SONIA-SLAVE 2G SPECTRUM FRAUD P. CHIDAMBARAM vs DR.SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY
V.SUNDARAM I.A.S.
ALL INDIA GENERAL SECRETARY (IDEOLOGY) JANATA PARTY
ALL INDIA GENERAL SECRETARY (IDEOLOGY) JANATA PARTY
CHAMPION OF LIBERTY, FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND THOUGHT
After directing the criminal 24x7 Delhi police to make a savage midnight attack on Baba Ramdev and his followers who were fast asleep in Ram Lila Grounds in the first week of June 2011, the singularly unscrupulous and lawless Union home Minister P.Chidambaram (at the instance of Catholic Sonia Gandhi) has directed the Delhi Police to register an FIR against Dr.Subramanian Swamy, with the sole intention of lodging Dr.Subramanian Swamy in prison without a trial. BY VIRTUE OF THIS CRIMINAL POLITICAL ACT ALONE, THIS SHAMELESS AND BONELESS WONDER OF A HOME MINISTER STANDS CONDEMNED AS A FIRST RATE THUG AND HATCHET MAN OF SONIA GANDHI BEFORE THE BAR OF INDIAN AND WORLD PUBLIC OPINION AND BEFORE THE HIGHER AND PERMANENT COURT OF TIME.
It is a matter of national and international shame for the supremely corrupt and lawless Firangi Memsahib Sonia-directed UPA II Government in New Delhi that they should have directed the Delhi Police (world famous for its acts of goondaism and unprovoked violence against the innocent public) to register an FIR against Dr.Subramanian Swamy under Sections 153-A (promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion … and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony), Section 153-B (imputations, assertions prejudicial to national integration), 295-A (deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs) and 505 (statements conducing to public mischief) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for allegedly “spreading enmity between communities” through an article published in an English daily DNA on July 16 2011. The man behind this Government sponsored crime is reported to be the Union Home Minister P.Chidambaram. It is understood that he has made a solemn promise to Sonia Gandhi and her family members that he would have Dr. Subramanian Swamy arrested with no hope of getting a bail like many other innocent Hindu Swamis charged with the offence of imaginary, contrived, manipulated and manoeuvred offences of SAFFRON TERRORISM. Chidambaram is building castles in the air for his foreign boss, the Firangi Memsahib!
The whole world knows---excepting the abodes of the arrogant guilty like those of Sonia Gandhi, her sisters, and other members of her family----that it is Dr.Subramanian Swamy who has sought the permission of the Prime Minister to prosecute Chidambaram under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Having failed to get this permission, Dr. Swamy has moved the Supreme Court of India with a PRAYER that they should direct the CBI to investigate into the active, nefarious, large-scale and anti-national involvement of Chidambaram in full collusion and understanding with former Union Telecom Minister A.Raja, in the 2G Spectrum Fraud. IT IS A STANDING TRIBUTE TO THE FUNCTIONING OF OUR CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM THAT UNION MINISTER A.RAJA HAS BEEN CRIMINALLY CHARGED BY THE CBI IN THE 2G SPECTRUM FRAUD AND IS LANGUISHING IN TIHAR JAIL FOR THE LAST SEVERAL MONTHS.His ministerial partner in this crime has been allowed to abuse his authority and let loose police violence against all those who are conscientious objectors and dissenters of the U.P.A II Regime.So much for the effective functioning of the CBI!
The same CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (CBI)—Congress Bureau of Investigation, Congress Bureau of Insinuation, Congress Bureau of Intimidation, Congress Bureau of Instigation, Congress Bureau of Criminal Intransigence, Conniving Bureau of Intimidation, Complacent Bureau of Criminal Inaction, Complaisant Bureau of Investigation, Compliant Bureau of Infliction, Conniving Bureau of Intimidation and Cunning Bureau of Concentrated Criminality----has shamelessly dared to declare with audacity, not in a Third Class Stipendiary III Class Magistrate’s Court but in the Supreme Court of India, that P Chidambaram is a man of transcendental virtue and unimpeachable integrity who did not allow himself to be sullied by the corrupt Former Union Telecom Minister A.Raja! So much for the objective,impartial and fearless investigation ‘done,not done,undone’ by the CBI!For God’s sake ‘let me have done’ with the congress Bureau of Investigation(C.B.I) for the moment!.
This very Union Home Minister P.Chidambaram with questionable, tainted and well known shady antecedents, has directed the Delhi Police to register an FIR against Dr.Swamy on the basis of a complaint made by one Asgar Khan (who is reported to be a plant of Ahmed Patel whose inglorious antecedents are very well known to all the Enforcement Agencies of the Government of India!!) This very Union Home Minister had directed the Delhi Police to make a brutal and bestial MIDNIGHT attack on Baba Ramdev and his innocent followers who were sleeping in Ram Lila Grounds in the first week of june 2011!.Thousands of video tapes of the savagery let loose by the Delhi Police (controlled, supervised, coordinated and directed by P. Chidambaram in accordance with instructions of Sonia Gandhi) have reached different parts of the world, earning P. Chidambaram the Pan Islamic epithets of Ghenghis Khan, Kulbai Khan, and Tamerlane!
After the FIR against Dr Swamy was registered by the Crime Branch of the Delhi Police, Dr Swamy was asked by the Press to offer his comments. Dr Swamy has viewed it as an act of criminal political vendetta by Sonia Congress Party in general and P. Chidambaram in particular. He has accused P. Chidambaram to have been inspired by the motive of Italian mafia-type blackmail because of the tough and uncompromising stand taken by Dr Swamy against the active criminal involvement of P. Chidambaram in the case now going on in the Supreme Court of India in respect of the 2G spectrum scam. Dr Swamy has placed enough documents before the Supreme Court of India which would lead any reasonable man committed to the cause of ordinary justice to the inescapable conclusion that the former Union Telecom Minister A. Raja and the present Union Home Minister P. Chidambaram are two sides of the same coin of 2G Spectrum Mega Fraud.
Dr Swamy, who is the chief petitioner in the 2G spectrum case in the Supreme Court of India has said: “I don't know anything about the FIR. It has not been told to me. I learnt it from the newspaper people. I was told that police stations refused to register the FIR. This article was written in July. One Tilak Nagar Police Station refused to register the FIR and then Nizamuddin Police Station refused to register the FIR. I was told that under the pressure of Mr. Chidambaram (Home Minister P. Chidambaram), the Delhi Crime Branch has registered it. This must have something to do with 2G Spectrum Fraud naturally. They want to prevent me from going to the Supreme Court of India on 10th October 2011.”
I was a District Collector and Magistrate in the then undivided Thirunelveli District of Tamil Nadu in 1976-78 and I am aware of what the political gangsters belonging to the then Indira Congress Party were able to do to suppress and crush the humanitarian, political and constitutional rights of great national leaders like J.P, Atal Behari Vajpayee, Morarji Desai, Raj Narain and others. P. Chidambaram today is behaving like the gangster Union Ministers in the Government of dacoits under Indira Gandhi during those dark days of Emergency in 1975-77. P. Chidambaram’s gargantuan misdeeds of today, including the murder of the innocent lady Mrs Rajbala by the Chidambaram directed gangster Delhi Police in Ram Lila Grounds in June 2011, would get thoroughly exposed and suitably punished by the next non-Congress Government to be formed in New Delhi in 2014, or even earlier. I have no doubt, another judicial commission of inquiry, very much like the Shah Commission of 1977,would again go into the large scale allegations / complaints of excesses of P. Chidambaram today in the not very distant future. Was not Karl Marx(1818-1883) absolutely right when he said in 1848;”The grim tragedy is that History repeats itself and Historians repeat each other!”
Ahmed Patel is Hitler type Nazi Sonia Gandhi’s hangman(without any mercy or scruple of conscience) of the media and the freedom of the Press in India. He is the tyrant who gags the Press and pressmen in India with unchallenged authority and terrorist Islamic impunity. All the major newspapers in India publish only paid news and they are very economical with the truth. This applies equally well to the electronic media with their own band and brand of Sonia Congress mercenaries. THE AREA OF CONTRIVED AND ZOOMING PUBLIC DARKNESS ARTIFICIALLY CREATED BY THE PRO-ISLAMIC, PRO-CHRISTIAN AND ESSENTIALLY ANTI-HINDU PSEUDO-SECULAR MAFIA OF MASS MEDIA IN INDIA HAS TO BE SEEN TO BE BELIEVED.
In an area of controlled and imposed darkness, Yahoo News covered themselves with glory when they reported as follows on 3-10-2011.
FIR has been registered under Chidambaram's pressure, says Swamy
Chennai/New Delhi, Oct 3 (ANI): Terming the FIR registered against him to be a political vendetta, Janata Party President Subramanian Swamy accusing Union Home Minister P. Chidambaram today said the motive seems to have been his stand on the 2G spectrum scam.
Swamy, who is the chief petitioner in the 2G spectrum case, said: "I don't know anything about it. It has not been told to me. I learnt it from the newspaper people. I was told that police stations refused to register the FIR. This article was written in July. One Tilak Nagar Police Station refused to register the FIR and then Nizamuddin Police Station refused to register the FIR."
"So, I was told that under the pressure of Mr. Chidambaram (Home Minister P. Chidambaram), the Delhi Crime Brach has registered it. This must have something to do with 2G naturally. They want to prevent me from going to court," he added.
Swamy further said the FIR has been filed against him on baseless charges.
"But there cannot be any charge, once I get the FIR I will go to the High Court and get it quashed because you cannot file an FIR on baseless charges. Whatever I have said is within the Constitution of India. But I have not been informed about it (FIR)," he added.
Delhi Police has filed an FIR against Swamy in connection with an editorial he wrote on Islamic terrorism in an Indian newspaper in July this year.
Swamy had earlier last month submitted to the Supreme Court documents indicating that Chidambaram, as the then finance minister, was along with jailed former Telecom Minister A. Raja, involved in deciding the price of 2G spectrum.
Former Telecom Minister Raja was forced to resign from the Union Cabinet last year after the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG) faulted him for undervaluing spectrum to favour companies who were largely ineligible for 2G spectrum, and added that the government had probably lost Rs.1.76 lakh crore in estimated revenue. (ANI)
The Hindu, described by Pundit Nehru as “an old lady with matronly amplitude-,this lady with a past”, reported as follows on 3rd October 2011
Staff Reporter
The Delhi police have registered a case against Janata Party chief Subramanian Swamy for allegedly “spreading enmity between communities” through an article published in an English daily in July.
According to sources, the case has been registered by the Crime Branch under Sections 153-A (promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion … and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony), Section 153-B (imputations, assertions prejudicial to national integration), 295-A (deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs) and 505 (statements conducing to public mischief). The case was registered in August-end on a complaint by the National Commission for Minorities (NCM).
The ZEENEWS reported as follows on 3rd October 2011
FIR against Swamy for anti-Muslim article
Last Updated: Monday, October 03, 2011, 19:37
Tags: Subramanian Swamy, FIR, Anti-Muslim article
Zeenews Bureau New Delhi: The Delhi Police on Monday registered an FIR against Janata Pary president Subramanian Swamy in connection with a newspaper article in which he suggested that that the voting rights of Indian Muslims be revoked.
The Crime Branch registered a case under Section 153A (spreading enmity between communities) of Indian Penal Code for his newspaper article in July this year, a senior police official said.
Earlier, the National Commission for Minorities (NCM) had criticised Swamy for his article.
NCM head Wajahat Habibullah had described the article as “outrageous” and as spreading “enmity and inciting hatred”. The Harvard-educated economics scholar, in the article 'How to wipe out Islamic terror' published on July 17 in the DNA, had suggested to Indian Hindus to collectively respond to terror acts.
“We need a collective mindset as Hindus to stand against the Islamic terrorist... If any Muslim acknowledges his or her Hindu legacy, then we Hindus can accept him or her as a part of the Brihad Hindu Samaj (greater Hindu society) which is Hindustan,” Swamy wrote.Dr.Subramanian Swamy has issued the following explosive Statement against the U.P.A II government of India for having directed the delhi police to register a baseless F.I.R against Dr.Swamy.
Statement of Dr. Subramanian Swamy, Janata Party President
“I demand that the Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh intervene and ask the Delhi Police to withdraw the stupid and vapid FIR registered by the Crime Branch for my DNA article of July 16, 2011 on " How to Wipe Out Islamic Terrorism". This FIR has made India a laughing stock in the democratic nations of the world, while convincing patriotic Indians that it is motivated by the fear of my relentless investigations into the 2G Spectrum Scam, which investigation is to lead to making persons at the top of Congress Party culpable.
The FIR has been registered 2 1/2 months after my alleged inflammatory article was published in the Mumbai daily, The DNA. Since then 3 Police Stations have declined to register the FIR since no offence could be discerned. Hence the Crime Branch's act is obviously a command performance that has lowered the reputation of the government.
If the PM has any concern for the reputation of the nation as a democratic country that respects fundamental rights, and if he has learnt anything from the Emergency, then he must wake up and assert his authority not to allow such blatant misuse of police powers and various Supreme Court judgments on the issue of FIRs and arbitrary exercise of such powers”.
Dr Subramanian Swamy wrote his article in the DNA Newspaper on 16th July 2011.The Crime Branch of the Delhi police registered the F.I.R nearly two months against Dr Subramanian Swamy under Sections 153-A (promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion … and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony), Section 153-B (imputations, assertions prejudicial to national integration), 295-A (deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs) and 505 (statements conducing to public mischief).
I would like to put the following questions to the Delhi Police;
1.How many acts of communal violence between Muslims and Hindus have taken place in the capital city of New Delhi and the rest of India between July 16 2011(the date on which Dr Swamy wrote his alleged article in question) and today(7-10-2011)?.
2. Do the Delhi police have adequate statistics relating to dangerous outbreaks of communal violence in India between the Muslims and the Hindus? If not, Why not?
3. If there was no outbreak of communal violence between the Muslims and the Hindus till the date on which the Crime Branch of the Delhi police registered their POLITICALLY SONIA-CHIDAMBARAM MANUFACTURED F.I.R against Dr Swamy, then what Sonia Congress or Sonia or Chidambaram factors weighed with them in registering an baseless F.I.R against Dr Swamy?
4.What is the Cognizable offence committed by Dr Swamy which has led to breach of communal harmony between the Hindus and the Muslims in all parts of India (from Kashmir to Kanyakumari and from Rann of Cutch to bay of Bengal!!) and which resulted in avoidable loss of innocent lives and destruction of public property and which merits condign punishment being meted out to Dr.Swamy under Sections 153-B (imputations, assertions prejudicial to national integration) or 295-A (deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs) of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C)?
5. The Crime Branch of the Delhi Police seems to be unaware of the fact that the DUE PROCESS OF LAW governing the registration of an FIR against Dr.Swamy is not a mere gesture. Due Process of Law requires that the proceedings shall be fair and equitable. It is fairness with reference to particular conditions or particular results.
6. Some unknown Muslim Petitioner, politically planted by the Sonia Congress Party in New Delhi goes to the Crime Branch of the Delhi Police and gives a petition that the religious feelings of the Minority Muslims have been outraged by an article written by Dr.Swamy in the DNA on 16th July 2011. The Sonia Congress Policemen are provoked even more by Dr.Swamy’s views and leap forward like mercenaries of LTTE to register an FIR against Dr.Swamy under various Sections of the IPC.
JUSTICE OLIVER WENDELL HOLMES (1841-1935)
In this context I would like to refer to the great DOCTRINE OF CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER LAID DOWN BY THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE OLIVER WENDELL HOLMES (1841-1935) IN THE AMERICAN SUPREME COURT IN SCHENCK VS US GOVERNMENT (249 US 47) IN 1919. The First World War brought in its wake some knotty problems for judicial review in the AREA OF CIVIL LIBERTIES.
Honorable Justice Holmes wrote the unanimous verdict of the American Supreme Court in this key decision of the cluster of modern cases that concerns the RELATION BETWEEN FREEDOM OF UTTERANCE AND THE MILITARY DANGERS AND NEEDS OF THE COUNTRY. IT CONTAINS THE FIRST FULL FORMULATION OF WHAT HAS COME TO BE VERY WELL KNOWN AS THE “CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER” DOCTRINE. It uses, as the test of free speech that falls outside the guarantee of the FIRST AMENDMENT, “whether the words in speech or writing are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a ‘CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER’ that they will bring about the substantive evils that US Congress has a right to prevent”.
The Doctrine of ‘CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER’ means negatively that FREE SPEECH OR WRITING IS NOT TO BE BANNED MERELY BECAUSE THE WORDS ARE CONSIDERED OBJECTIONABLE OR BECAUSE THEY MAY HAVE SECONDARY CONSEQUENCES CONSIDERED UNFAVOURABLE. There are 2 elements in the Criteria set up by Honourable Justice Holmes for assessing the ‘CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER’ :
1) Firstly, the words themselves in question must have a direct relation to the Substantive Evil (in this case, obstructing, recruiting and spreading disaffection among the armed forces or the people) that is sought to be prevented.
2) Secondly the Context or Situation must be such that THE FREE SPEECH OR WRITING RESULTS IN A CLEAR AND IMMEDIATE DANGER THAT THE PURPOSES OF US CONGRESS WILL BE FRUSTRATED.
We are not as Justice Holmes says, free to shout “FIRE” in a crowded theatre; similarly the fact of a Nation at War (I World War in 1919) may provide the Context in which words are as dangerous as the acts to which they are an incitement. Justice Holmes rightly said in his famous Judgement in 1919 that the Concept of Free Speech becomes RELATIVE; he puts Stress not on the WORDS themselves, but ON THEIR RELATION TO THE CONTEXT and CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH THEY ARE USED, BUT THE WORDS MUST BEAR A DIRECT RELATION TO THE CONTEXT.
Thus Justice Holmes presents what the legal philosophers might call an “OPERATIONAL” definition of Free Speech. Yet he does not make an ABSOLUTE out of Free Speech, neither does he give Unlimited Scope to an Unrestricted war hysteria.
Thus Justice Holmes enunciated the Doctrine of CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER WHICH WAS WELL CALCULATED TO SAFEGUARD THE INDIVIDUAL VALUE AND SOCIAL NEED OF INTELLECTUAL FREEDOM WITHOUT UNDULY JEOPARDIZING THE STRENGTH OF THE STATE.
Against this background, I would put the following questions to the servile, slavish, self-opinionated, self-proclaiming and shameless chaprasis of Pa (kistani) Chidambaram in the Crime Branch of the Delhi Police:
a) What is the CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER to the maintenance of communal harmony that the Delhi Police saw with the Christian and Islamic eyes of Pa Chidambaram and Sonia Gandhi in the article written by Dr.Swamy in the DNA on 16th July 2011?
b) What was the nature and extent of DERANGEMENT AND BREAKDOWN OF COMMUNAL HARMONY in all parts of India that was DIRECTLY CAUSED by the viciously anti-Muslim article of Dr.Swamy between 16th July 2011 and 3rd October 2011 and which was reported to the Union Home Ministry by all the State Governments calling for the initiation of immediate action against Dr.Swamy by the Crime Branch of the Delhi Police?
c) How many Mosques and Madrasas were burnt and destroyed by Hindus and Hindu Acharyas who went on a rampage after reading Dr.Subramanian Swamy’s explosive article? Has the Union Home Ministry of Pa (kistani) Chidambaram—the satanic and wicked propounder of the baseless and criminal Doctrine of saffron terrorism---given any bumptious advisory to the State Governments in this regard?
The Crime Branch of the Delhi police have either deliberately or on account of their unabashed ignorance, have completely violated, nay overthrown, the Norms/Principles/Criteria/ Guidelines laid down by the SUPREME COURT OF INDIA to be strictly and scrupulously followed by the Police throughout the country in the following LANDMARK CASES:
I) THE FIRST LANDMARK CASE OF BHAJAN LAL IN 1992
JUSTICE RATNAVEL PANDIAN’S JUDGEMENT GIVEN IN 1992 IN "State of Haryana v. BHAJAN LAL"---- AIR 1992 SUPREME COURT 604 "State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal" (From : Punjab and Haryana)* Coram : 2 S. RATNAVEL PANDIAN AND K. JAYACHANDRA REDDY, JJ. Civil Appeal No.5412 of 1990, D/- 21 -11 -1990.
State of Haryana and others, Appellants v. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, Respondents.
(A) Criminal P.C. (2 of 1974), S.154(1) - FIR - First Information Report relating to cognizable offence - Duty of Officer-in-Charge of police station -
The condition which is sine qua non for recording a First Information Report is that there must be an information and that information must disclose a cognizable offence. It is, therefore, manifestly clear that if any information disclosing a cognizable offence is laid before an officer-in-charge of a police station satisfying the requirements of Section 154(1) the said police officer has no other option except to enter the substance thereof in the prescribed form, that is to say, to register a case on the basis of such information. (Paras 31, 32)
My Comments: No cognizable Offence has been committed at all by Dr.Swamy. Delhi Police are seeing through the coloured and doctored glasses of Firangi memsahib and her shameless Chaprasi or Daftari, the monster of Sonia Congress lawlessness and wickedness on stilts like Pa.Chidambaram. THE REQUIREMENTS STIPULATED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA UNDER (A) ABOVE HAVE NOT BEEN FULFILLED AT ALL IN THE CASE MANUFACTURED AND FRAMED AGAINST DR.SWAMY.
(B) Criminal P.C. (2 of 1974), S.154(1), S.157(1), Proviso, Cl.(b) - INVESTIGATION –
Cognizable offence - Investigation - Commencement of - Same subject to two conditions; (1) Police Officer should have reason to suspect commission of cognizable offence required by Section 157(1); (2) Secondly he has to subjectively satisfy himself as to existence of sufficient ground as contemplated under clause (b) of the proviso to Section 157(1). for entering on investigation.
My Comments: The CONDITIONS LAID DOWN BY THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA UNDER (B) ABOVE DO NOT EXIST AT ALL IN THE CASE FOISTED UPON DR.SWAMY.
Further, as clause (b) of the proviso permits the police officer to satisfy himself about the sufficiency of the ground even before entering on an investigation, it postulates that the police officer has to draw his satisfaction only on the materials which were placed before him at that stage, namely, the first information together with the documents, if any, enclosed. In other words, the police officer has to satisfy himself only on the allegations mentioned in the first information before he enters on an investigation as to whether those allegations do constitute a cognizable offence warranting an investigation. (Paras 53 and 54)
(C) Criminal P.C. (2 of 1974), S.157, Chap.12 - POLICE OFFICERS –
Cognizable offence - Investigation of - Power of police officers - Unfettered, provided it is exercised in strict compliance with provisions in Chap.12 - Circumscribed limits transgressed - Court approached - It has to pass appropriate orders, considering nature and extent of breach.
The investigation of a cognizable offence is the field exclusively reserved for the police officers whose powers in that field are unfettered so long as the power to investigate into the cognizable offences is legitimately exercised in strict compliance with the provisions falling under Chapter XII of the Code and the Courts are not justified in obliterating the track of investigation when the investigating agencies are well within their legal bounds as aforementioned…….
…..BUT IF A POLICE OFFICER TRANSGRESSES THE CIRCUMSCRIBED LIMITS AND IMPROPERLY AND ILLEGALLY EXERCISES HIS INVESTIGATORY POWERS IN BREACH OF ANY STATUTORY PROVISION CAUSING SERIOUS PREJUDICE TO THE PERSONAL LIBERTY AND ALSO PROPERTY OF A CITIZEN, THEN THE COURT ON BEING APPROACHED BY THE PERSON AGGRIEVED FOR THE REDRESS OF ANY GRIEVANCE, HAS TO CONSIDER THE NATURE AND EXTENT OF THE BREACH AND PASS APPROPRIATE ORDERS AS MAY BE CALLED FOR WITHOUT LEAVING THE CITIZENS TO THE MERCY OF POLICE ECHELONS SINCE HUMAN DIGNITY IS A DEAR VALUE OF CONSTITUTION. IT NEEDS NO EMPHASIS THAT NO ONE CAN DEMAND ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY EVEN IF HE IS WRONG AND CLAIM UNQUESTIONABLE RIGHT AND UNLIMITED POWERS EXERCISABLE UP TO UNFATHOMABLE COSMOS. ANY RECOGNITION OF SUCH POWER WILL BE TANTAMOUNT TO RECOGNITION OF 'DIVINE POWER' WHICH NO AUTHORITY ON EARTH CAN ENJOY. (PARA 62)
II) THE SECOND LANDMARK CASE OF JOGINDER SINGH IN 1994
ARREST AND CUSTODY
RIGHT TO LIFE AND PERSONAL LIBERTY
Joginder Kumar vs State of U.P. and Others in the Supreme Court in 1994
Facts
The petitioner, a young advocate of 28 years, was called by the SSP Ghaziabad, UP., Respondent 4, in his office for making enquiries in some case. It was alleged that on 7.1.1994 at about 10 o'clock he personally along with his brothers appeared before the SSP. At about 12.55 p.m. the brother of the petitioner sent a telegram, to the Chief Minister of U.P. apprehending the petitioner" false implication in some criminal case and his death in fake encounter. In the evening, it came to be known that the petitioner was detained in the illegal custody of respondent 5 Next days the SHO instead of producing the petitioner before. Magistrate asked the relatives to approach the SSP. On 9.1.1994 in the evening, relatives of the petitioner came to know that the petitioner had been taken to some undisclosed destination. Under these circumstances the writ petition under Article 32 was preferred for release of the petitioner. The Supreme Court on 11.1.1994 ordered notice to the State of U.P. as well as SSP, Ghaziabad. The SSP along with the petitioner appeared before the Court on 14.1.1.994 and stated that petitioner was not in detention at all and that his help was taken for detecting some cases relating to abduction and the petitioner was helpful in cooperating with the police. Therefore, there was no question of detaining him. Held The Supreme Court while directing the District Judge, Ghaziabad, to make a detailed enquiry and submit his report within four weeks observed as under:
“The quality of a nation's civilization can' be largely measured by the methods it uses in the enforcement of criminal law. The horizon of human rights is expanding. At the same time, the crime rate is also increasing. The Court has been receiving complaints about violation of human rights because of indiscriminate arrests; a realistic approach should be made in this direction. The law of arrest is one of balancing individual rights, liberties and privileges, on the one hand, and individual duties, obligations and responsibilities, on the other, of weighing and balancing the rights, liberties and privileges of the single individual and those of individuals collectively; of simply deciding what is wanted and where to put the weight and the emphasis; of deciding which comes first - the criminal or society, the law violator or the law abider.”
*1994 Cr.L.J. 1981 / (1994) 4SCC 260
IN JOGINDER SINGH’S CASE, THE FOLLOWING GUIDE-LINES WERE LAID DOWN BY THE SUPREME COURT IN 1994.
Guidelines for Arrest: No arrest can be made because it is lawful for the police officer to do so. The existence of the power to arrest is one thing. The justification for the exercise of it is quite another. The police officer must be able to justify the arrest apart from his power to do so. Arrest and detention in police lock-up of a person cause incalculable harm to the reputation and self-esteem of a person. No arrest can be made in a routine manner on a mere allegation of commission of an offence made against a person. It would be a prudent for-a police officer in the interest of protection of the constitutional rights of a citizen and perhaps in his own interest that no arrest should be made without a reasonable satisfaction reached after some investigation as to the genuineness and bona fides of a complaint and a reasonable belief both as to the person's complicity and even so as to the need to effect arrest. Denying a person of his liberty is a serious matter. The recommendations of the Police Commission merely reflect the constitutional concomitants of the fundamental rights to personal liberty and freedom. A person is not liable to arrest merely on the suspicion of complicity in an offence. There must be some reasonable justification in the opinion of the officer effecting the arrest that such arrest is necessary and justified. Except in heinous offences, an arrest must be remanded if a police officer issues notice to person to attend the Station House and not to leave the station without permission would do. The right of the arrested person to have someone informed, upon request and to consult privately with a lawyer was recognized by Section 56(1) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, 1984 in England. These rights are inherent in Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution and require to be recognised and scrupulously protected. For effective enforcement of these fundamental rights, the following requirements are issued:
1. An arrested person-being held in custody is entitled, if he so requests to have one friend, relative or other person who is known to him or likely to take an interest in his welfare told as far as is practicable that he has been arrested and where he is being detained.
2. The police officer shall inform the arrested person when he is brought to the police station of this right.
3. An entry shall be required to be made in the diary as to who was informed of the arrest. These protections from power must be held to flow from Articles 21 and 22 (1) and enforced strictly.
It shall be the duty of the Magistrate, before whom the arrested person is produced, to satisfy himself that these requirements have been complied with.
The above requirements shall be followed in all cases of arrest till legal provisions are made in this behalf. These requirements shall be in addition to the rights of the arrested person found in the various police manuals. These requirements are not exhaustive. The Directors General of Police of all the States in: India shall issue necessary instructions requiring due observance of these requirements. In addition departmental instruction shall also be issued that a police officer making an arrest should also record in the case diary the reasons for making the arrest. (Emphasis supplied).
My Comment: If the Crime Branch of the Delhi Police had taken the trouble of reading the above guidelines, they would not have committed the legal crime of registering an unfounded, baseless and illegal FIR against Dr.Swamy what was viewed as illegal and unconstitutional by the 2 Police Stations in New Delhi, became legal and constitutional for the Crime Branch of Delhi Police!!
IN CASE OF ARREST PLEASE ENSURE THE FOLLOWING GUIDELINES
Supreme Court Guidelines (fully endorsed by the National Human Rights Commission)
The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in D.K. Basu Vs State of West Bengal, has laid down specific guidelines required to be followed while making arrests.
THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT GUIDELINES on Arrest
The principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court are given hereunder:
(i) The police personnel carrying out the arrest and handling the interrogation of the arrestee should bear accurate, visible and clear identification and name tags with their designations. The particulars of all such police personnel who handle interrogation of the arrestee should bear accurate, visible and clear identification and name tags with their designation. The particular of all such personnel who handle interrogation of the arrestee must be recorded in a register.
(ii) That the police officer carrying out the arrest shall prepare a memo of arrest at the time of arrest and such memo shall be attested by at least one witness, who may be either a member of the family of the arrestee or a respectable person of the locality from where the arrest is made. It shall also be counter signed by the arrestee and shall contain the time and date of arrest.
(iii) A person who has been arrested or detained and is being held in custody in a police station or interrogation centre or other lock up, shall be entitled to have one friend or relative or other person known to him or having interest in his welfare being informed, as soon as practicable, that he has been arrested and is being detained at the particular place, unless the attesting witness of the memo of arrest is himself such a friend or a relative of the arrestee.
(iv) The time, place of arrest and venue of custody of an arrestee must be notified by the police where the next friend or relative of the arrestee lives outside the district or town through the Legal Aids Organization in the District and the police station of the area concerned telegraphically within a period of 8 to 12 hours after the arrest.
(v) The person arrested must be made aware of his right to have someone informed of his arrest or detention as soon as he is put under arrest or is detained.
(vi) An entry must be made in the diary at the place of detention regarding the arrest of the person which shall also disclosed the name of the next friend of the person who has been informed of the arrest and the names land particulars of the police officials in whose custody the arrestee is.
(vii) The arrestee should, where he so request, be also examines at the time of his arrest and major and minor injuries, if any present on his /her body, must be recorded at that time. The Inspector Memo' must be signed both by the arrestee and the police officer effecting the arrest and its copy provided to the arrestee.
(viii) The arrestee should be subjected to medical examination by the trained doctor every 48 hours during his detention In custody by a doctor on the panel of approved doctor appointed by Director, Health Services of the concerned State or Union Territory, Director, Health Services should prepare such a panel for all Tehsils and Districts as well.
(ix) Copies of all the documents including the memo of arrest, referred to above, should be sent to the Magistrate for his record.
(x) The arrestee may be permitted to meet his lawyer during interrogation, though not throughout the interrogation.
(xi) A police control room should be provided at all district and State headquarters where information regarding the arrest and the place of custody of the arrestee shall be communicated by the officer causing the arrest, within 12 hours of effecting the arrest and at the police control room it should be displayed on a conspicuous notice board.
NHRC GUIDELINES REGARDING ARREST
(National Human Rights Commission)
Need for Guidelines
Arrest involves restriction of liberty of a person arrested and therefore, infringes the basic human rights of liberty. Nevertheless the Constitution of India as well as International human rights law recognise the power of the State to arrest any person as a part of its primary role of maintaining law and order. The Constitution requires a just, fair and reasonable procedure established by law under which alone such deprivation of liberty is permissible. Although Article 22(1) of the Constitution provides that every person placed under arrest shall be informed as soon as may be the ground of arrest and shall not be denied the right to consult and be defended by a lawyer of his choice and S.50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr. PC) requires a police officer arresting any person to “ forthwith communicate to him full particulars of the offence for which he is arrested or other grounds for such arrest”. in actual practice these requirements are observed more in the breach. Likewise, the requirement of production of the arrested person before the court promptly which is mandated both under the Constitution [Article22(2)] and the Cr. PC (Section 57] is also not adhered to strictly.
A large number of complaints pertaining to Human Rights violations are in the area of abuse of police powers, particularly those of arrest and detention. It has, therefore, become necessary, with a view to narrowing the gap between law and practice, to prescribe guidelines regarding arrest even while at the same time not unduly curtailing the power of the police to effectively maintain and enforce law and order and proper investigation.
PRE-ARREST
Ø The power to arrest without a warrant should be exercised only after a reasonable satisfaction is reached, after some investigation, as to the genuineness and bona-fides of a complaint and a reasonable belief as to both the person’s complicity as well as the need to effect arrest. [Joginder Kumar’s case- (1994) 4 SCC 260).
Ø Arrest cannot be justified merely on the existence of power, as a matter of law, to arrest without a warrant in a cognizable case.
Ø After Joginder Kumar’s pronouncement of the Supreme Court the question 54 whether the power of arrest has been exercised reasonably or not is clearly a justiciable one.
Ø Arrest in cognizable cases may be considered justified in one or other of the following circumstances:
(i) The case involves a grave offence like murder, dacoity, robbery, rape etc. and it is necessary to arrest the suspect to prevent him from escaping or evading the process of law.
(ii) The suspect is given to violent behaviour and is likely to commit further offences.
(iii) The suspect requires to be prevented from destroying evidence or interfering with witnesses or warning other suspects who have not yet been arrested.
(iv) The suspect is a habitual offender who, unless arrested, is likely to commit similar or further offences. [3rd Report of National Police Commission]
Ø Except in heinous offences, as mentioned above, an arrest must be avoided if a police officer issues notice to the person to attend the police station and not leave the station without permission. (see Joginder Kumar’s case (1994) SCC 260).
Ø The power to arrest must be avoided where the offences are bailable unless there is a strong apprehension of the suspect absconding.
Ø Police officers carrying out an arrest or interrogation should bear clear identification and name tags with designations. The particulars of police personnel carrying out the arrest or interrogation should be recorded contemporaneously, in a register kept at the police station.
ARREST
Ø As a rule use of force should be avoided while effecting arrest. However, in case of forcible resistance to arrest, minimum force to overcome such resistance may be used. However, care must be taken to ensure that injuries to the person being arrested, visible or otherwise, is avoided.
Ø The dignity of the person being arrested should be protected. Public display or parading of the person arrested should not be permitted at any cost.
Ø Searches of the person arrested must be done with due respect to the dignity of the person, without force or aggression and with care for the person’s right to privacy. Searches of women should only be made by other women with strict regard to decency. (S.51(2) Cr.PC.) 55
Ø The use of handcuffs or leg chains should be avoided and if at all, it should be resorted to strictly in accordance with the law repeatedly explained and mandated in judgement of the Supreme Court in Prem Shanker Shukla v. Delhi Adminstration [(1980) 3 SCC 526] and Citizen for Democracy v. State of Assam [(1995) 3 SCC 743].
Ø As far as is practicable women police officers should be associated where the person or persons being arrested are women. The arrest of women between sunset and sunrise should be avoided.
Ø Where children or juveniles are sought to be arrested, no force or beatings should be administered under any circumstances. Police Officers, may for this purpose, associate respectable citizens so that the children or juveniles are not terrorised and minimal coercion is used.
Ø Where the arrest is without a warrant, the person arrested has to be immediately informed of the grounds of arrest in a language which he or she understands. Again, for this purpose, the police, if necessary may take the help of respectable citizens. These grounds must have already been recorded in writing in police records. The person arrested should be shown the written reasons as well and also given a copy on demand. (S.50(1) Cr.PC.)
Ø The arrested person can, on a request made by him or her, demand that a friend, relative or other person known to him be informed of the fact of his arrest and the place of his detention. The police should record in a register the name of the person so informed. [Joginder Kumar’s case (supra)].
Ø If a person is arrested for a bailable offence, the police officer should inform him of his entilement to be released on bail so that he may arrange for sureties. (S.50(2) Cr.PC.)
Ø Apart from informing the person arrested of the above rights, the police should also inform him of his right to consult and be defended by a lawyer of his choice. He should also be informed that he is entitled to free legal aid at state expense [D.K. Basu’s case (1997) 1 SCC].
Ø When the person arrested is brought to the police station, he should, if he makes a request in this regard, be given prompt medical assistance. He must be informed of this right. Where the police officer finds that the arrested person is in a condition where he is unable to make such request but is in need of medical help, he should promptly arrange for the same. This must also be recorded contemporaneously in a register. The female requesting for medical help should be examined only by a female registered medical practitioner. (S.53 Cr.PC.)
Ø Information regarding the arrest and the place of detention should be communicated by the police officer effecting the arrest without any delay to the police Control Room and District / State Headquarters. There must be a monitoring mechanism working round the clock.
Ø As soon as the person is arrested, police officer effecting the arrest shall make a mention of the existence or non-existence of any injury(s) on the person of the arrestee in the register of arrest. If any injuries are found on the person of the arrestee, full description and other particulars as to the manner in which the injuries were caused should be mentioned in the register, which entry shall also be signed by the police officer and the arrestee. At the time of release of the arrestee, a certificate to the above effect under the signature of the police officer shall be issued to the arrestee.
Ø If the arrestee has been remanded to police custody under the orders of the court, the arrestee should be subjected to medical examination by a trained Medical Officer every 48 hours during his detention in custody by a doctor on the panel of approved doctors appointed by Director, Health Services of the concerned State or Union Territory . At the time of his release from the police custody, the arrestee shall be got medically examined and a certificate shall be issued to him stating therein the factual position of the existence or non-existence of any injuries on his person.
POST ARREST
Ø The person under arrest must be produced before the appropriate court within 24 hours of the arrest (Ss 56 and 57 Cr.PC).
Ø The person arrested should be permitted to meet his lawyer at any time during the interrogation.
Ø The interrogation should be conducted in a clearly identifiable place, which has been notified for this purpose by the Government. The place must be accessible and the relatives or friend of the person arrested must be informed of the place of interrogation taking place.
Ø The methods of interrogation must be consistent with the recognised rights to life, dignity and liberty and right against torture and degrading treatment.
ENFORCEMENT OF GUIDELINES
1. The guidelines must be translated in as many languages as possible and distributed to every police station. It must also be incorporated in a handbook which should be given to every policeman.
2. Guidelines must receive maximum publicity in the print or other electronic media. It should also be prominently displayed on notice board, in more than one language, in every police station.
3. The police must set up a complaint redressal mechanism, which will promptly investigate complaints of violation of guidelines and take corrective action.
4 The notice board which displays guidelines must also indicate the location of the complaints redressal mechanism and how that body can be approached.
5. NGOs and public institutions including courts, hospitals, universities etc., must be involved in the dissemination of these guidelines to ensure the widest possible reach.
6. The functioning of the complaint redressal mechanism must be transparent and its reports accessible.
7. Prompt action must be taken against errant police officers for violation of the guidelines. This should not be limited to departmental enquiries but also set in motion the criminal justice mechanism.
My Comment: THE CRIME BRANCH OF THE DELHI POLICE SEEMS TO HAVE NOTHING BUT UNCONCEALED CONTEMPT FOR THE CONSTITUTIONAL SUPREME COURT OF INDIA. THEY THINK IT IS THEIR BOUNDEN DUTY TO BE MISGUIDED BY THE PRIVATE SUPREME COURT OF THE FIRANGI MEMSAHIB SONIA GANDHI AND HER EVER OBLIGING SUBORDINATE THIRD CLASS POLITICAL ISLAMIC HIGH COURT OF INJUSTICE OF PA(KISTANI) CHIDAMBARAM!!
The best tribute I can pay to the political Policemen in the Crime Branch of the Delhi Police for having registered an FIR against Dr.Subramanian Swamy, in blatant violation of the guidelines of the Supreme Court of India for dealing with the issue of registration of FIR and other connected matters, can only be in the following immortal words of Hon’ble Justice A.N. Mulla of the Allahabad High Court while disposing of a Case against the UP Police that came up before him for Judicial Adjudication in 1961:
“1. IF I FELT THAT WITH MY LONE EFFORTS I COULD HAVE CLEANED THIS 'AUGEAN STABLE' WHICH IS THE POLICE FORCE, I WOULD NOT HAVE HESITATED TO WAGE THIS WAR SINGLE HANDED;
2. THERE IS NOT A SINGLE LAWLESS GROUP IN THE WHOLE OF THE COUNTRY WHOSE RECORD OF CRIME COMES ANYWHERE NEAR THE RECORD OF THAT SINGLE ORGANIZED UNIT WHICH IS KNOWN AS THE INDIAN POLICE FORCE;
3. WHERE EVERY FISH, BARRING PERHAPS A FEW, STINKS, IT IS IDLE TO PICK OUT ONE OR TWO AND SAY THAT IT STINKS”.
CONCLUSION
Truth and knowledge about crucial national issues can function and flourish only if mega-corruption of maha-criminals masquerading as mighty national leaders may freely be exposed without fear of favour. And corruption may go unchallenged if the current stage-managed dogma, no matter how widely accepted or clearly held, may not be questioned. Pa(kistani!) Chidambaram and Catholic imposter Sonia Gandhi are combining against Dr.Subramanian Swamy only because he is legally fighting against their nefarious partnership in crime in the Mega 2G Spectrum in the Supreme Court of India. This supremely corrupt duo and their hatchet Delhi Police will soon kiss the dust in a Court of Law when they dare to arrest Dr.Subramanian Swamy.
IF A NATIONAL PUBLIC FIGURE OF DR. SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY’S EMINENCE CANNOT SPEAK OR WRITE FREELY, REPOSING INVINCIBLE FAITH IN THE STELLAR ROLE OF A VIRILE AND INDEPENDENT PRESS, THEN ALL IMPORTANT PUBLIC FIGURES (NOT THE ARTIFICIAL, HOLLOW, STUFFED AND PUFFED UP MEN AND WOMEN LIKE DR MANMOHAN SINGH, PA CHIDAMBARAM AND FIRANGI MEMSAHIB!) WOULD CEASE TO THINK OR TALK FREELY. It is the inalienable, indivisible, inexorable and immutable right of every responsible citizen in India to challenge the Himalayan corruption and gargantuan public misdeeds of these petty men and women of straw, not merely by silent impotent thought.
Thought like other human instincts will atrophy unless formally and regularly exercised. IF GAGGING BY THE PRESS PREVENTS INDEPENDENT, COURAGEOUS AND PUBLIC SPIRITED MEN FROM SPEAKING OR WRITING FREELY ON VITAL NATIONAL AND PUBLIC ISSUES, THEN THEY WILL ALSO CEASE TO THINK FREELY. THE TEST OF REAL FREEDOM OF SPEECH IS READINESS TO ALLOW IT EVEN TO MEN WHOSE OPINIONS SEEM TO YOU TO BE WRONG AND EVEN DANGEROUS. Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Assembly will be empty phrases if their exercise must yield to unreasonable fearOR BRUTAL Police Pressure.
HON’BLE JUSTICE BRANDEIS (1856-1941)
The best defence that I have for the indivisible and irrevocable freedom of speech and thought of Dr.Subramanian swamy cannot be stated better or more effectively than in the following beautiful and time-defying words of Honorable Justice Brandeis of the US Supreme Court:
“It is the function of speech to free men from the bondage of irrational fears. To justify suppression of free speech there must be reasonable ground to fear that serious evil will result if free speech is practiced. There must be reasonable ground to believe that the danger apprehended is imminent- There must be reasonable ground to believe that the evil to be prevented is a serious one……..But even Advocacy of VIOLATION OF ANY LAW, however reprehensible morally, is not a justification for denying Free Speech where the' advocacy falls short of incitement and there is nothing to indicate that the advocacy would be immediately acted on. The wide difference between advocacy and incitement, between preparation and attempt, between assembling and conspiracy, must be borne in mind. In order to support a finding of clear and present danger it must be shown either that immediate serious violence was to be expected or was advocated, or that the past conduct furnished reason to believe that such advocacy was then contemplated. We cannot exalt order at the cost of liberty.”
“TO COURAGEOUS, SELF-RELIANT MEN, WITH CONFIDENCE IN THE POWER OF FREE AND FEARLESS REASONING APPLIED THROUGH THE PROCESSES OF POPULAR GOVERNMENT, NO DANGER FLOWING FROM SPEECH CAN BE DEEMED CLEAR AND PRESENT, UNLESS THE INCIDENCE OF THE EVIL APPREHENDED IS SO IMMINENT THAT IT MAY BEFALL BE FORE THERE IS OPPORTUNITY FOR FULL DISCUSSION. IF THERE BE TIME TO EXPOSE THROUGH DISCUSSION THE FALSEHOOD AND FALLACIES, TO AVERT THE EVIL BY THE PROCESSES OF EDUCATION, THE REMEDY TO BE APPLIED IS MORE SPEECH, NOT ENFORCED SILENCE.”
DR.SWAMY IN HIS DNA ARTICLE OF 16TH JULY 2011 HAS ONLY REITERATED PRIME MINISTER JAWAHARLAL NEHRU’S VIEW EXPRESSED IN THE ANNUAL CONVOCATION ADDRESS DELIVERED ON JANUARY 24, 1948 AT ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY WITHIN 6 MONTHS AND 9 DAYS AFTER INDIA’S INDEPENDENCE ON AUGUST 15, 1947
"I am proud of India, not only because of her ancient, magnificent heritage, but also because of her remarkable capacity to add to it by keeping the doors and windows of her mind and spirit open to fresh and invigorating winds from distant lands. India's strength has been two-fold: her own innate culture which flowed through the ages, and her capacity to draw from other sources and thus add to her own. She was far too strong to be submerged by outside streams, and she was too wise to isolate herself from them, and so there is a continuing synthesis in India's real history and the many political changes which have taken place have had little effect on the growth of this variegated and yet essentially unified culture.”
"I have said that I am proud of our inheritance and our ancestors who gave an intellectual and cultural pre-eminence to India. How do you feel about this past? Do you feel that you are also a sharer in it, and inheritance of it and, therefore, proud of something that belongs to you as much as to me? Or do you feel alien to it and pass by it without understanding it or feeling that strange thrill which comes from the realization I that we are the Trustees and Inheritors of this vast treasure. I ask you these questions because in recent years many forces have been at play diverting people's mind into wrong channels and trying to pervert the course of history. You are a Muslim and I am a Hindu. We may adhere to different religious faiths or even to none; but that does not take away from that cultural inheritance that is yours as well as mine. The past holds us together; why should the present or the future divide us in spirit?"
(Source: From Selected Works of Jawaharlal Nehru, Second Series; 5, pp. 24-25:)
POSTSCRIPT
To the best of my knowledge no FIR was registered against Pundit Jawaharlal Nehru in January 1948 for having spoken those words suggestive of Anti-Islamic Saffron Terrorism!!
No comments:
Post a Comment