J.C.S.Karnan_Review Petition of Judgment(Through Jail Suptd.)

>>J.C.S.Karnan_Review Petition of Judgment(Through Jail Suptd.)

J.C.S.Karnan_Review Petition of Judgment(Through Jail Suptd.)

SECTION……….

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL/CRIMINAL/ORIGINAL/ APPELLATE JURISDICTION

 

 

I.A.(CIVIL/CRIMINAL)NO……………………………………..OF 2017.

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITIONER(CIVIL/CRL) NO……………….OF 2017

 

WRIT/TRANSFER PETITION(CIVIL/CRL) NO.………………….OF 2017

Civil/criminal appeal NO. ………………………………OF 2017

REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) NO. ……………………………… OF 2017

IN

SUO MOTU CONMT.PET.(C)NO.1 OF 2017

Justice C.S. Karnan                    ………..Review Petitioner

 

IN THE MATTER OF:

 

Supreme Court of India

on its own motion                             … Suo Moto

Versus

Justice C.S. Karnan                           … Original  Alleged Contemnor/Respondent

 

INDEX

SRL No PARTICULARS COPIES PAGE NO COURT FEES
1)  

 

2)  

 

3)  

 

4)  

 

5)  

 

Total Rs.

 

 

Certified that the copies are correct

Filed on:11.07.2017                                    FILED BY

 

(MATHEWS J.NEDUMPRARA)

Advocates for the Petitioner

mathewsjnedumpara@gmail.com

(Mobile: 09820535428)

&

(A.C.PHILIP)

 

 

(Copy of Identity card of the person filing)
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) NO. _____ OF 2017

IN

SUO MOTU CONMT.PET.(C)NO.1 OF 2017

(Seeking review of the judgments dated 09/05/2017 & 04/07/2017 passed by this Hon’ble Court in SUO MOTU CONMT.PET.(C) NO.1 OF 2017)

 

Justice C.S. Karnan                    ………..Review Petitioner

 

IN THE MATTER OF:

 

Supreme Court of India

on its own motion                             … Suo Moto

Versus

Justice C.S. Karnan                      … Original  Alleged Contemnor/Respondent

 

OFFICE REPORT ON LIMITATION

  1. The review petition is within time.
  2. The Petition is barred by time and there is a delay of _____days in filing the same against orders  dated 09/05/2017 & 04/07/2017  and application for condonation of ___days delay has been filed.
  3. There is a delay of ______ days in refilling the petition and petition for condonation of _____ days delay in refilling has been filed.

Place: New Delhi

Dated: __/07/2017                   BRANCH OFFICER

 

 

 

 

PROFORMA FOR FIRST LISTING

SECTION –XVII

The case pertains to (Please tick/check the correct box):

 

  • Central Act : (Title) Constitution of India

Contempt of Court Act,1971

Code of Civil Procedure,1908

Code of Criminal Procedure,1973

Judges Inquiry Act,1968

  • Section: Articles 21,124,137, 138,145 and 217 of the Constitution of India
  • Central Rule : (Title) Supreme Court Rules,2013
  • Rule No(s): Order-XII,Rule-1 & Order-XII,Rule-5
  • State Act : (Title)NA
  • Section: NA
  • State Rule : (Title)NA
  • Rule No(s):NA
  • Impugned Interim Order: NA
  • Impugned Final Order/Decree : NA
  • High Court: (Name): Na
  • Names of Judges: NA

Tribunal/Authority:            Nil

 Nature of matter:

□Civil                                       □Criminal

 

  1. (a) Petitioner/appellant No.1 : Justice C.S. Karnan
  2. b) e-mail ID: Nil

(c) Mobile phone number: Nil

3, (a)Respondent No.1: Supreme Court of India, Suo Moto

 

(b) e-mail ID: NIL

(c) Mobile phone number: NA

 

  1. (a) Main category classification: 17(Contempt of Court matter)

(b) Sub classification: 1703(other civil contempt matters)

  1. Not to be listed before: NA
  2. Similar/Pending matter: NA
  3. Criminal Matters: NA

(a) Whether accused/convict has surrendered:   Imprisoned

(b) FIR No.NA Date:  NA

(c) Police Station:  NA

(d) Sentence Awarded:  6 Months Imprisonment

(e) Sentence Undergone: 21 Days( As on 10/07/2017)

  1. Land Acquisition Matters: Na

(a) Date of Section 4 notification: Na

 

 

(b) Date of Section 6 notification: NA

(c) Date of Section 17 notification: NA

  1. Tax Matters: State the tax effect: NA
  2. Special Category (first petitioner/appellant only): NA

Senior citizen 65 years SC/ST Woman/child Disabled Legal Aid case/In custody

  1. 11. Vehicle Number (in case of Motor Accident Claim matters): NA
  2. Decided cases with citation:

Date: __th August,2017

 

(MATHEWSW J.NEDUMPRARA)

 (B.K.Adhikari)&

(A.C.PHILIP)

Advocates for the Petitioner

mathewsjnedumpara@gmail.com

(Mobile: 09820535428)

 

 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) NO. _____ OF 2017

IN

SUO MOTU CONMT.PET.(C)NO.1 OF 2017

(D) No. _________/2017

(Seeking review of the judgments dated 09/05/2017 & 04/07/2017 passed by this Hon’ble Court in SUO MOTU CONMT.PET.(C) NO.1 OF 2017)

 

Justice C.S. Karnan                    ………..Review Petitioner

IN THE MATTER OF:

Supreme Court of India

on its own motion                             … Suo Moto

Versus

Justice C.S. Karnan                          … Original  Alleged Contemnor/Respondent WITH

IA.NO.                            OF 2017

Application seeking Bail

WITH

IA.NO.                            OF 2017

Application seeking exemption from annexing certified copy of the impugned order/judgment

WITH

IA.NO.                            OF 2017

Application seeking open court hearing

of the Review Petition

AND

IA.NO.                            OF 2017

Application seeking  permission to Appoint and engage Shri.Mathews J.Nedumpara as argument counsel.

 

P A P E R – B O O K

[FOR INDEX KINDLY SEE INSIDE]

 

DRAWN BY                                           FILED BY

(A.C.PHILIP

&

  1. J. JOVESON)

 

(MATHEWSW J.NEDUMPRARA) (B.K.Adhikari)&

(A.C.PHILIP)

Advocates for the Petitioner

mathewsjnedumpara@gmail.com

(Mobile: 09820535428)

New Delhi.

Drawn on:__.08.2017

Filed on:__.08.2017

 

 

 

INDEX

Sl. No. Particularsof Documents Page No. of part to which it belong Remark
  Part-1     Part-2  
(i) (ii) (iii)           (iv) (v)
1. Office Report on Limitation A                               A
2. Listing Proforma A1-A2              A1-A2
3. Cover page of Paper Book A3
4. Index and  Record of Proceedings A4-A5
5. Defect List A5-                       A5-
6. Synopsis and List of Dates B-F                      B-F
7. Review  Petition with affidavit 1-36
8. Appendix. 37-38
Articles 21,124,137, 138,145  and 217 of The Constitution of India 39-40
9. Annexure P-1:-

A copy of the application for the recall of the order dated 09/05/2017 [without annexure therein]

10. Annexure P-2:-

1.      The copy of the chamber appeal by Motion No. (L)46230/2017  in challenge of the order of the Ld.Registrar(J), lodging the recall application of the petitioner.

11. Annexure P-2:-

2.      The copy of the chamber appeal by Motion No. (L) 43130/2017 in challenge of the order of Ld. Registrar(J), Lodging the writ petition filed by the petitioner.

12. Application seeking Bail
13. Application seeking exemption from annexing the copy of the impugned order/judgment
14. Application seeking open court hearing of the Review Petition
15. Application for permission to Appoint and engage Shri.Mathews J.Nedumpara as argument counsel.
Letter Chronological
17. F/M
18. VAKALATNAMA
19. Letters

 

 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

 

SL.NO. DATE OF RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS   PAGE(S)

 

  1. ORDER DATED
  2. ORDER DATED
  3. ORDER DATED
  4. ORDER DATED
  5. ORDER DATED
  6. ORDER DATED
  7. ORDER DATED
  8. ORDER DATED
  9. ORDER DATED
  10. ORDER DATED
  11. ORDER DATED
  12. ORDER DATED
  13. ORDER DATED
  14. ORDER DATED
  15. ORDER DATED
  16. ORDER DATED
  17. ORDER DATED
  18. ORDER DATED
  19. ORDER DATED

 

SYNOPSIS AND LIST OF DATES

 

Being aggrieved by the impugned common order and judgments dated 09/05/2017 & 04/07/2017 passed by this Hon’ble Court in SUO MOTU CONMT.PET.(C) NO.1 OF 2017 the petitioner are seeking a review by a declaration that the above judgment is void, non est in the eye of law.

The letter addressed by the Petitioner to the Hon’ble Prime Minister seeking an investigation into allegations of  corruption against certain Judges was said to be the ignition of the instant proceedings, which was started by removing the petitioner from office without any order on this regard from the petitioner’s appointing authority, H.E. The President of India, or by any inquiry in terms of the Judges Inquiry Ac,1968.    Even though it was ordered that no one is allowed to intervene in the matter, since contempt proceedings are a matter strictly between the Court and the alleged contemnor, anyone who enters appearance and disrupts  the  proceedings  of  this  case  in  future,  should understand that he/she can be proceeded against, in consonance with law, subsequently the interventions were allowed to certain selected advocates by a subsequent order on an oral request, in abject prejudice to the interest of the review petitioner, that too without notice to him.

The petitioner was removed from office, without any notice , and was convicted without any trial, without any charge sheet, without any judgment of conviction, without allowing him to defend himself on the quantum of punishment, without his presence, and the judgment was subsequently uploaded in the website on 05/07/2017, making it public without notice to the petitioner, without pronouncing it in the open court, that too after retirement of one of the judges on the bench from office, dating it back to 09/05/2017, whereas it was not pronounced on that day too, and the part judgment was dated on 04/07/2017, making the entire judgment a nullity, one which is non-est in the eyes of law. The date of the judgment ought to have been the date on which it came to the public domain by way of pronouncement.

The order of conviction merely states that the detailed order will follow, and even without that order on record, the petitioner was arrested and is being subjected to undergo the imprisonment in accordance with the judgment which was nonexistent on the day of arrest and is void and non est even thereafter.

Hence the instant Review Petition (Civil).

 

The List of  Dates

 

23/01/2017      The letter addressed by the Petitioner to the Hon’ble Prime Minister seeking an investigation into allegations of  corruption against certain Judges.

 

08/02/2017      A Notice was issued to the petitioner, vide order even dated by the  Supreme Court of India, returnable on 13/02/2017. The review petitioner was forthwith  refrained  from handling  any  judicial  or  administrative  work,  as  may  have  been assigned to him, in furtherance of the office held by him.  He was also directed to return, all judicial and administrative files in his  possession,  to  the  Registrar  General  of  the  Calcutta High  Court immediately.

 

13/02/2017 The matter was reposted to 10/03/2017. The order further declared that, no one is allowed to intervene in the matter, since contempt proceedings are a matter strictly between the Court and the alleged contemnor, anyone who enters appearance and  disrupts  the  proceedings  of  this  case  in  future,  should understand that he/she can be proceeded against, in consonance with law.

 

10/03/2017      Bailable warrant was issued upon the petitioner to be served on Shri Justice C.S.Karnan, by the Director General of Police, West Bengal. Posted to 30/03/2017.

 

30/03/2017      Shri Justice C.S.Karnan has entered appearance in Court in person. It was directed that his response shall be filed by way of an affidavit. The repeated requests of Shri Justice C.S.Karnan, that he should be permitted to discharge judicial and administrative duties, were declined. Posted  for hearing on 01.05.2017, at 10.30 A.M.

 

01/05/2017      The  Supreme Court of India ordered that no Court, Tribunal, Commission  or  Authority  takes  cognizance  of  the  orders passed by Shri Justice C.S. Karnan, we hereby refrain all Courts, Tribunals, Commissions or Authorities, from taking cognizance  of  any  orders  passed  by  Shri  Justice  C.S. Karnan, after the initiation of the proceeding by  Supreme Court of India on 8.2.2017. It was directed that the  Director  Health Services, Government of West Bengal, to constitute a Board of  Doctors  from  Pavlov  Government  Hospital,  Kolkata,  to examine Shri Justice C.S. Karnan on 04/05/2017, and submit a report to this Court on or before 08/05/2017, whether or not Shri Justice C.S. Karnan is in a fit condition to defend himself.  Further in pursuant to the oral requests by  Shri R.S. Suri, Senior Advocate, and Shri Ajit Kumar Sinha,  Senior  Advocate,  President  and  Vice  President respectively, of the Supreme Court Bar Association, that they may be allowed to intervene and assist this Court in the matter, given the importance of the issue, the prayer was allowed and  The Supreme Court Bar Association, was permitted to intervene in the matter, and assist the Court, on the merits of the controversy.

 

09.05.2017        Having listed as Item No.701 before the court No.1, the brief order was  passed by the Bench, having  found  the review petitioner  guilty  of  committing contempt,  convicted him accordingly for criminal contempt of court and  sentenced  him  to undergo imprisonment  for  six  months.  Further it was ordered that, as  a consequence, the contemnor shall not perform any administrative or judicial functions henceforth. The order further restrained electronic and print media, from  publishing any  further  statements  made  by  the review petitioner,  henceforth. The brief order further state that detailed order to follow.

 

11.05.2017       The Petitioner filed an application seeking recall of the order dated 9th May, 2017.

 

11.05.2017        Writ Petition(Crl.) (D) No. 15420 filed in the Supreme Court.

 

11.05.2017        The Counsel for the Petitioner sought to mention the at 4.00 p.m. on 11th May, 2017, which also failed since the Hon’ble CJI did not lend his ears and retired to his Chamber.

 

12.05.2017        Accordingly, the Counsel for the Petitioner mentioned the matter before the Hon’ble CJI at 10.30 a.m. on 12th May, 2017seeking constitution of a Bench on emergent basis but was denied.

 

15.05.2017        The Counsel for the Petitioner mustering courage, Shri.Mathews J.Nedumpara, went to the Hon’ble CJI once again at 2.00 p.m. on 15th May, 2017 but said request was not acceded to.

 

15.05.2017        The Writ Petition and the Recall application by the petitioner before the Supreme Court of India is lodged by the ld. Registrar(J).

 

17.05.2017        Petition under Article 72 of the Constitution of India has been E-Mailed to His Excellency, The President of India.

 

19.05.2017        The intimation was given to the Advocates to the effect that the Writ Petition and the Recall application by the petitioner before the Supreme Court of India is lodged by Ld.Registrar (J).

 

20/05/2017      Petition under Article 72 of the Constitution of India has been submitted to His Excellency, The President of India.

 

06/06/2017      Chamber Appeal in lodging order of recall application filed vide Motion No. (L)46230/2017.

 

20/06/2017      The review Petitioner was arrested, at Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, pending decision of all his applications and petitions.

 

21/06/2017      The review petitioner was taken to presidency Jail, at Kolkotta, West Bengal. The counsel for the review petitioner mentions the application before the vacation Bench of the  Supreme Court of India for listing and was declined with an observation to wait till the court reopens.

 

30/06/2017      Bail Application was filed in the  Supreme Court of India.

 

03/07/2017      On reopening, the matter was further mentioned before the CJI for constitution of bench and listing of applications, which was declined.

 

05/07/2017      two separate judgments, one by  5 judges, which was dated back to 09/05/2017 and another judgment of  two judges, dated back to 04/07/2017 were uploaded onto the website of the Supreme Court of India, without  being pronounced in the open court.

11/07/2017      The petitioner submitted the review petition in the filing counter of Supreme Court of India through his advocates with filing authority, affidavit and Vakalatnama, duly constituted. The filing clerk did not issue the diary no, which is the mandatory acknowledgment and  assured the issue of diary number on the subsequent day.

12/07/2017      The review petition was returned by the filing clerk, without being acknowledged, by calling the clerk of the advocate to the registry. The counsels for the petitioner meet the Addl. Registrar, but of no avail, but the Registrar secured an appointment with him for 13/07/2017.

13/07/2017      The registrar verbally rejects all the pleas for the acknowledgment of the petition, and subsequently the Ld. Registrar instructed a clerk to return it with an endorsement. Finally, the Sr.Court Assstant wrote thus: ”In view of clause c of rule 7 of Order IV of SCR petition is not accepted..sd/-. (13/07/2017) Sr Court Asstt.” 5.    In other words, the review petition of Justice C.S.Karnan was returned, without it being registered, without it being scrutinised, it’s objections if any not notified; it being confined to the grave, without it ever being listed for hearing.

20/07/2017      The review petition was send by Speed post to the Secretary General, Supreme Court of India, Acknowledgment Due, with covering letter.

21/07/2017      The review petition by speed post was delivered.

 

__/08/2017       Instant Review Petition is submitted to the Prison authorities for forwarding to the Supreme Court of India.

 

 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) NO. _____ OF 2017

IN

SUO MOTU CONMT.PET.(C)NO.1 OF 2017

((Seeking review of the judgments dated 09/05/2017 & 04/07/2017 passed by this Hon’ble Court in SUO MOTU CONMT.PET.(C) NO.1 OF 2017)

 

 

  1. Justice C.S.Karnan

aged about 61 years,

S/o.Mr.Swaminathan,

Residing at:

1/GB, Rosedale Towers,

New Town,

Kolkotta,

 

Presently undergoing

imprisonment at

Presidency Jail, Kolkotta                     …REVIEW PETITIONER

 

IN THE MATTER OF:

Supreme Court of India

on its own motion                             … Suo Moto

Versus

Justice C.S. Karnan                      … Original  Alleged Contemnor/Respondent

 

PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 137/145 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SEEKING REVIEW OF THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 09/05/2017 & 04/07/2017 passed by this Hon’ble Court in SUO MOTU CONTEMPT PETITION(C) NO.1 OF 2017.

 

To

 

THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA

AND HIS COMPANION JUSTICES OF THE

HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 

HUMBLE PETITION OF PETITIONER ABOVENAMED

 

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH

 

 

  1. There could be no parallel in the judicial history of any nation to the injustice meted out to the petitioner in the name of upholding the majesty and dignity of the institution of judiciary. The Review Petitioner, though would not ever claim to have never erred or being infallible, he could assert with clean conscience that as a judge and a citizen he had only one thing in mind, one dream, a judiciary which is independent, impartial, which is accountable to the people, for the people and is drawn from the diverse sections of the society. The petitioner found that in the selection and appointment of judges, the concept of men and women of impeccable character, erudition, impartiality, independence and due representation of diverse sections of the society, particularly of the underprivileged class, from humble economic background and other paramount considerations are not observed. This has meant the higher judiciary representing the elite sections of the society to the deprivation of equally deserving members of the less fortunate in economic and other senses. The petitioner, accordingly, in response to his inner conscience ventured to raise the said issues in the public domain. The petitioner also found some of his own brother judges failing to live upto the higher standards of probity in public life which is expected of them. Deeply pained and hurt, the petitioner thought it his bounden duty to address the constitutional authority, though, ordinarily, no judge in his place could have ventured so. To put it pithily, the petitioner happened to address the Hon’ble the Prime Minister of India, the Chief Justice of India, so too other constitutional functionaries, many an injustices and corrupt practices. The allegations of corruption and malpractices the petitioner has leveled against his brother judges meant the petitioner to be isolated and a great amount of disaffection if not anger and hostility leveled towards him. The petitioner is afraid to say that his bonafide and genuine concern was taken otherwise which added fuel to the fire resulting in the Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India constituting a bench taking suo moto institution of criminal contempt of court proceedings against the petitioner, though the title was civil. The bench accordingly ordered notice to the petitioner and the very same day of  issuance  of notice to the petitioner, it divested the petitioner of all his judicial and administrative functions. The said order meant the petitioner to be removed from office which the President of India alone could, that too on a motion of impeachment, which has received the  rd majority of both house of the parliament, present and voting; that too on proved misconduct, in terms of the Judges Inquiries Act, do. With much respect, it is a universal principle that, only the appointing authority can remove a person from any seat of authority or appointment, and allowing the peers to remove any person will surely lead to chaos in any institutional framework which is run by rule of law.
  2. The petitioner appeared on 31st of March, 2017 in response to the notice issued to him and so too sought recall of the order by which his judicial and administrative powers were removed, pointing out that no such jurisdiction is invested in the Supreme Court. The Petitioner even offered an apology for any indiscretion on his part, for to err is human. However his pleas were not acceded to. The said case was adjourned to 01/05/2017, on which date this court was pleased to order for the medical examination of the petitioner to ascertain whether the petitioner is in a fit medical condition to defend himself in the ongoing proceedings and adjourned the case to 09/05/2017.
  3. On 09/05/2017, this court found the petitioner to be guilty of contempt of court of greatest nature and sentenced him for imprisonment for six months. In the brief order which was dictated in the open, sentencing the petitioner for imprisonment, it was made clear that a detailed order will be passed in due course.

 

  1. The petitioner on coming to know that he was sentenced without a judgment, without a trial, without charges being framed, without a hearing, without a lawyer to defend him, that too in his absence, instituted an application for the recall of the order. The said application seeking recall of the order dated 9th May, 2017; so too suspension/stay thereof, pointing out that the said order is one rendered void ab initio, for want of jurisdiction and against the principle of nemo judex in sua causa or nemo debet esse judex in propria causa – no one can be judge in his own cause.  It was pleaded that the Petitioner was not told what exactly is the charge against him; what was the legal provision under which he is charged; what are the allegations constituting the charge; what is the material and evidence on which the allegations are founded; what is the punishment likely to be imposed on him, not to speak of not affording him an opportunity to contradict the evidence, if any, against him.  In the said application and the Writ Petition the Petitioner further pleaded that even assuming that the Act is constitutional, then also the elementary principles of criminal jurisprudence founded on the principles of natural justice, like, presumption of innocence, burden of proof is on the prosecution, that nobody shall be compelled to be a witness against himself, that an accused is entitled to be defended by a counsel, that there could be no sentence without a judgment, that it cannot be that a reasoned judgment can follow after the conviction but, on the contrary, there can be no sentence without there in existence a reasoned judgment etc., ought to be observed. A copy of the application for the recall of the order dated 09/05/2017 is produced herein [without annexure therein] and marked as Annexure- ‘A1’( From Pages___to ___).    For completion of facts, it may be added that the petitioner also filed a substantive petition under Article 32 of the constitution of India, challenging the constitutional validity of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971. The Petitioner instituted the said  Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution seeking a declaration that the entire proceeding at the hands of the Seven-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court culminating in the order dated 9th May, 2017 is unconstitutional and void because it amounted to usurpation of the jurisdiction of the Parliament to remove him from office; akin to re-enactment of the manner in which the power of appointment of Judges to the higher judiciary, which the Founding Fathers of the Constitution had vested in the executive, was usurped by the judiciary by reviving the collegiums system by recourse to judicial legislation.   Another ground taken in the said writ petition was that the right to appeal where conviction is by Supreme Court of India, to a larger bench of the Supreme Court, nay, intra court appeal is an essential ingredient of Right to life and liberty. The brief order dated 9th May, 2017 was dictated in the open Court citing, the need for a subsequent detailed order, which was not pronounced on that day.  The brief order was uploaded on the website of the Supreme Court late in the night of the same day.  The counsel for the Petitioner, who was in Cochin, Kerala, booked the first flight to Chennai, discussed the case with the Petitioner, prepared the Writ Petition and the application to recall the order dated 9th May, 2017 and sought to institute them in the Supreme Court on 11th May, 2017.  Registration of cases in the Supreme Court, to an extent, is computerized.  There are only two provisions for registration of cases in terms of the software in vogue, namely, (a) through an Advocate on Record (AOR) and (b) by Party in Person.  The counsel for the Petitioner; so too his associate Shri A.C. Philip, approached not less than 30 AORs.  However, none of them was forthcoming to be an AOR on behalf of the Petitioner.  With much respect, many of them confided the counsel for the Petitioner, that they are scared of displeasing the Hon’ble CJI; that AORs and the senior counsel practicing in the Supreme Court, unlike the ordinary lawyers who appear in the High Courts and subordinate Courts, do not enjoy the kind of freedom and independence which lawyers as a class, the sentinels of civil liberties and freedoms, ought to enjoy and profess to enjoy.  With much respect, they were too frank to admit that orders of the Supreme Court are extremely discretionary; that more than 80% of the petitions filed under Articles 136 and 32 of the Constitution, which constitute 95% of the work of the supreme Court, are absolutely discretionary and no AOR or a senior counsel could afford to invite the slightest of displeasure of the Hon’ble Judges.

 

  1. Faced with the aforesaid scenario, the counsel for the Petitioner, tendered the Petitioner’s Writ Petition and the application to recall the order dated 9th May, 2017 in the open Court before the Hon’ble CJI at 4.00 p.m. on 11th May, 2017.  On being submitted that the AORs whom the counsel for the Petitioner, had approached have refused to act as an AOR for the Petitioner, the Hon’ble CJI was gracious enough to accept the Writ Petition and the application to recall the order dated 9th May, 2017, which were tendered across the Bar.  The counsel for the Petitioner, realized that through oversight what he tendered across the Bar on 11th May, 2017 was a copy of the Writ Petition and not the original, though the application seeking recall of the order dated 9th May, 2017 was original, which was perused by the Hon’ble CJI, and directed the Registry to accept the original of the Writ Petition.  However, the Registry refused to accept the same, whereupon the counsel for the Petitioner, approached the Registrar General, who too refused to accept the same.  Accordingly, the counsel for the Petitioner, mentioned the matter before the Hon’ble CJI who directed him to deliver the same to the Registrar.  Since the said direction remained to be communicated, the Registrar refused to accept the Writ Petition which compelled the counsel for the Petitioner, to mention the matter once again at 2.00 p.m.  The Hon’ble CJI showed his displeasure on the matter being mentioned for the third time and directed the counsel for the Petitioner, to present the petition in the Registry, which accepted the same readily upon instructions being received from the Court Associate of the Hon’ble CJI.

 

  1. The registry, however, declined to register both the said applications, namely, application for recall, so too, substantive writ petition. The petitioner accordingly instituted chamber appeals by Motion No. (L)46230/2017 & (L) 43130/2017 in challenge of the said orders of the registrar. The copies of the said chamber appeals by Motion No. (L)46230/2017 & (L) 43130/2017 in challenge of the said orders of the registrar is enclosed herein and marked as Annexure- ‘A2’( From Pages___to ___) and Annexure- ‘A3’( From Pages___to ___),
  2. One of the grounds taken by the registrar in declining the application for recall of the orders in the said contempt of court proceedings, particularly of 09/05/2017 was that the petitioner had addressed a letter to the Registrar General of the High Court of Calcutta, against his counsel Shri. Mathews J. Nedumpara. The allegation was that Shri. Mathews J.Nedumpara had brought an order already prepared by him to be signed by the petitioner seeking issuance of notice on a writ petition seeking registration of an FIR based on the suicide note of Shri.(Late)Kalikho Pul. Former Chief Minister of Arunachal Pradesh. Shri(Late) Kalikho Pul in his note had implicated son of the Chief Justice of India and certain prominent lawyers so too members of the bench as having sought for illegal gratification. In no loss of time, the petitioner instituted a chamber appeal, in challenge of the aforesaid order of the Ld. Registrar, so toowithdrawing the allegation which he has made against his counsel as wholly unfounded, the every word of his letter dated 14th March, 2017, addressed to the Registrar General of the High Court of Calcutta. The petitioner happened to address the said letter under a gross misunderstanding, so too being mislead. The petitioner sought the forgiveness of his counsel, Shri. Mathews J.Nedumpara for having made such an untenable an allegation against him. In the body of the said application and the affidavit, both, the petitioner retracted his allegations. He regretted that his relationship between his lawyer being a fiduciary one of utmost trust and confidence, his letter not only meant outrageous absurdity but also to be a baseless vilification of his own lawyer. A copy of the said chamber appeal along with affidavit has already been produced herein and marked as Annexure- A2(From Pages___to ___).
  3. The Petitioner took the aforesaid order and the orders directing him to be subjected to medical examination and issuing a bailable warrant against him as one without jurisdiction and in violation of law and thus a nullity, incapable of commanding observance. The Petitioner also found the said orders as trenching into the jurisdiction of the Parliament, which is too naked and manifest and as clear as daylight, and as violation of Articles 124 and 217 of the Constitution.  Therefore, the Petitioner, as per his interpretation of the law, did not appear before the Seven-Judge Bench on 01st May, 2017 to which date the case stood adjourned.

 

  1. On 9th May, 2017, the Court, as it appears from the order of even date, heard “Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi, learned senior counsel representing the State of West Bengal, with reference to the medical examination of Sri Justice C.S. Karnan, as also, Mr. Maninder Singh, learned Additional Solicitor General of India, Mr. K.K.Venugopal, learned senior counsel representing the Registrar General, High Court of Judicature at Madras, and Mr. Rupinder Singh Suri, Senior Advocate, in his capacity as the President of the Supreme Court Bar Association, and, with much respect, without any discussion whatsoever at all on the merits of the case or what was argued by them, came to the conclusion that the Petitioner “has committed contempt of the judiciary. His actions constitute contempt of this Court, and of the judiciary of the gravest nature. Having found him guilty of committing contempt, we convict him accordingly. We are satisfied to punish him by sentencing him to imprisonment for six months. As a consequence, the contemnor shall not perform any administrative or judicial functions. Detailed order to follow.”
  2. As is manifest from the order dated 9th May, 2017, the Supreme Court has barred the Petitioner from performing any of his administrative or judicial function, which has meant his removal from the office of the Judge of the High Court, which a power is not invested in the Supreme Court at all.
  3. When the instant petitioner appeared before the Supreme Court on 31stMatch,2017 upon notice, he brought to the notice of the Hon’ble Court that divesting him of his judicial and administrative powers amounts to removing him from his office, which is in the exclusive domain of the President of India upon a motion of impeachment which has received the assent of the Parliament; that the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to impeach him, which its orders have meant, which, to repeat, is in the exclusive domain of the Parliament, for, Parliament includes the President.  On 9th May, 2017 and on the earlier dates on which the contempt of Court case was listed for hearing, with much respect, there was no discussion whatsoever on the very jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to invoke contempt of Court proceeding against a Sitting Judge of a High Court and remove him from office, which is in the exclusive domain of the Parliament, and to imprison him.
  4. Since the order dated 9th May, 2017 had directed the police to take the Petitioner into custody forthwith, being faced with the threat of imminent arrest, the petitioner’s counsel was forced to mention the matter seeking emergent constitution of an appropriate Bench, the Supreme Court being on Summer Vacation. The counsel for the Petitioner, sought to mention the matter at 4.00 p.m. on 12th May, 2017, which also failed since the Hon’ble CJI did not lend his ears and retired to his Chamber.  The counsel for the Petitioner, accordingly met the Registrar (Judicial) who promised to obtain instructions from the Hon’ble CJI.  When contacted subsequently, he was kind enough to indicate that constitution of a Bench and listing of the case is beyond his powers and asked the counsel for the Petitioner, to mention the matter before the Hon’ble CJI.  Accordingly, the counsel for the Petitioner, mentioned the matter before the Hon’ble CJI at 10.30 a.m. on 11th May, 2017 seeking constitution of a Bench on emergent basis, pointing out that the order dated 9th May, 2017 meant the Petitioner being impeached in a manner unknown to the Constitution, as a High Court Judge could only be removed from office by the Parliament; that the Petitioner was convicted without a charge, without a trial, without even a judgment; that in terms of the proviso to Section 12 of the Act a contemnor is liable to be discharged even after his conviction if he tenders an apology, even a conditional one, provided that it is bona fide.  It was further pointed out that such an opportunity of discharge, even after conviction, which is embedded in the Act, which opportunity was extended to Shri Vijay Mallya who too was convicted on the same day under the Act, was denied to the Petitioner and, therefore, it is imperative that the case be listed by constituting an appropriate Bench.  The counsel for the Petitioner, believes that the submissions made by him as aforesaid, which he did in the discharge of his sacred duty which he owed towards his client, the Petitioner, for reasons difficult to be fathomed, incensed the Hon’ble CJI.  To the repeated pleas of the counsel for the Petitioner, the reply of the Hon’ble CJI was, with much respect,  “Go to the press”.  The counsel for the Petitioner, thereafter met the Registrar General who expressed his helplessness in the matter.  The counsel for the Petitioner, is reminded of the words of Mr.  Brougham, the Attorney-General of the Queen, in his defence of Queen Caroline before the House of Lords:-

 

I once before took leave to remind your lordships — which was unnecessary, but there are many whom it may be needful to remind — that an advocate, by the sacred duty of his connection with his client, knows, in the discharge of that office, but one person in the world, that client and none other. To save that client by all expedient means — to protect that client at all hazards and costs to all others, and among others to himself — is the highest and most unquestioned of his duties; and he must not regard the alarm, the suffering, the torment, the destruction, which he may bring upon any other; nay, separating even the duties of a patriot from those of an advocate, he must go on reckless of the consequences, if his fate it should unhappily be, to involve his country in confusion for his client’s protection.”

 

And of Lord Denning:

“An advocate is a minister of justice equally with a judge”, who is bound to protect the interest of his client, fearless of the Judge, unmindful of the client who may stab him from behind, unmindful of the society which may not be kind to him.”

 

Mustering courage, the counsel for the Petitioner, went to the Hon’ble CJI once again at 2.00 p.m. on 15th May, 2017 and requested that an appropriate Bench be constituted and the case be listed.

 

  1. Though the Supreme Court has convicted the Petitioner under the Act, he in all humility begs to submit that he did not commit any contempt of Court.  What is the contempt he has committed?  He addressed a letter to the Hon’ble Prime Minister alleging that some of his brother Judges had sold their conscience and indulged in corrupt practices.  A Court and a Judge are not one and the same.  Both are different, though there could be no Court without a Judge.  A Judge is not a Court.  The allegation of corruption made by the Petitioner is against individual Judges.  If the allegations made by him are untrue, it will entail in an action, both civil and criminal, at the hands of the Judges concerned against the Petitioner.  Initiation of contempt of Court proceeding against the Petitioner has meant that nobody in this country could ever dare to be a whistleblower in so far as corruption in judiciary is concerned.  In its judgment in Ravichandran Iyer v. Justice A.M. Bhattacharjee,1995 SCC  (5) 457        JT 1995 (6)        339, 1995 SCALE  (5)142, the Supreme Court has held that no First Information Report (FIR) could be registered against members of the higher judiciary without the prior consent of the CJI, which meant immunity for a Judge from investigation even in heinous crimes, without meaning the least that Judges indulge in such crimes.  The contempt of Court proceedings against Shri. Justice Katju and the Petitioner has meant that whoever speak about corruption or criticize the Judges in higher judiciary, no matter it is a settled principle that judgments could be criticized and nobody is above lawand even if a Judge indulges in corruption, he will be subject to the criminal laws of the land, will be proceeded against for contempt of Court and will be convicted and sentenced and even the media will be restrained from reporting the truth.  The Petitioner’s case is no longer the case of an individual who has been convicted and sentenced to imprisonment without a charge sheet, without a trial, without even a judgment, but by a sentence where a reasoned judgment is yet to be delivered, but one concerning the very right of freedom of speech and expression, transparency and accountability in higher judiciary.

 

  1. In the name of independence of judiciary, by the judgments in Judges-2, Judges-3 and the NJAC cases, the power of selection and appointments of Judges to the higher judiciary, which the Founding Fathers of the Constitution had vested in the executive, has been, with much respect, usurped by the judiciary/Supreme Court.  With the order dated 9th May, 2017, even the power to remove a Judge of a High Court has been assumed to itself by it by recourse to the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 even without any discussion as to whether or not any such jurisdiction is vested in the Supreme Court.

 

  1. The nation is at crossroads.  Independence of judiciary is of paramount importance and that is achieved when Judges are appointed by open selection, inviting applications from all eligible candidates and references from all stakeholders, in an open and transparent manner; so too by introducing a mechanism to deal with complaints and grievances against Judges of the higher judiciary without in any manner impinging their independence.  Video-recording of Court proceedings, repealing of the Contempt of Courts Act, abolition of the system of designation of lawyers as Senior Advocates; so too Advocates on Record are all measures without which the dream of a judiciary which is transparent, efficient and accountable to the people will remain a mirage.

 

  1. The Petitioner’s effort to get undone the injustice caused to him by instituting a Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution and an application seeking recall of the order dated 9th May, 2017, as aforesaid, has failed.  Getting the aforesaid Writ Petition and recall application listed for a reasoned hearing and adjudication in accordance with law, for the moment, is a near impossibility.

 

  1. The Petitioner is denied justice.  The concept of justice is divine; it is his birth right and when justice is denied to him by the highest Court of the land, the only proceedings left is to seek a review of the judgment under Article 137/145 Of The Constitution Of India
  2. The Petitioner was arrested on 20/06/2017 in compliance of the order dated 09/05/2017 of this court and is presently lodged in the presidency jail at Kokotta. On 05/07/2017, he came to know that a detailed judgment was uploaded in the website of Supreme Court of India
  3. In the order dated 09/05/2017, in para 22 thereon unfortunately a reference is made to a letter which was addressed to the Registrar General of the High Court of Calcutta by the petitioner on 14th March, 2017.  Since the unfortunate circumstances, nay, total misconception and misunderstanding upon which petitioner happened to write a letter against his counsel Shri. Mathews J.Nedumpara and Shri. Bijoy Krishna Adhikary , it is unnecessary to deal with the same once again. However for the sake of abundance of caution, with a view to undo the great damage done to my counsel in a great sense of contrition and regret the petitioner reiterate that, the allegation which he has made against his counsel is absolutely incorrect, born out of misunderstanding, being misled.The relationship between the petitioner and his lawyer is of utmost trust and confidence, a privileged communication, and the client is duty bound to confide his lawyer for clarifying any doubts, even if that means, seeking clarifications a hundred times.
  4. The petitioner is grateful to his counsel Shri. Mathews J. Nedumpara for all the steps taken, leaving no stone unturned, to protect his freedom and liberty. The petitioner is also deeply obliged to the members of National Lawyers Campaign and it’s office bearers for extending their unstinted support to the petitioner so as to uphold the rule of law and personal liberties.

 

  1. Appended is the Appendix: (in page Nos. __ to ___)-Article 21,124(4) & (5), 137, 138,145 AND 217(1)(B) of The Constitution of India,

 

  1. It is Certified that this is the first review petition filed by the review petitioner against the judgment dated 09/05/2017 & 04/07/2017 and based on the same grounds, no other review petition has been filed by the review petitioners.

 

GROUNDS

 

Grounds in support of the reliefs sought for are fairly elaborated in the statement of facts above and hence are not repeated.  The Review Petitioner respectfully submits that paragraphs 1 to ____hereinabove may be read and treated as the grounds in support of the instant Review Petition.  Nonetheless, the Review Petitioner begs to submit that:

 

  1. It is to be understood that Court and judges are not one and the same. Even though the Judge is an essential integral and most important part of the court, not the court in itself. Hence the allegations against the judge has nothing to do with the court itself, and in no way can attract the contempt of court proceedings. Nothing done by the judges outside the open court are the judicial action, and not protected under the contempt of court Act. Further, scandalising the court and antagonizing the judges are on different footing. Neither can be replaced by the other to bring the person within the meaning of contempt of court Act. Only remedy available is personal remedy by those whose persona are under attack, like the protection available to any other citizens or the constitutional functionaries. The Petitioner with utmost humility reiterates that the judges are not the law unto themselves to proceed suo moto and becoming the judges in their own cases. They have the right to defend themselves in accordance with the law laid down against the defamation, if the allegations are proved to be wrong after proper and credible investigation.  The separate judgment of the two judges in paragraph 5 lays down that: “5. Whether those various allegations made by the contemnor are based on any evidence to establish the truth of the allegations is a matter which cannot be examined in these proceedings.  …………..   What is the appropriate forum and procedure which the contemnor is required to follow for setting the  law in  motion w.r.t.  each  of  the  allegations  made  by  the contemnor are questions to be examined in detail.  Further in paragraph 6 of the said judgment, it continues that:- “Such  complaints,  if  made  to  the  appropriate forum/authority  are  required  to  be  investigated  in  accordance with the procedure established by law relevant in the context of each  of  those  allegations  and  appropriate  further  legal proceedings are to  be initiated,  if  the  investigation reveals  the commission of  any offence cognizable or  non-cognizable or  any other actionable wrong……………” So, the petitioner with all humility is to say that the said allegations were to be investigated first for it’s veracity and truth, before proceedings against the petitioner for the contempt of court, concluding that those allegations are frivolous, without any inquiry and finding by any competent authority.

 

  1. There is no reason to come to pre enquiry conclusion that the allegations are frivolous or malicious, that too when allegations are made out by the person holding constitutional post against the persons who holds similar positions and authorities. It is a prejudiced conclusion under which the instant proceedings are initiated. It weakens the institution of judiciary and gives further strength to the corrupt to perpetuate their corrupt practices, so that nobody is able to criticize great injustices dispensed by such persons of power.

 

 

  1. The only remedy under law is to proceed under the law of defamation, if the judges against whom allegations are raised, if the persons can defend themselves. Otherwise, they are equal citizens having equal legal rights, and the legal and constitutional rights of the judges are not above the rights of the other citizens, when the personal rights are concerned. There cannot be a violation of equality before law. As a matter of right to equality, no defence is available to the judges too, other than the defences available to protect a citizen against an illegality committed by another person. Nobody has a separate rights and defences. Nobody is above law. The reputation and dignity of all citizens, irrespective of the power, authority and seat occupied by him are equal in footing before law in terms of protection and defence.

 

  1. One constitutional authority, writing to another constitutional authority alleging corruption in any system of state, cannot be a reason to proceed against by a third constitutional authority without the law laid down or authority flowing out of the constitution. – without the laid down law, authority and procedures by the law made by the parliament without which it will lead to constitutional chaos, deviating from constitutional cosmos.
  2. The above proceedings were a knee jerk to the federal structure of the constitution as well. The federal structure of the constitution is the basic structure of the constitution which is inalienable, transcendental and primordial as laid down by this court in the land mark verdict of Keshavananda Bharati.  The High Court is not a subordinate Court to the Supreme Court and is not enjoying any administrative superintendence.

 

  1. There are procedures laid down by this Hon’ble court-that is not followed, while handling an allegation of corruption against any of the sitting or retired judges. ( Veeraswami case. { Veeraswami vs Union Of India And Others [1991 SCR  (3) 189, 1991 SCC  (3) 655, JT 1991 (3)   198,1991 SCALE  (2)150]}) Those procedures laid down by the Supreme Court in the instant case are not followed in handling the issues, whereas the petitioner was sentenced in violation of all legal norms and propriety.

 

 

  1. It illegal for this court to proceed, based upon unverified facts, wereas the allegations are still unverified for it’s veracity by competent authorities. And for that reason, facts cannot be verified after the punishment is imposed. It is for the proper agency to do fact finding by investigation and in no way, Supreme Court of India  is an investigating agency or fact finding court.
  2. If every constitutional authority proceeds against the other constitutional authority, will lead to constitutional chaos-is against the National integrity and unity, which will be under direct threat, if the constitutional authorities enlarge their own jurisdiction against other constitutional authority and proceeds to unseat without the laid down procedures in the constitution. The eventual chaos can directly hit the foundation of the unity and integrity of the nation and its existence. The result will be chaos or constitutional unrest and may be leading to political as well. Any procedures against the constitutional authority shall be strictly in terms of the procedures laid down by the constitution itself, and cannot be by the whims and fancies of the existing authority, which enlarges its own jurisdiction and usurp upon such jurisdiction of other organs against the constitutional mandate.
  3. The instant procedures will lay down a wrong precedent resulting into a constitutional authorities struggling to usurp into powers inter se to scuttle scores and silence other authorities or strip of their powers. In accordance with Article 138 if the constitution,  Supreme Court of India  can function only within its jurisdiction which is invested upon it by parliament, as the Government of India and the Government of any State may by special agreement confer, if Parliament by law provides for the exercise of such jurisdiction and powers by the Supreme Court, not otherwise.  It can only exercise further jurisdiction and powers with respect to any of the matters in the Union List as Parliament may by law confer.

Enlargement of the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court

138.

(1) The Supreme Court shall have such further jurisdiction and powers with respect to any of the matters in the Union List as Parliament may by law confer.

(2) The Supreme Court shall have such further jurisdiction and powers with respect to any matter as the Government of India and the Government of any State may by special agreement confer, if Parliament by law provides for the exercise of such jurisdiction and powers by the Supreme Court.”

In the instant case, neither the above conditions are fulfilled to enlarge its jurisdiction. The supreme court on its own motion cannot enlarge its own jurisdiction.

  1. Even though supervisory powers are invested in the high court by article 227 over the courts subordinate to it, the Supreme Court is not invested with the jurisdiction or administrative or judicial supervision upon the high courts. The instant case in no way pertains to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme court has by the impugned orders usurped upon the jurisdiction, which is not invested in it.
  2. It further violates the Fundamental Rights as envisaged under article 20(1) and 20(3) of the constitution.

“Protection in respect of conviction for offences

(1) No person shall be convicted of any offence except for violation of a law in force at the time of the commission of the Act charged as an offence, nor be subjected to a penalty greater than that which might have been inflicted under the law in force at the time of the commission of the offence.

(2) No person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once.

(3) No person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.”

 

 

  1. Order-XII,Rule-1 of the Supreme Court Rules,2013 reads as follows:-

“The Court, after the case has been heard, shall pronounce judgment in open Court, either at once or on some future day, of which due notice shall be given to the parties or their advocates on record, and the decree or order shall be drawn up in accordance therewith.”

  1. Where as the judgments dated 09/05/2017 & 04/07/2017 passed by this Hon’ble Court in SUO MOTU CONMT.PET.(C) NO.1 OF 2017 was not pronounced in the open court.
  2. No notice was given to the parties or to their advocates about the pronouncement of the judgment.

 

  1. The decree was not drawn up in accordance with the judgment pronounced, whereas the judgment was drawn up in accordance with the order of conviction which showers no legal sanctity for both making the order and the judgment, both illegal and void ab-initio or non est in the eyes of law.

 

  1. The date on which the judgment was signed is not the date of the judgment, whereas the date of pronouncement of judgment is the date of judgment, and in that way, the date shown in the judgment is wrong, because on 09/05/2017 the said judgment was not pronounced. The order which was pronounced on that day clearly mentions that the “Detailed order to follow.”( Paragraph 2, page-1, order dated 09/05/2017). It clearly shows that there was no other order/judgment passed on that day.
  2. The subsequent judgment which was uploaded in the website of the Supreme Court of India on 05/07/2017 shows the date of judgment as pronounced by the 5 judges in the bench as 09/05/2017, which is factually incorrect, as no judgment was pronounced on that day in the open court, making the said order non est in the eyes of law.
  3. The said order further endorses that the two judges out of the 7 judges have recorded a separate judgment (Page 49, signature block). Whereas the separate judgment was authored only on 04/07/2017. Again it is a factual inaccuracy that the separate judgment was in existence on 09/05/2017, as per the judgment of that day and hence the said inaccuracy further vitiates the authenticity of judgment.
  4. Paragraph 30 of the judgment of the Chief Justice of India reads as follows:-

The matter was finally taken up for hearing on 9.5.2017……….”

It is another indication that the instant judgment was authored on a subsequent date, not on the same day.

  1. Paragraph 35 of the judgment of the Chief Justice of India further reads as follows:-

 

In the background of the factual  position summarized above, while disposing of the suo-motu contempt petition on 9.5.2017, we had  directed, that no further statements issued by Shri Justice C.S. Karnan would  be  publicized.”

 

  1. This clearly shows that the instant judgment was authored on a subsequent day, not on the day as mentioned in the order, making the said order non est in the eyes of law.
  2. Order-XII,Rule-5 of the Supreme Court Rules,2013 reads as follows:-

“ Every decree passed or order made by the Court shall be drawn up in the Registry and be signed by the Registrar, the Additional Registrar or Deputy Registrar and sealed with the seal of the Court and shall bear the same date as the judgment in the suit or appeal.”

Further, the decree or order passed by the Assistant registrar, Ms.Renuka Sadana which reads as follows (Page 76 of the judgment):-

“………….the reasons for the same have been recorded in the two separate Reportable signed orders, which are placed on the file.”

It clearly shows that both the judgments were placed on the file on 09/05/2017, whereas the second judgment as referred was authored on 04/07/2017. Rather, a judgment which was authored on 04/07/2017 was placed on the file by the assistant registrar on 09/05/2017 as per the given order of the Ld.Registrar. This is the clear indication and admission on record making the said order non est in the eyes of law.

  1. Further, the listing of the case as per the said order passed by the Assistant registrar, Ms. Renuka Sadana (page No.75)shows that the matter was listed for the passing the said judgment on 09/05/2017 as item No.701, whereas on the said listing, only one order of conviction was passed in the open court, (which is in page no. 77 to 80) and there was no subsequent or continuous opportunity to pass the above judgment as mentioned in the order of the assistant registrar. Anyhow, an order signed on 04/07/2017 could not have been pronounced on 09/05/2017, making the said orders non est in the eyes of law.

The endorsement of 04/07/2017 as the date of judgment by the two judges in the concurring judgment is also a factual error, as on that day it was neither listed for the pronouncement of the said judgment, nor it was pronounced on that day in the open court. The date of pronouncement of the order is the date of judgment, and not the date on which it was signed/authored and hence for that reason, the order is void ab-initio, the one which is not pronounced in the open court, making it  not an order itself in accordance with  Order-XII,Rule-1 of the Supreme Court Rules,2013.

PRAYERS

 

It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to take recourse to the procedure of review and:

 

 

  1. declare that the lead judgment and order dated 09/05/2017 & 04/07/2017 passed by this Hon’ble Court in SUO MOTU CONMT.PET.(C) NO.1 OF 2017, passed by the 7 judge Bench of this Hon’ble Court in the above proceedings are unconstitutional and void being in direct violation of the express constitutional and statutory provisions so too the Fundamental, constitutional, equitable and statutory rights of the review petitioner;

 

  1. pass any such other order or orders/directions as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.

    DRAWN BY                                                FILED BY

(A.C.PHILIP

&

  1. J. JOVESON)

 

(MATHEWSW J.NEDUMPRARA) (B.K.Adhikari)&

(A.C.PHILIP)

Advocates for the Petitioner

mathewsjnedumpara@gmail.com

(Mobile: 09820535428)

 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) NO. _____ OF 2017

IN

SUO MOTU CONMT.PET.(C)NO.1 OF 2017

((Seeking review of the judgments dated 09/05/2017 & 04/07/2017 passed by this Hon’ble Court in SUO MOTU CONMT.PET.(C) NO.1 OF 2017)

Justice C.S. Karnan                    ………..Review Petitioner

IN THE MATTER OF:

Supreme Court of India

on its own motion                             … Suo Moto

Versus

Justice C.S. Karnan                      … Original  Alleged Contemnor/Respondent

 

A F F I D A V I T

I, Justice C.S.Karnan, aged about 61 years, S/o.Mr.Swaminathan, Residing at: 1/GB, Rosedale Towers, New Town, Kolkotta Presently UNDERGOING IMPRISONMNET AT Presidency Jail, Kolkotta, do hereby solemnly swear and affirm as follows:-

  1. That I am the Review Petitioner in the above SUO MOTU CONMT.PET.(C) NO.1 OF 2017. I am fully conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case and hence, I am competent to swear this affidavit.
  2. I state that I have read and understood the contents of the accompanying Review petition paragraph 1 to ________ at page 1 to    ________, Synopsis & List of dates at page B to ____, application for Bail, application for exemption from filing certified copies of the impugned order, Application seeking open Court hearing of the Review Petition and the Application for permission to engage Shri.Mathews J.Nedumpara as my counsel to appear and argue the Review Petition.  The contents of the same are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
  3. I state that that the Annexures, filed with the Review Petition are true and correct copies of their respective originals.
  4. Further, the instant petition, although send through speed post on being dismissed by the Senior Court Assistant without being acknowledged is further constrained to send through the jail authorites where I am undergoing the sentence.
  5. The judgment under which I was arrested on 20.06.2017, was eventually uploaded in the official website of the Supreme Court on 05.07.2017. There were two separate judgments, though concurring. The judgment of the Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jasti Chelameswar and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Gogoi, dated 04.07.2017, which meant that I was arrested abd sentenced without a judgment. Accordingly I preferred an application for review, which Shri.Mathews J.Nedumpara as my lawyer prepared in no loss of time. Shri.Nedumpara, along with Shri. B. K. Adhikary, advocate, called on me on 08/07/2017 at the Presidency Jail, Kolkata. The review petition was duly executed by me. My signature was identified and attested by the jail authorities. Shri.Nedumpara came to New Delhi on 11.07.2017 to present the same petition at the filing counter.
  6. I further learned that my review petition was dismissed by the Senior Court Assistant in gross violation of Order-XII, Rule- 1 & 5 and Order-VIII Rule 5 & 6- of the Supreme Court Rules,2013. In other words, my review petition was returned, without it being registered, without it being scrutinised, it’s objections if any not notified; it being confined to the grave, without it ever being listed for hearing and the grave injustice done to me ever rectified. The right to institute a review petition is a right guaranteed under article 137 of the constitution. It is unfathomable that it has happened at the hands of the Supreme Court of India , the sentinel qui vive of the life and liberty, the very guardian of the constitution.
  7. The petition, even though send by speed post to the Secretary General, Supreme Court of India, also has not been replied with.
  8. Hence the I am constrained to send  the same review petition, through the jail authorities to the Supreme Court for filing and listing for hearing.

Place: Kolkotta

DEPONENT

Verification

I, the Deponent above named, do hereby verify and state that the contents of the Affidavit are true and correct to my knowledge and belief. No part of it is false and nothing has been concealed there from.

Verified at New Delhi on this the ___th  day of August, 2017.

 

Place: Kolkotta                                                  DEPONENT

 

 

 

ARTICLES 21,124(4) & (5), 137, 138,145  AND 217(1)(B) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

 

“Protection of life and personal liberty.

 

  1. No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. Establishment and constitution of Supreme Court.”

 

“124

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

 

(4) A Judge of the Supreme Court shall not be removed from his office except by an order of the President passed after an address by each House of Parliament supported by a majority of the total membership of that House and by a majority of not less than two thirds of the members of that House present and voting has been presented to the President in the same session for such removal on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity.

 

(5) Parliament may by law regulate the procedure for the presentation of an address and for the investigation and proof of the misbehaviour or incapacity of a Judge under clause (4).

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………”

 

“Review ofjudgments ororders by theSupreme Court.

 

  1. Subject to the provisions of any law made byParliament or any rules made under article 145, theSupreme Court shall have power to review any judgment

pronounced or order made by it.”

 

“Enlargement of the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.

 

  1. (1) The Supreme Court shall have such further jurisdiction and powers with respect to any of the matters in the Union List as Parliament may by law confer.

(2) The Supreme Court shall have such further jurisdiction and powers with respect to any matter as the Government of India and the Government of any State may by special agreement confer, if Parliament by law provides for the exercise of such jurisdiction and powers by the Supreme Court.”

 

“Rules of Court, etc.

 

  1. (1) Subject to the provisions of any law made byParliament, the Supreme Court may from time to time,with the approval of the President, make rules forregulating generally the practice and procedure of theCourt including—

(a) rules as to the persons practising before the Court;

(b) rules as to the procedure for hearing appealsand other matters pertaining to appeals includingthe time within which appeals to the Court are to beentered;

(c) rules as to the proceedings in the Court for theenforcement of any of the rights conferred byPart III;

[(cc) rules as to the proceedings in the Courtunder article 139A];]

(d) rules as to the entertainment of appeals under sub-clause (c) of clause (1) of article 134;

(e) rules as to the conditions subject to which anyjudgment pronounced or order made by the Courtmay be reviewed and the procedure for such reviewincluding the time within which applications to theCourt for such review are to be entered;

(f) rules as to the costs of and incidental to anyproceedings in the Court and as to the fees to becharged in respect of proceedings therein;

(g) rules as to the granting of bail;

(h) rules as to stay of proceedings;

(i) rules providing for the summary determinationof any appeal which appears to the Court to befrivolous or vexatious or brought for the purpose ofdelay;

(j) rules as to the procedure for inquiries referredto in clause (1) of article 317.

Rules of Court, etc.

(2) Subject to the 1[provisions of clause (3)], rulesmade under this article may fix the minimum number ofJudges who are to sit for any purpose, and may providefor the powers of single Judges and Division Courts.

(3) 3[22 The minimum number] of Judges who are tosit for the purpose of deciding any case involving asubstantial question of law as to the interpretation of thisConstitution or for the purpose of hearing any referenceunder article 143 shall be five:

Provided that, where the Court hearing an appealunder any of the provisions of this Chapter other thanarticle 132 consists of less than five Judges and in thecourse of the hearing of the appeal the Court is satisfiedthat the appeal involves a substantial question of law asto the interpretation of this Constitution the determinationof which is necessary for the disposal of the appeal, suchCourt shall refer the question for opinion to a Courtconstituted as required by this clause for the purpose ofdeciding any case involving such a question and shallon receipt of the opinion dispose of the appeal inconformity with such opinion.

(4) No judgment shall be delivered by the SupremeCourt save in open Court, and no report shall be madeunder article 143 save in accordance with an opinionalso delivered in open Court.

(5) No judgment and no such opinion shall bedelivered by the Supreme Court save with theconcurrence of a majority of the Judges present at thehearing of the case, but nothing in this clause shall bedeemed to prevent a Judge who does not concur fromdelivering a dissenting judgment or opinion.”

“217

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

(1)(b) a Judge may be removed from his office by the President in the manner provided in clause (4) of article 124 for the removal of a Judge of the Supreme Court;”

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………”

 

 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) NO. _____ OF 2017

IN

SUO MOTU CONMT.PET.(C)NO.1 OF 2017

((Seeking review of the judgments dated 09/05/2017 & 04/07/2017 passed by this Hon’ble Court in SUO MOTU CONMT.PET.(C) NO.1 OF 2017)

Justice C.S. Karnan            ….Applicant /Review Petitioner

IN THE MATTER OF:

Supreme Court of India

on its own motion                             … Suo Moto

Versus

Justice C.S. Karnan                      … Original  Alleged Contemnor/Respondent

 

APPLICATION SEEKING BAIL

 

To,

The Hon’ble Chief Justice of India

And His Companion Judges of the

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.

 

The humble petition of the petitioner above named

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH

  1. It has become imperative for the Applicant to institute the instant bail application, in an imprisonment unparallel in the legal history, since the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India (CJI) was pleased to take suo motu cognizance of a letter dated 23rd January, 2017 addressed by the Petitioner to the Hon’ble Prime Minister seeking an investigation into allegations against corruption by certain Judges of the High Court of Judicature at Madras made by the Petitioner and to constitute a Bench of seven Judges to hear the same and by order dated 9th May, 2017 was pleased to convict the Applicant for criminal contempt of Court and sentence him to undergo imprisonment for six months.  The Applicant with utmost respect submits that the entire proceeding at the hands of the CJI in constituting the Seven-Judge Bench finally culminating in his conviction and sentence, as aforesaid, is without jurisdiction.  The reasons for the same are manifest.
  2. Pursuant to the above said order dated 09/05/2017, the Applicant had been taken into custody on 20th June, 2017 and since been lodged in prison at Kolkotta, West Bengal to undergo a sentence and imprisonment, for which he is yet to know the reasons, the charges therein and even the judgment under which he is subjected to undergo the punishment is non est in the eyes of law.   
  3. The Applicant had been appointed by His Excellency the President of India by warrant as a Judge of the High Court of Madras and was later transferred to the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta. 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 collegium was further institutionalized.  Even when the executive appointed Judges to the higher judiciary, the appointees were from a narrow pool.  The collegium 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, causing total destruction of democratic legitimacy; so too diversity in judicial appointments.  One Suraz 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 the said petition was subsequently dismissed, where the Ld.Attorney General was given liberty to raise maintainability at the subsequent and later opportunity, without answering any of the legal and constitutional questions raised in the said petition, which the Applicant consider to be the Judges-4 case.
  4. 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 was 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 Ld.Attorney General did not question the maintainability of the so-called PIL at the hands of SCAORA challenging the NJAC Act,2014.  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 senior most five Judges of the Supreme Court.  Judges appoint themselves and we are the only country in the world to do so.

 

  1. The Seven-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court by its order dated 8th February, 2017, without any notice or affording any notice, divested the applicant of his judicial and administrative work. It meant his de facto removal from his 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. In accordance with the Article 217(1) (b) read with Article 124(4) of the Constitution, a Judge of the Supreme Court or of a High Court can be removed from office for proved misconduct only 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 the applicant from his office by divesting him of his judicial and administrative work/powers in contravention of the express constitutional mandate and provisions. The only consolation is that he is not deprived of his salary and perks.   By its order dated 9th May, 2017, the Supreme Court ordered him to be jailed for contempt of Court which means that he is also divested of the perks and privileges he enjoyed, in violation of the Constitutional protection guaranteed under Article 221 of the Constitution, where the same is being curtailed to his disadvantage. It is the universal principle that the appointee can only be removed from his office by the appointing authority, and in no way by his peers, as allowing the same will lead to chaos deviated from the constitutional harmony.
  2.  The informed common men of this country are concerned about the manner in which he is removed from his 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 he is 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, which will mean the fatal blow to the independence of judiciary.
  3. To repeat, the applicant was convicted without framing a charge, without being told the allegations constituting the charge, without a lawyer to defend him to say his side of the story.  Even a devil is entitled to a hearing, an advocatus diabolic.  The judgment containing the reasons for which the appicant 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. The applicant, the alleged contemnor, is entitled to know the reasons for which he is convicted;  he is entitled to a copy of the judgment; no judgment could have been pronounced in his absence; no conviction could be imposed without giving an opportunity to the convict a say in the quantum of sentence; even where he is convicted in terms of the proviso to Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, he is entitled to a say as to the sentence to be imposed; and he is liable to be discharged if he were to make even a conditional apology. All these procedural safeguards are in direct violation by the order of this Hon’ble Court, by which the applicant is undergoing imprisonment.
  4. Section 15 of the Act invests concurrent jurisdiction in the Supreme Court and High Courts.  If the said Section is to be understood as one investing jurisdiction on the supreme Court to initiate contempt of Court proceeding against a Judge of the High Court, then the High Court being not subordinate to the Supreme Court could also be said to be invested with the jurisdiction to invoke contempt of Court proceeding against a Judge of the Supreme Court, a proposition which is fraught with dire consequences.  In short, under the constitutional scheme and interpretation of the Act in consonance with the concept that a High Court is not subordinate to the Supreme Court and is as independent as the Supreme Court itself, subject to the rider that decisions of the High Courts on judicial side are amenable to appeal to the Supreme Court, a contempt of Court proceeding could not have been instituted against the Petitioner at all.  The Petitioner is, therefore, entitled to a declaration that the very notice dated 08/02/2017 issued against him under the Act and all further proceedings in furtherance thereof, culminating in the order dated 9th May, 2017, are unconstitutional and void.   The Applicant , a Judge of the High Court of Calcutta, is not under any disciplinary jurisdiction of either the CJI or the Bench of Seven Hon’ble Judges constituted by the CJI, as in the instant case.
  5. The applicant’s 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,1971 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 his lawyer and without notice.  Accordingly, on the applicant’s 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 the applicant placed himself at the bosom of and seeking intervention of His Excellency, he continue to undergo the imprisonment, despite the illegalities and constitutional violations involved in the said order of imposing punishment. The imprisonment which the applicant is undergoing is illegal and unconstitutional.
  6. It is a fundamental principle of law, as enunciated in Section 273,278,281,291, of The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973, that no trial could be conducted in the absence of an accused, much less he could be convicted and sentenced. Even if the accused has failed to appear, it is the duty of the prosecution and the Court to ensure the presence of the accused.  Trial, conviction and sentence in the absence of an accused and without securing his presence is unknown to criminal jurisprudence.
  7. It is a fundamental principle of law that if an order of a Court, even of the highest Court of the land, is without jurisdiction, in violation of the principles of natural justice and in ignorance of express statutory provisions, nay, in other words, vitiated by errors apparent on the face of the record, such an order is a nullity, one which never ever existed in the eye of law, and the same could be challenged whenever and wherever is tried to be implemented. This is the essence of the doctrine of nullity which finds enunciation in A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak (cited supra), wherein it was held that the order of the Five-Judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court requesting the Chief Justice of the High Court of Bombay to designate a Judge of the High Court to conduct the trial against Shri.A.R.Antulay, while in terms of the Prevention of Corruption Act the trial could only have been conducted by a Judge of the Designated Court of the rank of a District Judge, from whose decision an appeal will lie to the High Court, was a nullity and could be impugned before the High Court.  A.R.Antulay adopted that course of action which, though the High Court declined, was upheld by the Supreme Court, holding that an order of even a Constitution Bench of the supreme Court, if rendered void ab initio, its validity could be questioned even before a forum which is judicially subordinate to the Supreme Court.  An order which is a nullity could be challenged by way of (a) of an appeal, if the statute provides for one, (b) a review which is inherent in so far as the Supreme Court and High Courts are concerned and (c) a collateral proceeding, namely, by way of a suit or a Writ Petition under Article 32/226 of the Constitution.

 

  1. The supremacy of the Parliament, the majesty of law and independence of judiciary are of paramount importance.  The order dated 9th May, 2017 in the Applicant’s case is rendered at peril of these fundamental principles.  Therefore, it is the sacred duty of  this Hon’ble Court to pay its 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.  The Applicant  is, therefore, entitled to a declaration that the very notice dated 08/02/2017 issued against him under the Act and all further proceedings in furtherance thereof, culminating in the order dated 9th May, 2017, are unconstitutional and void.   For that reason the Applicant has moved the writ petition before this Hon’ble Court, a recall application of the said order and a petition under Article 72 of the Constitution before His Excellency the President of India, who is the appointing authority of the applicant and the other High Court and Supreme Court Judges as well, for the suspension of sentence till the procedural irregularities are corrected and a reasoned judgment is passed.
  2. The imprisonment which the applicant undergoes as of now is without knowing the reasons for which he is imprisoned, and in violation of fundamental, constitutional, statutory and equitable rights invested in him. Hence it is requested that the Applicant may please be enlarged on bail till the said lacunae are remedied and constitutional supremacy restored. Further, the Applicant is ready and willing to abide by any terms and conditions that may be imposed by this Hon’ble Court for granting bail to him. Therefore, it is in the interest of justice that the instant bail application of the Applicant be considered and bail be granted.

Hence the instant application for Bail.

P R A Y E R

It is, therefore, the applicant namely Justice.C.S.Karnan, the Review Petitioner/alleged contemnor in the above case most humbly pray that :-

  1. this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to enlarge him on bail, in the interest of justice and equity;
  2. pass such further and other orders as the nature and circumstances of the case may warrant. .

 

DRAWN BY                                           FILED BY

(A.C.PHILIP

&

  1. J. JOVESON)

 

(MATHEWS J.NEDUMPRARA)

(B.K.Adhikari)&

(A.C.PHILIP)

Advocates for the Petitioner

mathewsjnedumpara@gmail.com

(Mobile: 09820535428)

New Delhi.

Drawn on:__.08.2017

Filed on:__.08.2017

 

 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) NO. _____ OF 2017

IN

SUO MOTU CONMT.PET.(C)NO.1 OF 2017

((Seeking review of the judgments dated 09/05/2017 & 04/07/2017 passed by this Hon’ble Court in SUO MOTU CONMT.PET.(C) NO.1 OF 2017)

Justice C.S. Karnan            ….Applicant /Review Petitioner

IN THE MATTER OF:

Supreme Court of India

on its own motion                             … Suo Moto

Versus

Justice C.S. Karnan                      … Original  Alleged Contemnor/Respondent

 
AN APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING CERTIFIED COPY OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER 09/05/2017 & 04/07/2017 PASSED BY THIS HON’BLE COURT IN SUO MOTU CONMT.PET.(C) NO.1 OF 2017

To,

The Hon’ble Chief Justice of India

And His Companion Judges of the

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.

 

The humble petition of the petitioner above named

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH

  1. That the Petitioner has filed the accompanying review Petition against the common order and judgments dated 09/05/2017 & 04/07/2017 passed by this Hon’ble Court in SUO MOTU CONMT.PET.(C) NO.1 OF 2017.
  2. Being aggrieved by the impugned common order and judgments dated 09/05/2017 & 04/07/2017 passed by this Hon’ble Court in SUO MOTU CONMT.PET.(C) NO.1 OF 2017 the petitioner are seeking a review by a declaration that the above judgment is void, non est in the eye of law.
  3. The letter addressed by the Petitioner to the Hon’ble Prime Minister seeking an investigation into allegations of corruption against certain Judges was said to be the ignition of the instant proceedings, which was started by removing the petitioner from office without any order on this regard from the petitioner’s appointing authority, H.E. The President of India, or by any inquiry in terms of the Judges Inquiry Ac,1968.    Even though it was ordered that no one is allowed to intervene in the matter, since contempt proceedings are a matter strictly between the Court and the alleged contemnor, anyone who enters appearance and disrupts  the  proceedings  of  this  case  in  future,  should understand that he/she can be proceeded against, in consonance with law, subsequently the interventions were allowed to certain selected advocates by a subsequent order on an oral request, in abject prejudice to the interest of the review petitioner, that too without notice to him.
  4. The petitioner was removed from office, without any notice , and was convicted without any trial, without any charge sheet, without any judgment of conviction, without allowing him to defend himself on the quantum of punishment, without his presence, and the judgment was subsequently uploaded in the website on 05/07/2017, making it public without notice to the petitioner, without pronouncing it in the open court, that too after retirement of one of the judges on the bench from office, dating it back to 09/05/2017, whereas it was not pronounced on that day too, and the part judgment was dated on 04/07/2017, making the entire judgment a nullity, one which is non-est in the eyes of law. The date of the judgment ought to have been the date on which it came to the public domain by way of pronouncement.
  5. The order of conviction merely states that the detailed order will follow, and even without that order on record, the petitioner was arrested and is being subjected to undergo the imprisonment in accordance with the judgment which was nonexistent on the day of arrest and is void and non est even there after.
  6. Where as the judgments dated 09/05/2017 & 04/07/2017 passed by this Hon’ble Court in SUO MOTU CONMT.PET.(C) NO.1 OF 2017 was not pronounced in the open court.
  7. No notice was given to the parties or to their advocates about the pronouncement of the judgment.

 

  1. The decree was not drawn up in accordance with the judgment pronounced, whereas the judgment was drawn up in accordance with the order of conviction which showers no legal sanctity for both making the order and the judgment, both illegal and void ab-initio or non est in the eyes of law.

 

  1. The date on which the judgment was signed is not the date of the judgment, whereas the date of pronouncement of judgment is the date of judgment, and in that way, the date shown in the judgment is wrong, because on 09/05/2017 the said judgment was not pronounced. The order which was pronounced on that day clearly mentions that the “Detailed order to follow.”( Paragraph 2, page-1, order dated 09/05/2017). It clearly shows that there was no other order/judgment passed on that day.

 

  1. The subsequent judgment which was uploaded in the website of the Supreme Court of India on 05/07/2017 shows the date of judgment as pronounced by the 5 judges in the bench as 09/05/2017, which is factually incorrect, as no judgment was pronounced on that day in the open court, making the said order non est in the eyes of law.
  2. The said order further endorses that the two judges out of the 7 judges have recorded a separate judgment (Page 49,signature block). Whereas the separate judgment was authored only on 04/07/2017. Again it is a factual inaccuracy that the separate judgment was in existence on 09/05/2017, as per the judgment of that day and hence the said inaccuracy further vitiates the authenticity of judgment.
  3. Paragraph 30 of the judgment of the Chief Justice of India reads as follows:-

The matter was finally taken up for hearing on 9.5.2017……….”

  1. It is another indication that the instant judgment was authored on a subsequent date, not on the same day.
  2. Paragraph 35 of the judgment of the Chief Justice of India further reads as follows:-

 

In the background of the factual  position summarized above, while disposing of the suo-motu contempt petition on 9.5.2017, we had  directed, that no further statements issued by Shri Justice C.S. Karnan would  be  publicized.”

 

  1. This clearly shows that the instant judgment was authored on a subsequent day, not on the day as mentioned in the order, making the said order non est in the eyes of law.
  2. Order-XII,Rule-5 of the Supreme Court Rules,2013 reads as follows:-

“ Every decree passed or order made by the Court shall be drawn up in the Registry and be signed by the Registrar, the Additional Registrar or Deputy Registrar and sealed with the seal of the Court and shall bear the same date as the judgment in the suit or appeal.”

Further, the decree or order passed by the Assistant registrar, Ms.Renuka Sadana which reads as follows (Page 76 of the judgment):-

“………….the reasons for the same have been recorded in the two separate Reportable signed orders, which are placed on the file.”

It clearly shows that both the judgments were placed on the file on 09/05/2017, whereas the second judgment as referred was authored on 04/07/2017. Rather, a judgment which was authored on 04/07/2017 was placed on the file by the assistant registrar on 09/05/2017 as per the given order of the Ld.Registrar.   This is the clear indication and admission on record making the said order non est in the eyes of law..

  1. Further, the listing of the case as per the said order passed by the Assistant registrar, Ms. Renuka Sadana (page No.75)shows that the matter was listed for the passing the said judgment on 09/05/2017 as item No.701, whereas on the said listing, only one order of conviction was passed in the open court, (which is in page no. 77 to 80) and there was no subsequent or continuous opportunity to pass the above judgment as mentioned in the order of the assistant registrar. Anyhow, an order signed on 04/07/2017 could not have been pronounced on 09/05/2017, making the said orders non est in the eyes of law.
  2. The endorsement of 04/07/2017 as the date of judgment by the two judges in the concurring judgment is also a factual error, as on that day it was neither listed for the pronouncement of the said judgment, nor it was pronounced on that day in the open court. The date of pronouncement of the order is the date of judgment, and not the date on which it was signed/authored and hence for that reason, the order is void ab-initio, the one which is not pronounced in the open court, making it not an order itself in accordance with  Order-XII,Rule-1 of the Supreme Court Rules,2013.
  3. Further, no true copy of the judgment is provided to the petitioner, the judgment being not pronounced in the open court, and the certified copy of the said judgment has been applied and not yet been provided with. Hence the petitioner may please be exempted from filing the certified copies of the impugned orders in the above review petition. Further, it is a fact that the said order is part of the record of this Hon’ble Court in the original proceedings.

P R A Y E R

It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Commission may graciously be pleased to :

  1. a) exempt the Petitioner from filing copy of the impugned common judgment and order dated 09/05/2017 & 04/07/2017 passed by this Hon’ble Court in SUO MOTU CONMT.PET.(C) NO.1 OF 2017,
  2. b) pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Commission may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.

 

DRAWN BY                                           FILED BY

(A.C.PHILIP

&

  1. J. JOVESON)

 

(MATHEWS J.NEDUMPRARA)

(B.K.Adhikari)&

(A.C.PHILIP)

Advocates for the Petitioner

mathewsjnedumpara@gmail.com

(Mobile: 09820535428)

New Delhi.

Drawn on:__.08.2017

Filed on:__.08.2017

 

 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) NO. _____ OF 2017

IN

SUO MOTU CONMT.PET.(C)NO.1 OF 2017

((Seeking review of the judgments dated 09/05/2017 & 04/07/2017 passed by this Hon’ble Court in SUO MOTU CONMT.PET.(C) NO.1 OF 2017)

Justice C.S. Karnan            ….Applicant /Review Petitioner

IN THE MATTER OF:

Supreme Court of India

on its own motion                             … Suo Moto

Versus

Justice C.S. Karnan                      … Original  Alleged Contemnor/Respondent

 

APPLICATION SEEKING HEARING OF THIS

REVIEW PETITION IN THE OPEN COURT

 

TO

THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA

AND HIS COMPANION JUSTICES OF THE

HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 

THE HUMBLE APPLICATION OF PETITIONER ABOVENAMED

 

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH

  1. That the Petitioner has filed the accompanying review Petition against the common order and judgments dated 09/05/2017 & 04/07/2017 passed by this Hon’ble Court in SUO MOTU CONMT.PET.(C) NO.1 OF 2017.
  2. Being aggrieved by the impugned common order and judgments dated 09/05/2017 & 04/07/2017 passed by this Hon’ble Court in SUO MOTU CONMT.PET.(C) NO.1 OF 2017 the petitioner are seeking a review by a declaration that the above judgment is void, non est in the eye of law.
  3. The letter addressed by the Petitioner to the Hon’ble Prime Minister seeking an investigation into allegations of corruption against certain Judges was said to be the ignition of the instant proceedings, which was started by removing the petitioner from office without any order on this regard from the petitioner’s appointing authority, H.E. The President of India, or by any inquiry in terms of the Judges Inquiry Ac,1968.    Even though it was ordered that no one is allowed to intervene in the matter, since contempt proceedings are a matter strictly between the Court and the alleged contemnor, anyone who enters appearance and disrupts  the  proceedings  of  this  case  in  future,  should understand that he/she can be proceeded against, in consonance with law, subsequently the interventions were allowed to certain selected advocates by a subsequent order on an oral request, in abject prejudice to the interest of the review petitioner, that too without notice to him.
  4. The petitioner was removed from office, without any notice , and was convicted without any trial, without any charge sheet, without any judgment of conviction, without allowing him to defend himself on the quantum of punishment, without his presence, and the judgment was subsequently uploaded in the website on 05/07/2017, making it public without notice to the petitioner, without pronouncing it in the open court, that too after retirement of one of the judges on the bench from office, dating it back to 09/05/2017, whereas it was not pronounced on that day too, and the part judgment was dated on 04/07/2017, making the entire judgment a nullity, one which is non-est in the eyes of law. The date of the judgment ought to have been the date on which it came to the public domain by way of pronouncement.
  5. The order of conviction merely states that the detailed order will follow, and even without that order on record, the petitioner was arrested and is being subjected to undergo the imprisonment in accordance with the judgment which was nonexistent on the day of arrest and is void and non est even there after.
  6. Where as the judgments dated 09/05/2017 & 04/07/2017 passed by this Hon’ble Court in SUO MOTU CONMT.PET.(C) NO.1 OF 2017 was not pronounced in the open court.
  7. No notice was given to the parties or to their advocates about the pronouncement of the judgment.

 

  1. The decree was not drawn up in accordance with the judgment pronounced, whereas the judgment was drawn up in accordance with the order of conviction which showers no legal sanctity for both making the order and the judgment, both illegal and void ab-initio or non est in the eyes of law.

 

  1. The date on which the judgment was signed is not the date of the judgment, whereas the date of pronouncement of judgment is the date of judgment, and in that way, the date shown in the judgment is wrong, because on 09/05/2017 the said judgment was not pronounced. The order which was pronounced on that day clearly mentions that the “Detailed order to follow.”( Paragraph 2, page-1, order dated 09/05/2017). It clearly shows that there was no other order/judgment passed on that day.

 

  1. The subsequent judgment which was uploaded in the website of the Supreme Court of India on 05/07/2017 shows the date of judgment as pronounced by the 5 judges in the bench as 09/05/2017, which is factually incorrect, as no judgment was pronounced on that day in the open court, making the said order non est in the eyes of law.
  2. The said order further endorses that the two judges out of the 7 judges have recorded a separate judgment (Page 49,signature block). Whereas the separate judgment was authored only on 04/07/2017. Again it is a factual inaccuracy that the separate judgment was in existence on 09/05/2017, as per the judgment of that day and hence the said inaccuracy further vitiates the authenticity of judgment.
  3. Paragraph 30 of the judgment of the Chief Justice of India reads as follows:-

The matter was finally taken up for hearing on 9.5.2017……….”

  1. It is another indication that the instant judgment was authored on a subsequent date, not on the same day.
  2. Paragraph 35 of the judgment of the Chief Justice of India further reads as follows:-

 

In the background of the factual  position summarized above, while disposing of the suo-motu contempt petition on 9.5.2017, we had  directed, that no further statements issued by Shri Justice C.S. Karnan would  be  publicized.”

 

  1. This clearly shows that the instant judgment was authored on a subsequent day, not on the day as mentioned in the order, making the said order non est in the eyes of law.
  2. Order-XII,Rule-5 of the Supreme Court Rules,2013 reads as follows:-

“ Every decree passed or order made by the Court shall be drawn up in the Registry and be signed by the Registrar, the Additional Registrar or Deputy Registrar and sealed with the seal of the Court and shall bear the same date as the judgment in the suit or appeal.”

Further, the decree or order passed by the Assistant registrar, Ms.Renuka Sadana which reads as follows (Page 76 of the judgment):-

“………….the reasons for the same have been recorded in the two separate Reportable signed orders, which are placed on the file.”

It clearly shows that both the judgments were placed on the file on 09/05/2017, whereas the second judgment as referred was authored on 04/07/2017. Rather, a judgment which was authored on 04/07/2017 was placed on the file by the assistant registrar on 09/05/2017 as per the given order of the Ld.Registrar.   This is the clear indication and admission on record making the said order non est in the eyes of law..

  1. Further, the listing of the case as per the said order passed by the Assistant registrar, Ms. Renuka Sadana (page No.75)shows that the matter was listed for the passing the said judgment on 09/05/2017 as item No.701, whereas on the said listing, only one order of conviction was passed in the open court, (which is in page no. 77 to 80) and there was no subsequent or continuous opportunity to pass the above judgment as mentioned in the order of the assistant registrar. Anyhow, an order signed on 04/07/2017 could not have been pronounced on 09/05/2017, making the said orders non est in the eyes of law.
  2. The endorsement of 04/07/2017 as the date of judgment by the two judges in the concurring judgment is also a factual error, as on that day it was neither listed for the pronouncement of the said judgment, nor it was pronounced on that day in the open court. The date of pronouncement of the order is the date of judgment, and not the date on which it was signed/authored and hence for that reason, the order is void ab-initio, the one which is not pronounced in the open court, making it not an order itself in accordance with  Order-XII,Rule-1 of the Supreme Court Rules,2013.
  3. Further, the petitioner was never heard in any purposeful manner, not represented by a counsel of his choice and the entire proceedings were in his absence, and the order of conviction was passed in his absence, there being no charge sheet at all, the judgment of conviction was not passed in the open court, the one non est in the eyes of law, the instant review petition is in the form of a first appeal itself against the original proceedings, and an original proceedings as well in terms of the correction of the above lacunae in the proceedings and hence, in the interest of justice and upholding the rule of law, the instant review petitioner may please be heard in the open court, allowing the petitioner to be represented by the advocate of his choice to defend himself.

 

 

PRAYER

It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to :

 

  1. a) allow this Application and hear the accompanying Review Petition in open Court ; and

 

  1. b) pass any such other order or orders/directions as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.

DRAWN BY                                           FILED BY

(A.C.PHILIP

&

  1. J. JOVESON)

 

(MATHEWS J.NEDUMPRARA)

(B.K.Adhikari)&

(A.C.PHILIP)

Advocates for the Petitioner

mathewsjnedumpara@gmail.com

(Mobile: 09820535428)

New Delhi.

Drawn on:__.08.2017

Filed on:__.08.2017

 

 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) NO. _____ OF 2017

IN

SUO MOTU CONMT.PET.(C)NO.1 OF 2017

((Seeking review of the judgments dated 09/05/2017 & 04/07/2017 passed by this Hon’ble Court in SUO MOTU CONMT.PET.(C) NO.1 OF 2017)

Justice C.S. Karnan            ….Applicant /Review Petitioner

IN THE MATTER OF:

Supreme Court of India

on its own motion                             … Suo Moto

Versus

Justice C.S. Karnan                      … Original  Alleged Contemnor/Respondent

 

APPLICATION SEEKING  PERMISSION TO APPOINT AND ENGAGE SHRI.MATHEWS J.NEDUMPARA AS ARGUMENT COUNSEL.

TO

THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA

AND HIS COMPANION JUSTICES OF THE

HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 

THE HUMBLE APPLICATION OF PETITIONER ABOVENAMED

 

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH

 

  1. That the Petitioner has filed the accompanying review Petition against the common order and judgments dated 09/05/2017 & 04/07/2017 passed by this Hon’ble Court in SUO MOTU CONMT.PET.(C) NO.1 OF 2017.
  2. Being aggrieved by the impugned common order and judgments dated 09/05/2017 & 04/07/2017 passed by this Hon’ble Court in SUO MOTU CONMT.PET.(C) NO.1 OF 2017 the petitioner are seeking a review by a declaration that the above judgment is void, non est in the eye of law.
  3. The letter addressed by the Petitioner to the Hon’ble Prime Minister seeking an investigation into allegations of corruption against certain Judges was said to be the ignition of the instant proceedings, which was started by removing the petitioner from office without any order on this regard from the petitioner’s appointing authority, H.E. The President of India, or by any inquiry in terms of the Judges Inquiry Ac,1968.    Even though it was ordered that no one is allowed to intervene in the matter, since contempt proceedings are a matter strictly between the Court and the alleged contemnor, anyone who enters appearance and disrupts  the  proceedings  of  this  case  in  future,  should understand that he/she can be proceeded against, in consonance with law, subsequently the interventions were allowed to certain selected advocates by a subsequent order on an oral request, in abject prejudice to the interest of the review petitioner, that too without notice to him.
  4. The petitioner was removed from office, without any notice , and was convicted without any trial, without any charge sheet, without any judgment of conviction, without allowing him to defend himself on the quantum of punishment, without his presence, and the judgment was subsequently uploaded in the website on 05/07/2017, making it public without notice to the petitioner, without pronouncing it in the open court, that too after retirement of one of the judges on the bench from office, dating it back to 09/05/2017, whereas it was not pronounced on that day too, and the part judgment was dated on 04/07/2017, making the entire judgment a nullity, one which is non-est in the eyes of law. The date of the judgment ought to have been the date on which it came to the public domain by way of pronouncement.
  5. The order of conviction merely states that the detailed order will follow, and even without that order on record, the petitioner was arrested and is being subjected to undergo the imprisonment in accordance with the judgment which was nonexistent on the day of arrest and is void and non est even there after.
  6. Where as the judgments dated 09/05/2017 & 04/07/2017 passed by this Hon’ble Court in SUO MOTU CONMT.PET.(C) NO.1 OF 2017 was not pronounced in the open court.
  7. No notice was given to the parties or to their advocates about the pronouncement of the judgment.

 

  1. The decree was not drawn up in accordance with the judgment pronounced, whereas the judgment was drawn up in accordance with the order of conviction which showers no legal sanctity for both making the order and the judgment, both illegal and void ab-initio or non est in the eyes of law.

 

  1. The date on which the judgment was signed is not the date of the judgment, whereas the date of pronouncement of judgment is the date of judgment, and in that way, the date shown in the judgment is wrong, because on 09/05/2017 the said judgment was not pronounced. The order which was pronounced on that day clearly mentions that the “Detailed order to follow.”( Paragraph 2, page-1, order dated 09/05/2017). It clearly shows that there was no other order/judgment passed on that day.

 

  1. The subsequent judgment which was uploaded in the website of the Supreme Court of India on 05/07/2017 shows the date of judgment as pronounced by the 5 judges in the bench as 09/05/2017, which is factually incorrect, as no judgment was pronounced on that day in the open court, making the said order non est in the eyes of law.
  2. The said order further endorses that the two judges out of the 7 judges have recorded a separate judgment (Page 49,signature block). Whereas the separate judgment was authored only on 04/07/2017. Again it is a factual inaccuracy that the separate judgment was in existence on 09/05/2017, as per the judgment of that day and hence the said inaccuracy further vitiates the authenticity of judgment.
  3. Paragraph 30 of the judgment of the Chief Justice of India reads as follows:-

The matter was finally taken up for hearing on 9.5.2017……….”

  1. It is another indication that the instant judgment was authored on a subsequent date, not on the same day.
  2. Paragraph 35 of the judgment of the Chief Justice of India further reads as follows:-

 

In the background of the factual  position summarized above, while disposing of the suo-motu contempt petition on 9.5.2017, we had  directed, that no further statements issued by Shri Justice C.S. Karnan would  be  publicized.”

 

  1. This clearly shows that the instant judgment was authored on a subsequent day, not on the day as mentioned in the order, making the said order non est in the eyes of law.
  2. Order-XII,Rule-5 of the Supreme Court Rules,2013 reads as follows:-

“ Every decree passed or order made by the Court shall be drawn up in the Registry and be signed by the Registrar, the Additional Registrar or Deputy Registrar and sealed with the seal of the Court and shall bear the same date as the judgment in the suit or appeal.”

Further, the decree or order passed by the Assistant registrar, Ms.Renuka Sadana which reads as follows (Page 76 of the judgment):-

“………….the reasons for the same have been recorded in the two separate Reportable signed orders, which are placed on the file.”

It clearly shows that both the judgments were placed on the file on 09/05/2017, whereas the second judgment as referred was authored on 04/07/2017. Rather, a judgment which was authored on 04/07/2017 was placed on the file by the assistant registrar on 09/05/2017 as per the given order of the Ld.Registrar.   This is the clear indication and admission on record making the said order non est in the eyes of law..

  1. Further, the listing of the case as per the said order passed by the Assistant registrar, Ms. Renuka Sadana (page No.75)shows that the matter was listed for the passing the said judgment on 09/05/2017 as item No.701, whereas on the said listing, only one order of conviction was passed in the open court, (which is in page no. 77 to 80) and there was no subsequent or continuous opportunity to pass the above judgment as mentioned in the order of the assistant registrar. Anyhow, an order signed on 04/07/2017 could not have been pronounced on 09/05/2017, making the said orders non est in the eyes of law.
  2. The endorsement of 04/07/2017 as the date of judgment by the two judges in the concurring judgment is also a factual error, as on that day it was neither listed for the pronouncement of the said judgment, nor it was pronounced on that day in the open court. The date of pronouncement of the order is the date of judgment, and not the date on which it was signed/authored and hence for that reason, the order is void ab-initio, the one which is not pronounced in the open court, making it not an order itself in accordance with  Order-XII,Rule-1 of the Supreme Court Rules,2013.
  3. Further, the petitioner was never heard in any purposeful manner, not represented by a counsel of his choice and the entire proceedings were in his absence, and the order of conviction was passed in his absence, there being no charge sheet at all, the judgment of conviction was not passed in the open court, the one non est in the eyes of law, the instant review petition is in the form of a first appeal itself against the original proceedings, and an original proceedings as well in terms of the correction of the above lacunae in the proceedings and hence, in the interest of justice and upholding the rule of law, the instant review petitioner may please be heard in the open court, allowing the petitioner to be represented by the advocate of his choice to defend himself.
  4. Hence, this Application.

PRAYER

It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to :

 

  1. a) permit the review petitioners to appoint and engage Shri.Mathews J.Nedumpara as argument counsel.; and

 

  1. b) pass any such other order or orders/directions as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.

DRAWN BY                                           FILED BY

(A.C.PHILIP

&

  1. J. JOVESON)

 

(MATHEWS J.NEDUMPRARA)

(B.K.Adhikari)&

(A.C.PHILIP)

Advocates for the Petitioner

mathewsjnedumpara@gmail.com

(Mobile: 09820535428)

New Delhi.

Drawn on:__.08.2017

Filed on:__.08.2017

 

 

 

 

 

Justice C.S. Karnan

Review Petitioner

 1/GB, Rosedale Towers, New Town, Kolkotta

 

Presently undergoing imprisonment at Presidency Jail, Kolkotta

Dated :___.07.2017

To

The Registrar

Supreme Court of India,

New Delhi.

 

 

Subject :

 

REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) NO. _____ OF 2017

IN

SUO MOTU CONMT.PET.(C)NO.1 OF 2017

Sir,

 

I hereby authorize Shri Mathew J.Nedumpara/C.J.Joveson/ A.C.Philip/ Mr.Sonu Beniwal, to file, re-file, to apply for and obtain the proceedings along with the entire Case and also to do the needful in the Registry in the above mentioned case.

 

Thanking you

Yours sincerely,

 

 

(Justice C.S. Karnan)

Review Petitioner

 

 

 

Justice C.S. Karnan

Review Petitioner

 1/GB, Rosedale Towers, New Town, Kolkotta

 

Presently undergoing imprisonment at Presidency Jail, Kolkotta

Dated :___.07.2017

To

The Registrar

Supreme Court of India,

New Delhi.

 

 

Subject :

 

REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) NO. _____ OF 2017

IN

SUO MOTU CONMT.PET.(C)NO.1 OF 2017

Sir,

 

I hereby authorize Shri Mathew J.Nedumpara/C.J.Joveson/ A.C.Philip/ Mr.Sonu Beniwal, to file, re-file, to apply for and obtain the proceedings along with the entire Case and also to do the needful in the Registry in the above mentioned case.

 

Thanking you

Yours sincerely,

 

 

(Justice C.S. Karnan)

Review Petitioner

 

 

 

 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) NO. _____ OF 2017

IN

SUO MOTU CONMT.PET.(C)NO.1 OF 2017

((Seeking review of the judgments dated 09/05/2017 & 04/07/2017 passed by this Hon’ble Court in SUO MOTU CONMT.PET.(C) NO.1 OF 2017)

Justice C.S. Karnan                    ………..Review Petitioner

IN THE MATTER OF:

Supreme Court of India

on its own motion                             … Suo Moto

Versus

Justice C.S. Karnan                      … Original  Alleged Contemnor/Respondent

VAKALATNAMA

I/We Justice C.S.Karnan Appellants(s)/Petitioner(s)/Respondent(s) /Opposite party in the above Suit/ Appeal: Petition/ Reference do hereby appoint and retain            ____________________________________________________________Advocate-on-Record of the Supreme Court to act and appear for me/us in the above Proceedings/Suit/ Appeal/ Petition/ Reference and or my /our behalf to conduct and prosecute (or defend) the same and all proceedings that may be taken in respect of my application connected with the same of any decree order passed therein, including proceedings in taxation and application for Review, to file and obtain return of documents, and to deposit and receive money on my/ or behalf in the said Suit Appeal/ Petition Reference and in application of Review, and to represent me/us and to take all necessary steps on my /our behalf in the above matter, I/We agree to ratify all acts done by the aforesaid Advocate in pursuance of this authority.

Dated this the  ___________th  day of  August, 2017

 

Accepted, Certified and satisfied

 

Place: Kolkotta

Date:     /07/2017                                                                                            (Signed)

 

MEMO OF APPEARANCE

To,

The Registrar,

Supreme Court of India

New Delhi

Sir,

Please enter my appearance on behalf of the Petitioner(s) /Appellant(s)/ Respondent(s) /Intervener in the matter above mentioned.

 

Dated this the ______th   day of  August  , 2017

Yours faithfully,

 

Date:    /08/2017               Advcoate for petitioner(s)/appellant(s)

 

 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) NO. _____ OF 2017

IN

SUO MOTU CONMT.PET.(C)NO.1 OF 2017

((Seeking review of the judgments dated 09/05/2017 & 04/07/2017 passed by this Hon’ble Court in SUO MOTU CONMT.PET.(C) NO.1 OF 2017)

Justice C.S. Karnan                    ………..Review Petitioner

IN THE MATTER OF:

Supreme Court of India

on its own motion                             … Suo Moto

Versus

Justice C.S. Karnan                      … Original  Alleged Contemnor/Respondent

VAKALATNAMA

I/We Justice C.S.KarnanAppellants(s)/Petitioner(s)/Respondent(s) /Opposite party in the above Suit/ Appeal: Petition/ Reference do hereby appoint and retain            ____________________________________________________________Advocate-on-Record of the Supreme Court to act and appear for me/us in the above Proceedings/Suit/ Appeal/ Petition/ Reference and or my /our behalf to conduct and prosecute (or defend) the same and all proceedings that may be taken in respect of my application connected with the same of any decree order passed therein, including proceedings in taxation and application for Review, to file and obtain return of documents, and to deposit and receive money on my/ or behalf in the said Suit Appeal/ Petition Reference and in application of Review, and to represent me/us and to take all necessary steps on my /our behalf in the above matter, I/We agree to ratify all acts done by the aforesaid Advocate in pursuance of this authority.

Dated this the  ___________th  day of  August, 2017

 

Accepted, Certified and satisfied

 

Place: Delhi

Date:     /07/2017                                                                                            (Signed)

 

MEMO OF APPEARANCE

To,

The Registrar,

Supreme Court of India

New Delhi

Sir,

Please enter my appearance on behalf of the Petitioner(s) /Appellant(s)/ Respondent(s) /Intervener in the matter above mentioned.

 

Dated this the ______th   day of August , 2017

Yours faithfully,

 

 

Date:    /08/2017               Advocate for petitioner(s)/ appellant(s)

 

 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) NO. _____ OF 2017

IN

SUO MOTU CONMT.PET.(C)NO.1 OF 2017

((Seeking review of the judgments dated 09/05/2017 & 04/07/2017 passed by this Hon’ble Court in SUO MOTU CONMT.PET.(C) NO.1 OF 2017)

Justice C.S. Karnan                    ………..Review Petitioner

IN THE MATTER OF:

Supreme Court of India

on its own motion                             … Suo Moto

Versus

Justice C.S. Karnan                      … Original  Alleged Contemnor/Respondent

 

A F F I D A V I T

I, Justice C.S.Karnan, aged about 61 years, S/o.Mr.Swaminathan, Residing at: 1/GB, Rosedale Towers, New Town, Kolkotta Presently UNDERGOING IMPRISONMNET AT Presidency Jail, Kolkotta, do hereby solemnly swear and affirm as follows:-

  1. That I am the Review Petitioner in the above SUO MOTU CONMT.PET.(C) NO.1 OF 2017. I am fully conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case and hence, I am competent to swear this affidavit.
  2. I state that I have read and understood the contents of the accompanying Review petition paragraph 1 to ________  at page 1 to    ________, Synopsis & List of dates at page B to ____, application for Bail, application for exemption from filing certified copies of the impugned order, Application seeking open Court hearing of the Review Petition and the Application for permission to engage Shri.Mathews J.Nedumpara as my counsel to appear and argue the Review Petition.  The contents of the same are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
  3. I state that that the Annexures, filed with the Review Petition are true and correct copies of their respective originals.

Place: Kolkotta

DEPONENT

Verification

I, the Deponent above named, do hereby verify and state that the contents of the Affidavit are true and correct to my knowledge and belief. No part of it is false and nothing has been concealed there from.

Verified at New Delhi on this the ___th  day of August, 2017.

 

Place: Kolkotta                                                  DEPONENT

 

 

B.K.ADHIKARY,

 A.C.PHILIP &

C.J.JOVESON

Advocates

Office: 304, 3rd Floor, Hari Chambers, Near. Old Customs House, Fort, Mumbai- 400001.(PH;022-22626634,Mobile: , 09820535428, 09769110823 & 09967300619  )      pradeeparingada@gmail.com

 

To

Ld.Secretary General,

Supreme Court of India,

New Delhi-1.

 

Sub: Filing of:

REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) NO. _____ OF 2017

IN

SUO MOTU CONMT.PET.(C)NO.1 OF 2017

(Seeking review of the judgments dated 09/05/2017 & 04/07/2017 passed by this Hon’ble Court in SUO MOTU CONMT.PET.(C) NO.1 OF 2017)

Justice C.S. Karnan                           ………..Review Petitioner  

IN THE MATTER OF:

Supreme Court of India

on its own motion                                      … Suo Moto

          Versus

Justice C.S. Karnan       … Original  Alleged Contemnor/Respondent

 

 

Sir,

 

  • Being the duly authorized advocate of Justice Shri.C.S.Karnan who is undergoing imprisonment in Presidency Jail, Kokotta, we are constrained to send the review petition under Article 137/145 Of The Constitution Of India, along with applications, vakalatnama, affidavit and authorization letter by registered post due to the rejection of the same at the filing counter without adhering to the rules laid down.
  • The impugned judgment being brought to the public notice on 05/07/2017 by way of uploading in the website of the Supreme Court of India, without being pronounced in the open court, is not a judgment at all in terms of Order-XII,Rule-5 and Order-XII,Rule-1 of the Supreme Court Rules,2013. The impugned order in the review petition, which is having a host of lacunae and procedural irregularities resulting into manifest and patent injustice to the petitioner. There are various germane grounds too, upon which the said review petition is founded which are not repeated here.
  • The said review petition was tendered before the filing counter on 12th July, 2017, by Shri.Mathews J.Nedumpara and A.C.Philip along with the registered clerk. Upon tendering the same, the dealing clerk expressed his inability to give the dairy number, which is the bare minimum procedural requirement as per rule 6(2) & 6(4) of Order VIII of the Supreme Court Rules,2013, due to the technical snag and assured candidly that the same will be given the very next day and will be informed through telephonic message and there is no need for the advocates to attend the counter personally. The diary number is the bare minimum acknowledgment of receipt of a document at the counter.
  • On 13th of July, 2017, the registry called the clerk, without any information to the advocates concerned, returned the file without issuing diary number and without giving any acknowledgment, so too without affording any reasons for such disposal. The review petition under Article 137/145 of the Constitution of India stood dismissed by a clerk at the filing counter, an authority which is supposed to be exercised by the Supreme Court of India through it’s Hon’ble Judges, who are appointed by the warrant of the President of India and has taken oath of office. The oral dismissal of the review petition of the petitioner by the clerk at the counter, that too by not affording any reasons, is the most improper way of trampling the constitutional right of the petitioner because, it gives no remedy against such arbitrary dismissal.
  • Upon understanding the above fact, Shri.Mathews J.Nedumpara and A.C.Philip rushed to the dealing clerk, and he expressed his inability and directed to speak to the authorities. Both the advocates instantly went and met Mr. P.K. Bajaj, Addl. Registrar whereas his statements were ‘you can do anything you want, but I am not going to accept it. You go to anybody, I am not bothered’. Even though Rule 5-Order-VIII of the Rules clearly lays down that the petition can be filed by the duly authorized agent as well, and the petition having been tendered with the authority letter for filing, nothing were acknowledged, nor acted upon as per rules.
  • Aggrieved by the said stand both the advocates tried to meet any of the Registrars, but all were preoccupied with e-learning program of SCBA. On the backdrop of the said meeting, both Shri.Mathews J.Nedumpara and A.C.Philip met Shri. Kapil Kumar Mehta, Registrar, Supreme Court of India where he asked to meet his goodself in the office the  very next day. Shri.Mathews J.Nedumpara, being preoccupied, left to Cochin on the same evening. Shi.A.C.Philip met Shri. Kapil Kumar Mehta, Registrar on 13/07/2017, where he again reiterated that the diary number cannot be issued to this review petition. On being pointed out that the petition under Article137/145 of the Constitution of India cannot be dismissed by a clerk sitting on the filing counter, that too orally, without anything on the record, the Ld.Registrar convinced him that the clerk is acting under instructions from top and it is not a decision taken by him. On insistence    for an examination and scrutiny in terms of Rule 6(2) of Order- VIII of the  Supreme Court Rules,2013,  it was not acceded to, but was given an instruction to the registry to reject it’s filing. This is in clear violation of Rule-6(3) , Order-VIII of the Supreme Court Rules, which mandates the Registrar, where a document is found to be defective, to decline to receive the documents by an order in writing, which under no circumstance can be delegated to a court officer.  The authority of the registrar is a delegated power which cannot under any circumstances be delegated to a clerk/court assistant, but are duty bound to exercise personally, after following the due procedures. It further allows a period of 28 days to the petitioner for rectifying the defects, whereas such a legal right also was denied so openly to the petitioner in the instant case. The entitlement of an order from the court for rectifying the defects were also denied to the petitioner.
  • In accordance with Rule 6(4), Order-VII of the rules, the registrar is empowered to decline registration of the document, only if the party fails to take steps for the removal of the defects within the time fixed for the same by the registrar, whereas in the instant case this rule was violated by way of dismissing the petition on the filing counter itself, without being an acknowledgment of receipt. No defects were notified, no acknowledgment were given, no time was given for rectifying the defects and no formal orders were passed, which is appealable. Nothing were followed in terms of the Supreme Court Rules,2013.
  • The said blatant violation of the laid down rules, surely infringes the petitioner’s right to appeal against any of such arbitrary dismissal to a judicial authority, in terms of Rule 6(5), Order-VIII of the said rules. The oral dismissal at the filing counter by a clerk/court assistant gives room for any arbitrary, prejudiced and unfair dismissal being crystallized against the petitioner, without any remedy in law, whereas the procedures lays down a remedy by way of appeal to a Judge in Chambers.
  • On meeting Mr. P.K. Bajaj, Addl. Registrar again on the question of formally notifying the objections, it was told that his goodself has no time to entertain all these issues and raise objections upon it. Hence he is giving instructions to refuse acknowledgment at the counter itself.
  • The above sequence of events is the most arbitrary, unfair, prejudicial, discriminatory and biased abuse of power, to refuse the petitioner his constitutional right of review under Article 137/145 of the constitution of India, which is to be exercised by the judge/bench of the Supreme Court of India through judicial orders. ‘Delegata potestas non potest delegari’, no delegated powers can be further delegated”, being the well accepted legal maxim, the judicial powers vested with the Hon’ble judges of the Supreme Court of India being the delegated powers at the hands of the sovereign of the nation, ‘we the people of India’, the said powers cannot be furhter delegated to the clerk/court assistant under any stretch of imagination. It leads to a situation, where, the clerk at the filing counter can take judicial decision and dismiss any petition, at his whims and fancies, without even acknowledging the receipt, and can shoo away the preselected petitioners, the disliked ones without any legal remedy left with.
  • Even assuming that there are procedural irregularities in existence in the petition, the parliament of India,  by laid down rules has provide enough safeguards to deal with the same.
  • The procedural safeguards in accordance with the Order-VII of the Supreme Court Rules,2013 is to acknowledge the receipt of any document by way of diary number and subject it to scrutiny by the registry through a scrutiny clerk and return the file with the objections any, for rectifying the same. The above said rules are the procedural safeguards, which are protecting the citizens against arbitrary decisions by any individual exercising the authority, where the transactions are well documented and the remedies against the arbitrary and tyrannical decisions, may be based upon personal vengeance also can be challenged and rectified by way of an appeal in accordance with the  Supreme Court Rules, whereas the rejection at the threshold, without adhering to the procedures laid down and in blatant violation of the rules is illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and in denial of the basic natural right of access to justice. The non acceptance and dismissal of review petition by the senior court assistant, at the filing counter itself is a clear violation the Supreme Court Rules.
  • Under these circumstances, the petitioner is constrained to send the same by registered post to your good self for the compliance of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 and acknowledgment by way of diary number.. Hence it is requested that the accompanying Book of review petition along with the applications, vakalatnama, affidavit and authorization letter may please be received by acknowledgment of diary number and subjected to scrutiny in terms of Order-VII of the Supreme Court Rules,2013.
  • As this is a matter concerning the constitutional rights of the citizens of India, the petitioner is marking the copies of this letter to all pillars of democracy, the President of India, the Vice President of India, the Prime Minister of India, the Speaker of Lokshaba and the press, being the fourth estate/pillar.

 

Thanking you in anticipation,

 

Yours faithfully,

New Delhi

15.07.2017

(B.K.Adhikary)

(A.C.Philip)

&

(C.J.Joveson)

Advocates for the review petitioner

 

By | 2021-06-28T12:34:11+00:00 March 31st, 2018|blog|0 Comments

Leave A Comment