Bar Council’s reply proved that news published by Live Law was false and motivated.
Bar Council made it clear that they have not taken any suo-moto action or initiated any enquiry nor constituted any D.C. committed against Sh. Mursalin Sheikh.
Petitioner through Adv. Ishwarlal Agarwal issued Rs. 10,000 crore defamation notice to Live Law, Chief Editor M.A. Rashid and reporter Sharmeel Hakim.
Mumbai: Bar Council’s written reply had put the ‘Live Law’ and ‘Daily Sakal’ in to great trouble and they will now face the Rs. 10,000 crore defamation action by petitioner Mursalin Sheikh.
‘Live Law’ in his news dated 31.03.2023 had published that Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa had constituted a three member D.C. committee for conducting enquiry against Mursalin Sheikh for filing petition against Justice Revati Mohite Dere.
However, Bar Council of Maharashtra & Goa in its written reply had made it clear that the Council had never taken any such action.
Therefore, Shri Mursalin Shaikh had issued a defamation notice of Rs. 10,000 crores to Live Law and soon similar notice will be issued to Dainik Sakal.
Already Mursalin Sheikh had filed petition before High Court for initiating action under contempt and perjury against Live Law reporter Sharmil Hakim, Chief Editor M.A. Rashid and Dainik Sakal. [I.A. No 11705 of 2023 in PIL No. 6900 of 2023]
Background of the case: –
Bench of Justice Revati Mohite Dere had granted bail to ICICI’s former Chairman Smt. Chanda Kochar in Rs. 3000 Crore scam by falsely observing that the offences against her are having punishment only up to 7 years’ imprisonment.
However, order passed by CBI’s special Court, and other material produced by CBI before Justice Dere, had a clear mention that the offences committed by Chanda Kochar are charged under section 409 of IPC where punishment is life imprisonment.
Due to such gross illegality, Mursalin Shaikh filed PIL in the Bombay High Court of contempt and perjury and sought action under penal law against Justice Revati Mohite Dere and others.
After complaint, then Acting Chief Justice of Bombay High Court Shri S.V. Gangapurwala had withdrawn the said assignment from Justice Revati Mohite Dere.
But ‘Live Law’ had not published said facts nor the proofs given in the PIL by Shri Mursalin Shaikh were ever published or mentioned in the news. On the other hand, ‘Live Law’ had published a false, defamatory and one-sided news that Bar Council had initiated enquiry against Shri Mursalin Sheikh.
Similar news was published by Daily Sakal.
This had ex-facie proved the falsity, dishonesty and malafides of ‘Live Law’ and ‘Daily Sakal’
The prayers in the I.A. filed against Live Law and Sakal reads thus;
(a) To hold that the Bar Council Of Maharashtra & Goa is not having any jurisdiction to give verdict/judgment about the outcome of the PIL/Petition or any sub-judice matter and such conduct of any advocate or Bar Council members is grossest professional misconduct as per specific law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Madhavendra L. Bhatnagar v. Bhavna Lall, (2021) 2 SCC 775.
b) To hold that the threat of proposed action by Respondent No. 1 Bar Council in their press -note against the petitioner Advocate for filing petition in the court with ulterior motive to pressurize and deter the petitioner and his advocate from performing their constitutional duty and exercising their fundamental rights under Article 226, 32, 215,129 of the Constitution of India and is a clear case of interference in the due course of administration of justice and a case of grossest contempt as has been ruled by three Judge Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Arnab Goswami vs. Secretory Maharashtra Legislative Assembly 2020 SCC OnLine SC 1100 and this Hon’ble Court in Mrs. Damayanti G. Chandiraman V.S. Vaney AIR 1966 Bom 19, H. Syama Sunder Rao vs. Union Of India 2007 SCC OnLine Del 2626, Kishor M.Gadhave Patil Vs State Of Maharashtra 2016 (5) Mah.L.J. 75 ;
(h) Direct CBI or State Police to register FIR Under Section 409 r/w Section 109, 120(B) and 34, 52 of the Indian Penal Code against the erring members of the Bar Council of Maharashtra & Goa who misutilized , misused the public money for unauthorised and unlawful purposes;
(j) To give directions as per Article 215 of the Constitution and law laid down by this Hon’ble Court in the case of Nilesh Navalakha Vs. UOI 2021 SCC OnLine Bom 56 and direct Respondent No 3 & 4 Live Law, Resp. No. 5 Daily Sakal and other media that they should not publish any one sided and distorted news without first taking view/say of petitioner or his advocates/counsels;
(m) Direct appropriate authority of central/state Government to verify the grevience of the petitioner against Live Law and its reporter, Editor etc. and take appropriate legal action including action of cancellation of their license for their act of deliberate commission and omission to prejudice the cause of Petitioner & their advocates and thereby causing interference in the administration of justice.
The prayers in the Writ Petition field against Justice Revati Mohite Dere reads thus;
(a) To decide this petition under Article 215,226 of the Constitution of India and Section 340,344 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 law laid down by the Constitution bench (7J) in paragraph 1 and 60 of the Re: C.S. Karnan, (2017) 7 SCC 1, this court is having the jurisdiction to examine the allegations of Contempt of binding precedents of Supreme Court and this Hon’ble Court, committed by Justice Smt. Revati Mohite Dere in a petition filed by any citizen;
(c) 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 Smt. R.M. Dere & Justice Shri Prithviraj Chauhan in passing grossly unlawful orders;
(d) Record a finding as per Section 340 of Cr.P.C. and as per law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Govind Mehta v. State of Bihar, (1971) 3 SCC 329 and hold that the Ld. Justices Smt. R.M. Dere & Justice Shri Prithviraj Chauhan have made incorrect observations in their order dated 09.01.2023 [Exhibit A] that the offences against accused Smt. Chanda Kochar are having punishment up to 7 years ; in fact Section 409 of IPC had punishment of life imprisonment;
(e) To hold that the above said incorrect observations were made in the order with clear intention of bringing the case within the ombit of guidelines in the case of Arnesh Kumar (supra), so that bail can be granted to an accused of serious economic offence and misappropriation of public money of thousands of crores where the actual punishment is life imprisonment;
(f) To hold that Ld. Justice Smt. R. M. Dere in other cases and more particularly in the case of Shri. Dilip Mohite, MLA from NCP party, had also adopted the same modus operandi of not mentioning charges under Section 307 of IPC where the accused was charged for attempt to murder the police officer;
(g) To hold that Ld. Justice R.M. Dere had acted in deliberate disregard and defiance of directions of Hon’ble Supreme Court & Bombay High Court and thereby brought the majesty and dignity of the Court and entire judicial system into dispute.
(h) To hold that the Judge involved in misuse of power and machinery of High Court to grant relief to underserving litigants will be liable for prosecution under section 409 of IPC in addition to other offences.
(i) To hold that as per law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Bandekar Brothers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Prasad Vassudev Keni 2020 Cri.L.J. 4515, the court exercising power under section 340 of Criminal Procedure Code can order persecution of ancillary charges of section 409 of Indian Penal Code.
(j) 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. They are also bound to complete the formalities of permission from Hon’ble President of India and CJI for registration of FIR and other steps necessary for prosecution of corrupt Judges;
(k) Direct state/CBI to conduct enquiry and submit report before this Hon’ble court with three weeks;
(l) On the basis of enquiry report and as per law laid down in Dr. Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan Vs. Union of India (2019) 14 SCC 761, direct Registrar (Judicial) to file complaint against Smt. Justice R.M. Dere under Section 343 of Cr.P.C. before Judicial Magistrate first class having jurisdiction for offences punishable under sec. 166, 167, 218, 201, 219, 409, 465, 466, 192, 193, 471, 474, 120 (B) & 34 of IPC;
(m) Direct Registrar General to not to assign any judicial work to Ld. Justice Smt. Revati Mohite Dere;
(n) Direct advocate General to file contempt petition before Hon’ble Supreme Court against Smt. Justice Rewati Mohite Dere;
(o) Pass directions of issuance of non-bailable warrant as per sec. 340 (1) (d) of Cr.P.C. against accused Judge/s as per law and ratio laid down in the case of Arvinder Singh’s case (1998) 6SCC 35;
(p) 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;
(q) 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 and does not respect the rule of law and constitutional oath is not fit for the post of a Constitutional Court judge 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;
(r) 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, Dilip Sonawne Vs. 2003 Bom 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;
(s) 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;
(t) To record a finding that the acts of Justice Smt. R.M. Dere & Shri Prithviraj Chauhan in passing various orders against binding precedents of Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Hon’ble High Court, is an act of willful disregard and deliberate defiance of the binding precedents and it undermines the majesty and dignity of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Hon’ble High Court in the eyes of the common man, advocates and the judges of all he subordinate courts and therefore, Justices Smt. R.M. Dere & Shri Prithviraj Chauhan are liable for action under contempt as per law laid down in Baradakanta Misra v. Bhimsen Dixit, (1973) 1 SCC 446.
(u) To hold that Ld. Judge Smt. R. M. Dere acted in gross defiance of Article 14, 29, 21 of the Constitution and binding precedents many times as can be seen from the instances which are ex-facie proved from the court records;
(v) 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, Sadhna Chaudhary vs State (2020) 11 SCC 760;
(w) 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 Judges 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;
(x) 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 court cannot drop the prosecution on the ground that the allegations of complaint being motivated and cannot not pass orders or give any adverse findings or interpretations which makes the victim of crime remediless.
(y) 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 a Judge and therefore no judicial work can be assigned to such a Judge;
(z) 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 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.
(aa) 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.
(bb) To hold that, any attempt on the part of the sponsored members 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 2015 (3) AKR 627 and any such actions, acts, rules, letters, representations, orders or court proceedings are in fact contempt of Court as per law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Arnab Ranjan Goswami v. Maharashtra State Legislative Assembly, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 1100;
(cc) To hold that as per Judges Ethics Code and binding precedents the Ld. Justice Smt. R. M. Dere was disqualified to hear cases related with Nationalist Congress Party, when her sister Smt. Vidya Chavan is M.P. from said party and the bias on the part of Smt. Justice Revati Mohite Dere in favor of said party leaders and against opponents is ex- facie proved on many occasions.
But Ld. Justices Smt. R.M. Dere willingly, deliberately and callously acted against the ‘Judges Ethics’ Code’ and sat over the cases related with them and passed adverse orders and therefore Ld. Justices Smt. R.M. Dere 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 and this Hon’ble Court in Suresh Ramchandra Palande v. Government of Maharashtra, 2015 SCC OnLine Bom 6775 and breach of Judges Ethics Code ;
(dd) To hold that the act of Justice Smt. R.M. Dere to not to refer the ratio laid down in binding precedents relied by the counsel for the parties during arguments, and in passing 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 (1997) 6 SCC 450, Yogesh Athawale Vs. Vikram Jadhav 2020 SCC OnLine Bom 3443, 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
(ee) To hold that the act of Smt. R.M. Dere in passing orders in wanton breach of law without any explanation for such conduct is a sufficient ground to infer that she 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 withdraw all judicial works assigned to her;
(ff) To hold that the act of Justice Smt. R.M. Dere in not considering written submissions given by Police/ CBI and binding precedents given by counsels and passing orders on the basis of unlawful and extraneous materials which are having effect of causing wrongful benefit to accused and consequential wrongful loss of public/tax payers money is a clear case of fraud on power and worst kind of judicial dishonesty as ruled in Vijay Shekhar Vs. Union Of India (2004) 4 SCC 666, Kamisetty Pedda Vs. Chinna 2005 (2) ALT 462;
(gg) 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, Sadhna Chaudhary vs State (2020) 11 SCC 760 ;
(hh) 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 /she 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.
(ii) 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 acts against the law and violates fundamental rights of the citizen or even of the state authorities like C.B.I., Police as done in present case 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 of compensation 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.
(kk) To grant any other relief which this Hon’ble court may deem appropriate and proper and thinks fit in the interest of justice;
(ll) 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.