With reference to my Letter dated 25^th February, 2005 (copy enclosed), I would like to submit that Constituent Assembly of India armed with the untrammeled Powers and Authority to Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India to ensure "REMEDY". During the debate in the Constituent Assembly of India held on Article 32 of the Constitution of India on 9th December, 1948, the (First Speaker of Lok Sabha) Shri M. Ananthasayanam Ayyangar interalia says that "If the fundamental rights of the individual are left to the tender mercies of the Government of the day, they cannot be called fundamental rights at all". Founding father of the Constitution Dr. B. R. Ambedkar concluded the debate interalia saying that: "… there can be no right unless the Constitution provides a remedy for it. It is the remedy that makes a right real. If there is no remedy, there is no right of all, and I am therefore not prepared to burden the Constitution with a number of pious declarations which may sound as glittering generalities but for which the Constitution makes no provision by way of a remedy. It is much better to be limited in the scope of our rights and to make them real by enunciating remedies than to have a lot of pious wishes embodied in the Constitution. I am very glad that this House has seen that the remedies that we have provided constitute a fundamental part of this Constitution.)". None of the speakers / members of the Constituent Assembly objected such observations. While as on today Founding Fathers such aspirations has been doomed.

During the course of several years, knowingly or unknowingly, Supreme Court reduced its efficacy enshrined under Article 32 of the Constitution, after wrong interpretation of the "State" under Article 12 of the Constitution, as was lastly appeared in last 3 lines of Para 7 of the Judgment dated 10^th April 2002, 388-428 SCC (2002) 4 SCC that "It may be further noted that the superior courts of justice do not fall within the ambit of State or other authorities under Article 12 of the Constitution". Resultantly, mindset of the Supreme Court gradually but slowly started to shift from its responsibility as a Guardian, Guarantor and Watchdog-Protector of the rights guaranteed under Article 32 of the Constitution as held by Six Judge Bench (AIR:1950,Sc: 124, Kania CJ, Fazl Ali, Patanjali Sastri, Mahajan, B.K.Mokherjea, And Das JJ.), 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" towards complete negative directions that "………… it is a settled position in law that no judicial order passed by any superior court in judicial proceedings can be said to violate any of the fundamental rights enshrined in Part III", in spite of the fact that by Judgment Dated 10^th April 2002 (388-426 (2002) 4 SCC) Supreme Court observed interalia under Para 23 that "These contentions pose the question, whether an order passed by this Court can be corrected under its inherent powers after dismissal of the review petition on the ground that it was passed either without jurisdiction or in violation of the principles of natural justice or due to unfair procedure giving scope for bias which resulted in abuse of the process of the court or miscarriage of justice to an aggrieved person" and also at Para 62 that "does it, however, mean and imply a closed door even if the order of this Court depicts that the same stands in violation of natural justice adversely and seriously affecting the rights of the parties or the same depicts manifest injustice rendering the order a mockery of justice".

Such interpretation of the "State" was held without considering that Supreme Court Judges are appointed by the Constitutional Authority, i.e. President of India and can be removed by the another Constitutional Authority i.e. Parliament of India and such removing Authority i.e. Parliament of India admittedly covered within the ambit of the "State" under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Such wrong interpretation was held to justify application of the principle of finality of the Order of the Supreme Court (Nine Judge Bench (AIR 1967 SC 1:(1966) 3, SCR 744) Judgment), which was decided without considering that it may change the ambit and may effect efficacy of the Article 32 of the Constitution and may allow Supreme Court Judges to pass orders "either without jurisdiction or in violation of the principles of natural justice or due to unfair procedure giving scope for bias which resulted in abuse of the process of the court or miscarriage of justice to an aggrieved person,".