#A Writ of Mandamus Can Be Issued on the Ground of

[seemabhatnagar]

“Passport Issuance Amid Pending Criminal Cases: A High Court’s Perspective”

Kashif Ahmed v. Union of India

Criminal Writ Petition 2067/2024

Subject Issuance of passport when a criminal case is pending

Before Lucknow High Court

Heard by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Shameem Ahmad

Order Writ Petition was allowed on 22.03.2024 with the observation that no hard and fast straight jacket formula can be laid down regarding issuance of permission or giving no objection by the court concerned for issuance of passport.

Facts

The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Vth Lucknow denied permission for renewal of the passport to the Petitioner Kashif Ahmad on the ground that the Court has no jurisdiction.

The Passport of the petitioner expired on 30.11.2019 and the marriage of his brother-in-law is scheduled in Saudi Arabia on 30.04.2024 and he wanted to attend the ceremony.

In December 2019, five cases were registered against him given his protest against the Citizen Amendment Act & National Register for Citizens. In all these pending criminal cases, the charge has not yet been framed by the Court.

Aggrieved by the denial of permission by the ACJM-Lucknow, the Petitioner approached Lucknow High Court seeking a Writ of Mandamus.

Submission of Petitioner's Counsel

The Petitioner’s Counsel contended that the Magistrate didn’t apply his mind while rejecting the application of the Petitioner.

Submission of the Respondent's Counsel

The Counsel for the Respondent-Union of India too affirmed the submission of the Petitioner’s Counsel quoting the Office Memorandum dt.10.10.2019 which provided an exemption to citizens of India against whom criminal proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by them are pending before a criminal court in India and who produce orders from the court concerned permitting them to depart from India, subject to the following conditions, namely: -

1.      For the period as specified in the order of the court.

For renewal after the expiry of the stipulated period, a fresh court order is required specifying a further period of validity of the passport for travel abroad

2.      If no time is specified, a passport shall be issued for one year.

The passport can be further renewed for one year at a time, provided the applicant has not traveled abroad for the period sanctioned by the court; and in the meantime, the order of the court is not canceled or modified.

3.      If the time specified for travel abroad is less than one year but the validity of the passport is not specified then it shall be issued for one year.

And passport can be further renewed for one year at a time, provided the applicant has not traveled abroad for the period sanctioned by the court; and in the meantime, the order of the court is not canceled or modified.

4.      If the time specified for travel abroad is more than one year but the validity of the passport is not specified then the passport shall be issued for the period of travel as specified in the order.

In this situation renewal of the passport requires a fresh court order specifying a further period of validity of the passport or specifying a period for travel abroad.

5.      Apart from this, the citizen has to give an undertaking in writing to the passport-issuing authority that he shall, if required by the court concerned, would appear before it at any time during the continuance in force of the passport so issued.

6.      For issuance of a passport, a declaration has to be made by the applicant that the applicant has not been convicted by any Court of Law in India for any criminal offence and has not been sentenced to imprisonment for two years or more than two years with other relevant information.

Seema Bhatnagar

[paolawdiary]

EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 209

THE FAMILY CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES

TITLE II

LEGAL SEPARATION

ARTICLE 58. An action for legal separation shall in no case be tried before six months shall have elapsed since the filing of the petition. (103)

EXPLANATION:

The basic purpose of the law in suspending the trial of an action for legal separation for six (6) months is to give place for a possible reconciliation. If there's a reconciliation before the trial, the court can dismiss the action for legal separation. Also, even if there's already a judgement, the court can still set aside the degree of the legal separation. In the case of Araneta vs. Conception, the court emphasized the suspension period as a cooling-off period. The case revolves around the issue on whether or not the rule for six (6) months suspension period for the hearing of an action for legal separation, preclude the court to try and act on the Omnibus petition for the support and custody of the children.

CASE DIGEST: ARANETA VS. CONCEPTION I G.R. No. L-9667 |  July 31, 1956 | LABRADOR, J.

FACTS:

Luis Araneta (petitioner) filed for legal separation from his wife Emma Benitez Araneta on the ground of adultery. Emma filed an omnibus petition to secure custody of their children and a monthly support of. The respondent judge Concepcion granted the omnibus petition. He refused to reconsider so Luis Araneta filed with the court a petition for certiorari and mandamus to compel the respondent judge to both parties to submit evidence before deciding for the omnibus petition. The court granted a writ of preliminary injunction against the order of the judge. The Respondent Judge’s reason for refusal for the request for the presentation of evidence to be allowed before deciding was because it is the prohibition contained in Art. 103 of the Civil Code. This reads: “An action for legal separation shall in no case be tried before six months shall have elapsed since the filing of the petition.” The respondent Judge interpreted the provision by saying that every single step it should take within the period of six months above the stated should be taken toward reconciling the parties. Admitting evidence now will make the reconciliation difficult if not impossible. The children must be given custody for him or her who by family custom or tradition is the custodian of the children. The court should ignore the defendant had committed any act of adultery or the plaintiff, any act of cruelty to his wife. The status quo of the family must be restored as much as possible. In a typical Filipino family, it’s the wife/mother who keeps the children in her company or custody.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the presentation of evidence as petitioned by the husband is needed in determining the custody of the children.

RULING:

YES, The six month period fixed in Art. 103 of the Civil Code is evidently intended as a cooling off period to make possible reconciliation between the spouses. However, it does not have the effect of overriding other provisions such as the determination of the custody of the children and alimony, and support according to the circumstances. The law expressly enjoins that these should be determined by the court according to the circumstances. If these are ignored, rank in justice may be caused. The determination of the custody of the children should be given and effect and force provided it does not go to the extent of violating the policy of the cooling off period which means that the evidence will not be the cause of the separation.

Source:

Family Code of the Philippines (2022); Judge Ed Vincent S. Albano , Ed Vincent A. Albano, Jr.

https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/1987/07/06/executive-order-no-209-s-1987/

https://chanrobles.com/cralaw/1956julydecisions.php?id=269

Blaze

0 notes

[mourning-again-in-america]

proposition: defending in re al nashiri 2015 reasoning: the court has the general power to mandamus an MCA trial but *in this case* it cannot as it would not be *proper* to do so Power: Although they could issue mandamus in the correct circumstance (contra gov't arg't, there is no clear statement in Military Commissions Act displacing the power under All Writs Act) this is not it. Proper: - No Alternative Adequate Means of Relief Al-Nashiri could simply take up the issue on appeal of final judgment. In In re Cheney, the district court should not have allowed discovery against David Addington and that this discovery would so impair the Office of the Vice President that the order ought not stand. The issue in In re Cheney caused such irreparable injury in its disruption of gov't functioning that the injury could not be corrected by appeal of a final judgment. Consider the case of a criminal defendant facing a dodgy prosecution. If the court decided for al-Nashiri, why could the criminal defendant use mandamus to force a pre-trial on the constitutionality or legality of the indictment, should it produce a conviction? It can be argued that the death penalty is different, and indeed the 9th circuit decided that way. But besides it being the 9th circuit and thus not exactly persuasive authority for Judge Henderson, that case is distinguishable on the grounds that the challenge of the legality itself was a challenge to the death penalty sentence.

So, it cannot be that simply because there is a challenge to the procedural aspects of the trial and that the trial is a criminal trial with the possibility of a death sentence that there is irreparable injury faced by al-Nashiri, should he be convicted, sentenced, and then vindicated through vacatur of conviction & then retried under a properly constituted court (for it has not been decided if he is a person with Double Jeopardy rights, so it can't even be argued that that would necessarily produce a Double Jeopardy violation). Nor can it be that al-Nashiri's injury arises from his confinement in Guantanamo, for if he were successful and the government did not retry him, the government would still have the power to detain him for the duration of hostilities, so mandamus relief would be ineffectual for correcting that injury. There's the argument that most criminal trials are relatively short, even death penalty ones compared to the Gitmo Military Commissions, and al-Nashiri has been held by the United States since 2002, so the injury itself is having to worry about if he's going to be executed, but why couldn't that argument be taken too far to use mandamus in place of habeas in death penalty cases?

There's an argument based on the totality of the circumstances -- that being detained at Gitmo and facing a milcom death penalty case makes having to worry about if you're going to be illegally executed all the more stressful and thus irreparable in its injuriousness. But why would that *be* correct? It *feels* good, but that doesn't make it true. Also, is the standard for mandamus even an equitable standard?

There's a theory that the injury is to the government of the United States itself, due to violation of separation of powers but 1. the actual USG severely disagrees with this and 2. that's mostly a restyling of the injury-by-conviction theory -- if a legislator and the president and a justice violate the separation of powers but nobody's harmed in any way, then can it be corrected?

Also advisory mandamus is disfavored, "see First Nat’l Bank of Waukesha v. Warren, 796 F.2d 999, 1004 (7th Cir. 1986) (“Although the [Supreme] Court has not yet erected the tombstone, it has ordered flowers.”)".

- Right to relief is clear and indisputable It isn't obvious from cases involving CCA judges and CRJs that al-Nashiri is correct. Also, this part doesn't need to be correct because if the upper part is correct than this isn't necessary.

"We do not resolve these open questions today. What matters for Nashiri’s petition is that they are just that—open. Legal aporias are the antithesis of the “clear and indisputable” right needed for mandamus relief. See NetCoalition v. SEC, 715 F.3d 342, 354 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (right to mandamus not clear and indisputable in absence of “bind[ing]” precedent); Republic of Venezuela, 287 F.3d at 199 (petitioners did “not come close” to showing clear and indisputable right because they “identif[ied] no precedent of this court or of the Supreme Court” on point). Even if we ultimately agreed with Nashiri on the merits, mandamus would not lie because the answer was hardly “clear” ex ante"

al Nashiri's argument in 2015: That the CMCR judges are there in violation of the Appointments Clause, sort of what Dalmazzi (the case eventually known as Ortiz v. US) tried to argue from the CAAF side

[top-property-lawyers]

What To Do When False Fir Has Been  Filed Against Me ?

First Information Report also known as FIR for short, is the first document which is prepared in a criminal proceeding as mentioned under Section 154(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 . FIR is a written document about the commission of a cognizable offense which has been provided to the police by the victim or any other person who has information about the commission of a cognizable offense. FIR could only be lodged in case of cognizable offenses which have been defined under Section 2(c) of the CrPC and the list of such offenses has been laid down under Schedule I of the CrPC.

Remedies against a false FIR.

The victim has been given certain remedies so that they can pursue the proper legal action against the person who filed a fraudulent police report.

Remedy before an arrest is made:-The victim against whom false FIR has been filed can apply for bail before the Sessions Court or  High Court as per Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, before the arrest of the victim has been made in such case. The above mentioned section of the CrPC provides for an ‘Anticipatory Bail’ and the objective behind such provision is that no person would be humiliated or harassed so as to satisfy any kind of personal vendetta or grudge of the complainant. Certain factors are to be taken into consideration by the Court when deciding if Anticipatory bail should be granted or not and appropriate conditions could also be imposed on the victim by the Court in case such bail is granted.

However, the above section cannot be invoked after the victim has been arrested and in  such a situation, to be released on bail, the victim would have to seek remedy under Se tion 437 of Section 439 of the CrPC.

Remedy after an arrest is made or after the charge sheet has been file before the court:-After obtaining Anticipatory Bail or after being arrested and filing of the charge sheet by the police, the next step for the victim is to approach the High Court by filing an application for quashing false FIR or to file the writ of prohibition or the writ of mandamus.

The victim of a false FIR can apply to the High Court as per Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to get  the false FIR lodged against him/her quashed.

Stages when the application under Section 482 could be filed

Before the charge sheet has been filed: The High Court of the respective state can quash an FIR in case an application for quashing the same has been filed by the victim under Section 482 of the CrPC before it. When the false FIR is against the principle of natural justice and hence causing a grave miscarriage of justice to the victim, the High Court can quash it and also has the power to reprimand the police officer or issue certain directions to such officer.

After the charge sheet has been filed:-After the police have filed the charge sheet on the basis of a false FIR and before the commencement of the trial, the victim as provided under Section 227 of the CrPC can file a ‘Discharge Application’ in order to get discharged from the offense the victim has been charged which are based on the frivolous FIR lodged against him.

Following the start of the trial or while it is still pending:-When the Sessions Court denies the victim's request for a discharge made pursuant to Section 227 of the CrPC, charges are laid, and the trial is underway, an application for the accused's acquittal may be made pursuant to Section 232 of the CrPC.

Grounds on which a victim of the false FIR can approach the High Court for quashing it.

The following grounds could be used by the victim based on which, he/she can go to the High Court under Section 482 of the CrPC, for quashing the false FIR:

The acts or omission based on which the First Information Report (FIR) has been filed do not constitute an offense

The offense for which the FIR has been lodged, never took place.

Baseless allegations without any reasonable ground to prove an offense against the victim are present in the FIR

Conclusion

Getting justice and to save oneself from a false FIR is an extremely important step for a person falsely accused in the criminal justice system. Upon arrest or even anticipation of an arrest, the first step for any person would be to hire the services of an experienced lawyer, who can help advise and guide the accused with the process of obtaining a bail and any further actions required to be taken.

Lead India offers you a team of experienced lawyers who have been successfully handling cases related to civil as well as criminal matters. Thus, if you wish to talk to a lawyer or seek free legal advice, or even for a matter related to civil law, if you wish to talk to Property Lawyers In Delhi, Property Lawyers In Kolkata, Property Lawyers In Bangalore or in your city, you may contact us.

SOURCE:-

Visit us: https://www.leadindia.law

Call Us: +91–8800788535

Email: care@leadindia.law

YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/c/LeadIndiaLawAssociates

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/leadindialaw

LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/76353439

Twitter: https://twitter.com/leadindialaw

Pinterest: https://in.pinterest.com/lawleadindia

Instagram:https://www.instagram.com/leadindialawofficial

Property Lawyers In Bangalore, Property Lawyers In Delhi, Property Lawyers In Kolkata.

[orfealfonso]

FAMILY CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES

TITLE II: LEGAL SEPARATION

ARTICLE 55 and 58

Support pendente lite can be availed of in an action for legal separation and is granted at the discretion of the judge. If tge petitioner finds the amount of support pendente lite ordered as too onerous, he can always file a motion to modify or reduce the same.

Araneta vs. Conception

G.R. No. L-9667

July 31, 1956

Facts:

Luis Araneta filed for legal separation from his wife Emma Benitez on the ground of adultery.Emma filed an omnibus petition to secure custody of their children and a monthly support of 5,000. The respondent Judge Concepcion granted the omnibus petition.He refuses to reconsider, so Luis Araneta filed with the court a petition for certiorari and a mandamus to compel the respondent Judge to require both parties to submit evidence before deciding for the omnibus petition.

The court granted a writ for preliminary injunction against the order of the judge. Respondent Judge reason for refusal for the presentation of evidence to be allowed before deciding was because it is the prohibition contained in the article 103 of the Civil Code.This reads" An action for legal separation shall in no case be tried before six months shall have elapsed since the filing of petition ",. The respondent judge interpreted the provision by saying that every step it should take within the period of six months above stated should be taken toward reconciling the parties. Admitting evidence now will make reconcilliation difficult if not possible . The children must be given for custody to him or her who by family custom and tradition is tbe custodian of tge children. Tge court should ignore that defendant had committed any act of adultery or the plaintiff, any act of cruelty to his wife. The status quo of tge family must be restored as much as possible.In a typical Filipino family, its tbe mother/wife who keeps children in her company and custody.

Issue:

Whether or not presentation of evidence as petitioned by the husband is needed in determining tge custody of the children

Held:

Yes, the writ prayed is hereby issued and the respondent judge or whosoever takes his place is ordered to proceed on the question of custody and support pendente lite in accordance with his opinion.

The period of six months fix therein (article 103 Civil Code) is evidently intended as a cooling off period to make possible reconciliation between the spouses however, it does not have the effect of overriding the other provision such as the determination of the custody of the children and alimony and support pendente life according to the circumstances. If these are ignored or the court close their eyes to actual facts, ranked in justice may be caused. The determination of the custody and alimony should be given effect and forced provided it does not go to the extent of violating the policy of the cooling off period. That is, evidence not affecting the cause of separation, like the actual custody of the children, the means of conducive to their welfare and convenience during the pendency of the case, these should be allowed that the court determined which is best for their custody.

[legalfirmindia]

WRIT OF MANDAMUS

WRIT OF MANDAMUS: Best Lawyers for Writ of Mandamus filing in Chennai Tamil Nadu India. Choose Top Advocates for Legal Consultation and Guidance to understand and process the case. Advocate Saravvanan Rajendran Law Chamber [askadvocates.com]

Best Lawyers for Writ of Mandamus

Find and identify the Best Lawyers for Writ of Mandamus filing in Chennai Tamil Nadu India. Choose Top Advocates for Legal Consultation and Guidance to understand and process the case. Advocate Saravvanan Rajendran Law Chamber [askadvocates.com] is one of the Best Law Firm for Writ of Mandamus.

Right writs in the custom-based law

Introduction: A writ of…

[naag-mysuru-blog]

Legalising Land Mafia ?

DALIT ONLINE – e News Weekly

Spreading the light of humanity & freedom

Editor: Nagaraja.M.R.. Vol.15..Issue.12..........24 / 03 / 2019

AKRAMA SAKRAMA

- Are BDA , MUDA , Karnataka HC Judges favoring Land Mafia & Murdering Innocents ?

Recently Karnataka high court gave clearance to Karnataka government’s regularization of illegal buildings ( AKRAMA SAKRAMA ) scheme.

1. Law is one & same for all.

2. Government authorities , police razes down , demolishes small temporary hutments built by tribals , dalits without mercy , takes suo motto action. No court comes to their rescue.

3. Till date bagar hukum lands are not given to dalits , tribals are not given land rights over their huts in forests. Is Cout blind , deaf ?

4. However when rich crooks build bungalows , commercial complexes illegally , no suo motto action taken by government authorizes , police , why ? Courts go a step further it gives stay orders against demolition of rich crook’s illegal buildings , asks government to modify plan , law itself to save illegal buildings of rich crooks.

5. Does Karnataka HC has details of exact number of building violations , buildings built on forest lands , lake beds , raja kaluves with respective after affects on neighbouring buildings , road traffic , ecology , etc and contingency plan by authorities to overcome those after affects casewise backed by technical studies. Make it public.

6. What criminal action initiated against revenue , police & other officials who failed in their duties at the first instance to stop the illegal building construction.

7. Small houses of poor people who have smaller building violations but who failed to bribe officials were dealt mercilessly. Their houses were razed down . Now , will the HC order the government to compensate them , to rebuild houses for them as the court is now saying they are legal now.

8. Government & HC has given a cut off date for consideration of regularization of illegal buildings. When a crime before that cut off date becomes legal , why cann’t it be legal after that date ?

9. What guarantee HC gives no illegal buildings has come up after cut off date and will never come in future ?

10. If comes what criminal action against the concerned officials ?

11. The land encroachments & illegal buildings and it’s continued existence since years is not possible without tacit , covert support of jurisdictional revenue officials. What disciplinary action has been taken against concerned officials with respect to each case of land encroachment & illegal buildings , case wise ?

12. If not , why ?

13. Is not “land AKRAMA SAKRAMA SCHEME” itself illegal ?

14. Is not the move of government of Karnataka to legalise land encroachments & illegal buildings , in itself illegal ?

15. Till date in some cases of land encroachers are evicted & some buildings violating building byelaws demolished , you could have spared them to enjoy the benefit of land akrama sakrama scheme. Why you didn’t spare them ?

16. Is this scheme applicable for only chosen few ?

17. Does this scheme also benefit rich people above BPL ?

18. Does this scheme also benefit big land developers , land developing companies ?

19. To my previous RTI appeals to MUDA , BDA only partial information was given , conveniently hiding the truth. Is it not violation of RTI act ?

20. Does not hiding information about land crimes , in itself also a crime ?

21. I have shown in detail some land crimes in Karnataka. What action by government of Karnataka , casewise ?

https://sites.google.com/site/sosevoiceforjustice/judges-cover-up-land-scams ,

https://sites.google.com/site/sosevoiceforjustice/land-grabbers-in-m-u-d-a ,

22. Does not hiding a land crime , embolden land grabber to commit more land crimes ?

23. What action taken against BDA , MUDA & Revenue department officials who are covering crores worth land scams inspite of my repeated appeals & RTI Requests ?

Bottomline : Judges open your eyes , listen , think & then act.

PIL – Jail Killer Judges

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. OF 2017

IN THE MATTER OF

NAGARAJA . M.R

editor , Indian’s Diary & Dalit’s Diary ,

# LIG 2 , No 761 ,, HUDCO First Stage , Laxmikantanagar ,

Hebbal , Mysore – 570017 , Karnataka State

.

....Petitioner

Versus

Honourable Chief Justice of India & Others

....Respondents

PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 12 to ARTICLE 35 & ARTICLE 51A OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS UNDER ARTICLE 32 & ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.

To ,

Hon'ble The Chief Justice of India and His Lordship's Companion

Justices of the Supreme Court of India. The Humble petition of the

Petitioner above named.

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH :

1. Facts of the case:

Judges Murder Innocents

In the recent past , in bangalore city & other parts of karnataka incessant rains played havoc on civilians. Due land grabbings , lake grabbings , lake tributaries grabbings by land mafia rain water entered many houses killing civilians , livestock and caused crores of rupees losses.

There are many statutory reports by A T Ramaswamy , Subramanyam , Koliwad , etc regarding lake encroachments , raaja kaluve / tributaries encroachment , revenue land / forest land encroachment , etc. What is the action taken by government ?

Authorities enacted lake encroachment clearance drama by clearing / demolishing commoner’s houses on the fringes , when it came to big bungalows of ministers , crores of worth apartment clusters , it stopped all of a sudden.

In the same way , Authorities enacted Raaja Kaluve / tributaries encroachment clearance drama by clearing / demolishing commoner’s houses on the fringes , when it came to big bungalows of rich , commercial complexes , crores of worth apartment clusters , it stopped all of a sudden.

A Karnataka High Court Judge was shame less in his act to favor the rich. That judge was not moved , sympathetic when small hutments , small houses of poor were demolished. He became wise when authorities wanted to demolish big bungalows , commercial complexes of rich. He asked BDA , BBMNP why cann’t authorities divert Raaja Kaluve itself ?

Wise Judge Sir , one has to buy pant , shirt according to his height , waist , etc but you cann’t change your body size , height , waist according to size of shirt or pant ? One has to build house , complex based on plan given by the authorities leaving aside civic / revenue lands. It is a grave crime by both seller & buyer of that illegal encroached land , irrespective of rich or poor , commoner or minister, those lake encroachments , Raaja Kaluve encroachments must be removed & guilty severely punished.

Authorities & few judges are hand in glove with land mafia and are not acting against rich , powerful violators. Since years we are requesting for information under RTI about land grabbings from MUDA , MCC , BBMNP . BDA , KIADB no answer ? Appealed to courts , no use. Years back , when we questioned a Judge / District Magistrate about hebbal lake encroachment , he threatened me personally over phone. The recent move of Government of Karnataka to legalize illegal land encroachments ( AKRAMA SAKRAMA ) iself is illegal. If timely action was taken by SCI Judges & Karnataka HC Judges these losses could have been averted. Due to this unholy nexus , negligence of duties even by judges resulted in loss of lives , properties in karnataka during recent rains. The guilty judges must also be punished.

Who will bell the cat.

Specifically in Karnataka Rich & Influential people have illegally encroached Lakes , Public grazing fields , Temple Lands , Raaja Kaluve / feeder canals , etc. Concerned public servants are not doing their duties and encroachment continues since years. Even appeals to Law Courts of Justice by way of PILs have not yielded any results. Even criminal nexus with help of government has gone a step further to legalize their crimes of land grabbing in the name of “AKRAMA SAKRAMA”. Courts are deaf , dumb & blind.

These crimes can continue since years only with connivance of judges , public servants. Throughout this petition term “Judge” includes even quasi judicial officers like Revenue Inspector , Assistant Commissioner , District Magistrate , etc apart from Law Court Judges. Due to these illegal land encroachments , road accidents are taking place , buildings are falling down , rain water is gushing into houses and killing people. For all the recent deaths due to rains in Bengaluru & other parts of Karnataka JUDGEs are solely responsible. For all these JUDGEs are responsible.

2. Question(s) of Law:

Is robbing another’s property right , legal ? is robbing land , lake – a public property for private , individual use right ?

3. Grounds:

Requests for equitable justice , Criminal Prosecution of Judges , master minds of land grabbing ,frauds.

4. Averment:

Covering up Land Frauds & Land Mafia . Please read details at :

https://sites.google.com/site/sosevoiceforjustice/rti-first-appeal---muda-bda-kiadb ,

Hereby , I do request the honorable supreme court of India to consider this as a PIL for : “writ of Mandamus” and to issue instructions to the concerned public servants in the following cases to perform their duties & to punish guilty judges.

The Petitioner has sent many letters / appeals / petitions to supreme court of india & other courts through e-mail , DARPG website & through regular mail requesting them to consider those as PILs. But none of them were admitted , even acknowledgement for receipts were not given. See How duty conscious ,our judges are & see how our judges are sensitive towards life , liberty of citizens , commonmen & see how careless our judges are towards anti national crimes , crimes worth crores of rupees. That the present petitioner has not filed any other petition (which are admitted by courts) in any High Court or the Supreme Court of India on the subject matter of the present petition.

PRAYER:

In the above premises, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased:

a . Hereby , I do request the honorable supreme court of India to consider this as a PIL for : “writ of Mandamus” and to issue instructions to the concerned public servants & to criminally prosecute , punish guilty judges , to order Government of Karnataka authorities in the following cases to perform their duties & to answer the questions.

b . to pass such other orders and further orders as may be deemed necessary on the facts and in the circumstances of the case.

FOR WHICH ACT OF KINDNESS, THE PETITIONER SHALL BE DUTY BOUND, EVER PRAY.

Kindly read full details at following web page :

https://sites.google.com/site/sosevoiceforjustice/rti-first-appeal---muda-bda-kiadb ,

Dated : 24/10/2017 ………………… .FILED BY: NAGARAJA.M.R.

Place : Mysuru , India…………………….PETITIONER-IN-PERSON

Editorial : Judges Murder Innocents

In the recent past , in bangalore city & other parts of karnataka incessant rains played havoc on civilians. Due land grabbings , lake grabbings , lake tributaries grabbings by land mafia rain water entered many houses killing civilians , livestock and caused crores of rupees losses.

There are many statutory reports by A T Ramaswamy , Subramanyam , Koliwad , etc regarding lake encroachments , raaja kaluve / tributaries encroachment , revenue land / forest land encroachment , etc. What is the action taken by government ?

Authorities enacted lake encroachment clearance drama by clearing / demolishing commoner’s houses on the fringes , when it came to big bungalows of ministers , crores of worth apartment clusters , it stopped all of a sudden.

In the same way , Authorities enacted Raaja Kaluve / tributaries encroachment clearance drama by clearing / demolishing commoner’s houses on the fringes , when it came to big bungalows of rich , commercial complexes , crores of worth apartment clusters , it stopped all of a sudden.

A Karnataka High Court Judge was shame less in his act to favor the rich. That judge was not moved , sympathetic when small hutments , small houses of poor were demolished. He became wise when authorities wanted to demolish big bungalows , commercial complexes of rich. He asked BDA , BBMNP why cann’t authorities divert Raaja Kaluve itself ?

Wise Judge Sir , one has to buy pant , shirt according to his height , waist , etc but you cann’t change your body size , height , waist according to size of shirt or pant ? One has to build house , complex based on plan given by the authorities leaving aside civic / revenue lands. It is a grave crime by both seller & buyer of that illegal encroached land , irrespective of rich or poor , commoner or minister, those lake encroachments , Raaja Kaluve encroachments must be removed & guilty severely punished.

Authorities & few judges are hand in glove with land mafia and are not acting against rich , powerful violators. Since years we are requesting for information under RTI about land grabbings from MUDA , MCC , BBMNP . BDA , KIADB no answer ? Appealed to courts , no use. Years back , when we questioned a Judge / District Magistrate about hebbal lake encroachment , he threatened me personally over phone. The recent move of Government of Karnataka to legalize illegal land encroachments ( AKRAMA SAKRAMA ) iself is illegal. If timely action was taken by SCI Judges & Karnataka HC Judges these losses could have been averted. Due to this unholy nexus , negligence of duties even by judges resulted in loss of lives , properties in karnataka during recent rains. The guilty judges must also be punished.

Who will bell the cat.

Your’s ,

Nagaraja Mysuru Raghupathi.

CBI RTI Srinath Murder

https://sites.google.com/site/eclarionofdalit/cbi---rti-srinath-muder

HC Judges Favoring Mafia

https://sites.google.com/site/sosevoiceforjustice/hc-judges-favoring-mafia ,

Why NOT Demolish Illegal Bungalows of Ministers

https://sites.google.com/site/sosevoiceforjustice/why-not-demolish-illegal-bungalows-of-ministers ,

Judges Murder RTI

https://sites.google.com/site/sosevoiceforjustice/judges-murder-rti

BEML Housing Society - RTI Murders

https://sites.google.com/site/eclarionofdalit/beml-rti-murders

Edited, printed , published owned by NAGARAJA.M.R. @ # LIG-2 No 761, HUDCO FIRST STAGE , OPP WATER WORKS , LAXMIKANTANAGAR , HEBBAL ,MYSURU – 570017 KARNATAKA INDIA Cell : 91 8970318202

WhatsApp 91 8970318202

Home page :

http://eclarionofdalit.dalitonline.in/ ,

https://dalit-online.blogspot.com

Contact : editor@dalitonline.in , editor.dalitonline@gmail.com ,

[loyallogic]

What powers do the courts have under writ of mandamus

This article is written by Dhawal Srivastava, a student pursuing B.A. LLB. (Hons.) from Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Punjab. In this article, a detailed analysis of the writ of mandamus and the command of the courts under it has been done. 

Introduction

In pursuance of the Right to Constitutional Remedies for the violation of any of the enlisted fundamental rights under Part III or others that are enshrined in the Constitution of India or otherwise, both the Supreme Court and the High Courts have been vested with the authority of issuing ‘writs’ under Article 32 and 226 respectively. There are five types of writs that are issued in India: Habeas Corpus, Prohibition, Certiorari, Mandamus and Quo Warranto. Out of these, the writ of mandamus, which is a Latin term for ‘we command’, is an authoritative writ issued by a higher court to oblige a lower court or some government official(s) to dispense their sanctioned duties compulsorily and correctly. 

Writ of mandamus

According to the Ninth Edition of Black’s Law Dictionary, writ of mandamus is one that is issued against an inferior court, a governmental body or officer by a superior court to rectify an action of the past or omission to act along the lines of the responsibility that they are entitled to. Writ of Mandamus can also be issued against public corporations and tribunals. As it is directed to set the indolent authorities to task, it is also described as a “wakening call”, dictating their activity and setting them in action in pursuance of discharging public duty.

Grounds of the writ of mandamus

Mandamus is remedial in nature and cannot be expressed as a writ of right as it is issued only at the discretion of the court after the applicant of the same is able to prove to the Court that some utilitarian or just question would be answered by the writ. The essential grounds necessary for the issuance of Mandamus have been enlisted below: 

There exists a legally sanctioned right of the petitioner or the applicant of the writ and a violation or compromise of this right has been committed.

The infringement of the rights of an applicant can be done by a public authority in the following manners: 

Crossing the limits of the powers and duties vested to their office.

Failure or omission to act responsibly according to the conditions laid down by the law for the exercise of their power.

Denial by an official or authority to perform their statutory duties. 

A complete disregard for or contravention of the principles of natural justice.

Another ground for the legality of issuing the writ of mandamus is the failure to act or perform the legal duty despite being demanded by the applicant for the same. This was also upheld by the Supreme Court in Saraswati Industrial Syndicate v. Union of India.

The writ should be applied for in good faith, without any ulterior motive or intent on the part of the applicant.

Lastly, the writ of mandamus can only be issued when no other recourse, redressal mechanism or legal alternatives have been left at the disposal of the applicant. 

                              Click Above

Mandamus in Indian law prior to the constitution

The Writ of Mandamus was introduced in India by the British in the year 1773 with the establishment of the Supreme Court of Calcutta and all the supreme courts that were situated in the Presidency Towns (Calcutta, Madras and Bombay) were vested with the powers of issuing this writ under the Letters Patent Act. Later on, in the year 1877, the writ of mandamus from the Letters Patent Act was replaced by an order under the then newly introduced Specific Relief Act that required the completion or forbearing of a specific activity within the “local limits of its ordinary civil jurisdiction” by a competent authorised official. 

However, with the institutionalisation of the constitutional regime in India and the introduction of the new Specific Relief Act in 1963, this order incorporated within the 1877’s law was done away with as the provision for writ of mandamus was already enshrined in the Constitution. The latter provision was far more competent and had a wider scope of applicability while the former was pretty restrictive in nature as it applied only to a particular nature of cases. Additionally, the constitutional provision also provided the High Courts with the power of issuing writs, thus including mandamus as well for the enforcement in cases of contravention of fundamental as well as legal rights. 

Framework of law in relation to mandamus

The Supreme Court of India has been authorised with the power of issuing writs under Article 32 of the Constitution. Out of the five categories of writs that are a part of the Indian legal framework, the most appropriate for the enforcement of the rights of the claimant shall be applied by the court. Rightly described as the “very soul of the Constitution and the very heart of it” by Dr Bhimrao Ambedkar, Right to Constitutional Remedies or Article 32 states that there must be a clear breach of fundamental rights not incorporating contentious factual questions. Under Article 32, the writ cannot be issued for the enforcement of governmental policy and a statute violating a fundamental right can be contended against by mandamus. Any executive or statutory order can be enforced by Mandamus following due process of law. Over the course of years, it has been found that continuous mandamus or the writ of mandamus issued against a prolonged failure to act on the part of state agencies. 

Although the law is pretty clear with regards to the cases or instances where the applicability of the writ of mandamus stands, it has not been an easy decision for the Indian courts and judiciary applying this writ in distinct cases. Thus, it has become a significant question of law in the modern-day legal system of India.

Types of mandamus

There are three types of Mandamus that exist within the Indian jurisprudence and has been developed over the years through case laws and judgements. These have been discussed under the following headings.

Certiorarified mandamus

The basic difference between the two writs of certiorari and mandamus can be explained on the basis of jurisdiction; while former provides for judicial review of an already tried case by a subordinate court and checks whether a jurisdiction has been exceeded, the latter takes into account whether a jurisdiction has been refused from getting exercise. If Certiorari stands, the order of the subordinate court or tribunal stands quashed and void. In certain cases with peculiar facts and moot issues, both the writs of certiorari and mandamus complement each other provided the issuance of both are warranted by the circumstances of the case in hand and do not end up discharging the issue altogether. A case might be rescinded due to application of certiorari and may end up getting decided by following the due process of law because of a subsequent issuance of mandamus. This kind of writ is known as certiorarified mandamus. 

In Y. Mahaboob Sheriff & others v. Mysore State Transport Authority, the renewal of a permit, despite getting sanctioned for three years, was only granted for a year. In pursuance of the writ of certiorari, the Supreme Court of India invalidated the previous judicial order of the subordinate court and in the effect of the writ of mandamus, directed the concerned authority for the renewal of three years. This is an instance of certiorarified mandamus.

Anticipatory mandamus

In Maganbhai Ishwarbhai Patel v. Union of India, the group of petitioners issued a writ of anticipatory mandamus in order to restrain the Government of India from sanctioning certain areas lying in Rann of Kutch to Pakistan as a part of the award. The Court held that the mandamus shall not be granted merely on the suspicion of the violation of rights unless some actual damage or infringement has happened. 

In plenty of other cases, both in India and other countries, it has been held by the courts of law that on the mere basis of perturbation of getting one’s statutory or fundamental rights violated or an anticipatory omission of the duties or responsibilities of a public authority are not sufficient grounds for granting the issuance of a writ of mandamus.

Continuing mandamus

In certain cases, it shall be deemed fit by the court of law that mere issuing of the writ of mandamus will not be sufficient for exacting the task from the public authority and that continuous supervision of the situation needs to be conducted in order to ensure the proper following of the verdict. This is done by the courts by providing for court visits and presenting a report of compliance of their verdict on behalf of the public authority. This legalese has developed and become a part of the jurisprudence after much judicial activism and several public interest litigations. The Supreme Court, in Chhetriya Pardushan Mukti Samiti v. State of Uttar Pradesh, held that besides ensuring the adequate enforcement of the fundamental rights, it is also the Court’s responsibility to ascertain the prevention of misuse of authoritative power and full adherence of the order.

Limitations

Writ of mandamus is basically a public law remedy of the common law system that, though can be rightfully applied for by any citizen whose rights have been violated by governmental or judicial bodies, is not sanctioned to be availed in cases of private wrongs. The writ of mandamus cannot be issued against the following: 

Private persons, institutions or organizations, if default, cannot be held accountable for their inaction by the issuance of mandamus.

If the duty or the activity that is in the question of the public authority is not mandated by a compulsory obligation but is discretionary in nature, the writ of mandamus cannot be issued for the enforcement of such duties.

The writ of mandamus cannot be issued against the Head of the State, that is, the President on a national level or Governor at the state level.

The incumbent Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and distinct high courts are also exempted from being held accountable by the issuance of a writ of mandamus.

For the enforcement of a contractual relationship that is private in nature, writ of mandamus cannot be issued for its enforcement.

A writ of mandamus cannot be issued against any Member of Parliament (MP of Lok Sabha or Rajya Sabha) and any Member of Legislative Assembly (MLA) of any state for the purpose of providing a smooth functioning and conduct of the parliamentary deliberations. 

Mandamus cannot be issued against any legislative institution which is passing such a law that is in contravention of the fundamental rights promised under Part III of the Constitution. This was subsequently upheld by the apex court in Chotey Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. The petitioner had moved a writ petition against the State of Uttar Pradesh as the state legislature had passed Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Bill in 1951 which was considered to be unconstitutional according to the applicant.

Electoral matters have been kept away from the purview of the writ of Mandamus and those officials that are engaged in different levels of the electoral process cannot be directed by mandamus. However, this is applicable only for elections to Union and state parliament. Mandamus can be issued in matters of contention relating to Municipal level elections.

Thus, the major legal requirements for the issuance of the writ is the public nature of the body, person or authority against whom the writ is getting applied for and a valid, justified rationale of the claims on the part of the petitioner. 

Interpretation of public right and mandamus

Writs of mandamus are to be issued in the following situations and for the same, a comprehension of public rights is a necessity: 

There must exist a legal right of the petitioner for getting a legal duty of the public authority to be discharged, provided that legal duty is compulsory and not discretionary in nature. Moreover, mandamus cannot be utilised for enforcing department specific rules or instructions which have got no statutory backing with regards to provisioning for legal rights of the petitioner(s). An exception to this rule is that statutory void is filled with executive orders. 

The legal responsibility of the authority or body should be of a public nature. The apex court, however, held in the Praga Tools Corporation v. C.V. Imanual that a writ of mandamus shall also be granted against a private entity or individual provided there has been a third-party involvement of the state authorities. The same principle is used with regards to a private contractual relationship where there is a state interference. 

The right that is sought to be enforced or implemented by the petitioner must remain in force or effect on the date of issuance of the petition. If there has been a lawful expiration of the interest of the applicant before the date of the petition, he loses his entitlement to the writ.

Issuance of anticipatory writs of mandamus is not encouraged by the Indian courts. However, there can exist exceptions to this rule. Provided an authority acts contrary to its statutory duty, anyone who is likely to be affected by any such order of that public officer or body. For instance, in Commissioner of Police, Bombay v. Gordhandas Bhanji, an unlawful order against the spirit of the Constitution was issued against an individual who sought a writ petition of mandamus even before the passage of the order. The Court held in this case that the issue of such an order implied an immediate infringement on the rights of the petitioner and was thus empowered to seek the redressal interference of the court on this matter.

Writ of mandamus exercised In various countries

The writ of mandamus is an integral part of both Parliamentary and Presidential setups. Examples of some parliamentary democracies that have the writ of mandamus as a part of their legal regimes are Australia, England and Wales. In Australia, the writ of mandamus is a constitutional provision and is under section 75(v) of their Constitution. In England Wales, mandamus exists as a mandatory order and not a writ.

The United States of America is an important example of a presidential democracy that has got a provision of mandamus in its legal system across federal and state-level courts. Acts of administrative institutions have been held to be subject to mandamus in various states across their country through amendments of statutes or judicial expansions.

Conclusion

Therefore, the writ of mandamus can be rightly described as a legal instrument of ensuring general public interest, safeguarding their rights promised to them in the Constitution and other laws of the land. It is also an effective mechanism for maintaining accountability of the state or public authorities and mandating them to comply with their constitutional and statutory obligations. Thus, writ of mandamus is essentially a pro-democratic mechanism which empowers the common people to get their rights enforced by the administrative bodies.

References

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/314384185_Writ_of_Mandamus

http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/592/Analysis-Of-Writ-Of-Mandamus.html

LawSikho has created a telegram group for exchanging legal knowledge, referrals and various opportunities. You can click on this link and join:

https://t.me/joinchat/J_0YrBa4IBSHdpuTfQO_sA

Follow us on Instagram and subscribe to our YouTube channel for more amazing legal content.

The post What powers do the courts have under writ of mandamus appeared first on iPleaders.

What powers do the courts have under writ of mandamus published first on https://namechangers.tumblr.com/

[pennsylvaniaprelawland-blog]

A Brief History Of The Electoral College And Faithless Electors

By Grace White, Villanova University Class of 2023

July 15, 2020

The presidential election waits for no pandemic – the 2020 election is well underway. Primaries, caucuses, and campaigns have begun, despite facing delays in certain states. Given the quickly approaching general election, interest has once again landed on the process. While many Americans look forward to voting, there is a fairly common area of interest: the Electoral College. The Electoral College feels like a well-established method; yet, there are plenty of questions and criticisms. This is a breakdown of some of the most influential events regarding the Electoral College that every voter should understand: its creation, relevant additions, court decisions, and more.

1787: The Electoral College is established.

When the Constitution was written, the Electoral College was created as an “eleventh hour compromise” [1]after significant disagreement on how the election process should run in the new democracy. When the government was formed, the Electoral College served as a compromise to two agendas: the framers who wanted a popular election by the people and those who wanted the congressional selection of the executive branch. The Electoral College balanced these conflicting ideas –high-population states would not overpower smaller states and the presidency was insulated from local voters who supposedly lacked sufficient information about the candidates [3]. At that point time, this was a major concern, considering much of the U.S. was agrarian with limited communication. It is described by the following [2]:

This section created the Electoral College:a voting body composed of qualified electors chosen by the state legislature.Representation was a major point of contention because states varied largely in population, an issue complicated by slavery [3]. The structure of the Electoral College intended to give every state relatively fair representation, satisfying this concern.The popular vote at this point voted for the electors, rather than the presidential candidates.

Article II, Section 1, Clause 3 also explains that electors were to cast two votes – both for president. The candidate with the most votes became president, and the runner-up vice president. Section 1 of the Constitution goes on to establish other stipulations, such as proceedings for elections with a tie, contingency plans in case a president elect died, and other expectations for the role of the president. One of the most relevant would be that in the event of an election with a tie, the House of Representatives chooses the president and the Senate chooses the vice president [2]. The Electoral College did not exist long as it was originally written, being changed shortly after its conception.

1804: The 12th Amendment is passed.

The election of 1800 was the fourth U.S. presidential election and resulted in some of the most significant changes to the Electoral College. Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr, two of the presidential nominees, earned the same number of votes in the college [5]. The House of Representatives chose Jefferson as president, and Burr become vice president. This presented a structural problem, particularly due to the rise of political parties– if all of the electors cast their votes for their party’s candidates, there would be a tie. As a result, the 12th Amendment was passed.

The 12th Amendment maintained that each electorwould vote twice, but it required that one vote be explicitly for the presidency and the other must be a candidate from a state besides the elector’s home. In the event of a tie, the House would choose, each state having one vote, but also required that the president be chosen from the top three candidates [4]. This amendment decreased the likelihood that an election would have to be decided by the House [6].

The 1804 election was the first time that these guidelines were used. The rise of political parties necessitated a change to the Electoral College, which the 12th Amendment brought. These alterations created a plan that better fit the political climate.

1952: Ray v. Blair

Leading up to the 1952 presidential election, Edmund Blair, a member of the Democratic Party in Alabama was chosen as a qualified elector but refused to take an oath committing his support to "the nominees of the National Convention of the Democratic Party for President and Vice-President of the United States." [8]. As a result, Ben Ray, the chairman of Alabama’s Executive Committee of the Democratic Party, chose not to present him as a candidate [8].Blair responded by filing a writ of mandamus, which the Alabama Supreme Court upheld. The case was appealed and brought to the Supreme Court, where that decision was overturned.

The Supreme Court determined that the oath, which essentially pledged the electors’ loyalty to the party, was permissible. Their argument relied heavily on the two texts already mentioned. Part of the opinion of the court goes as follows [9]:

On that ground, the Democratic Party of Alabama (and other parties in other states) would be allowed to require their nominated electors to pledge to cast their votes in that party’s favor – which would cut down on “faithless voting” [9]. This would set the precedent that electors do not have absolute freedom, a decision that drastically changed the role of the Electoral College. If they are bound to their party’s nominee, then electors are figureheads rather than active voters. This case marked the beginning of frequent debate on this topic, so the court has continued to revisit the role of electors and the constraints that can be placed on them.

1961: The 23rd Amendment is passed.

  The 23rd Amendment did not make significant changes to the Electoral College; rather, it allowed the DC to vote in presidential elections. Residents gained the right to vote in DC and it was given representation in the Electoral College, with no more electors than the least populous state, which is three [4].

2016: The 58th Presidential election

The 2016 election saw Hillary Clinton (D) oppose Donald Trump (R). This was an important election because it was the fifth time in U.S. history that the winner of the electoral vote did not win the popular vote [7]. Clinton earned more of the popular vote, beating Trump by a margin of about 2.1% [10]. Despite this, Trump won 304 electoral votes to Clinton’s 227, thus becoming president.There were also ten faithless voters, eight Democratic and two Republican (three disallowed), though this fact did not change the outcome of the election [11]; it would, however, lead to Colorado Department of State v. Baca and Chiafalo et al v. Washington.

2020: Colorado Department of State v. Bacaand Chiafalo et al v. Washington

These two cases both involve 2016 electors and were decided on the same day, July 6th, 2020 by the Supreme Court [13].

Colorado Department of State v. Baca involved Michael Baca, Polly Baca, and Robert Nemanich, Democratic electors for the state of Colorado. Michael Baca voted for John Kasich and was removed for faithless voting. Polly Baca and Robert Nemanich then decided to vote for Clinton, but the three started a lawsuit against the state, claiming the law violated their Constitutional rights under the 2nd Amendment [12]. The case was initially dismissed for lack of standing for Polly Baca and Nemanich, but the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed Michael Baca’s standing and found the law unconstitutional.In the Supreme Court, the decision was reversed, finding the Colorado state law permissible [12].

Chiafalo et al v. Washington was a case brought by three Washington Democratic electors, who broke their pledge to vote for Hillary Clinton [13]. As a result, they were each fined by the state, which they challenged under the premise that the Constitution gave electors the right to “vote by ballot” which they argued implied the use of discretion [1]. The Supreme Court rejected this notion, leaning on Ray v. Blair, the Constitutional language, and the 12th Amendment. In the opinion delivered by Justice Kagan, the Court argued that the Constitution gives the right to elect rather than cast independent votes, which is explained further in the following passage [1]:

These two decisions were made together because of the similarities within them.The Supreme Court used the cases to answer two questions related to the Electoral College: electors are bound to the nominee of the party that chose them, and states have the power to enforce that by law or through adverse actions like fines. Because the description of the Electoral College was vague in the Constitution, the Supreme Court’s decisions have significant influence on its function in the election process.

The Electoral College has seen change since it was established in 1787 and will undoubtedly see more in the future. Though many critiques can be made, it has played an influential role in the U.S. government throughout this country’s history. The 2020 election brings another opportunity to evaluate the Electoral College as a governmental body and remains a product of its past.

________________________________________________________________

Grace White is a sophomore in the Villanova University School of Business, studying Economics and Accounting. She is interested in tax law and economic policy, with plans to attend law school after graduation in May 2023.

________________________________________________________________

[1] https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/19-465_i425.pdf Chiafalo v. Washington. 591 U.S. 19-465.

[2] https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/article/article-iiExecutive Branch. (n.d.). National Constitution Center.

[3] https://time.com/4558510/electoral-college-history-slavery/Akhil Reed Amar. (November 26, 2018). The Troubling Reason the Electoral College Exists. Time

[4], including image https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/United_States_of_America_1992United States of America Constitution (1789). (n.d.). Constitute Project.

[5] https://www.britannica.com/event/United-States-presidential-election-of-1800#ref299626United States presidential election of 1800. (July 19, 2018). Encyclopedia Britannica.

[6] https://www.britannica.com/topic/Twelfth-AmendmentBrian P. Smentkowski. (July 23, 2013). Twelfth Amendment. Encyclopedia Britannica.

[7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_elections_in_which_the_winner_lost_the_popular_voteList of United States presidential elections in which the winner lost the popular vote, (n.d.). Wikipedia.

[8] https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/casebrief/p/casebrief-ray-v-blairLaw School Case Brief: Ray v. Blair. (n.d.). LexisNexis.

[9] including image http://cdn.loc.gov/service/ll/usrep/usrep343/usrep343214/usrep343214.pdf            Ray v. Blair, 343 U.S. 649 (1952)

[10] https://www.270towin.com/2016_Election/2016 Presidential Election. (n.d.). 270toWin.

[11] https://www.fairvote.org/faithless_electorsFaithless Electors, (July 6, 2020).FairVote.

[12] https://www.oyez.org/cases/2019/19-518Colorado Department of State v. Baca. (n.d.). Oyez.

[13] https://www.oyez.org/cases/2019/19-465Chiafalo v. Washington. (n.d.). Oyez.

[taxolawgy123]

What to do in case an official refuse to lodge an FIR?

Section 154 of The Code of Criminal Procedure deals with registration of First Information Report (though the Section does not use the word ‘First Information Report or FIR). Know your rights on how to file an FIR in India, procedures of filing an FIR both through physical and online FIR filing system. Know everything about filing FIR in India and how to escalate the situation if any official refuses to file a complaint.

How to file an FIR in India?

One can do online FIR registration or online police complaint about cognizable crimes. Non-cognizable crimes require submitting a complaint to the magistrate. The magistrate, in turn, directs police for action.

A “cognizable” crime covers for example murder, rape, rioting, dacoity, etc. These are the crimes where arrest can be made without a warrant. A “non-cognizable” crime covers cheating, fraud, etc. There is a difference between an FIR and a complaint.

A First information report is the report of crime or civil issues that the police receive first in point of time. The commission of the crime or the police has the right to arrest without warrant and can start the investigation. The complaint refers to an appeal made to the magistrate, comprising an allegation that a crime has taken place.

You can file FIRs online. You can always find relevant information and get contact information from each State’s Human Rights Commission office. It can be through the website of the National Human Rights Commission ​http://nhrc.nic.in Moreover, it is not necessary to go to the police station if the police ask you to visit, unless the police are arresting you on criminal grounds.

Grounds for the arrest of a citizen

Police can summon you to the police station in case you are a witness, suspect or have a perceived part in the crime. The police cannot take you with them while you are walking outside or you are at home if you haven’t done anything illegal. Unless they have a substantial reason, you have the right to refuse to go with them anywhere.

Police can only question a woman or children under 15 years in their homes. They don’t have to visit the police station.

Let us summarize how you can file FIR in India (First Information Report). Register your complaint at the nearest police station. It can be done at the locality where the offence is allegedly committed, or where the victim resides or carries on business.

The concerned police officer in the police station may register an oral FIR. One can make a written complaint. Which is then converted to the FIR format.

The concerned Police officer, after recording the FIR in the prescribed form, will explain the contents of the said FIR. The complainant then has to sign over in the said recorded FIR.

The Police are obliged to give FIR to the complainant. It should be noted that an FIR can even be registered by a person who is alleged to have committed a crime.

What steps to take if the police refuse to register an FIR?

Send your complaint in writing to the Superintendent of Police (SP) through registered post.

Send a complaint to the concerned State Human Rights Commission or the National Human Rights Commission. Mention that the police are not enforcing the law or that they are being negligent and corrupt.

It is a crime to refuse to file FIR in India.

Refusal to lodge an FIR on jurisdictional ground amounts to 1 year of Imprisonment for the Police officials.

A petition can be filed and submitted to the Chief Justice of the concerned High Court / Chief Justice of India, Supreme Court. It requests to take Suo Moto Cognizance of the alleged contempt of the court. A copy of the letter is also sent to the concerned police officer. One can check for the status of the petition through an application under the Right to Information (RTI).

How to escalate your complaint?

Know that you can:

Complain to the superintendent of police

Approach to a judicial  magistrate with your plea

File the writ petition

Complain to the state and national human rights commission.

You can write the complaint of your case and can send it by post to the senior officer of the police, Commissioner of Police or Superintendent of police. First, the superintendent analyses the complaint. Then sent to the High Court Chief Justice of the State.

A copy of the online police complaint is sent to the Chief Justice of the High Court of the State once it is analyzed by the Superintendent of the police.

You may send a written complaint in the form of the letter to the Concerned judicial metropolitan magistrate. After analyzing the letter magistrate will decide whether to take cognizance or not. An informant may also send an application to the judicial magistrate.

You can even file a writ petition in the Hon’ble High Court for the issuance of writ of mandamus against the defaulting police officer. To give the reason why he has not registered the FIR, and why he should not be suspended from his position of police service for interfering in the administration of justice and disturbing the accused person.

Right to Compensation

A citizen can ask for damages/compensation, for the frustration and for the deprivation of life and liberty under Article 21 of the Indian constitution.

You can file a case with the State human rights commission or National human rights commission in written form. You will mention that the concerned police officer is not doing his duty. Disregarding law. Stating the disregard for the victim’s problems that could create a situation of mental trauma or frustration for the victim.

If a police official misuses their power against less privileged or someone who cannot read or write, an Application u/s 156(3) or Criminal Complaint u/s 200 of CRPC, 1973, can be filed. Also filed orally before the competent magistrate.

But in the recent era, things have been changed now. Refusing to file FIR is an offence. Follow up the above guidelines and do not be silent on the crime. The one who is doing the crime is equally responsible as the one who is suffering from it.

[whereasthepeople-blog]

‘Don’t you worry about that’: Secret evidence, the executive and the courts (a case note on Graham v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection)

It’s a secret, your honour. Don’t you worry about that.

The High Court has been in the spotlight of late, in respect of both the constitutional qualification issues for various members of Parliament as well the same sex marriage postal survey. One decision that has received less media attention is that of Graham v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection; Te Puia v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] HCA 33 handed down on Wednesday 6 September 2017.

The facts

Graham and Te Puia were citizens of New Zealand who had been in Australia for some time (Graham since 1976 and Te Puia since 2005) each pursuant to a ‘Class TY Subclass 444 Special Category (Temporary)’ visa. Both individuals received letters from the Minister giving them notice that the Minister had decided to cancel their visas under section 501(3) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (‘the Act’).

Without going in to too much detail here, section 501(3) relevantly enables the Minister to cancel a visa where the Minister reasonably suspects that the person does not meet the character test and that the cancellation is in the national interest. Section 501(6) elaborates that a person fails the character test if they have a substantial criminal record (further defined elsewhere) or the Minister reasonably suspects that the person has had association with of a group, organisation or person that has been involved in criminal conduct.

In the letters the Minister stated that in making his decision the Minister had taken account of evidence which was protected from disclosure under section 503A of the Act. Section 503A deals with information the Minister obtains from certain other agencies (usually law enforcement agencies) on a confidential basis and arose out of a reluctance in those agencies to share information where its disclosure might prejudice their sources or methodologies. In each case, that evidence was not disclosed or made available to Graham or Te Puia.

The problem

First, let’s think about this non-disclosure of evidence in the abstract. There are obvious difficulties for a visa holder in this situation. From what you’ve been told, you will be aware that the Minister is of the view (or at least reasonably suspects) that you have a substantial criminal record or other criminal associations, but you won’t necessarily know the detail of that – particularly where that detail is supplied by the evidence provided to the Minister under section 503A of the Act. One can imagine the feeling of confusion, and perhaps a temptation to go through a quick mental review – who do I hang out with? What group are they talking about?

Now, in the case of Graham the Minister’s statement of reasons did outline a connection to a particular outlaw motorcycle gang, as well as some prior offending. In the case of Te Puia, the Minister referred only to the applicant’s membership of a particular group and that decision appeared to be based only on reference to the undisclosed material. In any case, it is not difficult to see how other individuals could be left with very little in the way of reasons presented for the decision made against their interests.

Leaving that to one side however, there’s also a clear problem for the court – the executive has made a decision, based on evidence not made available to the other party. Not only that, but section 503A purports to prevent that evidence being received by the court itself. If a party were to approach the court seeking a review of the decision, say on the basis that the Minister took into account an irrelevant consideration or acted irrationally, how is the court to make a decision?

Of course there is a legitimate interest in an agency preserving its intelligence sources and its intelligence gathering methodologies. All I say, however, is that this secrecy sits in tension with the role of the courts in supervising the executive where it provides the basis for a decision.

As we will see, this difficulty was not lost on the court.

The decision

The court split 6-1 on the matter and a joint judgment was delivered by Kiefel CJ, Bell, Gageler, Keane, Nettle AND Gordon JJ. Edelman J agreed with the majority on what will be called the ‘institutional integrity’ point, but dissented on the question about the Commonwealth Parliament’s ability to restrict judicial review.

The joint judgment

The joint judgment first dismissed an argument by the plaintiff that the scheme impaired the ‘institutional integrity’ of the court in a way that would offend the Kable principle. That argument by the plaintiff appeared to centre on an analogy to public interest immunity under the common law, and the removal of the decision on what was in the public interest from the court to the executive. The Commonwealth argued that there was no constitutional principle that meant the courts had to be the arbiter of the public interest where admissible evidence were to be withheld. The court agreed.

Instead, the matter was determined on the basis of section 75(v) of the Constitution. That section provides that the High Court shall have original jurisdiction in all matters ‘in which a writ of Mandamus or prohibition or an injunction is sought against an officer of the Commonwealth’. This provision is thought to have the effect of ‘entrenching’ a minimum level of judicial review of executive action that is beyond the power of the Parliament to remove. In this way, section 75(v) ‘secures a basic element of the rule of law’ (paragraph 44 of the judgment).

The joint judgment re-affirmed that the Parliament cannot enact a law that denies the High Court (or other courts in some circumstances) ‘the ability to enforce the legislated limits of an officer’s power.’ It went on to say (at paragraph 48) that:

The question whether or not a law transgresses that constitutional limitation is one of substance, and therefore of degree. To answer it requires an examination not only of the legal operation of the law but also of the practical impact of the law on the ability of a court, through the application of judicial process, to discern and declare whether or not the conditions of and constraints on the lawful exercise of the power conferred on an officer have been observed in a particular case.

In the case of the applicant in particular, the court was denied access to the whole of the evidence upon which the Minister’s decision was based. To the extent that section 503A of the Act prevented the court from seeing information that would be relevant to the question of whether or not the Minister had exercised a power according to law, it was invalid.

Edelman J’s dissent

His honour considered that the joint judgment’s approach was overly broad, for two ‘or possibly three’ reasons.

First, history. Edelman J considered that the removal of this information from the court’s grasp was in effect, nothing new. Far more extreme impairments on judicial review had existed and indeed been standard in the 19th century. His honour referred as well to certain legislation allowing the executive to resist the disclosure of ‘State papers’ to a court by the issue of a conclusive certificate stating that such disclosure would be prejudicial to the public service. His honour conceded the Constitution may have involved a break from those traditions, but went on to say that:

it would be difficult to see how the Constitution broke from longstanding, clear, and established legal history by introducing contrary content to a generalised and broad implication which is ultimately founded on the concept of the rule of law, itself a concept the precise content of which is hotly disputed and which, on many accounts, includes notions of certainty and clarity.

Secondly his honour considered that this legislation went no further than other legislation previously upheld by the court, citing Plaintiff M61/2010E v The Commonwealth (2010) 243 CLR 319. To this I would suggest that the High Court should not consider itself bound by the general ‘fit’ of its decisions in a broader jurisprudence created by many judges over many years. The doctrine of precedent is not so inflexible and prior decisions are, on occasion, incorrect.

And finally, and perhaps most interestingly, Edelman J observed that the ‘unreasonableness’ ground of judicial review which was said to be rendered impossible to undertake by section 503A was no more than a presumption of statutory interpretation. If the presumption can be reversed, excluding review entirely, how then was it impermissible to simply take some evidence out of a proceeding that constitutionally does not have to exist? His honour did not elaborate on this point, but I think there are some clear criticisms to be made. I think this point does not fully answer the question – there are surely other grounds for review, and therefore sources of jurisdiction, that a court could be deprived of by a provision such as this from time to time.

His honour’s dissent is far longer and more interesting than can be sufficiently described here and I highly recommend reading it. It even includes a table of contents, which I think would be useful for many judges to consider.

Concluding comments

There can be little doubt of the benefits to the rule of law that flow from a minimum content of judicial review that is beyond Parliamentary disruption. To adapt an old adage, it says to the other arms of government ‘be you ever so high, the court is above you’.

While there is also something to be said for founding restrictions on power such as this ‘minimum content of judicial review’ on the text and structure of the Constitution, I think that the present case is clear example of that approach. The words of section 75(v) could not be given their proper effect if the executive were free to make decisions outside of the bounds of legality only by virtue of the fact that the court was rendered impotent to receive evidence about the decision. The Australian Constitution does not allow for power without limit.

Whereas the People is an Australian constitutional and public law blog.

[indiandiary-blog]

Arrest  Chief  Justice

Indian’s  Diary  –  e  News  Weekly

Spreading the light of humanity & freedom

Editor: Nagaraja.M.R.. Vol.13..Issue.32........12  / 08 / 2017

Probe  CJI  for  Kalikho Pul's suicide, his widow petitions Vice-President Ansari

TNN | Updated: Mar 1, 2017, 06.48 AM IST

Giving a new twist to former Arunachal chief minister Kalikho Pul's `suicide' note case, his widow Dangwimsai Pul met Vice-President Hamid Ansari on Tuesday, seeking registration of an FIR and investigation into allegations of corruption against Chief Justice of India Justice J S Khehar and sitting Supreme Court judge Dipak Misra. In her memorandum, Dangwimsai said since the matter involved the CJI and another sitting SC judge, the allegations should be "seriously investigated by a credible investigation team", a Special Investigation Team (SIT), and not a government-controlled body. She argued that composition of the SIT should be left to 3-5 judges, next in seniority to CJI Khehar and Justice Misra. The 60-page 'suicide note' of Pul, who committed suicide on August 9 last year in his official residence in Itanagar, allegedly contained details of several allegations of corruption against politicians and judges, as also against President Pranab Mukherjee.

According to the purported diary, captioned "Mere Vichar", of the former Arunachal CM, Pul blamed his suicide on corruption among Congress leaders of Arunachal and the judiciary which unseated him. Saying that her husband was under depression after his removal as CM and that 'Mere Vichar' was actually his suicide note, Dangwimsai told the vice-president: "Given the gravity of the allegations contained in the note and the fact that many of them are from his personal knowledge and that a suicide note is treated like a dying declaration, this matter needs to be seriously investigated by a credible investigation team. However, since it also involves the CJI and another sitting judge of the Supreme Court, to protect the independence of the judiciary , it should not be investigated by an investigative body controlled by the government."

Dangwimsai was accompanied by activist-lawyer Prashant Bhushan, his Swaraj Abhiyan colleague Yogendra Yadav, bureaucrat-turned-activist Harsh Mander and RTI campaigner Anjali Bhardwaj. Her move to meet the vice-President followed her decision to withdraw from the SC her petition seeking a CBI probe into the death.

Talking about the independence of the judiciary, Dangwimsai's memorandum said, "It was to protect the independence of the judiciary that the SC in Veeraswami's case said that any allegations against the sitting judges of the higher judiciary can only be investigated by an investigating authority after obtaining the prior permission of the Chief Justice of India." It further said, "The judgment says that in case there are allegations against the Chief Justice, the President will consult other judges. This, in terms of the spirit of the judgment, would mean the judgejudges next in seniority ."

The letter said, "Since in this case, the allegations are also against the sitting CJI and sitting President, I am therefore addressing this request to you (Vice-President) to exercise the authority which normally the President would have exercised in terms of the Veeraswami's judgment."

PIL –   Prosecute  Chief  Justice  of  India  & Former President of India

An Appeal to Honourable Supreme Court of India  &  H.E. Honourable President  of India

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. OF 2017

IN THE MATTER OF

NAGARAJA . M.R

editor   , Indian’s  Diary  &  Dalit’s  Diary ,

# LIG 2 , No 761 ,, HUDCO First Stage , Laxmikantanagar ,

Hebbal , Mysore – 570017 , Karnataka State

....Petitioner

Versus

Honourable  Chief   Justice  of  India   &  Others

....Respondents

PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 12 to ARTICLE 35 & ARTICLE 51A OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS UNDER ARTICLE 32 & ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.

To ,

Hon'ble The Chief Justice of India and His Lordship's Companion

Justices of the Supreme Court of India. The Humble petition of the

Petitioner above named.

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH :

1. Facts of the case:

"Power will go to the hands of rascals, , rogues and freebooters. All Indian leaders will be of low calibre and men of straw. They will have sweet tongues and silly hearts. They will fight among themselves for power and will be lost in political squabbles . A day would come when even air & water will be taxed." Sir Winston made this statement in the House of Commons just before the independence of India & Pakistan. Sadly , the forewarning of Late Winston Churchill has been proved right by some of our criminal , corrupt public servants.

In his death  note  Former Arunachal Pradesh  Chief Minister Mr.Kalikho  Pul  has clearly  alleged involvement of CJI Khehar , President Mukherjee & others in the crime.

2. Question(s) of Law:

As per constitution of India , are not all citizens of india equal before  law ?

3. Grounds:

Requests for equitable justice. Prosecution of  corrupt  Judges , CJI  J S Khehar , Former President  Mukherjee    &  Corrupt  Public  Servants.

4. Averment:

Hereby , I do request the honorable supreme court of India to consider this as a PIL for : “writ of Mandamus” and to issue instructions to the concerned public servants in the  cases to perform their duties.

PRAYER:

In the above premises, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased:

a . Hereby , I do request the honorable supreme court of India to consider this as a PIL for : “writ of Mandamus” and to issue instructions to the concerned public servants , in the case to perform their duties.

b. To register FIR  against Chief Justice of India JS Khehar , Former President of India Mukherjee & others and arrest them for legal prosecution.

c. To constitute an impartial  investigation team to investigate the team. The team must be accountable to the public.

d . to pass such other orders and further orders as may be deemed necessary on the facts and in the circumstances of the case.

FOR WHICH ACT OF KINDNESS, THE PETITIONER SHALL BE DUTY BOUND, EVER PRAY.

Dated : 05th  August  2017 …………………. FILED BY: NAGARAJA.M.R.

Place : Mysuru , India…………………….      PETITIONER-IN-PERSON

Former SC judge approached me on behalf of CJI: Dave

The CJI had ordered the letter to be listed as a writ petition before a bench of Justices A K Goel and U U Lalit. At the high-wattage hearing on Thursday with the CJI at its centre, Dangwimsai's counsel Dushyant Dave made the sensational claim that a former SC judge had approached him on Khehar's behalf. He also questioned the decision to turn the letter into a writ petition to be disposed of by the SC when his client had sought an administrative inquiry, as also the choice of Justices Goel and Lalit to hear the petition Dangwimsai's letter cited the SC's 1991 judgment in the Veeraswami case where the apex court had ruled that SC and HC judges could be probed for corruption but only with the prior permission of the CJI. The Constitution bench ruling had also said, "If the Chief Justice of India himself is the person against whom the allegations of criminal misconduct are received, the government shall consult any other judge or judges of the Supreme Court." Dangwimsai's letter had said, "I am sure you (the CJI) will have the matter placed before the appropriate judge in accordance with the judgment in the Veeraswami case for consideration of my request." Dave raised a series of questions and levelled many allegations. "Why was Dangwimsai's letter converted into a criminal writ petition? Why was it put up for hearing in open court for a judicial decision when the CJI was expected to take a decision on the administrative side? Is the CJI precluded from taking a decision on the letter as the allegations in the suicide note concerned the CJI's son?" Dave asked. "We had sought an administrative direction, why was it taken on the judicial side? We want to know the reason behind it. There was a development on Monday evening. A former judge of the Supreme Court met me on behalf of the CJI. I do not want to say more. I beg your lordships to stay away from this case," Dave urged the bench of Justices Goel and Lalit.

Initially, Dave gave the impression that he was totally against the letter being put up for hearing in open court. Later, he wanted to know if it was to be put up for hearing, then why before a bench headed by a junior judge like Justice Goel, who is number 13 in seniority among the 28 SC judges.

"This letter brings forth a more serious issue than the one raised by Calcutta HC's Justice C S Karnan, which is being heard by a five-judge bench. So, why was a five-judge bench not constituted for this case? Why has it been assigned to a junior judge and not to number three (Justice J Chelameswar) or number four (Justice Ranjan Gogoi) or number five (Justice Madan Lokur)?" Dave asked.

When the bench appeared determined to proceed with the hearing, Dave said, "You (Justice Goel) were a colleague of the CJI in Punjab and Haryana HC. You should recuse yourself." Finally, Dave said his client (Dangwimsai) wanted to withdraw the letter to explore other avenues.

"We will now approach the vice-president for relief as the suicide note contains allegations against the President also. If the Supreme Court decides on the letter after converting it into a writ petition, then all other avenues for remedies will be closed," Dave said. The bench permitted Dangwimsai to withdraw the letter and said the withdrawal would mean that the cause of action initiated by the widow in writing to the CJI had ended.

DECLARATION

Name : ...........................NAGARAJA.M.R.

Address : ...................LIG-2 / 761 , HUDCO FIRST STAGE , OPP WATER WORKS OFFICE , LAKSHMIKANTANAGAR , HEBBAL , MYSORE - 570017 INDIA

Old  Professional / Trade Title : S.O.S - e – Voice For Justice

New  Professional / Trade Title :   Indian’s  Diary

Periodicity : WEEKLY

Circulation : FOR FREE DISTRIBUTION ON WEB

Donations : NOT ACCEPTED. Self financing . Never accepted any donations , subscriptions either for ourselves or on behalf of other organizations / individuals .

Monetary gains : nil , never made any monetary gain by way of advertisements on my websites or web news paper or otherwise.

Owner/editor/printer/publisher : NAGARAJA.M.R.

Nationality : INDIAN

Body Donation : Physical Body of Nagaraja M R , Editor ,  Indian’s  Diary  is donated to JSS Medical College , Mysore             ( Donation No. 167 dated 22 / 10 / 2003 ) , In case of either Unnatural death or Natural Death at the hands of criminal nexus , my body must be handed over to JSS Medical College , Mysore for the study purposes of medical students.

Eye Donation : Both EYES of Nagaraja M R , Editor ,  Indian’s  Diary  are donated to Mysore Eye Bank , Mysore , In case of either Unnatural death or Natural Death at the hands of criminal nexus , my eyes must be handed over to Mysore Eye Bank , Mysore WITHIN 6 Hours for immediate eye transplantation to the needy.

Old  Home page :

http://evoiceforjustice.dalitonline.in/  ,

http://in.groups.yahoo.com/group/sosevoiceforjustice/ ,  http://groups.google.co.in/group/hrwepaper / ,

http://sites.google.com/site/sosevoiceforjustice / , http://evoiceofhumanrightswatch.wordpress.com / ,

http://naghrw.tripod.com/evoice/ , http://e-voiceofhumanrightswatch.blogspot.com ,

New  Home  Page :

http://evoiceforjustice.dalitonline.in/  ,

https://sites.google.com/site/indiansdiary/ ,

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/indians--diary  ,

https://indiansdiary1.blogspot.in/ ,

https://in.groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/indiansdiary/info ,

http://naghrw.tripod.com/ ,

http://evoiceofhumanrightswatch.wordpress.com

Contact :  Naag@protonmail.com ,  Naag@dalitonline.in  ,  Naag@torbox3uiot6wchz.onion ,  

UID Aadhaar No : 5703 5339 3479 Cell : 91 8970318202

It is the duty of Supreme Court of India to Protect , Guard the constitutional rights , fundamental rights of every Indian citizen . Since 25 years  I am  appealing  to SCI  about  issues concerning public welfare , national security , etc and as a result suffering injustices , my constitutional rights , human rights are repeatedly violated  but SCI is mum even when repeated appeals were made to it. Paradoxically , after these appeals for justice , I have suffered more injustices , attempts on my life were made ,  physically assaulted , livelihood  / jobs were  denied , news publication closed , press accreditation denied ,  received threatening  calls , blank calls, even to date  rough elements follow us , rough elements  scout  near home at mid night. Does  not these indicate some ties between rough elements & SCI  Judges ?

Public Interest Litigation is an appeal  for justice  to the courts , to redress  the injustices meted out to  the public.  Individual cases of injustices  pertaining to an individual are not covered under PIL, however  an individual an activist  who  is fighting for public causes  suffering  injustices  as a result of   his struggle  ,caused by powers that be to silence him  can club  his individual case under the public causes  (PIL ) he is  appealing.

Nowadays people of questionable character , integrity  are being selected to public posts , end result is present day india.  In the following web sites I have shown  few actual cases of crimes by judges & police , just imagine what type of justice common man gets.

Traitors  in   Indian  Judiciary & Police

https://www.scribd.com/document/329980170/Traitors-in-Judiciary-Police

Crimes  by  Khaki

https://www.scribd.com/document/334590032/Crimes-by-Khaki  ,

FIRST  Answer  Judges  Police

https://www.scribd.com/document/336585411/FIRST-Answer-Judges-Police

Notice  To  Chief  Justice  of  India

https://sites.google.com/site/sosevoiceforjustice/notice-to-chief-justice

Police show full bravery , courage , use  full might of law while acting against innocents , commoners. Even  takes suo motto action. Frequently crosses legal limits  while acting against commoners like 3rd degree torture , arrest / search  , seizure without warrant , arrest in mid night , etc . While they are supposed to take action against rich crooks , their own corrupt colleagues  no suo motto action , delayed action inspite of complaint  allowing time for rich crook to get anticipatory bail , no 3rd degree torture on him , no arrest , search , seizure without warrant. Where is the bravery , courage of police ?

Judges show their full wisdom , apply rigid law book while  judging cases of commoners , take suo motto action  where as  cases involving rich crooks comes before them inspite of repeated PILs they don’t consider it , let alone take suo motto action. Judges make far fetched interpretations of law , ultimately benefitting the rich crook. Where is the wisdom of Judges ?

I ,NAGARAJA.M.R. hereby do declare that information given above are true to the best of my knowledge & belief. If i am repeatedly called to police station or else where for the sake of investigations , the losses i do incurr as a result like loss of wages , transportation , job , etc must be borne by the government. prevoiusly the police / IB personnel repeatedly called me the complainant (sufferer of injustices) to police station for questioning , but never called the guilty culprits , rich crooks , criminals even once to police station for questioning , as the culprits are high & mighty . this type of one sided questioning must not be done by police or investigating agencies . if anything untoward happens to me or to my family members like loss of job , meeting with hit & run accidents , loss of lives , death due to improper medical care , etc , the jurisdictional police together with above mentioned accussed public servants will be responsible for it. Even if criminal nexus levels fake charges , police file fake cases against me or my dependents to silence me , this complaint is & will be effective.

Powers that  be , higher ups have referred all my previous cases to police although in most of the cases  police don’t  have jurisdiction over it.  It  sends  a subtle message by police force to  the  complainant  to keep silent . In the remaining cases  which are under their jurisdiction police  don’t act against higher ups , high & mighty. In such cases police lack  practical powers , their hands are tied although they  are  honest.  As a end result , police  have repeatedly called   me to police station  number of  times  ( have never called guilty  influential persons even once)  took  statement  from  me and closed  the files.

Hereby , I do make it clear  the statements made by me  in my original petitions , PILs , news papers  , etc  while I was in  a free & fair atmosphere  are  TRUE  , over rides , prevails over all the statements made by me before police  earlier and  which will be made by me  in future before police.

If I or my family members or my dependents are denied our fundamental rights , human rights , denied proper medical care for ourselves , If anything untoward happens to me or to my dependents or to my family members – In such case Chief Justice of India together with the jurisdictional revenue & police officials will be responsible for it , in such case the government of india is liable to pay Rs. TWO crore as compensation to survivors of my family. if my whole family is eliminated by the criminal nexus ,then that compensation money must be donated to Indian Army Welfare Fund. Afterwards , the money must be recovered by GOI as land arrears from the salary , pension , property , etc of guilty police officials , Judges , public servants & Constitutional functionaries.

date :  05.08.2017…………………………..Your’s sincerely,

place : India……………………………………Nagaraja.M.R.

Edited, printed , published owned by NAGARAJA.M.R. @ # LIG-2  No  761,HUDCO FIRST STAGE ,

OPP WATER WORKS , LAXMIKANTANAGAR , HEBBAL ,MYSURU – 570017  KARNATAKA  INDIA

Cell : 91 8970318202

Home page :

http://evoiceforjustice.dalitonline.in/  ,

https://sites.google.com/site/indiansdiary/ ,

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/indians--diary  ,

https://indiansdiary1.blogspot.in/ ,

https://in.groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/indiansdiary/info ,

http://naghrw.tripod.com/ ,

http://evoiceofhumanrightswatch.wordpress.com / ,

http://thecitizens.torpress2sarn7xw.onion/ ,

Contact  :   Naag@protonmail.com ,  Naag@dalitonline.in  ,

Secure  Mail :  Naag@torbox3uiot6wchz.onion ,    

[dalitdiary-blog]

Jail  Chief  Justice  or  Kill...

Dalit’s  Diary  -   e  News  Weekly

Working For  The Rights  &  Survival Of  The Oppressed

Editor: NAGARAJA.M.R… VOL.11 issue.32…… . 16  / 08 / 2017

Editorial :  Jail  CJI  or  Kill  sufferer of Injustices

-          An Appeal to H.E.Honourable President of India

   Since 20 years  we are appealing  to Chief Justice of India   concerning public issues  , seeking justice from him. Till date  no action instead more injustices meted out  to silence me.

  Hereby , I  appeal  to legally prosecute  CJI  Khehar,  shadow CJI  Dipak Mishra  and  Ex President of India Pranab Mukherjee for their crimes.  If CJI cann’t give justice , let him  give  an affidavit in writing stating that  “ Inspite  of receiving lakhs of rupees salary , perks from public exchequer  for decades we are unfit for public service , we  only serve , rich & mighty “.

 Afterwards ,  kill me sufferer of Injustices  with your due permission  for mercy killing.  In such a scenario , I wish to  get killed  by  gun shots fired by Indian Army Soldiers. Our  soldiers are the  true guardians of our motherland NOT the Judges or Police or Politicians.

Thanking you ,

Nagaraja Mysuru  Raghupathi

Notice  To  Chief  Justice  of  India

https://sites.google.com/site/sosevoiceforjustice/notice-to-chief-justice

Probe  CJI  for  Kalikho Pul's suicide, his widow petitions Vice-President Ansari

TNN | Updated: Mar 1, 2017, 06.48 AM IST

Giving a new twist to former Arunachal chief minister Kalikho Pul's `suicide' note case, his widow Dangwimsai Pul met Vice-President Hamid Ansari on Tuesday, seeking registration of an FIR and investigation into allegations of corruption against Chief Justice of India Justice J S Khehar and sitting Supreme Court judge Dipak Misra. In her memorandum, Dangwimsai said since the matter involved the CJI and another sitting SC judge, the allegations should be "seriously investigated by a credible investigation team", a Special Investigation Team (SIT), and not a government-controlled body. She argued that composition of the SIT should be left to 3-5 judges, next in seniority to CJI Khehar and Justice Misra. The 60-page 'suicide note' of Pul, who committed suicide on August 9 last year in his official residence in Itanagar, allegedly contained details of several allegations of corruption against politicians and judges, as also against President Pranab Mukherjee.

According to the purported diary, captioned "Mere Vichar", of the former Arunachal CM, Pul blamed his suicide on corruption among Congress leaders of Arunachal and the judiciary which unseated him. Saying that her husband was under depression after his removal as CM and that 'Mere Vichar' was actually his suicide note, Dangwimsai told the vice-president: "Given the gravity of the allegations contained in the note and the fact that many of them are from his personal knowledge and that a suicide note is treated like a dying declaration, this matter needs to be seriously investigated by a credible investigation team. However, since it also involves the CJI and another sitting judge of the Supreme Court, to protect the independence of the judiciary , it should not be investigated by an investigative body controlled by the government."

Dangwimsai was accompanied by activist-lawyer Prashant Bhushan, his Swaraj Abhiyan colleague Yogendra Yadav, bureaucrat-turned-activist Harsh Mander and RTI campaigner Anjali Bhardwaj. Her move to meet the vice-President followed her decision to withdraw from the SC her petition seeking a CBI probe into the death.

Talking about the independence of the judiciary, Dangwimsai's memorandum said, "It was to protect the independence of the judiciary that the SC in Veeraswami's case said that any allegations against the sitting judges of the higher judiciary can only be investigated by an investigating authority after obtaining the prior permission of the Chief Justice of India." It further said, "The judgment says that in case there are allegations against the Chief Justice, the President will consult other judges. This, in terms of the spirit of the judgment, would mean the judgejudges next in seniority ."

The letter said, "Since in this case, the allegations are also against the sitting CJI and sitting President, I am therefore addressing this request to you (Vice-President) to exercise the authority which normally the President would have exercised in terms of the Veeraswami's judgment."

PIL –   Prosecute  Chief  Justice  of  India  & Former President of India

An Appeal to Honourable Supreme Court of India  &  H.E. Honourable President  of India

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. OF 2017

IN THE MATTER OF

NAGARAJA . M.R

editor   , Indian’s  Diary  &  Dalit’s  Diary ,

# LIG 2 , No 761 ,, HUDCO First Stage , Laxmikantanagar ,

Hebbal , Mysore – 570017 , Karnataka State

....Petitioner

Versus

Honourable  Chief   Justice  of  India   &  Others

....Respondents

PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 12 to ARTICLE 35 & ARTICLE 51A OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS UNDER ARTICLE 32 & ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.

To ,

Hon'ble The Chief Justice of India and His Lordship's Companion

Justices of the Supreme Court of India. The Humble petition of the

Petitioner above named.

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH :

1. Facts of the case:

"Power will go to the hands of rascals, , rogues and freebooters. All Indian leaders will be of low calibre and men of straw. They will have sweet tongues and silly hearts. They will fight among themselves for power and will be lost in political squabbles . A day would come when even air & water will be taxed." Sir Winston made this statement in the House of Commons just before the independence of India & Pakistan. Sadly , the forewarning of Late Winston Churchill has been proved right by some of our criminal , corrupt public servants.

In his death  note  Former Arunachal Pradesh  Chief Minister Mr.Kalikho  Pul  has clearly  alleged involvement of CJI Khehar , President Mukherjee & others in the crime.

2. Question(s) of Law:

As per constitution of India , are not all citizens of india equal before  law ?

3. Grounds:

Requests for equitable justice. Prosecution of  corrupt  Judges , CJI  J S Khehar , Former President  Mukherjee    &  Corrupt  Public  Servants.

4. Averment:

Hereby , I do request the honorable supreme court of India to consider this as a PIL for : “writ of Mandamus” and to issue instructions to the concerned public servants in the  cases to perform their duties.

PRAYER:

In the above premises, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased:

a . Hereby , I do request the honorable supreme court of India to consider this as a PIL for : “writ of Mandamus” and to issue instructions to the concerned public servants , in the case to perform their duties.

b. To register FIR  against Chief Justice of India JS Khehar , Former President of India Mukherjee & others and arrest them for legal prosecution.

c. To constitute an impartial  investigation team to investigate the team. The team must be accountable to the public.

d . to pass such other orders and further orders as may be deemed necessary on the facts and in the circumstances of the case.

FOR WHICH ACT OF KINDNESS, THE PETITIONER SHALL BE DUTY BOUND, EVER PRAY.

Dated : 05th  August  2017 …………………. FILED BY: NAGARAJA.M.R.

Place : Mysuru , India…………………….      PETITIONER-IN-PERSON

Former SC judge approached me on behalf of CJI: Dave

The CJI had ordered the letter to be listed as a writ petition before a bench of Justices A K Goel and U U Lalit. At the high-wattage hearing on Thursday with the CJI at its centre, Dangwimsai's counsel Dushyant Dave made the sensational claim that a former SC judge had approached him on Khehar's behalf. He also questioned the decision to turn the letter into a writ petition to be disposed of by the SC when his client had sought an administrative inquiry, as also the choice of Justices Goel and Lalit to hear the petition Dangwimsai's letter cited the SC's 1991 judgment in the Veeraswami case where the apex court had ruled that SC and HC judges could be probed for corruption but only with the prior permission of the CJI. The Constitution bench ruling had also said, "If the Chief Justice of India himself is the person against whom the allegations of criminal misconduct are received, the government shall consult any other judge or judges of the Supreme Court." Dangwimsai's letter had said, "I am sure you (the CJI) will have the matter placed before the appropriate judge in accordance with the judgment in the Veeraswami case for consideration of my request." Dave raised a series of questions and levelled many allegations. "Why was Dangwimsai's letter converted into a criminal writ petition? Why was it put up for hearing in open court for a judicial decision when the CJI was expected to take a decision on the administrative side? Is the CJI precluded from taking a decision on the letter as the allegations in the suicide note concerned the CJI's son?" Dave asked. "We had sought an administrative direction, why was it taken on the judicial side? We want to know the reason behind it. There was a development on Monday evening. A former judge of the Supreme Court met me on behalf of the CJI. I do not want to say more. I beg your lordships to stay away from this case," Dave urged the bench of Justices Goel and Lalit.

Initially, Dave gave the impression that he was totally against the letter being put up for hearing in open court. Later, he wanted to know if it was to be put up for hearing, then why before a bench headed by a junior judge like Justice Goel, who is number 13 in seniority among the 28 SC judges.

"This letter brings forth a more serious issue than the one raised by Calcutta HC's Justice C S Karnan, which is being heard by a five-judge bench. So, why was a five-judge bench not constituted for this case? Why has it been assigned to a junior judge and not to number three (Justice J Chelameswar) or number four (Justice Ranjan Gogoi) or number five (Justice Madan Lokur)?" Dave asked.

When the bench appeared determined to proceed with the hearing, Dave said, "You (Justice Goel) were a colleague of the CJI in Punjab and Haryana HC. You should recuse yourself." Finally, Dave said his client (Dangwimsai) wanted to withdraw the letter to explore other avenues.

"We will now approach the vice-president for relief as the suicide note contains allegations against the President also. If the Supreme Court decides on the letter after converting it into a writ petition, then all other avenues for remedies will be closed," Dave said. The bench permitted Dangwimsai to withdraw the letter and said the withdrawal would mean that the cause of action initiated by the widow in writing to the CJI had ended.

Dushyant Dave speaks on Pul’s suicide note, Sahara-Birla and Supreme Court

A few weeks ago, a suicide note purportedly written by late Arunachal Pradesh Chief Minister Kalikho Pul raised more than a few eyebrows amongst the legal fraternity. The note, which first surfaced about six months after Pul’s suicide, made some shocking allegations against sitting and retired Supreme Court judges, lawyers and politicians.

Quite astonishingly, the national media, which usually goes into top gear at the drop of a hat, chose to maintain silence over the issue.

And then something interesting happened.

Pul’s widow, Dangwimsai Pul, wrote a letter to Chief Justice of India JS Khehar seeking his permission for the registration of an FIR on the basis of the allegations made in the suicide note, putting the CJI in an awkward situation.

Surprisingly, the letter was converted into a petition and was listed before a bench of Justices AK Goel and UU Lalit.

That is when Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave took up the matter and appeared for Dangwimsai Pul in the Supreme Court. Bar & Bench’s Pallavi Saluja spoke to Dave on this controversial issue and Sahara-Birla judgment.

“I think the developments over the last few weeks have shaken me. I respect judiciary immensely. I love the judiciary. I have been a judge’s son, I have been a lawyer for 38 years and I don’t know where we are heading with this kind of a judiciary. It’s very difficult for people to really get justice, if everything is going to be controlled in one form or the other by executive. It’s going to be really sad.”

Below are the edited excerpts of the conversation:

Pallavi Saluja: Why did you take up this matter? Do you see any truth in the allegations that have been made in the suicide note?

Dushyant Dave: It is not part of my job to decide whether the contents of the suicide note are truthful or not. That is a matter to be investigated by a fiercely independent and absolutely credible institution. Unless that is done, we will never really know.

Secondly, there is no doubt about the fact that a suicide note is equivalent to a dying declaration under Section 32 of the Evidence Act. There is a long line of judgments delivered by the Supreme Court, where they have categorically held that a suicide note can be relied on to prove various offences.

So having said that, the reason why I accepted the brief was because I was appalled by fact that the judges, particularly the Chief Justice of India, were attempting to give a judicial burial to this whole issue and that is what really shook me beyond imagination. Like in the Sahara-Birla judgement, the attempt here was to somehow put the controversy beyond investigation by anybody else in the country.

That was clearly unacceptable to me and therefore, as a lawyer, and as somebody who loves Constitution, the institution of the judiciary, particularly the Supreme Court, I felt that it was necessary for someone to stand up.

PS: What do you make of the timing of the suicide note’s release?

DD: I am not really bothered about the timing of the suicide note. The fact of the matter is that there exists a suicide note; the question is somebody has to take up the matter. Apparently, there is a story going around that Governor Rajkhowa had suggested a CBI inquiry into the suicide note.

Yes, there may have been some delay, but ultimately it is in the interest of the institution that the investigation is made by a fiercely independent institution as early as possible and the truth is brought out. Twice during my arguments, I mentioned before the Court that I am not on the contents of the suicide note, and that I pray that after such investigations the allegations are proved to be wrong, but my argument was that you cannot determine that without having an independent inquiry.

It is too serious a matter; the charges are very, very serious and they really go to the very foundation of the institution (of the Supreme Court), which has now been shaken because of this. Chief Justice Khehar PS: In both Sahara-Birla and Pul’s matter questions have been raised regarding the constitution of the bench(es), which heard the matters respectively. Do you see a connection?

DD: There is no doubt about the fact that the Chief Justice Khehar constituted the bench presided by Justice Arun Mishra and Justice Amitava Roy to which the Sahara-Birla matter was assigned, after dismantling two other benches presided by two judges senior to Justice Mishra – Justice Ramana and Justice RK Agrawal.

This was completely unacceptable, because when senior judges are available, you never allow a junior judge to preside, unless the senior judges are sitting in a Constitution Bench or something. This rule was overlooked in the Sahara-Birla matter. Curiously, the two learned senior judges, Justice Ramana and Justice Agrawal, have started to preside again after two or three weeks’ gap. So what was the point of taking away the presiding assignment from them?

In Mrs. Pul’s matter, when the request was made in the letter to simply pass an administrative order, with a clear request that the matter be placed before an appropriate judge, Chief Justice Khehar should never have touched the matter.

He should have simply directed that letter to Justice Chelameswar, who is the number three in seniority, as there were allegations against the Chief Justice and Justice Dipak Misra in the suicide note, or maybe he should have constituted a 5 or 7 judge bench considering the seriousness of the matter, as he did in Justice Karnan’s case.

So sending the matter to Court 13 knowing that he (the CJI) and Justice Goel have been colleagues in Punjab & Haryana High Court and that it would send wrong signals, he still did it.

Regrettably one gets an impression that on the one hand state government and central government were not taking any action on the suicide note and on the other hand Supreme Court was deciding the Sahara-Birla matter giving clean chit to alleged recipients from across political spectrum. This is a very complex but curious co-incidence. The existence of the suicide note and its seriousness were within the knowledge of the concerned persons. Justice Arun Mishra PS: But what is wrong in Justice Arun Mishra being allocated the Sahara-Birla case?

DD: I will tell you why I am a little troubled. Justice Khehar was present on December 18 at a function at Justice Arun Mishra’s place where I was also present. Justice Khehar saw that a large number of politicians and ministers from the ruling party, as also the Congress party and others were present. Once you see that the judge has amongst his friends these top politicians, he (the CJI) had to be circumspect and not assign the Sahara-Birla case to a bench presided by that judge.

That was the least expected of him, and he did not do it. On the contrary, he changed benches and reconstituted the Bench to allow Justice Mishra to preside and sent the matter there. (Earlier I had written an article about Justice Mishra’s friendship with the Chief Minister of Madhya Pradesh, one of the recipients of alleged payments in Sahara Diary and his attending Justice Mishra’s nephew’s wedding in Gwalior, away from Bhopal on December 10th, while the matter was actually being heard by him and Justice Khehar.)

There is no doubt about the fact that the Sahara-Birla case was an extremely explosive case. It was so serious that it demanded a 5-judge bench of the senior-most judges of the Supreme Court to hear it.

However, as is evident from the judgment in that case, the approach of the judges shows that they have neither appreciated the seriousness of the matter nor have they really understood the legal position; they have completely forgotten their constitutional obligation.

They have been completely overawed by the fact that the persons against whom allegations have been made, particularly the Prime Minister, are constitutional functionaries. Nobody is above the Constitution. And if the allegations are true, then everybody has to face the music. But the truth of those allegations have to be ascertained by an extremely independent investigation.

My own feeling is that the manner in which the matter was handled and the judgement itself was perhaps to protect the Chief Justice himself, so that no constitutional functionary is proceeded against without cogent material. That is really something which is bothering me deeply.

PS: What was the logic of converting the letter into a writ petition and AK Goel and Justice UU Lalit?

DD: The Supreme Court has laid down one principle of administrative law, which must equally apply to judges – that no man can be a judge in his own cause.

Therefore, there is no doubt in my mind that Chief Justice Khehar committed a gross judicial impropriety by dealing with that letter; and by directing that letter to be converted into a writ petition; and then listing it before a particular bench.

By dealing with it in the manner he did, I think he has raised more doubts about the allegations contained in the suicide note rather than actually giving answers to them. Justice AK Goel PS: We understand that during the argument in court, you kept asking for Justice Goel’s recusal?

DD: I don’t know what Justice Goel wanted to do. I was very clear in my mind that I did not want the judges to deal with the matter because Mrs. Pul had not sought a judicial relief. So, the Chief Justice had no authority to convert that into a petition on the judicial side without her consent.

In this case, I genuinely felt that the Bench was not likely to give justice fairly because of the connection between Justice Goel and the CJI. I am entitled to request him to recuse and I am really shocked that despite repeated requests, Justice Goel refused.

PS: Do you think the independence [of the judiciary] is being compromised?

DD: Well, I am not sure what has happened. But, there is no doubt that something seems to have happened – to try and ensure that a quiet burial is given to two of the most sensitive matters in our public life raises very serious questions, which I don’t think can be answered for a long – long time.

PS: There are also rumours that Mrs Pul has some political ambitions.

DD: Even if she has some political ambitions, there is nothing wrong about it. The fact of the matter is that a former Chief Minister of a state has committed suicide and has left a suicide note that raises very serious allegations against very powerful people. Nobody is saying that the suicide note is correct. But the nation expects that some action must take place. So, an independent SIT, which is monitored by 5 of the senior most judges of the Supreme Court, has to be constituted. Only then can something happen.

PS: And do you see that happening?

DD: I don’t see anything happening in this country, everything can be easily put under carpet. We are not a democracy in the real sense. We are increasingly becoming a banana republic. I am sorry to tell you that not many Seniors are willing to stand up and condemn. Top Seniors, who would otherwise love to issue statements on anything and everything, should have got together and issued a statement condemning Chief Justice Khehar’s conduct in this case. Why is it not happening? I heard rumors that some Seniors are advising the Chief Justice. If that is true, then those lawyers must stop appearing in this court.

Supeme Court Judge in Illegal Land  Scam ?

3 -judge in-house inquiry panel stops proceedings, writes to CJI for guidance

A three-member committee of judges, constituted by the Supreme Court to conduct an in-house inquiry against two sitting judges of the Odisha High Court, has halted its proceedings after the name of a senior Supreme Court Justice cropped up during the course of the probe.

The panel, headed by Punjab and Haryana High Court Chief Justice SJ Vazifdar, has now written to the Chief Justice of India for guidance and directions.

DNA is aware of the identity of the SC judge but is withholding it in view of the sensitivity of the subject.

Sources told DNA that a series of representations were also made by the complainants in the case to the President and the Prime Minister, mentioning the involvement of the Supreme Court judge. These representations were also sent to the probe panel.

The panel, which comprises Uttarakhand High Court Chief Justice KM Joseph and Justice S Abdul Nazeer, who was earlier with the Karnataka High Court, is conducting an in-house inquiry against Justices Indrajit Mohanty and Sangam Kumar Sahoo for alleged misuse of power and position.

Once the name of the senior Supreme Court judge came up — for his closeness to the two judges who are under probe — the panel decided to write to the CJI.

The letter brings to the CJI's notice this particular development and also underlines the fact that the panel was constituted only to probe High Court judges and has no authority to probe an SC Justice.

When contacted by DNA, Chief Justice Vazifdar refused to comment on the issue. However, sources told DNA that ever since the senior Supreme Court judge's name came up, the proceedings of the in-house committee have come to a standstill.

Sometime back, the panel had asked the two judges to appear before it, if they wanted to do so, in person to defend themselves.

The allegations against Justice Indrajit Mohanty, the senior-most judge of the High Court after the Chief Justice, include furthering his business interests while being a judge.

In the case of Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo, he is alleged to have spent much more than his entitlement in refurbishing his official residence.

The in-house inquiry panel had been set up by the previous Chief justice of India, TS Thakur, while acting on the complaints filed by two individuals, who had levelled serious allegations against the two judges. The complainants had also provided material to support their allegations.

If the two judges are indicted by the in-house inquiry panel, the CJI can recommend to the President to initiate the process for their impeachment -- the only way, other than voluntary resignation, judges of Supreme Court and High Courts can be removed from office under law.

The Supreme Court, at a full court meeting on December 15, 1999, had unanimously laid down the in-house procedure for taking suitable action against members of the superior judiciary, who indulge in acts of omission or commission and breach the principles laid down in the Restatement of Values of Judicial Life.?The last case in which the Chief Justice of India had recommended impeachment of a sitting judge for proved misbehaviour or incapacity was Justice Soumitra Sen of the Calcutta High Court, who became the first judge in Independent India to be impeached by the Rajya Sabha. He resigned before the Lok Sabha could vote on the motion.

A ‘SENSITIVE’ INVESTIGATION

         The panel is conducting an in-house inquiry against two Odisha HC judges for alleged misuse of power and position.

         Once the name of the senior Supreme Court judge came up, the panel decided to write to the Chief Justice of India.

Promotion denied as I ordered CBI inquiry, says retired High Court judge

A retired Orissa High Court judge, Justice BP Das, has alleged that his candidacy as chief justice of the Punjab & Haryana High Court may have been scuttled because he ordered the Central Bureau of Investigation to probe a controversial allotment of public land. The case pertains to plots of land allocated 37 years ago to about 300 people, including Justice Dipak Misra, who was an advocate at the time and is now in the Supreme Court. Some beneficiaries allegedly made false     declarations that they didn’t own any land so that they could get the plots. People close to Misra dismissed the allegations as baseless. Justice Das headed a bench that ordered the CBI in January 2012 to probe the land allotment. Das told ET he missed out becoming chief justice because he had ordered the probe by the CBI, which submitted its report in August 2013. "The link and presumption is not unfounded," Justice Das said by phone from Cuttack.  "In January, I ordered the CBI probe and three months later, in March 2012, my name came up for appointment as Chief Justice of Punjab & Haryana High Court. I had heard that my name was opposed by Justice Dipak Misra, but I don't have any record with me. Well, but for this, I would have retired as chief justice." Justice Misra's office did not respond to an emailed questionnaire from ET seeking comment on the matter. However, people close to Justice Misra said he has never   acquired land in a fraudulent manner or by misrepresenting facts. "The land was taken in 1979, when he was a young advocate, and he surrendered it in 1985, for which records can be verified. These are all baseless allegations," the people said. Justice Misra was one of the judges who ruled on Wednesday that all Indians have to stand and listen to the National Anthem before watching a movie in a theatre. He is in line to become the Chief Justice of India in 2017.

Separately, an Odisha-based activist Jayanta Das complained against Justice Misra to the President of India in September, seeking action against him for acquiring public land by allegedly misrepresenting facts. The President's office declined to comment on the matter. ET is in possession of the complaint and related documents, which show that two acres of land in Cuttack were allotted to Misra on November 30, 1979. The allocation was cancelled by an additional district magistrate  in 1985, who ordered the land records to be corrected. The ADM of Cuttack passed the order in a suo moto revision case, saying the land was obtained through fraud and misrepresentation, Das said. The records were corrected 27 years later, after the high court intervened and asked the collector to submit a report. "The CBI report also said the land record was not corrected till 2012. Technically speaking, Justice Dipak Misra, among others, from 1979 to 2012,  were in possession of this land," Justice Das said. "There were about 300 allottees. This was a case of encroachment/illegal allotment to individuals, who misrepresented facts and claimed to be landless." Justice Das contended that Justice Misra had no locus standi to oppose his candidature as chief justice of the Punjab & Haryana High Court. "Dipak Misra had already moved to the Madhya Pradesh High Court when I became a judge, so he had no idea about  my performance as a judge. But he on his own wrote to the collegium opposing my appointment," Das said. "Plus, there was a conflict of interest – his name figured in the land allotment case being heard by me and he didn't declare his interest to the SC collegium." People close to Misra debunked this allegation as a disgruntled grouse. "These are someone's grievances because he could not be elevated. Why bring in collegium matters here? And something which happened long back?  You must find out which all people got plots out of discretionary quotas," they said. ET spoke to legal luminaries, including judges, who confirmed, on condition of anonymity, that Justice Misra had "serious reservations" about appointing Justice Das as chief justice of the Punjab & Haryana High Court. Further inquiries revealed that facts about the land allotment case may not have been brought to the notice of the SC collegium when Justice Misra was considered  for appointment to the nation's top court. Misra was appointed as a judge of the apex court in October 2011and is due to retire in 2018. "It may not have been brought to the notice of the collegium, but I don’t have any records," Justice Das said. "This is something very serious and was not brought to the notice of the collegium. There was no IB report also," said a legal luminary who asked not to be identified. "The SC collegium should take cognisance of this as per  in-house mechanism, since the complaint is also addressed to Chief Justice of India TS Thakur." "Justice Misra is known for his credibility and integrity," the people close to him said. "Do you think it is possible that the facts weren't brought to the notice of the collegium headed by CJI SH Kapadia, who was a very strict chief justice, known for his integrity? Do you think he wouldn't know about it?"

Five Questions We Have to Ask Before the Birla-Sahara Payoff Case is Buried Forever – BY PRASHANT BHUSHAN

The time has come for the judges of the Supreme Court to sit together to apply their minds and devise a way for these serious documents to be thoroughly investigated.

Corruption continues to remain one of the most serious problems of our society. Narendra Modi and the Bharatiya Janata Party won the 2014 Lok Sabha election riding on the back of the anti-corruption campaign and promising a government which would swiftly deal with corruption and the problem of black money. The reality however, seems far from what was promised.

In October 2013, the income tax (IT) department and the Central Bureau of Investigation conducted simultaneous raids at various establishments of the Aditya Birla group of companies. In these raids, cash worth Rs 25 crore was recovered from their corporate office in Delhi along with a large number of documents, note-sheets, informal account books, emails, computer hard disks and the like. The CBI quickly handed all the papers over to the IT department, which did an investigation in this matter. The department questioned the DGM accounts, Anand Saxena, who was the custodian of the cash which was recovered. He said that the cash was received by the company from various hawala dealers, who used to come almost daily or sometimes on alternate days and give Rs 50 lakhs or 1 crore in cash. The IT department also questioned one such hawala dealer whom Anand Saxena had mentioned, and this dealer also admitted that he had been doing that.

Saxena also said that this cash would thereafter be delivered to certain persons, specified by the group president, Shubhendu Amitabh. And apart from himself, four other senior officer – whom he named – were deputed to deliver the cash. Saxena further said that he did not know the purpose behind the cash payments to those persons.

From ‘Gujarat CM’ to ‘Gujarat Alkalis and Chemicals’

Some of the documents noting the cash received and payments made were in the handwriting of Anand Saxena, which indicated Rs 7.5 crores paid to the ministry of environment, with the noting of  “(Project J)” scribbled next to the entry. The documents also showed various other payments for environmental clearances of Birla projects. The dates of these payments could easily be correlated with the environmental clearances obtained for these projects.

The emails recovered from the computer of Shubhendu Amitabh revealed a number of messages which indicated payments to various DRI (Directorate of Revenue Intelligence) officials for the purpose of slowing down/dropping investigations, which the agency was conducting against the under-invoicing of coal exports and other irregularities by the Birla group of companies.

Amitabh’s emails also contained one cryptic entry which said “Gujarat CM 25 crores (12 paid rest ?)”. When he was questioned about this entry, he said that ‘Gujarat CM’ meant ‘Gujarat Alkalis and Chemicals’. When asked as to whether there was any other place where he had referred to Gujarat Alkalis and Chemicals as ‘Gujarat CM’, Amitabh could not answer. He also could not produce any document which could indicate any dealing between Gujarat Alkalis and Chemicals and the Birla group for Rs 25 crores.

The IT department then prepared a detailed appraisal report in which it concluded that the explanations given by Shubhendu Amitabh about the various payments etc. were not believable and that this matter needs to be further investigated. Unfortunately however, the department did not send the matter to the Central Bureau of Investigation for investigation under the Prevention of Corruption Act – even though the payments to DRI officials, the environment ministry and ‘Gujarat CM’ etc prima facie, all appeared to have been made to public servants, which constitute offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The CBI would have been the designated investigating agency for this investigation.

It is not surprising that the UPA government of Manmohan Singh – which was in power when the Birla raid and recoveries took place – did not have this matter pursued, because most of the payments mentioned in the diaries were for officials of the UPA government. However, even after coming to power, the Modi government, which obviously was in the know of this IT department investigation, did not pursue the matter. Modi in his election rallies at several times mentioned the “Jayanti tax”, which had to be paid by companies for environmental clearances to then environment minister, Jayanti Natarajan. And any investigation of the recovered papers from Birla would have substantiated that. The reason for Modi’s reluctance to probe the Birla papers can only be attributed to that one entry – of ‘Gujarat CM’ for 25 crores – which any reasonable person would assume referred to him, for he was the ‘Gujarat CM’ at the time the Birla people made their noting.

The Sahara smoking gun

In November 2014, while the Modi government was in office, the IT department raided the Sahara group of companies. In this raid, Rs 137 crore in cash was recovered from the corporate office, along with several computer spreadsheets and note sheets. These recovered documents also showed payments made to public servants. One particular spreadsheet mentioned in detail the dates, amounts and sources from which a total of Rs 115 crore in cash was received during the year 2013 to 2014, with the transactions being on 40 to 50 different days. On the other side was the disbursement of this cash (Rs 113 crore out of this 115 crore, to be precise) to various people. The disbursement details were consummate and exhaustive as they contained the dates, the amounts, the person who was paid the cash, the place where it was paid as well as the person who went and delivered the cash. In this spreadsheet, the largest recipient with nine entries against his name was ‘Gujarat CM Modi Ji’. As per the entries, he was paid a total of Rs 40 crore in nine instalments. The second biggest recipient was the Madhya Pradesh chief minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan, with Rs 10 crore on two dates. There are also payments of  Rs 4 crore to the Chhattisgarh chief minister and a payment of Rs 1 crore to the Delhi chief minister (who was Sheila Dixit at that time), among other people. Other recovered note sheets contain details of payments made in 2010 to various persons.

Each of these documents was seized and signed by the IT officials, two witnesses and an officer of Sahara. However, again, despite the highly incriminating nature of these documents, the IT department, shockingly, did not hand these over for investigation to the CBI under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

The IT department appraisal report on this is still not available, but we get a hint on what it concluded on the matter from the order of the Income Tax Settlement Commission, which came thereafter. The Sahara company had moved the Settlement Commission for settling the case with the IT department under Section 245C of the Income Tax Act. One of the issues before the Settlement Commission was whether  or not the payments mentioned in the spreadsheets should be added to the income of Sahara as undisclosed income. The IT department in its statement said that these payments were clearly genuine since (a) these were accounts maintained over a period of time, (b) that the cash received shown in the spreadsheets matched with the ledger entries of MarCom – the Marketing Communication Company of Sahara. This meant that the dates on which cash was withdrawn from MarCom matched the dates and amounts on which the cash is seemed to be received on these spreadsheets from MarCom. And (c) that the explanations given by Sahara – which sought to question the validity of these documents – were contradictory and did not appear to be correct.

It was clear, therefore, that Sahara had not come with clean hands and yet the Settlement Commission absolved Sahara of all criminal liabilities under the Income Tax Act by asking the company to pay tax of a thousand odd crore rupees on their concealed income.

Even more interestingly, this case was decided by the Settlement Commission in record time – in virtually three hearings in less than three months, with the ruling coming on November 10, 2016. It was also settled by just two members of the commission since the third member had been transferred out by the government.

Enter Chowdary the CVC

For a long time, these documents remained buried within the Income Tax department and eventually surfaced sometime towards the end of 2016, which was when I received copies. They showed prima facie offences under the Prevention Of Corruption Act, which needed a thorough investigation in accordance with the Supreme Court judgement of the Jain hawala case, where the recovery of cryptic entries in a diary – which only mentioned initials and amounts paid – was held by the Supreme Court to be enough to merit a thorough court-monitored investigation. It is another matter that despite this ruling,  the CBI in its investigation into the Jain diaries did not examine the assets of the public servants involved and filed the chargesheet only on the basis of the diaries recovered and thereafter this chargesheet was quashed by the Delhi high court on the grounds that diaries by themselves cannot be enough evidence for prosecuting anybody.

When I received the Birla-Sahara documents, I also noticed that the person in charge of  the income tax investigations was K. V. Chowdary, who, at the relevant period was holding the charge of member, investigations, in the IT department. In June 2015, he was appointed by the Modi government as the country’s Chief Vigilance Commissioner (CVC). This appointment was challenged by Common Cause in the Supreme Court on various grounds – of scuttling tax investigations and also being involved in the “Stock Guru” scam, in which IT officials working under him were found to have taken crores in bribes from Stock Guru company in return for favours from the IT investigation department.

As counsel for Common Cause, we then decided to raise the Birla-Sahara papers issue in the pending case challenging the appointment of Chowdary itself, since the IT department’s decision to withhold these documents and not send them to the CBI for criminal investigation constituted a serious dereliction of duty on Chowdary’s part.

Knocking on the Supreme Court’s door

This application was heard in the Supreme Court on November 26, 2016 by a bench of Justice J.S. Khehar and Justice Arun Mishra.

In the hearing Justice Khehar said that these documents do not constitute any evidence for investigation and asked us to come back with better evidence. Just before the next date of hearing, I received the three volume Income Tax appraisal report from the Birla case and on that date I pleaded with the court that I should be given more time to analyse the appraisal report and file additional evidence. The court was reluctant to grant additional time and put up the matter to be heard only two days thereafter. By this time, however, the appointment of a new chief justice was coming close. Justice Khehar was the next in line of seniority but the clearance of his name had still not been given by the government despite his name having been  recommended by the outgoing chief justice. I told the court in the hearing that it would not be appropriate for it to push through with the hearing of this matter at a time when Justice Khehar’s appointment file is pending with the prime minister, since this case also involved investigations into the payments made to the prime minister as well. After showing some resentment and anger, the court reluctantly adjourned the matter to January 11, 2017.

Justice Khehar was sworn in as chief justice on January 4, 2017. On January 11, two senior judges who would normally have headed benches in the Supreme Court were made to sit with even more senior judges and a new bench was created headed by Justice Arun Mishra (who would not otherwise be heading a bench), with Justice Amitava Roy as the puisne judge. The Birla-Sahara matter was sent to this bench. The judges heard the matter at some length, and finally passed an order saying that since these were not regular books of accounts, therefore, in accordance with the Supreme Court judgement in the Jain hawala case, these did not constitute evidence on the basis of which any investigation could be ordered. In particular, they said that high constitutional functionaries cannot be subject to investigation on the basis of such loose papers. They also used the order of the Settlement Commission to say that the Settlement Commission did not find any proof of these documents being genuine and hence they did not represent the true state of affairs.

A little later, we discovered that while this case was being heard by Justice Arun Mishra along with Justice Khehar, Justice Misra had celebrated the wedding of his nephew from his official residence in Delhi as well as his residence in Gwalior. We were informed of this by Dushyant Dave, former president of the Supreme Court Bar Association, who had also attended the wedding reception. He stated that a large number of BJP leaders were present at the event. A photograph of Shivraj Singh Chouhan, the chief minister of Madhya Pradesh, attending the reception at Gwalior also appeared in a newspaper. This is significant because Chouhan was one of the alleged recipients of money in the Sahara spreadsheets – the very matter Justice Mishra was considering in court.

The Supreme Court has laid down a code of conduct which says that judges should maintain a degree of aloofness, consistent with their status – which means that they should obviously not socialise with politicians whose cases are likely to come up for hearing before them. It also says that judges should not hear and decide cases involving their friends and relatives. Putting these two together, it is obvious that if a judge invites politicians for personal functions at his residence, it can be safely assumed that these politicians are his personal friends and that the judge must not hear and decide cases involving them.

Kalikho Pul’s suicide note, the missing link

Shortly after the dismissal of our application, The Wire on February 8, 2017, made public the 60-page suicide note of the late Arunachal Pradesh chief minister Kalikho Pul. Kalikho Pul committed suicide on August 9, 2016, barely three weeks after he was unseated by a judgment of a constitution bench of the Supreme Court headed by Justice Khehar and Justice Dipak Misra. In his suicide note, which was found with his hanging body, and signed and initialled on every page, Pul details the alleged corruption of various politicians as well of persons closely related to senior members of the judiciary. In particular, the note shows that he is especially anguished at the corruption of the judiciary. He says that prior to the Supreme Court’s judgment in the case, which quashed president’s rule in Arunachal Pradesh and removed him from office, a demand of Rs 49 crore was made for a favourable judgement by Justice Khehar’s younger son Virendra Khehar. He also mentioned that another demand of Rs 37 crores was made by Aditya Mishra, described as the brother of Justice Dipak Misra, for a favourable judgement.

This suicide note contained a number of very serious allegations of corruption which obviously needed investigation, for which Pul’s eldest wife, Dangwimsai Pul, had been making requests to the government. However, the note remained uninvestigated and its copies were kept tightly under wraps and not made available to anybody.

The then governor of Arunachal Pradesh, J.P. Rajkhowa, himself went on record to say that he had recommended a CBI investigation into the very disturbing charges made in Pul’s suicide note. However, it still remained uninvestigated. And it was only in early February that a copy of this suicide note was obtained and published by The Wire, which published this note in the original Hindi and in an English translation, after redacting the name of the judges mentioned in the note. The unredacted note was thereafter published by the Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms (CJAR) in the interest of transparency and to prevent the spread of rumours about the identities of the redacted names.

The questions that remain

The manner in which the Supreme Court buried the Birla-Sahara diaries investigation and the manner in which the government suppressed the suicide note of Kalikho Pul and did not order any criminal investigation into the matter, raise several disturbing questions:

1.      Was Chief Justice J.S. Khehar aware of the Kalikho Pul suicide note and that this note mentioned his name, thus raising allegations about a cash for judgment scam?

2.      Was Pul’s suicide note the reason that Chief Justice Khehar transferred the case deliberately to a bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra?

3.      Was Justice Khehar aware of Justice Arun Mishra’s close ties with the BJP leaders?

4.      Did the proximity of Justice Arun Mishra to the BJP – and in particular to some of the people specifically mentioned in the Birla-Sahara diaries as a recipient of black money (such as Shivraj Singh Chouhan, the chief minister of Madhya Pradesh, have a bearing on the decision to finally not order an investigation?

5.      Was the Kalikho Pul suicide note used as an instrument by the government to put pressure on the judges hearing the Birla-Sahara case?

6.      Did the Modi government decide to ignore Kalikho Pul’s suicide note (despite the fact that it contains serious charges of corruption against Congress leaders and the two senior most judges of the Supreme Court) so long as the judiciary does not order an investigation into the Birla-Sahara payoffs ?

It is a fundamental principle in law that even a reasonable apprehension of bias in the minds of the litigants constitutes a violation of natural justice and renders the judgment a nullity. The content of the documents recovered in the Birla-Sahara raids as well the contents of the Kalikho Pul suicide note are amongst the most lethal revelations of political corruption in the country and they raise questions about the highest constitutional positions in our country – the prime minister and the chief justice of India. In hardly any case does one obtain documentation which mentions in such detail, the payments made of large sums of money to political personalities and officials. The Kalikho Pul suicide note, in particular, is like a dying declaration and that too of a chief minister, which must be treated very seriously in law because of the jurisprudential maxim ‘nemo mariturus presumuntur mentri’ i.e. a man will not meet his maker with a lie in his mouth.

The people of India have known for a long time the pervasive and rampant corruption in the polity. Narendra Modi claimed to be above all this, but the Birla and Sahara documents suggest otherwise. The Kalikho Pul suicide note has shaken the faith of the people in the integrity of the highest levels of our judiciary. Burying the Birla-Sahara documents and the Kalikho Pul suicide note without investigation will not make the public suspicion go away. In fact, it would only strengthen those suspicions and irredeemably erode the fate of the people in the integrity of Modi and the judiciary. It is imperative, therefore,  that the contents of these documents are subjected to thorough and credible investigation. In fact, they pose one of the most serious challenges in independent India for the judiciary itself.

The time has come for the judges of the Supreme Court to sit together to apply their minds and devise a way for these serious documents to be thoroughly investigated. Nothing less than this is going to the restore the shaken faith of the people of this country in the highest political and judicial offices of this country.

Cloud over Dipak Misra as Chief Justice: ICJ claims he is tainted

A  cloud hangs over the appointment of the next Chief Justice of India. Though incumbent CJI JS Khehar recommended the name of Supreme Court Justice Dipak Misra as his successor on 25 July, there is a roadblock that must first be passed before such an appointment is made.

The obstacle in Misra's path is the International Council of Jurists (ICJ), which has sought a probe against alleged irregularities during his career. ICJ also plans to approach the Centre to oppose his appointment.

ICJ had submitted a petition urging Justice Khehar to appoint an in-house committee consisting of Supreme Court judges to look into allegations of Justice Misra’s alleged involvement in a land scam in Odisha while he was an advocate.

THE SCAM

The alleged land scam involved the illegal transfer of large tracts of government land in Bidanasi and other areas of Cuttack in favour of private persons. According to ICJ president Adish C Aggarwala, Misra got the land allotted in 1979 when he was an advocate.

ICJ, in its petition, has referred to a CBI report before the Odisha High Court in which it had indicted him for “fraudulently” acquiring a plot of land in Cuttack.

“Misra was among 300 people who were allotted the public land in Cuttack. Many of the beneficiaries including Misra, who was then an advocate, made false declarations that they didn't own any land so that they could get the plots,” Aggarwala told Catch.

Despite an order by the Orissa High Court, he says, Misra continued to wrongly possess the land. Misra, who became a Supreme Court Judge in 2011, gave up possession only in 2013 after the CBI indicted him.

“Following a petition, the High Court in 2011 ordered the Cuttack revenue department to conduct an enquiry into the allegations. The probe found the allegations to be true and revenue officials were ordered by the court to take back the possession of land allotted to Mishra and many other influential people," Aggarwala says.

“By that time Mishra had become a SC judge so, the revenue authorities did not take back the possession. Subsequently, the High Court ordered the CBI to probe the matter. The CBI, in its report to the court, indicted Misra of fraudulently obtaining the land. It said that Misra had given a false declaration of being landless and showed lower income in order to be entitled to be a beneficiary of the land meant only for the poor," he added.

“When Misra learnt about the CBI report, he quickly gave up the possession of the land to save himself,” says Aggarwala.

STRONG OPPOSITION

The ICJ, comprising jurists from across the globe, is in the process of petitioning the Modi government against Misra being appointed the CJI.

“It appears that CJI did not consider our complaint and recommended his name. It is his duty to consider our complaint and appoint an in-house committee consisting of Judges of the Supreme Court to look into the allegations,” says Aggarwala.

×

“We will make a representation to the Government against Misra. A judge who has been accused of fraud and a CBI report is pending against him, cannot be made the CJI,” he said.

Earlier retired Orissa High Court judge, Justice BP Das, who had ordered the CBI probe in the land scam case, accused Misra of scuttling his candidacy as chief justice of the Punjab & Haryana High Court.

“In January, I ordered the CBI probe and three months later, in March 2012, my name came up for appointment as Chief Justice of Punjab & Haryana High Court. I had heard that my name was opposed by Justice Dipak Misra, but I don't have any record with me. Well, but for this, I would have retired as chief justice,” an Economic Times report from last year quoted Das as saying.

Currently the seniormost SC judge after Khehar, Misra served as the Chief Justice of Patna and Delhi High Courts before being elevated as a SC judge in October 2011.

QUESTIONABLE CALLS

The Justice Misra-led SC bench in 2016 mandated the playing of the national anthem before movies in cinema halls. The judgment attracted severe criticism from several quarters for imposing a notion of nationalism on people.

Earlier, while heading a Madhya Pradesh High Court bench, Justice Misra had banned the screening of Karan Johar's blockbuster Kabhi Khushi Kabhi Gham for commercially exploiting the national anthem.

Taking strong exception to the sequence in the film in which a boy sings one part of the anthem and his mother completes it, Justice Misra - writing the judgement - had then held that "the national anthem has been sung as if it is a song of advertisement for a commercial purpose" and banned the film's screening unless the scene was deleted.

He also led the apex court bench which rejected the 1993 Mumbai serial blasts convict Yakub Memon's appeal to stop his execution.

Uttarakhand chief justice not elevated “under govt pressure”: Demand to make public dissenting note

Well-known legal rights organization, Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms (CJAR), has said that Justice KM Joseph’s non-elevation to Supreme Court judge is linked with his “bold decision striking down the imposition of President’s rule by the Centre in Uttrakhand last year.” Alleging that the decision not to elevate the Uttarakhand chief justice “has been influenced by pressure from the government”, CJAR has demanded that the full text of Justice J Chelameswar’s dissenting note to the collegium objecting to the non-elevation of Justice Joseph be “put in public domain.”

One of the most influential legal rights organization of India, those associated with CJAR include top Supreme Court advocate Prashant Bhushan, former former judges PB Sawant and H Suresh, well-known Magsaysay winning writer Aruna Roy, senior right to information activist Nikhil Dey, other senior activists, experts and lawyers.

Says a CJAR, “As a member of the Supreme Court collegium, while Justice Chelameswar has not disagreed with the names of the five other judges that have been proposed for elevation to the Supreme Court, his criticism that Justice Joseph has been sidelined, is right and justified.” This is the first time in the annals of the Supreme Court collegium that a member has written a dissent note. Normally such views are conveyed orally.

“We regard Justice Jospeh to have had an outstanding record as an independent judge of high integrity and holding secular views. His being sidelined is surprising since his name for elevation to the Supreme Court, was even recommended by the previous collegium headed by Justice TS Thakur”, CJAR insists. Pointing out that “transparency in the working of public functionaries, both the judiciary and the government, is critical in a democracy”, CJAR says, “It is ironic that there has been complete opacity from both these institutions” about “disclosing a draft of the memorandum of procedure for appointments to the High Court and Supreme Court.”

“The process has been shrouded in secrecy, excluding public participation in this crucial process”, CJAR says, adding, “There have only been leaked media reports and speculations on certain contentious clauses in the memorandum that have been going back and forth between the government and the judiciary.”

Contending that “repeated requests from CJAR for a draft of the memorandum to be shared” have received “no response”, CJAR asks the Supreme Court chief justice JS Khehar to make public the memorandum, which is being how finalised by the judiciary.

Allegations of dalit atrocities and nepotism against CV Nagarjuna Reddy J. of Andhra Pradesh

The Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms (CJAR) has written to Chief Justice of India TS Thakur seeking initiation of in-house proceedings against Justice CV Nagarjuna Reddy for alleged atrocities against members of Dalit community.

In a 9-page letter written on August 30 this year, the CJAR has detailed various allegations against the sitting judge including a detailed account of “criminal misconduct” against a dalit magistrate.

According to the letter, one Rama Krishna, a Principal Junior Civil judge in Kadappa District, was forced by Justice Nagarjuna Reddy to remove the name of Pavan Kumar Reddy from a dying declaration recorded by Rama Krishna when he was posted as a magistrate. Pavan Reddy  happens to be the brother of Justice Reddy.

As per the dying declaration given by the victim, Pavan Reddy had doused the victim with petrol and set him of fire when he refused to sign on a blank paper.

“Soon thereafter, on 30.11.2012, it is alleged by Mr. Rama Krishna that Justice Nagarjuna Reddy rang him up, and directed him to remove his brother’s name from the dying declaration. Mr. Rama Krishna also alleges that he was threatened and abused by the said judge when he refused to accede to his request.”

It has also been alleged that the Magistrate was later summoned to Justice Nagarjuna Reddy’s house where,

“….Pavan Reddy and Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy abused him and beat him up. He further alleges that Justice C. V. Nagarjuna Reddy kicked him with his shoes and abused his caste”.

It is Rama Krishna’s allegation that he was victimised following this incident by “unexplained” transfers and suspensions.

Another allegation against the judge is the abuse of power to get that very Pavan Reddy appointed as Additional Public Prosecutor.

“Mr. Pavan Kumar Reddy was appointed as Additional Public Prosecutor in the year 2006 for a period of three years in contravention of the law that mandates seven years of continuous practice as an advocate prior to appointment as an Additional Public Prosecutor.”

Based on the above, CJAR has not only sought an in-house enquiry but has also asked for the suspension of judicial work assigned to Justice Reddy. Chief Justice Thakur has not responded to CJAR’s representation yet.

This is the second such allegation against a sitting judge of High Court of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh.

In 2015, an Additional District judge from Andhra Pradesh had approached the Supreme Court under Article 32 alleging caste discrimination by a sitting High Court judge, Justice M Satyanarayana Murthy.

The Supreme Court had, however, refused to admit the matter with a Bench presided by then Chief Justice Dattu likening the case to a service matter and observing that the case was a grievance of an individual and cannot be considered as a case pertaining to Fundamental rights.

Impeachment Motion: Five Main Allegations Against Justice CV Nagarjuna Reddy

December 9, 2016 8:45 pm

Sixty one Rajya Sabha members have moved a petition for impeachment proceedings against Justice CV Nagarjuna Reddy of the Andhra Pradesh/Telangana High Court.

The following are the main allegations against the Judge

Misused his position as HC judge to ‘victimize’ a ‘Dalit’ Judge

The impeachment motion describes the allegation made by Mr. Rama Krishna, formerly Principal Junior Civil Judge, Rayachoty, Kadapa District, currently under suspension, that he was forced by Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy to remove the name of Mr. Pavan Kumar Reddy who happens to be the brother of Justice Reddy, from a dying declaration recorded by Mr. Rama Krishna when he was posted as Magistrate in Rayachoty. He alleged that Justice Reddy had summoned him to his home and when he refused to remove the name of his brother from the dying declaration, he kicked him with his shoes and abused his caste.

Charges of Dalit atrocity against spouse, daughter and brother

Another incident of alleged Dalit atrocity pertaining to the registration of an FIR by the ‘Dalit’ tenants against Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy’s wife and daughter, is also mentioned. There also allegations that Mr. Pavan Kumar Reddy commits these various atrocities against the Dalits community under the protective banner of his brother, Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy’s influence

Disproportionate income

The motion also alleges that Justice Reddy abused his position to amass several movable and immovable properties crores of rupees disproportionate to his known sources of income.

Non-Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities

Yet another allegation against Justice Reddy is that he has not disclosed his assets and liabilities in violation of the Code of Conduct that mandates declaration of assets of oneself and dependents by all the judges.

Misconduct when he was an Advocate

It is also mentioned in the impeachment motion that Justice Reddy committed misconduct while he was working as Standing Counsel, for the High Court of Andhra Pradesh.

DALIT Judge  dismissed for   being  HONEST ?

-       An  Appeal  to Honourable Chief Justice of India

      Chief Judicial Magistrate of Sukma District in Chhattisgarh state of India Mr. Prabhakar Gwal is a Dalit , from oppressed class. Being from an oppressed class  , he best  understood the sufferings  of oppressed sections of society , sufferings  of people  , tribals displaced from forests  to make way for  big industries , MNCs. He understood the  oppression of  common public by police , state  machinery  resulting  in common man’s  human rights , constitutional rights violations. He  understood  the machinations of state machinery  to favor big industrialists , also he understood the misuse of office by  public servants  all against the rule of LAW.

      Sukma CJM  Mr. Gwal  sincerely did his  constitutional duty , to uphold rule of law and earned the wrath of powers that be , Criminal Nexus , he was repeatedly interfered in his judicial  duties , repeatedly transferred and now unjustly dismissed from service without  ANY ENQUIRY  giving a chance for Mr.Gwal to make out his case. Whereas  some other  selfish  judges turned their blind eyes  to the sufferings of public ,  violations of law by public servants , intentionally failed to uphold  the law  and got smooth sailing for their  own  career.

      Hereby , We  urge  the Honourable Chief Justice of India  to  order  the Chhattisgarh  State  Government :

1.    To immediately reinstate Mr.Gwal into judicial service.

2.    To make posting at the same place , same court of Sukma , so that he can  complete the cases concerning the  powers that be to the logical end.

3.    To initiate  criminal legal prosecution  against  district collector , police officials , public servants  who directly & indirectly interfered  in the judicial duties performed by Mr. GWAL.

4.    To initiate criminal legal  prosecution against  Chhattisgarh  High Court Judges  who instead of upholding rule of law , supporting Mr. Gwal in his duties  took sides with criminal nexus , powers that be and repeatedly transferred him and now dismissed him from service without  enquiry.

5.    To reopen all the  buried cases which were dealt by Mr. Gwal and buried by transfer of  judge  Mr. Gwal. To take action against ministers , public servants  involved in those cases.

6.    To initiate  criminal action against  sukma district collector , police officials  and Chhattisgarh  High Court  Judges  on  charges of Atrocities against  DALIT  Mr. Gwal  who  was repeatedly  harassed  by  them.

7.    To initiate  criminal  prosecution under anti terror laws ,  against  present  and past  chattisgarh state government ministers , central government  ministers ,  police officials , public servants who  were and are  responsible for creation  of terror outfit SALWA JUDUM  , it’s recent  terror child salwa judum – 2. These public servants   have indulged in terror acts of salwa judum , by aiding & sponsoring it , which is against law.

Date : 30.04.2016…………………………..Your’s sincerely

Place : Mysuru………………………………Nagaraja.M.R.

Rejoice, Ye, Supreme Court Judges On Your Pyrrhic Victory; India’s Justice System Got Screwed Up In Karnan’s Case

by Dr P S Sahni

A law student in any university anywhere in the world is taught that before convicting a person of a crime a detailed reasoned judgement ought to be ready. In fact in criminal cases the judgement convicting a person is pronounced on a particular day; and the quantum of punishment is announced later after the lawyers have had a chance to argue on it. In Justice C.S. Karnan’s case the order of conviction and punishment and imprisonment was pronounced on the same day i.e. 9 May, 2017 in his absence; the detailed reasoned judgements– actually two separate but concurring judgements – as per media reports were made available on the Supreme Court website only on 5 July, 2017. These judgementsare said to have been given by the then seven senior most judges of the Supreme Court. Any law student anywhere in the world would naturally be aghast at the violation of a fundamental principle of the justice system. And this is not the only fallacy.

One of the judges who gave the majority judgement had retired on 27 May, 2017; which means that the signatures of all of these judges should have been affixed by 27 May, 2017. But was it done?

From 9 May, 2017 till date Karnan’s lawyers had been trying to get the attention of the Court – both during and after the summer vacation – through the process of ‘mentioning’ before the relevant bench of the time. In fact most of the time Karnan’s lawyers were treated shabbily, threatened with eviction from the court. In one instance Karnan’s lawyers were told to approach the Court after a month i.e. after the vacation. When they did so after the summer break, they were told not to disturb the court proceedings!

It reminds one of how people from the Scheduled Caste community were treated in the last two millennium as and when they tried to enter the holy precincts of a temple in India. Mostly they were kicked out of the temples. Sufi saints like Nanak and Ramdev have captured it well in their verses five centuries back. So even today a Dalit judge like C.S. Karnan is being treated in the same way; one just has to read about how his lawyers had been treated in the Supreme Court from 9 May, 2017 onwards to be convinced about this.

Could it be that one of the judges had actually retired and not affixed his signature on the judgement; so efforts were being made behind the scene for a ‘resolution of this technicality’? This scenario seems more likely than the contrived projection that all the judges in the majority judgement had affixed their signatures on or before 27 May, 2017.

Now that Justice Karnan’s case seeking bail and challenging his six months sentenceis provisionally listed for 7 July, 2017, the timing of the reasoned judgements being made available on 5 July, 2017 raises suspicion. The entire national press (print and t.v. channels) is at the service of the establishment to damn Justice C.S. Karnan. Lest people in India have forgotten, the same seven wise judges of the Supreme Court had put a gag on the press to the effect that Justice Karnan’s statements were not to be carried w.e.f. 9 May, 2017. Thus in effect the media on 6th and 7th of July, 2017 would be shredding Karnan’s credibility to smithereens; while Karnan’s view point would stay censored. So the stage is being set to ensure that there is no sympathy for Justice Karnan whatsoever when his case is taken up hopefully on 7 July, 2017 in the Supreme Court.

Only a high level independent enquiry can reveal the truth. To get to the bottom of it, an independent agency would have to get hold of all the personal computers, hard disks etc. of all the seven judges; seal these and send them for forensic examination. All the emails exchanged on the issue between the judges would need to be examined. The effort should be to ascertain when each of the seven judges affixed their signatures on the judgements (as there are more than one judgements). The individual seven judges should be subjected to thorough interrogation to arrive at the truth.

Let us beware that the judicial tyranny and dictatorship are as bad as any oppressive regime.

Editorial :  Are all Judges Honest ? Satya Harishchandra ?

Why no action against judges who committed sex crimes against women , who swindled employees provident fund money , etc , While Judges belonging to powerful castes , having influence , who have done grave crimes are let off , their cases buried. Justice karnan is tortured as he is a dalit without any influence for exposing crimes. So called learned advocates are defying gentleman's boundaries and personally calling a judge as lunatic. Are those learned advocates cultured , gentleman , what they have done to safeguard justice. Read JUSTICE KARNAN VICTIMIZED in web news paper SOS E CLARION OF DALIT. Judge's Mafia. Overall in this saga certain people want to bury the corruption allegations made by Justice Karnan, by diversion from core issue of corruption by judges. In the same way dalit judges Justice Gwal & Justice Ramakrishna were tortured by High ranking judges , where is the justice to these persecuted dalit judges ? Why not their tormentors high court & supreme court judges legally prosecuted under Prevention of Atrocities Act against SC /ST ?

Judges  SEX  crimes

https://sites.google.com/site/sosevoiceforjustice/judges-sex-crimes

A – Z   of   Manipulation  of  Indian  Legal  System

http://www.scribd.com/doc/187575206/A-Z-of-Manipulation-of-India-Legal-System   ,

http://www.scribd.com/doc/173854541/Chief-Justice-of-India-A-Criminal   ,

50% of higher judiciary corrupt, says ex-SC judge Markandey Katju

http://www.hindustantimes.com/punjab/50-of-higher-judiciary-corrupt-says-ex-sc-judge-markandey-katju/story-Hfu8Ru8o9YfoGOjloboytN.html

Eight chief justices were corrupt: Ex-law minister

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Eight-chief-justices-were-corrupt-Ex-law-minister/articleshow/6568723.cms

In suicide note, Arunachal CM Kalikho Pul alleges graft by SC judges, Congress http://www.sify.com/news/in-suicide-note-arunachal-cm-kalikho-pul-alleges-graft-by-sc-judges-congress-news-national-rcruamjjfdhhc.html ,

Calcutta HC Justice Karnan calls judiciary corrupt, brings up old allegations against HC judges

http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/calcutta-hc-justice-karnan-calls-judiciary-corrupt-brings-up-old-allegations-against-hc-judges/story-k0WRYaBWRPYaUI6HgzPDHP.html

Traitors  in  Judiciary &  Police

https://www.scribd.com/document/329980170/Traitors-in-Judiciary-Police  ,

Crimes  by  Khaki

https://sites.google.com/site/sosevoiceforjustice/crimes-by-khaki

FIRST  Answer  Judges  Police

https://www.scribd.com/document/336585411/FIRST-Answer-Judges-Police

    The  mafia  of corrupt  has never allowed for transparent , impartial   investigation into criminal cases  involving higher judges & public servants. Justice Karnan  is in  the position of  high court judge due to his merit , talent , education  not  on the basis of reservation or anybody’s mercy. Justice Karnan is a whistle blower , he has exposed corruption in the higher judiciary , he has not done any crimes. Now , powers that be instead of ordering for a fair investigation into   his charges,  is trying  all out to silence him. Some  people  are  even making personal  attacks , by calling him lunatic. Those persons may be beneficiaries   of the existing corrupt judicial system and they  want to continue  with this present  corrupt system.

  In a Mental Hospital ward , say there  are number of  mentally challenged patients  playing inside the ward. A doctor & his assistant enters  the ward to  check , give  routine medicines , injections to patients and then all those  patients call  the  doctor himself as  mad. It is the same situation now.

    Are  not  the so called learned , aged advocate ( @ god’s airport )  and  learned   judges   see the  crimes by judges in the past. See  sample cases mentioned above & below.  What  action taken by those  learned judges &   learned advocate , to safe guard law  in the above / below  mentioned cases? Our  judicial  system is  being  weakened  by  corrupt  judges &  few  , greedy   advocates  ( learned  ? ) , NOT by  whistle blowers  who  have sacrificed  to protect the  nation from corrupt people.

   In the past  few judges  belonging to powerful castes  facing  charges of  gravest crimes , got a smooth sailing , their  cases white washed. But Justice  Karnan  belonging to oppressed  Dalit  class  is being  tortured  for standing up against corruption. He has done no crimes. This is the very reason few honest judges  & honest  advocates  keep  silent  fearing  victimization.

  Hereby , we  demand Honourable Supreme Court of India :

1.       To  order  transparent , impartial   investigation into all the above mentioned corruption cases involving high ranking judges.

2.       To  order for filing  charges  under SC / ST Atrocities Prevention Act  against  high ranking judges  who  tortured  Dalit Judges – Justice Karnan , Justice Gawl & Justice Ramakrishna.

3.       To  order for filing  charges  under SC / ST Atrocities Prevention Act  against  learned advocate & others  who made personal attacks on Justice Karnan  by calling him as lunatic and  for  obstructing legal prosecution of the corrupt judges.

Jai Hind. Vande Mataram.

Your’s

Nagaraja Mysuru Raghupathi.

Give Justice , If Incapable Give Mercy Death

As a result of fighting for public causes , public good I have individually sufferred numerous injustices and still sufferring injustices. My newspaper publication was illegally closed down , my web news paper not given with press accredition , my job oppurtunities in RBI Note press , PES Engineering college , NIE Engineering college , Mysore district court , etc snatched away illegally , I was beaten up , attempts on my life were made even after bringing threats to my life were brought to notice of supreme court of india. See how duty duty conscious our supreme court judges are ? all these sufferrings for public causes I have raised & to silence me.

Are police & Judges above law ? Can Judges & Police Comitt crimes , go scot free ? Can Judges & Police intentionally neglect ( to aid criminals ) their duties , while shamelessly drawing tens of thousands of rupees monthly salary & perks on time without fail from public exchequer.

Please don’t send police again to my home neither refer my case to police. They don’t have practical powers to inquire high & mighty judges. They will come to my home , call me to police station , will take a statement from me & will close the file by sending it to head quarters. This has happened previously number of times. If you are honest in intent , Please constitute an impartial , transparent empowered Inquiry committee to deal this case.

The judges , police & public servants intentionally delay taking action in cases and withhold giving information in time , so that evidences are buried in time , gets destroyed and time lapse occurs resulting in the case becoming time barred. Some of PILs submitted by us are 20 years old concerning national security and I was also eligible for free legal aid at the time of application - still the judges & police didn’t take appropriate action however they shamelessly took thousands of rupees salary , perks from our money. Till date no justice in sight instead more injustices meted out to me as a result of this crusade. THESE INCAPABLE JUDGES & POLICE ARE UNFIT FOR THE POSITIONS THEY OCCUPY , IF THEY CANN’T PROVIDE JUSTICE ATLEAST GIVE ME MERCY DEATH.

Read full case details at :

Mercy  Death  Plea  to  Honourable  Chief  Justice  of  India

http://e-voiceofhumanrightswatch.blogspot.in/2015/09/mercy-death-plea-to-honourable-cji.html    ,

Sign  petition at   https://www.change.org/p/honourable-chief-justice-of-india-give-justice-if-incapable-give-mercy-death

Editorial : MERCY DEATH PLEA to Honourable Chief Justice of India - JUDGES , POLICE & Brokers of Justice Honourable sir , Read the actual case details at following web pages involving judges & police in crimes. The criminal network , corruption net work , MAFIA of Judges & Police is strong , whenever one of their members is accussed , others white wash , bury the case in the name of investigation. Transparent , impartial investigation as in the case of common man is not at all done. We respect the honest few in judiciary , police & public service. Those honest few are also becoming parties to crime by becoming silent , by not doing their duties , by not arresting their corrupt colleagues. Their by they are covering up crime & aiding criminals to commit more crimes. Due to these type of corrupt judges & corrupt police innocents, commoners land in jails and some are even hanged for crimes not commited by them , while the rich crooks roam free. The corrupt judges & corrupt police are shameless people , parasites in our society. They take tens of thousands of rupees monthly salary & perks from our money , tax payer’s money and still don’t do their duties properly. The judges give sermons , judgements running into hundreds of pages when their own folk is in the dock , caught for crimes they intentionally fall silent. The police use filthy language , use 3rd degree torture against commoners , innocents when their own folk is in the dock , caught for crimes , dacoity they don’t use filthy language nor they use 3rd degree torture . Even in fit cases where alleged Judges & Police can be given death sentence , they are spared , why ? Please don’t send police again to my home neither refer my case to police. They don’t have practical powers to inquire high & mighty judges. They will come to my home , call me to police station , will take a statement from me & will close the file by sending it to head quarters. This has happened previously number of times. If you are honest in intent , Please constitute an impartial , transparent empowered Inquiry committee to deal this case. The judges , police & public servants intentionally delay taking action in cases and withhold giving information in time , so that evidences are buried in time , gets destroyed and time lapse occurs resulting in the case becoming time barred. Some of PILs submitted by us are 20 years old concerning national security and I was also eligible for free legal aid at the time of application - still the judges & police didn’t take appropriate action however they shamelessly took thousands of rupees salary , perks from our money. Till date no justice in sight instead more injustices meted out to me as a result of this crusade. THESE INCAPABLE JUDGES & POLICE ARE UNFIT FOR THE POSITIONS THEY OCCUPY , IF THEY CANN’T PROVIDE JUSTICE ATLEAST GIVE ME MERCY DEATH. Jai Hind. Vande Mataram. Your’s Nagaraja Mysore Raghupathi

PIL – Mercy Death Plea to Honourable Chief Justice of India IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. OF 2015 IN THE MATTER OF NAGARAJA . M.R editor SOS e Clarion of Dalit & SOS e Voice for Justice # LIG 2 , No 761 ,, HUDCO First Stage , Laxmikantanagar , Hebbal , Mysore – 570017 , Karnataka State . ....Petitioner Versus Honourable Chief Justice of India , Supreme Court of India & Others ....Respondents PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 12 to ARTICLE 35 & ARTICLE 51A OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS UNDER ARTICLE 32 & ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. To , Hon'ble The Chief Justice of India and His Lordship's Companion Justices of the Supreme Court of India. The Humble petition of the Petitioner above named. MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH : 1. Facts of the case: "Power will go to the hands of rascals, , rogues and freebooters. All Indian leaders will be of low calibre and men of straw. They will have sweet tongues and silly hearts. They will fight among themselves for power and will be lost in political squabbles . A day would come when even air & water will be taxed." Sir Winston made this statement in the House of Commons just before the independence of India & Pakistan. Sadly , the forewarning of Late Winston Churchill has been proved right by some of our criminal , corrupt public servants. 2. As a result of fighting for public causes , public good I have individually sufferred numerous injustices and still sufferring injustices. My newspaper publication was illegally closed down , my web news paper not given with press accredition , my job oppurtunities in RBI Note press , PES Engineering college , NIE Engineering college , Mysore district court , etc snatched away illegally , I was beaten up , attempts on my life were made even after bringing threats to my life were brought to notice of supreme court of india. See how duty duty conscious our supreme court judges are ? all these sufferrings for public causes I have raised & to silence me. 2. Question(s) of Law: Are police & Judges above law ? Can Judges & Police Comitt crimes , go scot free ? Can Judges & Police intentionally neglect ( to aid criminals ) their duties , while shamelessly drawing tens of thousands of rupees monthly salary & perks on time without fail from public exchequer. 3. Grounds: Requests for equitable justice , Prosecution of corrupt public servants , corrupt judges , corrupt police. Request for supreme court orders to judges & police to perform their duties properly. 4. Averment: Hereby , I do request the honorable supreme court of India to consider this as a PIL for : “writ of Mandamus” and to issue instructions to the concerned public servants in the following cases to perform their duties & to answer the questions. Read the actual case details at following web pages involving judges & police in crimes. The criminal network , corruption net work , MAFIA of Judges & Police is strong , whenever one of their members is accussed , others white wash , bury the case in the name of investigation. Transparent , impartial investigation as in the case of common man is not at all done. We respect the honest few in judiciary , police & public service. Those honest few are also becoming parties to crime by becoming silent , by not doing their duties , by not arresting their corrupt colleagues. Their by they are covering up crime & aiding criminals to commit more crimes. Due to these type of corrupt judges & corrupt police innocents, commoners land in jails and some are even hanged for crimes not commited by them , while the rich crooks roam free. The corrupt judges & corrupt police are shameless people , parasites in our society. They take tens of thousands of rupees monthly salary & perks from our money , tax payer’s money and still don’t do their duties properly. The judges give sermons , judgements running into hundreds of pages when their own folk is in the dock , caught for crimes they intentionally fall silent. The police use filthy language , use 3rd degree torture against commoners , innocents when their own folk is in the dock , caught for crimes , dacoity they don’t use filthy language nor they use 3rd degree torture . Even in fit cases where alleged Judges & Police can be given death sentence , they are spared , why ? Please don’t send police again to my home neither refer my case to police. They don’t have practical powers to inquire high & mighty judges. They will come to my home , call me to police station , will take a statement from me & will close the file by sending it to head quarters. This has happened previously number of times. If you are honest in intent , Please constitute an impartial , transparent empowered Inquiry committee to deal this case. The judges , police & public servants intentionally delay taking action in cases and withhold giving information in time , so that evidences are buried in time , gets destroyed and time lapse occurs resulting in the case becoming time barred. Some of PILs submitted by us are 20 years old concerning national security and I was also eligible for free legal aid at the time of application - still the judges & police didn’t take appropriate action however they shamelessly took thousands of rupees salary , perks from our money. Till date no justice in sight instead more injustices meted out to me as a result of this crusade. THESE INCAPABLE JUDGES & POLICE ARE UNFIT FOR THE POSITIONS THEY OCCUPY , IF THEY CANN’T PROVIDE JUSTICE ATLEAST GIVE ME MERCY DEATH. I ,NAGARAJA.M.R. hereby do declare that information given above are true to the best of my knowledge & belief. If i am repeatedly called to police station or else where for the sake of investigations , the losses i do incurr as a result like loss of wages , transportation , job , etc must be borne by the government. prevoiusly the police / IB personnel repeatedly called me the complainant (sufferer of injustices) to police station for questioning , but never called the guilty culprits , rich crooks , criminals even once to police station for questioning , as the culprits are high & mighty . this type of one sided questioning must not be done by police or investigating agencies . if anything untoward happens to me or to my family members like loss of job , meeting with hit & run accidents , loss of lives , death due to improper medical care , etc , the jurisdictional police together with above mentioned accussed public servants will be responsible for it. Even if criminal nexus levels fake charges , police file fake cases against me or my dependents to silence me , this complaint is & will be effective. If I or my family members or my dependents are denied our fundamental rights , human rights , denied proper medical care for ourselves , If anything untoward happens to me or to my dependents or to my family members - In such case Chief Justice of India together with the jurisdictional revenue & police officials will be responsible for it , in such case the government of india is liable to pay Rs. TWO crore as compensation to survivors of my family. if my whole family is eliminated by the criminal nexus ,then that compensation money must be donated to Indian Army Welfare Fund. Afterwards , the money must be recovered by GOI as land arrears from the salary , pension , property , etc of guilty police officials , Judges , public servants & Constitutional fuctionaries. The Petitioner has sent many letters / appeals / petitions to supreme court of india & other courts through e-mail , DARPG website & through regular mail requesting them to consider those as PILs. But none ofthem were admitted , even acknowledgement for receipts were not given. See How duty conscious ,our judges are & see how our judges are sensitive towards life , liberty of citizens , commonmen & see howcareless our judges are towards anti national crimes , crimes worth crores of rupees. That the present petitioner has not filed any other petition (which are admitted by courts) in any High Court or the Supreme Court of India on the subject matter of the present petition. PRAYER: In the above premises, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased: a . Hereby , I do request the honorable supreme court of India to consider this as a PIL for : “writ of Mandamus” and to issue instructions to the concerned public servants in the following cases to perform their duties & to answer the questions. b . to pass such other orders and further orders as may be deemed necessary on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. c. To legally prosecute the public servants who are responsible for not giving press accreditation to my web news papers , myself as a journalist and responsible for closure of my news papers. d. To legally prosecute authorities of M/s RPG Cables Ltd , who denied job opportunities to me under the behest of criminals responsible for late PM Rajiv Gandhi assassination case. e. To legally prosecute authorities of M/s PES College of Engineering , who denied job opportunities to me under the behest of criminals responsible for late PM Rajiv Gandhi assassination case. f. To legally prosecute authorities of M/s National Institute of Engineering , who denied job opportunities to me under the behest of criminals responsible for late PM Rajiv Gandhi assassination case. g. To legally prosecute authorities of M/s Reserve Bank Note Nudran Pvt Ltd , who denied job opportunities to me under the behest of criminals responsible for late PM Rajiv Gandhi assassination case. h. To legally prosecute authorities of Mysore District Courts & Bangalore District Courts , who denied job opportunities to me under the behest of criminals responsible for late PM Rajiv Gandhi assassination case. i. To legally prosecute persons responsible for attempts on my life. j. to legally prosecute judges , police & CBI officials responsible for cover-up of late PM Rajiv Gandhi assassination case. K . To provide protection to life , liberty , livelihood , jobs of me , my family members & dependants. l. To reopen , reinvestigate assassination case of Late PM Rajiv Gandhi. m. To legally prosecute authorities of supreme court of india for not answering show cause notice issued to them and order them to answer the show cause notice as well as RTI questions given to them by the petitioner. n. To conduct an impartial , transparent supreme court monitored enquiry into cases mentioned by me. o. To admit all PILs filed by me in larger public interest. p. To initiate criminal prosecution of public servants , police & judges who are trying to cover up crime and criminals by denying me information , by not taking action on our appeals , PILs. q. To award me a compensation of RUPEES TWO CRORES towards the losses I have sufferred and injustices I am still going through for fighting for public causes. r. To recover compensation amount as land arrears from guilty police , guilty judges & guilty public servants individually. s. To permit me to work in the investigation team , to assist them in investigation subject to conditions . t . to pass such other orders and further orders as may be deemed necessary on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. u. THESE INCAPABLE JUDGES & POLICE ARE UNFIT FOR THE POSITIONS THEY OCCUPY , IF THEY CANN’T PROVIDE JUSTICE ATLEAST GIVE ME MERCY DEATH. FOR WHICH ACT OF KINDNESS, THE PETITIONER SHALL BE DUTY BOUND, EVER PRAY. Dated : 16th September 2015 ………………….FILED BY: NAGARAJA.M.R. Place : Mysuru , India……………………………...PETITIONER-IN-PERSON

Legal  Notice  to  Honourable Chief Justice of India

To,

Honourable Chief Justice of India,

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA,

New Delhi.

Honourable Sir ,

Subject : Legal Notice to Chief Justice of India

Are  Judges , Police  PERFECT ? Satya Harishchandra ?

Hereby , I challenge Chief Justice of India  in the exercise of my FUNDAMENTAL DUTIES  as a citizen of india , that subject to conditions  I will  legally prove the crimes of  few  judges , police , public servants within  the government service and other  criminals.  Is the CJI ready  to book those criminals , traitors , anti nationals ?

Since 25 years I am appealing to apex court for justice concerning various public issues , no justice in sight but injustices meted out  one after another. But the same  judges are  SHAMELESSLY  taking huge pay perks for years  now are also  poised to  get  almost  triple fold  salary increase.  Parasites  feeding  on  Indian  Public. Whenever questions of accountability are asked  judges level contempt charges  against  the  questioner  or police  fix  him in  fake cases or he is silenced by threats , murders , denial of jobs , etc.  Since 25 years  in many  ways they  are trying to silence me. Just take the recent example of Justice Karnan  who leveled corruption  charges  against specific judges  with CJI. Instead of  conducting a fair investigation into the matter , CJI  tried to silence him by  serving  him contempt notice.

Our Judges , Police are  NOT  Perfect  Not Satya Harischandras . There are  criminals  as well as honest people  side by side  in  judiciary & police.  We  whole heartedly respect honest few in judiciary , police & public service. But  we  detest  corrupt  judges , corrupt police. Honest  Judges & Police are not coming into open to  prosecute their corrupt colleagues,  why ? silenced ?

Criminalization of  all wings of government has taken place , unfit people  are in the positions of power. Corruption in judiciary , police , CBI , CVC , Public service is rampant. Now MAFIA is at work.  Only few scandals , scams become public , many  are buried. If one criminal public servant is caught  other public servant who is also a criminal conducts name sake investigation , gives  report , clean chit. Law courts rely on the government reports as evidences , courts are not bothered about credibility of reports or investigations. It is quid pro quo. Therefore technically criminal public servants are never proved for their crimes & convicted , as investigation itself is not fair.

A Crime may happen without the knowledge of police  but  cann’t  continue for years without the connivance of police.  A  Crime reported to court  cann’t  continue  for years without  connivance of judges.

At the bottom  of  the paper , I have given web sites about  few  ACB raids on government officials  and unearthing of crores worth property.  How they have earned it , by misusing their official positions. Therefore  government reports , records  prepared by these officials , investigations conducted by  corrupt police  are suspect.  But  Law courts in various cases , considers government reports , records  , statements of government officials as sacrosanct . Therefore  in many cases  injustice is meted out by court  , as they depend on  reports of corrupt government officials , corrupt police.

The public servants & the government must be role models in law abiding acts , for others to emulate & follow. if a student makes a mistake it is excusable & can be corrected by the teacher. if the teacher himself makes a mistake , all  his students will do the same mistake. if a thief steals , he can be caught  , legally punished & reformed . if a police himself commits crime , many thieves go scot-free under his patronage.  even if a police , public servant commits a crime , he can be legally prosecuted & justice can be sought by the aggrieved.  just think , if a judge himself that too  of apex court of the land  himself  commits crime - violations of RTI Act , constitutional rights & human rights of public  and obstructs the public from performing their constitutional fundamental duties , what happens ?      

"Power will go to the hands of rascals, , rogues and freebooters. All Indian leaders will be of low calibre and men of straw. They will have sweet tongues and silly hearts.  They will fight among themselves for power and will be lost in political squabbles . A day would come when even air & water will be taxed." Sir Winston made this statement in the House of Commons just before the independence of India & Pakistan. Sadly , the  forewarning of  Late Winston Churchill  has been proved right by  some of our  criminal , corrupt people’s representatives , police , public servants &  Judges.

I don’t know whether secretariat staff of CJI office & DARPG / DPG officials are forwarding my appeals for justice , e-mails to you or not. They will be held accountable for their lapses if any. This notice is against the repeated failure of constitutional duties & indirect collusion with criminals by previous CHIEF JUSTICEs OF INDIA. Notice is served against them , to the office of CJI , NOT personally against you.

Please refer my appeal for justice through DARPG ; DLGLA/E/2013/00292 DEPOJ/E/2013/00679 In india democracy is a farce , freedom a mirage. the most basic freedom RIGHT TO INFORMATION & EXPRESSION , is not honoured by the government,as the information opens up the crimes of V.V.I.Ps & leads to their ill-gotten wealth. The public servants are least bothered about the lives of people or justice to them. these type of fat cats , parasites are a drain on the public exchequer . these people want ,wish me to see dead , wish to see HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH closed . so that, a voice against injustices is silenced forever , the crimes of V.V.I.Ps closed , buried forever. To my numerous appeals , HRW’s appeals to you ,you have not yet replied. It clearly shows that you are least bothered about the lives of people or justice to them .it proves that you are hell bent to protect the criminals at any cost. you are just pressurising the police to enquire me ,to take my statement, to repeatedly call me to police station all with a view to silence me.all of you enjoy “legal immunity privileges” ,why don’t you have given powers to the police / investigating officer to summon all of you for enquiry ?or else why don’t all of you are not appearing before the police voluntarily for enquiry ?at the least why don’t all of you are not sending your statement about the case to the police either through legal counsel or through post? you are aiding criminals ,by denying me job oppurtunities in R.B.I CURRENCY NOTE PRESS mysore , city civil court ,bangalore , distict court , mysore ,etc & by illegally closing my newspaper. Even  Press  accreditation  to me as a web journalist is denied till date.  there is a gross, total mismatch between your actions and your oath of office. this amounts to public cheating & moral turpitude on your part. 1.you are making contempt of the very august office you hold. 2.you are making contempt of the constitution of india. 3.you are making contempt of citizens of india. 4.you are sponsoring & aiding terorrism & organized crime. 5.you are violating the fundamental & human rights of the citizens of india and of neighbouring countries. 6.you are violating & making contempt of the U.N HUMAN RIGHTS CHARTER to which india is a signatory. 7.you are obstructing me from performing my fundamental duties as a citizen of india. 8. As a result of your gross negligence of constitutional duties you have caused me damages / losses to the tune of RUPEES TWO CRORE ONLY.

9. You are responsible for  crime cover ups mentioned in my RTI Appeals , PILs and continuation of those crimes unabated.

10. You are  responsible  for denial of information,  which  vindicates the crimes of powers that be.

11. You are responsible for physical assaults , murder attempts on me.

12. You are responsible for  job denials to me at NIE , PES Engineering college , RBI Press , Mysore , Bangalore Courts.

13. You are responsible for my  illegal retrenchment from RPG Cables ,  denial of  medical care to  me towards occupational  health  problems.

14. You are responsible for denying me legal aid.

15. You are responsible for illegal closure of my news paper.

16. You are responsible for  denial of press accreditation  to me as a web journalist till date.

17. You are responsible for repeatedly  passing on my appeals to police. So that  they can  take  statements , close the file under the threat of police power.

18. You  have violated my Human Rights & Fundamental Rights.

19. In terms  of  Integrity , Honesty  You & other public servants are  nowhere near  Baba Saheb B R Ambedkar , Mahatma Gandhi  &  Satya Harishchandra . Many Public servants are  UNFIT to be in their posts.

You are hereby called upon to Pay damages to me and SHOW-CAUSE within 30 days , why you cann’t be legally prosecuted for the above mentioned crimes . If you don’t answer  it  will be admission of the  charges  by you.   It will amount to confession of crimes on your own. If i am repeatedly called to police station or else where for the sake of investigations , the losses i do incurr as a result like loss of wages , transportation , job , etc must be borne by the government. prevoiusly the police / IB personnel repeatedly called me the complainant (sufferer of injustices) to police station for questioning , but never called the guilty culprits even once to police station for questioning , as the culprits are high & mighty . this type of one sided questioning must not be done by police or investigating agencies . if anything untoward happens to me or to my family members like loss of job , meeting with hit & run accidents , loss of lives , etc , the jurisdictional police together with above mentioned accussed public servants , Chief Justice of India & Jurisdictional District Magistrate will be responsible for it. Even if criminal nexus levels fake charges , police file fake cases against me or my dependents to silence me , this complaint is & will be effective. if anything untoward happens to me or my dependents , the government of india is liable to pay Rs. TWO crore as compensation to survivors of my family. if my whole family is eliminated by the criminal nexus ,then that compensation money must be donated to Indian Army Welfare Fund. afterwards , the money must be recovered by GOI as land arrears from the salary , pension , property , etc of guilty judges , police officials , public servants & Constitutional fuctionaries.

Thanking you. Jai Hind , Vande Mataram.

Send  reply to :

Nagaraja Mysuru Raghupathi

Editor , SOS e Voice for Justice & SOS e Clarion of Dalit,

LIG 2 , NO 761 , HUDCO First Stage,

Laxmikantanagar , Hebbal ,

Mysuru – 570017. Date : 05.03.2017……………                your’s sincerely, Place : Mysore , India…………………   Nagaraja  Mysuru Raghupathi

DECLARATION

Name : ...........................NAGARAJA.M.R. Address : ...................LIG-2 / 761 , HUDCO FIRST STAGE , OPP WATER WORKS OFFICE , LAKSHMIKANTANAGAR , HEBBAL , MYSORE - 570017 INDIA Old  Professional / Trade Title : S.O.S - e – Clarion Of Dalit

New   Professional / Trade Title :  Dalit’s  Diary Periodicity : WEEKLY Circulation : FOR FREE DISTRIBUTION ON WEB Donations : NOT ACCEPTED. Self financing . Never accepted any donations , subscriptions either for ourselves or on behalf of other organizations / individuals . Monetary Gains : nil , never made any monetary gain by way of advertisements on my websites or web news paper or otherwise. Owner/Editor/Printer/Publisher : NAGARAJA.M.R. Nationality : INDIAN Body Donation : Physical Body of Nagaraja M R , Editor , Dalit’s  Diary  is donated to JSS Medical College , Mysore ( Donation No. 167 dated 22 / 10 / 2003 ) , In case of either Unnatural death or Natural Death at the hands of criminal nexus , my body must be handed over to JSS Medical College , Mysore for the study purposes of medical students. Eye Donation : Both EYES of Nagaraja M R , Editor ,  Dalit’s  Diary  are donated to Mysore Eye Bank , Mysore , In case of either Unnatural death or Natural Death at the hands of criminal nexus , my eyes must be handed over to Mysore Eye Bank , Mysore WITHIN 6 Hours for immediate eye transplantation to the needy. Old  Home page : http://eclarionofdalit.dalitonline.in/  ,

http://sites.google.com/site/eclarionofdalit/Home , http://groups.google.co.in/group/e-clarion-of-dalit  , http://e-clarionofdalit.blogspot.com/ , http://in.groups.yahoo.com/group/e-clarionofdalit/ ,    

http://paper.li/f-1367938674      ,      

New  Home  Page :

http://eclarionofdalit.dalitonline.in/  ,

https://in.groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/dalitsdiary/ ,

https://sites.google.com/site/dalitsdiary/ ,

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/dalits--diary ,

https://dalitsdiary.blogspot.in/ ,

https://eclarionofdalit.wordpress.com/ ,

Contact : naghrw@yahoo.com , nagarajhrw@hotmail.com , UID Aadhaar No : 5703 5339 3479 Cell :   91  8970318202

It is the duty of Supreme Court of India to Protect , Guard the constitutional rights , fundamental rights of every Indian citizen . Since 25 years  I am  appealing  to SCI  about  issues concerning public welfare , national security , etc and as a result suffering injustices , my constitutional rights , human rights are repeatedly violated  but SCI is mum even when repeated appeals were made to it. Paradoxically , after these appeals for justice , I have suffered more injustices , attempts on my life were made ,  physically assaulted , livelihood  / jobs were  denied , news publication closed , press accreditation denied ,  received threatening  calls , blank calls, even to date  rough elements follow us , rough elements  scout  near home at mid night. Does  not these indicate some ties between rough elements & SCI  Judges ?

Public Interest Litigation is an appeal  for justice  to the courts , to redress  the injustices meted out to  the public.  Individual cases of injustices  pertaining to an individual are not covered under PIL, however  an individual an activist  who  is fighting for public causes  suffering  injustices  as a result of   his struggle  ,caused by powers that be to silence him  can club  his individual case under the public causes  (PIL ) he is  appealing.

Nowadays people of questionable character , integrity  are being selected to public posts , end result is present day india.  In the following web sites I have shown  few actual cases of crimes by judges & police , just imagine what type of justice common man gets.

Traitors  in   Indian  Judiciary & Police

https://www.scribd.com/document/329980170/Traitors-in-Judiciary-Police

Crimes  by  Khaki

https://www.scribd.com/document/334590032/Crimes-by-Khaki  ,

Police show full bravery , courage , use  full might of law while acting against innocents , commoners. Even  takes suo motto action. Frequently crosses legal limits  while acting against commoners like 3rd degree torture , arrest / search  , seizure without warrant , arrest in mid night , etc . While they are supposed to take action against rich crooks , their own corrupt colleagues  no suo motto action , delayed action inspite of complaint  allowing time for rich crook to get anticipatory bail , no 3rd degree torture on him , no arrest , search , seizure without warrant. Where is the bravery , courage of police ?

Judges show their full wisdom , apply rigid law book while  judging cases of commoners , take suo motto action  where as  cases involving rich crooks comes before them inspite of repeated PILs they don’t consider it , let alone take suo motto action. Judges make far fetched interpretations of law , ultimately benefitting the rich crook. Where is the wisdom of Judges ?

I ,NAGARAJA.M.R. hereby do declare that information given above are true to the best of my knowledge & belief. If i am repeatedly called to police station or else where for the sake of investigations , the losses i do incurr as a result like loss of wages , transportation , job , etc must be borne by the government. prevoiusly the police / IB personnel repeatedly called me the complainant (sufferer of injustices) to police station for questioning , but never called the guilty culprits , rich crooks , criminals even once to police station for questioning , as the culprits are high & mighty . this type of one sided questioning must not be done by police or investigating agencies . if anything untoward happens to me or to my family members like loss of job , meeting with hit & run accidents , loss of lives , death due to improper medical care , etc , the jurisdictional police together with above mentioned accussed public servants will be responsible for it. Even if criminal nexus levels fake charges , police file fake cases against me or my dependents to silence me , this complaint is & will be effective.

  Powers that  be , higher ups have referred all my previous cases to police although in most of the cases  police don’t  have jurisdiction over it.  It  sends  a subtle message by police force to  the  complainant  to keep silent . In the remaining cases  which are under their jurisdiction police  don’t act against higher ups , high & mighty. In such cases police lack  practical powers , their hands are tied although they  are  honest.  As a end result , police  have repeatedly called   me to police station  number of  times  ( have never called guilty  influential persons even once)  took  statement  from  me and closed  the files.  Hereby , I do make it clear  the statements made by me  in my original petitions , PILs , news papers  , etc  while I was in  a free & fair atmosphere  are  TRUE  , over rides , prevails over all the statements made by me before police  earlier and  which will be made by me  in future before police. If I or my family members or my dependents are denied our fundamental rights , human rights , denied proper medical care for ourselves , If anything untoward happens to me or to my dependents or to my family members - In such case Chief Justice of India together with the jurisdictional revenue & police officials will be responsible for it , in such case the government of india is liable to pay Rs. TWO crore as compensation to survivors of my family. if my whole family is eliminated by the criminal nexus ,then that compensation money must be donated to Indian Army Welfare Fund. Afterwards , the money must be recovered by GOI as land arrears from the salary , pension , property , etc of guilty police officials , Judges , public servants & Constitutional functionaries.

date :  09 .08 .2017…………………………..Your's sincerely, place : India…………………………………...Nagaraja.M.R.

edited , printed , published & owned by NAGARAJA.M.R. @ : LIG-2 / 761 , HUDCO FIRST STAGE , OPP WATER WORKS OFFICE , LAKSHMIKANTANAGAR ,HEBBAL ,MYSORE -570017 INDIA    

cell : 91 8970318202        

home page:  

http://eclarionofdalit.dalitonline.in/  ,

https://in.groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/dalitsdiary/ ,

https://sites.google.com/site/dalitsdiary/ ,

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/dalits--diary ,

https://dalitsdiary.blogspot.in/ ,

https://eclarionofdalit.wordpress.com/ ,

http://thecitizens.torpress2sarn7xw.onion/ ,

Contact  :  Naag@protonmail.com ,  Naag@dalitonline.in   ,

Secure  Mail :  Naag@torbox3uiot6wchz.onion ,    

[columnofcurae]

Writ Of Mandamus

Writ of mandamus is an order to an inferior court, tribunal, board, corporation, or any administrative authority, or any person, required to perform a specific duty fixed by law or associated with the office the person holds. The writ is issued to compel an authority to do his duties and exercise powers in accordance with law. 

The writ of mandamus can be issued on the following grounds:

Th…

[loyallogic]

The Writ of Habeas Corpus

This article is written by Suryansh Singh, a 3rd-year law student from Indore Institute of law. This article mainly discusses under what circumstances the writ of habeas corpus is issued to a person.

Introduction

Constitution of India is the supreme law of the land which lays down rules and regulations for the protection of the rights of the people and imposed duties over them. This vast literature is considered as the guardian and protector of the fundamental rights guaranteed to an individual. The right of WRITS is one such right available to a person. The provisions of the Indian constitution are sanctioned by law thus the judiciary has the independent authority over the matters in which writs are to be issued. The concept of the writs is to enable the immediate determination of the rights of an individual and help the person to achieve the benefit of his right.

There are five types of writs in our constitution those are as follows:

Writ of habeas corpus

Habeas corpus is the Latin term which means ‘you must have the body’. It is the order issued by the court to present the detenu before the court and to check whether the arrest was lawful or not.

Writ of Mandamus

The writ of mandamus is the order or command issued by any statute or any authority sanctioned by law to any person, corporation or any other authority in order to perform any public duty.

Writ of prohibition

The writ of prohibition means is a writ issued by the higher authority to its subordinate authority in order to stop something which the law prohibits. This writ can only be issued against a judicial and quasi-judicial body.

Writ of certiorari

The term certiorari is a Latin word which means to be informed. This writ is issued by the higher court to review the actions of the lower court.

Writ of quo warranto

Writ of quo warranto means by what authority. This writ is issued which requires a person to show by what authority he has exercised his powers or rights.

The supreme court under Article 32 and the high court under Article 226 have the power to issue writs of these nature. Though under Article 32 the supreme courts issue the writs if there is any violation of the fundamental rights of a person but the High Court under Article 226 has a wider jurisdiction to issue the writ for both a violation of the legal as well as the fundamental rights.

click here

Meaning of the writ of habeas corpus

The writ of habeas corpus is the legal procedure which acts as a remedial measure for the person who is illegally detained. The term habeas corpus is the Latin word which means to bring or present the body before the court. It is the most important right available to the person detained unlawfully. The basic purpose for which this writ is used is to release a person from unlawful detention or imprisonment. This writ is of great importance as it determines a person his right to freedom and personal liberty.

Illustration

A has been taken into custody by B a police officer without a warrant. All the efforts made by A’s family to know the whereabouts of A turned out to be futile. As he was detained wrongfully by B (police officer), the writ of habeas corpus can be filed in court by A’s family on his behalf.

Nature of the writ of habeas corpus

The concept of habeas corpus can be traced way back in the thirteenth century. The writ of Habeas corpus cum causa is an order calling upon the person who has detained another person, to present the person in the court and justify his actions that on what grounds and under what authority he has confined that person. If the court doesn’t find any legal justifications for the cause, then it will order for the immediate release of the person confined or imprisoned.

Who may apply for the writ of habeas corpus

To answer this question the courts have made this clear in various cases that the person who may apply for the writ of habeas corpus should be

The person confined or detained illegally.

The person who is aware of the benefit of the case.

The person who is familiar with the facts and circumstances of the case and willingly files an application of the writ of habeas corpus under article 32 and 226 of the Indian constitution.

When the writ of habeas corpus is refused

The following conditions when the writ of habeas corpus is refused are as follows:

When the court doesn’t have the territorial jurisdiction over the detainer.

When the detention of a person is connected with the order of the court.

When the person detained is already set free.

When the confinement has been legitimized by the removal of the defects.

The writ of habeas corpus will not be available during an emergency.

When the competent court dismisses the petition on the grounds of merits.

Whether the doctrine of res judicata applies to this writ

When it comes to the illegal confinement of a person, the doctrine of res judicata is not applicable. Under article 32 successive petition for the writ of habeas corpus can be filed in the court with fresh grounds which were not covered in the earlier petition filed for the same. The petition for habeas corpus is maintainable if it is filed in the forum having its independent existence and separate jurisdiction and competency.

In Lallubhai Jogibhai Patel vs Union Of India & Ors on 15 December, 1980 it was held that no second petition for the writ of habeas corpus is maintainable in the court if filed on the same grounds as of the first one.

Preventive detention

Preventive detention is the confinement or imprisonment of a person in order to prevent him from committing any kind of offence in the future. It does not act as a punishment or penalty imposed upon a person, it’s just a precautionary method. The concept of preventive detention and habeas corpus comes hand in hand. Article 22 of the Indian constitution states the procedure of preventive detention and requires a strict adherence of law. Parliament is authorized to make laws for preventive detention for various reasons connected with it like:

Defence.

Foreign relations or foreign affairs of the country.

With the very purpose of providing security to India and its state.

For the maintenance of public order.

However, such detention may be monitored through judicial review by checking its preconditions.

Alternative remedy

If the defendant gives lawful justification for the detention or confinement the writ of habeas corpus may not be issued by the court. However, in case of an alternative remedy, the applicant still has the right of issuing the writ of habeas corpus. It is not refused on the grounds of availability of the alternative remedy to the applicant.

Burden of proof

The burden of proof lies over the person or the authority to satisfy the court that the detention or confinement of the person was made on legal grounds. And if the detenu alleges that the confinement was malicious and outside the jurisdiction of the authority detaining the person than the burden of proof lies over the detenu.

Territorial jurisdiction

Under Article 32 of the Indian constitution, the supreme court has jurisdiction over all the authorities within and outside the territorial jurisdiction of India. Under Article  226 the high court is empowered to deal with the matter when the high court is having control over that authority and the probable cause of action arises.

Writ of habeas corpus during an emergency proclamation

The writ of habeas corpus is maintainable during an emergency proclamation, as after the 44th amendment in 1978 it was stated that fundamental rights enshrined under article 20 and 21 cannot be suspended. And for the enforcement of these rights, the writ petition can be filed in court.

Cases

Additional district magistrate of Jabalpur v. Shiv Kant Shukla 1976 SC 1207

This case is also known as the habeas corpus case and it was based upon the grounds of issuance and the viability aspect of this writ. This whole case spins around the situation when the emergency was proclaimed and the question was raised whether the writ of habeas corpus is maintainable in this situation or not. It was held that as in the case of Liversidge v. Anderson during emergency all the rights were held suspended, the same was held in the instant case where a state has the power to restrain the rights especially right to life enshrined under article 21 of the Indian constitution in an emergency situation. This decision was considered to be the darkest day of Indian history.

Sheela Barse v. State of Maharashtra 1983 SCC 96

In the instant case, a letter was written to the supreme court regarding the condition of the women prisoners who were assaulted in the lockup and the writ petition was filed regarding this situation by the plaintiff who was a human rights activists. An investigative authority was sent by the court for crosschecking the situation and the allegations made by the plaintiff. It was found that the allegations were correct. It was held that if a  person detained or confined can’t file an application for the writ than some other person can file it on his behalf which quashed the locus standi approach.

Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration 1980 AIR 1579

In the instant case, it was held by the court that the writ petition of habeas corpus can be filed in the court that not only for the wrongful or illegal confinement of the prisoner but also for his protection from any kind of ill-treatment and discrimination by the authority responsible for his detention. Thus the petition can be filed for the unlawful detention and checks the manner in which the detention was caused.

Nilabati Behra v. The State of Orissa

In the instant case, the son of the petitioner was taken away by the Orissa police for the purpose of interrogation. All the efforts made in order to trace him turned out to be futile. So the writ petition of habeas corpus was filed in the court. During the pendency of the petition, the dead body of the petitioner’s son was found on the railway track. The petitioner was awarded compensation for Rs. 1,50,000.

Kanu Sanyal v. District Magistrate Darjeeling & Ors. 1974 AIR 510

In the instant case, it was held that instead of following the traditional method of producing the body before the court there must be complete focus on the legality of the detention by looking into the facts and circumstances of the case. This case majorly focused on the nature and scope of the case and stated that this writ is a procedural writ and not a substantive writ.

A.K. Gopalan v. The State of Madras

In the instant case, the preventive detention act was examined based on its constitutional validity. If a legislature restraints a person from his personal liberty should be competent enough to make such law in the first place. Detention is turned out to be unlawful if the law backing it up is unlawful. A person has the right to approach the court. A person can file an appeal in the supreme court against the order of high court in case of accepting or refusing the application for the writ of habeas corpus.

Conclusion

It can be concluded that the right of WRITS is one such right available to a person. The provisions of the Indian constitution are sanctioned by law thus the judiciary has the independent authority over the matters in which writs are to be issued. The concept of the writs is to enable the immediate determination of the rights of an individual and help the person to achieve the benefit of his right.

The writ of habeas corpus is the most important writ available to a person as it enables him to determine the right to his liberty. It acts as a remedial measure which ensures to set free the detained person from the illegal imprisonment. However, it doesn’t absolve any person from his liability. It demands lawful justification for the detention and protects the person from any kind of ill-treatment and discrimination from the authority which detained the person. In this manner, the judiciary is using this writ in such an effective manner in order to ensure security to a person from unlawful confinement.

The post The Writ of Habeas Corpus appeared first on iPleaders.

The Writ of Habeas Corpus published first on https://namechangers.tumblr.com/

[marymosley]

15 Landmark Judgments on Environmental Protection

The Indian Judiciary, the custodian of constitution, has been giving beacon light for protection of Environment while interpretation the constitution in positive manner. Judicial Chronology is full of landmark decisions, which embarked upon that Right to life far exceeds mere breathing and walking and developed Environment Jurisprudence. Judiciary plays a vital role in the protection of environment. Here are some of the Landmark judgment on Environment Protection:

1.      Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. ; Supreme Court of India

Judgment- This case is also known as the ‘Dehradun Valley Litigation’. In Mussoorie hill range of Himalayas, the activity of quarrying was being carried out.  Limestone was extracted by blasting out the hills with dynamite. This practice has also resulted in cave-ins and slumping because the mines dug deep into the hillsides, which is an illegal practice per se. Due to lack of vegetation many landslides occurred, which killed villagers, and destroyed their homes, cattle and agricultural land. It was contended by the mining operators that the case should be dismissed by the court and the issue should be left to the administrative authorities under the Environment Protection but the Court rejected the miners’ arguments the ground that the litigation had already commenced and significant orders had been issued by the court before the adoption of the Environment Protection Act. Later a monitoring committee was made. Monitoring Committee directed the company in certain way but the lessee continued to quarry limestone in an unscientific manner and in disregard of the directions issued by the Monitoring committee. In an application filed by the committee, the court held that the mining activity secretly carried on by Vijay Shree Mines had caused immense damage to the area and directed the firm to pay Rs. 3 lakhs to the fund of the Monitoring committee. After years, the Supreme Court of India has held that pollution caused by quarries adversely affects the health and safety of people and hence, the same should be stopped. The right to wholesome environment is a part of right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. This case was the first requiring the Supreme Court to balance environment and ecological integrity against industrial demands on the forest resources. The Court issued the following directions:

· Orders that mine lessees whose operations were terminated by the court would be given priority for leases in new areas open to limestone mining.

· Orders that the Eco-Task Force of the central department of Environment reclaim and reforest the area damaged by mining and that workers displaced by mine closure be given priority for jobs with the Eco-Task Force operations in the region.

2.      Municipal Council, Ratlam v. Shri Vardhichand & Ors.; Supreme Court of India

Judgment- Ratlam is a city in the State of Madhya Pradesh in India. Some of the residents of the municipality filed a complaint before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate alleging that the municipality is not constructing proper drains and there is stench and stink caused by the exertion by nearby slum-dwellers and that there was nuisance to the petitioners. The Sub Divisional Magistrate of Ratlam district instructed the municipality to prepare a proper development plan within 6 months of the complaint submitted by the residents of Ratlam city (approved by High Court). Afterwards the municipality came in appeal before the apex court of India and alleged that they do not have proper financial support as well as proper funds to comply with the direction given by the sub divisional magistrate of Ratlam city. Respondents argued that the Municipality of Ratlam city had failed to meet its obligations given by the sub divisional magistrate to provide for public health including by failing to abate pollution and other hazardous waste from impacting their homes. Respondents focused to stop pollution caused by a runoff from a nearby alcohol plant resulting in form of malaria. The Supreme Court instructed the Municipal Council of Ratlam to immediately follow order given by the Sub Divisional Magistrate of Ratlam city to protect the area from pollution caused by alcohol plant flowing into the neighboring areas of the resident. Supreme court also ordered the municipal to take necessary steps to  fulfill their obligation by providing adequate number of public laterals for specifically men and women separately along with to provide water supply and scavenging service in morning as well as in evening to ensure proper sanitation. The court also ordered that these obligations to be fulfilled within six months of court order.   The problem was due to private polluters and haphazard town planning, it was held by Supreme Court that pollution free environment is an integral part of right to life under Article 21. The Court Further held that in case municipality feel the need of resources then it will raise its demand from State government by elitist projects, request loans from the State Government from the savings account of public health expenditure to fulfill the resource requirement for the implementation of courts order.

3.      M.C. Mehta v. Union Of India (Gas Leak In Shriram Factory); Supreme Court of India

Judgment- On the midnight of 2/3-12, 1984; there was a leakage of poisonous gas (methyl isocyanate) from Union Carbide Corporation India Limited, located at Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh. This disaster was described as “World’s worst industrial disaster” as it claimed the lives of 2260 people and caused serious injuries with a variety of complications to about 6 lakhs of people. When the matter was pending before the Supreme Court, another gas disaster took place from Shri Ram Foods and Fertilizer Industries (belonging to Delhi Textile Mills Ltd.), Delhi on 4th and 6th December 1985. One advocate died and several others injured. MC Mehta, a leading legal practitioner, Supreme Court filed a “public interest litigation” petition under Article 32 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court through P.N. Bhagwati, C.J., keeping in mind the one-year-old great gas disaster of Bhopal, evolved a new rule, “Absolute Liability” in preference to 1868 rule of Strict Liability. Issues Raised were- Whether the plant can be allowed to continue or not?

If not, what measures are required to be taken to prevent the leakages, explosions, air and water pollution? To find out the number of safety devices exists in the plant and others though necessary is not installed in the plant. Court held that the “absolute liability” of a hazardous chemical manufacturer to give compensation to all those affected by an accident was introduced in this case and it was the first time compensation was paid to victims. The court laid down following principles- The management, Shri Ram Foods was required to deposit in the court, Rs. 20 lakhs as security for payment of compensation to the victims. A green belt of 1 to 5 K.M. widths around such industries should be provided. The court directed the Central Government to set up an Environmental Court consisting of a Judge and two experts (Ecological Sciences Research Experts) as members to assist the judge in deciding the environmental cases. Pursuant upon the recommendation, the Govt. of India passed the National Environment Tribunal Act, 1995 to deal with the cases of environmental pollution.

4.      M.C. Mehta v. Union of India- Ganga Pollution Case; Supreme Court of India

Judgment- In 1985, M.C. Mehta filed a writ petition in the nature of mandamus to prevent these leather tanneries from disposing of the domestic and industrial waste and effluents in the Ganga River. In this petition, the petitioner requested the court to request the Supreme Court (the Court) to restrain the respondents from releasing effluents into the Ganga river till the time they incorporate certain treatment plants for the treatment of toxic effluents to arrest water pollution. The Court highlighted the importance of certain provisions in our constitutional framework, which enshrine the significance and the need for protecting our environment. Article 48-A provides that the State shall endeavor to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wildlife of the country. Article 51-A of the Constitution of India imposes a fundamental duty on every citizen to protect and improve the natural environment, including forests, lakes, rivers, and wildlife. The Court stated the importance of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (the Water Act). This act was passed to prevent and control water pollution and maintaining water quality. This act established central and stated boards and conferred them with power and functions relating to the control and prevention of water pollution. Now, the question was raised that what is Trade Effluent? A Trade Effluent is any substance in the form of solid, liquid, or gaseous state which is discharged from any establishment used for carrying out any trade or industrial activity, other than domestic sewage. It was noted that the leather industry is one of the significant industries besides paper and textiles consuming large quantities of water. Most of the water used is discharged as wastewater. The wastewater contains toxic substances that deplete the Oxygen content of the clean river water in which they are discharged. This results in the death of aquatic life and emanates foul odor. The Court held the despite provisions in the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 Act no effective steps were taken by the State Board to prevent the discharge of effluents into the river Ganga. Also, despite the provisions in the Environment Protection Act, no effective steps were taken by the Central Government to prevent the public nuisance caused by the tanneries at Kanpur. In a historic judgment in 1987, the court ordered the closure of a number of polluting tanneries near Kanpur. The court held that- “Just like an industry which cannot pay minimum wages to its workers cannot be allowed to exist, a tannery which cannot set up a primary treatment plant cannot be permitted to continue to be in existence.” The Court ordered the tanneries to establish primary treatment plants, if not Secondary treatment plants. That is the minimum which the tanneries should do in the circumstances of the case.

5.      Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India; Supreme Court of India

Judgment- The petition was filed against the excessive pollution caused by River Palar due to the release of pollutants by the tanneries and other industries in the State of Tamil Nadu. Palar River is the main source of drinking and bathing water for the surrounding people. Later, the Tamil Nadu Agricultural University Research Centre, Vellore discovered that approximately 35,000 hectares of agricultural land have turned either entirely or partially unsuitable for cultivation. This is one of the landmark cases whereby the Supreme Court critically analyzed the relationship between environment and industrial development. The question which emerged for thought under the steady gaze of the Supreme Court was whether the tanneries ought to be permitted to keep on working at the expense of lives of lakhs of individuals. It was presented by the petitioner that the whole surface and sub-soil water of river Palar has been intoxicated and has resulted in the non-accessibility of consumable water to the inhabitants of the region. The Supreme Court analyzing the report conveyed its judgment putting forth all attempts to keep up a concordance among condition and improvement. The Court conceded that these Tanneries in India are the major foreign exchange earner and furthermore gives work to a large number of individuals. In any case, at the equivalent time, it wrecks nature and represents a wellbeing danger to everybody. The court conveying its judgment in favor of the petitioner guided all the Tanneries to submit a whole of Rs. 10,000 as fine in the Collector’s office. The Court additionally coordinated the State of Tamil Nadu to grant Mr. M. C. Mehta with an entirety of Rs. 50,000 as gratefulness towards his endeavors for the security of the Environment.

6.      A.P. Pollution Control Board v. Prof. M.V. Nayudu (Retd.) & Ors.; Supreme Court of India

Judgment- In this case the respondent industry is ought to be establishing a new factory for the production of vegetable oils in the State of Andhra Pradesh. Respondent industry purchased a piece of land in Indore village named Peddashpur. Within the range of the village the reservoirs that provides drinking water for the 5 million of people around the area. Issues raised were- The validity of the orders passed by the A.P. Pollution Control Board? The correctness of the orders of the Appellate Authority under section 28 of the Water Act, 1974? The validity of exemption granted for the operation of the 10 k.m. rule? In what ways that the technological aspects of the environmental law cases ought to be adjudicated? In the impugned judgment, the Supreme Court relied on the judicial doctrine of the Precautionary Principle. The Precautionary Principle as it is very name suggests needs the authorities in charge to anticipate, prevent and attack the reason behind environmental pollution. This rule is based on the salutary theory that it is better to err on the side of caution and safety than in the wrong way wherever environmental damage, once done, is also irreversible. In other words, one ought to take measures in anticipation of environmental damage, instead of to hunt cure when the damage is inflicted. It would be better to stay safe earlier then be sorry later. Hindrance is healthier than cure. The Court in the present judgment directed that the authority to be appointed under Section 3(3) of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 that shall implement the Precautionary Principle and also the Polluter Pays Principle. Further, it had been discovered that the new conception envisages that when a risk of great or irreversible damage to the environment is perceived, the burden of proof lies on the one that is proposing to undertake the activity in question.

7.      M. C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath & Ors.; Supreme Court of India

Judgment- The Indian Express published an article reporting that a private company, Span Motels Private Ltd. (‘the Motel Company’), owner of Span Resorts, had floated an ambitious project called Span Club. Kamal Nath who was the Minister of Environment and Forests had direct links with this company. The company encroached upon 27.12 big has of land which also included forest land. The land was regularized and subsequently leased out to the company on 11th April 1994. Issues raised were- Whether the court has wrongly inducted Mr. Kama Nath as a Respondent in the present petition? Whether the construction activity carried out by the Motel Company justified? The Supreme Court rejected this contention and held that the forest lands which have been given on lease to the Motel by the State Governments are situated at the bank of the river Beas. The Beas is a young and dynamic river and it changes its course very often. The right bank of the river is where the Motel is located comes under forest. The area is ecologically fragile and therefore it should not be converted into private ownership. The Supreme Court applied the ‘Doctrine of Public Trust’ to the present case. Doctrine of Pubic trust is an ancient legal doctrine which states that certain common properties such as rivers, seashore, forests and the air were held by Government in trusteeship for the free and unimpeded use of the general public. Public Trust Doctrine primarily rests on the principle that certain resources like air, sea, water and the forests have such a great importance to the people as a whole that it would be unjustified to make them a subject of private ownership. Therefore- The Court quashed the lease-deed by which forested land was leased to the Motel Company and held that the construction activity carried out by the Motel Company was not justified. The Motel was ordered to pay compensation by way of cost for the restitution of the environmental and ecology of the area. The Motel was ordered to construct a boundary wall at a distance of not more than 4 meters for the building of the motel beyond which they were not allowed to use the land of the river basin. The Court restricted the Motel from discharging untreated effluent into the river. Himachal Pradesh Pollution Control Board was directed to inspect and keep a check.

8.      M.C. Mehta v. Union of India- Vehicular Pollution Case; Supreme Court of India

Judgment- Union Territory of Delhi has a total population of 96 lakhs. Out of this population approximately 90 lakh people reside in urban areas. At the time of independence the population of Delhi was around 5 lakh. In nearly 40 years, it multiplied by 19 times. This writ petition was filed by M.C. Mehta requesting the court to pass appropriate orders for the reduction of Vehicular Pollution in Delhi. Supreme Court in this case held that Indian constitution recognizes the importance of protection of environment, life, flora and fauna by the virtue of Article 51-A and Directive principles of state policy. Therefore, it is the duty of the state to protect the environment and all the persons using automobiles should have a fair idea of the harmful effects on the environment due to emissions caused by their vehicles.  A committee was setup to look in to the problem and decide on what can be done. The committee was setup with the following objectives –

To make an assessment of the technologies available for vehicular pollution control in the world;

To make an assessment of the current status of technology available in India for controlling vehicular pollution;

To look at the low cost alternatives for operating vehicles at reduced pollution levels in the metropolitan cities of India.

To examine the feasibility of measures to reduce/eliminate pollution from motor vehicles both on short term and long term basis and make appropriate recommendations in this regard;

To make specific recommendations on the administrative/legal regulations required for implementing the recommendations.

The committee was ordered to give reports in two months and also mention the steps taken.

9.      Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar & Ors.; Supreme Court of India

Judgment- The petition was filed by the way of Public Interest Litigation by Subhash Kumar for preventing the pollution of the water of the river Bokaro from the discharge of sludge/slurry from the Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. The Petitioner alleged that the Parliament enacted Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1978 for maintaining the wholesomeness of water and for the prevention of water pollution. The State Pollution Control Board failed to take actions against the Company and permitted the pollution of the water and the State of Bihar instead of taking actions, it is granting a lease on the payment of royalty for collection of slurry to various persons. Issue raised was whether the water of the river Bokaro is polluted by the discharge of the slurry from the Company? The apex court held that the right to get pollution free water and air is a fundamental right under Article 21. Following this, the right to pollution free environment was incorporated under the head of right to life and all the laws courts within the Indian Territory were bound to follow. Public health and ecology were held to be the priorities under Article 21 and the constitution of a green bench was also ordered by the Supreme Court. The Tata Iron & Steel Co. has been granted sanction from the Board for discharging effluents from their outlets under Sections 25 and 26 of the Water Prevention and Control of Pollution Act, 1974. Before granting the discharge of the effluents to the Bokaro River, the Board has analyzed and monitored that the effluents generated did not pollute the river. It was clear from the facts that and pleadings on behalf of the Respondent that there was no good reason to accept Petitioner’s contentions that the water of Bokaro River was polluted by the discharge of slurry/sludge from the respondent Company, on the other hand, the bench found that effective steps were taken by State Pollution Control Board to check pollution. Therefore, the petition was dismissed.

10.  Samit Mehta v. Union of India & Ors.; National Green Tribunal

Judgment- In this case, an environmentalist filed an application regarding the damage caused by the sinking of a ship which was carrying coal, fuel oil and diesel. Due to the sinking, a thick oil layer was formed on the surface of the sea which caused damage to the marine ecosystem. This case was held to involve questions of public importance and significance of environmental jurisprudence. The tribunal noticed the negligence. The sinking of the ship was the result of the negligence of the Respondents and upholding the principle of Polluter Pay. The Tribunal has further held that it has power to grant compensation for the costs incurred by the Central Government to clean the wrecks which may pose hazards to navigation and to marine environment. The Court thereby reaffirmed the “Precautionary Principle” and “Polluter Pays Principle” and also recognized Right to clean environment as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India which guarantees protection of life and personal liberty. The Tribunal held that the ship sinking accident is said to have led to the pollution of the marine environment on three counts: (a) Dumping of the cargo on the ship, i.e., coal in to the sea; (b) Release of the Fuel oil stored on board and the resultant oil spill caused by it and (c) wreckage of the ship itself, which contained the materials. In the present case, the ship used in the transport is unseaworthy and the respondents should have never used the ship for transport purpose. Therefore, in the present case, sinking of the ship is held equivalent to dumping. Environmental compensation of Rs. 100 crores was imposed. This is one of the biggest compensation ever made by private entity to government.

11.  Ms. Betty C. Alvares v. The State of Goa and Ors. ; National Green Tribunal

Judgment- A complaint regarding various instances of illegal construction in the Coastal Regulation Zone of Candolim, Goa was made by a personal of foreign nationality. Her name was Betta Alvarez. The first objection was that Betty Alvarez had no locus standi in the matter because she was not an Indian citizen and thus legally incompetent to file the petition under Article 21 because as a non-citizen, she has not been guaranteed any right under the Indian Constitution. The second objection was that the matter was barred by the law of limitation and should be dismissed. The case was initiated in the Honorable High Court of Bombay Bench at Goa in the form of a PIL but by an order dated Oct 23, 2012, the Writ Petition was transferred to the National Green Tribunal. Therefore The Tribunal in bold terms stated that even assuming that the Applicant – Betty Alvarez is not a citizen of India, the Application is still maintainable as she had filed several other writ petitions and contempt applications before she filed the present application, in which she had asserted that the Respondents had raised some illegal constructions by way of which they were encroaching the sea beaches along with governmental properties. The Court laid down in very bold terms that once it is found that any person can file a proceeding related to the environmental dispute, Ms. Betty’s application is maintainable without regards to the question of her nationality.

12.  Art of Living Case on Yamuna Flood Plain; National Green Tribunal

Judgment- The National Green Tribunal (NGT) held the Art of Living Foundation of Sri Sri Ravi Shankar responsible for the alleged damage caused to the Yamuna floodplains due to the World Cultural Festival organized in March 2016. NGT Panel found that the organizers of the Art of Living Festival violated the environmental norms and it has severely damaged the food plane area at the bank of Yamuna River in Delhi. Earlier, the Government of Delhi and Delhi Development Authority (DDA) has permitted the Art of living festival organizers but it was an under some conditions. The NGT panel imposed a penalty of Rs. 5 Crore on Art of Living Foundation as environmental compensation after coming down heavily on the foundation for not disclosing its full plans. The panel also warned AOL Foundation that in case of failure to pay the penalized amount the grant of Rs.2.5 crore which the ministry of culture is supposed to pay AOL will be attached. While reacting with dismay to the verdict, the Art of Living Foundation expressed disappointment and claimed that it had complied with all environment laws and norms and its’ submissions were not considered by NGT. The Art of Living Foundation said in a statement that-“We will appeal to Supreme Court. We are confident that we will get justice.”

13.  -Save Mon Region Federation and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. ; National Green Tribunal

Judgment- The Save Mon Region Federation, on behalf of the Monpa indigenous community, challenged the environmental clearance granted for the construction of a hydroelectric dam on the Naymjang Chhu River.  The Federation pointed to faults in the environmental impact assessment (EIA) procedure and a lack of close scrutiny of the project by the expert appraisal committee (EAC). The National Green Tribunal concluded: “It is true that hydel power project provides eco friendly renewable source of energy and its development is necessary, however, we are of the considered view that such development should be ‘sustainable development’ without there being any irretrievable loss to environment. We are also of the view that studies done should be open for public consultation in order to offer an opportunity to affected persons having plausible stake in environment to express their concerns following such studies. This would facilitate objective decision by the EAC on all environmental issues and open a way for sustainable development of the region.” Therefore, the project was close to a wintering site for a bird Black-necked Crane, which is included under Schedule I species under the Wildlife Protection Act of 1972. It also comes under the ‘Threatened Birds of India’ literature by the appellants in this case. It also had other endangered species such as the red panda, snow leopard, etc. The tribunal gave orders to suspend the clearance for the project. It also directed the EAC to make a new proposal for environmental clearance. The tribunal also directed the Ministry of Environment and Forest in the country to prepare a study on the protection of the bird involved in the case.

14.  Almitra H. Patel & Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. ; National Green Tribunal

Judgment- This case has been the biggest case dealing with the solid waste in India. In this case, Mrs. Almitra Patel and another had filed a PIL under Article 32 of the Constitution of India before the Apex Court whereby the Petitioner sought the immediate and urgent improvement in the practices that are presently adopted for the way Municipal Solid Waste or garbage is treated in India. The Tribunal found that the magnitude of the problem was gigantic because over a lakh tonnes of raw garbage is dumped every day and there is no proper treatment of this raw garbage which is dumped just outside the city limits on land, along highway, lakes. The Tribunal noted the requirement of conversion of this waste into a source of power and fuel to be used for society’s benefit, taking into consideration the Principles of Circular Economy. The tribunal considered it one of the major problems faced by India over the last few years as lakh tonnes of garbage go without proper treatment and just dumped outside the city in the outskirts. The tribunal noted the requirement to solve this problem and make it a source of power for the benefit of society. After hearing the case the tribunal issued over 25 directions. The tribunal asked all the states and UTs to strictly follow and implement the Solid Management Rules, 2016. A complete prohibition on open burning of waste on lands was made after the case. Absolute segregation has been made mandatory in waste to energy plants and landfills should be used for depositing inert waste only and are subject to bio-stabilization within 6 months. The most important direction of the Tribunal was a complete prohibition on open burning of waste on lands, including at landfills.

15.  K.M. Chinnappa, T.N.  Godavarnam v. Union of India & ors. ; Supreme Court of India

Judgment- The court held that- Environmental law is an instrument to protect and improve the environment and to control or prevent any act or omission polluting or likely to pollute the environment. In view of the enormous challenges thrown by the industrial revolutions, the legislatures throw out the world are busy in this exercise. In a number of cases, sentences of imprisonment have been imposed. Apart from the direct cost to business of complying with the stricter regulatory controls, the potential liabilities for non compliance are also increasing. In the present case the Forest Advisory Committee under the Conservation Act on 11/07/2001 examined the renewal proposal in respect of the Company’s mining lease. The Ministry of Environment and Forests deferred a formal decision on the said recommendation as the matter was pending before this court. Taking note of factual background, it is proper to accept the time period fixed by the Forest Advisory Committee constituted under Section 3 of the Conservation Act. That means mining should be allowed till the end of 2005 by which the time the weathered secondary ore available in the already broken area should be exhausted. This is, however, subject to fulfillment of the recommendations made by the Committee on ecological aspects.  Before, we part with this case; note that with concern that the State and Central Government were not very consistent. Whatever be the justification, it was but imperative due application of mind should have been made before taking particular stand. Certain proceedings have been initiated against the company and these proceedings shall be considered by the respective forums/courts.

The post 15 Landmark Judgments on Environmental Protection appeared first on Legal Desire.

15 Landmark Judgments on Environmental Protection published first on https://immigrationlawyerto.tumblr.com/