Make your own free website on Tripod.com

Indian Dynastic Democracy

Complaint2CJI
Home | Sonia Gandhi | SCJudgmentSoniaGandhi | HCJudgment-RMM | Complaint2CJI | Reminder2CJI | ItalianConstitution | CitizenshipLawItaly | CovertInformation | GopalSubramanium | Orders-MyWritPetition | ItalianEmbasies | MilonBanerjee

COMPLAINT TO CJI AGAINST JUSTICE VIJENDRA JAIN AND JUSTICE SWATANTRA KUMAR dated 7th May, 2007

STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL COMPLAINT

To,

Hon’ble Chief Justice of India Mr. K. G. Balakrishanan,

5, Krishna Menon Marg,

New Delhi-110011

 

Sub: Complaint against “FIXED ORDERS”, passed by the respective Hon’ble Judges of Delhi High Court, at the cost of the Integrity of the Propriety and Sovereignty of the Constitution of India and in serious violation of the Oath taken under Article 219 of the Constitution of India, just to save the political carrier, because of the foreign origin of Smt. Sonia Gandhi, who’s allegiance to a foreign State (ITALY) is acknowledged and prevails permanently, unequivocally and irrevocably under the Constitution of Italy and Citizenship Law of Italy.

 

Hon’ble Lordship,

 

With reference to the recent observations made by the Prime Minister of India Dr. Manmohan Singh, thereby suggesting that judiciary should not breach the demarcated boundary fixed by the Constitution and an apparent rejoinder from an Hon’ble Bench from the Supreme Court appears that claims of the judicial activism is a misnomer since the legislature has failed to enact laws.

 

This is reflective of the fact that how low the moral standard of our society has gone down. No part or parcel of the system is beyond the effect of such moral degradation. Hence, there is need to examine the matter in a right perspective, if we want to strike at the very root of such a melee. It is a matter of serious concern that the then our great Prime Ministers like Jawahar Lal Nehru, Lal Bahadur Shastri, Morarji Bhai Desai never thought of uttering such words, while a Prime Minister like (I met him about 7/8 times when he was Finance Minister and this was my firm conclusion that there is no doubt that he is a good economist, besides also being a good bureaucrat is therefore a good subordinate to his boss, whosoever it might be, as well), Dr. Manmohan Singhji even how could think of making such an extreme remark against the very judiciary, not only the third pillar of any given democracy, but the balancing force between the rest of the two viz. the executive and the legislature. Why? This is an important question which has to be looked into by the Judiciary itself, evaluating its own working, in a dispassionate manner without any bias or preconceived notion.

 

With due respect, I must submit that I do have full faith in the judicial system and respect for the judiciary, but at the same time, being a Citizen of India I also feel that this is my humble duty to point out some of the missings that is reflected, in the fairness, in the judiciary as appeared to me in certain cases under the direct impact of the embracement of the newly grown and developed ‘judicial mafiadom’. But, before coming to this point, I should be allowed to refer some of my good experiences based on serious judicial sensitivity. Only thereafter, I myself may also try to answer of the aforesaid developments based on my own sufferings. I hope that for the protection of the true efficacy of the judiciary, my this representation would produce some good results, contrary to my past experiences.         

 

My Very Good experiences based on serious judicial sensitivity:-

In or about in the year of 1980-82 Birla’s Hindalco moved before the Kolkata High Court challenging the Aluminium Control Order. I intervened in the matter, but my petition was dismissed by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dipak Sen of the Kolkata High Court, just on the grounds that I was not personally interested party in the matter. In the said matter the present Hon’ble Attorney General Mr. Milon Bonerjee, appeared on behalf of the MMTC in his the then capacity as Addl. Solicitor General of India. On behalf of the Birla’s Hindalco senior Most Lawyers of the country including Mr. Sidharth Shankar Ray, Bar-at-law, Mr. Dipankar Gupta, Bar-at-law, Mr. Bhasker Gupta Bar-at-law, and a number of other Senior Advocates appeared to oppose my aforesaid intervention Petition. However, after dismissal of my said Petition, I started sending telegraphic messages to the Union of India and Hon’ble Chief Justice of India. Finally Birla lost the said case in the Supreme Court. This was a case of serious judicial sensitivity.

 

In another case, I challenged Merger of Indian Aluminium Co. Limited (INDAL) with the Mahindra & Mahindra Limited with the strong supporting prima facie evidences against the merger, though the merger proposal was fully supported by the then Government headed by Prime Minister Smt. Indira Gandhi, and was in full and final swing. I feel that this matter of challenge of merger by me was within the knowledge of the Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarun Chatterjee, as he then was Advocate of Kolkata High Court, if I am not wrong. Finally, upon my telegraphic petition to the then Acting Chief Justice of India (then he was appointed for 4 days) Mr. P. N. Bhagawati, heard all the matters by the SC, which were then pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, 2 High Courts of Kolkata and Mumbai, MRTP Commission and Company law Board. Reportedly, after the cognizance was taken by the SC, the Government of India hurriedly went in to the course-corrective mode by declaring the merger proposal against ‘National Interest’, just in the nick of time, when the merger was at the verge of being implemented. This was another matter of serious judicial sensitivity. M/S. Indian Aluminium Company Limited was an important client of Mr. Dipankar Gupta, Bar-at-Law. So from the said looser of the merger proposal by his important client, Mr. Dipankar Gupta, Bar-at-Law, always considered me as his personal enemy at the cost of the professional ethics, and lost no scope to damage my legal or constitutional rights.   

 

In another matter I got arrested by the then Munsif, 5th Court Alipore (Kolkata), after lifting me by force in presence of more than 500 people, by fabricating against me and thereby implicating me in the false case that: “I was caught red-handed while I was tearing out some Court Records”. After coming out on bail, I lodged my strong protest in a Complaint to Hon’ble Chief Justice of India, Chief Justice with some other Judges of Kolkata High Court. Hon’ble Mr. Justice A. N. Sen of the Kolkata High Court ordered an inquiry in the matter, and after due inquiry, for the first time in the judicial history of India the respective Judicial Officer was sacked from the judicial service. I was having no political connection or other influence, but could get the justice, just on merit based on the impartiality of the judicial system. This was a strong and a very positive experience of the judicial sensitivity of a common man like me against a powerful lobby which was busy behind the scene inclusive of Mr. Som Nath Chatterjee, M. P., Mr. Dipankar Gupta, Bar-at-law, and a number of Advocates form Kolkata.

 

In my humble view the following developments could be responsible for such uncalled for comments targeting the judiciary:-

Now-a-days for the reasons best known to God, such sensitivity is not being seen in recent times. The Hon’ble Supreme Court appears to be a Court, as if, reserved only for the multimillionaires or those capable to wield influence in one way or the other, since the genuine Petitioners-in-person are discouraged through various means and methods, even by resorting to such methods as to change the SC Rules through backdoors, without any regard of the constitutional modalities. I am myself a victim of such backdoor manipulation and have immensely suffered by such amendments in the Supreme Court Rules w. e. f. 1997. If permitted, I could even supply evidence thereof, which I could get under the Right to Information Act, 2005, from the Supreme Court Registry. The Agenda and Amended Rule are referred herein from the File Notings of the File No. F.8(33)/92-Leg.II, which was the covering letter from the Ministry of Law and Justice addressed to the Registrar General of Supreme Court under the caption of sub: “Incorporation of a provision in Supreme Court Rules requiring security for costs from a petitioner filing election petition under Presidential and Vice-Presidential Election Act, 1952.”

 

The agenda Item No. 3 (at page 20 of the said file notings) for the meeting of the Full Court was as under;-

“To consider the submission note of the Registrar General regarding letter petitions receiving on Fax and suggested amendments to the Supreme Court Rules relating thereto.” 

But, in a most intriguing manner the Rules were amended, after recording in the minutes of the meeting relating to Agenda Item No. 3 referring that “The amendments proposed in Order X Rule 5 and Order XVIII Rule 5 are approved. Consequential changes be made in the related provisions. And Order XVIII Rule 5 was amended in the following manner:-

“The Registrar may refuse to receive a petition on the ground that it discloses no reasonable cause or is frivolous or contains scandalous matter but the petitioner may appeal by way of motion, from such refusal to the Court.”       

The changes in the aforesaid Rules, assigning the powers of Courts to the Registrar is unconstitutional thus void and obstructed the petitioner-in-person from citizen’s guaranteed rights to move Hon’ble Supreme Court for remedy against infringement of the fundamental rights. If this type of misnomer working is allowed by the Supreme Court to curtail the fundamental rights of Citizen, then naturally the politicians would be encouraged to make such comments as was made by the Hon’ble Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh. In fact I was possibly the first victim of the said amended Rule. Since in my Writ Petition Mr. Gopal Subramanium, Sr. Advocate, was amongst the Respondents. My Petition was neither Letter Petition nor a Fax Petition, but was refused to be registered, possibly just to help the respective ‘Land Mafia’ who had a strong patronage from Shri Jyoti Basu, the then Chief Minister of West Bengal and Shri Som Nath Chatterjee, M. P. and now Speaker of Loksabha, and was responsible to hatch separate plots kill me and my son, as was referred in a news item of the Amrita Bazar Patrika dated 15th November, 1994, photocopy of the same is enclosed herewith. If the matter of registration as Writ Petitions in the Supreme Court Registry is left at the mercy of the consideration of the political clout of one party or other, then only God can help to save the efficacy of the judiciary, and thereby the democracy.       

 

In fact such comments made by the Prime Minister are the result of the new developments that are taking place in the working of the Supreme Court. Since, the Legislature and Executive have completely failed to protect the Human as well as Fundamental Rights of the individuals against the politico-crime-nexus, and to hide their own foul play they are crying hoarse in the name of judicial activism and thus try to take advantage of such developments to meet their own self seeking ends or that of their party, by just trying to keep the judiciary at bay in this way.

 

Now I am referring to an important issue relating the “Judicial Stamp” against the integrity of the propriety and sovereignty of the Constitution of India by the respective High Court Judges. However this matter also is directly related to and connected with a matter in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court admitted an SLP/Appeal against the Judgment of Delhi High Court dated 24th November, 2006 in the Writ Petition (C) No. 2960 / 1999, filed by Rashtriya Mukti Morcha against Smt. Sonia Gandhi. There is no doubt that in the said Writ Petition Rashtriya Mukti Morcha had raised a very important issue relating to a person of foreign origin holding the Constitutional Office in India. To decide this issue the Hon’ble Supreme Court is needed to sit on the interpretation of the Constitutional provisions. I also filed another Writ Petition (C) No. 7790 of 2006 of Delhi High Court with strong averment with prima facie evidences that Smt. Sonia Gandhi is just not a person of foreign origin but is also having her allegiance acknowledged under the provisions of the Constitution of Italy and Citizenship Law of Italy, as she never can renounce her “Right to Citizenship of Italy”, which undoubtedly prevails permanently, irrevocably, unequivocally and forever, and even if she might have renounced her Citizenship of Italy, it is always recoverable at any time on the expiry of one year from the date of her declaration to the effect in the prescribed manner, without any administrative orders. In the said Writ Petition I have filed copies of the Constitution of Italy and Citizenship Law of Italy in Italian language taken out from the Website of the Government of Italy with Copies of the translation in English, translated by the renowned experts, which under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 should have been considered as an Expert’s Opinion till otherwise not proved, since under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the onus was upon Smt. Sonia Gandhi to prove it as otherwise, if the same was not a correct translation. I also filed several other documents received from the websites of the Italian Embassies in different countries to adjudicate the same as a matter of fact, to form a prima facie judicial opinion that Section 5(1)(c) read with Section 5(2) of the Citizenship Act, 1955, are Ultra vires of the Constitution of India, which allowed virtual dual Citizenship of Italy as well as of India to Smt. Sonia Gandhi in view of Sub-clause (a) of the Clause 1 of Article 1 read with Sub-clause (c) of the Clause 1 of Article 13 of the Citizenship Law of Italy and Part I under Title I under Article 14(1) and 16(2) under Part I, Title IV, Article 48(3) and 54(1) of the constitution of Italy. In my said Petition on the basis of the Italian Law I pointed out that Mr. Rahul Gandhi is also an Italian by birth, while he is not an Indian Citizen by birth in terms of the Indian Citizenship Act, 1955.                                      

 

That under the Fixed Order the said Writ Petition was dismissed on 9th May, 2006, by the Bench headed by Hon’ble the then Acting Chief Justice of Delhi High Court Mr. Vijendra Jain, taking Judicial Notice of foreign Law contrary to or in violation of the mandate of the Supreme Court Judgment as also referred to in the Civil Appeal No. 4400 of 2000 (Hari Shankar Jain Appellant –Vs- Sonia Gandhi. Therefore, on 29th May, 2006, I filed an application under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code (though this was my technical but genuine mistake) for restoration of the Writ Petition on the interalia grounds that “NO COURTS IN INDIA CAN TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE OF THE FOREIGN LAW”. There is a serious apprehension that prior to hearing on 9th May, 2006 some one might have approached the Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vijendra Jain, because as soon the hearing got started His Lordship could pass an unwarranted remark that I the Petitioner was more experienced than the Hon’ble Acting Chief Justice. This fact I had pointedly brought out in my aforesaid petition dated 29th May, 2006 filed under Section 151 of CPC, Humbly submitting therein that: “want to white-wash the impression from the mind of the Hon’ble Court, as the same were appeared on 9th May 2006, in the way of the observations made by Hon’ble Acting Chief Justice, at the time of starting of the hearing of the Writ Petition that “you is more experience than us, but are you aware about 1946’s fascist invasion in the Italy.”.

 

Since I am a person, of very little academic qualifications and has just a Sixth Class pass certificate from a small village, hence along with my said petition under Section 151 of CPC referred to above, I had also filed another petition as my Written Arguments in support of my said petition under Section 151 of CPC. My said petition was kept hanging in the High Court Registry for a period of more than two months, for the reasons best known to the High Court Registry, if not under any other arrangement. However, considering the continued delay in the listing of the matter, when I submitted an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005, I could found that the Hon’ble the then Acting Chief Justice of Delhi High Court Mr. Vijendra Jain had issued Rules under RTI Act, 2005 and fixed exorbitant fees for application under RTI Act, 2005 to put a sort of obstruction or to dissuade the Information seekers from seeking information. However, the matter of the said Writ Petition was listed on 29th September, 2006, but for the reasons best known to His Lordships the then Acting Chief Justice Mr. Vijendra Jain, the Court was disbursed for the day after 12.30 (Noon), before the turn of the hearing of the said matter could have been arrived. Then the matter was next listed on 8th December, 2006 before the Delhi High Court Bench headed by the Hon’ble Mr. Justice Swatanter Kumar, and after hearing me the Hon’ble Court observed in the Open Court in presence of several Advocates to admit my said Petition filed under Section 151 of the CPC, under Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC, with further Observations that on the next date, Court will hear arguments on point of admission of the Writ Petition. In view of such Observations I prepared and filed Written Arguments in support of the admission of the Writ Petition prior to the next date of hearing.

 

But, subsequently I find that the order dated 8th December, 2006 on record is quite different, which suggests as I have sought the adjournment, without describing or going into the reasons for such an adjournment. In fact, had I sought the adjournment then I must have assigned some reason for seeking such an adjournment. My own assumption is that the said changed Order was recorded under some arrangement, if it was not a technical fault. On the next date the Advocate appeared for the union of India sought adjournment. Thereafter on the next date: 9th February, 2007 the Government pleader submitted and filed the copy of the aforesaid Judgment of Rashatriya Mukti Morcha, (which I had also filed much earlier through filing diary No. 307 dated 3rd January, 2007 before the High Court Registry) and pleaded that the issue (based on Italian law) raised in my Writ Petition was already decided in the aforesaid Judgment of the Delhi High Court. I opposed such submissions of the Government Pleader, because much prior to their aforesaid submission made on 9th February, 2007, I myself had already filed the Copy of the said Judgment dated 24th November, 2006 passed in the said Writ Petition of the Rashtriya Mukti Morcha as aforesaid. But, the Hon’ble Court again ignoring my submissions further went on even to falsely recorded that I have sought adjournment to study the said Judgment. However considering the attitude of the Union of India, making false pleadings that the issue raised in my Writ Petition (Civil) No. 7790 of 2006, was already decided in the Writ Petition (C) No. 2960 / 1999, filed by Rashtriya Mukti Morcha, on 20th February, 2007, I filed a Petition for direction upon the Union of India not to abuse the process of the Hon’ble High Court and to submit their Objection, if any, in writing.

 

In fact my only mistake was that I have referred and raised a very important issue relating to the Integrity of the Propriety and Sovereignty of the Constitution of India after studying and complying the entire Supreme Court Judgment in the Civil Appeal No. 4400 of 2000 (Hari Shankar Jain Appellant –Vs- Sonia Gandhi), particularly observations referred under paragraphs 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, and 31 and followed and complied the same to make averment with prima facie supporting evidences in my said Writ Petition as Smt. Sonia Gandhi was just not only a person of the foreign origin but was also having an absolute allegiance to the Constitution of Italy.

 

I say and submit that the facts referred to by me were never referred to in any of the Petition filed by Dr. Subramanium Swamy, or Hari Shankar Jain or Rashtriya Mukti Morcha, against Smt. Sonia Gandhi. By raising such important issue, as if I have committed crime in the eyes of the then Hon’ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Vijendra Jain, the Hon’ble Mr. Justice Swatanter Kumar and Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. N. Aggarwal of Delhi High Court, the Hon’ble Court even went to the extent of imposing a penalty of Rs.10,000/- upon me while in fact respective Hon’ble Judges were responsible for disobeying the oath taken under Article 219 of the Constitution of India disobeying the sovereignty and integrity of India. The Government Officers namely Shri Gopal Subramanium, Addl Solicitor General of India, Mr. P. P. Malhotra, Addl Solicitor General of India, Mr. Rajive Mehra, Advocate, also misused their public offices of the Government Advocates in consideration that the Union of India and its reins of powers are under the direct control of Smt. Sonia Gandhi, as she happens to lead the party, which holds the reins of power.      

 

Followings are the provisions of the Constitution of Italy and Citizenship Law of Italy which are required to be adjudicated as a matter of fact:

Constitution of Italy

Part-I, Title-I:

Article 14 [Personal Domicile] (1): “Personal domicile is inviolable”;

Part I, Title IV,

Article 16 [Freedom of Movement] (2): “Every citizen is free to leave the territory of the republic and return to it except for obligations defined by law.”

Title IV Political Rights

Article 48 [Voting Rights] (3): “The law defines the conditions under which the citizens residing abroad effectively exercise their electoral right. To this end, a constituency of italians abroad is established for the election of the Chambers, to which a fixed number of seats is assigned by constitutional law in accordance with criteria determined by law.”

Article 54 [Loyalty to the Constitution] (1): All citizens have the duty to be loyal to the republic and to observe the constitution and the laws.
CITIZENSHIP LAW OF ITALY NEW PROVISIONS ON NATIONALITY

ART.1

1. Citizen by birth is:

a) the child of a father or a mother, who are Italian citizens;

ART.13

1. “He who lost the citizenship shall recover it:”

c) “if he declares he wants to recover it and he resided or he resides in the territory of the Republic, within one year from the declaration;”

d) “after one year from the establishment of the residence in the territory of the Republic, unless he express renounced within the same term;”

 

The Italian Embassy in Chicago posted in its Websites that:

“PURSUANT TO ITALIAN LAW, A CITIZEN OF ITALY, EVEN IF HOLDER OF ANOTHER CITIZENSHIP, IS ONLY ITALIAN, BECAUSE IN VIEW OF THE LAW IT IS THE ITALIAN CITIZENSHIP THAT PREVAILS OVER ANY OTHER.”

“FURTHERMORE, THE LAW DOES NOT PROHIBIT THE INDIVIDUAL FROM HOLDING ANOTHER PASSPORT ISSUED BY A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT/STATE. SUCH PASSPORT HOWEVER IS AT ANY RATE IRRELEVANT IN FRONT OF THE ITALIAN AUTHORITIES, AS A SITUATION OF DOUBLE OR MULTIPLE STATUS CANNOT BE INVOKED BY A PERSON TO SUBTRACT HIMSELF FROM RESPECTING FULLY ITALIAN LAWS, WHICH INTER ALIA, PUNISHES THE ITALIAN CITIZEN WHO TRAVELS ACROSS ITALIAN BORDERS WITHOUT THE ITALIAN PASSPORT, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, EVEN TO RESIDE IN A FOREIGN COUNTRY.”

 

Since Smt. Sonia Gandhi is the leader of an important National Political Party and since her party controls the reins of the power and in that way to an extent could also affect the working of the office of the Prime Minister, therefore she is liable to be clean before the citizenry of India. Therefore, being a citizen of the country, hereby I also call upon her that if she (a) loves Indian Citizenry with heart; (b) obeying the protection of the integrity of the propriety and sovereignty of the Constitution of India; (c) do not intended to damage in any manner to the integrity of the propriety and sovereignty of the Constitution of India, for any personal gains and to hold control over reins of the powers; and (d) in no way intended to Cheat the Indian People on the issue relating to her allegiance to the Constitution of Italy; then she should come out with true fact for the knowledge of the 110 Crores Citizenry of India either to admit or deny in clear terms under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1972 that whether aforesaid English translations of the Constitution of Italy and Citizenship Law of Italy are correct or not. If the aforesaid provisions are correctly not translated from Italian language, she is liable to place true translation of the Italian Constitution and Citizenship of Italy under her obligation under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act with further obligation to declare that how she can renounce her allegiance to the Constitution of Italy since she is always tagged with her “Right to Citizenship of Italy”, under ART.13 of the Citizenship Law of Italy. More over Smt. Sonia Gandhi submitted a declaration before Election Authority of Rae Barreily at the time of contesting the Election for the 14th Loksabha that she has one immovable property in Italy. It means according to the aforesaid website of the Italy in Chicago, whenever she is in Italy, she is bound to travel in Italy only with the Italian Passport. These are very serious issues, which could have been decided as a “matter of fact”, if the said Writ Petition could have been admitted. But, respective Hon’ble Judges of the Delhi High Court miserably failed and thus unwittingly committed a crime against the Sovereignty and Integrity of India by murdering a genuine Writ Petition, which was filed in the larger interest of the Sovereignty and Integrity of India.

       

That before the formation of the Government after the Elections for 14th Loksabha, on 17th May, 2004 at about 10..00 A. M. I Faxed a Message to His Excellency the President of India. Now I got the Information under Right to Information Act, 2005 from the Presidents secretariat that His Excellency President of India, considered my aforesaid Fax Message. Although reply was not complete, as such my Appeal is pending before Central Information Commission.

 

But, by order dated 15th March 2007 His Lordship adjudicated the application after going through matter on merit and ignoring my Written Statements with reference to observations referred in the paragraphs 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, and 31 of the  Supreme Court Judgment in the Civil Appeal No. 4400 of 2000 (Hari Shankar Jain Appellant –Vs- Sonia Gandhi). If the Bench headed by the Hon’ble Mr. Justice Swatanter Kumar of Delhi High Court would have dismissed the said Application dated 29th May, 2006 filed under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code for restoration of the Writ Petition, just on its maintainability grounds then I have nothing to say against His Lordship. But, by order dated 15th March 2007 His Lordship adjudicated the application after going through matter on merit just contrary to the written arguments submitted by me, in support of the Writ Petition. For instance, I have relied from the paragraphs 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, and 31 of the  Supreme Court Judgment in the Civil Appeal No. 4400 of 2000 (Hari Shankar Jain Appellant –Vs- Sonia Gandhi), in support of the issue raised in my Writ Petition, and described them in detail in my written arguments. Ignoring the aforesaid written arguments with sole object to give wrong impact of the Supreme Court judgment, His Lordship  selectively referred the observations from the said Supreme Court Judgment, which was not relevant with the issues raised in my Writ Petition. Therefore this is evident of the fact that the said order dated 15th March, 2007 was “FIXED ORDER” passed in violation of the Oath taken under Article 219 of the Constitution of India, thus His Lordship falsely observed interalia that “all the controversies raised in the petition as well as the application under consideration has been squarely discussed and decided against the petitioner by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Rashtriya Mukti Morcha (supra). The petitioner has also relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Hari Shankar Jain vs. Smt. Sonia Gandhi AIR 2001 SC 3689 wherein it was held that despite grant of certificate of citizenship under Section 5(1)( c) of the Citizenship Act, 1955 and name of the petitioner appearing in the voter’s list, the question of citizenship could be raised in an election petition before the High Court and the Apex Court dismissed the petition. It was further stated that the presumption of validity and legality is attached to such certificates and till the time such certificate were cancelled, withdrawn, annulled, the returned candidate would be a citizen of India. The reliance placed by the petitioner on this case is no help to him and in any case as the similar question has already been answered by a different Division Bench of this Court in the Case of Rashtriya Mukti Morcha (supra), we find no justification whatever to recall the order in question.”.              

 

That His lordship further observed in the said Fixed Order dated 15th March, 2007 that “The petitioner, who appears in person, has been filing application after applications without any purpose and in fact, in our opinion, has abused the process of law.” I have filed total 4 (Four) numbers of the Civil Misl. Petitions with reference to aforesaid Writ Petition detailed below:-

(1) CMP No. 11950 of 2006 filed on 29th May, 2006 under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, with prayer for restoration of the Writ Petition;  

(2) CMP No. 11951 of 2006 filed on 29th May, 2006 as written arguments in support of aforesaid CMP No. 11950 of 2006;

(3) CMP No. 948 of 2007 filed on 8th January, 2007 as written submission in support of the admission of the Writ Petition, in consideration of the observation made by the Hon’ble Bench headed by the Hon’ble Mr. Justice Swatanter Kumar of Delhi High Court  during the hearing of the matter on 8th December, 2006; and

(4) CMP No. 3312 of 2007 filed on 20th February, 2007, under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code against false pleadings made by the Union of India that the issues raised in my Writ Petition (Civil) No. 7790 of 2006 was already decided in the Writ Petition (C) No. 2960 / 1999, filed by Rashtriya Mukti Morcha of the Delhi High Court. In fact this was totally unwise since the issue raised by the Rashtriya Mukti Morcha was that “Indian Citizen of foreign origin should not be allowed to hold any Constitutional offices” which requires Constitutional interpretation to take a judicial decision, while in my Writ Petition I referred the averment with supporting prima facie supporting evidences that Smt. Sonia Gandhi and Mr. Rahul Gandhi are having acknowledged allegiance to the Constitution of Italy, and that Section 5(1)(c ) of the Indian Citizenship Act, 1955 is ultra vires of the Constitution of India in view of the Italian Law, which was required to be adjudicated as a matter of fact, in accordance with the observations made under paragraphs 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, and 31, Supreme Court Judgment in the Civil Appeal No. 4400 of 2000 (Hari Shankar Jain Appellant –Vs- Sonia Gandhi).

 

Most surprisingly Special Bench always sat on Fridays. But for the reasons best known to His Lordship the order was pronounced on 15th March, 2007 which was not the Friday, as a result I missed to attend the Hon’ble Court, when the said Order was passed. Under the circumstances, I have decided to lodge my strong complaint against “FIXED ORDERS” passed by the respective Judges of Delhi High Court, at the cost of the Integrity of the Propriety and Sovereignty of the Constitution of India. I hope that in the larger public as well as national interests and to save efficacy of the judiciary Your Lordship would initiate an judicial inquiry secret or otherwise by some sitting Judge of the Supreme Court in the whole matter referred herein. For my bona-fide-ness, I am sending copies of this ‘strictly confidential complaint’ to His Excellency President of India Dr. A. P. J. Kalam, besides all whose names are referred so they can contradict if they found any thing false, including Hon’ble Mr. Justice Swatanter Kumar, Smt. Sonia Gandhi and Mr. Gopal Subramanium, Addl. Solicitor-General of India. 

 

With Best Regards and Respects,

Your Honor’s faithfully,

 

 

(Milap Choraria)

Dated 7th May, 2007

Copy to: His Excellency President of India Dr. A. P. J. Kalam, with request to save and protect the Integrity of the Propriety and Sovereignty of the Constitution of India

Enter content here

Enter supporting content here

Truth is God