SOS e - Clarion Of Dalit

IT IS A FORUM TOWARDS PROTECTING THE CIVIL , HUMAN RIGHTS OF THE OPPRESSED - DALITS , MINORITIES & TRIBALS.The Criminal - Police - Politician - Judge - Criminals Nexus is trying to silence me in many ways. If anything untoward happens to me or to my dependents CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA together with jurisdictional police & District Magistrate will be responsible for it. Secure Mail : Naag@torbox3uiot6wchz.onion

Sunday, June 3, 2012

Judgement Fixing - Satyameva Jayate ?

S.O.S - e - Clarion Of Dalit - Weekly Newspaper On Web 
Working For The Rights & Survival Of The Oppressed
Editor: NAGARAJA.M.R… VOL.6 issue.23… 06/06/2012


“There is a higher court than the court of justice and that is the court of conscience It super cedes all other courts. ”
- Mahatma Gandhi




Answer  My  Lord ???

Stage set for arrest of suspended Andhra CBI judge

  The stage was Saturday set for the arrest of suspended Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) judge in a cash-for-bail scam which has sent shock waves among the judiciary across the state.


After receiving a nod from Andhra Pradesh High Court to register a case, the CBI may arrest any time First Additional CBI Judge T. Pattabhirama Rao on charges of taking bribe to grant bail to former Karnataka minister Gali Janardhana Reddy in an illegal mining case, sources here said.

CBI sources said the investigative agency would register a first information report before carrying out the arrests.

An Andhra Pradesh cabinet minister, two Karnataka legislators, a retired judge, a rowdy sheeter and the suspended judge's son are also believed to have played a role in striking the deal.

The exact deal amount remained a mystery but it is believed to be anywhere between Rs.5 crore and Rs.15 crore.

The judge allegedly demanded Rs.15 crore but the deal was finally struck for Rs.10 crore. He allegedly received Rs.3 crore as advance before granting bail to Reddy May 11 in the Obulapuram Mining Company (OMC) case.

The CBI Friday recovered part of the amount from bank lockers belonging to the judge's son.

The CBI, which grew suspicious of the judge's action, started investigations after a go-ahead from high court Chief Justice Madan B. Lokur.

The investigators tapped the judge's phone and questioned him, his son and others. The chief justice was informed of the preliminary investigations and, based on this, he suspended the judge late Thursday.

Janardhana Reddy's family allegedly approached the judge through Yadagiri, a rowdy sheeter of Nacharam area in Hyderabad, who then got in touch with a retired judge. A state minister is also suspected to have helped in the deal.

Janardhana Reddy's brother and Karnataka legislator G. Somasekhara Reddy allegedly met the middlemen in a hotel in Hyderabad to finally strike the deal. The accused's brother allegedly handed over the money, brought from Bellary town in Karnataka.

Despite Pattabhirama granting the bail, the mining baron remained in Bangalore jail, where he is lodged in another illegal mining case.

On a petition by the CBI, the high court later stayed the bail.

The mining baron was arrested by the CBI from Bellary Sep 5 last year in a case of illegal mining in Anantapur district of Andhra Pradesh. 


Judge suspension: CBI claims Rs.1.80 crore recovererd from locker


The CBI claims to have recovered nearly Rs. 1.80 crore here from a bank locker, the keys of which were allegedly in possession of the son of Special CBI court judge T. Pattabhiramaa Rao, who has been suspended on charges of bribery and corruption by the Andhra Pradesh High Court.
The agency had carried the search based on a source based input that a deal was allegedly struck between Rao and former Karnataka Minister G. Janardhana Reddy for granting bail to the latter in the illegal mining case, CBI sources said today.
Before proceeding with the search, the CBI officials took Chief Justice of Andhra Pradesh High Court in confidence and apprised him about the input received by them, they said.
After getting a green signal from the Chief Justice, a CBI team got the locker opened and recovered nearly Rs. 1.80 crore from it which the agency suspects belonged to Reddy and was allegedly given as illegal gratification, they said.

Related Articles

Related Images

http://www.asianage.com/sites/default/files/images/prot.jpg.crop_display.related_images.jpghttp://www.asianage.com/sites/default/files/images/patt.jpg.crop_display.related_images.jpg
http://www.asianage.com/sites/default/files/images/jaganc_1.jpg.crop_display.related_images.jpghttp://www.asianage.com/sites/default/files/images/justice_3.jpg.crop_display-.jpg.crop_display.related_images.jpg
The sources claimed that the officials found the keys of the lockers to be in possession of Judge's son.
The matter was again put before the Chief Justice who ordered suspension of Rao, they said. Senior officials of the agency said there are three options - the case is probed by local police, CBI files a new FIR or adding the charges in the ongoing trial against Reddy.
They however added that any further action could take place only after getting permission from the High Court.
"First Additional Special Judge for CBI cases Pattabhirama Rao has been placed under suspension after the High Court considered the information it received against the judge in 'public interest', the High Court Registrar said in a release.
Incidentally, the judge had granted bail to former Karnataka Minister Gali Janardhan Reddy in the OMC illegal mining case last month while he had rejected bail to IAS officer Y. Srilakshmi, another accused in the OMC scam.


The need for a Judges Accountability Bill
By  Vicky Nanjappa

Off late there is a lot of talk regarding the necessity to have a Judges Accountability Bill. Even when the Lokpal Bill was being debated the inclusion of judges into this bill was strongly opposed by the government despite members of the civil society urging the government to make such an inclusion.
Off late there have been reports galore regarding judges being offered sites or houses under the discretionary quota of the Chief Minister. Recently there was an expose at the Orissa High Court. Prior to this there were reports from Karnataka and also another report which spoke about how the Narendra Modi government had offered prime lands to judges of the High Court.
The big question is whether judges deserve such treatment from the state government considering the fact that the government is the biggest litigant before any court in the country? Is this an illegality or is it corruption?
Justice Santhosh Hegde, former judge of the Supreme Court of India says it is illegal to accept sites under the discretionary quota. Judges ought to know that while accepting such sites they are succumbing to temptation. They have to examine any such offer and find out properly whether it is in accordance with law or not. It is very dangerous to accept such favours since in the days to come it would hold against themselves.
Speaking of a judges accountability bill, well there is one but it has not come out as yet. This has been loitering around for some years now and it is time that something is done about it. In fact while we were discussing the Lokpal bill this was one of the primary contentions during the debate. Either the government had to include it into the Lokpal Bill or make functional the judges accountability bill. However there was a lot of misunderstanding regarding this. All I said was it was not right to leave out the judges when we are fighting corruption. They should include this portion into the Lokpal bill. However once the Judges Accountability Bill is made functional then it could be deleted out of the Lokpal bill. There was no need to keep this in abeyance until that happened. When this issue is being argued and fought for the past 44 years then it is impertive for the government to include it.
Senior Advocate in the Karnataka High Court, Navkesh Batra is of the view that taking sites under the discretionary quota is nothing but corruption. First and foremost Judges are not entitled for a site under this quota. This quota is meant for poor people, outstanding people including judges. It cannot be given as a bul allotment as it amounts to nothing but a sop. When the government is the biggest litigant before any court in India then such a sop does not instill confidence in the public and it would be better if both the government and the judiciary abstains from such an act. Here I would like to quote the incident involving the great Justice R A Jagirdhar of the Bombay High Court. In fact he was the only judge who refused to apply for a site despite a request by the then Chief Minister of Maharashtra. He even went one step further and at a public function when the CM sought to shake his hand he publicly rebuked him by saying, ” Mr CM your cases are pending before the high court. As a high court judge I refuse to shake your hand.”

LAND SCAM   IN   TAMILNADU   One for my officer, one for my boy...

Land and property are coveted assets. So why are chief ministers allowed to give these away as favours? JEEMON JACOB tracks how Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M Karunanidhi has been using his quotas

ILLUSTRATION: ANAND NAOREM
IN NOVEMBER, Chief Minister of Karnataka BS Yeddyurappa almost lost his job, due to the uproar over preferential allotment of land and property to his sons and close associates. He has since cancelled the allotments, asked his children to move out of his official residence, and retained his seat through some deft political manoeuvring and muscle-flexing. At the height of the campaign against him, as political opponents paraded on apparent moral high ground, TEHELKA published details of plots similarly allotted by previous Karnataka chief ministers, both of the Congress and the JD(S), to relatives, servants, drivers, maids and partymen (LAND SCAM 2.0, 4 December). The purpose was not to make Yeddyurappa’s wrongdoings look less shocking, but to show that the problem was endemic and needed rooting out. The right given to chief ministers to hand out public land to a favoured few — relatives, bureaucrats, judges, police officers and others — smacks of nepotism and arbitrary feudal power structures that should have no place in a modern democracy. (Though there is no immediate proof of this, some of these allotments could also be benamitransactions, in which the ultimate ownership remains with the distributor of the largesse, camouflaged by a stack of fake documents.)
This power — euphemistically called “discretionary quota” — has even been used to favour allegedly corrupt army officers like General Deepak Kapoor (AT EASE WITH GREASE, TEHELKA, 20 November), who was given a large 500 sq yd plot in Haryana by the Hooda government, which then faced the embarrassment of refusing him permission to sell it off before five years had elapsed, as per rules. The plot was given to him by the government as preferential allotment in recognition for his ‘outstanding achievement’.
This week, continuing its campaign against out-of-turn allotments of land and property, TEHELKA has an exposé on Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M Karunanidhi. The Tamil Nadu Housing Board (TNHB) which commands a large land bank, has a government discretionary quota (GDQ) under which 15 percent of all allotments can be recommended by the CM. Eligibility for allotment under GDQ is as follows: single/deserted women; widows; social workers; physically handicapped persons; defence personnel; ex-servicemen; eminent persons in the field of science, arts, literature, economics, public administration and sports; freedom fighters; government servants with unblemished service records; employees of PSUs, central government undertakings and nationalised banks; PF institutions; journalists; university staff; and employees of local bodies and municipalities.
While some of these categories sound kosher, most of them raise a fundamental question: why should the government have the power to give coveted land to select employees and journalists over others? The only rationale could be proximity — which is an untenable reason for being the beneficiary of political favours, often worth several crores.
Setting this aside, even within the legal ambit of the GDQ, TEHELKA’s investigation shows that many of the allotments in Karunanidhi’s tenure have violated the rule book. Many bureaucrats and their relatives have been given plots or flats under the category of “social worker”. Some of these last did social work when they were in college; many of them claim to be volunteers in such routine activity as helping in blood donation or eye camps. Many have issued certificates to themselves; some have acquired letters from the Lions and Rotary Clubs with vague endorsements. In other violations, the rules say that no one who has any other land or property in Tamil Nadu or any other capital city, in either their own or spouse or minor children’s name, can apply for GDQ allotments. TEHELKA found this is routinely violated.
Many of the allottees issued certificates to themselves, while some got letters from Lions and Rotary Clubs
The other brazen violation lies in the claim of “unblemished” service records as a qualification for allotment. When RTI activist V Gopalakrishnan sought a list of such bureaucrats, Additional Secretary S Solomon Raj said, “As no unblemished government servant certificates are issued, the question of furnishing a list of names does not arise.” The additional secretary also clarified that the home department didn’t have such a list. This is the phantom category under which many public servants like Jaffar Sait, 1986 batch IPS officer, now Inspector General of Police–Intelligence, got large allotments of land in prime locations. Why them more than hundreds of others? That’s a democratic question the chief minister will have to answer.
jee...@gmail.com

Legal Largesse

R Bhanumathi
Serving Judge, Madras High Court

FLAT NOS: MIG 249-250, SHOLINGANALLUR PHASE III, CHENNAI
DATE: 30 MARCH 2008
SIZE: 120 SQ M & 139 SQ M
PRICE: Rs. 27.55 LAKH & Rs. 30.05 LAKH
CURRENT MARKET PRICE: NA

VIOLATIONS
The judge was allotted two adjoining plots on the same day (30 March 2008). According to her Disclosure of Assets statement of 2009, the judge already had a house in her name, and another plot in her husband, advocate K Ganesan’s name. The house, in the Uthangarai area of Krishnagiri district, was constructed in 1985 on a plot purchased in 1982. The plot of land is located in Saidapet and was purchased in 1993. She however admits in her declaration that she owns two plots, which she purchased from the TN Housing Board in 2008. But this allocation was made under the General Category. Since judges do not come under any of the quota categories, the government’s way of allotting land to them differs from the rest. Judges are informed about the availability of land. And when they apply for the same, the government facilitates the allotment.

K Raviraja Pandian
Retired Justice, Madras High Court

PLOT NO: B2/5, THIRUVANMIYUR EXTENSION
DATE: 11 NOVEMBER 2009
SIZE: 3,117 SQ FT
PRICE: Rs. 68.54 LAKH
CURRENT MARKET PRICE: Rs. 3.2 CRORE

VIOLATIONS
Close relative of DMK supremo Karunanidhi and the Chairman of the School Fee Determination Committee. Little wonder then he was also the recipient of special favours while he was still a serving judge. At the time of the allotment, the judge owned a 50 percent share in an ancestral house at Thiruveezhimizhalai village. The judge had also sold a property he owned at Pazhavatthankattali village near Kumbakonam. The land was purchased in 1991, a house was constructed on it in 1992 and sold in 2009. He had also sold the landed property of his wife in 2009.
V Ambika
Advocate

PLOT NO: A8, KADAPERY, MADHURANTHAGAM
DATE: 16 FEBRUARY 2008
SIZE: 2,285 SQ FT
PRICE: Rs. 4.54 LAKH
CURRENT MARKET PRICE: Rs. 15 LAKH

VIOLATIONS
The advocate owned landed property in more than one location when she was allotted the plot — one vacant house site in Karanai Puducheri village and another in Katrampakkam village, in Kancheepuram district. Her husband, Justice M Satyanarayanan of the Madras High Court, in his Disclosure of Assets, stated that he owns a repurchased MIG flat constructed in 1969 at Indra Nagar in Chennai. Ambika was allotted land under the GDQ.
Bureaucratic Bonanza

Jaffar Sait
IGP-Intelligence

FLAT NOS: 540, THIRUVANMIYUR, KAMARAJ NAGAR
DATE: 23 APRIL 2008
SIZE: 4,756 SQ FT
PRICE: Rs. 1.26 CRORE
CURRENT MARKET PRICE: Rs. 6 CRORE

VIOLATIONS
Allotted under ‘unblemished’ government servant category. On 6 June 2008, the government transferred the ownership of the plot to his daughter Jennifer Jaffar, then a student. Jennifer made two payments of Rs. 46.03 lakh and Rs.1.73 lakh towards cost of the plot. In February 2009, she paid another Rs.60 lakh. After having paid Rs.1.07 crore, the ownership of plot was transferred to her mother Parvin Jaffar. Interestingly, Parvin also made the payment all over again. In October 2009, she paid Rs. 50.64 lakh and then again in November 2009, another Rs. 25 lakh was deposited. A further payment of Rs. 51.5 lakh in the same month was made. Income tax officials feel the Sait family made the double payment to avoid an IT investigation on Jennifer, who would not have been able to show any source of income. The Tamil Nadu Housing Board then returned the original amount paid by Jennifer. Now, Parvin in collaboration with Durga Sankar, son of an IAS officer, has commissioned a builder to construct a multi-storey complex in which 12 flats have already been built. Each flat is expected to fetch an estimated 1 crore. So, by paying Rs. 1.26 crore in 2009, the IGP’s family made a profit of more than Rs. 5.7 crore.
G Prakash
Joint Secretary, Industries

PLOT NO: S6, THIRUVANMIYUR EXTENSION
DATE: 6 MAY 2008
SIZE: 3,829 SQ FT
PRICE: Rs. 76.58 LAKH
CURRENT MARKET PRICE: Rs. 4 CRORE

VIOLATIONS
The former district collector of Tirunelveli issued himself a certificate for unblemished government service.

CK Gariyali
Retired IAS, Secretary to Governor at the time of allotment

FLAT NOS: S4, THIRUVANMIYUR EXTENSION
DATE: 7 MAY 2008
SIZE: 6,023 SQ FT
PRICE: Rs. 1.20 CRORE. PAYMENT WAS MADE IN 33 INSTALMENTS FROM 18 JULY 2008 TO 6 MARCH 2009
CURRENT MARKET PRICE: Rs. 6.8 CRORE (APPROX)

VIOLATIONS
Her husband Dr S Rajakumar has a house in Chennai.
Sumathi Ravichandran
Former Regional Passport Officer, Chennai, and close relative of DMK minister K Anbazhagan

PLOT NO: 1050 HIG, MOGAPPAIR
DATE: 28 MARCH 2008
SIZE: NA
PRICE: Rs. 59.15 LAKH
CURRENT MARKET PRICE: Rs. 1 CRORE

VIOLATIONS
Her husband Dr S Ravichandran owns a plot. Following an RTI probe, the TNHB issued a show-cause notice and placed the allotment under suspension.
Political Perks

L Ganeshan
Former MP, who left Vaiko to join DMK

FLAT NOS: 1052 HIG, MOGAPPAIR
DATE: 27 MARCH 2008
SIZE: NA
PRICE: Rs. 79.86 LAKH
CURRENT MARKET PRICE: NA

VIOLATIONS
Ganeshan is a trade union leader with the DMK and is close to Karunanidhi. He owns property in his as well as his wife’s name.
Brinda Nedunchezhiyan
Wife of late Chezhiyan and daughter-in-law of Agriculture Minister Veerapandi Arumugam

PLOT NO: HIG B 3/14, MOGAPPAIR
DATE: 13 MARCH 2008
SIZE: NA
PRICE: Rs. 9.82 LAKH
CURRENT MARKET PRICE: Rs. 45-50 LAKH

VIOLATIONS
Allotted flat under Social worker category. The tehsildar of Salem issued her a certificate though he is not empowered to. The certificate says she “is a well-known social worker involved in social welfare activities such as president of Poolavari village panchayat, head of parent-teachers association, participating in educational programmes of many schools”.
S Rajalakshmi
Wife of R Sakkarapani, MLA and DMK chief whip

PLOT NO: 1047, MOGAPPAIR
DATE: 9 MARCH 2008
SIZE: NA
PRICE: Rs. 79.86 LAKH
CURRENT MARKET PRICE: Rs. 3.5 CRORE

VIOLATIONS
She was allotted the flat under the Social Worker category. The supporting document was a letter from a Rotary Club. The letter from PNK Venkatachalapathy, president of the Rotary Club of Oddachatram, dated 31 March 2008, states that “she is known to me as a social worker who is participating in social service activities of our Rotary Club at blood donation camps, free health checkup camps and other welfare activities. She has also been helping in providing several other basic amenities for the people surrounding the slum area for the past several years. I wish her every success to do more services to needy people in and around the area”.

D Yasodha
Congress MLA, Kancheepuram Congress MLA, Kancheepuram

FLAT NOS: A5, HIG, MOGAPPAIR
DATE: 19 DECEMBER 2008
SIZE: NA
PRICE: Rs. 59.56 LAKH
CURRENT MARKET PRICE: Rs. 3 CRORE

VIOLATIONS
A certificate from the Chennai Municipal Councillor stating she has been an active social worker for the past 40 years actively involved in helping the poor in the area.
Poochi Murugan
Member of a DMK trade union

PLOT NO: A 11, THIRUVANMIYUR EXTENSION
DATE: 6 JUNE 2008
SIZE: 2,422 SQ FT
PRICE: Rs. 58.61 LAKH
CURRENT MARKET PRICE: Rs. 2.75 CRORE

VIOLATIONS
Though a member of a DMK trade union, he was allotted land under the Social Worker category. Has three plots in his name and one in his spouse’s name. He has not produced any supporting document about the social work he has done.
Bharati Thennarasu
Widow of Sivagangai politician Thennarasu

FLAT NOS: S7, THIRUVANMIYUR EXTN
DATE: 26 AUGUST 2008
SIZE: 3,879 SQ FT
PRICE: Rs. 79.13 LAKH
CURRENT MARKET PRICE: Rs. 3.75 CRORE

VIOLATIONS
She was allotted the plot under the Social Worker category. An RTI application revealed that she had not been engaged in any kind of social work that would make her eligible for this category.

P Moorthy
Madurai MLA

FLAT NOS: E2/6, MIG, MOGAPPAIR
DATE: 5 DECEMBER 2008
SIZE: NA
PRICE: Rs. 72.5 LAKH
CURRENT MARKET PRICE: Rs. 4 CRORE

VIOLATIONS
Allotted under the Social Worker category on a certificate issued by the Lions Club. Owns several plots in his and his wife’s name.
N Soorya
Daughter of Brinda Chezhiyan and grand-daughter of Agriculture Minister Veerapandi Arumugam

FLAT NOS: B3/13, HIG, MOGAPPAIR
DATE: 3 JUNE 2008
SIZE: NA
PRICE: Rs. 8.99 LAKH
CURRENT MARKET PRICE: Rs. 45-50 LAKH

VIOLATIONS
Like her mother, the 20-year-old was given a certificate of social work and domicile by the tehsildar of Salem, stating that she “is a wellknown social worker who is involved in many social welfare activities, such as national social service, participating in eye camp, blood donation and giving education to poor students”. The certificate was issued on 27 February 2008, the same day her mother got one. Both got adjoining flats.
Kith and Kin
Deepa
Daughter of Devaraj M, Private Secretary to the Chief Minister

FLAT NOS: 543, THIRUVANMIYUR, KAMARAJ NAGAR (PLOT ADJOINING SAIT’S AND SHANKAR’S)
DATE: 23 MAY 2008
SIZE: 4,466 SQ FT
PRICE: Rs. 1.08 CRORE
CURRENT MARKET PRICE: NA

VIOLATIONS
Allotted plot under the Social Worker category but there’s no evidence to back it. Constructing a three-storey building involving a cost beyond the family’s known sources of income. Her husband owns another property in his name. Her plot is adjacent to the plots of IGP-Intelligence Jaffar Sait and Durga Shankar, son of the CM’s secretary.
Naveenkumar
Son of P Muthuveeran, IAS, who was District Collector, Theni, and close to the Chief Minister

FLAT NOS: 541, HIG, THIRUVANMIYUR, KAMARAJ NAGAR
DATE: 27 JULY 2008
SIZE: NA
PRICE: Rs. 1.06 CRORE
CURRENT MARKET PRICE: NA

VIOLATIONS
Allotted flat under the Social Worker category. He works in a software company in Chennai and submitted a salary slip of Rs. 20,000 per month at the time of allotment. Now, he is constructing a fourstorey structure on the plot.
J Naveen Ibrahim
Son of SI Jaffar Ali, IPS (retd)

FLAT NOS: AI HIG MOGAPPAIR
DATE: 31 MARCH 2009
SIZE: NA
PRICE: Rs. 64.95 LAKH
CURRENT MARKET PRICE: Rs. 3.25 CRORE

VIOLATIONS
Allotted flat under the Social Worker category. Certificate issued relates to 1983, when he was a student. The college principal says he actively participated in “many social activities conducted by us. He continues to evince interest in social service activities”. Curiously, the EMI of Rs. 74,000 is almost double his monthly salary.
Durga Sankar
Son of Rajamanikkam, IAS, Secretary to Chief Minister

FLAT NOS: 538, THIRUVANMIYUR, KAMARAJ NAGAR (PLOT ADJOINING SAIT’S AND SHANKAR’S)
DATE: 28 MARCH 2008
SIZE: 2,450 SQ FT
PRICE: Rs. 1.12 CRORE
CURRENT MARKET PRICE: NA

VIOLATIONS
He is a businessman, but allotted the plot under the Social Worker category. He also submitted an affidavit that the plot would be used for residential purposes. But he violated the conditions and developed the property for commercial purposes.
The Others
M Ilamukil
IT Manager, DMK HQ, Chennai

VIOLATIONS
Allotted flat under the Social Worker category on a certificate issued by the Lions Club. The certificate states that he “is participating in social service activities of Lions Club at blood donation camp, free health camps for the past several years”.
Ilanthendral
Ilamukil’s sister

VIOLATIONS
Allotted HIG flat under the Social Worker category on the basis of a certificate issued by a panchayat, which is not valid.
N Kannabiran
Junior attendant at the Supreme Court

VIOLATIONS
Allotted flat under the Social Worker category. Kannabiran, a Delhi resident, was issued a salary certificate by the SC registrar for purchasing land in Tamil Nadu. He was allotted on the recommendation of his superior, who has close links with the DMK.
C Ganeshan and C Vinothan
PSOs, CM’s Security

VIOLATIONS
Allotted flats under the ‘unblemished’ government servants category. Documents reveal the Superintendent of Police, Security Branch, Chennai, issued vague conduct certificates after the duo were allotted the flats provisionally.
P Meena
W/O P Pandian, PSO, CM’s Security

VIOLATIONS
Allotted flat under the Social Worker category. She produced a letter from MS Velu of the Lions Club, who liberally issued certificates for sons and daughters of bureaucrats to help them avail of prime plots allotted by the TN Housing Board out of the government discretionary quota.
PHOTOS: THE HINDUJEEMON JACOB
Reactions to Land Scam 3.0
D Yashoda, Congress MLA, Kancheepuram
“I have done a lot of work for Dalits throughout Tamil Nadu, especially in Sriperumbudur and Chennai. I have helped them in getting pattas for their land, recommending their names for loans from banks, distributing cycles to Dalits on the birthdays of Jawaharlal Nehru and Indira Gandhi."
Jaffar Sait, IPS, IG-Intelligence
"Government agencies have already probed the matter. I am being governed by the conduct rules, so I should not talk to you about the issue. It is advisable that you seek a response from the Tamil Nadu government. I would like to add that if any defamation or liability arises out of your article, necessary legal action would be taken."
P Moorthy, Madurai MLA
"I don’t know much about the certificate, I think I got the plot because I’m an MLA. I have done a lot of work in uplifting the people in villages of my constituency. That amounts to social work. I don’t need a social work certificate from the Lions Club but my friends, partners and I took the certificate anyway. "


‘GDQ is a way of making you part of the syndicate’
BY JEEMON JACOB

C Umashanker
PHOTO: JEEMON JACOB
A1990 batch IAS officer, C Umashanker shot to fame during the AIADMK regime when he exposed a scam in the construction of sheds in a cremation ground under the Jawahar Rozgar Yojana when he was additional collector in Madurai. His brush with AIADMK supremo J Jayalalithaa’s partymen resulted in his transfer out of the district.
Later, when the DMK came to power, he was appointed managing director of the state-run Electronic Corporation of Tamil Nadu and put in charge of procuring colour television sets for free distribution to the poor in the state, in keeping with an election promise of the DMK. He was transferred with immediate effect after he exposed corporate fraud committed by the joint venture promoter ELNET Technologies Ltd.
Later, he was posted as managing director of the state-run Arasu Cable TV Corporation. In this capacity, he opposed the monopoly of Sumangali Corporation run by Kalanidhi Maran. He also took steps to nationalise Sumangali Cable Vision. By that time, Maran had a patch-up with the Karunanidhi family and Umashanker was transferred with immediate effect.
Later, the anti-corruption and vigilance department registered a case against him for disproportionate assets. The government suspended him for claiming fake caste certificate as a Dalit when he is a practising Christian.
Plots are allotted even without any formal applications. There is no transparency at all
He lodged a complaint with the National Backward Commission against his suspension and got a favourable order from the High Court. At present, he is managing director of Tamil Nadu Small Industries Corporation.
Umashanker was allotted a plot (under government order 2D 325) on 3 April 2008 at Thiruvanmiyur Extension when he was in charge of the free colour television for the poor programme. For this, he would have had to pay 55.12 lakh. He wrote to the chief minister that he could not afford to pay such a huge amount. Later, his allotment was cancelled without stating any reason.
Umashanker revealed he had an MIG flat in his name when the plot was allotted and he was not aware about the rule of Tamil Nadu Housing Board (TNHB) that he can’t claim a plot when he has another flat in his name.
It certainly seems commendable that Umashanker turned down a chance to own a plot in Thiruvanmiyur Extension, one of the poshest areas of the city. The plot is just 300 metres from the beach.
Though the entire colony has been parcelled out to those close to the ruling establishment, it is the nouveau riche and the industrialists who dream of owning a house in Thiruvanmiyur, where they can rub shoulders with former judges, bureaucrats and political power brokers. If and when the allottees decide to sell their plots, they can demand extremely high prices.
In a frank chat, Umashanker talks about how the government discretionary quota has been misused. Excerpts:

Why are bureaucrats, judges, former judges and politicians given housing plots in posh localities under government discretionary quota?
Who can refuse a good piece of land in Chennai city? It’s a way of rewarding people for good work done. No inquiry has been conducted in this matter so far. Discretionary quota is the prerogative of the government. After RTI came into existence, several activists are taking up the matter in court. Basically, there is no control mechanism or checks and balances. There is little transparency while awarding the GDQ — the plots are allotted without formal applications.
You were also allotted a plot in 2008 under the ‘unblemished government servant’ category. What happened to the allotment?
Yes, I was allotted a plot in Thiruvanmiyur Extension. Initial payment for the plot was Rs. 25 lakh. I never had that much money. So I requested the government to reduce the price. But there was no response. I did not want a house to compromise my integrity. So I never took possession. Later, in 2009, the government ordered a vigilance inquiry against me and cancelled the allotment. Frankly, I was not aware about the TNHB rules that bars a person having a plot, a flat or a house from claiming another plot.
Do you think the GDQ quota is a way of silencing people, buying them out?
Yes, it is a way of making you a part of the syndicate. Plots or flats are given to those civil servants, judges or relatives of the bureaucrats or politicians for complying with certain requirements. There is no procedure for IAS or IPS officers to get a land or plot or flat in a transparent manner. So everybody uses short cuts.

Minister’s DQ proves judges are more corrupt than civil  servant

NEW DELHI/BHUBANESWAR: An investigation by Cobra post and IBN Network has revealed how former and sitting judges of Orissa, police officers and bureaucrats have received flats from the DiscretionaryQuota (DQ) of ministers. As a matter of fact, successive Urban Development Ministers in the Naveen Patnaik government have misused the discretionary housing quota.
According to the revelation, the judges have got the ‘minister quota’ flats out of turn and at cheaper rates.
The IBN Network accessed letters of judges written to the government asking for prime property in Cuttack and Bhubaneswar.
Prime properties were acquired in Cuttack at concession rates, bypassing the Cuttack Development Authority. In fact, Sectors 10, 11 and 13 of Cuttack’s Abhinav Bidanasi project has practically become a judges’ residential colony.
Former Chief Justice G B. Patnaik is a resident of flat 1B/22 in Sector 11 while former Orissa High CourtJudge Radhakrishna Patra has flat 1B/23 in the same sector, given out on lease.
Supreme Court judge Deba Priya Mohapatra, Orissa High Court judges Sanju Panda, Madan Mohan Das, Nityanand Prastuti also own flats in Sector 10 and 11.Papers for the flats were prepared quickly and some judges even got preferred plots.
Most of the allotments took place between 2000 and 2007, under the BJP  cadre Urban and Housing Development Minister  Sameer De who was State Development Minister from 2000-2004 and then Kanak Vardhan Singh Deo who called the shots from 2004 to 2007.
All that the judges had to do was written to the Minister. The CNN-IBN has a letter written by Justice Madan Mohan Das to the CDA Chairman and to Minister Kanak Vardhan Singhdeo, asking for a B-Category Flat in Sector 10, saying he would ensure a third party transfer of a C-Category Flat already owned by his wife.Justice Das was allotted the flat in just six days.

When asked why the discretionary quota was used to make the allotments, Sameer Dey, former Orissa urban development minister, said, “The Orissa act does not have any such rule. There is 5 per cent and 10 per cent allocation in discretionary quota. Apart from that we don’t have any rule.”
Kanak Vardhan Singh Deo, former Orissa urban development minister, said, “The rule is that only those who apply for the project can be allotted land via Discretionary Quota. So if any such person does not apply what can we do?”
CNN-IBN has also found that many of the judges who were allotted land through the discretionary quota already own ancestral property in Cuttack. Yet the ministers were allotted the land they asked for.

Judicial Layout Site Allotment – BRIBE TO JUDGES ?


 JUDICIAL   CORRUPTION IN INDIA
JUDICIAL CORRUPTION
MY LORDS, THERE’S A CASE AGAINST YOU
Former Union law ministers are spearheading a campaign against sitting judges they accuse of being corrupt. What is the higher judiciary doing to clear itself of these grave charges?
Avinash DuttNew Delhi
http://www.tehelka.com/channels/News/2006/Dec/30/images/My_lords1.jpg
Under observation: The Supreme Court of India
Photo by K. Satheesh
Senior lawyers have complained to the CJI and the President that Justice Bhalla illegally amassed properties
The campaign by some senior lawyers and former law ministers who have questioned the integrity of sitting high court judges is set to ratchet up the growing confrontation between the legislative and the judicial arms of the government. Former Union law ministers Shanti Bhushan and Ram Jethmalani are leading the battle against what they claim are corrupt practices in the highest echelons of the judiciary.
Bhushan has categorically condemned the rot he feels has set in the judicial system. “The judiciary of this country is not merely unaccountable, but corrupt and brazenly so,” he wrote in a letter to President APJ Abdul Kalam on December 17. Bhushan has demanded that the President initiate impeachment proceedings against Justice Jagdish Bhalla of the Lucknow Bench of the Allahbad High Court. On December 14, a Supreme Court (SC) collegium recommended that Justice Bhalla be appointed the Chief Justice of the Kerela HC.
Bhushan and Jethmalani, along with noted lawyers and former justices, including Rajendra Sachar, Indira Jaisingh and Hardev Singh, have formed the Committee on Judicial Accountability (COJA) and presented documents to the Chief Justice of India (CJI), YK Sabharwal, to support their complaint against the sitting judges. COJA complained to the CJI on July 11 that Justice Jagdish Bhalla had amassed several illegal properties in the name of his wife and other close relatives. Justice Vijender Jain, the former senior Judge in the Delhi High Court, who was recently appointed the CJ of Punjab and Haryana HC, is also in COJA’s line of fire.
By questioning the integrity of Justices Bhalla and Jain, Bhushan has thrown open the much larger question of judicial accountability. (See interview) “Leave aside taking any action against corrupt judges like Justice Jagdish Bhalla and Justice Vijender Jain, the CJI has been actually avoiding even properly investigating charges against them,” says Bhushan. According to documents produced by COJA on 21 July 2003, Renu Bhalla bought a 7,200 sq. metre plot near the Noida-Greater Noida expressway. On 28 March 2005, Uday Shankar, dsp, Gautam Buddha Nagar (Noida’s official name) submitted a report to the area dm in which he states that the sellers of the plot belong to the “land mafia”. In an enquiry submitted to the dm on 26 June 2005, RK Singh, the area sdm, also described the sellers as belonging to the “land mafia”. According to the two reports, the plots constituted a portion of the gram samaj (joint village property) land, illegally grabbed by the “land mafia”. (All the documents relating to the transaction are in possession of Tehelka)
The SDM’s report says that at the time of the transaction, the plot was worth Rs 7.20 crore in the open market, whereas Renu Bhalla paid Rs 5 lakh for it. The two reports also state that the sellers of the plot have been charged in several criminal cases, and had sold plots to several influential people to curry favour with them. Renu Bhalla is the wife of Justice Jagdish Bhalla.
Bhushan has also drawn attention to the July 2005 draw of lots for allotment of plots in Sector 44 in Greater Noida. When the computerised draw threw up several influential names, a few people approached the Allahabad HC alleging foulplay. In October 2005, the HC decided that the case warranted a fresh draw of lots and ordered a cbi inquiry into the scam. Among those who had been allotted plots in the scrapped list were Aarohi Bhalla and Sheeba Sabharwal. Aarohi Bhalla, who is the son of Justice Bhalla, was allotted plot number f-52, while Sheeba Sabharwal, daughter-in-law of the CJI YK Sabharwal was allotted plot number f-78. In November 2005, the Supreme Court stayed the Allahabad HC judgement, putting the cbi enquiry and the HC’s order to hold a fresh draw of lots on hold.
http://www.tehelka.com/channels/News/2006/Dec/30/images/My_lords2.jpg
Admissible in court? Documents furnished by COJA against the justices
Members of COJA have offered to discuss the matter in person with the CJI but they say that they are still waiting to hear from him. Five months after their initial request, they sent another application to the CJI in November. This time they sought his permission to register an FIR against Justice Bhalla, claiming that their initial evidence was enough to register an offence against him under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
“The CJI did not even call us to hear our point,” says Bhushan. “I don’t know why Justice Sabharwal is shielding Justice Bhalla!” Bhushan is equally critical of Justice Vijender Jain.
Justice Jain, who took oath as the new CJ of Punjab and Haryana HC in November, had to endure many delays before he could be appointed to the post. The CJI had to make three efforts to promote Justice Jain. A collegium headed by the Chief Justice of India first recommended Justice Jain’s name for the post in July. However, President APJ Abdul Kalam returned the file, causing a minor embarrassment to the CJI and the Union government. When the collegium reiterated its recommendation through the government in November, the President had to sign the file.
http://www.tehelka.com/channels/News/2006/Dec/30/images/My_lords3.jpg
Third time lucky: Chief Justice Vijender Jain
When a collegium headed by the CJI recommended Justice Jain’s name, the President returned the file
Earlier in May, a proposal by the CJI to make Justice Jain CJ of the Maharsahtra HC was stonewalled by a judge in the three-member collegium who questioned Justice Jain’s integrity. The member on the panel cited a complaint made to former CJI RC Lahoti against Justice Jain in January 2005. The CJI revived the proposal a month later, but again a judge on the collegium opposed his appointment. Finally, a fortnight later, in July 2006, the CJI made his third attempt to promote Jain, this time to the Punjab and Haryana HC.
This time around, to address dissenting voices, the CJI also consulted other SC judges who happened to be former chief justices of the Delhi High Court. According to reliable sources, Justice Jain’s former seniors also questioned his integrity. However, on the basis of a majority, the proposal to promote him was forwarded to the Union government for the President’s assent.
A major hurdle in promoting Justice Jain continued on page 8 continued from page 6 was a complaint by one Subhash Agrawal who approached then CJI RC Lahoti in January 2005 with the complaint that Justice Jain had violated the code of conduct for judges. Agrawal claimed that Justice Jain gave a judgement in favour of someone with whom he had “family relations”. He produced a copy of the invitation card of the litigant’s granddaughter’s wedding, held in April 2001. According to the card, the venue of the wedding was the official residence of Justice Jain. (Tehelka has obtained a copy of the wedding card from the Central Information Commission). In November 2004, Justice Jain, hearing an appeal, decided a civil suit in favour of the person who had held his granddaughter’s wedding at his official residence.
When there was no response to his complaint in October 2005, Agrawal approached the SC to find out the status of his complaint under the rti Act. He was told that his complaint was in the relevant HC file. Not satisfied, Agrawal approached the Central Information Commission. On the commission’s insistence, the SC finally told Agrawal that his complaint had not actually been forwarded to the HC, as the SC has “no administrative jurisdiction” over high court judges. Therefore, the complaint was pending before the CJI, YK Sabharwal. The commission asked the CJI to act on the application. The CJI finally settled the complaint, saying he found no merit in it. When Agrawal asked for reasons behind the decision, he drew a blank.
It’s not just Bhushan who feels the need to bring about accountability and transparency in the judiciary. Janata Dal (U) president Sharad Yadav says the issue will be discussed when the Judicial Accountability Bill is tabled in Parliament. “When the government tables the bill, all its aspects will be discussed,” Yadav told Tehelka.
CJI YK Sabharwal could not be reached for his comments. Despite conciliatory notes from him there are all indications that the clamour surrounding judicial misdemeanour and the demand for greater accountability will only increase in the days to come.
Dec 30 , 2006


Related Stories

My lords, there’s a case against youFormer Union law ministers are spearheading a campaign against sitting judges they accuse of being corrupt. What is the higher judiciary doing to clear itself of these grave charges? Avinash Dutt reports
Serious charges 
Dubious first
‘The Bill for Judicial Accountability is a sham’Former Union Law Minister Shanti Bhushan is angry at the state of the judiciary in India. He talks toAvinash Dutt
Delhi HC dilutes the RTI ActThe rules framed by the court deter those who seek information about its workings, reports Avinash Dutt
RTI TangleBy Avinash Dutt
‘Half Of The Last 16 Chief Justices Were Corrupt’
The decision to declare assets is a big victory. Supreme Court lawyer Prashant Bhushan tells SHOMA CHAUDHURY what else is rotting in our judiciary
image
In public interest Prashant Bhushan has championed the fight for judicial accountability
Photo: SHAILENDRA PANDEY
It’s great judges have agreed to declare assets. But will it really help? Politicians do it too.
This decision is very welcome, even if it’s only happened under public pressure. It is proof of the power of public opinion. And even though declaring assets is a relatively minor aspect of judicial accountability, it will help. If a judge misdeclares his assets, there’s a chance someone might know he has particular properties he hasn’t declared, and may point it out. One could then examine if these can be explained within their legal income.

The debate around judicial accountability has got really hot. Are there watershed events that triggered this?
Not in my own perception, but I think for the public there were two watershed events – the Chief Justice Sabharwal case (where there was an allegation that Chief Justice YS Sabharwal’s orders to demolish commercial outlets in Delhi directly benefited his sons, who were partners with some mall developers) and the Ghaziabad Provident Fund scam. Both these cases got wide media attention. A 2006 Transparency International report said the judiciary in India is the second most corrupt institution after the police.

You’ve been at the forefront of the judicial accountability campaign. Why?I have been witness to judicial corruption in the courts for a very long time. I know decisions are passed for extraneous considerations, but it’s difficult to get hard evidence of this. There have been highprofile impeachment attempts, for instance, on Justice Ramaswamy, Justice Punchi and Justice Anand. Yet, they all went on to become chief justices. In my view, out of the last 16 to 17 chief justices, half have been corrupt. I can’t prove this, though we had evidence against Punchi, Anand and Sabharwal on the basis of which we sought their impeachment.
What is the root cause of judicial corruption then, and what are your key demands?
Our key demand is an institutional mechanism for entertaining complaints and taking action against the judiciary. Nothing exists today. Everyone realises impeachment is impractical. To move an impeachment motion you need the signatures of 100 MPS, but you can’t get them because many MPs have pending individual or party cases in these judges’ courts. In the impeachment proceeding against Justice Bhalla, the BJP declined to sign because LK Advani had been acquitted by him in the Babri Masjid demolition case. Such political considerations prevail all the time. An in-house procedure was set up in 1999, post a chief justices’ conference in 1997, but that too is activated only selectively. For example, the complaint against Justice Bhalla was that he had purchased land worth Rs 4 crore at Rs 4 lakh — approximately — from land mafia in Noida. This was based on a report from the DM and SSP of Noida. This land mafia had several cases pending in courts subordinate to Justice Bhalla. Another complaint was that in the Reliance Power matter, though his son was the lawyer for Reliance Power, Justice Bhalla constituted a special bench while he was the presiding judge in Lucknow. He sat in the house of one the judges at 11pm at night to hear their case and pass an injunction in their favour. We asked Chief Justice Sabharwal to initiate proceedings against Bhalla, but he refused.

Similarly, Justice Vijender Jain decided the case of a person whose granddaughter had been married out of his own house. He was a close friend but he still heard and decided the case in this person’s favour. The point is, in these cases though very specific complaints were made to the then Chief Justice of India (CJI), he didn’t do anything to activate the in-house procedure. All these judges have gone on to become chief justices. Bhalla is still chief justice of Rajasthan; Virendra Jain became chief justice of Punjab and Haryana.
What’s the answer?The first problem is that there is no independent institution for entertaining complaints and taking action against judges. There has to be a National Judicial Complaints Commission — independent of the government and judiciary. It should have five members and an investigating machinery under them. The second problem lies in the Veeraswamy judgment, which ordered no criminal investigation can be done against a judge without prior written permission of the CJI. That’s what happened in Karnataka. There was a complaint against several judges visiting a motel and misbehaving with women. When the police officer came, the judges threatened him and said no FIR could be filed against them because they were judges. This happened in the Ghaziabad Provident Fund case as well. The investigation is stumped because the CJI hasn’t given permission. We have to get rid of this injunction.
The third problem is the Contempt of Court Act. Today, even if you expose a judge with evidence, you run the risk of contempt. Judges are even seeking to insulate themselves from the RTI. We have to get rid of the Contempt of Court Act – not the whole Act. Disobeying the orders of the court is civil contempt – that should remain. Interfering with the administration of justice is criminal contempt – that too should remain. What needs to be deleted is the clause about scandalising or lowering the dignity of the court, for which Arundhati Roy was sent to jail. Finally, there is the problem of appointments. Earlier, judicial appointments were made by the government, which was bad enough. Now, by a sleight of hand, the Supreme Court has taken the power of appointments to itself. Earlier there were political considerations; now there are nepotistic ones.
Again, what’s the answer to that?
We need an independent Judicial Appointments Commission, which is independent and works full time, and follows some systems and procedures. Eligibility lists should be prepared and comparative merits debated and evaluated. You can’t just pick judges arbitrarily, and let people know about it only after the deed is done.

There is still no independent body to process complaints and action against judges
What are the best practices and conventions elsewhere?
We should at least have Public Confirmation hearings like in the US. In the Senate Judicial Committee, you have hearings where any public citizen can give evidence about the background of a judge that has bearing on their appointment. This is being fiercely resisted here.

Do any counter arguments hold?
None that I can see. The judges say all this will compromise their independence. Unfortunately, they are equating the independence of the judiciary with independence from accountability. Independence of the judiciary was meant to be independence from the political establishment, not from all accountability.

Are there other ways in which judicial corruption manifests itself?There are so many. There is Justice Kapadia who decided on the Niyamgiri mining lease case in Orissa. He said Vedanta can’t be given the lease because it’s been blacklisted by the Norwegian government; but its subsidiary company Sterlite can get the lease because it is a publicly listed company. Justice Kapadia said it’s publicly listed because he had shares in it and yet he passed an order in favour of Sterlite! There is a law against judges hearing cases where there is a conflict of interest, but they just bypass it and you can’t complain because that would be contempt.
WRITER’S EMAIL
shoma@tehelka.com

From Tehelka Magazine, Vol 6, Issue 35, Dated September 05, 2009



Burn After Reading
BRIJESH PANDEY and SANJAY DUBEY track the Supreme Court’s lack of urgency in investigating charges of judicial corruption
THE STORY OF A QUIET BURIAL?
Special CBI judge Rama Jain uncovers Rs 7 crore Provident Fund scam during vigilance inquiry
Accused Ashutosh Asthana revealed that he was paying off 36 judges including a sitting Supreme Court judge and 11 High Court judges
Supreme Court directs CBI to investigate, permits interrogation of all involved judges
Several status reports given by the CBI to the apex court
Reports kept secret. Action taken on basis of reports unknown
WHEN SPECIAL CBI judge Rama Jain received an anonymous letter in January 2008, telling her that the provident funds of Class 3 and Class 4 employees of the Ghaziabad court were being siphoned off, she had no idea that she had stumbled onto the biggest judicial scam in the history of independent India.
As she was the designated vigilance officer at the Ghaziabad court, she first conducted an inquiry on her own, which uncovered the involvement of at least three judges and the Central Nazir in the embezzlement of funds. She reported the matter to the Allahabad High Court, which, in turn, ordered a vigilance inquiry. Holding that the report, prima facie, had merit, the court directed her to file an FIR.
Central Nazir Ashutosh Asthana was arrested on the basis of the FIR on April 10, 2008. His interrogation revealed that Asthana was not a solo player. He claimed that he was first introduced to the scam by a district judge himself. What followed was so shocking that even the Ghaziabad police was on the backfoot. Asthana confessed that from the Rs 7 crore embezzled, he had given cash and gifts such as airconditioners, refrigerators, expensive clothes, jewellery and furniture to as many as 36 judges, including about 10 High Court judges and one Supreme Court judge. In a sworn statement before a magistrate, Asthana revealed that this fraud had run from 2001 to 2007 with the active connivance of district judges. Every month, Asthana even paid bribes to various judges, from Rs 25,000 to a whopping Rs 1.5 lakh.
When these excerpts from Asthana’s confession became public, the public image of the judiciary touched a new low. In perhaps the biggest moment of crisis for the Indian judiciary, Asthana, the main accused, has in turn named judges from the Ghaziabad District Court to the Allahabad High Court, right up to the Supreme Court. This was not all.
These revelations stunned the Ghaziabad police. Clearly out of their depth and (justifiably) wary of taking on the powerful judiciary, they requested the Ghaziabad court to hand over the probe to the CBI. In September 2008, the Supreme Court transferred the case to the CBI, but with a rider: Investigate, but give us a sealed report. The PF scam, as it had come to be known, gave the judiciary a wonderful opportunity to redeem itself in the eyes of the people but the case remained shrouded in secrecy. Cynics then said that the whole matter would be given a quiet burial. Eighteen months after the scam became public and four CBI status reports later, the cynics appear to have had the last laugh.
image
This delay and secrecy in such a highprofile scam raises various uncomfortable questions for the Indian Judiciary. Legal luminaries believe that this is symptomatic of a larger malaise which ails the judiciary. Says jurist Ram Jethmalani, “The reputation of a judge is more important than the actual fact of his honesty. In fact, if a judge has a bad reputation, even if it is undeserved, he should not be appointed because then nobody will have confidence in his judgements,” adding, “When the judiciary expedites cases concerning the executive branch or even most prominent cases, why is such urgency not displayed here, when the matter is extremely serious. Why this delay?”
For six years, funds worth Rs 7 crore were embezzled and judges were allegedly bribed
A VALID QUESTION. Asthana named 36 judges (a list of which is with TEHELKA). Other than the fact that a few have retired, virtually nothing is known about the fate of the judges of the Allahabad High Court and the Supreme Court judge. Whether or not the apex court is planning to initiate or has initiated, criminal charges against any of the judges — sitting or retired — are questions that only the Supreme Court can answer.
And the apex court should answer, argues former Union law minister and senior advocate Shanti Bhushan. “I don’t appreciate this sealed-cover business except in very rare cases when making something public might be detrimental to the public interest — mainly if there is an army secret. Whether it is the judiciary or the executive, all officers are appointed on the behalf of the people. It is on the people’s behalf that the judiciary exercises its powers. How can you keep investigations in the PF scam secret? The people have every right to know what is going on.”
VN Khare, former Chief Justice of India, concurs. “These kind of things should not be allowed to linger. This shakes the confidence of the people in the judiciary. If there is an allegation or misconduct, it must be inquired into immediately and strict action should be taken against the erring judges. Why should the reputation of most judges suffer for no fault of theirs?”
image
When the judiciary expedites cases concerning the executive branch or even most prominent cases, why is such urgency not being displayed in this matter?
RAM JETHMALANI, Jurist
The biggest question which arises from this scam is the lack of will on the part of the judiciary to rein in errant judges. Let alone the judges named by Asthana, what about the fate of the three Ghaziabad District Judges named by vigilance officer of the district court Special CBI Judge Rama Jain herself? Legal luminaries say this hesitancy on the part of judges to act against fellow judges involved in wrongdoing clearly illustrates the prevailing mindset of the judiciary.
“I know of a retired Chief Justice of India who is one of the most honest judges I have ever seen. It’s difficult to imagine a more honest person. However, when a responsible minister made complaints to him against a corrupt High Court Judge, he did not grant permission for an investigation because he felt that as the head of the judicial family, it was his job to protect judges, be they corrupt or not,” says Shanti Bhushan. Ram Jethmalani chips in sarcastically, “This is the reason why judges call each other ‘brother judge.’”
IT IS not only cases like the PF scam which taints the image of the judiciary, but also the extreme reluctance on the part of the judiciary to be open and transparent. Reams and reams of paper have gone towards pious exhortations by the judiciary asking the government to refrain from corruption and work in an efficient manner. But sadly, no judge has held forth at length on the need for the judiciary to refrain from corruption. Even attempts to exercise the Right to Information with respect to the office of the CJI came a cropper as the CJI’s office was always declared out of bounds. It took a historic verdict by the Delhi High Court to declare that the office of the CJI was not immune from accountability and outside the purview of the RTI Act. Senior lawyers and retired chief justices feel that if the judiciary is not transparent or accountable, it only means that they are trying to hide something. Justice Khare feels, “Judges are more accountable than other persons because they hold a very high post. The very existence of the judiciary is based on the faith of the common man in it. If that faith is not there, how can the judiciary function?”
No judge holds forth at length on the need for the judiciary to refrain from corruption
What incenses them is the behaviour of the government with regard to the Judges’ Assets Declaration Bill which the government tried to introduce in 2009. The opposition erupted in protest and forced the government to defer the bill. Jethmalani terms the government’s approach to this bill as a “conspiracy of corruption”. “The government is scared to take on the judiciary. It’s clear that the executive wants to cosy up to the judiciary.” Agrees retired CJI V N Khare, “Why should there be any hesitancy to declare assets at all on the part of judiciary? The whole episode is beyond me.” In a recent development, the Supreme Court has reiterated before the Delhi High Court that the CJI’s office is outside the purview of the RTI Act.
image
Corruption charges are swept under the carpet by the judiciary. But this has given a shield of total immunity to the judges, who think they can get away with anything
SHANTI BHUSHAN, Former law minister
Another assault on the public image of the judiciary is the Dinakaran episode. Currently, judges are appointed to the Supreme Court by the Supreme Court Collegium, a group of judges chaired by the Chief Justice of India. When Chief Justice Dinakaran of the Karnataka High Court was elevated to the Supreme Court, the state Bar and legal luminaries rose up in protest because the Collegium appeared to have dismissed, or, at least, not have considered the serious allegations of corruption against him. According to Senior Advocate Soli Sorabjee, “The Dinakaran episode shows that the Collegium is not working satisfactorily. You must have a national commission for judges which should be made up of judges, eminent jurists and senior government officials. This council should have the power to get independent information and evaluate it.” Shanti Bhushan feels that as judges are extremely busy with hearing cases, there should be a full-time commission whose sole function is to pick judges for the High Court and the Supreme Court and feels that the commission should also have its own bureau of investigation. They should not be dependent on either the local police, who might be afraid to investigate judges, or on an overburdened CBI.
But all this is very hard to achieve. Jurists feel that the judges of the higher courts have converted themselves into a union of sorts and are trying to protect each other. “Their approach is to sweep every allegation under the carpet. Don’t allow the public to know about it. Let the public believe that our judiciary is very honest. But this has been counterproductive. It has given a shield of total immunity to the judges and they think they can get away with anything. This has led to an increase in corruption in the judiciary,” states Shanti Bhushan. Time and again, opportunities have arisen for the judiciary to reinvent itself in a new avatar. And time after time, it has failed. Caesar’s wife, they say, should be above suspicion. Whatever the cost it might take to ensure it.

From Tehelka Magazine, Vol 6, Issue 41, Dated October 17, 2009




‘Half of last 16 chief justices have been corrupt’

By churumuri
http://churumuri.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/prashant-and-shantibhushan.png?w=200&h=300
Judicial corruption is a bull few in India are willing to attach their names to. There are whispers of this or that sitting judge making piles or cash; of sons, daughters and other near and dear ones acting as “brokers” for cases, deals, etc, but none of those allegations see the light of day.
Not because the media is a willing accomplice but because of the sword of “contempt of court” hanging over us.
For long, truth was not, repeat not, a defence in the case of contempt.  Although that is now no longer the case, judicial corruption still isn’t headline news like corruption in other spheres of Indian life. The case of Justice P.D. Dinakaran is one of the rare exceptions and that too only in sections of the media.
In September 2009, the Supreme Court lawyer Prashant Bhushan, in an interview to Shoma Chaudhury of Tehelkamagazine, said “half of the last 16 chief justices were corrupt”. The comment invited the apex court’s contempt. Now, Bhushan’s father, the noted jurist Shanti Bhushan has joined issue.
In his application before the Supreme Court praying for his impleadment as respondent No.3 in the case of the Amicus Curiae vs Prashant Bhushan, Bhushan senior repeats his son’s charge that eight out of the last 16 CJs were corrupt, even going so far as to deliver the names of the corrupt in a sealed cover.
In the applicant’s opinion, eight [of the last 16 chief justices] were definitely corrupt, six were definitely honest and about the remaining two, a definite opinion cannot be expressed whether they were honest or corrupt.”
Below is the full text of Shanti Bhushan’s application, published in the public interest.
***
To
The Hon’ble Chief Justice of India &
His companion justices of the Supreme Court of India
The humble application of the Petitioners above named.
Most respectfully showeth:
1.     That the applicant is filing the present application for his impleadment as Respondent No. 3 in the aforementioned contempt petition as the applicant is making a categorical statement in the present application that eight of the last sixteen Chief Justices of India were definitely corrupt and also providing the names of those eight definitely corrupt Chief Justices in a sealed cover as an annexure along with the present application.
2.     The applicant is a practicing advocate who was enrolled on 8 July 1948. He has appeared in each and every High Court in the country. He is well acquainted with the manner in which the Indian judiciary has been functioning and how its character has been changing over the years.
3.     That the applicant has been a part of the campaign for judicial accountability since its inception in the year 1990.
4.     That there was a time when it was almost impossible even to think that a judge of a High court or the Supreme Court could be corrupt. Things have changed drastically during the last 2 or 3 decades during which corruption has been growing in the Indian judiciary. So much so that even a sitting Chief Justice of India had to openly admit that 20% of the judges could be corrupt. Very recently in March 2010 a sitting Chief Justice of a high court openly made a statement. The statement of the sitting chief justice was published by the Times of India in its issue of 6th march 2010 with the headlines, “In our judiciary, anybody can be bought, says Gujarat chief justice”. A copy of the news paper report is being annexed hereto as Annexure A.
5.     That the applicant believes that the reported statement may not be correctly reflecting the perception of the Gujarat Chief Justice, since he should be knowing as the applicant does that there are and have always been plenty of totally honest judges, but they are also becoming the victim of this public perception since no institution of governance in the country is taking any effective steps about dealing with corruption in the judiciary.
6.     That India became a republic in 1950, when the people became sovereign. They got the right to constitute their institutions, the executive, the legislature and the judiciary, to serve them, who would be accountable to them.
7.     That before 1950, corruption was almost non existent in the High Courts. The federal court had in 1949 got Justice Shiv Prasad Sinha removed from the Allahabad High Court, merely on the finding that he had passed 2 judicial orders on extra judicial considerations.
8.     That it however appears that thereafter the judiciary has adopted the policy of sweeping all allegations of judicial corruption under the carpet in the belief that such allegations might tarnish the image of the judiciary. It does not realize that this policy has played a big role in increasing judicial corruption.
9.     That the Constitution prescribed removal by impeachment as the only way of removing judges who commit misconduct since it was believed at the time of the framing of the Constitution that misconduct by judges of the higher judiciary would be very rare. However those expectations have been belied as is apparent from the surfacing of a series of judicial scandals in the recent past. The case of Justice V. Ramaswami and subsequent attempts to impeach other judges have shown that this is an impractical and difficult process to deal with corrupt judges. The practical effect of this has been to instill a feeling of impunity among judges who feel that they cannot be touched even if they misconduct.
10.  That corruption by judges is a cognizable offence. The Code of Criminal Procedure requires that whenever an FIR is filed with respect to a cognizable offence, it is the statutory duty of the police to investigate the offence. The police has to collect evidence against the accused and charge-sheet him in a competent court. He would then be tried and punished by being sent to jail. The Supreme Court has however by violating this statutory provision in the CrPC given a direction in its Constitution bench judgement in theVeeraswamy case of 1991 that no FIR would be registered against any judge without the permission of the Chief Justice of India. In not a single case has any such permission ever been granted for the registration of an FIR against any judge after that judgement.
11.  That the result of this direction has been that a total immunity has been given to corrupt judges against their prosecution. No wonder that judicial corruption has increased by leaps and bounds.
12.  That an honest judiciary enjoying public confidence is an imperative for the functioning of a democracy, and it is the duty of every right thinking person to strive to achieve this end.
13.  That unless the level of corruption in the judiciary is exposed and brought in the public domain, the institutions of governance cannot be activated to take effective measures to eliminate this evil.
14.  That it is the common perception that whenever such efforts are made by anyone, the judiciary tries to target him by the use of the power of contempt. It is the reputation of the judge which is his shield against any malicious and false allegations against him. He doesn’t need the power of contempt to protect his reputation and credibility.
15.  That the applicant strongly believes that a responsible citizen should be prepared to undergo any amount of suffering in the pursuit of the noble cause of fighting for a clean judiciary.
16.  That there are two statements of Respondent no. 1 (Prashant Bhushan) published in Tehelka by Respondent no. 2 which are alleged to constitute contempt of court. In the 1st statement, Respondent no. 1 has expressed that in his view, out of the last 16 or 17 chief justices of India, half have been corrupt.
17.  The applicant states that in his view too this statement is absolutely correct. At the time of the publication of this report in Tehelka, the last 16 Chief Justices of India were the following:                  1. Justice  Ranganath Mishra,
2. Justice K.N. Singh,
3. Justice M.H. Kania,
4. Justice L.M. Sharma,
5. Justice M.N. Venkatchalliah,
6. Justice A.M. Ahmadi,
7. Justice J.S. Verma,
8. Justice M.M. Punchhi,
9. Justice A.S. Anand,
10. Justice S.P. Bharucha,
11. Justice B.N. Kripal,
12. Justice G.B. Patnaik,
13. Justice Rajendra Babu,
14. Justice R. C. Lahoti,
15. Justice V.N. Khare,
16. Justice Y.K SabharwalOut of these, in the applicant’s opinion, eight were definitely corrupt, six were definitely honest and about the remaining two, a definite opinion cannot be expressed whether they were honest or corrupt. The signed lists identifying these eight, six and two Chief Justices of India are being enclosed in a sealed cover which is being annexed here to as Annexure B.
18.  That in fact two former chief justices of India had personally told the applicant while they were in office that their immediate predecessor and immediate successor were corrupt judges. The names of these four Chief Justices of India are included in the list of the 8 corrupt Chief Justices of India.
19.  That since the applicant is publicly stating that out of the last sixteen Chief Justices of India, eight of them were definitely corrupt, the applicant also needs to be added as a respondent to this contempt petition so that he is also suitably punished for this contempt. The applicant would consider it a great honour to spend time in jail for making an effort to get for the people of India an honest and clean judiciary.
20.  That the applicant also submits that since the questions arising in this case affects the judiciary as a whole, the petition needs to be decided by the entire court and not merely by three judges handpicked by a Chief Justice.
PRAYERS
In view of the above, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to:
1.     allow the present application and implead the Applicant as a contemnor in the aforementioned contempt petition as Respondent no. 3; and
2.     pass any other or further order/s as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
(Shanti Bhushan)
applicant-in-person
New Delhi
***
Photograph: courtesy Shailendra Pandey/ Tehelka
***
Is Sikkim HC’s dignity less than that of Karnataka’s?



The father, the sons-in-law and the unholy properties

JEEMON JACOB & VK SHASHIKUMAR scoop documents to establish property amassed by former Chief Justice of India KG Balakrishnan’s son-in-law, PV Sreenijan, a practising lawyer who recently resigned from the Kerala Congress
http://tehelka.com/channels/News/2011/Jan/15/images/jeemon.jpg
PHOTO: SHAILENDRA PANDEY
WHEN KG Balakrishnan was appointed Chief Justice of India in 2007, it was a great moment for a man of humble origins. But VR Krishna Iyer, former judge of the Supreme Court and national icon, now says, “I used to say that an era had begun when KG Balakrishnan became the first Dalit Chief Justice. Now, I don’t feel that way.”
Post retirement, Balakrishnan became head of the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) in June last year. Ever since, a rising crescendo of allegations of corruption have been heard, fuelled by the fact that his younger brother KG Bhaskaran and his two daughters and sons-in-law all acquired vast properties during his tenure as Chief Justice.
TEHELKA has accessed documents that show that between 2007 and 2010, son-in-law Puliyanaveettil Vasu Sreenijan purchased property worth Rs. 1.85 crore. The current real estate value of these properties is in excess of Rs. 25 crore.
This is a truly amazing story of wealth creation by a man who, while contesting elections from Kerala’s reserved Njarackkal Assembly constituency as a Congress candidate in 2006, had declared a bank balance of Rs. 25,000 apart from 24 g of gold.
A FAMILY PRACTICE
Sreenijan is married zto Balakrishnan’s elder daughter KB Sony, whom he met in college. He traces his background to a humble and hard-working family: his father was a factory worker in Premier Tyres, Kalamassery, and a Congress party worker. His classmates remember him as an introvert who had a muted, almost latent, ambition to become a powerful politician. From campus politics he moved to the Youth Congress and took active part in its programmes and activities.
Sreenijan became a practising lawyer in the Kerala High Court. When Balakrishnan started his three-year tenure as Chief Justice, Sreenijan started making huge investments in real estate and tourism. This sudden acquisition of wealth is currently being probed by the vigilance department after a probe was ordered by Chief Minister VS Achuthanandan.
TEHELKA repeatedly tried to establish contact with Sreenijan for his version via SMS and phone, but all calls went unanswered.
After his marriage with Sony, Sreenijan’s political career also leapfrogged. He was appointed state vice-president of the Youth Congress. Though Congress leaders like MA Kuttappan (also a former minister) challenged Sreenijan’s rise, such protests were short-lived. He lost the 2006 elections but his wife purchased a flat and car parking space in Travancore Residency Towers for Rs. 6 lakh in 2007.
WITHIN A month, Sony again purchased another flat in Mather Square. The cost of the flat mentioned in the title deed is only Rs. 1.49 lakh, but the market price of flats in the vicinity was about Rs. 66 lakh at that time.
Today, Kerala Youth Congress leaders who were angry about Sreenijan’s political rise are gunning for him. “We demand a CBI inquiry to find out how Sreenijan acquired so much property and assets within the last three years,” said M Liju, former Youth Congress state president. On 5 January, Sreenijan tendered his resignation as Youth Congress vice-president.
Legal riches? Sreenijan’s wealth has multiplied since 2007
Legal riches?Sreenijan’s wealth has multiplied since 2007
In November 2008, Sreenijan purchased a river-front property of 277.52 cents in Kadukutti village in Thrissur district where he is now reportedly constructing a resort. According to the title deed, he purchased the land from Mohammed Iqbal Mather for Rs. 14 lakh. Villagers who prefer to remain anonymous say the market price was Rs. 1 lakh per cent. If that is the case he has allegedly shelled out Rs. 2.77 crore. And building the resort could put him back by more than Rs. 10 crore.
In 2009, Sreenijan purchased another property on Deshabhimani Road in Ernakulam for Rs. 30 lakh. Later, a property of 3.5 cents of land was purchased in his mother’s name (Sreemathy Vasu) adjacent to his plot.
But it is not only Sreenijan who became rich during Balakrishnan’s tenure as CJI. The second son-in-law, advocate MJ Benny, too, became wealthier after his marriage to Rani, Balakrishnan’s younger daughter.
Born to a working-class Christian couple in Nettur, Ernakulam, Benny married Rani in 2006. Benny and Rani, both lawyers, fell in love in the court.
Benny’s assets piled up in a manner similar to Sreenijan’s. Between 19 March 2008 and 26 March 2010, he purchased 98.5 cents of land through five title deeds for Rs.81.5 lakh. This is prime land along the National Highway in Marad, Ernakulam district. A cursory comparison of land rates during this period shows that the property was undervalued.
When Benny purchased the property it was around Rs. 4 lakh per cent and at current rates would be Rs. 10 lakh per cent. Yet Benny showed his yearly income as Rs. 5 lakh and Rs. 5.5 lakh during the assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10. Just five land deals made Benny a millionaire in two years.
Rani also embarked on an investment spree, purchasing 10.5 acres in Athirampuzha with her relatives, including Abhilash T Chandran in 2007. Chandran is the son of Thangappan, one of Balakrishnan’s six brothers.
Then there’s KG Bhaskaran, younger brother of the former CJI, who is in the spotlight for possessing property beyond his known sources of income. A senior government pleader practising in the Kerala High Court, Bhaskaran reportedly purchased 50 acres of land in Dindigul, Tamil Nadu. In the light of allegations of having illegally amassed property he was asked to go on leave from 4 January by Kerala’s Advocate General CP Sudhakara Prasad. Bhaskaran, a former member of the CPM, contested Assembly elections as a party candidate from Vaikom in 1977.
Bhaskaran was a regular visitor to the Supreme Court during his elder brother’s tenure as the CJI. He is also reportedly close to Justice Paul Daniel Dinakaran (currently Chief Justice of Sikkim High Court and former Chief Justice of Karnataka High Court) against whom serious allegations have been levelled of land grab in Tamil Nadu.
No wonder, the Kerala Vigilance Department is now probing all the assets acquired by Balakrishnan’s family. Especially as the patriarch has not faded into the sunset and is now heading a body tasked with bringing justice to those whose human rights have been violated.

Public prosecutor caught on the wrong side of law


In a decision termed “rarest of rare” by a city court, a trial court judge found a public prosector on the wrong side of the law.
Indicting the prosecutor for deliberately botching up examination of witnesses in a case of abduction for ransom, Additional Sessions Judge Pratap S Malik has passed strictures against the state’s counsel and sent the copy of his order to the prosecution branch for necessary action.
The judge held that there was a deliberate attempt by the prosecutor to create situations favourable for the three accused, found guilty of abducting one Sanjay Khan for ransom in 2004. Khan had later committed suicide to escape further assault and the court, finding ample evidence on record, had awarded life imprisonment to the trio on Saturday.
The prosecutor had refrained from putting important questions to police officials and other witnesses that could help the prosecution nail the accused in a more convincing manner, the court observed.

Prosecutor caught in ACB trap

PTI | 01:04 AM,Apr 08,2011
Thane, Apr 7 (PTI) An assistant Public Prosecutor attached to the Kalyan court was trapped by Thane unit of Anti Corruption Bureau while allegedly accepting bribe in the court premises this evening. ACB officials said that one Tuna Bharati, a resident of Malad, had filed case of dowry harassment against husband and in-laws of his late sister, Bhavana. Assistant Public Prosecutor, Chayya Bhadkamkar allegedly demanded Rs 20,000 and accepted the first instalment of Rs 3,500, for arguing the case effectively, ACB said. She was trapped today while taking the balance amount, it said.

JUDGES IN PROVIDENT FUND SCAM ?

NEW DELHI: Faced with accusations having the potential to unhinge the traditional public perception of the judiciary's clean image, the SC on Monday decided to examine the possible mode of probe into the Rs 23 crore illegal PF withdrawal scam allegedly involving 23 judges, including some from the HCs and one from the apex court. The difficult question on the mode of probe was posed by a petitioner, who is the chairman of Advocates Welfare Trust and Bar Association of Ghaziabad — the place where the scam took place — even as CJI K G Balakrishnan had shown faith in the integrity of the judges by asking the UP police, which is probing the scam, to send questionnaires to the judges, whose names allegedly figured in the scam. Unwilling to have the judges interrogated by the police at first go, SC had written to the UP police that if the response of those judges to the questionnaire did not satisfy the probe team, then it could send request for personal interrogation. The request for interrogation in person would be considered on merit, the SC had told the police in a communication. Appearing for the Bar, senior advocate Fali S Nariman flanked by senior advocates Anil Divan and M N Krishnamani expressed concern over the scandal and also pointed out the possible dent in the image of the judiciay if an SHO was seen interrogating a judge. Bench comprising CJI Balakrishnan and Justices P Sathasivam and J M Panchal appeared undecided about the constitution of a committee as suggested by Nariman, it decided to seek the assistance of solicitor general G E Vahanvati to chart out a possible course to deal with the situation.

To keep the proceedings off the media glare, the bench decided to take up the matter in chamber on July 14, when Vahanvati and other senior advocates would make good their assistance to look for a way out of the problematic situation.  The petition said one Ashutosh Asthana, the Central Nazir in the judgeship of Ghaziabad, had allegedly confessed before a magistrate about his role in the PF scam and had allegedly mentioned the names of 23 judges who were beneficiaries of the ill-gotten money.


PROTECTION OF WITNESSES IN CRIMINAL CASES
·  JESSICA LAL MURDER CASE & GUJARATH RIOTS


In the 7 year old jessica lal murder case , all the accussed –
children of rich & mighty have gone scot free , for lack of both
prosecution & witnesses. The culprits have forced the witnesses to
remain silent through the use of muscle & money power. The
investigating police official, from the beginning has done roughshod
work & also have played a role in silencing witnesses. I.O MORE RICHER
NOW? PROMOTIONS? The presiding judge of the court has overlooked many
omissions & commissions by the prosecution and in a hurry closed the
case , acquitting all the accussed. Reward for judge – promotion as
high court judge. In this way, the police-prosecutor-judge were
together ganged up against the victim from the beginning. Also, the
witnesses were afraid of brute muscle power of rowdies & rowdies in
khaki uniform.
Now, take the gujarath riots case. In the first place riot took place
under the active patronage of gujarath state government machinery.
Naturally the police , prosecutors & judges in gujarath were against
the riot victims & closed one case after another, acquitting the
guilty. However the apex court got transferred riot cases out of
gujarath , under public pressure. However, even the apex court failed
to instill confidence , in the prime witness of best bakery case , the
apex court failed to positively reassure the witness of her safety &
livlihood. As a result , out of fear she became hostile- went on
changing her statements.
In this manner, numerous low profile cases involving commonman are
buried , witnesses silenced by the corrupt nexus of police-prosecutor-
judge. They don't even draw media attention as they are low profile.
Drastic reforms of criminal justice system in india is needed.
Punishing the hostile witness is not the solution. Accountability of
investigating officers , police , prosecutors & judges is needed.how
come some police officials , public prosecutors & judges are leading
luxurious lifestyles, beyond the scope of their legal income?
Recently in the media there was mention of a C.D of alleged
conversation between samajvadi party M.P mr.amar singh & U.P chief
minister , about influencing a high court judge & fixing a case. This
is the way our judiciary functions in india. Rewards for corrupt
judges – out of turn promotions, post retirement postings , postings
to kith & kin , land allotments , etc.
Accountability of judiciary & investigating agencies is the need of
the day. Let us start with polygraph tests for I.O , POLICE , PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR & JUDGE of jessica lal murder case.

Reproduced from The Times Of India August 16, 2007 page10
We do frame people, says NCB official
Sub-Inspector Tell HC How They Plant Drugs On Innocents
Abhinav Garg / TNN
New Delhi:It's been suspected by many, but confirmation of the police falsely implicating people by planting drugs on them has now come from the policeman himself who has been accused of planting drugs on two innocent people.
Sub-Inspector Ranbir Singh of the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) admitted at the Delhi High Court that testing kits for checking banned drugs wereoften defective. What's more officers often replaced the recovered substance with lethal drugs in order to implicate them. A shocked court has summoned the NCB director to explain the charge.
Ranbir is himself tainted of this grave abuse of authority. There is an FIR against him for falsely implicating rwo persons under the harsh Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances act. He claimed to have recovered 100gm heroin from them which later turned out to be harmless paracetomal powder.
The officer is now seeking to get the FIR quashed and in his defence has claimed that he was not the only one who framed people, several other officers did the same.
The Judge has also summoned the Kamala Market Narcotics Cell in-charge from whose area Singh allegedly picked up the two persons.
The Director and the Cell in-charge will have to explain before the court as to how these two innocents were booked and thrown into jail when two forensic reports clearly stated that the substance in question was paracetomol.
The case in which Singh is involved took place in March last year. Gyanender and Santosh were arrested by him for alleged possesion of heroin. The substance was sent for testing to two CFCL labs-one in Rohini and the other in Chandigarh- and both labs reported back that the powder was'nt heroin but just parecetomal.
After this came to light, the additional sessions judge hearing the case acquited the two men and recommended that an FIR be lodged against Singh as the two undertrials had to languish in jail because of the wanton abuse of authority.
The high court, while hearing a petition filed by Singh seeking quashing of FIR against him found it intriguing that even when the investigating team is equipped with "field testing kit" to test the contraband, they had mistaken paracetomal powder for heroin. Upon which Singh revealed that kits were often defective and  that officers also changed the actual recovered substance with banned contraband.

BHOPAL GAS  VERDICT FIXED -  Shame Shame to Supreme Court of India & Supreme Court of USA

 

Now it is a known fact that Bhopal  Gas Leak Case Verdict was FIXED years before ,  MATCH FIXED  by then MP Government Chief Minister , Indian Prime Minister and most shame fully Chief Justice of India.

Now The Final Verdict is out in Bhopal Gas Tragedy . This kind of Injustice can only happen in banana republics , where rich crooks are protected by authorities & courts. SHAME SHAME to supreme court of India , supreme court of USA & Government of USA , for practicing double standards in enforcement of law & justice.

 

Double standards of supreme court of India

http://sites.google.com/site/sosevoiceforjustice/is-the-supreme-court-of-india-deaf-dumb-blind

 

PIL Appeal & Show Cause Notice to Supreme Court of India

http://sites.google.com/site/eclarionofdalit/pil-appeal-show-cause-notice-to-supreme-court-of-india 

 

In India, Favorable treatment is given by police & courts of law for rich crooks where as poor innocents are harassed , tortured by the very same police & judges . In india Some MP , MLAs even take money for asking questions in parliament / legislature , Favourable laws are enacted to legalize crimes of rich crooks  for example : Illegal land encroachments by rich crooks. The same MPs , MLAs are not aware about problems of poor public , they don’t even open their mouth for asking questions on welfare of poor , let alone enact laws for welfare of poor. No government law , no decisions of judges , no orders of public servants are sacrosanct . Hereby , e-voice urges the supreme court of india ,

1.       To legally prosecute the jurisdictional  police who changed the charge sheet , who let out  Main criminalAnderson illegally without orders from the  court.

2.       To legally prosecute the SSP , DC of the district , Then Chief Minister of Madhya Pradesh & Then Prime Minister of GOI , who fully aided the main accussed , criminal Anderson to escape , to jump law.

3.       To legally prosecute Indian Public Servants , who were responsible for withdrawing the case from US Courts of Justice.

4.       To legally prosecute Then Chief Justice of India Justice Ahmadi & His bench colleagues , who diluted the case by changing the clause under which  Anderson & others were charged.

 

The Public servants – Mps , MLAs , Judges , IAS / IPS officers  , Police  take thousands of rupees monthly salary , cars , bungalows , 5-star hotel stay together with 5-star meal complete with alchoholic drinks , 5-star health care at premium hospitals , business class air travel , foreign tours , etc all at tax payer’s expense. After enjoying to the hilt at taxpayer’s expense  , these same public servants don’t serve the public , they serve the rich crooks , anti nationals in their greed for more money.

 

All the while the same poor tax payer suffers without justice . In India more than 50 Crore people are barely surviving on a single piece meal .Let the corrupt public servants eat their 5-star meals by the side of the graves of Bhopal Gas Victims. Atleast this will open the eyes of honest few in public service – police , judiciary & parliament , it is a fond hope.  This is an appeal  to those honest few in judiciary , police  & parliament  to catch hold of their corrupt colleagues.


Editorial : COURT JUDGEMENT FIXING IN COURTS OF   LAW  / POLICE STATIONS  / GOVERNMENT OFFICES                                            -   SATYAMEVA JAYATE ?
Triumph of Injustice in India

In India  legislations , Parliamentary Acts , policy decisions are fixed (example : telecom policy fixing by neera radia & others) , the court judgement are fixed , arrest warrant by courts are fixed (example : CJI. Ahmadi changing the charge against Bhopal gas co & a judge issuing arrest warrants against  then president of India kalam & then CJI) , Police fixing cases , torturing innocents , closing cases by B reports , changing track of investigations , governments servants  giving false reports & records , etc. In this back drop , commonman won’t get justice in India . Instead if he raises his voice for justice , he is persecuted by the nexus of CRIMINALS – POLICE – JUDGES – PUBLIC SERVANTS.
Even the supreme court of India , is not accepting our offer  of service to legally book the criminals nor is it registering our PIL nor the Karnataka police are registering our complaint against public servants.

Our Supreme Court Judges , police & Public Servants , preach virtues in courts of law & other forums , but they don’t practice it themselves.
SATYAMEVA JAYATE ?
Read & Answer :

JAI HIND. VANDE MATARAM.
Your’s sincerely ,
Nagaraj.M.R. 

IB confirms Mysore sex scandal


The Intelligence Bureau has provided the Centre with a detailed account of the escapade involving three Karnataka High Court judges on November 3 in a resort on the outskirts of Mysore, highly placed sources told The Times of India on Friday.
According to a senior official, "Most of the information sought has not only confirmed the veracity of the incident but the government has crosschecked it with another police agency. Both the reports match."
The incident was widely reported in the media. What has surprised the Centre is the "dogged refusal" of the Karnataka police to confirm the incident. "Mysore Police Commissioner C. Chandrasekhar first denied that the incident ever took place. Only when a public notice was issued through the high court registrar seeking information on the Mysore scandal, did the facts come out in the open. Public protest helped a lot," says the source.
What transpired at the resort, says the source, "cannot be expected from anyone in civil society, leave alone persons sworn to upholding the law". According to him, "The IB report consists of unmentionable facts and also makes it amply clear that the Mysore incident is not the first time such things have happened. Can anyone expect upholders of the law to pick a fight with people who complained to the police when caught in a compromising position?"
In a related development, Karnataka High Court Chief Justice N.K. Jain has written to Chief Justice of India Justice G.B. Pattanaik asking that three judges be transferred. Jain has proposed that Justice N.S. Veerabhadraiah be transferred to the Patna High Court, Justice Chandrasekharaiah to Jammu & Kashmir and Justice V. Gopala Gowda to the Gauhati High Court.
While Jain is understood not to have given any reasons, highly placed sources say the proposal for transfers is linked to the Mysore incident.
However, the source says that now the government is worried about the appropriate "remedial measures". In such cases, transferring a judge to a remote high court doesn't always work. He says, "Bar associations and the people of northeastern states were up in arms when some judges of the Punjab and Haryana high courts were transferred there. We expect similar protests if the CJI accepts Justice Jain's proposal to transfer the three judges of the Karnataka High Court."
The Bar Council of India on Friday, while expressing its anguish at the Karnataka incident, called for "follow-up action".
"Unless prompt and appropriate action is taken, it will erode the faith of public in the only institution considered to be the bastion of our fighting faith in democracy," it said in a statement. The BCI has "lamented" inaction in this case by "the higher judiciary and the government".


CJ suspends copycat judges, wants report


Hyderabad/Warangal, Aug. 25: The Andhra Pradesh High Court Chief Justice, Mr Nisar Ahmad Kakru, on Wednesday suspended five subordinate judges for allegedly indulging in copying during the LLM exams held at Kakatiya University in Warangal district on Tuesday.
Mr Ajitsimha Rao, senior civil judge, Mr Vijayender Reddy, second additional district judge of Ranga Reddy district, Mr M. Kistappa, senior civil judge of Anantapur, Mr Srinivasa Chary, senior civil judge of Baptla and Mr Hanumantha Rao, additional junior civil judge of Warangal were caught red-handed while copying in the first year exams.
The Chief Justice reviewed the situation after obtaining the preliminary report from the university authorities and issued orders suspending them from the service. He also asked the university to send a detailed report on the exam malpractice by the judges.
Meanwhile, the Warangal District Bar Association (WDBA) has demanded registration of cases under the AP Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractices & Unfair Means) Act, 1997, against the errant judges. “It was unbecoming of the judges to indulge in mass copying,” said Mr Ch Sambasiva Raju, vice-president, WDBA. The WDBA office bearers also demanded suspension of Mr Razak Uzama, II Sub-Judge, Warangal and his wife Ms Prema Rajeshwara, secretary, district legal services authority, Warangal, both of who appeared in the LLM exam. Reportedly, it was Mr Razak who encouraged the mass copying. However, he and his wife were spared. Meanwhile, Dr Talapalli Manohar, additional controller of examination, SDLCE, clarified that the flying squad had actually debarred only three judges — Mr M. Kistappa, Mr Vijayender Reddy and Mr Ajitsimha Rao. Sources said the other two judges, Mr Hanumantha Rao and Mr Srinivasa Chary were caught based on visual evidence.


Magistrate issues arrest warrant against Indian president after cash bribe.


An Indian magistrate who allegedly accepted a bribe to issue arrest warrants against India's president and senior legal figures has been trapped in a sting operation by a journalist, a report said.
The journalist videotaped magistrate Meghani Nagar, who practices in Ahmedabad, commercial capital of Gujarat state, accepting a bribe of 40,000 rupees (851 dollars) to issue the arrest warrants, the Times of India newspaper said Thursday.
Among those cited in the warrants for criminal breach of trust and for cheating and dishonesty are Indian President Abdul Kalam and Chief Justice V.N. Khare, a senior judge and a well-known …


Indian president arrest warrant probe

India's Supreme Court has ordered an investigation into how an arrest warrant was issued against the country's president and its top judges.
A shocked Chief Justice VN Khare asked India's top police body, the Central Bureau of Investigation, to report its findings in a week.
President Abdul Kalam, two Supreme Court judges - including Chief Justice Khare himself - and the president of India's bar association were issued with the warrants after a case of fraud was filed against them.
An Indian television journalist has told the court he secretly filmed a magistrate accepting 40,000 rupees ($883) to issue the warrants.
The magistrate apparently had not realised who they were, newspaper reports said on Thursday. He has now been suspended from his duties.
Court request
Journalist Vijay Shekhar has handed over to the court videotapes of the incident, which took place in the state of Gujarat.
The court has issued notices to the magistrate and the lawyers who filed the case, asking them for their version of the events, the Press Trust of India reports.
"What is happening in Gujarat? By giving 40,000 rupees you can get a judicial order," Chief Justice Khare is reported as saying.
"If this is the state of affairs only God knows what will happen to the country," he added.
Mr Shekhar said he carried out the sting operation to expose corruption in India's judiciary.
In 2001 India was hit by an arms scandal after a website secretly filmed senior military and defence officials apparently accepting cash from journalists posing as arms dealers.

Lokayukta: DC demanded sex from widow

In the midst of a national outrage over former Haryana DGP SPS Rathore molesting a teenager, the Karnataka Lokayukta on Saturday made a startling revelation that the state government was shielding a top bureaucrat who had demanded sexual favours from a young widow.

Lokayukta Justice Santosh Hegde disclosed that the official concerned, who was the deputy commissioner of one of the districts when he demanded sex from the widow in return for discharging his duties as public servant, has since been promoted to a senior position.

Justice Hegde, in the course of an interaction with journalists at the Deccan Herald office Saturday afternoon, said the unnamed widow had dared the deputy commissioner and approached the Lokayukta’s office with a complaint against the officer.

On examination of the complaint, the Lokayukta had found sufficient grounds to recommend to the state government the suspension and prosecution of the DC concerned. The recommendation was subsequently considered by the concerned department head as well as the chief secretary and both endorsed it.

But, according to Justice Hegde, no action was initiated against the DC as the same official who had endorsed the recommendation subsequently found no basis for initiating departmental action against him. Instead, the official cleared the DC’s name for promotion in the super-scale. Presently, the official holds a senior position in the government.

The widow, in her late 20s, had approached the DC with a representation to sort out some problems. But she was shocked when the DC demanded sex.

Justice Hegde did not identify the official in question or the complainant. Nor did he offer to name the district where the official was serving as deputy commissioner. But the incident has happened sometime in the course of last three years as Justice Hegde took over as the Lokayukta in mid-2006.

3-year jail term for ‘dirty’ judge

Family court judge Ramrao Gangaram Bhise attempted to get sexual favours from a housewife in 1997
Family court judge Ramrao Gangaram Bhise’s attempts to extract sexual favours, in addition to a bribe, from a housewife, Alka Gaikwad — who had sought an increase in her monthly maintenance allowance from her estranged husband, in 1997 — proved costly to him. Pronouncing him guilty on both counts, the special court hearing anti-corruption bureau (ACB) matters sentenced him to three years rigorous imprisonment and a collective fine of Rs55, 000, on Monday.
According to the FIR in the case registered against Bhise by the ACB, Suryakant Gaikwad had filed for divorce from his wife, Alka, before the Bandra family court. Alka, a housewife, in turn, filed a petition seeking mutual cohabitation with her husband. The then family court judge, Meera Khadakkar, directed the husband to pay her an interim maintenance allowance of Rs750 per month.
Subsequently, in January 1997, Alka filed another application before the same family court (now presided over by Bhise) seeking to increase the monthly maintenance amount to Rs3,500. “On October 27, 1997, Bhise issued an interim order, increasing the maintenance allowance to Rs2,000 to be paid by Suryakan to his estranged wife till the disposal of the case. Immediately after issuing the order, Bhise asked Alka to meet him and gave her his residential telephone number, asking her to call him when the court hours ended. He told her that he would ask her husband to pay her a lump sum of Rs2 lakh in addition to the monthly maintenance, provided she called him up,” the FIR states.
When she called up the judge at 7 pm the same day, Bhise told her that she would have to pay him a sum of Rs2,000 in addition to granting his sexual favours if she wanted an order in her favour. He also directed her to meet him at the Haji Ali bus stop with the bribe amount the following evening.
“Alka approached the ACB, which sought permission from the Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court before laying a trap on the first class judicial magistrate (Bhise). The HC while granting the permission designated a court official to bear witness to the events leading to the trap. Alka, under video camera surveillance of ACB sleuths, along with the court official and other women witnesses met Bhise at 8.30 pm at the Haji Ali bus stop. Bhise took hold of Alka’s wrist and when she protested, repeated his demands,” the FIR states.
Alka was then taken to a nearby hotel, Sharda, where the judge accepted the bribe amount. But before he could do anything else, ACB sleuths swooped in and arrested him.


Rajasthan judge is indicted for seeking sexual favours



Chief Justice of India G B Pattanaik retires tonight and he doesn’t have much to write home about on the unprecedented drive he launched to enforce judicial accountability.
After the PPSC scam fiasco, reported in The Indian Express today, comes the case of the Rajasthan judge who has been indicted in a sex scandal and yet has escaped action—pending another inquiry.
On December 14, a three-judge committee set up by Pattanaik confirmed the ‘‘involvement’’ of Justice Arun Madan of the Rajasthan High Court in a proposition to a woman doctor to have sex with him in exchange for a judicial favour.
The committee, headed by the Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court Justice B K Roy, submitted its report to Pattanaik, indicting Madan on a complaint made from Jodhpur by the woman concerned, Sunita Malviya.
But Pattanaik has not announced any action against Madan. When contacted by The Indian Express, Pattanaik confirmed that the committee had indicted Madan and his ‘‘bad reputation’’ in seeking sexual favours in return for judicial ones.
However, Pattanaik said that no action was being taken since the committee had also mentioned allegations of corruption against Madan. And so he had ordered a further inquiry by the same committee into the corruption charges.
When asked what he did with the indictment of Madan in the sex scandal, Pattanaik said, ‘‘That is on hold because I could not have taken piecemeal action against him....I am praying to God that the final report will give some tangible material to take action.’’
Highly placed sources told The Indian Express that when the committee recorded statements last week in Jodhpur of about 30 persons over four days, it also came to know of several allegations of corruption against Madan and another judge of the same high court. The committee put these on record as well.
Pattanaik said that when he summoned Madan to New Delhi last week, he did not raise the sex scandal issue and instead limited himself to saying that he was ordering a further inquiry into corruption allegations.
In effect, Pattanaik has now passed the Rajasthan buck to his successor Justice V N Khare.
The gist of Malviya’s complaint is that Madan made a sexual proposition to her in October through a deputy registrar of the high court, Govind Kalwani, who said that the judge would help her, in turn, get out of a criminal case booked against her.
With this, Pattanaik’s much-touted in-house judicial accountability seems to have hit a wall. The first committee’s report into the PPSC scam exonerated one judge despite evidence and let two others off with a mere slap on the wrist. The third committee is now busy probing the involvement of judges in the Mysore sex scam.

Wapedia - Wiki: Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of ...

1 Dec 2010 ... (2) It extends to the whole of India except the State of Jammu & Kash- mir. ... This is because of the still existing biases of thecourt judges... had his chambers "purified" with water from the 'ganga jal' because a ...
wapedia.mobi/.../Scheduled_Caste_and_Scheduled_Tribe_(Prevention_of_Atrocities)_Act,_1989 - Cached - Similar


Corruption in Judiciary

The sheer number of cases pending in the Indian judicial system (26 million at last count) says it all.


One of the most frequently used words in India, corruption signifies a range of things. In 2005, Transparency International and Delhi based Centre for Media Studies, a research firm, undertook the India Corruption Study. The survey covered 14,405 respondents over 20 states and included interviews with service providers and users (of these services). The results, published the same year said Indians pay out around Rs. 21,068 crore as bribes while availing one of 11 public services. While some of the results of the survey were published, many of the details were not. The study, however, remains the most recent and the most comprehensive report on corruption in India. Apart from calculating the extent of corruption, in Rs. crore, it explains the mechanics of it.
Over the week, Mint will present details of the CMS study. On Monday we featured India’s public distribution system. On Tuesday, we did the education system. Today, we look at the judicial system. Reader’s are welcome to send in their feedback to feedback@livemint.com.
Courting Corruption
The sheer number of cases pending in the Indian judicial system (26 million at last count) says it all. Given that, and the number of judges across various states (per lakh of population), the system is rife with delays and inefficiencies -- ideal conditions for middlemen to step in. In the year preceding the survey, 59% of respondents paid bribes to lawyers, 5% to judges, and 30% to court officials.
1. Inaccesibility
The judicial system is highly dilatory, expensive, and beyond the reach of the common man. Ordinary citizens find it hard to seek redress, as litigation is expensive and extra money is often required to oil the wheels of the system
2. Misuse of power
There are instances of Metropolitan Magistrates issuing bailable arrest warrants against individuals of whose identitites he has no idea, in return for an inducement.
Some time back, a Metropolitan Magistrate in Ahmedabad issued bailable arrest warrants against the President of India in return for an inducement of Rs. 40,000.
In some cases, judges offer a favour in exchange for personal gain or favours. In Rajasthan, some time back, there were reports of a judge who offered judicial favour in exchange for sexual favours from a litigant. Some of these instances have been reported by the media, but no action has resulted.
Today, under existing rules, any person making any allegation of corruption or other things against a sitting judge can be charged and punished for contempt of court. This is a deterrent against more such instances coming to light.
3. A difficult impeachment process
The Supreme Court of India has ruled that no first information report (FIR) can be registered against a judge, nor, a criminal investigation initiated without prior approval of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Once appointed, a judge of the High Court or Supreme Court cannot be sacked except by a complicated impeachment process, done by members of the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha, the two houses of Indian parliament. Their immunity is reinforced by the fact that the procedure isn’t just cumbersome but also susceptible to political influence. In the 1990s, when the Congress was in power, a motion seeking to impeach Justice V Ramaswami could not be passed by parliament as Congress members of parliament abstained from voting. There have been no other attempts at impeachment in India.
4. Slow and inefficient
Many cases drag on for years. SAn oft cited excuse is the lack of staff, but the judicial process itself is unnecessarily complicated and inefficient, making cases drag on for a long time. Bribes are sometimes ought to davance the judgement or bend it. At last count, some 26 million cases were pending in Indian courts.
Why People Pay Bribes
1. Favourable judgement
Recent media reports have shown that it is possible to secure a favourable judegement in a lower court by bribing the judiciary, although the situation radically improves when it comes to the higher courts.
2. Speeding up judgement
There is a huge backlog of cases in Indian courts which results in delayed judgements. It is quite common for a case to drag on for years. People often have to pay bribes to speed up the process.
3. Other activities
A llot of non case related work also falls under the purview of the judiciary. This includes the issual of affidavits, registrations, etc. People often pay bribes to get this work done by a middleman.
4. Obtaining bail
The judge has a lot of discretion in issuing bail; the guidelines governing this are fairly basic. It is possible to secure bail by influencing the judge in some cases.
5. Manipulating witnesses
As some recent high-profile cases have shown, witnesses are manipulated through money or force into giving favourable testimony.
Suggested Solutions
1. Use of technology
* A review of how court records are handled and the introduction of modern tracking methods can eliminate much of petty corruption existing in lower courts
* Websites and CDs can explain basic law to laymen
* Court files can be computerized
* Video recordings of cout procedings should be maintained
2. Reduce the gap
* Provide alternative methods of dispute redressal to lighten burden on courts
* Increase number of judicial officers and number of fast track courts
* Create a vigilance cell for redressal of public grievances
3. Making the judiciary accountable
* Judges must be subject to judicial review
* Judges must follow a code of conduct
* Bar associations must act against corrupt members
* A public body must keep an eye on the judicial system
* An Indian judicial service must be created
* The proposed National Judicial Commission should have powers to fire judges
* Judges should declare their assets and those of their family

Anamolies in the arrest procedure

-- By Anil Nauriya

A recent case of a Gujarat magistrate who issued arrest warrants against the President of India, the Chief Justice of India, a Supreme Court judge and a former President of the Supreme Court Bar Association, has evoked interest in the media. There has been public concern essentially over the circumstances in which this order was procured and about how the names of the dignitaries concerned were disguised by not mentioning their designations and by seemingly spelling the names in full rather than as they are usually written. The complainant — there is a doubt whether the person in whose name the complaint was filed is real or virtual — simply approached a magistrate and made an apparently fictitious claim of having been cheated or defrauded.
The criminal justice process reached the arrest warrant stage without anyone taking the precaution of finding out whether there was an iota of truth in the complaint. Why did this happen in this particular case? How could such a thing happen under criminal procedure? The Supreme Court is seized with the first question and it is not desirable to comment on it. But the second question can and should be discussed.

A vital point to note about the “ordinary” criminal procedure (as distinguished from so-called special laws like the earlier Terrorism and Disruptive Activities Prevention Act) is that it is not in fact ordinary. As in the case of the existing Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, applicable in India, criminal procedure in post-colonial societies is modelled on or is an outgrowth of colonial procedure. Many provisions have been mechanically continued.

There are several problem areas in criminal procedure relating to case registration, police powers of arrest in respect of certain offences considered graver than others, magisterial powers to direct investigation and, in given situations, issue warrants of arrest, and, finally, in the investigation itself. These aspects of criminal procedure lend themselves to considerable abuse by the police and the subordinate judiciary.

The Code enables a complaint to be made to a magistrate under Section 190 and certain other provisions in case the police do not register an FIR on their own or after a complaint is made to them. On being so approached, magistrates have a variety of options, superimposed on, and sometimes even apart from the usual classification of offences on the basis of seriousness. But broadly during the pre-trial stage there are two magisterial approaches that may, with some risk of simplification, be called the Red and Green Channels. The first is to insist on some elaborate evidence or material being brought on record by the complainant before setting the law in motion. The second is to simply take the complaint on record, ask the complainant a question or two, and initiate the process by directing the police to investigate and, if necessary, issuing summons or warrants as the case may be. Complaints about cognisable (that is, cases in which the police may arrest without warrant) and non-bailable offences often tend to go through the Green Channel.

The difference in the two approaches is ironical and paradoxical. Thus if a parent finds that a minor daughter has been to enticed into a child marriage, and the police have failed to take action against those who organised it, the complaint would generally have to travel through the Red Channel. A child marriage is not necessarily treated as void in personal law, but those who organise it are liable to some minor punishments. A complainant under Section 190 of the Code read with the Child Marriage Restraint Act of 1929 would have to produce what is known as “pre-summoning” evidence before the magistrate. Long dates might be fixed by the magistrate. Unless other steps are taken, the minor girl might even have produced a child and come of age by the time summons are actually issued to the accused persons.
The Green Channel operates differently. These cases include but are not limited to matters where the police are empowered to make arrests on their own. In a given case, the police may register an FIR and, if empowered, effect arrests on their own initiative.
On the other hand, they may choose not to do so because of political or other pressure. They may also drag their feet for the reason that they are aware of the false and vexatious nature of the complaint. The complainant must then approach the magistrate concerned. At this stage there are few strong safeguards to sieve out fabricated complaints. In fact, if the complaint is fabricated it stands a better chance of receiving Green Channel treatment if it alleges the commission of a serious offence, usually referred to as “cognisable” and “non-bailable.” Odd though it may sometimes seem, in such matters elaborate preliminary evidence is not insisted upon as much as it is in the case of lesser offences.
The magistrates are quicker in such cases to direct police investigation and, as the Gujarat magistrate’s case shows, even go further and issue arrest warrants; the initial burden placed upon the complainant by the magistrate is much lighter in such cases. Even a mere order for investigation means, under some judicial decisions, that the police must now necessarily register an FIR. The registration of an FIR implies, in most such cases, arrest of the persons complained against. Since colonial days, the police have often treated as dead letters provisions like Section 41 of the Code which require “credible information” and “reasonable suspicion” before the police may arrest a person without warrant. Similarly, during investigation the police have traditionally taken little notice of the stipulation in Section 157 of the Code that an arrest is to be made when it is “necessary”; there is little appreciation of the fact that the test of “necessity” is a condition precedent to arrest.

The upshot is that under the existing Code of Criminal Procedure it is easier to obtain, with magisterial aid, arrest of persons in a false case concerning serious-looking offences than to obtain, in a genuine case, even a summons to the wrong-doer in what the law treats as less serious offences. The law offers a Green Channel for the first category and a Red Channel for the second category. There are no “remedies” to this particular malice; much depends upon the human material in the police and in the subordinate judiciary. But three important safeguards may be suggested. First, if it is not a capital case involving murder or rape or a case where there is a chance that the person against whom the charges are made would flee the country, there is no reason why a prior inquiry cannot be made before the criminal process is permitted to reach the stage of arrests or warrants for arrest. Second, if the complaint is not for a capital offence an affidavit ought to be required at an early stage from the complainant affirming the truth of the averments made by him. In the case of capital offences, which may involve greater urgency, such an affidavit may follow later.
Recently the Civil Procedure was amended to require the plaintiff’s affidavit in civil suits. There is greater reason for such affidavits to be required in respect of criminal complaints. The penal law does provide for punishment for filing false complaints. But the suggested affidavit requirement could help discourage false complaints at the threshold. Third, further safeguards are required in cases of cross complaints that is complaints made by more than one side against one another about the same incident or group of incidents. Such situations, often generated by business or political rivalries, are a common source of mischief. Sometimes the police, having registered the initial FIR, do not register the counter complaint, knowing or believing it to be false. At other times the reverse happens. These moves are accompanied with a complex interplay of the political, business and legal process, with unpredictable and ever-changing results. The complaint made by one side could even be suppressed. A cross complaint may be activated. Much depends on who was contacted by whom e.g. Politicians in New Delhi instructing Commissioners of Police, Fascist outfits functioning under a sham civil rights signboard in Ahmedabad. All participate in determining the outcome of a process in which criminal procedure is reduced to naught.
It should be mandatory for a complaining party to disclose, in its own complaint before a magistrate, any prior complaints pending against it that may be connected with the same incident or party. A similar responsibility of disclosure must rest upon the police so that such cross complaints may, where appropriate and necessary, be taken up together in the criminal process. The criminal justice process must insist, to the extent this is attainable, upon truth at each stage rather than truth deferred in a bid to achieve interim and collateral objects.

Finally, closer attention is required at the drafting stage.

When the present Code was being drafted and the then Attorney-General appeared to give his evidence before the Joint Committee on the Draft Bill in October 1971 the following exchange occurred:
Chairman: Mr. Attorney General, you must have been very busy...
Witness: I have not gone into the matter in detail; I had no time.

Chairman: Have you gone through the Questionnaire?
Witness: I have read this Press Communiqué.

Chairman: And the Bill?
Witness: No.
(Joint Committee on the Code of Criminal Procedure Bill, 1970, Evidence, Volume II, p. 178).

 

Former SC judge wants ex-CJI probed for corruption


In the wake of allegations that former Chief Justice of India K G Balakrishnan’s relatives have amassed property worth crores, a long-retired Supreme Court judge on Monday demanded that the Centre initiate a probe against him.
With reports appearing in the local media, former Supreme Court judge (retd) Justice V R Krishna Iyer on Monday led calls for a thorough inquiry into the allegations a day after a local TV news channel made the stunning expose.
“I myself feel sad that I was a judge. I used to say that an era had begun when K G Balakrishnan became the first Dalit chief justice. Now, I don’t feel that way,’’ said the former Supreme Court judge.
He pointed out that there were allegations against Balakrishnan’s daughter, son-in-law and even mother-in-law. “A commission comprising chief justices should probe the assets and bank balances of all of Balakrishnan’s relatives,’’ he said in Kochi.
A leading jurist and former Supreme Court judge, Justice Iyer urged Parliament and the Prime Minister to appoint a high-powered commission to inquire into the issue. “The President must require politely Balakrishnan to resign,” Justice Iyer said of Justice Balakrishnan who is the National Human Rights Commission Chairman.
As reported, Justice Balakrishnan’s son-in-law P V Sreenijin, who is a member of the Kerala Pradesh Congress Committee, had contested the 2006 Assembly election from the Narakkal reserved constituency in Ernakulam district.
At that time, while filing his nomination papers, Sreenijin had declared he possessed no landed property and that his wife had only gold worth Rs 4.38 lakh and a little over Rs 1 lakh in cash.
Three years later, Sreenijin and his wife K B Sony, both lawyers, declared Rs 35 lakh while filing their income tax returns. However, according to reports now, the couple, who have not declared any sources of income other than their legal profession, own property worth crores and are constructing a river-front resort in Thrissur.
Several of these properties are worth many times more than the amounts for which they have been registered. The CPM’s youth wing, the DYFI, has claimed that whatever information had come out was only the tip of the ice-berg.
“We have more evidence to prove that the former CJI’s relatives have property in Dubai, Bangalore and Tamil Nadu. The needle of suspicion naturally points to Justice Balakrishnan himself,’’ said DYFI state president and MP M B Rajesh.
Sreenijin has refused to answer questions from mediapersons saying he will react later. Justice Balakrishnan was also recently embroiled in a controversy over a letter written by a Madras High Court judge to him complaining against former Telecom minister A Raja having tried to influence him over phone.
For the record, Delhi-based journalist M Furquan in June this year petitioned Vice-President Hamid Ansari for a CBI investigation against Balakrishnan and his family “for finding out how much financial assets they have (allegedly) accumulated since he took over as the CJI’’.
Ansari had passed on the complaint to the Union Home Ministry which in turn handed it over to the CBI. The complaint is reported to be with the CBI Kochi unit now.

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home