In a Democracy Peoples' Elected Representatives are Duty-Bound to Ensure Accountability & Honesty of All Public Servants in All 3 Organs of State

AN OPEN LETTER TO WHOSOEVER HAS SO FAR FAILED TO EVEN PERUSE THE EMAILS CITED HEREIN-BELOW, PLZ

IMMEDIATE 

Date: 01.08.2021 

To 

1) Shri Sanjeev Sudhakar Kalgaonkar

Ld. Secretary General, Supreme Court of India, New Delhi-110001 

2) Sh. H.K. Juneja, Registrar (J-V) Supreme Court of India, New Delhi-110001 

3) Branch Officer (Section-XVII) Supreme Court of India, New Delhi-110001 

4) Shri Narendra Damodardas Modi

Hon'ble Prime Minister of India

PMO, Central Secretariat (South Block) New Delhi-110011 

5) Shri Om Birla

Hon'ble Speaker of Lok Sabha, Parliament House, New Delhi-110001 

6) His Excellency Shri Ram Nath Kovind

President of India, Rashtrapati Bhavan, New Delhi-110004 

7) Hon'ble Chief Justice NV Ramana

Chief Justice of India, Supreme Court of India, New Delhi-110001

8) Armed Forces Veterans' Cell 

9) Shri Adhir Ranjan Chowdhury 

Leader of Opposition (Lok Sabha) Parliament Secretariat, New Delhi-110001   

10) Media & Hon'ble MPs (as per List).

Your Excellency/ Dear Sir/ Madam,

1) Reference my emails dated 25.07.2021, 28.07.2021 & 29.07.2021 to all the above-mentioned Addressees, and my SMS dated 27.07.2021 addressed to 2nd Addressee (on his Mobile No. 9811583630 from my Mobile No.8090077222) plz.

2) I am a Direct Permanent Commissioned Officer & 1971-War Veteran, and a Senior Citizen; at present, I have no source of income due to several Miscarriages of Justice -- details thereof are already before Hon'ble Supreme Court vide, inter alia, Crl MPs Nos.63039/2020, 95015/2020 & 73005/2018 in Crl MP No.4907/2016 in Crl Appeal No.577/2007, Crl MPs Nos.6576/2015, 12800/2015, 4907/2016, 121062/2017, 73005/2018 & 36340/2019 in Crl Appeal No.577/2007, and IAs Nos.154697/2018 & 81936/2021 in MA No. 256/2017 in Contempt Petition (Civil) No.64/2007 (since Supreme Court's official website shows these Numbers as "Reg. No./I.A. No." it is uncertain whether these are Diary Numbers or Registration Numbers).

It is pertinent to mention here that the Minimum Expenses (on Rail-fare, boarding, lodging, etc) for coming from another City to Supreme Court (New Delhi) for 2-3 days are Rs.5000; and the usual Expenses on local 'Authorised Representative' -- if engaged for physical Filing or Curing of Defects etc on my behalf at Supreme Court's Registry are Rs.500 per diem. 

3) Plz refer to Supreme Court's Circular No.38/Judl./2010 dated 25.11.2010 on curing of 'defects' by Party-in-Person at the Filing Counter itself; and it is a reasonable interpretation of Orders dated 23.03.2020, 06.05.2020 & 10.07.2020 passed by Hon'ble Chief Justice's Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No. (IN RE: Cognisance for Extension of Limitation) that the period of 28 days specified in SCR 2013 also stands extended till further orders. 

IA Diary No.81936/2021 in MA Diary No.24687/2020 was filed by me under Inherent Powers of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India read with Article 142 of the Constitution of India and also read with Order-LV Rule-1 of SCR 2013, but for reasons best known to him the same was classified under an irrelevant provision by Dealing Official at Filing Counter, plz. 

Paraphrased, for laymen's understanding, the following 'defects' were intimated via email to me by Section-XVII on 21.11.2020 in the above-mentioned M.A.:-

i) Nomenclature 'MA' should be used instead of 'IA', i.e. alphabet 'I' should be changed to 'M';

ii) Title of Application is not given on Page No.1;

iii) Supreme Court's Order should be included separately, instead of reproducing the same in the body of the main Petition;

iv) Prayer of Application is not 'proper';

v) 3 Sets of Paper-Books of Civil Appeal are required.

It is pertinent to add that vague 'defects' like "not proper" (without pointing out as to what is not 'proper' in the Petition, and without citing any Supreme Court Rule which lays down the "proper" format) are designedly raised by certain vested interests in the said Registry with a view to mala fide delay 'Court-Hearing on the filed Petition(s)'; a few examples are given below. 

My Authorised Representative (namely, Shri BS Randhawa -- Advocate & Senior Citizen) physically went, alongwith 1+3 re-typed copies (including signed copies, attested Affidavit, 1+3 copies of aforesaid Order, Letter dated 21.11.2020 addressed to Registrar about the aforesaid 'defects', Authority-Letter, etc), to Filing Counter for 'Party-in-Person' (in porta cabin at Supreme Court) on 02.12.2020 to cure the aforesaid 'defects', but he was told to come at 11:30 AM the next day since the relevant files had not been received from Section-XVII by the said Filing Counter; accordingly, my said Representative went again on 03.12.2020 at the appointed time. But no staff turned up from Section-XVII with the said files; moreso, entry to Supreme Court premises (for going to Section-XVII) was not allowed at the Gate to 'High Security Zone' even though my Authorised Representative possessed Proximity Card issued in his own name (as an Advocate) for Entry to the said Zone during non-epidemic period. Hence, after waiting for a considerable time, my said Representative had no other alternative but to file those re-typed Pages & Letter etc at the said Filing Counter at 12:17 & 12:19 PM vide Diary Nos.125894/2020 & 125898/2020, respectively.

My Application for Proximity Card was insensitively returned in 2020 -- although return of Demand Draft to Bank is charged at Rs.250; this is in addition to the Charges already paid for issuance of the said DD. Therefore, I am still without any Proximity Card -- which is an assault upon my Fundamental Right to Practise Legal Profession as an Advocate-on-Record.

It is obvious from my aforesaid Letter dated 21.11.2020 that only 4 pages were to be replaced with the re-typed ones and, under the Law of Equity, in the given circumstances this could have been easily done by the Dealing Official with the help of Class-IV staff in Section-XVII itself.

Moreso, it is apparent from Daily Proceedings dated 12.12.2019 in Civil Appeal No. 9396/2019, that 4 other matters (including Crl Appeal No.577/2007) were Tagged with the said Civil Appeal -- these were Tagged by Judicial Orders dated 26.10.2015, 28.11.2018 & 19.07.2019; hence, it was incumbent upon the said Registry not to destroy Paper-Books of any of these 5 Tagged Matters without specific & prior Permission of Hon'ble Court -- since many facts & circumstances were overlapping amongst these matters. In any case, within 3 days of passing of Final Order dated 12.12.2019 in the said Civil Appeal, I had also requested in writing (vide email dated 15.12.2019) the said Registry not to destroy Paper-Books &c of the said Civil Appeal. 

Hence, under the Law of Equity, the said Registry is liable to reconstruct the Paper-Books which it had wrongly or inadvertently destroyed -- it is only the power & prerogative of Hon'ble Supreme Court Judges to decide this Issue and pass appropriate Judicial Order(s), under the Law of Equity, about re-printing the lost Paper-Books at State Expense. Moreso, my IA Diary No.81936/2021 praying to Hon'ble Court (Hon'ble Judges) to direct reconstruction of the said lost Paper-Books of Civil Appeal, at State Expense, is pending; and I do not have financial wherewithal or a legible copy of the said Civil Appeal to photocopy the said Paper-Books afresh -- because Hon'ble Supreme Court's Final Order dated 12.12.2019 in the said Civil Appeal has not yet been complied with fully. 

It is pertinent to add that, after the aforesaid filing by my said Representative, Supreme Court's official website is not showing (under 'Case-Status') any 'defect' as pending even till the writing of this email -- a screenshot of the said Case-Status (with Time, Date & URL Digital Stamp) has been kept on record, plz. 

4) It is pertinent to mention here that on 22.07.2021 the Dealing Official in Section-XVII, for the first time, informed me during my telephonic conversation (I spoke to Branch Officer & also concerned Dealing Official at 2:46 PM on 22.07.2021 from my Mobile No.8090077222) that referring to my Crl MP No.63039/2020 in Crl Appeal No.577/2007 (i.e. moved in one of the aforesaid Tagged Matters) was not "proper" -- according to him, even though the said Matters were Tagged by Judicial Orders passed by My Lords!

When the said Civil Appeal was filed by me, the concerned Dealing Official had dubbed its Prayer also as "not proper" and insisted upon changing the Prayer-Clause in my Statutory Appeal to read "Grant Leave to Appeal..." (although the Appeal was filed by way of a statutory right and, thus, no 'leave to file' was required) -- this shows the sheer ignorance of such clerical staff (who are not even LLB) about the difference between a Special Leave Petition and a Statutory Appeal (some examples of such statutory Appeals are given in the document attached to one of my aforesaid emails); in another matter, too, the Dealing Official called my Affidavit as not 'proper' and insisted upon supporting even Questions of Law, Grounds & Prayer-Clause by an Affidavit! Moreso, a List has been arbitrarily prepared by Registry as to which Interlocutory Applications alone can be accepted by the Clerk at the Filing Counter -- it altogether omits Applications filed under My Lords' inherent powers, etc. 

To make matters worse, neither is any Supervisor of such officials (Clerks) accessible, nor does any Supervisor apparently monitor his/her staff -- it is quite probable that even my aforesaid Letter dated 21.11.2020 has not yet been read by its Addressee (concerned Registrar). With great respect, what is the purpose of appointing Advocates-on-Record IF Supreme Court's Registry is to be run by Clerks who have not even passed LLB, plz?

Moreso, Hon'ble Constitution Bench of Supreme Court of India has laid down in the well-known case of Mrs. Maneka Gandhi (passport case) that even Administrative Orders must follow the Principles of Natural Justice, but judicial orders as to 'lodgment' of Petitions are being passed by Registrars purely on the basis of 'Notes-on-Files' and without affording any Opportunity of Hearing at all to the Party likely to be affected by their Order -- twice such Orders have been set aside on this Ground by Hon'ble Supreme Court, but such practice still continues.   

5) It is pertinent to mention that Hon'ble Justice Kurian Joseph had passed Orders favourable to me in Crl MP No.4907/2016 (moved in aforesaid Crl Appeal No.577/2007) and, hence, certain Vested Interests in the said Registry did not List my said Civil Appeal for Hearing until 2 days after Hon'ble Justice Kurian Joseph retired -- the cause of action in the said Crl MP and Civil Appeal No.9396/2019 is common. 

Since Hon'ble Justice Rohington Fali Nariman belongs to a noble family and is upright & strict (recently his Lordship was instrumental in getting 2 dishonest Court-Masters dismissed from service and arrested) and my IAs/ Crl MPs point out similar intellectual dishonesty in some more staff of the said Registry, the Vested Interests therein have apparently ganged together to suppress my said Applications/ Petitions from reaching the eyes of Hon'ble Justice Nariman -- probably, they are waiting for his Lordship to retire on 12.08.2021 so that these IAs/Crl MPs could be fixed before another Ld. Bench.

In fact, there was an attempt to Transfer my matters away from his Lordship -- although it is a Universal Convention & Long-Standing Practice that Tagged Matters heard at length (leading to final decision on one of these Tagged Matters) ought to be heard by the same Hon'ble Bench; this Convention & Practice cannot be breached unless someone powerful specifically instructs otherwise. But my Application under the RTI Act asking for the Name & Designation of the individual who instructed/ effected the said Transfer, failed to elicit the Truth; hence, my Appeal to Hon'ble Chief Information Commissioner has been Admitted vide File No. CIC/SCOFI/A/2020/138165, and is pending for adjudication.  

Letter No.5217/AOR/2021 dated 27.07.2021 from High Court of Allahabad (Lucknow Bench) proves that the Supreme Court Registry has failed to ensure that BCI complies with Order XII Rule 6 of Supreme Court Rules 2013 and, thereby, failed to enforce compliance by Bar Council of Delhi of My Lords’ Order dated 12.12.2019 -- hence, to cover up its acts of omission & commission the said Registry is dilly dallying in placing my aforesaid IA & MA before Hon’ble Court (Hon’ble Judges); a scanned copy of the said Letter was attached to one of my aforesaid emails. 

Since certain events took place in the Court in the presence of Hon’ble Justice Rohington Fali Nariman, it is necessary -- in the interests of Justice, for My Lord to recall from memory the said events while his Lordship is still Presiding as an Hon’ble Judge in Supreme Court; otherwise, to meet the interests of Justice, after retirement his Lordship’s presence will be required as a Witness, plz.

In fact, the interests of Justice are being defeated in the absence of Hon’ble Justice Kurian Joseph since the Daily Proceedings recorded by Court Masters are contrary to what was dictated by his Lordship in ‘Open Court’, or what was not dictated at all in the Open Court.

Moreso, presence of Hon’ble Justice Dalveer Bhandari is also necessary to meet the ends of Justice since the Daily Proceedings in a matter in which his Lordship was appearing as my Advocate-on-Record, are missing altogether from Supreme Court’s Records (a Court of Original Record) and, instead of reconstructing the lost Court-Records, I was asked to prove an Oral Undertaking given by Opposite Parties -- whereas only Hon’ble Justice Dalveer Bhandari was present in Court on that Date (I was not even present in Court on the said Date) nor was Air HQ’s file summoned by Hon’ble Supreme Court for inspection & examination even though I had quoted verbatim excerpts from the said file and the said contents were never specifically denied by the Opposite Parties in Delhi High Court. 

Hence, it will be unfair & unreasonable for Supreme Court Registry to continue to withhold my IA & MA from the eyes of Hon'ble Judges; and, to meet the ends of Justice, the same ought to be placed alongwith Office-Report forthwith before the same Hon'ble Bench as had passed the aforesaid Final Order dated 12.12.2019 in the aforesaid Civil Appeal. 

I now have access to Internet, Video-Camera, Supreme Court’s Vidyo App and Headphones with Mike for about 15 days; I did not have these for a long-long time in 2020. 

For 4-6th & 8-9th Addressees, plz: In the interests of transparent governance & accountability of all public servants to the People of India in a Democracy, this is a fit case for a detailed Inquiry by a Parliamentary Committee since if WE, the Armed Forces Personnel, were also to abdicate OUR Duty even for 10 minutes, then in the modern technological warfare scenario half of India might be run over by the enemy. Moreso, what will happen if WE start pondering over as to why should WE make the 'Supreme Sacrifice' for those who are mala fide harassing US?  

The 4th Addressee is requested to kindly 'instruct' (it is a technical legal term) Ld. Attorney General -- who possesses ways & means to directly 'Mention' any matter, to Mention before concerned Hon'ble Court my above IA for Urgent Listing, plz.   

Yours Truly,     

(Gulshan Kumar Bajwa)

APPELLANT IN-PERSON

Advocate-on-Record (Supreme Court of India), Direct Permanent Commissioned Officer and 1971-War Veteran