B-5/52, Sector-7, Rohini,
Delhi-110085 Dated 27th July 2004
Registered with A/D
His Excellency Shri A. P. J. Kalam,
Hon’ble President of India,
Hon’ble Chief Justice of India Mr. R. C. Lahoti,
Supreme Court of India,
Sub: Application under Section 197 of Criminal Procedure Code and Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988 for according sanction to prosecute Justice A. M. Ahmadi, and Justice Dr. A. S. Anand both retired as Chief Justice
of India, for knowing fully disobeyed the true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of India as by law established to
cause severe damage to my fundamental rights, by not performing their duties not upholding the Constitution and the Laws,
under some favour, and / or ill-will.
1. This might be first application of its kind against any Hon’ble Supreme Court Judge, (whether retired
or sitting), so many people may be annoyed against me, without considering its legitimacy or matter on merit or extent of
my sufferings due to mockery of justice knowingly caused by Justice A. M. Ahmadi, and Justice Dr. A. S. Anand in my matter.
Since, this is an extra-ordinary step which generally one does not dare to take. This is peculiar think that even after 57
years of the Independence there are lacks of various appropriate system, which can ensure accountability based good governance.
Any such system, whenever developed, developed half heartedly. When any common man takes steps on the basis of such half heartedly
developed system, large numbers of the people having directly or indirectly vested interests as well as powerful in their
respective field, they become annoyed against such person and unnecessary indulged to damage some how to such person. The
facts directly relates to the instant application is starts from Paragraph 9 at page 6. However, submissions prior to facts
are equally important and very much relevant with issue on principle.
2. In this context, before starting the facts relates to application, I must submit some clarifications as
(1) In judiciary we have two types of examples, under which some Judicial Officers like Krishna Aiyer, J.,
and S, P, Bharucha, J. acted for more accountable Judiciary, while other example like A. M. Ahmadi, J., and Dr. A. S. Anand,
J., those are considered Judicial Officers of the Supreme Court accountable to none, contrary to 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."
(2) In talking terms it is easy to say that 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’. But this
principle cannot be uphold till a system evolved to ensure future lively hood of the Supreme Court Judges after their retirements,
based on a System providing equal opportunity in appointments, after retirements. As a result, some Judges of Supreme Court
under the impact of the practical consideration cannot maintain such principle.
(3) In fact one of the Advocates of the Supreme Court told me, though now he may not ready to admit, that
to protect their own carrier they are less interested to drag themselves in such types of steps, though they may agree with
the legitimacy of such steps or merits of a particular matter. Why such a situation is prevailing in every sphere of the society,
as mind-set of we Indians are still prevailing under the impact of the most sufferings caused by one thousand years of slavery,
and even after 57 years from independence our minds not come out from such impact, whether we are from the common people or
from the people who are holding the offices of the Constitutional functionary. Whenever, a common man like me takes an appropriate
steps just in accordance with the permission from the law and having with strong cause, but takes against a powerful political
or other person holding High Office, under the circumstances caused by such impact of the slavery-ness, even Supreme Court
Judges not find themselves easy to accept such steps as appropriate, because they are also not free from fear of their own
future, as the system causes restrictions, but does not ensure their future lively hood. Resultantly, some of them under impact
of arbitrariness or biasness, declare the person who working for good governance as "wrong hands’ as facts referred
3. That the majority Judgment given by Constitutional Bench in Criminal Appeal No.400 of 1979 decided on
July 25, 1991, set the principle that no judge of the Supreme Court or High Court is above the law, and also set guidelines
to file application for according sanction against any Judge. Therefore, no one should challenge legitimacy behind filing
of such applications. Therefore, before becoming annoyed against me just after seeing the subject under caption of the application,
one honest to his professional work or duty should find answer of one important question, that whether use of an available
platform against corruption is a crime? However, this is altogether different that one should make such application based
on merit and truth.
4. This is my humble submission that my instant application is against known misuse of the powers; under
bias or ill-will or in violation of the oath taken under the Constitution. In my view this situation is developed particularly
in judiciary under the impact of the system, because once a Judge is entering in the Office of the Supreme Court, he knows
that practically he is least accountable to Oath, and when one cannot control hind mind or heart, strictly in terms of oath,
because he is also a human being and from the same society, where at presently a trend is running for downgrading of the moral
standard, we cannot expect that every one may be free from effects of general moral standards prevailing in the society, while
errors always possible from a human being. When error is always possible from a human being, means misuse of the powers too
possible from a Judge, as admitted by the Judgment Dated 10th April 2002 by a Constitution Bench presided over
by S. P. Bharucha J. (Retd. CJI) in Writ Petition (C) No. 509 of 1997 & others (Supreme Court Cases (2002) 4 SCC Pages
388-426). In such a circumstances, when misuse of power is possible, then application of this nature is also legitimate, as
decided by majority judgment of a Constitutional Bench in Criminal Appeal No.400 of 1979 decided on July 25, 1991.
5. That by application dated 25th June 2004 I requested to His Excellency Shri A. P. J. Kalam,
Hon’ble President of India, with copy to Hon’ble Chief Justice of India Mr. R. C. Lahoti with request to forward,
four important issues to Hon’ble Supreme Court under Article 143 of the Constitution of India to form its opinion. After
finding no response on the above referred application, I am presuming that His Excellency Shri A. P. J. Kalam might have been
advised by the executive not to forward such issues raised by me under Article 143 of the Constitution, nor Hon’ble
Chief Justice of India Mr. R. C. Lahoti might have decided to take up the matter suo-moto in the larger interests of the probity
and integrity in the judiciary.
6. Therefore, to justify the grounds for my aforesaid application dated 25th June 2004 to His
Excellency Shri A. P. J. Kalam, I am submitting instant petition to prove that probity at the level of the Supreme Court have
been damaged in some extent, knowingly in some specific matters. Therefore, taking in consideration of the majority Judgment,
in five Judge Constitutional Bench, in K. Veeraswami V. Union of India case (SCC (1991) 3 SCC Pages 654-755), and in the
larger public interest and for the protection of the probity and integrity of the Judiciary at the level of the Supreme Court,
even I know that under the impact of the political system it may failed to cause any result, I am submitting this application,
with the facts referred below:-
7. That this is my humble submission on affirmation that since childhood I have always acted against corruption,
exploitation and for improvement of the system. In fact what he have done in India with in depth study and great pain in the
larger National Interests and for Public importance, if I could have done as a Citizen of United State of America, I might
have been awarded one of the Top Awards for the Country. Although by saying, I am not claiming for any award, but want to
compare with my sufferings. Contrary to such award winning situation, whether under human errors or otherwise, particularly
in my matter serious mockery of justices were caused similar to admission appeared from Supreme Court Judgment dated 10th
April 2002 in Writ Petition (C) No. 509 of 1997 & others (Supreme Court Cases (2002) 4 SCC Pages 388-426).
8. That this is also my humble submission on affirmation that since childhood I am fully committed and followed
with High Moral Standard, honesty, sincerity, as he was inspired and influenced by the world famous great saint, his grand
uncle and successor of Anuvarat Movement launcher Acharya Tulsi: Acharya Mahapragnyaji (His Holiness’s Residential name
was Nath Mal Choraria). Your Excellency President Sir during this year’s eve-independence address to the nation, referred
His Holiness’s name with special reference relates to moral issues. Two of my own sisters are saints under Acharya Mahapragnyaji.
Since childhood I sincerely acted in various social activities based on strong principles with honesty and completely dedicated
to causes. But this is also true that because of my innovative steps, large number of powerful and influential people might
have annoyed as their vested interest have been affected seriously. Some of my activities and steps are referred as follows:-
At the age of 14 Years I and my friends, opened a Library in my small native village and collected thousands of Books.
In the year 1960, at the age of 18 years on the basis of complaint having with strong evidence from me, Postmaster of
Dhupguri (Jalpaiguri District in West Bengal) was suspended, for indulgence in misappropriation of money of Postal Department.
In the year of 1963-64, on the basis of complaint to the then Home Minister of India Shri Guljari Lal Nanda from me, one
Pakistani spy working as Postmaster in Tarabarihat Post Office (Kamrup Distruict in Assam) was arrested.
A high level enquiry was set-up on the basis of complaints from several persons including me against the then District
Collector of Jhunjhunu (Rajasthan).
Between 1965 and 1970 various Election Reforms were suggested by me and published in several Newspapers, with my address,
as a result I received several Hundred letters from all over India including one Nemi Chand Gandhi, who subsequently changed
his name as Chandra Swami, and tried to lure me into Huge Income resources through illegal means, but I could well understand
his cunning of laying the trap and so did not go for his callings. Even in or about 1975-76 at the instance of Chandra Swami,
when I visited his residence somewhere in Punchsheel Park, the then General Secretary of Congress Party Shri P. V. Narsimha
Rao ask me to Join the Politics directly under him, but I was not ready to join the politics, considering myself unfit to
play present politics.
In 1965 I suggested to Education Minister and Ministry, for education related issues and received response from the then
Education minister of India Shri Triguna Sen himself and Senior Ministry Officials.
In 1969 I suggested to Election Commission of India to issue Identity Cards to Voters, though I do admit that in my suggestions
nothing was suggested for Photo Identity Cards.
In 1975 Economic Times published my several interviews including one relating to manipulations in cost of productions
by one powerful Monopoly House, and that the then Industries Minister of India Mr. T. A. Pai, assured Parliament with reference
to exposure made by me against illegal transfer of the money to Switzerland.
In 1976 Notice for Hunger Strike issued by me was referred by one important national Newspaper "The Economic Times" as
"Nobel Protest", and related union Ministry accepted our demand.
In 1976 I was elected as Director of the one Monopoly / Multinational Company through Votes by hands, but then Company
defeated the result by voting by cast of Paper.
In 1977 I was invited before Parliamentary Public Undertaking Committee, headed by the then CPI (M) M. P. Late Jyotirmoy
Basu, to give evidence on a matter of national importance. During the evidence I understood that till then, I was first Indian
who was invited before any Parliamentary Committee on individual capacity.
In 1979, one Monopoly House filed a Writ Petition, against principle of the Fair Price. I filed an application for substitution
considering matter of great Public importance, which was dismissed on the ground that I personally was not interested party
in the matter. In this matter Learned Mr. Millon Banerjee, newly appointed Attorney General of India appeared on behalf of
the Government of India. Finally Monopoly House lost its case at the Supreme Court level, and our object was served.
In 1980, I set on 9 days successful Hunger Strike against Balco.
I met thrice with the then Prime Minister Smt. Indira Gandhi, on the subject relating to Fair Price and equitable Distribution
of some products produced by Monopoly and Multinational Houses.
In 1980 Hon’ble Chief Justice of India taken cognizance in respect of a complaint from me against one order passed
by the Hon’ble High Court, Kolkata in the matter of which Judgment was reserved and pending for more than one year,
but order was passed without pronouncement of such long awaited Judgment, as the said order virtually defeated assurance given
by the then Prime Minister Smt. Indira Gandhi upon a representation submitted under my leadership. Subsequently (Late) Mr.
Kalyan Ray, M. P., from CPI raised the issue in Parliament through one motion.
On Telegraphic application from me, the then Acting Chief Justice of India Mr. P. N. Bhagwati, taken cognizance with reference
to merger proposal of Indian Aluminium Company, with Mahindra and Mahindra Limited, and then at the verge of completion of
merger, Government of India declared the proposal against National interest, due to strong persuasion from me.
In 1994 after complaint from me Reserve Bank of India moved before Supreme Court of India against Pearless General Finance
and Insurance Company Limited, Kolkata, resultantly Company suffered a setback caused by imposition of a liability of about
Rs.700 Crores (Rupees Seven Hundred Crores) and its then Chairman was to resign.
In or about 1994-95 I stopped the Government of India and National Small Industries Corporation, from entering in a tripartite
agreement by lodging an complaint against a proposal from a German Bank for a long term Loan of Rs.100 Crores for 40 years
with publicly declared concessional rate of interest @ 1% p. a., which actually had hiding cost @ 10% p.a., chargeable through
Bank’s own panel in the garb of the risk guarantee against Foreign Exchange Conversion Rate.
IN 1994 I submit before the Finance Ministry that under the Income Tax Act, part of any property on sale, should be considered
as part of one Unit for the Income Tax purposes, and Petitioner views were uphold by Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court,
headed by Mr. S. P. Bharucha, J.
In the Year 1994 I was appointed as Member of Two Sub-Groups (Finance and Raw Material), under the Group constituted by
the Planning Commission on Small Scale Industries for 9th Five Year Plan.
I met with Shri Man Mohan Singh, several times as the Honorary General Secretary of Indian Council of Small Scale Industries,
an Apex Organisation of SSI sector.
I submitted suggestion on Lokpal Bill before Parliamentary Committee on Home Affairs headed by Mr. Sompal.
Shri P. Chidambaram presented a Bill for New Companies Act, when he was Finance Minister as representative in Union Government
from Tamil Manila Congress. Bill was forwarded to Parliamentary Committee and I submitted large number of suggestion to Committee.
Since the then Loksabha was dissolved, as such the said Bill was lapsed.
On 11th August 2003 I submitted a Petition comprised a draft of "RIGHTS OF THE CITIZENS AND ACCOUNTABILITY
OF PUBLIC SERVANTS ACT 2003", with supportive materials before Petition Committee of the Parliament.
There are several other matters relates to my social activities.
9. Now, I am submitting the facts directly related with the Petition. On 9th August 1995 I filed
a Writ Petition against Union of India and Election Commission of India as Public Interest Litigation based on Vohra Committee
Report and registered as Writ Petition (Civil) No.559/95 with interalia following 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;
ii) 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 Hon’ble Court, impose the same for future elections till the respondent
No. 1 makes Law; as prayed for under prayer No. i ) hereinabove.
10. That under paragraph 14 of the said Writ Petition I suggested interalia as under:-
a) 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 laws.
11. That on 29th August 1995 said Writ Petition was dismissed by Hon’ble Chief Justice’s
Court presided by A. M. Ahmadi, as then he was, with observation that Court have nothing to do such issues relating to policy
12. That after few days later Hon’ble Chief Justice’s Court presided by A.M.Ahmadi, C.J. as then
he was, admitted another Writ Petition based on self-same Vohra Committee Report, which was registered as Civil Writ Petition
No.664/95 and filed by one powerful politician from Gujrat Mr. Dinesh Trivedy, M. P., and moved by renowned Senior Lawyers
of the Supreme Court namely Shri Shanti Bhusan and Ram Jethmalani. Such admission of subsequent Writ Petition based on same
issue in the matter if was not admitted under any influence or biasness then it was also not consistent with the prevailing
principle of the finality of final order of the Supreme Court. After knowing the fact relates to such admission of such subsequent
Writ Petition, on 1st December 1995, I filed another Writ Petition (Civil) No. D-18372/95 with prayers interalia
that in compliance of clause (4) of Article 32 of the Constitution of India the Jurisdiction of Supreme Court has been seized
to dismiss any Writ Petition filed as remedy for enforcement of Fundamental Rights, without hearing on the merit.
13. That on 6th December 1995 I filed another Public Interest Litigation as 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.
14. That the said Writ Petition, was a Public Interest Litigation, but in Paragraph 6 under 4th
line at page 14, I 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 on
19th January 1996 Writ Petition was listed before the Hon’ble Court presided by G. N. Ray J, as then he was,
and after hearing of the same G. N. Ray J, observed that this leave appears that the matters referred in the Writ Petition
have been clubbed the matters of the public interest with the matter of infringement of the fundamental rights of the Petitioner
himself, so it is better that petitioner should withdraw his Writ Petition to file a fresh. Considering such observations
from the Hon’ble Court I withdrawn my said Writ Petition to file a fresh.
15. That on 29th January 1996 aforementioned Writ Petition (Civil) No. D-18372/95 was listed for
hearing along with the said Civil Writ Petition No. 664/95, filed by Mr. Dinesh Trivedy, M. P., Hon’ble Chief Justice’s
Court presided by A.M.Ahmadi, C.J. as then he was, verbally accepted the argument forwarded by me and observed that they are
not dismissing rather disposing off the same by passing judicial order. When the Hon’ble Court was dictating such order,
one Advocate stood up and wanted to know the fate of Third Writ Petition filed by his client and moved by him, on the same
issue, at this moment Hon’ble Court observed that all other petitions would face the same fate. Then the said Advocate
objected it, which was supported by Ld. Mr. Ram Jethmalani, Sr. Lawyer, than Hon’ble Court observed that in such event
Mr. Choraria’s (myself) Petition would be also heard together with all other Petitions relating to the same matter in
issue. However, Hon’ble Chief Justice’s Court presided by A.M.Ahmadi, C.J. as then he was, observed that Court
will allow only one petitioner to argue, although this was non-compliance of the principle of the jurisprudence, and practice
adopted in the other matter suggesting that Hon’ble Chief Justice’s Court presided by A.M.Ahmadi, C.J. as then
he was, under influence or false representation against petitioner, which also appear from the Order itself. After recess
of the day when matter was heard, naturally Ld. Mr. Ram Jethmalani argued the matter, and judgment was reserved. Subsequently
when certified copy of the order was obtained I was socked and surprised that such subsequent Court Proceedings were not found
place in the said order dated 29th January 1996 as appeared from the certified copy of the order which was as follows:
"A Writ Petition (c) No. 664/95 in relation to the same matter in issue based on Vohra Committee Report is
already under consideration in which the respondents were directed to produce the authenticated copy of the Report, which
has since been done. Since the Public Interest Petition is already before the Court and the carriage of proceedings is not
stated to be in wrong hands, we do not see any reason to multiply petitions on the same issue and, therefore, we dispose of
this petition on this ground."
16. That after going through the certified copy of said order dated 29th January 1996 I placed
the matter of such anomaly whether caused under human error or otherwise in the recording of the Order, before the Hon’ble
Court by filing another Writ Petition (Civil) D-2595/96 on 12th February 1996. But, on 11th March 1996
Hon’ble Chief Justice’s Court also dismissed the said Writ Petition too, without hearing the grounds and facts
17. That on 20th March 1996 I filed a Petition before Election Commission of India that in 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: -
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 proceeding."
18. That system evolved by way of Affidavit, by the Election Commission in respect of Information collected
from the Election candidates for Parliaments and State Legislatures was exclusively innovated and first time voiced with concerns
by the me before the Supreme Court and Election Commission of India, but due to mockery of justice caused against me, the
same issue raised by me in the aforesaid Writ Petition (Civil) No. 559 of 1995 was not recognised in my name but upheld by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court by it’s order dated 2nd May, 2002 in Civil Appeal No. 7178 of 2001 (Union
of India V Association for Democratic reforms and another).
19. That I always intended to work for improvement of the system and accordingly in or about 1983 I developed
and innovated a Model of New Civil Procedure Code under which justice in Civil Litigations could be possible in expeditious
manner, without requirement of much of new infrastructures, or judicial workforce, which in 1985 I forwarded by Registered
Post to then Union Law Minister Shri Asok Sen, and after several reminders, in March 1995 I also forwarded by Registered Post
to the then Hon’ble Chief Justice of India, as then was Mr. A. M. Ahmadi and then referred in Writ Petition (Civil)
No. 151 of 1996 filed on 7th February 1996 before Supreme Court, in which I suggested five suggestions for appropriate
changes in existing laws or enactment of new laws. However in the said Writ Petition on 29th March 1996 order was
passed without any relevance with the Prayers that "Place this petition before Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India
on the administrative side to consider the regulations of Public Interest Litigations". My object and purpose behind respective
suggestion was to define the "appropriate proceedings" for Writ Petitions filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, as such
in the said Writ Petition I suggested appropriate Rules Under Article 145 (1) (c) of the Constitution. In the said Writ Petition
(Civil) No. 151 of 1996 detail suggestions for appropriate changes in existing Law or enactment of new Law, with reference
to following National issues of Larger Public importance:-
- Suggestion on Representation of the People Act. (With object to regulate the Political Parties through a Common Bye-Laws);
- Suggestion for amendment in Section 197 of Criminal Procedure Code and 19 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 to make
the Politicians holding High Offices, Public Servants, and Judges accountable before the Law for their Criminal Misconduct;
- Suggestion on Official Secrets Act to ensure transparency in the Government functioning;
- Draft of Model Civil Procedure Code to ensure adjudication of Civil Litigations within Two Years from the date of filing
without much of new infrastructure and Judicial Workforce. Under the Draft of the Model Code, people who intended to misuse
the platform of the Courts to legitimize their illegal acts, by filing Civil Suits to blackmail the opponent to be refrained
to do so.
- Draft of Rules under Article 145 (1) (c) of the Constitution to define appropriate proceedings for Writ Petition, in accordance
with Guarantees under Article 32 of the Constitution.
20. That I reproducing the Draft of Model of New Civil Procedure Code, submitted by me in the said Writ Petition
under Chapter–IV to the said Writ Petition:-
CHAPTER – IV
DRAFT FOR MODEL OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE
In view of the considerations, that Justice means Justice in time, the Petitioner had prepared a model of
Civil Procedure Code to suggest the replacement against the existing Civil Procedure Code. All concerned may agree with that
"Justice delayed Justice denied" in real sense due to long-long-time-taking procedures adopted under the said code for Civil
litigations. Such serious situation is responsible for increase of crimes related to such civil litigations.
In the year of 1983-84, the Petitioner had made an indepth study of Civil Procedure Code and its 51 Orders,
703 Rules, and thousands Sub-Rules, besides 151 Sections and several hundred sub-sections and found that the object behind
these provisions were to ensure free and fair justice. Butter mixed with honey will be poisonous. Likewise, good Civil Procedure
Coder prepared in the line of law in United Kingdom, in India, became instrumental to misuse the Administration of Justice
to harass and blackmail the opponents. Some people files litigations thinking that they can obstruct the object of opponent
for several years. A democracy cannot survive for a long time unless Justice is protected and ensured. Having this concept
in mind, the petitioner had written about the said Model of Civil Procedure Code to the then Law and Justice Minister Shri
Asok Sen by letter dated 15th March, 1985 by Regd. Post. In view of Reforms, Globalisation and open Market Economy,
the said Model Code has now became more important and the petitioner have understood that their Lordships are eager to evolve
a Judicial system under Free, Fair and Fast adjudication of the litigations can be possible. The main reasons for delay in
litigations are unwarranted adjournments of trials on various grounds, interlocutory proceedings, which is removed in his
model, from the business of trial courts and Advocates have given much more responsibilities, in depth involvement in Administration
of Justice and made accountable to their clients.
Model Code was prepared to ensure the Free, Fair and Fast Justice within time bound program described as
Service of summons 40 Days
Collection of documents by the
Advocates of defendants 60 Days
Filling of the Defence 60 Days
Interrogations and answers from both
side parties 60 Days
Recording of evidence 90 Days
Finding of Facts 90 Days
Judgments 60 Days
Maximum adjournments permissible 60 Days
Execution of Judgments (If Appeal not filed) 180 Days Total 700 Days
Under this model code, adjudication of litigation, is divided in to four parts. Up to the interrogatories
and answers, the record of the suit will kept with the court of the Registrar at a Sub-division level, who will also maintain
Registers for the following business:-
- Registration of all litigations in one Register irrespective of any Police Stations under the Sub-division.
- Publication of a List of the Penal of Advocates; (the entire list of Members of a Bar Association of a Sub-Division will
constitute such list on seniority basis.
- Filing of the evidences recorded by the Penal Advocates of the litigation who will be appointed on rotation basis.
- Allotment of litigations for the courts of Munsif on rotation basis to record findings of facts.
- After return of the file of litigation from the concerned court of Munsif, allotment of litigation to a court of Asst.
Dist. Judge to pronounce its Judgment.
Now the Petitioner would like to present a brief note on the orders of Model suggested Code which will ensure
the Justice within prescribed period irrespective of all consideration.
MODEL OF ALTERNATIVE CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE
ORDER-I: Parties to the Suit (against the existing Order I and part of Order XXII) : All interested parties
have right to file, participate or defend any suit subject to bear full actual cost including damage due to suit, if failed
to establish his / their claim or defence.
ORDER- II: Suits (against existing orders II, IV, VII, XI, XIV): a plaintiff shall file the plaint in prescribed
form alongwith duplicate copies of all documents in his possession and on which he relies to file the suit; list of documents
which would not be in his possession but at the same time, he relies his claim giving the name and address of possessors of
such documents, if plaintiff knows; suggested issues; list of witness all pleadings with full facts and full court fees before
the Registrar of Trial Courts at a sub-division (There will be no provisions for amendment of plaint or pleadings)
ORDER-III: Recognised agents and pleaders (against existing Order III) : The Advocate of the plaintiff would
be accountable to serve the summons and Advocate of the Defendants would be accountable to receive the (copy of the) plaint
and other documents from the Court of Registrar. Such Advocates would work in real sense as court officers as well as agents
of their clients.
- The Advocate being the agent of the plaintiff as the Court Officer in concerned litigation would serve the, summon within
30 days from the date of filing of litigation through his own men as well as by Regd. Post. If in both manner, the service
of summon is not possible, he will publish notice in two local newspapers of sub-division stating suit No. name of the Court
of Registrar, name and address of the plaintiff and defendants and himself, without referring the cause of the suit. The date
of publication of such notice should be treated as service of summons.
- Copies of the plaint and all other documents would not required to send along with the, summon, but shall be deposited
with Registrar, from whom, the Advocate being the agent(s) of defendant(s) would, collect such copies within 7 days from the
date of service of summons.
- The Advocate of the plaintiff would be empowered to sign the summons in the capacity of court officer in the concerned
ORDER-V: DEFENCE (against existing Orders VIII, VVV-A, IX, XII and XXIII): The Written Statement under existing
code would be replaced by the word defence. The opposite parties shall file their defence within 60 days from the date of
service of summons in the same manner of the plaint, alongwith Xerox copies of all documentary evidence in his defence, if
any, have in his possession, list of any documents if not in his possession with name and address of possessors of the same,
if he knows, list of witnesses in support of his defence, and list of additional issues, if any.
ORDER-VI Documents (Against Existing Order XIII): The discovery of documents would be submitted alongwith
the plaint. Under the model Code, the possessor of any documents relating to any litigation automatically become the Receiver
of the particular documents in his possession for time being, till disposal of the concerned litigation and should supply
True Photocopies of such documents on payment of cost within 7 days from the date of notice from the Advocate of either side
in the said litigation.
ORDER-VII: Adjournment: (Against existing Order XVII) Adjournment for total period of 60 days between the
filing of the litigation and Judgment can be granted by the District Judge only.
ORDER-VIII: Interlocutory Orders:
Interlocutory orders like temporary injunction can be granted by the Appellate Court only, which will not
effect the adjudication of the main suit at trial courts.
ORDER-IX: Affidavit, the provision will remain as existing, under order IX.
- Under the proposed code, interrogatories will become a necessary part of the proceedings of the suit, which also will
help judiciary to give findings and judgments on the more stronger basis.
- After filing defence by the defendants, in a suit, both the parties will, if any, make a questionnaires in a prescribed
form within a limited period, upon opponent parties who in his turn shall bound to make answers within prescribed times in
prescribed form, otherwise shall be debarred from contesting the suit.
Instead of present jurisdiction of trial courts based on Police Station, all Civil Suits within all Police
Stations under a particular Sub-Division shall be comprised as one Jurisdiction to be vested in the Court of Registrar of
ORDER-XII: Recording of Evidences:
- A Court Officer would be appointed for this purpose from penal of Advocates amongst all members of local Bar of a Sub-Division
which shall be declared on the first day of each year, without delisting anyone, but on the basis of seniority.
- Recording of the evidences of the witnesses would be duty of this penal;
- This will be the duty of the plaintiff/defendant to produce his witnesses: before the Court Officer within prescribed
time to record evidence in presence of the both side Advocates and parties and within the area of court compound;
- Evidences given by the witnesses would be recorded by the Advocates from the said penal on the rotation basis, and in
presence of parties and Advocates of both side parties, and signatures of the witnesses, Advocates, of both side parties as
well as parties would be taken over in the prescribed form on which evidence would be recorded.
- Evidences would be recorded in triplicate with the help of carbon paper and one copy each would be served to the first
Plaintiff and defendant respectively just at the moment of recording of evidence and original would be submitted before the
Registrar of the Trial Courts. Xerox Copies of recorded evidence shall be supplied to other plaintiffs or defendants, if any,
after certifying as true copy by the Penal Advocate / Court Officers.
ORDER-XIII: FINDINGS: On the basis of allegations, claims made by the plaintiffs the defence filed by the
defendants, answer made by both side parties against interrogatories submitted by either party and evidence recorded by the
Advocate Penal, the Court of Munsif will make its findings of facts on the prescribed form.
ORDER-XIV: Judgment and Execution of Decree:
On the basis of findings made by the Court of Munsif, the Judgment of the suit after hearing both parties,
would be given by a Sub-Judge, who will be assigned the Suit on rotation basis, considering all facts relates to merit of
the case and legal side of the suit. If decree is passed, a copy of finding as well as Judgment would be served upon defendant’s
Advocate fixing the date of execution of decree. No separate case will be required to be filed for execution of decree under
proposed code, but this will be duty of the court to execute the order of decree, if not appealed.
ORDER-XV: COST; If plaintiff succeeds in establishing his case on the basis of merit, he will be entitled
to get entire actual cost of the suit and damage caused thereof incurred y him. On the other hand, if he fails in establishing
his claim on the basis of merit, he would be compelled to pay all actual expenses and damages incurred y the defendants. If
any case lost by either party for the technical or any ground of law, no order would be passed as to the cost.
- She against he in case of female.
21. That other suggestions made by me are reproduced from the said Writ Petition (Civil) No. 151 of 1996
(Suggestions to amend or change in the Representatives of Peoples Act)
Suggestion: (1) Power of Election Commission of India to frame Model-By-Laws for Political Parties: The Commission
shall have powers to make and / or frame Model-By-Laws to regulate all the matters, affairs, and election, based on representative
character, at all level of organizational set up of all Political parties in the country.
Suggestion: (2) Notification of Model-By-Laws
- The Commission, after framing of Draft for Model-By-Laws shall serve copies of the same to all Political Parties, registered
with the Election Commission, to submit suggestions for omissions or additions etc., within 6 months from the date of service.
- After receipt of all such suggestions, if any, the Commission shall held joint meeting of all the Political Parties and
take a decision on final Model-By-Laws.
- Within 30 days from the said joint meeting the Commission shall notify the Model-By-Laws for Political Parties, which
shall be binding on all Political parties.
Suggestion: (3) Registration of Existing Political Parties:
Within Three Months from the Notification of Model-By-Laws, all Political Parties shall adopt the same and
inform to the Commission, otherwise Registration of Existing Political Party automatically stands cancelled.
Suggestion: (4) Registration of New Political Parties:
Any Political Party will be entitled to get registered with the Commission after adoption of Model-By-Laws.
Suggestion: (5) Power of Commission to deregistration a Political Party:
The Commission shall have powers to deregister a Political Party if on enquiry and after hearing satisfy
that Model-By-Laws is highly violated.
CHAPTER – II
(Suggestions to amend in Section 197 of Criminal Procedure Code)
After omission of Existing Clause (4) NEW CLAUSE (4) shall be inserted
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 / accorded.
CLAUSE (5) The Prosecution proceeding against the Prime Minister of India, Chief Minister of a State, Public
Servant holding Post of Secretary rank in the Central or State Government service, any Judge or Magistrate Posted at any District
within territory of India shall be filed before Supreme Court.
CLAUSE (6) The Prosecution proceeding against any Minister of a State, and / or Public Servant All-India
service (IAS, IPS, and ALLIED Services) except those referred under Clause (5) shall be filed before a High Court having Local
Jurisdiction in the matter.
CLAUSE (7) The Prosecution proceeding against any Public Servant except those referred under Clause (5) and
(6) shall be filed before a Court of District Session Judge, having Local Jurisdiction in the matter.
CLAUSE (8) Filling Court, after ex-party Prima facie satisfaction (of) complaint, shall transfer the prosecution
proceeding for trial and adjudication to any of its sub-ordinate Court(s)
CLAUSE (9) Filling Court, for its ex-party Prima facie satisfaction can call for any record from any authority.
The provisions of Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 shall be amended accordingly.
CHAPTER – III
Suggestions With Regards to Official Secrets Act.
Suggestion (1) DEFINITION : (A) The all activities matters and affairs directly relating with the safety,
security and integrity of the Country shall be constitutes as Category "S" (The "S" denotes to secrecy); (B) All other activities
matters and affairs, which not covers under Category "S" of Central Government or State Governments or Governmental organisations;
Corporations; bodies; public undertaking; public Limited Companies; shall be constitutes as Category "T" (The "T" denotes
Right of the Citizen to receive Certified Copy and /or information of any activities matters
and affairs relating to Category "T"
Citizen of India have Right to get Certified copy of information, as the Case may be, with regards to activities,
matters and affairs of Category "T" on payment of actual cost and fees of stamp as may be prescribed by the authority.
Suggestion (3) Right to Refuse to provide Certified Copy or information:-
Certified copy or information, if applied under suggestion (2) can be refused by the concerned authority
describing such activities, matters and affairs under Category "S" which applicant described as Category "T".
Suggestion (4) Punishment: The misuse of the provisions provided under Suggestion (2) and (3) against
national interests or to escape from and to protect some one from prosecution shall be construed as commitment of offence
punishable under Indian Penal Code.
Suggestion (5) Punishment for Refusal: If any authority or person wrongfully refuse to provide Certified
copy or information if, applied under Suggestion (2) and (3) as the case may be, shall be punishable for six months simple
imprisonment and for subsequent refusal the imprisonment shall be doubles.
(to the said Writ Petition (Civil) No. 151 of 1996)
RULES under sub-clause (c) clause (1) of Article 145 of the Constitution of India, to define appropriate
proceedings for Civil Reliefs
- No premature petition as Remedy for enforcement of Fundamental Rights conferred under Part III of the Constitution for
the directions or orders or writs in the nature of Mandamus and / or prohibition, in the matters of civil in nature, shall
- Maturity shall be construed on expiry of 30 days from the date of Demand for enforcement of Fundamental Rights served
upon the head of a Department concerned, against which charges of negligence, or inaction or action which violates the fundamental
Rights of any Citizen is made, with clear reference of the matter of violation of particular Article and within said period
of 30 days no action on the part of the said head of the said Department is taken to correct the said violation.
- Writ Petition shall be contained the following facts in the first Paragraph.
- Date of violation of fundamental rights;
- Name of the person (public servants accountable for violation of fundamental rights);
- Matter in brief;
- Department, to whom Notice of Demand under Rule (2) has been served demanding enforcement of Fundamental Rights but in
- Thereafter in subsequent paragraphs all facts should be stated in detail in chronological order; and
- Writ Petition should be supported by an affidavit.
- The Cabinet Secretary and / or Chief Secretary of the Central Government and / or respective State shall be made first
respondent in the Writ Petition as the case may be. The Head of the respective departments and public servants responsible
for violation of the Fundamental Rights shall be subsequent Respondents.
- The Petition can be sent by Registered Post or filed personally before Registrar of Supreme Court.
- THAT After receipt of such Writ Petition, the Registrar shall allot the Temporary Writ Petition (Civil) Number to the
- After receipt of the Temporary Writ Petition (Civil) Number, the Petitioner shall sent a copy of the Writ Petition by
Registered Post to each Respondent, informing them that Petition has been Registered as a Temporary Writ Petition (Civil)
being Number under Rule 6.
- This will be mandatory duty of each Respondent to file his Reply mentioning each and every fact in detail with photocopies
of supporting evidence, if any, supported by affidavit, within 3o days from the date of receipt of copy of such Temporary
Writ Petition (Civil). Such Reply shall not hide any thing about the matter referred in the Writ Petition.
- That any thing contained false in the Writ Petition and Reply thereof, filed under Rule 3 and 8 shall be construed as
Contempt of the Supreme Court, and person, who affirm such affidavit containing false statement shall be liable for contempt
proceeding before Supreme Court.
- The each Respondent shall have duty to serve a copy of the reply with all annexures to the Writ Petitioner within 7 days
from the date of affidavit, at the address mentioned in the Writ Petition.
- That if any of the Respondent restored the Fundamental Rights before affirmation of the affidavit under Rule 8 and the
Writ Petitioner satisfy with the same, he shall convey the same to the Registrar of the Supreme Court and in such event such
Writ Petition shall disposed off accordingly. Before the disposal the Petitioner of such Petition shall file affidavit(s)
confirming the same things, within 30 days from the date of service of Reply by the Respondent.
- That if Writ Petitioner not satisfy, with the affidavit (together with reply) of any of the Respondent, he shall file
Counter affidavit before the Registrar of Supreme Court, within 30 days from the date of Reply served by the Respondent(s).
- That after Counter affidavit from the Writ Petitioner, the Registrar of Supreme Court shall Register, the same as Regular
Writ Petition and listed the same for hearing.
- That Regular Writ Petition shall be heard on merit by a Division Bench of Supreme Court.
- In case of any urgency, a Petitioner can move for any urgent relief with the leave of the Supreme Court without applying
any of the above Rules.
22. That in fact I have taken great pain to make in depth study of the related matters to develop such suggestions.
However, on 29th March 1996 the Hon’ble Court of Chief Justice, headed by as then was Mr. A. M. Ahmadi in
open Court praised for the work done by me and suggested me to forward the said Draft of Model for Civil Procedure Code to
the Law Commission of India. I forwarded the Draft of Model for Civil Procedure Code to the Chairman of the Law Commission
of India by Letter dated 6th June 1996 by Registered Post in which I referred such verbal observations made by
Hon’ble Court. But, after some time Hon’ble Chief Justice of India as then was Mr. A. M. Ahmadi himself appointed
a Committee for recommendation on Civil Procedure Code, which should have been constituted with reference to said Writ Petition.
In fact recent amendments made in the Civil Procedure Code were adopted from the aforesaid Draft of Model for Civil Procedure
Code, without recognizing my name or my work.
23. That in considerations of the proceedings held in the aforesaid Writ Petitions on 15th May
1996 I filed Writ Petition (Civil) No. D-8304/96. On the same day i.e. 15th May 1996 Petitioner also filed another
Writ Petition (Civil) No. D-8305/96 praying therein inter alia to issue Directions upon the Election Commission of India inter
alia 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 information about such Criminal Proceedings received by the Commission.
24. That in considerations of withdrawal of earlier Writ Petition (Criminal) No.3/96 from the Hon’ble
Court, and observations made on 19th January 1996 as aforesaid by G.N.Ray, J. as then his Lordship was, on 21st
May 1996 I filed a fresh Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 8495/96, against blackmailing activities run by respective Mafia and
his associates, under political-crime-nexus with interalia following prayers: -
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;
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;
25. That as per my knowledge, withdrawal of my earlier Writ Petition (Criminal) No.3/96 without any contest
or hearing constitutes as non-exits, or non-filed. As such, when I filed, fresh Writ Petition (Criminal) No.D-8495/96, I not
mentioned any reference with regards to withdrawal of said Writ Petition (Criminal) No.3/96, nor I made any false statement.
Further more under the prevailing system Writ Petition should have been listed before the same Court of Mr. G. N. Ray, J.
as then he was where from it was withdrawn. But, under some arrangements or otherwise said Writ Petition was listed before
the Court headed by Dr. A. S. Anand, J. as then his Lordship was.
26. That in the said Writ Petition (Civil) No. D-8304/96 A.M.Ahmadi, C.J., as then he was made sole respondent,
considering that order dated 29th January 1996 made in Writ Petition (Civil) Diary No. 18372 of 1995 was passed
against the principle of jurisprudence, as by said order His Lordship passed that "we do not see any reason to multiply
petitions on the same issue" while on the same issue multiple petition were taken up for hearing. However, on 5th
August 1996 I, understood that Dr. A. S. Anand, J., as he then was determined to dismiss Writ Petitions filed by me on some
or other alleged grounds without going in the merit, under some egoism or biasness that why Petitioner like me was dare to
make A.M.Ahmadi, C.J., as then he was as sole respondent in the said Writ Petition.
27. That as a result aforesaid Writ Petition (Civil) No. D-8304/96 and Writ Petition (Criminal) No.D-8495/96
were dismissed. I submitted before the Court that Writ Petition (Criminal) No.D-8495/96 should have been listed and should
be forwarded to it, before the same Court wherefrom earlier Writ Petition was withdrawn by me. But, Dr. A. S. Anand, J., as
he then was already decided not heard anything from me, as such order was passed in Writ Petition (Civil) No. D-8304/96 as
"Upon hearing the petitioner the Court made the following
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 order of this Court dated 29.8.95, 29.1.96, 11.3.96 and 29.3.96 dismissing Writ Petition (Civil) Nos. 559/95; D-18372/95
and 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 merit. 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. This Writ Petition
is devole of the merit. It is accordingly dismissed."
28. That in Writ Petition (Criminal) No. D-8305/96 order was passed as follows:
"Upon hearing the petitioner the Court made the following
Recource of filling a writ petition under Article 32 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 the writ petition.
This is to say the least objectionable. The Writ Petition is dismissed."
29. That considering such developments after orders passed in the Two Writ Petitions I withdrawn my third
Writ Petition (Civil) No. D-8304/96 listed for the day before the same Court. I must refer that Recource of filing of Writ
Petition in the garb of the Curative Writ Petition is upheld by the Judgment dated 10th April 2002 by the Constitutional
Bench headed by S. P. Bharucha, J.
30. That in considerations of the orders made in the aforesaid Writ Petitions filed by me this was become
quite clear that orders were made either under some egoism or biasness, or otherwise under false representations or influence,
from some one as such on 5th September 1996 I submitted a formal complaint against Hon’ble Chief Justice
Mr. A. M. Ahamdi, as he then was and Hon’ble Justice Dr. A. S. Anand as he then was before Supreme Court of India through
9 senior most Judges of the Supreme Court including Hon’ble Chief Justice Mr. A. M. Ahamdi, as he then was and Hon’ble
Justice Dr. A. S. Anand as he then was by Regd. Post. Since the moral standard in the whole of the society is going down,
this is but natural that Supreme Court Judges being human beings may suffers from embracement of the circumstances, particularly
when system provides scope for the arbitrary-ness, as observed in the some of the Judgments. This is a matter of the fact,
as already explained and which every one including Judges are knows that once any one entered in the Office of the Supreme
Court Judge, practically removal from such office is equal to impossible, as such a concept is developed that Supreme Court
Judges are competent to commit knowingly or unknowingly errors, as such some have started misuse of the powers and abuse of
the authority. In some extent such errors were checked by the few Judgments including Judgments by Bench headed by S. P. Bharucha,
J. (Retired CJI) through Judgment dated 28th October 1998 and 10th April 2002. But, still corrections
to make Judiciary more accountable before the Law, without any interference from executive but by the judiciary itself, is
31. My said complaint was not considered on the basis of the merit, but just fallen in dust been considering
that it was against Hon’ble Chief Justice of India Mr. A. M. Ahmadi, as then he was and Dr. A. S. Anand, Hon’ble
Judge, as then he was, as if they are entitled to adopt arbitrariness, against the principle of non-arbitrariness which is
an essential attribute of the rule of law. In any case upon hearing, if complaint submitted by me could have been found to
be based on false and frivolous facts then for the protection of the efficacy of the judiciary this was mandatory Constitutional
obligation of the Supreme Court to initiate contempt proceedings against me, but sitting idle without any considerations of
the same was a clear case of denial of justice to me. While Judicial Officers find easy path to keep their mouth closed, and
nothing was done in respect of such complaint lodged by me.
32. That seeing silence on the part of the Judiciary with reference to such complaint, I decided to sit on
Fast un to death and served Notice dated 20th January 1997 upon Hon’ble Chief Justice Mr. A. M. Ahamdi, as
he then was and Hon’ble Justice Dr. A. S. Anand as he then was by Regd. Post., with copies to thousands Advocates, Non-Governmental
Organisations and others with reference to aforesaid Orders and complaint asking thereby inter alia as follows:-
"Therefore, for the restoration of the scope, meaning, and ambit of Article 32 of the Constitution, Your
Lordship should accept the accountability for violations of the Constitution and its proprietary, by tendering resignations
from the office of the Supreme Court Judges."
33. That thereafter Hon’ble Chief Justice Mr. A. H. Ahmadi decided to misuse his powers and authority
to make rules which can cause hurdles, obstacles and restrain me to move Supreme Court seeking enforcement of his fundamental
34. That the order passed on 29th January 1996 in the Writ Petition (Civil) No. 18372/1995 was
passed under the impact of some false representations against me or under influence, which appears from the order itself.
Order says that "A Writ Petition (c) No. 664/95 in relation to the same matter in
issue based on Vohra Committee Report is already under consideration in which the respondents were directed to produce the
authenticated copy of the Report, which has since been done. Since the Public Interest Petition is already before the Court
and the carriage of proceedings is not stated to be in wrong hands, we do not see any reason to multiply petitions on the
same issue and, therefore, we dispose of this petition on this ground". This is a peculiar
think that I am always acted for public good, in larger public interests, and worked for improvement of the system as referred
above have been referred by Hon’ble Chief Justice’s Court presided by A. M. Ahmadi, as he then was, and painted
me as "wrong hand" interalia observing that "by the carriage of proceedings is not stated to be in wrong hands",
while in a true sense a wrong hand was considered as a good hand. In fact Mr. Dinesh Trivedy M. P. filed his aforesaid Writ
Petition (Subsequent to my Writ Petition on the same issue) with reference to Vohra Committee Report, taking advantage of
his money powers, to create a political platform for himself, as he was lost any scope to win once again Parliament Seat from
Gujrat, and taking advantage of his aforesaid Writ Petition, he got a Ticket from West Bengal from Trinamul Congress, and
won the Rajya Sabha seat.
35. That in the said Writ Petition (Civil) No. 151 of 1996 I was intentions to define "appropriate proceedings"
for Writ Petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution, suggested appropriate Rules Under Article 145 (1) (c) of the Constitution
to ensure enforcement of the fundamental rights. In the said Writ Petition order was passed that "Place this petition before
Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India on the administrative side to consider the regulations of Public Interest Litigations",
while in the Writ Petition nothing was referred with regards to Public Interest Litigations. But, most surprisingly, after
developments as aforementioned, in 1997 it-self result appears in complete opposite directions from the object and purpose
of the Constitution, through the amendment made under Supreme Court Rules, 1966, with Rules having complete ambiguity. I made
such suggestions with object to ensure Rights to Remedy, without overburdening the Supreme Court. But, such amendments
were made with clear object to give wrong arms in Wrong Hands and caused ambiguity through confusing Rules to obstruct selected
people like me to restrain from moving the Supreme Court, in complete overturning the object and purpose of the Constitution.
36. That the orders made in Writ Petition (Civil) No. D-8304/96 and Writ Petition (Criminal) No. D-8305/96
having any meanings it means Supreme Court Judges are above of the law, or having empowered to ignore the oath taken under
the Constitution by overturning the essential Constitutional object and purpose to ensure enforcement of the fundamental Rights,
being basic structure of the Constitution as well as of the democracy.
37. That if orders passed in the Writ Petition (Criminal) No. D-8305/96 having any Constitutional bearings,
then Judgment dated 10th April 2002 pronounced by the Constitutional Bench headed by S. P. Bharucha, CJI, in Writ
Petition (C) No. 509 of 1997 & others (Supreme Court Cases (2002) 4 SCC Pages 388-426) should have been construed as unconstitutional,
under which, now "Recource of filling a writ petition under Article 32" become permissible, though under the garb of Curative
Writ Petitions. In the order by observing that "The understanding of the petitioner of the meaning, scope and ambit of Article
32 of the Constitution is to say the least, wholly fallacious.", Hon’ble Justice Dr. A. S. Anand as he then was tried
to encircled my fundamental rights by misusing his powers and abused his official position as a presiding Judge of the respective
Court, overruling the merit, scope and ambit of Article 32 of the Constitution, which causing bar even against Supreme Court
to suspend the right conferred by Article 32 of the Constitution on some technical or other grounds.
38. That in fact Writ Petition (Criminal) No. D-8305/96, by knowingly ignoring the prevailing practice, under
which matter should have been listed before the same Court, wherefrom, it was earlier withdrawn. However, now Recource of
filling of a writ petition under Article 32 become permissible, though under the garb of Curative Writ Petitions. In any case,
if Recource of filing of the Writ Petition under Article 32 was not permissible, then Hon’ble Mr. Justice G. N. Ray,
as he then was, according to said order had misguided me. Otherwise, under observations made by His Lordship I withdrawn the
said Writ Petition. In fact such types of the orders, dismissing on certain alleged technical grounds causes serious impacts
against justice, and responsible to strengthen the Mafia activities prevailing under the close Nexus with Powerful politicians
etc, as were referred in the Vohra Committee Report.
39. I came to know about some Rules inserted or substituted in Supreme Court Rules, 1966 after I filed Civil
Writ Petition, filed under filing Dairy No. No. 17454/2002 on 4th September 2002, which was refused to receive
on the false and flimsy grounds as were referred in Memo letter No. Writ Petition (Civil) Diary No. 17454/2002 dated 22.10.2002
by Registered Post under signature of (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.".
40. I flied another Writ Petition (Civil) No. D-22474 of 2003, on 29th October 2003, which was
too refused to receive and informed me through Memo Letter No. D. No. 5610/003/X dated 7th June 2004 by the Assistant
Registrar (Judl) informing thereby that "The Writ Petition above mentioned filed you was placed before the 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 Hon’ble Court under Order XVIII Rule 5 of S. C. R. 1966". The copy of Petition part of the Writ
Petition (Civil) No. D-22474/2003 is annexed hereinafter under Paragraph 41 and marked with the Annexure "A". This is my humble
request to both of Your Excellencies to go through the same to satisfy that matter of my suffering is evidence of entire system
failure, under Politics-Crime-Nexus, in which on the one side powerful politician like Shri Jyoti Basu is personally involved
to support blackmailing activities runs by Mafia and on the other side a common man like me is facing such circumstances,
and my fundamental rights are infringed severally and till date is continuing.
41. That I also submitting another application under Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code for according
sanction against persons holding respective offices of Registrar (Judicial) and Joint Registrar (Section-1-B) at the material
times, disobeying their official duties, caused un-repairable severe injuries to protect the interests of the Mafia, having
close Nexus with Powerful Politicians-bureaucrats-Advocates, in which I will refer their criminal conduct, caused under the
impact and garb of such Rules framed and inserted in 1997 under the Supreme Court Rules, 1966, overturning the object and
purpose of the Constitution. A copy of the same is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure "A". I am not repeating the argument
42. That any documents referred in the Application, if required, I am ready to submit, as and when I am directed
to do so.
43. Therefore, this is my humble prayers before Your Excellencies with object to ensure probity in the judiciary
by examining the matters referred herein and after satisfying with the same grant according sanction to prosecute Justice
A. M. Ahmadi, and Justice Dr. A. S. Anand both retired as Chief Justice of India, for knowing fully disobeyed the true faith
and allegiance to the Constitution of India as by law established to cause un-repairable severe damage to my fundamental rights,
which knowingly or un-knowingly protected the illegal rights of Mafia elements having close Nexus with Powerful Politicians-bureaucrats-Advocates
by not performing their duties without any fear or favour, and ill-will and not with intention to uphold the Constitution
and the Laws.
44. Since, Justice is my fundamental Right, and if Constitutional functionary may not ready to take appropriate
action on the matter, this may be appropriate for me to go to public for justice by publishing a Book, containing copies of
respective Writ Petitions, respective correspondences, applications etc and to lunch a movement against prevailing situations,
both in the executive or in judiciary in favour of Mafia elements, under Political-Bureaucratic-Nexus.
Your Excellency’s faithfully
A Law abiding Citizen of India,