IN THE HIGH COURT OF
JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
DISTRICT: MUMBAI
APPLICATION NO. (Lodg)
14 OF 2011
In
ELECTION PETITION No: EP / 1 OF 2009
In the matter of Election Petition under
Representation of the People’s Act 1951
And
In the matter of Articles 14, 19 and 226 of the
Constitution of India
Indur Kartar Chhugani
… Applicant
Age : 63 years, Occ. : Social work,
R/o. : 501-502, Pinky Panorama CHS Ltd.
6th Road, Khar (W), Mumbai - 400 052.
V E R S U S
Ms Priya Sunil Dutt
A-1002, 44, Imperial Heights, Zigzag Road,
Vandre West, Mumbai 400 050 ... Respondent
To,
Honourable the Chief Justice and
other Puisne Judges of this Hon’ble
High Court of Judicature at Bombay.
Most Respectfully Sheweth:
I, the Applicant, Indur Kartar Chhugani, son of
Late Mr.Kartar Chhugani, aged 63 years, resident
of 501/502 Pinky Panorama Co-operative Society,
6th Road, Khar (West) Mumbai- 400 052, falling in
the Mumbai North Central Parliamentary
constituency, do hereby state on oath and solemn
affirmation as under :-
1. This is an Application for
permission to Video Record proceedings of the
Petition in this Hon’ble Court in the
interest of transparency, fair play and Justice.
2. The Applicant states that under Article
14 of the Constitution of India, every citizen is
guaranteed equality before the law and the State
shall not deny to any person equality before the
law.
3. The Applicant states that since
respondent has appointed a former Judge of this
High Court Ex – Justice Shri A Kumbhakoni as
her counsel, Article 14 of the Constitution of
India has been forgotten by the Judges hearing
the trial of this petition. (Herein after
Justice Shri A Oka is referred to as the 1st
Judge and Justice Shri J H Bhatia as the 2nd
Judge).
4. The Petitioner does not expect and is
not willing to accept the Judges of this
Hon’ble Court acting in a partisan manner
towards their former brother Judge Ex Justice
Shri A Kumbhakoni, and is unwilling to accept
complete mis-carriage of Justice on account of
this relation, which is also violative of Article
14 of the Constitution – Equality before the
law for all citizens.
5. This Applicant / Petitioner is not
allowed to put forth his complete facts before
the court, only pleadings of Ex Justice Shri A
Kumbhakoni are heard. Apart from Article 14 this
also violates Artice 19(1) (a) that is “to
freedom of speech and expression”.
6. This Applicant has in a letter dated
17th August 2011 to the Chief Justice of India,
Supreme Court of India, outlined what has been
happening in the trial of Election Petition 1 of
2009 at the Bombay High Court since more than 2
years. Copy of letter to Supreme Court is ANNEXURE A
7. The Applicant states that the Election
Petition no 1 of 2009 was filed on 9-6-2009 i. e.
more than 2 years ago and attempts are being made
by Respondent with camouflaged yet evident help
from the Judges to delay the proceedings, so that
the respondent can complete the 5 year term. As
detailed below.
8. The Applicant states, that Application
no 25 of 2010 was filed on 13-9-2010, praying
basically for “production of Video
Recording of scrutiny process by Returning
Officer, so that the trial can be completed
speedily in 7 days”. Respondent
filed her Affidavit¬-in-reply on 21-9-2010,
arguments were heard immediately thereafter, but
order was delayed and passed only on 04-02-2011,
(i.e.
4 months later) requiring
Returning Officer to produce the video
recordings.
Respondent Ms Priya Dutt challenged this High
Court order of 04-02-2011 in the Supreme Court,
through ‘Special Leave Petition No 8143 of
2011’ and after Supreme Court dismissed this
SLP, Returning Officer who was in witness
stand and under oath submitted the 2 Compact
Discs of Video Recording on 13th April 2011 to
the High Court, the 2 Video Compact disk’s
were NOT EXHIBITED
and taken in evidence as a Electronic record by
the 1st Judge, though the
authenticity of recording was never in doubt.
The 1st Judge decided to recuse himself on 1st
July 2011 after Application 6 of
2011 was filed by petitioner on 30th June 2011.
Main prayer in application is “That,
this Hon’ble Court be pleased to order the
CDs to be marked and exhibited to meet the ends
of justice of this case”.
9. On 29th July 2011, (before the 2nd
Judge) the Returning Officer in Application 6 of
2011 submitted through his officer, a certificate
under section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act
confirming authenticity of the Video Recording,
but the 2nd Judge on that day was passing a order
in the same Application without taking on
record the said certificate or giving an EXHIBIT
NUMBER to the I. Certificate under 65B or II.
Video Recorded CDs already with court -
and thus did NOT accept the two
in evidence. And hence this Applicant objected
while the Judge was dictating order.
10. On 29th July 2011, the 2nd Judge has
passed a order, which has wrongly mentioned the
happenings in that court room, that day. (Order
copy in ANNEXURE A) Even words attributed to the
Petitioner while leaving court are incorrect,
actually the petitioner told the court while
leaving ‘You are trying to save
election of Priya Dutt by hook or by crook’.
It is humbly submitted that the acts of the Hon
Court are prejudicial to the interest of the
petitioner herein.
11. What happened in Court on 23rd June
2011, 24th June 2011 and 29th July 2011 is
detailed in ANNEXURE A and hence is not being repeated here.
12. The Applicant states, that most of what
has happened in this trial on 23rd June 2011 (
before the 1st Judge) and on 29th July 2011
(before the 2nd Judge) would never have happened,
if the proceedings were Audio or Video Recorded.
Details are in ANNEXURE A. To avoid such controversies petitioner
has moved this Application.
13.Video Recording is the best
evidence:
A. All proceedings of Parliament are Video
recorded now and also telecast live.
B. In recent times at Bombay High Court the trial
of terrorist Ajmal Kasab was conducted through
Video Conferencing, which would mean all that the
Judges have spoken during the trial have been
recorded and Supreme Court can therefore access
this video record, in case of any controversy.
C. ”It’s high time the police
authorities used technology such as videography
during raids, by which the actual time of the
raid can be known,” said a division bench of
justice P B Majmudar and justice R M Sawant of
Bombay High Court very recently.
D. As citizens walk on the streets of Mumbai, the
CCTV records their movements, just in case they
are needed to be probed later.
14. Considering the above facts and the fact
that the Respondent is a Powerful member of the
ruling Congress party, applicant makes the
following prayers.
PRAYERS
A. That in the fact and circumstances set out in
this application this Hon'ble Court be pleased to
grant permission to the applicant/petitioner to
video record the further proceedings in Election
Petition No 1 of 2009 at his own costs in the
interest of transparency, justice, equity and
fair play on such terms and conditions as this
Hon'ble Court may deem fit.
B. Petitioner to provide copies of video record
without any charge to this Court and the
Respondent.
C. For such other and further reliefs as may be
deemed necessary in the facts and circumstances
of the case.
VERIFICATION
I, Indur Kartar Chhugani, son of Late Mr. Kartar
Chhugani, Aged 62 years, resident of 501/502,
Pinky Panorama Co-operative Society, 6th Road,
Khar (West), Mumbai-400 052, do hereby solemnly
affirm and state that what is stated in the
foregoing paragraphs is true to my knowledge and
I believe the same to be true.
Solemnly affirmed at Mumbai
This 30th day of August 2011