September 21, 2016

Biased SCI Judges

Filed under: Uncategorized — Nagaraja M R @ 1:47 pm

S.O.S e – Clarion Of Dalit – Weekly Newspaper On Web

Working For The Rights & Survival Of The Oppressed

Editor: NAGARAJA.M.R… VOL.10 issue.38…… .28 / 09 / 2016

PIL – Biased Judges , Biased Judgement in Mahadayi , Cauvery Dispute

An Appeal to Honourable Supreme Court of India & National Human Rights Commission for DRINKING WATER and EQUAL share of water to Karnataka People

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. OF 2016

IN THE MATTER OF

NAGARAJA . M.R

editor , SOS e Clarion of Dalit & SOS e Voice for Justice

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

Hebbal , Mysore – 570017 , Karnataka State

….Petitioner

Versus

Honourable Cabinet Secretary , Government of India
Honourable Chief Secretary , Government of Karnataka
Honourable Chief Secretary , Government of Tamilnadu
Honourable Chief Secretary , Government of Goa
Justice Deepak Mishra , SCI
Justice U.U Lalit , SCI and others

….Respondents

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

To ,

Hon’ble The Chief Justice of India and His Lordship’s Companion Justices of the Supreme Court of India.

The Humble petition of the Petitioner above named.

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH :

Facts of the case:

Our whole hearted respects to honest few in judiciary , parliament & public service. Our salutes to them , due to honest efforts of those few noble persons only at least democracy is surviving in India.

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

We respect the honest few in judiciary , police , parliament and other public services. Our whole hearted respects , salutes to them. We despise the corrupt. Sadly , criminalization of judiciary , police , politics has taken place in india. , just like the forwarning of Mr.Churchill.

Throughout this petiton the term “ JUDGE” includes all public servants performing quasi judicial & judicial functions. Judges are from the same society which is full of corruption , favoritism , caste bias , etc. Judges are also human beings who can fall prey to lure of bribes , favours , etc. They are neither gods nor monks. Also , like other human beings , they also make errors. Many persons get selected as judges based on other criteria than merit , integrity , honesty. See the scandals of KPSC , VYAPAM and mysterious supreme court collegiums system. Total lack of transparency in functioning of judges. Even when cases of national security , crimes by judges were brought before SCI no action , no answer to RTI questions. When life of human rights activist , journalist is under threat SCI doesn’t take any action rather government tries to silence him by police force. When land grabbings , lake encroachments , etc were brought to the notice of SCI at the initial stages , so that it can stop the crime. But the SCI didn’t act & let the crime happen , it is continuing till date. SCI judges may be indirectly in league with MAFIA. Therefore , NEVER A JUDGEMENT IS ALWAYS RIGHT . Some judgements are right and some biased.

Every human being needs drinking water to survive and every Human Being has got Human Right to Live by virtue of his birth itself. Without access to drinking water human beings cann’t survive , they will die. Therefore Human Right to Drinking water forms integral part of Human Right to Live. United Nations has also affirmed Human Right to Safe Drinking Water to every human being.

The said agreement regarding sharing of Cauvery water by british presidency with Rulers of Mysore Kingdom decades ago is biased in favor of state of tamil nadu.

Even decades after independence of india , why should we stick to british era agreement instead of drawing our own mutual agreement based on present needs of equality.

When a judge presiding in a case even if remotely associated with any of the parties must withdraw from the case paving the way for a neutral judge. This is to prove to the public that justice is not merely delivered but publicly shown to be delivered.

Judges are not subject experts in irrigation , engineering , rain calculation , etc. without taking the expert opinion , conducting ground assessment judges have recently made orders to release Cauvery river water to tamilnadu state.

While sharing a river water TOP PRIORITY must be DRINKING WATER for all parties concerned. Second comes irrigation. Here too it must be on equal footing first round of water for all parties for first crop , after completion of first round second round must commence for all parties. However here one party is given water for two crops other is denied water even for TOP PRIRITY DRINKING let alone for crop irrigation. It is unjust.

Lot of confusion is being created by contradictory statements made out by contesting parties , governments regarding the water stored in their reservoirs. Till date why not SCI has deputed an impartial expert team to assess the actual stored water in reservoirs , their actual needs , rain fall expected , their contingency plans in case of rain fall failure , etc. To make expert’s report public so that public in all the states will know the truth , law & order , peace will prevail.

Question(s) of Law:

Is not denial of drinking water to people of north Karnataka from mahadayi river a crime by supreme court judges ?

Is not denial of Drinking water from Cauvery river to people in Karnataka , a crime by supreme court judges Justice Deepak Mishra , Justice U.U . Lalit , government of india , government of Tamilnadu & government of Karnataka ?

Supreme court definitely has jurisdiction to safeguard human rights of people , to ensure drinking water to all parties but Does the supreme court has jurisdiction to order parties to release water for irrigation , etc ?

Grounds:

Requests for equitable justice , equal share of water and drinking water at the earliest.. Protection of Human Rights of Karnataka People , specifically protection of their human rights to life & drinking water.

Averment:

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

That the present petitioner has not filed any other petition (which are admitted by courts) in any High Court or the Supreme Court of India on the subject matter of the present petition.

PRAYER:

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

a . Hereby , I do request the honorable supreme court of India to consider this as a PIL for : “writ of Mandamus” and to issue instructions to the Union Cabinet Secretary , Government of India , chief secretaries of all state governments , the concerned public servants in the present case , to perform their duties.

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

to order government of Karnataka to ensure supply of drinking water from Cauvery River to people living in Karnataka and thereby protect their human rights. .
to order Government of India and other riparian states to ensure drinking water to all people.
to annul the present biased Cauvery river sharing agreement between Karnataka , tamilnadu state and to constitute expert committee to arrive at a scientific formula to ensure drinking water to all parties concerned. To make that expert’s report public.
As SCI doesn’t have jurisdiction to interfere in river sharing , to order government of india to arrange a conciliatory meeting between the parties.
to immediately post all the Cauvery , mahadayi , Krishna river disputes related cases to court of neutral judges of supreme court of india who are not even remotely associated to contesting parties.
to criminally prosecute respective supreme court judges who have denied drinking water to people of Karnataka from mahadayi & Cauvery rivers , for violation of human rights & fundamental rights. Make public the asset details , career growth details of theses judges & their family members public.
after releasing all the water from KRS dam , In case of rain failure the water is not sufficient for drinking purposes till next monsoon. In such case supreme court must arrange for supply of drinking water to people of Karnataka at the expense of government of india & government of tamilnadu.
As per supreme court’s directive Karnataka people are not allowed to draw drinking water from mahadayi river and is flowing to goa finally to be wasted. Supreme court must immediately arrange for supply of drinking water to people of north Karnataka at the expense of government of india & goa.

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

Dated : 21st September 2016 …………………….FILED BY: NAGARAJA.M.R.

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

Editorial : Supreme Court of India violating Fundamental Rights

Drinking water is a basic need , essential for human beings , cattles , live stock to survive. Following two PILs seeking drinking water from Cauvery River & Mahadayi River is an effort by public , our publication , a struggle for life, survival. Right to Life is a Human Right must be respected by all law making bodies and even supreme court of india. SCI itself is grossly violating citizen’s fundamental rights , human rights instead of safe guarding it. Who will prosecute SCI judges ? God save my India.

Jai Hind. Vande Mataram.

Your’s sincerely,

Nagaraja.M.R.

The court verdict that prompted Indira Gandhi to declare Emergency

Seldom does a court verdict change the course of history of a country.

The June 12, 1975 verdict of the Allahabad High Court convicting then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi of electoral malpractices and debarring her from holding any elected post falls in this category. The verdict delivered by Justice Jagmohanlal Sinha, it is widely believed, led to imposition of Emergency in India on June 25, 1975.

Indira Gandhi had won the 1971 Lok Sabha election from Rae Bareli Lok Sabha seat in Uttar Pradesh convincingly defeating socialist leader Raj Narain, who later challenged her election alleging electoral malpractices and violation of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. It was alleged that her election agent Yashpal Kapoor was a government servant and that she used government officials for personal election related work.

While convicting Indira Gandhi of electoral malpractices, Justice Sinha disqualified her from Parliament and imposed a six-year ban on her holding any elected post.

“The respondent no. I (Indira Gandhi) was thus guilty of a corrupt practice under section 123(7) of the Act…..accordingly stands disqualified for a period of six years from the date of this order…,” Justice Sinha pronounced to a stunned Indira Gandhi who was present in person in the court. But on an appeal filed by Indira Gandhi, Justice VR Krishna Iyer – a vacation judge of the Supreme Court – on June 24, 1975 granted a conditional stay on Justice Sinha’s verdict allowing her to continue as Prime Minister. However, she was debarred from taking part in parliamentary proceedings and draw salary as an MP.

Interestingly, the very next day she imposed the Emergency suspending all fundamental rights, putting opposition leaders in jails and imposing censorship on the media.

While the Emergency was in force, the Supreme Court later overturned her conviction on November 7, 1975.

Asked if Justice Sinha’s verdict changed the course of India’s history, senior advocate Shanti Bhushan – who represented Raj Narain – said: “Yes indeed the emergency as well as Indira losing the 1977 election was the direct result of Justice Jagmohanlal Sinha’s judgment.”

“Justice Sinha was a very able honest and God fearing judge. Before the judgment an attempt was made to influence him by the then Chief Justice of Allahabad High Court D S Mathur who visited him at his residence along with his wife for the first and only one time to convey to him that he had been informed by Dr Mathur who was related to him and was the personal physician of Mrs Gandhi that she had decided to elevate Justice Sinha to the Supreme Court after he had decided the case. However Justice Sinha’s strong conscience did not permit him to take the bait. This was conveyed to me long after the judgment by Justice Sinha himself when we both were playing golf in Allahabad.

“His judgment was unassailable and Mrs Gandhi had to change the law retrospectively to get over his judgment. His judgment was hailed all over the democratic world as a great triumph of an independent judiciary in India”, Bhushan – a former law minister – said.

When Judges Got It Wrong

The ‘ADM Jabalpur’ judgment in the backdrop of Emergency remains a blot.

Appointed out of turn, the new chief justice turned out to be a committed judge and a few months before his retirement in 1977 gifted to the nation the infamy of ADM Jabalpur.

“The care and concern bestowed by the state authorities upon the welfare of detenues who are well housed, well fed and well treated, is almost maternal” — wrote Supreme Court judge Hameedullah Beg in his separate judgment in the ADM Jabalpur case (1976) on the issues if citizens’ fundamental rights could be suspended during the Emergency. The allusion in the word “maternal” to the lady prime minister of the time who had imposed the infamous Emergency on the country, was too obvious to be disavowed. And the child got his due reward from the mother. Beg was appointed the next chief justice of India, superseding the legendary judge H.R. Khanna, who had bravely dissented from the majority judgment. If The New York Times saluted the dissenting judge saying “if India ever finds its way back to freedom and democracy that were proud hallmarks of its first eighteen years as an independent nation, someone will surely erect a monument to Justice H.R. Khanna”, so what? Nehru’s daughter never had any remorse for what she had done.

This was the second time Indira Gandhi had superseded a senior judge to appoint a CJI of her choice. Before this, in April 1973, Ajit Nath Ray, junior to three judges in the apex court, had superseded all three to become the chief justice. Former Chief Justice Mohammad Hidayatullah had called it an initiative to produce “not forward looking judges but judges looking forward to their future”. Former Attorney General for India C.K. Daphtary had remarked “the boy who wrote the best essay won the first prize” — the reference being to Ray’s dissent in the cause célèbre called Kesavananda Bharati, delivered just two days before he took over as the CJI.

Appointed out of turn, the new chief justice turned out to be a committed judge and a few months before his retirement in 1977 gifted to the nation the infamy of ADM Jabalpur. Four of the five judges on the bench deciding this case — Ray, Beg, Chandrachud and Bhagwati — had gone in government’s favour; poor Khanna was the lone dissenter. Ray demitted office in 1977 and Beg, perhaps judged as the “runner up” in Kesavananda Bharti, succeeded him as the next CJI.

Ray was not rewarded further after his retirement and spent the rest of his life in ignominy, but Beg’s reward did not end with out of turn appointment as CJI. After his retirement, Indira Gandhi appointed him chairman of the Minorities Commission. As against the prescribed three-year term, he headed the Commission for seven years and was decorated with Padma Bhushan.

The majority decision in ADM Jabalpur was severely criticised everywhere then, and continues to be criticised till this date, as a dark spot in India’s legal history. On the silver jubilee of the decision in April 2001, the People’s Union for Civil Liberties remembered it as “a judgment so shameful that even Hitler would have blushed had he the opportunity to peruse it”. In his Justice Khanna Memorial Lecture of 2009, former Chief Justice M.N. Venkatachaliah said the decision deserved to be “confined to the dustbin of history”.

Delivering the next lecture in the series to honour Khanna, former Attorney General Soli J Sorabjee recollected his response to the Ray-Beg ruling: “I never cry or show my emotions after losing a case. But, that day, sitting with Nani Palkhivala in Mumbai discussing the case, I cried.” In a 2010 judgment, Justice A.K. Ganguly of the Supreme Court admitted that “the instances of this court’s judgment violating human rights of citizens may be extremely rare, but it cannot be said that such a situation can never happen. We can remind ourselves of the majority decision of the Constitution Bench of this court in ADM Jabalpur.” In a press interview given in 2011, nonagenarian P.N. Bhagwati said: “The majority judgment was not the correct judgment. If it was open to me to come to a fresh decision in that case, I would agree with what Justice Khanna did.”

Though too late in the day, these judicial confessions of guilt must have pleased the noble soul of Hansraj Khanna who had sacrificed his chance of being CJI to save the nation’s pride.

A Chief Justice of India says “I am sorry” but 30 years too late

When a former Chief Justice of India apologises for a judgement, that’s big news. And Justice P N Bhagwati was not just apologising for any judgement.

He was admitting his “mistake” about a case the New York Times called close to the Indian Supreme Court’s “utter surrender” to an absolutist government.

That case was ADM Jabalpur, popularly known as the Habeas Corpus case. On 28 April, 1976, during the Emergency, the Supreme Court had to decide if the Court could entertain a writ of habeas corpus filed by a person challenging his detention. The High Courts had already said yes. But the Supreme Court went against the unanimous decision of all the High Courts and upheld the right of Indira Gandhi’s government to suspend all fundamental rights during the Emergency. Four judges ruled for the government. One of them was Justice P N Bhagwati.

The lone dissenter was Justice H R Khanna. The New York Times wrote at that time:

If India ever finds its way back to freedom and democracy that were proud hallmarks of its first eighteen years as an independent nation, someone will surely erect a monument to Justice H R Khanna of the Supreme Court. It was Justice Khanna who spoke out fearlessly and eloquently for freedom this week.

Now 30 years later Justice Bhagwati says in an interview withMyLaw.net his judgment was “an act of weakness.” He also says, “it was against my conscience…That judgment is not Justice Bhagwati’s.”

This might sound like a brave mea culpa on his part. But unfortunately it leaves a lot to be desired.

First of all there is Justice Bhagwati’s own track record of having his ear finely tuned to the prevailing political winds.

Justice Bhagwati has praised Indira Gandhi government during the Emergency and later criticized her during the tenure of Janata government. When Indira Gandhi came back to power, he wrote a letter congratulating her.

Here’s an excerpt from that letter:

“May I offer you my heartiest congratulations on your resounding victory in the elections and your triumphant return as the Prime Minister of India…I am sure that with your iron will and firm determination, uncanny insight and dynamic vision, great administrative capacity and vast experience, overwhelming love and affection of the people and above all, a heart which is identified with the misery of the poor and the weak, you will be able to steer the ship of the nation safely to its cherished goal.”

What this really shows is that CJI Bhagwati might have gone against his conscience but certainly not against his career trajectory. Justice H R Khanna, who dissented in that Jabalpur case should have become the CJI because of his seniority. But he paid the price for that dissent. He was superceded by Justice Beg. Justice Bhagwati would likely have met with the same fate of Justice H R Khanna had he dissented.

This is not the only issue where Justice Bhagwati has made a volte face.

Take the mysterious collegium system by which Supreme Court justices are appointed which has come under heavy criticism for being an unaccountable opaque cabal. It was Justice Verma who created the collegium system but in theFirst Judges Case (the SP Gupta case) Justice Bhagwati wrote about it: “There must be a collegium to make recommendation to the President in regard to appointment of a Supreme Court or High Court Judge”.

Justice Bhagwati’s mind has now changed about that as well and he says he is against the collegium system in toto.

His own track record as a judge has also raised legal eyebrows.

Noted constitutional law jurist HM Seervai has criticised Justice Bhagwati for merely copying justice Krishna Iyer’s judgment in the Som Prakash case and incorporating it into his judgment in the Ajay Hasia case.

In a landmark case of constitutional law, popularly referred to as the Minerva Mills judgment, Justice Bhagwati wrote: “Unfortunately we could not be ready with our judgment and hence 9 May,1980 being the last working day of the Court before the summer vacation we made an order expressing our conclusion but stating that we would give our reasons later.”

A judge of the Apex Court saying “I am not ready with my reasons but this is my conclusion” anyway sets a deplorable standard for the Indian judiciary.

Justice Bhagwati writes, that after the Emergency he realized the mistake of Jabalpur and he practically rewrote Part III and Part IV of the Constitution; particularly Articles 14, 19, 21 and 32. A judge claiming that he is “writing” the Constitution, as opposed to interpreting it is unorthodox to say the least.

These days Justice Bhagwati is more in the news because he is a trustee with the beleaguered Sathya Sai Trust. As financial scandals rock the Sai Baba’s spiritual empire, the trust relies on people of the eminence of a former CJI to give it some credibility. Immediately after the demise of Satya Sai Baba Justice Bhagwati was appointed as chancellor of the Sri Sathya Sai Institute of Higher Learning (Deemed to be University). Recently in an interview given to The Times of India Justice Bhagwati said: “Sai Baba, my god, dictated my every single judgment”.

People will make of that what they will. But the real question now is what does this apology mean for the Indian judiciary. Some will think its proof of the self-correcting mechanism of the Indian judiciary. But it’s also proof of something much more damning – that political equations play a crucial role in the appointment of judges and the judgments these judges deliver.

What happened in the Habeas Corpus case was not a momentary lapse in judgment. It was a disgrace to the Supreme Court, and more so because Justice Bhagwati says it went against his conscience, even then.

This belated apology does not restore the faith of people in judiciary. The only way to do that is to have an independent judicial commission appoint judges and bring in transparency in every stage of their appointment.

It may save us from a Bhagwati-style apology another 30 years later.

PIL – Release DRINKING WATER from Mahadayi River

An Appeal to Honourable Supreme Court of India & National Human Rights Commission

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. OF 2016

IN THE MATTER OF

NAGARAJA . M.R

editor , SOS e Clarion of Dalit & SOS e Voice for Justice

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

Hebbal , Mysore – 570017 , Karnataka State

….Petitioner

Versus

Honourable Cabinet Secretary , Government of India & Others

….Respondents

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

To ,

Hon’ble The Chief Justice of India and His Lordship’s Companion Justices of the Supreme Court of India.

The Humble petition of the Petitioner above named.

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH :

Facts of the case:

Question(s) of Law:

Is not denial of Drinking water from Mahadayi / Mandovi River to people in northern Karnataka , a crime by government of india & government of Karnataka ?

Is not police brutality against people demanding drinking water and police brutality against women , aged persons , children , pregnant women in Navalgund , Yamanoor of Karnataka a crime by Karnataka police ?

Grounds:

Requests for equitable justice. Protection of Human Rights of Karnataka People , specifically protection of their human rights to life & drinking water.

Averment:

That the present petitioner has not filed any other petition (which are admitted by courts) in any High Court or the Supreme Court of India on the subject matter of the present petition.

PRAYER:

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

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

to order government of Karnataka to ensure supply of drinking water from Mahadayi / Mandovi River to people living in northern Karnataka .
to order Government of India and other riparian states to ensure drinking water to all people.
to order government of Karnataka , to initiate legal prosecution of Karnataka police personnel who committed excesses on women folk , children , aged persons in navalgund , yamanoor of Karnataka state during protest demanding water from mahadayi river.

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

Dated : 03rd August 2016 …………………….FILED BY: NAGARAJA.M.R.

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

The human right to water and sanitation

Eight short facts on the human right to water and sanitation

[ – 388 KB]

On 28 July 2010, through Resolution 64/292, the United Nations General Assembly explicitly recognized the human right to water and sanitation and acknowledged that clean drinking water and sanitation are essential to the realisation of all human rights. The Resolution calls upon States and international organisations to provide financial resources, help capacity-building and technology transfer to help countries, in particular developing countries, to provide safe, clean, accessible and affordable drinking water and sanitation for all.

In November 2002, the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights adopted General Comment No. 15 on the right to water. Article I.1 states that “The human right to water is indispensable for leading a life in human dignity. It is a prerequisite for the realization of other human rights”. Comment No. 15 also defined the right to water as the right of everyone to sufficient, safe, acceptable and physically accessible and affordable water for personal and domestic uses.

Sources:

Resolution A/RES/64/292. United Nations General Assembly, July 2010
General Comment No. 15. The right to water. UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, November 2002

The human right to water and the MDGs

Formarly acknowledging water as a human right, and expressing the willingness to give content and effect to this right, may be a way of encouraging the international community and governments to enhance their efforts to satisfy basic human needs and to meet the Millennium Development Goals.

Source: Water as a Human Right? IUCN, UNDP, 2004

What is…?

Sufficient. The water supply for each person must be sufficient and continuous for personal and domestic uses. These uses ordinarily include drinking, personal sanitation, washing of clothes, food preparation, personal and household hygiene. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), between 50 and 100 litres of water per person per day are needed to ensure that most basic needs are met and few health concerns arise.
Safe. The water required for each personal or domestic use must be safe, therefore free from micro-organisms, chemical substances and radiological hazards that constitute a threat to a person’s health. Measures of drinking-water safety are usually defined by national and/or local standards for drinking-water quality. The World Health Organization (WHO) Guidelines for drinking-water quality provide a basis for the development of national standards that, if properly implemented, will ensure the safety of drinking-water.
Acceptable. Water should be of an acceptable colour, odour and taste for each personal or domestic use. […] All water facilities and services must be culturally appropriate and sensitive to gender, lifecycle and privacy requirements.
Physically accessible. Everyone has the right to a water and sanitation service that is physically accessible within, or in the immediate vicinity of the household, educational institution, workplace or health institution. According to WHO, the water source has to be within 1,000 metres of the home and collection time should not exceed 30 minutes.
Affordable. Water, and water facilities and services, must be affordable for all. The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) suggests that water costs should not exceed 3 per cent of household income.

UN initiatives that are helping to raise the issue…

Human Rights Council Resolution A/HRC/RES/18/1

On 28 September 2011, the UN Human Rights Council passed a new resolution which takes the human right to safe drinking water and sanitation a step further. The Council welcomed the submission of the compilation of good practices on the right to safe drinking water and sanitation, in which the Special Rapporteur put particular emphasis on practical solutions with regard to the implementation of the human right to safe drinking water and sanitation. The resolution calls on States to ensure enough financing for sustainable delivery of water and sanitation services.

World Health Assembly Resolution 64/24 [ – 24 KB]

In May 2011, the World Health Organization (WHO), through Resolution 64/24, made a call to Member States “to ensure that national health strategies contribute to the realization of water- and sanitation-related Millennium Development Goals while coming in support to the progressive realization of the human right to water and sanitation” and to WHO’s Director General to “to strengthen WHO’s collaboration with all relevant UN-Water members and partners, as well as other relevant organizations promoting access to safe drinking-water, sanitation and hygiene services, so as to set an example of effective intersectoral action in the context of WHO’s involvement in the United Nations Delivering as One initiative, and WHO’s cooperation with the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the human right to safe drinking water and sanitation with a view to improving the realization of the human right to water and Sanitation”.

Appointment of an independent expert [ – 32 KB]

In March 2008, through resolution 7/22, the Human Rights Council decided “To appoint, for a period of three years, an independent expert on the issue of human rights obligations related to access to safe drinking water and sanitation”. In April 2011, through resolution 16/2, the Human Rights Council decided to extend the mandate for a period of three years. The Independent Expert monitors and reports on States’ implementation of the right to water as well as related violations.

More Than Bad Maths: Four Big Errors That Let Jayalalithaa Off the Hook

BY SANDHYA RAVISHANKAR

A day after former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister J Jayalalithaa was acquitted by the Karnataka High Court on May 11 in a high profile corruption case, Special Public Prosecutor BV Acharya revealed arithmetic errors in the judgment. An error in adding up a tabular column of loans considered as income by the High Court judge left a gaping hole of Rs 13.5 crore, which the AIADMK is still trying to explain away.

Now, more serious errors of duplication have been found in Judge CR Kumaraswamy’s verdict. It now appears that the High Court has, erroneously, added loan amounts twice to the income of the defendants. This means that the amount calculated by the judge as ‘explained income’ — the basis on which the court has exonerated Jayalalithaa and others — is a highly inflated figure.

To put it in simple terms, disproportionate wealth is calculated by adding up all the assets and income of the accused and finding out which of the assets and income are from an explained valid source of income. Those assets and income that do not have a satisfactory source are then deemed to be disproportionate wealth.

The trial court, in September 2014, had found Jayalalithaa guilty of possessing disproportionate wealth to the tune of Rs 53.6 crore. Earlier this month the Karnataka HC ruled on her appeal, acquitting her of all charges as it found disproportionate wealth to be only to the tune of Rs 2.82 crore. The High Court cited earlier judgments to argue that 10% of unexplained wealth was permissible as per law and that since only 8.12% of the defendants’ wealth was disproportionate to their income, they were liable to be acquitted as per law.

Duplication of loans

On page 852 of the High Court order, Judge Kumaraswamy has put in place a tabular column showing a list of 10 loans, which, he argues, would constitute additional income, automatically bringing down the total amount of disproportionate income in Jayalalithaa’s case. He then adjusts the sum assessed as income by the prosecution and arrives at a new figure.

Out of the 10 loans, the first one, a loan to Jaya Publications from Indian Bank to the tune of Rs 1.5 crore is clearly shown to have been repaid in full, in the corresponding Page 294 of the trial court order and has been accepted as legitimate expenditure by the lower court. Therefore, it is already factored in.

Of the other nine loans listed, seven of these have already been taken into account by the prosecution. In fact, the trial court order, on pages 126 to 139, delves in detail into each individual loan taken by the defendants and accepts them either completely or partially with reasons.

Legal experts say that this amounts to duplication of income – if, for instance, the trial court has accepted an income of Rs 100 out of these loans, the High Court has erroneously taken the same Rs 100 and added it once again, assuming that the lower court had omitted to do so. This would take the total income to double the actual amount i.e. Rs 200.

In fact, the High Court appears to have made some more glaring errors. Item number 8 in the table on Page 852 is a loan of Rs 1.57 crore in the name of VN Sudhakaran, Jayalalithaa’s foster son and one of the accused. A comparison with Pages 136 and 137 of the trial court order shows the discrepancy. Three pieces of evidence are cited in this particular loan – one, a letter from Sudhakaran to Indian Bank requesting a loan of Rs 1.57 crore. The second evidence is a letter from Indian Bank sanctioning a loan amount of Rs 1.33 crore and not the full amount requested. The third bit of evidence is the statement of accounts from the bank’s records. The trial court has taken the outstanding balance of the loan amount as income. The High Court, however, in a glaring error, takes into account only the first piece of evidence i.e. the loan amount requested by Sudhakaran, which was not even sanctioned in full.

Page 852 of High Court Judge Kumaraswamy’s judgment of May 11, 2015

Other loans show up similar discrepancies in the High Court order.

Another glaring error in the loan table is that of item number 3 – a loan of Rs 90 lakhs taken by Jayalalithaa from Indian Bank. The HC has taken this into account despite that loan having been sanctioned in August 1996, after the ‘check period’ of the case, i.e. after her first term as Chief Minister of the state had ended.

Details of loans listed on pp126-127 in trial court Judge Cunha’s September 2014 verdict finding Jayalalithaa guilty of corruption

Page 127 of trial court Judge Cunha’s verdict of September 2014

Once we discount the duplicated loans, the arithmetic now works out as follows.

Total assets accepted by HC: Rs 37,59,02,466

Total income as calculated by HC (incl loans as under Page 852): Rs 34,76,65,654

Now we deduct the amount of Rs 18,17,46,000 from this since the loans mentioned have already been taken into account by the trial court.

Only one component Item number 9 would be added since it does not reflect in the trial court’s math.

New total = Old total – loan income

i.e. Rs 34,76,65,654 – Rs 18,17,46,000

Add Item number 9 as extra loan = Rs 1,65,00,000

New total income = Rs 18,24,19,654

Now we apply this new total income to the formula used by the HC on Page 914 of the order, to arrive at the percentage of disproportionate wealth.

Disproportionate assets = Total assets – Total income

= Rs 37,59,02,466 – Rs 18,24,19,654

= Rs 19,34,82,812

This means the amount of disproportionate assets shoots up to Rs 19.3 crores from Rs 2.82 crores as given in the HC order.

Percentage = Disproportionate assets X 100 / Income

= Rs 19,34,82,812 X 100 / 18,24,19,654

The percentage now goes up to 106% as opposed to the 8.12% calculated by the HC, which was the number that acquitted Jayalalithaa and 3 others.

“There are a number of apparent errors in the High Court’s treatment of the funds that need to be gone into,” said Supreme Court lawyer Karuna Nundy. “For instance, the first item in Page 852 of the High Court judgment is a loan of Rs 1.5 cr (Ex.P.1027) – the High Court treats this as income that has been properly explained. The trial court though, examined the bank manager and saw documents that showed that the loan from the Indian Bank had already been paid back. This leaves an unexplained amount of over 1 crore. There are other gaps – take Ex.P.1330, a Rs 1.57 crore loan taken by VN Sudhakaran, again from Indian Bank. The trial court order clearly shows Sudhakaran only received Rs 1.33 cr of the Rs 1.57 cr, sanctioned.”

“This allegation is incorrect,” said a senior AIADMK leader who did not wish to be named. “We have thoroughly looked through the order and there is no discrepancy,” he said.

The 10% loophole

Jurists are spitting fire at the law used by Judge Kumaraswamy on Page 914 of his order acquitting Jayalalithaa. In this, the judge has cited the Krishnanand Agnihotri case, which states that “when there is disproportionate asset to the extent of 10%, the accused are entitled for acquittal.” He has also cited a circular issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh which states, “Disproportionate asset to the extent of 20% can also be considered as a permissible limit.”

“Is the judiciary giving legal sanction to corruption?” asked a retired High Court judge who did not wish to be named. “Will this 10% sanction apply to its own officers and subordinate judiciary? So a court clerk found taking a bribe of Rs 1000 could be let off since it is less than 10% of his annual salary? Will this 10% be allowed on an annual basis or on the basis of tenure of the staff? And every time a chargesheet is filed henceforth, will this 10% rule apply? Is the judiciary giving a blessing to public servants for violating their oath by giving them 10% leeway?” asked the judge.

“Unfortunately the SC judgment in Krishnanand Agnihotri’s case has been misinterpreted,” said lawyer Nundy. “The HC says “when there is disproportionate asset to the extent of 10%, the accused are entitled for acquittal.” Nowhere does the Supreme Court judgment lay this down as a rule. Agnihotri’s case was explicitly decided in the context of his own offence, which was relatively minor. If the High Court thought Jayalalithaa deserved the benefit for much larger amounts it needed to explain why,” she said.

Legal eagles say that this ruling by the High Court judge could set a bad precedent, one that encourages bribery. Especially when the Supreme Court earlier observed that corruption is “the enemy of the nation” and had exhorted courts to show “zero tolerance” towards this scourge.

“It is an accepted legal precedent,” insisted the AIADMK leader. “The High Court judge is right in his assessment.”

Retired Madras HC judge K Chandru agrees. “The Andhra precedent and the other precedent have been followed in many cases and officers have been let out on the basis of the discount, it has become a judicial precedent by the judge made law. One need not argue specifically on such issues and it is left to the discretion of the court,” he said.

IT returns as proof of income

The Karnataka High Court overturned the guilty verdict of the trial court by arguing that the lower court had not considered the Income Tax returns of the defendants. Judge Kumaraswamy then added this income declared in the IT returns of the defendants to clear them of a large chunk of disproportionate assets.

“There are many prior cases where the Supreme Court has said that in cases involving disproportionate assets, the source of the income must be explained convincingly,” said the retired judge. “Income tax returns are not reliable since they do not verify the source of the income. It is wrong to accept IT returns as proof of income unless the source of the income is proven to be valid,” he said.

Legal experts also point out that in many instances, the High Court has accepted IT returns which have been filed much later, as in the case of Namadhu MGR. On Page 875 of the HC order, the judge agrees that IT returns filed as an afterthought cannot be relied upon. “When Income Tax returns have not been filed for many years, it disentitles the assessee substantially. A doubt arises in the genuineness of the Income Tax returns. But when it is produced before the Income Tax department after a long time and is not produced when its production was warranted, it is a suspicious circumstance against the genuineness of the claim of the assessee in respect of this subscription item i.e. Namadhu MGR.”

Experts say that under the Nallammal vs State ruling of 1999, the term “income” has been clearly defined by the Supreme Court. “… ‘known sources of income’ means income received from any lawful source and such receipt has been intimated in accordance with the provisions of any law, rules or orders for the time being applicable to a public servant.” They say that this would, in effect, rule out IT returns as proof of income, since source of that income is not often verified while assessing returns.

However, Kumaraswamy proceeds to accept the income in part i.e. a sum of Rs 4 crores. “In effect, this is an afterthought explanation that anyone can give in a DA case,” said the retired judge. “So basically I can wait until a chargesheet is filed, then I can add all my unexplained income and file my IT returns after that – I will get away scot free. This judgment can be quoted in cases involving IT returns as well. Jurists should wake up to the impact this could have on the social structure, the economy and political structure. If afterthought IT returns are accepted, this means black money can easily come into the system and be laundered by filing a simple IT return,” he said.

“Under this head, the High Court may be wrong and there was no justification to ignore the findings given by Cunha,” said retired judge Chandru. “Sec 19 (3) (a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act does not allow an appellate court (in this case Karnataka HC) to take a different view from the special court in such matters unless there was a failure of justice,” he said.

The AIADMK says relying on IT returns is a legally sound decision. “The IT department is under an IT law and decisions taken by it are final,” said the AIADMK leader. “There is nothing wrong with relying on IT returns.”

Foreign remittance

Apart from the acceptance of IT returns which were filed belatedly, in the case of birthday gifts too, a curious case of a foreign remittance included in this list draws attention. This Rs 77 lakh remittance is the subject of a CBI investigation. The case was dismissed by the Madras High Court and the matter has been mired in legal technicalities and pending before the Supreme Court since 2012.

“Receiving gifts from foreign countries by a minister is completely prohibited by the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (FERA),” said retired judge Chandru. “It can be accepted as an income for the purpose of the present case if it is shown that it was remitted by a bonafide person.”

The retired judge quoted the Supreme Court to ask whether this means the judiciary encourages politicians to take bribes in kind rather than cash. “If public servants are allowed to accept presents when they are prohibited under a penalty from accepting bribes, they would easily circumvent the prohibition by accepting the bribe in the shape of a present,” he said.

The AIADMK insists that this is an accepted precedent.

Other errors

The legal fraternity points out other errors in the judgement. One is that of a virtual lack of prosecution in the case. After the Supreme Court struck down the appointment of then Special Public Prosecutor Bhavani Singh in January 2015, a new SPP was appointed by the Karnataka government. BV Acharya was given only a day’s time to submit written arguments (“not more than 50 pages” as per Justice Deepak Mishra’s order) and oral arguments were not allowed.

Another error pointed out is that of the HC dismissing government rates for construction materials as being “too high” and thereby reducing the costs of construction and renovation in the properties of the defendants.

“In the absence of other proper evidence, only government rates i.e. rates prescribed by the Public Works Department can be taken into account,” said the retired judge. “It is standard practice in all courts,” he said.

Retired judge Chandru disagrees. “Judge Kumaraswamy even said that when he purchased tiles for constructing his house, it was almost the same as claimed by Jayalalithaa,” he said.

Rental income added by the HC too appears to be unexplained. On Page 833 of the HC order, the judge simply takes into account a sum of Rs 3.22 lakhs. A perusal of the trial court order shows that rental income has been taken into account. Legal experts say this is a mystifying figure.

Image of the judiciary

Jurists warn that the High Court verdict could set many precedents for erroneous verdicts in the future. They say that this is the first time a powerful politician has been brought to book by a trial court and therefore, an important order that should not be taken lightly.

“The Supreme Court has to remember that the world is watching India,” said the retired judge. “This judgment will bring down the image of the Indian judiciary in the world. The apex court must look into this closely and seriously,” he said.

“This case became significant because right from the beginning there were attempts to delay the hearing by opposing the constitution of a special court,” said Chandru. “Then the accused was two times Chief Minister during the investigation and the police was under her Home Ministry. Then the Supreme court intervention on the transfer of the case to another state, appointment of Special Public Prosecutor, fixing time limit for hearing the appeal and even fixing the quantity of stationary to be used for the written brief and not allowing oral arguments. All these make it a unique case involving corruption,” he said.

SC lawyer Nundy agrees. “It’s important that the Supreme Court hear this case in appeal,” she said. “In fact, given the level of detail and the vagaries of prosecution, it might also be a fit case to appoint an amicus curiae, or ‘friend of the court’, to make sure justice is not only done but seen to be done – beyond reasonable doubt,” she added.

And while the Karnataka government dithers over whether or not to head to the Supreme Court on appeal, the legal fraternity is certainly chafing at what has taken place.

Flawed Jayalalithaa Verdict Finally Heads to Supreme Court

BY SANDHYA RAVISHANKAR ON 01/06/2015

As the Karnataka cabinet decides to move the Supreme Court in appeal, The Wireunearths more errors in the High Court verdict acquitting Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Jayalalithaa

The Karnataka cabinet today decided to move the Supreme Court on appeal against the recent Bangalore High Court verdict acquitting J. Jayalalithaa, her close aide Sasikala and two others in a disproportionate assets case.

“I welcome the decision of the Karnataka cabinet,” said BV Acharya, special public prosecutor in the case. “The government has accepted the legal opinions and recommendations given both by the Advocate General as well as by myself,” he said.

Following the decision taken by the Karnataka cabinet, state Law Minister TB Jayachandra told reporters that the cabinet decided to appeal on the basis of merits of the case. “The Supreme Court has specifically said that Karnataka has stepped into the shoes of Tamil Nadu and that the state is the sole prosecuting agency for all matters related to the case,” he said. “Legally on merits we have decided to file the appeal in Supreme Court. BV Acharya will continue to be the special public prosecutor for the appeal as well,” he added.

In his May 11 verdict, Judge CR Kumaraswamy of the Bangalore High Court acquitted the Tamil Nadu Chief Minister and others of all charges in a 19-year-old corruption case. A trial court in Bangalore had, in September 2014, convicted them of holding unexplained wealth to the tune of Rs 53 crores.

The Wire had earlier this month reported on the four main inconsistencies in the High Court’s verdict which had allowed Jayalalithaa and others to be acquitted. But there is one more large and inexplicable error in the High Court verdict, say legal experts.

Since the fundamental determinant of the accused persons’ disproportionate assets hinges on their spending more money during the impugned period than their declared sources of income, the acquittal turned on the curious tabulation of expenditure made by Judge Kumaraswamy — especially the money spent on construction costs

On Page 797 in the High Court order acquitting Jayalalithaa – after a lengthy discussion of the arguments of the prosecution, the defence and the trial court order – Judge Kumaraswamy puts the costs incurred in the construction and renovation of various buildings at Rs 5,10,54,060 (Rs 5.1 crores).

Page 797 of Judge Kumaraswamy’s order

On comparing the High Court’s tally with the written submissions made by the defendants, in this case Jayalalithaa and her close aide Sasikala, a peculiar situation arises.

Item number 51 in the written submission of Jayalalithaa clearly states that she has admitted to expenditure of Rs 3,62,47,700 (Rs 3.6 crores) towards construction costs in Poes Garden and a farmhouse in Hyderabad.

Similarly, a tabular column detailed in the written submission of Sasikala shows that she and another accused, J Elavarasi, have admitted to expenditure of Rs 5,05,59,419 (Rs 5 crores) towards construction costs of various buildings.

The sum total of the construction costs admitted to by the defence is thus Rs 8,68,07,119 (Rs 8.6 crores).

The Wire cross-checked this tally with the written submissions made by the defendants to the Karnataka High Court. Again, a tabular column under the heading “Value of the assets according to the accused under following heads as shown in Page 711 of the trial court judgement” shows clearly the defence claim on the amount spent towards construction costs. The defence clearly states that they have spent a total of Rs 8,60,59,261 (Rs 8.6 crores) in their submission to the High Court too.

Page 711 or Judge Cunha’s trial court judgment

Strangely enough, the High Court has decided that the defendants have in fact spent less than the amount that they have themselves admitted to. Judge Kumaraswamy has stated in his order that the defendants have spent only Rs 5.1 crores, reducing costs incurred by the defendants by about Rs 3.5 crores.

More costs incurred by the defendants would mean a higher amount of expenditure that would need to be explained to the courts. The trial court on Page 711 held that Jayalalithaa and others had spent Rs 22,53,92,344 (Rs 22.5 crores) on construction and renovation of various buildings. The defendants disagreed and said they had spent Rs 8.6 crores only. The Karnataka High Court disagreed with both and said Jayalalithaa and others had spent only Rs 5.1 crores.

“This is really strange,” said a retired High Court judge. “The judge has gone neither by what the prosecution says, nor by the defendants. This is a clear example of a case where the evidence needs to have been scrutinized thoroughly. Errors like this will creep in otherwise,” he said.

Page from J. Jayalalithaa’s written submission

Page from Sasikala’s submission to the High Court

“This is not the only instance in the order where the High Court has gone beyond the defence,” said Vikram Hegde, a lawyer based in Karnataka. “Even the loan amount, if you look at it, is more than what the defence says.”

Legal experts argue that these errors could have been avoided if a proper prosecution had been made available during the trial period. In January this year, the Supreme Court struck down the appointment of Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) Bhavani Singh as “bad in law” and asked the Karnataka Government to appoint a new SPP. BV Acharya who was subsequently appointed, was given a day’s time to submit written arguments, with no verbal arguments being allowed.

“A proper prosecution would have made a huge difference to this case,” said Hegde. “First, it is an authentic source and second, the court would have had qualified assistance. The role of the prosecutor in a case like this is to take the court through the maze of evidence. The previous prosecutor did not do that in the High Court. I would go so far as to say that the previous prosecutor had not done his job even in the trial court. As a result, the judge has been at a disadvantage and he has not been able to apply his mind,” he said.

Other glaring errors in the judgement include arithmetic mistakes, duplication of loan income, and erroneous use of IT returns as a valid source of income. A fiery debate is also on within legal circles on whether the use of the 10% rule — the quantum of disproportionate assets an accused is allowed before it becomes an offence — as used in Krishnanand Agnihotri is applicable at all to Jayalalithaa as her case involves crores of rupees with a charge of corruption while in office.

“It is in Jaya’s interest that she gets cleared by the Supreme Court,” said senior Supreme Court lawyer Rajeev Dhavan. “Without that, huge doubts will hang over the Bangalore High Court verdict. It appears that there are grievous blunders – whether in calculation, construction costs or wedding costs. There are huge doubts whether the 10% rule can really be applied when figures are larger than say, Rs 5 lakhs. This matter needs to be agitated before the Supreme Court for reasons of justice as well as reasons of error,” he said.

Jayalalithaa, who took charge once again as Tamil Nadu Chief Minister following her acquittal, will contest a by-election for a Tamil Nadu assembly seat on June 27 even as the decision on Karnataka’s appeal hangs over her head.

The Wire tried reaching a number of AIADMK leaders but none among them was willing to comment either on the computational errors in the High Court order or the Karnataka government’s decision to move the Supreme Court.

Allegations of Corruption against Justice C.R. Kumaraswamy who acquitted Jayalalithaa By: Apoorva Mandhani

Justice C.R. Kumaraswamy, who acquitted Tamil Nadu Chief Minister J. Jayalalithaa in the disproportionate assets case recently, has reportedly been accused of acquiring property without following certain norms. The allegations have been leveled by Karnataka Brastachara Nirmoolana Vedike, a group of RTI activists and advocates working towards eradication of corruption in the State. They have alleged that Justice Kumaraswamy had acquired properties in Bengaluru and Mysuru through Bangalore Development Authority (BDA), Karnataka Housing Board (KHB) and Karnataka State Judicial Employees Housing Society by violating certain norms in the site allotment rules and house building society bye-laws.

The group has posted the complaint to the President of India, the Chief Justice of India and the Chief Justice of Karnataka High Court, demanding a detailed enquiry and initiation of appropriate legal proceedings against the Judge. As per a Deccan Chronicle report, documents obtained under the Right to Information Act by Advocate A.R.S. Kumar reveal that Justice Kumaraswamy was allotted a flat No. 180, HIG B-3, First Floor, Block 100 in Kengeri 3rd stage by the Karnataka Housing Board in 1997 while he was serving as a district and sessions judge in Kolar. After this allotment, he submitted one more application to the board seeking allotment for a house under High Income Group (HIG) at Hootagally Colony in KHB Colony, Mysuru in 2001. While working as District and Sessions Judge in Bellary then, he got the Kengeri flat allotment cancelled and acquired the independent house in Hootagally Colony in Mysuru on exchange. In the year 2005, Kumaraswamy’s wife M.N. Nagarathnamma who had applied for a BDA site since 1987, in her 6th attempt got a plot measuring 30×40 allotted to her in Jnanabharathi Layout, Block 1 in Valagerahalli.

The group has alleged that in her application to the BDA, the Judge’s wife had concealed the facts about the allotment/cancellation of their Kengeri flat and acquisition of the independent house in Hootagally Colony in Mysuru by her husband. In 2005, Justice Kumaraswamy had made a voluntary disclosure on the Karnataka High Court website, which disclosed his flat in Divya Manor Apartments on Venkataswamy Raju Road in Palace Guttahalli in Kumarapark West. “In 2006, the Karnataka Judicial Employees Housing Building Co-Operative Society Limited went ahead and allotted site no. 176 measuring 4000 square feet in Judicial Layout, Phase 2 in Shivanagar to Kumaraswamy, violating allotment rules and bye-laws of the House Building Co-Operative Society,”

Advocate Kumar said. In May this year, Justice C.R. Kumaraswamy had allowed the appeals filed by Jayalalithaa and others and reversed the conviction ordered by the trial court. The Trial Court had convicted and sentenced Jayalalithaa and her 3 associates to four years in prison besides imposing a Rs 100 crore fine, on September 27 last year. You may read the judgment here. The Karnataka Government had filed a 2700 page petition on 23rd June saying that the Karnataka High Court’s judgment was a “farce”, and that “arithmetical errors made the judgment illegal”.

The petition has also added that the judgment had resulted in “the miscarriage of justice” and should be quashed. You may read the LiveLaw story here. You may read more news about Jayalalithaa’s DA Case here. Justice Kumaraswamy was elevated as a judge of the High Court in 2005 from the cadre of district judges. He was made a permanent judge in March 2007. With his retirement, Karnataka High Court is reduced to 50% of its sanctioned strength. You may also read: 37% Judges posts vacant in 24 High Courts in India

PIL – Justice Delayed & Justice Denied

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. OF 2016

IN THE MATTER OF

NAGARAJA . M.R

editor SOS e Clarion of Dalit & SOS e Voice for Justice

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

Hebbal , Mysore – 570017 , Karnataka State

….Petitioner

Versus

Honourable Chief Justice of India & Others

….Respondents

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

To ,

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

Justices of the Supreme Court of India.

The Humble petition of the Petitioner above named.

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH :

Facts of the case:
Every human being , every Indian citizen are equal and guaranteed equitable justice as their human right and Constitutional right.

In india mafia of powers that be and government ensure that cases drag on for years , so that poor litigant either dies before judgement day or opts out in the middle. Due to this delaying tactics , many poor people rather suffer injustice instead of seeking justice in courts. Mafia indirectly forces them to keep away from litigation.

Due to occupation induced health problems my health is deteriorating day by day , some of the PILs concerning national security , public welfare I have filed are two decades old , still no justice in sight. Judges not even admitted the cases.

Actual working hours , working days for judges are less in india. Too many case adjournments , less number of judges , too many holidays for judges like summer vacation , winter vacation , working hours less than 8 hours per day , etc.

Judges work less but enjoy 5 star pay & perks at public expense.

Due to denial of justice common people suffer injustice for more time or till their death. Say some falsely implicated persons suffer in jail for years till their acquittal by courts , some petty criminals whose crime attracts one year imprisonment suffers in jail for ten years. Because they are not well connected , cann’t afford hi fi advocates , bail fees.

Due to lethargic judiciary , some land acquisition cases drag on for years land looser suffers also the project cost escalates by hundreds thousands of crores of rupees.

The lethargic Judiciary in India itself is the biggest violator of common man’s human rights , fundamental rights. It is the culprit responsible for loss of thousands of crores of rupees to public exchequer due to project cost escalations.

when a common man’s human rights , human rights is violated in the form of delaying tactics by court of law , judiciary , the presiding judge becomes a criminal and liable to pay damages to the aggrieved.

The central government and state government yearly spend thousands of crores of rupees unnecessarily like purchasing new cars for ministers , renovation , interior decorations of minister’s bungalows , foreign jaunts , etc. These are all not priority one spending. Out of these spending how many more judges could be appointed , paid salaries.

when compared to project cost escalations of thousands of crores of rupees caused due to case delays , is it not wise on the part of government to appoint requisite number of judges with additional budget burden of few crores of rupees.

Both central and state governments are the biggest litigants in the country.

Government is manipulating judicial process by denying finance to appoint more judges , to create more court infrastructures.

We common people are imposed with time limits to mandatorily comply with, in our interactions with other public , with government authorities , with courts itself. For our failures we common people are penalized.

Paradoxically , there is no mandatory time limits for judges , public servants to finish specific works concerning public. In most of the cases they adopt delaying tactics , deny justice still they are not penalized and don’t pay any compensation to the aggrieved public.

Due to delaying tactics of judges , many anti national crimes , terror attacks took place and still continuing which could have been well averted in time if judges took timely action. For helping mafia by the way of delayed justice , mafia rewards some of those judges with post retirement postings , promotions , site allotments , etc.

The Judiciary has the right , authority , power to order government to allocate finance for appointing judges , setting up court infrastructure. If the government gives ruse of no money in it’s account , courts can definitely monitor spending of government , cut down on waste , non-priority spending of government , divert such money for appointment of judges , court infrastructure development. No need for CJI to weep before prime minister. Judges themselves never consider the sufferings of weeping litigants. It shows the weakness of CJI and a shame to our nation.

We once again appeal to Honourable CJI , Supreme Court of India to take action on the following PILs , to answer the show cause notice and to order the concerned public servants to answer RTI questions. The officials of SCI don’t even have etiquette , decorum to reply to our letters. Some of my appeals are two decades old.

Remember the basic fact you are all enjoying 5 star pay , perks at the expense of public and owe your duty to public. Are not judges drawing huge salaries , 5 star pay , perks on time without fail , on 01st of every month? Have they forgotten to take salary in 25 years , but they keep cases pending for 20 – 25 years. CJI weeping before Prime Minister shows the weakness of the judiciary & a shame to the nation. Judges never consider sufferings of weeping litigants in cases. Judges themselves are responsible for long pending cases.

Don’t refer the case to police as they don’t have power , authority to enquire high & mighty people , judges & previously they have failed and the case is to subject some police officials , judges themselves to enquiry. Referring the case to police is nothing but attempt to bury the truth , only supreme court monitored transparent enquiry by CBI is right.

Delaying tactics of judges is only helping the criminals , anti nationals and terrorists. Please refer below mentioned sample cases of Justice delayed for years to innocents , sufferings of their family members. No judges , police are bothered. Are not the the respective judges , police guilty of defaming those innocent persons , spoiling their livelihood , gross violation of their civil rights ? why not those guilty judges , police are paying compensation to victims of their wrong actions ? But the very same guilty judges , police are SHAMELESSLY enjoying 5 star pay perks from public exchequer for decades.

Bail system , Parole system are in favour of rich crooks in india , cases of rich crooks move at faster pace wheeas the cases of poor which are although older still continues. Judiciary , it’s system are biased. Consider the sample cases of sanjay dutt , salman khan , jayalaita. Our judges , Police don’t have spine to enforce rule of law on rich crooks , while they put full force , might on poor innocents.

If anything untoward happens to me or to my dependents Chief Justice of India together with jurisdiction police & District Collector will be responsible for it.

Rot in judiciary is decades old. Honourable CJI sir , weeping is not right constitution of india has given you the authority , TAKE ACTION DO YOUR DUTY. People , History will remember you forever with respect. Anyway you are getting very good 5 star pay & perks , will also get decent pension after retirement from government. First forget about post retirement postings , discretionary allotment of sites , etc from government then you can work fearlessly. Both central & state governments are biggest litigants in the country , IAS babus make wrong application , interpretation of laws leading to litigations. Start by clearing the rotten eggs within the judiciary. When judiciary & police in a country strictly uphold law , work impartially that country surpasses even heaven.

Do remember on the D Day , in the Court of Almighty everybody CJI , Judges , prime ministers , common man alike has to bow his head. In who’s court there is no match fixing , no techinicalities , no vociferous hi fi advocates , no bias based on caste , religion , region , community , etc , only straight simple account of wrongs & rights. Guess his judgement in your case. GOD BLESS US ALL.

Question(s) of Law:

Is it right for judges to deny justice . is it right on the part of judges to delay justice under various ruses to common man , violate their human rights , fundamental rights.

Grounds:

Requests for equitable justice , Prosecution of judges , police , public servants responsible for case delays.

Averment:

Please read details at :

Honourable Chief Justice of India TAKE ACTION

https://sites.google.com/site/eclarionofdalit/honourable-cji-take-action ,

The Petitioner has sent many letters / appeals / petitions to supreme court of india & other courts through e-mail , DARPG website & through regular mail requesting them to consider those as PILs. But none ofthem were admitted , even acknowledgement for receipts were not given. See How duty conscious ,our judges are & see how our judges are sensitive towards life , liberty of citizens , common men & see how careless our judges are towards anti national crimes , crimes worth crores of rupees. That the present petitioner has not filed any other petition (which are admitted by courts) in any High Court or the Supreme Court of India on the subject matter of the present petition.

PRAYER:

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

a . Hereby , I do request the honorable supreme court of India to consider this as a PIL for : “writ of Mandamus” and to issue instructions to the concerned public servants , Tax Authorities , Law Enforcement Agencies , RBI authorities in the following cases to perform their duties & to answer the below RTI questions.

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

To legally prosecute responsible , concerned judges , police & public servants.

To cancel winter , summer vacation holidays for judges.

To bring down the holidays of courts per year to twelve on the lines of industrial establishments.

To make it mandatory for judges to conduct court hearings for 8 hours per day.

To bring down unnecessary court adjournments.

to reserve precious court timings only for arguments , cross examination of litigants , witnesses.

to use information technology , internet for issue of notices , summons and litigants submitting documents , applications instead of wasting court time.

to introduce working of courts on shift basis in the same infrastructure.

to appoint retired judges immediately to bring down gaps in judges requirement.

to order the biggest litigant government of india and all state governments to frame laws strictly in accordance with constitution.

to order governments to give proper training for public servants , IAS officers , KAS officers , others about law of the land.

to make specific public servants personally responsible for wrong applications of law while discharging their duties and to make them pay compensation from their personal pockets.

to order Chief Justice of India to pay compensation of Rupees TWO CRORES to Nagaraja Mysuru Raghupathi editor SOS e Clarion of Dalit & SOS e Voice for Justice , towards the damages he has suffered due to delayed justice.

to order the respective judges , police in all cases of case delays more specifically in the below mentioned cases to pay compensation to innocent victims. Make a guideline for compensation payment. Legally prosecute guilty judges , police.

to frame a guideline for bail & parole procedure. When it is violated by judges , police , jail authorities , other public servants order them to pay compensation and legally prosecute guilty judges , police , jail officials.

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

Dated : 08.06.2016……… ………………….FILED BY: NAGARAJA.M.R.

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

CJI a Criminal ?

Case of Fence eating the crops ? Guard himself stealing ? Accountability of Judges a MUST

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. OF 2015

IN THE MATTER OF

NAGARAJA . M.R ,

editor , SOS e Clarion of Dalit & SOS e Voice for Justice ,

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

Hebbal , Mysore – 570017 , Karnataka State

…..Petitioner

Versus

Honourable Chief Justice of India & Others

…Respondents

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

MANDAMUS UNDER ARTICLE 32 & ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.

To ,

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

Justices of the Supreme Court of India. The Humble petition of the Petitioner above named.

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH :

Facts of the case:

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

B . As per the preamble of the constitution of India all the people , all Indian citizens are equal in every respect , equally entitled to justice , equally responsible to uphold constitution . Only People , Citizens of India are supreme No Judges , No Ministers , etc are supreme. Judges , ministers , president etc are all public servants constitutionally mandated to SERVE the public , NOT to master over them. Even after 69 years of independence these judges , ministers have not come out of colonial hangover instead become worse treating general public as their servants.

C . Every institution in india is directly or indirectly accountable to people , however judiciary alone is not transparent not giving accounts of it’s actions to people.

D . Judges enjoy 5 star pay & perks , making merry at the cost of people’s money , public exchequer , but are not giving accounts of their actions to people , not transparent to the public eye. They are not even honouring RTI applications seeking information about actions of judges , because corrupt judges will be caught red handed.

E . Judges are not super humans nor super brains nor from moon or mars , they are ordinary mortals from the society around us and just like us capable of doing good work as well falling prey to human lures like bribe , corruption , favoritism , etc.

Judges think they are sole custodians of constitution of india , in fact every citizen of india is a custodian of constitution of india.

G . Collegium of judges is nothing but a coterie , a MAFIA proof – unfit corrupt persons like dinakaran , another judge involved in mysore roost resort sex scandal being selected by SCI collegium promoted to the apex court. It is just the tip of iceberg , behind the judicial veil of secrecy many corrupt judges are hiding. Hereby , I challenge Honourable supreme court of india that subject to conditions I will bring to book corrupt judges who are hiding behind the veil. Are you ready ?

H . When compared to some corrupt judges who are nothing but criminals , a drain , parasites on our public exchequer , society , the child workers who are hard working earning less than rupees 32 a day are far better , great human beings.

I . Ofcourse when the court identifies that intentions of an act of parliament as unconstitutional , it has the right to strike it down to uphold the supremacy of constitution. NJAC Act passed by parliament was in fact filling a legal vaccum about accountability & selection of judges and in turn strengthening the constitution of india. But by striking down NJAC Act of government of india , supreme court of india is weakening constitution of india , making contempt of parliament , constitution & all Indian citizens. If at all supreme court was really sincere it could have suggested more alternatives for transparent , accountable judiciary with appropriate transparent provisions for guarding judicial independence.

J . When government of india passed unconstitutional acts like land acquisition bill , special status to Kashmir , against uniform civil code promoted unequal differing civil laws for various religion people and Bhopal gas victims act , nuclear energy act , etc , did it not dawn on supreme court of india that it is the sole custodian of constitution ? then why not SCI strike down those unconstitutional parliamentary acts ?

K . It is the duty of Supreme Court of India to Protect , Guard the constitutional rights of every Indian citizens . Since 25 years I am appealing to SCI about issues concerning public welfare , national security , etc and as a result suffering injustices , my constitutional rights , human rights are repeatedly violated but SCI is mum even when repeated appeals were made to it. Paradoxically , after these appeals for justice , I have suffered more injustices , attempts on my life were made , physically assaulted , livelihood / jobs were denied , news publication closed , press accreditation denied , received threatening calls , blank calls, even to date rough elements follow us , rough elements scout near home at mid night. Does not these indicate some ties between rough elements & SCI Judges ?

L . Eventhough the information is readily available with SCI , information was denied citing unavailability. If at all information is not truly available , why didn’t the CPIO TRANSFER rti application to concerned departments of SCI , Ministry of Law , Justice , Respective High Courts , etc.

M . Does not court administarative officer posess SERVICE REECORDS of each employee including judges. If not on what basis they give promotions , transfers , salary , etc to judges ? The person who posess SR can give infor mation about guilty judges. Why CPIO not asking that person to share infor mation ?

N . If a commonman is alleged of a petty crime he is immediately arrested , put behind bars. Police spend thousands of rupees for investigation to prosecute that petty criminal. Judges spend hours to hear that case & prepare judgements running into tens of pages sometimes even over & above thousand pages. Fine . When the very same police & judge themselves committ grave crimes detrimental to national security , integrity , etc , no arrests , no prosecution only cover-up , WHY ? Are Judges & Police above Law ? Is Judge’s MAFIA at play ?

O . The action of CPIO SCI amounts to cover up of judges & their crimes. Thereby , CPIO is also committing a crime. With respect to previous RTI Appeals also CPIO & RTI First Appellate Authority SCI have repeatedly committed crimes by covering up judges & their crimes. Billions of indians are barely sustaining on a single piece meal a day , we lower middle class people toiling hard to earn a few hundreds of rupees but still paying tax. Is it not shame to them / shame to JUDGEs that they draw pay & perks amounting to lakhs of rupees from our money , from taxes paid by us still not do their constitutional duties properly.

P . When a Judge Himself Commits Crime , When a POLICE Himself robs , Murders ….

The public servants & the government must be role models in law abiding acts , for others to emulate & follow. if a student makes a mistake it is excusable & can be corrected by the teacher. if the teacher himself makes a mistake , all his students will do the same mistake. if a thief steals , he can be caught , legally punished & reformed . if a police himself commits crime , many thieves go scot-free under his patronage. even if a police , public servant commits a crime , he can be legally prosecuted & justice can be sought by the aggrieved.

just think , if a judge himself that too apex court of the land itself commits crime – violations of RTI Act , constitutional rights & human rights of public and obstructs the public from performing their constitutional fundamental duties , what happens ?

it gives a booster dose to the rich & mighty , those in power , criminals in public service to commit more crimes. that is exactly what is happening in india. the educated public must raise to the occasion & peacefully , democratically must oppose this criminalization of judiciary , public service. then alone , we can build a RAM RAJYA OF MAHATMA GANDHI’S DREAM.

I have shown in the following attachment how justice is bought , purchased , manipulated in INDIA with actual cases. Just see the recent examples of supreme court judges involved in sexual assault case & ROOST Resort Mysore Sex scandal involving judges , if any ordinary fellow had committed the same crimes he would have been hauled over the coal fire. Just take another recent example of Prisoner Movie actor sanjay dutt , TADA provisions were diluted by the judge to favour him and now he is getting parole week after week while the ordinary convicts never get a single parole throught their sentence. What Brilliant Judges , what brilliant police sirji.

Question(s) of Law:

Are Judges above Law & can go scot free ? Can judges cheat , rape , swindle others and go scot free without legal prosecution ? Why guilty CJIs were not legally prosecuted in a fair & transparent manner ?

Grounds:

Requests for equitable justice , free expression & protection to life & liberty. Transparency , accountability in selection & functioning of Judges.

Averment:

GIVE WHAT ACTION HAS BEEN TAKEN AGAINST THE GUILTY JUDGES MENTIONED IN THE BELOW MENTIONED WEB SITES & FOLLOWING ARTICLES.

We salute honest few in public service , Judiciary , police , parliament & state legislative assemblies. 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. I HAVE SHOWN IN DETAIL WITH LIVE , ACTUAL CASES , EXAMPLES , HOW INDIAN LEGAL SYSTEM IS MANIPULATED BY CRIMINALS WITHIN JUDICIARY , POLICE , PROSECUTION , ETC. READ DETAILS AT :

Half of former CJIs Corrupt :

https://sites.google.com/site/sosevoiceforjustice/half-of-former-cjis-corrupt ,

https://sites.google.com/site/eclarionofdalit/wheeling-dealing-judges-police ,

Atrocities on Women by JUDGES

https://sites.google.com/site/eclarionofdalit/atrocities-by-judges

A – Z of Manipulation of Indian Legal System

http://www.scribd.com/doc/187575206/A-Z-of-Manipulation-of-India-Legal-System ,

http://www.scribd.com/doc/173854541/Chief-Justice-of-India-A-Criminal ,

Justice Sathasivam – Are you DEAF DUMB & BLIND

https://sites.google.com/site/eclarionofdalit/justice-sathasivam—are-you-deaf-dumb-blind ,

Rajiv Gandhi Assassination Cover-up

https://sites.google.com/site/sosevoiceforjustice/rajiv-gandhi-assassination-cover-up ,

SHAME SHAME MPs & MLAs

https://sites.google.com/site/sosevoiceforjustice/shame-shame-mps-mlas ,

JUDGEs or Brokers of Justice

https://sites.google.com/site/sosevoiceforjustice/judges-or-brokers-of-justice ,

RTI & Land Golmaal

https://sites.google.com/site/sosevoiceforjustice/rti-land-golmaal-in-karnataka ,

https://sites.google.com/site/sosevoiceforjustice/land-grabbers-in-m-u-d-a ,

https://sites.google.com/site/sosevoiceforjustice/judges-cover-up-land-scams ,

Why NOT 3rd degree Torture of Corrupt Doctors , Police & Judges

http://e-clarionofdalit.blogspot.in/2015/10/why-not-3rd-degree-torture-of-doctors.html#links ,

https://sites.google.com/site/sosevoiceforjustice/3rd-degree-torture-by-doctors-police ,

Hereby , we do request CPIO O/O Honourable Chief Justice of India , Supreme Court of India , New Delhi to answer the following questions in public interest , for safeguarding national security , National unity & integrity & to legally apprehend anti-nationals , criminals within the judiciary & police. Judges are not superior human beings , some of them have even became judges through devious means other than merit , integrity. Judges are public servants drawing salary & perks from public exchequer and accountable to public as any other common man is.

We salute our freedom fighters , military personnel & martyrs for all the sacrifices made by them. Let us build a strong , Secular , Democratic India by getting rid off few corrupt elements , anti nationals , traitors among public servants , among judiciary & among police who are greater threat to India’s unity & integrity than Pakistani terrorists or chinese military.

Information input forms part of process of one’s expression. One’s expression in any forms – written , oral , etc becomes information input to the opposite person , in turn he expresses his reply. Information & Expression are inseparable parts & form lifeline of a democracy. That is the reason , Right to Expression is the basic fundamental right as well as human right of every Indian citizen. When a person’s right to expression is violated , his other rights to equality , justice , etc also are violated. Suppression of Information amounts to curbing of Expression.

In a democracy , people have a right to know how the public servants are functioning. However till date public servants are hiding behind the veil of Officials Secrets Act (which is of british vintage created by british to suppress native indians). By this cover-up public servants are hiding their own corruption , crimes , mismanagement , failures , etc. even RTI Act is not being followed intoto by public servants. However the recent delhi high court ruling affirming that CJI is under RTI purview & bound to answer RTI request , is noteworthy.

Our previous RTI request to CJI , union home secretary of GOI, President of India , DG & IGP of GOK and others were not honored. The information I sought were answers to the following questions mentioned in the below mentioned websites . the questions concerned the past , present continuing injustices meted out to millions of Indian citizens , due to wrong / illegal work practices of Indian judges , police & public servants . The information we sought would expose the traitors , anti-nationals , criminals in public service. The information we are seeking are no defense secrets , no national secrets. The truthful information exposes the anti-nationals , traitors in the public service & strengthens our national security , national unity & integrity.

Hereby , i do request the honourable supreme court of india , for a Supreme Court monitored CBI Enquiry into this whole issue as karnataka police are helpless , they don’t have legal powers to prosecute high & mighty , constitutional functionaries. They have not even enquired the guilty VVIPs even once however Under pressure from higher-ups they repeatedly called me the complainant to police station took statements from me all for closing the files.

The Petitioner has sent many letters / appeals / petitions to supreme court of india & other courts through e-mail , DARPG website & through regular mail requesting them to consider those as PILs. But none of them were admitted , even acknowledgement for receipts were not given. See How duty conscious ,our judges are & see how our judges are sensitive towards life , liberty of citizens , commonmen & see how careless our judges are towards anti national crimes , crimes worth crores of rupees.

That the present petitioner has not filed any other petition (which are admitted by courts) in any High Court or the Supreme Court of India on the subject matter of the present petition.

PRAYER:

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

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

(ii) Hereby , I do request the honourble supreme court of india to make public all the proceedings of supreme court collegiums and correspondence between SCI , President’s office & government of india regarding selection of judges. To make public all the eligibility criteria followed for selection of judges and who filled what criteria , who didn’t fill which criteria and the final ranking.

(iii) Hereby , I do request the honourble supreme court of india to uphold the constitution of india and to protect the constitutional rights of all Indian citizens including mine.

(iv) Hereby , I do request the honourble supreme court of india to uphold the constitution of india , to protect the constitutional rights , human rights of all Indian citizens including mine and to enable , facilitate all Indian citizens to perform their Fundamental Duties as per constitution.

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

Read : https://sites.google.com/site/sosevoiceforjustice/pil—writ-of-mandamus-1 ,

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

Date : 29th October 2015………………………………Filed By : Nagaraja.M.R.

Place : Mysuru India……………………………………Petitioner in person

Mercy Death Plea to Honourable Chief Justice of India

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. OF 2015

IN THE MATTER OF

NAGARAJA . M.R

editor SOS e Clarion of Dalit & SOS e Voice for Justice

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

Hebbal , Mysore – 570017 , Karnataka State

….Petitioner

Versus

Honourable Chief Justice of India , Supreme Court of India & Others

….Respondents

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

To ,

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

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

Petitioner above named.

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH :

Facts of the case:

As a result of fighting for public causes , public good I have individually sufferred numerous injustices and still sufferring injustices. My newspaper publication was illegally closed down , my web news paper not given with press accredition , my job oppurtunities in RBI Note press , PES Engineering college , NIE Engineering college , Mysore district court , etc snatched away illegally , I was beaten up , attempts on my life were made even after bringing threats to my life were brought to notice of supreme court of india. See how duty duty conscious our supreme court judges are ? all these sufferrings for public causes I have raised & to silence me.

Question(s) of Law:

Are police & Judges above law ? Can Judges & Police Comitt crimes , go scot free ? Can Judges & Police intentionally neglect ( to aid criminals ) their duties , while shamelessly drawing tens of thousands of rupees monthly salary & perks on time without fail from public exchequer.

Grounds:

Requests for equitable justice , Prosecution of corrupt public servants , corrupt judges , corrupt police. Request for supreme court orders to judges & police to perform their duties properly.

Averment:

Read the actual case details at following web pages involving judges & police in crimes. The criminal network , corruption net work , MAFIA of Judges & Police is strong , whenever one of their members is accussed , others white wash , bury the case in the name of investigation. Transparent , impartial investigation as in the case of common man is not at all done.

We respect the honest few in judiciary , police & public service. Those honest few are also becoming parties to crime by becoming silent , by not doing their duties , by not arresting their corrupt colleagues. Their by they are covering up crime & aiding criminals to commit more crimes.

Due to these type of corrupt judges & corrupt police innocents, commoners land in jails and some are even hanged for crimes not commited by them , while the rich crooks roam free.

The corrupt judges & corrupt police are shameless people , parasites in our society. They take tens of thousands of rupees monthly salary & perks from our money , tax payer’s money and still don’t do their duties properly. The judges give sermons , judgements running into hundreds of pages when their own folk is in the dock , caught for crimes they intentionally fall silent. The police use filthy language , use 3rd degree torture against commoners , innocents when their own folk is in the dock , caught for crimes , dacoity they don’t use filthy language nor they use 3rd degree torture . Even in fit cases where alleged Judges & Police can be given death sentence , they are spared , why ?

Please don’t send police again to my home neither refer my case to police. They don’t have practical powers to inquire high & mighty judges. They will come to my home , call me to police station , will take a statement from me & will close the file by sending it to head quarters. This has happened previously number of times. If you are honest in intent , Please constitute an impartial , transparent empowered Inquiry committee to deal this case.

The judges , police & public servants intentionally delay taking action in cases and withhold giving information in time , so that evidences are buried in time , gets destroyed and time lapse occurs resulting in the case becoming time barred. Some of PILs submitted by us are 20 years old concerning national security and I was also eligible for free legal aid at the time of application – still the judges & police didn’t take appropriate action however they shamelessly took thousands of rupees salary , perks from our money. Till date no justice in sight instead more injustices meted out to me as a result of this crusade. THESE INCAPABLE JUDGES & POLICE ARE UNFIT FOR THE POSITIONS THEY OCCUPY , IF THEY CANN’T PROVIDE JUSTICE ATLEAST GIVE ME MERCY DEATH.

I ,NAGARAJA.M.R. hereby do declare that information given above are true to the best of my knowledge & belief. If i am repeatedly called to police station or else where for the sake of investigations , the losses i do incurr as a result like loss of wages , transportation , job , etc must be borne by the government. prevoiusly the police / IB personnel repeatedly called me the complainant (sufferer of injustices) to police station for questioning , but never called the guilty culprits , rich crooks , criminals even once to police station for questioning , as the culprits are high & mighty . this type of one sided questioning must not be done by police or investigating agencies . if anything untoward happens to me or to my family members like loss of job , meeting with hit & run accidents , loss of lives , death due to improper medical care , etc , the jurisdictional police together with above mentioned accussed public servants will be responsible for it. Even if criminal nexus levels fake charges , police file fake cases against me or my dependents to silence me , this complaint is & will be effective.

If I or my family members or my dependents are denied our fundamental rights , human rights , denied proper medical care for ourselves , If anything untoward happens to me or to my dependents or to my family members – In such case Chief Justice of India together with the jurisdictional revenue & police officials will be responsible for it , in such case the government of india is liable to pay Rs. TWO crore as compensation to survivors of my family. if my whole family is eliminated by the criminal nexus ,then that compensation money must be donated to Indian Army Welfare Fund. Afterwards , the money must be recovered by GOI as land arrears from the salary , pension , property , etc of guilty police officials , Judges , public servants & Constitutional fuctionaries.

The Petitioner has sent many letters / appeals / petitions to supreme court of india & other courts through e-mail , DARPG website & through regular mail requesting them to consider those as PILs. But none ofthem were admitted , even acknowledgement for receipts were not given. See How duty conscious ,our judges are & see how our judges are sensitive towards life , liberty of citizens , commonmen & see howcareless our judges are towards anti national crimes , crimes worth crores of rupees. That the present petitioner has not filed any other petition (which are admitted by courts) in any High Court or the Supreme Court of India on the subject matter of the present petition.

PRAYER:

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

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

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

To legally prosecute the public servants who are responsible for not giving press accreditation to my web news papers , myself as a journalist and responsible for closure of my news papers.
To legally prosecute authorities of M/s RPG Cables Ltd , who denied job opportunities to me under the behest of criminals responsible for late PM Rajiv Gandhi assassination case.
To legally prosecute authorities of M/s PES College of Engineering , who denied job opportunities to me under the behest of criminals responsible for late PM Rajiv Gandhi assassination case.
To legally prosecute authorities of M/s National Institute of Engineering , who denied job opportunities to me under the behest of criminals responsible for late PM Rajiv Gandhi assassination case.
To legally prosecute authorities of M/s Reserve Bank Note Nudran Pvt Ltd , who denied job opportunities to me under the behest of criminals responsible for late PM Rajiv Gandhi assassination case.
To legally prosecute authorities of Mysore District Courts & Bangalore District Courts , who denied job opportunities to me under the behest of criminals responsible for late PM Rajiv Gandhi assassination case.
To legally prosecute persons responsible for attempts on my life.
to legally prosecute judges , police & CBI officials responsible for cover-up of late PM Rajiv Gandhi assassination case.

K . To provide protection to life , liberty , livelihood , jobs of me , my family members & dependants.

To reopen , reinvestigate assassination case of Late PM Rajiv Gandhi.
To legally prosecute authorities of supreme court of india for not answering show cause notice issued to them and order them to answer the show cause notice as well as RTI questions given to them by the petitioner.
To conduct an impartial , transparent supreme court monitored enquiry into cases mentioned by me.
To admit all PILs filed by me in larger public interest.
To initiate criminal prosecution of public servants , police & judges who are trying to cover up crime and criminals by denying me information , by not taking action on our appeals , PILs.
To award me a compensation of RUPEES TWO CRORES towards the losses I have sufferred and injustices I am still going through for fighting for public causes.
To recover compensation amount as land arrears from guilty police , guilty judges & guilty public servants individually.
To permit me to work in the investigation team , to assist them in investigation subject to conditions .

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

THESE INCAPABLE JUDGES & POLICE ARE UNFIT FOR THE POSITIONS THEY OCCUPY , IF THEY CANN’T PROVIDE JUSTICE ATLEAST GIVE ME MERCY DEATH.

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

Dated : 16th September 2015 ………………….FILED BY: NAGARAJA.M.R.

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

PIL – Justice to Human Rights Activist

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. OF 2015

IN THE MATTER OF

NAGARAJA . M.R

editor SOS e Clarion of Dalit & SOS e Voice for Justice

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

Hebbal , Mysore – 570017 , Karnataka State

….Petitioner

Versus

Honourable Chief Justice of India , Supreme Court of India & Others

….Respondents

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

To ,

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

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

Petitioner above named.

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH :

Facts of the case:

As a result of fighting for public causes , public good I have individually sufferred numerous injustices and still sufferring injustices. My newspaper publication was illegally closed down , my web news paper not given with press accredition , my job oppurtunities in RBI Note press , PES Engineering college , NIE Engineering college , Mysore district court , etc snatched away illegally , I was beaten up , attempts on my life were made even after bringing threats to my life were brought to notice of supreme court of india. See how duty duty conscious our supreme court judges are ? all these sufferrings for public causes I have raised & to silence me.

Question(s) of Law:

Are police & Judges above law ? Can Judges & Police Comitt crimes , go scot free ?

Grounds:

Requests for equitable justice , Prosecution of corrupt public servants , corrupt judges , corrupt police.

Averment:

The Petitioner has sent many letters / appeals / petitions to supreme court of india & other courts through e-mail , DARPG website & through regular mail requesting them to consider those as PILs. But none ofthem were admitted , even acknowledgement for receipts were not given. See How duty conscious ,our judges are & see how our judges are sensitive towards life , liberty of citizens , commonmen & see howcareless our judges are towards anti national crimes , crimes worth crores of rupees. That the present petitioner has not filed any other petition (which are admitted by courts) in any High Court or the Supreme Court of India on the subject matter of the present petition.

PRAYER:

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

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

To legally prosecute the public servants who are responsible for not giving press accreditation to my web news papers , myself as a journalist and responsible for closure of my news papers.
To legally prosecute authorities of M/s RPG Cables Ltd , who denied job opportunities to me under the behest of criminals responsible for late PM Rajiv Gandhi assassination case.
To legally prosecute authorities of M/s PES College of Engineering , who denied job opportunities to me under the behest of criminals responsible for late PM Rajiv Gandhi assassination case.
To legally prosecute authorities of M/s National Institute of Engineering , who denied job opportunities to me under the behest of criminals responsible for late PM Rajiv Gandhi assassination case.
To legally prosecute authorities of M/s Reserve Bank Note Mudran Pvt Ltd , who denied job opportunities to me under the behest of criminals responsible for late PM Rajiv Gandhi assassination case.
To legally prosecute authorities of Mysore District Courts & Bangalore District Courts , who denied job opportunities to me under the behest of criminals responsible for late PM Rajiv Gandhi assassination case.
To legally prosecute persons responsible for attempts on my life.
to legally prosecute judges , police & CBI officials responsible for cover-up of late PM Rajiv Gandhi assassination case.

K . To provide protection to life , liberty , livelihood , jobs of me , my family members & dependants.

To reopen , reinvestigate assassination case of Late PM Rajiv Gandhi.
To legally prosecute authorities of supreme court of india for not answering show cause notice issued to them and order them to answer the show cause notice as well as RTI questions given to them by the petitioner.
To conduct an impartial , transparent supreme court monitored enquiry into cases mentioned by me.
To admit all PILs filed by me in larger public interest.
To initiate criminal prosecution of public servants , police & judges who are trying to cover up crime and criminals by denying me information , by not taking action on our appeals , PILs.
To award me a compensation of RUPEES TWO CRORES towards the losses I have sufferred and injustices I am still going through for fighting for public causes.
To recover compensation amount as land arrears from guilty police , guilty judges & guilty public servants individually.
To permit me to work in the investigation team , to assist them in investigation subject to conditions .

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

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

Dated : 23rd July 2015 ………………….FILED BY: NAGARAJA.M.R.

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

edited , printed , published & owned by NAGARAJA.M.R. @ : LIG-2 / 761 , HUDCO FIRST STAGE , OPP WATER WORKS OFFICE , LAKSHMIKANTANAGAR ,HEBBAL ,MYSORE -570017 INDIA

cell : 91 8970318202

home page:

http://sites.google.com/site/eclarionofdalit/Home ,
http://groups.google.co.in/group/e-clarion-of-dalit ,
http://e-clarionofdalit.blogspot.com/ ,
http://in.groups.yahoo.com/group/e-clarionofdalit/ ,

http://paper.li/f-1367938674 ,

Follow me at
http://www.facebook.com/people/Nagaraj-Mysore-Raghupathi/513253184 ,
http://www.amnesty.org/en/user/naghrw ,
http://twitter.com/naghrw ,

Contact : naghrw@yahoo.com , nagarajhrw@hotmail.com ,

http://www.amnesty.org/en/user/naghrw

A Member of Amnesty International

September 14, 2016

PIL – Cauvery Injustice

Filed under: Uncategorized — Nagaraja M R @ 3:51 am

S.O.S e – Clarion Of Dalit – Weekly Newspaper On Web

Working For The Rights & Survival Of The Oppressed

Editor: NAGARAJA.M.R… VOL.10 issue.37…… .21 / 09 / 2016

Editorial : PIL – Injustice to Karnataka People – MAHADAYI & CAUVERY water for drinking

Supreme Court of India violating Fundamental Rights

Jai Hind. Vande Mataram.

Your’s sincerely,

Nagaraja.M.R.

PIL – Store DRINKING WATER in Cauvery KRS reservoir

An Appeal to Honourable Supreme Court of India & National Human Rights Commission

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. OF 2016

IN THE MATTER OF

NAGARAJA . M.R

editor , SOS e Clarion of Dalit & SOS e Voice for Justice
# LIG 2 , No 761 ,, HUDCO First Stage , Laxmikantanagar ,
Hebbal , Mysore – 570017 , Karnataka State
.
….Petitioner

Versus

a. Honourable Cabinet Secretary , Government of India

Honourable Chief Secretary , Government of Karnataka
Honourable Chief Secretary , Government of Tamilnadu
Justice Deepak Mishra , SCI
Justice U.U Lalit , SCI and others
….Respondents

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

To ,
Hon’ble The Chief Justice of India and His Lordship’s Companion Justices of the Supreme Court of India.

The Humble petition of the Petitioner above named.

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH :

Facts of the case:

The said agreement regarding sharing of Cauvery water by british presidency with Rulers of Mysore Kingdom decades ago is biased in favor of state of tamil nadu.

Even decades after independence of india , why should we stick to british era agreement instead of drawing our own mutual agreement based on present needs.

Lot of confusion is being created by contradictory statements made out by contesting parties , governments regarding the water stored in their reservoirs. Till date why not SCI has deputed an impartial expert tem to assess the actual stored water in reservoirs , their actual needs , rain fall expected , their contingency plans in case of rain fall failure , etc. To make expert’s report public so that public in all the states will know the truth , law & order , peace will prevail.

Question(s) of Law:

Grounds:

Requests for equitable justice. Protection of Human Rights of Karnataka People , specifically protection of their human rights to life & drinking water.

4. Averment:

That the present petitioner has not filed any other petition (which are admitted by courts) in any High Court or the Supreme Court of India on the subject matter of the present petition.

PRAYER:
In the above premises, it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased:
a . Hereby , I do request the honorable supreme court of India to consider this as a PIL for : “writ of Mandamus” and to issue instructions to the Union Cabinet Secretary , Government of India , chief secretaries of all state governments , the concerned public servants in the present case , to perform their duties.

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

c. to order government of Karnataka to ensure supply of drinking water from Cauvery River to people living in Karnataka and thereby protect their human rights. .

to order Government of India and other riparian states to ensure drinking water to all people.
to annul the present biased Cauvery river sharing agreement between Karnataka , tamilnadu state and to constitute expert committee to arrive at a scientific formula to ensure drinking water to all parties concerned. To make that expert’s report public.
As SCI doesn’t have jurisdiction to interfere in river sharing , to order government of india to arrange a conciliatory meeting between the parties.

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

Dated : 13^th September 2016 …………………….FILED BY: NAGARAJA.M.R.

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

PIL – Release DRINKING WATER from Mahadayi River

An Appeal to Honourable Supreme Court of India & National Human Rights Commission

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. OF 2016

IN THE MATTER OF

NAGARAJA . M.R

editor , SOS e Clarion of Dalit & SOS e Voice for Justice
# LIG 2 , No 761 ,, HUDCO First Stage , Laxmikantanagar ,
Hebbal , Mysore – 570017 , Karnataka State
.
….Petitioner

Versus

Honourable Cabinet Secretary , Government of India & Others

….Respondents

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

To ,
Hon’ble The Chief Justice of India and His Lordship’s Companion Justices of the Supreme Court of India.

The Humble petition of the Petitioner above named.

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH :

Facts of the case:

Question(s) of Law:

Is not denial of Drinking water from Mahadayi / Mandovi River to people in northern Karnataka , a crime by government of india & government of Karnataka ?

Grounds:

Requests for equitable justice. Protection of Human Rights of Karnataka People , specifically protection of their human rights to life & drinking water.

4. Averment:

That the present petitioner has not filed any other petition (which are admitted by courts) in any High Court or the Supreme Court of India on the subject matter of the present petition.

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

c. to order government of Karnataka to ensure supply of drinking water from Mahadayi / Mandovi River to people living in northern Karnataka .

to order Government of India and other riparian states to ensure drinking water to all people.
to order government of Karnataka , to initiate legal prosecution of Karnataka police personnel who committed excesses on women folk , children , aged persons in navalgund , yamanoor of Karnataka state during protest demanding water from mahadayi river.

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

Dated : 03^rd August 2016 …………………….FILED BY: NAGARAJA.M.R.

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

The human right to water and sanitation

Eight short facts on the human right to water and sanitation
[ – 388 KB]

On 28 July 2010, through Resolution 64/292, the United Nations General Assembly explicitly recognized the human right to water and sanitation and acknowledged that clean drinking water and sanitation are essential to the realisation of all human rights. The Resolution calls upon States and international organisations to provide financial resources, help capacity-building and technology transfer to help countries, in particular developing countries, to provide safe, clean, accessible and affordable drinking water and sanitation for all.

In November 2002, the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights adopted General Comment No. 15 on the right to water. Article I.1 states that “The human right to water is indispensable for leading a life in human dignity. It is a prerequisite for the realization of other human rights”. Comment No. 15 also defined the right to water as the right of everyone to sufficient, safe, acceptable and physically accessible and affordable water for personal and domestic uses.

Sources:

 Resolution A/RES/64/292. United Nations General Assembly, July 2010

 General Comment No. 15. The right to water. UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, November 2002

The human right to water and the MDGs

Source: Water as a Human Right? IUCN, UNDP, 2004

What is…?

 Sufficient. The water supply for each person must be sufficient and continuous for personal and domestic uses. These uses ordinarily include drinking, personal sanitation, washing of clothes, food preparation, personal and household hygiene. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), between 50 and 100 litres of water per person per day are needed to ensure that most basic needs are met and few health concerns arise.

 Safe. The water required for each personal or domestic use must be safe, therefore free from micro-organisms, chemical substances and radiological hazards that constitute a threat to a person’s health. Measures of drinking-water safety are usually defined by national and/or local standards for drinking-water quality. The World Health Organization (WHO) Guidelines for drinking-water quality provide a basis for the development of national standards that, if properly implemented, will ensure the safety of drinking-water.

 Acceptable. Water should be of an acceptable colour, odour and taste for each personal or domestic use. […] All water facilities and services must be culturally appropriate and sensitive to gender, lifecycle and privacy requirements.

 Physically accessible. Everyone has the right to a water and sanitation service that is physically accessible within, or in the immediate vicinity of the household, educational institution, workplace or health institution. According to WHO, the water source has to be within 1,000 metres of the home and collection time should not exceed 30 minutes.

 Affordable. Water, and water facilities and services, must be affordable for all. The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) suggests that water costs should not exceed 3 per cent of household income.

UN initiatives that are helping to raise the issue…

 Human Rights Council Resolution A/HRC/RES/18/1
On 28 September 2011, the UN Human Rights Council passed a new resolution which takes the human right to safe drinking water and sanitation a step further. The Council welcomed the submission of the compilation of good practices on the right to safe drinking water and sanitation, in which the Special Rapporteur put particular emphasis on practical solutions with regard to the implementation of the human right to safe drinking water and sanitation. The resolution calls on States to ensure enough financing for sustainable delivery of water and sanitation services.

 World Health Assembly Resolution 64/24 [ – 24 KB]
In May 2011, the World Health Organization (WHO), through Resolution 64/24, made a call to Member States “to ensure that national health strategies contribute to the realization of water- and sanitation-related Millennium Development Goals while coming in support to the progressive realization of the human right to water and sanitation” and to WHO’s Director General to “to strengthen WHO’s collaboration with all relevant UN-Water members and partners, as well as other relevant organizations promoting access to safe drinking-water, sanitation and hygiene services, so as to set an example of effective intersectoral action in the context of WHO’s involvement in the United Nations Delivering as One initiative, and WHO’s cooperation with the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the human right to safe drinking water and sanitation with a view to improving the realization of the human right to water and Sanitation”.

 Appointment of an independent expert [ – 32 KB]
In March 2008, through resolution 7/22, the Human Rights Council decided “To appoint, for a period of three years, an independent expert on the issue of human rights obligations related to access to safe drinking water and sanitation”. In April 2011, through resolution 16/2, the Human Rights Council decided to extend the mandate for a period of three years. The Independent Expert monitors and reports on States’ implementation of the right to water as well as related violations.

More Than Bad Maths: Four Big Errors That Let Jayalalithaa Off the Hook

BY SANDHYA RAVISHANKAR

Duplication of loans

In fact, the High Court appears to have made some more glaring errors. Item number 8 in the table on Page 852 is a loan of Rs 1.57 crore in the name of VN Sudhakaran, Jayalalithaa’s foster son and one of the accused. A comparison with Pages 136 and 137 of the trial court order shows the discrepancy. Three pieces of evidence are cited in this particular loan – one, a letter from Sudhakaran to Indian Bank requesting a loan of Rs 1.57 crore. The second evidence is a letter from Indian Bank sanctioning a loan amount of Rs 1.33 crore and not the full amount requested. The third bit of evidence is the statement of accounts from the bank’s records. The trial court has taken the outstanding balance of the loan amount as income. The High Court, however, in a glaring error, takes into account only the first piece of evidence i.e. the loan amount requested by Sudhakaran, which was not even sanctioned in full.

Page 852 of High Court Judge Kumaraswamy’s judgment of May 11, 2015

Other loans show up similar discrepancies in the High Court order.

Details of loans listed on pp126-127 in trial court Judge Cunha’s September 2014 verdict finding Jayalalithaa guilty of corruption

Page 127 of trial court Judge Cunha’s verdict of September 2014

Once we discount the duplicated loans, the arithmetic now works out as follows.

Total assets accepted by HC: Rs 37,59,02,466

Total income as calculated by HC (incl loans as under Page 852): Rs 34,76,65,654

Now we deduct the amount of Rs 18,17,46,000 from this since the loans mentioned have already been taken into account by the trial court.

Only one component Item number 9 would be added since it does not reflect in the trial court’s math.

New total = Old total – loan income

i.e. Rs 34,76,65,654 – Rs 18,17,46,000

Add Item number 9 as extra loan = Rs 1,65,00,000

New total income = Rs 18,24,19,654

Now we apply this new total income to the formula used by the HC on Page 914 of the order, to arrive at the percentage of disproportionate wealth.

Disproportionate assets = Total assets – Total income

= Rs 37,59,02,466 – Rs 18,24,19,654

= Rs 19,34,82,812

This means the amount of disproportionate assets shoots up to Rs 19.3 crores from Rs 2.82 crores as given in the HC order.

Percentage = Disproportionate assets X 100 / Income

= Rs 19,34,82,812 X 100 / 18,24,19,654

The percentage now goes up to 106% as opposed to the 8.12% calculated by the HC, which was the number that acquitted Jayalalithaa and 3 others.

“This allegation is incorrect,” said a senior AIADMK leader who did not wish to be named. “We have thoroughly looked through the order and there is no discrepancy,” he said.

The 10% loophole

“Unfortunately the SC judgment in Krishnanand Agnihotri’s case has been misinterpreted,” said lawyer Nundy. “The HC says “when there is disproportionate asset to the extent of 10%, the accused are entitled for acquittal.” Nowhere does the Supreme Court judgment lay this down as a rule. Agnihotri’s case was explicitly decided in the context of his own offence, which was relatively minor. If the High Court thought Jayalalithaa deserved the benefit for much larger amounts it needed to explain why,” she said.

“It is an accepted legal precedent,” insisted the AIADMK leader. “The High Court judge is right in his assessment.”

IT returns as proof of income

Experts say that under the Nallammal vs State ruling of 1999, the term “income” has been clearly defined by the Supreme Court. “… ‘known sources of income’ means income received from any lawful source and such receipt has been intimated in accordance with the provisions of any law, rules or orders for the time being applicable to a public servant.” They say that this would, in effect, rule out IT returns as proof of income, since source of that income is not often verified while assessing returns.

Foreign remittance

The AIADMK insists that this is an accepted precedent.

Other errors

Retired judge Chandru disagrees. “Judge Kumaraswamy even said that when he purchased tiles for constructing his house, it was almost the same as claimed by Jayalalithaa,” he said.

Image of the judiciary

And while the Karnataka government dithers over whether or not to head to the Supreme Court on appeal, the legal fraternity is certainly chafing at what has taken place.

Flawed Jayalalithaa Verdict Finally Heads to Supreme Court

BY SANDHYA RAVISHANKAR ON 01/06/2015

As the Karnataka cabinet decides to move the Supreme Court in appeal, The Wireunearths more errors in the High Court verdict acquitting Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Jayalalithaa

The Wire had earlier this month reported on the four main inconsistencies in the High Court’s verdict which had allowed Jayalalithaa and others to be acquitted. But there is one more large and inexplicable error in the High Court verdict, say legal experts.

Page 797 of Judge Kumaraswamy’s order

On comparing the High Court’s tally with the written submissions made by the defendants, in this case Jayalalithaa and her close aide Sasikala, a peculiar situation arises.

The sum total of the construction costs admitted to by the defence is thus Rs 8,68,07,119 (Rs 8.6 crores).

The Wire cross-checked this tally with the written submissions made by the defendants to the Karnataka High Court. Again, a tabular column under the heading “Value of the assets according to the accused under following heads as shown in Page 711 of the trial court judgement” shows clearly the defence claim on the amount spent towards construction costs. The defence clearly states that they have spent a total of Rs 8,60,59,261 (Rs 8.6 crores) in their submission to the High Court too.

Page 711 or Judge Cunha’s trial court judgment

Page from J. Jayalalithaa’s written submission

Page from Sasikala’s submission to the High Court

Other glaring errors in the judgement include arithmetic mistakes, duplication of loan income, and erroneous use of IT returns as a valid source of income. A fiery debate is also on within legal circles on whether the use of the 10% rule — the quantum of disproportionate assets an accused is allowed before it becomes an offence — as used in Krishnanand Agnihotri is applicable at all to Jayalalithaa as her case involves crores of rupees with a charge of corruption while in office.

Allegations of Corruption against Justice C.R. Kumaraswamy who acquitted Jayalalithaa By: Apoorva Mandhani

PIL – Justice Delayed & Justice Denied

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. OF 2016

IN THE MATTER OF

NAGARAJA . M.R

editor SOS e Clarion of Dalit & SOS e Voice for Justice

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

Hebbal , Mysore – 570017 , Karnataka State

….Petitioner

Versus

Honourable Chief Justice of India & Others

….Respondents

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

To ,

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

Justices of the Supreme Court of India.

The Humble petition of the Petitioner above named.

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH :

Facts of the case:
Every human being , every Indian citizen are equal and guaranteed equitable justice as their human right and Constitutional right.

In india mafia of powers that be and government ensure that cases drag on for years , so that poor litigant either dies before judgement day or opts out in the middle. Due to this delaying tactics , many poor people rather suffer injustice instead of seeking justice in courts. Mafia indirectly forces them to keep away from litigation.

Due to occupation induced health problems my health is deteriorating day by day , some of the PILs concerning national security , public welfare I have filed are two decades old , still no justice in sight. Judges not even admitted the cases.

Actual working hours , working days for judges are less in india. Too many case adjournments , less number of judges , too many holidays for judges like summer vacation , winter vacation , working hours less than 8 hours per day , etc.

Judges work less but enjoy 5 star pay & perks at public expense.

Due to denial of justice common people suffer injustice for more time or till their death. Say some falsely implicated persons suffer in jail for years till their acquittal by courts , some petty criminals whose crime attracts one year imprisonment suffers in jail for ten years. Because they are not well connected , cann’t afford hi fi advocates , bail fees.

Due to lethargic judiciary , some land acquisition cases drag on for years land looser suffers also the project cost escalates by hundreds thousands of crores of rupees.

The lethargic Judiciary in India itself is the biggest violator of common man’s human rights , fundamental rights. It is the culprit responsible for loss of thousands of crores of rupees to public exchequer due to project cost escalations.

when a common man’s human rights , human rights is violated in the form of delaying tactics by court of law , judiciary , the presiding judge becomes a criminal and liable to pay damages to the aggrieved.

The central government and state government yearly spend thousands of crores of rupees unnecessarily like purchasing new cars for ministers , renovation , interior decorations of minister’s bungalows , foreign jaunts , etc. These are all not priority one spending. Out of these spending how many more judges could be appointed , paid salaries.

when compared to project cost escalations of thousands of crores of rupees caused due to case delays , is it not wise on the part of government to appoint requisite number of judges with additional budget burden of few crores of rupees.

Both central and state governments are the biggest litigants in the country.

Government is manipulating judicial process by denying finance to appoint more judges , to create more court infrastructures.

We common people are imposed with time limits to mandatorily comply with, in our interactions with other public , with government authorities , with courts itself. For our failures we common people are penalized.

Paradoxically , there is no mandatory time limits for judges , public servants to finish specific works concerning public. In most of the cases they adopt delaying tactics , deny justice still they are not penalized and don’t pay any compensation to the aggrieved public.

Due to delaying tactics of judges , many anti national crimes , terror attacks took place and still continuing which could have been well averted in time if judges took timely action. For helping mafia by the way of delayed justice , mafia rewards some of those judges with post retirement postings , promotions , site allotments , etc.

The Judiciary has the right , authority , power to order government to allocate finance for appointing judges , setting up court infrastructure. If the government gives ruse of no money in it’s account , courts can definitely monitor spending of government , cut down on waste , non-priority spending of government , divert such money for appointment of judges , court infrastructure development. No need for CJI to weep before prime minister. Judges themselves never consider the sufferings of weeping litigants. It shows the weakness of CJI and a shame to our nation.

If anything untoward happens to me or to my dependents Chief Justice of India together with jurisdiction police & District Collector will be responsible for it.

Question(s) of Law:

Is it right for judges to deny justice . is it right on the part of judges to delay justice under various ruses to common man , violate their human rights , fundamental rights.

Grounds:

Requests for equitable justice , Prosecution of judges , police , public servants responsible for case delays.

Averment:

Please read details at :

Honourable Chief Justice of India TAKE ACTION

https://sites.google.com/site/eclarionofdalit/honourable-cji-take-action ,

PRAYER:

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

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

To legally prosecute responsible , concerned judges , police & public servants.

To cancel winter , summer vacation holidays for judges.

To bring down the holidays of courts per year to twelve on the lines of industrial establishments.

To make it mandatory for judges to conduct court hearings for 8 hours per day.

To bring down unnecessary court adjournments.

to reserve precious court timings only for arguments , cross examination of litigants , witnesses.

to use information technology , internet for issue of notices , summons and litigants submitting documents , applications instead of wasting court time.

to introduce working of courts on shift basis in the same infrastructure.

to appoint retired judges immediately to bring down gaps in judges requirement.

to order the biggest litigant government of india and all state governments to frame laws strictly in accordance with constitution.

to order governments to give proper training for public servants , IAS officers , KAS officers , others about law of the land.

to make specific public servants personally responsible for wrong applications of law while discharging their duties and to make them pay compensation from their personal pockets.

to order Chief Justice of India to pay compensation of Rupees TWO CRORES to Nagaraja Mysuru Raghupathi editor SOS e Clarion of Dalit & SOS e Voice for Justice , towards the damages he has suffered due to delayed justice.

to order the respective judges , police in all cases of case delays more specifically in the below mentioned cases to pay compensation to innocent victims. Make a guideline for compensation payment. Legally prosecute guilty judges , police.

to frame a guideline for bail & parole procedure. When it is violated by judges , police , jail authorities , other public servants order them to pay compensation and legally prosecute guilty judges , police , jail officials.

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

Dated : 08.06.2016……… ………………….FILED BY: NAGARAJA.M.R.

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

CJI a Criminal ?

Case of Fence eating the crops ? Guard himself stealing ? Accountability of Judges a MUST

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. OF 2015

IN THE MATTER OF

NAGARAJA . M.R ,

editor , SOS e Clarion of Dalit & SOS e Voice for Justice ,

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

Hebbal , Mysore – 570017 , Karnataka State

…..Petitioner

Versus

Honourable Chief Justice of India & Others

….Respondents

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

MANDAMUS UNDER ARTICLE 32 & ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.

To ,

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

Justices of the Supreme Court of India. The Humble petition of the Petitioner above named.

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH :

1. Facts of the case:

C . Every institution in india is directly or indirectly accountable to people , however judiciary alone is not transparent not giving accounts of it’s actions to people.

F. Judges think they are sole custodians of constitution of india , in fact every citizen of india is a custodian of constitution of india.

P . When a Judge Himself Commits Crime , When a POLICE Himself robs , Murders ….

2. Question(s) of Law:

3. Grounds:

Requests for equitable justice , free expression & protection to life & liberty. Transparency , accountability in selection & functioning of Judges.

4. Averment:

GIVE WHAT ACTION HAS BEEN TAKEN AGAINST THE GUILTY JUDGES MENTIONED IN THE BELOW MENTIONED WEB SITES & FOLLOWING ARTICLES.

Half of former CJIs Corrupt :

https://sites.google.com/site/sosevoiceforjustice/half-of-former-cjis-corrupt ,

https://sites.google.com/site/eclarionofdalit/wheeling-dealing-judges-police ,

Atrocities on Women by JUDGES

https://sites.google.com/site/eclarionofdalit/atrocities-by-judges

A – Z of Manipulation of Indian Legal System

http://www.scribd.com/doc/187575206/A-Z-of-Manipulation-of-India-Legal-System ,

http://www.scribd.com/doc/173854541/Chief-Justice-of-India-A-Criminal ,

Justice Sathasivam – Are you DEAF DUMB & BLIND

https://sites.google.com/site/eclarionofdalit/justice-sathasivam—are-you-deaf-dumb-blind ,

Rajiv Gandhi Assassination Cover-up

https://sites.google.com/site/sosevoiceforjustice/rajiv-gandhi-assassination-cover-up ,

SHAME SHAME MPs & MLAs

https://sites.google.com/site/sosevoiceforjustice/shame-shame-mps-mlas ,

JUDGEs or Brokers of Justice

https://sites.google.com/site/sosevoiceforjustice/judges-or-brokers-of-justice ,

RTI & Land Golmaal

https://sites.google.com/site/sosevoiceforjustice/rti-land-golmaal-in-karnataka ,

https://sites.google.com/site/sosevoiceforjustice/land-grabbers-in-m-u-d-a ,

https://sites.google.com/site/sosevoiceforjustice/judges-cover-up-land-scams ,

Why NOT 3rd degree Torture of Corrupt Doctors , Police & Judges

http://e-clarionofdalit.blogspot.in/2015/10/why-not-3rd-degree-torture-of-doctors.html#links ,

https://sites.google.com/site/sosevoiceforjustice/3rd-degree-torture-by-doctors-police ,

The Petitioner has sent many letters / appeals / petitions to supreme court of india & other courts through e-mail , DARPG website & through regular mail requesting them to consider those as PILs. But none of them were admitted , even acknowledgement for receipts were not given. See How duty conscious ,our judges are & see how our judges are sensitive towards life , liberty of citizens , commonmen & see how careless our judges are towards anti national crimes , crimes worth crores of rupees.

That the present petitioner has not filed any other petition (which are admitted by courts) in any High Court or the Supreme Court of India on the subject matter of the present petition.

PRAYER:

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

(iii) Hereby , I do request the honourble supreme court of india to uphold the constitution of india and to protect the constitutional rights of all Indian citizens including mine.

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

Read : https://sites.google.com/site/sosevoiceforjustice/pil—writ-of-mandamus-1 ,

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

Date : 29th October 2015………………………………Filed By : Nagaraja.M.R.

Place : Mysuru India……………………………………Petitioner in person

Mercy Death Plea to Honourable Chief Justice of India

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. OF 2015

IN THE MATTER OF

NAGARAJA . M.R

editor SOS e Clarion of Dalit & SOS e Voice for Justice

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

Hebbal , Mysore – 570017 , Karnataka State

….Petitioner

Versus

Honourable Chief Justice of India , Supreme Court of India & Others

….Respondents

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

To ,

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

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

Petitioner above named.

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH :

1. Facts of the case:

power and will be lost in political squabbles . A day would come when even air & water will be taxed.” Sir Winston made this statement in the House of Commons just before the independence of India & Pakistan. Sadly , the forewarning of Late Winston Churchill has been proved right by some of our criminal , corrupt public servants.

2. As a result of fighting for public causes , public good I have individually sufferred numerous injustices and still sufferring injustices. My newspaper publication was illegally closed down , my web news paper not given with press accredition , my job oppurtunities in RBI Note press , PES Engineering college , NIE Engineering college , Mysore district court , etc snatched away illegally , I was beaten up , attempts on my life were made even after bringing threats to my life were brought to notice of supreme court of india. See how duty duty conscious our supreme court judges are ? all these sufferrings for public causes I have raised & to silence me.

2. Question(s) of Law:

3. Grounds:

Requests for equitable justice , Prosecution of corrupt public servants , corrupt judges , corrupt police. Request for supreme court orders to judges & police to perform their duties properly.

4. Averment:

Due to these type of corrupt judges & corrupt police innocents, commoners land in jails and some are even hanged for crimes not commited by them , while the rich crooks roam free.

The Petitioner has sent many letters / appeals / petitions to supreme court of india & other courts through e-mail , DARPG website & through regular mail requesting them to consider those as PILs. But none ofthem were admitted , even acknowledgement for receipts were not given. See How duty conscious ,our judges are & see how our judges are sensitive towards life , liberty of citizens , commonmen & see howcareless our judges are towards anti national crimes , crimes worth crores of rupees. That the present petitioner has not filed any other petition (which are admitted by courts) in any High Court or the Supreme Court of India on the subject matter of the present petition.

PRAYER:

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

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

c. To legally prosecute the public servants who are responsible for not giving press accreditation to my web news papers , myself as a journalist and responsible for closure of my news papers.

d. To legally prosecute authorities of M/s RPG Cables Ltd , who denied job opportunities to me under the behest of criminals responsible for late PM Rajiv Gandhi assassination case.

e. To legally prosecute authorities of M/s PES College of Engineering , who denied job opportunities to me under the behest of criminals responsible for late PM Rajiv Gandhi assassination case.

f. To legally prosecute authorities of M/s National Institute of Engineering , who denied job opportunities to me under the behest of criminals responsible for late PM Rajiv Gandhi assassination case.

g. To legally prosecute authorities of M/s Reserve Bank Note Nudran Pvt Ltd , who denied job opportunities to me under the behest of criminals responsible for late PM Rajiv Gandhi assassination case.

h. To legally prosecute authorities of Mysore District Courts & Bangalore District Courts , who denied job opportunities to me under the behest of criminals responsible for late PM Rajiv Gandhi assassination case.

i. To legally prosecute persons responsible for attempts on my life.

j. to legally prosecute judges , police & CBI officials responsible for cover-up of late PM Rajiv Gandhi assassination case.

K . To provide protection to life , liberty , livelihood , jobs of me , my family members & dependants.

l. To reopen , reinvestigate assassination case of Late PM Rajiv Gandhi.

m. To legally prosecute authorities of supreme court of india for not answering show cause notice issued to them and order them to answer the show cause notice as well as RTI questions given to them by the petitioner.

n. To conduct an impartial , transparent supreme court monitored enquiry into cases mentioned by me.

o. To admit all PILs filed by me in larger public interest.

p. To initiate criminal prosecution of public servants , police & judges who are trying to cover up crime and criminals by denying me information , by not taking action on our appeals , PILs.

q. To award me a compensation of RUPEES TWO CRORES towards the losses I have sufferred and injustices I am still going through for fighting for public causes.

r. To recover compensation amount as land arrears from guilty police , guilty judges & guilty public servants individually.

s. To permit me to work in the investigation team , to assist them in investigation subject to conditions .

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

u. THESE INCAPABLE JUDGES & POLICE ARE UNFIT FOR THE POSITIONS THEY OCCUPY , IF THEY CANN’T PROVIDE JUSTICE ATLEAST GIVE ME MERCY DEATH.

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

Dated : 16th September 2015 ………………….FILED BY: NAGARAJA.M.R.

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

PIL – Justice to Human Rights Activist

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. OF 2015

IN THE MATTER OF

NAGARAJA . M.R

editor SOS e Clarion of Dalit & SOS e Voice for Justice

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

Hebbal , Mysore – 570017 , Karnataka State

….Petitioner

Versus

Honourable Chief Justice of India , Supreme Court of India & Others

….Respondents

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

To ,

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

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

Petitioner above named.

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH :

1. Facts of the case:

2. Question(s) of Law:

Are police & Judges above law ? Can Judges & Police Comitt crimes , go scot free ?

3. Grounds:

Requests for equitable justice , Prosecution of corrupt public servants , corrupt judges , corrupt police.

4. Averment:

The Petitioner has sent many letters / appeals / petitions to supreme court of india & other courts through e-mail , DARPG website & through regular mail requesting them to consider those as PILs. But none ofthem were admitted , even acknowledgement for receipts were not given. See How duty conscious ,our judges are & see how our judges are sensitive towards life , liberty of citizens , commonmen & see howcareless our judges are towards anti national crimes , crimes worth crores of rupees. That the present petitioner has not filed any other petition (which are admitted by courts) in any High Court or the Supreme Court of India on the subject matter of the present petition.

PRAYER:

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

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

c. To legally prosecute the public servants who are responsible for not giving press accreditation to my web news papers , myself as a journalist and responsible for closure of my news papers.

d. To legally prosecute authorities of M/s RPG Cables Ltd , who denied job opportunities to me under the behest of criminals responsible for late PM Rajiv Gandhi assassination case.

e. To legally prosecute authorities of M/s PES College of Engineering , who denied job opportunities to me under the behest of criminals responsible for late PM Rajiv Gandhi assassination case.

g. To legally prosecute authorities of M/s Reserve Bank Note Mudran Pvt Ltd , who denied job opportunities to me under the behest of criminals responsible for late PM Rajiv Gandhi assassination case.

i. To legally prosecute persons responsible for attempts on my life.

j. to legally prosecute judges , police & CBI officials responsible for cover-up of late PM Rajiv Gandhi assassination case.

K . To provide protection to life , liberty , livelihood , jobs of me , my family members & dependants.

l. To reopen , reinvestigate assassination case of Late PM Rajiv Gandhi.

n. To conduct an impartial , transparent supreme court monitored enquiry into cases mentioned by me.

o. To admit all PILs filed by me in larger public interest.

p. To initiate criminal prosecution of public servants , police & judges who are trying to cover up crime and criminals by denying me information , by not taking action on our appeals , PILs.

q. To award me a compensation of RUPEES TWO CRORES towards the losses I have sufferred and injustices I am still going through for fighting for public causes.

r. To recover compensation amount as land arrears from guilty police , guilty judges & guilty public servants individually.

s. To permit me to work in the investigation team , to assist them in investigation subject to conditions .

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

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

Dated : 23rd July 2015 ………………….FILED BY: NAGARAJA.M.R.

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

edited , printed , published & owned by NAGARAJA.M.R. @ : LIG-2 / 761 , HUDCO FIRST STAGE , OPP WATER WORKS OFFICE , LAKSHMIKANTANAGAR ,HEBBAL ,MYSORE -570017 INDIA

cell : 91 8970318202

home page:

http://sites.google.com/site/eclarionofdalit/Home ,
http://groups.google.co.in/group/e-clarion-of-dalit ,
http://e-clarionofdalit.blogspot.com/ ,
http://in.groups.yahoo.com/group/e-clarionofdalit/ ,

http://paper.li/f-1367938674 ,

Follow me at
http://www.facebook.com/people/Nagaraj-Mysore-Raghupathi/513253184 ,
http://www.amnesty.org/en/user/naghrw ,
http://twitter.com/naghrw ,

Contact : naghrw@yahoo.com , nagarajhrw@hotmail.com ,

http://www.amnesty.org/en/user/naghrw

A Member of Amnesty International

September 7, 2016

Anti National ?

Filed under: Uncategorized — Nagaraja M R @ 7:30 pm

S.O.S e – Clarion Of Dalit – Weekly Newspaper On Web

Working For The Rights & Survival Of The Oppressed

Editor: NAGARAJA.M.R… VOL.10 issue.36…… .14 / 09 / 2016

Sedition or defamation case can’t be slapped for criticising govt, says Supreme Court

The court’s observation came on Bhushan’s plea that sedition was a serious offence and the law on it was being grossly misused for stifling dissent.

The Supreme Court today said sedition or defamation cases cannot be slapped on anyone criticising the government.

“Someone making a statement to criticise the government does not invoke an offence under sedition or defamation law. We have made it clear that invoking of section 124(A) of IPC (sedition) requires certain guidelines to be followed as per the earlier judgment of the apex court,” a bench of Justices Dipak Misra and UU Lalit said while disposing of a petition filed by NGO Common Cause of senior lawyer Prashant Bhushan.

The court’s observation came on Bhushan’s plea that sedition was a serious offence and the law on it was being grossly misused for stifling dissent.

He cited the examples of sedition charges being slapped on agitators protesting against Kudankulam Nuclear Power Project and cartoonist Aseem Trivedi, among others.

To this, the bench said, “We don’t have to explain the sedition law. It’s already there in the five-judges’ Constitution bench’s judgment in Kedar Nath Singh vs state of Bihar of 1962.”

Court refuses to pass direction

The court, while alleging misuse of the sedition law, refused to pass a direction on the plea that a copy of this order be sent to all chief secretaries of states and the Directors General of Police.

“You have to file separate plea highlighting if any misuse of sedition law is there. In criminal jurisprudence, allegations and cognisance have to be case specific, otherwise it will go haywire. There can’t be any generalisation,” the bench said.

Bhushan said law has not been amended after the Kedar Nath Singh judgment by the apex court and a constable does not understand the judgment but what he understands is the section in the IPC.

“Constables don’t need to understand. It is the magistrate who needs to understand and follow the guidelines as laid down by the apex court while invoking sedition charges,” the apex court said.

NGO’s plea on misuse of section 124A IPC

The court was hearing a plea seeking the apex court’s intervention to address the “misuse” of section 124 A of the IPC contending that such a charge was being framed with a view to “instill fear and scuttle dissent”.

The NGO’s plea said “there has been an increase in the number of cases of sedition against intellectuals, activists, students, with the latest being the sedition charge on Amnesty India for organising a debate on Kashmir”.

“In this regard, a petition has been filed to address the misuse and misapplication of Section 124A (sedition law) by the Centre and various state governments leading to routine persecution of students, journalists and intellectuals engaged in social activism. It is submitted that these charges are framed with a view to instill fear and to scuttle dissent”.

Sedition case slapped on Amnesty International, Arundhati Roy, Kanhaiya Kumar among others

Acting on a complaint by the ABVP on Saturday, Bengaluru police had slapped sedition charges against Amnesty International India after an event it had organised on allegations of human rights violations and denial of justice in Jammu and Kashmir.

Referring to a National Crime Records Bureau report, the plea said that 47 cases of sedition were filed in 2014 alone and 58 persons arrested in connection with these cases, but the government has managed only one conviction so far.

It cited a series of recent examples of activists being slapped with sedition charges, including Arundhati Roy in 2010 for alleged anti-India remarks at an event in Kashmir, cartoonist Aseem Trivedi in 2012 for allegedly insulting the country through his cartoons, doctor and human rights activist Binayak Sen, JNUSU President Kanhaiya Kumar and DU professor SAR Geelani.

Direction sought

The plea sought a direction that either Director General of Police or Commissioner of Police be asked to give a report before registration of an FIR for the offence of sedition that the act has led to violence or there was an intent on the part of the accused to create public disorder.

It also sought a direction that the investigations and prosecutions be dropped in cases where such a reasoned order was not provided and the act in question involved peaceful expression or assembly.

The constitutional validity of section 124 A rests upon either an intention to create public disorder or incitement of violence, it had said.

Last month, senior lawyer Prashant Bhushan’s NGO Common Cause had moved the Supreme Court on the alleged misuse of sedition laws. “With rampant misuse of Sedition law, we have filed PIL to ensure there’s incitement to violence for charging sedition,” he had alleged and added that the sedition law is causing persecution of students.

“Sedition laws are being misused,” the NGO had alleged and demanded that the approval of concerned DGP or Commissioner should be sought before booking someone on charges of sedition.

The PIL was filed even as Amnesty International India was booked on the charge of sedition on August 16. Amnesty International had organised the event in Bengaluru as part of a campaign to seek justice for “victims of human rights violations” in Jammu and Kashmir. The event took a turn for the ugly and heated exchanges were witnessed and allegedly anti-India and anti-Army slogans were raised.

Sedition: SC directs authorities to follow Kedar Nath Judgment

September 5, 2016

Supreme Court of India has today issued a direction to all the concerned authorities to follow the Constitutional bench judgment in Kedar Nath v State of Bihar (1962) which limited the scope of Sedition Law (Section 124A) in India. The Supreme Court has said that all authorities would be bound by the Kedar Nath judgment when dealing with cases of sedition. With the above observation the Supreme Court has dismissed the Petition filed by NGO ‘Common Cause’ and Dr. S.P. Udayakumar.

Appearing for the Petitioners, Advocate Prashant Bhushan has argued before the bench that the law of sedition is being grossly misused, misapplied and abused by the authorities and that the authorities are not following the judgment in Kedar Nath which states that Section 124A (sedition) is only applicable where there is violence or incitement to violence in the alleged act of sedition. The Public Interest Litigation was filed in the Supreme Court by NGO ‘Common Cause’ and Dr. S.P. Udayakumar (anti-nuclear activist against whom sedition charges have been made) seeking urgent intervention of the Supreme Court to address the misuse and misapplication of Section 124A (sedition) by successive governments leading to routine persecution of students, journalists and intellectuals engaged in social activism.

The Petitioners alleged that the Sedition charges are framed against Citizens with a view to instil fear and to scuttle dissent and are in complete violation of the scope of sedition as laid down by a constitution bench of Supreme Court in Kedar nath v State of Bihar [1962 Supp. (2) S.C.R. 769], which is the locus classicus on the interpretation of sedition.

As per the Constitution bench judgment in Kedarnath vs State of Bihar only those acts, which involve incitement to violence or violence constitute a seditious act. In the various cases that have been filed in the recent years, the charges of sedition against the accused have failed to stand up to judicial scrutiny. The petitioners have sought a strict compliance of the Constitutional Bench judgment in Kedar Nath in which for the very first time scope of sedition as a penal offence was laid down and it was held that the gist of the offence of sedition is “incitement to violence” or the “tendency or the intention to create public disorder”.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BzXilfcxe7yuSW16eUVfTFB0eTQ/view

Misuse of sedition Law in India

Once again the law of sedition has been misused, this time in Tamil Nadu. A folk singer associated with a radical leftist group has been charged with sedition and committing an act with an intent to cause a riot. His offence: disseminating two songs pillorying Chief Minister Jayalalithaa and her government for its policy of retailing liquor. There is nothing in the compositions that even remotely threatens the state or established government; neither is there anything that encourages violence, beyond calling for the closure of state-run liquor outlets as part of a campaign against government policy. The song has gone viral on social media, and many relate to its central theme. The song delineates with a great sense of irony, in tunes that are catchy, the idea of the state selling liquor while at the same time showering the people with freebies. In a sense, it has captured the present patronage paradigm in the political economy wherein the ruling party poses as the provenance of all welfare, but keeps the people disempowered through alcohol addiction and dependent on state doles. The artist, Kovan, whose real name is Sivadas, has managed to capture this reality in his songs. While the tenor of one of the songs, as well as caricatures in its video portraying Ms. Jayalalithaa in poor light, may appear defamatory of an individual, it should be remembered that small radical groups using folk forms for political propaganda communicate in strong, yet easily understandable language.

Powerful political figures ought to have it in them to take such criticism in their stride. They must act to address the underlying grievances rather than use repressive measures. The state’s response has been needlessly angry. Kovan’s arrest marks yet another instance of a pliant police force invoking Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code, which deals with sedition, with utter disregard for several judicial pronouncements limiting its scope. Courts have deprecated the tendency to invoke this grave charge for mere expressions of critical views. The Supreme Court has said that even words that indicate disaffection towards the government cannot be termed seditious, unless there is actual incitement to violence and intention to cause disorder. In this case, it is particularly disgraceful that the Chennai police have equated strident criticism of the Chief Minister with an alleged threat to the government established by law. It was only recently that the Maharashtra government withdrew a controversial circular to the effect that strong criticism of public servants could attract the charge of sedition. In 2012, cartoonist Aseem Trivedi was booked for sedition for a cartoon that highlighted corruption. In Meerut last year, the police initially invoked Section 124A, but later dropped it, against a group of Kashmiri students for, of all things, cheering the Pakistan team during a cricket telecast. Given its repeated misuse, it is time this unwanted, outdated, pre-colonial provision was jettisoned altogether.

‘Sedition law is political; it is misused in India’

The Hindu Centre for Politics and Public Policy organised a panel discussion on ‘Free Speech and Sedition in a Democracy.

Focussing on the recent events that unfolded at Jawaharlal Nehru University in New Delhi, The Hindu Centre for Politics and Public Policy organised a panel discussion on ‘Free Speech and Sedition in a Democracy,’ touching upon the impact of sedition law on freedom of speech, in Chennai on Thursday.

Former Madras High Court judge K. Chandru, former Director-General of Police A.X. Alexander and senior advocate Sriram Panchu participated in the panel discussion, which was moderated by N. Ravi, former Editor-In-Chief, The Hindu, and Director, Kasturi and Sons Ltd.

In his opening remarks, Mr. Ravi pointed out that there were three dimensions — political, legal and public discourse — to sedition and free speech.

“In a constitutional democracy and republic, do the interests of the state need such a law? Second is the legal dimension: whether the restrictive legal judicial interpretation is enough of a safeguard and whether allowing the section to remain on the statute book in itself poses the danger of misuse. And the third dimension related to public discourse on sedition and free speech where very often the wrong question is posed: Is free speech of a few more important than the security of the state? The right question should be whether a particular speech of a person poses a real threat to the security,” he said.

Justice Chandru said that sedition law was a ‘political law.’ It was always misused by the political class. “The Supreme Court has clearly said that mere speech doesn’t qualify as sedition. Sedition law is always misused in India. In Tamil Nadu, singer Kovan was booked under sedition for singing against TASMAC shops and the government,” he said, adding, “If a law is likely to be misused, then it is an arbitrary law.”

While arguing that the policemen often ‘go by the book’ because there are adequate legal checks, Mr. Alexander said that the sedition law must remain in the penal code, but the ‘vagueness’ in the law must be avoided.

“There is a clamour to remove not just the sedition law, but many other laws, including the blasphemy law, which will open up a Pandora’s box,” he said.

Mr. Panchu said only when words incite violence and disturb public order, do they amount to sedition.

“We should see if the speech produces a spark to the powder keg. If it doesn’t, a speech cannot be deemed sedition. So long as one doesn’t contemplate, promote or incite violence, it cannot be deemed seditious,” he said.

Editorial : Who is Anti-National ? Amensty International ?

First of all my whole hearted respects to my motherland Bharath maata – India , for giving birth , shelter , food , water to millions of Indians like me on her sacred soil. My whole hearted respects salutes to our soldiers , police and security personnel who are guarding millions of Indians day in & day out , whether rain or sun shine 24 * 7 * 365 . without their sacrifices it would not have been possible for millions of us to safely enjoy our freedom , our lives.

What is Anti-Nationalism ? The act which intends to destroy the unity , integrity of a country by it’s own people , an internal sabotage. The person who performs such act is an Anti-National.

What is Human Rights & Duties ? Human Rights are the rights enjoyed by each human being by virtue of his birth , not sanctioned by any political party nor by any governments nor by any courts of law. Human Duties are to respect the Human Rights of his fellow country men. Government of India has reaffirmed , upheld human rights of all Indians , ratified Universal declaration of human rights and has set up National Human Rights Commission. Supreme Court of India has upheld the supremacy of Human Rights in various cases before it. Therefore working for protection of HUMAN RIGHTS in India is strictly legal , within legal boundary.

The fairness , transparency of democracy in India is that it gives a chance even to an alleged criminal , terrorist to make his point in court of law through his legal counsel. When ever the alleged criminal , terrorist fails to engage a lawyer for himself , the court appoints one from it’s panel of lawyers. Example pak terrorist kasab. Ultimately , Our democracy , our judiciary ensures a fair trial for all. Hats off to my motherland.

In india , some NGOs are impartially , sincerely doing their duty of working for protection of human rights in a balanced way. However some NGOs only cry foul when certain people are affected but remains mum other way round. It is not fair , not right. Terrorists want their human rights protected but they don’t respect the human rights of their fellow human beings , it is not just.

Yes , there are few corrupt police , security personnel , soldiers who commit excesses like fake encounters , lock up deaths , third degree torture, etc. those few corrupt are nothing but terrorists in government uniform. In the same breath there are many honest , professional police , security personnel , soldiers. Nobody should generalize and make adverse remarks against the whole forces. We must respect the honest persons within our forces , boost their morale. Please remember they too are human beings , have families to look after but sacrificing themselves for the safety their fellow countrymen.

In the same way in all communities , religions , there are good people as well as bad. People from all communities have & are contributing towards india in their own spheres of life.

The struggle of NGOs must not be against any government or any system in general rather it must be only against specific case of crime. NGOs must not take sides with any community or religion , it must represent the specific case of the victim whichever community , religion he belongs to. NGOs must seek justice for victims of excesses committed by security forces , police fine in the same way it must seek justice to the families of security personnel , police who are martyred. In some cases martyr’s family members run from pillar to post for years to get pension , denied appointment in government service on compassionate grounds , etc. Nobody cares about them inspite of their huge sacrifices.

Pakistan is a terror state , it doesn’t have any positive human development agenda. It has only destructive agenda with regards to it’s neighbours whether india or Afghanistan and it is fanatic to the extent of fighting amongst themselves within their own country. It doesn’t mean all ordinary Pakistani citizens are terrorists. They too are human beings like us , want to work , earn in a honourable way and to maintain their families. TERRORISM is the state dictated policy in Pakistan , by few fanatics & power mongers in the government of pakistan.

Can public of Srilanka brand all Indians as Terrorists , because government of india supported tamil separatists in srilanka. It is untrue , wrong. The decision to support tamil terrorists in srilanka was secretly taken by few power mongers in government of india at that time but never supported by commoners. We the Indians , commoners wish the government to rightly use precious tax payer’s money for betterment of our social security needs rather than misusing it for illegal purposes.

When a person or NGO raises voice for seeking justice within democratic frame work, he should not be branded as anti-national. Thereby , the person who brandishes the other himself will be acting against law & an anti-national himself. Nobody should take law into his own hands , our legal system is capable.

The real Anti-Nationals who are roaming free are :

1. Police personnel who are on the pay rolls of under world dons and alerts them against strategic strikes.

2. Hi fi people who shame lessly attend parties hosted by dons.

3. Hi fi people who help dons but still go with minor punishment.

4. Alleged Public servants who makes favors in defence purchases , contracts risking the security of the nation.

5. Public servants who themselves got flats allotted in Adarsh Housing Society which was actually meant for families of martyrs , war widows.

The list goes on.

Hereby , we urge Government of Karnataka to conduct an impartial enquiry into Anti National charges against Amnesty International at the earliest and to provide a fair chance for them to legally put forth their case.

Hereby , we also urge government of india :

1. To abolish Armed Forces Special Powers Act.

2. To legally punish few errant police , security personnel for their excesses , illegal acts.

3. To abolish colonial era sedition laws. To legally prosecute the real anti nationals , corrupt few within the government.

4. To protect , respect human rights of one and all – pundits , muslims , etc.

5. To pay compensation , pension amounts to families of martyred security personnel , police on fast track basis. To provide appointment in government service to one of the dependants on compassionate grounds on fast track basis.

Hereby we also , urge Honourable Supreme Court of India to immediately admit PILs mentioned at following web site in the interest of national security and human rights of public at large.

https://sites.google.com/site/sosevoiceforjustice/independence-to-dalits-commoners ,

https://sites.google.com/site/eclarionofdalit/independence-to-dalits-commoners

Jai Hind. Vande Mataram.

Your’s sincerely ,

Nagaraja.M.R.

Drop FIR Against Amnesty Intl India!

in Human Rights — by PUCL — August 20, 2016

PUCL (People’s Union For Civil Liberties) condemns the actions of the Bengaluru Police in foisting a case of sedition, creating enmity and other charges against Amnesty International India and unnamed staff for holding a meeting on 13^th August, 2016 in Bengaluru on human rights abuses in Kashmir in which families of victims participated. From the statement of Amnesty it is evident that the police had been informed about the meeting, were present at the venue and had observed firsthand the event and therefore had knowledge that the allegations of the VHP about the meeting were politically motivated and false. That the Karnataka police chose to register a FIR despite all this only highlights the dangers of arming the state with such draconian laws like the anti-sedition laws.

The 13^th August, 2016 event itself was in the backdrop of the 2015 Amnesty International report “Denied: Failures in accountability for human rights violations by security force personnel in Jammu and Kashmir”. The Report focused on the travails of families of persons who lost their loved ones due to excesses by security forces. This report is in the public domain. Families of victims of State violence were present to narrate in first person, the situation in Kashmir and the difficulties in claiming justice and accountability in cases where innocent people are killed in encounters or enforced disappearances. The meeting itself included showing video films of testimonies of other victim families, a panel discussion, musical performance and skit.

PUCL sees the recent registration of an FIR for sedition against Amnesty International, India and the witch hunt into the finances / funding of the organisation as yet another instance in the long string of events where the State has used right wing, majoritarian groups to stifle dissent, prevent discussion and control debate. There is a visible pattern across the country – from the incidents in JNU, Hyderabad Central University, Allahabad University, or the witch hunt against Teesta Setalvad and Javed Anand and their organisation CJP, Indira Jaisingh and Anand Grover of Lawyers Collective, Green Peace and now Amnesty International – where, in every meeting discussing human rights violations suffered by minorities and dalits, or excesses of security forces whether in Kashmir, North East or in Maoist regions, a small fringe group creates a commotion, which is used to first disrupt the meeting and thereafter to harass the organisers by slamming cases against them. Seldom is any action initiated against the individuals who disrupt meetings in the first place.

For instance, in the present incident, the local police were informed and were present at the meeting. Why were the disruptors not removed by the police present in the venue or why was no FIR registered against the persons who appeared to have come prepared to disrupt and actually disrupted the meeting?

It also needs to be highlighted that the repeated invocation of the anti-sedition offence (sec. 124 A IPC) over any other section of IPC is mainly to create a public opinion that those who demand accountability of the state and its agencies, including the police, para military and security forces, are essentially “anti-national”. This creates a negative image about them amongst common people; the `anti-national’ tag, in turn, ensures that the state can further persecute them without much adverse public opinion.

It is in this context that we need to also notice that irrespective of political party in power, most governments tend to abuse the extremely coercive, anti-democratic, anti-sedition provision, sec. 124A IPC to silence dissent and crush criticism. There is little difference between a BJP government invoking sedition provisions against Dr. Binayak Sen in Chhattisgarh or the AIADMK government invoking sedition laws against peaceful, anti-nuclear protestors in Koodankulam in Tamil Nadu or cartoonist Aseem Trivedi being arrested in Maharashtra or the case launched by the TMC government in West Bengal against academics; more recently in the last one year itself, is the sedition case against JNU Students Union leader, Kanhaiya Kumar in Delhi, the Tamil folk singer Kovan in TN for criticising the government’s liquor policy and against Hardik Patel for rallying the anti-reservation struggle involving Patels or Patidars in Gujarat; the latest to join this long list of infamous sedition cases is the present case against Amnesty International India launched by the Congress government in Karnataka. In all these cases, what weighed were political considerations of the ruling parties and governments dealing a death blow to the rule of law and functioning of the criminal justice system.

It has been a long held position of PUCL that the anti-sedition law (sec. 124A IPC) should be repealed immediately. It is ironical that in Britain itself the sedition clause has been repealed while India continues to retain it.

PUCL appeals to all concerned citizens, democratically minded groups and human rights movement to once again give a call for repealing sec. 124 A IPC and to launch a mass citizen’s campaign to make ordinary citizens aware of the dangerous, anti-democratic nature of this archaic, colonial era provision of law.

PUCL also demands that the Government of Karnataka and the Karnataka Police immediately withdraw the FIR lodged against Amnesty International, India for the meeting organised by it on 13^thAugust, 2016 in the United Theological College in Bengaluru.

Amnesty International India Refutes Charges Of Sedition

in India — by Press Release — August 17, 2016

AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL INDIA PRESS RELEASE
16-AUGUST-2016
BENGALURU
On 15 August, a First Information Report was reportedly registered against Amnesty International India with regard to an event held on 13 August, based on a complaint filed by an ABVP representative.

The allegations mentioned in the complaint are without substance. They are preventing the families of victims of human rights violations in Jammu and Kashmir from having their stories heard. And preventing civil society organisations from enabling these families to exercise their constitutional right to justice.

Amnesty International India’s vision is for every person in India to enjoy the rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, other international human rights standards, and the Constitution of India. We are independent of any political, economic or ideological interests.

The event was held as part of a campaign based on the report “Denied: Failures in accountability for human rights violations by security force personnel in Jammu and Kashmir”, published in July 2015, and publicly available. The report documents the obstacles to justice faced in several cases of human rights violations believed to have been committed by Indian security force personnel in Jammu and Kashmir. It focuses particularly on Section 7 of the Armed Forces (Jammu and Kashmir) Special Powers Act, 1990 (AFSPA), which grants virtual immunity to members of the security forces from prosecution in civilian courts for alleged human rights violations.

The report was based on in-depth research in Jammu and Kashmir, including interviews with family members of victims, Right to Information applications, examination of police and court records, and interviews with civil society groups, lawyers, and government officials.

The families of three Kashmiri victims that were interviewed for the report were invited to share their stories at the event.

Below is a point-by-point rebuttal to the allegations raised in the complaint.

1) “Sindhujaa Iyengar, a political science lecturer at a private university in Bengaluru, Seema Mustafa and Roushan Illahi sang anti-national songs and raised anti-national slogans.”

Sindhujaa Iyengar is an employee of Amnesty International India. She was not present on stage at any point during the event. Seema Mustafa is a senior journalist. She moderated a discussion with affected families at the event. Neither of them sang any songs or raised any slogans at any point.

The only musical performance was a song by Roushan Illahi (also known as MC Kash) at the end of the event, about growing up amid violence in Kashmir.
Video footage of the event which was recorded by Amnesty International India has been shared with the police.

2) “Sindhujaa Iyengar, Seema Mustafa and Roushan Illahi…delivered anti-national speeches against soldiers.”

The only speech delivered at the event was by Amnesty International India’s Programmes Director, Tara Rao, which referred to allegations of human rights violations by security force personnel. These allegations are laid out in detail in Amnesty International India’s 2015 report, and have been widely reported and discussed. The People’s Democratic Party (PDP), which is part of the current ruling coalition in Jammu and Kashmir, had welcomed the recommendations of the report when it was published.

The families who attended the event spoke of their own personal stories of loss, as per the programme of the event. One of the families who attended the event was that of Shahzad Ahmad Khan, one of the men killed in the Machil extra-judicial execution, for which five security force personnel were convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment.

Amnesty International India also invited R.K. Mattoo, a representative of the Kashmiri Pandit community in Bengaluru to speak about the human rights violations faced by members of the community.

3) “Slogans were raised that Indian Kashmir should be part of Pakistan.”
No Amnesty International India employee shouted any slogans at any point.

4) “The event indirectly supported terrorists.”

The only discussion at the event was about allegations of human rights violations and the denial of justice to families in Kashmir. These are issues that have regularly been discussed in the media. They have been written about at length by members of Parliament, politicians, judges and civil society. In July 2016, the Supreme Court, in a ruling relevant to the issues discussed at the event, stated that the armed forces do not enjoy impunity for human rights violations.

5) “The event…indirectly supported Pakistan and the ISI.”

The focus of the event was squarely on allegations of human rights violations and the denial of justice in Jammu and Kashmir Amnesty International has worked extensively on human rights violations in Pakistan, including the enforced disappearances and unlawful killings of political activists in Balochistan, violations by security forces in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) , and violence against journalists by groups including the ISI.

6) “When ABVP activists tried stopping the attack, people tried to assault them.”

No Amnesty International India employee was involved in any form of assault against anyone.

Towards the end of the event, some of those who attended raised slogans, some of which referred to calls for ‘Azaadi’ (freedom). Amnesty International India as a matter of policy does not take any position in favour of or against demands for self-determination.

However, Amnesty International India considers that the right to freedom of expression includes the right to peacefully advocate political solutions.

Amnesty International India had invited the Bengaluru police to be present at the event, in the interest of the security of the invited families and other attendees. We have shared our footage of the event with the police.

The Supreme Court of India has ruled on multiple occasions, notably in the case of Kedar Nath Singh versus State of Bihar, that speech would amount to sedition only if it involved incitement to violence or public disorder. The court ruled: “[C]riticism of public measures or comment on Government action, however strongly worded, would be within reasonable limits and would be consistent with the fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression.”

In the case of Shreya Singhal versus Union of India, the Supreme Court ruled: “‘Mere discussion or even advocacy of a particular cause howsoever unpopular is at the heart of [the right to freedom of expression].” It stated that the right could be restricted “only when such discussion or advocacy reaches the level of incitement”.

And Then They Came For Amnesty And Seema Mustafa

in India — by Lalita Ramdas — August 18, 2016

It was a matter of time – one by one, the most outspoken and critical voices in the media, in civil society and in standing up for human rights are being picked out and attempts being made to silence them.

Just confirming that Seema Mustafa – good friend, outstanding journalist and a fearless activist for the Idea of India as laid out in our Constitution has also been included in thelist of those targeted by the ABVP FIR against Amnesty International for their hearings on Kashmir.

Seema has clearly been in their sights for a while and this provided a perfect excuse. Seema was among the better known faces invited to moderate one of the conversations with Kashmiris at the day long event held at the United Theological Institute at Bangalore on Aug 14 .

Martin Niemoller’s prophetic words constantly come to mind …

First they came for the Communists, I did not speak out- because i was not a communist

Then they came for the socialists, the trade unionists, the Jews –
I did not speak out

Then they came for me – and there was no one left to speak up for me …….

And let us no longer blame only the present regime –

Uday Kumar and thousands in Tamil Nadu were charged with sedition in the period of Congress and UPA I with ample and ready support from the T Nadu administration. Their only crime – the longest, non violent , peaceful, Gandhian protest against the Koodankulam Nuclear Power plant .

The tendency to clamp down on dissent – and all those who differ with the policies of the state began many decades back. Let us not forget that draconian legislation like AFSPA was brought in 58 years ago by the Congress regime.

It has just become more blatant , the impunity is up in your face,and also now is immeasurably strengthened by the overt participation of the private sector and powerful interests whocollaborate to stifle dissent from all those affected by extractive industrial activity across the lands and forests of indigenous peoples.

The IB report naming many well known public figures associated with anti nuclear, anti mining, anti AFSPA campaigns, groups and issues, was also leaked in the dying days of UPA II. None of that has been retracted.

It is a time for unity of action, for solidarity and strategic thoughtful response. But is no longer a time for silence, or for sitting on the fence. Action like the PIL filed in the Supreme Court against the anti deluvian law of sedition by Prashant Bhushan and Uday Kumar – is a fine example of legal action.

In solidarity with Seema Mustafa, with Aakar Patel and Amnesty, and those many many others – unnamed yet targeted unfairly for sedition – when they were protesting – a right conferred on them by the Constitution of India.

edited , printed , published & owned by NAGARAJA.M.R. @ : LIG-2 / 761 , HUDCO FIRST STAGE , OPP WATER WORKS OFFICE , LAKSHMIKANTANAGAR ,HEBBAL ,MYSORE -570017 INDIA

cell : 91 8970318202

home page:

http://sites.google.com/site/eclarionofdalit/Home ,
http://groups.google.co.in/group/e-clarion-of-dalit ,
http://e-clarionofdalit.blogspot.com/ ,
http://in.groups.yahoo.com/group/e-clarionofdalit/ ,

http://paper.li/f-1367938674 ,

Follow me at
http://www.facebook.com/people/Nagaraj-Mysore-Raghupathi/513253184 ,
http://www.amnesty.org/en/user/naghrw ,
http://twitter.com/naghrw ,

Contact : naghrw@yahoo.com , nagarajhrw@hotmail.com ,

http://www.amnesty.org/en/user/naghrw

A Member of Amnesty International