SOS e - Clarion Of Dalit

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

Monday, August 21, 2017

Mishra Threatens Petitioner

Dalit’s  Diary  -   e  News   Weekly  
Working  For  The  Rights  &  Survival  Of  The Oppressed
Editor: NAGARAJA.M.R… VOL.11 issue.34…… . 30  / 08 / 2017

Editorial :  Mishra Threatens  Petitioner
-         Accountability of  Judges MUST
-         Remainder to  Honourable CJI  &  Justice Mishra
Mr.Upendra Mishra ( Justice Dipak Mishra Proxy  or  unrelated ?  )  has threatened the petioner Mr. Nagaraja.M.R.  for petitioning against Justice Dipak Mishra through facebook posting.  Mr. Upendra Mishra  indirectly referred about sending  petitioner to jail.  If  anything untoward happens to me or to my  dependants Mr.Upendra Mishra , Justice Dipak Mishra , CJI  will be jointly responsible along with perpetrators of crime and jointly liable to pay damages.
Police  verification is mandatory , before getting passport or before joining government service. If  police   finds any suspicious  connections , activities by the applicant  and gives adverse report   the person will not get passport or  will not be selected for government service. When even for the post of peon in government positive police verification is mandatory , why NOT for Justice Dipak Mishra.?  Mishra has been indicted by Revenue Assistant commissioner , CBI,  still promotion to CJI why ?  Previously too  few judges indicted by IB  and against the reservation of bar councils were promoted , why ?
Courts of law treats  dying declaration of a person or a witness as an important evidence in cases  involving common people. Whereas in the case of Suicide of Mr.Kalikho Pul former chief minister of Arunachal Pradesh , his suicide note  indicting  Justice Khehar , Justice  Dipak Mishra , President Pranab Mukherjee , others was  not considered as a  dying declaration &  acted upon in right  earnest by SCI , why ? Is there different set of laws for Justice Khehar , Justice Dipak Mishra , President Pranab Mukherjee and commoners ?

Supreme  Court Judges take  5 star  pay , perks from the public exchequer but   don’t give accounts of their actions to public .
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  of apex court of the land  himself  commits crime - violations of RTI Act , constitutional rights & human rights of public  and obstructs the public from performing their constitutional fundamental duties , what happens ?       
  In most of the cases , when allegations against judges comes up proper enquiry is not done , no follow up legal prosecution is done. In other cases , no enquiry is done.  RTI  information about such judges is not given to RTI applicants ,  PILs  filed against such judges are not entertained by courts ,  PILs are not registered & taken up for hearing.  Thereby , guilty judges  remain  technically innocent  as no  proper investigation is done , as  they are not  legally prosecuted by investigating agency , as they are not judged , declared as  “Guilty” by any court of law.  All court management.
  Even if a judge is transferred  or resigns or impeached , it  is  not a legal punishment  & definitely not the end of legal prosecution. If a commoner  steals  a jewellery but  returns the same after sometime to the owner with sorry. Is it the end ? is there no punishment for his crime ?  In the same way , what punishment for guilty judge ?
  Now, take the case of Justice Karnan, apex court  took  cognizance of Karnan’s   way of representation , his sound.  Justice Karnan made certain  allegations against high court judges through proper official channel to supreme court of india . Why it did not act till months , till date ? Why SCI did not constitute an  impartial enquiry committee  to investigate ? 
When a person calls  you repeatedly  in a normal polite tone & you do not respond. The  caller concludes  the  hearer is either deaf / dumb / pretending  to be deaf & dumb. In such a scenario , caller yells out at high pitch so that the hearer can hear.
Same way , when SCI failed to act on  his repeated appeals , he yelled  out in open , what is wrong with  him ? Actually SCI is on the wrong side , why it did not conduct enquiry in the first place  at  the first instance?
 To silence him  SCI Judges , Advocate Ram Jethmalani termed Karnan as  lunatic. Are  you subject experts in psychiatry ?  You are not full fledged experts in your own domain , how come in others. is  it not defamation of an individual , contempt of high court of west Bengal ? What punishment for defamers , contemnors ?
  Day in day out , since years SCI Judges are making contempt of citizens of india by not answering RTI questions , by not registering PILs in turn  covering up crimes by judges ,  officials & others. Why no punishment to SCI Judges for contempt of citizens of india ?
  There is wrong from the beginning. There are fake advocates ,  Judicial exam papers are  leaked ,  few  judges  selected are kith & kin of serving / influential judges ( others  not bright ? ) , some judges copy during  the examination , few favorable junior  judges promoted while the  talented senior judge is sidelined in promotion.  So  few  candidates  are  selected as judges  in the illegal way , how can they work in a legal  way ?
Threatening a petitioner with contempt  or  brute police force or fixing petitioner in false cases  is not ethical nor legal.
Read details at following web pages , attachment  & sincerely answer :

Judges  SEX  crimes

A – Z   of   Manipulation  of  Indian  Legal  System




50% of higher judiciary corrupt, says ex-SC judge Markandey Katju

Eight chief justices were corrupt: Ex-law minister


Calcutta HC Justice Karnan calls judiciary corrupt, brings up old allegations against HC judges


Traitors  in  Judiciary &  Police

Crimes  by  Khaki

FIRST  Answer  Judges  Police

JAIL  Dipak  Mishra

JAIL  Tyrrant  Judges

Ugly  face of Judiciary

5 Star  Jails & Hell

Judges  Connive with  VIP  Prisoners

Jai Hind. Vande Mataram.

Your’s ,
Nagaraja Mysuru Raghupathi.
International Council of Jurists (ICJ) has sought an in-house probe against Justice Mishra for alleged irregularities.

Even as Chief Justice of India (CJI) JS Khehar has recommended the name of senior-most Supreme Court judge Justice Dipak Mishra as his successor, the International Council of Jurists (ICJ) has sought an in-house probe against Justice Mishra for alleged irregularities.
Since the CJI has already recommended Justice Mishra's name as his successor despite the charges against him, ICJ plans to approach the President and the Prime Minister seeking their intervention.
Lok Sabha MP Harinder Singh Khalsa has also written a letter to the Prime Minister's Office expressing his concern over the CJI's recommendation of Justice Misra.
"I feel very strongly about what is going on at the moment. Allegations of impropriety and the incident with Justice CS Karnan prompted me to write to the Prime Minister," Khalsa told DNA.
In his letter, Khalsa referred to late Arunachal Chief Minister Kalikho Pul's suicide letter which accused several judges of the higher judiciary of corruption. Khalsa wrote: "The people of this country who certainly expect the next CJI to be not merely a Caeser's wife above suspicion but a judicial statesman, a tall figure whose integrity and probity is beyond doubt."
As first reported by DNA, an in-house probe headed by Punjab and Haryana High Court Chief Justice SJ Vazifdar and two other Hgh Court judges against two Orissa High Court judges was abruptly stopped when the name of a sitting Supreme Court Justice cropped up. The committee wrote to CJI Khehar and stated that it could not conduct any enquiry against a sitting Supreme Court judge.
The ICJ wrote a letter to CJI Khehar on July 24 and sought an internal probe against Justice Misra since its own enquiries had "revealed that the Supreme Court judge in question is Justice Dipak Misra, who is the senior-most after the CJI."
"We seek your indulgence to immediately appoint an in-house committee consisting of Judges of Supreme Court of India to look into the allegations against Mr Justice Dipak Misra, Judge, Supreme Court of India, to ensure transparency in the functioning and independence of Indian judiciary," the letter sent by ICJ president Adish Aggarwala reads.
The ICJ letter also refers to a September 2016 complaint filed by one Jayanta Kumar Das, alleging that Justice Misra was involved in the illegal transfer of large tracts of government land in Bidanasi and other areas of Cuttack when he was a lawyer. According to ICJ Aggarwala, Justice Misra was allotted land in 1979 when he was an advocate there and there is a court order with adverse remarks in the matter pertaining to the land.
"Your Lordship, since institutional integrity is involved in the whole episode and that the allegations are against a sitting apex court judge, who may be considered for appointment as next Chief Justice of India, it is incumbent on you to clear the doubts in the minds of the public and lawyers about your successor," the letter says.
It also points out that when allegations of impropriety were made against Justice Soumitra Sen of the Calcutta High Court, "allegations, which were much less serious than those against Mr. Justice Dipak Mishra, the then CJI immediately constituted an in-house committee to look into the allegations against him".
"Once the veracity of allegations against him (as an advocate) was established, the then CJI recommended his impeachment. Unless a similar procedure of enquiry is followed in case of Mr Justice Dipak Misra, the high name of Indian judiciary may be smirked," it says.

Cropping Up Of SC Judge’s Name During Inquiry Is No Reason To Stall Probe Against Orissa HC Judge, CJAR Writes To In-House Committee Chairman

Intellectual Dishonesty Is The Biggest Challenge To The Independence Of Judiciary: Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave 
Read more at: http://www.livelaw.in/intellectual-dishonesty-biggest-challenge-independence-judiciary-senior-advocate-dushyant-dave-video / ,

Why The kith And Kin Of Judges Being Mostly Considered For Appointments? Asks SCBA President
APPOINTMENT OF SUPREME COURT JUDGES IN INDIA & NECESSARY JUDICIAL REFORMS

By  P Mohan Chandran

The appointment of Supreme Court judges in India has created quite a furore among the Indian executive and judiciary alike. It has been mired in controversies galore in the wake of the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Act being struck down and declared unconstitutional by a five-judge Supreme Court bench headed by Justice J.S. Khehar, after a marathon hearing for 31 days on the issue of the validity of the 99th constitutional amendment and the NJAC Act. As the judicial vacancies in High Courts kept rising, touching about 40%, Justice Khehar delivered the historic verdict that the judicial appointments would not be put on hold and the Collegium process would continue until the Constitution Bench decided on reforms.

COLLEGIUM SYSTEM & ITS ORIGIN

In the Collegium system, the Chief Justice of India (CJI) and a panel comprising four senior-most judges of the Supreme Court recommend appointments and transfers of judges. The collegium system evolved after three landmark judgments of the Supreme Court, popularly known as the ‘three judges cases’ that comprised the first, second and the third judges cases.
The first judges case was the SP Gupta case. It was decided on December 30, 1981 that the President, with sensible reasons, could reject judges’ names recommended by the CJI. This shifted more power on the executive from the judiciary in the appointments process.
In the second judges’ case, a nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court overturned the verdict of the first judges case by creating a Collegium system. The majority verdict delivered by Justice J.S. Verma in the Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association Vs Union of India case on October 6, 1993, stated that the CJI should be entrusted with the primary role of appointments of judges. However, the three judges ruling in this case could not reach a consensus on the exact role of the CJI in the process, leading to a lot of confusion in the appointment and transfer of judges for years.
The final judgement in the series, the third judges case (October 28, 1998) made things clearer after the President’s request to the Supreme Court for a clarity. In this case, the Supreme Court came up with nine guidelines that the Collegium system should follow to function effectively. This case established the supremacy of the judiciary in the appointment and transfer of judges.

WHAT IS NJAC?

NJAC or the National Judicial Appointments Commission is a constitutional body proposed to replace the existing Collegium system of appointing judges. The NJAC proposed a transparent and broad-based process of selection of judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts. The judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts were to be selected by the NJAC commission, whose members were drawn from the judiciary, legislature and civil society.
The NJAC was established by amending the Constitution (99th Amendment) Act, 2014, passed by the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha in August 2014. Alongside, the Parliament also passed the National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, 2014, to regulate the functions of NJAC. The State legislatures of 16 states ratified both the Bills and the President gave his assent on December 31, 2014. The NJAC Act and the Constitutional Amendment Act came into force from April 13, 2015.

Constitution of the NJAC

The NJAC will consist of six people: the Chief Justice of India (CJI), two senior-most judges of the Supreme Court, the Law Minister, and two ‘eminent persons’. These eminent persons would be nominated for a three-year term by a committee consisting of the CJI, the Prime Minister, and the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha. One eminent person had to be nominated from among the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, OBCs, minorities or women. These eminent persons were not eligible for re-nomination.

Maintaining Judicial Independence

The judicial representatives in the NJAC – the CJI and two senior-most judges – can veto any name proposed for appointment to a judicial post if they disapprove of it. A proposal once vetoed cannot be revived. At the same time, the judges require the support of other members of the commission to get a name through.

Method of Appointment of Judges Prior to NJAC

Articles 124 and 217 of the Constitution deals with the appointment of judges of the higher judiciary. According to these Articles, judges are appointed by the President of India after consultation with the CJI and other judges. The term “consultation” is of great significance here because in 1993, in the Second Judges case, the Supreme Court decided that the CJI must agree to all judicial appointments. This created the Collegium system, wherein the three senior-most Supreme Court judges decided on who would be a judge of the High Court or the Supreme Court.

‘FLAWED’ COLLEGIUM SYSTEM – THE ‘CRUX’ OF THE CRISIS

The Central government criticised the Collegium system stating it has created an imperium in imperio, i.e., empire within an empire, within the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court Bar Association too blamed it for creating a “give-and-take” culture, causing a chasm between the haves and have-nots. The Bar Associated noted that the common man keeps struggling for years to get justice, while politicians and actors get instant relief from courts.
Many eminent jurists, too, time and again, have expressed their reservations about the impartiality of the Collegium system. Former Chief Justice of India, Late Justice JS Verma, who was a part of the panel of judges who delivered the historical 1993 judgment introducing the collegium system, during the fag end of his life, surprisingly expressed displeasure at the verdict as many shortcomings had crept into the system in the past 20 years since its introduction. Several detractors of NJAC also argued that the new political element would destroy judicial independence.
In 2015, Attorney General Mukul Rohtagi, during his arguments in the Supreme Court on the petition challenging the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC), described the Collegium system as “dead and buried”. Rohtagi said that in no other country, except in India, judges were appointed by judges, and he opined that the new system would lead to infusing more accountability and transparency into the judicial system.
According to Justice Chelameswar, who was a keen external observant of the dynamics of the Collegium system for the past five years and also an insider for quite some time, felt that the Collegium, since its constitution, never maintained a record of the minutes of its meetings of the five members and their deliberations. Justice Chelameswar indicated that an absence of record implied that the Chief Justice of India (CJI) could present the Collegium’s opinions to the government as unanimous decisions, thus suppressing any dissent within the body, until there was proof otherwise. The issue of ‘lack of record’ questions the Supreme Court’s creation of the Collegium through its nine-judge bench’s ruling in the Second Judges case in 1993.
The Supreme Court, in the Third Judges case, in its advisory opinion to the President on October 28, 1998 held that “the opinion of all members of the Collegium in respect of each recommendation should be in writing.” The Supreme Court also held that “the ascertainment of the views of the senior-most Supreme Court judges who hail from High Courts from where the persons to be recommended come, must also be in writing.” From this verdict of the Supreme Court, it is quite clear that the Supreme Court made it mandatory for the Collegium to maintain a record of its proceedings, including the Collegium members’ reasons for recommending or rejecting a candidate considered by them.
If one of the members of the Collegium dissents on the recommendation of a particular judge, then the government can ask the Collegium to reconsider the recommendation on this ground. However, such a recommendation is binding on the government if the Collegium reiterates it, but such reiteration has to be unanimous for the government to accept it. Thus, a dissenting member of the Collegium gets an opportunity to exercise the option to ‘veto’ a recommendation while reconsidering it. In the judgment of the Third Judges case, paragraph 26 clearly states that only a unanimous reiteration entails an appointment. Thus, with the failure of the Collegium to keep a record of its proceedings, the government cannot know whether the original recommendation or a reiteration (when asked to reconsider) was a unanimous one, and it is compelled to rely on the CJI’s word. But, if the CJI’s word were to be contested by the other Collegium members, then complying with CJI’s word would create some issues to the government.
An instance of a negative consequence of not maintaining records came to light in March 2016, when a challenge filed by Lalit Kumar Mishra, a former additional judge of the Orissa High Court, regarding his non-appointment as a permanent judge of the High Court despite his name being recommended by the Supreme Court Collegium, was dismissed by the Supreme Court bench comprising Justices Ranjan Gogoi, Arun Mishra and Prafulla C. Pant. Mishra’s contention was that there was nothing in writing that suggested that the Supreme Court Collegium had reconsidered its recommendation to make him a permanent judge of the High Court. Thus, the absence of record-keeping is the crux of the crisis.

NJAC – THE BONE OF ‘CONTENTION’

The following were some of the issues that were the bone of contention between the government and the judiciary:
·         The Memorandum of Procedure for appointing judges was a bone of contention, with the judiciary refusing to accept the government’s proposals.
·         Several clauses, including the inclusion of the law minister into NJAC, has been unpalatable by the judiciary.
·         The government’s insistence on including its clauses has led to a gridlock, with judicial delay and unfilled vacancies.
The following were the reactions of some of the prominent lawyers from the horse’s mouth on the Supreme Court’s decision:
Abhishek Manu Singhvi: “Having seen the good and later the disturbing operation of both the government appointments and the Collegium system, I think the NJAC should have been given a chance. In my personal view, the judgment is disappointing. Let us hope that there will be real, actual and significant reforms in the content and operation of the Collegium system.”

M.N. Krishnamani, Former President, Supreme Court Bar Association: “I am not happy with the judgment. The power was initially vested with the executive, subject to consultation with the CJI. That could not have been changed by the judiciary.”

Prashant Bhushan: “It is very heartening to note that the Supreme Court has put its foot down firmly on attempts to dilute the independence of the judiciary by allowing the executive government a say in the process of appointing judges. This will mean a revival of the Collegium system, which suffers from problems such as lack of transparency and lack of definite eligibility criteria for selection of judges. For this, one needs an independent full-time body, which is independent of both the judiciary and the government.”

Kapil Sibal: “This is a great success for Indian democracy. This government and its legal advisors should resign. I hail the judgment for ensuring the independence of the judiciary and not allowing any attempts to make inroads into the independence of the judiciary and for throttling the basic freedoms of the citizenry. However, we do request the judiciary to evolve more transparent procedures to ensure the judiciary gives enough confidence to the bar and the people.”

 THE NEED FOR JUDICIAL REFORMS

As most of the legal fraternity seemed to be against the flawed collegium system as explained above, the Modi government felt a need to reform it in 2014. However, it faltered because its focus was more on how it could control the appointment of judges through the NJAC rather than on reforms.
A good way to end the executive-judiciary impasse would be to make public any future correspondence on the Memorandum of Procedure (MoP), which will act as a catalyst in infusing transparency in judicial appointments. MoP for collegium appointments, as suggested by the government, aims at having an institutional and transparent process of judicial appointments, wherein more people, instead of a closed group, are involved in the appointment of judges.
The government had proposed some of the following measures to reform the judicial appointment process:
·         There should be an age limit set up for appointment of judges.
·         Instead of only the Collegium, all judges should vet the list of names of judges to be selected.  
·         Chief Ministers, Attorney Generals and Advocate General should have a say in the appointment of judges.
·         The criteria of merit, seniority and integrity should be strictly followed while promoting a High Court Chief Justice or a judge to the Supreme Court. Preference should be given to Chief Justices of High Courts, keeping in mind their ‘inter-se seniority’.
·         When a senior Chief Justice is overlooked for elevation to the Supreme Court, the reasons for it must be recorded in writing. The views of each of the five judges of the Collegium must be made known to the government in writing.
·         An institutional mechanism by way of a committee to be constituted to aid the Collegium in the evaluation of suitable prospective judges. Two retired judges of the Supreme Court and one eminent person/jurist should be jointly nominated by the Chief Justice of India and the Government of India, with an aim to create wider consultation for selecting best candidates.
·         There should be a secretariat created under the Law Ministry to keep a record of the database of judges, Collegium meetings, maintain records and receive recommendations/complaints concerning the posting of judges. The secretariat would help ensure a wider net for better candidates and the Collegium would also have comparative data for making better decisions.
·         The names of the judges whose Intelligence Bureau report is negative to be struck down from the list of names for judicial appointments to the Supreme Court.

ELIMINATING NEPOTISM – THE NEED OF THE HOUR

An important step in reforming the Indian judiciary would be to eliminate nepotism. On August 19, 2016, a Hindi news portal, www.indiaspeaksdaily.com, published a detailed article on the kind of nepotism prevailing when a list was sent by the Allahabad High Court to the Supreme Court for appointment of judges. The article mentions that there are dozens of judges whose sons, daughters and relatives are also judges. The article enlightens us on several aspects of judicial appointments and mentions that many of the names suggested in the list sent by Allahabad High Court do not fulfill many of the eligibility conditions for appointment of judges. The article states that in the year 2000, 8 out of the 13 judges suggested by the Allahabad High Court Collegium were relatives of sitting judges. According to the article, 90 of the 159 names suggested in the list by Allahabad High Court were relatives of different judges. However, the whole list was later dismissed.
Another article titled “Relatives of 9 Judges Appointed Law Officers”, published by the Tribune on July 7, 2013, mentions the trend of judges having relatives practicing in the same courts.
In yet another case of corruption that involved 73 judges, some of the judges enrolled themselves as members of the Karnataka State Judicial Department Employees House Building Cooperative Society and bought plots meant for housing court employees, who were unable to afford accommodation, at huge discounts. Some of the judges included ex-Chief Justice of India H.L. Dattu, ex-CJI M.N. Venkatachalaiah, and the current Chief Justice of India, T.S. Thakur too, who bought plots in that society. DNA City had covered this news article on November 23, 2011. In spite of this controversy, both H.L. Dattu and T.S. Thakur became Chief Justices of India.
There have been several cases of corruption and allegations on various judges such as Justice Y.K. Sabharwal, Justice V. Ramaswami, Justice A.S. Anand, Justice Vijendra Jain, Justice F.I. Rebello, Justice K.G. Balakrishnan and many more, who continue either continue to retain their positions or even grow.
It is said that Justice K.G. Balakrishnan’s appointment was also a kind of scandal. In 1998, when the NDA government came to power, the question of appointment of Supreme Court judges had come up. The Supreme Court Collegium gave a list that went to the President for appointment through the law ministry. Upon receiving the file, the President sent a name back to the Law minister to be considered for Supreme Court. K.R. Narayanan was the President then and the first Dalit President, too. K.G. Balakrishnan too was a Dalit. When the file was sent to the President again, he sat on the file and when the file was sent for the third time to the President, the President seemed to have insisted and got K.G. Balakrishnan appointed, who had one of the longest terms of over 3 years as the Chief Justice of India. Later, it is alleged that K.G. Balakrishnan also got several other judges appointed to the Supreme Court according to his whims and fancies.
According to some sources, Devi Das Thakur, late father of T.S. Thakur, was a good friend of Girdhari Lal Dogra of Congress, who, in turn, is related to a senior cabinet minister. Ex-CJI A.S. Anand was also Dogra’s friend.
Justice K.G. Balakrishnan’s son became a judge and Justice Y.G. Chandrachud’s son also became a Supreme Court judge. It is rumored that ex-CJI Ranganath Mishra’s nephew, Justice Dipak Mishra is expected to become the CJI in 2017.
Many judges post-retirement also land up with plum sinecure positions as a quid pro quofor a few favors done to the government. When the law does not allow a judge to practice in the same court after retirement, fearing wielding of undue influence, it seems quite illogical how a judge can be allowed to seek post-retirement benefits. Chief Justice of India T.S. Thakur’s father became a Governor, while ex-Chief Justice of India, P. Sathasivam was appointed as the Governor of Kerala. Some of the post-retirement benefits are also given away by way of unlimited perks on esteemed panels, committees and commissions. Chief Justice of India, Ranganath Mishra became a Congress MP after retirement, while many other cushy jobs such as National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), National Green Tribunal (NGT), Press Council of India (PCI) are reserved for and later awarded to senior judges. For instance, Justice Markandey Katju became the Chairman of the PCI in 2011.

THE WAY AHEAD

It is quite often said that judiciary and politics are strange-bed mates and there seems to be excess of impropriety, corruption and nepotism in India’s judicial system. It is clear that several deals have changed hands, limits have been transgressed and the justice delivery system is crippled. Our judicial appointment system has oscillated between two extremes in the last four decades – from excessive political interference by Indira Gandhi to the arbitrary and opaque Collegium system. It is now high time to strike a middle path. Right thinking citizens must get involved and give an opportunity for the judiciary to be redeemed and entangled from the clutches of political power, so that it can act independently, fearlessly, shunning nepotism forever.

DECLARATION 


Name : ...........................NAGARAJA.M.R.



Address : ...................LIG-2 / 761 , HUDCO FIRST STAGE , OPP
WATER WORKS OFFICE , LAKSHMIKANTANAGAR , HEBBAL , MYSORE - 570017 INDIA



Old  Professional / Trade Title : S.O.S - e – Clarion Of Dalit
New   Professional / Trade Title :  Dalit’s  Diary



Periodicity : WEEKLY



Circulation : FOR FREE DISTRIBUTION ON WEB



Donations : NOT ACCEPTED. Self financing . Never accepted any donations , subscriptions either for ourselves or on behalf of other organizations / individuals .



Monetary Gains : nil , never made any monetary gain by way of advertisements on my websites or web news paper or otherwise.



Owner/Editor/Printer/Publisher : NAGARAJA.M.R.



Nationality : INDIAN



Body Donation : Physical Body of Nagaraja M R , Editor , Dalit’s  Diary  is donated to JSS Medical College , Mysore ( Donation No. 167 dated 22 / 10 / 2003 ) , In case of either Unnatural death or Natural Death at the hands of criminal nexus , my body must be handed over to JSS Medical College , Mysore for the study purposes of medical students.



Eye Donation : Both EYES of Nagaraja M R , Editor ,  Dalit’s  Diary  are donated to Mysore Eye Bank , Mysore , In case of either Unnatural death or Natural Death at the hands of criminal nexus , my eyes must be handed over to Mysore Eye Bank , Mysore WITHIN 6 Hours for immediate eye transplantation to the needy.



Old  Home page : http://eclarionofdalit.dalitonline.in/  ,
http://paper.li/f-1367938674      ,      

New  Home  Page :



Contact : naghrw@yahoo.com , nagarajhrw@hotmail.com ,



UID Aadhaar No : 5703 5339 3479

Cell :   91  8970318202 
It is the duty of Supreme Court of India to Protect , Guard the constitutional rights , fundamental rights of every Indian citizen . Since 25 years  I am  appealing  to SCI  about  issues concerning public welfare , national security , etc and as a result suffering injustices , my constitutional rights , human rights are repeatedly violated  but SCI is mum even when repeated appeals were made to it. Paradoxically , after these appeals for justice , I have suffered more injustices , attempts on my life were made ,  physically assaulted , livelihood  / jobs were  denied , news publication closed , press accreditation denied ,  received threatening  calls , blank calls, even to date  rough elements follow us , rough elements  scout  near home at mid night. Does  not these indicate some ties between rough elements & SCI  Judges ?

Public Interest Litigation is an appeal  for justice  to the courts , to redress  the injustices meted out to  the public.  Individual cases of injustices  pertaining to an individual are not covered under PIL, however  an individual an activist  who  is fighting for public causes  suffering  injustices  as a result of   his struggle  ,caused by powers that be to silence him  can club  his individual case under the public causes  (PIL ) he is  appealing.

Nowadays people of questionable character , integrity  are being selected to public posts , end result is present day india.  In the following web sites I have shown  few actual cases of crimes by judges & police , just imagine what type of justice common man gets.
Traitors  in   Indian  Judiciary & Police
Crimes  by  Khaki
 Police show full bravery , courage , use  full might of law while acting against innocents , commoners. Even  takes suo motto action. Frequently crosses legal limits  while acting against commoners like 3rd degree torture , arrest / search  , seizure without warrant , arrest in mid night , etc . While they are supposed to take action against rich crooks , their own corrupt colleagues  no suo motto action , delayed action inspite of complaint  allowing time for rich crook to get anticipatory bail , no 3rd degree torture on him , no arrest , search , seizure without warrant. Where is the bravery , courage of police ?
Judges show their full wisdom , apply rigid law book while  judging cases of commoners , take suo motto action  where as  cases involving rich crooks comes before them inspite of repeated PILs they don’t consider it , let alone take suo motto action. Judges make far fetched interpretations of law , ultimately benefitting the rich crook. Where is the wisdom of Judges ?

I ,NAGARAJA.M.R. hereby do declare that information given above are true to the best of my knowledge & belief. If i am repeatedly called to police station or else where for the sake of investigations , the losses i do incurr as a result like loss of wages , transportation , job , etc must be borne by the government. prevoiusly the police / IB personnel repeatedly called me the complainant (sufferer of injustices) to police station for questioning , but never called the guilty culprits , rich crooks , criminals even once to police station for questioning , as the culprits are high & mighty . this type of one sided questioning must not be done by police or investigating agencies . if anything untoward happens to me or to my family members like loss of job , meeting with hit & run accidents , loss of lives , death due to improper medical care , etc , the jurisdictional police together with above mentioned accussed public servants will be responsible for it. Even if criminal nexus levels fake charges , police file fake cases against me or my dependents to silence me , this complaint is & will be effective. 
   Powers that  be , higher ups have referred all my previous cases to police although in most of the cases  police don’t  have jurisdiction over it.  It  sends  a subtle message by police force to  the  complainant  to keep silent . In the remaining cases  which are under their jurisdiction police  don’t act against higher ups , high & mighty. In such cases police lack  practical powers , their hands are tied although they  are  honest.  As a end result , police  have repeatedly called   me to police station  number of  times  ( have never called guilty  influential persons even once)  took  statement  from  me and closed  the files.  Hereby , I do make it clear  the statements made by me  in my original petitions , PILs , news papers  , etc  while I was in  a free & fair atmosphere  are  TRUE  , over rides , prevails over all the statements made by me before police  earlier and  which will be made by me  in future before police.

If I or my family members or my dependents are denied our fundamental rights , human rights , denied proper medical care for ourselves , If anything untoward happens to me or to my dependents or to my family members - In such case Chief Justice of India together with the jurisdictional revenue & police officials will be responsible for it , in such case the government of india is liable to pay Rs. TWO crore as compensation to survivors of my family. if my whole family is eliminated by the criminal nexus ,then that compensation money must be donated to Indian Army Welfare Fund. Afterwards , the money must be recovered by GOI as land arrears from the salary , pension , property , etc of guilty police officials , Judges , public servants & Constitutional functionaries. 
date :  22 .08 .2017…………………………..Your's sincerely,

place : India…………………………………...Nagaraja.M.R. 


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 8970318202        
 home page:   

Contact  :  Naag@protonmail.com ,  Naag@dalitonline.in   ,
Secure  Mail :  Naag@torbox3uiot6wchz.onion ,    

posted by DALIT online @ 11:06 PM