Judges  are  in  a vital  sacrosanct position ,  wherein  they can judge over the  acts of omissions / commissions of ordinary folk  as well as high & mighty. They  decide the fate of  those parties , some times even sending them to gallows. But  who is to judge over the acts of omission / commission by judges themselves.

Still there are few honest judges in our legal / governance system, we respect those honest few. Through out  this document the term JUDGE includes officials performing judicial functions right from munsiff level to chief justice of india & includes quasi judicial officers like block development officer , taluk magistrate , police officer , etc.  It is an appeal to those honest few JUDGES to catch , legally prosecute  their corrupt colleagues.

However Some  of the judges are involving themselves in criminal acts just like petty criminals  viz  making  sexual advances to women folk , lifting  furnitures belonging to government  from the quarters , taking bribe money in the form of royalty for book , taking bribe money  by  getting prime real estate at abnormally low price , swindling  hard earned provident fund money of employees , disposing official / judicial functions while judge himself is drunk (but drunken driving is a crime ?) , harassing wife for dowry , etc.

Afer all these Some of the erring judges  are just transferred to other courts , in rarest of rare cases forced to resign. Paradoxically in some cases even promotional transfers are given to erring judge. But in how many cases , criminal prosecution of erring judges ? Did any higher judge reopen the cases handled by erring judge for foul play  ?

After all these crimes , we the public are not given information about what action has been taken against those erring judges. Judiciary  thinks public are not fit to get those information. However the same judges shamelessly take lakhs of rupees  pay & perks from the public exchequer. God save my India.

Jai Hind. Vande Mataram.

Nagaraja Mysore Raghupathi.

Atrocities on  Women  by  JUDGES
https://sites.google.com/site/eclarionofdalit/atrocities-by-judges  ,

Judge Watch

Submitting Information
Judge Watch will contain information / analysis regarding any misconduct by a judge as well as anything showing the anti-poor bias of a judge.
The campaign welcomes well researched information concerning judges from any court. However, we cannot ensure that every dossier sent will be uploaded on this site or made public. All submissions must be accompanied by the relevant/required documents that may provide evidence in support of any allegations/observations made against any judge or judicial officer.
One reference document is the "Restatement of Values of Judicial Life",a code of conduct, adopted at a full court meeting of the Supreme Court on May 7, 1997 . The Campaign does not subscribe to this as a complete document, but a starting point.
To send in information for the Judge Watch section please see the following document. Judge Watch Format [Word, 20 KB]

Judge Watch on Justice V.Ramaswami
Motion of Impeachment - pdf (64 KB)
A Historic non-impeachment -)pdf (29.5 KB)

Judge Watch on Justice Madan Mohan Puchhi
This charge sheet was prepared by the Committee on Judicial Accountability in 1998, when Justice Punchhi was a judge of the Supreme Court of India. It was signed by 25 MPs of Rajya Sabha. However, before it could get the signature of the requisite number of 50 MPs of Rajya Sabha, Justice Punchhi was appointed Chief Justice of India. After this, it became virtually impossible to get the Notice of Motion signed by any MPs. Consequently, Notice of Motion could not be presented to the Speaker. The imp lesson of this exercise was that it is very difficult to get the MPs sign the impeachment motion unless three conditions are satisfied. Firstly, the charges must be very serious; secondly they must be provable by documentary evidence which is annexed to the Notice of Motion and finally, the charges must have been given substantial publicity in the media.
In the absence of all the three conditions been satisfied, MPs are afraid and reluctant to sign a charge sheet against a sitting judge. It is normally exceedingly difficult to get documentary evidence to prove charge against sitting judge, particularly in the absence of a statutory investigation by an agency having powers of investigation. Moreover, the bulk of the main stream media is afraid to publicise charges against the sitting judge for fear of contempt. In Ramaswami’s case, the above three conditions were satisfied. Documentary evidence was available against Ramaswami because of the report of the Accountant General who audited the purchases made by Ramaswami as Chief Justice of Punjab and Haryana High Court. This is why, impeachment of judges, however corrupt they might be, is not a practical remedy in discipling them.

Justice M.M.Punchhi - Notice of Motion - pdf (70 KB)

Judge Watch on Justice A. S. Anand
These unrebutted allegations were supported by valid authentic documents and were severely raised at the time when Justice Anand was the Chief Justice of India but nothing was ever done in this regard.
Allegations aganist J. A.S.Anand - pdf (15.5 KB)

Judge Watch on Justice Vijendra Jain
Justice Vijender Jain had decided a case of a litigant Hari Ram who was the father-in-law of Justice Arun Kumar, Former Supreme Court Judge and a close friend of Justice Vijendra Jain. They personally knew well enough to have Hari Ram’s granddaughter married from his official residence. This is in violation of one of the elements of the Code of Conduct or “Restatement of Judicial Values”, adopted by the Full court in 1997 which says that no judge shall hear and decide a case of his relative or friend. Even then Justice Vijendra Jain has been recommended as Chief Justice of Punjab and Haryana High Court.
A complaint made by Subhash Agarwal against Justice Jain was rejected with no formal reasons given but he was informally told that Justice Jain did not personally know Hari Ram but since Hari Ram was the Father-in-law of Justice Arun Kumar, a close friend of Justice Jain, Justice Jain agreed to lend his residence for the wedding of Hari Ram’s granddaughter.
The Committee on Judicial Accountability wrote letters to the President and Prime Minister of India and requested them to get all correspondences made by the Complainant Subhash Agrawal to the Supreme Court in this regard.
Letter to President 12.8.06 - pdf (8.03 KB)
Letter to Prime Minister-)pdf (6.24 KB)

Sunday Guardian web news article 28.11.10-)pdf (132 KB)
[The name of Justice Vijender Jain, even though clearly mentioned in the tape has been withheld in this news item though the conversation itself makes it very clear who the concerned judge is.]
Judge Watch on Justice Ashok Kumar
The case of Judge Ashok Kumar of Madras who was formerly a session’s judge and has been given a permanent position in the Chennai High Court by the Chief Justice of India in February 2007 is horrifying. When the complaints were levelled against him of corruption, an inquiry report by the Intelligence Bureau (IB) gave an even more horrendous report against him. But all the reports were ignored and he was promoted to the High Court. This happened due to the political pressure from the Central Government, as the judge was close to DMK government (now ruling party of the State) and DMK government threatened to withdraw support from the UPA government. So it is due to that, that the law minister asked the CJI to give extensions and finally made Ashok Kumar a High Court judge.

Petition on the appointment of Justice A.Kumar - pdf (51.6 KB)
SC order on Justice A.Kumar's case- pdf (7.9 KB)
Are CJIs following rules in appointment of Judges?-)pdf (6.93 KB)
Justice Ashok Kumar appoinment chalenged- pdf (10.0 KB)

Judge Watch on Justice Jagdish Bhalla

This is the case where the documentary evidence was available to show that the judge has purchased the property worth crores in few lakhs in the name of his wife from well-known criminal who have illegally grabbed the land. There were inquiry reports of the Additional District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police which attested to these facts. However, despite this documentary evidence being brought to the notice of the then Chief Justice of India, he neither ordered an independent investigation nor did he allow the Committee on Judicial Accountability to get a regular FIR registered, so that a normal police investigation could have taken place. This was despite the fact that under the in-house procedure, supposedly adopted by the Supreme Court of India in 1999 for investigating charges against the judges, at least an in-house committee of judges could have formed to investigate the charges against Justice Bhalla. However instead of doing that, the then Chief Justice Y.K. Sabbarwal recommended Justice Bhalla to be the Chief Justice of Kerala High Court. His appointment as Chief Justice was stopped only because of the complaint made by the Committee on Judicial Accountability to the President of India, who sent the matter back to reconsideration to the Supreme Court collegium, which thereafter could not reiterate its recommendation because of the opposition of one of the judges of the collegium, Justice B.N.Aggarwal. However, thereafter Justice Bhalla has been transferred as a judge of Chattisgarh High Court where he has been appointed as acting Chief Justice by the notification of Law Ministry. This was despite of the objection of the Committee on Judicial Accountability, that a judge, who was not found suitable as Chief Justice of Kerala, cannot be appointed as Acting Chief Justice of another High Court.

The case of Justice Bhalla demonstrates the hollowness of the so-called in-house procedure supposedly adopted by the Supreme Court for investigating charges against judges. It also demonstrates the pernicious impact of the Veraswami judgement which prevents any police investigation against a judge without the prior permission of the Chief Justice of India. The brotherhood among the judges and the fear among judges that any criminal investigation against the sitting judge would tarnish the image of Indian Judiciary has let to a situation whereby not a single sitting judge has been subjected to criminal investigation in the 17 years since the Veeraswamy judgement.

Impeachment Motion and Press Releases

Additional documents in support
Details of individual / organisation writing critique:Name: Committee on Judicial Accountability
Address: 66 Lawyers Chambers, Supreme Court of India, New Delhi

Judge Watch on Justice Y.K.Sabharwal
Former CJI, Justice Y.K.Sabharwal set in motion the process of sealing of properties in designated residential areas of Delhi which were being used for commercial purposes. This sealing went on relentlessly under the continuous supervision of Chief Justice Sabharwal’s bench, monitored and directed by a Court appointed monitoring committee. When the government came up with a new master plan of Delhi 2021 which allowed mixed use and commercial activity in many of the areas which were designated as residential, Justice Sabharwal orders on the sealing continued.
Some of the facts which were not publicly known was that his two sons, Chetan and Nitin had entered into partnerships with big Mall and Commercial complex developers and had become big Commercial complex developers themselves during that time. It was clear that these orders were giving direct benefit to his sons’ business. His orders are against the principles of natural justice, which say that no judge can hear a case in which he is personally interested. There was a serious conflict of interest in this case which renders his orders a nullity. It is in fact arguable that his dealing with this case in such circumstances involves an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
At the same time, it was also found that several plots were allotted to the Companies or relatives of Justice Sabharwal and which needs to be investigated to see if undue favour was shown to them and if so whether there was any quid pro quo in terms of judicial orders.
The facts thrown up in this case have very disturbing implications about the integrity of our judiciary in the highest places.
Other Interventions

Tehelka Investigation

"Wither Judicial Accountability? The case of Justice Sabharwal: Disquieting facts, disturbing implications"- Press Conference held on Aug 03, 2007
Press Conference was organised to highlight a grave case of Judicial Misconduct at the Apex of the Indian Judiciary. It disclosed how the then Chief Justice of India who had spearheaded the sealing drive was mired in serious conflict of interest in as much as his sons were deeply involved in the business of shopping malls and commercial complexes who stood to benefit from this sealing drive. It was addressed by Shri Shanti Bhushan, former Union Law Minister, Mr. Bhaskar Rao, Chairman, Centre for Media Studies, and Mr. Prashant Bhushan, advocate, Supreme Court among other. The Press Conference was attended by 40 news agencies and 80 participants.

Mid-day Investigation

Judge Watch on Justice P. D. Dinakaran
FThe Supreme Court collegium headed by Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan and including Justice S.H. Kapadia, Justice Tarun Chatterjee and Justice R.V. Raveendran had recommended in August 2009, Justice P.D. Dinakaran, the Chief Justice of Karnataka High Court, for elevation to the Supreme Court. The recommendations came along with the names of four other Judges for elevation to the Apex court namely, Justice AK Patnayak (Chief Justice of Madhya Pradesh High Court), Justice Tirath Singh Thakur, (Chief Justice of Punjab and Haryana High Court), Justice SS Nijjar (Chief Justice of Calcutta High Court) and Justice KS Radhakrishna ( Chief Justice of Gujarat High Court). While the decks were cleared for the elevation of the latter four Judges, iimmediately after the news of Justice Dinakaran’s proposed appointment became known, a group of highly respected and responsible lawyers from Chennai called the Forum for Judicial Accountability sent a series of representations to the Collegium and the government detailing several very damaging allegations against him. These included, acquiring more than 350 acres of agricultural land and encroaching on another more than hundred acres of public land; acquiring properties benami and far beyond his known sources of income; hearing and deciding cases of his friends etc. All the allegations were backed by unimpeachable documentary evidence.
Though the Chief Justice of India, continued to back him, he ordered an inquiry into the allegation regarding his agricultural land by the District Magistrate, who confirmed the allegations including his encroachment of public land. Thereafter Justice Dinakaran tried to destroy evidence and threatened the revenue officials who went to stop this destruction of evidence. All this came to be widely reported in the media. An embarrassed PMO forced a reluctant Law Minister Moily to return the recommendation to the collegium for reconsideration. The collegium did not withdraw the recommendation, but merely put it on hold. No “in house inquiry” was ordered either.
Meanwhile people questioned how Dinakaran could continue as Chief Justice of Karnataka in the light of such serious offences that he had committed. There was also the demand that FIRs should be registered and the offences that he had committed be investigated. The Chief Justice of India however did not give permission for registering any FIR against Justice Dinakaran. This left no option but to initiate impeachment proceedings against him. The Forum for Judicial Accountability prepared the impeachment motion which was sent to all the political parties by a campaign for signatures. Eventually 75 MPs of the Rajya Sabha, belonging to many political parties except the Congress party signed the impeachment motion and presented it to the Vice President. The motion was soon admitted by the Vice President forcing Justice Dinakaran to stop discharging judicial functions.
The procedure laid down by the Judges Inquiry Act for proceeding with an impeachment motion is that the Vice President appoints an enquiry committee consisting of a sitting judge of the Supreme Court, a Chief Justice of a High Court and a jurist to enquire into the charges against him. Only if the enquiry committee finds him guilty does the matter proceed further for a voting in the two houses of Parliament. The motion for his removal has to be then passed by a two third majority in each house. Only then can he be removed. Though there is no requirement under the Judges Inquiry Act for the Vice President to consult the Chief Justice in the choice of members of the enquiry committee, he consulted the Chief Justice, who recommended two judges of the Supreme Court and two Chief Justices of the High Court. Based on the Chief Justice’s advice, the Vice President has appointed an inquiry committee comprising of Justice V.S. Sirupurkar of the Supreme Court, Chief Justice A.R. Dave of the A.P. High Court and Shri P.P. Rao as the jurist.
The Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reform as well as the Forum for Judicial Accountability have however written to the V.P. pointing out that Justice Sirupurkar has not only been a close friend and colleague of Justice Dinakaran, but he has also prejudged the issue, telling several responsible lawyers that he knows Justice Dinakaran well and that he is an independently wealthy and honourable man. Moreover, Shri P.P. Rao had been formally consulted by Justice Dinakaran on how he should deal with these charges and that he had advised him on the matter. In these circumstances, they would not be seen to be impartial and therefore should not sit as judges on this inquiry committee to avoid damage to the credibility of the inquiry and further controversy. However till the date of writing they have not yet recused themselves.
Representations by the Forum for Judicial Accountability to the Collegium
Motion for Impeachement of Justice Dinakaran
The notice of motion for presenting an address to the President of India for the removal of Justice Dinakaran, Chief Justice of the Karanataka High Court, under Article 217 read with Article 124(4) of Constitution of India for his various acts of misbehavior, including dishonest judicial orders, irregular and dishonest administrative actions, etc, along with an explanatory note on the motion for impeachement. pdf
Press Statement against Survery of India probe into Justice Dinakaran encroachment
Press Statement issued by the Forum for Judicial Accountability against the Survey of India spot probe into the allegations of land encroachment by the Karnataka Chief Justice, P.D. Dinakaran, to be conducted on December 30th 2009 as reported in a newspaper.
The Forum calls upon the Central Government to recall the three member team deputed by the Survey of India immediately and to await the outcome of the enquiry under the impeachment proceedings. ...statement page 1 statement page 2
CJAR letter to the Vice President regarding the enquiry committee in the Justice Dinakaran impeachment
The Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reform has sent a letter to Shri Hamid Ansari, Vice President of India, regarding the 3 member enquiry committee appointed to enquire into the motion for removal of Jusitce P.D. Dinakaran. The letter brings to Shri Ansari's notice that Justice Sirupurkar’s friendship with Justice Dinakaran, coupled with his prejudgement of the matter, places him in a position where if he inquires into this matter, justice will not be seen to be done. The same would be the case with Shri P.P. Rao who has been formally consulted in the matter by Justice Dinakaran. The letter further requests that these facts be placed before Justice Sirupurkar and Shri P.P. Rao and they be asked whether they would like to recuse themselves from the inquiry committee, to avoid any further controversy in the matter. psdf

Judge Watch on Justice F.I.Rebello
CJAR's complaint against Justice Rebello- pdf

Judicial Accountability It is important to keep the judiciary in the purview of scrutiny. This section will provide various subjects to get judiciary accountable to common person.
Making reference to the K. Veeraswamy’s Case Shri Shanti Bhushan observed that all judges should declare their assets – it should be done with pride! Why raise issues of self-respect? He said only those who have something to hide will be reluctant to disclose their assets! …more
- S.P.Gupta - pdf (1.6 MB)
A seven Judges Bench of Supreme Court extensively considered the issues of Independence of Judiciary in relation to the appointment and transfer of Judges, the issue of appointment of the Additional Judges of the High Court, the issue of the privilege of the Government against disclosure of State documents and the scope of judicial review of the powers exercised by the President.
While deciding the issue of the locus standi of the petitioning lawyers who had challenged the Circular of the Law Minister and short-term extensions of Additional Judges on ground of attack on the independence of the judiciary, Justice P.N. Bhagwati while upholding their right to do so held that where the effected persons are really helpless, the Supreme Court will not insist on a regular writ petition to be filed by the public spirited individual espousing their cause. The Court will readily respond even to a letter addressed by said individual espousing the public cause.
A bunch of cases were decided together in the present case which were raised in two batches of writ petitions filed in different High Courts which were transferred under Article 139-A to the Supreme Court since they raised common issues of great constitutional importance. One writ was also filed in the Supreme Court. Several more related issues were raised and discussed during the hearing. Each of the Judges delivered a separate judgment.
- Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association Vs. Union of India
- pdf (475 KB)
This case directed to constitute a Bench of nine Judges to examine the two questions referred therein, namely, the position of the Chief Justice of India with reference to primacy, and justiciability of fixation of Judge strength.

Article 124 (4) of Indian Consitution: A Judge of the Supreme Court shall not be removed from his office except by an order of the President passed after an address by each House of Parliament supported by a majority of the total membership of that House and by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the members of that House present and voting has been presented to the President in the same session for such removal on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity.
- Justice V. Ramaswamy - pdf (64 KB)
The first-ever impeachment motion against a SC judge, Justice V. Ramaswami, was signed by 108 MPs in 1991. A year later, an inquiry found Ramaswami “guilty of willful and gross misuses of office… “While serving as the Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court”. Ramaswami survived the impeachment process as Parliament got divided along regional lines, southern MPs strongly supported him. Only 196 members of Parliament, less than the required two-thirds, voted for his ouster.
A Historic Non-impeachement - pdf (29.5 KB)
- Justice M.M. Punchi - pdf (70 KB)
- Justice A.S. Anand - pdf (15.5 KB) Serious allegations of corruption and favouritism were raised against Justice A.S.Anand former Chief Justice of India pertaining to the period when he was the Judge and the Chief Justice of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court.

Read more articles….. - A conflict between law and morality - pdf (10 KB)
Contempt - Contempt of court: judgement by Justice Arijit Pasayat -pdf (26.5 KB) - Contempt of court: judgement by Justice Raveendran - pdf (24.1 KB) - Judges in their own cause: Contempt of court by Prashant Bhushan-pdf (19.2 KB) - Contempt of court: need for a second look by J.Markandey Katju - pdf (12.5 KB) - Standing Committee report on Contempt - pdf (58.4 KB) - Affidavits of Arundhati Roy pdf (24.2 KB) and Medha Patkar on contempt pdf (17.0 KB)
Right to Information and Judiciary - Right to Information And The Judiciary By Prashant Bhushan - pdf (72 KB)
Investigations against Judges
- Justice K. Veeraswamy - pdf (177 KB) Justice K.Veeraswamy the then Chief Justice of Madras High Court was charged for possession of assets disproportionate to his known sources of income and a case was filed against him by the CBI under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The High Court of Madras dismissed his Petition for quashing of the Case against him and referred the matter to the Supreme Court for deciding certain questions of law. The Supreme Court while deciding the case against the delinquent Judge laid down strict guidelines to protect the independence of Judiciary according to which no F.I.R. can be registered against a Judge or Chief Justice of the High Court, or a Judge of the Supreme Court without the sanction of the Chief Justice of India in the matter. It was held that the Supreme Court is not a court of limited jurisdiction of only dispute settling, and that the court has been a law maker and it is the courts responsibility and duty to apply the existing law in a form more conducive to the independence of the judiciary. It was also said that any complaint against a Judge and its investigation by the CBI, if given publicity will have a far reaching impact on the judge and the litigant public therefore there is need of a judicious use of taking action under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
- Judicial Accountability OR Illusion - The National Judicial Council Bill by Prashant Bhushan - pdf (8.83 KB)
- Judicial Accountability by Prashant Bhushan - pdf (9.61 KB)
- Mechanisms of Judicial Accountability by Justice J.S.Verma - pdf (11.2 KB)

Judicial Reforms The current judicial system needs to be cleared of procedural complexities and hurdles to make it accessible for the common citizens. It must be strengthened to deliver justice quickly, efficiently and honestly. This section contains links and updates on various laws and policies (existing and proposed) and an analysis of the same.
Access of Poor and Delays in Justice
Who do these delays and backlogs impact the most? How do they impact access to justice? In case of the criminal cases, the poor people are the most affected. More than 70% of persons inside jails who are held on suspicion of having committed a crime are not able to pay the bail amount, which is very high. They are inside the jails for months and years, as they cannot afford a lawyer. …more

Values and Attitude towards the poor

Nothing but the truth
By Indira Jaising

Judge accused of molesting 2 rape survivors in UP

A sitting judicial magistrate sexually assaulted them

Lokayukta: DC demanded sex from widow

3-year jail term for ‘dirty’ judge

Rajasthan judge is indicted for seeking sexual favours

Ten reasons why criminals in khaki get away
Siddharth Varadarajan

Porbandar judge accused of dowry harassment

Gurgaon judge to also face dowry harassment charge Salary of Chief Justice of India Rupees  100000 per month & salary of  supreme court judge  Rupees 90000 per month plus  5 star heritage bungalow , 5 star air / train travel , 5 star health care facility , etc  all at tax payers expense Hunger Deaths Malnutrition Deaths Poverty  Earning  Less than Rupees 32 per day Honest  Hard Working Child Laborers Earning Less Than Rupees 32 per day Corrupt Dishonest Criminal Public Servants Earning More than Rupees 5000 per day  Murderers of Justice Ill-gotten Wealth of  Corrupt Public Servants Murderers of Justice Shame to You sexual harassment: Intern moves SC for inquiry against Justice Swatanter Kumar

IB confirms Mysore Roost  Resort sex scandal

Panel names former India Supreme Court judge Ganguly in sex harassment allegation

Parties question parole for Sanjay

A doctor who examined the actor’s wife said she has been diagnosed with a tumor in the liver and a suspected heart ailment.
Opposition parties in Maharashtra have accused the State government of preferential treatment in granting a one-month parole to Bollywood actor and 1993 Mumbai blasts convict Sanjay Dutt. The actor was granted parole on Friday on the grounds that his wife Maanyata was unwell and needed to undergo surgery.
This is the second time in three months that the actor — who is the brother of Congress MP Priya Dutt — has been granted leave from the Yerawada jail. Mr. Dutt has been serving the remaining period of his two-year sentence there since May 2013. In October, he got a month’s leave on grounds of ill health. However, the same month, the parole application of another 1993 Mumbai blasts convict Zaibunissa Kazi was turned down. She had asked for leave to visit her ailing mother. On Saturday morning, a group of activists from the Republican Party of India staged a protest outside the jail. “This is a blatant misuse of power by the Maharashtra government. It is clear that Sanjay Dutt is getting preferential treatment,” said Manoj Gaikwad, an RPI activist and Sangharsh Samiti volunteer.
In Mumbai, BJP leader Gopinath Munde demanded the order be reversed. “How can Sanjay Dutt be given parole after such a short gap? The parole should be cancelled and there should be action against the officer who cleared it,” he said.
Mr. Munde said the authorities needed to check if Mr. Dutt’s wife was genuinely unwell. However, Maanyata Dutt’s doctor Ajay Chaughule from the Global Hospital told The Hindu that a tumour had been detected in her liver.

Corruption in  Indian  Judiciary :

Two former Judges accuse former CJI Balakrishnan of fixing and corruption

http://barandbench.com/content/two-former-judges-accuse-former-cji-balakrishnan-fixing-and-corruption#.Uq2wq9Rmxe4  ,

‘Corruption Is Rampant In The Lower Courts’
Former chief justice of India on corruption in judiciary

Yet another case of judicial corruption was exposed last month when the Andhra Pradesh High Court suspended additional special judge for CBI cases T. Pattabhi Rama Rao following allegations of corruption. Charged on the basis of a complaint filed by the CBI, the special judge had allegedly taken a bribe of Rs 5 crore to grant bail to former Karnataka minister Gali Janardhana Reddy in the illegal mining case. The vigilance wing of the high court found the allegation to hold merit. Former chief justice of India V.N. Khare told Chandrani Banerjeethat such incidents are now rampant. Excerpts:

Are bribes for bail endemic now?
There is no doubt about it. It is rampant. Corruption in the lower courts is no secret. Sometimes, in the high court as well, cases of corruption have surfaced, but in my experience while I was in the Supreme Court, I have not witnessed anything similar.
In the lower courts, it’s alleged that everything comes for a price. Rates are fixed for quick divorce, bail and other favourable verdicts.
Cases in the media glare, constantly scrutinised, are different. Otherwise it is very difficult for the common man. There are huge time gaps between hearings. Years are spent to get an order from the lower courts. So, it is difficult.
Subordinate courts function under the supervision of high courts. Should the higher courts be accountable?
The respective high courts have so much of work that monitoring district courts is just part of the routine. High courts have inspecting judges who are responsible for monitoring district courts. They go with a lot of band baaja and have lunch while on inspection. Inspecting judges are presented with a rosy picture and then they file a report. Now, the greater problem is that they are overburdened with work. Cases are in addition to administrative work, besides other mandatory official work. As a result, the inspecting judges of the high courts have no time to follow up. We need dedicated staff to monitor the district courts.
What kind of monitoring is needed?
A team of three serving judges should be formed. These judges should dedicatedly monitor the district judges. Their judgements should be analysed and questioned. Their attendance and work should be scrutinised. Someone should question them about their performance. I feel doing that will put in some checks.
You mean to say work overload and pendency of cases have themselves become a factor in corruption?
Yes, to a large extent. The high court judges are overburdened and they have no time. They always inform the district court authorities before the visits. It causes a situation where the real problem never comes to the surface. A dedicated committee of judges will help, but we are short of people. To my knowledge, we have 13.2 judges for 10 lakh people. If required to, we use excess strength in a particular situation, but there is no permanent arrangement. We work on an ad-hoc basis and so there are problems.
Would a few suspensions control corruption in the lower courts?
They will certainly convey a message. When I was serving, I did take certain measures which sent the message across the country that any charge of corruption will be probed. Fast actions and decisions on charges levelled against judges always work as deterrent.
What is the role of the inspecting judges in controlling corruption?
They should conduct sudden checks, always unannounced, and also follow up on any complaint registered in the district courts. However, to actualise this, we have to have a sufficient number of good judges. The monitoring will then be effective and result-oriented.
What is the mechanism to keep the lower courts free from corruption?
A dedicated committee of judges that will only monitor lower courts. Punctuality, integrity and court orders—everything should be under the lens. Such accountability will ensure the right kind of order is delivered in every petition.
Is consumerism responsible for fostering corruption in lower courts?
Judges are only people, like us. They come from the same society. Society is all about taking short cuts. Society is about quick successes. So, short cuts are taken and the judges are no different.

Supreme Court wants corrupt judges thrown out

Read more at: http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/corruption-in-judiciary--sc-wants-corrupt-judges-thrown-out/1/137730.html

In a strong message against corruption in the subordinate judiciary, the Supreme Court on Tuesday observed incorrigible judges who were bringing the entire judiciary to disrepute should be thrown out.
"A large section of subordinate judges is bringing disrepute to the entire judiciary. We have to hear of judges taking money and can do nothing but hang our heads in shame," a bench comprising Justices Markandey Katju and Gyan Sudha Misra said.
"Incorrigible judges should be thrown out," the bench said, while dealing with a contempt petition against an additional district judge (ADJ).
ADJ Archana Sinha, who repeatedly pleaded for mercy, had stayed the operation of a Supreme Court order on the eviction of a tenant from a prime property in Connaught Place.
"The ( ADJ's) order is quashed as mala fide and void," the bench said, while directing the Delhi High Court to seek an explanation from her.
The bench directed the chief justice of the HC to conduct an inquiry into the matter and take such action as he deemed fit.
With Sinha's counsel Jayant Bhushan claiming her action was not mala fide, Justice Katju, who initially planned to suspend her with immediate effect, asked: "She sat over the head of the Supreme Court. You want us not to suspend her?" "She had no business to hear the matter. Instead she superseded and overruled us," he said.
Bhushan, thereafter, tried to take the court through some documents to show her action was not totally unjustified, but the court was not inclined to consider such pleas.
"Once she came to know of the Supreme Court order, all this was irrelevant and she should not have touched the matter," Justice Katju said.
"We have to hear of judges taking money. A message has to go. We will not tolerate this," the bench said.
At one point, the bench mellowed down when Sinha pleaded for mercy with folded hands. "Hamare pas bhi dil hai (we also hearts too)," Justice Katju said.
With the bench deciding to let her off with a written apology, the counsel for the landlord, Dushyant Dave, opposed any leniency for the judge. "Let her give an explanation to the high court chief justice. I believe there is a history behind this. The judiciary gets a bad image because of judges like these," Dave said.
Opposing leniency, he said: "If it was contempt by someone from the executive, he would have been sent to jail for this." The bench, thereafter, took a tough stand and referred the matter to the HC chief justice after holding in clear terms that her action was tainted with mala fide intentions.

India: Contemptible justice

The spate of scams involving some members of the Indian higher judiciary in corruption, bribery, sex, nepotism and abuse of power has again drawn attention to the long overdue need for reform of the judicial system. The image of the judiciary and its credibility are perhaps at an all-time low. The problem of corruption comes on top of the problem of judicial inertia and the prohibitively expensive nature of the process of securing justice. This has effectively ensured that the judicial system cannot deliver justice to the ordinary citizen. All this suits the ruling establishment just fine, since those who have the power of force or money do not need the courts to get justice. It is the poor and the oppressed, the common people who need a properly working system for the administration of justice. This is also why those who have the power to reform the system have failed to do so despite knowing the problems and the solutions. It has become clear that judicial reforms will only come when the general public, who are the consumers of justice, put together a strong and powerful movement on this issue.

There are enough indications that corruption in the higher judiciary has reached unacceptable levels. For instance, in March this year, Justice Shamit Mukherjee of the Delhi High Court had to tender his resignation, following which he was arrested by the Central Bureau of Investigation under sections of the Anti-corruption Act, 1988 and sections of the Criminal Procedure Code for criminal conspiracy. Rampant corruption, which has steadily undermined the credibility of and popular faith in the judicial mechanism, was clearly to be expected in a situation where the higher judiciary enjoys enormous powers without accountability.

Power sans accountability inevitably breeds corruption and abuse. Consider the situation. Once appointed, a judge of a high court (the highest judicial mechanism in the states) or the Supreme Court, cannot be touched except by a complicated procedure of impeachment. As per the constitutional provisions, a judge of a high court or the Supreme Court can only be removed by impeachment after 100 members of the Lok Sabha (the lower house) or 50 members of the Rajya Sabha (the upper house) move the speaker, who may refer the charges to a committee of judges whose verdict is put up before both the houses of Parliament. The judge can only be removed if a two third-majority of members present and voting approve the verdict of the committee.

Today impeachment remains the only option since the judicial system has insulated itself from criminal investigation through a Supreme Court ruling. This happened in 1991 in a case arising from the discovery of huge quantities of money in the residence of Justice K Veeraswamy, then Chief Justice of the Madras High Court. When the Central Bureau of Investigation prosecuted for corruption, the Supreme Court ruled that no First Information Report can be registered against a judge, nor a criminal investigation be initated, without prior consent of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. This effectively excluded the higher judiciary from the ordinary laws of the land, since there is no possible circumstance under which an investigating agency can approach the Chief Justice for consent to investigate a judge without any concrete evidence against him. This is the reason why no judge has ever been subjected to a criminal investigation after the Veeraswami judgment. In the meanwhile, armed with this legal immunity judicial corruption has continued to flourish.

This immunity is doubly reinforced by the fact that the procedure for impeachment of judges is not only cumbersome, it is also eminently susceptible to political interference. The existing system of impeachment was found to be practically unworkable in the V Ramaswamy case, where the judge survived in office despite being found guilty on several serious charges of corruption by a statutory committee of three fellow judges. This was because members of the Congress, then in power during the prime ministership of PV Narasimha Rao, abstained from voting due to a whip issued by the party leadership when the impeachment motion was put to vote in Parliament in May 1993. In that particular case, however, it was at least possible to initiate the process, because the charges against the judge dealt with irregularities in purchases made in his official capacity. These purchases were audited by the Accountant General and it was in that process that the evidence of corruption came out. As a result, it was possible to frame charges for his impeachment and have the relevant procedural motions signed by 100 members of Parliament. In normal cases of judicial corruption however, it is difficult to produce evidence of the judge’s corruption in the absence of official investigation. Thus, it is not possible to even initiate the process of impeachment, let alone carry one through to the bitter end.
Judges’ sellout
Apart from enjoying immunity from removal and investigation, the higher judiciary further enjoys virtually unlimited powers of punishing people for contempt of court. Any person making any allegation of corruption against a sitting judge can be charged and punished for contempt, even if he is in a position to substantiate the charge. The contempt proceedings are so biased in favour of the judicial system that the very judge against whom the allegation of corruption has been made can prosecute the charge for contempt. The judge can even sit in judgment on his or her own cause, and can actually refuse to permit the alleged contemnor to lead evidence to prove the charge. This is such a vast and unchecked power that it can easily be and has been misused by the judiciary.

The excessive power that the judiciary wields in respect of contempt is in reality a way of shielding itself from legitimate criticism even when such criticism does not otherwise prejudice or obstruct the administration of justice. The existence of this arbitrary power is undoubtedly one of the main reasons why public exposure of judicial corruption has been few and far between and even routine criticism of the judiciary is muted.

Beyond the matter of public scrutiny, the Indian judiciary has been steadily increasing its other powers over the years, adding vast and arbitrary authority ostensibly for enforcing the fundamental rights of citizens. However, these powers are usually exercised in the interests of the ruling establishment. More and more instances are being witnessed where, by judicial fiat, the constitutional mandate is flouted and even the fundamental rights of liberty, equality and right to work are rendered nugatory when ordinary citizens are pitted against the state and powerful sections of society. This is how, for instance, in the interest of cleaning up Delhi’s air by reducing the levels of pollution, the Supreme Court ordered the closure and relocation of several small industries in the city, leading to the loss of livelihood for several thousand workers.

As it is, the state has a long record of enacting anti-democratic and draconian laws. Not only have the courts usually put their seal of approval on these laws, but they have sanctified action taken under them, such as the dismissal of employees en-masse from industrial jobs. The judiciary has also recently been playing a leading role in upholding the sellout of public enterprises by disinvestments carried out under the cover of globalisation. Lately, it has played a retrograde role in curbing the rights of workers to protest and go on strike, endorsing several antidemocratic measures to restrict their rights. Meanwhile, the proliferation of public interest litigations has encouraged unrestrained judicial activism. Though judicial activism through public interest litigations can be a healthy check on an executive which has failed and become corrupt, it can become a menace in the hands of a corrupt and unaccountable judiciary.

The problems with the higher judiciary, however, begin with the process of appointment itself. Quite apart from the fact that the method of selection of judges itself is defective, the entire process is kept under a cloak of secrecy. Thus, before an appointment is actually made, the general public does not have any idea about who are being considered for the post. Many persons whose integrity was known to be suspect and those who had been found guilty of professional misconduct during their legal career have come to be appointed to high office through this secretive system. The selection process has undergone some change over the years, but it has not reduced the spate of undesirable and positively harmful appointments. While earlier the selection was made by the government itself (after consultations with the Chief Justice), now, by a process of judicial interpretation, the power has been transferred to a collegium of three to five judges of the Supreme Court. This has managed to reduce the government’s monopoly over appointments, but the system has not change significantly. The patronage system has simply become more fraternal, since senior judges of the Supreme Court now wield the power of appointment of their junior colleagues. The proof is in the results, and there has not been a noticeable difference in the quality of appointments.
National commission
In an attempt to tackle the problem relating to appointments and accountability of judges, the Committee on Judicial Accountability (COJA), consisting of members of the legal profession, almost a decade ago forwarded a detailed proposal for a high-powered, full-time and independent National Judicial Commission (NJC). This commission would make appointments as also have disciplinary powers over judges of the higher judiciary. The commission would also be responsible for appointments to various commissions and quasi-judicial bodies. The NJC would comprise a nominee each of the Supreme Court, the chief justices of the high courts, the central cabinet, the opposition in Parliament, and the bar. It would also have an investigative machinery of its own to inquire into complaints against members of the judiciary. Members of the NJC would have the same status as that of Supreme Court judges and a guaranteed tenure of five years, after which they would be ineligible for any other similar post.

This proposal would have brought transparency into the system of appointment of judges. But even though nearly every political party included the proposal in its election manifesto, the National Judicial Commission is yet to become reality. The reasons are not far to seek. But now, after the spate of highly publicised judicial scandals, particularly the Shamit Mukherjee case, the government has come up with a proposal to constitute a somewhat truncated NJC. This commission is to be a part-time body of three senior sitting judges of the Supreme Court, the law minister and a nominee of the prime minister. This NJC will not have the power of removal of judges and the present impracticable system of impeachment will continue. The government’s proposal will merely institutionalise the system of sharing the spoils of appointment between the government and the senior members of the judiciary.

Since under the circumstances the judiciary cannot be expected to reform itself, and since the main political parties have reneged on their electoral commitment as expressed in their manifestos, only a strong public campaign can provide the impetus to put in place an independent and responsible body for the appointment and removal of judges. Popular pressure is the only force that can get the 1991 Veerasamy judgment overruled, whether legislatively or judicially, to ensure that judges can be investigated like any other class of citizens. Civic mobilisation is necessary to force change in the contempt law so as to ensure that citizens cannot be prosecuted for making allegations against judges, unless they have done so recklessly or in bad faith. The law must be changed so that judges cannot sit in judgement of their own contempt cases. If the judicial mechanism has to be rescued from its own infirmities, citizens and civil society in India must put together a strong movement to force accountability in the judiciary.

Shinde protected businessman close to Dawood, alleges former home secretary RK Singh

-          Legal Manipulation / Match Fixing by Union Home Minister

Former Union home secretary R.K. Singh on Monday alleged that Union Home Minister Sushilkumar Shinde had shielded a top businessman close to Dawood Ibrahim.

He claimed Delhi Police was stopped by Shinde from questioning a Mumbai-based businessman, who is said to have "some kind of links" with Dawood Ibrahim, in connection with the betting in Indian Premier League, a T-20 cricketing tournament.

Singh, now a BJP member, also said that there was no assurance given by the US on Dawood Ibrahim. He said that a meeting of the US and Home Ministry officials took place but there was no assurance by the US.

Earlier, Shinde had said that joint efforts with the US were being made to nab India's most wanted terrorist Dawood Ibrahim.

"As per our information, Dawood is in Pakistan. When I went to America last year to discuss inland security, I met the Attorney General who looks after the FBI. I talked to him and we decided that we will pass whatever information we have on Dawood amongst each other. We decided we will make joint efforts," Shinde said when asked about the whereabouts of Dawood who is wanted in a number of cases by Indian agencies including the 1993 Mumbai blasts.

Singh also alleged that Shinde had regularly interfered in Delhi Police's functioning.

In his interview to TV channels, Singh used the shoulder of former Delhi Police Commissioner Neeraj Kumar to fire at Shinde claiming that "slips used to reach Delhi Police chief quite often asking about posting some people as Station House Officers".

"These were not a few postings but in large number of police stations," he told the channels.

"I don't know whether money used to exchange hands but Delhi Police Commissioner told me that numerous slips used to come from his residence... you don't make large number of recommendations... the postings as SHO's has a vigilance angle to it," he said.

Singh had earlier claimed there were quarrels between him and Shinde.

When Shinde was asked to respond to reported remarks by Singh in an interview, he said, "One needs to run administration very well and if anybody fails to do his duty, I am bound to take action against him in the capacity as Home Minister."

Singh, during his media interview, had claimed that he had many quarrels with Shinde over various issues and also alleged that Congress-led UPA government was "clueless" about governance and that its ministers were steeped in corruption.

In what was seen as a snub to Singh, Anil Goswami was also named as his successor weeks before the end of the incumbent's superannuation.

Singh was also criticised for not making any attempt to inform the family of Afzal Guru, the death row convict in Parliament attack case, who was hanged on February nine last year.

Read more at: http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/shinde-protected-businessman-close-to-dawood-alleges-former-home-secretary-rk-singh/1/336015.html

Rajiv Assasination – Unanswered questions

Rajiv Gandhi assasination – leaves many unanswered questions – Unsolved puzzles. For whom did Rajiv Gandhi got assisinated ? Sudhangan raised various questions which didn’t get answers till 2009. Here are those questions that are unanswered:
1) On 21 -May-1991 Rajiv gandhi started from Delhi for election campaign and reached Chennai through the route Orissa and Andra Pradesh. How did he accepted that midnight meeting at Sriperambuthur which was not in the agenda of TamilNadu Congress committe. ?
2) Is there any plan made somewhere to bring Rajiv Gandhi to Sriperambathur some how ?
3) The Security official Mr O.P.Sagar was there with Rajiv Gandhi when he campaigned at Bhubaneshwar and Vishakapattinam. But he didnt come to chennai along with Rajiv. Why ?
4) Bulgarian television journalists came along with Rajiv during his visits to record his campaigns. They were with Rajiv in Orissa and Andha Predesh but didnt come for the next meeting. They stayed in a luxary hotel at Vishakapatinam along with their special flight pilot. In that case why did they came ?
5) When Rajiv was about to start, there was a problem in the flight. So he went back to circuit house from the airport. After the problem in flight got fixed, the chief minister of Andha Pradesh Mr.VijayaBhaskar Reddy informed Rajiv to get back to airport and Rajiv went to airport. During this time the two Bulgerian journalists took the security official Sagar along in their car and arrived at airport late. So the security official could not go along with Rajiv gandhi. Why did such an experienced security official was made not to travel with Rajiv ?
6) The security official of Rajiv at chennai P.C.Gupta was waiting at chennai airport for Rajiv. P.C.Gupts is suppose to get the gun from Sagar who was expected along with Rajiv. Since Sagar has not come along with Rajiv, P.C.Gupta was made to go with Rajiv without gun. Is there any intenton behind this ?
7) When Rajiv started from Meenambakkam, two ladies claiming as journalists got inside his car at Ramavaram. Did their identities verified ? Why did the special investigation branch didnt enquire on them ?
8) Who are the Bulgarian journalists ? Where did they went ?
9) Who are those two lady journalists ? Where did they went ?
10) Those two lady journalists interviewed Rajiv Gandhi. But TamilNadu political party people, Tha. Pandiyan and Maragatham Chandrasekar were telling they didnt know what Rajiv spoke with the journalists. What are the hiding ?
11) Just one hour before his murder, Rajiv told it was CIA that killed the pakistan president Zia-ul-Haq. Why shoud he tell that ? What made him to tell that ? Did he know if there is some plan like that against him ?
12) July-1991 – The central home minister S.P.Chawan made a statement that apart from LTTE there are other international organizations and powerful external forces involved in the background of Rajiv’s murder. Who are they referred here ?
13) Why didn’t the special investination branch enquire on the above home minister’s statement ?
14) During the gulf war India helped fueling US aircrafts. Rajiv gandhi seriously condemmed this help which was done by primie minister Mr Chandrasekar during that time. Why didnt the special investigation branch enquire on CIA’s hands on this murder, as US was not happy with Rajiv for the above reason ?
15) Palestinian National Authority president, Mr. Yasser Arafat informed to the indian prime minister during the time Mr .Chandrasekar that ‘Rajiv Gandhi’s life is under threat’. From where did Arafat got this information ? Who is threatening Rajiv ? Why did special investigation branch didnt enquire on this ?
16) Arafat could have got this information if the assasination was planned at western Europe or middle eastern countries. Why is this not probed ?
17) Maragatham Chandrasekar came to attend that meeting with Rajiv Gandhi. Her daughter, Latha Priyakumar came with her husband and advocate Mahendran from Arakonam. But it was unknown from where did her son Lalith Chandrasekar and his wife Vinothini came from. Though it is known that Vinothini is daughter of Jayavarthane from Sri Lanka, they didn’t enquire on her. Infact they didnt enquire their family who was there at the meeting. why ?
18) Sivarasan’s mother and Vinothini’s father are sinhalas from Sri Lanka who were present at the incident. It is possible that they were sent by Sri Lankan president Premadasa as messangers. Premadasa is not happy with Rajiv on sending the Indian peace keeping force (IPKF) to Sri Lanka. Why was the investigation not done in that angle ? ( Also we should note here a Sinhala Sri Lankan army person hit Rajiv Gandhi with a gun during his visit to Sri Lanka )
19) Both LTTE and Sri Lanka hate Rajiv gandhi as he is the reaon for sending Indian peace keeping force (IPKF) to Sri Lanka. Advocate Mr Chandrasekar challenged special investigation branch that, if they could prove Vinothini and her family are innocent then those who did the crime will accept it on their own. But the special investination didnt accept his challence and not enquired those who is related on this. why ?
20) Kamini Disanayaka, Athulath Muthali, Wickramasinghe are prominant politicians in Sri Lanka. When all those people are murdered president Premadasa was pointed. Why did’t the investigation didnt happen in this angle ?
21) Why dont Sivarasan, Dhanu and Subha did this murder due to pressure from external forces. Just because they are Tamils from yarlpanam, did the investigators linked them with LTTE and closed the case ?
22) What is the strong evidence that links LTTE and its head Prabhakaran to Rajiv’s assasination case. ?
23) What is the proof that Srivarasan spoke to Prabhakaran thro a radio. Why is this not an assumption ?
24) It is very much possible that politicians within the congress could have considered Rajiv Gandhi is blocking their development within the party and could have hired some group to assasinate Rajiv. This motivation cannot be denied.
25) Various international business people specifically those selling weapons would have been in contact with Rajiv as a prime minister. They could have hired the assasinators to do this murder. Did investigators probed this ?
26) What if Sri Lanka did this, thinking India might send the Indian peace keeping force again to their country and didnt like a strong leader emerging from India ?
27) CIA always had interest in erradicating leaders in all third world countries. Did the same kind of interest got applied on Rajiv ?
28) Rajiv Gandhi is the only leader who prevents the other prominant political party in India BJP to get into power. It is possible that the indian parties like BJP and RSS could have used the ‘Hindu favourable’ LTTE and Sri Lankan tamils to do this assasination.
29) When other major Congress party members in Tamilnadu like Vazhapaadi and Moopanar didnt take interest in getting Rajiv to this meeting, Maragatham Chandrasekar traveled to Delhi and forced Rajiv to come for this meeting at Sriperambuthur. Is that without her knowledge she become one reason for Rajiv’s murder ?
30 ) Who is Pottu Amaan ? Is there a person like that ? LTTE says there was a senior person by name Amaan who died war and the only person there is Pottu. How did the special investigation branch stamped someone who is not alive as second criminal in this case ?
31) There are many parallels between the murder of Padmanabha and that of Rajiv Gandhi. Padmanabha’s murder was investigaed by TamilNadu queue branch police and Rajiv Gandhi’s murder was investigated by special investigation branch. Both the investigators are telling the murder was planned at Yarlpanam, Sri Lanka. Sivaraasan was identified as the prime criminal in both the Padmanabha’s case as well as Rajiv’ case. Prabhakaran was considered criminal in Rajiv’s assasination case bur was not in Padmanabha’s case. How come ? It shows adding Prabhakaran’s name came out of political decision rather than that came out from investigations. It is clearly an effort taken by special investigation branch to to give life to their case intentionally.
32) A famous Sri Lankan tamil poet Kasi. Anandan met Rajiv at the airport. What message did he got from Prabhakaran to Rajiv gandhi ? If Prabhakaran seeked Rajiv’s help in the freedom struggle of Tamil Eelam through Kasi Anandan, why would Prabhakaran murder Rajiv Gandhi ?
33) Prabhakaran knows it is from India and TamilNadu that he can get support and sympathy. Did Prabhakaran done such a foollish activity by killing Rajiv, to loose all the support of Indians and also get the organization banned ?
34) Latha Kannan stopped Rajiv and read a poetry for him. That enabled Dhanu, a suside bomber standing next to her, to burst the bomb. Why is her name is not included in the criminals list ? Dhanu used only Latha kannan to get inside. When HariBabu who got killed in the blast got included in the criminal’s list why not Latha Kannan ? Why is special investigation branch showing softness towards congress members ?
35) Before getting to SriPambuthur, Rajiv spoke at two roadside gatherings. Vazhapaadi Ramamurthy, the TamilNadu congress leader was with him in those two places. But at Sri Perambuthur meeting he was standing very far from Rajiv. Why so ?
36) Many innocent people and security personnels died along with Rajiv Gandhi. But nothing happened to any of the congress party members not even minor injury. How ?
37) It was believed that Latha Kumar who brought Sivarasan, Dhanu and Subha to SriPerambuthur. She took them specifically to ladies section and told Latha Kannan to take care of them. But Latha Kumar’s name is not in the criminal’s list. Why ?
38) How can we say Prabhakaran is involved just based on an old photograph of Sivarasan with Prabhakaran ?
39) Why is it not possible that Sivarasan, Dhanu and Subha are expelled from LTTE and they have been hired by western, European, Middle East or India as professional assasinators.
40) Ranganathan confessed that it was based on request by Margret Alva that he gave his house at Bangalore for rent to Sivarasan. Did they enquired how far this is true ?
41) Is there any investigation done on involvement of Chandra Swami, Subramanyam Swamy , Chandrasekar and arms business person Kasoki in this murder ?
42) What kind of benifit LTTE get by murdering Rajiv Gandhi ? Did super powers like US helped them by arms through CIA ?
43) Why do we need CBI & Special Investigation branch which find few people they prefer to get the reports ?
Unless all these confusions are clarified, the real culprit will be hiding behind some powerful forces.

Continue reading at NowPublic.com: Rajiv Assasination – Unanswered questions | NowPublic News Coverage http://www.nowpublic.com/world/rajiv-assasination-unanswered-questions#ixzz2Ayg9VI74

People at the helm are protecting Rajiv murder accused’

Former Central Bureau of Investigation’s former chief investigating officer K Ragothaman has claimed in a recently published book — Conspiracy to kill Rajiv: From CBI files – that a lot of facts pertaining to the former prime minister’s assassination were either suppressed, or were studiously ignored.
Ragothamam writes that there were attempts made to protect the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam from being called the conspirators behind Rajiv’s killing. In this interview with rediff.com’s Vicky Nanjappa, Ragothaman speaks about the conspiracy and the hurdles that were faced in a probe in which many aspects were hushed up.
How has your book been received?
That is too early to tell. It is just out, but is under debate. Let us wait and watch.
You write that Dravida Munetra Kazhagam chief M Karunanidhi’s [ Images ] scheduled public meeting in Sriperumbudur on May 21, 1991, the day Rajiv was killed, was abruptly cancelled.
Karunanidhi was to address a meeting at 6′O clock that evening, two hours before Rajiv’s meeting. The police had made all arrangements. Then there was a telegram from the Anna Arivalyam postal office jurisdiction that the meeting was cancelled.
I probed the sender of that telegram. I was told to ask Karunanidhi about the same. However, I could not investigate him directly. Later, I was told by my superiors that the matter was being looked into, and I should remain quiet.
I was also told that it was a director general of police, Rangaswamy, who had advised that the meeting be cancelled. However, when I looked at the Rangaswamy affidavit, it read that he had ordered as much police force as possible in view of this meeting.
I also attended the Jain commission inquiry in which Karunanidhi was examined. He had said then that it was the then governor, Bhishma Narayan Singh, who had told him to cancel the meeting. Look at the contradictions.
Who according to you was the one who advised cancellation of the Karunanidhi meeting?
Probably it was Marumalarchi Dravida Munetra Kazhagam leader Vaiko who telephoned and sought cancellation of the meeting. The telephone records needed to be examined, but it was never done.
Why do you think Vaiko tried to stop Karunanidhi?
After Rajiv’s assassination, many DMK workers were attacked, their offices burnt. If Karunanidhi had gone there, he would have been in trouble and there would have been an onslaught. Hence, they were trying to protect him.
Does this mean even Karunanidhi was part of the plot?
No, that is not what I meant. Karunanidhi is not a killer. He wanted a democratic solution to the problem and this was never liked by slain LTTE [ Images ] chief Prabhakaran.
You accuse Vaiko of having a hand in this entire issue.
Vaiko was the one who spoke vehemently against the Indo-Jaffna accord. Vaiko said at that time he was first an LTTE, then a Tamilian and then an Indian. At the time of the accord, Prabhakaran was brought down to New Delhi [ Images ] and was put up at the Hotel Ashoka.
Vaiko sought to meet him, but he was not allowed to do so. He conversed with Prabhakaran on the intercom, during which the latter told him, “Anna, this Rajiv has betrayed me. I feel like committing suicide as he is sealing my fate. But I cannot kill myself as I need to fight for my people.”
Vaiko wrote a book later in which he mentions that Prabakaran had thought of committing suicide.
Tell us more, sir…
When Vaiko had gone to Sri Lanka [ Images ], we had secured a videotape titled Inside a Tiger’s Cave which has him on tape. There he spoke everything that was anti-Rajiv. It appeared that he was more against Rajiv than Prabakaran himself. This was also a point noted during our investigation.
Then there is also a meeting in which Vaiko says that Rajiv won’t go back alive from Tamil Nadu. He, however, retracted that statement. During the investigation, we questioned one Chinna who is on death row.
He said that in one of the hideouts, Sivarasan (the prime accused in the assassination) held talks with one Srinivas Ayya and said that after the successful completion of the mission, they should ensure that Vaiko becomes the chief minister of Tamil Nadu.
Why was the evidence not used then?
This is a question that I have been asking. We had so much evidence, but surprisingly Vaiko was roped in as prosecution witness number 250 in the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities court.
During the trial, he denied speaking all of which was on video with Prabhakaran. The video was played out. He claimed that it was him in the video but the voice was not his. It was sent for examination and the voice too was confirmed, but till date there is no perjury case against him.
You have alleged that even the Intelligence Bureau and the Research and Analysis Wing tried to cover up LTTE’s role?
After the assassination, Chandrashekhar, the then prime minister, convened a meeting in which even Janata Party president Subramanian Swamy (then minister of commerce and industry) was present. The then IB chief, MK Narayanan, and RAW boss, GS Bajpai, were also present.
Swamy said that it was obvious that the LTTE was responsible. Bajpai retorted that it was not the LTTE. The meeting was adjourned. Meanwhile, the CBI director had gone to Colombo for the investigation.
They were called back and rushed to Delhi for the meeting. During the meeting, it was again asked why a trip was made to Colombo and did that mean it was preconceived that it was the LTTE which was behind the assassination.
Bajpai once again opposed this. He even quoted one Kittu to be his source. Kittu, incidentally, was Prabhakaran’s right hand man. An LTTE man could never have been a RAW mole and even Dr Swamy had termed this as absurd.
What are your allegations against Narayanan?
A video taken at the meeting on that ill-fated day in which there were images of Dhanu was never made available to the CBI. The assassination team was waiting for nearly two hours in a sterile area. The original video reached Narayanan.
The government had decided to conduct an investigation in this regard and this case was registered with the Special Investigating Team and the CBI. However, it was buried. My question is, why no action has been taken for suppressing evidence.
It was being said that Dhanu had barged into the meeting, but this video clearly shows that they were waiting for a long time. We probed this case risking our own lives and it does upset me that people sitting at the helm of affairs are protecting the accused.
Do you think the loopholes will be rectified now?
Let us see. Professional / Trade Title :  S.O.S - e – Voice For Justice

Periodicity : WEEKLY

Owner/editor/printer/publisher : NAGARAJA.M.R.

Contact : email@example.com , firstname.lastname@example.org    ,

UID  Aadhaar  No  :  5703  5339  3479

Cell : 91 9341820313

date :   10.05.2014..………………………..Your's sincerely,

place : India…………………………............Nagaraja.M.R.

Hundreds of prisoners on death row were wrongfully convicted
[null, {"document_url": "http://e-clarionofdalit.blogspot.com/2014/05/", "unformatted_src": "https://sites.google.com/site/eclarionofdalit/_/rsrc/1399907781265/be-a-judge-commit-crime-get-away-scot-free/2.png", "src": "https://sites.google.com/site/eclarionofdalit/_/rsrc/1399907781265/be-a-judge-commit-crime-get-away-scot-free/2.png"}, {"document_url": "http://e-clarionofdalit.blogspot.com/2014/05/", "unformatted_src": "https://sites.google.com/site/sosevoiceforjustice/_/rsrc/1399040207456/death-penalty-to-innocents/SHAME%20SHAME%20SUPREME%20COURT.jpg", "src": "https://sites.google.com/site/sosevoiceforjustice/_/rsrc/1399040207456/death-penalty-to-innocents/SHAME%20SHAME%20SUPREME%20COURT.jpg", "formatted_filename": "SHAME SHAME SUPREME COURT"}, {"document_url": "http://e-clarionofdalit.blogspot.com/2014/05/", "unformatted_src": "https://sites.google.com/site/eclarionofdalit/_/rsrc/1399907717053/be-a-judge-commit-crime-get-away-scot-free/1.png", "src": "https://sites.google.com/site/eclarionofdalit/_/rsrc/1399907717053/be-a-judge-commit-crime-get-away-scot-free/1.png"}, {"document_url": "http://e-clarionofdalit.blogspot.com/2014/05/", "unformatted_src": "https://sites.google.com/site/eclarionofdalit/_/rsrc/1399907856913/be-a-judge-commit-crime-get-away-scot-free/5.jpg", "src": "https://sites.google.com/site/eclarionofdalit/_/rsrc/1399907856913/be-a-judge-commit-crime-get-away-scot-free/5.jpg"}, null, {"document_url": "http://e-clarionofdalit.blogspot.com/2014/05/", "unformatted_src": "https://sites.google.com/site/eclarionofdalit/_/rsrc/1390110027432/hang-rapist-corrupt-judges/2.png", "src": "https://sites.google.com/site/eclarionofdalit/_/rsrc/1390110027432/hang-rapist-corrupt-judges/2.png"}, null, {"document_url": "http://e-clarionofdalit.blogspot.com/2014/05/", "unformatted_src": "https://sites.google.com/site/eclarionofdalit/_/rsrc/1390110070132/hang-rapist-corrupt-judges/1.png", "src": "https://sites.google.com/site/eclarionofdalit/_/rsrc/1390110070132/hang-rapist-corrupt-judges/1.png"}, null, {"document_url": "http://e-clarionofdalit.blogspot.com/2014/05/", "unformatted_src": "https://sites.google.com/site/eclarionofdalit/_/rsrc/1390110134659/hang-rapist-corrupt-judges/21.jpg", "src": "https://sites.google.com/site/eclarionofdalit/_/rsrc/1390110134659/hang-rapist-corrupt-judges/21.jpg"}, {"document_url": "http://e-clarionofdalit.blogspot.com/2014/05/", "unformatted_src": "https://sites.google.com/site/eclarionofdalit/_/rsrc/1390110180800/hang-rapist-corrupt-judges/22.jpg", "src": "https://sites.google.com/site/eclarionofdalit/_/rsrc/1390110180800/hang-rapist-corrupt-judges/22.jpg"}, {"document_url": "http://e-clarionofdalit.blogspot.com/2014/05/", "unformatted_src": "https://sites.google.com/site/eclarionofdalit/_/rsrc/1390110227282/hang-rapist-corrupt-judges/23.jpg", "src": "https://sites.google.com/site/eclarionofdalit/_/rsrc/1390110227282/hang-rapist-corrupt-judges/23.jpg"}, null, {"document_url": "http://e-clarionofdalit.blogspot.com/2014/05/", "unformatted_src": "https://sites.google.com/site/eclarionofdalit/_/rsrc/1390110292589/hang-rapist-corrupt-judges/10.jpg", "src": "https://sites.google.com/site/eclarionofdalit/_/rsrc/1390110292589/hang-rapist-corrupt-judges/10.jpg"}, {"document_url": "http://e-clarionofdalit.blogspot.com/2014/05/", "unformatted_src": "https://sites.google.com/site/eclarionofdalit/_/rsrc/1390110332458/hang-rapist-corrupt-judges/11.jpg", "src": "https://sites.google.com/site/eclarionofdalit/_/rsrc/1390110332458/hang-rapist-corrupt-judges/11.jpg"}, {"document_url": "http://e-clarionofdalit.blogspot.com/2014/05/", "unformatted_src": "https://sites.google.com/site/eclarionofdalit/_/rsrc/1390110392427/hang-rapist-corrupt-judges/13.jpg", "src": "https://sites.google.com/site/eclarionofdalit/_/rsrc/1390110392427/hang-rapist-corrupt-judges/13.jpg"}, null, {"document_url": "http://e-clarionofdalit.blogspot.com/2014/05/", "unformatted_src": "https://sites.google.com/site/eclarionofdalit/_/rsrc/1390110476740/hang-rapist-corrupt-judges/4.jpg", "src": "https://sites.google.com/site/eclarionofdalit/_/rsrc/1390110476740/hang-rapist-corrupt-judges/4.jpg"}, null, {"document_url": "http://e-clarionofdalit.blogspot.com/2014/05/", "unformatted_src": "https://sites.google.com/site/eclarionofdalit/_/rsrc/1390110528926/hang-rapist-corrupt-judges/41.jpg", "src": "https://sites.google.com/site/eclarionofdalit/_/rsrc/1390110528926/hang-rapist-corrupt-judges/41.jpg"}, {"document_url": "http://e-clarionofdalit.blogspot.com/2014/05/", "unformatted_src": "https://sites.google.com/site/eclarionofdalit/_/rsrc/1390110610038/hang-rapist-corrupt-judges/42.jpg", "src": "https://sites.google.com/site/eclarionofdalit/_/rsrc/1390110610038/hang-rapist-corrupt-judges/42.jpg"}, {"document_url": "http://e-clarionofdalit.blogspot.com/2014/05/", "unformatted_src": "https://sites.google.com/site/eclarionofdalit/_/rsrc/1390110650564/hang-rapist-corrupt-judges/43.jpg", "src": "https://sites.google.com/site/eclarionofdalit/_/rsrc/1390110650564/hang-rapist-corrupt-judges/43.jpg"}, {"document_url": "http://e-clarionofdalit.blogspot.com/2014/05/", "unformatted_src": "https://sites.google.com/site/eclarionofdalit/_/rsrc/1390110693202/hang-rapist-corrupt-judges/44.jpg", "src": "https://sites.google.com/site/eclarionofdalit/_/rsrc/1390110693202/hang-rapist-corrupt-judges/44.jpg"}, {"document_url": "http://e-clarionofdalit.blogspot.com/2014/05/", "unformatted_src": "https://sites.google.com/site/eclarionofdalit/_/rsrc/1390110745424/hang-rapist-corrupt-judges/45.jpg", "src": "https://sites.google.com/site/eclarionofdalit/_/rsrc/1390110745424/hang-rapist-corrupt-judges/45.jpg"}, {"document_url": "http://e-clarionofdalit.blogspot.com/2014/05/", "unformatted_src": "https://sites.google.com/site/eclarionofdalit/_/rsrc/1390110788635/hang-rapist-corrupt-judges/46.jpg", "src": "https://sites.google.com/site/eclarionofdalit/_/rsrc/1390110788635/hang-rapist-corrupt-judges/46.jpg"}, null, {"document_url": "http://e-clarionofdalit.blogspot.com/2014/05/", "unformatted_src": "https://sites.google.com/site/eclarionofdalit/_/rsrc/1390110849430/hang-rapist-corrupt-judges/5.jpg", "src": "https://sites.google.com/site/eclarionofdalit/_/rsrc/1390110849430/hang-rapist-corrupt-judges/5.jpg"}, null, {"document_url": "http://e-clarionofdalit.blogspot.com/2014/05/", "unformatted_src": "https://sites.google.com/site/eclarionofdalit/_/rsrc/1390111056268/hang-rapist-corrupt-judges/6.jpg", "src": "https://sites.google.com/site/eclarionofdalit/_/rsrc/1390111056268/hang-rapist-corrupt-judges/6.jpg"}, null, {"document_url": "http://e-clarionofdalit.blogspot.com/2014/05/", "unformatted_src": "https://sites.google.com/site/sosevoiceforjustice/_/rsrc/1393167282371/rajiv-gandhi-assassination-cover-up/homepage.jpg", "src": "https://sites.google.com/site/sosevoiceforjustice/_/rsrc/1393167282371/rajiv-gandhi-assassination-cover-up/homepage.jpg", "formatted_filename": "homepage"}, null, {"document_url": "http://e-clarionofdalit.blogspot.com/2014/05/", "unformatted_src": "http://media.salon.com/2013/09/prison-620x412.jpg", "src": "http://media.salon.com/2013/09/prison-620x412.jpg", "formatted_filename": "prison", "alt_text": "Hundreds of prisoners on death row were wrongfully convicted"}, null, {"document_url": "http://e-clarionofdalit.blogspot.com/2014/05/", "unformatted_src": "http://media.salon.com/2012/08/image002.jpeg", "src": "http://media.salon.com/2012/08/image002.jpeg", "formatted_filename": "image", "alt_text": "Scientific American"}, null, {"document_url": "http://e-clarionofdalit.blogspot.com/2014/05/", "unformatted_src": "http://www.nature.com/polopoly_fs/7.16974.1398703065!/image/1.15114.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_630/1.15114.jpg", "src": "http://www.nature.com/polopoly_fs/7.16974.1398703065!/image/1.15114.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_630/1.15114.jpg"}, null, {"document_url": "http://e-clarionofdalit.blogspot.com/2014/05/", "unformatted_src": "http://www.nature.com/polopoly_fs/7.12926.1398879771!/image/top-picks_final.png_gen/derivatives/fullsize/top-picks_final.png", "src": "http://www.nature.com/polopoly_fs/7.12926.1398879771!/image/top-picks_final.png_gen/derivatives/fullsize/top-picks_final.png", "formatted_filename": "top picks final"}, null, null, {"document_url": "http://e-clarionofdalit.blogspot.com/2014/05/", "unformatted_src": "//lh6.googleusercontent.com/-kmYmf2RM05c/AAAAAAAAAAI/AAAAAAAABeg/W6O7W6r11z4/s80-c/photo.jpg", "src": "http://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-kmYmf2RM05c/AAAAAAAAAAI/AAAAAAAABeg/W6O7W6r11z4/s80-c/photo.jpg", "formatted_filename": "photo", "alt_text": "My Photo", "rendered_width": 80, "rendered_height": 80}, null, null]