(This
is a desperate appeal to the Supreme Court to direct
the Bombay High Court in the interest of transparecy,
fair play and Justice, to allow the video recording
of proceedings of this trial).
To,
Justice Shri. S H Kapadia,
Chief Justice Of India,
The Supreme Court Of India,
Delhi 110001.
Subject: Election Petition No 1 of
2009 filed on 05-06-2009 - Deliberate attempts by
Judges at Bombay High Court to delay final verdict.
(Hence this is an appeal to the Supreme Court to
direct the Bombay High Court to allow the video
recording of proceedings of this trial).
Respected Sir,
With deep anguish, I wish to bring to your kind
attention what has been happening in this Election
Petition at Bombay High Court, especially after the
Respondent Ms Priya Sunil Dutt appointed the
former Judge of this High Court Shri Ashutosh
Kumbhakoni as her counsel. I the petitioner has
been appearing In-Person very patiently in this
petition, since June 2009.
A. 13-04-2011 … Justice Shri
Abhay Oka received video recordings of the Nomination
and Scrutiny Process from the Returning Officer, who
was in the witness stand, but did not take them into
evidence as EXHIBIT. By treating video CDs as an
article, instead of an ‘electronic record’,
he deliberately created a situation whereby the video
recordings would not come to trouble the Respondent
Ms Priya Sunil Dutt. And Video Recording is the most
important evidence.
B. 23-6-2011 … On this day,
Justice Shri Abhay Oka almost muzzled me and
disallowed me, to put forth my arguments in my
Petition, though I was in a position to prove that my
Nomination Form was rejected improperly, on 5
different counts, independent of each other.
C. 30-6-2011 … I filed an
Application No 6 of 2011 for copy of the Video
Record. Stating, without taking into consideration
all available evidence, the trial would be rendered
ineffective as the video recording in CD form of the
Scrutiny of the Nomination Form goes to the root of
the matter and is without doubt one of the most
important evidence in this Election Petition No. 1 of
2009.
D. 01-07-2011 … Justice Shri
Abhay Oka recused himself and later Justice Shri J H
Bhatia was appointed by this Hon’ble Court. (
to save election of Ms Priya Sunil Dutt what Justice
Shri Abhay Oka did on 23-6-2011 and what Justice Shri
J H Bhatia did on 29-7-2011 is detailed below as
‘Event of 23rd and 24th June 2011 and
‘Event of 29th July 2011,)
E. 29-07-2011 … Application No
6 of 2011, concerning the video recordings was to be
heard. Once again while Shri Ashutosh Kumbhakoni was
allowed to put forth his pleadings, I was not allowed
to even read out the counter affidavit submitted by
me to the Hon’ble Justice Shri J H Bhatia. A
certificate under section 65B of the ‘Indian
Evidence Act’ pertaining to the video
recordings, was brought to the Court by an Officer of
‘Addl Collector and Competent Authority’
(former Returning Officer, who rejected my Nomination
form).
Justice Shri J H Bhatia, without taking on record
the ‘Certificate received under Section
65B’ and ‘Counter Affidavit’ filed by
me few minutes earlier, starting dictating order
which was NOT about Application 6 of 2011 but a new
issue raked up by Shri Kumbhakoni. Such an order,
had it been passed, would have compelled me to
challenge it in the Supreme Court, where it would
have taken atleast 2 years and Ms Priya Sunil Dutt
would by then have completed the 5 year term in
Parliament.
I the petitioner could clearly see, the purpose
behind this order and I protested, leading to
Hon’ble Justice Shri J H Bhatia dictating some
order about my behaviour and deciding to recuse
himself.
Event of 23rd and 24th
June 2011 before Justice Shri A Oka (Reproduced from Affidavit filed in
Court on 29th July 2011 and not taken on record )
1. 23rd June 2011 - After written
submissions were exchanged with the Respondent and
filed in court on 20th June 2011, I appeared for
Arguments on 23rd June 2011. However even before I
opened my mouth, I was confronted by the Hon’ble
Judge and asked to reply FIRST to some Judgement
Annexed by the Respondent as according to the judge a
certain Para of the judgement was going against my
case, I patiently explained to the Judge, that
particular Judgement I had seen even before I had
filed my petition in 2009 and it would be of no
consequence, after I explained the various Judgements
I had annexed. However the judge kept on hurling a
barrage of questions at me.
To deflect the pressure on me, I started explaining
from ‘Handbook for Returning Officers’ on
pg 19-58 of Petition, different Clauses of which, the
Returning Officer had deliberately contravened. At
the end, the Hon’ble Judge shocked me by saying “In
an Election Petition Handbook for Returning Officers
cannot be considered”.
I then jumped to the testimony of the 2 Returning
Officers (my witnesses), which was good enough to
prove, that my ‘Nomination Form was rejected
improperly’. However the Hon’ble judge
shocked me again, by saying “Oral testimony of Returning
Officers will not be taken into consideration and
cannot help you, as these people do not know the law,
which is for this Court to interpret”.It prompted me to ask“Then why did
court waste it’s own time and mine in recording
their testimony and how is it, that people who do not
know the law are made Returning Officers during the
Parliamentary Elections”.
Now desperate, I tried to invite the attention of the
Judge to the Supreme Court Judgement (‘Annexure
‘A’ in my submission), of RAKESH KUMAR
versus SUNIL KUMAR - Civil Appeal No 8695 of 1997,
decided on February 9, 1999, which again proved that
my Nomination Form was rejected IMPROPERLY as that
case was almost identical to my case. But the Judge
refused to let me read, stating that the Judgement
submitted by the Respondent was of a larger bench so
that will prevail. Fortunately at this stage, the
case was adjourned to 24th June 2011.
I reached home dejected, unable to
comprehend, how the Judge could suddenly take a U
turn on all issues and started to check the No of
Supreme Court Judges of the 7 Judgements I had
annexed, and was shocked to see that not all were of
smaller bench and the Judgement RAKESH KUMAR Versus
SUNIL KUMAR (1999) definitely
prevailed over Prahladdas Khandelwal Vs Narendra
Kumar (1972)- Submitted by
Respondent- As both were of 3 Judges bench. I
felt sick and could not sleep all night.
2. 24th June 2011 – After
consulting a Doctor on phone, I sent a SMS message to
a Court Official and Advocate Acharya of Respondent
on 9820035065 stating “I have severe pain in the
shoulders and general feeling of uneasiness and will
not be able to come to court today. Hence please
inform the Judge in the morning itself”. Mr
Acharya called me back within 5 minutes, on my number
9820171571 and pleaded with me to try coming to court
as the Judge was in a mood to pass fast order, when I
pleaded helplessness he said “If you
cannot come, send your wife, we will argue in her
presence and argue only what we have given you in
writing, nothing more”
Now this was shocking and made me feel more sick. ( Please
note- I will be getting the voice recording of my
mobile phone for 24-7-2011 from my service provider
VodaFone).
Event of 29th July 2011
before Justice Shri J H Bhatia (Reproduced from Precis to
Prothonotary Bombay HC dated 16th August 2011 )
Please bring to the Notice of the Chief Justice, the
following facts:
1. The order copy received ( copy attached) and order
passed in my presence by Justice Bhatia, to
which I objected is definitely not the same.
Justice Bhatia dictated in Application 6 of 2011
“Petitioner in Para 16 of the petition has
mentioned- I have obtained under Right to Information
Act a CD of the event of Nomination process, Video
recorded on 9.4.2009 by the Election Commission of
India and about Scrutiny on 11.4.2009. This can be
viewed by the Court – Petitioner is directed to
provide copies of these CDS …..”. At
this point I interrupted the Judge asking “how
you can pass such an order, after I have already
informed the Court today and many times before, that
CDs received through RTI in 2009 are unreadable and
today the Application no 6 of 2011 is for Petitioner
to receive copies of CDs received from Returning
Officer by this court on 13th April 2011 after
Supreme Court dismissed appeal by Priya Dutt and for
that the Certificate under Section 65B of Indian
Evidence Act from Returning Officer received today
MUST be taken on record FIRST”. Judge
did not take certificate on record.
My Prayers:
1. I the Petitioner has very patiently pursued this
Election Petition before Justice Shri Abhay Oka for
more than 2 years and am in a position to prove on
more than 5 different counts, independent of each
other, that ’my nomination form was rejected
improperly’ yet the Judges are making efforts,
to save election of Ms Priya Sunil Dutt by hook or by
crook, probably because they do not wish to invite
the ire of the ruling political party, the Congress
party.
2. Petitioner has realised, a effort is being made
in this High Court by Judges to delay proceedings, so
that Ms Priya Sunil Dutt completes her 5 year term.
3. Representation of People Act, Section 86 (6) (7)
is reproduced below:
(6) The trial of an
election petition shall, so far is
practicable consistently with the
interests of justice in respect of the
trial, be continued from day to day until
its conclusion, unless the High Court
finds the adjournment of the trial beyond
the following day to be necessary for
reasons to be recorded.
(7) Every election petition shall be
tried as expeditiously as possible and
endeavour shall be made to conclude the
trial within six months from the date on
which the election petition is presented
to the High Cour for trial. (Reasons are never recorded
for not hearing from day to day).
4. While I am the victim of
injustice and not being allowed to put forth my case,
a picture is being painted to show, that the
Petitioner is disrupting the proceedings of the
court. In such a situation I should be allowed to
arrange the Video Recording of proceedings in the
High Court (at my expense) of Election Petition No 1
of 2009, in the interest of transparency, fair play
and Justice. Thus atleast, the truth will emerge
about actions of Judges and this Petitioner in court,
which will be incontroversible because of the Video
Recording then available. Hence this is an appeal
to the Supreme Court to direct the Bombay High Court
to allow the video recording.
Petitioner undertakes to provide copies of
recordings, free to the High Court and the
Respondent.
Hope for immediate positive response, from the Apex
Court.