[Breaking] More trouble for Justice D.Y. Chandrachud as the office of President of India orders enquiry and action on complaint by R.K. Pathan.

• President Secretariat has forwarded the Complaint to the Centre’s Law & Justice department with directions to take action and inform complainant R.K. Pathan about the action taken.

• The request of the Bombay Bar Association (BBA) & others to close the case without enquiry is rejected.

• Despite the Complaint, Justice Chandrachud again on 9^th September 2022 & 10^th October 2022 heard the case related with his son.

• This has put the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA), Bar Council of India (BCI) & Bombay Bar Association (BBA) in an embarrassing situation who were defending Justice Chandrachud with narrative that the matter is eleven-month-old and Justice Chandrachud don’t know that his son is appearing for one of the parties.

• Many Bar Associations and other organizations have come in support of Rashid Khan Pathan.

• Indian Lawyers & Human Rights Activists Association has filed a fresh complaint against Justice Chandrachud. (Case No. PRSEC/E/2022/31788)

New Delhi: - There are more troubles to Justice Chandrachud as under Secretary of President of India on 11^th October 2022 passed an order asking Secretary of Law & Justice Department of Central Government to take action on the complaint filed by R.K. Pathan against Justice Chandrachud. It is directed to Law secretary to inform the complainant accordingly.

1. The letter dated 11.10.2022 issued by President Secretariat and copy of which received by Shri. R.K. Pathan reads thus;

“To,

 Shri S.K.G Rahate,

 Secretary, Law & Justice.

 

महोदय/ महोदया
Sir/Madam,
कृपया उपर्युक्त विषय पर भारत के राष्ट्रपति जी को संबोधित स्वतः स्पष्ट याचिका उपयुक्त ध्यानाकर्षण के लिए संलग्न है।याचिका पर की गई कार्रवाई की सूचना सीधे याचिकाकर्ता को दे दी जाये।

Attached please find for appropriate attention an e-mail petition addressed to the President of India which is self explanatory. Action taken on the petition may please be communicated to the petitioner directly.

सादर
Regards

(पी.सी.मीणा)
(P.C.Meena)
अवर सचिव
Under Secretary
राष्ट्रपति सचिवालय
President's Secretariat
राष्ट्रपति भवन, नई दिल्ली
Rashtrapati Bhavan, New Delhi”

2. This shows that the request made by few sycophant Bar bodies to close the case without enquiry is rejected.

3. Secretary General of ‘Indian Lawyer & Human Right Activists Association’ filed a fresh complaint against Justice Chandrachud. (Case No. PRSEC/E/2022/31788)

4. That, Adv. Manan Mishra, Chairman of Bar Council of India, Supreme Court Bar Association & Bombay Bar association made some statement to influence the enquiry and action.

5. Summary of the narrative run by the above three is as under;

(i) There is no record to infer that Justice Chandrachud was aware that his son Adv. Abhinav Chandrachud is appearing in the case for one of parties.

(ii) The matter of his son is eleven-month-old.

(iii) Other orders are regarding said case and cannot be objected even if Judge acted in wanton breach of law and his act of commission & omission is an offence.

(iv) The complainant is having very low credential and he was previously convicted under contempt.

6.       The strawman fallacy, intellectual dishonesty, sophistry, illegality and falsity of the abovesaid narrative is ex-facie clear from the following facts and law laid down by this Hon’ble Court.

6.1. That, there is no explanation about unusual ex-parte order to decide a non-existent application of state by the Ld. Judge if there was no influence from his son. It was against Audi Alteram Partem rule and against the binding precedents in Makopati vs. S. S. Satyan (1981) 1 SCC 62, P. Sundarrajan v. R. Vidhya Sekar, (2004) 13 SCC 472.

In R.R. Parekh Vs. High Court of Gujrat (2016) 14 SCC 1 it is ruled that when a Judge passes an order in Wanton breach of procedure prescribed by law. Law also includes the law declared by the Supreme Court as per Article.141of the constitution.

6.2. That, son of Justice Chandrachud, Adv. Abhinav Chandrachud appeared before Bombay High Court for one of the accused in a case related with FIR No. 806 of 2019 & 243 of 2021.

The order dated 20^th September 2021 passed by the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No. 3199 of 2021.

In the matter between Sheetal Kishanchand Tejwani vs State of Maharashtra Writ Petition No. 3199 of 2021 in order dated 20^th September, 2021 it is observed by the High Court as under;

1.     Heard Dr. Abhinav Chandrachud, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Pai, the learned Public Prosecutor, for the State.

5. This petition is preferred to quash and set aside FIR No.243/2021 registered with Pimpri Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 420, 406, 409, 465, 467, 468 and 471 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“the Penal Code”).

6.        Dr. Chandrachud, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the instant prosecution sought to be initiated on the basis of the aforesaid first information report lodged by respondent no.2 is legally unsustainable as the investigating agency has made an endeavour to circumvent the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.4134/2019 and connected matters on 27th August, 2019, whereby, this Court had stayed further investigation, in connection with FIR 806/2019, registered with Pimpri Police Station, Pune, in respect of the very same transaction.

8.       Dr. Chandrachud further submitted that taking note of the fact that the investigating agency has resorted to the device of filing multiple FIRs in respect of the very same transactions which form subject matter of FIR No.806/2019, this Court has passed number of orders granting interim relief to the petitioners/applicants in those petitions/applications. Our attention was invited to the orders passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.2896 of 2021 and Writ Petition No.2897 of 2021, dated 17th August, 2021 and Writ Petition (St) 12345 of 2021 and Writ Petition (St) No.12404 of 2021, dated 13th August, 2021. It was submitted that the petitioner, who is arraigned for being a guarantor for the loan transaction in respect of Account No.1981, which finds mention at Serial No.10 in the table of FIR No.806/2019, is similarly circumstanced and, therefore, deserves interim protection.

12. It would be suffice to note that while granting ad-interim relief vide order dated 13th August, 2021 in Writ Petition (St) No.12345 of 2021 and Writ Petition (St) No.12404 of 2021, we have considered the entire material and recorded a prima facie view that the transactions in respect of FIR No.806/2019 appear to be the subject matter of FIRs in the said petitions, which were lodged by the Auditor armed with the permission of Registrar, Co operation. We have also adverted to the various orders passed by this Court in the petitions wherein an identical challenge is raised and ad-interim/interim reliefs have been granted by this Court.

Copy of order Link: - https://drive.google.com/file/d/13WwPBAe9B3-hrm6QIPmnk9IM9apWd5CK/view?usp=sharing

 

6.3. That, the SLP (Cri.) No. 9131 of 2021 by Anita Chavan where the order dated 29.11.2021 passed by Justice D.Y. Chandrachud was regarding the same connected transaction of FIR. No. 806/ 2019 & FIR No 243 of 2021.

Copy of Link:- https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_36E-_WeYADY7wcZmG1dp_a4tA5Zcv5a/view

6.4. Despite such a huge controversy Ld. Judge D.Y. Chandrachud on 9^th September 2022 & 10^th October 2022 once again entertained one more petition related with same transaction and some FIR No. 806/2019 & FIR No 243 of 2021.

Justice D.Y. Chandrachud in SLP (Cri.) No. 9092 of 2022 in the matter between Vijaykumar Gopichand Ramchandani Vs. Amar Sadhuram Mulchandani had passed orders on 9^th September 2022 & 10^th October 2022.

A copy of said SLP is available at following Link:-  https://bit.ly/3RRxazL

The synopsis of said SLP reads thus;

“19.07.2019:          Pursuant to the said complaint, FIR No. 806/2019 dated 19.07.2019 came to be registered in P.S. Pimpri, Pimpri – Chinchwad.

True copy of FIR No. 806/2019 dated 19.07.2019 is Marked and  annexed herewith annexure – P/6 [Pg.   145  to 226 ].   

02.04.2021:  Hence, the petitioner herein lodged FIR No. 243 of 2021 against Respondent No. 1 and other office bearers of the Bank with Pimpri Police Station.

True copy of FIR No. 243 of 2021 dated 02.04.2021 is Marked and annexed herewith Annexure – P/7 [Pg. 227 to 244 ].

                    10.08.2021: The Ld. Sessions Court released the Respondent No.1 on bail in                     connection with FIR No. 241 of 2019 and FIR No. 243 of 2021.”

6.5. That Adv. Abhinav Chandrachud appeared for accused in cases related with FIR No. 806 of 2019 and 243 of 2021.

On the other hand Justice Chandrachud is hearing the cases related with same FIR and same transaction

6.6. That law is very clear that Justice Chandrachud is disqualified to hear the case related with his son. Hon’ble Supreme Court In State of Punjab Vs. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar (2011) 14 SCC 770, it is ruled as under;

“Bias is the second limb of natural justice. Prima facie no one should be a judge in what is to be regarded as "sua causa. Whether or not he is named as a party. The decision-maker should have no interest by way of gain or detriment in the outcome of a proceeding. Interest may take many forms. It may be direct, it may be indirect, it may arise from a personal relationship or from a relationship with the subject-matter, from a close relationship or from a tenuous one – No one should be Judge of his own case. This principle is required to be followed by all judicial and quasi-judicial authorities as nonobservance thereof, is treated as a violation of the principles of natural justice. The failure to adhere to this principle creates an apprehension of bias on the part of Judge.

BIAS- allegations made against a Judge of having bias - High Court Judge in order to settle personal score passed illegal order against public servant acted against him - Actual proof of prejudice in such a case may make the case of the party concerned stronger, but such a proof is not required. In fact, what is relevant is the reasonableness of the apprehension in that regard in the mind of the party. However, once such an apprehension exists, the trial/judgment/order etc. stands vitiated for want of impartiality. Such judgment/order is a nullity and the trial "coram non-judice”. 

6.7. Hence, the new offence Committed by Justice Chandrachud is of 10^th October, 2022, therefore there is no defence to such sycophant bar members.

6.8. In the case of High Court of Karnataka Vs Jai Chaitanya Dasa & Others 2015 (3) AKR 627 it is ruled that, ‘the extra sub- servient Bar is the greatest misfortune happened to the bench’.

It is ruled as under;

“An over subservient Bar would be one of the greatest misfortunes that could happen to the administration of justice.

196. The first duty which the counsel owes to the Court is to maintain its honour and dignity. Respect and allegiance which the counsel owes is not to the person of the Judge but to his office. The duty of courtesy to the Court does not imply that he should not maintain his self-respect and independence as his client's advocate. Respect for the Court does not mean that the counsel should be servile. It is his duty, while respecting the dignity of Court, to stand firm in advocacy of the cause of his client and in maintaining the independence of the Bar. It is obviously in the interests of justice that an advocate should be secured in the enjoyment of considerable independence in performing his duties. An over subservient Bar would be one of the greatest misfortunes that could happen to the administration of justice.”

7. That, in letter sent by few Bar members, they have mentioned that since the said orders are passed as part of judicial duties and therefore complaints are baseless.

7.1. That, they might not have read the provisions of sections 219, 218, 166 etc. of Indian Penal Code, which are meant for prosecution of a Judge who passes unlawful orders.

The cases where Judges are arrested, prosecuted, dismissed and punished for passing judicial orders for unauthorized and unlawful purposes and corrupt motives are as under;

(a) Shameet Mukherjee Vs. CBI 2003 DRJ (70) 327

(b) Jagat Jagdishchandra Patel Vs. State of Gujarat MANU/GJ/ 0361/2017

(c) K. Rama Reddy Vs. State of A. P. 1997 SCC OnLine AP 1210

(d) Smt. Justice Nirmal Yadav Vs. C.B.I. 2011 (4) RCR (Criminal) 809

(e) Govind Mehta vs.The State of Bihar  AIR 1971 SC 1708

(f) R.R. Parekh Vs. High Court of Gujrat (2016) 14 SCC 1

(g) Re: Justice C.S. Karnan  (2017) 7 SCC 1

(h) Muzaffar Husain v. State of U.P., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 567

(i) Umesh Chandra Vs State of Uttar Pradesh 2006 (5) AWC 4519 ALL

(j) Union of India Vs. K.K Dhawan (1993) 2 SCC 56

(k) Re: M.P. Dwivedi AIR 1996 SC 2299

(l) Baradakanta Mishra and Ors. Vs. Registrar of Orissa High Court (1973) 1 SCC 446

7.2.    That, ignorance of law is not available as a defence even to a common man. These people are not only a Lawyer, but you are holding the post of Chairman of Bar Council of India (BCI) & Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) etc. and therefore by taking a plea contrary to the law, you have forfeited your right to remain as a member of the noble profession of advocacy.

7.3.    That, all above case laws were already mentioned in the complaint but then too, they took a stand against the binding precedents and therefore they are guilty of wilful Contempt and also guilty of grossest professional misconduct.

7.4. In Legrand Pvt. Ltd . 2007 (6) Mh.L.J.146 it is ruled as under; 

9(c). If in spite of the earlier exposition of law by the High Court having been pointed out and attention being pointedly drawn to that legal position, in utter disregard of that position, proceedings are initiated, it must be held to be a wilful disregard of the law laid down by the High Court and would amount to civil contempt as defined in Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

7.5. In E.S. Reddy vs. Chief Secretary, Government of A.P. (1987) 3 SCC 258 it is ruled that, the advocates and more particularly senior advocates should not withhold the citation or documents which are against him.

Also see: Heena Nikhil Dharia vs. Kokilaben Kirtikumar Nayak 2016 SCC OnLine Bom 9859.

7.6. In Nalinikanta Muduli vs.State (2004) 7 SCC 19 it is ruled that, making overruled plea by an advocate is a falling standard of professional ethics.

7.7. That, Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Indirect Tax Practitioners’ Association Vs. R. K. Jain (2010) 8 SCC 281 has ruled that, it is everyone’s duty under Article 51(A) (h) to expose the malpractices on the judicial side.

Hon’ble Supreme Court had imposed a cost of Rs. 2 Lakh upon the sycophant members like these people, who filed Contempt Petition against the person who performed his constitutional duty exposed the corrupt practices in judiciary.

7.8.    Constitution Bench in Bathina Ramakrishna Reddy Vs. State of Madras AIR 1952 SC 149,had ruled that, when any Judge is involved in corruption then it has to be brought to the notice of public.

Also, it is ruled as under;

“12. [Scandalous News published against a Judge]................................................................................... If the allegations were true it would be to the benefit of the public to bring these matters in to light.................................................................................... ”

7.9. Hon’ble Justice Arun Mishra in the case R. Muthukrishnan Vs. The Registrar General of the High Court of Judicature at Madras AIR 2019 SC 849, ruled as under;

“Making the Bar too sycophant and fearful which would not be conducive for fair administration of justice. Fair criticism of judgment and its analysis is permissible. Lawyers' fearlessness in court, independence, uprightness, honesty, equality are the virtues which cannot be sacrificed. It is duty of the lawyer to lodge appropriate complaint to the concerned authorities as observed by this Court in Vinay Chandra Mishra (supra), which right cannot be totally curtailed.

 

7.10. In O.P. Sharma Vs. High Court Of Punjab & Haryana (2011) 6 SCC 86 it is ruled that;

“Section – I of Chapter-II, part VI title “standards of professional conduct and etiquette” of the Bar Council India rules specifies the duties of an advocate that ‘he shall not be servile and whenever there is proper ground for serious complaint against Judicial officer, it shall be his right and duty to submit his grievance to proper authorities.”

8. That, it is settled law that any attempt or threat to obstruct a person from performing his duty and availing legal remedy is an offence of Contempt. [Arnab Ranjan Goswami v. Maharashtra State Legislative Assembly, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 1100]

9. That, Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of C. Ravichandran Iyer vs Justice A.M. Bhattacharjee (1995) 5 SCC 457, has ruled that, when matter is subjudice before Hon’ble Chief Justice of India, then Bar Associations must wait for the decision to be taken by him.

It is ruled as under;

“40. ………...When the Chief Justice of India is seized of the matter, to avoid embarrassment to him and to allow fairness in the procedure to be adopted in furtherance thereof, the Bar should suspend all further actions to enable the Chief Justice of India to appropriately deal with the matter. This is necessary because any action he may take must not only be just but must also appear to be just to all concerned, i.e., it must not even appear to have been taken under pressure from any quarter. …………..If circumstances permit, it may be salutary to take the Judge into confidence before initiating action. On the decision being taken by the Chief Justice of India, the matter should rest at that. This procedure would not only facilitate nipping in the bud the conduct of a Judge leading to loss of public confidence in the courts and sustain public faith in the efficacy of the rule of law and respect for the judiciary, but would also avoid needless embarrassment of contempt proceedings against the office-bearers of the Bar Association and group libel against all concerned. The independence of judiciary and the stream of public justice would remain pure and unsullied. The Bar Association could remain a useful arm of the judiciary and in the case of sagging reputation of the particular Judge, the Bar Association could take up the matter with the Chief Justice of the High Court and await his response for the action taken thereunder for a reasonable period.”

10. That, Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Madhavendra L.Bhatnagar Vs Bhavana Lall (2021) 2 SCC 775, strongly deprecated the conduct of the advocate giving verdicts even before being given by the competent legal authority.

You can download the said complaint. Here

You can download the said letter of the President of India to the Secretary of Law & Justice. Here

You can also download a copy representation filed by ‘Indian Lawyers and Human Rights Activists’ Association’ dated 11.10.2022. Here