Late Prime Miniter Rajiv Gandhi Assassination Cover-up

8/12/2019 Late Prime Miniter Rajiv Gandhi Assassination Cover-up

1/65

S.O.S e - Voice For Justice- e-news weeklySpreadingthe lightof humanity & freedom

Editor: Nagaraja.M.R.. Vol.09..Issue.09........29/02/2014

Rajiv Assassination Master Minds scot ree ! "nl# tools o assassinationconvicted

Rajiv $and%i Assassination &over'u(

%tt(s://sites.google.co)/site/sosevoiceorjustice/rajiv'gand%i'assassination'coveru(

Editorial : *I+ ' ,EA- *ENA+- RI$- "R R"N$ ! A+"+I ,EA-

*ENA+-

' AN A**EA+ -" .E.onoura3le *REI,EN- " IN,IA 5"N"6RA+E 6*REME &"6R- " IN,IA
https://sites.google.com/site/sosevoiceforjustice/rajiv-gandhi-assassination-coveruphttps://sites.google.com/site/sosevoiceforjustice/rajiv-gandhi-assassination-coveruphttps://sites.google.com/site/sosevoiceforjustice/rajiv-gandhi-assassination-cover-up/SHAME%20SHAME%20SUPREME%20COURT.jpg?attredirects=0https://sites.google.com/site/sosevoiceforjustice/rajiv-gandhi-assassination-coveruphttps://sites.google.com/site/sosevoiceforjustice/rajiv-gandhi-assassination-coverup


2/65

," E 7I++ *E"*+E " 7I++ *E"*+E -" -E++ *E"*+E -A-7I++IN$ *E"*+E I A, !!!

8ust consider t%e olloing acts (ersons convicted in rarest o rarecases t%at o Assassinating a or)er (ri)e )inister o india are

co))uted to lie sentence 5 it%in %ours released 3# state govern)ento -a)il Nadu. %ere as so)e convicts convicted in %einous cri)es 3utnot %einous or rarest o rare lie *M Rajiv $and%i assassination ere%anged it%out alternatives lie co))uting t%eir sentances to lieter).

*oor ; tri3al (eo(le in c%attisgar% ; And%ra *rades% ; 8%ar%and 5 ot%erstates inested it% terroris) / na are c%arged it% c%arges lie giving ood ;clot% 5 )edical aid to terrorists / na. &8I 3eneittedro) it ! *arado


3/65

In this context it is quite pertinent to note that In India with money power ,right political connections any crime can be done & be scot free . In IndiaLegal system is for Sale , Judicial orders can be manipulated. The conict in

a case may be an innocent without recourse to right connections & legalaid. So , one cann!t be "##$ sure whether the death conict has actuallycommitted the crime.

% criminal is not born, but made by social circumstances. or the crimescenario in India , eery citi'en of India is indirectly responsible.(ur present inefficient, corrupt legal system , is wholly dependent oneidences which a rich criminal can create or destroy at his sweet

will. )olice forcibly ta*e confessions from the accussed , by applying+rd degree torture methods. Some of the udges are literally auctioning- udicial orders- for bribe. ue to all these reasons one cann/t be"##$ sure about one criminal/s coniction. In such cases, capitalpunishment will be unfair & inhuman. It must be made mandatory, in alldeath penalty cases that polygraph, lie detector tests, etc must beconducted on - death conicts - , to *now whether they are innocent orguilty inspite of hostile eidences. undamentally, the capitalpunishment has failedas a deterrent.

The people who clamour for continuance of death penalty are 0I%S1,I2345%2, 04T6317S & 6%2I0%LS. 8hy don/t they as* for death penalty topolicemen, who murder people through +rd degree torture, in loc*9ups &fa*e encounters : why don/t they as* for death penalty to corruptudges who sells udicial orders for bribe : why don/t they as* fordeath penalty to builders who cause building collapses, resulting inmass murders : why don/t they as* for deathpenalty to corrupt goernment doctors who refuses to treat poor patientwithout bribe, causing the murder of poor patient : why don/t they as*

for death penalty to industrialist; traders who sell adulterated fooditems, spurious drugs; medicines, in turn causing mass murders : whydon/t they as* for death penalty to corrupt goernment officials , whohelp criminals, industrialists: 8hy don/t they as* for death penalty topoliticians who create communal & other riots, who hae ties withforeign intelligence agencies, terrorist outfits : 8hy don/t they as*for death penalty to mole in the ).5.( & the senior officers of


4/65

2ational Security 6ouncil who passed on national secrets : 8hy don/tthey as* for death penalty to public serants , ministers who gae aid, support to terrorist outfits li*e L.T.T.1 out of goernment of indiacoffers , *illing hundreds of srilan*ans , tamils :

These are the guilty persons , criminals who don/t personally ,directly murder human beings but cunningly murder hundreds which gounnoticed by any. or the person who barbarically murders one humanbeing you prescribe 6%)IT%L )42IS3512T but for those who murderhundreds you say nothing why : T31< 8(2/T %S= (7 IT, 016%4S1 5(ST (T31 )17S(2S 83( %71 15%2I2> 1%T3 )12%LT< %71 0I%S1, S1LIS3 &01L(2> T( (21 ( T31 S16TI(2S ( 67I5I2%LS 512TI(21 %0(?1. Theylac*obectiity.

eath penalty is the ultimate . cruel , inhuman and degradingpunishment. It iolates the right to life %rticle " of uniersaldeclaration of human rights. It is irreocable , prone to udicialerrors and can be inflicted on innocents. It has neer been shown todeter crime more effectiely than other punishments. In most of thecountries including india , udicial system is ineffectie ,inefficient to prosecute impartially both poor & rich criminals. Thosecondemned to death penalty mostly come from poor bac*ground who areunable to afford wise & articulate %docates who can efficiently arguetheir case. %gainst these poor accussed , the criminal nexus ofpolice9criminal9bureaucrat builds up fa*e eidences , extracts forcedconfessions by +rd degree torture. 5ost of death conicts world oerbelongs to either poor , T7I0%LS , %LITS , etnic minorities ,political dissidents , children , mentally ill. 2o rich & mightycriminal is eer prosecuted let alone hanged.

The udicial system which depends on technical facts li*e eidenceslac*s sense to figure out truth out of fa*e eidences , also as udgesare human beings they are prone to err. %dd to this corruption inudiciary. eath penalty is irreersible & irreocable. In a maturedemocracy li*e 4.S.% with relatiely efficient udicial system itselfhundreds of cases of death conicts were found to be wrong , conictswere found to be innocents upon reiew & were let free. 8here as inindia , the accussed lac*s the wherewithal to argue his case in thefirst place then how can he arrange for case reiew : no udge is god ,if a hanged person is found to be innocent the udge doesn/t has the


5/65

ability to bring bac* the hanged person to life , do such udges haeright to snatch away lies :

3ereby 345%2 7I>3TS 8%T63/S 4rges 3.1 . )71SI12T ( I2I% &3(2(47%0L1 S4)7151 6(47T ( I2I% ,

". to stay all death penalties until equitable criminal ustice systemwith respect to aboe mentioned rich & mighty criminals is put intoforce .

@. until death penalty is abolished, to ma*e poly graph, lie detectortests mandatory for all death conicts in a free & fair manner by aneutral authority , to ascertain whether the conict is really guiltyor innocent of the alleged crime .

+. until death penalty is abolished , to gie a peaceful choice ofdeath to the death conicts li*e sleeping pill, inection, gun shot,etc instead of medieal & barbaric - death by hanging-.

A. finally, to abolish death penalty from statuette boo*s.

J%I 3I2. ?%21 5%T%7%5.


6/65

http#www.legallyindia.com'()*))))+(,,nteriewssexual-harassment-supreme-court-is-common %

/elease rom Sharmila

0/ole of Vaiko% 1arunanidhi in /a"i assassination not proed2

3he chief inestigating officer of the /a"i 4andhi assassination case% 1

/agothaman% has alleged that the then 561 leader Vaiko% as aprosecution witness% turned hostile and escaped the charge for per"uryat the ehest of the former S3 chief 5 / 1arthikeyan.n his ook 0!onspiracy to kill /a"i 4andhi 7 from !8 files2% /agothamansaid that during the inestigation more than 9(( ideo cassettes weresei:ed% including a cassette titled 0n tigers cae2 reealing Vaiko2sclandestine isit to the L33; area in Jaffna.
http://www.legallyindia.com/201311114099/Interviews/sexual-harassment-supreme-court-is-commonhttp://www.legallyindia.com/201311114099/Interviews/sexual-harassment-supreme-court-is-commonhttps://sites.google.com/site/sosevoiceforjustice/release-irom-sharmila/Irom_strip.jpg?attredirects=0http://www.legallyindia.com/201311114099/Interviews/sexual-harassment-supreme-court-is-commonhttp://www.legallyindia.com/201311114099/Interviews/sexual-harassment-supreme-court-is-common


7/65

ottu ?mman when he was introducedto him y >rahakaran. Vaiko was not $uestioned on this. ?lso% he wasmade witness to speak aout his conersation with >rahakaran while hewas kept in the ?shoka =otel% prior to signing of ndo-Sri Lanka accord%@/agothaman wrote.5uring the trial% Vaiko refused to admit oice on a ideo clip of a meetingsecured y inestigators% in which% he is heard saying that he told>rahakaran oer the intercom in ?shoka =otel that 0/a"i 4andhistaed him in the ack and the proposed accord was not the solution forachieing 3amil ;elam.2 Soon after the meeting etween >rahakaranand /a"i 4andhi% on the ndo-Sri Lanka accord% Vaiko had a talk with>rahakaran on intercom./agothaman has also dragged 561 patriarch 1arunanidhi% who aruptly

cancelled his meeting at Sriperumudur on 6ay ')% ),,)% to the centreof controersy. /agothaman wrote% /angasamy had re$uestedthe 561 leader to cancel the meeting. ?lso% was chided y S3 chiefasking me not to create such issues as had done in /asheed 6urdercase.@Speaking to the 0;xpress2% /agothaman said that he opposed Vaiko aswitness and told S3 chief that he appears to e a suspect.


8/65

8hopal# 3he Social 5emocratic >arty of ndia% CS5>D% has demanded there-opening of the proe into former >rime 6inister /a"i 4andhi2sassassination case after ') years following a sensational disclosure that acrucial ideo of the assassination was suppressed y the then 8Cntelligence 8ureauD !hief and now Aest 8engal 4oernor 6. 1.Barayanan.S5> national president 6r. ;. ?uacker in a statement said that theallegation is serious.


9/65

was meant to erase ideo eidence of the kind of people 5hanu hadinteracted with at the enue% therey sparing emarrassment to the!ongress party in the middle of the ),,) Lok Saha elections. 3he authorasked# Aould Barayanan hae dared . V.Barsimha /ao took the top slot of ndian administration. Since /ao2s erandia2s cooperation with srael has increased manifolds at the cost ofstruggling >alestinian2s woes. 3he influence of the nited States of?merica also increased on the ndian administration% he added.

/a"i ?ssasination 7 nanswered $uestions

/a"i 4andhi assasination 7 leaes many unanswered $uestions 7 nsoledpu::les. For whom did /a"i 4andhi got assisinated E Sudhangan raisedarious $uestions which didn2t get answers till '((,. =ere are those$uestions that are unanswered#

)D On ') -6ay-),,) /a"i gandhi started from 5elhi for election campaignand reached !hennai through the route Orissa and ?ndra >radesh. =owdid he accepted that midnight meeting at Sriperamuthur which was notin the agenda of 3amilBadu !ongress committe. E'D s there any plan made somewhere to ring /a"i 4andhi toSriperamathur some how E*D 3he Security official 6r O.>.Sagar was there with /a"i 4andhi when


10/65

he campaigned at 8huaneshwar and Vishakapattinam. 8ut he didntcome to chennai along with /a"i. Ahy E+D 8ulgarian teleision "ournalists came along with /a"i during his isitsto record his campaigns. 3hey were with /a"i in Orissa and ?ndha>redesh ut didnt come for the next meeting. 3hey stayed in a luxaryhotel at Vishakapatinam along with their special flight pilot. n that casewhy did they came E9D Ahen /a"i was aout to start% there was a prolem in the flight. So hewent ack to circuit house from the airport. ?fter the prolem in flightgot fixed% the chief minister of ?ndha >radesh 6r.Vi"aya8haskar /eddyinformed /a"i to get ack to airport and /a"i went to airport. 5uringthis time the two 8ulgerian "ournalists took the security official Sagaralong in their car and arried at airport late. So the security official couldnot go along with /a"i gandhi. Ahy did such an experienced security

official was made not to trael with /a"i EGD 3he security official of /a"i at chennai >.!.4upta was waiting atchennai airport for /a"i. >.!.4upts is suppose to get the gun from Sagarwho was expected along with /a"i. Since Sagar has not come along with/a"i% >.!.4upta was made to go with /a"i without gun. s there anyintenton ehind this EHD Ahen /a"i started from 6eenamakkam% two ladies claiming as"ournalists got inside his car at /amaaram. 5id their identities erified EAhy did the special inestigation ranch didnt en$uire on them EID Aho are the 8ulgarian "ournalists E Ahere did they went E

,D Aho are those two lady "ournalists E Ahere did they went E)(D 3hose two lady "ournalists interiewed /a"i 4andhi. 8ut 3amilBadupolitical party people% 3ha. >andiyan and 6aragatham !handrasekar weretelling they didnt know what /a"i spoke with the "ournalists. Ahat arethe hiding E))D Just one hour efore his murder% /a"i told it was !? that killed thepakistan president ia-ul-=a$. Ahy shoud he tell that E Ahat made himto tell that E 5id he know if there is some plan like that against him E)'D July-),,) 7 3he central home minister S.>.!hawan made a statementthat apart from L33; there are other international organi:ations and

powerful external forces inoled in the ackground of /a"i2s murder.Aho are they referred here E)*D Ahy didn2t the special inestination ranch en$uire on the aoehome minister2s statement E)+D 5uring the gulf war ndia helped fueling S aircrafts. /a"i gandhiseriously condemmed this help which was done y primie minister 6r!handrasekar during that time. Ahy didnt the special inestigation


11/65

ranch en$uire on !?2s hands on this murder% as S was not happy with/a"i for the aoe reason E)9D >alestinian Bational ?uthority president% 6r. Kasser ?rafat informedto the indian prime minister during the time 6r .!handrasekar that 0/a"i4andhi2s life is under threat2. From where did ?rafat got this informationE Aho is threatening /a"i E Ahy did special inestigation ranch didnten$uire on this E)GD ?rafat could hae got this information if the assasination was plannedat western ;urope or middle eastern countries. Ahy is this not proed E)HD 6aragatham !handrasekar came to attend that meeting with /a"i4andhi. =er daughter% Latha >riyakumar came with her husand andadocate 6ahendran from ?rakonam. 8ut it was unknown from where didher son Lalith !handrasekar and his wife Vinothini came from. 3hough itis known that Vinothini is daughter of Jayaarthane from Sri Lanka% they

didn2t en$uire on her. nfact they didnt en$uire their family who wasthere at the meeting. why E)ID Siarasan2s mother and Vinothini2s father are sinhalas from Sri Lankawho were present at the incident. t is possile that they were sent ySri Lankan president >remadasa as messangers. >remadasa is not happywith /a"i on sending the ndian peace keeping force C>1FD to Sri Lanka.Ahy was the inestigation not done in that angle E C ?lso we should notehere a Sinhala Sri Lankan army person hit /a"i 4andhi with a gun duringhis isit to Sri Lanka D),D 8oth L33; and Sri Lanka hate /a"i gandhi as he is the reaon for

sending ndian peace keeping force C>1FD to Sri Lanka. ?docate 6r!handrasekar challenged special inestigation ranch that% if they couldproe Vinothini and her family are innocent then those who did thecrime will accept it on their own. 8ut the special inestination didntaccept his challence and not en$uired those who is related on this. why E'(D 1amini 5isanayaka% ?thulath 6uthali% Aickramasinghe are prominantpoliticians in Sri Lanka. Ahen all those people are murdered president>remadasa was pointed. Ahy did2t the inestigation didnt happen in thisangle E')D Ahy dont Siarasan% 5hanu and Suha did this murder due to

pressure from external forces. Just ecause they are 3amils fromyarlpanam% did the inestigators linked them with L33; and closed thecase E''D Ahat is the strong eidence that links L33; and its head >rahakaranto /a"i2s assasination case. E'*D Ahat is the proof that Sriarasan spoke to >rahakaran thro a radio.Ahy is this not an assumption E


12/65

'+D t is ery much possile that politicians within the congress couldhae considered /a"i 4andhi is locking their deelopment within theparty and could hae hired some group to assasinate /a"i. 3hismotiation cannot e denied.'9D Various international usiness people specifically those sellingweapons would hae een in contact with /a"i as a prime minister. 3heycould hae hired the assasinators to do this murder. 5id inestigatorsproed this E'GD Ahat if Sri Lanka did this% thinking ndia might send the ndian peacekeeping force again to their country and didnt like a strong leaderemerging from ndia E'HD !? always had interest in erradicating leaders in all third worldcountries. 5id the same kind of interest got applied on /a"i E'ID /a"i 4andhi is the only leader who preents the other prominant

political party in ndia 8J> to get into power. t is possile that the indianparties like 8J> and /SS could hae used the 0=indu faourale2 L33; andSri Lankan tamils to do this assasination.',D Ahen other ma"or !ongress party memers in 3amilnadu likeVa:hapaadi and 6oopanar didnt take interest in getting /a"i to thismeeting% 6aragatham !handrasekar traeled to 5elhi and forced /a"i tocome for this meeting at Sriperamuthur. s that without her knowledgeshe ecome one reason for /a"i2s murder E*( D Aho is >ottu ?maan E s there a person like that E L33; says therewas a senior person y name ?maan who died war and the only person

there is >ottu. =ow did the special inestigation ranch stampedsomeone who is not alie as second criminal in this case E*)D 3here are many parallels etween the murder of >admanaha andthat of /a"i 4andhi. >admanaha2s murder was inestigaed y3amilBadu $ueue ranch police and /a"i 4andhi2s murder wasinestigated y special inestigation ranch. 8oth the inestigators aretelling the murder was planned at Karlpanam% Sri Lanka. Siaraasan wasidentified as the prime criminal in oth the >admanaha2s case as well as/a"i2 case. >rahakaran was considered criminal in /a"i2s assasinationcase ur was not in >admanaha2s case. =ow come E t shows adding

>rahakaran2s name came out of political decision rather than that cameout from inestigations. t is clearly an effort taken y specialinestigation ranch to to gie life to their case intentionally.*'D ? famous Sri Lankan tamil poet 1asi. ?nandan met /a"i at theairport. Ahat message did he got from >rahakaran to /a"i gandhi E f>rahakaran seeked /a"i2s help in the freedom struggle of 3amil ;elamthrough 1asi ?nandan% why would >rahakaran murder /a"i 4andhi E


13/65

**D >rahakaran knows it is from ndia and 3amilBadu that he can getsupport and sympathy. 5id >rahakaran done such a foollish actiity ykilling /a"i% to loose all the support of ndians and also get theorgani:ation anned E*+D Latha 1annan stopped /a"i and read a poetry for him. 3hat enaled5hanu% a suside omer standing next to her% to urst the om. Ahy isher name is not included in the criminals list E 5hanu used only Lathakannan to get inside. Ahen =ari8au who got killed in the last gotincluded in the criminal2s list why not Latha 1annan E Ahy is specialinestigation ranch showing softness towards congress memers E*9D 8efore getting to Sri>amuthur% /a"i spoke at two roadsidegatherings. Va:hapaadi /amamurthy% the 3amilBadu congress leader waswith him in those two places. 8ut at Sri >eramuthur meeting he wasstanding ery far from /a"i. Ahy so E

*GD 6any innocent people and security personnels died along with /a"i4andhi. 8ut nothing happened to any of the congress party memers noteen minor in"ury. =ow E*HD t was elieed that Latha 1umar who rought Siarasan% 5hanu andSuha to Sri>eramuthur. She took them specifically to ladies sectionand told Latha 1annan to take care of them. 8ut Latha 1umar2s name isnot in the criminal2s list. Ahy E*ID =ow can we say >rahakaran is inoled "ust ased on an oldphotograph of Siarasan with >rahakaran E*,D Ahy is it not possile that Siarasan% 5hanu and Suha are expelled

from L33; and they hae een hired y western% ;uropean% 6iddle ;astor ndia as professional assasinators.+(D /anganathan confessed that it was ased on re$uest y 6argret ?lathat he gae his house at 8angalore for rent to Siarasan. 5id theyen$uired how far this is true E+)D s there any inestigation done on inolement of !handra Swami%Suramanyam Swamy % !handrasekar and arms usiness person 1asoki inthis murder E+'D Ahat kind of enifit L33; get y murdering /a"i 4andhi E 5id superpowers like S helped them y arms through !? E

+*D Ahy do we need !8 & Special nestigation ranch which find fewpeople they prefer to get the reports Enless all these confusions are clarified% the real culprit will e hidingehind some powerful forces.

!ontinue reading at Bow>ulic.com# /a"i ?ssasination 7 nanswered


14/65

$uestions Bow>ulic Bews!oerage http#www.nowpulic.comworldra"i-assasination-unanswered-$uestionsMix::'?yg,VH+

>eople at the helm are protecting /a"i murder accused2

Former !entral 8ureau of nestigation2s former chief inestigatingofficer 1 /agothaman has claimed in a recently pulished ook N!onspiracy to kill /a"i# From !8 files 7 that a lot of facts pertaining tothe former prime minister2s assassination were either suppressed% orwere studiously ignored./agothamam writes that there were attempts made to protect theLieration 3igers of 3amil ;elam from eing called the conspiratorsehind /a"i2s killing. n this interiew with rediff.com2s Vicky Ban"appa%/agothaman speaks aout the conspiracy and the hurdles that were facedin a proe in which many aspects were hushed up.=ow has your ook een receiedE3hat is too early to tell. t is "ust out% ut is under deate. Let us waitand watch.Kou write that 5raida 6unetra 1a:hagam chief 6 1arunanidhi2s magesP scheduled pulic meeting in Sriperumudur on 6ay ')% ),,)% the day

/a"i was killed% was aruptly cancelled.1arunanidhi was to address a meeting at GQO clock that eening% twohours efore /a"i2s meeting. 3he police had made all arrangements.3hen there was a telegram from the ?nna ?rialyam postal office"urisdiction that the meeting was cancelled. proed the sender of that telegram. was told to ask 1arunanidhi aoutthe same. =oweer% could not inestigate him directly. Later% was toldy my superiors that the matter was eing looked into% and shouldremain $uiet. was also told that it was a director general of police% /angaswamy% who

had adised that the meeting e cancelled. =oweer% when looked atthe /angaswamy affidait% it read that he had ordered as much policeforce as possile in iew of this meeting. also attended the Jain commission in$uiry in which 1arunanidhi wasexamined. =e had said then that it was the then goernor% 8hishmaBarayan Singh% who had told him to cancel the meeting. Look at thecontradictions.
http://www.nowpublic.com/world/rajiv-assasination-unanswered-questions#ixzz2Ayg9VI74http://www.nowpublic.com/world/rajiv-assasination-unanswered-questions#ixzz2Ayg9VI74http://www.nowpublic.com/world/rajiv-assasination-unanswered-questions#ixzz2Ayg9VI74http://www.nowpublic.com/world/rajiv-assasination-unanswered-questions#ixzz2Ayg9VI74


15/65

Aho according to you was the one who adised cancellation of the1arunanidhi meetingE>roaly it was 6arumalarchi 5raida 6unetra 1a:hagam leader Vaikowho telephoned and sought cancellation of the meeting. 3he telephonerecords needed to e examined% ut it was neer done.Ahy do you think Vaiko tried to stop 1arunanidhiE?fter /a"i2s assassination% many 561 workers were attacked% theiroffices urnt. f 1arunanidhi had gone there% he would hae een introule and there would hae een an onslaught. =ence% they weretrying to protect him.5oes this mean een 1arunanidhi was part of the plotEBo% that is not what meant. 1arunanidhi is not a killer. =e wanted ademocratic solution to the prolem and this was neer liked y slainL33; mages P chief >rahakaran.

Kou accuse Vaiko of haing a hand in this entire issue.Vaiko was the one who spoke ehemently against the ndo-Jaffna accord.Vaiko said at that time he was first an L33;% then a 3amilian and then anndian. ?t the time of the accord% >rahakaran was rought down to Bew5elhi mages P and was put up at the =otel ?shoka.Vaiko sought to meet him% ut he was not allowed to do so. =e conersedwith >rahakaran on the intercom% during which the latter told him%


16/65

3errorist and 5isruptie ?ctiities court.5uring the trial% he denied speaking all of which was on ideo with>rahakaran. 3he ideo was played out. =e claimed that it was him inthe ideo ut the oice was not his. t was sent for examination and theoice too was confirmed% ut till date there is no per"ury case againsthim.Kou hae alleged that een the ntelligence 8ureau and the /esearch and?nalysis Aing tried to coer up L33;2s roleE?fter the assassination% !handrashekhar% the then prime minister%conened a meeting in which een Janata >arty president SuramanianSwamy Cthen minister of commerce and industryD was present. 3he then8 chief% 61 Barayanan% and /?A oss% 4S 8a"pai% were also present.Swamy said that it was oious that the L33; was responsile. 8a"pairetorted that it was not the L33;. 3he meeting was ad"ourned.

6eanwhile% the !8 director had gone to !olomo for the inestigation.3hey were called ack and rushed to 5elhi for the meeting. 5uring themeeting% it was again asked why a trip was made to !olomo and did thatmean it was preconceied that it was the L33; which was ehind theassassination.8a"pai once again opposed this. =e een $uoted one 1ittu to e hissource. 1ittu% incidentally% was >rahakaran2s right hand man. ?n L33;man could neer hae een a /?A mole and een 5r Swamy had termedthis as asurd.Ahat are your allegations against BarayananE

? ideo taken at the meeting on that ill-fated day in which there wereimages of 5hanu was neer made aailale to the !8. 3he assassinationteam was waiting for nearly two hours in a sterile area. 3he originalideo reached Barayanan.3he goernment had decided to conduct an inestigation in this regardand this case was registered with the Special nestigating 3eam and the!8. =oweer% it was uried. 6y $uestion is% why no action has eentaken for suppressing eidence.t was eing said that 5hanu had arged into the meeting% ut this ideoclearly shows that they were waiting for a long time. Ae proed this case

risking our own lies and it does upset me that people sitting at the helmof affairs are protecting the accused.5o you think the loopholes will e rectified nowELet us see.


17/65

!oering up Late >6 /a"i 4andhi ?ssassination conspiracy & 8OFO/SS!?6

3he !8 & 4O is more interested in faoring accused persons % uattrochi& closing 8OFO/S !ase than punishing the guilty.3he 4O & inestigating authorities hae failed to punish the real masterminds ehind the Late >rime minister Shri . /a"i 4andhi assassinationcase .Ahen a responsile ndian citi:en olunteered to appear efore thesupreme court of india as an amicus curie % to gie certain informationefore the court relating to this assassination % he was not at all

permitted. nstead he was threatened % attempts made to murder him %his news paper was closed % his "os were illegally snatched away % police& inestigating agencies repeatedly grilled him % 3=; >/>OS; S 3OSL;B!; 3=?3 >;/SOB . 3he >olice failed to act upon his complaints. 3heSupreme !ourt of ndia Failed to admit his >L >etitions. ?LL 3O !OV;/> 3=; >OA;/S 3=?3 8; .who are coering-up late p.m. ra"i gandhi assassination caseE who arethose conspiratorsE who are trying to silence meE6y sufferings egan hand in hand with my crusade. hae raised ariousissues of social concern from time to time at the appropriate leels% one

of those is L?3; >.6. /?JV 4?B5= ?S?SSB?3OB !?S;. where-in onlythe tools of the conspirator2s were punished where as the conspiratorsare roaming free. i hae raised this topic of ine$uity % traesty of "usticeand sought a fair% proper en$uiry& trial % at arious forums. ut to noaail.the conspirators were distured y this and tried to silence me ythreatening me% physically assaulting me and een made attempts tomurder me. they preented me from appearing efore the J?B!O66SSOB OF ;B/K. they een manipulated the recruitmentsystems to deny me the appointments in /.8..!//;B!K BO3; >/;SS

6KSO/;% >.;.S. !OLL;4; OF ;B4B;;/B4 6?B5K?% B..; 6KSO/; %5istrict !ourt 6ysore & llegally snatched away my "o in />4 !alesLtd % 6ysore . they een tried to silence me y forcily closing down mynewspaper pulications 3=; 3;S35O & VO!; OF !/S?5;/.my appeals for "ustice resulted only in police en$uiries. the centralintelligence ureauC.8.D state intelligence & state police personnelen$uired me exhaustiely numer of times% ut they neer did en$uire


18/65

the powers that e. any way these people don2t hae practical powers toen$uire such people. the highest constitutional functionaries who canorder a proper en$uiry% trial are keeping mum inspite of repeatedappeals. proaly they are acting under the directions of conspirators.therey they are not only coering up the crime% they are actielysponsoring terrorism % ut are also iolating my fundamentalhumanrights & ostructing me from performing my fundamental duties as aciti:en of india.

!ontinue reading at Bow>ulic.com# /a"i ?ssasination - nanswered$uestions Bow>ulic Bews!oeragehttp#www.nowpulic.comworldra"i-assasination-unanswered-$uestionsMix::'?yg,VH+

>eople at the helm are protecting /a"i murder accusedT

Former !entral 8ureau of nestigationTs former chief inestigatingofficer 1 /agothaman has claimed in a recently pulished ook-- &ons(irac# to ill Rajiv: ro) &I iles7 that a lot of facts pertainingto the former prime ministerTs assassination were either suppressed% orwere studiously ignored.

/agothamam writes that there were attempts made to protect theLieration 3igers of 3amil ;elam from eing called the conspiratorsehind /a"iTs killing. n this interiew with redi.co)s Vicky Ban"appa%/agothaman speaks aout the conspiracy and the hurdles that were facedin a proe in which many aspects were hushed up.
http://www.nowpublic.com/world/rajiv-assasination-unanswered-questions#ixzz2Ayg9VI74http://www.nowpublic.com/world/rajiv-assasination-unanswered-questions#ixzz2Ayg9VI74http://www.nowpublic.com/world/rajiv-assasination-unanswered-questions#ixzz2Ayg9VI74http://www.nowpublic.com/world/rajiv-assasination-unanswered-questions#ixzz2Ayg9VI74http://www.nowpublic.com/world/rajiv-assasination-unanswered-questions#ixzz2Ayg9VI74http://rediff.com/http://www.nowpublic.com/world/rajiv-assasination-unanswered-questions#ixzz2Ayg9VI74http://www.nowpublic.com/world/rajiv-assasination-unanswered-questions#ixzz2Ayg9VI74http://www.nowpublic.com/world/rajiv-assasination-unanswered-questions#ixzz2Ayg9VI74http://www.nowpublic.com/world/rajiv-assasination-unanswered-questions#ixzz2Ayg9VI74http://www.nowpublic.com/world/rajiv-assasination-unanswered-questions#ixzz2Ayg9VI74http://rediff.com/


19/65

=ow has your ook een receiedE

3hat is too early to tell. t is "ust out% ut is under deate. Let us waitand watch.

Kou write that 5raida 6unetra 1a:hagam chief 6 1arunanidhiTs magesP scheduled pulic meeting in Sriperumudur on 6ay ')% ),,)%the day /a"i was killed% was aruptly cancelled.

1arunanidhi was to address a meeting at GTO clock that eening% twohours efore /a"iTs meeting. 3he police had made all arrangements.3hen there was a telegram from the ?nna ?rialyam postal office"urisdiction that the meeting was cancelled.

proed the sender of that telegram. was told to ask 1arunanidhi aout

the same. =oweer% could not inestigate him directly. Later% was toldy my superiors that the matter was eing looked into% and shouldremain $uiet.

was also told that it was a director general of police% /angaswamy% whohad adised that the meeting e cancelled. =oweer% when looked atthe /angaswamy affidait% it read that he had ordered as much policeforce as possile in iew of this meeting.

also attended the Jain commission in$uiry in which 1arunanidhi was

examined. =e had said then that it was the then goernor% 8hishmaBarayan Singh% who had told him to cancel the meeting. Look at thecontradictions.

Aho according to you was the one who adised cancellation of the1arunanidhi meetingE

>roaly it was 6arumalarchi 5raida 6unetra 1a:hagam leader Vaikowho telephoned and sought cancellation of the meeting. 3he telephonerecords needed to e examined% ut it was neer done.

Ahy do you think Vaiko tried to stop 1arunanidhiE

?fter /a"iTs assassination% many 561 workers were attacked% theiroffices urnt. f 1arunanidhi had gone there% he would hae een introule and there would hae een an onslaught. =ence% they weretrying to protect him.
http://search.rediff.com/imgsrch/default.php?MT=m+karunanidhihttp://search.rediff.com/imgsrch/default.php?MT=m+karunanidhi


20/65

5oes this mean een 1arunanidhi was part of the plotE

Bo% that is not what meant. 1arunanidhi is not a killer. =e wanted ademocratic solution to the prolem and this was neer liked y slainL33; magesP chief >rahakaran.

Kou accuse Vaiko of haing a hand in this entire issue.

Vaiko was the one who spoke ehemently against the ndo-Jaffna accord.Vaiko said at that time he was first an L33;% then a 3amilian and then anndian. ?t the time of the accord% >rahakaran was rought down to Bew5elhi magesP and was put up at the =otel ?shoka.

Vaiko sought to meet him% ut he was not allowed to do so. =e conersedwith >rahakaran on the intercom% during which the latter told him%

UAnna% this /a"i has etrayed me. feel like committing suicide as he issealing my fate. 8ut cannot kill myself as need to fight for my people.U

Vaiko wrote a ook later in which he mentions that >raakaran hadthought of committing suicide.

3ell us more% sirR

Ahen Vaiko had gone to Sri Lanka magesP% we had secured a ideotapetitledInside a -igers &avewhich has him on tape. 3here he spoke

eerything that was anti-/a"i. t appeared that he was more against/a"i than >raakaran himself. 3his was also a point noted during ourinestigation.

3hen there is also a meeting in which Vaiko says that /a"i wonTt go ackalie from 3amil Badu. =e% howeer% retracted that statement. 5uringthe inestigation% we $uestioned one !hinna who is on death row.

=e said that in one of the hideouts% Siarasan Cthe prime accused in theassassinationD held talks with one Srinias ?yya and said that after the

successful completion of the mission% they should ensure that Vaikoecomes the chief minister of 3amil Badu.

Ahy was the eidence not used thenE
http://search.rediff.com/imgsrch/default.php?MT=lttehttp://search.rediff.com/imgsrch/default.php?MT=delhihttp://search.rediff.com/imgsrch/default.php?MT=sri+lankahttp://search.rediff.com/imgsrch/default.php?MT=lttehttp://search.rediff.com/imgsrch/default.php?MT=delhihttp://search.rediff.com/imgsrch/default.php?MT=sri+lanka


21/65

3his is a $uestion that hae een asking. Ae had so much eidence% utsurprisingly Vaiko was roped in as prosecution witness numer '9( in the3errorist and 5isruptie ?ctiities court.

5uring the trial% he denied speaking all of which was on ideo with

>rahakaran. 3he ideo was played out. =e claimed that it was him inthe ideo ut the oice was not his. t was sent for examination and theoice too was confirmed% ut till date there is no per"ury case againsthim.

Kou hae alleged that een the ntelligence 8ureau and the /esearch and?nalysis Aing tried to coer up L33;Ts roleE

?fter the assassination% !handrashekhar% the then prime minister%conened a meeting in which een Janata >arty president SuramanianSwamy Cthen minister of commerce and industryD was present. 3he then8 chief% 61 Barayanan% and /?A oss% 4S 8a"pai% were also present.

Swamy said that it was oious that the L33; was responsile. 8a"pairetorted that it was not the L33;. 3he meeting was ad"ourned.6eanwhile% the !8 director had gone to !olomo for the inestigation.

3hey were called ack and rushed to 5elhi for the meeting. 5uring themeeting% it was again asked why a trip was made to !olomo and did thatmean it was preconceied that it was the L33; which was ehind theassassination.

8a"pai once again opposed this. =e een $uoted one 1ittu to e hissource. 1ittu% incidentally% was >rahakaranTs right hand man. ?n L33;man could neer hae een a /?A mole and een 5r Swamy had termedthis as asurd.

Ahat are your allegations against BarayananE

? ideo taken at the meeting on that ill-fated day in which there wereimages of 5hanu was neer made aailale to the !8. 3he assassinationteam was waiting for nearly two hours in a sterile area. 3he originalideo reached Barayanan.

3he goernment had decided to conduct an inestigation in this regardand this case was registered with the Special nestigating 3eam and the


22/65

!8. =oweer% it was uried. 6y $uestion is% why no action has eentaken for suppressing eidence.

t was eing said that 5hanu had arged into the meeting% ut this ideoclearly shows that they were waiting for a long time. Ae proed this case

risking our own lies and it does upset me that people sitting at the helmof affairs are protecting the accused.

5o you think the loopholes will e rectified nowE

Let us see.

6oe to release /a"i 4andhi case conicts# >olitical class2 adenturismwill hae grae conse$uences

In the context of rehabilitation of its inmates, the Tamil 2adu goernment/sprisons website proudly proclaims thusB -(n the occasion of the release of",A#C lifers in commemoration of the birth centenary of )erarignar %nna on"C.#D.@##E, a rehabilitation function was organi'ed in 6entral )rison.- It is

unclear what the lin* is between ",A#C conicted rapists and murderers and62 %nnadurai/s "##th birthday.

(ddly, the ery same website also draws one/s attention to 7ule ++C of thestate/s prison manual which proides for a sixmember adisory boardincluding the I>) and the commissioner to consider cases for prematurerelease of life conicts.

This board is supposed to consider -the behaioural pattern and socialconditions of the prisoners- before recommending their release. %s witheery other instance of such a populist measure F infused more withunbridled personal ambition than with mercy F the board, its considerationsand conclusions are mere sham. 2o factors are *ept in mind for these massreleases, sae one, ie the mood of the oter at the next election.


23/65


24/65

. In what was a clear defiance of the federal arrangement, the chiefminister actually had the impudence to gie a threeday ultimatum to the

central goernment to respond to the proposed release.

3idden beneath the sheer audacity of this decision is political shrewdness ofa rare degree. 8hile aware of the political mileage that a Tamil9sympathetic moe would garner, Jayalalithaa has resorted to the time9tested method adopted by our leaders eerywhere F toss the ball to S6. Thequic* order of status quo by the court left the chief minister shrugging hershoulders as one who tried her best for the cause, and leaing it to ta*e theblame. The same ghastly political game has played out oer last wee*, asthe passage of the Telangana bill saw parliament reach shameful depths.

The bill eentually made it through parliament ignoring the Sri*rishnacommittee/s recommendations, the attorney general/s caution to hae a6onstitutional amendment, the oerwhelming reection of the bill by the%ndhra legislature and more than ",C## recommendations and commentsfrom the state/s legislators. (nce again, S6 has been petitioned, and nomatter what course the case will ta*e, both the 4)% and the T7S haebenefited from a political game that *ept the electorate on tenterhoo*s forfie long years until the last wee* of its last session.

8hile our politically naie citi'enry may not read sufficiently between thelines to understand the real moties behind eery subsidy announcement,eery innocuous tax amendment and eery agricultural policy, what is nowclearly of concern is the increasing tendency to force political moesthrough with impunity, and leae S6 to be, as 6hief Justice )atanali Sastriput it, the sentinel on the qui ie.

The role of our apex court is no doubt an onerous one, and one which it hasdischarged with great distinction for the most part. 0ut it is time that aclear message is sent out to the political class that such adenturism willhae grae, and sometimes personal consequences.

?pex court stops 3amil Badu from releasing /a"i 4andhi killers


25/65

The Supreme 6ourt on Thursday stopped the Tamil 2adu goernment from

releasing seen prisoners conicted of the "DD" assassination of formerprime minister 7ai >andhi following a petition by the 4nion goernment.

%cting on the petition, the apex court issued notices to the Tamil 2adugoernment and all the conicts.

1arlier, the Supreme 6ourt agreed to urgently hear a plea by the 4niongoernment see*ing a stay on the decision by the Tamil 2adu goernment torelease the seen conicts. % bench headed by 6hief Justice ). Sathasiamtoo* up the case shortly after noon, after Solicitor >eneral 5ohan )arasaran

sought a stay on the Tamil 2adu moe.

The court!s decision came after )rime 5inister 5anmohan Singhissued ascathing criticism of the Tamil 2adu goernment!s decision in a statementshortly after a meeting of the 4nion cabinet on Thursday.

KThe assassination of Shri 7ai >andhi was an attac* on the soul of India,Singh said.

KThe release of the *illers of a former )rime 5inister of India and our great

leader, as well as seeral other innocent Indians, would be contrary to allprinciples of ustice. 2o goernment or party should be soft in our fightagainst terrorism, he said.

K8e hae also informed the Tamil 2adu goernment that their proposedcourse of action to release the *illers of 7ai >andhi is not legally tenableand should not be proceeded with, Singh said.

Solicitor >eneral )arasaran said the state goernment should not be allowedto release the prisoners till the apex court had decided the 4nion

goernment!s reiew petition challenging the commutation of deathsentence of three condemned prisoners to life imprisonment.

The Tamil 2adu goernment on 8ednesday decided to free the seenconicts a day after the Supreme 6ourt commuted the death sentences onthree of them to life imprisonment because of an ""9year delay in decidingon their petitions for mercy.
http://www.livemint.com/Search/Link/Keyword/P.%20Sathasivamhttp://www.livemint.com/Search/Link/Keyword/Manmohan%20Singhhttp://www.livemint.com/Search/Link/Keyword/P.%20Sathasivamhttp://www.livemint.com/Search/Link/Keyword/Manmohan%20Singh


26/65

0esides Santhan, 5urugan and )erarialan, whose sentences were commutedto life in prison by the Supreme 6ourt, Tamil 2adu!s %ll India %nna raida5unnetra =a'hagam H%I%5= goernment also decided to set at liberty2alini, 7obert )ious, Jaya*umar and 7aichandran.

>andhi was *illed by a Sri Lan*an Tamil suicide bomber while campaigningfor elections in Sriperumbudur near 6hennai in 5ay "DD".

The three who were sentenced to death were members of a Sri Lan*anethnic Tamil separatist group, the Liberation Tigers of Tamil 1elam HLTT1,and >andhi!s *illing was seen as an act of retaliation after he sent Indianpeace*eepers to Sri Lan*a in "DEG to quell a Tamil uprising.

The three were conicted in "DDE and sentenced to death by hanging. 2aliniwas also gien the death sentence but it was later commuted to a life term.

The men appealed for mercy but successie presidents did not gie anydecision until @#"", when their plea was reected.

6ongress ice president and 7ai >andhi!s son 7ahul >andhion 8ednesdaysaid he was saddened by the Tamil 2adu goernment!s decision. KI am sadthe *illers are being freed, said 7ahul, who was @" when his father was*illed.

KIf some person *ills the )5 and is released, then how will a common man

get ustice. It!s a point to ponder, he said at an election rally inJagdishpur, 4ttar )radesh.

Supreme !ourt commutes death penalty of /a"i 4andhiTs killers to lifeterm

The Supreme 6ourt on Tuesday commuted the death penalty of 7ai>andhi/s *illers to life term, citing the ""9year delay in deciding their mercypleas.

8ith this, the three conicts on death row in the 7ai >andhi assassination
http://www.livemint.com/Search/Link/Keyword/Rahul%20Gandhihttp://www.livemint.com/Search/Link/Keyword/Rahul%20Gandhi


27/65

case F Santhan, 5urugan and )erarialan F hae been spared the gallows.

% bench headed by 6hief Justice ) Sathasiam reected the 6entre/ssubmission that there was no unreasonable delay in deciding their mercyplea and the condemned prisoners did not go through agoni'ing experienceas they were enoying life behind the bars.

The bench, also comprising ustices 7anan >ogoi and S = Singh, said theyare unable to accept the 6entre/s iew and commuted the death sentence ofconicts to imprisonment for life subect to remission by the goernment.

There had been inordinate delay on goernment and )resident/s part todecide their mercy pleas, the S6 udges said.

The apex court reected the 6entre/s contention that delay in decidingmercy plea of conicts Santhan, 5urugan and )erarialan did not result inagony.

-8e implore goernment to render adice in reasonable time to the)resident for ta*ing a decision on mercy pleas,- the court said.

The top court has as*ed the goernment to add a new criteria for

considering commuting death penalty to life imprisonment F inordinatedelay in deciding mercy petitions.

It said the goernment should handle the cases of mercy petitions in a moresystematic manner.

-8e are confident that mercy plea can be decided at much faster speedthan what is being done now,- the bench said.

The conicts had submitted that mercy plea of other prisoners, which were

filed after them, were decided but their petitions were *ept pending by thegoernment.

Their plea was strongly opposed by the 6entre which had said that it wasnot a fit case for the apex court to commute death sentence on the groundof delay in deciding mercy plea.


28/65

%dmitting that there has been delay in deciding the mercy petitions, thegoernment, howeer, had contended that the delay was not unreasonable,unexplainable and unconscionable to commute death penalty.

The counsel, appearing for the conicts, had contested the 6entre/sarguments, saying that they hae suffered due to the delay by thegoernment in deciding the mercy petitions and the apex court shouldinterene and commute their death sentence to life term.

The apex court had, in 5ay @#"@, decided to adudicate the petitions of7ai >andhi *illers against their death penalty and had directed that theirplea, pending with the 5adras high court, be sent to it.

7ai >andhi was *illed in 5ay "DD". 3is assassins were conicted by a T%%

court in January "DDE and were awarded death sentence, which wasconfirmed by the apex court 5ay "", "DDD.

SilencingThe VoicesSee*ing Justice

3he pulic serants & the goernment must e role models in lawaiding acts % for others to emulate & follow. if a student makes amistake it is excusale & can e corrected y the teacher. if the teacherhimself makes a mistake % all his students will do the same mistake. if athief steals % he can e caught % legally punished & reformed . if a policehimself commits crime % many thiees go scot-free under his patronage. een if a police % pulic serant commits acrime % he can e legally prosecuted & "ustice can e sought y theaggrieed. "ust think % if a "udge himself that too of apex court of theland itself commits crime - iolations of /3 ?ct % constitutionalrights & human rights of pulic and ostructs the pulic from

performing their constitutional fundamental duties % what happens E itgies a ooster dose to the rich & mighty % those in power % criminals inpulic serice to committ more crimes. that is exactly what ishappenning in india. the educated pulic must raise to the occassion &peacefully % democratically must oppose this criminalisation of"udiciary % pulic serice. then alone % we can uild a /?6 /?JK? OF6?=?36? 4?B5=TS 5/;?6.


29/65

In India, it is nothing new to silence oicessee*ing ustice. (nly onpaper , in the boo* called K6onstitution of India , eery citi'en istreated as equal . In practice , public serants behae as public

masters & treat commoners worse . In Their crimes & actions our publicserants een outsmart 0ritish occupiers. The criminal nexus ofpolitician M police M public serant goes to any length to silence theoicessee*ing ustice , to threaten them , to cut9off their sourcesof lielihood , to falsely implicate them fix them in criminalcases , to assault them & finally to finish them. Indian udiciary hasfailed to uphold the KThe 6onstitution of India in letter & spirit.2(8, (21 5(71 ?(I61 S11=I2> J4STI61 IS (2 T31 I7I2> LI21S (67I5I2%L

21N4S 9 the oice of 5r. 2agaraa . 5 . 7 . editor , S.(.S9e M ?oiceor Justice & S(S e 6larion of alit. 2agaraa will sooner or later will beadded along withsatyendra dubey & shanmughan 5anunath , by the criminal nexus.

8ill you lend your support for this democratic , non9iolent strugglefor peace , ustice , along with 5r.2agara.5.7. %ll humane personsare welcome. Jai hind . ande matarm.


30/65

to the law of contempt, and finally the immunity from public scrutinyby another udicially created insulation from the 7ight to Information%ct.

%nti9poor 0ias

The udicial system is increasingly used by the ruling establishment forpushing through neo liberal policies by which resources such as land,water and public spaces left with the poor and being increasinglyappropriated by the rich and the powerful. This elitist and anti poorbias ma*es the udicial system an instrument for protecting andfurthering the interest of the rich and powerful, both Indian andforeign. This section will Owatch! the udges and expose their biasesand any corrupt and arbitrary practices. They must see that thepeople are scrutini'ing them and their udgments carefully.

Sumitting nformation

Judge 8atch will contain information ; analysis regarding any misconduct bya udge as well as anything showing the anti9poor bias of a udge.

The campaign welcomes well researched information concerning udgesfrom any court. 3oweer, we cannot ensure that eery dossier sent will beuploaded on this site or made public. %ll submissions must be accompaniedby the releant;required documents that may proide eidence in supportof any allegations;obserations made against any udge or udicial officer.

(ne reference document is the -7estatement of ?alues of Judicial Life-,acode of conduct, adopted at a full court meeting of the Supreme 6ourt on5ay G, "DDG . The 6ampaign does not subscribe to this as a completedocument, but a starting point.

To send in information for the Judge 8atch section please see the followingdocument. Judge Aatch FormatP8ord, @# =0Q

Judge 8atch on Justice ?.7amaswami

Bame of Judge#Justice ?.7amaswami
http://www.judicialreforms.org/files/restatement_of_values_jud_life.pdfhttp://www.judicialreforms.org/RESTATEMENT%20OF%20VALUES%20OF%20JUDICIAL%20LIFE.dochttp://www.judicialreforms.org/Format.dochttp://www.judicialreforms.org/files/Format.dochttp://www.judicialreforms.org/files/restatement_of_values_jud_life.pdfhttp://www.judicialreforms.org/RESTATEMENT%20OF%20VALUES%20OF%20JUDICIAL%20LIFE.dochttp://www.judicialreforms.org/Format.dochttp://www.judicialreforms.org/files/Format.doc


31/65

>ost =eld at /eleant 3ime#6hief Justice of )&3 3igh 6ourt

!urrent Status#7td. Judge of Supreme 6ourt of India

?nalysis!omment!riti$ue#

The first9eer impeachment motion against a S6 udge, Justice ?.7amaswami, was signed by "#E 5)s in "DD". % year later, an inquiryfound 7amaswami Kguilty of willful and gross misuses of officeRK8hile sering as the 6hief Justice of the )unab and 3aryana 3igh6ourt. 7amaswami suried the impeachment process as )arliamentgot diided along regional lines, southern 5)s strongly supported him.(nly "D members of )arliament, less than the required two9thirds,oted for his ouster.

?dditional documents in support of criti$ue#

6otion of mpeachment - pdf CG+ 18D? =istoric non-impeachment -Dpdf C',.9 18D

5etails of indiidual organisation writing criti$ue#2ameB 6ommittee on Judicial %ccountability%ddressB Lawyers 6hambers, Supreme 6ourt of India, 2ew elhi

f the criti$ue is in respect of a "udge please proidea softcopy andor hardcopy of the "udgement

Judge 8atch on Justice 5adan 5ohan )uchhi

Bame of Judge#Justice 5adan 5ohan )unchhi /ank#ormer 6hief Justice of India

!ourt#Supreme 6ourt of India


This charge sheet was prepared by the 6ommittee on Judicial%ccountability in "DDE, when Justice )unchhi was a udge of theSupreme 6ourt of India. It was signed by @C 5)s of 7aya Sabha.3oweer, before it could get the signature of the requisite number ofC# 5)s of 7aya Sabha, Justice )unchhi was appointed 6hief Justice ofIndia. %fter this, it became irtually impossible to get the 2otice of5otion signed by any 5)s. 6onsequently, 2otice of 5otion could not
http://www.judicialreforms.org/files/Motion%20of%20Impeachment%20-%20Ramaswami.pdfhttp://www.judicialreforms.org/files/LETTER%20TO%20CJ%20RE%20BHALLA%2020-3-07.pdfhttp://www.judicialreforms.org/files/cover_story_ramaswami.pdfhttp://www.judicialreforms.org/files/Motion%20of%20Impeachment%20-%20Ramaswami.pdfhttp://www.judicialreforms.org/files/LETTER%20TO%20CJ%20RE%20BHALLA%2020-3-07.pdfhttp://www.judicialreforms.org/files/cover_story_ramaswami.pdf


32/65


33/65

?nalysis!omment!riti$ue#Serious allegations of corruption and faouritism were raised againstJustice %.S.%nand former 6hief Justice of India pertaining to theperiod when he was the Judge and the 6hief Justice of the Jammu and=ashmir 3igh 6ourt.

These unrebutted allegations were supported by alid authenticdocuments and were seerely raised at the time when Justice %nandwas the 6hief Justice of India but nothing was eer done in thisregard.


?llegations aganist J. ?.S.?nand - pdf C)9.9 18D



Judge 8atch on Justice ?iendra Jain

Bame of Judge#Justice ?iendra Jain >ost held at the releant time#Judge at elhi 3igh 6ourt

!urrrent Status#6hief Justice of )unab and 3aryana 3igh 6ourt


Justice ?iender Jain had decided a case of a litigant 3ari 7am whowas the father9in9law of Justice %run =umar, ormer Supreme 6ourtJudge and a close friend of Justice ?iendra Jain. They personally

*new well enough to hae 3ari 7am!s granddaughter married from hisofficial residence. This is in iolation of one of the elements of the6ode of 6onduct or K7estatement of Judicial ?alues, adopted by theull court in "DDG which says that no udge shall hear and decide acase of his relatie or friend. 1en then Justice ?iendra Jain has beenrecommended as 6hief Justice of )unab and 3aryana 3igh 6ourt.
http://www.judicialreforms.org/files/Allegations%20against%20Justice%20Anand.pdfhttp://www.judicialreforms.org/files/Allegations%20against%20Justice%20Anand.pdf


34/65

% complaint made by Subhash %garwal against Justice Jain wasreected with no formal reasons gien but he was informally told thatJustice Jain did not personally *now 3ari 7am but since 3ari 7am wasthe ather9in9law of Justice %run =umar, a close friend of Justice Jain,Justice Jain agreed to lend his residence for the wedding of 3ari7am!s granddaughter.

The 6ommittee on Judicial %ccountability wrote letters to the)resident and )rime 5inister of India and requested them to get allcorrespondences made by the 6omplainant Subhash %grawal to theSupreme 6ourt in this regard.

?dditional documents in support of criti$ue#Letters sent by 6ommittee on Judicial %ccountability

Letter to >resident )'.I.(G - pdf CI.(* 18DLetter to >rime 6inister-Dpdf CG.'+ 18D

Sunday 4uardian we news article 'I.)).)(-D pdf C)*' 18D

PThe name of Justice ?iender Jain, een though clearly mentioned inthe tape has been withheld in this news item though the conersationitself ma*es it ery clear who the concerned udge is.Q


Judge 8atch on Justice %sho* =umar

Bame of Judge#Justice %sho* =umar /ank#%dditional Judge

!ourt#3igh 6ourt of 6hennai


The case of Judge %sho* =umar of 5adras who was formerly asession!s udge and has been gien a permanent position in the6hennai 3igh 6ourt by the 6hief Justice of India in ebruary @##G ishorrifying. 8hen the complaints were leelled against him ofcorruption, an inquiry report by the Intelligence 0ureau HI0 gae an
http://www.judicialreforms.org/files/Letter%20to%20the%20President%20on%20Vijendra%20Jain.pdfhttp://www.judicialreforms.org/files/LETTER%20TO%20CJ%20RE%20BHALLA%2020-3-07.pdfhttp://www.judicialreforms.org/files/Letter%20to%20PM%20on%20Vijender%20Jain.pdfhttp://www.judicialreforms.org/files/Sunday_Guardian_28thNov2010_Arora_told_Radia_that_a_judge_took_Rs_9_cr.pdfhttp://www.judicialreforms.org/files/Letter%20to%20the%20President%20on%20Vijendra%20Jain.pdfhttp://www.judicialreforms.org/files/LETTER%20TO%20CJ%20RE%20BHALLA%2020-3-07.pdfhttp://www.judicialreforms.org/files/Letter%20to%20PM%20on%20Vijender%20Jain.pdfhttp://www.judicialreforms.org/files/Sunday_Guardian_28thNov2010_Arora_told_Radia_that_a_judge_took_Rs_9_cr.pdfhttp://www.judicialreforms.org/files/Sunday_Guardian_28thNov2010_Arora_told_Radia_that_a_judge_took_Rs_9_cr.pdf


35/65

een more horrendous report against him. 0ut all the reports wereignored and he was promoted to the 3igh 6ourt. This happened due tothe political pressure from the 6entral >oernment, as the udge wasclose to 5= goernment Hnow ruling party of the State and 5=goernment threatened to withdraw support from the 4)%goernment. So it is due to that, that the law minister as*ed the 6JIto gie extensions and finally made %sho* =umar a 3igh 6ourt udge.


>etition on the appointment of Justice ?.1umar - pdf C9).G 18DS! order on Justice ?.1umarTs case- pdf CH., 18D?re !Js following rules in appointment of JudgesE-Dpdf CG.,* 18DJustice ?shok 1umar appoinment chalenged- pdf C)(.( 18D



Judge 8atch on Justice Jagdish 0halla

This is the case where the documentary eidence was aailable to show thatthe udge has purchased the property worth crores in few la*hs in the nameof his wife from well9*nown criminal who hae illegally grabbed the land.There were inquiry reports of the %dditional istrict 5agistrate andSuperintendent of )olice which attested to these facts. 3oweer, despitethis documentary eidence being brought to the notice of the then 6hief

Justice of India, he neither ordered an independent inestigation nor did heallow the 6ommittee on Judicial %ccountability to get a regular I7registered, so that a normal police inestigation could hae ta*en place.This was despite the fact that under the in9house procedure, supposedlyadopted by the Supreme 6ourt of India in "DDD for inestigating chargesagainst the udges, at least an in9house committee of udges could haeformed to inestigate the charges against Justice 0halla. 3oweer instead of
http://www.judicialreforms.org/files/justice_ashok_kumar_petition_sc.pdfhttp://www.judicialreforms.org/files/ashok_kumar_order.pdfhttp://www.judicialreforms.org/files/LETTER%20TO%20CJ%20RE%20BHALLA%2020-3-07.pdfhttp://www.judicialreforms.org/files/are_cji_follow_rules.pdfhttp://www.judicialreforms.org/files/j_ashok_kumar_app_hindu.pdfhttp://www.judicialreforms.org/files/justice_ashok_kumar_petition_sc.pdfhttp://www.judicialreforms.org/files/ashok_kumar_order.pdfhttp://www.judicialreforms.org/files/LETTER%20TO%20CJ%20RE%20BHALLA%2020-3-07.pdfhttp://www.judicialreforms.org/files/are_cji_follow_rules.pdfhttp://www.judicialreforms.org/files/j_ashok_kumar_app_hindu.pdf


36/65

doing that, the then 6hief Justice ress /elease on the 6otion of mpeachmentagainst Justice 8halla -pdf C+'.I 18D

?dditional documents in support

Letter to >resident )'.+.(H J8 - pdf CG.,+ 18D Letter to !J '(.*.(H J8 -D pdf C)' 18D
http://www.judicialreforms.org/files/press_release_proposed_elevation_j_bhalla.pdfhttp://www.judicialreforms.org/files/press_release_proposed_elevation_j_bhalla.pdfhttp://www.judicialreforms.org/files/noticeofmotionbhallaRSLS.pdfhttp://www.judicialreforms.org/files/pressreleasejusticebhalla.pdfhttp://www.judicialreforms.org/files/Letter%20to%20Pres%20re%20Bhalla%20as%20ACJ.pdfhttp://www.judicialreforms.org/files/LETTER%20TO%20CJ%20RE%20BHALLA%2020-3-07.pdfhttp://www.judicialreforms.org/files/press_release_proposed_elevation_j_bhalla.pdfhttp://www.judicialreforms.org/files/press_release_proposed_elevation_j_bhalla.pdfhttp://www.judicialreforms.org/files/noticeofmotionbhallaRSLS.pdfhttp://www.judicialreforms.org/files/pressreleasejusticebhalla.pdfhttp://www.judicialreforms.org/files/Letter%20to%20Pres%20re%20Bhalla%20as%20ACJ.pdfhttp://www.judicialreforms.org/files/LETTER%20TO%20CJ%20RE%20BHALLA%2020-3-07.pdfhttp://www.judicialreforms.org/files/LETTER%20TO%20CJ%20RE%20BHALLA%2020-3-07.pdf


37/65

Letter for !onsultation to >resident *.'.(H J8 - pdf CG.,+ 18D

?pplication to register F/ against ).)).(G J8 - pdf C+,.' 18D

!omplaint to K.1.Saarwal )'.H.(G J8 - pdf C'I.) 18D


Judge 8atch on Justice


38/65

Other nterentions

Justice SaharwalTs 5efence 8ecomes 6urkier# Stifling >ulic;xposure 8y sing !ontempt >owers ->ress /elease- pdf C+) 18D

Securing Judicial ?ccountaility Freedom Of Speech s. !ontempt

3owards ?n ndependent Judicial !ommission y >rashant 8hushan- pdf C+( 18D

Shocking ?use of Judicial >ower =indu editorial Sep '+%'((H-pdfC)(.G18D

Saharwal on 3rial 3imes of ndia - pdf C'I 18D

!ontept of Justice Outlook online-pdf CI9 18D

3ehelka nestigation

Office of >rofit# ? Stink Kou Should Smell y San"ay 5uey-pdf C*918D

nstead of helping shopkeepers% he made his sons rich-pdf C+I 18D

Silence Lies# 3ehelka iew y Shoma !haudhary- pdf H"+E =0

UAither Judicial ?ccountailityE 3he case of Justice Saharwal#5is$uieting facts% disturing implicationsU- >ress !onference held on ?ug(*% '((H)ress 6onference was organised to highlight a grae case of Judicial5isconduct at the %pex of the Indian Judiciary. It disclosed how the then6hief Justice of India who had spearheaded the sealing drie was mired inserious conflict of interest in as much as his sons were deeply inoled inthe business of shopping malls and commercial complexes who stood tobenefit from this sealing drie. It was addressed by Shri Shanti 0hushan,former 4nion Law 5inister, 5r. 0has*ar 7ao, 6hairman, 6entre for 5edia

Studies, and 5r. )rashant 0hushan, adocate, Supreme 6ourt among other.The )ress 6onference was attended by A# news agencies and E#participants.

>ress /elease - pdf C+(.9 18D Supporting 5ocuments - pdf C'.** 68D
http://www.judicialreforms.org/files/justice_sabharwal_pressrelease_sept07.pdfhttp://www.judicialreforms.org/files/securing_judicial_acc_pbhushan.pdfhttp://www.judicialreforms.org/files/shocking_abuse_of_judicial_power.pdfhttp://www.judicialreforms.org/files/shocking_abuse_of_judicial_power.pdfhttp://www.judicialreforms.org/files/sabharwal_on_trial.pdfhttp://www.judicialreforms.org/files/are_cji_follow_rules.pdfhttp://www.judicialreforms.org/files/office_for_profit_yk_sab_tehelka_coverstory.pdfhttp://www.judicialreforms.org/files/office_for_profit_yk_sab_tehelka_coverstory.pdfhttp://www.judicialreforms.org/files/instead_of_helping_shopkeepers.pdfhttp://www.judicialreforms.org/files/tehelka_view.pdfhttp://www.judicialreforms.org/files/press_release_cjar_press_conf_3_aug_07.pdfhttp://www.judicialreforms.org/files/documents_on_sabharwal.pdfhttp://www.judicialreforms.org/files/justice_sabharwal_pressrelease_sept07.pdfhttp://www.judicialreforms.org/files/securing_judicial_acc_pbhushan.pdfhttp://www.judicialreforms.org/files/shocking_abuse_of_judicial_power.pdfhttp://www.judicialreforms.org/files/shocking_abuse_of_judicial_power.pdfhttp://www.judicialreforms.org/files/sabharwal_on_trial.pdfhttp://www.judicialreforms.org/files/are_cji_follow_rules.pdfhttp://www.judicialreforms.org/files/office_for_profit_yk_sab_tehelka_coverstory.pdfhttp://www.judicialreforms.org/files/office_for_profit_yk_sab_tehelka_coverstory.pdfhttp://www.judicialreforms.org/files/instead_of_helping_shopkeepers.pdfhttp://www.judicialreforms.org/files/tehelka_view.pdfhttp://www.judicialreforms.org/files/press_release_cjar_press_conf_3_aug_07.pdfhttp://www.judicialreforms.org/files/documents_on_sabharwal.pdf


39/65


40/65

beyond his *nown sources of income hearing and deciding cases of hisfriends etc. %ll the allegations were bac*ed by unimpeachable documentaryeidence.Though the 6hief Justice of India, continued to bac* him, he ordered aninquiry into the allegation regarding his agricultural land by the istrict5agistrate, who confirmed the allegations including his encroachment ofpublic land. Thereafter Justice ina*aran tried to destroy eidence andthreatened the reenue officials who went to stop this destruction ofeidence. %ll this came to be widely reported in the media. %n embarrassed)5( forced a reluctant Law 5inister 5oily to return the recommendation tothe collegium for reconsideration. The collegium did not withdraw therecommendation, but merely put it on hold. 2o Kin house inquiry wasordered either.5eanwhile people questioned how ina*aran could continue as 6hief Justice

of =arnata*a in the light of such serious offences that he had committed.There was also the demand that I7s should be registered and the offencesthat he had committed be inestigated. The 6hief Justice of India howeerdid not gie permission for registering any I7 against Justice ina*aran.This left no option but to initiate impeachment proceedings against him.The orum for Judicial %ccountability prepared the impeachment motionwhich was sent to all the political parties by a campaign for signatures.1entually GC 5)s of the 7aya Sabha, belonging to many political partiesexcept the 6ongress party signed the impeachment motion and presented itto the ?ice )resident. The motion was soon admitted by the ?ice )resident

forcing Justice ina*aran to stop discharging udicial functions.The procedure laid down by the Judges Inquiry %ct for proceeding with animpeachment motion is that the ?ice )resident appoints an enquirycommittee consisting of a sitting udge of the Supreme 6ourt, a 6hiefJustice of a 3igh 6ourt and a urist to enquire into the charges against him.(nly if the enquiry committee finds him guilty does the matter proceedfurther for a oting in the two houses of )arliament. The motion for hisremoal has to be then passed by a two third maority in each house. (nlythen can he be remoed. Though there is no requirement under the JudgesInquiry %ct for the ?ice )resident to consult the 6hief Justice in the choice

of members of the enquiry committee, he consulted the 6hief Justice, whorecommended two udges of the Supreme 6ourt and two 6hief Justices ofthe 3igh 6ourt. 0ased on the 6hief Justice!s adice, the ?ice )resident hasappointed an inquiry committee comprising of Justice ?.S. Sirupur*ar of theSupreme 6ourt, 6hief Justice %.7. ae of the %.). 3igh 6ourt and Shri ).).7ao as the urist.The 6ampaign for Judicial %ccountability and 7eform as well as the orum


41/65

for Judicial %ccountability hae howeer written to the ?.). pointing outthat Justice Sirupur*ar has not only been a close friend and colleague ofJustice ina*aran, but he has also preudged the issue, telling seeralresponsible lawyers that he *nows Justice ina*aran well and that he is anindependently wealthy and honourable man. 5oreoer, Shri ).). 7ao hadbeen formally consulted by Justice ina*aran on how he should deal withthese charges and that he had adised him on the matter. In thesecircumstances, they would not be seen to be impartial and therefore shouldnot sit as udges on this inquiry committee to aoid damage to thecredibility of the inquiry and further controersy. 3oweer till the date ofwriting they hae not yet recused themseles.

/epresentations y the Forum for Judicial ?ccountaility to the!ollegium

/epresentation ) against 6r.Justice >.5.5inakaran% !hief Justice%1arnataka =igh !ourt - amassing of huge assets% corruption andserious irregularities.- pdf

/epresentation '% Further particulars with supporting materialsregarding 6r. Justice >.5.5inakaran% !hief Justice of 1arnataka-pdf

/epresentation *% 5etails of more ac$uisitions y Justice>.5.5inakaran-pdf

/epresentation +% 5etails of more ac$uisitions and improper"udicial conduct of Justice >.5.5inakaran.- pdf

6otion for mpeachement of Justice 5inakaran

The notice of motion for presenting an address to the )resident of India forthe remoal of Justice ina*aran, 6hief Justice of the =aranata*a 3igh6ourt, under %rticle @"G read with %rticle "@AHA of 6onstitution of India forhis arious acts of misbehaior, including dishonest udicial orders, irregularand dishonest administratie actions, etc, along with an explanatory note on

the motion for impeachement. pdf

>ress Statement against Surery of ndia proe into Justice 5inakaranencroachment

>ress Statement issued y the Forum for Judicial ?ccountaility againstthe Surey of ndia spot proe into the allegations of land encroachment
http://www.judicialreforms.org/files/Dinakaran%201st%20Representation.pdfhttp://www.judicialreforms.org/files/Dinakaran%202nd%20Representation.pdfhttp://www.judicialreforms.org/files/Dinakaran%203rd%20Representation.pdfhttp://www.judicialreforms.org/files/Dinakaran%204th%20Representation.pdfhttp://www.judicialreforms.org/files/Impeachment_motion_dinakaran.pdfhttp://www.judicialreforms.org/files/Dinakaran%201st%20Representation.pdfhttp://www.judicialreforms.org/files/Dinakaran%202nd%20Representation.pdfhttp://www.judicialreforms.org/files/Dinakaran%203rd%20Representation.pdfhttp://www.judicialreforms.org/files/Dinakaran%204th%20Representation.pdfhttp://www.judicialreforms.org/files/Impeachment_motion_dinakaran.pdf


42/65

y the 1arnataka !hief Justice% >.5. 5inakaran% to e conducted on5ecemer *(th '((, as reported in a newspaper.3he Forum calls upon the !entral 4oernment to recall the threememer team deputed y the Surey of ndia immediately and to awaitthe outcome of the en$uiry under the impeachmentproceedings. ...statement page )statement page '

!J?/ letter to the Vice >resident regarding the en$uiry committee in theJustice 5inakaran impeachment

The 6ampaign for Judicial %ccountability and 7eform has sent a letter toShri 3amid %nsari, ?ice )resident of India, regarding the + member enquirycommittee appointed to enquire into the motion for remoal of Jusitce )..ina*aran. The letter brings to Shri %nsari/s notice that Justice Sirupur*ar!sfriendship with Justice ina*aran, coupled with his preudgement of thematter, places him in a position where if he inquires into this matter,ustice will not be seen to be done. The same would be the case with Shri).). 7ao who has been formally consulted in the matter by Justiceina*aran. The letter further requests that these facts be placed beforeJustice Sirupur*ar and Shri ).). 7ao and they be as*ed whether they wouldli*e to recuse themseles from the inquiry committee, to aoid any furthercontroersy in the matter. psdf

?rticles

;xtraordinary situations call for extraordinary measures -Justice 5K Shylendra 1umar pdf

3he 5inakaran mroglio# ?ppointments and !omplaints againstJudges - 6r. >rashant 8hushan pdf

5etails of indiidual organisation writing criti$ue#2ameB 6ampaign for Judicial %ccountability and 7eform%ddressB ; Jungpura 0 Hbasement, 5athura 7oad, 2ew elhiB""##"A

>ost held at the releant time#6hief Justice, =arnata*a 3igh 6ourt

!urrent Status#6hief Justice, =aranata*a 3igh 6ourt

Judge 8atch on Justice .I.7ebello
http://www.judicialreforms.org/files/Forum_Press_Statement_1.pdfhttp://www.judicialreforms.org/files/Forum_Press_Statement_2.pdfhttp://www.judicialreforms.org/files/CJAR_letter_to_Vice_President.pdfhttp://www.judicialreforms.org/files/Shylendra_kumar_extraordinary_measures.pdfhttp://www.judicialreforms.org/files/Prashants%20Articles%20The%20Dinakaran%20imbroglio.doc.pdfhttp://www.judicialreforms.org/files/Forum_Press_Statement_1.pdfhttp://www.judicialreforms.org/files/Forum_Press_Statement_2.pdfhttp://www.judicialreforms.org/files/CJAR_letter_to_Vice_President.pdfhttp://www.judicialreforms.org/files/Shylendra_kumar_extraordinary_measures.pdfhttp://www.judicialreforms.org/files/Prashants%20Articles%20The%20Dinakaran%20imbroglio.doc.pdf


43/65

Bame of Judge#Justice . I. 7ebello >ost =eld at /eleant 3ime#6hief Justice of %llahabad 3igh 6ourt

!urrent Status#6hief Justice, %llahabad 3igh 6ourt

?nalysis!omment!riti$ue#Justice 7ebello, son after oining as the 6hief ustice of %llahabad3igh 6ourt met 5s 5ayawati, 6hief 5inister of 4ttar )radesh. 3e, thenissued administratie orders to change the classification of the caserelated to 5s 5ayawati/s inolement in Ta 6orridor/s case. %s aresult, the case, which was part heard by a different bench wastransfered to a completely new bench. This was allegedly done tobenefit 5s 5ayawati.


!J?/Ts complaint against Justice /eello- pdf

Judicial %ccountabilityIt is

important to *eep the udiciary in the puriew of scrutiny. This section willproide arious subects to get udiciary accountable to common person.?ppointments

5a*ing reference to the =. ?eeraswamy!s 6ase Shri Shanti 0hushan obseredthat all udges should declare their assets M it should be done with pride8hy raise issues of self9respect: 3e said only those who hae something tohide will be reluctant to disclose their assets Rmore

9 S.>.4upta 9 pdf H". 50% seen Judges 0ench of Supreme 6ourt extensiely considered the issues ofIndependence of Judiciary in relation to the appointment and transfer ofJudges, the issue of appointment of the %dditional Judges of the 3igh 6ourt,

the issue of the priilege of the >oernment against disclosure of Statedocuments and the scope of udicial reiew of the powers exercised by the)resident.

8hile deciding the issue of the locus standi of the petitioning lawyers whohad challenged the 6ircular of the Law 5inister and short9term extensions of%dditional Judges on ground of attac* on the independence of the udiciary,
http://www.judicialreforms.org/files/cjar_complaint_against_rebello.pdfhttp://www.judicialreforms.org/files/appointment_accountability_judiciary.pdfhttp://www.judicialreforms.org/files/S.P.Gupta%20Vs%20UOI.pdfhttp://www.judicialreforms.org/files/cjar_complaint_against_rebello.pdfhttp://www.judicialreforms.org/files/appointment_accountability_judiciary.pdfhttp://www.judicialreforms.org/files/S.P.Gupta%20Vs%20UOI.pdf


44/65

Justice ).2. 0hagwati while upholding their right to do so held that wherethe effected persons are really helpless, the Supreme 6ourt will not insist ona regular writ petition to be filed by the public spirited indiidual espousingtheir cause. The 6ourt will readily respond een to a letter addressed bysaid indiidual espousing the public cause.

% bunch of cases were decided together in the present case which wereraised in two batches of writ petitions filed in different 3igh 6ourts whichwere transferred under %rticle "+D9% to the Supreme 6ourt since they raisedcommon issues of great constitutional importance. (ne writ was also filed inthe Supreme 6ourt. Seeral more related issues were raised and discussedduring the hearing. 1ach of the Judges deliered a separate udgment.

9 Supreme !ourt ?docates-on-/ecord ?ssociation Vs. nion of ndia9 pdf HAGC =0This case directed to constitute a 0ench of nine Judges to examine the twoquestions referred therein, namely, the position of the 6hief Justice of Indiawith reference to primacy, and usticiability of fixation of Judge strength.

mpeachment

%rticle "@A HA of Indian 6onsitutionB % Judge of the Supreme 6ourt shall notbe remoed from his office except by an order of the )resident passed afteran address by each 3ouse of )arliament supported by a maority of the totalmembership of that 3ouse and by a maority of not less than two9thirds ofthe members of that 3ouse present and oting has been presented to the)resident in the same session for such remoal on the ground of proedmisbehaiour or incapacity.

9 Justice V. /amaswamy9 pdf HA =0The first9eer impeachment motion against a S6 udge, Justice ?.7amaswami, was signed by "#E 5)s in "DD". % year later, an inquiry found7amaswami Kguilty of willful and gross misuses of officeR K8hile sering as

the 6hief Justice of the )unab and 3aryana 3igh 6ourt. 7amaswamisuried the impeachment process as )arliament got diided along regionallines, southern 5)s strongly supported him. (nly "D members of)arliament, less than the required two9thirds, oted for his ouster.? =istoric Bon-impeachement9 pdf [email protected] =0
http://www.judicialreforms.org/files/S.C%20Advocates%20Vs%20UOI.pdfhttp://www.judicialreforms.org/files/Motion%20of%20Impeachment%20-%20Ramaswami.pdfhttp://www.judicialreforms.org/files/cover_story_ramaswami.pdfhttp://www.judicialreforms.org/files/S.C%20Advocates%20Vs%20UOI.pdfhttp://www.judicialreforms.org/files/Motion%20of%20Impeachment%20-%20Ramaswami.pdfhttp://www.judicialreforms.org/files/cover_story_ramaswami.pdf


45/65

9 Justice 6.6. >unchi9 pdf HG# =0This charge sheet was prepared by the 6ommittee on Judicial %ccountabilityin "DDE, when Justice )unchhi was a udge of the Supreme 6ourt of India. Itwas signed by @C 5)s of 7aya Sabha. 3oweer, before it could get thesignature of the requisite number of C# 5)s of 7aya Sabha, Justice )unchhiwas appointed 6hief Justice of India. %fter this, it became irtuallyimpossible to get the 2otice of 5otion signed by any 5)s. 6onsequently,2otice of 5otion could not be presented to the Spea*er. The imp lesson ofthis exercise was that it is ery difficult to get the 5)s sign theimpeachment motion unless three conditions are satisfied. irstly, thecharges must be ery serious secondly they must be proable bydocumentary eidence which is annexed to the 2otice of 5otion and finally,the charges must hae been gien substantial publicity in the media.

In the absence of all the three conditions been satisfied, 5)s are afraid andreluctant to sign a charge sheet against a sitting udge. It is normallyexceedingly difficult to get documentary eidence to proe charge againstsitting udge, particularly in the absence of a statutory inestigation by anagency haing powers of inestigation. 5oreoer, the bul* of the mainstream media is afraid to publicise charges against the sitting udge for fearof contempt. In 7amaswami!s case, the aboe three conditions weresatisfied. ocumentary eidence was aailable against 7amaswami becauseof the report of the %ccountant >eneral who audited the purchases made by7amaswami as 6hief Justice of )unab and 3aryana 3igh 6ourt. This is why,

impeachment of udges, howeer corrupt they might be, is not a practicalremedy in discipling them.

- Justice ?.S. ?nand - pdf C)9.9 18DSerious allegations of corruption and faouritism were raised against Justice%.S.%nand former 6hief Justice of India pertaining to the period when hewas the Judge and the 6hief Justice of the Jammu and =ashmir 3igh 6ourt.

7ead more articlesR..

9 ?conflict etween law and morality 9 pdf H"# =06ontempt

9!ontempt of court# "udgement y Justice ?ri"it >asayat9 pdf [email protected] =0 9!ontempt of court# "udgement y Justice /aeendran9 pdf H@A." =09Judges in their own cause# !ontempt of court y >rashant 8hushan9pdf
http://www.judicialreforms.org/files/MM%20Punchhi%20impeachment%20proceedings.pdfhttp://www.judicialreforms.org/files/Allegations%20against%20Justice%20Anand.pdfhttp://www.judicialreforms.org/files/A%20conflict%20between%20law%20and%20morality.pdfhttp://www.judicialreforms.org/files/j_arijit_pasayat_on_contempt.pdfhttp://www.judicialreforms.org/files/j_raveendran_judgement_on_contempt.pdfhttp://www.judicialreforms.org/files/contempt_article_pb.pdfhttp://www.judicialreforms.org/files/MM%20Punchhi%20impeachment%20proceedings.pdfhttp://www.judicialreforms.org/files/Allegations%20against%20Justice%20Anand.pdfhttp://www.judicialreforms.org/files/A%20conflict%20between%20law%20and%20morality.pdfhttp://www.judicialreforms.org/files/j_arijit_pasayat_on_contempt.pdfhttp://www.judicialreforms.org/files/j_raveendran_judgement_on_contempt.pdfhttp://www.judicialreforms.org/files/contempt_article_pb.pdf


46/65


47/65


48/65

the class analysis but one should not confine to it alone, one shouldalso consider caste analysis. 8e must also remember the indigenouspeople. Rmore

>ulic nterest Litigation

It is important to discuss about the reasons for deeloping a tool li*e)ublic Interest Litigation and how it has transformed recently. 8hilecritici'ing udiciary one must not forget about the executie inactionsof last ten years and the recent laws passed by the legislature. It isnecessary to substantiate by two examples, one is aquaculture casewhich permitted the multinational corporations to hae theiraquaculture actiities at the cost of the traditional fishermen. Rmore

!oering up Late >6 /a"i 4andhi ?ssassination conspiracy

The >(I & inestigating authorities hae failed to punish the real masterminds behind the Late )rime minister Shri . 7ai >andhi assassination case .

8hen a responsible Indian citi'en olunteered to appear before thesupreme court of india as an amicus curie , to gie certain informationbefore the court relating to this assassination , he was not at all permitted.

Instead he was threatened , attempts made to murder him , his news paperwas closed , his obs were illegally snatched away , police & inestigatingagencies repeatedly grilled him , T31 )47)(S1 IS T( SIL1261 T3%T )17S(2. The )olice failed to act upon his complaints. The Supreme 6ourt of Indiaailed to admit his )IL )etitions. %LL T( 6(?17 4) T31 )(817S T3%T 01 .

who are coering9up late p.m. rai gandhi assassination case: who are thoseconspirators: who are trying to silence me:

5y sufferings began hand in hand with my crusade. I hae raised ariousissues of social concern from time to time at the appropriate leels, one ofthose is L%T1 ).5. 7%JI? >%23I %S%SSI2%TI(2 6%S1. where9in only thetools of the conspirator/s were punished where as the conspirators areroaming free. i hae raised this topic of inequity , traesty of ustice and
http://www.judicialreforms.org/files/impact_recent_judgement_rural_poor.pdfhttp://www.judicialreforms.org/files/changing_trends_pil.pdfhttp://www.judicialreforms.org/files/impact_recent_judgement_rural_poor.pdfhttp://www.judicialreforms.org/files/changing_trends_pil.pdf


49/65

sought a fair, proper enquiry& trial , at arious forums. but to no aail.the conspirators were disturbed by this and tried to silence me bythreatening me, physically assaulting me and een made attempts to murderme. they preented me from appearing before the J%I2 6(55ISSI(2 (12V4I7I2117I2> 5%2


50/65


51/65

secured by inestigators, in which, he is heard saying that he told)rabha*aran oer the intercom in %sho*a 3otel that O7ai >andhi stabbedhim in

Documents

Late Prime Miniter Rajiv Gandhi Assassination Cover-up