Supreme Court’s attempt to replace Constitution by King’s rule and to create Judges Kingdom or Fiefdom should be opposed by all available means of protest.
Supreme Court’s attempt
to replace Constitution by King’s rule and to create Judges Kingdom or Fiefdom should
be opposed by all available means of
protest.
All India SC, ST and
Minority Lawyer’s Association soon going to start nationwide protest to withdraw wrong judgment in Re: Prashant Bhushan and Re: Vijay Kurle's case.
While convicting Adv. Prashant
Bhushan the three Judge Bench of SC had said that the Judges of the Supreme Court of India are the channels by which the King’s justice is conveyed to the people. Supreme Court refused to follow Art 20,14 of the
Constitution saying that They are having unbridled power to pass any order and
no law is binding upon them. For their such view they relied on the Judgment of
King’s era of the year 1765 in R. v. Almon16 Wilmot’s Notes 243 : 97 ER 94
and per incuriam(anticipatorily overruled) judgment in Re: Vijay kurle’s case.
The Supreme
Court who was in a hurry to convict Prashant Bhushan, has delaying the hearing
of Writ Petition filed by Prashant Bhushan, Rashid Khan, Adv. Vijay Kurle and Adv.
Nilesh Ojha because of the very reason that the gross illegality by the said judges will be exposed to
public.
Since
last three months, various meetings were held between different parts of the
country and soon the peoples anger will be reflected in a systematic campaign demanding forthwith dismissal of those Judges
and demanding action under sec 220, 219, 166 etc of IPC against guilty judges for passing an
order against constitutional mandate of Art 14,20,21, 51-A(h) and thereby
bringing the majesty and dignity of the Constitution in to disrepute.
The Judges of Supreme
Court should realize that they are not above the law and they cannot be law
unto themselves expecting others to obey the law. The representation mentioned
by quoting the Supreme Court’s judgment by upright and brilliant Judges.
New Delhi: In
(Justice) MRS. NIRMAL YADAV
(Accused) Vs. C.B.I 2011(4)
RCR(Criminal) 809, it is ruled
thus;
" It has been observed
by Hon'ble Supreme Court "Be you
ever so high, the law is above you.” Merely because the petitioner has enjoyed
one of the highest constitutional offices( Judge of a High Court ), she cannot
claim any special right or privilege as an accused than prescribed under
law. Rule of law has to prevail and must prevail equally and uniformly,
irrespective of the status of an individual. Taking a panoptic view of all the
factual and legal issues, I find no valid ground for judicial intervention in
exercise of inherent jurisdiction vested with this Court. Consequently, this
petition is dismissed.
The petitioner Justice Mrs. Nirmal Yadav, the
then Judge of Punjab and Haryana High Court found to have taken bribe to decide
a case pending before her- CBI charge sheeted - It is also part of
investigation by CBI that this amount of Rs.15.00 lacs was received by Ms.
Yadav as a consideration for deciding RSA No.550 of 2007 pertaining to plot
no.601, Sector 16, Panchkula for which Sanjiv Bansal had acquired interest. It
is stated that during investigation, it is also revealed that Sanjiv Bansal
paid the fare of air tickets of Mrs. Yadav and Mrs. Yadav used matrix mobile
phone card provided to her by Shri Ravinder Singh on her foreign visit. To
establish the close proximity between Mrs. Yadav, Ravinder Singh, Sanjiv Bansal
and Rajiv Gupta, CBI has given details of phone calls amongst these accused
persons during the period when money changed hands and the incidence of
delivery of money at the residence of Ms. Nirmaljit Kaur and even during the
period of initial investigation - the CBI concluded that the offence punishable
under Section 12 of the PC Act is established
against Ravinder Singh, Sanjiv Bansal and Rajiv Gupta whereas offence
under Section 11 of the PC Act is established
against Mrs.Justice Nirmal Yadav whereas offence punishable under Section 120-B of the IPC read with Sections 193, 192, 196, 199 and 200 IPC is also established against Shri
Sanjiv Bansal, Rajiv Gupta and Mrs. Justice Nirmal yadav”
However some judges of the Supreme Court have
systematically adopted the method of substituting the Rule of law by the King’s
Law and day by day they are involved in lowering the Majesty and dignity of the
Constitution of India. This is being done to have absolute power to do
corruption and exploit the people of this country by moving the nation towards Judges Kingdom.
Justice Krishna Iyer warned all assigned with
duty of public servants that “You cannot be the law unto yourself expecting
others to obey the law”
In Raghbir Singh vs State of Haryana, the Justice
Krishna Iyer has observed as under:
_"We conclude with the disconcerting note
sounded by Abraham Lincoln: *"If you once forfeit the confidence of your
fellow citizens you can never regain their respect and esteem. It is true that you can fool all the people
some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all
the people all the time."_
“Here
the alleged contemnor has attempted to scandalise the entire institution of the
Supreme Court. We may gainfully refer to the observations of Justice Wilmot in
R. v. Almon16 made as early as in 1765:Wilmot’s Notes 243 : 97 ER 94 “….
And whenever men’s allegiance to the law is so fundamentally shaken, it is the
most fatal and most dangerous obstruction of justice, and, in my opinion, calls
out for a more rapid and immediate redress than any other obstruction
whatsoever; not for the sake of the
Judges, as private individuals, but because they are the channels by which the
King’s justice is conveyed to the people.”
Apart from above observation the said bench had acted
against the Art. 14,20,21, 51-A(h)
of the constitution by not giving the equal
treatment to Mr. Bhushan as given to
other contemnor in other cases of
binding precedents. Refused to follow the many binding precedents in R.K.Ananad’s case 2009,
Pallav Sheth’s case(2001) SCC , Baradkanta Mishra’s case(1974) SCC and observed that the Supreme Court is having
uncontrolled/unbridled power to pass any order and no act of the country no law is binding
upon the Supreme Court (expecting that everyone of this country should follow
the law).
The details of anti constitutional activities by the said
Supreme Court Judges is given in detail in the representation sent to Hon’ble
President of India, Prime Minister of India and United Nations Human Rights Committee.
Since In Re: Prashant Bhushan’s case the bench headed by Justice Arun
Mishra’s Bench had taken a view that they will not act as per Contempt of
courts Act, 1971 and can pass any order under Art 129 and if said proposition
is accepted then the misuse of said discretion may go for death penalty for
Mallya as has been observed by the High court in the case of in Khemchand Agrawal Vs. Commissioner, Irrigation (2004) 97 CLT 237.
While passing strictures against judges the Supreme Court (Justice Chelmeshwar) in Perumal vs Janki (2014)5 SCC 377, had ruled as under;
“As was pointed earlier by this Court in a different context “there is no rule of law that common sense should
be put in cold storage”.
Our Constitution is
designed on the theory of checks and balances. A theory which is the product of
the belief that all power corrupts - such belief is based on experience. ”
As seen from the suicide note of former Chief Minister
Kalikho Pul the then Chief justices of India demanded bribe of Rs. 77 Crores for
one judge J.S.Khehar in the bench. Rest of the judges Shri Deepak Mishra, H. L.
Dattu demanded 47,37, Crores respectively. Said allegations are neither denied
by the said judges nor the said allegations were allowed to be investigated.
There are many other proofs against
Supreme Court Judges involved in corruption but by misusing the power under contempt the said
judges are trying to silence the voice of citizen of this country.
The approach of such Judges is criticized by some upright
judges of the Supreme court in a constitution bench Judgment in Subramanyam Swami vs. Arun Shourie’s case (2014) 12 SCC 344,
Bathina Reddi AIR 1952
SC 149.
In Subramanyam Swamy (2014) 12 SCC 344
it is ruled as under;
“12. In Wills [Nationwide News (Pty) Ltd. v. Wills, (1992) 177 CLR
1 (Aust)] the High Court of Australia suggested that truth could be a defence
if the comment was also for the public benefit.
It said, “… The revelation of truth—at all events
when its revelation is for the public benefit—and the making of a fair
criticism based on fact do not amount to a contempt of court though the truth
revealed or the criticism made is such
as to deprive the court or Judge of public confidence…”
A- Seven Judge Bench in Nationwide News Pty. Limited V.
Wills (1992) 177 CLR 1, it
is ruled as under;
“Contempt-A
person is immune for making scandalous allegations and criticism of a Judge which
are accurately stated and based on rational ground and fact, though the truth
revealed or the criticism made is such as to deprive the court or Judge of public
confidence.
"The assumption that respect for the judiciary
can be won by shielding judges from published criticism
wrongly appraises the character of American public opinion. an enforced
silence, however limited, solely in
the name of preserving the dignity of the bench, would probably engender
resentment, suspicion, and contempt much more than it would enhance
respect". So long as the defendant is genuinely exercising a right of
criticism and not acting in malice or attempting to impair the administration
of justice, he or she is immune.’’
Constitution
Bench of Supreme Court in Bathina Ramakrishna Reddy AIR 1952 SC 149 had
read in para 12 as under;
“12. [Scandalous News published
against a Judge].............................. If the allegations were true it would be to
the benefit of the public to bring these matters in to light..”
In Rama Surat Singh Vs. Shiv Kumar Pandey 1969 SCC OnLine
All 226, it is ruled as under;
“Contempt
of Courts Act (32 of 1952), S.3- Complaint against Judge alleging corrupt
practices and malfides - Is no contempt - The contempt is not available as a
cloak for judicial authorities to cover up their inefficiency and corruption or
to stifle criticism made in good faith against such officers. - Vindication of
prestige is not the object of Contempt. - 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. Contempt law does not mean that if a Magistrate or
judge acts dishonestly or is corrupt then too, he is beyond the reach of law
and can take protection under the threat of prosecuting those who bona fide
raise their voice against him.
Comments
Post a Comment