∆ Petition filed against Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra seeking action under Contempt and Perjury.
∆ Advocate Siddharth Luthra may face prosecution under sec. 409,109,120(B) of I.P.C., for the attempt of misappropriation of Supreme Court funds in conspiracy with others.
Adv. Nilesh Ojha
National President
Indian Bar Association
Adv. Vijay Kurle
Maharashtra &Goa State President
Indian Bar Association
Rashid Khan Pathan
National Secretary
Human Rights Security Council
Writ Petitions filed by Adv. Nilesh Ojha, National President of Indian Bar Association, Adv Vijay Kurle , State President of India Bar Association and Shri Rashid Khan Pathan, National secretary of Human Right Council, for setting aside the order dated 27.04.2020 and 04.05.2020 passed by the 2 – Judge Bench of Justice (Retd.) Deepak Gupta and Justice Aniruddha Bose.
Action sought against Adv. Siddharth Luthra for his grossest professional misconduct of providing overruled judgments and for misguiding the court by submitting wrong legal position. Further, Mr. Luthra is also said to be guilty of creating false evidences and using the said evidences as genuine ones.
Accused Sr. Adv. Siddharth Luthra
Having gone through the copy of the aforementioned petition and the recent judgment dated 22.07.2020 of Three Judge Bench in Adv. Prashant Bhushan’s case, it is amply clear that the cognizance by smaller Bench of Justice Rohinton Nariman was highly illegal. The other smaller Bench of Justice Deepak Gupta has also committed gross illegalities – which was partially covered in my earlier two articles. It is now writ large that the three Respondents in Re: Vijay Kurle and others were in fact persecuted, solely with the intention to silence their voices who had exposed the incompetency and illegal acts of Justice Rohinton Nariman.
Moreover, A three-Judge Bench vide the judgment dated 22.07.2020 in Re: Prashant Bhushan (2020 SCC OnLine SC 588 ) has impliedly overruled the judgment dated 26.04.2020 in Re: Vijay Kurle and others, passed by smaller bench headed by Justice (Retd.) Deepak Gupta.
As mentioned earlier, the case of Re: Vijay Kurle and others reveals the wanton abuse of power by Justice (Retd.) Deepak Gupta and Justice Aniruddha Bose in appointing a Private Counsel as ‘Amicus Curiae’ instead of the Attorney General/Solicitor General of India as mandated by Rule 10 of ‘The Rules to Regulate proceedings for Contempt of the Supreme Court, 1975’. As per the SAID Rules, the Bench has a choice of appointing either Attorney-General or Solicitor General (none other than these two officers) as an ‘Amicus Curiae’ in the Contempt Cases.
The order appointing an ineligible Adv. Siddharth Luthra as an Amicus and entitling him to claim fee from the government is misappropriation of public funds and is an offence under Sec. 409, 120 (B), 109 & 34 of I.P.C. on the part of Justice Deepak Gupta, Justice Aniruddha Bose and Adv. Siddharth Luthra.
Adv. Siddharth Luthra is guilty of misappropriation of funds of the Supreme Court by joining the conspiracy since he allowed himself to be appointed as an Amicus as against Supreme Court Rules in a contempt of court matter.
Law is clear that the trial under Contempt, if conducted by a Private Counsel, instead of a Government Law Officer, is against the Supreme Court Rules and therefore stands vitiated.
The Prayer clause of the said Writ Petition is reproduced below for ready reference.
Also a copy of Writ Petition is attached for perusal.
:- PRAYERS:- It is therefore, humbly prayed for;
A) To appoint Attorney General as an Amicus Curiae to assist this Hon’ble Court as per Rule 10 of “The Rules to Regulate Proceedings for Contempt of the Supreme Court, 1975”.
B) To record a finding that, in view of the law laid down by Full Bench in Mahadev Haskot (1978) 3 SCC 552, the person convicted under Contempt by the Supreme Court in original jurisdiction is entitled for one appellate jurisdiction as a matter of right and said appeal be heard by the larger Benches in Writ jurisdiction as done in M.S. Ahlawat Vs. State (2000) 1 SCC 27 & Supreme Court Bar Association case (1998) 4 SCC 409, which is subsequently upheld by Constitution Bench in Roopa Hoora (2001)4 SCC 388, and therefore, the bench convicting the alleged contemnor is bound to stay the sentence as per law laid down by Full Bench in Hari Nath Sharma (1995) 4 SCC 251 and followed in Gaurav Nagpal’s Case 2005 (3) LAWS (P&H) 48.
And the Writ challenging the conviction under contempt on original side of the Supreme Court needs to be admitted as it is a statutory right of the convict as ruled in Dilip Dahanukar’s Case (2007) 6 SCC 528.
And further be pleased to direct the Supreme Court registry to make appropriate rules in that regard.
C) To record a finding that, as per Constitutional mandate and law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dhondba Vs. State (1974) 1 SCC 162, Shaima Jafari Vs. Irfan (2013) 14 SCC 348, Shaikh Mohd Ali Vs. State (1972) 2 SCC 784, and the catena of judgments, the petition challenging the conviction is liable to decided only after perusing the records of the Trial Court and by way of a reasoned order considering all the grounds and legal position raised and cannot be decided summarily.
D) To record a finding that, the conviction of the Petitioner was for a charge which is contrary and against the order of the same bench dated 02.09.2019 and 09.12.2019 and therefore, the writ petition challenging the conviction for a charge of contempt which was not distinctly framed and served upon the Petitioner is liable to be admitted and allowed as per law laid down in R. S. Sherawat (2018)10 SCC 574, and Full Bench in Bhupesh Deb Gupta VS. State (1979) 1 SCC 87.
E) To record a finding that, as per law laid down in Re: Pollard 1868 LR 2 PC 106, Ebrahim Parekh ILR 4 Rang 257, which is made mandatory to all courts in India by the Full Bench and Constitution Bench and also as per Section 15(3) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, the Judge/Bench taking cognizance is bound to mention the specific charge in the order taking cognizance of Contempt and said charge is required to be reproduced in the notice issued in ‘‘FORM – I’’ as per law laid down in J.R.Parashar (2001) 6 SCC 735, Full Bench in Nagar Mahapalika 1966 SCC OnLine SC 1, Jayantilal Hiralal 1932 SCC OnLine Bom 121 etc. and registry be directed to incorporate appropriate rules in that regard.
F) To record a finding that, as per law laid down by Constitution Bench in Baradkanta Mishra (1974) 1 SCC 574, Three - Judge Bench in Pallav Sheth (2001) 7 SCC 349, and followed in Bal Thackrey (2005) 1 SCC 254, Maheshwar Peri (2016)14 SCC 251 and law laid down by the Constitution Bench in Subramyam Swami (2014) 12 SCC 344, the proceedings even under Article 129 of the Constitution have to be conducted as per the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 but the Ld. Trial Court,[ CORAM- Shri. Justice Deepak Gupta and Shri. Justice Anirudhha Bose] misinterpreted and refused to follow the abovesaid legal position by placing reliance upon the opinion of the author of a law book and therefore it is an act of grossest judicial impropriety.
G) To record a finding that, the guidelines given by Justice Rangnathan in concurring Judgment in P.N.Duda’s case are to be treated as the view of the bench and is a binding law in view of Article 141 of the Constitution and cannot be said to be obiter in view of law laid down in Kaikhosrou Kavasji Framji Vs. Union of India (2019) SCC OnLine SC 394 and also due to the fact that the said guidelines are held to be as valid and legal by the Full Bench in Bal Thackrey’s Case (2005) 1 SCC 254, and therefore the observations in the impugned judgment are wrong, per-incuriam and against the judicial propriety.
H) To record a finding that, the contempt proceedings are quasi- criminal in nature and the court taking cognizance of Contempt against several persons is bound to pass a reasoned order mentioning specific role of the person and documents/evidence relied against him as ruled by the Full Bench in Manohar Joshi’s case (1991) 2 SCC 342, M.N. Ojha Vs. Alok Kumar Srivastava (2009) 9 SCC 682 & Birla Corporation Ltd. Vs. Aventz 2019 SCC OnLine SC 682 etc.
I) To record a finding that, the order directing appointment of Adv. Siddharth Luthra as an amicus Curiae was against the Rule 10 of ‘The Rules To Regulate Proceedings For Contempt of the Supreme Court, 1975’ which mandates that either the Court conducts the proceedings by itself or in case it wishes to take assistance, then it can do so by appointing either of the two Government Law officers i.e. Attorney General or Solicitor General only. This was followed by several Constitution Benches, like in Subramanian Swami’s Case (2014) 12 SCC 344, Re: C.S.Karnan (2017) 2 SCC 757 (1), Supreme Court Bar Association Vs. Union of India (1998) 4 SCC 409, Dr. L.P. Mishra (1998) 7 SCC 379, Re: Vinay Chandra Mishra (1995) 2 SCC 584. Therefore, the conviction in trial conducted by a private counsel, violating fundamental rights and safeguards of the Petitioner and causing great prejudice, is vitiated as has been ruled in Medichetty Ramakistiah Vs. State (supra) and R.S. Sujatha v. State of Karnataka & Ors., (2011) 5 SCC 689, as the proceedings are conducted against the rules of the Supreme Court by the Private Counsel.
J) To record a finding that, if any Judge of any Court including Supreme Court, despite being shown the binding precedents, deliberately refuses to follow the said legal position and takes a view contrary to the view laid down in binding precedents of Larger Benches or even Co-ordinate Benches, then such a Judge is liable for action under Contempt of Court’s Act and any citizen can file Contempt petition before Hon’ble Supreme Court as per law laid down in (i) Re: C.S.Karnan (2017) 7 SCC 1 (ii) Badrakanta Mishra (1973) 1 SCC 446 (iii) Legrand Pvt. Ltd. 2007 (6) Mh.L.J. 146, (iv) New Delhi Municipal Council Vs. M/S Prominent Hotels Limited 2015 SCC Online Del 11910.
K) Record a finding that the Petioner is deprived of his life and liberty without following the due process of law and the fundamental rights of the Petitioner as guaranteed under Article 19,20,21 of the Constitution are violated by the Ld. Trial Court and therefore the Petitioner deserves to be compensated as per law laid down in various judgments.
L) Grant interim compensation of Rupees 5 Crores to the petitioner to be paid by the Respondent No. 2 i.e. Union of India, in view of law laid down in Ramesh Maharaj’s case (1978) 2 WLR 902 where it is ruled that, if any person is convicted for a charge which is not framed by the Judge then it violates the fundamental rights of the alleged contemnor and the State is bound to pay compensation as the Judge is an executive arm of the State.
M) Direct all the authorities in Country to not to follow the law and ratio laid down in the said judgment dated 27.04.2020 and 04.05.2020 passed in Re: Vijay Kurle & Ors. In SMCP (Cri) No. 02 of 2019.
N) To call for the record and proceedings and after hearing the parties be pleased to set aside the conviction and sentence of the petitioner as per order dated 27.04.2020 and 04.05.2020, passed in S.M.C.P. [Crl.] 02/2019 in the case between In: Re Vijay Kurle and Others.
O) Stay the operation, execution, application and use of the judgement dated 27.04.2020 and 04.05.2020 as an interim relief.
P) To record a finding that, since the ratio of the judgment of Pritam Pal Singh 1992(1) SCALE 416, is considered and overruled by the Larger Three -Judge Bench in Bal Thackrey’s case (Supra) therefore, reliance on the said ratio of the judgment and other impliedly overruled judgments by Amicus Curiae Adv. Siddharth Luthra by taking a stand that since these are not shown as overruled in a ‘Case Treatment of software Lexis-Nexis’ and compelling the court to rely upon the opinion of the author to reject the law laid down by the Full Bench and Constitution Benches of this Hon’ble Court, is grossest Contempt of Full Bench and Constitution Bench Judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
Q) Direction to Registry to incorporate the detailed rules for Contempt proceedings as done by Allahabad High Court by referring and in accordance with the ratio laid down and law declared by various binding precedents such as (i) R.K.Anand (2009) 8 SCC 106 (ii) R. S. Sherawat 2018 SCC OnLine SC 1347.
R) To take suo-moto cognizance of offences under section 211, 192, 193, 120[B] and 34 etc. of IPC, as ruled by the Full Bench in
Hari Dass Vs. State AIR 1964 SC 1773 against all concerned including Adv. Milind Sathe, Mr. Kaiwan Kalyaniwalla and others, for bringing frivolous proceedings against the Petitioner under contempt by creating false and misleading evidences and using it to be genuine ones and direct the CBI to investigate the allegations regarding offences and after getting the report from the CBI and after hearing the parties, be pleased to take appropriate action against the guilty as per law laid down in Sarvepelli Radhakrishnan 2019 SCC OnLine SC 51, State Vs. Kamlakar Bhavsar 2002 ALL MR (Cri) 2640, Govind Mehta Vs. State Of Bihar (1971) 3 SCC 329, K.Rama Reddy 1998(3) ALD 305.
S) Take the note of various misdeeds and grossest professional misconduct by Adv. Siddharth Luthra as mentioned in para 4.46 (4.46.1 to 4.46.11) and pass appropriate orders for striping off his designation as a Senior Counsel as done in the case of R.K. Anand Vs. Delhi High Court (2009) 8 SCC 106, and clarified in the case of Indira Jaisingh Vs. Supreme Court of India (2017) 9 SCC 766.
T) To direct the Registrar of the Supreme Court to incorporate the directions in P.N. Duda’s case (1988) 3 SCC 167 in the rules framed to conduct the Contempt proceedings.
Regard
Adv. Vivek Ramteke
Chairman
All India SC, ST & Minority
Lawyers Association
Comments
Post a Comment