Skip to main content

"STING" before Supreme Court of India


Wednesday, 7th April 2010, 10.20 Hrs.
To,
The Hon'ble the Chief Justice Of India, K G Balakrishnan,

In the backdrop of Yahoo India news report - Tue, Apr 6 10:54 AM: CBI says charge those who sting, SC to decide.
The Supreme Court today decided to test the legality of the CBI stand that a person who does a sting operation on the sly to expose a "corrupt" public official is liable to be charged with the offence of abetting corruption. Abetment of corruption draws a punishment of imprisonment of a maximum five years and fine under the Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act, 1988.

MY LORDSHIP, If whether an alleged act constitutes an offence punishable with imprisonment, is probably a matter of Public Policy of India, a matter 'substantially' falls within the provinces of Parliament of India.

MY LORDSHIP, in our scheme of Constitution, the Separation of powers is recognized as a basic feature of our functional democracy. The Separation of powers implies the exercise of powers by three organs of the 'State' in mutual restraint and in the spirit of cooperation, in the best interest of the people.

MY LORDSHIP, Therefore, it feels that, it is desirable that this Hon'ble Apex Court may consider recusing itself from dwelling in the issue and left it for the wisdom of Parliament of India to decide upon and IF EXPEDIENT, they may pass an appropriate law, that – “Whoever carry out Sting Operation, to expose corruption in public life, will be punished with imprisonment........”

Moreover, so important, the laws passed by Parliament of India has sanction of the wishes of the 110 Crore people.

From,
Sandeep Jalan
[Advocate]



Page link of News Report:
http://in.news.yahoo.com/48/20100406/814/tnl-cbi-says-charge-those-who-sting-sc-t.html


Legal issues !!
If you are facing any of these issues like (a) Recovery of Moneys (b) Immovable property disputes (c) grievances against Municipalities & Govts., including challenge to legitimacy of laws etc. (d) grievances against illegalities and highhandedness of Police like illegal arrests, refusal to register FIR, deliberately flawed investigations, etc (e) False FIRs (f) False Claims (g) False evidences (h) Grievances against Judges (i) Illegal or perverse Orders of the Courts / Tribunals, among others.
or
If you are looking for draft of any legal proceeding; or if you want to know the nature and attribute of any legal proceeding; or if you want to know the procedure followed in any legal proceeding; or if you want to know the grounds on which any order of the court / tribunal is challenged; or if you are facing any frivolous litigation.

https://www.litigationplatform.com/


Thank you.
Labels:

Comments

krishnamurthy iyer said…
I appreciate the tinge of sarcasm in your observations.CBI is truly its Masters Voice.
I wish to know if ceritiorari can be used to quash trial in a lower court that is dragging on for say 10 yrs on the grounds that Right to speedy trial is denied?
April 16, 2010 at 10:00 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Recall Jurisdiction of the Courts

What is Recall of Orders of the Court ? But first….what is expected from the Orders of the Court – a)       While giving due consideration to the submissions and evidences on record of the rival parties, to record a reasoned finding with respect to disputed question of fact or of law; b)       Employing cogent reasons about the conclusion reached in the order / judgment. c)       Passing of orders in accordance with law. d)      Principles of natural justice are reasonably observed in the judicial proceeding. And when the Orders suffers from any of the vices, it is challenged by way of Review, Appeal or in Revision, alleging the impugned Order, being infected with either of the grounds, i.e. – a)       That there is Error apparent on the face of the Record; b)       That there is Perversity in the impugned Order; c)...
8 comments
Read more

Form II under Rule 6 of Rules, 2006, framed under the impugned Act

Impugned Provision / other anomaly Breach of Section / Article FORM II [See Rule 6(1)] Application to the Magistrate under Section 12 of the impugned Act Section 3 – Explanation II; Section 18, 19, 20, 22 and 23 of the impugned Act. Principles of natural justice. FORM II [See Rule 6(1)] Application to the Magistrate under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (43 of 2005)     To The Court of Magistrate .................................... .................................... .................................... .................................... Application under section ........................ of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (43 of 2005)            SHOWETH: That the application under section.................of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is b...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai Capital Value Property Tax Judgment: A Rocket Science by Social Scientists; A Brief Analysis;

The subject of taxation is a “Rocket Science”. The constitution of Nine Judges Bench in the Mafatlal Industries Case, Reported in (1997) 5 SCC 536, running into more than 500 pages; the extremely contested Vodafone litigation; and the present Judgment of Bombay High Court running into 310 Pages, at least furnishes some justification to this statement of Rocket Science. There are umpteen Judgments, some of which are relied herein also (Para 147), that whilst dealing with challenge to Taxation laws, greater latitude is shown by Constitutional Courts, only for the reason that Taxation / Economic Legislation, by their very nature, are very complex. And hold on, the Regime of Property Tax based on Capital Value of the Property, was brought in force, on the recommendations of Tata Institute of “Social Sciences”. (Para 33 of the Judgment) Did these Social Scientist, nevertheless very respectable, would appreciate an Inch of what was discussed in 310 Pages of Judgment, even assuming t...
4 comments
Read more