Make your own free website on
Letter dated 12th November 2005
Home | EXpert Opinion | Letter dated 12th November 2005 | Judiciary is also responsible for protection of Politics-Crime-Nexus

By Registered Post or Emails

Dated 12th November 2005


His Excellency President of India Shri A. P. J. Kalam,

Rashtrapati Bhawan,

New Delhi


Hon’ble Chief Justice of India Mr. Yogesh Kumar Sabharwal,

New Delhi


Shri H. R. Bharadwaj,

Union Minister of Law and Justice.

Through Law Secretary,

SH   R. L.   MEENA

New Delhi


Dear Sir,

This has with reference to comment made by Shri H. R. Bharadwaj, Union Minister of Law and Justice, during an All-India seminar on “Social Responsibility of Legal Fraternity” held on 11th November 2005 in Delhi.


This also with reference to my two Applications both dated 27th July 2004 (1) jointly addressed to His Excellency Shri A. P. J. Kalam, Hon’ble President of India, and Hon’ble Chief Justice of India Mr. R. C. Lahoti, (As he then was) Supreme Court of India, New Delhi-110004 under Section 197 of Criminal Procedure Code and Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for according sanction to prosecute Justice A. M. Ahmadi, and Justice Dr. A. S. Anand both retired as Chief Justice of India, for knowing fully disobeyed the true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of India as by law established to cause severe damage to my fundamental rights, by not performing their duties not upholding the Constitution and the Laws, under some favour, and / or ill-will, and (2) addressed to Hon’ble Mr. R. C. Lahoti, Chief Justice of India, (As he then was) with copy to His Excellency Shri A. P. J. Kalam, Hon’ble President of India, under Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code and 19 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for according sanction to prosecute the personnel holding the Office of the Registrar (Judicial) and Joint Registrar of Section 1-B of the Supreme Court at the material time for disobeying the law, with intent to cause un-repairable severe injury to my fundamental rights, under influence or otherwise.


My aforesaid both the applications were forwarded by His Excellency President of India Shri A. P. J. Kalam to Ministry of Law and Justice. I am still awaiting response for the same from the Ministry of Law and Justice.   


Law Minister Shri H. R. Bharadwaj interalia commented that: “Justice Krishna Iyer and Justice (P N) Bhagwati were champions of liberty. Where is that jurisprudence now? It has simply vanished and this very Supreme Court has destroyed it.” He further commented that “Lawyers are staving and they are resorting to undue methods.” I must state that aforesaid statement can be completely corroborated with my aforesaid Two Applications and few other Letters addressed to Supreme Court, including copy of letter dated 9th November 2005 (Copy enclosed). I must say and submit that in matters of severe infringement of my fundamental rights, unprecedented in the entire country, the criminal activities of the Mafia Leader committed under his Nexus with Powerful Politician, fully protected only due to Supreme Court’s disobedience to its Constitutional duty to ensure safeguard of Fundamental Rights of the Individual Citizen. I must refer with full responsibility that renowned Lawyers like Mr. Gopal Subramanium, Sr. Advocate, and few others were starved for moral and ethical values and resorted undue methods to damage efficacy of the judiciary. Today or tomorrow Supreme Court will accept particularly with reference to my matters, that its orders were not beyond the mockery of justice.   


With Best Regards,

Yours faithfully,



Milap Choraria

National Convenor

Movement for Accountability to Public

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


C.C. To

1.                   Shri Milon Banerjee, Attorney General of India,

2.                   Mr. Gopal Subramanium, Sr. Advocate, for their kind information.

Copy of my Letter dated 9th November 2005 to Shri H. R. Bharadwaj,

Union Minister of Law and Justice, through Law Secretary, SH   R. L.   MEENA, wih copies to (1) His Excellency Shri A. P. J. Kalam, President of India, (2)   Hon’ble Chief Justice of India Shri Yogesh Kumar Sabharwal, (3)    Shri Milon Banerjee, Attorney General of India, (4)  Dr. K. N. Chaturvedi, Member-Secretary, Law Commission of India and (5)    Dr. Abhishekh Singhvi, Sr. Advocate, Supreme Court of India, for their kind information.


Dear Sir,


This is with reference to 2 news items: (1) under heading: “CJI slams accountability proposal”, in which then outgoing Chief Justice of India Justice R. C. Lahoti raised some points in respect of proposed Judiciary Accountability Council and (2) another under heading “There is no corruption in Supreme Court, says Lahoti” both published in the Times of India dated 31st October 2005 and 3rd November 2005 respectively.


On 8th November 2005, during his Bihar visit Prime Minister Dr. Man Mohan Singh rightly expressed that Constitutional Authority should be above any suspicion and their performance should be in such a manner, which does not invite any adverse comments. In my view too, no one whether he may be holding the Office of the President, Prime Minister or Chief Justice of India, should not be beyond the law, in true compliance of the basic principle of the democracy that ‘no one is above the law’. Otherwise compromise with official functions always possible. Yes, whenever, any system evolved to place the persons holding such high offices accountable before the law, system itself should contained the mechanism under which no one dare to misuse it, to malign persons holding such high offices. With regards to claims of Justice R. C. Lahoti that there is no corruption in Supreme Court, in my views this was unwarranted remark. Supreme Court is a supreme guardian to ensure justice with judicial standard. Therefore, Supreme Court is more accountable with responsibility to follow strict measures to scale the standard or corruption at its own level than any lower / sub-ordinate Court. Whenever slightest scope of bias or ill-will or favour is exists in any judgment or order of the Supreme Court or when it can be commented as mockery of justice, same cannot be beyond any suspicion thus should be termed as corruption.    


I am a victim of such corruption prevailing within the Supreme Court. Out of my severe experiences, here I am referring only one example. In the year of 1983, I prepared a Model of Civil Procedure Code. In the year of 1995-96, I referred the said model in a Writ Petition filed before Supreme Court. This was surprising fact that when I moved the said Writ Petition, Justice A. M. Ahmadi (then he was CJI) praised me for my working and advised and suggested me by way of the observation to forward my draft to Law Commission, without passing any order on the said Model, which I complied. However, on another suggestion referred and suggested in the Writ Petition the same was transferred before Hon’ble Chief Justice of India, administrative side. But, subsequent events suggests that subsequently when Justice Ahmadi sitting on administrative side on my said writ petition and gone through Model Draft of Civil Procedure Code referred by me, he appointed one Committee headed by One Senior Advocate of Supreme Court, being a Congress Leader to recommend suggestions for amendment in CPC. In my view this was a corrupt practice on the part of Justice Ahmadi. 


I am of the firm views that if my complete Model had been enacted as a Law, this would have been ensured adjudication of any civil litigation within two years from the date of filing, without creation of much new infrastructure or post of new Judges. Still I am of the firm views that if my Model is still enacted as a law, professional workload of Advocates would not reduce at all. Under my Model, workload of the respective Lower Courts relating to non-judicial or semi-judicial work would be transferred equally amongst all Advocates practicing in respective Lower Courts, ensuring best avenues and ways for training of new comer advocates besides sufficient income for them from government exchequer. This would save huge demands for creation of large-scale infrastructure and large numbers of post for Judges in the lower Courts. But, in the Indian democratic system, whether a politician or otherwise, under the impacts of personal interests or carriers no one is bothering about the national interests. 


After my bitter experiences from the Supreme Court against my fundamental Rights, in the year of 2000, I written a “Model of New Constitution for India”, which I also placed before National Commission to review working of the Constitution of India. In the year of 2003 I also forwarded my Model to His Excellency President of India. With reference to your proposal for Judicial Accountability Council, I am sorry to say that I am fully disagree with the suggestion that it should be constituted from within the Supreme Court Judges in the pretext to restrain interference from the Executive. In this respect I must refer that in the proposed scheme, scope of interference from executive is exists in considerations of the future carriers of the kids of the Judges as well as their own future, after retirements, particularly with reference to appointments in different commissions by the Central or State Governments of the day.


Independent functioning of the Judicial Accountability Council or National Judicial Council can be guaranteed only by ensuring that even after retirement from the offices of Judges of the Supreme Court or High Courts they would be remained as Members of Judiciary. Further more that the members of National Judicial Council or State Judicial Council should not be within from the sitting Judges of Supreme Court or High Courts. With this consideration, in Model of New Constitution for India written by me in 2000, I suggested Constitution of National Judicial Commission and its functions in the following manner:  

National Judicial Commission:

(1)    There shall be a National Judicial Commission consisting of all retired Chief Justices of India and other retired Judges of Supreme Court, barring those who are holding any other office of any commission or those whose health does not permits, or those named for any doubt full conduct. The Chairman of the Commission shall be Senior Most Member of the commission on the basis of service records.

(2)    Every member of the National Judicial Commission, time to time, shall be allotted their respective serial numbers on the basis of their seniority, to use at the time of their appointment as a member of a particular Bench.

(3)    No Bench of the Judicial Commission shall be constituted less than seven or more than eleven members.

(4)    Every Bench shall be constituted through a predetermined mechanism, under which no member shall be appointed in two Benches, until all of its members shall be appointed in one of the Bench. This shall be ensured under such mechanism that after every three months every member shall rotate from one Bench to another Bench. Such mechanism shall be evolved by a Bench of National Judicial Commission consisting of all members and shall be transparent to public. A supervising committee consisting of nine seniors most members of the National Judicial Commission shall supervise the compliance of such mechanism.

(5)    Entire proceeding of every Bench of the National Judicial Commission shall be transparent to public and shall be recorded.

(6)    A Bench of National Judicial Commission, consisting of all of its members, shall also make similar provisions and procedures for the State Judicial Commissions.           


Supreme Court

(1)    There shall be a Supreme Court of Bharat consisting of a Chief Justice of Bharat and other number of Judges, as may be recommended time to time, by the National Judicial Commission and sanctioned by the President in consultation with the Government of Bharat.

(2)    Every Judge of the Supreme Court shall be appointed, minimum for seven years, by the President by warrant under his hand and seal on the basis of the recommendations by the National Judicial Commission, after satisfaction on merit.

(3)    The age of a person, to be appointed as a judge of Supreme Court, shall not be more than 58 years, at the time of appointment and shall hold such office till attain the age of 65 years.

(4)    A person shall not be qualified for appointment as a Judge of Supreme Court, unless he is Origin born Bharatiya, and has been for at least seven years a judge of any High Court or is an regular practitioner as Senior Advocate of Supreme Court for more than 10 years.

(5)    The Chief Justice of Bharat Should be appointed, for at least three years and not more than five years, by the President on the recommendations of the full Bench of National Judicial Commission, amongst Judges of the Supreme Court, on the basis of names forwarded by Central Government after considering the names forwarded by the Full Bench (barring the judges named for the considerations) of the Supreme Court.

(6)    A Judge of the Supreme Court, including Chief Justice of Bharat, can be removed by the Full Bench of National Judicial Commission, on the basis of enquiry and investigation made by a judicial committee constituted for the purpose, consisting of one Supreme Court Judge and two Chief Justices of different High Courts.

(7)    A Supreme Court Judge shall not contest any election of any office referred under this Constitution and shall not plead or act in any Court or accept any other job, except as a Chairman or member of any Commission constituted in accordance with the provisions provided under this Constitution, at least for five years from his retirement or resignation or removal.

(8)    Oath.

(9)    Violation of the Oath taken by a Supreme Court Judge shall evident his incompetence to continue as a Supreme Court Judge.

Likewise provisions with some deference have been suggested for the State Judicial Councils.


I hope that you would consider my suggestions just in the larger public interest, democratic values, and also in the larger interest of the efficacy of the judiciary. 


With Best Regards,

Yours faithfully,



Milap Choraria

National Convenor

Movement for Accountability to Public

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