Corruption (includes Intellectual Dishonesty), Nepotism, Incompetence and Mala Fide or Gang-ups in Justice Delivery System

A MUST READ FOR EVERY NATIONALIST INDIAN

Date: 11.10.2016                                                                 BY SPEED-POST

To

1) His Excellency Shri Pranab Mukherjee ji

President of Republic of India & Supreme Commander of Armed Forces

Rashtrapati Bhawan, New Delhi-11004

2) Shri Narendra D Modi ji      

Hon’ble Prime Minister of India

7 Lok Kalyan Marg (old Race Course Road)

New Delhi-110003

3) Hon’ble CJI TS Thakur

Chief Justice of India,

5 Krishna Menon Marg, New Delhi-110011

4) Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jasti Chelameswar

4, Tughlak Road, New Delhi-110 011

5) Mr. V Gopal Gowda (ex-Judge)

c/o Secretary General, Supreme Court of India

New Delhi-110001

6) Shri Manan Kumar Mishra, Sr. Advocate

(Chairman, Bar Council of India)

23/B, Sagar Apartments,

Tilak Magr, New Delhi – 110001

7) Chiefs of Staff Committee

Ministry of Defence, Central Secretariat (South Block)

New Delhi-110011

8) Kendriya Sainik Board

Directorate General of Resettlement (Ministry of Defence)

Central Secretariat (South Block) New Delhi-110011

9) All Zilla Saink Welfare Boards, as per Distribution List

10) Shri Raj Kamal Jha

Chief Editor, Indian Express

Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg

New Delhi-110002.

Your Excellency Mr. President, and Sirs,

1) I am a War-Veteran, i.e. a Permanent Commission Officer who fought the 1971-War (Bangladesh War that split Pakistan into two) for this Country & Nation; a Permanent Commission Officer is the one who is Commissioned for Life and, hence, he/ she is entitled to prefix his/ her last-held Rank before his/ her Name (vide Article 18 of the Constitution of India) -- such Officers can be legally recalled for Military Service at any time even after they cease to be “public servants”. Today is Vijayadashmi -- the Victory of Good over Evil and, hence, it is the right day for Wishing those who are “good”, and Cautioning such persons/ groups/ institutions whose acts are “evil”.

Apparently, those who subvert the Constitution of India to their own personal ends or in the interest of their own brethren, or those who mala fide cause “miscarriage of justice” to common man (especially the War-Veterans), or who deliberately cause miscarriage of Justice to War-Veterans in order to gain post-retiral “kushy” jobs for themselves, or who humiliate Commissioned Officers & War-Veterans by placing them under “escort” of a police-constable merely because these War-Veterans are “appearing in-person” before Supreme Court in personal matters (whereas even during a court-martial no Commissioned Officer is escorted by an Officer who holds a lesser Rank than the Officer placed under escort) and, moreso, under Articles 22 (1), 21, 19 (1) (d) & 14 of the Constitution no one can be put under custody (physical restraint) under any Circular that is fanciful, whimsical, arbitrary, unreasonable, unjust, unfair ... etc (moreso, such humiliation to War-Veterans -- for no rhyme or reason at all, is being caused at a time when the Country is on the brink of a War with one of its neighbours) are per sé “evil”.

Yet I was unabashedly placed under the escort of a Delhi Police’s Constable on 07.07.2016 when I appeared in-Person before the Supreme Court -- that, too, in the Court of none other than Chief Justice of India TS Thakur himself (who sheds tears only for his own brethren in the judiciary when appointment of tainted judges is impeded by the Head of the Executive Organ of the State, i.e. H.E. the President of India). The War-Veterans are greatly perturbed by the above brazen & unwarranted humiliation of a War-Veteran at the hands of Judiciary, and this is bound to demoralise our Armed Forces at such a crucial time when the clouds of War are above the horizon -- such unfortunate acts on the part of judiciary, by themselves, amount to Anti-National acts. Moreso, the general public is asking, “IF 31 judges, sitting together, cannot draft a sensible or respectable Rule or Circular, then how can the general public be expected to place any credence in the ability of 2-3 judges to deliver a sound-judgment?”

I shall presently return to this subject of incompetence, corruption (including intellectual dishonesty), immorality etc in justice delivery system -- with more instances. Suffice it to say, at the moment, that I have already informed Hon’ble Prime Minister about the Judge who claims to have paid Rs.25 lakhs to become a High Court Judge, and also about another High Court Judge who was a “womaniser” during his college-days -- incidentally, both of us were room-mates (as Paying Guests) at 24, Mall Road, Delhi where he used to bring his girl-friend and ask me to spend the time in the Campus Law Centre’s Library till he finished the job …. It is believed that Hon’ble Prime Minister has already got all the necessary details collected to prove the above facts and to confront the Hon’ble Chief Justice with the same during their “closed-door meeting”. WE, the War-Veterans, irrespective of the political affiliations of our kith & kin, are with our Hon’ble Prime Minister in his bid to “cleanse” Ganga (the Ganges) and to “cleanse” the justice delivery system -- the Masses came out on the roads in Nirbhaya’s case largely because these days they find no Authority to whom the People of India can turn for fair, expeditious & impartial Justice.

2) Unfortunately and unlike the “Patriotic Citizens”, the Indian Judiciary is not only bent upon demoralising our Armed Forces but has also choked the intake of Commissioned Officers into the Armed Forces by dissuading honest and academically brilliant young men & women from joining the Armed Forces -- more than 15,000 vacancies of Officers are lying unfilled in the 3 Services of Armed Forces (vide Government’s Reply tabled in the House of Parliament). This is mainly because of Supreme Court’s apparently erroneous conclusions on Law in Lt. Col. Prithi Pal Singh Bedi’s case and Flt. Lt. GS Bajwa’s case -- although the Facts were entirely different in both the cases [in the latter case, the Union of India had admitted in its Counter-Affidavit before the Supreme Court that at the time when “vindictive” action was taken against me by those whose “corruption” had been exposed by me (I was the first Commissioned Officer to expose Corruption in certain highest echelons of the Armed Forces) the Air Force Rules 1969 were not placed before the Parliament and, hence, the said Rules did not enjoy the protection of Article 33 of the Constitution of India; as such, the Law of Estoppels applied in my case -- whereas there was no such admission in Prithi Pal Singh’s case]. Yet the Division Bench who heard the Civil Appeal moved by the Union of India in my matter, misapplied the ratio of Prithi Pal Singh’s case to my case and, moreso, also threw to the winds the Supreme Court Rules which vest a right in the Respondent to file a List of Dates & Events (Statement of Case) -- the said Bench declined to even peruse the detailed List of Dates & Events that had already been filed by me (I was Respondent therein).

Moreso, more than 26 grounds raised by me before the High Court were left undecided (undetermined) because the High Court could decide the matter in my favour even on two grounds -- yet, while quashing those two grounds, the Supreme Court did not remand the matter back to High Court for deciding the remaining grounds, nor did it decide the said grounds by itself inspite of my I.A. No.5 moved in the said Civil Appeal (the said I.A. had also pointed out that Civil Appeal could not be entertained while a Review of the same very Judgment -- out of which the said Appeal arose, was pending before the High Court itself). I shall presently revert to the said judgment in para (3) below. As a result of the said “miscarriage of Justice” the Parents of honest & brilliant young men & women stopped sending their wards to the Armed Forces -- because of the fear produced by the above two decisions in the minds of general public that vindictive actions by corrupt seniors against “honest” Officers will be protected by the Courts, rather than the other way round. It is common knowledge that Patriotism & Honesty cannot be separated, but the decisions in the above two cases deprived the honest & patriotic Officers from every Constitutional “protection” against vindictive action(s) that their Civilian counterparts enjoy under the Administrative Law.

Unfortunately, the personal greed of a few black-sheep in the justice delivery system who occasionally aim at landing/ garnering for themselves “post-retiral kushy jobs” by pleasing the Executive (Government of the day) has cost the Nation dearly.

3) Whereas WE, in the Armed Forces, have discharged OUR Dharma (i.e. Our Social Duty) both Patriotically & Diligently, has the Judiciary done so? The Answer by the general public is an emphatic “No” -- right from the selection, appointment, transfer and pay & perks to the functioning of the judicial officers coupled with their Draconian powers of contempt and their “immunity” from prosecution &/ or liability under the Law of Torts for mala fide deciding any case(s) before them on the basis of greed or mala fide or bias or ‘bhai-bhatija-wad’.

I shall presently revert to this Question, please, with more examples. Moreso, judges are “paid” to discharge their Dharma (i.e. to dispense Justice fully & impartially) WHEREAS the Armed Forces personnel are not paid to “lay down their Lives” -- in fact, no Country is rich enough to pay its Armed Forces for a “Supreme Sacrifice” (i.e. for laying down their Lives) which My Colleagues in Uniform have done many-many times! In addition, WE do so while living & working in dangerous terrains and in extreme weather conditions -- whereas judicial officers live, work and travel in air-conditioned & luxurious surroundings and, moreso, are protected by commandos for the sins that some of them may commit while mala fide causing miscarriage of justice in certain cases! But WE protect OUR Nation (including the aforesaid anti-national judicial officers) -- without expecting any quid pro quo, except that the beneficiaries of Our Supreme Sacrifices ought to be honest in their own dealings with Us.

The following facts, borne out by judicial records of the Supreme Court itself, will amply Answer the Question that was raised at the beginning of this para (paragraph) about integrity, diligence etc in the discharge of Duty or Dharma, please:-

a) Whereas the general norm/ practice in Supreme Court is that every Litigant in-Person shall be given at least 4 week’s Advance Notice before listing his/ her matter for any “hearing” [so as to afford him/ her a real “opportunity for arguing (pursuing) his/ her matter”, which also involves arranging the requisite finances for boarding & lodging and making rail-reservations for his/ her travel to Delhi -- the seat of Supreme Court] I was not given any Notice at all for the “hearing” of a “Regular Appeal” on 17.05.2016 which suddenly came up for hearing after 12 long-long years -- that, too, during the Summer Vacations (when Listing of Regular Appeals is the least expected); the value of an effective hearing may be estimated from the fact that not only Supreme Court is the “court of last resort” but also that only 5% of Special Leave Petitions reach the stage of “Regular Appeals”. Hence, Regular Appeals and Statutory Appeals are expected to be determined after affording a patient hearing to the Parties involved in the matter, especially on the days when regular matters and statutory appeals are listed.

It is pertinent to mention that my matter was suddenly shown in the Daily Cause-List which was published on 16.05.2016 (Evening) a day before the actual Hearing -- it is well-known that Daily Cause-Lists are published at about 4 PM. Only thereafter Section-II received the said Cause-List; but Section-II, knowing that I was in Lucknow (i.e. not in Delhi), sent me an email wherein it failed to show either in the email’s Subject or in its Body that the above matter was listed for hearing at 10.30 AM on the next Morning itself. Moreso, the document attached to the said email was in a file-format which even the IT-Giant Microsoft could not open because it was formatted on a Linux Operating System (OS), and the other document attached to the said email was an old file in .doc format which had nothing to do with the said Date of Hearing.

b) Moreso, to save their own skin the staff of Supreme Court’s Registry made a false Office-Report to the Court (although making a false report in a judicial proceedings by a “public” officer is a criminal offence under the Indian Penal Code) that I had been informed by email -- that is to say, the staff of Section-II deliberately and mala fide suppressed from the Court the fact that, instead of “One Month’s Advance Notice”, the Petitioner was sent an email only a few hours before the matter was to be heard and also the fact that the said email was in an unreadable format (supra) and, hence, the said email could not reasonably be considered -- by any fair & impartial Juror as a “Notice of Hearing”. But, as is apparent from the facts that follow, the Judges were presumably interested in dismissing the said matter since the judgment that had been delivered by one of their colleagues (during his High Court-days), was being challenged by me.

In addition, the said staff made a further false averment in the said Office-Report to the effect that the said Regular Appeal was “ready” for Final Hearing although the true facts are that Section-II had till then failed even to allow me to inspect the “lower-court” records and add the relevant documents from it to the said Appeal -- such inspection is provided for & prescribed in the Supreme Court Rules (SCR, for short) 1966 as also in SCR 2013, as a matter of Right.

Yet, the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s Vacation Bench, without verifying the true facts, dismissed the above Regular Appeal “for want of prosecution”!

c) I moved an Application (Crl Misc. Petition No.10659/2016) for restoration of the said Regular Appeal, but on the Date of its Hearing (i.e. 12.08.2016) the Supreme Court’s D.B. No.5 sat (came to the court-room) late because Hon’ble Presiding Judge (Justice J Chelameswar) came late from home and, apparently, also without reading the said Application beforehand -- because when I pointed out the new Office-Report which had amply clarified that I was sent an email by Section-II (while I was in Lucknow) only a few hours before the Hearing on 17.05.2016, Hon’ble Justice Chelameswar asked me to stop reading the said Office-Report in order to wait for the said Judge to quickly glance through the previous Order, and then the Bench without first restoring the said Regular Appeal to its original position and then listing it for proper hearing on merits (Facts, Circumstances & Law) abruptly, arbitrarily, whimsically, fancifully and without any “speaking order” dismissed my said Application for Restoration with a one-line Order, i.e. in limine without writing any Judgment in a Regular Appeal (which ought to be decided on merits)!  

Will any Jurist of a Civilised Country of the World consider such an in limine proceedings a just, fair & reasonable determination “on merits” of issues raised in the Regular Appeal? Can such disposal of matters be called "dispensation of Justice” or a mere “disposal”? Are the judges (who are selected, appointed, transferred & paid through an unconstitutional & non-transparent procedure of self-determination of their own selection, appointment, transfer, pay & perks etc in a Democracy -- but surprisingly without any effective say at all in the said selection etc even by elaborately & transparently elected President of the Republic of India), paid for mere “disposal” of matters (cases) or for dispensing palpably evident “Justice”? Should WE, in the Armed Forces, make “Supreme Sacrifices” just for the proliferation of such judicial officers as are unaccountable for their unlawful actions to any elected Representative of the Nation? Should the Army, like the Judiciary, ask the countrymen (when the enemy attacks the latter) to seek protection from BSF, and BSF tells them to go to ITBP … and so on? Isn’t it high time to establish an Authority within the Indian Parliamentary system (e.g. Committee on Public Grievances, under the Rules of Procedure & Conduct of Business in Rajya Sabha) which should continuously monitor & oversee conduct of judges of a court against whom no further Appeal lies, at present?

I have assiduously gone through the 3 judgments under which the present so-called “collegium system” has either derived its existence or has been defended -- these not only suffer from the absence of a sound judicial logic but are also derived from the “concessions” made by the Counsels of the then Governments (probably under a behind-the-scenes tacit understanding for a quid pro quo -- because, even after the establishment of a “collegium” system, the then Law Minister used to have quite a lot of say in the selection of some of the judges).

After the in limine Order was passed on 12.08.2016, I sent a letter addressed to Hon’ble Justice J Chelameswar by Speed-Post alongwith an Application (Crl. Misc. Petition) for Declaration & Clarification of the aforesaid Order dated 12.08.2016, and I prayed to him to direct Supreme Court’s Registry to list the same for hearing in “open court” IF his Lordship’s conscience was pinched by the facts & circumstances of that case. But the said Petition was forwarded by the Hon’ble Judge to Registrar who “lodged” the same without giving me any “opportunity of hearing” at all -- in gross & grave violation of the ratio laid down by a Constitution Bench of Supreme Court itself in Maneka Gandhi’s case to the effect that Principles of Natural Justice apply even to quasi-judicial decisions like that of the Registrar. 

d) Notwithstanding the norms that public interest litigation (PIL, for short) is meant to protect the rights of only those who cannot plead for themselves for want of either literacy or financial wherewithal, there is an overt or covert nexus between judiciary & certain coteries of “captive” lawyers who file PILs in the interests of Judges or Judiciary, for example:-

i) A PIL was filed by an Association of OBCs, through an Advocate who himself was an OBC, against the grant of “extension in service” to the then Cabinet Secretary (who was not in favour of the then Justice MM Punchhi being appointed as the next Chief Justice of India) before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT, for short) Delhi -- this was done to curry favours with the then Justice Punchhi (Article 18 of the Constitution does not provide for any retired Judge to prefix a Title 'Justice' to his/her name; nor do High Court/ Supreme Court Judges belong to a 'service-cadre', nor is such judicial service Pensionable -- except that a lump-sum amount is paid for life, alongwith a Class-IV employee) in the hope that the latter would return the favour by granting “discretionary reliefs” in the cases (i.e. matters) pertaining to the clients of the said Advocate (it is the general perception that a certainty of reliefs brings higher Fees and attracts more Litigants to 'blue-eyed' Advocates). The then Vice-Chairman of CAT who heard the said PIL was earlier a colleague of the said Advocate and also mine, and his Bench quashed the extension given to the said Cabinet Secretary -- in the result, a new Cabinet Secretary took over and the then Justice Punchhi’s name was cleared & announced as the next Chief Justice of India. Although subsequently the Delhi High Court stayed the aforesaid Order of CAT, the Objective of the PIL had already been achieved; immediately thereafter, the said Vice-Chairman resigned from CAT. I know this because the said Advocate shared the same Chamber as I did, and I had also shared a Chamber with the said Vice-Chairman when he was an Advocate; he was also our common friend.

The next few paragraphs show that while “justice” may not be accessible, some “Judges” are seemingly accessible.         

ii) After granting me interim relief, my service-matter was sent to High Court by the Supreme Court; the High Court continued the said relief, and subsequently the High Court enhanced the relief. While my matter was pending before Delhi High Court, it was to come up before a Judge who was widely believed to be “pro-government”; since Justice demands a level playing-field (neither “pro” this, nor “pro” that) one of our friends offered to speak to the then Chief Justice of India -- to whom he used to supply a few crates of Coca-Cola Free every month (called “sampling”) and the Hon’ble Chief Justice put a word to the High Court Judge to be strictly impartial. However, upon noticing that during oral arguments the said Judge was pulling the leg of the Ld. Senior Counsel who was appearing for me in that matter as Amicus Curiae (because the said Counsel was not well-prepared for arguments on that day) I became nervous -- upon observing that I was looking a little apprehensive that the field might not after all be level, Hon’ble Judge caught my eye and winked at me to reassure me that all that was being done was in a playful mood and that my interests would be safeguarded.

iii) When my matter was before the Supreme Court, I visited the house of the gunman (gunner) of the Presiding Judge of the Bench that was to hear my case, since I was to argue it in-person because of absence of my Ld. Amicus Curiae (a Senior Counsel) on that day whereas, being a Military Officer, I was not much aware of the various court-procedures; the said gunman lived in Police Quarters in Andrewsganj. He briefed me about the procedures that he knew of, and also told me that he would put a word to the Hon’ble Judge also. When I asked him as to how that was possible, he replied that during the Morning-walk he is the only person with the Judge and, therefore, if the Hon’ble Judge wishes to speak to someone then there is only the gunman available (there were no cell-phones in those days in India) and during the said discussion the gunman might be able to find an opportunity to put a word that so-and-so is a “garib-mar” (wrongly victimised person). The next Morning, before 10:30 AM he told me that he had spoken to Hon'ble Judge and that the Hon’ble Judge had written “Yes” on the fly-leaf of his Judges’ Paper-Book. During inspection of judicial files (in those days inspection of Judges’ Paper-Books was also allowed) later on, I found that the said information ("Yes" in red ink) was indeed true.

iv) A group of Advocates used to throw lavish Drinks-n-Dinner Parties every month -- they used to host these turn-by-turn; IF there were 20 members in the Group, then each one of them was called upon to expend about 50 to 60 thousand rupees once in 20 months only -- whereas he could attend the Parties every month. A few select Judges used to be permanent Guests to these Parties -- whom all Members of the Group would, thus, meet every month. Just as the drinks flowed, it was logically expected that “reliefs” would also flow in court. I was invited to attend one of these Parties as a prospective Member of the Group, by an Advocate who was subsequently elevated as a High Court Judge.         

By the way, one of my close relatives used to provide the intelligence inputs before any candidate was elevated to Judgeship -- in those days Judges were, by and large, honest. But after the so-called “collegium system” the degree of quality, competence & honesty is there for all to see -- especially after I was wrongfully, unconstitutionally, unlawfully, unjustly, unfairly & illegally prevented from practising the legal profession by a group of judges and lawyers who mala fide worked in concert in 2006-7 because I had exposed “corruption” in justice delivery system (I was also the first Commissioned Officer to expose corruption in the Armed Forces and was victimised for the same, but God punished the perpetrator thereof by wiping out his entire family). It is equally well-known that God has punished the other victimisers, too, in that the number of scandals exposed in the judicial system since the year 2007 is far greater than the number exposed during the previous 57 years put together, and the “credibility” of judiciary amongst the general public today has plummeted to about 5% -- the people are heard openly saying these days that in certain cases the profession of advocacy has been reduced to that of a “middleman” between the litigant and the judicial officer concerned. 

v) The way I ferociously fought for my Country in 1971, I also fought vociferously for the Bar (Legal Fraternity) -- unfortunately, the same Bar has failed to stand by me today. The following incident took place:

After passing an Order that no more adjournments would be given [the said Order was passed when another Advocate was appearing in that matter, i.e. before I took over the case with the consent of the previous Counsel (I took over after ensuring that the concerned Client pays in full the Professional Fees which he had promised to his previous Counsel, because it was the client who desired to change his advocate, not vice versa)] the same Justice Swatanter Kumar wanted to suo motu adjourn the matter to the next day -- when I appeared as a Counsel, WHEREAS I had shown to him my Lawyers’ Diary to prove that I was already scheduled to be before another adjudicatory Forum in another City on the same very day to which the above matter was being adjourned by him (i.e. I was to appear in another City in connection with a matter in which Date of Hearing had already been fixed long back). But the said judge refused to fix the matter for the day-after -- thereby assaulting an Advocate’s Right to Practise & Appear in already scheduled matters. When I objected to the said assault on the Bar, the said Judge played a trick by pitting Bar against the Bar and abetted (persuaded) the opposite Counsel to make an allegation against me personally to the effect that I had made a remark “Now you face the consequences” (in the Supreme Court the Judges often use the word “you” while telling the Counsel about something which, in fact, is attributed to his Client and, moreso, every case does have legal consequences) -- the said Judge recorded that the alleged remark was heard by another Advocate and also by the Court. But in his final Judgment & Order (in utter violation of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Contempt of Courts Act, two separate Judgments were pronounced in the same very Criminal Proceedings) he changed the above allegation into “dire consequences”, but for this change in the allegation he did not cite any witness at all. Apparently, no Charge was framed and, hence, there was no proper criminal trial -- moreso, in gross violation of the Contempt of Courts Act the said matter was tried by the same very Bench despite my Written Objections (the said Act prescribes that the same Bench cannot try the matter even if any alleged contemnor objects to it even orally). God reprimanded such vindictive acts in that the said Judge’s mother-in-law died within 24 hours of his issuing Non-Bailable Warrants against me (I had declined to voluntarily provide the said Judge any statutory jurisdiction that he, in fact, lacked in Law; hence, I did not appear before him whereas I had stated in writing that I was willing to appear before any other Bench -- even as per Roster the Regular Bench to hear 'Contempt Matters' was different) and within 24 hours of my arrest, his mother also died; this was reported by the print & electronic media, including The Hindustan Times et al.

Moreso, in violation of the Supreme Court’s Constitutional Bench’s Judgment in SCBA vs. UoI & Anr to the effect that no High Court has any role to play in the disciplinary proceedings of a State Bar Council, the said Judge issued Notices to the State Bar Council & Bar Council of India and called for “status-reports” on the day-to-day proceedings of Delhi State Bar Council’s Disciplinary Committee’s proceedings against me [although the State Bar Council had become functus officio (supra) --the said proceedings were initiated at the instance of Supreme Court which took umbrage to my matter-of-factly pointing out, in my Review Petition, the errors apparent on the face of record (judgment); moreso, the same grounds as I took in my Review Petition, were also taken by the Ld. Senior Counsel in his “Certificate” that statutorily accompanies a Curative Petition] -- interference in any trial by a non-statutory player amounts to unlawful & unconstitutional shaping of trial proceedings and, thus, the said interference vitiates the whole trial (proceedings). I shall presently revert to this issue in detail in paragraph (vii) below.         

vi) The Docket filed with Civil Appeal No. D 9014/2016 in the Supreme Court clearly shows that my service-matter (supra) was incorrectly & wrongly decided by the Supreme Court. Moreso, the said Docket reveals several illegal acts which were mala fide committed by various judicial officers at the instance of a woman-of-easy-virtue (for the sake of convenience, let us call her by the name ‘K’) who was being projected by her paramour (who was also an Advocate-on-Record) as a “lawyer” although she was only a matriculate, and she claimed to have access to many judicial officers & influential members of the Bar. The Docket also shows as to how she succeeded in playing a fraud upon Supreme Court itself and illegally enriched herself by Rs.60,000 of the “public moneys” (of which Supreme Court was then the custodian) by not only producing a bogus Surety before the Registrar General, but also by evading -- with the aid and abetment of certain “public” officials & lawyers to repay the same to the Air Force Authority despite the Supreme Court’s Order for such repayment. In fact, the said Docket opens the legendary Pandora’s Box about several malpractices that were being perpetrated by various judicial officers at her instance. To sweep the said judicial scandal under the carpet, the Supreme Court was inclined to dismiss or dispose of the said Civil Appeal without going into the merits of the issues involved therein. I shall revert to this subject in sub-para (vii) below.

Similarly, in my Transfer Petition before Supreme Court I had exposed, inter alia, the unlawful practice of “Coupons for Oath Commissioners” at Allahabad High Court (Allahabad & Lucknow Benches) -- which, if investigated by the CBI, may reveal a scandal much larger in proportions than the “Ghaziabad Employees Provident Fund Scandal” in which so many judicial officers were involved. Hence, the then Justice V Gopala Gowda was keen to sweep under the carpet the said exposé by dismissing the said Transfer Petition somehow or the other, for example:         

The said Transfer Petition was not listed in the Daily Cause-List when I left Lucknow for Delhi and, hence, I did not carry the case-file with me. But suddenly it was listed in the Supplementary List published just a day before the Date of Hearing -- when I pointed out that I did not have the case-file, the Hon’ble Judge asked me to argue the matter without the file, and dismissed the said Petition without allowing me to read the contents thereof in the open court; incidentally, my above matters were Transferred from another Bench to the said Bench, after a new Chief Justice of India took over (infra).

Moreso, Article 32 of the Constitution “guarantees” to every Citizen that he/ she can approach the Supreme Court whenever his/ her Fundamental Right is trampled upon. But the same Presiding Judge (supra) refused to entertain my Criminal Writ Petition against the infringement of my Fundamental Rights by the rampant “Corruption” in certain educational institutes in Pune (Maharashtra) -- his co-judge was also a Maharashtrian. And the said Judge asked me to file the same in High Court at Mumbai; when I pointed out that I did not have the financial wherewithal to go all the way to Mumbai to file the Writ Petition since I was not in receipt of any income (not even an old-age pension) he recorded in his Order that I be given Legal Aid. But when the Legal Aid Committee in Mumbai High Court did not even respond to my Application for Legal Aid, I approached the same Bench again -- by way of a Contempt Petition to ensure the compliance of the Court’s own Order; but the said Hon’ble Judge refused to initiate Contempt Proceedings and, thereby, denied to me a guaranteed Constitutional right to remedy. Should there be an alternative Forum to whom one can turn when Supreme Court itself violates the Indian Constitution? Yes.

vii) Vide Section 36B of Advocates Act 1961 the State Bar Council must complete its disciplinary proceedings against the concerned Advocate within one year of taking suo motu Notice of his/ her “professional misconduct” -- failing which the matter shall automatically stand transferred to the Bar Council of India. Firstly, in my case there was no “professional misconduct” since I was not appearing before Supreme Court in my professional capacity (i.e. as an “Advocate”) nor was I allowed to wear the Lawyers’ Robes & Apparel during the said appearance -- on the ground that I was appearing in my personal matter as any other ordinary citizen of India. Secondly, Judgment & Order dated 29.01.2007 are per sé null & void ab initio -- that is to say, these do not have any effect in Law (moreso, a null & void ab initio Order does not require any “declaration” from any court of law that it is so) in that a Notice was sent to me by State Bar Council on 04.02.2005 and, hence, the “disciplinary proceedings” should have been completed within one year thereof, i.e. by 03.02.2006 (because after the said date the Disciplinary Committee of the State Bar Council became functus officio and, hence, it lost the jurisdiction to either try me or to pass any Judgment or Order in my matter). Yet, under the pressure which was unconstitutionally & unlawfully placed upon the said Committee by the High Court (supra), the said disciplinary committee passed a Judgment & Order adverse to me on 29.01.2007 -- that is, way-way beyond the period after it had already lost the jurisdiction to try me (the said judgment & order was passed almost one year after the bar of Section 36B became operative). Thirdly, in violation of the Law laid down by a Constitution Bench of Supreme Court in SCBA vs. UoI & Anr. and by a Division Bench in An Advocate vs. BCI & Anr., neither any Charge was framed nor any Issues were framed against me, nor was any document provided to me in support of any Charge. Fourthly, despite knowing that I was incarcerated in jail in a false & fabricated case foisted upon me by the aforesaid woman of easy virtue, I was proceeded “ex-parte” by the said Committee instead of issuing a Production Warrant to the concerned Jailor to produce me before it for trial. Fifthly, the penalty awarded to me was not only grossly disproportionate to the Charge, if any, but was also extreme and far higher than the penalties awarded to those who were proven to have committed “professional misconducts” of grave magnitudes, e.g. Mr. RK Anand, Mr. IU Khan, Mr. VC Mishra, Mr. BD Kaushik, Mr. Rajinder Kumar Sharma, Mr. Raj Khosla, Mr. Jugal Wadhwa, Mr. RN Vats, Mr. Jatan Singh, Mr. PS Rathee, Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, and the Lawyer who abused the Committee of Senior Lawyers appointed by Supreme Court to visit the Patiala House Courts after some Lawyers had assaulted a student-leader of JNU who was in police-custody, etc -- the maximum punishment awarded in the matters involving the above Advocates was to Mr. RK Anand; yet, it was merely a “suspension for only 3 months to practise in High Court and lower courts only”! On the other hand, I am still being sent from pillar to post -- even after 9 long years as under:

After receiving a copy of the above impugned Order, I voluntarily informed the Supreme Court Bench before which I was appearing in a matter assigned to me as Advocate-on-Record by the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee (SCLSC, for short) about the said Order, and requested the Hon’ble Court to direct the SCLSC to assign the matter to another Advocate-on-Record (AoR, for short) -- I did so in the hope that within a few days the Supreme Court would quash the aforesaid ex-parte proceedings on any one or all the above grounds if I filed a Writ Petition since my Fundamental Rights under Articles 21 [Right to Livelihood], 19 (1) (g) [Right to practise any Profession] & 14 [Right to Equality before the Law and Equal Protection of the Laws] of the Constitution of India were gravely injured by a Judgment & Order that was per sé null & void ab initio. However, during the hearing of Writ Petition (Civil) No. D 4294/2007 on 16.04.2007 the Court asked me to first exhaust the “statutory remedy”, i.e. to file a statutory Appeal u/s 37 of Advocates Act before the Bar Council of India (BCI, for short). Hence, I filed an Appeal before BCI -- alongwith Application for Condonation of Delay of less than 26 days under Section 14 read with Explanation to Section 5 of the Limitation Act on the ground that the said period was spent in bona fide pursuing a valid legal remedy before a higher Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India against a Judgment & Order that was per sé null & void ab initio.

I stayed in Delhi till the end of June 2007 in the hope of an early hearing, and ultimately left Delhi since I had no source of income in Delhi -- after I was wrongfully prevented from practising the legal profession; but I kept in telephonic touch with the then allottee & occupants of Chamber No.119 (Supreme Court complex) so that they would inform me if & when any Notice for Date of Hearing was received from the BCI. It is pertinent to add that the Notice of my Appointment as an AoR was given by the Supreme Court on 06.09.2002 at the same very address, and also all Notices were being served upon me by the Supreme Court’s Registry at the same very Address in all matters in which I was appearing before Supreme Court; moreso, copy of Delhi State Bar Council’s impugned Judgment & Order was also received at the same address. However, no Notice of Hearing was communicated to me by the BCI, nor was “case-status” of my Appeal being shown on the official website of BCI -- even my emails went unanswered; a copy of my last email to BCI was placed before Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Civil Appeal (infra) which was subsequently filed by way of statutory Right (Special Leave Petitions under Article 136 of the Constitution are “discretionary remedies”). None of my matters in Supreme Court were listed before Hon’ble Court from 2007 to 2015; in fact, on 07.10.2016 I mentioned before Hon’ble Chief Justice of India that one of my matters had not been listed even once since its filing in the year 2007. Hence, I filed a Writ Petition (Civil) No. 578/2015 pointing out, inter alia, the above grounds and also the fact that although I was under no legal disability to practise the legal profession (since the impugned Judgment & Order were per sé null & void ab initio) and considering the quantum of penalty awarded to those who were provenly guilty of “professional misconduct” I ought not to have been awarded for an alleged “misconduct” (not involving any “moral turpitude”) a higher penalty, and further that the Supreme Court had only asked the BCI to “examine” certain Questions of Law (which the BCI could not examine without inviting “comments” from all the Bar Councils and major Bar Associations) etc. etc.; therefore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court may itself decide the matter on merits, rather than letting the unconstitutional penalty to continue for so many years (now 9 years). The Hon’ble Bench (Presided over by Mr. Justice Dipak Misra) was pleased to issue Notice to State Bar Council of Delhi -- which failed to file any counter-affidavit despite the grant of extension of time (i.e. for 14 weeks in all) and, hence, all the averments made in the Writ Petition against the said Council went as admitted under the Law of Pleadings; thus, the said Council is estopped under the Law of Estoppels from taking a contrary position in any subsequent proceedings between the same parties on the same cause of action.

After Mr. Justice TS Thakur took over as Hon’ble Chief Justice of India, my said matter was transferred by him from Hon’ble Dipak Misra to the Hon’ble Bench presided over by Mr. Justice V Gopala Gowda -- which issued Notice to BCI, too. But, like the State Bar Council, the BCI also did not file any counter-affidavit at all -- with the like results in Law. However, for the first time on 01.02.2016 the BCI handed over, through its Counsel, to me and to the Hon’ble Court a copy of its Order dated 06.06.2007 to the effect that my aforesaid Application for Condonation of less than 26 days of delay had been dismissed-in-default alongwith the statutory Appeal. Thereupon, Hon’ble Justice Gowda advised me to file statutory Appeal against the said Order -- I orally prayed to his Lordship to let that Advice come on record, and the Hon’ble Judge assured me, “The said Appeal will come to us only” (or words to that effect) and the Advice was also in their Lordships’ knowledge. Accordingly, I filed a statutory Appeal by paying a whopping Court-fees of about Rs.6,000.

Unlike a Special Leave Petition, a Statutory Appeal is moved by way of statutory right and it ought to be heard & disposed of on merits. But on 07.10.2016 the said Civil Appeal No. D 9014/2016 -- which was listed before Hon’ble Justice TS Thakur, was disposed of with the direction that I should ask the BCI to restore my Appeal to its original position for its disposal on merits, WHEREAS Hon'ble Justice Sen had earlier orally observed that my Contempt Matter (my other Matters were Tagged with it) ought not to be heard by any Judge who was elevated from Delhi High Court. However, till date Order dated 07.10.2016 has not been uploaded to the official website of Supreme Court -- although I had duly applied for its Certified Copy on 07.10.2016 itself.

Thus, whereas the influential Advocates were either never punished for their grave “professional misconducts” or were awarded a minor penalty of merely 3 months suspension (that, too, only in particular courts), I have neither been told what is the “misconduct” being alleged against me nor am I being allowed to practise for the past 9 long-long years -- that, too, on the basis of a Judgment & Order which is per sé null & void ab initio!

4) The names of concerned judges & lawyers are given in the exclusive copy of this letter sent to Hon’ble Prime Minister at his personal email ID, and are also endorsed on the hard copy that is marked to Hon’ble Prime Minister only.

5) There is no bar in the Constitution of India against “alternative disputes redressal systems” -- initially a Council of 4-5 wise persons can sit with the Parties to the dispute and help them resolve their mutual differences amicably at the local level in a fair & equitable manner, and the final “settlement” between the Parties may be recorded on stamp paper, then signed & registered with the Sub-Registrar under the Indian Registration Act 1908 (in fact, “Lok Adalats” function on the same principle -- the only difference is that the “settlement” arrived at between the Parties in Lok Adalats is countersigned by a Court).

Where a citizen fails to get fair, equitable & expeditious relief from the Apex Court, he/ she ought to be permitted to approach the Committee on Public Grievances of Rajya Sabha or any alternative Grievances Redressal Forum which the Parliament may soon devise. With great respect, in my case there has been a mere “disposal” sans “Justice”. Reacting to the debate generated by my Paper on this subject which was presented at a Seminar in Wadia College (Pune) the then Hon'ble Chief Justice P Sathasivam had invited the public to bring such cases (where there was mere disposal but not Justice) to his knowledge, but his Lordship retired before I filed the aforesaid Writ Petition.

For “true independence” of the judiciary it is imperative that judges do not look towards the Executive Organ of State for post-retiral “kushy” jobs -- for this purpose the maximum age-limit for appointment to such jobs ought to be reduced to “below 65 years” (retirement age of Supreme Court judges is 65) and the minimum qualification for such posts ought to be “eligible for selection as High Court or Supreme Court judge”. There are many good Lawyers who can fill such posts; moreso, the Supreme Court Judges’ eyesight is already so weak that they demand that all Petitions must be typed in 14-point font-size -- which is the size used for printing the Headings of “law reports”! Then why re-employ them? Moreso, no retired Supreme Court judge should be given any Political Party’s ticket for contesting Assembly or Parliamentary Elections etc since the “Executive” Organ of the State belongs to such Political Parties.

The power to “interpret” the Constitution of India ought to be vested in a new body which should be created within the Rajya Sabha, and the selection of its Members ought to be transparent in that the criteria for selection should be disclosed in advance and all the candidates recommended by “Screening Committee” should be finally interviewed by both Houses of Parliament -- these proceedings must be televised. Supreme Court should only interpret statutes (Acts, Rules & Regulations etc) and attend to adjudication of Disputes. 

Mr. Justice Chelameswar’s presence at the “collegium” was objected to by one of the other 4 members when the “transfer” of a High Court Judge who is a friend of Justice Chelameswar’s son (who is an Advocate) was taken up. In any case, it is a well-known principle of Administrative Law that a person who has taken benefit of a rule cannot, subsequently, question the same rule/ system.

6) In fact, my Grievances about my service-matter can be impartially examined and Justice done even at the level of Executive -- because only the Government and I are the Parties to the same. Similarly, my Grievances against the null & void Order of Delhi Bar Council can also be examined and Justice done by the Bar Council of India on its own -- all that is required is an impartial & honest body of examiners interested in doing Justice, rather than pleasing behind-the-screen string-pullers or “Mai-Baaps”.

Since there is a statutory bar (vide Section 44 of Advocates Act 1961) to the “review” of any order of the BCI, even on its own motion, the Order dated 07.10.2016 was passed by Supreme Court per incuriam. Moreso, I had filed a statutory Appeal (by way of right and on payment of whopping court-fees) which ought to have been determined by the Supreme Court on Merits.

7) Since there is no other alternative remedy now except to invoke jurisdiction of the Court of Lord Almighty, I hereby Pray to God Almighty for appropriate punishment to all those who were responsible for mala fide causing to me grave “miscarriages of Justice” in the above matters! It may be mentioned here that once I had prayed that the way a then Justice was delaying just disposal of matters, there should be delay in medical aid and his one son shall die -- his son died within 4 days; the said Prayer was made in writing in a letter sent to the said judge, and this fact is known to the then Registrar General of Supreme Court (namely, Mr. MSA Siddiqui -- who, later on, became a Judge of Delhi High Court) and also to the then Hon’ble Justice DP Wadhwa, amongst others.

Jai Hind!Yours truly,

1971-War Veteran

For the eyes of:

1) H.E. THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF INDIA:

Your Excellency,

This is a fit case to formulate certain Questions of Law on the basis of facts stated above, and ask the Supreme Court to tender its advice on the same -- after affording the Attorney General and me an effective opportunity to be heard.

Yours faithfully,

2) CHIEFS OF STAFF COMMITTEE:

Sir,

Should the Armed Forces, like the Judiciary, also self-determine their own Pay & Allowances? Should those who injure (harm) War-Veterans be punished more severely? 

Why should WE not vehemently object to Supreme Court’s unconstitutional practice of placing a Commissioned Officer (especially a War-Veteran) under Escort of a police-constable merely because the said War-Veteran is appearing in-Person before the Supreme Court -- whereas the rules within the Military Services clearly stipulate that even when an Officer is placed under arrest, he/ she cannot be normally escorted by a person of a Rank less that of the arrested Officer?

Yours sincerely,

FOR THE EYES OF OUR HONEST PRIME MINISTER

The name of the Judge who paid Rs.25 lakhs for judgeship is known to [Name & Telephone No. of the concerned Advocate were informed only to Hon'ble Prime Minister -- who, inter alia, can bring a Motion of Impeachment against a High Court/ Supreme Court Judge]. And the Judge who was my room-mate at ... [Address was informed only to Hon'ble Prime Minister], is currently posted as a Judge in ... [Name & High Court of the concerned Judge were informed only to Hon'ble Prime Minister].

The Chief Justice who used to get free sampling of Coca-Cola is ... [Name of the concerned Judge was informed only to Hon'ble Prime Minister], and the Judge to whom he spoke in High Court of Delhi was ... [Name of the concerned Judge was informed only to Hon'ble Prime Minister]. The Salesman of M/S ... [Name of the concerned Company was informed only to Hon'ble Prime Minister] who used to supply free sampling of Coca-Cola is ... [Names of the concerned Judge and the Salesman were informed only to Hon'ble Prime Minister].

The Judge whose gunman I met in Andrewsganj (New Delhi) is ... [Name of the concerned Judge was informed only to Hon'ble Prime Minister].

The Vice-Chairman of CAT (Delhi) was ... [Name of the concerned V-C was informed only to Hon'ble Prime Minister], and the Lawyer through whom the PIL was filed is ... [Name of the concerned Advocate was informed only to Hon'ble Prime Minister]. At that time [the said Advocate] and I were sharing Chamber No.104 in Supreme Court; and before joining CAT, [the said V-C] and I used to share Chamber No.37 alongwith ... [Name of concerned Advocate was informed only to Hon'ble Prime Minister] -- who took me to one of those “monthly dinner parties”. [The said Advocate] later on became a Judge of ... High Court [Name of the High Court was informed only to Hon'ble Prime Minister].

Mr. [Name of the concerned IAS Officer was informed only to Hon'ble Prime Minister] was my class-mate in BA (Hons) Economics at Hindu College (Delhi) -- we both appeared for Mrs. Marion Barlow Scholarship, which I won. While he was Joint Secretary (Air) in Ministry of Defence, he used to travel between his house (near Lodhi Estate) and office (South Block) in a car provided by Army -- its Car-Diary used to be fabricated to appear as if it was being used in an Army-Exercise; under the Army Act, misuse of government transport amounts to “theft of petrol” -- which is a criminal offence.

At Delhi School of Economics, I was a student of Dr. Subramanian Swamy.

Recently, Justice Jasti Chelameswar confirmed to the Press that only two senior most Judges decide the List of Judges to be appointed/ elevated and then ask the other three to say “Yes” or “No” to the same, and IF any Judge says “No” then the other Judges of Supreme Court’s collegium “gang up” against the Judge who disagrees with the said “choice” of candidate for either appointment as a High Court Judge or for elevation to Supreme Court -- similarly, some judges were believed to have ganged up against a Litigant and dismissed all his cases, as in my case and in Late RK Garg’s case. How can the Nation be sure that such Judges will, in turn, select “honest” & “competent” persons as future Judges? 

A Standing Committee of the Rajya Sabha has invited views from general public about filling of vacancies for judges of Supreme Court & High Courts. I have requested it to pose the following Questions to the "collegium" (current collegium system):-

i) Does the "collegium" (collegium system) keep detailed data on hundreds and thousands of Advocates in India -- although Supreme Court & High Courts are precluded from exercising "supervisory jurisdiction" over the Advocates under the Advocates Act 1961?

ii) If such data is available, then under which "Heads" is this data classified and analysed for the purpose of "selection" of Judges out of these mind-boggling number of Advocates?

iii) Are Applications invited from these Advocates for "appointment as judges"? If Yes, then what are the eligibility criteria for applying?

iv) Or, alternatively, whether "recommendations" are invited for filling the posts of "judges" in High Courts & Supreme Court? If Yes, then what are the "guidelines" for making these recommendations, and by whom?

v) Whether any "comparative chart" is made, after receiving all such Applications and/or Recommendations, in order to draw up a Merit-List? If Yes, then what are the weightages given to "seniority" vis-à-vis "merit", respectively?

A sitting Judge (Hon'ble Justice Chelameswar) has complained about "gang-ups" within the judiciary.

Jai Hind!

Copy of Letter Sent to Hon’ble Justice Chelameswar:

Date: 05.09.2016

To

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jasti Chelameswar

‘A’ Wing, Supreme Court Transit Home-cum-guest House

No.34, Prithvi Raj Road, New Delhi-110 011

My Lord,

I am a War-Veteran -- that is to say, I am a Permanent Commission Officer who fought the 1971-War for this Country & Nation (a Permanent Commission Officer is one who is Commissioned for Life) and, hence, he/ she is entitled to prefix his/ her last-held Rank before his/ her Name, vide Article 18 of the Constitution of India.

I am not asking your goodself for any favour, all that I am praying for is that the way WE, in the Armed Forces, discharged OUR own Dharma (Duty) Patriotically & Diligently, Your Lordship would also discharge Your Dharma with equal Sincerity because you are paid for that, WHEREAS the Armed Forces are not “paid’ to lay down their Lives -- no Country is rich enough to pay US for making the “Supreme Sacrifice” that MY Colleagues have done so many times! Moreso, WE do so while living & working in dangerous terrains and in extreme weather conditions -- whereas Your Lordship lives, works and even travels in air-conditioned & luxurious surroundings that are protected by commandos!

All that I am requesting your goodself is to kindly peruse the enclosed Crl Misc Petition with an open mind, and if Your Conscience (imbibing Intellectual Honesty) is pinched by the Facts, Law & Circumstances stated therein, then Your Lordship may be pleased to direct the Registry to list the same for hearing in the open court at the earliest possible, please.

With respectful regards,

(...................................) 1971-War Veteran [name blanked here]

Encls: as stated above.

P.S.: Subsequently, the aforesaid Order of Bar Council was set aside by Hon'ble Supreme Court; in fact, the Order of the Supreme Court on which the said disciplinary proceedings were initiated, was itself withdrawn by an Hon'ble Larger Bench of Supreme Court of India. The aforesaid woman-of-easy-virtue and her paramour have also died. It is common knowledge that my aforesaid Proposal to enhance retirement age of Hon'ble Supreme Court Judges to 70 years has been endorsed by many Hon'ble Judges, too.