Monthly Archives: July 2012


Statute of the Court

The Statute of the International Court of Justice is annexed to the Charter of the United Nations, of which it forms an integral part. The main object of the Statute is to organize the composition and the functioning of the Court.

The Statute can be amended only in the same way as the Charter, i.e., by a two-thirds majority vote in the General Assembly and ratification by two-thirds of the States (Art 69).

Should the ICJ consider it desirable for its Statute to be amended, it must submit a proposal to this effect to the General Assembly by means of a written communication addressed to the Secretary-General of the United Nations (Art 70). However, there has hitherto been no amendment of the Statute of the Court.


Chapter I: Organization of the Court (Articles 2 – 33)
Chapter II: Competence of the Court (Articles 34 – 38)
Chapter III: Procedure (Articles 39 – 64)
Chapter IV: Advisory Opinions (Articles 65 – 68)
Chapter V: Amendment (Articles 69 & 70)

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Supreme Court must uphold the rule of law. Justice was sent on leave in 1990 by then CJI

Chief Justice of India’s STATEMENT TO THE SUPREME COURT BAR on 20-07-1990 [ Read More ]
The Supreme Court must uphold the rule of law. It is, therefore, necessary that those who uphold the rule of law must live by law and judges must, therefore, be obliged to live according to law.

Involvement in any investigation on the conduct of a sitting Supreme Court Judge on such matters as aforesaid is embarrassing in the circumstances and the background in which these questions have arisen in the instant case. For one who should attempt to uphold the rule of law, it is embarrassing to be involved in such a dispute.

I have, on these aspects after looking into the matter and the points involved, no doubt that those who aspire to uphold the rule of law must strive to live according to law and they necessarily expose the selves to the danger of perishing by law.
I was constrained, in those circumstances, to advise Brother Ramaswami to desist from discharging judicial functions so long as the investigations continued and his name was cleared on this aspect.

I wrote to Brother Ramaswami on 18th July 1990 rendering my aforesaid advice. I have also conveyed to him my anguish in tendering this advice and I have requested him to please be on leave until the investigations on the aforesaid conduct are completed.

On 18th July, 1990 after receipt of my letter, Brother Ramaswami has applied for leave for six weeks in the first instance with effect from 23rd July, 1990. I have directed the office to process his application for leave.

Since I had assured the learned Attorney General, the Law Minister, the president of the Bar Association and other that I will look into it, I thought I must covey to you result of my looking into it.          Gone At Last; A Book. CHAPTER-7 .Pages 111-114  [Read More ]

1 Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Transparency & Accountability in Bench & Bar: Against CJI Kapadia & CJI-To-Be Altamas Kabir: Complaint to Prime Minster of India by Supreme Court Advocate

Representation for Transparency & Accountability in Bench & Bar: Against CJI Kapadia & CJI-To-Be Altamas Kabir: Complaint to Prime Minster of India by Supreme Court Advocate with Evidences ! ? [ Click Here ].    For More:- Confederation of Indian Bar   Photo Gallery
About CIB Memorandum Members Registration Form Conferences
Executive Commitee & Founder Members 
From the Organising Committee    Conference Secretariat & Registration   Contact 

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Karnataka High Court Mr.R.P.Sethi, CJ & Mr.K.R.Prasada Rao: Struck Down Land Acquisition of Amarjyothi HBCS: for Society President Consented to Awards. No Public Purpose in L.A. Returned Lands to Owners

The Division Bench of Karnataka High Court speaking through Mr.R.P.Sethi, CJ & Mr.K.R.Prasada Rao, J while disposing WA Nos 6017-18/97, on 18th Sept 1998 held thus:-  [1] Mr. K.M.Rangadhama Setty, Founder President of Amar Jyothi HBCS and also builder & Estate Agent appearing as the land owner & bequeathing the rights of the lands to SLAO during Award proceedings. [2] Society’s contention that there is prior approval of the scheme of the Government, relied upon the letter dated 10-10-1986; It is significant to note that it is nowhere mentioned in the above letter that the appropriate Government mentioned is satisfied that the land intended to be acquired is needed for public purpose in terms of Section 3 (f) (vi) of the Act. So, the above communication cannot be termed to be the approval or satisfaction of the Government regarding the need of the land sought to be acquired for public purpose within the meaning of Section 3 (f) (vi) of the Act.  …….    [ Read More ]

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Justice G.P. Shivaprakash’s 5 Roles in JUDICIAL Layout

Links to all Files , Evidences will be given shortly. 25 July.2012

Justice G.P. Shivaprakash’s Role in  JUDICIAL Layout: Karnataka High Court Judge & Up-Lokayukta

A ] LA Act was amended in 1984 to bring LA for HBCS into Part-VII for Company Purpose.
Accordingly Jud Emp HBCS signed Agreement in 1988. Same was presented to HC in Land Conversion case to S. Rajendra Babu.  He did not take Notice. Society time & again gas narrated in WPs of Agreement.
B] SCI & Kar  HC held such Agreement signed is to acquire for Company. LA was set aside.
C] Society schematically violated all Terms of Agreement & every Law by Judgments; which it adduces before Up-Lokayukta, Kar HC in 40994/02.
D] It even received Compensation for 87 Acres of Lands acquired under Rule 10[B] of LA Company Rules. Kar HC in Amarjyothi HBCS set aside LA, as Rangadhama Setty, President had claimed & Received Compensation.
B.D.A Approved “JUDICIAL Layout Plan ‘156 A 37G” ” on 16th Nov, 1992 based on 6th Nov, 1992 Society Representation. 2400 Sites’ Sale Deeds are registered Claiming “B.D.A Approved JUDICIAL Layout Plan ‘156 A 37G” ” on 16th Nov, 1992”.
16 [2] Notification Date     &                Extent SLAO Handed-Over Possession ;O.M: Dates & Extent
17th Dec, 1992 47 Acres  35 Guntas 13 Nov, 1992 139 Acres  8 Guntas
27th May, 1993 17 Acres  17 Guntas
Total: 65 A 12 G
2nd September   1994
[ WP 1600/94 Order.
Govt Order 29 Aug, 1994]
017 Acres 18 Guntas
Govt has Not Gazetted 16 [2] for  91 Acres of Lands? [We have No Records ]
Illegal Sites in about 37 Acres by Land Grabbing , Illegal Court Decrees: 156 A + 37 A = 193 Acres!

01] Justice G.P. Shivaprakash is Member of “Karnataka Judicial Dept. Emp HBCS”  Member . He is allotted with Site N. 1420 of size 80’ x 120’ in Judicial Layout. He has built Bungalow & residing in Judicial Layout.
01 A] W.P. Nos. 39338 – 41 / 1992: High Court L.Sreenivas Reddy Stayed All Money Demands of Karnataka Judicial Dept. Emp HBCS & 3 other HBCS. Stay went-on till 1996. In 1996, Society withdrew the WPs; which were allowed to be with-drawn by R.V. Raveendran. Means Society agreed to pay all Moneys to BDA. Society has not filed any fresh WP / SLP. [While BDA filed SLP against all HBCS; who had got Stayed / Struck-Down BDA demands. Which SLPs are referred back to Kar HC in Feb, 2012 for Re-consideration of Quantum of Money Claims.]
02] [i]While Justice G.P. Shivaprakash was Karnataka High Court Judge he gave Two Important Judgments in f/o “Karnataka Judicial Dept. Emp HBCS”  in W.P. No. 1600/1994 & WP. 18447/1994.
[ii] While he was Up-Lokayukta, he Started Suo-moto Investigations of “Karnataka Judicial Dept. Emp HBCS”  Vs. Formation & Allotment of Sites in Judicial Layout. [iii] In WP.PIL 7105/07; he seeks CBI Investigations into Society Affairs, which he hushed-up!
03] Salient Features of W.P. No. 1600/1994[filed on 17-01-1994] :
Govt : Directed society in 1988 to pay Rs. 65 Lakhs. Not Paid
Petition: Society has paid all Govt. dues, despite of which Govt. which has taken Possession of 17 Acres 18 Guntas on 27th May,1993, has failed to Hand-over Possession to Society for no Valid Reasons.
Prayer : Hence High Court issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to deliver possession of 17 acres 18 guntas of land which were taken possession of by the Government vide Annexure – C, the Notification No. LAQ [9] SR – 12 / 87-88 published in the Karnataka Gazette dated 27-05-1993.
Judgment: 10th Feb, 1994: The factual position in this case is no different from the one in W. P. No. 35881 of 1993. In this case also, the petitioner society has paid large sums of money for the acquisition of the lands and therefore Govt. having taken possession of the lands in terms of Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act is obliged to deliver possession of the said lands to the petitioner.
In this view of the matter, this Writ Petition is allowed and a direction is issued to the respondents to hand over possession of the lands in question to the petitioner society within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
04] Salient Features of W.P. No. 18447/1994 [29-06-1994]:
Govt. Directed Bangalore’s All Sub-Registrars Not-To-Register “Site’s Sale Deeds of 32 HBCS including Jud Emp HBCS; without NOC from B.D.A & Co-operation Departments”. 17th May, 1994:.
Society Contentions : when the new Government took over, series of orders were passed against 32 co-operative societies to whom the lands had been delivered during the regime of the previous ministry and it was threatened that the Bangalore Development Authority would be asked to take over the lands from the co-operative societies and would be asked to distribute the sites in accordance with the recommendations made by a Sub-Committee formed for that purpose. It was clearly stated that sites would be given to the members only if the member was eligible for being granted a site under the Rules of Allotment applicable to the Bangalroe Development Authority. The societies had approached the Bangalore Development Authority for approval of the layouts and in most cases the layout had been approved. The development works in some cases had also been carried out and the sites were ready for being allotted.
Ordinance was issued called “The Bangalore Development Authority [Amendment ] Ordinance, 1993” which was published in the Karnataka Gazette on 16-061993 as Ordinance No. 7 of 1993 which provided that the lands acquired by the government for the 32 co-operative societies should be received by the Bangalore Development Authority for formation of a layout and for distribution of sites to  the genuine members of the society and a High Power committee was constituted to decide to decide as to who were the genuine members of the co-operative society.
It is necessary to state that it is for the co-operative society to distribute the sites among its members and that power which is vested in the Committee cannot be entrusted to an outside agency and the ordinance was in effect a serious encroachment on the powers of the committee. This Ordinance was again challenged by all the co-operative societies and the operation of the Ordinance was stayed.
There after he Registrar of Co-operative Societies issued an order purporting to be under Section 30-B of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act restraining 32 co-operative societies from making any allotment of sites and getting the sale registered unless the genuine members were identified by the Committee constituted for that purpose . These orders which were issued by the Government were again challenged by all the Societies, including the Petitioner. The operation of the order dated 22-02-1994 passed by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies was stayed.
The only thing that remains to be done is the registration of the sale deed. The Society cannot expect to get money for meeting the cost of acquisition and development works unless the members are assured of the sites.
The Sub-Registrars or the Registrar are authorities under the statute and they draw their authority there from. Further, the State Government has no power to declare a transaction as opposed to public policy on considerations extraneous to the object with which that power has been conferred upon by the Government. Therefore, in order to brand a transaction as opposed to public policy, the transaction in reality, must be one which is prohibited by law and therefore opposed to public policy.
Grounds in support of the prayer for interim orders: Before forming a layout and for carrying out the development works, the society has spent huge amount and this can be reimbursed only if the sale deeds are executed by the society in favour of its members. It is at this stage, that these circular instructions which are without authority of law have been issued and unless an order of stay is passed, the society will be put to irreparable loss and injury.
Prayer: [i] issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction to quash Annexure – C, the circular No. RCS 28/94-95 dated 17-05-1994 issued by the Commissioner for stamps and Registration in Karnataka, Bangalore. [ii] declare that the Government has no authority to issue any order directing the Sub-registrar not to register the document unless the clearance is obtained from the Registrar of Co-operative Societies and unless a release order is passed by the Bangalore Development Authority.

Judgment [ILR 1994 KAR 2115 15th July 1994]: This Court in W. P. 20898/90 [ DD. 29-01-1993] while considering the question of issue of Release certificate by the B.D.A. for the purpose of allotment by the Society, has ruled that after the formation of the layout in accordance with the layout sanctioned by the B.D.A. and after the Society has executed the Relinquishment Deed relinquishing its right, title and interest over the roads, parks, playgrounds, open spaces etc; in the layout formed, in favour of the B.D.A., there was no question of “releasing the sites” by the B.D.A. for the purpose of allotment by the Society since the layout in question is a private layout formed by the Co-operative Society concerned.
There is no provision in the Bangalore Development authority Act enjoining that each and every time a site has to be allotted ina private layout sanctioned by the B.D.A., the said site has to be released by the B.D.A. Obviously, because sites in private layouts are never in the clutches of B.D.A. and the question of B.D.A. “releasing” the sites does not arise. Therefore, the condition stipulated in the Circular, as contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, cannot be legally sustained. As a matter of fact, against the aforesaid Decision of a learned single Judge of this Court, the B.D.A. had preferred Writ Appeal in W. A. No. 394 of 1993 and the same was dismissed on 23-03-1993.
The other requirement of production of “No Objection Certificate” issued by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, also cannot be legally sustained since no provision of law is brought to my notice requiring production of “No Objection Certificate” issued by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies before a document presented by the Co-operative Society is registered by the concerned Sub-Registrar.
For the foregoing reasons, this Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned Circular is quashed.
The Learned Government Pleader pleaded that while allowing the petition no costs be imposed. Despite Rulings of this Court, if the authorities concerned persist in issuing Circulars in contumacious disregard of the law laid down by this Court, thus compelling the parties to file Writ Petitions putting them to unnecessary expenses. It is just and reasonable to impose costs.
The authorities should realize that Judicial testing of statutory and administrative Regulations has a vital part to play not only in contesting individuals against abuse by officials but also in helping is make the official Regulations themselves enforceable if they are legal and valid.
This Petition is allowed with costs quantified at Rs. 3000/-.
Note: Many HBCS took benefit of this Judgment even until 1998 through H.L. Dattu

05] ILR 1995 KAR 3139: Two PILs & One WP Questioning Land Acquisition, Non-Application of HMT Judgment, Judges becoming Members of Employee HBCS, Judges-owning-Houses getting Site contrary to BDA Rules. Layout would not have existed; except for Judges-being-beneficiary-Members.

Respondents were Justice G.P. Shivaprakash & 22 sitting Judges. UoI & Kar Govt BDA, PRS, DC, SLAO, Other Officers. Govt did not File Written Statement or Objections. It Bundles of Documents to Court. 23 Judges took Few months to State they are Members; hence to hear MFS & Bhaktavtsalam. Last Two Judges delivered Judgment . Court stopped Short of Initiating Contempt of Court against Petitioners & Advocates
Petitions were Dismissed; Delay. Latches, kind-of-Allegations against Judges / Court and Behavior of Petitioners.
In 1992 BDA approved 156 Acres JUDICIAL Layout. 1600 Sites are Registered. Built houses.
SC & HC Judges, can not become Members of Employees HBCS ; even by stretch of Imagination,
28707/1994: B.V.Reddy: LA of 10 Acres; held No-Prior Appl of Govt & LA bad in Law. But failed to Strike-down LA . Reason: Delay & Latches and Behavior of Petitioner. SCI held the Judgment as BAD-In-Law in Feb, 2012.

06] Justice G.P. Shivprakash, Up Lokayukta:
Preamble:  Suo-moto Complaint COMPT/UPLOK/BCD/64/1999 registered against “Judicial Dept. Emp HBCS” on 4/12/1999  of  “Allegations of IRREGULARITIES, NEPOTISM AND CORRUPT ACTIVITIES IN ALLOTMENT OF SITES” . [Note: Judges are Employees amenable to Up-Lokayukta]
BDA replied JUDICIAL Layout is Illegal Layout & No any Orders are made to Hand-over Layout to CMC.
To the same query, Society presented “G.P. Shivprakash’s Judgment , Stay-Order of BDA Demands amongst other details”.
Up Lokayukta threatened with “Search & Seizure warrant to Society office, if it fails to Show BDA Approved Plan. But it did not Searched Nor Directed IGR, BDA Or Govt. to Cancel BDA Resolution of 1992.  Allegations proven. No Prosecution was done. No Directions given to Police or B.D.A or Govt. But Up Lokayukta saw to it that Karnataka CJ Y. Bhaskar Rao’s site Sale Deed was got rectified by Society & leaving the Road portion of Rao’s Site to allow neighbor allottee Judge to enjoy Easementary Rights as per his Sale Deed. [Rao was allotted site in Non-Acquired land. He was instrumental to bring Land owners of Ten Acres to COMPROMISE in 2001with Society in exchange of Thirteen sites; contrary to SCI direction to hear on Merits]
Up Lokayukta DRAMA in Karnataka High Court: Society filed WP 15101/2001 on 04-04-2001 questioning Up Lokayukta Investigation in Karnataka High Court.  Justice G.P. Shivprakash retired. N. Venkatachala was appointed as Lokayukta. There was no Up-Lokayukta. N. Venkatachala, allottee of site 1381 120’ x 80’, closed the case Suo-moto Complaint COMPT/UPLOK/BCD/64/1999 on 13/3/2002. Neither of two filed or pursued the WP, much less A-Scrap-Of-Paper of Objection was filed! Society with-drew the WP 15101/2001 as Infructuous on 16/04/2004 in Kar HC before Justice H. Rangavittalachar.
07] WP. PIL 40994/2002: BDA, HUD have filed Affidavits stating “JUDICIAL Layout is Illegal Layout & No any Orders are made to Hand-over Layout to CMC” & “37 acres are Illegally Converted into Sites”. Society from 2003 till date on Affidavits Swearing that JUDICIAL Layout is never approved by BDA in 1992 & “Sites were formed in 37 Acres by Compromise; With Court Decrees”. There is no such 1992 BDA Plan to produce. In 2003 & 2005 Affidavit Society Swears the Details of Judgments procured to Violate Laws with precision.

Alass! High Court Burning Night-Oil to Create 1992 BDA Plan & All Illegal are made into LEGAL.

08] Land Conversion Case SLP: Karnataka high Court in 2003 held that “Only the Site Owners who hold the Land are Responsible to Apply & pay Conversion Fee”. Not the Society is nor was in Possession of Lands.
09] WP. PIL. 7105/2007: Justice G.P. Shivprakash  along-with K.Jagannath Shetty:
Deals with all aspects of “Allegations of IRREGULARITIES, NEPOTISM AND CORRUPT ACTIVITIES IN ALLOTMENT OF SITES” ; where Up Lokayukta failed. SC & HC Judges claim they are Bonafide Members. Society must be prohibited from allotting sites to In-Eligible Members including Farmers whose lands are Illegally Developed with Compromises.
In paragraph 14: Every Sale Deed registered claiming BDA has in  1992 Layout Plan Approved.
In paragraph 30: Judges are Confronted by Public “Whether JUDICIAL Layout Is Above LAW?”
CBI Investigation is Prayed-for, amongst other prayers.

ILR 1995 KAR 3139: Para 10 : The Society selected an area of about 200 acres situated at Allalasandra, Chikkabommasandra and Jakkur plantation villages in Bangalore North Taluk on the outskirts of the Corporation of the City of Bangalore and thereafter the Society contacted the land owners numbering about 70 and were able to obtain agreements from them in January 1984 at mutually agreed prices which were in no way less than the then prevailing market value . It is stated that in order to solve the problem arising under the Land Reforms Act and questions of title at a later stage it was felt that it would be better to get the lands under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. So the Government was approached for acquisition of these lands
Bottom Line: Karnataka Joint Legislature Committee Recommended in 2008, to Govt. to Forfeit the Whole Layout  & initiate Criminal Prosecution against all those who are responsible.
Reality; An Helping-Hand for Ailing Govt: Govt. got Facts & Figures of Who-Is-Who of Indian Judiciary.
Impact: Named Corrupt Judges are being named for any Vacancy.
For FAVOUR : Vaidyanathan. Chandrashekhriha. Majage. Bannurmath. Shivaraj Patil. Gururajan.

1 Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

SHAVE JUSTICE: Brother-Judges-Save-867-Corrupt-Brother-Judges

Karnataka Judicial Employees Housing Society Limited,
Karnataka High Court. Bangalore

Round-1:    1995                 ………………………………….   Scene: Karnataka High Court

Round-II: 1999-2002     …………………………………..  Scene:Karnataka  Lokayukta

Round-III: 2002-2012…..Counting..   10 years …     Scene: Karnataka High Court


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 Readiness 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]

1 Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

H A L L of S H A M E : Corruption and nepotism have not spared even the highest office of the judiciary

H A L L O F S H A M E : Corruption and nepotism have not spared even the highest office of the judiciary

K. VEERASWAMI: The former judge of the Madras High Court was found guilty under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1946, but fought his case in 1991 in the Supreme Court. The apex court in a later judgment held that a sanction from the CJI was needed before a criminal case could be registered against a judge.

V. RAMASWAMY: Son-in-law of Veeraswami, he was a judge in the Supreme Court when the Speaker of the ninth Lok Sabha admitted an impeachment motion brought by 108 MPs against him for financial irregularities committed during his term as chief justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The motion was, however, defeated as Congress MPs stayed away in 1993.

A.M. BHATTACHARJEE: The chief justice of the Bombay High Court was forced to resign in 1995 after it was found that he had received Rs.70 lakh as book advance from a publishing firm known to have links with the underworld.

AJIT SENGUPTA: The Calcutta High Court judge made it a routine to issue ex parte, ad interim stay orders on anticipatory bail pleas from smugglers having links with the Mumbai underworld. He was arrested in 1996 for FERA violations after retirement.

A.S. ANAND: As CJI, he was accused of using his position to get the subordinate judiciary to rule in favour of his wife and mother-in-law in a suit that had been barred by limitation for two decades. There was also a CBI probe after a dispute arose over his age in 2000. The investigation report was not made public.

A.M. AHMADI: When he was CJI (October 1994-March 1997), his daughter, a lawyer in the Delhi High Court, caused eyebrows to be raised for getting “special” treatment from certain judges. When some members of the bar sought a resolution banning layer relatives of judges from staying in the same house, the CJI got members to defeat the motion.

Mysore Sex Scandal

On Sunday, November 3, 2002, three judges of the Karnataka High Court, along with two women advocates, allegedly got involved in a brawl with a woman guest at a resort. The police arrived but reportedly didn’t take action.

· N.S. Veerabhadraiah

· V. Gopalagowda

· Chandrashekaraiah

STATUS: The three-judge inquiry committee appointed by the CJI has filed its report. Action awaited.


In November 2002, Sunita Malviya, a Jodhpur-based doctor, alleged that a deputy registrar of the Rajasthan High Court had sought sexual favours for himself and for Justice Arun Madan to “fix” a case in her favour.

· Arun Madan

· Sunita Malviya

STATUS: A committee set up by former CJI G.B. Pattanaik found prima facie evidence against Madan, who does not attend court anymore.


Three judges of the Punjab and Haryana High Court sought the help of disgraced PPSC chief R.P. Sidhu to ensure that their daughters and other kin topped examinations conducted by the commission

· M.L. Singh

· Mehtab Sing Gill

· Amarbir Singh

STATUS: Two inquiry panels indicted the judges. Gill and Amarbir Singh have resigned M.L. Singh continues, though no work is allotted to him.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized