Writ against prasad (2) (2)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION)

Writ Petition (Civil) No. .................... Of 2015

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION IN THE MATTER OF:

1) PRASHANT BHUSHAN

S/O SHRI SHANTI BHUSHAN

R/O B-16, SECTOR-14

NOIDA- 201301

[email protected]

PHONE: 9811164068, 23070301 …THE PETITIONER

VERSUS

1) UNION OF INDIA

THROUGH ITS SECRETARY

MINISTRY OF INFORMATION & BROADCASTING

SHASTRI BHAVAN

NEW DELHI-110001 …RESPONDENT NO. 1

2) CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR

CGO COMPLEX, LODHI ROAD


3) CENTRAL VIGILANCE COMMISSION

THROUGH ITS SECRETARY

GPO COMPLEX, INA


4) JUSTICE C K PRASAD (RETD.)

CHAIRPERSON

PRESS COUNCIL OF INDIA

SOOCHNA BHAVAN, 8, CGO COMPLEX

LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI-110003 …RESPONDENT NO. 4

To, THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA AND HIS COMPANION

JUDGES OF THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

The Humble Petition of the

Petitioner above-named

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH: - 1) That the petitioner is filing the instant writ petition in public

interest under Article 32 of the Constitution for the enforcement of

Rights under Article 14 and 21 of the citizens. This is being filed

against the non-registration of FIR or Regular Case by the CBI

despite serious facts coming to light which show abuse of office and

criminal misconduct committed by Justice C K Prasad (Respondent

No. 4) as a Judge of this Hon’ble Court. The petitioner herein had

made detailed complaints to the CBI and the CVC regarding the

abuse of office and misconduct by Respondent No. 4 but these

authorities have not taken any action in violation of the Constitution

Bench judgment of this Hon’ble Court which state that registration of

FIR/RC is mandatory once information regarding commission of

cognizable offence is received by the law enforcement agency (Lalita

Kumari case (2014) 2 SCC 1). The petitioner is also seeking the

removal of Respondent No. 4 as the Chairperson of Press Council of

India.

The Petitioner herein is Mr. Prashant Bhushan. He is an advocate-

on-record of this Hon’ble Court and is practicing since 1983. He is

also the convenor for Campaign for Judicial Accountability & Reform

(CJAR) and a member of Committee on Judicial Accountability

(CoJA). He is also a member of the governing body of Centre for

Public Interest Litigation (CPIL) and Common Cause. He is a

founding member of India Against Corruption (IAC). He holds an MA

in Philosophy from Princeton University and is an author of two

books.

The petitioner has made detailed representation to the Respondent

authorities (Union of India, CBI and CVC) vide letters dated

27.11.2014, 01.12.2014 and 08.01.2015. The details of the same are

mentioned in paragraphs 13 to 15 of the instant petition. He has not

received any response to the same and it is learnt that no FIR has

been filed in the matter.

THE CASE IN BRIEF

2) Civil Appeal Nos. 9454-9455 of 2010, titled Mistry Construction

P. Ltd. v. Makhija Developers P. Ltd. & Ors., were shown at Sl. No.

79 before Court No. 4, presided by the Justice B.S. Chauhan along

with Justice J. Chelameshwar and Justice M.Y. Eqbal in the Weekly

List No. 7 of 2014 from 18th February to 20th February, 2014. This

was an appeal filed by Mistry Constructions against the judgment of

the Hon’ble Bombay High Court which had made severe findings

against Mistry Constructions and directed a re-tender. The High

Court held that CIDCO acted in a mala fide manner in dA copy of the

relevant pages of the said judgment dated 20.01.2010 passed by the

Hon’ble Bombay High Court is annexed as Annexure P1 (Pg

___________).

3) A 3-judge bench headed by the Chief Justice of India of the

Supreme Court on 02.05.2013 rejected the request for a settlement

of the matter in view of the findings of the High Court. A copy of

order dated 02.05.2013 passed by this Hon’ble Court is annexed as

Annexure P2 (Pg ___________).

4) Justice Prasad’s former junior’s in-laws are the main owners of

Mistry Constructions. The lawyer appearing for Mistry Constructions

Mr. A K Srivastava (senior advocate) shares his chamber (90,

Lawyers Chambers, Supreme Court) with Mr. Ardhendumauli Kumar

Prasad, the son of Justice Prasad. Thus Justice Prasad was aware

of this case and had an interest in the matter.

5) Another petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.

7232/2013, titled Neera Saggi and Anr. v. Avinash Parshuram Naik

and Anr. was before the Bench presided by Justice Prasad who had

issued notice on 05.09.2013. When the aforesaid matter came up for

further hearing on 20.01.2014 the Court passed following order: “list

the following matter along with Civil Appeal No. 9454-3455 of 2013

on 29.01.2014”. A copy of the order dated 20.01.2014 is annexed as

Annexure P3 (Pg ___________).

6) Senior Advocate Shri Dushyant Dave was informed by the

counsels for the parties Mr. Pratap Venugopal and Mr. Anirudh P.

Mayee that none of the parties/counsels had mentioned about the

Civil Appeal Nos. 9454-9455 of 2010, much less as having a bearing

on the SLP (Crl). 7232/2013. They informed Shri Dave that, Justice

Prasad on his own stated that according to him there was a similar

matter pending and accordingly the aforesaid order was made.

7) Clearly the order had recorded incorrect Appeal Numbers, and

therefore when the matter came up on 29.01.2014, the SLP (Crl.)

7232/2013 was not taken up for hearing and was adjourned. It

appears that on 20.02.2014 the SLP (Crl.) 7232/2013 was taken up

by Justice Prasad on his own though it was not listed, and the Court

passed the following order: “By order dated 20.01.2014, this Petition

was directed to be listed on 29.01.2014 along with Civil Appeal No.

9454-9455/2013. Due to inadvertent mistake, the year of the Civil

Appeal No. 9454-9455 was shown as 2013 instead of 2010.

Resulting thereof, these Civil Appeals could not be listed along with

this Petition on 29.01.2014. List this Petition along with Civil Appeal

No. 9454-9455 of 2010 on 25.02.2014 at the top of the Board subject

to overnight part-heard.” A copy of the order dated 20.02.2014 is

annexed as Annexure P4 (Pg ___________).

8) The matters were listed on 25.02.2014, and the Bench

presided by the Hon’ble Justice Prasad, (Court No. 9 Item No. 2).

Justice Prasad, at the outset, accepted the submission of Shri C.U.

Singh, Senior Advocate, that the Civil Appeal No, 9454-9455 of 2010

was not connected with the SLP (Crl.) 7232/2013 and passed an

independent order in the SLP (Crl.) 7232/2013. However despite

there being no connection, the Civil Appeal No. 9454-9455 of 2010

was taken up, and in the absence of any effective representation

from CIDCO, a statutory body, the Civil Appeal disposed of by an

order dictated in open Court, in presence of many lawyers sitting in

the Court. Justice Prasad allowed the Writ Petitioner before the High

Court to withdraw the Writ Petition apparently in view of the

settlement between Mistry Constructions P. Ltd. and Makhija

Developers. P. Ltd. A copy of order dated 25.02.2014 passed by

Justice Prasad is annexed as Annexure P5 (Pg ___________).

9) The above order was passed despite the fact that the same

settlement was earlier rejected by a 3-judge bench headed by the

Chief Justice of India of the Supreme Court on 02.05.2013.

10) Shri C U Singh, senior advocate, informed Shri Dave about the

events. He stated: “This is to confirm that when Item 2 in Court 9 was

called out today, I pointed out to the court that the Civil Appeal which

was tagged with the Criminal Appeal in which I was appearing had

no connection at all with my matter. The Ld. Presiding Judge,

Chandramauli Kr. Prasad J, immediately said that they too had seen

it was unconnected and that the only thing common was that CIDCO

was a party. He asked me to proceed with my matter which I argued

and succeeded in. I assumed the matter stood de-tagged and left the

Court. I’m not aware of what happened thereafter, but if the hearing

of the Civil Appeal proceeded, even though it was found to be

wrongly tagged, then it’s a matter of disquiet.”

11) As a result of this order, the judgment of the High Court along

with its severe findings has been set-aside without a debate, as well

as its directions for a re-tender. In effect, Mistry Constructions gets

the tender and 35 hectares of prime land at throwaway price. A copy

of letter dated 26.02.2014 sent by Shri Dushyant Dave, senior

advocate of this Hon’ble Court, to the then Chief Justice of India

complaining about the conduct of Justice Prasad is annexed as

Annexure P6 (Pg ___________).

12) The above facts show that Justice Prasad abused his position

as a Judge of Supreme Court in order to confer huge pecuniary

advantage on a private party (Mistry Constructions) and thus

committed criminal misconduct under Section 13 (1) (d) of the

Prevention of Corruption Act.

13) The petitioner as the convenor of Campaign for Judicial

Accountability & Reform (CJAR) had made a representation to the

Prime Minister to cancel the appointment of Respondent No. 4 as the

Chairperson of the Press Council. The needful was not done and the

petitioner also did not receive any response to the said letter. A copy

of the letter sent by the petitioner to the Prime Minister on

27.11.2014 is annexed as Annexure P7 (Pg ____________).

14) The petitioner has made detailed complaint to the CBI and the

CVC vide letters dated 01.12.2014. The letter to CBI is annexed as

Annexure P8 (Pg _________) and the letter to CVC is annexed as

Annexure P9 (Pg __________). He is not received any response to

the same and it is learnt that no FIR has been filed in the matter.

15) Subsequent to the filing of the complaint Mr. Anil Sinha was

appointed as the CBI Director. Later the petitioner learnt that Mr.

Sinha has a serious conflict of interest in the complaint filed by the

petitioner since his wife Mrs. Kirti Sinha is the former associate/

junior of Justice Prasad. Petitioner also learnt that the in-laws of Mr.

Sinha’s either son or the daughter are the owners of Mistry

Constructions, i.e. the company that benefitted from Justice Prasad’s

orders. Moreover, his wife was the one of the lawyers for Mistry

Constructions in the same case which was disposed of in favour of

Mistry Constructions by Justice Prasad. Therefore, the petitioner

wrote a letter to the CBI Director on 08.01.2015 asking him to recuse

himself from the case. A copy of the said letter dated 08.01.2015 is

annexed as Annexure P10 (Pg ___________). The petitioner

therefore requests this Hon’ble Court to direct an SIT investigation

into the matter, or at the very least, direct Mr. Sinha to recuse himself

from the CBI investigation.

16) The petitioner has not filed any other writ petition or application

in any manner regarding the matter of dispute in this Hon’ble Court

or any High Court or any other Court throughout the territory of India.

The petitioner has no other better remedy available.

GROUNDS

A. That the non-registration of a First Information Report (FIR) or

Regular Case (RC) by the CBI is in violation of the Constitution

Bench of this Hon’ble Court in Lalita Kumari case (2014) 2

SCC 1 that states that registration of FIR/RC is mandatory

once a law enforcement agency receives information of the

commission of a cognizable offence.

B. That the inaction of the CVC in not investigating the complaint

made by the petitioner on 01.12.2014, or in not directing the

CBI to register a FIR/RC is in violation of the CVC’s powers

under the CVC Act 2003 including its power of

superintendence over the CBI in corruption cases.

C. That the conduct of Respondent No. 4 amounted to criminal

misconduct and abuse of office in order to confer a pecuniary

advantage on a private party, which is a serious offence under

the Prevention of Corruption Act and needs through

investigation.

D. That the conduct of Respondent No. 4 amounts to an abuse of

his high position as a Judge of the Supreme Court which is an

extremely serious matter and a thorough investigation by an

independent agency is required to maintain the confidence of

the public in the judiciary.

E. That the continuation of Respondent No. 4 in the high statutory

position of Chairperson of the Press Council of India goes

against the principles of rule of law, probity in public life and

institutional integrity, and therefore violates Articles 14 and 21

of the Constitution of India and the principles laid down by this

Hon’ble Court in the CVC appointment case (2011) 4 SCC 1.

F. That the prevailing corruption in the country in high places

seriously impairs the right of the people of this country to live in

a corruption free society governed by rule of law. This is a

violation of Article 21 of the Constitution. The right to life

guaranteed to the people of this country also includes in its fold

the right to live in a society, which is free from crime and

corruption.

PRAYERS

In view of the facts & circumstances stated above, it is most

respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court in public interest may be

pleased to: -

a. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ

directing the SIT/CBI to register a Regular Case or FIR against

Respondent No. 4 on the basis of the complaint made by the

petitioner dated 01.12.2014 and do a thorough investigation into the

matter.

b. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ

directing the Union of India to remove or initiate steps for the removal

of Respondent No. 4 as the Chairperson of the Press Council of

India.

c. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ

directing the CVC to conduct a thorough inquiry/investigation against

Respondent No. 4 on the basis of the complaint made by the

petitioner dated 01.12.2014.

d. Issue or pass any writ, direction or order, which this Hon’ble

court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of

the case in the interest of justice.

Petitioner

Through

Ms. Kamini Jaiswal

Counsel for the Petitioner

Drawn by: Pranav Sachdeva

Drawn & Filed On:

New Delhi

Writ against prasad (2) (2)

Law

Transcript of Writ against prasad (2) (2)