आठ राज्यों में हिंदुओं को अल्पसंख्यक घोषित करने के लिए पीआईएल दाखिल

PIL to declare Hindus as Minority in Eight States

PRAYER

Keeping in view the above stated facts and circumstances and great goals of the Preamble, it is the most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ order or direction or a writ in nature of mandamus to:

a)  declare the Notification on Minority Community [1993 –SO No.816(E) F.No.1/11/93-MC(D)] dated 23.10.1993; invalid and ultra-vires the Constitution and its basic structure;

b)  lay down appropriate guidelines for the identification of minorities,  to ensure that only those groups of persons which are numerically inferior to the other groups and are in non-dominant position, enjoy the rights and protections guaranteed to minorities; in the alternative,

c)  direct the Central Government to exercise its power conferred by Section 2(c) of the NCM Act,1992; to notify ‘minority’ in consonance with the United Nations General Assembly Resolution dated 18.12.1992 and Judgment of this Hon’ble Court dated 8.8.2005 (Annexure P-1 and P-2);

d)  direct the Government to exercise its power conferred by Section 2(c) of the NCM Act to declare Hindus as ‘minority’ for States, where they don’t form a majority of population;

e)  take such other steps as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit to define ‘minority’ and allow the cost to petitioner.

Drawn on: 25.10.2017

(R. D. Upadhyay)
Advocate for Petitioner

कृपया हमें अनुसरण करें और हमें पसंद करें:

PIL for making Yoga compulsory

After considerable hearing the PIL for making Yoga compulsory for students of Class I-VIII and for framing a National Yoga Policy, Hon’ble Chief Justice of India posted the matter for further hearing on 29.11.2016 with another petition [SLP(C) 3987 of 2011] pending before Justice Lokur.

PRAYER

For the reasons stated above, it is the most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to:

a) issue a writ, order or direction including writ in the nature of mandamus or such other writ, order or direction as may be necessary; directing the Ministry of HRD, NCERT, NCTE and CBSE to provide standard textbooks of ‘Yoga and Health Education’ for students of Class I-VIII in spirit of the Article 21A read with Article 14, 15 and 21;

b) issue a writ, order or direction including writ in the nature of mandamus or such other writ, order or direction as may be necessary; directing the Ministry of AYUS and Ministry of Health and Family Welfare to frame a ‘National Yoga Policy’ to promote and propagate the Yoga in spirit of the Article 21 read with the Article 39(e), 39(f) and 47;

c) issue a writ, order or direction including writ in the nature of mandamus or such other writ, order or direction as may be necessary; directing the Ministry of Women and Child Development and Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment to declare ‘First Sunday’ of every month as ‘Health Day’ on the lines of ‘Polio Day’ to make the people aware about health-hazards and health-hygiene;

d) issue such other writ, order or direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit to secure the ‘Right to Health’ and ‘Right to Education’ and allow cost to petitioner.

GROUNDS

That petitioner begs to file the present writ petition inter-alia on the following grounds.

A. BECAUSE ‘Right to Health’ is integral part of Right to Life under the Article 21. It includes protection, prevention and cure of the health and is a minimum requirement to enable a person to live with human dignity. State has a obligation to provide health facilities to all the citizens, especially to children and adolescents. In a Welfare State, it is obligation of the State to ensure the creation and sustaining of conditions congenial to good health. Article 21 read with Article 39(e), 39(f) and 47, casts the duty on the State to take appropriate steps to improve health of the citizens and provide necessary information instruction and training in this regard. Every branch of the Executive has the constitutional obligation to extend his services with due expertise for protecting the life. This Hon’ble Court has reiterated that in an organized society, right to live as a human being is not insured by meeting only the animal needs of man but it is secured only when he is assured of all facilities to develop himself and is free from restrictions, which inhibit the growth. All human beings are designed to achieve this object. Right to Health cannot be secured without providing “Yoga and Health Education” to all the Children and without framing a “National Yoga Policy” to promote and propagate the Yoga.

B. BECAUSE for strengthening, social fabric of democracy through provision of equal opportunity to all has been accepted since inception of our republic. Article 21A, was inserted to provide free and compulsory education to children aged 6-14 years as a fundamental right and the Right to Free and Compulsory Education Act 2009 was enacted. Statement of objects of the Act says that every child has to be provided fulltime elementary education of satisfactory and equitable quality in a formal school that satisfies certain norms and standard. The legislation is anchored in the belief that the values of equality, social justice and democracy and creation of a just and humane society can be achieved only through provision of inclusive elementary education to all. Provision of free-compulsory education of satisfactory quality to disadvantaged and weaker section children is, therefore, not merely the responsibility of schools run/supported by the appropriate governments, but also of schools, which are not dependent on government funds. Section 7(6) of the Act says that Central government shall (a) develop a framework of national curriculum with the help of academic authority specified under Section 29  (b) develop and enforce standards for training of teachers (c) provide technical support and resources to State governments for promoting innovations, researches, planning and capacity building.

C. BECAUSE Union Government vide its notification dated 31.05.2010 had notified that National Curriculum Framework 2005 shall be the national curriculum under Section 7(6) of the Right of Children to Free & Compulsory Education Act 2009. NCF 2005 specifically says that yoga is core and compulsory subject of the elementary education thus it needs to be given equal status with other subjects. There are about 20 crores children, throughout the country,  studying in primary and junior classes at the cost of public exchequer. Yoga should be taught to them as a compulsory subject as per National Curriculum Framework 2005, notified under Section 7(6) of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act 2009. Petitioner filed this petition for proper implementation of ‘Yoga and Health Education’ at primary and junior level with the object to make our children healthy through Pranayams and Asanas. It is necessary to state that NCERT develops syllabi of all the subjects for primary and junior classes so it should develop standard textbooks of “Yoga and Health Education” for students of Class I-VIII. It is necessary to state that Three Judges Bench of Appellate Court of California (USA) has held that yoga is a secular. This Hon’ble Court has also expressed similar view in three cases hence it is bounden duty of the Executive to frame a ‘National Yoga Policy’ in spirit of the Article 21.

D. BECAUSE ‘Yoga and Health Education’ has become the fundamental right of 6-14 years children after enactment of the RTE Act. However, it is remained named-sake on papers and is the most neglected subject. Marks are not awarded for Yoga in annual exam and even the teachers of Kendriya Vidyalaya and Navoday Schools say that yoga is not a compulsory subject. It is very surprising that NCERT has not yet published standard textbooks of ‘Yoga and Health Education’ for students of Class I-VIII. It is necessary to state that without syllabus, without standard textbooks, without teachers and without evaluation of marks, there has been total failure in imparting the yoga education in spirit of NCF 2005. It is not out of context to state the total dichotomy between actual practice of yoga education and the ideal of yoga, as propounded by Hon’ble Prime Minister, in his speech before United Nations General Assembly on 27.09.2014 as thus: “Yoga is an invaluable gift of India’s ancient tradition. It embodies unity of mind and body; thought and action; restraint and fulfillment; harmony between man and nature; a holistic approach to health and well-being. It is not about exercise, but, to discover the sense of oneness with self, the world and the nature. By changing our lifestyle and creating consciousness, it can help in well being. Let us work towards adopting an International Yoga Day.”

E. BECAUSE Yoga is a scientific and universal method, a tradition and culture of self-discipline, self-realization and self-revelation. It is not a ritualistic procedure or a sectarian bunch of knowledge; rather a medical science and a life science. Besides being an excellent medical system, Yoga is a life style for an integrated development of life. It is an excellent and powerful means of self-control. Yoga is an emotional and practical process for diverting the flow of our thought arising in our mind in any state towards a positive direction and an excellent method of developing life skills. In every person, there are, on one hand, limitless divine qualities and potential of becoming a superman, a great scientist, a philosopher, a thinker, a manager or an efficient administrator; while on other hand, there are impure and cruel thoughts, which can make him an extremely ruthless beast, a devil, a criminal or a terrorist. Through Yoga, we can realize a fully developed personality, by developing own creative faculties, emotions, thoughts and capabilities. Yoga is well-tried and tested method of centuries to transform the feelings of indolence, despondency, lack of confidence, insensitivity and self-deprecation, which are deeply rooted in the mind, into self-control, self-conscientiousness, self- confidence, self-discipline, self-esteem, self-respect, self-restraint and selflessness.

F. BECAUSE right to education under the Article 21A has to be read in conformity with Article 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution. There must be no discrimination in quality of education. The right of a child should not be restricted only to free and compulsory education, but should be extended to have value-based uniform education without any discrimination on the ground of a child’s social economic and cultural background thus a common syllabus and common curriculum is required. Value-based uniform education system would achieve the code of a common culture, removal of disparity and depletion of discriminatory values in human relations and it would enhance virtues and improve the quality of human life, elevate the thoughts, which advance the Constitutional philosophy of equal society. Children are not only the future citizens but also the future of the earth. Education connotes the whole course of scholastic instruction, which a person has received. It connotes the process of training and developing the knowledge, skill, mind and character of student by formal schooling. Value-based uniform education will help in diminishing opportunities to those who foment fanatic and fissiparous tendencies. The world shall be a better or worse place to live according to how we treat the children today thus it is duty of the State to provide Yoga and Health Education to all the children.

Ashwini Upadhyay

aku.aor@gmail.com

कृपया हमें अनुसरण करें और हमें पसंद करें:

यादव सिंह पीआईएल आदेश : आईटी छापा ‘मेकॉन-यादवसिंह’ ग्रुप पर था – हाईकोर्ट

लखनऊ : इलाहाबाद हाईकोर्ट के लखनऊ बेंच में चीफ जस्टिस डॉ डी वाई चंद्रचूड और जस्टिस एस एन शुक्ला की बेंच द्वारा एक्टिविस्ट डॉ नूतन ठाकुर की यादव सिंह के खिलाफ दायर पीआईएल के पारित आदेश से स्पष्ट होता है कि यादव सिंह के घर पर 27 और 28 नवम्बर 2014 का आयकर छापा मेकॉन-यादव सिंह ग्रुप पर हो रहे ओपरेशन का हिस्सा था.

 

आदेश में छापे में 25 प्राइवेट लिमिटेड कंपनी के बैलेंस शीट में लीजहोल्ड प्लाट की भारी संख्या की बात भी सामने आई तथा यादव सिंह, उनके परिवार और निकटवर्ती लोगों के नाम पर किये गए कई सारे आवासीय और कमर्शियल प्लाट के अभिलेख कोर्ट के सामने रखे गए.

हाई कोर्ट ने कहा कि 24 फ़रवरी 2015 को भारत सरकार के वित्त मंत्रालय द्वारा यूपी के मुख्य सचिव को भेजे पत्र में स्पष्ट रूप से कहा गया था कि सुप्रीम कोर्ट द्वारा काले धन के लिए बनाए एसआईटी के आदेशों के क्रम में इस मामले की जांच सीबीआई द्वारा की जायेगी. कोर्ट ने डॉ ठाकुर द्वारा यादव सिंह को मायावती, मुलायम सिंह यादव और अखिलेश यादव द्वारा कथित रूप से गलत फायदा पहुँचाने के आरोपों का भी उल्लेख किया.

कोर्ट ने राज्य सरकार के महाधिवक्ता तथा नॉएडा प्राधिकरण के अधिवक्ता द्वारा याचिका का भरपूर विरोध करने की बात भी बतायी और कहा कि जब एसआईटी ने सीबीआई जाँच की बात कह दी थी तो संविधान के अनुच्छेद 142 तथा 144 के अनुसार उसका पालन अनिवार्य था.

कोर्ट ने कहा कि यादव सिंह के खिलाफ मात्र व्यक्तिगत भ्रष्टाचार या धन संचय का आरोप नहीं है बल्कि आरोप यह है कि उन्होंने पूरी व्यवस्था को अपना दास बना कर लगातार सभी सरकारों में गलत लाभ पाए और बड़े-बड़े बिज़नस घरानों को लाभ पहुँचाया. साथ ही उत्तर प्रदेश के पिछले और वर्तमान सरकार में राजनैतिक शह पर खुद को बचाते हुए अपने गलत उद्देश्यों को पूरा किया..

कोर्ट ने यूपी सरकार द्वारा स्थापित जांच समिति को अपर्याप्त पाया और 24 फ़रवरी 2015 के केंद्र सरकार के आदेश के क्रम में यादव सिंह और उनसे जुड़े सभी प्रकरणों में सीबीआई जांच के आदेश पारित कर दिए.

समाचार सविस्तार संलग्न तथ्यों सहित अंग्रेजी में पढ़ें –

Yadav Singh PIL Order: IT raid was for Maconn Yadav Singh Group

The Allahabad High Court, Lucknow bench order passed by the bench consisting of Chief Justice Dr D Y Chandrachud and Justice S N Shukla in the PIL filed by activist Dr Nutan Thakur for CBI enquiry in Yadav Singh case reveals that the income tax raids on Yadav Singh’s residences on 27 and 28 November 2014 was part of operation of the ‘Maccon Infra/Yadav Singh group’

It said that during raids huge assets in the form of leasehold land appeared in the balance sheet of as many as 25 private limited companies and that a very large number of properties in Noida, including residential and commercial plots, were allotted to persons and companies related Yadav Singh. 

The High Court said that the letter by the Union Government in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) dated 24 February 2015 to the Chief Secretary of the State Government for CBI enquiry was mandatory for State government because it was written as per directions of the SIT for Black money constituted by the Supreme Court.

The Court order also mentioned about Dr Thakur alleging favouritism to Yadav Singh by Mayawati,  Mulayam Singh Yadav and Akhilesh Yadav.

The order mentioned that the petition was hugely resisted by the Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State and counsel appearing on behalf of NOIDA

The Court said that once instructions have been issued by the SIT for CBI enquiry, the State Government had no option but to comply with the direction under Article 142 and 144 of the Constitution

The Court said that the allegations against Yadav Singh are not just allegations of personal corruption or of personal aggrandizement. The essence of the allegation is that Yadav Singh has been able to use his personal proximity in the corridors of power with successive governments in State by indulging in corruption, amassing wealth for conferring favours on himself, the members of his family and business associates and has been able to shield himself due to his proximity with the corridors of power both in the previous government and the present government in the State of Uttar Pradesh.

The Court did not find constitution of a Commission of Inquiry sufficient and adversely commented on the effort to protract and stall a credible criminal investigation even after the receipt of the letter of the Union Government on 24 February 2015 and directed CBI investigation into all allegations of corruption and amassing of uncounted money by Sri Singh and in regard to all transactions, persons and entities connected thereto. 

संलग्न तथ्य –

Copy of HC order in Yadav Singh PIL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?

Chief Justice’s Court 

Case :- MISC. BENCH No. – 12396 of 2014 

Petitioner :- Dr. Nutan Thakur [ P.I.L.] (At :- 10:15 A.M.) 

Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thoru.Prin.Secy.Home Deptt.Lko.And Ors. 

Counsel for Petitioner :- Asok Pande,In Person 

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C,A.S.G.,Bireshwar Nath,Dr.L.P.Misra,Raj Kumar Singh,Rajnish Kumar,Vinod Kumar Shahi 

Hon’ble Dr. Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud,Chief Justice 

Hon’ble Shri Narayan Shukla,J. 

Put up tomorrow, i.e. 16 July 2015 at 10.15 a.m. for dictation of judgment. 

Order Date :- 15.7.2015 

AHA 

(Dr D Y Chandrachud, CJ) 

AFR 

Chief Justice’s Court 

Misc Bench No 12396 of 2014 

Dr Nutan Thakur 

Vs 

State of U P through Principal Secretary, Home Department, 

Government of U P, Lucknow & Ors 

Appearance : 

For the petitioner : 

Dr Nutan Thakur, in person 

Shri Asok Pande, Advocate 

For the respondents : 

Shri Vijay Bahadur Singh, Advocate General 

Smt Bulbul Godiyal, Addl Advocate General 

Dr L P Mishra, Sr Advocate (for the ninth respondent) 

Shri P Tripathi, Sr Advocate 

Shri Uday Pratap Singh, Advocate 

Shri Keshav Mohan, Advocate 

Ms Anasuya Choudhary, Advocate 

Hon’ble Dr Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud, Chief Justice 

Hon’ble Shri Narayan Shukla, J 

(Per Hon’ble Dr D Y Chandrachud, CJ) 

These proceedings have been instituted in public interest by a social activist, who seeks a reference to the Central Bureau of Investigation1 to take up, enquire and register First Information Reports and investigate into the dealings of the ninth respondent, Yadav Singh who was, prior to his suspension, Chief Engineer in New Okhla Industrial Development Authority2, Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority3 and Yamuna Expressway Authority. 

The ninth respondent joined the service of NOIDA as a Junior Engineer on 17 March 1980 and was promoted as Assistant Project Engineer in 1989. After holding officiating charge as Project Engineer, he was promoted on 28 August 1997 as Senior Project Engineer, following which on 20 September 2002 he was promoted as Chief Maintenance Engineer. Ultimately, he was promoted as Chief Engineer. A First Information Report4 was registered as Case Crime No 371 of 2012 under Sections 409, 420, 466, 467, 469, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 18605 and under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 on 13 January 2012 at Police Station Sector 39, Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar, against the ninth respondent, one Ramendra, the then Project Engineer and two construction companies by the name of Tirupati Constructions Private Limited and JSP Constructions. It was alleged that within a brief period between 14 December 2011 and 23 December 2011, agreement bonds for the release of moneys were executed in favour of contractors in the amount of Rs 954.38 crores by the Engineering Department of NOIDA. Besides this allegation, it was also alleged that the work of underground wiring in respect of certain projects had been commenced by the contractor before the finalization of the tender document. The FIR alleged a huge revenue loss to NOIDA. The basis of the FIR was a preliminary enquiry report of three officers submitted on 9 June 2012. During the course of the investigation, an application was submitted on 22 October 2012 to the State Government by one Sanjay Jain, a partner of JSP Constructions seeking a transfer of the investigation. Acting on the request, a Government Order was issued on 3 November 2012 by which the investigation was transferred to the Crime Branch of the Criminal Investigation Department6. The Investigating Officer of CBCID submitted a final report on 3 January 2014 to the court of the District and Sessions Judge, Gautam Budh Nagar. A notice was issued by the court to the informant, R P Singh. The informant stated that he had no objection to the final report being accepted. The District and Sessions Judge, Gautam Budh Nagar accepted the final report by an order dated 27 November 2014. 

At or about the time when the final report was being accepted by the District and Sessions Judge, Gautam Budh Nagar, income tax raids were carried out on 27 November 2014 at the premises of the ninth respondent, following which on 28 November 2014 a team of nearly 100 officials conducted search operations at 20 premises situated in Noida, Ghaziabad and Delhi. There was a seizure of documents, jewellery and cash. On 8 December 2014, a communication was addressed by the Assistant Director of Income Tax (Inv))-II, Noida to the Chairperson of NOIDA stating that during the course of a search and seizure operation of the ‘Maccon Infra Group of cases’, it was found that huge assets in the form of leasehold land appeared in the balance sheet of as many as 25 private limited companies. The names of the companies in respect of which a disclosure was sought are as follows: 

1 Prajyoti Impex Pvt Ltd 

2 Chahat Exim Pvt Ltd 

3 Merit Exim Pvt Ltd 

4 New Era e-Solutions Pvt Ltd 

5 Affe Technologies Pvt Ltd 

6 A K D Steels Pvt Ltd 

7 Quick Infotech Solutions Pvt Ltd 

8 Kinzo Exports Pvt Ltd 

9 N M Buildwell Pvt Ltd 

10 Business Bay Corporate Parts Pvt Ltd 

11 R N Creations Pvt Ltd 

12 Sigma Management System Pvt Ltd 

13 Ris Fashions Pvt Ltd 

14 Power Mech Industries Pvt Ltd 

15 Nitya Tradex Pvt Ltd 

16 K Biological Pvt Ltd 

17 Daffodil Infra-Agro Projects Pvt Ltd 

18 Kinzo Infosoft Pvt Ltd 

19 Kinzo IT Solutions Pvt Ltd 

20 Chahat Technology Pvt Ltd 

21 K S Ultratech Pvt Ltd 

22 Kusum Garments Pvt Ltd 

23 Hitchki Creations Pvt Ltd 

24 Norvic Design Pvt Ltd 

25 Maconns Infra Pvt Ltd 

The income tax authorities sought documents, inter alia, in regard to the date of allotment of land to those companies together with underlying documents and other details. Details were also sought in regard to the allotment of any other land in the name of the ninth respondent, his wife Kusum Lata, son Sunny Yadav and other persons or entities including Rajinder Manocha, Rajesh Manocha, Namrata Manocha, Anil Peshwari and Meenakshi Peshwari either in their names or in the names of companies or firms in which they were associated. 

During the course of these proceedings, a compilation of documents has been placed on the record, indicating that in response to the letter of the income tax authorities, the authorities at NOIDA collated and forwarded information pertaining to properties, including residential plots in Noida, allotted to persons and companies allegedly related to the ninth respondent. The compilation which has been placed before the Court includes lists of (i) industrial plots which were allotted directly to the companies or individuals concerned; (ii) industrial plots which were not allotted directly to the companies or individuals but whose names were added on subsequent dates; (iii) industrial plots allotted to the ninth respondent, his wife and son and other persons whose names were added at a subsequent date; (iv) residential plots allotted in the name of the ninth respondent and other persons; and (v) a list of residential plots which, though not allotted originally in the name of the ninth respondent and other persons, came to be allotted subsequently. On 6 January 2015, the Deputy Director of Income Tax (Inv)-II, Noida addressed a communication to the Chief Executive Officer of NOIDA seeking details of contracts awarded to 75 companies, copies of accounts and details of works contracts awarded to them in 2014-15. This information was sought in regard to the income tax investigation going on in the case of ‘Maconn Infra/Yadav Singh Group’. 

Following the raid of the income tax authorities on 27 and 28 November 2014, an investigation was being carried out by three instrumentalities of the Union Government, namely (i) the Income Tax Department; (ii) the Directorate of Enforcement; and (iii) the Special Investigation Team7 on black money constituted by the Supreme Court, consisting of Hon’ble Mr Justice M B Shah and Hon’ble Mr Justice Arijit Pasayat, former Judges of the Supreme Court. A communication was addressed by the Union Government in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) on 24 February 2015 to the Chief Secretary of the State Government. The subject of the letter was the ‘investigation against irregularities by Shri Yadav Singh, ex Engineer-in-Chief, NOIDA, Greater NOIDA and Yamuna Expressway Authority’. The letter stated as follows: 

“In pursuance of the instructions by the Special Investigation Team (SIT) on black money, Director, CBI (through Deptt of Personnel, Govt. of India) is to take up investigation of instances of fraud/corruption and other malpractices leading to amassing of large amounts of unaccounted money by Shri Yadav Singh, Ex Engineer-in-Chief of NOIDA, Greater NOIDA and Yamuna Express Way Authority. 

In this regard, it is requested that all the relevant material/documents may be handed over to CBI for carrying the necessary investigation. It is reiterated that notification constituting the Special Investigation Team (SIT) issued in light of directions by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Writ Petition (Civil No.176 of 2009 provides as follows: 

“All organs, agencies, departments and agents of the State whether at the level of Union of India, or the State Government, including but not limited to all statutorily formed individual bodies, and other constitutional bodies, extend all the cooperation necessary for the functioning of Special Investigation Team. 

The Union of India and where needed the State Governments will facilitate the conduct of the investigations, in their fullest measure, by the Special Investigation Team and functioning, by extending all the necessary financial material, legal diplomatic and intelligence resources, whether such investigations or portions of such investigations occur inside the country or abroad. 

This issues with the approval of the competent authority.” 

Prior to the receipt of the letter dated 24 February 2015, the State Government had issued a notification on 10 February 2015 under Section 3 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 by which a former Judge of this Court Shri Justice Amar Nath Verma was appointed as a one-member Commission of Inquiry to investigate into the allegations against the ninth respondent. The terms of reference of the Commission of Inquiry are as follows: 

(i) Whether the promotions which were granted to the ninth respondent at various levels were in accordance with the procedures and criteria prescribed; 

(ii) Whether in the grant of contracts for development to various firms and individuals by the ninth respondent as Chief Engineer, the prescribed procedure and criteria had been observed; 

(iii) Inquiry into the allegations of corruption and misconduct on the part of the ninth respondent; and 

(iv) Apart from the above, any other matter which may be required to be investigated by the Commission either on the directions of the High Court or on a reference being made by an authority of the Central Government. 

The writ petition seeking the intervention of this Court for transferring the investigation to CBI had already been instituted on 10 December 2014 and was entertained by the Division Bench while passing a preliminary order dated 16 December 2014. While issuing directions for the impleadment of the ninth respondent and calling for counters, this Court, inter alia, took note of the pleadings contained in paragraphs 53 and 54 of the writ petition on the basis of which the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution was invoked. Paragraphs 53 and 54 of the writ petition read as follows: 

“53. That again the petitioner prays for this investigation to be undertaken only by the CBI because the facts as narrated above prove it beyond all doubts that the State government is completely biased to Sri Yadav Singh. There are many facts which can easily substantiate this statement of the petitioner regarding complete apathy of the State government- (a) the continuous rise of Sri Singh against all prevailing services rules and regulations; (b) the clear favouritism granted to Sri Yadav during various political governments, including the Bahujan Samaj Party government under Ms Mayawati, the Samajwadi Party under Sri Mulayam Singh Yadav and now under Sri Akhilesh Yadav where he has given plum postings, out of way promotions, key positions and large number of lucrative assignments as explained above; (c) the way initially an FIR was registered against Sri Singh, it was handed over to the State investigation agency CB-CID, he was placed under suspension and the investigation agency went all after him as to get red corner notice issued against him by the Interpol but after some months everything changed quite dramatically after his alleged compromise made with certain top political persons playing key and extremely influential role in the present regime; (d) the way the CB-CID closed the criminal case against Sri Singh in an extremely hush-hush and hurried manner; (e) the way the entire State bureaucracy’s eyes changed towards Sri Yadav Singh after his alleged compromise with the top political leaders of the current political government (f) the way he was reinstated in a surreptitious manner (g) the way he was made the Engineer-in-chief not only of Noida but of Greater Noida and Yamuna expressway also in a very surprising and eye-raising manner (h) the way the State government has so far reacted to this episode (i) the way it took about 12 days for the State government to suspend him while it is seen suspending every other officer on all kind of trifle charges (j) the way the news of top political leaders of SP and BSP being in very close contact with Sri Yadav Singh is coming in news all too loudly and boldly. 

54. There are certain other facts which seem to warrant CBI enquiry; (a) the magnitude of the corruption having emerged so far (b) the great spread of the corruption (c) the international/global spread of crime (d) the super-specialization that seems to be need in this particular case (e) the reputation and consistency of the investigation agency needed for this particular scam (f) the huge reputation and faith enjoyed by CBI.” 

During the pendency of the writ proceedings, the attention of the Division Bench was drawn on 23 March 2015 by the petitioner to the communication received from the Union Government in the Ministry of Finance by the Chief Secretary. The Court was informed by the learned Advocate General that the State Government was in the process of sending a reply to the communication which would be placed on the record before the Court. The State Government eventually addressed a communication to the Union Government in the Ministry of Finance on 6 April 2015 stating that a Commission of Inquiry headed by a former Judge of this Court has been appointed on 10 February 2015 and that a public interest petition seeking an investigation by CBI was pending before this Court. The State Government informed the Union Government that an appropriate decision would be taken in accordance with the directions that may be issued by this Court in the pending proceedings and as recommended by the one member Commission of Inquiry appointed to enquire into the matter. 

After the present proceedings were entertained by the Division Bench of this Court at Lucknow by passing an initial order on 16 December 2014, another PIL on the same subject was instituted at Allahabad in Jitendra Kumar Goel Vs State of U P8. While entertaining the petition on 15 June 2015, a Division Bench of this Court directed that the State must disclose why an FIR had not been registered in respect of the recovery of Rs 10 crores and was directed to respond to the allegations contained in the writ petition by 19 June 2015 when it was placed for further hearing. A Special Leave Petition was filed before the Supreme Court in which by an order dated 18 June 2015, the Supreme Court noted, inter alia, the submission of the State that during the pendency of the present proceedings at Lucknow, the High Court was not justified in entertaining another writ petition at Allahabad. The Supreme Court stayed further proceedings in the second writ petition at Allahabad. During the course of the hearing, the learned Advocate General has fairly stated before the Court that since the pleadings in the second writ petition were virtually lifted from the present proceedings, and since these proceedings had already been entertained at Lucknow in the earlier PIL, the State was constrained to move the Supreme Court against a second PIL being entertained. We have mentioned this fact for the completeness of the record though, as we shall now proceed to narrate, the proceedings have been argued fully on all sides to their fullest on merits. 

The jurisdiction of this Court in a public interest petition has been invoked by the petitioner on two counts. The first submission which has been urged is that in pursuance of the judgment and order of the Supreme Court in Ram Jethmalani Vs Union of India9, an SIT has been constituted and has been charged with the responsibility and duty to investigate and initiate proceedings, criminal as well as civil, in respect of all matters relating to unaccounted moneys held in foreign banks by Indians or other entities operating in India. The mandate of the order of the Supreme Court is that both the Union Government as well as the State Governments have to facilitate the conduct of the investigation by the SIT. The Department of Revenue of the Union Ministry of Finance addressed a communication to the Chief Secretary of the State Government on 24 February 2015, that pursuant to the instructions of the SIT, the Director of CBI is to take up investigation of the instances of fraud/corruption and other malpractices leading to the amassing of a large amount of unaccounted money by the ninth respondent. The State Government was requested to hand over to the CBI all relevant material and documents to facilitate the investigation. The attention of the State Government was drawn to the judgment and order of the Supreme Court. The submission is that the State Government was duty bound to effectuate the object and purpose of the order of the Supreme Court by producing all relevant material and documents for investigation by CBI. Instead, the State Government by its letter dated 6 April 2015 took refuge under its notification constituting a Commission of Inquiry presided over by a former Judge of this Court and attempted to obviate its obligation to comply with the order of the Supreme Court on the basis of the pending enquiry and the pendency of the present proceedings. The first submission is that since the State Government has failed in the obligation which was cast upon it by the judgment and order of the Supreme Court to cooperate in all respects with the SIT and since the SIT has instructed the Director of CBI to take up and investigate into the alleged acts of corruption on the part of the ninth respondent, the jurisdiction of this Court can be validly invoked. Reliance has been placed on the provisions of Article 256 of the Constitution under which the executive power of every State is required to be so exercised as to ensure compliance with the laws made by Parliament and the executive power of the Union extends to giving a direction to a State as would appear to the Government of India to be necessary for that purpose. 

The second basis for the invocation of the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 is that, consistent with the law laid down by the Supreme Court, the present case is a fit and proper case for a reference being made to the CBI to investigate all aspects pertaining to the alleged acts of corruption of the ninth respondent having due regard to (i) the huge corruption involved; (ii) the political support and patronage extended to the ninth respondent cutting across the political spectrum; (iii) the high level at which bureaucratic irregularities have taken place; (iv) the national and global spread of the crime; (v) the need for a specialized investigation by an agency; and (vi) the avowed need to preserve public confidence in the administration of criminal justice. In this regard, the petitioner has averred that initially an FIR was registered against the ninth respondent and he was suspended from service. According to the petitioner, the investigation was abruptly transferred to the CBCID at the behest of a co-accused and a final closure report was submitted to the Court for acceptance. The ninth respondent was reinstated in service and was restored to his position not only as Engineer-in-Chief of NOIDA but he was given additional charge both of the Greater NOIDA and Yamuna Expressway Authorities. The allegations against the ninth respondent which have been set out in great detail in the writ petition are that a raid was conducted on 27 and 28 November 2014 by a team of nearly 100 officials at Noida, Ghaziabad and Delhi. The allegation against the ninth respondent is that he, his spouse, members of his family and his associates have been involved in setting up shell companies for investing the commission received in respect of the award of every contract. The income tax authorities are also in the process of examining documents pertaining to the associates of the ninth respondent including one Rajinder Manocha from whose Audi vehicle an amount of Rs 10 crores was recovered. The ninth respondent is stated to have been involved in allotting to himself and to the members of his family and his associates, plots of land of a high value. The ninth respondent, it has been stated, has wielded power and enjoyed close proximity with politicians of all hues in the present and previous governments in the State of Uttar Pradesh. The ninth respondent was involved in high value infrastructure projects including Ganga water supply, sewage pipelines, drainage, hospitals, parks and metro. Between 2002 and 2014, he is stated to have headed the engineering, water, health and horticulture and other wings and to have executed projects worth nearly Rs 4200 crores. The ninth respondent and his syndicate are alleged to have grabbed over 320 plots during the course of four years of a value of Rs 750 crores. These plots were stated to have been sold to business and construction firms. In the present case, it has been stated that the activities of the ninth respondent during the course of the previous regime in the State have continued under the present government and the ninth respondent continues to enjoy close proximity to the corridors of power. In a supplementary affidavit which has been filed in these proceedings on 20 January 2015, the petitioner has specifically made allegations in regard to the close proximity of the ninth respondent with politicians in the State and their close relatives who are stated to be business associates. The names of the companies through which his unlawful activities are stated to have taken place have been set out. On this basis, it has been submitted that the manner in which the State Government closed the earlier proceedings through its investigative arm is indicative of the fact that there is no serious effort to investigate the allegations against the ninth respondent. After facts came to light following the raid by the income tax authorities, all that the State Government has done – it is submitted – is to constitute a Commission of Inquiry. No FIR was registered and no effort has been made by the State to investigate into the allegations against the ninth respondent. The State Government has, in the submission of the petitioner, acknowledged the volume and complexity of the case in its official notifications as well as in its counter affidavits filed in these proceedings. In this background, having also regard to the nature and complexity of the case, it has been submitted that a reference to the CBI for carrying out the investigation is necessary to ensure that the administration of criminal law is not derailed by the proximity of the ninth respondent to the corridors of power. 

The petition has been resisted by the Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State, counsel appearing on behalf of NOIDA as well as by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the ninth respondent. The Advocate General has submitted that: 

(i) The jurisdiction of the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to refer a case for investigation by CBI must be exercised sparingly and with circumspection having due regard to the parameters set out in the judgments of the Supreme Court; 

(ii) The State Government has set up a Commission of Inquiry under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 headed by a former Judge of this Court and it would be appropriate to await the report of the Commission before initiating any action; 

(iii) By a supplementary notification of 11 July 2015, the Economic Offences Wing has been directed to cooperate with and act in coordination with the Commission of Inquiry; and 

(iv) The State Government addressed a communication to the Union Government stating that further action on the request to furnish material and documents to CBI would be taken subject to the report of the Commission of Inquiry and the orders that may be passed by this Court in the pending PIL. The allegations against the ninth respondent are based on what was reported in the news media and there is no reasonable basis for making a reference to the CBI. 

Counsel appearing on behalf of the ninth respondent submitted that: 

(i) The writ petition which is based on newspaper reports ought not to be entertained since it is not a bona fide recourse to the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution; 

(ii) The case of the petitioner is based on (a) undue promotions granted to the ninth respondent allegedly as a result of bureaucratic favour; (b) the allegation that the ninth respondent has amassed wealth by exploiting his office. In his counter affidavit, the ninth respondent has explained that the promotions which were granted to him were on the recommendations of duly constituted Departmental Promotion Committees and all the allegations have been denied; 

(iii) The Union Government had no jurisdiction to entrust the investigation to the CBI since under the judgment of the Supreme Court, the investigation is to be conducted by the SIT; 

(iv) In order to enable the SIT to investigate a case, the condition precedent is that there must be stashing of money abroad in an unaccounted form which is absent in the present case; and 

(v) Under Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, it is not open to the Union Government to direct the State to hand over the papers to CBI without the consent of the State Government. 

Counsel appearing on behalf of NOIDA has supported these submissions and urged that NOIDA has cooperated with the income tax authorities upon receipt of the letter dated 8 December 2014 by making available necessary documents and material pertaining to the ninth respondent and the dealings in property by his alleged associates and companies. The submissions which have been made by the other learned counsel were adopted. 

These submissions fall for consideration. 

In Ram Jethmalani (supra), the Supreme Court constituted an SIT headed by two former Judges of the Supreme Court to investigate into and initiate proceedings including prosecutions in relation to all matters regarding unaccounted moneys held in foreign banks by Indians or other entities operating in India. Paragraph 57 of the judgment and order of the Supreme Court reads as follows: 

“In light of the above we herewith order: 

(i) That the High-Level Committee constituted by the Union of India, comprising of (i) Secretary, Department of Revenue; (ii) Deputy Governor, Reserve Bank of India; (iii) Director (IB); (iv) Director, Enforcement; (v) Director, CBI; (vi) Chairman, CBDT; (vii) DG, Narcotics Control Bureau; (vii) DG, Revenue Intelligence; (viii) Director, Financial Intelligence Unit; and (ix) JS (FT & TR-I), CBDT be forthwith appointed with immediate effect as a Special Investigation Team; 

(ii) That the Special Investigation Team, so constituted, also include Director, Research and Analysis Wing; 

(iii) That the above Special Investigation Team, so constituted, be headed by and include the following former eminent judges of this Court: 

(a) Hon’ble Mr Justice B P Jeevan Reddy as Chairman; and 

(b) Hon’ble Mr Justice M B Shah as Vice-Chairman; and that the Special Investigation Team function under their guidance and direction; 

(iv) That the Special Investigation Team, so constituted, shall be charged with the responsibilities and duties of investigation, initiation of proceedings, and prosecution, whether in the context of appropriate criminal or civil proceedings of: 

(a) all issues relating to the matters concerning and arising from unaccounted for monies of Hassan Ali Khan and the Tapurias; 

(b) all other investigations already commenced and are pending, or awaiting to be initiated, with respect to any other known instances of the stashing of unaccounted for monies in foreign bank accounts by Indians or other entities operating in India; and 

(c) all other matters with respect to unaccounted for monies being stashed in foreign banks by Indians or other entities operating in India that may arise in the course of such investigations and proceedings. 

It is clarified here that within the ambit of responsibilities described above, also lie the responsibilities to ensure that the matters are also investigated, proceedings initiated and prosecutions conducted with regard to criminality and/or unlawfulness of activities that may have been the source for such monies, as well as the criminal and/or unlawful means that are used to take such unaccounted for monies out of and/or bring such monies back into the country, and use of such monies in India or abroad. The Special Investigation Team shall also be charged with the responsibility of preparing a comprehensive action plan, including the creation of necessary institutional structures that can enable and strengthen the country’s battle against generation of unaccounted for monies, and their stashing away in foreign banks or in various forms domestically; 

(v) That the Special Investigation Team so constituted report and be responsible to this Court, and that it shall be charged with the duty to keep this Court informed of all major developments by the filing of periodic status reports, and following of any special orders that this Court may issue from time to time; 

(vi) That all organs, agencies, departments and agents of the State, whether at the level of the Union of India, or the State Government, including but not limited to all statutorily formed individual bodies, and other constitutional bodies, extend all the cooperation necessary for the Special Investigation Team so constituted and functioning; 

(vii) That the Union of India, and where needed even the State Governments, are directed to facilitate the conduct of the investigations, in their fullest measure, by the Special Investigation Team so constituted and functioning, by extending all the necessary financial, material, legal, diplomatic and intelligence resources, whether such investigations or portions of such investigations occur inside the country or abroad; 

(viii)That the Special Investigation Team also be empowered to further investigate even where charge-sheets have been previously filed; and that the Special Investigation Team may register further cases, and conduct appropriate investigations and initiate proceedings, for the purpose of bringing back unaccounted for monies unlawfully kept in bank accounts abroad.” 

The SIT, inter alia, consists of the Director CBI, Director Enforcement, Director General, Revenue Intelligence and the Director, Financial Intelligence Unit. The judgment of the Supreme Court mandates that all organs, agencies, departments and agents of the State, whether in the Union Government or in the State Governments, shall extend all cooperation necessary to the SIT. Both the Union and the State Governments were directed to facilitate the conduct of the investigations in their fullest measure by extending necessary financial, material, legal and intelligence resources, whether the investigation takes place in India or overseas. The SIT has been duly empowered to investigate even those cases where charge sheets were filed and to register further cases, conduct appropriate investigations and initiate proceedings for bringing back unaccounted money unlawfully kept in bank accounts abroad. 

The income tax raids in respect of the ninth respondent and his alleged associates took place on 27 and 28 November 2014. The public interest petition was filed in this Court on 10 December 2014. On 24 February 2014, the Union Government in the Department of Revenue of the Ministry of Finance called upon the Chief Secretary of the State Government to make available all relevant material and documents that would be necessary for the CBI to carry out an investigation. The letter specifically drew attention to the investigation which was to be conducted in respect of the instances of fraud/corruption and other malpractices alleged against the ninth respondent as Engineer-in-Chief of NOIDA, Greater NOIDA and Yamuna Expressway Authority leading to the amassing of large amounts of unaccounted money. The letter of 24 February 2015 was addressed by the Union Government on the instructions of the SIT on black money which had directed the Director of CBI to take up the investigation in respect of the ninth respondent. The Union Government in addressing the communication was discharging its solemn obligation in terms of the judgment and order of the Supreme Court which required all governmental authorities both at the Central and the State level to cooperate with the SIT. Once instructions have been issued by the SIT in pursuance of which the Director CBI, who is a member of the SIT, is to take up the investigation, the State Government had no option but to comply with the direction. Under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction is empowered to pass such decree or to make such orders as are necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. Article 144 requires all authorities, civil and judicial in the territory of India to act in aid of the Supreme Court. Under Article 256 of the Constitution, the executive power of every State has to be exercised to ensure compliance with the laws made by Parliament and the executive power of the Union extends to giving such directions as may appear to the Government of India to be necessary for that purpose. The Union Government is enforcing an order of the Supreme Court which casts an obligation both on the Union Government and upon all State Governments to extend their fullest cooperation to secure compliance with the directions of the SIT. The State Government cannot stultify the investigation. 

Faced with a request from the Union Government in the Ministry of Finance, the State Government responded on 6 April 2015. The State Government has evidently elected not to comply with the letter of request made by the Union Government. The matter, in our view, does not rest on a dispute over the powers of the Centre and those of the State. Plainly, that is not the issue here since the only issue is of compliance with the terms of a judgment of the Supreme Court. The State Government sought to justify its stand by adverting to two circumstances, the first being the constitution of a Commission of Inquiry presided over by a former Judge of this Court on 10 February 2015 and the second the pendency of these proceedings. The pendency of these proceedings invoking the jurisdiction in public interest could provide absolutely no basis for declining to comply with the request which was made in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court. Nor was it open to the State Government to sit in judgment over a request which was made by the SIT in terms whereof the Director CBI was to take over investigation into the allegations of corruption and the amassing of unaccounted money by the ninth respondent. The setting up of a Commission of Inquiry can be no answer for non-compliance with the mandate of the order of the Supreme Court. The pendency of a public interest petition, similarly, could not stand in the way. Admittedly, no interim order was passed by this Court preventing the State Government from discharging its obligations as, indeed, there could have been none, once the Supreme Court had laid down the law on the subject. Hence, we find merit in the submission which was urged on behalf of the petitioner that both the grounds which have weighed with the State Government in addressing its communication on 6 April 2015 are specious and without any legal basis. 

Independent of our conclusion on the first aspect above, the next aspect of the matter is whether the circumstances of the present case require an investigation by the CBI. As we approach this aspect of the matter, we must, at the outset, be conscious of the law on the subject which has been laid down in several judgments of the Supreme Court. Section 3 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 provides that the Central Government may, by a notification in the official gazette, specify the offences or class of offences which are to be investigated by the Delhi Special Police Establishment. Under Section 5, the Central Government is empowered by order to extend to any area in a State, not being a Union Territory, the powers and jurisdiction of the Delhi Special Police Establishment for the investigation of any offences or classes of offences specified in a notification under Section 3. Section 6, however, provides that nothing contained in Section 5 would be deemed to enable any member of the establishment of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to exercise powers and jurisdiction in any area in a State without the consent of the government of that State. 

A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal Vs Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal10, has held that the power of the High Court under Article 226 is not curtailed or diluted by Section 6: 

“(vii) When the Special Police Act itself provides that subject to the consent by the State, CBI can take up investigation in relation to the crime which was otherwise within the jurisdiction of the State Police, the court can also exercise its constitutional power of judicial review and direct CBI to take up the investigation within the jurisdiction of the State. The power of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be taken away, curtailed or diluted by Section 6 of the Special Police Act. Irrespective of there being any statutory provision acting as a restriction on the powers of the Courts, the restriction imposed by Section 6 of the Special Police Act on the powers of the Union, cannot be read as restriction on the powers of the constitutional courts. Therefore, exercise of power of judicial review by the High Court, in our opinion, would not amount to infringement of either the doctrine of separation of power or the federal structure.” 

At the same time, the Supreme Court has emphasised that the plenitude of the power requires that it should be exercised with caution and circumspection. The circumstances in which the power could be exercised have been held to be exceptional situations where (i) it becomes necessary to provide credibility and instill confidence in investigation; (ii) where an incident may have national and international ramifications or (iii) where an order may be necessary for doing complete justice in enforcing the fundamental rights. The purpose of these restrictions is to ensure that the CBI is not flooded with a large number of cases which, with limited resources, it may find difficult to handle. The observations of the Supreme Court are as follows: 

“Before parting with the case, we deem it necessary to emphasise that despite wide powers conferred by Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution, while passing any order, the Courts must bear in mind certain self-imposed limitations on the exercise of these Constitutional powers. The very plenitude of the power under the said Articles requires great caution in its exercise. In so far as the question of issuing a direction to CBI to conduct investigation in a case is concerned, although no inflexible guidelines can be laid down to decide whether or not such power should be exercised but time and again it has been reiterated that such an order is not to be passed as a matter of routine or merely because a party has levelled some allegations against the local police. This extraordinary power must be exercised sparingly, cautiously and in exceptional situations where it becomes necessary to provide credibility and instil confidence in investigations or where the incident may have national and international ramifications or where such an order may be necessary for doing complete justice and enforcing the fundamental rights. Otherwise CBI would be flooded with a large number of cases and with limited resources, may find it difficult to properly investigate even serious cases and in the process lose its credibility and purpose with unsatisfactory investigations.” 

In Secretary, Minor Irrigation & Rural Engineering Services, U P Vs Sahngoo Ram Arya11, the Supreme Court observed as follows: 

“…Therefore, it is clear that a decision to direct an inquiry by CBI against a person can only be done if the High Court after considering the material on record comes to a conclusion that such material does disclose a prima facie case calling for an investigation by CBI or any other similar agency, and the same cannot be done as a matter of routine or merely because a party makes some such allegations.” 

These principles have been reiterated in a more recent decision of the Supreme Court in Mohd Haroon Vs Union of India12. In that case, the Supreme Court held that a case for the transfer of investigation to CBI or to an SIT in regard to the riots which took place at Muzaffarnagar was not warranted since the State itself had constituted a Special Investigation Cell. 566 cases were being investigated by the Special Investigation Cell and the Supreme Court was apprised of the fact that 48 registered cases were found to be false. The State apprised the Supreme Court of the measures which were taken. Having due regard to the steps which were taken by the State, facts and figures and statistics supported by material coupled with the principles laid down, the Supreme Court held that there was no need to constitute a SIT or to entrust the investigation to CBI at that juncture. 

In the present case, an important aspect of the matter which merits emphasis is that initially on 13 June 2012, an FIR was lodged in Case Crime No 371 of 2012 under Sections 409, 420, 466, 467, 469, 471 and 120-B of the Penal Code and under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against the ninth respondent and one Ramendra, the then Project Engineer and two construction companies. The allegation in the FIR related to the disbursement of an amount of Rs 954 crores of various departments of Noida in respect of which agreement bonds were executed within a span of eight days. There were various other allegations in regard to the carrying out of work even before the finalization of tenders resulting in a loss to NOIDA. The investigation was transferred by the State Government to the CBCID at the behest of a partner of a construction company which was one of the co-accused on 3 November 2012, following the receipt of a request on 22 October 2012. The Investigating Officer submitted a final closure report on 3 January 2014. The informant R P Singh, who is an Assistant Engineer in NOIDA informed the Court that he had no objection to the acceptance of the closure report and on 27 November 2014 the matter was closed. Incidentally, the income tax raid took place on the same day. The matter has been under investigation by various authorities including the income tax department, the Directorate of Enforcement and the SIT. The allegations against the ninth respondent are not just allegations of personal corruption or of personal aggrandizement. The essence of the allegation is that the ninth respondent has been able to use his personal proximity in the corridors of power with successive governments in State by indulging in corruption, amassing wealth for conferring favours on himself, the members of his family and business associates. The ninth respondent has, it is alleged, been able to shield himself due to his proximity with the corridors of power both in the previous government and the present government in the State of Uttar Pradesh. At this stage, we desist from making a specific mention of the names of political personalities but it would suffice to note that there are serious allegations that the business associates of the ninth respondent and the members of his family are related to persons in the political establishment. The State Government has constituted a Commission of Inquiry on 10 February 2015 following the institution of the PIL on 10 December 2014. The terms of reference of the Commission of Inquiry constituted by the State are (i) whether the promotions which were granted to the ninth respondent at various levels were in accordance with the procedures and criteria prescribed; (ii) whether in the grant of contracts for development to various firms and individuals by the ninth respondent as Chief Engineer, the prescribed procedure and criteria had been observed; (iii) inquiry into the allegations of corruption and misconduct on the part of the ninth respondent; and (iv) apart from the above, any other matter which may be required to be investigated by the Commission either on the directions of the High Court or on reference being made by an authority of the Central Government. 

There are several reasons why the submission of the State, that based on the constitution of a Commission of Inquiry further action be deferred or held in abeyance, cannot be accepted. Firstly, the terms of reference of the Commission of Inquiry are evidently confined to the ninth respondent and ninth respondent alone. The Commission of Inquiry would have no jurisdiction to enquire into wider allegations of the misuse of power or to investigate into the interrelationship of the ninth respondent with other persons in respect of whom there is no reference to the Commission. Secondly, the report of the Commission may or may not be accepted or acted upon by the State Government. A non-binding report of a Commission of Inquiry is no substitute for a proper, fair and objective investigation into alleged criminal offences. The State Government would be under no compulsion of law to accept the report of a Commission of Inquiry. Prosecution for criminal offences cannot be made to depend upon an unbridled exercise of discretion of the executive. Thirdly, by a supplementary notification issued by the State Government on 11 July 2015, the State Government has taken due note of the complexity and scale of the matter by providing that the Economic Offences Wing shall work in coordination with the Chairperson of the Commission of Inquiry. Significantly, even after the State Government had knowledge of the sequence of events commencing from the income tax raids which took place on 27 and 28 November 2014, no serious effort has been made to entrust the investigation to the investigative arm of the State. Even the investigative arm of the State has been subordinated to the Commission of Inquiry. This Court must take note of the effort to protract and stall a credible criminal investigation even after the receipt of the letter of the Union Government on 24 February 2015 drawing attention to serious allegations of corruption and amassing of unaccounted wealth by the ninth respondent. The Court has been informed on affidavit that even the departmental enquiries initiated against the ninth respondent have been deferred and held in abeyance following the constitution of a Commission of Inquiry. Fourthly, the corruption alleged is on a gigantic scale. A complex web of shell companies has been adopted to evade law and to launder the allegedly ill gotten gains. There is a serious case to be probed on whether as alleged the activities of the ninth respondent have benefactors in high places in the State who have been associated through their close relatives and associates with the business dealings of the ninth respondent and his family. In our view, having due regard to the admittedly complex nature of the case, the wide ramifications involving corruption by persons in public offices and the gravity of the allegations required to be probed, a fit and proper case has been made out for investigation by the CBI. 

We have carefully considered the submission that the petition which is based on newspaper reports should not be entertained by the Court. This is not a case where the Court has acted on the basis of newspaper reports. In exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, this Court is conscious of the judicious restraints on its power particularly to hand over an investigation to CBI. The material which has come before the Court, including the request which was made by the Union Government in the Ministry of Finance in terms of a request made by the SIT constituted by the Supreme Court, would indicate the gravity and seriousness of the matter and the need to ensure that the investigation is promptly initiated and carried out by an independent agency. The faith in the administration of criminal justice will be shattered if a fair and objective investigation by the CBI is allowed to be thwarted by the kind of ruses adopted in this case. 

Before we conclude, we may advert to a subsidiary aspect of the matter which has been raised in the counter affidavit filed by the ninth respondent. The ninth respondent has drawn the attention of the Court to a public interest petition in Jagdish Narain Shukla Vs State through Principal Secretary Home, Government of U P13 which was disposed of by this Court. The petition as this Court observed in its order raised certain service related issues in respect of the ninth respondent (who was impleaded as the fifth respondent to the earlier proceedings). The principal grievance related to the reinstatement of the ninth respondent and the posting issued to him after the institution of a departmental enquiry and an order of suspension. The Division Bench relied upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in Hari Bansh Lal Vs Sahodar Prasad Mahto14 and in Ashok Kumar Pandey Vs State of West Bengal15 to hold that a public interest petition seeking to raise service related matters is not maintainable. Following these judgments, the writ petition was dismissed on the ground that a PIL in respect of a service matter could not be entertained. The earlier judgment was, therefore, on a clearly different issue. The issue as to whether an investigation by the CBI is warranted, was neither raised nor decided in the earlier decision. 

For these reasons, we allow the petition and direct that the Central Bureau of Investigation shall conduct an investigation into all allegations of corruption and amassing of uncounted money by the ninth respondent and in regard to all transactions, persons and entities connected thereto. 

The petition is accordingly stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. 

16.07.2015 

AHA 

(Dr D Y Chandrachud, CJ) 

(S N Shukla, J) 

सामाजिक कार्यकर्ता डॉ.नूतन ठाकुर से संपर्क : nutanthakurlko@gmail.com rtiforumlucknow1@gmail.com

कृपया हमें अनुसरण करें और हमें पसंद करें:

सलमान खान अवैध बेल के खिलाफ पीआईएल : मीडिया ने की भरपूर कवरेज, देखें किसने क्या छापा और दिखाया…

Yashwant Singh : खोजी पत्रकार दीपक शर्मा इन दिनों एक जुझारू टीम के साथ मीडिया में नया, जमीनी और बड़ा प्रयोग कर रहे हैं. बिना बड़ी पूंजी के वह मिशनरी भाव से एक छोटे से कमरे के जरिए ‘इंडिया संवाद’ नामक वेबसाइट संचालित कर रहे हैं. साथ ही यूट्यूब पर इंडिया संवाद नामक चैनल चला रहे हैं. सलमान खान को अवैध तरीके से जमानत दिए जाने के खिलाफ दायर पीआईएल को लेकर आयोजित मीडिया से बातचीत के कार्यक्रम में ‘इंडिया संवाद’ की टीम पहुंची. टीम के अगुवा वरिष्ठ पत्रकार नाजिम नकवी जी थे. उन्होंने विस्तार से बातचीत मुझसे और मेरे वकील उमेश शर्मा जी से की. नाजिम नकवी ने फौरन रिपोर्ट फाइल की और संबंधित वीडियो यूट्यूब पर अपलोड करा दिया. इंडिया संवाद पर प्रकाशित खबर गूगल सर्च में टॉप पर आने लगी. आप भी पढ़िए इंडिया संवाद में क्या छपा और क्या दिखाया गया…

Journalist files PIL in apex court, challenges relief given to Salman Khan

New Delhi: Bollywood actor Salman Khan’s 5 minute bail decision has been finally challenged in the Supreme Court. A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was on Wednesday filed in the Indian Supreme Court challenging the Bombay High Court’s verdict that suspended Salman’s five-year sentence. The PIL was filed by Yashwant Singh, a media professional, who said that the judicial system is being “manipulated” by the rich and famous. He argued that the sessions court passed the order of conviction and the order of sentencing on the same day, which is in violation of the judgement of Supreme Court.

पूरी खबर पढ़ने के लिए इस लिंक पर क्लिक करें: http://goo.gl/1V0W2I

‘इंडिया संवाद’ टीम द्वारा तैयार वीडियो देखें : https://goo.gl/g4f0Da


समाचार एजेंसी पीटीआई की तरफ से संबंधित खबर रिलीज की गई जिसे देश के लगभग सारे अखबारों ने समस्त एडिशन में प्रमुखता से छापा. कुछ अखबारी कटिंग इस प्रकार हैं…

 


ईटीवी ने बिग ब्रेकिंग करके इस न्यूज को अपने यहां फ्लैश किया.. देखें वीडियो…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YnbUxppbxnY


Yashwant Singh : सलमान खान को अवैध तरीके से जमानत देने के खिलाफ पत्रकार Yashwant Singh की तरफ से अधिवक्ता Umesh Sharma ने सुप्रीम कोर्ट में जनहित याचिका दायर की। याचिका डायरी नंबर 16176/2015 है।

पूरी खबर यहां है : http://goo.gl/btb3uG
पूरी याचिका यहां है : http://goo.gl/kJgpaI

याचिका पर पत्रकार यशवंत सिंह और अधिवक्ता उमेश शर्मा के बयान इन वीडियो लिंक पर क्लिक करके देख सुन सकते हैं:
1- https://goo.gl/efqsMc
2- https://goo.gl/Q0xghP
3- https://goo.gl/0lp1Vv

Yashwant Singh : कई मित्रों ने मेरे ह्वाट्सएप पर इंडिया न्यूज, ईटीवी आदि पर चली खबरों के वीडियो अपने मोबाइल से शूट कर भेजे हैं. सलमान खान को अवैध तरीके से दी गई जमानत के खिलाफ सुप्रीम कोर्ट में दायर जनहित याचिका से संबंधित सूचना / खबर को सोशल मीडिया व इंटरनेट पर भी जमकर तवज्जो मिल रही है. इसके लिए आप सभी साथियों का आभार.

सलमान खान को जमानत मिलने के बाद पूरा सोशल मीडिया न्यायपालिका के खिलाफ नकारात्मक भाव से भरा हुआ था. हर कोई कोर्ट के चाल चरित्र चेहरे को कोस रहा था. उसी वक्त मुझे लगा कि कुछ करना चाहिए. सिर्फ सोच लेना ही पर्याप्त नहीं होता. सोचे हुए को कर गुजरने के लिए बहुत मेहनत करनी होती है. लेकिन जब Umesh Sharma जी जैसा तेजतर्रार वकील साथ हो तो कोई दिक्कत ही नहीं. मैंने ट्रायल कोर्ट, अपील और हाईकोर्ट के फैसले की कापी मुंबई से अरेंज की. उमेश भाई साहब ने फैसले की इन प्रतियों को पाते ही रात रात भर जागकर कठिन मेहनत से पीआईएल तैयार कर दी. इसके एवज में मेरे से इन्होंने एक पैसे भी नहीं लिए. इसे कहते हैं एक जैसे मन मिजाज वालों का मिलना. यह पूरा काम मिशनरी यानि सरोकारी भाव-भंगिमा के कारण बेहद कम समय में और बिना किसी खर्च के संभव हो पाया. यहां तक कि स्टेशनरी कागज फाइलिंग आदि के जो पैसे लगे, उसे भी उमेश जी ने ही अपनी जेब से दिया. मैंने तो सिर्फ सिग्नेचर मारा ढेर सारे कागजों पर. उमेश शर्मा जी ने मजीठिया वेज बोर्ड को लेकर लड़ रहे सैकड़ों पत्रकारों की तरफ से दर्जनों मीडिया मालिकों के खिलाफ सुप्रीम कोर्ट में याचिका दायर की हुई है. इस काम में भी उन्होंने भड़ास की तरफ से सिर्फ एक आवाज लगाने पर ही सपोर्ट करने / साथ देने का फैसला कर लिया था. थैंक्यू उमेश सर.

भड़ास के एडिटर यशवंत के फेसबुक वॉल से.

कृपया हमें अनुसरण करें और हमें पसंद करें:

Yashwant Singh Versus Salman Salim Khan

: सलमान खान को अवैध तरीके से जमानत दिए जाने के खिलाफ 13 मई 2015 को सुप्रीम कोर्ट में दायर PIL का संपूर्ण कंटेंट :

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

(EXTRAORDINARY CRIMINAL WRIT JURISDICTION)

WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. xxx 2015

In the matter of:

MEMO OF PARTIES

 …Petitioner

Yashwant Singh
S/o Sh. Lalji Singh,
R/o J-51, East Vinod Nagar,
Delhi-110092.                       

Versus

…Respondent No.1

1.Union of India
Through Its Secretary, Home,
South Block,
New Delhi.

…Respondent No.2.

2.Salman Salim Khan
S/o Salim Khan,
Age: 49 yrs.,
Occ. Cine Artist ,
R/o  Galaxi Apartment, B. J. Road,
Bandstand, Bandra (W.), Mumbai.

DRAWN AND FILED BY:

YASHWANT SINGH

PETITIONER IN PERSON.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

(EXTRAORDINARY CRIMINAL WRIT JURISDICTION)

WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. xxx 2015

IN THE MATTER OF :

PUBLIC INTEREST PETETION

Yashwant Singh
S/o Sh. Lalji Singh,
R/o J-51, East Vinod Nagar,
Delhi-110092.                       
…Petitioner

Versus

1.Union of India
Through Its Secretary, Home,
South Block,
New Delhi.                       
…Respondent No.1

2.Salman Salim Khan
S/o Salim Khan,
 Age: 49 yrs.,
Occ. Cine Artist ,
R/o  Galaxi Apartment, B. J. Road,
Bandstand, Bandra (W.), Mumbai.       
…Respondent No.2.

PUBLIC INTEREST PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF A WRIT.

To

The Hon’ble The Chief Justice of India and His Lordship’s Companion

Justices of the Supreme Court of India;

The Humble petition of the Petitioner above named:

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH:

1. The Petitioner is constrained to invoke the extra ordinary, highly prerogative jurisdiction of the court by way of the present PIL as the present matter concerns larger public interest , credibility of the institution of judiciary and the justice dispensation system in India. That the petitioner is filing the present writ petition in public interest. The petitioner has no personal interest in the litigation and the petition is not guided by self-gain or for gain of any other person / institution / body and that there is no motive other than of public interest in filing the writ petition.

That the petitioner has based the instant writ petition from authentic information and documents obtained from various governments departments/portals/RTIapplications.

That the petition, if allowed, would benefit the citizens of this country generally as rule of law is essential for democracy and such brazen violation of law by the respondents can be stopped by the orders of this Hon’ble Court only. That the persons affected by such acts of the State are numerous and are not in a position to approach the Hon’ble Court hence the petitioner is filing the present PIL on behalf of such affected persons.

Question(s) of Law:

Whether the High Court of Mumbai can deviate from the standard prescribed judicial process and grant orders in a criminal appeal when the appeal itself has not been presented in the manner prescribed under the law and the process prescribed under the High Court rules of Mumbai and whether the entertaining of such petition by the High Court at the pre-mature stage would not amount to hostile discrimination with other such similarly situated appellants whose appeal has not been taken up by the High Court earlier?

Whether the High Court under exercise of its powers of appeal under the Criminal Jurisdiction can ignore the rules governing the listing of the criminal appeals before the bench and can grant orders in a criminal appeal which is neither filed properly nor has any extenuating circumstances leading to the exemption being granted by the High Court out of way?

Whether Article 14 of the Constitution of India is only a decorative legal provision for the courts dispensing justice and whether the High Court can discriminate in listing and hearing of a petition out of turn in gross violation of law when the said appeal is neither filed in proper format nor accompanied with the impugned judgement and sentence order against which he said appeal has been filed.

Whether Article 14 of the Constitution of India does not mandate equal treatment of all before the courts ?

Whether the present case does not   call for interference by this Hon’ble Court in its wide powers as enshrined under Article 32 of the Constitution of India?

Whether the manner in which the Courts of Sessions and the High Court of Bombay has dealt with the present case are not bound to cause serious apprehensions in the minds of the general public that the judicial process in India is prone to be exploited and misused by the influential persons wherein the courts have also resorted to pick and choose instead of translating the maxim of “Eqaulity before law” into reality and give similar treatement to all accused/convicts irrespective of their social, economic status?
Whether the deviation by the Courts of Session in dealing with the present matter is not irregular and need the indulgence of this Hon’ble court for remedifying the wrong done and the dent caused to the entire judicial system of the country?

Whether the act of entertaining the criminal appeal by the High Court of Bombay is not irregular and against the established practice being followed since long?
Whether the act of Bombay High Court in listing the Criminal Appeal filed by the respondent No.2 for final disposal on 15/7/2015 is not a hostile discrimination with the persons whose appeals are awaiting listing since long and some of them are languishing in jail since years being convicted by the trial court?

Whether the act of the Court of Sessions , Bombay in deviating from the dictum of Allauddin Milan vs State of Bihar [1989 SCC (3) 5], without any valid reason has not caused serious irregularity in the criminal justice system and has ultimately helped the respondent No.2 in gaining benefit of suspension of sentence by the High court?
GROUNDS

Because, the High Court of Mumbai can not deviate from the standard prescribed judicial process and grant orders in a criminal appeal when the appeal itself has not been presented in the manner prescribed under the law and the process prescribed under the High Court rules of Mumbai and whether the entertaining of such petition by the High Court at the pre-mature stage would not amount to hostile discrimination with other such similarly situated appellants whose appeal has not been taken up by the High Court earlier.

Because, the High Court under exercise of its powers of appeal under the Criminal Jurisdiction can not ignore the rules governing the listing of the criminal appeals before the bench and can grant orders in a criminal appeal which is neither filed properly nor has any extenuating circumstances leading to the exemption being granted by the High Court out of way.

Because, Article 14 of the Constitution of India is not  a decorative legal provision for the courts dispensing justice and whether the High Court can discriminate in listing and hearing of a petition out of turn in gross violation of law when the said appeal is neither filed in proper format nor accompanied with the impugned judgement and sentence order against which he said appeal has been filed.

Because, Article 14 of the Constitution of India   mandate equal treatment of all before the courts.

Because,  the present case calls for interference by this Hon’ble Court in its wide powers as enshrined under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
Because, the manner in which the Courts of Sessions and the High Court of Bombay has dealt with the present case it is bound to cause serious apprehensions in the minds of the general public that the judicial process in India is prone to be exploited and misused by the influential persons wherein the courts have also resorted to pick and choose instead of translating the maxim of “Eqaulity before law” into reality and give similar treatement to all accused/convicts irrespective of their social, economic status.
Because, the deviation by the Courts of Session in dealing with the present matter is  irregular and need the indulgence of this Hon’ble court for remedifying the wrong done and the dent caused to the entire judicial system of the country.

Because, the act of entertaining the criminal appeal by the High Court of Bombay is not irregular and against the established practice being followed since long.

Because, the act of Bombay High Court in listing the Criminal Appeal filed by the respondent No.2 for final disposal on 15/7/2015 is not a hostile discrimination with the persons whose appeals are awaiting listing since long and some of them are languishing in jail since years being convicted by the trial court.

Because, the act of the Court of Sessions , Bombay in deviating from the dictum of Allauddin Milan vs State of Bihar [1989 SCC (3) 5], without any valid reason has  caused serious irregularity in the criminal justice system and has ultimately helped the respondent No.2 in gaining benefit of suspension of sentence by the High court

AVERMENTS:
That the petitioner is constrained to approach this Hon’ble Court against the wide public outcry happening due to the arbitrary and irregular handling of the matter not only by the Sessions Court at Mumbai but also the High Court of Mumbai which is causing a serious doubt over the intention and conduct of the judicail system in India and the public at large is shocked and surprised to see the twisting of the law by the influential persons which makes a mockery of the rule of law in the country and more specifically the equality before law.

That the facts related to the present matter are such startling that will shake the judicail conscience.

That the respondent No.2 is a renowned film star and a celebrity which has influence the young generation of the country by his acting in the films and has innumerable number of fans in India as well as outside India. He behaved in most irresponsible and rash manner and caused a serious road accident while driving in the influence of liquir leading to the registration of FIR on 27/9/2002 wherein he killed one person on road and injured other four persons due to his conduct.

That the FIR was sent to trial before Sessions court at for Greater Bombay at Bombay and registered as case No. 240 of 2013 on the basis of CR No. 326/2002 at Ps Bandra, Mumbai. The court framed charges under Section 304, Part-II, 337,338IPC read with Section 134(A) (B), 187, 181, 185 MV Act.

That the court of session after a prolonged trial of the matter during which the respondent No.2 used all tactics to derail and delay the trial. The Sessions Court found the said respondent NO.2 guilty of all the charges framed against him and recorded the findings as under in the operative part of the judgement dated 6/5/2015:

“Hence in view of the documentary, ocular and expert evidence as referred above, clearly show that accused committed offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder with the knowledge that the acts/injuries caused by him, seen in the light of manner in which he drove the car in rash and negligent manner, while taking right turn on the Hill Road from St. Andrews Road under the influence of the liquor would cause death or likely to cause death. In fact accused caused the death of Nurulla and also caused grievous injuries and simple injuries to the other labours. Hence I hold him guilty punishable under Section 304 (II), 338 and 337 of the IPC. Accused was not holding the valid license and therefore he also committed an offence punishable under Section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Accused also failed to provide medical help to the injured and also failed to give information or report to the police about the incident thereby accused committed an offence punishable u/s 187 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. There was alcohol noticed to the extent of 0.062 % m.g., which is exceeding 30 m.g. per 100 m.l., therefore, accused also committed an offence punishable under Section 185 of Motor Vehicles, Act, 1988.’

That the court however adopted a peculiar and unconventional method and proceeded to pass the sentence order on the same day and sentenced him for a period of five years and few months under different sections of IPC and MV Act alongwith fine on the same day which is in variation of the established practice of sentencing the guilty on a subsequent day keeping in view the ratio of the judgement of this Hon’ble Court in Allauddin Milan vs State of Bihar [1989 SCC (3) 5], the copy of the juddgement and sentence order of the Court of Sessions, Greater Bombay, Bombay in Case No. 240/2013 dated 6/5/2015 is being filed herewith as ANNEXURE-P-1.

That the said sentencing was done till evening at around 4.00PM as reported in the media however the matter was mentioned by the counsel for the said respondent No.2 before the High Court of Mumbai on the same day in the evening and a spacious plea that the copy of the judgement was not handed over to the said respondent was taken however no prejudice being caused due the same was shown. The High Court strangely and giving the go bye to the established practice in such matters passed orders dated 6/5/2015 and granted suspension of sentence to the accused, the respondent No.2 despite the fact that the copy of the impugned judgement and sentence order was not placed before the court neither any appeal as per the format filed, the copy of the order dated 6/5/2015 in Criminal Appeal No. 572/2015 passed by the High Court of Bombay is being filed herewith as ANNEXURE-P-2.

That vide the orders dated 6/5/2015 , the High Court of Bombay has ordered for the placing of the Criminal Appeal for hearing on 8/5/2015 before the bench accordingly, the same was placed before the bench for hearing on 8/5/2015 and the court passed the orders dated 8/5/2015 thereby suspending the sentence of the respondent No.2, the copy of the orders dated 8/5/2015 in Criminal Appeal No. 572/2015 as passed by the Bombay High Court is filed herewith as ANNEXURE-P-3.

That entire chain of events was being covered by the print media, electronic media and social media and the people were surprised by the manner in which the relief was granted to the respondent No.2 , bending the rules and going out of way which is in complete disregard of right to equal treatment to all in law. It is apparent that the respondent NO.2 was in a position to exploit the deliberate loopholes in the law hence was granted relief on flimsy grounds and by taking new routes in dispensation of justice.

That the people at large are shocked and surprised to see that even before the ink on the sentence order passed by the Court of Sessions was dry and even before the copy of the same could be served on the respondent No.2, the said order was challenged before the High Court of Mumbai and strangely enough the court entertained the Criminal Appeal filed without the copy of the judgement and odered for the suspension of sentence with promptness and the Court of Sessions remained waiting for the said order of suspension of sentence till late evening till 7.30 PM which is not the standard practice in the courts. It is strange and intriguing that the Court of Sessions remained waiting for the orders of the High Court till late in the evening despite the closing hours just because a celberity was involved .

That the Court of Sessions infact committed a serious irregularity of passing the judgement on the case and passing the sentencing order on the same day which is in violation of the ratio of the case mentioned above and to the knowledge of the petitioner the said Court of Sessions has not done so in any such case till date. The said irregularity was committed just because a celebrity was involved. This conduct of the court below makes the mockery of the equality before law and the general public is aghast to see the same. The mandate of this Court is reproduced hereunder for ready reference:

“We think as a general rule the Trial Courts should after recording the conviction adjourn the matter to a future date and call upon both the prosecu- tion as well as the defence to place the relevant material bearing on the question of sentence before it and thereafter pronounce the sentence to be imposed  on the offender. In the present case, as pointed out earlier, we are afraid that tile learned Trial Judge did not attach sufficient impor- tance to the mandatory requirement of sub-section (2) of Section 235 of the Code.”

That the social media is full of adverse comments on such a bending of the process which is bound to cast bad  impression on the general public on the impage of the judiciary.  Most of the comments on social media raise a finger towards the process of dispensation of justice which is dangerous for the country as the public at large is loosing faith in the judicial process and pointing out that the influential can manipulate and manage any relief for them by twisting the law.

That to the knowledge of the Petitioner the Court of Sessions Bombay has not passed the judgement of conviction and sentencing order of any accused on the same day earlier neither the court has ever waited for the orders from the High Court till 7.30 PM in the evening. The aforesaid behaviour of the Court of Sessions amounts to giving a special treatment to the case of the respondent No.2 and raises serious questions on the entire justice dispensation system.

That the petitioner being a social activist and a person with concern over the social issues is thus before the court seeking indulgence of the court in the matter so that the faith of the common man in the judicial system is maintained and the public at large does not loose their faith in the judicial system which will ultimately damage the rule of law in the country.

That the petitioner being a man of media has come across very hard hitting comments and outcry against the entire judicial system of the country where the people are casting serious aspersions on the entire judicial system not only in conventional medial but also on social media which has now become the mouthpiece of society. The petitioner has compiled some of such comments and is filing the same before the Court although the petitioner does not subscribe to the extreme views being expressed therein. The said views, comments are a stark reality of the society and need immediate attention by this Hon’ble Court so that the society at large does  not loose its faith in the entire jusicial system which will be very dangerious for the democracy. Some of the comments downloaded and printed by the petitioner after 8/5/2015 alongwith their printouts and true translated copies is being filed herewith as ANNEXURE-P-4.

That the present petitioner has not filed any other petition in any High Court or the Supreme Court of India on the subject matter of the present petition.

PRAYER

In the above premises, it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased:

Issue, a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents thereby staying the orders dated 8/5/2015 passed by the Bombay High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 572/2015 filed by the respondent NO.2.

Issue, a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents thereby staying the suspension of sentence order dated 8/5/2015 passed by the High Court of Mumbai in Criminal Appeal No. 572/2015 and direct the respondent No.2 to surrender before the jail authorities in accordance with the rules.

To pass such other orders and further orders as may be deemed necessary on the facts and in the circumstances of the case.

FOR WHICH ACT OF KINDNESS, THE PETITIONER SHALL AS IN DUTY BOUND, EVER PRAY.

PETITIONER IN PERSON


मूल खबर:

सलमान खान को अवैध तरीके से जमानत दिए जाने के खिलाफ सुप्रीम कोर्ट में जनहित याचिका दायर

कृपया हमें अनुसरण करें और हमें पसंद करें:

सलमान खान को अवैध तरीके से जमानत दिए जाने के खिलाफ सुप्रीम कोर्ट में जनहित याचिका दायर

एडवोकेट उमेश शर्मा और पत्रकार यशवंत सिंह मीडिया को जनहित याचिका के बारे में जानकारी देते हुए.


एक बड़ी खबर दिल्ली से आ रही है. सलमान खान को मिली जमानत खारिज कर उन्हें जेल भेजे जाने के लिए सुप्रीम कोर्ट में आज एक जनहित याचिका दायर की गई. यह याचिका चर्चित मीडिया पोर्टल Bhadas4Media.com के संपादक यशवंत सिंह की तरफ से अधिवक्ता उमेश शर्मा ने दाखिल की. याचिका डायरी नंबर 16176 / 2015 है. जनहित याचिका के माध्यम से इस बात को अदालत के सामने लाया गया है कि सेशन कोर्ट बॉम्बे ने इस मामले में पहले से निर्देशित कानून का पालन जानबूझ कर नहीं किया जिसकी वजह से सलमान खान को बेल आराम से मिल गयी और इससे भारत के पढ़े-लिखे लोग सन्न है. हर तरफ कोर्ट पर सवाल उठाए जाने लगे. सोशल मीडिया पर कोर्ट के खिलाफ नकारात्मक टिप्पणियों की बाढ़ सी आ गई.

लोग सवाल उठाने लगे कि क्या किसी अदृश्य और बड़ी राजनीतिक ताकत के इशारे पर न्यायपालिका सिर के बल पलट गई और ऐसे ऐसे कारमाने किए कि न्यायपालिका पर से लोगों का भरोसा उठ गया. यह प्रश्न मूल रूप से उठाया गया है कि क्या कानून सभी के लिए बराबर है? अगर ऐसा है तो सेशन कोर्ट के जज साहब ने एक दिन में ही दोनों आदेश क्यों पारित किया जबकि सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने 1989 में ही कहा था कि ऐसे मामलों में अदालत को दोनों आदेश दो दिनों में पारित करने चाहिये. Allauddin Mian vs State of Bihar [1989 SCC (3) 5] के मामले में सुप्रीम कोर्ट द्वारा दिया गया प्रावधान इस प्रकार है-

“We think as a general rule the Trial Courts should after recording the conviction adjourn the matter to a future date and call upon both the prosecu- tion as well as the defence to place the relevant material bearing on the question of sentence before it and thereafter pronounce the sentence to be imposed on the offender. In the present case, as pointed out earlier, we are afraid that tile learned Trial Judge did not attach sufficient importance to the mandatory requirement of sub-section (2) of Section 235 of the Code.”

सेशन कोर्ट के जज साहब के ऐसा करने की वजह से आर्डर की कॉपी उसी दिन उपलब्ध नहीं हो सकी और हाई कोर्ट ने इसी तर्क के आधार पर बेल दे दिया. ऐसा प्रतीत होता है कि यह साब जान बूझ कर सलमान को फायदा पंहुचाने के लिए किया गया और उनको फायदा पंहुचा भी दिया गया. सेशन कोर्ट के जज साहब शाम को सात बजे तक अपने द्वारा जान बूझ कर की गई गलती से सृजित होने वाले बेल आर्डर का इंतजार क्यों करते रहे और क्या उन्होंने ऐसा पहले कभी किया है. क्या हाई कोर्ट बिना फैसले की कॉपी के अपील सुन सकती है और सजा टाल सकती है? कोई भी अपील हाई कोर्ट के सामने बिना फैसले के कॉपी को सलंग्न किए बिना अदालत के सामने रखी ही नहीं जाती है तो इसमें ऐसा क्यों किया गया और क्या पहले ऐसा किया गया है और क्या आगे ऐसा किया जायेगा? क्या हाई कोर्ट सलमान खान के अपील को पंद्रह जुलाई को फैसले के लिये भेज सकता है और इस बात की परवाह किये बिना कि हजारों अपीलें लाइन में लगी अपने सुनवाई का इंतजार कर रहीं हैं और उनके मुलजिम जेलों में बैठे हैं. क्या अदालतें जो समानता का अधिकार दिलवाती हैं वो खुद समानता के अधिकार का हनन कर सकती हैं. जनहित याचिका के साथ सोशल मीडिया में न्यायालय के खिलाफ की गईं नकारात्मक टिप्पणियों की प्रति भी संलग्न की गई है ताकि कोर्ट आइना देख सके.

याचिका को लेकर पत्रकार यशवंत सिंह और अधिवक्ता उमेश शर्मा के बयान इन वीडियो लिंक पर क्लिक करके देख सुन सकते हैं: 1- https://goo.gl/efqsMc   xxx  2-  https://goo.gl/Q0xghP   xxx 3-  https://goo.gl/0lp1Vv    

ज्यादा जानकारी के लिए संपर्क करें:

Umesh Sharma, Adv: 09868235388; e-mail: legalhelplineindia@gmail.com

Yashwant Singh, Petitioner: 09999966466; email: yashwantdelhi@gmail.com

PRESS RELEASE

The present PIL (Diary No. 16176 / 2015) has been filed by Yashwant Singh, journalist who is concerned about the criminal justice system of India being manipulated by rich and influential persons. The petition raises an important question of equality before law being followed and practised by the courts in letter and spirit. Salman Khan, the famous film star was convicted and sentenced in 304, Part-II, 337,338 IPC read with Section 134(A) (B), 187, 181, 185 MV Act and punishment of 5 years and few months was awarded on him on 6/5/2015 by the Sessions Court Bombay. 

The Sessions Court passed the order of conviction and the order of sentencing on the same day which is in violation of judgement of Supreme Court of India which directs as under: Allauddin Mian vs State of Bihar [1989 SCC (3) 5]

“We think as a general rule the Trial Courts should after recording the conviction adjourn the matter to a future date and call upon both the prosecu- tion as well as the defence to place the relevant material bearing on the question of sentence before it and thereafter pronounce the sentence to be imposed on the offender. In the present case, as pointed out earlier, we are afraid that tile learned Trial Judge did not attach sufficient impor- tance to the mandatory requirement of sub-section (2) of Section 235 of the Code.”

High Court of Bombay entertaining the Criminal Appeal without the copy of the judgement and sentencing order in mentioning on the same day i.e. 6/5/2015 and granting a stay on surrender. Sessions court waiting for the order of the High Court till 7.30 PM in the evening in very unusual manner. Can the Session court cite any such example where it waited till 7.30 PM in the evening after sentencing the convict. It was done just because a celeberity was involved despite the fact that his guilt was established before the court and he was awarded the severiest punishment by the Sessions Court. Another irregularity is the fixing of the Criminal Appeal filed by Salman Khan for final disposal on 15 July, 2015 despite the fact that several appeals are awaiting listing and hearing since long and some of the convicts are languishing in jail for years.

This all violates the equal treatment of all before the law and is an example of hostile discrimination to the poor masses of the country who can not afford expensive lawyers and remain suffering. The rich and influential can manipulate the law for their benefit which is evident from this case.

For more details contacts

Umesh Sharma, Adv: 09868235388; e-mail: legalhelplineindia@gmail.com

Yashwant Singh, Petitioner: 9999966466; email: yashwantdelhi@gmail.com


जनहित याचिका में क्या कुछ लिखा गया है, यह जानने-पढ़ने के लिए नीचे दिए गए शीर्षक पर क्लिक करें:

Yashwant Versus Salman

कृपया हमें अनुसरण करें और हमें पसंद करें:

आज़म खान जौहर शोध संस्थान पीआईएल : यूपी सरकार से जवाब तलब

लखनऊ : अल्पसंख्यक कल्याण मंत्री आज़म खान द्वारा बिना किसी नियम, शर्त और प्रक्रिया के राज्य सरकार के अल्प संख्यक विभाग के मौलाना जौहर अली शोध संस्थान रामपुर की बेशकीमती भूमि और भवन को स्वयं की निजी संस्था मौलाना जौहर अली ट्रस्ट को मात्र 100 रुपये वार्षिक लीज पर दिए जाने के खिलाफ सामाजिक कार्यकर्ता डॉ नूतन ठाकुर की पीआईएल में इलाहाबाद हाई कोर्ट के लखनऊ बेंच ने उत्तर प्रदेश सरकार से 2 सप्ताह में जवाब माँगा है.

जस्टिस एस एन शुक्ला और जस्टिस राजन रॉय की बेंच ने कहा कि प्रकरण काफी गंभीर है और इसमें स्थिति स्पष्ट किया जाना जरूरी है. पीआईएल में कहा गया है कि आज़म खान ने निजी लोगों को सरकारी भूमि दिए जाने के सम्बन्ध में सर्वोच्च न्यायालय द्वारा सौरभ गांगुली, सुभाष घई और कुशाभाई ठाकरे ट्रस्ट मामलों में प्रतिपादित सिद्धांतों को तार-तार करते हुए बीच शहर में करीब 1500 वर्गगज जमीन और उस पर 9.83 करोड़ में बने सरकारी भवन को अपनी निजी संस्था के नाम मात्र सौ रुपये वार्षिक लीज पर तीस सालों के लिए दिए जाने का फैसला करा लिया गया है जो पद का सीधा दुरुपयोग है.

डॉ ठाकुर ने कहा है कि तत्कालीन प्रमुख सचिव डॉ देवेश चतुर्वेदी ने इसे हितों का टकराव बताते हुए यह सरकारी भूमि और भवन विभागीय मंत्री की निजी संस्था को देने का विरोध किया था जिसके बाद उन्हें विभाग से हटा दिया गया और सरकारी मशीनरी पर दवाब डाल कर यह विधिविरुद्ध फैसला कराया गया. अतः उन्होंने याचिका में इस आवंटन को निरस्त करने और दोषी अधिकारियों के खिलाफ कार्यवाही किये जाने की मांग की है.

समाचार अंग्रेजी में पढ़ें – 

Azam Khan Jauhar Shodh Sansthan PIL: HC seeks reply  

In the PIL filed by social activist Dr Nutan Thakur against Minorities welfare minister Azam Khan getting allotted government land and building of Maulana Jauhar Ali Shodh Sansthan at Rampur to his private Maulana Jauhar Ali Trust at abnormally low annual lease rent of Rs. 100, in blatant disregard to the rules and regulations, Lucknow bench of Allahabad High Court has sought reply from the State government in 2 weeks. The case shall be listed thereafter.

The bench consisting of Justice S N Shukla and Justice Rajan Roy said that it is a very serious matter and facts must be explained before the Court.

The PIL says that Azam Khan pressurized the government authorities to grant 1500 sq yard government land and building built at the cost of Rs. 9.83 crores to his private trust for 30 years lease for a nominal annual rent of Rs. 100, while completely ignoring the law formulated by the Supreme Court in identical matters of land allotment to Sourav Ganguli, Subhash Ghai and Kushabhai Thakare memorial Trust.

Dr Thakur said that the then Principal Secretary Dr Devesh Chaturvedi had strongly opposed this move calling it a case of direct conflict of interest after which he was removed from the post and the government machinery was forced to get this illegal order passed.

Hence, in the petition she has sought quashing of the allotment order, along with action against guilty officials.

सामाजिक कार्यकर्ता डॉ.नूतन ठाकुर सं संपर्क : 94155-34525

कृपया हमें अनुसरण करें और हमें पसंद करें:

आज़म खान जौहर शोध संस्थान मामले में हाईकोर्ट में पीआईएल

लखनऊ : सामाजिक कार्यकर्ता डॉ. नूतन ठाकुर ने आज अल्पसंख्यक कल्याण मंत्री आज़म खान द्वारा बिना किसी नियम, शर्त और प्रक्रिया के राज्य सरकार के अल्प संख्यक विभाग के मौलाना जौहर अली शोध संस्थान रामपुर की बेशकीमती भूमि और भवन को स्वयं की निजी संस्था मौलाना जौहर अली ट्रस्ट को मात्र 100 रुपये वार्षिक लीज पर दिए जाने के खिलाफ इलाहाबाद हाई कोर्ट के लखनऊ बेंच में पीआईएल दायर किया है.

पीआईएल में कहा गया है कि आज़म खान ने निजी लोगों को सरकारी भूमि दिए जाने के सम्बन्ध में सर्वोच्च न्यायालय द्वारा सौरभ गांगुली, सुभाष घई और कुशाभाई ठाकरे ट्रस्ट मामलों में प्रतिपादित सिद्धांतों को तार-तार करते हुए बीच शहर में करीब 1500 वर्गगज जमीन और उस पर 9.83 करोड़ में बने सरकारी भवन को अपनी निजी संस्था को दिए जाने का फैसला करा लिया है, जो पद का सीधा दुरुपयोग है.

डॉ ठाकुर ने कहा है कि तत्कालीन प्रमुख सचिव डॉ देवेश चतुर्वेदी ने इसे हितों का टकराव बताते हुए यह सरकारी भूमि और भवन विभागीय मंत्री की निजी संस्था को देने का विरोध किया था, जिसके बाद उन्हें विभाग से हटा दिया गया और सरकारी मशीनरी पर दबाव डाल कर यह विधिविरुद्ध फैसला कराया गया. अतः उन्होंने याचिका में इस आवंटन को निरस्त करने और दोषी अधिकारियों के खिलाफ कार्यवाही किये जाने की मांग की है.

समाचार अंग्रेजी में पढ़ें –  

PIL in Azam Khan Jauhar Shodh Sansthan case  

Social activist Dr Nutan Thakur today filed a PIL in Lucknow bench of Allahabad High Court against Minorities welfare minister Azam Khan getting allotted government land and building of Maulana Jauhar Ali Shodh Sansthan at Rampur to his private Maulana Jauhar Ali Trust at abysmal annual lease rent of Rs. 100, in blatant disregard to the rules and regulations, without following the mandatory transparent process.

The PIL says that Azam Khan pressurized the government authorities to grant 1500 sq yard government land and building built at the cost of Rs. 9.83 crores to his private trust, while completely ignoring the law formulated by the Supreme Court in identical matters of land allotment to Sourav Ganguli, Subhash Ghai and Kushabhai Thakare memorial Trust.

Dr Thakur said that the then Principal Secretary Dr Devesh Chaturvedi had strongly opposed this move calling it a case of direct conflict of interest after which he was removed from the post and the government machinery was forced to get this illegal order passed.

Hence, in the petition she has sought quashing of the allotment order, along with action against guilty officials.

सामाजिक कार्यकर्ता डा. नूतन ठाकुर का संपर्क नंबर 094155-34525

कृपया हमें अनुसरण करें और हमें पसंद करें:

पीआईएल एक्टिविस्टों की जांच कराने के अरुण जेटली के बयान की निंदा

लखनऊ : एक्टिविस्ट डॉ. नूतन ठाकुर ने केन्द्रीय मंत्री अरुण जेटली द्वारा पीआईएल के विकास विरोधी होने और पीआईएल करने वालों के फंड की जांच होने सम्बन्धी बयानों की कठोर निंदा की है. 

उन्होंने कहा कि प्रधानमंत्री नरेंद्र मोदी के 5 स्टार एक्टिविस्ट कथन के बाद यह कथन दर्शाता है कि सत्ता में कोई भी व्यक्ति एक्टिविस्टों को पसंद नहीं करता है क्योंकि वे उनके मनमानेपन के रास्ते में आते हैं, जबकि वही लोग इनकी तब तक तारीफ़ करते रहते हैं, जब तक वे विपक्ष में रहते हैं. 

समाचार अंग्रेजी में पढ़ें –

Activist Dr Nutan Thakur has strongly criticized the statement of Union Minister Arun Jaitley made about PILs that it is the best weapon to stop development and their funding needs to be enquired. 

She said that this statement, in continuation of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s statement about 5-star activists, shows that no one in power likes activists because they come in the way of their way of favouritism and selective activities, while the same politicians love these activists as long as they are in opposition. 

कृपया हमें अनुसरण करें और हमें पसंद करें:

यादव सिंह पीआईएल : हलफनामे से सीबीसीआईडी जांच की सच्चाई खुली

यादव सिंह मामले में इलाहाबाद हाई कोर्ट की लखनऊ बेंच में सामाजिक कार्यकर्ता डॉ नूतन ठाकुर की पीआईएल में देबाशीष पांडा, प्रमुख सचिव, गृह द्वारा दायर हलफनामे से श्री यादव के खिलाफ सीबीसीआईडी जांच की सच्चाई सामने आ जाती है. नॉएडा प्राधिकरण के आर पी सिंह ने सेक्टर-39, नॉएडा में दायर एफआईआर में श्री सिंह और श्री रामेन्द्र पर 8 दिनों में 954.38 करोड़ के बांड हस्ताक्षित करने के साथ तिरुपति कंस्ट्रक्शन और जेएसपी कंस्ट्रक्शन द्वारा 08 दिसंबर 2011 को भूमिगत 33/11 केवी केबल का 92.06 करोड़ का काम ठेका मिलने के पहले ही 60 फीसदी काम पूरा कर लेने में मिलीभगत का आरोपी बताया था.

इसके लिए गुणवत्ता जांचने वाली कंपनी राइट्स की 01 जून 2012  की रिपोर्ट के साथ इन गड्ढों को भरने के तीन अनुबंधों के पेमेंट 08 दिसंबर 2011  से पूर्व हो जाने और अख़बारों में छपी तमाम खबरों को साक्ष्य के रूप में बताया गया था. पर अब श्री पांडा ने हलफनामे पर कहा है कि यह सब आरोप गलत थे और इनके कोई साक्ष्य नहीं पाए गए. हलफनामे में उलटे राइट्स को ही दोषी ठहराते हुए सीबीसीआईडी जांच को पूरी तरह सही करार दिया गया है. हलफनामे से ज्ञात हुआ है कि वही आर पी सिंह, जिन्होंने यह मुक़दमा लिखवाया था, अदालत के सामने पलट गए और उनके अनुरोध पर स्पेशल जज, गौतम बुद्ध नगर ने 27 नवम्बर 2014 को सीबीसीआईडी रिपोर्ट स्वीकार कर ली.

इस खबर को अंग्रेजी में पढ़ें…

Yadav Singh PIL : Affidavit exposes CBCID enquiry truth

कृपया हमें अनुसरण करें और हमें पसंद करें:

Yadav Singh PIL : Affidavit exposes CBCID enquiry truth

The affidavit filed by Principal Secretary Home Debashish Panda before Lucknow bench of Allahabad High Court in the PIL filed by social activist Dr Nutan Thakur in Yadav Singh scam, exposes the truth about CBCID enquiry against Sri Yadav. R P Singh of Noida Authority registered an FIR in Sector 39, Noida against Sri Singh and Sri Ramendra for executing bonds worth Rs. 954.38 crores in merely 8 days and for colluding with Tirupati Construction and JSP Construction, who completed 60 percent of Rs. 92.06 crore underground 33/11 KV cable work before actual execution of contract on 08 December 2011.

The FIR was based on report dated 01 June 2012 by quality control company RITES along with payment of three land-filling works before 08 December 2011 and the various newspaper articles about these activities. But now Sri Panda has said in his affidavit that all these allegations were found baseless during investigation. Instead the affidavit blames RITES and calls the CBCID enquiry perfectly correct. The affidavit also brings forth the fact that the same R P Singh who filed the FIR, took a U turn before the Court and on his request the Special Judge, Noida accepted the CBCID report on 27 November 2014.

इस खबर को हिंदी में पढ़ने के लिए यहां क्लिक करें…

यादव सिंह पीआईएल : हलफनामे से सीबीसीआईडी जांच की सच्चाई खुली

कृपया हमें अनुसरण करें और हमें पसंद करें:

Yadav Singh PIL : State govt seeks more time, HC fixes 23 Feb

The UP government today sought more time to file its counter affidavit in the PIL filed by social activist Dr Nutan Thakur before Allahabad High Court in Yadav Singh case. Advocate General Vijay Bahadur Singh, personally present in the Court, requested for granting any date in first week of March which was objected by petitioner Dr Thakur as being far away. Hearing both the parties, the bench consisting of Justice S S Chauhan and Justice Rituraj Awasthi fixed 23 February as the next date of hearing.

 

यादव सिंह पीआईएल: सरकार ने माँगा समय, 23 तारीख को अगली सुनवाई

यादव सिंह मामले में इलाहाबाद हाई कोर्ट में सामाजिक कार्यकर्ता डॉ नूतन ठाकुर द्वारा दायर पीआईएल में आज उत्तर प्रदेश सरकार ने प्रतिशपथपत्र दायर करने हेतु अतिरिक्त समय की मांग की. सरकार की ओर से स्वयं महाधिवक्ता विजय बहादुर सिंह ने कोर्ट से अतिरिक्त समय का निवेदन कर मार्च के प्रथम सप्ताह में तारीख लगाने की प्रार्थना की जिसे डॉ ठाकुर ने लम्बी अवधि बताते हुए प्रतिवाद किया. दोनों पक्षों की बात सुन कर जस्टिस एस एस चौहान और जस्टिस ऋतुराज अवस्थी की बेंच ने 23 फ़रवरी को सुनवाई की अगली तारीख तय की.

कृपया हमें अनुसरण करें और हमें पसंद करें:

पीएमओ ने वाड्रा पीआईएल में गहरी व्यक्तिगत रुचि ली थी

डीएलएफ-वाड्रा प्रकरण में विधिक कार्य विभाग, विधि मंत्रालय द्वारा आरटीआई कार्यकर्ता डॉ नूतन ठाकुर को प्राप्त कराये गए नोटशीट से यह साफ़ जाहिर होता है कि प्रधानमंत्री कार्यालय (पीएमओ) सहित पूरी सरकार किस प्रकार इस मामले में गहरी रूचि ले रही थी. मामले में स्वयं पीएमओ ने 05 नवम्बर 2012 को विधिक कार्य विभाग को विस्तृत निर्देश भेजे थे. इसमें डॉ ठाकुर द्वारा इलाहाबाद हाई कोर्ट की लखनऊ बेंच में इस प्रकरण में दायर याचिका का शुरुआती स्तर पर ही पुरजोर विरोध के निर्देश शामिल थे. तत्कालीन नए विधि मंत्री अश्विनी कुमार से व्यक्तिगत निर्देश लेने को कहा गया था.

निर्देश में कहा गया था कि याचिका की प्रति पीएमओ को नहीं मिली है जबकि लखनऊ स्थित सहायक सोलिसिटर जनरल आई एच फारुकी ने 09 अक्टूबर को याचिका दायर होने के साथ उसकी प्रति पीएमओ के सचिव को भेज दी थी. प्रतिशपथपत्र एटोर्नी जनरल से परामर्श से बनाया गया था और उनकी राय के अनुसार मोहन पराशरन, तत्कालीन अतिरिक्त सोलिसिटर जनरल को लखनऊ जा कर बहस करने को कहा गया था. मामला इतना महत्वपूर्ण था कि अश्विनी कुमार ने हस्तलिखित नोट में लिखा कि पीएमओ का 05 नवम्बर का निर्देश उन्हें 17 नवम्बर को दिखाया गया, भविष्य में कोई निर्देश प्राप्त होते ही तत्काल उनके सामने रखा जाये. सर्जना शर्मा का प्रिंट और इलेक्ट्रोनिक मीडिया मे लंबा अनुभव है. टाइम्स ग्रुप, संडे मेल, बीबीसी, जी न्यूज समेत कई बड़े संस्थानों में वरिष्ठ पदों पर काम कर चुकी हैं. जी न्यूज में करीब पंद्रह साल तक इन्होंने काम किया.

कृपया हमें अनुसरण करें और हमें पसंद करें: