traffic analytics

Justice is where Judges follow Law-KD Aggarwal. Powered by Blogger.

If Judgments were based on law, every lawyer will get same fees!-KD Aggarwal

Facts and Statute are Not Relevant. They are invented / concealed / amended by corrupt Judges - KD Aggarwal.

Let us make India Corruption free

The matter and inference drawn are based on actual personal experiences of Author. They are meant to serve as beacon to those who may find themselves in similar situations to save themselves from clutches of unscrupulous persons. They are also meant to serve as an eye opener to those men who are sitting at Helm of Affairs for improvement of judicial system and corruption free India, so that never again one says; "the law court is not a cathedral (what they used to be) but a casino where so much depends on the throw of the dice (and money). K R Narayanan http://www.krnarayanan.in/html/speeches/others/jan28_00.htm

Transparency improves Accountability

Every Judge is Public Servant and thus accountable for his acts. Transparency of Complaints against Judges and instant stringent action for perjury and violation of their oath will improve Dignity of Courts and Justice delivery.

Monday, November 16, 2015

Suggestions for double digit growth of India.

To,                           July 21, 2011
Sh Manmohan Singh,
Prime Minister of India,
7, Race course road.
New Delhi.

SUB; Suggestions for double digit economic growth;-
Dear sir,
I read with interest, your statement that your Prime Minister Job was not based on bribery. You of course remember your bribe of Rs 1.00 lacs to each farmer in run up to elections and also 30% of basic salary to each government employee just before elections. When your own chair is bought by money how than all ministers had to follow you.

1.     Demand full inflation can be controlled by increase in lending rates but cost push inflation can only be controlled by reducing lending rates.

2.     Decrease repo rate to below 4% pa. Low interest rates improve employment opportunities.

3.     Decrease minimum wages by half. High wages discourage employers.

4.     Spend money spent in constructing roads, bridges, hospitals, power plants, water provisions. Gujarat and Bihar are an example. Our citizens should have basic necessities of food, clothes, roads, electricity, water.

5.     Decrease support prices of agricultural products bring them at the level of international prices plus transportation.

6.     Pick up all beggars from streets and put them to work in factories. Give them free food, shelter and education or work.

7.     Make reservation on the line of US reservations.  Pick up all people who say they are backward and put them in physically demarcated areas and give them free food, shelter and education. At no cost should merit be allowed to suffer at work. Privatization has led to increase in coffers of government by thousands of crores of rupees. Reservations can be built out of these funds.

8.     To encourage reduction in population have reservations for one child Family, as China developed by one child norm.

Either you can think like a power hungry corrupt person and again buy votes as you did last time or you can think like an Indian and do something for once for India.

Let me tell you an interesting incident, there was this employee of a reserved category in a government department who was always finding faults with his superiors/others, neither himself ever doing anything, nor allowing anyone else to do anything. I asked him why?

Well, the person said; “If I work, my country will progress and if my country does progress, it will not remain backward and there will be no reservations for backwards. My kin will not get free jobs.”

I asked; “then what do you do?”.

He answered; “We (50% of government employees) ensure that the other half does not work?”. …. We are king makers.” After a few years, the same inferior was the boss of his former superior and country becomes more backward.
 
Yours truly in service of nation

CA K D Aggarwal

Sunday, November 1, 2015

My tryst with Judicial corruption.

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
Criminal Contempt 1 of 2012
Court on its own motion
Versus
Kapil Dev Aggarwal, Advocate.
AFFIDAVIT IN REPLY BY RESPONDENT. 
I, K D Aggarwal, Advocate S/O Sh R K Aggarwal, R/O 1366, Sector 40-B, Chandigarh, do hereby solemnly affirm and state as under:

Preliminary Submissions cum Objections;
1.     That entire gamut of the case revolves around a short point that CWP 10434/10 was filed on 25-5-2010 by Respondent as counsel for petitioners impugning Order of District Magistrate Sangrur, (Resptd 1) Dt 7.5.10 and notice u/s 13(2) of Canara Bank Dt 8-12-2009. Respondent No 3-4 i.e. Canara bank’s had engaged Mr R S Bhatia, advocate and had filed a caveat. Matter was listed before this court (before some other bench) on 3-6-2012 and after hearing the parties at length (for about 2 hours), an order of Status quo was granted on 3.6.2010 (Annexure R-1). On the next date, Sh R S Bhatia Advocate for Canara bank filed reply before Hon’ble Justice Surya Kant, who extended the stay vide order dt 27.7.2010 (Annexure R-2). Case is adjourned to 28.9.2010. On 28.9.2010, Sh R S Bhatia, Advocate for Bank again appears before Justice Surya kant and case is adjourned to 11.2.2011 (Annexure R-3). Thereafter, dramatically Mr R S Bhatia advocate was replaced by Bank with Mr. Arun Palli Sr. Adv. S/O Justice P K Palli (retd). On 11.2.2011, at request of Sh Arun Palli case is adjourned to 31.3.2011. On 31.3.2011, apprehending change of Roster, (which was actually changed after 8.4.2011), Hon’ble Justice Surya Kant (hereinafter called as complainant) vacated the order of stay (Annexure R-4). At the time of vacation of stay, Pleadings were not complete. Respondent No 1 District Magistrate, Sangrur whose order was impugned had not yet filed any reply, there were no new facts, no change in circumstances and none pleaded. No reasons were given by Complainant for vacation of stay, particularly when a reasoned order of Status quo was passed earlier by the predecessor of Complainant after hearing the counsel for the bank at length. While vacating the Stay order, the Counsel for Petitioner who had right to begin arguments was not heard and for hearing, matter was adjourned for mere 7 days to 7.4.2011. Apprehending change of Roster and thus in order to keep the case with himself, Complainant ordered it as “part heard” which was uncalled for as pleadings were not complete, (to best of knowledge of respondent, Motion cases are never shown as “part heard’. Even in regular cases ‘part heard’ is shown when both the counsels agree). On 7.4.11 the case was dismissed and facts and Securitization Act were practically rewritten as detailed in Para 23. As luck would have it, Respondent had written 2.1/2 years earlier, vide his letter Dt 1.1.10 (Annexure 5) that only way a Judge favors a party or an advocate is by violation of legal procedure, amendment / concealment of facts & Statute in the Judgment. There can never be any independent witness to prove any ‘dealings/relations’ between Judge and party / advocate. Respondent in his letter Dt 1.1.10 had written that such a conduct of judge should be treated as Judicial misconduct. Respondent could not neglect to follow his own advice. Ministry of Law in their letter Dt 27.5.11, (Annexure R-6) stated that if any violation of law is noticed / established, action can be taken by the competent Authority against Judges. After receipt of above Letter, Respondent wrote letter Dt 4.6.11 in good faith individually to Complainant with sole intention of awakening the conscience of the Judge against Judicial Impropriety and asked “Is it worth it?” There was no publication, nothing said or done in hearing or in open court. Thereafter a formal complaint was filed with Hon’ble Supreme court of India on 3.9.11click here to read my complaint.,  duly acknowledged by Apex Court vide their Letter Dt 19.9.11. (Annexure R-7).  The complaint is pending consideration with Apex Court.  After six months of Respondent’s letter Dt 4.6.11, the Complainant, initiated the present criminal complaint, which ex-facie is an act of Personal Vendetta. Letter Dt 4.6.11 was in compliance of legal procedure of Audi alteram partem. In order to fortify his complaint, Complainant tagged complaints by Respondent against D P Ohja, Official Liquidator, CA 580/11 and Hon’ble Justice Rajive Bhalla, assuming and declaring it also to be a contempt of court, even though the Ld judge in that complaint had chosen not to deny any averments made by Respondent in CA 167/11 or proceed with it in any manner.

2.     That on 31.3.11, Sh Arun Palli, Sr Adv. had made deliberate false statements in the Court of Complainant. Application for Perjury u/s 340 CR.P.C. was filed against this on 6.4.11 bearing CM No 5153/11 (Annexure R-8) which came up for hearing on 7.4.11 before Complainant. Complainant issued notice in CM 5153/11 for 5.5.11. The CM 5153/11 was listed for hearing on 5.5.11 at S. No 212 before another bench (Annexure R-9). However since file had not been received the case was not called. Inspection of records was carried out on 13.7.12 and record reveals that CM 5153/11 which was listed on 5.5.11 stands dismissed a month earlier vide order Dt 8.4.11 (Annexure R-10). The said CM was never listed on 8.4.11. Firstly notice in C.M 5153/11 was issued in the presence of respondent for 5.5.11, secondly had the CM 5153/11 been dismissed on 8.4.11 or even till 5.5.11 there is no cause for it to be shown in the cause list for 5.5.11, and by no stretch of imagination it can be believed that a case listed on a 7.4.11 can be disposed of on 8.4.11 on which it is not listed and neither it can be believed that a case in which notice is issued for 5.5.11 and which is shown in the cause list of 5.5.11 had in fact never been adjourned or no notice was issued. This is total fabrication. Till 5.5.11 there was no order for dismissal of CM  5153/11 which any prudent person would believe has been ante dated subsequently amounting to fabrication of Judicial records of Hon’ble High Court. Order Dt 8-4-2012 bears the signatures of Complainant. In CM 55153/11, false statements are attributed to Sh Arun Palli. Hence order (though not admitted) does not mention the facts stated in CM 5153/11. Inspection of this file was sought on 30.3.12 but could not be done as file had reportedly been called by an official of High Court and was with him for most part of April 2012.

3.     Complainant has made grouse of letter Dt 4-6-2011. Present complaint is initiated six months later on 9.1.2012 while Judge was sitting on original side as company Judge. The main root cause of the present complaint appears to be Respondents’ acts in pointing out corruption in the Office of Official Liquidator attached with the Hon’ble High Court. The Complainant has filed the instant complaint in CA 657/11 & CA 580/11 which is Respondent’s complaint against D P Ojha regarding embezzlement of Rs 1.00 Crores (Now Rs 1.5 crores see here) i.e. for payment in name of 41 security guards employed official Liquidator out of whom approx. 38 have never been born. Information was received by the respondent about nexus between complainant, Hon’ble Justice Rajive Bhalla and D P Ojha Official Liquidator, including payment of Rs 1.0 Crores for sake of repetition for 41 employees out of which 38 have never been born. Hence on 16.11.11, Respondent moved application for non listing of CA 580/11 before Complainant ostensibly on the ground that previous order was passed by Sr. Company Judge.  Hon’ble the Chief Justice was pleased to pass following order;-
“If any change is required, matter may be mentioned before the Judge.” Sd/ Chief Justice
Application No CA 657/11 was filed and above order was brought to notice of Complainant and he was requested to order that CA 580/11 to be listed before another bench. On 9-12-2011, Complainant dictated “list the matter before other bench”. However the record reveals that file of CA 580/11 was kept by him for about a month (Why?). Thereafter Complainant converted CA 580/11 into present CROCP 1/12 against respondent inspite of the Orders of the then Hon’ble Chief Justice (supra). CA 580/11 is information to this court about attempted embezzlement of Rs 1.0 crores ( now Rs 1.5 crores as per latest false bill of security agency). It is relevant to point here that this matter was got investigated by Complainant by a committee of three persons ; D P Ojha Official Liquidator ‘Chairman’ ( strangely main accused is made chairman), Security agency (accused) and PSIDC (secured creditor). Additional Managing Director of PSIDC has given a report vide Annexure ‘A’ Dt 19.3.2012. (Annexure R-11). that “In the Committee meeting held on 12.3.2012 it was admitted by representative of Security agency and Official Liquidator that names and permanent addresses of security staff deployed by security agency were never supplied to official Liquidator as per the terms and conditions of empanelment of security agencies accepted by the Security agency”.  In the meeting Proof was given for the 1st time for only 3 regular employees. Another employee Mr Abhey Kr Yadav was also claimed to be working with Indo gem laminations another company under Official Liquidator during same period. No proof of existence i.e. ID Proofs, proofs of permanent addresses etc of remaining 38 employees was given. Correctness of contents of CA 580/11 had been proved that these employees never existed and claim made to the tune of Rs 1.00 crores of public money is bogus and false. It is strange, that same CA 580/11 has been converted into present complaint.  

4.     That Complainant admits to have passed 2 different orders on 11.1.12 in COCP 2085/11 (Now CP 53/12) as stated by him on 2.5.12. Passing of 2 different orders in one case on same date is uncommon and never done, which is highly irregular and suspicious and lacks bona fide. Why was the need for complainant to clarify the fact of second order after a gap of 4 months which was done on 2.5.2012. Why, COCP 2085/11 was listed as CP only after April vide Order Dt 2-5-2012 and not on 11.1.2012. Inspection of this file was asked in April, 2012 and respondent was informed that file of this case was summoned by Complainant since 7.4.2012 was reportedly with him in April 2012. If any Judge or any official calls for a case without it being listed for hearing, office does not make any entry in their register. This procedure is irregular. Respondent is not party in said case. Matter of two orders having been passed on same date is publically known.

5.     That on 21.10.2011 see here Respondent appeared before the Complainant in a different matter. Complainant calls him to stand before the desk of his reader and proceeded to issue him threats in open Court and says;
“You have only dealt with soft judges, you do not know me.”
I now know everything about you. I will finish your career”
“You do not know me and cannot even imagine what I can do to you”

Respondent explained that letter dt 4.6.2011 was personal communication to explain that a Judge is supposed to be impartial. However Complainant continued to issue threats including bodily harm or forcible physical restraint. Under threats Complainant recorded the statement of Respondent. The said statement was not voluntary. While signing, Respondent made it clear statement was recorded under coercion. Respondent wrote “In view of annoyance shown by court”. Thereafter Complainant countersigned the same, verifying correctness of the rider. Complainant thus accepted the correctness of rider that statement was not voluntary and made under coercion ‘annoyance shown by Judge’ / under threats. The Complainant (Judge Suryakant Sharma of High Court) thus admitted to having committed contempt of his own Court u/s 16 of COCP Act when he gave threats to advocate, without any such matter being listed. Letter Dt 4.6.2011 was not listed for hearing before him in which he gave threats of bodily harm and finishing career etc and took the above statement from Respondent by misuse of his official position. Affidavit Dt 21.10.11 qua above facts was sent to Hon’ble Apex Court vide Speed post Dated 21.10.2011. (Annexure R-12)

6.     That the Respondent had filed a complaint Dt 3.9.2011 click here against Complainant with Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, acknowledged vide letter No 15 Dt 19.9.2011, (Annexure R-7) and the same is pending consideration. Affidavit Dt 26.9.2011 in this respect was filed with Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. After four months of above complaint by respondent, Complainant filed the present complaint – which is an ex-facie an act of Vendetta.

7.     Govt. of India, Ministry of Law and Justice vide its letter Dt May 27th 2011 (Annexure R-6) stated that if any violation of law is noticed / established, action can be taken by the competent Authority against Judges. Accordingly Complaint against Justice Surya Kant was made so that violation of law can be noticed or established. Placing facts before competent authority or making a complaint is a legal remedy. Taking legal remedy is not a case of contempt. Legal remedy of filing complaint cannot be throttled by taking suo moto criminal contempt proceedings against a person availing legal remedy.

8.     That present complaint made in CA 580/11 is with jurisdiction. An application was made to Registrar (Judicial) for non listing of CA 580/11 before Complainant. Hon’ble the chief Justice Ordered ;-
“If any change is required, matter may be mentioned before the Judge.  Sd/ Chief Justice”

Accordingly CA 657/11 was filed by Respondent for referring CA 580/11 to some other bench duly mentioning the above Order’s of Hon’ble the chief Justice. CA was listed on 9.12.2011 when in presence of respondent Complainant dictates that “CA 580/11 be listed before other bench”. Which can be verified from shorthand note book of steno a 657/11 & 580/11 which is an application for listing the matter before other bench as per orders of Hon’ble the Chief Justice  is thus without jurisdiction. CA 580/11, CA 657/11 and Orders of Hon’ble the chief Justice are already on record.

9.     That allegations in Para 7-12 of instant complaint are do not relate to complainant. These have been procured, collected, hunted and fabricated by Complainant out of personal vendetta and to form some basis for the initiation of criminal proceedings against the respondent. D P Ojha who is under his command leveled allegation after order 9.12.2011 vide his letter dated 14.12.2011 against the respondent. Proof is introduction of Annexure- G – a sealed cover envelope containing the insinuations against Hon’ble Justice Rajive Bhalla ‘mysteriously’ and scandalizing the present complaint - as to how the Complainant could see the ‘note inside the sealed cover’ and say with certainty as to what was inside the sealed cover unless the draft was prepared under his command and consultation. This is nothing more than motivated misuse of power vested by the Contempt of Courts Act which itself is contempt against the institution. Second Proof is R-14 in COCP 2085/11 which is again in a sealed cover and Complainant has not explained as to how he was able to “see inside the sealed cover” and to send it with certainty to CROCP 1/12 unless he has nexus with security agencies and official liquidator D P Ojha.

10.    The allegation of Complainant in para 10 that Mr K. D. Aggarwal files complaints if any Court decision goes against his wishes is contrary to record for the following reasons and denied.

A)     No order was made by D P Ojha, Official Liquidator against Respondent when Respondent first filed Complaint of corruption against D P Ojha Official Liquidator vide his letter Dt 3.8.09 stating; “The work of Official Liquidators does not only mean taking commissions from security agencies, advertisers, valuers, Bidders etc. Work of Official Liquidator means dissolution of Companies.” (Annexure R-13).

B)     No order is made against Respondent by Justice Rajive Bhalla when Application No 167/11 was filed in his court seeking his recusal for connivance with D P Ojha (Annexure R-14a). Neither there is any order by Justice Rajive Bhalla against respondent till date (Annexure R-15) even though Respondent has filed complaints against him in the interest of independence of Judiciary.

C)     Order Dt 7.4.2011 of Complainant in CWP 10434/10, is not against & does not affect the Petitioners in any manner. Record shows that vide P/17-19 that valuation of property is Rs 43.00 lacs and Petitioners had already offered more than the valuation to the Bank as owner sale fetches more than the distress sale by creditors. No effort was made by Bank to take physical possession. Order had no effect.

D)     Complainant and D P Ojha both have filed counter complaints after notice of complaints from Respondent.  These counter complaints are ex-facie acts of vendetta.

11.    The allegation of complainant in para 13 that unless Respondent had given some guarantee to the Industry to secure a favorable order, he would not personally attack a Judge under pretext of attacking the judgment is an afterthought, denied and against record for the following reasons.

A)     The petitioners in CWP 10434/10 is one blind man and his 2 sons. They are hand to mouth wear tethers clothes and apart from a small house (in disputed ‘mortgage’) have no assets and negative net worth and no source of income. Persons having no asets and no source of income cannot be assured any sort of monetary based Guarantee (none has ever been given by respondent) except Justice and that Courts of law will uphold the law of land.

B)     The allegations against the respondent does not corroborate with facts of the case. Order does not affect the petitioners. Record shows that vide P/17-19 that valuation of property is Rs 43.00 lacs and Petitioners had already offered more than the valuation to the Bank as sale by owner fetches more than the distress sale by creditors. There is no material on record showing the alleged monetary based Guarantee to Petitioner’s. Bald allegation is denied.

C)     It is classic of the cases where kettle is calling the pot black. Canara bank has and had several litigations in this court and have no record of hiring Mr. Arun Palli in any other case or before any other Judge. If a detailed enquiry is conducted by an independent agency, than this fact can be established that Sh Arun Palli Sr Adv. is hired for Complainant’s court with a particular objective as was done in Respondent’s case.

12.    Respondent is fighting judicial corruption. He is part of major Anti corruption society of India and member of its Chandigarh team. He is performing his duties. He has full respect for this court and independence of Judiciary. His Complaints are meant to protect independence of Judiciary. Complaints are filed when circumstances warrant i.e. when a prudent person will believe that a particular judge had subsumed judicial independence in favor of a particular party or Lawyer thereby subverting independence of Judiciary. Oath of Office was shown to remind a Particular Judge that he has taken oath for Judicial Independence whereas he has not maintained judicial independence. There is no publication of complaints. Complaint against a Judge who has not maintained judicial independence is not merely an obligation but an onerous duty on a lawyer for protection of independence of Judiciary.

13.    It is an accepted law that whenever a Judge has not maintained judicial independence, a complaint can be filed against him. It is the duty of a Judge to be impartial while deciding cases and he can be held accountable if circumstances prove otherwise. Filing of complaint that a particular judge has not maintained judicial independence is not an act of contempt but a bounden duty to a court of law. This legal position is also stated by other legal luminaries including a sitting Judge of a High Court.
“The first persons who come to know that a judge is not conducting properly while functioning on the judicial side are the lawyers who are appearing in the case the moment an order is passed by the Judge in the court hall”
“It is the duty and the responsibility of the members of the Bar to ensure that the judiciary not only remains fiercely independent, upright, effective and useful for the people of the country, but also that the members of the judiciary do not go astray, do not deviate from their duties and responsibilities, do not misuse or abuse their powers and achieve this objective by boldly and openly bringing to the notice of the judge himself/ herself, if there are such instances or signs of deviations. (Emphasis supplied). This is a very onerous responsibility bestowed on the members of the Bar in our legal system and unless the lawyers fulfill this obligation towards the society, they will be failing in their professional duty! (Emphasis supplied).

JUSTICE D.V.SHYLENDRA KUMAR at IX Conference of Karnataka State Advocates, sponsored by the Karnataka State Bar Council, Bangalore, on 27th December, 2009. Justice Shylendra Kumar is sitting Judge of Karnataka High Court.

14.    That the averments regarding connivance of Justice Rajive Bhalla with D P Ojha are part of judicial record in CA 167/2011 in application for recusal (Annexure R-14a). The contents are of legal necessity and based on truth. When the application came up before Justice Rajive Bhalla on 16.3.2012, record reveals that he did not deny the same nor made any issue of it but adjourned the matter to 1.4.11 on which date he went on leave. Matter came up before another bench before which recusal was not pressed (as it was meant only for Justice Rajive Bhalla) and after June, 2011 there was change of roster. On
Administrative side Respondent brought the facts to notice of Hon’ble the Chief Justice vide letter Dt 14.03.11(Annexure R-14). Incident mentioned in Annexure R-14 occurred on 1.8.08 and immediately thereafter Company Roster was changed wef 4.8.08

About respondent;-

15.    That, Respondent is an anti-corruption activist, part of NGOs fighting corruption and has devoted his life to fight corruption in society with particular emphasis on judicial accountability and reforms and to get social justice for poor, needy, and downtrodden. He also does research in History and more than 58,000 people have read his 90+ publications on history and economics. Since last 3-4 years Respondent has made following suggestions about judicial reforms and Accountability to Hon’ble the Chief Justice, Punjab and Haryana High Court, Ministry of Law and Justice, and Government of Punjab, through Department of Legislative affairs;-
Date
Subject
Results.
29.9.2008
Best Judge for the case.
At that time Roster was changed and lots of case which earlier were listed before DB were listed before SB.
16.4.2009
Enhancement of court fee.
St. of Punjab enhance court fee. Hon’ble High Court also enhanced court fee on writs.
26.9.2009
Replacement of stamp papers, mode of payment of Large amount of Court fee by Bank Drafts, Postal Orders, Electronic transfer.
Suggestion accepted in principle by State of Punjab.
05.10.2009
Special courts to deal with cases under Rent Act, 138NI Act, murder, attempt to murder, theft, rape, matrimonial etc.
Special courts set up for cases under 138 NI which has seen increase in disposal in these cases.
12.11.2009
Vide letter Dt 09.11.09 State of Punjab sought clarifications from Respt.
Clarifications given vide my letter Dt 12.11.2009.
06.04.2009
And repeated
01.01.2010
Letter to Ministry of law for establishing specialized commercial courts, as stakes are higher than other cases.
Suggestion accepted in principle by Ministry of Law and Justice.
1.1.2010
i) Installation of CCTV cameras in all Court rooms.
ii) Modification of service conditions whereby any order which;-
a) Conceals / amends facts.
b) Conceals/amends Statute.
Be treated as case of Judicial Misconduct to prevent misuse of powers.
CCTV are being installed in Corridors (ineffective) to be effective mode of curbing corruption and bring transparency CCTV cameras have to be installed IN court rooms.

The changes have come after above letters / suggestions.

16.    Vide letter Dt 1-1-2010 (Annexure R-5) to Hon’ble the Chief Justice of this Court, Respondent had raised the following issues about judicial accountability. Extract of the letter is;-
“2.    Control of corruption in lower Judiciary. Our judges are only as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broadly (my) jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are not accountable for their orders like other government functionaries. Their orders being merely appealable do not render them liable for misuse of official position or to judicial misconduct. There is unlimited socializing with businessmen / University professors in lower judiciary. We have seen constitution, central/state acts being amended, witnesses being threatened in open courts, their statements being changed and facts manipulated. All on Rs1/- telephone call. A more permanent form of control of corruption may include:
A)     Install CCTV in all court rooms starting from ADJs. Every word which is spoken in Court should be mechanically recorded. This will ensure honest recording of evidence and prevent threatening of witnesses and manipulation of evidence by Judges.
B)     A judge speaks through his Judgment and so does his morality or lack of it. Amend service rules to include any order which tantamount to amendment of Constitution/Central/ State Acts and manipulation of facts as case of violation of oath of office and thus a case of major criminal misconduct and corruption.

As per the existing practice of giving a judge / judgment on a platter to a party in litigation, e g to ‘A’ in case of “A versus B”, a DJ/ADJ would telephone his colleague/ Civil judge and tell him ‘B’ is ‘exploiting’ the system. The hint is clear. ADJ/Civil Judge is to please ‘A’. So in order to please ‘A’ if the concerned Judge has to amend Constitution/Central/State Act and or manipulate facts so be it. If day is (mis)interpreted as night or ‘X’ into ‘Y’ and ‘Y’ into ‘Z’, it should not be treated as case of misinterpretation, but case involving amendment of ‘Act’ or manipulation of ‘fact’. Such an Order be treated as violation of oath of office / criminal misconduct involving moral turpitude. The judge be arrested and no bail be granted.” (Emphasis supplied).

17.    The above letter proves that the sole endeavor of the respondent is about judicial accountability Reforms and there was nothing personal in any issue. The above letters also prove the fact that more than 2 years earlier, respondent had pointed out that the only method /  means by which a corrupt Judge can favor a particular party or a particular advocate is either by;-
A)     Concealment or amendment of facts.
B)     Concealment or amendment of Statute.
In this context, to bring Judicial accountability, he had suggested;-
A)     Both the above acts be treated as violation of oath of office / criminal misconduct.
B)     That judgment reflects the above violations as there can never be a ‘witness’ to any dealings between a Judge and a party  or an advocate but the judgment alone reflects the morality of its author.
C)     Appeal is no remedy for a corrupt Judgment.

18.    This letter Dt 1.1.2010 had become necessary as in last more than decade or more we have seen more and more cases where judges have subverted independence of Judiciary and common businessman whose sole endeavor was money had started saying in social circles and in particular D P Ojha who said that Judge is just Rs 1 away (Referring to cost of call). Yet again; I quote, Justice Shylendra  Kumar “Judicial accountability is a phrase, which sounds incongruous and can convey conflicting messages. 

      The phrase has assumed importance in the wake of the improper, irregular, incorrect manner of functioning of judicial officers, which was not an unknown phenomenon earlier but has assumed greater significance and importance in the present context, particularly in the wake of the incidents of misconduct on the part of the judges, even amongst the judges in the superior courts, being on the rise, attracting adverse public attention, media attention and conveying an impression to the people of the country that the members of judiciary are not behaving in a proper manner, are not behaving in a responsive manner are even indulging in acts of misconduct, have even misused and abused their offices for non-judicial purposes and are virtually abusing their position and powers for personal gains.” 

.....