Friday, May 31, 2013

Re: [IAC#RG] TAINTED CHARACTERS IN INDIAN JUDICIARY

Thank you Mr Kumar.

Now this is what two non-judicial members of the National Commission to review the working of the Constitution have remarked in their notes to the Report:

Dr Subash Kashyap has written: 'While no comments are being made on what went wrong in the procedure, priorities and perspective, it may be put on record that several of the recommendations now forming part of the report go directly counter to the clear decisions of the Commission on which the unanimously adopted draft report of the Drafting and Editorial Committee was based'.

Ms Kulkarni drove-in the last nails, thus:

1. I believe in a Unified and truly Secular India.  However, the Commission debates seemed often to reduce the Constitution to being a platform for divisiveness and not unification.
2. The Commission did not initiate or promote sincere debate in the public with regards to the issues that it was contemplating.  The efforts was more to "evade and defer" instead of to "identify issues, table them for debate and to deal with them".


Now here is the composition of the Commission:

Of the 11 member Commission, including the chairman, 4 (M.N. Venkatachaliah, B.P. Jeevan Reddy, R.S. Sarkaria and Kottapalli Punnayya) were judges of the Supreme Court/High Courts, 2 (Soli J. Sorabjee and K. Parasaran) are advocates, 2 (P.A.Sangma and Sumitra G. Kulkarni) political nominees, 2 (Dr.Subhash C. Kashyap and Dr. Abid Hussain) bureaucrats and just one (C.R. Irani) representative from the media!

So no prizes for guessing why Dr Kashyap has written in his Notes: 'The Chapter 7 of the Report is titled 'The Judiciary'.  This chapter particularly is seriously flawed and distorted. The much needed Judicial Reform issues have not been even touched or these got deleted in the final draft'?

And, if you analyse why this remark had to be made, is spite of the pre ponderous judicial presence, you will perhaps understand how the Commission has failed us, the citizens, comprehensively!

While the Commission has magnanimously dedicated the Report to the People of India, this review, of necessity, has to be dedicated to Dr Subhash  C Kashyap and Ms Sumitra G Kulkarni, who have acted as the conscience keepers of the People,  laboured to make the Commission respond positively to the task at hand and having failed atleast thought it necessary to put the record straight with their notes.


On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 9:22 PM, S kumar <kumar_8134@yahoo.com> wrote:
MORE ON TAINTED JUDICIARY
Truth, in India, has only recently become defence. But if the court pursues these courageous affidavits and tasks the Bhushans to prove their allegations with evidence, it could become a unique moment in history. Retired justice VR Krishna Iyer has already said this is a historic opportunity for public cleansing. The first step is to share information in public interest. Here, therefore, are edited excerpts from Prashant Bhushan's affidavit.
 
RANGANATH MISHRA
 
25.09.1990 - 24.11.1991
 
CHIEF JUSTICE Ranganath Mishra as a judge of the Supreme Court presided over a Commission of Inquiry on the genocide of Sikhs in 1984. He conducted the inquiry proceedings in a highly biased manner and went on to give a clean chit to the Congress party, despite there being considerable evidence implicating senior leaders of the party.
 
After conducting inquiries into the 1984 riots, he became a Congress Rajya Sabha MP
The evidence against the Congress leaders and party has come out in subsequent official inquiry reports as well as in the subsequent CBI investigations.
 
He went on, after his retirement, to agree to become a Rajya Sabha MP of the Congress. Such actions, to my mind, clearly smack of corruption. Corruption, as I have mentioned earlier, is not used in a narrow sense of taking bribe alone, but in a wider sense of being morally culpable or blameworthy. Rewarded with post retirement Commission for many years
 
KN SINGH

25.11.1991 - 12.12.1991
 
CHIEF JUSTICE KN Singh who followed Justice Rangnath Mishra, passed a series of unusually benevolent orders in favour of Jain Exports and its sister concern Jain Shudh Vanaspati. Several of these were passed during his 18-day tenure as Chief Justice, and many of these cases were ordered to be listed before him by oral mentioning.
 
This became such a talked about scandal in the corridors of the Court that eventually in a hearing on 9 December 1991, the counsel for the Union of India was forced to object to the manner in which the cases came to be listed before Justice KN Singh's bench. He was forced to give a laboured explanation about how and why he ordered the matter to be listed before him when it was before another bench.
 
All these judgments came to be reviewed and reversed later by a series of subsequent benches, in some of which, the review petitions were heard in open court, in a departure from the normal procedure.
 
Passed a series of orders in favour of Jain Shudh Vanaspati. These were later set aside
On 1 April 1991 and 9 September 1991, Justice KN Singh allowed two Civil Appeals of Jain Exports regarding the import of caustic soda and reduced the import duty payable by the company from 92 percent to 10 percent. Both these orders were subsequently reviewed and set aside.
 
 
On 28 November 1991, (during his 18 day tenure as CJI) Justice Singh dismissed the appeal of Union of India against Jain Shudh Vanaspati in a case involving the import of edible oil in stainless steel containers (the import of which was banned), which were fraudulently painted over to disguise them as mild steel containers. This order was reviewed and set aside on 16 July 1993 by a bench of Justice JS Verma and PB Sawant.
 
All these orders of Justice KN Singh in the Jain Exports and Jain Shudh Vanaspati cases were widely understood and regarded as having been passed for corrupt considerations. They became a much talked about scandal in the Court, even while he was Chief Justice.
 
AM AHMADI
 
25.10.1994 - 24.03.1997
 
CHIEF JUSTICE AM Ahmadi, who succeeded Justice Venkatachalaiah (who was widely respected and regarded as a judge of great integrity), went on to quash the charge of culpable homicide in the criminal case arising out of the Bhopal Gas leak. Seven benches were changed during the hearing of this case, the only common judge in all these benches was Justice Ahmadi who was Chief Justice and constituting the benches.
 
This judgment of quashing the charge of culpable homicide before the trial not only delayed the trial but led to such miscarriage of justice, that the Supreme Court has thought it fit to issue notice on a curative petition filed by the CBI even 14 years after that judgment.
 
Justice Ahmadi then went on to deal with and pass several orders in the Union Carbide case involving the setting up of a hospital from the sale proceeds of Union Carbide India Limited's shares held by Union Carbide Corporation, USA.
 
In fact, he passed the orders releasing the amount of Rs. 187 crore for the construction of the hospital from the attached funds of Union Carbide. Quite remarkably, after having dealt with these cases of Union Carbide, Justice Ahmadi (soon after his retirement) went on to become the lifetime Chairman of the same hospital trust whose case he had extensively dealt with as Chief Justice. and reportedly used the Hospital facilities for the elite and not Gas affected.
 
 
A Supreme Court bench headed by Justice Kuldip Singh had, on 10 May 1996, passed an order staying all construction within 5 km of Badkal and Surajkund lakes in Faridabad for environmental reasons. This order prevented any construction in plots in a development called Kant Enclave, which is adjoining Surajkund lake and on land which had been notified as Forest Land under S4 of the Punjab Land Preservation Act.
 
Being forest land, no construction was permissible on this land without the prior permission of the Union Ministry of Environment and Forests, and also without the permission of the Supreme Court by virtue of the orders of the Court in the Godavarman case.
 
Despite this, however, Justice Ahmadi, who was as this time the Chief Justice of the Court, went on to purchase plots in this development around this time and also went on thereafter to construct one of the first houses on this (a palatial house where he has lived since his retirement) in violation of the orders of the Court and the Forest Conservation Act.
 
He bought land, built a house in Kant Enclave in Surajkund. The court had ruled it illegal
Soon after the original order of Justice Kuldip Singh, Justice Ahmadi as Chief Justice set about reconstituting these benches and urgently listing review petitions filed by Kant Enclave and others against these orders, where these orders came to be successively modified.
 
 
The order prohibiting construction within 5 km of the lakes was modified to 1 km by the order dated 11 October 1996. This order was further modified in the review petitions filed by Kant Enclave and others by order dated 17 March 1997, to obviate the need to no-objection certificates from the Pollution Control Boards for construction. This was further modified by even allowing construction even within 1 km of Surajkund lake by an order dated 13 April 1998 by a bench headed by the then Chief Justice MM Punchhi.
 
The fact that the construction of Justice Ahmadi's house in Kant Enclave is completely illegal and in violation of the Supreme Court's judgments, as well as the Forest Conservation Act, has now been emphatically stated by the Supreme Court itself in its order dated 14 May 2008 on the clarification application on behalf of Kant Enclave.
 
The Centrally Empowered Committee of the Court has found the violations of those who constructed their houses in Kant Enclave so egregious, that they have recommended the demolition of these constructions which includes that of Justice Ahmadi in their report dated 13 January 2009. I regard Justice Ahmadi's actions in all this as morally culpable and indeed corrupt. They had become a much talked about scandal in the corridors of the court as well as among judges at that time.
 
MM PUNCHHI
 
18.01.1998 - 09.10.1998
 
JUSTICE PUNCHHI had a short tenure of 10 months. He succeeded Justice Verma, who is widely regarded as one of the finest and most upright Chief Justices of the Supreme Court. The Committee on Judicial Accountability had prepared an impeachment motion against Justice Punchhi, which had been signed by more than 25 members of the Rajya Sabha, but did not get the requisite number of signatures since he went on to become Chief Justice of India. The six extremely serious charges in the impeachment motion are detailed below:
 
1. As a Judge of the Supreme Court, while deciding an appeal of Shri KN Tapuria against a judgment of the Bombay High Court, dated 10.12.93 by which he was sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment, Justice Punchhi allowed the Appeal and acquitted Shri Tapuria on the basis of a purported compromise entered into between Shri Tapuria and the alleged representative of M/s Turner Morrison & Co, and thereby remitted his prison sentence. This was done despite the fact that the offence of criminal breach of trust for which Shri Tapuria had been convicted cannot be compounded in law and thus could not have been allowed to be compromised by the complainant. The order passed by Justice Punchhi was on extraneous considerations.
 
2. As a Judge of the Punjab & Haryana High Court, Justice Punchhi heard and dismissed a Writ Petition of the Vice Chancellor of the Rohtak University, Dr Ram Gopal, containing serious allegations of malafides against the then Chief Minister of Haryana Bhajan Lal. That while he decided this case dismissing allegations against Bhajan Lal, two of his unmarried daughters residing with him, Madhu and Priya, applied for and got allotment of two valuable house plots in Gurgaon from the discretionary quota of the Chief Minister. The plots were allotted on 1.5.86, the same day Justice Punchhi dismissed Ram Gopal's Writ Petition against Bhajan Lal. The judgment of Justice Punchhi dismissing the Writ Petition was obviously given on extraneous considerations.
 
3. As Inspecting Judge of the Punjab & Haryana High Court, Justice Punchhi made an adverse inspection report questioning his integrity, against KS Bhullar, Sub-Judge-cum- Judicial Magistrate of Punjab, for the reason that Bhullar had refused to decide a case before him involving Justice Punchhi's co-brother in his favour.
 
4. As a Judge of the Supreme Court, Justice Punchhi attempted to hear and decide a case involving the validity of section 8 (a) of the Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952 though he was personally interested in the outcome of the case.
 
He decided on a case about a law when he was personally interested in the outcome
5. That Justice Punchhi attempted to browbeat officials of the Registry of the Punjab & Haryana High Court when they came to take inventory of items of furniture at the residence of the then Chief Justice of the Punjab & Haryana High Court, Justice V Ramaswami. He ordered them to mention in the inventory report that all the items had been found in order even when these had not been verified and this was not true. Thereafter, when this matter became subject of the impeachment proceedings and was put in issue in Writ Petitions filed in the Supreme Court, Justice Punchhi attempted to hear and decide that case, though in view of his role in the matter, he was clearly disentitled from doing so.
 
6. That as Judge of the Supreme Court, Justice Punchhi, kept pending with him a matrimonial proceeding involving one Ashok and Rupa Hurra from Gujarat, even after it had become infructuous. The matter was kept pending in order that a fresh petition to be filed by the husband also come before him. These proceedings were finally decided by him for extraneous considerations in a manner which was contrary to law.
 
AS ANAND
 
10.10.1998 - 01.11.2001
 
JUSTICE ANAND, who succeeded Justice Punchhi, too enjoyed a very controversial tenure as Chief Justice of India. During his tenure, evidence of several acts of very serious misconduct came to light and came to the possession of the Committee on Judicial Accountability. As a result of this, an impeachment motion was also prepared by the Committee on Judicial Accountability against Justice Anand, which contained four serious charges which are detailed below:
 
1. That AS Anand, when he was the Chief Justice of the High Court at J&K, heard and passed favourable interim orders in the case of one Krishan Kumar Amla, soon after he had accepted gratification from Amla in the form of a 2 Kanal plot of land at Ganderbal, Srinagar. That Anand accepted this gratification from Amla even though he had been as a judge hearing and dealing with the cases of the companies owned by Krishan Amla and his father Tirath Ram Amla. These acts constitute gross misconduct and misbehaviour on the part of a Judge.
 
2. That AS Anand abused his office and influence as a judge and Chief Justice of the J&K High Court to hold on to the ownership of agricultural land which should have been vested in the government under the J&K Agrarian Reforms Act of 1976.
 
He passed an order favouring a person from whom he had received a plot of land
3. That AS Anand while he was a judge of the Supreme Court abetted his wife and mother-in-law in filing a suit based on false averments in a civil court in Madhya Pradesh. During the proceedings before the civil court, he abused his influence and authority to get the revenue authorities to suppress from the trial court the record of the proceedings before the revenue court. That he subsequently used his influence to get the State Government of MP to withdraw the Special Leave Petition filed by the State against his wife.
 
4. That Anand abused his office and influence as Chief Justice of the J&K High Court to get from the government of J&K a 2-kanal plot of land at Gandhinagar in Jammu for a price which was a small fraction of the market price. That in doing so, he gave a false and misleading affidavit that he owned no land or immovable property in Jammu.
 
Despite the fact that there was documentary evidence of serious charges of corruption against Justice Anand it was not possible to get the impeachment motion signed by the requisite number of MPs against a sitting Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. MPs are very reluctant to sign an impeachment motion against a sitting judge of the Supreme Court or a sitting Chief Justice of a High Court, even if one has documentary evidence of serious charges of misconduct against the judge concerned. This is because of a fear of judicial backlash against the MP or his political party, most of whom have cases pending in the courts.
YK SABHARWAL
 
O1.11.2005 - 14.01.2007
 
ON 3 AUGUST 2007, the Campaign for Judicial Accountability had issued a press release detailing several serious charges against Chief Justice YK Sabharwal. The most serious among these charges was that he passed a series of orders for sealing commercial properties in Delhi, operating in residential areas.
 
The immediate consequence of his orders was to force shops and offices to shift to shopping malls and commercial complexes being constructed by builders and developers, which resulted in increasing their prices enormously almost overnight. At precisely the time when Justice Sabharwal passed these orders of sealing, his sons entered into partnerships with some of the largest shopping mall and commercial complex developers and thus made huge profits. Moreover, the registered offices of his sons' companies were at the official residence of Justice Sabharwal at this time.
 
While he heard the Amar Singh tapes case, his sons got land allotments in Noida
Apart from this, his sons were allotted huge commercial plots by the Mulayam Singh government of Uttar Pradesh in Noida at highly concessional rates, at a time when Justice Sabharwal was dealing with the case of Amar Singh's tapes, the publication of which he had stayed.
 
 
As a result of these transactions, the sons of Justice Sabharwal, who till he started dealing with the sealing case, were small traders having a turnover of less than Rs. 2 crore went on to purchase a property of Rs. 15.43 crore in Maharani Bagh in March 2007 and more recently a property at 7 Sikandra Road for Rs. 122 crore (in partnership with their builder friends) in April 2010.
 
The property at Sikandra Road was purchased by Justice Sabharwal's sons for Rs.122 crore with the help of a number of unconscionable judicial orders of single judges of the Delhi High Court, at a time when the property was worth well over Rs.150 crore.
 
Despite complaints to the CBI and the CVC, however, no FIR appears to have been registered nor any investigation done by the CBI.

From: Vijay Kapoor <vijay99kapoor@yahoo.com>
To: indiaresists@lists.riseup.net
Sent: Friday, May 31, 2013 6:07 PM

Subject: Re: [IAC#RG] TAINTED CHARACTERS IN INDIAN JUDICIARY
Not only that, but here is a partial bag of tricks played by "judges" that I have encountered:
1. I filed an execution application together with application for president to recuse in view of his extra-ordinary bias and judicial cheating. The Registrar gave a date, but the "judge" did not hear the matter. I met him in his chambers as to why the matter was not called. He said that it is not the registrar who gives the date, but he. If I wanted my matter to be heard, I should withdraw my application for his recusal!
2. They will completely ignore all the law points, evidence, as well as precedents from SC/HC. In other words, they will pronounce their own version of law! This is contra s 141/144 of the constitution.
3. They will turn and twist facts, evidence and circumstances to suit their own version of the law.
4. They will introduce issues that neither you nor the OP argued.
5. They will totally ignore the prayers, and introduce their own "reliefs", which naturally will be as per their own corrupt purposes rather than as per law of the land.
6. Etc.
Regards,
Vijay Kapoor


--- On Fri, 5/31/13, Naveen Johri <naveenjohri@gmail.com> wrote:

From: Naveen Johri <naveenjohri@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [IAC#RG] TAINTED CHARACTERS IN INDIAN JUDICIARY
To: indiaresists@lists.riseup.net
Date: Friday, May 31, 2013, 3:51 AM

Dear sirs
Exactly the same thing happened with me three years back at Allahabad high court
In  open court the high court judge dismissed the petition as the petitioner failed to deposit the amount decreed by lower court after many defaults thereby quashingthe petition.
Few days later when the order came it was another date.
Nothing much could be done ..my advocate advised to accept the fate meekly..
One can't tape  the proceedings in the court
NK Johri
from my Android phone
On May 31, 2013 3:21 PM, "SURESHAN P" <sureshandelhi@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Pankaj , this kind of stories are enormous in our country , a
person who knows little bit about the courts and judges of this
country believes that judiciary are as corrupt as any other agency .
only people who never had an occasion to experience the working of the
courts only put their faith upon judiciary. Our gods are richest
because of our system , In this country people believes that every
thing happens because of   of destiny. astrologer and God's men's
happy lots in the system. All is Ram Barosa. In other developed
countries they have a better system and thus no body cares about GOD.

regards

On 5/31/13, Pankaj Rai <raipankaj@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I have personal experience of two judges of High Court of Karnataka
> pronouncing an order in the open court and then going back on their word.
> Legally I have challenged that and also filed an administrative about the
> misconduct of the two judges.
>
> Regards,
>
> Pankaj
>
> Maj Pankaj Rai (Retd),
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Jagjit Ahuja <jagjit.ahuja@gmail.com>
> To: "indiaresists@lists.riseup.net" <indiaresists@lists.riseup.net>
> Cc: prakash risbud <risbud_p@yahoo.com>
> Sent: Thursday, 30 May 2013 11:32 AM
> Subject: [IAC#RG] TAINTED CHARACTERS IN INDIAN JUDICIARY
>
>
>
> There is no transparency in our total governing system .  They have all the
> powers but no responsibility and accountability.Every one in the rung
> particularly  the  politicians , bureaucracy and judiciary have been taking
> the maximum advantage.They ensured safeguards at every step so as no to be
> punished for their misdeeds.
> Recently one IAS officer of Karnataka was tried and punished  by Lokpal
> Court for wrongfully distribution of land to his favorites  . When he
> appealed against the punishment , the Karnataka High Court dismissed the
> case saying that Government permission was not taken before trying this IAS
> officer.This is how they find the loopholes in the laws but never go into
> the gravity of the crime.
> How long this will continue? Thus the first step needed is to rejuvenate the
> judiciary .
>
> brig J S Ahuja
>
>
> On Thursday, May 30, 2013, Mr. Hemant Kshirsagar
> <hemantkshirsagar01@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Revert the same to Appellate of that organization with copy of refused
>> "postal letter", with letter for such incident. If no response forward the
>> same to CIC, with all copies of communications.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Hemant K
>>
>> On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 5:54 PM, prakash risbud <risbud_p@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Can anyone tell me if RTI letter is refused and sent back as refused
>> what is the further process.
>> Thanks
>> prakash
>> From: v.v. mishra <vmishra70@gmail.com>
>> To: indiaresists@lists.riseup.net
>> Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 11:22 AM
>> Subject: Re: [IAC#RG] TAINTED CHARACTERS IN INDIAN JUDICIARY
>> send more details.
>>
>>
>> Adv V Mishra
>> On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 4:51 AM, Vijay Kapoor <vijay99kapoor@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> My experience with judges discloses that many, if not most, are corrupt.
>> They are typically beholden to the rich and powerful, thereby disclosing a
>> feeble mind. The country is in urgent need for complete overhaul of the
>> judiciary .... recruitment, training, monitoring & evaluation, and
>> weeding.
>>
>> Vijay Kapoor
>> --- On Tue, 5/28/13, Jasvir Singh <jasvir70@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> From: Jasvir Singh <jasvir70@gmail.com>
>> Subject: Re: [IAC#RG] TAINTED CHARACTERS IN INDIAN JUDICIARY
>> To: indiaresists@lists.riseup.net
>> Date: Tuesday, May 28, 2013, 2:59 AM
>> Dear Maniramji, you have raised a very pertinent issue. The appointment to
>> the chairs of the CBI is also highly questionable, so very  comprehensive
>> and wide ranging reforms shall be required to be put in place. I share
>> your concerns over the deplorable plight of the judicial  system in our
>> country.
>> regards
>> jasvir
>> On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 11:33 AM, MANIRAM SHARMA
>> <http://us.mc1402.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=maniramsharma@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> From: Mani Ram Sharma
>> Advocate
>>
>> Nakul Niwas, Behind Roadways Depot
>> Sardarshahar- 331 403-7District Churu (Raj)
>> http://us.mc14/

> Post: "indiaresists@lists.riseup.net"
> Exit: "indiaresists-unsubscribe@lists.riseup.net"
> Quit: "https://lists.riseup.net/www/signoff/indiaresists"
> Help: https://help.riseup.net/en/list-user
> WWW : http://indiaagainstcorruption.net.in/



--
http://freedomteam.in/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/ftilogo-new-300x183.jpg
P. Sureshan,
Advocate-on-record, Supreme Court Of India,
NLC( India ) Law Office
257-F, Ground Floor,Street No-6, West Guru Angad Nagar, Laxmi Nagar,
Delhi-92..... Ph: 9818083219,8802797432

Post: "indiaresists@lists.riseup.net"
Exit: "indiaresists-unsubscribe@lists.riseup.net"
Quit: "https://lists.riseup.net/www/signoff/indiaresists"
Help: https://help.riseup.net/en/list-user
WWW : http://indiaagainstcorruption.net.in/

-----Inline Attachment Follows-----

Post: "indiaresists@lists.riseup.net"Exit: "indiaresists-unsubscribe@lists.riseup.net"Quit: "https://lists.riseup.net/www/signoff/indiaresists" Help: https://help.riseup.net/en/list-userWWW : http://indiaagainstcorruption.net.in/

Post: "indiaresists@lists.riseup.net"
Exit: "indiaresists-unsubscribe@lists.riseup.net"
Quit: "https://lists.riseup.net/www/signoff/indiaresists"
Help: https://help.riseup.net/en/list-user
WWW : http://indiaagainstcorruption.net.in



--
Veteran Major P M Ravindran
 
You may also like to visit:
'Judiciary Watch' at www.vigilonline.com 
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)