human rights

Hang Rapist Corrupt Judges

S.O.S   e – Voice For Justice – e-news weekly
Spreading the light of humanity & freedom

Editor: Nagaraja.M.R.. Vol.08..Issue.47….….23/11/2013

 

Editorial : Hang  Rapist  Judges  to  Lamp  Posts  –  JUDGES & SEXUAL CRIMES

 

At the outset , we express our whole hearted respects to the honest few public servants

in public service including judiciary & Police. 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 , past cases of sexual assaults on women by judges (hushed up ?) , 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.

Consider the cases of sexual assault by JUDGES , POLICE on women . The JUDGES

have legal immunity with respect to their official duties, official actions but not their

individual actions amounting to CRIMES.

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 itself

commits crime – violations of RTI Act , constitutional rights & human rights of public and

obstructs the public from performing their constitutional fundamental duties , what

happens ? it gives a booster dose to the rich & mighty , those in power , criminals in

public service to committ more crimes. that is exactly what is happenning in india. the

educated public must raise to the occassion & peacefully , democratically must oppose

this criminalisation of judiciary , public service. then alone , we can build a RAM RAJYA OF MAHATMA GANDHI’S DREAM.

 

Hereby , we request the honourable court to reopen all hushed up old cases of sexual assault involving judges  and to punish the guilty judges.

 

Read Is CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA above LAW ???

https://sites.google.com/site/sosevoiceforjustice/chief-justice-above-law  ,

 

Law student sexually harassed by ex-Supreme Court judge:  case is not unique, but speaking out is nearly impossible

 

http://www.legallyindia.com/201311114099/Interviews/sexual-harassment-supreme-court-is-common  ,

 

In India , corruption , favouritism is prevalent in all recriutment / selection processes. The selection is made on bribe , caste , religion but definitely NOT on the basis of Merit & Integrity. The selection to the posts of even Supreme court Judges , quasi judicial officers like district magistrates , taluk magistrates , police , etc is  not above board. For example  we have recently seen the  illegalities  in KPSC  interviews selecting  gazetted officers  to government of karnataka service. These tainted , ineligible unfit  waste body candidates who get selected as  judges , police through devious means  sell their judicial orders , executive orders , police orders for a price. The denotfications of government lands , etc  as in the case of Mysore  DC  Vastrad , as in the case of Neglect of Hebbal  Lake &, BEML Quarters Lake Encroachment by DC Manivannan , as in the case of Land irregularities by Bangalore DC Aiyyappa , changing the penal clause  of penal  charges to favour the criminal  as in the case of  union carbide’s warren Anderson from mass murder to  improper management of the facility ,  as in the case of Sanjay dutt  from TADA charges to illegal possession of arms  , etc.  The police for a price fix innocents , file B reports  favouring the criminals to close the case ,  prefer not to file an appeal in the  higher court , etc. As in the case of Bofors , as in the case of past SP  of chamarajanagar Puttaswamy taking bribe from a granite quarry owner  for filing B-report in a case. Disgracefully , recently a judge  tainted in  MYSORE  ROOST  RESORT  SEX  SCANDAL  was  promoted  as  a  supreme court  judge. What Justice common folk can expect from these corrupt bodies ? They turn illegalities into legal issues by their orders. These CORRUPT  Judges , Police , District Magistrates , Taluk Magistrates are doing more damage to India’s  Unity & Integrity  than the  Naxalites & Terrorists. These corrupt public servants must be put behind bars together with terrorists & naxalites. Let the sense prevail & Democracy prosper. The Honest few in Judiciary , Police & Executive must raise upto the occasion to SAVE DEMOCRACY & to  kick out their corrupt colleagues from office.

 

 

Your’s Sincerely ,

Nagaraja.M.R.

 

 

 

Supreme Court zeroes in on ‘harass’ judge; support for disclosure grows CJI lauded for probe order

R. BALAJI

 

New Delhi, Nov. 15: The Supreme Court appears to have identified the former judge who is accused of sexually assaulting at least two law interns while in office, sometime about two years ago.

On the Chief Justice of India’s directions, the court registry has checked the intern-assignment records relating to judges who retired in the past two years, sources told The Telegraph.

They said that while convention demanded that an intern work with a particular judge for only a month, the accused judge seemed to have insisted that the women interns work with him for six months.

According to the sources, the feeling among the higher judiciary is that the judge should be named, if only to end the speculation about the other judges who retired recently. So far, the accused judge has not been named.

Legal experts have complimented the Chief Justice for setting up a three-judge panel to probe the allegations after one intern came out with sexual assault charges on November 6. Since then, a second intern has made similar accusations against the same judge.

Such a panel has no precedent in the Supreme Court’s history, nor has any sitting or former apex court judge ever faced charges of sexual harassment at the workplace before.

Legal experts said the Constitution had no provision for the apex court setting up such a committee but added that the top court could certainly do so under the extraordinary powers granted to it by Article 142.

What the committee will do is question the first intern (she has been requested to appear before it on Monday, November 18) and then confront the accused judge.

If the panel prima facie finds truth in the allegations, it can direct the police to register an FIR. A PTI report said police have initiated a preliminary probe into the case.

If the judge is convicted of assaulting or using criminal force with intent to outrage a woman’s modesty (molesting her), he can be jailed for two years. A rape conviction can put him behind bars for life or at least 10 years.

The Judges Protection Act 1985 grants judges and former judges immunity from prosecution for actions committed in the discharge of their official duties. The immunity does not apply to cases of molestation or rape as such offences cannot conceivably be a fallout of a judge performing his job, legal experts said.

“(Even) if the offence was committed while he was a sitting judge, he is amenable to all the laws of the country that apply to all ordinary citizens,” said Jaspal Singh, a former Punjab and Haryana High Court judge who now practises as a lawyer in the Supreme Court.

“The allegations are very serious; the law will take its own course,” he added.

Asked if the judges’ panel had judicial sanctity, Singh said: “(Such) charges against a judge of the Supreme Court are a very serious matter. They involve the institution and therefore they (the court) want to verify the charges before taking any action.”

Senior counsel Dushyant Dave said the CJI had done “an extremely good thing” by forming the panel to probe a “brother judge”.

“That this is an in-house committee owes not to any legal requirement but more to propriety,” he said.

He added that the police must not act unless and until the panel asked them to register an FIR, for neither has the accused been identified yet, nor has any of the interns lodged a formal complaint.

“If any third party has lodged a complaint without proper material, it makes no sense,” Dave said.

He added: “It’s a very serious charge; the judge concerned has to face the music.”

 

Nothing but the truth
By Indira Jaising


A midst the rising din of the demand for death penalty for rapists comes the news that three judges of the Karnataka High Court have been involved in what has come to be described as a ‘sex scandal’ on the outskirts of Mysore at a place called Roost Resorts.
Our attention is now directed to those who dispense justice rather than those who knock at the doors of justice. In both cases, we are talking about the use and abuse of women — those who are victims of sexual abuse, and those who are used as sexual objects, willingly or unwillingly.
After the reports in local newspapers that three high court judges were found with women at a resort, there was the usual crop of denials. Although the Mysore police were called in to settle a brawl, on being told that the persons in question were judges they said that they heard no evil and saw no evil.
And everyone thought the matter ended there.
Attempts to get the names of the judges or of the women in question drew a blank. The bar association also drew a blank as most people said, “Don’t quote me… but…”
On November 30, the Bangalore edition of The Times of India published a front-page story giving the names and photographs of the three judges and confirming that the Intelligence Bureau had done an investigation and come to the conclusion that the incident had indeed occurred. There were still no details of the incident, though it was stated that the report has been given to the chief justice of India.
There were reports on the same day that the Karnataka High Court chief justice had sought the transfer of the three judges to Patna, Jammu and Kashmir and Guwahati. Apparently, the chief justice has agreed to this request and the transfer orders have been issued.
Then came the news that the chief justice of India has set up a committee of inquiry under the ‘in-house’ procedure consisting of the chief justice of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, the chief justice of the Madras High Court and the chief justice of the Patna High Court.
There were still no details in the press about the actual incident and the entire episode continued to be referred to as a ‘sex scandal’.
What is interesting about these reports is not what they reveal, but what they conceal. It is a conspiracy of silence. If the information is now available to the chief justice of India, why is it not being made public? Do we, the public, not have the right to information? Ironically, the morning newspapers brought the news that the Freedom of Information Act has been passed. What are the legitimate limits of the right to freedom of information and the requirement of keeping information a secret? This episode would make an interesting case study.
What exactly is at stake here? There is much that should concern the nation about the incident. This is not a case about the private morality of the judges, be that as it may, but about the abuse of office that they hold. What has not been made known is that the three women in question are women lawyers practising in their courts.
What is at stake here is the pollution of the stream of justice at its very source. There must be countless cases in which these women appeared before these very judges day in and day out of their routine practice. Can one honestly say that in such a situation justice is being done “without fear or favour”? Judges swear on oath of allegiance to “bear true faith” to the Constitution and do justice “without fear or favour”. How well have these judges honoured this oath?
What is at stake here is the cynical use of women as sexual commodities. The usual justifications have already begun making the rounds. If the women have not complained, what objection can anyone else have, it is asked. What is lost sight of is the fact that the judges are in a position of dominance vis-à-vis the women, in a position to do favours that pertain to their office.
What is at stake here is the cynical use of public office, the seat of justice, for personal petty gain. It is irrelevant whether the women consented or not. The usual blame game will now begin — blaming the victim rather than the perpetrator; the usual loose talk about the character of the woman in question; the usual attempt to cover up by diverting attention from the actual incident to the motives of those who brought the incident to light.
What is at stake here is the perception of women as sexual commodities by those who are responsible for sitting in judgment over cases brought for and on behalf of women.
The issues at stake here concern one half of Indians. With what faith can Indian women approach the courts demanding the right to equality, the right to be free from sexual harassment or rape and the right to live with dignity, if the persecution of judges who sit in judgment over them is non-negotiable?
In the circumstances, the suggested solution is worse than the offence — to transfer them to Patna, Guwahati and Jammu and Kashmir. Why these particular cities? Are they not an integral part of the country, or are they mere islands within the country that are considered ‘punishment postings’ where people are sent a la ‘crossing Kala Pani’ of the old days? To the credit of the Guwahati Bar Association, it protested against the proposed transfer.
The only decent thing to do is for the chief justice of India to disclose full details of the incident so that rumour-mongering comes to an end. This would be in the best interest of the judiciary itself.
As things stand, the rumours are making the rounds that there were more than three judges involved, that the women were professional call girls, many of which are baseless. We, the people, have the right to know. The conspiracy of silence must be broken.
The judges in question must neither be assigned any judicial functions pending an inquiry nor be transferred to sit in judgment over others. Two of the judges are stated to be additional judges. They must not be confirmed. If there is prima facie evidence against the one remaining judge, the chief justice must recommend his impeachment.
It is time for all concerned bar associations, bar councils and other male-dominated bodies of legal professionals to act and ensure that there is no cover-up. There is little point in showing sympathy to women in judgments and in seminar rooms, or in recommending the death penalty for rape if we cannot deal with the men who dispense justice.
There are contempt of court petitions pending in the Karnataka High Court against some of the publications for disclosing details of the incident. Civil society and women’s organisations must demand that justice is now done when it comes to the judges themselves.
The law of contempt can offer no solution to the crisis of credibility in the judiciary that this incident has thrown up. One positive aspect of the incident is that it is only after the chief justice of the high court issued a public notice inviting information that he received 20 representations, which led to the discovery of the truth.
Let the truth now be made public.

 

Judge accused of molesting 2 rape survivors in UP

 

A sitting judicial magistrate sexually assaulted them

 

UP: Two rape victims claim that a sitting judicial magistrate sexually assaulted them. The girls

alleged that when they went to the magistrate’s chamber to give their statement, he allegedly

made them strip and molested them.

One of the girls is a minor and the police have filed a complaint. The girls also claimed that the

judge threatened them to not speak of the incident to anyone.

Lawyers and the general public in Gonda launched a protest against the judge.

 

 

 

 

Another law intern alleges sexual harassment by a former SC judge

 

New Delhi: Another law intern has leveled allegations of sexual harassment against a former Supreme Court judge. A Supreme Court committee is already probing allegations made by another student and had asked her to appear before it.

Earlier, a woman lawyer had written a blog in which she charged a former Supreme Court judge of sexually harassing her, while she interned with him in 2012. The woman lawyer who completed her law degree from National University of Jurdicial Sciences, Kolkata wrote is her blog, “In Delhi at that time, interning during the winter vacations of my final year in the University, I dodged police barricades and fatigue to go to the assistance of a highly reputed, recently retired Supreme Court judge whom I was working under during my penultimate semester. For my supposed diligence, I was rewarded with sexual assault (not physically injurious, but nevertheless violating) from a man old enough to be my grandfather.”

She had also claimed that at least three other girls have also faced harassment by the same judge. The girl said that she had refrained from disclosing the details initially due to the high position that the judge held.

The Chief Justice of India said, “As the head of the institution, I am also concerned about the allegations and anxious whether the statement is true or not. The committee will go into the whole affair and find out the facts. We are taking steps and in cases of sexual harassment, we cannot take it lightly.”

 

Another law student who interned with the Supreme Court has accused a now-retired judge of sexually harassing her, barely a week after similar charges were levelled by another intern.

The latest allegations were made on a Facebook post on November 11 and reported by a law website, Legally India, on Thursday.

The same website had given the link to the first intern’s blog, describing her ordeal. The Supreme Court has appointed a three-judge panel to inquiry into her allegations and the victim has been asked to record her statement on November 18.

But unlike the first instance, the website this time has not given the link to the Facebook post or identified the woman. When contacted Kian Ganz, who reported both the incidents, told HT: “I got to know about the second intern’s experience with the judge through the Facebook post. However, I wasn’t able to confirm if she wanted to go public.”

The second victim, too, was an intern with the same judge, the website said. HT, however, could not confirm the claims or the allegations independently. The two women can’t be identified for legal reasons.

The excerpts uploaded on Legally India on Thursday quote the second intern as saying she was “at the receiving end of unsolicited sexual advance more than once”. Both the interns knew each other, the report claimed. 

“…. we kept attributing all the signs of leeriness to our hypersensitivity… We discussed innocuously said off-colour remarks and dismissed their creepiness because we really respected him [the judge], and the possibility seemed at odds with everything we knew about him, his ideas about feminism, patriarchy, social justice…,” the website quoted from the second intern’s post.

The first intern had alleged that the judge had misbehaved with other women interns as well.

The second intern said as much. “In this case, we spoke to other women… and found out that there was a history to such behaviour.”

“We also alerted some female senior faculty to the incident so that they would ensure that no female student was assigned work with him without being told to be on her guard.”

The website further quotes her as saying “he promised, incidentally, that he would never misbehave with another lady. Maybe it’s naiveté to believe him. Maybe it’s just youthful optimism. Being brave is tougher than it appears on the face of it, no?”

The post then goes on say that the judge “lost his RA’s [research assistants] and got a dressing down from a 23-year-old which should have come from his father.

“Why deprive girls from the chance to work with an illustrious mind because the mind is a little sick? A guy who gets the task would get a savvy CV and a better job opp (opportunity). We didn’t want girls to be left at a disadvantage,” the post, as uploaded on Legally India, read.

 

 

 

 

Law student sexually harassed by ex-Supreme Court judge: case is not unique, but speaking out is nearly impossible

 

A law graduate who recently blogged about how a retired Supreme Court judge sexually

assaulted her while she was his intern, says that the problem is real and not uncommon amongst

the judiciary and senior bar but that she sees few if any ways of tackling it.

Stella James, who graduated from NUJS Kolkata this year and now works at the NGO Natural

Justice, Lawyers for Communities and the Environment, wrote about an alleged incident of

physical, sexual assault by an unnamed, retired Supreme Court judge in late 2012.

In a post that was published on the blog of the NUJS Journal of Indian Law and Society on 6

November, she wrote about trying to come to terms with her experience of 24 December 2012,

Christmas Eve, ironically against the backdrop of the then-ongoing Delhi gang rape protests:

“In Delhi at that time, interning during the winter vacations of my final year in University, I dodged

police barricades and fatigue to go to the assistance of a highly reputed, recently retired Supreme

Court judge whom I was working under during my penultimate semester. For my supposed

diligence, I was rewarded with sexual assault (not physically injurious, but nevertheless

violating) from a man old enough to be my grandfather. I won’t go into the gory details, but suffice

it to say that long after I’d left the room, the memory remained, in fact, still remains, with me.”

“Frankly I was really shocked,” James tells Legally India in an interview today. “There’s this thing:

a person who is a Supreme Court judge – you don’t expect a Supreme Court judge to harass

somebody.”

However, she says that her experience was neither uncommon, nor merely restricted to the

judiciary: “I’ve heard of three other cases [of sexual harassment] by the same judge and I know of

at least four other girls who’ve faced harassment from other judges – not perhaps as [bad as

mine]: most of them were in the chambers of the judge and other people around, so it never gets

too bad.

“A girl I know faced continuous sexual harassment throughout and sexual advances, and actually

faced troubles through her work because of it.” And she says she’s heard of Supreme Court

senior counsel who have made passes at or have continuously harassed interns for longer

periods.

And though it is barely, if at all, known outside legal circles, it is a bit of an open secret or a “big

joke” within the profession, particularly among clerks and women working in the Supreme Court,

according to James.

“People in the Supreme Court kind of know,” she says. “I did my internship through the college

[recruitment process].” After beginning to share her experience with others in college, however,

James found that others had also faced similar problems with the same judge.

James’ reasons for not going public with the name of the judge or not lodging a formal complaint

are complex, both morally and practically. On the one hand, she wrote in the blog post:

“I bore, and still bear, no real ill-will towards the man, and had no desire to put his life’s work and

reputation in question. On the other hand, I felt I had a responsibility to ensure that other young

girls were not put in a similar situation. But I have been unable to find a solution that allows that.

Despite the heated public debates, despite a vast army of feminist vigilantes, despite new

criminal laws and sexual harassment laws, I have not found closure. The lack of such an

alternative led to my facing a crippling sense of intellectual and moral helplessness.”

“I’d worked for him for six months and he treated me really well for six months and has been

really kind to me,” James explains. “It was rather strange to me but I haven’t really forgiven him

for it… [But] I don’t know if I want to let myself – my impression of him as a person – be entirely

dictated by that act… My leeway to him isn’t because he’s had a shining career and all that – part

of it is that – [but] I’m not really sure I want to ruin somebody’s entire life because of that.”

“Once it gets out in the open that he’s harassed other girls,” James says, “people will only look at

him in that light.”

However, James admits that one other strong reason, which was not really touched upon in her

blog post, was concern about whether legal action would even have any effect. James had

managed to reach two of the other young women who were harassed by the same judge but

neither were willing to come forward in public, mostly out of fear. “They don’t really want to

jeopordise their careers,” James relates. “He’s a Supreme Court judge. If it’s going to be his word

against our word, he’s got more credibility, so to speak, of his words.”

And she adds that if she by herself had wanted to take legal action, it would probably not have

been possible. “There were no other witnesses, it was just me. It was a hotel room, [people] saw

me walking in voluntarily, saw me walking out very calmly. I didn’t even walk out [with] fear. At

that moment I felt I needed to walk out very calmly. I never mentioned anything the same day to

anybody.”

Apart from the evidentiary difficulty in proving the crime, the more serious problem for lawyers is

perhaps inherent in the profession itself. James said she had never heard of any official

harassment complaints within the legal profession or against any judges. And while Legally India

understands that sexual harassment complaints are at times made in law firms, most are handled

very delicately and quietly, with the firm encouraging informal resolution.

In courts, it is even worse, speculates James, in that there is usually no one you can realistically

complain to, unlike in a company or college structure where harassed by a boss or lecturer, for

example, and where she would have taken formal action in a similar incident. “Of course you can

file a criminal complaint [against a judge or lawyer] but that’s a whole different level.” And it is

also likely to impact your career.

“I know a friend of mine who was sexually harassed at the Karnataka high court,” says James.

That friend “wasn’t keeping it a secret” and telling lawyer friends about why she left the job with

that senior, and for two months afterwards she wasn’t able to find a job at the same court, being

asked about the incident in interviews after it dripped through the court’s grapevine (she

eventually found a job after deciding to evade the issue at interviews).

The mindset in such cases often is, “she created trouble for him, she’ll create trouble for us”,

speculates James.

She says she was also skeptical about the Supreme Court’s recently started sexual harassment

cell and guidelines improving matters considerably. “It is often one person’s word against another

person’s word, and a lot of people tend not to take the word” of a young lawyer against a senior

advocate who’s made his reputation for 10 to 15 years. “There is a balance of power thing going

on here.”

The only thing that James has been able to do, other than write the blog, is discuss the incident

with members of her alma mater, possibly de-listing the judge from the recruitment process so

that others are not exposed to similar experiences.

While James does feel that colleges have a responsibility to protect their students, she

acknowledges that it could be difficult. The judge in question has been closely associated with

her former college for a while by giving lectures and regularly taking on research assistants, so

whether faculty can take unequivocal action is not certain.

Nevertheless, James says that potentially recruitment committees of colleges could make a

difference. “I think at least – there should be some way, if not publicly then at least privately, kids

who go intern with a judge should know that this has happened before.”

James says that she was able to come forward, albeit without disclosing names, because of her

choice to work with an NGO with a possible view to entering academia at some point in her

career.

“I was a little afraid,” she admits. “The other friends I’ve spoken about, they are in positions where

these judges play an important role [at the Supreme Court or teaching in a college and they] are

afraid of jeopardising their careers. I don’t have such concerns here at Natural Justice – I have a

team that’s incredibly supportive, and three colleagues were first to read the blog post [before

publication].

“For me, the great thing is that I’m in an organisation where I know that if I come out in public

about it, we are 25 people, and I’m pretty sure I’ll have the entire team behind me.”

That lawyers elsewhere are unlikely or unable to protect their own from sexual harassment, is a

problem the profession will have to deal with sooner rather than later.

 

Update 12 November: The Chief Justice of India has decided to institute a three-member

judicial committee to probe the allegation.

 

 

JUDGE SENDING OBSCENE SMS TO WOMEN

 

Lucknow Taking cognisance of the allegation against a civil Judge (junior division) of

Budaun court that he sent obscene SMSes to a woman lecturer, the Registrar General of

Allahabad High Court today sought a report from the district judge into the matter.

The civil judge of Gunnor sub-division court of Budaun — Pramod Kumar Gangwar— was

accused of sending obscene SMSes from his cellphone to a woman lecturer of Classic

College of Law, Bareilly. A lecturer of the same college, Vivek Gupta, was named in the FIR

lodged by the victim while Gangwar’s name surfaced in the primary investigation.

Registrar General Dinesh Gupta said, “The district judge of Budaun has been asked to

send a detailed report into the allegations. Appropriate action would be taken on the basis

of the report.”

District Judge Suresh Kumar Srivastava said, “I have asked the Bareilly district police to

send a report about the matter. The report on the basis of the police inquiry would be sent

to the Allahabad High Court Registrar General.”

“I am not aware about the matter, as the Bareilly police did not intimate me before initiating

the probe against the civil judge. They should have informed me when they had received

any such complaint,” the judge added.

Meanwhile, Bareilly CO II Raj Kumar, who is investigating the case, today recorded the

statement of the victim. “I have collected the call details of the cellphone used for sending

the SMSes, but I have yet to get the address of the person who is subscriber of the SIM

card,” he said.

“The probe is on to verify if the accused in the case were present on the location recorded

in the call details when the SMSes were sent. The details of the findings of the

investigation would be sent to the Budaun district court to seek the direction,” the CO

added.

Asked if the investigation was earlier conducted into the matter, Raj Kumar said, “The SP

(Crime) had initiated probe into the matter, but I am not aware if the investigation had

reached to any conclusion.”

The woman lecturer had lodged an FIR at the Mahila police station on Thursday alleging

she had received obscene SMSes on her cellphone involving her colleague Vivek Gupta.

The preliminary inquiry into the case by the police yesterday had found that the mobile

phone used in the crime belongs to the civil judge.

 

 

IB confirms Mysore Roost  Resort sex scandal

 

 

The Intelligence Bureau has provided the Centre with a detailed account of the escapade

involving three Karnataka High Court judges on November 3 in a resort on the outskirts of

Mysore, highly placed sources told The Times of India on Friday.

According to a senior official, “Most of the information sought has not only confirmed the veracity

of the incident but the government has crosschecked it with another police agency. Both the

reports match.”

The incident was widely reported in the media. What has surprised the Centre is the “dogged

refusal” of the Karnataka police to confirm the incident. “Mysore Police Commissioner C.

Chandrasekhar first denied that the incident ever took place. Only when a public notice was

issued through the high court registrar seeking information on the Mysore scandal, did the facts

come out in the open. Public protest helped a lot,” says the source.

What transpired at the resort, says the source, “cannot be expected from anyone in civil society,

leave alone persons sworn to upholding the law”. According to him, “The IB report consists of

unmentionable facts and also makes it amply clear that the Mysore incident is not the first time

such things have happened. Can anyone expect upholders of the law to pick a fight with people

who complained to the police when caught in a compromising position?”

In a related development, Karnataka High Court Chief Justice N.K. Jain has written to Chief

Justice of India Justice G.B. Pattanaik asking that three judges be transferred. Jain has proposed

that Justice N.S. Veerabhadraiah be transferred to the Patna High Court, Justice

Chandrasekharaiah to Jammu & Kashmir and Justice V. Gopala Gowda to the Gauhati High

Court.

While Jain is understood not to have given any reasons, highly placed sources say the proposal

for transfers is linked to the Mysore incident.

However, the source says that now the government is worried about the appropriate “remedial

measures”. In such cases, transferring a judge to a remote high court doesn’t always work. He

says, “Bar associations and the people of northeastern states were up in arms when some

judges of the Punjab and Haryana high courts were transferred there. We expect similar protests

if the CJI accepts Justice Jain’s proposal to transfer the three judges of the Karnataka High

Court.”

The Bar Council of India on Friday, while expressing its anguish at the Karnataka incident, called

for “follow-up action”.

“Unless prompt and appropriate action is taken, it will erode the faith of public in the only

institution considered to be the bastion of our fighting faith in democracy,” it said in a statement.

The BCI has “lamented” inaction in this case by “the higher judiciary and the government”.

 

Read more: IB confirms Mysore sex scandal – The Times of India  http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/bangalore/IB-confirms-Mysore-sexscandal/articleshow/29801662.cms#ixzz1B7PtvFdU

 

 

Lokayukta: DC demanded sex from widow

 

 

In the midst of a national outrage over former Haryana DGP SPS Rathore molesting a teenager,

the Karnataka Lokayukta on Saturday made a startling revelation that the state government was

shielding a top bureaucrat who had demanded sexual favours from a young widow.

Lokayukta Justice Santosh Hegde disclosed that the official concerned, who was the deputy

commissioner of one of the districts when he demanded sex from the widow in return for

discharging his duties as public servant, has since been promoted to a senior position.

Justice Hegde, in the course of an interaction with journalists at the Deccan Herald office

Saturday afternoon, said the unnamed widow had dared the deputy commissioner and

approached the Lokayukta’s office with a complaint against the officer.

On examination of the complaint, the Lokayukta had found sufficient grounds to recommend to

the state government the suspension and prosecution of the DC concerned. The

recommendation was subsequently considered by the concerned department head as well as

the chief secretary and both endorsed it.

But, according to Justice Hegde, no action was initiated against the DC as the same official who

had endorsed the recommendation subsequently found no basis for initiating departmental action

against him. Instead, the official cleared the DC’s name for promotion in the super-scale.

Presently, the official holds a senior position in the government.

The widow, in her late 20s, had approached the DC with a representation to sort out some

problems. But she was shocked when the DC demanded sex.

Justice Hegde did not identify the official in question or the complainant. Nor did he offer to name

the district where the official was serving as deputy commissioner. But the incident has

happened sometime in the course of last three years as Justice Hegde took over as the

Lokayukta in mid-2006.

 

3-year jail term for ‘dirty’ judge

 

Family court judge Ramrao Gangaram Bhise attempted to get sexual favours from a housewife in

1997

Family court judge Ramrao Gangaram Bhise’s attempts to extract sexual favours, in addition to a

bribe, from a housewife, Alka Gaikwad — who had sought an increase in her monthly

maintenance allowance from her estranged husband, in 1997 — proved costly to him.

Pronouncing him guilty on both counts, the special court hearing anti-corruption bureau (ACB)

matters sentenced him to three years rigorous imprisonment and a collective fine of Rs55, 000,

on Monday.

According to the FIR in the case registered against Bhise by the ACB, Suryakant Gaikwad had

filed for divorce from his wife, Alka, before the Bandra family court. Alka, a housewife, in turn,

filed a petition seeking mutual cohabitation with her husband. The then family court judge, Meera

Khadakkar, directed the husband to pay her an interim maintenance allowance of Rs750 per

month.

Subsequently, in January 1997, Alka filed another application before the same family court (now

presided over by Bhise) seeking to increase the monthly maintenance amount to Rs3,500. “On

October 27, 1997, Bhise issued an interim order, increasing the maintenance allowance to

Rs2,000 to be paid by Suryakan to his estranged wife till the disposal of the case. Immediately

after issuing the order, Bhise asked Alka to meet him and gave her his residential telephone

number, asking her to call him when the court hours ended. He told her that he would ask her

husband to pay her a lump sum of Rs2 lakh in addition to the monthly maintenance, provided she

called him up,” the FIR states.

When she called up the judge at 7 pm the same day, Bhise told her that she would have to pay

him a sum of Rs2,000 in addition to granting his sexual favours if she wanted an order in her

favour. He also directed her to meet him at the Haji Ali bus stop with the bribe amount the

following evening.

“Alka approached the ACB, which sought permission from the Chief Justice of the Bombay High

Court before laying a trap on the first class judicial magistrate (Bhise). The HC while granting the

permission designated a court official to bear witness to the events leading to the trap. Alka,

under video camera surveillance of ACB sleuths, along with the court official and other women

witnesses met Bhise at 8.30 pm at the Haji Ali bus stop. Bhise took hold of Alka’s wrist and when

she protested, repeated his demands,” the FIR states.

Alka was then taken to a nearby hotel, Sharda, where the judge accepted the bribe amount. But

before he could do anything else, ACB sleuths swooped in and arrested him.

 

 

Rajasthan judge is indicted for seeking sexual favours

 

Chief Justice of India G B Pattanaik retires tonight and he doesn’t have much to write home about

on the unprecedented drive he launched to enforce judicial accountability.

After the PPSC scam fiasco, reported in The Indian Express today, comes the case of the

Rajasthan judge who has been indicted in a sex scandal and yet has escaped action—pending

another inquiry.

On December 14, a three-judge committee set up by Pattanaik confirmed the ‘‘involvement’’ of

Justice Arun Madan of the Rajasthan High Court in a proposition to a woman doctor to have sex

with him in exchange for a judicial favour.

The committee, headed by the Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court Justice B K

Roy, submitted its report to Pattanaik, indicting Madan on a complaint made from Jodhpur by the

woman concerned, Sunita Malviya.

But Pattanaik has not announced any action against Madan. When contacted by The Indian

Express, Pattanaik confirmed that the committee had indicted Madan and his ‘‘bad reputation’’ in

seeking sexual favours in return for judicial ones.

However, Pattanaik said that no action was being taken since the committee had also mentioned

allegations of corruption against Madan. And so he had ordered a further inquiry by the same

committee into the corruption charges.

When asked what he did with the indictment of Madan in the sex scandal, Pattanaik said, ‘‘That

is on hold because I could not have taken piecemeal action against him….I am praying to God

that the final report will give some tangible material to take action.’’

Highly placed sources told The Indian Express that when the committee recorded statements last

week in Jodhpur of about 30 persons over four days, it also came to know of several allegations

of corruption against Madan and another judge of the same high court. The committee put these

on record as well.

Pattanaik said that when he summoned Madan to New Delhi last week, he did not raise the sex

scandal issue and instead limited himself to saying that he was ordering a further inquiry into

corruption allegations.

In effect, Pattanaik has now passed the Rajasthan buck to his successor Justice V N Khare.

The gist of Malviya’s complaint is that Madan made a sexual proposition to her in October

through a deputy registrar of the high court, Govind Kalwani, who said that the judge would help

her, in turn, get out of a criminal case booked against her.

With this, Pattanaik’s much-touted in-house judicial accountability seems to have hit a wall. The

first committee’s report into the PPSC scam exonerated one judge despite evidence and let two

others off with a mere slap on the wrist. The third committee is now busy probing the involvement

of judges in the Mysore sex scam.

 

 

Ten reasons why criminals in khaki get away

Siddharth Varadarajan

 

Behind every man like S.P.S. Rathore who abuses his authority stand the generals and

footsoldiers who help and support him. We need to take them all down.

S.P.S. Rathore, the criminal former top cop of Haryana, may appear alone today but we must

never forget that he was able to get away with the sexual molestation of a young child and the

illegal harassment of her family for 19 years because he had hundreds of men who supported

him in his effort to evade justice.

The fact that these men – fellow police officers, bureaucrats, politicians, lawyers, judges, school

administrators – were willing to bend the system to accommodate a man accused of molesting a

minor speaks volumes for the moral impoverishment of our establishment and country. Decent

societies shun those involved in sexual offences against children. Even criminals jailed for

`ordinary’ crimes like murder treat those serving time for molesting children as beyond the pale.

But in India, men like Rathore have their uses for their masters, so the system circles its wagons

and protects them.

The CBI’s appeal may lead to the enhancement of Rathore’s sentence and perhaps even the

slapping of abetment to suicide charges, since his young victim killed herself to put an end to the

criminal intimidation her family was being subjected to by Rathore and his men. But the systemic

rot which the case has exposed will not be remedied unless sustained public pressure is put on

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Union Home Minister P. Chidambaram, two men who have

it in their power to push for simple remedies in the way the Indian law enforcement and justice

delivery system works.

First, abolish the need for official, i.e. political sanction to prosecute bureaucrats, policemen and

security forces personnel when they are accused of committing crimes. The original intent behind

this built-in stay-out-of-jail card was to protect state functionaries from acts done in the course of

discharging their duties in good faith. Somewhere along the line, this has come to mean

protecting our custodians of law and order when they murder innocent civilians (eg. the infamous

Panchalthan case in Kashmir where the trial of army men indicted by the CBI for murdering five

villagers in 2000 still cannot take place because the Central government will not grant

permission), or assault or molest women and children. No civilised, democratic society grants

such impunity. It is disgusting to see former officials and bureaucrats from Haryana saying how

they had wanted Rathore prosecuted but were prevented from doing so because of pressure.

Such officials should either be made formally to testify in a criminal case against the politicians

who so pressured them or they should themselves be hauled up for perverting the course of

justice.

Second, stop talking about how making the police and army answerable to the law will somehow

demoralise their morale. Does anybody care about the morale of ordinary citizens any more? Or

the morale of upright police and army officers, who do not think it is right for their colleagues to be

able to get away with criminal acts?

Third, bring an end to the cosy relationship between the police and politicians. Rathore was

protected by four chief ministers of Haryana. He served them and they served him by ensuring

his unfettered rise. It is absurd that the Indian Police is still governed by a colonial-era Act dating

back to 1861. A number of commissions have made recommendations for reforming the police

over the years; but no government or political party wants to give up its ability to use and misuse

the police for their own benefit

Fourth, ensure that police officers who abuse their authority and engage in mala fide

prosecutions are dismissed from service and sentenced to jail for a long period of time. Mr.

Chidambaram should use the considerable resources at his command to find out who were the

policemen involved in filing 11 bogus cases against the teenaged brother of the young girl

Rathore molested. He should then make sure criminal proceedings are initiated against all of

them. The message must go out to every policeman in the country: If you abuse the law at the

behest of a superior, you will suffer legal consequences.

Fifth, ensure that criminal charges against law enforcement personnel are fast-tracked as a

matter of routine so that a powerful defendant is not able to use his position to delay proceedings

the way Rathore did for years on end. The destruction or disappearance of material evidence in

such cases must be treated as a grave offence with strict criminal liability imposed on the

individual responsible for breaking the chain of custody.

Sixth, empower the National Human Rights Commission with teeth so that police departments

and state governments cannot brush aside their orders as happened in the Rathore case. This

would also require appointing to the NHRC women and men who have a proven record of

defending human rights in their professional life, something that is done today only in the breach.

The attitude of the Manmohan Singh government to this commission and others like the National

Commission for Women (NCW) and National Commission for Minorities is shocking. Vacancies

are not filled for months on end.

Seventh, ensure the early enactment of pending legislation broadening the ambit of sexual

crimes, including sexual crimes against children. Between rape, defined as forced penetrative

sex, and the vague, Victorian-era crime of `outraging the modesty of a woman’, the Indian Penal

Code recognises no other form of sexual violence. As a result, all forms of sexual molestation

and assault short of rape attract fairly lenient punishment, of the kind Rathore got. In his case, the

judge did not even hand down the maximum sentence, citing concerns for the criminal’s age.

Sadly, he did not take into account the age of the victim and neither does the IPC, which fails to

distinguish between `outraging the modesty’ of an adult woman and a young child.

A draft law changing these provisions and bringing India into line with the rest of the modern

world has been pending with the NCW and Law Ministry for years. Perhaps the government may

now be shamed into pushing it through Parliament at the earliest.

Eighth, take steps to introduce a system of protection of witnesses and complainants. The fate

that the family of Rathore’s young victim had to endure is testament to the fact that people who

seek justice in India do so at their own peril.

Ninth, ensure that robust interrogation techniques like narco-analysis, which are routinely used

against other alleged criminals, are also employed against police officers accused of crimes.

Tenth, the media and the higher judiciary must also turn the light inward and ask themselves

whether they were also derelict in their duty. The Rathore case did not attract the kind of constant

media attention it deserved, nor do other cases involving serving police officers accused of

crimes against women, workers, peasants and minorities. As for the upper courts, their record is

too patchy to inspire confidence. It was, after all, the high court which chose to disregard the

CBI’s request for including abetment to suicide charges.

Keywords: Siddharth Varadarajan, S.P.S. Rathore, criminals, khaki, former DGP of

Haryana, custodians, sexual violence, NHRC

 

 

Porbandar judge accused of dowry harassment

 

A complaint has been filed against District and Sessions judge of Porbandar for allegedly

harassing his daughter-in-law for dowry, police said here on Sunday.

Darshana Dave, a native of Amreli, has filed a complaint against her husband Kinnar, father-inlaw

and district judge Arvind Dave, mother-in-law Pratibha and brother-in-law Prashant, the

police added.

Darshana married Kinnar two years ago. Her complaint says that she was harassed from the

beginning, and was even beaten up by the husband and in-laws, who were demanding Rs 10

lakh as dowry.

She has also alleged that she was thrown out of the house a few months back, and her husband

is now seeking divorce, the police said.

Amreli Superintendent of Police H R Muliyana confirmed to have received the complaint against

the judge and others. He said that action will be taken after verifying the complaint.

This is the second complaint related to dowry harassment filed against a judge in the state in the

recent past.

Earlier, a woman had filed a complaint against additional sessions judge of Jetpur after her

daughter and the judge’s wife committed suicide.

 

 

Gurgaon judge to also face dowry harassment charge

 

Gurgaon’s Chief Judicial Magistrate Ravneet Garg, booked for the murder of his wife, will also

face dowry harassment charge, police here said Monday.

Police have issued notices to the CJM’s father K.K. Garg and mother Rachna Garg, who have

also been named in the dowry harassment case.

The CJM’s father reached here Monday morning from Haryana’s Panchkula town and contacted

police, who wanted to question him.

“We had called CJM’s parents…K.K. Garg was questioned by special investigation team (SIT),”

Gurgaon Police Commissioner Alok Mittal said.

Mittal said on the basis of written complaint filed by the parents of the CJM’s wife Geetanjali,

penal sections of dowry harassment and extra-marital affair were included in the FIR lodged

against the CJM Saturday.

Geetanjali, 24, bore three bullet wounds – on her chin, chest and stomach – but no bullets were

found in her body that was recovered here Thursday. The CJM’s licensed firearm was found near

the body, police said.

Mittal said two bullets were seized from the scene of crime and would be sent for ballistic

examination Monday, a day after ballistic experts examined the crime spot.

“The SIT Sunday questioned two women relatives of Ravneet Garg for hours at his government

allotted house here in the Officers Colony,” said Mittal.

“We have asked CJM to produce supporting evidences to prove his statement,” he said.

The CJM allegedly said that his driver and domestic help may throw some light on his wife’s

death.

Judge Garg’s in-laws alleged that two cars were provided to the accused on his and his family’s

demand. Rs.2 lakh were also delivered to him at the time of the admission of his daughters in

school in May.

Geetanjali’s brother Pradeep Aggarwal Saturday lodged a first information report against Garg

and his parents, accusing them of murder.

“Ravneet and Geetanjali got married in November 2007. Everything was fine for a few years but

the attitude of Ravneet and his parents towards Geetanjali started changing after she delivered

two baby girls (now aged around four and a half and three years),” Aggarwal said in his

complaint.

He demanded a probe by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) into his sister’s murder.

 

 

Edited, printed , published owned by NAGARAJA.M.R. @ #LIG-2 / 761,HUDCO FIRST STAGE ,OPP WATER WORKS , LAXMIKANTANAGAR , HEBBAL ,MYSORE – 570017INDIA… cell :09341820313 

home page :   http://in.groups.yahoo.com/group/sosevoiceforjustice/ ,  http://groups.google.co.in/group/hrwepaper/   ,  http://sites.google.com/site/sosevoiceforjustice/  ,  https://evoiceofhumanrightswatch.wordpress.com/  ,  http://naghrw.tripod.com/evoice/   ,  

http://e-voiceofhumanrightswatch.blogspot.com/   ,  http://paper.li/f-1368369249/

 

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

http://www.amnesty.org/en/user/naghrw  

A   Member  of  Amnesty  International   

 

Standard