Inter National CASES APPLYING THE “Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct”

A case involving a suggested ambiguity of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) whereby civil proceedings were stayed on bankruptcy and whether the Act should be interpreted so as to exclude any applications to public law proceedings brought for the vindication of a public (as distinct from private) right 37 .

A case concerning imputed bias by reason of a judge’s earlier retainer, whilst a barrister, for a party to litigation in suggested breach of the requirement in article 14.1 of the ICCPR that a person have a “fair and public hearing by a competent independent and impartial tribunal established by law” 38 .

A case concerning whether the common law provides an enforceable right to speedy trial 39 having regard to the terms of article 14.3 of the ICCPR .

A case concerning a right of a mute person to have an interpreter assist her understanding of evidence and argument given in open court in proceedings concerning her, having regard to the terms of articles 14.1, 14.3(a) and (f) of the ICCPR 40 .

A case involving the right of a litigant in person to have, as costs, expenses necessary for attending court by reason of the promise of “equality” before the courts and tribunals under Article 14.1 of the ICCPR 41 , notwithstanding earlier court decisions to the contrary in England.

A case involving the imposition of a fine upon a bankrupt, invalid pensioner prisoner of $60,000.00 as punishment for contempt of court, having regard to the prohibition on “excessive fines” in the still applicable Bill of Rights 1688 (GB) 42 .

An appeal by a convicted contemnor involving an asserted denial of his right to have his conviction and sentence reviewed by a higher tribunal according to law as article 14.5 of the ICCPR requires, when all that was provided was an entitlement to seek special leave from the High Court of Australia to appeal against conviction 43 .

There are many other Australian cases which could be mentioned in this context, including cases in the Federal Court of Australia 44 , the Family Court of Australia 45 and in the Court of Criminal Appeal of New South Wales 46 . In many of the lastmentioned decisions, a feature of the reasoning is the reference by the judges, not only to the text of a relevant international instrument, but also to the development of the jurisprudence by courts, tribunals and committees – particularly the European Court of Human Rights – which elaborate and explain the fundamental norms.

In New Zealand, the vehicle of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act , although not constitutionally entrenched, gives an established framework for the reference to analogous jurisprudence developed around similarly expressed provisions in international law. The same is true of India Sri Lanka and countries of the “new Commonwealth” which have written constitutions incorporating a detailed Bill of Rights. In Australia and England there is no similar charter of enforceable rights although a Bill has been introduced into the United Kingdom Parliament to incorporate the European convention into domestic law. Meanwhile, the absence of a constitutional charter has not stopped the courts, in the manner suggested in the Bangalore Principles , from utilising international law where a relevant gap appears in the common law where a statute falls to be construed which is ambiguous.


for more


Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized


Judge Christopher Weeramantry, former Vice President of the International Court of Justice and chair of the international Judicial Integrity Group today welcomed the endorsement of the Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct by the Member States of the UN Commission on Human Rights at its 59th Session in Geneva.

Speaking on behalf of the Group which developed the Principles, he said they had the potential to strengthen and enhance levels of judicial integrity and accountability in countries around the world.

“These Principles have been formulated by national and international judges working together for a common purpose. They should help not only to render judicial institutions ethically stronger, but also, through their implementation by the judicial branch, assist in strengthening the independence of judicial institutions,” he said.

Judge Weeramantry said that the Principles will be used around the world, not only as a guide in fashioning new national codes of judicial conduct, but also as a reference for testing and revising existing national codes.

In a UN resolution passed today, Member States noted the Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct adopted at the Round-Table Meeting of Chief Justices held in the Peace Palace in The Hague on 25-26 November 2002, and brought the Principles to the attention of Member States, the relevant United Nations organs and intergovernmental and non-governmental organisations for their consideration.

“This is a significant step towards making judges accountable for their conduct. These Principles will complement the UN Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary,” Judge Weeramantry concluded.

Steps are already under way to implement the new Principles in both Nigeria and Uganda.

Notes to Editors:The Judicial Integrity Group, which is chaired by Judge Weeramantry (Sri Lanka), comprises the Chief Justices of Bangladesh, Egypt, Karnataka State in India, Nepal, Nigeria, Philippines, South Africa, Tanzania, and Uganda, and senior judges from Australia and Canada. Those who attended the Round-Table Meeting included the Judges of the International Court of Justice from Madagascar, Hungary, Germany, Sierra Leone, United Kingdom, Brazil, Egypt and the United States of America, and the Chief Justices of Brazil, Czech Republic, Egypt, France, Mexico, Mozambique, Netherlands, Norway and the Philippines. Others involved in the consultative process included the 40-member Consultative Council of European Judges. The Chairman of the UN Human Rights Committee and the UN Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers participated as Observers. Justice Michael Kirby of the High Court of Australia has functioned as Rapporteur; Dr Nihal Jayawickrama (Sri Lanka) as Co-ordinator; and Mr Jeremy Pope (of Transparency International) as Resource Person. The initiative has been facilitated throughout by the Department for International Development, United Kingdom.

The Bangalore Principles take their name from the Indian city of Bangalore, where a meeting of the Judicial Integrity Group took place in February 2001. The Bangalore meeting included Chief Justices and senior judges from Australia, Bangladesh, Canada, India, Nepal, Nigeria, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Tanzania and Uganda.

Press contact(s):

Dr Nihal Jayawickrama
Co-ordinator, Judicial Integrity Group
Tel: +44-2083606705

Jeremy Pope
Director, TI Centre for Innovation and Research
Tel: +44-20-7610 1400


Read More Strengthening basic principles of judicial conduct 



Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Your Patriotic Donations is NEED of Hour for Indian Justice to put on par with Developed nations’ Justice System


Inline image @India0corrupt

“ ‘Indian DEMOCRACY is in DANGER; when 867 Employee-Cum-Judges, who have NEVER Learned to OBEY the LAW Are given THE RIGHT to COMMAND’.
‘to ABORT ANARCHY in India & To Make India Corruption Free; One needs to Prosecute & Jail Corrupt 867 Employee-Cum-Judges in Activating JUDICIARY’ ” .

Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct [BPCJ]- United Nations –

A Covenant agreed & approved by Indian Judiciary, Parliament & Prime Ministers of India. And the BPCJ is accorded by Indian Judiciary in Bangalore, where the SCAM of JUDICIARY of 867 Employee-Cum-Judges has taken place of which King Pins inter alia are Present Chief Justice of India T.S. Thakur, his predecessor CJIs H.L. Dattu, S.Rajendra Babu, M.N. Venkatachaliah.

Our Mission is to make Indian Judiciary, Parliament & Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Judicial Vision in disciplining Indian Judiciary per United Nations as agreed Covenant to by Indian Judiciary in implementing and upholding Universally accepted norms for JUDICIAL Independence ,  Impartiality , Integrity , Propriety ,  Equality, Competence and diligence.

THE BANGALORE PRINCIPLES OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT  is approved as  per Universal Declaration of Human Rights ,  International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and United Nations Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary.

“The United Nations and the Council of Europe took into consideration the American and Canadian Models while examining the issue of judicial ethics and prepared the Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct to which India is a signatory – CANONS OF JUDICIAL ETHICSM. C. SETALVAD MEMORIAL LECTURE as mentioned in Supreme court of India website .

A NOBLE Mission:-
Your Patriotic Donations is NEED of Hour for Indian Justice to put on par with Developed nations’ Justice System.

Donations be made in F/O Mr. DIGVIJAY MOTE,
State Bank of India. Savings Bank Account No. 20249182227.
Branch Code: IFSC : SBIN 0004932 

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Dear PM Modi Ji, “Initiate Criminal Prosecution of “CJI T.S.Thakur Headed ‘JUDICIAL Layout, Bangalore-2,400 sites of 867 Employee-Cum-CJIs, Lokayuktas & judges”

Dear PM Modi, Rajnath Singh, Ravi Shankar Prasad, Sushma Swaraj :-
Initiate Criminal Prosecution of “CJI T.S.Thakur Headed ‘JUDICIAL Layout, Bangalore-2,400 sites of 867 Employee-Cum-CJIs, Lokayuktas & judges”.
…..PM Modi Government to Intelligence Bureau:
“Carry out strict checks on collegium referred names of SCI / HC Judges”
The Indian Express had first reported the government’s decision not to accept many crucial recommendations and observations made by the Supreme Court collegium regarding the draft memorandum of procedure (MoP).
In yet another signal to the higher judiciary that it isn’t ready to back down on its assertion for more powers for the executive on the issue of appointments to the high courts and Supreme Court, the Narendra Modi government has asked the Intelligence Bureau (IB) to carry out a “more stringent” background check on all names recommended by the collegium for elevation.
Coming at a time when both the Supreme Court collegium and the Modi government are refusing to yield on many of the contentious issues in the draft Memorandum of Procedure (MoP), which would guide appointments to the higher judiciary, the government’s move could be viewed as strong-arm tactics to get the judiciary to agree to “more transparency” and, possibly, more voice for the government on such appointments.
To begin with, the Intelligence Bureau (IB) has been told to scrutinise each name recommended by the collegium “more carefully” so that nobody of questionable integrity is appointed. As part of this exercise, the recommendations made for elevations to the Allahabad High Court, Delhi High Court, Punjab and Haryana High Court and Chennai High Court, among others, are being “scrutinised more carefully”.
For kind Information & Necessary Action, this is posted / Messaged or Shared to following:-

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

JAIL 867 Employees-Cum-CJIs, CJs, Lok Ayuktas JUDICIAL LAYOUT’s FRAUD, CONTEMPTUOS JUDGMENT, BANGALORE RAM MOHAN REDDY KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Bench [Read Full Judgments in pdf : PIL WP. 40994/2002 & WP. PIL 7105/2007] Dated 1st June 2016

“Indian DEMOCRACY is in DANGER; when 867 Judges, who have NEVER Learned
to OBEY the LAW Are given THE RIGHT to COMMAND”
To ABORT ANARCHY & Make India Corruption Free:
Prosecute & Jail Corrupt 867 Judges = Activate JUDICIARY

[1] Judicial Layout: High Court tells HBCS to submit plan by June 30 – 2 June 2016 Deccan Herald



……………..NEWS     IN        DETAIL …………

 Judicial Layout 
[1] Judicial Layout: High Court tells HBCS to submit plan by June 30 – 2 June 2016 Deccan Herald

The High Court on Wednesday directed the Karnataka State Judicial Department Employees’ House Building Co-operative Society to prepare a plan for the 194-acre Judicial Layout and submit it to the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) for sanction by June 30.

A division bench comprising Justices Ram Mohan Reddy and H Billappa, while disposing of a 14-year-old PIL, directed the BDA to inspect the layout, conduct a physical verification and submit a report to the state government in accordance with the BDA Act and Town and Country Planning Act, within four months. The bench ordered the state government to act on the report within one month of receiving it.

The Judicial Layout Residents’ and Site Owners’ Association and retired judges had moved the court seeking a CBI probe into the affairs of the HBCS. The petitioners had contended that the office-bearers of the HBCS had sold the land reserved for civic amenities by converting them into residential sites, in violation of the approved layout plan.

The bench directed the BBMP to go ahead with the compendium report on developing the CA sites and complete the process in six months.

It dropped the contempt petition filed against the society for violating the court’s order which had restrained the society from selling any sites in said layout.




Disposing of the oldest case against the mismanagement of the Karnataka State Judicial Department Employees House Building Society (KSJDEHBC), the High Court issued a fresh lease of life to the ‘Judicial Layout.’

On Wednesday, the HC, in its order, said that the society has not obtained necessary sanction and plan approval for its layout. However, it has been granted time till June 30 to make fresh application in this regard. While theBangalore Development Authority (BDA) scrutinises its application and the government takes a decision on it over the next four months, the existing allotment of sites and the houses that have come up on it will not face any action.

The Judicial Layout Residents and Site Holders Association, which filed the petition back in 2002, had made several allegations against the society. The layout has been mired in controversy for the last 15 years.

There were also allegations that land meant for civic amenities was converted into residential sites. 35 per cent of the total land was supposed to be meant for civic amenities. The layout, on 193 acres of land, had in its original plan provided for 11 parks and five civic amenity sites. Large scale violation of the Town and Country Planning Act had been alleged.

But that was only one of the allegations and cases against the society. The biggest allegation was that around 500 sites were illegally allotted, and that allottees include former and current judges who cannot be considered ‘judicial’ or ‘government employees.’ It was also alleged that people who could not have been members were allotted sites, and they then sold land to third parties for real market value. The BBMP has been directed to complete the process of marking the civic sites within six months.

The division bench that cleared the 2002 case on Wednesday also ordered that the society would not sell any more sites till the government decides on granting permission for the layout. However, it dropped the contempt proceedings against the society for violating the court order and selling sites.



Your honour, Your Honour?
The entire judicial employees housing society is a black mark on Judiciary:
18 Nov, 2011 DNA News

Your honour, Your Honour? 18 Nov, 2011 DNA News

Senior Counsel Ravivarma Kumar [In 2015 Karnataka High Court Advocate General ] says, “The entire judicial employees housing society is a black mark on Karnataka judiciary. It is in the interest of the judiciary to publish a white paper giving all the details of site allotments in favour of various members and to publish the same for the benefit of public scrutiny.”

Justice is blind, but judges have site: 82 judges have been allotted plots of land at dirt cheap rates in Karnataka in violation of rules; and in doing so they have also disregarded various judgments of high court and Supreme Court

The Karnataka government’s search for a suitable candidate for the Lokayukta’s post may come to a naught. Documents and sale deeds available with DNA show that at least 82 judges – both sitting and retired – of the Supreme Court and the Karnataka high court have been allotted sites meant for judicial employees. It was exactly for this reason that former Justice Santosh Hegde’s successor, Justice Shivraj V Patil, had to resign as the Lokayukta followed by his deputy, Justice R Gururajan.
The sites in question were allotted to the judges at concessional rates by the Karnataka Judicial Employees House Building Co-operative Society in alleged violation of its own bye-laws.
House building cooperative societies, by definition, are mean
t for the poor and needy. Essentially, for employees who cannot afford to buy land or a house at market rates.
Moreover, such allotments are meant only for employees of the judicial department, who are government servants. Numerous judgments by high court and Supreme Court have held that judges are constitutional authorities and not judicial employees.
For instance, in the case of Union of India vs Sankal Chand Himatlal Sheth and others, on September 19, 1977, a five-judge constitutional Bench observed: “A judge of the high court is not a government servant, but he is the holder of a constitutional office. He is as much part of the State as the executive government… In fact, a High Court Judge has no employer: he occupies a high constitutional office…”
The observation by the Karnataka high court in the case of Narayan Reddy vs State of Karnataka was reported (in ILR 1991 KAR2248) as: “In case of House Building societies formed in respect of employees of any organisation or industry, the membership should be confined only to the employees who may continue as members even after retirement and the Societies should be prohibited from enrolling outsiders as members.”
This indicates that only employees of the judicial department —and not retired or sitting judges — are eligible to become members of the society and be allotted sites at concessional rates.
Justice MF Saldanha, who retired from as a judge of the Karnataka high court, agrees. “You have to be a judicial employee and the second requirement is that you cannot have an allotment in any other society to get a site. A cooperative society is a special privilege. Only people who need houses can avail the sites there. A high court or a Supreme Court judge is a constitutional functionary, not a judicial employee. Hence they cannot avail the sites.”

The list in possession of DNA shows that former chief justice of Chhattisgarh high court (2002-2004), Justice KHN Kuranga, whose name is doing the rounds as the ideal successor to Hegde as Karnataka Lokayukta, is among the 82 judges who were allotted sites in violation of the Society’s bye-laws.
Justice Kuranga was allotted a 9,600-sq ft plot of land under Allalasandra, Chikkabommasandra and Jakkur Plantation villages and Yelahanka hobli in March 2000 for just `2.94 lakh. The current market value is `3.84 crore.
Justice Kuranga says: “Yes I have bought a site. I became a member of Judicial Employees House Building Co-operative Society and then bought the site. How far is it a violation, you will have to ask the society.”
Justice Kuranga may not see it as a violation but Justice SNDhingra, who retired as a judge of the Delhi high court sees it in a different light. He says: “Getting plots from executive is contrary to our judicial ethics. All these favours do not come for free; even a cup of tea is not free these days. So when a favour is taken something is expected in return too.”
The list also includes Justice S R Bannurmath’s name, whom chief minister DV Sadananda Gowda wants to install as the next Lokayukta. Justice Bannurmath was allotted a site in Allalasandra, Chikkabommasandra and Jakkur Plantation villages by the Society as per a sale deed dated September 19, 2001. He bought the 6,600-sq ft plot for `2.02 lakh, but the current market value of the plot is `2.64 crore.
Senior Counsel Ravivarma Kumar says, “The entire judicial employees housing society is a black mark on Karnataka judiciary. It is in the interest of the judiciary to publish a white paper giving all the details of site allotments in favour of various members and to publish the same for the benefit of public scrutiny.”
He adds: “It is very unfortunate that the chief minister of the state has said there is no suitable person to adorn the post of Lokayukta. This layout has become a nightmare for the judiciary. It should be put to an end at the earliest.”
Former chairman of Karnataka Bar Council, Sadashiv Reddy, says, “The Judges have definitely violated the bye-laws. Judicial Employees House Building Co-operative Society is meant only for members of judiciary which includes only the district and the subordinate judges and not the high court judges. Hence there has been a violation.”
However, former Advocate General of Karnataka High Court Uday Holla says the Supreme Court had dismissed a petition challenging allotment of sites to high court judges by such societies. The petitioners had challenged that as per the bye-laws the sitting judges of the high court cannot get sites at the Judicial employees House building Co-operative Society which is meant only for members of the judiciary (judicial employees).
Be that as it may, accepting sites at concessional rates (and, in some cases, accepting multiple sites) should go against the morality of men of justice.
Retired Delhi High Court Justice RS Sodhi says, “This practice should stop. These things are a blot on our democratic set up. Once you, as a Judge, start taking favours, a wrong message goes out to the society which is bad for our institution as a whole.”


DNBAN50032 | 11/18/2011 | Author : Team DNA | WC :980 | City-Bangalore


Site allotment plot thickens:

Judges of SC also ignored society rules Saturday, 19 November 2011
Prominent sitting and retired judges of Supreme Court ignored observations of the apex court and Karnataka high court while being allotted sites
Two former Chief Justices of India, two sitting and seven retired judges of the Supreme Court are among a long list of judges who have availed of plots of land not meant for them. The judges in question did not comply with the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959, and its bye-laws while buying land at concessional rates. Worse, in the process they disregarded observations and judgments made by Supreme Court and Karnataka high court.

DNA is in possession of documents that show that two sitting judges of the Supreme Court, Justices TS Thakur and HL Dattu, were allotted sites after they became members of Karnataka State Judicial Employees House Building Co-operative Society in violation of Clauses 10 (B) and 53 of its bye-laws.

Clause 10 (B) says that only an “employee of the judicial department in Karnataka” who “has put in a minimum continuous or intermittent service of five years in Karnataka” is eligible for allotment of a site.

And Clause 53 says that “the society shall allot sites/flats/houses only to members who are eligible as per bye-law number10.”
However, according to the Constitution, judges do not qualify to be judicial employees.

Article 124 (2) of the Constitution says that Supreme Court judges are appointed by the President by warrant under his hand. High Court judges, according to Article 217, Clause-1, are appointed by the President. This, in effect, means that they cannot be considered employees of any state government’s judicial department.

But in violation of this, Justice Thakur was allotted site number 1,273 in the Judicial Layout in Yelahanka in 1996-97 when he was a sitting judge at the Karnataka High Court. He paid Rs1.54 lakh for a site measuring 5,436 sq ft. The present market value of that site is estimated to be Rs2.17 crore.

And Justice Dattu was allotted site number 2095 in the same layout for which he paid Rs61,598 in 1997-98 (present market value is around Rs1 crore) . He was also a sitting judge of the Karnataka High Court then.

The eight retired judges – Justices GT Nanavati, RV Raveendran, MN Venkatachalaiah (who was Chief Justice of India from February 1993 to October 1994), S Rajendra Babu, P Venkatarama Reddi, former Karnataka Lokayuktas NG Venkatachala and Shivraj V Patil, and K Jagannatha Shetty – also violated the same clauses of the Karnataka Co-operative Society Act, 1959, when they were allotted sites by the society.

According to documents available with DNA, Justice Nanavati (who headed the one-man inquiry commission probing the post-Godhra riots) was allotted site number 2070 for Rs61,598 (present market value is around Rs 1 crore) on October 14, 1999, at Yelahanka Judicial Layout. He was also the Chief Justice of Karnataka from September 1994-March 1995 and Chief Justice of Orissa from January 1994-September 1994.

In accepting the site, Justice Nanavati violated section 10 (b) and 10 (c) of the Society bye-laws which state that members should have spent at least five years working in the Judicial Department, and should have lived in the ‘territorial jurisdiction’ of the society for not less than 10 years. The ‘territorial jurisdiction’, in this society is limited to BDA limits.

Venkatachalaiah, the former Chief Justice of India, was allotted site number 1295 measuring 5,400 sq ft in 1997-98 for Rs1.53 lakh (present market value Rs2.16 crore) and S Rajendra Babu who served as a CJI from May to June 2004, was allotted site number 1389 measuring 9,605 sq ft in 1994-95 for Rs4.44 lakh (present market value Rs3.84 crore) when he was a judge at the High Court of Karnataka.

The other four retired judges, according to the documents, have also violated the mentioned Act and are not in compliance with the Supreme Court and High Court observations.

Justice Venkatachaliah told DNA: “Some time in 1987 a representation was made to the state government that judges have to become members of the society. After which a 3-member committee was constituted for this. The then chief minister has sanctioned the sites for Judges. Pursuant to it, the bye-laws were amended. In 1997, when I was high court Judge, I was allotted a 60×90 plot.”

Retired Delhi High Court Justice SN Dhingra put it bluntly: “Getting plots from executive is contrary to our judicial ethics. All these favours do not come for free; even a cup of tea is not free these days. So when a favour is taken something is expected in return too.”


Crimes committed by 120 High Court & Supreme Court Judges for a Plot of Land:-

01. Who will Guard The Guardians?

“It is Most unfortunate that Judicial Emp. HBCS which should have been model to other Housing Societies, has itself become the Leading Law breaker without the least fear or Care for Law; Propriety or Public Interest. It has indulged in acts of Favor, Cronyism and capricious indifference to Law at Will, obiously under the hubris that having S.C & H.C. Judges as its Members & beneficiaries will ensure immunity to all its Illegal acts.

What is more disquieting is the Rediness with which sitting S.C & H.C Judges who are not “Employees” under any Government but are Constitutional functionaries, should have eagerly become members of Employees HBCS and obtained sites. Having registered office in Karnataka high Court building itself invoking “Awe & Terror in the Minds of various Government Agencies who have to take action against the Society as per law, do not create an atmosphere of Fairplay, Straightforwardness or Impartial dispensation of JUSTICE”

The Investigations reveal that this Society’s Illegal activities have Topped list of Cheating & Frauds in this Country, by the way Society has violated Gravest-of Grave Laws. I feel pity to Express, JUDICIAL LAY-OUT, has become MOTHER of ALL ILLEGAL ACTIVITIES. Committee has received Complaints that stating that other Societies have also indulged in Similar illegal Activities.

Therefore to take stringent Action against illegal activities of Karnataka state Judicial department Employees’ House Building Co-operative Housing Society, it is Recommended to supersede the Society forthwith & to initiate Criminal prosecution against persons who are responsible for for such nefarious Activities.

Courtesy:- Joint Legislative Committe,
[Investigation Committee of Identifying Government Land Grabbing  in Bangalore Urban & Bangalore Rural Districts]

02. Karnatka High Court Searching for Titles to “120 S.C. & H.C. Judges Sale Deeds, Judicial Layout ownership:

“Violation of Laws & Govt. Directions in forming Judicial Layout; Including violation/Contempt of Judgments, is done by securing Judgments from Judges/Bneficiary/Court. Soceity has never said Layout is Approved by BDA”. The President of the Soceity to Karnataka HIgh Court in WP. PIL 40994/2002 . . . [Read More]

03. Three S.C & H.C Judge-Beneficiaries PIL 7105/2007 in H.C; insisting for C.B.I Investigations
against Employees HBCS, at para 30A & B:-

“JUDICIAL Layout is mired in Controversy & has become a Cess-pool of SCANDALs. It has become Talk-of-Town. It is submitted there are Too-many-Skeletons in the Closet … “S.C & H.C. Judges are confronted by members of Public with Questions; for which JUDGEs have No-Answers . . The Question normally asked is “Whether JUDICIAL Layout is Above Law?”. . . [Read More]

120 High Court & Supreme Court Judges Site Details = Judicial Layout 1st Phase 84 Judges +
Others missing from ATR list 23 + Judicial Layout 2nd Phase 13 Judges

ATR.Judicial Layout – 1st Phase: 84 High Court & Supreme Court Judges Site Details
Other High Court & Supreme Court Judges Site Details not included in Judicial Layout – 1st Phase, which are missing in ATR report
judicial layout phase 2; Talgatpura on Kanakpura Road in 44 Acres: 13 High Court & Supreme Court Judges Site Details
ATR.Judicial Layout – 1st Phase: 84 High Court & Supreme Court Judges Site Details
Sl.No. SLF.No. SDL.No. Site No. Dimension Name Remarks Ref No.
11 852 1793 1381 80X
Justice N.Venkatachala Suprem court 162
12 1918 1761 1389 80X120 Justice S. Rajendra Babu Suprem court 2
13 1960 1771 1399 80X120 Justice S.Shivaraj Patil Suprem court 3
21 2497 1847 1392 80X120 Justice R.V. Ravindran Suprem court 106
29 821 1779 1413 60X90 Justice K.Jagannatha Shetty Suprem court 119
53 61 1861 1295 60X90 Justice M.N.Venkatachalaiah Suprem court 228
55 124/A 1948 1501 60X90 Justice Balakrishna Herade Suprem court
73 1000 861 50X80 Justice S.Mohan Suprem court 276
81 1875 2070 40X60 Justice G.T.Nanavathi Suprem court 296
1 1731 1773 1383 80X120 Justice P.K. Shamasundar High Court 81
2 1385 1036 1384 80X120 Justice D.P. Hiremath High Court 76
3 1518 1082 1387 80X120 justice M.M.Mirde Alias. Abdul Majid High Court Chief Justice
4 1172 891 1401 80X120 Justice A.B. Murgod High Court
5 355 917 1403 80X120 Justice R.G. Desai High Court 254
6 830 1803 1407 80X120 Justice P.A. Kulakarni High Court 163
7 897 640 1415 80X120 Justice P.Jagannath Hege High Court 58
8 598 41 1416 80X120 Justice M.B. Vishwanath High Court 101
9 1471 1072 1419 80X120 Justice M.P. Chinnappa High Court 2
10 823 1792 1421 80X120 Justice M.S.Patil High Court 57
14 849 1747 1408 80X120 Justice D.R. Vittal Rao High Court 184
15 2404 1807 1417 80X120 Justice C.Shivappa High Court 58
16 844 1857 1418 80X120 Justice V.S.Malimath High Court 190
17 2342 1797 1382 80X120 Justice K.Shivashankar Bhat High Court 81
18 2495 1851 1385 80X120 Justice A.J. Sadashiva High Court 179
19 2341 1791 1388 80X120 Justice S.A. Hakeem High Court 58
20 1835 1810 1390 80X120 Justice K.A. Swamy High Court 114
22 2494 1809 1392 80X120 Justice D.M. Chandrashekar High Court 89
23 2514 1918 1394 80X120 Justice Vishwanatha Shetty High Court
24 1959 1769 1395 80X120 Justice Kedambadi Jagannat Shetty High Court 119
25 841 1774 1402 80X120 Justice K.S.Puttaswamy High Court 140
26 2503 1919 1402 80X120 Justice K.H.N.Kuranga High Court 312
27 1611 1802 1411 60X90 Justice H.G.Balakrishna High Court 386
28 825 1775 1412 60X90 Justice Doddakalegowda (Smt. Yeshodamma) High Court 76
30 2405 1777 1414 60X90 Justice L.Srinivasa Reddy High Court 167
31 1878 1806 1420 60X90 Justice G.P.Shivaprakash High Court 2
32 845 1788 1422 60X90 Justice  M.Ramajois High Court 162
33 1338 1789 1232 60X90 Justice Justice S.R.Venkateshmurthy High Court 279
34 2496 1830 1267 60X90 Justice R.Ramakrishna High Court 153
35 1418 1081 1288 60X90 Justice B.Padmaraj High Court 1
36 1477 1805 1356 60X90 Justice N.D.Venkatesh  High Court 73
37 217 1496 1470 60X90 Justice R.G.Vidyanathan High Court 81
38 2038 1780 1471 60X90 Justice S. Venkataraman High Court
39 1652 1243 1472 60X90 High Court 6
40 1579 1353 1473 60X90 Justice Manjula Challur High Court 2
41 1577 1141 1474 60X90 Justice K.Bhakthavatsalam High Court 33
42 1088 934 1475 60X90 Justice B.M.Mallikarjuna High Court 225
43 1400 1067 1476 60X90 Justice H.N.Narayana High Court 69
44 914 772 1480 60X90 Justice Md. Anwar High Court 7
45 2358 1893 859/A 60X90 Justice B.K.Somashekar High Court
46 1188 1032 1269 60X90 Justice B.K.Sanglad High Court 162
47 2504 1836 1266 60X90 Justice G.C. Bharuka High Court 161
48 2498 1852 1268 60X90 Justice V.P.Mohan Kumar High Court 179
49 2500 1854 1270 60X90 Justice P.Krishnamurthy High Court 182
50 2499 1839 1271 60X90 Justice Kumara Raja Rathnam High Court 182
51 2501 1840 1272 60X90 Justice J.Eshwara Prasad High Court 162
52 2501 1837 1273 60X90 Justice T.S Thakur High Court 162
54 828 1595 1453 60X90 Justice A.K.Laksheshwara High Court 67
56 2512 1943 1253 60X90 Justice Y.Bhaskar Rao High Court 300
57 2929 1992 1264 60X90 Justice V.Gopala Gowda High Court 345
58 2513 1920 2118 60X90 Justice V.K.Singal High Court 279
59 257/A 2024 859/C 60X90 Justice S.R.Nayak High Court
60 2511 1877 859/D 60X90 Justice H.L.Dattu High Court 225
61 2518 1916 2118/A 60X90 Justice S.R.Bannurmath High Court 400
62 3000 2034 2118/B 60X90 Justice K.L.Manjunath High Court
63 2981 2030 2118/C 60X90 Justice A.V.Srinivasareddy High Court
64 1578 1245 1052 50X80 Justice V.G.Sabahit High Court 39
65 819 591 1337 50X80 Justice S.B.Majage High Court 13
66 899 1109 1342 50X80 Justice G.Patri Basavanagowda High Court 400
67 820 1153 1886 50X80 Justice G.N.Sabahit (Janaki) High Court 106
68 2500 1872 981/B 50X80 Justice Hulvadi G.Ramesh High Court 212
69 1924 1743 981/D 50X80 Justice K.Ramanna High Court 264
70 813 590 1296/8 50X80 Justice K.Ramachandraiah High Court
71 2466 1768 863 50X80 Justice B.N.Krishna High Court 267
72 1863 1296/11 50X80 Justice Chandrashekaraiah High Court 201
74 1004 862 50X80 Justice N.Y.Hanumanthappa High Court 257
75 1725 864 50X80 Justice S.R. Rajashekara Murthy High Court 257
76 1801 858 50X80 Justice M.Ramakrishna High Court
77 27 362/2 50X80 Justice Chidananda Ullal High Court
78 623 1922 1439 40X60 Justice C.N.Ashwathanarayana Rao High Court
79 115/A 1939 239/15 40X60 Justice M.S.Nesargi High Court
80 1917 2068 40X60 Justice T.J.Chouta High Court
82 1956 2094 40X60 Justice R.V.Vasanthkumar High Court 228
83 2025 2093 40X60 Justice R.Gururajan High Court 407
84 1 1 40X60 Justice P.V.Reddy High Court 383
Other High Court & Supreme Court Judges Site Details not included in Judicial Layout – 1st Phase, which are missing in ATR report; are as follows
Sl.No. SLF.No. SDL.No. Site No. Dimension Name Remarks Ref No.
1 1064 80×50 D.Souza Robinson  Present Karnataka Legislature Secretary 146
2 1406 121×89 Justice B.M. Chandrashekariah [HC Judge]   58
3 1425 40×60 Basavaraj K.N. Patil    Elevated, HC Judge In 1994 from BDA Advocate, as he conspired with Society 5
4 384 40×60 R.Venkatesh  HC Judge 5
5 1281 60×90 H.C. Puttaswamy  HC Judge 38
6 1318 90×50 V.G.Mahajan  HC Judge 72
7 1897 40×60 Gundappa Dasai  HC Judge 119
8 1452 60×90 K. Sreedhar Rao HC Judge
9 1416 120×80 M.B. Viswanath HC Judge 101
10 1271 60×90 Kumar Rajaratnam Chief Justice of Jharkhand 353
11 2013/B 50×40 Aravind S. Pachhapure  [(Vigilance)+Spl Judge to hear TN CM Jaya Corroption Case 446
12 2102 40×60 B.S.SrinivasaRao HC Judge 204
13 1820 30×50 S.Rajendra Prasad  HC Judge 205
14 1827 30×50 Puttaswamy HC Judge 233
15 1149 60×40 Kali Mahamed Mujeebullah Judge / HC Registrar 244
16 1743 60×40 Ravi B. Naik  HC Judge 245
17 981/4 100×20 R.G.Desai HC Judge 254
18 2098 40×60 B.Srinivas Rao  HC Judge 257
19 579 80×40 Roopa R. Sabhahit HC Judges’ Daughter/wife 321
20 68 60×40 D.G. Chinnappa HC Judge 337
21 528 30×40 S. Prabhakara Jois Bihar Governor, RamaJois Relative 348
23 1478 60×90 T.Abdual Mujeeb HC Registrar + Judge 184
Judicial Layout Phase 2; Talgatpura on Kanakpura Road in 44 Acres: 13 High Court & Supreme Court Judges Site Details
Sl.No. SLF.No. SDL.No. Site No. Dimension Name Remarks Ref No.
1 222 80×50 Justice Kumar.N., High Court Sitting Judge 01
2 221 80×50 V.Jagannathan High Court Sitting Judge 02
3 203 80×50 Justice Ashok B.Hinchigeri High Court Sitting Judge 03
4 205 80×50 Justice Mohan Shanthana Goudar, High Court Sitting Judge 03
5 201 80×50 Justice Anand Byrareddy, High Court Sitting Judge 03
6 193 80×50 Justice Abdul Nazeer High Court Sitting Judge 03
7 202 80×50 Justice Ajit J. Gunjal High Court Sitting Judge 04
8 176 80×50 Kumara Swamy C.R High Court Sitting Judge 08
9 194 80×50 Ajit .C.Kabbin High Court Sitting Judge 08
10 220 80×50 Justice Patil Nananath High Court Sitting Judge 04
11 213 80×50 Siddappa.K.B High Court Judge 02
12 70 80×50 Farooq A.M. HC Judge 08
13 204 80×50 Nagmohandas H.N 04
Chief Justice of India Mr. Justice A.M. Ahmedi, was allotted with a site no. 2069; which he got it registered in the name of A.R. Rasheea Khatoon , who is learnt to be Justice Ahmedi’s married daughter.
This site was allotted by the society in lieu of the then Chief Justice Mr. Ahmedi had agreed to dismiss the S.L.P.’s arising of KAR High Court Judgment [where in 28 sitting Judges of High Court were respondents]. 
Having the dismissed the S.L.P.’s this site came to be allotted.

Index to Annexures in Petition


The Videos:

JUDICIAL Employees HBCS, Karnataka High Court; ILLEGALLY developed & Judicial Layout in Criminal Contempt of 27 Judgments, as filed by JUDICIAL Employees HBCS in WP PIL 40994/2002, WP. PIL 7105/2007 
Judicial Layout Illegalities & Judge’s In-Eligibility & Criminal Culpability makes Karnataka Lokayukta Shivaraj Patil resign“ Why NOT SCI CJI H.L. Dattu ,Thakur & Gopal Gowda


  1. News X TV Video: “Judicial Layout Illegalities & Judge’s In-Eligibility & Criminal Culpability makes Karnataka Lokayukta Shivaraj Patil resign“ Why NOT CJI Dattu ,Thakur & Gopal Gowda? 
  2. TV9 – Lokayukta Shivraj Patil Quits Over  Housing Plot Row Judicial Layout! Why Not CJI Dattu & Thakur? 
  3. Conspiracy of Judiciary & Ministers: Digvijay Mote to NDTV – Video; at Mote’s Office
  4. Karnataka Joint Legislature Committee on Land Grabbing in Bangalre, Chairman Mr. A.T.Ramaswamy Judicial Layout Visit.[ Video 6] 
  5. “JUDGES R Corupt” “No One Dares To Complain Against:-
    Lok Ayukta Santhosh Hegde.TV9
  6. Walk The Talk with Justice Santosh Hegde[ Video
  7.  “Rampant Corruption in Judiciary & Lok Ayukta”
    Digvijay Mote.adrsing.CJI .vidhana Soudha, Blore precincts. .8mins 
  8. Digvijay Mote, Editor ; Interview with Justice N. Santosh Hegde –
    [ 01]
    [ 02 ]
    [ 03 ]
    [ 04
  10. Mr.Mote , Editor ; Interview in KANNADA Language with “A.T. Ramaswamy, Chairman, Karnataka Joint Legislature Committee On Land Grabbing of Lands in Bangalore”
    26 Dec 2006.
    [ Part-01]
    [Part – 02 Video ]
    [ Part-03
  11. Co-Op Minister:Judicial Layout Bangalore, Superseded [ Video
  12. Karnataka Joint Legislature Committee on Land Grabbing in Bangalre, Chairman Mr. AT Ramaswamy Last Press Conference 29 Dec 2007[ Video]
  13. Karnataka Joint Legislature Committee on Land Grabbing in Bangalre, Chairman Mr. A.T.Ramaswamy Judicial Layout Visit.8 [Video ]
  14. Judicial Layout, Bangalore = Illegal Layout; being REGULARIZED by BBMP Commissioner , on Karnataka HC DB directions in WP 40994/2002 Pt. 1.  [ Video
  15. Legal Eagle: Advocate S. Vasudev; JUDGES should surrender Sites.
    [ Video ].
  16. Karnataka High Court P.I.L Advocate Nagraj .Y.N. Judicial Layout, Bangalore = Illegal Layout [Video ]
  17. News X TV Video: “Judicial Layout Illegalities & Judge’s In-Eligibility & Criminal Culpability makes Karnataka Lokayukta Shivaraj Patil resign
  18. Corrupt S.C. Judge R.V.Raveendran At-Last Opts-Out of AMBANI GAS WAR[ Video ]
  19. Forefeit Judicial Layout: AT Ramaswamy Press Conference 29 Dec 2007
      1. [ 01 ]   [ 02 ]   [ 03 ].

        Related Videos

        1. Justice D.V. Shylendra Kumar made-it-become-true . .Vande Mataram . . Indian National Song. [ %5D
        2. News X TV Video: “Judicial Layout Illegalities & Judge’s In-Eligibility & Criminal Culpability makes Karnataka Lokayukta Shivaraj Patil resign” [ ]
        3. Need clean men in black robes: CJI[ Video] =
        4. NewsX Video: Indian judiciary splits wide open . =
        5. Loksabha Debating on “Corruption in Indian Judiciary” [ video ]
        6.  Judges to blame for fallen image: Ex-CJI[ Video ] .Former CJI J.S. Verma; on judicial corruption[ Video] =
        7. Judgments-JUSTICE-for-Sale. Punjab Vigilance . .CJ:T.S. Thakur
          …  [ Video]. =
        8. Justice Bhagwati on judicial corruption and appointment of judges
          [ Video ] . =
        9. Judges Caught Cheating in Law Exam in India [ Video ] [ English & Telugu Video ].
        10. CJI Justice4Sale= Worst Chief Justice of India . Master of Corrupt Judges: KGB [ video ] =
        11. Mote to CJI Balakrishna [ 01 ] [ 02 ]=
        12. CJI KGB  Vs CJ:- Corrupt CJI Safe Guards Minister Raja . . hid Raja facts: SC judge.
          [ Video ] =
          …………………………. Judicial Layout


Affidavit of Secretary to Government of Karnataka,
Urban Development Department, Bangalore


High Court coercing B.D.A & Govt for Compromise = Bangalore into SLUM !
2005 Bangalore SLUM = Government files Affidavit: 867 Judges’ Lay-out not Approved by  BDA & is Illegal. 156 Acres Acquired by Society. 40 Acres by Land-Grabbing.
2004: Affidavit of 867 Judges Society in present Case:  B.D.A. Never Approved Lay-out.
1999: 193 Acres Lay-out NOT Approved B.D.A reply to Lok Ayukta
1995  Judgment: 28 Sitting Judges 193 Acres Lay-out Approved :  FRAUD Judgment
1994 FRAUD Judgment:   867  JUDGES’ Judgment:
Lay-out Approved by B.D.A+ Relinquished CA sites of 96 Acres !
All Fraud!
Conspiracies Government not pleading to re-open all cases & Judgments secured by 867 JUDGES by FRAUD. Since 15 years = 867 Judges’ Conspiracy with CMs.
Bangalore Infrastructure Collapsed Judges Role Models = 3,20,000 Acres = SLUM



W.P.NO. 40994 OF 2002 (LB-PIL)


Judicial Layout Residents and Site
Holders Association (Regd.)
By Board of Directors.                          : Petitioners


Bangalore Development Authority
and Others                                               : Respondents.


  1.       It is submitted that in obedience to the directions of this Hon’ble Court, this respondent got a survey of the lands conducted by the Revenue Department and also enquired in to this matter with the relevant authorities and perused the records produced. It is found certain inconsistency in the layout of the 4th respondent –society as narrated hereinafter:-
  2.        At the outset, it is respectfully submitted that the land for the purpose of formation of a layout of the members of the 4th respondent – society was acquired to an extent of 156 acres 26 guntas in various Sy. Nos. of Allalasandra, Jakkur, Chikkabommasandra Villages vide notification No. RD 156 AQB 84, date: 24-1-1989. copies of the 4(1) and 6(1) Notifications are herewith produced and marked as ANNEXURES R1 and R2 respectively. This acquired land was handed over to the 4th respondent – society by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, vide his O.M. Date: 13-11-1992 and 2-9-1994. copies of the said O.Ms. are produced and marked as ANNEXURES R3 and R4 respectively.
  3. But, after the survey was conducted afresh, now it has revealed that the land in possession of the said society is to an extent of 190 acres 07 ¼ Guntas. This survey further reveals that the society is in occupation of 33 acres 21 guntas of land, which is in excess of the area actually acquired and handed over in favour of the society by the Government. Further probe in the matter has revealed that R.T.C. of this excess land stands in the name of 21 original land owners. There are no records in the Revenue Department to show now the lands have come in to the possession of the 4th respondent – society. It is also relevant to mention that provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act prohibits the societies to purchase and hold agricultural lands without obtaining permission, and as such, the society has to explain how they have one in to possession of this excess land, because, till this date, no such permissions have been taken. It is also relevant to mention that these excess lands continue to be agricultural lands in the records even to-day. Under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, agricultural lands cannot be utilized for any other purpose unless converted for that purpose. As per the available records, no such permission has been given under the Land Revenue Act. Hence, as per the available records, the possession and utilization of these 33 acres 21 guntas of land by the society for the residential purpose is unauthorized and illegal.
  4.     It is respectfully submitted that the Bangalore Development Authority, is the planning Authority for the area in which these lands are situated and as per section 17 of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, it is only the planning Authority which is competent to approve the sub-division of lands. Therefore, approval of a layout can be done only by the planning Authority. The Bangalore Development Authority has categorically stated that no approval has been given by them for this layout of the 4th respondent society.
  5.        It is further submitted that the C.M.C. Yelahanka, which is a urban local body encompassing the said layout has also stated that they have not approved this layout plan and even otherwise, the C.M.C. is not competent under law to approve this layout plan. It has come to light that there is one plan which has been attached with a letter submitted by the secretary of the society to the C.M.C. Date: 18-5-2002. to which an un-registered relinquishment deed and a layout plan is enclosed, which is herewith produced and marked as ANNEXURES R5 to R7. This layout plan contains an endorsement by the then chief officer of the Municipality to the effect that “plan is approved as per the council resolution No. 24, Date: 22-5-1996. It would be relevant to point out at this place itself that the layout plan is not signed by any office bearer of the 4th respondent –society and the relinquishment deed is also not signed by the C.M.C. and is not registered.
  6.    It is respectfully submitted that the resolution No. 24, Date: 22-5-1996, which is herewith produced and marked as ANNEXURE R8, referred to above in the said endorsement is only with regard to collection of development charges and opening of kathas and giving building permissions as per circular of the Directorate of Municipal Administration Date: 17-4-1990 which permits the local body to collect the development charges for the formation of the entire layout and it is not regarding approval of the layout. No documents regarding the approval of the layout plan are available in any of the records of the C.M.C., Yelahanka Under these circumstances, it is doubtful as to the purported endorsement of the then Chief Officer and it is suspected that this document could have been fabricated.
  7.     It is further submitted that as could be seen from the said resolution, the society had already developed the layout by forming roads, drains, underground drainage, electrification etc. Therefore, the question of approval of the layout in 1996 does not arise.
  8. It is submitted that Annexure to the writ petition makes it amply clear that the 4th respondent society itself has Acknowledged in September, 2002 that legally the layout cannot be approved by the C.M.C. and it has to be got approved by the Bangalore Development Authority. Thus, even by September, 2002, the layout was an un-approved, un-authorised layout.
  9. It is respectfully submitted that the society had again submitted an application for opining of kathas for 35 acres ¼ guntas, for which the then Town Municipal Council vide resolution No. 6 Date: 11-12-1996 resolved to open the kathas for the additional area by collecting development charges at Rs. 25/- per sq. mtr. For the entire area and further resolved ant society should hand over all the public places.
  10. It is further submitted that the society has submitted a relinquishment deed for C.A. sites and parks enclosing a layout map of 193 acres 2 ¼ guntas Date: 18-5-2002, which is unsigned and un-registered. Since the layout plan has not been sanctioned by the competent authority, the exact location of civic amenities sites, parks and playgrounds etc., are not known to the C.M.C., Yelahanka. The layout plan attached to the relinquishment deed not bear signature of any of the office bearers of the society. It is also relevant to note that the entire extent of land shown in the layout plan is not in the possession of the society, particularly the lands shown as C.A. sites.
  11.     It is respectfully submitted that on verification it is found that there is a letter issued by the commissioner, C.M.C., Yelahanka, on 23-1-2003 to the society stating that as reported by the Town planning Officer all the civic amenities sited, parks, playgrounds, drains, water supply have been banded over to the CMC and the society has been asked to pay the balance of the development charges. But, as seen from the note sheet of the file maintained by the CMC, the Town Planning Officer has recorded that he along with Mr. Murthurayappa, Revenue Inspector has inspected the lands and that the civic amenities sites, parks, roads etc. have been identified in the layout plan approved by the Chief Officer, Yelahanka, Date: 31-5-1996 are all available on site. This fact was placed for the perusal of the commissioner and the commissioner has not taken further action on this. But, a letter has been issued on 21-3-2003 as stated above. There is no mention in the records or on file how this letter came to be issued. The file was next seen by the next commissioner on 12-9-2003 who has again asked the Town Planning Officer to verify and locate park and open space. Copy of the note sheet is herewith produced and marked as ANNEXURE R9. There are no records to show that parks, C.A. sites and other civic amenities have been handed over actually to the C.M.C. since C.A. sites have not been handed over nor the actual location of these sites known to the CMC, the question of protecting the CA sites does not arise. It is respectfully submitted that legally the C.A. sites, parks and open spaces have to be handed over to B.D.A. and not to the C.M.C., Yelahanka. As stated above, it the 4th respondent society even till September, 2002 has not got the layout plan approved, the question of relinquishment of C.A. sites and parks does not arise.
  12.     It is respectfully submitted that on comparison of the layout plan submitted by the society along with their relinquishment deed and the survey map now prepared by the Revenue Department, which is herewith produced and marked as ANNEXURE R10 brings out a strange situation that the society has shown some of the C.A. sites, parks and open site on the private lands which are not owned by them, and are not in their possession. They have gone to the extent of showing some third party lands as park belonging to their layout, as could be seen from the two maps. As a matter of fact, a portion of Sy. No. 95/2 of Allalasandra village measuring 1.26 guntas which is shown as C.A. site in the layout plan has recently been converted for non-agricultural purpose in favour of original owner by the Deputy Commissioner by his order Date: 14-10-2003. Therefore, it goes to show that the society is not in possession of these lands and the original land owners are in possession of these lands.
  13.     It is respectfully submitted that as per the Zonal Regulations of the B.D.A. under the KTCP Act prevailing in the Bangalore Metropolitan Area, the maximum permissible sital area for residential purpose is 50%and area to be reserved for park and C.A. sites is 15 + 10% and the remaining for roads and other purposes. As seen from the layout map available in the records, the sital area works out to 64.73% as against permissible limit of 50% and parks and open space is only 5% against minimum of 25%. The details worked out and the measurement of the land use are herewith produced and marked asANNEXURE R11. The layout plan shows 2268 sites. Such a large number of sites could be shown only by using the land required to be reserved for park and civic amenities for residential purposes.
Dated    : 03-06-2005.



WRIT  PETITION  NO. 40994   OF  2002 (LB-PIL )



Judicial Layout Residents and Site
Holders Association (Regd..)
By Board of Directors.                                                                                                                         PETITIONERS/S


Bangalore Development Authority
and Others                                                                                                                                           RESPONDENTS




                I, P. Ravi Kumar, aged about 43 years, Son of P. Gopala Reddy do hereby solemnly affirm and state as follows:-

  1. I am working as Secretary to Government of Karnataka, Urban Development Department, Bangalore.

I have read the Petition and Affidavit filed by the Petitioner and I have acquainted myself with the facts of the case from the records made available to me. I am authorized to swear to this Affidavit.

  1.     The Statement made in paragraphs 1 to 13 of the Report accompanying this Affidavit are based on the information and records made available to me and I believe them to be true.
  2. I state the Exhibits 1 to 11 produced along with the report are true copies of the originals.


Dated    : 3rd June 2005.


Supreme Court:  JUDGES are Not  Employees or Peons

FNJPC  = ALL JUDGES; including LOWEST-of-Low , R Constitutional Functionaries like Ministers etc.,

15. We want to impress upon the Government that the debilitating effects of inadequate remuneration of the judges in the long run can only lead to worsening morale and eroding commitment to service. It is the universal experience that men and women who feel that they are underpaid for the demanding work they do, would generally suffer from low morale and declining sense of commitment to service. This is, indeed, happening in many State Judiciaries. The losers are, however, not the judges in the ultimate analysis, rather it is the public. The public have to go before courts for critical decisions in cases affecting law and order, cases that affect their civil and legal rights, cases involving their lives and liberties and cases relating to their welfare and their children’s welfare, etc.. We can ill-afford to entrust such cases in the hands of dissatisfied judges.
Click Here 15

16. “The laborer is worthy of his hire; and if you do not give him the wages of honesty, it is to be apprehended the wages of corruption may, in process of time, come to be sought.”
Click Here 16
19. We are only trying to set the salary at a level that allows aspirants with modest backgrounds, and with family responsibilities, to accept the challenge of judicial service and a level that does not progressively penalize those dedicated individuals who choose to serve. We are trying to be fair to those who are making sacrifices – in terms of loneliness and general withdrawal from community affairs – to serve the public.
Click Here 19

We R Employees: Adamantly admit Chief Justices of India +
Supreme Court Judges
+ Lok Ayuktas + High Court Chief Justices +
Court Judges 867 JUDGES  =
Are in Contempt Dock for various Crimes done = Bangalore SLUM.

But; Alas, JUDGES’ inherent Lust, Corrupt Intents with Un-bridled Constitutional Privileges, Judges are ready to barter Courts & Judgments; for any Illegal Profits including Plots / Sites meant for “Karnataka State Employees”.


How Karnataka Upa lokayukta  HUSHED-Up SCAM;
While Hunting Down Executive & Legislature 


Under Drafting:-
Index To “COMPT/UPLOK/BCD-64/99-2000 ;Typed Documents”

[1] Latest Case Status / Status of the complaint : COMPT/UPLOK/BCD/64/1999
Regn. date:4/12/1999 “SUO-MOTU INVESTIGATION,Closed 13/3/2002
[2] Latest Case Status / Status of the complaint : COMPT/UPLOK/BCD/125/2000
Regn. date:7/8/2000. Latest stage-Closed 13/3/2002.
Enquiry officer-ARE-2.

  1. 01.“Part-1.4pgs. of 90 pgs-LayOutPlan Copying” Compt/uplok/BCD/-64/99-2000/164
  2. 02.File Notings Typed  [Order Sheet]  90 pgs. Up-Lokayukta BCD 64 1999 .doc being corected as on 1 July.13
  3. 03-A. Interim Stay Order in UpLok/BCD/64 of Upa Lokayukta Justice G.P.Shivaprakash. 18 Jan,2001
  4. 03-B. UpLok.Interim-Order. Restraining Sites registration.18Jan,2001
  5. Up-Lok Directn :Answers to be elicited in respect of “Selling off Road to Lokayukta Y.Bhaskar Rao; the then Chief Justice of Karnataka High Court- 12 July 2000”
  6. 04. CJ M.Ramkrishna Letter to Upa Lok 7, Mar, 2001; CJ & CM Conspiracies
    Mr. JUSTICE M. RAMAKRISHNA                                Res: No. 3792, Ist Floor,

    CHIEF JUSTICE [ Rtd]                                7th Main, HAL IInd Stage,
                                                           BANGALORE – 560 038.

                                                                                                      Ph. : 5250475       


    Date: 7-3-2001

    My dear Justice Shiva Prakash,

                         Sub: Registration of Document in respect of Site No. 858 – The Karnataka State Judicial Officers House Building Co-op. Society Ltd., Jakkur, Bangalore.

                        Ref: Your Letter No. Compt Upa Lokayukta BCD.64/99-2000 ARE-2 Dt. 18-1-2001.

                – – – Letter ; means  Upa Lokayukta Stay of Sites Registration =

    1. 03-A. Interim Stay Order in UpLok/BCD/64 of Upa Lokayukta Justice G.P.Shivaprakash. 18 Jan,2001

    – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –     

    I write to inform you that during my service as Judge of the Karnataka High Court at Bangalore, on 4-1-1993, a site was allotted to me in the above layout measuring 80’  x  120’ . I had paid part of the value of the site at that time. As you are aware I was elevated and posted as the Chief Justice of Jammu and Kashmir where I assumed charge as such on the 26th October, 1994.

    As you are also aware that no certain prescribed procedure had been adopted for allotment of sites in the above layout for Hon’ble Judges and other staff members of the Judiciary. However having paid the initial amount, I left Bangalore and began to serve in  Jammu and Kashmir High Court. From there I was shifted to Gauhati High Court, Assam, and on retirement  on the 14th april 1998 when I came back to Bangalore, to my surprise I was informed by Mr. Shivalingaiah, the President of the Society that on account of certain orders of injunction of certain civil court, the registration of my site was postponed despite the fact that I paid the entire amount  of Rs. 4,34,650/-. including registration charges and stamp duty as per law.

    Eversince then, the authorities of the Society had been dodging me to register the document of my site. However on persuasion the authorities have passed formal orders of allotment of site bearing 858 in the above layout on 3-1-2001 and an endorsement has been given to me. Therein it is indicated that the entire amount of site value of Rs. 4,34,650/- had been paid, besides indicating that this is as per the proceedings of 4-1-1993. For ready reference, I am enclosing herewith the copy of the allotment letter.

    ……..    Page 2 …….

    A few days earlier one Sri Ramakrishna an employee of the Society informed me on the phone that the document for purpose of registration of the above site had been prepared and submitted to the Sub Registrar, yelahanka for registration. He however informed me that there appeared to be Stay Order granted by Lokayukta. To ascertain the correctness of the above facts, I personally visited the Sub registrar concerned who on enquiry disclosed me that  there had been a general Stay order granted by you on 18th of January 2001. Hence this representation.

    My Dear Brother, you are aware with what amount of difficulty we were able to persuade the then Chief Minister of Karnataka to hand over possession of the land to the Office bearers of the above society with the special efforts of Mr. Justice Mohan, the then Chief Justice. You are also aware that at that point of time none of us was able to pay entire value of the site in a lump sum. Hence there had been some delay in that behalf. However , may I now request you to grant exemption from your Stay Order so as to enable the Sub Registrar to register the Document of the site referred to above and oblige. This does not mean that I am coming in the way of your investigation of the Complaint registered, in accordance with law.

           Thanking you,

    Yours sincerely,

    ….. Signed…

    1. Ramakrishna

    Copy to the Sub-Registrar, Bangalore.

    for needful action.



    On the front page it is hand written as follow:

    Sri R. Devdas, Advocate s/o Hon’ble Justice ramkrishna presented this letter. G.P .. 7/3 .. ARE-2

    The copy of allotment letter annexed by Hon’ble Justice is in Kannada at pages 247 & 248..

    [ Our Note: these four  pages appear as page Nos. 246 to 249 of certified copies supplied to us on 19/11/12.  ]

  7. 14.3. 2001:To-Register-Sites:MODIFIED INTERIM ORDER- Approved-Plan-Enclosed
  8. 05. Ltr-To-Society:  Investigation dis-continued. 14/ Mar/2002. -.Upa-Lok.BCD-64/99-00.
  9. List of Typed Documents from files of “COMPT/UPLOK/BCD-64/99-2000 “

01.“Part-I.Pgs4:Of 90 Pages-LayOutPlan Copying” Compt/uplok/BCD/-64/99-2000/164

“Part-1.4pgs. of 90 pgs-LayOutPlan Copying” Compt/uplok/BCD/-64/99-2000/164

Part-I [4pages] of Two Parts 90 pgs: compt/uplok/BCD/-64/99-2000

Page: 00  of 94 pages                                  ARE-2


Round Seal of Government of Karnataka




Office of Karnataka Lokayukta

Multi Storey Building, Doctor B.R. Ambedkar Road, Bangalore-1



30/11/09  06-02-01





SP lok


No Dairy …..


Page No: 01


Pet. No. Compt/Uplok/BCD-64/99-2000   Date of Registration: 17.06.99

  1. Name of the Patitioner: Suo-motu Investigatinon. Date of Petitioin: ——
  2. Nature of Patition                                          Place from which written … Bangalore

Signed / Pseudonymous/ Anonymous

  1. Name/s of the AGO/s. with designation:

[1] Shri Secretary,

KarnatakaState Judicial Dept. Employees Co.op

Society, Bangalore                                            

[2] Shri Directors,

KarnatakaState Judicial Dept. Employees Co.op Society, Bangalore


[3] The Chief Officer, Town Municipality, Yelahanka

  1. Petition addressed to  ———-
  2. Copies of Petition sent to    Hon’ble Upalokayukta

The allegations are as follows:-

Page No: 02

Para 1 :-Complaint file No.Compt/uplok/BLD.6-2000, there is a sketch map which is out 3’ x 3’. As per the oral instructions of Hon’ble ARE – 2, the same has to be got xeroxed and thren case has to be taken. The said map is placed in the file.

Para 2:- On enquiry it is ascertained that such a big map cannot be xeroxed in our office xerox machine. Therefore, it has to be xeroxed outside, where such a big xerox can be done.

Para – 3

Therefore, it is submitted that if approved a note will be put up to DRA for making arrangements.

Xeroxed Sir.

-Signed- Date: 27.11.1999

Para – 04 ARE-2]

As per the instruction given by the Uplokayukta for needful action.

Signed 27/11

Para – 05 DRA:  Sri. Laxmikant is directed to get the xerox copies and cashier is directed to make payment of required amount.

Page No. 03

Para No. 6 As per orders at Para 5 xerox copies of the Map is submitted for further orders [Signed 4.12.99].

Para No.7 DRA] zerox copies as directed are obtained and sent to ARE–2 for further needful action [Signed date in-visible]


Disproportionate Assets Case Against Justice S R Nayak

BENGALURU:  A complaint of disproportionate assets has been filed with the Lokayukta police, against Justice S R Nayak, who is likely to be recommended by the government for the post of Lokayukta.

Janaadhikara Sangharsha Parishath (JSP) headed by Adarsh R Iyer filed a complaint with Lokayukta ADGP Parashivamurthy, on Wednesday.

Iyer also asked the Lokayukta police to take action against the sub registrar of Yelahanka, Director of the Karnataka State Judicial Department Employees House Building Cooperative Society Limited and the Town Planning member of Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) for facilitating Justice Nayak to buy site, hiding the facts. Justice S R Nayak, who is the chairperson of the Law Commission, is one of the two names selected by the state government. The other one -Justice Vikramjit Sen has already withdrawn his consent.

Justice Nayak, who was also the former chairman of State Human Rights Commission, was accused of violation of by-laws of Judicial Society, false statement made in the sale deed of site and possessed disproportionate assets to the known sources of his income.

According to the complaint, Nayak bought a site  by the Karnataka State Judicial Department Employees House Building Cooperative Society and sale deed was registered on November 8, 2002. This was in violation of be-law No.4 of the Society with respect to allotment of sites which prevents either a person or a family who has been already allotted a site by the society, from availing other sites under it. A BDA site of 2,400 sqft at HSR Layout, 10,200 sqft building at RMV Extension (for which a payment of Rs 1.69 crore was made in 2001) and vacant 2,920 sqft site at Vidyaranyapura are among the properties owned by S R Nayak.

The complainant also alleged that the immovable property was transferred to him at price lower than the prevailing market price. This was facilitated by senior sub-registrar Yelahanka.

XXXXX The Complaint in Detail >>

Complaint of Criminal Misconduct under Prevention of Corruption Act against Justice S R Nayak

Janaadhikaara Sangharsha Parishath (JSP) filed a complaint against Justice S R Nayak, a top contender for the next Lokayukta for making a false statement that it is approved by BDA in his sale deed of Judicial Layout, violation of bye-laws where he or his wife are not supposed to have any plot/house/apartment as society’s sites are meant for those who don’t have any own house in Bangalore.

But, Justice S R Nayak owns three properties with 2 houses in posh localities such as HSR Layout(Sector 1), RMV Extension (10,200 sq,ft) before purchasing the Judicial layout site.

If a common man commits the same offence, he might be punished by the same judge who has committed such offences, then how can such a Judge punish a common man when he himself has committed such a crime?

If a Judge who has such serious criminal charges against him becomes a Lokayukta, how can he judge a case that comes before him?

With this in background, a Judge who commits such offences should be punished more severely than a common man as it is the Judge who is supposed to uphold the rule of law, not violate it.

If such a Judge is not punished, then it will lead to anarchy.

The society has to come forward, gather courage to complain against such offences; else we may end up repenting for the lost time.

The society should stop accepting such offences as normal.

Below are the Complaint Details:

Scanned Memorandum to Governor of Karnataka Lokayukta about S R Nayak

Annexure A – Certified Sale Deed – 859-C Judicial Layout – Shalini S Nayak

Annexure B – Original Bye-Laws of Judicial Layout

Annexure C – Certified Sale Deed – 644 HSR Layout -Shalini S Nayak-BDA Allotment

Annexure D – Certified Sale Deed – 399 RMV Extension – Shalini S Nayak

Annexure E – Letter of No Approval from BDA for Judicial Layout

Annexure F – Complaint to ADGP Karnataka Lokayukta about S R Nayak

Janaadhikaara Sangharsha Parishath (JSP)


Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Do we need more judges? CJI Thakur’s plea to the govt raises key questions – May 1, 2016

CJI T S Thakur’s emotional plea to the government to strengthen judicial infrastructure raises key questions: How vacant are our benches? Who is to blame and is there a way out?

Last Sunday, addressing the conference of Chief Justices and Chief Ministers, Chief Justice of India (CJI) Tirath Singh Thakur became emotional as he spoke about the shortage of judges in the country, telling the audience, which included Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Union Law Minister D V Sadananda Gowda, that the judiciary shouldn’t alone have to bear the cross for the huge pendency of cases in the country. Referring to the shortage of judges — both in lower and higher judiciary — in the country, the CJI lamented the “inaction” on the government’s part in strengthening judicial infrastructure and increasing the judge-population ratio to deal with the mounting number of cases. While the CJI did manage to put the government on the backfoot, answers to the real issues remained elusive.

First, the facts. India has a total of 21,598 judges (sanctioned strength till December 31, 2015). This figure includes 20,502 judges in lower courts, 1,065 high court judges and 31 Supreme Court judges. However, on the day CJI Thakur made his impassioned speech (April 24), there were six vacancies in the Supreme Court, 432 in the various high courts and a whopping 4,432 (as of December 31, 2015) in the subordinate judiciary.

But, more importantly, if all the 20,502 posts of judges in the subordinate judiciary are somehow filled, there wouldn’t be enough courtrooms to accommodate all of them since there are currently only 16,513 courtrooms —a shortfall of 3,989 — across the country. Judicial infrastructure, it is clear, hasn’t kept pace with the rate of litigation.

In 1987, the Law Commission of India pointed out that the judge-population ratio in India was only 10.5 judges per million population (it is now 12 judges per million) while the ratio was 41.6 in Australia, 50.9 in England, 75.2 in Canada and 107 in the United States. The Commission recommended that India required 107 judges per million population. It also suggested that to begin with, the judge strength could be raised five-fold (to 50 judges per million population) in a period of five years. Almost 30 years later, even that five-fold-increase target looks distant.

The gravity of the situation is all the more pronounced when you consider the fact that there are 38.76 lakh cases pending as on December 31, 2015, in all high courts, of which 7.45 lakh — almost 20 per cent — have been pending for over 10 years.

The situation in subordinate courts is not any better. Of the 2.18 crore cases pending in lowers courts in the country, 1.46 lakh are criminal cases and over 72 lakh are civil cases.

Interestingly, while the Supreme Court saw a rise in the number of cases disposed of over three years — from 40,189 in 2013 to 47,424 in 2015 — the figures for disposal by high courts actually went down from 17.72 lakh to 16.05 lakh in that period.

Subordinate courts too have shown a fall in the disposal rate, with 1.87 crore cases being disposed of in 2013 and 1.78 crore being disposed of in 2015.

The Sunday Express speaks to serving and retired judges, legal experts, including eminent lawyers and policy planners, to find some answers to the vexed issues of pendency and shortage of judges and whether both the judiciary and the government have a plan to deal with these.

Do we need more judges?

“Of course. There is a burning need to increase the number of judges at all levels, including the Supreme Court and the subordinate courts,” says E M Sudarsana Natchiappan, MP and Chairman of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Personnel, Law and Justice. “But, let’s first start with filling the existing vacancies. In most states, the high courts have taken upon themselves the job of selecting subordinate judges. But the results so far are not very heartening. There are either not enough good applicants… or the judges don’t have adequate time to do this job. Also, there is need for more transparency in appointment of high court judges. Everything should be in the public domain. Put up the names of the candidates on the website at every stage —from the preliminary level to the final stage of President’s approval, with recommendations at various stages. Secondly, civil court fees structure must be suitably modified and it must be made mandatory for state governments to spend the entire fees so collected on building judicial infrastructure,” he adds.
Frivolous litigation as PILs?

Adding to the long list of pending cases are cases such as these: Taking suo motu cognisance, a judicial magistrate in a district court in Mahoba, Uttar Pradesh, in October 2015 registered a case accusing Finance Minister Arun Jaitley of seditionfor allegedly criticising the Supreme Court on the issue of appointment of judges. The summons issued to Jaitley were later quashed by the Allahabad High Court. In August 2014, a court in Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh, directed the police to register a case against Bollywood actor Aamir Khan, filmmakers Raju Hirani, Vidhu Vinod Chopra and others for publication of a poster of their movie PK.

Attorney General of India Mukul Rohtagi says, “I think there is needless interference and no self-restraint by the judges. Too much time is being wasted on cases that are plain frivolous. Frivolous cases that consume too much court time should be dealt with a heavy hand and exemplary costs should be imposed on such litigation. The same must be done for cases where corporates file frivolous cases against their business rivals. The judiciary will have to devise a way to deal with this. Unless this is done, even a ten-fold increase in the strength of judges won’t serve any purpose.”

Former Supreme Court Judge H S Bedi agrees. “Frivolous litigation needs to be tightly regulated. I also agree that in some cases, judges overstep the boundary. They must remember that courts can’t be a substitute for the government.” He also added that while speedy disposal of cases should be a priority, cases must not be dismissed only because it amounts to addition in the number of disposed cases. “Cases must be decided on merit, not because speedy disposal needs to be done.”


Long route to filling vacancies

“It is not possible to fill all vacancies in one go. How can the Chief Justice and collegium of, let’s say, the Allahabad High Court, recommend names for all the 75-odd vacancies that exist right now? For this, they will have to really lower the standard and opt for sixth- or even seventh-tier lawyers. Also, how can the government expect Chief Justices (of high courts) to recommend names when earlier names recommended by them are still under process? But I strongly feel that the existing system of bringing 30 per cent (HC) judges from the subordinate judiciary is flawed since the person who comes at the fag end of his or her career becomes a high court judge only due to seniority. Such a person will only spend their time waiting for eventual retirement. I think either this quota needs to be revised or such elevations must only be on the basis of performance as a judge,” notes Justice Bedi.

Paucity of good candidates?

“Over the years, I have seen a general reluctance among good lawyers to accept judgeship. But I refuse to accept that money is the only criteria behind this. Anybody who accepts it has to do it for the honour, prestige and dignity attached to it. It may be the case that now many good lawyers don’t feel there is enough dignity in being a judge. But this must change,” says former Union law minister and senior lawyer Ashwani Kumar.

Government as biggest litigant

P K Malhotra, who retired as Union law secretary last week, says, “That the government is the biggest litigant is a fact and we are aware of that. But very few people realise that in most cases the government is either the respondent or a proforma party (where the main case is against somebody else). The National Litigation Policy that the government is finalising will deal with this issue, especially the needless and vexatious litigation by government departments. The Legal Information Management-Based System (LIMBS), which we have launched, makes it mandatory for all government ministries to upload all data about pending cases involving them so that we can monitor them.”

Is there a way ahead ?

As a former Supreme Court judge who was a member of the collegium says, there is no “quick-fix solution” to the issue of shortage of judges and pendency.

“It is only in the last 15 years or so that we have started talking about the judicial system and the issues connected to it. Look at the money that the governments were earlier allocating to the judicial sector for creation of infrastructure and hiring more judges. It was dismal, and I am being charitable. However, now both the Supreme Court and Central and state governments are aware of the situation and are working together to find solutions. Funds, while still not adequate, are more freely available and are being spent. In most states, there is a visible change in the infrastructure,” says the judge, who didn’t wish to be quoted.

As per government figures, from Rs 1,245 crore spent on creating judicial infrastructure under the centrally sponsored schemes between 1993 and 2011, the amount went up to Rs 3,695 crore from 2012 to 2016.

Justice K G Balakrishnan

Interview with K G Balakrishnan

‘Don’t think retired judges will work as additional judges. Why not appoint regular judges?’

As Chief Justice of India, K G Balakrishnan tried to bring in lawyers to become additional sessions judges for five-year terms and appoint eminent lawyers as ad hoc judges. In an interview with Maneesh Chhibber, the former CJI and ex-NHRC chief says he didn’t see “much enthusiasm” for the scheme.

You tried to get lawyers to work as additional sessions judges. What was the response?

Initially, we tried to appoint lawyers for this post for a fixed period. Some of them were later absorbed in the service. But later, some state governments were not very keen to provide funds to pay their salaries, etc.

You also tried to get regular subordinate court judges to hold sittings beyond normal working hours. Did that work?

We asked judges to sit for two hours (6 pm to 8 pm) after finishing their regular court work. For this, they as well as their court staff were given extra money. In some areas like Bengaluru and Ahmedabad, this worked very well. However, later, many state governments didn’t provide funds for this. So, it fell through. Such a system works wonders in a place where a magistrate has a large number of cases. But for this, the magistrate, his staff, his peon, everyone needs incentives.

There is a suggestion that retired judges could be asked to work as ad hoc or additional judges in the Supreme Court or high courts. Will that help tackle the issue of pendency?

I don’t think many retired judges will be willing to work as additional judges after they have demitted office. Some of them may be holding post-retirement jobs, some may be doing arbitration. Why not appoint more regular judges?

Whose responsibility is it to ensure that all vacancies are filled — the government’s or the collegium’s?

We can’t pin responsibility on any one person or agency. There should be timely recommendations by the collegium, the government must clear the cases quickly and warrants should be issued. As for subordinate judiciary, it is the duty of the chief justice of the respective high court to take the initiative to see that selections are made on time. There is a system already in place, that every year, vacancies that are likely to arise should be calculated and the process for filling those vacancies should begin. Unfortunately, not all high courts follow this.

Does the judiciary have too many vacations?

It was earlier eight weeks and we cut it by one week. Then we tried to cut one more week for the Supreme Court, but there was no unanimity among the judges. Some judges raised objections and said, ‘do it after our retirement’. So I dropped the proposal. But a majority of judges were willing to reduce it to six weeks. It’s not just the judiciary; in this country, we have too many holidays.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Judiciary intervenes when executive fails in its constitutional duties: CJI-June 7, 2016

A LOOSE Statement by Employee-Cum-CJI; who Must Have been in JAIL:-
A LOOSE Statement:-
“Judiciary intervenes when executive fails in its constitutional duties: CJI
TS thakur said that the government should do their job instead of hurling accusations, and people turn to the courts only after they are let down by the executive”.
“Indian DEMOCRACY is in DANGER; when 867 Judges,
who have NEVER Learned to OBEY the LAW Are given THE RIGHT to COMMAND”
To ABORT ANARCHY & Make India Corruption Free:
Prosecute & Jail Corrupt 867 Judges = Activate JUDICIARY

A LOOSE Statement:-T.S. Thakur said that the government should do their job instead of hurling accusations, and people turn to the courts only after they are let down by the executive.

Chief justice of india, TS thakur, CJI ts thakur on government, chief justice of India on Prime minister modi, PM modi CJI, latest news, latest india newsChief Justice of India, T S Thakur . (PTI Photo by Kamal Singh)

Chief Justice of India T S Thakur Monday said that the onus is on executive if it wants less judicial interference and that the judiciary intervenes only when the executive fails in its constitutional duties.

“Extent of judicial interference in governmental issues depends on how effectively and efficiently the government does its job. Which court would want to intervene if the government works efficiently and sincerely? The courts only fulfil their constitutional duty and need would not arise if the governments do their job,” the CJI was quoted as saying in an interview to ETV News Network at Srinagar.

Days after Union Finance Minister Arun Jaitley claimed in his speech in Rajya Sabha that the judiciary had been encroaching on legislative and executive authority and that “step by step, brick by brick, the edifice of India’s legislature is being destroyed”, the CJI said that if there is neglect and failure on part of government agencies, judiciary will definitely play its role.

“If what should be done to protect people’s rights are not being done, we are constrained to intervene. It is for the government to have a litigation policy so that people are not forced to approach the courts,” the CJI said in his interview.

The network quoted CJI in its release as saying: “The governments should do their job instead of hurling the accusations and the people turn to the courts only after they are let down by the executive.”

On dealing with the huge vacancies in judiciary, Justice Thakur was quoted as saying: “I have requested the PM on several occasions and am sending a report on the same issue to the Centre too.”

In April while speaking at the conference of Chief Ministers and chief justices of high courts, CJI Thakur had made an impassioned appeal to the government to help upgrade judicial infrastructure and start addressing the glaring problem of shortage of judges. These, he had said, were vital to the country’s future given the government’s emphasis on flagship initiatives such as “Make in India and Invest in India”. The CJI had added that the country needed at least 40,000 more judges to deal with the pendency.

But Union Law Minister D V Sadananda Gowda had later disputed the number cited by Justice Thakur, claiming there was neither any scientific basis nor empirical data to support the view that 40,000 judges were actually required.


By: Express News Service | New Delhi | Updated: June 7, 2016 4:41 am

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized