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

Dear Shak & all
Only God can replace Judiciary.
But Judges are themselves God Replica.
Regards
Dr JN Sharma

On 2/17/11, shak her <shake_lak2001@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Dear All,
>
> Our counrty law min:Mr.Veerappa Moily has said there is nothing above the
> Judiciary and at the same time the PMO has stated that the Judiciary can
> only act accoring to law & they cant interfere in legislation..
>
> Their is one to support Judiciary and one to Parliment...
>
> Who is there for Common People like us Who is believing Judis as
> Gods......???????
>
>
> From: Vaghela B D <vaghelabd@yahoo.com>
> To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
> Sent: Thursday, 17 February 2011 10:13 AM
> Subject: [HumJanenge] Voluminous Study : 8 of 16 CJIs corrupt & the list of
> 16 does not include Mr K G Balakrishnan..
>
> Dear All, Supreme Court, with active participation of Litigants, Advocates,
> past Judges, past Registrars of Courts & the Citizens at large, should
> conduct the objective data based extensive study to bring out the whole
> truth for corrective action of stopping judicial corruption - physical &
> moral - latter one being much more dangerous & deadly for Democracy. Keeping
> everything wrapped up under secrecy, on the ground that image of Judiciary
> will be tarnished is ill-concieved and will neither be in the interst of
> justice nor in the interest of accountability of Judiciary towards the
> citizens. Regards. Babubhai Vaghela.
>
> On Thu, 17 Feb 2011 05:34 IST shak her wrote:
>
>>Dear All,
>>
>>what will happen to the Judgements given by them by the means of corruption
>> ??
>>
>>
>>
>>From: Vaghela B D <vaghelabd@yahoo.com>
>>To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
>>Cc: Dwarakanath <dwarakanathdm@gmail.com>
>>Sent: Wednesday, 16 February 2011 10:06 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>
>