human rights

Rapist JUDGEs No Punishment ?

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

Editor: Nagaraja.M.R.. Vol.09..Issue.20….….17/05/2014

 

Notice  to  CJI  Justice  R M  Lodha

https://sites.google.com/site/sosevoiceforjustice/notice-to-cji-justice-r-m-lodha  ,

 

 

Judge Watch http://www.judicialreforms.org/images/dots.jpg

  • Corruption, Immunity, Contempt & 
    Right to Information
    The course of justice is often perverted by corruption within the judiciary and indeed within the entire system of administration of justice. This is exacerbated by the total lack of accountability of the higher judiciary including the lack of any effective disciplinary mechanism, the self acquired protection from even being investigated for criminal offences, the virtual immunity from public criticism due to the law of contempt, and finally the immunity from public scrutiny by another judicially created insulation from the Right to Information Act.
  •  


Submitting Information
 http://www.judicialreforms.org/images/dots.jpg

Judge Watch will contain information / analysis regarding any misconduct by a judge as well as anything showing the anti-poor bias of a judge.

The campaign welcomes well researched information concerning judges from any court. However, we cannot ensure that every dossier sent will be uploaded on this site or made public. All submissions must be accompanied by the relevant/required documents that may provide evidence in support of any allegations/observations made against any judge or judicial officer.

One reference document is the “Restatement of Values of Judicial Life”,a code of conduct, adopted at a full court meeting of the Supreme Court on May 7, 1997 . The Campaign does not subscribe to this as a complete document, but a starting point.

To send in information for the Judge Watch section please see the following document. Judge Watch Format [Word, 20 KB]

 

 

Judge Watch on Justice V.Ramaswami

http://www.judicialreforms.org/images/dots.jpg

  • Name of Judge: Justice V.Ramaswami
  • Post Held at Relevant Time: Chief Justice of P&H High Court
  • Current Status: Rtd. Judge of Supreme Court of India
  • Analysis/Comment/Critique:
    The first-ever impeachment motion against a SC judge, Justice V. Ramaswami, was signed by 108 MPs in 1991. A year later, an inquiry found Ramaswami “guilty of willful and gross misuses of office… “While serving as the Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court”. Ramaswami survived the impeachment process as Parliament got divided along regional lines, southern MPs strongly supported him. Only 196 members of Parliament, less than the required two-thirds, voted for his ouster.
  • Additional documents in support of critique:

Motion of Impeachment – pdf (64 KB)
A Historic non-impeachment –)pdf (29.5 KB)

  • Details of individual / organisation writing critique:
    Name: Committee on Judicial Accountability 
    Address: 66 Lawyers Chambers, Supreme Court of India, New Delhi
  • If the critique is in respect of a judge please provide
    a softcopy and/or hardcopy of the judgement

 

Judge Watch on Justice Madan Mohan Puchhi

http://www.judicialreforms.org/images/dots.jpg

  • Name of Judge: Justice Madan Mohan Punchhi
  • Rank: Former Chief Justice of India
  • Court: Supreme Court of India
  • Analysis/Comment/Critique:

This charge sheet was prepared by the Committee on Judicial Accountability in 1998, when Justice Punchhi was a judge of the Supreme Court of India. It was signed by 25 MPs of Rajya Sabha. However, before it could get the signature of the requisite number of 50 MPs of Rajya Sabha, Justice Punchhi was appointed Chief Justice of India. After this, it became virtually impossible to get the Notice of Motion signed by any MPs. Consequently, Notice of Motion could not be presented to the Speaker. The imp lesson of this exercise was that it is very difficult to get the MPs sign the impeachment motion unless three conditions are satisfied. Firstly, the charges must be very serious; secondly they must be provable by documentary evidence which is annexed to the Notice of Motion and finally, the charges must have been given substantial publicity in the media.

In the absence of all the three conditions been satisfied, MPs are afraid and reluctant to sign a charge sheet against a sitting judge. It is normally exceedingly difficult to get documentary evidence to prove charge against sitting judge, particularly in the absence of a statutory investigation by an agency having powers of investigation. Moreover, the bulk of the main stream media is afraid to publicise charges against the sitting judge for fear of contempt. In Ramaswami’s case, the above three conditions were satisfied. Documentary evidence was available against Ramaswami because of the report of the Accountant General who audited the purchases made by Ramaswami as Chief Justice of Punjab and Haryana High Court. This is why, impeachment of judges, however corrupt they might be, is not a practical remedy in discipling them.

 

  • Additional documents in support of critique:

Justice M.M.Punchhi – Notice of Motion – pdf (70 KB)

  • Details of individual / organisation writing critique:
    Name: Committee on Judicial Accountability 
    Address: 66 Lawyers Chambers, Supreme Court of India, New Delhi
  • If the critique is in respect of a judge please provide
    a softcopy and/or hardcopy of the judgement

 

Judge Watch on Justice A. S. Anand

http://www.judicialreforms.org/images/dots.jpg

  • Name of Judge: Justice A.S.Anand
  • Rank: Former Chief Justice of India
  • Court: Supreme Court of India
  • Analysis/Comment/Critique:
    Serious allegations of corruption and favouritism were raised against Justice A.S.Anand former Chief Justice of India pertaining to the period when he was the Judge and the Chief Justice of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court.

These unrebutted allegations were supported by valid authentic documents and were severely raised at the time when Justice Anand was the Chief Justice of India but nothing was ever done in this regard.

  • Additional documents in support of critique:

Allegations aganist J. A.S.Anand – pdf (15.5 KB)

  • Details of individual / organisation writing critique:
    Name: Committee on Judicial Accountability 
    Address: 66 Lawyers Chambers, Supreme Court of India, New Delhi
  • If the critique is in respect of a judge please provide
    a softcopy and/or hardcopy of the judgement

 

Judge Watch on Justice Vijendra Jain

http://www.judicialreforms.org/images/dots.jpg

  • Name of Judge: Justice Vijendra Jain
  • Post held at the relevant time: Judge at Delhi High Court
  • Currrent Status: Chief Justice of Punjab and Haryana High Court
  • Analysis/Comment/Critique:

Justice Vijender Jain had decided a case of a litigant Hari Ram who was the father-in-law of Justice Arun Kumar, Former Supreme Court Judge and a close friend of Justice Vijendra Jain. They personally knew well enough to have Hari Ram’s granddaughter married from his official residence. This is in violation of one of the elements of the Code of Conduct or “Restatement of Judicial Values”, adopted by the Full court in 1997 which says that no judge shall hear and decide a case of his relative or friend. Even then Justice Vijendra Jain has been recommended as Chief Justice of Punjab and Haryana High Court.

A complaint made by Subhash Agarwal against Justice Jain was rejected with no formal reasons given but he was informally told that Justice Jain did not personally know Hari Ram but since Hari Ram was the Father-in-law of Justice Arun Kumar, a close friend of Justice Jain, Justice Jain agreed to lend his residence for the wedding of Hari Ram’s granddaughter.

The Committee on Judicial Accountability wrote letters to the President and Prime Minister of India and requested them to get all correspondences made by the Complainant Subhash Agrawal to the Supreme Court in this regard.

  • Additional documents in support of critique:
    Letters sent by Committee on Judicial Accountability

Letter to President 12.8.06 – pdf (8.03 KB) 
Letter to Prime Minister-)pdf (6.24 KB)

Sunday Guardian web news article 28.11.10-)pdf (132 KB)

[The name of Justice Vijender Jain, even though clearly mentioned in the tape has been withheld in this news item though the conversation itself makes it very clear who the concerned judge is.]

  • Details of individual / organisation writing critique:
    Name: Committee on Judicial Accountability 
    Address: 66 Lawyers Chambers, Supreme Court of India, New Delhi

Judge Watch on Justice Ashok Kumar

http://www.judicialreforms.org/images/dots.jpg

  • Name of Judge: Justice Ashok Kumar
  • Rank: Additional Judge
  • Court: High Court of Chennai
  • Analysis/Comment/Critique:

The case of Judge Ashok Kumar of Madras who was formerly a session’s judge and has been given a permanent position in the Chennai High Court by the Chief Justice of India in February 2007 is horrifying. When the complaints were levelled against him of corruption, an inquiry report by the Intelligence Bureau (IB) gave an even more horrendous report against him. But all the reports were ignored and he was promoted to the High Court. This happened due to the political pressure from the Central Government, as the judge was close to DMK government (now ruling party of the State) and DMK government threatened to withdraw support from the UPA government. So it is due to that, that the law minister asked the CJI to give extensions and finally made Ashok Kumar a High Court judge.

 

  • Additional documents in support of critique:

Petition on the appointment of Justice A.Kumar – pdf (51.6 KB)
SC order on Justice A.Kumar’s case-
 pdf (7.9 KB)
Are CJIs following rules in appointment of Judges?-)pdf (6.93 KB)
Justice Ashok Kumar appoinment chalenged-
 pdf (10.0 KB)

  • Details of individual / organisation writing critique:
    Name: Committee on Judicial Accountability 
    Address: 66 Lawyers Chambers, Supreme Court of India, New Delhi
  • If the critique is in respect of a judge please provide
    a softcopy and/or hardcopy of the judgement

 

Judge Watch on Justice Jagdish Bhalla

http://www.judicialreforms.org/images/dots.jpghttp://www.judicialreforms.org/images/dots.jpg


This is the case where the documentary evidence was available to show that the judge has purchased the property worth crores in few lakhs in the name of his wife from well-known criminal who have illegally grabbed the land. There were inquiry reports of the Additional District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police which attested to these facts. However, despite this documentary evidence being brought to the notice of the then Chief Justice of India, he neither ordered an independent investigation nor did he allow the Committee on Judicial Accountability to get a regular FIR registered, so that a normal police investigation could have taken place. This was despite the fact that under the in-house procedure, supposedly adopted by the Supreme Court of India in 1999 for investigating charges against the judges, at least an in-house committee of judges could have formed to investigate the charges against Justice Bhalla. However instead of doing that, the then Chief Justice Y.K. Sabbarwal recommended Justice Bhalla to be the Chief Justice of Kerala High Court. His appointment as Chief Justice was stopped only because of the complaint made by the Committee on Judicial Accountability to the President of India, who sent the matter back to reconsideration to the Supreme Court collegium, which thereafter could not reiterate its recommendation because of the opposition of one of the judges of the collegium, Justice B.N.Aggarwal. However, thereafter Justice Bhalla has been transferred as a judge of Chattisgarh High Court where he has been appointed as acting Chief Justice by the notification of Law Ministry. This was despite of the objection of the Committee on Judicial Accountability, that a judge, who was not found suitable as Chief Justice of Kerala, cannot be appointed as Acting Chief Justice of another High Court. 

The case of Justice Bhalla demonstrates the hollowness of the so-called in-house procedure supposedly adopted by the Supreme Court for investigating charges against judges. It also demonstrates the pernicious impact of the Veraswami judgement which prevents any police investigation against a judge without the prior permission of the Chief Justice of India. The brotherhood among the judges and the fear among judges that any criminal investigation against the sitting judge would tarnish the image of Indian Judiciary has let to a situation whereby not a single sitting judge has been subjected to criminal investigation in the 17 years since the Veeraswamy judgement.


Impeachment Motion and Press Releases

  • Press Release on the Proposed Elevation of Justice Bhalla – pdf (10.5 KB)
  • Impeachment Motion sent to Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha with explanatory note- pdf (64.8 KB)
  • Press Release on the Motion of Impeachmentagainst Justice Bhalla – pdf (42.8 KB)

 

Additional documents in support

Details of individual / organisation writing critique:
Name: Committee on Judicial Accountability 
Address: 66 Lawyers Chambers, Supreme Court of India, New Delhi

 

Judge Watch on Justice Y.K.Sabharwal

http://www.judicialreforms.org/images/dots.jpg

Former CJI, Justice Y.K.Sabharwal set in motion the process of sealing of properties in designated residential areas of Delhi which were being used for commercial purposes. This sealing went on relentlessly under the continuous supervision of Chief Justice Sabharwal’s bench, monitored and directed by a Court appointed monitoring committee. When the government came up with a new master plan of Delhi 2021 which allowed mixed use and commercial activity in many of the areas which were designated as residential, Justice Sabharwal orders on the sealing continued.

Some of the facts which were not publicly known was that his two sons, Chetan and Nitin had entered into partnerships with big Mall and Commercial complex developers and had become big Commercial complex developers themselves during that time. It was clear that these orders were giving direct benefit to his sons’ business. His orders are against the principles of natural justice, which say that no judge can hear a case in which he is personally interested. There was a serious conflict of interest in this case which renders his orders a nullity. It is in fact arguable that his dealing with this case in such circumstances involves an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

At the same time, it was also found that several plots were allotted to the Companies or relatives of Justice Sabharwal and which needs to be investigated to see if undue favour was shown to them and if so whether there was any quid pro quo in terms of judicial orders.

The facts thrown up in this case have very disturbing implications about the integrity of our judiciary in the highest places.

Other Interventions

  • Justice Sabharwal’s Defence Becomes Murkier: Stifling Public Exposure By Using Contempt Powers -Press Release- pdf (41 KB)
  • Securing Judicial Accountability Freedom Of Speech vs. Contempt Towards An Independent Judicial Commission by Prashant Bhushan – pdf (40 KB)
  • Shocking Abuse of Judicial Power; Hindu editorial; Sep 24,2007-pdf (10.6KB)
  • Sabharwal on Trial; Times of India – pdf (28 KB)
  • Contept of Justice; Outlook online-pdf (85 KB)

Tehelka Investigation

  • Office of Profit: A Stink You Should Smell by Sanjay Dubey- pdf (35 KB)
  • Instead of helping shopkeepers, he made his sons rich- pdf (48 KB)
  • Silence Lies: Tehelka view by Shoma Chaudhary- pdf (138 KB)


“Wither Judicial Accountability? The case of Justice Sabharwal: Disquieting facts, disturbing implications”- Press Conference held on Aug 03, 2007 
Press Conference was organised to highlight a grave case of Judicial Misconduct at the Apex of the Indian Judiciary. It disclosed how the then Chief Justice of India who had spearheaded the sealing drive was mired in serious conflict of interest in as much as his sons were deeply involved in the business of shopping malls and commercial complexes who stood to benefit from this sealing drive. It was addressed by Shri Shanti Bhushan, former Union Law Minister, Mr. Bhaskar Rao, Chairman, Centre for Media Studies, and Mr. Prashant Bhushan, advocate, Supreme Court among other. The Press Conference was attended by 40 news agencies and 80 participants.


Mid-day Investigation

  • Details of individual / organisation writing critique:
    Name: Committee on Judicial Accountability 
    Address: 66 Lawyers Chambers, Supreme Court of India, New Delhi
  • Post held at the relevant time: Chief Justice of India, Supreme Court
  • Current Status: Retd Chief Justice of India, Supreme Court

 

Judge Watch on Justice P. D. Dinakaran

http://www.judicialreforms.org/images/dots.jpg

FThe Supreme Court collegium headed by Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan and including Justice S.H. Kapadia, Justice Tarun Chatterjee and Justice R.V. Raveendran had recommended in August 2009, Justice P.D. Dinakaran, the Chief Justice of Karnataka High Court, for elevation to the Supreme Court. The recommendations came along with the names of four other Judges for elevation to the Apex court namely, Justice AK Patnayak (Chief Justice of Madhya Pradesh High Court), Justice Tirath Singh Thakur, (Chief Justice of Punjab and Haryana High Court), Justice SS Nijjar (Chief Justice of Calcutta High Court) and Justice KS Radhakrishna ( Chief Justice of Gujarat High Court). While the decks were cleared for the elevation of the latter four Judges, iimmediately after the news of Justice Dinakaran’s proposed appointment became known, a group of highly respected and responsible lawyers from Chennai called the Forum for Judicial Accountability sent a series of representations to the Collegium and the government detailing several very damaging allegations against him. These included, acquiring more than 350 acres of agricultural land and encroaching on another more than hundred acres of public land; acquiring properties benami and far beyond his known sources of income; hearing and deciding cases of his friends etc. All the allegations were backed by unimpeachable documentary evidence.
Though the Chief Justice of India, continued to back him, he ordered an inquiry into the allegation regarding his agricultural land by the District Magistrate, who confirmed the allegations including his encroachment of public land. Thereafter Justice Dinakaran tried to destroy evidence and threatened the revenue officials who went to stop this destruction of evidence. All this came to be widely reported in the media. An embarrassed PMO forced a reluctant Law Minister Moily to return the recommendation to the collegium for reconsideration. The collegium did not withdraw the recommendation, but merely put it on hold. No “in house inquiry” was ordered either.
Meanwhile people questioned how Dinakaran could continue as Chief Justice of Karnataka in the light of such serious offences that he had committed. There was also the demand that FIRs should be registered and the offences that he had committed be investigated. The Chief Justice of India however did not give permission for registering any FIR against Justice Dinakaran. This left no option but to initiate impeachment proceedings against him. The Forum for Judicial Accountability prepared the impeachment motion which was sent to all the political parties by a campaign for signatures. Eventually 75 MPs of the Rajya Sabha, belonging to many political parties except the Congress party signed the impeachment motion and presented it to the Vice President. The motion was soon admitted by the Vice President forcing Justice Dinakaran to stop discharging judicial functions.
The procedure laid down by the Judges Inquiry Act for proceeding with an impeachment motion is that the Vice President appoints an enquiry committee consisting of a sitting judge of the Supreme Court, a Chief Justice of a High Court and a jurist to enquire into the charges against him. Only if the enquiry committee finds him guilty does the matter proceed further for a voting in the two houses of Parliament. The motion for his removal has to be then passed by a two third majority in each house. Only then can he be removed. Though there is no requirement under the Judges Inquiry Act for the Vice President to consult the Chief Justice in the choice of members of the enquiry committee, he consulted the Chief Justice, who recommended two judges of the Supreme Court and two Chief Justices of the High Court. Based on the Chief Justice’s advice, the Vice President has appointed an inquiry committee comprising of Justice V.S. Sirupurkar of the Supreme Court, Chief Justice A.R. Dave of the A.P. High Court and Shri P.P. Rao as the jurist.
The Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reform as well as the Forum for Judicial Accountability have however written to the V.P. pointing out that Justice Sirupurkar has not only been a close friend and colleague of Justice Dinakaran, but he has also prejudged the issue, telling several responsible lawyers that he knows Justice Dinakaran well and that he is an independently wealthy and honourable man. Moreover, Shri P.P. Rao had been formally consulted by Justice Dinakaran on how he should deal with these charges and that he had advised him on the matter. In these circumstances, they would not be seen to be impartial and therefore should not sit as judges on this inquiry committee to avoid damage to the credibility of the inquiry and further controversy. However till the date of writing they have not yet recused themselves.

Representations by the Forum for Judicial Accountability to the Collegium

  • Representation 1 against Mr.Justice P.D.Dinakaran, Chief Justice, Karnataka High Court – amassing of huge assets, corruption and serious irregularities.- pdf
  • Representation 2, Further particulars with supporting materials regarding Mr. Justice P.D.Dinakaran, Chief Justice of Karnataka- pdf
  • Representation 3, Details of more acquisitions by Justice P.D.Dinakaran-pdf
  • Representation 4, Details of more acquisitions and improper judicial conduct of Justice P.D.Dinakaran.- pdf

Motion for Impeachement of Justice Dinakaran

The notice of motion for presenting an address to the President of India for the removal of Justice Dinakaran, Chief Justice of the Karanataka High Court, under Article 217 read with Article 124(4) of Constitution of India for his various acts of misbehavior, including dishonest judicial orders, irregular and dishonest administrative actions, etc, along with an explanatory note on the motion for impeachement. pdf

Press Statement against Survery of India probe into Justice Dinakaran encroachment

Press Statement issued by the Forum for Judicial Accountability against the Survey of India spot probe into the allegations of land encroachment by the Karnataka Chief Justice, P.D. Dinakaran, to be conducted on December 30th 2009 as reported in a newspaper. 
The Forum calls upon the Central Government to recall the three member team deputed by the Survey of India immediately and to await the outcome of the enquiry under the impeachment proceedings. …statement page 1
 statement page 2

CJAR letter to the Vice President regarding the enquiry committee in the Justice Dinakaran impeachment

The Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reform has sent a letter to Shri Hamid Ansari, Vice President of India, regarding the 3 member enquiry committee appointed to enquire into the motion for removal of Jusitce P.D. Dinakaran. The letter brings to Shri Ansari’s notice that Justice Sirupurkar’s friendship with Justice Dinakaran, coupled with his prejudgement of the matter, places him in a position where if he inquires into this matter, justice will not be seen to be done. The same would be the case with Shri P.P. Rao who has been formally consulted in the matter by Justice Dinakaran. The letter further requests that these facts be placed before Justice Sirupurkar and Shri P.P. Rao and they be asked whether they would like to recuse themselves from the inquiry committee, to avoid any further controversy in the matter. psdf

Articles

  • Extraordinary situations call for extraordinary measures -Justice D Y Shylendra Kumar pdf
  • The Dinakaran Imbroglio: Appointments and Complaints against Judges – Mr. Prashant Bhushan pdf
  • Details of individual / organisation writing critique:
    Name: Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reform
    Address: 6/6 Jungpura B (basement), Mathura Road, New Delhi: 110014
  • Post held at the relevant time: Chief Justice, Karnataka High Court
  • Current Status: Chief Justice, Karanataka High Court

 

Judge Watch on Justice F.I.Rebello

http://www.judicialreforms.org/images/dots.jpg

  • Name of Judge: Justice F. I. Rebello
  • Post Held at Relevant Time: Chief Justice of Allahabad High Court
  • Current Status: Chief Justice, Allahabad High Court
  • Analysis/Comment/Critique:
    Justice Rebello, son after joining as the Chief justice of Allahabad High Court met Ms Mayawati, Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh. He, then issued administrative orders to change the classification of the case related to Ms Mayawati’s involvement in Taj Corridor’s case. As a result, the case, which was part heard by a different bench was transfered to a completely new bench. This was allegedly done to benefit Ms Mayawati.
  • Additional documents in support of critique:

CJAR’s complaint against Justice Rebello- pdf

 

Judicial Accountability http://www.judicialreforms.org/images/dots.jpgIt is important to keep the judiciary in the purview of scrutiny. This section will provide various subjects to get judiciary accountable to common person. 
Appointments
 http://www.judicialreforms.org/images/dots.jpg

Making reference to the K. Veeraswamy’s Case Shri Shanti Bhushan observed that all judges should declare their assets – it should be done with pride! Why raise issues of self-respect? He said only those who have something to hide will be reluctant to disclose their assets! …more

– S.P.Gupta – pdf (1.6 MB) 
A seven Judges Bench of Supreme Court extensively considered the issues of Independence of Judiciary in relation to the appointment and transfer of Judges, the issue of appointment of the Additional Judges of the High Court, the issue of the privilege of the Government against disclosure of State documents and the scope of judicial review of the powers exercised by the President.

While deciding the issue of the locus standi of the petitioning lawyers who had challenged the Circular of the Law Minister and short-term extensions of Additional Judges on ground of attack on the independence of the judiciary, Justice P.N. Bhagwati while upholding their right to do so held that where the effected persons are really helpless, the Supreme Court will not insist on a regular writ petition to be filed by the public spirited individual espousing their cause. The Court will readily respond even to a letter addressed by said individual espousing the public cause.

A bunch of cases were decided together in the present case which were raised in two batches of writ petitions filed in different High Courts which were transferred under Article 139-A to the Supreme Court since they raised common issues of great constitutional importance. One writ was also filed in the Supreme Court. Several more related issues were raised and discussed during the hearing. Each of the Judges delivered a separate judgment.

– Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association Vs. Union of India
– pdf (475 KB) 
This case directed to constitute a Bench of nine Judges to examine the two questions referred therein, namely, the position of the Chief Justice of India with reference to primacy, and justiciability of fixation of Judge strength.


Impeachment
 http://www.judicialreforms.org/images/dots.jpg

Article 124 (4) of Indian Consitution: A Judge of the Supreme Court shall not be removed from his office except by an order of the President passed after an address by each House of Parliament supported by a majority of the total membership of that House and by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the members of that House present and voting has been presented to the President in the same session for such removal on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity.

– Justice V. Ramaswamy – pdf (64 KB) 
The first-ever impeachment motion against a SC judge, Justice V. Ramaswami, was signed by 108 MPs in 1991. A year later, an inquiry found Ramaswami “guilty of willful and gross misuses of office… “While serving as the Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court”. Ramaswami survived the impeachment process as Parliament got divided along regional lines, southern MPs strongly supported him. Only 196 members of Parliament, less than the required two-thirds, voted for his ouster.
A Historic Non-impeachement – pdf (29.5 KB)

– Justice M.M. Punchi – pdf (70 KB) 
This charge sheet was prepared by the Committee on Judicial Accountability in 1998, when Justice Punchhi was a judge of the Supreme Court of India. It was signed by 25 MPs of Rajya Sabha. However, before it could get the signature of the requisite number of 50 MPs of Rajya Sabha, Justice Punchhi was appointed Chief Justice of India. After this, it became virtually impossible to get the Notice of Motion signed by any MPs. Consequently, Notice of Motion could not be presented to the Speaker. The imp lesson of this exercise was that it is very difficult to get the MPs sign the impeachment motion unless three conditions are satisfied. Firstly, the charges must be very serious; secondly they must be provable by documentary evidence which is annexed to the Notice of Motion and finally, the charges must have been given substantial publicity in the media.

In the absence of all the three conditions been satisfied, MPs are afraid and reluctant to sign a charge sheet against a sitting judge. It is normally exceedingly difficult to get documentary evidence to prove charge against sitting judge, particularly in the absence of a statutory investigation by an agency having powers of investigation. Moreover, the bulk of the main stream media is afraid to publicise charges against the sitting judge for fear of contempt. In Ramaswami’s case, the above three conditions were satisfied. Documentary evidence was available against Ramaswami because of the report of the Accountant General who audited the purchases made by Ramaswami as Chief Justice of Punjab and Haryana High Court. This is why, impeachment of judges, however corrupt they might be, is not a practical remedy in discipling them.

– Justice A.S. Anand – pdf (15.5 KB) 
Serious allegations of corruption and favouritism were raised against Justice A.S.Anand former Chief Justice of India pertaining to the period when he was the Judge and the Chief Justice of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court.


Read more articles….. http://www.judicialreforms.org/images/dots.jpg– A conflict between law and morality – pdf (10 KB) 
Contempt http://www.judicialreforms.org/images/dots.jpg– Contempt of court: judgement by Justice Arijit Pasayat –pdf (26.5 KB) – Contempt of court: judgement by Justice Raveendran – pdf (24.1 KB) – Judges in their own cause: Contempt of court by Prashant Bhushanpdf (19.2 KB) – Contempt of court: need for a second look by J.Markandey Katju – pdf (12.5 KB) – Standing Committee report on Contempt – pdf (58.4 KB) – Affidavits of Arundhati Roy pdf (24.2 KB) and Medha Patkar on contempt pdf (17.0 KB) 
Right to Information and Judiciary http://www.judicialreforms.org/images/dots.jpg– Right to Information And The Judiciary By Prashant Bhushan – pdf (72 KB) 
Investigations against Judges http://www.judicialreforms.org/images/dots.jpg

– Justice K. Veeraswamy – pdf (177 KB) 
Justice K.Veeraswamy the then Chief Justice of Madras High Court was charged for possession of assets disproportionate to his known sources of income and a case was filed against him by the CBI under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The High Court of Madras dismissed his Petition for quashing of the Case against him and referred the matter to the Supreme Court for deciding certain questions of law. The Supreme Court while deciding the case against the delinquent Judge laid down strict guidelines to protect the independence of Judiciary according to which no F.I.R. can be registered against a Judge or Chief Justice of the High Court, or a Judge of the Supreme Court without the sanction of the Chief Justice of India in the matter. It was held that the Supreme Court is not a court of limited jurisdiction of only dispute settling, and that the court has been a law maker and it is the courts responsibility and duty to apply the existing law in a form more conducive to the independence of the judiciary. It was also said that any complaint against a Judge and its investigation by the CBI, if given publicity will have a far reaching impact on the judge and the litigant public therefore there is need of a judicious use of taking action under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

– Judicial Accountability OR Illusion – The National Judicial Council Bill by Prashant Bhushan – pdf (8.83 KB)

– Judicial Accountability by Prashant Bhushan – pdf (9.61 KB)

– Mechanisms of Judicial Accountability by Justice J.S.Verma – pdf (11.2 KB)

 

 

Judicial Reforms http://www.judicialreforms.org/images/dots.jpgThe current judicial system needs to be cleared of procedural complexities and hurdles to make it accessible for the common citizens. It must be strengthened to deliver justice quickly, efficiently and honestly. This section contains links and updates on various laws and policies (existing and proposed) and an analysis of the same.

Access of Poor and Delays in Justice

http://www.judicialreforms.org/images/dots.jpg

Who do these delays and backlogs impact the most? How do they impact access to justice? In case of the criminal cases, the poor people are the most affected. More than 70% of persons inside jails who are held on suspicion of having committed a crime are not able to pay the bail amount, which is very high. They are inside the jails for months and years, as they cannot afford a lawyer. …more


Values and Attitude towards the poor

http://www.judicialreforms.org/images/dots.jpg

  • Labour
    After independence, the concept of social justice was introduced and the labour law developed more as a judgment law. There were various laws but with the intervention of judiciary, the labour law was moving in a progressive direction. The issues concerning the labour matters such as wage, minimum wage, fair wage, employment security, social security, etc. were initiated, right from the Express Newspaper’s case.…more
  • Urban Poor 
    One broad category of urban poor is the slum dwellers living in unorganized housing sector, having occupation of street vendors, rickshaw pullers, etc. This is the section, which has suffered the maximum onslaught of judicial decision in the recent past. …more  
  • Rural Poor
    This debate is quite crucial, which is reminiscent of what happened with judiciary during the period when India was trying to abolish Zamindari system and introduce land reforms. While reflecting on the judiciary and its impact on the rural poor, the most popular analysis is the class analysis but one should not confine to it alone, one should also consider caste analysis. We must also remember the indigenous people. …more
  • Public Interest Litigation
    It is important to discuss about the reasons for developing a tool like Public Interest Litigation and how it has transformed recently. While criticizing judiciary one must not forget about the executive inactions of last ten years and the recent laws passed by the legislature. It is necessary to substantiate by two examples, one is aquaculture case which permitted the multinational corporations to have their aquaculture activities at the cost of the traditional fishermen. …more

 

 

 

 

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  ,

 

HANG   RAPIST  CORRUPT  JUDGES

https://sites.google.com/site/eclarionofdalit/hang-rapist-corrupt-judges 

 

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.

 

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.

 

 

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 VaradarajanS.P.S. Rathorecriminalskhakiformer DGP of

Haryanacustodianssexual violenceNHRC

 

 

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.

 

 

There is a higher court than the court of justice and that is the court of conscience It supercedes all other courts. 
– Mahatma Gandhi

 

 

 

 

Salary of Chief Justice of India Rupees  100000 per month & salary of  supreme court judge  Rupees 90000 per month plus  5 star heritage bungalow , 5 star air / train travel , 5 star health care facility , etc  all at tax payers expense

 

 

 

Hunger Deaths Malnutrition Deaths Poverty  Earning  Less than Rupees 32 per day

 

 

 

Honest  Hard Working Child Laborers Earning Less Than Rupees 32 per day

 

 

 

Corrupt Dishonest Criminal Public Servants Earning More than Rupees 5000 per day  Murderers of Justice

 

 Ill-gotten Wealth of  Corrupt Public Servants

 

 

 

 

 

 

Murderers of Justice Shame to You

 

 

 

 

 

Follow me at
http://www.facebook.com/people/Nagaraj-Mysore-Raghupathi/513253184 ,
http://www.amnesty.org/en/user/naghrw ,
http://twitter.com/naghrw  ,

 

 

A – Z   of   Manipulation  of  Indian  Legal  System

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

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

 

SHAME  TO  CORRUPT  RAPIST  JUDGES  OF  INDIA

 

 

 

 

sexual harassment: Intern moves SC for inquiry against Justice Swatanter Kumar

 

 

New Delhi: A former law intern, who has made sexual harassment allegations against Justice Swatanter Kumar, today moved the Supreme Court seeking inquiry against the retired judge.

A bench headed by Chief Justice P Sathasivam, before whom the matter was mentioned for urgent hearing, agreed to take up the case on January 15.

The intern, in the petition, challenged the apex court’s December 5, 2013 full court resolution in which it was decided that no complaint against its retired judges will be entertained.

 

The petitioner also submitted that a proper forum be constituted to conduct inquiry in such cases and her complaint be also looked into by the apex court like it was done in the case of sexual harassment allegations against Justice (retd) A K Ganguly.

The intern has made Justice Kumar, Secretary General of the Supreme Court and Union of India parties in the case.

She submitted that Justice Kumar was a sitting judge at the time of the alleged incident and the apex court must look into the complaint as per Vishaka guidelines.

Justice Kumar, who is currently heading the National Green Tribunal, has described the allegations as “incredulous and false” and “some kind of conspiracy”.

 

 

 

 

IB confirms Mysore Roost  Resort sex scandal

 

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

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

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

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

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

reports match.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Court.

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

for transfers is linked to the Mysore incident.

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

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

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

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

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

Court.”

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

for “follow-up action”.

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

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

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

 

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

 

 Read  full details  in  the attachment 

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnxzb3Nldm9pY2Vmb3JqdXN0aWNlfGd4Ojc3MjUzOGU4NDU0ZDFlODg  ,  

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnxzb3Nldm9pY2Vmb3JqdXN0aWNlfGd4Ojc3MjUzOGU4NDU0ZDFlODg  ,

 

 

Panel names former India Supreme Court judge Ganguly in sex harassment allegation

 

Shocked, shattered by allegations: former Supreme Court judge Ganguly

New Delhi: A three-member panel that probed the charge of sexual harassment of a young lawyer by a Supreme Court judge has submitted its report, identifying the judge as A K Ganguly, court sources said on Friday.

The report was submitted on Thursday after the committee of three judges met six times. This is the first time an alleged perpetrator has been named.

The report, submitted to Chief Justice P Sathasivam, also carries the statements of the victim, who interned in the Supreme Court, and that of the now-retired Justice Ganguly, the sources said.

The graduate of Kolkata-based National University of Judicial Sciences (NUJS) had alleged sexual harassment by Ganguly while interning for him in December 2012.

The committee, which held six sittings on November 13, 19, 21, 26, and 27, submitted its report to Chief Justice Sathasivam on November 28.

The victim appeared before the committee on November 19 and was expected to appear again on November 21 but chose to stay away.

She first mentioned the incident in a blog for Journal of Indian Law and Society on November 6 and later told the same in an interview with Legally India website.

The victim, who is working with Natural Justice: Lawyers for Communities and Environment, said she heard that there were three other girls besides her who were sexually harassed by the same judge.

She also claimed to have knowledge of four more girls who were allegedly harassed by other judges in their chambers.

Denying any sexual harassment, Ganguly on Friday said he was “shocked and shattered” by the charges against him.

“I am denying everything. I have told the committee that all the allegations levelled by the intern are wrong. I don’t know how such allegations have been levelled against me,” he said.

“I am a victim of situations,” he told television channels.

“I am not ashamed of anything,” he said in reply to a question regarding the alleged episode which came out in public after the victim spoke about it in the legal portal earlier this month.

He said the charges against him were totally wrong. The girl had not raised any sexual harassment issue with him, he said, adding that he had not done any physical harm to her.

The former judge said the intern worked with him though she was not officially allocated to him. She came in the place of another intern who had gone abroad after marriage. “I never put up a poster. She came on her own.”

He said the girl had come to his house on a number of occasions in connection with work.

 

 

When  a  Judge  Himself   Commits   Crime  ,  When  a  POLICE  Himself  robs , Murders ….

 

In  the  rape case of  Ms.Nirbhaya committed last year in New Delhi , all the accussed were from lower  middle class background. So , the whole society , media , police raised voiced against them and the guilty were rightly prosecuted.

But take the recent case of  Supreme Court Judges accussed of sexual offences Mr. A . S. GANGULY , Mr. SWATHANTER  KUMAR  or  DGP SPS Rathore involved in Ruchika case  or  some some  Ministers , MLAs , MPs, the media , society , police &  Prosecuting judges are  biased towards the accussed. Because  the accussed  are  rich & mighty , belong to ruling elite class.

 

Are  not  the laws & it’s enforcements  fair , equitable , just and same for one & all ?

The public servants & the government must be role models in law abiding acts , for others to emulate & follow. if a student makes a mistake it is excusable & can be corrected by the teacher. if the teacher himself makes a mistake , all  his students will do the same mistake. if a thief steals , he can be caught  , legally punished & reformed . if a police himself commits crime , many thieves go scot-free under his patronage.  even if a police , public servant commits a crime , he can be legally prosecuted & justice can be sought by the aggrieved.

 

 just think , if a judge himself that too apex court of the land itself commits crime – violations of RTI Act , constitutional rights & human rights of public  and obstructs the public from performing their constitutional fundamental duties , what happens ?

 

it gives a booster dose to the rich & mighty , those in power , criminals in public service to commit more crimes. that is exactly what is happening in india. the educated public must raise to the occasion & peacefully , democratically  must oppose this criminalization of judiciary , public service. then alone , we can build a RAM RAJYA OF MAHATMA GANDHI’S DREAM.

 

I  have  shown  in the following  attachment how  justice is bought , purchased , manipulated  in  INDIA  with  actual  cases.  Just  see the recent  examples  of  supreme  court  judges  involved  in  sexual  assault  case  &  ROOST  Resort  Mysore  Sex scandal involving  judges , if  any ordinary  fellow  had committed the same crimes  he would have been  hauled over the coal fire. Just take another  recent example of  Prisoner Movie actor sanjay dutt , TADA  provisions were diluted by the judge to favour him and now he is getting parole  week after week  while  the ordinary convicts never   get a single parole throught their sentence.  What  Brilliant  Judges , what  brilliant police  sirji.

 

 Parties question parole for Sanjay

 

A doctor who examined the actor’s wife said she has been diagnosed with a tumor in the liver and a suspected heart ailment.

Opposition parties in Maharashtra have accused the State government of preferential treatment in granting a one-month parole to Bollywood actor and 1993 Mumbai blasts convict Sanjay Dutt. The actor was granted parole on Friday on the grounds that his wife Maanyata was unwell and needed to undergo surgery.

This is the second time in three months that the actor — who is the brother of Congress MP Priya Dutt — has been granted leave from the Yerawada jail. Mr. Dutt has been serving the remaining period of his two-year sentence there since May 2013. In October, he got a month’s leave on grounds of ill health. However, the same month, the parole application of another 1993 Mumbai blasts convict Zaibunissa Kazi was turned down. She had asked for leave to visit her ailing mother. On Saturday morning, a group of activists from the Republican Party of India staged a protest outside the jail. “This is a blatant misuse of power by the Maharashtra government. It is clear that Sanjay Dutt is getting preferential treatment,” said Manoj Gaikwad, an RPI activist and Sangharsh Samiti volunteer.

In Mumbai, BJP leader Gopinath Munde demanded the order be reversed. “How can Sanjay Dutt be given parole after such a short gap? The parole should be cancelled and there should be action against the officer who cleared it,” he said.

Mr. Munde said the authorities needed to check if Mr. Dutt’s wife was genuinely unwell. However, Maanyata Dutt’s doctor Ajay Chaughule from the Global Hospital told The Hindu that a tumour had been detected in her liver.

 

SHAME  TO  CORRUPT  JUDGES  OF  INDIA

 

 

 

Corruption in  Indian  Judiciary :

http://www.corruptioninindia.org/IndianJudiciary.php 

 

Two former Judges accuse former CJI Balakrishnan of fixing and corruption

 

http://barandbench.com/content/two-former-judges-accuse-former-cji-balakrishnan-fixing-and-corruption#.Uq2wq9Rmxe4  ,

 

 

‘Corruption Is Rampant In The Lower Courts’

Former chief justice of India on corruption in judiciary

 

Yet another case of judicial corruption was exposed last month when the Andhra Pradesh High Court suspended additional special judge for CBI cases T. Pattabhi Rama Rao following allegations of corruption. Charged on the basis of a complaint filed by the CBI, the special judge had allegedly taken a bribe of Rs 5 crore to grant bail to former Karnataka minister Gali Janardhana Reddy in the illegal mining case. The vigilance wing of the high court found the allegation to hold merit. Former chief justice of India V.N. Khare told Chandrani Banerjeethat such incidents are now rampant. Excerpts:

Are bribes for bail endemic now?

There is no doubt about it. It is rampant. Corruption in the lower courts is no secret. Sometimes, in the high court as well, cases of corruption have surfaced, but in my experience while I was in the Supreme Court, I have not witnessed anything similar.

In the lower courts, it’s alleged that everything comes for a price. Rates are fixed for quick divorce, bail and other favourable verdicts.

Cases in the media glare, constantly scrutinised, are different. Otherwise it is very difficult for the common man. There are huge time gaps between hearings. Years are spent to get an order from the lower courts. So, it is difficult.

 

 

 

 

“Judges are only human, like us. They come from the same society. Our society is all about quick successes. Short cuts are taken. Even by the judges.”

 

 

 

 

Subordinate courts function under the supervision of high courts. Should the higher courts be accountable?

The respective high courts have so much of work that monitoring district courts is just part of the routine. High courts have inspecting judges who are responsible for monitoring district courts. They go with a lot of band baaja and have lunch while on inspection. Inspecting judges are presented with a rosy picture and then they file a report. Now, the greater problem is that they are overburdened with work. Cases are in addition to administrative work, besides other mandatory official work. As a result, the inspecting judges of the high courts have no time to follow up. We need dedicated staff to monitor the district courts.

What kind of monitoring is needed?

A team of three serving judges should be formed. These judges should dedicatedly monitor the district judges. Their judgements should be analysed and questioned. Their attendance and work should be scrutinised. Someone should question them about their performance. I feel doing that will put in some checks.

You mean to say work overload and pendency of cases have themselves become a factor in corruption?

Yes, to a large extent. The high court judges are overburdened and they have no time. They always inform the district court authorities before the visits. It causes a situation where the real problem never comes to the surface. A dedicated committee of judges will help, but we are short of people. To my knowledge, we have 13.2 judges for 10 lakh people. If required to, we use excess strength in a particular situation, but there is no permanent arrangement. We work on an ad-hoc basis and so there are problems.

Would a few suspensions control corruption in the lower courts?

They will certainly convey a message. When I was serving, I did take certain measures which sent the message across the country that any charge of corruption will be probed. Fast actions and decisions on charges levelled against judges always work as deterrent.

What is the role of the inspecting judges in controlling corruption?

They should conduct sudden checks, always unannounced, and also follow up on any complaint registered in the district courts. However, to actualise this, we have to have a sufficient number of good judges. The monitoring will then be effective and result-oriented.

What is the mechanism to keep the lower courts free from corruption?

A dedicated committee of judges that will only monitor lower courts. Punctuality, integrity and court orders—everything should be under the lens. Such accountability will ensure the right kind of order is delivered in every petition.

Is consumerism responsible for fostering corruption in lower courts?

Judges are only people, like us. They come from the same society. Society is all about taking short cuts. Society is about quick successes. So, short cuts are taken and the judges are no different.

 

Supreme Court wants corrupt judges thrown out



Read more at: http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/corruption-in-judiciary–sc-wants-corrupt-judges-thrown-out/1/137730.html

 

In a strong message against corruption in the subordinate judiciary, the Supreme Court on Tuesday observed incorrigible judges who were bringing the entire judiciary to disrepute should be thrown out.

“A large section of subordinate judges is bringing disrepute to the entire judiciary. We have to hear of judges taking money and can do nothing but hang our heads in shame,” a bench comprising Justices Markandey Katju and Gyan Sudha Misra said.

“Incorrigible judges should be thrown out,” the bench said, while dealing with a contempt petition against an additional district judge (ADJ).

ADJ Archana Sinha, who repeatedly pleaded for mercy, had stayed the operation of a Supreme Court order on the eviction of a tenant from a prime property in Connaught Place.

“The ( ADJ’s) order is quashed as mala fide and void,” the bench said, while directing the Delhi High Court to seek an explanation from her.

The bench directed the chief justice of the HC to conduct an inquiry into the matter and take such action as he deemed fit.

With Sinha’s counsel Jayant Bhushan claiming her action was not mala fide, Justice Katju, who initially planned to suspend her with immediate effect, asked: “She sat over the head of the Supreme Court. You want us not to suspend her?” “She had no business to hear the matter. Instead she superseded and overruled us,” he said.

Bhushan, thereafter, tried to take the court through some documents to show her action was not totally unjustified, but the court was not inclined to consider such pleas.

“Once she came to know of the Supreme Court order, all this was irrelevant and she should not have touched the matter,” Justice Katju said.

“We have to hear of judges taking money. A message has to go. We will not tolerate this,” the bench said.

At one point, the bench mellowed down when Sinha pleaded for mercy with folded hands. “Hamare pas bhi dil hai (we also hearts too),” Justice Katju said.

With the bench deciding to let her off with a written apology, the counsel for the landlord, Dushyant Dave, opposed any leniency for the judge. “Let her give an explanation to the high court chief justice. I believe there is a history behind this. The judiciary gets a bad image because of judges like these,” Dave said.

Opposing leniency, he said: “If it was contempt by someone from the executive, he would have been sent to jail for this.” The bench, thereafter, took a tough stand and referred the matter to the HC chief justice after holding in clear terms that her action was tainted with mala fide intentions.

Read more at: http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/corruption-in-judiciary–sc-wants-corrupt-judges-thrown-out/1/137730.html

 

 

 

India: Contemptible justice   

 

The spate of scams involving some members of the Indian higher judiciary in corruption, bribery, sex, nepotism and abuse of power has again drawn attention to the long overdue need for reform of the judicial system. The image of the judiciary and its credibility are perhaps at an all-time low. The problem of corruption comes on top of the problem of judicial inertia and the prohibitively expensive nature of the process of securing justice. This has effectively ensured that the judicial system cannot deliver justice to the ordinary citizen. All this suits the ruling establishment just fine, since those who have the power of force or money do not need the courts to get justice. It is the poor and the oppressed, the common people who need a properly working system for the administration of justice. This is also why those who have the power to reform the system have failed to do so despite knowing the problems and the solutions. It has become clear that judicial reforms will only come when the general public, who are the consumers of justice, put together a strong and powerful movement on this issue.

There are enough indications that corruption in the higher judiciary has reached unacceptable levels. For instance, in March this year, Justice Shamit Mukherjee of the Delhi High Court had to tender his resignation, following which he was arrested by the Central Bureau of Investigation under sections of the Anti-corruption Act, 1988 and sections of the Criminal Procedure Code for criminal conspiracy. Rampant corruption, which has steadily undermined the credibility of and popular faith in the judicial mechanism, was clearly to be expected in a situation where the higher judiciary enjoys enormous powers without accountability.

Power sans accountability inevitably breeds corruption and abuse. Consider the situation. Once appointed, a judge of a high court (the highest judicial mechanism in the states) or the Supreme Court, cannot be touched except by a complicated procedure of impeachment. As per the constitutional provisions, a judge of a high court or the Supreme Court can only be removed by impeachment after 100 members of the Lok Sabha (the lower house) or 50 members of the Rajya Sabha (the upper house) move the speaker, who may refer the charges to a committee of judges whose verdict is put up before both the houses of Parliament. The judge can only be removed if a two third-majority of members present and voting approve the verdict of the committee.

Today impeachment remains the only option since the judicial system has insulated itself from criminal investigation through a Supreme Court ruling. This happened in 1991 in a case arising from the discovery of huge quantities of money in the residence of Justice K Veeraswamy, then Chief Justice of the Madras High Court. When the Central Bureau of Investigation prosecuted for corruption, the Supreme Court ruled that no First Information Report can be registered against a judge, nor a criminal investigation be initated, without prior consent of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. This effectively excluded the higher judiciary from the ordinary laws of the land, since there is no possible circumstance under which an investigating agency can approach the Chief Justice for consent to investigate a judge without any concrete evidence against him. This is the reason why no judge has ever been subjected to a criminal investigation after the Veeraswami judgment. In the meanwhile, armed with this legal immunity judicial corruption has continued to flourish.

This immunity is doubly reinforced by the fact that the procedure for impeachment of judges is not only cumbersome, it is also eminently susceptible to political interference. The existing system of impeachment was found to be practically unworkable in the V Ramaswamy case, where the judge survived in office despite being found guilty on several serious charges of corruption by a statutory committee of three fellow judges. This was because members of the Congress, then in power during the prime ministership of PV Narasimha Rao, abstained from voting due to a whip issued by the party leadership when the impeachment motion was put to vote in Parliament in May 1993. In that particular case, however, it was at least possible to initiate the process, because the charges against the judge dealt with irregularities in purchases made in his official capacity. These purchases were audited by the Accountant General and it was in that process that the evidence of corruption came out. As a result, it was possible to frame charges for his impeachment and have the relevant procedural motions signed by 100 members of Parliament. In normal cases of judicial corruption however, it is difficult to produce evidence of the judge’s corruption in the absence of official investigation. Thus, it is not possible to even initiate the process of impeachment, let alone carry one through to the bitter end.

Judges’ sellout
Apart from enjoying immunity from removal and investigation, the higher judiciary further enjoys virtually unlimited powers of punishing people for contempt of court. Any person making any allegation of corruption against a sitting judge can be charged and punished for contempt, even if he is in a position to substantiate the charge. The contempt proceedings are so biased in favour of the judicial system that the very judge against whom the allegation of corruption has been made can prosecute the charge for contempt. The judge can even sit in judgment on his or her own cause, and can actually refuse to permit the alleged contemnor to lead evidence to prove the charge. This is such a vast and unchecked power that it can easily be and has been misused by the judiciary.

The excessive power that the judiciary wields in respect of contempt is in reality a way of shielding itself from legitimate criticism even when such criticism does not otherwise prejudice or obstruct the administration of justice. The existence of this arbitrary power is undoubtedly one of the main reasons why public exposure of judicial corruption has been few and far between and even routine criticism of the judiciary is muted.

Beyond the matter of public scrutiny, the Indian judiciary has been steadily increasing its other powers over the years, adding vast and arbitrary authority ostensibly for enforcing the fundamental rights of citizens. However, these powers are usually exercised in the interests of the ruling establishment. More and more instances are being witnessed where, by judicial fiat, the constitutional mandate is flouted and even the fundamental rights of liberty, equality and right to work are rendered nugatory when ordinary citizens are pitted against the state and powerful sections of society. This is how, for instance, in the interest of cleaning up Delhi’s air by reducing the levels of pollution, the Supreme Court ordered the closure and relocation of several small industries in the city, leading to the loss of livelihood for several thousand workers.

As it is, the state has a long record of enacting anti-democratic and draconian laws. Not only have the courts usually put their seal of approval on these laws, but they have sanctified action taken under them, such as the dismissal of employees en-masse from industrial jobs. The judiciary has also recently been playing a leading role in upholding the sellout of public enterprises by disinvestments carried out under the cover of globalisation. Lately, it has played a retrograde role in curbing the rights of workers to protest and go on strike, endorsing several antidemocratic measures to restrict their rights. Meanwhile, the proliferation of public interest litigations has encouraged unrestrained judicial activism. Though judicial activism through public interest litigations can be a healthy check on an executive which has failed and become corrupt, it can become a menace in the hands of a corrupt and unaccountable judiciary.

The problems with the higher judiciary, however, begin with the process of appointment itself. Quite apart from the fact that the method of selection of judges itself is defective, the entire process is kept under a cloak of secrecy. Thus, before an appointment is actually made, the general public does not have any idea about who are being considered for the post. Many persons whose integrity was known to be suspect and those who had been found guilty of professional misconduct during their legal career have come to be appointed to high office through this secretive system. The selection process has undergone some change over the years, but it has not reduced the spate of undesirable and positively harmful appointments. While earlier the selection was made by the government itself (after consultations with the Chief Justice), now, by a process of judicial interpretation, the power has been transferred to a collegium of three to five judges of the Supreme Court. This has managed to reduce the government’s monopoly over appointments, but the system has not change significantly. The patronage system has simply become more fraternal, since senior judges of the Supreme Court now wield the power of appointment of their junior colleagues. The proof is in the results, and there has not been a noticeable difference in the quality of appointments.

National commission
In an attempt to tackle the problem relating to appointments and accountability of judges, the Committee on Judicial Accountability (COJA), consisting of members of the legal profession, almost a decade ago forwarded a detailed proposal for a high-powered, full-time and independent National Judicial Commission (NJC). This commission would make appointments as also have disciplinary powers over judges of the higher judiciary. The commission would also be responsible for appointments to various commissions and quasi-judicial bodies. The NJC would comprise a nominee each of the Supreme Court, the chief justices of the high courts, the central cabinet, the opposition in Parliament, and the bar. It would also have an investigative machinery of its own to inquire into complaints against members of the judiciary. Members of the NJC would have the same status as that of Supreme Court judges and a guaranteed tenure of five years, after which they would be ineligible for any other similar post.

This proposal would have brought transparency into the system of appointment of judges. But even though nearly every political party included the proposal in its election manifesto, the National Judicial Commission is yet to become reality. The reasons are not far to seek. But now, after the spate of highly publicised judicial scandals, particularly the Shamit Mukherjee case, the government has come up with a proposal to constitute a somewhat truncated NJC. This commission is to be a part-time body of three senior sitting judges of the Supreme Court, the law minister and a nominee of the prime minister. This NJC will not have the power of removal of judges and the present impracticable system of impeachment will continue. The government’s proposal will merely institutionalise the system of sharing the spoils of appointment between the government and the senior members of the judiciary.

Since under the circumstances the judiciary cannot be expected to reform itself, and since the main political parties have reneged on their electoral commitment as expressed in their manifestos, only a strong public campaign can provide the impetus to put in place an independent and responsible body for the appointment and removal of judges. Popular pressure is the only force that can get the 1991 Veerasamy judgment overruled, whether legislatively or judicially, to ensure that judges can be investigated like any other class of citizens. Civic mobilisation is necessary to force change in the contempt law so as to ensure that citizens cannot be prosecuted for making allegations against judges, unless they have done so recklessly or in bad faith. The law must be changed so that judges cannot sit in judgement of their own contempt cases. If the judicial mechanism has to be rescued from its own infirmities, citizens and civil society in India must put together a strong movement to force accountability in the judiciary.

 

 

 

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  ,

 

 

Shinde protected businessman close to Dawood, alleges former home secretary RK Singh

 

          Legal Manipulation / Match Fixing by Union Home Minister

 

Former Union home secretary R.K. Singh on Monday alleged that Union Home Minister Sushilkumar Shinde had shielded a top businessman close to Dawood Ibrahim. 

He claimed Delhi Police was stopped by Shinde from questioning a Mumbai-based businessman, who is said to have “some kind of links” with Dawood Ibrahim, in connection with the betting in Indian Premier League, a T-20 cricketing tournament.

Singh, now a BJP member, also said that there was no assurance given by the US on Dawood Ibrahim. He said that a meeting of the US and Home Ministry officials took place but there was no assurance by the US.

Earlier, Shinde had said that joint efforts with the US were being made to nab India’s most wanted terrorist Dawood Ibrahim. 

“As per our information, Dawood is in Pakistan. When I went to America last year to discuss inland security, I met the Attorney General who looks after the FBI. I talked to him and we decided that we will pass whatever information we have on Dawood amongst each other. We decided we will make joint efforts,” Shinde said when asked about the whereabouts of Dawood who is wanted in a number of cases by Indian agencies including the 1993 Mumbai blasts.

Singh also alleged that Shinde had regularly interfered in Delhi Police’s functioning.

In his interview to TV channels, Singh used the shoulder of former Delhi Police Commissioner Neeraj Kumar to fire at Shinde claiming that “slips used to reach Delhi Police chief quite often asking about posting some people as Station House Officers”.

“These were not a few postings but in large number of police stations,” he told the channels.

“I don’t know whether money used to exchange hands but Delhi Police Commissioner told me that numerous slips used to come from his residence… you don’t make large number of recommendations… the postings as SHO’s has a vigilance angle to it,” he said.

Singh had earlier claimed there were quarrels between him and Shinde. 

When Shinde was asked to respond to reported remarks by Singh in an interview, he said, “One needs to run administration very well and if anybody fails to do his duty, I am bound to take action against him in the capacity as Home Minister.”

Singh, during his media interview, had claimed that he had many quarrels with Shinde over various issues and also alleged that Congress-led UPA government was “clueless” about governance and that its ministers were steeped in corruption.

In what was seen as a snub to Singh, Anil Goswami was also named as his successor weeks before the end of the incumbent’s superannuation.

Singh was also criticised for not making any attempt to inform the family of Afzal Guru, the death row convict in Parliament attack case, who was hanged on February nine last year.

–          

Read more at: http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/shinde-protected-businessman-close-to-dawood-alleges-former-home-secretary-rk-singh/1/336015.html

 

 

 

 

Rajiv Assasination – Unanswered questions

Rajiv Gandhi assasination – leaves many unanswered questions – Unsolved puzzles. For whom did Rajiv Gandhi got assisinated ? Sudhangan raised various questions which didn’t get answers till 2009. Here are those questions that are unanswered:
1) On 21 -May-1991 Rajiv gandhi started from Delhi for election campaign and reached Chennai through the route Orissa and Andra Pradesh. How did he accepted that midnight meeting at Sriperambuthur which was not in the agenda of TamilNadu Congress committe. ?
2) Is there any plan made somewhere to bring Rajiv Gandhi to Sriperambathur some how ?
3) The Security official Mr O.P.Sagar was there with Rajiv Gandhi when he campaigned at Bhubaneshwar and Vishakapattinam. But he didnt come to chennai along with Rajiv. Why ?
4) Bulgarian television journalists came along with Rajiv during his visits to record his campaigns. They were with Rajiv in Orissa and Andha Predesh but didnt come for the next meeting. They stayed in a luxary hotel at Vishakapatinam along with their special flight pilot. In that case why did they came ?
5) When Rajiv was about to start, there was a problem in the flight. So he went back to circuit house from the airport. After the problem in flight got fixed, the chief minister of Andha Pradesh Mr.VijayaBhaskar Reddy informed Rajiv to get back to airport and Rajiv went to airport. During this time the two Bulgerian journalists took the security official Sagar along in their car and arrived at airport late. So the security official could not go along with Rajiv gandhi. Why did such an experienced security official was made not to travel with Rajiv ?
6) The security official of Rajiv at chennai P.C.Gupta was waiting at chennai airport for Rajiv. P.C.Gupts is suppose to get the gun from Sagar who was expected along with Rajiv. Since Sagar has not come along with Rajiv, P.C.Gupta was made to go with Rajiv without gun. Is there any intenton behind this ?
7) When Rajiv started from Meenambakkam, two ladies claiming as journalists got inside his car at Ramavaram. Did their identities verified ? Why did the special investigation branch didnt enquire on them ?
8) Who are the Bulgarian journalists ? Where did they went ?
9) Who are those two lady journalists ? Where did they went ?
10) Those two lady journalists interviewed Rajiv Gandhi. But TamilNadu political party people, Tha. Pandiyan and Maragatham Chandrasekar were telling they didnt know what Rajiv spoke with the journalists. What are the hiding ?
11) Just one hour before his murder, Rajiv told it was CIA that killed the pakistan president Zia-ul-Haq. Why shoud he tell that ? What made him to tell that ? Did he know if there is some plan like that against him ?
12) July-1991 – The central home minister S.P.Chawan made a statement that apart from LTTE there are other international organizations and powerful external forces involved in the background of Rajiv’s murder. Who are they referred here ?
13) Why didn’t the special investination branch enquire on the above home minister’s statement ?
14) During the gulf war India helped fueling US aircrafts. Rajiv gandhi seriously condemmed this help which was done by primie minister Mr Chandrasekar during that time. Why didnt the special investigation branch enquire on CIA’s hands on this murder, as US was not happy with Rajiv for the above reason ?
15) Palestinian National Authority president, Mr. Yasser Arafat informed to the indian prime minister during the time Mr .Chandrasekar that ‘Rajiv Gandhi’s life is under threat’. From where did Arafat got this information ? Who is threatening Rajiv ? Why did special investigation branch didnt enquire on this ?
16) Arafat could have got this information if the assasination was planned at western Europe or middle eastern countries. Why is this not probed ?
17) Maragatham Chandrasekar came to attend that meeting with Rajiv Gandhi. Her daughter, Latha Priyakumar came with her husband and advocate Mahendran from Arakonam. But it was unknown from where did her son Lalith Chandrasekar and his wife Vinothini came from. Though it is known that Vinothini is daughter of Jayavarthane from Sri Lanka, they didn’t enquire on her. Infact they didnt enquire their family who was there at the meeting. why ?
18) Sivarasan’s mother and Vinothini’s father are sinhalas from Sri Lanka who were present at the incident. It is possible that they were sent by Sri Lankan president Premadasa as messangers. Premadasa is not happy with Rajiv on sending the Indian peace keeping force (IPKF) to Sri Lanka. Why was the investigation not done in that angle ? ( Also we should note here a Sinhala Sri Lankan army person hit Rajiv Gandhi with a gun during his visit to Sri Lanka )
19) Both LTTE and Sri Lanka hate Rajiv gandhi as he is the reaon for sending Indian peace keeping force (IPKF) to Sri Lanka. Advocate Mr Chandrasekar challenged special investigation branch that, if they could prove Vinothini and her family are innocent then those who did the crime will accept it on their own. But the special investination didnt accept his challence and not enquired those who is related on this. why ?
20) Kamini Disanayaka, Athulath Muthali, Wickramasinghe are prominant politicians in Sri Lanka. When all those people are murdered president Premadasa was pointed. Why did’t the investigation didnt happen in this angle ?
21) Why dont Sivarasan, Dhanu and Subha did this murder due to pressure from external forces. Just because they are Tamils from yarlpanam, did the investigators linked them with LTTE and closed the case ?
22) What is the strong evidence that links LTTE and its head Prabhakaran to Rajiv’s assasination case. ?
23) What is the proof that Srivarasan spoke to Prabhakaran thro a radio. Why is this not an assumption ?
24) It is very much possible that politicians within the congress could have considered Rajiv Gandhi is blocking their development within the party and could have hired some group to assasinate Rajiv. This motivation cannot be denied.
25) Various international business people specifically those selling weapons would have been in contact with Rajiv as a prime minister. They could have hired the assasinators to do this murder. Did investigators probed this ?
26) What if Sri Lanka did this, thinking India might send the Indian peace keeping force again to their country and didnt like a strong leader emerging from India ?
27) CIA always had interest in erradicating leaders in all third world countries. Did the same kind of interest got applied on Rajiv ?
28) Rajiv Gandhi is the only leader who prevents the other prominant political party in India BJP to get into power. It is possible that the indian parties like BJP and RSS could have used the ‘Hindu favourable’ LTTE and Sri Lankan tamils to do this assasination.
29) When other major Congress party members in Tamilnadu like Vazhapaadi and Moopanar didnt take interest in getting Rajiv to this meeting, Maragatham Chandrasekar traveled to Delhi and forced Rajiv to come for this meeting at Sriperambuthur. Is that without her knowledge she become one reason for Rajiv’s murder ?
30 ) Who is Pottu Amaan ? Is there a person like that ? LTTE says there was a senior person by name Amaan who died war and the only person there is Pottu. How did the special investigation branch stamped someone who is not alive as second criminal in this case ?
31) There are many parallels between the murder of Padmanabha and that of Rajiv Gandhi. Padmanabha’s murder was investigaed by TamilNadu queue branch police and Rajiv Gandhi’s murder was investigated by special investigation branch. Both the investigators are telling the murder was planned at Yarlpanam, Sri Lanka. Sivaraasan was identified as the prime criminal in both the Padmanabha’s case as well as Rajiv’ case. Prabhakaran was considered criminal in Rajiv’s assasination case bur was not in Padmanabha’s case. How come ? It shows adding Prabhakaran’s name came out of political decision rather than that came out from investigations. It is clearly an effort taken by special investigation branch to to give life to their case intentionally.
32) A famous Sri Lankan tamil poet Kasi. Anandan met Rajiv at the airport. What message did he got from Prabhakaran to Rajiv gandhi ? If Prabhakaran seeked Rajiv’s help in the freedom struggle of Tamil Eelam through Kasi Anandan, why would Prabhakaran murder Rajiv Gandhi ?
33) Prabhakaran knows it is from India and TamilNadu that he can get support and sympathy. Did Prabhakaran done such a foollish activity by killing Rajiv, to loose all the support of Indians and also get the organization banned ?
34) Latha Kannan stopped Rajiv and read a poetry for him. That enabled Dhanu, a suside bomber standing next to her, to burst the bomb. Why is her name is not included in the criminals list ? Dhanu used only Latha kannan to get inside. When HariBabu who got killed in the blast got included in the criminal’s list why not Latha Kannan ? Why is special investigation branch showing softness towards congress members ?
35) Before getting to SriPambuthur, Rajiv spoke at two roadside gatherings. Vazhapaadi Ramamurthy, the TamilNadu congress leader was with him in those two places. But at Sri Perambuthur meeting he was standing very far from Rajiv. Why so ?
36) Many innocent people and security personnels died along with Rajiv Gandhi. But nothing happened to any of the congress party members not even minor injury. How ?
37) It was believed that Latha Kumar who brought Sivarasan, Dhanu and Subha to SriPerambuthur. She took them specifically to ladies section and told Latha Kannan to take care of them. But Latha Kumar’s name is not in the criminal’s list. Why ?
38) How can we say Prabhakaran is involved just based on an old photograph of Sivarasan with Prabhakaran ?
39) Why is it not possible that Sivarasan, Dhanu and Subha are expelled from LTTE and they have been hired by western, European, Middle East or India as professional assasinators.
40) Ranganathan confessed that it was based on request by Margret Alva that he gave his house at Bangalore for rent to Sivarasan. Did they enquired how far this is true ?
41) Is there any investigation done on involvement of Chandra Swami, Subramanyam Swamy , Chandrasekar and arms business person Kasoki in this murder ?
42) What kind of benifit LTTE get by murdering Rajiv Gandhi ? Did super powers like US helped them by arms through CIA ?
43) Why do we need CBI & Special Investigation branch which find few people they prefer to get the reports ?
Unless all these confusions are clarified, the real culprit will be hiding behind some powerful forces.


Continue reading at NowPublic.com: Rajiv Assasination – Unanswered questions | NowPublic News Coverage 
http://www.nowpublic.com/world/rajiv-assasination-unanswered-questions#ixzz2Ayg9VI74  

People at the helm are protecting Rajiv murder accused’


Former Central Bureau of Investigation’s former chief investigating officer K Ragothaman has claimed in a recently published book — Conspiracy to kill Rajiv: From CBI files – that a lot of facts pertaining to the former prime minister’s assassination were either suppressed, or were studiously ignored.
Ragothamam writes that there were attempts made to protect the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam from being called the conspirators behind Rajiv’s killing. In this interview with rediff.com’s Vicky Nanjappa, Ragothaman speaks about the conspiracy and the hurdles that were faced in a probe in which many aspects were hushed up.
How has your book been received?
That is too early to tell. It is just out, but is under debate. Let us wait and watch.
You write that Dravida Munetra Kazhagam chief M Karunanidhi’s [ Images ] scheduled public meeting in Sriperumbudur on May 21, 1991, the day Rajiv was killed, was abruptly cancelled.
Karunanidhi was to address a meeting at 6′O clock that evening, two hours before Rajiv’s meeting. The police had made all arrangements. Then there was a telegram from the Anna Arivalyam postal office jurisdiction that the meeting was cancelled.
I probed the sender of that telegram. I was told to ask Karunanidhi about the same. However, I could not investigate him directly. Later, I was told by my superiors that the matter was being looked into, and I should remain quiet.
I was also told that it was a director general of police, Rangaswamy, who had advised that the meeting be cancelled. However, when I looked at the Rangaswamy affidavit, it read that he had ordered as much police force as possible in view of this meeting.
I also attended the Jain commission inquiry in which Karunanidhi was examined. He had said then that it was the then governor, Bhishma Narayan Singh, who had told him to cancel the meeting. Look at the contradictions.
Who according to you was the one who advised cancellation of the Karunanidhi meeting?
Probably it was Marumalarchi Dravida Munetra Kazhagam leader Vaiko who telephoned and sought cancellation of the meeting. The telephone records needed to be examined, but it was never done.
Why do you think Vaiko tried to stop Karunanidhi?
After Rajiv’s assassination, many DMK workers were attacked, their offices burnt. If Karunanidhi had gone there, he would have been in trouble and there would have been an onslaught. Hence, they were trying to protect him.
Does this mean even Karunanidhi was part of the plot?
No, that is not what I meant. Karunanidhi is not a killer. He wanted a democratic solution to the problem and this was never liked by slain LTTE [ Images ] chief Prabhakaran.
You accuse Vaiko of having a hand in this entire issue.
Vaiko was the one who spoke vehemently against the Indo-Jaffna accord. Vaiko said at that time he was first an LTTE, then a Tamilian and then an Indian. At the time of the accord, Prabhakaran was brought down to New Delhi [ Images ] and was put up at the Hotel Ashoka.
Vaiko sought to meet him, but he was not allowed to do so. He conversed with Prabhakaran on the intercom, during which the latter told him, “Anna, this Rajiv has betrayed me. I feel like committing suicide as he is sealing my fate. But I cannot kill myself as I need to fight for my people.”
Vaiko wrote a book later in which he mentions that Prabakaran had thought of committing suicide.
Tell us more, sir…
When Vaiko had gone to Sri Lanka [ Images ], we had secured a videotape titled Inside a Tiger’s Cave which has him on tape. There he spoke everything that was anti-Rajiv. It appeared that he was more against Rajiv than Prabakaran himself. This was also a point noted during our investigation.
Then there is also a meeting in which Vaiko says that Rajiv won’t go back alive from Tamil Nadu. He, however, retracted that statement. During the investigation, we questioned one Chinna who is on death row.
He said that in one of the hideouts, Sivarasan (the prime accused in the assassination) held talks with one Srinivas Ayya and said that after the successful completion of the mission, they should ensure that Vaiko becomes the chief minister of Tamil Nadu.
Why was the evidence not used then?
This is a question that I have been asking. We had so much evidence, but surprisingly Vaiko was roped in as prosecution witness number 250 in the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities court.
During the trial, he denied speaking all of which was on video with Prabhakaran. The video was played out. He claimed that it was him in the video but the voice was not his. It was sent for examination and the voice too was confirmed, but till date there is no perjury case against him.
You have alleged that even the Intelligence Bureau and the Research and Analysis Wing tried to cover up LTTE’s role?
After the assassination, Chandrashekhar, the then prime minister, convened a meeting in which even Janata Party president Subramanian Swamy (then minister of commerce and industry) was present. The then IB chief, MK Narayanan, and RAW boss, GS Bajpai, were also present.
Swamy said that it was obvious that the LTTE was responsible. Bajpai retorted that it was not the LTTE. The meeting was adjourned. Meanwhile, the CBI director had gone to Colombo for the investigation.
They were called back and rushed to Delhi for the meeting. During the meeting, it was again asked why a trip was made to Colombo and did that mean it was preconceived that it was the LTTE which was behind the assassination.
Bajpai once again opposed this. He even quoted one Kittu to be his source. Kittu, incidentally, was Prabhakaran’s right hand man. An LTTE man could never have been a RAW mole and even Dr Swamy had termed this as absurd.
What are your allegations against Narayanan?
A video taken at the meeting on that ill-fated day in which there were images of Dhanu was never made available to the CBI. The assassination team was waiting for nearly two hours in a sterile area. The original video reached Narayanan.
The government had decided to conduct an investigation in this regard and this case was registered with the Special Investigating Team and the CBI. However, it was buried. My question is, why no action has been taken for suppressing evidence.
It was being said that Dhanu had barged into the meeting, but this video clearly shows that they were waiting for a long time. We probed this case risking our own lives and it does upset me that people sitting at the helm of affairs are protecting the accused.
Do you think the loopholes will be rectified now?
Let us see.

 

 

……………………..DECLARATION………………………

 

 


N
ame : ………………………NAGARAJA.M.R.


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

Professional / Trade Title :  S.O.S  e – Voice For Justice

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 , S.O.S- e – clarion of Dalit &  S.O.S-e-Voice for Justice 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 , S.O.S- e – clarion of Dalit &  S.O.S-e-Voice for Justice 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.

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



C
ontact naghrw@yahoo.com , nagarajhrw@hotmail.com    ,

 

UID  Aadhaar  No  :  5703  5339  3479 

Cell : 91 9341820313


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 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 , revenue officials , District Magistrate  & Chief Justice of India together with above mentioned accused 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.

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 like hit & run cases , murder attempts , unnatural deaths , etc  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 , guilty Judges , guilty public servants &  guilty Constitutional fuctionaries.  

date :   10.05.2014..………………………..Your’s sincerely,

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

 

Hundreds of prisoners on death row were wrongfully convicted

New data suggest more than 340 U.S. inmates that could have been exonerated have been sentenced to death since 1973

DINA FINE MERONSCIENTIFIC AMERICAN

 

This article was originally published by Scientific American.

Scientific AmericanJust how many individuals on death row are incorrectly convicted? The question has dogged attorneys and civil rights advocates for years, but a simple answer is almost impossible because few wrongful cases are ever overturned. A new analysis is adding a level of much-needed detail, and it concludes that more than twice as many inmates were wrongly convicted and sentenced to death than have been exonerated and freed.

Borrowing a statistical method often used to evaluate whether new medical therapies help patients survive, a team of researchers has concluded that about 4.1 percent of criminal defendants who are sentenced to death are falsely convicted. The approach allows researchers to “actually come up with a valid estimate of the rate of false convictions—knowing something that people say [in criminal justice] is not knowable,” says study author Samuel Gross, a law professor at the University of Michigan Law School and editor of the National Registry of Exonerations, a U.S.-focused exoneration database. What makes the analysis possible is that data on the potential need for exoneration from death penalty cases come to light more often than it does for other types of criminal proceedings. All death sentences in the U.S. are based on crimes that include homicide.

The study, led by a team of lawyers and statisticians, examined data on both 7,482 defendants who were given death sentences between 1973 and 2004 and death row exonerations during that time. By applying survival analysis—a statistical method often used to calculate how well new treatments help patients survive—they determined how often a prisoner under threat of execution was exonerated. The method usually tracks patients to see if a new therapy prolongs the period of time until a person dies from the illness in question but it can also be applied to policy questions that have clear end pointsIn this study the end point of tracking was exoneration (being found innocent and freed) or the actual execution. “Survival” was defined as remaining in prison. The “therapy” here would be removal of the threat of execution.

 

Here’s how their analysis works. It says that if all death-sentenced defendants remained under this sentence indefinitely, as opposed to being taken off death row due to being resentenced to life in prison or their fate being artificially cut off by the study ending, then 4.1 percent of those prisoners would have otherwise been exonerated. (And being exonerated and freed by legal action here is used as the best proxy for innocence.) The analysis also takes into account other occurrences such as suicide or death of a prisoner from natural causes. The number of false convictions among the death-sentenced has been particularly hard to estimate, Gross says, because many prisoners who are on death row are eventually moved off of it but remain in prison, which often reduces their chances of exoneration.

The issue affects a significant number of people. Since 1973 144 death-sentenced defendants have been exonerated in the U.S. But Gross says that the analysis indicates that at least 340 people would have been put to death unjustly in that same time period. “There are no other reliable estimates of the rate of false conviction in any context,” the researchers wrote in the study, published online on April 28 inProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

The researchers also note that a 4.1 percent rate of false conviction is conservative, given that separate calculations gauging the accuracy of the assumptions that took an even more conservative stance—assuming that people who were executed had zerochance of false conviction and that the chances of exoneration after retrial would be twice that of people on death row—would still produce a larger figure than their 4.1 percent estimate. Although their analysis does not include data after 2004, the researchers note that they doubt that the use of DNA identification technology would have much impact on false conviction rates—because DNA evidence is primarily used in cases such as rape rather than homicide. Only about 13 percent of death row exonerations have resulted from DNA testing.

For more on death penalty considerations, see Scientific American’s editorial in the May edition of the magazine that details how the use of drugs to carry out capital punishment is inadvertently putting medical patients at risk.

 

NATURE | NEWS

 

Death-penalty analysis reveals extent of wrongful convictions

Statistical study estimates that some 4% of US death-row prisoners are innocent.

 

Doug Berry/Ocean/Corbis

The chances of exoneration increase the longer a person remains on death row, according to a study.

At least one in 25 people on death row in the United States would be exonerated if given enough time, researchers have found. The study, which used statistical methods to extrapolate from available data, is one of the first to try to quantify the rate of false convictions.

The work attempts to shed light on a notoriously difficult task: gauging the number of people falsely convicted of crimes. Few convictions result in an exoneration, most of those convicted never manage to prove their innocence and many cases do not have their final outcomes recorded, so data are not available to researchers. Innocent people also frequently plead guilty in the hope of reducing their sentence, effectively eliminating themselves from any analysis. Therefore, quantifying exonerations is the only way to get a glimpse of the extent of wrongful convictions, says lead author Samuel Gross, a criminologist at the University of Michigan Law School in Ann Arbor.

Gross and his colleagues analysed the rate of exonerations among prisoners on death row, whose outcomes are carefully tracked by the US Bureau of Justice Statistics in Washington DC. In a previous report, the researchers found that less than 0.1% of prison sentences are death sentences, yet capital cases accounted for 12% of exonerations between 1989 and 2012. Gross attributes the disparity to the tendency of lawyers and courts to work harder to definitively determine guilt when a person’s life is on the line.

A case for delay

But many death sentences are never carried out. Courts often change a convict’s sentence to life imprisonment, or the accused dies from suicide or natural causes while on death row. To determine what would have happened to these prisoners had they remained there, Gross’s team relied on a statistical method known as a survival curve, which is commonly used in epidemiology to measure the number of people in a population who die from a specific cause over a certain period, and so extrapolate the rate of deaths for longer periods of time.

The longer a person stayed on death row, the team found, the higher the chance that he or she would be exonerated. Furthermore, the researchers calculated that if all of those sentenced to death were kept on death row indefinitely without being executed, receiving a life sentence or dying of another cause, at least 4.1% would eventually be exonerated. That number still underestimates the rate of false convictions, Gross says, because many innocent people never manage to prove their innocence.

Because a longer death row stint means a greater chance of exoneration, people who are put to death quickly after their convictions could be more likely to have been innocent than the population of convicts as a whole — likely because there has not been as much time for subtler pieces of evidence to come to light.

According to James Liebman, a lawyer at Columbia Law School in New York City who was not involved in the study, the statistics suggest something of a paradox. Often a convict is lucky enough to have his death sentence commuted to life in prison, by a state governor for example, because of lingering doubt about his guilt. But because fewer people with life sentences are exonerated, Liebman says, “that luck will be bad luck because there’s a lesser change of having that error discovered.”

Nature

 

doi:10.1038/nature.2014.15114

References

  1. Gross, S. R., O’Brien, B., Hu, C. & Kennedy, E. H. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USAhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1306417111 (2014).

    Show context

 

Editorial :  PIL –  DEATH PENALTY RIGHT OR WRONG ?  ABLOLISH DEATH PENALTY


–        AN APPEAL TO H.E.Honourable PRESIDENT OF INDIA  &  HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT  OF INDIA  

 

WHY DO WE KILL PEOPLE WHO KILL PEOPLE TO TELL PEOPLE THAT KILLING  PEOPLE IS BAD ???

 Just consider the following facts persons convicted in rarest of  rare cases that of Assassinating a former prime minister of india  are commuted to life sentence & within hours  released by state government of  Tamil Nadu. Where as some convicts convicted in heinous crimes but not heinous or rarest of rare  like PM Rajiv Gandhi assassination were  hanged without alternatives like commuting  their sentances to life term.

 

Poor , tribal people in chattisgarh , Andhra Pradesh , Jharkhand & other states infested with terrorism / naxalism  (even without any material incriminating evidences) are charged with charges like giving food , cloth & medical aid to terrorists / naxalites,  therby  waging war against the nation . Those poor tribals rae put behind bars and tried under draconian laws like TADA , POTA , MOCA , etc. Where as movie star Sanjay Dutt who knowing fully well the intentions kept deadly arms in his house . Arms were given to him by master minds of Mumbai attacks. Initially he was booked under TADA , then TADA charges were dropped and awarded a lesser prison term than actually deserved. Further , he is getting paroles week after  week which other ordinary prisoners are unable to get even once.

 

Consider the case of Bhopal Gas Tragedy , the company & top most officials were well aware of safety procedural lapses in the Bhopal plant , still continued the operations. When the accident happened slaughtering thousands & maiming lakhs of people , the government first charged the  head of the company with charges of man slaughter. Afterwards , he was arrested but stealthily facilitated to escape to his home country literally flown out by the police , chief minister of the government. Subsequently chief Justice of India dropped man slaughter charges against him & filed lenient charges against him making the way for lenient punishment in future (JUDGEMENT FIXING).  CJI benefitted from it ? Paradoxically after retirement , CJI became  head of the trust controlling crores of rupees  monitoring the rehabilitation of Bhopal gas victims.

 

In this context it is quite pertinent to note that In India with money power , right political connections any crime can be done & be scot free . In India  Legal system is for Sale , Judicial orders can be manipulated. The convict in a case may be an innocent  without recourse to right connections  & legal aid. So , one cann’t be 100% sure whether the death convict has actually committed the crime.

 

A criminal is not born, but made by social circumstances. For the crime
scenario in India , every citizen of India is indirectly responsible.
Our present inefficient, corrupt legal system , is wholly dependent on
evidences which a rich criminal can create or destroy at his sweet
will. Police forcibly take confessions from the accussed , by applying
3rd degree torture methods. Some of the judges are literally auctioning
” judicial orders” for bribe. Due to all these reasons one cann’t be
100% sure about one criminal’s conviction. In such cases, capital
punishment will be unfair & inhuman. It must be made mandatory, in all
death penalty cases that polygraph, lie detector tests, etc must be
conducted on ” death convicts ” , to know whether they are innocent or
guilty inspite of hostile evidences. Fundamentally, the capital
punishment has failed
as a deterrent.

The people who clamour for continuance of death penalty are BIASED,
INHUMAN, BUTCHERS & CANIBALS. Why don’t they ask for death penalty to
policemen, who murder people through 3rd degree  torture, in lock-ups &
fake encounters ? why don’t they ask for death penalty to corrupt
judges who sells judicial orders for bribe ? why don’t they ask for
death penalty to builders who cause building collapses, resulting in
mass murders ? why don’t they ask for death
penalty to corrupt government doctors who refuses to treat poor patient
without bribe, causing the murder of poor patient ? why don’t they ask
for death penalty to industrialist/ traders who sell adulterated food
items, spurious drugs/ medicines, in turn causing mass murders ? why
don’t they ask for death penalty to corrupt government officials , who
help criminals, industrialists? Why don’t they ask for death penalty to
politicians who create communal & other riots, who have ties with
foreign intelligence agencies, terrorist outfits ? Why don’t they ask
for death penalty to mole in the P.M.O & the senior officers of
National Security Council who passed on national secrets ? Why don’t
they ask for death penalty to public servants , ministers who gave aid
, support to terrorist outfits like L.T.T.E out of government of india
coffers , killing hundreds of srilankans , tamils ?

These are the guilty persons , criminals  who don’t personally ,
directly murder human beings but cunningly murder hundreds which go
unnoticed by any. For the person who barbarically murders one human
being you prescribe CAPITAL PUNISHMENT but for those who murder
hundreds you say nothing why ? THEY WON’T ASK FOR IT, BECAUSE MOST OF
THE PERSONS WHO ARE DEMANDING DEATH PENALTY ARE BIASED, SELFISH &
BELONG TO ONE OF THE SECTIONS OF CRIMINALS MENTIONED ABOVE. They lack
objectivity.

Death penalty is the ultimate . cruel , inhuman and degrading
punishment. It violates the right to life Article 1 of universal
declaration of human rights. It is irrevocable , prone to judicial
errors and can be inflicted on innocents. It has never been shown to
deter crime more effectively than other punishments. In most of the
countries including india , judicial system is ineffective ,
inefficient to prosecute impartially both poor & rich criminals. Those
condemned to death penalty mostly come from poor background who are
unable to afford wise & articulate Advocates who can efficiently argue
their case. Against these poor accussed , the criminal nexus of
police-criminal-bureaucrat builds up fake evidences , extracts forced
confessions by 3rd degree torture. Most of death convicts world over
belongs to either poor , TRIBALS , DALITS , etnic minorities ,
political dissidents , children , mentally ill. No rich & mighty
criminal is ever prosecuted let alone hanged.

The judicial system which depends on technical facts like evidences
lacks sense to figure out truth out of fake evidences , also as judges
are human beings they are prone to err. Add to this corruption in
judiciary. Death penalty is irreversible & irrevocable. In a mature
democracy like U.S.A with relatively efficient judicial system itself
hundreds of cases of death convicts were found to be wrong , convicts
were found to be innocents upon review & were let free. Where as in
india , the accussed lacks the wherewithal to argue his case in the
first place then how can he arrange for case review ? no judge is god ,
if a hanged person is found to be innocent the judge doesn’t has the
ability to bring back the hanged person to life , do such judges have
right to snatch away lives ?

Hereby HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH’S Urges H.E . PRESIDENT OF INDIA  & HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ,

1.        to stay all death penalties until equitable criminal justice system
with respect to above mentioned rich & mighty criminals is put into
force .


2.        until death penalty is abolished, to make poly graph, lie detector
tests mandatory for all death convicts in a free & fair manner by a
neutral authority , to ascertain whether the convict is really guilty
or innocent of the alleged crime .

3.        until death penalty is abolished , to give a peaceful choice of
death to the death convicts like sleeping pill, injection, gun shot,
etc instead of medieval & barbaric ” death by hanging”.

4.     finally, to abolish death penalty from statuette books.

JAI HIND. VANDE MATARAM.

Your’s sincerely,

Nagaraja.M.R.

 

 

 

Edited, printed , published owned by NAGARAJA.M.R. @ # LIG-2  No  761,HUDCO FIRST STAGE ,

OPP WATER WORKS , LAXMIKANTANAGAR , HEBBAL ,MYSORE – 570017  KARNATAKA 

INDIA… cell : 91 9341820313 , 91 8970318202

 

 

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   

 

Advertisements
Standard