Rashid Khan Pathan Email: rkp01786@gmail.com: March 2021

CJI’s office records have exposed the forgery by two Judges of the Supreme Court.

Perjury petition filed against the accused Supreme Court Judges

Justice Aniruddha Bose & Justice (Retd.) Deepak Gupta’s attempt to defame the then Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi by fabricating false evidences has been exposed by the Supreme Court registry.

[Download the copy of petition and relevant documents.]

Seprate contempt petition is also filed against the Five Judges of the Supreme Court for their refusal to follow the binding.

Attorney General for India has already intimated the petitioner that he can place the matter before Supreme Court for contempt action against the said Judges & one Sr. Counsel.

The conspiracy of two Judges was to defame the then Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi by making it appear that Mr. Gogai had framed the lawyers of Adivasi backward community and Human Right activists of Minority Muslim Community, by unlawful means by assigning the case to accused Judges.

In a similar case, Supreme Court in the matter between Govind Mehta vs. State of Bihar AIR 1971 SC 1708, had ordered prosecution of guilty Judges.

Both the Judges are accused of framing innocent lawyers and minority muslim activist.

Justice L. Nageshwar Rao, is also in trouble for joining the conspiracy by approving the illegality despite the said judgment being overruled by larger Bench in Prashant Bhushan case.

In Re : Prashant Bhushan’s Case (2021) 1 SCC 745, the larger three Judge Bench has specifically overruled the judgment In Re : Vijay Kurle 2020 SCC OnLine SC 407, and has ruled that the Supreme Court judges should follow the mandatory requirement of adhering to P.N. Duda’s guidelines before taking suo – moto cognizance of criminal contempt.

Despite said fact, being brought to the notice of smaller Bench of Justice L. Nageshwar Rao & Justice Aniruddha Bose, they refused to review the judgment and thereby tried to save the accused Judges and frame a minority muslim Human Rights activist and President of Indian Bar Association in a frivolous charge.

Full bench in Bal Thackrey’s case (2005)1 SCC 254, had ruled that such conviction and sentence stand vitiated.

The Petitioner Sh. Rashid Khan Pathan had filed a Perjury petition under section 340 of Cr. P. C. for initiating prosecution against guilty Judges for offences U/sec. 218, 219, 166, 166A, 192, 193, 199, 196, 200, 201, 202, 203, 466, 471, 474, 120(B) r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code.

Other accused are Sr. Counsel Siddharth Luthra (Delhi), Adv. Milind Sathe, (BBA) (Mumbai) & Mr. Kaiwan Kalyaniwala, BILS (Mumbai).

New Delhi :- The conspiracy of two Judges & one Sr. Counsel of Supreme Court to defame the then Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi by creating false evidence in his name and framing the President of Bar Association belonging to Adivasi Backward Community and Human Rights Activist of Minority Muslim community is exposed by Chief Justice of India’s office and now the Petitioner has filed a perjury Petition to prosecute the three Judges and 3 advocates.

This article is divided in following parts.

1. Brief background

2. The prayers in the petition.

3. Download the copy of petition and relevant documents.

BRIEF BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

1.1. As per order dated 12.03.2019 the Bench of Justice R.F. Nariman & Justice Vineet Saran convicted a lawyer for his alleged inappropriate argument on earlier date. The conviction was without issuing any show cause notice without any trial and without giving any opportunity to the said lawyer an opportunity to explain his stand.

It was grossly illegal for the very reason that it was against the binding precedent by Full Bench in Dr. L.P. Mishra’s case (1998) 7 SCC 379, Ramesh Maharaj’s case (1978) 2 WLR 902 which mandates that no advocates or any person can be sentenced without issuing show-cause notice clearly mentioning the special charge and without giving him an opportunity to explain his stand.

The Nine Judge bench of US supreme Court had termed such judgments as substantial fraud and such judgment should not be respected by any Court in the world. It observed thus;

“In common sense and common honesty, the sentence of the tribunal which first punishes and then hears the party, castigatque, auditque. Such sentences 'as mere mockeries, and as in no just sense judicial proceedings;' and are charecterized they 'ought to be deemed, both ex directo in rem and collaterally, to be mere arbitrary edicts or substantial frauds.' ” [Windsor 93 US 274 (1876) Nine Judge Bench of Supreme Court.] . Windsor Vs. Mcevigh (1876) 93 US 274, In Re: Terry 1888 SCC OnLine US SC 238

1.2. Justice R.F. Nariman also committed grave illegality by hearing a case related with his father Adv. Fali Nariman. He is disqualified to hear the case as has been ruled by the Constitution Bench in Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association Vs. U.O.I. (2016) 4665 SCC 808, Re: C.S. Karnan (2017) 7 SCC 1, State Vs. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar (2011) 14 SCC 770. It is also against the Judges Ethics Code.

1.3. Indian Bar Association’s State President of Maharashtra & Goa, Adv. Vijay Kurle raised voice against such injustice done to a lawyer.

He lodged a complaint on 20.03.2019 before Hon’ble President of India and Hon’ble Chief Justice of India.

1.4. Since the offences against administration of justice were ex-facie clear and there was a reasonable apprehension in the minds of all the members of the Bar that such bad precedents may be used against them. Therefore any of advocate was duty bound to file compliant against the accused Judges. There is a specific provision in Bar Council Rules mandating the advocates to lodge the complaint against the Judges when there is a reasonable ground for the same. Specific law is laid down in R. Muthukrishnan Vs. The Registrar General 2019 SCC OnLine SC 106.

Also as per Sec. 51 (A) (h) of the constitution of India, it is a duty of every citizen to expose the malpractices in judiciary including the illegalities committed by the judge of a Supreme Court.

[Indirect Tax Practitioners Association Vs. R.K. Jain (2010) 8 SCC 281, Subramanian Swamy Vs Arun Shourie (2014) 12 SCC 344, Aniruddha Bahal Vs. State 2010 SCC OnLine Del 3365, Lalita Kalita (2008) 1 Gau Lt 800, Re: C.S. Karnan (2017) 7 SCC 1, Bathina R. Reddy Vs. State AIR 1952 SC 149]

1.5. The Supreme Court had set-up the ‘In-House-Procedure’ for enquiry complaint against Supreme Court & High Court Judges. [Additional District and Session Judge ‘X’ Vs. Registrar (2015) 1 SCC (LS) 799]

1.6. Shri. Rashid Khan Pathan, National secretary of Human Rights Secuirty Council, (Applicant) also filed one complaint on 19.03.2019, against justices Rohinton F. Nariman & Vineet Saran for their misuse of power to help an accused husband in utter disregard and defiance of the binding precedents of constitution bench of the Supreme Court.

1.7. After getting the knowledge of the said complaints, Adv. Milind Sathe, the close associates of Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman, from Bombay tried to get support from Supreme Court Bar Association & Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association to nullify the effect of watertight complaint lodged by the Indian Bar Association’s State President.

But the members from Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) & Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association, Bar Council of India, refused to support the said gross illegal act of the Bench of Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman in convicting an advocate without trial.

( On the other hand around 149 advocates from Supreme Court marked their appearance on behalf of the respondent. )

1.9. Said Adv. Milind Sathe of Bombay Bar Association & Mr. Kaiwan Kalyaniwalla of BILS who are close to Justice R.F. Nariman hatched the conspiracy and in their personal capacity they wrote one letter dated 23.03.2019 Letter. It was addressed to the Hon’ble President of India & Hon’ble Chief Justice of India.

The only prayer in the said representation was to not to take any action against Justices Rohinton Fali Nariman & Vineet Saran on the complaint given by Adv. Vijay Kurle & Shri. Rashid Khan Pathan.

1.10. As per the information received from the office of Chief Justice of India under RTI it is clarified that the said letter dated 23.03.2019 bearing courier ‘Id No. 36062021’ B. D. was received and placed before Chief Justice of India on 25.03.2019 and the same was closed with remark ‘filed’.

The remark ‘filed’ means the representation which is non-actionable, frivolous and requires no consideration. [Additional District & Sessions Judge ‘X’ Vs. Registrar (2015) 4 SCC 91].

1.11. After getting knowledge of the refusal of their letter by the Chief Justice of India, the said Adv. Milind Sathe & Justices Rohinton Fali Nariman & Vineet Saran again hatched the conspiracy to save themselves from serious charges and to frame the Presidents of Bar Associations belonging to Backward Community and Human Rights activist belonging to minority Muslim Community.

1.12. In furtherance of said conspiracy the Bench of Justices Rohinton Fali Nariman & Vineet Saran took the said letter privately from Adv. Milind Sathe and by suppressing the fact of refusal by the Chief Justice of India to take action, straightaway took the cognizance at their own in a case where they themselves are accused.

1.13. Such private communication with Judge is prohibited as per binding precedent and it was treated as gross contempt. [State Vs. Ravi Parmar (2007) 1 SCC 80, Subramanian Swamy Vs. Arun Shourie (2014) 12 SCC 344, State Vs. Radhagobind Das 1953 SCC OnLine Ori. 27, Registrar of Supreme Court of South Australia Vs. S. 2016 SASC 93].

1.14. Instead of taking action against Adv. Milind Sathe who gave copy of notice privately to the Judge, Contempt show-cause notices were issued to those who raised their voice against injustice and who were actually the victims. The notice was issued to the following 4 people; i) Adv. Vijay Kurle (ii) Shri. Rashid Khan Pathan (iii) Adv. Nilesh Ojha (iv) Adv. Mathews Nedumpara

1.15. The bench of Justices Deepak Gupta and Aniruddha Bose, instead of correcting the illegality and taking action against the guilty, adopted a total wrong approach and by ignoring the material on record, the binding precedents and the documentary proof , straightaway convicted and sentenced the Applicant on the basis of false and fabricated evidences.

1.16. However the judgment dated 27.04.2020 in this case is specifically overruled by the larger Bench in Re: Prashant Bhushan (2021) 1 SCC 745 observing that the suo-moto cognizance of contempt should be as per guidelines of P. N. Duda’s case (1988) 3 SCC 167 and the information received by the Bench/Judge should be placed before Hon’ble Chief Justice of India and only CJI can take the decision as to cognizance can be taken or not and if this procedure is not followed then the conviction and sentence stand vitiated as has been ruled in Bal Thackrey’s case (2005) 1 SCC 254.

1.17. But when this overruling of their judgment is brought to their notice they refused to recall their judgment and order.

1.18. The falsity and incorrectness of the story created by the bench of Justices Deepak Gupta and Aniruddha Bose, that the letter was assigned to Justice nariman by the then CJI is exposed by the Supreme Court registry by pointing out that the said letter was never assigned to any Bench and it was closed on 25.03.2019.

1.19. Based on different documentary proofs given by the Supreme Court registry, the Applicant had filed two petitions for taking action under sec … of IPC against accused judges Deepak Gupta, Aniruddha Bose, Rohinton Nariman, Vineet Saran and L. Nageshwar Rao.

2. PRAYERS IN THE PERJURY PETITION

2.1. The prayers in the said Perjury Petition are as under;

“i) To hear this petition alongwith the contempt petition Diary No. Provisional Application No 5199/2021 filed against the accused judges;

ii) To hold that, in view of law laid down in catena of decision and more particularly in Raman Lal Vs. State 2001 Cri.L.J. 800, K.Rama Reddy Vs State 1998(3) ALD 305, the fabrication of evidence and tempering of Court record to falsely implicate and sentence a citizen is not a part of official duty of a Judge and such Judge cannot claim any protection from persecution;

iii) To hold that as per section 3 (2) of Judicial officers protection Act, 1985 and in view of law laid down in Deelip Bhikaji Sonawane Vs State 2003 Cri.L.J. 2003, the Supreme Court is having power to direct the prosecution of Judge involved in utter disregard and defiance to the rights of the citizen as well as the provisions of the law and this being the similar case this Hon’ble Court is empowered to pass appropriate prosecution;

iv) To hold that, as per law laid down by the Constitution Bench and followed in Perumal vs. Janaki (2014) 5 SCC 377, and also in view of the law laid down in Raman Lal vs. State 2001 Cr. L. J. 800, when the judge of a constitutional court is involved in a conspiracy to falsely implicate the petitioner then the matter should be investigated and the court cannot draw any interpretation which makes the petitioner remediless;

v) To record a finding as per Section 340 of the Criminal Procedure Code that as per record of the office of Chief Justice of India it is clear that, the then Chief Justice of India Shri. Ranjan Gogai on 25.03.2019, found that the letter dated 23.03.2019 require no consideration and therefore passed the remark ‘filed’ and the case was closed.

But the accused Justice (Retd.) Deepak Gupta & Justice Aniruddha Bose fabricated false evidence in the name of the Chief Justice of India Shri. Ranjan Gogai that he forwarded the said communication to the Bench of Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman and used said fabricated false evidence in the court proceedings with ulterior motive to convict the petitioner and in their order dated 27.04.2020 made a categorical false statement that the said letter dated 23.03.2019 was forwarded by the then Chief Justice of India to the Bench of Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman.

They also created many false evidences, destroyed the documents from the Court record and committed offences as explained in concluding paragraph No. 13.

This was done with ulterior purposes to save Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman, Justice Vineet Saran , Adv. Milind Sathe, Adv. Siddharth Luthra, Mr. Kaiwan Kalyaniwala & Ors.

They misused their power with malafide intention to secure conviction of the Petitioner in a vitiated and frivolous charge of contempt.

Hence, they all are liable to be prosecuted under section of IPC as per provisions under Section 340 of Criminal Procedure Code as has been ruled in the case of Govind Mehta AIR 1971 SC 1708, K. Rama Reddy 1998 (3) ALD 305, Raman Lal 2000 SCC OnLine Raj 226.

vi) Direction to CBI to investigate and submit the report before this Hon’ble Court and take appropriate action as per law laid down in Sarvapalli Radhakrishnan 2019 SCC OnLine SC 51, ABCD Vs. Union of Indai (2020) 2 SCC 52, Sanjeev Mittal Vs. State 2011 RCR (Cri) (7) 211.

vii) To further hold that the conduct of Justice L. Nageshwar Rao & Justice Aniruddha Bose in their refusal to review the impugned judgment dated 27.04.2020 even if said judgment is partly overruled by the larger Bench and even if the falsity, dishonesty, fabrication of record and the violation of various binding precedents is brought to their notice, is grossest of grossest contempt and also a serious offence under Section 220, 219, 218, 201, 202, 203 r/w 120(B) & 34 etc of IPC and therefore, Justice L. Nageshwar Rao & Justice Aniruddha Bose are liable to be prosecuted and punished in same manner as has been done by the Constitution Bench in the case of Re C. S. Karnan (2017) 7 SCC 1 .

viii) Appropriate direction to secretary General of the Supreme Court as per provision of section 340 of Cr. P. C. and ruled by the full Bench in Sarvapalli Radhakrishnan’s case 2019 SCC OnLine SC 51 for lodging a complaint and persuing the trial of Criminal Offences before the Court of competent jurisdiction at Delhi under section 191, 192, 193, 196, 167, 166, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 218, 219, 220, 211, 466, 471, 474 r/w 120 (B) & 34 of Indian Penal Code.

ix) To hold that the ‘In- House- Procedure’ set up by this Hon’ble Court as explained in the case of Additional District and Sessions Judge 'X' (2015) 4 SCC 91, is different and independent and cannot override the provisions of section 340 of Cr.P.C., when the sitting Judge of the Supreme Court commits serious offences against administration of justice and if any petition is filed regarding serious offences against administration of justice by the Judge of the Supreme Court then as per law laid down in para 60 of the Constitution Bench judgment in Re: C.S.Karnan (2017) 7 SCC 1, the court is bound to examine the said petition;

x) Pass any other order in favor of the Applicant which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

3. PRAYERS IN THE CONTEMPT PETITION

3.1. The prayers in the said Perjury Petition are as under;

“a) To record a finding that, if any Judge of any Court including Judge of the Supreme Court, despite being shown the binding precedents, deliberately refuse to follow the said legal position and took a view contrary to the view laid down in binding precedents of Larger Benches or even Co-ordinate Benches or he deliberately tampers the records of the case or deliberately uses false evidence as genuine in the judgment, then such Judge is liable for action under Contempt of Court Act and any citizen can file Contempt petition before Hon’ble Supreme Court as per law laid down in (i) Re: C.S.Karnan (2017) 7 SCC 1 (ii) Badrakanta Mishra (1973) 1 SCC 446 (iii) Legrand Pvt. Ltd. 2007 (6) Mh.L.J. 146.

b) To record a finding that, alleged contemnors Shri. Justice (Retd.) Deepak Gupta (No.1), Shri Justice Aniruddha Bose (No.2), Adv. Siddharth Luthra (No.3), Justice L. Nageshwar Rao (No.4), Justice Rohinton Nariman (No.5) and Justice Vineet Saran (No.6) with full knowledge of binding precedents of Larger Benches taken a view against the law and ratio laid down by the Larger Benches of this Hon’ble Supreme Court as has been explained in detail in the memo of the present petition and thereby undermined the majesty and dignity of the Supreme Court and eroded the facet of rule of law. Their act is calculated to create confusion and impair the constitutional mandate of Article 141. It is calculated not only to undermine the respect of the Supreme Court generally, but is also likely to subvert the Rule of Law and engender harassing uncertainty and confusion in the administration of law.

Therefore, alleged contemnor No.1, 2 & 3 are guilty of 23 offences of deliberate and willful disregard of the laws laid down by larger benches of the Supreme Court and it amounts to Civil Contempt as defined in Section 2 (b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and punish them accordingly.

c) To hold that, the conduct of Justice L. Nageshwar Rao & Justice Aniruddha Bose in sticking to the judgment dated 27.04.2020 even if it is overruled by the larger bench in Re: Prashant Bhushan (2021) 1 SCC 745, with regard to the mandatory compliance of guidelines in P.N.Duda’s case (Supra) before cognizance of criminal contempt amounts to grossest contempt, judicial obstinacy and ex-facie proves bias as per law laid down in Shivanand Pathak Vs. State of W.B. AIR 1998 SCW 1908, The Official Liquidator, Visianagaram Mining Company, Limited, VisagapatamAIR 1952 Mad 136, Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra (2005) 2 SCC 673.

d) To record a finding that, the guidelines given by Justice Rang Nathan in concurring Judgment in P.N.Duda’s case are binding and cannot be said to be obiter in view of law laid down in Kaikhosrou Kavasji Framji Vs. Union of India (2019) SCC OnLine SC 394, State of Kerala Vs. M. S. Mani (2001) 8 SCC 82, and Full Bench in Bal Thackrey’s Case (2005) 1 SCC 254, Re: Prashant Bhushan (2021) 1 SCC 745, and therefore the observations by alleged contemnors No. 1 and 2 in their judgment dated 27.04.2020 are deliberate and grossly contemptuous and deserves strict action in addition to the other deliberate contempt.