Make your own free website on Tripod.com

S. C. PETITION
Home | Letter 2 Hon'ble CJI Mr. R. C. Lahoti | PHOTO / TYPED COPIES OF DOCUMENTS | Volume-I (INDEX) | List of Dates | SYNOPSIS | PETIOTIONER/RESPONDENTS | Main Petition Para 1-15 | Main Petition Para 16-40 | Main Petition Para 41-60 | Main Petition Para 61-80 | Main Petition Para 81-100 | Main Petition Para 101-120 | MainPetition Para 121-155 | QUESTIONS OF LAW | Grounds | Prayers | Volume-II (INDEX OF ANNEXURES) | Letter of 9th September 2003 to President of India and Chief Justice of India | Press Statement | ANNEXURE-28-A (Forged Order Sheet) | Application 4 Prosecution 2 Justice Ahamadi | Application 2 Prosecute Registrar SC
Letter 2 Hon'ble CJI Mr. R. C. Lahoti

PROBITY IN JUDICIARY AND CORRUPTION IN JUDICIAL SYSTEM?

MILAP CHORARIA

Convenor : Movement for Accountability to Public (MAP)

Columnist : For Several DAILY Newspapers in India

Author: A MODEL OF NEW CONSTITUTION FOR INDIA

Address for Correspondence Only:-

Post Box No. 2690,

New Delhi-110 005 MOBILE:01120036132 Dated 18th June 2004

REGISTERED WITH A/D

To,

Honble Chief Justice of India, Mr. Ramesh Chandra Lahoti,

Honble Lordship,

This has with reference to News published in The Hindustan Times dated 28th May 2004 in which your Lordship was quoted as saying that "Judiciary not corrupt but corrupt officials tarnishing the image of the system should be dealt with. A casual aberration does not mean that Judiciary is corrupt. The system is not corrupt". After going through Your Lordships oath taking ceremony, where Your Lordship touches foot of mother, hope was restored that after Justice S. P. Bharucha, (Retd. CJI), Your Lordship might show courage and boldness to ensure probity in the Judicial System even up to the level of the Supreme Court. If I could have been allowed to place my matter sufferings I hope that Your Lordship could have changed observations with regards to "corruption in the system".

This was my presumption that Your Lordship might have dealt with on my complaint as the observations were appears in Newspaper immediately after my Letter dated 26th May 2004, delivered on the same day, to Your Lordships residence with reference to Writ Petition(C) No.D-22474/2003 filed on 29.10.2003, in which I prayed interalia, that "Under Your Lordships new appointment, as next Chief Justice of India, after assuming the charge of new Office, Your Lordship as custodian of the Fundamental Rights of Individuals, should ensure my Rights to Remedy, by directing Supreme Court Registry, to register without any further delay my said Writ Petition as a Writ Petition, or listing for preliminary hearing for its admission to save most important core principles of the jurisprudence. But, with my utter surprise on 15th June 2004 I received Memo Letter No. D. No.5610/003/X dated 7th June 2004 from the Assistant Registrar (J), SC, that "The Writ Petition above mentioned filed by you was placed before Ld. Registrar (J-I) on 26.5.2004, when he was pleased to decline the same as it does not disclose any reasonable cause upon which it can be received for listing before the Honble Court under Order XVIII Rule 5 of S.C.R.1966."

On the basis of following facts doubts in mind cropped up that back dated order of 26th May 2004 might have been passed just on or before 7th June 2004, under connivance. For instance, language of the said Memo Letter that "received for listing before the Honble Court" cannot referred from Order XVIII Rule 5 of S.C.R.1966, but it appears in aforesaid letter dated 26th May 2004 to Your Lordship, in which I submitted as "listing for preliminary hearing for its admission". Secondly, I have changed my name, as "Milap Choraria", which also referred in the said Writ Petition. But from the said Memo Letter it appears that said letter might have been dictated by some one else, who knows me with old name but not aware about change, as such in the Memo Letter my name was referred as "Milap Chand Choraria".

With regards to Your Lordships observations, that "The system is not corrupt", I want to submit that under any provision of the Constitution Supreme Court is not empowered to reduce efficacy of any Constitutional Provision in the garb of interpretation, or also not empowered to hands off from Constitutional responsibility laid down upon Supreme Court, by converting the "Guaranteed Rights to Constitutional Remedy" early available equally for 1000 Million Citizen, mere as "Rights at mercy". Such reduction of the efficacy is entry point for corruption at the level of Supreme Court. This is my Humble Submissions that matter of my suffering cannot be termed just as "a casual aberration". I am suffering under connivance going on in a planning way to ensure injustice to me, from Supreme Court, under which Ld. Registrar (J-I) passed the alleged aforesaid order by misusing his powers and abusing his authority, since a powerful lobby, having vested interests-, active against me to protect Mafiadom having close Nexus with powerful politicians. Object of back dated Order of 26th May 2004 with the same date of my aforesaid letter, might have to convey me that my complaint cannot produce any results. Moreover, Ld. Registrar (J-I) further misused his powers and abused his authority deciding the matter relates to substantial question of law relating to Constitutional Powers of the Supreme Court, under Article 145(1)( c) of the Constitution, in the aforesaid Writ Petition I also challenged Constitutional validity of "Rule 5 Under Order XVIII of the Supreme Court Rules 1966 (substituted by G.S.R. 407 (w.e.f. 20-12-1997) (Petitions generally) as far as its applicability in respect of the Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution is concerned", under which he passed the said Order.

Without going into further details I humbly submit that scope for corruption in the System was opened when in the year of 1997, in serious violation of Constitutional Powers provided by Article 145(1)(c ) of the Constitution Supreme Court Rules 1966 were changed by Supreme Court with clear motive to reduce the efficacy of "Rights to Constitutional Remedy" which was guaranteed as basic structure of the Constitution, under Article 32 of the Constitution, which under any powers or authority could not have been reduced. Therefore, such changes have taken away or abridged the Rights of Constitutional Remedy on the selective basis, in complete contravention of Article 13(2), and 32 of the Constitution, to put such rights just at the mercy of the Supreme Court Registry, thereby allowing it to misuse the same in selective manner. Scope for further corruption was cropped up, when under the garb of interpretation Supreme Court was placed itself out of the definition of the "State" within the meaning under Article 12 of the Constitution.

IN fact Article 145(1)( C) authorized to Supreme Court to make Rules "as to the proceedings in the Court for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III", but not authorized to assign any of its Judicial powers to any one who not constitutes as a Court Under Article 32 of the Constitution, nor to make Rules empowering some one (not a Court) to refuse to receive a Writ Petition seeking protection of Fundamental Rights. This was also in serious violation of the Judgment settled by six Judge Bench (AIR:1950, Sc: 124, Kania CJ, Fazl Ali, Patanjali Sastri, Mahajan, B.K.Mokherjea, And Das JJ.), upholding 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.".

If these Rules could have been in existence, during emergency period of 1975, then what could have been happened, god knows.

I Humbly Submit that the Rule 11 under Part IV under Order XXXV thereby importing Rule 1 to 10 under Order XVIII substituted by GSR 407 w.e.f. 20.12.1997 and proviso under Rule 6(1) under Order X inserted by GSR 407 w.e.f. 20.12.1997, of the Supreme Court Rules 1966 are completely beyond the scope, meaning, ambit, powers, jurisdictions under Articles 32, 13 and 145(1)( c) of the Constitution of India in respect of the Applications for enforcement of the Fundamental Rights. Rule 5 Under Order XVIII of the Supreme Court Rules 1966 is also in contravention of Rule 7 and 8 of Part IV ORDER XXXV (APPLICATION FOR ENFORCEMENT OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS), under S. C. R. 1966. Such Rule 7 and 8 ensuring listing of the Writ Petition before Honble Court (Court constitutes under Article 32 of the Constitution) for preliminary hearing and orders as to the issue of notice to the Respondent. But, aforesaid Rules were changed with clear intention to put the "Guaranteed Rights of the Constitutional Remedy" at the mercy of Supreme Court Registry.

Therefore, this is my humble submissions that since Your Lordship is intended to ensure probity in the Justice System, should call for the records of the Writ Petition Civil No. D-22474 of 2003 and related Office File of the Supreme Court Registry and after going through it, if Lordship satisfied that my said Writ Petition is really failed to disclose any reasonable cause of action, as falsely and under connivance hold by Ld. Registrar (J-I), a Contempt Proceeding should be initiated against me, otherwise appropriate actions should be initiated against respective corrupt officials.

Supreme Court is having extra ordinary position in the Indian democracy, and in conformity with Oath taken for the Office of the Supreme Court Judges, probity can be ensured by accepting the definition of corruption: "whenever any Judge knowing fully perform his official duty in slightest violation of Constitutional provision, should be termed as the Corruption", because, corruption at the Supreme Court level may causes for various reasons, not necessarily for monetary gains: but under the impact of egoism; or indirect rapport with political leadership for appointments after retirement; or under some kind of influence; or Court may adopts whimsical attitude under some bias not to accept truth based pleadings, with references to some crucial issues.

However, in the larger interest of the "Guaranteed Rights of the Constitutional Remedy", I am going to publish the aforesaid Writ Petition filed under Filing Diary No, D-22474 of 2003 filed on 29th October 2004 and all correspondence since 1996 with Supreme Court in a BOOK.

Your Lordships duty bound Law abiding Citizen

 

 

(Milap Choraria)

(MOBILE:01120036132)



Enter supporting content here