मेरे द्वारा अपने पति अमिताभ ठाकुर के साथ उत्तर प्रदेश के विभिन्न अन्वेषण एजेंसियों की जांच प्रक्रिया में सरकार के नियंत्रण को समाप्त किये जाने सम्बंधित पीआईएल संख्या 4055/2013 में चीफ जस्टिस शिव कीर्ति सिंह और जस्टिस डी के अरोड़ा की बेंच ने 16 मई 2013 को सरकार को प्रति शपथपत्र दायर करने के आदेश दिये थे.
इस पीआईएल की सुनवाई के समय जस्टिस इम्तियाज़ मुर्तजा ने मुझे अनुचित स्वर में कहा- ““इसमें पब्लिक इंटरेस्ट क्या है? आपने इसमें बताया है कि किन केसों में अन्ड्यू इन्फ्ल्यूयेंस किया गया है? आप बिना किसी रिसर्च के ही आ गयीं”. साथ ही मुझे व्यक्तिगत रूप से आरोपित करते हुए यह भी कहा- “अब तक आपने कितने पीआईएल फ़ाइल किये हैं? आप यह सब पोप्युलेरिटी के लिए करती हैं. हम देखेंगे कि आपने कितने पीआईएल फ़ाइल किये हैं और वे किस तरह के हैं.”
मामले में जनहित देख कर संतुष्ट होने के बाद ही चीफ जस्टिस ने सरकार से जवाब तलब किया था पर जस्टिस मुर्तजा ने सरकार के अधिवक्ता से प्रतिशपथ पत्र के बारे में पूछने की जगह मुझ पर ही अनावश्यक आरोप लगाए जिसमें उनका मेरे प्रति पूर्वाग्रह साफ़ झलक रहा था. मैंने इस सम्बन्ध में चीफ जस्टिस शिव कीर्ति सिंह को शिकायत प्रस्तुत करते हुए जस्टिस मुर्तजा द्वारा एक महिला वादी के प्रति अनुचित आचरण के सम्बन्ध में स्पष्टीकरण लेने और जस्टिस मुर्तजा द्वारा अपना पूर्वाग्रह प्रकट कर देने के कारण मेरे सभी पीआईएल उनकी कोर्ट से हटाये जाने की प्रार्थना की है.
डॉ नूतन ठाकुर
संलग्न- चीफ जस्टिस को भेजा गया शिकायती पत्र
The Hon’ble Chief Justice,
Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad,
Subject- Improper conduct by the Hon’ble Justice Imtiyaz Murtaza with the applicant
The applicant, Dr Nutan Thakur, wife of Sri Amitabh Thakur, resident of 5/426, Viram Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow is a social activist who undertakes various social causes related with different aspects of society.
2. That the applicant today (22/07/2013) appeared before the Bench headed by Hon’ble Justice Imtiyaz Murtaza in Writ Petition No 4055 of 2013 (PIL- M/B) at round 11.25 AM
3. That this PIL was filed by the applicant along with her husband, Sri Amitabh Thakur, who is an IPS officer in UP Cadre where they had prayed-“ to kindly issue a writ of mandamus to the Respondents No 3(Uttar Pradesh Vigilance Establishment), 4 (Crime Branch, Criminal Investigation Department) , 5 (Economic Offences Wing), 6 (Anti Corruption Organization) and 7 (Special Investigation Branch, Cooperative), the various premier anti-corruption and specialized criminal investigating agencies of the State of Uttar Pradesh, directing them to ensure in future complete independence of investigations and criminal enquiries conducted by them solely as per the provisions of criminal law especially as provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, in the light of the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vineet Narain & Others vs Union Of India & Another (AIR 1998 SC 889, 1998CriLJ1208, (1998) 1SCC 226) and Writ Petition (Crl.) No(S). 120 of 2012 (Manohar lal Sharma vs Union of India) and others and thus not to submit their investigation and criminal enquiry reports before their respective administrative departments for perusal and approval of their investigations and enquiries as is being done presently and to kindly issue a writ of mandamus to Vigilance Department and Home Department of the Uttar Pradesh Government (respondents No 1 and 2) directing them to immediately stop the current practice of calling the investigations and criminal enquiries of the above-mentioned investigative agencies for their perusal and approval and for issuing directions and instructions from time to time as regards the investigation and enquiry process as is being done presently and also to kindly summon before this Hon’ble Court all such orders/directions/government memorandums/GOs passed by the Uttar Pradesh Government till date (including Notification No. 4294/XXXIX (2)-33(10-3)-76 dated 03/09/1977 passed by the Vigilance Department- Annexure No 1) through which instructions have been issued by the State Government to these premier criminal and anti-corruption agencies to submit their investigations and criminal enquiries to the State Government for their perusal and final approval and to quash them as being against the provisions of law and as being against the interest of justice and wider public/societal interest.”
4. That the first hearing of this PIL had incidentally taken place before a Bench consisting of you along with Hon’ble Justice Devendra Kumar Arora where Your Lordship fully appreciated the point of view raised by the petitioners in this PIL and had accordingly ordered on 16/05/2013-“ Learned counsel for the State submits that instructions received are not complete but it was not disputed that there is a letter dated 30th October, 2006, as argued by the petitioners, which requires approval of the State Government of all the final reports prepared by the Economic Offences Wing. Whether such approval is required with regard to final reports of other investigating agencies indicated in the writ petition or not, should also be made known to the Court by filing a counter affidavit. The State should indicate its response to the prayer of the petitioners that the concerned investigating agencies described as premier investigating agencies should be permitted to file charge sheet without seeking approval from the State Government. As prayed on behalf of the State, list the matter after eight weeks.”
5. That a perusal of this order amply testifies that this Hon’ble Court, with Your Lordship in the concerned Bench, not only fully agreed with the contents and the prayer of the PIL but also directed the Respondents to present the status in this matter.
6. That the next date of hearing of this PIL was today, i.e. 22/07/2013 when the petitioner appeared before the Hon’ble Court before the Bench Consisting of Hon’ble Justice Imtiyaz Murtaza and Hon’ble Justice .
7. That while during the previous hearing, Your Lordship had already asked the respondents to file a Counter affidavit so as to bring the position of the State government on record, during today’s hearing Hon’ble Justice Murtaza did not even ask the State counsel about the counter reply sought by this Hon’ble Court.
8. That instead he started asking in an extremely rude and unwarranted tone, not at all befitting that of a Hon’ble High Court Judge saying roughly these words- “इसमें पब्लिक इंटरेस्ट क्या है? आपने इसमें बताया है कि किन केसों में अन्ड्यू इन्फ्ल्यूयेंस किया गया है? आप बिना किसी रिसर्च के ही आ गयीं” (What is the Public Interest involved in this matter? Have you presented the cases/examples where undue influence has been done? So you have come here without any research)
9. That Hon’ble Justice Murtaza did not stop here and he went much beyond his brief by starting pouring in personal allegations. He said (to the best of the applicant’s memory)- “अब तक आपने कितने पीआईएल फ़ाइल किये हैं? आप यह सब पोप्युलेरिटी के लिए करती हैं. हम देखेंगे कि आपने कितने पीआईएल फ़ाइल किये हैं और वे किस तरह के हैं.” (How many PILs have you already filed? You do all this for popularity. I will have a look at each of these PILs)
10. That it kindly needs to be noted that the petitioner had clearly presented in the PIL the brief facts about herself and her previous works. Here she quotes it again- “That petitioner No 2 is a social activist and freelance journalist who wants to genuinely and positively contribute to the society in all possible ways. She works primarily in the field of transparency and accountability in governance, Human Rights and assisting in the enforcement of Rule of law. The matter being presented here is primarily related with the enforcement of Rule of law as enshrined in the Constitution of India. The petitioner has filed a very large number of important Public Interest Litigations which include WP No 3028 of 2011 (PIL-MB) about exorbitant rise of Airfares during emergency periods, WP No 1361 of 2012 (M/B) as regards the “Model Code Of Conduct For The Guidance Of Political Parties And Candidates” issued by the Election Commission of India, WP No 1061 of 2013 (M/B) where she challenged the appointment process of various State Government Commissions etc including the way Sri K C Pandey was made the Vice Chairman of Ganna Sansthan despite being an accused in a very serious case, PIL No 1587 of 2013 for enforcement of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 which has been enacted to safeguard the interests of the hapless and helpless children who become victims of sexual abuse etc. She recently filed a PIL No 2717 of 2013 for formation of Child Commission in Uttar Pradesh.”
11. That this being a PIL, in pursuance of Rule 1, subrule (3A) of Chapter XXII of the Allahabad High Court Rules 1952 the petitioners had not only presented their personal credibility but at Para 15 of the PIL , in pursuance of the above Rule 1(3A) of the High Court Rules, the petitioners had stated that the public cause they are seeking to espouse through this Writ Petition is to insure the strict compliance of law whereby the independence of the premier criminal and anti-corruption agencies of the State is ensured and the unwarranted interventions of the State Government, with all powers and no accountability, gets ended and at Para 16, they had put it on oath that they are not filing this PIL nor have they filed any other PIL for any ulterior motive save the stated one nor have they received a single penny through any backdoor activity while filing these PILs and that they have no personal or private interest in the matter. They put it on oath that the result of the Litigation will not lead to any undue gain to them or anyone associated with them or any undue loss to any person, body of persons or to the State.
12. That it is quite obvious from a reading of the order dated 16/05/2013 that Your Lordship was completely satisfied with all these facts and only after having taken the preliminary objections as regards the petitioners’ credibility and the Public Interest of the Writ Petition, Your Lordship ordered the State counsel to file a counter reply.
13. That thus while Hon’ble Justice Murtaza should have proceeded further from the order already passed by this Hon’ble Court, he instead started showing some kind of personal anathema and disliking for the petitioner, the reason for which the petitioner completely fails to understand and which only Hon’ble Justice Murtaza would be in a position to explain. Thus on the one hand, no counter reply was sought from the respondents as was directed in the last hearing, and on the other Hon’ble Justice Imtiyaz Murtaza showed his preconceived notions about the applicant in an extremely brazen manner.
14. That the use of words personally targeted towards the applicant, where Hon’ble Justice Murtaza said that the applicant is doing all this merely for popularity are deeply hurting to her and are definitely ill-intentioned and malafide in nature where the applicant feels that through the words spoken by Hon’ble Justice Murtaza, imputation has been made concerning the applicant intending to harm, and knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the applicant’s reputation before the people listening to his words and to that extent the applicant seriously feels that she has been defamed to that extent.
15. That the applicant would like to make it very clear that like everyone else (including possibly Hon’ble Justice Murtaza), she also likes a good name for herself and she also feels happy when people say that they know her or her good works done. To try to be well-known, respected and “popular” is a common human weakness and the applicant is not devoid of that. But to be solely drive by “popularity” is not the applicant’s trait and the applicant says it in very strong words that she takes great exceptions to such words, spoken by whosoever it is. I hope Hon’ble Justice Murtaza understands it is not at all easy to prepare and present a PIL before this Hon’ble Court and to argue it before Hon’ble Judges, even for the sake of popularity. It needs lots of efforts and personal pain which the applicant undertakes only because she is concerned with the larger causes associated with the PILs she presents and is personally involved in them. The applicant would like to make it very clear that gaining popularity through filing PILs is not the easiest and best way to be popular and is certainly a very difficult road to undertake, which the applicant takes because of being imbued by certain higher ideas and ideals.
16. That the applicant is a lady belonging to a reasonably good family. Despite her personally strong background, she undertakes all these pain to contribute towards a better society, in her own little way, not to be belittled unnecessarily by any person, howsoever mighty he might be, including a Hon’ble High Court Judge. Thus, if she finds the Judge using such allegations against her on the very first day of his hearing PILs, she understands that there is something deep inside the Hon’ble Judge who seems to be prejudiced towards him because of extraneous reasons.
17. That the applicant won’t go down the drains if she does not file PILs on subjects of public importance and yet she will also not stop filing PILs just because some Hon’ble High Court Judge uses improper words towards her.
18. That the applicant, feeling greatly pained and hurt by these unwarranted, unsolicited and out of context remarks of the Hon’ble Justice Imtiyaz Murtaza brings this matter before Your Lordship for justice and appropriate action and makes the following two prayers
Kindly seek explanation from Hon’ble Justice Imtiyaz Murtaza from these inappropriate and improper personal remarks of the most unsolicited and unwarranted nature, made by him against a lady applicant who came forth for a public cause, where she has nothing to gain personally
Kindly direct the Registry that none of the Public Interest Litigations (PILs) already filed by the applicant or to be filed by her in future are presented before Hon’ble Justice Imtiyaz Murtaza because the unwarranted comments, which were directly veiled with some kind of threat have convinced the applicant that she would not get justice from Hon’ble Justice Murtaza and she does not want the PILs and the accompanied Public Interest in each of these PILS to suffer because of the preconceived notions of Hon’ble Justice Imtiyaz Murtaza.
Dr Nutan Thakur
5/426, Viram Khand,
Gomti Nagar, Lucknow
Lt No- NT/IM/CJI/UP
Copy to Hon’ble Justice Imtiyaz Murtaza for information and necessary action please