[Ruchita Taneja contempt case] Supreme Court violated her fundamental rights.
[Ruchita Taneja & Kunal Kamra contempt case] Supreme Court violated her fundamental rights.
The
order directing issue of contempt notice against her is a mechanical order without any
application of judicial mind and therefore vitiated being abuse of process of court as
has been ruled by the Supreme Court in Birla
Corporation Vs Adventz
Investments 2019 SCC OnLine SC.
Supreme
Court is bound to provide an Intra Court
Appeal to Ruchita Taneja and Kunal Karma to challenge said wrong order and
get it set aside.
But neither supreme Court providing Appeal at its own nor deciding the Writ petition filed by Adv. Prashant Bhushan in this regard and going on commiting violation of fundamental rights of citizen.
Download the list of offences of
violation of fundamental rights committed by the Supreme Court judges by misusing its power of Contempt which shows that the
sufferers are from all sections of society such as Lawyers, Women, Senior citizen, Human Rights Activists,
Police commissioners and other officers, CBI chief, Bureaucrats, Judges of all
courts including High Court and Supreme Court, Social Media Activists, people
belonging to weaker sections of Minorities, Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes,
other Backwards, Cabinet Ministers, Political
party heads including Rahul Gandhi etc.
NEW DELHI:
1.1. Our Country is governed by the rule of law
and even before sentencing the Pakistani Terrorist Ajmal Kasab, we have
completed all the formalities of law including the procedure of providing a
Lawyer at State’s cost [Ajmal Kasab (2012)
9 SCC 1, Mohd. Hussain Vs.
State (2012) 2 SCC 584].
1.2.
Few Judges of the Supreme Court are just giving lip service to the citizen of
this country and preaching to all subordinate judges and public servants for
protection of fundamental rights of the citizen and even taking action against others
for violating constitutionally guaranteed rights. But when the case is of
exposing corruption and corrupt practices of the Supreme Court judges
then all laws and constitutional provisions are put in cold storage and the
same Judges are blatantly violating the constitutionally guaranteed rights of
the Citizen. This was recently proved from the contempt proceedings in Re:
Vijay Kurle’s case and Prashant Bhushan’s case.
1.3. Justice Krishna Iyer’s are perfect for
such Judges that; “You cannot be law unto yourself expecting others to obey the
law”
Supreme
Court on 18.12.2020 passed an order directing issue of contempt
notice against two persons in two different contempt petitions.
One
notice is issued against Ruchita taneja and other is issued against Kunal
Karma.
1.5.
Before I point out the illegalities of the above blatently illegal orders, I
would like to make it clear that I am
not going to endorse the conduct of them and specially the conduct of Mr. Kunal
Karma in his vulgarity. My concern is only regarding the attempt of some
Supreme Court Judges in subversion of rule of law by the Judge made law, which
is the greatest threat to Rule of Law.
1.6.
The two orders dated 18.12.2020 reads thus;
1) RUCHITA TANEJA CONTEMPT
ORDER
The petitioner,
a student of law, has filed this
petition for initiating proceedings for contempt for
publishing contemptuous posts on social media which allegedly scandalize and
undermine the authority of this Court. The petitioner
has filed this contempt petition after obtaining
consent of learned Attorney General for India. Learned Attorney
General for India while giving his
consent by letter dated December 1, 2020 recording
his satisfaction states”
I am
satisfied that each one of the tweets
with the cartoons attached to them is in
contempt of the Supreme Court of India, and
hence I give my consent to initiate proceedings
under the Contempt
of Courts Act, 1971 in regard to each one of the
tweets.”
Issue notice returnable within six
weeks. The contemnor respondent not to appear in person.
2)
KUNAL KAMRA CONTEMPT ORDER
These petitions have filed, first by an Advocate of
this Court and other two by Law Students for initiating
criminal contempt proceedings against the respondent for
scandalising this Court and lowering the authority of
this Court by publishing tweets on twitter handle of the
alleged contemnor. The contempt petitions have been filed after
obtaining consent of learned Attorney General for India.
Learned Attorney General for India vide his letter dated
November 12, 2020 granted consent on the request of the applicant
to proceed by way of initiating
contempt proceedings against Shri Kunal Kamra respondent. Learned
Attorney General in his consent letter dated November 12,
2020 states:
"I
am in receipt of your request for
consent to initiate proceedings by way of criminal
contempt against
Sh. Kunal Kamra. I have gone through each
one of the tweets which you have
annexed for
consent to proceed by way of extracting below arenot only in bad taste but clearly cross the line
between humour and contempt of the Court.
I find
that today people believe that they
can
boldly and brazenly condemn the Supreme Court of
India its judges by exercising what they believe
is their freedom of speech. But under the
Constitution, the freedom of speech is subject to
the law of contempt and I believe that it is time
that people understand that attacking the Supreme Court
of India unjustifiedly and brazenly will 2
attract punishment under the Contempt of
Courts Act, 1972.
I therefore
grant consent to proceed by way
of
initiating contempt proceedings against Sh. Kunal
Kamra.”
Issue notice returnable within six
weeks. The respondent contemnor not to appear in person.
2. ILLEGALITY OF THE ORDER PASSED
BY THE SUPREME COURT
2.1.
That the order paased by the Supreme Court
only reproduces the facts and lastly says issue notice.
“Issue notice returnable
within six weeks. The contemnor respondent not to appear in person.”
2.2. That in contempt the order “Issue notice”
amounts to taking cognizance. Only when the court mentions that it is pre
cognizance notice then only it is not a cognizance.[ Pallav Sheth (2001) 7
SCC 549, Rajesh Singh (2007) 14 SCC 126, ………..]
2.3. That, in the order taking
cognizance the court is bound to mention the reasons as to why court is of the
opinion that the cognizance is required and also the Court has to frame the
specific charge as per sec 15(3) of the Contempt of Courts Act,1971. [J.R. Parashar
Vs. Prashant Bhushan
(2001) 6 SCC 735,
The editor Blitz 1979 ILR 25 (Bom) (DB), Archit Goyal vs
State 2005 SCC OnLine P&H 174
]
2.4.
In Archit Goyal vs State 2005 SCC OnLine
P&H 174, it is ruled as under;
“15. A number of other
submissions were made orally followed by in writing and decisions were cited at
the Bar by the learned counsel, but we do not consider appropriate to deal with
many of them without first framing the charge under Section 15(3) of the Act as
its framing is mandatory.
“Whether in stating in our note dated 2.11.2004 “as per the oral directions of the Hon'ble Bench, the petitioner Anil Midha is not to be arrested till the next date of hearing” prepared in the capacity of Additional Advocate General of Punjab in the Police file in relation to Crl. Misc. No 48428-M of 2004, who, as admitted by you before the High Court is brother of the wife of your own maternal brother and in intimating that fact to the Police you have scandalised and attempted to interfere in the administration of justice of the Court (M.M. Kumar, J.) as envisaged under Section 2(c)(i) & (iii) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and have thereby committed Criminal Contempt as defined under Section 2(c) of the Act and suitably punished under Section 12(1) of the said Act?”
But no such procedure was
followed while issuing contempt notice to Ruchita Taneja and Kunal Kamra.
“ The order of the Magistrate summoning the
accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and
the law applicable thereto. ..In other words, the Magistrate is not to act as a
post office in taking cognizance of each and every complaint filed before him
and issue process as a matter of course. There must be sufficient indication in
the order passed by the Magistrate that he is satisfied that the allegations in
the complaint constitute an offence .., the accused is answerable before the
criminal court, there is ground for proceeding against the accused .., by
issuing process for appearance. The application of mind is best demonstrated by
disclosure of mind on the satisfaction. If there is no such indication in a
case …the High Court under Section 482 Cr.PC. is bound to invoke its
inherent power in order to prevent abuse of the power of the criminal court. To
be called to appear before the criminal court as an accused is serious matter
affecting one’s dignity, self-respect and image in society. Hence, the process
of criminal court shall not be made a weapon of harassment.”
2.6. Here, though the summoning order under contempt is gross abuse of process of court and actually it has to be set aside by the appellate court. But since no Appellate Tribunal is provided therefore the Alleged Contemnors has to answer the Charge and accept the illegal proceeding to continue even if it is unconstitutional.
3. LAW ON MANDATORY REQUIREMENT OF ONE APPELLATE
JURISDICTION AGAINST SUPREME COURT JUDGEMNT IN ORIGIONAL JURISDICTION
3.1. In Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Vs S.C. Sekar (2009) 2 SSC 784, it
is ruled that, in proceedings under
the contempt the appeal is fundamental and human right. Technically, if there is no
provision of appeal then the aggrieved person cannot be left without remedy.
Access to justice
is a human right and in certain
situations it is a fundamental right.
3.2.
General Comment No. 32, Article 14, Right to
Equality before Courts and Tribunals and to
Fair Trial by UN Human Rights Committee (HRC) dated 23 August 2007, states:
“47…. Where the highest
court of a country acts as first
and only instance, the absence of any right to review by a higher
tribunal is not offset by the fact of being tried by the supreme
tribunal of the State party concerned; rather, such a system is incompatible
with the Covenant, unless the State party concerned has made a reservation to this effect.”
Significantly, India has not made such a reservation while ratifying ICCPR. Given that India has ratified ICCPR
subsequent to enactment of Contempt
of Courts Act, 1971, and subsequent to enactment of Rules to Regulate
Proceedings for Contempt of the Supreme Court,
1975, by virtue
of Article 253 of Constitution of India and in line with the judgments of this
Hon’ble Court, it is submitted that
an appeal from a judgment of this court in an original criminal contempt case
is a right.’
3.3. Supreme Court
of India, has held in several judgments including Gramophone Company of India and Vishaka that international conventions ratified by India would be
read as part of domestic law if there is no domestic law which is in conflict
with such international law. Therefore, the right to appeal against an original
conviction by the Supreme Court must be read into law in India and the Supreme
Courts Rules in this regard must be brought in line with that. The same is
legally binding.
3.4.
In 1976 India ratified the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Article 14(5) thereof, states,
"Everyone convicted of a crime shall have the right to his conviction and
sentence being reviewed by a higher tribunal according to law."
3.5. The United
Nations Human Rights Committee interpreted Article 14(5) of ICCPR
in Terron
v. Spain, Comm.
1073/2002, U.N. Doc. A/60/40, Vol.
II, at 111 (HRC
2004) and held that the right to appeal
against a criminal conviction is absolute – even if the verdict was initially
determined in the highest national court.
3.6.
In M.H. Hoskot
v. State of Maharashtra (1978)
3 SCC 544, a three judge bench of
Supreme Court of India, held
that at least a single right
to appeal is
integral to fair legal procedure,
even if the conviction is by the Highest Court. It is natural justice and normative universality and manifests itself in Article
21 of the Constitution.
3.7. The Judgment in Madhav Hoskot (1978) 3 SCC 544 is approved by the
Constitution Bench in Anita
Kushwaha’s (2016) 8 SCC 509 case.
3.8.
In Hens
Serena and Corujo Rodriguez v. Spain, Comm. 2008 SCC OnLine HRC 20, the United Nations Human Rights
Committee further held that even if the verdict had to be initially determined
in the highest national court means Supreme Court owing to national law
specifically requiring to be so, and even if the aggrieved persons availed the
right of a constitutional review, still Article 14(5) of ICCPR would be
violated if there is no ‘appeal’. i.e. a constitutional review does not obviate
the right to an ‘appeal’ under Article 14(5).
It is ruled as under;
" article 14, paragraph 5, of the Covenant states that a person convicted of a crime shall have the right to his conviction and sentence being reviewed by a higher tribunal according to law."
9.3. The Committee points out that the expression “according to law” is not intended to mean that the very existence of a right to review, which is recognized in the Covenant, is left to the discretion of States parties. The State party's legislation may well provide that certain individuals, by virtue of their position, should be tried in a higher court than would normally be the case, but that cannot in itself detract from the accused's right to have their conviction and sentence reviewed by a higher court. The Committee further notes that the remedy of amparo may not be considered an appropriate remedy within the meaning of article 14, paragraph 5, of the Covenant.
The Committee therefore finds a violation of article 14, paragraph 5, of the Covenant.
10. The Human Rights Committee, acting under article 5, paragraph 4, of the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, is of the view that the facts before it disclose a violation of article 14, paragraph 5, of the Covenant.
11. In accordance with article 2, paragraph 3(a), of the Covenant, the State party is required to furnish the authors with appropriate redress, including compensation, and to take the necessary measures to ensure that similar violations do not occur in the future.
12. In becoming a party to the Optional Protocol, Spain recognized the competence of the Committee to determine whether or not there has been a violation of the Covenant. Pursuant to article 2 of the Covenant, the State party has undertaken to ensure to all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the Covenant and to provide an effective and enforceable remedy in the event that a violation has been established. The Committee wishes to receive from the State party, within 180 days, information about the measures taken to give effect to the Committee's Views. The State party is requested to publish the Committee's Views.’’
3.9. The above view in Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Vs S.C. Sekar (2009) 2 SSC, 784 case is approved by the Constitution Bench in Anita Kushwaha’s case (2016) 8 SCC 509. It is ruled as under;
11. The Universal Declaration of Rights drafted in the year 1948 gave recognition to two rights pertaining to “access to justice” in the following words:
“8.Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the Constitution or by law.
10.Everyone is entitled in
full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial
tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations, and of any
criminal charge against him.”
3.10.
Constitution Bench in Anita Kushwaha Vs. Pushap Sudan, AIR 2016 SC
3506, ruled THAT Denial
of the right undermines public confidence in the justice delivery system and
incentivises people to look for shot cuts and other fora where they feel that
injustice will be done quicker. In the long run, this also weakens the justice
delivery system and poses a threat to the rule of law.
4. ATTEMPT OF SOME JUDGES TO
SUBVERT THE RULE OF LAW AND CONSTITUTION OF INDIA WITH THEIR WHIMSICAL LAW
4.1. In two recent judgments in Re: Vijay Kurle 2020 SCC OnLine SC 680
& Re: Prashant Bhushan 2020 SCC OnLine
SC 646, the said Benches of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court took the view that, they have unlimited and unbridled power to
pass any order, sentence, or adopt any procedure and that the provisions of law
such as The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 enacted by the legislature do not have
any binding upon them.
4.4. A detailed Article published by Sr. Counsel Shri Asim Pandya in ‘Live Law’ portal on 16th September, 2020, the link to which is “Arrogation Of Unlimited Contempt Power By The Supreme Court- A Hornets' Nest Stirred Up Again”. A LINK OF SAID ARTICLE IS: https://www.livelaw.in/columns/arrogation-of-unlimited-contempt-power-by-the-supreme-court-a-hornets-nest-stirred-up-again-163022
4.5. That, as can be seen from the aforementioned
judgments, it is very clear that some Supreme Court Judges consider themselves
as superior to law and pass judgements by violating rules and laws and also
willfully ignoring the binding precedents of the Supreme Court and also
violating basic and human rights of the citizens thereby disrespecting the
Constitution of India.
Download the other cases of violation by the Supreme Court Judges "Download Now"
Comments
Post a Comment