Letter to the Hon'ble President of India regarding Hon'ble Chief Justice of India
9.12.2011.
Her Excellency Hon'ble President of India,
New Delhi.
Your Excellency,
This is my personal communication to the head of the three organs of
the democratic institution for taking the immediate steps as the
esteem of Justice may be protected by self introspection without
attribution any disrespect to the highest prestige of the Apex Court.
I have started my struggle for rectifications of the prevailing
maladies from a very long period as there is no refutations for the
hopes to
maintain the dignity of the Judicial institution. After being elected
as the President of Freedom for Advocate International, (INDIAN
CHAPTER) for five year term, having Its headquarter at Superior Law
Studies & Judicial Science Technique, 4215, NW 7 Street, #34, Miami,
FL33126 (US) during the conference of World Parliament under espouse
of RASMUS TENBERGAN held from 23rd Feb. 2008 upto 3rd March, 2008 at
Bonn, (Germany), I am having profound bleeding at my heart and pained
to write this letter having my personal opinions to bring to your
Excellency kind notice the role being played by individually Sri S.H.
Kapadia, still occupying and holding the apex post of Hon'ble The
Chief Justice of India and also functioning in ostensible capacity as
the President of the International Institute of Human Rights Society
(IIHRS), having registered office at Chamber No. 134, Lawyers Chamber,
Supreme Court of India, New Delhi, and his proximity with Mr. P.H.
Parekh, Advocate who is his General Secretary of IIHRS.
This is glaring instance of proximity of Hon'ble The Chief Justice of
India with the lawyers, who are appearing before him on behalf of
their rich clients. Mr. P.H.Parekh, who was elected as the President
of IIHRS in 2006 for three year term by a handful of lawyers, who are
regularly appearing before him as lawyers and getting discretion in
derogation to the spirit of high traditions that " Justice should not
only be administered, but appeared to have been without any favour. He
was again elected as President of the Institute in 2009 and Mr.
Parekh continued to be General Secretary and Mr. P.P.Rao was elected
as Treasurer.
As per Rules of the said Institute, the registered office is Chamber
134, Lawyers Chamber, Supreme Court which has been allotted to Mr.
P.H.Parekh and from the said chamber, Mr. Parekh is also entertaining
the clients, cases are filed before Hon'ble Supreme Court from his
company Parekh & Co. and PH Parekh & Co. To name few cases in which
he appeared before Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.H. Kapadia, Chief Justice of
India and President, International Institute of Human Rights Society
and obtained favourable orders for his clients are : CIT Mumbai Vs.
Pankaj Mehta (10.1.2011); CIT Vs. Chandravadan K Bagaria (25.2.2011);
State of Karnataka Vs. Azad Coach Builders Pvt. Ltd. and anr.JT 2010
(11) SC 201; Epuru Sudhakar and anr. Vs. Govt. of A.P. and ors. 2006
(3) ACR 3223 (SC); Punjab State Electricity Board Vs. SIEL Ltd. and
ors. 2008 (358) SCALE 11; Puravankara Projects Ltd. Vs. Hotel Venus
International and Ors. (2007) 10 SCC 33; ICICI Bank Limited Vs.
Official Liquidator of APS Star Industries Ltd. and ors. AIR 2011 SC
1521. Needless
to add, he got so many interim reliefs for his clients from the said court.
As per Rule 10 of the said Institute, the term of the President will
be for three years who shall be elected by secret ballot by the
members of the general body. Therefore, before electing as President,
Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.H.Kapadia must have filed his nomination papers.
You are requested get the matter inquired why Mr. Justice Kapadia
filed his nomination papers two times, first time in 2006 and second
time in 2009 and who proposed his name for the Presidentship as it is
unbecoming of the Judge of the Supreme Court of India to be the
President of the organisation which is consisting of lawyers, who are
appearing before him.
Rule 15 D of the Institute envisages that "All cheques shall be signed
by the Treasurer and counter-signed by the General Secretary or the
President."
The said Institute is publishing a "Year Book on Human Rights" every
year which prominently publicise the names of office bearers including
the the names of Justice Kapadia and Mr. Parekh and is being
distributed to the Advocates and litigants to show proximity.
Rule 12 (A) envisages that "The President shall be responsible to look
after and be in overall charge of the Society and preside over
the meetings of the General Body and the Executive Committee". So it
is evident from the said Rule, that Mr. Justice Kapadia, being the
President of the Institute look after the office of IIHRS which in
fact the chamber of Mr. Parekh whom where the cases are being filed
before Hon'ble Supreme Court. As a matter of fact, it is not proper
for Justice Kapadia, who himself advocates that there should not be
proximity between judges and lawyers to behave like that. I am unable
to understand what was the compulsion for Justice Kapadia to become
the President of the Institute to lookafter and be in overall charge
of the society's office which is in fact chamber of Mr. PH Parekh.
Rule 21 envisages that "All disbursements and expenses for sums
exceeding Rs. 10,000/- at a time will require previous sanction from
the President and all cheques will compulsorily be signed by atleast
two of the three persons President, Secretary and Treasurer. I may
point out that every year, lakhs of Rupees are being spent by the
Institute and Mr. Justice Kapadia is wasting his valuable time of the
Chief Justice of India in organising the seminar/conference,
publishing the "Year Book on Human Rights", collecting the funds for
the institute, granting the prior sanction for expenditure and signing
of the cheques, printing the invitation cards and looking after the
office of the Institute when there is so much pendency in Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India and other courts in India.
Rule 22 of the Institute envisages that "Once in a every year, a list
of office bearers and members of the society shall be filed with the
Registrar of the Societies, Delhi as required under Sec. 4 of the
Societies Registration Act, 1860."
As per Rules, the Institute is required to get their accounts audited
and the same should be also signed by the President, Secretary and
Treasurer. Whether it is appropriate for the Chief Justice of India to
get the accounts audited and sign on the balance sheets etc of the
Institute.
In the situation, the question arises : whether Hon'ble Chief Justice
should be President of IIHRS which is a non governmental rganisation
with advocates who are appearing before them ?
Whether it is appropriate that for the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India
should have office of his organization in the chamber of the lawyer
who appears before them and publicise their closeness ?
Whether it is not appropriate for the Chief Justice of India to resign
from the post of the Presidentship of International Institute of Human
Rights Society.
Whether it is appropriate for the Chief Justice of India allow those
lawyers, who are office bearers with him in IIHRS to appear and argue
cases before him.
Mr. Ajay Pratap Sharma, President, Forum for Integrity, Transparency &
Accountability in Legal Profession, vide his letter dated
25.1.2011also reminded Mr. Justice Kapadia to adhere to the Condition
No. 1, 2, 3 and 6 of Code of Conduct of 1999 adopted in the Chief
Justices Conference in December 1999. But inspite of receipt of the
same, he is not adhering to the same. The copy of the letter dated
25.1.2011 is attached.
It is really surprising that Mr. Justice Kapadia has not resigned from
the said post inspite of the fact that Mail Today, New Delhi dated
1.4.2011 published an article on this issue. I may point out that as
President of the IIHRS, Mr. Justice Kapadia is annually holding a
seminar on or about 10th December and this year also he is holding a
seminar on 10.12.2012 in New Delhi. The copy of the invitation card is
also attached. I am also attaching herewith the copy of Registration
Certificate and Rules of the IIHRS.
In the circumstances, I request you to take action against Mr. Justice
S.H. Kapadia for contesting and holding the post of President of
International Institute of Human Rights Society along with other
advocates who are misusing their proximity with him and for raising
the funds and for publishing the Annual Year Book on Human Rights
publicising the names of the office-bearers proving his proximity with
the other officebears who are regularly appearing before him.
(Yogesh Kumar Saxena, Advocate)
President
Freedom for Advocate International, (INDIAN CHAPTER)
Headquarters :Superior Law Studies & Judicial Science Technique
4215 NW 7 Street, #34, Miami, FL33126 (US)
Ex Senior Vice President ,
Advocate's Association, High Court, Allahabad
H.I.G. 203, Preetam Nagar, Sulem Sarai, Allahabad, Mobile-9792131584,
7800888892, 9415284843 Phone 0532 2436451, 2637720, Fax 2436966
(PP)
Encl : Letter of Forum for Integrity, Transparency & Accountability in
Legal Profession (FITALP) dated 25.1.2011
Invitation Card for the seminar on 10.12.2011.
Registration certificate and Rules of IIHRS
--
Yogesh Kumar Saxena Advocate Supreme Court
Her Excellency Hon'ble President of India,
New Delhi.
Your Excellency,
This is my personal communication to the head of the three organs of
the democratic institution for taking the immediate steps as the
esteem of Justice may be protected by self introspection without
attribution any disrespect to the highest prestige of the Apex Court.
I have started my struggle for rectifications of the prevailing
maladies from a very long period as there is no refutations for the
hopes to
maintain the dignity of the Judicial institution. After being elected
as the President of Freedom for Advocate International, (INDIAN
CHAPTER) for five year term, having Its headquarter at Superior Law
Studies & Judicial Science Technique, 4215, NW 7 Street, #34, Miami,
FL33126 (US) during the conference of World Parliament under espouse
of RASMUS TENBERGAN held from 23rd Feb. 2008 upto 3rd March, 2008 at
Bonn, (Germany), I am having profound bleeding at my heart and pained
to write this letter having my personal opinions to bring to your
Excellency kind notice the role being played by individually Sri S.H.
Kapadia, still occupying and holding the apex post of Hon'ble The
Chief Justice of India and also functioning in ostensible capacity as
the President of the International Institute of Human Rights Society
(IIHRS), having registered office at Chamber No. 134, Lawyers Chamber,
Supreme Court of India, New Delhi, and his proximity with Mr. P.H.
Parekh, Advocate who is his General Secretary of IIHRS.
This is glaring instance of proximity of Hon'ble The Chief Justice of
India with the lawyers, who are appearing before him on behalf of
their rich clients. Mr. P.H.Parekh, who was elected as the President
of IIHRS in 2006 for three year term by a handful of lawyers, who are
regularly appearing before him as lawyers and getting discretion in
derogation to the spirit of high traditions that " Justice should not
only be administered, but appeared to have been without any favour. He
was again elected as President of the Institute in 2009 and Mr.
Parekh continued to be General Secretary and Mr. P.P.Rao was elected
as Treasurer.
As per Rules of the said Institute, the registered office is Chamber
134, Lawyers Chamber, Supreme Court which has been allotted to Mr.
P.H.Parekh and from the said chamber, Mr. Parekh is also entertaining
the clients, cases are filed before Hon'ble Supreme Court from his
company Parekh & Co. and PH Parekh & Co. To name few cases in which
he appeared before Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.H. Kapadia, Chief Justice of
India and President, International Institute of Human Rights Society
and obtained favourable orders for his clients are : CIT Mumbai Vs.
Pankaj Mehta (10.1.2011); CIT Vs. Chandravadan K Bagaria (25.2.2011);
State of Karnataka Vs. Azad Coach Builders Pvt. Ltd. and anr.JT 2010
(11) SC 201; Epuru Sudhakar and anr. Vs. Govt. of A.P. and ors. 2006
(3) ACR 3223 (SC); Punjab State Electricity Board Vs. SIEL Ltd. and
ors. 2008 (358) SCALE 11; Puravankara Projects Ltd. Vs. Hotel Venus
International and Ors. (2007) 10 SCC 33; ICICI Bank Limited Vs.
Official Liquidator of APS Star Industries Ltd. and ors. AIR 2011 SC
1521. Needless
to add, he got so many interim reliefs for his clients from the said court.
As per Rule 10 of the said Institute, the term of the President will
be for three years who shall be elected by secret ballot by the
members of the general body. Therefore, before electing as President,
Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.H.Kapadia must have filed his nomination papers.
You are requested get the matter inquired why Mr. Justice Kapadia
filed his nomination papers two times, first time in 2006 and second
time in 2009 and who proposed his name for the Presidentship as it is
unbecoming of the Judge of the Supreme Court of India to be the
President of the organisation which is consisting of lawyers, who are
appearing before him.
Rule 15 D of the Institute envisages that "All cheques shall be signed
by the Treasurer and counter-signed by the General Secretary or the
President."
The said Institute is publishing a "Year Book on Human Rights" every
year which prominently publicise the names of office bearers including
the the names of Justice Kapadia and Mr. Parekh and is being
distributed to the Advocates and litigants to show proximity.
Rule 12 (A) envisages that "The President shall be responsible to look
after and be in overall charge of the Society and preside over
the meetings of the General Body and the Executive Committee". So it
is evident from the said Rule, that Mr. Justice Kapadia, being the
President of the Institute look after the office of IIHRS which in
fact the chamber of Mr. Parekh whom where the cases are being filed
before Hon'ble Supreme Court. As a matter of fact, it is not proper
for Justice Kapadia, who himself advocates that there should not be
proximity between judges and lawyers to behave like that. I am unable
to understand what was the compulsion for Justice Kapadia to become
the President of the Institute to lookafter and be in overall charge
of the society's office which is in fact chamber of Mr. PH Parekh.
Rule 21 envisages that "All disbursements and expenses for sums
exceeding Rs. 10,000/- at a time will require previous sanction from
the President and all cheques will compulsorily be signed by atleast
two of the three persons President, Secretary and Treasurer. I may
point out that every year, lakhs of Rupees are being spent by the
Institute and Mr. Justice Kapadia is wasting his valuable time of the
Chief Justice of India in organising the seminar/conference,
publishing the "Year Book on Human Rights", collecting the funds for
the institute, granting the prior sanction for expenditure and signing
of the cheques, printing the invitation cards and looking after the
office of the Institute when there is so much pendency in Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India and other courts in India.
Rule 22 of the Institute envisages that "Once in a every year, a list
of office bearers and members of the society shall be filed with the
Registrar of the Societies, Delhi as required under Sec. 4 of the
Societies Registration Act, 1860."
As per Rules, the Institute is required to get their accounts audited
and the same should be also signed by the President, Secretary and
Treasurer. Whether it is appropriate for the Chief Justice of India to
get the accounts audited and sign on the balance sheets etc of the
Institute.
In the situation, the question arises : whether Hon'ble Chief Justice
should be President of IIHRS which is a non governmental rganisation
with advocates who are appearing before them ?
Whether it is appropriate that for the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India
should have office of his organization in the chamber of the lawyer
who appears before them and publicise their closeness ?
Whether it is not appropriate for the Chief Justice of India to resign
from the post of the Presidentship of International Institute of Human
Rights Society.
Whether it is appropriate for the Chief Justice of India allow those
lawyers, who are office bearers with him in IIHRS to appear and argue
cases before him.
Mr. Ajay Pratap Sharma, President, Forum for Integrity, Transparency &
Accountability in Legal Profession, vide his letter dated
25.1.2011also reminded Mr. Justice Kapadia to adhere to the Condition
No. 1, 2, 3 and 6 of Code of Conduct of 1999 adopted in the Chief
Justices Conference in December 1999. But inspite of receipt of the
same, he is not adhering to the same. The copy of the letter dated
25.1.2011 is attached.
It is really surprising that Mr. Justice Kapadia has not resigned from
the said post inspite of the fact that Mail Today, New Delhi dated
1.4.2011 published an article on this issue. I may point out that as
President of the IIHRS, Mr. Justice Kapadia is annually holding a
seminar on or about 10th December and this year also he is holding a
seminar on 10.12.2012 in New Delhi. The copy of the invitation card is
also attached. I am also attaching herewith the copy of Registration
Certificate and Rules of the IIHRS.
In the circumstances, I request you to take action against Mr. Justice
S.H. Kapadia for contesting and holding the post of President of
International Institute of Human Rights Society along with other
advocates who are misusing their proximity with him and for raising
the funds and for publishing the Annual Year Book on Human Rights
publicising the names of the office-bearers proving his proximity with
the other officebears who are regularly appearing before him.
(Yogesh Kumar Saxena, Advocate)
President
Freedom for Advocate International, (INDIAN CHAPTER)
Headquarters :Superior Law Studies & Judicial Science Technique
4215 NW 7 Street, #34, Miami, FL33126 (US)
Ex Senior Vice President ,
Advocate's Association, High Court, Allahabad
H.I.G. 203, Preetam Nagar, Sulem Sarai, Allahabad, Mobile-9792131584,
7800888892, 9415284843 Phone 0532 2436451, 2637720, Fax 2436966
(PP)
Encl : Letter of Forum for Integrity, Transparency & Accountability in
Legal Profession (FITALP) dated 25.1.2011
Invitation Card for the seminar on 10.12.2011.
Registration certificate and Rules of IIHRS
--
Yogesh Kumar Saxena Advocate Supreme Court
No comments:
Post a Comment