e - Voice Of Human Rights Watch - e-news weekly
Spreading the light of humanity & freedom
Editor: Nagaraj.M.R....vol.4 . issue.28......12/07/2008
Editorial : SHAME SHAME TO CORRUPT JUDGES & POLICE IN
- WHO WILL BELL THE CORRUPT FEW AMONG INDIAN JUDICIARY & INDIAN POLICE ?
When the fence itself eats into the crop which it has to protect , when the doctor himself kills the patient whom he has to treat , when the mother supposed to protect her child kills it herself , when the king supposed to protect his subjects himself kills them , WHEN THE POLICE & JUDGE SUPPOSED TO GIVE JUSTICE , PROTECT HIS CITTIZENS , HIMSELF MEATS OUT INJUSTICE , where to appeal ? it is nothing but anarchy. These corrupt few are also bringing disgrace to the august institutions they occupy & are also making contempt of those very offices they hold & making contempt of citizens of
Who will dare to bell the fat , corrupt cats & save democracy in
INDIAN JUDICIARY UNDER RTI PURVIEW
The corrupt among public servants always give a ruse , reason to escape from accountability. Recently government of Karnataka under president's rule has enacted a rule limiting the number of informations sought in RTI application to 3 . already bureaucrats are successful in exempting official file notings from RTI purview. These file notings are the basis on which official decisions are taken by superiors , so if one wants to know the intention behind an official decision it is imperative to know all the notings.
Police apply 3rd degree torture on accussed , ask questions for hours in the name of extracting truth , the same police are afraid to answer questions lest the truth come out.
In the courts of law , numerous questions are asked , cross examination done to extract truth . if one remains silent it amounts to confession / agreeing to all charges leveled. In courts of law , during cross examination one must give straight forward answers , one cann't give vague answers nor state excuses for not answering a question. If one doesn't give straight forward answers that also is considered as agrreing to the charges levelled. The courts go to any length to extract answers to it's questions , take for example rape cases in the backdrop of our Indian tradition. In the courts of law , the rape victim - woman who has already suffered injustice , shame is made to depose before male judges , lawyers who are total strangers and made to repeatedly explain how the crime of rape was committed. So once again the victim is made to suffer more shame in the society. For the courts answers to questions , cross examination , legal procedures is more important than honour of woman. The very same judges are afraid to answer questions , cross examination under one pretext or the other lest the truth come out.
Even our people's representatives – MPs , MLAs , etc are afraid to speak out truth , to honour RTI act citing legal privileges , etc. in India , during appointment of persons to government service back ground check & clearance by police is mandatory & during appointment into sensitive defense , space , atomic energy establishments , etc apart from police verification , investigation by intelligence agencies is a must. No such thing for our MLAs , MPs . However now criminalization of politics is almost in
More than RTI ACT , to seek information is part of every Indian citizen's fundamental rights & human rights , RTI ACT is just fulfilling that right partly & fixing a time frame. Nobody , no constitutional functionary is higher than Indian citizens , nobody's privileges or any laws prevailing over the fundamental rights & duties of Indian citizens is constitutional , just or legal . The shame is that even after 60 years of independence , FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS & DUTIES OF INDIAN CITIZENS is observed more in breach than implementation , by our public servants including the judiciary .
Hereby , we urge all the public servants – judges , police , people's representatives to honour RTI ACT , to honour Indian citizen's fundamental & human rights and to facilitate them to perform their fundamental duties. The silence of public servants to the questions asked or vague answers , ruses by public servants amounts to confessions , agreeing to the questions , charges leveled & crimes committed .
Let the TRUTH prevail. Jai hind. Vande mataram.
Judiciary under RTI Act, says parliamentary panel
A parliamentary committee today held that judiciary comes under the purview of the Right to Information law with regard to all activities of administration except "judicial decision making." "Except the judicial decision making, all other activities of administration and the persons included in it (judiciary) are subject to RTI Act," said the report of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Personnel, Law and Justice.
The opinion of the committee headed by E.M. Sudarsana Natchiappanan comes against the backdrop of a raging controversy over whether the judiciary comes under the RTI purview. Chief Justice of
The committee, which went into the demands of grants for the personnel ministry and discussed the interpretation of Section 2 (h) of the RTI Act, that is, definition of public authority, said the provision is very clear that all constitutional authorities come under the definition of public authority. The committee had examined in detail every clause of the RTI Act, 2004 and was conscious of the fact that all wings of the state, executive, legislature and judiciary, are fully covered under this Act since all organs of the state are accountable to the citizens of India in a democratic state. "It is more so since the judiciary is having a dual role as (i) administrative function and (ii) judicial decision making.
AN APPEAL TO HONOURABLE CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSIONER , NEW DELHI & STATE INFOR MATION COMMISSIONER ,
We at e-voice of human rights watch has requested for following information ( ANSWERS TO THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS ) from honourable CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA , SUPREME COURT OF INDIA , NEW DELHI , UNION HOME SECRETARY , GOI , NEW DELHI , DG&IG OF POLICE , GOK , BANGALORE , COMMISSIONER , BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY , BANGALORE & COMMISSIONER , MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY , MYSORE , as per RTI Act . All of them have failed to provide complete truthful information to us.
Full Case details are given at following web page,
RTI APPEAL TO HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE OF
RTI APPEAL TO UNION HOME SECRETARY , GOI ,
RTI APPEAL TO DG&IG OF POLICE , GOK ,
RTI APPEAL BDA COMMISSIONER , MUDA ,
RTI APPEAL TO BDA COMMISSIONER , BDA ,
Hereby , we do once again request you to order the said public servants - to comply with RTI Act & to provide the full information to us at the earliest. JAI HIND. VANDE MATARAM.
JUDGES IN PROVIDENT FUND SCAM ?
The difficult question on the mode of probe was posed by a petitioner, who is the chairman of Advocates Welfare Trust and Bar Association of Ghaziabad — the place where the scam took place — even as CJI K G Balakrishnan had shown faith in the integrity of the judges by asking the UP police, which is probing the scam, to send questionnaires to the judges, whose names allegedly figured in the scam.
Unwilling to have the judges interrogated by the police at first go, SC had written to the UP police that if the response of those judges to the questionnaire did not satisfy the probe team, then it could send request for personal interrogation.
The request for interrogation in person would be considered on merit, the SC had told the police in a communication. Appearing for the Bar, senior advocate Fali S Nariman flanked by senior advocates Anil Divan and M N Krishnamani expressed concern over the scandal and also pointed out the possible dent in the image of the judiciay if an SHO was seen interrogating a judge.
Bench comprising CJI Balakrishnan and Justices P Sathasivam and J M Panchal appeared undecided about the constitution of a committee as suggested by Nariman, it decided to seek the assistance of solicitor general G E Vahanvati to chart out a possible course to deal with the situation.
To keep the proceedings off the media glare, the bench decided to take up the matter in chamber on July 14, when Vahanvati and other senior advocates would make good their assistance to look for a way out of the problematic situation.
The petition said one Ashutosh Asthana, the Central Nazir in the judgeship of
CROSS-EXAMINATION OF HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE OF
Q1. Why not death sentence to corrupt police who murder people in in lock-up / fake encounters ?
Q2. Why not death sentence to corrupt police who apply 3rd degree torture on prisoners ?
Q3. Why not death sentence to corrupt police , who connive with criminals & backstabs our motherland , it's national security ?
Q4. Don't the police have suo-motto powers to take action in the interest of public welfare , law & order ?
Q5. Daily we see numerous reports of misdeeds by police , public servants , industrialists , etc in the media . Then why not police taking any action with respect to them ?
Q6. nowadays we see numerous reports of scams , scandals by constitutional functionaries , public servants in the media. Instead of wasting money , killing time by prolonging formation of parliamentary committees , judicial commissions , why not subject those accussed public servants to narco analysis , lie deector test , etc to ascertain truth & provide timely justice ? ( new addition )
Q7. If a commonman files a complaint , police / courts wants evidences , witnesses to take action against the rich & mighty crooks. Where as if a rich person just gives a complaint against a poor chap , he is arrested , tortured eventhough there are no evidences , witnesses. Why this double standard ?
Q8. If a poor chap tries to collect evidences as per his fundamental rights or as per RTI ACT , the public servants don't give full , truthfull information. Still , police / courts don't take action against those public servants hiding crimes. Why ?
Q9.why I was not permitted to appear as an "amicus curie" before jain commission of enquiry or supreme court of
Q10. The criminal nexus tried to silence me , by closing my news paper , by snatching away my job oppurtunities in government service, by physically assaulting me , by threatening me of false fix-ups in cases & by attempts to murder me. But no action against culprits , why ?
Q11. Whereas , I was enquired number of times by police & intelligence personnel about this case , but the culprits were not enquired even once , why ?
Q12.who compensates the losses I have suffered due to these injustices ? are not police responsible for it ?
Q13. Is it not the duty of police to protect the lives , livelihood of witnesses & all parties involved , both during case & afterwards ?
Q14. How do you monitor & check corrupt police personnel & increase in their family's wealth year after year ?
Q15. While getting appointed into government service from the rank of peon to IAS officer , police verification is mandatory. While appointing to sensitive defense establishments , research institutes in addition to police verification , central intelligence agencies cross-check candidate's background. However is there no background checks of constitutional functionaries , MPs , MLAs , , who are privy to national secrets ? why ?
Q16. Recently , the opposition parties have made allegations during presidential allegations that close relative of one of the front running candidates have swindled public money by their bank , misused public money through one of their NGO. Is it true ?
Q17.has GOI funded any terrorist outfits in
Q18.india preaches non-violence , panchasheel principles to the world. In
Q20. In Jharkhand , chattisgarh , etc , the government has armed , trained & funded "salwa judum" to counter naxalites. Salwa judum cadres are terrorizing innocents just like naxalites. Is this action of government just & legal ?
Q22. Film actor sanjay dutt had contacts with underworld & fully knowing well the criminal objectives of criminals , hid the dangerous arms & ammunition in his home , which were intended for terrorizing public. However mr.dutt is not charged with TADA / POTA instead he is charged with illegal possession of arms act ( which is normally applied to farmers who use illegal home made guns to scare away animals , birds in their farms ). Why this favourable treatment of mr.dutt by police ? prosecution ? is this because dutt is politically mighty & rich ?
Q23. Law is one & same for all , the public servants, police interpretes , enforces it differentially between rich & poor ? why this differentiation ?
Q25. Who , of which rank among police personnel takes the decision to close a case ie to file "B" report , when after certain time limit no leads are found in investigation ?
Q26. How do you monitor corrupt police personnel , who purposefully fail to investigate case properly , so that either the case can be closed with "B" report or the prosecution fails to prove the case in court ?
Q27. Who among police takes the decision to appeal against the verdict of a lower court , when the prosecution fails ?
Q28. Who took the decision , not to appeal against the
Q29. Do you treat all the prison convicts same in the prison or does the notorious big time rich criminals get spacious barracks with tv, news paper , adequate food , medical care , etc while small time criminals , poor are crammed into pig sty like rooms with 60-70 inmates without any basic requirements ?
Q30. What is the status of my complaint made to the DG & IG of police , government of Karnataka on 10/12/2004 ? the copies of complaint was released at press meet at patrakartara bhavan Mysore on same day, even copies were given to police & intelligence personnel ?
Q31. Why no action , reply regarding the complaint till date ?
Q32. Our constitutional frame workers gave legal immunity privileges to certain constitutional functionaries , so that they are not burdened with frivolous court cases & can concentrate on their constitutional duties. But these privileges doesn't cover the individual actions of those public servants like rape , murder , dowry harassment , tax evasion , misuse of office , etc. but still law enforcement / police department is bound to send request to home ministry seeking permission & home ministry sits over files for months. This gives the accussed ample time to destroy evidences. Is it right & legal ?
Q33. Does legal immunity privileges cover their official actions alone ? if not what does it cover ?
Q34. What is the time limit for home ministry to give sanction for the prosecution of tainted constitutional functionaries ?
Q35. How many present MPs , MLAs , MUNICIAPAL CORPORATORS , other people's representatives are facing criminal charges ?
Q36. In the past , how many MPs , MLAs , corporators were facing criminal charges , yearwise since 1987 ? how many of them were eventually convicted ?
Q37. How many MPs , MLAs , prominent film , sports personalities have have contacts with underworld , foreign intelligence agencies ?
Q38. How many of them have attended frequent parties hosted by underworld dons in gulf countries , else where ?
Q39. How many MP , MLA , other people's representatives are wanted by police in various cases . but shown in the police records as absconding but in reality are attending the proceedings of the house as usual ?
Q40. When did smt. Sonia Gandhi became a citizen of
Q42. Does smt. Sonia Gandhi have citizenship of any other country ?
Q43. Did she occupy any public office while enjoying dual citizenship ?
Q44. How do you monitor public servants who have spouses of foreign origin & while they are on foreign tour , from national security perspective ?
Q45. Is mr. M.S SUBBA member of parliament a citizen of
Q46. What is the status of complaint made by former union minister mr.subramanya swamy alleging that late P.Mrajiv gandhi's family received money from foreign intelligence agencies ?
Q47. In many cases like mass riots involving certain political parties , when that culprit party comes to power all the cases involving it's partymen are withdrawn by the government orelse prosecution fails to prove it's case & prefers not to appeal. Just remember
Q48.what damages has been done to
Q49. What action by the government ?
Q50. How many Indians are in the custody of police / military in various foreign countries ?
Q51. How many foreigners are there in Indian prisons ?
Q52. How GOI is protecting the human rights of these prisoners ?
Q53. Is the government paying any compensation to victims of police failures , fix-ups , , who suffer in jail for years & acquitted by courts upon finding them as not guilty ?
Q54. Do you register murder charges / attempt to murder charges against guilty police officers who are responsible for lock-up deaths , fake encounters & 3rd degree torture ?
Q55. How many cases has been filed since 1987 till date ?
Q56. What action has been taken against guilty police officers , STF personnel who were responsible for gross human rights violations , 3rd degree torture , lock-up deaths of innocents in forest brigand veerappan's territory , based on justice A.J.Sadashiva commission findings ? if not why ?
Q57. I , as a citizen of
Q58. Police personnel are always in the forefront of containing crimes , mass fury , riots , etc. they suffer more & even their family members suffer threats from the criminal elements. Do the government provide insurance coverage to police & their family members on the lines of defense forces ?
Q59. What is the amount of coverage to a police constable & his family ?
Q60. Who makes the premium contributions ?
Q61. Do the government provide overtime allowance , food allowance to police who daily work beyond 8 hours of duty ?
Q62. Is the government giving any training to police personnel in public interaction , human rights ?
Q63. Is it right to post professionally trained police to sentry , orderly duties of ministers ?
Q64. What is the ratio of police personnel to total population in
Q65. IS THE GOVERNMENT GIVING ADEQUATE FOOD, MEDICAL CARE , CLOTHING , LIVING SPACE TO PRISON INMATES , AS REQUIRED BY A
Q66. Is the forensic science department which conducts narcfo-analysis , lie-detector test , etc under the control of police department ?
Q67. Is it not right to put it under impartial control of NHRC or like bodies ?
Q68. Is the action of some police officers arranging compromise meetings & subtly insisting the poor to tow the line of rich or else face the consequences , is it right & legal ? this happens mostly in real estate matters.
Q69. Did government make any ransom payments to forest brigand veerappan during his various kidnappings ?
Q70. What action has been taken based on revealations by karim telgi during narco analysis about public servants involvement ?
Q71. How many cases of allegations against judges were made in the media about misuse of office , criminal acts by judges from munsiff court to supreme court of
Q72. are the enquiry report findings, action taken reports of such cases accessible to public ? if not why ?
Q73. what action has been taken against guilty judges ?
Q74. are the guilty judges legally prosecuted in all such cases ? or has it just ended with their resignation from services or his superior judge not allotting him any judicial work ?
Q75. why some high ranking judges are not legally prosecuted for their wrong doings ?
Q76. are judges above law ? are not everybody equal before law ?
Q77. do the judiciary subject , all the cases handled by accussed / tainted , guilty judges to review , to undo past unjust judgements ?
Q78. how ? if not why ?
Q79. how do the judiciary monitor the net wealth growth of some judges including the wealth in the name of judge's family members ?
Q80. do all the judges file their annual income , wealth statements on sworn affidavits to the higher judiciary ? defaulters how many ?
Q81. how does the judiciary verifies those statements ?
Q82. is such statements made public , on web ?
Q83. when the judgement of a lower court is turned down by the higher court , what action is initiated against lower court judge for making unjust judgement & meating out injustice ?
Q84. when allegations of corruption , misuse of office , etc against judges are made , why the accussed – judges are not subjected to tests like "poly graph , lie detector , brain mapping , etc" , in the interest of justice & truth ?
Q85. judges are not employees of government , so they are ineligible to be the members of "Karnataka state government judicial department house building co-operative society". Then how come , many judges including supreme court judges are admitted as members of this society & allotted prime residential site worth crores of rupees for a few thousands by the said society at said society's – judicial layout , yelahanka ,
Q86. in more than 70% of cases before all courts in
Q87. when a person under police custody or judicial custody suffer 3rd degree torture by police , is not the judge of the respective court which is handling that tortured person's case responsible for it ?
Q88. has the higher judiciary legally prosecuted respective judges & the police officers for committing 3rd degree torture , on charges of attempt to murder & murder ? if not why ?
Q89. registrar ,
Q90. registrar ,
Q91. when a person doesn't get adequate food , medical care while under police custody or judicial custody , is not the respective judge dealing that person's case responsible for it ? what action ?
Q92. how judiciary is monitoring food & medical care to prisoners ?
Q93. numerous accussed persons are suffering in jail under judicial custody , for periods far exceeding the legally stipulated sentence periods. For example : a pick-pocketer is in jail for one year , the judge finds him guilty of offence & gives him 3 months sentence. What about the excess punishment of 9 months. Is not the judge responsible for the illegal , excess punishment of the convict ? what action against the judge in such cases ?
Q94. numerous innocents suffer in jail for years & finally the judge finds them as innocents & acquits them of the charges. What about the prison sentence , the innocent has already served ? is not the judge responsible for this illegal , unjust punishment to an innocent ? remedy ? what action against the judge ?
Q95. does the privileges of judges cover both their official actions & the actions arising out of misuse of office ?
Q96. does the privileges of judges cover both their official actions as judges & their personal actions as individuals ?
Q97. are the fundamental rights of citizens supreme or the privileges of judges , constitutional functionaries supreme ?
Q98. what is the criteria adopted for promotion of judges ?
Q99. what is the criteria adopted for appointment of advocates from bar , as the judges ?
Q100. what is the criteria adopted for appointment of retired judges , as governors of states , members or as chairman of commissions , etc ?
Q101. how many judges belonging to oppressed classes – scheduled caste , scheduled tribe , other backward classes , minorities & women are their in supreme court , state high courts & subordinate courts ? kindly provide specific figures .
Q102. what are the legal measures enforced by judiciary , to enforce the accountability of judges & to check corruption in judiciary ?
Q103. are not these measures a failure , looking at present state of affairs of judiciary ?
Q104. does the judges arrange for distribution of alchoholic drinks at the official meetings , parties , at the tax payer's expense ?
Q105. does any judges have included their consumption of alchoholic drinks , in their hotel bill & claimed traveling allowance ?
Q106. what action has been taken against – selectors ie Karnataka high court judges & newly selected women judges involved in roost resort scandal in Mysore , Karnataka ?
Q107. when common people / tax payers & even government employees are not getting proper health care from government at government hospitals. Is it right & just to provide premium health care to judges , constitutional functionaries at 5-star private hospitals in
Q108. are the judges subjected to periodical health check-ups to ascertain their health , mental faculties & mental balance in the midst of all work pressures , emotional tensions ?
Q109. what is the criteria adopted by judiciary for accepting applications seeking public interest litigations ?
Q110. why numerous appeals for PIL by me , were not considered ?
Q111. what is the criteria adopted by judiciary , for appointing "amicus curie" in a case ?
Q112. why my appeal to honourable supreme court , to make me as an "amicus curie" in late P.M Rajiv Gandhi's assassination case , was not considered by the court ?
Q113. what is the criteria adopted by judiciary , for initiating suo-motto action ?
Q114. numerous cases of injustices are reported in the media daily , with supporting evidences . why not the judiciary take suo-motto action in all such cases ?
Q115. legal aid boards pre-judge the cases in the name of taking legal opinion , before providing legal aid to the needy ? is it not needy person's rights violation ?
Q116. is not the safety of witnesses , parties in cases responsibility of the court , both during hearing of the case & afterwards ?
Q117. is the use of 3rd degree torture by police on prisoners , during the police custody / judicial custody / prison sentence right ? what action ?
Q118. when the corrupt police officer & government prosecution advocate together cover-up evidences , conducts improper investigation intentionally to fail the case – to cover-up rich crooks , high & mighty people , what action judge takes in such cases ?
Q119. how does the judiciary monitor the wealth growth of police , government advoctes , tax officials , officials of licensing authorities , to ensure proper & fair prosecution of cases against rich & mighty ?
Q120. what are the status of appeals made by human rights activist NAGARAJ.M.R. to the honourable supreme court of India ?
Q121. corruption is rampant for selection of officers to quasi-judicial positions like district / taluk magistrates , tax officers , revenue officers , land acquisition officers , etc. how the judiciary monitors over their quasi-judicial actions ?
Q122. subject to conditions , I , NAGARAJ.M.R. , editor , e-voice of human rights watch , do offer my free services to honourable supreme court of India , to apprehend corrupt judges , are you – the honourable court ready to utilize it ?
Q123. what are the status of my appeals , sent to the honourable supreme court of India , through government of india's on-line grievance system ( DPG & DARPG ) :
DPG/M/2006/80008 , DARPG/E/2006/00057, DARPG/E/2006/00225 , DPG/M/2006/80021 , DARPG/E/2006/00253 , DPG/M/2006/80032 , DARPG/E/2006/01149 , DPG/M/2006/80047 , DARPG/E/2006/01164 , DPG/M/2006/80043 , DPG/M/2006/80085 , DARPG/E/2006/06704 , DARPG/E/2006/07017 , DARPG/E/2006/07018 , DPG/M/2006/80159 , DPG/M/2006/80162 , DARPG/E/2006/07864 , DPG/M/2006/80165 , DARPG/E/2006/07877 , DPG/M/2006/80167 , DARPG/E/2006/08028 , DARPG/E/2006/08029 , DARPG/E/2006/08032 , DARPG/E/2006/08043 , DARPG/E/2006/08044 , DPG/M/2006/80174 , DPG/M/2006/80193 , DARPG/E/2007/00044 , DPG/M/2007/80003 , DPG/M/2007/80010 , DARPG/E/2007/00164 , DARPG/E/2007/00165 , DPG/M/2007/80014 , DPG/M/2007/80025 , DPG/M/2007/80049 , DPG/M/2007/80055 , DPG/M/2007/80056 , DPG/M/2007/80078 , DPG/M/2007/80082 , DARPG/E/2007/02618
Q124. the appeals made to the honourable supreme court of
what are the status of those appeals ?
Q125. in the media , we have seen reports about judges committing crimes – rape , attempt to murder , swindling government money , untouchability practice , the disrespect to national flag , sale of judicial orders , bail , etc. by this way , judges themselves are making contempt of court , constitution of India & citizens of India. How you are protecting the honour of the judiciary , constitution of
Q126. Is the government giving any facilities / affirmative actions to policemen's family as being given to defense personnel , ex-servicemen & their families , like preferential site allotment , lpg agency , ration depot , reservation in college admission , soft bank loans , etc ?
Q126. if not , why ? after all , the contribution of police to national security is on par with defense forces.
Q127. is not some high police officials addressing their subordinates in singular term , abusing them with vulgar words wrong ?
Q128. is not some police personnel calling public with singular term, abusing public with vulgar words wrong ?
Q129. is it not the duty of prison authorities to protect the health, lives of prison in-mates ?
Q130.what action is taken against police personnel who wrongly charged an innocent person of criminal acts , resulting in his confinement in jail , finally acquitted by court as found to be innocent ?
Q131. is it not right to with hold salary , gratuity , pension to such guilty police personnel & pay it as compensation to victims of police failures & atrocities ?
Q132. does our Indian constitution legally permit a citizen of foreign origin naturalized by marriage to an Indian or naturalized by option , to occupy any constitutional office ? ( new addition )
Q133. during british rule in
Q134. in how many cases GOI & other state government continued with the prosecution AGAINST OUR FREEDOM FIGHTERS ? why ? ( new addition )
Q135. what about cases against shri.netaji subash Chandra bose ? ( new addition )
Q136. has GOI deported any freedom fighters to
Q137. some of the police officers drink alchoholic drinks while on duty , how do you ensure the rightness of their actions when they are drunk ? ( NEW ADDITION )
Q138. some of the arrested persons are produced by police at odd hours , in the residences of judicial magistrates . if the magistrate has taken alchoholic drinks after office hours , how the rightness of his decision can be ensured ? ( NEW ADDITION )
Failure of RTI Act in
- In the clutches of corrupt public servants mafia
In the courts of law , every statement to be valid must be supported by evidences. That too, the statements of public servants / government officials & their reports in government records are considered as sacrosanct , the ultimate gospel truth by courts of law.
The corruption has spread it's tentacles far & wide in the public service. The bribe booty is shared by lower to higher officials. If an official is complained against , his higher official conducts a formal investigation & reports in the record that lower official is not guilty.
The vigilance authorities / Karnataka lokayukta has recently raided on police , tax officials & seized illegal wealth amounting to crores of rupees. Take the recent case where in senior IPS officer , superintendent of police chamarajanagar , mr.srikantappa was arrested by Karnataka lokayukta. The victims spoke to media that he used to threaten them with false cases. In this way , how many victims / innocents were arrested & tortured by his arrest warrants ? how many innocents suffered in false cases ? how many rich criminals got scot free , by srikantappa's filing of B reports leading to closure of cases ?
In the past how many suffered by srikantappa's actions ? has the court subjected to review all the previous actions of srikantappa throught his corrupt career ? if not , why ?
The courts of law has taken the official reports , records of mr.srikantappa as gospel truth & indirectly aided rich criminals & harmed innocents. It is the same case with respect to reports of all government officials – police , labour , tax , etc. the rich criminals buy out government officials & make them write favourable report about themselves. Whereas the poor , innocents suffer from adverse reports & injustices. The courts of law takes the government records at it's face value & meat out injustices to the poor , innocents while aiding the rich criminals.
When a commoner requests for information as per RTI Act , the government officials either give incomplete information , false information or decline to give information under one pretext or the other. The officials are damn sure that the truthful information will be detrimental to themselves & will be taken as evidence against themselves in the courts of law. So information , truth is not given. Even information commissions are failing here. Thereby, the public are denied to seek justice in the courts of law , by lack of evidences.
The courts of law before accepting the records of government officials , must subject it to a "test of truth". When a government report is contested against , a fact finding team comprising members of public , complainant , respondent & the court , must check it out at the ground level. Orelse when a complainant says that the report of a government official – police , labour , tax , etc as false that government official must be subjected to lie detector test , narco-analysis, ertc by court of law. The questionnaire ie the questions to be asked during the scientific test are to be prepared with feedback from both complainant & respondent's side. In that way , impartially truth can be found out. After all , the objective of courts of law is "Quest for Truth", not just giving out judgements based on reports of corrupt officials.
Nowadays , we are even seeing reports of corruption among the judiciary itself. If a complaint against a judge is made out that a level ground is not provided to put up one's case in the court or cross examination of one party is not allowed or lie detector test / narco analysis of one party is not allowed ( in turn taking the lies of that party as truth ), the judge making a varied interpretation of law, the judge not safe guarding the health & life of the complainant in the custody of police leading to 3rd degree torture of complainant by police , etc, in all such cases the supreme court of India must change the presiding judge of such cases , the cases must be thoroughly reviewed & the guilty judge must be subjected to narco-analysis , lie detector test , etc & legally prosecuted. In this back drop , accountability of police & judges to the public ie citizens of
We at e – voice of human rights of watch have utmost respect for the judiciary & all government institutions. It is the corrupt few in those institutions who are themselves bringing disgrace to the august institutions they occupy , by their corrupt deeds. The saving grace is that still honest few are left in public service & it is an appeal to them , to legally prosecute their corrupt colleagues.
Is it not right & just in such cases , to subject the presiding judge , police , concerned government officialds & most importantly key officials of that criminal private enterprise to lie detector , narco- analysis tests , to know the truth ? is it not right to conduct the inspection of alleged site , review of all company's records , by a team comprising of members from public , court , complainant & respondent ?
Some of these criminal enterprises threaten to finish off the poor victims . as these company's have money power they can buy out rowdies , police & capable of doing anything. In such cases , if anything untoward happens to the victim or his family , are not the officials of such criminal enterprise liable to pay compensation to the victims's family or survivors ?
RTI activists say there is every reason why the RTI Act should apply to the higher judiciary as well.
Questions are now being asked in South Block, too, following the expose on Supreme Court judges.
Records obtained under the RTI shows judges have been converting work trips to holidays, taking long detours and are accompanied by their wives while traveling abroad.
At present there are no travel guidelines for the judiciary and the Bar Council of India is suggesting a course correction.
"I think the judges must pay or should pay the amount to the government," Bar Council of India Chairman SNP Sinha said in
Under the RTI, CNN-IBN found that for Chief Justice KG Balakrishnan's 11-day trip to
Former chief justice YK Sabharwal attended three conferences in 2005 to
The travel plan included a detour from
The First Class air fare for Sabharwal's entire trip was paid by the government.
Activists are now renewing the debate on the RTI act applying to judges as well
RTI activist Arvind Kejriwal said: "It only underscores why the RTI needs to be applied to judges and judiciary."
Just like Caesar's wife should be above suspicion, RTI activists are demanding that SC judges too should be seen to be accountable.
History of Corruption in Indian Judiciary since
1949: Mr. Justice Sinha only Judge impeached; courtesy Good Judges & Constitution Framers: Our Fore-Fathers represented by Constituent Assembly of India framers of Constitution of India then in 1949 (year before Consitution came into existence) impeached Mr. Justice Sinha; finding him "guilty of improper exercise of Judicial functions, the cumulative effect of which was to lower the dignity of his office and undermine the confidence of the public in the administration of justiceâ€¦" [008.07].
Such/ similar acts/ behaviours by whom-so-ever including Judges is since 1971 is covered as an act of Criminal Contempt of Court [041.05 ]. Not a single Judge is either Impeached or hauled-up for Contempt till 1991.
Peoples' Inner Hope Courts to maintain their Majesty & Dignity will prosecute 1000 Judges in context, who have tarnished & undermined the Fair image of Judiciary.
Let Judges relish Jail for months if not years ; to asses personally the convinences-N-comforts provided even to innocent citizens or persons who were not having Rs. 100 to give as Bail. Then they will be in better position to Transform Jails into Reformation Centres. Jailing corrupt Judges by Judges , we hope will instill confidence of people in Courts & law. Who-is-who of
1979 : Chief Justice Mr. K. Veeraswami ; Chief Justice of India permitted Central Bureau of India to file case of Dis-proportionate of Income / wealth against Chief Justice Madras High Court Mr. K. Veeraswami ( father-in-law of Mr. Justice V. Ramaswami ). 30 years elaped. Sheltered by Courts' easy-go-tactic. [049.04] [059.05 ]
1991-93: Mr. Justice V. Ramaswami ( son-in-law of Chief Justice Mr. K. Veeraswami [049.04 ] ) : SAWANT COMMITTEE REPORT had held he is guilty of several charges. Supreme Court of
Supreme Court which upheld Charges of Mis-Behaviour also , we opine , failed to prosecute him under Contempt of Court Act & relevant Laws . It also failed " To Do Complete Justice" by invoking Article142 . Criminal Judge was allowed to go scot-free; both by Parliament & Supreme Court !
Good precedent for other Judges ? If so What kind of message to we-innocent-Citizens ? For almost complete proceedings in SC & Parliament: [008.00 ]
1995 A.M. BHATTACHARJEE: The chief justice of the
1996 AJIT SENGUPTA: The Calcutta High Court judge made it a routine to issue ex parte, ad interim stay orders on anticipatory bail pleas from smugglers having links with the Mumbai underworld. He was arrested in 1996 for FERA violations after retirement
1994 to 1997: A.M. AHMADI: When he was Chief Justice of
2000 A.S. ANAND: As Chief Justice of
2002: SEX FOR ACQUITTAL
In November 2002, Sunita Malviya, a Jodhpur-based doctor, alleged that a deputy registrar of the Rajasthan High Court had sought sexual favours for himself and for Justice Arun Madan to "fix" a case in her favour. Justice Mr.Â· Arun Madan . Case of Lady Sunita Malviya.STATUS: A committee set up by former CJI G.B. Pattanaik found prima facie evidence against Madan, who does not attend court anymore. Judge Resigned
CASH-FOR-JOB :Three judges of the
STATUS: Two inquiry panels indicted the judges. Gill and Amarbir Singh have resigned M.L. Singh continues, though no work is allotted to him.
2002-03: 3 Judges
March 2003 - Delhi High Court Judge resigns: Suspected of collusion with Property Developers. Raids by CBI on corrupt higher officials in Delhi Development Authority (DDA), found Draft Judgement-N-Court Records
E(I)nquiry-in-camera or In-House Inquiry was & is contrary to Law . Is ultra vires Article 14 of Constitution of India: " The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India"
Following Questions / Issues, inter alia , arise
( a ) Enquiry in-camera was held contrary to the observations made by, Constituent Assembly of India in 1949. In its' Impeachment Order had held thus:"While we are alive to the desirability, in the interests of the public, of investigating charges against a Judge in open court, we held the Enquiry in-camera in view of the allegation made in the affidavits and the circumstances of the case. This mode of proceeding should not, however, be regarded as a precedent." [008.07 ].
( b) In the case of similar In-House Inquiry held under the Orders of Chief Justice of India in Jusice V. Ramaswami's case , Justice Ramaswami had held that " Inquiring Committee" as well as " Inquiry" have no basis & force of law. It is reflected in the Report , which was read-out by CJI to Advocates & publicised , submitted by 3 Judges Committee thus" Indeed Justice Ramaswami had made it clear to the Chief Justice that he did not recognise any such Jurisdiction in any body or authority."
(c) It will not be out-of place to mention here that Two of "Three Judges Committee " appointed by CJI in Re. V. Ramaswami's case are alleged to be involved in Judges Plot 4 Plot.[014.00]. It is like Criminal investigating another criminal .
( d ) If so how sure can we be that " 3 Judges Committee " appointed to invetigate " 3 Judges
Queries to Supreme Court , Parliament of India & Central Government
In Re. Judges' Mysore Sex Scandal
( a)" Will the Supreme Court Publicise Report of " 3 Judges Committee " ( all & sundry material); morefully to know whether any evidence adduced by many in support of Scam is informed to CJI & Supreme Court ?
(b) What is the Guarantee that despite prima facie evidence Judges of Supreme Court which consists of Few corrupt Judges seved in Karnataka are not inclined to take stern action ?
(c) Investigation of a Crime comitted by Minister or anyone lies within Executive Domain like the case Justice K.Veeraswami, in this case CBI . Is it not a case of hushing-up & messing-up of " 3 Pillars of Constitution " ?.
(d) How long will you try keeping suppressed Crimes of Judges of Supreme Court & High Courts when Union Law Minister Mr. P. Shiva Shankar , on 28th Nov.1987 said " Supreme Court is filled with FERA violators & Bride Burnersâ€¦" ( AIR 1988 SC 1208 ). When Chief Justice Of India Justice E.S. Venkataramaiaha admits that "in every High Court there are 3-4 Judges who are out every evening to Party in Foreign Embassiies or at Advocates' placesâ€¦drinkâ€¦dineâ€¦" (1990 Cr LJ 2179 ) [041.09].
(e) 20% of Judges are corrupt , indirectly said Chief Justice of India Mr. Justice S.P. Bharucha , in other words admitted that 80% of Judges of India are not corrupt & are above board to be bribed or influnced ? Then why cases are not filed against 20% of Judges ?
LOSS of Confidence in Judiciary : The Actions & Inactions of Supreme Court trying to suppress crimes of Judges has resulted in We, the People of India losing confidence in Courts & given rise to a Question whether at all People of India's Fundamental & Statutory Rights are safe in present set of Judges & Courts and Laws Governing thereof ?
Conscience of Judiciary Shaken: Supreme Court of
"Police Raj" to "Judges Tyranny": Judges serving all over
Criminal Politicians Vs Criminal Judges : Hats off for the Judgment of Supreme Court striking-down of Parliamentary Act amending Representatives of Peoples Act. Court said Come Clean Mr. Politicians in relation to diclosure of their Criminal , Financial & other such antecedents so as to help electorate of
But then What about Criminal / Corrupt / Judgment-for-Sex Judges ?: The Supreme Court was unanimous in the Judgment of corrupt politicians. Parliament is not unanimous to Bridle Judges or judiciary. Nor is the Supreme Court ready to find ways & means to Tame / Terminate / Jail the Corrupt / criminal / Judgment-for-Sex Judges. Such inactions of Supreme Court or High Court is nothing short of giving leverage to such of them. It looks as though Supreme Court on its own is eroding faith of Public in Judiciary as a whole. Like Termites these Judges are Constitutional-Enemies-Within-India who are bent upon to disseminate corruption among other Good Judges.
The judiciary has recently hit the news with several scandals involving the judges. Even as Arundhati Roy’s case demonstrated the fragility of judicial restraint, the Karnataka High Court’s cases against 14 media organizations and 56 persons indicates a more acute case of judicial intolerance. I agree with the Hindu editorial (8th December, 2002) describing the action of the high court as a pointer to the anachronistic state of the law. It is a travesty of justice as well as jurisprudence when a judge presides over the hearing of a case in which he is the complainant. The contempt law effectively insulates the judiciary against public scrutiny of its performance and represents the paradox of a judge trying a case in which he has a direct interest. It must go.
However, notwithstanding the cases where the judiciary initiates action against the media under the contempt law, neither side actually absolves itself of culpability. More often than not, the judiciary treats an apology from the media as admission of guilt and as adeqaute penalty for the offence, treating the media on a different footing from others, a case of discrimination in favor of the media. Even where it was conclusively proved that a newspaper published a scandal involving the sons of Supreme Court judges, the court satisfied itself with an apology. A Sunday paper carried some time ago a story alleging allotment of petrol outlets from the discretionary quota of the Petroleum and Natural Gas Ministry to two sons of a Supreme Court judge and two sons of the Chief Justice of India. Surprisingly, the apex court was satisfied with an apology and an acknowledgement by the newspaper that the story was false and incorrect.
The recent scandals involving judges in several states do not render the basic premise of judicial impartiality irrelevant. For the press to discuss a court trial even before the verdict is delivered is a departure from the tradition of media objectivity. I refer to two sets of articles that appeared recently in the press that give the impression of the press grabbing the ball while it is still in the court of the judiciary. There is Ram Jethmalani’s article in the Times of India on the Bofors case, a three-part article by Anjali Modi in the Hindu and a Zee TV telefilm, all discussing the trial of the accused in the 13 December attack on Parliament.
Let us begin with the case against the broadcast of the telefilm. According to a special correspondent’s report in the Hindu (13 Dec. 2002), the Delhi High Court has stayed the broadcast of the Zee telefilm. Counsels for the accused in the 13 December attack argued that the film vitiated their clients’ right to a fair trial and that could prejudice the outcome of the case. According to the correspondent, the film was made in 16 days and based on the police chargesheet. The counsel said that the film based on one version of the events "amounts to a pronouncement of the accused’s guilt, which they have no right to do." A Zee representative says that his channel accepted the police version. In this article, I am making the same point that the counsel for the accused made before the High Court. It is wrong for Zee to say that they accepted the police version. It must wait for the court verdict and then accept it or contest it in a court of law again and not in the people’s court or media court.
The Times of India (10 December, 2002) carries an article by Ram Jethmalani, a former Union Law Minister and a very senior advocate of the Supreme Court, in defense of the Hindujas who have appointed him as their defense counsel. On 29 Nov. 2002, he made a motion in the Supreme Court asking for an early hearing of an appeal made by the state and for the stay of the case scheduled to start a few days later. On the same day, Jethmalani says, a scurrilous article had appeared in one of the newspapers. He does not name the newspaper nor does he say if it is about the case against the Hindujas. One has to assume that Jethmalani’s TOI article is a rejoinder to that article which he should have sent to the same anonymous newspaper. I do not understand TOI’s compulsion in accepting a rejoinder to an article it did not publish.
Then he goes on to show how one of the Hinduja companies, the McIntyre Corporation, made payments but not for the supply of Bofors guns. The payments were made under a contractual agreement that existed from the 70s for business outside
Admitted that there has been a miscarriage of justice. Is the Times of India the proper forum to appeal against injustice in the courts? Or is he trying to elevate the Times of India to a parallel tribunal to hear appeals against the judiciary? He, as a veteran jurist, knows that a newspaper or any other non-judicial body has little power to expedite the trial. The obvious conclusion is that he wants with the help of the media to influence judicial inclinations. It is unethical by any standards that having submitted a case to the judiciary, one should discuss its pace outside that forum. Jethmalani could use his professional skills to impress upon the judges the need to expedite the case. He could even point out that delay itself is a negative form of judgement.
Let us forget about the contempt of court law or even the injunction against discussing matters sub judice. To me, it looks like Jethmalani is appealing to the Times of India because the court is not going the way he wanted it should. I am also at a loss to see the relevance of an article in ‘one of the newspapers’ he referred to at the beginning to his present article in TOI. It is again unethical for the Times to provide crutches to a person whose eminence is enough to weigh with the judiciary. It is the most injudicious use of space that legitimately belongs to that class whose views go unrepresented and unheard in influential forums including the media.
In several issues beginning with 9 December 2002, the Hindu donated space to a series of articles by Anjali Mody for discussing the case pending against the accused in the 13 December blast in Parliament. The last of the first series appeared on the day judgement was due to be delivered. According to her, the POTA court of S.N.Dhingra, examining the innocence or the guilt of the four accused, completed the trial in less than six months, including court recess, at a pace unprecedented in the history of the Indian judiciary. This, in my opinion, is not a very subtle way of imputing motives to the judiciary. (Ironically, the Deccan Chronicle carried an editorial on December 20,2002 commending the designated judge for the very reason Mody condemns him. It says, "The prosecution is entitled to kudos for pursuing the case with remarkable speed and leading it to a successful conclusion in record time.")
One of the accused is a woman who Mody says, is pregnant. The word pregnant is used as a means to evoke reader sympathy and as an alternative to argument, to show how inconsiderate the government is. She forgets that scores of pregnant women are routinely arrested in the country for various offences. Is it wrong solely because the accused woman is JeM 'commander’ Ghazi Babi? She mockingly tells us "it was an attack at the heart of Indian democracy, we are told." She complains that a disinterested media ignored the trial and goes on to discuss the details of the prosecution case, protesting that the accused Afzal was presented before the media. Then she discusses the defense case, in the process erasing the line between defense observations and her own remarks.
Mody is right in protesting the presentation of the accused before the media. It raises several questions. There are norms about publishing names and pictures of victims of rape and juvenile delinquents. However, it is now a regular feature of TV and print media to not only show them but also interview them, sometimes doing the job of a defense counsel and sometimes a prosecutor. For the prosecution to present the accused before anyone but the judge is unpardonable. But can the police force the media to take notice of the accused? The latter need not have, if it was scrupulous.
Now to Jethmalani’s reference to the leakage of the chargesheet to the press. Agreed that such leakage is unethical but why did the press publish the leak? While Mody complains that the trial was unprecedentedly hurried, Jethmalani makes out a case for speeding up the trial proceedings. These contradictions surface at a time when the country is discussing judicial delays and problems of clearing the mountains of pending cases. In the remaining parts of the article, Mody mixes her own remarks with those of the views of the defense. She finds loose links in the prosecution's chain. She mentions some facts the prosecutor had disclosed to the press (leakage, again!) but not to the court. Here both the prosecutor and the press are to blame.
My objection is: why should anyone use the press to defend or prosecute persons whose cases a court is already seized with or why should the press allow itself to be used for this purpose. Mody’s series ending on the day the judgement was to be delivered clearly amounts to setting up a parallel court. In matters of justice, nobody has the right to be heard simultaneously by the courts and the press. All one wants to say could be said before the court takes up a case or after it delivers its verdict. This discipline applies to the common citizen as well as the press. The press cannot encourage a breach of this discipline. It is still free to comment on a judgement or on a miscarriage of justice. I am as against the contempt of court law and its misuse as I am against the misuse of media space to duplicate the process of justice.
Naunidhi Kaur (Frontline 6 December 2002) too makes the same points the defense counsels made in the case of Syed Abdul Rehman Geelani, professor at
The media cherish their independence and must recognize that independence is as essential for the judiciary to deliver justice as it is for the media. Any running commentary on cases pending before a court is likely to prejudice the outcome of the trial. The victims in such an event sometimes could be the very same persons the media are trying to defend or prosecute. The editors are familiar with pressures from the public relations and advertising industry to smuggle viewpoints into the media. They must see that the judiciary is free from such pressures.
(New Delhi): The first major study into India's legal judgements on death penalty cases has revealed that the system is riddled with fatal flaws and that the only remedy is to abolish the death penalty completely, said the study authors in New Delhi today.
Amnesty International believes that at least 140 people have been sentenced to death in 2006 and 2007. According to the latest available official figures, there were 273 persons on death row as of 31 December 2005. But this figure is likely to be considerably higher today.
The fate of these death row prisoners is ultimately a lottery. In the first comprehensive analysis of around 700 Supreme Court judgements on death penalty cases over more than 50 years, the authors expose a judicial system that has failed to meet international laws and standards relating to the death penalty.
It is the first to examine the essential unfairness of the death penalty system in
• the administration of the death penalty in
• on the contrary, there is ample evidence to show that the death penalty has been an arbitrary, imprecise and abusive means of dealing with defendants.
Dr V Suresh, President, PUCL (TN & Puducherry) said: "While the death penalty continues to be used in
Amnesty International welcomes the current hiatus of executions in the country. The relative lack of executions in the last decade -- one in 2004 -- illustrates that the people of
"Or it can continue to hang death row inmates, when the judicial system that puts them there has been shown by this extensive research to be unfair," said Mukul Sharma, Amnesty International-India Director.
The full report is available at http://www.amnesty.org/en/report/info/ASA20/007/2008 and a summary, at http://www.amnesty.org/en/report/info/ASA20/006/2008
The study of the courts highlights some of the main failings as:
- Errors in consideration of evidence - most death sentences handed down in
are based on circumstantial evidence alone. In a 1994 Supreme Court appeal, the Court noted sarcastically that the main witness's memory constantly improved. His testimony at the trial three years after the incident was observed to be far more detailed than his confessional statement recorded a few days after. India
- Inadequate legal representation - concerns included lawyers ignoring key facts of mental incompetence, omitting to provide any arguments on sentencing, or failing to dispute claims that the accused was under 18 years of age at the time of the crime despite evidence to the contrary.
- Anti-terrorist legislation - concerns include the broad definition of `terrorist acts', insufficient safeguards on arrest, and provisions allowing for confessions made to police to be admissible as evidence.
- Arbitrariness in sentencing - in the same month, different benches of the Supreme Court have treated similar cases differently, with mitigating factors taken into account or disregarded arbitrarily.
- In the Bachan Singh judgment of 1980, the Supreme Court ruled that the death penalty should be used only in the "rarest of rare" cases. More than a quarter of a century later, it is clear that through the failure of the courts and the State authorities to apply consistently the procedures laid down by law and by that judgment, the Court's strictures remain unfulfilled.
A total of 135 countries have abolished the death penalty in law or in practice, having realised executions are unacceptable. In 2007, only 24 countries carried out executions (
Judicial nepotism rampant in India
April 12, 2007 by CyberGandhi
In the first step in the fight against judicial nepotism, the Law Ministry wrote to the Bar Council of India last month asking it to ensure that lawyers don't appear in cases before judges who are close relatives. However, it appears to have ignored the wider problem of what is called Son Stroke or Uncle Judge, where judges have close relatives practising in the same court.
NDTV discovered that this trend, where two judges or a group of judges have children practising in each other's courts, is widespread. While not everyone takes advantage of what has been described as a mutual cooperative society, many of them do. This problem first surfaced in 2003, when the Bar Council of
A year later, BK Roy, then Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, issued an administrative order barring a group of 10-12 judges from hearing any case pleaded by each other's relatives.
He quoted eminent jurist HM Seervai: "Experience shows that an impression is created in the public, however unjustified it may be, that it would be advantageous to engage a judge's son as an advocate."
"It was generally believed that A, B, C and D (all judges) constituted a mutual co-operative society, in the sense was believed that each of the four judges (A, B, C and D) would protect the sons of the three other judges."
The order sparked off a protest by judges in
"Some relatives misuse their connections more blatantly than others, but the problem remains in principle. An especially acute feature of problem of nepotism as it exists here is that apart from relatives of high court judges, children of sitting Supreme Court judges from this region also practise here at Chandigarh."
"The advantages, the benefits that accrue to them from their connections is well known to all and is fully exploited," said Anupam Gupta, Senior Advocate, Punjab & Haryana High Court.
Recently an MP raised the issue of judicial nepotism again and claimed that out of 490 judges of the various High Courts and the Supreme Court, relatives of 131 judges are practising in the same court.
Finally, four long years after the issue was first raised by the Bar Council, the Law Ministry issued a directive. But it was confined to saying that no lawyer shall plead a case before a judge who is a close relative.
It completely skirts the issue of close relatives of a judge practising in the same court - the Uncle Judge or Son Stroke syndrome.
"There are complaints from all over the country that judges' children are practising in the same high court and that is causing grave problem in regard to handling of cases and the judges favouring and one judges son appearing before another judge," said M N Krishnamany, President, SC Bar Association.
Judges are, in fact, expected to follow a code of conduct which points out that: "Close association with individual members of the Bar, particularly with those who practise in the same court, shall be eschewed."
But is this distance really possible?
"If your son, brother or sister is practising in the same court, you can't eschew close association with your son, daughter or brother."
"Therefore, you should not be a judge in the same court; you should opt to be transferred to some other court where a close relative is not practising," said Prashant Bhushan, Member, Committee on Judicial Accountability.
However, as figures show, this is clearly not the trend.
In the Punjab & Haryana High Court, the relatives of eight sitting judges plead cases, while in
Also senior lawyers feel that the children of judges are often favoured.
"That instances have come that a relation of a judge having joined only three four years in the practise suddenly his briefs are huge in number so that is what it is under scrutiny because he takes advantage of his position," said Jaganath Patnaik, President, Bar Council of India.
"It is very clear also as I know personally so many judges in the High Courts their children are practising and are being pampered also," said M
The public impression is that in order to get a favourable order, it's better to hire a close relative of a judge to plead your case.
Now the questions that remain to be answered are can the Bar Councils keep a check on this practise and is the Law Ministry seriously concerned about ending nepotism?
INDIAN JUDICIAL & LEGAL SYSTEM INDIRECTLY IN THE CLUTCHES OF MAFIA
people who have suffered injustices are not getting justice due to lack of evidences & government reports , records to prove their case.
CORRUPTION IS THERE RIGHT FROM
GRAVEYARD , THROUGHT THE WALK OF ONE'S LIFE.
The corrupt public servants are more cruel , damaging criminals than our previous british oppressors or dawood ibrahim & other under world dons. The gravest threat , damages to
Recently , we have seen in the media , how people of bihar meated out mob justice to a criminal , that will be the fate of corrupt police , doctors , other officials in the future. But the violence is not the answer , that will only lead towards anarchy. We must establish true democracy of bapuji's dreams , true freedom , equality for all in practice for which so many of our fore fathers , freedom fighters sacrificed their life for.
THE ANSWER LIES IN ACCOUNTABILITY OF PUBLIC SERVANTS , ALL CONSTITUTIONAL FUNCTIONARIES INCLUDING JUDGES , TO THEIR PAY MASTERS - MONARCHS OF DEMOCRACY ie CITIZENS OF DEMOCRATIC INDIA. Hope this will dawn on our public servants that they are PUBLIC SERVANTS NOT PUBLIC MASTERS.
var irr_lang = 'en';
Edited, printed , published owned by NAGARAJ.M.R. @ #LIG-2 / 761,HUDCO FIRST STAGE ,OPP WATER WORKS , LAXMIKANTANAGAR , HEBBAL ,MYSORE - 570017 INDIA … cell :09341820313
home page : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/naghrw, http://groups.google.co.in/group/hrwepaper/,
http://evoiceofhumanrightswatch.wordpress.com/ , http://indiapolicelaw.blogspot.com/ , http://hrwpaper.blogspot.com/ , http://naghrw.tripod.com/evoice/ ,
contact : firstname.lastname@example.org , email@example.com
A member of AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL INDIA