LOFTY AND LAUDABLE INTEGRITY OF CHIEF INJUSTICE K.G. BALAKRISHNAN!

V.SUNDARAM I.A.S.

The  Former Chief Injustice of India K.G.Balakrishnan is very much in the news today because of his venal and Himalayan corruption indulged in with gay abandon and unchecked judicial arrogance in the manner of an oriental potentate--- very much similar to that of the gargantuan corruption of former Union Telecom Minister A.Raja in spirit and passion if not in scale and wickedness---was officially and politically endorsed by the supremely corrupt Sonia Gandhi and her captive Congress UPA II Government, from May 2004 to May 2009. All the corrupt constitutional authorities in India, specially selected and planted by Sonia Gandhi, felt themselves fully safe and secure in the warmth of her political embrace. This terrible situation continues even today. This firangi memsahib Sonia Gandhi is the Mother Superior and fountainhead of the Virus, CANCER, Tuberculosis, Leprosy and AIDS of all corruption in every field of India’s national life today.

As K.G. Balakrishnan has already lost all his erstwhile judicial fangs today, almost everyone in the media and other walks of India’s public life, have mustered up sufficient citizens’ courage to make a fearless attack on the corruption of K.G. Balakrishnan. The lone exception to this general rule is Hon’ble Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer who has been an indefatigable crusader for accountability and unimpeachable integrity in the Judiciary for more than four decades. He has given a clarion call against the corruption of the Former Chief Justice K.G. Balakrishnan and some of the members of his family.

Even when Chief Justice K.G. Balakrishnan was holding the Post of Chief Justice of India, I had written a series of articles questioning the legal and constitutional basis of some of his blatantly illegal and unconstitutional, brazenly nefarious decisions relating to the firangi memsahib Sonia Gandhi.

It was this shameless, utterly unpatriotic and anti-national judge who upheld the illegal and unconstitutional "right" of Sonia Gandhi to file a False Affidavit relating to her educational qualifications from the University of Cambridge before the Returning Officer of Rae Bareilly Parliamentary Constituency TWICE. On the THIRD occasion, taking note of the public expose done by Dr.Subramanian, Swamy she took care to drop her earlier false declaration relating  to her fake Degree from The University of Cambridge in England. Thus Sonia Gandhi through her revised and corrected affidavit filed on her own volition and not under any threat or duress, committed the offence of perjury which was OVERLOOKED—and therefore endorsed in EFFECT--by the former Chief Justice K.G.Balakrishnan on totally EXTRANEOUS CONSIDERATIONS—EVERY “CONSIDERATION” OTHER THAN THE LAW OF THE CONSTITUTION. This disgusting and treasonable judge—with supreme contempt for India and her teeming millions—overlooked the false affidavit of Sonia Gandhi on the basis of his politically invented STALENESS DOCTRINE! He told Dr.Subramanian Swamy in open court: “Should the Supreme Court go into all the affidavits to find out whether they are false or not. Further investigation is not possible into a stale issue. Please don’t press the issue.”

Who was the sole beneficiary of this illegal and unconstitutional and abrasively brazen Balakrishnan largesse? The answer to this large and mighty question is straight and simple!! Is it not?

The Chairman of the UPA II Coordination Committee—to be more precise, UPA II Corruption Coordination Committee the firangi memsahib Sonia Gandhi—was the most important, vicious and venal beneficiary of the carefully planned and orchestrated day to day corruption of the former Chief Injustice of India K.G.Balakrishnan during his tenure of office from January 14 2007 to May 12 2010.

The firangi memsahib has been able to play ducks and drakes with all the major pillars and instrumentalities of the Indian State because we she has planted an invertebrate non-person as her dummy nominee as the Prime Minister of India.

FOR THE FIRST TIME AFTER OUR INDEPENDENCE WE HAVE A PRIME MINISTER WHO IS NOT AN ELECTED MEMBER OF THE LOK SABHA. HE IS ONLY A SONIA-NOMINATED MEMBER OF THE RAJYA SABHA. Even in a die-hard conservative country like England, the ruling Constitutional principle that a British Prime Minister must be a Member of the House of Commons got firmly established as early as in 1911. When in 1911 a country-wide roaring political debate took place in England regarding the issue as to whether the elected House of Commons or the unelected and nominated House of Lords really represented the collective republican will of the people, Lord Curzon one of the senior most Cabinet Ministers of the time strongly defended the superior role of the House of Lords vis-à-vis House of Commons and argued passionately for strengthening the hereditary principle of the role of the unelected House of Lords. Lord Curzon said: 'ALL CIVILIZATION HAS BEEN THE WORK OF ARISTOCRACIES'.

Winston Churchill, then a junior Minister in the British Government gave this mocking rejoinder to Lord Curzon: 'Lord Curzon says that all civilization has been the work of aristocracies. Why, it would be much more true to say the upkeep of the aristocracy has been the hard work of all civilizations. Nearly all great ideas and the energy by which all the great services by which mankind has been benefited have come from the mass of the people'.

If I have to adapt the brilliant words of Winston Churchill to the disgraceful political situation in India today, I can only say that the upkeep of Sonia Gandhi and her HALF-BREED family has become the whole time hard work of the Congress Party and the toiling Indian masses. EVEN 60 YEARS AFTER OUR INDEPENDENCE, WE HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO ESTABLISH THE SIMPLE AND CARDINAL PRINCIPLE THAT NO INDIAN HOWEVER DISTINGUISHED OR EMINENT HE MAY BE, CAN EVER HOPE TO BE OUR PRIME MINISTER UNLESS HE HAPPENS TO BE AN ELECTED MEMBER OF THE LOK SABHA. But unfortunately for the wretched Indian Nation today, the criminally pseudo-secular, anti-national Congress Party with its firangi memsahib ‘only’ POLICY, attaches greater Constitutional sanctity to the survival (at any cost) of the ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL INTERESTS OF THE SONIA CLAN than to the glorious institution of our Lok Sabha, to our sacred and sacrosanct Constitution or to the survival of the Indian Nation.

POSTSCRIPT

After I had finished writing the above story, I came across a concrete instance of a Top ‘Baboo’ from Madhya Pradesh Government who had faked his certificates relating to his educational qualifications very much like our dear Italian Firangi Memsahib Sonia Gandhi who had filed a false affidavit relating to her imaginary and non-existent educational qualifications from the University of Cambridge in England.  I am giving below the details relating to this case in Madhya Pradesh.


Top MP babu's fake certificates exposedUpdated Jan 01, 2011 at 01:11pm IST

Hemender Sharma , CNN-IBN

Updated Jan 01, 2011 at 01:11pm IST

Picture courtesy CNN-IBN Jan 01, 2011 article by Hemender Sharma titled

‘Top MP babu's fake certificates exposed’

The Madhya Pradesh Vidhan Sabha has asked its Principal Secretary AK Pyasi to submit certificates relating to his educational qualifications and date of birth within the next 10 days. AK Pyasi rose in the official hierarchy by allegedly using fake certificates. It has been reported that the Madhya Pradesh Assembly Principal Secretary AK Pyasi is in the dock --- not on charges of corruption but for allegedly producing fake educational certificates to get into the post of Chief Muncipal Officer in 1977. AK Pyasi is due to retire in May 2011 as Principal Secretary of the Vidhan Sabha. But the State Vidhan Sabha finds itself mired in a strange situation as it does not have the service record of its Principal Secretary AK Pyasi.

The man who first alleged that Pyasi had manipulated records and obtained jobs through fake certificates is Advocate Sanjay Nayak. Advocate Nayak first asked for the service record book of Pyasi from the Vidhan Sabha under the Right to Information Act.

Advocate Sanjay Nayak said: “I had sought information under the Right to Information Act from the Vidhan Sabha asking for his service record but it was not given to me as they did not have it. So I sought the same from the various department he had worked in but there again his service book was not available”.

It is alleged that Pyasi who started his job as a Chief Municipal Officer in a Nagar Palika in 1977 managed a deputation for himself in Reva Municipal Corporation and then rose to become deputy commissioner. His services were later absorbed by the Vidhan Sabha and Pyasi went to become Principal Secretary.

Now all the Courts of Law in India would give a categorical ruling against the Indian-born natural citizen AK Pyasi for having faked his educational qualifications at the time of his entry into government service in 1977. Before long he will be dismissed from service if it is actually proved that he had indeed faked his certificates relating to his educational qualifications!! He will also be duly punished under the relevant provisions of the law.

SONIA GANDHI, THE ITALIAN PASSPORT HOLDER, COMMITTED THE VERY SAME OFFENCE TWICE WITH IMPUNITY, WHEN SHE GAVE A FALSE AFFIDAVIT TO THE RETURNING OFFICER OF THE RAE BAREILLY PARLIAMENTARY CONSTITUENCY BOTH IN 1999 AND IN 2004. But for the presence of a traitor like the Sonia-slave K.G Balakrishnan squatting on the chair of the Chief Justice of India, Sonia Gandhi would have been disqualified permanently from contesting in any election in India.

PAGE 1 OF THE FALSE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY SONIA GANDHI

PAGE 2 OF THE FALSE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY SONIA GANDHI

NECESSITY IS THE MOTHER OF INVENTION. POLITICAL AND PERSONAL NECESSITY FOR MAINTAINING SONIA GANDHI IN POWER WAS THE MOTHER OF K.G BALAKRISHNAN’S INVENTION OF THE DOCTRINE OF STALENESS. Thus, this arch-traitor K.G Balakrishnan invented the spurious and sham Doctrine of Staleness to let his political ‘benefactor’ Sonia Gandhi off the hook free from the clutches of legitimate criminal law which is applicable to all Indian born citizens. In short, the former Chief Justice K. G Balakrishnan made the illegal Criminal Law of Sonia Gandhi prevail over the Rule of Law cleverly deploying his Doctrine of Staleness. So, for the Supreme Court of India, there is one Law for the Indians and another Law for their Italian Rulers.

What is the quintessence of Justice K. G Balakrishnan’s Doctrine of Staleness, which he invoked in an untenable, illegal, unconstitutional, immoral and unethical manner to ‘leagalize’ by default the blatantly false affidavit of Sonia Gandhi? The answer is simple. Justice K. G Balakrishnan’s Doctrine of Staleness can be paraphrased thus:

“This Doctrine of Staleness is a unique and majestic political expedient to be used by Chief InJustice K. G Balakrishnan and by him alone in the case of the Italy-descended Firangi Memsahib Sonia Gandhi to save and protect her political and criminal career against the unanswerable Brahmastra of TRUTH unleashed by Dr Subramanian Swamy to protect the poor and innocent common people of India from the CRUEL REIGN OF UNRESTRAINED ITALIAN LOOT AND RAPINE. This Doctrine of Staleness cannot be made applicable to any Indian-born citizen. Where a defined LAW has to be BENT to protect the illegal political overtures, maneuvers and machinations of Sonia Gandhi, that LAW shall be BENT in the larger interests of the Nehru-Gandhi clan in general and of Sonia Gandhi in particular. Where a defined LAW can be BROKEN or has to be BROKEN to protect the illegal political overtures, maneuvers and machinations of Sonia Gandhi, that LAW shall be BROKEN in the larger interests of the Nehru-Gandhi clan in general and of Sonia Gandhi in particular. Any LAW which adversely affects the political and financial fortunes of Sonia Gandhi and her clan can be and must be BENT or BROKEN with judicial aplomb and authority.”

Finally InJustice K. G Balakrishnan got the reward for his political loyalty to Sonia Gandhi when he was appointed as Chairman of the National Human Rights Commission!! Despite the daily reportage in the print and electronic media of the corruption allegations against himself and his relations, and despite scathing criticism from his peers and seniors in the Judiciary, K.G Balakrishnan is brazenly clinging, without any sense of honour or dignity, to the post of the Chairman of the National Human Rights Commission.

My way of joking about the Firangi Memsahib Sonia Gandhi is to tell the simple TRUTH about her. At the recent AICC Plenary Session in New Delhi, she gave her most insincere and fraudulent Mantra, even by known Italian mafia standards, when she said: “We should adopt the Doctrine of Zero Tolerance of Corruption”. Himalayan Corruption and Nepotism of former Chief InJustice K. G Balakrishnan are the worst forms of violation of Human Rights. Such a vermin has been given the post of Chairman of the Human Rights Commission by the Firangi Memsahib Sonia Gandhi as a reward for illegally and unconstitutionally closing of the cases relating to the false affidavits filed by her relating to her educational cases.

 

On behalf of all the responsible and concerned citizens of India, who believe in the Rule of Law, the Principle of Equality Before the Law and the overriding Majesty of Law, I demand that a larger Bench of the Supreme Court review and invalidate the Doctrine of Staleness enunciated in open court by the supremely corrupt and politically partisan former Chief Justice of India K.G Balakrishnan.

THIS LARGER BENCH SHOULD REOPEN THE CASE AGAINST SONIA GANDHI FOR FILING FALSE AFFIDAVITS REGARDING HER EDUCATIONAL QUALIFICATIONS, UNSEAT HER FROM THE PARLIAMENT AND DEBAR HER PERMANENTLY FROM CONTESTING IN ANY ELECTION IN INDIA.

 I had written FOUR (4) articles in 2007 under the titles ‘THE CITIZENSHIP ISSUE OF A SUPERCILIOUS AND SUPER-INCUMBENT SONIA(17-4-2007)’,‘THE DARKEST DAY IN OUR LEGAL HISTORY’ (19-5-2007), SONIA’S TRUTH VS SWAMY’S BLASPHEMY-I (15^TH June 2007), SONIA’S TRUTH VS SWAMY’S BLASPHEMY-II (16^TH June 2007. I am presenting below the full texts of these four articles.

CITIZENSHIP ISSUE OF A SUPER AND SUPER-INCUMBENT SONIA (17 April, 2007)

V.SUNDARAM I.A.S.

The Supreme Court on 18 April 2007 issued notice to the Centre and the Election Commission on a petition whether a person of foreign origin could be appointed to hold a public office. A Bench headed by Chief Justice K.G.Balakrishnan sought response from the Centre on a petition filed by Rashtriya Mukti Morcha (RMM), a socio-political organisation, challenging the Delhi High Court judgment dismissing a petition in this regard.

During the brief hearing, senior advocate P.N.Lekhi raised the issue of Congress President Sonia Gandhi being invited in 1999 to form a government by the then President. The RMM contented that a political party cannot be headed by a person who has assumed citizenship by registration.

The Bench, which agreed that an important Constitutional issue had been raised in the petition, said it would confine itself to the question whether a person who is not born in the country can be appointed to a public office. (Agencies)

Though Sonia Gandhi has been a Member of Parliament for more than 8 years, the probity, the legality and the quality of her citizenship remains unsettled, untested and vulnerable to legal and constitutional challenge. To quote the appropriate words of K N Bhat, an eminent jurist and former Additional Solicitor General of India in this context: 'Sonia Gandhi's 'foreign origin' need be of no concern; but the quality of her Indian Citizenship is a serious public issue because she is being projected as the future Prime Minister of our country. True it is that politicians remember it only when a General Election is about to be announced. But P.A.Sangma remained a notable exception. When the Constitution Review Committee appointed by the NDA Government in February 2000 refused to take up this fundamental Constitutional issue despite their having total freedom to do so, Sangma protested and resigned in protest as its Member. But apparently no one else appeared disturbed'.

In September 2001, the Supreme Court of India in Hari Shankar Jain Vs Sonia Gandhi considered a challenge to Sonia Gandhi's election as a Member of Parliament. The main ground raised by Hari Shankar Jain was that, Sonia being an Italian citizen did not satisfy the pre-requisites for entitlement to registration as a citizen of India. The High Court of Allahabad where Hari Shankar Jain's election petition was originally heard, held that it had no power to deal with the challenge to Sonia's citizenship in an election petition. When this matter was taken on appeal before the Supreme Court, the following questions were considered by the Supreme Court:

1. Whether a plea that a returned candidate is not a citizen of India can be raised in an election petition before the High Court?



2. Whether a plea questioning the citizenship of the returned candidate is entertainable by the High Court hearing an election petition in spite of holding a certificate of citizenship granted under Section 5(I) (c) of the Citizenship Act?


3. Whether on the pleadings of the two election petitioners, a cause of action and a triable issue was raised, which should have been put to trial calling upon the respondent to file her return statement.

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Allahabad High Court and held that a Court trying election disputes had the jurisdiction to pronounce upon the validity of Certificate of Registration of Citizenship. The Supreme Court however noted that the pleadings in the particular case of Hari Shankar Jain Vs Sonia Gandhi were 'bald, vague and baseless'. Thus the Supreme Court missed the opportunity of settling this issue of Sonia's politically and constitutionally controversial citizenship once for all. But unfortunately for the nation and its future survival, the issue of Sonia Gandhi's eligibility to be an MP was neither approved, nor disapproved. Moreover, in fact, the most crucial and relevant question of whether a foreign citizen, politically wangling to become a citizen by registration, is eligible to be a Member of Parliament, was not considered by the Supreme Court.

The Citizenship Act of 1955 enumerated the following 6 distinct types of Indian citizens:

1.Citizenship by birth

2. Citizenship by descent.
3. Citizenship by registration.

4. Citizenship by naturalization.
5. Citizenship by incorporation of territory.
6. Citizenship Rights conferred on the basis of reciprocity.

The first 2 categories above were envisaged by the Constitution at the inception. 5th category is only a logical consequence of the expansion of the territory of India - for example, incorporation of Sikkim as Indian Territory and consequently former citizens of the kingdom becoming citizens of India. Categories 3, 4 and 6 were created by the Parliament in 1955. The Assam Accord resulted in the addition of another group to the ranks of Indian Citizens with effect from December 7, 1985. The recent Citizenship (Amendment Act) of 2004 has created another class known as 'Overseas Citizens'. It enables the Central Government to register persons of Indian origin and citizens of 16 specified countries as 'Overseas Citizens'.

Registration is granted on application and is restricted to 5 specific categories only. We are concerned with 'persons who are or have been married to citizens of India and are ordinarily resident in India and have been so resident for 5 years immediately before making an application for registration'. The Citizenship Act of 1955 provides for deprivation of citizenship of specified categories of citizens, viz: those by naturalization and some categories of the ones by registration. And this can be done by an order of the Executive. Sonia Gandhi belongs to this category of citizenship by registration. It will be clear that her's is the type of citizenship that can be cancelled at any time by an Executive order if the Government so consider it as necessary and expedient in the larger public interest of national security or national survival or other overriding factors. It has been widely reported that Sonia Gandhi continues to retain her Italian Citizenship in addition to her Indian Citizenship by registration under Section 5 of the Indian Citizenship Act of 1955. The expression 'adherence to a foreign state' occurs in Article 102(d) of our Constitution. According to legal experts, 'right in a foreign state' would amount to 'adherence to a foreign state'. Sonia, who enjoys dual citizenship or entitled to be a citizen of another country as a matter of right, legally comes under the category of 'adherence to a foreign state'. Sonia is not a citizen only of India; she just happens to be by registration a citizen also of India.
In my considered view, any foreigner who has obtained his Citizenship by registration, is debarred from holding any Constitutional office in India for the following reasons:

a. As a temporary citizen by registration he/she can be removed by an Executive order. We can ill-afford to have a foreigner as Prime Minister or President whose temporary citizenship can be cancelled by a District Collector or Magistrate at a moment's notice.

b. All the major democracies in the world, particularly having Presidential form of Government have prescribed Natural Citizen born qualification for the highest Constitutional Offices.

c.The celebrated jurist and former judge of the US Supreme CJosephStory in his monumental commentaries on the Constitution of United States says: 'But the general propriety of the exclusion of foreigners in common cases, will scarcely be doubted by any sound statesman. It cuts off all chances for ambitious foreigners, who might otherwise be intriguing for the office: and interposes a barrier against those corrupt interference of foreign governments in Executive Elections, which have inflicted the most serious evils upon the elective monarchies of Europe, Germany, and even the Pontificate of Rome, are sad but instructive examples of the enduring mischiefs from the source'. Many attempts to amend the US Constitution to remove the 'Natural Citizen' qualification have failed and WELL KNOWN PUBLIC FIGURES LIKE HENRY KISSINGER AND MADELINE ALBRIGHT HAVE THUS BEEN RULED OUT OF CONSIDERATION FOR THE HIGHEST OFFICE OF US PRESIDENT.

The current legal position obviously provides unlimited space for mischief for international criminals where even persons with 'conditional' citizenship can head the Government or occupy other constitutional offices. This loophole needs to be plugged once for all at the earliest through a simple amendment of Citizenship Act of 1955, which makes certain public offices out of bounds for 'conditional' citizens like Sonia Gandhi.

THE DARKEST DAY IN OUR LEGAL HISTORY

 

V Sundaram I.A.S (19-5-2007)

After the disastrous and wholly avoidable dark day of partition of India on the 15 August 1947, we as a nation sank to abysmal depths of IRRETRIEVABLE DEGRADATION yesterday which in my view is THE DARKEST DAY IN OUR LEGAL HISTORY. All the patriotic and LAW abiding citizens of India owing their allegiance to the letter and spirit of the Indian Constitution are shocked beyond words by the fact that the Supreme Court on Friday dismissed a special leave petition filed by Janata Party President Subramanian Swamy against a judgment of the Allahabad High Court that did not allow the court to go into the veracity of an affidavit filed by Congress president Sonia Gandhi regarding her educational qualification while contesting the poll from Rae Barelli constituency.

A three-Judge Bench comprising Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan and Justices Bisheshwar Prasad Singh and Govind Prasad Mathur asked Dr Swamy: “Should the Supreme Court go into all the affidavits to find out they are false or not. Further investigation is not possible into a stale issue and it should be dropped.”

Dr Swamy pointed out that Ms Gandhi had filed an affidavit that she was educated at Cambridge University, London, whereas she had studied only language teaching course from a 'teaching shop' and not the University. He said that since the filing of an affidavit regarding educational qualification was because of a Supreme Court judgment, no false affidavit could be filed by a person. He told the Bench: “If you take such a large-hearted view that the matter should be dropped, I have nothing more to say.”

What has been completely overlooked by the Supreme Court in this case is the fact that SONIA GANDHI COMMITTED THE OFFENCE OF PERJURY when she wittingly dropped her claim regarding her bogus educational qualifications from Cambridge University in the Affidavit which she filed before the Returning Officer of Rae Barelli Constituency in 2006.

In 1999 Sonia Gandhi was elected to Lok Sabha. Soon after her election she had furnished details relating to her educational qualifications to the Speaker of the Lok Sabha based on which those details were incorporated into a Lok Sabha publication ‘Who is Who In Lok Sabha?’

After verifying the factual details of the bogus and false claim of Sonia Gandhi regarding her fictitious education in Cambridge, Dr Subramanian Swamy wrote to the Speaker of the Lok Sabha in 2000, complaining that Sonia Gandhi had committed a Breach of Privilege by giving false information to the Speaker. The Speaker after keeping Dr. Swamy's petition in a special incubator (!!) for nearly three years, finally wrote to Sonia Gandhi and requested her to give a suitable reply to him. It is understood that in 2003 Sonia Gandhi gave a reply to the Speaker that she had unwittingly signed a letter/document without applying her mind to it and that the whole problem lay in a typing mistake!! IN MY VIEW THIS BECAME THE LONGEST TYPING MISTAKE IN THE TORTUOUS HISTORY OF TYPOGRAPHY AND LEGITIMATELY QUALIFIED FOR INCLUSION IN THE GUINNESS BOOK OF WORLD RECORDS.

Despite this known and factual background, Sonia Gandhi, with her known Italian mafia’s contempt for the Parliament, the Office of the Speaker and the Law of the Constitution reiterated the same false claim (amazingly and conveniently repeating typing mistake!!!) with a Mussolini-like impunity by including her bogus educational qualifications again in her Affidavit to the Returning Officer of Rae Barelli Constituency during Parliamentary Elections in 2004. Thus she showed her supreme Italian evangelical contempt towards the Indian Constitution, Indian Parliament, the Rule of Law and if I may say so, even the Supreme Court of India.

To crown it all, in her Affidavit to the Returning Officer of Rae Barelli Constituency before her re-election in 2006, Sonia Gandhi very quietly dropped her false claim made in 1999 and repeated again with calculated impunity in 2004. THUS IN HER AFFIDAVIT OF 2006 PRESENTED TO THE RETURNING OFFICER OF RAE BARELLI CONSTITUENCY SHE TACITLY ADMITTED HER EARLIER OFFENCE OF PERJURY.

Every honourable citizen in India (not privileged to have the extra-Constitutional status of an Italian escort girl–turned-uncrowned Empress of India like Sonia Gandhi) would like to know whether he or she would get the same consideration on the same issue (all facts being pari passu and equal on all fours) from the highest Judicial Tribunal in the land --- the Supreme Court of India. Perhaps George Orwell (1903-1950) had the Indian Judicial System in view when he wrote: “Though all of us are created equal, some are more equal than others”.

As a citizen believing in the Rule of Law, Rule of Equality Before the Law and the Majesty of Law, I am not convinced by the observation of the Supreme Court: “FURTHER INVESTIGATION IS NOT POSSIBLE INTO A STALE ISSUE AND IT SHOULD BE DROPPED.” In this context, I would like to quote the brilliant words of American Chief Justice William Hubbs Rehnquist (1924 - 2005) in the landmark case of MILLS v. HABLUETZEL, 456 U.S. 91 (1982): “This Court has held that once a State posits a judicially enforceable right of its citizens, it can never get circumscribed or circumvented by a State's interest in avoiding the prosecution of stale or fraudulent claims”.

In my humble opinion neither the incontrovertible facts nor the irrefutable points of law raised by Dr Subramanian Swamy can be viewed as STALE in any sense of the word/term. Of course there is nothing fraudulent in or about them.

I would also like to cite from another historic case in the American Supreme Court which is very relevant to the Indian situation in the case under review. To quote Justice Felix Frankfurter (1882- 1965): “To argue that no genuine issues of material fact remain for trial, is to sweep the entire expanse of American History under the rug as well, and to substitute in its place a veritable host of fictions and fictitious nonsense, of which the American People now have had about all they are willing to take.. Competent waivers of fundamental rights must be knowing, intelligent, affirmative acts done with sufficient awareness, other relevant circumstances and likely consequences.”

The anti-national, treacherous Supreme Court Bench --- the unholy trinity of Supreme Court Judges --- the Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan and Justices Bisheshwar Prasad Singh and Govind Prasad Mathur have grossly misused and abused the transitory might of their evanescent judicial offices by unlawfully rejecting the supremely patriotic petition of Dr Subramanian Swamy, firmly grounded in substantive law, procedural law and the Principles of Equity and Natural Justice, filed against the Italian-born enemy of the Indian Nation. Their judicial consideration, compassion and commiseration seem to be reserved only for the Billionaire supra-Constitutional authority, Firangi Memsahib Sonia Gandhi and all the members of her half-breed family and not for the toiling, sweating, unwashed, helpless and poverty-stricken masses of India.

The extraordinary judicial consideration based upon the legally obnoxious and morally untenable Doctrine of Staleness enunciated by politically pliable Chief Justice Balakrishnan has given a deathblow to the Sovereignty and Integrity of the Indian Nation.

All the enlightened citizens and the myriad millions of India are shocked by the recent verdict of the Supreme Court. They do not consider it as a stale view on a stale subject. They are of the view that the survival of India as an independent sovereign nation has been completely lost sight of by the highest tribunal of law in the land.

The teeming millions of India are quoting in chorus, the following words of Rt. Honourable Srinivasa Sastri (1869 -1946) with approval: “If the salt has lost its flavour, wherewith shall it be salted? It is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out and trodden under foot of men.”

 

SONIA’S TRUTH VS SWAMY’S BLASPHEMY-I

By: V SUNDARAM I.A.S (15^TH June 2007)

As a fiercely independent freelance journalist and a maverick private citizen, as an anti-establishment individualist, with no claim to fame, no title to distinction, no high office as incumbent and no party politics or other organisations to back or boost me to notice by the pseudo-secular mafia of mass media, I derive my simple moral sanction to pen this article from the following inspiring words of George Bernard Shaw (1856-1950):

“I am and have always been, and shall now always be, a revolutionary writer, because our laws make law impossible; our liberties destroy all freedom: our property is organised robbery; our morality is an impudent hypocrisy; our wisdom administered by inexperienced or mal-experienced dupes, our power wielded by cowards and weaklings, and our honour false in all its points. I am an enemy of the existing order.”

This is the only way in which I can react to the wayward and lawless ways of our ‘noble’ judiciary in India. In an article titled ‘The Darkest Day in our Legal History,’ last month, I had expressed my shock and concern about the authoritarian manner of the Supreme Court of India, bordering on medieval judicial (Injudicious!) despotism, totally divorced from the letter and spirit of all known canons of Equity and Natural Justice.

The Supreme Court of India had summarily dismissed the writ petition of Dr Subramaniam Swamy on the fundamental issue of Sonia Gandhi's (the spiritual and moral heir of Mahatma Gandhi according to our Judiciary!!) false affidavit filed before the Returning Officer of Rae Barelli Parliamentary constituency in 2004, regarding her non-existent and bogus educational qualifications from the University of Cambridge in England.

A three-Judge Bench comprising Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan and Justices B P Singh and G P Mathur asked Dr Swamy: “Should the Supreme Court go into all the affidavits to find out they are false or not. Further investigation is not possible into a STALE ISSUE and it should be dropped.”

It was a disastrous and disgraceful moment of deliberate dethronement of the Rule of Law, the Rule of Equality before the Law and the Rule of Monarchical Majesty of Law, not at the level of a III Class Magistrate in a remote village in Arunachal Pradesh but at the highest judicial level of the Supreme Court of India in New Delhi. INDEED IT WAS A ‘MOMENT OF NADIR’ IN THE TORTURED AND CHEQUERED HISTORY OF THE MARCH OF INDIAN LAW TOWARDS THE DARK VALLEY OF JUDICIAL DEATH.

However, for the Supreme Court of India at that moment, Sonia Gandhi shone pure as a crystal of virtue and public morality, apart from setting a supreme example of snow white transcendental truth.

Applying these standards of TRUTH set and defined by the Supreme Court of India, the Madras High Court, in a historic judgement delivered on 13 June, 2007 and which will get quoted and re-quoted for centuries to come, directed the Chief Election Commissioner and Tamilnadu Chief Electoral Officer to initiate within six weeks action against AIADMK supremo J Jayalalithaa for filing false declarations in her nominations for four constituencies during the 2001 Assembly elections.

All that the Supreme Court of India and our High Courts have to do to dethrone eternal Euclid in the realm of Geometry, is to declare that according to the noblest traditions of our convoluted judicial arithmetic and geometry, 2004 preceded 2001 and not vice versa! Then it will become easier for our Parliament to incorporate this mathematical judicial axiom into our sinking Constitution by amending it. The fact that Jayalalithaa was thrown out by the people of Tamilnadu in the 2006 Assembly Elections is not a 'Stale Issue,' applying the supremely solemn declaration founded on sanctimonious humbug, emanating from the humming sighs of our Men In Robes at the highest levels of our judiciary (I mean the Supreme Court of India!) in our degraded and debauched land today.

All that the Supreme Court of India and our High Courts have to do to dethrone eternal Euclid in the realm of Geometry, is to declare that according to the noblest traditions of our convoluted judicial arithmetic and geometry, 2004 preceded 2001 and not vice versa! Then it will become easier for our Parliament to incorporate this mathematical judicial axiom into our sinking Constitution by amending it. The fact that Jayalalithaa was thrown out by the people of Tamilnadu in the 2006 Assembly Elections is not a 'Stale Issue,' applying the supremely solemn declaration founded on sanctimonious humbug, emanating from the humming sighs of our MEN IN BLACK Robes at the highest levels of our judiciary(I mean the Supreme Court of India!) in our degraded and debauched land today.

As an irrepressible and indomitable fighter for several public causes, at all costs, in spite of all terror and however long and hard the road may be, Dr. Subramanian Swamy has issued the following statement which graphically presents to the public the 'acts' and 'deeds', 'puerile pronouncements' and 'gaseous effusions' of injustice emanating from our judiciary on vital matters affecting the life of our nation: 'I am moving a Review Petition in the Supreme Court to seek Sonia Gandhi's prosecution for perjury, based on the perceptive observations made yesterday (13 June, 2007) by a Division Bench of the Madras High Court consisting of Justices Dharmarao Elipe and S Palanivelu. The Learned Judges held that the alleged perjury of Jayalalithaa need to be proceeded with because................'

“Applauding the Madras High Court Bench, I want the Supreme Court to review their order of 17 May 2007 dismissing my SLP against Sonia Gandhi's false declaration in affidavit on her educational qualification filed in 2004. The First Bench of the Supreme Court of India had held that the matter was 'STALE' and that I should be 'large hearted' while pursuing such cases. However by comparison with Jayalalithaa, Sonia Gandhi's commission of the offence of perjury is far more serious because Sonia had lied about her educational qualifications. Jayalalithaa had merely furnished wrong and false details relating to the number of nominations filed by her in the 2001 Assembly elections in Tamilnadu. It is also much less 'STALE' since Sonia Gandhi filed a false affidavit in 2004, while Jayalalithaa's false averment was in 2001.”

“Hence, there cannot be two standards of justice, one for Sonia Gandhi and another for Jayalalithaa. It violates Article 14 of the Constitution. Otherwise a wrong signal will, to borrow the Madras High Court Bench's words, be sent to the general public that Italian-born Sonia Gandhi is above the law, and can go scot free. The only contrived 'difference' between Sonia Gandhi and Jayalalithaa is that the latter is from an Indian family background.” This will make the people of India wonder if they have been condemned by God and Destiny to move over from the dark days of British colonial rule to the darker and more venal days of Firangi Memsahib and her Italian colonial rule. The common people of India will have to launch a Mass Civil Disobedience Movement --- The Second National Freedom Struggle ---to liberate Bharat Mata and Bharatvarsha from the clutches of the Italian mafia and their Indian Quislings.

Dr Subramaniam Swamy's brilliant and unassailable expose of the goings on in the decadent judiciary in India, brings to my mind the delightful account by Lord Denning of the barbaric origin of fiat justitta in Rome in the days of the Roman Empire:

       ''Let justice be done

        As done in Rome''

'In my coat of arms, I took as my motto, Fiat justitia' Let justice be done believing it to have a respectable origin. I have since discovered that it was first used to excuse the most outrageous injustice. It comes from a story told in Seneca. Pisco sentenced a soldier to death for the murder of Gaius. He ordered a centurion (a Roman official) to execute the sentence. When the soldier was about to be executed, Gaius came forward himself alive and well. The centurion reported it to Piso. He sentenced all three to death. The soldier because he had already been sentenced. The centurion for disobeying orders. And Gaius for being the cause of the death of two innocent men. Pisco excused it by the plea- Fiat justitia, ruat coelum - Let justice be done, though the heavens should fall.'

Our national misfortune is that we have had very few men of the judicial and moral stature of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes (1841-1935) in our judiciary in our country after our independence. In his famous dissent in the LOCHNER CASE, he said that a judge should be trained to summarily disregard his personal likes and dislikes. He said: 'The correct question to ask is not: 'Do I consider the restriction reasonable but would a reasonable man necessarily consider it unreasonable?' The test therefore is not the subjective view of the judge as to reasonableness but the objective test of the reasonable man which is applied in several branches of the law.”

We in our country have not yet realised that if a Judge's social, political and economic theories and views were casually permitted to intrude in his decision on constitutional questions, we will be creating an unmanageable and uncontrollable jungle of POLITICAL JUDICIARY, letting loose an avalanche of unanswerable questions relating to the method of appointment of Judges to the High Courts and the Supreme Court of India. Besides, our Courts are Courts of general jurisdiction and are not limited to the determination of constitutional questions alone. In view of this, if the politics of a Judge becomes material for his appointment to the High Courts and the Supreme Court of India as indeed it has become in all parts of India during the last three decades and more particularly in 'highly communal' Tamilnadu, fair and impartial decision of cases would become impossible by virtue of the fact that the personal views of the judge may often obtrude in his judicial pronouncements. Criminalisation of politics may be disastrous for our nation; but even more disastrous is the politicisation and criminalization of our judiciary which has kept an even pace, shoulder to shoulder, arm upon arm, along with criminalisation of politics.

SONIA'S TRUTH VS SWAMY'S BLASPHEMY-PART II

By: V SUNDARAM I.A.S. (16 June, 2007)

All the enlightened and patriotic people in India committed to the sacred cause of survival of commitment of the ideals of equity and natural justice in our Courts of Law, have been shattered by the manner in which a Bench of the Supreme Court of India, headed by its Chief Justice K.G.Balakrishnan, cast aside a writ petition presented by Dr Subramanian Swamy against the false affidavit filed by Sonia Gandhi in Rae Barelli Parliamentary Constituency relating to her fraudulent educational qualifications in the University of Cambridge.

Dr Swamy, the former Union Law and Commerce Minister and an elected member of the Lok Sabha from Bombay and Madurai, and later an elected member of the Rajya Sabha was indeed 'treated' as a stateless citizen, if not a refugee from Bangladesh, when the Supreme Court callously used the adjective 'STALE' while dismissing his petition. All that Dr Swamy was seeking was SUBSTANTIVE JUSTICE in letter and spirit under the SUBSTANTIVE LAW of the Indian Constitution and the Representation of People Act. Likewise he was seeking ADJECTIVE JUSTICE in letter and spirit under the ADJECTIVAL LAW of the Indian Constitution.

Statutory law or written law governs rights and obligations of those who are subject to it. Substantive law defines the legal relationship of people with other people or between them and the state. Substantive law stands in contrast to adjective law (Procedural law), which comprises the rules by which a court hears and determines what happens in civil or criminal proceedings. Procedural law deals with the method and means by which substantive law is made and administered. It means the rules according to which the SUBSTANTIVE LAW is administered, e.g., Rules of CIVIL PROCEDURE. In short it is that part of the Law that provides a method for enforcing or maintaining rights, or obtaining redress for their invasion. Adjectival law (Procedural Law) pertains to and prescribes the practice, method, procedure, or legal machinery by which Substantive Law is enforced or made effective.

 

Both the Rule of Substantive Law and the Rule of Adjective Law in India received a lethal death blow when the Supreme Court dismissed Dr Swamy's petition as STALE. By doing so in so brash a manner, the Supreme Court of India indeed behaved like Mughal Emperor Akbar. I am only reminded about the words of the eminent Historian Vincent Smith who viewed Akbar's DIN ILAHI as an outcome of ridiculous vanity, a monstrous growth of unrestrained autocracy.

In the India of today thanks to the perverted functioning of our political democracy, we have an unchallenged reign and rule of ignorance at all levels. There is a total parity of self- chosen enthusiastic ignorance at all levels of the Executive, the Legislature and the Judiciary. Top men in the Executive, Legislature and the Judiciary compete with one another with pseudo-secular gusto in their unquenchable quest or thirst for Himalayan ignorance. I am not therefore surprised that our Courts of Law are just not concerned about the sacred 'Knowledge and Wisdom Traditions' in their own field of endeavour.

When the Supreme Court used the adjective STALE in Dr. Subramanian Swamy's case, it clearly violated the letter and the underlying spirit of the following words of wisdom of Justice William O Douglas (1898-1980) of the US Supreme Court, who as a very great Judge with a term lasting 36 years and 7 months, remained the longest-serving Judge in the history of the American Supreme Court as of 2007. To quote his words from his Judgment in Craig Vs Harney, 331 U.S. 367, 374 (1947):

“There is no special perquisite of the Judiciary which enables it, as distinguished from other institutions of democratic Government, to suppress, edit or censor events which transpire in proceedings before it.”

The Supreme Court of India did precisely the same thing in Dr. Subramanian Swamy's Case against the patently false affidavit of Sonia Gandhi.

As a freelance Journalist, I prefer the folly of enthusiasm to the indifference of judicial wisdom. IQ means intelligence quotient. IQ at many levels of our Judiciary in India today, including the highest level of the Supreme Court of India, has come to mean not Intelligence Quotient but Ignorance Quotient, Influence Quotient, Inertia Quotient, Illegality Quotient, Immorality Quotient, Impotence Quotient and Insolence Quotient. IQ can never mean Inspiration Quotient or Illumination Quotient or Integrity Quotient. What should be viewed as scandalous, sacrilegious and nauseating in any civilized society, has become noble, sacred and sacrosanct in the Supreme Court of India today. Am I not proclaiming that irony is the gaiety of reflection and the joy of freedom, even if not wisdom?

In a similar sarcastic diction, Anatole France (1844-1924) wrote with great feeling and passion:” To disarm the strong and arm the weak would be to change the social order which it's my job to preserve. Justice is the means by which established injustices are sanctioned The majestic egalitarianism of the law, which forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.”

Seeing the helpless deathly fate of the writ petition of Dr Subramanian Swamy, founded on absolutely legal and reasonable grounds filed against the criminal misconduct of firangi memsahib Sonia Gandhi, I am reminded of what Oscar Wilde said in beautiful verse when he was languishing in Jail:

        “Something was dead in each of us,

        And what was dead was HOPE”

The unfortunate fate of Dr Subramanian Swamy's Writ Petition, should make all of us aware of the fact that we are heading for another dark emergency of the kind that INDIRA GANDHI, the Mother-In-Law of Sonia Gandhi, clamped down upon our nation in 1975.

After we came out of the Age of British Serfdom, we are indeed heading for an Age of Italian Serfdom, with Supreme Court's finally supreme declaration of Firangi Memsahib Sonia Gandhi as the Mighty Mahatma Gandhi of today's India. Here again we the helpless masses of India, whatever might be the callous and cavalier contempt of the Supreme Court of India towards the true Sovereigns of the land, WE THE PEOPLE, we should all derive our strength from the following inspiring words aflame with fire and aglow with light of Justice William O Douglas: “As night-fall does not come at once, neither does oppression...It is in such twilight that we all must be aware of change in the air however slightest we become victims of the darkness.”

I wish to declare on behalf of all the freedom loving Citizens of India that the struggle today is between the helpless individual and his sacred power to express himself and the unabashed power structure of an irresponsible, discriminatory and dictatorial State and Government which seeks conformity, suppression and obedience, not through trial and error but through error and terror. This great and ancient nation, thanks to our wicked Government, is identified today more and more with material things and less and less with spiritual standards derived from our tradition of Sanatana Dharma. We have become an arrogant, selfish and greedy nation interested only in US Dollars, British Sterling and Euro Dollars. We are not interested in people and their hopes, urges and aspirations. We need a faith that dedicates us to something bigger and more important than ourselves or our possessions. Today's establishment in the UPA Government is like that of Genghis Khan (1162-1227) or that of George III (1738-1820). If the State and the Government continue to adhere to the tactics of Genghis Khan or George III, the only redress for the masses of India, honoured in tradition, will be an open and armed revolution. To accomplish great things, we must not only act but also dream, not only plan but also believe.

Now it can be asked: Do academic writers and Journalists have any role to play in all these matters and affairs? I would like to give an answer to this question from an article by Prof. Glanville Williams in the CAMBRIDGE LAW JOURNAL entitled The Lords and Impossible Attempts, or Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes?. His sharp argument in this article led to the overruling by the House of Lords of 'Anderton Vs Ryan'.

The effect of Prof. Glanville Williams's article was best expressed in the following words of Lord Bridge: I cannot conclude this opinion without disclosing that I have had the advantage, since the conclusion of the arguments in this appeal, of reading an article by Prof. Glanville Williams entitled The Lords and Impossible Attempts, or Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? (1986) in Cambridge Law Journal. The language in which he criticizes the decision in Anderton Vs Ryan is not conspicuous by its moderation but it would be foolish on that account, not to recognise the force of the criticism and churlish not to acknowledge the assistance I have derived from it.

THE COMMON MAN IN THE STREET IN INDIA WILL FEEL FREE AND RELAXED ONLY ON THAT DAY WHEN INDIA BECOMES CAPABLE OF PRODUCING HUMBLE, KNOWLEDGEABLE, WISE, COURAGEOUS, STRAIGHT-FORWARD, IMPARTIAL, UNFETTERED, UNDAUNTED AND PUBLIC SPIRITED JUDGES, DEVOTED TO THE LETTER AND SPIRIT OF THE LAW OF OUR CONSTITUTION, IN OUR HIGH COURTS AND OUR SUPREME COURT LIKE LORD BRIDGE OF ENGLAND.