Text of my application in my tryst of fight with corruption in Judiciary;
IN THE HIGH COURT
OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Crl Misc 32489 of
2017
In CROCP 1 of
2012.
Court of its own
Motion
Versus
Kapil Dev Aggarwal, Advocate.
Versus
Kapil Dev Aggarwal, Advocate.
Application u/s
482 CRPC for placing documents on record.
Respectfully
Showeth;
1. That truth is allowed as a defense u/s 13
of Contempt’s of Court Act. Respondent is pleading truth as defense for which
an application shall be filed at the appropriate stage of charge. The matter is
still at pre-charge consideration.
2. That there are five fold submissions at
pre-charge consideration.
a) Whether matter can proceed further in view
of concealment of material facts by J. Surya Kant as now given in reply? The
facts in connection with reminding him his oath are more particularly detailed in
paras 1, 2 11, 22 (date 6.4.2011), 23, 23, 24, 25 and Annexures R-1 to R-10 of
the reply. Link.
b) Whether matter can proceed further in view
of multiple counts of false evidence given by J. Surya Kant in his statement to
Hon’ble Chief Justice? Gist of false evidence given by J. Surya Kant is given
in Annexure R-46. Link.
c) Whether statement of Judge Surya Kant is
without Jurisdiction having been made in CA 167/2011 which was for seeking his recusal?
The said application seeking his recusal was filed under orders of the then
Hon’ble Chief Justice?
d) Whether reminding a Judge his oath; Scandalises,
prejudices or interferes in the working of Hon’ble High Court.
e) Whether matter can proceed further in view
of bar created by Section 13 (1) of contempt’s of Courts Act which states;-
“no court shall
impose a sentence under this Act for a contempt of Court unless it is satisfied
that the contempt is of such a nature that it Substantially interferes, or
tends to substantially to interfere with the due course of justice.”
Case was not pending
when Judge Surya Kant was reminded his oath. Hence question of substantial interference
with due course of Justice does not arise.
3. Respondent vide his letter Dt 1.1.10 (Annexure R-5) had written 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. Judge Surya Kant violated his oath while deciding CWP
10434/10 by multiple amendments and concealment of facts, multiple amendments
and concealment of 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. Judge Surya Kant violated his ‘oath’
under which he had undertaken not to pass any order out of favor and affection.
Respondent could not neglect to follow his
own advice. Respondent reminded Judge Surya Kant his oath vide letter dt 4.6.2011. A
complaint was simultaneously made to the Hon’ble Chief Justice by letter of
even date. A complaint was also made to Hon’ble the chief Justice of India vide
letter Dated 3.9.2011 Annexure R-28. Letter dt 19.9.2011 received
from Hon’ble Supreme court of India is on record Annexure R-7. Affidavit
was also filed.
4. That the letter was just to remind Judge
Surya Kant his ‘oath’, but even informing the judge that he has deviated from
his sworn duty was in performance of duty of an advocate under Advocates Act. A
single judge of Karnataka High Court while interpreting the duties and
responsibilities of an advocate has stated that while making complaints against
judges, the advocates should also boldly inform the concerned judge. The
relevant text is reproduced in Para 13 of reply and is reproduced herein again
for ready reference;
“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).
5. The duty and responsibilities of lawyers
which the Hon’ble Judge was interpreting is mentioned in Rule 1 (1) of the
professional conduct of advocates framed by Bar Council of India in exercise of
powers under section 7 and 49 of Advocates Act;-
“RULES OF AN ADVOCATE’S DUTY TOWARDS THE COURT
1. An advocate
shall, during the presentation of his case and while otherwise
acting before a court, conduct himself with dignity and self-respect. He shall
not be servile and, whenever there is
proper ground for serious complaint against a judicial officer, it shall be his
right and duty to submit his grievance to proper authorities.”
It is indeed a
moot point as to how many advocates have performed their duty to this court. Someone
always has to be the first. We have to draw a line at wrongdoing and take a
stand against it. It’s also our divine imperative and moral responsibility
apart from statutory duty.
6. Respondent
reminded Judge Surya Kant his oath after taking copy thereof under RTI. No
judge can or should treat his own oath as a crime. No one forced a judge to
take ‘oath’. If his ‘oath’ is not a crime, reminding it, is also not a crime.
Relevant Laws on complaints against delinquent judges is sought to be placed on
record as Annexure R-29-31, 6. After my instant complaint to hon’ble Chief
Justice of this Court, The securitization matters were shifted from single
bench to division bench Annexure 36. Several other letters by
Respondent after which reforms happened are mentioned in para 15 of the reply.
Letters do have positive effect if seen by honest and upright people.
7. CA 580/11 is
regarding payment being made by D P Ojha in name of fictitious security guards.
Information was received about connivance of D P Ojha with others, hence
request was made to Hon’ble the chief Justice to list CA 580/11 before Judge
other than J Surya Kant on which the Hon’ble the Chief Justice ordered;-
“If any change is required, matter may be mentioned before the Judge”
SD/ H’ Chief Justice.
In absence of any mechanism to record verbal submissions made in court,
hence out of abundant caution a written application being CA 657/11 was filed seeking
recusal of Judge Suryakant from hearing the matter. The order of Hon’ble Chief
Justice was brought to his notice. The application for recusal can either be
allowed and Judge recuses himself from the case and thereafter he would have no
jurisdiction to pass any other statement or order, or Judge can dismiss
application for recusal but then before making any other statement or order, judicial
prudence demands that the Judge has to give time to applicant to file appeal. Thus
in an application for recusal, a Judge has no jurisdiction to pass or make any
statement except on merits of application for recusal, which was not done. The
present statement has been made in CA 657/11 without first dealing with
application for recusal on merits and hence is without Jurisdiction.
8. Government
of India, Ministry of corporate affairs considers respondent as an expert in corporate
laws and matters relating official liquidators. Government of India had even
sought his suggestions on the working papers for liquidator’s manual. Annexure
R-39. Respondent was involved in exposing corruption by D P Ojha
official liquidator attached to this court through Company Judge. Judge Surya
Kant did not make any statement for criminal contempt on 4.6.2011 when
respondent sent him his oath. He made the present statement in January 2012
when he became Company Judge. Annexure R-41. Records reveal,
a) Thefts in
companies in liquidation took place only when Judge Surya Kant was company
Judge. Annexure R-40 and R-41. U/S 456(2) custody of assets of Companies
in liquidation vest with Hon’ble high Court and whatever happens to assets or
to Companies under liquidation is done under orders and control of Company
Judge. Annexure R-42.
b) Judge Surya
Kant approved the payments to security agencies in contravention of norms to
ghost / fictitious employees. Norms required Identity proofs of security guards
to be submitted to official Liquidator attached with this Court. Judge Surya
Kant approved the payments without ID proofs thereby violating the norms.
c) Sale of land
were done and approved by Judge Surya kant on the basis of valuation which did
not mention collectorate rate (an exception was valuation done by NITCON a govt
agency).
9. The opinion
of public on present day judiciary can be inferred from public comments online edition
Times of India on a statement of the then Chief Justice of India which were
brought to his notice vide letter Dt 5.12.2016. Annexure R-45. link
Matter is being contested on merits so that honest and upright judge in
performance of his public duty may take action against the black sheep whose
conduct is affecting image of other judges. Even Chief Justice(retd) B K Roy
had written a letter DT 6.5.2005 implying that Judge Surya Kant had ante dated
orders on judicial files. Annexure R-44 The said case CWP 6916 of
2004 Neeraj Sharma versus UOI involved kith and kin of a Judge. Even in this case
in CM 5153/11, J. Surya Kant issued notice for 5.5.2011. As per his orders case
was also listed on 5.5.2011 in CR 19 Annexure R-37, The order of ‘notice’ in CM 5153/11 for
5.5.2011 is no longer on file. Record now shows dismissal order of CM 5153/11
Dt 8.4.2011 Annexure R-10. CM 5153/11 was never listed on
8.4.2011. Annexure R-38.
10. The documents sought to be placed on record
are as under;
a) Annexure R-28; Copy of complaint Dt
3.9.2011 to Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India.
b) Laws relating to rights, duties,
responsibilities of making complaints against delinquent judges.
i) Under
advocates Act Annexure R-29
ii) Under
Judges Protection Act Annexure R-30
iii) Hon’ble supreme Court of India In-house
mechanism, letter by Central Government Dt 27.4.2012 Annexure R-31
iv) Letter By Ministry of Law Dated 27.5.2011
already on record as Annexure R-6
c) Annexure R-32; letter No 662/APIO/HC Dt
26.04.2012 from Hon’ble High Court (relevant to para 2 of reference)
d) Annexure R-33; letter No 544/APIO/HC Dt
04.04.2012 from Hon’ble High Court (relevant to para 8 of reference).
e) Annexure R-34; Letter No 6555 DT 3.2.2011
from DP Ojha official Liquidator
f) Annexure R-35; Copy of order of this Court
Dt 4.9.2012 in IO in CP 196/1997.
g) Annexure R-36; letter No 839/APIO/HC Dt
16.05.2012 from Hon’ble High Court
h) Annexure R-37; Copy of certified copy of
cause list of CR No 19 dated 05.05.2011.
i) Annexure R-38 copy of certified copy of
cause list of Judge Surya Kant Dt 8.4.2011.
j) Annexure R-39; Copy of letter Dt 10.4.2012
from Government of India, Ministry of Corporate.
k) Annexure R-40; Copy of letter No 3003
Dated 21.9.2015 from official liquidator of attached to this court
l) Annexure R-41; copy of letter No
672/PIO/HC Dated 6.10.2015
m) Annexure R-42; copy of notings made by
Reader Company branch dated 9.11.2009,
n) Annexure R-43; copy of letter Dt 1.11.2014
regarding habitual obstruction of administration of justice by Judge Surya Kant.
o) Annexure R-44; Copy of complaint Dated may
6, 2005 by the then Hon’ble Chief Justice B K Roy against Judge Surya Kant for
tempering / anti dating judicial orders.
p) Annexure R-45; Copy of letter Dt 5.12.2016
to H Chief Justice of India referring him online comments on Times of India.
q) Annexure R-46; summary of false evidence
given by Judge Surya Kant in present reference.
Case
is still at same stage when reply was filed. It is therefore prayed that, In the
interest of justice, Photostat copies of documents / annexures R-28 to R-46 be
taken on record.
Chandigarh Kapil
Dev Aggarwal
Date; 3.9.2017 Counsel
for respondent
