PIL (Diary No. 3046/IN/2024) filed before National Human Rights Commission against CJI Chandrachud alleging that his order will set a bad precedent and will prejudice all the citizens in their litigations and it violates fundamental Constitutional Rights of Shri. Anil Masih and all similarly placed people.
PIL is filed by Supreme Court and High Courts Litigants’ Association and will be argued by Adv. Nilesh Ojha, National President, Indian Bar Association, Adv. Ishwarlal Agarwal, President, Supreme Court Lawyers Association. Around 1000 Lawyers are likely to remain present on the date of hearing.
As per binding precedents and provisions of section 340 of Cr.P.C., there is no provision of show cause notice in calling the accused to file his reply. Law prohibits courts from taking reply of accused into consideration in proceedings under section 340 of Cr.P.C.
Show cause notice before proceedings under section 340 of Cr.P.C. also violates Constitutional Rights under Article 20(3), 21, i.e. the right of accused to not to disclose his defence till conclusion of the trial.
The law allowing accused to show cause under section 340 of Cr.P.C. as laid down in the case of Sharad Pawar Vs. Jagmohan Dalmiya (2010) 15 SCC 290 was overruled and had been declared as bad law by the Full bench of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Jasbir Singh, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1240.
The prayers in the PIL reads thus: –
(i) Record a finding in view of law laid down in the case of Ram Deo Chauhan v. Bani Kanta Das, (2010) 14 SCC 209 and as per Section 18(3) of Human Rights Protection Act, 1993 that the order dated 20.02.2024 passed by the Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court headed by Ld. CJI D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Mishra thereby calling Sh. Anil Masih to show cause about initiation of action under section 340 of Cr.P.C. is against the provisions of law and binding precedents and it had violated the fundamental rights under Article 14, 20 & 21 of the Constitution of India and therefore Central Government is bound to pay interim compensation to Sh. Anil Masih in view of law & ratio laid down in the case of Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj Vs. Attorney-General of Trinidad and Tobago, [1978] 2 WLR 902, S. Nambi Narayanan v. Siby Mathews, (2018) 10 SCC 804, Walmik Bobde vs State of Maharashtra 2001 ALL MR (Cri.)1731 etc.
(ii) Direct Attorney General for India or Solicitor General to file Contempt Petition under section 2 (b), 12, 16 of Contempt of Courts Act 1971 r/w Article 129, 142 of the Constitution of India before Supreme Court against Ld. CJI D.Y. Chandrachud & Justices Sh. J.B. Pardiwala and & Sh. Manoj Mishra for their act of Contempt of binding precedents.
(iii) Issue directions as per law & ratio laid down in the case of Ram Deo Chauhan v. Bani Kanta Das, (2010) 14 SCC 209 thereby directing Attorney General or Registrar of NHRC or Solicitor General to file petition before Hon’ble Supreme Court for recall of unlawful order dated 20.02.2024 passed by the Bench of Ld. CJI because Supreme Court had clearly laid down in the case of State of Orissa Vs. Mamta Mohanty (2011) 3 SCC 436 & Municipal Corpn. of Greater Mumbai v. Pratibha Industries Ltd., (2019) 3 SCC 203 that to perpetuate error is no heroism and Judges are bound to correct their mistakes by recalling unlawful orders and as being Judges of Court of record they are bound to keep their record correct and according to law.
(iv) Direct Attorney General for India or any other authority to make representation to Hon’ble Supreme Court of India for taking immediate action of withdrawal of work from Ld. CJI D. Y. Chandrachud and forwarding reference for his impeachment by conducting enquiry under supervision of hon’ble Justice Sanjeev Khanna as per procedure under ‘In-House-Procedure’ detailed in the case of Additional District and Sessions Judge ‘X’ Vs. Registrar General (2015) 4 SCC 91;
(v) Direct Home Ministry & Law Ministry of Union of India to give directions to central investigating agencies like CBI, CVC, IB, RAW to investigate and take legal action according to law regarding allegations made in the present petition;
(vi) Direct Bar Council of India to take appropriate and strict action against Sr. Adv. Abhishek Manu Singhavi and others who are party to such conspiracy in obtaining illegal order which has violated the fundamental constitutional rights of the Presiding Officer Sh. Anil Masih;
(vii) Direct Attorney General for India or any other authority to make representation to Hon’ble Supreme Court of India for taking decision of withdrawal of Senior counsel designation of Adv. Abhishek Manu Singhavi.
(viii) Pass any other order which this Hon’ble Court deems fit & proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
The petitioner in his PIL had taken following main points.
1. Para No. 2: About the Petitioner
2. Para No. 3: Declaration about no connection with Sh. Anil Masih and the PIL is only for larger interest of society and preventing wrong precedents being set by Ld. CJI Dr. D. Y. Chandrachud.
3. Para No. 4: Jurisdiction of the National Human Rights Commission in examining the violation of the fundamental rights of citizen by the Judges of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
4. Para No. 5: Earlier precedents of Hon’ble National Human Rights Commission in forwarding petition of Shri Rashid Khan Pathan against injustice by Supreme Court to Hon’ble Supreme Court regarding violation of fundamental rights of Smt. Kanimozhi Karunanidhi and others and due to which the law of Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40 was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and Lacs of people got benefitted due to said law.
5. Para No. 6: Details of the illegality committed by the bench of the Ld. CJI in passing order dated 20.02.2024 against the statue & binding precedents which has violated the fundamental rights of Shri. Anil Masih.
6. Para No. 7: Issuance of show cause notice in proceedings under section 340 of Cr.P.C. had violated the fundamental constitutional rights of Shri. Anil Masih, which are guaranteed under Art. 14, 20 & 21 of the Constitution of India.
7. Para No. 8: As per law laid down in Ramesh Maharaj Vs. The Attorney General (1978) 2 WLR 902, and Judgements of United Nations Human Rights Committee, the Union of India is bound to pay compensation to said Sh. Anil Masih for violation of his constitutional rights by the Bench of ld. CJI because Judges of SC are public servant and are the executive branch of the state.
8. Para No. 9: It is a case of Legal Malice and no defence of mistake or good faith or ignorance of law is available to ld. CJI D.Y. Chandrachud and Justices Shri J.B. Pardiwala and Shri Manoj Misra in view of section 52 of Indian Penal Code and law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sama Aruna v. State of Telangana, (2018) 12 SCC 150
9. Para No. 10: Ld. CJI D.Y. Chandrachud, is habitual in passing unlawful orders and violating fundamental rights of common citizen and in misusing Supreme Court machinery for unauthorized purposes and thereby undermining the majesty and dignity of Hon’ble Supreme Court and entire Judicial System and already various complaints are filed against him and still under consideration before Hon’ble President of India for action u/s 218, 219, 166, 167, 220, 409, 466, 471, 474, 109, 120(B), 34, etc. of the Indian Penal Code.
10. Para No. 11: Double standard of Ld. Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud in not taking action under section 340 of Cr.P.C. and contempt against Shri Abhishek Banerjee who is nephew of Smt. Mamta Banerjee and co-accused Adv. Abhishek Manu Singhvi despite the fact that their falsity and fraud upon Supreme Court is ex-facie proved.
11. Para No. 12: Double standard of Ld. Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud in not taking action against Justice Soumen Sen despite the complaint of corrupt practices by Chief Justice of Calcutta High Court & other Judges of the High Court because the main accused was Sh. Abhishek Banerjee, nephew of Smt. Mamta Banerjee.
13. Para No. 13: Act of Ld. CJI D.Y. Chandrachud, Justices Sh. J.B. Pardiwala & Shri Manoj Mishra also amounts to contempt of binding precedents and they are liable to be punished under section 2(b), 12, 16 of Contempt of Courts Act in view of law laid down in the case of Baradakanta Misra v. Bhimsen Dixit, (1973) 1 SCC 446; In Re M.P. Dwivedi, (1996) 4 SCC 152; C.S. Karnan, In re, (2017) 7 SCC 1.
14. Para No. 14: Even otherwise the show cause notice is vitiated in view of specific law laid down by the constitutional bench of Supreme Court and followed in the case of Oryx Fisheries Pvt.Ltd vs Union Of India (2010) 13 SCC 427, because the Ld. Chief Justice of India had already drawn the definite conclusion of guilt and thereafter the show-cause notice is only a formality and vitiated by unfairness and bias.
15. Para No. 15: Sr. Adv. Abhishek Manu Singhavi is guilty of gross professional misconduct in view of law laid down in the case of E. S. Reddi Vs. Chief Secretary, Government of A.P. (1987) 3 SCC 258, in not bringing the correct legal position to the notice of the Court and objecting in such unlawful and unconstitutional practice. Therefore his designation as a senior counsel can be withdrawn.
16. Para No. 16: As per law settled in catena of decisions the designation of Sr. Counsel given to Adv. Abhishek Manu Singhvi is liable to be withdrawn and he is liable to be prohibited lifetime from appearing in any courts of India.
17. Para No. 17. Request.
You can Download the copy of the PIL Here
