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.

Citizens are shocked and annoyed at the attempt by  some Supreme Court Judges to substitute democracy by the King’s Rule (personal fiefdom of judges)Various  organizations  are planning to initiate nationwide protest against this.
" संविधान का अपमान, नहीं सहेंगा हिंदुस्तान "
"Sanvidhan ka apmaan, Nahi sahenga Hindusthan"

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 193192196199 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."_

 In Jaylalitha case the SC court made certain observations which are squarely applicable to Judges of the Supreme Court;

 “ It is not a mockery that politicians, who never tire of making laws and rules for others, are not governed by any such rules in the important matter of corruption. They continue to occupy high public offices where scope for corruption is definitely higher than any other category of public servants, without being governed by any such rules, while almost all other public servants are governed by such rules framed by the same very politicians in the same very matter.”

 While convicting Adv. Prashant Bhushan on 14th Aug 2020 the three Judge Bench headed by the Justice Arun Mishra had observed as under;

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.

 Reason behind such unlawful conduct by 'Supreme Court Kingdom judges' :

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.