Sunday, August 14, 2011

Silencing Voices Seeking Justice

S.O.S e - Voice For Justice - e-news weekly
Spreading the light of humanity & freedom

Editor: Nagaraj.M.R.. Vol.07..Issue.34........20 / 08 / 2011

SIGN for Legal Prosecution of Chief Justice of India

“There is a higher court than the court of justice and that is the court of conscience It supercedes all other courts. ”
- Mahatma Gandhi

Prosecute Chief Justice of India ,

Editrorial : Silencing The Voices Seeking Justice

In India, it is nothing new to silence voices seeking justice. Only on
paper , in the book called “Constitution of India” , every citizen is
treated as equal . In practice , public servants behave as public
masters & treat commoners worse . In Their crimes & actions our public
servants even outsmart British occupiers. The criminal nexus of
politician – police – public servant goes to any length to silence the
voices seeking justice , to threaten them , to cut-off their sources
of livelihood , to falsely implicate them fix them in criminal
cases , to assault them & finally to finish them. Indian judiciary has
failed to uphold the “The Constitution of India” in letter & spirit.
NEXUS - the voice of Mr. Nagaraj . M . R . editor , S.O.S-e – Voice
For Justice. Nagaraj will sooner or later will be added along with
satyendra dubey & shanmughan Manjunath , by the criminal nexus.

Will you lend your support for this democratic , non-violent struggle
for peace , justice , along with Mr.Nagaraj.M.R. All humane persons
are welcome. Jai hind . vande matarm.

Your’s sincerely ,

Judge Watch

* Corruption, Immunity, Contempt &
Right to Information
The course of justice is often perverted by corruption within the judiciary and indeed within the entire system of administration of justice. This is exacerbated by the total lack of accountability of the higher judiciary including the lack of any effective disciplinary mechanism, the self acquired protection from even being investigated for criminal offences, the virtual immunity from public criticism due to the law of contempt, and finally the immunity from public scrutiny by another judicially created insulation from the Right to Information Act.

* Anti-poor Bias
The judicial system is increasingly used by the ruling establishment for pushing through neo liberal policies by which resources such as land, water and public spaces left with the poor and being increasingly appropriated by the rich and the powerful. This elitist and anti poor bias makes the judicial system an instrument for protecting and furthering the interest of the rich and powerful, both Indian and foreign. This section will ‘watch’ the judges and expose their biases and any corrupt and arbitrary practices. They must see that the people are scrutinizing them and their judgments carefully.

Submitting Information

Judge Watch will contain information / analysis regarding any misconduct by a judge as well as anything showing the anti-poor bias of a judge.

The campaign welcomes well researched information concerning judges from any court. However, we cannot ensure that every dossier sent will be uploaded on this site or made public. All submissions must be accompanied by the relevant/required documents that may provide evidence in support of any allegations/observations made against any judge or judicial officer.

One reference document is the "Restatement of Values of Judicial Life",a code of conduct, adopted at a full court meeting of the Supreme Court on May 7, 1997 . The Campaign does not subscribe to this as a complete document, but a starting point.

To send in information for the Judge Watch section please see the following document. Judge Watch Format [Word, 20 KB]

Judge Watch on Justice V.Ramaswami

* Name of Judge: Justice V.Ramaswami
* Post Held at Relevant Time: Chief Justice of P&H High Court
* Current Status: Rtd. Judge of Supreme Court of India
* Analysis/Comment/Critique:
The first-ever impeachment motion against a SC judge, Justice V. Ramaswami, was signed by 108 MPs in 1991. A year later, an inquiry found Ramaswami “guilty of willful and gross misuses of office… “While serving as the Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court”. Ramaswami survived the impeachment process as Parliament got divided along regional lines, southern MPs strongly supported him. Only 196 members of Parliament, less than the required two-thirds, voted for his ouster.
* Additional documents in support of critique:

Motion of Impeachment - pdf (64 KB)
A Historic non-impeachment -)pdf (29.5 KB)

* Details of individual / organisation writing critique:
Name: Committee on Judicial Accountability
Address: 66 Lawyers Chambers, Supreme Court of India, New Delhi
* If the critique is in respect of a judge please provide
a softcopy and/or hardcopy of the judgement

Judge Watch on Justice Madan Mohan Puchhi

* Name of Judge: Justice Madan Mohan Punchhi
* Rank: Former Chief Justice of India
* Court: Supreme Court of India
* Analysis/Comment/Critique:

This charge sheet was prepared by the Committee on Judicial Accountability in 1998, when Justice Punchhi was a judge of the Supreme Court of India. It was signed by 25 MPs of Rajya Sabha. However, before it could get the signature of the requisite number of 50 MPs of Rajya Sabha, Justice Punchhi was appointed Chief Justice of India. After this, it became virtually impossible to get the Notice of Motion signed by any MPs. Consequently, Notice of Motion could not be presented to the Speaker. The imp lesson of this exercise was that it is very difficult to get the MPs sign the impeachment motion unless three conditions are satisfied. Firstly, the charges must be very serious; secondly they must be provable by documentary evidence which is annexed to the Notice of Motion and finally, the charges must have been given substantial publicity in the media.

In the absence of all the three conditions been satisfied, MPs are afraid and reluctant to sign a charge sheet against a sitting judge. It is normally exceedingly difficult to get documentary evidence to prove charge against sitting judge, particularly in the absence of a statutory investigation by an agency having powers of investigation. Moreover, the bulk of the main stream media is afraid to publicise charges against the sitting judge for fear of contempt. In Ramaswami’s case, the above three conditions were satisfied. Documentary evidence was available against Ramaswami because of the report of the Accountant General who audited the purchases made by Ramaswami as Chief Justice of Punjab and Haryana High Court. This is why, impeachment of judges, however corrupt they might be, is not a practical remedy in discipling them.

* Additional documents in support of critique:

Justice M.M.Punchhi - Notice of Motion - pdf (70 KB)

* Details of individual / organisation writing critique:
Name: Committee on Judicial Accountability
Address: 66 Lawyers Chambers, Supreme Court of India, New Delhi
* If the critique is in respect of a judge please provide
a softcopy and/or hardcopy of the judgement

Judge Watch on Justice A. S. Anand

* Name of Judge: Justice A.S.Anand
* Rank: Former Chief Justice of India
* Court: Supreme Court of India
* Analysis/Comment/Critique:
Serious allegations of corruption and favouritism were raised against Justice A.S.Anand former Chief Justice of India pertaining to the period when he was the Judge and the Chief Justice of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court.

These unrebutted allegations were supported by valid authentic documents and were severely raised at the time when Justice Anand was the Chief Justice of India but nothing was ever done in this regard.

* Additional documents in support of critique:

Allegations aganist J. A.S.Anand - pdf (15.5 KB)

* Details of individual / organisation writing critique:
Name: Committee on Judicial Accountability
Address: 66 Lawyers Chambers, Supreme Court of India, New Delhi
* If the critique is in respect of a judge please provide
a softcopy and/or hardcopy of the judgement

Judge Watch on Justice Vijendra Jain

* Name of Judge: Justice Vijendra Jain
* Post held at the relevant time: Judge at Delhi High Court
* Currrent Status: Chief Justice of Punjab and Haryana High Court
* Analysis/Comment/Critique:

Justice Vijender Jain had decided a case of a litigant Hari Ram who was the father-in-law of Justice Arun Kumar, Former Supreme Court Judge and a close friend of Justice Vijendra Jain. They personally knew well enough to have Hari Ram’s granddaughter married from his official residence. This is in violation of one of the elements of the Code of Conduct or “Restatement of Judicial Values”, adopted by the Full court in 1997 which says that no judge shall hear and decide a case of his relative or friend. Even then Justice Vijendra Jain has been recommended as Chief Justice of Punjab and Haryana High Court.

A complaint made by Subhash Agarwal against Justice Jain was rejected with no formal reasons given but he was informally told that Justice Jain did not personally know Hari Ram but since Hari Ram was the Father-in-law of Justice Arun Kumar, a close friend of Justice Jain, Justice Jain agreed to lend his residence for the wedding of Hari Ram’s granddaughter.

The Committee on Judicial Accountability wrote letters to the President and Prime Minister of India and requested them to get all correspondences made by the Complainant Subhash Agrawal to the Supreme Court in this regard.

* Additional documents in support of critique:
Letters sent by Committee on Judicial Accountability

Letter to President 12.8.06 - pdf (8.03 KB)
Letter to Prime Minister-)pdf (6.24 KB)

Sunday Guardian web news article 28.11.10-)pdf (132 KB)

[The name of Justice Vijender Jain, even though clearly mentioned in the tape has been withheld in this news item though the conversation itself makes it very clear who the concerned judge is.]

* Details of individual / organisation writing critique:
Name: Committee on Judicial Accountability
Address: 66 Lawyers Chambers, Supreme Court of India, New Delhi

Judge Watch on Justice Ashok Kumar

* Name of Judge: Justice Ashok Kumar
* Rank: Additional Judge
* Court: High Court of Chennai
* Analysis/Comment/Critique:

The case of Judge Ashok Kumar of Madras who was formerly a session’s judge and has been given a permanent position in the Chennai High Court by the Chief Justice of India in February 2007 is horrifying. When the complaints were levelled against him of corruption, an inquiry report by the Intelligence Bureau (IB) gave an even more horrendous report against him. But all the reports were ignored and he was promoted to the High Court. This happened due to the political pressure from the Central Government, as the judge was close to DMK government (now ruling party of the State) and DMK government threatened to withdraw support from the UPA government. So it is due to that, that the law minister asked the CJI to give extensions and finally made Ashok Kumar a High Court judge.

* Additional documents in support of critique:

Petition on the appointment of Justice A.Kumar - pdf (51.6 KB)
SC order on Justice A.Kumar's case- pdf (7.9 KB)
Are CJIs following rules in appointment of Judges?-)pdf (6.93 KB)
Justice Ashok Kumar appoinment chalenged- pdf (10.0 KB)

* Details of individual / organisation writing critique:
Name: Committee on Judicial Accountability
Address: 66 Lawyers Chambers, Supreme Court of India, New Delhi
* If the critique is in respect of a judge please provide
a softcopy and/or hardcopy of the judgement

Judge Watch on Justice Jagdish Bhalla

This is the case where the documentary evidence was available to show that the judge has purchased the property worth crores in few lakhs in the name of his wife from well-known criminal who have illegally grabbed the land. There were inquiry reports of the Additional District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police which attested to these facts. However, despite this documentary evidence being brought to the notice of the then Chief Justice of India, he neither ordered an independent investigation nor did he allow the Committee on Judicial Accountability to get a regular FIR registered, so that a normal police investigation could have taken place. This was despite the fact that under the in-house procedure, supposedly adopted by the Supreme Court of India in 1999 for investigating charges against the judges, at least an in-house committee of judges could have formed to investigate the charges against Justice Bhalla. However instead of doing that, the then Chief Justice Y.K. Sabbarwal recommended Justice Bhalla to be the Chief Justice of Kerala High Court. His appointment as Chief Justice was stopped only because of the complaint made by the Committee on Judicial Accountability to the President of India, who sent the matter back to reconsideration to the Supreme Court collegium, which thereafter could not reiterate its recommendation because of the opposition of one of the judges of the collegium, Justice B.N.Aggarwal. However, thereafter Justice Bhalla has been transferred as a judge of Chattisgarh High Court where he has been appointed as acting Chief Justice by the notification of Law Ministry. This was despite of the objection of the Committee on Judicial Accountability, that a judge, who was not found suitable as Chief Justice of Kerala, cannot be appointed as Acting Chief Justice of another High Court.

The case of Justice Bhalla demonstrates the hollowness of the so-called in-house procedure supposedly adopted by the Supreme Court for investigating charges against judges. It also demonstrates the pernicious impact of the Veraswami judgement which prevents any police investigation against a judge without the prior permission of the Chief Justice of India. The brotherhood among the judges and the fear among judges that any criminal investigation against the sitting judge would tarnish the image of Indian Judiciary has let to a situation whereby not a single sitting judge has been subjected to criminal investigation in the 17 years since the Veeraswamy judgement.

Impeachment Motion and Press Releases

* Press Release on the Proposed Elevation of Justice Bhalla - pdf (10.5 KB)
* Impeachment Motion sent to Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha with explanatory note- pdf (64.8 KB)
* Press Release on the Motion of Impeachmentagainst Justice Bhalla - pdf (42.8 KB)

Additional documents in support

* Letter to President 12.4.07 JB - pdf (6.94 KB)
* Letter to CJI 20.3.07 JB -)pdf (12 KB)
* Letter for Consultation to President 3.2.07 JB - pdf (6.94 KB)
* Application to register FIR against 1.11.06 JB - pdf (49.2 KB)
* Complaint to Y.K.Sabarwal 12.7.06 JB - pdf (28.1 KB)

Details of individual / organisation writing critique:
Name: Committee on Judicial Accountability
Address: 66 Lawyers Chambers, Supreme Court of India, New Delhi

Judge Watch on Justice Y.K.Sabharwal

Former CJI, Justice Y.K.Sabharwal set in motion the process of sealing of properties in designated residential areas of Delhi which were being used for commercial purposes. This sealing went on relentlessly under the continuous supervision of Chief Justice Sabharwal’s bench, monitored and directed by a Court appointed monitoring committee. When the government came up with a new master plan of Delhi 2021 which allowed mixed use and commercial activity in many of the areas which were designated as residential, Justice Sabharwal orders on the sealing continued.

Some of the facts which were not publicly known was that his two sons, Chetan and Nitin had entered into partnerships with big Mall and Commercial complex developers and had become big Commercial complex developers themselves during that time. It was clear that these orders were giving direct benefit to his sons’ business. His orders are against the principles of natural justice, which say that no judge can hear a case in which he is personally interested. There was a serious conflict of interest in this case which renders his orders a nullity. It is in fact arguable that his dealing with this case in such circumstances involves an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

At the same time, it was also found that several plots were allotted to the Companies or relatives of Justice Sabharwal and which needs to be investigated to see if undue favour was shown to them and if so whether there was any quid pro quo in terms of judicial orders.

The facts thrown up in this case have very disturbing implications about the integrity of our judiciary in the highest places.

Other Interventions

* Justice Sabharwal's Defence Becomes Murkier: Stifling Public Exposure By Using Contempt Powers -Press Release- pdf (41 KB)
* Securing Judicial Accountability Freedom Of Speech vs. Contempt Towards An Independent Judicial Commission by Prashant Bhushan - pdf (40 KB)
* Shocking Abuse of Judicial Power; Hindu editorial; Sep 24,2007-pdf (10.6KB)
* Sabharwal on Trial; Times of India - pdf (28 KB)
* Contept of Justice; Outlook online-pdf (85 KB)

Tehelka Investigation

* Office of Profit: A Stink You Should Smell by Sanjay Dubey- pdf (35 KB)
* Instead of helping shopkeepers, he made his sons rich- pdf (48 KB)
* Silence Lies: Tehelka view by Shoma Chaudhary- pdf (138 KB)

"Wither Judicial Accountability? The case of Justice Sabharwal: Disquieting facts, disturbing implications"- Press Conference held on Aug 03, 2007
Press Conference was organised to highlight a grave case of Judicial Misconduct at the Apex of the Indian Judiciary. It disclosed how the then Chief Justice of India who had spearheaded the sealing drive was mired in serious conflict of interest in as much as his sons were deeply involved in the business of shopping malls and commercial complexes who stood to benefit from this sealing drive. It was addressed by Shri Shanti Bhushan, former Union Law Minister, Mr. Bhaskar Rao, Chairman, Centre for Media Studies, and Mr. Prashant Bhushan, advocate, Supreme Court among other. The Press Conference was attended by 40 news agencies and 80 participants.

* Press Release - pdf (40.5 KB)
* Supporting Documents - pdf (2.33 MB)

Mid-day Investigation

* Mid Day articles - Lift kara de -pdf (74.3 KB)
* It all squares up -pdf (80 KB)
* Shock anger -pdf (100 KB)
* Injustice - pdf (187 KB)
* Gol Mall Hai - pdf (162 KB)
* Affidavits filed …Tayal….Vitusha

* Details of individual / organisation writing critique:
Name: Committee on Judicial Accountability
Address: 66 Lawyers Chambers, Supreme Court of India, New Delhi
* Post held at the relevant time: Chief Justice of India, Supreme Court
* Current Status: Retd Chief Justice of India, Supreme Court

Judge Watch on Justice P. D. Dinakaran

FThe Supreme Court collegium headed by Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan and including Justice S.H. Kapadia, Justice Tarun Chatterjee and Justice R.V. Raveendran had recommended in August 2009, Justice P.D. Dinakaran, the Chief Justice of Karnataka High Court, for elevation to the Supreme Court. The recommendations came along with the names of four other Judges for elevation to the Apex court namely, Justice AK Patnayak (Chief Justice of Madhya Pradesh High Court), Justice Tirath Singh Thakur, (Chief Justice of Punjab and Haryana High Court), Justice SS Nijjar (Chief Justice of Calcutta High Court) and Justice KS Radhakrishna ( Chief Justice of Gujarat High Court). While the decks were cleared for the elevation of the latter four Judges, iimmediately after the news of Justice Dinakaran’s proposed appointment became known, a group of highly respected and responsible lawyers from Chennai called the Forum for Judicial Accountability sent a series of representations to the Collegium and the government detailing several very damaging allegations against him. These included, acquiring more than 350 acres of agricultural land and encroaching on another more than hundred acres of public land; acquiring properties benami and far beyond his known sources of income; hearing and deciding cases of his friends etc. All the allegations were backed by unimpeachable documentary evidence.
Though the Chief Justice of India, continued to back him, he ordered an inquiry into the allegation regarding his agricultural land by the District Magistrate, who confirmed the allegations including his encroachment of public land. Thereafter Justice Dinakaran tried to destroy evidence and threatened the revenue officials who went to stop this destruction of evidence. All this came to be widely reported in the media. An embarrassed PMO forced a reluctant Law Minister Moily to return the recommendation to the collegium for reconsideration. The collegium did not withdraw the recommendation, but merely put it on hold. No “in house inquiry” was ordered either.
Meanwhile people questioned how Dinakaran could continue as Chief Justice of Karnataka in the light of such serious offences that he had committed. There was also the demand that FIRs should be registered and the offences that he had committed be investigated. The Chief Justice of India however did not give permission for registering any FIR against Justice Dinakaran. This left no option but to initiate impeachment proceedings against him. The Forum for Judicial Accountability prepared the impeachment motion which was sent to all the political parties by a campaign for signatures. Eventually 75 MPs of the Rajya Sabha, belonging to many political parties except the Congress party signed the impeachment motion and presented it to the Vice President. The motion was soon admitted by the Vice President forcing Justice Dinakaran to stop discharging judicial functions.
The procedure laid down by the Judges Inquiry Act for proceeding with an impeachment motion is that the Vice President appoints an enquiry committee consisting of a sitting judge of the Supreme Court, a Chief Justice of a High Court and a jurist to enquire into the charges against him. Only if the enquiry committee finds him guilty does the matter proceed further for a voting in the two houses of Parliament. The motion for his removal has to be then passed by a two third majority in each house. Only then can he be removed. Though there is no requirement under the Judges Inquiry Act for the Vice President to consult the Chief Justice in the choice of members of the enquiry committee, he consulted the Chief Justice, who recommended two judges of the Supreme Court and two Chief Justices of the High Court. Based on the Chief Justice’s advice, the Vice President has appointed an inquiry committee comprising of Justice V.S. Sirupurkar of the Supreme Court, Chief Justice A.R. Dave of the A.P. High Court and Shri P.P. Rao as the jurist.
The Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reform as well as the Forum for Judicial Accountability have however written to the V.P. pointing out that Justice Sirupurkar has not only been a close friend and colleague of Justice Dinakaran, but he has also prejudged the issue, telling several responsible lawyers that he knows Justice Dinakaran well and that he is an independently wealthy and honourable man. Moreover, Shri P.P. Rao had been formally consulted by Justice Dinakaran on how he should deal with these charges and that he had advised him on the matter. In these circumstances, they would not be seen to be impartial and therefore should not sit as judges on this inquiry committee to avoid damage to the credibility of the inquiry and further controversy. However till the date of writing they have not yet recused themselves.

Representations by the Forum for Judicial Accountability to the Collegium

* Representation 1 against Mr.Justice P.D.Dinakaran, Chief Justice, Karnataka High Court - amassing of huge assets, corruption and serious irregularities.- pdf
* Representation 2, Further particulars with supporting materials regarding Mr. Justice P.D.Dinakaran, Chief Justice of Karnataka- pdf
* Representation 3, Details of more acquisitions by Justice P.D.Dinakaran-pdf
* Representation 4, Details of more acquisitions and improper judicial conduct of Justice P.D.Dinakaran.- pdf

Motion for Impeachement of Justice Dinakaran

The notice of motion for presenting an address to the President of India for the removal of Justice Dinakaran, Chief Justice of the Karanataka High Court, under Article 217 read with Article 124(4) of Constitution of India for his various acts of misbehavior, including dishonest judicial orders, irregular and dishonest administrative actions, etc, along with an explanatory note on the motion for impeachement. pdf

Press Statement against Survery of India probe into Justice Dinakaran encroachment

Press Statement issued by the Forum for Judicial Accountability against the Survey of India spot probe into the allegations of land encroachment by the Karnataka Chief Justice, P.D. Dinakaran, to be conducted on December 30th 2009 as reported in a newspaper.
The Forum calls upon the Central Government to recall the three member team deputed by the Survey of India immediately and to await the outcome of the enquiry under the impeachment proceedings. ...statement page 1 statement page 2

CJAR letter to the Vice President regarding the enquiry committee in the Justice Dinakaran impeachment

The Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reform has sent a letter to Shri Hamid Ansari, Vice President of India, regarding the 3 member enquiry committee appointed to enquire into the motion for removal of Jusitce P.D. Dinakaran. The letter brings to Shri Ansari's notice that Justice Sirupurkar’s friendship with Justice Dinakaran, coupled with his prejudgement of the matter, places him in a position where if he inquires into this matter, justice will not be seen to be done. The same would be the case with Shri P.P. Rao who has been formally consulted in the matter by Justice Dinakaran. The letter further requests that these facts be placed before Justice Sirupurkar and Shri P.P. Rao and they be asked whether they would like to recuse themselves from the inquiry committee, to avoid any further controversy in the matter. psdf


* Extraordinary situations call for extraordinary measures -Justice D Y Shylendra Kumar pdf
* The Dinakaran Imbroglio: Appointments and Complaints against Judges - Mr. Prashant Bhushan pdf

* Details of individual / organisation writing critique:
Name: Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reform
Address: 6/6 Jungpura B (basement), Mathura Road, New Delhi: 110014
* Post held at the relevant time: Chief Justice, Karnataka High Court
* Current Status: Chief Justice, Karanataka High Court

Judge Watch on Justice F.I.Rebello

* Name of Judge: Justice F. I. Rebello
* Post Held at Relevant Time: Chief Justice of Allahabad High Court
* Current Status: Chief Justice, Allahabad High Court
* Analysis/Comment/Critique:
Justice Rebello, son after joining as the Chief justice of Allahabad High Court met Ms Mayawati, Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh. He, then issued administrative orders to change the classification of the case related to Ms Mayawati's involvement in Taj Corridor's case. As a result, the case, which was part heard by a different bench was transfered to a completely new bench. This was allegedly done to benefit Ms Mayawati.
* Additional documents in support of critique:

CJAR's complaint against Justice Rebello- pdf

Judicial Accountability is important to keep the judiciary in the purview of scrutiny. This section will provide various subjects to get judiciary accountable to common person.

Making reference to the K. Veeraswamy’s Case Shri Shanti Bhushan observed that all judges should declare their assets – it should be done with pride! Why raise issues of self-respect? He said only those who have something to hide will be reluctant to disclose their assets! …more

- S.P.Gupta - pdf (1.6 MB)
A seven Judges Bench of Supreme Court extensively considered the issues of Independence of Judiciary in relation to the appointment and transfer of Judges, the issue of appointment of the Additional Judges of the High Court, the issue of the privilege of the Government against disclosure of State documents and the scope of judicial review of the powers exercised by the President.

While deciding the issue of the locus standi of the petitioning lawyers who had challenged the Circular of the Law Minister and short-term extensions of Additional Judges on ground of attack on the independence of the judiciary, Justice P.N. Bhagwati while upholding their right to do so held that where the effected persons are really helpless, the Supreme Court will not insist on a regular writ petition to be filed by the public spirited individual espousing their cause. The Court will readily respond even to a letter addressed by said individual espousing the public cause.

A bunch of cases were decided together in the present case which were raised in two batches of writ petitions filed in different High Courts which were transferred under Article 139-A to the Supreme Court since they raised common issues of great constitutional importance. One writ was also filed in the Supreme Court. Several more related issues were raised and discussed during the hearing. Each of the Judges delivered a separate judgment.

- Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association Vs. Union of India
- pdf (475 KB)
This case directed to constitute a Bench of nine Judges to examine the two questions referred therein, namely, the position of the Chief Justice of India with reference to primacy, and justiciability of fixation of Judge strength.


Article 124 (4) of Indian Consitution: A Judge of the Supreme Court shall not be removed from his office except by an order of the President passed after an address by each House of Parliament supported by a majority of the total membership of that House and by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the members of that House present and voting has been presented to the President in the same session for such removal on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity.

- Justice V. Ramaswamy - pdf (64 KB)
The first-ever impeachment motion against a SC judge, Justice V. Ramaswami, was signed by 108 MPs in 1991. A year later, an inquiry found Ramaswami “guilty of willful and gross misuses of office… “While serving as the Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court”. Ramaswami survived the impeachment process as Parliament got divided along regional lines, southern MPs strongly supported him. Only 196 members of Parliament, less than the required two-thirds, voted for his ouster.
A Historic Non-impeachement - pdf (29.5 KB)

- Justice M.M. Punchi - pdf (70 KB)
This charge sheet was prepared by the Committee on Judicial Accountability in 1998, when Justice Punchhi was a judge of the Supreme Court of India. It was signed by 25 MPs of Rajya Sabha. However, before it could get the signature of the requisite number of 50 MPs of Rajya Sabha, Justice Punchhi was appointed Chief Justice of India. After this, it became virtually impossible to get the Notice of Motion signed by any MPs. Consequently, Notice of Motion could not be presented to the Speaker. The imp lesson of this exercise was that it is very difficult to get the MPs sign the impeachment motion unless three conditions are satisfied. Firstly, the charges must be very serious; secondly they must be provable by documentary evidence which is annexed to the Notice of Motion and finally, the charges must have been given substantial publicity in the media.

In the absence of all the three conditions been satisfied, MPs are afraid and reluctant to sign a charge sheet against a sitting judge. It is normally exceedingly difficult to get documentary evidence to prove charge against sitting judge, particularly in the absence of a statutory investigation by an agency having powers of investigation. Moreover, the bulk of the main stream media is afraid to publicise charges against the sitting judge for fear of contempt. In Ramaswami’s case, the above three conditions were satisfied. Documentary evidence was available against Ramaswami because of the report of the Accountant General who audited the purchases made by Ramaswami as Chief Justice of Punjab and Haryana High Court. This is why, impeachment of judges, however corrupt they might be, is not a practical remedy in discipling them.

- Justice A.S. Anand - pdf (15.5 KB)
Serious allegations of corruption and favouritism were raised against Justice A.S.Anand former Chief Justice of India pertaining to the period when he was the Judge and the Chief Justice of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court.

Read more articles….. A conflict between law and morality - pdf (10 KB)
Contempt Contempt of court: judgement by Justice Arijit Pasayat - pdf (26.5 KB) - Contempt of court: judgement by Justice Raveendran - pdf (24.1 KB) - Judges in their own cause: Contempt of court by Prashant Bhushan-pdf (19.2 KB) - Contempt of court: need for a second look by J.Markandey Katju - pdf (12.5 KB) - Standing Committee report on Contempt - pdf (58.4 KB) - Affidavits of Arundhati Roy pdf (24.2 KB) and Medha Patkar on contempt pdf (17.0 KB)
Right to Information and Judiciary Right to Information And The Judiciary By Prashant Bhushan - pdf (72 KB)
Investigations against Judges

- Justice K. Veeraswamy - pdf (177 KB)
Justice K.Veeraswamy the then Chief Justice of Madras High Court was charged for possession of assets disproportionate to his known sources of income and a case was filed against him by the CBI under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The High Court of Madras dismissed his Petition for quashing of the Case against him and referred the matter to the Supreme Court for deciding certain questions of law. The Supreme Court while deciding the case against the delinquent Judge laid down strict guidelines to protect the independence of Judiciary according to which no F.I.R. can be registered against a Judge or Chief Justice of the High Court, or a Judge of the Supreme Court without the sanction of the Chief Justice of India in the matter. It was held that the Supreme Court is not a court of limited jurisdiction of only dispute settling, and that the court has been a law maker and it is the courts responsibility and duty to apply the existing law in a form more conducive to the independence of the judiciary. It was also said that any complaint against a Judge and its investigation by the CBI, if given publicity will have a far reaching impact on the judge and the litigant public therefore there is need of a judicious use of taking action under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

- Judicial Accountability OR Illusion - The National Judicial Council Bill by Prashant Bhushan - pdf (8.83 KB)

- Judicial Accountability by Prashant Bhushan - pdf (9.61 KB)

- Mechanisms of Judicial Accountability by Justice J.S.Verma - pdf (11.2 KB)

Judicial Reforms current judicial system needs to be cleared of procedural complexities and hurdles to make it accessible for the common citizens. It must be strengthened to deliver justice quickly, efficiently and honestly. This section contains links and updates on various laws and policies (existing and proposed) and an analysis of the same.

Access of Poor and Delays in Justice

Who do these delays and backlogs impact the most? How do they impact access to justice? In case of the criminal cases, the poor people are the most affected. More than 70% of persons inside jails who are held on suspicion of having committed a crime are not able to pay the bail amount, which is very high. They are inside the jails for months and years, as they cannot afford a lawyer. …more

Values and Attitude towards the poor

* Labour
After independence, the concept of social justice was introduced and the labour law developed more as a judgment law. There were various laws but with the intervention of judiciary, the labour law was moving in a progressive direction. The issues concerning the labour matters such as wage, minimum wage, fair wage, employment security, social security, etc. were initiated, right from the Express Newspaper’s case.…more
* Urban Poor
One broad category of urban poor is the slum dwellers living in unorganized housing sector, having occupation of street vendors, rickshaw pullers, etc. This is the section, which has suffered the maximum onslaught of judicial decision in the recent past. …more

* Rural Poor
This debate is quite crucial, which is reminiscent of what happened with judiciary during the period when India was trying to abolish Zamindari system and introduce land reforms. While reflecting on the judiciary and its impact on the rural poor, the most popular analysis is the class analysis but one should not confine to it alone, one should also consider caste analysis. We must also remember the indigenous people. …more

* Public Interest Litigation
It is important to discuss about the reasons for developing a tool like Public Interest Litigation and how it has transformed recently. While criticizing judiciary one must not forget about the executive inactions of last ten years and the recent laws passed by the legislature. It is necessary to substantiate by two examples, one is aquaculture case which permitted the multinational corporations to have their aquaculture activities at the cost of the traditional fishermen. …more

Covering up Late PM Rajiv Gandhi Assassination conspiracy

The GOI & investigating authorities have failed to punish the real master minds behind the Late Prime minister Shri . Rajiv Gandhi assassination case .

When a responsible Indian citizen volunteered to appear before the supreme court of india as an amicus curie , to give certain information before the court relating to this assassination , he was not at all permitted. Instead he was threatened , attempts made to murder him , his news paper was closed , his jobs were illegally snatched away , police & investigating agencies repeatedly grilled him , THE PURPOSE IS TO SILENCE THAT PERSON . The Police failed to act upon his complaints. The Supreme Court of India Failed to admit his PIL Petitions. ALL TO COVER UP THE POWERS THAT BE .

who are covering-up late p.m. rajiv gandhi assassination case? who are those conspirators? who are trying to silence me?

My sufferings began hand in hand with my crusade. I have raised various issues of social concern from time to time at the appropriate levels, one of those is LATE P.M. RAJIV GANDHI ASASSINATION CASE. where-in only the tools of the conspirator's were punished where as the conspirators are roaming free. i have raised this topic of inequity , travesty of justice and sought a fair, proper enquiry& trial , at various forums. but to no avail.
the conspirators were disturbed by this and tried to silence me by threatening me, physically assaulting me and even made attempts to murder me. they prevented me from appearing before the JAIN COMMISSION OF ENQUIRY. they even manipulated the recruitment systems to deny me the appointments in R.B.I.CURRENCY NOTE PRESS MYSORE, P.E.S. COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING MANDYA, N.I.E MYSORE , District Court Mysore & Illegally snatched away my job in RPG Cables Ltd , Mysore . they even tried to silence me by forcibly closing down my newspaper publications THE TESTUDO & VOICE OF CRUSADER.
my appeals for justice resulted only in police enquiries. the central intelligence bureau(I.B.) state intelligence & state police personnel enquired me exhaustively number of times, but they never did enquire the powers that be. any way these people don't have practical powers to enquire such people. the highest constitutional functionaries who can order a proper enquiry, trial are keeping mum inspite of repeated appeals. probably they are acting under the directions of conspirators. thereby they are not only covering up the crime, they are actively sponsoring terrorism , but are also violating my fundamental/human rights & obstructing me from performing my fundamental duties as a citizen of india.

hereby , i do request you to protect my fundamental & human rights and to facilitate me to perform my FUNDAMENTAL DUTIES as a citizen of india.also, i do request you to give me information about following cases ,it's final reports& it's action taken report.
1.the roost resort scandal involving karnataka high court judges.
2.the scam of gem cutting & polishing units in mysore set-up under VISHWA self-employment scheme.
3.the murder of under-trial,TADA detenue mr.arjunan(forest brigand veerappan's brother).
4.the murder of journalist mr.satyanarayan near mysore.
5.the murder of ex-minister mr.nagappa near mysore.
6.the amount of ransom paid by state governments of karnataka,tamilnadu & the union govrnment and the general public to forest brigand veerappan during all kidnap episodes (including movie star rajkumar's).the role played by facilitators.the contents of all cassettes sent by veerappan to governments & vice versa.
7.the final report of justice a.j. sadashivas's committee which enquired into atrocities & human rights violations committed by police,special task force(S.T.F.) on the innocent tribal people of M.M.HILLS.
8.the report of past district magistrate of mysore mr.T.M.vijayabhaskar about the land scam in & around mysore.
9.even in developed countrise like U.S.A. & U.K. mal-handling of radio-active materials takes place now & then, which in itself constitute nuclear disasters on small scale.refer the DECCAN HERALD (12/10/03 to18/10/03).in india how many cases of mal-handling of radio-active materials have taken place? no public the back drop of corrupt,negligent,hush-hush,buck passing work culture in most of the government service in india, i do want to know how safe are we the mysoreans from the processing & storage of radio-active materials at M/S RARE EARTH MATERIALS PLANT,yelwal,mysore? in the past there were media reports about damages caused to the human beings ,the environment by the same organisation M/S R.E.M.P. & it's sister concern M/S URANIUM CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED(U.C.I.L.) at kerala state & at jadaguda ,orissa state respectively.even some of the insurance companies like M/ india insurance co.,don't cover the risk of health damages ,death due to nuclear such an event who will bear the cost of compensation?how the quantum of compensation is calculated?give me information about the safety measures taken by M/S. R,E,M.P.mysore & the compensation pay sructure and the safety measures being followed by all agencies dealing with radio-active materials.

** LTTE-Sonia link ? , , , , ,

An LTTE-Sonia family link?

S. Gurumurthy,Newindpress

April 29 2008

The LTTE suicide squad did plan and eliminate Rajiv Gandhi. But, why did the LTTE do it? Was there a larger conspiracy that extended beyond the LTTE as the strike force?

Was the LTTE the author of the crime or the mercenary for some one else or for some purpose that yielded some benefit to it? These questions persisted even after the actual assassins were brought to book.

The Narasimha Rao government appointed the Jain Commission to go into the conspiracy angle to the murder.In its interim report the commission did exceedingly good work to bring on record evidence about the political forces involved in promoting the LTTE in Tamil Nadu that made the crime possible.

Yet it made a mockery of its main work, the conspiracy angle. It floated dubious and wild theories, involving Mossad! CIA! Besides adding confusion, it ended up trivialising a very serious exercise. This also robbed the commission of its credibility.

As the commission’s final report proved a flop, the Vajpayee government appointed a Multi- Disciplinary Monitoring Agency (MDMA) in 1998 to unearth the conspiracy angle.

But the person who first demanded, but, ultimately made, investigation into the conspiracy to murder Rajiv Gandhi irrelevant was none other than his widow Sonia Gandhi.

Her attitude to the investigation and suspected actors in the murder dramatically changed. Her conduct in 1997 when she was working to enter active politics was a stark contrast to her attitude after taking over the congress leadership on the Jain Commission issue.

In 1997, she demanded that the DMK which, the Jain commission had said, was part of the conspiracy, be sacked as a partner of the UF alliance and pulled down the government when the demand was not met. Her party insisted the entire facts about the conspiracy be investigated and revealed.

Addressing a meeting at Amethi, Sonia hinted that the DMK was a fan of the LTTE and charged that those who doubted the Jain commission report were diverting the attention from the investigation into the conspiracy to murder Rajiv and demanded that the probe be completed expeditiously (Indian Express 2.2.1998).

But, once she took over the party leadership, she not only ceased to evince any interest in pursuing the Rajiv Gandhi murder conspiracy, but also began allying with the alleged conspirators themselves.

The developments, put together, reveal a shocking picture.The year after taking over the Congress, Sonia Gandhi makes a secret move.

In the year 1999, she told then President Dr K R Narayanan privately that ‘neither she nor her son and daughter wanted any of the four convicts’ sentenced to death for Rajiv’s assassination ‘to be hanged’, and pleaded that no child should be orphaned by an act of the State.

Noted the Indian Express (Nov 20, 1999) that before her plea for mercy to the Rajiv killers the Congress party was the leading opponent of mercy to them. This silenced the party once and for all.

What transpired at her private meeting with the President was revealed not by Sonia, but by Mohini Giri (the former chairperson of the National Women’s Commission) and on that basis Nalini’s death sentence was commuted to life. (Frontline Nov 5-18, 2005).

Then, in February 2004, there were reports, editorially commented by the Island newspaper in Colombo on Feb 20, 2004, that Eduardo Faleiro, her emissary, had a secret meeting with the LTTE chief Prabhakaran at Killinochi. Island had also referred to reports that Sonia’s mother Ms Paula Maino had met Anton Balasingham, LTTE’s point man in London, in connection with the electoral alliance between the DMK and the Congress. While Eduardo Faleiro at least made a feeble attempt to deny the meeting, Paulo Maino would not even deny that.Third, the Paulo Maino meeting preceded, and the Faleiro meeting succeeded, the unbelievable U-turn of Sonia Gandhi to forge alliance with the DMK which was accused by her own party in 1997 of being part of the conspiracy to murder her husband. The DMK-Congress alliance seems to have been agreed upon sometime in December 2003. In January 2004, Sonia met the DMK chief and concretised the alliance.

The coming together of one of the alleged conspirators and the victim of the conspiracy made a mockery of any further investigation into Rajiv Gandhi murder.

For the last four years there is not a single word spoken by Sonia on pursuing the Rajiv Gandhi murderers and on unearthing the conspiracy or for the extradition of Prabhakaran or Pottu Amman.

This is despite the fact that, when, on April 10, 2002, Prabhakaran met the press at Killinochi, he did not even deny that LTTE was involved in Rajiv assassination.

Fourth, the LTTE too responded favourably to signals from Sonia that she was not against LTTE.

On January 27, 2006, Anton Balasingham, told an Indian TV news channel that the Rajiv killing was ‘monumental tragedy’ and asked the people of India to be ‘magnanimous to put the past behind’ and deal with the LTTE.

Fifth, Sonia did not object to the inclusion of the DMK woman MP in whose house Sivarasan the main killer of Rajiv Gandhi had stayed for which she was detained under the TADA, as a minister in the UPA government.

Sixth, the MDMA which was appointed by the NDA government after Sonia rejected the Action Taken Report on the Jain Commission, has virtually become defunct under the UPA regime.

Since 2004, she has not uttered a single word asking what the MDMA is doing.

And finally now in March 2008, Priyanka Vadra, Sonia’s daughter makes a secret visit to Vellore jail and meets the first accused in the murder of Rajiv, for over an hour.

Media reports say that they sat by each other’s side, cried and professed goodwill towards each other! No one knows what transpired between them. The meeting clearly illegal, looks almost a conspiracy, would have remained a secret had the media not exposed it.

Priyanka said that neither Sonia nor Rahul or Priyanka believe in hate or anger, and that the visit was her way of coming to terms with the Rajiv Gandhi murder.

Moral high ground seems to be a cover for undisclosed political strategies. But where was this high moral ground when Sonia angrily pulled down the UF government on the ground that DMK, a suspected co-conspirator with LTTE, was part of the alliance?

Is Rajiv Gandhi’s assassination a personal affair between the Sonia Gandhi family and the LTTE for the former to punish or pardon the latter?

LTTE has neither confessed nor regretted its action for the Gandhis to pardon. The LTTE is even today unrepenting.

The prosecution case is that the LTTE supremo decided to avenge Rajiv Gandhi for sending IPKF to Sri Lanka and betraying the LTTE. But that was no personal decision of Rajiv Gandhi. The assassination was an act against the state of India.

This is how it should be seen and pursued. Neither Sonia nor Priyanka nor the Congress has the right to pardon the criminals who have challenged the sovereignty of India.

QED: Sonia Gandhi family and the LTTE connection is mysterious. Is the maverick Dr Subramanian Swamy right after all in his theory that LTTE and the Maino family have had links before?


Do you know Sonia : Subramanian Swamy @ http://www.saveindi dynamic/

Sonia Cong’s blitzkrieg evangelisation thru RBI: V. Sundaram @

She became loyal bit late: by Gurumurthy@

Demo-narchy of India @

Sonia-LTTE link : by Gurumurthy @ , ,


The French Intelligence Agencies as per a regular routine Intelligence Drill, keep under heavily Intelligence Surveillance all the activities of all the Foreigners in all the Five Star has learnt from highly placed sources that, “In the course of the routine surveillance the Intelligence Agencies of France have in their possession On Camera Footage of a now Highly Classified Recording of a Secret Meeting at a Paris Five Star Hotel in 1991.”The L.T.T.E was fighting through the use of Terrorism for the separation of the Tamil portion of the country from Sri Lanka. Rajiv Gandhi as Prime Minister had sent the Indian Army to Sri Lanka to assist the Government forces there to fight and destroy the L.T.T.E. The Indian Army was finally withdrawn from Sri Lanka without achieving success. Rajiv thus became an enemy of the L.T.T.E.Rajiv lost power in 1989 Lok Sabha Elections.In 1991, Rajiv Gandhi was the Congress President, Chandrashekar was the Prime Minister.The Lok Sabha Elections were announced after Rajiv withdrew the Congress support to the Chandrashekar Government.The L.T.T.E. Chief had sent two L.T.T.E delegations to New Delhi in 1991, to meet and discuss with Rajiv Gandhi, to understand his attitude towards the L.T.T.E. After these meetings the L.T.T.E. Chief was not convinced that Rajiv would be soft on the L.T.T.E. In fact Prabhakaran expected Rajiv to be hostile to the L.T.T.E.In the 1991 Elections Rajiv was not expected to come back to power. However the L.T.T.E. did not want the risk of allowing Rajiv to come to power.Rajiv Gandhi and his Congress won a massive victory in 1984 because of the nationwide sympathy generated by Prime Minister Indira Gandhi’s Assassination by her Sikh Bodyguards. Rajiv’s Congress won 414 Lok Sabha MPs. Rajiv looked like being Prime Minister forever.However, Rajiv got in to a serious Credibility Problem when the HDW Submarine Deal Broke. Rajiv threw out the then Defence Minister V.P.Singh from the Party. Rajiv’s Coterie made a loyal V.P.Singh an enemy of Rajiv.Thereafter the Bofors Gun Deal Scam tumbled out of the Swedish Closet. Rajiv handled the Bofors Scam horribly. Rajiv’s former aides manipulated to destroy Rajiv and Rajiv’s Politics. Rajiv lost complete credibility. Rajiv’s Congress won 195 MPs but lost the Lok Sabha Elections and the Central Government in 1989. The V.P.Singh Government came to power and demonstrated quickness in getting the Bofors Pay Offs in Foreign Bank Accounts Sealed.The Bofors Money Trail led directly to the Italian Wheeler-Dealer Ottavio Quattrocchi.Quattrocchi realized that India’s Opposition Politicians and Anti-Congress Governments in their passion to expose Rajiv would chase the Bofors Scam and all its beneficiaries. However, in that process the involvement of Quattrocchi would be completely exposed. Quatrocchi believed that Rajiv and his Congress were not winning the 1991 Elections. The Third Front Government of V.P.Singh was expected to win. The V.P. Singh Government would accelerate investigation in to the Bofors Scam. Quattrocchi’s role in the Bofors Scam would be completely exposed thus leading to the jailing of Quattrocchi.Quattrocchi panicked. There was only one way for Quattrocchi to survive. The Bofors scam must be buried. The Bofors Enquiry cannot be stopped if Rajiv was Alive. If Rajiv was not there then the Political System would lose interest in the Bofors Scam. So to bury the Bofors Scam Burying Rajiv was a necessity for Quattrocchi. Only then could Quattrocchi happily survive and enjoy the millions looted from India’s Public Exchequer.Anton Balasingham was the Principal Adviser, Most Trusted Lieutenant, Globe Trotting Apex Negotiator, Vital Deal Maker, Super Strategist, Spokesman and Personal Friend of the Chief of the L.T.T.E. Velupillai Prabhakaran.Sources say that, “Quattrocchi got in touch with the L.T.T.E. The meeting with the L.T.T.E. was fixed in a Five Star Hotel in Paris.Ottavio Quattrocchi and Anton Balasingham met. Quattrocchi convinced Balasingham that Rajiv’s death was vital to both. If Rajiv were dead then the Bofors Scam would die. If Rajiv was dead then the L.T.T.E. could be confident that the Indian Army will not go to Sri Lanka to destroy the L.T.T.E. Quattrocchi handed over Bags of Dollars to Balasingham as payment for Rajiv’s Assassination.The entire meeting and conversation between Ottavio Quattrocchi and Anton Balasingham was Recorded by the French Intelligence Agencies.”On the day of his Assassination Rajiv Gandhi was in Vishakapatnam. Rajiv was campaigning for his fond candidate Uma Gajapati Raju. Rajiv was enjoying the campaigning. Rajiv was in no mood to leave Vishakapatnam, on that evening.A Trio of Congress Busybodies including P.V.Narasimha Rao made frantic Phone Calls from New Delhi urging Rajiv to leave Vishakapatnam and fly to Chennai. Rajiv keen on spending the night at Vishakapatnam, tried avoiding to go to Chennai. Rajiv made an excuse that his aircraft was not in perfect order. The Congress Busybodies of Delhi got the Aircraft speedily checked, repaired and told Rajiv that it was ready. The Congress Busybodies forced a reluctant-to-leave-Vishakapatnam Rajiv, to fly from Vishakapatnam to Chennai enroute to Sriperumbudur in Tamilnadu.Rajiv flew to Chennai and went by road to Sriperumbudur. As soon as the cavalcade of cars of Rajiv and the Tamilnadu State leaders accompanying Rajiv reached Sriperumbudur, Rajiv got out of the car and walked through the crowd to the Dias.When any national leader visits any part of the country then the moment the leader gets down from the Aircraft, the entire State Leadership of his Party surrounds him. The State Leaders stick to him through out the Visit until he gets back in to the Airport. If a Photograph is taken at any given minute of the visit, the Photo will contain the National Leader and the Top State Leaders. Whether it is Vajpayee, Advani, Rajnath Singh, Sonia or any national leader the scenario is the same. Every Photo Frame will consist of the National leader being surrounded by State Leaders.When Rajiv alighted at Sriperumbudur all the state Leaders were there. However, each of the Tamilnadu State Leaders suddenly decided to keep away from Rajiv. From the car, Rajiv walked through the crowd unaccompanied by any State Leader.So, when the Human Bomb Exploded, Rajiv was Blown to pieces, but not a single Tamilnadu State Leader Died with him. G.K.Moopanar, P.Chidambaram, Maragatham Chandrashekar and several Other Tamilnadu state Leaders did not walk with Rajiv. Strange and Impossible. But the Tamilnadu State leaders allowed Rajiv to walk the Death-Walk Alone.In the Final Photo Frame of Rajiv Gandhi, no Tamilnadu State leader was present with Rajiv. Were all these State Leaders aware that Rajiv would be killed and hence kept away from Rajiv to save their lives?The Investigation in to the Rajiv Assassination has not interrogated or put on the Lie Detector Test and the Narco-Analysis Test the Congress Bigwigs who insisted that Rajiv must leave Vishakapatnam and go to Tamilnadu, that Assassination night. Why?Similarly the Investgation did not interrogate and subject to a Lie Detector and a Narco Analysis Test the Tamilnadu Congress State Leaders who deserted Rajiv immediately after he got out of the car at Sriperumbudur. Why?Intelligence Agencies Sources say that the International Arms Dealer Adnan Kashogi provided the Bomb Belt worn by the L.T.T.E.’s suicide Human Bomb to assassinate Rajiv Gandhi. India’s Investigation never pursued this lead. Why?Later P.V.Narasimha Rao’s son Prabhakar Rao and Adnan Kashogi’s Son were involved in a UREA SCAM. The Government of India in Dollars issued 125 crores even before the Urea arrived in India. Till today the Urea has not arrived. The 125 Crores has not been recovered from Narasimha Rao’s Son. Now the Manmohan Singh Government has allowed the Crores of Rupees in the Swiss Banks to be defreezed. Narasimha Rao deserved to be in jail for corruption but Manmohan calls him a Saint.India’s Investigation in to the Rajiv Assassination has not investigated P.V.Narasimha Rao and Adnan Kashoggi’s Family to ascertain the facts and complicity, if any, in the Assassination of Rajiv Gandhi. Why?Ottavio Quattrocchi was the Mastermind in the Conspiracy to Assassinate Rajiv Gandhi. But Quattrocchi was never investigated. Why?The Intelligence Agencies of France, Israel and the United States of America have Highly Classified Secret Data pertaining to all the details of the Rajiv Gandhi Assassination.Israel, France and US are all Democracies. All three nations are closely involved with India in the International war against terrorism. It is their responsibility to provide India with every bit of evidence and information that they and their Intelligence agencies possess about the Assassination of R ajiv Gandhi.So far these Nations have not given India any information because the government of India has not requested them. The moment India requests these countries then they will give to India, all the information they Requests the Parliament of India to ensure that the Government of India obtains all the information pertaining to the Assassination of Rajiv Gandhi available with the Intelligence Agencies of France, Israel and the US and discloses all the information to India’s Requests the Parliament of India to ensure that an investigation is ordered in to the Role of Ottavio Quattrocchi in the Assassination of Rajiv Gandhi.Quattrocchi must be arrested, brought to India put on a Lie Detector Test and a Narco-Analysis Test and Questioned about his Role in the Conspiracy to Assassinate Rajiv expects India’s Parliament to do justice to one of its Assassinated Member of Parliament Rajiv Gandhi.President of India Kalam is now in France. The Government of India must request President Kalam to request the French President to make available to India the Tapes of the Secret Meeting in the Paris Hotel and all other information involving the Assassination of Rajiv Gandhi.The People of India must know the truth about the Assassination of Rajiv and the Conspirators must be arrested, prosecuted and given the Death Sentence.
Sorse of the story hear By :-

పూర్తిగా చదవండి

DMK helped LTTE assassinate Rajiv Gandhi.

Munnetra Kazhagam, DMK Leader

India’s Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam party (DMK) and its leader Karunanidhi who is the chief minister of Tamil Nadu came in for strong criticism in the interim report of a retired judge who probed the circumstances leading to the killing in 1991 by an LTTE female suicide bomber. Indian officials blamed the killing on Sri Lankan Tamil Tiger terrorists, who the judge said had received support in the past from the DMK.

In 1976, Gandhi's federal government dismissed Karunanidhi's government, which was accused of corruption. A year later, MGR won local elections and sent Karunanidhi into political wilderness until MGR's death in 1987.

After a year of direct rule by the federal government, the DMK party regained power in Tamil Nadu in 1989. Two years later the federal government dismissed Karunanidhi for a second time, accusing him of not doing enough to crack down on the Tamil Tigers in his state.

Further, the Commission said, the LTTE was getting its supplies, including arms, ammunition, explosives, fuel and other essential items from Tamil Nadu to continue its fight against the IPKF that too with the support of the DMK Government, State Administration and connivance of the law enforcement agencies.

The report said that soon after the DMK Government took over the reins of power in Tamil Nadu, "the LTTE slowly began to consolidate itself in the State and their clandestine activities, heretofore dormant, became more and more pronounced. All the activities of the LTTE at this stage towards resource mobilisation, propaganda and treatment of their wounded cadres, had taken an anti-national dimension.''

The Commission noted the visit of the then DMK MP, Mr. V. Gopalaswamy, MP (DMK) to Northern Sri Lanka and his reported meeting with Prabhakaran between February 8, 1989, and March 3, 1989.

"This visit by Mr. V. Gopalaswamy, and the manner in which this entire episode was dealt with by the DMK party sent clear signals to the pro-LTTE anti-IPKF elements in the State as well as LTTE itself that the newly-elected Government would not resort to any drastic action against such elements; on the other hand, the impression that the entire episode created was that pro-LTTE gestures, even if they were illegal, would be tolerated by the Government.''

The Commission's report said the then Prime Minister, Rajiv Gandhi, was keen that "some satisfactory solution be arrived at with the LTTE so that the Indo-Sri Lankan Accord could be implemented in letter and spirit. He discussed this concern with Mr. Karunanidhi and sought his assistance.'' After Mr. V. P. Singh became the Prime Minister on December 2, 1989, it was spelt out that if no solution came, India would no longer give any military or monetary help to any of the groups, nor allow its mainland to be used for militant activities. "The LTTE remained adamant during their parleys with Mr. Karunanidhi, and continued to demand the formation of Eelam,'' the report noted.

The interim report said that credible reports existed of "active connivance of some DMK leaders with the LTTE. The LTTE was in continuous interaction with Mr. Karunanidhi, primarily to ensure that their activities continue unhindered even after the Padmanabha killing.'' The ATR "noted'' the observation of the Commission that there was a nexus between the LTTE and the ULFA and their combined endeavours in Tamil Nadu had also been confirmed.

The Commission's report ponders over questions of aid to the LTTE in the killing of Rajiv Gandhi. "Were there other forces behind the LTTE involved in the conspiracy for the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi? These are questions requiring a deep and anxious probe,'' the report said referring to conspiratorial aspects which were yet to be dealt with by the one-man probe panel.

Soon after the DMK Government took over the reins of power in Tamil Nadu, the LTTE slowly began to consolidate itself in the State. During 1990, a growing nexus between the LTTE and DMK and its repercussions on the local law enforcement machinery were discernible. The assassination of EPRLF leader K. Padmanabha and others at Madras on 19th June 1990 was a shocking reminder of the impunity with which the LTTE could operate in India.

The case assumes significance due to the fact that striking similarities were found in the Padmanabha assassination and the case relating to the assassination of Shri Rajiv Gandhi. It can, therefore, be safely concluded that the growing connivance of the DMK Government with the LTTE having been brought to the knowledge of the National Front Government, effective steps were not taken by the Central government to check it, whatever may be the reasons.

From the evaluation of the material, the conclusion is irresistible that there was tacit support to the LTTE by Shri M. Karunanidhi and his Government and law enforcement agencies.

The charges, put together as long quotations from the report, include: that the DMK provided a safe sanctuary for the LTTE cadres and activists, it gave advice, active assistance, finance and security cover to LTTE operations, and that the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi would not have been possible the way it happened without the nexus between the LTTE and the DMK, a nexus which started a chain of events which led to the survival and growth of the LTTE in Tamil Nadu long after the Government of India's attitude had changed towards the LTTE and hostilities had broken out between the Indian Peace Keeping Force and the LTTE in Sri Lanka, and finally that the DMK leader and Tamil Nadu Chief Minister, Mr. M. Karunanidhi, had "himself been instrumental in ensuring that things went smoothly for LTTE'' and that the cadres of the LTTE had little fear of the security agencies in India "thanks to the patronage of the DMK Government''.


The advances in science must be used by the police to find out the
truth, to solve the mysteries of the crimes. It is the better option
for both investigation / interrogation than the classical
interrogation method involving third degree torture, where in the
accused breaks -down & blurts out the truth, usually, in most of the
cases innocents unable to bear the torture confesses to the crimes
they have not at all committed. The scientific tools of interrogation
namely Narco-analysis . Brain mapping & polygraph Tests must be made
mandatory for interrogation. The perpetrators of third degree torture
i.e. Police Military personnel must be punished severelly. Not just
on innocents, even on proven criminals police have no rights to
torture. It is grossly inhuman & illegal.

At present, there is certain bias in the usage of scientific
interrogation tools:-

1) Generally everybody is afraid of police & their corrupt practices.
Even innocent persons are frightened of false fix-ups & third degree
torture by police. This fear shows up in their heightened anxiety
level, changes in their blood pressure, respiration, heart-beat etc.,
There are chances of misinterpreting this as the "Fear of a criminal
of being caught"

2) These scientific tools are in the hands of police only. Therefore
it is biased towards the police or prosecution in a case. Forensic
science labs where these scientific interrogations are conducted are
under the control of Police department . Fundamental objective of
police is to prove their case, the prosecutions stand point rather
than finding out the truth. Sometimes, the stand points of
prosecution police are influenced by caste, political & monetary
considerations. This bias reflects in the preparation of
the "Questionnaire by the Interrogator" The interrogator if he wants
to bring out a negative image of the accused before the court, he
prepares the questionnaire such that only negative issues come out as
the answers. If the accused has got political patronage & has paid
hefty bribe to the police questionnaire is prepared such as to bring
out a positive image, to highlight innocent image of the accused.
Leaving out all other related questions, which brings out truth, a
negative image of the accused. The police are the one who decide the
fate, destiny of the accused.

3) Every human being has two personalities with in his sub -
conscious mind one personality is evil, selfish & craves for all
material pleasures. The other personality is good , humane & sociable
one. Whenever an issue comes up before a human being , whenever a
human being sees, reads or hears a subject two opinions are
formulated about it by him. One by his evil, selfish ego the other by
his good, humane self .A perfect human being, a social being is one
who controls his mind, contains the evil influences of his selfish
self and follows the guidance of his good self. This readily
expresses itself through good humane social actions. A criminal is
one who does not have control over his mind and acts according to the
evil guidance of the selfish self.

There are chances of mis-interpretation during scientific
interrogation . If you expose only evil self you will get a negative
image or else if you expose only the good self you will get a
positive image of the accused. For a balanced view, you have to see
the both evil-self & good self of the accused together with his past
& present actions.

4) At present only it is the prosecution who can use these scientific
interrogation facilities, but not the defence.
In the fake stamp paper scam during Narco Analysis , king pin Mr.
Karim Lala Telgi blurted out the truth - gave out the names of his
VVIP accomplices, Police accomplices, his business details, so far so

Hereby I do request you to order both the union government & all
state governments :-

1) To keep the forensic science laboratories under the control of
autonomous bodies like National Human Rights Commission.

2) To make the scientific facilities of interrogation available for
both the prosecution & the defence of course, for a fee.

3) To enact legislation to subject the corrupt investigating officer,
corrupt public prosecutor, corrupt presiding judge of the case, etc.,
to scientific interrogations, by both the defence & prosecution.

4) To factor in the allowances for the natural fear for police (for
their corrupt, ruthless, devil face)

5) To create an unbiased impartial atmosphere free of fear or favour
to conduct the scientific interrogation.

6) To enact guidelines for scientific interrogation for framing
questions to bring out both good & evil self in the sub conscious to
have a balanced view of the man under question together with his past
& present actions .

7) To make it mandatory for all cases including VVIPs .

In various cases scams, involving VVIPs cases drag on for years.
Public money is wasted through waste of deliberations of the house (
Parliament, Legislative Assembly), Waste through constitution of
Parliamentary committees , Judicial commissions, why not all those
VVIPs accused of involvement in scams subjected to tests like Narco
analysis, poly graph, Brain finger printing etc., So that L K Advani
& Murali Manohar Joshi will tell about Babri Masjid demolition, Sonia
gandhi family will tell about Bofors, George Fernandese about
Tehelka, Raja about telecom tenders, Lallo Prasad Yadav about fodder scam. The
scam tainted VVIP list goes on. Why not these VVIPs are subjected to
scientific interrogation with unbiased questionnaire?

Narcoanalysis and some hard facts


Narcoanalysis is being mainstreamed into investigations and court hearings in India. This raises grave scientific and ethical questions.

Narcoanalysis is conducted in a hospital in the presence of a physician and an anaesthetist who administers the barbiturate. A clinical psychologist questions the suspect. Here, a suspect in a 2004 murder case in Bangalore is being "narcoanalysed". The court acquitted her as narcoanalysis could be used only for investigation and not to convict suspects.

NARCOANALYSIS has become an increasingly, perhaps alarmingly, common term in India. It refers to the process of psychotherapy conducted on a subject by inducing a sleep-like state with the aid of barbiturates or other drugs. In a spate of high-profile cases, such as those of the Nithari killers and the Mumbai train blasts, suspects have been whisked away to undergo an interview, drugged with the barbiturate sodium pentothal.

This practice has also garnered support from certain State governments as well as the judiciary. Politicians have fallen into the habit of hurling the term `narcoanalysis' at each other. In 2006, Karnataka Congress leader H. Vishwanath suggested that Chief Minister H.D. Kumaraswamy and his colleagues undergo narcoanalysis in the Chenamma Trust bribery case. The Home Ministry's forensic science directorate has yet to withdraw a controversial manual on best practices in narcoanalysis in which it states that facilities for narcoanalysis need to be expanded. There is also talk of the National Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences (NIMHANS) in Bangalore working with the Gandhinagar Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) to train personnel in this technique. It is not surprising then that there are about 300 people in the narcoanalysis queue at the FSL, Bangalore, alone.

It would appear that the narcoanalysis beast has acquired a life of its own. It is increasingly knocking at the doors of courts and finding ready acceptance as a device to get at the truth during police investigations, though its scientific basis and value are under strong challenge. It is for this reason that the scientific, legal, and evidentiary issues relevant to the narcoanalysis debate need to be discussed critically.

Narcoanalysis is rarely used for therapeutic purposes today. The reliability of the practice has been questioned by leading psychiatric and forensic experts. Dr. P. Chandra Sekharan, the highly regarded former Director of the Forensic Sciences Department of Tamil Nadu, has characterised the practice as an unscientific, third-degree method of investigation. Nevertheless, sections of the police in India and those connected with investigative agencies consider it the golden ticket to solving difficult cases.

Far from being novel, truth serums have been in use since the early part of the 20th century. The use of the drug scopolamine for criminal narcoanalysis was first reported in 1922. Barbiturates, which have been in use since the beginning of the last century, were being used in psychotherapy for narcoanalysis by 1930 along with other methods of therapy. During and after the War years, United States armed forces and intelligence agencies continued to experiment with truth drugs. The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has admitted to using these as part of its interrogation tactics, and a declassified CIA interrogation manual does concede that while truth drugs can be useful in overcoming resistance not dissolved by other methods, the actual content of what comes out during the interrogation can be "psychotic manifestations... hallucinations, illusions, delusions or disorientation".

At the 1977 U.S. Senate hearings on its secret mind-control project, the CIA acknowledged that "no such magic brew as the popular notion of truth serum exists".

It also said that even under the best conditions, the barbiturates would elicit an output contaminated by deception, fantasy, garbled speech, and so on. Studies have shown that persons who make truthful confessions are those who were likely to confess had interrogators persisted in using regular methods, and that persons who lie can continue to manifest a lie even under the influence of a so-called truth serum. In The Rape of the Mind, author and physician Joost Merloo says that the investigator can also induce and communicate his own thoughts and feelings to the suspect.

Scientific literature indicates that if narcoanalysis has any extra-therapeutic uses, it may be in making a suspect feel that he has revealed more than he actually did. With repeated questioning, it may be possible to reduce ambiguities although these cannot be eliminated.

Edited, printed , published owned by NAGARAJ.M.R. @ #LIG-2 / 761,HUDCO FIRST STAGE ,OPP WATERWORKS , LAXMIKANTANAGAR , HEBBAL ,MYSORE - 570017 INDIA … cell : 91 9341820313 home page : , , , , , , ,

contact : ,

No comments: