[Important] Justice Chandrachud disqualified for the post of Chief Justice of India. Writ Petition filed in the Supreme Court.

•  Direct President’s office to not to administer oath to Justice D.Y. Chandrachud as Chief Justice of India. Also prohibit Justice Chandrachud from taking oath and assuming office of CJI.
• Petitioner in his Writ Petition prayed to the Supreme Court.
• Petition is filed by Shri M.A. Shaikh, Vice President of ‘Indian Lawyers and Human Rights Activists’ Association’.
• Supreme Court Advocate Anand Jondhale is going to represent the petitioner and around 70 counsels from Indian Lawyers Association are going to assist him.

In his 720 pages petition he, relied on the earlier precedent in the case of Kumar Padma Prasad vs Union of India, (1992) 2 SCC 428, where Supreme Court had quashed the appointment of High Court Judge.

Petitioner also prayed prosecution of Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and others as per Section 340 of Criminal Procedure Code for offences of forgery and perjury.

The petitioner in his affidavit gave various instances of misuse of power by Justice D.Y. Chandrachud in discriminating between ‘Senior and Junior Lawyers’ and ‘rich and poor litigants’ and passing contrary orders in the similar cases. The instances show that Justice Chandrachud granted relief to rich people and Senior advocates and dismissed the request of poor people and junior advocates.

The crux of the petition is that, Justice Chandrachud has breached his oath taken as a Supreme Court Judge which mandates that he should defend and uphold the law and Constitution.

The petitioner pointed out that, Justice Chandrachud on more than 13 occasions acted against the law and against the constitutional mandate. In fact, he himself violated the fundamental rights of the litigants and lawyers.

The law in this regard is very much settled by catena of decisions that the Judge who breach the oath taken as a Judge had effect of termination from office. [K. C. Chandy Vs. R. Balakrishna Pillai, AIR 1986 Ker 116, S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, 1981 Supp SCC 87]

In R.C. Pollard 1943 SCC OnLine Cal 153, it is specifically ruled that, the violation of oath brands a man unfit for public office. It is further ruled that the person acting under outside influence should not be given the post of supervision over judicial officers and should be transferred to some other branch.

The petitioner has made total (45) omnibus prayers.

The prayers in the petition reads as under;

(a) To decide this petition under Article 32, 129, 142 of the Constitution of India and Section 340 r/w 195 of Cr. P.C. as per guidelines given time to time by this Hon’ble Court and more particularly in the case of C.S. Karnan, In Re, (2017) 7 SCC 1, Perumal Vs. Janaki (2014) 5 SCC 377, Ram Phal Vs. State (2009) 3 SCC 258, Dwarikesh Sugar Industries Ltd. v. Prem Heavy Engg. Works (P) Ltd., (1997) 6 SCC 450,Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315;

(b)  To hold that, in view of specific law laid down by the three Judge Bench in the case of Kumar Padma Prasad v. Union of India, (1992) 2 SCC 428, this Hon’ble court is having jurisdiction to quash the warrant of appointment of Chief Justice of India issued by the office of Hon’ble President of India, and to prohibit/ prevent Ld. Judge from taking oath as Chief Justice of India if the decision of his appointment is based on unlawful consideration OR if the person so appointed is disqualified or incompetent to become the Chief Justice of India for his breach of oath, not having faith in the constitution and his acts of commission and omission in violation of constitutional rights of the citizen and advocates are ex-facie clear;

(c) To hold that as per law laid down in Kumar Padma Prasad v.  Union of India, (1992) 2 SCC 428 supra this Hon’ble court is having jurisdiction to ask the Central Government to consider the contents of the writ petition and reconsider its decision of appointing Justice, Dr. D. Y.  Chandrachud as Chief Justice of India;

(d) To hold that in view of law laid down by the Constitution bench (7J) in paragraph 1 and 60 of the C.S. Karnan, In re, (2017) 7 SCC 1, this court is having the jurisdiction to examine the allegations of Contempt of binding precedents of Supreme Court committed by Justice Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud in a petition filed by any citizen;

(e) To hold that, in view of specific law laid down by this Hon’ble Court in the case of S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 149, and further judicial pronouncement, if any Judge passes order to favor a party or denies justice to any party by acting against the law or by failing to perform his duty to protect the rights of the citizens and there are more than one such occasions which are not mistake but deliberate as covered under section 52 of IPC and law laid down in the case of R.R. Parekh Vs. High Court of Gujrat (2016) 14 SCC 1, then such Judge is said to have committed breach of the oath and it terminates his/her office and such Judge is disqualified and incompetent for the appointment on the post on Chief Justice of India;

(f) To hold that this Hon’ble Court if founds the appointment of Ld. Justice Dr. D. Y. Chandrachud as Chief Justice of India is illegal and he is disqualified to be appointed as Chief Justice of India then it can declare that the post of the Chief Justice of India is vacant and the authorities are free to complete the process of appointment of new Chief Justice of India.

(g) To hold that as per specific law laid down in R.C. Pollard v. Satya Gopal Mazumdar, 1943 SCC OnLine Cal 153, a person not preventing outside interferences in the judicial function is not fit to exercise supervision over judicial officer in India and is a danger to the community and such person cannot be appointed as Chief Justice of India he can be transferred to any other branch where such failure in duty don’t have effect of violation of fundamental rights of the citizen;

(h) To hold that in view of specific provisions of Section 340, 195, 344 of CR. P.C. and law settled in Govind Mehta Vs. State of Bihar (1971) 3 SCC 329, K. Rama Reddy Vs State 1998 (3) ALD 305, Raman Lal Vs. State 2001 Cri. L. J. 800, and also as per Section 3(2) of the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985, the Judge involved in offences of forgery and perjury of the court proceedings can be prosecuted by judicial orders passed by Hon’ble High Court & Supreme Court and such accused judge cannot claim any protection;

(i) To hold that in view of specific law laid down in Manohar Lal vs Vinesh Anand, ( 2001) 5 SCC  407, Re: C.S. Karnan (2017) 7 SCC 1 the petition under Section 340 of Cr. P. C. and under contempt can be filed by any citizen who is interested in protecting majesty and dignity of the Court and having sufficient materials to substantiate his allegations;

(j) To record a finding that the acts of Justice D. Y. Chandrachud in passing various orders against binding precedents of larger benches and more particularly in the case of Common Cause v. Union of India, (2018) 5 SCC 1, In Re : Distribution Of Essential Supplies & Services during Pandemic, In Re: (2021) 7 SCC 772, Neeharika Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, (2020) 10 SCC 118, K.S. Puttaswamy vs. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1, etc., where he himself was one of the members of the Hon’ble benches, is an act of willful disregard and deliberate defiance of the binding precedents and it undermines the majesty and dignity of the Supreme Court of India in the eyes of the common man, advocates and the judges of all he subordinate courts and therefore, Justice Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud is liable for action under contempt as per law laid down in Baradakanta Misra v. Bhimsen Dixit, (1973) 1 SCC 446.

(k) To hold that Ld. Judge Shri Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud acted in gross defiance of Article 14, 29, 21 of the Constitution and binding precedents for more than 12 times as can be seen from the instances which are ex-facie proved from the court records;

(l) To record a finding that, as mentioned in the petition it is ex-facie clear that, Ld. Judge Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud on many occasions discriminated the junior advocates and refused to give reliefs which was given by him to few senior advocates which is a ex- facie case of gross violation of Article 14 of the Constitution and contempt of binding precedents of the Supreme Court in Bir Bajrang Kumar v. State of Bihar, AIR 1987 SC 1345, S.G. Jaisinghani v. Union of India ( [1967] 65 ITR 34 (SC), Hari Singh Vs State of Haryana, (1993) 3 SCC 114;

(m) To record a finding that the act of a Judge in passing different orders to different advocates on same set of facts and on similar question of law is grave judicial dishonesty, gratification and corruption of different type and an act of breach of oath and unbecoming of Judge as has been ruled in the case of Shrirang Yadavrao Waghmare v. State (2019) 9 SCC 144, Muzaffar Husain vs. State 2022 SCC OnLine SC 567, Umesh Chandra Vs State 2006 (5) AWC 4519 ALL;

(n) To record a finding that, the act of Ld. Judge D. Y. Chandrachud in SLP (Crl) No. 7464 of 2021 in the matter between Saroj Yadav v. State of U.P.  to refuse to follow the  judgement of the Co-ordinate bench in the case of Omveer Singh v. State of U.P.,(2019) 2 SCC 182, and in passing a contrary order even without mentioning the reason for not following the judgement of co-ordinate Bench is a case of gross judicial impropriety, promoting the judicial anarchy and chance litigation as prohibited in the binding precedent in Hari Singh v. State of Haryana, (1993) 3 SCC 114 (1) where it is specifically ruled that, the courts of co-ordinate jurisdiction must have consistent opinion on the same set of facts and laws; passing of contrary orders leads to judicial anarchy and promotes chance litigation;

(o)    Further hold that that, refusal by Ld. Justice Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud in Saroj Yadav’s case (supra) while not even referring the judgement of Co-ordinate Bench and taking a contrary view is a direct contempt of the binding precedents of the larger bench in Dwarikesh Sugar Industries Ltd. v. Prem Heavy Engg. Works (P) Ltd., (1997) 6 SCC 450 and Official Liquidator Vs. Dayanand (2008) 10 SCC 1, Sant Lal Gupta and Ors. Vs. Modern Co-operative Group Housing Society Ltd. and Ors. (2010) 13 SCC 336,  where it is ruled that such a conduct of the judge is called ‘Judicial adventurism’;

(p)  To hold that as per specific law laid down by the Three-Judge bench in the case State of Punjab v. Jasbir Singh, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1240 the prospective accused are provided no right to be heard during the hearing of a petition under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. regarding taking a decision to file complaint against him;

(q)  To record a finding as per Section 340 (1) of the Cr.P.C. that, the Petitioner Smt. Anita Chavan in the Special Leave Petition SLP (Cri.) No. 9131 of 2021  and her Counsel Adv. Rebecca John are guilty of:

i) Making her argument on the basis of false statement in the court about a non-existent application for vacation of stay allegedly to be filed by the state and obtaining order on said false premise when actually no such application was ever filed by the state. The conduct of the petitioner and her counsel is an offence punishable under section 192, 193, 199, 200, 465, 466, 471, 474, 120(B), 34 etc. of the Indian Penal Code and such persons including advocates are liable to be prosecuted as done in a similar case of Pushpa Devi M. Jatia v. M.L. Wadhawan, (1987) 3 SCC 367,Sanjeev Kumar Mittal vs. State 2011 (121) DRJ 328 and ABCD Vs. Union of India (2020) 2 SCC 52, Ranbir Singh Vs. State 1990 SCC OnLine Del 40, H. S. Bedi Vs. National Highway Authority of India 2015 SCC OnLine Del 9524, Baduvan Kunhi Vs. K. M. Abdulla 2016 SCC OnLine Ker 23602, Veerbhadra Rao vs. Tek Chand AIR 1985 SC 28.

ii) Obtaining ex-parte order without serving copy of SLP to other party and behind back of respondents including state counsel. Thereby violating mandatory requirement of audi alteram partem rule as mandated in contena of decision and more particularly in the case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) 1 SCC 248. 

iii) Not asking recusal of Ld. Justice Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud as his son is appearing before the Bombay High Court in relation to the offences and connected petitions of same transaction;

(r) To record a further finding as per section 340 of Criminal Procedure Code that Ld. Justice D. Y. Chandrachud is prima facie guilty of: –

(i) Passing order based on ex-facie false pleadings and knowing fully well that, there is no such application filed by the state and not annexed to the petition. Which is an act of unfair procedure covered under section 52, 120(B), 34, 219, 166, 409 etc of IPC for helping the accused to commit the perjury and facilitating the offences of fraud upon the court by misusing the Supreme Court machinery and public property;

(ii) For passing unusual ex-parte order with undue haste; without giving any reason for such hasty order when neither the respondents including state counsel were heard; And thereby acting against the basic principles of natural justice of Audi – Alteram Partem rule as has been mandated by many constitution benches and therefore as per law laid down in R.R. Parekh Vs. High Court of Gujrat (2016) 14 SCC 1, the prima facie conclusion of corrupt motive in passing such orders can be drawn.

(iii) And in view of law laid down in Noida Entrepreneurs Assn. v. Noida, (2011) 6 SCC 508, it leads to presumption of malafide intention and requires CBI investigation to unearth the complete conspiracy and serious offences against administration of Justice;

(iii) For hearing a case where he is disqualified because of two reasons:

(a) His son Adv. Abhinav Chandrachud appeared for the one of accused before High Court for the same connected FIRs. [Writ Petition (Cri) No. 3199/ 2021 order dated 20.09.2021]

(b) Because in the impugned order before him Adv. Nilesh Ojha appeared as a counsel who, on  earlier occasions also in 2018 acted as a counsel for complainant when a complaint is filed against Justice D. Y. Chandrachud and his son Adv. Abhinav Chandrachud [Case No. PRSEC/ E/2018/21401];

(iv) Hence, Justice Chandrachud had breached the ‘Judges Ethics Code’ breached the oath and committed Contempt of binding precedents in  State of Punjab Vs. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar (2011) 14 SCC 770, Gullapalli Nageswara Rao v. A.P.S.R.T.C, AIR 1959 SC 308; Mineral Development Ltd. v. The State of Bihar and Anr. AIR 1960 SC 468.  and also acted against the law of recusal laid down in the Pinochet’s principle as followed in para 25.3 of the case of Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Vs.Union of India (2016) 5 SCC 808.

(v) Hence as per specific law laid down in Raman Lal vs. State 2000 SCC OnLine Raj 226 & other binding precedents, Ld. Judge Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud is liable for action under section 109, 192, 193, 465, 466, 471, 474, 219, 120(B),409, 201, 218 etc of Indian Penal Code for joining the conspiracy and facilitating the offences against administration of justice for passing and order to hide and save the offences of petitioner and his advocates. AND misusing the Supreme Court machinery and public property for unauthorized purposes to serve his ulterior motives;

(s) To hold that, Ld. Justice Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud deliberately  made a blatant false statement in many other cases that Supreme Court had decided not to intervene into the executive orders of the vaccine mandates. However, he was fully aware that the similar issue regarding vaccine mandate is already sub-judicie before the co-ordinate in the case of Jacob Puliyal being WP (C) No. 607 of 2021 and co-ordinate bench had intervened in the matter and never said that Supreme Court will not intervene and reserved the case for pronouncement of judgment and lastly allowed the petition on 02.05.2022 reported as Jacob Puliyal vs. UOI 2022 SCC OnLine SC 533. This is not only an offence of perjury u/sec. 192, 193, etc of IPC but also a case of deliberate act to undermine majesty and dignity of the Supreme Court in the eyes of common man, Advocates and Judges of all courts in India.

(t) To hold that in view of specific law laid down in the case of Perumal Vs. Janaki (2014) 5 SCC 377 & Raman Lal Vs. State 2001 Cri. L. J. 800 & M. Narayandas Vs State (2003) 11 SCC 251 a petition under section 340 of Cr.P.C. or in any case of criminal offences, the court has to give only prima facie findings and court cannot take the possible defence of the accused or allegations of complaint being motivated into consideration and should not pass orders or give any adverse findings or interpretations which makes the victim of crime remedyless. 

(u)   To hold that in view of specific directions given by the Constitution bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in K.  Veeraswami v. Union of India, 1991 3 SCC 655 the judge whose character is clouded and whose standards of morality and rectitude are in doubt may not have the judicial independence and may not command the confidence of the public and his own resignation is expected even before impeachment proceedings and such person is disqualified for the post of Chief Justice of India;

(v)     To direct the Union of India and other respondents present before this Hon’ble Court to not to administer oath or affirmation to Justice Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud as Chief Justice of India;

(w) To restrain Justice Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud from making and subscribing an oath or affirmation and assuming office of the Chief Justice of India;

(x) To hold that, in view of Advocates Act, Bar Council of India rules and specific law laid down by this Hon’ble court in the case of R. Muthukrishnan v. Registrar General 2019 SCC OnLine SC 105, it is the duty and right of the advocates to work for the betterment of administration of Justice and if they have a material about should malpractices of a judge then they should file a complaint against such a judge before appropriate authorities available under the law and more particularly as per the law laid down in C. Ravichandran Iyer vs. Justice A.M. Bhattacharjee, (1995) 5 SCC 547, K. Veeraswami Vs. Union of India (1991) 3 SCC 655 & Re: C.S. Karnan (2017) 7 SCC 1.

(y) To hold that, in view of mandates of article 51 (A)(h) of the Constitution of India and the law laid down in the case of in Indirect Tax Association Vs. R. K. Jain (2010) 8 SCC 281 and in Dr. Aniruddha Bahal Vs. State 2010 (119) DRJ 102, every citizen in this country has a duty and right to have clean and incorruptible Judges and also having duty to expose the malpractices and corruption in judiciary or in public offices wherever and whenever  he finds it and such person should be encouraged in order to create fear in the mind of wrongdoers while encouraging honest judicial officers.

(z) To hold that, any attempt on the part of the sponsored members of the legal fraternity to discourage the lawyers from making complaints against judges and to make them fearful and sycophant is a direct attack on the independence of bar and a contempt of the law down in the case of R. Muthukrishnan v. Registrar General 2019 SCC OnLine SC 105, High Court of Karnataka Vs. Jai Chaitanya dasa & Others 2015 (3) AKR 627 and any such actions, acts, rules, letters, representations, orders or court proceedings are per-incurium, null & void and stands vitiated.

(aa) To record a finding that, Ld. Justice Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud have committed contempt of the binding precedent in R. Viswanathan and others Vs Rukn-ul-Mulk Syed Abdul Wajid AIR 1963 SC 1, & NHRC Vs. State of Gujarat (2009) 6 SCC 767, by refusing to hear and unreasonably interrupting the arguments of advocates for the parties.

(bb) To hold that, the acts of Ld. Justice D. Y. Chandrachud to compel the petitioner to disclose the reason for not getting vaccines was a deliberate contempt of the law laid down in the case of Common Cause v. Union of India, (2018) 5 SCC 1 and further violation of rights of privacy ruled in K.S. Puttaswamy vs. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1

(cc) To hold that the Ld. Justice D. Y. Chandrachud was disqualified to hear cases related with Sh. Rashid Khan Pathan, Sh. Ambar Koiri & Adv. Nilesh Ojha because they were complainant, witnesses and advocates in the cases against him and his son. One case having been filed in 2018 bearing No. PRSEC/E/2018/21401 & the other in November 2021 bearing No. PRSEC/E/2021/33812. But Ld. Justice D. Y. Chandrachud willingly acted against the ‘Judges Ethics’ Code’ and sat over the cases related with them and passed adverse orders and therefore Ld. Justice Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud is guilty of committing the contempt of binding precedents in State of Punjab v. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar & Ors (2011) 14 SCC 770, Gullapalli Nageshwara Rao & Ors v. APSBTC AIR 1959 SC 308 and Mineral Development Ltd. Vs. The State of Bihar (1960) 2 SCR 609 etc;

(dd) To hold that, Ld. Justice D. Y. Chandrachud first committed gravest contempt when acted against the Judges Ethics Code and binding precedents of this Hon’ble court by hearing a case related with his son being SLP (C) 9131/2021 and he aggravated the contempt by again hearing the connected case SLP (Crl.) No 9092 of 2022 on 10^th October, 2022 knowing fully well that the issue is already being debated widely across the legal fraternity and this act of Respondent No. 1 Justice D. Y. Chandrachud in not recusing from the hearing of the related with his son has eroded the facet of rule of law as ruled in P.K. Ghosh, I.A.S &Anr. v. J. G. Rajput (1996) 6 SCC 744 & law laid down in Para 921of  S.P. Gupta AIR 1982 SC 149 and hence Ld. Justice D. Y. Chandrachud is guilty of wilful act to undermine the majesty and dignity of the Supreme Court in the eyes of the common man and members of the legal fraternity.

(ee) To hold that, the act of Respondent No. 1 Justice D. Y. Chandrachud in passing an ex-parte order in SLP (Crl.) No. 9131 of 2021 without hearing the parties including state authorities where the issue of non-existent application filed by the state was the ground and foundation of the order and there is no reason for such breach of legal mandates and when the case was related with his son, has acted in contempt of the binding precedents in P. Sundarrajan vs. R. Vidhya Sekar (2004) 13 SCC 472 & various binding precedents;

And it is also case of ‘fraud on power’ as has been ruled by the Three Judge bench in Vijay Shekhar Vs. Union of India (2004) 4 SCC 666

(ff) To hold that the act of Respondent No. 1 Justice D. Y. Chandrachud to not to refer the binding precedents relied by the counsel for the parties during arguments which were also mentioned in the petition, and pass an order exactly opposite to the said binding precedents, was an offence of deliberate disregard and wilful contempt of the binding precedents in the case of Dwarikesh Sugar Industries Ltd. v. Prem Heavy Engineering Works (P) Ltd. and Anr. (1997) 6 SCC 450, Medical Council of India Vs G.C.R.G. Memorial Trust &Others (2018) 12 SCC 564, Sunderjas Kanyalal Bhatija v. Collector, Thane, Maharashtra (1989) 3 SCC 396, Official Liquidator v. Dayanand, (2008) 10 SCC 1, Smt. Prabha Sharma Vs. Sunil Goyal and Ors. (2017) 11 SCC 77

(gg)To hold that the act of Respondent No. 1 Justice Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud in passing orders in wanton breach of law without any explanation for such conduct is a sufficient ground to infer that he was actuated with corrupt motives as per law laid down in the case of R.R. Parekh Vs. High Court of Gujrat(2016) 14 SCC 1 and this inference is sufficient to disqualify him for the post of Chief Justice of India;

(hh) To hold that the act of Justice Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud in not considering written submissions and binding precedents and passing orders on the basis of unlawful and extraneous consideration which are having effect of causing wrongful profit of thousands of crores to vaccine companies and consequential wrongful loss of public/tax payers money is a clear case of fraud on power as ruled in Vijay Shekhar Vs. Union Of India(2004)4 SCC 666.

It is also a case of breach of oath taken as a Judge and on the basis of this ground alone he is disqualified to be considered for the post of CJI;

(ii) To hold that as per law laid down in Judge-I case i.e. S.P. Gupta Vs. President of India AIR 1982 SC 149and in K.C. Chandy Vs. R. Balkrishna AIR 1986 Kar 116, and as per debates in the Constituent Assembly on Article 56 by Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar, the breach of oath and violation of constitution are serious offences and includes treason, bribes and misdemeanors’ and when a Judge permits his judgments in a case to be influenced by the irrelevant considerations he commits breach of oath. And in such cases justice is not done and denied. It is a case of misbehavior attracting provisions of Article 124 (4) (5) for impeachment of the said Judge and appropriate authority should consider this factor that such judges are liable to be removed from the judiciary as has been ruled in Shrirang Yadavrao Waghmare v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 9 SCC 144, Muzaffar Husain vs. State of Uttar Pradesh 2022 SCC OnLine SC 567, Umesh Chandra Vs State of Uttar Pradesh 2006 (5) AWC 4519 ALL, K. Veeraswami Vs. Union of India (1991) 3 SCC 655  and therefore, such Judges cannot be recommended or appointed on the post of CJI;

(jj) To hold that in view of the various judgments laid down by this Hon’ble court and more particularly in the case of Vijay Shekhar Vs. Union Of India (2004)4 SCC 666, this court is having jurisdiction to examine the cases of fraud on power by Justice Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud in passing grossly unlawful orders for deciding the present petition challenging the appointment of Justice Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud for the post of CJI;

(kk) To hold that the act of Justice Chandrachud to give directions for compulsory vaccination of people/staff in the mental institutes vide his orders dated 01.09.2021 and 06.07.2021 in Gaurav Kumar Bansal Vs. Mr. Dinesh Kumar, Contempt Petition (C) No. 1653 of 2018  is not only illegal but also having an effect of gross violation of their fundamental rights to refuse treatment and get said persons informed consent and putting their life in to danger and it is also causing wrongful loss of crores of public money. It is a breach of oath that he will uphold the law and the constitution and this ground itself is sufficient to hold that he is disqualified to be appointed as CJI;

(ll) To record a finding that Ld. Justice Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud while asking parties to get compulsorily vaccinated irrespective of their allergic restrictive and prohibited category issued by the central government in their operational guidelines, has acted beyond his jurisdiction and in Contempt of the binding precedents of Academy of Nutrition Improvement v. Union of India, (2011) 8 SCC 274 and also committed and abated offences of putting said person’s life in danger and loss of public money and this is highly irresponsible behaviour and is unbecoming of the Judge of the Supreme court and therefore he cannot be appointed for the post of CJI.

(mm) To hold that in view of specific law laid down by the Constitution Bench in the case of K. Veeraswami Vs. Union of India (1991) 3  SCC 655,and further explained Raman Lal vs. State of Rajasthan 2001 CRI. L. J. 800, Smt. Justice Nirmal Yadav Vs. C.B.I. 2011 (4) RCR (Criminal) 809, the Judge involved in conspiracy and serious Criminal offences and violating fundamental rights of the citizen can be prosecuted like a common man and he cannot claim any protection under Judges (Protection) Act, 1985 as further explained in Bidhi Singh Vs. M. S. Mandyal 1993 CRI. L. J. 499, B.S. Sambhu v. T.S. Krishnaswamy, (1983) 1 SCC 11.

(nn) To hold that in view of specific law laid down in Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj The Attorney-General of Trinidad and Tobago (1978) 2 WLR 902, Walmik s/o Deorao Bobde Vs. State  2001 ALLMR (Cri.)1731, etc. if a Judge violates fundamental rights of the citizen then state is bound to give compensation to the victim, because the Judge is the executive arm of the state. To further hold that the state is free to recover the said amount from erring Judges as per law ratio laid down in S. Nambi Narayanan Vs. Siby Mathews (2018) 10 SCC 804, Veena Sippy Vs. Narayan Dambre 2012 ALL MR (Cri.) 1263 etc.

(oo)  To hold that, the past Chief Justice of India is the head of the overall Indian judicial system and such a position cannot be appointed by the simple process of giving discretion to the existing Chief Justice of India and/or following the practice of appointment of the senior most judge, as it will be contrary to the spirit of constitution and the law laid down in the case of Delhi Transport Corporation vs D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress AIR 1991 SC 101, where it is ruled that it is inadvisable to depend on the good sense of the individuals however high placed, they may be, because individuals are not and do not become wise because they occupy a given high seat of power; AND  in order to avoid instances like the present one or a hypothetical case like that of Justice C. S. Karnan, it is just and necessary to frame proper rules to preserve the majesty and dignity of the court and instil the confidence of a common man in the Courts of law and justice delivery system;

(pp) To hold that the prosecution of offender is the obligation of the state and its wings such as CVC, IB, CBI, Police, ED, Income Tax Department etc. are bound to act proactively and keep surveillance upon the tainted and doubtful Judges and take prompt action to prevent corruption and help in keeping the temple of justice pure and clean; 

(qq) To direct the registry to not to place the present petition before the Bench of Ld. Justices Shri. A. S. Oka & Shri J. B. Pardiwala as some similar complaints are filed against them and there will not be a fair trial;

(rr) To grant any other relief which this Hon’ble court may deem appropriate and proper;

(ss)  OR IN ALTERNATIVE: –

To direct CBI to launch prosecution under section 211, 192, 193, 199, 200, etc of the Indian Penal Code against the Petitioner and also initiate contempt action against the petitioner as per law & ratio laid down in the case of ABCD vs. Union of India (2020) 2 SCC 52, if the allegations in the petition and evidences relied are false and incorrect.

Copy of the said petition can be downloaded Here.