Monday, 5 May 2014

Copy of Contempt petition against Allahabad High Court Judges



Before the Learned Advocate General of Uttar Pradesh
sitting at the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow

Contempt Petition (Criminal)  No-                                  of 2014

In Re: Order of Hon’ble Justice Sunil Ambwani and Hon’ble Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya dated 11/04/2014 in Writ Petition Misc Bench No. 2967 of 2014

Dr Nutan Thakur                                                                         Petitioner

Versus
Hon’ble Justice Sunil Ambwani and another                     Respondents

Index


S No
Description of documents relied upon

Page No


From
To
1.
An application to grant permission


2.
Affidavit in support of application


3.
Annexure No-A
True copy of the contempt petition


4.
Copy of Identity Proof




Lucknow                                                                 Dr Nutan Thakur
Dated-03/05/2014                                            Petitioner In Person
                                                                                    # 94155-34525
                                                                                                           




Before the Learned Advocate General of Uttar Pradesh
sitting at the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow

Contempt Petition (Criminal)  No-                                  of 2014

In Re: Order of Hon’ble Justice Sunil Ambwani and Hon’ble Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya dated 11/04/2014 in Writ Petition Misc Bench No. 2967 of 2014

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dr Nutan Thakur, aged about 40 years wife of Sri Amitabh Thakur resident of 5/426, Viram Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow ---Petitioner

Versus
1.     Hon’ble Justice Sunil Ambwani, Hon’ble Judge of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court
2.      Hon’ble Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, Hon’ble Judge of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court  -----------                    Respondents

To,
            The Leaned Advocate General of Uttar Pradesh sitting at the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow
 The petitioner most respectfully submits application/petition as under:-
1.     That the full facts and circumstances of the case are contained in the accompanying affidavit and the Annexure A which forms part of this petition
2.     That on the basis of the accompanying affidavit and the Annexure A, it is highly expedient to kindly grant permission to the petitioner to move the petition for the contempt against Hon’ble Justice Sunil Ambwani and Hon’ble Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya as contemnors of this Hon’ble Court in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case

Prayer
Therefore, it is respectfully prayed that the Learned Advocate General may be pleased to kindly grant permission to the petitioner to move contempt petition against Hon’ble Justice Sunil Ambwani and Hon’ble Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya as the contemnors of this Hon’ble Court in the interest of justice.

Lucknow                                                                 Dr Nutan Thakur
Dated-03/05/2014                                            Petitioner in Person
                                                                                    # 94155-34525
                                                                                                           







Before the Learned Advocate General of Uttar Pradesh
sitting at the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow

Contempt Petition (Criminal)  No-                                  of 2014

In Re: Order of Hon’ble Justice Sunil Ambwani and Hon’ble Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya dated 11/04/2014 in Writ Petition Misc Bench No. 2967 of 2014

Dr Nutan Thakur                                                                         Petitioner

Versus
Hon’ble Justice Sunil Ambwani and another                     Respondents
AFFIDAVIT
I, Dr Nutan Thakur, aged about 40 years, w/o Sri Amitabh Thakur r/o 5/426, Viram Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow, religion Hinduism, education- MA, Phd, profession- Social activism the deponent, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under-
1.     That the deponent has gone through the entire petition and the copy of the contempt petition accompanied with this application is ready for perusal before the Learned Advocate General, may be read and considered sympathetically
2.     That the accompanied contempt petition is required to be considered and to be recommended to be granted permission to the deponent, otherwise the faith of the public at large in the higher judiciary might have a possibility of getting damaged. The true copy of the said contempt petition is being attached as Annexure A to this Affidavit.
3.     That on the basis of the facts and circumstances disclosed in the accompanying contempt petition (Annexure A), it is highly expedient to kindly grant permission to the deponent to move the contempt petition before the Lucknow bench of the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.

Lucknow                                                                 Dr Nutan Thakur
Dated-03/05/2014                                            Petitioner In Person
                                                                                    # 94155-34525
                                                                                                           
Verification
I, the deponent above named, do hereby verify that the contents of paragraphs 1 to 3 above this Affidavit are true and correct to my knowledge and belief. No part of it is false and nothing material has been concealed. So, help me God

Signed and verified this the                             day of                                    2014  at Lucknow
Deponent
Identification
I identify the deponent, on the basis of records produced before me, who has signed before me.
                                    Advocate

Solemnly affirmed me on                                 at                                am/pm by the deponent Nutan Thakur, who has been identified by Sri                              clerk to Sri                                       , Advocate, high court, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow
I have satisfied myself by examining the deponent that she understands the contents of this Affidavit which have been read over and explained to her by me
                                                                                                Oath Commissioner
In the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow

Contempt Petition (Criminal)  No-                                  of 2014

In Re: Order of Hon’ble Justice Sunil Ambwani and Hon’ble Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya dated 11/04/2014 in Writ Petition Misc Bench No. 2967 of 2014

Dr Nutan Thakur                                                                         Petitioner

Versus
Hon’ble Justice Sunil Ambwani and another                     Respondents

Index

S No
Description of documents relied upon

Page No


From
To
1.
List of Dates and Events (separate)
Separate

2.
Application for Contempt Petition


3.
Affidavit


4.
Annexure No C1
Copy of the order dated 11/04/2014 in Writ Petition (M/B) No 2967 of 2014


5.
Annexure No C2
Copy of article in barandbench


6.
Annexure No C3
Copy of the news articles related with contempt proceedings initiated against Hon’ble Chief Justice M G Mukherjee of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court


7.
Copy of the Identity Proof




Lucknow                                                                 Dr Nutan Thakur
Dated-03/05/2014                                            Petitioner In Person
                                                                                    # 94155-34525
In the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow

Contempt Petition (Criminal)  No-                                  of 2014

In Re: Order of Hon’ble Justice Sunil Ambwani and Hon’ble Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya dated 11/04/2014 in Writ Petition Misc Bench No. 2967 of 2014

Dr Nutan Thakur                                                                         Petitioner

Versus
Hon’ble Justice Sunil Ambwani and another                     Respondents

LIST OF DATES AND EVENTS


S No               Date                                                   Event                       
1.     11/04/2014                      The order passed in Writ Petition (M/B) 
                                                No 2967 of 2014

The various statements made by Hon’ble Justice Sunil Ambwani and Hon’ble Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya in the order dated 11/04/2014 passed in WP (M/B) No 2967 of 2014 comes as being prima-facie contemptuous of this Hon’ble Court and the Hon’ble Judges of this Hon’ble Court as shall be shown in details in the Memo of the contempt petition.
Hence this Contempt petition

Lucknow                                                                 Dr Nutan Thakur
Dated-03/05/2014                                            Petitioner In Person
                                                                                    # 94155-34525



In the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow

Contempt Petition (Criminal)  No-                                  of 2014

In Re: Order of Hon’ble Justice Sunil Ambwani and Hon’ble Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya dated 11/04/2014 in Writ Petition Misc Bench No. 2967 of 2014

Dr Nutan Thakur, aged about 40 years wife of Sri Amitabh Thakur resident of 5/426, Viram Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow ---Petitioner

Versus
1.     Hon’ble Justice Sunil Ambwani, Hon’ble Judge of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court
2.      Hon’ble Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, Hon’ble Judge of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court  -----------                    Respondents


Application under section 15 read with sections 3, 16 and other provisions of the Contempt of the Courts Act 1971 for prosecuting under criminal contempt
For the facts, reasons and circumstances as stated in the accompanied Affidavit, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly initiate the proceedings of criminal contempt against Hon’ble Justice Sunil Ambwani and Hon’ble Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya on its own and to summon, prosecute and punish them as respondents for their certain statements made in the order dated 11/04/2014 in Writ Petition Misc Bench No. 2967 of 2014, which come as being prima-facie contemptuous to this Hon’ble Court and its Hon’ble Judges, under various provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971, as shall be explained further.

Lucknow                                                                 Dr Nutan Thakur
Dated-03/05/2014                                            Petitioner In Person
                                                                                    # 94155-34525
In the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow

Contempt Petition (Criminal)  No-                                  of 2014

In Re: Order of Hon’ble Justice Sunil Ambwani and Hon’ble Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya dated 11/04/2014 in Writ Petition Misc Bench No. 2967 of 2014

Dr Nutan Thakur, aged about 40 years wife of Sri Amitabh Thakur resident of 5/426, Viram Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow ---Petitioner

Versus
1.     Hon’ble Justice Sunil Ambwani, Hon’ble Judge of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court
2.      Hon’ble Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, Hon’ble Judge of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court  -----------                    Respondents
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Affidavit in support of Application under section 15 read along with sections 3, 16 and other provisions of the Contempt of the Courts Act 1971
I, Dr Nutan Thakur, aged about 40 years, w/o Sri Amitabh Thakur r/o 5/426, Viram Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow, religion Hinduism, education- MA, Phd, profession- Social activism, the deponent state on oath as under-
1.     That the deponent is the applicant in this case and as such she is fully conversant with the facts of the case
2.     That the Contempt application is being made as regards certain statements made by Hon’ble Justice Sunil Ambwani and Hon’ble Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya in their order dated 11/04/2014 in Writ Petition Misc Bench No. 2967 of 2014.
3.     That this PIL had been filed by petitioner challenging the validity of the Special Protection Group Act 1988, (SPG Act, for short) enacted for the constitution and regulation of an armed force of the Union for providing proximate security to the Prime Minister of India and former Prime Minister of India and members of their immediate families and for matters connected therewith, mainly on the ground of inequality and discrimination under Article 14, where she based herself upon what this Hon’ble Court observed in its order dated 14/11/2011 in SLP(C) No.25237/2010 Abhay Singh vs State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. and SLP (C) No.23984/2010 Abhay Singh vs. Union of India & Ors and upon the order dated 02/12/2013 of the Hon’ble High Court in Writ Petition Misc Bench No 6509 of 2013 (Dr Nutan Thakur vs State of Uttar Pradesh and others)
4.     That the bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice Sunil Ambwani and Hon’ble Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya decided on the contrary and ordered-“4. We find that the writ petition is entirely baseless, and has been filed with an oblique purpose for seeking publicity”. The order dismissed the petition with cost of Rs.25,000. The Hon’ble Court also said that 10. In order to save this Court from the tsunami of writ petitions filed by the petitioner who appear almost every other day in Court touching matters which hits the headline, treating it as public interest, we find it appropriate to direct that hence forth the registry of the Court will not entertain any writ petition in public interest from Dr Nutan Thakur - either in person or though counsel (either as petitioner or co-petitioner) unless the petition, filed by her, accompanies a demand of Rs.25,000/- (Twenty Five Thousand)”. These being judicial orders based on the understanding of the facts and law by the Hon’ble Court, hence not being commented here and is not the subject matter of this contempt petition. A copy of this order dated 11/04/2014 is being attached as Annexure No C1.
5.     That it is this order dated 11/04/2014 that forms the basis for this criminal contempt petition because there are certain statements made in the order that prima-facie seem to come in the category of criminal contempt of this Hon’ble Court and its Hon’ble Judges. They include-“Almost all the writ petitions are filed without any research or material and based only on the newspaper reports” and “Most of the writ petitions, filed by the petitioner in person are not in public interest”, along with-“It appears from the records of the writ petitions and the orders that the petitioner has received a tacit encouragement in filing such petitions, which takes away substantial time of the Court leaving other important matters.”
6.     That the statements “Almost all the writ petitions are filed without any research or material and based only on the newspaper reports” and “Most of the writ petitions, filed by the petitioner in person are not in public interest” prima-facie come as being criminal contempt of this Hon’ble Court and its various Hon’ble Judges who heard the different PILs filed by the petitioner when one considers the fact that against what has been said by Hon’ble Justice Sunil Ambwani and Hon’ble Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, the records/orders of this Hon’ble Court in a very large number of the petitioner’s petitions prove it beyond doubt that a substantially large number of these petitions were actually entertained, at least in the initial stage, by the Hon’ble Court on various occasions, which stands quite opposed to what  Hon’ble Justice Sunil Ambwani and Hon’ble Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya stated in the order dated 11/04/2014, thereby bringing forth the point that these statements directly question the wisdom of the Hon’ble Court and the various Hon’ble Judges who heard these petitions, found them useful and/or related with larger public interest and either issued notices to the respondents to present counter-affidavit or seek instructions and bring facts before the Hon’ble Court or disposed off the petitions issuing useful directions to the respondents in light of the larger public interest and usefulness of the petitions.
7.     That what it means is that since both the facts as stated by Hon’ble Justice Sunil Ambwani and Hon’ble Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya (“Almost all the writ petitions are filed without any research or material and based only on the newspaper reports” and “Most of the writ petitions, filed by the petitioner in person are not in public interest”) and the response of the Hon’ble High Court on very large number of occasions when it entertained the petitioner’s petitions as they found them of larger interest or found them useful and relevant in other ways cannot be true at the same time, because these two facts (the above statements of Hon’ble Justice Sunil Ambwani and Hon’ble Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and the response of the Hon’ble High Court in entertaining the petitioner’s petitions and treating them in a positive manner by issuing directions, notices or seeking response etc) are completely opposed to each other in a manner that only one of them can hold true at one time. Thus the mutual exclusiveness and exact opposition of the two facts made it clear that one of these facts stands as being incorrect.
8.     That if only one of these facts (the above statements of Hon’ble Justice Sunil Ambwani and Hon’ble Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and the response of the Hon’ble High Court in entertaining the petitioner’s petitions and treating them in a positive manner by issuing directions, notices or seeking response etc) has to be true, as explained above, the second fact seems to stand at a much more higher probability of being true because the other than the above statements of Hon’ble Justice Sunil Ambwani and Hon’ble Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, the order dated 11/04/2014 has many other personal comments on the petitioner (for example- the petitioner “has been filed with an oblique purpose for seeking publicity”, “She appears in Court almost every day, for these matters”, “She has become a self-styled PIL specialist, and her name regularly appears in news papers”, “Even her husband, a serving IPS Officer of IG rank indulges in filing writ petitions in public interest numbering more than 20 upto the beginning of this month”, “She has also allowed her children, still minor in filing writ petitions”, -“She has become a self-styled PIL specialist”, “her name regularly appears in news papers” etc) which mostly come as being the personal opinion of the Hon’ble Judges, are often not based on facts and records, come through extraneous material and are also sometimes the personal opinion of the Hon’ble Judges. It is a universally recognized legal principle that any statement made on extraneous facts or based on personal opinion is not taken as a good judicial decision because justice invariably warrants substantial facts and proof on record and is clearly abhorrent to extraneous material, personal perception, newspaper opinions and other facts where the concerned party has not been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard, as has happened in this particular case, as can be seen from a perusal of the order dated 11/04/2014 where almost all the above observations against the petitioner are made often without any facts on record or based on extraneous material and without providing an opportunity to the petitioner to present her facts as regards the usefulness or otherwise of the various petitions filed by her and whatever opinion was formulated by the Hon’ble Judges was based solely on their having perused the records of the previous petitions of the petitioners in their chamber, without the petitioner being given an opportunity of being heard.
9.     That unlike these statements of the Hon’ble Judges in the order dated 11/04/2014, the various orders of the Hon’ble Court in a large number of petitions, as being presented in subsequent Para,  were made by benches consisting of different Hon’ble Judges, in open Court, at various points of time, in different cases filed by the petitioner, after having given the petitioner and the respondents’ counsel a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Thus, it seems quite obvious that all these larger number of orders given by different Hon’ble Judges at different times in different cases cannot stand incorrect compared to one single order dated 11/04/2014 which along with the alleged contemptuous statements also contain many such statements mentioned above which are not substantiated by documents, come as being based on extraneous sources and were also made without the petitioner being given an opportunity of being heard.
10.                       That the petitioner’s pleading would make more sense when she presents a brief glimpse of some of the important petitions filed by her which this Hon’ble Court entertained and/or issued appropriate directions. Many of these PILs are still pending before this Hon’ble Court, where in some of them exchange of documents has already taken place and the matter waits final hearing. In many other PILs, the respondents have not so far even filed the counter affidavit or presented the facts as directed by the Hon’ble Court.
11.                       That one of the first PILs filed by the petitioner was Writ Petition Miscellaneous Bench(WP M/B for short) No 11447 of 2010 as regards RTI fee of Rs. 500 being charged by the UP Vidha Sabha. The Hon’ble High Court issued notice to the respondent to file reply within 3 weeks which has not been filed so far and the matter is pending before the Hon’ble High Court. Another PIL was WP M/B No 9761 of 2010 as regards the Commonwealth games where again the Hon’ble High Court directed the respondents to file reply within a week. WP M/B No 10281 of 2010 was about excluding the Vigilance Department in the Uttar Pradesh government out of the purview of RTI Act, where initially notice was issued to the respondent but later the PIL was dismissed on ground of non-appearance of the petitioner’s counsel, which clearly shows that the Hon’ble Court did not find the matter as being without public interest or as being worthless. WP M/B No 1440 of 2010 was about vacancy of all top posts in Uttar Pradesh Hindi Sansthan where in consequence of the directions of the Hon’ble High Court, posts of the Executive Chairman and the Director of the Sansthan got filled. WP M/B No 2608 of 2011 was for anticipatory bail in state of Uttar Pradesh which the Hon’ble High Court disposed off after issuing certain important directions to the various respondents, where again the Hon’ble High Court did not find the matter frivolous. WP M/B No 1753 of 2011 was about the practice of the Information Commissioners in the Uttar Pradesh State Information Commission reviewing their own orders and waiving off the penalty imposed on Public Information Officers which the Hon’ble High Court disposed off while agreeing with the contention raised by the petitioner about reviewing power of various quasi-judicial and judicial authorities. WP M/B No 3028 of 2011 was about exorbitant rise in airfare by private airlines where after hearing before the Hon’ble Court, many other private and public Airlines were impleaded as respondents in this matter of large public interest and exchange of documents has taken place and the matter is at the final stage of hearing. WP M/B No 11842 of 2011 was about delay in investigation of certain cyber crimes which the Hon’ble High Court not only entertained but also gave valuable directions. WP M/B No 1574 of 2012 was for demanding CCTV cameras in the premises of CBI offices and their interrogation rooms which the Hon’ble High Court disposed off with directions to the petitioner to approach the Director CBI as regards her grievances, which the petitioner is still pursuing with CBI. WP M/B No 1999 of 2012 was about the State government order of arbitrarily granting lifetime drivers and peon to Cabinet Secretary keeping in mind a few specific officers, where the counsel of the State government admitted before the Hon’ble Court that many of the last minute decisions of the previous Council of Ministers were being reviewed and the State government later withdrew this contentious Government Order.  WP M/B No 2589 of 2012 was about alleged illegal and unauthorized colonies in various cities of Uttar Pradesh, the role of Development authorities in coming up of these colonies and the way to deal with them, which was positively dealt with by the Hon’ble High Court and is still under consideration. Similarly WP M/B No 2425 of 2012 was about the huge delay caused in disposal of arms licence applications in UP and the corruption and public inconvenience associated with them, where the Hon’ble High Court issued notice to the respondents to present the facts. WP M/B No 3153 of 2012 was about the Board of Cricket Control for India (BCCI) and the way it is flouting the various government guidelines where exchange of documents has already taken place and the matter is under final hearing stage. WP M/B No 3233 of 2012 was about non-arresting of certain powerful accused in the NRHM scam and almost immediately after filing of this PIL, many powerful accused in NRHM scam got arrested by the CBI. WP M/B No 3489 of 2012 was about non-compliance of certain Central government rules by various IT intermediaries which the Hon’ble High Court disposed off while agreeing with the petitioner’s arguments and issuing directions to the Central government to get the rules complied in letter and spirit. WP M/B No 3640 of 2012 was about irregularities in selling of various sugar mills in UP which is under active consideration before the Hon’ble High Court. WP M/B No 6053 of 2012 was about a partially built bridge in the remote areas of Shravasti district which the Hon’ble High Court considered and which resulted in the State government releasing funds to get the bridge completed. WP M/B No 7364 of 2012 was about the non-compliance of the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (PCPNDT) Act, 1994 which the Hon’ble High Court disposed off directing-“Since the effective implementation of PNDT Act is now being monitored by the Apex Court and several directions have already been issued, it would not be proper for this Court to continue monitoring the same matter through this public interest litigation because it would only be duplication of the same work and may result in passing of confusing or conflicting orders or directions.”  WP M/B No 8596 of 2012 was about the alleged dubious business deal related to DLF company and an individual where the Hon’ble High Court immediately sought response from the Prime Minister office and later disposed off the PIL as being inadequate in facts. WP M/B No 8820 of 2012 was against the alleged corrupt practices and misuse of public money adopted by Zakir Hussein trust working for handicapped people which the Hon’ble High Court entertained and is still pending before it. WP M/B No 9941 of 2012 was associated with the legal and constitutional issue related to continuity of governments and the random change in public policies without application of mind, which is still under consideration before this Hon’ble Court.  WP M/B No 7427 of 2012 is about the alleged misuse of funds and substandard work done in Lucknow by Lucknow Nagar Nigam under Jawaharlal Nehru Urban Renovation Mission which is under consideration before the Hon’ble High Court. WP M/B No 7596 of 2012 is about the exorbitantly high rates of certain drugs in India against the Government of India’s Drug policy which is also under consideration before the Hon’ble High Court. WP M/B No 290 of 2012 was about the indecent representation of women undergarments etc where the Government of India incorporated some of the suggestions and points raised in this PIL. WP M/B No 8658 of 2012 was about the Table of Precedence followed by the Government of India where the Hon’ble High Court issued directions to present a copy thereof before appropriate authority namely Union of India, by way of a representation for consideration and order. WP M/B No 259 of 2013 was about installing CCTV cameras in police stations of UP particularly in the women prison cell and the Police station office, so that women complainants feel safer to go to the police stations. The PIL is under consideration before the Hon’ble High Court. WP M/B No 360 of 2013 is about the adverse effect of posting of station officers in police stations on law and order and crime control, against the rules prescribed in this regards. This PIL is also under consideration before the Hon’ble High Court. WP M/B No 446 of 2013 was about the population explosion in India with a suggestion for adoption of two child norm which was disposed off by the Hon’ble High Court not on the issue of its being a frivolous matter where this Hon’ble Court headed by then Hon’ble Chief Justice Shiv Kirti Singh (now Hon’ble Justice of the Hon’ble Supreme Court) admitted that “No doubt the issue is of some significance for the country” though also staying that “All evils facing the country cannot be eradicated only by the State authorities or through law”. WP M/B No 834 of 2013 was about the opaqueness in Padma awards by the Government of India which was disposed off by the Hon’ble High Court in view of guidelines laid down by this Hon’ble Court in the matter of Balaji Raghavan & S.P. Anand Versus Union of India reported in (1996) 1 SCC 361, but the petitioner later pursued the matter with the Union of India. WP M/B No 882 of 2013 is about the non-compliance of section 25A of the Code of Criminal Procedure in Uttar Pradesh regarding appointment of Director of Prosecution which is under active consideration before the Hon’ble High Court. WP M/B No 1061 of 2013 is about completely arbitrary appointments by the State government in various Commissions of the State government, presently under consideration before the Hon’ble High Court. WP M/B No 1537 of 2013 is about compliance of defence production policy and the need for indigenization which was disposed off by the Hon’ble High Court but in whose compliance the petitioner pursued the matter with the Ministry of Defence and only recently she was intimated by the Ministry through its letter dated 02/04/2014 about formation of an independent Commission to work for further indigenization of defence products. WP M/B No 1587 of 2013 was about the need for special courts and public prosecutors under Protection of Children from Sexual offences Act 2012, under consideration before the Hon’ble High Court. WP M/B No 1748 of 2012 is about the improper exemption of Lokayukta office from the RTI Act as done by the State government where counter affidavit has been sought from the respondent. WP M/B No 2079 of 2013 is about the arbitrariness in the State compensation policy to different victims of crime and natural calamities where exchange of documents has already taken place. WP M/B No 2593 of 2013 is about the improper advertisements published by Sahara India Parivar where it made improper imputations on the Securities and Exchange Board of India and even made certain unwarranted comments on Hon’ble Justice B N Agrawal, a former Hon’ble Justice of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which is under consideration before the Hon’ble High Court. WP M/B No 2717 of 2013 is about the formation of Child Commission in India under the provisions of Protection of Child Rights Act 2005, under consideration before the Hon’ble High Court. WP M/B No 2732 of 2013 was about violation of Rule 27 by hundreds of Sales Tax officers so as to use political pressure for getting lucrative appointments which the Hon’ble High Court disposed off not as being a frivolous or unimportant issue but because “Public Interest Litigation would not lie in service matters, which is now a settled proposition of law”. WP M/B No 2973 of 2013 was about the violation of the Drugs and Magical remedies Act 1954 where the Hon’ble High Court directed the petitioner to move to the alternate forum of registering FIR before the police which was subsequently complied by the petitioner and the criminal case is under investigation by the Gomtinagar police station in Lucknow, UP. WP M/B No 3327 of 2013 was as regards certain media related policies which the Hon’ble High Court disposed off when the learned counsel for the respondents stated that the pending representation of the petitioner will be considered by the authorities within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order of this court and appropriate order on merit will also be passed. WP M/B No 3521 of 2013 was about improprieties in implementation of rules for using red beacon lights on vehicles which the Hon’ble Court disposed off not because of being a frivolous matter not of Public interest but because “the subject matter relating to the beacon light and use of siren etc. is already pending before Hon'ble the Apex Court, any ancillary matter connected therewith should not be entertained by this Court.” WP M/B No 3493 of 2013 was about vacancy of Vice Chancellor in RML National Law University while WP M/B No 3818 of 2013 was about vacancy of Vice Chancellor in three State Universities and both the petitions resulted in almost immediate appointments of the vacant posts. WP M/B No 4055 of 2013 is about illegal government control over State investigating agencies like Vigilance, Anti corruption, Economic offence wings, Crime Branch Criminal Investigation Department etc, which is under active consideration before the Hon’ble High Court. WP M/B No 6345 of 2013 is regarding the alleged illegalities in the Election Symbols (Reservation and allotment) Order 1968 vis-à-vis the representation of People’s Act 1951 and the Conduct of Election Rules 1961, which is under consideration before the Hon’ble High Court. WP M/B No 6178 of 2013 is regarding the misuse of national flag by four political parties where the Hon’ble High Court directed the election Commission to explain the facts. WP M/B No 6169 of 2013 is about the limit of election expenses during election, which is pending before the Hon’ble High Court. WP M/B No 6509 of 2013 is about misuse of state security personnel in which many important orders have been passed by the Hon’ble High Court. WP M/B No 6649 of 2013 is about illegal land mining in UP which is under consideration before the Hon’ble High Court. WP M/B No 7218 of 2013 about vacancy in UP State Human Rights Commission and WP M/B No 8497 of 2013 about vacancy in UP SC/ST Commission led to almost immediate filling of these important vacancies, being kept pending for long. WP M/B No 7674 of 2013 was about formation of definite regulatory bodies for so-called Babas, Godmen and astrologers, which the Hon’ble High Court refused to interfere with, though the petitioner is pursuing the matter with the Union of India. WP M/B No 7726 of 2013 is about quashing certain illegal provisions of the United Provinces High Courts (Amalgamation) Order, 1948, which is under consideration before the Hon’ble High Court. WP M/B No 8289 of 2013 about the Muzaffarnagar riots got transferred to the Hon’ble Supreme Court itself where the Hon’ble Supreme Court also considered this petition to pass its landmark order. WP M/B No 8155 of 2013 was about the non-compliance of the directions of the International Olympic Committee by the Indian Olympic Association where the active pursuance of the Hon’ble High Court resulted in the IOA complying with the IOC directions thereby saving the Indian sports from embarrassment. WP M/B No 7955 of 2013 is about cheating of investors by Sahara India parivar through Sahara Q shop, which is under consideration before the Hon’ble High Court. WP M/B No 9318 of 2013 was for compliance of section 29A of the Representation of Peoples Act 1951 by the various registered political parties and ensuring inner party democracy which the Hon’ble High Court refused to interfere at the same time agreeing with the main contention so as to state that “We may observe that howsoever desirable it may be for every political party to maintain inner-party democracy and to appoint its office bearers through elections” which shows the agreement of this Hon’ble Court to the public interest involved in the matter. WP M/B No 9587 of 2013 is about the way the Chief Minister is Uttar Pradesh does not put his own signature in the various government files and some other officer signs the files in the name of the Chief Minister. The Hon’ble High Court heard the matter on 30/10/2013 and reserved its order, which has not yet been pronounced. WP M/B No 9976 of 2013 is as regards media trials currently undertaken specially by electronic media which is under consideration before the Hon’ble High Court. WP M/B No 10159 of 2013 was about violation of rules in Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam by its Chairman Sri Mohammad Azam Khan which resulted in the Jal Nigam immediately revoking its illegal order the next date of filing of the PIL after which this Hon’ble Court dismissed the petition as the primary contention had been fulfilled. WP M/B No 10714 of 2013 is about the violation of Foreign Currency Regulation Act by various political parties which is under consideration before the Hon’ble High court though the petitioner has come to know that in a similar petition, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has passed an important judgement in tune with the prayers raised by the petitioner in her petition. WP M/B No 11796 of 2013 was for monitory support to the TB patients in the State of Uttar Pradesh in consonance with a plan being undertaken in the State of Tamil Nadu as being a fundamental right of these TB patients under Article 21 which the Hon’ble High Court refused to entertain as being a policy matter, not because it was not a matter of public interest and not because it was not a researched petition. WP M/B No 11985 of 2013 is for arrangement of public toilets in all colonies being brought up by development authorities, private colonizers etc, which is under consideration before the Hon’ble High Court. WP M/B No 279 of 2014 is for formation of a Majority Ministry in consonance with the Minority Ministry, particularly in light of Article 14 of the Constitution, which is under consideration. WP M/B No 329 of 2013 is about the long tour of many ministers of UP government to foreign nations and the associated issues related with administrative functioning, which is again under consideration before the Hon’ble High Court. WP M/B No 607 of 2014 is about the improper appointments and related conflict of interests in the various appointments made by the State government in different UP state electricity companies, in abject violation of the State power policies. This PIL was rejected on the ground of the credibility of petitioner No 2, one Sri Devendra Kumar Dixit, not being up to mark, not because it was not a matter of public interest and not because it was not a researched petition. WP M/B No 735 of 2014 is about the transfer/shift of place of Hon’ble Justice Dr Satish Chandra from Lucknow to Allahabad bench on extraneous pressure of the Oudh Bar association and its long-term harmful effects on judiciary which is presently under consideration before the Hon’ble Court. WP M/B No 1137 of 2014 was about government advertisements and wasteful expenses of public money of these advertisements which was disposed off by the Hon’ble High Court, though the petitioner has heard that almost similar matter has been taken up recently by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. WP M/B No 1602 of 2014 is for implementation of the provisions of Sexual harassment of women at workplace Act 2013 and WP M/B No 1767 of 2014 is about the poor implementation of section 4 of the RTI Act, both of which are presently under consideration before the Hon’ble High Court. WP M/B No 1890 of 2014 is about the big medical students strike in Uttar Pradesh in which the Hon’ble Court gave important instructions resulting in end of the doctors’ strike. WP M/B No 2098 of 2014 is about the appointment of government advocates in a completely arbitrary manner which was heard by the Hon’ble High Court and the order was reserved on 12/03/2014, whose pronouncement is awaited. WP M/B No 2530 of 2014 is about improper conduction of Teacher’s Eligibility Test (TET) against the Guidelines of the National Council of Teacher’s Education where the Hon’ble Court has sought reply from the State government. WP M/B No 2796 of 2014 is about the violation of mandatory rules framed by the Government of India by the Election Commission of India while transferring IAS and IPS officers in Uttar Pradesh during the election period where the Hon’ble High Court did agree that these rules are mandatory but was of the opinion that the Election Commission is entitled to violate these rules under its plenary powers bestowed in Article 324 of the Constitution. Thus here again the Hon’ble Court did not state that it was not a matter of public interest and it was not a researched petition.  WP M/B No 2923 of 2014 is about appointment of new Lokayukta in UP about which the Hon’ble Supreme Court very recently directed to appoint a new Lokayukta within 6 months, which to a great extent endorses the issue agitated by the petitioner. WP M/B No 3170 of 2014 was recently filed by the petitioner to ensure complete compliance of the Uttar Pradesh Dowry Prohibition Rules, 1999, which the same bench which passed the impugned order dismissed ex-parte, though agreeing that “ The fact of ills of dowry prevailing in the society and its effect on society need not be emphasized”
12.                       That the above description makes it very apparent that a substantial fraction of the petitioner’s petitions have been entertained by the Hon’ble Court, which suo-motu establishes the fact that there was substance in these petitions and completely disproves the Hon’ble Judges’ statement, as stated above. Even among the list of 86 cases quoted in the impugned order, 35 are shown pending, which means that they were entertained at least in the preliminary stage by this Hon’ble Court, which again means that this Hon’ble Court found the petition to be of public interest and also agreed that some relevant facts worth considering had been raised in these petitions. Among the rest which have been disposed off, there were some which were dismissed after a few hearings as they had yielded the desired results sought in the petition. This list also contains 6 contempt petitions which means that prior to filing of the contempt petition, some order had been passed by this Hon’ble Court in acceptance of the points presented by the petitioner.
13.                       That hence, the statements mentioned above made by Hon’ble Justice Sunil Ambwani and Hon’ble Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya as regards public interest of the writ petitions and their research and content quality gets clearly disproved.
14.                       That the next question that arises is-“how does these incorrect/non-factual statements (“Almost all the writ petitions are filed without any research or material and based only on the newspaper reports” and “Most of the writ petitions, filed by the petitioner in person are not in public interest”) come in the category of criminal contempt of this Hon’ble Court?
15.                       That here it needs to be kindly noted that if these imputations were limited merely to the petitioner, it would have been a different thing. But the fact remains that these imputations of the petitions being without public interest and being without any appropriate content and research etc no longer remained limited to the petitioner but it directly raises questions on the wisdom of this Hon’ble Court and the various Hon’ble Judges who heard all these petitions from time to time, and either entertained them or even if dismissing the petition, agreed to the fact that there were some substantial question of public interest involved in these petitions. Thus these statements amount to contempt of this Hon’ble Court because these statements are not against the petitioner or her petitions but are against the orders of this Hon’ble Court in various petitions, because the Hon’ble Judges made these statements only after going through the records of these petitions along with the orders made on these petitions, as stated in Para 8 of the order (“It appears from the records of the writ petitions and the orders”).
16.                       That section 2 (c)   of the Contempt of the Courts Act 1971 defines criminal contempt as under-  “criminal contempt” means the publication (whether by words, spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise) of any matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever which— (i) scandalizes, or tends to scandalize, or lowers or tends to lower the authority of, any court; or  (ii) prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with, the due course of any judicial proceeding; or (iii) interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner”
17.                       That it can be easily seen that the statements made by the Hon’ble Judges as regards the various petitions filed by the petitioner come in all the above three categories of criminal contempt as explained in the above Para and as being explained subsequently.
18.                       That the publication definitely scandalizes, or tends to scandalize, or lowers or tends to lower the authority of, this Hon’ble Court because while the truth is that at least 36 petitions out of 86 quoted in the order (along with at least 6 of the contempt petitions which must have previously been entertained by the Hon’ble Court to lead to filing of contempt petition) were actually entertained, at least in the initial stages by this Hon’ble Court, the Hon’ble Judges, Hon’ble Justice Sunil Ambwani and Hon’ble Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, make a direct imputation on this Hon’ble Court and the various Hon’ble Judges who heard these matters, entertained them and found them worthwhile to call for reply by the State respondents by saying that-“ Almost all the writ petitions are filed without any research or material and based only on the newspaper reports” and “ Most of the writ petitions, filed by the petitioner in person are not in public interest.”
19.                       That it is pretty obvious to understand that if “Almost all the writ petitions are filed without any research or material and based only on the newspaper reports” and “Most of the writ petitions, filed by the petitioner in person are not in public interest” as imputed by these Hon’ble Judges, then entertaining at least 36+6=42 petitions by this Hon’ble Court, which comes as around 50% of the total petitions mentioned in the impugned order clearly scandalizes, or tends to scandalize, or lowers or tends to lower the authority of this Hon’ble Court because what it says is that this Hon’ble Court and those Hon’ble Judges completely failed in their duty while hearing the petitioner’s petition and while the petitions were completely useless, these Hon’ble Judges still entertained these petitions.
20.                       That with due regard, hence this comment is not a comment against the petitioner but a direct questioning of the wisdom and justice of this Hon’ble Court and its various Hon’ble Judges who heard these petitions and considered them worth considering, so as to call for response from the State government or to issue other appropriate directions.
21.                       That thus these imputations on the Hon’ble Judges comes under the category of lowering the authority of this Hon’ble Court and scandalizing this Hon’ble Court because two things cannot simultaneously be true- As many as half of the large number of petitions (around 40 out of 86 mentioned in the order) being entertained by this Hon’ble Court as done by various Hon’ble Judges from time to time and the petitions being without any public interest and without being any research and material etc, as imputed by the Hon’ble Judges.
22.                       That as stated and proved beyond reasonable doubt, the possibility that not all these Hon’ble Judges were off the mark and unwise in their judgements all the time as directly implied in the order dated 11/04/2014 being much more higher than the one-time statements made in the order dated 11/04/2014, leads to the only direct inference that the two Hon’ble Judges made above incorrect statements leading to completely wrong inference about this Hon’ble Court and its various Hon’ble Judges which not only scandalize this Hon’ble Court but also tends to lower its honour and respect.
23.                       That this fact can be understood from the numerical proportion of petitions entertained by the Hon’ble Court as well as by the details of the various petitions entertained by the Hon’ble Court as narrated by the petitioner in above Para which makes it very clear that many-many petitions of the petitioner were actually entertained by this Hon’ble Court from time to time as against what the Hon’ble Judges said in the order dated 11/04/2014, leading to the only conclusion that the Hon’ble Judges who actually entertained these petitions erred on their side time and again, a fact which has a direct correlation with questioning the wisdom of these Hon’ble Judges.
24.                       That hence it is prayed that the above statement, though being apparently aimed at the petitioner, but being such as to lead to very direct inference related to the orders passed by the Hon’ble Court on various occasions, comes under the category of criminal contempt of this Hon’ble Court as questioning the wisdom of this Hon’ble Court and lowering its respect
25.                       That these statements also come under the category-“(ii) prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with, the due course of any judicial proceeding; and (iii) interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner.”
26.                       That it is because when two Hon’ble Judges of the same Hon’ble Court where at least 36 of petitions, even as per the list provided in the order itself are still pending, issue a blanket statement that “Almost all the writ petitions are filed without any research or material and based only on the newspaper reports” and “Most of the writ petitions, filed by the petitioner in person are not in public interest”, it has the ability and direct possibility to prejudice the minds of the Hon’ble Judges before whom these petitions are going to be heard because these words don’t come from an ordinary person but from the Hon’ble Judges of this Hon’ble Court and hence as companion Hon’ble Judges, the Hon’ble Judges might have a strong possibility of getting influenced by the definite statement made by the Hon’ble Judges about the worthiness or otherwise and the quality of the petitions filed by the petitioner.
27.                       That such a direct influence on the pending petitions and their quality, texture and worthiness by the Hon’ble Judges comes under the category of (ii) prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with, the due course of any judicial proceeding; and (iii) interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner, as has been explained above because all these large number of pending petitions no longer remain uncommented but have a direct comment attached to them by persons of such constitutional stature as the Hon’ble Judges of this Hon’ble Court which has a very great possibility to adversely affect the future course of justice when these pending petitions are subsequently heard before this Hon’ble Court.
28.                       That other than these, Hon’ble Justice Sunil Ambwani and Hon’ble Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya also said-“It appears from the records of the writ petitions and the orders that the petitioner has received a tacit encouragement in filing such petitions, which takes away substantial time of the Court leaving other important matters.”
29.                       That this statement was analyzed in details in an article “Allahabad HC fortifies itself against writ petitions ‘tsunami’ of Dr Nutan Thakur” dated 17/04/2014 by Sri Anuj Agarwal in website barandbench.com on the webpage http://barandbench.com/content/212/allahabad-high-court-fortifies-itself-against-%E2%80%9Ctsunami-writ-petitions%E2%80%9D-nutan-thakur#.U2H5laIt7zY  when it said-“Interestingly the High Court also criticized its own judges, saying that-“some of the petitions have received the ‘tacit encouragement’ of the High Court itself. However the order does not examine this encouragement in greater detail” and “moving away from the specifics of the case, the order also raises several significant issues including distinguishing frivolous from non-frivolous litigations, the administrative powers of the High Court vis-à-vis the High Court registry and even the role of judiciary in encouraging frivolous petitions, something that is merely hinted at in the order.” A copy of the barandbench article is being attached as Annexure No C2.
30.                       That the above words in the article make it pretty obvious that the comment made by Hon’ble Justice Sunil Ambwani and Hon’ble Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya about the tacit encouragement has only one meaning- that of making adverse comment against one or more of the Hon’ble Judges of this Hon’ble Court for having allegedly given tacit support to the petitioner. This is the only logical conclusion of the above statement because the conclusion has been made after perusing not only the records of the writ petitions, but also the orders made in these petitions, which are made only by the Hon’ble Judges. Thus, this statement has only one possible meaning- that one or more Hon’ble Judges were in tacit support of the petitioner to file all kind of useless petitions that resulted in huge loss of this Hon’ble Court’s time. It is needless to say that there could not have been any more grave allegation against any Hon’ble Judge of this Hon’ble Court which questions the very integrity and truthfulness of the Hon’ble Judge who is alleged to have stooped to a level as to provide tacit encouragement to the petitioner, a conclusion so apparent in itself that the same was also concluded in barandbench.
31.                       That it is not that the statements of Hon’ble Justice Sunil Ambwani and Hon’ble Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya about the uselessness of the petitioner’s petitions are limited to other Hon’ble Judges. These statements cover in their realm the bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice Sunil Ambwani and Hon’ble Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya between 07/04/2014 to 10/04/2014 as well. This is because on 07/04/2014, the first date of sitting of this Bench, WP M/B No 6509/2013 came for hearing before this Hon’ble Bench and this Hon’ble Bench found the PIL extremely relevant and useful for larger public interest, passing a very long order. On 07/04/2014 itself, a fresh case WP M/B No 2923/2014 was heard by this Hon’ble bench which it directed to be heard again on 09/04/2014. On 07/04/2014 another WP M/B No - 2530 of 2014 was heard by this Hon’ble bench which found the PIL very pertinent and hence directed-“Shri Mukund Madhav Asthana, learned counsel appearing for National Council for Teachers' Education states that the meeting of the Council is scheduled on 9th April, 2014. He prays for a short adjournment to apprise the Court with the minutes of the meeting of the Council, which is to consider one of the issues raised in the writ petition. List on 22.4.2014 showing the names of Shri Mukund Madhav Asthana and Shri Prashant Arora as counsels for respondents.” Again on 09/04/2014, this Hon’ble bench heard WP M/B No 2923/2014 and finding the matter useful and pertinent made the following directions-“Learned Standing Counsel informs that the matter in issue is likely to be heard by the Supreme Court, which has arisen from the writ petitions filed at Allahabad. Let the matter come up on 01.05.2014 awaiting the decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court.” Hence the impugned order dated 11/04/2014 where Hon’ble Justice Sunil Ambwani and Hon’ble Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya state the writ petitions of the petitioner as being without public interest and without any material etc comes as being a comment against the above-mentioned Hon’ble bench of the Hon’ble Court as well which sat between 07/04/2014 to 10/04/2014 in Court No 1 of the Hon’ble High Court.
32.                       That before ending the matter, a few more issues need to be kindly presented. The first is as regards section 16(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act. It says-“Contempt by Judge, Magistrate or other person acting judicially.—(1) Subject to the provisions of any law for the time being in force, a Judge, Magistrate or other person acting judicially shall also be liable for contempt of his own court or of any other court in the same manner as any other individual is liable and the provisions of this Act shall, so far as may be, apply accordingly.”
33.                       That from the above section, it is very clear that the Hon’ble Judges are as much liable to the contempt of their own Hon’ble Court or any other Hon’ble Court as any other individual. This fact was also stated in Baba Abdul Khan S/O Daulat Khan vs Smt. A.D. Sawant, J.M.F.C (1994 CriLJ 2836), where the Hon’ble Bombay High Court said-“There is no need to mention that before the law everybody is equal. Section 16(1) of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 is very clear that the provisions of the Act are applicable even to Judge, Magistrate, etc."
34.                       That there is hence at least one precedence as well in this regards. Hon’ble Justice B G Sethna had issued a show cause notice to Hon’ble Chief Justice M G Mukherjee of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court for ''contempt of court'' on 15/09/1997. His directive came as he felt the Hon’ble chief justice ''had caused a delay in judicial work'' by transferring a public interest litigation (on the allotment of houses to judges) out of Hon’ble Justice Sethna's jurisdiction. The Hon’ble Supreme Court later stayed the operation of this order but did not exactly quash it, which means that the Hon’ble Supreme Court also accepted the legality of contempt proceedings initiated against a Hon’ble High Court Judge. In fact, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had refused to entertain a Special Leave Petition filed by the Rajasthan Government challenging Hon’ble Justice Sethna's contempt notice against the Hon’ble Chief Justice, and granted a stay after the Hon’ble Chief Justice himself moved the SLP. The matter was later referred to a three-judge Bench of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court. A copy of the news articles presenting these facts is also being attached as Annexure No C3.
35.                       That the order through which the criminal contempt was made was passed on 11/04/2014 from which date the criminal contempt began.
36.                       That hence based on all the above facts, the petitioner prays before this Hon’ble Court to kindly take cognizance of the above facts and initiate the process of criminal contempt against Hon’ble Justice Sunil Ambwani and Hon’ble Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya for the reasons stated as above.

Lucknow                                                                             (Nutan Thakur)
Dated-03/05/2014                                                       Petitioner In person

Verification
That the contents of the paragraphs  
 of the Contempt petition are true to my personal knowledge,
based on documents and records and believed to be true and
are based on legal advice.
That the contents of Annexure No C1-C3 of the Contempt Petition are true copies of their original documents. No part of it is false and nothing material has been concealed. So, help me God

Lucknow                                                                             (Nutan Thakur)
Dated-03/05/2014                                                       Petitioner In person

Signed and verified this the                             day of                                    2014  at Lucknow
Deponent
Identification
I identify the deponent, on the basis of records produced before me, who has signed before me.
                                    Advocate

Solemnly affirmed me on                                 at                                am/pm by the deponent Nutan Thakur, who has been identified by Sri                              clerk to Sri                                       , Advocate, high court, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow
I have satisfied myself by examining the deponent that she understands the contents of this Affidavit which have been read over and explained to her by me
                                                                                    Oath Commissioner











HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH

Court No. - 1

Case :- MISC. BENCH No. - 2967 of 2014

Petitioner :- Dr. Nutan Thakur [P.I.L.]
Respondent :- Union Of India Through Secy.Ministry Of Home Affairs,N.Delhi
Counsel for Petitioner :- Dr.Nutan Thakur (Inperson
Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.,Alok Mathur

Hon'ble Sunil Ambwani,J.
Hon'ble Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya,J.
1. We have heard Dr. Nutan Thakur, the petitioner appearing in person in this public interest litigation. Sri Alok Mathur appears for respondents. 
2. By this writ petition, filed in public interest, Dr. Nutan Thakur, appearing in person, has challenged the validity of the Special Protection Group Act 1988, enacted for the constitution and regulation of an armed force of the Union for providing proximate security to the Prime Minister of India and former Prime Minister of India and members of their immediate families and for matters connected therewith.
3. It is alleged that providing security under the Special Protection Group Act to the Prime Minister, former Primer Ministers and their immediate family members is discriminatory as it provides for protection to a limited set of people, in all circumstances whether they actually need or deserve such protection or not; it is thus prima facie ultra vires to Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The Central Government is required to follow a policy where security needs of Prime Ministers, Ex-Prime Ministers and their family members is evaluated on a case to case basis through any prescribed method. There are large number of persons who are important to the country and are holding constitutional posts. They also require similar protection.
4. We find that the writ petition is entirely baseless, and has been filed with an oblique purpose for seeking publicity. The petitioner does not appear to have the locus and understanding of the importance of security which is required to be provided to the Prime Minister, former Primer Ministers and their family members. After assassination of the former Prime Ministers of the country, the Special Security Group Act was enacted, to protect the highest public executive functionary of the country from threats extended by terrorist organizations. The importance of this Act cannot be overstated. The Act itself provides in the proviso to Section 4 (1) and Section 4(1A) of the assessment of level of threat periodically for continuing the security and the guidelines for such assessment. We thus find the challenge of the Act, as ultra vires to Article 14 of the Constitution of India, is entirely baseless and frivolous.
5. We are informed, and are confirmed by Dr. Nutan Thakur - the petitioner appearing in person that she has filed about 140 writ petitions under the category of public interest litigation. She appears in Court almost every day, for these matters. She has become a self-styled PIL specialist, and her name regularly appears in news papers. Some of the writ petitions filed by the petitioner have been entertained by this Court. Even her husband, a serving IPS Officer of IG rank indulges in filing writ petitions in public interest numbering more than 20 upto the beginning of this month. Together the petitioner and husband have filed 160 writ petitions in purported public interest matters in last three to four years
6. The Registry has supplied a list of 86 cases, which have been filed by the petitioner Dr. Nutan Thakur in person, in which she is the first petitioner, which is extracted as under:-
Sl no. Case No./Year Pet Adv Res Adv Status[Last Listed]
=======================================================================
1. CONT 1998-2010 NUTAN THAKUR C S C Disposed[04/01/2011]
2. CONT 1097-2012 DR.NUTAN THAKUR(IN PERSON Disposed[16/05/2012]
3. CONT 1170-2012 DR.NUTAN THAKUR(INPERSON) Disposed[23/05/2012]
4. CONT 2739-2012 DR.NUTAN THAKUR(INPERSON) Disposed[18/10/2012]
5. CONT 935-2013 NUTAN THAKUR (IN PERSON) K K SHARMA Disposed[08/07/2013]
6. CONT 2865-2013 DR NUTAN THAKUR (INPERSON Pending[24/02/2014]
7. MISB 8305-2010 NUTAN THAKUR (INPERSON ) MANISH KUMAR Disposed[25/08/2010]
8. MISB 11447-2010 NUTAN THAKUR (INPERSON) P.N.GUPTA Pending[15/02/2011]
9. MISB 11842-2011 DR.NUTAN THAKUR [INPERSON G.A. Disposed[04/07/2013]
10. MISB 479-2012 DR.NUTAN THAKUR(IN PERSON A.S.G. Disposed[17/01/2012]
11. MISB 1361-2012 DR.NUTAN THAKUR (INPERSON O.P.SRIVASTAVA Disposed[16/02/2012]
12. MISB 1574-2012 DR.NUTAN THAKUR (INPERSON A.S.G. Disposed[26/03/2012]
13. MISB 1949-2012 DR.NUTAN THAKUR A.S.G. Disposed[15/03/2012]
14. MISB 1999-2012 DR.NUTAN THAKUR (INPERSON C.S.C. Disposed[26/03/2012]
15. MISB 2425-2012 DR.NUTAN THAKUR (INPERSON C.S.C. Pending[15/10/2012]
16. MISB 2589-2012 DR.NUTAN THAKUR(INPERSON) C.S.C. Pending[15/10/2012]
17. MISB 2685-2012 DR.NUTAN THAKUR(INPERSON) A.S.G. Disposed[10/04/2012]
18. MISB 3233-2012 DR.NUTAN THAKUR[INPERSON] BIRESHWAR NATH Disposed[01/05/2012]
19. MISB 3640-2012 DR.NUTAN THAKUR(IN PERSON C.S.C. Pending[01/01/1900]
20. MISB 6053-2012 DR.NUTAN THAKUR(IN PERSON C.S.C. Pending[16/10/2012]
21. MISB 7364-2012 DR.NUTAN THAKUR [INPERSON C.S.C. Disposed[15/07/2013]
22. MISB 7427-2012 DR.NUTAN THAKUR[INPERSON] C.S.C. Pending[29/08/2013]
23. MISB 7596-2012 DR.NUTAN THAKUR(IN PERSON A.S.G. Pending[15/10/2012]
24. MISB 9431-2012 DR.NUTAN THAKUR (INPERSON A.S.G. Disposed[08/11/2012]
25. MISB 133-2013 DR.NUTAN THAKUR (INPERSON C.S.C. Disposed[08/01/2013]
26. MISB 259-2013 DR.NUTAN THAKUR[INPRSON] C.S.C. Pending[19/04/2013]
27. MISB 360-2013 DR.NUTAN THAKUR (INPERSON C.S.C. Pending[23/04/2014]
28. MISB 446-2013 DR.NUTAN THAKUR (INPERSON A.S.G. Disposed[21/01/2013]
29. MISB 834-2013 DR.NUTAN THAKUR (INPERSON A.S.G. Disposed[30/01/2013]
30. MISB 882-2013 DR.NUTAN THAKUR (INPERSON GOVT.ADVOCATE Pending[05/10/2013]
31. MISB 1147-2013 DR NUTAN THAKUR (INPERSON C.S.C. Disposed[14/02/2014]
32. MISB 1587-2013 DR.NUTAN THAKUR (INPERSON C.S.C. Pending[02/05/2013]
33. MISB 1748-2013 DR.NUTAN THAKUR (INPERSON C.S.C. Pending[22/08/2013]
34. MISB 2174-2013 DR.NUTAN THAKUR (INPERSON A.S.G. Disposed[13/03/2013]
35. MISB 2717-2013 DR.NUTAN THAKUR (INPERSON C.S.C. Pending[02/09/2013]
36. MISB 2732-2013 DR.NUTAN THAKUR (INPERSON C.S.C. Disposed[03/04/2013]
37. MISB 3327-2013 DR.NUTAN THAKUR (INPERSON A.S.G. Disposed[23/04/2013]
38. MISB 3493-2013 DR.NUTAN THAKUR (INPERSON C.S.C. Pending[01/01/1900]
39. MISB 3572-2013 DR.NUTAN THAKUR (INPERSON C.S.C. Disposed[30/04/2013]
40. MISB 3818-2013 DR.NUTAN THAKUR (INPERSON C.S.C. Pending[17/04/2014]
41. MISB 3885-2013 DR.NUTAN THAKUR (INPERSON C.S.C. Disposed[13/05/2013]
42. MISB 4574-2013 DR.NUTAN THAKUR (INPERSON Disposed[01/07/2013]
43. MISB 5927-2013 DR.NUTAN THAKUR (INPERSON C.S.C. Disposed[11/07/2013]
44. MISB 6509-2013 DR.NUTAN THAKUR (INPERSON C.S.C. Pending[01/01/1900]
45. MISB 7218-2013 DR.NUTAN THAKUR (INPERSON C.S.C. Disposed[28/10/2013]
46. MISB 7295-2013 DR.NUTAN THAKUR (INPERSON Pending[ / / ]
47. MISB 7674-2013 DR.NUTAN THAKUR (INPERSON A.S.G. Disposed[03/09/2013]
48. MISB 7955-2013 DR.NUTAN THAKUR (INPERSON A.S.G. Pending[ / / ]
49. MISB 8497-2013 DR.NUTAN THAKUR (INPERSON C.S.C. Disposed[24/09/2013]
50. MISB 8502-2013 DR.NUTAN THAKUR (INPERSON Disposed[19/09/2013]
51. MISB 8764-2013 DR.NUTAN THAKUR (INPERSON C.S.C. Disposed[25/09/2013]
52. MISB 8802-2013 DR.NUTAN THAKUR[INPERSON] A.S.G. Disposed[25/09/2013]
53. MISB 9318-2013 DR.NUTAN THAKUR (INPERSONMANISH MATHUR Disposed[07/10/2013]
54. MISB 9493-2013 DR NUTAN THAKUR (INPERSON C.S.C. Pending[28/01/2014]
55. MISB 9587-2013 DR.NUTAN THAKUR (INPERSON C.S.C. Pending[08/11/2013]
56. MISB 9976-2013 DR NUTAN THAKUR(INPERSON) A.S.G. Pending[12/12/2013]
57. MISB 10159-2013 DR.NUTAN THAKUR (INPERSON C.S.C. Disposed[30/10/2013]
58. MISB 10714-2013 DR.NUTAN THAKUR (INPERSON A.S.G. Pending[27/01/2014]
59. MISB 10734-2013 DR.NUTAN THAKUR (INPERSON A.S.G. Disposed[19/11/2013]
60. MISB 10994-2013 DR.NUTAN THAKUR (INPERSON Disposed[26/11/2013]
61.MISB 11325-2013DR.NUTAN THAKUR (INPERSON LALIT SHUKLA Disposed[04/12/2013]
62. MISB 11796-2013 DR.NUTAN THAKUR (INPERSON C.S.C. Disposed[17/12/2013]
63. MISB 480-2014 DR.NUTAN THAKUR (INPERSON A.S.G. Pending[17/02/2014]
64. MISB 607-2014 DR.NUTAN THAKUR (INPERSON C.S.C. Disposed[29/01/2014]
65. MISB 624-2014 DR.NUTAN THAKUR (INPERSON A.S.G. Disposed[29/01/2014]
66. MISB 649-2014 DR.NUTAN THAKUR (INPERSON C.S.C. Disposed[11/02/2014]
67. MISB 735-2014 DR.NUTAN THAKUR (INPERSON S.M.RAYEKWAR Pending[ / / ]
68. MISB 1137-2014 DR.NUTAN THAKUR[INPERSON] A.S.G. Disposed[19/02/2014]
69. MISB 1239-2014 DR.NUTAN THAKUR (INPERSON A.S.G. Disposed[14/02/2014]
70. MISB 1518-2014 DR.NUTAN THAKUR (INPERSON A.S.G. Pending[ / / ]
71. MISB 1602-2014 DR.NUTAN THAKUR (INPERSON C.S.C. Pending[11/04/2014]
72. MISB 1890-2014 DR.NUTAN THAKUR (INPERSON C.S.C. Pending[01/01/1900]
73. MISB 2008-2014 DR.NUTAN THAKUR (INPERSON Pending[ / / ]
74. MISB 2367-2014 NUTAN THAKUR (IN PERSON) Pending[ / / ]
75. MISB 2530-2014 DR.NUTAN THAKUR(INPERSON) C.S.C. Pending[22/04/2014]
76. MISB 2761-2014 DR.NUTAN THAKUR (INPERSON MANISH KUMAR Pending[ ]
77. MISB 2967-2014 DR.NUTAN THAKUR (INPERSON A.S.G. Pending[11/04/2014]
78. REVP 552-2013 DR.NUTAN THAKUR[INPERSON] Disposed[03/10/2013]
79. REVP 553-2013 DR.NUTAN THAKUR[INPERSON] Disposed[03/10/2013]
80. REVP 604-2013 DR.NUTAN THAKUR[INPERSON] Disposed[22/10/2013]
81. REVP 627-2013 DR.NUTAN THAKUR(IN PERSON Disposed[31/10/2013]
82. REVP 658-2013 DR.NUTAN THAKUR(INPERSON) Pending[06/12/2013]
83. REVP 69-2014 DR.NUTAN THAKUR (INPERSON Disposed[07/02/2014]
84. REVP 74-2014 DR.NUTAN THAKUR (INPERSON Disposed[07/02/2014]
85. REVP 325-2014 DR.NUTAN THAKUR[INPERSON] Pending[ / / ]
86. REVPD563-2013 DR.NUTAN THAKUR[INPERSON] Disposed[22/11/2013]
7. In State of Uttranchal vs. Balwant Singh Chaufal and ors 2010 (3) SCC 402 the Supreme Court, after considering the evolution of public interest litigation in India and laying down its importance, expressed a note of caution about its abuse. The Supreme Court held in paragraphs 161 to 188 as follows:-
"161. Unfortunately, of late, it has been noticed that such an important jurisdiction which has been carefully carved out, created and nurtured with great care and caution by the courts, is being blatantly abused by filing some petitions with oblique motives. We think time has come when genuine and bona fide public interest litigation must be encouraged whereas frivolous public interest litigation should be discouraged.
162. In our considered opinion, we have to protect and preserve this important jurisdiction in the larger interest of the people of this country but we must take effective steps to prevent and cure its abuse on the basis of monetary and non- monetary directions by the courts.
163. In BALCO Employees' Union (Regd.) v. Union of India & Others AIR 2002 SC 350, this Court recognized that there have been, in recent times, increasing instances of abuse of public interest litigation. Accordingly, the court has devised a number of strategies to ensure that the attractive brand name of public interest litigation should not be allowed to be used for suspicious products of mischief. Firstly, the Supreme Court has limited standing in PIL to individuals "acting bonafide." Secondly, the Supreme Court has sanctioned the imposition of "exemplary costs" as a deterrent against frivolous and vexatious public interest litigations. Thirdly, the Supreme Court has instructed the High Courts to be more selective in entertaining the public interest litigations.
164. In S. P. Gupta's case (supra), this Court has found that this liberal standard makes it critical to limit standing to individuals "acting bona fide. To avoid entertaining frivolous and vexatious petitions under the guise of PIL, the Court has excluded two groups of persons from obtaining standing in PIL petitions. First, the Supreme Court has rejected awarding standing to "meddlesome interlopers". Second, the Court has denied standing to interveners bringing public interest litigation for personal gain.
165. In Chhetriya Pardushan Mukti Sangharsh Samiti (supra), the Court withheld standing from the applicant on grounds that the applicant brought the suit motivated by enmity between the parties. Thus, the Supreme Court has attempted to create a body of jurisprudence that accords broad enough standing to admit genuine PIL petitions, but nonetheless limits standing to thwart frivolous and vexations petitions.
166. The Supreme Court broadly tried to curtail the frivolous public interest litigation petitions by two methods - one monetary and second, non-monetary. The first category of cases is that where the court on filing frivolous public interest litigation petitions, dismissed the petitions with exemplary costs. In Neetu v. State of Pubjab & Others AIR 2007 SC 758, the Court concluded that it is necessary to impose exemplary costs to ensure that the message goes in the right direction that petitions filed with oblique motive do not have the approval of the Courts.
167. In S.P. Anand v. H.D. Deve Gowda & Others AIR 1997 SC 272, the Court warned that it is of utmost importance that those who invoke the jurisdiction of this Court seeking a waiver of the locus standi rule must exercise restraint in moving the Court by not plunging in areas wherein they are not well-versed.
168. In Sanjeev Bhatnagar v. Union of India & Others AIR 2005 SC 2841, this Court went a step further by imposing a monetary penalty against an Advocate for filing a frivolous and vexatious PIL petition. The Court found that the petition was devoid of public interest, and instead labelled it as "publicity interest litigation." Thus, the Court dismissed the petition with costs of Rs.10,000/-.
169. Similarly, in Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware v. State of Maharashtra & Others (2005) 1 SCC 590, the Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's monetary penalty against a member of the Bar for filing a frivolous and vexatious PIL petition. This Court found that the petition was nothing but a camouflage to foster personal dispute. Observing that no one should be permitted to bring disgrace to the noble profession, the Court concluded that the imposition of the penalty of Rs. 25,000 by the High Court was appropriate. Evidently, the Supreme Court has set clear precedent validating the imposition of monetary penalties against frivolous and vexatious PIL petitions, especially when filed by Advocates.
170. This Court, in the second category of cases, even passed harsher orders. In Charan Lal Sahu & Others v. Giani Zail Singh & Another AIR 1984 SC 309, the Supreme Court observed that, "we would have been justified in passing a heavy order of costs against the two petitioners" for filing a "light-hearted and indifferent" PIL petition. However, to prevent "nipping in the bud a well-founded claim on a future occasion," the Court opted against imposing monetary costs on the petitioners." In this case, this Court concluded that the petition was careless, meaningless, clumsy and against public interest. Therefore, the Court ordered the Registry to initiate prosecution proceedings against the petitioner under the Contempt of Courts Act. Additionally, the court forbade the Registry from entertaining any future PIL petitions filed by the petitioner, who was an advocate in this case.
171. In J. Jayalalitha v. Government of Tamil Nadu & Others (1999) 1 SCC 53, this court laid down that public interest litigation can be filed by any person challenging the misuse or improper use of any public property including the political party in power for the reason that interest of individuals cannot be placed above or preferred to a larger public interest.
172. This court has been quite conscious that the forum of this court should not be abused by any one for personal gain or for any oblique motive.
173. In BALCO (supra), this court held that the jurisdiction is being abused by unscrupulous persons for their personal gain. Therefore, the court must take care that the forum be not abused by any person for personal gain.
174. In Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware (supra), this court expressed its anguish on misuse of the forum of the court under the garb of public interest litigation and observed that the public interest litigation is a weapon which has to be used with great care and circumspection and the judiciary has to be extremely careful to see that behind the beautiful veil of public interest, an ugly private malice, vested interest and/or publicity seeking is not lurking. It is to be used as an effective weapon in the armoury of law for delivering social justice to the citizens. The court must not allow its process to be abused for oblique considerations.
175. In Thaware's case (supra), the Court encouraged the imposition of a non-monetary penalty against a PIL petition filed by a member of the bar. The Court directed the Bar Councils and Bar Associations to ensure that no member of the Bar becomes party as petitioner or in aiding and/or abetting files frivolous petitions carrying the attractive brand name of Public Interest Litigation. This direction impels the Bar Councils and Bar Associations to disbar members found guilty of filing frivolous and vexatious PIL petitions.
176. In Holicow Pictures Pvt. Ltd. v. Prem Chandra Mishra & Others AIR 2008 SC 913, this Court observed as under:
`It is depressing to note that on account of such trumpery proceedings initiated before the Courts, innumerable days are wasted, the time which otherwise could have been spent for disposal of cases of the genuine litigants. Though we spare no efforts in fostering and developing the laudable concept of PIL and extending our long arm of sympathy to the poor, the ignorant, the oppressed and the needy, whose fundamental rights are infringed and violated and whose grievances go unnoticed, un-represented and unheard; yet we cannot avoid but express our opinion that while genuine litigants with legitimate grievances relating to civil matters involving properties worth hundreds of millions of rupees and criminal cases in which persons sentenced to death facing gallows under untold agony and persons sentenced to life imprisonment and kept in incarceration for long years, persons suffering from undue delay in service matters -government or private, persons awaiting the disposal of cases wherein huge amounts of public revenue or unauthorized collection of tax amounts are locked up, detenu expecting their release from the detention orders etc. etc. are all standing in a long serpentine queue for years with the fond hope of getting into the Courts and having their grievances redressed, the busybodies, meddlesome interlopers, wayfarers or officious interveners having absolutely no public interest except for personal gain or private profit either of themselves or as a proxy of others or for any other extraneous motivation or for glare of publicity break the queue muffing their faces by wearing the mask of public interest litigation and get into the Courts by filing vexatious and frivolous petitions and thus criminally waste the valuable time of the Courts and as a result of which the queue standing outside the doors of the Courts never moves, which piquant situation creates frustration in the minds of the genuine litigants and resultantly they loose faith in the administration of our judicial system."
The Court cautioned by observing that:
"Public interest litigation is a weapon which has to be used with great care and circumspection and the judiciary has to be extremely careful to see that behind the beautiful veil of public interest an ugly private malice, vested interest and/or publicity seeking is not lurking. It is to be used as an effective weapon in the armory of law for delivering social justice to the citizens. The attractive brand name of public interest litigation should not be used for suspicious products of mischief. It should be aimed at redressal of genuine public wrong or public injury and not publicity oriented or founded on personal vendetta.
xxx xxx xxx
xxx xxx xxx
The Court has to be satisfied about (a) the credentials of the applicant; (b) the prima facie correctness or nature of information given by him; (c) the information being not vague and indefinite. The information should show gravity and seriousness involved. Court has to strike balance between two conflicting interests; (i) nobody should be allowed to indulge in wild and reckless allegations besmirching the character of others; and (ii) avoidance of public mischief and to avoid mischievous petitions seeking to assail, for oblique motives, justifiable executive actions. In such case, however, the Court cannot afford to be liberal. It has to be extremely careful to see that under the guise of redressing a public grievance, it does not encroach upon the sphere reserved by the Constitution to the Executive and the Legislature. The Court has to act ruthlessly while dealing with imposters and busybodies or meddlesome interlopers impersonating as public-spirited holy men. They masquerade as crusaders of justice. They pretend to act in the name of Pro Bono Publico though they have no interest of the public or even of their own to protect."
177. The malice of frivolous and vexatious petitions did not originate in India. The jurisprudence developed by the Indian judiciary regarding the imposition of exemplary costs upon frivolous and vexatious PIL petitions is consistent with jurisprudence developed in other countries. U.S. Federal Courts and Canadian Courts have also imposed monetary penalties upon public interest claims regarded as frivolous. The courts also imposed non-monetary penalties upon Advocates for filing frivolous claims. In Everywoman's Health Centre Society v. Bridges 54 B.C.L.R. (2nd Edn.) 294, the British Columbia Court of Appeal granted special costs against the Appellants for bringing a meritless appeal.
178. U.S. Federal Courts too have imposed monetary penalties against plaintiffs for bringing frivolous public interest claims. Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ("FRCP") permits Courts to apply an "appropriate sanction" on any party for filing frivolous claims. Federal Courts have relied on this rule to impose monetary penalties upon frivolous public interest claims. For example, in Harris v. Marsh 679 F.Supp. 1204 (E.D.N.C. 1987), the District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina imposed a monetary sanction upon two civil rights plaintiffs for bringing a frivolous, vexatious, and meritless employment discrimination claim. The Court explained that "the increasingly crowded dockets of the federal courts cannot accept or tolerate the heavy burden posed by factually baseless and claims that drain judicial resources." As a deterrent against such wasteful claims, the Court levied a cost of $83,913.62 upon two individual civil rights plaintiffs and their legal counsel for abusing the judicial process. Case law in Canadian Courts and U.S. Federal Courts exhibits that the imposition of monetary penalties upon frivolous public interest claims is not unique to Indian jurisprudence.
179. Additionally, U.S. Federal Courts have imposed non- monetary penalties upon Attorneys for bringing frivolous claims. Federal rules and case law leave the door open for such non-monetary penalties to be applied equally in private claims and public interest claims. Rule 11 of the FRCP additionally permits Courts to apply an "appropriate sanction" on Attorneys for filing frivolous claims on behalf of their clients. U.S. Federal Courts have imposed non-monetary sanctions upon Attorneys for bringing frivolous claims under Rule 11.
180. In Frye v. Pena 199 F.3d 1332 (Table), 1999 WL 974170, for example, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court's order to disbar an Attorney for having "brought and pressed frivolous claims, made personal attacks on various government officials in bad faith and for the purpose of harassment, and demonstrated a lack of candor to, and contempt for, the court." This judicial stance endorses the ethical obligation embodied in Rule 3.1 of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct ("MRPC"): "a lawyer shall not bring or defend a proceeding, or assert or controvert an issue therein, unless there is a basis in law and fact for doing so that is not frivolous." Together, the FRCP, U.S. federal case law, and the MRPC endorse the imposition of non-monetary penalties upon attorneys for bringing frivolous private claims or public interest claims.
181. In Bar Council of Maharashtra (supra) this court was apprehensive that by widening the legal standing there may be flood of litigation but loosening the definition is also essential in the larger public interest. To arrest the mischief is the obligation and tribute to the judicial system.
182. In SP Gupta (supra) the court cautioned that important jurisdiction of public interest litigation may be confined to legal wrongs and legal injuries for a group of people or class of persons. It should not be used for individual wrongs because individuals can always seek redress from legal aid organizations. This is a matter of prudence and not as a rule of law.
183. In Chhetriya Pardushan Mukti Sangharsh Samiti (supra) this court again emphasized that Article 32 is a great and salutary safeguard for preservation of fundamental rights of the citizens. The superior courts have to ensure that this weapon under Article 32 should not be misused or abused by any individual or organization.
184. In Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary & Others (1992) 4 SCC 305, the court rightly cautioned that expanded role of courts in modern `social' state demand for greater judicial responsibility. The PIL has given new hope of justice-starved millions of people of this country. The court must encourage genuine PIL and discard PIL filed with oblique motives.
185. In Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee & Another v. C.K. Rajan & Others (2003) 7 SCC 546, it was reiterated that the court must ensure that its process is not abused and in order to prevent abuse of the process, the court would be justified in insisting on furnishing of security before granting injunction in appropriate cases. The courts may impose heavy costs to ensure that judicial process is not misused.
186. In Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware (supra) this court again cautioned and observed that the court must look into the petition carefully and ensure that there is genuine public interest involved in the case before invoking its jurisdiction. The court should be careful that its jurisdiction is not abused by a person or a body of persons to further his or their personal causes or to satisfy his or their personal grudge or grudges. The stream of justice should not be allowed to be polluted by unscrupulous litigants.
187. In Neetu (supra) this court observed that under the guise of redressing a public grievance the public interest litigation should not encroach upon the sphere reserved by the Constitution to the Executive and the Legislature.
188. In M/s. Holicow Pictures Pvt. Ltd. (supra) this court observed that the judges who exercise the jurisdiction should be extremely careful to see that behind the beautiful veil of PIL, an ugly private malice, vested interest and/or publicity- seeking is not lurking. The court should ensure that there is no abuse of the process of the court."
8. In many of the files of public interest litigation filed by the petitioner, examined by the Court, we find that the petitioner has raised issues within a few days when any social or political issue attracts the attention of the media. Almost all the writ petitions are filed without any research or material and based only on the newspaper reports. The petitioner appears to have a permanent presence before the Bench hearing public interest litigation matters. It appears from the records of the writ petitions and the orders that the petitioner has received a tacit encouragement in filing such petitions, which takes away substantial time of the Court leaving other important matters.
9. Most of the writ petitions, filed by the petitioner in person are not in public interest. These writ petitions have been filed covering almost every subject covered by media to be topical mostly concerning social, political economic or commercial interest. She has also allowed her children, still minor in filing writ petitions; the last one concerning the decision of the Central government awarding Bharat Ratna awards. Almost every subject under the sun which attracts her imagination becomes a subject matter of public Interest Litigation..
10. In order to save this Court from the tsunami of writ petitions filed by the petitioner who appear almost every other day in Court touching matters which hits the headline, treating it as public interest, we find it appropriate to direct that hence forth the registry of the Court will not entertain any writ petition in public interest from Dr Nutan Thakur - either in person or though counsel (either as petitioner or co-petitioner) unless the petition, filed by her, accompanies a demand of Rs.25,000/- (Twenty Five Thousand). At the time of admission of the writ petition, if the Court considers that the petitioner has raised a matter which is genuine and bonafide in public interest, the demand draft deposited by her may be returned to her. In case it is found by the Court that the Writ Petition filed by her does not involve any public interest and the writ petition is dismissed, the amount in the demand draft deposited by her will be treated as costs imposed on her, and the amount will be credited in the account of the High Court Legal Services Committee at Lucknow to be spent for activities of the Legal Services Committee of the High Court.
11. The writ petition is dismissed, with cost of Rs.25,000/- to be paid by the petitioner appear in person to be deposited by her within a month with Senior Registrar, High Court at Lucknow, failingwhich it will realized from her by the District Magistrate, Lucknow with one month thereafter for which the demand will be sent by the Senior Registrar, subject to deposit made by her within within one month
12. Let a copy of this order be given to Senior Registrar of the Court, learned Chief Standing Counsel and the learned Assistant Solicitor General of India.
Order Date :- 11.04.2014
Nethra


High court judge slaps contempt notice on boss

In an unprecedented move, Rajasthan high court Justice B G Sethna issued a show cause notice to Chief Justice M G Mukherjee for ''contempt of court''.
Justice Sethna was hearing a review petition on September 15 in Jodhpur. His directive came as he felt the chief justice ''had caused a delay in judicial work'' by transferring a public interest litigation (on the allotment of houses to judges) out of Justice Sethna's jurisdiction.
The Rajasthan High Court Advocates Association and the Rajasthan High Court Bar Association have protested against Justice Sethna's notice.
Meanwhile, the chief justice on Tuesday issued an order transferring Sethna to the high court's Jaipur bench from Jodhpur with effect from Wednesday.
UNI

 

Part of controversial Rajasthan high court jugdement stayed

The Supreme Court on Friday stayed certain portions of a judgement of the Rajasthan high court, accusing its former chief justice J S Verma, now chief justice of India, of illegally withdrawing daily allowance from the public exchequer.
In the impugned judgement, Justice B G Sethna had observed that Justice Verma, when he was the chief justice of the high court during 1986-89, was withdrawing daily allowance illegally while staying in the high court guest house at Jaipur, contrary to the rules in this regard. ''It is nothing but misappropriation of public funds, which is a criminal offence under the Indian Penal Code.''
Sethna has since proceeded on long leave after his transfer from the Jodhpur principal bench of the high court to the Jaipur bench.
Justice Sethna also issued a show cause notice to Chief Justice of the high court Justice M G Mukherjee, who according to the verdict, was acting in ''suspicious circumstances'', asking him to explain why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against him under the Contempt of Court Act, 1971, for interfering in the administration of justice without authority of law by taking away a partially heard matter from his court.
The Supreme Court, however, declined to stay the contempt notice issued to Chief Justice Mukherjee by Justice Sethna in a public interest writ petition.
Meanwhile, the controversy has split the state bar association, with members coming to blows over the issue.
A general body meeting of the association, convened to decide on the filing of a special leave petition against Justice Sethna's order, ended inconclusively after a confrontation with another group of advocates here on Thursday. The two groups reportedly roughed up each other.
The judges made it clear to Attorney General Ashok Desai, appearing for the state of Rajasthan, that the court would not stay the contempt notice on a petition by the state government.
The challenge to the contempt notice, if any, must come from the aggrieved party, Chief Justice Mukherjee of the high court himself, the judges said.
The court, however, staved certain directions and observations made in the impugned judgement, including the observations made against former chief justice of the high court Justice J S Verma, now chief justice of India.
India's National Magazine
From the publishers of THE HINDU
Vol. 14 :: No. 20 :: Oct. 4 - 17, 1997

Threats from within

V. VENKATESAN
QUESTIONS about the credibility of the Indian judiciary have come to the fore following a series of developments involving the higher judiciary in Rajasthan. The issue of a contempt notice by Justice B.J. Sethna of the Rajasthan High Court against Chief Justice M.G. Mukherjee on September 15 marked a significant turn of events. Justice Sethna's order followed the action of Chief Justice Mukherjee in transferring a criminal case that had been partly heard by Justice Sethna to a Division Bench for further hearing and disposal. Justice Sethna recalled the file, admitted the matter, granted bail to an accused in the case, and then issued the contempt notice.
Later, during the hearing of a public interest petition on the allotment of houses to judges by the Rajasthan Government, Sethna also stated, though it was extraneous to the case before him, that the Chief Justice of India, J.S. Verma, had during his tenure as Chief Justice of the Rajasthan High Court in 1986-89, illegally drawn the full daily allowance of Rs.250 for his stay in Jaipur and that there was an audit objection on that count. The Supreme Court later stayed the operation of both the orders. Commenting on the developments, a retired Judge of the Rajasthan High Court said that Sethna had probably acted in haste, as he had not given an opportunity to the Chief Justice of India to defend himself.
GOPAL SUNGER
http://www.frontline.in/static/html/fl1420/14200191.jpgChief Justice M.G. Mukherjee
While staying Sethna's observations in the matter, the Supreme Court disapproved of his making them without issuing notice to the Chief Justice of India. The Court said that it was a threat to the independence of the judiciary from within. Observers feel that as all the facts of the case are not known - it was pointed out that Sethna did not reveal what Justice Verma's reply to the audit objections were - it is unfair to reach a conclusion about the conduct of Justice Verma. Audit objections are sometimes of a routine nature and, according to legal circles, they should not be quoted in isolation and out of context.
The issue of the contempt notice to the Chief Justice is equally open to question. Legal experts say that a Chief Justice has the power to transfer a part-heard matter from a single judge to a Division Bench, for which there are precedents. Although the Supreme Court refused to entertain a Special Leave Petition filed by the Rajasthan Government challenging Sethna's contempt notice against the Chief Justice, the court granted a stay after the Chief Justice himself moved the SLP. The matter was later referred to a three-judge Bench.
Justice Sethna, who is from Gujarat, had been transferred from the Gujarat High Court to Rajasthan. The transfer was preceded by a serious allegation against him. Justice Sethna, however, stated that the then Chief Justice of the Gujarat High Court had differences of opinion with him. The Supreme Court once pulled up Justice Sethna during his tenure in the Gujarat High Court for hearing a matter in a case that he had himself argued earlier as an advocate. After his recent ruling, the Chief Justice transferred Justice Sethna from the High Court's principal seat in Jodhpur to the Jaipur Bench. But Sethna went on leave saying that he was suffering from depression.
THERE have been allegations that in Rajasthan there is intense groupism among judges on caste and regional lines. In July 1997, Justice Anshuman Singh of the Rajasthan High Court wrote to Union Law Minister Ramakant Khalap a day before his retirement that he had reservations about the inclusion of the name of one advocate in the panel for judgeship but that the Chief Justice of the Rajasthan High Court had told him that the Chief Justice of India had asked that the person be recommended. Justice Anshuman Singh later withdrew his endorsement of the recommendation.
Chief Justice Mukherjee denied Justice Anshuman Singh's allegation and said that the reason behind Anshuman Singh's outburst was that he had refused to recommend the judge's name for the post of Chairman of the State Legal Aid Authority. Justice Anshuman Singh, in turn, denied the allegation and attributed the episode to a judgment that he delivered on July 5 declaring a Rajasthan Housing Board scheme for sitting judges illegal.
Justice Anshuman Singh recently denied an allegation that it was he who persuaded Sethna to issue the contempt notice on the Chief Justice.
Meanwhile, the Chief Justice of India has scrapped the list consisting of three names which had been submitted to the Supreme Court by a panel of judges of the Rajasthan High Court for selection of judges of the High Court.



No comments:

Post a Comment