Subverting Judiciary – Modi-style

You may also like...

7 Responses

  1. Sam says:

    டெல்லி டெல்லி எனப்படுகிற மாநகரத்தில் அனிதா ஷெனாய் என ஒரு வழக்கறிஞர் இருந்தார். அவர் பழைய அமைச்சர் ஸ்பெக்ட்ரம் புகழ் ராசாவின் வழக்கறிஞர். நவம்பர் 2010 இல் ஸ்பெக்ட்ரம் விஷயம் குறிப்பாக வழக்குகள் சோதனைகள் என ராசாவின் சோதனை காலம் அது. ராசாவுக்கு மட்டுமல்ல சோனியா-மன்மோகன் அரசாங்கத்துக்கும். அது ஒரு ஞாயிற்றுக்கிழமை. அப்போது சிபிஐ அதிகாரிகள் அழைக்கப்பட்டு அனிதா ஷெனாயிடம் பேச வைக்கப்பட்டனர். எங்கே இந்த சந்திப்பு நிகழ்ந்தது? அன்றைய மத்திய அரசின் தலைமை வழக்கறிஞர் (Solicitor General) அலுவலகத்தில்.

    டைம்ஸ் ஆஃப் இந்தியா நாளேடு நவம்பர் 15 2010 இல் இப்படி செய்தி வெளியிட்டது: “Documents accessed by TOI conclusively establish the SG’s efforts to coordinate between the agencies and the counsel of the telecom minister, whom they were to investigate…”

    சிபிஐயின் மறுப்புகளை புறக்கணித்து அன்றைய மத்திய அரசின் அரசு தலைமை வழக்கறிஞர் நடந்து கொண்டார். மட்டுமல்ல அவர்தான் சிபிஐ தரப்பில் ராசா விவகாரத்தில் வழக்கறிஞராக செயல்படுவேன் என பிடிவாதமும் பிடித்தார். இறுதியில் அவர் வழக்கறிஞராக இருப்பதை சிபிஐ விரும்பவில்லை என சிபிஐயே எழுத்து மூலமாக சொல்ல வேண்டிய நிலை வந்தது.

    யார் இப்படி தனது பதவியை பயன்படுத்தியதாக டைம்ஸ் ஆஃப் இந்தியாவால் குற்றம் சாட்டப்பட்ட ஆசாமி? யார் மீது நம்பிக்கை இல்லாமல் சிபிஐ ‘ராசா விசயத்தில் நீர் ஆஜராக வேண்டாம்’ என எழுத்து மூலமாக கோரிய ஆசாமி? அவர்தான் திருவாளர்.கோபால் சுப்ரமணியம். அரசு தலைமை வழக்கறிஞராக இருந்த போதே இப்படி செயல்பட்டவர் தலைமை நீதிபதியானால்? ராசாவுக்கும் கனிமொழிக்கும் நன்மை பயக்கலாம். காங்கிரஸுக்கு தப்பிக்க முடியலாம். ஆனால் இந்தியாவுக்கு? … எனவே மோதி அரசு ஆசாமியை நிராகரித்ததில் அநியாயமும் இல்லை. அநீதியும் இல்லை. நீதித்துறையின் குறிக்கீடும் இல்லை.

  2. Anjankumar says:

    In the row over Law Ministry’s objections to Gopal Subramaniam’s elevation as Supreme Court judge, many critics of the Modi Government’s actions have alluded to his role as amicus curiae (friend of the court) in the Gujarat fake encounter cases as the actual unstated reason for objection.

    Subramaniam also refers to his role in his letter to the CJI wherein he explains how he became amicus curiae in the high profile fake encounter cases. He states:

    “I was sitting in Court waiting for a matter, which was lower down in the list. The Bench consisted of Justices Tarun Chatterjee and Dalveer Bhandari. It was Justice Dalveer Bhandari who along with Justice Tarun Chatterjee requested me to appear as amicus curiae in the matter. I readily accepted the request, which is consistent with the duties of the office of a Law Officer.”

    He then goes on to say how he found out the record pertaining to the petition for the first time. This implies that the very first time he got to know of the facts, he was already amicus curiae at the request of SC.

    The problem, however, is that this version is not borne out from the record of SC. Let us understand what happened.

    The brother of Sohrabuddin Sheikh (killed in an encounter in Gujarat) – Rubabbuddin Sheikh – had filed a petition before SC requesting, among other things, a fair and impartial investigation by the CBI. As is the usual norm, the SC issued a notice to the Union of India (i.e., the UPA Government) listed as a respondent in such a petition.

    While issuing a notice to the UPA, SC spotted Subramaniam in the court room. It therefore requested him something. What was that? Let us see from SC’s judgement itself in the Rubabbuddin case which describes the history of this case. Below is a screenshot of Paragraph 8 of the SC judgement (which can be read in full here).

    Gopal Subramanium’s lofty claims do not add up

    If he was asked to be amicus, he does not have to take any instructions from anyone. He was clearly asked to take instructions in this matter from the UPA Government! Subramaniam was the Additional Solicitor General at that time i.e. in 2007.

    In his letter to the then Prime Minister in 2013, this is what Arun Jaitley had to say about Subramanium’s coincidental presence in SC when this matter was called out:

    “After his [Sohrabuddin] encounter on 24/25-11-2005, his brother [Rubabbuddin] filed a Writ Petition in the Supreme Court. The filing of the said petition was also sponsored by Congress Party. The then Addl. Solicitor General of India, Gopal Subramaniam in a pre-conceived and planned move, appeared on day one before the Court and agreed to take instructions from the Central Government.”

    Note that the SC requested him to take instructions from the UPA on January 22, 2007. Till May 17, 2007 at least, for a good 4 months, Subramaniam continued to represent the UPA. How do we know this? Below is a record of counsels appearing for various parties:

    Gopal Subramanium’s lofty claims do not add up

    In fact, in this very judgment dated May 17, 2007, in paragraph 8, SC notes Subramaniam’s submission that this was a fit case for handing over investigation to CBI. Again, it is critical to bear in mind that he argued this prior to the date of that judgement as the lawyer for UPA, not amicus curiae.

    It is only later that Subramaniam became the amicus curiae. The court record shows him listed as amicus curiae for the first time only on August 6, 2007.

    A lawyer who has not appeared for any party to the matter can only logically be appointed as amicus curiae. The reason is obvious. Once a lawyer has appeared for a party, a ‘friend of the court’ cannot assist the court without a bias for what he/she has argued earlier for that very party which continues as a party in the matter.

    In other words, as UPA’s lawyer, Subramaniam argued that matter should be handed over to the CBI. As amicus curiae, how is he expected to argue anything different?

    In his letter to the then Prime Minister (referenced above in this column), Arun Jaitley states something very scathing:

    “Subsequently, the Attorney General appeared for the Union of India and Gopal Subramaniam designated himself as Amicus Curiae without any specific order of the court appointing him.”

    It is true that there is no written order of SC in this entire matter which appoints Subramaniam as amicus curiae. Therefore, if at all his role as amicus was due to SC, it would be an oral request, indeed after he already appeared for the UPA.

    This is something only the judges in question and the individuals present in the courtroom can vouch for. Jaitley, though, is very categorical in his letter, i.e., that it was a designation he bestowed upon himself.

    The entire manner in which a senior advocate initially appearing for the UPA went on to become amicus curiae raises several questions. In 2007, UPA was rather obviously gunning for Modi. Having a CBI inquiry into the fake encounter cases could get them some ammunition to go to the very top. This isn’t to suggest that Subramaniam was a part of the UPA’s maneuvers.

    However, Subramaniam’s lofty claim that he was requested by SC to be amicus in the initial stage when SC was considering Rubabbuddin’s petition is not borne out by the record.

    http://www.niticentral.com/2014/06/28/gopal-subramaniums-lofty-claims-do-not-add-up-232440.html

  3. Parthiban says:

    Is Gopal Subramaniam a Solicitor General of India (SGI) or Saboteur General (SG) of India? He has brought permanent disgrace and infamy to the noble legal profession. He should be made to quit from the exalted Office of the Bar Council of India. Just as a former Chief Justice of Supreme Court of India allowed his official residence to be used as the private Real Estate Business headquarters of his beloved sons, this shameless Solicitor General of India (SG) has used his residence to function as the legal headquarters for protecting the corrupt Union Minister A.Raja in the Case relating to the Himalayan Mega Fraud 2G Spectrum Case pending in the Supreme Court of India. Gopal Subramaniam was the ‘chamcha’ of the most corrupt Former Union Shipping and Transport Minister T.R.Balu. Now he is functioning as the ‘private chamcha’ of the Union Minister A.Raja. Thus Gopal Subramaniam has become the unsought Saboteur General of India (SG) on the one hand and the much sought after Solicitor general of India (SGI) for Union Minister A.Raja.

    It has been widely reported in the Press that a meeting of CBI and Enforcement Directorate Officials took place at the Official residence of Gopal Subramaniam the Solicitor General of India on 28th October 2010 to discuss the 2G Spectrum Fraud Case. Anitha Shenoy, the Advocate for A.Raja, was also present, though she had no locus standi to participate at that meeting. This ‘meeting’ was ‘designed’ by the SGI to facilitate Anita Shenoy in the ongoing 2G Spectrum Corruption Case in the Supreme Court. This SGI had summoned CBI’s Investigative Officer Vivek Priyadarshi and DIG S.K.Palsania for that meeting with the hidden purpose of helping Anitha Shenoy and not assisting the Enforcement Agencies of the State like the CBI in effectively conducting the prosecution of the case.

    It has been reported in the Press that at this meeting the SGI introduced Anitha Shenoy to the Enforcement Officers. SGI requested these officers to brief Anitha Shenoy. QUITE UNLIKE THE SGI, THE D.I.G. PALSANIA CONDUCTED HIMSELF WITH GREAT DIGNITY, MORAL COURAGE AND HIGH SENSE OF PUBLIC RESPONSIBILITY BY STRONGLY OBJECTING TO THE OPENLY NEFARIOUS AND SHAMEFUL GESTURE OF SG TO SABOTAGE THE DUE LEGAL PROCESS OF CORRECT INVESTIGATION OF THE CASE AGAINST Union Minister A.Raja.

    Palsania told the SGI: “We have nothing to do with Raja’s advocate and we are not supposed to talk to her. WE WILL REPORT ONLY TO THE DIRECTOR OF THE CBI AND NOT EVEN TO YOU AND MUCH LESS TO THE PRIVATE ADVOCATE FOR UNION MINISTER RAJA. We cannot be dictated to. We are under no official obligation to report to anybody about the progress of the probe.” Ignoring SGI’s illegal and immoral instructions, these officials then walked out of the meeting.

    Immediately thereafter they brought SG’s open interference on behalf of Union Minister A,Raja to the notice of the CBI Director Ashwani Kumar.It has been reported that CBI Director told Union Law (less!)Minister Veerappa Moily: “We demand a new Counsel in the place of this SG. We do not want to entertain Gopal Subramaniam anymore”.

    After the controversial meeting on 28-10-2010, the SGI claimed “illness” in order to absent himself from the next hearing at the Supreme Court of India on October 29th 2010. Raja’s advocate Andhyarujina had informed the Supreme Court of the SGI’s “illness”. Mercifully and hopefully for the helpless and battered people of India, the CBI was represented by Additional Solicitor General Harin Raval on that day.

    I would like to pay my tribute to D.I.G. PALSANIA for having done his official duty without getting pressurized by the immoral moves of Gopal Subramaniam at the meeting held on 28th October 2010. It was Vineet Agarwal, who was Deputy Inspector General of Police in the CBI, who exposed the corrupt and fraudulent connections of Union Minister A.Raja with Ms Nira Radia. For having done his official duty in a fearless manner, he was transferred from the CBI and posted back to his parent IPS cadre of Maharashtra! Only the firangi memsahib (of course not our ‘Boneless’ Prime Minister or ‘Shadow of Shadow’ Union Home Minister!!)knows what fate awaits D.I.G. Palsania for having done his official duty at the meeting at SG’s residence on 28-10-2010!

    THREE CHEERS TO THIS ‘MOST HONOURABLE’ SABOTEUR GENERAL OF INDIA and MOST DISHONOURABLE SOLICITOR GENERAL for MOST HONOURABLE UNION MINISTER A .RAJA! THREE CHEERS TO THE FIRANGI MEMSAHIB AND HER ITALIAN FAMILY FOR THEIR FACILITATING/PARTICIPATING ROLE IN THE HIMALAYAN 2 G SPECTRUM Rs. 1,760,000,000,000/-LOOT OF AND THE LOOT CASE AGAINST RAJA!!! THREE CHEERS TO OUR BONELESS AND MOST HONEST PRIME MINISTER FOR CONTINUING TO SUPPORT THE MOST CORRUPT UNION MISTER A. RAJA ON THE IRREFUTABLE COMMAND OF THE FIRANGI MEMSAHIB, THE MOST EXALTED, THE MOST VENERABLE AND THE MOST VENAL MOTHER SUPERIOR—SUPREME COORDINATOR AND FACILITATOR— OF ALL SCAMS IN THE COLONIAL AND ANTI-NATIONAL UPA II (NON) GOVERNMENT OF INDIA!!!

    One Public Interest Litigation(PIL) case in the spectrum scam has been filed by senior advocate Prashant Bhushan, NGO Telecom Watchdog and veteran journalist Paranjoy Guha Thakurta, who have demanded that the Supreme Court monitor the CBI probe. The Court has sent notices to the CBI, ED, Income Tax, Department of Telecom and A Raja in this case. The CBI has invited severe criticism from the apex court for its “slipshod” investigation.
    Responding to the SGI’s ‘stellar’ performance at his official residence on 28th October 2010, veteran journalist Paranjoy Guha Thakurta has commented thus: “It is a very serious issue. There are powerful people who, on behalf of Raja, are trying to influence the judicial system. If this is true, it is highly condemnable.”

  4. Anjankumar says:

    சவுக்கு சங்கர், மிகவும் கஷ்ட காலத்தில் அவருக்கு ஆதரவாக நின்ற வக்கீல்கள் புகழேந்தி, ராதாகிருஷ்ணன் ஆகியோரிடம் கேட்கவும், கோபால் சுப்ரமணியம் நடு நிலையாகப் பாரபட்சம் இல்லாமல் தீர்ப்பு வழங்கக் கூடியவரா அல்லது கபில் சிபல், பி.சிதம்பரம் போலக் காங்கிரஸுக்குக் கண்மூடி ஜால்ரா அடிப்பவரா என்று கேட்கவும்.

    இப்போது கோபால் சுப்பிரமணியம் நல்ல நிலையில் இருக்கிறார். வருங்காலத் தேர்தலில் ராகுல் தலைமைஏற்று எம்.பி ஆகி மத்திய சட்ட அமைச்சர் ஆகி விடுவார், வாய்ப்புக்கு அவர் மோடிக்கு நன்றி சொல்ல வேண்டும் !

  5. Anjankumar says:

    சவுக்கு தனது புதிய நண்பர்கள் பேச்சைக் கேட்டுப் போக்கிரி வக்கீலுக்கு ஆதரவாக எழுத வேண்டாம்.

    கோபால் சுப்பிரமணியம் தனது வாழ் நாளில் ஏதாவது ஏழைக்கு வாதாடி இருக்கிறாரா என்று பார்க்கவும்.

  6. Anjankumar says:

    Please see here as to how Gopal Subramanian, Congress Party and Tehelka subverted judiciary in 2002 ! They played tricks to ensure that Justice Venkataswami resigns as the Presiding officer of the Enquiry Commission made to probe defense deals. They did this because the Commission’s report would have gone against their manipulated allegations against George Fernandes.

    History repeats!

    “தன்வினை தன்னைச் சுடும்
    வீட்டப்பம் ஓட்டைச் சுடும்” என்றார் பட்டினத்தார்.

    கோபால் சுப்ரமணியம் உத்தமர் அல்ல.
    அதிலும் காங்கிரசின் கூட்டாளி உத்தமராக இருக்க முடியுமா?

    http://www.rediff.com/news/2002/nov/26jaya.htm

    Jaya Jaitly accuses Tehelka, Cong of sabotaging probe

    Onkar Singh in New Delhi

    Former Samata Party chief Jaya Jaitly, who has been accused of accepting money from two tehelka.com journalists posing as arms dealers, has accused the Web site and the Congress party of sabotaging the Justice Venkataswamy commission probe by creating circumstances that forced the judge to resign.

    Justice Venkataswami was asked to look into allegations of corruption in defence deals after a sting operation by tehelka caught top politicians and defence officials demanding and accepting bribes on the camera.

    Justice Venkataswami tendered his resignation after opposition parties objected to his parallel appointment as the chairman of the Authority on Advance Ruling in Customs and Excise.

    Addressing a news conference in New Delhi on Tuesday, Jaitly claimed that a The Times of India report accusing the government of sabotaging the inquiry was incorrect.

    “I would like to bring to the notice of the public who these sources are that have spoon-fed information to The Times of India. They (Siddarth Luthra and Siddarth Aggarwal) are lawyers — one represented tehelka before the commission and the other acted on the commission’s behalf. Gopal Subramaniam, senior counsel, brought in Siddarth Aggarwal as one of the commission’s lawyers. This gentleman is an associate in the firm Luthra and Associates, which is owned by Siddharth Luthra and his wife Ketaki,” she said.

    Jaitly questioned the wisdom of Gopal Subramaniam bringing in Siddarth Aggarwal as the commission’s lawyer knowing that he worked with Siddarth Luthra, who was representing tehelka.

    “Gopal Subramaniam should have disclosed his (Siddarth Aggarwal’s) interest and sought the commission’s consent for his appointment,” she said.

    Jaitly claimed she had uncovered the links between the two lawyers by writing to Aggarwal under the fictitious identity of a company interested in buying land for a hospital in Haryana. “I wrote to Aggarwal, but got an answer from Luthra,” she said.

    ” I have done to tehelka what they did to me,” she said.

    Jaitly claimed that she had been working for over two months to trap the lawyers and decided to break her silence after Justice Venkataswami quit the office.

    Asked why she sat on the information for more than two months, she said she did not want to be blamed for derailing the commission.

    She added that if the commission’s report had gone against her, she could have come out with the information to show how the commission’s report had been manipulated.

    Jaitly claimed that Aggarwal had not posed any tough questions to tehelka journalists — Tarun Tejpal, Annirudha Bahal and Samuel Mathew — when they appeared before the commission. He also advised the commission to not go into the source of funding of call girls used in the sting operation.

    When contacted, Siddarth Luthra said Aggarwal has not been associated with his firm for two years now.

    “I know most of the lawyers working for the commission. Ms Jaitly’s lawyer Niloye Dutta briefed me on certain matters while I was advocating for tehelka.com. My sister Geeta Luthra is representing Ms Jaitly in a land case. I have known Siddarth Aggarwal both as a professional and a friend, but that does not mean that anyone of us has compromised our professional integrity,” he said.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.