Impeach Judges Mishra and Lalit

S.O.
S e - Voice For Justice - e-news weekly

Spreading the light of humanity & freedom
Editor: Nagaraja.M.R.. Vol.12..Issue.40........08/10/2016
PIL - Impeach Judges Deepak Mishra , UU Lalit for Contempt

An Appeal to H.E.Honourable President of India , Honourable Supreme Court of India & National Human Rights Commission
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.
OF 2016
IN THE MATTER OF
NAGARAJA . M.R
editor , SOS e Clarion of Dalit & SOS e Voice for Justice
# LIG 2 , No 761 ,, HUDCO First Stage , Laxmikantanagar ,
Hebbal , Mysore 570017 , Karnataka State
....Petitioner
Versus
a. Honourable Cabinet Secretary , Government of India

b. Honourable Chief Secretary , Government of Karnataka
c. Honourable Chief Secretary , Government of Tamilnadu
d. Honourable Chief Secretary , Government of Goa
e. Justice Deepak Mishra , SCI
f. Justice U.U Lalit , SCI and others
....Respondents
PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 12 to ARTICLE 35 & ARTICLE 51A OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS UNDER ARTICLE 32 &
ARTICLE 226 and other relevant acts OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.
To ,
Hon'ble The Chief Justice of India and His Lordship's Companion Justices of the Supreme Court of India.
The Humble petition of the Petitioner above named.
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH :
1.
Facts of the case:
Principle Live and Let Live must be practiced by ALL before preaching.
Federal structure of india must be respected by all state governments. During distribution of water by judicial authorities and during distribution of central
government grants by GOI they must first keep it in mind. All states are equal.
Contempt of citizens of india (specifically people of Karnataka) by supreme court judges Deepk Mishra and UU Lalit.
Contempt of Karnataka Legislature by supreme court judges Deepak Mishra and UU Lalit.
Contempt of constitution of india and supreme court of india by judges Deepak Mishra and UU Lalit.
Violation of human rights of Karnataka people by judges Deepak Mishra and UU Lalit.
Violation of oath of office by judges Deepak Mishra and UU Lalit.
In Democratic Republic of India Constitution of india and citizens of india are supreme.
In our democracy nobody is supreme nor inferior, everybody are equals .
Various constitutional institutions are mandated by constitution , to perform specific duties within their domains .
All the constitutional bodies , all constitutional functionaries including supreme court of india , judges Deepak Mishra & UU Lalit are mandated by constitution to serve
the public NOT to master over them. They are all PUBLIC SERVANTS taking pay & perks from public exchequer ie our publics money.
All natural resources including river Cauvery must be shared in equitable manner by all stake holders.
Drinking water for living beings is a must for survival. It is an issue of life & death.
Therefore right to drinking water is a basic human right and must be priority number one.
For a farmer irrigation of land is a source of his familys living. It is his Right to Livlihood.
Giving water to tamilnadu farmers to grow three crops where as denying water to Karnataka farmers to grow even a single crop is denial of right to livelihood of
Karnataka farmers.
Sharing of water between all states , all stake holders must be on an equal footing.
Human Rights must be respected by one and all including supreme court of india and judges Deepak Mishra and UU Lalit.
Without conducting physical examination of Cauvery reservoirs , taking expert observations by third parties , passing orders in a whimsical way sitting at far
away delhi is gross injustice to all stake holders of river Cauvery.
Since centuries Tamilnadu in its greed is over using , snatching away lions share of river Cauvery than all other stake holders. Even during times of distress ,
failure of rains , they want their pound of flesh like shylock. Tamilnadu readily shares the bounty but not ready to share the hardships. Is it federalism ? is it live let
live ?
When people of Karnataka suffer hardships or die without drinking water , Supreme court of india specifically Judges Deepak Mishra , UU Lalit and Government
of Tamilnadu specifically chief minister Jayalalita are responsible , liable to pay compensation at actuals. They are also responsible to make alternative
arrangements for drinking water if the need arise. If the rain gods lets us down.
When Cauvery basin farmers of Karnataka suffer hardships or loss crops or unable to take three crops like tamilnadu counterparts , due to denial of Cauvery
water , Supreme court of india specifically Judges Deepak Mishra , UU Lalit and Government of Tamilnadu specifically chief minister Jayalalita are responsible ,
liable to pay compensation at actuals.
We people of Karnataka and government of Karnataka are paying taxes to the government of india on an equal footing with other states including government of
tamilnadu. Still for infrastructure developments , for rehabilitation during drought , natural calamities government of Karnataka is not getting GOI grants on an
equal footing with government of tamilnadu since decades. Has GOI , SCI forgotten federalism , live let live principle in these times?
As per Constitution of India , judiciary is not mandated , authorized to adjudicate on matters relating to inter state water disputes. Judicial involvement in this issue
is unconstitutional , null and void. This basic constitutional question is pending before three judge bench of supreme court of india. Still supreme court judges
Deepak Mishra and UU Lalit are giving their whimsical orders one after another without any sound reasoning or logic and beyond the scope of prayer in the
original application before it. By these acts the said judges are making contempt of constitution of india , contempt of supreme court of india , contempt of Indian
parliament / Karnataka legislature and contempt of citizens of india.
Our whole hearted respects to honest few in judiciary , parliament & public service. Our salutes to them , due to honest efforts of those few noble persons only at least democracy is surviving in India.
"Power will go to the hands of rascals, , rogues and freebooters. All Indian leaders will be of low calibre and men of straw. They will have sweet tongues and silly hearts. They will fight among
themselves for power and will be lost in political squabbles . A day would come when even air & water will be taxed." Sir Winston made this statement in the House of Commons just before the
independence of India & Pakistan. Sadly , the forewarning of Late Winston Churchill has been proved right by some of our criminal , corrupt peoples representatives , police , public servants &
Judges. Some of the below mentioned judges fall among the category of churchills men Rogues , Rascals & Freebooters.
We respect the honest few in judiciary , police , parliament and other public services. Our whole hearted respects , salutes to them. We despise the corrupt. Sadly , criminalization of judiciary ,
police , politics has taken place in india. , just like the forwarning of Mr.Churchill.
Throughout this petiton the term JUDGE includes all public servants performing quasi judicial & judicial functions. Judges are from the same society which is full of corruption , favoritism , caste
bias , etc. Judges are also human beings who can fall prey to lure of bribes , favours , etc. They are neither gods nor monks. Also , like other human beings , they also make errors. Many
persons get selected as judges based on other criteria than merit , integrity , honesty. See the scandals of KPSC , VYAPAM and mysterious supreme court collegiums system. Total lack of
transparency in functioning of judges. Even when cases of national security , crimes by judges were brought before SCI no action , no answer to RTI questions. When life of human rights
activist , journalist is under threat SCI doesnt take any action rather government tries to silence him by police force. When land grabbings , lake encroachments , etc were brought to the notice of
SCI at the initial stages , so that it can stop the crime. But the SCI didnt act & let the crime happen , it is continuing till date. SCI judges may be indirectly in league with MAFIA. Therefore ,
NEVER A JUDGEMENT IS ALWAYS RIGHT . Some judgements are right and some biased.
Every human being needs drinking water to survive and every Human Being has got Human Right to Live by virtue of his birth itself. Without access to drinking water human beings cannt survive ,
they will die. Therefore Human Right to Drinking water forms integral part of Human Right to Live. United Nations has also affirmed Human Right to Safe Drinking Water to every human
being.
The said agreement regarding sharing of Cauvery water by british presidency with Rulers of Mysore Kingdom decades ago is biased in favor of state of tamil nadu.
Even decades after independence of india , why should we stick to british era agreement instead of drawing our own mutual agreement based on present needs of equality.
When a judge presiding in a case even if remotely associated with any of the parties must withdraw from the case paving the way for a neutral judge. This is to prove to the public that justice is not
merely delivered but publicly shown to be delivered.
Judges are not subject experts in irrigation , engineering , rain calculation , etc. without taking the expert opinion , conducting ground assessment judges have recently made orders to release
Cauvery river water to tamilnadu state.
While sharing a river water TOP PRIORITY must be DRINKING WATER for all parties concerned. Second comes irrigation. Here too it must be on equal footing first round of water for all parties
for first crop , after completion of first round second round must commence for all parties. However here one party is given water for two crops other is denied water even for TOP PRIRITY
DRINKING let alone for crop irrigation. It is unjust.
Lot of confusion is being created by contradictory statements made out by contesting parties , governments regarding the water stored in their reservoirs. Till date why not SCI has deputed an
impartial expert team to assess the actual stored water in reservoirs , their actual needs , rain fall expected , their contingency plans in case of rain fall failure , etc. To make experts report public so
that public in all the states will know the truth , law & order , peace will prevail.
2. Question(s) of Law:
Is not denial of drinking water to people of north Karnataka from mahadayi river a crime by supreme court judges ?
Is not denial of Drinking water from Cauvery river to people in Karnataka , a crime by supreme court judges Justice Deepak Mishra , Justice U.U . Lalit , government of india , government of
Tamilnadu & government of Karnataka ?
Supreme court definitely has jurisdiction to safeguard human rights of people , to ensure drinking water to all parties but Does the supreme court has jurisdiction to order parties to release water for
irrigation , etc ?
Is not denial of water from Cauvery river to farmers in Karnataka for irrigation , a crime by supreme court judges Justice Deepak Mishra , Justice U.U . Lalit , government of india ,
government of Tamilnadu & government of Karnataka ? is it not denial of Right to Livlihood of cauvery basin Karnataka farmers.
3. Grounds:
Requests for equitable justice , equal share of water and drinking water at the earliest.. Protection of Human Rights of Karnataka People , specifically protection of their human rights to life ,
livelihood & drinking water.
4. Averment:
Hereby , I do request the honorable supreme court of India to consider this as a PIL for : writ of Mandamus and to issue instructions to the concerned public servants in the following cases to
perform their duties.
That the present petitioner has not filed any other petition (which are admitted by courts) in any High Court or the Supreme Court of India on the subject matter of the present petition.
PRAYER:
In the above premises, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased:
a . Hereby , I do request the honorable supreme court of India to consider this as a PIL for : writ of Mandamus and to issue instructions to the Union Cabinet Secretary , Government of India , chief
secretaries of all state governments , the concerned public servants in the present case , to perform their duties.
b . to pass such other orders and further orders as may be deemed necessary on the facts and in the circumstances of the case.
c. to order government of Karnataka to ensure supply of drinking water from Cauvery River to people living in Karnataka and thereby protect their human rights. .
d. to order Government of India and other riparian states to ensure drinking water to all people.
e. to annul the present biased Cauvery river sharing agreement between Karnataka , tamilnadu state and to constitute expert committee to arrive at a scientific formula to ensure drinking water to
all parties concerned. To make that experts report public.
f. As SCI doesnt have jurisdiction to interfere in river sharing , to order government of india to arrange a conciliatory meeting between the parties.
g. to immediately post all the Cauvery , mahadayi , Krishna river disputes related cases to court of neutral judges of supreme court of india who are not even remotely associated to contesting
parties.
h. to criminally prosecute respective supreme court judges who have denied drinking water to people of Karnataka from mahadayi & Cauvery rivers , for violation of human rights & fundamental
rights. Make public the asset details , career growth details of theses judges & their family members public.
i. after releasing all the water from KRS dam , In case of rain failure the water is not sufficient for drinking purposes till next monsoon. In such case supreme court must arrange for supply
of drinking water to people of Karnataka at the expense of government of india & government of tamilnadu.
j. As per supreme courts directive / Mahadayi Tribunal Karnataka people are not allowed to draw drinking water from mahadayi river and is flowing to goa finally to be wasted. Supreme court
must immediately arrange for supply of drinking water to people of north Karnataka at the expense of government of india & goa.
k. Immediately transfer Cauvery dispute case before supreme court bench of judges Deepak Mishra and UU Lalit , to a neutral bench of judges till the
constitutional question of judicial involvement in water dispute is settled by three judge bench of supreme court of india.
l. Initiate criminal prosecution of judges Deepak Mishra and UU Lalit for contempt of constitution , parliament , Karnataka legislature , supreme court of india and
citizens of india. Impeach them from their judicial offices before they commit more misuses of office.
FOR WHICH ACT OF KINDNESS, THE PETITIONER SHALL BE DUTY BOUND, EVER PRAY.
Dated : 02nd october 2016 .FILED BY: NAGARAJA.M.R.
Place : Mysuru , India.
PETITIONER-IN-PERSON
Editorial : Justice Lalit & Justice Mishra be Humans

Respect Human Rights
All Judges & All Judgements are NOT Right
-
Supreme Court of India violating Fundamental Rights Human Rights
Mother nature has gifted various resources like water , air , forests , etc to all living beings to utilize it in a environmentally friendly way and to utilize , share it in an equitable manner.
Man in his greed has encroached forests , polluting waters driving away , killing many animals , living creatures. As if not enough human beings with clout , power garner , snatch
away more than their equitable share of resource. It is greed , unjust.
Drinking water is a basic need , essential for human beings , cattles , live stock to survive. Following two PILs seeking drinking water from Cauvery River & Mahadayi River is an effort by
public , our publication , a struggle for life, survival. Right to Life is a Human Right must be respected by all law making bodies and even supreme court of india. SCI itself is grossly violating
citizens fundamental rights , human rights instead of safe guarding it. Who will prosecute SCI judges ? God save my India.
Throughout this petiton the term JUDGE includes all public servants performing quasi judicial & judicial functions. Judges are from the same society which is
full of corruption , favoritism , caste bias , etc. Judges are also human beings who can fall prey to lure of bribes , favours , etc. They are neither gods nor monks.
Also , like other human beings , they also make errors. Many persons get selected as judges based on other criteria than merit , integrity , honesty. See the
scandals of KPSC , VYAPAM and mysterious supreme court collegiums system. Total lack of transparency in functioning of judges. Even when cases of national
security , crimes by judges were brought before SCI no action , no answer to RTI questions. When life of human rights activist , journalist is under threat SCI
doesnt take any action rather government tries to silence him by police force. When land grabbings , lake encroachments , etc were brought to the notice of SCI
at the initial stages , so that it can stop the crime. But the SCI didnt act & let the crime happen , it is continuing till date. SCI judges may be indirectly in league
with MAFIA. Therefore , N A JUDGEMENT IS NOT ALWAYS RIGHT . Some judgements are right and some biased.
Read few Biased , Criminal acts of Judges at following articles & web pages :
Half of former CJIs Corrupt :
https://sites.google.com/site/sosevoiceforjustice/half-of-former-cjis-corrupt ,
https://sites.google.com/site/eclarionofdalit/wheeling-dealing-judges-police ,
Atrocities on Women by JUDGES
https://sites.google.com/site/eclarionofdalit/atrocities-by-judges
A Z of Manipulation of Indian Legal System

http://www.scribd.com/doc/187575206/A-Z-of-Manipulation-of-India-Legal-System ,
http://www.scribd.com/doc/173854541/Chief-Justice-of-India-A-Criminal ,
Justice Sathasivam - Are you DEAF DUMB & BLIND

https://sites.google.com/site/eclarionofdalit/justice-sathasivam---are-you-deaf-dumb-blind ,
JUDGEs or Brokers of Justice
https://sites.google.com/site/sosevoiceforjustice/judges-or-brokers-of-justice ,
RTI & Land Golmaal

https://sites.google.com/site/sosevoiceforjustice/rti-land-golmaal-in-karnataka ,
https://sites.google.com/site/sosevoiceforjustice/land-grabbers-in-m-u-d-a ,
https://sites.google.com/site/sosevoiceforjustice/judges-cover-up-land-scams ,
Why NOT 3rd degree Torture of Corrupt Doctors , Police & Judges
http://e-clarionofdalit.blogspot.in/2015/10/why-not-3rd-degree-torture-of-doctors.html#links ,
https://sites.google.com/site/sosevoiceforjustice/3rd-degree-torture-by-doctors-police ,
Jai Hind. Vande Mataram.

Yours sincerely,
Nagaraja.M.R.
There is a higher court than the court of justice and that is the court of conscience It supercedes all other courts.
- Mahatma Gandhi
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
Follow me at
http://www.facebook.com/people/Nagaraj-Mysore-Raghupathi/513253184 ,
http://www.amnesty.org/en/user/naghrw ,
http://twitter.com/naghrw ,

SHAME TO CORRUPT RAPIST JUDGES OF INDIA
Editorial : All Judges & All Judgements are NOT Right

-
Supreme Court of India violating Fundamental Rights Human Rights
Drinking water is a basic need , essential for human beings , cattles , live stock to survive. Following two PILs seeking drinking
water from Cauvery River & Mahadayi River is an effort by public , our publication , a struggle for life, survival. Right to Life is a
Human Right must be respected by all law making bodies and even supreme court of india. SCI itself is grossly violating citizens
fundamental rights , human rights instead of safe guarding it. Who will prosecute SCI judges ? God save my India.
Read few Biased , Criminal acts of Judges at following web pages :




RTI & Land Golmaal

Jai Hind. Vande Mataram.

Yours sincerely,
Nagaraja.M.R.
PIL - Biased Judges , Biased Judgement in Mahadayi , Cauvery Dispute

An Appeal to Honourable Supreme Court of India & National Human Rights Commission for DRINKING WATER and EQUAL share
of water to Karnataka People

OF
2016
IN THE MATTER OF
NAGARAJA . M.R
....Petitioner
Versus
a. Honourable Cabinet Secretary , Government of India

b. Honourable Chief Secretary , Government of Karnataka
c. Honourable Chief Secretary , Government of Tamilnadu
d. Honourable Chief Secretary , Government of Goa
e. Justice Deepak Mishra , SCI
f. Justice U.U Lalit , SCI and others
....Respondents
PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 12 to ARTICLE 35 & ARTICLE 51A OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF A WRIT IN
THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS UNDER ARTICLE 32 & ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.
To ,
1. Facts of the case:

Our whole hearted respects to honest few in judiciary , parliament & public service. Our salutes to them , due to honest efforts of those
few noble persons only at least democracy is surviving in India.
"Power will go to the hands of rascals, , rogues and freebooters. All Indian leaders will be of low calibre and men of straw. They will
have sweet tongues and silly hearts. They will fight among themselves for power and will be lost in political squabbles . A day would
come when even air & water will be taxed." Sir Winston made this statement in the House of Commons just before the independence of
India & Pakistan. Sadly , the forewarning of Late Winston Churchill has been proved right by some of our criminal , corrupt peoples
representatives , police , public servants & Judges. Some of the below mentioned judges fall among the category of churchills men
Rogues , Rascals & Freebooters.
We respect the honest few in judiciary , police , parliament and other public services. Our whole hearted respects , salutes to them.
We despise the corrupt. Sadly , criminalization of judiciary , police , politics has taken place in india. , just like the forwarning of
Mr.Churchill.
Throughout this petiton the term JUDGE includes all public servants performing quasi judicial & judicial functions. Judges are
from the same society which is full of corruption , favoritism , caste bias , etc. Judges are also human beings who can fall prey to
lure of bribes , favours , etc. They are neither gods nor monks. Also , like other human beings , they also make errors. Many
persons get selected as judges based on other criteria than merit , integrity , honesty. See the scandals of KPSC , VYAPAM and
mysterious supreme court collegiums system. Total lack of transparency in functioning of judges. Even when cases of national
security , crimes by judges were brought before SCI no action , no answer to RTI questions. When life of human rights activist ,
journalist is under threat SCI doesnt take any action rather government tries to silence him by police force. When land grabbings ,
lake encroachments , etc were brought to the notice of SCI at the initial stages , so that it can stop the crime. But the SCI didnt act &
let the crime happen , it is continuing till date. SCI judges may be indirectly in league with MAFIA. Therefore , NEVER A
JUDGEMENT IS ALWAYS RIGHT . Some judgements are right and some biased.
Every human being needs drinking water to survive and every Human Being has got Human Right to Live by virtue of his birth itself.
Without access to drinking water human beings cannt survive , they will die. Therefore Human Right to Drinking water forms
integral part of Human Right to Live. United Nations has also affirmed Human Right to Safe Drinking Water to every human
being.
The said agreement regarding sharing of Cauvery water by british presidency with Rulers of Mysore Kingdom decades ago is
biased in favor of state of tamil nadu.
Even decades after independence of india , why should we stick to british era agreement instead of drawing our own mutual
agreement based on present needs of equality.
When a judge presiding in a case even if remotely associated with any of the parties must withdraw from the case paving the way for a
neutral judge. This is to prove to the public that justice is not merely delivered but publicly shown to be delivered.
Judges are not subject experts in irrigation , engineering , rain calculation , etc. without taking the expert opinion , conducting ground
assessment judges have recently made orders to release Cauvery river water to tamilnadu state.
While sharing a river water TOP PRIORITY must be DRINKING WATER for all parties concerned. Second comes irrigation. Here too
it must be on equal footing first round of water for all parties for first crop , after completion of first round second round must
commence for all parties. However here one party is given water for two crops other is denied water even for TOP PRIRITY
DRINKING let alone for crop irrigation. It is unjust.
Lot of confusion is being created by contradictory statements made out by contesting parties , governments regarding the water stored
in their reservoirs. Till date why not SCI has deputed an impartial expert team to assess the actual stored water in reservoirs , their
actual needs , rain fall expected , their contingency plans in case of rain fall failure , etc. To make experts report public so that public in
all the states will know the truth , law & order , peace will prevail.
Is not denial of drinking water to people of north Karnataka from mahadayi river a crime by supreme court judges ?
Is not denial of Drinking water from Cauvery river to people in Karnataka , a crime by supreme court judges Justice Deepak
Mishra , Justice U.U . Lalit , government of india , government of Tamilnadu & government of Karnataka ?
Supreme court definitely has jurisdiction to safeguard human rights of people , to ensure drinking water to all parties but Does the
supreme court has jurisdiction to order parties to release water for irrigation , etc ?
3. Grounds:
Requests for equitable justice , equal share of water and drinking water at the earliest.. Protection of Human Rights of Karnataka
People , specifically protection of their human rights to life & drinking water.
4. Averment:
Hereby , I do request the honorable supreme court of India to consider this as a PIL for : writ of Mandamus and to issue instructions to
the concerned public servants in the following cases to perform their duties.
That the present petitioner has not filed any other petition (which are admitted by courts) in any High Court or the Supreme Court of
India on the subject matter of the present petition.
PRAYER:
a . Hereby , I do request the honorable supreme court of India to consider this as a PIL for : writ of Mandamus and to issue
instructions to the Union Cabinet Secretary , Government of India , chief secretaries of all state governments , the concerned public
servants in the present case , to perform their duties.
c. to order government of Karnataka to ensure supply of drinking water from Cauvery River to people living in Karnataka and thereby
protect their human rights. .
e. to annul the present biased Cauvery river sharing agreement between Karnataka , tamilnadu state and to constitute expert
committee to arrive at a scientific formula to ensure drinking water to all parties concerned. To make that experts report public.
f. As SCI doesnt have jurisdiction to interfere in river sharing , to order government of india to arrange a conciliatory meeting
between the parties.
g. to immediately post all the Cauvery , mahadayi , Krishna river disputes related cases to court of neutral judges of supreme court
of india who are not even remotely associated to contesting parties.
h. to criminally prosecute respective supreme court judges who have denied drinking water to people of Karnataka from mahadayi
& Cauvery rivers , for violation of human rights & fundamental rights. Make public the asset details , career growth details of theses
judges & their family members public.
i. after releasing all the water from KRS dam , In case of rain failure the water is not sufficient for drinking purposes till next
monsoon. In such case supreme court must arrange for supply of drinking water to people of Karnataka at the expense of
government of india & government of tamilnadu.
j. As per supreme courts directive / Mahadayi Tribunal Karnataka people are not allowed to draw drinking water from mahadayi river
and is flowing to goa finally to be wasted. Supreme court must immediately arrange for supply of drinking water to people of north
Karnataka at the expense of government of india & goa.
Dated : 21st September 2016 .FILED BY: NAGARAJA.M.R.
Place : Mysuru , India.
PETITIONER-IN-PERSON
The court verdict that prompted Indira Gandhi to declare Emergency
Seldom does a court verdict change the course of history of a country.

The June 12, 1975 verdict of the Allahabad High Court convicting then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi of electoral malpractices and
debarring her from holding any elected post falls in this category. The verdict delivered by Justice Jagmohanlal Sinha, it is widely
believed, led to imposition of Emergency in India on June 25, 1975.
Indira Gandhi had won the 1971 Lok Sabha election from Rae Bareli Lok Sabha seat in Uttar Pradesh convincingly defeating socialist
leader Raj Narain, who later challenged her election alleging electoral malpractices and violation of the Representation of the People
Act, 1951. It was alleged that her election agent Yashpal Kapoor was a government servant and that she used government officials for
personal election related work.
While convicting Indira Gandhi of electoral malpractices, Justice Sinha disqualified her from Parliament and imposed a six-year ban on
her holding any elected post.
The respondent no. I (Indira Gandhi) was thus guilty of a corrupt practice under section 123(7) of the Act.....accordingly stands
disqualified for a period of six years from the date of this order..., Justice Sinha pronounced to a stunned Indira Gandhi who was
present in person in the court. But on an appeal filed by Indira Gandhi, Justice VR Krishna Iyer a vacation judge of the Supreme Court
- on June 24, 1975 granted a conditional stay on Justice Sinhas verdict allowing her to continue as Prime Minister. However, she was
debarred from taking part in parliamentary proceedings and draw salary as an MP.
Interestingly, the very next day she imposed the Emergency suspending all fundamental rights, putting opposition leaders in jails and
imposing censorship on the media.
While the Emergency was in force, the Supreme Court later overturned her conviction on November 7, 1975.
Asked if Justice Sinhas verdict changed the course of Indias history, senior advocate Shanti Bhushan - who represented Raj Narain
said: Yes indeed the emergency as well as Indira losing the 1977 election was the direct result of Justice Jagmohanlal Sinhas
judgment.
Justice Sinha was a very able honest and God fearing judge. Before the judgment an attempt was made to influence him by the then
Chief Justice of Allahabad High Court D S Mathur who visited him at his residence along with his wife for the first and only one time to
convey to him that he had been informed by Dr Mathur who was related to him and was the personal physician of Mrs Gandhi that she
had decided to elevate Justice Sinha to the Supreme Court after he had decided the case. However Justice Sinhas strong conscience
did not permit him to take the bait. This was conveyed to me long after the judgment by Justice Sinha himself when we both were
playing golf in Allahabad.
His judgment was unassailable and Mrs Gandhi had to change the law retrospectively to get over his judgment. His judgment was
hailed all over the democratic world as a great triumph of an independent judiciary in India, Bhushan a former law minister said.
When Judges Got It Wrong
The ADM Jabalpur judgment in the backdrop of Emergency remains a blot.
Appointed out of turn, the new chief justice turned out to be a committed judge and a few months before his retirement in 1977 gifted to
the nation the infamy of ADM Jabalpur.
The care and concern bestowed by the state authorities upon the welfare of detenues who are well housed, well fed and well treated,
is almost maternal wrote Supreme Court judge Hameedullah Beg in his separate judgment in the ADM Jabalpur case (1976) on the
issues if citizens fundamental rights could be suspended during the Emergency. The allusion in the word maternal to the lady prime
minister of the time who had imposed the infamous Emergency on the country, was too obvious to be disavowed. And the child got his
due reward from the mother. Beg was appointed the next chief justice of India, superseding the legendary judge H.R. Khanna, who had
bravely dissented from the majority judgment. If The New York Times saluted the dissenting judge saying if India ever finds its way
back to freedom and democracy that were proud hallmarks of its first eighteen years as an independent nation, someone will surely
erect a monument to Justice H.R. Khanna, so what? Nehrus daughter never had any remorse for what she had done.
This was the second time Indira Gandhi had superseded a senior judge to appoint a CJI of her choice. Before this, in April 1973, Ajit
Nath Ray, junior to three judges in the apex court, had superseded all three to become the chief justice. Former Chief Justice
Mohammad Hidayatullah had called it an initiative to produce not forward looking judges but judges looking forward to their future.
Former Attorney General for India C.K. Daphtary had remarked the boy who wrote the best essay won the first prize the reference
being to Rays dissent in the cause clbre called Kesavananda Bharati, delivered just two days before he took over as the CJI.
Appointed out of turn, the new chief justice turned out to be a committed judge and a few months before his retirement in 1977 gifted to
the nation the infamy of ADM Jabalpur. Four of the five judges on the bench deciding this case Ray, Beg, Chandrachud and
Bhagwati had gone in governments favour; poor Khanna was the lone dissenter. Ray demitted office in 1977 and Beg, perhaps
judged as the runner up in Kesavananda Bharti, succeeded him as the next CJI.
Ray was not rewarded further after his retirement and spent the rest of his life in ignominy, but Begs reward did not end with out of turn
appointment as CJI. After his retirement, Indira Gandhi appointed him chairman of the Minorities Commission. As against the prescribed
three-year term, he headed the Commission for seven years and was decorated with Padma Bhushan.
The majority decision in ADM Jabalpur was severely criticised everywhere then, and continues to be criticised till this date, as a dark
spot in Indias legal history. On the silver jubilee of the decision in April 2001, the Peoples Union for Civil Liberties remembered it as a
judgment so shameful that even Hitler would have blushed had he the opportunity to peruse it. In his Justice Khanna Memorial Lecture
of 2009, former Chief Justice M.N. Venkatachaliah said the decision deserved to be confined to the dustbin of history.
Delivering the next lecture in the series to honour Khanna, former Attorney General Soli J Sorabjee recollected his response to the RayBeg ruling: I never cry or show my emotions after losing a case. But, that day, sitting with Nani Palkhivala in Mumbai discussing the
case, I cried. In a 2010 judgment, Justice A.K. Ganguly of the Supreme Court admitted that the instances of this courts judgment
violating human rights of citizens may be extremely rare, but it cannot be said that such a situation can never happen. We can remind
ourselves of the majority decision of the Constitution Bench of this court in ADM Jabalpur. In a press interview given in 2011,
nonagenarian P.N. Bhagwati said: The majority judgment was not the correct judgment. If it was open to me to come to a fresh
decision in that case, I would agree with what Justice Khanna did.
Though too late in the day, these judicial confessions of guilt must have pleased the noble soul of Hansraj Khanna who had sacrificed
his chance of being CJI to save the nations pride.
A Chief Justice of India says "I am sorry" but 30 years too late
When a former Chief Justice of India apologises for a judgement, thats big news. And Justice P N Bhagwati was not just apologising
for any judgement.
He was admitting his mistake about a case the New York Times called close to the Indian Supreme Courts utter surrender to an
absolutist government.
That case was ADM Jabalpur, popularly known as the Habeas Corpus case. On 28 April, 1976, during the Emergency, the Supreme
Court had to decide if the Court could entertain a writ of habeas corpus filed by a person challenging his detention. The High Courts
had already said yes. But the Supreme Court went against the unanimous decision of all the High Courts and upheld the right of Indira
Gandhis government to suspend all fundamental rights during the Emergency. Four judges ruled for the government. One of them was
Justice P N Bhagwati.
The lone dissenter was Justice H R Khanna. The New York Times wrote at that time:
If India ever finds its way back to freedom and democracy that were proud hallmarks of its first eighteen years as an independent
nation, someone will surely erect a monument to Justice H R Khanna of the Supreme Court. It was Justice Khanna who spoke out
fearlessly and eloquently for freedom this week.
Now 30 years later Justice Bhagwati says in an interview withMyLaw.net his judgment was an act of weakness. He also says, it was
against my conscience...That judgment is not Justice Bhagwatis.
This might sound like a brave mea culpa on his part. But unfortunately it leaves a lot to be desired.
First of all there is Justice Bhagwatis own track record of having his ear finely tuned to the prevailing political winds.
Justice Bhagwati has praised Indira Gandhi government during the Emergency and later criticized her during the tenure of Janata
government. When Indira Gandhi came back to power, he wrote a letter congratulating her.
Heres an excerpt from that letter:
May I offer you my heartiest congratulations on your resounding victory in the elections and your triumphant return as the Prime
Minister of India...I am sure that with your iron will and firm determination, uncanny insight and dynamic vision, great administrative
capacity and vast experience, overwhelming love and affection of the people and above all, a heart which is identified with the misery of
the poor and the weak, you will be able to steer the ship of the nation safely to its cherished goal.
What this really shows is that CJI Bhagwati might have gone against his conscience but certainly not against his career trajectory.
Justice H R Khanna, who dissented in that Jabalpur case should have become the CJI because of his seniority. But he paid the price
for that dissent. He was superceded by Justice Beg. Justice Bhagwati would likely have met with the same fate of Justice H R Khanna
had he dissented.
This is not the only issue where Justice Bhagwati has made a volte face.
Take the mysterious collegium system by which Supreme Court justices are appointed which has come under heavy criticism for being
an unaccountable opaque cabal. It was Justice Verma who created the collegium system but in theFirst Judges Case (the SP Gupta
case) Justice Bhagwati wrote about it: There must be a collegium to make recommendation to the President in regard to appointment
of a Supreme Court or High Court Judge.
Justice Bhagwatis mind has now changed about that as well and he says he is against the collegium system in toto.
His own track record as a judge has also raised legal eyebrows.
Noted constitutional law jurist HM Seervai has criticised Justice Bhagwati for merely copying justice Krishna Iyers judgment in the Som
Prakash case and incorporating it into his judgment in the Ajay Hasia case.
In a landmark case of constitutional law, popularly referred to as the Minerva Mills judgment, Justice Bhagwati wrote: Unfortunately we
could not be ready with our judgment and hence 9 May,1980 being the last working day of the Court before the summer vacation we
made an order expressing our conclusion but stating that we would give our reasons later.
A judge of the Apex Court saying "I am not ready with my reasons but this is my conclusion" anyway sets a deplorable standard for the
Indian judiciary.
Justice Bhagwati writes, that after the Emergency he realized the mistake of Jabalpur and he practically rewrote Part III and Part IV of
the Constitution; particularly Articles 14, 19, 21 and 32. A judge claiming that he is writing the Constitution, as opposed to interpreting it
is unorthodox to say the least.
These days Justice Bhagwati is more in the news because he is a trustee with the beleaguered Sathya Sai Trust. As financial scandals
rock the Sai Babas spiritual empire, the trust relies on people of the eminence of a former CJI to give it some credibility. Immediately
after the demise of Satya Sai Baba Justice Bhagwati was appointed as chancellor of the Sri Sathya Sai Institute of Higher Learning
(Deemed to be University). Recently in an interview given to The Times of India Justice Bhagwati said: Sai Baba, my god, dictated my
every single judgment.
People will make of that what they will. But the real question now is what does this apology mean for the Indian judiciary. Some will
think its proof of the self-correcting mechanism of the Indian judiciary. But its also proof of something much more damning - that
political equations play a crucial role in the appointment of judges and the judgments these judges deliver.
What happened in the Habeas Corpus case was not a momentary lapse in judgment. It was a disgrace to the Supreme Court, and
more so because Justice Bhagwati says it went against his conscience, even then.
This belated apology does not restore the faith of people in judiciary. The only way to do that is to have an independent judicial
commission appoint judges and bring in transparency in every stage of their appointment.
It may save us from a Bhagwati-style apology another 30 years later.
PIL Release DRINKING WATER from Mahadayi River

An Appeal to Honourable Supreme Court of India & National Human Rights Commission
OF
2016
IN THE MATTER OF
NAGARAJA . M.R

.
....Petitioner
Versus
Honourable Cabinet Secretary , Government of India
....Respondents
& Others
To ,

Every human being needs drinking water to survive and every Human Being has got Human Right to Live by virtue of his birth itself.
Without access to drinking water human beings cannt survive , they will die. Therefore Human Right to Drinking water forms
integral part of Human Right to Live. United Nations has also affirmed Human Right to Safe Drinking Water to every human
being.
Is not denial of Drinking water from Mahadayi / Mandovi River to people in northern Karnataka , a crime by government of india &
government of Karnataka ?
Is not police brutality against people demanding drinking water and police brutality against women , aged persons , children ,
pregnant women in Navalgund , Yamanoor of Karnataka a crime by Karnataka police ?
3. Grounds:
Requests for equitable justice. Protection of Human Rights of Karnataka People , specifically protection of their human rights to life &
drinking water.
4. Averment:
the concerned public servants in the following cases to perform their duties.
PRAYER:
instructions to the Union Cabinet Secretary , Government of India , chief secretaries of all state governments , the concerned public
servants in the present case , to perform their duties.
c. to order government of Karnataka to ensure supply of drinking water from Mahadayi / Mandovi River to people living in northern
Karnataka .
e. to order government of Karnataka , to initiate legal prosecution of Karnataka police personnel who committed excesses on women
folk , children , aged persons in navalgund , yamanoor of Karnataka state during protest demanding water from mahadayi river.
Dated : 03rd August 2016 .FILED BY: NAGARAJA.M.R.
Place : Mysuru , India. PETITIONER-IN-PERSON
The human right to water and sanitation

Eight short facts on the human right to water and sanitation
[ - 388 KB]
On 28 July 2010, through Resolution 64/292, the United Nations General Assembly explicitly recognized the human right to water and
sanitation and acknowledged that clean drinking water and sanitation are essential to the realisation of all human rights. The Resolution
calls upon States and international organisations to provide financial resources, help capacity-building and technology transfer to help
countries, in particular developing countries, to provide safe, clean, accessible and affordable drinking water and sanitation for all.
In November 2002, the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights adopted General Comment No. 15 on the right to water.
Article I.1 states that "The human right to water is indispensable for leading a life in human dignity. It is a prerequisite for the realization
of other human rights". Comment No. 15 also defined the right to water as the right of everyone to sufficient, safe, acceptable and
physically accessible and affordable water for personal and domestic uses.
Sources:
Resolution A/RES/64/292. United Nations General Assembly, July 2010
General Comment No. 15. The right to water. UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, November 2002
The human right to water and the MDGs
Formarly acknowledging water as a human right, and expressing the willingness to give content and effect to this right, may be a way of
encouraging the international community and governments to enhance their efforts to satisfy basic human needs and to meet the
Millennium Development Goals.
Source: Water as a Human Right? IUCN, UNDP, 2004
What is...?
Sufficient. The water supply for each person must be sufficient and continuous for personal and domestic uses. These uses
ordinarily include drinking, personal sanitation, washing of clothes, food preparation, personal and household hygiene. According to the
World Health Organization (WHO), between 50 and 100 litres of water per person per day are needed to ensure that most basic needs
are met and few health concerns arise.
Safe. The water required for each personal or domestic use must be safe, therefore free from micro-organisms, chemical
substances and radiological hazards that constitute a threat to a person's health. Measures of drinking-water safety are usually defined
by national and/or local standards for drinking-water quality. The World Health Organization (WHO) Guidelines for drinking-water quality
provide a basis for the development of national standards that, if properly implemented, will ensure the safety of drinking-water.
Acceptable. Water should be of an acceptable colour, odour and taste for each personal or domestic use. [...] All water facilities
and services must be culturally appropriate and sensitive to gender, lifecycle and privacy requirements.
Physically accessible. Everyone has the right to a water and sanitation service that is physically accessible within, or in the
immediate vicinity of the household, educational institution, workplace or health institution. According to WHO, the water source has to
be within 1,000 metres of the home and collection time should not exceed 30 minutes.
Affordable. Water, and water facilities and services, must be affordable for all. The United Nations Development Programme
(UNDP) suggests that water costs should not exceed 3 per cent of household income.
UN initiatives that are helping to raise the issue...
Human Rights Council Resolution A/HRC/RES/18/1
On 28 September 2011, the UN Human Rights Council passed a new resolution which takes the human right to safe drinking water and
sanitation a step further. The Council welcomed the submission of the compilation of good practices on the right to safe drinking water
and sanitation, in which the Special Rapporteur put particular emphasis on practical solutions with regard to the implementation of the
human right to safe drinking water and sanitation. The resolution calls on States to ensure enough financing for sustainable delivery of
water and sanitation services.
World Health Assembly Resolution 64/24 [ - 24 KB]
In May 2011, the World Health Organization (WHO), through Resolution 64/24, made a call to Member States "to ensure that national
health strategies contribute to the realization of water- and sanitation-related Millennium Development Goals while coming in support to
the progressive realization of the human right to water and sanitation" and to WHO's Director General to "to strengthen WHO's
collaboration with all relevant UN-Water members and partners, as well as other relevant organizations promoting access to safe
drinking-water, sanitation and hygiene services, so as to set an example of effective intersectoral action in the context of WHO's
involvement in the United Nations Delivering as One initiative, and WHO's cooperation with the United Nations Special Rapporteur on
the human right to safe drinking water and sanitation with a view to improving the realization of the human right to water and
Sanitation".
Appointment of an independent expert [ - 32 KB]
In March 2008, through resolution 7/22, the Human Rights Council decided "To appoint, for a period of three years, an independent
expert on the issue of human rights obligations related to access to safe drinking water and sanitation". In April 2011, through resolution
16/2, the Human Rights Council decided to extend the mandate for a period of three years. The Independent Expert monitors and
reports on States' implementation of the right to water as well as related violations.
More Than Bad Maths: Four Big Errors That Let Jayalalithaa Off the Hook
BY SANDHYA RAVISHANKAR
A day after former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister J Jayalalithaa was acquitted by the Karnataka High Court on May 11 in a high profile
corruption case, Special Public Prosecutor BV Acharya revealed arithmetic errors in the judgment. An error in adding up a tabular
column of loans considered as income by the High Court judge left a gaping hole of Rs 13.5 crore, which the AIADMK is still trying to
explain away.
Now, more serious errors of duplication have been found in Judge CR Kumaraswamys verdict. It now appears that the High Court has,
erroneously, added loan amounts twice to the income of the defendants. This means that the amount calculated by the judge as
explained income the basis on which the court has exonerated Jayalalithaa and others is a highly inflated figure.
To put it in simple terms, disproportionate wealth is calculated by adding up all the assets and income of the accused and finding out
which of the assets and income are from an explained valid source of income. Those assets and income that do not have a satisfactory
source are then deemed to be disproportionate wealth.
The trial court, in September 2014, had found Jayalalithaa guilty of possessing disproportionate wealth to the tune of Rs 53.6 crore.
Earlier this month the Karnataka HC ruled on her appeal, acquitting her of all charges as it found disproportionate wealth to be only to
the tune of Rs 2.82 crore. The High Court cited earlier judgments to argue that 10% of unexplained wealth was permissible as per law
and that since only 8.12% of the defendants wealth was disproportionate to their income, they were liable to be acquitted as per law.
Duplication of loans
On page 852 of the High Court order, Judge Kumaraswamy has put in place a tabular column showing a list of 10 loans, which, he
argues, would constitute additional income, automatically bringing down the total amount of disproportionate income in Jayalalithaas
case. He then adjusts the sum assessed as income by the prosecution and arrives at a new figure.
Out of the 10 loans, the first one, a loan to Jaya Publications from Indian Bank to the tune of Rs 1.5 crore is clearly shown to have been
repaid in full, in the corresponding Page 294 of the trial court order and has been accepted as legitimate expenditure by the lower court.
Therefore, it is already factored in.
Of the other nine loans listed, seven of these have already been taken into account by the prosecution. In fact, the trial court order, on
pages 126 to 139, delves in detail into each individual loan taken by the defendants and accepts them either completely or partially with
reasons.
Legal experts say that this amounts to duplication of income if, for instance, the trial court has accepted an income of Rs 100 out of
these loans, the High Court has erroneously taken the same Rs 100 and added it once again, assuming that the lower court had
omitted to do so. This would take the total income to double the actual amount i.e. Rs 200.
In fact, the High Court appears to have made some more glaring errors. Item number 8 in the table on Page 852 is a loan of Rs 1.57
crore in the name of VN Sudhakaran, Jayalalithaas foster son and one of the accused. A comparison with Pages 136 and 137 of the
trial court order shows the discrepancy. Three pieces of evidence are cited in this particular loan one, a letter from Sudhakaran to
Indian Bank requesting a loan of Rs 1.57 crore. The second evidence is a letter from Indian Bank sanctioning a loan amount of Rs 1.33
crore and not the full amount requested. The third bit of evidence is the statement of accounts from the banks records. The trial court
has taken the outstanding balance of the loan amount as income. The High Court, however, in a glaring error, takes into account only
the first piece of evidence i.e. the loan amount requested by Sudhakaran, which was not even sanctioned in full.
Page 852 of High Court Judge Kumaraswamys judgment of May 11, 2015
Other loans show up similar discrepancies in the High Court order.

Another glaring error in the loan table is that of item number 3 a loan of Rs 90 lakhs taken by Jayalalithaa from Indian Bank. The HC
has taken this into account despite that loan having been sanctioned in August 1996, after the check period of the case, i.e. after her
first term as Chief Minister of the state had ended.
Details of loans listed on pp126-127 in trial court Judge Cunhas September 2014 verdict finding Jayalalithaa guilty of corruption
Page 127 of trial court Judge Cunhas verdict of September 2014

Once we discount the duplicated loans, the arithmetic now works out as follows.
Total assets accepted by HC: Rs 37,59,02,466
Total income as calculated by HC (incl loans as under Page 852): Rs 34,76,65,654
Now we deduct the amount of Rs 18,17,46,000 from this since the loans mentioned have already been taken into account by the trial
court.
Only one component Item number 9 would be added since it does not reflect in the trial courts math.
New total = Old total loan income
i.e. Rs 34,76,65,654 Rs 18,17,46,000
Add Item number 9 as extra loan = Rs 1,65,00,000
New total income = Rs 18,24,19,654
Now we apply this new total income to the formula used by the HC on Page 914 of the order, to arrive at the percentage of
disproportionate wealth.
Disproportionate assets = Total assets Total income
= Rs 37,59,02,466 Rs 18,24,19,654
= Rs 19,34,82,812
This means the amount of disproportionate assets shoots up to Rs 19.3 crores from Rs 2.82 crores as given in the HC order.
Percentage =
Disproportionate assets X 100 / Income

=
Rs 19,34,82,812 X 100 / 18,24,19,654
The percentage now goes up to 106% as opposed to the 8.12% calculated by the HC, which was the number that acquitted
Jayalalithaa and 3 others.
There are a number of apparent errors in the High Courts treatment of the funds that need to be gone into, said Supreme Court
lawyer Karuna Nundy. For instance, the first item in Page 852 of the High Court judgment is a loan of Rs 1.5 cr (Ex.P.1027) the High
Court treats this as income that has been properly explained. The trial court though, examined the bank manager and saw documents
that showed that the loan from the Indian Bank had already been paid back. This leaves an unexplained amount of over 1 crore. There
are other gaps take Ex.P.1330, a Rs 1.57 crore loan taken by VN Sudhakaran, again from Indian Bank. The trial court order clearly
shows Sudhakaran only received Rs 1.33 cr of the Rs 1.57 cr, sanctioned.
This allegation is incorrect, said a senior AIADMK leader who did not wish to be named. We have thoroughly looked through the
order and there is no discrepancy, he said.
The 10% loophole
Jurists are spitting fire at the law used by Judge Kumaraswamy on Page 914 of his order acquitting Jayalalithaa. In this, the judge has
cited the Krishnanand Agnihotri case, which states that when there is disproportionate asset to the extent of 10%, the accused are
entitled for acquittal. He has also cited a circular issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh which states, Disproportionate asset to
the extent of 20% can also be considered as a permissible limit.
Is the judiciary giving legal sanction to corruption? asked a retired High Court judge who did not wish to be named. Will this 10%
sanction apply to its own officers and subordinate judiciary? So a court clerk found taking a bribe of Rs 1000 could be let off since it is
less than 10% of his annual salary? Will this 10% be allowed on an annual basis or on the basis of tenure of the staff? And every time a
chargesheet is filed henceforth, will this 10% rule apply? Is the judiciary giving a blessing to public servants for violating their oath by
giving them 10% leeway? asked the judge.
Unfortunately the SC judgment in Krishnanand Agnihotris case has been misinterpreted, said lawyer Nundy. The HC says when
there is disproportionate asset to the extent of 10%, the accused are entitled for acquittal. Nowhere does the Supreme Court judgment
lay this down as a rule. Agnihotris case was explicitly decided in the context of his own offence, which was relatively minor. If the High
Court thought Jayalalithaa deserved the benefit for much larger amounts it needed to explain why, she said.
Legal eagles say that this ruling by the High Court judge could set a bad precedent, one that encourages bribery. Especially when the
Supreme Court earlier observed that corruption is the enemy of the nation and had exhorted courts to show zero tolerance towards
this scourge.
It is an accepted legal precedent, insisted the AIADMK leader. The High Court judge is right in his assessment.
Retired Madras HC judge K Chandru agrees. The Andhra precedent and the other precedent have been followed in many cases and
officers have been let out on the basis of the discount, it has become a judicial precedent by the judge made law. One need not argue
specifically on such issues and it is left to the discretion of the court, he said.
IT returns as proof of income
The Karnataka High Court overturned the guilty verdict of the trial court by arguing that the lower court had not considered the Income
Tax returns of the defendants. Judge Kumaraswamy then added this income declared in the IT returns of the defendants to clear them
of a large chunk of disproportionate assets.
There are many prior cases where the Supreme Court has said that in cases involving disproportionate assets, the source of the
income must be explained convincingly, said the retired judge. Income tax returns are not reliable since they do not verify the source
of the income. It is wrong to accept IT returns as proof of income unless the source of the income is proven to be valid, he said.
Legal experts also point out that in many instances, the High Court has accepted IT returns which have been filed much later, as in the
case of Namadhu MGR. On Page 875 of the HC order, the judge agrees that IT returns filed as an afterthought cannot be relied upon.
When Income Tax returns have not been filed for many years, it disentitles the assessee substantially. A doubt arises in the
genuineness of the Income Tax returns. But when it is produced before the Income Tax department after a long time and is not
produced when its production was warranted, it is a suspicious circumstance against the genuineness of the claim of the assessee in
respect of this subscription item i.e. Namadhu MGR.
Experts say that under the Nallammal vs State ruling of 1999, the term income has been clearly defined by the Supreme Court.
known sources of income means income received from any lawful source and such receipt has been intimated in accordance with the
provisions of any law, rules or orders for the time being applicable to a public servant. They say that this would, in effect, rule out IT
returns as proof of income, since source of that income is not often verified while assessing returns.
However, Kumaraswamy proceeds to accept the income in part i.e. a sum of Rs 4 crores. In effect, this is an afterthought explanation
that anyone can give in a DA case, said the retired judge. So basically I can wait until a chargesheet is filed, then I can add all my
unexplained income and file my IT returns after that I will get away scot free. This judgment can be quoted in cases involving IT
returns as well. Jurists should wake up to the impact this could have on the social structure, the economy and political structure. If
afterthought IT returns are accepted, this means black money can easily come into the system and be laundered by filing a simple IT
return, he said.
Under this head, the High Court may be wrong and there was no justification to ignore the findings given by Cunha, said retired judge
Chandru. Sec 19 (3) (a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act does not allow an appellate court (in this case Karnataka HC) to take a
different view from the special court in such matters unless there was a failure of justice, he said.
The AIADMK says relying on IT returns is a legally sound decision. The IT department is under an IT law and decisions taken by it are
final, said the AIADMK leader. There is nothing wrong with relying on IT returns.
Foreign remittance
Apart from the acceptance of IT returns which were filed belatedly, in the case of birthday gifts too, a curious case of a foreign
remittance included in this list draws attention. This Rs 77 lakh remittance is the subject of a CBI investigation. The case was dismissed
by the Madras High Court and the matter has been mired in legal technicalities and pending before the Supreme Court since 2012.
Receiving gifts from foreign countries by a minister is completely prohibited by the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (FERA), said
retired judge Chandru. It can be accepted as an income for the purpose of the present case if it is shown that it was remitted by a
bonafide person.
The retired judge quoted the Supreme Court to ask whether this means the judiciary encourages politicians to take bribes in kind rather
than cash. If public servants are allowed to accept presents when they are prohibited under a penalty from accepting bribes, they
would easily circumvent the prohibition by accepting the bribe in the shape of a present, he said.
The AIADMK insists that this is an accepted precedent.
Other errors
The legal fraternity points out other errors in the judgement. One is that of a virtual lack of prosecution in the case. After the Supreme
Court struck down the appointment of then Special Public Prosecutor Bhavani Singh in January 2015, a new SPP was appointed by the
Karnataka government. BV Acharya was given only a days time to submit written arguments (not more than 50 pages as per Justice
Deepak Mishras order) and oral arguments were not allowed.
Another error pointed out is that of the HC dismissing government rates for construction materials as being too high and thereby
reducing the costs of construction and renovation in the properties of the defendants.
In the absence of other proper evidence, only government rates i.e. rates prescribed by the Public Works Department can be taken
into account, said the retired judge. It is standard practice in all courts, he said.
Retired judge Chandru disagrees. Judge Kumaraswamy even said that when he purchased tiles for constructing his house, it was
almost the same as claimed by Jayalalithaa, he said.
Rental income added by the HC too appears to be unexplained. On Page 833 of the HC order, the judge simply takes into account a
sum of Rs 3.22 lakhs. A perusal of the trial court order shows that rental income has been taken into account. Legal experts say this is a
mystifying figure.
Image of the judiciary
Jurists warn that the High Court verdict could set many precedents for erroneous verdicts in the future. They say that this is the first
time a powerful politician has been brought to book by a trial court and therefore, an important order that should not be taken lightly.
The Supreme Court has to remember that the world is watching India, said the retired judge. This judgment will bring down the image
of the Indian judiciary in the world. The apex court must look into this closely and seriously, he said.
This case became significant because right from the beginning there were attempts to delay the hearing by opposing the constitution of
a special court, said Chandru. Then the accused was two times Chief Minister during the investigation and the police was under her
Home Ministry. Then the Supreme court intervention on the transfer of the case to another state, appointment of Special Public
Prosecutor, fixing time limit for hearing the appeal and even fixing the quantity of stationary to be used for the written brief and not
allowing oral arguments. All these make it a unique case involving corruption, he said.
SC lawyer Nundy agrees. Its important that the Supreme Court hear this case in appeal, she said. In fact, given the level of detail
and the vagaries of prosecution, it might also be a fit case to appoint an amicus curiae, or friend of the court, to make sure justice is
not only done but seen to be done beyond reasonable doubt, she added.
And while the Karnataka government dithers over whether or not to head to the Supreme Court on appeal, the legal fraternity is
certainly chafing at what has taken place.
Flawed Jayalalithaa Verdict Finally Heads to Supreme Court

BY SANDHYA RAVISHANKAR ON 01/06/2015
As the Karnataka cabinet decides to move the Supreme Court in appeal, The Wireunearths more errors in the High Court verdict
acquitting Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Jayalalithaa
The Karnataka cabinet today decided to move the Supreme Court on appeal against the recent Bangalore High Court verdict acquitting
J. Jayalalithaa, her close aide Sasikala and two others in a disproportionate assets case.
I welcome the decision of the Karnataka cabinet, said BV Acharya, special public prosecutor in the case. The government has
accepted the legal opinions and recommendations given both by the Advocate General as well as by myself, he said.
Following the decision taken by the Karnataka cabinet, state Law Minister TB Jayachandra told reporters that the cabinet decided to
appeal on the basis of merits of the case. The Supreme Court has specifically said that Karnataka has stepped into the shoes of Tamil
Nadu and that the state is the sole prosecuting agency for all matters related to the case, he said. Legally on merits we have decided
to file the appeal in Supreme Court. BV Acharya will continue to be the special public prosecutor for the appeal as well, he added.
In his May 11 verdict, Judge CR Kumaraswamy of the Bangalore High Court acquitted the Tamil Nadu Chief Minister and others of all
charges in a 19-year-old corruption case. A trial court in Bangalore had, in September 2014, convicted them of holding unexplained
wealth to the tune of Rs 53 crores.
The Wire had earlier this month reported on the four main inconsistencies in the High Courts verdict which had allowed Jayalalithaa
and others to be acquitted. But there is one more large and inexplicable error in the High Court verdict, say legal experts.
Since the fundamental determinant of the accused persons disproportionate assets hinges on their spending more money during the
impugned period than their declared sources of income, the acquittal turned on the curious tabulation of expenditure made by Judge
Kumaraswamy especially the money spent on construction costs
On Page 797 in the High Court order acquitting Jayalalithaa after a lengthy discussion of the arguments of the prosecution, the
defence and the trial court order Judge Kumaraswamy puts the costs incurred in the construction and renovation of various buildings
at Rs 5,10,54,060 (Rs 5.1 crores).
Page 797 of Judge Kumaraswamys order

On comparing the High Courts tally with the written submissions made by the defendants, in this case Jayalalithaa and her close aide
Sasikala, a peculiar situation arises.
Item number 51 in the written submission of Jayalalithaa clearly states that she has admitted to expenditure of Rs 3,62,47,700 (Rs 3.6
crores) towards construction costs in Poes Garden and a farmhouse in Hyderabad.
Similarly, a tabular column detailed in the written submission of Sasikala shows that she and another accused, J Elavarasi, have
admitted to expenditure of Rs 5,05,59,419 (Rs 5 crores) towards construction costs of various buildings.
The sum total of the construction costs admitted to by the defence is thus Rs 8,68,07,119 (Rs 8.6 crores).
The Wire cross-checked this tally with the written submissions made by the defendants to the Karnataka High Court. Again, a tabular
column under the heading Value of the assets according to the accused under following heads as shown in Page 711 of the trial court
judgement shows clearly the defence claim on the amount spent towards construction costs. The defence clearly states that they have
spent a total of Rs 8,60,59,261 (Rs 8.6 crores) in their submission to the High Court too.
Page 711 or Judge Cunhas trial court judgment

Strangely enough, the High Court has decided that the defendants have in fact spent less than the amount that they have themselves
admitted to. Judge Kumaraswamy has stated in his order that the defendants have spent only Rs 5.1 crores, reducing costs incurred by
the defendants by about Rs 3.5 crores.
More costs incurred by the defendants would mean a higher amount of expenditure that would need to be explained to the courts. The
trial court on Page 711 held that Jayalalithaa and others had spent Rs 22,53,92,344 (Rs 22.5 crores) on construction and renovation of
various buildings. The defendants disagreed and said they had spent Rs 8.6 crores only. The Karnataka High Court disagreed with both
and said Jayalalithaa and others had spent only Rs 5.1 crores.
This is really strange, said a retired High Court judge. The judge has gone neither by what the prosecution says, nor by the
defendants. This is a clear example of a case where the evidence needs to have been scrutinized thoroughly. Errors like this will creep
in otherwise, he said.
Page from J. Jayalalithaas written submission
Page from Sasikalas submission to the High Court

This is not the only instance in the order where the High Court has gone beyond the defence, said Vikram Hegde, a lawyer based in
Karnataka. Even the loan amount, if you look at it, is more than what the defence says.
Legal experts argue that these errors could have been avoided if a proper prosecution had been made available during the trial period.
In January this year, the Supreme Court struck down the appointment of Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) Bhavani Singh as bad in law
and asked the Karnataka Government to appoint a new SPP. BV Acharya who was subsequently appointed, was given a days time to
submit written arguments, with no verbal arguments being allowed.
A proper prosecution would have made a huge difference to this case, said Hegde. First, it is an authentic source and second, the
court would have had qualified assistance. The role of the prosecutor in a case like this is to take the court through the maze of
evidence. The previous prosecutor did not do that in the High Court. I would go so far as to say that the previous prosecutor had not
done his job even in the trial court. As a result, the judge has been at a disadvantage and he has not been able to apply his mind, he
said.
Other glaring errors in the judgement include arithmetic mistakes, duplication of loan income, and erroneous use of IT returns as a valid
source of income. A fiery debate is also on within legal circles on whether the use of the 10% rule the quantum of disproportionate
assets an accused is allowed before it becomes an offence as used in Krishnanand Agnihotri is applicable at all to Jayalalithaa as
her case involves crores of rupees with a charge of corruption while in office.
It is in Jayas interest that she gets cleared by the Supreme Court, said senior Supreme Court lawyer Rajeev Dhavan. Without that,
huge doubts will hang over the Bangalore High Court verdict. It appears that there are grievous blunders whether in calculation,
construction costs or wedding costs. There are huge doubts whether the 10% rule can really be applied when figures are larger than
say, Rs 5 lakhs. This matter needs to be agitated before the Supreme Court for reasons of justice as well as reasons of error, he said.
Jayalalithaa, who took charge once again as Tamil Nadu Chief Minister following her acquittal, will contest a by-election for a Tamil
Nadu assembly seat on June 27 even as the decision on Karnatakas appeal hangs over her head.
The Wire tried reaching a number of AIADMK leaders but none among them was willing to comment either on the computational errors
in the High Court order or the Karnataka governments decision to move the Supreme Court.
Allegations of Corruption against Justice C.R. Kumaraswamy who acquitted Jayalalithaa By: Apoorva Mandhani
Justice C.R. Kumaraswamy, who acquitted Tamil Nadu Chief Minister J. Jayalalithaa in the disproportionate assets case recently, has
reportedly been accused of acquiring property without following certain norms. The allegations have been leveled by Karnataka
Brastachara Nirmoolana Vedike, a group of RTI activists and advocates working towards eradication of corruption in the State. They
have alleged that Justice Kumaraswamy had acquired properties in Bengaluru and Mysuru through Bangalore Development Authority
(BDA), Karnataka Housing Board (KHB) and Karnataka State Judicial Employees Housing Society by violating certain norms in the site
allotment rules and house building society bye-laws.
The group has posted the complaint to the President of India, the Chief Justice of India and the Chief Justice of Karnataka High Court,
demanding a detailed enquiry and initiation of appropriate legal proceedings against the Judge. As per a Deccan Chronicle report,
documents obtained under the Right to Information Act by Advocate A.R.S. Kumar reveal that Justice Kumaraswamy was allotted a flat
No. 180, HIG B-3, First Floor, Block 100 in Kengeri 3rd stage by the Karnataka Housing Board in 1997 while he was serving as a district
and sessions judge in Kolar. After this allotment, he submitted one more application to the board seeking allotment for a house under
High Income Group (HIG) at Hootagally Colony in KHB Colony, Mysuru in 2001. While working as District and Sessions Judge in
Bellary then, he got the Kengeri flat allotment cancelled and acquired the independent house in Hootagally Colony in Mysuru on
exchange. In the year 2005, Kumaraswamys wife M.N. Nagarathnamma who had applied for a BDA site since 1987, in her 6th attempt
got a plot measuring 3040 allotted to her in Jnanabharathi Layout, Block 1 in Valagerahalli.
The group has alleged that in her application to the BDA, the Judges wife had concealed the facts about the allotment/cancellation of
their Kengeri flat and acquisition of the independent house in Hootagally Colony in Mysuru by her husband. In 2005, Justice
Kumaraswamy had made a voluntary disclosure on the Karnataka High Court website, which disclosed his flat in Divya Manor
Apartments on Venkataswamy Raju Road in Palace Guttahalli in Kumarapark West. In 2006, the Karnataka Judicial Employees
Housing Building Co-Operative Society Limited went ahead and allotted site no. 176 measuring 4000 square feet in Judicial Layout,
Phase 2 in Shivanagar to Kumaraswamy, violating allotment rules and bye-laws of the House Building Co-Operative Society,
Advocate Kumar said. In May this year, Justice C.R. Kumaraswamy had allowed the appeals filed by Jayalalithaa and others and
reversed the conviction ordered by the trial court. The Trial Court had convicted and sentenced Jayalalithaa and her 3 associates to
four years in prison besides imposing a Rs 100 crore fine, on September 27 last year. You may read the judgment here. The Karnataka
Government had filed a 2700 page petition on 23rd June saying that the Karnataka High Courts judgment was a farce, and that
arithmetical errors made the judgment illegal.
The petition has also added that the judgment had resulted in the miscarriage of justice and should be quashed. You may read the
LiveLaw story here. You may read more news about Jayalalithaas DA Case here. Justice Kumaraswamy was elevated as a judge of
the High Court in 2005 from the cadre of district judges. He was made a permanent judge in March 2007. With his retirement,
Karnataka High Court is reduced to 50% of its sanctioned strength. You may also read: 37% Judges posts vacant in 24 High Courts in
India
Read more at: http://www.livelaw.in/allegations-of-corruption-against-justice-c-r-kumaraswamy-who-acquitted-jayalalithaa/
PIL Justice Delayed & Justice Denied
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. OF 2016
IN THE MATTER OF
NAGARAJA . M.R
editor SOS e Clarion of Dalit & SOS e Voice for Justice

.
....Petitioner
Versus
Honourable Chief Justice of India
& Others
....Respondents
To ,
Hon'ble The Chief Justice of India and His Lordship's Companion
Justices of the Supreme Court of India.

a. Every human being , every Indian citizen are equal and guaranteed equitable justice as their human right and Constitutional
right.
b. In india mafia of powers that be and government ensure that cases drag on for years , so that poor litigant either dies before
judgement day or opts out in the middle. Due to this delaying tactics , many poor people rather suffer injustice instead of seeking
justice in courts. Mafia indirectly forces them to keep away from litigation.
c. Due to occupation induced health problems my health is deteriorating day by day , some of the PILs concerning national security ,
public welfare I have filed are two decades old , still no justice in sight. Judges not even admitted the cases.
d. Actual working hours , working days for judges are less in india. Too many case adjournments , less number of judges , too many
holidays for judges like summer vacation , winter vacation , working hours less than 8 hours per day , etc.
e. Judges work less but enjoy 5 star pay & perks at public expense.
f. Due to denial of justice common people suffer injustice for more time or till their death. Say some falsely implicated persons suffer
in jail for years till their acquittal by courts , some petty criminals whose crime attracts one year imprisonment suffers in jail for ten
years. Because they are not well connected , cannt afford hi fi advocates , bail fees.
g. Due to lethargic judiciary , some land acquisition cases

escalates by hundreds thousands of crores of rupees.
drag on for years land looser suffers also the project cost
h. The lethargic Judiciary in India itself is the biggest violator of common mans human rights , fundamental rights. It is the culprit
responsible for loss of thousands of crores of rupees to public exchequer due to project cost escalations.
i. when a common mans human rights , human rights is violated in the form of delaying tactics by court of law , judiciary , the
presiding judge becomes a criminal and liable to pay damages to the aggrieved.
j. The central government and state government yearly spend thousands of crores of rupees unnecessarily like purchasing new
cars for ministers , renovation , interior decorations of ministers bungalows , foreign jaunts , etc. These are all not priority one
spending. Out of these spending how many more judges could be appointed , paid salaries.
k. when compared to project cost escalations of thousands of crores of rupees caused due to case delays , is it not wise on the
part of government to appoint requisite number of judges with additional budget burden of few crores of rupees.
l. Both central and state governments are the biggest litigants in the country.
m. Government is manipulating judicial process by denying finance to appoint more judges , to create more court infrastructures.
n. We common people are imposed with time limits to mandatorily comply with, in our interactions with other public , with government
authorities , with courts itself. For our failures we common people are penalized.
0. Paradoxically , there is no mandatory time limits for judges , public servants to finish specific works concerning public. In most of
the cases they adopt delaying tactics , deny justice still they are not penalized and dont pay any compensation to the aggrieved
public.
p. Due to delaying tactics of judges , many anti national crimes , terror attacks took place and still continuing which could have been
well averted in time if judges took timely action. For helping mafia by the way of delayed justice , mafia rewards some of those
judges with post retirement postings , promotions , site allotments , etc.
q. The Judiciary has the right , authority , power to order government to allocate finance for appointing judges , setting up court
infrastructure. If the government gives ruse of no money in its account , courts can definitely monitor spending of government ,
cut down on waste , non-priority spending of government , divert such money for appointment of judges , court infrastructure
development. No need for CJI to weep before prime minister. Judges themselves never consider the sufferings of weeping
litigants. It shows the weakness of CJI and a shame to our nation.
We once again appeal to Honourable CJI , Supreme Court of India to take action on the following PILs , to answer the show cause
notice and to order the concerned public servants to answer RTI questions. The officials of SCI dont even have etiquette , decorum
to reply to our letters. Some of my appeals are two decades old.
Remember the basic fact you are all enjoying 5 star pay , perks at the expense of public and owe your duty to public. Are not
judges drawing huge salaries , 5 star pay , perks on time without fail , on 01st of every month? Have they forgotten to take salary in
25 years , but they keep cases pending for 20 - 25 years. CJI weeping before Prime Minister shows the weakness of the judiciary
& a shame to the nation. Judges never consider sufferings of weeping litigants in cases. Judges themselves are responsible for
long pending cases.
Dont refer the case to police as they dont have power , authority to enquire high & mighty people , judges & previously they have
failed and the case is to subject some police officials , judges themselves to enquiry. Referring the case to police is nothing but
attempt to bury the truth , only supreme court monitored transparent enquiry by CBI is right.
Delaying tactics of judges is only helping the criminals , anti nationals and terrorists. Please refer below mentioned sample cases
of Justice delayed for years to innocents , sufferings of their family members. No judges , police are bothered. Are not the the
respective judges , police guilty of defaming those innocent persons , spoiling their livelihood , gross violation of their civil rights ? why
not those guilty judges , police are paying compensation to victims of their wrong actions ? But the very same guilty judges , police
are SHAMELESSLY enjoying 5 star pay perks from public exchequer for decades.
Bail system , Parole system are in favour of rich crooks in india , cases of rich crooks move at faster pace wheeas the cases of poor
which are although older still continues. Judiciary , its system are biased. Consider the sample cases of sanjay dutt , salman khan ,
jayalaita. Our judges , Police dont have spine to enforce rule of law on rich crooks , while they put full force , might on poor innocents.
If anything untoward happens to me or to my dependents Chief Justice of India together with jurisdiction police & District Collector
will be responsible for it.
Rot in judiciary is decades old. Honourable CJI sir , weeping is not right constitution of india has given you the authority , TAKE
ACTION DO YOUR DUTY. People , History will remember you forever with respect. Anyway you are getting very good 5 star pay &
perks , will also get decent pension after retirement from government. First forget about post retirement postings , discretionary
allotment of sites , etc from government then you can work fearlessly. Both central & state governments are biggest litigants in the
country , IAS babus make wrong application , interpretation of laws leading to litigations. Start by clearing the rotten eggs within the
judiciary. When judiciary & police in a country strictly uphold law , work impartially that country surpasses even heaven.
Do remember on the D Day , in the Court of Almighty everybody CJI , Judges , prime ministers , common man alike has to bow his
head. In whos court there is no match fixing , no techinicalities , no vociferous hi fi advocates , no bias based on caste , religion ,
region , community , etc , only straight simple account of wrongs & rights. Guess his judgement in your case. GOD BLESS US ALL.
Is it right for judges to deny justice . is it right on the part of judges to delay justice under various ruses to common man , violate their
human rights , fundamental rights.
3. Grounds:
Requests for equitable justice , Prosecution of judges , police , public servants responsible for case delays.
4. Averment:
Please read details at :
Honourable Chief Justice of India TAKE ACTION
https://sites.google.com/site/eclarionofdalit/honourable-cji-take-action ,
https://www.scribd.com/doc/312858947/Honourable-CJI-Take-Action
the concerned public servants in the following cases to perform their duties & to answer the questions.
The Petitioner has sent many letters / appeals / petitions to supreme court of india & other courts through e-mail , DARPG website &
through regular mail requesting them to consider those as PILs. But none ofthem were admitted , even acknowledgement for receipts
were not given. See How duty conscious ,our judges are & see how our judges are sensitive towards life , liberty of citizens , common
men & see how careless our judges are towards anti national crimes , crimes worth crores of rupees. That the present petitioner has
not filed any other petition (which are admitted by courts) in any High Court or the Supreme Court of India on the subject matter of the
present petition.
PRAYER:
instructions to the concerned public servants , Tax Authorities , Law Enforcement Agencies , RBI authorities in the following cases to
perform their duties & to answer the below RTI questions.
c. To legally prosecute responsible , concerned
judges , police & public servants.
d. To cancel winter , summer vacation holidays for judges.
e. To bring down the holidays of courts per year to twelve on the lines of industrial establishments.
f. To make it mandatory for judges to conduct court hearings for 8 hours per day.
g. To bring down unnecessary court adjournments.
h. to reserve precious court timings only for arguments , cross examination of litigants , witnesses.
i. to use information technology , internet for issue of notices , summons and litigants submitting documents , applications instead
of wasting court time.
j. to introduce working of courts on shift basis in the same infrastructure.
k. to appoint retired judges immediately to bring down gaps in judges requirement.
l. to order the biggest litigant government of india and all state governments to frame laws strictly in accordance with
constitution.
m. to order governments to give proper training for public servants , IAS officers , KAS officers , others about law of the land.
o. to make specific public servants personally responsible for wrong applications of law while discharging their duties and to make
them pay compensation from their personal pockets.
p. to order Chief Justice of India to pay compensation of Rupees TWO CRORES to Nagaraja Mysuru Raghupathi editor SOS e
Clarion of Dalit & SOS e Voice for Justice , towards the damages he has suffered due to delayed justice.
q. to order the respective judges , police in all cases of case delays more specifically in the below mentioned cases to pay
compensation to innocent victims. Make a guideline for compensation payment. Legally prosecute guilty judges , police.
r. to frame a guideline for bail & parole procedure. When it is violated by judges , police , jail authorities , other public servants order
them to pay compensation and legally prosecute guilty judges , police , jail officials.
Dated : 08.06.2016 .FILED BY: NAGARAJA.M.R.
Place : Mysuru , India. PETITIONER-IN-PERSON
CJI a Criminal ?
Case of Fence eating the crops ? Guard himself stealing ? Accountability of Judges a MUST

IN THE MATTER OF
NAGARAJA . M.R ,
editor , SOS e Clarion of Dalit & SOS e Voice for Justice ,
# LIG 2 , No 761 , HUDCO First Stage , Laxmikantanagar ,
.....Petitioner
Versus
Honourable Chief Justice of India & Others

...Respondents
THE NATURE OF
MANDAMUS UNDER ARTICLE 32 & ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.
To ,
Justices of the Supreme Court of India. The Humble petition of the Petitioner above named.
Our whole hearted respects to honest few in judiciary , parliament & public service. Our salutes to them , due to honest efforts of those
few noble persons only at least democracy is surviving in India.
A . "Power will go to the hands of rascals, , rogues and freebooters. All Indian leaders will be of low calibre and men of straw. They will
India & Pakistan. Sadly , the forewarning of Late Winston Churchill has been proved right by some of our criminal , corrupt peoples
representatives , police , public servants & Judges. Some of the below mentioned judges fall among the category of churchills men
Rogues , Rascals & Freebooters.
B . As per the preamble of the constitution of India all the people , all Indian citizens are equal in every respect , equally entitled to
justice , equally responsible to uphold constitution . Only People , Citizens of India are supreme No Judges , No Ministers , etc are
supreme. Judges , ministers , president etc are all public servants constitutionally mandated to SERVE the public , NOT to master over
them. Even after 69 years of independence these judges , ministers have not come out of colonial hangover instead become worse
treating general public as their servants.
C . Every institution in india is directly or indirectly accountable to people , however judiciary alone is not transparent not giving
accounts of its actions to people.
D . Judges enjoy 5 star pay & perks , making merry at the cost of peoples money , public exchequer , but are not giving accounts of
their actions to people , not transparent to the public eye. They are not even honouring RTI applications seeking information about
actions of judges , because corrupt judges will be caught red handed.
E . Judges are not super humans nor super brains nor from moon or mars , they are ordinary mortals from the society around us and
just like us capable of doing good work as well falling prey to human lures like bribe , corruption , favoritism , etc.
F. Judges think they are sole custodians of constitution of india , in fact every citizen of india is a custodian of constitution of india.
G . Collegium of judges is nothing but a coterie , a MAFIA proof - unfit corrupt persons like dinakaran , another judge involved in mysore
roost resort sex scandal being selected by SCI collegium promoted to the apex court. It is just the tip of iceberg , behind the judicial veil
of secrecy many corrupt judges are hiding. Hereby , I challenge Honourable supreme court of india that subject to conditions I will bring
to book corrupt judges who are hiding behind the veil. Are you ready ?
H . When compared to some corrupt judges who are nothing but criminals , a drain , parasites on our public exchequer , society , the
child workers who are hard working earning less than rupees 32 a day are far better , great human beings.
I . Ofcourse when the court identifies that intentions of an act of parliament as unconstitutional , it has the right to strike it down to
uphold the supremacy of constitution. NJAC Act passed by parliament was in fact filling a legal vaccum about accountability & selection
of judges and in turn strengthening the constitution of india. But by striking down NJAC Act of government of india , supreme court of
india is weakening constitution of india , making contempt of parliament , constitution & all Indian citizens. If at all supreme court was
really sincere it could have suggested more alternatives for transparent , accountable judiciary with appropriate transparent provisions
for guarding judicial independence.
J . When government of india passed unconstitutional acts like land acquisition bill , special status to Kashmir , against uniform civil
code promoted unequal differing civil laws for various religion people and Bhopal gas victims act , nuclear energy act , etc , did it not
dawn on supreme court of india that it is the sole custodian of constitution ? then why not SCI strike down those unconstitutional
parliamentary acts ?
K . It is the duty of Supreme Court of India to Protect , Guard the constitutional rights of every Indian citizens . Since 25 years I am
appealing to SCI about issues concerning public welfare , national security , etc and as a result suffering injustices , my constitutional
rights , human rights are repeatedly violated but SCI is mum even when repeated appeals were made to it. Paradoxically , after these
appeals for justice , I have suffered more injustices , attempts on my life were made , physically assaulted , livelihood / jobs were
denied , news publication closed , press accreditation denied , received threatening calls , blank calls, even to date rough elements
follow us , rough elements scout near home at mid night. Does not these indicate some ties between rough elements & SCI Judges ?
L . Eventhough the information is readily available with SCI , information was denied citing unavailability. If at all information is not truly
available , why didnt the CPIO TRANSFER rti application to concerned departments of SCI , Ministry of Law , Justice , Respective High
Courts , etc.
M . Does not court administarative officer posess SERVICE REECORDS of each employee including judges. If not on what basis they
give promotions , transfers , salary , etc to judges ? The person who posess SR can give infor mation about guilty judges. Why CPIO
not asking that person to share infor mation ?
N . If a commonman is alleged of a petty crime he is immediately arrested , put behind bars. Police spend thousands of rupees for
investigation to prosecute that petty criminal. Judges spend hours to hear that case & prepare judgements running into tens of pages
sometimes even over & above thousand pages. Fine . When the very same police & judge themselves committ grave crimes
detrimental to national security , integrity , etc , no arrests , no prosecution only cover-up , WHY ? Are Judges & Police above Law ? Is
Judges MAFIA at play ?
O . The action of CPIO SCI amounts to cover up of judges & their crimes. Thereby , CPIO is also committing a crime. With respect to
previous RTI Appeals also CPIO & RTI First Appellate Authority SCI have repeatedly committed crimes by covering up judges & their
crimes. Billions of indians are barely sustaining on a single piece meal a day , we lower middle class people toiling hard to earn a few
hundreds of rupees but still paying tax. Is it not shame to them / shame to JUDGEs that they draw pay & perks amounting to lakhs of
rupees from our money , from taxes paid by us still not do their constitutional duties properly.
P . When a Judge Himself Commits Crime , When a POLICE Himself robs , Murders .
The public servants & the government must be role models in law abiding acts , for others to emulate & follow. if a student makes a
mistake it is excusable & can be corrected by the teacher. if the teacher himself makes a mistake , all his students will do the same
mistake. if a thief steals , he can be caught , legally punished & reformed . if a police himself commits crime , many thieves go scot-free
under his patronage. even if a police , public servant commits a crime , he can be legally prosecuted & justice can be sought by the
aggrieved.
just think , if a judge himself that too apex court of the land itself commits crime - violations of RTI Act , constitutional rights & human
rights of public and obstructs the public from performing their constitutional fundamental duties , what happens ?
it gives a booster dose to the rich & mighty , those in power , criminals in public service to commit more crimes. that is exactly what is
happening in india. the educated public must raise to the occasion & peacefully , democratically must oppose this criminalization of
judiciary , public service. then alone , we can build a RAM RAJYA OF MAHATMA GANDHI'S DREAM.
I have shown in the following attachment how justice is bought , purchased , manipulated in INDIA with actual cases. Just see the
recent examples of supreme court judges involved in sexual assault case & ROOST Resort Mysore Sex scandal involving judges , if
any ordinary fellow had committed the same crimes he would have been hauled over the coal fire. Just take another recent example of
Prisoner Movie actor sanjay dutt , TADA provisions were diluted by the judge to favour him and now he is getting parole week after
week while the ordinary convicts never get a single parole throught their sentence. What Brilliant Judges , what brilliant police sirji.
Are Judges above Law & can go scot free ? Can judges cheat , rape , swindle others and go scot free without legal prosecution ? Why
guilty CJIs were not legally prosecuted in a fair & transparent manner ?
3. Grounds:
Requests for equitable justice , free expression & protection to life & liberty. Transparency , accountability in selection & functioning of
Judges.
4. Averment:
GIVE WHAT ACTION HAS BEEN TAKEN AGAINST THE GUILTY JUDGES MENTIONED IN THE BELOW MENTIONED WEB SITES &
FOLLOWING ARTICLES.
We salute honest few in public service , Judiciary , police , parliament & state legislative assemblies. our whole hearted respects to
them. HEREBY , I DO HUMBLY REQUEST YOU TO GIVE ME WRITTEN STATEMENTS / ANSWERS TO THE FOLLOWING
QUESTIONS WHICH IN ITSELF ( ie answers ) ARE THE INFORMATION SOUGHT BY ME. HERE WITH I AM SEEKING NOT THE
OPINIONS ABOUT SOME HYPOTHETICAL ISSUES , BUT YOUR OFFICIAL STAND , LEGAL STAND ON ISSUES WHICH ARE OF
FREQUENT OCCURRENCE WHICH ARE VIOLATING PEOPLES FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS & HUMAN RIGHTS. WE DO HAVE
HIGHEST RESPECTS FOR JUDICIARY & ALL PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS , THIS IS AN APPEAL FOR TRUTH , INFORMATION SO
THAT TO APPREHEND CORRUPT FEW IN PUBLIC SERVICE, WHO ARE AIDING & ABETTING TERRORISM , UNDERWORLD &
CRIMINALS. I HAVE SHOWN IN DETAIL WITH LIVE , ACTUAL CASES , EXAMPLES , HOW INDIAN LEGAL SYSTEM IS
MANIPULATED BY CRIMINALS WITHIN JUDICIARY , POLICE , PROSECUTION , ETC. READ DETAILS AT :



Rajiv Gandhi Assassination Cover-up

https://sites.google.com/site/sosevoiceforjustice/rajiv-gandhi-assassination-cover-up ,
SHAME SHAME MPs & MLAs

https://sites.google.com/site/sosevoiceforjustice/shame-shame-mps-mlas ,

RTI & Land Golmaal

Hereby , we do request CPIO O/O Honourable Chief Justice of India , Supreme Court of India , New Delhi to answer the following
questions in public interest , for safeguarding national security , National unity & integrity & to legally apprehend anti-nationals ,
criminals within the judiciary & police. Judges are not superior human beings , some of them have even became judges through
devious means other than merit , integrity. Judges are public servants drawing salary & perks from public exchequer and accountable to
public as any other common man is.
We salute our freedom fighters , military personnel & martyrs for all the sacrifices made by them. Let us build a strong , Secular ,
Democratic India by getting rid off few corrupt elements , anti nationals , traitors among public servants , among judiciary & among
police who are greater threat to Indias unity & integrity than Pakistani terrorists or chinese military.
Information input forms part of process of ones expression. Ones expression in any forms written , oral , etc becomes information
input to the opposite person , in turn he expresses his reply. Information & Expression are inseparable parts & form lifeline of a
democracy. That is the reason , Right to Expression is the basic fundamental right as well as human right of every Indian citizen. When
a persons right to expression is violated , his other rights to equality , justice , etc also are violated. Suppression of Information
amounts to curbing of Expression.
In a democracy , people have a right to know how the public servants are functioning. However till date public servants are hiding
behind the veil of Officials Secrets Act (which is of british vintage created by british to suppress native indians). By this cover-up public
servants are hiding their own corruption , crimes , mismanagement , failures , etc. even RTI Act is not being followed intoto by public
servants. However the recent delhi high court ruling affirming that CJI is under RTI purview & bound to answer RTI request , is
noteworthy.
Our previous RTI request to CJI , union home secretary of GOI, President of India , DG & IGP of GOK and others were not honored.
The information I sought were answers to the following questions mentioned in the below mentioned websites . the questions
concerned the past , present continuing injustices meted out to millions of Indian citizens , due to wrong / illegal work practices of Indian
judges , police & public servants . The information we sought would expose the traitors , anti-nationals , criminals in public service. The
information we are seeking are no defense secrets , no national secrets. The truthful information exposes the anti-nationals , traitors in
the public service & strengthens our national security , national unity & integrity.
Hereby , i do request the honourable supreme court of india , for a Supreme Court monitored CBI Enquiry into this whole issue as
karnataka police are helpless , they don't have legal powers to prosecute high & mighty , constitutional functionaries. They have not
even enquired the guilty VVIPs even once however Under pressure from higher-ups they repeatedly called me the complainant to
police station took statements from me all for closing the files.
through regular mail requesting them to consider those as PILs. But none of them were admitted , even acknowledgement for receipts
were not given. See How duty conscious ,our judges are & see how our judges are sensitive towards life , liberty of citizens ,
commonmen & see how careless our judges are towards anti national crimes , crimes worth crores of rupees.
PRAYER:
(i) Hereby , I do request the honorable supreme court of India to consider this as a PIL for : writ of Mandamus and to issue instructions
to the concerned public servants in the following cases to perform their duties & to answer the questions.
(ii) Hereby , I do request the honourble supreme court of india to make public all the proceedings of supreme court collegiums and
correspondence between SCI , Presidents office & government of india regarding selection of judges. To make public all the eligibility
criteria followed for selection of judges and who filled what criteria , who didnt fill which criteria and the final ranking.
(iii) Hereby , I do request the honourble supreme court of india to uphold the constitution of india and to protect the constitutional rights
of all Indian citizens including mine.
(iv) Hereby , I do request the honourble supreme court of india to uphold the constitution of india , to protect the constitutional rights ,
human rights of all Indian citizens including mine and to enable , facilitate all Indian citizens to perform their Fundamental Duties as per
constitution.
(v) to pass such other orders and further orders as may be deemed necessary on the facts and in the circumstances of the case.
Read : https://sites.google.com/site/sosevoiceforjustice/pil---writ-of-mandamus-1 ,
Date : 29th October 2015Filed By : Nagaraja.M.R.

Place : Mysuru IndiaPetitioner in person
Mercy Death Plea to Honourable Chief Justice of India

IN THE MATTER OF
NAGARAJA . M.R
....Petitioner
Versus
Honourable Chief Justice of India , Supreme Court of India & Others

....Respondents
To ,
Justices of the Supreme Court of India. The Humble petition of the
Petitioner above named.

India & Pakistan. Sadly , the forewarning of Late Winston Churchill has been proved right by some of our criminal , corrupt public
servants.
2. As a result of fighting for public causes , public good I have individually sufferred numerous injustices and still sufferring injustices.
My newspaper publication was illegally closed down , my web news paper not given with press accredition , my job oppurtunities in RBI
Note press , PES Engineering college , NIE Engineering college , Mysore district court , etc snatched away illegally , I was beaten up ,
attempts on my life were made even after bringing threats to my life were brought to notice of supreme court of india. See how duty
duty conscious our supreme court judges are ? all these sufferrings for public causes I have raised & to silence me.
Are police & Judges above law ? Can Judges & Police Comitt crimes , go scot free ? Can Judges & Police intentionally neglect ( to aid
criminals ) their duties , while shamelessly drawing tens of thousands of rupees monthly salary & perks on time without fail from public
exchequer.
3. Grounds:
Requests for equitable justice , Prosecution of corrupt public servants , corrupt judges , corrupt police. Request for supreme court
orders to judges & police to perform their duties properly.
4. Averment:
Read the actual case details at following web pages involving judges & police in crimes. The criminal network , corruption net work ,
MAFIA of Judges & Police is strong , whenever one of their members is accussed , others white wash , bury the case in the name of
investigation. Transparent , impartial investigation as in the case of common man is not at all done.
We respect the honest few in judiciary , police & public service. Those honest few are also becoming parties to crime by becoming
silent , by not doing their duties , by not arresting their corrupt colleagues. Their by they are covering up crime & aiding criminals to
commit more crimes.
Due to these type of corrupt judges & corrupt police innocents, commoners land in jails and some are even hanged for crimes not
commited by them , while the rich crooks roam free.
The corrupt judges & corrupt police are shameless people , parasites in our society. They take tens of thousands of rupees monthly
salary & perks from our money , tax payers money and still dont do their duties properly. The judges give sermons , judgements
running into hundreds of pages when their own folk is in the dock , caught for crimes they intentionally fall silent. The police use filthy
language , use 3rd degree torture against commoners , innocents when their own folk is in the dock , caught for crimes , dacoity they
dont use filthy language nor they use 3rd degree torture . Even in fit cases where alleged Judges & Police can be given death sentence
, they are spared , why ?
Please dont send police again to my home neither refer my case to police. They dont have practical powers to inquire high & mighty
judges. They will come to my home , call me to police station , will take a statement from me & will close the file by sending it to head
quarters. This has happened previously number of times. If you are honest in intent , Please constitute an impartial , transparent
empowered Inquiry committee to deal this case.
The judges , police & public servants intentionally delay taking action in cases and withhold giving information in time , so that
evidences are buried in time , gets destroyed and time lapse occurs resulting in the case becoming time barred. Some of PILs
submitted by us are 20 years old concerning national security and I was also eligible for free legal aid at the time of application - still the
judges & police didnt take appropriate action however they shamelessly took thousands of rupees salary , perks from our money. Till
date no justice in sight instead more injustices meted out to me as a result of this crusade. THESE INCAPABLE JUDGES & POLICE
ARE UNFIT FOR THE POSITIONS THEY OCCUPY , IF THEY CANNT PROVIDE JUSTICE ATLEAST GIVE ME MERCY DEATH.
I ,NAGARAJA.M.R. hereby do declare that information given above are true to the best of my knowledge & belief. If i am repeatedly
called to police station or else where for the sake of investigations , the losses i do incurr as a result like loss of wages , transportation ,
job , etc must be borne by the government. prevoiusly the police / IB personnel repeatedly called me the complainant (sufferer of
injustices) to police station for questioning , but never called the guilty culprits , rich crooks , criminals even once to police station for
questioning , as the culprits are high & mighty . this type of one sided questioning must not be done by police or investigating agencies .
if anything untoward happens to me or to my family members like loss of job , meeting with hit & run accidents , loss of lives , death due
to improper medical care , etc , the jurisdictional police together with above mentioned accussed public servants will be responsible for
it. Even if criminal nexus levels fake charges , police file fake cases against me or my dependents to silence me , this complaint is & will
be effective.
If I or my family members or my dependents are denied our fundamental rights , human rights , denied proper medical care for
ourselves , If anything untoward happens to me or to my dependents or to my family members - In such case Chief Justice of India
together with the jurisdictional revenue & police officials will be responsible for it , in such case the government of india is liable to pay
Rs. TWO crore as compensation to survivors of my family. if my whole family is eliminated by the criminal nexus ,then that
compensation money must be donated to Indian Army Welfare Fund. Afterwards , the money must be recovered by GOI as land arrears
from the salary , pension , property , etc of guilty police officials , Judges , public servants & Constitutional fuctionaries.
commonmen & see howcareless our judges are towards anti national crimes , crimes worth crores of rupees. That the present
petitioner has not filed any other petition (which are admitted by courts) in any High Court or the Supreme Court of India on the subject
matter of the present petition.
PRAYER:
instructions to the concerned public servants in the following cases to perform their duties & to answer the questions.
c. To legally prosecute the public servants who are responsible for not giving press accreditation to my web news papers , myself as a
journalist and responsible for closure of my news papers.
d. To legally prosecute authorities of M/s RPG Cables Ltd , who denied job opportunities to me under the behest of criminals
responsible for late PM Rajiv Gandhi assassination case.
e. To legally prosecute authorities of M/s PES College of Engineering , who denied job opportunities to me under the behest of criminals
f. To legally prosecute authorities of M/s National Institute of Engineering , who denied job opportunities to me under the behest of
criminals responsible for late PM Rajiv Gandhi assassination case.
g. To legally prosecute authorities of M/s Reserve Bank Note Nudran Pvt Ltd , who denied job opportunities to me under the behest of
h. To legally prosecute authorities of Mysore District Courts & Bangalore District Courts , who denied job opportunities to me under the
behest of criminals responsible for late PM Rajiv Gandhi assassination case.
i. To legally prosecute persons responsible for attempts on my life.
j. to legally prosecute judges , police & CBI officials responsible for cover-up of late PM Rajiv Gandhi assassination case.
K . To provide protection to life , liberty , livelihood , jobs of me , my family members & dependants.
l. To reopen , reinvestigate assassination case of Late PM Rajiv Gandhi.
m. To legally prosecute authorities of supreme court of india for not answering show cause notice issued to them and order them to
answer the show cause notice as well as RTI questions given to them by the petitioner.
n. To conduct an impartial , transparent supreme court monitored enquiry into cases mentioned by me.
o. To admit all PILs filed by me in larger public interest.
p. To initiate criminal prosecution of public servants , police & judges who are trying to cover up crime and criminals by denying me
information , by not taking action on our appeals , PILs.
q. To award me a compensation of RUPEES TWO CRORES towards the losses I have sufferred and injustices I am still going through
for fighting for public causes.
r. To recover compensation amount as land arrears from guilty police , guilty judges & guilty public servants individually.
s. To permit me to work in the investigation team , to assist them in investigation subject to conditions .
t . to pass such other orders and further orders as may be deemed necessary on the facts and in the circumstances of the case.
u. THESE INCAPABLE JUDGES & POLICE ARE UNFIT FOR THE POSITIONS THEY OCCUPY , IF THEY CANNT PROVIDE
JUSTICE ATLEAST GIVE ME MERCY DEATH.
Dated : 16th September 2015 .FILED BY: NAGARAJA.M.R.

Place : Mysuru , India...PETITIONER-IN-PERSON
PIL Justice to Human Rights Activist

IN THE MATTER OF
NAGARAJA . M.R
....Petitioner
Versus
Honourable Chief Justice of India , Supreme Court of India & Others

....Respondents
To ,
Justices of the Supreme Court of India. The Humble petition of the
Petitioner above named.

India & Pakistan. Sadly , the forewarning of Late Winston Churchill has been proved right by some of our criminal , corrupt public
servants.
2. As a result of fighting for public causes , public good I have individually sufferred numerous injustices and still sufferring injustices.
My newspaper publication was illegally closed down , my web news paper not given with press accredition , my job oppurtunities in RBI
Note press , PES Engineering college , NIE Engineering college , Mysore district court , etc snatched away illegally , I was beaten up ,
attempts on my life were made even after bringing threats to my life were brought to notice of supreme court of india. See how duty
duty conscious our supreme court judges are ? all these sufferrings for public causes I have raised & to silence me.
Are police & Judges above law ? Can Judges & Police Comitt crimes , go scot free ?
3. Grounds:
Requests for equitable justice , Prosecution of corrupt public servants , corrupt judges , corrupt police.
4. Averment:
commonmen & see howcareless our judges are towards anti national crimes , crimes worth crores of rupees. That the present
petitioner has not filed any other petition (which are admitted by courts) in any High Court or the Supreme Court of India on the subject
matter of the present petition.
PRAYER:
instructions to the concerned public servants in the following cases to perform their duties & to answer the questions.
c. To legally prosecute the public servants who are responsible for not giving press accreditation to my web news papers , myself as a
journalist and responsible for closure of my news papers.
d. To legally prosecute authorities of M/s RPG Cables Ltd , who denied job opportunities to me under the behest of criminals
e. To legally prosecute authorities of M/s PES College of Engineering , who denied job opportunities to me under the behest of criminals
f. To legally prosecute authorities of M/s National Institute of Engineering , who denied job opportunities to me under the behest of
g. To legally prosecute authorities of M/s Reserve Bank Note Mudran Pvt Ltd , who denied job opportunities to me under the behest of
h. To legally prosecute authorities of Mysore District Courts & Bangalore District Courts , who denied job opportunities to me under the
behest of criminals responsible for late PM Rajiv Gandhi assassination case.
i. To legally prosecute persons responsible for attempts on my life.
j. to legally prosecute judges , police & CBI officials responsible for cover-up of late PM Rajiv Gandhi assassination case.
K . To provide protection to life , liberty , livelihood , jobs of me , my family members & dependants.
l. To reopen , reinvestigate assassination case of Late PM Rajiv Gandhi.
m. To legally prosecute authorities of supreme court of india for not answering show cause notice issued to them and order them to
answer the show cause notice as well as RTI questions given to them by the petitioner.
n. To conduct an impartial , transparent supreme court monitored enquiry into cases mentioned by me.
o. To admit all PILs filed by me in larger public interest.
p. To initiate criminal prosecution of public servants , police & judges who are trying to cover up crime and criminals by denying me
information , by not taking action on our appeals , PILs.
q. To award me a compensation of RUPEES TWO CRORES towards the losses I have sufferred and injustices I am still going through
for fighting for public causes.
r. To recover compensation amount as land arrears from guilty police , guilty judges & guilty public servants individually.
s. To permit me to work in the investigation team , to assist them in investigation subject to conditions .
t . to pass such other orders and further orders as may be deemed necessary on the facts and in the circumstances of the case.
Dated : 23rd July 2015 .FILED BY: NAGARAJA.M.R.

Place : Mysuru , India.PETITIONER-IN-PERSON
DECLARATION
Name : ...........................NAGARAJA.M.R.
Address : ...................LIG-2 / 761 , HUDCO FIRST STAGE , OPP WATER WORKS OFFICE , LAKSHMIKANTANAGAR , HEBBAL , MYSORE - 570017 INDIA
Professional / Trade Title : S.O.S - e Voice For Justice
Periodicity : WEEKLY
Circulation : FOR FREE DISTRIBUTION ON WEB

Donations : NOT ACCEPTED. Self financing . Never accepted any donations , subscriptions either for ourselves or on behalf of other organizations / individuals .
Monetary gains : nil , never made any monetary gain by way of advertisements on my websites or web news paper or otherwise.
Owner/editor/printer/publisher : NAGARAJA.M.R.
Nationality : INDIAN
Body Donation : Physical Body of Nagaraja M R , Editor , S.O.S- e clarion of Dalit & S.O.S-e-Voice for Justice is donated to JSS Medical College ,
Mysore
( Donation No. 167 dated 22 / 10 / 2003 ) , In case of either Unnatural death or Natural Death at the hands of criminal nexus , my body must be
handed over to JSS Medical College , Mysore for the study purposes of medical students.
Eye Donation : Both EYES of Nagaraja M R , Editor , S.O.S- e clarion of Dalit & S.O.S-e-Voice for Justice are donated to Mysore Eye Bank , Mysore , In case of
either Unnatural death or Natural Death at the hands of criminal nexus , my eyes must be handed over to Mysore Eye Bank , Mysore WITHIN 6 Hours for
immediate eye transplantation to the needy.
Home page :
http://in.groups.yahoo.com/group/sosevoiceforjustice/ ,
http://groups.google.co.in/group/hrwepaper / ,
http://sites.google.com/site/sosevoiceforjustice / ,
http://evoiceofhumanrightswatch.wordpress.com/ ,
http://naghrw.tripod.com/evoice/ ,
http://e-voiceofhumanrightswatch.blogspot.com ,
http://paper.li/f-1368369249
Contact : naghrw@yahoo.com , nagarajhrw@hotmail.com ,

UID Aadhaar No : 5703 5339 3479
Cell : 91 8970318202
It is the duty of Supreme Court of India to Protect , Guard the constitutional rights , fundamental rights of every Indian citizen . Since 25 years I am
appealing to SCI about issues concerning public welfare , national security , etc and as a result suffering injustices , my constitutional rights , human
rights are repeatedly violated but SCI is mum even when repeated appeals were made to it. Paradoxically , after these appeals for justice , I have
suffered more injustices , attempts on my life were made , physically assaulted , livelihood / jobs were denied , news publication closed , press
accreditation denied , received threatening calls , blank calls, even to date rough elements follow us , rough elements scout near home at mid night.
Does not these indicate some ties between rough elements & SCI Judges ?
I ,NAGARAJA.M.R. hereby do declare that information given above are true to the best of my knowledge & belief. If i am repeatedly called to police station or else
where for the sake of investigations , the losses i do incurr as a result like loss of wages , transportation , job , etc must be borne by the government. prevoiusly the
police / IB personnel repeatedly called me the complainant (sufferer of injustices) to police station for questioning , but never called the guilty culprits even once to
police station for questioning , as the culprits are high & mighty . this type of one sided questioning must not be done by police or investigating agencies . if
anything untoward happens to me or to my family members like loss of job , meeting with hit & run accidents , loss of lives , death due to improper medical care ,
etc , the jurisdictional police , revenue officials , District Magistrate & Chief Justice of India together with above mentioned accused public servants will be
responsible for it. Even if criminal nexus levels fake charges , police file fake cases against me or my dependents to silence me , this complaint is & will be
effective.
If I or my family members or my dependents are denied our fundamental rights , human rights , denied proper medical care for ourselves , If anything untoward like
hit & run cases , murder attempts , unnatural deaths , etc happens to me or to my dependents or to my family members - In such case Chief Justice of India
together with the jurisdictional revenue & police officials will be responsible for it , in such case the government of india is liable to pay Rs. TWO crore as
compensation to survivors of my family. if my whole family is eliminated by the criminal nexus ,then that compensation money must be donated to Indian Army
Welfare Fund. Afterwards , the money must be recovered by GOI as land arrears from the salary , pension , property , etc of guilty police officials , guilty Judges ,
guilty public servants & guilty Constitutional fuctionaries.
Date : 21st September 2016
Yours sincerely ,
Place : Mysuru , India Nagaraja M R
Blast from the past: Ex-Orissa HC judge challenges his non-appointment as permanent judge in SC, bringing vagaries of old collegium system to the fore
By SCOI Report Tuesday, 15 March 2016 00:03
Following last years revival of the collegium system of judicial appointments by the Supreme Courts constitution bench, which quashed the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) last
year, the government is all set to revise the existing Memorandum of Procedure for appointment of judges of the Supreme Court and high courts, as suggested by the same bench.
But even as this exercise is under way, a rather curious case of an additional judge of the Orissa high court, who failed to be confirmed as a permanent judge of the same high court due to the
vagaries of the collegium system around 2010, is now before a Supreme Courts three-judge bench.
The bench, comprising of justices Ranjan Gogoi, Arun Mishra and Prafulla C Pant, on 14 March began hearing the SLP filed by Lalit Kumar Mishra, the former Additional Judge.
Mishras case is rather curious, and it is indeed surprising that his case was not brought to the notice of the constitution bench that heard the NJAC matter last year.
Mishra was appointed as additional judge of the Orissa high court for a period of two years from 17 January 2008, and after completion of two years, he was not made permanent judge.
Mishras other grievance was that he was unjustly reverted to the cadre of district judge from 17 January 2010, and was subsequently compulsorily retired from service.
His name was first recommended by the high court collegium for appointment as permanent judge to the Supreme Court collegium, before his term as additional judge came to an end.
Even as the Supreme Courts collegium was about to consider this recommendation, the high court collegium formally withdrew its recommendation, by writing to the then Chief Justice of India, KG
Balakrishnan, on the ground that an allegation that he manipulated marks stood proved.
As a result of this, according to Justice Gogoi, who had gone through Mishras appointment file, the Supreme Court collegium did not recommend his name to the government.
Mishras counsel, Raj Kumar Mehta, argued that the CJI, in his individual capacity, should not have decided not to appoint Mishra as a permanent Judge, as the supremacy of the collegium overrode
the individual opinion of the CJI
Mehta further argued that non-appointment of a person recommended as a judge must be based on reasons and these reasons ought to have been shared with Mishra by the then CJI
Mehta submitted that the CJIs consultation with other members of the collegium, in order to be effective, must have been in writing, as per the Supreme Courts judgment in the Second Judges case,
and therefore, whatever the reasons for non-appointment of Mishra must have been communicated by the then CJI to the other members of the collegium.
The implication, according to Mehta, was that as the Chief Justice Balakrishnan did not consult the collegium, while deciding not to appoint / recommend Mishra, his decision was vitiated.
Assailing Balakrishnans decision not to appoint Mishra as a permanent judge, Mehta submitted that Mishras response to the allegations against him must have been sought by the then collegium,
and by not doing so, it deprived Mishras right to be considered for the post of the permanent Judge.
Mehta further contended that even after non-appointment as a permanent judge, Mishra could not have been reverted to district judge, because he was not on probation.
Mishra had the right to be considered and confirmed as a high court judge by the plurality of the Supreme Courts collegium, and not by the CJI alone, in his individual capacity, he submitted.
When Mehta submitted that even the Supreme Courts collegium had recommended Mishras name to the government, before reversing his choice, the bench corrected him, and claimed that the
facts suggest that the Supreme Courts collegium did not recommend his name.
Justice Gogoi then narrated the sequence of facts as found in the appointment file.
The question that arises is whether the then chief justice Balakrishnan wrote to the law ministry with enclosures carrying the high court collegiums decision to recall the recommendation to appoint
Mishra, in his individual capacity, without consulting the Supreme Courts collegium.
The then CJI never placed it (the recommendation to not appoint Mishra) to the Supreme Courts collegium, even though right of consideration by the SC collegium is the vested interest of Mishra,
Mehta argued.
Mehta also submitted that the Supreme Courts nine-judge bench, in the Second Judges case, out of deference to the CJI, said that he may share the reasons for non-appointment with the person
who was recommended by the high court collegium. The word may used here out of deference to the CJI, must be understood as shall he contended.
When Mehta complained to the bench that he did not get access to Mishras appointment file, the bench asked the Additional Solicitor General, Maninder Singh, and the court Master to make the file
available for perusal within the court premises to Mehta, after the hearing, and put the file again in a sealed cover, to be reopened on the next day of hearing.
The hearing will continue on Monday in two weeks.
Gopal row reignites debate on how India chooses judges

By HARISH V. NAIR
PUBLISHED: 23:31 GMT, 26 June 2014
The Gopal Subramanium fiasco has once again raised questions over the collegium system that currently governs the appointment of judges in India.
Nominated by the Supreme Court collegium, which comprises the Chief Justice of India and four of the court's senior-most judges, for appointment as a judge in the
apex court, Subramanium was rejected by the Centre on the grounds of a CBI investigation allegedly linking him to the 2G scam.
Terming the Centre's decision mala fide, the former Solicitor General on Wednesday withdrew himself from the exercise, thus kicking off an unprecedented spat
between a judicial nominee and the Centre.
+1
Legal experts are unanimous in their opinion that any selection system that excludes the executive completely from the process of judicial appointment runs counter
to the basic democratic principle of institutional checks and balances, stressing that the exercise is far too crucial to be left entirely either to the whims of members of
the judiciary or the government.
"Meaningful consultation between the judiciary and the executive is the key. Appointment of judges should be a collective process (conducted) in harmony between
the executive and the judiciary this is what the memorandum of procedure says," said former Chief Justice of India M.N. Venkatachaliah.
Collapse
"These rules were violated in Subramanium's case, wherein a segregation of names was done by the executive without any authority," he added.
"The collegium system has collapsed.
"It has not been foolproof as undesirable elements still made their way in," retired Delhi High Court judge R.S. Sodhi said.
"In Subramanium's case, both he and the government are guilty of misdemeanour.
"While the government should not have gone public with confidential matters maligning his image, Subramanium should not have overreacted and waited for the
collegium's stand," he added.
The proposed Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC), which will forward to the President names of judicial nominees after a meaningful consultation between the
judiciary and the executive, has been envisaged as an alternative to the collegiums system, but remains nothing more than a proposal in Parliament.
Law Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad has already said that establishing the JAC is one of his chief priorities.
It was during the previous NDA regime that the first attempt was made to bring in an alternative to the collegium system. The then Law Minister Arun Jaitley
introduced a Bill in the Lok Sabha to this end, but it could not be taken to its logical conclusion owing to the dissolution of the House.
The UPA government's attempt to get parliamentary nod for the legislation pertaining to the Judicial Appointments Commission didn't succeed either, and the Bill
remains pending in the Rajya Sabha.
Kalmadi lawyer could be SC judge

The Supreme Court collegium is likely to recommend senior lawyer Uday U. Lalit for appointment as a judge of the apex court in the wake of former Solicitor General
Gopal Subramanium's withdrawal from the race.
Lalit has represented the CBI in many high-profile cases and is the special public prosecutor in the 2G scam case.
He represents former Congress MP Suresh Kalmadi in the CWG scam trial.
Lalit could not be contacted despite repeated attempts.
Quoting two independent sources, website Legallyindia.com said: "Lalit will meet the CJI on June 29 to inform him about his consent.
"A formal announcement is expected on June 30".
Gujarat Senior Yatin Ozawrites to CJI on High Court judges allegiance toModi, Amit Shah; Now facing contempt
http://barandbench.com/supreme-court-stays-contempt-gujarat-senior-yatin-oza-sought-transfer-hc-judge-justice/ ,
CJI's office comes under RTI ambit: Delhi HC

In a landmark verdict against the Supreme Court, the Delhi High Court on Tuesday held that the office of the Chief Justice of India comes within the ambit of the Right
to Information law, saying judicial independence is not a judge's privilege but a responsibility cast upon him.
The 88-page judgment is being seen as a personal setback to CJI K G Balakrishnan, who has been opposed to disclosure of information relating to judges under the
RTI act.
A three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice A P Shah and Justices Vikramjeet Sen and S Muralidhar dismissed a plea of the Supreme Court which contended that
bringing the CJI's office within the RTI act would 'hamper' judicial independence.
"The judicial independence is not a privilege to a judge but a responsibility," the high court said, adding that the CJI cannot be said to have fiduciary relationship
(between a trustee and a beneficiary) with other judges.
Taking a step further to bring transparency in judiciary, the bench while pronouncing the verdict in a packed courtroom, said its judges will be making their assets
public within a week.
CJI has consistently been maintaining that his office does not come within the ambit of the RTI act and the information including the declaration of assets of its judges
cannot be made public under it.
The high court had in its September 2 verdict on the controversial issue held that the CJI was a public authority and his office came within the purview of the RTI act.
Challenging the order, the Supreme Court registry had contended that the single judge had erred in holding that the CJI's office comes within the ambit of the
transparency law and had interpreted its provisions too broadly, which were 'unnecessary' and 'illogical.'
The apex court also contended that judges couldn't be put under public scrutiny, as it would hamper their functioning and independence.
"We cannot expose our judges to public scrutiny or inquiry because it would hamper their functioning and independence," Attorney General Goolam E Vahanvati,
appearing for the apex court registry, had contended.
The AG had argued that other agencies should not be allowed to interfere in the judiciary. "Judges cannot be judged by public perception. The judiciary cannot be
exposed to third party. There is no problem in having better transparency and accountability in the system but it should come from within the system," AG had
submitted.
As public opinion mounted on the assets issue, the CJI and other judges of the Supreme Court on November 2 voluntarily declared their assets by putting the details
on the official website.
In its appeal, the Supreme Court maintained that the independence of judiciary is paramount.
In its judgement, the high court said that the unanimous resolution of SC judges passed in 1997 on declaration of assets couldn't be questioned now.
The Judges had then decided to put details of their assets in public domain. It also observed that the judges of the higher judiciary are not less accountable than the
judicial magistrates who are legally bound to declare their assets.
During the arguments, the AG had said, "Non-declaration of assets does not mean demeaning and lowering of judicial values. Judges also need protection. They are
most vulnerable in the society."
If CJI's office is declared as a public authority under the RTI act, then people would also seek information over the appointment and promotion of judges, he had said.
The apex court had pleaded that the resolution passed by its judges for declaring their assets is not binding on them, as it was part of the self-regulatory mechanism
for the judiciary.
"If we accept your (apex court registry) arguments (that resolution is not binding on judges), then it would have serious implication on self-regulation. It is binding and
its non-observance has certain consequences," the high court had observed.
Following is the chronology of Judges' assets declaration case:
Nov 11, 2007: RTI activist Subhash C Aggarwal files a plea in the Supreme Court seeking information on judges' assets.
Nov 30, 2007: Information denied in the reply to him.
Dec 08, 2007: First appeal filed at SC's registry against the denial of information.
Jan 12, 2008: First appeal dismissed by SC's registry.
March 5, 2008: Aggarwal approaches Central Information Commission.
Jan 6, 2009: The CIC asks the SC to disclose information on Judges' assets on the ground that CJI's office comes within the ambit of RTI Act.
Jan 17, 2009: SC moves Delhi HC against CIC order.
Jan 19, 2009: The Delhi High Court stays the CIC order and asks the noted constitutional expert Fali S Nariman to assist it in deciding the legal issue.
Nariman, however, refuses to assist the court saying that he is of the view that Judges must declare their assets and he would not be able to be impartial in
the case.
Feb 26, 2009: SC says that declaration of assets by its judges to the Chief Justice are 'personal' information which cannot be revealed under the RTI act.
Mar 17, 2009: SC says that its judges are not averse to declaring their assets and Parliament can enact a law pertaining to such declaration but it must be
ensured that the law is not misused
Mar 24, 2009: HC says that Judges cannot be treated like politicians on asset declaration
May 1, 2009: Delhi High Court Bar Association moves impleadment application in HC saying that Judges should voluntarily declare assets.
May 4, 2009: SC says too much transparency can affect independence of judiciary.
May 4, 2009: HC reserves order on SC plea.
Sep 2, 2009: Single Bench of High Court upholds CIC's order saying that CJI's office comes within the ambit of RTI act and judges' assets be made public
under the transparency law.
Oct 5, 2009: The apex court challenges single bench verdict before division bench.
Oct 6, 2009: HC agrees to give an urgent hearing to the Supreme Court's petition.
Oct 7, 2009: HC admits the appeal and constitutes a special three-judge bench to decide the issue.
Nov 12, 2009: HC observes that the resolution passed by the Supreme Court judges for declaring their assets to CJI is binding on them.
Nov 13, 2009: HC reserves judgment on the appeal.
Jan 12, 2010: HC says that the office of CJI comes within the ambit of the RTI act.
PIL - DEATH PENALTY RIGHT OR WRONG ? ABLOLISH DEATH PENALTY

-
AN APPEAL TO H.E.Honourable PRESIDENT OF INDIA & HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
WHY DO WE KILL PEOPLE WHO KILL PEOPLE TO TELL PEOPLE THAT KILLING PEOPLE IS BAD ???
Just consider the following facts persons convicted in rarest of rare cases that of Assassinating a former
prime minister of india are commuted to life sentence & within hours released by state government of Tamil
Nadu. Where as some convicts convicted in heinous crimes but not heinous or rarest of rare like PM Rajiv
Gandhi assassination were hanged without alternatives like commuting their sentances to life term.
Poor , tribal people in chattisgarh , Andhra Pradesh , Jharkhand & other states infested with terrorism /
naxalism (even without any material incriminating evidences) are charged with charges like giving food , cloth
& medical aid to terrorists / naxalites, therby waging war against the nation . Those poor tribals rae put
behind bars and tried under draconian laws like TADA , POTA , MOCA , etc. Where as movie star Sanjay Dutt
who knowing fully well the intentions kept deadly arms in his house . Arms were given to him by master minds
of Mumbai attacks. Initially he was booked under TADA , then TADA charges were dropped and awarded a
lesser prison term than actually deserved. Further , he is getting paroles week after week which other
ordinary prisoners are unable to get even once.
Consider the case of Bhopal Gas Tragedy , the company & top most officials were well aware of safety
procedural lapses in the Bhopal plant , still continued the operations. When the accident happened
slaughtering thousands & maiming lakhs of people , the government first charged the head of the company
with charges of man slaughter. Afterwards , he was arrested but stealthily facilitated to escape to his home
country literally flown out by the police , chief minister of the government. Subsequently chief Justice of India
dropped man slaughter charges against him & filed lenient charges against him making the way for lenient
punishment in future (JUDGEMENT FIXING). CJI benefitted from it ? Paradoxically after retirement , CJI
became head of the trust controlling crores of rupees monitoring the rehabilitation of Bhopal gas victims.
In this context it is quite pertinent to note that In India with money power , right political connections any crime can
be done & be scot free . In India Legal system is for Sale , Judicial orders can be manipulated. The convict in a case
may be an innocent without recourse to right connections & legal aid. So , one cannt be 100% sure whether the
death convict has actually committed the crime.
A criminal is not born, but made by social circumstances. For the crime
scenario in India , every citizen of India is indirectly responsible.
Our present inefficient, corrupt legal system , is wholly dependent on
evidences which a rich criminal can create or destroy at his sweet
will. Police forcibly take confessions from the accussed , by applying
3rd degree torture methods. Some of the judges are literally auctioning
" judicial orders" for bribe. Due to all these reasons one cann't be
100% sure about one criminal's conviction. In such cases, capital
punishment will be unfair & inhuman. It must be made mandatory, in all
death penalty cases that polygraph, lie detector tests, etc must be
conducted on " death convicts " , to know whether they are innocent or
guilty inspite of hostile evidences. Fundamentally, the capital
punishment has failed
as a deterrent.
The people who clamour for continuance of death penalty are BIASED,
INHUMAN, BUTCHERS & CANIBALS. Why don't they ask for death penalty to
policemen, who murder people through 3rd degree torture, in lock-ups &
fake encounters ? why don't they ask for death penalty to corrupt
judges who sells judicial orders for bribe ? why don't they ask for
death penalty to builders who cause building collapses, resulting in
mass murders ? why don't they ask for death
penalty to corrupt government doctors who refuses to treat poor patient
without bribe, causing the murder of poor patient ? why don't they ask
for death penalty to industrialist/ traders who sell adulterated food
items, spurious drugs/ medicines, in turn causing mass murders ? why
don't they ask for death penalty to corrupt government officials , who
help criminals, industrialists? Why don't they ask for death penalty to
politicians who create communal & other riots, who have ties with
foreign intelligence agencies, terrorist outfits ? Why don't they ask
for death penalty to mole in the P.M.O & the senior officers of
National Security Council who passed on national secrets ? Why don't
they ask for death penalty to public servants , ministers who gave aid
, support to terrorist outfits like L.T.T.E out of government of india
coffers , killing hundreds of srilankans , tamils ?
These are the guilty persons , criminals who don't personally ,
directly murder human beings but cunningly murder hundreds which go
unnoticed by any. For the person who barbarically murders one human
being you prescribe CAPITAL PUNISHMENT but for those who murder
hundreds you say nothing why ? THEY WON'T ASK FOR IT, BECAUSE MOST OF
THE PERSONS WHO ARE DEMANDING DEATH PENALTY ARE BIASED, SELFISH &
BELONG TO ONE OF THE SECTIONS OF CRIMINALS MENTIONED ABOVE. They lack
objectivity.
Death penalty is the ultimate . cruel , inhuman and degrading
punishment. It violates the right to life Article 1 of universal
declaration of human rights. It is irrevocable , prone to judicial
errors and can be inflicted on innocents. It has never been shown to
deter crime more effectively than other punishments. In most of the
countries including india , judicial system is ineffective ,
inefficient to prosecute impartially both poor & rich criminals. Those
condemned to death penalty mostly come from poor background who are
unable to afford wise & articulate Advocates who can efficiently argue
their case. Against these poor accussed , the criminal nexus of
police-criminal-bureaucrat builds up fake evidences , extracts forced

confessions by 3rd degree torture. Most of death convicts world over
belongs to either poor , TRIBALS , DALITS , etnic minorities ,
political dissidents , children , mentally ill. No rich & mighty
criminal is ever prosecuted let alone hanged.
The judicial system which depends on technical facts like evidences
lacks sense to figure out truth out of fake evidences , also as judges
are human beings they are prone to err. Add to this corruption in
judiciary. Death penalty is irreversible & irrevocable. In a mature
democracy like U.S.A with relatively efficient judicial system itself
hundreds of cases of death convicts were found to be wrong , convicts
were found to be innocents upon review & were let free. Where as in
india , the accussed lacks the wherewithal to argue his case in the
first place then how can he arrange for case review ? no judge is god ,
if a hanged person is found to be innocent the judge doesn't has the
ability to bring back the hanged person to life , do such judges have
right to snatch away lives ?
Hereby HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH'S Urges H.E . PRESIDENT OF INDIA & HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ,
1.
to stay all death penalties until equitable criminal justice system
with respect to above mentioned rich & mighty criminals is put into
force .
2.
until death penalty is abolished, to make poly graph, lie detector
tests mandatory for all death convicts in a free & fair manner by a
neutral authority , to ascertain whether the convict is really guilty
or innocent of the alleged crime .
3.
until death penalty is abolished , to give a peaceful choice of
death to the death convicts like sleeping pill, injection, gun shot,
etc instead of medieval & barbaric " death by hanging".
4.
finally, to abolish death penalty from statuette books.
JAI HIND. VANDE MATARAM.

Your's sincerely,
Nagaraja.M.R.
Hundreds of prisoners on death row were

wrongfully convicted
New data suggest more than 340 U.S. inmates that could have been exonerated have been sentenced to death since 1973
DINA FINE MERON, SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN
Enlarge
This article was originally published by Scientific American.
Just how many individuals on death row are incorrectly convicted? The question has dogged attorneys and civil rights
advocates for years, but a simple answer is almost impossible because few wrongful cases are ever overturned. A new
analysis is adding a level of much-needed detail, and it concludes that more than twice as many inmates were wrongly
convicted and sentenced to death than have been exonerated and freed.
Borrowing a statistical method often used to evaluate whether new medical therapies help patients survive, a team of researchers has concluded that
about 4.1 percent of criminal defendants who are sentenced to death are falsely convicted. The approach allows researchers to actually come up with
a valid estimate of the rate of false convictionsknowing something that people say [in criminal justice] is not knowable, says study author Samuel
Gross, a law professor at the University of Michigan Law School and editor of the National Registry of Exonerations, a U.S.-focused exoneration
database. What makes the analysis possible is that data on the potential need for exoneration from death penalty cases come to light more often than
it does for other types of criminal proceedings. All death sentences in the U.S. are based on crimes that include homicide.
The study, led by a team of lawyers and statisticians, examined data on both 7,482 defendants who were given death sentences between 1973 and
2004 and death row exonerations during that time. By applying survival analysisa statistical method often used to calculate how well new
treatments help patients survivethey determined how often a prisoner under threat of execution was exonerated. The method usually tracks patients
to see if a new therapy prolongs the period of time until a person dies from the illness in question but it can also be applied to policy questions that
have clear end points. In this study the end point of tracking was exoneration (being found innocent and freed) or the actual execution. Survival
was defined as remaining in prison. The therapy here would be removal of the threat of execution.
Heres how their analysis works. It says that if all death-sentenced defendants remained under this sentence indefinitely, as opposed to being taken off
death row due to being resentenced to life in prison or their fate being artificially cut off by the study ending, then 4.1 percent of those prisoners
would have otherwise been exonerated. (And being exonerated and freed by legal action here is used as the best proxy for innocence.) The analysis
also takes into account other occurrences such as suicide or death of a prisoner from natural causes. The number of false convictions among the
death-sentenced has been particularly hard to estimate, Gross says, because many prisoners who are on death row are eventually moved off of it but
remain in prison, which often reduces their chances of exoneration.
The issue affects a significant number of people. Since 1973 144 death-sentenced defendants have been exonerated in the U.S. But Gross says that
the analysis indicates that at least 340 people would have been put to death unjustly in that same time period. There are no other reliable estimates of
the rate of false conviction in any context, the researchers wrote in the study, published online on April 28 inProceedings of the National Academy
of Sciences.
The researchers also note that a 4.1 percent rate of false conviction is conservative, given that separate calculations gauging the accuracy of the
assumptions that took an even more conservative stanceassuming that people who were executed had zerochance of false conviction and that the
chances of exoneration after retrial would be twice that of people on death rowwould still produce a larger figure than their 4.1 percent estimate.
Although their analysis does not include data after 2004, the researchers note that they doubt that the use of DNA identification technology would
have much impact on false conviction ratesbecause DNA evidence is primarily used in cases such as rape rather than homicide. Only about 13
percent of death row exonerations have resulted from DNA testing.
For more on death penalty considerations, see Scientific Americans editorial in the May edition of the magazine that details how the use of drugs to
carry out capital punishment is inadvertently putting medical patients at risk.
NATURE | NEWS
Death-penalty analysis reveals extent of wrongful convictions

Statistical study estimates that some 4% of US death-row prisoners are innocent.
Sara Reardon
Doug Berry/Ocean/Corbis
The chances of exoneration increase the longer a person remains on death row, according to a study.
At least one in 25 people on death row in the United States would be exonerated if given enough time, researchers have found. The study, which used statistical
methods to extrapolate from available data, is one of the first to try to quantify the rate of false convictions.
First rotation rate of an exoplanet measured
Tanker disaster cut bird fertility in half
Searching mummies for ancient smallpox viruses

The work attempts to shed light on a notoriously difficult task: gauging the number of people falsely convicted of crimes. Few convictions result in an exoneration,
most of those convicted never manage to prove their innocence and many cases do not have their final outcomes recorded, so data are not available to
researchers. Innocent people also frequently plead guilty in the hope of reducing their sentence, effectively eliminating themselves from any analysis. Therefore,
quantifying exonerations is the only way to get a glimpse of the extent of wrongful convictions, says lead author Samuel Gross, a criminologist at the University of
Michigan Law School in Ann Arbor.
Gross and his colleagues analysed the rate of exonerations among prisoners on death row, whose outcomes are carefully tracked by the US Bureau of Justice
Statistics in Washington DC. In a previous report, the researchers found that less than 0.1% of prison sentences are death sentences, yet capital cases accounted
for 12% of exonerations between 1989 and 2012. Gross attributes the disparity to the tendency of lawyers and courts to work harder to definitively determine guilt
when a person's life is on the line.
A case for delay

But many death sentences are never carried out. Courts often change a convicts sentence to life imprisonment, or the accused dies from suicide or natural causes
while on death row. To determine what would have happened to these prisoners had they remained there, Grosss team relied on a statistical method known as a
survival curve, which is commonly used in epidemiology to measure the number of people in a population who die from a specific cause over a certain period, and
so extrapolate the rate of deaths for longer periods of time.
Related stories
Faulty forensic science under fire
Forensic investigation needs more science
Eyewitness identification: Line-ups on trial

More related stories
The longer a person stayed on death row, the team found, the higher the chance that he or she would be exonerated. Furthermore, the researchers calculated that
if all of those sentenced to death were kept on death row indefinitely without being executed, receiving a life sentence or dying of another cause, at least 4.1%
would eventually be exonerated. That number still underestimates the rate of false convictions, Gross says, because many innocent people never manage to prove
their innocence.
Because a longer death row stint means a greater chance of exoneration, people who are put to death quickly after their convictions could be more likely to have
been innocent than the population of convicts as a whole likely because there has not been as much time for subtler pieces of evidence to come to light.
According to James Liebman, a lawyer at Columbia Law School in New York City who was not involved in the study, the statistics suggest something of a paradox.
Often a convict is lucky enough to have his death sentence commuted to life in prison, by a state governor for example, because of lingering doubt about his guilt.
But because fewer people with life sentences are exonerated, Liebman says, that luck will be bad luck because there's a lesser change of having that error
discovered.
Nature
doi:10.1038/nature.2014.15114
References
1.
Gross, S. R., O'Brien, B., Hu, C. & Kennedy, E. H. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USAhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1306417111 (2014).
Show context
Related stories and links
From nature.com
Faulty forensic science under fire
04 February 2014
Forensic investigation needs more science
23 August 2012
Eyewitness identification: Line-ups on trial

21 May 2008
From elsewhere
National Registry of Exonerations
Exonerations in the United States, 1989 2012
Report by the National Registry of Exonerations
UK judge sentenced to 16 months in jail for

lying
LONDON A British judge has been sentenced to 16 months in jail after she was found guilty of lying to
police investigating a politicians speeding case.
Constance Briscoe, a part-time judge and an experienced criminal lawyer, was convicted of three counts of
trying to pervert the course of justice in the case of disgraced ex-Cabinet minister Chris Huhne, who tried to
pin a speeding penalty on his then-wife Vicky Pryce.
Briscoe, 56, offered untruthful witness evidence in support of Pryce, a friend and neighbor, in 2011. Her jail
sentence was double that of Huhne and Pryce, who were also found guilty of lying and each sentenced to 8
months.
Sentencing her Friday, Justice Jeremy Baker said Briscoes conduct struck at the heart of Britains criminal
justice system.
This type of judicial accountabiliy is the urgent need of the hour in India.
Edited, printed , published owned by NAGARAJA.M.R. @ # LIG-2 No 761,HUDCO FIRST STAGE ,

OPP WATER WORKS , LAXMIKANTANAGAR , HEBBAL ,MYSURU 570017 KARNATAKA INDIA
Cell : 91 8970318202
Home page :
http://in.groups.yahoo.com/group/sosevoiceforjustice/ , http://groups.google.co.in/group/hrwepaper / ,
http://sites.google.com/site/sosevoiceforjustice / , http://evoiceofhumanrightswatch.wordpress.com / ,
http://naghrw.tripod.com/evoice/ ,
http://e-voiceofhumanrightswatch.blogspot.com ,
http://paper.li/f-1368369249 ,
Contact : naghrw@yahoo.com , nagarajhrw@hotmail.com ,
http://www.amnesty.org/en/user/naghrw
A Member of Amnesty International

Impeach Judges Mishra and Lalit

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Impeach Judges Mishra and Lalit

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

S.O.

S e - Voice For Justice - e-news weekly

PIL - Impeach Judges Deepak Mishra , UU Lalit for Contempt

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

a. Honourable Cabinet Secretary , Government of India

The Humble petition of the Petitioner above named.

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH :

Facts of the case:

Editorial : Justice Lalit & Justice Mishra be Humans

Supreme Court of India violating Fundamental Rights Human Rights

A Z of Manipulation of Indian Legal System

Justice Sathasivam - Are you DEAF DUMB & BLIND

RTI & Land Golmaal

Jai Hind. Vande Mataram.

Ill-gotten Wealth of Corrupt Public Servants

Murderers of Justice Shame to You

A Z of Manipulation of Indian Legal System

SHAME TO CORRUPT RAPIST JUDGES OF INDIA

Editorial : All Judges & All Judgements are NOT Right

Supreme Court of India violating Fundamental Rights Human Rights

Read few Biased , Criminal acts of Judges at following web pages :

A Z of Manipulation of Indian Legal System

Justice Sathasivam - Are you DEAF DUMB & BLIND

JUDGEs or Brokers of Justice

RTI & Land Golmaal

Jai Hind. Vande Mataram.

PIL - Biased Judges , Biased Judgement in Mahadayi , Cauvery Dispute

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

a. Honourable Cabinet Secretary , Government of India

The Humble petition of the Petitioner above named.

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH :

1. Facts of the case:

The court verdict that prompted Indira Gandhi to declare Emergency

Seldom does a court verdict change the course of history of a country.

When Judges Got It Wrong

The ADM Jabalpur judgment in the backdrop of Emergency remains a blot.

PIL Release DRINKING WATER from Mahadayi River

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.

editor , SOS e Clarion of Dalit & SOS e Voice for Justice

Honourable Cabinet Secretary , Government of India

The Humble petition of the Petitioner above named.

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH :

1. Facts of the case:

Dated : 03rd August 2016 .FILED BY: NAGARAJA.M.R.

Place : Mysuru , India. PETITIONER-IN-PERSON

The human right to water and sanitation

Other loans show up similar discrepancies in the High Court order.

Page 127 of trial court Judge Cunhas verdict of September 2014

Disproportionate assets X 100 / Income

Rs 19,34,82,812 X 100 / 18,24,19,654

Flawed Jayalalithaa Verdict Finally Heads to Supreme Court

Page 797 of Judge Kumaraswamys order

Page 711 or Judge Cunhas trial court judgment

Page from J. Jayalalithaas written submission

Page from Sasikalas submission to the High Court

Read more at: http://www.livelaw.in/allegations-of-corruption-against-justice-c-r-kumaraswamy-who-acquitted-jayalalithaa/

PIL Justice Delayed & Justice Denied

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. OF 2016

editor SOS e Clarion of Dalit & SOS e Voice for Justice

Honourable Chief Justice of India

Justices of the Supreme Court of India.

The Humble petition of the Petitioner above named.