WhatsApp 91 8970318202
Dalit-Online
Weekly e news paper
Edited, printed , published owned by NAGARAJA.M.R. @ # LIG-2 No 761, HUDCO FIRST STAGE , OPP WATER WORKS , LAXMIKANTANAGAR , HEBBAL
,MYSURU – 570017 KARNATAKA INDIA Cell : 91 8970318202
Home page :
http://eclarionofdalit.dalitonline.in
https://dalit-online.blogspot.com
Contact : editor@dalitonline.in
editor.dalitonline@gmail.com
Crimes @ DOT
Dalit-Online
Weekly e news paper
Editor: Nagaraja.M.R.. Vol.16.....Issue.78................01/11/2020
RTI APPLICATION TO CPIO DEPARTMENT OF TELECOMMUNICATION , GOI NEW DELHI
Refer RTI APPLICATION No :
DGTHQ/R/E/20/00104
We salute honest few in public service , our whole hearted respects to them. HEREBY , I DO HUMBLY REQUEST YOU TO GIVE ME WRITTEN STATEMENTS / ANSWERS TO THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS – WHICH IN ITSELF ( ie answers ) ARE THE INFORMATION SOUGHT BY ME. HERE WITH I AM SEEKING NOT THE OPINIONS ABOUT SOME HYPOTHETICAL ISSUES , BUT YOUR OFFICIAL STAND , LEGAL STAND ON ISSUES WHICH ARE OF FREQUENT OCCURRENCE WHICH ARE VIOLATING PEOPLE’S FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS & HUMAN RIGHTS. WE DO HAVE HIGHEST RESPECTS FOR JUDICIARY & ALL PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS , THIS IS AN APPEAL FOR TRUTH , INFORMATION SO THAT TO APPREHEND CORRUPT FEW IN PUBLIC SERVICE, WHO ARE AIDING & ABETTING TERRORISM , UNDERWORLD & CRIMINALS.
M/s Karnataka Telecables Ltd , Mysore renamed as M/s RPG Telecom Ltd again renamed as M/s RPG Cables Ltd once again renamed as M/s KEC International , Mysore used to manufacture PIJF & OFC telecables and supplied it to department of telecommunications , government of india , Indian Railways and GAIL , PGCIL of Ministry of Petroleum . DOT used to pay hundreds of crores of rupees from public exchequer to buy these cables . There is also one more company by name M/s Concepta Cables Ltd , Mysore belonging to the same industrial group supplying PIJF & OFC telecables to DOT. As a public , as a citizen of india and as a tax payer I want to know whether those crores of rupees from public exchequer are well spent.
1. How many times the above said companies were blacklisted by DOT , Supreme Court of India and other quasi judicial bodies , casewise ?
2. What action taken by DOT & judicial bodies against the above companies , casewise ?
3. How many cable kms of cable supplied by above companies , were rejected by DOT from the field yearwise , since 1986 ?
4. Did the above companies replace all the cables rejected by DOT & make good all the losses , yearwise ?
5. If not , why ?
6. What action taken by DOT , casewise ?
7. How many cable kms of cables supplied by above companies were accepted on deviation by DOT yearwise ? on what basis ?
8. Has the DOT authorised usage of recycled materials in the manufacture of cables ?
9. If yes , on what basis ?
10. Did DOT authorize outsourcing of cable manufacturing process by above companies to third parties , casewise ?
11. How many cable kms of telecom cables supplied by above companies have failed during usage within the warranty period , yearwise ?
12. Did the above companies honour warranty contract in all such cases ?
13. If not why , casewise ?
14. What action by DOT , casewise ?
15. Did KTL / RPG TELECOM / RPG CABLES violate norms laid down by DOT / BSNL , etc ?
16. RPG cables taking orders for cables from government but getting it manufactured in Concepta cables and vice versa, is it legal ? What action by DOT , BSNL , MTNL ,etc ?
16. To my previous rti requests and appeals you gave half truth information to few questions and for most questions you didn't answer. Your denial of information helped crime cover ups and aided criminals to escape & commit more crimes unabated. Crime cover up and aid to crime in itself is one more crime. Why should not you be together with Secretary DOT legally prosecuted for the same.
17. Give me the list of legal actions taken by DOT against Reliance Infocom and Reliance Jio for recovery of public money viz failure to pay switching fees , loss of money due to getting license for data only paying lowest money but getting freebies of voice / telecom service at the cost of data only , rerouting of international calls as local calls , for failure to pay charges for using telecom infrastructure of DOT , BSNL, MTNL.
18. Is license issued to Reliance infocom and Reliance Jio legal ?
19. BSNL, private players like jio levy penalty , interest on post paid telephone subscribers when they make delayed bill payments. After certain period service line itself will be ruthlessly cut. When this is the ground reality why Jio and other private telecom players are given twenty years period by supreme court in addition to discounted rate. Has the DOT submitted an appeal in the Supreme Court of India for the review of it's order ( by Justice Arun Mishra ) regarding AGR dues ?
20. Why not yet DOT stopped providing telecom infrastructure service to defaulting private telecom companies ?
21. Is it not loss to public exchequer ? Beneficiaries ?
Edited, printed , published owned by NAGARAJA.M.R. @ # LIG-2 No 761, HUDCO FIRST STAGE , OPP WATER WORKS , LAXMIKANTANAGAR , HEBBAL
,MYSURU – 570017 KARNATAKA INDIA Cell : 91 8970318202
WhatsApp 91 8970318202
Home page :
http://eclarionofdalit.dalitonline.in
https://dalit-online.blogspot.com
Contact : editor@dalitonline.in ,
editor.dalitonline@gmail.com
Dalit-Online at 5:18 PM
Share
No comments:
Post a Comment
‹
›
Home
View web version
About Me
Dalit-Online
View my complete profile
Powered by Blogger.
Crimes @ RBI
Dalit-Online
Weekly e news paper
Editor: Nagaraja.M.R.. Vol.16.....Issue.77.................25/10/2020
RTI APPLICATION TO CPIO RESERVE BANK OF INDIA MUMBAI
Refer RTI APPLICATION No:
RBIND/R/E/20/04870
HEREBY , I DO HUMBLY REQUEST YOU TO GIVE ME WRITTEN STATEMENTS /
ANSWERS TO THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS - WHICH IN ITSELF ( ie answers )
ARE THE INFORMATION SOUGHT BY ME.
WITH RESPECT TO CASE NO old CC34 / 1989 & NEW NO SC436/1991 AT 21
ST ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS COURT BANGALORE
CHARGE SHEETED OFFICER MR.G.HARIRAM RBI BANGALORE
CHARGE SHEET NO staff no.3698/156/84-85 dt 01.01.1985
Amended charge sheet staff no.3798/156-84/85 dt 08.04.1985
1. Why didn't you notice the alleged crimes of 1977 , 78 & 79 till the
mid of 1979 ?
2. This crime came to light only due to anonymous phone calls of good
Samaritans to authorities , but not due to your inspection . is your
inspection division working properly ?
3. why there is no security check up of officers during entry & exit
out of premises ?
4. why there is no individual weighment , individual statement of
value of bags of reissuable notes & bags of note meant for destruction
, after sorting is done, why they are not tallied with total weight ,
value of notes issued for sorting ?
5. Immediately after noticing the crime, why did not you transfer all
the employees of those sections ?
6. why did not you take steps to preserve3 & protect respective
documents relating to such high profile crime ?
7. why didn't you immediately issue charge sheet to all the accussed &
waited till 1983 ?
8. Why RBI has left out , so many officers ( who worked in the same
sections for more period than accused officers ) from domestic
enquiry ?
9. why CBI also failed to put those people in the charge sheet before
the court ?
10. is it because they were in favorable terms with the vested
interests ?
11. did the CBI dance to the tune of vested interests in RBI while
preparing charge sheet & during investigation , instead of
independent investigation ?
12. those left out probables from the charge sheet might have caused
the destruction of evidences / records. During the course of domestic
enquiry / court proceedings , it has been recorded that some records
have been destroyed. Are not CBI & RBI responsible for destruction of
evidences , aiding true criminals get away ?
13. in normal times , what is the period specified in RBI regulations
for preserving old documents / records ?
14. after noticing such a high profile crime the RBI must have taken
utmost care to preserve such old records for indefinite time , for
producing before courts of law as & when demanded. But it didn't ,
why ?
15. does not this point to connivance of higher authorities of RBI ,
with the criminals ?
16. RBI authorities have conducted domestic mass enquiries , instead
of individual enquiries , is it not detrimental to the rights of
defense ?
17. RBI authorities have stated that court proceedings & domestic
enquiry are independent of each other & are not binding on one
another. However RBI authorities straight away took on record of
domestic enquiry the court statements , evidences , but didn't honour
the order of same court of law ? why this double standard by RBI ?
18. The alleged crime was committed in 1977-79, but charge sheet was
framed in mid 1985 , why this long delay ?
19. didn't this facilitate the masterminds of crime to destroy ,
manipulate evidences ?
20. as stated before court , indeed some records , 22nd currency note
packet were missing , who is responsible for it ?
21. has the CBI conducted enquiry , polygraph test of RBI higher
officers - S.N.RAZDAN , W.S.SARAF , J.P.AWASTHI , J.MITRA & others ,
if not why ?
22. is it not due to inefficiency , negligence of duty by such high
ranking managers , that such a crime occurred in RBI Bangalore ?
23. what disciplinary action RBI has taken against the inefficient ,
negligent higher officials ?
24. whatever internal rules an organization makes must be within the
line of law. If such internal laws of the organization are violative
of law , fundamental rights of employees , such internal rules become
illegal. Are not the way of RBI disciplinary proceedings illegal ?
25. as per RBI pension regulations 1990 , RBI has the right to deduct
any loss caused to the bank , from the pension of RBI employee if the
misconduct of employee is proved in judicial proceedings . even though
mr.G.Hariram came out clean from the court , why RBI has denied his
pension ?
26. judicial courts of law are appellate authorities over & above ,
domestic enquiry committees & judicial orders supersedes the domestic
enquiry proceedings. Still RBI showed contempt of court & didn't
reinstate mr..G.Hariram into service , why ?
27. even if an employee's misconduct causing loss to the bank is
proved , before denying him pension (towards making up loss to the
bank) , previous sanction of the central board of RBI must be taken.
But in mr.G.Hariram's case , pension was denied in full without taking
previous sanction of the central board of RBI , is it not illegal ?
28. RBI alleged that mr..G.Hariram caused loss to the tune of Rs.14000
to the bank & recovered it from his provident fund dues. There was
nothing left over to recover , still RBI completely denied pension to
mr.G.Hariram , why ?
29. ideally, domestic enquiry findings / disciplinary actions should
be completed first , then the employee can appeal to appropriate court
of law. In mr.G.Hariram's case , CBI & RBI failed to prove the charges
in court of law , as a result court discharged him from the charges.
To cover-up it's failures RBI management dragged domestic enquiry much
beyond court orders date & gave findings indicting mr..G.Hariram. does
the enquiry officer of domestic enquiry think that he is over & above
the court of law ? is it not illegal & contempt of court ?
30. ideally , RBI authorities should have appealed to higher court
against lower court order discharging mr.G.Hariram from charges. But
it was not done , why ?
31. did the RBI pay interim relief to mr.G.Hariram , during suspension
period ?
32. the undue delay in filing charge sheet , consequent destruction of
key evidences , dishonour / contempt of court orders , undue haste in
giving findings , dismissal , denial of of pension without central
board's sanction , all point towards criminals within RBI higher
management. What disciplinary action has been taken against
J.P.AWASTHI, S.N.RAZDAN,J.MITRA, W.SARAF & others ? if not why ?
33. why charge sheet was amended? Is it legal ?
34. did the charge sheet was amended to falsely implicate
mr..G.Hariram , by including cancelled note vault in the charge
sheet ?
35. does not this itself show that it is not statement of actual
happenings / facts , but a cunning ploy to mislead investigation
towards fixed innocents from actual criminals ?
36. is it true that that only 5% of sample inspection is done out of
bundled verified defective note packets ?
37. is not the conduct of joint / mass enquiries of all charge sheeted
officers illegal ?
38. how come such an important evidence 22nd note packet went
missing ?
39. is it because it may point towards real criminals ?
40. as per the statement of management witness / inspection head /
expert mr.vijendra rao , the notes of earlier dates have been removed
from packets made into new bundles , right ?
41. as per his statement , entire certificates , seals of some asst
treasurers are there , who didn't work at all on that day is not it ?
42. does not it show that some body else was misusing the seals ,
putting some innocents seals over the notes ?
43. does it not show that , crime has taken place at verification
section ?
44. does it not show involvement of some asst treasurers ?
45. why asst treasurers have not been charge sheeted ?
46. why inspection of RBI Bangalore office was not done between 1975 &
1979 ?
47. is it not true that you failed to produce all records showing
internal inspection / audits , during domestic enquiry & court
proceedings ?
48. your expert mr.vijendra rao has stated that some seal marks are
smudged , he has stated some seal marks appears to be so & so. He has
clearly nowhere stated that this seal mark is exactly this , so he
himself is not 100% sure ?
49. your expert nowhere said that 100% sure this seal mark is this ,
on that day this seal was issued to mr.G.Hariram , isn't it ?
50. your expert says during 1975 , he didn't notice3 any fraud.
However approver says fraud was there before mid 1977 also. Why no
action has been taken ?
51. why you didn't produce all records of all persons , who have
specifically worked in alleged sections , the registers of those
departments with daily activity report containing seal nos , packet
nos , bag nos , etc ?
52. are not their chances of some criminals putting the seal marks of
innocent officers over the notes , bundles , bags , etc ?
53. your expert is not 100% sure of seal mark , your records are not
there to prove the presence of charge sheeted officers in the alleged
sections , neither your expert nor your records are 100% sure on what
date , at what stage , by whom crime was committed , isn't it ?
54. is not the charge sheet amounting to higher ups picking up
officers they dislike & falsely implicating them ?
55. is it not cunning ploy of higher ups to divert attention from
original criminals ?
56. why no action was taken against currency officer of 1977-79
mr.J.Mitra ? why his pension , super annuation benefits were not
withheld ?
57. what is your justification , supporting evidence , records for
picking up only three officers including mr.G.Hariram for legal
prosecution and leaving the majority of probables ?
58. why you have dropped charges against five asst treasurers ? why
you didn't even conduct domestic enquiry against them , let alone
legal prosecution ?
59. Is it RBI's & CBI's way of fair play & justice ?
60. as inly 5% sampling of verified note bundles are done , there are
more possibilities of rebundled packets getting unnoticed in relaxed
95% lot , isn't it ?
61. you have left out so many officers who worked in those sections,
some of whom even became management witnesses , instead of being
charge sheeted by the management, is it fair play & legal ?
62. who are the bank employees , from whom you have recovered the
alleged bank loss of Rs.220000 ?
63. were all of them charge sheeted , enquired , legally prosecuted ,
dismissed & their pension , gratuity withheld ?
64. you don't have any internal statuotary records to prove that
mr.G.Hariram worked in those departments , except a currency officer's
office note dated just on the eve of charge sheet years after the
alleged crime ? does it not prove that this note has been concocted
just to fix mr.G.Hariram ?
65. where as you have records of other officials attendance in those
departments , but not charge sheeted them why ?
66. three officers of staff grade A daily work in three sections out
of 40 officers , why you have picked up only mr.G.Hariram , out of
1095 working days , he has worked for only 223 days in those
sections , still those officers who worked for more days in those
sections are not charge sheeted why ? the approver , the management
expert witness , shift registers , V2 registers , Destruction
certificates , Form CD 55 , etc , nobody , no records were able to say
on what date , at what stage , by whom crime took place , also they
were unable to say on what date at what stage crime was committed by
mr.G.Hariram ? is it not futile imagination , cunning ploy of RBI
higher authorities to fix innocent Mr.G.Hariram ?
67. the management expert witnesses said , the most probable place of
crime is punching / Cancelled Note Vault , incinerator , where asst
treasurers were joint custodians . they were not enquired & let off
why ?
68. the charge sheet alleges extraction / substitution of
defaced note packets. Where as the management expert witness say
substitution of defaced notes only ? is not there difference between
loss of one number of note & 100 number of notes ?
69. as per the normal course of duty , staff officers does not
count notes in each bundles , but they just count the number of
bundles only. Is not there chances of inserted note bundles or bundles
containing less number of notes going unnoticed ? is it not the
failure of statuotary system of work practices ?
70. does not all these prove higher authorities of RBI & CBI
were hell bent to fix mr.G.Hariram & to shield the original
criminals ?
Questions with respect to other cases :
71. how do you monitor the work of bank officials nominated as
directors of companies which have availed bank loans ?
72. how do you monitor the work of companies , in which banks
have invested ?
73. how do you monitor the rapid wealth growth of certain bank
officials , who work in shares investment / equity funds section ,
etc ?
74. inspite of project reports by bank officials , over
assessment of collateral securites / value of debtor companies by bank
officials , the loans become NPAs & full value cann't be realized in
the market by selling off the assets of debtor companies also. In such
cases , what action is taken against erring bank officials who collude
with criminal industrialists for availing higher amount of loan than
permissible ?
75. give bankwise specific figures of NPAs.
76. give names of industrial groups / promoters whose
companies have become NPAs , so that public can be aware of them ,
before investing in new companies promoted by them.
77. is not collection of loan from debtors of bank through
rowdies / recovery agents , illegal ?
78. why not criminal complaints filed against bank mangers for
aiding , abetting rowdism , murdering people ?
79. if your method of employing rowdies to collect loans of Rs.
10000 from commoners is right , what would you do to a promoter of a
debtor company to recover loans of crores of rupees , supari killing ?
but debtors of crores of rupees is let off coolly by banks , why ?
80. what is the exact amount of loss caused to the exchequer
by karim lala telgi who printed fake stamp papers ?
81. what action has been taken against those involved ?
82. have you taken action against all those mentioned by telgi
during narco analysis test , if not why ? is it because they are
powerful & bigwigs ?
83. how you are controlling the illegal finance activities ,
money lending by individuals , pawn brokers & chit fund companies ?
84. how you are monitoring the receipt of public donations ,
foreign donations by many NGOs ?
85. how many erring NGOs , chit fund companies , pawn
brokers , individuals you have booked for illegal finance activities ?
Questions relating to RBI CURRENCY NOTE PRESS MYSORE
86. who were responsible for selling the good printing machine at
security press nasik to scamster karim lala telgi as scrap ?
87. who recruited the candidates below merit rankings in R.B.I for
what criminal roles ?
88. how many irregularities have taken place in R.B.I till date ?
89. who is responsible for installing, operating & supervising the
security set-up in R.B.I ?
90. how the raw materials ie number of paper sheets, ink, etc are
accounted for in inward stores & while issuing for printing ?
91. how wastages, scrap of ink , papers , etc in the printing process
are accounted for?
92. How the finished goods ie currency notes are accounted for ?
93. Who keeps physical figures & possession of goods, inventory of
all the above?
94. How the scrap paper is disposed off ?
95. From security angle who keeps track from start till dispatch ?
96. Give me the merit ranking list of all candidates for the
post of stores assistant in BRBNMPL in the year 1995-96 ?
97. give me the merit ranking list of all candidates for the
post of process assistant at BRBNMPL in the year 1996 ?
98. give me the merit ranking list of all candidates for the
post of process assistants & maintenance assistants at BRBNMPL in the
year 1996-1998 ?
99. is not RBI & BRBNMPL authorities created by statuotary
laws , fully funded by public money ie from government exchequer ?
100. still why BRBNMPL & RBI refused to answer my previous
information request as per RTI Act ? are you afraid that skeletons
will come out of cubboard ?
101. what action initiated against the SBI branch Bangalore & SBI
Overseas branch for loss of cheque / draft amounting to crores of
rupees ? if not why ?
102. give me specific figures bank wise with respect to loss caused
to the bank by loss of cheques or demand drafts , etc ?
103. how RBI is containing crimes of loss of cheques / DDs causing
huge losses to the banks to the tune of crores of rupees ?
104. To my previous rti requests and appeals you gave half truth information to few questions and for most questions you didn't answer. Your denial of information helped crime cover ups and aided criminals to escape & commit more crimes unabated. Crime cover up and aid to crime in itself is one more crime. Why should not you be together with RBI governor legally prosecuted for the same.
Edited, printed , published owned by NAGARAJA.M.R. @ # LIG-2 No 761, HUDCO FIRST STAGE , OPP WATER WORKS , LAXMIKANTANAGAR , HEBBAL
,MYSURU – 570017 KARNATAKA INDIA Cell : 91 8970318202
WhatsApp 91 8970318202
Home page :
http://eclarionofdalit.dalitonline.in
https://dalit-online.blogspot.com
Contact : editor@dalitonline.in ,
editor.dalitonline@gmail.com
Dalit-Online at 5:15 PM
Share
No comments:
Post a Comment
‹
›
Home
View web version
About Me
Dalit-Online
View my complete profile
Powered by Blogger.
Dalit-Online
Weekly e news paper
Editor: Nagaraja.M.R.. Vol.16.....Issue.76................18/10/2020
Is Jagan's Letter CONTEMPT OF COURT ?
https://www.google.com/amp/s/indianexpress.com/article/india/plea-in-sc-seeks-action-against-jagan-over-letter-to-cji-6722748/lite/
The Shaky Scales of Fairness in Contempt Cases of Justice Karnan and Prashant Bhushan
By Kailash Jeenger
Why was Bhushan given repeated opportunities to apologise while a written apology from Justice Karnan was casually brushed aside? Why did the sentences given to both men differ so drastically? Why was civil society vocal in only one matter?
In the recent contempt case against Prashant Bhushan, the way events took shape within and outside the corridors of the Supreme Court was unprecedented. This inevitably reminds us of the contempt case against Justice C.S. Karnan, then a sitting judge of the Calcutta high court. While there were some similarities in the apex court’s approach, certain sections of the Karnan judgment went unnoticed at the time and highlight the difference in approach in the two cases can now be seen.
Let us begin with the similarities, which do the apex court no credit.
At the very initial stage of the contempt proceedings, Justice Karnan addressed a letter to the Registrar General of the Supreme Court on February 10, 2017, requesting that the proceedings begin after the retirement of the then Chief Justice of India, Justice J. S. Khehar, because Justice Karnan had levelled charges of corruption against him (para 18). However, the CJI continued to preside over the bench.
A similar refusal followed Prashant Bhushan’s request that Justice Arun Misra recuse himself from the bench hearing the contempt case.
In both cases, the natural justice principle that no one can be judge in his own cause was ignored. Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 authorising suo motu contempt proceedings also weakens this principle, as in such proceedings the victim, the complainant and the adjudicator is the Supreme Court itself.
If the principle of nemo judex in sua causa was violated in both Bhushan and Justice Karnan’s cases, the latter had to put up with several other anomalies.
Justice Karnan’s apology ignored
First, in a hearing on March 31, 2017 Justice Karnan handed over a signed statement wherein he clearly stated:
“I unconditionally withdraw my complaint dated 23.1.2017 against 20 Hon’ble Judges. … I unconditionally tender an apology before this Court if I committed contempt of Court. I will follow Your Lordship’s advice and guidelines in future in order to maintain the judicial system and its integrity. I will be retiring on 11.6.2017, therefore, I make a deep request to permit me to retire from the Bench with the blessings of all brother and sister Judges of the Calcutta High Court. Hence, I pray Your Lordships to restore my judicial and administrative work and thus render justice and oblige.”
Despite this, the court passed the following order dated March 31 after the hearing:
“… He was repeatedly asked, whether he affirms the contents of the letters, written by him, as are available on the record of the case. He was also asked whether he would like to withdraw the allegations. … He has not responded, in any affirmative manner, one way or the other. We would therefore proceed with the matter only after receipt of his written response. …” (para 27)
Thus, the order did not even refer to the written statement Justice Karnan had submitted. Later, in the final judgment dated May 9, the court explained that he was asked to submit a written response on March 31 because of an inconsistency in his oral and written statements made that day. However, the court’s observation does not explain the context of such reiteration.
Gratuitous reference to ‘mental state’
Second, on the date of next hearing (May 1, 2017), Justice Karnan did not appear in person. That day, the court ordered medical examination to test his mental fitness on the following ground:
“The tenor of the press briefings, as also, the purported judicial orders passed by Shri Justice C.S. Karnan, prima facie suggest, that he may not be in a fit medical condition, to defend himself, in the present proceedings.”
The medical report was to be submitted “on or before May 8”.
However, in the final judgment dated May 9, the bench stated that on May 1, the medical examination was ordered because of the inconsistency in his oral and written statements made during the hearing on March 31. Irrespective of the (inconsistent) justifications put forward by the court, the order of a medical test was primarily meant to undermine the credibility of Justice Karnan’s statements by creating the impression that he is not of sound mind. A day after the order, a psychiatrist wrote an article titled: “Milords, There’s a Difference Between Unsound Mind, Mental Illness and ‘Bad’ Behaviour.” Indeed.
More shocking was the following part of the order dated May 1:
“Shri Justice C.S. Karnan may, if he is so advised, furnish his response to the notice issued to him on 8.2.2017, in the meantime. In case he does not choose to file a response on or before 8.5.2017, it shall be presumed, that he has nothing to say in the matter.”
Notably, the deadline assigned to Justice Karnan and the medical board was the same – May 8, 2017. This raises certain glaring questions. How could the court ask a person whose mental state it had just questioned to file a reply? Why was the court prepared to rely upon such a response before satisfying itself as to his mental fitness? How could the court compel such a person to submit a reply by articulating the presumption?
On one hand, the court ordered his medical examination to ensure that he was able to defend himself, while on the other, the court sought a reply from him in his defence before satisfying itself as to his mental condition to defend himself. This raises the obvious question: Was the court even serious about his mental state?
After interacting with Justice Karnan, the team of doctors was satisfied with his sound mental state and, therefore, reported that medical examination was not necessary (para 28).
The role of ‘evidence’
Third, the court recorded in its final judgment that: “None of the allegations levelled by Justice Karnan were supported by any material.”
At the outset, this observation has nothing to do with contempt proceedings because they do not look for justification of the statements. On the other hand, Justice Karnan repeatedly stated in his letters reproduced in the judgment that he has furnished sufficient proof (para 17) or that material evidence was available in the Registry of the Madras high court (paras 8, 11, 24). Furthermore, the issue of inadequate representation of backward classes and minorities in the higher judiciary, as he raised, is obvious.
No one rupee fine but sentenced to maximum penalty
Fourth, at the conclusion of the proceedings advocate, K.K. Venugopal informed the court that Justice Karnan would retire in the next month and, therefore, urged that the image of the institution would be tarnished in case he was punished for contempt of court whilst he is holding the high constitutional office (para 32). However, the bench sentenced him before he demitted his office, with the maximum punishment that may be awarded under the Act – imprisonment for six months. Justice Karnan became the first judge in Indian history to retire while in jail, on June 11, 2017. The court also passed a press gag order, that is “no further statements made by him should be published hereafter” .
Why did the bench behave unfairly towards Justice Karnan? The gravity of an alleged offence does not permit such deviations.
SUPPORT
POLITICS ECONOMY EXTERNAL AFFAIRS SECURITY CULTURE OPINION VIDEO ANALYSIS MEDIA GOVERNMENT WORLD EDITOR'S PICK TOP STORIES LIVE WIRE SCIENCE
• Opinion
The Shaky Scales of Fairness in Contempt Cases of Justice Karnan and Prashant Bhushan
Law
Why was Bhushan given repeated opportunities to apologise while a written apology from Justice Karnan was casually brushed aside? Why did the sentences given to both men differ so drastically? Why was civil society vocal in only one matter?
9 hours ago | Kailash Jeenger
Justice C.S. Karnan (L) and Prashant Bhushan. Photo: PTI/The Wire
In the recent contempt case against Prashant Bhushan, the way events took shape within and outside the corridors of the Supreme Court was unprecedented. This inevitably reminds us of the contempt case against Justice C.S. Karnan, then a sitting judge of the Calcutta high court. While there were some similarities in the apex court’s approach, certain sections of the Karnan judgment went unnoticed at the time and highlight the difference in approach in the two cases can now be seen.
Let us begin with the similarities, which do the apex court no credit.
At the very initial stage of the contempt proceedings, Justice Karnan addressed a letter to the Registrar General of the Supreme Court on February 10, 2017, requesting that the proceedings begin after the retirement of the then Chief Justice of India, Justice J. S. Khehar, because Justice Karnan had levelled charges of corruption against him (para 18). However, the CJI continued to preside over the bench.
A similar refusal followed Prashant Bhushan’s request that Justice Arun Misra recuse himself from the bench hearing the contempt case.
In both cases, the natural justice principle that no one can be judge in his own cause was ignored. Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 authorising suo motu contempt proceedings also weakens this principle, as in such proceedings the victim, the complainant and the adjudicator is the Supreme Court itself.
If the principle of nemo judex in sua causa was violated in both Bhushan and Justice Karnan’s cases, the latter had to put up with several other anomalies.
Justice Karnan’s apology ignored
First, in a hearing on March 31, 2017 Justice Karnan handed over a signed statement wherein he clearly stated:
“I unconditionally withdraw my complaint dated 23.1.2017 against 20 Hon’ble Judges. … I unconditionally tender an apology before this Court if I committed contempt of Court. I will follow Your Lordship’s advice and guidelines in future in order to maintain the judicial system and its integrity. I will be retiring on 11.6.2017, therefore, I make a deep request to permit me to retire from the Bench with the blessings of all brother and sister Judges of the Calcutta High Court. Hence, I pray Your Lordships to restore my judicial and administrative work and thus render justice and oblige.”
Despite this, the court passed the following order dated March 31 after the hearing:
“… He was repeatedly asked, whether he affirms the contents of the letters, written by him, as are available on the record of the case. He was also asked whether he would like to withdraw the allegations. … He has not responded, in any affirmative manner, one way or the other. We would therefore proceed with the matter only after receipt of his written response. …” (para 27)
Thus, the order did not even refer to the written statement Justice Karnan had submitted. Later, in the final judgment dated May 9, the court explained that he was asked to submit a written response on March 31 because of an inconsistency in his oral and written statements made that day. However, the court’s observation does not explain the context of such reiteration.
Gratuitous reference to ‘mental state’
Second, on the date of next hearing (May 1, 2017), Justice Karnan did not appear in person. That day, the court ordered medical examination to test his mental fitness on the following ground:
“The tenor of the press briefings, as also, the purported judicial orders passed by Shri Justice C.S. Karnan, prima facie suggest, that he may not be in a fit medical condition, to defend himself, in the present proceedings.”
The medical report was to be submitted “on or before May 8”.
Also read: The Only Institution Capable of Stopping the Death of Democracy Is Aiding it
However, in the final judgment dated May 9, the bench stated that on May 1, the medical examination was ordered because of the inconsistency in his oral and written statements made during the hearing on March 31. Irrespective of the (inconsistent) justifications put forward by the court, the order of a medical test was primarily meant to undermine the credibility of Justice Karnan’s statements by creating the impression that he is not of sound mind. A day after the order, a psychiatrist wrote an article titled: “Milords, There’s a Difference Between Unsound Mind, Mental Illness and ‘Bad’ Behaviour.” Indeed.
More shocking was the following part of the order dated May 1:
“Shri Justice C.S. Karnan may, if he is so advised, furnish his response to the notice issued to him on 8.2.2017, in the meantime. In case he does not choose to file a response on or before 8.5.2017, it shall be presumed, that he has nothing to say in the matter.”
Notably, the deadline assigned to Justice Karnan and the medical board was the same – May 8, 2017. This raises certain glaring questions. How could the court ask a person whose mental state it had just questioned to file a reply? Why was the court prepared to rely upon such a response before satisfying itself as to his mental fitness? How could the court compel such a person to submit a reply by articulating the presumption?
On one hand, the court ordered his medical examination to ensure that he was able to defend himself, while on the other, the court sought a reply from him in his defence before satisfying itself as to his mental condition to defend himself. This raises the obvious question: Was the court even serious about his mental state?
After interacting with Justice Karnan, the team of doctors was satisfied with his sound mental state and, therefore, reported that medical examination was not necessary (para 28).
The role of ‘evidence’
Third, the court recorded in its final judgment that: “None of the allegations levelled by Justice Karnan were supported by any material.”
At the outset, this observation has nothing to do with contempt proceedings because they do not look for justification of the statements. On the other hand, Justice Karnan repeatedly stated in his letters reproduced in the judgment that he has furnished sufficient proof (para 17) or that material evidence was available in the Registry of the Madras high court (paras 8, 11, 24). Furthermore, the issue of inadequate representation of backward classes and minorities in the higher judiciary, as he raised, is obvious.
No one rupee fine but sentenced to maximum penalty
Fourth, at the conclusion of the proceedings advocate, K.K. Venugopal informed the court that Justice Karnan would retire in the next month and, therefore, urged that the image of the institution would be tarnished in case he was punished for contempt of court whilst he is holding the high constitutional office (para 32). However, the bench sentenced him before he demitted his office, with the maximum punishment that may be awarded under the Act – imprisonment for six months. Justice Karnan became the first judge in Indian history to retire while in jail, on June 11, 2017. The court also passed a press gag order, that is “no further statements made by him should be published hereafter” .
Why did the bench behave unfairly towards Justice Karnan? The gravity of an alleged offence does not permit such deviations.
Also read: Madras HC Declines to Initiate Contempt Proceedings Against Actor Suriya
Absence of civil society support
In respect of Prashant Bhushan’s contempt proceedings before the Supreme Court, advocate Dushyant Dave has highlighted ‘breach of procedure’ in his article, and thus that need no repetition. The court found Bhushan guilty of scandalising the court (criminal contempt) on August 14 and fixed the sentencing hearing on August 20. Within a couple of days, hundreds of people including ex-judges, lawyers and activists signed a statement and wrote on social media platforms extending him solidarity and support.
However, Justice Karnan did not find any such support. Advocate Ram Jethmalani compared his actions with that of a lunatic, about two months before the Supreme Court ordered his medical test. Bhushan, a lawyer-cum-civil rights activist, appreciated the Supreme Court’s judgment sentencing Justice Karnan. True, the alleged actions of Justice Karnan and Bhushan were very different in terms of their manner and time span, however, the concerns Justice Karnan raised were more serious, wider and fundamental, and deserve to be endorsed by civil society. Indeed, resistance has its own geography, elitism and caste. Justice Karnan comes from Tamil Nadu and belongs to a Scheduled Caste.
On August 20, Bhushan refused to apologise before the three-judge bench. Despite his firm denial, the bench unprecedentedly demonstrated some leniency. Instead of deciding on the question of sentence, it allowed him four days more to reconsider his position and tender an unconditional apology, though he did not do so. Even on the following day, the bench, instead of sentencing him, insisted on an apology but in vain. Ultimately, the court punished him with a fine of Re 1.
On the other hand, in Justice Karnan’s case the Supreme Court, on the dubious ground of ‘inconsistency’ – refused to accept his written statement in which he tendered an unconditional apology and withdrew the allegations of corruption against fellow judges. And he was punished with the maximum sentence provided for under the Act.
In both Bhushan and Karnan cases, court brought disrepute to self
According to the apex court, the remarks and actions of Justice Karnan and Bhushan brought disrepute to the judiciary and violated the law; their trial by the bench in the aforesaid manner, however, did no less.
One of the Supreme Court’s own precedents says:
“What, however, applies to a proceeding of contempt of court are the principles of natural justice and those principles apply to the contempt proceeding with greater rigour than any other proceeding. This means that the Court must follow a procedure that is fair and objective; that should cause no prejudice to the person facing the charge of contempt of court and that should allow him/her the fullest opportunity to defend himself/herself.” (para 82)
The criminal contempt cases against Justice Karnan and Prashant Bhushan offer an opportunity of introspection to the judiciary and the political executive too. The concerns raised about the judiciary not doing enough to safeguard the constitution and democracy, about corruption and inadequate representation of women, SCs, STs, OBCs and minorities in the higher judiciary, and about the unfair treatment of a Dalit judge by fellow judges are genuine. And if left unaddressed, will be harmful to the image of the judiciary.
Contempt proceedings against such whistleblowers and victims often mask the serious issues raised. In this way, the contempt law tends to obstruct resistance. At the same time, contempt law also becomes an effective tool of oppression in the hands of a political executive intending to dominate the judiciary.
Edited, printed , published owned by NAGARAJA.M.R. @ # LIG-2 No 761, HUDCO FIRST STAGE , OPP WATER WORKS , LAXMIKANTANAGAR , HEBBAL
,MYSURU – 570017 KARNATAKA INDIA Cell : 91 8970318202
WhatsApp 91 8970318202
Home page :
http://eclarionofdalit.dalitonline.in
https://dalit-online.blogspot.com
Contact : editor@dalitonline.in ,
editor.dalitonline@gmail.com
Dalit-Online
Weekly e news paper
Editor: Nagaraja.M.R.. Vol.16.....Issue.75................11/10/2020
A Murder in Hathras, and a Question for the Country's Conscience
By Devanuru Mahadeva
Today, our judiciary and justice delivery systems are standing in front of justice, as accused in a witness box.
The death of the 19-year-old Dalit woman in Hathras is horrifying to even think about. No, it’s not a death. It’s a murder – a murder committed by the police system of Uttar Pradesh, at the behest of its government.
Let us ponder over this for a minute: the teenager, who was brutally raped, was made to wait outside the police station for hours. She was barely conscious when she was brought there. Yet she is recorded on video saying her attackers had tried to commit ‘zabardasti‘ on her. As per procedure, she should have been sent to a rape crisis centre. That was not done. As per procedure, she should have been sent for a sexual assault forensic examination within 24 hours. Instead, the examination was delayed so long that any forensic evidence of the presence of semen was compromised.
In her dying declaration, the woman clearly stated that she had been raped and also named the culprits. Despite this statement, a senior police officer told the media,“Forensic report makes clear the woman was not raped… According to the postmortem report, the victim died due to the trauma of her neck injury. FSL report also clearly shows that sperm was not found in the collected samples.” As if this is not enough, she was made to shift from one hospital to another while battling for her life. The district magistrate of Hathras was caught on camera threatening her family. All these developments might have put fear in the mind of the police administration that if she remains alive, or even if her body is not quickly disposed of, the woman herself is the evidence. So they did everything in their power to get rid of the ‘evidence’.
The state’s cruelty doesn’t stop with death. After the teenager died as a result of the barbaric violence she was subjected to, the police, so as to destroy all evidence that an independent postmortem might reveal, brought her corpse to her village and burnt her body at 2:30 am using petrol in what they call a “cremation”, despite the cries of her family to not cremate her at night as it is against their rituals. Not only did the police prevent the woman’s family from cremating her body, they locked the family into their house and denied them the last chance to see their daughter’s face.
Her mother kept pleading in front of the police to let her apply haldi (turmeric) to her daughter’s face as per customs, but her pleas fell on deaf ears and the teenager’s body was turned to ash in the dead of the night.
Can anyone expect justice in this situation? Will her parents get any consolation even when justice is delivered? It’s difficult, very difficult. Nowadays a new slogan is in the news: BJP se beti bacho (Save your daughters from the BJP).
At the the same time, our justice delivery systems have become even scarier. In the recently concluded Babri Masjid demolition case, the accused, who were very much present at the scene of the crime, have been acquitted. On the other hand, in the Elgar Parishad case, even though no violence took place and people like Anand Teltumbde were also not present at the meeting, they were made accused and imprisoned. The present justice delivery system appears to be in alignment with the old Manuwadi system, where the degree of punishment is based on where you belong in the caste hierarchy.
In what direction are we going? Forward or backwards? Today, our judiciary and justice delivery systems are standing in front of justice, as accused in a witness box. The country is becoming directionless.
Edited, printed , published owned by NAGARAJA.M.R. @ # LIG-2 No 761, HUDCO FIRST STAGE , OPP WATER WORKS , LAXMIKANTANAGAR , HEBBAL
,MYSURU – 570017 KARNATAKA INDIA Cell : 91 8970318202
WhatsApp 91 8970318202
Home page :
http://eclarionofdalit.dalitonline.in
https://dalit-online.blogspot.com
Contact : editor@dalitonline.in ,
editor.dalitonline@gmail.com
Dalit-Online
Weekly e news paper
Editor: Nagaraja.M.R.. Vol.16.....Issue.74.................04/10/2020
Three Incredible stories of Corruption
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.tribuneindia.com/news/comment/three-incredible-stories-of-corruption-95155
Edited, printed , published owned by NAGARAJA.M.R. @ # LIG-2 No 761, HUDCO FIRST STAGE , OPP WATER WORKS , LAXMIKANTANAGAR , HEBBAL
,MYSURU – 570017 KARNATAKA INDIA Cell : 91 8970318202
WhatsApp 91 8970318202
Home page :
http://eclarionofdalit.dalitonline.in
https://dalit-online.blogspot.com
Contact : editor@dalitonline.in ,
editor.dalitonline@gmail.com
Dalit-Online
Weekly e news paper
Editor: Nagaraja.M.R.. Vol.16.....Issue.73.................27/09/2020
An Appeal to Honourable Union Minister for Agriculture GOI
To
Shri Narendra Singh Tomar ji,
Union Minister for Agriculture, GOI
New Delhi.
Honourable Sir,
Every year, thousands of farmworkers and farmers fall prey to deadly pesticides like acephate, monocrotophos, quinalphos, carbendazim, etc. These pesticides have been implicated in multiple cases with agri-workers being admitted with symptoms of poisoning after being exposed to these toxic pesticides. Many lose their lives too.
In fact, these pesticides are linked to numerous other deaths, with intentional ingestion to end life. But it is not just occupational poisoning and intentional poisoning that these pesticides are responsible for. There are also accidental deaths like the case of 23 children being poisoned due to pesticide-contaminated mid-day meal in Chhapra in Bihar.
Aligning the government’s move to ban these pesticides has not been easy. The chronic effects of these pesticides on health are not in the public imagination despite the well-documented risks that different pesticides cause ranging from reproductive health disorders, cancer, chronic ailments like diabetes, and impacts on birth, growth, and development of children. What is more – in this time of the Covid-19 pandemic, the necessary importance for a robust immune system cannot be over-stated, and our immune system is being compromised by pesticides and similar toxins.
We stand with the government’s decision to ban these pesticides. Yet it seems to be stalling on the precipice. Despite proven methods that farming without them can prove to be profitable and successful. Lakhs of farmers are already practicing these methods. NPM and Organic/Natural Farming are approaches to pest management that do not fall back on synthetic pesticides. Andhra Pradesh, Kerala, and Sikkim have created roadmaps to adopt non-chemical approaches to pest management, or to stop sales of very harmful pesticides. The government has begun investing in these approaches and the proposed ban is consistent with this decisive shift towards agroecology.
India is in a position to lead the world on such an organic/natural farming revolution, thereby providing greater profitability to farmers, safer food to consumers, natural resource regeneration, and addressing climate change. We urge you to go ahead with this proposed ban on 27 pesticides as well as to ban all other deadly pesticides and to phase out agrochemicals incrementally.
Your’s Sincerely,
Nagaraja Mysuru Raghupathi
Edited, printed , published owned by NAGARAJA.M.R. @ # LIG-2 No 761, HUDCO FIRST STAGE , OPP WATER WORKS , LAXMIKANTANAGAR , HEBBAL
,MYSURU – 570017 KARNATAKA INDIA Cell : 91 8970318202
WhatsApp 91 8970318202
Home page :
http://eclarionofdalit.dalitonline.in
https://dalit-online.blogspot.com
Contact : editor@dalitonline.in ,
editor.dalitonline@gmail.com
