Total Pageviews


Wednesday, December 29, 2010




The dangerous Black Widow from Italy.

Latrodectus is a genus of spider, in the family Theridiidae, that contains approximately 31 recognized species. The common name widow spiders is sometimes applied to members of the genus due to the supposed habit of the female of eating the male after mating. The black widow spiders are perhaps the best-known members of the genus. The injection of neurotoxic venom Latrotoxin from these species is a comparatively painful and dangerous spider bite, resulting in the condition Latrodectism which is named for the genus. The female black widow's bite, however, is particularly harmful to humans because of its unusually large venom glands.

I have derived the factual and ideological basis for the title of this article from the following heroic and indomitable statement issued today (Tuesday, 28th December 2010) by Dr Subramanian Swamy, President of Janata Party and a great son of India. He was one of the Captains who under the Generalissimo of Lok Nayak Jayaprakash Narayan fought courageously and won against the dark and draconian decrees unleashed during the illegal and unconstitutional Emergency imposed on our country by that cruel, inhuman, barbarous and vindictive dictator Indira Gandhi during 1975-77. She got the requisite divine retribution on 31st October 1984 for having subjected the much respected Maharani Gayatri Devi of Jaipur to inhuman and savage treatment in Tihar Jail in Delhi where she was incarcerated from 24th July 1975 to 22nd March 1977.

Even after Indira Gandhi was re-elected to power with requisite majority, Indira Gandhi continued her dictatorial and manipulative ways with aplomb and arrogance. She had the audacity to use the might of the Indian Army against the Golden Temple in Amritsar --- the holiest and most sacred shrine of the noble and heroic Sikh community. She had the political stupidity to vainly imagine that she was immortal and that the Golden Temple and the Akal Takth were mortal. Even after her assassination, her son, Rajiv Gandhi and the goons of his party unleashed an unprovoked violence on the innocent and peaceful Sikh community in the city of New Delhi and different parts of India.

Despite her supremely and shamelessly corrupt, inefficient and ineffective Government being in a minority in the Parliament, Sonia Gandhi is under the imperious and vain delusion that she can beat the scandalous track record of her Mother-in-law, the petty-minded dictator Indira Gandhi. Sonia Gandhi should not forget the words of Abraham Lincoln: “You can cheat some people all the time and all the people some time but not all the people all the time!”

I am giving below the full text of the statement issued by Dr Subramanian Swamy which fully exposes the treasonable sabotage by Sonia Gandhi and her half-breed family:

STATEMENT OF Dr. Subramanian Swamy made in Chennai on December 28, 2010

“I demand that the Union Government set up a Commission of Inquiry into India’s role in the 2008-09 anti-LTTE terrorist operations in Sri Lanka and its national security implications. The UPA government’s refusal to provide heavy artillery and air force support for the Sri Lanka operation against the LTTE had enabled Pakistan to set up a base in the Island by providing the requested military assistance.”

“I have now accessed information from impeccable and very high level sources in India and abroad that Ms. Sonia Gandhi, UPA Chairperson had intervened with the Prime Minister Dr. Man Mohan Singh and the Sri Lankan Government to save LTTE Supremo V. Prabhakaran and for the Sri Lanka government to provide for that killer of Rajiv Gandhi an escape route abroad.”

“During the last four days of the anti-terrorist operations in May 2009, at Ms. Sonia Gandhi’s behest a six member delegation of officials was secretly sent to Colombo to prevail upon the Sri Lankan President to save Prabhakaran and the LTTE from annihilation. It was of no avail. Prabhakaran was killed by Sri Lankan army on May 19th, 2009.”

“This information has to be seen in the context of Ms. Sonia Gandhi writing to the President of India for commutation of death sentence to life imprisonment for four LTTE operatives which death sentence had been ordered by the Supreme Court in 1999 as one of the rarest of rare perfidy against the nation. It has to be seen also in the context of Ms. Priyanka Vadra breaking all Jail Manual rules to visit one the four killers, Ms. Nalini, in Vellore Jail and assure her of something on behalf of her mother.”

“It also explains why the then UP Governor had withdrawn my security when I was enroute to Rae Bareli and then blocked the investigation in the murderous attempt made on me in Rae Bareli and in Lucknow in April 2006 for which a FIR was registered in Lucknow. After all, I am one of the few who is still concerned about getting to know who was behind the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi.”

“These circumstantial evidences along with the fact that Ms. Gandhi has now become the sole beneficiary of all banks accounts and assets of her murdered husband, Rajiv Gandhi make it imperative to know what was the real conspiracy was in the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi. Although there is Multi-Disciplinary Monitoring Agency [MDMA] set up for this purpose, it has been directed by Ms. Gandhi to implicate Mr. P.V. Narasimha Rao and his friends.”

“It is time for the Prime Minister to act to atone for what he knew all along and acquiesced in, by asking the MDMA to look into Government records of 2008-09 and formally call for records from Sri Lanka, Israel, and the United States.”
Let me now narrate the saga of great sacrifices and services rendered to the poor Indian Nation (“the Italian White Woman’s burden”!!!) by the Firangi Memsahib Sonia Gandhi. I have gathered the following factual materials from the internet.

1. In 1977, when the Janata Party defeated the Congress at the polls, and formed the Union Government, it became widely known and published that Sonia with her two children abandoned Indira Gandhi, and ran to the Italian Embassy in New Delhi and hid there. The besotted Rajiv Gandhi was a public sector employee then as an Indian Airlines pilot, but he too tagged along with Sonia and hid himself in the Embassy of Italy! Such was her baneful influence on him. Rajiv Gandhi did snap out Sonia’s influence after 1989, but alas he was assassinated before he could rectify the situation.

2. Those close to Rajiv Gandhi knew that he was planning set things right about Sonia after the 1991 elections. He held her to blame for all the financial scandals that led to his defeat at the 1989 polls. She knew of it too because he had told her on his trip to Soviet Union in February 1991. Besides the Palestinian extremists, the Maino family have had extensive business dealings with Saddam Hussein, and surprisingly since 1984 with the LTTE [“the Tamil Tigers”]. Sonia’s mother Paola Predebon Maino, and businessman Ottavio Quattrocchi were the main contacts with the Tigers. The mother used the LTTE for money laundering and Quattrocchi for selling weapons to earn commissions. Sonia’s conduit to the LTTE has been and is through Arjun Singh who often used Bangalore as his nodal point for contact with the LTTE.


3a. Ever wonder why Sonia’s closest advisers are those whom Rajiv literally hated? Ambika Soni is one such name. Ever wonder why Sonia had asked the President of India to set aside on a mercy petition the Supreme Court judgment directing that Rajiv Gandhi’s LTTE killers be hanged, more particularly, when she had not similiarly acted for Satwant Singh who killed Indira Gandhi? The explanation for this special consideration for the LTTE definitely lies in her Italian mother’s action in requisitioning the LTTE to do the well planned hit job on Rajiv Gandhi.

3b. There is a string of circumstantial evidence pointing to the prima facie possibility that the Maino family may have contracted with the LTTE to kill Rajiv Gandhi. The family may have given a solemn assurance to the LTTE that nothing would happen to them because great care would be taken by Sonia to ensure that the blame for the  assassination of Rajiv Gandhi would be laid on the Sikh community, so much so that no court of law would convict the LTTE. The LTTE intercepted transcripts clearly show this expectation of the LTTE. However, D.R. Karthikeyan of the CBI who led the SIT investigation with the support of Narasimha Rao, cracked the case, and succeeded in getting the LTTE convicted in the trial court, which conviction was upheld by the Supreme Court in 1999.

4. The Justice J. S. Verma Commission, which was set up as the last official act of the Chandrashekhar government before demitting office on June 21, 1991, did find that the Congress leaders had disrupted the security arrangements for the Sriperumbudur meeting. The Commission wanted further probe into it but the Rao government rejected that demand. In the meantime under Sonia’s pressure, the Jain Commission was set up by the Rao government, which tried to muddy the waters and thus exonerate the LTTE. But the trial court order convicting the LTTE came before the Jain Commission could complete it’s enquiry. Thus the sinister effort of the BLACK WIDOW to cover up her tracks failed miserably.

5. Why has Sonia been so crudely shameless in having political alliance with political parties like MDMK, PMK, and DMK whose daily chorus is only to praise the killers of Rajiv Gandhi? NO INDIAN WIDOW WOULD EVER TANGO WITH HER HUSBAND’S KILLERS. Discerning readers and researchers may kindly refer to Dr Subramanian Swamy’s best seller book titled ‘ASSASSINATION OF RAJIV GANDHI—UNASKED QUESTIONS AND UNANSWERED QUERIES [published by Konark in 2000] published both in English and Tamil. Dr Swamy has given reasonable indications of this possible conspiracy.

6. I fully share the view of Dr Subramanian Swamy that the political career graph of Sonia Gandhi advanced concomitantly and conveniently from time to time with a series of assassinations and apparently accidental and mysterious deaths. The following questions are relevant in this context:

6a. How did Sanjay’s plane on June 23, 1980 nosedive to a crash and yet the plane fuselage failed to explode upon impact? THERE WAS NO FUEL IN THE PLANE! How was that possible since flight register showed full tank before take-off? Why was there no inquiry conducted?

6b. Is it not a fact that Indira Gandhi died because of loss of blood from the wounds and not directly due to a bullet impacting her head or heart? Then is it not strange that Sonia had insisted that the bleeding Indira be driven to Lohia Hospital-- in the opposite direction --- instead of to the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) which had a contingency protocol set up for dealing precisely with such sudden and unforeseen public tragedies and contingencies? And after reaching Lohia Hospital, did not Sonia change her mind and demand that they all drive to AIIMS thus losing 24 valuable minutes in that turn around? What a dutiful Daughter-in-Law!!!

7. The same kind of mystery surrounds the sudden deaths of Sonia’s other political roadblocks such as Rajesh Pilot, Jitendra Prasad, and Madhavrao Scindia.


Tuesday, December 28, 2010




Now, everyday, there is an exciting news item relating to the unparalleled and never to be surpassed glorious record of unimpeachable integrity of the former Chief Justice of India K.G Balakrishnan! The alleged links of his family members with the now infamous corporate lobbyist Niira Radia have been brought to public view by the Delhi-based journalist Dr M Furquan who presented a petition to the Vice- President on May 4, 2010.

The complaint said that Balakrishnan’s son Pradeep had mediated with Dubai-based NRI businessman Yusuf Ali for settling the legal battle between Mukesh Ambani-owned Reliance Industries Limited (RIL) and Anil Ambani-owned Reliance Natural Resources Ltd (RNRL) over Krishna Godavari (KG) basin gas supply.

Dr M Furquan contended that “Pradeep, who is a practising advocate in the Supreme Court, visited Dubai seven times for mediating with the NRI businessman in connection with the disputed”.

The three-and-a-half-year battle between the Ambani brothers ended when the Supreme Court on May 7, 2010 delivered a verdict favouring the stand taken by the RIL.


Dr M Furquan, in his complaint, also invited the attention of the Vice President to the shady role played by the former Chief Justice of India K.G Balakrishnan in granting relief to CPM leader Pinarayi Vijayan in the sensational SNC-Lavalin corruption case. Dr M Furquan stated in his complaint: “Justice K G Balakrishnan has fast-tracked the SNCLavalin case due to pressure exerted on him by his family members, who are very friendly with Pinarayi Vijayan.”

The complaint also stated: “the PM’s Principal Secretary T K A Nair, who is also Chairman of the Kerala State Industrial Development Corporation, and Christy Fernandes, who is the Secretary to the President, have jointly met up with the Chief Justice for influencing him in favour of Pinarayi Vijayan with whom both of them are very friendly.”

Furquan also contended that “mining tycoon Janardhana Reddy has met the CJI’s son-in-law P V Sreenijin in Kochi seeking his help in getting the CJI go soft on cases in which the Reddy brothers are embroiled.’’

According to the currently raging public opinion, not only in Kerala but in the whole of India, Pradeep and P.V Sreenijin were the most trusted Executive Arms of the former Chief Justice of India K.G Balakrishnan in his most avidly sought after business of selling justice at highest rates to the competing litigants. In this context I cannot help quoting the timeless message contained in Magna Carta (1215 AD): “To no one will we sell, to no one will we refuse or delay, right or justice”. Perhaps the former Chief Justice of India K.G Balakrishnan had no faith at all in this operational message of Magna Carta. Taking note of the daily cascading newspaper reports of complaints against him it can be justifiably presumed that he believed in this message: “To every one we will sell; to every one (who does not pay) we will refuse or delay, right or justice”! (Judicial moral, derived from and suitably adapted from the famous poem of John Milton: ‘They also serve who SELL’)

It is not therefore surprising that a fearless, outstanding and outspoken Judge like the retired Supreme Court Judge V.R. Krishna Iyer has demanded a probe into the various allegations of corruption against former Chief Justice of India K.G. Balakrishnan, currently the Sonia-appointed Chairman of the National Human Rights Commission. Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer was appointed as a Judge of the Kerala High Court in 1968 and the Supreme Court in 1973.

I had commented upon the shady nexus between the two anti-nationals, K.G. Balakrishnan and Firangi Memsahib Sonia Gandhi, in an article titled ‘THE DARKEST DAY IN OUR LEGAL HISTORY’ on 19 May, 2007. In this article, I had invited the attention of the people of India to the wholly illegal, ridiculous, unconscionable and unconstitutional ‘DOCTRINE OF STALENESS’ propounded by this supremely corrupt Supreme Court Chief Justice when he asked Dr Subramanian Swamy not to press his case for disqualification of Sonia Gandhi who had repeatedly lied under oath in her false affidavits to the Returning Officer of Rae Bareilly Parliamentary Constituency. A known traitor and sworn enemy of India and her people was declared as an honourable citizen by this corrupt, shameless and honourless judge K.G. Balakrishnan.

This wholly unpatriotic and treasonable former Chief Justice did not pass orders peremptorily disqualifying the Indian citizenship rights of Dr Subramanian Swamy! Thank Heavens for small judicial mercies!!

Now, it is time for the tax-paying citizens of India to publicly demand the Constitution of a larger Bench of Supreme Court of India to overturn this spurious ‘DOCTRINE OF STALENESS’ enunciated by the former Chief Justice of India K.G. Balakrishnan which only gave an unmerited relief and reprieve to the greatest traitor in modern Indian history, the Firangi Memsahib. This doctrine also undermines the basic human virtue of honesty and integrity as it says, “You can tell any lie under oath and we will readily forgive you invoking the Doctrine of Staleness”.  This Doctrine will also make us all a Nation of Liars.

Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer has said that he was happy when Justice Balakrishnan became the first Dalit to be appointed as the Chief Justice of India, but the situation had changed now.

Let us hear the words of Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer: “Now with all the allegations that have surfaced by way of a news report which appeared the other day about his son-in-law and also the issues of a judge writing to him on the (sacked communications minister) Raja issue regarding (senior Supreme Court judge) Justice (H.L.) Gokhale, I MYSELF FEEL ASHAMED THAT I WAS A JUDGE.”

It has been alleged that Sreenijin, husband of Justice Balakrishnan’s daughter KB Sony, had bought lands and property worth several crores of rupees for himself, his wife and others in the past four years despite the fact that he had declared to the Election Commission in 2006 that he owned only `25,000 and three sovereigns of gold.

Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer has referred to the news report aired on a TV channel about the huge wealth that Justice Balakrishnan’s son-in-law P.V. Srinijin, a Congress leader and a lawyer by profession, has allegedly acquired in the past three years. Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer has told the press: “All the reports that have surfaced about his son-in-law, his daughter and relatives have to be inquired into. Justice Balakrishnan should be probed by a three-judge panel. The Prime Minister had the responsibility to initiate an investigation. There is an imperative national need for the setting up of an Appointments and Performance Commission for Judges.”

Referring to Justice Balakrishnan’s controversial stand on the letter written to him by Justice HL Gokhale with reference to former Union Telecom Minister A Raja, Justice Krishna Iyer has said, “I am surprised by his statement. I would describe it as Balakrishnan’s blasphemy.”

Wednesday, December 22, 2010



The former Chief Injustice of India (CJI) K. G. Balakrishnan is very much in the news today for the most reprehensible, dishonourable, despicable, disgraceful and damnable reasons. K. G. Balakrishnan SEEMS TO BE AN INVETERATE LIAR. He has shown an extraordinarily authoritarian latitude for terminological inexactitude, semantic inexactitude and legal inexactitude.

When I saw the former Chief Injustice of India (CJI) K. G. Balakrishnan rambling, mumbling and fumbling before the media, I was reminded of the tale relating to ‘The Shepherd’s Boy’ in Aesop’s Fables (6th Century BC) who had our ‘Most Honourable’ Justices like Balakrishnan in view when he said for all time: “A liar will not be believed, even when he speaks the truth.” Preaching against the sin of lies and liars is not something confined only to the domain of ancient bards and writers. Let us now hear what the famous American Judge Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes had to say in this context: “SIN HAS MANY TOOLS, BUT A LIE IS THE HANDLE WHICH FITS THEM ALL”. That great American Judge would never have imagined that his words would become totally relevant and applicable, on all fours, to a Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of a large democratic country like India, nearly 80 years after he had uttered those immortal words of sublime wisdom!
It is very clear that the former Chief Justice of Madras High Court H L Gokhale (now a sitting judge of the Supreme Court of India) had forwarded a letter of Justice R Reghupati to Chief InJustice K. G. Balakrishnan on July 5, 2009 in which Justice Reghupati had alleged that the then Union Telecom Minister A. Raja had tried to threaten him through a Senior Advocate K. Chandramohan in the Court premises. The letter of Chief Justice Gokhale even annexed a copy of the Justice Reghupati’s letter for suitable action.

Justice Reghupati, in his letter sent to the Chief Justice of Madras High Court Gokhale, had mentioned that Senior Advocate K Chandramohan, who appeared before him, tried to influence him (Justice Reghupati) by saying that the applicants, in a bail case, Dr C. Krishnamurthi and his son were family friends of a Union Minister by name A Raja.

Justice Gokhale had forwarded Justice Reghupati’s letter in which he had mentioned about the indirect and illegal interference of then Union Telecom Minister A. Raja, through Senior Advocate K Chandramohan to the CJI on 5th July 2009 itself.

Justice Reghupati, in his letter sent to the Chief Justice of Madras High Court Gokhale, had mentioned that Senior Advocate K Chandramohan, who appeared before him, tried to influence him (Justice Reghupati) by saying that the applicants, in a bail case, Dr C. Krishnamurthi and his son were family friends of a Union Minister by name A Raja.

The former Chief InJustice of India K. G. Balakrishnan, in order to protect the corrupt Minister A. Raja, has tried his best to conceal from public view this letter sent on 5th July 2009 by the Chief Justice Gokhale of Madras High Court.

To begin with, Justice K. G. Balakrishnan lied at a press conference held on December 8, 2010, that he had not received any letter from Justice Reghupati when he was the CJI and secondly that the report which Justice Gokhale had sent to the former CJI on behalf of Justice Reghupati, did not mention the name of any Union Minister having talked to Justice Reghupati on phone on June 12, 2009 and therefore there was no occasion for him to recommend any further action.

The BAREFACED LIE uttered in public at the Press Conference by the former Chief Injustice Balakrishnan has been exposed by the fact that he had in fact acknowledged the receipt of that latter. Justice Gokhale has reacted correctly to the BLATANTLY FALSE STATEMENT OF THE FORMER CHIEF (IN)JUSTICE OF INDIA in this manner: “The reported statement of the former CJI gives an erroneous impression about my role in the matter. Hence, it became necessary for me to verify the facts from the records with the CJI's office and the record reveals that the former CJI had acknowledged the receipt in a subsequent letter dated August 8, 2009.”

Responding to a Press note issued by Justice Gokhale, Justice Balakrishnan, who is presently Chairperson of National Human Rights Commission, said, “I am certain that in the report received from the Chief Justice of Madras High Court (on August 8, 2009), no name of the Union Minister was mentioned, and that there was no case that any Minister himself made telephonic talk with the judge or threatened or influenced him (Reghupathy)”.

Thus in his own weak and untenable defense, the devious former Chief (In)Justice of India K. G. Balakrishnan has made the following letter from Chief Justice Gokhale of Madras High Court public at a Press Conference.

Justice Gokhale’s letter of 8th August 2009 to the former Chief Justice of India, K.G Balakrishnan

Published in The New Express News on 16 Dec 2010

Respected My Lord,                                                           

I have received your Lordship’s letter dated 8th August 2009 forwarding a copy of the memorandum by a number of Members of the Parliament to the Hon’ble Prime Minister of India. It is concerning the alleged statement made by Mr. Justice R. Reghupathi in open Court, and Your Lordship has asked me to give my views/comments relating to the issue raised in the said memorandum. The first paragraph of the memorandum states that the controversy arose when a Chennai High Court Judge made a statement in the open Court that a Union Minister had telephoned him in a matter concerning a mark sheet forgery case with the recommendation that the accused should be given bail. This statement is contrary to what the Hon’ble Judge has stated in paragraph 3 of his letter dated 2nd July 2009 which I have forwarded to Your Lordship as permitted by the learned Judge. As per that letter the learned Judge has not made any such statement in the Court. In that paragraph the learned Judge has narrated the background to explain what he has stated in the Court, and thereafter he has stated “I observed that a counsel, who made an attempt to exert influence on the Court by using the name of a cabinet Minister, cannot be allowed to succeed in snatching an order in his favour by advancing threat”. The learned Judge has, thereafter, removed the matter from his Court.

The second paragraph of the letter of Honourable Mr. Justice Reghupathi clarifies the fact in this behalf, viz, that the Minister had not spoken to him although the advocate wanted him to talk to the Minister, and the learned Judge had not entertained the request.

3. Thereafter, paragraph 3 of the memorandum states that ‘assuming this clarification to be correct, it is still an attempt to interfere in the judicial process by the said Minister. If, on the other hand, the lawyer was bluffing, it calls for the most severe action against him”. This paragraph records certain questions which according to the memorandum arise out of this incident. Now, as can be seen from the letter of the learned Judge, he has clearly stated that the Minister did not speak to him. However, as far as the Advocate is concerned, the learned Judge has, in clear terms, stated that the Advocate did try to exert pressure on him. With respect to the conduct of the said advocate, two writ petitions are pending before another Bench of this High Court. A writ petition filed in Public Interest dated 2nd July 2009 seeking action against the Minister has been dismissed on 20.07.2009 as not pressed.

This is for Your Lordship’s consideration,

With kind regards,

Justice H L Gokhale

The patently unassailable fact is that the former CJI Balakrishnan did not disclose the fact that this report of Justice Gokhale was submitted in response to a letter from Justice Balakrishnan on August 8, 2009, seeking Justice Gokhale’s comments on a memorandum submitted to him by a delegation of Members of Parliament, who felt that action must be initiated against the Union Minister Raja.

Justice Gokhale had written it in response to an August 8, 2009 letter sent by former CJI Justice Balakrishnan asking comments on the Memorandum submitted by Members of Parliament to the Prime Minister for action against Union Telecom Minister Raja. Justice Balakrishnan failed to state his stand on the unwarranted interference by Union Minister Raja which was made known to him by Chief Justice Gokhale in his letter of July 5, 2009.

I am also presenting below the full text of Justice R. Regupathi's July 2, 2009 letter to the Chief Justice of the Madras High Court which was forwarded by Chief Justice Gokhale of Madras High Court to the Chief Justice of India K.G. Balakrishnan on July 5, 2009. It is this letter which the former Chief Justice of India Balakrishnan tried to cover up during his many press interviews.

Full text of Justice R. Regupathi's July 2, 2009 letter to the Chief Justice Gokhale of the Madras High Court

The following is the letter dated July 2, 2009 written by Justice R. Regupathi, then Judge of the Madras High Court, to the Chief Justice of the Madras High Court containing the relevant part where there is a specific reference to Advocate R.K. Chandramohan.

“On 12.06.2009, at about 2 p.m. during Lunch Recess, while I was in the Chamber, High Court, Madras, my Office Assistant, Mr. Mujibur Ali, informed me that Mr. Chandramohan, Chairman, Bar Council of Tamil Nadu, is waiting and seeking for an appointment to meet me and, immediately, I allowed him to come in. To start with, he discussed about the general subject on Advocates and so proceeding, he said that two persons, who are father and son/accused in a criminal case, are family friends of a Union Minister by name Raja, and that the petition filed by them for anticipatory bail must be considered favourably. Simultaneously, he handed over his mobile phone by saying that the Union Minister is on the line to have a talk with me. Right away, I discouraged such conduct of Mr. Chandramohan and told him that the case would be disposed of in accordance with law, if listed before me.

“Subsequently, on 29.06.2009, second anticipatory bail petition came to be filed for the same accused and on behalf of Mr. Chandramohan (counsel on record for the petitioners/accused), who was present in the court, Mr. Masood, Advocate, argued by stating that some new points need to be submitted and, for such purpose, the Case Diary must be summoned. Adverting to the counter filed by the prosecution and referring to the view I had already taken during the previous occasion and pointing out that there was no change of circumstance to positively consider the case of the petitioners, it was conveyed that there was no valid reason or ground to grant the prayer in the 2nd petition. It was also observed that the counsel may argue the case in detail, however, this time orders would be passed on merits and they would not be allowed to withdraw the petition. Again, the counsel insisted that the case diary must be called for and the case be heard in detail with reference to the materials collected during the course of investigation. I have impressed upon the representing counsel by explicating that a like direction could be given to the prosecution only in the event of the Judge satisfying that such course is inevitable and absolutely necessary in a given situation and that, on mere demands and as a matter of routine, such exercise cannot be undertaken.”

“At that time, Mr. Chandramohan stood up and made a similar demand and when I emphatically declined to accede to his adamant demand, he vociferously remarked that the court is always taking sides with the prosecution and not accepting the submissions made by the counsel for the accused while giving importance to the Prosecutor. On such pointless remark, I said that the counsel engaged to argue on his behalf has made his submission and he is not supposed to pass such slanderous and derogatory remarks; for, all these days, the court has been passing orders after hearing the parties and assessing the cases on their own merits and in accordance with law. In spite of that, Mr. Chandramohan, insisted that the Case Diary must be summoned and the matter be adjourned to some other day. Since Mr. Chandramohan highly raised his voice and his approach towards the court was quarrelsome, I told him that a person like him, an advocate holding position as Chairman of a State Bar Council, should not behave in such a fashion. Still the learned Advocate was outburst and uncontrollable, and I observed that a counsel, who made an attempt to exert influence on the court by using the name of a Cabinet Minister, cannot be allowed to succeed in snatching an order in his favour by advancing threat. Due to such odd experience, I had to direct the Registry to place the papers before Your Lordship for obtaining orders to post the case before some other learned Judge.”

“The case concerned was taken up at the end in the afternoon and inside the court hall, there were about 4 to 5 Advocates present and no one from the Press was there. That being so, the oral observations actually made came to be translated by the Print and Electronic Media with their own interpretations and ideas …….”

“I have written this letter/report to apprise Your Lordship the actual state of affairs Involved.”


By citing the letter of Chief Justice Gokhale dated 8th August 2009, the former Chief (In)Justice of India K. G. Balakrishnan seemed to be under a vain delusion that he had outwitted Justice Gokhale. The walkie-talkie deception and dissimulation of Chief (In)Justice K. G. Balakrishnan was thoroughly exposed by the intrepid reporter Abraham Thomas of THE PIONEER Newspaper in New Delhi in his Front Page story today (16-12-2010, Thursday) under the title ‘Balakrishnan quotes wrong letter in defence’. I offer my hearty congratulations to Abraham Thomas on his absolutely objective, ruthlessly factual and juridically balanced reporting. Abraham Thomas has admirably succeeded in his fearless pursuit of and the effort to state the Truth about the former Chief (In)Justice Balakrishnan.

Former Chief (In)Justice of India KG Balakrishnan reiterated several times that he was not aware that former Union Minister A Raja sought to influence Justice R Reghupathy and backed his claim with a report sent to him by then Madras High Court Chief Justice HL Gokhale on August 8, 2009.

But what is to be noted is that Justice Balakrishnan conveniently disregarded a crucial letter written to him by Justice Gokhale on 5th July 2009, a month prior to the August 8 2009 report, in which he discussed Justice Reghupathy’s letter naming the then Union Telecom Minister Raja as the accused.

The cussed refusal of the former CJI Balakrishnan to immediately respond to this letter of 5th July 2009 from Chief Justice Gokhale of Madras High Court has to be condemned by the Supreme Court of India, today, in the strongest possible language. I am a tax-paying citizen of India and it is my Constitutional right to make this request to the Supreme Court of India.

If the person who threatened the High Court Judge Justice Reghupati had been a Minster in the State Government of Tamil Nadu, then the former Chief Justice Balakrishnan could easily have wriggled himself out of the troubled situation by advising Justice Reghupati that he could have dealt with the issue himself at the level of the Madras High Court itself. But since in this case, the Minister who threatened Justice Reghupati happened to be a Union Cabinet Minister, it was very much the moral, legal and Constitutional responsibility of the highest judicial functionary, the Chief Justice of India, to have effectively intervened to protect the Constitutionally-mandated dignity and independence of the judiciary in India.

Against this factual background, there is no doubt whatsoever that the former CJI Balakrishnan stands fully exposed to the charge of his complete failure to discharge his Constitutional responsibility of defending and maintaining the independence of the Judiciary against the planned and criminal onslaughts by corrupt Ministers like A Raja.

Reacting to the new developments following the public verbal exchanges between truthful Chief Justice Gokhale and the not-so-truthful Chief Justice Balakrishnan, Justice Reghupathi has said, “I am thankful to Justice Gokhale… I am not supposed to react. I did not make the issue public even at the time of the incident since I wanted to uphold the dignity of the legal fraternity. It applies to me today even after retirement.”

With a view to clear his name in the matter, Justice Gokhale said, “It became necessary for me to verify the facts from the record with the CJI’s office,” giving clear indications that the present Chief Justice of India S.H Kapadia was taken into confidence before issuance of the Press release.

The former CJI’s letter of August 8, 2009 finds mention in Justice Gokhale’s Press note which referred to the receipt by Chief Justice Balakrishnan of the letter written by Justice Gokhale, on July 5, 2009. Interestingly, the former CJI letter had said, “Vide letter dated July 5, 2009 you (Justice Gokhale) have forwarded to me a detailed letter/report dated July 2, 2009 of Justice R Reghupati explaining the actual state of affairs concerning the alleged misconduct of a Union Minister of the Government of India reported in the media.”

Does this not make it clear to all concerned that the former Chief Justice of India Balakrishnan stands indicted as an INVETERATE LIAR by his own acknowledgement letter to Justice Gokhale?

It is my considered view that the former Chief Justice Balakrishnan has not only SHAMED the Indian Judiciary but also DISGRACED the Dalit community from which he hails.

Noted jurist Ram Jethmalani, former Law Minister of India in the Atal Behari Vajpayee’s NDA Government, and currently the President of the Supreme Court Bar Association, has termed the former Chief Justice of India K G Balakrishnan’s statement as “rash and irresponsible”. He has also said: “Instead of rushing with his rash and irresponsible statements, the former CJI should have taken care and consulted the file by summoning the Registrar of the Supreme Court.”

It was J Gopikrishnan the ace reporter from THE PIONEER Newspaper in New Delhi who first exposed the 2G scam of the then Union Telecom Minister A. Raja more than two years ago. He has now brought out certain vital facts relating to former Chief Justice of India Balakrishnan’s blatant attempts to shield the corrupt Union Minister A. Raja.

It is heartening to note that the Madras High Court in its order of 7th December, 2010 has clearly and categorically identified former Union Minister A Raja as the accused who tried to influence Justice R Reghupathi to grant bail to a father-son duo of Dr C Krishnamurthy and his son in a criminal case.

According to J. Gopikrishnan this puts the former Chief Justice Balakrishnan in a spot! Moreover The Pioneer was the first newspaper to report on July 1, 2009 itself that former Minister A. Raja was the person who had tried to put pressure on Justice R Reghupathi to grant bail to Dr C Krishnamurthy and his son. Krishnamoorthy is a close associate of Raja and belongs to the Minister's hometown, Peramballur. He is the owner of the building which housed a law firm run by Raja before he became a Minister. Krishnamoorthy is also the managing director of a Coimbatore-based real estate company, Kovai Shelters Promotors India Pvt Ltd, formed on January 19, 2007. As per the documents available with the Registrar of Companies, Raja's nephew Dr R Sridhar and nieces R Anandabhuvaneswari and R Santhanalakshmi are directors in this company and jointly hold 45 per cent shares in Kovai Shelters.

Immediately after this expose by The Pioneer on July 1, 2009, the entire Opposition demanded Union Telecom Minister A. Raja’s resignation and intervention of the Prime Minister. But all of a sudden, after four days, on July 5, 2010, Chief Justice KG Balakrishnan in an interview to an English daily declared that “No Minister had called the Judge” and termed the incident as a mischief by the Advocate.

But, J. Gopikrishnan is absolutely right when he asserts the fact that former Chief Justice Balakrishnan was in receipt of Justice Reghupathy’s letter of July 2, 2009, in which he had clearly identified Raja as the Union Minister who had tried to influence him through advocate RK Chandramohan. Raja may not have spoken directly to Justice Reghupathy, but it is clear that he tried to dictate his terms to him through advocate Chandramohan.

This is evident from the following passage of Justice Reghupathy’s letter to CJI Balakrishnan: “To start with, he (Chandramohan) discussed about the general subject on advocates and proceeding further he said two persons who are father and son/accused in a criminal case are family friends of a Union Minister by name A Raja and that the petition filed by them for anticipatory bail must be considered favourably.”

The emphasis on word “must” shows that Chandramohan, a close friend of Raja, was not merely making a request to Justice Reghupati but was also directing him, to act in a particular manner, on behalf of the then Union Telecom Minister Raja.

However, the former Chief Justice of India Balakrishnan issued a statement to the Press in August 2009 dismissing the ugly incident “as a closed chapter”.

Incidentally, around the same time, the Supreme Court also covered itself with public disgrace by staying the order of the Central Information Commission for publication of Justice Reghupathy’s 2nd July 2009 letter to Balakrishnan about the incident. The Central Information Commission had ordered to publish the letter on a petition filed by RTI activist Subash Chandra Agrawal. As a classic instance of lopsided intervention, and with supreme contempt for the larger public interest on the one hand and blatant disregard for the sacred cause of judicial independence and dignity on the other, the Supreme Court stayed the order of the Central Information Commission and as a diversionary tactic, referred the matter to a Constitution Bench, which is yet to settle the case.

Does not the official and public conduct of this former Chief (In)Justice of India Balakrishnan raise fundamental issues relating to the rotten and corrupt Indian Judicial system that enables such sly, devious and corrupt men, totally unfit for public appointments of any kind, to get catapulted by the Sonia Congress System to the high and mighty constitutional offices in India?

Let me quote an article titled 'The CJI is the visible symbol of the judiciary' as reported in The Hindu 13 May 2010:

The Supreme Court has an illustrious lineage of Chief Justices who gave new directions to the judiciary, expanded the scope of legal rights, introduced new concepts and practices and worked to reform the system. But unfortunately Justice Balakrishan’s tenure may not be considered so distinguished and impressive, as his helmsmanship was seen to be lacking in dynamism and creative and positive thinking. He rather acquired a negative and obstructionist image. In some of the decisions and actions during his stewardship of the highest court, and in his views about issues and positions on them, he came through as a defender of orthodoxies and technicalities with a sense of cynicism and helplessness aiding inaction. On occasions he seemed to distance himself from issues and problems, suggesting that the solutions lay elsewhere.”

“Even a streak of evasiveness, lack of interest and recourse to generalities could be discerned in some responses. The CJI should not only be earnest, but be seen to be so too. The contentious issue of bringing the office of the CJI under the Right to Information Act and the handling of the charges against the chief justice of the Karnataka high court P D Dinakaran have not brought laurels to the highest court. The CJI is part of a system and cannot be solely blamed for its inadequate responses to problems. But as the leader of the system and its visible symbol, he has the highest responsibility to ensure that convincing and effective solutions are found for them.”

Let me now refer to another news report published in the Hindustan Times, New Delhi, on May 05, 2010:

“Barely a week before Chief Justice of India K.G. Balakrishnan retires, it has emerged that a close relative of his was appointed a Kerala High Court judge in January last year …… .”

“The Law Commission of India, the advisory body of the government on complex legal issues, has criticised the prevalence of “uncle judges” in the higher judiciary in its report on judicial reforms in August 2009. They have stated that “A person whose near relation or a well-wisher is or has been a judge in the higher courts or is a senior advocate or is a political high-up stands a better chance of becoming a judge.”

Former Chief Justice of India V. N. Khare has said that “the sole criteria for public appointments should be overriding merit. However, in case a relative of an influential personality is being considered, it becomes the dominant factor and merit is ignored.” This seems to have been the case with the appointment of the “Uncle Judge” former Chief Justice Balakrishnan’s relative as a Judge of Kerala High Court.