|
This Writ Petition (Civil) is filed under Article 32 of
the Constitution of India, for the enforcement of the fundamental rights of the Petitioner, completely suspended by miscarriage
of Justice, mostly similar to observations made in different paragraphs including 23, 42, 62, 68 and 69 by Five Judge Bench
by its Judgment Dated 10th April 2002 388-426 (2002) 4 SCC. Whether,
knowingly or unknowingly Miscarriage of justice always causing very dangerous impacts against the aggrieved persons (like Petitioner), and in furtherance to it,
upon the society as a whole. In the whole Constitution Supreme Court nowhere is empowered to cause miscarriage of the justice,
abuse of the judicial proceedings and orders without jurisdiction or under bias, while Five Judge Bench by Judgment Dated
10th April 2002 388-426 (2002) 4 SCC under the impact of the finality of the final order of the Supreme Court in
Para 58 by holding interalia that There is not denial of the fact that the right exists to move this Court for enforcement
of the rights conferred by Part III of the Constitution and stands conferred in terms of Article 32 and the language used
therein is of widest possible amplitude but as regards the issuance of writs, the view seems to be rather well settled, in
the negative, virtually admitted, that in respect of the proceedings under Article 32 of the Constitution, miscarriage of the justice, abuse of the judicial proceedings and orders
without jurisdiction or under bias are possible. While such holding
is completely inconsistent with the scope, meaning, ambit and object of Article 32 of the Constitution, because in respect
of the Proceedings under Article 32 of the Constitution, principle of the finality of the final order of the Supreme Court
have been settled, without considering the eyes opener substantial question of Law that Supreme Court have two independent,
separate and untrammeled, from each other responsibilities under Part III and Chapter IV; Part V of the Constitution, which
virtually dividing the Supreme Court in to two separate Supreme Courts: 1) under Chapter IV; Part V of the Constitution Supreme
Court is having Supreme authority of Indian Judiciary; 2) under Article 13 and 32 under Part III of the Constitution Supreme
Court having with Supreme responsibility of the guardian, guarantor and watchdog armed with unchallenged, untrammeled, and
unrestricted Supreme Powers to protect Indian democracy by protecting the Fundamental Rights of the Individuals. There is
no compatibility or match between those two independent, separate and untrammeled responsibilities, and as explained hereinafter
in detail, cannot and should not be mixed up. In fact in respect of the Proceedings under Article 32 of the Constitution,
application of Non-Maintainable principle of finality of the final order of the Supreme Court has opened the scope of miscarriage
of the justice, abuse of the judicial proceedings and orders without jurisdiction or under bias are possible, thus causes
complete opposite impacts from observations made at Para 42 of the said Judgment, interalia that The concern of this Court for rendering justice in a cause is not less important than the principle of finality
of its judgment. But, even after such observations the said Judgment in the matter of the Petitioner, miscarriage of justice
could not be removed, as the Judgment could not come out from the impact of principle of the finality of the final order of
the Supreme Court. Therefore, a Larger Bench should be constituted to hold that the Principle of the finality of the final
order of the Supreme Court inferred under Article 147 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable in respect of the Petitions
under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
Under the miscarriage of justice, infringement of the fundamental
rights of the Petitioner, based on the State sponsored black-mailing activities, caused by the Mafiadom controlled by the
Respondent No. 25 with the help and support from his associates including Respondent No. 26 to 32 and relations, become absolute,
completely inconsistent with the most important core principles of the jurisprudence that the
Justice must be above all and another core principle of the rule of law which says, Be you ever so
high, the law is above you., and opened the doors to effect the fairness of the judiciary. While Article 32 of
the Constitution as last resort gives clear directions to ensure complete Justice. In fact miscarriage of the justice,
caused severe sufferings for the Petitioner similar to the observations made Per Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri J. (for C.J.
and himself, Variava and Patil JJ.) at Para 23 in Judgment Dated 10th April 2002 388-426 (2002) 4 SCC 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 in Para 42 The concern of this Court for rendering justice in a cause
is not less important than the principle of finality of its judgment and Per Banerjee, J. 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 and Para 68 and 69 interalia that Manifest injustice is curable in nature rather than incurable.
If such injustice is not cured the Supreme Court would lose its sanctity and thus would belie the expectations of the founding
fathers that justice is above all.
Suspension of the fundamental rights of the Petitioner are
completely inconsistent with the later, sprit and object of Article 32 of the Constitution, and can be removed only with the
constitution of a Larger Bench to hold that Supreme Court have Two independent, separate and untrammeled from each other responsibilities
under Part III and Chapter IV of the Constitution, dividing the Supreme Court in to two separate Supreme Courts.
Situation, under which miscarriage of the justice, abuse
of the judicial proceedings and orders without jurisdiction or under bias were become possible, developed due to dependence
of the Indian Judiciary upon the British Privy Council Judgments in most of the important Judgments, as it also appears from
the Judgment Dated 10th April 2002 388-426 (2002) 4 SCC. In fact aforesaid Judgment moved in a very right direction,
but under the impact of the principle of the finality of the final order of the Supreme Court could not hold completely consistent
with the Article 32 of the Constitution. China
is not following the Judgments from any other country, including British Privy Council. Indian Judges too can show much better
intelligence, if instead depending upon the Judgments from outsides, they made judgments by application of their own judicial
minds in considerations of Indian conditions and environments. Indian Judges are not less competent then Judges from any other
country, including Britain.
Under the impact of the prevailed situation caused by such
principle, embracement of the Judicial Officers, with immunity become possible as examples are referred in the Writ Petition.
In China with object to clean-up the countrys judicial system, Judiciary itself taken appropriate measures to correct 8,110
out of 14,993 wrong Judgments in respect to application to the law, and just in the period of eight months nearly 5,000 judges
or prosecutors were punished as were appeared in a News published in the Hindustan Times dated 18th September 1998,
photocopy of which is annexed as ANNEXURE A-69 to the Writ Petition. Indian Judiciary should follow in principle that any
Judicial Officer worked under embracement will be not spared, and should adopt the measures to prevent miscarriage of justice,
abuse of judicial proceedings or orders without jurisdiction or under bias. Supreme Court should examine the matters referred
by the Petitioner in the instant Writ Petition and should adopt measures to ensure that in future Mafiadom cannot take any
advantage or benefit through embracement of the Judicial Officers, rather they will suffer exemplary stringent punishment
so in future no one can even think to embrace any Judicial Officer or misuse the platform of Administration of Justice by
any criminal means to legalise their illegal actions and criminal acts, and further more to evolving a mechanism to make administration
accountable for non-action or ill-action or omission or commission even after receipt of complaints, applications, representations
etc.
In the context
Petitioner humbly submit that upon hearing on merit, if this Writ Petition proved as vicious or based on any frivolous or
contains scandalous matters, or Honble Court satisfied that the Petitioner at any material time have ever acted malevolently
or with any malafide intention or that the instant Petition is not a fit case for enforcement of his fundamental rights, in
such a case Petitioner should suffer stringent punishment for misuse of the rights to remedy provided under Article 32 of
the Constitution.
That aforesaid observations made in Judgment Dated 10th April 2002
388-426 (2002) 4 SCC having complete relevance in respect of the matters relates to infringement of the fundamental rights
of the Petitioner, enforcement of which were suspended by the orders passed in the Writ Petitions filed by the Petitioner.
In spite of affirmative observations made in the said Judgment, Per Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri J. (for C.J. and himself,
Variava and Patil JJ.) Dated 10th April 2002 388-426 (2002) 4 SCC; simultaneously stand taken in respect of
the Principle of the finality of the final orders of the Supreme Court, curative passage was provided with very very limited
scope, which is not viable in the matter of the Petitioner, for enforcement of his fundamental rights. Infringement of fundamental
rights of the Petitioner are unprecedented of its own nature and kind from the whole of the country, as the Mafia elements
particularly Respondent 25 to 32 with the help of the State Respondents and under Nexus with powerful politician not less
than stature of Shri Jyoti Basu the then Chief Minister of West Bengal has caused the same. Shri Jyoti Basu openly and evidently
misused his powers and abused his authority to cause severe infringement of the fundamental rights of the Petitioner for the
monetary gains and benefits of the Mafiadom or for indirect or direct advantage of his son Shri Chandan Basu, by arranging
protections for the criminals who were acted on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 25 to 32 causing various criminal acts by criminal
means and methods, including attempts to murder of the Petitioner and his son. Shri Jyoti Basu further misused his powers
and abused his authority to cause severe infringement of the fundamental rights of the Petitioner by arranging embracement
of a large number of the Judicial Officers and large number of Petitioners Lawyers to deprive the Petitioner his most important
rights to get Justice. Under misuse of the powers and abuse of the authority by and full protection from Shri Jyoti Basu,
the Government machinery belongs to the State of West Bengal and Kolkata Municipal Corporation openly and blatantly parted
in the blackmailing activities caused by the Respondent Nos. 25 to 32. At the same time Central Government did not take appropriate
actions in respect of the matters based on use of huge black money, thus strengthened the Mafia activities of the Respondent
Nos. 25 to 32 and their associates. Fundamental rights of the Petitioner were infringed by various means and methods interalia
in the following manner:
1)
Under protection from Shri Jyoti Basu personally to the criminals involved in the Plots hatched, under which
severe attempt to murder of the Petitioner taken place and subsequently severe attempt to murder of son of the Petitioner,
by staging a Truck accident; for instance infringement of the fundamental rights of the Petitioner were started in the year
of 1982 when under political influence and implied instructions from Shri Jyoti Basu, the then Chief Minister of West Bengal,
the State Respondents discriminate the Petitioner by not taking appropriate actions in the several matters including Behala
Police Station (South 24-Parganas District, under West Bengal Police) Case Nos. 38(7)83 dated 14th July 1983, 91(12)83
dated 29th December 1983, 106(2)84 dated 29th February 1984, 4(3)84 dated 2nd March 1984,
54(2)85 dated 19th February 1985, 67(7)86 dated 18th July 1986, Sec. VZ. C/No. 30 dated 22nd
February 1991 of the New Alipore Police Station (under Kolkata Police), First Information Report dated 18th October
1994 and dated 21st January 1995 both lodged by Registered Post to Golabari Police Station (Howrah District- under
West Bengal Police), First Information Report dated 27th November 1999 Lodged by Registered Post to Behala Police
Station (South 24-Parganas District, under West Bengal Police) against demolition of the boundrywall and stolen of the Goods,
and lives and liberties of the Petitioner were made miserable, and till date infringement of the fundamental rights of the
Petitioner were caused as he is suffering atrocity of severe intensity with dangerous magnitude, as lastly appears from the
information given by one Mina Lal Bhansali, and simultaneous other reports that the Respondent No. 26 (being member of Mafiadom
controlled by the Respondent No. 25 and front men of Shri Chandan Basu) had spent about Rs.8,00,000/- to kill the Petitioner
and to grab the property of the Petitioner under false and created claim that property is belonged to Respondent No. 28;
2)
Constant protection from Shri Jyoti Basu, to arrange support from Police for the criminal acts by criminal means
caused by the Respondent No. 25 to 32 and their associates, starting from 1982 without any rest till date;
3)
With the direct help, support and protections from Shri Jyoti Basu, various blackmailing activities were caused
by the State of West Bengal and Kolkata Municipal Corporation through various means and methods and results of such blackmailing
activities still having complete impacts;
4)
Embracement of the large number of the Judicial Officers at each and every level to sabotage the Judicial proceedings
to obstruct the rights of the Petitioner to get justice and to obtain Orders or Judgments which were not due under the law
even some cases through evidently interpolations or forgery in the order sheets, under the open support and protection from
Shri Jyoti Basu;
5)
Through various means and methods Mafiadom tried its best level to implicate in various false and fraudulent
criminal cases including one Rule nisi was obtained by filing false affidavit of service in one Contempt Proceeding initiated
against Petitioner before Honble Kolkata High Court. But, when the matter of false affidavit of service with strong evidence
was placed in the notice of the Honble Court, petitioner was compelled
to flea from Kolkata and to live in hiding till date;
6)
Influence upon each and every Lawyers of the Petitioner to sabotage the Court proceedings and not allow the
Petitioner to get justice, up to the Supreme Court, as Respondent No.23 was influenced;
7)
With the help of the muscle men, such a situation was created, and still prevailed, under which Petitioner have
left no other option but to flea from Kolkata and still have to live under hiding;
8)
Under political influence or otherwise Central Government taken no action against use of huge black money, thus
encouraged Mafiadom of the Respondent No. 25 to 32;
9)
Request by the Petitioner before the Central Government for Security produces zero results; and
10)
Orders in the Writ Petitions filed before the Supreme Court by the Petitioner under Article 32 of the Constitution,
were passed which depicts manifest injustice, impact of which virtually translated as protection for the criminal activities
by criminal means of the Mafiadom of Respondent No. 25 to 32.
That the Respondent No 25 and his associates including the Respondent No.
26 to 32 and support, protection from the Government machinery and with the help has caused severe, constant, regular and
continuous infringement of the fundamental rights of the Petitioner through atrocities with intensity having with severe magnitude,
with the help of criminals. Such rights were completely embedded when severe misuse of the powers and abuse of the authority
by Shri Jyoti Basu, the then Chief Minister of West Bengal, were caused personally under hands in glove with the unscrupulous
businessmen-turned-mafia Respondent No. 25 knowing fully well, by all means and method to takes away the livelihoods and lives
of the family members and Petitioner himself making it miserable. Respondent No. 25 and his associates, including Respondent
No. 26 to 32 have causes embracement of a large number of Judicial Officer and each and every Advocate of the Petitioner and
with the help of large number of anti-socials caused such a serious situation which can ensure depriving him from his rights
to get justice. The infringement of such rights of the Petitioner is still effective with the same grave situation.
That the Petitioner has suffered 42 stab wounds all over his body inflicted
under the plot hatched by Respondent No. 25, and his associates including the Respondent Nos. 27, 28, 29 31 and 32. The Mafiadom
controlled by the respondent No. 25 with the help of the Respondent Nos. 26 to 32 and others now active against the Petitioner
was developed when misappropriation of public funds to the tune of about Rs.15 crores was caused, when Shri Kamal Basu, the
then Mayor of Respondent No. 19 under influence from Shri Jyoti Basu, the then Chief Minister of West Bengal, arranged contract
for rebuilding of the burnt portion of New (Hogg) Market in favour of M/S. Martin Burn Limited, a Company controlled and managed
by the Respondent No.25 and his relations. After said contract Respondent No. 19 adopted one after another ways and means
to support blackmailing activities run by the said Mafiadom. Embracement of the Judicial Officers and Advocates of the Petitioner
were arranged vehemently with the help and support from Shri Jyoti Basu and other influential people, to provide legal coverage
to blackmailing activities run by said Mafiadom against the Petitioner and protections were provided by the State of West
Bengal to the culprits as they were hand in glove with each other to grab the property of the Petitioner. The Petitioner was
stabbed with knives several times and his sons legs were crushed by a staged truck accident, caused under Police protection,
putting their lives in danger and fundamental rights at a severe stake, with constant threats to his family members and him
in Kolkata, as a result he and his entire family had to flea from Kolkata to New Delhi, and still compelled to live under
hiding. God knows, whether after going back from the Court premises Petitioner will reach or not at his residence, as agents
of the said Mafiadom are equally active in Delhi too.
That the
principle of finality of final order of the Supreme Court, (Nine Judge Bench (AIR 1967 SC 1:(1966) 3, SCR 744) Judgment)
which virtually derived or inferred from Chapter IV of the Constitution is perfectly maintainable in respect of the matters
covered under Chapter IV of the Constitution, but without appropriate measures to prevent miscarriage of justice, abuse of
judicial process or orders without jurisdiction or under bias, not maintainable in respect of the Article 32 of the Part III
of the Constitution. Whereas till now Principle of finality of final order of the Supreme Court is equally made applicable
in respect of the matters covered under Part III of the Constitution thus in the matter of the Petitioner resulted not less
than oppressive to judicial conscience, thus perpetuated irremediable injustice for the Petitioner and translated
as protections for the criminal acts by criminal means of the Respondent Nos. 25 to 32.
After holding
of the principle of finality of final order of the Supreme Court, (Nine Judge Bench (AIR 1967 SC 1:(1966) 3, SCR 744) Judgment)
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 Part III of the Constitution interalia as were hold 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 the 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, while such shifting was completely
not consistent with the object, scope, meaning and ambit of Article 32 of the
Constitution, and caused hands off from the responsibility laid upon the Supreme Court by the founding fathers, as evident
from the matters of the Petitioner.
That the matters concerned with the infringement of fundamental rights relates
to Public Interest at large or relates to individuals are equally important and cannot and should not be ignored one for another.
But, under the impact of principle of finality of final order of the Supreme Court, (Nine Judge Bench (AIR 1967 SC 1:(1966)
3, SCR 744) Judgment) emphasis was shifted towards Public Interest Litigations, while matters relates to infringement
of the fundamental rights of individuals completely ignored as Petitioner experienced, because whenever he moved the Petitions
in person, manifest injustice was granted him without hearing the matters on merit, inconsistent with the rights guaranteed
under Article 32 of the Constitution.
That the concept of independent, separate, untrammeled from each other two
responsibilities of the Supreme Court under Part III and Chapter IV of the Constitution is clearly apparent from Article 131
of the Constitution which defined Original Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, in which original jurisdictions of the Supreme
Court provided under Article 13 and 32 under Part III of the Constitution are not included. In fact from the entire Chapter
IV of the Constitution Jurisdiction and Powers of the Supreme Court with regards to Part III of the Constitution cannot be
inferred.
That the efficacy of Supreme Court under Article 141 of the Constitution just
defined that the law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all Courts within territory of India, which
having much lesser efficacy from the efficacy of Supreme Court defined under Article 12 of the Constitution.
That by the said Judgment dated 10 the April 2002 388-428 SCC (2002) 4 SCC
it was held that under Article 32, 132, 133, 134, 136, 226 and 12 of the Constitution of India Supreme Court cannot issue
a Writ to a High Court or one Bench of Supreme Court cannot issue a writ to another Bench of the Supreme Court even if the
latter is a smaller oneMore so because neither a Judicial order passed by a superior court can be said to be violative of
fundamental rights nor are the superior courts State within the meaning of Art 12. Such interpretation is based on at
most dependence of the Indian Judiciary upon the English Law, as it appears from the Paragraph 6 of the Said Judgment Per
Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri J. (for C.J. and himself, Variava and Patil JJ.) Dated 10th
April 2002 388-426 (2002) 4 SCC. English law is not suitable for Indian requirements, and conditions, nor consistent
with the object, scope, meaning and ambit of Article 32 of the Constitution, and on the basis of reports, Petitioner humbly
submits that now neither binding under Indian Independence treaty. Therefore, from the said judgment Para
6 is giving impressions that efficacy of the Supreme Court is not independent and still tagged with the English law. Otherwise,
under Part III of the Constitution Supreme Court is superior court even over the Supreme Court under Chapter IV of the Constitution,
and competent to issue Writ of Certiorari. Under the aforesaid observations provisions under Article 132, 133, 134,
136, 226 of the Constitution has been mixed up with provisions under Article 12 and 32 of the Constitution to infer powers
or jurisdictions with regards to provisions under Part III of the Constitution, whereas Article 132, 133, 134, 136, 226 of
the Constitution have no relevance or concerned with the provisions provided under Part III of the Constitution, as the Supreme
Court under Part III have completely independent, separate, untrammeled responsibility from Chapter IV of the Constitution,
which further apparent from Article 139 Chapter IV of the Constitution, which provides that: Conferment on the Supreme
Court of powers to issue certain writs, that Parliament may by law confer on Supreme Court power to issue directions, orders
or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, 0mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, or any of them,
for any purposes other than those mentioned in clause (2) of article 32, with clear object to define the separate responsibility
of the Supreme Court under Chapter IV of the Constitution. Under Clause (2) of Article 32 of the Constitution provides The
Supreme Court shall have powers to issue directions or orders or writ, including writs in nature of habeas corpus, mandamus,
prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred
by this part which means for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by part III, if necessary a Larger Bench can
issue a certiorari Writ to a Smaller Bench. Even today the application of the principle of finality of final order
of the Supreme Court is a Nine Judge Bench certiorari Writ upon the Smaller Benches. Similarly from a majority Judgment
effect is given to the Judgment passed by the majority of the judges, as because such part of the Judgment constitutes as
certiorari Writ. Several other Judgments can be referred to that effect at the time of hearing of the Petition.
Further more the observations interalia made in last 3 lines of Para 7 of
the Judgment dated 10th 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 is not
at all consistent with the scope, meaning, ambit, object and scheme of Article 12 of the Constitution. From the words The
State includes it is ample clear that the ambit of Article 12 of the Constitution is not just limited to the Government
and Parliament of India and the Government and the Legislature of each States and all local or other authorities within the
territory of India or under the control of the Government of India rather much much wider, and as such a responsible guardian,
guarantor and watchdog Supreme Court, having armed with unchallenged, untrammeled, and unrestricted Supreme Powers to
protect Indian democracy by protecting the Fundamental Rights of Individuals need not to infer such a interpretations. Otherwise
such is a situation arises similar to when a Medical Doctor, whose profession is to give a new lease of life to a dying person,
if claims that death by his hand in no case can be treated as a murder, over ruling the most important core principles of
the jurisprudence that that Justice must be above all and the core principle of the rule of law which says, Be you
ever so high, the law is above you, as and when principle of finality of final order of the Supreme Court was made applicable,
thus orders passed under bias, or under abuse of the judicial process, or miscarriage of the justice were causes, which also
effects a fair judiciary as observations were made in majority Judgment in Criminal Appeal No.400 of 1979 decided on July
25, 1991, particularly referred under Paragraph 56, 79 & 80 of the said Judgment, which interalia held that
While there are various protections afforded to Judges
to preserve the independence of the judiciary, there is no law providing protection for Judges from criminal prosecution.
The societys demand for honest is a judge is exacting and absolute. The standards of judicial behaviour, both on and off the
bench, are normally extremely high. For a Judge to deviate from such standards of honesty and impartiality is to betray the
trust reposed in him. No excuse or no legal relativity can condone such betrayal. From the standpoint of justice the size
of the bribe or scope of corruption cannot be the scale for measuring a Judges dishonour. A single dishonest Judge not only
dishonours himself and disgraces his office but jeopardizes the integrity of the entire judicial system. A judicial scandal
has always been regarded as far more deplorable than a scandal involving either the executive or a member of the legislature.
The slightest hint of irregularity or impropriety in the court is a cause for great anxiety and alarm.
That object of Article 32 of the Constitution was to ensure ultimate right
of remedy against infringement of fundamental rights. This is very important that in the entire Constitution, Supreme Court
is not empowered nor have been impliedly empowered to cause miscarriage of justice, abuse of judicial process or orders without
jurisdiction or under bias, therefore the interpretation 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 suggests
otherwise or ancient and not consistent with the most important core principles of the jurisprudence that that Justice
must be above all and the core principle of the rule of law which says, Be you ever so high, the law is above you.
In fact such interpretation is inferred under the changing mind set of the Supreme Court as aforesaid and responsible for
development of such a situation as observed in Judgment Dated 10th April 2002 388-426 (2002) 4 SCC as aforesaid,
from which sufferings of the Petitioner correctly and truly reflected the under the impacts of the Order passed in his Writ
Petition.
That at prima-facie from the entire Chapter IV of the Constitution only Articles
145(1)( c) appears as relevant with Part III of the Constitution. But, even this Articles 145(1)( c) of the Constitution is
no way concerned with the Jurisdiction or Powers of the Supreme Court under Part III of the Constitution.
That from the language of provision provided under Article 147 of the Constitution
it is ample clear that the Supreme Court empowered to make interpretation with reference In this Chapter and Chapter V
of Part VI, references to any substantial question of law as to the interpretation of this Constitution shall be construed
as including references to any substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Government of India Act, 1935 or
of any Order in Council or order made thereunder, or of the Indian Independence
Act, 1947, or of any order made thereunder. From the words In this Chapter and, Chapter V of Part VI, it is ample
clear that Part III of the Constitution is not included in the scope, meaning and ambit of the interpretation under Article
147 of the Constitution.
That apart from the aforesaid language of Article 147 of the Constitution
from the factual position this is further clear that The Fundamental Rights never exists in the Government of India Act, 1935
nor were subject matter of the orders passed by any Council whether the word Council denotes to British Privy Council or not,
nor were subject matter of Indian Independence Act, 1947, which was enacted as per agreement between the Indian National Congress
and British Government, based on the proposal of the Cabinet Mission from the British Government, nor it is inferred from
any provision that Supreme Court is empowered to change meaning of any provision of the Part III of the Constitution. Therefore,
Article 147 of the Constitution does not included the Powers of the Supreme Court to make interpretation of substantial question
of Law in respect of the Provisions provided Under part III of the Constitution. However, such Power is included in Article
32 of the Constitution itself, and cannot be inferred from anywhere else.
That from the compatibility of Article 13 of the Constitution and Article
147 of the Constitution this will be clear that later is much inferior efficacy than Article 13 of the Constitution. Therefore,
interpretation of Article 13 cannot be made under Article 147 of the Constitution. Under Article 13 of the Constitution Supreme
Court have been constituted as Guardian, Guarantor and watchdog to protect the fundamental rights guaranteed under
Part III of the Constitution to protect such rights even from laws in force includes laws passed or made by a Legislature
or other competent authority in the territory of India immediately before the commencement of the Constitution inconsistent
with Part III or any law includes any Ordinance, order, bye-laws, rule, regulation, notification, etc., which takes away or
abridges the rights conferred by Part III shall not be made by the State otherwise in so far as they are inconsistent with
or contravention of Part III, empowered to declare as void, while under Chapter IV of the Constitution Supreme Court is
not empowered with such or even similar to such powers. Interpretation under Article 147 under Chapter IV of the Constitution
can be made with .references to any substantial question of law as to the interpretation of this Constitution shall be
construed as including references to any substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Government of India Act,
1935 or of any Order in Council or order made thereunder, or of the Indian Independence
Act, 1947, or of any order made thereunder. From the plain reading of Article 13 of the Constitution this will be ample
clear that laws in force includes laws passed or made by a Legislature or other competent authority in the territory of
India immediately before the commencement of the Constitution which includes the Government of India Act, 1935 or the
Indian Independence Act, 1947, or of any order made thereunder which includes Order in Council, inconsistent with
Part III or any law includes any Ordinance, order, bye-laws, rule, regulation, notification, etc., which takes away or abridges
the rights conferred by Part III shall not be made by the State otherwise in so far as they are inconsistent with or contravention
of Part III, empowered to declare as void. Article 13 of the Constitution armed with extreme supreme powers, while Article
147 of the Constitution, having limited efficacy or powers, thus cannot be compatible to make interpretation of Part III of
the Constitution. Further more subject matter of Part III of the Constitution Fundamental Rights, never exists in the Government
of India Act, 1935 nor were subject matter of the orders passed by any Council even if the word Council denotes to British
Privy Council, nor were subject matter of Indian Independence Act, 1947. Indian Independence Act, 1947 was enacted as per
agreement between the Indian National Congress and British Government, based on the proposal of the Cabinet Mission from the
British Government. Therefore any Judgment pronounced or order made under Chapter IV of the Constitution cannot be made applicable
in respect of Part III of the Constitution. But, without examining the merits, orders passed in the Writ Petition filed and
moved by the Petitioner for enforcement of his fundamental rights, by the Supreme Court under the impact of such principles
takes away or abridges his rights conferred by Part III of the Constitution, thus caused impacts not less than oppressive
to judicial conscience, thus perpetuated irremediable injustice for the Petitioner and translated into virtual umbrella
for the mafia activities prevailing against the Petitioner.
The scheme and object of Article 32 of the Constitution can be explained from
the debate of the Constituent Assembly, as were submitted by Shri M. Ananthasayanam Ayyangar:
(subsequently who was elected as the Speaker of the 1st Lok Sabha) during the debate on Article 32 (then
it was Article 25) of the Constitution of India held in the Constituent Assembly of India on 9th December 1946,
that: the Supreme Court according to me is the Supreme guardian of the citizens rights in any democracy. I would even go
further and say that it is the soul of democracy. The executive which comes into being for the time being is apt to abuse
its powers, and therefore the Supreme Court must be there, strong and un-trammeled by the day to day passions which may bring
a set of people into power and throw them out also in a very short time. In less than three or four years during which a parliament
is in being, many governments may come and go, and if the fundamental rights of the individual are left to the tender mercies
of the Government of the day, they cannot be called fundamental rights at all. and further that: These and other rights
must be carefully watched and for this purpose the Supreme Court has been vested with the supreme ultimate jurisdiction.
That the
Writ Petition (Civil) under Article 32 of the Constitution of India is filed, as last resort for the enforcement of the fundamental
rights of the petitioner, just consistent with and guarantees under clause (1) and (4) and directions upon Supreme Court under
Clause (2) all of Article 32 of the Constitution, providing last but guaranteed resort to ensure remedies for enforcement
of rights guaranteed under Part III and Article 32 itself of the Constitution. Clause (2) of Article 32 of the Constitution
directed Supreme Court that The Supreme Court shall have powers to issue directions or orders or writ, including writs
in nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement
of any of the rights conferred by this part, with conditions under clause (4) of the Article 32 of the Constitution that
The right guaranteed by this article shall not be suspended except as otherwise provided for by this Constitution and
with further conditions under clause (1) of Article 32 of the Constitution provides that The right to move the Supreme
Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the rights conferred by this Part (Part III) is guaranteed. In
such a situation a Supreme Court is empowered to remove infringement of Fundamental Rights and to ensure their enforcement,
thus cannot be derived or inferred any adverse interpretation having inconsistency with clause (1) (2) (4) of Article 32 of
the Constitution.
That the Jurisdiction and powers including the powers of interpretation in
respect of Part III of the Constitution of India is clearly referred, defined, derived and inferred from Clause (1), (2) and
(4) of Article 32 of the Constitution of India itself and cannot be imported from outside, which imposing a strict restriction
upon all authority including Supreme Court itself by providing that the right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate
proceeding for enforcement of the rights conferred by this Part is guaranteed and that the right guaranteed by this
article shall not be suspended except as otherwise provided for by this Constitution, therefore, no other interpretation
can be made or inferred which takes away or abridges the rights conferred under Part III of the Constitution of India or contrary
to responsibility laid upon the Supreme Court for enforcement of the fundamental rights.
That there is no scope of any doubt that separate, independent and untrammeled
Principle of finality of final orders of Supreme Court is warranted in respect of Part-III of the Constitution also, but simultaneously
measures to prevent miscarriage of justice, abuse of judicial process or orders without jurisdictions or under any bias also
necessary, to fulfill the objects of the Guarantees provided under Clause (1) and (4) of Article 32 of the Constitution. But,
without having such measures application of the principle of the finality of the final order of the Supreme Court inferred
from Chapter IV of the Part V of the Constitution have caused severe reverse impact against the Fundamental Rights of the
Petitioner being guaranteed under clause (1) and (4) of Article 32 of the Constitution and virtually translated as protection
for criminal acts by criminal means caused by the Respondent Nos. 25 to 32. Under their Nexus with Powerful Politicians and
bureaucrats, and under non-actions or favours from Union of India and State of West Bengal
and under embracement of large number of judicial officers and Advocates made lives and liberties of the Petitioner and his
family members as miserable with severe magnitude. Learned Mr. Rajiv Dhawan, Senior Lawyer of Supreme Court, described the
miserable situation of the Petitioner by his Letter dated 4th December 1995 interalia that Many thanks for your
letter, which combines juristic concern with the intensity of one having suffered personal atrocity, and Respondent No.
23 in his letter dated 23rd May 1995 opined that As far as the merit your matter is concerned I am prima facie
satisfied that there is a cause of action at least to file a Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for
appropriate reliefs. Photocopies of both the Letters are annexed with the Writ Petition and marked as ANNEXURE A-60 and
ANNEXURE-55 respectively.
That Article 145(1)( c) of the Constitution provides that Supreme Court may
from time to time, with the approval of the President, makes rules for regulating generally the practices and procedures of
the Court including rules as to the proceedings in the Court for enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III, clearly
indicates that rules should be framed with affirmative object for enforcement of the rights conferred by Part III,
but not with negative object or direction to deprive directly or indirectly from such rights. Nor Article 145(1) (c ) empowered
the Supreme Court to assign its judicial powers inconsistent with Rule 7 and 8 of the Part IV of the ORDER XXXV of the Supreme
Court Rules 1966 to Registrar or any other person or authority to decide the fate of a Writ petition. Such assignment is also
not in affirmative in accordance to purpose of Article 145(1) (c ) of the Constitution thus application of the Rule 5 Under
Order XVIII of the Supreme Court Rules 1966, is beyond the scope, meaning and ambit of Article 32 and 145(1) (c ) of the Constitution
and as such should be declared as void.
That in recent past challenging the sanctity of the Rule of Laws and under
Politics-Crime-Bureaucratic-Nexus a trend is developed to import legal protection in respect of the criminal acts through
causing embracement of the Judicial Officers through various means including the help from the Advocates, after acquiring
the valuable properties by force as it was experienced in the matters of Petitioner at large scale. Therefore, for the sanctity
of Rule of Law this is necessary that a Decree should be passed that whoever have obtain any order or judgment against the
Petitioner under the embracement of Judicial Officers and / or under criminal misconduct of the Advocates will never acquires
any legal values through such orders or Judgments, irrespective of law of limitation.
That after commencement of the Constitution to gather with fundamental rights
defined under Part III and in view of the duties enshrined under Article 51A no one have any fundamental, statutory or legal
rights to acquire or hold or claims to be hold anything through any direct or indirect criminal means. Therefore, a Judgment
pronounced in the year of 1932 and upheld by the British Privy Council being inserted under Item No. 65 of the Part V (Suit
relating to immovable property) under the Schedule for the Period of Limitation under Section 2(j) and 3 of the Limitation
Act 1963, that after 12 years from the date of adverse possession one will acquire possessory rights over the respective property.
The aforesaid Judgment encouraged to acquire the possession of the valuable properties by force, as were admitted by the Vohra
Committee in its Report, damaging even the basis of the fundamental rights, causing basic fiber of Indian Democracy. After
commencement of the Constitution the impact of the said Judgment is completely inconsistent with the clause (3) (b) of Article
13 of the Constitution of India and therefore should be declared as void.
Hence this Petition.
|
