dear friends,
On 5th June 2009, I faxed 6 paged communiqué to Supreme Court of India followed by an RTI application same day asking to provide copy of documents showing action taken on my fax sent. Since the matter concerned the life of an individual, I had invoked relevant provision of RTI Act which oblige PIO to furnish info sought within 48 hours of receipt of RTI application.
On 12th June, I received a letter from Supreme Court of India. Among other things, it stated, in persuant to six paged letter to SC, it has vide its ref no. Dy No 4579/ SC/ PIL/ 20085 (5106/2009), dt 9th June, 2009, given direction to the Secretary of Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt of India, to take appropriate action in this regard.
I have reasons to believe that had there been no RTI filed, no Cognizance would ever have been taken.
May click this link to have access to 6 paged communiqué.
Copy of letter sent:
5th June 2009.
To,
The Hon Supreme Court of India
New Delhi
From,
Sandeep Jalan,
Janhit Manch, Kuber Bhuvan, Bajaj Rd, Vile Parle West, Mumbai-56.
Reg: An Indian facing death Sentence in Pakistan- Sarabjit a case of Mistaken identity.
A person guilty of heinous crime of killing innocent civilians and terrorising the whole society deserves no sympathy, nonetheless the guilt has been established beyond reasonable doubt by a competent court of Jurisdiction. This is the bare minimum.
According to information obtained from Ministry of External thru RTI, consular access to Indian High Commission was provided on 30th August 2005 after his death sentence was upheld by the Hon Supreme Court of Pakistan on 18th of August. Ref no. Q/RTI/551/113/2008 dt 27th may 2008.
Legally and ideally, International laws requires that Consular access should have been made available to sarabjit as soon as he was arrested.
In the backdrop of sarabjit case facing death sentence in Pakistan, his family members have duly brought to the notice of PMO of the fact glaring irregularity of mistaken identity.
The Govt of India instead of seeking unconditional release for the irregularity as stated hereinbefore are seeking clemency for him and thereby submitting that sarabjit is guilty and will inevitably make more difficult his release.
Even leading Human Rights minister of Pakistan Ansar Burney endorses the view that he is being an mistaken identity.
So I request you to take cognizance of the issue involving a life of innocent Indian exercise the powers vested in you and issue directions to Govt of India to take all such measures necessary for the safe release of Sarabjit.
Relevant News Reports Attached.
Hindutan Times: 30/04/08
Sarabjit’s kin return; top terrorist against his release:
Back home after spending one-week in Pakistan, the family of Sarabjit Singh — Indian death row prisoner in that country — now pins hopes on the move of the Yusuf Raza Gilani’s government to abolish death sentence. “We hope that the Pakistan government would amend the law to abolish death sentence during the next three weeks and this would help Sarabjit among 6,000 other death row prisoners, to evade death sentence,” said Dalbir Kaur, sister of Sarabjit, minutes after stepping into Indian-territory on Tuesday. Sister Dalbir Kaur, who met Sarabjit along with other family members at Kotlakhpat jail in Lahore, said she spent 48 minutes with him after a gap of 18 years.
“I could not even hug my brother and he could not hug his daughters, since he was kept separated by bars. It was very tough time for him when he met his family members and he was struggling hard to hold back his tears,” she said. “During the meeting, Sarabjit himself prepared tea for his family in the jail and we took it with sweets. Later, he also offered us cold drinks,” Kaur recalled.
Elaborating on their visit Dalbir said that the plight of an ‘innocent’ prisoner’s family moved one of the key witnesses Shakuat Salim to pour out his heart before a section of media that on the instances of prosecution agency he had recorded false testimony against Sarabjit.
She said that during their 48 minutes emotional meeting with Sarabjit at the jail in Lahore, her brother disclosed that the prosecution agency had done a grave injustice with him by destroying the file containing proofs about his innocence during the trials.
Kaur said that the families of victims of bomb blasts with which Sarabjit has been charged, knew nothing about the culprit behind the heinous crime and some of them had developed venomous hatred against Sarabjit on the basis of ‘misleading facts’ put forth by Pakistan security agencies.
“Now another deferment in his execution is off course a positive development, as we can hope that he would come back home safe, shortly,” said Sar0abjit’s wife Sukhpreet Kaur.
Poonam, who was barely one and half month old since her father went missing, was feeling satisfied to see him. “Papa wanted to hug each one of us but iron bars of the prison cell restricted him,” she said.
Meanwhile, Hafiz Muhammad Saeed, chief of the Jamaat-ud-Dawa, the parent wing of the Lashkar-e-Tayyeba, has come out against any move to free death row prisoner and Indian national Sarabjit Singh.
In a statement posted on the Jamaat website, Saeed said freeing Sarabjit would be equivalent to “ridiculing” the country’s courts.
Indian Express: 24/ 03/ 08
Pak minister presses new Govt to release Sarabjit
Islamabad, March 24: Pakistan's incoming government should convert the death sentence of Indian national Sarabjit Singh into life imprisonment on "humanitarian grounds" and ensure his early release, caretaker Human Rights Minister Ansar Burney said on Monday.
President Pervez Musharraf had on March 19 deferred the hanging of Sarabjit, scheduled for April 1, by 30 days after receiving an appeal for clemency from the Indian government and the condemned man's family.
Burney, a leading human rights activist, requested the incoming government and prime minister-designate Yousuf Raza Gillani to convert Sarabjit's death sentence into life imprisonment as he had "spent more than a life sentence on death row in Pakistani jails", which was "worse than hell".
He also called for the early release on humanitarian grounds of Sarabjit, who has been held in Pakistani jails for 18 years. Burney said he would not allow the government to hang a person for "reportedly mistaken identity".
Sarabjit was sentenced to death in 1991 for his alleged involvement in four bomb blasts in Lahore and Multan that killed 14 people. His family denies he is a spy as claimed by Pakistan and insists he accidentally strayed into Pakistani territory.
The mercy petition of Sarabjit, who Pakistan claims is Manjit Singh, was rejected by Musharraf on March 3. Sarabjit's mercy petition was sent to the President along with that of Indian prisoner Kashmir Singh, who was pardoned and freed after spending 35 years on death row in Pakistani jails.
Pakistan's Supreme Court too rejected Sarabjit's plea for clemency in March 2006.
Burney said he expected the new government to continue improving the human rights situation in Pakistan as necessary reforms had already been initiated at various levels.
"I would also like to request for jail reforms and the stopping of human trafficking and slavery," he said.
Condemned prisoners who had spent over 10 years in jails should be pardoned and their death sentences converted into life imprisonment as prisoners cannot be given two sentences for the same crime, he pointed out.
Tangible steps also need to be taken at the earliest to ensure schooling and proper upbringing of juvenile delinquents and children who accompany their imprisoned mothers, he said.
The Hindu- March 17, 2008
Sarabjit Singh’s family, Punjab government turn to Manmohan
Amritsar/Chandigarh: Shocked by the news of a death warrant reportedly being served on Indian prisoner Sarabjit Singh, his family and the Punjab government on Sunday urged Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to immediately take up the matter with the Pakistan government.
Sarabjit’s sister, Dalbir Kaur, rushed to New Delhi where she is scheduled to meet Union Home Minister Shivraj Patil. She also sought an audience with UPA chairperson Sonia Gandhi and Congress general secretary Rahul Gandhi, besides the Prime Minister.
Punjab Chief Minister Parkash Singh Badal’s media advisor Harcharan Singh Bains said “the State government is working hard to get in touch with the Prime Minister so he can take up the issue with the Pakistani authorities, keeping in view the relations between the two neighbours.”
“Mistaken identity” Dalbir Kaur told PTI: “I have only one brother and his name is Sarabjit Singh; not Manjit Singh. He is innocent and it is a case of mistaken identity.”
She appealed to the Pakistani authorities to make a humanitarian gesture and release him like the way they did in the case of Kashmir Singh.
Mr. Bains said the State government agreed with the family’s view that it was a case of mistaken identity.
“Even if Sarabjit is guilty, Pakistan must be magnanimous for the betterment of peace in the subcontinent,” he said.
Pall of gloom A pall of gloom descended on Sarabjit’s Bhikiwind border village of Amritsar district with the womenfolk almost in a state of mourning.
“I will repeatedly say that my husband is innocent and he never committed the act alleged by Pakistani police. He is very humble and down to earth and could never snatch the life of any human being,” Sarabjit’s wife, Sukhpreet Kaur, told reporters.
Still optimistic She said the family was still optimistic about his repatriation and urged President Pratibha Patil, Dr. Singh and the Union Home Minister to talk with Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf on the matter. “The Pakistan government has repatriated Kashmir Singh and now it’s time for [the retired General] Musharraf to show kindness and extend clemency to my husband and Allah will bless them,” Ms. Sukhpreet said. — PTI
Friday, June 12, 2009
Format PIL Writ for Challenging unconstitutional procedure while appointing Information Commissioners
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT XXX
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
PIL WRIT PETITION NO. OF
Mr.ABC .... ……………………………………….PETITIONERS
V/S
THE STATE OF XXX ………………………..RESPONDENTS
INDEX
Sr.NO. DATE PARTICULARS PAGE NO.
1. PROFORMA
2. SYNOPSIS
3. POINTS, AUTHORITIES & ACTS
4. THE PETITION
5. VERIFICATION
6. MEMO OF APPEARANCE
7. MEMORANDUM OF REGISTERED ADDRESS
8. LIST OF DOCUMENTS
9. EXHIBIT ‘A’
10. AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT.
11. CERTIFICATE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT XXX
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
PIL WP NO. OF
Name And Address of Petitioners –
Versus
Name and Addresses of Respondent (s)
(IN PERSON).
____________________________________________________________________
Office Notes, Office Memorunda of
Corom. Appendices. Court’s order or Court’s of Judge’s
Direction and prothonarty’s order orders.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT XXX
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
PIL WRIT PETITION NO. OF
Mr.ABC .... PETITIONERS
V/S
THE (Name of Public Authority/s) ….RESPONDENTS
S Y N O P S I S
While filling up Posts of Commissioners at XXX Information Commission in absolute and prima facie violation of Constitutional mandate of Article 14 & 16.
Petitioner No.1
In Person.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT XXX
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
PIL WRIT PETITION NO. OF
Mr.ABC .... PETITIONERS
V/S
THE (Name of public Auth) …. RESPONDENTS
THE POINTS TO BE URGED
1) However we are not inclined to engage in a debate if Information Commissioners so appointed at XXX lacks any of the qualifications as required under the RTI Act.
2) Our only humble submission is that it is an obvious expectation from the Govt that they will give utmost respect to Constitutional mandate of Article 14 & 16 while making Appointments at Public offices, a mandate which represents the Collective wisdom of our Constitutional framers and Law makers.
2) In the present Constitutional democratic set up we all Indians live in, the Laws made and passed by the Parliament and the State Legislatures represents the wishes and ambitions of we the people of India.
It is the Prime responsibility of the Govts and its various instrumentalities to implement and administer the Laws so made by the Parliament and the State Legislatures.
It is even not open to the Supreme Court and the High Courts to act or give judgments in deviation from established laws.
All Statutes or Laws so made and passed by Legislatures is to remedy the ill that has plagued the society. All Statutes comes into being with some policy and objective to be achieved.
Every statutory provision in a Statute comes into being after due deliberation and every letter of the law is employed with great caution and care and with some purpose.
It may be beyond one’s wisdom to anticipate nor it is necessary for one to outline the consequences that may occasion due to patent violation of a statutory provision, for the consequences have already been deliberated at the time of passing of the statutory provision.
It is suffice if one merely seek the bare observance of the letter of the law and the spirit inherent in the letter of the law.
At the same time it is not permissible for one who violates the letter of the law on the pretext of some beneficial advantage that may accrue.
As everyone says that we live in a Rule of Law society. What we really mean by Rule of Law is that the Law which is established must be observed in all the circumstances except in cases where the Law itself is absurd and or arbitrary.
The present case is a demonstrative example of how a State is acting
plainly in complete contravention of established laws.
In doing so, they invariably disregard and undermine the collective wisdom and authority of our Lawmakers. In doing so, the State is acting against the wishes of the Indian people.
Every letter of the Law must be observed with due respect, unless the same is declared by the competent court of Jurisdiction as manifestly arbitrary and or absurd.
The bare act of State in contravention of established laws frustrates the foundation of Rule of Law society.
THE AUTHORITIES TO BE CITED
1. The Constitution Of India.
2. Ashwani Kumar Vs State of BiharAIR 1996 SC2833
3. Jai Narain ram Vs State of UP, AIR 1996, SC 703
THE ACTS TO BE RELIED UPON
1. The Right to Information Act 2005
PETITIONER NO.1
IN PERSON
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT XXX
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
PIL WRIT PETITION NO. OF
IN THE MATTER OF
Appointments of Information Commissioners at XXX Information Commission
AND
That not inviting Applications from General Public for filling Post at Information Commissioners constitute prima facie violation of Constitutional mandate as contained in Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India
AND
Article 226, of the Constitution of India empowers this Hon Court to issue Appropriate Writ for enforcement of Fundamental Rights as contained in Part Three of Constitution of India.
1. Mr.ABC ………………… .Petitioners
V/S
1. The Name Of Public Auth …………Respondents.
THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND OTHER PUISNE JUDGES OF THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT DELHI
THE HUMBLE PETITION OF THE PETITIONERS ABOVENAMED MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH
1. The Petitioners states that Petitioner No.1 is an ( very BRIEF INRODUCTION OF PETITIONER)
2. The 1st Respondent is
3. The Petitioners states that-
(a) Section 12(5) says that Info Commissioners , both State and Central, Chief and others, should be person of eminence in Public Life with wide knowledge and experience in Law, Science & technology, Social Service, Management, Journalism, mass media or Administration and Governance.
(b) The petitioners are not inclined to engage in a debate if Information Commissioners so appointed at XXX lacks any of the qualifications as required under section 12(5) of the RTI Act, and our only humble submission is that it is an obvious expectation from the Govt that they will give utmost respect to Constitutional mandate of Article 14 & 16 while making Appointments at Public offices, a mandate which represents the Collective wisdom of our Constitutional framers and Law makers.
(c) Article 14 of the Constitution of India exhorts that the State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.
Article 16 of the Constitution of India further exhorts that There shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State.
Article 12. Definition.—In this Part, unless the context otherwise requires, “the State’’ includes the Government and Parliament of India and the Government and the Legislature of each of the States and all local or other authorities within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India.
(d) Some SC Judgments:
(i) Appointments made only on the basis of notification put up on notice board without any advertisements in newspapers, without inviting applications from open market and from employment exchange are stage managed by authorities in flagrant breach of Article 14 & 16.[Ashwani Kumar Vs State of BiharAIR 1996 SC2833]
(ii) Right to seek appointment to a Post under Article 14 read with Article 16(1)& (4) is a Constitutional right to equality......... [Jai Narain ram Vs State of UP, AIR 1996, SC 703]
(e) According to information obtained by inspection of Records , while filling up Post of Information Commissioners at XXX, no applications from General Public has been invited.
(f) In the circumstances, prima facie violation of Constitutional mandate of Article 14 & 16 can safely be presumed.
(g) In Karkare vs. Shavde (AIR, Nagpur, 1952, p. 330), Masehullah vs Abdul Rehman (AIR, Allahabad, 1953 p. 193) etc. Courts have held that any private citizen can file a petition of Quo Warranto to challenge the appointment of a public official even though his personal rights are not directly affected.
4. The Petitioners states that there is no other Petition/Application pending in any other court or before the Hon. Supreme Court.
5. The Petitioners states that whenever violation of Statutory or Constitutional provisions are alleged, this Court has Jurisdiction to hear and give authoritative direction. The cause of action has arisen in the State of Delhi, hence this Honourable Court has Jurisdiction to hear and adjudicate the case.
7. The Petitioners rely on Documents, list whereof is annexed hereto.
8. The Petitioners have paid the necessary Court Fee. The Petitioners states that this is a PIL.
9. The Petitioners therefore pray to the Honourable Court:
The Hon Court may please to issue a Writ of Quo Warranto OR Mandamus or any other Writ as they deem appropriate, directing the State of Delhi- that While retaining the existing Information Commissioners till new appointments are made by due process of law, to issue an Advertisement inviting Applications from General Public for filling post of Information Commission. Needless to say, all existing Information Commissioners are eligible for applying for the post like any other Citizen of this Country.
The Appointing Authority then shall appoint the most deserving man while giving due regard to mandate of section 12(5) of RTI Act.
10. In the backdrop of, Many a times conclusive orders of the court are not complied with; and Time and again even courts have shown their inability to monitor implementation of their Orders, The Hon Court while passing Orders, interim or final may direct –"Appellant/Respondents Govt/ Public Authority to update their website about Court's directions so given and action taken in pursuant thereof;
As long as the Appellant's/ Respondent's website doesn't show up details of action taken, non compliance of Court Orders can and should safely be presumed and be alleged."
11) Pass such other and further orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem proper and expedient in the Public interest.
(12) For expeditious hearing of this Petition.
(13) For cost to the Petitioners.
1. Mr.ABC,
Petitioner No.1
VERIFICATION (Notes 2)
I, (name and address),, the Petitioner No.1 in the abovenamed petition do hereby solemnly declare that the contents and what is stated in Paragraph to are true to the best of my knowledge and what is stated in remaining paras to are based on information and belief and I believe the same to be true.
Solemnly declared at XXX )
Aforesaid this Day of , 200 )
Before me
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT XXX
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
PIL WRIT PETITION NO. OF
Mr.ABC ....PETITIONERS
V/S
THE name of Pub auth ….RESPONDENTS
MEMO OF APPEARENCE
To,
The Prothonotary & Senior Master
The Hon. XXX High Court,
ZZZ
Sir,
Please enter the appearance of the Petitioner No.1, Mr. ABC in the above Petition in Person.
Our Address for service is as under:
XXXXXXXXXX
1. Mr.ABC , Petitioner No.1
Dated this day of , 200
Petitioner No.1
In Person
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT XXX
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
PIL WRIT PETITION NO. OF
Mr.ABC ....PETITIONERS
V/S
THE name of Public Auth ….RESPONDENTS
MEMORANDUM OF REGISTERED ADDRESS
1. Mr.ABC ..Petitioners
V/S
1. The name and address of public Auth ..Respondents.
To,
The Registar General,
XXX
ZZZ
Sir/ Madame,
Be pleased to register our address for service as hereunder:
XXXXXXXXXXXXX
1. Mr.ABC,Petitioner No.1
Dated this day of ., 2009 Petitioner No.1
In Person.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT XXX
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
PIL WRIT PETITION NO. OF
Mr.ABC ....PETITIONERS
V/S
THE name of Public Auth ….RESPONDENTS
LIST OF DOCUMENTS
1. Exhibit “A” to “F “to the Petition.(Relevant News reports if relied on and Correspondence if any prior to the Petition)
3. Documents referred to and relied upon in the Petition. ( Like for example if you have relied upon any document or report which you cannot attach with Petition. In that case you can mention in the petition as you will produce the relevant document or report at the time of hearing and will provide copy of the same to the Court and to the Respondent if they need so. )
Dated this day of . 200.
Petitioner No.1.
IN PERSON.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT XXX
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
PIL WRIT PETITION NO. OF
Mr.ABC ....PETITIONERS
V/S
THE name of Pub auth ….RESPONDENTS
CERTIFICATE
The Present Petition…A BRIEF NOTE WHY THIS Writ Petition IS FILED.
Therefore this Writ Petition is filed for which this Court has Jurisdiction and therefore be placed before the concerned bench as per High Court Rule
Dated this day of . 200
Petitioner No.1
In Person.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT XXX
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
PIL WRIT PETITION NO. OF
Mr.ABC ....PETITIONERS
V/S
THE name of pub Auth ….RESPONDENTS
PETITIONERS’ AFFIDAVIT
I, Mr.ABC, the Petitioner No.1 abovenamed, do hereby beg to state on solemn affirmation as under:
1. The petitioners have filed the present petition inter-alia for various reliefs as more particularly set out in the petition. I repeat, reiterate and adopt the statements made in the petition as if the same are incorporated herein and form part of the present affidavit. I crave leave to refer to and rely upon the papers and proceedings in the petition when produced. I state that there is urgency in the matter.
2. In the said circumstances, I say and submit that the petitioners are entitled for the reliefs as prayed for and if the same are not granted, irreparable loss and harm would be caused to the petitioners. I say and submit that this petition be made absolute with cost.
Solemnly affirmed at Bombay, ) Before Me,
This day of . 200
PETITIONER NO.1
In Person
Writ Petition Under Article 226 of Constitution of India.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT XXX
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
PIL WP NO. OF
Mr.ABC……………..…PETITIONERS
V/S.
Name of Public Auth ………………RESPONDENTS
WRIT P E T I T I O N
DATE THIS DAY OF
Petitioner No.1
IN PERSON
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
PIL WRIT PETITION NO. OF
Mr.ABC .... ……………………………………….PETITIONERS
V/S
THE STATE OF XXX ………………………..RESPONDENTS
INDEX
Sr.NO. DATE PARTICULARS PAGE NO.
1. PROFORMA
2. SYNOPSIS
3. POINTS, AUTHORITIES & ACTS
4. THE PETITION
5. VERIFICATION
6. MEMO OF APPEARANCE
7. MEMORANDUM OF REGISTERED ADDRESS
8. LIST OF DOCUMENTS
9. EXHIBIT ‘A’
10. AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT.
11. CERTIFICATE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT XXX
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
PIL WP NO. OF
Name And Address of Petitioners –
Versus
Name and Addresses of Respondent (s)
(IN PERSON).
____________________________________________________________________
Office Notes, Office Memorunda of
Corom. Appendices. Court’s order or Court’s of Judge’s
Direction and prothonarty’s order orders.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT XXX
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
PIL WRIT PETITION NO. OF
Mr.ABC .... PETITIONERS
V/S
THE (Name of Public Authority/s) ….RESPONDENTS
S Y N O P S I S
While filling up Posts of Commissioners at XXX Information Commission in absolute and prima facie violation of Constitutional mandate of Article 14 & 16.
Petitioner No.1
In Person.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT XXX
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
PIL WRIT PETITION NO. OF
Mr.ABC .... PETITIONERS
V/S
THE (Name of public Auth) …. RESPONDENTS
THE POINTS TO BE URGED
1) However we are not inclined to engage in a debate if Information Commissioners so appointed at XXX lacks any of the qualifications as required under the RTI Act.
2) Our only humble submission is that it is an obvious expectation from the Govt that they will give utmost respect to Constitutional mandate of Article 14 & 16 while making Appointments at Public offices, a mandate which represents the Collective wisdom of our Constitutional framers and Law makers.
2) In the present Constitutional democratic set up we all Indians live in, the Laws made and passed by the Parliament and the State Legislatures represents the wishes and ambitions of we the people of India.
It is the Prime responsibility of the Govts and its various instrumentalities to implement and administer the Laws so made by the Parliament and the State Legislatures.
It is even not open to the Supreme Court and the High Courts to act or give judgments in deviation from established laws.
All Statutes or Laws so made and passed by Legislatures is to remedy the ill that has plagued the society. All Statutes comes into being with some policy and objective to be achieved.
Every statutory provision in a Statute comes into being after due deliberation and every letter of the law is employed with great caution and care and with some purpose.
It may be beyond one’s wisdom to anticipate nor it is necessary for one to outline the consequences that may occasion due to patent violation of a statutory provision, for the consequences have already been deliberated at the time of passing of the statutory provision.
It is suffice if one merely seek the bare observance of the letter of the law and the spirit inherent in the letter of the law.
At the same time it is not permissible for one who violates the letter of the law on the pretext of some beneficial advantage that may accrue.
As everyone says that we live in a Rule of Law society. What we really mean by Rule of Law is that the Law which is established must be observed in all the circumstances except in cases where the Law itself is absurd and or arbitrary.
The present case is a demonstrative example of how a State is acting
plainly in complete contravention of established laws.
In doing so, they invariably disregard and undermine the collective wisdom and authority of our Lawmakers. In doing so, the State is acting against the wishes of the Indian people.
Every letter of the Law must be observed with due respect, unless the same is declared by the competent court of Jurisdiction as manifestly arbitrary and or absurd.
The bare act of State in contravention of established laws frustrates the foundation of Rule of Law society.
THE AUTHORITIES TO BE CITED
1. The Constitution Of India.
2. Ashwani Kumar Vs State of BiharAIR 1996 SC2833
3. Jai Narain ram Vs State of UP, AIR 1996, SC 703
THE ACTS TO BE RELIED UPON
1. The Right to Information Act 2005
PETITIONER NO.1
IN PERSON
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT XXX
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
PIL WRIT PETITION NO. OF
IN THE MATTER OF
Appointments of Information Commissioners at XXX Information Commission
AND
That not inviting Applications from General Public for filling Post at Information Commissioners constitute prima facie violation of Constitutional mandate as contained in Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India
AND
Article 226, of the Constitution of India empowers this Hon Court to issue Appropriate Writ for enforcement of Fundamental Rights as contained in Part Three of Constitution of India.
1. Mr.ABC ………………… .Petitioners
V/S
1. The Name Of Public Auth …………Respondents.
THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND OTHER PUISNE JUDGES OF THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT DELHI
THE HUMBLE PETITION OF THE PETITIONERS ABOVENAMED MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH
1. The Petitioners states that Petitioner No.1 is an ( very BRIEF INRODUCTION OF PETITIONER)
2. The 1st Respondent is
3. The Petitioners states that-
(a) Section 12(5) says that Info Commissioners , both State and Central, Chief and others, should be person of eminence in Public Life with wide knowledge and experience in Law, Science & technology, Social Service, Management, Journalism, mass media or Administration and Governance.
(b) The petitioners are not inclined to engage in a debate if Information Commissioners so appointed at XXX lacks any of the qualifications as required under section 12(5) of the RTI Act, and our only humble submission is that it is an obvious expectation from the Govt that they will give utmost respect to Constitutional mandate of Article 14 & 16 while making Appointments at Public offices, a mandate which represents the Collective wisdom of our Constitutional framers and Law makers.
(c) Article 14 of the Constitution of India exhorts that the State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.
Article 16 of the Constitution of India further exhorts that There shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State.
Article 12. Definition.—In this Part, unless the context otherwise requires, “the State’’ includes the Government and Parliament of India and the Government and the Legislature of each of the States and all local or other authorities within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India.
(d) Some SC Judgments:
(i) Appointments made only on the basis of notification put up on notice board without any advertisements in newspapers, without inviting applications from open market and from employment exchange are stage managed by authorities in flagrant breach of Article 14 & 16.[Ashwani Kumar Vs State of BiharAIR 1996 SC2833]
(ii) Right to seek appointment to a Post under Article 14 read with Article 16(1)& (4) is a Constitutional right to equality......... [Jai Narain ram Vs State of UP, AIR 1996, SC 703]
(e) According to information obtained by inspection of Records , while filling up Post of Information Commissioners at XXX, no applications from General Public has been invited.
(f) In the circumstances, prima facie violation of Constitutional mandate of Article 14 & 16 can safely be presumed.
(g) In Karkare vs. Shavde (AIR, Nagpur, 1952, p. 330), Masehullah vs Abdul Rehman (AIR, Allahabad, 1953 p. 193) etc. Courts have held that any private citizen can file a petition of Quo Warranto to challenge the appointment of a public official even though his personal rights are not directly affected.
4. The Petitioners states that there is no other Petition/Application pending in any other court or before the Hon. Supreme Court.
5. The Petitioners states that whenever violation of Statutory or Constitutional provisions are alleged, this Court has Jurisdiction to hear and give authoritative direction. The cause of action has arisen in the State of Delhi, hence this Honourable Court has Jurisdiction to hear and adjudicate the case.
7. The Petitioners rely on Documents, list whereof is annexed hereto.
8. The Petitioners have paid the necessary Court Fee. The Petitioners states that this is a PIL.
9. The Petitioners therefore pray to the Honourable Court:
The Hon Court may please to issue a Writ of Quo Warranto OR Mandamus or any other Writ as they deem appropriate, directing the State of Delhi- that While retaining the existing Information Commissioners till new appointments are made by due process of law, to issue an Advertisement inviting Applications from General Public for filling post of Information Commission. Needless to say, all existing Information Commissioners are eligible for applying for the post like any other Citizen of this Country.
The Appointing Authority then shall appoint the most deserving man while giving due regard to mandate of section 12(5) of RTI Act.
10. In the backdrop of, Many a times conclusive orders of the court are not complied with; and Time and again even courts have shown their inability to monitor implementation of their Orders, The Hon Court while passing Orders, interim or final may direct –"Appellant/Respondents Govt/ Public Authority to update their website about Court's directions so given and action taken in pursuant thereof;
As long as the Appellant's/ Respondent's website doesn't show up details of action taken, non compliance of Court Orders can and should safely be presumed and be alleged."
11) Pass such other and further orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem proper and expedient in the Public interest.
(12) For expeditious hearing of this Petition.
(13) For cost to the Petitioners.
1. Mr.ABC,
Petitioner No.1
VERIFICATION (Notes 2)
I, (name and address),, the Petitioner No.1 in the abovenamed petition do hereby solemnly declare that the contents and what is stated in Paragraph to are true to the best of my knowledge and what is stated in remaining paras to are based on information and belief and I believe the same to be true.
Solemnly declared at XXX )
Aforesaid this Day of , 200 )
Before me
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT XXX
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
PIL WRIT PETITION NO. OF
Mr.ABC ....PETITIONERS
V/S
THE name of Pub auth ….RESPONDENTS
MEMO OF APPEARENCE
To,
The Prothonotary & Senior Master
The Hon. XXX High Court,
ZZZ
Sir,
Please enter the appearance of the Petitioner No.1, Mr. ABC in the above Petition in Person.
Our Address for service is as under:
XXXXXXXXXX
1. Mr.ABC , Petitioner No.1
Dated this day of , 200
Petitioner No.1
In Person
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT XXX
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
PIL WRIT PETITION NO. OF
Mr.ABC ....PETITIONERS
V/S
THE name of Public Auth ….RESPONDENTS
MEMORANDUM OF REGISTERED ADDRESS
1. Mr.ABC ..Petitioners
V/S
1. The name and address of public Auth ..Respondents.
To,
The Registar General,
XXX
ZZZ
Sir/ Madame,
Be pleased to register our address for service as hereunder:
XXXXXXXXXXXXX
1. Mr.ABC,Petitioner No.1
Dated this day of ., 2009 Petitioner No.1
In Person.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT XXX
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
PIL WRIT PETITION NO. OF
Mr.ABC ....PETITIONERS
V/S
THE name of Public Auth ….RESPONDENTS
LIST OF DOCUMENTS
1. Exhibit “A” to “F “to the Petition.(Relevant News reports if relied on and Correspondence if any prior to the Petition)
3. Documents referred to and relied upon in the Petition. ( Like for example if you have relied upon any document or report which you cannot attach with Petition. In that case you can mention in the petition as you will produce the relevant document or report at the time of hearing and will provide copy of the same to the Court and to the Respondent if they need so. )
Dated this day of . 200.
Petitioner No.1.
IN PERSON.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT XXX
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
PIL WRIT PETITION NO. OF
Mr.ABC ....PETITIONERS
V/S
THE name of Pub auth ….RESPONDENTS
CERTIFICATE
The Present Petition…A BRIEF NOTE WHY THIS Writ Petition IS FILED.
Therefore this Writ Petition is filed for which this Court has Jurisdiction and therefore be placed before the concerned bench as per High Court Rule
Dated this day of . 200
Petitioner No.1
In Person.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT XXX
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
PIL WRIT PETITION NO. OF
Mr.ABC ....PETITIONERS
V/S
THE name of pub Auth ….RESPONDENTS
PETITIONERS’ AFFIDAVIT
I, Mr.ABC, the Petitioner No.1 abovenamed, do hereby beg to state on solemn affirmation as under:
1. The petitioners have filed the present petition inter-alia for various reliefs as more particularly set out in the petition. I repeat, reiterate and adopt the statements made in the petition as if the same are incorporated herein and form part of the present affidavit. I crave leave to refer to and rely upon the papers and proceedings in the petition when produced. I state that there is urgency in the matter.
2. In the said circumstances, I say and submit that the petitioners are entitled for the reliefs as prayed for and if the same are not granted, irreparable loss and harm would be caused to the petitioners. I say and submit that this petition be made absolute with cost.
Solemnly affirmed at Bombay, ) Before Me,
This day of . 200
PETITIONER NO.1
In Person
Writ Petition Under Article 226 of Constitution of India.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT XXX
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
PIL WP NO. OF
Mr.ABC……………..…PETITIONERS
V/S.
Name of Public Auth ………………RESPONDENTS
WRIT P E T I T I O N
DATE THIS DAY OF
Petitioner No.1
IN PERSON
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)