Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

My letter dated 7th March, 2011 addressed to Legal Luminaries Shri Shanti Bhusan

Expand Messages
  • Milap
    My letter dated 7th March, 2011 addressed to Legal Luminaries Shri Shanti Bhusanji; and Shri Prashant Bhusanji, both R/O of B-16, Sector 14, Noida- 201301 was
    Message 1 of 1 , Sep 28, 2011
    • 0 Attachment

      My letter dated 7th March, 2011 addressed to Legal Luminaries Shri Shanti Bhusanji; and Shri Prashant Bhusanji, both R/O of B-16, Sector 14, Noida- 201301 was posted in the Website of Judicial Reform in India, and suddenly its administrator received legal Notice for defamation compensation of Rs.75 Crores. My posting and subsequent posting can be read from the following URL:- http://www.judicialreform.in/forums/showthread.php?tid=235

      However, some of postings are in reverse directions are posted below:-


      Today, 11:27 AM (28/09/2011)

      Post: #11


      Posts: 5
      Joined: Feb 2011
      Reputation: 0
      Warning Level: 0%

      RE: Corruption in Superior Judiciary

      In the aforesaid Contempt Proceeding the Advocate of the Sanjay Kumar Jhunjhunwala obtained Rule by filing false affidavoit that I refused to receive Notice. In fact the clerk of his advocate came to my residence, claiming himself from Income Tax Office, when I was not present at my residence. My wife ask him to note down his address, so on the next day I would collect such notice from him. The Clerk written his true name but given his false address, recording address of Income Tax Department. This was one reason, besides some other knowingful false statement made by Mr. Jhunjhunwala, I filed application u/S-340 of Cr. P. C. and on pleading from my counsel Hon'ble Mr. Justice Shyamal Sen Passed the Order for analogus hearing of both the matters (Contempt Petition as well as my Application u/S-340 Cr. P. C.).


      Today, 10:27 AM (28/09/2011) My letter to Advocates of Sanjay Kumar Jhunjhunwala:-

      Post: #10


      Posts: 5
      Joined: Feb 2011
      Reputation: 0
      Warning Level: 0%

      RE: Corruption in Superior Judiciary

      My Letter through EMail to Ms. Swatii Agarwal and her Legal Firm Fox and Mondal with copy to Shri Anil Gidwani:-

      (swati.agarwal@..., calcutta@... Cc: akhanda@... contains attachments3 Files (545KB)

      Respected Ld. Ms. Swati Agarwal, Advocate,

      I have read your undated legal Notice to Mr. Anil Gidwani, 459/10, 24th Road, Mumbai - 400050. from which you have given impression that the defamation Suit filed by your client being No. C. S. No.244 of 1990 (Sanjay Jhunjhunwala vs. Milap Choraria & Ors.), and subsequent Contempt Proceedings are still pending, while I was informed by Income Tax Department in writing that aforesaid Defamation Suit was withdrawn by your client.
      If the aforesaid Defamation Suit along with aforesaid Contempt Proceeding (which was ordered to hear analogously along with my application under Section 340 of Cr. P. C.) are still pending, I am very much interested to contest them. I am giving instructions to collect true position of the same, inable to take appropriate steps in the matter.
      But for your kind knowledge, I am submitting hereby two Legal Notices (similar notices are being under preparation to serve) served by me upon State of West Bengal and another Union of India as well as List of Dates attached to them are posted hereby for your kind notice to know true facts, which is your duty as an advocate, under Advocates Act. Copies of the aforesaid legal Notices are also posted to Mr. Sanjay Kumar Jhunjhunwala.

      Since your aforesaid legal Notice appears to be undated, as such it is presumed that the same is only sent after my aforesaid Notices, receipt by your client.

      Milap Choraria


      Yesterday, 06:19 PM (Legal Notice from Advocate of Sanjay Kumar Jhunjhunwala)

      Post: #9


      Posts: 2
      Joined: Sep 2010
      Reputation: 0

      RE: Corruption in Superior Judiciary

      Here is legal notice:

      Mr. Anil Gidwani, akhanda@...

      459/10, 24th Road,

      Mumbai - 400050.

      Dear Sirs,

      Re. : Defamatory statements in respect of Mr. Sanjay Jhunjhunwala

      We are acting on behalf of Mr. Sanjay Jhunjhunwala inter alia working for gain at 4A, Nand Lal Basu Sarani, Kolkata – 700 071, India and have received instructions from him to address you under the following circumstances :-

      Our client is the Group CEO of a reputed group of real estate companies in Kolkata, India known as "Mani Group of Companies". The Mani Group of Companies has a total turnover of over Rs. 75 crores in the financial year 2010-11. He is known to be at the helm of affairs of the Mani Group of Companies and is a public figure. Our client is a man of some reputed and standing in the society.

      Our client's attention has been drawn to various statements/articles published in the website, owned and/or hosted by you particulars whereof are contained in Annexure "A" hereto. Copies of the publications which appear on the said website is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure "B". All such statements and articles were issued apparently and/or posted by one Mr. Milap Choraria also known as Mr. Milap Chand Choraria.

      Please note that our client had instituted, a suit in the High Court at Calcutta against the said Mr. Milap Choraria for defamation of our client being C. S. No.244 of 1990 (Sanjay Jhunjhunwala vs. Milap Choraria & Ors.). By an order dated 1st April, 1991 passed in the said suit, the said Mr. Milap Choraria was specifically restrained from publishing any defamatory statements concerning our client either orally or in writing. Copy of the said order dated 1st April 1991 is enclosed hereto and marked as Annexure "C". The said Mr. Milap Choraria however, in deliberate willful and contumacious violation of the said order made further defamatory publication which resulted in initiation of contempt proceeding against him in the High Court at Calcutta and issuance of contempt rule against him. The contempt proceedings are pending till date.

      It however appears that you have now published at the instance of the said Mr. Milap Choraria the defamatory statements concerning our client and/or the Mani Group of Companies in the publications which have been enclosed herewith. The statements contained in the said publications and/or such other publications as may have been published on your website are false and defamatory of our client. The statements have been falsely and maliciously written and published by the said Mr. Milap Choraria and/or caused to be written and published by him of and concerning our client.

      By the words and/or publications made by the said Mr. Milap Choraria and published on your website, Mr. Milap Choraria meant and was understood to mean:-

      a) Our client is a member of the mafia involved in activities concerning land.

      b) Our client is a criminal and has acted in connivance with railway officers.

      c) Our client had incorrectly exercised control over Mr. Jyoti Basu and had misutilized the powers of the then Chief Minister, who abused his authority at the instance of our client.

      d) Our client had plotted to kill the said Mr. Milap Choraria.

      e) Our client acts in connivance with the police authorities.

      f) Our client had incorrectly filed a civil suit and has obtained an order from the High Court at Calcutta which is illegal and that this order was obtained by filing false affidavit of service.

      g) Public servants from the Income Tax Department have leaked information concerning the said Mr. Milap Choraria, at the behest of our client.

      h) Our client has hatched a criminal complaint to arrest the said Mr. Milap Choraria, put him in jail custody and thereafter have him murdered in jail.

      i) Charge sheet has been filed against the said Mr. Milap Choraria incorrectly at the instance of our client.

      Our client has thereby been greatly injured in his credit character and reputation. The statements contained in the said website are all untrue. The said publications are falsely and maliciously published and were caused to be published by you at the instance of Mr. Milap Choraria. This has humiliated and scandalized our client in the eyes of public and also before public institutions. The statements constitute great offence upon our client.

      We therefore call upon you to let us know whether you are prepared –

      (a) To immediately remove the offending publications from the website hosted and/or owned by you.

      (b) To issue a suitable withdrawal and/or apology in terms of and approved by us on behalf of our client.

      © To give us your assurance and undertaking in writing that you will not publish and/or host on your website such allegations and/or publications and/or articles concerning our client.

      Our client has suffered loss damage and prejudice by reason of the said defamatory statements which have been published by you as above and is entitled to compensation reasonably assessed at Rs. 75,00,00,000/-. Our client is entitled to such sum for lowering his reputation.

      We must ask you to let us have a reply within three days of this letter. In the event, the offending publications containing the said defamatory statements of and/or concerning our client and/or other such similar statements which may have been published or appearing on your website concerning our client are not withdrawn within such period, our client will understand and proceed on the basis that you have published the said articles and/or statements at the instance of the said Mr. Milap Choraria with intent to falsely and maliciously defame our client. In the meantime, it must be clearly understood that our client reserves all his rights in the matter.

      Yours faithfully,

      Enclo. : As above Fox & Mandal

      Ms. Swati Agarwal
      Fox & Mandal,
      Solicitors & Advocates,
      12, Old Post Office Street,
      Kolkata - 700 001, India.

      Tel : + 91 33 2248 4843/ 8970/ 8565/ 8486
      Fax : + 91 33 2248 0832
      Email : swati.agarwal@... (Per) / calcutta@... (Off)

      Offices also at : Bangalore / Bhubaneshwar/ Chandigarh/ Chennai/ Hyderabad/ Mumbai/ New Delhi/ Pune
      International Offices : Dhaka (Bangladesh)/ London (UK)


      Yesterday, 10:59 AM (This post was last modified: Yesterday 11:13 AM by milapchoraria.)


      Post: #8


      Posts: 5
      Joined: Feb 2011
      Reputation: 0
      Warning Level: 0%

      RE: Corruption in Superior Judiciary

      Please also read the details about my victimisation, under such Nexus:-

      The respective List of Dates are posted in Legal Notices served Without Prejudice to any Court Proceeding, under Section 80 of Civil Procedure Code (C.P.C.), read with Article 14 and 19(1) of the Constitution of India, upon State of West Bengal and to Union of India, with copies including Sanjay Kumar Jhunjhunwala.


      Yesterday, 10:57 AM (Correspondence with Sri Anil Gidwani)

      Post: #7


      Posts: 5
      Joined: Feb 2011
      Reputation: 0
      Warning Level: 0%

      RE: Corruption in Superior Judiciary

      Respected Anil Gidwaniji,

      Kindly send me copy of the Legal Notice received from the advocates of Mr. Sanjay Jhunjhunwala, inable to make my further comments, because in my posting noting is false, but based on complete truth, and if you dont want to support the Truth, you can remove my posting.

      With Best Regard,
      Milap Choraria

      Milap Choraria: National Convenor : Movement for Accountability to Public (MAP)

      --- On Mon, 9/26/11, ji_admin wrote:

      From: ji_admin
      Subject: Defamation warning
      To: milap_choraria@...
      Date: Monday, September 26, 2011, 8:36 PM


      ji_admin from Judicial Reform in India has sent you the following message:
      Dear Mr. Choraria,

      We regret to inform you that we have received a legal notice from the advocates of Mr. Sanjay Jhunjhunwala regarding comments published by you in your post on this forum at


      Since the matter is subjudice, and some one has a prima facie valid objection to contents posted by you on this website, I must call upon you, as administrator of the website, to delete the offending contents/entire post within a period of two days from now, that is by September 26, 2011 at 8:35 pm IST, failing which I will be constrained to delete your entire post and issue you a forum warning.

      Please do let me know if you have any questions.

      Best regards,
      Anil Gidwani

      Thank you,
      Judicial Reform in India Staff

      Corruption in Superior Judiciary


      03-10-2011, 07:21 AM

      Post: #1


      Posts: 5
      Joined: Feb 2011
      Reputation: 0
      Warning Level: 0%

      Corruption in Superior Judiciary

      B-5/52, Sector-7, Rohini, New Delhi-110085
      Website: http://milapchoraria.tripod.com/msp / E-Mail: milap.choraria@...
      Dated: 7th March, 2011
      Subject : Corruption in Superior Judiciary,

      Legal Luminaries Shri Shanti Bhusanji; and
      Shri Prashant Bhusanji, "prashant bhushan" ,
      both R/O of B-16, Sector 14, Noida- 201301

      Respected Sirs,

      This letter of mine is to express my unflinching support in your endeavor/campaign to get the Superior Judiciary cleansed from Corruption, for which both of you are even being driven to face the Contempt Proceedings. This support is based on my personal experience of the Corruption prevailing in the Superior Judiciary and is based on facts and complete truth, and hence it cannot be disputed for its veracity. The well known legal personality and a former solicitor general of India Shri Harish Salve, on Jan 1, 2011, expressed his views online: (SC must demonstrate will to correct itself - The Times of India http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india...rPyj0st):- "SC must demonstrate will to correct itself.". If I am not wrong he was the initiator for the aforesaid Contempt proceedings against Luminary Shri Prashant Bhusanji. While, my experiences are inclined to strongly suggest that in violation of the constitutional duties, some judges of the Supreme Court were also embraced by a sense of strong egoism, which is no less than a prelude to corrupt practice.

      The Contempt of Court Act, 1971 made interalia following provision to describe an act as Contempt of the Court. Section 4: (Fair and accurate report of judicial proceeding not contempt), provides that "Subject to the provisions contained in section 7, a person shall not be guilty of contempt of court for publishing a fair and accurate report of a judicial proceeding or any stage thereof", and Section 5: (Fair criticism of judicial act not contempt), provides that "A person shall not be guilty of contempt of court for publishing any fair comment on the merits of any case which has been heard and finally decided", and Section 16: (Contempt by judge, magistrate or other person acting judicially), provides that "(1) Subject to the provisions of any law for the time being in force, a judge, magistrate or other person acting judicially shall also be liable for contempt of his own court or of any other court in the same manner as any other individual is liable and the provisions of this Act shall, so far as may be, apply accordingly." In view of the aforesaid provisions and in view of the Affirmation of Oath fixed under Article 124(6) of the Constitution of India, any statement based on truth cannot be described as Contempt of Court, if made with regard to the Judicial Performance conducted by the Judges of the Supreme Court. This we are fighting for the past several years. Shri Soli Sorabjee may recall my sitting for `Fast Unto Death' along with Shri S. D. Sharma of Lok Sevak Sangh, Gandian and Sarvodayee Shri Avadhesh Kumarji, for our demand for the constitution of `Lokpal Institution' to curb the corruption at high levels, including in the judiciary. In the evening of the 2nd day of our Fast Shri Soli Sorabjee, along with Shri Rajmohan Gandhi, Justice Rajinder Sachhar and Renowned Columnist: Shrri Kuldip Nayar, came to site of Fast and requested, persuaded and convinced us to break our Fast. In fact unscrupulous advocates are also responsible for development of the corruption in the Judiciary.

      The issue of the `Corruption in the Judiciary' is also an issue concerning the larger public interests, and thus cannot be muzzled under the threatening provision of Contempt of the Court, which otherwise amounts to protection of the Judicial Wrong doings. Therefore, any matter regarding allegation of corruption against any Judge belonging to the Superior Judiciary is not entitled to be protected by misusing the process of the Contempt of the Court, at the larger cost of reputation of the Fairness of the Judiciary.

      In my view there is a valid ground to differentiate the definition of corruption for the Judges from the Supreme Court from the definition of corruption for any other Public Servant. Since the impact of the Orders/Judgments of the Superior Judiciary, particularly from the Supreme Court at times has the same impact as that of havens. Therefore, it is imperative that it is be gauged by `Purity of Fairness' in its performance. For whatsoever reason, even if the `Purity of Fairness' is affected even by merely 0.0001%, it comes within the ambit of corruption.

      On the barometric scale of my own experiences, I can say that the Supreme Court of India has been converted into a place to provide shelter for powerful Mafia having nexus with Powerful Politicians.

      Before highlighting the matter regarding Corruption in Judiciary, I am also mentioning some very good experiences from the Judiciary as well as from the Advocates. In the year 1983, Justice Anil Sen (as the then he was) of Calcutta High Court, through his colleague Judge(s) got the enquiry done regarding the allegations leveled by me, which I made just by sending the same by Post against one Judicial Officer from Alipore Civil Courts. Resultantly, respective Judicial Officer (the then Munsif Mr. Jayanta Kumar Dasgupta), was dismissed from the judicial service, by Hon'ble Calcutta High Court, as the first such order of dismissal of any Judicial Officer, in the known judicial history of India.

      I was made to live under severe victimization, and constant threats to lives and liberties caused under close Nexus between Kolkata Land Mafia Sanjay Kumar Jhunjhunwala and Shri Jyoti Basu, the then Chief Minister of West Bengal. Under the impact of the personal influence emanating from Shri Jyoti Basu, justice became a nightmare for me in West Bengal, and even at the level of Calcutta High Court. Purely with humanitarian considerations, the renowned Lawyer of Calcutta High Court, Mr. (Name is withheld), being a friend of Shri A. D. Giri and also friend of my friend, took trouble to accompany me along with my aforesaid friend to travel all along from Kolkata to Allahabad and apprised the entire matter of my victimization to the Ex-Solicitor General of India, (during Chandra Shekhar Govt.): Shri A. D. Giri, who in his turn came to Delhi to appoint Mr. Gopal Subramanium, then a Sr. Lawyer of Supreme Court to get prepared and move my matter before the Supreme Court, because they were just concerned with the matter on merits of human (fundamental) rights of the common man like me. Considering my deteriorated financial conditions, Mr. (Name is withheld) and Shri A. D. Giri did not even took any fee from me, as at that point of time, I was no less than just a beggar.

      But thereafter, within 3/4 months under influence from someone: possibly some agent of the said Kolkata Land Mafia, Mr. Gopal Subramanium, with the help of Mr. S. Murlidhar (now Judge in Delhi High Court) played a game plan and betrayed me, even after taking advance fees which was duly receipted. Now a question arises, very much concerning the professional probity, that when Mr. Gopal Subramanium, can betray an individual person like me, then how he can maintain his honesty/probity in the matters of larger public interests, while holding the Important Office of the Additional Solicitor General of India or Solicitor General of India. Certainly there is every doubt that he might also have played somewhere as one of the instruments for the growth of the corruption in the superior judiciary.

      My experience with regard to the corruption in Supreme Court dates back to days when Justice A. M. Ahmadi was CJI. In the year of 1997, Justice A. M. Ahmadi, decided to deprive the Petitioner-in-person like me, and misguided all of his then Colleague Judges, thus without having any Constitutional Powers or Authority, through backdoor and unconstitutionally amended the Constitution, by amending the Supreme Court Rules, thus unconstitutionally assigned the Constitutional Powers of Supreme Court to Supreme Court Registrar(s) to selectively refuse to Register a Writ Petition, if filed against any influential and powerful, committing severe violation of the Six Judge Bench Judgment: (AIR:1950,Sc: 124, Kania CJ, Fazl Ali, Patanjali Sastri, Mahajan, B.K.Mokherjea, And Das JJ.), that: "The Supreme Court is thus constituted the protector and guarantor of fundamental rights, and it cannot, consistently with the responsibility so laid upon it, refuse to entertain applications seeking protection against infringement of such rights"), and postponed the Fundamental Rights to Move Supreme Court by a person like me, in violation of Article 32 of the Constitution of India.

      Owing to my background, I have always acted in furtherance to champion the cause for larger public interests, and had never compromised, for any benefit at the cost of principles and the larger public interests. Since my childhood, I have received Jain Teachings in my breathings from the various Jain Saints including the Universally Renowned Philosopher (as was recognized by the then President of India Dr. S. Radhakrishnan), Coauthor of an important Book with Dr. A. P. J. Kalam, Jain Saint (who was also my grand uncle) Acharya Mahapragnyaji (His Holiness's family name was Nathmal son of Late Tolaram Choraria).

      Some of the Writ Petitions filed by me, if admitted could have resulted in a completely different situation of the Country that has been:-
      When, in 1986 under a plot hatched by the said Kolkata Land Mafia a severe attempt to murder me by inflicting some 42 stab-wounds on my body and again in 1991, after having connived with the Police a Truck Accident was staged to kill my young son of 18 year's age, as a result of which by God's grace who was able to walk again on his own legs, only after undergoing 22 major operations in Kolkata and Delhi, that lasted for about 30 months, and when my number of counsels including the renowned Lawyers, viz. Learned Mr. Bankim Chandra Dutta, Advocate, Ld. Mr. P. K. Ray, Bar-at-law, Ballygunge Circular Road, Kolkata, Ld. Mr. Bhaskar Sen, Bar-at-law, 147, Shyama Prasad Mukherjee Road, Kolkata-700026, Mr. Pradeep Kumar Ghosh, Bar-at-law, 25, Harish Mukherjee Road, Kolkata-700020, Mr. M. R. Chowdhury, Advocate, 12, Old Post Office Street, Kolkata-700001, Smt. Maity Ghosh, Advocate, 12/1, Old Post Office Street, Kolkata-700001, Ld. Mr. C. K. Jain, Solicitors, 7C, Kiran Shankar Roy Road, Kolkata-700001, and several other Advocates were influenced to sabotage the Court proceedings relating to my cases and respective judges were embraced on behalf of the said Kolkata Land Mafia under influence caused on behalf of Shri Jyoti Basu through Mr. Pratap Chatterjee, Bar-at-law (son of Sri Somnath Chatterjee, the then CPI(M) M.P.), and when Mr. Gopal Subramanium, also betrayed me, I was left with no other option, but compelled to take a decision to move my Writ Petitions as Petitioner-in-Person, as and when it became necessary in future.

      In the meantime on 2nd August, 1995, Vohra Committee Report was published on the subject of Politico-Crime-Nexus. Since I was a severe victim of the similar Nexus, and as I had the first-hand experience about the root cause of the Nexus between Politico-Crime-Nexus, as such in the light of severe atrocities inflicted upon me and also in consideration of such root causes behind such situations, I decided to file Public Interest Litigations, which none the less in turn could also help me to protect my own fundamental Rights as well. As such on 9th August 1995, I filed a Writ Petition based on the aforesaid Vohra Committee Report against the Union of India and the Election Commission of India as Public Interest Litigation as Writ Petition (Civil) No.559/95 with interalia following prayers: -
      i) ISSUE direction to Union of India to make appropriate law in compliance of Constitution of India restricting entry of criminals into the politics by participating in the Election process to become the members of Parliament or State Legislative Assembly of any State;
      ii) ISSUE direction to Election Commission of India to evolve a method to restrict the candidature of a person, facing criminal proceedings in any Court of Law, for the Membership of Parliament or State Legislative Assemblies and after due approval from this Hon'ble Court, impose the same for future elections till the Union of India makes Law; as prayed for under prayer No. i) hereinabove.
      under paragraph 14 of the Writ Petition interalia I made following suggestions:-
      a) No person can contest Election for Parliament or State Assembly, if he is accused in any criminal proceedings and Police prima-facie had satisfied with the complaint by filing charge sheet, till he not discharged or acquitted from such criminal case by a Court of Law;
      b) No person can contest Election for Parliament or State Assembly, unless he declares all the properties and business of his family members, before the Law Commission;
      c) The Members of Parliament and / or State Legislative Assemblies should be defined as Public Servants under all criminal laws.

      That on 29th August 1995 I moved the said Writ Petition as Petitioner-in-person before the Hon'ble Chief Justice's Court presided by A. M. Ahmadi, C.J. as then was, and after hearing the same Hon'ble Court, dismissed the said Writ Petition with verbal observations that Court can't do anything in such matter, relating to issue of Policy. But, after few days later Hon'ble Chief Justice's Court presided by A. M. Ahmadi, C.J.I. as then he was, admitted another Writ Petition based on self-same Vohra Committee Report, registered as Civil Writ Petition No.664/95 filed by Mr. Dinesh Trivedy, M. P., (now Union Minister in UPA-2 Government, from Mamta Banerjee's Trinamul Congress Party) and moved by some renowned Lawyers of the Supreme Court, including Sri Shanti Bhusanji and Sri Ram Jethmalani. Admission of such subsequent Writ Petition was not consistent with the prevailing principle of the finality of final order of the Supreme Court, though which in my view also cannot be made applicable in respect of any Writ Petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, which I will explain later on.

      After knowing the facts relating to such admission of another Writ, on 1st December 1995, I filed another Writ Petition (Civil) No. D-18372/95 with prayers interalia that in compliance of clause (4) of Article 32 of the Constitution of India the Jurisdiction of Supreme Court has been seized to dismiss any Writ Petition filed as remedy for enforcement of Fundamental Rights, without hearing on the merit. On 29th January 1996 the said Writ Petition (Civil) No. D-18372/95 was listed for hearing along with the said Civil Writ Petition No. 664/95, Hon'ble Chief Justice's Court presided by A. M. Ahmadi, C.J. as then he was, accepted the argument forwarded by me and observed that they are not dismissing rather disposing off the same by passing judicial order. When the Hon'ble Court was dictating the said order, Learned Mr. Rajiv Dhavan, Sr. Advocate Supreme Court stood up and wanted to know the fate of Third Writ Petition filed by his client and moved by him, on the same issue, Hon'ble Court observed that all other petitions would face the same fate. Then Learned Mr. Rajiv Dhavan, objected it, which was supported by Ld. Mr. Ram Jethmalani, Sr. Lawyer, then Hon'ble Court observed that in such event Mr. Choraria's Petition would also be heard together with all other Petitions relating to the same matter in issue. But, this subsequent order was not found in the certified copy of the Order of the day. As such after going through the said certified copy of the said order, I placed the matter in the notice of the Hon'ble Court by filing Third Writ Petition (Civil) D-2595/96 on 12th February 1996. But, on 11th March 1996 Hon'ble Chief Justice's Court dismissed the Petition, without describing any reason.

      That on 6th December 1995, I filed another Public Interest Litigation as Writ Petition (Criminal) No.3/96, with the interalia following prayers: -
      (i) Issue direction to the Respondent No.1 to 8 (therein) to make their respective Reports and facts lying with their Departments/Sub-ordinates relating to the matters referred under Annexure `D' to `N', before Hon'ble Court for appropriate direction, declaration or order;
      (ii) Issue direction to the Respondent No.6 (therein) (Central Bureau of Investigation) to investigate in the matter referred under Annexure `O' and `P' hereinabove and (to) submit its Report before Hon'ble Court for appropriate direction or declaration or order;
      (iii) Issue direction to the Respondent No.8 (therein) (Calcutta Municipal Corporation) not to issue completion certificate with regards to constructions are made at the Premises No.5/1/1A and 5/1/1B, Cornfield Road, Calcutta, till final hearing of the Writ Petition.

      The said Writ Petition, was also Public Interest Litigation, but due to lack of experiences, I submitted in Paragraph 6 in the 4th line at page 14 of the Petition, interalia that "The I crave leave to file a separate Writ Petition for appropriate reliefs for himself (myself therein) as such for the brevity he is not mentioning all details relates to his victimization, but just to support his pleadings he annexed herewith the photo-copies of the following communications without their annexures,". When on 19th January 1996 Writ Petition was listed before the Hon'ble Court presided by G. N. Ray J, as then he was, and after hearing of the same G. N. Ray J, observed that this leave appears that the matters referred in the Writ Petition have been clubbed the matters of the public interest with the matter of infringement of my own fundamental rights, and observed and advised that I should withdraw my Writ Petition to file a fresh Writ Petition. In considerations of such observations I withdrew my said Writ Petition to file a fresh.

      That on 7th February 1996 I filed a Public Interest Litigation being Writ Petition (Civil) No. 151/96 with the prayers interalia as follows: -
       MAKE, necessary Rules under sub-clause (c )
      q Under Clause (1) Under Article 145 for filing of Writ Petition definable as "appropriate proceedings" of the Civil in nature in compliance of clause (1) of Article 32 to ensure that the right to remedy for enforcement of the Fundamental Rights is guaranteed and to ensure the hearing of the matters relating to violation of Fundamental Rights on merit'
       ISSUE, directions to the STATE to
      q make appropriate change and/or amendment in law within one year as suggested under Schedule "A" therein drafts of the amendments or change, or replacements of the following Laws were referred under Schedule of the Writ Petition: -
      a) Representatives of People Act;
      b) Section 197 of Criminal Procedure Code;
      c) Official Secrets Act
      d) A New Model of Civil Procedure Code
      e) Rules under Sub-Clause (c ) Clause (1) of Article 145 of the Constitution of India to define "appropriate proceedings for Civil Reliefs"

      That with regards to detailed "New Model of Civil Procedure Code' I am submitting here that in 1983, under my own original thoughts, based on practical study through records of more than 250 Civil Cases, I innovated a new Model of Civil Procedure Code and forwarded to the then Law Minister of India Shri Asok Sen, by Registered Post. Then on 3rd March 1995 I also forwarded it to A. M. Ahmadi, CJ, as then he was, by Registered Post. I have also mentioned the respective draft of a New Model of Civil Procedure Code in detail in my said Writ Petition. On 29th March 1996 upon hearing of the Petition Hon'ble Chief Justice's Court presided by A. M. Ahmadi C.J. as then he was, observed that I has done a very good work and advised me to forward my model of new Civil Procedure Code to the Chairman of the Law Commission of India, even mentioning reference of such observations. I forwarded the same by Letter dated 6th June 1996 by Registered Post to the Hon'ble Chairman of the Law Commission of India. However, in the said Writ Petition Order was also passed indicating that Hon'ble Chief Justice of India Administrative Side will consider the matter regarding procedures for PIL's, although such order was not having any relevance with the Writ Petition. However, now Information collected under Right to Information Act, it transpires that the said petition was never seen in future by the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India Administrative Side. It also transpires that during the same period (possibly impressed from my suggestion) Justice Ahmadi appointed a Committee headed by Sri Abhishek Manu Singhvi to made recommendations on the same issue regarding Civil Procedure Code and then he along with said Sri Abhishek Manu Singhvi, also wrote an article, which was published in a Law Magazine of USA. But, information collected under RTI Act, no record was available about appointment of such Committee and nor anything about such article, indicating that everything was conducted at the private level, while at the same time advising me to send my aforesaid suggestion to the Law Commission of India which was not at all fair, when Justice Ahmadi himself was active on the same issue at the same time.

      That on 20th March 1996, I filed a Petition before the Election Commission of India that in consideration of Article 324 (1) read with Article 326 of the Constitution "Commission invite following information on oath or affirmation from the intending candidates for such elections to furnish along with nomination papers: -
      (a) Whether any Criminal Proceeding in any Court of law is pending? if yes ; please state:
      (i) Name of the Police Station, within Constituency or outside the Constituency ;
      (ii) Number of Crime in respective Police Station?
      (iii) Date of Crime according to F.I.R. registered in Police Station ?
      (iv) reference of law under which crime is registered ?
      (b) Whether, Charge Sheet is filed by the investigating authority in the above referred Crime Number? If, yes, please state: -
      (i) Name of the Court, in which charge sheet is filed?
      (ii) Number of the Crime Registered in the Court?
      (iii) Date of Charge Sheet?
      (iv) Reference of Law under which Charge Sheet is filed?
      © The present status of the proceedings?
      (d) If the Criminal Proceedings are pending more than one, similar informations should be provided in respect of each such proceeding."
      After receipt of the said Petition Election Commission, in 1998 issued a Notification asking the intending candidates to give certain details with reference to criminal cases, if pending or disposed off against them.

      That in considerations of the proceedings held in the aforesaid Writ Petitions, on 15th May 1996 I filed Writ Petition (Civil) No. D-8304/96, in which Justice Ahmadi was made as Respondent. On the same day i.e. 15th May 1996 I also filed another Writ Petition (Civil) No. D-8305/96 praying therein interalia to issue Directions upon the Election Commission of India interalia to suspend and / or withheld the name of any person from the Electoral Rolls, if he is an accused in any Criminal Proceeding and Investigating Authority Prima-facie satisfied about his crime by filing Charge Sheet, till he will be not declared innocent person by a Court of Law, immediately after such information about such Criminal Proceedings received by the Commission. (Ironically, similar recommendations are now being made by the present CECI)

      That in consideration of withdrawal of my said earlier Writ Petition (Criminal) No.3/96 from the Hon'ble Court, under the aforesaid observations made on 19th January 1996 by Justice G. N. Ray, on 21st May 1996 I filed a fresh Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 8495/96, with object to get restored my Rights to Remedies against blackmailing activities run by the said Kolkata Land Mafia and his associates, with interalia following prayers: -
      a) ISSUE, directions to the Respondent Nos. 1 to 8 (as named therein) to take corrective measures in respect of all illegal Orders, Directions, Notifications, Contracts, Agreements, Sanction or otherwise issued in favour of any of the Company of the Respondent (therein) No.9 his relations or associates under the signature of any authority of the Respondent (therein) No.1 to 8 by disobeying the directions of the law for the pecuniary advantage of the Respondent (therein) No.9;
      b) ISSUE, directions to appoint an Court Commissioner to go through all documents relating to all matters referred in the Writ Petition and submit its report before the Hon'ble Court with the list of the Public Servants who are responsible for the disobedience of the directions of the Law for appropriate directions by the Hon'ble Court;

      That as per my knowledge withdrawal of earlier Writ Petition (Criminal) No.3/96 without any contest was liable to be termed as non-exist/non-est or non-filed. As such, when I filed, fresh Writ Petition (Criminal) No.D-8495/96, I did not mention any reference with regards to withdrawal of the said Writ Petition (Criminal) No.3/96, nor I made any false statement. Writ Petition (Criminal) No.D-8495/96 should have been listed before the same Court, wherefrom earlier Writ Petition was withdrawn. But, the said Writ Petition was listed before the Court headed by Dr. A. S. Anand, J. as then his Lordship was. In another Writ Petition (Civil) No. D-8304/96 A.M.Ahmadi, C.J., as then he was, was made sole respondent, which was dismissed on 5th August 1996 along with Writ Petition (Criminal) No.D-8495/96, by a bench headed by Dr. A. S. Anand, J. as then his Lordship was. Hence, Judicial Fairness in the Supreme Court as a matter of deep and fair study, is the need of the hour.

      To cite the matter of severe corruption in the Supreme Court, I may be allowed to refer matter regarding unconstitutionally refusal to register my Writ Petition © No.D-22474/2003, filed on 29.10.2003, with supporting documentary evidences, with references to atrocities suffered by me, and for restoration of my fundamental rights, which were infringed severally due to the aforesaid Nexus. I filed the said Writ Petition, interalia with the following prayers, for issuance of writ or writs of certiorari or Mandamus or any other appropriate decree, writ, declaration, direction or order interalia holding that:
      a) Jurisdiction and powers of the Supreme Court including the powers of interpretation in respect of Part III of the Constitution of India is clearly and exclusively referred, defined, derived, vested and can be inferred from Clause (1), (2) and (4) of Article 32 of the Constitution of India itself and cannot be imported from Chapter IV Part V of the Constitution or from anywhere else;
      b) The Rule 5 Under Order XVIII of the Supreme Court Rules 1966 (substituted by G.S.R. 407 (w.e.f. 20-12-1997) (Petitions generally) is void as far as its applicability in respect of the Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution is concerned.
      c) Item No. 65 under Part –V (Suit Relating to Immovable Property) under the Schedule for the Period of Limitations under section 2(j) and 3 of the Limitation Act, 1963 are completely inconsistent to Part III of the Constitution and under Article 13 of the Constitution should be declared as void;
      The Prayers d) to h) are interconnected with prayers a) to c) and thus I am not reproducing here, while by prayer i) I have taken full responsibility to prove validity of my Writ Petition thus prayed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court that "Upon hearing on merit, if Writ Petition proved as vicious or based on frivolous or contains scandalous matters, Petitioner shall be punished for misuse of rights to remedy."

      The Gist of the Explanation of prayers a) to c), mentioned in the Writ Petition is as under:-
      With regard to Prayer a):-
      That Supreme Court has no powers and jurisdiction to make interpretation under Chapter IV Part V, including Article 147 of the Constitution, particularly with regard to Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution of India, since the powers and jurisdiction of interpretation in respect of Part III of the Constitution of India is separately and exclusively referred, defined, derived, vested and can be inferred from Clause (1), (2) and (4) of Article 32 of the Constitution of India itself, which I have described in detail, in my said Writ Petition.

      For instance one such ground was that `from the language of provision provided under Article 147 of the Constitution it is amply clear that the Supreme Court is empowered to make interpretation with reference "In this Chapter and Chapter V of Part VI, references to any substantial question of law as to the interpretation of this Constitution shall be construed as including references to any substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Government of India Act, 1935"… "or of any Order in Council or order made thereunder, or of the Indian Independence Act, 1947, or of any order made thereunder". From the words "In this Chapter and, Chapter V of Part VI," that Part III of the Constitution is not included in the scope, meaning and ambit of the interpretation under Article 147 of the Constitution.
      Apart from the aforesaid language of Article 147 of the Constitution, from the factual position this is further clear that "The Fundamental Rights" never existed in the Government of India Act, 1935 nor were subject matter of the orders passed by any "Council" whether the word "Council" denotes to British Privy Council or the then Indian Parliament, nor were subject matter of the Indian Independence Act, 1947, which was enacted as per agreement between the Indian National Congress and British Government, based on the proposal of the Cabinet Mission from the British Government, nor it is inferred from any provision that Supreme Court is empowered to change meaning of any provision of the Part III of the Constitution. Therefore, Article 147 of the Constitution does not include the Powers of the Supreme Court to make interpretation of substantial question of Law in respect of the Provisions provided under Part III of the Constitution. Such Power is included in the provision of the Article 32 of the Constitution itself, and cannot be inferred from anywhere else. And that inconsistency or contravention between Article 13 under Part III with Article 147 under Chapter IV of Part V of the Constitution is clearly apparent from the factual position that Article 13 of the Constitution empowers the Supreme Court to declare "All laws in force in the territory of India immediately before the commencement of this Constitution, (means inclusive of the Government of India Act, 1935 and Indian Independence Act, 1947) in so far as they are inconsistent with the provision with the provision of this Part, shall to the extent of such inconsistency, (can) be (declared) void", from which it is amply

      (Message over 64 KB, truncated)

    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.