Total Pageviews


Tuesday, February 28, 2012




All India General Secretary (Ideology) Janata party

With the process of Assembly Elections set in motion in Uttar Pradesh, Punjab, Uttaranchal etc, my analysis is that the election managers of the anti-Hindu and virulently pro-Islamic Sonia Congress Party seems to have extended an invitation to the British Islamist Anjem Choudary to visit New Delhi to address a mass rally on 3rd March 2012, which marks the 88th Anniversary of the end of Islamic Caliphate in Turkey. The Congress continues to nurture this hope that by pandering to the basest anti-Hindu instincts of Islamic fanatics the Muslims would feel obliged to vote for the Congress Party in Utter Pradesh and other States where Assembly Elections are being held.

Anjem Choudary who has referred to Osama bin Laden as his “ameer” has said “I do not believe in Indian law, so there is no question of seeking any permission from the authorities there. We have organized a video conferencing on March 2 with Sheikh Omar Bakri Muhammad who is based in Lebanon. My visa application is under process with the Indian High Commission here and I expect to get it... We hope to arrive a day ahead of our press conference. But in case we are not given the visa, we will broadcast our address to the demonstration.’’ On his website, he says: “I am not amongst those who believe in the false Gods of Democracy and Freedom or who worship Presidents, Kings and Prime Ministers by obeying them or who submits to any man made law as opposed to the divine law (i.e. the Shari’ah).”

British Islamist Anjem Choudary and Omar Muhammad Bakri have launched an organization called Shariah for Hind to advance their agenda for establishing a virulent Talibanic form of Islamic rule in India.

The website of Sharia for Hind is It declares emphatically that it is anti national and proudly Fascist. “Indian Political Parties Have Preyed on the Muslim Community, As the Wolf Preys a Lamb; They Have Divided Us with Nationalism and Poisoned Us with Democracy”.

The Shariah for Hind project for Islamization of India draws its religious sanction from the Consensus among All Muslim Scholars that it is not permitted for Non-Muslims to have authority over Muslims. But isn’t that why we had a Partition of the Akhand Bharat?

They make this treasonable appeal to Muslims: “We Therefore Call Upon All Muslims to Rise on the 3rd of March 2012 (the 88th Anniversary of the Destruction of the Last Islamic State) in New Delhi in a Public Demonstration and Demand… to Establish the Khilafah [Islamic Rule]”. PEOPLE IN OTHER ASIAN COUNTRIES OFTEN GET SHOT FOR APPEALS, WHICH ARE FAR LESS TREASONABLE.

Do you want to know the detailed plans of these Muslim fanatics?

The Hindus or Sikhs or Other Non-Muslims…
Must Not build any new temples nor start to sell them and buy new ones.
Must Not do any public gathering like celebrating Diwali or Christmas.
Must Not show their religious symbols publicly like crosses or idols.
Must Not raise their houses above those of Muslims. (Be submissive.)

The Hindus or Sikhs or Other Non-Muslims…
Must pay the Jizya under humiliating conditions.
Must receive travelling Muslims as guests if they are travelling. (This means that Muslims can come to non-Muslim houses and demand food and sex with the girls in that family.)
Must be distinguished by their clothes so that Muslims know who they are (for being singled out for oppression).

There will be no more Bollywood.

In 1946 the Mayor of Calcutta Mohammed Usman had given a call for waging jihad against Hindus through another inflammatory leaflet titled, "MUNAJAT FOR JIHAD", reminding the Muslims of the glorious victory in the famous Battle of Badr. In that battle “kaffirs" were annihilated by a small army of soldiers of Islam. Its contents were highly provocative and expressed its determination to pursue its goal of establishment of an Islamic state in India as the agenda of radical Islam.

Justice Gopal Das Khosla I.C.S (a former Chief Justice of Punjab) in his seminal research paper titled ‘STERN RECKONING’ reproduced the instructions issued by the Muslim League of Mohammad Ali Jinnah to the Muslim marauders in the Twenty-three Point printed Circular.

The Muslim League of Jinnah had made elaborate plans for acquiring and storing weapons for attacking Hindus and Sikhs, looting their shops and factories, mounting attacks on temples and even for kidnapping, raping and converting hapless Hindu women, on the eve of Indian Independence, is evident from the contents of the Twenty-three Point printed Circular. The blood-curdling exhortations in the Circular became known to the police after their crackdown on the Muslim League following the massive Muslim violence during and after the Direct Action Day on 16th August, 1946.

The contents of the Twenty-three Point Circular can be found at my blog

Unfortunately the Congress leadership under Mahatma Gandhi in whom the Hindus had reposed immense faith had long before surrendered to the pan-Islamist terrorist agenda by joining the Khilafat Movement as early as in 1921. Gandhiji was keenly aware of the extra-territorial loyalties of the Muslims. However, Gandhiji naively thought that he could obtain the support of the Muslim fanatics only if he supported their pan-Islamist cause of restoration of the Khilafa in Turkey. Maulana Mohammad Ali and Maulana Shaukat Ali wanted India to be brought under Muslim rule soon after the restoration of the Khilafa. Gandhiji’s enthusiastic participation in the Khilafat Movement created a misunderstanding among the Muslims that Swaraj meant a willing and voluntary Hindu submission to the establishment of Muslim Rule in India. The disastrous consequences of this political blunder on the part of Gandhi led first to the savage pogrom of Hindus of Malabar by the local Moplah Muslims in what came to be known as the 1921 Moplah Rebellion.

The steadfast refusal of the Congress Party to condemn in unequivocal terms the Islamic savagery on the unarmed and hapless Hindus in 1921 in Malabar emboldened the Muslim fanatics and thus inaugurated a new era of a fresh wave of riots by Muslims culminating in the world’s biggest genocide leading to the bloody partition of India.

On 22nd February 2012, the Delhi Police received a complaint from one Anil Kumar Yadav that sharia4hind was organizing a march in the city. On the same day, the Delhi High Court heard a petition filed by Tajinder Pal Singh Bagga, President of the Bhagat Singh Kranti Sena — which sought a ban on the march stating that the website brings constitution of India and its secular feature into disrespect and disrepute. “Extreme Islamic groups are planning to organize a huge rally in Delhi propagating Islamisation of Indian subcontinent and enforcement of Shariah law all over India and hence this may result into communal clashes and disruption of public peace and order in State of Delhi and other parts of India.” Appearing for Tajinder Pal Singh Bagga, Advocate Vikas Padora also sought that the Central and State Governments be directed to include sharia4hind into the list of banned organizations, “as the group works against the integrity and sovereignty of India”.

A Delhi High Court Bench of Acting Chief Justice A.K. Sikri and Justice Rajiv Shah Endlaw directed Delhi Police Commissioner to submit the report on website within a week. In the mean time, Navaid Hamid, a Member of the National Integration Council, too wrote to Home Minister P Chidambaram seeking a ban on the proposed Islamic supremacist march in New Delhi and urged him to ask the Telecom Ministry to block the website.

The website has since been blocked in India and the Delhi Police have alerted hotels against hosting any individual connected to the proposed march or the “highly inflammatory” website.

When I look at the Islamic agenda announced by Anjem Choudary for destruction of Hindu India, I am reminded of the following brilliant quotation of Sir Winston Churchill drawn from his book called ‘River War’ published in 1899 in which he describes Muslims he apparently observed during Lord Kitchener's campaign in Sudan in 1898.

“How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property - either as a child, a wife, or a concubine - must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith.”

The Congress Party under Gandhi had neither any plans nor any Political will to fight back against the Islamic jihadi assault on India. The Congress leadership today is no different, except that it is now led by a foreigner with loyalty only towards the Vatican and nothing but total contempt towards all the Hindus.

Despite Delhi High Court's strict order to the contrary, UK based Islamic radical and Hinduphobic bigot Anjem Choudary and his fellow Islamic fundamentalists have been given Indian visa by the UPA Government.

According to Dr Subramanian Swamy, the present Home Minister P. Chidambaram overruled the officials of the Ministry of External Affairs and ordered issue of visa to Anjum Chaudhary because one Arab government paid  £100,000 to the Anushka, a sister of Sonia Gandhi, the Italian born Fascist Dictator in New Delhi. It has been reliably understood that the highly influential Jewish lobby is very upset with this deal. There is also a buzz that USA is now tacitly backing the public ‘war against’ Sonia ‘corruption’.

There is a rumour that the Firangi Memsahib Sonia Gandhi is suffering from terminal cancer of the pancreas, the same disease that brought down Steve Jobs. Sonia Gandhi is presently out of the country.

The BJP and VHP should take action on a war footing to organize a mass political counter rally in New Delhi with more than 1 Million Hindus participating in it. They have done it before and they can do it again and in  far greater numbers. The top leaders of the BJP should understand that there is no greater political blunder than to suppose that appeasements, platitudes, smooth words, and timid policies offer a path to safety against the terrorist activities of the Islamic barbarians.

Monday, February 6, 2012







All India General Secretary (Ideology), Janata Party

“Our Judges are not monks or scientists, but participants in the living stream of our national life, steering the Law between the dangers of rigidity on the one hand and of formlessness on the other.”-US Chief Justice Earl Warren.

I have derived my inspiration to write this Article from the following immortal words of BERNARD SHAW (1856-1950):
“I am, and have always been, and shall now always be, a revolutionary writer, because our LAWS make LAW Impossible; our Liberties destroy all FREEDOM; our Property is organized Robbery; our Morality is an Impudent  HYPOCRACY; our Wisdom administer by inexperienced or mal experienced Dupes, our Power wielded by Cowards and Weaklings, and our Honour False in all its points. I am an Enemy of the existing order. I speak even if none listens; I write even if none reads. I act on Voltaire’s Wisdom: The cowardice of the honest people ensures the success of the scoundrels.’”

Janata Party President Subramanian Swamy is absolutely right when he termed as “wrong”  the judgment delivered by the CBI Special Court on Saturday (4th February 2012) dismissing his petition against Home Minister P. Chidambaram in the 2G Spectrum Case. Even a cursory perusal of the confused, confusing, wobbly and messy judgment given by the Special Judge shows that it is a classic, nay outstanding, INSTANCE OF HOW A JUDGMENT committed to upholding the Principles of the Rule of Law, Equality Before the Law and overriding Majesty of Law OUGHT NOT BE WRITTEN. Dr Swamy has said that he would prove his case against P Chidambaram in the Supreme Court.

Prima facie, Dr Swamy established a case against P. Chidambaram. My reading of the Judgment given by the learned Judge O.P Saini shows that by and large even he has not disagreed with Dr Swamy. And yet without Summoning P. Chidambaram to his Special Court, he has given a new, original and innovative definition of criminality on the part of P. Chidambaram by illegally denying Dr Subramanian Swamy, his fundamental right to cross examine P. Chidambaram in open court.

The request of Dr Swamy was that the Special Court should issue summons to Chidambaram. Without considering and conceding this simple and elemental legal request, the Special Judge has displayed all the vagaries of an Oriental Potentate and completed the case against Chidambaram in a summary manner without even summoning him to the court!

The most amusing and not totally innocent part of the judgment is this:

Up to Paragraph No.51 of the Judgment, the Special Judge is focussing on the known facts of the case. Then he springs a surprise in Paragraph No. 52 of the judgment which I am reproducing below:


Is This Special Judge conducting a Mock Trial or an Imaginary Trial or a Fictitious Trial? Without Summoning P. Chidambaram to the Court, he has conducted a Mock Trial running counter to all known Canons of Both Substantive Law and Adjectival Law. I am unable to understand as to why the learned Judge is showing an extraordinary sense of urgency and anxiety to shift the focus of his attention from the corrupt deeds / misdeeds of P. Chidambaram attracting Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act to the vague and vacuous “conspiracy theories” under the Indian Penal Code! The real joke is that Dr Subramanian Swamy never used the word “criminal conspiracy” in his Petition to the CBI Special Court for Summoning P. Chidambaram as a co-accused to the Special Court.

No wonder the learned Judge has been able to come to the following pre-determined, pre-judged and prejudiced conclusion declaring P. Chidambaram as innocent:



A man with ordinary commonsense can only draw this reasonable inference from a Careful reading of Paragraph No. 61 of the highly politicized judgment, devoid of any Law or Justice, given by the Learned Judge quoted above. Even if a an avoidable public loss of Rs.175,000 Crores has been caused to the State Exchequer by the collective decision of A. Raja and P. Chidambaram NOT TO REVISE OR REVISIT THE ENTRY FEE OR SPECTRUM CHARGE AS DISCOVERED IN 2001, EVEN THEN IT IS NOT AN ILLEGAL ACT! In the same Paragraph No. 61 , the turgid  waters of Judicial confusion overflowing the known and time-honored and understood banks of Both Substantive Law and Adjectival Law, can be seen with amusement in the last two sentences of Paragraph No.61 “IT IS NOT PER SE ILLEGAL NOR WAS IT PROHIBITED AT THE RELEVANT TIME. HOWEVER, SUCH ACTS MAY ACQUIRE CRIMINAL COLOUR/ OVERTONES WHEN DONE WITH CRIMINAL INTENT.”

On the same set of facts, all the acts of Former Union Telecom Minister Raja are either illegal or criminal or both. Even though P. Chidambaram also sat with him in the same room, at the same time, on the same date, yet all the acts or actions of P. Chidambaram are neither illegal or criminal or both but actuated by the highest consideration of overriding and impersonal PUBLIC INTEREST. So much for the Rule and Reign of the Principles of the Rule of Law, Equality before the Law and the Overriding Majesty of Law in the CBI Special Court.

Just one day prior to the political verdict given by the learned Special Judge of the CBI Court on the 4th of February 2012, the Supreme Court Judges Justice J.S Singhvi and Justice A.K Ganguly had given a historic judgment cancelling all the 2G Spectrum Licences issued by the UPA Government. These Licences were issued by former Union Telecom Minister A. Raja after a series of joint meetings with Pa Chidambaram, a fact which has been duly noted by the Supreme Court. This verdict of the Supreme Court indicts not only A. Raja but also P. Chidambaram and the Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. Against this background, the learned Special Judge giving an absolutely clean chit to P. Chidambaram to the effect that he is pure as a crystal and scrupulously honest beyond suspicion has indeed shocked all the conscientious and patriotic citizens of India.

The CBI Special Judge quotes from Dr Swamy’s Statement:
“This evidence reveals the connivance, collusion and the consent of the then Finance Minister Sh. P. Chidambram in the decisions taken by the then telecom Minister in the matter of:
A. Fixing the price of the spectrum licence; and
B. In the matter of permitting two companies, which received the licence, namely, Swan and Unitech, in dilution of shares even before roll-out of their services.”
I have also brought on record evidence to show that Sh. Chidambram is also guilty of breach of trust in question of national security for not disclosing that Etisalat and Telenor were black listed by Home Ministry Advisory.”

After reporting these two allegations the confused and self contradicting CBI Judge makes a fantastic and fanciful claim in the very next paragraph:
46. I may add that the complaint did not contain any allegations against Mr. P. Chidambaram, as is clear from a bare reading of the facts, extracted above in detail.”

Perhaps George Orwell (1903-1950) had learned Special Judges in view when he wrote the following immortal lines: “A scrupulous writer, in every sentence that he writes, will ask himself at least four questions, thus: ‘What am I trying to say? What words will express it? What image or idiom will make it clearer? Is this image fresh enough to have an effect? And he will probably ask himself two more: Could I put it more shortly? Have I said anything that is avoidably ugly? But you are not obliged to go to all this trouble. You can shirk it by simply throwing your mind open and letting the ready-made phrases come crowding in. They will construct your sentences for you --- even think your thoughts for you, to a certain extent --- and at need they will perform the important service of partially concealing your meaning even from yourself. It is at this point that the special connection between politics and the debasement of language becomes clear. Such a language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.”

Thus we can see there will be a rush of unnecessary and irrelevant words like criminal conspiracy, social conspiracy, economic conspiracy and such a plethora of never ending conspiracies invading the text of the politically expedient and legally abominable judgments, making a mockery of any system of law.

Supreme Court Judge Justice G.S Singhvi in his judgment cancelling all the 2G Spectrum Licences has quoted the views of Shri Prashant Bhushan and Dr. Subramanian Swamy with approval. To quote the words of Justice G.S Singhvi:
“Both, Shri Prashant Bhushan and Dr. Subramanian Swamy pointed out that although the Prime Minister had suggested that a fair and transparent method be adopted for grant of UAS Licences through the process of auction, the Minister of C&IT casually and arbitrarily brushed aside the suggestion and granted licence to the applicants for extraneous reasons.”

In my considered view, not only the men in the Executive Arm of the Government, or the Legislative Arm of the Government but also the Judicial Arm of the Government ought not to take decisions on EXTRANEOUS CONSIDERATIONS.

The Judgment given by the CBI Special Court is bad in Law and worse in Justice. Truth and Justice have been choked to death with impunity using the impregnable umbrella of Judicial Independence. In 1954, Sir Winston Churchill told the House of Commons that Judges are required to conform to standards of life and conduct far more severe and restricted than that of ordinary people. The Prime Minister asked rhetorically: “What would be thought of a Lord Chief Justice if he won the Derby?” Not insularity but dignity, not cloistered or ostrich-like refusal to run away from the realities but an exalted aloofness with eyes open, heart sensitive and head ready to heed progressive humanism --- that is the Judge par exellance from Magistrate or Munsif to the highest on the Bench, attired and articulating the Law which binds all. The Robe Syndrome is a Pathology which must be therapeutised because the JUDGE & Co is run is a matter of profound public concern for a democracy. A Judicial Ombudsman is not an outrageous idea but a matter for deeper thought, public debate and delicate but constructive constitutional provision. TRUTH is subversive when UNTRUTH wears the mask of MAJESTY. But TRUTH will out someday. Let us midwife that day…. If Lawyers are polluted and Judges are contaminated, the institution of Law collapses. So it is necessary as part of the Grammar of Justice, Justices and Justicing that there should be a machinery to maintain the morality and morale of Justices and the high mores of the Fraternity. So I plead for a Judicial Commission to see the TRANSPARENCY and ACCOUNTABILITY become part of the Jurisprudence of Immaculate Justice.”

Thursday, February 2, 2012

Supreme Court puts down UPA Government’s mega corruption in Telecom sector

Supreme Court puts

down UPA


corruption in

Telecom sector



The most decisive victory in the National War Against UPA Government’s Alpine Corruption was won in the Supreme Court yesterday (2nd February 2012, Thursday) when Justice J.S Singhvi and Justice A.K Ganguly passed Final Orders in respect of

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 423 OF 2010 Centre for Public Interest Litigation and others (Petitioner) versus Union of India and others (Respondent)

With WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 10 OF 2011 Dr. Subramanian Swamy (Petitioner)

Versus Union of India and others (Respondent).

Justice J.S Singhvi and Justice A.K Ganguly in their historic judgment have paid glowing tributes to Dr. Subramanian Swamy and Prashant Bhushan and others by hailing them as ENLIGHTENED CITIZENS. The inspiring words of the two Supreme Court Judges, in this context, are worth quoting: “Before concluding, we consider it imperative to observe that but for the vigilance of some enlightened citizens who held important constitutional and other positions and discharged their duties in larger public interest and Non Governmental Organisations who have been constantly fighting for clean governance and accountability of the constitutional institutions, unsuspecting citizens and the Nation would never have known how the scarce natural resource spared by Army has been grabbed by those who enjoy money power and who have been able to manipulate the system.” 

I am presenting below the operative portions of the above judgment.

In the result, the writ petitions are allowed in the following terms:
(i) The licences granted to the private respondents on or after 10.1.2008 pursuant to two press releases issued on 10.1.2008 and subsequent allocation of spectrum to the licensees are declared illegal and are quashed.

(ii) The above direction shall become operative after four months.

(iii) Keeping in view the decision taken by the Central Government in 2011, TRAI shall make fresh recommendations for grant of licence and allocation of spectrum in 2G band in 22 Service Areas by auction, as was done for allocation of spectrum in 3G band.

(iv) The Central Government shall consider the recommendations of TRAI and take appropriate decision within next one month and fresh licences be granted by auction.

(v) Respondent Nos.2, 3 and 9 who have been benefited at the cost of Public Exchequer by a wholly arbitrary and unconstitutional action taken by the DoT for grant of UAS Licences and allocation of spectrum in 2G band and who offloaded their stakes for many thousand crores in the name of fresh infusion of equity or transfer of equity shall pay cost of Rs.5 crores each.  Respondent Nos 4, 6, 7 and 10 shall pay cost of Rs.50 lakhs each because they too had been benefited by the wholly arbitrary and unconstitutional exercise undertaken by the DoT for grant of UAS Licences and allocation of spectrum in 2G band.  We have not imposed cost on the respondents who had submitted their applications in 2004 and 2006 and whose applications were kept pending till 2007.

When you know that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from those who produce nothing, when you know that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favour, when you see that men get rich more easily by graft, rather than work and your Laws no longer protect you against them, but protects them against you, you know that your society is doomed! When the two Supreme Court Judges Justice J.S Singhvi and Justice A.K Ganguly who are getting convinced that India is being hustled down the path of doom by Sonia Gandhi and her pack of criminal gangsters in the UPA Government these two fearless Judges that the 2G Spectrum licenses fraudulently issued by the criminal UPA Government must be cancelled.

A careful reading of the judgment will show that the Sonia Gandhi-led UPA Government has been totally unsuccessful in their fraudulent attempts to mislead the Supreme Court of India that Pa Chidambaram had nothing to do with the 2G Spectrum pricing and the associated corrupt deeds and misdeeds of the former Union Telecom Minister A. Raja. The Supreme Court has imposed a fine of Rs 5 Crores each on Swan Telecom (Respondent 2), Unitech (Respondent 3) and Tata Teleservices (Respondent 9) on the ground that they were benefitted at the cost to the State Exchequer. This arose on account of a wholly arbitrary and unconstitutional action taken by the DoT for grant of UAS Licences and allocation of Spectrum in 2G band and these companies with the full knowledge of DOT offloaded their stakes for many thousand crores in the name of fresh infusion of equity or transfer of equity. The offloading of shares by Swan, Unitech and Tata Teleservices and their other illegal actions were subsequently ratified by Union Finance Minister Pa Chidambaram in his capacity as the Chairman of the Foreign Investment Promotion Board (FIPB) and the Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh in his capacity as the Chairman of the Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs (CCEA). Thus, as informally directed by Sonia Gandhi, both the former Union Finance Minister Pa Chidambaram and the Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh enthusiastically facilitated the corrupt 2G Spectrum chess game of former Union Telecom Minister Raja which largely benefitted the Italian-born Sonia Gandhi.

It is very heartening to note that the Supreme Court has summarily rejected the plea of the UPA Government that Union Minister for Home Affairs P Chidambaram, who was Minister for Finance when the spectacular Sonia directed robbery of the National Exchequer occurred, should be spared from being named, probed and prosecuted as a co-accused.

It is a well established axiom of financial administration in the Government of India that not even a Rupee of expenditure can be incurred by anyone out of the Consolidated Fund of India without the written concurrence of the Finance Minister. Available written records and File Notings and Official Correspondence clearly show that the Union Telecom Minister A. Raja and former Union finance Minister Pa Chidambaram conspired together and acted in concert to defraud the National Exchequer for private gains. In this shoddy business, the Office of the Prime Minister was reduced to the level of a dispatch office.

All that the former Union Telecom Minister A. Raja did was to faithfully implement the oral orders of Sonia Gandhi which were instantaneously conveyed by her Political Secretary Ahmed Patel to both Pa Chidambaram and A Raja. Of course, the final written concurrence was given by Pa Chidambaram in his capacity as the Finance Minister.

I fully endorse the view of Dr Subramanian Swamy who has said: “The fact of the matter is the process was that Mr Chidambaram and Mr Raja will decide (on 2G pricing) together. And records show that Chidambaram was the senior partner and Raja was the junior partner. If Raja is in jail, Chidambaram should also be in jail.”

In my view, there are, of course, First Duties of Citizenship, but there are also First Duties of Government. A Citizen’s First Duty is to uphold the Law, but it is also the First Duty of the Government to enforce the Law --- to do so by prosecuting and punishing those who violate our Criminal Laws. We have all along been told and many of us have preached that ‘CRIME DOES NOT PAY’, but the recent rash and spread of defiance of law in the Sonia-led UPA Government at highest levels and the spectacular successes --- however tenuous and temporary --- of that philosophy in attaining its goals, seem to compel a reappraisal of that concept, for from what we see are commonly happening, one could reasonably believe that certain types of crime are being permitted to pay magnificently in the UPA Government. The acid cutting edge test, nay criterion, seems to be this: “Full and final gratification and satisfaction of Firangi Memsahib Sonia Gandhi”

The collapsing and the collapsible corrupt regime of Sonia Gandhi will end sooner than later. This Government of rapacious looters is going to end not with a bang but with a whimper and it will end with Sonia and her clan’s hasty flight from India like that of the corrupt Alberto Fugimori and his clan from Peru.

Supreme Court Upholds A Citizen's Right To Prosecute Corrupt Public Officials







Dr Subramanian Swamy, an exemplary nationalist citizen, has won a great victory for and on behalf of the common citizens of India in their current ongoing war against the Himalayan corruption in India’s public life and more particularly against the Alpine corruption of Antonia Maino (a.k.a Sonia Gandhi) and her clan, both in India and in Italy. It will not be too much to say that Dr Subramanian Swamy has become a National Iconic Figure, indeed the Conscience Keeper of our Nation today.


Justice G.S. Singhvi        Justice A.K Ganguly

The Appeal Petition of Dr Subramanian Swamy, President of Janata party and former Union Minister for Law and Commerce, in the Supreme Court of India against the Orders of the Delhi High Court refusing to issue a Writ of Mandamus to the Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to pass an order for grant of sanction for prosecution of Union Minister A Raja under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act has been allowed by a Bench of Supreme Court of India consisting of Justice G.S. Singhvi and Justice Asok Kumar Ganguly.

These two great judges, Justice G.S. Singhvi and Justice A.K Ganguly, have made Constitutional History by upholding the Fundamental Right of a citizen to seek the prosecution of corrupt public servants under the Prevention of Corruption Act. These two Men In Robes are held in the highest esteem by all the patriotic, enlightened and responsible citizens of India for their unimpeachable integrity and impeccable judicial conduct.

 Dr Subramanian Swamy

Dr Subramanian Swamy, an exemplary nationalist citizen, has won a great victory for and on behalf of the common citizens of India in their current ongoing war against the Himalayan corruption in India’s public life and more particularly against the Alpine corruption of Antonia Maino (a.k.a Sonia Gandhi) and her clan, both in India and in Italy. It will not be too much to say that Dr Subramanian Swamy has become a National Iconic Figure, indeed the Conscience Keeper of our Nation today. Duty- Honour-Country, these are his hallowed watch words setting the standard for all his public actions as a National Leader. They are his rallying points:
To build courage when and where courage seems to fail;
to restore Faith when and where there seems to be little cause for Faith;
to create Hope when Hope becomes Hopeless. 

These two Judges have set aside the Orders of the Delhi High Court by making it clear that a complaint can be filed by any citizen for prosecuting a public servant for an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. They have also said that the authority competent to sanction prosecution of a public servant for offences under the 1988 Act is required to take a decision within the three month time limit specified in the judgment of the Supreme Court in Vineet Narain v. Union of India (1998) 1 SCC 226 and with due regard to the guidelines issued by the Central Government, Department of Personnel and Training and the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC).

For the last more than three years, Dr Subramanian Swamy, the Appellant in this case has been vigorously pursuing, in public interest, the cases allegedly involving loss of thousands of crores of rupees to the Public Exchequer due to arbitrary and illegal grant of licenses in the Telecom sector at the behest of Mr. A. Raja while functioning as Minister for Communication and Information Technology.

Dr Subramanian Swamy sent letters dated 30.5.2009, 23.10.2009, 31.10.2009, 8.3.2010 and 13.3.2010 to the Prime Minister reiterating his request / demand for grant of sanction to prosecute Union Minister A. Raja under the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988.

After 1 year and 4-1/2 months of the first letter written by him, Secretary, Department of Personnel and Training, Ministry of Personnel sent letter dated 19.3.2010 to Dr Swamy mentioning therein that the CBI had registered a case on 21.10.2009 against officers of the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) and others and that the issue of grant of sanction for prosecution would arise only after perusal of the evidence collected by the CBI and that it would be PREMATURE TO CONSIDER SANCTION FOR PROSECUTION AT THAT STAGE.

On receipt of the above communication, Dr Subramanian Swamy filed a Civil Writ Petition No. 2442/2010 in the Delhi High Court and prayed for issue of a Writ of Mandamus to the Prime Minister to prosecute Union Telecom Minister A. Raja. The Learned Delhi High Court dismissed the Writ Petition of Dr Swamy on the grounds that “matter is being investigated by the CBI, and the investigation is in progress”. The real comedy of the situation is that no inquiry had in fact been initiated by the CBI up to that point of time and therefore the Delhi High Court made a cardinal mistake by making the reference to a CBI investigation which had not yet begun. The Attorney General Vahanvati had succeeded in misleading the Delhi High Court in the manner and measure required, not by the letter or spirit of the law but by the fleeting and floating exigencies and expediencies of his high political Law Office.

The legally abominable argument of the “learned” Attorney General Vahanvati to the effect that a private citizen like Dr Subramanian Swamy had no “locus standi” to seek sanction from the Prime Minister for prosecuting Union Minister A. Raja has been summarily rejected by both Judges Justice G.S. Singhvi and Justice AK Ganguly.

According to Justice G.S. Singhvi there is no provision either in the 1988 Act or the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) which bars a citizen from filing a complaint for prosecution of a public servant who is alleged to have committed an offence.

Justice G.S. Singhvi has reiterated the judgment of the Constitution Bench in A.R. Antulay v. Ramdas Sriniwas Nayak 21 (1984) 2 SCC 500. “Locus standi of the complainant is a concept foreign to criminal jurisprudence save and except that where the statute creating an offence provides for the eligibility of the complainant, by necessary implication the general principle gets excluded by such statutory provision.”

I fervently applaud the view of Justice A.K Ganguly that “The right of private citizen to file a complaint against a corrupt public servant must be equated with his right to access the Court in order to set the criminal law in motion against a corrupt public official. This right of access, a Constitutional right should not be burdened with unreasonable fetters.”

Justice G.S Singhvi in his judgment has invited attention to the case of Vineet Narain v. Union of India (1996) 2 SCC 199, wherein the Supreme Court referred to the allegations made in the writ petition that Government agencies like the CBI and the revenue authorities have failed to perform their duties and legal obligations ….

In paragraph 58 of that judgment, the Supreme Court gave several directions in relation to the CBI, the CVC and the Enforcement Directorate. In para 58 (I)(15), the Court gave the following direction:

In the same judgment, the Supreme Court had also made the following observations in the larger public interest which are worth quoting in this context.
“The facts and circumstances of the present case do indicate that it is of utmost public importance that this matter is examined thoroughly by this Court to ensure that all government agencies, entrusted with the duty to discharge their functions and obligations in accordance with law, do so, bearing in mind constantly the concept of equality enshrined in the Constitution and the basic tenet of rule of law: “Be you ever so high, the law is above you. … This is imperative to retain public confidence in the impartial working of the government agencies.”


The Office of the Prime Minister cannot function like the Durbar of a despotic Mughal Emperor like Aurangazeb. This Office has strictly displayed all the vagaries of an Oriental Potentate like Chenghiz Khan. I am saying this because they did not deem it necessary to send even an interim reply to Dr Subramanian Swamy, the appellant in this case. Taking note of the insurmountable difficulties, bottlenecks and other hurdles arising from the rabid red tapism pervading the PM’s Office Justice G.S Singhvi and Justice A.K Ganguly have made the following Observations:

“We may also observe that grant or refusal of sanction is not a quasi judicial function and the person for whose prosecution the sanction is sought is not required to be heard by the Competent Authority before it takes a decision in the matter. What is required to be seen by the Competent Authority is whether the facts placed before it which, in a given case, may include the material collected by the complainant or the investigating agency prima facie disclose commission of an offence by a public servant. If the Competent Authority is satisfied that the material placed before it is sufficient for prosecution of the public servant, then it is required to grant sanction. IF THE SATISFACTION OF THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY IS OTHERWISE, THEN IT CAN REFUSE SANCTION. IN EITHER CASE, THE DECISION TAKEN ON THE COMPLAINT MADE BY A CITIZEN IS REQUIRED TO BE  COMMUNICATED TO HIM AND IF HE FEELS AGGRIEVED BY SUCH DECISION, THEN HE CAN AVAIL APPROPRIATE LEGAL REMEDY. The Office of the Prime Minister kept the request of Dr Subramanian Swamy hanging for more than two years.

The Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is probably under the delusion that he is no more than a Despatch Clerk in the Durbar of Sonia Gandhi. He does not realize that the post of the Prime Minister is a public office entrusted with powers to be exercised in public interest alone and not in the interest of his political boss Sonia Gandhi. He has not followed the path of public rectitude at all and instead indulged in repeated acts of breach of public trust in dealing with cases of gargantuan corruption relating to the Cabinet Ministers, Ministers of State and other very senior civil servants. He should have taken utmost care to see that such cases of corruption were duly investigated to ensure that the majesty of law is upheld and the rule of law vindicated.

Now that Justice G.S. Singhvi and Justice A.K Ganguly have clearly laid down the time limit of three months for granting sanction for prosecution in all cases excepting those cases where consultation with the Attorney General (AG) is needed and in such cases one extra month has been granted, all the decks have been cleared for the Prime Minister and his Office to accord immediate sanction to Dr Subramanian Swamy for the prosecution of Sonia Gandhi under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Even if the Prime Minister’s Office feels politically constrained to oblige Sonia Gandhi by remaining silent, or through masterly inactivity, it has to be DEEMED that the sanction for prosecution of Sonia has already been GRANTED.


Sonia Gandhi the Congress party supremo has been a public servant from 1991, initially by getting a Government bungalow allotted to her in No:10 Janpath as a residence for life. Since 2004 she has been Chairperson of the National Advisory Council (NAC) with Cabinet rank which is administratively serviced by Cabinet Secretariat. Her Order of Appointment as Chairperson of the National Advisory Council was signed by the Cabinet Secretary. I fully endorse the view of Dr Subramanian Swamy that Sonia Gandhi, a public servant, is culpable of criminal offences eg, offence u/s 13 of Prevention of Corruption Act in the Bofors scam and hence the criminal law has to be set in motion and for which he sought the sanction of the Prime Minister in his letter dated 15th April 2011.

A careful reading of the separate judgments given by Justice G.S. Singhvi and Justice A.K Ganguly clearly brings out the fact that DUE PROCESS is not a mechanical yardstick. It does not afford mechanical answers. Justice Felix Frankfurter rightly said: “There is no table of weights and measures for ascertaining what constitutes the DUE PROCESS.”

Empiricism implies judgment upon variant situations by the wisdom of experience. Ad-hocism in adjudication means treating a particular case by itself and not in relation to the meaning of a course of decisions and the guides they serve for the future. There is all the difference in the world between disposing of a case as though it were a discrete instance and recognizing it as part of the process of judgment, taking its place in relation to what went before and further cutting a channel for what is to come. No mischievous effort should be made to imprison the DUE PROCESS within tidy categories. Such an effort misconceives the underlying nature of DUE PEOCESS and is a futile endeavour to save the judicial functions from the pains of judicial judgment. Against this background, it will be clear that the Orders passed by these two Judges Justice G.S. Singhvi and Justice A.K Ganguly have indeed made judicial history.

Lord Edward Coke (1552-1634)
Chief Justice of the King’s Bench

Let me conclude in the bracing words from the judgment of Justice A.K Ganguly:
Today, corruption in our country not only poses a grave danger to the concept of constitutional governance, it also threatens the very foundation of Indian democracy and the Rule of Law. The magnitude of corruption in our public life is incompatible with the concept of a socialist, secular democratic republic. It cannot be disputed that where corruption begins all rights end. Corruption devalues human rights, chokes development and undermines justice, liberty, equality, fraternity, which are the core values in our preambular vision. Therefore, the duty of the Court is that any anti-corruption law has to be interpreted and worked out in such a fashion as to strengthen the fight against corruption. That is to say in a situation where two constructions are eminently reasonable, the Court has to accept the one that seeks to eradicate corruption to the one which seeks to perpetuate it. In this connection we might remind ourselves that courts while maintaining rule of law must structure its jurisprudence on the famous formulation of Lord Coke where the learned Law Lord made a comparison between “the golden and straight metwand of law” as opposed to the “uncertain and crooked cord of discretion”.”

Post Script:

The Union Minister for Law (nay, Lawlessness), for Justice (nay, InJustice), the Office of the Prime Minister, the Office of the Union Home Minister, all taken together, couldn’t care less for the golden and straight metwand of law immortalized by Lord Coke. They are only committed to upholding the uncertain and crooked cord of Sonia discretion, nay, indiscretion, at any public cost and in spite of all the threats and dangers posed to the very survival of India as a Nation!