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
