आईये.... .....!!! भारत बदलें ....
Let's Change India ....
वैसे तो हिंदुस्तान की न्यायपालिका
में फर्जीवाड़े बिना किसी शर्म, संकोच, और डर के 15/08/1947 से ही शुरू हो गये थे I
हमनें एक लेख में पढ़ा था कि – जब देश में सत्ता अंग्रेजों के हाथ में थी तब
तक जज भी कोर्ट में समय से आते थे , जैसे ही सता हस्तांतरण हुआ तो अगले दिन से ही
जजों ने समय पर पहुँचने की बजे लेट आना शुरू कर दिया I क्योंकि संवैधानिक प्रावधान के अनुसार
न्यायपालिका को स्वतंत्र इसलिए रखा गया ताकि लोगों को निष्पक्ष न्याय मिल सके,
लेकिन न्यायपालिका ने इस आज़ादी का नाजायज फायदा उठाते हुए फर्जीवाड़े करने शुरू कर दिये I धीरे -2 स्वार्थी
और तानाशाही सोच निरंकुश होती चली गई क्योंकि कांग्रेस सरकारों ने अपने स्वार्थो
की पूर्ति के लिए अपने चहेतों को न्यायपालिका में नियुक्ति करके अपने भ्रष्ठ
कारनामे जारी रखे, इसी कमजोरी के चलते देश में आज तक किसी भी भ्रष्ठ जज के खिलाफ
महाभियोग कामयाब ही नहीं हुआ तो जजों में डर ख़त्म हो गया I विधायिका की इसी कमजोरी
का फायदा उठाते हुए न्यायपालिका ने धीरे -2 अपने अधिकार और शाक्तियाँ बढ़ाते हुए ,
अपने भाई भतीजों को भर्ती करना शुरू कर दिया और एक बार जज के पद पर नियुक्ति हो गई
तो फिर कोई चुनौती देने वाला भी कुछ नहीं बिगाड़ सकता I और कोई ज्यादा कोशिश करे तो उनके खिलाफ
झूठे मुकदमे डलवाकर , जेल में डाल कर इतना प्रताड़ित कर दिया कि या तो वे दुनिया से
ही गायब करवा दिये गये या फिर उन्होंने जजों के फर्जीवाड़े के खिलाफ बोलना ही बंद
कर दिया I आज हालत इस कदर ख़राब हो चुके हैं कि – इस देश में लगभग 200 परिवार के
लोग या उनके रिश्तेदार ही जज बन पाते हैं
I गलत काम करने का डर या शर्म बिल्कुल ही खत्म हो चुकी है, कोई जबाबदेही,
जिम्मेदरी नहीं I बेवकूफी ऐसी कि – एक 5 साल का बच्चा भी इन जैसी गलती न करे
I अभी कुछ दिनों पहले सुप्रीम कोर्ट के तत्कालीन
मुख्य न्यायधीश तीरथ सिंह ठाकुर ने न्यायपालिका के बारे में एक कडवा सच कहा था कि –
देश की न्यायपालिका अपनी विश्वसनीयता को चुकी है ( Indian Judiciary is facing Credibility Crisis ) . वैसे उन्होंने इस
पद पैर रहते हुए न्यायपालिका में सुधार के
लिए कुछ भी प्रयास नहीं किया, सिवाय मीडिया के सामने बयानबाजी करने के
...........!!!
जज बनने के लिए आपको केवल
शपथ लेते वक्त ही संविधान की रक्षा का नाटक करना है, उसके बाद तो आप संविशन की
कितनी ही धज्जियाँ उड़ा लो, कोई आप पर रोक
लगाने वाला नहीं ...... ये सब गैर जिम्मेदार, तानाशाही रवैया देश के लोग देश की
अदालतों में देश रहे हैं I पिछले कुछ वर्षों में तो जजों की बेशर्मी और तानाशाही
ने हदें ही पार कर दी है I सरे आम रिश्वत लेकर, निर्दोष को सजा और दोषी को बरी
करने का धंधा देश की अदालतों में, भ्रष्ठ वकीलों के माध्यम से चल रहा है I सलमान खान और जयललिता के केस में न्यायपालिका
का रवैया सबने देशा कि कैसे प्रभावशाली लोगों को जमानत देने के लिए हमारी
न्यायपालिका आतुर रहती है और गरीब मजबूर व्यक्ति की जन लेने पर उतारू रहते हैं I
देश के कई करोड़ लोगों का इन भ्रष्ठ जजों ने न केवल सामाजिक, आर्थिक, मानसिक शोषण किया, बल्कि कई लोग तो प्रताड़ना के चलते इस दुनियां से
अलविदा ही हो गये I न्यायपालिका की
तानाशाही, फर्जीवाड़े और अन्याय के खिलाफ आवाज़ बुलंद करने वालों को डराने, प्रताड़ित
करने, के लिए उन निर्दोष लोगों पर झूठे कंटेम्प्ट के केस दर्ज करवाकर न केवल
डराया, बल्कि उनको जेल भी भेजा, आम जनता न्यायपालिका के इस फर्जीवाड़े और तानाशाही के
सामने मजबूर थी I जजों ने हमेशा से ही अपने फर्जीवाड़े करने वाले जजों
को बचाने के लिये , हर नियम कानून, कायदे तो तक पर रखा , हाई कोर्ट और सुप्रीम
कोर्ट ने अपने फायदे के लिए खुद ही मनमाने नियम बनाकर जनता को, अपने फर्जीवाड़े के
सबूत से दूर रखा और सबूत मिल भी गये तो उन जजों के खिलाफ कोई कार्यवाही नहीं हुई
I सच को कितना भी नकार लो , कितने
भी फर्जीवाड़े, घपले कर लो , लेकिन एक सीमा
के बाद कुदरत अपने तरीके से हर गड़बड़ी का ईलाज करती है .....................
इसी का नतीजा है जस्टिस
करनन ............ का न्यायपालिका की तानाशाही और भ्रष्टाचार के खिलाफ आवाज़ बुलंद
करना I उनका कसूर सिर्फ इतना था कि --- उन्होंने जज रहते हुए न्यायपालिका के 20
भ्रष्ठ जजों के भ्रष्टाचार और फर्जीवाड़े के खिलाफ देश के प्रधानमंत्री को
कार्यवाही के लिए लिखा था I संविधान के आर्टिकल 51 –A – h के अनुसार किसी
भी गलत कार्य / भ्रष्टाचार के खिलाफ आवाज़ बुलंद करना कोई अपराध नहीं है, बल्कि ये
देश के हर नागरिक का कर्तव्य है I जस्टिस
करनन ने यही तो किया था , ऐसे में सुप्रीम कोर्ट की जिम्मेदारी ये बनती थी कि – वो
उस शिकायत पर संज्ञान लेकर, शिकायतकर्ता से सबूत मांग कर दोषी जजों के खिलाफ
कार्यवाही करती I लेकिन सुप्रीम कोर्ट के भ्रष्ठ , गैर जिम्मेदार और
तानाशाही सोच वाले जजों ने जस्टिस करनन को हो कंटेम्प्ट का नोटिस भेज दिया
और जल्दबाजी करते हुए नियम कानून को ताक पर रखते हुए केवल 15 मिनट में ही सजा सुना दी और
जब कि – ये सातों जज सजायाप्ता थे और कानून के अनुसार पहले राष्ट्रपति के पास जाकर
अपने खिलाफ सजा के आदेश को निरस्त करवाकर ही , जस्टिस करनन के खिलाफ कोई कार्यवाही कर सकते थे
I
जस्टिस करनन क्योंकि हाई
कोर्ट के वर्तमान कार्यरत जज थे, इसलिए, उन्होंने भी सुप्रीम कोर्ट के भ्रष्ठ जजों
के गैर कानूनी कारनामे के खिलाफ, अपनी
कानूनी ताकत का इस्तेमाल करने की हिम्मत दिखाई तो ये सब घटनाक्रम सुप्रीम कोर्ट के
तानाशाही सोच वाले जजों को हजम नहीं हुआ और
जस्टिस करनन को किसी भी प्रकार से कुचलने के लिए अलग 2 हथकंडे अपनाकर उनको
प्रताड़ित, अपमानित और जलील करने की अलग -2 कोशिश हुई I कभी उनकी मानसिक हालत पर
सवाल उठाये गये .................. लेकिन जस्टिस करनन ने अकले पड़ने के बावजूद भी
हिम्मत नहीं हारी I अगर वो डर जाते या हार मन लेते तो सुप्रीम कोर्ट के जजों की
तानाशाही सोच के ये घटिया रूप दुनिया को देशने को कभी भी नहीं मिलता, जिसके कारण
हिंदुस्तान की न्यायपालिका आज अपनी जलालत के सबसे बुरे दौर से गुजर रही है I
आप सभी को मालूम है कि –
इन तानाशाही जजों ने पहले भी जजों की नियुक्ति के लिए नियुक्त कोल्लेसियम सिस्टम को
खत्म करके National Judges Appointment
Council ( NJAC ) ख़त्म करने की कोशिश सिर्फ इसलिए की गई
ताकि न्यायपालिका में अपनी 150 परिवारों
की तानाशाही को बरकरार रखा जा सके I ऐसी ही कोशिश जस्टिस करनन को सजा करके की गई, ताकि संसद के महाभियोग के अधिकार पर
अतिक्रमण करके , न्यायपालिका अपनी ताकत और शाक्तियाँ अपनी मर्जी और स्वार्थ के
अनुसार कर सके I
इस लेख के साथ हम जस्टिस करनन के द्वारा राष्ट्रपति प्रणब मुखर्जी
जी को भेजा गया पत्र साँझा कर रहे हैं, देश हित में और न्यायपालिका के फर्जीवाड़े
और तानाशाही रोकने के लिए आप सभी से निवेदन है कि --- इसको पढ़ें, समझें और ज्यादा लोग प्रधानमंत्री और राष्ट्रपति जी को
ईमेल, पत्र के माध्यम से सुप्रीम कोर्ट के जजों के द्वारा संवैधानिक प्रावधान और
कानूनी प्रावधान को दरकिनार करके रंजिश और बदला लेने की भावना की नियत से , पद व्
शक्तियों का दुरूपयोग और शपथ का उलंघन करकर की गई सजा को निरस्त/ ख़त्म करने की
विनती भेजें I आपकी इस छोटी सि कोशिश से देश के करोड़ों पीड़ित लोगों का भला होगा I
धन्यवाद
............... जय हिन्द
.................
आपका भवदीय
Manojj Kr. Vishwakarma...
Social Activist, RTI Activist & Scientist
A Responsible Citizen of Nation.......&
Social Activist, RTI Activist & Scientist
A Responsible Citizen of Nation.......&
Victim of Judicial Corruption.............
Copy of Representation of Justice Karnan.................
JUSTICE C.S.KARNAN
JUDGE, HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CALCUTTA
1/GB, Rosedale Towers, New Town, Kolkotta
E mail:- caccorrot@gmail.com
06th June, 2017
To
1) His Excellency Shri Pranab Kumar Mukherjee,
President of India,
Rashtrapati Bhavan,
Raisina Hill,
New Delhi-110 004.
2) Hon'ble Shri Narendra Modi,
Prime Minister of India,
New Delhi.
3) Hon'ble Council of Ministers to the Hon'ble Prime Minister,
New Delhi.
4) Hon'ble Members of Parliament,
New Delhi.
5) Hon'ble Leaders of Political Parties,
New Delhi.
Hon'ble Sirs/Mesdames,
Sub: My removal from office/de facto impeachment by the Supreme Court by bypassing the Parliament – Memorandum to the President of India under Article 72 of the Constitution seeking suspension of the sentence awarded to me – regarding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. I address Your Excellency the President of India, the Hon'ble Prime Minister, the Hon'ble Council of Ministers, the Hon'ble Members of Parliament and Leaders of major political parties by a single common letter for practical considerations, with a heavy heart. I request your gracious selves to treat this letter as one addressed to each of you personally.
2. His Excellency the President of India by warrant appointed me as a Judge of the High Court of Madras. Under the constitutional scheme, the power of appointment of Judges to the Supreme Court and High Courts is invested in the President of India – in other words, in the executive, with the only requirement that it be done with the consultation of the Chief Justice of India (CJI). By the judgment in the Judges-2 case, the Supreme Court arrogated to itself the said power. By the judgment in Judges-3 case, the concept of collegiums was further institutionalized. Even when the executive appointed Judges to the higher judiciary, the appointees were from a narrow pool. The collegiums system meant the pool to be still narrowed, namely, the kith and kin, nephews and juniors of sitting and former Judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts, so too of celebrated lawyers, Chief Ministers, Governors et al, and a few first generation lawyers who are all politically connected or are close to big industrial houses, and total destruction of democratic legitimacy; so too diversity in judicial appointments. One Suraj Trust sought a review of the judgments in Judges-2 and Judges-3 cases. The case was admitted; a larger Bench was directed to be constituted to hear the case, but no such Bench was ever constituted; very few know about the fate of the said case, which I consider to be the Judges-4 case.
3. There was near unanimity among all concerned that the collegiums system has failed to achieve its aim, namely, appointing the most deserving, meritorious and eligible candidates as Judges. The remedy prescribed by the Government as a NJAC. The Constitution was amended to make the NJAC a reality, but the Constitution amendment was struck down as unconstitutional by a Five-Judge Bench presided over by the present CJI. The NJAC was in the realm of a legislative policy; it was not justiciable at all. Yet, the Attorney General did not question the maintainability of the so-called PIL at the hands of SCAORA challenging the NJAC Act. The NJAC Act was struck down as unconstitutional and the collegium system has been restored. Things are back to square one once again; appointments to the august office of the Judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts continue to be made without any element of transparency. The reality today is that the power of appointment of Judges to the higher judiciary is with the collegium of the seniormost five Judges of the Supreme Court. Judges appoint themselves and we are the only country in the world to do so.
4. The Seven-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court by its order dated 8th February, 2017, without any notice or affording any notice, divested me of my judicial and administrative work. It meant my de facto removal from my constitutional office, which only the Parliament can do. Removing a Judge from his office is not a judicial function; it is an administrative one. That power is in the exclusive province of the Parliament by impeachment. A Judge of the Supreme Court or of a High Court can be removed from office for proved misconduct by the President upon a motion which has received the assent of both the Houses of the Parliament with 2/3rd of the members present and voting. The Seven-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court by its order dated 8th February, 2017 removed me from my office by divesting me of my judicial and administrative work/powers. The only consolation is that I am not deprived of my salary and perks. By its order dated 9th May, 2017, the Supreme Court ordered me to be jailed for contempt of Court which means that I am also divested of the perks and privileges I enjoyed.
5. The informed common men of this country are concerned about the manner in which I am removed from my office and sentenced to imprisonment. It meant arrogation of the power of removal of a Judge of a High Court by the Supreme Court. It has also meant a fatal blow to the concept of independence of Judges of the High Courts and of the Supreme Court. If the manner in which I am removed from office remains unquestioned, tomorrow Judges and Chief Justices of High Courts or even Puisne Judges of the Supreme Court could be removed from their office by the Supreme Court. I spoke to many on the subject. The irresistible impression I could gather is that they too are deeply concerned about this development, though none, except Shri D. Raja (Rajya Sabha,TN) and Shri Harinder Singh Khalsa (Loksabha, Fatehgarh Sahib, Punjab), has come in the open.
6. To repeat, I was convicted without framing a charge, without being told the allegations constituting the charge, without a lawyer to defend me to say my side of the story. Even a devil is entitled to a hearing, an advocatus diabolic. The judgment containing the reasons for which I was found guilty is yet to be authored/pronounced. Hon'ble Shri Justice P.C. Ghose, one of the members of the Seven-Judge Bench, has retired on 27th May, 2017. I, the alleged contemnor, am entitled to know the reasons for which I was convicted; I am entitled to a copy of the judgment; no judgment could have been pronounced in my absence; even where I am convicted in terms of the proviso to Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, I am entitled to a say as to the sentence to be imposed; and I am liable to be discharged if I were to make even a conditional apology.
7. My removal from his office by the Supreme Court by its order of conviction and sentence dated 9th May, 2017 is absolutely unconstitutional. A substantive Writ Petition in challenge of the said order and challenging the vires of the Contempt of Courts Act has been instituted in the Supreme Court; so too an application to recall the said order, but the said proceedings are refused to be listed in the open Court. The Registry rejected them without hearing my lawyer and without notice. Accordingly, on my behalf, a memorandum dated 17th May, 2017 under Article 72 of the Constitution has been preferred to His Excellency, the President of India, seeking suspension of the sentence. His Excellency is in seisin of the matter. It is a fundamental principle of law that in praesentia majoris potestatis, minor potestas cessat – in the presence of the superior power, the minor power ceases and though I have placed himself at the bosom of and seeking intervention of His Excellency, I continue to face the threat of arrest, despite the DGPs of Tamilnadu and West Bengal being kept abreast of the steps taken.
8. The supremacy of the Parliament, the majesty of law and independence of judiciary are of paramount importance. The order dated 9th May, 2017 in my case is rendered at peril of these fundamental principles. Therefore, it is the sacred duty of your gracious selves to pay your anxious consideration to the constitutional crisis, as aforesaid, and act in no loss of time to protect the majesty of law, independence of the judiciary and, above all, the supremacy of the Parliament in matters which fall within its exclusive domain.
9. Hence the instant letter seeking an audience of your gracious selves.
Thanking you in anticipation,
Sd/-
[JUSTICE C.S. KARNAN]
JUDGE, HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CALCUTTA
1/GB, Rosedale Towers, New Town, Kolkotta
E mail:- caccorrot@gmail.com
06th June, 2017
To
1) His Excellency Shri Pranab Kumar Mukherjee,
President of India,
Rashtrapati Bhavan,
Raisina Hill,
New Delhi-110 004.
2) Hon'ble Shri Narendra Modi,
Prime Minister of India,
New Delhi.
3) Hon'ble Council of Ministers to the Hon'ble Prime Minister,
New Delhi.
4) Hon'ble Members of Parliament,
New Delhi.
5) Hon'ble Leaders of Political Parties,
New Delhi.
Hon'ble Sirs/Mesdames,
Sub: My removal from office/de facto impeachment by the Supreme Court by bypassing the Parliament – Memorandum to the President of India under Article 72 of the Constitution seeking suspension of the sentence awarded to me – regarding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. I address Your Excellency the President of India, the Hon'ble Prime Minister, the Hon'ble Council of Ministers, the Hon'ble Members of Parliament and Leaders of major political parties by a single common letter for practical considerations, with a heavy heart. I request your gracious selves to treat this letter as one addressed to each of you personally.
2. His Excellency the President of India by warrant appointed me as a Judge of the High Court of Madras. Under the constitutional scheme, the power of appointment of Judges to the Supreme Court and High Courts is invested in the President of India – in other words, in the executive, with the only requirement that it be done with the consultation of the Chief Justice of India (CJI). By the judgment in the Judges-2 case, the Supreme Court arrogated to itself the said power. By the judgment in Judges-3 case, the concept of collegiums was further institutionalized. Even when the executive appointed Judges to the higher judiciary, the appointees were from a narrow pool. The collegiums system meant the pool to be still narrowed, namely, the kith and kin, nephews and juniors of sitting and former Judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts, so too of celebrated lawyers, Chief Ministers, Governors et al, and a few first generation lawyers who are all politically connected or are close to big industrial houses, and total destruction of democratic legitimacy; so too diversity in judicial appointments. One Suraj Trust sought a review of the judgments in Judges-2 and Judges-3 cases. The case was admitted; a larger Bench was directed to be constituted to hear the case, but no such Bench was ever constituted; very few know about the fate of the said case, which I consider to be the Judges-4 case.
3. There was near unanimity among all concerned that the collegiums system has failed to achieve its aim, namely, appointing the most deserving, meritorious and eligible candidates as Judges. The remedy prescribed by the Government as a NJAC. The Constitution was amended to make the NJAC a reality, but the Constitution amendment was struck down as unconstitutional by a Five-Judge Bench presided over by the present CJI. The NJAC was in the realm of a legislative policy; it was not justiciable at all. Yet, the Attorney General did not question the maintainability of the so-called PIL at the hands of SCAORA challenging the NJAC Act. The NJAC Act was struck down as unconstitutional and the collegium system has been restored. Things are back to square one once again; appointments to the august office of the Judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts continue to be made without any element of transparency. The reality today is that the power of appointment of Judges to the higher judiciary is with the collegium of the seniormost five Judges of the Supreme Court. Judges appoint themselves and we are the only country in the world to do so.
4. The Seven-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court by its order dated 8th February, 2017, without any notice or affording any notice, divested me of my judicial and administrative work. It meant my de facto removal from my constitutional office, which only the Parliament can do. Removing a Judge from his office is not a judicial function; it is an administrative one. That power is in the exclusive province of the Parliament by impeachment. A Judge of the Supreme Court or of a High Court can be removed from office for proved misconduct by the President upon a motion which has received the assent of both the Houses of the Parliament with 2/3rd of the members present and voting. The Seven-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court by its order dated 8th February, 2017 removed me from my office by divesting me of my judicial and administrative work/powers. The only consolation is that I am not deprived of my salary and perks. By its order dated 9th May, 2017, the Supreme Court ordered me to be jailed for contempt of Court which means that I am also divested of the perks and privileges I enjoyed.
5. The informed common men of this country are concerned about the manner in which I am removed from my office and sentenced to imprisonment. It meant arrogation of the power of removal of a Judge of a High Court by the Supreme Court. It has also meant a fatal blow to the concept of independence of Judges of the High Courts and of the Supreme Court. If the manner in which I am removed from office remains unquestioned, tomorrow Judges and Chief Justices of High Courts or even Puisne Judges of the Supreme Court could be removed from their office by the Supreme Court. I spoke to many on the subject. The irresistible impression I could gather is that they too are deeply concerned about this development, though none, except Shri D. Raja (Rajya Sabha,TN) and Shri Harinder Singh Khalsa (Loksabha, Fatehgarh Sahib, Punjab), has come in the open.
6. To repeat, I was convicted without framing a charge, without being told the allegations constituting the charge, without a lawyer to defend me to say my side of the story. Even a devil is entitled to a hearing, an advocatus diabolic. The judgment containing the reasons for which I was found guilty is yet to be authored/pronounced. Hon'ble Shri Justice P.C. Ghose, one of the members of the Seven-Judge Bench, has retired on 27th May, 2017. I, the alleged contemnor, am entitled to know the reasons for which I was convicted; I am entitled to a copy of the judgment; no judgment could have been pronounced in my absence; even where I am convicted in terms of the proviso to Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, I am entitled to a say as to the sentence to be imposed; and I am liable to be discharged if I were to make even a conditional apology.
7. My removal from his office by the Supreme Court by its order of conviction and sentence dated 9th May, 2017 is absolutely unconstitutional. A substantive Writ Petition in challenge of the said order and challenging the vires of the Contempt of Courts Act has been instituted in the Supreme Court; so too an application to recall the said order, but the said proceedings are refused to be listed in the open Court. The Registry rejected them without hearing my lawyer and without notice. Accordingly, on my behalf, a memorandum dated 17th May, 2017 under Article 72 of the Constitution has been preferred to His Excellency, the President of India, seeking suspension of the sentence. His Excellency is in seisin of the matter. It is a fundamental principle of law that in praesentia majoris potestatis, minor potestas cessat – in the presence of the superior power, the minor power ceases and though I have placed himself at the bosom of and seeking intervention of His Excellency, I continue to face the threat of arrest, despite the DGPs of Tamilnadu and West Bengal being kept abreast of the steps taken.
8. The supremacy of the Parliament, the majesty of law and independence of judiciary are of paramount importance. The order dated 9th May, 2017 in my case is rendered at peril of these fundamental principles. Therefore, it is the sacred duty of your gracious selves to pay your anxious consideration to the constitutional crisis, as aforesaid, and act in no loss of time to protect the majesty of law, independence of the judiciary and, above all, the supremacy of the Parliament in matters which fall within its exclusive domain.
9. Hence the instant letter seeking an audience of your gracious selves.
Thanking you in anticipation,
Sd/-
[JUSTICE C.S. KARNAN]
No comments:
Post a Comment