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.”
.....
