[HumJanenge] 8 of 16 CJIs corrupt & the list of 16 does not include Mr K G Balakrishnan..

Yes Gupta ji
Mr Prashant & Mr Shanti Bhushan are really great and nation must stand
with them, for it is they who belled the cat to bring truth about the
Judicial Dishonesty and Corruption.
One of the son Advocate of a Judge of Lucknow Bench of High
Court paid more than Rs..80 Lakhs income Tax showing income of about
Rs. 4 Crores, to make black money to white money.
If Vakalatnama of said Advocate( who may be 20year old and Hon
Justice Katju of SC has commented about this factor) are perused, the
total income may not be beyond Rs. 10.Lakhs per annum.
Now Mr Prashant Bhushan will be surprised if he comes to know that
details of Vakalatnama of Advocates has been removed from the Website
of High Court Allahabad, just to benefit the Son Advocate of High
Court Judge like him .
Regards to all
Dr JN Sharma
ADVOCATE/ HUMANRIGHTS ACTIVIST

On 2/17/11, M.K. Gupta <mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
> I also salute to the courage shown by Mr. Prashant and Shashi Bhushans. Let
> us wait for the out come of this case which has put the SC in a dillema.
>
> --- On Wed, 16/2/11, Hari Goyal <rtidwarka@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
>
>
> From: Hari Goyal <rtidwarka@yahoo.co.in>
> Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] 8 of 16 CJIs corrupt & the list of 16 does not
> include Mr K G Balakrishnan..
> To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com, "Vaghela B D" <vaghelabd@yahoo.com>
> Cc: haridgoyal@hotmail.com
> Date: Wednesday, 16 February, 2011, 8:40 PM
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Respected Vaghela Sahib,
>
> Your suggestion is worth billion dollars. Salute to you.
> Let us see if we have some taker.
>
> Regards,
>
> Hari Goyal
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Vaghela B D <vaghelabd@yahoo.com>
> To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
> Cc: Dwarakanath <dwarakanathdm@gmail.com>
> Sent: Wed, 16 February, 2011 10:06:33 AM
> Subject: [HumJanenge] 8 of 16 CJIs corrupt & the list of 16 does not include
> Mr K G Balakrishnan..
>
>
>
>
>
> Dear All,
>
>
> Mr Prashant Bhushan, telling SC, 8 of 16 CJIs corrupt, under oath and
> sticking to it makes a prudent case for civil society to find out Income of
> those CJIs and also sitting Justices of SC & HCs of doubtful integrity in
> the experience of citizens dealing with them day in and day out.
>
>
> Such details of income / property obtained under RTI or otherwise should be
> put in public domain for people at large to know that there are some Unholy
> Cows in higher judiciary also.
>
>
> That public shaming should help reduce the tendency for corruption -
> physical or moral.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> --
> (Babubhai Vaghela)
> C 202, Shrinandnagar V, Makarba Road Vejalpur, Ahmedabad - 380051
> M - 94276 08632
> http://twitter.com/BabubhaiVaghela
> About me in Annexure at - http://bit.ly/9xsHFj
> http://www.youtube.com/user/vaghelabd
> (Administrator - Google Group - Right to Information Act 2005)
> http://groups.google.com/group/Right-to-Information-Act-2005/about?hl=en
>
> --- On Tue, 2/15/11, Dwarakanath <dwarakanathdm@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> From: Dwarakanath <dwarakanathdm@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] Ex-CJI Balakrishnan opposes release of his tax
> returns under RTI
> To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
> Date: Tuesday, February 15, 2011, 11:52 PM
>
>
>
> Mr.Govind & Mr MK, In my opinion ( I am open for correction, if I am proved
> wrong)
> "If a Return is filed as a statutory requirement and is available in a
> public Office and if that return is not marked as a "Confidential
> Communication" it is generally treated as a information belonging to the
> Public Office, even though filed by a citizen.. Also, if the Legislators
> are entitled to access the informatin the Public must be entitled to.
> Second para of section 8(1) (j) and Setion 11(1) to 11(4) are relevant to
> the issued under dicussion. Under section 11(1) the CPIO or SPO has to
> chech whether the information provided by the Third Party (Balki in this
> case) has been 'marked' ( treated as "Confidential), Only in that case,
> notice inviting objection of the third party can be issued , if there is no
> such marking of confidential, the Information Officer is not bound to ask
> the objection of the third party and can take his own decisions." Regards,
> dwarakanathdm
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 3:00 PM, Govind... Hoping for better
> <hopegovind@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Reference:
> http://epaper.indianexpress.com/IE/IEH/2011/02/15/ArticleHtmls/15_02_2011_001_046.shtml?Mode=1
>
> Print edition: Front page, Today's Indian Express
>
> Dear friends,
> When he was in power, he never allowed RTI to be implemented in our supreme
> Court. I always used to doubt his intention. If you are free, clean handed
> why do you need to worry.
> He was one of the most corrupt CJIs and harmed our democracy a lot.
> Therefore he never allowed RTI to be implemented in judiciary.
> Do we still say we are living in a democratic country?
>
> -- Govind
> ______________________________
> "The world suffers a lot. Not because of the violence of bad people,
> But because of the silence of good people!"
>
> --Napoleon
>
> Govind- 9960704146
> URL: http://www.wix.com/hopegovind/homepage
> Blog: http://simplygovind.blogspot.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>