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
- 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.
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 |
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
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?
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
|
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.
|
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
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
‘GDQ is a way of making you part of the syndicate’
BY 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.
|
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
“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.
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
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
| Burn After Reading BRIJESH PANDEY and SANJAY DUBEY track the Supreme Court’s lack of urgency in investigating charges of judicial corruption
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.
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?”
“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?”
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.
WRITERS’ EMAIL
brijesh@tehelka.com sanjay@tehelka.com | ||||||
From Tehelka Magazine, Vol 6, Issue 41, Dated October 17, 2009
|
‘Half of last 16 chief justices have been corrupt’
By churumuri
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.
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.
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
applicant-in-person
New Delhi
***
Photograph: courtesy Shailendra Pandey/ Tehelka
***
Full coverage: The strange case of Justice P.D. Dinakaran
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
|
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.
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.
|
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.
SOS Appeal to SUPREME COURT of INDIA
http://e-clarionofdalit.blogspot.com/2010/08/s-o-s-appeal-to-supreme-...
DEALS IN COURTS & POLICE STATIONS READ :
http://sites.google.com/site/eclarionofdalit/satyameva-jayate ,
http://e-clarionofdalit.blogspot.com/2011/01/satyameva-jayate.html ,
ACCUSED Chief Justice of India
http://sites.google.com/site/eclarionofdalit/accused-chief-justice-of...
,
http://e-clarionofdalit.blogspot.com/2011/02/accused-chief-justice-of...
http://e-clarionofdalit.blogspot.com/2010/08/s-o-s-appeal-to-supreme-...
DEALS IN COURTS & POLICE STATIONS READ :
http://sites.google.com/site/eclarionofdalit/satyameva-jayate ,
http://e-clarionofdalit.blogspot.com/2011/01/satyameva-jayate.html ,
ACCUSED Chief Justice of India
http://sites.google.com/site/eclarionofdalit/accused-chief-justice-of...
,
http://e-clarionofdalit.blogspot.com/2011/02/accused-chief-justice-of...
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.
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".
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".
Read more: IB confirms Mysore sex scandal - The Times of India http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/bangalore/IB-confirms-Mysore-sex-scandal/articleshow/29801662.cms#ixzz1B7PtvFdU
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
posted by DALIT online @ 8:09 AM
<< Home