[rtitimes] Apppeal to Swami Ramddevji :SC itself made CJI and Other Judges accountable before law by its Judgement, in which Justice J.S. Verma given his dessent Judgment

Respected Swami Ramdevji,

 

Since you have no practical eexperinces, aand since wrong advise might have been forwarded that CJI should be covered within the ambit of Lokpal. For your kind information, I am citing an very important Majority Judgment pronounced by the Constitutional Bench of Supreme Court in the matter of K. Veeraswami Vs. UOI AND OTHERS, through Judgment dated25/07/1991, taken a detailed view (Citation:- 1991( 3  )SCR 189, 1991( 3  )SCC 655, 1991( 2  )SCALE150 , 1991( 3  )JT 198), and made CJI and other Judges of Supreme Court and High Courts accountable before law, after defined them as Public Servant, after examining the following important issues. However, Justice J. S. Verma is known for his desent judgment in the aforesaid judgment, therefore if he is opposing to include CJI under the ambit of Lokpal, it is obvious in view of his aforesaid desent Judgment:-

Prevention of  Corruption Act, 1947:  Ss. 2,  5(1)(e), 5(2),  6(1)(c)- Public servant --Possession of  pecuniary resources or  property disproportionate to known sources of income----Prosecution  after  superannuation-Previous  sanction -- Whether necessary.

    Judge  of  High  Court/Supreme  Court--Whether   'public servant',  liable to prosecution under the  Act--Sanctioning authority--Who is.

    Sanctioning authority--Whether vertically    superior  in the hierarchy in which office of the public servant exists.

    Cl. (c) of s. 6(1)--Whether independent of and  separate from clauses (a) and (b)--Rule of ejusdem  generis--Applicability of.

    Independence of Judiciary--Whether affected by  application  of the Prevention of Corruption Act to Judges of    High Court/Supreme Court--Issuance of guidelines by Court.

    Indian  Penal Code, 1860: Ss.  19, 21--"Judge"--Whether includes  a High Court/Supreme Court Judge--Whether  'public servant' under s. 2 of Prevention of Corruption Act.

    Constitution of India, 1950: Articles 74, 79, 121, 211, 124,  217, 2 18--Provision for initiation of proceeding for removal of a Judge-Whether a ground for withholding criminal prosecution of a Judge for offence under s. 5(1) (e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.

    Independence  of Judiciary----Effect of  application  of Prevention  of   Corruption Act, ]947 to Judges   of  superior Courts.

    Code  of  Criminal Procedure, 1973:  Ss.  154,  173(2), 173(5)-Offence committed by public servant under s.  5(1)(e) of  the Prevention of Corruption Act,      1947--Complaint regarding--Investigation   Requirements--Police   report/Charge sheet--Contents of 190

    Evidence  Act, 1872: S. 106--Offence committed under  s. 5(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947--Possession of property  disproportionate  to known  sources--Whether fact within special knowledge of the public servant--Burden  of proof----On whom.

Words and Phrases.' "satisfactorily account"--Meaning of.

Statutory  Interpretation:  Rule  of  ejusdem generis--Explained.

 

That unless, the persons themselves holding the Offices of the President, Prime Minister and CJI themselves are responsible to protect the dignity of such offices.  Therefore, this is my humble appeal you should not oppose the inclusion of PM and CJI under ambit of Lokpal.

 

Milap Choraria