Chief Injustice of India K. G. Balakrishnan in Sonia-stricken Bharat - V. Sundaram
and/or www.mantra.com/jai
Tuesday, December 28, 2010
Chief Injustice of India K. G. Balakrishnan in Sonia-stricken India -
V. Sundaram
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Chief Injustice of India
K. G. Balakrishnan - Part I
V. Sundaram, I.A.S
Sir Walter Scott wrote: "An hour of crowded glory is worth an Age
without a name."
In my view, the tenure of the thirty-seventh Chief Injustice of India
Konakuppakatil Gopinathan Balakrishnan, also known as K. G.
Balakrishnan, which lasted from January 14 2007 and ended on May 12
2010, was the darkest age in the history of Justice and Jurisprudence
in India. FOR THIS IRRESPONSIBLE JUDGE, AN HOUR OF CROWDED AND
RAPACIOUS VENAL GLORY WAS WORTH MORE THAN AN AGE OF PROBITY AND
INTEGRITY. I have come to this conclusion after a detailed discussion
I have had withSenior Advocate P.A Chandran of Kerala High Court in
Ernakulam. He had moved a petition in the Supreme Court of India
against the unconstitutional and illegal appointment of Justice K. G.
Balakrishnan as the Chief Justice of India on January 14, 2007.
The petitioner, Advocate Chandran, had alleged that Justice
Balakrishnan was illegally appointed to the Kerala High Court in 1985
though he did not fulfil the requirement laid down in the
Constitution for appointment as a High Court judge. According to
Advocate Chandran, it is mandatory for a person to have a minimum of
10 years service as a District Judge or 10 years practice as an
Advocate before being elevated to the High Court. In the case of
Justice Balakrishnan, Advocate Chandranalleged that Justice
Balakrishnan had worked merely as a Munsif Magistrate from 1973 to
1983, a post which is considered as subordinate judiciary and, hence,
rendered him ineligible for the High Court Judge's post. Since his
original appointment as High Court judge was it self illegal, his
subsequent elevation as Chief Justice of India was also illegal, the
petitioner Advocate Chandran argued while seeking his impeachment.
A Bench comprised of Justices R V Raveendran and B Sudershan Reddy
found no merit in the petition of Advocate Chandran, which, the Bench
said, had been filed belatedly after 24 years. They dismissed the
petition in the most casual, peremptory and untenable manner. The
transitory and ephemeral private interests of Justice Balakrishnan
seem to have mattered more to these Judges than the rigid and
inviolable adherence to the legal and constitutional norms for proper
appointments to the highest constitutional posts in the deathless
cause of public interest.
Perhaps Justice Learned Hand, one of the greatest Judges America has
produced during the last 200 years, had our Supreme Court Judges in
view when he declared in Loubriel v. United States (9F2D 807, 808,
1926) in 1926: "There is no surer sign of a feeble and fumbling
Judge's law than timidity in penetrating the FORM to the SUBSTANCE."
Honourable men who care for the FORM or the SUBSTANCE, of Law seem to
have no place on any Judicial Bench in India!
Moreover, I only wish that these unusually 'Learned' Judges R V
Raveendran and B Sudershan Reddy had not lost judicial sight of
precisely demarking and indicating the letter and spirit of the
existing corpus of law which clothed them with requisite legal
authority to enforce the Law of Limitation to give the kind of
benefit which they gave to the former Chief Justice K.G Balakrishnan.
As Judges committed to the cause of enforcement of the impersonal
Rule of Law in letter and spirit, they are not expected to display
all the known and unknown vagaries of an Oriental Despot like Timur
or Chenghis Khan. Many of the Supreme Court Judges with known
Communist affiliations and attachments seem to be boisterous in their
display of ridiculous vanity on the one hand and unrestrained
whimsical autocracy on the other.
Since I am not a trained lawyer, to the best of my knowledge as a
common citizen, all I can say is that there is no written Law of
Limitation which can be invoked to protect illegally appointed
judges!!! Moreover, if such a Law exists, then the protection of that
Law must be extended and made applicable to thousands of illegal and
irregular appointments at all level extending to peons, sweepers,
casual labourers working on daily wages in various government offices
and public institutions in India. In my long and varied
administrative career in the Indian Administrative Service, I have
come across hundreds of cases where the Supreme Court Judges and the
High Court Judges, pompously pontificating with vainglorious
authority over the Principle of the Rule of Law, have passed
untenable orders terminating such appointments even after the lapse
of time periods extending over several decades!
The Fountain of Mercy, Compassion and Consideration must flow from
the Highest Levels of Governance to the Lowest Levels in an
unchecked, unhindered and unobtrusive manner and not in the reverse
direction as it is happening in the Sonia-ridden and Sonia stricken
India of today. The Learned Judges ought to learn that no river ever
runs up the hill!
In the Highest Echelons of the Judiciary or Public Administration,
the standards of integrity, rectitude, probity, decorum that have to
be enforced at any cost without any fear or favour, ought to be cast
in a mould of grand steel and not in a vaporously weak, shakable,
easily lapsable and suddenly collapsible manner. Even if a written
provision of law exists for appointing even a criminally sentenced
person to a post, such merciful provisions can be readily invoked
only in cases of public appointments at the lowest level, like that
of sweepers and casual employees, and certainly not at the level of
High Court Judges, Supreme Court Judges, I.A.S and I.P.S officers,
Central Vigilance Commissioner, Chief Election Commissioner,
President of India, etc,.Let me give an example to illustrate this
point. If there is a written provision for appointing a person to a
particular post in spite of his having undergone and completed his
sentence for pick pocketing, there is no harm in such a person being
considered for appointment as a sweeper or a peon. Mutatis Mutandis,
on the same principle of Social Mercy and Political Compassion, we
cannot elevate some High Court Judges with known corrupt, shady and
murky backgrounds tarred with moral turpitude as Supreme Court
Judges!
In the next part, I will elaborate on the war of words between
Justice R Reghupati, former Judge of the Madras High Court, Justice
Gokhale, formerly Chief Justice of Madras High Court and now a Judge
of the Supreme Court of India on the one hand and former Chief
Justice of India K.G Balakrishnan on the other.
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
CHIEF INJUSTICE OF INDIA
K. G. Balakrishnan - Part II
By V. Sundaram, I.A.S
The former Chief Injustice of India (CJI) K. G. Balakrishnan is very
much in the news today for the most reprehensible, dishonourable,
despicable, disgracefuland damnable reasons. K. G. Balakrishnan SEEMS
TO BE AN INVETERATE LIAR. He has shown an extraordinarily
authoritarian latitude for terminological inexactitude, semantic
inexactitude and legal inexactitude.
When I saw the former Chief Injustice of India (CJI) K. G.
Balakrishnan rambling, mumbling and fumbling before the media, I was
reminded of the tale relating to 'The Shepherd's Boy' in Aesop's
Fables (6th Century BC) who had our 'Most Honourable'Justices like
Balakrishnan in view when he said for all time: "A liar will not be
believed, even when he speaks the truth." Preaching against the sin
of lies and liars is not something confined only to the domain of
ancient bards and writers. Let us now hear what the famous American
Judge Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes had to say in this context: "SIN
HAS MANY TOOLS, BUT A LIE IS THE HANDLE WHICH FITS THEM ALL". That
great American Judge would never have imagined that his words would
become totally relevant and applicable, on all fours, to a Chief
Justice of the Supreme Court of a large democratic country like
India, nearly 80 years after he had uttered those immortal words of
sublime wisdom!
It is very clear that the former Chief Justice of Madras High Court H
L Gokhale(now a sitting judge of the Supreme Court of India) had
forwarded a letter of Justice R Reghupati to Chief InJustice K. G.
Balakrishnan on July 5, 2009 in which Justice Reghupati had alleged
that the then Union Telecom Minister A. Raja had tried to threaten
him through a Senior Advocate K. Chandramohan in the Court
premises.The letter of Chief Justice Gokhale even annexed a copy of
the Justice Reghupati'sletter for suitable action.
Justice Reghupati, in his letter sent to the Chief Justice of Madras
High CourtGokhale, had mentioned that Senior Advocate K Chandramohan,
who appeared before him, tried to influence him (Justice Reghupati)
by saying that the applicants, in a bail case, Dr C. Krishnamurthi
and his son were family friends of a Union Minister by name A Raja.
Justice Gokhale had forwarded Justice Reghupati's letter in which he
had mentioned about the indirect and illegal interference of then
Union Telecom Minister A. Raja, through Senior Advocate K
Chandramohan to the CJI on 5 th July 2009 itself.
Justice Reghupati, in his letter sent to the Chief Justice of Madras
High Court Gokhale, had mentioned that Senior Advocate K
Chandramohan, who appeared before him, tried to influence him
(Justice Reghupati) by saying that the applicants, in a bail case, Dr
C. Krishnamurthi and his son were family friends of a Union Minister
by name A Raja.
The former Chief InJustice of India K. G. Balakrishnan, in order to
protect the corrupt Minister A. Raja, has tried his best to conceal
from public view this letter sent on 5th July 2009 by the Chief
Justice Gokhale of Madras High Court.
To begin with, Justice K. G. Balakrishnan lied at a press conference
held on December 8, 2010, that he had not received any letter from
Justice Reghupati when he was the CJI and secondly that the report
which Justice Gokhale had sent to the former CJI on behalf of Justice
Reghupati, did not mention the name of any Union Minister having
talked to Justice Reghupati on phone on June 12, 2009 and therefore
there was no occasion for him to recommend any further action.
The BAREFACED LIE uttered in public at the Press Conference by the
former Chief Injustice Balakrishnan has been exposed by the fact that
he had in factacknowledged the receipt of that latter. Justice
Gokhale has reacted correctly to the BLATANTLY FALSE STATEMENT OF THE
FORMER CHIEF (IN)JUSTICE OF INDIAin this manner: "The reported
statement of the former CJI gives an erroneous impression about my
role in the matter. Hence, it became necessary for me to verify the
facts from the records with the CJI's office and the record reveals
that the former CJI had acknowledged the receipt in a subsequent
letter dated August 8, 2009."
Responding to a Press note issued by Justice Gokhale, Justice
Balakrishnan, who is presently Chairperson of National Human Rights
Commission, said, "I am certain that in the report received from the
Chief Justice of Madras High Court (on August 8, 2009), no name of
the Union Minister was mentioned, and that there was no case that any
Minister himself made telephonic talk with the judge or threatened or
influenced him (Reghupathy)".
Thus in his own weak and untenable defense, the devious former Chief
(In)Justice of India K. G. Balakrishnan has made the following letter
from Chief Justice Gokhale of Madras High Courtpublic at a Press
Conference.
Justice Gokhale's letter of 8th August 2009 to the former Chief
Justice of India, K.G Balakrishnan
Published in The New Express News on 16 Dec 2010
Respected My Lord,
I have received your Lordship's letter dated 8th August 2009
forwarding a copy of the memorandum by a number of Members of the
Parliament to the Hon'ble Prime Minister of India. It is concerning
the alleged statement made by Mr. Justice R. Reghupathi in open
Court, and Your Lordship has asked me to give my views/comments
relating to the issue raised in the said memorandum. The first
paragraph of the memorandum states that the controversy arose when a
Chennai High Court Judge made a statement in the open Court that a
Union Minister had telephoned him in a matter concerning a mark sheet
forgery case with the recommendation that the accused should be given
bail. This statement is contrary to what the Hon'ble Judge has stated
in paragraph 3 of his letter dated 2nd July 2009 which I have
forwarded to Your Lordship as permitted by the learned Judge. As per
that letter the learned Judge has not made any such statement in the
Court. In that paragraph the learned Judge has narrated the
background to explain what he has stated in the Court, and thereafter
he has stated "I observed that a counsel, who made an attempt to
exert influence on the Court by using the name of a cabinet Minister,
cannot be allowed to succeed in snatching an order in his favour by
advancing threat". The learned Judge has, thereafter, removed the
matter from his Court.
The second paragraph of the letter of Honourable Mr. Justice
Reghupathi clarifies the fact in this behalf, viz, that the Minister
had not spoken to him although the advocate wanted him to talk to the
Minister, and the learned Judge had not entertained the request.
3. Thereafter, paragraph 3 of the memorandum states that 'assuming
this clarification to be correct, it is still an attempt to interfere
in the judicial process by the said Minister. If, on the other hand,
the lawyer was bluffing, it calls for the most severe action against
him". This paragraph records certain questions which according to the
memorandum arise out of this incident. Now, as can be seen from the
letter of the learned Judge, he has clearly stated that the Minister
did not speak to him. However, as far as the Advocate is concerned,
the learned Judge has, in clear terms, stated that the Advocate did
try to exert pressure on him. With respect to the conduct of the said
advocate, two writ petitions are pending before another Bench of this
High Court. A writ petition filed in Public Interest dated 2nd July
2009 seeking action against the Minister has been dismissed on
20.07.2009 as not pressed.
This is for Your Lordship's consideration,
With kind regards,
Justice H L Gokhale
The patently unassailable fact is that the former CJI Balakrishnan
did not disclose the fact that this report of Justice Gokhale was
submitted in response to a letter fromJustice Balakrishnan on August
8, 2009, seeking Justice Gokhale's comments on a memorandum submitted
to him by a delegation of Members of Parliament, who felt that action
must be initiated against the Union Minister Raja.
Justice Gokhale had written it in response to an August 8, 2009
letter sent by former CJI Justice Balakrishnan asking comments on the
Memorandum submitted byMembers of Parliament to the Prime Minister
for action against Union TelecomMinister Raja. Justice Balakrishnan
failed to state his stand on the unwarranted interference by Union
Minister Raja which was made known to him by Chief Justice Gokhale in
his letter of July 5, 2009.
I am also presenting below the full text of Justice R. Regupathi's
July 2, 2009letter to the Chief Justice of the Madras High Court
which was forwarded by Chief Justice Gokhale of Madras High Court to
the Chief Justice of India K.G. Balakrishnan on July 5, 2009. It is
this letter which the former Chief Justice of India Balakrishnan
tried to cover up during his many press interviews.
- - - - -
Full text of Justice R. Regupathi's July 2, 2009 letter to the Chief
Justice Gokhale of the Madras High Court
The following is the letter dated July 2, 2009 written by Justice R.
Regupathi, then Judge of the Madras High Court, to the Chief Justice
of the Madras High Court containing the relevant part where there is
a specific reference to Advocate R.K. Chandramohan.
"On 12.06.2009, at about 2 p.m. during Lunch Recess, while I was in
the Chamber, High Court, Madras, my Office Assistant, Mr. Mujibur
Ali, informed me that Mr. Chandramohan, Chairman, Bar Council of
Tamil Nadu, is waiting and seeking for an appointment to meet me and,
immediately, I allowed him to come in. To start with, he discussed
about the general subject on Advocates and so proceeding, he said
that two persons, who are father and son/accused in a criminal case,
are family friends of a Union Minister by name Raja, and that the
petition filed by them for anticipatory bail must be considered
favourably. Simultaneously, he handed over his mobile phone by saying
that the Union Minister is on the line to have a talk with me. Right
away, I discouraged such conduct of Mr. Chandramohan and told him
that the case would be disposed of in accordance with law, if listed
before me.
"Subsequently, on 29.06.2009, second anticipatory bail petition came
to be filed for the same accused and on behalf of Mr. Chandramohan
(counsel on record for the petitioners/accused), who was present in
the court, Mr. Masood, Advocate, argued by stating that some new
points need to be submitted and, for such purpose, the Case Diary
must be summoned. Adverting to the counter filed by the prosecution
and referring to the view I had already taken during the previous
occasion and pointing out that there was no change of circumstance to
positively consider the case of the petitioners, it was conveyed that
there was no valid reason or ground to grant the prayer in the 2nd
petition. It was also observed that the counsel may argue the case in
detail, however, this time orders would be passed on merits and they
would not be allowed to withdraw the petition. Again, the counsel
insisted that the case diary must be called for and the case be heard
in detail with reference to the materials collected during the course
of investigation. I have impressed upon the representing counsel by
explicating that a like direction could be given to the prosecution
only in the event of the Judge satisfying that such course is
inevitable and absolutely necessary in a given situation and that, on
mere demands and as a matter of routine, such exercise cannot be
undertaken."
"At that time, Mr. Chandramohan stood up and made a similar demand
and when I emphatically declined to accede to his adamant demand, he
vociferously remarked that the court is always taking sides with the
prosecution and not accepting the submissions made by the counsel for
the accused while giving importance to the Prosecutor. On such
pointless remark, I said that the counsel engaged to argue on his
behalf has made his submission and he is not supposed to pass such
slanderous and derogatory remarks; for, all these days, the court has
been passing orders after hearing the parties and assessing the cases
on their own merits and in accordance with law. In spite of that, Mr.
Chandramohan, insisted that the Case Diary must be summoned and the
matter be adjourned to some other day. Since Mr. Chandramohan highly
raised his voice and his approach towards the court was quarrelsome,
I told him that a person like him, an advocate holding position as
Chairman of a State Bar Council, should not behave in such a fashion.
Still the learned Advocate was outburst and uncontrollable, and I
observed that a counsel, who made an attempt to exert influence on
the court by using the name of a Cabinet Minister, cannot be allowed
to succeed in snatching an order in his favour by advancing threat.
Due to such odd experience, I had to direct the Registry to place the
papers before Your Lordship for obtaining orders to post the case
before some other learned Judge."
"The case concerned was taken up at the end in the afternoon and
inside the court hall, there were about 4 to 5 Advocates present and
no one from the Press was there. That being so, the oral observations
actually made came to be translated by the Print and Electronic Media
with their own interpretations and ideas ......."
"I have written this letter/report to apprise Your Lordship the
actual state of affairs Involved."
- - - - -
By citing the letter of Chief Justice Gokhale dated 8th August 2009,
the former Chief (In)Justice of India K. G. Balakrishnan seemed to be
under a vain delusion that he had outwitted Justice Gokhale. The
walkie-talkie deception and dissimulation of Chief (In)Justice K. G.
Balakrishnan was thoroughly exposed by the intrepid reporter Abraham
Thomas of THE PIONEER Newspaper in New Delhi in his Front Page story
today (16-12-2010, Thursday) under the title 'Balakrishnan quotes
wrong letter in defence'. I offer my hearty congratulations to
Abraham Thomas on his absolutely objective, ruthlessly factual and
juridically balanced reporting. Abraham Thomas has admirably
succeeded in his fearless pursuit of and the effort to state the
Truth about the former Chief (In)Justice Balakrishnan.
Former Chief (In)Justice of India KG Balakrishnan reiterated several
times that he was not aware that former Union Minister A Raja sought
to influence Justice R Reghupathy and backed his claim with a report
sent to him by then Madras High Court Chief Justice HL Gokhale on
August 8, 2009.
But what is to be noted is that Justice Balakrishnan conveniently
disregarded a crucial letter written to him by Justice Gokhale on 5th
July 2009, a month prior to the August 8 2009 report, in which he
discussed Justice Reghupathy's letter naming the then Union Telecom
Minister Raja as the accused.
The cussed refusal of the former CJI Balakrishnan to immediately
respond to this letter of 5th July 2009 from Chief Justice Gokhale of
Madras High Court has to be condemned by the Supreme Court of India,
today, in the strongest possible language. I am a tax-paying citizen
of India and it is my Constitutional right to make this request to
the Supreme Court of India.
If the person who threatened the High Court Judge Justice Reghupati
had been a Minster in the State Government of Tamil Nadu, then the
former Chief Justice Balakrishnan could easily have wriggled himself
out of the troubled situation by advising Justice Reghupati that he
could have dealt with the issue himself at the level of the Madras
High Court itself. But since in this case, the Minister who
threatened Justice Reghupati happened to be a Union Cabinet Minister,
it was very much the moral, legal and Constitutional responsibility
of the highest judicial functionary, the Chief Justice of India, to
have effectively intervened to protect the Constitutionally-mandated
dignity and independence of the judiciary in India.
Against this factual background, there is no doubt whatsoever that
the former CJI Balakrishnan stands fully exposed to the charge of his
complete failure to discharge his Constitutional responsibility of
defending and maintaining the independence of the Judiciary against
the planned and criminal onslaughts by corrupt Ministers like A Raja.
Reacting to the new developments following the public verbal
exchanges between truthful Chief Justice Gokhale and the not-so-
truthful Chief Justice Balakrishnan, Justice Reghupathi has said, "I
am thankful to Justice Gokhale... I am not supposed to react. I did
not make the issue public even at the time of the incident since I
wanted to uphold the dignity of the legal fraternity. It applies to
me today even after retirement."
With a view to clear his name in the matter, Justice Gokhale said,
"It became necessary for me to verify the facts from the record with
the CJI's office," giving clear indications that the present Chief
Justice of India S.H Kapadia was taken into confidence before
issuance of the Press release.
The former CJI's letter of August 8, 2009 finds mention in Justice
Gokhale'sPress note which referred to the receipt by Chief Justice
Balakrishnan of the letter written by Justice Gokhale, on July 5,
2009. Interestingly, the former CJI letter had said, "Vide letter
dated July 5, 2009 you (Justice Gokhale) have forwarded to me a
detailed letter/report dated July 2, 2009 of Justice R Reghupati
explaining the actual state of affairs concerning the alleged
misconduct of a Union Minister of the Government of India reported in
the media."
Does this not make it clear to all concerned that the former Chief
Justice of India Balakrishnan stands indicted as an INVETERATE LIAR
by his own acknowledgement letter to Justice Gokhale?
It is my considered view that the former Chief Justice Balakrishnan
has not only SHAMED the Indian Judiciary but also DISGRACED the Dalit
community from which he hails.
Noted jurist Ram Jethmalani, former Law Minister of India in the Atal
Behari Vajpayee's NDA Government, and currently the President of the
Supreme Court Bar Association, has termed the former Chief Justice of
India K G Balakrishnan'sstatement as "rash and irresponsible". He has
also said: "Instead of rushing with his rash and irresponsible
statements, the former CJI should have taken care and consulted the
file by summoning the Registrar of the Supreme Court."
It was J Gopikrishnan the ace reporter from THE PIONEER Newspaper in
New Delhi who first exposed the 2G scam of the then Union Telecom
Minister A. Rajamore than two years ago. He has now brought out
certain vital facts relating toformer Chief Justice of India
Balakrishnan's blatant attempts to shield the corruptUnion Minister
A. Raja.
It is heartening to note that the Madras High Court in its order of
7th December, 2010 has clearly and categorically identified former
Union Minister A Raja as the accused who tried to influence Justice R
Reghupathi to grant bail to a father-son duo of Dr C Krishnamurthy
and his son in a criminal case.
According to J. Gopikrishnan this puts the former Chief Justice
Balakrishnan in a spot! Moreover The Pioneer was the first newspaper
to report on July 1, 2009itself that former Minister A. Raja was the
person who had tried to put pressure on Justice R Reghupathi to grant
bail to Dr C Krishnamurthy and his son. Krishnamoorthy is a close
associate of Raja and belongs to the Minister's hometown,
Peramballur. He is the owner of the building which housed a law firm
run by Raja before he became a Minister. Krishnamoorthy is also the
managing director of a Coimbatore-based real estate company, Kovai
Shelters Promotors India Pvt Ltd, formed on January 19, 2007. As per
the documents available with the Registrar of Companies, Raja's
nephew Dr R Sridhar and nieces R Anandabhuvaneswari and R
Santhanalakshmi are directors in this company and jointly hold 45 per
cent shares in Kovai Shelters.
Immediately after this expose by The Pioneer on July 1, 2009, the
entire Opposition demanded Union Telecom Minister A. Raja's
resignation and intervention of the Prime Minister. But all of a
sudden, after four days, on July 5, 2010, Chief Justice KG
Balakrishnan in an interview to an English daily declared that "No
Minister had called the Judge" and termed the incident as a mischief
by the Advocate.
But, J. Gopikrishnan is absolutely right when he asserts the fact
that former Chief Justice Balakrishnan was in receipt of Justice
Reghupathy's letter of July 2, 2009, in which he had clearly
identified Raja as the Union Minister who had tried to influence him
through advocate RK Chandramohan. Raja may not have spoken directly
to Justice Reghupathy, but it is clear that he tried to dictate his
terms to him through advocate Chandramohan.
This is evident from the following passage of Justice Reghupathy's
letter to CJI Balakrishnan: "To start with, he (Chandramohan)
discussed about the general subject on advocates and proceeding
further he said two persons who are father and son/accused in a
criminal case are family friends of a Union Minister by name A Raja
and that the petition filed by them for anticipatory bail must be
considered favourably."
The emphasis on word "must" shows that Chandramohan, a close friend
of Raja, was not merely making a request to Justice Reghupati but was
also directing him, to act in a particular manner, on behalf of the
then Union Telecom Minister Raja.
However, the former Chief Justice of India Balakrishnan issued a
statement to the Press in August 2009 dismissing the ugly incident
"as a closed chapter".
Incidentally, around the same time, the Supreme Court also covered
itself with public disgrace by staying the order of the Central
Information Commission for publication of Justice Reghupathy's 2nd
July 2009 letter to Balakrishnan about the incident. The Central
Information Commission had ordered to publish the letter on a
petition filed by RTI activist Subash Chandra Agrawal. As a classic
instance of lopsided intervention, and with supreme contempt for the
larger public interest on the one hand and blatant disregard for the
sacred cause of judicial independence and dignity on the other, the
Supreme Court stayed the order of the Central Information Commission
and as a diversionary tactic, referred the matter to a Constitution
Bench, which is yet to settle the case.
Does not the official and public conduct of this former Chief
(In)Justice of India Balakrishnan raise fundamental issues relating
to the rotten and corrupt Indian Judicial system that enables such
sly, devious and corrupt men, totally unfit for public appointments
of any kind, to get catapulted by the Sonia Congress System to the
high and mighty constitutional offices in India?
Let me quote an article titled 'The CJI is the visible symbol of the
judiciary' as reported in The Hindu 13 May 2010:
"The Supreme Court has an illustrious lineage of Chief Justices who
gave new directions to the judiciary, expanded the scope of legal
rights, introduced new concepts and practices and worked to reform
the system. But unfortunately Justice Balakrishan's tenure may not be
considered so distinguished and impressive, as his helmsmanship was
seen to be lacking in dynamism and creative and positive thinking. He
rather acquired a negative and obstructionist image. In some of the
decisions and actions during his stewardship of the highest court,
and in his views about issues and positions on them, he came through
as a defender of orthodoxies and technicalities with a sense of
cynicism and helplessness aiding inaction. On occasions he seemed to
distance himself from issues and problems, suggesting that the
solutions lay elsewhere."
"Even a streak of evasiveness, lack of interest and recourse to
generalities could be discerned in some responses. The CJI should not
only be earnest, but be seen to be so too. The contentious issue of
bringing the office of the CJI under the Right to Information Act and
the handling of the charges against the chief justice of the
Karnataka high court P D Dinakaran have not brought laurels to the
highest court. The CJI is part of a system and cannot be solely
blamed for its inadequate responses to problems. But as the leader of
the system and its visible symbol, he has the highest responsibility
to ensure that convincing and effective solutions are found for
them."
Let me now refer to another news report published in the Hindustan
Times, New Delhi, on May 05, 2010:
"Barely a week before Chief Justice of India K.G. Balakrishnan
retires, it has emerged that a close relative of his was appointed a
Kerala High Court judge in January last year ...... ."
"The Law Commission of India, the advisory body of the government on
complex legal issues, has criticised the prevalence of "uncle judges"
in the higher judiciary in its report on judicial reforms in August
2009. They have stated that "A person whose near relation or a well-
wisher is or has been a judge in the higher courts or is a senior
advocate or is a political high-up stands a better chance of becoming
a judge."
Former Chief Justice of India V. N. Khare has said that "the sole
criteria for public appointments should be overriding merit. However,
in case a relative of an influential personality is being considered,
it becomes the dominant factor and merit is ignored." This seems to
have been the case with the appointment of the"Uncle Judge" former
Chief Justice Balakrishnan's relative as a Judge of Kerala High
Court.
I ONLY WISH THAT A MAHAPURUSHA LIKE DR AMBEDKAR HAD BEEN ALIVE IN OUR
MIDST TODAY SO THAT HE COULD HAVE TAKEN DULY APPROPRIATE NOTICE OF
THE PUBLIC CONDUCT OF THE FORMER CHIEF JUSTICE BALAKRISHNAN, WITH
GREATER ETHICAL AND MORAL AUTHORITY AND MORE SUBSTANTIVE AND SOLIDLY
ESTABLISHED LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL CREDENTIALS.
Posted by Durgadevi at 12:00 AM
http://ennapadampanchajanya.blogspot.com/2010/12/chief-injustice-of-india-k_22.html
2 comments:
[image: http://img1.blogblog.com/img/blank.gif ]
http://srinivasar...@yahoo.com/
srinivasaraghavan http://srinivasar...@yahoo.com/ said...
unfortunately a retired chief injustice of surepreme court cannot be
impeached. as there is no provision in the constituion.the great
leaders who drafted the constitution would even in their dreams not
have thought that judiciary in barath would descend to such a level
December 22, 2010 7:51 PM
[image: http://img1.blogblog.com/img/blank.gif ]
N. Krishna Said...
India is in a rut with thief Sonia stealing Rs 36000 crore and all
others seems to be in the same boat collecting their share in the Rs
1.76 lakh crore 2G scam. Justice Reghupathy said that A Raja
interfered with his judicial function. The Central Information
Commission CIC had ordered to publish the letter on a petition filed
by RTI activist Subash Chandra Agrawal. But in a rare intervention,
the Supreme Court stayed order of CIC and referred the matter to a
Constitution Bench, which is yet to settle the case. Balakrishnan
lied that the name of Raja was not mentioned in the letter. The Dalit
Pulaya former CJI KG Balakrishnan said that he himself would have
exercised his powers of contempt of court if name of A Raja was
mentioned. Balakrishnan is married to Smt. Nirmala and has three
children, K B Prdeep, K B Sony and K B Rany and all of them are
lawyers. Sons in law, P V Sreenijan is married to Sony and is an
advocate and a congress candidate. The thief Raja,Tata etc appears to
have given crores to KG Balakrishnan. Son in law P V Sreenijan who
had no land in Kerala in 2006 now owns vast areas of land and houses
everywhere in Kerala. Balakrishnan had reiterated the same statement
after a month in a press conference also and termed the incident "as
a closed chapter." Nira Radia tape also talk about the clean chit
given by Balakrishnan to Raja. On July 7, 2009, just two days after
Balakrishnan absolved Raja in the media interview, Radia referred the
episode to Ratan Tata. "Yeah, I met Raja today. I went to see him
today and he is alright. He is a happy man. The Chief Justice has
given his clearance on him and he's happy. He's really happy with
that," says Radia to Tata.
December 26, 2010 7:13 PM
Tuesday, December 28, 2010
Chief Injustice Of India
K. G. Balakrishnan - Part III
By V. Sundaram, I.A.S
Now, everyday, there is an exciting news item relating to the
unparalleled and never to be surpassed glorious record of
unimpeachable integrity of the former Chief Justice of India K.G
Balakrishnan! The alleged links of his family members with the
nowinfamous corporate lobbyist Niira Radia have been brought to
public view by theDelhi-based journalist Dr M Furquan who presented a
petition to the Vice- President on May 4, 2010.
The complaint said that Balakrishnan's son Pradeep had mediated with
Dubai-based NRI businessman Yusuf Ali for settling the legal battle
between Mukesh Ambani-owned Reliance Industries Limited (RIL) and
Anil Ambani-owned Reliance Natural Resources Ltd (RNRL) over Krishna
Godavari (KG) basin gas supply.
Dr M Furquan contended that "Pradeep, who is a practising advocate in
the Supreme Court, visited Dubai seven times for mediating with the
NRI businessman in connection with the disputed".
The three-and-a-half-year battle between the Ambani brothers ended
when the Supreme Court on May 7, 2010 delivered a verdict favouring
the stand taken by the RIL.
THIS VERDICT WAS WHAT NIIRA RADIA WAS REFERRING TO IN HER TAPED
CONVERSATIONS, INCLUDING THAT WITH VIR SINGHVI.
Dr M Furquan, in his complaint, also invited the attention of the
Vice President to the shady role played by the former Chief Justice
of India K.G Balakrishnan in granting relief to CPM leader Pinarayi
Vijayan in the sensational SNC-Lavalin corruption case. Dr M Furquan
stated in his complaint: "Justice K G Balakrishnan has fast-tracked
the SNCLavalin case due to pressure exerted on him by his family
members, who are very friendly with Pinarayi Vijayan."
The complaint also stated: "the PM's Principal Secretary T K A Nair,
who is also Chairman of the Kerala State Industrial Development
Corporation, and Christy Fernandes, who is the Secretary to the
President, have jointly met up with the Chief Justice for influencing
him in favour of Pinarayi Vijayan with whom both of them are very
friendly."
Furquan also contended that "mining tycoon Janardhana Reddy has met
the CJI's son-in-law P V Sreenijin in Kochi seeking his help in
getting the CJI go soft on cases in which the Reddy brothers are
embroiled.''
According to the currently raging public opinion, not only in Kerala
but in the whole of India, Pradeep and P.V Sreenijin were the most
trusted Executive Arms of the former Chief Justice of India K.G
Balakrishnan in his most avidly sought after business of selling
justice at highest rates to the competing litigants. In this context
I cannot help quoting the timeless message contained in Magna Carta
(1215 AD): "To no one will we sell, to no one will we refuse or
delay, right or justice". Perhaps the former Chief Justice of India
K.G Balakrishnan had no faith at all in this operational message of
Magna Carta. Taking note of the daily cascading newspaper reports of
complaints against him it can be justifiably presumed that he
believed in this message: "To every one we will sell; to every one
(who does not pay) we will refuse or delay, right or justice"!
(Judicial moral, derived from and suitably adapted from the famous
poem of John Milton: 'They also serve who SELL')
It is not therefore surprising that a fearless, outstanding and
outspoken Judge like the retired Supreme Court Judge V.R. Krishna
Iyer has demanded a probe into the various allegations of corruption
against former Chief Justice of India K.G. Balakrishnan, currently
the Sonia-appointed Chairman of the National Human Rights Commission.
Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer was appointed as a Judge of the Kerala High
Court in 1968 and the Supreme Court in 1973.
I had commented upon the shady nexus between the two anti-nationals,
K.G. Balakrishnan and Firangi Memsahib Sonia Gandhi, in an article
titled 'THE DARKEST DAY IN OUR LEGAL HISTORY' on 19 May, 2007. In
this article, I had invited the attention of the people of India to
the wholly illegal, ridiculous, unconscionable and unconstitutional
'DOCTRINE OF STALENESS' propounded by this supremely corrupt Supreme
Court Chief Justice when he asked Dr Subramanian Swamy not to press
his case for disqualification of Sonia Gandhi who had repeatedly lied
under oath in her false affidavits to the Returning Officer of Rae
Bareilly Parliamentary Constituency. A known traitor and sworn enemy
of India and her people was declared as an honourable citizen by this
corrupt, shameless and honourless judge K.G. Balakrishnan.
This wholly unpatriotic and treasonable former Chief Justice did not
pass orders peremptorily disqualifying the Indian citizenship rights
of Dr Subramanian Swamy! Thank Heavens for small judicial mercies!!
Now, it is time for the tax-paying citizens of India to publicly
demand the Constitution of a larger Bench of Supreme Court of India
to overturn this spurious'DOCTRINE OF STALENESS' enunciated by the
former Chief Justice of India K.G. Balakrishnan which only gave an
unmerited relief and reprieve to the greatest traitor in modern
Indian history, the Firangi Memsahib. This doctrine also undermines
the basic human virtue of honesty and integrity as it says, "You can
tell any lie under oath and we will readily forgive you invoking the
Doctrine of Staleness". This Doctrine will also make us all a Nation
of Liars.
Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer has said that he was happy when Justice
Balakrishnanbecame the first Dalit to be appointed as the Chief
Justice of India, but the situation had changed now.
Let us hear the words of Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer: "Now with all the
allegations that have surfaced by way of a news report which appeared
the other day about his son-in-law and also the issues of a judge
writing to him on the (sacked communications minister) Raja issue
regarding (senior Supreme Court judge) Justice (H.L.) Gokhale, I
MYSELF FEEL ASHAMED THAT I WAS A JUDGE."
It has been alleged that Sreenijin, husband of Justice Balakrishnan's
daughter KB Sony, had bought lands and property worth several crores
of rupees for himself, his wife and others in the past four years
despite the fact that he had declared to the Election Commission in
2006 that he owned only `25,000 and three sovereigns of gold.
Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer has referred to the news report aired on a
TV channel about the huge wealth that Justice Balakrishnan's son-in-
law P.V. Srinijin, a Congress leader and a lawyer by profession, has
allegedly acquired in the past three years. Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer
has told the press: "All the reports that have surfaced about his
son-in-law, his daughter and relatives have to be inquired into.
Justice Balakrishnan should be probed by a three-judge panel. The
Prime Minister had the responsibility to initiate an investigation.
There is an imperative national need for the setting up of an
Appointments and Performance Commission for Judges."
Referring to Justice Balakrishnan's controversial stand on the letter
written to him by Justice HL Gokhale with reference to former Union
Telecom Minister A Raja,Justice Krishna Iyer has said, "I am
surprised by his statement. I would describe it as Balakrishnan's
blasphemy."
http://ennapadampanchajanya.blogspot.com/2010/12/chief-injustice-of-india-k_28.html
End of forwarded message from S. Kalyanaraman
Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
Om Shanti
o Not for commercial use. Solely to be fairly used for the educational
purposes of research and open discussion. The contents of this post may not
have been authored by, and do not necessarily represent the opinion of the
poster. The contents are protected by copyright law and the exemption for
fair use of copyrighted works.
o If you send private e-mail to me, it will likely not be read,
considered or answered if it does not contain your full legal name, current
e-mail and postal addresses, and live-voice telephone number.
o Posted for information and discussion. Views expressed by others are
not necessarily those of the poster who may or may not have read the article.
FAIR USE NOTICE: This article may contain copyrighted material the use of
which may or may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright
owner. This material is being made available in efforts to advance the
understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic,
democratic, scientific, social, and cultural, etc., issues. It is believed
that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title
17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without
profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included
information for research, comment, discussion and educational purposes by
subscribing to USENET newsgroups or visiting web sites. For more information
go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
If you wish to use copyrighted material from this article for purposes of
your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the
copyright owner.
Since newsgroup posts are being removed
by forgery by one or more net terrorists,
this post may be reposted several times.