Indian’s Diary – e News Weekly
Spreading the light of humanity & freedom
Editor: Nagaraja.M.R.. Vol.13..Issue.34........26 / 08 / 2017
Editorial : Mishra
Threatens Petitioner
-
Accountability of
Judges MUST
-
Remainder to
Honourable CJI & Justice Mishra
Mr.Upendra Mishra ( Justice Dipak Mishra Proxy or
unrelated ? ) has threatened the petioner Mr.
Nagaraja.M.R. for petitioning against
Justice Dipak Mishra through facebook posting.
Mr. Upendra Mishra indirectly
referred about sending petitioner to
jail. If
anything untoward happens to me or to my
dependants Mr.Upendra Mishra , Justice Dipak Mishra , CJI will be jointly responsible along with perpetrators
of crime and jointly liable to pay damages.
Police
verification is mandatory , before getting passport or before joining
government service. If police finds any suspicious connections , activities by the applicant and gives adverse report the person will not get passport or will not be selected for government service.
When even for the post of peon in government positive police verification is
mandatory , why NOT for Justice Dipak Mishra.? Mishra has been indicted by Revenue Assistant
commissioner , CBI, still promotion to
CJI why ? Previously too few judges indicted by IB and against the reservation of bar councils
were promoted , why ?
Courts of law treats dying declaration of a person or a witness as
an important evidence in cases involving
common people. Whereas in the case of Suicide of Mr.Kalikho Pul former chief
minister of Arunachal Pradesh , his suicide note indicting
Justice Khehar , Justice Dipak
Mishra , President Pranab Mukherjee , others was not considered as a dying declaration & acted upon in right earnest by SCI , why ? Is there different set of
laws for Justice Khehar , Justice Dipak Mishra , President Pranab Mukherjee and
commoners ?
Supreme
Court Judges take 5 star pay , perks from the public exchequer
but don’t give accounts of their
actions to public .
The public servants & the government must be
role models in law abiding acts , for others to emulate & follow. if a
student makes a mistake it is excusable & can be corrected by the teacher.
if the teacher himself makes a mistake , all his students will do the
same mistake. if a thief steals , he can be caught , legally punished
& reformed . if a police himself commits crime , many thieves go scot-free
under his patronage. even if a police , public servant commits a crime ,
he can be legally prosecuted & justice can be sought by the aggrieved.
just think , if a judge himself that too of apex court of the land
himself commits crime - violations of RTI Act , constitutional
rights & human rights of public and obstructs the public from
performing their constitutional fundamental duties , what happens ?
In most of
the cases , when allegations against judges comes up proper enquiry is not done
, no follow up legal prosecution is done. In other cases , no enquiry is
done. RTI information about such judges is not given to
RTI applicants , PILs filed against such judges are not entertained
by courts , PILs are not registered
& taken up for hearing. Thereby ,
guilty judges remain technically innocent as no
proper investigation is done , as
they are not legally prosecuted
by investigating agency , as they are not judged , declared as “Guilty” by any court of law. All court management.
Even if a
judge is transferred or resigns or
impeached , it is not a legal punishment & definitely not the end of legal
prosecution. If a commoner steals a jewellery but returns the same after sometime to the owner
with sorry. Is it the end ? is there no punishment for his crime ? In the same way , what punishment for guilty
judge ?
Now, take
the case of Justice Karnan, apex court
took cognizance of Karnan’s way of representation , his sound. Justice Karnan made certain allegations against high court judges through
proper official channel to supreme court of india . Why it did not act till
months , till date ? Why SCI did not constitute an impartial enquiry committee to investigate ?
When a person calls
you repeatedly in a normal polite
tone & you do not respond. The
caller concludes the hearer is either deaf / dumb /
pretending to be deaf & dumb. In
such a scenario , caller yells out at high pitch so that the hearer can hear.
Same way , when SCI failed to act on his repeated appeals , he yelled out in open , what is wrong with him ? Actually SCI is on the wrong side , why
it did not conduct enquiry in the first place at the
first instance?
To silence
him SCI Judges , Advocate Ram Jethmalani
termed Karnan as lunatic. Are you subject experts in psychiatry ? You are not full fledged experts in your own
domain , how come in others. is it not
defamation of an individual , contempt of high court of west Bengal ? What
punishment for defamers , contemnors ?
Day in day
out , since years SCI Judges are making contempt of citizens of india by not
answering RTI questions , by not registering PILs in turn covering up crimes by judges , officials & others. Why no punishment to
SCI Judges for contempt of citizens of india ?
There is
wrong from the beginning. There are fake advocates , Judicial exam papers are leaked ,
few judges selected are kith & kin of serving /
influential judges ( others not bright ?
) , some judges copy during the
examination , few favorable junior
judges promoted while the
talented senior judge is sidelined in promotion. So
few candidates are selected as judges in the illegal way , how can they work in a
legal way ?
Threatening a petitioner with contempt or
brute police force or fixing petitioner in false cases is not ethical nor legal.
Read details at following web pages ,
attachment & sincerely answer :
Judges SEX crimes
A – Z of
Manipulation of Indian Legal System
50% of higher judiciary corrupt, says ex-SC judge
Markandey Katju
In suicide note, Arunachal CM Kalikho Pul alleges
graft by SC judges, Congress
http://www.sify.com/news/in-suicide-note-arunachal-cm-kalikho-pul-alleges-graft-by-sc-judges-congress-news-national-rcruamjjfdhhc.html ,
http://www.sify.com/news/in-suicide-note-arunachal-cm-kalikho-pul-alleges-graft-by-sc-judges-congress-news-national-rcruamjjfdhhc.html ,
Traitors in Judiciary & Police
Crimes by Khaki
FIRST Answer Judges Police
JAIL Dipak
Mishra
JAIL Tyrrant
Judges
Ugly face of Judiciary
5 Star Jails & Hell
Judges Connive with
VIP Prisoners
Jai Hind. Vande Mataram.
Your’s ,
Nagaraja Mysuru Raghupathi.
International Council of Jurists (ICJ) has sought an in-house
probe against Justice Mishra for alleged irregularities.
Even as Chief Justice of India (CJI) JS Khehar has recommended the
name of senior-most Supreme Court judge Justice Dipak Mishra as his successor,
the International Council of Jurists (ICJ) has sought an in-house probe against
Justice Mishra for alleged irregularities.
Since the CJI has already recommended Justice Mishra's name as his
successor despite the charges against him, ICJ plans to approach the President
and the Prime Minister seeking their intervention.
Lok Sabha MP Harinder Singh Khalsa has also written a letter to
the Prime Minister's Office expressing his concern over the CJI's
recommendation of Justice Misra.
"I feel very strongly about what is going on at the moment.
Allegations of impropriety and the incident with Justice CS Karnan prompted me
to write to the Prime Minister," Khalsa told DNA.
In his letter, Khalsa referred to late Arunachal Chief Minister
Kalikho Pul's suicide letter which accused several judges of the higher
judiciary of corruption. Khalsa wrote: "The people of this country who
certainly expect the next CJI to be not merely a Caeser's wife above suspicion
but a judicial statesman, a tall figure whose integrity and probity is beyond
doubt."
As first reported by DNA, an in-house probe headed by Punjab and
Haryana High Court Chief Justice SJ Vazifdar and two other Hgh Court judges
against two Orissa High Court judges was abruptly stopped when the name of a
sitting Supreme Court Justice cropped up. The committee wrote to CJI Khehar and
stated that it could not conduct any enquiry against a sitting Supreme Court
judge.
The ICJ wrote a letter to CJI Khehar on July 24 and sought an
internal probe against Justice Misra since its own enquiries had "revealed
that the Supreme Court judge in question is Justice Dipak Misra, who is the
senior-most after the CJI."
"We seek your indulgence to immediately appoint an in-house
committee consisting of Judges of Supreme Court of India to look into the
allegations against Mr Justice Dipak Misra, Judge, Supreme Court of India, to
ensure transparency in the functioning and independence of Indian
judiciary," the letter sent by ICJ president Adish Aggarwala reads.
The ICJ letter also refers to a September 2016 complaint filed by
one Jayanta Kumar Das, alleging that Justice Misra was involved in the illegal
transfer of large tracts of government land in Bidanasi and other areas of
Cuttack when he was a lawyer. According to ICJ Aggarwala, Justice Misra was
allotted land in 1979 when he was an advocate there and there is a court order
with adverse remarks in the matter pertaining to the land.
"Your Lordship, since institutional integrity is involved in
the whole episode and that the allegations are against a sitting apex court
judge, who may be considered for appointment as next Chief Justice of India, it
is incumbent on you to clear the doubts in the minds of the public and lawyers
about your successor," the letter says.
It also points out that when allegations of impropriety were made
against Justice Soumitra Sen of the Calcutta High Court, "allegations,
which were much less serious than those against Mr. Justice Dipak Mishra, the
then CJI immediately constituted an in-house committee to look into the
allegations against him".
"Once the veracity of allegations against him (as an
advocate) was established, the then CJI recommended his impeachment. Unless a
similar procedure of enquiry is followed in case of Mr Justice Dipak Misra, the
high name of Indian judiciary may be smirked," it says.
Cropping Up Of SC Judge’s Name During Inquiry
Is No Reason To Stall Probe Against Orissa HC Judge, CJAR Writes To In-House
Committee Chairman
Intellectual Dishonesty Is The Biggest
Challenge To The Independence Of Judiciary: Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave
Read more at: http://www.livelaw.in/intellectual-dishonesty-biggest-challenge-independence-judiciary-senior-advocate-dushyant-dave-video / ,
Read more at: http://www.livelaw.in/intellectual-dishonesty-biggest-challenge-independence-judiciary-senior-advocate-dushyant-dave-video / ,
Why The kith And Kin Of Judges Being Mostly
Considered For Appointments? Asks SCBA President
APPOINTMENT
OF SUPREME COURT JUDGES IN INDIA & NECESSARY JUDICIAL REFORMS
By P Mohan Chandran
The appointment of Supreme Court judges in India has created
quite a furore among the Indian executive and judiciary alike. It has been
mired in controversies galore in the wake of the National Judicial Appointments
Commission (NJAC) Act being struck down and declared unconstitutional by a
five-judge Supreme Court bench headed by Justice J.S. Khehar, after
a marathon hearing for 31 days on the issue of the validity of the 99th
constitutional amendment and the NJAC Act. As the judicial vacancies in High
Courts kept rising, touching about 40%, Justice Khehar delivered the historic verdict
that the judicial appointments would not be put on hold and the Collegium
process would continue until the Constitution Bench decided on reforms.
COLLEGIUM
SYSTEM & ITS ORIGIN
In the Collegium system, the Chief Justice of India (CJI) and a
panel comprising four senior-most judges of the Supreme Court recommend
appointments and transfers of judges. The collegium system evolved after three
landmark judgments of the Supreme Court, popularly known as the ‘three
judges cases’ that comprised the first, second and the third judges
cases.
The first judges case was the SP Gupta case. It
was decided on December 30, 1981 that the President, with sensible reasons,
could reject judges’ names recommended by the CJI. This shifted more power on
the executive from the judiciary in the appointments process.
In the second judges’ case, a nine-judge bench of
the Supreme Court overturned the verdict of the first judges case by creating a
Collegium system. The majority verdict delivered by Justice J.S. Verma in
the Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association Vs Union of India case
on October 6, 1993, stated that the CJI should be entrusted with the primary
role of appointments of judges. However, the three judges ruling in this case
could not reach a consensus on the exact role of the CJI in the process,
leading to a lot of confusion in the appointment and transfer of judges for
years.
The final judgement in the series, the third judges case (October
28, 1998) made things clearer after the President’s request to the Supreme
Court for a clarity. In this case, the Supreme Court came up with nine
guidelines that the Collegium system should follow to function effectively.
This case established the supremacy of the judiciary in the appointment and
transfer of judges.
WHAT
IS NJAC?
NJAC or the National Judicial Appointments Commission is a
constitutional body proposed to replace the existing Collegium system of
appointing judges. The NJAC proposed a transparent and broad-based process of
selection of judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts. The judges of the
Supreme Court and High Courts were to be selected by the NJAC commission, whose
members were drawn from the judiciary, legislature and civil society.
The NJAC was established by amending the Constitution
(99th Amendment) Act, 2014, passed by the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha in
August 2014. Alongside, the Parliament also passed the National Judicial
Appointments Commission Act, 2014, to regulate the functions of NJAC. The State
legislatures of 16 states ratified both the Bills and the President gave his
assent on December 31, 2014. The NJAC Act and the Constitutional Amendment Act
came into force from April 13, 2015.
Constitution
of the NJAC
The NJAC will consist of six people: the Chief Justice of India
(CJI), two senior-most judges of the Supreme Court, the Law Minister, and two
‘eminent persons’. These eminent persons would be nominated for a three-year
term by a committee consisting of the CJI, the Prime Minister, and the Leader
of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha. One eminent person had to be nominated from
among the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, OBCs, minorities or women. These
eminent persons were not eligible for re-nomination.
Maintaining
Judicial Independence
The judicial representatives in the NJAC – the CJI and two
senior-most judges – can veto any name proposed for appointment to a judicial
post if they disapprove of it. A proposal once vetoed cannot be revived. At the
same time, the judges require the support of other members of the commission to
get a name through.
Method
of Appointment of Judges Prior to NJAC
Articles 124 and 217 of the Constitution deals with the
appointment of judges of the higher judiciary. According to these Articles,
judges are appointed by the President of India after consultation with the CJI
and other judges. The term “consultation” is of great significance here because
in 1993, in the Second Judges case, the Supreme Court decided
that the CJI must agree to all judicial appointments. This created the
Collegium system, wherein the three senior-most Supreme Court judges decided on
who would be a judge of the High Court or the Supreme Court.
‘FLAWED’ COLLEGIUM SYSTEM – THE ‘CRUX’ OF THE CRISIS
The Central government criticised the Collegium system stating
it has created an imperium in imperio, i.e., empire within an
empire, within the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court Bar Association too blamed
it for creating a “give-and-take” culture, causing a chasm between the haves
and have-nots. The Bar Associated noted that the common man keeps struggling
for years to get justice, while politicians and actors get instant relief from
courts.
Many eminent jurists, too, time and again, have expressed their
reservations about the impartiality of the Collegium system. Former Chief
Justice of India, Late Justice JS Verma, who was a part of the panel of judges
who delivered the historical 1993 judgment introducing the collegium system,
during the fag end of his life, surprisingly expressed displeasure at the
verdict as many shortcomings had crept into the system in the past 20 years
since its introduction. Several detractors of NJAC also argued that the new
political element would destroy judicial independence.
In 2015, Attorney General Mukul Rohtagi, during his arguments in
the Supreme Court on the petition challenging the National Judicial
Appointments Commission (NJAC), described the Collegium system as “dead and
buried”. Rohtagi said that in no other country, except in India, judges were
appointed by judges, and he opined that the new system would lead to infusing
more accountability and transparency into the judicial system.
According to Justice Chelameswar, who was a keen external
observant of the dynamics of the Collegium system for the past five years and
also an insider for quite some time, felt that the Collegium, since its
constitution, never maintained a record of the minutes of its meetings of the
five members and their deliberations. Justice Chelameswar indicated that an
absence of record implied that the Chief Justice of India (CJI) could present
the Collegium’s opinions to the government as unanimous decisions, thus
suppressing any dissent within the body, until there was proof otherwise. The
issue of ‘lack of record’ questions the Supreme Court’s creation of the
Collegium through its nine-judge bench’s ruling in the Second Judges case
in 1993.
The Supreme Court, in the Third Judges case, in
its advisory opinion to the President on October 28, 1998 held that “the
opinion of all members of the Collegium in respect of each recommendation
should be in writing.” The Supreme Court also held that “the ascertainment of
the views of the senior-most Supreme Court judges who hail from High Courts
from where the persons to be recommended come, must also be in writing.” From
this verdict of the Supreme Court, it is quite clear that the Supreme Court
made it mandatory for the Collegium to maintain a record of its proceedings,
including the Collegium members’ reasons for recommending or rejecting a
candidate considered by them.
If one of the members of the Collegium dissents on the
recommendation of a particular judge, then the government can ask the Collegium
to reconsider the recommendation on this ground. However, such a recommendation
is binding on the government if the Collegium reiterates it, but such
reiteration has to be unanimous for the government to accept it. Thus, a
dissenting member of the Collegium gets an opportunity to exercise the option
to ‘veto’ a recommendation while reconsidering it. In the judgment of the Third
Judges case, paragraph 26 clearly states that only a unanimous
reiteration entails an appointment. Thus, with the failure of the Collegium to
keep a record of its proceedings, the government cannot know whether the
original recommendation or a reiteration (when asked to reconsider) was a
unanimous one, and it is compelled to rely on the CJI’s word. But, if the CJI’s
word were to be contested by the other Collegium members, then complying with
CJI’s word would create some issues to the government.
An instance of a negative consequence of not maintaining records
came to light in March 2016, when a challenge filed by Lalit Kumar Mishra, a
former additional judge of the Orissa High Court, regarding his non-appointment
as a permanent judge of the High Court despite his name being recommended by
the Supreme Court Collegium, was dismissed by the Supreme Court bench
comprising Justices Ranjan Gogoi, Arun Mishra and Prafulla C. Pant. Mishra’s
contention was that there was nothing in writing that suggested that the
Supreme Court Collegium had reconsidered its recommendation to make him a
permanent judge of the High Court. Thus, the absence of record-keeping is the
crux of the crisis.
NJAC
– THE BONE OF ‘CONTENTION’
The following were some of the issues that were the bone of
contention between the government and the judiciary:
·
The Memorandum of Procedure for
appointing judges was a bone of contention, with the judiciary refusing to
accept the government’s proposals.
·
Several clauses, including the
inclusion of the law minister into NJAC, has been unpalatable by the judiciary.
·
The government’s insistence on
including its clauses has led to a gridlock, with judicial delay and unfilled
vacancies.
The following were the reactions of some of the prominent
lawyers from the horse’s mouth on the Supreme Court’s decision:
Abhishek Manu Singhvi: “Having seen the good and later the disturbing operation
of both the government appointments and the Collegium system, I think the NJAC
should have been given a chance. In my personal view, the judgment is
disappointing. Let us hope that there will be real, actual and significant
reforms in the content and operation of the Collegium system.”
M.N. Krishnamani, Former President, Supreme Court Bar Association: “I am not happy with the judgment. The power was initially vested with the executive, subject to consultation with the CJI. That could not have been changed by the judiciary.”
M.N. Krishnamani, Former President, Supreme Court Bar Association: “I am not happy with the judgment. The power was initially vested with the executive, subject to consultation with the CJI. That could not have been changed by the judiciary.”
Prashant Bhushan: “It is very heartening to note that the Supreme Court has put its foot down firmly on attempts to dilute the independence of the judiciary by allowing the executive government a say in the process of appointing judges. This will mean a revival of the Collegium system, which suffers from problems such as lack of transparency and lack of definite eligibility criteria for selection of judges. For this, one needs an independent full-time body, which is independent of both the judiciary and the government.”
Kapil Sibal: “This is a great success for Indian democracy. This government and its legal advisors should resign. I hail the judgment for ensuring the independence of the judiciary and not allowing any attempts to make inroads into the independence of the judiciary and for throttling the basic freedoms of the citizenry. However, we do request the judiciary to evolve more transparent procedures to ensure the judiciary gives enough confidence to the bar and the people.”
THE NEED FOR JUDICIAL REFORMS
As most of the legal fraternity seemed to be against the flawed
collegium system as explained above, the Modi government felt a need to reform
it in 2014. However, it faltered because its focus was more on how it could
control the appointment of judges through the NJAC rather than on reforms.
A good way to end the executive-judiciary impasse would be to
make public any future correspondence on the Memorandum of Procedure (MoP),
which will act as a catalyst in infusing transparency in judicial appointments.
MoP for collegium appointments, as suggested by the government, aims at having
an institutional and transparent process of judicial appointments, wherein more
people, instead of a closed group, are involved in the appointment of judges.
The government had proposed some of the following measures to
reform the judicial appointment process:
·
There should be an age limit set up
for appointment of judges.
·
Instead of only the Collegium, all
judges should vet the list of names of judges to be selected.
·
Chief Ministers, Attorney Generals
and Advocate General should have a say in the appointment of judges.
·
The criteria of merit, seniority and
integrity should be strictly followed while promoting a High Court Chief
Justice or a judge to the Supreme Court. Preference should be given to Chief
Justices of High Courts, keeping in mind their ‘inter-se seniority’.
·
When a senior Chief Justice is
overlooked for elevation to the Supreme Court, the reasons for it must be
recorded in writing. The views of each of the five judges of the Collegium must
be made known to the government in writing.
·
An institutional mechanism by way of
a committee to be constituted to aid the Collegium in the evaluation of
suitable prospective judges. Two retired judges of the Supreme Court and one
eminent person/jurist should be jointly nominated by the Chief Justice of India
and the Government of India, with an aim to create wider consultation for
selecting best candidates.
·
There should be a secretariat created
under the Law Ministry to keep a record of the database of judges, Collegium
meetings, maintain records and receive recommendations/complaints concerning
the posting of judges. The secretariat would help ensure a wider net for better
candidates and the Collegium would also have comparative data for making better
decisions.
·
The names of the judges whose
Intelligence Bureau report is negative to be struck down from the list of names
for judicial appointments to the Supreme Court.
ELIMINATING
NEPOTISM – THE NEED OF THE HOUR
An important step in reforming the Indian judiciary would be to
eliminate nepotism. On August 19, 2016, a Hindi news portal, www.indiaspeaksdaily.com, published a detailed article on the kind of nepotism
prevailing when a list was sent by the Allahabad High Court to the Supreme
Court for appointment of judges. The article mentions that there are dozens of
judges whose sons, daughters and relatives are also judges. The article
enlightens us on several aspects of judicial appointments and mentions that
many of the names suggested in the list sent by Allahabad High Court do not
fulfill many of the eligibility conditions for appointment of judges. The
article states that in the year 2000, 8 out of the 13 judges suggested by the
Allahabad High Court Collegium were relatives of sitting judges. According to
the article, 90 of the 159 names suggested in the list by Allahabad High Court
were relatives of different judges. However, the whole list was later
dismissed.
Another article titled “Relatives of 9 Judges Appointed
Law Officers”, published by the Tribune on July 7, 2013, mentions the trend
of judges having relatives practicing in the same courts.
In yet another case of corruption that involved 73 judges, some
of the judges enrolled themselves as members of the Karnataka State Judicial
Department Employees House Building Cooperative Society and bought plots meant
for housing court employees, who were unable to afford accommodation, at huge
discounts. Some of the judges included ex-Chief Justice of India H.L. Dattu,
ex-CJI M.N. Venkatachalaiah, and the current Chief Justice of India, T.S.
Thakur too, who bought plots in that society. DNA City had covered this news article
on November 23, 2011. In spite of this controversy, both H.L. Dattu and T.S.
Thakur became Chief Justices of India.
There have been several cases of corruption and allegations on
various judges such as Justice Y.K. Sabharwal, Justice V. Ramaswami, Justice
A.S. Anand, Justice Vijendra Jain, Justice F.I. Rebello, Justice K.G.
Balakrishnan and many more, who continue either continue to retain their
positions or even grow.
It is said that Justice K.G. Balakrishnan’s appointment was also
a kind of scandal. In 1998, when the NDA government came to power, the question
of appointment of Supreme Court judges had come up. The Supreme Court Collegium
gave a list that went to the President for appointment through the law
ministry. Upon receiving the file, the President sent a name back to the Law
minister to be considered for Supreme Court. K.R. Narayanan was the President
then and the first Dalit President, too. K.G. Balakrishnan too was a Dalit.
When the file was sent to the President again, he sat on the file and when the
file was sent for the third time to the President, the President seemed to have
insisted and got K.G. Balakrishnan appointed, who had one of the longest terms
of over 3 years as the Chief Justice of India. Later, it is alleged that K.G.
Balakrishnan also got several other judges appointed to the Supreme Court
according to his whims and fancies.
According to some sources, Devi Das Thakur, late father of T.S.
Thakur, was a good friend of Girdhari Lal Dogra of Congress, who, in turn, is
related to a senior cabinet minister. Ex-CJI A.S. Anand was also Dogra’s
friend.
Justice K.G. Balakrishnan’s son became a judge and Justice Y.G.
Chandrachud’s son also became a Supreme Court judge. It is rumored that ex-CJI
Ranganath Mishra’s nephew, Justice Dipak Mishra is expected to become the CJI
in 2017.
Many judges post-retirement also land up with plum sinecure
positions as a quid pro quofor a few favors done to the government.
When the law does not allow a judge to practice in the same court after
retirement, fearing wielding of undue influence, it seems quite illogical how a
judge can be allowed to seek post-retirement benefits. Chief Justice of India
T.S. Thakur’s father became a Governor, while ex-Chief Justice of India, P.
Sathasivam was appointed as the Governor of Kerala. Some of the post-retirement
benefits are also given away by way of unlimited perks on esteemed panels,
committees and commissions. Chief Justice of India, Ranganath Mishra became a
Congress MP after retirement, while many other cushy jobs such as National
Human Rights Commission (NHRC), National Green Tribunal (NGT), Press Council of
India (PCI) are reserved for and later awarded to senior judges. For instance,
Justice Markandey Katju became the Chairman of the PCI in 2011.
THE WAY AHEAD
It is quite often said that judiciary and politics are
strange-bed mates and there seems to be excess of impropriety, corruption and
nepotism in India’s judicial system. It is clear that several deals have
changed hands, limits have been transgressed and the justice delivery system is
crippled. Our judicial appointment system has oscillated between two
extremes in the last four decades – from excessive political
interference by Indira Gandhi to the arbitrary and opaque Collegium
system. It is now high time to strike a middle path. Right thinking citizens
must get involved and give an opportunity for the judiciary to be redeemed and
entangled from the clutches of political power, so that it can act
independently, fearlessly, shunning nepotism forever.
DECLARATION
Name : ...........................NAGARAJA.M.R.
Address : ...................LIG-2 / 761 , HUDCO FIRST STAGE , OPP WATER WORKS OFFICE , LAKSHMIKANTANAGAR , HEBBAL , MYSORE - 570017 INDIA
Old Professional / Trade Title : S.O.S - e – Voice For Justice
New Professional / Trade Title :
Indian’s Diary
Periodicity : WEEKLY
Circulation : FOR FREE DISTRIBUTION ON WEB
Donations : NOT ACCEPTED. Self financing . Never accepted any donations , subscriptions either for ourselves or on behalf of other organizations / individuals .
Monetary gains : nil , never made any monetary gain by way of advertisements on my websites or web news paper or otherwise.
Owner/editor/printer/publisher : NAGARAJA.M.R.
Nationality : INDIAN
Body Donation : Physical Body of Nagaraja M R , Editor , Indian’s Diary is donated to JSS Medical College , Mysore ( Donation No. 167 dated 22 / 10 / 2003 ) , In case of either Unnatural death or Natural Death at the hands of criminal nexus , my body must be handed over to JSS Medical College , Mysore for the study purposes of medical students.
Eye Donation : Both EYES of Nagaraja M R , Editor , Indian’s Diary are donated to Mysore Eye Bank , Mysore , In case of either Unnatural death or Natural Death at the hands of criminal nexus , my eyes must be handed over to Mysore Eye Bank , Mysore WITHIN 6 Hours for immediate eye transplantation to the needy.
Old Home page :
http://in.groups.yahoo.com/group/sosevoiceforjustice/ , http://groups.google.co.in/group/hrwepaper / ,
http://sites.google.com/site/sosevoiceforjustice / , http://evoiceofhumanrightswatch.wordpress.com / ,
New Home Page :
UID Aadhaar No : 5703 5339 3479
Cell : 91 8970318202
Cell : 91 8970318202
It is the duty of Supreme Court of India to
Protect , Guard the constitutional rights , fundamental rights of every Indian
citizen . Since 25 years I am appealing to SCI
about issues concerning public welfare , national security , etc and as a
result suffering injustices , my constitutional rights , human rights are
repeatedly violated but SCI is mum even when repeated appeals were made
to it. Paradoxically , after these appeals for justice , I have suffered more
injustices , attempts on my life were made , physically assaulted ,
livelihood / jobs were denied , news publication closed , press
accreditation denied , received threatening calls , blank calls,
even to date rough elements follow us , rough elements scout
near home at mid night. Does not these indicate some ties between rough
elements & SCI Judges ?
Public Interest Litigation is an
appeal for justice to the courts , to
redress the injustices meted out to the
public. Individual cases of injustices pertaining to an
individual are not covered under PIL, however an individual an
activist who is fighting for public
causes suffering injustices as a result
of his struggle ,caused by powers that be to
silence him can club his individual case under the public
causes (PIL ) he is appealing.
Nowadays people of questionable character ,
integrity are being selected to public posts , end result is present
day india. In the following web sites I have shown few
actual cases of crimes by judges & police , just imagine what type of
justice common man gets.
Traitors in Indian
Judiciary & Police
Crimes by Khaki
FIRST Answer Judges Police
Notice To Chief Justice
of India
Police show full bravery , courage ,
use full might of law while acting against innocents , commoners.
Even takes suo motto action. Frequently crosses legal
limits while acting against commoners like 3rd degree
torture , arrest / search , seizure without warrant , arrest in mid
night , etc . While they are supposed to take action against rich crooks ,
their own corrupt colleagues no suo motto action , delayed action
inspite of complaint allowing time for rich crook to get
anticipatory bail , no 3rd degree torture on him , no arrest ,
search , seizure without warrant. Where is the bravery , courage of police ?
Judges show their full wisdom , apply rigid
law book while judging cases of commoners , take suo motto
action where as cases involving rich crooks comes before
them inspite of repeated PILs they don’t consider it , let alone take suo motto
action. Judges make far fetched interpretations of law , ultimately benefitting
the rich crook. Where is the wisdom of Judges ?
I ,NAGARAJA.M.R. hereby do declare that information given above are true to the best of my knowledge & belief. If i am repeatedly called to police station or else where for the sake of investigations , the losses i do incurr as a result like loss of wages , transportation , job , etc must be borne by the government. prevoiusly the police / IB personnel repeatedly called me the complainant (sufferer of injustices) to police station for questioning , but never called the guilty culprits , rich crooks , criminals even once to police station for questioning , as the culprits are high & mighty . this type of one sided questioning must not be done by police or investigating agencies . if anything untoward happens to me or to my family members like loss of job , meeting with hit & run accidents , loss of lives , death due to improper medical care , etc , the jurisdictional police together with above mentioned accussed public servants will be responsible for it. Even if criminal nexus levels fake charges , police file fake cases against me or my dependents to silence me , this complaint is & will be effective.
Powers that be , higher ups have referred all my previous cases to
police although in most of the cases police don’t have jurisdiction
over it. It sends a subtle message by police force to
the complainant to keep silent . In the remaining cases
which are under their jurisdiction police don’t act against higher ups ,
high & mighty. In such cases police lack practical powers , their
hands are tied although they are honest. As a end result ,
police have repeatedly called me to police station
number of times ( have never called guilty influential
persons even once) took statement from me and closed
the files.
Hereby , I do make it clear the
statements made by me in my original petitions , PILs , news papers
, etc while I was in a free & fair atmosphere are
TRUE , over rides , prevails over all the statements made by me
before police earlier and which will be made by me in future
before police.
If I or my family members or my dependents
are denied our fundamental rights , human rights , denied proper medical care
for ourselves , If anything untoward happens to me or to my dependents or to my
family members – In such case Chief Justice of India together with the
jurisdictional revenue & police officials will be responsible for it , in
such case the government of india is liable to pay Rs. TWO crore as
compensation to survivors of my family. if my whole family is eliminated by the
criminal nexus ,then that compensation money must be donated to Indian Army
Welfare Fund. Afterwards , the money must be recovered by GOI as land arrears
from the salary , pension , property , etc of guilty police officials , Judges
, public servants & Constitutional functionaries.
date : 22.08.2017…………………………..Your’s
sincerely,
place : India……………………………………Nagaraja.M.R.
Edited, printed , published owned by NAGARAJA.M.R. @ # LIG-2 No 761,HUDCO FIRST STAGE ,
OPP WATER WORKS , LAXMIKANTANAGAR , HEBBAL ,MYSURU – 570017 KARNATAKA INDIA
Cell : 91 8970318202
Home page :
http://evoiceforjustice.dalitonline.in/ ,
No comments:
Post a Comment