Monthly Archives: May 2014

Gist Of Direct BIAS, FRAUD & Contempt in”Crl.RC.01/2014 = “ 867 Judges & Lokayuktas’” = MEMO BY Respondent /Accused in Person”, filed in CH 06 in Karnataka HC dated 14.04.14″

……….For complete 82 pages Memo :- CLICK HERE :- ……………

…………………. MEMO BY Respondent /Accused in Person…. is as follows….


CRIMINAL   REFERRED   CASE No.   01   OF   2014
C.C. No 6711/2012

 BETWEEN: Referred by VIII – Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore. ………. …… Appellant,  Represented by Chief Justice, Karnataka High Court

-Vs-  Sri Digvijay Mote  …… Respondent /Accused ….. in Person

……….For complete 82 pages Memo :- CLICK HERE :- ……………

  1. Contents of Police Complaint necessitating the said Charge Sheet, though totally ILLEGIBLE  HANDWRITTEN, applicant with help of English teachers & sons, could make-out the following contents:-
29th October, 2011
The Station House Officer,
M.S. Building Police station [Out Post]
Vidhana Soudha,
Bangalore.Dear sir,Subject: Request to initiate action against Sri Digvijay Mote r/o , Bangalore etc.,
With reference to the above subject, I write to request you that a person identifying himself as Sri  Mr. Digvijay Mote, claim to be President of the Digvijay Mote & family founder of Centre for Investigation and prosecution of . . universlly-. . ILLEGIBLE . . . . .–  etc., a   nique website as “A family viz., http://www.judges plot 4plot. com” , (2) www.india . etc.,For the past 3 days the said person Sri Digvijay Mote appears to be little aged tall, lean built with specs is found distributing pamplets —– MS Building Annexure premises along with __ILLEGIBLE_______ bigger than postcard size photo card size photo state  pamphlets of Hon’ble Judges and the language in English ai not clear as to what exactly he means with allegation incorporated in it.  He is also distributing pamphlets during office hours along with Photostat press clippings of the  past , since in 2004 etc,,  He has been using all north vulgar words, using vulgar words, singing vulgar songs, against the respected persons  incorporated in the pamphlets which is enclosed here with for your reference.The citizen who anable around him listen to him  patiently laughing to him mimicry not knowing what or whether this is absurd about this.

Member of the public namely Sri Murugesan , Sri ChandrashekharSri ……LLEGIBLE…… _________  ___ILLEGIBLE______  _________ and they have identified them ____ and called up on telephone and about this unruly behavior and __ILLEGIBLE_______  to the regular _________ addition today at 5:10pm the ____ILLEGIBLE_____  Digivijay Mote identifies by his name called on our landline number ___ILLEGIBLE______  from his mobile 9886619410 the _________ office land line __ILLEGIBLE_______  and now in their conversation with me he states that he has all proof with records to establish that there _____ILLEGIBLE____  in the Judicial Layout forming by Honorable  Judges and so many other with __ILLEGIBLE___ etc. He further states, if his__ILLEGIBLE_______  toward their aggitation to uproot corruption land scam is taken care of. He _________  further or he would lodge a complaint and ____ILLEGIBLE_____  very bad ____ILLEGIBLE_____  that _____ arrested on the ___ILLEGIBLE______  of office of the ___ILLEGIBLE____ and____ILLEGIBLE_____  for various offense, and after _ILLEGIBLE__ he was acquitted etc __ILLEGIBLE_______  things _____ILLEGIBLE____ are incorporated in his pamphlets derogatory __ILLEGIBLE_____.

I told him that should you have any information, you are at liberty to the proper forum/authority and lodge your complaint produce what ever documents you have in report before whom ever you may _____ILLEGIBLE____ . But you should not obstruct the movement ___ILLEGIBLE______ _________ .

It is therefore request you please initiate action as per to and ____ILLEGIBLE_____  ____ILLEGIBLE_____  that be _____ILLEGIBLE____  use vulgar words, printing pamphlets with no proof spread sever ____ILLEGIBLE_____  in the minds of public and ___ILLEGIBLE______  intimidating etc.

Yours Sincerely,

Syed Riaz.

Deputy Commissioner [Public Relations],

Karnataka Lokayukta,


[A Rubber Stamp Seal]

……………………… Police Acknowledement…below…………………..

Police Acknowledement in Kannada translated into English reads thus:

On 29.10.2011, at 18.10 Hours  Complainant received,  numbered as

FIR No. 58/2011 u/s 341, 504 , 506 I.P.C , case registered.

….Signed…. ASI

  1.         On 6th June, 2012 Ld. Judge Nagalingan Gouda Patil read out Charges, on which date my Advocate reminded him that matter is listed for recalling N.B.W issued previous day, though I was very much in Court hall. At the insistence of advocate he cancelled Charge Sheet.  He had framed charges according to the wish of Complainant, as Complainant’s father is also member. He is Employee-cum-judge; of whose details are furnished in Application in  L.C.
  2.       After having recalled the Charges, in absence of any Advocates to assist me as per Sec. 303, he has listed for “Hear Before Charges” .  But he failed to respect his earlier Order to  P.P. to file Objections to my Application on 10th October, 2012. Nor did P.P uttered a word till date of filing of Application. It confirmed the suspicion of applicant that  Court is acting contrary to law and such errant Biased  Orders being passed at the behest of 867 Judges & Lokayuktas etc.,; necessitating to file this Application to Transfer case to High Court.
    1.       The gist of Ld. Govt. Sr. A.P.P’s “ Objections by way of Memo by Prosecution” dated 07.10.2013 is as below:The Charge Sheet is filed u/s 341, 504 , 506 IPC against the accused.The accused in this case has filed application under 479 r/w 407 Cr.P.C to transfer the case from this Hon’ble Court. And also filed memo along with documents.For fair and impartial inquiry, accused is seeking permission and repeatedly he is expressing that he has no faith in this court. Also some question of law of unusual difficulty is likely to arise and hence considering the application and submission of the accused, Order may be passed and transfer the case, in the interest of justice.
    2.       The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 [ACT 70 OF 1971]
      (c) “Criminal contempt” means the publication (whether by words, spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise) of any matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever which-

    (d) Scandalizes or tends to scandalize, or lowers or tends to lower the authority of, any court, Or (ii) Prejudices, orinterferes or tends to interfere with the due course of any judicial proceeding , or (iii) Interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner.

    1.  It is humbly submitted that “High Court of Karnataka [Contempt of Court Proceedings ] Rules 1981” Gazetted 1st January by by Chief Justice D.M. Chandrashekhar , the then Karnataka Chief Justice, Employee-Cum Founder-Of-Karnataka State Judicial Department Employees House Building Co-operative Society Limited, Karnataka High Court, Bangalore-1 . Gazetted by the order of the High Court signed by  C.M. Basavarya, an “Employee-Cum High-Court-Registrar-Cum-Founder-Of-Karnataka State Judicial Department Employees House Building Co-operative Society Limited.
    2.   C.M. Basavarya and all other Directors have filed Affidavits on more than dozen times admitting that more than 27 Judgments were secured through Karnataka High Court & court there-under to develop JUDICIAL LAY OUT in 193 Acres with 2,248 sites; adducing evidences in P.I.L.s W.P. No. 40994/2002, W.P. No. 7105/2007 and W.P. 13261/2006; which schematically is being dragged-on by another co-ordinate Bench of Ram Mohan Reddy & H.Billappa. These Judges-Cum-Emploees do not wish to initiate Criminal Contempt of Court against  ‘powerful lobby of 867-Employees-Cum- Corrupt-Judges and Lokayuktas’; as they are scared to send them to Jail, make them as accused in “Witness Box”; as they have already secured benefits illregally for delaying / denying Criminal proceedings, including cancellation of all FORGED SALE DEEDS of 2,248 site owners from Chaprasis, peons. Attendants including  ‘powerful lobby of 867-Employees-Cum- Corrupt-Judges and Lokayuktas’.
    3.   Applicant presents below few paragraphs from one of this Hon’ble High Court judgments; to drive home the point that “since gazetting of ‘High Court of Karnataka ( Contempt of Court Proceedings) Rules 1981’ the then Chief Justice Mr. D.M. Chandrashekhar and almost all Judges of High Court; including the then Registrar of High Court Mr C.M. Basavarya under whose name it was Gazetted, are contemners. From then on till date almost all Registar Generals, Registars, 80% to 90% of sitting Judges are members of Society; and have fraudulent secured on quid-pro-quo more than 27 judgments  in Criminal contempt, differently punishable for each & every fraudulent judgments; as they were perpetrated upon different occasions, between different Respondentants ; but with common intention”.
    4.   It is prudent to mention that the “Two Judges constituting the Division Bench” viz., A.M. FAROOQ and S.R. BANNURMATH are also Criminal Contemners of more than 27 Judgments; in evidence of which the very ‘Karnataka State Judicial Depatment Employees HBCS, High Court Buiding, Bangalore-1” , Karnatka Government, Bangalore Development Authority, Karnatka Assembly-the Karnataka Peoples’s Representatives , Karnataka Joint Legislature Committee on Land Grabbing in Bangalore have  adduced evidences. Which Debate in Kannada is enclosed .Further this Hon’ble Karnataka High Court, Karnataka Government, Union of India, Advocates Association, Bar Council, S.P.P., Advocate General , Media and General Public who have stakes in the Indian Public Justice delivery system can not be mute spectators ‘To the Criminal contempt and frauds being perpetrated / happenings since two decades within High Court in the name of “ ‘Honor’, ‘LORD’ and ‘JUSTICE’”.

      Between Advanta India Limited Vs B.N. Shivanna, Advocate


      The Contempt of Court Act deals with any conduct or acts of the parties to the litigation or witnesses “in any manner”. The tendency on the part of the contemner in his action or conduct to prevent the course of justice is the relevant fact. Any interference in the course of justice is an affront to the majesty of law and, therefore, the conduct is punishable as contempt of court. Law of contempt is only one of many ways in which the due process of law is prevented from being perverted, hindered or thwarted to further the cause of justice. Due course of justice means not only any particular proceeding but broad stream of administration of justice. Due process of law is blinkered by the conduct or the act of the parties which generate tendency to impede or undermine the free flow of the unsullied stream of justice by blatantly resorting, with impunity, to fabricate court proceedings to thwart fair adjudication of dispute and its resultant end. If the act complained of undermines the prestige of the court or causes hindrance in the discharge of due course of justice or tends to obstruct the course of justice or interfere with due course of justice, it is sufficient that the conduct complained of, constitutes contempt of court and liable to be dealt with in accordance with law ……… production of  fabricated copy of the Court proceedings thus constitute contempt of Court, as it tends to interfere with the course of justice in legal proceedings to gain unfair advantage.” Hence, in our view, the offences are punishable under IPC though may overlap this aspect, in the contempt of court case, this court is required to consider and if necessary punishing the accused for the conduct and not the actual act which may also be an offence under IPC. As such there is no doble jeopardy involved in the present case and there is no bar for this Court to consider the contemptuous action of the accused. 

      Page No. 20  to 24:-

      The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Advocate General, State of Bihar –Vs- Madhya Pradesh Khair Industries reported in 1980 (3) SCC 311 “while we are conscious that every abuse of the process of Court may not necessarily amount to contempt of court, abuses of the process of the court calculated to hamper the due course of judicial proceedings or orderly administration of justice, we must say is the contempt of court. It may be necessary to  punish as a contempt, a course of conduct which abuses and makes a mockery of judicial process and which thus extends its pernicious influence beyond the parties to the action and affects the interests of the public in the administration of justice.”

      Similarly the observation of the Apex Court in the case Chandra Shashi –Vs- Anil Kumar reported in 1994 AIR SCW 4994 that “anyone who takes recourse to fraud, deflects the course of judicial proceedings; or if anything is done with oblique motive, the same interferes with the administration of justice. In an appropriate place, the mens rea may not be clear or may be obsure, but if the act or conduct tends to undermine the dignity of the Court or prejudice the party or impedes or hinders the due course of judicial proceedings or administration of justice, it would amount to contempt of court”.

      In our view, the word ‘interfere’ means in the context of subject any action which checks or hampers the functioning or hinders or tends to prevent the performance of duty in the normal course or an attempt of impede or undermine the majesty of the Court.

      Hence, we   find that the accused has committed criminal contempt of the court and as such, is liable to be punished accordingly.


      Page No. 23:-

      AMFJ & SRBMJ:

      Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and especially keeping in view the fact that the accused, who is a practicing Advocate has misused not only the trust of the litigant entrusted with him but also has created forged or concocted judgment / order in the name of this Court. Such action not only tends to lower the dignity of the court but also would lower the prestige of the Court in eyes of the public litigant. ………



      1.   On challenge by Criminal Contemner Advocate Mr. Shivanna the Hon’ble Supreme Court through sitting Chief Justice Of India Mr. Justice Bench of “ P. Sathasivam, B.S. Chauhan” on March 14, 2011upheld the High Court Judgment and its suo-moto power of initiating Contempt . The said Judgment is in box below:-
      Supreme Court of IndiaB.N. Shivanna vs Advanta India Ltd. & Anr. on 14 March, 2011Contemner’s Appeal from Karnataka High Court Judgment



      Recusal: In 1995 all Sitting Judges recused and were made Respondentants:- Except two all sitting Judges were members and recused, were made as Respondentants.
      But in Crl.RC. 01/2014 Judges though named as accused of securing more than 27 Judgments fraudulently, including the one below, have created a sense of dejection about the working of “DIVINE”,  “LORDS”,  “JUSTICE”.
      Accused is confident that they shall resign to become role model for other Judges also to resign & return sites the erstwhile land owners, thereby enhancing prestige and glory of themselves, other Good Judges and litigants or accused like me to get fair and free Justice.
      Karnataka High Court : Subramani vs Union Of India (Uoi) on 12 October, 1995 : Equivalent citations: ILR 1995 KAR 3139, 1995 (6) KarLJ 476 :
      Bench: K Bakthavatsalam, M Saldanha

      10. The 2nd respondent-Society in WP 11211/95 has filed a detailed Statement of Objections. It is stated therein that the petitioner is not a member of the Society and has also no interest in the acquired land or sites formed therein and therefore he cannot invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution and he is in no way affected by the impugned action of the Society. It is stated that the Karnataka State Judicial Department Employees’ House Building Co-operative Society Ltd. has been duly registered under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act. It is also stated that it is not “State” or “Authority” within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and that its function is not amenable to attack at the instance of utter strangers to the Society like the petitioner and that the Society is not amenable to Writ Jurisdiction of this Court. It is stated that the members of the public have no locus standi to call in question the acts and omissions of the Society or to take exception to the acquisition of land for the Society, making of layout therein and allotment of sites. It is stated that it is entirely a matter of internal administration of the Society and the total strangers like the petitioner has no right to question the same. It is also stated that in the Petition wrong statements of facts and distortions thereof have been indulged in and on such basis wild allegations have been made against the Society and respondents 3 to 31, who are members thereof. It is stated that the Writ Petition has to be thrown out on the ground that the Writ Petition is filed to scandalise the Judiciary and the Judges and that the attack against the Society is wholly unjustified. It is stated in the Statement of Objection that the Society is registered on 11.8.1983 and those serving in the Judicial Department in Karnataka as also the Judges of the High Court and the Subordinate Courts are eligible to be admitted to its membership. One of the objects of the Society is to acquire land, make a layout of house sites therein and allot them to its members. It is stated that there are at present 2560 members on the rolls of the Society and out of which there are 36 Judges of High Court including retired Judges. The Society selected an area of about 200 acres situated at Allalasandra, Chikka-bommasandra 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 and by communication dated 30.8.1985 sent by the Government to the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District, steps have been taken as per Annexure-R1. In pursuance of this a Preliminary Notification was issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. It is stated that none of the land owners whose lands were notified for acquisition filed any objections, as in fact none of them had any objections because they had all prior to 16.1.1984 agreed to convey the lands to the Society and this was followed by execution of agreements upto 30.6.1984. Approval of acquisition was given on 30.8.85 and a Final declaration under Section 6(1) of the Act was issued on 24.2.1989. An award was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer on 11.2.1990. It is stated that all except two owners namely Papaiah and Muniswamappa accepted the award and received the compensation and delivered possession of the lands acquired. These owners filed W.P.Nos. 3995 and 6556/1990 and they were dismissed by Shivappa J on 17.11.1992.
      12. Though the State has not filed any Statement of Objection, entire records pertaining to the acquisition of land with which we are concerned have been produced before us. We have gone through the records.33. Lastly we are constrained to observe above the serious allegations made against the Judges of this Court (sitting, retired, transferred) and retired Judges of the Supreme Court in the Public Interest Litigation filed by the two Practising Advocates of this Bar. In the case reported in P. PERUMAL AND ORS. v.. STATE OF TAMILNADU AND ORS 1993-2 LW 681. at page 712 at para 41 Mishra, J., as he then was has stated thus: “41. In a nutshell, it will be no exaggeration if it is said that the High Court Judges are high dignitaries, who by virtue of their office and the nature of work, that is to say, dispensation of justice, exercise a regal or sovereign function; their work forms part of Constitutional duty of the State and they discharge inalienable functions of the Constitutional Government, which no one else is entitled to perform. They are to be faithful and true to the duties of their office and to function without fear or favour, affection or ill-will and act only to uphold the constitution and the laws framed thereunder. They have to be aloof to some extent from others. These and other acts which Judges perform make them the object of regard and respect of others. Their functions as demanded by their office make them important for the Society.”If the Members of the Bar recklessly make allegations without verifying the facts as though the Judges have made false declaration, it only reflects on the Bench and the Bar also. We are of the view, it will bring down the confidence reposed by the public on the Judiciary, if such cases are filed. We hope that at least in future if any Member of the Bar is agitating for some cause in a Writ Petition by way of Public Interest Litigation, they will do so only after   proper investigation and enquiry and try to state the facts alone. That   apart, we do not think that the first two petitioners have got any locus standi to file these Petitions. When it is not disputed that owners have parted with the lands after receiving huge amount from the Society, we do not think that the petitioners, who have no interest at all, can come up before this Court by filing these Writ Petitions styling as Pubfic Interested litigation.



      1.   Section 362 Cr.P.C:-   Court not to alter judgement:- Save as otherwise provided by this Code or by any other law for the time being in force, no Court, when it has signed its judgement or order disposing of a case, shall alter or review the same except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error.In Criminal Contempt of Lower Court final Judgment in the form of Order dated 22nd October, 2013, in utter violation and contempt of Section 362 of Cr.P.C., the High Court Registry  with criminal intent, with the “Collective combined coercive illegal , un-becoming of so called Judges / Judicial officers have played fraud by IMPORTING Section 395 of Cr.P.C; with having deliberations over period of two months with “powerful lobby of 867 Corrupt Judges and Lokayuktas” from supreme court to this High Court; and claiming to have been Ordered by Hon’ble chief Justice on 06.01.2014 there by fraudulently registering the “Criminal Transferred Case” as “Criminal Referred Case”.
      2.   The Registrars who have put in more than 30 years of service in Judiciary, can not claim this criminal intently serious fraud in not assigning the Case number as Criminal Transfer Case; as they knew that by registering it under Sec. 407 CrPC, by this time all  “powerful lobby of 867 Corrupt Judges and Lokayuktas”  including the two judges namely  K. Bhaktavatsal and C.R. Kumaraswamy  would have been standing trial before a Single Judge as per Sec. 407 [8] who had to act as Magistrate in High Court & the Hon’ble Chief Justice so also Advocate General Prof Ravi Verma Kumar would have initiated Criminal Contempt of High Court against 27 alleged frudulantly secured Judgments.
      3.   It is a fact that at present all Registrars of High Court viz., B.A. Patil , P.N. Desai , H.P. Sandesh, are all named in  “powerful lobby of 867 Corrupt Judges and Lokayuktas” accused of “Karnataka Employees HBCS has secured more than 27 judgments fraudulently in Hon’ble High Court for developing Judicial Layout and any frauds committed on it amounts to fraud on court of records” are exercising powers fraudulently, without bringing to the kind Notice of their Employer i.e., Hon’ble Chief Justice Mr. Justice D.H. Waghela of their allegiance to “Karnataka Judicial Department Employees HBCS” of which membership is admittedly for persons who are employees of Karnataka High Court or any other Courts there-under etc., They failed to recuse from passing any orders on Criminal Transferred Case No C.C. 6711/2012.
      4.   The Lower Court transferred the case on 30th October 2013 the entire records to Hon’ble High Court. On the Adminstration side the said one more all, with common intention to obstruct Justice to me and diminish or demolish / extinct my faith in Hon’ble High Court, they made me wander from Pillar to post of Registar Judicial, General, Criminal Branch, Copying branch, to Hon’ble Chief Justice till 10.04.2014; seeking the “Records pertaining to my very case , of Chief Justice Order purporting to be Case classified as Criminal Referred Case under Section 395 of Cr.P.C. “, but Registar Judicial failing to part with “Certified Copies” in the guise of high Court Rules contrary to fundamental Rights under Articles 14, 19, 21, Right to Information, Transparence in working of high Court speak ANARCHY.

        (2) “Criminal Appeal” means an appeal which, under any law for the time being in force,     lies to the High Court from an order or sentence passed by a subordinate criminal court in the exercise of its original criminal jurisdiction;
        Sec. 5.   First appeals.—Save as otherwise provided in this Act,—
        (ii )   all Criminal Appeals against Judgements in which sentence of death or imprisonment for life is passed and against Judgements of acquittal in cases in which offences are punishable with death or imprisonment for life shall be heard by a Bench consisting of not less than two Judges of the High Court and other Criminal Appeals shall be heard by a Single Judge of the High Court.

        Sec. 10. Other powers of a bench of two Judges.—The powers of the High Court in relation to the following matters shall be exercised by a Bench of two Judges:—

        (i) a reference,-
        (b) under section 395 [Reference to High Court] of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973
        (v) all other matters not expressly provided for in this Act, or any other law for the time being in force.
        Sec. 10. Other powers of a bench of two Judges.—The powers of the High Court in relation to the following matters shall be exercised by a Bench of two Judges:—


        (i) a reference,-
        (b) under section 395 [Reference to High Court] of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973
        (v) all other matters not expressly provided for in this Act, or any other law for the time being in force.

        [2] High Court of Karnataka Rules, 1959
        (b) “Chief Justice” means the Chief Justice of the High Court;

        (o) “Certified Copy” shall have the same meaning as is assigned to it in section 76 of the Indian Evidence Act;


        CHAPTER – III : Constitution of Benches


        6. Benches shall be constituted and judicial work of the Court allotted or distributed to them by or in accordance with the directions of the Chief Justice.

        CHAPTER – IX


         1.    Where a reference to the High Court is from a subordinate Court seeking the

        opinion or directions of the High Court on any point or question, the reference shall be in the form of a statement of the case containing the denoting number and particulars of the suit,  appeal or other proceeding out of which the reference arises, the names and addresses of  all the parties interested in or likely to be affected by the reference, setting out the facts of the case and the points or questions on which the opinion, order or direction of the High Court is sought together with the opinion of the referring officer, Court or Authority thereon, and shall be accompanied by such records and papers as are, in the opinion of the referring officer, Court of authority, relevant for a full consideration of the reference, with two copies of such statement.

        CHAPTER – XIII

        Issue and Service of Notice

        1. When cases are admitted and notice to respondents directed therein, the Registrar shall cause notice to issue in appropriate forms prescribed for the purpose, signed by the Registrar and sealed with the seal of the Court. Every such notice shall be accompanied by a copy of the memorandum of appeal or petition or similar principal pleading in the matter to which the notice relates.


        11. When a date is fixed for hearing or appearance and is specified in the notice, the matter in which the notice was issued shall not be posted before the said date.

        CHAPTER – XV

        Postings and Adjournments of Cases:-

        1.  Cases shall ordinarily be posted for admission within a fortnight of presentation if the papers are in order.


      1. The Great Trial of “Criminal Transfrred Case from ACMM-VIII Court” faudulantly and in Criminal Contempt of  “Criminal Transferred Case from ACMM-VIII Court Order”, Criminal Procedure Code, Karnataka High Court Act of 1961 ,  Karnataka High Court RULES OF 1959; converted into “Criminal Referred Case No 1/2014” and listing before Division Bench is like “HANGING JUSTICE BY LAMP POST” .  It is humbly submitted that this Criminal Contempt of Court shall be 29th or 30th by “powerful lobby of 867 Corrupt Employee-Cum-Judges and Lokayuktas”.
        Criminal Referred Case is assigned to cases from Session Court against Serial Rapists, Murders, Dacoits, etc.,



      COURT HALL NO : 6

      LIST NO: 1


      NICNET                                        Court Hall :    6                  Page No : 1


      Slno       Case NO/Year                                Adv for Pet/Appl/Comp             Adv for Resp




      1. CRL.CCC  3/2012              (        ,        ) G KRISHNAMURTHY                   RAVI B NAIK FOR A1

      (COP 154/02 & COA 831/10,                         K S MAHADEVAN, OFFICIAL           ASHOK HARNAHALLI

      CA 393/13,CA 411/13,                              LIQUIDATOR IN COMPANY             ASSTS FOR A3

      CA 2226/13, CA 1043/09,                           APPLICATION 831/10                K V NARASIMHAN FOR A2 & 5

      CA 1044/09 FILES K/B)                             FILED VK                          A MADHUSUDHAN RAO FOR A4

      WITH NOC




      1.  CRL.A    930/2013            (A       ,        ) HANUMANTHARAYAPPA K


      3. CRL.RC   1/2014              (        ,        ) SPP                               R1-DIGVIJAY MOTE SD






      1.   But cleverly, clandestinely under meticulous directions of Who-Is-Who of Indian Judiciary conspiring with  Kings & Queens amongst “powerful lobby of 867 Corrupt Judges and Lokayuktas” viz., aspiring Employee-Cum-Chief Justice Of India H.L.Dattu, Supreme Court serving Employee-Cum-Judges T.S. Thakur & V.Gopal Gowda. About 25 plus Employee-Cum-Sitting-Judges of Karnataka Hon’ble High Court including the presiding Employee-Cum-Judges of Division Bench of Court Hall No. 6 of Dr. K. Bhaktavatsala & C.R. Kumaraswamy, Queen Majula Chellur Employee-Cum-Chief-Justice of Kerala State, Lokayukta Y. Bhaskar Rao. ,. The list is longer than Tail Lord Hanuman numbering 4500 Plus. That apart retired
      2.   On 10.04.2014, lapse of  160 days after 30th October 2013,  a Police Inspector along with few constables rushes to my residence late in night around nine o’clock, creating kind of terror / threat in the minds of my wife and children as though they have come to arrest me for having raped some rich man’s / judge’s young beautiful daughter , later to reveal that it is to serve a NOTICE from Karnataka High Court. But this accused received them with warmth seved with soft drinks and quickle acknowledged the “receipt of Notice’, which next itself was shown by High Court having served on me on its web-site; one can imagine the “Power wielding over state police by powerful lobby of 867 Corrupt Judges and Lokayuktas”.
      3.   In said Application of transfer, mention is made of Registrars of this Honble High Court being  members of said Karnataka Employees HBCS. They are :-

      Basavraj A. Patil, S.L.F.No. 3219[Page. 282], Present Registrar General. Entry of his name at

      page No. 70 at Sl. No. 442, of my transfer application.

      While enrolling as member, he has given as “21st Dist.  & Sessions Judge, City Civil Court,

      Bangalore-9”. P.N. Desai , Present Registrar [Judicial]:- At page No. 70 at Sl. No. 442 of my

      transfer application. S.L.F.No. 3103 [Page.275 ] , H.D. Sandesh, S.L.F.No. 3217 [Page.282 ], District  Judge, Mandya. Present Registrar [Adminstration] . Allotted with site no. 219 in Judicial Layout No.-II, on Kanakapura Road.
      Then  Employee-cum-Deputy Registrar [Criminal Section] Mr. C. Channegowda , whose Membership details was neglected to mention in my Application ACMM-VIII court is C. Channegowda , Court Officer, High Court of Karnataka,  Bangalore-1, SLF No. 1317 . Page No. 074” .

      Mr. John Michael D’Kunha, S.L.F. No. 3235 [ Page No. 283], Registrar Vigilance; entry of  whose  name ;  was left-out in my said application. Mr. John Michael D’Kunha is now trying Supreme Court of India “Criminal Transfrred Case u/s 406 of Cr.P.C from Tamil Nadu to Karnataka; for ‘free and fair Trial” ; a fight between two equally famous Tamil Nadu Chief Minsters viz., K.Karunanidhi and J. Jayalalita. The case is “Dis-proprtinate Assets Case of Rs. 65 Crores”. 

      Matter of fact Karnataka Chief Justices from 2004 till 2012 very courteous to nominate

      appoint / recommend Employee-Cum-District-Judge level cadre for fair trial viz., Mallikarjuniha, Balakrishna . Possibly Mr. John Michael D’Kunha nomination was cleared by Chief Justice D.H.  Waghela after consulting / on-advice of  two of Senior most Employee-Cum-Judges of Karnataka High Court viz.,  K.L. Manjunath and N.Kumar.

      1.   The said Registrars-Cum-Employees with corrupt intention, claim that after  failed to register the case under proper classification i.e., “Criminal Transfrred Case “ or “Criminal Case [Misc]” as is practice
      2.   Channegowda is one who informed that very word in court order of ACMM-VIII is to construe as “referred under Section 395“, making me confirm my doubts of foul play of Supreme court Mr. Dattu , Thakur & Gowda acting as extra constitutional authorities.
      3.    This happened in ILR 1995 KAR 3139 in JUDICIAL Layout, an EPITHET on EPITAPH of Karnataka high Court; whence CJI A.M. Ahmedi flew in to Bangalore and discouraged Judge S.Rajendra Babu from procceding on leave and assured him that all arrengements are made. Devegowda Government gave a BLANK CHEQUE in NOT FILING any Objections to Division Bench of Bhaktavatsalam & Saldhna. At a time when all Judges except two were not Employee-cum-Judges. But still A.M. Ahmedi sent if pre-drafted Judgment, full of FRAUDS, which came to re-opened by Upa-Lokayukta G.P. Shivapraksh 1999-2002 and then on WP 40994/2002; at the instance of “Powerful lobby of 867 Corrupt Judges and Lokayuktas”, so as to show the Public / Govt / Advocates that Cases are pending; hence prosecution can not be done. This is GREAT MISCHIEF. For re-opened by Upa-Lokayukta G.P. Shivapraksh 1999-2002 investigations proved that [a] No compenasation is paid to Land Lords [b] That Society has violated all terms of Agreement signed between Government of Karnataka. [c] That “Powerful lobby of 867 Corrupt Judges and Lokayuktas” were in-eligible to members of Society [d] That Judicial Layout is NEVER aaproved by B.D.A as claimed in all 2248 Sale Deeds [e] That 320 sites are formed in lands without title by fraudulent Court decrees including one from Chief Justice Y.Bhaskara Rao & other by Chief Justice P.V. Reddi. Both were gifted with site no. 1253 and site No. 0001.


      1.    Advocate General’s Statement:- “The entire Judicial Employees Housing Society is BLACK MARK on KARNATAKA JUDICIARY”  … “ This [JUDICIAL Lay Out ] has become a NIGHT MARE for the [entire]  JUDICIARY”. “ It should be put to an end at the earliest” . 
        This statement appearing in DNA News, on Friday, November 2011 under caption “82 JUDGES ALLOTTED PLOTS OF LAND AT DIRT CHEAP RATES IN KARNATAKA” was presented to Hon’ble Chief Justice on 30th January 2014 by with Appeal Appeal to “The Hon’ble Chief Justice of Karnataka. Copies to CJI Justice Sathashivam, Advocate General etc.,” 30th January 2014.
      Request to stop the allotement of cases to 28 present sitting Employee-Cum-Judges-of-High-Court under Articles 225 r/w Articles 14, 21, 215, 229, 235; in the light of statement of Advocate General
      28 Sitting Karntaka High Court Employee-Cum-Judges: Kar Jud Emp HBCS:Members / allottees / Suspected:-Disabled:- K.L. Majunath ,  N. Kumar., N.K. Patil, K.Bhakthavatsala, Mohan Shantan Goudar ,  H.G. Ramesh ,  S.Abdul Nazeer,  Ram Mohan Reddy ,  H.Billappa , Hulawadi G. Ramesh , H.N.Nagamohan Das , Patil B.S ,  Anand Byrareddy,  A.B.Hinchigeri,  Kumara Swamy C.R ,   A.S.Bopanna ,  Narayanappa Ananda,   Jawad Rahim, L. Narayana Swamy,   A.S.Pachhapure,  Ravi  Malimath,  B.V.Nagarathna,  H.S. Kempanna,  B.S.Indrakala,   A.V.Chandrashekara,  Rathnakala ,  R.B. Budihal ,   Pradeep D.Waingankar

      82 Judges allotted plots of land at dirt cheap rates in Karnataka

      DNA NEWS: Friday, November 18, 2011 – 10:05 IST | Place: Bangalore

      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 Lok Ayukta. This layout has become a nightmare for the judiciary. It should be put to an end at the earliest.”

      The Karnataka government’s search for a suitable candidate for the Lok Ayukta’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 beenallotted 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 Lok Ayukta 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 meant 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 ofKarnataka 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 Dhingra, 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 SR Bannurmath’s name, whom chief minister DV Sadananda Gowda wants to install as the next Lok Ayukta. 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 Rs2.64 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 Lok Ayukta. 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.”

      1.     Accused further submits that High Court is meant for dispensation of JUSTICE to all litigants without fear or favor; and to enhance PUBLIC CONFIDENCE in Karnataka high Court and that present A.G having raised serious aspertions / dubious / un-holy alliance with political & Executive Government and calling for WHITE PAPER in Re.  “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”; accused humbly has published and would like to forward the information, for larger good of Indian democracy and our next generations;  gathered over period of sixteen years whence accused family members chose to stand by to work in collating all information; sacrificing childhood, education , friends etc.,
      2.   The accused hereabove has furnished information to assist the Hon’ble High Court, the Chief Justice Hon’ble Justice Waghela the details of members / allottees , their criminal conspiracies with Falling to FEET of Chief Minister Bangarappa in 1991, sacrificing Idependence of Judiary, making all other Judges to at the “Call of Political Government” calls for ANARCHY. Getting B.D.A Plan approval in November 1992 based on plain letter of Society without having paid a PENNY to Land Owners & Government or B.D.A  Chief-Justice-Cum-Employee S.Mohan and all Judges in 1991, 1992 colluded with President Shivalingiha and other Clerks of High Court and were Directors  fradulantly with coercive corrupt methods , holding a threat on Government Departments of every day cases in Karnataka Judiciary of Government, Politicians etc.,  .
      3.   Accused adduced evidences there-for ; more is in our web-sites of which CDs are seized by Vidhana Soudha Police; so that the prestine Glory of High Court is  regained by sending the Contemners  to JAIL where rightly belong.
      4.   If High Court, Government, Advocates and Police including Lokayukta Special court where the Criminal Cases have to filed under Prevention of Corruption Act, fails; the ANARCHY is writ large on HIGH COURT’s Name as their criminal modus-operandi & getting-away from Prosecution shall become accepted norm. Thereby High Court’s name will be at RISK.
      5.   I was issued with  Hon’ble Karnataka High Court Notice dated 17.02.2014 on at 8 PM on 10th April 2014; by Adugodi Police. The Notice in one page other being “Letter copy of High to Police Commissione directing to serve Notice upon me”.  directing me to appear before Court Hall No. 6 in r/o “ CRIMINAL REFERRED CASE No. 01/2014 IN C.C. NO 6711/2012” . Notice reads thus “WHEREAS, the above referred Criminal Referred Case Number 01/2014 is registred against the Respondentant / accused pursuant to the Order dated 22.10.2013 passed by the VIII – Additional Chief Magistate”
      6.   Lords Of All They Survey


      Lords Of All They SurveyIMRAN KHANDecember 3, 2011, Issue 48 Volume 8The Lokayukta’s post has been lying vacant as most of the prospective candidates are embroiled in a co-operative society irregularity. Imran Khan reports

      Is justice blind? Justice SR Bannurmath (centre), Photos: Bangalore News Photos

      LAST WEEK, Karnataka Governor HR Bhardwaj rejected the BJP government’s recommendation for appointing Justice (retd) SR Bannurmath as Lokayukta because he was embroiled in controversies, including allotment of land in the Yelahanka Judicial Layout in Bengaluru in violation of rules. The search for a Lokayukta is not going to get any easier because it has emerged that two Supreme Court judges and 13 high courtjudges were allotted plots in the same layout.

      Is justice blind?: Justice SR Bannurmath’s house at the Yelahanka Judicial   Layout in Bengaluru

      Documents with TEHELKA show that Supreme Court judges TS Thakur and HL Dhattu were allotted sites by the Karnataka State Judicial Employees House Building Co-operative Society (KSJEHBCS) in violation of the Co-operative Societies Act and Model Bylaws. As many as 82 judges, including eight retired SC judges and two former Chief Justices of India, have been allotted sites despite the fact that they are not judicial employees.

      Interestingly, Justice Shivaraj V Patil was forced to step down as Lokayukta in September after it was found that his name figured in the list of judges who had been allotted a site in the Yelahanka layout.

      According to past judgments, judges are constitutional authorities and not judicial employees. For instance, in the case of Union of India vs Sankal Chand Himatlal Sheth on 19 September 1977, a five-member SC Bench observed that, “A HC judge is not a government servant, but the holder of a constitutional office. He is as much part of the State as the executive government.”

      Subsequently, on 12 October 1995, in the case of Subramani versus Union of India, theKarnataka HC said: “A reading of Clause 7 (that deals with eligibility criteria) of the bylaws by no stretch of imagination can include the HC and SC judges (sitting, transferred, retired). Even assuming for a moment that certain judges have been allowed to become members of the society, it may be an irregularity in the conduct of the business of the society.”

      Other prominent people who were allotted sites include HC judges Manjula Chellur, CR Kumaraswamy, Vasudevan Jagannathan, HN Nagamohan Das, Ajit J Gunjal, NK Patil, N Kumar, AB Hinchigeri, Anand Byrareddy, S Abdul Nazeer and Mohan M Shanthanagoudar. All allotments were made in violation of Clauses 10(B) and 53 of the KSJEHBCS bylaws.

      Clause 10(B) clearly states that only an “employee of the Karnataka judicial department and who has put in a minimum continuous or intermittent service of five years in the state” is eligible for the plot. And Clause 53 says, “The society shall allot sites, flats and houses only to members who are eligible as per bylaw No. 10.”

      In fact, the Joint House Committee report on land encroachment, submitted to the Karnataka Assembly in 2007, is scathing in its comments on the functioning of the KSJEHBCS and the judicial fraternity. “It has been unfortunate that the KSJEHBCS, which should have been a model for other co-operative societies, has become the leading law-breaker without fear of the law,” the report said. “It has indulged in acts of favouritism, cronyism and capricious indifference to law at will, obviously under the hubris that having HC judges and powerful persons as its members and beneficiaries will ensure immunity to its illegal acts. What is more disquieting is the readiness with which HC judges, who are not ‘employees’ under any government but are constitutional functionaries, should have eagerly become members of the HBCS and obtained sites. It is seen that some of them obtained sites not only for themselves but their kith and kin who are not judicial employees either.”

      Thakur and Dhattu were allotted plots when they were judges in the Karnataka HC. Thakur was allotted site No. 1273 in 1996-97. He had paid Rs 1.54 lakh for a site measuring 5,436 sq ft. The current market value is estimated to be around Rs 2.17 crore. Dhattu was allotted site No. 2095 at the same layout for which he had paid a meagre Rs 61,598 in 1997-98. He was granted another site measuring 4,000 sq ft in 2002.

      The eight retired SC judges — Justices GT Nanavati, RV Raveendran, MN Venkatachalaiah, S Rajendrababu, P Venkatarama Reddy, Shivraj V Patil, N Venkatachala and K Jagannatha Shetty — have also violated the same clauses because they were allotted sites by the society.

      According to documents available with TEHELKA, Nanavati, who probed the 2002 Gujarat riots, got site No. 2070 allotted on 14 October 1999. He was the Chief Justice of the Karnataka HC from September 1994 to March 1995. MN Venkatachalaiah, former CJI (February 1993-October 1994) was allotted site No. 1295, measuring 5,400 sq ft in 1997-98 for Rs 1.53 lakh and S Rajendra Babu, who also served as CJI (May 2004- June 2004) was allotted site No. 1389, measuring 9,605 sq ft, in 1994-95 for Rs 4.44 lakh, when he was a Karnataka HC judge.

      “The allotment was done a long time ago,” says retired SC judge P Venkatarama Reddy. “As far as I know, more than 100 judges were allotted sites. A PIL has been pending regarding this. Whether judges are employees of the judiciary or not is the larger question.” Former HC judge M Rama Jois added: “I’ve been a member of this society from the start. There is no irregularity.” The others either refused to talk about the issue or were unavailable for comment.

      As many as 82 judges were allotted plots in the society even though they are not judicial employees

      But what appears to have been violated is not just laws but the very principles of the co-operative movement. In the case of Ishwarnagar Society vs Padmanand Sharma, the SC observed: “Co-operative societies are the best system that suit the needs of the poor and weaker sections. The object of a co-operative society is not to earn profits but to enable the members to improve their economic condition. Thus, co-operative societies like the present one, which seek to obtain land at concessional rates from the government and to build houses, must necessarily have a limitation in that only those who are in real need of houses should be permitted to become members and to take the benefit of land allotment.”

      IT IS against the backdrop of this court observation that the palatial houses built by judges in the layout strike a jarring note. Most have been allotted massive plots larger than tennis courts. In fact, one retired judge has actually built a tennis court on his allotted land. Ironically, the land was granted by the state government. As the grant was for a public purpose, which was to provide subsidised housing to the needy, the government also subsidised the land grant with taxpayers’ money.

      In a city where even the middle class makes extreme sacrifices to buy residential property, these judges were allotted sites at shockingly low prices: amounts ranging from Rs 25-Rs 240 per sq ft. This, when prices between 1994 and 2006 in this area were never less than Rs 1,000 per sq ft. The current market rate is over Rs 4,000 per sq ft. Some judges received multiple allotments (a violation of Section 10(a) of the bylaws), and in some cases they already owned houses in the city at the time of allotment.

      Many judges have violated conditions laid down in the sale deed, which prevents them from selling the plots within 10 years, and some have since sold them at a huge profit. Some have not built houses on the plots within the stipulated two years.

      In violation of a government order, the society exempted the judges from filing affidavits listing their assets. Under normal circumstances, it is through these voluntary declarations that the co-operative society filters the applications and eliminates those who already own houses.

      Imran Khan is a Senior Correspondent with

      (Published in Tehelka Magazine, Volume 8 Issue 48, Dated December 3, 2011)

      Imran Khan     More by the author >

      Tags: AB HinchigeriAjit J GunjalAnand ByrareddyBengaluruco-operative society irregularityCR KumaraswamyGovernorGT NanavatiGujarat riotshigh court judgesHimatlal ShethHL DhattuHN Nagamohan DasHR BhardwajImran KhanIshwarnagar SocietyJoint House CommitteejudgesK Jagannatha Shetty,KarnatakaKarnataka State Judicial Employees House Building Co-operative Societyland scamLokayukta,Manjula ChellurMN VenkatachalaiahModel BylawsN KumarNG VenkatachalaNK PatilP Venkatarama Reddy,Rama JoisRV RaveendranS Abdul NazeerS RajendrababuSankal ChandSankal Chand Himatlal ShethShivraj V PatilSR BannurmathSubramani versus Union of IndiaSupreme CourtTS ThakurVasudevan JagannathanYelahanka Judicial Layout


      1.    Accused futher submits as how during the Housing Societies land scam of more than 32,000 acres of lands, was negotiated by presiding Judges of Division Bench of this High Court namely Rama Jois and Rajshekhar Murty during 1989-1991 and conspired with the Chief Minister Late Mr. Bangarappa and  Judgments, to uphold “Illegal Land Acquisition in favor of 125 plus HBCS in popularly called “Narayan Reddy” case .

      Narayana Reddy Vs State of KarnatakaParagraph 24.  [at page 2282 ] : A detailed investigation by us in respect of the serious allegations made by the petitioner  have become unnecessary for the reason that the petitioners brought to our notice that during the pendency of these petitions, not only the acquisition of lands in favor seven respondent-Societies, but also acquisition of lands of more than one hundred housing Societies, all of which have sprung up within the Bangalore Metropolitan Planning Area had become matter of public debate and criticism, as a result of which a statutory enquiry was directed to be held by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies under Section 64 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act by Sri G.V.K. Rao, the Controller of Weights and Measures and he has submitted his Report. The petitioners submitted that the Report fully establishes the allegations made by the petitioners  In the circumstance, at the request of the petitioners, by our Order dated 3-8-1990, we directed the Government Advocate to produce the copy of the said Report. Accordingly, it has been produced. The relevant portion of the Report generally in relation to the activities of all the  Housing Societies in the City, reads:The Additional Registrar of Co-operative Societies (Industrial and Miscellaneous Co-operatives) Bangalore vide Order No.HSG 105 HHS 87-88 dated 10th March 1988, has appointed me under Section 64 of Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act 1959, to enquire into certain allegations against 98 house building co-operative societies of Bangalore City. The main allegations referred to in the order are:1.   Bogus agreements with the landlords and Estate agents.2.   Bogus membership and irregularities in registration of members.

      3.   Irregularities in distribution of sites.

      4.     Collection of exorbitant site advances from the members.



      Para. 26. [at page 2305]

      GOVERNMENT ORDER NO.HUD 156 MNJ 89 Bangalore, DATED 14TH JANUARY 1991.

      The Cabinet Sub-Committee on House Building Co-operative Society is reconstituted with the following :


      The Housing and Urban Development Department will service the Cabinet Sub-Committee.

      The learned Government Advocate also submitted that the decision to issue final notifications was taken in view of the time bar for issuing them fixed in Section 6 of the Act, but at the same time the Government had also taken a decision not to hand over possession of the lands acquired in favour of any of these Societies and other Societies, pending consideration of the matter by the Cabinet Sub-Committee and the decision of the Government in the light of the recommendation of the Sub-Committee. He submitted that possession of the lands acquired in favour of all the Societies in the option to withdraw from the acquisition in exercise of its power under Section 48 of the Act. He also submitted that an earlier order dated 30-03-1990 had also been passed by the Registrar prohibiting all the Societies within the City of Bangalore Development Authority limits from allotting any site to any one, as certain Societies were indulging in allotting sites even before possession of the acquired lands was handed over to them.

      Para- 37 at   Page 2317:  The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that even as the Registrar of Co-Operative Societies was looking into the matter in depth, the Notification acqiring land was issued without examining the bonafides of the scheme of the Society.  They submitted that as late as on 30-3-1990, The Registrar of Societies has passed an order prohibiting the respondents and all other Societies within the Bangalore Metropolitan Area from allotting sites to anyone, as some of the Societies were indulging in allotment of sites even though the possession of the lands had not been taken over by the Government and handed over to the Societies in order to create a fait accompli. A copy of the order has been produced, which reads:

      * Proceedings of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies in Karnataka, Bangalore.

      REF: 1. Enquiry ordered into the affairs of House Building Co-operative Societies in No.HSG/105/HHS/87-88 dated 10-3-1988.

      2.   Reports of the Inquiry conducted by Shri G.V.K.Rao.

      3.   Notification No.RDC 211 CLM 84 dated 24th October 1984.

      4.   DO No.CMW 30 CHS 90 dated 28-3-1990 from the Secretary to Government,

      Co-operation Department.

      [Page 2317-19.]


      Whereas by his order dated 10-3-1988 the Additional Registrar of Co-operative Societies had appointed Shri G.V.K.Rao the then Controller of Weights and Measures to inquire into the affairs of 98 House Building Co-operative Societies, Bangalore. The interim report of Shri.G.V.K.Rao was received on 13-5-1988 and the final report on 15-2-1989. He had been able to inquire into the affairs of 90 out of total of 98 house building Co-operative societies referred to him.

      2.   Whereas, on 25-7-1989, a decision was taken by the Government that in case of 60 Societies where the enquiry report of Shri G.V.K. Rao indicated prima facie guilt and commission of various irregularities, detailed inquiries were to be conducted by the Department of Co-operation before taking any further action. Similarly, the 8 cases in which Shri G.V.K. Rao could not inquire into also had to be inquired into in detail by this office.

      3.  Whereas, this office has been in accordance with the above decision conducting detailed inquiries into the affairs of such societies and sending reports to Government. So far reports in 41 cases have been sent to Government including 5 interim reports. From the 36 cases of Housing Societies in which detailed reports have been sent, it is seen that a substantially   large number of members in these societies have been found to be ineligible for being considered for allotment of house sites as per byelaws of the society as well as the regulations of the BDA and circular instructions of the concerned departments.

      4.   Whereas, in 62 cases the inquiry is yet to be completed and final report sent to the Government. As the individual inquiries now being conducted by the department are of a very detailed nature, they are necessarily time consuming.

      5.    Whereas, on the one hand it is felt that this department will require time to complete the remaining inquiries as well, on the other, it is apprehended that before completion of such inquiries the concerned societies may, if not prevented, continue with the allotment of sites and in certain cases allot them to members who may be later found to be ineligible.

      6.  Whereas, even in respect of other House Building Societies, which are not covered by the inquiries referred to above similar inquiries have to be ordered to weed out the ineligible members will be per se objectionable and will also have the effect of adversely affecting the rights of the legitimate and eligible members.

      7.    Whereas, both these issues have been considered by the Government of Karnataka and it is felt that in order to ensure both i.e., prevention of allotment to ineligible members and protection of the rights of the eligible members, it will be necessary to issue detailed guidelines for distribution of House Sites by the Societies to their members, it is necessary and desirable in public interest to prevent Housing Co-operative Societies from distributing sites until the declaration of the uniform guidelines. Hence the following Order:


      No.HSG/105/HHS/87-88                                                    Date: 30-3-1990.

      For the reasons stated in the preamble and being satisfied that it is necessary in public interest and in the interest of the members of the House Building Co-operative Societies to issue direction for preventing the affairs of the House Building Co-operative Societies in Bangalore. City Corporation and BDA limits being conducted in a manner detrimental to the interest of the members thereof, I, Vinay Kumar, Registrar of Co-operative Societies in Karnataka, under the powers under Section 30-B of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959, vested in me under Government Notification No.RDC 211 CLM 84 dated 24th October 1984, do hereby direct that all the House Building Co-operative Societies situated or operating in Bangalore City Corporation and BDA limits, shall forthwith stop allotment of sites until further orders.

      These directions shall come into force with immediate effect.

      Given under my hand and seal this day the 30th March 1990.

      Sd/- Vinay Kumar, Registrar of Co-operative Societies in Karnataka, Bangalore.

      The above Order covers all the Societies including the HMT Employees’ Cooperative Society. [End of para 37; pg. 2319 of Judgment].



      Paragraph 50. [page-2337]: Before concluding, it is necessary to observe that as pointed out in the Report of G.V.K. Rao, it is on account of unlimited territorial jurisdiction and vague provisions as to who could become members and associate members and also as to what are the rights of Associate Members, it has been possible for many of the Societies to manipulate membership in such a awy as to enroll all those who are desirous of purchasing sites as also those who do not posess the territorial or other qualification as members. As the matter is being examined by a Cabinet Sub-Committee, we are of the view that in order to avoid such a confusion and to prevent the abuse of provision for acquisition of land in favor of House Building Co-operative Societies, it is necessary to take few corrective steps. Some of them are:-

      (1)   The territorial jurisdiction of each of the House Building Co-operative Societies should be specifically indicated in the byelaws and no overlapping of the territorial jurisdiction by another House Building Co-operative Society should be allowed and only bonafide residents within jurisdiction alone should be allowed to become members.

      (2)   In the cases of House Building Societies formed in respect of employees of any organization 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.

      (3)   Even if a provision is made for enrolling nominal or associate members in the bye laws of a Housing Society, they should also be bona fide residents within the territorial limits of the Society concerned and they should be rendered ineligible for allotment of sites.

      (4)    Dual membership or member of the family of a member of a Society becoming member in another Housing Society should be prohibited and if it is found that such members were enrolled, the membership should be treated as void.

      (5)   In the light of the above criteria and any other criteria considered necessary by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, the bye-laws of all the House Building Co-operative Societies should be scrutinized by the Registrar and he should call upon each of the House Building Co-operative Societies to make necessary amendments of the bye laws in exercise of his powers under sub-section (5) of Section 12 of the Act and if any Society fails to do so within time specified, he himself should proceed to amend the bye law in exercise of his powers under sub-section (6) of Section 12 of the Act.

 Kar HC 19 Sit. Judges Named in Charge Sheet at page No. 14 & 15, 16 and at 22 [ extract from office computer of Applicant’s web site  link in]  “February 2010: JUSTICE BULLETIN: AKRAMA – SAKRAMA” Billappa, R.M. Reddy, K. Bhktavatsala, Anand Byra Reddy,  Hinchigeri, N.K. Patil, M. Shantangouder, N. Kumar, H.G Ramesh , Abdul Nazeer, C.R. Kumar Swamy, Ravi V Malimath, H.N. Nagmohan Das, A.S Pachhpure,  Hulvadi G Ramesh, Patil B.S, L. Narayan Swamy, N. Ananda, B.V. Nagrathna,

  1.   Protest against Justice Bhaktavatsala on September 10,2012 #Bangalore
September 8, 2012 against Justice Bhaktavatsala on September 10,2012 #BangaloreJustice Bhaktavatsala’s remarks in the High Court legitimizing the criminal act of domestic violence have horrified the city and indeed the entire country.

To protest such absolutely misogynistic mindset reflecting the dominant attitudes of society that sanction violence against women, we are gathering in protest on Monday September 10, 2012 from 12.30 pm onwards.
_/If you wish to join us in the protest, kindly email us in advance so we can inform you (later) about the site of the protest./_

*Please come dressed in black and we will stand in silence with placards to express our outrage over Justice Bhaktavatsala’s actions. (If you prefer to bring your own messages, please note that displaying them will
be subject to review by Vimochana and other organisers).*

Following the protest we will present the attached memorandum to the  Chief Justice. If you wish to endorse the memorandum, please email us your name, affiliation and contact details no later than Sunday night (9th September).

We look forward to your endorsement and/or your presence in the protest.

All of us from Vimochana.

Forum for Women’s Rights
33/1-9, Thyagraj Layout
Jaibharath Nagar, Bangalore 560033
Tel: +91-80-25492783, 782, 781

 Related articles:-



38. Gist of Section 407 Cr.P.C:- Power of High Court to transfer cases and appeals.

(1) Whenever it is made to appear to the High Court:-
(a) that a fair and impartial inquiry or trial cannot be had in any Criminal Court subordinate thereto, or
(b) that some question of law of unusual difficulty is likely to arise, or
(c) that an order under this section is required by any provision of this Code, or will tend to the general convenience of the parties or witnesses, or is expedient for the ends of justice,
it may order-
(iv) that any particular case or appeal be transferred to and tried before itself.

(2) The High Court may act either on the report of the lower Court, or on the application of a  party interested, or on its own initiative
(7) Where an application for an order under sub-section (1) is dismissed, the High Court may, if it is of opinion that the application was frivolous or vexatious, order the applicant to pay by way of compensation to any person who has opposed the application such sum not exceeding one thousand rupees as it may consider proper in the circumstances of the case.
(8) When the High Court orders under sub-section (1) that a case be transferred from any Court for trial before itself, it shall observe in such trial the same procedure which that Court would have observed if the case had not been so transferred.

  1.   This Accused submits that prima facie the Registrar Judicial was in constant touch with 25 plus tainted sitting Judges including Bench of K.Bhaktavatsala and C.R. Kumaraswamy. So also other benches of N.K.Patil and Ratnakala who heard once / twice.
    All these proceedings on Adminstrative side and Judicial side are in Criminal contempt of the following illegal acts, omissions, commissions committed in bad faith un-becoming of so called Registrars, Judges of Law Court, of Courts of Justice.[i] that not classifying under “Criminal Transferred Case” is “denying my right to be tried fairly and freely, trying to demolish my faith in Karnataka High Court.

[ ii] more than sixty five times accused has prayed in his Application and Memo for making a Report to High Court seeking  “Transferring the C.C. No. 6711/2012”; and to prosecute , as reflected in Court Order i.e.,
This application is filed by the accused u/sec. 479 r/w Section- 407 of Cr.P.C ., seeking for an order to transfer this case to the Hon’ble High court of Karnataka as Hon’ble High court is Court of Records, where this accused has confidence to get justice against powerful lobby of 867 Corrupt Judges and Lokayuktas and this court by transferring the case to Hon’ble High court, shall only enhance its prestige and glory in the eyes of litigants. 

The Hon’ble High court has powers to re-open past judgments and he can convince the Hon’ble High court to re-open the cases of Karnataka Employees HBCS has secured more than 27 judgments fraudulently in Hon’ble High Court for developing Judicial Layout and any frauds committed on it amounts to fraud on court of records.

The learned Sr. APP has filed objections by way of memo contending that when integrity of court is questioned, it is difficult in arriving at proper conclusion and therefore he has prayed to consider the application filed by the accused.

[  iii]   that the administrative order by incorporating Section 395 and listing it amounts to Criminal Contempt of Judgment of ACMM-VIII Court Order.
[iv]   that the administrative order by incorporating Section 395 and listing the Case before accused Employee-cum-Judges Bench is a grave Offence; that without Hon’ble Chief Justice written Orders.
[v] The Employee-cum-Judges Bench which is dis-qualified for reason of being contemners of allged 27 Judgments; amounts more serious crime; apart from Criminal Contempt, General Public may loose the faith in Judiciary, though there are Bonafide few Judges in High Court and Lower Judiciary.
[vi] Listing of “Criminal Transfrred Case from Magistate before Division Bench “shall create a Guniss Book Record” world-wide”. Such acts proves how educated our Judicial fraternity is.
[vii] The accused shall be denied with Natural justice, Fundamental Rights per Article 14, 19, 21, Constitution, to appeal to single Judge etc., .
[viii]   Such act of high Court is an ANATHEMA to law and that too for Indian democracy and amounts to a serious Criminal contempt in the Face of Karnataka high Court.
[ix]  To avoid further embarssment to this patriotic citizen and law abiding citizen, to avoid making “Prosecution into Persecution”, to up-hold Law, justice and courts; it would be better on part of Bench to recall all Orders, if any made, and post it before an appropriate bench.

  1.   The Code of Criminal Procedure-Cases : Section 479 of CrPc:-
    Case in which Judge or Magistrate is personally interested:-
    No Judge or Magistrate shall, except with permission of the Court to which an appeal lies from Court, try or commit for trial any case to or  in which he is a party, or personally interested, and no Judge or Magistrate shall hear an appeal from any judgment or order passed or made by himself.It is humbly submitted that Sec. 479 comes to recuse into play for two Judges ; apart from 25 Plus sitting Judges of high court who are hearing this case  “Admittedly Employees of Karnataka High Court; of which Hon’ble Chief Justice Mr. Justice D.H. Waghela is the Adminstrative Head, of whose written permission to preside any court and in every case to hear they have seek permission of the Employer Mr. Justice Waghela”; under the circumstances both should recuse and rescind all fraudulent Orders passed in Crl.RC 01/2014 so far., if they are left with any honor, common sense and are human beings of knowledge of law.
  2.   Wherefore this humble accused applicant prays as follows:-
    [i] Wherefore the Accused Applicant prays that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to recall all orders passed without hearing the accused,[ii] Wherefore the Accused Applicant prays that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to recuse from further hearing;   and[iii] direct the Registry to seek kind Orders of Hon’ble Chief Justice to place the case before an appropriate Bench.

This Memo is conceived, drafted and presented by Applicant on his own initiative in accordance with fundamental rights  as enshrined in Constitution of India, Universal Human Rights, The Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct and other Rights available to applicant from various Judgments of Supreme Court of India etc.,

Applicant craves leave of the Court to state that all due caution is taken to present facts truthfully. If any mistakes in conceiving the contents of this Memo, be considered PATRIOTIC in the interest of Justice & Equity to protect this innocent victim of the FALSE CASE SLAPPED in derogation of his, his family’s & Indian Judiciary’s Dignity and Image.
BANGALORE                                                                  DIGVIJAY MOTE
DATE: 14-04-2014                                                ACCUSED/APPLICANT

[ Applicant In Person]


Two Sets of Memo “MEMO BY Respondent /Accused in Person”, filed CH 06 in Karnataka HC dated 14.04.14 were served on The Hon’ble Chief Justice & Mr. Justice D.H. Waghela, The Hon’ble Chief Justice, with due acknowledgement of Karnataka high Court, in Tappal Section at 10.10 AM, which were also produced before High Court to DB of KBJ & CRK.J at about 10.55 to 11.20 AM. Mr. Justice D.H. Waghela, The Hon’ble Chief Justice office has registered it as CJC.962/15.4.14.
Two Sets of Memo “MEMO BY Respondent /Accused in Person”, filed CH 06 in Karnataka HC dated 14.04.14 contained the following contents:-


The Hon’ble Chief Justice,

High Court of Karnataka

Subject:  Appeal to initiate Criminal Contempt Proceedings

‘against strong lobby of Corrupt 867 Judges & Lokayuktas’


Mr. Justice D.H. Waghela,

The Hon’ble Chief Justice,

Subject:  Appeal to initiate Criminal Contempt Proceedings

‘against strong lobby of Corrupt 867 Judges & Lokayuktas’

in the matter of case as below:-
As per Notice in two pages served on  Mote, accused through Police Commissioner on 10th April 2014, at around 8 pm to 9 pm.

The Cause title is :-

CRIMINAL   REFERRED   CASE No.   01            OF   2014
C.C. No 6711/2012



Referred by VIII – Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
Bangalore. ………. …… Appellant Represented by Chief Justice, Karnataka High Court



Sri Digvijay Mote  …… Respondent /Accused
……….For complete 82 pages Memo :- CLICK HERE :- ……………




Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

“‘Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct’ = ‘Strengthening basic principles of judicial conduct’ “: ECOSOC 2006/23

Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct : ECOSOC 2006/23

Strengthening basic principles of judicial conduct
[ Source:- ]
The Economic and Social Council,
Recalling the Charter of the United Nations, in which Member States affirm, inter alia, their determination to establish conditions under which justice can be maintained to achieve international cooperation in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms without any discrimination,Recalling also the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which enshrines in particular the principles of equality before the law, of the presumption of innocence and of the right to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law,

Recalling further the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,1 which both guarantee the exercise of those rights, and that the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights further guarantees the right to be tried without undue delay,

Recalling the United Nations Convention against Corruption, which in its article 11 obliges States parties, in accordance with the fundamental principles of their legal systems and without prejudice to judicial independence, to take measures to strengthen integrity and to prevent opportunities for corruption among members of the judiciary, including rules with respect to the conduct of members of the judiciary,

Convinced that corruption of members of the judiciary undermines the rule of law and affects public confidence in the judicial system,

Convinced also that the integrity, independence and impartiality of the judiciary are essential prerequisites for the effective protection of human rights and economic development,

Recalling General Assembly resolutions 40/32 of 29 November 1985 and 40/146 of 13 December 1985, in which the Assembly endorsed the Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary, adopted by the Seventh United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders, held in Milan from 26 August to 6 September 1985,

Recalling also the recommendations adopted by the Ninth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders, held in Cairo from 29 April to 8 May  1995,4 concerning the independence and impartiality of the judiciary and the proper functioning of prosecutorial and legal services in the field of criminal justice,

 Recalling further that in 2000 the Centre for International  Crime Prevention of the Secretariat invited a group of chief justices of the common law tradition to develop a concept of judicial integrity, consistent with the principle of judicial independence, which would have the potential to have a positive impact on the standard of judicial conduct and to raise the level of public confidence in the rule of law,

 Recalling the second meeting of the Judicial Group on Strengthening Judicial Integrity, held in 2001 in Bangalore, India, at which the chief justices recognized the need for universally acceptable standards of judicial integrity and drafted the Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct, [5]

Recalling also that the Judicial Group on Strengthening Judicial Integrity thereafter conducted extensive consultations with judiciaries of more than eighty countries of all legal traditions, leading to the endorsement of the Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct by various judicial forums, including a Round Table Meeting of Chief Justices, held in The Hague on 25 and 26 November 2002, which was attended by senior judges of the civil law tradition as well as judges of the International Court of Justice,
Recalling further Commission on Human Rights resolution 2003/43, on the independence and impartiality of the judiciary, jurors and assessors and the independence of lawyers, in which the Commission took note of the Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct and brought those principles to the attention of Member States, relevant United Nations organs and intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations for their consideration,  Recalling Commission on Human Rights resolution 2003/39 on the integrity of the judicial system, in which the Commission emphasized the integrity of the judicial system as an essential prerequisite for the protection of human rights and for ensuring that there was no discrimination in the administration of justice,

 1. Invites Member States, consistent with their domestic  legal systems, to encourage their judiciaries to take into consideration the Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct, annexed to the present resolution, when reviewing or developing rules with respect to the professional and ethical conduct of members of the judiciary;

2. Emphasizes that the Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct represent a further development and are complementary to the Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary, endorsed by the General Assembly in its resolutions 40/32 and 40/146;

 3. Acknowledges the important work carried out by the Judicial Group on Strengthening Judicial Integrity under the auspices of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, as well as other international and regional judicial forums that contribute to the development and dissemination of standards and measures to strengthen judicial independence, impartiality and integrity;

  1. Requests the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, within available extrabudgetary resources, not excluding the use of existing resources from the regular budget of the Office [6] and in particular through its Global Programme against Corruption, to continue to support the work of the Judicial Group on Strengthening Judicial Integrity;
  2. Expresses appreciation to Member States that have made voluntary contributions to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime in support of the work of the Judicial Group on Strengthening Judicial Integrity;
  3. Invites Member States to make voluntary contributions, as appropriate, to the United Nations Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Fund to support the Judicial Group on Strengthening Judicial Integrity, and to continue to provide, through the Global Programme against Corruption, technical assistance to developing countries and countries with economies in transition, upon request, to strengthen the integrity and capacity of their judiciaries;
  4. Also invetes Members of States to submit to the Secretary General their views regarding the Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct and to suggest revisions as appropriate
  5. Requests the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, within available extrabudgetary resources, not excluding the use of existing resources from the regular budget of the Office,[7]  to convene an open-ended intergovernmental expert group, in cooperation with the Judicial Group on Strengthening Judicial Integrity and other international and regional judicial forums, to develop a technical guide to be used in providing technical assistance aimed at strengthening judicial integrity and capacity, as well as a commentary on the Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct, taking into account the views expressed and the revisions suggested by Member States;
  6. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice at its sixteenth session on the implementation of the present resolution.


Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct

WHEREAS the Universal Declaration of Human Rights recognizes as fundamental the principle that everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of rights and obligations and of any criminal charge,

WHEREAS the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights [8] guarantees that all persons shall be equal before the courts and that in the determination of any criminal charge or of rights and obligations in a suit at law, everyone shall be entitled, without undue delay, to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law,  WHEREAS the foregoing fundamental principles and rights are also recognized or reflected in regional human rights instruments, in domestic constitutional, statutory and common law, and in judicial conventions and traditions,

 WHEREAS the importance of a competent, independent and impartial judiciary to the protection of human rights is given emphasis by the fact that the implementation of all the other rights ultimately depends upon the proper administration of justice,

WHEREAS a competent, independent and impartial judiciary is likewise essential if the courts are to fulfil their role in upholding constitutionalism and the rule of law,

WHEREAS public confidence in the judicial system and in the moral authority and integrity of the judiciary is of the utmost importance in a modern democratic society,

 WHEREAS it is essential that judges, individually and collectively, respect and honour judicial office as a public trust and strive to enhance and maintain confidence in the judicial system,

 WHEREAS the primary responsibility for the promotion and maintenance of high standards of judicial conduct lies with the judiciary in each country,

AND WHEREAS the Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary [9] are designed to secure and promote the independence of the judiciary and are addressed primarily to States,

THE FOLLOWING PRINCIPLES are intended to establish standards for ethical conduct of judges. They are designed to provide guidance to judges and to afford the judiciary a framework for regulating judicial conduct. They are also intended to assist members of the executive and the legislature, and lawyers and the public in general, to better understand and support the judiciary. These principles presuppose that judges are accountable for their conduct to appropriate institutions established to maintain judicial standards, which are themselves independent and impartial, and are intended to supplement and not to derogate from existing rules of law and conduct that bind the judge.

Value 1



Judicial independence is a prerequisite to the rule of law and a fundamental guarantee of a fair trial. A judge shall therefore uphold and exemplify judicial independence in both its individual and institutional aspects.


1.1. A judge shall exercise the judicial function independently on the basis of the judge’s assessment of the facts and in accordance with a conscientious understanding of the law, free of any extraneous influences, inducements, pressures, threats or interference, direct or indirect, from any quarter or for any reason.

1.2. A judge shall be independent in relation to society in general and in relation to the particular parties to a dispute that the judge has to adjudicate.

1.3. A judge shall not only be free from inappropriate connections with, and influence by, the executive and legislative branches of government, but must also appear to a reasonable observer to be free there-from.

1.4. In performing judicial duties, a judge shall be independent of judicial colleagues in respect of decisions that the judge is obliged to make independently.

1.5. A judge shall encourage and uphold safeguards for the discharge of judicial duties in order to maintain and enhance the institutional and operational independence of the judiciary.

1.6. A judge shall exhibit and promote high standards of judicial conduct in order to reinforce public confidence in the judiciary, which is fundamental to the maintenance of judicial independence.

Value 2

Impartiality is essential to the proper discharge of the judicial office. It applies not only to the decision itself but also to the process by which the decision is made.


2.1. A judge shall perform his or her judicial duties without favour, bias or prejudice.

2.2. A judge shall ensure that his or her conduct, both in and out of court, maintains and enhances the confidence of the public, the legal profession and litigants in the impartiality of the judge and of the judiciary.

2.3. A judge shall, as far as is reasonable, so conduct himself or herself as to minimize the occasions on which it will be necessary for the judge to be disqualified from hearing or deciding cases.

2.4. A judge shall not knowingly, while a proceeding is before, or could come before, the judge, make any comment that might reasonably be expected to affect the outcome of such proceeding or impair the manifest fairness of the process, nor shall the judge make any comment in public or otherwise that might affect the fair trial of any person or issue.

2.5. A judge shall disqualify himself or herself from participating in any proceedings in which the judge is unable to decide the matter impartially or in which it may appear to a reasonable observer that the judge is unable to decide the matter impartially.

Such proceedings include, but are not limited to, instances where:

 (a) The judge has actual bias or prejudice concerning a party or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceedings;

 (b) The judge previously served as a lawyer or was a material witness in the matter in controversy; or

 (c) The judge, or a member of the judge’s family, has an economic interest in the outcome of the matter in controversy;

provided that disqualification of a judge shall not be required if no other tribunal can be constituted to deal with the case or, because of urgent circumstances, failure to act could lead to a serious miscarriage of justice.

Value 3

Integrity is essential to the proper discharge of the judicial office.


3.1. A judge shall ensure that his or her conduct is above reproach in the view of a reasonable observer.

3.2. The behaviour and conduct of a judge must reaffirm the people’s faith in the integrity of the judiciary. Justice must not merely be done but must also be seen to be done.

Value 4



Propriety, and the appearance of propriety, are essential to the performance of all of the activities of a judge.


4.1. A judge shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all of the judge’s activities.

4.2. As a subject of constant public scrutiny, a judge must accept personal restrictions that might be viewed as burdensome by the ordinary citizen and should do so freely and willingly. In particular, a judge shall conduct himself or herself in a way that is consistent with the dignity of the judicial office.

4.3. A judge shall, in his or her personal relations with individual members of the legal profession who practise regularly in the judge’s court, avoid situations that might reasonably give rise to the suspicion or appearance of favouritism or partiality.

4.4. A judge shall not participate in the determination of a case in which any member of the judge’s family represents a litigant or is associated in any manner with the case.

4.5. A judge shall not allow the use of the judge’s residence by a member of the legal profession to receive clients or other members of the legal profession.

4.6. A judge, like any other citizen, is entitled to freedom of expression, belief, association and assembly, but, in exercising such rights, a judge shall always conduct himself or herself in such a manner as to preserve the dignity of the judicial office and the impartiality and independence of the judiciary.

4.7. A judge shall inform himself or herself about the judge’s personal and fiduciary financial interests and shall make reasonable efforts to be informed about the financial interests of members of the judge’s family.

4.8. A judge shall not allow the judge’s family, social or other relationships improperly to influence the judge’s judicial conduct and judgement as a judge.

4.9. A judge shall not use or lend the prestige of the judicial office to advance the private interests of the judge, a member of the judge’s family or of anyone else, nor shall a judge convey or permit others to convey the impression that anyone is in a special position improperly to influence the judge in the performance of judicial duties.

4.10. Confidential information acquired by a judge in the judge’s judicial capacity shall not be used or disclosed by the judge for any other purpose not related to the judge’s judicial duties.

4.11. Subject to the proper performance of judicial duties, a judge may:

 (a) Write, lecture, teach and participate in activities concerning the law, the legal system, the administration of justice or related matters;

 (b) Appear at a public hearing before an official body concerned with matters relating to the law, the legal system, the administration of justice or related matters;

 (c) Serve as a member of an official body, or other government commission, committee or advisory body, if such membership is not inconsistent with the perceived impartiality and political neutrality of a judge; or

 (d) Engage in other activities if such activities do not detract from the dignity of the judicial office or otherwise interfere with the performance of judicial duties.

4.12. A judge shall not practise law while the holder of judicial office.

4.13. A judge may form or join associations of judges or participate in other organizations representing the interests of judges.

4.14. A judge and members of the judge’s family shall neither ask for, nor accept, any gift, bequest, loan or favour in relation to anything done or to be done or omitted to be done by the judge in connection with the performance of judicial duties.

4.15. A judge shall not knowingly permit court staff or others subject to the judge’s influence, direction or authority to ask for, or accept, any gift, bequest, loan or favour in relation to anything done or to be done or omitted to be done in connection with his or her duties or functions.

4.16. Subject to law and to any legal requirements of public disclosure, a judge may receive a token gift, award or benefit as appropriate to the occasion on which it is made provided that such gift, award or benefit might not reasonably be perceived as intended to influence the judge in the performance of judicial duties or otherwise give rise to an appearance of partiality.

Value 5

Ensuring equality of treatment to all before the courts is

essential to the due performance of the judicial office.


5.1. A judge shall be aware of, and understand, diversity in society and differences arising from various sources, including but not limited to race, colour, sex, religion, national origin, caste, disability, age, marital status, sexual orientation, social and

economic status and other like causes (“irrelevant grounds”).

5.2. A judge shall not, in the performance of judicial duties, by words or conduct, manifest bias or prejudice towards any person or group on irrelevant grounds.

5.3. A judge shall carry out judicial duties with appropriate consideration for all persons, such as the parties, witnesses, lawyers, court staff and judicial colleagues, without differentiation on any irrelevant ground, immaterial to the proper performance of such duties.

5.4. A judge shall not knowingly permit court staff or others subject to the judge’s influence, direction or control to differentiate between persons concerned, in a matter before the judge, on any irrelevant ground.

5.5. A judge shall require lawyers in proceedings before the court to refrain from manifesting, by words or conduct, bias or prejudice based on irrelevant grounds, except such as are legally relevant to an issue in proceedings and may be the subject of legitimate


Value 6

Competence and diligence


Competence and diligence are prerequisites to the due performance of judicial office.


6.1. The judicial duties of a judge take precedence over all other activities.

6.2. A judge shall devote the judge’s professional activity to judicial duties, which include not only the performance of judicial functions and responsibilities in court and the making of decisions, but also other tasks relevant to the judicial office or the

court’s operations.

6.3. A judge shall take reasonable steps to maintain and enhance the judge’s knowledge, skills and personal qualities necessary for the proper performance of judicial duties, taking advantage for that purpose of the training and other facilities that should be made available, under judicial control, to judges.

6.4. A judge shall keep himself or herself informed about relevant developments of international law, including international conventions and other instruments establishing human rights norms.

6.5. A judge shall perform all judicial duties, including the delivery of reserved decisions, efficiently, fairly and with reasonable promptness.

6.6. A judge shall maintain order and decorum in all proceedings before the court and be patient, dignified and courteous in relation to litigants, jurors, witnesses, lawyers and others with whom the judge deals in an official capacity. The judge shall require similar

conduct of legal representatives, court staff and others subject to the judge’s influence, direction or control.

6.7. A judge shall not engage in conduct incompatible with the diligent discharge of judicial duties.


By reason of the nature of judicial office, effective measures shall be adopted by national judiciaries to provide mechanisms to implement these principles if such mechanisms are not already in existence in their jurisdictions.


In this statement of principles, unless the context otherwise permits or requires, the following meanings shall be attributed to the words used:

 “Court staff” includes the personal staff of the judge, including law clerks;

“Judge” means any person exercising judicial power, however designated;

“Judge’s family” includes a judge’s spouse, son, daughter, son-in-law, daughter-in-law and any other close relative or person who is a companion or employee of the judge and who lives in the judge’s household;

“Judge’s spouse” includes a domestic partner of the judge or any other person of either sex in a close personal relationship with the judge.

……….references or Foot Notes……….. as below ……………….. 1 General Assembly resolution 2200 A (XXI), annex.   2. General Assembly resolution 58/4, annex.
 3. See Seventh United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders, Milan, 26 August-6 September 1985: report prepared by the Secretariat (United Nations publication, Sales No. E.86.IV.1), chap. I, sect. D.2, annex.  4. See A/CONF.169/16/Rev.1, chap. I, resolution 1, sect. III. 5. E/CN.4/2003/65, annex. 6 This language does not provide a basis for an increase in the regular budget or requests for supplemental increases.  7 This language does not provide a basis for an increase in the regular budget or requests for supplemental increases. 8 General Assembly resolution 2200 A (XXI), annex.   9 See Seventh United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders, Milan, 26 August-6 September 1985: report prepared by the Secretariat (United Nations publication, Sales No. E.86.IV.1), chap. I, sect. D.2, annex.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary : 13 December 1985

Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary
 [ Source:]
  Adopted by the Seventh United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders held at Milan from 26 August to 6 September 1985 and endorsed by General Assembly resolutions 40/32 of 29 November 1985 and 40/146 of 13 December 1985

Whereas in the Charter of the United Nations the peoples of the world affirm, inter alia , their determination to establish conditions under which justice can be maintained to achieve international co-operation in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms without any discrimination,

Whereas the Universal Declaration of Human Rights enshrines in particular the principles of equality before the law, of the presumption of innocence and of the right to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law,

Whereas the International Covenants on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and on Civil and Political Rights both guarantee the exercise of those rights, and in addition, the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights further guarantees the right to be tried without undue delay,

Whereas frequently there still exists a gap between the vision underlying those principles and the actual situation,

Whereas the organization and administration of justice in every country should be inspired by those principles, and efforts should be undertaken to translate them fully into reality,

Whereas rules concerning the exercise of judicial office should aim at enabling judges to act in accordance with those principles,

Whereas judges are charged with the ultimate decision over life, freedoms, rights, duties and property of citizens,

Whereas the Sixth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders, by its resolution 16, called upon the Committee on Crime Prevention and Control to include among its priorities the elaboration of guidelines relating to the independence of judges and the selection, professional training and status of judges and prosecutors,

Whereas it is, therefore, appropriate that consideration be first given to the role of judges in relation to the system of justice and to the importance of their selection, training and conduct,

The following basic principles, formulated to assist Member States in their task of securing and promoting the independence of the judiciary should be taken into account and respected by Governments within the framework of their national legislation and practice and be brought to the attention of judges, lawyers, members of the executive and the legislature and the public in general. The principles have been formulated principally with professional judges in mind, but they apply equally, as appropriate, to lay judges, where they exist.

Independence of the judiciary

1. The independence of the judiciary shall be guaranteed by the State and enshrined in the Constitution or the law of the country. It is the duty of all governmental and other institutions to respect and observe the independence of the judiciary.

2. The judiciary shall decide matters before them impartially, on the basis of facts and in accordance with the law, without any restrictions, improper influences, inducements, pressures, threats or interferences, direct or indirect, from any quarter or for any reason.

3. The judiciary shall have jurisdiction over all issues of a judicial nature and shall have exclusive authority to decide whether an issue submitted for its decision is within its competence as defined by law.

4. There shall not be any inappropriate or unwarranted interference with the judicial process, nor shall judicial decisions by the courts be subject to revision. This principle is without prejudice to judicial review or to mitigation or commutation by competent authorities of sentences imposed by the judiciary, in accordance with the law.

5. Everyone shall have the right to be tried by ordinary courts or tribunals using established legal procedures. Tribunals that do not use the duly established procedures of the legal process shall not be created to displace the jurisdiction belonging to the ordinary courts or judicial tribunals.

6. The principle of the independence of the judiciary entitles and requires the judiciary to ensure that judicial proceedings are conducted fairly and that the rights of the parties are respected.

7. It is the duty of each Member State to provide adequate resources to enable the judiciary to properly perform its functions.

Freedom of expression and association

8. In accordance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, members of the judiciary are like other citizens entitled to freedom of expression, belief, association and assembly; provided, however, that in exercising such rights, judges shall always conduct themselves in such a manner as to preserve the dignity of their office and the impartiality and independence of the judiciary.

9. Judges shall be free to form and join associations of judges or other organizations to represent their interests, to promote their professional training and to protect their judicial independence.

Qualifications, selection and training

10. Persons selected for judicial office shall be individuals of integrity and ability with appropriate training or qualifications in law. Any method of judicial selection shall safeguard against judicial appointments for improper motives. In the selection of judges, there shall be no discrimination against a person on the grounds of race, colour, sex, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or status, except that a requirement, that a candidate for judicial office must be a national of the country concerned, shall not be considered discriminatory.

Conditions of service and tenure

11. The term of office of judges, their independence, security, adequate remuneration, conditions of service, pensions and the age of retirement shall be adequately secured by law.

12. Judges, whether appointed or elected, shall have guaranteed tenure until a mandatory retirement age or the expiry of their term of office, where such exists.

13. Promotion of judges, wherever such a system exists, should be based on objective factors, in particular ability, integrity and experience.

14. The assignment of cases to judges within the court to which they belong is an internal matter of judicial administration.

Professional secrecy and immunity

15. The judiciary shall be bound by professional secrecy with regard to their deliberations and to confidential information acquired in the course of their duties other than in public proceedings, and shall not be compelled to testify on such matters.

16. Without prejudice to any disciplinary procedure or to any right of appeal or to compensation from the State, in accordance with national law, judges should enjoy personal immunity from civil suits for monetary damages for improper acts or omissions in the exercise of their judicial functions.

Discipline, suspension and removal

17. A charge or complaint made against a judge in his/her judicial and professional capacity shall be processed expeditiously and fairly under an appropriate procedure. The judge shall have the right to a fair hearing. The examination of the matter at its initial stage shall be kept confidential, unless otherwise requested by the judge.

18. Judges shall be subject to suspension or removal only for reasons of incapacity or behaviour that renders them unfit to discharge their duties.

19. All disciplinary, suspension or removal proceedings shall be determined in accordance with established standards of judicial conduct.

20. Decisions in disciplinary, suspension or removal proceedings should be subject to an independent review. This principle may not apply to the decisions of the highest court and those of the legislature in impeachment or similar proceedings.


Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Karnataka Government’s “Legalizing-Illegal Constructions”, get’s CM’s clearance; provided High Court’s clearance: 22 May 2014

Gist:-As soon as Karnataka high court gives its nod to state government, it will kickstart the process of giving legal status to buildings that felt free to cock a snook at byelaws. Govt aims to generate `32k cr this way.

dna correspondent @dnaofblr

Bangalore: The state government will implement the Akrama-Sakrama scheme to regularise building byelaw violations and land use in urban areas shortly, urban development minister Vinay Kumar Sorake said on Wednesday.
Speaking with mediapersons, Sorake said the chief minister Siddaramaiah had approved the Karnataka Town and Country Planning (Regulation of Unauthorised Developments) Rules, 2013.
“The government will submit the new draft of the Akrama-Sakrama rules to the high court. We will implement the scheme as soon as the high court give its consent to us,” the minister said.
The Akrama-Sakrama scheme permits regularisation of up to 50% violation of setback norms and permissible floor area ratio (FAR) in residential buildings, and up to 25% in commercial buildings.
“The government has fixed October 19, 2013, as the cut-off date for the properties violated building byelaws eligible for regularisation. Buildings violating byelaws beyond permissible level would attract demolition,” the minister said.
Declining to reveal the amount of revenue the government would get by implementing the Akrama Sakarama scheme, the minister said lakhs of properties could be regularised under the scheme in various town panchayats, both municipal corporations and councils.
“I have already directed mayors and commissioners of city corporations to chalk out a plan of action to implement Akrama Sakrama scheme,” Sorake said.
As per rules, up to 25% violation in residential buildings will attract a fee of 6% of the total guidance value of the property. For violations between 25% and 50%, a fee of 8% of the guidance value has been fixed.
The rules stipulate that an applicant desiring to get unauthorised development regularised should submit the title document, khata, survey sketch from the revenue department, site plan showing details of the surroundings and photograph of construction.
The rules for the scheme have been framed in accordance with the high court’s directions.



Published Date:  May 22, 2014


Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

“Indian 867 Corrupt Judges & Lokayuktas, incl Dattu, Thakur & Gopal Gowda of SCI; being protected by Karnataka Lokayukta ” 18.05.2014

present complainant Syed Riaz @ Syed Riaztulla lodged this Complaint & got successful in getting registered the TOTALLY ILLEGIBLE FALSE , FICTITIOUS CASE abusing office of LOkayukta Institution’s Integrity;  is working in KARNATAKA ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU or Lokayukta; for reasons well known to another Member of Judicial Emp Society & then Lokayukta Mr. Santosh Hegde recommended complainant Syed Riaz for active participation from our nation India where only two were selected in “International   Corruption Hunters Alliance, Washington, U.S.A. [ICHA] ; Volunteer” held around Dec 8, 2010 . 
The Theme Goes of [ICHA]like this:– Its aim was “Building on the network of corruption fighters that was launched in 2010.  Per  video [  01:Uploaded by Corruption Hunters Alliance Event – The World Bank = , WorldBank on Dec 8, 2010:- Corruption steals from the poor and those responsible must be held accountable” says Robert Zoellick, President of the WorldBank at the launch of the International Corruption Hunters Alliance today in Washington DC. More than 250 anti corruption officials from 134 countries are working on a global enforcement regime to benefit the poor by sharing information, monitoring results and coordinating action on corruption cases.
In the said Video, none except present Complaint Riaz“SHAKES HANDS WITH WORLD BANK PRESIDENT” at Video URL

International Corruption Hunters Alliance – The WorldBank video   02   Uploaded by WorldBank on Dec 3, 2010; shows as how to ‘Gauge the SUSPECTS etc.,

ICHA Brief:- The WorldBank is launching a worldwide Corruption Hunter Alliance. Over 200 investigators, prosecutors, and officials will meet in Washington DC. The network will share information, monitor results and work on global enforcement regime that will benefit the poor.

Remarks at the WorldBank , International Corruption Hunters Alliance , Senator Patrick Leahy , December 7, 2010 , Washington, D.C.

“We have also seen how corrupt officials in such countries have successfully intimidated and manipulated judges, prosecutors, the police and the military, to arrest and silence whistleblowers and political opponents and remain in power indefinitely.

                        No democracy, I believe, can survive or thrive without a justice system that the public has confidence in.  Yet reforming corrupt justice systems and strengthening the rule of law, when the officials in power are determined to preserve the status quo, is exceedingly difficult.  

               If we tolerate this type of abuse—

         we fail our own citizens;

         we fail the people of the countries we want to help;

         we undermine the rule of law domestically and internationally;

         we sully the reputation of the United States; and

         we damage our long term national interests.  

The same can be said for every country represented here today.

…………….Other Related Videos………………

The 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 & TeluguVideo ].
  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 Employees HBCS & Judicial Layout:

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

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

SCI says N Srinivasan among 13 names in sealed Mudgal committee report: 16 MAy 2014

Resuming hearing into the Indian Premier League (IPL) spot-fixing and betting scandal, the Supreme Court (SC) on Wednesday revealed that the suspended Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) president N Srinivasan figures among the 13 people named in the sealed report submitted by the Justice Mukul Mudgal committee.

Srinivasan had on Tuesday filed an affidavit questioning why the SC has removed him as BCCI president, requesting the apex court to reinstate him as he is innocent and none of the charges against him have been proved. However, the SC said he can’t discharge his duties in the BCCI office. The court has also asked the BCCI to reply as to how the probe against those named in the report should be done.

ALSO SEE Srinivasan questions his removal as BCCI president

The SC believes BCCI should itself do the probe to maintain its functional autonomy; however, in such case, Srinivasan cannot be part of the BCCI. And if BCCI doesn’t probe the matter, the court suggested appointment of a Special Investigation Team (SIT).

The top court, meanwhile, allowed IPL’s chief operating officer (COO), Sundar Raman, to continue in his position. Bihar Cricket Association’s general secretary, Aditya Verma, who is the petitioner, had earlier asked removal of Raman from his post.

ALSO SEE The rise and fall of BCCI czar N Srinivasan

BCCI had earlier also requested SC to provide them with the recording of the deposition made by India captain MS Dhoni, Srinivasan and Raman to the Mudgal committee. Verma’s counsel Harish Salve had said that Dhoni lied in front of the Mudgal committee and hid the real identity of former Chennai Super Kings Team Prinicipal and Srinivasan’s son-in-law Gurunath Meiyappan, against whom charges of betting in the IPL have been proved. The SC on Wednesday agreed to hear that plea by the BCCI.

The Supreme Court had on March 28 suspended Srinivasan as BCCI president, appointing Sunil Gavaskar and Shivlal Yadav to look after the IPL and BCCI functions, respectively.

The IPL begins today in the UAE, where the first 20 matches of the league will be played due to General Elections in India.


Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Delhi HC to wait for SC in Swatanter Kumar defamation case; Seeking Transfer of Case Delhi to Bangalore : 15.05.2014

The Delhi high court hearing former Supreme Court judge Swatanter Kumar’s defamation case, would wait until the Supreme Court had decided on the transfer petition by an former law student intern who alleged she was sexually harassed by him.

Justice Manmohan Singh, who is hearing the Rs 5 crore defamation case launched by Kumar against the intern, was given a copy of the transfer petition and adjourned the case to 22 May, reported the PTI today.

The intern had filed a petition with the Supreme Court to transfer the case to Bangalore City Civil Court because she perceived to have “absolutely no chance of equal or near equal legal representation in Delhi and hence a fair trial will be jeopardized”, Legally India and one of the defendants in the defamation case, the Indian Express, had reported yesterday.

Senior counsel AS Chandhiok, who is one of the more than 20 lawyers including at least seven senior advocates who are appearing for Kumar, objected to the Express having published an article containing extensive details of the contents of the transfer petition filed by the intern’s advocates Vrinda Grover and Anindita Pujari. His submission resulted in a “heated” exchange with Grover, according to PTI and Bar & Bench, which reported today that Chandhiok had also complained about the full petition having been uploaded on websites – presumably Legally India and Bar & Bench, which both published the full transfer petition yesterday.

…………….. By Kian Ganz Thursday, 15 May 2014, 21:27 Bar, Bench & Litigation

More About:-



Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized