S.O.S e - Clarion Of Dalit - Weekly Newspaper On Web

Working For The Rights & Survival Of The Oppressed

Editor: NAGARAJA.M.R… VOL.8 issue.32…… .06/08/2014

Frazer Town rape: Inspector arrested for delaying FIR

Pulakeshi Nagar Inspector Mohammed Rafiq, who has been booked under section 166a of the IPC for failing to register a rape case in Bangalore’s Frazer Town, has been arrested by Halasoor Police on Friday.

Assistant Commissioner of Police (Halasoor Sub division) G.B. Manjunath, who is investigating the case, questioned Mr. Rafiq for more than tow hours. The Inspector was later let out on conditional bail.

Mr. Rafiq was accused of not only delaying the filing of an FIR in the rape case but also allegedly tried to dilute the issue. The victim brought it to the notice of the City Police Commissioner, who ordered the Jurisdictional ACP to conduct an inquiry in this regard.

The preliminary inquiry revealed that Mr. Rafiq was guilty following which he was kept under suspension. On Thursday, an FIR was filed against him in the same police station where he was working.

DSP among six arrested on charge of deer hunting

Forest Department authorities on Friday arrested Deputy Superintendent of Police (CID), Mysore, T.K. Dharmesh and five others for allegedly hunting down a spotted deer in the Omkara forest range of Bandipur Tiger Reserve. The carcass of the male deer with a bullet injury was found in Naganapura third block in the forest range, according to Forest Department sources.

They said the Forest staff saw the accused in the forest range during routine patrolling early on Friday and took them into their custody. They later combed the area and found the deer carcass. Senior Forest officers rushed to the spot on getting the information and conducted investigation.

“The deer carcass had entry and exit bullet wound. The post-mortem was performed and the viscera samples have been preserved,” the sources said. A case under the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972, has been booked against the accused.

The names of other accused were given as Manjaiah, Raghu, Hanif, Atiq and Farid.

“A .303 service rifle and a multi-utility vehicle used for committing the alleged offence have been seized from the accused,” the sources said.

The names of other accused were given as Manjaiah, Raghu, Hanif, Atiq and Farid.

“A .303 service rifle and a multi-utility vehicle used for committing the alleged offence have been seized from the accused,” the sources said.

The names of other accused were given as Manjaiah, Raghu, Hanif, Atiq and Farid.

“A .303 service rifle and a multi-utility vehicle used for committing the alleged offence have been seized from the accused,” the sources said.

The names of other accused were given as Manjaiah, Raghu, Hanif, Atiq and Farid.

“A .303 service rifle and a multi-utility vehicle used for committing the alleged offence have been seized from the accused,” the sources said.

DACOITY by Mysore Police - An embarrassment for police top brass

Mysore: Southern Range IGP's gunman Prakash has reportedly named some senior policemen as his partners-in-crime in the Rs2-crore seize-swindle scam.
Prakash was thoroughly grilled following his arrest on Tuesday. Sources in the police said PK Garg, additional director general of police of the CID—it being the agency probing the case—interrogated Prakash, the gunman serving IGP K Ramachandra Rao. Sources in the police department did not identify the top cops Prakash has reportedly named.
Sources in police said that two members of the squad that raided the bus were not supposed to be there. When intercepted, the bus was in Yelawal police's jurisdiction, but the police squad had two members working with Bannur police.
Meanwhile, sub-inspector Jagadish and Sathish, who were part of the team that raided the bus, were arrested when they came to Bangalore to apply for anticipatory bail.
DG&IGP Lalrokhuma Pachau has asked the CID to leave no stone unturned in the investigation and to get incriminating evidence against every policeman involved in the case, regardless of his rank.
Police sources said the CID has obtained the telephonic conversation between Prakash and the police informants who tipped him off about the bus carrying the moolah. Sources said Prakash, the informants and the raiding party exchanged many a call the night the bus was raided and the cash was seized.
The case
On January 4, a police team led by sub-inspector CD Jagadeesh intercepted a Kerala-bound private bus belonging to Kalpaka travels at Yelwal about 1.30 am, after receiving information that a huge sum of money was being transported in it.
They reportedly found Rs2.27 crore in the bus, and took the driver Akthar Hussein and cleaner Muneer into custody. The bus was first taken to Yelwal police station and later some policemen asked the driver to park the bus on Mysore-Bantwal Highway.
The policemen allegedly took six bags of money kept in the bus and dumped one of them containing cash Rs20 lakh in the tools box of the vehicle.
While the driver denied that he was aware of the money kept in the tool box, the FIR mentioned that he was illegally carrying cash Rs20 lakh.
After the driver came out on bail, some gold merchants from Kerala accused the police of swindling their money. They claimed that the money was obtained from the sale of gold in Bangalore by their local agents. They also claimed that the money was kept in a secret box located in the middle of the bus floor and that it was known only to the driver.
The gold merchants also approached Kerala home minister Ramesh Chennithala, who asked his Karnataka counterpart to look into the matter. Going by the veracity of the case, the DG & IGP had transferred the investigation to the CID.
Following this, the accused policemen are on the run. Some of them have also applied for anticipatory bail. The CID has so far arrested four people, including the gunman of the IGP and three police informants.
The CID sleuths have requested the court to permit them to book a dacoity case against the accused.

In August 2002, a group led by the then assistant commissioner of police (Traffic-Vijayanagar), A Belliappa, allegedly robbed the employees of a gold merchant from Kozhikode of Rs19 lakh. The errant police staff posed as customs officials and robbed the two employees, who were returning to Kerala in a private bus. Belliyappa was dismissed for his involvement in the case.
In November 2010, Mico Layout police station inspector CN Janardhan was suspended for irregularities. He was charged with misusing recovered property. He had allegedly sold 2.4 kg gold - worth Rs3.45 lakh - that was recovered from the accused in Muthoot Gold Finance theft case. He was also facing several other charges.
In January this year, the police inspector of HAL station Rajesh and three constables were suspended for allegedly extorting Rs3 lakh from an old offender by threatening to book him in a false case. The errant policemen had extorted money from Javed, who had complained about it to DCP (South East). A preliminary internal probe revealed that the policemen had received Rs3 lakh and had distributed the money among themselves and they were suspended later. Police are on the lookout for Rajesh.

‘Top cops embolden juniors in khaki to play it dirty’
Despite being warned by the chief minister and the home minister to not involve in illegal activities, the Bangalore police personnel, time and again, are caught for their misdeeds.
A retired police officer, requesting anonymity, said policemen involving in illegal activities is an old trend. “The nature of the work demands nexus with people with criminal background to gather information. Ethical policemen use such information for professional requirements only, but some policemen use such information for their personal gain. What is disheartening is that some senior police officers, who have to set an example for their juniors, identify with such policemen and keep them close,” he said.
“The lower-rung policemen get into direct contact with senior officers by neglecting hierarchy. The seniors encourage them to involve in illegal activities and protect them whenever they get into trouble. Making huge money is the sole objective behind this,” he stated.
“Police are exposed to all kind of criminal activities owing to the nature of their work. So, they think that they can easily get away by committing some or the other offence,” another officer said.

Government asks Supreme Court collegium to elevation of Justice KL Manjunath

The government is learnt to have returned a file relating to the elevation of a Karnataka High Court judge as the Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court to the Supreme Court collegium with a request to reconsider its decision.

The Law Ministry is understood to have returned the file relating to the elevation of Justice KL Manjunath as Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court to the Supreme Court collegium headed by Chief Justice of India Justice RM Lodha.

As per practice, Justice Lodha had consulted a senior Supreme Court judge who had served in the Karnataka High Court, on the elevation of Justice Manjunath.

The senior judge had flagged certain issues in his two-page note to the Supreme Court collegium.

Taking note of the issues raised by the senior Supreme Court judge, the Law Ministry returned the file to the collegium with a request to reconsider its recommendation.

As per the Memorandum of Procedure for appointment of High Court judges, the Chief Justice of India sends his recommendation for the appointment of a puisne judge of the High Court as Chief Justice of High Court in consultation with the two senior most judges of the Supreme Court.

He also ascertains the views of the seniormost colleague in the Supreme Court who is conversant with the affairs of the High Court in which the recommendee has been functioning.

If the Supreme Court collegium sticks to its recommendation, the government will have to approve the name.

This for the second time that the NDA government has returned to the Supreme Court collegium file pertaining to appointment of a judge.

Chief Justice Lodha had expressed unhappiness at the government's decision to unilaterally segregate the name of senior lawyer Gopal Subramanium's from three others who were appointed to the top court.

"I fail to understand how the appointment to a high constitutional post has been dealt with in a casual manner. The segregation of Gopal Subramanium's file was done unilaterally without my knowledge and concurrence which was not proper," Justice Lodha had said.

But the government had defended its decision to return the recommendation of the Supreme Court collegium saying its move was based on "proper, cogent and sound" grounds.

Supreme Court Collegium Takes on Government on Justice KL Manjunath's Appointment

The Supreme Court collegium has reiterated its recommendation to elevate Karnataka High Court judge KL Manjunath as Chief Justice of Punjab and Haryana High Court, turning down the Centre's advice to reconsider it, say sources.

The Top Court's decision sets the stage for another round of confrontation between the executive and the judiciary. The Chief Justice of India, R M Lodha had earlier this month criticized the government for dropping former Solicitor General Gopal Subramanium's name from the panel of names suggested by the collegium for appointment as Supreme Court judges.

The latest round of standoff between the two sides arose after the Centre returned the Supreme Court collegium's recommendation on elevating Justice Manjunath, the senior-most judge of the Karnataka High Court, and sought clarification based on complaints against him from a senior judge of the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court Collegium, after examining the complaints, found no merit in them, and reiterated its recommendation to shift Justice Manjunath as Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, sources said.

With the Top Court collegium standing firm on its position, the Centre now has no option but to appoint Justice Manjunath as Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court.

Karnataka HC judge faces conflict of interest in housing case

A judge of the High Court of Karnataka is set to hear a case that is likely to impact the fate of a housing society plot owned by his daughter.

An investigation by The Hindu shows that K.M. Chaitra, daughter of Justice K.L. Manjunath, was allotted the plot when she was living with her father and showed his residence as her address. The allotment appears to put Justice Manjunath in a position of conflict of interest as he heads a Division Bench that is hearing a public interest litigation (No. 21860/2011) petition related to allotment of housing society plots.

The petitioners in this PIL have questioned a Government Order (GO) passed on November 20, 2010 by the State BJP government. The GO legalises the allotment of housing society plots to non-members by admitting them into the cooperative society as associate members at the time of sale.

Documents accessed by this newspaper show that Ms. Chaitra was not a member of the Vyalikaval House Building Cooperative Society and was made an Associate Member at the time of the allotment of a 5,460 sq. ft plot at Nagawara, an upmarket area on the road to Bengaluru International Airport.

The sale deed dated February 8, 2004 shows that the plot was sold to her for Rs. 6.82 lakh. As on date, the plot is estimated at Rs. 1.63 crore @ Rs. 3,000 per sq. ft. Meanwhile, hundreds of members who joined the housing society in 1984 continue to wait for an allotment.

Significantly, the allotment to Ms. Chaitra was made at a time when she stayed with her father. This is borne out by the fact that the permanent address, mentioned in the sale deed, is that of Justice Manjunath. Further, as per the list of assets declared by the judge, he is the owner of that residence.

Consequently, the allotment appears to be in violation of Section 10 (a) of the government-framed model bye-laws for house building cooperative societies, which mandates that an allottee or her family should not have any other residential property in Bangalore; the same section also bars multiple allotments.

The very rationale for cooperative housing societies rests on the premise that they enable persons who are unable to pay market prices to afford a dwelling unit at subsidised cost. Indeed, Section 10 (a) was in fact inserted in the bye-laws to ensure that only genuine and needy persons are allotted sites. It is for this reason that aspirants were mandatorily required to file affidavits declaring that they do not own any other residential property in the city. This is done in order to weed out applicants who do not demonstrate a dire need for a dwelling unit, a lawyer familiar with the rules said.

Justice Manjunath declined to comment when The Hindu contacted him on Wednesday evening for a response.

Asked for his legal opinion, Team Anna member and Supreme Court lawyer Prashant Bhushan said, “The [housing cooperative society] plot allotment scam is a huge one in Karnataka. Justice Manjunath should not hear the case because of conflict of interest. An application can be filed asking him to recuse himself.”

The Vyalikaval House Building Cooperative Society Ltd. has been at the centre of controversy over the past one year.

This is the same society that allotted a 4,012 sq. ft plot to the wife of retired Supreme Court judge and former Lokayukta Shivaraj Patil. When the allegedly irregular allotment was exposed by two newspapers, including The Hindu in September 2011, Mr. Patil resigned as the Lokayukta and returned the controversial plot. Mr. Patil’s post has since been vacant. Two other judges, nominated to succeed Mr. Patil, withdrew from the race after details emerged of their own involvement with housing society allotments.

Former High Court judge and Upalokayukta R. Gururajan too was forced to step down after details of society plots that had been allotted to him in apparent violation of the law were published in the media.

Editorial : Court Fixing not Judgement Fixing alone ?

Throught this issue , term JUDGE includes all the public officials functioning judicial / quasi judicial functions right from munsif , taluk magistrate to supreme court judge. Nowadays political dispensations , powers that be are appointing unfit persons , persons who are favorable to them to the posts of judges. Government is one of the biggest litigant in the country & powers that be misusing their constitutional positions are doing many acts against the letter & spirit of constitution. Whenever aggrieved persons approach courts of justice , the hand picked persons of powers that be in the chair of judge will give favorable judgements / rulings. The said judge will make far fetched interpretations consider outlandish arguments all to favor powers that be . As a result common people are being meted out injustice even in the courts of law & public exchequer is cheated of.

Urgent need of the hour is establishment of professional , impartial , transparent mechanism for appointment , promotion , transfer of judges.

This is the very reason we have raised following questions in RTI appeal to supreme court of india & parliament to clearly define the work practices of it’s members. But they are not answering , because they will be caught for wrongdoings. Just consider the previous cases of elevation of P D dinakaran & V gopala gowda.

Hope saner sense will prevail on supreme court of india . Jai Hind. Vande mataram.

Your’s

Nagaraja.M.R.

Justice Markandey Katju's Allegations Confirmed by Ex-Law Minister

When asked about why he waited for 10 years to disclose that an allegedly corrupt judge was allowed to continue in office in the Madras High Court, Justice Markandey Katju insisted on NDTV that the "question is not why I did not make this disclosure earlier, the question is whether what I'm saying is correct or not."

When the interviewer pressed for an explanation about his timing, he pulled out his earpiece and ended the interview.

Justice Katju, now the chairman of the Press Council of India, was in 2004-5 the Chief Justice of the Madras High Court. He claims that an Intelligence Bureau investigation sought by him, confirmed the charges, but that three ex-Chief Justices of India made "improper compromises" by refusing to end the term of the judge.

Their actions, he said, were the result of political pressure - without naming the DMK, he said that an ally from Tamil Nadu of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh warned it would quit the coalition if the judge was removed.

The DMK has denied the allegations with senior leaders saying there was no truth in it. Party chief M Karunanidhi is expected to respond tomorrow.

The new BJP government said "Manmohan Singh should clarify what was happening in his regime."

Congress leader HR Bhardwaj, who was the Law Minister at the time, confirmed that the judge was backed by a large group of MPs who complained about Justice Katju's opposition.

"Around 18 SC/ST MPs met PM Manmohan Singh in 2004 and complained about injustice to the accused additional judge," Mr Bhardwaj told NDTV, adding that "ultimately, the Chief Justice of India cleared the appointment."

Justice Katju alleges that Chief Justice RC Lahoti extended the two-year tenure of the controversial judge. Justice YK Sabharwal allegedly gave the corrupt judge another term despite an adverse Intelligence report and Justice KG Balakrishnan confirmed him as permanent judge but transferred him to another state.

Justice Lahoti told NDTV, "Everything is a matter of record. I have never done anything wrong in my life." While Justice Balakrishnan, the current chairman of the National Human Rights Commission said that the judge's confirmation was cleared by the Chief Justice of the Madras High Court, but he did what he could. "There were allegations that this judge was close to the ruling party (the DMK) ...so I transferred him to Andhra Pradesh," he told NDTV.

The accused judge had reportedly granted bail to DMK chief M Karunanidhi after his dramatic midnight arrest by the Jayalalithaa government in 2001.

Some questions for Justice Lahoti

Justice Lahoti, the former Chief Justice of India, when contacted by some media people about my statement which was published on my blog and in Times of India yesterday, generally remarked that he has never done anything wrong in his life. He has not gone into any specifics, so let me put him some specific questions :

1. Is it , or is it not, correct that I first wrote him a letter from Chennai, stating that there were serious allegations of corruption about an Additional Judge of Madras High Court, and therefore he ( Justice Lahoti ) should get a secret intelligence enquiry held against that Additional Judge,and thereafter I personally met Justice Lahoti at Delhi and again requested for a secret IB enquiry against the Additional Judge about whom I had received several complaints, and from several sources, that he was indulging in corruption ?

2. Is it, or is it not, correct that on my request Justice Lahoti ordered a secret IB enquiry against that Judge ?

3. Is it, or is it not correct, that a few weeks after I personally met him in Delhi and then returned to Chennai, he telephoned me from Delhi ( while I was at Chennai ) and told me that the IB, after thorough enquiry, gave a report that indeed the Judge was indulging in corruption ?

4. Is it , or is it not, correct that after receiving the adverse IB report against the Additional Judge, Justice Lahoti, who was then Chief Justice of India, called a meeting of the 3 Judge Supreme Court Collegium, consisting of himself, Justice Sabarwal, and Justice Ruma Pal, and the 3 Judge Collegium, having perused the IB report recommended to the Government of India not to extend the 2 year term of that Additional Judge ?

5. Is it , or is it not, correct that after that recommendation of the 3 Judge Collegium of the Supreme Court was sent to the Government of India, he ( Justice Lahoti ), on his own, without consulting his 2 other Supreme Court Collegium colleagues, wrote a letter to the Government of India asking the Government to give another 1 year term as Additional Judge to the concerned Judge ?

6. If indeed the IB reported, after an enquiry, that the Judge was indulging in corruption, why did he ( Justice Lahoti ) recommend to the Government of India to give that corrupt Judge another term of 1 year as Additional Judge in the High Court ?

Some people have commented about the timing of my statement. What happened was that some Tamilians had commented on Facebook that I am posting several matters on my Facebook post, so I should also post some of my experiences in Madras High Court. Then I started posting about my experiences there, and it was at time I remembered this experience too, and posted it.

How a corrupt Judge continued in the Madras High Court

There was an Additional Judge of the Madras High Court against whom there were several allegations of corruption. He had been directly appointed as a District Judge in Tamilnadu, and during his career as District Judge there were as many as 8 adverse entries against him recorded by various portfolio Judges of the Madras High Court. But one Acting Chief Justice of Madras High Court by a single stroke of his pen deleted all those 8 adverse entries, and consequently he became an Additional Judge of the High Court, and he was on that post when I came as Chief Justice of Madras High Court in November 2004.

That Judge had the solid support of a very important political leader of Tamilnadu. I was told that this was because while a District Judge he granted bail to that political leader.

Since I was getting many reports about his corruption, I requested the Chief Justice of India, Justice Lahoti, to get a secret IB enquiry made about him. A few weeks thereafter, while I was in Chennai, I received a call from the Secretary of the CJI saying that the CJI wanted to talk to me. Justice Lahoti then came on the line and said that what I had complained about had been found true. Evidently the IB had found enough material about the Judge's corruption.

Since the 2 year term as Additional Judge of that person was coming to an end I assumed he would be discontinued as a Judge of the High Court in view of the IB report. However what actually happened was that he got another 1 year appointment as an Additional Judge, though 6 other Additional Judges who had been appointed with him were confirmed and made permanent Judges of the High Court.

I later learnt how this happened. The Supreme Court Collegium consists of 5 seniormost Judges for recommending names for appointment as a Supreme Court Judge, and 3 seniormost Judges for dealing with High Courts.

The 3 senior most Judges in the Supreme Court at that time were the Chief Justice of India, Justice Lahoti, Justice Sabarwal, and Justice Ruma Pal. This Supreme Court Collegium recommended that in view of the adverse IB report the Judge should be discontinued as a High Court Judge after his 2 year term was over, and this recommendation was sent to the Central Government.

The Central Government at that time was the UPA Government. The Congress was no doubt the largest party in this alliance, but it did not have a majority in the Lok Sabha, and was dependent on support by it allies. One of such ally was the party in Tamilnadu which was backing this corrupt Judge. On coming to know of the recommendation of the 3 Judge Supreme Court Collegium they strongly objected to it.
The information I got was that Prime Minister Manmohan Singh was at that time leaving for New York to attend the U.N. General Assembly Session. At the Delhi airport he was told by the Ministers of that party of Tamilnadu ( who were Congress allies ) that by the time he returns from New York his government would have fallen as that Tamilnadu party would withdraw support to the UPA ( for not continuing that Additional judge ).

On hearing this Manmohan Singh panicked, but he was told by a senior Congress minister not to worry, and he would manage everything. That Minister then went to Justice Lahoti and told him there would be a crisis if that Additional Judge of Tamilnadu was discontinued. On hearing this Justice Lahoti sent a letter to the Government of India to give another term of 1 year as additional Judge to that corrupt Judge, ( I wonder whether he consulted his two Supreme Court Collegium members ),and it was in these circumstances this corrupt Judge was given another 1 year term as Additional Judge ( while his 6 batch mates as Additional Judges were confirmed as permanent Judges ).

The Additional Judge was later given another term as Additional Judge by the new CJI Justice Sabarwal, and then confirmed as a permanent judge by the next CJI Justice K.G. Balkrishnan, but transferred to another High Court.

I have related all this to show how the system actually works, whatever it is in theory. In fact in view of the adverse IB report the Judge should not even have been continued as an Additional Judge

Attempt to influence HC judge: A Raja named

In further embarrassment to former Telecom Minister A Raja, the Madras High Court today suspended from the bar a top lawyer who was allegedly involved in an attempt to influence a judge taking the name of the minister.

A Division Bench, comprising Justice F.M.Ibrahim Khalifulla and Justice M.M.Sundaresh, said the status of R K Chandramohan, a member and subsequently as Chairman of the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Pondichery, shall stand suspended forthwith.

He should not not be permitted to function as such pending disciplinary action by the Bar Council of India, the bench said.

Disposing of a petition by a lawyer, the Bench appended a portion of a letter written by a former judge of the court Justice S Reghupati, who had reported that Chandramohan had entered his chamber last year and pleaded that the case of a father and a son, accused in a marks scandal case in Puducherry, for anticipatory bail be considered favourably as they were "family friends of a Union Minister by name Raja".

The lawyer handed over his mobile phone to the judge saying that the "union minister is on the line to have a talk with me".

"I discouraged such conduct of Mr. Chandramohan and told him that the case would be disposed of in accordance with law, if listed before me," Justice Reghupati had said in his letter of July 7, 2009 to the then Chief Justice of India.

Justice Reghupati, who has since retired, had in his letter, complained about the Chandramohan's "outburst and uncontrollable" behaviour.

Earlier, the judge had in the open court last year alleged that a Union Minister, through a lawyer, attempted to speak to him on telephone seeking favours in a case being investigated by CBI posted the matter to another judge. But he had not not named the minister.

In his letter to the CJI, Justice Reghupati had observed that " a counsel, who made an attempt to exert influence on the court by using the name of a Cabinet minister, cannot be allowed to succeed in snatching an order in his favour by advancing threat".

The issue became a raging controversy that the then CJI had told the media that the judge had sent a report to him making it clear that no no union minister spoke to him directly.

Justice Reghupati made those remarks addressing Chandramohan, who was appearing in connection with an anticipatory bail plea by S Kirub Shridhar, a third year student in a private medical college in Puducherry, and his doctor-father Krishnamoorthy.

The bail pleas were moved by Chandramohan on behalf of the two who had been booked by the CBI for allegedly using the services of a Pondicherry University official and a middleman to inflate marks to get a medical seat at the time of admission.

Justice Reghupati, in his letter to the CJI, had observed that Chandramohan made a plea to him that the court should call for the case diary and hear the case with reference to the material collected during the course of investigation.

"I have impressed upon the representing counsel by explicating that a like direction could be given to the prosecution only in the event of a judge satisfying that such course is inevitable and absolutely necessary in a given situation and that on mere demands and as a matter of routine such exercise cannot be undertaken.

"At that time Mr. Chandramohan stood up and made a similar demand and when I emphatically declined to accede to his adamant demand, he vociferously remarked that the Court is always taking sides with the prosecution and not not accepting the submissions made by the counsel for the accused while giving importance to the Prosecutor.

"On such pointless remark, I said that the counsel had engaged to argue on his behalf has made his submission and he is not not supposed to pass such slanderous and derogatory remarks," Justice Reghupati had said in his letter.

The lawyer, who had filed the petition, moved the Court for debarring Chandramohan from continuing as Bar Council Chairman for his alleged misconduct and order the Bar Council of India to take disciplinary action against him.

The Bench also said Justice Reghupathi's letter shall be under the custody of the Registrar General in a sealed cover which, however, shall be part of the case.

Ex-CJI was aware of Raja influencing judge: SC Judge

In an embarrassment to former CJI K G Balakrishnan, Supreme Court Judge H L Gokhale today contradicted his claim that he was not aware that it was former Union Telecom Minister A Raja, who had tried to influence a Madras High Court judge in a criminal case.

In a statement, Justice Gokhale, who was the chief justice of the Madras High Court at that time, said that in his letter to Justice Balakrishnan, the then CJI, he had clearly referred to the name of Raja.

Justice Gokhale's statement totally contradicts Justice Balakrishnan's claim that there was no mention of any Union Minister in the report sent by Justice Gokhale, then High Court Chief Justice, on Justice S Reghupathi episode.

"I regret to say that the allegations are absolutely incorrect," Balakrishan had said last week referring to news reports that he had suppressed a letter purportedly written by Justice Reghupathi to him when he was Chief Justice of India.

In a statement today, Justice Gokhale said, "The former CJI has stated in his press conference that in my letter I did not mention the name of any Union Minister having talked to Justice Reghupathi over phone to influence him."

"With respect to this statement I may point out that Justice Reghupathi's letter was already with him and in the second paragraph thereof justice Reghupathi had specifically mentioned the name of Raja.

"I had no personal knowledge about the incident and observations in my reply wherein are in conformity with the contents of Justice Reghupathi's," Justice Gokhale said.

Daughter-in-law files dowry harassment case against AP High Court judge in Chennai

The daughter-in-law of a sitting Andhra Pradesh High Court judge has filed a dowry harassment complaint against her husband and his family members. Kavya Rao (30) a resident of Chennai came to the Chennai Police Commissioner's officer on Wednesday afternoon and filed the formal complaint. In her complaint Kavya said her father, a Chennai based businessman arranged her wedding with the High Court judge's son in 2007. She said during their marriage her parents had paid Rs.43.5 lakh as dowry, but the judge and his wife and other relatives demanded Rs.50 lakh more. Kavya also said that her husband lost his job in 2008 and hence they moved from Bangalore to Hyderabad. "Ever since the harassment began and my in - laws pressurised me to bring in atleast 50 lakhs rupees immediately"

Kavya in her complaint also submitted that since her family could not arrange this much money immediately she was made to starve by her inlaws. But after some time her parents gave her inlaws money at frequent intervals. When she could not tolerate the agony she returned to Chennai to live with her parents.

But even after that the troubles did not end for her , her father-in-law lodged a false complaint against her father. On the instigations of the judge, abduction and theft cases were filed against my father she said and added the judge is influencing the police in Chennai. Her husband came to her house in Chennai a week ago and ransacked it . Kavya has a small baby girl. In her complaint she said her husband, mother-in-law and father-in-law are attempting to abduct her child.

The complaint was filed with the Additional Commissioner of Police (headquarers) R.S. Nallasivam. It was later forwarded to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Adayar range for further investigations. "We have informed the Chief Justice of India. The AP High Court judge is attempting to influence the local police here. We will wait for four or five days. If the Police does not take any action we will move the Madras High Court for direction to the Chennai Police Commissioner to take suitable action in this regard" said K.Balu, advocate of Kavya in an interveiw with India Today Online.

Proposal for Reconsideration of Judges Case I, II, and III

http://www.google.co.in/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CCgQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Flawcommissionofindia.nic.in%2Freports%2Freport214.pdf&ei=RyDCU-z8O8a1uASwuYGYBw&usg=AFQjCNGoNSmN3uXjGazKk9skKmJXAFHZRA&cad=rja ,

Why was Justice Shah bypassed for elevation to the Supreme Court?

In October 2008, The Government of India recommended to the collegium of the Supreme Court that Justice Ajit Shah of the Delhi High Court should be elevated to the Supreme Court.

He was not elevated, though the Government tried twice. Judges junior to him were recommended.

Any idea why? Is it because he allowed the Supreme Court to come within the ambit of the RTI?

Uday Lalit to be new Supreme Court judge after Gopal Subramaniam controversy

A day after the Union Budget 2014 was presented, the Narendra Modi-led National Democratic Alliance government has zeroed in on Uday Lalit as the new judge of the Supreme Court of India. Senior lawyer Uday Lalit was also the special prosecutor in the controversial 2G spectrum case. The development came in after NDA didn’t support the candidature of former Solicitor-General Gopal Subramaniam’s appointment as the Supreme Court judge.

Amit Shah, who was appointed as the Bharatiya Janata Party president on Thursday, July 10, had earlier availed services of Uday Lalit in two eminent criminal cases. Amit Shah was accused like murder and conspiracy along with Uday Lalit. Three other senior High Court judges were suggested by the Supreme Court bench comprising Rajendra Mal Lodha, Chief Justice of India.

The appointment of Uday Lalit comes days after the Narendra Modi government refused to support Gopal Subramaniam as the next Supreme Court judge. Uday Lalit’s appointment also douses the controversy over Subramaniam’s candidature as an Apex Court judge.

“I’m fully conscious that my independence as a lawyer is causing apprehensions that I will not toe the government line. This factor has been decisive in refusing to appoint me,” said Gopal Subramaniam in his letter to Chief justice of India.

The BJP government rejected the suggestion of Subramaniam’s appointment and requested the Supreme Court bench to reconsider it. Subramanian has also alleged that there was a smear campaign against him and the charges levelled against him were false.

Others who were recommended for the role were Orissa High Court Chief Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel, senior advocate Rohinton Nariman, and Calcutta High Court Chief Justice Arun Mishra.

Gopal Subramaniam controversy: Govt overstepped its boundaries, says CJI Lodha

In an assertion that may pitch the government and the top judiciary head-on, Chief Justice of India RM Lodha on Tuesday said that the government had acted unilaterally in segregating the name of former solicitor general Gopal Subramanium from the panel of four names, recommended by the collegium for appointment as apex court judges.

Chief Justice Lodha made this disclosure at a function organised to bid farewell to Justice BS Chauhan, who retired yesterday.

"The segregation (of Subramanium's name) was unilaterally done by the executive (government) without my knowledge and consent," Chief Justice Lodha said at the function.

"The first thing I have taken objection to that the segregation of Subramanium's proposal from other three proposals unilaterally by the executive without my knowledge and concurrence was not proper," he said.

The apex court collegium had recommended four names including that of another former solicitor general Rohinton Nariman for appointment as judges of the Supreme Court but the government, while clearing three names, returned the name of Subramanium for reconsideration by the collegium.

While Chief Justice Lodha expressed his dismay with the government segregating Subramanium's name and returning his recommendation, he also expressed regret over Subramanium jumping the gun and releasing to the media a letter written to him while he was abroad.

He said that he had asked Subramanium to wait for him to return and deal with the matter.

Chief Justice Lodha said that soon after reaching Delhi, he had a 75 minute meeting with Subramanium and asked him to reconsider his letter withdrawing his consent to be a judge of the top court.

"Subramanium told me that he would get back the next day but instead he sent a brief letter expressing his inability to revisit his decision to withdraw the consent" he said.

"Independence of judiciary will never be compromised," Chief Justice Lodha assured the members of the bar present at the function as he referred to the excerpts of Subramanium's letter wherein the latter had said: "I am, however, unable to dispel the sense of unease that the judiciary has failed to assert its independence by respecting the likes and dislikes of the executive."

Describing as "shocking" the allegation of independence of the judiciary being compromised, Chief Justice Lodha said that he will not stay in the post even for a minute if the independence of the judiciary was compromised.

Saying that he was a fierce upholder of the independence of the judiciary, he said that he had worked for the institution first as a judge of a high court, then of the apex court and now as the Chief Justice of India.

Clearly sounding hurt at fingers being pointed at the independence of judiciary, he said: "For last more than 20 years, I fought for independence of judiciary and to me this is one subject which is not negotiable. At no cost, the independence of judiciary can be allowed to be compromised."

"I will be the first man to leave this chair...if I know that judiciary's independence has been compromised. I will not hold my office for a second," he asserted.

Govt not entitled to judge my character: Gopal Subramanium to CJI

Putting an end to the ongoing controversy over his nomination by a Supreme Court collegium for the post of a judge in the apex court, former solicitor general Gopal Subramanium has withdrawn his candidature.

According to reports, the senior lawyer withdrew his candidature from the judge's post on Wednesday following media reports which said the NDA government objecting to his appointment as a Supreme Court judge, because of his 'links' with corporate lobbyist Nira Radia and a 'negative' CBI report.

The government is understood to have returned the recommendation for his appointment to the apex court to its collegium with a request to reconsider the decision.

Sources in the government said while returning the recommendation relating to the former Solicitor General to the collegium headed by Chief Justice of India R M Lodha, the government cleared the other names for appointment.

Those cleared were Calcutta High Court Chief Justice Arun Mishra, Orissa High Court Chief Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel and senior advocate Rohinton Nariman. The warrants of appointments in these cases are likely to be issued by the Rashtrapati Bhavan shortly, the sources said.

The government is learnt to have sent a note to the collegium giving out reasons for its reservations over appointing Subramanium to the apex court.

As amicus curiae in the Sohrabuddin fake encounter case, Subramanium was critical of the Gujarat government headed by Narendra Modi and brought out new facts on the basis of which the Supreme Court had ordered a CBI probe into the case.

As per the Memorandum of Procedure relating to the appointment of Supreme Court judges, the government can return the file for reconsideration once. But if the collegium reiterates its recommendation, the government has to comply with it.

There is no fixed time frame for the government to appoint a judge once the recommendation is reiterated by the collegium. It is very rare that the collegium recommends names of lawyers to be appointed as Supreme Court judges.

Justice N Santosh Hegde was the last lawyer to have been elevated directly to the SC. Hegde was appointed as a judge of the apex court in 1999.

CID chargesheets 6 officials in KPSC scam

The criminal investigation department (CID) has filed a chargesheet against six officials of the Karnataka Public Service Commission (KPSC) in connection with alleged irregularities in the recruitment of 162 Group-A and 200 Group-B gazetted probationers in 2011.

The 10,521-page chargesheet names former KPSC chairman Gonal Manjappa, special officer Arunachalam S, Ashok Kumar B, personal assistant to KPSC member Mangala Sridhar, and officials Sudhir alias Sridhar, Somanath M Chikkamath alias Somesh and K Rajshekhar as accused.

CID sources said KPSC member Mangala Sridhar and former KPSC secretary Sunder are yet to be chargesheeted as investigations against them are still on. The chargesheet was submitted to the 23rd additional city city civil and sessions judge.

The six officials have been charged under sections 119 (concealing design to commit offence by a public servant); 166 (disobeyance by public servant); 167 (framing incorrect documents by a public servant); 468 (forgery for the purpose of cheating); 201(causing disappearance of evidence) and 465 (forgery) read with 37 (cooperation in committing offence) of the Indian Penal Code.

Some sections under the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 have also been invoked against them.

The CID said they had taken 216 witness accounts while investigating the case, which was first registered at the Vidhana Soudha police station in January 2013 on complaints from candidates. They accused the KPSC of overlooking them and allegedly favouring those not qualified in written or oral examinations.

What is the case

The scandalous recruitment scam, nicknamed as the cash-for-jobs racket, was registered in June last year with Vidhana Soudha police and later referred to the CID.

The case was filed by the department of personnel and administrative reforms (DPAR), which forwarded the complaints of Dr Mythri and Ajay G with a note to register a first information report (FIR).

Legal experts in the directorate of prosecution recommended that a case be registered. It was then referred to the CID on the director general of police (DGP)'s recommendation.

The scandal relates to the examination held for 362 gazetted probationers' posts (KAS Groups A and B) in April-May 2013.

Supreme Court vs government over promotions for three ...

Supreme Court vs government over promotions for three judges

The Supreme Court collegium is sticking to its decision of elevating the chief justices of the High Courts of Orissa, Karnataka and Tamil Nadu to the top court, sources have told NDTV.

The collegium had nominated Orissa High Court Chief Justice V Gopala Gowda, Karnataka High Court Chief Justice Vikramjit Sen and Madras High Court Chief Justice M Y Eqbal, but the government had asked it to reconsider the names and also whether the panel had considered allegations against them.

The collegium, comprising of five senior judges and headed by the Chief Justice of India Altamas Kabir, in its reply to the government reportedly said it has already considered the allegations raised but was satisfied with the names and cleared their names for elevation.

The government will now have to approve the names of these three judges as under the present system, if the collegium sends back the names, then the government is bound to consider them for elevation.

Indian Judiciary stands in Cross Road

Indian Judiciary stands in Cross Road,lawyers in Orissa High Court comment. Judges in higher judiciary including Supreme Court of India are now brought to the touch stone of integrity and morale values .Judges are human being not the god as we address them in an anglicized words as “My lord,your lordship and the like” and all human instincts are in them as a result of which Justice A.K.Ganguly has been brought under the scanner but that can also be avoided by forming a panel to examine the truthfulness as that of the panel constituted in the case of sex scandal against three judges of Karnatak High Court namely Justice N.S.Veerbhadraiah, Justice Chandrasekhariah and Justice V.Gopal Gowda by a committee comprising of Chief Justice of Bombay High Court -Justice C.K Thakkar ,Chief Justice of Kerala High Court :Justice G.L.Gupta and the then senior judge of Orissa High court :Justice A.K.Patnaik and the voice of the people in the country appeared to have been chocked under the threat of Contempt of Court,but fact remains ,the intellectuals were not happy the manner ,the three judges were given the clean chit by the judges themselves regardless of the existing investigating mechanism upon which the judiciary ,at the main, rely upon. Once a domain for particular expertise is devised ,is it at all proper to be a judge of one’s own cause. The judges brought under scanning then and for whom entire judiciary in our country was blamed have also been rewarded with their time to time elevation; and on the other hand, any judicial member in subordinate judiciary if brought under the threat of any such allegation are being dispensed with .Umpteen number of instances are now surfaced. As per opinion survey ,the Odisha Bulletin Bureau has collected the views from intellectuals of different field of expertise, the judges are in pivotal post of passing the rulings but the efficiency of a judge now matters and that being so ,selection of the judges ought to be kept away from the reach of monopolist mechanism of a group ,may it be judiciary or bureaucratic or the political masters those are always found to be in neck deep corruption ; and a set of standard of rigorous principle of selection has to be adopted to prevent unworthy personalities from joining judiciary embodied with the threat of Re-Call mechanism and a dynastic approach in the selection of judges should not have direct or indirect influence on the issue .Now- a-days ,it is invariably seen that judges breeds judges regardless merit or suitability for the highest constitutional post of the country ; it is also seen that the children of the judges or the relations, as the case may be , practicing in courts are appearing to be loaded with cases from private and also government agencies meaning thereby that fertility germinates no sooner one of the family members becomes gets elevation to judgeship. Open corridor discussion suggests ,relation of many judges in the High Court Judicature of Orissa have managed to create name ,fame and fortune within shortest tenure of their practicing law .The theory of uncle judge has had its vital role in Orissa High Court.

In order to get rid of public blame and in order to save the image of judiciary ,now hence the judge selection ought to be done with care and caution ,not by favoritism.In Orissa ,it is seen, judges elevated to Supreme court are having lot of tours to the state as that of a politicians more likely as Constituency Judge and are apprehend to have been twisting the selection process and this has become a common and open scene for Orissa High Court. Within last couple of months judges from supreme court have made their recurring and successive visits to the state for this plea or other and therefore ,public comment on them being the Constituency Judges.

Be you ever so high ,the law is above you, CJI P. Sadasivam told .In this juncture taking the probing mechanism to the judiciary itself bye-passing the established mechanism of probing and / or investigation is nothing but arresting the democracy of the country,public comment; and therefore,Justice Ganguly be allowed to face the investigating agency with due regard to his law making process ,not law breaking when it comes to his person.

Before law ,every body should be treated equally ,may he be Asharam, Tarun Tejpal , Justice A.K.Ganguly, Justice Altmas Kabir and the like .

In Orissa High Court , half a dozen of judges are alleged to have grabbed land of the govt in concessional rates in the guise of discretionary quota ,but nothing happened in spite of best efforts being put from different quarters of the society and adding few more instances ,it is surprising ,Justice P.k.Tripathy during his active tenure has unauthorisedly acquired more than one acres of land in CDA and carried on cultivation by employing staffs of Orissa High court ,but nothing happened because he was after all a judge and the person to address on such illegality is also nothing but a judge in fact and in the close neighbourhood.Gradually , the temple of justice is losing the confidence of the people ,bad sign for the democracy.

Dreaming to have a country shaping into progressive modernity can be destroyed if judiciary ,last hope of the common mass, lost to the scanner.

UPA Lok Ayukta should have clean image: MF Saldanha to governor

Justice Chandrashekaraiah’s appointment as the second Upa Lok Ayukta has been questioned by Justice MF Saldanha, also a former judge of the Karnataka high court.

Justice Chandrashekaraiah’s appointment as the second Upa Lok Ayukta has been questioned by Justice MF Saldanha, also a former judge of the Karnataka high court.
In a letter written to governor HR Bhardwaj, Justice Saldanha said the highest standard must be maintained to uphold the institution of the Lok Ayukta.
DNAhas a copy of the letter written by Saldanha to the governor.
Justice Saldanha pointed out that Chandrashekaraiah did not hold a clean record, and named the controversies that the latter was involved in — including the infamous Mysore Roost Resort scandal. Saldanha requested the governor to choose a person with a clean track record for the post of Lok Ayukta.
Chandrashekaraiah was appointed the second Upa Lok Ayukta on January 21, while the state government and governor Bhardwaj were already engaged in a bitter battle over the appointment of Lok Ayukta. The governor has thrice rejected the state government’s recommendation to appoint former Kerala high court Chief Justice SR Bannurmath as Lok Ayukta of Karnataka.
The second Upa Lok Ayukta’s post had been lying vacant since October, when Justice R Gururajan resigned citing family and health issues.
Summarising the controversies in which Justice Chandrashekaraiah was involved, Saldanha alleged that the former was involved in the Roost Resort sex scandal. Saldanha also cited a case where Chandrashekaraiah was beaten up with slippers by a schoolmaster, who accused the judge of siding with the accused.
Justice Saldanha said: “The post of Upa Lok Ayukta is very important and sensitive. The appointee must inspire total confidence and if there is even a slight blemish in his track record, it would disqualify the candidate.” He further pointed out that citizens should be informed about the name that has been recommended and be given enough time to post their objections, if any, to the government.
“But in the case of Chandrashekaraiah, no one was aware that his name was recommended and he was sworn in before any material could have been placed before the appointing authority. Such degree of speed can be damaging,” Justice Saldanha said.
Speaking to DNA, Justice Saldanha said: “The crucial appointment of Lok Ayukta is yet to be done. Let the person appointed have a clean and clear track record. Let not the mistakes made in the appointment for Upa Lok Ayukta be repeated. The Upa Lok Ayukta appointment was made in a hushed manner.”
DNA, in a series of reports, had pointed out that judges of the Karnataka high court and Supreme Court were allotted sites by the Karnataka State Judicial Employees House Building Co-operative Society, in violation of by-laws.
Justice Chandrashekaraiah was also allotted a site when he was the judge of the high court.
On this issue, Justice MF Saldanha said: “A member of the higher judiciary is a constitutional functionary and cannot claim to be a judicial employee. He cannot avail a site meant for an employee and it is bad. This position was held by the 1995 division bench of the Karnataka high court.” When DNA contacted Chandrashekaraiah, he hit out at Saldanha and refused to comment on the letter.

Read :

Justice, Judocracy and Democracy in India: Boundaries and ... ,

http://books.google.co.in/books?id=n_4jAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA202&lpg=PA202&dq=elevation+to+india+supreme+court+judge+scandals&source=bl&ots=jOnaFNbdlt&sig=dbp0QNRaEamIBwHUYFCGGoY0-B0&hl=en&sa=X&ei=WRzCU_zMK8yWuATSoIGQAg&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=elevation%20to%20india%20supreme%20court%20judge%20scandals&f=false

The strange case against Justice P.D. Dinakaran | churumuri

APPLICATION FOR INFORMATION AS PER RTI ACT 2005
( SEE RULE 22 OF RTI ACT 2005 )

FULL NAME OF THE APPLICANT : NAGARAJA.M.R.

ADDRESS OF THE APPLICANT : NAGARAJA.M.R.,

EDITOR , SOS E-VOICE JUSTICE & SOS E-CLARION OF DALIT ,

# LIG-2 / 761, OPP WATER WORKS OFFICE,

HUDCO FIRST STAGE, LAXMIKANTANAGAR,

HEBBAL, MYSORE , KARNATAKA PIN – 570017.

We salute honest few in public service , Judiciary , police , parliament & state legislative assemblies. our whole hearted respects to them. HEREBY , I DO HUMBLY REQUEST YOU TO GIVE ME WRITTEN STATEMENTS / ANSWERS TO THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS – WHICH IN ITSELF ( ie answers ) ARE THE INFORMATION SOUGHT BY ME. HERE WITH I AM SEEKING NOT THE OPINIONS ABOUT SOME HYPOTHETICAL ISSUES , BUT YOUR OFFICIAL STAND , LEGAL STAND ON ISSUES WHICH ARE OF FREQUENT OCCURRENCE WHICH ARE VIOLATING PEOPLE’S FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS & HUMAN RIGHTS. WE DO HAVE HIGHEST RESPECTS FOR JUDICIARY & ALL PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS , THIS IS AN APPEAL FOR TRUTH , INFORMATION SO THAT TO APPREHEND CORRUPT FEW IN PUBLIC SERVICE, WHO ARE AIDING & ABETTING TERRORISM , UNDERWORLD & CRIMINALS. I HAVE SHOWN IN DETAIL WITH LIVE , ACTUAL CASES , EXAMPLES , HOW INDIAN LEGAL SYSTEM IS MANIPULATED BY CRIMINALS WITHIN JUDICIARY , POLICE , PROSECUTION , ETC. READ DETAILS AT :

https://sites.google.com/site/eclarionofdalit/wheeling-dealing-judges-police ,

Atrocities on Women by JUDGES

https://sites.google.com/site/eclarionofdalit/atrocities-by-judges

A – Z of Manipulation of Indian Legal System

http://www.scribd.com/doc/187575206/A-Z-of-Manipulation-of-India-Legal-System ,

http://www.scribd.com/doc/173854541/Chief-Justice-of-India-A-Criminal ,

Justice Sathasivam - Are you DEAF DUMB & BLIND

https://sites.google.com/site/eclarionofdalit/justice-sathasivam---are-you-deaf-dumb-blind ,

Rajiv Gandhi Assassination Cover-up

https://sites.google.com/site/sosevoiceforjustice/rajiv-gandhi-assassination-cover-up ,

SHAME SHAME MPs & MLAs

https://sites.google.com/site/sosevoiceforjustice/shame-shame-mps-mlas ,

Hereby , we do request CPIO O/O Honourable Chief Justice of India , Supreme Court of India , New Delhi to answer the following questions in public interest , for safeguarding national security , National unity & integrity & to legally apprehend anti-nationals , criminals within the judiciary & police.

1 . How many judges are booked for graft , sexual crimes , crimes against women , irregularities , amassing disproportionate wealth , failure of duty , getting illegal allotment of sites & other crimes since independence till date , yearwise ?

2. what action taken casewise ?

3. are the action taken similar to commoners , common people committing same type of crimes ?

4. did all the cases handled by tainted judges subjected to review , retrial by other honest judges ?

5. how many advocates were prosecuted by court for influencing witnesses / evidences , for tutored / concocted evidences , etc since independence till date , yearwise ? what action ? if not why ?

6. how many police officials / law enforcing officials were prosecuted by court for influencing , intimidating witnesses through threats , 3^rd degree torture , for concocted evidences , etc since independence till date , yearwise ? what action ? if not why ?

7. how many police / law enforcement officials were prosecuted for lock-up deaths , fake encounters , illegal detention , 3^rd degree torture , etc since independence till date , yearwise ? what action ? if not why ?

8. in how many cases police / law enforcement officials were made to pay compensation to innocent victims who were wrongly charged , detained & tortured , murdered by police , since independence till date , yearwise ? what action ? if not why ?

9. in some cases , on appeal judgements of higher court turns down the judgement of lower court. In how many such cases , lower court judge is made to pay compensation to victims of their wrong judgement , since independence till date yearwise ? what action ? if not why ?

10. how many judges have defaulted in filing their annual financial returns giving out their wealth , income details , yearwise since independence till date ? what action ? if not why ?

11. how you are verifying the annual financial returns of judges ?

12. since independence , how many convicts have been sentenced to “death by hanging” , yearwise ?

13. how many death sentances were carried out & how many are pending ?

14. how many police officials were made to pay compensation & prosecuted for defamation , when innocents falsely charged by police were acquitted , dropped from charges by courts ? if not why ?

15. how many lower court judges were made to pay compensation & prosecuted for defamation , when innocents wrongly convicted by lower court , but on appeal higher courts acquitting , dropping them of charges ? if not why ?

16. are judges getting paid from public exchequer , for their expenses on liquor / alcohol , body massages , etc in their TA DA bill while on tour , official visits , official parties hosted by judges ?

17. how many appeals for justice concerning public welfare , violation of human & fundamental rights , threat to lives / livelihood , etc were made to supreme court of india , by nagaraja mysore raghupathi alias nagaraja M R alias myself since 1990 till date ? appeals were made through ordinary post , registered post , e-mail & by web through DARPG , DPG. What ACTION taken by supreme court of india with respect to each appeal ?

18. due to negligence / connivance of supreme court judges injustices were meted out to public & public are still suffering injustices. Crimes which could have been prevented by SC happened eventhough brought to early notice of supreme court. What action against erring SC Judges ? if not why ?

19. I have repeatedly offered my services to supreme court of india , to apprehend criminals within judiciary , police & public service. What action taken by supreme court of india ? if not why ?

20. in my legal struggle for justice , due to negligence / connivance of SCI judges I have suffered murder attempts on my life , job losses , my newspaper closed , not getting press accreditation to my web news papers , threats by rowdies , police , etc. what action against erring chief justice of india ? if not why ?

22. I repeatedly appealed to supreme court of india to permit me to appear as amicus curie before supreme court of india & jain commission of enquiry regarding late PM Rajiv Gandhi assassination case. I was not permitted why ?

23. who are the judges covering-up Rajiv Gandhi assassination case ? what action taken ? if not why ?

24. Law is one & same for all , but law enforcement & law interpretation is not same for common people , Judges & Police ? why ?

YEAR TO WHICH ABOVE PERTAINS : MAJORITY OF DOCUMENTS PERTAINS TO YEAR 1990-2014 . SOME OF THE DOCUMENTS ARE DATED BACK TO 1947.

PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER FROM WHOM INFORMATION IS REQUIRED :

CPIO , o/o Chief Justice of India , SUPREME COURT OF INDIA , NEW DELHI.

FEES PAID : IPO 22F 282805 for rupees ten only

DATE : 03.06.2014 ……………..………………………NAGARAJA.M.R.

PLACE : MYSORE , INDIA….. ……………………….( APPLICANT)

Written Argument – RTI APPEAL

At the outset , we express our whole hearted respects to the honest few public servants in public service including judiciary. However, the corrupt in public service don’t deserve respect as individuals – as they are parasites in our legal system. Still we respect the chairs they occupy but not the corrupt individuals.

All the following articles / issues , whole articles published in the weblinks mentioned below forms part of this appeal. The term “JUDGE” mentioned throught includes all public servants discharging judicial functions right from taluk magistrates , quasi-judicial officers to Chief Justice of India.

Indian Legal / Judicial System is manipulated at various stages & is for sale. It is a SHAME. The persons who raise their voice seeking justice are silenced in many ways. The criminal nexus has already attempted to silence me in many ways . If anything untoward happens to me or to my family members , my dependents , Honourable Chief Justice of India together with jurisdictional police officer will be responsible for it.

Hereby, we do once again offer our conditional services to the honourable supreme court of India & other government authorities, in apprehending criminals including corrupt judges & police. Herewith , we once again appeal to the honourable supreme court of India , to consider this as a PIL Appeal in public interest.

To my repeated appeals for justice , repeated appeals to utilize my services to apprehend criminals , repeated PIL petitions , repeated appeals for information under RTI act , your response was silence with respect to RTI applications literally no information was given to 99% of queries nor you transferred the queries to respective department which can provide answer . This silence or intentional negligence of duty amounts to crime cover –up. Due to improper action on your part crimes which could have been nipped at the bud (information of crime given by us to SCI) happened , which amounts to abetting crime. Once again if you deny me information to following queries , you are reinforcing the proof that concerned supreme court of india judges are also CRIMINALS themselves. Answer following questions :