Huge protest from Bar members across the country.
Bar Members demands immediate arrest of the accused Judges.
As per judgement by Chief Justice of India D. Y. Chandrachud in Naveen Singh v. State of U.P., (2021) 6 SCC 191, accused Judges are not entitled for bail and should be tried under trial. [Demands Indian Bar Association.]
Anti-Corruption department of Maharashtra Police started investigation against retired Supreme Court Judges Deepak Gupta, Rohinton Nariman & Others including Bombay High Court retired Judge S. J. Kathawalla.
The reply given by the office of Chief Justice of India had proved that the accused Judges forged the record of the Supreme Court in the name of then Chief Justice of India Shri. Ranjan Gogoi.
Supreme Court Lawyers Association & various Indian Bar Associations requests the Investigating Officer to recover CCTV footage and demands immediate arrest of accused Judges and Co-conspirators and to transfer the investigation to Central Bureau of Investigation and Enforcement Directorate.
The Complainant appeared before the IO and give video recordings of sting operation and other proofs against accused Judges to the investigating agencies.
New Delhi: – Anti-Corruption Department of Maharashtra Police had started investigation against Retired Supreme Court Judges & other Co-accused.
The investigation is started on the complaint given by Shri. Rashid Khan Pathan, Chairman of ‘Supreme Court & High Court Litigants Association of India’ (SC & HCLAI).
1.1. The record makes it clear that in the case of National Lawyers Campaign for Judicial Transparency & Reforms v. Union of India, (2020) 16 SCC 687, Bench of Justices R.F. Nariman & Vineet Saran had laid down a strange proposition that the Court can directly sentence an advocate for this unpleasant or inappropriate argument and send him/her to jail directly and there is no need for the court to issue show-cause notice or to hear the advocate.
1.2. As per our constitutional provisions and international covenants by UN, even terrorists like ‘Ajmal Kasab’ are entitled and given a full opportunity to put his defence and he was provided a lawyer at state’s cost for defending the charges against him [(2012) 9 SCC 1 ]
1.3. Hence the proposition laid down by the Bench of Justices R.F. Nariman &Vineet Saran is in fact treating Advocates as a person who is worse than the terrorists like Kasab. This shows their mentality to undermine the noble profession of advocacy and is a direct attack on Independence of Bar.
1.4. The abovesaid proposition laid down by the Bench of Justices R.F.Nariman & Vineet Saran is not only against the constitution, illegal and per-incuriam but also against the basic principle of natural justice and rule of audi alterum partem. It is against the binding precedents in Dr. L.P. Mishra Vs. State of UP (1998) 7 SCC 379, In Re Pollard LR 2 PC 106, Pallav Sheth v. Custodian, (2001) 7 SCC 549, Bal Thackeray vs. Pimplekhute (2005) 1 SCC 254, Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248, Bar Council of India Vs. High Court of Kerala (2004) 6 SCC 311
1.5. The suppressing part of the story is that some sycophant members of Bombay Bar Association (BBA), Advocate Association of Western India (AAWI), Bombay Incorporated Law Society (BILS) had passed resolutions welcoming the judgment which has effect of treating advocates worst than the terrorist and violating fundamental rights of all the advocates.
1.6. The letter dated 23.03.2019 jointly sent by Bombay Bar Association & Bombay Incorporated Law Society (BILS) had a specific reference of resolution passed by BBA where they have welcomed such unlawful judgment against advocates. The relevant portion of the letter reads thus;
“It is pertinent to note that the Standing Managing Committees of all the three Bar Associations attached to the Bombay High Court being Bombay Bar Association, Advocates’ Association of Western India, and the Bombay Incorporated Law Society passed Resolutions appreciating and welcoming the judgment dated 12-3-2019 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. National Lawyers Campaign for Judicial Transparency & Reforms v. Union of India, (2020) 16 SCC 687”
1.7. However, some strong, conscientious, independant Bar members like Adv. Vijay Kurle, Adv. Nilesh Ojha, etc. raised their voice against such gross illegality and injustice to advocates. Adv. Vijay Kurle on 20.03.2019 filed a written complaint to Hon’ble President of India for appropriate action against Justices Rohinton Nariman & Vineet Saran.
1.8. The injustice done to advocates and attack on independence of Bar was strongly objected by office bearers of Indian Bar Association.
[Case No. PRSEC /E/ 2019/05540]
1.9. Complaint filed by Indian Bar Association was to protect the rights and dignity of all the advocates.
1.10. Copy of said complaint is available at following link.
1.11. Further fraud played by the members of BBA & BILS in seeking action against members of Bar Association objecting injustice done to advocates.
1.12. When Indian Bar Association raised voice against attack on ‘Independence of Bar’, then instead of supporting said stand, the sycophant members of BBA & BILS Sh. Milind Sathe and Sh. Kaiwan Kalyaniwalla had on 23.03.2019 sent a letter to Hon’ble CJI seeking action against members of Indian Bar Association.
1.13. This was done with only intention to save the accused Judge Rohinton Nariman from serious charges like 219, 220, 409 etc. of IPC which are punishable for life imprisonment.
1.14. Said letter was closed and filed as per order dated 25.03.2019 by the then CJI Sh. Ranjan Gogoi.
1.15. Then said Milind Sathe hatched criminal conspiracy with Justice R. F. Nariman and Ors. and had created forged record of the Supreme Court, and taken suo-moto cognizance of said letter by falsely stating that the said letter was forwarded to the Bench of Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman by the office of CJI.
1.16. The accused Judges concealed / suppressed the fact that the letter was closed and ordered to be filed by the CJI on 25.03.2019.
1.17. Para 50 of the order dated 27.04.2020 reported as Vijay Kurle, In re, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 407, reads thus;
“50[…] Furthermore, it is not as if the letter were addressed to the Members of the Bench. As observed above, the letter sent by the President of Bombay Bar Association and the President of Bombay Incorporated Law Society was addressed to the President of India, the Chief Justice of this Court, and the Chief Justice of the High Court of Bombay. Presumably, it must have been the Office of the Chief Justice which sent the letters to the Bench.”
1.18. The abovesaid observations are ex-facie false. Furthermore, the letter dated 23.03.2019 by BBA was addressed to CJI and not to the Bench of Justice Nariman. When CJI had closed it then how accused Judge himself took the cognizance.
1.19. Another wrong, unconstitutional-illegal and per-incuriam judgment passed by the bench of Justice Deepak Gupta & Aniruddha Bose stating that the members of Bar Association who objects the injustice done or being done to advocates by the erring Judge will also be liable for action under Contempt and no law of the land is binding upon such Judges of the Supreme Court.
1.20. Despite showing all the documents. Legal position and binding precedents the Bench of co- accused Judge Deepak Gupta had passed an order of conviction against Adv. Vijay Kurle, Adv. Nilesh Ojha & Sh. Rashid Khan Pathan. This was done to save accused Judges and uphold illegality. Re: Vijay Kurle & Ors. 2020 SCC OnLine SC 407.
1.21. In the said order the accused Judges relied upon forged record & overruled judgements. The deliberately refused to follow the binding precedents of Constitution Benches. The accused Judges refused to follow the procedure laid down in P. N. Duda’s case (1988) 3 SCC 167.
1.22. However, larger Bench in Re: Prashant Bhushan 14.08.2020 [(2021) 1 SCC 745], had specifically overruled this part of the judgment dated 27.04.2020, observing that every Judge of the Supreme Court is bound to follow the procedure laid down in P.N. Duda’s Case (1988) 3 SCC 167.
1.23. The procedure laid down in P. N. Duda’s case (Supra) mandates that the cognizance of suo- moto Criminal contempt on the basis of letter or anything has to be taken only by the Chief Justice of India. It is further clarified by the larger Bench in the case of Bal Thackrey’s case (2005) 1 SCC 254, that if said procedure is not followed then conviction and sentence stands vitiated. Similar is the law laid down by the Constitutional Bench in the case of Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reform vs. UOI (2018) 1 SCC 196
1.24. They relied upon the overruled judgement of two judge Bench in Pritam Pal Singh 1992(1) SCALE 416, Said judgment was specifically overruled by the larger Bench in the case of Bal Thackrey vs. Harish Pimpalkhute (2005) 1 SCC 254.
1.25. Justices Deepak Gupta, Aniruddha Bose in their zeal to save accused Judges and in over confidence had mentioned in the order that :-
(a) No law is binding upon them.
(b) Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman can hear the case related with father Adv. Fali Nariman.
(c) Accused Judges R. F. Nariman & Vineet Saran can deal the cases where they themselves are accused.
1.26. There are many illegalities and malafide committed in passing order of conviction dated 27.04.2020.
1.27 Said sentence is stayed by the later Benches of the Supreme Court on ground of pendency of writ petition for providing them one appeal.
1.28. The sole purpose on the part of Justices Deepak Gupta and Aniruddha Bose in passing such unlawful, per-incuriam judgment by creating false record, destroying/ removing/ stealing documentary evidence from record, refusing to follow binding precedents and relying on overruled judgments, was, to save Justice Rohinton Nariman from serious criminal offences and silence the voice of the advocates who dare to fight against injustice and to expose the corrupt practices of Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman.
2. Summary of the Case: –
2.1. The Complainant and Adv. Vijay Kurle had filed a complaint on 19.03.2019 against Justice R.F. Nariman & Justice Vineet Saran for passing unlawful orders to serve their ulterior purposes and to help another accused Judge S. J. Kathawalla.
2.2. In order to save accused Judges from charges, one conspiracy was hatched by co-conspirator Adv. Milind Sathye of Bombay Bar Association & Kaiwan Kalyaniwlala of Bombay Incorporated Law Society and in furtherance of the said conspiracy, they sent a Joint letter dated 23.03.2019 to the Chief Justice of India.
2.3. Then Chief Justice of Indian Shri Ranjan Gogoi found nothing actionable in the said letter dated 23.03.2019 by Bombay Bar Association & Bombay Incorporated Law Society and therefore the Chief Justice of India passed an order to close the said complaint.
2.4. But accused Milind Sathe & others hatched a criminal conspiracy with accused Judges Rohinton Nariman and created a forged record of Supreme Court to the effect that the then Chief Justice of India had forwarded the said complaint to the Bench of Justice R.F. Nariman.
On the basis of the said forged record, the accused Judges R.F. Nariman themselves took the cognizance of the contempt against complainant where the said Judges were accused.
2.5. When trial for contempt started, the Respondents produced all the evidences including records of the Chief Justice of India office and Supreme Court Registry.
2.6. These records were found to be destroyed/stolen by the accused Judges which is an offence under Section 409 of the IPC and accused Judges can be punished for life imprisonment. The Accused Judges pronounced the order of Conviction and sentence against Complainant on 27.04.2020.
2.7. The said conviction & sentence is challenged by the way of writ petition filed by Rashid Khan Pathan & Others. The said judgement of conviction is partly overruled by the larger bench of the Supreme Court in Re: Prashant Bhushan’s case 14 August 2020. It is specifically observed by the larger bench that the rule laid down in P.N. Duda’s case is binding on the Supreme Court and only Chief Justice can take the cognizance of Suo moto contempt on the letter sent by the parties. If the said rule is not followed, then conviction of contempt stands vitiated. Similar law is laid down in Bal Thackeray vs. Pimplekhute (2005) 1 SCC 254 & Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms vs. Union of India, (2018) 1 SCC 196.
2.8. The Supreme Court stayed said sentence and the petitions are tagged with the writ petition filed by Adv. Prashant Bhushan W.P. (C) No. 1037 of 2020. Other writ petitions are Rashid Khan Pathan vs. Union of India bearing No. WP (C) No. 1377 of 2020, Adv. Vijay Kurle vs. Supreme Court of India through Secretary General & Others bearing No. WP (Cri) No. 243 of 2020 & Adv. Nilesh Ojha vs. Supreme Court of India through Secretary General & Others bearing No. WP (Cri) No. 244 of 2020.
2.9. In the meantime, two agents sent by Retd. Justice Deepak Gupta, Justice Rohinton Nariman approached Complainant at his residence and gave offers of Rs. 400 crores to settle the entire matter. There were another talks exposing the racket of Agents of corrupt Supreme Court Judges. All proofs are available with the Complainant.
2.10. The Complainant forthwith made complaint to the CBI and other authorities.
2.11. The Anti-Corruption Department of Maharashtra police on the directions given by the higher authorities started investigation.
2.12. The Complainant was summoned to produce the concerned proofs. The Complainant gave the proofs and the police recorded his statement.
Download copy of summons issued by the Investigating officer.
2.13. The offence disclosed against the Accused retired Judges are cognizable, non-bailable and punishable with life imprisonment and an offer of cash amount of Rs. 400 crores. The forgery and destroying of the Supreme Court records is ex-facie proved from the written communication given by the Chief Justice of India.
Therefore, various Indian Bar Association & Supreme Court lawyers Association had demanded immediate arrest of Accused Judges and co-conspirators Adv. Milind Sathye, Kaiwan Kalyaniwalla & ors.
2.14. However, the members of Indian Bar Association were threatened with contempt action for it. But they did not moved back from their duty.
2.15. They were sentenced to three months imprisonment but they don’t bow down to pressure tactics by errant Judges. Lastly their sentence is stayed by the Supreme Court.