JAIL for Judges
S.O.S e - Clarion Of Dalit - Weekly Newspaper On Web
Working For The Rights & Survival Of The Oppressed
Editor: NAGARAJA.M.R… VOL.7 issue.52…… .25/12/2013
SHAME TO CORRUPT JUDGES OF INDIA
Corruption in Indian Judiciary :
Two former Judges accuse former CJI Balakrishnan of fixing and corruption
‘Corruption Is Rampant In The Lower Courts’
Former chief justice of India on corruption in judiciary
Yet another case of judicial corruption was exposed last month when the Andhra Pradesh High Court suspended additional special judge for CBI cases T. Pattabhi Rama Rao following allegations of corruption. Charged on the basis of a complaint filed by the CBI, the special judge had allegedly taken a bribe of Rs 5 crore to grant bail to former Karnataka minister Gali Janardhana Reddy in the illegal mining case. The vigilance wing of the high court found the allegation to hold merit. Former chief justice of India V.N. Khare told Chandrani Banerjeethat such incidents are now rampant. Excerpts:
Are bribes for bail endemic now?
Are bribes for bail endemic now?
There is no doubt about it. It is rampant. Corruption in the lower courts is no secret. Sometimes, in the high court as well, cases of corruption have surfaced, but in my experience while I was in the Supreme Court, I have not witnessed anything similar.
In the lower courts, it’s alleged that everything comes for a price. Rates are fixed for quick divorce, bail and other favourable verdicts.
Cases in the media glare, constantly scrutinised, are different. Otherwise it is very difficult for the common man. There are huge time gaps between hearings. Years are spent to get an order from the lower courts. So, it is difficult.
|
Subordinate courts function under the supervision of high courts. Should the higher courts be accountable?
The respective high courts have so much of work that monitoring district courts is just part of the routine. High courts have inspecting judges who are responsible for monitoring district courts. They go with a lot of band baaja and have lunch while on inspection. Inspecting judges are presented with a rosy picture and then they file a report. Now, the greater problem is that they are overburdened with work. Cases are in addition to administrative work, besides other mandatory official work. As a result, the inspecting judges of the high courts have no time to follow up. We need dedicated staff to monitor the district courts.
What kind of monitoring is needed?
A team of three serving judges should be formed. These judges should dedicatedly monitor the district judges. Their judgements should be analysed and questioned. Their attendance and work should be scrutinised. Someone should question them about their performance. I feel doing that will put in some checks.
You mean to say work overload and pendency of cases have themselves become a factor in corruption?
Yes, to a large extent. The high court judges are overburdened and they have no time. They always inform the district court authorities before the visits. It causes a situation where the real problem never comes to the surface. A dedicated committee of judges will help, but we are short of people. To my knowledge, we have 13.2 judges for 10 lakh people. If required to, we use excess strength in a particular situation, but there is no permanent arrangement. We work on an ad-hoc basis and so there are problems.
Would a few suspensions control corruption in the lower courts?
They will certainly convey a message. When I was serving, I did take certain measures which sent the message across the country that any charge of corruption will be probed. Fast actions and decisions on charges levelled against judges always work as deterrent.
What is the role of the inspecting judges in controlling corruption?
They should conduct sudden checks, always unannounced, and also follow up on any complaint registered in the district courts. However, to actualise this, we have to have a sufficient number of good judges. The monitoring will then be effective and result-oriented.
What is the mechanism to keep the lower courts free from corruption?
A dedicated committee of judges that will only monitor lower courts. Punctuality, integrity and court orders—everything should be under the lens. Such accountability will ensure the right kind of order is delivered in every petition.
Is consumerism responsible for fostering corruption in lower courts?
Judges are only people, like us. They come from the same society. Society is all about taking short cuts. Society is about quick successes. So, short cuts are taken and the judges are no different.
Supreme Court wants corrupt judges thrown out
Read more at: http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/corruption-in-judiciary--sc-wants-corrupt-judges-thrown-out/1/137730.html
In a strong message against corruption in the subordinate judiciary, the Supreme Court on Tuesday observed incorrigible judges who were bringing the entire judiciary to disrepute should be thrown out.
"A large section of subordinate judges is bringing disrepute to the entire judiciary. We have to hear of judges taking money and can do nothing but hang our heads in shame," a bench comprising Justices Markandey Katju and Gyan Sudha Misra said.
"Incorrigible judges should be thrown out," the bench said, while dealing with a contempt petition against an additional district judge (ADJ).
ADJ Archana Sinha, who repeatedly pleaded for mercy, had stayed the operation of a Supreme Court order on the eviction of a tenant from a prime property in Connaught Place.
"The ( ADJ's) order is quashed as mala fide and void," the bench said, while directing the Delhi High Court to seek an explanation from her.
The bench directed the chief justice of the HC to conduct an inquiry into the matter and take such action as he deemed fit.
With Sinha's counsel Jayant Bhushan claiming her action was not mala fide, Justice Katju, who initially planned to suspend her with immediate effect, asked: "She sat over the head of the Supreme Court. You want us not to suspend her?" "She had no business to hear the matter. Instead she superseded and overruled us," he said.
Bhushan, thereafter, tried to take the court through some documents to show her action was not totally unjustified, but the court was not inclined to consider such pleas.
"Once she came to know of the Supreme Court order, all this was irrelevant and she should not have touched the matter," Justice Katju said.
"We have to hear of judges taking money. A message has to go. We will not tolerate this," the bench said.
At one point, the bench mellowed down when Sinha pleaded for mercy with folded hands. "Hamare pas bhi dil hai (we also hearts too)," Justice Katju said.
With the bench deciding to let her off with a written apology, the counsel for the landlord, Dushyant Dave, opposed any leniency for the judge. "Let her give an explanation to the high court chief justice. I believe there is a history behind this. The judiciary gets a bad image because of judges like these," Dave said.
Opposing leniency, he said: "If it was contempt by someone from the executive, he would have been sent to jail for this." The bench, thereafter, took a tough stand and referred the matter to the HC chief justice after holding in clear terms that her action was tainted with mala fide intentions.
Read more at: http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/corruption-in-judiciary--sc-wants-corrupt-judges-thrown-out/1/137730.html
The spate of scams involving some members of the Indian higher judiciary in corruption, bribery, sex, nepotism and abuse of power has again drawn attention to the long overdue need for reform of the judicial system. The image of the judiciary and its credibility are perhaps at an all-time low. The problem of corruption comes on top of the problem of judicial inertia and the prohibitively expensive nature of the process of securing justice. This has effectively ensured that the judicial system cannot deliver justice to the ordinary citizen. All this suits the ruling establishment just fine, since those who have the power of force or money do not need the courts to get justice. It is the poor and the oppressed, the common people who need a properly working system for the administration of justice. This is also why those who have the power to reform the system have failed to do so despite knowing the problems and the solutions. It has become clear that judicial reforms will only come when the general public, who are the consumers of justice, put together a strong and powerful movement on this issue.
There are enough indications that corruption in the higher judiciary has reached unacceptable levels. For instance, in March this year, Justice Shamit Mukherjee of the Delhi High Court had to tender his resignation, following which he was arrested by the Central Bureau of Investigation under sections of the Anti-corruption Act, 1988 and sections of the Criminal Procedure Code for criminal conspiracy. Rampant corruption, which has steadily undermined the credibility of and popular faith in the judicial mechanism, was clearly to be expected in a situation where the higher judiciary enjoys enormous powers without accountability.
Power sans accountability inevitably breeds corruption and abuse. Consider the situation. Once appointed, a judge of a high court (the highest judicial mechanism in the states) or the Supreme Court, cannot be touched except by a complicated procedure of impeachment. As per the constitutional provisions, a judge of a high court or the Supreme Court can only be removed by impeachment after 100 members of the Lok Sabha (the lower house) or 50 members of the Rajya Sabha (the upper house) move the speaker, who may refer the charges to a committee of judges whose verdict is put up before both the houses of Parliament. The judge can only be removed if a two third-majority of members present and voting approve the verdict of the committee.
Today impeachment remains the only option since the judicial system has insulated itself from criminal investigation through a Supreme Court ruling. This happened in 1991 in a case arising from the discovery of huge quantities of money in the residence of Justice K Veeraswamy, then Chief Justice of the Madras High Court. When the Central Bureau of Investigation prosecuted for corruption, the Supreme Court ruled that no First Information Report can be registered against a judge, nor a criminal investigation be initated, without prior consent of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. This effectively excluded the higher judiciary from the ordinary laws of the land, since there is no possible circumstance under which an investigating agency can approach the Chief Justice for consent to investigate a judge without any concrete evidence against him. This is the reason why no judge has ever been subjected to a criminal investigation after the Veeraswami judgment. In the meanwhile, armed with this legal immunity judicial corruption has continued to flourish.
This immunity is doubly reinforced by the fact that the procedure for impeachment of judges is not only cumbersome, it is also eminently susceptible to political interference. The existing system of impeachment was found to be practically unworkable in the V Ramaswamy case, where the judge survived in office despite being found guilty on several serious charges of corruption by a statutory committee of three fellow judges. This was because members of the Congress, then in power during the prime ministership of PV Narasimha Rao, abstained from voting due to a whip issued by the party leadership when the impeachment motion was put to vote in Parliament in May 1993. In that particular case, however, it was at least possible to initiate the process, because the charges against the judge dealt with irregularities in purchases made in his official capacity. These purchases were audited by the Accountant General and it was in that process that the evidence of corruption came out. As a result, it was possible to frame charges for his impeachment and have the relevant procedural motions signed by 100 members of Parliament. In normal cases of judicial corruption however, it is difficult to produce evidence of the judge’s corruption in the absence of official investigation. Thus, it is not possible to even initiate the process of impeachment, let alone carry one through to the bitter end.
Judges’ sellout
Apart from enjoying immunity from removal and investigation, the higher judiciary further enjoys virtually unlimited powers of punishing people for contempt of court. Any person making any allegation of corruption against a sitting judge can be charged and punished for contempt, even if he is in a position to substantiate the charge. The contempt proceedings are so biased in favour of the judicial system that the very judge against whom the allegation of corruption has been made can prosecute the charge for contempt. The judge can even sit in judgment on his or her own cause, and can actually refuse to permit the alleged contemnor to lead evidence to prove the charge. This is such a vast and unchecked power that it can easily be and has been misused by the judiciary.
The excessive power that the judiciary wields in respect of contempt is in reality a way of shielding itself from legitimate criticism even when such criticism does not otherwise prejudice or obstruct the administration of justice. The existence of this arbitrary power is undoubtedly one of the main reasons why public exposure of judicial corruption has been few and far between and even routine criticism of the judiciary is muted.
Beyond the matter of public scrutiny, the Indian judiciary has been steadily increasing its other powers over the years, adding vast and arbitrary authority ostensibly for enforcing the fundamental rights of citizens. However, these powers are usually exercised in the interests of the ruling establishment. More and more instances are being witnessed where, by judicial fiat, the constitutional mandate is flouted and even the fundamental rights of liberty, equality and right to work are rendered nugatory when ordinary citizens are pitted against the state and powerful sections of society. This is how, for instance, in the interest of cleaning up Delhi’s air by reducing the levels of pollution, the Supreme Court ordered the closure and relocation of several small industries in the city, leading to the loss of livelihood for several thousand workers.
As it is, the state has a long record of enacting anti-democratic and draconian laws. Not only have the courts usually put their seal of approval on these laws, but they have sanctified action taken under them, such as the dismissal of employees en-masse from industrial jobs. The judiciary has also recently been playing a leading role in upholding the sellout of public enterprises by disinvestments carried out under the cover of globalisation. Lately, it has played a retrograde role in curbing the rights of workers to protest and go on strike, endorsing several antidemocratic measures to restrict their rights. Meanwhile, the proliferation of public interest litigations has encouraged unrestrained judicial activism. Though judicial activism through public interest litigations can be a healthy check on an executive which has failed and become corrupt, it can become a menace in the hands of a corrupt and unaccountable judiciary.
The problems with the higher judiciary, however, begin with the process of appointment itself. Quite apart from the fact that the method of selection of judges itself is defective, the entire process is kept under a cloak of secrecy. Thus, before an appointment is actually made, the general public does not have any idea about who are being considered for the post. Many persons whose integrity was known to be suspect and those who had been found guilty of professional misconduct during their legal career have come to be appointed to high office through this secretive system. The selection process has undergone some change over the years, but it has not reduced the spate of undesirable and positively harmful appointments. While earlier the selection was made by the government itself (after consultations with the Chief Justice), now, by a process of judicial interpretation, the power has been transferred to a collegium of three to five judges of the Supreme Court. This has managed to reduce the government’s monopoly over appointments, but the system has not change significantly. The patronage system has simply become more fraternal, since senior judges of the Supreme Court now wield the power of appointment of their junior colleagues. The proof is in the results, and there has not been a noticeable difference in the quality of appointments.
National commission
In an attempt to tackle the problem relating to appointments and accountability of judges, the Committee on Judicial Accountability (COJA), consisting of members of the legal profession, almost a decade ago forwarded a detailed proposal for a high-powered, full-time and independent National Judicial Commission (NJC). This commission would make appointments as also have disciplinary powers over judges of the higher judiciary. The commission would also be responsible for appointments to various commissions and quasi-judicial bodies. The NJC would comprise a nominee each of the Supreme Court, the chief justices of the high courts, the central cabinet, the opposition in Parliament, and the bar. It would also have an investigative machinery of its own to inquire into complaints against members of the judiciary. Members of the NJC would have the same status as that of Supreme Court judges and a guaranteed tenure of five years, after which they would be ineligible for any other similar post.
This proposal would have brought transparency into the system of appointment of judges. But even though nearly every political party included the proposal in its election manifesto, the National Judicial Commission is yet to become reality. The reasons are not far to seek. But now, after the spate of highly publicised judicial scandals, particularly the Shamit Mukherjee case, the government has come up with a proposal to constitute a somewhat truncated NJC. This commission is to be a part-time body of three senior sitting judges of the Supreme Court, the law minister and a nominee of the prime minister. This NJC will not have the power of removal of judges and the present impracticable system of impeachment will continue. The government’s proposal will merely institutionalise the system of sharing the spoils of appointment between the government and the senior members of the judiciary.
Since under the circumstances the judiciary cannot be expected to reform itself, and since the main political parties have reneged on their electoral commitment as expressed in their manifestos, only a strong public campaign can provide the impetus to put in place an independent and responsible body for the appointment and removal of judges. Popular pressure is the only force that can get the 1991 Veerasamy judgment overruled, whether legislatively or judicially, to ensure that judges can be investigated like any other class of citizens. Civic mobilisation is necessary to force change in the contempt law so as to ensure that citizens cannot be prosecuted for making allegations against judges, unless they have done so recklessly or in bad faith. The law must be changed so that judges cannot sit in judgement of their own contempt cases. If the judicial mechanism has to be rescued from its own infirmities, citizens and civil society in India must put together a strong movement to force accountability in the judiciary.
There are enough indications that corruption in the higher judiciary has reached unacceptable levels. For instance, in March this year, Justice Shamit Mukherjee of the Delhi High Court had to tender his resignation, following which he was arrested by the Central Bureau of Investigation under sections of the Anti-corruption Act, 1988 and sections of the Criminal Procedure Code for criminal conspiracy. Rampant corruption, which has steadily undermined the credibility of and popular faith in the judicial mechanism, was clearly to be expected in a situation where the higher judiciary enjoys enormous powers without accountability.
Power sans accountability inevitably breeds corruption and abuse. Consider the situation. Once appointed, a judge of a high court (the highest judicial mechanism in the states) or the Supreme Court, cannot be touched except by a complicated procedure of impeachment. As per the constitutional provisions, a judge of a high court or the Supreme Court can only be removed by impeachment after 100 members of the Lok Sabha (the lower house) or 50 members of the Rajya Sabha (the upper house) move the speaker, who may refer the charges to a committee of judges whose verdict is put up before both the houses of Parliament. The judge can only be removed if a two third-majority of members present and voting approve the verdict of the committee.
Today impeachment remains the only option since the judicial system has insulated itself from criminal investigation through a Supreme Court ruling. This happened in 1991 in a case arising from the discovery of huge quantities of money in the residence of Justice K Veeraswamy, then Chief Justice of the Madras High Court. When the Central Bureau of Investigation prosecuted for corruption, the Supreme Court ruled that no First Information Report can be registered against a judge, nor a criminal investigation be initated, without prior consent of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. This effectively excluded the higher judiciary from the ordinary laws of the land, since there is no possible circumstance under which an investigating agency can approach the Chief Justice for consent to investigate a judge without any concrete evidence against him. This is the reason why no judge has ever been subjected to a criminal investigation after the Veeraswami judgment. In the meanwhile, armed with this legal immunity judicial corruption has continued to flourish.
This immunity is doubly reinforced by the fact that the procedure for impeachment of judges is not only cumbersome, it is also eminently susceptible to political interference. The existing system of impeachment was found to be practically unworkable in the V Ramaswamy case, where the judge survived in office despite being found guilty on several serious charges of corruption by a statutory committee of three fellow judges. This was because members of the Congress, then in power during the prime ministership of PV Narasimha Rao, abstained from voting due to a whip issued by the party leadership when the impeachment motion was put to vote in Parliament in May 1993. In that particular case, however, it was at least possible to initiate the process, because the charges against the judge dealt with irregularities in purchases made in his official capacity. These purchases were audited by the Accountant General and it was in that process that the evidence of corruption came out. As a result, it was possible to frame charges for his impeachment and have the relevant procedural motions signed by 100 members of Parliament. In normal cases of judicial corruption however, it is difficult to produce evidence of the judge’s corruption in the absence of official investigation. Thus, it is not possible to even initiate the process of impeachment, let alone carry one through to the bitter end.
Judges’ sellout
Apart from enjoying immunity from removal and investigation, the higher judiciary further enjoys virtually unlimited powers of punishing people for contempt of court. Any person making any allegation of corruption against a sitting judge can be charged and punished for contempt, even if he is in a position to substantiate the charge. The contempt proceedings are so biased in favour of the judicial system that the very judge against whom the allegation of corruption has been made can prosecute the charge for contempt. The judge can even sit in judgment on his or her own cause, and can actually refuse to permit the alleged contemnor to lead evidence to prove the charge. This is such a vast and unchecked power that it can easily be and has been misused by the judiciary.
The excessive power that the judiciary wields in respect of contempt is in reality a way of shielding itself from legitimate criticism even when such criticism does not otherwise prejudice or obstruct the administration of justice. The existence of this arbitrary power is undoubtedly one of the main reasons why public exposure of judicial corruption has been few and far between and even routine criticism of the judiciary is muted.
Beyond the matter of public scrutiny, the Indian judiciary has been steadily increasing its other powers over the years, adding vast and arbitrary authority ostensibly for enforcing the fundamental rights of citizens. However, these powers are usually exercised in the interests of the ruling establishment. More and more instances are being witnessed where, by judicial fiat, the constitutional mandate is flouted and even the fundamental rights of liberty, equality and right to work are rendered nugatory when ordinary citizens are pitted against the state and powerful sections of society. This is how, for instance, in the interest of cleaning up Delhi’s air by reducing the levels of pollution, the Supreme Court ordered the closure and relocation of several small industries in the city, leading to the loss of livelihood for several thousand workers.
As it is, the state has a long record of enacting anti-democratic and draconian laws. Not only have the courts usually put their seal of approval on these laws, but they have sanctified action taken under them, such as the dismissal of employees en-masse from industrial jobs. The judiciary has also recently been playing a leading role in upholding the sellout of public enterprises by disinvestments carried out under the cover of globalisation. Lately, it has played a retrograde role in curbing the rights of workers to protest and go on strike, endorsing several antidemocratic measures to restrict their rights. Meanwhile, the proliferation of public interest litigations has encouraged unrestrained judicial activism. Though judicial activism through public interest litigations can be a healthy check on an executive which has failed and become corrupt, it can become a menace in the hands of a corrupt and unaccountable judiciary.
The problems with the higher judiciary, however, begin with the process of appointment itself. Quite apart from the fact that the method of selection of judges itself is defective, the entire process is kept under a cloak of secrecy. Thus, before an appointment is actually made, the general public does not have any idea about who are being considered for the post. Many persons whose integrity was known to be suspect and those who had been found guilty of professional misconduct during their legal career have come to be appointed to high office through this secretive system. The selection process has undergone some change over the years, but it has not reduced the spate of undesirable and positively harmful appointments. While earlier the selection was made by the government itself (after consultations with the Chief Justice), now, by a process of judicial interpretation, the power has been transferred to a collegium of three to five judges of the Supreme Court. This has managed to reduce the government’s monopoly over appointments, but the system has not change significantly. The patronage system has simply become more fraternal, since senior judges of the Supreme Court now wield the power of appointment of their junior colleagues. The proof is in the results, and there has not been a noticeable difference in the quality of appointments.
National commission
In an attempt to tackle the problem relating to appointments and accountability of judges, the Committee on Judicial Accountability (COJA), consisting of members of the legal profession, almost a decade ago forwarded a detailed proposal for a high-powered, full-time and independent National Judicial Commission (NJC). This commission would make appointments as also have disciplinary powers over judges of the higher judiciary. The commission would also be responsible for appointments to various commissions and quasi-judicial bodies. The NJC would comprise a nominee each of the Supreme Court, the chief justices of the high courts, the central cabinet, the opposition in Parliament, and the bar. It would also have an investigative machinery of its own to inquire into complaints against members of the judiciary. Members of the NJC would have the same status as that of Supreme Court judges and a guaranteed tenure of five years, after which they would be ineligible for any other similar post.
This proposal would have brought transparency into the system of appointment of judges. But even though nearly every political party included the proposal in its election manifesto, the National Judicial Commission is yet to become reality. The reasons are not far to seek. But now, after the spate of highly publicised judicial scandals, particularly the Shamit Mukherjee case, the government has come up with a proposal to constitute a somewhat truncated NJC. This commission is to be a part-time body of three senior sitting judges of the Supreme Court, the law minister and a nominee of the prime minister. This NJC will not have the power of removal of judges and the present impracticable system of impeachment will continue. The government’s proposal will merely institutionalise the system of sharing the spoils of appointment between the government and the senior members of the judiciary.
Since under the circumstances the judiciary cannot be expected to reform itself, and since the main political parties have reneged on their electoral commitment as expressed in their manifestos, only a strong public campaign can provide the impetus to put in place an independent and responsible body for the appointment and removal of judges. Popular pressure is the only force that can get the 1991 Veerasamy judgment overruled, whether legislatively or judicially, to ensure that judges can be investigated like any other class of citizens. Civic mobilisation is necessary to force change in the contempt law so as to ensure that citizens cannot be prosecuted for making allegations against judges, unless they have done so recklessly or in bad faith. The law must be changed so that judges cannot sit in judgement of their own contempt cases. If the judicial mechanism has to be rescued from its own infirmities, citizens and civil society in India must put together a strong movement to force accountability in the judiciary.
Editorial : When a Judge Himself Commits Crime , When a POLICE Himself robs , Murders ….
The public servants & the government must be role models in law abiding acts , for others to emulate & follow. if a student makes a mistake it is excusable & can be corrected by the teacher. if the teacher himself makes a mistake , all his students will do the same mistake. if a thief steals , he can be caught , legally punished & reformed . if a police himself commits crime , many thieves go scot-free under his patronage. even if a police , public servant commits a crime , he can be legally prosecuted & justice can be sought by the aggrieved.
just think , if a judge himself that too apex court of the land itself commits crime - violations of RTI Act , constitutional rights & human rights of public and obstructs the public from performing their constitutional fundamental duties , what happens ?
it gives a booster dose to the rich & mighty , those in power , criminals in public service to commit more crimes. that is exactly what is happening in india. the educated public must raise to the occasion & peacefully , democratically must oppose this criminalization of judiciary , public service. then alone , we can build a RAM RAJYA OF MAHATMA GANDHI'S DREAM.
I have shown in the following attachment how justice is bought , purchased , manipulated in INDIA with actual cases. Just see the recent examples of supreme court judges involved in sexual assault case & ROOST Resort Mysore Sex scandal involving judges , if any ordinary fellow had committed the same crimes he would have been hauled over the coal fire. Just take another recent example of Prisoner Movie actor sanjay dutt , TADA provisions were diluted by the judge to favour him and now he is getting parole week after week while the ordinary convicts never get a single parole throught their sentence. What Brilleant Judges , what brilliant police sirji.
UNIVERASAL HUMAN RIGHTS DAY - SHAME SHAME CORRUPT Judges & Police of India
SHAME TO SHAMELESS CORRUPT JUDGES , CORRUPT POLICE , CORRUPT PUBLIC SERVANTS of india . These corrupt must learn lessons of duty from their honest colleagues, honest few judges , police , public servants still left in service. These few honest judges , honest police & honest public servants must teach their corrupt colleagues how to behave. Corrupt must first learn to be human beings , to behave as human beings & to interact with the public as human beings. Read UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS in the last page. JAI HIND . VANDE MATARAM .
Your’s sincerely ,
Nagaraj.M.R.
An Appeal to Honourable United Nations Human Rights High Commissioner & Honourable International Court of Justice
Dear Madam / Sir ,
SUBJECT : HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS BY GOVERNMENT OF INDIA , SUPREME COURT OF INDIA & CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
I have individually suffered numerous human rights violations , injustices by public servants working for government of India when I raised my voice seeking justice for my fellow countrymen . for the society. These public servants are involved in crimes like aiding & abetting terrorism , underworld , manslaughter , etc. when I appealed to the supreme court of India seeking justice , they have turned their blind eye. As a result more injustices are being committed till date. Even the police are not registering the complaint against these guilty public servants. Police & Supreme Court Judges in league with CRIMINALS , ANTI NATIONALS , TERORRISTS ?
In India , some Parliamentarians take money for even raising Questions in parliament , favorable laws / government rules are enacted to favor rich criminals (refer 2G & Nira Radia scam). Police for a price manipulate evidence , prematurely close case , fix innocent & mete out 3rd degree torture , murder in the name of encounter . Public prosecutor can change the way of argument , etc for a price. Even judges in India give favorable judicial orders for money , SEX , post retirement benefits , etc. please refer details at following web pages :
http://sites.google.com/site/eclarionofdalit/court-judgements-fixed ,
http://sites.google.com/site/eclarionofdalit/3rd-degree-torture-by-indian-police ,
http://sites.google.com/site/eclarionofdalit/court-judgements-for-a-price
I have not got justice till date , instead I have suffered physical assaults , murder attempts on me , my newspaper was illegally clamped down , my job opportunities were illegally snatched away (cutting off the source of livelihood). I have been threatened by police that I & my family members will be fixed up in criminal cases (false implication) & will be behind the bars for rest of our life. I have been refused proper medical care in government hospitals , so that I will die sooner . All these Injustices are meted out at the hands of criminal nexus of CRIMINAL – POLICE– JUDGE - BUREAUCRAT – MP / MLA .
Democracy is the best form of governance. My motherland India is one of the greatest country. However Criminals have entered into halls of parliament , criminals have become judges , criminals have become police , almost total criminalization of public service has taken place. These criminals are framing laws for the masses much against the democratic aspirations of the masses. Criminal judges are relying on these laws made by criminals & sending innocents to gallows . Criminal Police are making deals with criminals & arresting , torturing innocents.
Still very few HONEST people are left in public service - Parliament , Judiciary & Police , However they are keeping mum. My struggle is not against the government of India or it’s constitutional bodies rather it is against the corrupt people who are in those bodies . I do have whole hearted respects for the government of India & it’s constitutional bodies , But I despise the corrupt people over there in those institutions. Our system is good , many of the people working there are not good. It is struggle against those corrupt people , to save our democracy , to save our freedom.
Hereby , I do request your honourableselves Honourable United Nations Human Rights High Commissioner and Honourable International Court Of Justice , to order the Honourable Supreme Court of India , Government of India & CIC to do it’s constitutional duties properly , to safeguard the human rights of all and to provide justice in the matter. Thanking You.
Date : 07.10.2012…………………………………..Your’s Sincerely ,
Place : Mysore , India………………………………Nagaraja . M . R .
India sex case: Ex-judge AK Ganguly to face no action
The student who made the allegations described Mr Ganguly (pictured) as 'old enough to be my grandfather'
India's Supreme Court has said that it will take no further action against a retired judge accused of sexual misconduct by one of his interns.
A court-appointed committee concluded that there was "prima facie evidence" of "unwelcome behaviour" by him.
But it said that it would drop legal action against AK Ganguly because he had retired.
Mr Ganguly has strongly denied a law graduate's allegation that she was sexually assaulted by him.
The graduate, Stella James, posted a blog last month describing how the former judge allegedly sexually assaulted her in a Delhi hotel room.
She said it happened last December when she was an intern.
Mr Ganguly is the chairman of the Human Rights Commission in the state of West Bengal.
'Not welcomed'
In its ruling on Thursday the committee set up by the Supreme Court said: "[We are] of the considered view that the statement of the intern, both written and oral, discloses an act of unwelcome behaviour (unwelcome verbal/non-verbal conduct of [a] sexual nature)."
The charges levelled by the young woman lawyer against the judge came as India was witnessing huge protests over the fatal gang rape of a student in Delhi
But Indian Chief Justice P Sathasivam has been reported by local media as saying that the three judges on the panel had decided "no further follow-up action is required".
The trio ruled this was because "the woman 's internship with Justice Ganguly was a private placement and he had retired by the time the charges against him surfaced".
Mr Ganguly has denied any wrongdoing and on Thursday refused to comment on the committee's findings.
Shock
Correspondents say that the charges levelled by the young lawyer against the judge shocked India, particularly as the incident reportedly took place at a time when the country was witnessing huge protests over the fatal gang rape of a student in Delhi.
Four men were sentenced to death for that crime in September. The case also forced the Indian government to strengthen its sexual violence laws.
"For my supposed diligence, I was rewarded with sexual assault (not physically injurious, but nevertheless violating) from a man old enough to be my grandfather," Ms James wrote in her blog on 6 November for Journal of Indian Law and Society.
On why she went public with the incident several months after it occurred, Ms James, now a lawyer with a non-governmental organisation, wrote that although she "bore, and still bear, no real ill-will towards the man, and had no desire to put his life's work and reputation in question", she felt "a responsibility to ensure that other young girls were not put in a similar situation".
Parties question parole for Sanjay
A doctor who examined the actor’s wife said she has been diagnosed with a tumor in the liver and a suspected heart ailment.
Opposition parties in Maharashtra have accused the State government of preferential treatment in granting a one-month parole to Bollywood actor and 1993 Mumbai blasts convict Sanjay Dutt. The actor was granted parole on Friday on the grounds that his wife Maanyata was unwell and needed to undergo surgery.
This is the second time in three months that the actor — who is the brother of Congress MP Priya Dutt — has been granted leave from the Yerawada jail. Mr. Dutt has been serving the remaining period of his two-year sentence there since May 2013. In October, he got a month’s leave on grounds of ill health. However, the same month, the parole application of another 1993 Mumbai blasts convict Zaibunissa Kazi was turned down. She had asked for leave to visit her ailing mother. On Saturday morning, a group of activists from the Republican Party of India staged a protest outside the jail. “This is a blatant misuse of power by the Maharashtra government. It is clear that Sanjay Dutt is getting preferential treatment,” said Manoj Gaikwad, an RPI activist and Sangharsh Samiti volunteer.
In Mumbai, BJP leader Gopinath Munde demanded the order be reversed. “How can Sanjay Dutt be given parole after such a short gap? The parole should be cancelled and there should be action against the officer who cleared it,” he said.
Mr. Munde said the authorities needed to check if Mr. Dutt’s wife was genuinely unwell. However, Maanyata Dutt’s doctor Ajay Chaughule from the Global Hospital told The Hindu that a tumour had been detected in her liver.
Panel names former India Supreme Court judge Ganguly in sex harassment allegation
Shocked, shattered by allegations: former Supreme Court judge Ganguly
New Delhi: A three-member panel that probed the charge of sexual harassment of a young lawyer by a Supreme Court judge has submitted its report, identifying the judge as A K Ganguly, court sources said on Friday.
The report was submitted on Thursday after the committee of three judges met six times. This is the first time an alleged perpetrator has been named.
The report, submitted to Chief Justice P Sathasivam, also carries the statements of the victim, who interned in the Supreme Court, and that of the now-retired Justice Ganguly, the sources said.
The graduate of Kolkata-based National University of Judicial Sciences (NUJS) had alleged sexual harassment by Ganguly while interning for him in December 2012.
The committee, which held six sittings on November 13, 19, 21, 26, and 27, submitted its report to Chief Justice Sathasivam on November 28.
The victim appeared before the committee on November 19 and was expected to appear again on November 21 but chose to stay away.
She first mentioned the incident in a blog for Journal of Indian Law and Society on November 6 and later told the same in an interview with Legally India website.
The victim, who is working with Natural Justice: Lawyers for Communities and Environment, said she heard that there were three other girls besides her who were sexually harassed by the same judge.
She also claimed to have knowledge of four more girls who were allegedly harassed by other judges in their chambers.
Denying any sexual harassment, Ganguly on Friday said he was “shocked and shattered” by the charges against him.
“I am denying everything. I have told the committee that all the allegations levelled by the intern are wrong. I don’t know how such allegations have been levelled against me,” he said.
“I am a victim of situations,” he told television channels.
“I am not ashamed of anything,” he said in reply to a question regarding the alleged episode which came out in public after the victim spoke about it in the legal portal earlier this month.
He said the charges against him were totally wrong. The girl had not raised any sexual harassment issue with him, he said, adding that he had not done any physical harm to her.
The former judge said the intern worked with him though she was not officially allocated to him. She came in the place of another intern who had gone abroad after marriage. “I never put up a poster. She came on her own.”
He said the girl had come to his house on a number of occasions in connection with work.
IB confirms Mysore Roost Resort 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”.
Read more: IB confirms Mysore sex scandal – The Times of India http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/bangalore/IB-confirms-Mysore-sexscandal/articleshow/29801662.cms#ixzz1B7PtvFdU ,
Read full details in the attachment
Read full details in the attachment
Read full details in the attachment at :
edited , printed , published & owned by NAGARAJA.M.R. @ : LIG-2 / 761 , HUDCO FIRST STAGE , OPP WATER WORKS OFFICE , LAKSHMIKANTANAGAR ,HEBBAL ,MYSORE -570017 INDIA
cell : 91 9341820313
home page:
http://sites.google.com/site/eclarionofdalit/Home ,
http://groups.google.co.in/group/e-clarion-of-dalit ,
http://e-clarionofdalit.blogspot.com/ ,
http://in.groups.yahoo.com/group/e-clarionofdalit/ , http://paper.li/f-1367938674 ,
http://groups.google.co.in/group/e-clarion-of-dalit ,
http://e-clarionofdalit.blogspot.com/ ,
http://in.groups.yahoo.com/group/e-clarionofdalit/ , http://paper.li/f-1367938674 ,
A Member of Amnesty International
posted by DALIT online @ 6:34 AM
<< Home