you" should be made applicable
for each and every person on strict terms to make accountable to the system itself.
After Vohra Committee Report published on 1st August 1995 on 9th August 1995 I filed
a PIL as Writ Petition (Civil) No. 559 of 1995 with prayers:
i) ISSUE direction to respondent No. 1 (Union of India) to make appropriate law in compliance of Constitution
of India restricting entry of criminals into the politics by participating in the Election process to become the members of
Parliament or State Legislative Assembly of any State;
- ISSUE direction to respondent No. 2 (Election Commission of India) to evolve a method to restrict the candidature of a
person, facing criminal proceedings in any Court of Law, for the Membership of Parliament or State Legislative Assemblies
and after due approval from this Honble Court, impose the same for future elections till the respondent No. 1 makes Law; as
prayed for under prayer No. i ) hereinabove.
under paragraph 14 of the Writ Petition interalia I suggested as under:-
- No person can contest Election for Parliament or State Assembly, if he is accused in any criminal proceedings and Police
prima-facie had satisfied with the complaint by filing charge sheet, till he not discharged or acquitted from such criminal
case by a Court of Law;
- No person can contest Election for Parliament or State Assembly, unless he declares all the properties and business of
his family members, before the Law Commission;
- The Members of Parliament and / or State Legislative Assemblies should be defined as Public Servants under all criminal
My said Writ Petition was dismissed. Thereafter, on 20th March 1996, I filed a Petition before
Election Commission of India that in the consideration of Article 324 (1) read with Article 326 of the Constitution Commission
should invite following information on oath or affirmation from the intending candidates for such elections to furnish along
with nomination papers: -
- Whether any Criminal Proceeding in any Court of law is pending? if yes ; please state:
(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 ?
- Whether, Charge Sheet is filed by the investigating authority in the above referred Crime Number? If, yes, please state:
- Name of the Court, in which charge sheet is filed?
- Number of the Crime Registered in the Court?
- Date of Charge Sheet?
- Reference of Law under which Charge Sheet is filed?
- The present status of the proceedings?
- If the Criminal Proceedings are pending more than one, similar informations should be provided in respect of each such
Three Copies of the said Petition were deposited in the Office of the Election Commission of India, against
Acknowledgement. After receipt of my said Petition 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, falsely claimed that Notification issued by the Commission
in that respect was based on ideas developed by him.
That on 7th February 1996 I filed another 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, the drafts of the amendments or change, or replacements of the following Laws (as) were referred under Schedule
of the (said) Writ Petition: -
- Representatives of People Act;
- Section 197 of Criminal Procedure Code;
- Official Secrets Act;
- A New Model of Civil Procedure Code
- Rules under Sub-Clause (C ) Clause (1) of Article 145 of the Constitution of India to define "appropriate proceedings
for Civil Reliefs"
That on 29th March 1996 upon hearing of the Petition Honble Chief Justices Court presided by A.
M. Ahmadi C.J. as then he was, observed that I have done a very good work and advised me to forward model of new Civil Procedure
Code innovated by me to the Chairman of the Law Commission of India accordingly by Letter dated 6th June 1996 I
did it by Registered Post to the Honble Chairman of the Law Commission of India.
In fact in the year of 1983 on the basis of my sufferings from justice-on-sale I developed a new Model of
Civil Procedure Code and forwarded it by Regd. post to the then Law Minister of India Shri Asok Sen. I also forwarded it to
A. M. Ahmadi, CJ, as then he was, by letter dated 3rd March 1995, by Registered Post. This a matter of the fact
that recent amendments in Civil Procedure Code were adopted from the said Model Draft but without recognising my work against
universal principle of the Intellectual Property Rights. After disposed off my said Writ Petition it came to my notice from
Newspapers that Justice A. M. Ahmadi (Retd. CJI), appointed one committee on the subject, headed by Dr. Abhishek Singhvi,
but without referring my said Writ Petition. Here, I must refer that first time in the Judicial History of Indian Judiciary,
in my matter, in 1984 after enquiry Honble Calcutta High Court dismissed one Munsif from the judicial services, but justice
is still far from me, due to involvement of the influential Mafia having close connection with powerful politicians of India,
proving that "Be you ever so high, the law is above you" is not applicable against all persons. In fact Your Lordships
remarks that "If this is the state of affairs, only God knows what will happen to the country", is very important, and disgusted
state of affairs, would be exposed, when my Writ Petition would be heard.
I am sure that suggestion made by me in my aforesaid Writ Petitions and important question of law raised
by me in my Writ Petition (Civil) filed under Filling Diary No. 22474/2003 dated 29th October 2003, by me are examined,
considered and adjudicated and hold as prayed for, then the large portion of the corruption can be restricted not only within
the Judiciary but also at the political level, because till corruption at the political levels are not checked, corruption
can not be removed from the Judiciary too. I want to make two new suggestions for insertion in the respective Laws:-
Complaints under the Advocates Act should be filed under Section 340 of Criminal Procedure Code, before the
respective Court, and such Court should forward its findings before the respective State Bar Council, which should take appropriate
action in the matter under the time bound limitations. Otherwise, complaint should be automatically transferred to Bar Council
of India. And Bar Council of India would not take appropriate actions within Six months the complainant should be entitled
to move before the Supreme Court. Whenever conduct of any Advocate proved as criminal misconduct of professional duties, he
should be debarred from Advocacy in future.
Hearing of the applications Under Section 340 of Criminal Procedure Code should be made mandatory with the
compliance as too mandatory.
With Best Regards
A Law abiding citizen,
Copy to Ld. Mr. Soli J. Sorabjee, Attorney General of India, 134, Sunder Nagar, IInd floor, New Delhi.
Extra Copy to Honble Chief Justice of India Mr. Visheshwar Nath Khare,
Krishna Menon Marg,
Followings was not the Part of
That if the said Public Interest Litigation being Writ Petition (Civil) No. 151/96 my suggestion to amend Section 197 of Criminal Procedure Code, could have been heeded, then possibly
Ahmedabad matter would have been occurred. This is matter of fact that Supreme Court cannot hear each and every such matter,
but can compel for appropriate amendment in the respective Laws to prevent miscarriage of Justice or embracement of Judicial
Officers by Mafia elements or wrong doers. My suggestions were just not to make accountable to the Judicial Officers, but
to all people. Amendment in Section 197 were suggested as under:-
Suggestion made under Chapter-II of the Writ Petition (PIL) (Civil) No. 151 of 1996 to amend Section 197
of Criminal Procedure Code:-
( Existing Clause 4 should be replaced by the following new clause)
(4) The Central Government or State Government as the case may be, shall grant or refuse the previous / according
sanction within six months from the date of original application for sanction, otherwise the same shall be deemed to be granted
(5) The Prosecution proceedings against the Prime Minister of India, any Union Minister, Chief Minister of
a State, Public Servants holding post of Secretary rank in Central or State Government service, any Judge or Magistrate posted
at any District within territory of India shall befiled before Supreme Court.
(6) Prosecution proceedings against any Minister of a State and / or Public Servant of All India services
(IAS, IPS, and allied Services) except those referred under Clause (5) shall be filed before a High Court having local Jurisdiction
in the matter.
(7) Prosecution proceedings against any Public Servants, except those referred under Clause (5) and (6) shall
be filed before a Court of District Session Judge, having local Jurisdiction in the matter.
- Filling Court, after ex-parte prima-facie satisfaction of complaint, shall transfer the prosecution
proceedings for trial and adjudication to any of its sub-ordinate Court(s)
- Filling Court, for its ex-parte prima-facie satisfaction can call any Record from any authority.
The provision of Section 19 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 should be amended accordingly.