To,
Registrar
General,
Punjab
and Haryana High court, Chandigarh.
Sub; Audio Video Recording of Judicial
Proceedings
Ref; Agenda
for next full court Meeting.
Sir,
1. There have been several incidents in recent
past of one officer of court threatening / shouting at another officer of
Court. The language used has surpassed all known level of decency and in some
cases has achieved levels of vulgarity. Threats and abuses are increasingly
being resorted to for personal benefit by one and all. It took me six years
(2008-2013) of diligence, patience and faith in truth to collect documentary
evidence about Fraud, embezzlement, theft etc of assets/properties in High
Court under Company Judge which, I, submitted to E-1 vide my letter Dt
26.10.2013 for appropriate action and had to face extreme form of oppression of
two Company Judges for steadfastly pursuing truth. E.g. On 11.3.2011, then
Company Judge, Justice Rajive Bhalla shouted in open court and asked me to withdraw my complaints of corruption
against D P Ojha Official Liquidator. J Rajive Bhalla threatened in open court
to finish my career, ask bar council to remove my name as a lawyer, dismiss all
my cases. Further, he will see to it that no judge decides my cases as per law
and cases of all my clients cases will also be dismissed if I do not withdraw my
information of corruption against D P Ojha, Official Liquidator. He also
threatened to institute Criminal contempt of Court proceedings against me for
filing complaint against DP Ojha. He also specifically told me not to file any
application under RTI with OL and to withdraw my complaint regarding
embezzlement of Rs 1.00 crores which was payment towards 41 employees claimed
by Industrial security agency of M L Sharma/J S Kahaan out of whom 38
have never been born. In open Court he called me names, gave abuses and
threats to me for filing complaints against D P Ojha. I immediately informed
this to Hon’ble the chief Justice vide my letter Dt 14.3.11.
2. Similarly On 21.10.11 I, was in Court of Company Judge Surya Kant. He
called me to stand before the desk of his reader and proceeded to issue me
threats 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”
Surya
Kant, Judge, continued to issue threats including bodily harm or forcible
physical restraint. Under threats Complainant recorded my statement. It was not
voluntary. While signing, I wrote that statement was recorded under coercion. I
wrote “In view of annoyance shown by
court”. Thereafter Justice Surya kant,
P & H High Court countersigned the same, verifying correctness of
the rider. Justice Surya kant thus accepted the correctness of rider that
statement was not voluntary and made under coercion ‘annoyance shown by Judge’
/ under threats. Justice Surya kant 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 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. He was then acting as Company Judge.
Hence
it is required to that CCTV cameras be installed in all Court rooms so that
vulgarity, indecency, abuses, name calling, threats and rampant use of
unparliamentary language being used in some Courts by anyone can be prevented
leading to more dignified atmosphere in Courtrooms. This will also lead to more
efficient justice delivery system. This issue be put in next agenda meeting of
Full Court.
In service of Nation
Date November 7, 2013 KD
Aggarwal.
Why CCTV cameras in courtrooms, retiring rooms is not acceptable to Judges
Why CCTV cameras in courtrooms, retiring rooms is not acceptable to Judges
A case for live telecast of court proceedings
_____________________________________________________________
Registrar General,
Punjab and Haryana High court, Chandigarh.
Sub; Invocation
of section 16 Contempt of Courts Act
Invocation
of Section 3(2) of Judges Protection Act
Against
Rajive Bhalla, Judge P & H High Court.
Sir,
1. Reference
my letter Dt 26.10.2013, wherein I had given documentary evidence about Fraud,
embezzlement, theft etc of assets/properties in High Court under nose of
Company Judge and had asked for enquiry by E-1 to find the culprit/s and their
punishment. On 11.3.2011, then Company
Judge, Justice Rajive Bhalla shouted in open court and asked me to withdraw my
complaints of corruption against D P Ojha Official Liquidator. J Rajive Bhalla
threatened in open court to finish my career, ask bar council to remove my name
as a lawyer, dismiss all my cases. Further, he will see to it that no judge
decides my cases as per law and cases of all my clients cases will also be
dismissed if I do not withdraw my information of corruption against D P Ojha,
Official Liquidator. He also threatened to institute Criminal contempt of Court
proceedings against me for filing complaint against DP Ojha. He also
specifically told me not to file any application under RTI with OL and to
withdraw my complaint regarding embezzlement of Rs 1.00 crores which was
payment towards 41 employees claimed by Industrial security agency of M L
Sharma/J S Kahaan out of whom 38 have never been born. In open
Court he called me names, gave abuses and threats to me for filing complaints
against D P Ojha. I immediately informed this to Hon’ble the chief Justice vide
my letter Dt 14.3.11.
2. Section 3(2) of Judges Protection Act states
as under;-
“(2) 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.”
3. “ Section 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 persons 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, so far as may be, apply
accordingly.
4. 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 … “
5. The court has come to a conclusion that
“shouting” in Court prime facie amounts to criminal contempt (CROCP 26/12). By
the acts mentioned in Para 1 above, Rajive Bhalla Judge, P & H High Court
is guilty of same offence which is 100 times more grievous when he issued
threats to an officer of a Court, thereby committed Contempt of his own Court.
Sec 2c states;
2 (c)
criminal contempt" means the publication (whether by words. spoken or
written, or by signs, or by visible representations, or otherwise) of any
matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever which-
(i) scandalises or tends to scandalise, or
lowers or tends to lower the authority of, any court; or
(ii) prejudices, or interferes or tends to
interfere with, the due course of any judicial proceeding; or
(iii) interferes or tends to interfere with,
or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other
manner;
Hence action be taken against Rajive Bhalla,
Judge Punjab and Haryana High Court under Contempt of Courts Act as well as
under Judges Protection Act.
Date November 7, 2013 KD Aggarwal.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Registrar General,
Punjab and Haryana High court, Chandigarh.
Sub; Invocation
of section 16 Contempt of Courts Act
Invocation
of Section 3(2) of Judges Protection Act
Against J
Surya kant, Judge P & H High Court.
Sir,
1. Reference
my letter Dt 26.10.2013, wherein I had given documentary evidence about Fraud,
embezzlement, theft etc of assets/properties in High Court under nose of
Company Judge and had asked for enquiry by E-1 to find the culprit/s and their
punishment. On 21.10.11 I, was in Court of Company Judge Surya Kant. He calls me
to stand before the desk of his reader and proceeded to issue me 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”
Surya
Kant, Judge, continued to issue threats including bodily harm or forcible
physical restraint. Under threats Complainant recorded my statement. It was not
voluntary. While signing, I wrote that statement was recorded under coercion. I
wrote “In view of annoyance shown by
court”. Thereafter Justice Surya kant,
P & H High Court countersigned the same, verifying correctness of
the rider. Justice Surya kant thus accepted the correctness of rider that
statement was not voluntary and made under coercion ‘annoyance shown by Judge’
/ under threats. Justice Surya kant 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 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. He was then acting as Company Judge.
2. Section 3(2) of Judges Protection Act states
as under;-
“(2) 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.”
3. “ Section 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 persons 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, so far as may be, apply
accordingly.
4. 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 … “
5. The court has come to a conclusion that
“shouting” in Court prime facie amounts to criminal contempt. By the acts
mentioned in Para 1 above, Surya Kant Judge, P & H High Court is guilty of
same offence which is 100 times more grievous when he issued threats to an
officer of a Court, thereby committed Contempt of his own Court. Sec 2c states;
2 (c)
criminal contempt" means the publication (whether by words. spoken or
written, or by signs, or by visible representations, or otherwise) of any
matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever which-
(i) scandalises or tends to scandalise, or
lowers or tends to lower the authority of, any court; or
(ii) prejudices, or interferes or tends to
interfere with, the due course of any judicial proceeding; or
(iii) interferes or tends to interfere with,
or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other
manner;
Hence action be taken against Surya Kant,
Judge Punjab and Haryana High Court under Contempt of Courts Act as well as
under Judges Protection Act.
Date November 7, 2013 KD Aggarwal.
