Monthly Archives: September 2014

All FIVE Judges; who Tried as Special Judge of Spl Court T.N. CM Jaya Trial Judges & CJI H.L.Dattu; are MEMBERS of Karnataka Judicial Department Employees HBCS, High Coourt, Bangalore-1; CRIMINAL CONTEMNER of 27 JUDGMENTS:- John Michael Cunha, four other judges have presided over the case — Justice A S Pachchapure and special court judges AT Munoli, BM Mallikarjunaiah and MS Balakrishna: 29.09.2014

Plot allotment controversy casts shadow on new CJI HL Dattu: 28.09.2014

A two-decade-old controversy over housing society plot allotments to some of the most prominent members of the Indian judiciary has become relevant once again as Supreme Court judge HL Dattu assumed the most powerful judicial office in the country on Sunday.

New Chief Justice of India Justice Dattu, and two of his Supreme Court colleagues – TS Thakur and V Gopala Gowda – are among the judges who accepted the plots in defiance of a 1995 ruling by the Karnataka high court that judges were ineligible to participate in the land scheme.

The issue of the allotments has surfaced repeatedly since 1994 when the first judges purchased the plots from the society meant for court employees.

http://www.hindustantimes.com/Images/popup/2014/9/CJI_dattu1.jpg

Justice HL Dattu takes oath as the new Chief Justice of India on Sunday. (Photo Courtesy: Doordarshan)

Recently another top Judge, KL Manjunath, has seen his planned elevation to Chief Justice the Punjab and Haryana high court complicated by his participation in the allotment row, which has been cited in press reports as among the factors motivating a possible impeachment bid against him.

The state government originally acquired the land for the project from farmers in 1991 and sold it to the Karnataka State Judicial Department Employees House Building Cooperative Society (KSJDEHBCS) at a huge subsidy so that it could fulfill the ‘public purpose’ of housing court employees who could not afford alternative accommodation.

However, soon after the colony was formed near the Bangalore airport, judges too started enrolling as members and accepting the steeply discounted plots.

Sale deeds with HT show that Justice Dattu was first allotted a 2,400 sq. ft. plot by the society for Rs. 61,598 at Rs. 15 per sq. ft. on June 30, 1997.

He was allotted another 4,000 sq. ft. plot on October 26, 2002, for Rs. 1,02,666 at Rs. 25 per sq. Land in the surrounding areas was selling for no less than Rs. 1,500 a sq. ft. at the time.

A society official, who helped HT in this investigation, claimed that Justice Dattu surrendered the first plot in February 2003 after other members objected to the double allotment.

On June 21, 2010, he gifted the other plot to his grandson Mihir Adithya who was three years old at the time.

According to local realtors who spoke to HT, a minimum of Rs. 8,000 per sq. ft. is now the going rate in the area. At those prices, the plot justice Dattu acquired for just over a lakh in 2002 and subsequently gifted to his grandson is worth more than Rs. 3 crore today.

Documents obtained by HT indicate that the judicial employees’ society irregularly allotted plots to at least another 73 judges between 1994 and 2006.

See: List of 73 judges = http://www.hindustantimes.com/Images/popup/2014/9/73judgeslist.pdf

The society by-laws define a member as “an employee of the judicial department in Karnataka [who] has put in a minimum continuous or intermittent service of five years in Karnataka.” But judges, as affirmed by repeated Supreme Court rulings, are not employees of the department.

The matter of judges benefitting from this subsidised project meant for court employees was taken to the Karnataka high court through a writ and resulted in a ruling that the allotment to judges was an “irregularity”.

A division bench of the high court ruled on October 12, 1995: “A reading of Clause-7 of the bye-laws, in our view, by no stretch of imagination can include the judges of High Court or Supreme Court (sitting, transferred, retired).”

In an exclusive to HT, Justice (retd) MF Saldanha, who was part of the division bench, spoke about the ethical and legal questions arising out of the allotment.

Watch: Justice (retd) Saldanha’s interview to HT  : [ ILR 1995 KAR 3139, 1995 (6) KarLJ 476: Author: K Bakthavatsalam : Bench: K Bakthavatsalam, M Saldanha

[ WATCH VIDEO IN http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/controversy-over-plot-allotment-casts-shadow-on-new-cji-dattu/article1-1269346.aspx ]

But the allotment to judges did not stop. Judges Dattu, Thakur and Gowda purchased the plots from 1996 onwards, after this ruling was passed. Nearly 50 judges accepted plots from the society after the high court ruling.

A joint legislature committee of the Karnataka assembly submitted a report in 2007 and added: “It is most unfortunate that the KSJDEHBCS, which should have been a model to other house building cooperative societies, has itself become the leading law- breaker without the least fear or care for the law, propriety of public interest. It has indulged in acts of favour, cronyism and capricious indifference to law at its will. Obviously, High Court judges and powerful persons as its members and beneficiaries will ensure immunity to all its illegal acts.”

Although the committee’s report was put in cold storage, the issue came alive again with the appointment of former Supreme Court judge Shivraj V Patil as Karnataka Lokayukta in 2011. A media expose of the plots received by him from the judicial employees’ society forced him to resign as the state’s anti-corruption ombudsman just over a month after he took charge.

The Lokayukta’s post remained vacant for 17 months after Justice Patil’s resignation as the then BJP government struggled to find a judge who had not benefited from the scheme. Every time the government announced a candidate, the media would expose his allotment. Matters came to a head when the then governor HR Bhardwaj refused to approve the appointment of a former judge following media reports about his plot.

The present Lokayukta, Justice Y Bhaskar Rao, also a plot allottee, was appointed in an atmosphere vitiated by protests from sections of the opposition and hostile reports in the media.

The ethical question that laid siege to the Karnataka Lokayukta’s office for 17 months, however, did not prevent the mobility of judges through the collegium system of judicial appointments. Many went on to preside over various high courts in the country as well as the Supreme Court of India.

Indeed, justice Dattu and Justice Thakur are today ranked second and third in terms of seniority in the apex court’s panel of 26 judges. They are also members of the collegium that vets and appoints judges to the higher judiciary.

http://www.hindustantimes.com/Images/popup/2014/9/timeline-dattu1.jpg

HT met justice Dattu at his farmhouse and had a tele-conversation with Justice Gopala Gowda on September 12 to seek a response. Both judges declined to comment but said that a letter written to the society president by former Chief Justice of India, MN Venkatachalaiah, who is also an allotee, clarified everything.

Society president K Sippe Gowda told HT, “Justice Gowda called me a few minutes ago and asked me to give you that letter. But I have lost it. I don’t know where it is.” Asked how he could lose such an important document, he said, “I didn’t think it was that important.”

Justice Thakur did not respond to repeated requests for comment sent through his staff.

Today, the two colonies formed by the society are bustling centres of real estate trading with some of the biggest builders in the city hawking luxury apartments costing in excess of Rs. 2 crore.

Despite a condition in each sale deeds requiring owners to construct a house within two years of receiving a plot those allotted to judges Dattu, Thakur and Gowda remain vacant.

Sudipto Mondal, Hindustan Times  Bangalore, September 28, 2014 . .
First Published: 11:22 IST(28/9/2014) | Last Updated: 01:47 IST(29/9/2014

http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/controversy-over-plot-allotment-casts-shadow-on-new-cji-dattu/article1-1269346.aspx

…………………………

Watch: Justice (retd) Saldanha’s interview to HT  : [ ILR 1995 KAR 3139, 1995 (6) KarLJ 476: Author: K Bakthavatsalam : Bench: K Bakthavatsalam, M Saldanha:- [ WATCH VIDEO IN http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/controversy-over-plot-allotment-casts-shadow-on-new-cji-dattu/article1-1269346.aspx ]

  1. With regard to the allotment of sites to Judges, as We have stated above, We are of the opinion that this Court sitting in Article 226 of the Constitution cannot go into that question. It is settled law that no Writ will lie against a Co-operative Society as it is not a State under Article 12 of the Constitution. Clause-7 of the Bye-laws produced before us, as translated by the official translator, reads as follows:

“7. ELIGIBILITY FOR MEMBERSHIP :

Persons residing in Bangalore and interested in the development of this institution or those persons who are working in High Court or any Court coming under the jurisdiction of High Court, Bangalore and Society and the persons retired from the service and residing in the jurisdiction of the Society permanently (including Judges also) are eligible for the membership. Executive Committee (Panchayataru) is having full powers to accept or reject the applications received for membership.”

A reading of Clause-7 of the Byelaws, in our view, by no stretch of imagination can include the Judges of High Court or Supreme Court (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. It is settled law, as we have already stated, that even though the allotment is made contrary to the Byelaws, this Court cannot exercise the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution as no Writ will lie against a Co-operative Society. Even otherwise if two views are possible on the construction of Clause-7 of the Byelaws, as held by the Supreme Court in , it is only for the guidance of the Co-operative Societies and it is not a law so that this Court can set aside the allotment made to the Judges, as contended by the petitioners.

Related:-
1. https://jailcorrupt867judges.wordpress.com/accused-2/ including CJI Dattu, SCI Judges Thakur, Gopal Gowda , 25 Plus KAR HC Sitting Judges, Lokayukta Y. Bhaskar Rao, Reg Gen, Judicial, Admin etc.,  +  All FIVE Judges are MEMBERS of Karnataka Judicial Department Employees HBCS, High Coourt, Bangalore-1; who Tried as Special Judge of Spl Court T.N. CM Jaya Trial Judges:- John Michael Cunha, four other judges have presided over the case — Justice A S Pachchapure and special court judges AT Munoli, BM Mallikarjunaiah and MS Balakrishna

2. 11 VIP site Allottees; including SCI Sitting Judge V.Gopal Gowda;  Details:Un-Acquired Lands.320Sites 

3. Five pages: Complaint to Chief Minister of Anrachy of 867 Judges & Lokayuktas, Home Secretary direction to DGIG & DGIG Replies ………[ 5pgs.CM-DirectnToDgig.Reply ]

4. 22 Pages: CC 6711/12: Court Order Transferring Case to High Court ..[  22pgsCC.6711-12.-OrderSheet.Complnt ] 

http://www.legallyindia.com/201408254995/Bar-Bench-Litigation/katju-acquires-new-target-argues-hl-dattu-should-not-become-cji
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Pick-Chief-Justice-of-India-on-merit-and-not-seniority-Markandey-Katju-says/articleshow/40827047.cms
http://ibnlive.in.com/news/cji-should-be-appointed-on-basis-of-merit-markandey-katju/493975-37-64.html
https://jailcorrupt867judges.wordpress.com/videos/
https://jailcorrupt867judges.wordpress.com/2014/08/26/mr-cji-me-too-eureka-no-2-inspired-by-cji-mr-lodhas-eureka-13-08-2014/
http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/karnataka/i-was-not-the-only-judge-to-be-allotted-house-site-says-karnataka-lokayukta/article2462804.ece

………………..

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 ]
  7. JUDICIAL ILLEGAL Layout = FRAUD,FORGERY, LAND-GRABING 34 ACREs = Revenue Layout:[Video NDTV ]
  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 ]

…………………..

https://jailcorrupt867judges.wordpress.com/2014/09/29/plot-allotment-controversy-casts-shadow-on-new-cji-hl-dattu-28-09-2014/

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Plot allotment controversy casts shadow on new CJI HL Dattu: 28.09.2014

A two-decade-old controversy over housing society plot allotments to some of the most prominent members of the Indian judiciary has become relevant once again as Supreme Court judge HL Dattu assumed the most powerful judicial office in the country on Sunday.

New Chief Justice of India Justice Dattu, and two of his Supreme Court colleagues – TS Thakur and V Gopala Gowda – are among the judges who accepted the plots in defiance of a 1995 ruling by the Karnataka high court that judges were ineligible to participate in the land scheme.

The issue of the allotments has surfaced repeatedly since 1994 when the first judges purchased the plots from the society meant for court employees.

https://i2.wp.com/www.hindustantimes.com/Images/popup/2014/9/CJI_dattu1.jpg

Justice HL Dattu takes oath as the new Chief Justice of India on Sunday. (Photo Courtesy: Doordarshan)

Recently another top Judge, KL Manjunath, has seen his planned elevation to Chief Justice the Punjab and Haryana high court complicated by his participation in the allotment row, which has been cited in press reports as among the factors motivating a possible impeachment bid against him.

The state government originally acquired the land for the project from farmers in 1991 and sold it to the Karnataka State Judicial Department Employees House Building Cooperative Society (KSJDEHBCS) at a huge subsidy so that it could fulfill the ‘public purpose’ of housing court employees who could not afford alternative accommodation.

However, soon after the colony was formed near the Bangalore airport, judges too started enrolling as members and accepting the steeply discounted plots.

Sale deeds with HT show that Justice Dattu was first allotted a 2,400 sq. ft. plot by the society for Rs. 61,598 at Rs. 15 per sq. ft. on June 30, 1997.

He was allotted another 4,000 sq. ft. plot on October 26, 2002, for Rs. 1,02,666 at Rs. 25 per sq. Land in the surrounding areas was selling for no less than Rs. 1,500 a sq. ft. at the time.

A society official, who helped HT in this investigation, claimed that Justice Dattu surrendered the first plot in February 2003 after other members objected to the double allotment.

On June 21, 2010, he gifted the other plot to his grandson Mihir Adithya who was three years old at the time.

According to local realtors who spoke to HT, a minimum of Rs. 8,000 per sq. ft. is now the going rate in the area. At those prices, the plot justice Dattu acquired for just over a lakh in 2002 and subsequently gifted to his grandson is worth more than Rs. 3 crore today.

Documents obtained by HT indicate that the judicial employees’ society irregularly allotted plots to at least another 73 judges between 1994 and 2006.

See: List of 73 judges

The society by-laws define a member as “an employee of the judicial department in Karnataka [who] has put in a minimum continuous or intermittent service of five years in Karnataka.” But judges, as affirmed by repeated Supreme Court rulings, are not employees of the department.

The matter of judges benefitting from this subsidised project meant for court employees was taken to the Karnataka high court through a writ and resulted in a ruling that the allotment to judges was an “irregularity”.

A division bench of the high court ruled on October 12, 1995: “A reading of Clause-7 of the bye-laws, in our view, by no stretch of imagination can include the judges of High Court or Supreme Court (sitting, transferred, retired).”

In an exclusive to HT, Justice (retd) MF Saldanha, who was part of the division bench, spoke about the ethical and legal questions arising out of the allotment.

Watch: Justice (retd) Saldanha’s interview to HT  : [ ILR 1995 KAR 3139, 1995 (6) KarLJ 476: Author: K Bakthavatsalam : Bench: K Bakthavatsalam, M Saldanha

[ WATCH VIDEO IN http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/controversy-over-plot-allotment-casts-shadow-on-new-cji-dattu/article1-1269346.aspx ]

But the allotment to judges did not stop. Judges Dattu, Thakur and Gowda purchased the plots from 1996 onwards, after this ruling was passed. Nearly 50 judges accepted plots from the society after the high court ruling.

A joint legislature committee of the Karnataka assembly submitted a report in 2007 and added: “It is most unfortunate that the KSJDEHBCS, which should have been a model to other house building cooperative societies, has itself become the leading law- breaker without the least fear or care for the law, propriety of public interest. It has indulged in acts of favour, cronyism and capricious indifference to law at its will. Obviously, High Court judges and powerful persons as its members and beneficiaries will ensure immunity to all its illegal acts.”

Although the committee’s report was put in cold storage, the issue came alive again with the appointment of former Supreme Court judge Shivraj V Patil as Karnataka Lokayukta in 2011. A media expose of the plots received by him from the judicial employees’ society forced him to resign as the state’s anti-corruption ombudsman just over a month after he took charge.

The Lokayukta’s post remained vacant for 17 months after Justice Patil’s resignation as the then BJP government struggled to find a judge who had not benefited from the scheme. Every time the government announced a candidate, the media would expose his allotment. Matters came to a head when the then governor HR Bhardwaj refused to approve the appointment of a former judge following media reports about his plot.

The present Lokayukta, Justice Y Bhaskar Rao, also a plot allottee, was appointed in an atmosphere vitiated by protests from sections of the opposition and hostile reports in the media.

The ethical question that laid siege to the Karnataka Lokayukta’s office for 17 months, however, did not prevent the mobility of judges through the collegium system of judicial appointments. Many went on to preside over various high courts in the country as well as the Supreme Court of India.

Indeed, justice Dattu and Justice Thakur are today ranked second and third in terms of seniority in the apex court’s panel of 26 judges. They are also members of the collegium that vets and appoints judges to the higher judiciary.

https://i0.wp.com/www.hindustantimes.com/Images/popup/2014/9/timeline-dattu1.jpg

HT met justice Dattu at his farmhouse and had a tele-conversation with Justice Gopala Gowda on September 12 to seek a response. Both judges declined to comment but said that a letter written to the society president by former Chief Justice of India, MN Venkatachalaiah, who is also an allotee, clarified everything.

Society president K Sippe Gowda told HT, “Justice Gowda called me a few minutes ago and asked me to give you that letter. But I have lost it. I don’t know where it is.” Asked how he could lose such an important document, he said, “I didn’t think it was that important.”

Justice Thakur did not respond to repeated requests for comment sent through his staff.

Today, the two colonies formed by the society are bustling centres of real estate trading with some of the biggest builders in the city hawking luxury apartments costing in excess of Rs. 2 crore.

Despite a condition in each sale deeds requiring owners to construct a house within two years of receiving a plot those allotted to judges Dattu, Thakur and Gowda remain vacant.

Sudipto Mondal, Hindustan Times  Bangalore, September 28, 2014 . .
First Published: 11:22 IST(28/9/2014) | Last Updated: 01:47 IST(29/9/2014

http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/controversy-over-plot-allotment-casts-shadow-on-new-cji-dattu/article1-1269346.aspx

…………………………

Watch: Justice (retd) Saldanha’s interview to HT  : [ ILR 1995 KAR 3139, 1995 (6) KarLJ 476: Author: K Bakthavatsalam : Bench: K Bakthavatsalam, M Saldanha:- [ WATCH VIDEO IN http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/controversy-over-plot-allotment-casts-shadow-on-new-cji-dattu/article1-1269346.aspx ]

  1. With regard to the allotment of sites to Judges, as We have stated above, We are of the opinion that this Court sitting in Article 226 of the Constitution cannot go into that question. It is settled law that no Writ will lie against a Co-operative Society as it is not a State under Article 12 of the Constitution. Clause-7 of the Bye-laws produced before us, as translated by the official translator, reads as follows:

“7. ELIGIBILITY FOR MEMBERSHIP :

Persons residing in Bangalore and interested in the development of this institution or those persons who are working in High Court or any Court coming under the jurisdiction of High Court, Bangalore and Society and the persons retired from the service and residing in the jurisdiction of the Society permanently (including Judges also) are eligible for the membership. Executive Committee (Panchayataru) is having full powers to accept or reject the applications received for membership.”

A reading of Clause-7 of the Byelaws, in our view, by no stretch of imagination can include the Judges of High Court or Supreme Court (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. It is settled law, as we have already stated, that even though the allotment is made contrary to the Byelaws, this Court cannot exercise the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution as no Writ will lie against a Co-operative Society. Even otherwise if two views are possible on the construction of Clause-7 of the Byelaws, as held by the Supreme Court in , it is only for the guidance of the Co-operative Societies and it is not a law so that this Court can set aside the allotment made to the Judges, as contended by the petitioners.

Related:-
1. https://jailcorrupt867judges.wordpress.com/accused-2/ including CJI Dattu, SCI Judges Thakur, Gopal Gowda , 25 Plus KAR HC Sitting Judges, Lokayukta Y. Bhaskar Rao, Reg Gen, Judicial, Admin etc.,  +  All FIVE Judges are MEMBERS of Karnataka Judicial Department Employees HBCS, High Coourt, Bangalore-1; who Tried as Special Judge of Spl Court T.N. CM Jaya Trial Judges:- John Michael Cunha, four other judges have presided over the case — Justice A S Pachchapure and special court judges AT Munoli, BM Mallikarjunaiah and MS Balakrishna

2. 11 VIP site Allottees; including SCI Sitting Judge V.Gopal Gowda;  Details:Un-Acquired Lands.320Sites 

3. Five pages: Complaint to Chief Minister of Anrachy of 867 Judges & Lokayuktas, Home Secretary direction to DGIG & DGIG Replies ………[ 5pgs.CM-DirectnToDgig.Reply ]

4. 22 Pages: CC 6711/12: Court Order Transferring Case to High Court ..[  22pgsCC.6711-12.-OrderSheet.Complnt ] 

http://www.legallyindia.com/201408254995/Bar-Bench-Litigation/katju-acquires-new-target-argues-hl-dattu-should-not-become-cji
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Pick-Chief-Justice-of-India-on-merit-and-not-seniority-Markandey-Katju-says/articleshow/40827047.cms
http://ibnlive.in.com/news/cji-should-be-appointed-on-basis-of-merit-markandey-katju/493975-37-64.html
https://jailcorrupt867judges.wordpress.com/videos/
https://jailcorrupt867judges.wordpress.com/2014/08/26/mr-cji-me-too-eureka-no-2-inspired-by-cji-mr-lodhas-eureka-13-08-2014/
http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/karnataka/i-was-not-the-only-judge-to-be-allotted-house-site-says-karnataka-lokayukta/article2462804.ece

………………..

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 ]
  7. JUDICIAL ILLEGAL Layout = FRAUD,FORGERY, LAND-GRABING 34 ACREs = Revenue Layout:[Video NDTV ]
  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 ]

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Chennai HC orders to cite reasons for soliciting info under RTI: 16.09.2014

In what could be termed as serious blow to transparency regime in the country, a Madras High court ruling last week said a Right to Information (RTI) applicant must cite reasons for seeking information. In the process, the court granted relief to its Registry from disclosing file noting on a complaint against a chief metropolitan magistrate.

A division bench comprising Justices N Paul Vasanthakumar and K Ravichandrababu observed that it is mandatory for an applicant to disclose the objective for which the information is sought. Moreover, the objective must also have a strong legal backing. The HC’s decision is sure to generate a widespread impact on accessing information under the RTI Act.

The bench further added “If information (sic) are to be furnished to a person, who does not have any reason or object behind seeking such information, in our considered view, the intention of the Legislature is not to the effect that such information are to be given like pamphlets to any person unmindful of the object behind seeking such information”.

It is worth noting that the Legislature while passing the RTI Act made special provision for Section 6(2). The Section clearly states that an applicant making request for information need not require citing any reason for requesting the information. But the Madras HC order does not mention Section 6(2) of the Right to Information Act.

The bench also made it clear that its ruling was not against the intention of the legislature. However legislation, more particularly the one on hand, must ensure concrete and effective functioning of the public authority with transparency and accountability. This can be effectively achieved by providing information which is under the control of such public authorities.

On the other hand, senior lawyer Prashant Bhushan termed the order as ‘illegal’ and said that it is against both the letter and spirit of the Act.

http://www.vakilno1.com/latest-notifications/hc-orders-cite-reasons-soliciting-info-rti.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+vakilno1+%28VakilNo1%29

http://indiancorruptjudges.com/

https://www.facebook.com/digvijay.mote

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

CJI Lodha: Those talking of corruption in the judiciary are themselves involved in corruption : 26.09.2014

   ….           Damayanti Datta  New Delhi, September 26, 2014 | UPDATED 15:33 IST
On September 19, Justice Rajendra Mal Lodha is relaxing on a settee in his Krishna Menon Marg bungalow. It’s exactly a week before the five-month term of the 41st Chief Justice of India (CJI) draws to a close on September 27. His manner is more cheerful than formal. It’s hard to imagine that just a few hours ago, he had severely upbraided CBI Director Ranjit Sinha’s counsel for raising his voice at the Supreme Court and “exceeding limits”. Court insiders know that behind his genial exterior lies a core of steel. His low baritone can suddenly turn into a boom, especially when the independence of the judiciary is at stake. A staunch defender of the collegium system of judicial appointments, he was one of its first beneficiaries in 1994, when his career as a judge took off. The collegium system has now come full circle, as the National Judicial Appointments Commission waits in the wings, just as his 21-year-old career as a judge. Justice Lodha in conversation with Deputy Editor Damayanti Datta on the future of the judiciary:It has been a long journey…
It has been a long journey of 20 years 9 months, with six years in Supreme Court. A long roller coaster ride, that was very challenging and a great learning experience.

Judicial values he upholds…
I was raised in a family where some moral values that make you a good citizen are ingrained.  Being a Jain family, we follow nonviolence, a non-materialistic life and multi-facetedness that nobody is absolutely wrong or absolutely right. That is, objectivity in everything. For a judge, if you have no integrity you can not be a judge. That’s the first thing. God has given me enough courage to follow my convictions through.

Chief Justice R.M. Lodha at his Krishna Menon Marg Bungalow in Delhi. India Today Photo/M ZhazoChief Justice R.M. Lodha at his Krishna Menon Marg Bungalow in Delhi. India Today Photo/M Zhazo.

How much courage does a judge need?
You have to have very firm moral values. And you know those must be consistently and willingly followed. You can’t practise those today because they suit you and then discard them tomorrow because they don’t suit you anymore.

Which cases would you remember the most?
Cases where you could restore liberty and protect the rights of the people flowing from Article 21 of the Constitution. e.g. the acid allatck victims, undertrials’ release or release of foreign prisoners.

Any time you felt defeated by the system?
A pet plan of mine was to keep the courts open 365 days a year, leave aside a few holidays. I have not been able to get it through. That’s a big setback. Time has come when we have to have out-of-the-box ideas. It was perfectly workable, that would have given young, talented lawyers who do not get much chance, some work. Some solution could have been found. But, unfortunately, that did not happen. Ok. it’s all part of the game.

Under you the judiciary and the executive almost came to clashes, something that was building up since the days of CJI Kapadia. How do you explain this?
No, no. I am very proud to say we have a wonderful Constitution and I always wish that all the three organs, Parliament, the executive and the judiciary, must remain strong. They are the temples of democracy. I don’t agree that there were clashes.

You have called the CBI a ‘caged parrot’, asked Attorney General Vahanvati not to complain because judiciary challenging government policy ‘happens in a democracy’ or criticised the government over the Gopal Subramaniam episode…
If I am doing something it’s because the Constitution requires me to do so. That’s the oath I have taken: to uphold the laws. If I am working within that, the other two organs must not feel that I am clashing with them. If court strikes down a law, you don’t see it as a clash, if you have respect for democratic institutions. The interpretation of laws is up to the judiciary, what the law should be is the Parliament’s business.

About Gopal, I don’t know what made him to withdraw. I was not in the country. Perhaps he had some misgivings, perhaps he did not understand the thing properly. But he knows the system, the role of the government and the judiciary. I don’t know. That was again a sad, sad chapter.

There’s a feeling that the judiciary is getting into everything. How would you respond?
We don’t get into everything, only where we find Constitutional violations. A matter may look purely to be in the executive domain but that may not be so. Wherever there is Constitutional and legal infraction, the judiciary just can’t shut its eyes. It is their primary duty to see that Constitution is followed and law is observed.

The balance of power between the three organs is very nuanced. There is a very fine understanding. Say, the disaster in Jammu & Kashmir. For the common man, relief, rehabilitation and rescue are the government’s job. So you may ask, why does the judiciary poke its nose? But the judiciary’s role comes into play. Because, if food, water or shelter are not made available to a citizen, it’s a violation of human rights. It brings in the precious Article 21 of the Constitution. This is where the court’s role comes in.

The Indian judiciary is very mature. It understands its role. If it’s pure policy matter, which has nothing to do with Constitutional flavor, the court will never touch it. But what happens is that, the line is invisible. One feels it’s an act of judicial activism and that the judiciary has taken upon itself the role of the executive. If seen deeper, it would not be so.

The judiciary often gets into economic decisions and then there are consequences. Is the judiciary losing touch with reality by not allowing the country to do business?
That’s more perception and understanding. Every economic decision, more so natural resources, has to be in consonance with Constitutional norms and principles. If there is wholesale violation of those, the consequences may be serious. They may directly or indirectly affect the economy. But that is inevitable. Look, the court keeps all aspects into consideration, always tries to balance. But when there are gross illegalities and Constitutional violations, then perhaps the court needs to step in.

The coal scam, for instance…
Coal is a pending matter, I will not touch on that.

You have been a defender of the collegium system in judicial appointments. At the same time, you have said that the judiciary should be transparent. How can the two go together?
The two are not mutually exclusive. When I became the Chief Justice, I wrote to all chief justices of high courts, expanding consultative process. I asked them to include the opinions of two more judges, and two more lawyers of impeccable integrity. This could have been expanded. If you involve lawyers and other stakeholders in the system, that can bring in transparency.

What your idea of a perfect appointments system for the judges?
This summer (the Judicial Bill had not come up as yet, at least I had no idea) I went to England and discussed in detail their processes with the Lord Chief Justice. They too have a judicial appointments Commission. But it is very different. They have a judicial commission of 15 people. The chairperson is a regular citizen. Five to six members of the commission are not connected with law: they are academics, businessmen, economists or social activists. Just 2-3 are from the judiciary, two are from Bar. And they advertise for the posts. Initially good lawyers did not apply. Now after five years things are changing. They get full information on every applicant, hold interviews, discuss to see how much objectivity a person has, what his/her social orientation is. No system is perfect, no system is bad. Ultimately everything depends on who mans the system. If you have objective selectors who are determined to select the best then it is not difficult at all.

No politicians?
No politicians. But just see the contrast. I met a judge from Switzerland. He told me that one of the main eligibility criteria for judges in their country is that he must have some political affiliation. But he also said, no judge till date, once he became a judge, has shown political bias or consideration. What a mature system. On the contrary, look at South Africa. They, too, has service appointments commission for judges. But there things have not gone right.

So what is it that can ensure the best choice of judges?
You must establish norms. And those must be strictly adhered to. For instance, if you are considering a lawyer, he must have conducted at least 100 cases in last five years (personally I do) to be eligible for the post of a judge. This must not be compromised.

We have systems in place, even in the collegium, but problem appears because ours is a diverse country where we have not been able to achieve diversity. You won’t find all sections represented. Women, for instance, are not under-represented. So if you find one who has less practice but you get a feedback that she is competent and honest and she could deliver, then you try to pick her up. But then you are departing from the norms. In ten years, though, you will have wonderful representation from women. Girls are doing very well: in every state about 40-50 per cent of judges are girls. And they are doing extremely well.

We have a norm that a member of the Bar who has been considered as a high court judge must have an annual income of Rs.3 lakhs. Now this is too low. But there are lawyers from places like Chhattisgarh, who are good lawyers but with annual income of Rs.1 lakh 50 thousand. Problem arises when somebody takes that factor into consideration for giving representation to a particular class. Someone else may not have that altruistic view in mind, but to help somebody he cites the precedent. They will say, you made a departure there so why not here? That’s how the problem comes in. It’s a very complex process.

What are your yardsticks?
A 100 cases in five years, a particular number of which must have been reported in legal journals, apart from his legal approach and understanding of law. Age is another issue: presently the cut off is age 45. That requires change. Lawyers that age earn far more to sacrifice all that and join the judiciary. I chose one judge from Uttara Khand, remote Pithoragraph, to give representation to a section that is hardly represented. That gives huge encouragement. We keep in view certain parameters. Now I don’t what will happen…

You have said we have to be uncompromising with corruption in judiciary. But how?
Look, there is no place for corruption in judiciary. This is a divine duty that has been bestowed on you. God could have made you a cobbler, an engineer, a dacoit, but God thought here is a person who I can trust to discharge my duty. So corruption has no place. I always say, if you want to make money then for God’s sake don’t come to the judiciary. There are many other avenues open.

But there is corruption in the judiciary…
Yes, there is corruption. I cannot deny it…

What’s the way out?
Take action as and when evidence comes in. The Bar has to be vigilant. The problem is, people who are talking of corruption in the judiciary are themselves involved in corruption. That’s the whole problem. Corruption can’t be done with just one hand. This is a challenge, and more so in the judiciary, because it is unacceptable in the justice system.

When Justice Markandey Katju wrote about judicial corruption, you said the image of the judiciary is getting tarnished. Is it just a problem of image?
If something is wrong nobody would say it should be kept under the carpet. No. But then if you have evidence, if you know about something going wrong, if you know about a person who’s committing wrong, then you must bring that aspect, wrong, immediately to the notice of people who are concerned with it. If I say today that in 2002 at Bombay High Court I found this and this, I am not helping anyone’s cause. Whatever you know about you must bring out immediately. Then if something is not done, you can point a finger. If you keep quiet because you think this is not the right time for such things to surface, you have not really helped the cause.

There have been so many allegations about some of your predecessors…
I won’t comment. Look, the system is there…The system can always be improved, if you think there are deficiencies.

What sort of support does the judiciary get?
Look, the judiciary by its very character is not interested in support or lack of support. Our work is such that we cannot please everyone all the time. We are not very concerned with support. Yes, we want justice to be delivered expeditiously and, of course, qualitatively. Our budget allocation is provided by the government. And everybody knows that’s not enough. But it’s not a question of support but of public confidence in the judiciary: if we are able to deliver justice fast, improve quality of justice, which helps people at large. And support from the public is always there.

How do judges come to know of public perception, if they are in sync with it or not?
We don’t socialise much. Our knowledge is confined to newspapers and magazines. But I believe, with all the aberrations we have, all negative things people may think of the judiciary, people fondly believe that the judiciary must be independent. Because, you know. The individual’s rights against the state’s might can only be protected if the judiciary is independent. I went to Russia and there most people were talking about how and when the executive would call up the judges. How can you have a democracy running like that? I firmly believe that you just can’t have a dependent judiciary.

What’s the biggest challenge before the judiciary?
People have problems with the judiciary. The criminal justice system is not at all working the way it should. Civil litigation is almost stagnant. Go to a court and you will find a magistrate is required to deal with a 100 cases, 20-30 trails, with over 10 witnesses in each. Ultimately he can only give his attention to five or six such cases. Human limitations compel him to adjourn 60 per cent of the cases gladly. Even if a lawyer wants adjournment without reason, he would say, ‘yes’ and not ask ‘why’. This multiplies the problem.

The Chief Justice of England said they deal with 150 cases a year. I said, “Lord President, please come to my court.” On any Monday or Friday, we have 800-850 cases listed in all our 12-13 benches. Each bench deals with 60-65 matters a day. Every month, it would be in thousands. Each judge does 2000 cases a year. But then, you can’t have a Supreme Court that is too big and unwieldy. The top court has to be compact.

In America, there are 75 judges per million population and we have 13, the lowest in the world. The judge-case ratio is also terribly skewed, with 30 million cases pending across the country, 65,000 in the Supreme Court. Germany is a civil law country: they have several Supreme Courts, dealing with different types of cases. They are stunned when they hear that our courts deal with civil, criminal, environment, Constitutional, everything.

You can’t imagine the kind of workload we have. But there is no quick-fix solution for these inherent problems. They have to be staggered out as short, mid-term and long-term issues. Focus on priorities for short-term, on judges’ strength for mid-term and, on infrastructure as long-term. I will not blame anyone. Judiciary is not a revenue-generating organ. But I am confident of our talent and potential. The future is ours, I tell you. In a country where average age is 29, imagine what advantage we have. I take pride in the talent in our country.

You have been at the helm for just five months. Of late, we are seeing too many Supreme Court Chief Justices with too little time. Before they can make any changes, their time is up. Do you think, this needs to change?
Small tenures do affect the judicial system. But much may depend on the government of the day, if they think they are comfortable with it. Seniority in highest position is an assurance. It’s difficult to tinker with that.

Any trend emerging?
We are getting lot of land acquisition compensation cases…Arbitration system has failed. We have to strengthen ADR (alternative dispute resolution). Every award is being challenged in the court then that doesn’t work. Success rate is not much.

Looking ahead
I just want to be free. Free of protocols. For 21 years I have led a very secluded life. After so many years of recusal, I don’t even know if I remember how to socialise anymore. But one can serve society in diverse ways and I am looking forward to that freedom. I have no wish to take on new assignments. Perhaps I will write a book one day, but certainly not now.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Supreme Court alive to the demand for greater transparency in appointments: RM Lodha, Chief Justice of India: 08.09.2014

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court is alive to the demand for greater transparency in appointments to the superior judiciary and possibly resigned to the inevitability of a change in the system.

Chief Justice of India RM Lodha acknowledged as much on Friday when he said that change was in the air and a situation may arise in which applications would be invited from eligible persons for appointment as high court judges, as opposed to the internal process that currently prevails. In the so-called collegium system, the judiciary picks judges.

CJI-R.M.Lodhaeureka-Naked-Running

Digvijay Mote shared Markandey Katju‘s status.Yesterday [08.09.2014]:- Defamation of Judiciary.
A high judicial authority recently said that some people are trying to defame the judiciary. Perhaps he was alluding to me. So doing corruption by Judges does not defame the judiciary, but exposing such corruption defames it.
This is a new definition of defamation !

CJI-Eureka-5pgs-14.08.14

 
 

Legislative changes that await approval mean the executive will have a role in the matter through the establishment of a National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC).

“People now want more transparency. They want to see you. A time may come when applications have to be filed for appointment as high court judges or a body like the Lokpal. What is the problem?” the CJI said, prompting speculation that the court may be resigned to the changes being pushed ahead aggressively by the Narendra Modi government.

The chief justice seemed in a more philosophical frame of mind than in the past few weeks, when some of his statements seemed to reflect anguish about the executive getting more of a say in the appointment of judges. “With change of time, perception changes,” Lodha said.

The comments alluding to the system of appointments by the proposed NJAC, which will invite applications from eligible persons for appointment as high court judges, mark the first such public acknowledgment by Lodha, who retires this month.

“People want to see you, know you. The public wants more diversity. Things have changed. They want to know more of your credentials or particulars,” said Lodha, who will be succeeded by justice HL Dattu. “A time may come when all this may be sent for police verification.”

The process may involve tracking matters such as how many traffic challans a person may have, past professional misconduct, defaults in appearing in cases etc, he said. With Lodha on the bench were Kurian Joseph and RF Nariman.

http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2014-09-08/news/53691579_1_india-rm-lodha-national-judicial-appointments-commission-rf-nariman

…………………..

Samanwaya Routray, ET Bureau Sep 8, 2014, 04.00AM IST

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

TN sues Jayalalithaa, Karnataka foots the bill: Justice A S Pachchapure,special court judges AT Munoli, BM Mallikarjunaiah, M.S Balakrishna & John Michael Cunha: 06.09.2014

 Documents obtained under RTI show state exchequer has spent Rs 2.86 crore on playing host to the case in the city. Of this, TN govt only reimburses Rs 1.46 crore
 
 
TN sues Jayalalithaa, Karnataka foots the bill4th Monkey
A file photo of Jayalalithaa on one of her visits to the court.

The case is in its final stages and the judge John Michael Cunha, who is now presiding, will likely deliver a judgement in the next few weeks.

Prior to Cunha, four other judges have presided over the case — Justice A S Pachchapure and special court judges AT Munoli, BM Mallikarjunaiah and MS Balakrishna.

 

When the Supreme Court announced that it planned to shift the Rs 66.65 crore disproportionate assets case involving Tamil Nadu chief minister J Jayalalithaa to Bangalore to ensure free and fair trial in 2003, the counsel for the chief minister had initially expressed concern. There was no love lost between the two states due to the Cauvery water dispute, her counsel had stated. However, in an affidavit, the state government assured the SC that it would extend all possible support to ensuring a free and fair trial.

Given that assurance, the SC went ahead and transferred the case to the city — in hindsight an obscenely expensive decision for taxpayers in Karnataka. Over the last 11 years since the case was transferred to the city, it has seen five judges and two public prosecutors. And the bill has ratcheted. Documents obtained by an RTI activist show that the state has so far spent Rs.2.86 crore on playing host to the case, making it one of the most expensive ever heard by a lower court.

The expenses include salary to staff (since a special court had to be set up in the city), remuneration to the public prosecutor and his assistant, salary of contract officials, transportation expenses (a huge bill since files etc have to moved from Chennai each time there is hearing), photocopying and other stationary, BSNL bills, allowances (witnesses too have to transported from Chennai), fuel expenses, furniture, translation fee, and other miscellaneous.

In its Dec 13, 2003 order, the SC directed the Tamil Nadu government to only reimburse the fees of the public prosecutor and his assistant which, so far, has amounted to Rs 1.46 crore. The state exchequer foots the rest of the bill. But here is a measure of how expensive the slow pace of justice is: When the case was stayed for five years from 2004 to 2009, a staggering Rs 93,29,370 was spent on salary to staff, maintenance, allowances etc.

“Most of the lower courts don’t even have basic facilities,” said T Narasimha Murthy, human rights and RTI activist, who had obtained the documents in Jayalalithaa’s case.

“The situation is so bad that accused parties are asked to pay for photocopies of documents and for other stationery. But the Tamil Nadu chief minister’s case is such a contrast. Already the state has spent Rs 2.86 crore. It is not a small amount. What if she is not convicted? What if she challenges the outcome? When courts are suffering, spending such a huge amount on a single case makes little sense.”

The case is in its final stages and the judge John Michael Cunha, who is now presiding, will likely deliver a judgement in the next few weeks.

Prior to Cunha, four other judges have presided over the case — Justice A S Pachchapure and special court judges AT Munoli, BM Mallikarjunaiah and MS Balakrishna.

WASTE OF TAXPAYERS’ MONEY

Retired Justice MF Saldanha claimed that the disproportionate asset case against J Jayalalithaa was a prime example on waste of public time and money.
“In my personal view, I don’t really understand what difference transfer of a case is going to make,” Justice Saldanha said. “However the Supreme Court had its own reason and wisdom. This is essentially a prosecution from Chennai which is why expenses have mounted. We have got to learn from mistakes to ensure optimal utilisation of time and public expenditure.”

Justice Saldanha suggested that the expenses be recovered from the defendant in case she loses the case. “In civil law, usually when one loses a case, one has to pay the cost of proceedings and other costs. I think in all these corruption cases which are anti-national offences, the guilty should be made to pay the cost. This should be debated and laws should be amended if necessary.”

Sunder CG, another advocate who is an expert on corruption cases, said, “It’s a sheer waste of time and taxpayers’ money to concentrate so much energy on one case and on one that is not of national importance. “

……………….

http://www.bangaloremirror.com/bangalore/others/TN-sues-Jayalalithaa-Karnataka-foots-the-bill/articleshow/41811968.cms?

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

My Lord/Your Lordships sign of slavery, should be banned: Supreme Court : 11.11.2013

New Delhi: Addressing judges as My Lord or Your Lordships in courts is a relic of colonial era and a sign of slavery, a petition filed in Supreme Court said on Monday and sought a ban on their use in the country.

A PIL was filed today by a 75-year-old lawyer seeking the apex court`s direction to strictly prohibit the use of My Lord or Your Lordships in the courts throughout India alleging that “it is against the dignity of the country.”

“Using the word My Lord and Your Lordship which is symbol of slavery should be strictly prohibited to be used in the courts throughout India as it is against the dignity of the country,” the petitioner Shiv Sagar Tiwari submitted before a bench of Chief Justice P Sathasivam and Justice Ranjan Gogoi.

The bench, after briefly hearing his plea, said how can it issue such a direction and raised question on whether any court in the country insists on being addressed by these terms.

The petitioner replied his plea in the apex court was allegedly dismissed just because he did not address the court by these terms.

A hearing could not take place further as Justice Gogoi recused himself from hearing the case. The CJI then said that case be listed before another bench.

Tiwari in his petition submitted that Bar Council of India has already passed a resolution in 2006 saying that nobody will address the court in India as My Lord and Your Lordship but it is not being followed.

He said that Justice S Muralidhar of Delhi High Court has acted on the resolution and he insists that no advocate address the court by My Lord and Your Lordship.

“The petitioner submits that the same principle should be adopted by all the judges in the judiciary including the Supreme Court, High Courts and subordinate courts,” he said adding “My Lords or Your Lordships is a sign of relics of colonial posts which in other words a symbol of slavery”.

“Unless this court issues a writ in the nature of mandamus, the judges in the courts and the advocates appearing in the courts will not follow the amended Bar Council of India Rules which are mandatory now,” Tiwari said in the petition.

PTI .

First Published: Monday, November 11, 2013 – 21:15

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized