Failure to recusal had made the bench unconstitutional as Coram-non-judice.
It is blamed for wasting public money & time and misused Supreme Court machinery to propagate his own agenda. Prosecution sought under section. 166, 409, 219 of IPC, Human Rights Activist files a complaint before President of India giving proofs and relevant legal position.
Crores of people across the country are going to send email to Hon’ble President of India for immediate action.
The prayers in the complaint reads thus;
i) Immediate directions to Attorney General for India or Solicitor General to file an application for recusal of Ld. Chief Justice of India Shri. D.Y. Chandrachud from hearing the case regarding Same-sex marriage (LGBTQ) for his obvious bias due to his act of promoting causes of LGBTQ community his regular and fervent support on one hand and heading the Bench to decide the petition filed by the same people on other hand. And also to file a Contempt Petition against Shri. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud as per law & ratio laid down in the Case of Re: C.S. Karnan (2017) 7 SCC 1.
(ii) Further directions to take immediate steps to prevent Contempt of law laid down by the Constitution Benches of the Supreme Court & wastage of public money & time by ld. Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud by hearing a case, when he is disqualified to hear the case and it is the corum – non-judice, and the Bench had became unconstitutional thereby vitiating the entire proceedings.
(iii) As prosecution of offender is the obligation of the state therefore appropriate direction to C.B.I. to register FIR u.sec 409,219,166,120(B),34 etc of IPC against ld. Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud and others after completing the formality of consultation by Hon’ble President of India with any of the Judges of the Supreme Court as per her choice as per law laid down by the Constitution Bench in the case of K.Veeraswami Vs. Union of India (1991) 3 SCC 655;
Though it is not the part of official duty of ld. Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud and others to commit criminal offences but in order to avoid any doubt about the provisions of sec.197 of Cr. P. C. and sec 3 of The Judges (Protection) Act, 1985 appropriate sanction/permission be given/ accorded urgently to the undersigned to initiate prosecution against ld. Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud and others under relevant provisions of IPC and other law applicable thereto
(iv) Taking immediate steps to create Constitutional Courts or Courts of appeal for dealing the issues / orders /judgments / injustice done by the Supreme Court including the cases of recusal applications against Chief Justice of India, which cannot bne decided by himself as no one can be Judge in his own case and to avoid embarrassment to as law laid others down in Mitchell v. State 320 Md. 756 (Md. 1990) and as per ratio laid down by the Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority (Recusal Matter-5 J.) v. Manohar Lal, (2020) 6 SCC 304
In spirit of Art. 14(5) of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) which are constitutionally guaranteed to all Indian citizen by the constitution and further upheld by the nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court in K. S. Puttaswamy vs. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1;
(v) Request to the Hon’ble Chairman of Rajya to initiating impeachment proceedings against the Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud;
(vi) Request to Hon’ble Judges of the Supreme Court to call a Full Court meeting and form an impartial committee to conduct enquiry and immediate action to withdraw judicial works from CJI D. Y. Chandrachud till the decision in impeachment proceedings is taken in earlier cases of CJI per ‘In-House- Procedure’ and as per ratio laid down in Additional District and Sessions Judge ‘X’ (2015) 1 SCC 799.
(vii) Further action including issuance of notice of preventive action under section 149 of CrPC to Ld. Chief Jusice of India D.Y.Chandrachud to maintain aloofness as per ‘Judges Ethics Code’ and stop from attending meetings, conferences and regular media interviews which are regularly attended by him to propogate the secret agenda of spreading disharmony and division between different classes of citizen in India to serve ulterior purposes and to please anti national elements from Harvard Group like George Soros, Bill Gates and others as explained by Sh. Rajeev Malhotra in his book ‘Snakes in the Ganga’ and proved from the acts of commissions by Mr. Chandrachud, which is against the constitutional duty of Ld. Chief Justice of India Dy Chandrachud under Article.51(A) of the Constitution of India;
(viii) Direction to ld. Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud to respect and follow the binding directions given by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in K. Veeraswami Vs.Union Of India (1991) 3 SCC 655 and to resign forthwith from the post and to not to damage the image of institution of Supreme Court.”
The ground for recusal are as under:-
“61. That, the Ld. Chief Justice of India Dr. D. Y. Chandrachud should not have presided the Constitution Bench dealing the petition concerning the subject of LGBTQA because the sound proofs available and given here, ex facie proves that Justice D. Y. Chandrachud is a firm supporter and promoter of the causes of rights of LGBTQA which is a part of the petitions being argued before the bench headed by him. And it is more than a sufficient ground for his disqualification to sit on the Bench and vitiate all the proceeding and orders if any. It is a clear case of misuse of public property, time, money and Supreme Court machinery for unauthorized purposes to serve the hidden agenda and is an offence under sec 409,219,166,120(B),34 etc of IPC. [Mineral Development Ltd. v. State of Bihar, (1960) 2 SCR 609, State of Punjab v. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar, (2012) 14 SCC 770, Caperton et al. v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., Inc., et al., 2009 SCC OnLine US SC 65, Regina v. Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, Ex parte Pinochet Ugarte (No. 2),  2 WLR 272, S.C.A.O.R. A. vs UOI (2016) 5 SCC 808]
2. Ld. CJI Sh. Chandrachud had breached the oath taken as a Judge of the Supreme Court and as a CJI and committed Contempt of binding precedents of Constitution Benches of the Supreme Court by giving media interviews and lectures supporting rights of LGBTQ+ community and then presiding the Bench hearing the related with LGBTQ+ matter when he was is disqualified to hear the case. Furthermore he was also disqualified to hear the case and bound to recuse from the case/s where Adv. Saurabh Kirpal is appearing as an advocate because of his close proximity and proven concern for him and conflict of interest as per specific law laid down by the SC and as per ‘Judges Ethics Code’.
3. That, it appears that current CJI DY Chandrachud’s father, former CJI YV Chandrachud had recommended the name of BN Kripal as a high court judge in 1979; then in 2000, BN Kripal was part of the SC Collegium which recommended the name of DY Chandrachud as a high court judge. And now CJI DY Chandrachud is insisting that BN Kripal’s son, Saurabh Kripal be made a high court judge.
“Tittle: Why is Collegium adamant on elevation of Saurabh Kripal?
Date: January 25, 2023
4. Advocate Saurabh Kirpal who is Counsel for one of the Petitioners in the same sex marriage petitions and who was seen in the court room on all three days of the hearing (April 18, 19 and 20, 2023) is the person whom the CJI is actively rooting for elevation to the constitutional post of High Court judge at New Delhi. We have seen aggressive face offs between the CJI and the Central Government that was silent on the recommendation of the SC Collegium on appointment of Adv. Saurabh Kirpal as judge at the Delhi High Court.
5. When the impartiality of a judge is in doubt, the appropriate remedy is to disqualify that judge from hearing further proceedings in the matter. [ Caperton v. A. T. Massey Coal Co., 556 U.S. 868 (2009)]
6. In R. Vs. Commissioner of pawing (1941) 1 QB 467, William J. Observed:
“I am strongly dispassed to think that a Court is badly constituted of which an intrested person is a part, whatever may be the number of disintrested peraons. We cannot go into a poll of the Bench.”
7. In Kanishk Sinha Vs. Union of India, 2019 SCC OnLine Cal 2341 it is ruled as under;
“After having heard the submissions of the petitioner it appears that his contention is that if a Hon’ble Judge has a friend on facebook who is a member of the Bar that is a reason for him to rescue from the case.
If that is the view of the petitioner it will not be proper for me to take up this matter and release this matter on personal ground.”
Read the complaint Here