Perjury by Surya Kant, Judge, High Court Chandigarh

To,                March  25, 2017

Hon’ble President of India,

Rashtarpati Bhawan

New Delhi.

PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 222 of CONSTITUTION OF INDIA for Transfer of Judge Surya Kant Sharma of Punjab and Haryana High Court.

Sir,

I, KD Aggarwal, S/O RK Aggarwal R/O 1366, Sector 40-B, Chandigarh solemnly affirm and state:-

I.      Before I advert to the facts and statute which should have sent J Surya Kant to jail for 126 years for crimes committed by him as a Judge, let me recollect a story, I heard as a child, from TV artist Tabassum about a ‘prostitute.

“A prostitute was sole witness to a murder. She was approached by relatives of accused to lie and not to identity the accused in court. She was first offered Rs 5,000/-, she said no. The amount was gradually increased to Rs 5.0 lacs. She continued to say No, saying that would be against morals. Angered by her attitude the relatives retorted;- “you characterless women, you sell your body for Rs 500/-. Now you are not even accepting Rs 5.00 lacs when you are just to make one false statement and you speak of morals! What is your character? She responded;” This is my character that I do not lie. Other thing you are talking of is my profession. Everyone uses some part of his/her body to earn. Rickshawala uses his legs to earn, singer uses his throat/voice to earn, musician uses his fingers to earn, laborer uses his hands to earn, engineer doctor uses their brains to earn, I am no different, I also use part of my own body to earn. But I do not sell my soul. I will not lie. So please go away. You can offer the judge trying your case the same amount you first offered me i.e. Rs 5,000-, and the judge would make a false statement in judgment to call me a liar and dismiss case in your favor. But I will not lie. I don’t sell my soul. This is my character.” Maybe one of her clients told her how he got acquitted of murder.

For a Judge to make false statements in judicial proceedings (Perjury) was then an exception, but has it now become of a norm as per facts stated hereinafter?

II      Judge Surya Kant violated his oath while deciding CWP 10434/10 by multiple amendments and concealment of facts and statute, multiple violations of procedure of laws and even replacement of order as detailed in paras 1, 2 11, 22(date 6.4.2011), 23, 23, 24, 25 of reply and Annexures R-1 to R-10. All of this was done out of favor and affection for kith and kin of a judge. Party had changed advocate after case got listed before him. I reminded him his oath and also filed complaint against him. Judge Surya Kant in an act of personal vengeance, and in order to silence me, filed complaint against me being CROCP 1/2012. The statement made by a Judge to Hon’ble Chief Justice is evidence (in-chief) u/s 14(3) of Contempt’s of courts Act. The evidence given by Judge Surya Kant is against records and false to his knowledge. Judge Surya Kant thus committed offense as defined u/s 191-193 IPC which falls under Chapter XI of IPC; offenses against public Justice. Section 193 states;-

“Section 193:- Punishment for false evidence;

Whoever intentionally gives false evidence in any of a judicial proceeding, or fabricates false evidence for the purpose of being used in any stage of a judicial proceeding, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine; and whoever intentionally gives or fabricates false evidence in any other case, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine.”

False statements by a Judge also amounts to contempt’s of this court under Section 16 of contempt’s of Courts Act which states;-

“Section 16 in the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971;-

16. Contempt by Judge, Magistrate or other person acting judicially.—

(1) Subject to the provisions of any law for the time being in force, a Judge, Magistrate or other person acting judicially shall also be liable for contempt of his own court or of any other court in the same manner as any other individual is liable and the provisions of this Act shall, so far as may be, apply accordingly. —(1) Subject to the provisions of any law for the time being in force, a Judge, Magistrate or other person acting judicially shall also be liable for contempt of his own court or of any other court in the same manner as any other individual is liable and the provisions of this Act shall, so far as may be, apply accordingly."

III.    Even though whole statement is false but herein given below are those averments made by Judge Surya Kant which are proved false from records;-

A)     False Evidence by J. Surya Kant in Para 2 of CROCP 1/12;

Para 2 “No sooner did Mr KD Aggarwal get a copy of judgment, than it appears, firstly he applied for a copy of the “format of Oath” taken by me when I was sworn in as a Judge of this Court on 9.1.2004. The assistant public information officer of the High Court supplied an attested copy of the said format to Mr K.D. Aggarwal on 12.5.2011. Mr K.D.Aggarwal thereafter addressed a letter dated 4.6.2011 to me imputing motives while deciding the above mentioned case and claimed that I had no ‘moral right’ to hold the office as I had violated the ‘Oath’ which I took ‘to gain access to that office’. According to Mr K.D. Aggarwal, I wanted to give “pecuniary advantage” to the son of my “former colleague”. Mr Aggarwal sermoned me “to be an uncle and not to be Judge”. Mr K.D.Aggarwal also enclosed a Photostat copy of the oath Format after scrapping the phrase “do solemnly affirm” ”. Judge Suryakant thus implied that I have interpolated his oath of office by scrapping the words “do solemnly affirm” quoted by him.

Facts as per records / Proof of Falsehood;

1.      A perusal of his Oath (Annexure C) shows that there is an oblique mark between the two options  “do swear in the name of god/do solemnly affirm” It is a matter of common sense that Oath can only be under one format and in this case it was under “do swear in the name of god’ and hence the other option “do solemnly affirm” was struck off either by him or by the Office who had prepared his oath. Either way he himself admits in writing that he had forgotten his oath taken by him while being appointed as Judge of high Court and that I was correct in reminding it to him. There is no scrapping of words “do solemnly affirm” by respondent as falsely stated, the same scrapping would be seen in his original oath also. The original can be summed and perused.

2.      His contention that I applied for his oath AFTER I got certified copy of his order is also false. Facts are opposite. Copy of his oath was applied on 21.4.2011 and attested under RTI on 12.5.2011 (Annexure C), Order cannot be prepared without file. File of CWP 10434/10 was kept by him till 26.5.2011 (AnnexureR-32), i.e. for 50 days AFTER the order. He sent the file to branch on 26.5.2011 (AnnexureR-32) just before start of vacations. Certified copy of order was prepared on 13.6.2011, received on 22.6.2011. So his Oath of Office was applied for and delivered before receipt of order. April comes before June. His implication in his evidence that month of June 2011 comes before the month of April 2011 is false to his knowledge and derogatory to image of a High Court Judge.

3.      In my letter which was in exercise of my duty under advocates Act, I advised him to be a “Judge” and not to be an “Uncle” in Court while performing public duties. Direct opposite of what he says I ‘sermoned’ him.

B)     False Evidence by J. Surya Kant in Para 3-4 of CROCP 1/12;

Para 3 “Mr K.D. Aggarwal also appended a copy of the ‘Review Application’ purported to have been filed in the above mentioned case alongwith the above-stated letter addressed to me. Besides several ‘stinking’ averments made in the review application, it was also averred in its Para 6 that “there is no judicial consideration in the order. It appears to be the result of fear, favor or ill-will”.

Para 4; “Since the above mentioned letter alongwith the alleged review application was dropped at my residence in an ordinary (un-registered) envelope, I kept on waiting for the listing of the ‘review application’. Subsequently, it transpired that no such review application had been filed”.

I am not aware whether or not the aggrieved Industry preferred any appeal against my order Dt 7.4.2011.”

Facts as per records / Proof of Falsehood;

4.      His contention that no review was filed is false. Review was filed in the Registry on 2.5.2011 vide Diary No 664197. One can take either judicial remedy or administrative remedy. I took administrative remedy and made complaint Dt 4.6.2011 to Chief Justice of High Court and sought administrative actions against Judge Surya Kant. The Judicial remedy was taken in view of letter from Ministry of Law Dt 27.5.2011 (Annexure R-6) wherein it informed me that;-

“Protection is available to the Judges serving and retired for the acts done in the discharge of their judicial duty or function under the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985. However, if any violation of law is noticed / established, action can be taken by the competent authority under the relevant law of the land” Annexure Annexure R/6 Page 83 (internal)

5.      His contention that I dropped letter at his house is also false. Letter Dt 4.6.2011 (Annexure B) was hand delivered to his reader in Court on 4.6.2011 which fact could have been proved from record if CCTV Cameras were allowed to record happenings in court.

6.      His contention that he does not know about filing of appeal is also false. Whether appeal is filed or not is known to him by a click on his computer.

C)     False Evidence by J. Surya Kant in Para 5 of CROCP 1/12;

“I did not deem it appropriate to initiate any suo moto action against Mr K.D. Aggarwal at that stage primarily for the reason that there was no authentic proof that the letter and the ‘review application’ were fabricated documents to malign the Court and a member of the bar or were actually sent by Mr KD Aggarwal.”

Facts as per records / Proof of Falsehood;

7.      His contention that my letter appeared to be anonymous is false to his knowledge. My Letter was signed (Annexure B). It was on my letterhead with phone nos, address, enclosed in printed envelop of my office. Review application was signed. Every letter carrying signature, name, contact nos and address of the person carries a presumption of authenticity particularly when they enclosed copy of his oath (Annexure C) supplied by Hon’ble High Court under RTI.

D)     False Evidence by J. Surya Kant in Para 6 of CROCP 1/12;

“Mr. Aggarwal started showing his true colours and boasted that in the past also, he had confronted some other judges with this kind of communications.”

Two lies are contained in this false evidence;

8) It was complainant who threatened the Respondent in open Court

By stating;

“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 independent. Complainant continued to issue threats including bodily harm or forcible physical restraint. Under above threats Complainant recorded the statement of Respondent Annexure-E. However while signing, Respondent made it clear statement was recorded under coercion. Respondent wrote “In view of annoyance shown by court”. J. Surya Kant thereafter, countersigned the same, verifying correctness of the rider. Complainant accepted in writing that statement of respondent was not voluntary and was made under coercion/threats given by Judge.  Annexure E.

9)     His contention that I confronted some other judges with similar communications is also false to his knowledge as there is no other letter of confrontation ever to any other judge.

E)     False Evidence by J. Surya Kant in Para 8 of CROCP 1/12;

“The records of these Misc applications reveal that Mr KD Aggarwal had not only maligned some officials of the Liquidation Branch of the high court with baseless accusations but had also requested the Registrar judicial not to list his application in my Court ..”

Facts as per records / Proof of Falsehood;

Two lies are contained herein. One that complaint is against some employees and second that they are baseless.

10)    Complaint is against only ‘one’ employee out of ‘eight’ (Annexure R-33)  i.e. Jagjit Singh. ‘One’ does not become ‘Some’. Being a Company Judge, he knew that there were ‘several’ employees in Liquidation section and ‘complaint’ was only against ‘one’ namely Jagjit Singh. (Anx. R-33)

11)    By saying allegations are baseless, J Surya Kant has scandalized the Court.  J Surya Kant and D P Ojha have paid public money in names of security guard when there is no ID proof on record as required by norms.  J. Surya Kant authorized payments to security agencies in name of persons never been born, theft of assets took place during tenure of J Surya kant, properties have been valued several times and sold at much below their real valuations. And except in one case, collectorate rates were not mentioned in any valuation.

F)     False Evidence by J Surya Kant in Para 9 of CROCP 1/12;

“It would be appropriate at this stage to refer to another set of insinuations statedly made by Mr KD Aggarwal against Hon’ble Justice Rajive Bhalla which are lying in a sealed cover appended herewith as ‘Annexure G’. The genesis of these complaints, the contents of which are not known to me as the same are lying sealed, is that Mr K D Aggarwal ……. “   (He then goes on to say what is in a ‘sealed cover whose contents he himself earlier said he does not know’). He further states that KD Aggarwal had submitted a bill for payment of his professional charges. The said Bill was rejected by the official liquidator and it appears that the decision of duly approved by Hon’ble Justice Rajive Bhalla in his capacity as a company judge.” 

Facts as per records / Proof of Falsehood;

12.    At one stage J Surya Kant states that he does not know the contents because they are in a sealed cover and thereafter he narrates the contents also. Either, his first statement is false, or the second is false since both are inherently opposite to each other. Second Proof is R-14 in COCP 2085/11 which is again in a sealed cover and justice Surya Kant has not explained as to how he was able to “see inside the sealed cover” of R-14 also and to send it with certainty to Hon’ble the Chief Justice and orally attach it with CROCP 1/12.

13.    J Surya Kant conceals that the complaint against D P Ojha was filed on 3.8.2009 Annexure R-13 BEFORE his motivated rejection of Bill which was two years after on 3.2.2011 Annexure R-34. The contention of J Surya kant that year 2011 comes before the year 2009 is false to his knowledge and an insult to dignity of a Judge of Hon’ble High Court. The liability of respondent was an admitted liability is mentioned by this Hon’ble High Court in its order Dt  4.9.2012 Annexure R-35. It was declined by D P Ojha because respondent was exposing his corruption the corruption cannot occur unless D P Ojha had nexus in High Court.

14.    I sought information from High Court under RTI, to submit copy of report/rejection of Bill filed by D P Ojha and its stated ‘approval’ of rejection by Judge Rrajive Bhalla. This Hon’ble high Court informed vide its letter No 256 Dt 9.3.2011 Annexure R-15 that no such report was filed in the matter of Altos India Ltd regarding payment of liquidation expenses to respondent for preparation of its statement of affairs. Hence question of approval by J Rajive Bhalla does not arise. J Surya Kant knowingly gave false evidence.

G)     False Evidence by J. Surya Kant in Para 10 of CROCP 1/2012;

“As Mr K D Aggarwal could not stand any Court decision against his wishes…”  Mr KD Aggarwal starts filing complaints.

Facts as per records / Proof of Falsehood;

15)    No order was made by D P Ojha, Official Liquidator against KD Aggarwal when KD Aggarwal first filed Complaint of corruption against D P Ojha Official Liquidator vide his letter Dt 3.8.09 Annexure R/13 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.” The complaint against D P Ojha was filed on 3.8.2009 Annexure R-13 BEFORE his motivated rejection of Bill which was two years LATER on 3.2.2011 Annexure R-34. The contention of J Surya kant that year 2011 comes before 2009 is false to his knowledge.

 16)   No order is made against KD Aggarwal by Justice Rajive Bhalla then or even till date even though KD Aggarwal has filed complaints against Justice Rajive Bhalla to protect independence of Judiciary.

17)    Order Dt 7.4.2011 of Justice Surya Kant in CWP 10434/10, does not affect the KD Aggarwal or his clients hence no appeal was filed. 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 of properties to the Bank. No effort was made by Bank to take physical possession. Guarantees of amendment of facts and statute by a Judge are given by those who have nexus with a Judge.

H)     False Evidence by J. Surya Kant in Para 13 of CROCP 1/12; “Unless he (KD Aggarwal) had reasons, assuring guarantee to secure a favorable order, he would not have personally attacked a Judge under the garb or pretext of attacking the judgment”

Facts as per records / Proof of Falsehood;-

18)    The petitioners in CWP 10434/10 is one blind man and his 2 sons. They are living hand to mouth, wear tattered clothes and apart from a small house (in disputed ‘mortgage’) have no assets and no income. They have nothing to give. Such persons cannot be assured any sort of monetary based Guarantee (none has ever been given by KD Aggarwal).

19)    The averments does not corroborate with facts of the case. Petitioners had already offered more than the valuation of properties to the Bank. Order does not affect the petitioners. If petitioners felt aggrieved, they could have engaged other counsel to file appeal. No appeal was filed as order of Justice Surya Kant had NIL effect. Question of unfavorable order does not arise. Question is regarding violation of oath and independence of judiciary by Justice Surya Kant by multiple amendment of facts and statute, violation of legal procedures and change of orders out of favor and affection for kith and kin of a Judge.

I)      False Evidence by J. Surya Kant in Para 13 of CROCP 1/12;

“The allegations against Hon’ble Justice Rajive Bhalla where he is accused of conniving with Official Liquidator to plunder crores of rupees…”

Facts as per records /  Proof of Falsehood;

20)    There is no such allegation of ‘crores’ against J Rajive Bhalla.

IV.    Referring to Para 1, a girl of ‘ill repute’ does not sell her soul, she does not violate any moral oath. She and her family do not live on taxpayers money. Whereas making false statements in by a Judge in Judicial proceedings amounts to selling ones soul, violating a moral oath and committing offense of perjury for which Judge Surya Kant is liable to be punished with imprisonment for 126 years calculated for every time he lied in CROCP1/2012.

“Section 193 IPC. Punishment for false evidence: Whoever intentionally gives false evidence in any stage of a judicial proceeding, or fabricates false evidence for the purpose of being used in any stage of a judicial proceeding, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

J Surya Kant does not enjoy any immunity for crimes committed as a Judge. Section 3(2) of Judges Protection Act gives exceptions to protection. It states;-

“Nothing in sub-section (1) shall debar or affect in any manner the power of the Central Government or the State Government or the Supreme Court of India or any High Court or any other authority under any law for the time being in force to take such action (whether by way of civil, criminal or departmental proceedings or otherwise) against any person who is or was a Judge.”

Section 19 of IPC defines ‘judge’ in inclusive definition;-  “Judge".--The word "Judge" denotes not only every person who is officially designated as a Judge, but also … “

A time may come, that public interest / public may demand that certain judges must have forewarning notices affixed outside their courts saying;-

“This Judge can write imaginary facts/ imaginary constitution, legislative laws, based on favor, affection or ill-will. Truth, Constitution and Legislative laws are not allowed in this court. Anyone found speaking or pleading or relying on truth, constitution and Legislative laws shall be held guilty of contempt”.

V.      Public perceives Judiciary as most corrupt institution accountable to none*. Only stringent action against corrupt Judges (and NOT against whistle blowers) can reverse this image. Under the constitution and the laws, the J Surya Kant is as much liable for punishment, for crimes committed as a judge as any other person not being a judge. The protection afforded to him comes with conditions and exceptions. He is not above constitution and the laws. Under law, Judge Surya kant Sharma is liable to be punished with imprisonment for 126 years for crimes committed by him as a judge. Is there any judge who will apply law and punish J Surya Kant Sharma to imprisonment for 126 years as required by Constitution and the Laws? Are you, the One to uphold Law and direct punishment to J Surya kant for crimes committed by him as a Judge?

PRAYER;-

De-legalize criminal judges like J Surya Kant.

Chandigarh                                  Deponent

Verification;

Verified that contents of above affidavit are true to my knowledge and based on records. No part is false and nothing material is concealed.

Chandigarh

Deponent

*  Documents shall be submitted if required