COVID-19 Pandemic: A Joint Nobel Prize For Trump, Bolsonaro, Modi – Truly Deserved!

by

P.S.Sahni

An emergency meeting of the 50-member Nobel Assembly at Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm – responsible for the selection of Nobel laureates in physiology or medicine – is having grave deliberations.

Chairperson: An unprecedented situation has arisen after we received an email from the aforesaid aspirants for the Nobel Prize; the rules do not allow nomination by the potential laureates. I beseech the wisdom of this assembly to tide over the crises bigger than the COVID-19 pandemic itself!

Member 1 (M1): Sir, the situation being delicate – what with the background of these three characters – it is best if we go about the proceedings in a dispassionate manner.

M2: Sir, the credentials of the aspirant from India states that he was instrumental in dispatching the drug Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) to about 100 odd countries to save the lives of hundreds of thousands of people. Secondly, he submits that he has allowed the production and stockpiling of Oxford vaccine (backed by British government) at Pune, India at the very centre where Phase II, III, IV clinical trials of this vaccine are still in progress! Additionally he has dispatched paracetamol medicine to many countries for control of fever in COVID-19 infection! Besides he is said to be the original proponent of social distancing; sir, he has socially distanced himself from his better half for decades. Speaks volumes for his sacrifice. He faces a crucial provincial (Bihar) election in October 2020; would love to conquer Bihar close on the heels of the announcement of the prize.

M1: Sorry for the interruption but it needs to be pointed out that even the World Health Organization has concluded that HCQ is useless and dangerous when given to patients with serious pneumonia. On this ground alone the prize cannot be awarded. Secondly sir, while it is courageous for this aspirant to allow production and stockpiling of the vaccine even before the trials are successfully completed, what if the results of these trials are anything but? Thirdly, around 80,000 doctors, nurses, voluntary workers in India alone have got infected with the virus even though health care service providers are given HCQ as a government policy. Clearly HCQ does not have even a preventive role.

M3: I am aware, sir, of the way things get done in India. You can be sure that results of the trial would be as required by the Oxford University and Astra-Zeneca. The British PM has himself put in a word to his Indian counterpart. Moreover the institute undertaking the trial has had a call from Bhai log (mafia) in Mumbai that the trials have to be shown to be successful. So there should be no doubt on this score. For the uninitiated Bhai log are more feared than the Italian godfathers and resourceful too! A negative point though, is that the aspirant from India was accused of genocide of Muslims in Gujarat in 2002 though the judiciary gave him a clean chit later! After being denied visa for visit to USA for over a decade Trump personally invited Modi and embraced him in pre-COVID times!

M4: Sir, the aspirant from USA asserts that he should be lauded for projecting the COVID-19 infection – right in the beginning of the pandemic – as a simple flu. This ensured that mass depression and suicides got avoided in USA – a no mean achievement during the nation’s hour of greatest crises. Like the aspirant from India he too, had been a strong votary of HCQ. Rumours have it that he himself had consumed this medicine for prevention of infection. In fact his concern for the people of his country can be gauzed from the fact that he had threatened to bomb India to Stone Age at a time when Modi had dared to put an embargo on the export of this drug for a few days. Sir, we have to appreciate the spirit of this character and the passion with which he steered the country through this pandemic. Remember, too, he could pressurize Modi – who never tires of reminding all and sundry that his chest circumference measures 56 inches – to lift the embargo on HCQ. The aspirant has tagged a few recommendatory letters from dozens of women who cheerfully testify to his virility in all honesty. Moreover, sir, he faces a re-election in the first week of November; his name being declared in October as per our protocol would steer him through the tumultuous electoral process! Keep in mind sir, that this time Russia may not be able to manipulate the elections in USA through social media. Our little bit of help would get him past the goal post. If we don’t, he may resort to the usual tactics – imposing sanctions, tariffs; what is more he may bomb the Nobel assembly at Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm out of existence!

M5: Sir, let me brief this august gathering on the third aspirant: you have to admire the bravado of the Brazilian president; Bolsonaro has been moving around publicly throughout the length and breadth of the country often without as much as a mask and occasionally hugging the populace at public places. Never mind that all this has resulted in Brazil having the second highest number of COVID-19 cases in the world but the risk he took personally cannot be ignored. Besides he is the original propagator of HCQ which he prefers to call by the Hindu mythological connotation of being Hanuman ji’s sanjeevni buti. Such creative and innovative mind would be hard to locate in CDC, Atlanta, USA. I wish to bring to your notice that Father Damien worked amongst leprosy patients and contracted leprosy; likewise sir, Bolsonaro contacted COVID-19 infection in July 2020 purely because he dared to mingle with the Brazilian people when they were in need of emotional support. This selfless act of Bolsonaro qualifies him to be an aspirant.

M6: What if in spite of the best efforts of Bhai log in India the results of Phase II to IV point towards the vaccine being useless.

M7: Sir, once we have given the award to these three aspirants we need not worry if the Oxford vaccine discovery is found to be bogus. Remember sir, that in the year 1926 we had awarded a Nobel Prize in medicine to Johannes Fibiger which was later found to be a discovery of dubious nature. So we have a precedence to fall back upon. We shouldn’t worry about such niceties.

M8: Sir, in any case in Putin’s Russia the vaccine has not only not completed the full mandatory trials but has also been produced and stockpiled. In fact people have even been vaccinated with this new vaccine. One of Putin’s close relative has received a shot and Putin insists that all is fine. Luckily for us at the Nobel Prize committee Putin has not projected himself as an aspirant to the Nobel Prize. You know sir, how these wretched communists – present and erstwhile – look at the Nobel Prize, to wit, an instrument of decadent western capitalist world order. Same goes for China where the vaccine trials are in an advanced stage. Before I end my statement I wish to chip in – and we must collectively confess in this august gathering – that at the behest of USA and western Europe we have used the Nobel Prize to create dissenters within the iron curtain countries in the past. This was in line with the long term objective of the west to have a communist-mukt world order.

Chairperson: I have given a patient hearing to the worthy opinion of the members of this assembly; yet I must express myself clearly that I feel strongly that the soul of Alfred Nobel would never rest in peace if the likes of Trump were to be bestowed with the Nobel Prize in medicine. The very thought is discomforting to me.

Dissenting member: Since this is a closed door meeting and our corporate press will never get wind of the ongoing proceedings here – which as per protocol are kept secret for 50 years in any case – let the truth be out. I have no hesitation in reminding you that Alfred Nobel made his money out of the invention of dynamite and an explosive device called a blasting cap which inaugurated the modern use of high explosives. Sir, dynamite has created more death and destruction in this world than all the havoc caused by the USA in the two dozen odd countries which it had invaded since World War II for a variety of reasons viz oil; regime change; locating non-existent weapons of mass destruction; defeating communism and at times even to win presidential elections within USA not to speak of enlarging the business of the MNCs manufacturing war weaponry. So if Trump shares this prize, Alfred Nobel’s soul is more likely to rest in peace permanently. I think your fears are totally unfounded. We will be able to kill two birds with one stone if the name of the Indian aspirant stays included; do you recall that the name of the company started by Alfred Nobel for manufacture and sale of weapons including canons and other armaments. Yes, I am referring to Bofors – which put the grand old Indian National Congress (INC) in disrepute for decades. Poetic justice would be done to the Indian aspirant. Besides, letting him share the award would provide ammunition to the INC to regain its lost political hold. You may announce the award jointly to the three aspirants at the scheduled ceremony in October – the month earmarked as per the protocol of the Nobel Committee.

Namaste!

Dr. P. S. Sahni is a member of PIL Watch Group & ABVA.

First published: https://countercurrents.org/2020/09/covid-19-pandemic-a-joint-nobel-prize-for-trump-bolsonaro-modi-truly-deserved/

Revisiting Krishna Iyer’s Treatise on Bail – Part II: In the Context of the Cases of Umar Khalid & Others

 

Revisiting Krishna Iyer’s Treatise on Bail – Part II

In the Context of the Cases of Umar Khalid & Others

 

Benjamin Cardozo and Lord Camdon have brought to the fore as to what constitutes judicial discretion used by judges in the context of bail:

“The judge even when he is free, is still not wholly free. He is not to innovate at pleasure. He is not a knight – errant roaming at will in pursuit of his own ideal of beauty or of goodness. He is to draw his inspiration from consecrated principles.” —Benjamin Cardozo[1]

and

“..the discretion of a judge is the law of tyrants: it is always unknown. It is different in different men; it is casual, and depends upon constitution, temper and passion. In the best, it is often times caprice; in the worst, it is every vice, folly and passion to which human nature is liable …”—Lord Camdon[2]

Js. V.R. Krishna Iyer and Js. D.A. Desai through their judgement dated 31.01.1978 in Babu Singh and Others V. The State of U.P.[3] gave a scientific orientation to the crucial issue of bail. These judges accepted that hitherto the ferocity of the crime had eclipsed the real purposes of bail or jail; that other sensitive and sensible circumstances were ignored, and that the fate of applicants for bail in the higher judiciary had largely hinged on the hunch of the bench as on expression of judicial discretion.

The personal liberty of an accused or convict is fundamental as enunciated in Article 21 of the Constitution of India: No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law, it can be denied only by procedure “established by law”. The last four words of Article 21 are the life-force of that vital human right.

The fundamental and constitutional right of bail is available to those accused, charged or convicted. The object to keep a person in judicial custody pending trial or disposal of an appeal is primarily to ensure the attendance of the person at trial. That’s the crux. Lord Russel, C.J. ruled:

"I observe that in this case bail was refused for the prisoner. It cannot be too strongly impressed on the magistracy of the country that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment, but that the requirements as to bail are merely to secure the attendance of the prisoner at trial."[4]

This theme was developed by Lord Russel of Killowen C. J., when he charged the grand jury at Salisbury Assizes, 1899:

"....it was the duty of magistrates to admit accused persons to bail, wherever practicable, unless there were strong grounds for supposing that such persons would not appear to take their trial.”[5]

In Archbold it is stated that:

"The proper test of whether bail should be granted or refused is whether it is probable that the defendant will appear to take his trial ..”

Umar Khalid & Others are hardly the sort of people who if given bail would not make themselves available for trial. They are unlikely to take the first flight to Timbuktu upon release on bail and disappear. It is in their interest to get over with the trial fast. But they are the victim of the slow motion of the justice system – precisely the right candidate for bail.

Js. Krishna Iyer simplifies the guiding principle for those emotionally charged and are won’t to say goodbye to logic and common sense when bail is being prayed:

“The principal rule to guide release on bail should be to secure the presence of the applicant who seeks to be liberated, to take judgement and serve sentence in the event of the court punishing him with imprisonment.”

Umar Khalid & Others don’t have a bad record – particularly a record which suggests that they are likely to commit serious offences while on bail. They are not habitual offender. They qualify for bail on this count too.

Js. Krishna Iyer makes an impassioned plea for public justice:

“It makes sense to assume that a man on bail has a better chance to prepare or present his case than one remanded in custody. And if public justice is to be promoted, mechanical detention should be demoted.”

Umar Khalid & Others have prayed for bail so that they can prepare a better defence of himself. It is a fair enough ground for his bail.

Justices Krishna Iyer and Desai elaborate:

“The considerable public expense in keeping in custody where no danger of disappearance or disturbance can arise, is not a negligible consideration. Equally important is the deplorable condition, verging on the inhuman, of our sub-jails, that the unrewarding cruelty and expensive custody of avoidable incarceration makes refusal of bail unreasonable and a policy favouring release justly sensible.”

“Our justice system, even in grave cases, suffers from slow motion syndrome which is lethal to ‘fair trial’., whatever the ultimate decision. Speedy justice is a component of social justice since the community, as a whole, is concerned in … the innocent being absolved from the inordinate ordeal of criminal proceedings.”

The trial would take a very long time as the Prosecution intends to examine 800-900 witnesses. So there is no likelihood of the conclusion of the trial in the foreseeable future. During this period Umar Khalid & Others will continue to languish in jail!

Why should Umar Khalid & Others be denied bail when the trial will take years to conclude. If the legal system cannot assure that the trial would be completed fast why deny bail and liberty to the accused.

Forget Umar Khalid & Others for a moment. They are just accused. Juxtapose it with what even those already convicted by a court stand to avail if they go in appeal. This weighty issue has been dealt at length by Js. Bhagwati in his judgement dated 02.09.1977 in Kashmira Singh V. The State of Punjab[6]. The rationale of this practice – not to release on bail a person who has been sentenced to life imprisonment – could have no application where the Court is not in a position to dispose of the appeal for five or six years.

Js. Bhagwati makes it crystal clear that:

“It would indeed be a travesty of justice to keep a person in jail for a period of five or six years for an offence which is ultimately found not to have been committed by him.”

Js. Bhagwati then proceeds on to raise five important questions:

1. Can the Court ever compensate him for his incarceration which is found to be unjustified?

2. What confidence would such administration of justice, inspire in the mind of the public?

3. Would a judge not be overwhelmed with a feeling of contribution while acquitting such a person after hearing the appeal?

4. Would it not be an affront to his (judge’s) sense of justice?

5. Of what avail would the acquittal be to a person who has already served out his term of imprisonment or at any rate a major part of it?

Remember that Js. Bhagwati was dealing with the bail plea of a person convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment by the High Court who had come in appeal to the Supreme Court. Yet he was granted bail till the disposal of the appeal which could have taken a few years. Remember again that the cases Umar Khalid & Others are under trial. Far from being convicted even the trial is getting inordinately delayed. Their bail applications should justifiably be allowed.

[Shobha Aggarwal is an advocate and Jt. Secretary, Public Interest Litigation Watch Group. Part I of this article appeared in SACW on 13.05.2014 See: India: Revisiting Krishna Iyer's Treatise on Bail In the Context of Tejpal’s Case - South Asia Citizens Web]

[1] The Nature of Judicial Process – Yale University Press (1921)

[2] (I Bovu. Law Dict., ‘Rawles’ III Revision p. 685- quoted in Judicial Discretion – National College of the State Judiciary, Reno, Nevada p.14).

[3] All citations in this article are from this Supreme Court’s judgement reported at 1978 AIR 527; 1978 SCR (2) 777; 1978 SCC (1) 579

[4] R.v. Rose 1898-18Cox CC. 717: 67 LJOB 289- quoted in ’The granting of Bail’, Mod. Law Rev. Vol. 81, Jan 1968 p. 40, 48

[5] (1899) 63 J. P. 193, Mod. Law Rev. p. 49

[6] 1977 AIR 2147

 

ABVA's twitter account suspended

Activists in India are alarmed at ABVA's twitter account being suspended. Here is the message received:

OPEN LETTER TO ELON MUSK

 

When your friend Donald Trump makes a false statement that Indian economy is dead you don’t suspend his twitter account.

If ABVA makes a factual statement that Indian economy is one of the fastest growing economies in the world you suspend ABVA’s twitter account

NO THANKS

(Attached is the email sent by twitter indicating ABVA account being suspended).

OPEN LETTER TO PHILOSOPHER STATESMEN OF THE WORLD

Martha Nussbaum, Cornel West, Jürgen Habermas, Amartya Sen, Slavoj Žižek, Noam Chomsky

 

Respected Madam/Sir,

 

Two powerful nations viz U.S. and Russia have brought humanity on the verge of WW-III with declared preference for nuclear war. We appeal to you to offer sagacious advice internationally to both to desist from global nuclear annihilation.

 

Thanks,

Appeal issued by Public Interest Litigation Watch Group, New Delhi, India

URGENT PETITION: On non-notification of Delhi Rent Act, 1995

                                                             

To

The Registrar,

Supreme Court of India,

New Delhi.

 

Subject: Non-notification of laws passed by the Parliament, assented to by the President of India, by the Executive and bureaucracy

 

Ref: Presidential reference on President, Governor’s powers which is being adjudicated by a five-judge Constitution bench and matters related thereof

 

Hon’ble Chief Justice of India and his companion judges,

 

Nation is expectantly waiting for a judgment on the aforementioned issue as it concerns “we the citizens’ so that a law passed by a duly elected legislature does not get confined to cold storage due to governmental/bureaucratic inertia.

 

We wish to bring to the notice of the five-judge constitution bench that there is yet one more area where in spite of this courts’ sincere efforts the law could be made un-operational by vested interests due to non-notification of the law in cases where there is no inbuilt clause in the law that it would come into operation immediately or after a stipulated time-period as in the case of Delhi Rent Act, 1995 (DRA, 1995).

 

The DRA, 1995 was passed by both Houses of Parliament, and received the assent of the President of India on August 23, 1995. It is not being enforced ostensibly because of successive Central governments getting blackmailed by the vested interests! In the last thirty years of the legislative history, the Union Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs (MoHUA) has either blatantly ignored the sagacious recommendations or wilfully not implemented the assurances given to several Parliamentary Committees (including the Committee on Petitions; Committee on Assurances; Committee on Subordinate Legislation; and three Parliamentary Standing Committees). The non-notification of the DRA, 1995 by the MoHUA is contemptuous of Parliament, the aforementioned Parliamentary Committees, as also the President of India. Even the pronouncements of the judiciary particularly during the last two decades urging the government for immediate rental law reform, including payment of market rent by tenants, have not been heeded to. This is collective contempt shown on this issue by the government towards Parliament, Parliamentary Committees, the President of India and Supreme Court of India.

 

By not issuing the relevant notification within a reasonable period, the executive effectively assumes the law-making functions. This is unconstitutional since the power to make laws rests with the legislature, not the executive. One of the defining features of our Constitution is the separation of powers between the legislature, executive and judiciary.

 

It is our earnest hope the power of the legislature, for example, through non-notification of Acts passed by Parliament and even assented to by the President of India are brought to a halt. Getting the DRA, 1995 to be notified could be the first step in that direction.

 

This is for your kind consideration.

 

Yours sincerely,

Paramjit Singh,

Convener, National Campaign Committee for Rental Law Reform

Press Release: Repeal of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958

 To

The Chief Reporter/ News Editor,

The Committee for the Repeal of Delhi Rent Control Act (CRDRCA) has been campaigning for rental law reform in Delhi for about two decades. The CRDRCA welcomes the judgement of Delhi High Court delivered by Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani on 2 July 2025 in the case of Mrs. Madhurbhashani & Ors. The Delhi High Court is crying itself hoarse for repeal of archaic rental law since elite class tenants are paying a pittance as rent to landlords who are struggling to make both ends meet.

 

The Union Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs (MoHUA) has been urging state governments to adopt the Model Tenancy Act 2021. The Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (DRC Act) is a central legislation and the Parliament has the power to repeal it. But the Central Govt. has chosen not to take action to implement its own policy in Delhi so far. Now that BJP is in power in both Delhi and Centre after almost two and a half decades this is the right time for the Central Govt. to ensure that Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 is repealed and tenancy laws reformed in Delhi.

 

Campaign by CRDRCA

The CRDRCA, comprising of women owners, had filed a case in DHC in 2010 challenging the constitutional validity of the whole DRC Act. But in 2019 a division bench of the DHC headed by Justice S. Ravindra Bhat (as he then was) passed an unreasoned judgement and refused to give any relief to the landlords. The violation of fundamental rights of the landlords were not deliberated upon at all in the said judgement. The judgement was a copy paste job of the petitioners’ arguments and respondents’ arguments with no analysis at all.

 

Ironically Justice S. Ravindra Bhat considered the law to be constitutional but Justice Bhambhani has aired a view which reflects the reality.

 

Thanks.

Yours sincerely,

Shobha Aggarwal

President, Committee for the Repeal of Delhi Rent Control Act

See Also: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/delhi/high-court-sets-aside-rent-controller-order-citing-misuse-of-delhi-rent-control-act/articleshow/122254751.cms

[Let history nor repeat itself in Wakf Amendment Act, 2025 as happened vis a vis Kashmir in 2019. This article was penned in 2020 one year after the Supreme Court refused to give a stay,] "Why Justice S. K. Kaul Must Recuse from Hearing Kashmir Petitions"

by Shobha Aggarwal

k

Share

One year has passed since the right wing Hindutva forces in power at the centre – which thrives on ruling by shock and awe – betrayed the people of Kashmir. In the aftermath of the events on 5 August, 2019 and with the entire valley locked up and all the leaders arrested (many are still under detention) the only hope left at that time was from the judiciary. Soon many petitions were filed in the Supreme Court (SC) which inter alia included several habeas corpus petitions, challenge to curbs on media freedom as well as challenge to the constitutionality of the  Presidential Orders  C.O. 272 & C.O. 273 (POs) and The Jammu and Kashmir (Reorganisation) Act of 2019 (the 2019 Act).

Justice so far has eluded the people of Kashmir with the courts and other statutory bodies working in tandem with the Central Govt. The judiciary is openly and without pretence deferring to the wisdom of the executive. Supreme Court has delved in detail on diverse issues relating to fundamental rights, media curbs etc in its orders without giving any tangible relief to the people of Kashmir. The near total alienation of the people of Kashmir has been lost sight of.

Beyond Kafkaesque-ism

In the cases relating to the freedom of the press three judges of the SC passed a 130-paged judgement on 10 January, 2020. The judgement was passed after the publication of newspapers had resumed and only lays down future guidelines. The SC could not even get the government to produce all the orders passed curbing the freedom of the press. Even though it held that the government’s stated “difficulty in producing all the orders before this Court … is not a valid ground to refuse production of orders before the Court”. It did not castigate the government on non-production of orders thus allowing it to erode the authority of the SC. The presumption when the documents are not produced before a court is the non-existence of such documents. But the SC does not presume it because if it did then the inevitable conclusion would follow that verbal orders were being given by those in authority to put curbs on the fundamental rights of the people of J & K in violation of all laws. The government was saved this embarrassment. The SC held:

“As all the orders have not been placed before this Court and there is no clarity as to which orders are in operation and which have already been withdrawn, as well as the apprehension raised in relation to the possibility of public order situations, we have accordingly moulded the relief in the operative portion.”

In Kafka’s ‘The Trial’ Josef K., protagonist never gets to see the charges framed against him even up to the point of being executed! In the Kashmir petition – forget the petitioners – even the judges never got to see all the orders of the government about which the judgement was passed!! In good old days (2014 to 2019) Union of India used to hand over ‘relevant’ information to judges in sealed cover; that era is now passé!!!

The continuation of 4G mobile internet ban in Jammu and Kashmir (J & K) illustrates the academic nature of the 10 January, 2020 judgement. Even now the SC is not willing to adjudicate the issue and as per the submissions made by the government in SC a special committee comprising of the chief secretary of the J & K administration, Union home secretary and secretary, Department of Telecommunications, Government of India has decided against restoration of 4G mobile internet in J & K. Can the SC delegate its judicial powers to a committee of bureaucrats? It is complete abdication of its Constitutional duty.

PIL furthering the Hindutva agenda

Between 2014 and 2018 about nine petitions were filed in the SC challenging variously Articles 370 and 35-A and special status accorded to J & K then. All these petitions filed as public interest litigation were listed in SC about thirty times between August 2014 and February 2019. Needless to say that these petitions furthered the Central Government’s agenda on J & K. One such petition was initially filed in the High Court of Delhi by a then recent law graduate with her lawyer-father arguing the petition. Mercifully the Delhi High Court dismissed the petition on 11 April, 2017. But lo and behold SC admitted the appeal against the Delhi High Court order. I attended one of the hearings in the said case in the Delhi High Court. Looking at the young women petitioner I had wondered if she has any idea whatsoever about the aspirations of the people of Kashmir? What right does she have to file such a petition? How can the constitutionality of Article 370 be challenged in a PIL? But unfortunately SC did not raise any of these fundamental questions and all these petitions filed before the events of 5 August, 2019 have now been clubbed together with the petitions challenging the constitutionality of the POs & the 2019 Act.

[For details of the petitioners/orders visit SC’s website and see case status in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1099 of 2019 titled Dr. Shah Faesal & Others Versus Union of India & Another]

Law on habeas corpus turned upside down

The law in habeas corpus requires the person under detention to be produced before the court or a judge. But the SC attuned the relief to suit the government. Instead of ordering the government to produce the detenue in court, petitioners in some cases were directed to visit the detenue in Kashmir with the proviso that they will not indulge in any other (political) activity.  The J & K High Court became de facto nonfunctional. In June 2020, J & K High Court Bar Association, Srinagar wrote to the Chief Justice of India that since August 6, 2019 more than 600 habeas corpus petitions have been filed before the High Court of J & K at Srinagar; however till date, not even 1% of such cases have been decided.

Turn the clock back …

On 02 March, 2020 a five judge Constitution bench of the SC decided that it need not refer to a larger bench the petitions challenging the constitutionality of the POs & the 2019 Act. Earlier on 1 October, 2019 the SC declined to stop the Centre from carving out two centrally-administered union territories out of Jammu and Kashmir orally saying that it could always “turn the clock back”. A reasoned written order declining stay on the 2019 Act which came into effect on 31 October, 2019 was never passed – effectively preempting its challenge! There is no clarity on when the petitions will now be listed for arguments!!

(but) … within the domain of our country

On 29 July, 2020 a three judge bench of the Supreme Court presided over by Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul allowed conditional release of Mian Abdul Qayoom, President of J & K  High Court Bar Association, who had been in jail since August 2019. The release order does not examine the “legality and validity of the impugned judgments” of the High Court of J & K denying him bail! The order was passed after the government agreed to release him on certain conditions.  Be that as it may, more alarming is the obiter dicta in the order which states:

“Before we part with the matter, we must say that Kashmir has been a troubled area. Nature has been very kind to the place. It is the human race which has been unkind. It is time for all wounds to be healed and look to the future within the domain of our country. We are sure that the petitioner will also adopt a more constructive approach to the future and the Government will consider how to bring complete normalcy at the earliest.”

The use of the phrase “within the domain of our country” in the above order has several very troubling connotations viz:

1. Complete identification of the Supreme Court judges with the Central Government;
2. “Our” could also be used like ‘us and them’, ‘ours and theirs’, ‘Indians and Kashmiris’;
3. It shows pre-existing bias in the mind of the SC judges who passed the said order.

There was no reason for this obiter dicta to form part of the order for release of Mian Abdul Qayoom. However now that it has been done Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul –  who is also part of the five judge bench hearing the challenge to the  POs & the 2019 Act – must recuse himself from hearing the said petitions as the fact that his mind is made up on the issue is no longer a secret. It is possible that other four judges on the bench also feel the same way but at least let there be a seemingly just hearing. After all justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done.

Epilogue

On 5 August, 2020 PM Modi will lay the foundation stone of Ram temple in Ayodhya. Adherents of the Hindutva ideology are working overtime to brand 5 August as a Hindutva day.

[This article is part of a series on litigation post developments of 5 August, 2019; the first article was published on 02.09.2019 in CC titled: The Presidential Orders That Felled A State; Writ Petitions Challenging This Fraud On The Indian Constitution; Praying Justice For Kashmiris]

Shobha Aggarwal is a Delhi based rights activist and lawyer.    

Email: pilwatchgroup@gmail.com

First published: https://countercurrents.org/2020/08/why-justice-s-k-kaul-must-recuse-from-hearing-kashmir-petitions/

PRESS RELEASE: Twenty questions to Higher Judiciary in India: Invoke Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952 Re.: Alleged cash found at Js. Varma's house

 

All the judges of the Supreme Court of India and the Delhi High Court are on trial before the citizens of India and so far, they are in contempt of the people. It is obvious and apparent from the media reports that since 14 March 2025 when the cash was allegedly discovered in Justice Yashwant Varma’s house a massive cover up operation was launched at the highest level of the judiciary with Chief Justice of India (CJI) in the know of everything and possibly a party to the cover up. But for the fire incident the alleged cash would not have come to light. There have been similar instances in the past when judicial corruption has come to light by happenstance. It is time that judiciary comes clean and stop hiding behind its power of contempt.

 

The truth must come out. Following questions need immediate answers:

 

1.    Who found the alleged cash at the Justice Yashwant Varma’s house?

2.    The amount of cash that was found?

3.    Who was the first person to be informed about the finding of the cash? Chain of command since the information was received?

4.    Date and time when the Chief Justice of India was informed?

5.    Date and time when the Chief Justice of Delhi High Court was informed?

6.    Minute to minute steps taken by CJI after he was informed?

7.    Minute to minute steps taken by CJ of DHC after he was informed?

8.    Why was Yashwant Varma, J. allowed to hold court for three days after the 14 March 2025 incident?

9.    When were the other judges of the SC and DHC informed?

10. Why was the incident not made public immediately?

11. Was the evidence tampered with?

12. Is there not a single judge in SC or DHC who has the courage to speak the truth?

13. What happened in the various meetings held by SC judges and DHC judges? Minutes of all the meetings as well as enquiry reports conducted so far should be made public immediately.

14. Why is Justice Yashwant Varma not coming out with his side of the story?

15. Who are the lawyers involved in the whole scam?

16. Why is CJI indulging in Double-speak?

17. Have all CCTV’s footage in and around Justice Varma’s house been preserved?

18. Has the security staff on duty at the Justice Varma’s house been questioned?

19.  Have all the call records from Justice Varma’s house been preserved since the fire incident was reported?

20. Have all electronic devices at Justice Varma’s house been sealed and preserved?

 

WE DEMAND:

 

1.    That an inquiry commission should be set up by the Government of India under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 to inquire into this definite matter of public importance?

2.    All the judges of the Supreme Court, Delhi High Court; all the personnel from Delhi Fire Service and the police; plus, anyone else with any information should be cross-examined by the Commission.

3.    The proceedings should be made public and live streamed.

 

Issued by:

PIL Watch Group