Baba! Don't oppose our Lokpal Bill

Posted on
  • Wednesday, June 1, 2011
  • This is our humble appeal that you should not oppose the inclusion of PM and CJI under ambit of Lokpal.

    Respected Swami Ramdevji,

    Since you have no practical experinces, and since wrong advise might have been forwarded that CJI should be covered within the ambit of Lokpal. For your kind information, I am citing an very important Majority Judgment pronounced by the Constitutional Bench of Supreme Court in the matter of K. Veeraswami Vs. UOI AND OTHERS, through Judgment dated25/07/1991, taken a detailed view (Citation:- 1991( 3 )SCR 189, 1991( 3 )SCC 655, 1991( 2 )SCALE150 , 1991( 3 )JT 198), and made CJI and other Judges of Supreme Court and High Courts accountable before law, after defined them as Public Servant, after examining the following important issues.

    However, Justice J. S. Verma is known for his desent judgment in the aforesaid judgment, therefore if he is opposing to include CJI under the ambit of Lokpal, it is obvious in view of his aforesaid desent Judgment:-

    Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947: Ss. 2, 5(1)(e), 5(2), 6(1)(c)- Public servant --Possession of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to known sources of income----Prosecution after superannuation-Previous sanction -- Whether necessary.

    Judge of High Court/Supreme Court--Whether 'public servant', liable to prosecution under the Act--Sanctioning authority--Who is.

    Sanctioning authority--Whether vertically superior in the hierarchy in which office of the public servant exists.

    Cl. (c) of s. 6(1)--Whether independent of and separate from clauses (a) and (b)--Rule of ejusdem generis--Applicability of.

    Independence of Judiciary--Whether affected by application of the Prevention of Corruption Act to Judges of High Court/Supreme Court--Issuance of guidelines by Court.

    Indian Penal Code, 1860: Ss. 19, 21--"Judge"--Whether includes a High Court/Supreme Court Judge--Whether 'public servant' under s. 2 of Prevention of Corruption Act.

    Constitution of India, 1950: Articles 74, 79, 121, 211, 124, 217, 2 18--Provision for initiation of proceeding for removal of a Judge-Whether a ground for withholding criminal prosecution of a Judge for offence under s. 5(1) (e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.

    Independence of Judiciary----Effect of application of Prevention of Corruption Act, ]947 to Judges of superior Courts.

    Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Ss. 154, 173(2), 173(5)-Offence committed by public servant under s. 5(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947--Complaint regarding--Investigation Requirements--Police report/Charge sheet--Contents of 190

    Evidence Act, 1872: S. 106--Offence committed under s. 5(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947--Possession of property disproportionate to known sources--Whether fact within special knowledge of the public servant--Burden of proof----On whom.

    Words and Phrases.' "satisfactorily account"--Meaning of.

    Statutory Interpretation: Rule of ejusdem generis--Explained.

    That unless, the persons themselves holding the Offices of the President, Prime Minister and CJI themselves are responsible to protect the dignity of such offices. Therefore, this is my humble appeal you should not oppose the inclusion of PM and CJI under ambit of Lokpal.

    Milap Choraria

    Milap Choraria

    B-5/52, Sector-7, Rohini, New Delhi-110085

    Next previous
    Copyright (c) 2011दखलंदाज़ी
    दखलंदाज़ी जारी रहे..!