Analytic Insight Net - FREE Online Tipiṭaka Research & Practice Universitu 
in
 112 CLASSICAL LANGUAGES
Paṭisambhidā Jāla-Abaddha Paripanti Tipiṭaka Anvesanā ca Paricaya Nikhilavijjālaya ca ñātibhūta Pavatti Nissāya 
http://sarvajan.ambedkar.org anto 105 Seṭṭhaganthāyatta Bhāsā
Categories:

Archives:
Meta:
October 2018
M T W T F S S
« Sep    
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031  
01/13/18
2500 Sat 13 Jan 2018 LESSON On this wonderful 15-1-2018 day, WE wish you the best that life has to offer! Happy Birthday to our Behenji Ms Mayawati! Sarvajan Samaj celebrates this day throughout the world. JAIL Dipak Mishra Should a Judge With a Serious Moral Flaw Become Chief Justice of India? Truly unprecedented! Kudos to 4 senior-most judges of SC who addressed a Press Conference today (Friday) to apprise the people about the extraordinary abuse of ‘master of roster’ powers by Chief Justice (India) in selectively assigning politically sensitive cases to hand picked junior judges for desired outcome. Somebody had to confront the situation, where the CJ(I) is blatantly misusing his powers, hence the unprecedented step : Prashant Bhushan (President, Swaraj Abhiyan) (Indian democracy at crossroads! Highest judicial institution under cloud!
Filed under: General
Posted by: site admin @ 5:17 am

 2500 Sat 13 Jan 2018 LESSON

On
this wonderful 15-1-2018 day, WE wish you the best that life has to
offer! Happy Birthday to our Behenji Ms Mayawati! Sarvajan Samaj celebrates this day throughout the world.

JAIL Dipak Mishra

Should a Judge With a Serious Moral Flaw Become Chief Justice of India?

Truly unprecedented!


Kudos to 4 senior-most judges of SC who addressed a Press Conference
today (Friday) to apprise the people about the extraordinary abuse of
‘master of roster’ powers by Chief Justice (India) in selectively
assigning politically sensitive cases to hand picked junior judges for
desired outcome. Somebody had to confront the situation, where the CJ(I)
is blatantly misusing his powers, hence the unprecedented step :
Prashant Bhushan (President, Swaraj Abhiyan)

(Indian democracy at crossroads!
Highest judicial institution under cloud!



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MLU-aTYkkUQ
Bahan Kumari Mayawati Birthday rally by BSP Bangalore on 15-1-2018 starting from Anekal.
Jai Bhim reports some unheard voices in our society. Our mission is to
bring such voices in front of the public and to make them understand
there are dark sides in our society.
This video is about a bike rally conducted on behalf of Mayawathi’s 62nd birthday by BSP


Jai
Bhim reports some unheard voices in our society. Our mission is to
bring such voices in front of the public and to make them…
youtube.com
 Jaibheem.
Let us celebrate our great leader and mentor Behenji’s 62nd Birthday on
15/1/2018 and dedicate to our movement by reaching our Bhaujan Samaj.
I request all our Brothers of Bangalore division to join the Bike Rally on 15th Monday at Anekal as the starting point.
Thank u. Lakshmi.

“We alone can challenge and defeat the casteist, communal and pro-capitalist BJP! Get ready!”
Behanji Mayawati’s clarion call to the BSP workers.

The party claims to be inspired by the philosophy of
Gautama Buddha,B. R. Ambedkar, Mahatma Jyotiba Phule, Narayana Guru,
Periyar E. V. Ramasamy and Chhatrapati Shahuji Maharaj.It was founded by
Kanshi Ram in 1984, who named his protégée Mayawati as his successor in
2001.

As
dreamt by Babasaheb Dr. Ambedkar, Manyawar Kanshi Ram Saheb launched
the political party, namely, Bahujan Samaj Party on April 14, 1984.  We,
by following the footsteps of our ancestors and guidance of Manyawar
Kanshi Ram Saheb, are able to form our own government for four times in
Uttar Pradesh in the past. As the result, we are able to improve the
socio-economic condition of our people in Uttar Pradesh. We are able to
secure the constitutional rights of our people. We are also able to
build memorials, statues and parks in the honor of our ancestors. But we
could not succeed to form our government in other states. As the
result, atrocities against our people are continuing unabatedly.
Exploitation of the poor has not been ended.

The Techno-Politico-Socio-Transformation and Economic Emancipation Movement is nothing but the ART of GIVING!

Now
that BSP is increasing the pace of the movement in a greater speed,
They mobilize more funds to achieve greater success. BSP is a
self-respect movement. Self-respect movement can succeed only with
self-help. BSP is  not taking funds from business houses and corporate
companies. Collecting money through membership is one source for BSP.
Now BSP restarted the collection of funds on Behenji Ms Mayawati’s 
birthday every year as BSP were doing earlier. With these two sources,
BSP can manage the party activities. Funds are collected through
registers in the name of Jankalyan Diwas. Similarly, BSP also deposit
the membership money with the Central Office as and when they enroll the
members.
    •    Collection of funds on the eve of Bahenji Ms
Mayawati s birthday to be continued in future, It has become a tradition
for the Bahujan Samaj to collect money for running the movement.

Tampering of EVMs
by BJP :  Our failure to form our own government in other states has
helped the BJP to defeat us in Uttar Pradesh. They found that BSP is
strong only in UP and not in other states and hence they thought that if
they could finish us in UP, BSP will die a natural death in all other
states. That is how they focused their entire strength to defeat us in
UP. However, they could not win through fair means. They had to resort
to fraudulent way of tampering the electronic voting machines (EVMs) to
defeat us.

BJP and company had used the EVMs in 2014 itself to
win the General Election. We thought that it was the mandate against the
scams-ridden and scandals-tainted rule of Congress. But the election
results of the five states held in March 2017 have exposed the EVM
scandal of BJP. They could not win in Punjab, Uttarkhand, Goa and
Manipur. In Goa and Manipur, Congress party got lead over the BJP. But
BJP leaders have managed the other MLAs form their governments. In
Uttarkhand, it was the internal quarrel of the Congress that gave a lead
to the BJP. In Punjab, the anti-incumbency factor of Akali Dal gave the
victory to Congress. BJP, being the partner of Akali Dal, lost the
election. In all the above four states, they did not tamper with the
EVMs and the results were on the expected lines. But in Uttar Pradesh,
nobody expected that BJP would get such a huge margin of victory. The
senior bureaucrats of UP, who are usually the first to know the results
in advance, were making preparations to welcome the BSP Government. They
were utterly surprised when the results were announced. I, seeing the
trend of results late in the morning, went to the press and exposed the
EVM fraud. Later on, we also launched nation-wide struggle against the
fraud of EVMs and legal battle to get the VVPAT incorporated with EVMs.
Thus, we are confronting the BJP at every step.

The
Ex CJI Sathasivam had committed a grave error of judgement by ordering
that the EVMs could be replaced in a phased manner as it was proved that
they could be tampered. The very fact that the EVMs have to be replaced
is in itself a proof that they could be tampered. This order has
supported the Murderers of democratic institutions (Modi) to gobble the
Master Key where the Universal Adult Franchise is being negated by the
fraud EVMs. The Executive, Parliament, Judiciary and the Media is being
RSSised in favour manusmriti going against our Marvelous and Modern
Constitution endangering Democracy, Equality, Fraternity and Liberty.

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/…/articles…/62481017.cms


[<<While the SC noted that the death was a “serious issue”,
senior advocates Dushyant Dave and Indira Jaising appeared before a
bench of Justices Arun Mishra and M M Shantanagoudar with folded hands
to point out that a similar petition has been filed by Bombay Lawyers’
Association in Bombay High Court which had already passed two orders.
They said the HC was seized of the matter and asked the court not to
take up the case filed by a journalist and a political activist seeking
an independent probe into Loya’s death.

Fearing that any adverse
order passed by the apex court would make the petition in the HC
infructuous, Dave said, “I respectfully request the court with folded
hands not to take up the case. Lordships should not hear the case.”
Jaising pitched in and said she had instructions from the lawyers’
association to request the court not to hear the case.

When the
two lawyers insisted on continuing with their arguments, the bench said,
“We have heard your views and now you sit down.” The bench then asked
Maharashtra’s counsel Nishant Katneshwarkar to take instructions from
the state government and directed him to place Loya’s post-mortem
examination report and other relevant documents before the court on
January 15 when it will take up the case for further hearing.>>

(Excerpted from the sl. no. II. below.)

I/III.
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/…/articles…/62481017.cms

Final trigger: Rejection of demand for senior bench to hear PIL on Judge Loya’s death

Dhananjay Mahapatra |

TNN | Updated: Jan 13, 2018, 10:20 IST

HIGHLIGHTS
Rejection of demand for senior bench to hear PIL on Judge Loya’s death
was the final trigger for the press conference called by four
senior-most SC judges on Friday.
The CJI made it clear that he would
not break tradition, backed by a recent five-judge bench decision
giving him sole discretion to assign cases to benches of his choice.
(Left to right) Justices Kurian Joseph, J Chelameswar, Ranjan Gogoi,
and Madan Lokur at a press conference in New Delhi on Friday. (PTI
photo)Final trigger: Rejection of demand for senior bench to hear PIL on
Judge Loya’s death

NEW DELHI: The final trigger for the stunning
press conference by the four senior-most judges+ of the Supreme Court
came at 10.15am on Friday - just 15 minutes before the commencement of
proceedings - when Chief Justice Dipak Misra bluntly turned down their
last-minute request to shift a politically sensitive case from a
particular bench.

The CJI made it clear that he would not break
tradition, backed by a recent five-judge bench decision giving him sole
discretion to assign cases to benches of his choice.
On Thursday, a
CJI-led bench had admitted a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking a
probe into the death of B H Loya, who as special CBI judge was hearing
the case of gangster Sohrabuddin Sheikh’s “fake” encounter.

Read: Full text of four senior SC judges’ letter to CJI


The four judges - all members of the crucial collegium by virtue of
being no. 2 to no. 5 in seniority - thought that a matter of importance
to the integrity of the judiciary and to the nation should be assigned
to a bench headed by a judge who was more senior than Justice Arun
Mishra, who is 10th in the pecking order of the 25 SC judges.


With the CJI refusing to heed the demand, the rebellious quartet
hurriedly called the media at noon after quickly completing the day’s
work.

Four top judges revolt against CJI; Supreme Court on trial
Loya died in Nagpur on December 1, 2014. The CBI court subsequently
acquitted BJP chief Amit Shah, who was among the accused, along with a
few others.
What the rift in SC is about

SC sources said
Misra’s decision was backed by the November 2017 verdict saying CJI was
“master of the roster” and was free to assign cases to any bench and
determine the number and composition of judges on a bench..

Blog: Towards a new Supreme Court - Traditional wisdom besieged as senior justices prise open veil of secrecy


Disappointed by the rejection of their request, the four judges told
the CJI they would act as they deemed fit. All four, heading separate
benches from court numbers 2 to 5, finished their day’s work within one
and a half hours and rushed to Justice Chelameswar’s house for a press
conference which started at 12.20 pm.

The CJI’s office said the
chief justice has made it clear that he would not break with tradition
giving him sole discretion to assign cases to benches of his choice.
“Cases have been assigned by ex-CJIs - Justices H L Dattu, T S Thakur, J
S Khehar - as per their discretion and the present CJI is not doing
anything that is contrary to the tradition backed by the constitution
bench ruling.”

This assertion by the CJI’s office found
reflection in the letter written by the four senior-most judges to the
CJI two months ago. It had said: “There have been instances where cases
having far-reaching consequences for the nation and the institution had
been assigned by the Chief Justices of this Court selectively to the
benches ‘of their preference’ without any rationale basis for such
assignment. This must be guarded against at all costs”.

TOP COMMENT
Well done CJI , Perfect response to these 4 moron judges..they don'’t
have right to spread panic In country..India is democratic and will be
democratic country..this huge country is not depend on the… Read More
Rahul Bhardwaj


The letter also said: “The convention of recognising the privilege of
the CJI to form roster and assign cases to different members/benches of
the SC is a convention devised for disciplined and efficient transaction
of business of the court but not a recognition of any superior
authority, legal or factual of the CJI over his colleagues. It is too
well settled in the jurisprudence of this country that the CJI is only
the first among equals - nothing more or nothing less.”

The CJI’s
office used this quote and said if these most senior judges were equal
to the so-called junior judges in the court, then “what is the grievance
against a case getting listed before judge X or judge Y?”

In Video: Four sitting SC judges hold press conference, says court’s administration not in order


India
News: The final trigger for the stunning press conference by the four
senior-most judges of the Supreme Court came at 10.15am on Friday – just
15 minutes be
timesofindia.indiatimes.com

http://www.asianage.com/…/govt-keeps-a-safe-distance-opposi…

Govt keeps a safe distance; Opposition bid to ‘impeach’ CJI?

THE ASIAN AGE. |
SREEPARNA CHAKRABARTY

Published : Jan 13, 2018, 1:07 am IST Updated : Jan 13, 2018, 1:07 am IST

The person against whom the motion is moved gets a chance to put his point forward to the committee in writing.

Supreme Court of India (Photo: Asian Age)


New Delhi: As an open rebellion broke out in the judiciary with four
top Supreme Court judges levelling charges against the Chief Justice of
India, the Opposition parties moved swiftly and are likely to move a
“symbolic” impeachment motion against CJI Dipak Misra in the Rajya
Sabha. The government, however, kept a safe distance and made it clear
that it would not intervene in the matter.

Officially, the
Congress, Trinamul Congress and the Left said the matter should be
looked into, terming the charges levelled by the four judges as grave in
nature. Sources said the Opposition parties are in touch with each
other to explore the option of moving a motion of impeachment in the
Rajya Sabha against CJI Misra. Any such motion will be symbolic in
nature as the Opposition doesn’t have the two-thirds strength required
for it to be passed. Also, the Opposition can move this motion in the
Upper House only as it requires the signatures of only 50 members there,
as against those of 100 members in the Lok Sabha.

As per
precedents, it is up to the Rajya Sabha Chairman to admit the motion.
After the Chairman admits the motion, it is referred to a committee of
two judges and a senior advocate, who then investigate the matter. The
person against whom the motion is moved gets a chance to put his point
forward to the committee in writing.

CJI Misra is
due to retire in October this year. On the other side, though
speculation was rife that law minister Ravi Shankar Prasad had briefed
Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Friday’s dramatic developments, the
government made it clear that it would not intervene in the matter of
four senior judges saying the situation in the Supreme Court was “not in
order”. Minister of state for law P.P. Chaudhury said: “Our judiciary
is reputed all over the world, is independent and will sort out the
matter itself.”

The Congress demanded a probe, saying: “What
happened today was unprecedented and needed to be looked into”. Lending
weight to the importance of the matter, a press conference was addressed
by Congress president Rahul Gandhi, where he said the points that have
been raised by the four Supreme Court judges were “extremely important”.
He said: “They have mentioned that there is a threat to democracy. I
think it is extremely serious and needs to be looked into carefully.”


Interestingly, it was the first time that the Congress had raised the
matter of allegations about the “mysterious” death of CBI judge B.H.
Loya, who was hearing the Sohrabuddin Sheikh encounter case. While
addressing the media in the morning, the judges had mentioned the Loya
case, saying it was one of the issues they had raised with CJI Misra
before deciding to go public with their grievances.

Mr Gandhi
said: “They (the four judges) have also made a point about Judge Loya’s
case. I think that also needs to be investigated properly. It needs to
be examined at the highest level of the honourable Supreme Court. This
type of thing has never happened before. It is unprecedented and I think
all citizens who love the idea of justice… are looking at this issue
closely, and I think it is important to be addressed.”

Alleging
interference by the Centre in the judiciary, Trinamul Congress chief
Mamata Banerjee said: “We are deeply anguished with the developments
today about the Supreme Court. What we are getting from the statement of
the four senior judges of the Supreme Court about the affairs of the
court makes us really sad as citizens.” She added: “Judiciary and media
are pillars of democracy. Extreme interference of the Central government
with the judiciary is dangerous for democracy.”

A controversy,
meanwhile, erupted over CPI leader D. Raja meeting Justice Chelameswar
at his residence. Many questioned the meeting. National Conference’s
Omar Abdullah said in a tweet that Mr Raja’s decision to go to the
judge’s house was “ill-considered”, and that it “plays into the hands of
those who want to discredit what the judges said/did”.

Mr Raja,
in his defence, said: “Have known him for a long time. When I came to
know of the extraordinary step taken by him and the other judges, I
thought I must meet him. Not giving it political colour. These are
concerns for everybody, it’s about the future of the country and of
democracy.”


Peace Is Doable


The person against whom the motion is moved gets a chance to put his point forward to the committee in writing.
asianage.com


https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/…/articles…/62481362.cms
SC takes cognisance of Loya’s death, says its a serious issue

Amit Anand Choudhary | TNN | Jan 13, 2018, 05:41 IST


NEW DELHI: Minutes before four top judges of the Supreme Court revolted
against Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra and cited a case relating to
the death of Sohrabuddin fake encounter trial judge B M Loya as one of
the sticking points, the SC agreed to examine the plea for an
independent probe into the case.

While the SC noted that the
death was a “serious issue”, senior advocates Dushyant Dave and Indira
Jaising appeared before a bench of Justices Arun Mishra and M M
Shantanagoudar with folded hands to point out that a similar petition
has been filed by Bombay Lawyers’ Association in Bombay High Court which
had already passed two orders. They said the HC was seized of the
matter and asked the court not to take up the case filed by a journalist
and a political activist seeking an independent probe into Loya’s
death.

Fearing that any adverse order passed by the apex court
would make the petition in the HC infructuous, Dave said, “I
respectfully request the court with folded hands not to take up the
case. Lordships should not hear the case.” Jaising pitched in and said
she had instructions from the lawyers’ association to request the court
not to hear the case.

When the two lawyers insisted on continuing
with their arguments, the bench said, “We have heard your views and now
you sit down.” The bench then asked Maharashtra’s counsel Nishant
Katneshwarkar to take instructions from the state government and
directed him to place Loya’s post-mortem examination report and other
relevant documents before the court on January 15 when it will take up
the case for further hearing.

“It is a serious matter and we will
examine the case. We will also look into the documents. Place those
documents before us,” the bench said.

LATEST COMMENT
BJP has
been able to exercise its hands into judiciary too.It is dangerous trend
when law and order in the country has been deteriorating faster.Whether
it is women’s security or general admini… Read More
kumpta Shankar.


Loya died on December 1, 2014 in Nagpur where he had gone to attend a
wedding. He was the CBI judge hearing the Sohrabuddin fake encounter
case, which was transferred by the SC from Gujarat to Mumbai in
September 2013. The next trial judge acquitted Amit Shah and others in
the fake encounter case on December 30, 2014.

Though some reports
have claimed suspicious circumstances around Loya’s death, his son Anuj
Loya and Bombay HC judge Justice Bhushan Gavai had said there were no
unusual circumstances in the death of the CBI judge.


India
News: Minutes before four top judges of the Supreme Court revolted
against Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra and cited a case relating to
the death of Sohr
timesofindia.indiatimes.com



https://thewire.in/163957/dipak-misra-chief-justice-of-india-land-allotment-case/


Inline image 3


Should a Judge With a Serious Moral Flaw Become Chief Justice of India?

Share this:

Given the allegations of impropriety against him, should Justice
Dipak Misra become the next CJI just because he is the senior-most judge
in the Supreme Court?

https://thewire.in/…/dipak-misra-chief-justice-of-india-la…/
Parantap Bhatt • 5 months ago


We are living in the times where Legislature and Executive has already
been saffronized / RSSised. What is left is the completion of the
triumvirate.

Amitabha Basu • 5 months ago

Sh. Deepak Mishra has been in the news for several reasons :
(1) He declared that the national anthem should be played before every film and that everyone should stand up for it
(2) He delivered a judgement that started with a 192-word sentence ….
is this not a case of confusing the reader and leaving the intention of
the writer subject to any interpretation that the reader chooses ? Can
he not state his views clearly and succinctly ?
(3) He refused to strike down the long-standing law on criminal defamation, which has been abandoned in several countries.


These are apart from the illegal land acquisition case and other issues
that Sh. Shanti Bhushan talks about here. Do we then look forward to a
pliant, obedient and ‘nationalistic’ CJI who will do the executive’s
bidding unquestioningly ?

DJT Amitabha Basu • 5 months ago

(3) He refused to strike down the long-standing law on criminal defamation
Why don’t you vote for a party that promises to repeal the law instead of searching for activist judges.

2

Reply

Share ›

Avatar
mnrao • 5 months ago

If the allegations are true, how and why CJI Kehar recommend Justice Mishra’s name ? Why this itself shouldn’t be probed?

5

Reply

Share ›

Avatar
Nathan • 5 months ago

What happened to Khehar and his son? Zilch

1

Reply

Share ›

Avatar
mahesh chandra • 5 months ago


How did this guy become a judge in the first place ? Anomaly was not
rectified & the collegium let it go. System is defunct.

7

Reply

Share ›

Avatar
Sudhansu Mohanty • 5 months ago


It seems the image of the judiciary has taken a serious beating. Pray,
what could get worse than this? The land was meant for landless person
defined as “…one who and his family members do not hold land more than
two acres and who have no profitable means of livelihood other than
agriculture…” Justice Dipak Misra in his affidavit to qualify for
allotment of land had testified thus: “I am Brahmin by caste and the
extent of landed property held by me including all the members of my
family is nil.” This was false and with a clear intent to mislead and
circumvent the rule. In the words of Shanti Bhushan, “A false statement
made in declaration, which is by law receivable as evidence, and using
as true such declaration knowing it to be false, are serious offences
under Section 199 and Section 200 of the IPC, punishable with up to
seven years of imprisonment and a fine. The filing of that affidavit by
Justice Misra is thus a very serious matter.” Far from considering a
person like him as the CJI, the law must now take its course, unhindered
and untrammelled by how high and mighty he could be today. Recall the
prescient words of Thomas Fuller, the 17th century English churchman:
“Be you ever so high the law is above you!”

I had in An Open
Letter to the CJI published on July 23, 2017 pleaded that the ball is in
the CJI’s court. “Given that, as things stand today, no FIR can be
registered against any judge without the permission of the Chief Justice
of India, I would urge and plead with you to appoint a Committee
comprising of a few senior judges of the Supreme Court with the
direction to carry out an immediate in-house inquiry to find out the
truth. It has to be immediate – Justice delayed is justice denied! – and
your decision in the matter put out in the public domain to restore
citizens’ faith in the judiciary… If the alleged judge is innocent the
public must know; if found guilty, he should be dealt with the severest
punishment that can be sanctioned against a public official and a
Supreme Court judge to boot, so that the exemplary punitive action meted
out rings down the corridor of Indian nation and democracy that prides
in its rule of law. Sunlight is the best disinfectant. After all,
judges, given the role they play in a nation’s life, are expected to
follow the punctilio of a higher code and, as the saying goes, judges
must like Caesar’s wife be absolutely and always above board. And all
along, we as citizens and you occupying one of the highest offices in
this nation need to stay ineffably humble regardless of the position we
hold and the perch we speak and act from, and chant the prescient words
of Thomas Fuller, the 17th century English churchman: “Be you ever so
high the law is above you”!”

Since my urging were not heeded to
by the CJI and he recommended Justice Misra’s name as his successor, I
was forced to take up the issue with the Prime Minister in An Open
Letter to the Prime Minister of India: Let Transparency and Openness
Prevail published on July 31, 2017 where I concluded pleading thus: “My
mind, disquiet and far from stilled, travels back to Justice C.K.
Prasad’s judgment, which in 2014 had created a nationwide controversy.
As reported, he pulled out the 35-hectare Cidco prime land allotment
case of public land originally listed before a three-judge SC bench, and
on an oral plea, decided within a couple of minutes a 12-year-long
battle, at a throwaway price of Rs 33 crore in favour of the winning
bidder. The market value of the 35-hectare land was said to be about 100
times more — so glaring was the case that it prompted senior lawyer
Dushyant Dave to question the bench’s judicial propriety. It is this
aspect of institutional integrity that Justice Kapadia had laid emphasis
on in his March 3, 2011 CVC judgment. The CJI is much more than the
primus inter pares vis-a-vis other SC judges. He exercises
administrative powers, assigns cases to other SC judges and thus plays
an extremely important role in the nation’s judicial life.

“Now,
it’s for you, Hon’ble Prime Minister, as the head of the government, to
act and do the appropriate course correction. Para 2 of the Memorandum
of Procedure amply makes it clear that it is for the government to
decide and own responsibility for the CJI’s appointment. Let
Transparency and Openness prevail in public governance. We fervently
hope you will ensure that.”

I am glad that Mr. Shanti Bhushan,
one of the foremost proponents of transparency, probity and honesty in
judicial life has brought this issue centre-stage. It is now for the
Hon’ble Prime Minister to act and right the wrong.

Should a Judge With a Serious Moral Flaw Become Chief Justice of India?
By Shanti Bhushan on 02/08/2017 • 15 Comments
Share this:
Given the allegations of impropriety against him, should Justice Dipak
Misra become the next CJI just because he is the senior-most judge in
the Supreme Court?
The CJI wields enormous power in shaping the future of the judiciary. Credit: Twitter/Reuters


On August 27, Chief Justice of India (CJI) J.S. Khehar will demit
office. The next in line is Justice Dipak Misra, but should the vacancy
be filled up simply by the rule of seniority?

The CJI is a
constitutional authority and presides over the country’s judiciary,
comprising 31 Supreme Court justices, over 1000 high court judges and
over 16,000 subordinate judges. The CJI dispenses justice in the highest
court in cases involving complex constitutional issues, issues
affecting the rule of law, issues having an impact on governance in the
country, issues touching the lives and liberties of 1.3 billion Indians,
and dispenses justice in regular civil and criminal appeals. As head of
the Supreme Court, the CJI wields wide powers not just in
administration but also in constituting benches and allocating matters,
often politically sensitive ones.

In the First Judges case, the Supreme Court emphasised:


“Judges should be of stern stuff and tough fibre, unbending before
power, economic or political, and they must uphold the core principle of
the rule of law…”

In the Second Judges case, the Supreme Court in 1993 held:


“It is well-known that the appointment of superior judges is from
amongst persons of mature age with known background and reputation in
the legal profession… The collective wisdom of the constitutional
functionaries involved in the process of appointing superior judges is
expected to ensure that persons of unimpeachable integrity alone are
appointed to these high offices and no doubtful persons gain entry. It
is, therefore, time that all the constitutional functionaries involved
in the process of appointment of superior judges should be fully alive
to the serious implications of their constitutional obligation and be
zealous in its discharge in order to ensure that no doubtful appointment
can be made.”

The Supreme Court thus gave primacy to the CJI in
the process of selecting judges to be appointed to the apex and high
courts. The CJI thus wields enormous power in shaping the future of the
judiciary. That is why the present CJI in the National Judicial
Appointments Commission (NJAC) case has warned:

“The
sensitivity of selecting judges is so enormous and the consequences of
making inappropriate appointments so dangerous that if those involved in
the process of selection and appointment of judges to the higher
judiciary make wrongful selection it may well lead the nation into a
chaos of sorts.”

In Manoj Narula vs Union of India, Justice Misra
himself observed, “A democratic polity, as understood in its
quintessential purity, is conceptually abhorrent to corruption and,
especially corruption at high places.”

Land allotment case


Yet, Justice Misra has surprised many by what appears to be a serious
lapse in conduct. He had applied for and obtained a lease of two acres
of agricultural land in 1979 (while he was a lawyer) from the government
of Odisha. In the affidavit filed by him (as a condition for allotment)
he said: “I am Brahmin by caste and the extent of landed property held
by me including all the members of my family is nil.”
Also read: Old Land Allotment Case Casts Shadow on Justice Dipak Misra’s Nomination as CJI


The lease was later cancelled by a well-considered order passed against
him by the additional district magistrate of Cuttack on February 11,
1985, in proceedings under the Orissa Government Land Settlement Act,
1962:

“This G.O specifically provides vide paragraph 4 that a
landless person is one who and his family members do not hold land more
than two acres and who have no profitable means of livelihood other
than agriculture… Therefore I am satisfied that the opposite party
(Justice Misra) was not a landless person and as such he was not
eligible for settlement of govt land for agricultural purpose. On this
ground alone, the lease is liable to be cancelled… I am satisfied that
the lessee has obtained lease by misrepresentation and fraud.”

It
also appears that there were many other persons who had claimed such
land by questionable means. In a writ petition filed by Chittaranjan
Mohanty in the high court of Odisha, the court had passed an order on
January 18, 2012, directing the CBI to enquire and investigate into
unauthorised encroachment/occupation of government lands in the said
area. The CBI had registered preliminary enquiry stating:


“(a) PE 1(S)/2011 for probing into the alleged unauthorized encroachment
of entire Government land at Bidanasi Area of Cuttack District
comprising of 13 mouzas viz Bidyadharpur, Bentakarpada, Ramgarh,
Thangarhuda, Brajabiharipur and Unit 1 to Unit 8.”

The CBI submitted a final status report on May 30, 2013, wherein it expressly found that:


“In this case, Shri Dipak Mishra, S/o Raghunath Mishra,
Vill-Tulsipur, PS- Lalbagh, Cuttack & permanent R/o Banpur, Puri was
sanctioned 2 acres of land by the then Tahasildar Mr. J. A. Khan on
30.11.1979 at Plot No 34, Khata No 330, Mouja- Bidhyasharpur.”


“The allotment order of Tahasildar was cancelled by ADM Cuttack vide
Order 11.02.1985. But the record was corrected only on 06.01.12 as per
the order passed by the Tahasildar, Cuttack only after 06.01.2012.”

The CBI further found that:


“Enquiry has already revealed certain instances of irregular
leasing out of government land to ineligible beneficiaries by the
Tahasildar, Cuttack Sadar during the period 1977 to 1980 in Bidyadharpur
Mouza. Though some of the cases of irregular lease were cancelled by
the ADM (Revenue) on review but the leaseholders had not vacated the
said land. Even the records were corrected after 06.01.2012 even though
the lease was cancelled during 1984-85.”

The fate of the high court proceedings subsequent to this report remain unclear.


A false statement made in declaration, which is by law receivable as
evidence, and using as true such declaration knowing it to be false, are
serious offences under Section 199 and Section 200 of the IPC,
punishable with up to seven years of imprisonment and a fine. The filing
of that affidavit by Justice Misra is thus a very serious matter.
Also read: Seniority as the Norm to Appoint India’s Chief Justice is a Dubious Convention


Justice Misra’s name has even appeared in the suicide note by former
Arunachal Pradesh chief minister Kalikho Pul. Though no investigation
has taken place in that matter, the inquest report found the suicide
note to be genuine. Under Section 32 of The Evidence Act, a suicide note
has evidentiary value and must be followed up with a detailed enquiry
after lodging an FIR, if need be.

Recently, newspaper reports
have also appeared about Justice Misra’s name cropping up in the course
of an enquiry by three judges of high courts into allegations against
two sitting judges of the Odisha high court.

Should such a person
become the CJI, even if he is the senior-most judge? Seniority is an
important principle, though not the only principle for appointing the
CJI. I have always opposed the supersession of judges for political or
ideological considerations. As law minister in 1977, I had opposed the
strident demand from my party to supercede judges who had decided the
infamous habeas corpus judgement during the Emergency. In this case,
however, the issue is of unsuitability on serious ethical
considerations.

The recommendation by the present CJI for Justice
Misra to succeed him is unfortunate in light of his own observations in
the NJAC case. The country will now have to look up to the president
and the prime minister to perform their duties, send back the CJI’s
recommendation and suggest the appointment of the next judge in
seniority.

Shanti Bhushan was India’s law minister from 1977-79 and is a senior advocate in the Supreme Court.


Given
the allegations of impropriety against him, should Justice Dipak Misra
become the next CJI just because he is the senior-most judge in the
Supreme…
thewire.in

http://www.livelaw.in/sc-dismisses-plea-appointment-dipak-misra-cji-imposes-rs-10-lakh/

Inline image 1


https://groups.google.com/forum/…
JAIL Dipak Mishra

Inline image 2
https://groups.google.com/forum/…
https://invalid.invalid/swarajabhi…/videos/2001540203449009/

Truly unprecedented!


Kudos to 4 senior-most judges of SC who addressed a Press Conference
today (Friday) to apprise the people about the extraordinary abuse of
‘master of roster’ powers by Chief Justice (India) in selectively
assigning politically sensitive cases to hand picked junior judges for
desired outcome. Somebody had to confront the situation, where the CJ(I)
is blatantly misusing his powers, hence the unprecedented step :
Prashant Bhushan (President, Swaraj Abhiyan)

(Indian democracy at crossroads!
Highest judicial institution under cloud!


May also look up: ‘Four Seniormost Supreme Court Judges (Barring the
CJI) Make Serious Allegations against the Chief Justice of India:
Unprecedented’ at <https://groups.google.com/forum/…>.)
Editorial : Dipak Mishra Unfit Judge? Don’t elevate him as CJI , JAIL him

- An Appeal to H.E.Honourable President of India


Justice Dipak Mishra has a criminal past of fraud , cheating the
authorities to get land allotment. He is unfit even to be a munsiff
judge let alone CJI. He has managed the crime cover up well.

He
and present CJI Khehar have helped the union government in their
unjust illegal actions like unjust imposition of president rule and
change of chief miniser in few states, cover up of Corporate scams
like Birla - Sahara , lake , forest , revenue land encroachments by
powerful , etc. In turn as a payout Union government has made them
Chief Justice of India and helped the judges in cover up of their own
crimes. Quid Pro Quo.

CJI Khehar & Dipak Mishra have
effectively stalled proper investigations into crimes committed by
them. They have even stalled the legal prosecution. Allthrough Union
Government and respective state governments have helped them inspite of
clinching evidences against two judges.

Nowadays judges
who don’t dance to the tune of corrupt higher judges , corrupt
ministers , don’t get promotions. Even may loose their jobs or land
up in jail for upholding justice.

If Dipak Mishra is made
CJI , it will be roaring business for corrupt mafia. Innocents ,
commoners will be sent to jail , may even be hanged while the rich
criminals roams free.

Since 20 years we are appealing to
Chief Justice of India concerning public issues , seeking justice
from him. Till date no action instead more injustices meted out to
silence me after appealing to supreme court and authorities. This
itself proves the criminal nexus of judges , police and public sevants.


Hereby , I appeal to you , to legally prosecute CJI Khehar,
shadow CJI Dipak Mishra and Ex President of India Pranab Mukherjee
for their crimes. If CJI cann’t give justice , let him give an
affidavit in writing stating that “ Inspite of receiving lakhs of
rupees salary , perks from public exchequer for decades we are unfit
for public service , we only serve , rich & mighty “.


Afterwards , kill me sufferer of Injustices with your due permission
for mercy killing. In such a scenario , I wish to get killed by gun
shots fired by Indian Army Soldiers. Our soldiers are the true
guardians of our motherland NOT the Judges or Police or Politicians.

Refer Appeals for Justice (with referenca numbers) sent to :

H.E.Honourable President o India - PRSEC/E/2017/11027

Honourable Prime Minister of India - PMOPG/E/2017/0448309

Honourable Secretary General / Registrar - , Supreme Court of India - DEPOJ/E/2017/03769

Honourable Union Minister for Law & Justice - DLGLA/E/2017/01261

Honourable Union Minister for Home Affairs ­- MINHA/E/2017/06329

Thanking you ,

Nagaraja Mysuru Raghupathi

Notice To Chief Justice of India

https://sites.google.com/…/sosevoic…/notice-to-chief-justice

PIL – JAIL Dipak Mishra Unfit Judge & Others

An Appeal to Honourable Supreme Court of India & H.E. Honourable President of India

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. OF 2017

IN THE MATTER OF

NAGARAJA . M.R

editor , Indian’s Diary & Dalit’s Diary ,

# LIG 2 , No 761 ,, HUDCO First Stage , Laxmikantanagar ,

Hebbal , Mysore – 570017 , Karnataka State

….Petitioner

Versus

Honourable Chief Justice of India & Others

….Respondents


PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 12 to ARTICLE 35 & ARTICLE 51A OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS
UNDER ARTICLE 32 & ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.

To ,

Hon’ble The Chief Justice of India and His Lordship’s Companion

Justices of the Supreme Court of India. The Humble petition of the

Petitioner above named.

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH :

1. Facts of the case:


“Power will go to the hands of rascals, , rogues and freebooters. All
Indian leaders will be of low calibre and men of straw. They will have
sweet tongues and silly hearts. They will fight among themselves for
power and will be lost in political squabbles . A day would come when
even air & water will be taxed.” Sir Winston made this statement in
the House of Commons just before the independence of India &
Pakistan. Sadly , the forewarning of Late Winston Churchill has been
proved right by some of our criminal , corrupt public servants.


In his death note Former Arunachal Pradesh Chief Minister Mr.Kalikho
Pul has clearly alleged involvement of CJI Khehar , Dipak Mishra ,
President Mukherjee & others in the crime.

Justice Dipak
Mishra has a criminal past of fraud , cheating the authorities to
get land allotment. . He is unfit even to be a munsiff judge let alone
CJI. He has managed the crime cover up well.

He and present CJI
Khehar have helped the union government in their unjust illegal
actions like unjust imposition of president rule and change of chief
miniser in few states, cover up of Corporate scams like Birla -
Sahara , lake , forest , rvenue land encroachments by powerful , etc.
In turn as a payout Union government has made them Chief Justice of
India and helped the judges in cover up of their own crimes. Quid Pro
Quo.

CJI Khehar & Dipak Mishra have effectively stalled
proper investigations into crimes committed by them. They have even
stalled the legal prosecution. Althrough Union Governmant and respective
state governments have helped them inspite of clinching evidences
against two judges.

Nowadays judges who don’t dance to the
tune of corrupt higher judges , corrupt ministers , don’t get
promotions. Even may loose their jobs or land up in jail for
upholding justice.

If Dipak Mishra is made CJI , it will be
roaring business for corrupt mafia. Innocents , commoners will be sent
to jail , may even be hanged while the rich criminals roams free.


Since 20 years we are appealing to Chief Justice of India
concerning public issues , seeking justice from him. Till date no
action instead more injustices meted out to silence me after appealing
to supreme court and authorities. This itself proves the criminal nexus
of judges , police and public sevants.

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 ?

2. Question(s) of Law:

As per
constitution of India , are not all citizens of india equal before law ?
Why no action against JS Khehar , Dipak Mishra & Pranab Mukherjee ?
Are they special ? WHERE IS THE BRAVERY , COURAGE OF POLICE ? Before
big crooks CBI , Police are zeroes.

3. Grounds:


Requests for equitable justice. Prosecution of corrupt Judges , CJI J
S Khehar , Supreme Court Judge Dipak Mishra , Former President
Mukherjee & Corrupt Public Servants.

4. Averment:


Hereby , I do request the honorable supreme court of India to consider
this as a PIL for : “writ of Mandamus” and to issue instructions to the
concerned public servants in the cases to perform their duties.

PRAYER:

In the above premises, it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased:


a . Hereby , I do request the honorable supreme court of India to
consider this as a PIL for : “writ of Mandamus” and to issue
instructions to the concerned public servants , in the case to perform
their duties.

b. To register FIR against Chief Justice of India
JS Khehar, Supreme Court Judge Dipak Mishra , Former President of India
Mukherjee & others and arrest them for legal prosecution with
respect to Orissa Land allotment scam , Arunachal Pradesh Chief minister
change over , death of CM Kalikho Pul, Cover up of Birla Sahara Scam ,
Reliance Oil Basin Scam , Lake & Land Encroachments in bangalore ,
Karnataka., etc.

c. To constitute an impartial investigation team to investigate the crimes. The team must be accountable to the public.

d. Till investigation is over , hold the promotion of Dipak Mishra to the post of Chief Justice of India.

e . to pass such other orders and further orders as may be deemed necessary on the facts and in the circumstances of the case.

FOR WHICH ACT OF KINDNESS, THE PETITIONER SHALL BE DUTY BOUND, EVER PRAY.

Dated 12th August 2017 …………………. FILED BY: NAGARAJA.M.R.

Place : Mysuru , India……………………. PETITIONER-IN-PERSON


Cloud over Dipak Misra as Chief Justice: ICJ claims he is tainted


A cloud hangs over the appointment of the next Chief Justice of India.
Though incumbent CJI JS Khehar recommended the name of Supreme Court
Justice Dipak Misra as his successor on 25 July, there is a roadblock
that must first be passed before such an appointment is made.

The
obstacle in Misra’s path is the International Council of Jurists (ICJ),
which has sought a probe against alleged irregularities during his
career. ICJ also plans to approach the Centre to oppose his appointment.


ICJ had submitted a petition urging Justice Khehar to appoint an
in-house committee consisting of Supreme Court judges to look into
allegations of Justice Misra’s alleged involvement in a land scam in
Odisha while he was an advocate.
THE SCAM

The alleged land
scam involved the illegal transfer of large tracts of government land in
Bidanasi and other areas of Cuttack in favour of private persons.
According to ICJ president Adish C Aggarwala, Misra got the land
allotted in 1979 when he was an advocate.

ICJ, in its petition,
has referred to a CBI report before the Odisha High Court in which it
had indicted him for “fraudulently” acquiring a plot of land in Cuttack.


“Misra was among 300 people who were allotted the public land in
Cuttack. Many of the beneficiaries including Misra, who was then an
advocate, made false declarations that they didn’t own any land so that
they could get the plots,” Aggarwala told Catch.

Despite an order
by the Orissa High Court, he says, Misra continued to wrongly possess
the land. Misra, who became a Supreme Court Judge in 2011, gave up
possession only in 2013 after the CBI indicted him.

“Following a
petition, the High Court in 2011 ordered the Cuttack revenue department
to conduct an enquiry into the allegations. The probe found the
allegations to be true and revenue officials were ordered by the court
to take back the possession of land allotted to Mishra and many other
influential people,” Aggarwala says.

“By that time Mishra had
become a SC judge so, the revenue authorities did not take back the
possession. Subsequently, the High Court ordered the CBI to probe the
matter. The CBI, in its report to the court, indicted Misra of
fraudulently obtaining the land. It said that Misra had given a false
declaration of being landless and showed lower income in order to be
entitled to be a beneficiary of the land meant only for the poor,” he
added.

“When Misra learnt about the CBI report, he quickly gave up the possession of the land to save himself,” says Aggarwala.
STRONG OPPOSITION


The ICJ, comprising jurists from across the globe, is in the process of
petitioning the Modi government against Misra being appointed the CJI.


“It appears that CJI did not consider our complaint and recommended his
name. It is his duty to consider our complaint and appoint an in-house
committee consisting of Judges of the Supreme Court to look into the
allegations,” says Aggarwala.

×

“We will make a
representation to the Government against Misra. A judge who has been
accused of fraud and a CBI report is pending against him, cannot be made
the CJI,” he said.

Earlier retired Orissa High Court judge,
Justice BP Das, who had ordered the CBI probe in the land scam case,
accused Misra of scuttling his candidacy as chief justice of the Punjab
& Haryana High Court.

“In January, I ordered the CBI probe
and three months later, in March 2012, my name came up for appointment
as Chief Justice of Punjab & Haryana High Court. I had heard that my
name was opposed by Justice Dipak Misra, but I don’t have any record
with me. Well, but for this, I would have retired as chief justice,” an
Economic Times report from last year quoted Das as saying.


Currently the seniormost SC judge after Khehar, Misra served as the
Chief Justice of Patna and Delhi High Courts before being elevated as a
SC judge in October 2011.
QUESTIONABLE CALLS

The Justice
Misra-led SC bench in 2016 mandated the playing of the national anthem
before movies in cinema halls. The judgment attracted severe criticism
from several quarters for imposing a notion of nationalism on people.


Earlier, while heading a Madhya Pradesh High Court bench, Justice Misra
had banned the screening of Karan Johar’s blockbuster Kabhi Khushi
Kabhi Gham for commercially exploiting the national anthem.


Taking strong exception to the sequence in the film in which a boy sings
one part of the anthem and his mother completes it, Justice Misra -
writing the judgement - had then held that “the national anthem has been
sung as if it is a song of advertisement for a commercial purpose” and
banned the film’s screening unless the scene was deleted.

He also
led the apex court bench which rejected the 1993 Mumbai serial blasts
convict Yakub Memon’s appeal to stop his execution.

Uttarakhand chief justice not elevated “under govt pressure”: Demand to make public dissenting note


Well-known legal rights organization, Campaign for Judicial
Accountability and Reforms (CJAR), has said that Justice KM Joseph’s
non-elevation to Supreme Court judge is linked with his “bold decision
striking down the imposition of President’s rule by the Centre in
Uttrakhand last year.”
Alleging that the decision not to elevate the
Uttarakhand chief justice “has been influenced by pressure from the
government”, CJAR has demanded that the full text of Justice J
Chelameswar’s dissenting note to the collegium objecting to the
non-elevation of Justice Joseph be “put in public domain.”

One of
the most influential legal rights organization of India, those
associated with CJAR include top Supreme Court advocate Prashant
Bhushan, former former judges PB Sawant and H Suresh, well-known
Magsaysay winning writer Aruna Roy, senior right to information activist
Nikhil Dey, other senior activists, experts and lawyers.

Says a
CJAR, “As a member of the Supreme Court collegium, while Justice
Chelameswar has not disagreed with the names of the five other judges
that have been proposed for elevation to the Supreme Court, his
criticism that Justice Joseph has been sidelined, is right and
justified.”
This is the first time in the annals of the Supreme
Court collegium that a member has written a dissent note. Normally such
views are conveyed orally.

“We regard Justice Jospeh to have had
an outstanding record as an independent judge of high integrity and
holding secular views. His being sidelined is surprising since his name
for elevation to the Supreme Court, was even recommended by the previous
collegium headed by Justice TS Thakur”, CJAR insists.
Pointing out
that “transparency in the working of public functionaries, both the
judiciary and the government, is critical in a democracy”, CJAR says,
“It is ironic that there has been complete opacity from both these
institutions” about “disclosing a draft of the memorandum of procedure
for appointments to the High Court and Supreme Court.”

“The
process has been shrouded in secrecy, excluding public participation in
this crucial process”, CJAR says, adding, “There have only been leaked
media reports and speculations on certain contentious clauses in the
memorandum that have been going back and forth between the government
and the judiciary.”

Contending that “repeated requests from CJAR
for a draft of the memorandum to be shared” have received “no response”,
CJAR asks the Supreme Court chief justice JS Khehar to make public the
memorandum, which is being how finalised by the judiciary.

Supeme Court Judge in Illegal Land Scam ?

3 -judge in-house inquiry panel stops proceedings, writes to CJI for guidance


A three-member committee of judges, constituted by the Supreme Court to
conduct an in-house inquiry against two sitting judges of the Odisha
High Court, has halted its proceedings after the name of a senior
Supreme Court Justice cropped up during the course of the probe.


The panel, headed by Punjab and Haryana High Court Chief Justice SJ
Vazifdar, has now written to the Chief Justice of India for guidance and
directions.

DNA is aware of the identity of the SC judge but is withholding it in view of the sensitivity of the subject.


Sources told DNA that a series of representations were also made by the
complainants in the case to the President and the Prime Minister,
mentioning the involvement of the Supreme Court judge. These
representations were also sent to the probe panel.

The panel,
which comprises Uttarakhand High Court Chief Justice KM Joseph and
Justice S Abdul Nazeer, who was earlier with the Karnataka High Court,
is conducting an in-house inquiry against Justices Indrajit Mohanty and
Sangam Kumar Sahoo for alleged misuse of power and position.

Once
the name of the senior Supreme Court judge came up — for his closeness
to the two judges who are under probe — the panel decided to write to
the CJI.

The letter brings to the CJI’s notice this particular
development and also underlines the fact that the panel was constituted
only to probe High Court judges and has no authority to probe an SC
Justice.

When contacted by DNA, Chief Justice Vazifdar refused to
comment on the issue. However, sources told DNA that ever since the
senior Supreme Court judge’s name came up, the proceedings of the
in-house committee have come to a standstill.

Sometime back, the panel had asked the two judges to appear before it, if they wanted to do so, in person to defend themselves.


The allegations against Justice Indrajit Mohanty, the senior-most judge
of the High Court after the Chief Justice, include furthering his
business interests while being a judge.

In the case of Justice
Sangam Kumar Sahoo, he is alleged to have spent much more than his
entitlement in refurbishing his official residence.

The in-house
inquiry panel had been set up by the previous Chief justice of India, TS
Thakur, while acting on the complaints filed by two individuals, who
had levelled serious allegations against the two judges. The
complainants had also provided material to support their allegations.


If the two judges are indicted by the in-house inquiry panel, the CJI
can recommend to the President to initiate the process for their
impeachment — the only way, other than voluntary resignation, judges of
Supreme Court and High Courts can be removed from office under law.


The Supreme Court, at a full court meeting on December 15, 1999, had
unanimously laid down the in-house procedure for taking suitable action
against members of the superior judiciary, who indulge in acts of
omission or commission and breach the principles laid down in the
Restatement of Values of Judicial Life.?The last case in which the Chief
Justice of India had recommended impeachment of a sitting judge for
proved misbehaviour or incapacity was Justice Soumitra Sen of the
Calcutta High Court, who became the first judge in Independent India to
be impeached by the Rajya Sabha. He resigned before the Lok Sabha could
vote on the motion.

A ‘SENSITIVE’ INVESTIGATION

· The panel is conducting an in-house inquiry against two Odisha HC judges for alleged misuse of power and position.

· Once the name of the senior Supreme Court judge came up, the panel decided to write to the Chief Justice of India.

Promotion denied as I ordered CBI inquiry, says retired High Court judge


A retired Orissa High Court judge, Justice BP Das, has alleged that his
candidacy as chief justice of the Punjab & Haryana High Court may
have been scuttled because he ordered the Central Bureau of
Investigation to probe a controversial allotment of public land.


The case pertains to plots of land allocated 37 years ago to about 300
people, including Justice Dipak Misra, who was an advocate at the time
and is now in the Supreme Court. Some beneficiaries allegedly made false
declarations that they didn’t own any land so that they could get
the plots. People close to Misra dismissed the allegations as baseless.


Justice Das headed a bench that ordered the CBI in January 2012 to
probe the land allotment. Das told ET he missed out becoming chief
justice because he had ordered the probe by the CBI, which submitted its
report in August 2013.

“The link and presumption is not
unfounded,” Justice Das said by phone from Cuttack. “In January, I
ordered the CBI probe and three months later, in March 2012, my name
came up for appointment as Chief Justice of Punjab & Haryana High
Court. I had heard that my name was opposed by Justice Dipak Misra, but I
don’t have any record with me. Well, but for this, I would have retired
as chief justice.”

Justice Misra’s office did not respond to an
emailed questionnaire from ET seeking comment on the matter. However,
people close to Justice Misra said he has never acquired land in a
fraudulent manner or by misrepresenting facts.

“The land was
taken in 1979, when he was a young advocate, and he surrendered it in
1985, for which records can be verified. These are all baseless
allegations,” the people said. Justice Misra was one of the judges who
ruled on Wednesday that all Indians have to stand and listen to the
National Anthem before watching a movie in a theatre. He is in line to
become the Chief Justice of India in 2017.

Separately,
an Odisha-based activist Jayanta Das complained against Justice Misra to
the President of India in September, seeking action against him for
acquiring public land by allegedly misrepresenting facts. The
President’s office declined to comment on the matter.

ET is in
possession of the complaint and related documents, which show that two
acres of land in Cuttack were allotted to Misra on November 30, 1979.
The allocation was cancelled by an additional district magistrate in
1985, who ordered the land records to be corrected.

The ADM of
Cuttack passed the order in a suo moto revision case, saying the land
was obtained through fraud and misrepresentation, Das said. The records
were corrected 27 years later, after the high court intervened and asked
the collector to submit a report.

“The CBI report also said the
land record was not corrected till 2012. Technically speaking, Justice
Dipak Misra, among others, from 1979 to 2012, were in possession of
this land,” Justice Das said. “There were about 300 allottees. This was a
case of encroachment/illegal allotment to individuals, who
misrepresented facts and claimed to be landless.”

Justice Das
contended that Justice Misra had no locus standi to oppose his
candidature as chief justice of the Punjab & Haryana High Court.


“Dipak Misra had already moved to the Madhya Pradesh High Court when I
became a judge, so he had no idea about my performance as a judge. But
he on his own wrote to the collegium opposing my appointment,” Das said.
“Plus, there was a conflict of interest – his name figured in the land
allotment case being heard by me and he didn’t declare his interest to
the SC collegium.”

People close to Misra debunked this
allegation as a disgruntled grouse. “These are someone’s grievances
because he could not be elevated. Why bring in collegium matters here?
And something which happened long back? You must find out which all
people got plots out of discretionary quotas,” they said.

ET
spoke to legal luminaries, including judges, who confirmed, on condition
of anonymity, that Justice Misra had “serious reservations” about
appointing Justice Das as chief justice of the Punjab & Haryana High
Court.

Further inquiries revealed that facts about the land
allotment case may not have been brought to the notice of the SC
collegium when Justice Misra was considered for appointment to the
nation’s top court. Misra was appointed as a judge of the apex court in
October 2011and is due to retire in 2018.

“It may not have been brought to the notice of the collegium, but I don’t have any records,” Justice Das said.


“This is something very serious and was not brought to the notice of
the collegium. There was no IB report also,” said a legal luminary who
asked not to be identified. “The SC collegium should take cognisance of
this as per in-house mechanism, since the complaint is also addressed
to Chief Justice of India TS Thakur.”

“Justice Misra is known
for his credibility and integrity,” the people close to him said. “Do
you think it is possible that the facts weren’t brought to the notice of
the collegium headed by CJI SH Kapadia, who was a very strict chief
justice, known for his integrity? Do you think he wouldn’t know about
it?”

Probe CJI for Kalikho Pul’s suicide, his widow petitions Vice-President Ansari

TNN | Updated: Mar 1, 2017, 06.48 AM IST


Giving a new twist to former Arunachal chief minister Kalikho Pul’s
`suicide’ note case, his widow Dangwimsai Pul met Vice-President Hamid
Ansari on Tuesday, seeking registration of an FIR and investigation into
allegations of corruption against Chief Justice of India Justice J S
Khehar and sitting Supreme Court judge Dipak Misra.

In her
memorandum, Dangwimsai said since the matter involved the CJI and
another sitting SC judge, the allegations should be “seriously
investigated by a credible investigation team”, a Special Investigation
Team (SIT), and not a government-controlled body. She argued that
composition of the SIT should be left to 3-5 judges, next in seniority
to CJI Khehar and Justice Misra. The 60-page ’suicide note’ of Pul, who
committed suicide on August 9 last year in his official residence in
Itanagar, allegedly contained details of several allegations of
corruption against politicians and judges, as also against President
Pranab Mukherjee.

According to the purported diary, captioned
“Mere Vichar”, of the former Arunachal CM, Pul blamed his suicide on
corruption among Congress leaders of Arunachal and the judiciary which
unseated him. Saying that her husband was under depression after his
removal as CM and that ‘Mere Vichar’ was actually his suicide note,
Dangwimsai told the vice-president: “Given the gravity of the
allegations contained in the note and the fact that many of them are
from his personal knowledge and that a suicide note is treated like a
dying declaration, this matter needs to be seriously investigated by a
credible investigation team. However, since it also involves the CJI and
another sitting judge of the Supreme Court, to protect the independence
of the judiciary , it should not be investigated by an investigative
body controlled by the government.”

Dangwimsai was
accompanied by activist-lawyer Prashant Bhushan, his Swaraj Abhiyan
colleague Yogendra Yadav, bureaucrat-turned-activist Harsh Mander and
RTI campaigner Anjali Bhardwaj. Her move to meet the vice-President
followed her decision to withdraw from the SC her petition seeking a CBI
probe into the death.

Talking about the independence of
the judiciary, Dangwimsai’s memorandum said, “It was to protect the
independence of the judiciary that the SC in Veeraswami’s case said that
any allegations against the sitting judges of the higher judiciary can
only be investigated by an investigating authority after obtaining the
prior permission of the Chief Justice of India.” It further said, “The
judgment says that in case there are allegations against the Chief
Justice, the President will consult other judges. This, in terms of the
spirit of the judgment, would mean the judgejudges next in seniority .”


The letter said, “Since in this case, the allegations are also against
the sitting CJI and sitting President, I am therefore addressing this
request to you (Vice-President) to exercise the authority which normally
the President would have exercised in terms of the Veeraswami’s
judgment.”

PIL – Prosecute Chief Justice of India & Former President of India

An Appeal to Honourable Supreme Court of India & H.E. Honourable President of India

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. OF 2017

IN THE MATTER OF

NAGARAJA . M.R

editor , Indian’s Diary & Dalit’s Diary ,

# LIG 2 , No 761 ,, HUDCO First Stage , Laxmikantanagar ,

Hebbal , Mysore – 570017 , Karnataka State

….Petitioner

Versus

Honourable Chief Justice of India & Others

….Respondents


PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 12 to ARTICLE 35 & ARTICLE 51A OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS
UNDER ARTICLE 32 & ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.

To ,

Hon’ble The Chief Justice of India and His Lordship’s Companion

Justices of the Supreme Court of India. The Humble petition of the
Omji, along with a Delhi-based engineer and owner of an aluminum
factory Mukesh Jain, in his petition had challenged the convention
followed and the existing procedure adopted for the appointment of Chief
Justice of India (CJI).

“Both of them appeared in person in the
Court and argued in Hindi that Article 124 (2), (3) and (A) of the
Constitution, does not mention that the CJI should recommend the name of
a Judge for the next CJI. It rather says that the President of India
should choose a Judge of his choice as the CJI.”

Further, the
petition questioned outgoing CJI JS Khehar’s recommendation of the
second senior-most judge of the apex court Justice Dipak Misra as the
next CJI.

KISHAN PRASAD
August 26, 2017 at 9:18 am

The
selection of higher judiciary, undoubtedly, has been so opaque that
several ill-qualified have made to higher judiciary and due to their
intellectual deficit country has been facing lots of difficulties
including piled up cases. Needless to add the fact that there has been
rampant corruption and judges being not accountable to anyone and their
removal is the tedious process of impeachment motion to be adopted by a
considerable majority.


Peace Is Doable



Leave a Reply