[Criminal case against Jsutice Ramanna by CM Jaganmohan Reddy ] All India SC, ST and Minority Lawyers Association come in support of Shri Jaganmohan Reddy

 

All India SC, ST and Minority Lawyers Association come in support of Shri Jaganmohan Reddy

Demands investigation in to the allegations against  Justice N. V. Ramanna regarding his involvement in the case of land acquisition fraud  by his daughters.

CJI can invoke the provisions of ‘In-House-Procedure’ and withdraw all the judicial work assigned to Justice N.V. Ramanna if required.

The President of the other Bar associations also likely to send their representations to the CJI and President of India.

The majority people demands Prosecution  against sycophants and sponsored litigants involved in sending  frivolous and unsubstantiated representations against Shri Jaganmohan Reddy.

 

 

 The press release/article  issued on behalf of the All India SC ST and Minority Lawyers Association  is divided in the following headings ;

 

i)    When any person is having sound proofs regarding corrupt practices of a Judge of the Supreme Court and High Court then said person  is duty bound to bring it to the authority empowered to take action against such person. By making complaints Shri Y.S. Jaganmohan Reddy has performed his constitutional duty as enschrigned in Art. 51(A) h of the constitution as ruled in the case of R.K. Jain (2010) 8 SCC 281.

 

 The ‘In-House-Procedure’  laid down in the case of A. M. Bhattacharjee’s case is adopted by full Court of the Suprme Court and further ruled in Additional District And Sessions Judge ‘X’ (2015) 1 SCC 799,    makes it clear that the complaint lodged by Shri Y.S. Jaganmohan Reddy is proper.

 

 

ii)  Much harm is done by the myth that, merely by  taking the oath of office as a judge, a man ceases to be human and strips himself of all predilections, becomes a passionless thinking machine and he will not indulge in corrupt practices.[Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar's case (2011) 14 SCC 770]

 

There are many cases where Judges of Supreme Court and High Courts are found to be involved in corruption and misused their position for giving undue favor to undeserving person and denying reliefs to the deserving one. Some are prosecuted and some managed to save them by doing further corruption.

 

iii) There is no protection available to a judge of  the Supreme Court and High Court if he commits serious criminal offence misusing his position as a Judge.[K. Veeraswami K. Veeraswami Vs. Union of India (1991) 3 SCC 655].

The provisions of sec 218,219,466,192,167,220, 471,474,211 etc.. are specifically and all other sections of IPC are generally applicable to the Judge commiting criminal offence.

The intention of the law makers and the legislature is that the Judge passing wrong orders and acting contrary to law shall be sentenced for 7 years or other punishment.

 

iv)    If the Supreme Court Judge deliberately or wilfully or otherwise failed to follow the law laid down by the Supreme Court and/or if he is involved in  any act done inside or outside the Court which undermines the majesty and dignity  of the Court then a Contempt petition against such High Court or Supreme Court Judge can be filed by a common man  and the court is bound to examine it as per law laid down in Re: C.S. Karnan (2017) 7 SCC 1.

 

v) When any person is having sound proofs then he is duty bound to publish it  make it public so that;

 

(a) The people with similar grievances may also be encouraged to come forward;

(b)  It will create deterrence in the mind of said corrupt judge;

(c)  Further injustice and corruption of the said tainted Judge be stopped, prevented or at least the ‘coterie’ should be on back foot;

(d) The vigilant citizens may give their proofs;

(e) It will develop the accuemen of the citizens to analyze the modus oprandi of both i.e. the Corrupt judges and the disgruntled people making baseless allegations.

[Bathina Ramakrishna Reddy AIR 1952 SC 149 Subramanyam Swamy (2014) 12 SCC 344, Aniruddha Bahal 2010 (119) DRJ 102, Bramha Prakash Sharma AIR 1954 SC 10, Baradkanta Mishra  (1974) 1 SCC 374,  Lalith Kalitha 2008 (1) GLT 800]

 

vi) If a particular judge or magistrate is corrupt and sells justice, then a bona fide complaint to higher authorities to take necessary action against the delinquent judicial officer is also an act to maintain the purity of the administration of justice, for it is unthinkable that a judicial officer should be allowed to take bribes and if anybody makes a grievance of the matter to the higher authorities, he should be hauled up for contempt of Court. [Rama Surat Singh Vs. Shiv Kumar Pandey 1969 SCC  OnLine All 226, Harihar Shukla 1976 Cr.L.J. 507Ram Piarra comrade 1972 SCC OnLine P&H 277, Baradkanta Mishra  (1974) 1 SCC 374 ] 

 

vii)   In such situations the members of the Bar are expected to adopt the judicial approach and insist for investigation and to bring the truth to the surface.   The members of the Bar will be failing in their duties laid down by Full Bench of Supreme Court in Maria Margarida Sequeria Fernandes and Ors v. Erasmo Jack de Sequeria,  AIR 2012 SC 1727,  where it is ruled that in the administration of justice, Judges and Lawyers play equal roles. Like judges, lawyers also must ensure that truth triumphs in the administration of justice it must be the endeavor of all the Judges to ascertain truth in every matter and no stone should be left unturned in achieving this object. 

 

viii)  It is the duty of the members of the Bar to expose corrupt Judges. In the case of  R.  Muthukrishnan Vs. The Registrar General Of The High Court AIR 2019 SC 849, ruled that it is the duty of the Bar to protect honest judges and at the same time to ensure that corrupt judges are not spared.

 

But statutory body like Bar Council Of India was not seem to have  discharged its duty even after the suicide note of Former Chief Minister Kalikho Pul. On the contrary most of the time attempts were made  by some members like  Mr. Mannan Mishra, the Chairman of Bar Council of India to cover up the frauds committed by the delinquent and Corrupt Judges. Such act is damaging the image of the noble profession in the eyes of common man  and upright members of Bar and Bench. No Honest Judge and no responsible member of Bar will allow such things to happen because ‘injustice anywhere is threat to Justice everywhere’

 

ix) The members of  the Bar should avoid to make any comments which reflect their sycophant and servile conduct and people will feel that it is a sponsored act at the behest of corrupt/tainted Judges. The sycophancy of the members of the Bar will bring the name of Noble Profession in to disrepute.

x)    The members of the Bar and anyone who has filed contempt petition against Shri. Jaganmohan Reddy and those who are  willing to prosecute him  under contempt without anything to counter the sound proofs given by him, are guilty of judicial impropriety because the Hon’ble CJI is seized of the matter and if Hon’ble CJI don’t find it contemptuous then the other bench cannot take cognizance of the contempt. [Court on its Own Motion Vs. DSP Jayant Kashmiri 2017 SCC OnLine Del 7387]

 

Such people  need to be prosecuted under section 211,192,193,120(B), 34 of IPC in view of law laid down in Hari Dass Vs. State AIR 1964 SC 1773.

 

The petition if any filed by anyone be dismissed with heavy cost as ruled in R.K. Jain (2010) 8 SCC 281.

 

The copy of the  press release/article  can be downloaded here;
Copy of Press Release : -   Download Now