Misuse of Indian

Legal System by

Chidambaram

to silence

Dr Subramanian

Swamy

By V. SUNDARAM I.A.S,
All India General Secretary (Ideology), Janata Party

The UPA Government of clowns, charlatans and criminals under the stranglehold of the Firangi Memsahib Sonia Gandhi covered itself with disgrace when it moved the Supreme Court of India last week for an Appropriate Order against Janata Party President Dr Subramanian Swamy for publicly speaking on 2G spectrum matter, which is before both the Supreme Court and a Special Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) Court.

The Government, in its application, annexed the newspaper extracts which have verbatim quoted Dr Swamy making defamatory allegations against Congress chief Sonia Gandhi, Home Minister P. Chidambram, and former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M. Karunanidhi in the context of 2G scam.

The Affidavit was filed by Sita Ram Meena, a Director in the Communication and IT Ministry.

Noting that Swamy made defamatory allegations when the Supreme Court and the Special CBI Court are seized of the 2G matter, the application said the sole object of the said Speech was to “malign and lower the image and prestige of public servants holding important offices in the Union Government and in Parliament”.

In the same Proceeding in the Supreme Court, Prashant Bhushan, Counsel for Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL) completely exposed the criminal double talking and double dealing standards of the Union Government when he alleged that the Union Law and Justice Minister Salman Khurshid was interfering in the 2G trial by making statements giving clean chit to the companies facing prosecution. Prashant Bhushan also drew the attention of the Court to “how important facts were being omitted and the minister was giving unsolicited opinion”. In this context, he referred to the CBI investigation of Loop Essar and Sistema Shyam Telecom.

Senior Counsel P.P Rao, appearing for the Union Government, has brought to the notice of the Supreme Court by placing on Record an affidavit annexed with clippings of newspaper reports of the purported speech delivered by Dr Swamy in Chennai on October 20, 2011, at a lecture “Hidden facts about 2G spectrum” organised by a forum “Youth against corruption.” Senior Counsel Rao requested the Supreme Court to pass an Appropriate Order against Janata Party leader Subramanian Swamy for "maligning" the image of UPA chairperson Sonia Gandhi, Union Home Minister P Chidambaram and others in connection with the 2G scam, when the matter was “subjudice”.

According to the Union Government, Dr Swamy, an intervener in the 2G case, has publicly commented on issues which are the subject matter of pending judicial proceedings both in the Supreme Court and the trial court. "When the judgment is reserved after hearing the parties, apart from law, propriety demands that a party to the case should not speak on the subject in public and declare that certain persons, including an accused, are guilty of such offences. "The said speech shows that the sole object of Dr Subramaniam Swamy is to malign and lower the image and prestige of public servants holding important offices in the union government and in Parliament," the affidavit said.

A Bench of Justices G S Singhvi and A K Ganguly remarked, “We will look into the issue and consider whether any proceedings should be initiated, if so, against whom it should be initiated.”

Proclaiming and perpetrating fraud on stilts not only in political public meetings but also in many judicial proceedings at all levels, including the Supreme Court of India, dissemination of damned deceit and dissimulation, seems to be the undeclared policy of the anti-national and anti-social UPA Government of that corrupt Italian woman Sonia Gandhi.

The Senior Counsel Rao who was too ready to respond with tremendous speed and alacrity as the ever ready political “call taxi” of the Firangi Memsahib Sonia Gandhi and her proudly slavish minion P. Chidambaram (now ‘adorning’ the office of the Home Minister of India) as willed with an iron hand by that Malignant Manipulator from Italy, took special care not to serve a copy of his Affidavit on Dr Subramanian Swamy. Though I do not practice Law, yet in my long career as a civil servant and later as a political journalist and now politician, I have never come across the instance of a Senior Counsel filing an Affidavit before the Supreme Court and deliberately omitting to furnish a Copy of the same to the opposing party in the case!

As no Copy of the Affidavit filed by the Senior Counsel Rao was given to Dr Subramanian Swamy, the Supreme Court Registry refused to number it.

I would like to put the following questions to the Senior Counsel Rao with reference to the broad issues raised by him against Dr Swamy. Since I have not seen the Affidavit that he might or might not have filed in the Supreme Court, I am constrained to put my questions based upon newspaper reports relating to his ‘brilliant and unsurpassed forensic skill’ and ‘legal eloquence’ displayed by him in the Supreme Court of India. Here are my questions:

1. Is Senior Counsel Rao aware of the fact that the dastardly and despicable expedient of using the Courts of Law to silence one’s political opponents resorted to earlier by the very same Sonia Gandhi against Hindu activists like Narain Kataria and Arish Sahani in USA was soundly defeated in a Court of Law in New York?

Sonia Gandhi filed a Petition in a New York Court three years ago, through the Indian National Overseas Congress (INOC) against the Hindu activists for the full-page advertisement they had inserted in New York Times fully exposing the monumental Fraud, deception, corruption of Sonia Gandhi.

I have carefully gone through the detailed legal analysis done by Kornstein Veisz Wexler & Pollard, LP, New York, the Law Firm that represented Narain Kataria and Arish Sahani in their defense case against Sonia Gandhi. The Court thoroughly understood that Sonia Gandhi was not interested in substantive justice. She was just using the Indian National Overseas Congress in America to settle political scores with Hindu activists like Narain Kataria and Arish Sahani. I would like to quote one of the most telling paragraphs from this counter-affidavit prepared by Kornstein Veisz Wexler & Pollard, LP, New York:

“It becomes clear that all of the statements complained of by the Indian National Overseas Congress are non-actionable. This politically motivated libel action by INOC Inc. should be barred at the threshold. THE STATEMENTS AT ISSUE ARE NOT `OF AND CONCERNING' THE PLAINTIFF. As a matter of constitutional law, they were not made with `actual malice'. They are, moreover, either true, free of defamatory meaning, PROCTED OPINION or PERMISSIBLE HYPERBOLE. Dismissal, now, at the start of this litigation, is amply justified and absolutely necessary, lest a bad precedent breed more such misguided libel cases. Early dismissal becomes even more essential when one considers the political context of this case. At bottom, this is a case about a U.S. subsidiary of a powerful political party in a large foreign country attempting to use our Courts to silence and intimidate its American critics in America. This is not only unacceptable; it is intolerable. WE AS A PEOPLE HAVE COMPLETELY REJECTED THE NOTION THAT A POLITICAL PARTY CAN `USE THE COURTS TO DESTROY POLITICAL OPPONENTS'. [United States v. Helstoski, 442 U.S. 477, 493 (1979)]'.”

The politically shameless and supremely corrupt Sonia Gandhi and her wholly owned family business, called the Indian National Congress, found to their dismay that the Courts of Law in America cannot be intimidated or purchased. Let Sonia Gandhi and her slavish minions like P. Chidambaram not be under the delusion that the Higher Courts of Law in India are corrupt and pliable and that they can be used to silence or destroy their political opponents! I am sure that our Higher Judiciary led by the Chief Justice of India Sarosh Homi Kapadia, a great judge known for his exceptional and unimpeachable integrity and moral courage, will definitely not allow the Indian Legal System to be misused, by any political party however powerful, to score political points and silence political opponents.

2. Is Senior Counsel Rao aware of the fact that the Constitution of India guarantees Freedom of Speech and Thought not only to Sonia Gandhi and her half breed clan and her slavish page boys in the Congress Party and Government, but also to respectable citizens like Dr Subramanian Swamy?

3. After successfully gagging the mass media –-- both print and electronic –-- is not the UPA Government trying to mis-use the instrumentality of the Supreme Court of India to gag the Constitutionally Guaranteed Freedom of Speech and Thought of Dr Subramanian Swamy by filing a shameful Affidavit?

I would say that the real difference between the responsible and true lawyer and those men who consider the Law as merely a trade is that the latter will always seek ways to permit their clients to violate the moral standards of the society without overstepping the Letter of the Law, while the former look for Principles which will persuade their clients to keep within the limits of the Spirit of the Law, in common moral standards.

What Hon’ble Justice Brandeis (1856-1941) wrote in a famous judgment in Olmstead vs. United States 277, US 438, 485 in 1928 is applicable with equal force on all fours to the supremely corrupt, collapsible and collapsing criminal government of that imposter from Italy called Sonia Gandhi: “Nothing can destroy a government more quickly than its failure to observe its own laws, or worse, its utter disregard of the Charter of its own Existence.”

I fully endorse the magisterial view of Dr Kalyanaraman on this petty, mean and small-minded sordid legal quibbling indulged in by Mr P.P Rao on behalf of the UPA Govt: “The UPA is in a panic state of emergency. It is pathetic that lawyers for the Union Govt. instead of arguing to instill sense of integrity and accountability in public service should be going after freedom of expression citing spurious judicial excuses. It is the job of the opposition to take put the government in the dock. Sonia or PC isn't above the law.”