[Important] Justice Chandrachud disqualified for the post of Chief Justice of India. Writ Petition filed in the Supreme Court.
- Direct President’s office to not to administer oath to Justice D.Y. Chandrachud as Chief Justice of India. Also prohibit Justice Chandrachud from taking oath and assuming office of CJI.
- Petitioner in his Writ Petition prayed to the Supreme Court.
- Petition is filed by Shri M.A. Shaikh, Vice President of ‘Indian Lawyers and Human Rights Activists' Association’.
- Supreme Court Advocate Anand Jondhale is going to represent the petitioner and around 70 counsels from Indian Lawyers Association are going to assist him.
In his 720
pages petition he, relied on the earlier precedent in the case of Kumar
Padma Prasad vs Union of India, (1992) 2 SCC 428, where Supreme Court
had quashed the appointment of High Court Judge.
also prayed prosecution of Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and others as per Section
340 of Criminal Procedure Code for offences of forgery and perjury.
petitioner in his affidavit gave various instances of misuse of power by
Justice D.Y. Chandrachud in discriminating between ‘Senior
and Junior Lawyers’ and ‘rich and poor
litigants’ and passing contrary orders in the similar cases. The
instances show that Justice Chandrachud granted relief to rich people and
Senior advocates and dismissed the request of poor people and junior advocates.
The crux of
the petition is that, Justice Chandrachud has breached his oath taken as a
Supreme Court Judge which mandates that he should defend and uphold the law and
petitioner pointed out that, Justice Chandrachud on more than 13 occasions
acted against the law and against the constitutional mandate. In fact, he
himself violated the fundamental rights of the litigants and lawyers.
The law in
this regard is very much settled by catena of decisions that the Judge who
breach the oath taken as a Judge had effect of termination from office. [K.
C. Chandy Vs. R. Balakrishna Pillai, AIR 1986 Ker 116, S.P. Gupta v. Union of
India, 1981 Supp SCC 87]
Pollard 1943 SCC OnLine Cal 153, it is specifically ruled that,
the violation of oath brands a man unfit for public office.
It is further ruled that the person acting under outside influence should not
be given the post of supervision over judicial officers and should be
transferred to some other branch.
petitioner has made total (45) omnibus prayers.
in the petition reads as under;
(a) To decide this petition under Article 32, 129, 142 of the
Constitution of India and Section 340 r/w 195 of Cr. P.C. as per guidelines
given time to time by this Hon'ble Court and more particularly in the case
of C.S. Karnan, In Re, (2017) 7
SCC 1, Perumal Vs. Janaki (2014) 5 SCC 377, Ram Phal Vs. State (2009) 3 SCC 258, Dwarikesh
Sugar Industries Ltd. v. Prem Heavy Engg. Works (P) Ltd., (1997) 6
SCC 450,Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State 2021
SCC OnLine SC 315;
(b) To hold that, in view of specific law laid down by the three Judge Bench in
the case of Kumar Padma Prasad v. Union of India, (1992) 2 SCC 428,
this Hon’ble court is having jurisdiction to quash the warrant of appointment
of Chief Justice of India issued by the office of Hon’ble President of India,
and to prohibit/ prevent Ld. Judge from taking oath as Chief Justice of India
if the decision of his appointment is based on unlawful consideration OR if the
person so appointed is disqualified or incompetent to become the Chief Justice
of India for his breach of oath, not having faith in the constitution and his
acts of commission and omission in violation of constitutional rights of the
citizen and advocates are ex-facie clear;
(c) To hold that as per law laid
down in Kumar Padma Prasad v. Union of India, (1992) 2 SCC 428 supra
this Hon’ble court is having jurisdiction to ask the Central Government to
consider the contents of the writ petition and reconsider its decision of
appointing Justice, Dr. D. Y. Chandrachud as Chief Justice of India;
(d) To hold that in view of law
laid down by the Constitution bench (7J) in paragraph 1 and 60 of
the C.S. Karnan, In re, (2017) 7 SCC 1, this court is having
the jurisdiction to examine the allegations of Contempt of binding precedents
of Supreme Court committed by Justice Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud in a petition filed
by any citizen;
(e) To hold that, in view of specific law laid down by this Hon'ble Court
in the case of S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 149, and
further judicial pronouncement, if any Judge passes order to favor a party or
denies justice to any party by acting against the law or by failing to perform
his duty to protect the rights of the citizens and there are more than one such
occasions which are not mistake but deliberate as covered under section 52 of
IPC and law laid down in the case of R.R. Parekh Vs. High Court of Gujrat (2016) 14 SCC 1, then such Judge is said to have committed breach
of the oath and it terminates his/her office and such Judge is disqualified and
incompetent for the appointment on the post on Chief Justice of India;
(f) To hold that this Hon'ble Court if founds the
appointment of Ld. Justice Dr. D. Y. Chandrachud as Chief Justice of India is
illegal and he is disqualified to be appointed as Chief Justice of India then
it can declare that the post of the Chief Justice of India is vacant and the
authorities are free to complete the process of appointment of new Chief
Justice of India.
(g) To hold that as per specific law laid down
in R.C. Pollard v. Satya Gopal Mazumdar, 1943 SCC OnLine Cal 153, a
person not preventing outside interferences in the judicial
function is not fit to exercise supervision over judicial officer in India and
is a danger to the community and such person cannot be appointed as Chief
Justice of India he can be transferred to any other branch where such failure
in duty don’t have effect of violation of fundamental rights of the citizen;
(h) To hold that in view of specific provisions of Section 340, 195, 344
of CR. P.C. and law settled in Govind Mehta Vs. State of Bihar (1971) 3 SCC 329, K. Rama Reddy Vs State 1998 (3) ALD 305, Raman Lal Vs. State 2001 Cri. L. J. 800, and also as per Section 3(2) of the Judges
(Protection) Act, 1985, the Judge involved in offences of forgery and perjury
of the court proceedings can be prosecuted by judicial orders passed by Hon'ble
High Court & Supreme Court and such accused judge cannot claim any
(i) To hold that in view of specific law laid down in Manohar Lal vs Vinesh Anand, ( 2001) 5 SCC 407, Re: C.S. Karnan (2017) 7 SCC 1 the petition under Section 340 of Cr. P. C. and under contempt can be
filed by any citizen who is interested in protecting majesty and dignity of the
Court and having sufficient materials to substantiate his allegations;
(j) To record a finding that the acts of Justice D. Y.
Chandrachud in passing various orders against binding precedents of larger
benches and more particularly in the case of Common Cause v. Union of
India, (2018) 5 SCC 1, In Re : Distribution Of Essential Supplies &
Services during Pandemic, In Re: (2021) 7 SCC 772, Neeharika
Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, (2020) 10 SCC 118, K.S. Puttaswamy vs. Union of India, (2017) 10
SCC 1, etc., where he himself
was one of the members of the Hon’ble benches, is an act of willful disregard
and deliberate defiance of the binding precedents and it undermines the majesty
and dignity of the Supreme Court of India in the eyes of the common man,
advocates and the judges of all he subordinate courts and therefore, Justice Dr.
D.Y. Chandrachud is liable for action under contempt as per law laid down
in Baradakanta Misra v. Bhimsen Dixit, (1973) 1 SCC 446.
(k) To hold that Ld. Judge Shri Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud acted in gross
defiance of Article 14, 29, 21 of the Constitution and binding precedents for
more than 12 times as can be seen from the instances which are ex-facie proved
from the court records;
(l) To record a finding that, as mentioned in the petition it is ex-facie
clear that, Ld. Judge Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud on many occasions discriminated the
junior advocates and refused to give reliefs which was given by him to few
senior advocates which is a ex- facie case of gross violation of Article 14 of
the Constitution and contempt of binding precedents of the Supreme Court
in Bir Bajrang Kumar v. State of Bihar, AIR 1987 SC 1345, S.G.
Jaisinghani v. Union of India (  65 ITR 34 (SC), Hari Singh Vs State of Haryana, (1993) 3 SCC 114;
(m) To record a finding that the act of a Judge in passing different
orders to different advocates on same set of facts and on similar question of
law is grave judicial dishonesty, gratification and corruption of different
type and an act of breach of oath and unbecoming of Judge as has been ruled in
the case of Shrirang Yadavrao
Waghmare v. State (2019) 9 SCC 144, Muzaffar
Husain vs. State 2022 SCC OnLine SC 567, Umesh Chandra
Vs State 2006 (5) AWC 4519 ALL;
(n) To record a finding that, the act of Ld. Judge D. Y. Chandrachud
in SLP (Crl) No. 7464 of 2021 in the matter between Saroj Yadav v. State of U.P. to refuse to follow the judgement of the
Co-ordinate bench in the case of Omveer Singh v. State of U.P.,
(2019) 2 SCC 182, and in passing a contrary order even
without mentioning the reason for not following the judgement of co-ordinate
Bench is a case of gross judicial impropriety, promoting the judicial anarchy
and chance litigation as prohibited in the binding precedent in Hari
Singh v. State of Haryana, (1993) 3 SCC 114 (1) where it
is specifically ruled that, the courts of co-ordinate jurisdiction must have
consistent opinion on the same set of facts and laws; passing of contrary
orders leads to judicial anarchy and promotes chance litigation;
(o) Further hold that that, refusal by Ld. Justice Dr. D.Y.
Chandrachud in Saroj Yadav’s case (supra) while
not even referring the judgement of Co-ordinate Bench and taking a contrary
view is a direct contempt of the binding precedents of the larger bench
in Dwarikesh Sugar Industries Ltd. v. Prem Heavy Engg. Works
(P) Ltd., (1997) 6 SCC 450 and Official Liquidator Vs. Dayanand (2008)
10 SCC 1, Sant Lal Gupta and Ors. Vs. Modern Co-operative
Group Housing Society Ltd. and Ors. (2010) 13 SCC 336, where it is ruled that such a
conduct of the judge is called ‘Judicial adventurism’;
(p) To hold that as per specific law laid down by the Three-Judge bench
in the case State of Punjab v. Jasbir Singh, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1240 the
prospective accused are provided no right to be heard during the hearing of a
petition under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. regarding taking a decision to file
complaint against him;
(q) To record a finding as per Section 340 (1) of the
Cr.P.C. that, the Petitioner Smt. Anita Chavan in the Special Leave
Petition SLP (Cri.) No.
9131 of 2021 and her
Counsel Adv. Rebecca John are guilty of:
i) Making her argument on the basis of false
statement in the court about a non-existent application for vacation of stay
allegedly to be filed by the state and obtaining order on said false premise
when actually no such application was ever filed by the state. The conduct of
the petitioner and her counsel is an offence punishable under section 192, 193,
199, 200, 465, 466, 471, 474, 120(B), 34 etc. of the Indian Penal Code and such
persons including advocates are liable to be prosecuted as done in a similar
case of Pushpa Devi M.
Jatia v. M.L. Wadhawan, (1987) 3 SCC 367,Sanjeev Kumar Mittal vs. State 2011 (121) DRJ 328 and ABCD Vs. Union of India (2020) 2 SCC 52, Ranbir Singh Vs. State 1990 SCC OnLine Del 40, H. S. Bedi Vs. National Highway Authority of India 2015 SCC OnLine Del
9524, Baduvan Kunhi Vs. K. M. Abdulla 2016
SCC OnLine Ker 23602, Veerbhadra Rao
vs. Tek Chand AIR 1985 SC 28.
ii) Obtaining ex-parte order without serving copy of SLP to other party
and behind back of respondents including state counsel. Thereby violating
mandatory requirement of audi alteram partem rule as mandated in contena of
decision and more particularly in the case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) 1 SCC
iii) Not asking recusal of Ld. Justice Dr.
D.Y. Chandrachud as his son is appearing before the Bombay High Court in
relation to the offences and connected petitions of same transaction;
(r) To record a further finding as per section 340 of Criminal
Procedure Code that Ld. Justice D. Y. Chandrachud is prima facie guilty of: -
(i) Passing order based on ex-facie false pleadings and knowing fully
well that, there is no such application filed by the state and not annexed to
the petition. Which is an act of unfair procedure covered under section 52,
120(B), 34, 219, 166, 409 etc of IPC for helping the accused to commit the
perjury and facilitating the offences of fraud upon the court by misusing the
Supreme Court machinery and public property;
(ii) For passing unusual ex-parte order with undue haste; without giving any
reason for such hasty order when neither the respondents including state
counsel were heard; And thereby acting against the basic principles of natural
justice of Audi – Alteram Partem rule as has been mandated by many constitution
benches and therefore as per law laid down in R.R. Parekh Vs. High Court of Gujrat (2016) 14
SCC 1, the prima facie conclusion
of corrupt motive in passing such orders can be drawn.
(iii) And in view of law laid down in Noida Entrepreneurs Assn. v. Noida, (2011) 6 SCC
508, it leads to presumption of malafide intention and
requires CBI investigation to unearth the complete conspiracy and serious
offences against administration of Justice;
(iii) For hearing a case where he is disqualified because of two
(a) His son Adv. Abhinav Chandrachud appeared for
the one of accused before High Court for the same connected FIRs. [Writ
Petition (Cri) No. 3199/ 2021 order dated 20.09.2021]
(b) Because in the impugned order before him Adv.
Nilesh Ojha appeared as a counsel who, on earlier occasions also in
2018 acted as a counsel for complainant when a complaint is filed against
Justice D. Y. Chandrachud and his son Adv. Abhinav Chandrachud [Case
No. PRSEC/ E/2018/21401];
(iv) Hence, Justice Chandrachud had breached the ‘Judges
Ethics Code’ breached the oath and committed Contempt of binding
precedents in State of Punjab Vs. Davinder Pal Singh
Bhullar (2011) 14 SCC 770, Gullapalli Nageswara Rao v. A.P.S.R.T.C, AIR
1959 SC 308; Mineral
Development Ltd. v. The State of Bihar and Anr. AIR 1960 SC 468. and also acted against the law of recusal laid down in the Pinochet’s principle
as followed in para 25.3 of the case of Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Vs.Union of India
(2016) 5 SCC 808.
(v) Hence as per specific law laid down in Raman
Lal vs. State 2000 SCC OnLine Raj 226 & other binding
precedents, Ld. Judge Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud is liable for action under section
109, 192, 193, 465, 466, 471, 474, 219, 120(B),409, 201, 218 etc of Indian
Penal Code for joining the conspiracy and facilitating the offences against
administration of justice for passing and order to hide and save the offences
of petitioner and his advocates. AND misusing the Supreme Court machinery and
public property for unauthorized purposes to serve his ulterior motives;
(s) To hold that, Ld. Justice Dr. D.Y.
Chandrachud deliberately made a blatant false statement in many other
cases that Supreme Court had decided not to intervene into the executive orders
of the vaccine mandates. However, he was fully aware that the similar issue
regarding vaccine mandate is already sub-judicie before the co-ordinate in the
case of Jacob Puliyal being WP (C) No. 607 of 2021 and
co-ordinate bench had intervened in the matter and never said that Supreme
Court will not intervene and reserved the case for pronouncement of judgment
and lastly allowed the petition on 02.05.2022 reported as Jacob Puliyal
vs. UOI 2022 SCC OnLine SC 533. This is not only an offence of
perjury u/sec. 192, 193, etc of IPC but also a case of deliberate act to
undermine majesty and dignity of the Supreme Court in the eyes of common man,
Advocates and Judges of all courts in India.
(t) To hold that in view of specific law laid
down in the case of Perumal Vs. Janaki (2014) 5 SCC 377 & Raman Lal Vs.
State 2001 Cri. L. J. 800 & M. Narayandas Vs State (2003) 11 SCC 251 a
petition under section 340 of Cr.P.C. or in any case of criminal offences, the
court has to give only prima facie findings and court cannot take the possible
defence of the accused or allegations of complaint being motivated into
consideration and should not pass orders or give any adverse
findings or interpretations which makes the victim of crime remedyless.
(u) To hold that in view of specific
directions given by the Constitution bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in K. Veeraswami v. Union of India, 1991 3 SCC 655 the
judge whose character is clouded and whose standards of morality and rectitude
are in doubt may not have the judicial independence and may not command the
confidence of the public and his own resignation is expected even before impeachment
proceedings and such person is disqualified for the post of Chief Justice of
(v) To direct the Union of India and other
respondents present before this Hon’ble Court to not to administer oath or
affirmation to Justice Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud as Chief Justice of India;
(w) To restrain Justice Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud from
making and subscribing an oath or affirmation and assuming office of
the Chief Justice of India;
(x) To hold that, in view of Advocates Act, Bar Council of India rules
and specific law laid down by this Hon’ble court in the case of R.
Muthukrishnan v. Registrar General 2019 SCC OnLine SC 105, it
is the duty and right of the advocates to work for the betterment of
administration of Justice and if they have a material about should malpractices
of a judge then they should file a complaint against such a judge before
appropriate authorities available under the law and more particularly as per
the law laid down in C. Ravichandran Iyer vs.
Justice A.M. Bhattacharjee, (1995) 5 SCC 547, K.
Veeraswami Vs. Union of India (1991) 3 SCC 655 & Re: C.S. Karnan (2017)
7 SCC 1.
(y) To hold that, in view of mandates of article 51 (A)(h) of the Constitution
of India and the law laid down in the case of in Indirect Tax
Association Vs. R. K. Jain (2010) 8 SCC 281 and in Dr.
Aniruddha Bahal Vs. State 2010 (119) DRJ 102, every
citizen in this country has a duty and right to have clean and incorruptible
Judges and also having duty to expose the malpractices and corruption in
judiciary or in public offices wherever and whenever he finds it and such
person should be encouraged in order to create fear in the mind of wrongdoers
while encouraging honest judicial officers.
(z) To hold that, any attempt on the part of the sponsored members of the
legal fraternity to discourage the lawyers from making complaints against
judges and to make them fearful and sycophant is a direct attack on the
independence of bar and a contempt of the law down in the case of R.
Muthukrishnan v. Registrar General 2019 SCC OnLine SC 105, High
Court of Karnataka Vs. Jai Chaitanya dasa & Others 2015 (3) AKR 627 and any such actions, acts, rules, letters, representations, orders or
court proceedings are per-incurium, null & void and stands vitiated.
(aa) To record a finding that, Ld. Justice Dr.
D.Y. Chandrachud have committed contempt of the binding precedent in R.
Viswanathan and others Vs Rukn-ul-Mulk Syed Abdul Wajid AIR 1963 SC 1, &
NHRC Vs. State of Gujarat (2009) 6 SCC 767, by refusing
to hear and unreasonably interrupting the arguments of advocates for the
(bb) To hold that, the acts of Ld. Justice D. Y. Chandrachud to compel the
petitioner to disclose the reason for not getting vaccines was a deliberate
contempt of the law laid down in the case of Common Cause v. Union of
India, (2018) 5 SCC 1 and further violation of rights of
privacy ruled in K.S.
Puttaswamy vs. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1
(cc) To hold that the Ld. Justice D. Y. Chandrachud was disqualified to
hear cases related with Sh. Rashid Khan Pathan, Sh. Ambar Koiri & Adv.
Nilesh Ojha because they were complainant, witnesses and advocates in the cases
against him and his son. One case having been filed in 2018 bearing No. PRSEC/E/2018/21401 &
the other in November 2021 bearing No. PRSEC/E/2021/33812. But
Ld. Justice D. Y. Chandrachud willingly acted against the ‘Judges
Ethics’ Code’ and sat over the cases related with them and passed
adverse orders and therefore Ld. Justice Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud is guilty of
committing the contempt of binding precedents in State of Punjab v.
Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar & Ors (2011) 14 SCC 770, Gullapalli
Nageshwara Rao & Ors v. APSBTC AIR 1959 SC 308 and Mineral
Development Ltd. Vs. The State of Bihar (1960) 2 SCR 609 etc;
(dd) To hold that, Ld. Justice D. Y. Chandrachud first committed gravest
contempt when acted against the Judges Ethics Code and binding precedents of
this Hon’ble court by hearing a case related with his son being SLP
(C) 9131/2021 and he aggravated the contempt by again hearing the connected
case SLP (Crl.) No 9092 of 2022 on 10th October, 2022 knowing
fully well that the issue is already being debated widely across the legal
fraternity and this act of Respondent No. 1 Justice D. Y. Chandrachud in
not recusing from the hearing of the related with his son has eroded the facet
of rule of law as ruled in P.K. Ghosh, I.A.S &Anr. v.
J. G. Rajput (1996) 6 SCC 744 & law laid down in Para 921
of S.P. Gupta AIR 1982 SC 149 and hence Ld. Justice D. Y.
Chandrachud is guilty of wilful act to undermine the majesty and dignity of the
Supreme Court in the eyes of the common man and members of the legal
(ee) To hold that, the act of Respondent No. 1 Justice D. Y. Chandrachud
in passing an ex-parte order in SLP (Crl.) No. 9131 of 2021
without hearing the parties including state authorities where the issue of
non-existent application filed by the state was the ground and foundation of
the order and there is no reason for such breach of legal mandates and when the
case was related with his son, has acted in contempt of the binding
precedents in P. Sundarrajan vs. R. Vidhya Sekar (2004) 13 SCC
472 & various binding precedents;
And it is also case of ‘fraud on power’ as
has been ruled by the Three Judge bench in Vijay Shekhar Vs. Union of
India (2004) 4 SCC 666
(ff) To hold that the act of Respondent No. 1 Justice D. Y. Chandrachud to
not to refer the binding precedents relied by the counsel for the parties
during arguments which were also mentioned in the petition, and pass an order
exactly opposite to the said binding precedents, was an offence of deliberate
disregard and wilful contempt of the binding precedents in the case of Dwarikesh
Sugar Industries Ltd. v. Prem Heavy Engineering Works (P) Ltd. and Anr. (1997)
6 SCC 450, Medical Council of India Vs G.C.R.G. Memorial Trust
&Others (2018) 12 SCC 564, Sunderjas
Kanyalal Bhatija v. Collector, Thane, Maharashtra (1989) 3 SCC 396,
Official Liquidator v. Dayanand, (2008) 10 SCC 1, Smt.
Prabha Sharma Vs. Sunil Goyal and Ors. (2017) 11 SCC 77
(gg)To hold that the act of Respondent No. 1 Justice Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud in
passing orders in wanton breach of law without any explanation for such conduct
is a sufficient ground to infer that he was actuated with corrupt motives as
per law laid down in the case of R.R. Parekh Vs. High Court of Gujrat
(2016) 14 SCC 1 and this inference is sufficient to disqualify him
for the post of Chief Justice of India;
(hh) To hold that the act of Justice Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud in not
considering written submissions and binding precedents and passing orders on
the basis of unlawful and extraneous consideration which are having effect of
causing wrongful profit of thousands of crores to vaccine companies and
consequential wrongful loss of public/tax payers money is a clear case
of fraud on power as ruled in Vijay Shekhar Vs. Union Of India
(2004)4 SCC 666.
It is also a case of breach of oath taken as a
Judge and on the basis of this ground alone he is disqualified to be considered
for the post of CJI;
(ii) To hold that as per law laid down in Judge-I case i.e. S.P. Gupta
Vs. President of India AIR 1982 SC 149and in K.C. Chandy Vs.
R. Balkrishna AIR 1986 Kar 116, and as per debates
in the Constituent Assembly on Article 56 by Dr. Babasaheb
Ambedkar, the breach of oath and violation of constitution are serious
offences and includes treason, bribes and misdemeanors’ and when a Judge
permits his judgments in a case to be influenced by the irrelevant
considerations he commits breach of oath. And in such cases justice is not done
and denied. It is a case of misbehavior attracting provisions of Article 124
(4) (5) for impeachment of the said Judge and appropriate authority should
consider this factor that such judges are liable to be removed from the judiciary
as has been ruled in Shrirang Yadavrao Waghmare v. State of
Maharashtra, (2019) 9 SCC 144, Muzaffar Husain vs. State of
Uttar Pradesh 2022 SCC OnLine SC 567, Umesh Chandra
Vs State of Uttar Pradesh 2006 (5) AWC 4519 ALL, K. Veeraswami Vs.
Union of India (1991) 3 SCC 655 and therefore, such
Judges cannot be recommended or appointed on the post of CJI;
(jj) To hold that in view of the various judgments laid down by this
Hon’ble court and more particularly in the case of Vijay Shekhar Vs.
Union Of India (2004)4 SCC 666, this court is having
jurisdiction to examine the cases of fraud on power by Justice Dr. D.Y.
Chandrachud in passing grossly unlawful orders for deciding the present
petition challenging the appointment of Justice Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud for the
post of CJI;
(kk) To hold that the act of Justice Chandrachud to give directions for
compulsory vaccination of people/staff in the mental institutes vide his orders
dated 01.09.2021 and 06.07.2021 in Gaurav
Kumar Bansal Vs. Mr. Dinesh Kumar, Contempt Petition (C) No. 1653 of 2018 is not only illegal but also having an effect of
gross violation of their fundamental rights to refuse treatment and get said
persons informed consent and putting their life in to danger and it is also
causing wrongful loss of crores of public money. It is a breach of oath that he
will uphold the law and the constitution and this ground itself is sufficient
to hold that he is disqualified to be appointed as CJI;
(ll) To record a finding that Ld. Justice Dr. D.Y.
Chandrachud while asking parties to get compulsorily vaccinated irrespective of
their allergic restrictive and prohibited category issued by the central
government in their operational guidelines, has acted beyond his jurisdiction
and in Contempt of the binding precedents of Academy of Nutrition Improvement v. Union of India,
(2011) 8 SCC 274 and also
committed and abated offences of putting said person’s life in danger and loss
of public money and this is highly irresponsible behaviour and is unbecoming of
the Judge of the Supreme court and therefore he cannot be appointed for the
post of CJI.
(mm) To hold that in view of specific law laid
down by the Constitution Bench in the case of K. Veeraswami Vs.
Union of India (1991) 3 SCC 655,and further explained Raman
Lal vs. State of Rajasthan 2001 CRI. L. J. 800, Smt. Justice Nirmal Yadav Vs. C.B.I. 2011 (4)
RCR (Criminal) 809, the Judge involved in conspiracy and serious
Criminal offences and violating fundamental rights of the citizen can be
prosecuted like a common man and he cannot claim any protection under Judges
(Protection) Act, 1985 as further explained in Bidhi Singh Vs. M. S. Mandyal 1993 CRI. L. J. 499, B.S. Sambhu v. T.S. Krishnaswamy, (1983) 1 SCC
(nn) To hold that in view of specific law laid
down in Ramesh Lawrence
Maharaj The Attorney-General of Trinidad and Tobago (1978) 2 WLR 902, Walmik s/o Deorao Bobde Vs. State 2001 ALLMR (Cri.)1731, etc. if a Judge violates fundamental rights
of the citizen then state is bound to give compensation to the victim, because
the Judge is the executive arm of the state. To further hold that the state is
free to recover the said amount from erring Judges as per law ratio laid down
in S. Nambi Narayanan Vs. Siby Mathews (2018) 10 SCC
804, Veena Sippy Vs. Narayan Dambre 2012 ALL MR (Cri.)
(oo) To hold that, the past Chief Justice of India is the head of the overall
Indian judicial system and such a position cannot be appointed by the simple
process of giving discretion to the existing Chief Justice of India and/or
following the practice of appointment of the senior most judge, as it will be
contrary to the spirit of constitution and the law laid down in the case
of Delhi Transport
Corporation vs D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress AIR 1991 SC 101, where it is ruled that it is inadvisable to depend
on the good sense of the individuals however high placed, they may be, because
individuals are not and do not become wise because they occupy a given high
seat of power; AND in order to avoid
instances like the present one or a hypothetical case like that of Justice C.
S. Karnan, it is just and necessary to frame proper rules to preserve the
majesty and dignity of the court and instil the confidence of a common man in
the Courts of law and justice delivery system;
(pp) To hold that the prosecution of offender is the obligation of the state and
its wings such as CVC, IB, CBI, Police, ED, Income Tax Department etc. are
bound to act proactively and keep surveillance upon the tainted and doubtful
Judges and take prompt action to prevent corruption and help in keeping the temple
of justice pure and clean;
(qq) To direct the registry to not to place the present petition before
the Bench of Ld. Justices Shri. A. S. Oka & Shri J. B. Pardiwala as some similar complaints are filed against
them and there will not be a fair trial;
(rr) To grant any other relief which this Hon’ble court
may deem appropriate and proper;
(ss) OR IN ALTERNATIVE: -
To direct CBI to launch prosecution under section
211, 192, 193, 199, 200, etc of the Indian Penal Code against the Petitioner
and also initiate contempt action against the petitioner as per law & ratio
laid down in the case of ABCD vs. Union of India (2020) 2 SCC 52, if
the allegations in the petition and evidences relied are false and incorrect.
of the said petition can be downloaded Here.