bar & bench ()images.assettype.com/barandbench/import/2019/02/advocate-manik… · manikandan...

In the Supreme Court of India

Civil Appellate Jurisdiction

Civil Appeal No. _________ of 2018

Under Section 38 of the Advocates Act, 1961

(Arising out of the final order and judgment on 03.02.2018 but dated as 09.12.2017

passed by Ld. Bar Council of India at New Delhi in SUO MOTU BCI Tr. Case No.

151/2016)

(with prayers for interim relief)

In the matter of

Position of parties

Before BCI Before Supreme Court

MANIKANDAN VATHAN CHETTIAR

=Respondent No. 1

Appellant

VERSUS

1. BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA

Represented by its Chairman,

21, Rouse Avenue,

New Delhi – 110 002. Respondent No. 1

2. BAR COUNCIL OF TAMILNADU,


Gate No 4, High Court Campus,

Chennai-6001004 Respondent No. 2

3. M. Kalyani

No. 3/179, Sivan Koil Street,

Pakkam Village, Thirundeendravur,

Tiruvallur Distt., Tamil Nadu-602024 Performa Respondent

(Arising out of the final order and judgment on 03.02.2018 but dated as 09.12.2017 passed by Ld. Bar Council of India at New Delhi in SUO MOTU BCI Tr. Case No.

152/2016)


In the matter of

Position of parties

Before BCI Before Supreme Court


H-36, Manickampalayam Housing Unit,

Nasianur Road,

Erode-638001. Respondent No. 1 Appellant

VERSUS

Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com)

1. BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA Represented by its Chairman,

21, Rouse Avenue,

New Delhi – 110 002. Respondent No.1


Represented by its Chairman, Gate No 4, High Court Campus, Chennai-600104 Respondent No. 2

3. R.Mathan Kumar

32, College Road, Tindivanam,

Tamil Nadu. 604001 Performa Respondent

(Arising out of the final order and judgment on 03.02.2018 but dated as 09.12.2017

passed by Ld. Bar Council of India at New Delhi in SUO MOTU BCI Tr. Case No.

153/2016)


In the matter of

Position of parties

Before BCI Before Supreme

Court



Nasianur Road,

Erode-638001. Respondent No. 1 Appellant

VERSUS

1. BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA


21, Rouse Avenue,

New Delhi – 110 002. Respondent No. 1



Gate No 4, High Court Campus,

Chennai-600104 Respondent No. 2

3. Vijyalakshmi


Nasianur Road, Erode-638001 Performa Respondent

APPEAL UNDER SECTION 38 OF THE ADVOCATES ACT


To,

The Hon’ble Chief Justice of India and

His Companion Judges of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court of India

The Appeal of the above named

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. Appellant in this Appeal impugns the final and common order and judgement

pronounced on 03.02.18 but dated as 09.12.2017, passed by the Bar Council of

India (BCI (hereinafter referred to as BCI) in BCI Tr. Case No. 151/2016, BCI Tr.

Case No. 152/2016 and BCI Tr. Case No. 153/2016, whereby the BCI has imposed a

‘debarment from the legal profession for life’, and another 5 year ban from the legal

profession, in BCI Transferred SUO MOTU Case numbers 151, 152 and 153 of 2016,

respectively. Since the orders are based on the Madras High Court’s orders dated

14.08.2015 in Crl.O.P. 30502 of 2014, and Crl.OP.SR Nos. 15125 of 2014 and 17070

of 2014, those orders are also being challenged in this Appeal.

IA. The Ld. Bar Council of India in its order pronounced on 03.02.2018 has deliberately

wrongly stated that order was passed on 9.12.2017. However, the covering letter

dispatched along with the order clearly mentions the date of pronouncing the order

as 03.02.2018.

2. That the Appellant is the 3rd lawyer to be de-barred (banned) for life, in India’s

395-year-old contemporary judicial history; scilicet, suo motu double-life ban.

2.1 The second lawyer was Shri. Mohandas Karam Chand Gandhi, who was banned

(disbarred) by Benchers of the Parliament of Inner Temple on 10.11.1922.

2.2 The ban order was despatched to India, and promptly executed by 7 Benchers of

the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay, within 67 days on 17.01.1923.

2.3 The recommendation proposing Mr. Mohandas Gandhi’s name for admission to the

English Bar to practise as an advocate of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay, dated

09.06.1891 is reproduced at ANNEXURE A-1 (Pg ).

2.4 The credential issued by the Inner Temple dated 11.06.1891, enrolling Mr.

Gandhi is reproduced at ANNEXURE A-2 (Pg - ).

2.5 Mr. Gandhi was later hailed as the Father of the Republican Indian Nation and

celebrated universally as the Mahatma. The ban on the Mahatma Gandhi


issued by the Parliament of Inner Temple on 10.11.1922 is reproduced at

ANNEXURE A-3 (Pg - ).

2.6 The first Indian lawyer to be banned for life in 1909 was Mr.Shyamaji Krishna

Varma an Indian Nationalist who fought for India’s freedom. A news report

published by Taranaki Herald about the letter written by the Indian lawyer

and political propagandist, Shyamaji Krishna Varma to the Times that led to

his expulsion from the bar is reproduced at ANNEXURE A-4 (Pg ).

2.7 A news report published by the Guardian about the posthumous

reinstatement of Shyamaji Krishna Varma, Indian lawyer and political

propagandist to the roll of inner temple a century after he was disbarred for

advocating independence for India in 1909 is reproduced at ANNEXURE A-5

(Pg - ).

2.8 A news report about the execution of the ban on the Mahatma dated

26.06.08 is at ANNEXURE A-6 (Pg - ).

2.9 Ironically, both the Mahatma and Shyamaji were reinstated by the inner

temple posthumously in 1988 and 2015 respectively, 66 years and 106 years,

after their being banned.

2.10 The Appellant on the other hand, is challenging the double-life ban imposed

upon him because Republic India’s Constitutional Law-Courts and its Bar

Councils have both suo motu imposed the double life-ban on the petitioner

since 06.02.2018 and interim indefinite ban since 14.09.2015 without being

able to frame a single charge, whatsoever.

About the Appellant & his Altruistic Professionalism

3. The Appellant enrolled as an advocate on the rolls of the Indian Bar

Council (Tamil Nadu) in the year 2000, after graduating in law from the

Government law college in Coimbatore City, and rose to become a

prominent lawyer in the Hon’ble High Court of Madras, specialising in

the legal rights of victims of crime, public interest litigation, and judicial

& administrative reform.


3.1 On judicial and administrative reforms, the Appellant appeared as

counsel for petitioner in a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) called the Fake

FIR (First Information Report) case in Hon’ble High Court of Madras.

The Appellant fought the collective might of the Tamil Nadu’s massive

police force and eventually won the said case bearing WP no. 39968 of

2005.

3.2 During pendency of the fake FIR case, the Appellant came to know

about a State-wide crime syndicate comprising ambulance-chasers,

Government doctors, police and insurance officials, who were

embezzling blood-money by contriving false motor accident claim

petitions by fabricating fake FIR’s, and fake medical records.

3.3 Thousands of such phoney road accident claim petitions were choking

the sub-ordinate judiciary in Tamil Nadu, to the dismay of families of

the dead, maimed and injured road accident victims.

3.4 As a result of painstaking research undertaken by the Appellant, his pro

bono public writ petition 39968 of 2005 which originated as a fake FIR

scam simpliciter, was mutated to a fake insurance scam after relentless

mentions by the Appellant. Hence, multiple pending adversarial

petitions were clubbed with the Appellant’s parent pro bono petition.

3.5 After a hot contest on 1.3.2006, the Hon’ble High Court of Madras

directed the CBI (Central Bureau of Investigation) to investigate the

fabrication of over 1200 fake motor accident compensation claim

petitions which were pending in various courts in Tamil Nadu. Within


the next 24 hours, several thousand false claim petitions were

withdrawn by ambulance-chasers across Tamil Nadu.

3.6 Blood-money running into thousands of crores of Indian rupees being

squandered away by public sector insurance companies on false

accident claims was thus saved.

3.7 The entire judicial hierarchy heaved a sigh of relief at the drastic

reduction in workload. Several honest members of the judicial

fraternity, the executive, and accident victims expressed their heartfelt

gratitude to the Appellant.

3.8 On the governance front, the fake FIR case brought about

implementation of the CCTNS (Crime and Criminal Tracking and

Network System) across India. In CCTNS, FIRs and all other

investigative documents were mandated to be uploaded in order to

prevent manipulation.

3.9 Data on criminals and their antecedents were digitized and published

for intranet as well as internet access which now forms the backbone of

crime control and detection in India.

3.10 In one stroke, such a massive reform in the Indian criminal justice

system was effected solely due to the selfless commitment of the

Appellant and that too within 5 years of his graduation and enrolment

as a lawyer.

3.11 A copy of the news reports dated 01.03.2006, 02.03.2006, 11.09.2007

& 30.12.2014 about the ‘Fake FIR’ cases are at ANNEXUREs A-7 to

A-10 (Pg - ).


3.12 Similarly, in 2011, the Appellant moved the Hon’ble High Court of

Madras to ban Fake-Courts which were conducting judicial proceedings

by issuing summons, notices, and decrees in various areas of law such

as civil, family and even service matters.

3.13 In criminal matters, directions in the nature of mandamus were issued

to the State Police Force.

3.14 Fake-Judges held proceedings with paraphernalia resembling the

Hon’ble High Court of Madras. They specialised in grabbing immovable

property by issuing Fake-Decrees and got them executed through

directions issued to Tamil Nadu’s Registration and Police Departments.

3.15 While genuine lawyers filed Vakalatnamas and argued cases before

Fake-Judges, regular District Judges in Tamil Nadu excelled further by

entertaining appeals against the Fake-Judgments.

3.16 The Appellant secured interim orders from the Hon’ble High Court of

Madras which was initially outraged by the use of red beacon-lights

atop the cars of Fake-Judges. After banning the red-beacons, the

Hon’ble High Court banned the Fake-Courts as well.

3.17 Upon stubborn refusal of the Appellant to implead the Fake-Judges as

respondents to the PIL, the Hon’ble High Court of Madras suo motu

impleaded them.

3.18 The Fake-Judges who dared to file reply affidavits in the Hon’ble High

Court of Madras brazenly challenged the very authority of the

Chartered High Court to hear the PIL against them.


3.19 The petitioner thereafter withdrew his writ petition. This request for

withdrawal was also acceded-to by the Hon’ble High Court of Madras.

3.20 The Appellant then approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India

under Article 32 of the Constitution. Arrests were effected overnight,

and fly-by-night Fake-Courts alone vanished from Tamil Nadu.

3.21 A news report dated 07.03.2011 about the Appellant’s research, and

another news report dated 10.8.11 about the orders of the Hon’ble

High court are reproduced at ANNEXUREs A-11 & A-12 (Pg - ).

3.22 As such, the Appellant’s ethical discharge of professional duties won an

all round appreciation of the bench and bar, thereby benefitting society

and victims of crime immensely.

The Imposition Of Double Life Ban on The Appellant

4. Subsequent to the Appellant’s aforementioned contribution to India’s

institutions of Law and Justice, the Appellant exposed a State-wide

fake-bail racket and moved the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in 2015

to take appropriate measures against the racketeers in the interest of

justice.

4.1. The Hon’ble High Court of Madras, instead of pursuing the racketeers,

caused imposition of the illegal punishment of indefinite ban on the

Appellant in 2015 which has since 2018 been mutated into a double life

ban.


Erroneous Manner of Alienation of the Appellant

4.2. Ever since the illegal indefinite illegal interim ban has been imposed on

the Appellant, he has been isolated from the legal community through

relentless efforts of the honourable high court, solely for the purpose of

protecting hardened criminals.

4.3. The Appellant’s chamber in the Hon’ble High Court was evicted in his

absence, and without his knowledge. His possessions including his

client’s case records were initially stolen, and then admittedly

confiscated.

4.4. The Appellant, as well as his clients, who are mostly poor and

underprivileged victims of crime were thus denuded of their right to

constitutional remedies.

4.5. The Appellant was cautioned against entering the Hon’ble High Court

by using his Bar Council identity-card.

4.6. The Appellant has been rendered an outcaste from the legal profession

since the past 3 years.

4.7. The advocate fraternity whose cause the Appellant had consistently

expounded crumbled under the reign of judicial terror and cocooned

itself.

4.8. Even when the Appellant moved a writ petition to declare his interim

ban as illegal, the Hon’ble High Court refused to hear the case on

merits.


4.9. After three years of denying the Appellant a fair and just hearing, the

Hon’ble High Court finally threw the ball into the Bar Council of India’s

court which summarily banned the Appellant for life (double-life).

4.10. A News report about the Fake-Bail racket dated 25.08.05, is reproduced

at ANNEXURE A-13 (Pg - ).

QUESTIONS OF LAW

i. Whether, Republican India’s Constitutional Courts and her Bar Councils

are bound by the United Nations Basic Principles on the Role of

Lawyers, 1990, and if so, whether the said Basic Principles have been

applied even remotely in the appellant’s case ?

ii. Whether India’s Constitutional Courts and her Bar Councils are bound

by The Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct as revised at the Round

Table Meeting of Chief Justices at The Hague in 2002, and if so,

whether the said Principles of Judicial Conduct (as revised at the

Hague) have been applied even remotely in the appellant’s case?

iii. Whether India’s Constitutional Courts and her Bar Councils are bound

by The United Nations Commission on Human Rights Resolution

2004/33 regarding the Independence and impartiality of the judiciary,

jurors and assessors, and the independence of lawyers, and if so,

whether the aforesaid resolution has been enforced even remotely in

the appellant’s case ?

iv. Whether there is any charge / cause whatsoever which warrants even

so much as a contemplation or a whiff of an enquiry against the


appellant vis-à-vis suo motu BCI Tr. Cases 151, 152 and 153 of 2016,

and if so what is / are the charge(s) / cause(s)?

v. If there is no prima facie charge / allegation warranting even

contemplation of a disciplinary proceeding against the appellant, then

what action should be taken against the Madras High Court and the Bar

Council of India which caused imposition of the illegal punishment of

interim indefinite ban upon the appellant since 14.09.2015 and life

(double-life) ban since 06.02.2018?

vi. Whether any semblance of even a rudimentary ‘DUE PROCESS’ was

adopted prior to imposing the gravest of penalty on the Appellant ?

vii. Whether the colossal disproportionality in the quantum of sentencing

inter se between the various advocates penalised in the impugned

common verdict is a give-away which discloses the plot behind the

illegal targeting of the Appellant for collateral purposes?

viii. Whether the non-imposition of the Non-Existent penalty of ‘debarment

for life’ on any other advocate (including those who have committed

heinous crimes such as murder / attempt to murder etc., inside Indian

court-rooms and court-campuses) since the ban on Mahatma Gandhi

(1922) is a clear pointer to the vendetta unleashed upon the Appellant

for collateral gains ?

ix. Whether the illegal targeting and ex-communication of the Appellant in

the manner disclosed in this Appeal is a clear interference with the

Independence of the Indian Judiciary, & Rights of Victims of Crime to

seek Justice?


x. Whether such compromise of the Independence of the Indian Judiciary

can be condoned as routine, and if not, what remedial measures

including punitive measures ought to be instituted against the persons

responsible for trampling upon the Independence of Judiciary especially

when the key perpetrators are from within the judiciary.

xi. What are the actionable consequences that should be visited upon the

culpable individuals manning the Hon’ble High Court of Madras and the

Bar Council of Tamil Nadu for their illicit transgression and blatant

manipulation of the express diktat of the Constitution Bench of the

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India which had ordained (in SCBA Vs UOI,

(1998) 4 SCC 409) that no lawyer can be suspended without an enquiry

and the establishment of charge against him?

xii. Whether the very institution of the impugned proceedings against the

Appellant is in itself a scam of Titanic proportions, and what amends

should be made on an institutional scale vis-à-vis the impact of the

impugned proceedings on the Independence of the Indian Judiciary ?

xiii. To what extent, and in association with whom, vested interests in the

Hon’ble High Court of Madras misused their judicial & administrative

powers in league with the Bar Councils to ex-communicate the

appellant from the legal profession for life in order to

A. Prevent the hostile approver Mr.Ravi Subramaniam from being put

up on trial, for the murder of Sankararaman even 14 years after

admitting to the gruesome temple murder under oath,


B. To prevent action from being mooted on the report of the Chennai

Cyber-Crime police which enquired and reported about the FAKE-

bribery of a possibly innocent and honest Chief Judge who

adjudicated the Sankararaman temple murder case, till the

arguments stage, and

C. To prevent Victims of Crime namely the family of deceased

Brahmin priest Mr. Sankararaman from appealing against the trial

court verdict in the said temple murder case.

xiv. Whether the violation of several commandments of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court of India reported in

A. (1998) 4 SCC 409,

B. (1998) 3 SCC 72,

C. (2006) 1 SCC 75,

D. (2009) 8 SCC 106,

E. (2014) 5 SCC 108 and

F. (2015) 7 SCC 291,

is a cause for judicial alarm and panic vis-à-vis the very authority and

institutional relevance of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India especially

when the violators are directly sub-ordinate to the top court, both

judicially as well as constitutionally.

xv. Whether the Appellant eventually ought to be honoured, celebrated

and awarded for his outstanding contributions to the advancement of

the Indian Justice System vis-à-vis suo motu BCI Tr. Cases 151, 152


and 153 of 2016, or whether he ought to be harassed and banned for

life (double-life) instead and

xvi. What is the quantum of damages and compensation including

exemplary compensation payable to the appellant for

(A) Illegal deprivation of the appellant’s right to practice the legal

profession for the past 3 years;

(B) For the tangible and intangible damage done to his professional

and personal reputation and career;

(C) For the irreparable death of the Appellant’s father; and,

(D) For the financial and other sufferings caused to the appellant and

his family including his infant children?

xvii. Whether it was lawful and proper for the Bar Council of India to have

acted in the matter when, under Section 36-B of Advocate Act, 1961, it

is the State Bar Council which is required to deal with any complaint

received by it ?

xviii. Whether the complete inaction of the State Bar Council in the present

instance was legal and proper?

xix. Whether the inaction of the State Bar Council resulting in rendering

infructuous the appeal available to the petitioner under section 37 of

Advocate Act, 1961, caused grave and irreversible prejudice to the

petitioner?

xx. Whether the provisions of Section 36-B of Advocate Act, 1961 relating

to the transfer of proceedings to the Bar Council of India can be


exercised by the Bar Council of India in circumstances where the State

Bar Council does not commence proceedings at all ?

xxi. Whether the Madras High Court order dated 14.8.15 in Crl.OPSR 15125

of 2014 and 17070 of 2014 deserves to be set aside inter alia on the

ground that the petitioner was not given a hearing in the matter?

Motive for the malevolent act against the Appellant

5. In the opening years of the new millennia, Chennai city witnessed a

series of attempts on the lives of several pious brahmin priests such as

Mr. Radhakrishnan, Mr.Thirukotiyur Madhavan etc. These attempts to

murder orthodox Brahmin priests in typical gang-war style remained

inexplicable, unbelievable and mysterious.

5.1. Although attempt to murder cases were registered in crime numbers

850 of 2002 of Pattinappakkam, and 1670 of 2004 of Thousand Lights

police stations respectively, the police did not proceed further.

5.2. On 03.09.2004, a 3rd brahmin priest called Mr. Sankararaman was

brutally hacked to death by the same contract-killers who employed the

same modus operandi that was used in the Radhakrishnan and

Thirukkottiyur Madhavan cases.

5.3. The only difference is that Sankararaman was murdered inside the

millennia-old Lord Varadaraja Perumal temple in Kanchipuram.

5.4. A case of murder was registered in crime number 914 of 2004 of

Vishnu Kanchi police station.


5.5. Even as the police pretended to remain blissfully clueless, the case was

cracked by a bi-weekly journal called Nakkeeran which interviewed the

head of the Kanchi mutt Mr.Jayendra alias Subramani, on 19.09.2004.

5.6. Anxious to distance himself from the murder, Mr. Jayendra claimed on

tape that one of his devotees might have killed Sankararaman. Even

after this admission, police failed to take any tangible action.

5.7. This compelled the leader of opposition in Tamil Nadu to accuse the

State Government of protecting the killers although police diaries now

reveal that police were aware of the identity of the suspects from the

beginning.

5.8. The killers in turn reacted by surrendering 5 fake -accused before the

Hon’ble Court of the Judicial Magistrate on 27.10.04.

5.9. The surrender petition dated 27.10.2004 filed on behalf of the fake

accused is reproduced at ANNEXURE A-14 (Pg - ).

5.10. Custodial interrogation of one of the 5 FAKE accused namely Mr. Dhil

Pandian revealed that he was actually confined to prison on the date of

murder (3.9.04) and was in fact an imposter.

5.11. Further investigation led police to the notorious gangster Mr.

Krishnaswamy alias Appu, who acted as the hit man and eventually to

the beneficiary who ordered the killing namely the pontiff of the Kanchi

mutt Mr.Jayendra.

5.12. Investigations also revealed that the earlier attempts to murder

Mr.Radhakrishnan and Thirukkottiyur Madhavan were both cases of


mistaken identity, and the motive had been to eliminate an anonymous

individual who was sending factual complaints about financial and

sexual sleaze involving the pontiffs of the Kanchi mutt.

5.13. But since the complaints continued even after the attempts to murder,

the frantic search to locate and exterminate the elusive whistle blower

was sped up, leading to the identification and murder of

Mr.Sankararaman inside the Kanchi Varadaraja Perumal temple itself.

Abuse of Judiciary

5.14. Apprehending arrest, Mr. Jayendra fled Tamil Nadu and was bound for

the Hindu Kingdom of Nepal.

5.15. An elite police team from Chennai swooped down on his hideout in

Andhra Pradesh in a State-owned Cessna aircraft, and arrested the

prime accused Mr. Jayendra @ Subramani on Diwali night, 11.11.2004.

5.16. Overnight, the prime-accused was airlifted to Chennai on the same

State aircraft.

5.17. Never before or after, in Indian police history, has a murder accused

been brought for remand on a State-owned plane.

5.18. But even before the ink on the remand order could dry, lawyers

claiming to represent the accused filed a 1 and a half page bail petition

under section 439 CrPC at 6.20 A.M on Diwali day, 12.11.2004, by-

passing the Hon’ble Court of Sessions. The bail petition in

Crl.O.P.No.35490 of 2004 dated 11.11.2004 is reproduced at



5.19. A special sitting of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras was constituted to

hear the direct bail petition.

5.20. Never before or after in Indian judicial history has the Hon’ble High

Court of Madras sat in open court to hear a bail petition in a murder

case directly and especially on a gazetted holiday.

5.21. Heeding the demands of the counsel for the accused, the Hon’ble

presiding judge even explored the possibility of placing the accused

under house arrest in one of the vacant bungalows on Greenways Road

in Chennai meant to be allotted as quarters for judges of the Hon’ble

High Court.

5.22. Despite the extension of such courtesy by the judicial arm of the State,

the accused abused the long rope given by the judiciary and filed an

affidavit levelling allegations against the remanding Judicial Magistrate.

5.23. Averments / Insinuations were made on oath claiming that the Judicial

Magistrate declined to hear the counsel for accused and refused to

receive petitions because a police officer was standing behind the

Magistrate with a revolver in his waist.

5.24. Allegations were then made that the police violated arrest guidelines.

5.25. Only after the learned Public Prosecutor claimed in open court that he

felt intimidated by the presence of retired Chief Justice at the bail

hearing, and after the prosecutor termed the accused as a most

undeserving criminal did the magnitude of the crime became

comprehendible.


5.26. After viewing video footage of the arrest in which the police were seen

and heard begging and cringing before the accused, the said Hon’ble

judge rubbished the allegations and dismissed the bail petition.

5.27. The affidavit was filed by Y.H Yagarajani in which allegations were

levelled against the learned Judicial before the High Court Judicature at

Madra CRL OP No. 35490 of 2004 in Crime No 914 of 2004 dated 15.11.2004


5.28. The prime accused’s manager Mr.Sundaresa Iyer further abused the

Hon’ble High Court by filing a false / fake bail petition under section

439 CrPC, and the police had to file a reply to the petition bearing

Crl.O.P. No. 35491 of 2004.

5.29. Much to its embarrassment, the police told the Hon’ble court a week

later, that the very registration of the bail petition itself was illegal since

Mr. Sundaresa Iyer had never been arrested.

5.30. Hence the Fake bail petition was dismissed. The order of the Hon’ble

High Court of Madras in Crl.O.P.No.35491 of 2004 dated 20.11.2004 is

reproduced at ANNEXURE A-17 (Pg - ).

5.31. Undeterred by the failed attempts to manipulate the judiciary, the

prime accused filed a bail petition in the Hon’ble Supreme Court of

India in the Radhakrishnan attempt to murder case. This time, by-

passing the Hon’ble High Court of Madras.

5.32. However the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India dismissed his SLP (Crl) No

6215 of 2004 on 17.12.2004, and directed him to approach the Hon’ble

High court first.


6. On 25.11.2004, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India dismissed in limine,

a writ petition (civil) 653 of 2004, (PIL) filed by one Mr. B. P. Singhal

who had sought transfer of the Sankararaman murder investigation

from the Tamil Nadu State Police to India’s premier federal

investigative agency namely the CBI (Central Bureau of Investigation).

The order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India on 25.11.2004

in Writ Petition (civil) 653 of 2004 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court is


Meretricious Judicial Solidarity

6.1. Despite the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s non-intervention, a learned single

judge of the provincial A.P (Andhra Pradesh) High Court Mr. L.

Narsimha Reddy stunned the world on 15.12.2004 when he heard a PIL

(Public Interest Litigation) bearing W.P.No.23220 of 2004 of AP High

Court which alleged that 2 teenage girls Miss Tirupathamma and Miss

Nirmalamma who were working in Suryalakshmi cotton mills, in Andhra

Pradesh, were raped and murdered in Andhra Pradesh territory, in

March 1998.

6.2. The petitioner-organisation, called the Labour Liberation Front, quoted

the Andhra Jyothi newspaper dated 5.12.2004 which claimed the

murders to be “BALI”.

6.3. The petitioner further claimed that relatives of the mill management

were involved in the crime and that no action had been taken by the

police. It also claimed that the head of Kanchi mutt Mr.Jayendra had

come to the mill and performed yagnas.


6.4. The petition and affidavit in the above case dated 13.12.04 are at


6.5. Instead of ascertaining the action taken by the police, learned judge Mr. L.

Narsimha Reddy directed the petitioner therein to explain the reason for

mentioning the name of Mr. Jayendra in the pleadings, and adjourned the

case.

6.6. This unnerved the petitioner, who filed 2 miscellaneous petitions on 17.12.04

seeking deletion of the reference to Mr.Jayendra, and to implead

Suryalakshmi cotton mills.

6.7. An apology was also sought.

6.8. The petitioner in the said case reportedly appeared in court on 21.12.2004

and tendered an unconditional apology as well.

6.9. A Miscellaneous Petition filed in Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh

seeking to implead Suryalakshmi Mills in W.P.No.23220 of 2004 dated

17.12.04 is at ANNEXURE A-20 ( ).

A Miscellaneous Petition filed in the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh

seeking to delete the reference to Mr. Jayendra in W.P.No.23220 of 2004 is

dated 17.12.04 at Annexure-21 (Pg - ).

6.10. Instead of accepting or rejecting the apology, and instead of adjudicating

upon the alleged police inaction vis-à-vis rape and “BALI”, the learned judge

Mr. L. Narsimha Reddy singularly dismissed the PIL petition, when the

Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court’s rules reportedly required PILs to be

heard by a division bench.

6.11. That apart, the learned judge passed an order running 12 pages, wherein he

went hammer and tongs against the Media, the Public, the State, the

judiciary, and even the Chief Justice of India, as he hailed the Kanchi mutt

head Mr.Jayendra as “Draupadi”.


6.12. In paragraph 8 of his Judgment, the learned judge criticized the

Hon’ble Chief Justice of India as follows,

“Few years ago, no less a personality than the Chief Justice of

India, said at a meeting that there is a considerable number of

judges whose reputation was not above board.

This statement will certainly be a matter of concern for everyone,

but can never constitute a justification to denounce the judiciary

as a whole”.

The above remarks against the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India were

totally uncalled-for, and totally irrelevant to the case that was being

heard in the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh.

6.13. Similar imaginary comments were made against the petitioner therein,

in the following words are:

“This court is compelled to observe that the only provocation for

the petitioner to file this writ petition appears to be the recent

unfortunate happenings in relation to a seer of an ancient,

prestigious, glorious and reputed institution, with almost 2500

years of history”.

“6. It is rather sad and sorrowful that an institution of such glory,

that withstood foreign invasions, and social revolutions from time

to time spread over 25 centuries, is virtually targeted and

persecuted in an organized manner, in an independent country”.


Judicial Incredulity

6.14. Shockingly, the learned Judge Mr. Narsimha Reddy even disagreed with

the phrase that “The law will take its own course” and asserted that,

“it is not true, at least in part”.

6.15. The learned Judge Mr. Narsimha Reddy went on to castigate the State

(apparently not Andhra) as follows,

“Not only individuals, but also sections of institutions, such as,

the State and Press, appear to be determined to belittle and

besmirch the peetham.

The perfidy caused to it has shocked almost everybody in

society, cutting across the religions and borders of the country. “

6.16. The learned judge Mr. Narsimha Reddy criticised the judiciary as

follows,

“The role of the courts, though indirect, is by no means

insignificant.

Proponents of human rights, fair play, dignity to the individuals

and institutions have maintained stoic silence.

A powerful section is either celebrating it or watching it, with

indifference.

The issue appears to be having a greater dimension than

investigation into a murder”.


6.17. These judicial findings by the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh

about a murder investigation being conducted in Tamil Nadu, and

especially in a writ petition which has nothing to do with the

investigation or with Tamil Nadu, created revulsion and consternation,

and was seen as an affront to both the State Government as well as its

Judiciary.

6.18. In the 12 page ex parte Judgment, justice to Nirmalamma and

Thiruppathamma was judicially obfuscated. There is not one reference

to the rape and murder, except in the preamble portion of the

Judgment, where the prayer was reproduced as part of the standard

format. The order dated 29.12.2004 in WP 23220 of 2004 of the

Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh is at ANNEXURE A-22 (Pg -

).

Stonewalling the Murder Investigation

7. Back in Tamil Nadu, the murder investigation proceeded despite a

series of obstacles mounted by the accused,

7.1. On 19.11.2004, the murder lynchpin Mr. Kathiravan, confessed to his

crime, on oath, before a Judicial Magistrate under section 164 CrPC.

7.2. On 23.11.2004, FAKE-accused ‘Dil Pandi’ also confessed under section

164 CrPC.

7.3. However, 6 named lawyers led by their leader called Mr. Solomon met

Kathiravan in jail and coerced him to retract his confession.


7.4. On 24.11.2004, Kathiravan retracted his confession claiming that he

had been pressurised by police, and that no one was being allowed to

meet him.

7.5. In turn, police produced the prisoner interview applications of the 6

lawyers to prove that they had met Kathiravan, and coerced him to

retract.

7.6. On 31.12.2004, the conduit between the sponsors and the hit squad,

Mr. Ravi Subramaniam, confessed to the Judicial Magistrate under

section 164 CrPC.

7.7. Apprehending a threat to his life, Tamil Nadu Government ordered that

Mr. Ravi Subramaniam should be housed in the Kanchipuram sub-jail.

7.8. On 20.1.05, upon his request to turn Approver, the Chief Judicial

Magistrate of Chengalpattu granted him conditional pardon.

8. On 21.1.2005, Tamil Nadu police resorted to melodrama by offering a

1900 page charge-sheet citing 397 witnesses, at the altar of Lord

Varadaraja Perumal, offered pooja, and then filed it into court.

8.1. When queried by the media, police claimed that pooja was offered

because Lord Varadaraja Perumal was an eye-witness. The Hon’ble

leader of opposition Mr. M. Karunanidhi who is an atheist, queried

whether summons would be sent to Lord Varadaraja Perumal to appear

in court as an eye-witness.

8.2. On 1.2.2005, the accused sent 2 women-lawyers called Ms.Nadira Banu

& Ms.Revathi to the sub-jail under the guise of legal aid duty (by


getting an order appointing them as legal aid counsel) and offered a

huge bribe to the Approver to retract his confession. On 3.2.2005 when

they returned to jail to ascertain his response, the Approver was

unavailable as he had been taken to court for remand extension.

8.3. Meanwhile in court, one Mr. Rajkumar, a DSP (Deputy Superintendent

of Police) requested Mr. Ravi Subramaniam to turn Approver in the

Radhakrishnan attempt to murder case also, to which he agreed. After

10 PM on the same day, DSP Mr. Rajkumar sent sub-inspector Mr.

Pattabiram and Head Constable Mr. Raman with a 15-page draft

statement, with directions to get it copied in the Approver’s hand

writing, and to get it signed.

8.4. When the 2 officials clandestinely met Approver Mr. Ravi Subramaniam

and conveyed the DSP’s instructions, the Approver was shocked to

notice that the draft contained facts that were contrary to the truth,

and also totally contradictory to his confession in the Sankararaman

murder case.

8.5. Hence, Approver Mr. Ravi Subramaniam refused to give the written

statement as demanded, and wrote a complaint to the SP

(Superintendent of police) against DSP Mr. Rajkumar. The Approver’s

complaint dated February 2005, to the SP is reproduced at


8.6. On 9.2.05, the 2 lady-lawyers returned to jail to ascertain the

Approver’s response to their financial offer. When the Approver turned


down the offer and declined to retract his confession, they threatened

that he would be killed when he came out of jail.

8.7. Approver Mr. Ravi Subramaniam reported this threat to the learned

Judicial Magistrate, by a complaint dated 10.2.2005, which was duly

forwarded by the Jail Superintendent. The Approver’s complaint to the

learned Judicial Magistrate, dated 10.2.2005, is reproduced at


9. Yet these 2 written complaints of the Approver were daringly

suppressed from the knowledge of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India

when it later heard a Transfer Petition (Crl) no 134 of 2005. This is

evident from a plain reading of the Judgment in the said case.

9.1. Vis-à-vis the Approver’s complaint against DSP Rajkumar, an enquiry

was held by an ADSP (Additional Superintendent of Police) who

examined various officials. Eventually, apart from issuing a stern

written warning to the jail authorities, the ADSP recommended action

against DSP Mr.Rajkumar for

“attempting to scuttle the investigation in the Sankararaman

murder case and getting (viz. trying to get) all the accused

acquitted.”

9.2. But it is not known whether any action was taken against DSP Mr.

Rajkumar. The ADSP’s written warning dated 11.2.05 is at


9.3. The ADSP’s report to the SP, dated 11.2.05, is at ANNEXURE A-26

(Pg - ).


9.4. The Learned Judicial Magistrate, on the other hand, did not forward the

Approver’s complaint against the lawyers, to the Police. Hence, on

14.2.2005, the CIO (Chief Investigating Officer) wrote to the Judicial

Magistrate seeking a copy of the complaint, but it is not known whether

the magistrate issued it or not. The ADSP’s requisition to the Judicial

Magistrate is reproduced at ANNEXURE A-27 (Pg - ).

9.5. However, on 19.02.2005, the police secured a written complaint from

the Approver’s wife, and registered a case against the 2 lawyers in

Crime number 127 of 2005 of SivaKanchi police station.

9.6. The local bar went on strike in protest. The 2 lawyers tendered an oral

apology in the Hon’ble High Court of Madras, and assured it in writing

that they would not commit such mistakes again. In order to pacify the

bar, the Public Prosecutor assured the Hon’ble High Court that the

State would drop prosecution of the lawyers.

9.7. Unable to get the Approver to retract his confession, a plot was

hatched to murder him on 27.4.2005, the day he was to be produced in

court. But the plan was foiled, and a case was registered in Crime

number 289 of 2005 of Chengalpattu police station.

9.8. An undated copy of the facts of the case in Crime number 289 of 2005

as available in the case diary is at ANNEXURE A-28 (Pg - ). But it

is not known as to what happened to the said case, thereafter.

9.9. Faced with failure to sabotage the case in Tamil Nadu, the accused

filed a transfer petition (Crl) 134 of 2005 before the Hon’ble Supreme

Court of India with a mala fide intent.


9.10. The petition under section 406 Cr.P.C, sought transfer of the trial in the

Sankararaman murder case (Sessions Case No. 197 of 2005) to any

State outside Tamil Nadu, on the ground inter alia that the Hon’ble

Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu had made a statement in the assembly

regarding the murder, and that the State machinery in Tamil Nadu and

its Special Investigation Team headed by SP Mr. Prem Kumar was

showing great zeal and making extraordinary efforts to secure a

conviction in the case.

9.11. Although the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India disagreed that the

Hon’ble Chief Minister’s having made a statement and of her having

paid a solatium to the widow of the murdered Mr. Sankararaman were

sufficient grounds for inter-State transfer, it agreed with the

apprehension that the State machinery was making extraordinary

efforts beyond what is normally required to secure a conviction.

9.12. Ironically, the Hon’ble Supreme Court was misled by both the accused

as well as the prosecution who suppressed the fact that transfer was

conveniently sought, only for the Sankararaman murder case (Sessions

Case 197 of 2005), and not for the Radhakrishnan attempt to murder

case (Sessions Case 500 of 2005), whereas the grounds for transfer, if

true, would apply in equal measure to both cases.

9.13. In fact, the punishment for both offences is life imprisonment, both

cases involve the same accused, and the prosecuting officers are also

the same. The Sankararaman murder was only the sequel to the

Radhakrishnan attempt to murder. In that sense it is the

Radhakrishnan case which is the parent case.


9.14. However, based on the materials placed before it, and arguments

advanced by counsels, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India directed the

murder trial to be shifted to the neighbouring State / UT of Puducherry,

vide its Judgment dated 26.10.2005 in Transfer Petition (Crl) 134 of

2005.

9.15. A reading of the Judgment clearly shows that the very existence of the

Radhakrishnan attempt to murder case as well as the Thirukkottiyur

Madhavan case were totally suppressed from the knowledge of the

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.

9.16. Had the Radhakrishnan attempt to murder case been brought to the

notice of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it would have dismissed the plea

for transfer of its sequel namely the Sankararaman murder on the

ground of suppression of material fact.

9.17. On the contrary, if the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India felt that the

apprehensions of the prime accused are bona fide, it might have

transferred both cases outside Tamil Nadu. The Judgment of the

Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Transfer Petition (Crl) 134 of 2005 dated


9.18. When the transferred case was re-numbered as SC 94 of 2005 of

Puducherry Sessions, and when the trial was about to commence, the

accused filed a series of frivolous petitions to buy time. The same

practise was adopted in the Radhakrishnan attempt to murder case (SC

500 of 2005 of 1st Additional Sessions Court, Chennai), also.


9.19. The accused then went to the extent of moving the Hon’ble High Court

of Madras seeking inter-State transfer of the Radhakrishnan case also

to Puducherry, and that too by relying upon the Judgment of the

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the Sankararaman murder case.

9.20. But the Hon’ble High Court of Madras exposed the sinister intentions of

the accused. In its Judgment dated 15.3.2006, the Hon’ble High Court

castigated the prime accused by stating that,

“The very same petitioner had moved a transfer petition

before the Hon'ble Supreme Court”,

“had not chosen to bring to the notice of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court the threat perception or apprehension.”

Apparently the above order was not challenged by way of SLP, for

obvious reasons. The Madras High Court’s Judgment dated 15.03.06 is


Political Vicissitude & Legal U-Turn

10. On 13.5.2006, the State Government led by Hon’ble Chief Minister Ms.

Jayalalitha lost power in the elections, and Ms. Jayalalitha had no stake

whatsoever in the new minority Government of Mr. Karunanidhi.

10.1. Yet, in order to buy time, the accused prosecuted SLP (Crl) 1248 of

2006, demanding that the Prosecutor who was to conduct the murder

trial should be appointed by Puducherry State / UT alone.


10.2. The first task that the accused undertook after the new Government

assumed office was to paralyse the judicial proceedings by taking

revenge from their tormentors.

10.3. The man behind the investigation Mr. Prem Kumar was first shunted-

out of the elite CBCID (with which the Special Investigation Team had

been merged post charge-sheet), to the insignificant post of Vigilance

Officer in a Government bus transport Corporation at Kumbakonam

which is about 400 kilometres from the epicentre of the murder case,

namely the CBCID headquarters at Chennai.

10.4. To prevent Mr. Prem Kumar from rearing his head again, he was placed

under suspension, by the new DMK Government in September 2006.

Curiously, another police officer called Mr. Marimuthu was also

suspended simultaneously.

10.5. Mr. Marimuthu was none other than the investigating officer who

arrested Mr. M. Karunanidhi’s son Mr. Alagiri for the murder of an Ex-

Minister Mr. Tha. Kiruttinan.

10.6. The reasons for suspension were not disclosed to Mr. Prem Kumar

despite several requests. Hon’ble Leader of Opposition, Miss Jayalalitha

criticised the suspension of Mr. Prem Kumar, and accused the new DMK

Government of attempting to dilute the 2004 Sankararaman murder

case.

10.7. Miss Jayalalitha also charged the Government with trying to shield Mr.

Karunanidhi’s son Mr. M. K. Alagiri and claimed that Mr. Marimuthu was

slapped with a false case to place him under suspension.


10.8. In November 2006, a charge-memo was issued stating that Mr. Prem

Kumar had unauthorisedly gained access to Approver Mr. Ravi

Subrmaniam, (Then under custody of the DMK Government, in hospital,

though technically in judicial custody) and not only offered inducement,

but also threatened him to escape from custody with a view to bring

disrepute and embarrassment to the Government.

10.9. Mr. Prem Kumar found out that in order to implicate him, the new DMK

Government had secured a statement from Mr. Ravi Subramaniam and

fabricated certain portions by forgery of the last page using 3 different

inks.

10.10. Hence, Mr. Prem Kumar filed a writ petition in the Hon’ble High Court

of Madras, praying to send the documents for forensic examination,

and even sought initiation of criminal proceedings against himself if the

charges were true. The Hon’ble High Court stayed the proceedings

against Mr. Prem Kumar on 21.4.07. But the Tamil Nadu Government

disobeyed the order and Mr. Prem Kumar’s suspension was not

revoked.

10.11. On the other hand, Mr. Prem Kumar was hounded further with a

conviction and sentence of one month’s imprisonment secured through

a judgement of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras on an alleged charge

of assaulting an ex-serviceman 25 years earlier. This was bizarre since

he had already been convicted on the same set of facts in one case by

a trial court and later released on probation in 2003, while he was

acquitted in another.


10.12. The new Tamil Nadu Government’s complicity was crystal clear. Citing

the conviction, Tamil Nadu which had retained his services for 4 years

since 2003 rushed to dismiss Mr. Prem Kumar from the police service.

In order to please the criminals, the Tamil Nadu Government pasted

the dismissal order on Mr. Prem Kumar’s house in the middle of the

night on 21.5.07.

10.13. This drove Mr. Prem Kumar to Delhi to defend himself in the Hon’ble

Supreme Court. Thus the criminals and the DMK Government

effectively removed Mr. Prem Kumar from his office as well as his

territory to ensure that he remained effectively disassociated with the

Sankararaman murder trial.

10.14. Although the eventual fate of Mr. Prem Kumar as well as his boss is

well known to the people of Tamil Nadu and possibly the Indian nation,

details are narrated in subsequent paragraphs, for the sake of

chronology.

10.15. But in the context of the hounding of Mr. Prem Kumar by the DMK

Government, it must be pointed out that even during Ms. Jayalalitha’s

tenure as Chief Minister, an attempt was made by the criminals to

falsely implicate Mr. M. K. Stalin, (son of the DMK Chief Mr. M.

Karunanidhi) and certain relatives of the popular film star Mr. Vijay and

his father Mr. Chandrasekar, in the Sankararaman murder case.

10.16. A detailed complaint supported by a full-fledged flow-chart alleging that

Mr. M.K. Stalin paid Rs.20 lakhs, and one Mr. Xavier Britto paid another


20 lakhs to get Sankararaman killed, was routed through the Chief

Minister’s office.

10.17. It was the SIT led by Mr. Prem Kumar which enquired into the

complaint and gave a clean chit to Mr. Stalin, who went on to become

the Local Administration Minister and Deputy Chief Minister of Tamil

Nadu, in the Cabinet headed by his father Mr. M. Karunanidhi.

10.18. In 2008, roughly a year after Mr. Prem Kumar was effectively driven

out of Tamil Nadu, the SLP filed by the murderers demanding that only

the state of Puducherry should appoint a prosecutor to conduct the

Sankararaman murder trial, was listed before the Hon’ble Supreme

Court, (SLP (Crl) 1248 of 2006).

10.19. Whereas the earlier case (Transfer Petition (Crl) 134 of 2005) seeking a

transfer of trial outside Tamil Nadu was argued by six senior counsels,

when Ms. Jayalalitha was in power. Not a single senior counsel was

engaged by the new DMK Government to argue SLP (Crl) 1248 of 2006.

10.20. Nevertheless, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, by a short verdict on

22.07.2008 adjudged that, only the Puducherry State / UT should

appoint a special prosecutor to prosecute the Sankararaman murder

trial. The Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India SLP (Crl.)

No. 1248 of 2006 dated 22.07.2008 is reproduced at ANNEXURE A-

31 (Pg - ).

10.21. The name of the counsel who appeared on behalf of the new Tamil

Nadu Government is not mentioned even once in the body of the

Judgment.


Manipulated Murder Trial

11. Thus, in 2009, trial in the Sankararaman murder case was set to

commence in Puduchery, roughly 5 years after the filing of the charge-

sheet.

11.1. The sole bread-winner of the murdered Mr. Sankararaman’s family,

namely his son-in-law Mr. Kannan was called to the CBCID police office

in Kanchipuram. Mr. Kannan was the sole eye-witness to the

conspiracy, and had deposed under section 164 CrPC to the learned

Judicial Magistrate.

11.2. Mr. Kannan, who is Prosecution Witness number 39 in his father-in-

law’s murder case, was questioned by head-constable Mr. Dhanasekar

who asked him what he (and his family) had decided to do during the

trial.

11.3. Mr. Kannan replied that he would tell the Hon’ble court what he knew

about the case. Mr. Dhanasekar then dialled someone from his mobile

to enable the recipient to hear the conversation and asked Mr. Kannan

why he could not change his stand, and depose in favour of the

accused.

11.4. Mr. Kannan refused to do so, and left the premises. Within two minutes

of leaving the CBCID office, Mr. Kannan got a call questioning him

about his defiance at the CBCID office.

11.5. When Mr. Kannan failed to yield, he was threatened with decapitation,

and the call was disconnected.


11.6. Thereafter the Head Constable Mr. Dhanasekar, (whom the victim’s

family claims to be Jayendra’s agent), compelled Sankararaman’s son-

in-law to turn hostile, and offered to get him a job in Bangalore,

through the prime accused, at a salary of Rs.20,000/-.

11.7. At 9.44 P.M on 11.3.09, Mr. Kannan was again threatened with death

from mobile number 99412-61456 and warned not to tell the truth in

court.

11.8. Several oral complaints to the police went in vain, and on 1.4.09,

Kannan wrote to the DGP, Home Secretary, Superintendent of Police,

DSP & Inspector.

11.9. In response, writer Mr. Narasimhan acting under the orders of DSP Mr.

Samuthirakkani forced Mr. Kannan to sign a requisition seeking to drop

action on his own complaint. But Mr. Kannan refused to sign. A

translated copy of the complaint of Mr. Kannan dated 1.4.09 is at


11.10. Therefore the inspector, Mr. Balu implicated Sankararaman’s son-in-law

in an attempt to murder case. Thus on the eve of his father-in-law’s

murder, trial star-witness PW 39 Mr. Kannan had to fend for himself

and obtain anticipatory bail.

11.11. When Mr. Kannan went to the police station to sign as per bail

conditions, inspector Mr. Panchatsharam, threatened him to turn

hostile. Again, during the temple festival, Mr. Panchatsharam called

Mr. Kannan to the police station, and told him to turn hostile on the

pretext that both Kannan as well as accused Jayendra were Brahmins.


12. On 2.4.2009, trial commenced as Sessions Case. No. 94/05 in the Chief

Judge’s court, Puducherry. Relegating eye-witnesses LW1 & LW 2

(complainant and his assistant) to 4th & 5th positions, the widow of the

deceased, her son, and daughter were to be examined as PW’s

(Prosecution Witnesses) 1, 2 & 3 respectively.

12.1. At sunrise on that day, Tamil Nadu’s CBCID police took PW’s 1 to 3

from Tamil Nadu, to the Hon’ble Sessions Court of Puducherry in a

special police van to depose in the trial. On the way, the police coerced

them to turn hostile.

12.2. Braving the coercion, the trio deposed in favour of the prosecution

during chief examination, thereby maintaining their 164 CrPC version

sworn before the Judicial Magistrate five years earlier. They even

identified the accused in court, as they had done in the TIP (Test

Identification Parade) conducted by the Judicial Magistrate, five years

earlier.

12.3. All this perturbed the accused, so much so that their counsel filed an

application to defer cross-examination.

12.4. This plea was mechanically allowed by the Hon’ble Sessions Court, not

only in violation of section 309 CrPC, but also in violation of the explicit

direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court to all High Courts ((1999) 7 SCC

504), which runs as follows,

"We request every High Court to remind the trial judges

through a circular, of the need to comply with Section 309

of the Code in letter and spirit. We also request the High


Court concerned to take note of the conduct of any

particular trial judge who violates the above legislative

mandate and to adopt such administrative action against

the delinquent judicial officer as the law permits."

12.5. During the lunch break, criminals threatened PW 1, and her son and

daughter in the court itself, warning PW1 that unless they turned

hostile in cross-examination, her son and daughter (PW’s 2 & 3) would

be killed and dumped in an acid-tanker, from where even their bones

would not be recovered.

12.6. Officials of Tamil Nadu’s CBCID police who took the family to the

Hon’ble Sessions court of Puducherry, deliberately delayed them till late

in the night, and left them behind in the court campus itself as

punishment for not heeding their demands to turn hostile.

12.7. The special police vehicle which was deployed for their inter-State

travel left the court and returned to Tamil Nadu surreptitiously. As a

result, the widow had to call up her son-in-law for guidance, and they

retreated from hostile territory by public transport, only to reach home

after midnight, trembling in fear.

12.8. When the next witness PW 4, Mr. Ganesh who is an eye-witness was

examined, he turned hostile. Ganesh was the complainant on whose

complaint the FIR was registered. Special Prosecutor Mr. Devadass

declared him hostile and secured the permission of the court to cross-

examine him as per section 154 Indian Evidence Act.


12.9. However, immediately after permission was granted, for cross-

examination, Prosecutor Mr. Devadass sought to defer cross-

examination. A written application to defer cross-examination was also

filed and allowed.

12.10. The learned Sessions Judge recorded the above facts in the deposition

dated 2.4.09, and affixed his full signature.

12.11. Shockingly, the prosecutor’s request for declaring the eye-witness as

hostile and for permission to defer his cross-examination under section

154 Indian Evidence Act, were scored out on the deposition of PW4 Mr.

Ganesh.

12.12. It is not known, as to how a court deposition of the eye-witness-cum-

complainant, who is also number 1 on the witness list could be forged

in this manner.

12.13. The forgery is compounded by the fact that both the prosecutor as well

as the defence never cross-examined the eye-witness (PW4), despite

securing written permission from the judge, and despite successfully

filing an application to defer the cross-examination.

Manipulation of Witnesses

13. Four months later, on 4.8.2009, succumbing to various threats, all 3

family-members namely star-witnesses PW’s 1 to 3 turned turtle and

resiled from their examination-in-chief.


13.1. Special Prosecutor Mr. Devadass neither declared them hostile, nor

cross-examined them as per section 154 Indian Evidence Act.

13.2. All 3 of them had given 164 Cr PC statements on oath before the

learned Judicial Magistrate in support of the prosecution.

13.3. As such, there were 3 versions namely the 164 CrPC version, chief-

examination version and the contrary cross-examination version. Yet

the learned Sessions Judge failed to pose a single question by

exercising 165 of the Indian Evidence Act.

13.4. Out of the 391 witnesses sought to be examined vide the 2005 charge-

sheet, only 187 were summoned to and examined during trial

(02.04.2009 to 18.04.2011).

13.5. 101 out of the 187 witnesses who were examined, turned hostile

officially.

13.6. The remaining 202 key-witnesses, (including the sub-editor of

Nakkeeran magazine which cracked the case), vanished without a

trace.

13.7. It is not known as to how the accused managed to ensure that the

Hon’ble Sessions Court did not summon more than 50 per cent of the

total number of witnesses. This, in itself, is a world record by any

standards.

13.8. Those who turned hostile included the pardoned Approver (PW 40) Mr.

Ravi Subramaniam who was earlier granted pardon on condition that

he deposed the truth in favour of the prosecution.


13.9. 15 of the 101 hostile witnesses resiled not only from the statements

they made to the police under section 161 CrPC but also from the

sworn statements that they made before the Learned Judicial

Magistrate under section 164 CrPC.

13.10. They are PW’s 5, 16, 19, 30, 31, 37, 38, 39, 42, 44, 52, 53, 64, 67 and

112.

13.11. Having turned hostile and having resiled from their respective 164 CrPC

statements, 2 witnesses went to the extent of levelling allegations

against the Hon’ble Judicial Magistrate who had dutifully recorded their

164 CrPC statements.

13.12. For instance, when PW-19 Mr. Bombay Krishnan was examined in the

Hon’ble Sessions Court on 10.09.09, he not only disowned every single

fact that he had sworn to before the learned Judicial Magistrate under

section 164 CrPC, but also went to the extent of accusing the learned

Judicial Magistrate of obtaining his signature on a readymade (pre-

prepared) 164 CrPC statement.

13.13. The learned Sessions Judge who recorded these contemptuous

allegations remained a mute spectator. He did not pose a single

question despite the deposition containing contradictory claims vis-à-vis

these grave charges that were being hurled under oath against the

learned Judicial Magistrate.

13.14. Witness PW-30 Mr. T. A. Kannan (sole eye-witness to the conspiracy) in

his deposition recorded by the Sessions Judge on 17.12.09 went to the

extent of accusing the learned Judicial Magistrate of taking down his


signature on a blank white paper (and by implication - forging it into a

Section 164 Cr PC Statement).

13.15. The other notables who turned hostile and were declared as hostile

included the following Government servants:

1. PW 136 - Tehsildar

2. PW 137 - Deputy Tehsildar

3. PW 129 - Village Administrative Officer

4. PW 130 - Village Assistant


6. PW 166 - Village Administrative Officer.

13.16. Special treatment was accorded to the following witnesses and they

were not declared hostile, although they had turned hostile. This was

despite their having deposed before the Hon’ble Judicial Magistrate

under section 164 CrPC,

(1) PW 18 – Rig Veda Vaithyanathan

(2) PW 54 – Head Constable Kannan

13.17. For obvious reasons, the following Government servants were not

shown (in the Judgment) as having turned hostile,

1. PW 136 - Tehsildar


3. PW 166 - Village Administrative Officer.

Evanescing Documents and Individuals

14. On 17.6.2010, amid mounting pressure, a half-hearted petition was

filed in the trial court under section 308 (1) CrPC, (Crl.M.P.668 of


2010), seeking revocation of pardon, and initiation of murder

proceedings against the hostile Approver Mr.Ravi Subramaniam.

14.1. In the same Crl.M.P.No.668 of 2010, a further plea was made to

prosecute Mr. Ravi Subramaniam for perjury. The copy of the petition

filed by the Special Prosecutor under Section 308 (1) of Crpc in Crl. M. P

No.668 of 2010 in the Sessions Court of Puducherry dated 17.06.2010 is at


14.2. But the petition filed by the Special Prosecutor vanished from the

Hon’ble Sessions Court.

14.3. Its whereabouts remain a mystery, and have remained undisclosed for

the past 8 years.

15. On 03.08.2010, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India set aside SP Mr.

Prem Kumar’s conviction in the assault case. The Hon’ble Supreme

Court even went to the extent of quashing the other connected

proceedings which were pending against him.

15.1. The HINDU newspaper dated 04.08.2010 reported this development

with the caption “Simple imprisonment sentence against police officer

quashed”.

15.2. Fearing his re-entry to the police force, the extreme step was taken. An

attempt to murder Mr. Prem Kumar was made by unreported arson at

his house. However, he survived.

15.3. Repeated attempts to murder him yielded fruit, and finally in November

2010 Mr. Prem Kumar was finally found dead under suspicious

circumstances.


15.4. On 16.11.2010, The Hindu newspaper known for its conservative

reporting and nicknamed as the Mahavishnu of Mount Road, could not

hide its glee.

15.5. It shamelessly celebrated Mr. Prem Kumar’s death with a false headline

“Dismissed Police Officer Prem Kumar Dead”.

15.6. The news report which talked about his investigation, his conviction, his

suspension and his dismissal made no mention of his acquittal.

15.7. Very few people, even in Tamil Nadu know that it was Mr. Prem Kumar

who shot to death one Mr. Seevalapperi Pandi, an escapee death

sentence convict who had been on the loose since 1965.

15.8. Mr. Seevalapperi Pandi had been charged with over 18 murders and

carried a huge bounty on his head.

15.9. Mr. Prem Kumar accomplished this feat as a trainee sub-inspector in

1979 and won the Chief Minister’s gallantry medal which was awarded

by Dr. M. G. Ramachandran.

15.10. Till date, Mr. Prem Kumar remains the only police officer in Indian

police history to have received a gallantry medal while still under police

training.

15.11. The Tamil Nadu Government which rushed in to dismiss Mr. Prem

Kumar by pasting a notice on the door of his house at midnight chose

not to re-instate him after his acquittal by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

In fact, his dismissal was set aside more than one and a half years

after his death.


15.12. Such was the fear of the man in the minds of the Tamil Nadu

Government and the killers of Mr. Sankararaman.

15.13. The cycle of revenge against the men and women who sought justice

for Sankararaman’s killing did not stop with Mr. Prem Kumar’s death.

15.14. In fact, it had just been re-ignited, emboldened by a friendly

Government in power.

Post-Retirement Recrudescence

16. On 21.03.2011, retired ADSP (Additional Superintendent of Police) Mr.

Sakthivelu, a President of India gallantry awardee, who was CIO (Chief

Investigating Officer) in the Sankararaman murder case, filed a writ

petition 7575 of 2011 in the Hon’ble High Court of Madras claiming

inter alia,

“I state that the case diary will be running to nearly thousands of

pages since we have recorded statements of about 500

witnesses, and recorded their statements under section 164

CrPC.

I state that my assistance was not taken by the prosecution. Till

14.3.2011, no summons were served on me.

But in the press, it was published that I am evading the

summons and the case was posted to 23.3.2011 and the police is

in a hurry to finish the case before the general elections to save

Jayendra Saraswathi.


After coming to know about the proceedings in the court, I

contacted the D.S.P, CBCID, Kanchipuram, who is in charge of

conducting the case and requested him to hand over the case

diary so that I can refresh myself by reading the file.

But he refused to hand over the file to me and I was told that I

may be treated as hostile and that I can simply enter the witness

box where the files will be handed over to me and for not

supporting the prosecution case I will be treated as hostile and

the case will be closed.

I state that the prosecution is very much interested in getting an

acquittal to the accused persons even though there is

overwhelming evidence against the accused.

It was a calculated murder against an innocent person in the

temple premises who was very much interested in safeguarding

the traditions of Sankara Mutt and to prevent Jayendra

Saraswathi from his immoral life of sexual relationship with a

number of ladies.

Hence it is just and necessary to direct the respondents to take

appropriate action under section 308 CrPC against the Approver

Ravi Subramaniam who was treated as hostile and to re-examine

the hostile witnesses and mark the 164 CrPC statements and

thereafter examine me as a witness, and to direct the

prosecution not to treat me as a hostile witness with an intention

to get an acquittal for the accused persons.”


16.1. However, in gross contempt for the Hon’ble Supreme Court, Tamil

Nadu’s prosecutors Mr. Kumaresan and Mr. Balasubramaniam objected

to the writ plea, instead of Puducherry’s prosecutors. The Hon’ble High

Court of Madras also entertained only Tamil Nadu and heard the writ

petition to the exclusion of Puducherry.

16.2. The Hon’ble High Court recorded Tamil Nadu’s submission that the case

diary will be issued to the CIO. But the Hon’ble High Court declined to

interfere with the plea for prosecuting hostile witnesses.

16.3. It offered a fallacious reasoning that since the Hon’ble Supreme Court

of India had ordered perjury proceedings in the Best Bakery case only

after the trial was over, the Hon’ble High Court would also interfere

only after the trial is completed. The main pleading (affidavit) in

W.P.No.7575 of 2011 dated 21.3.11, is at ANNEXURE A-34 (Pg - ).

16.4. A copy of the Judgment in W.P.No.7575 dated 23.3.2011, is at


Ingress of the Appellant

17. When the recording of evidence in the Sankararaman murder trial had

been virtually closed,

17.1. The Appellant was approached for his professional services by 2

journalist-lawyers Mr. Sundara Rajan & Mr. Subramani. They played an

audio conversation (telephonic conference call) between the accused,

the trial judge and 2 others.


17.2. The accused was heard assuring the judge that he would effect balance

payments within a week and that they had made earlier payments with

great difficulty due to freezing of bank accounts, etc.

17.3. Mr. Subramani informed the Appellant that a colleague in his

organisation, Mr. Ramanathan had conducted a sting operation on a

woman Deputy Registrar of the Hon’ble High Court at her chamber,

and that she used abusive language during the interaction.

17.4. When the Appellant cross-verified with Mr.Ramanathan, he informed

the Appellant that she was the wife of trial judge Mr.Ramaswamy, and

that she was the lady who featured on the conference call, and that he

had hence stung her. He narrated the foul language used by the lady

on the sting.

17.5. The Appellant after ascertaining the veracity of these claims advised

the journalists to lodge a complaint with the Registrar (Vigilance) of the

Hon’ble High Court of Madras, and drafted a complaint dated 18.8.11,

requesting the registrar to,

“cause registration of FIR and to probe the tapes, so as to

deter criminals from bribing judges and getting away, or

for fabricating tapes to tarnish the image of the judiciary”.

17.6. Since no FIR was registered, a writ petition 19894/11 was filed on

22.8.11, seeking registration of FIR on the complaint dated 18.08.2011,

and to order a re-trial of the murder case, if investigation revealed

payment of bribes.


17.7. The Hon’ble High Court of Madras admitted the writ petition and stayed

the Sankararaman murder trial.

17.8. The defence led by an advocate called Mr. P. N. Prakash began

lamenting over how the Appellant and his client could secure a Stay of

their trial without even being a party to the murder case. A copy of the

complaint dated 18.08.2011 is at ANNEXURE A-36 (Pg - ).

17.9. Advocate Mr. Sundararajan filed before the Hon’ble High Court of

Madras A copy of the main pleading (affidavit) in W.P.No.19894 of

2011 dated 22.8.11 is at ANNEXURE A-37 (Pg - ).

Other whistle-blower Lawyers

18. One Mr. Duraiswamy who had appeared as lead counsel in the Rajiv

Gandhi assassination case also lodged a complaint with the registrar by

raising queries in the form of an RTI application. Another advocate

called Ms. Vijayalakshmi also lodged a complaint.

18.1. On 24.08.2011, Miss Vijayalakshmi wrote to the Puducherry State

Prosecutor urging him to move the Hon’ble Supreme Court for

cancellation of bail granted by it to the prime-accused.

18.2. But there was no response from the Puducherry State Prosecutor in the

High Court. The application to the Puducherry Prosecutor dated

24.08.2011 seeking the cancellation of bail is reproduced at


18.3. On 5.9.11, Miss Vijayalakshmi wrote to the Public Prosecutor of Tamil

Nadu requesting him to seek the cancellation of bail for the prime

accused in cases which were being prosecuted by the Tamil Nadu


Government for misuse of liberty granted by their respective conditional

bail orders. A copy of the application to the Tamil Nadu Prosecutor

dated 5.9.11 is at ANNEXURE A-39 (Pg - ).

18.4. On the same day (5.9.01) Ms. Vijayalakshmi sent an RTI application to

the Prosecutor of Puducherry seeking the day to day action taken on

her earlier request dated 24.8.11. A copy of the RTI application dated


18.5. A month later, on 27.09.2011, the Public Prosecutor of Puducherry

returned the RTI application with a covering letter in which he daringly

claimed that his office had “nothing to do” with the said case.

18.6. In the same letter, the Puducherry Prosecutor directed Ms. Vijayalakshmi to

contact the Tamil Nadu Government as “they were prosecuting the case in SC

94/05”. The Public Prosecutor’s reply to the RTI application with a covering letter

dated 27.09.2011 is reproduced at ANNEXURE A-41 (Pg - ).

18.7. Per contra, in response to Ms. Vijayalakshmi’s letter to the Tamil Nadu

Prosecutor dated 05.09.2011, the SP, CBCID of Tamil Nadu police wrote a

reply on 12.10.11, directing Ms. Vijayalakshmi to approach the Registrar of

the Hon’ble High Court of Madras, claiming that he was handling the matter.

A copy of the SP’s reply dated 12.10.11 is at ANNEXURE A-42.

18.8. Thus, it is clear that in gross contempt for the Judgment of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court, while Puducherry was not prosecuting the murder case,

Tamil Nadu was not interested in the attempt to murder cases. Thus,

the prosecutions in all 3 cases were totally compromised.


18.9. On 30.9.11, Mrs. Padma, the widow of murdered Mr. Sankararaman,

lodged a complaint with the Learned Chief Justice of the Hon’ble High

Court of Madras while seeking serious action on the bribery charge,

also sought police protection in view of the threats from criminals and

cops. A copy of the complaint to Chief Justice dated 30.9.11, is at


18.10. But the Hon’ble Chief Justice forwarded Mrs. Padma’s complaint to the

very same Registrar (vigilance), whose inaction was challenged in WP

19894 of 2011.

18.11. Since the duty to sanction registration of an FIR has been cast upon

the Hon’ble Chief Justice in his individual capacity by virtue of the

Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in U.P. Judicial

Officers' Assn vs UoI (1994 SCC (4) 687 & JT 2002 (8) SC 133), the

said duty cannot be delegated to a Registrar. A copy of the Judgment


18.12. A copy of the Judgment dated 14.8.04 is at ANNEXURE A-45 (Pg -

).

18.13. Hence Mrs. Padma moved a writ petition seeking a mandamus to the

Chief Justice to exercise his duty cast by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of

India regarding authorization to register an FIR vis-à-vis the bribery

charges as evidenced by the audio tape. The Appellant appeared as

counsel for Mrs. Padma in the said writ petition.

18.14. Mrs. Padma’s petition was however refused to be registered.

Unregistered writ petitions in the Hon’ble High Court of Madras are


considered unworthy of being heard. They cannot be accessed online

and are not reflected even in the case status search. Yet the

unregistered petition was posted for hearing along with Mr.

Sundararajan’s WP 19894 of 2011. A copy of Writ Petition WPSR No

100792 of 2011 filed by Padma before High Court of Judicature Madras


18.15. The Hon’ble High Court administration responded by transferring the

trial judge Mr. Ramaswamy anZd sought the Appellant’s concession to

dismiss the writ petition as withdrawn. The Appellant declined to yield

and insisted that a probe be ordered to ascertain the veracity of the

bribery charges as revealed by the audio tapes.

18.16. Finally on 21.2.12, after hearing the Appellant, for a full day, a specially

constituted division bench of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras allowed

the writ petition by directing the cyber-crime wing of the Chennai police

to take voice samples of the trial judge, the accused and other

conversationalists and enquire into the bribe-conversation. The cyber-

crime police were given three months to complete their enquiry and

were directed to file a report in the Hon’ble High Court.

Judicial Blindness to the victim’s family

18.17. Having been compelled to pass an order for a probe, the Hon’ble High

Court of Madras made unsavoury remarks in its Judgment about the

widow of the murdered Mr. Sankararaman as well as her counsel, (the

Appellant herein).

18.18. In its anxiety to find fault with the Appellant, the Hon’ble High Court of

Madras in its Judgment resorted to pettifoggery and accused him of


writing his name as V. Manikandan in one place and as Manikandan

Vathan Chettiar in another (in the pleadings).

18.19. As for the stayed murder trial, the division bench vacated the stay, and

in the same Judgment it directed the aggrieved persons to approach

the trial court. A copy of the Judgment of the Division Bench of the

Madras High Court dated 21.02.2012 is at ANNEXURE A-47.

18.20. A copy of the Judgment of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court

WPSR 100792/11 dated 21.02.2012 is at ANNEXURE A-48 (Pg - )

19. Accordingly, on 10.4.12, in compliance with the Hon’ble High Court’s

orders in WP 19894 of 2011, the widow of Sankararaman, Mrs. Padma

approached the Hon’ble trial court of Puducherry, directly (party-in-

person) with two petitions (Crl.M.P.Nos.551 and 574 of 2012) seeking,

(1) Police Protection for her family

(2) Action against hostile witnesses &

(3) Action on the 308 CrPC petition against the hostile-Approver.

19.1. But the new trial judge Mr. Murugan declined to decide the two

applications. On the contrary he rushed through by hearing arguments

in the main trial.

19.2. Mrs. Padma was denied access to the dais to make her submissions.

Hence she engaged the Appellant’s services for the trial court also.

19.3. When the Appellant appeared in court, the new trial Judge Mr.

Murugan bargained with the Appellant that if he withdrew both

applications he would direct police protection to the victim’s family.


19.4. Judge Mr. Murugan also claimed that the 308 CrPC petition

(Crl.M.P.No.668 of 2010) could be decided only at the time of

pronouncing judgment. A copy of C.M.P. No 551 of 2012 is at


19.5. A copy of C.M.P. No 574 of 2012 is at ANNEXURE A-50 (Pg - ).

20. Hence, Mrs. Padma filed a Crl.O.P.No.10106 of 2012 in the Hon’ble

High Court of Madras under section 482 CrPC and sought a direction to

the trial court to decide her two miscellaneous petitions, and also to

provide her family with police protection.

20.1. In its reply, the prosecution admitted to the bargaining by the new

Judge Mr. Murugan. Yet, instead of supporting the victim’s plea for

deciding the 308 CrPC petition seeking action against the approver, the

prosecution objected to it and insisted that it should be decided only

after the completion of the trial.

20.2. Thus all three institutions namely the Hon’ble High Court of Madras, the

Hon’ble Trial Court of Puducherry and the Prosecution were keen to

keep the 308 CrPC petition (Crl.M.P 668 of 2010) under wraps in order

to somehow win an acquittal for the accused. In no case in the world,

will any sensible court keep a miscellaneous petition pending till the

end of the main case. This is another World Record, the third in this

case thus far.

20.3. On 26.4.12, the Hon’ble High Court heard the Appellant (Counsel for

Mrs. Padma) and directed the Hon’ble trial court to expeditiously

dispose of Mrs. Padma’s petitions. It also directed police protection to


her family. A copy of the counter affidavit CrI. O P. No. 10106/2012 filed

before the Hon’ble High Court of Madras under section 482 CrPC dated

26.4.12 is at ANNEXURE A-51.

20.4. A Copy of the Hon’ble Madras High Court’s order in Crl.O.P.10106 of

2012, dated 26.4.12 is at ANNEXURE A-52 (Pg - ).

21. In order to obey the orders of the Hon’ble High Court, and to argue the

2 miscellaneous petitions, the depositions of various witnesses were

required.

21.1. When requested by Sankararaman’s son Mr. Ananda Sharma, the new

trial judge Mr. Murugan directed the prosecutor to issue a copy of the

depositions. But prosecutor Mr. Devadass kept dodging the son of the

murdered Sankararaman deliberately and indefinitely.

21.2. He even refused to receive notices served upon him on behalf of the

victims. One such instance of refusal in the court premises was telecast

live on various TV channels for over 10 minutes.

21.3. Hence Mr. Ananda Sharma filed a petition (party-in-person) in the

Hon’ble Sessions Court seeking action against Mr. Devadass. But the

new trial judge Mr. Murugan returned the petition with a reply claiming

that he had no power to remove the Prosecutor appointed by the

Government of Puducherry. A copy of the petition is at ANNEXURE A-

53. (Pg - ).

21.4. A copy of the court’s order returning the petition on 27.4.12, is at



21.5. Mr. Ananda Sharma (Party-in-Person) then filed another petition to

assist the prosecution. But Judge Mr. Murugan returned that also with a

direction to Mr. Ananda Sharma to appoint a pleader and file an

application under section 301 (2) CrPC.

21.6. On 8.6.12, Mr. Ananda Sharma re-filed the petition stating that it was

filed under section 24 (8) CrPC and not under 301 (2). Judge Mr.

Murugan returned that as well, stating that Mr. Ananda Sharma has not

pleaded as to “how he is the victim of the crime”.

21.7. This attitude and conduct of trial judge Mr. Murugan was improper

since he not only mocked the party-in-person Mr. Ananda Sharma by

forcing him into the witness stand and making fun of his career plans,

but also went to the extent of asking how Sankararaman’s son could be

a Sharma.

21.8. In its earlier order dated 27.4.12, the court itself had mentioned that

petitioner Mr. Ananda Sharma is the son of the deceased. The petition

dated 27.4.12 is at ANNEXURE A-55.

21.9. The order of the Hon’ble trial Court returning the petition on 27.4.12 is


21.10. The order of the Hon’ble trial Court returning the aforesaid petition

again. A True copy of the return order passed by learned Principal

District and session Judge on 11.6.12 is at ANNEXURE A-57 (Pg -


Inconceivable Malpractices in the Hon’ble Trial Court

22. More disturbing events continued to be played-out in the Hon’ble

Sessions Court of Puducherry.

22.1. On 12.6.12, Mr. Ananda Sharma filed an application in the Hon’ble trial

court, seeking a copy of statements and depositions. A copy of the

audio/video tapes which were marked as M.O’s (Material Object’s) 15

to 24, was also sought.

22.2. Judge Mr. Murugan however returned the copy application bearing

number 5087 of 2012, demanding details of the persons whose

statements were required, etc. A copy of the application dated 12.6.12

is at ANNEXURE A-58 (Pg - ).

22.3. A copy of the Hon’ble court’s undated order of return, is at


22.4. On 13.06.2012, Mrs. Padma filed her re-joinder to Crl.M.P’s 551 & 574

of 2012, in response to the reply-affidavits of the prosecution and the

accused.

22.5. Trial Judge Mr. Murugan daringly returned the re-joinders claiming

falsely that Mrs. Padma and her counsel were absent, etc. A copy of

the re-joinder in Crl.M.P 551 of 2012, dated 13.6.12 is at ANNEXURE

A-60. (Pg - ).

22.6. A copy of the order of the Hon’ble Court returning the re-joinder in

Crl.M.P 551 of 2012, is at ANNEXURE A-61. (Pg - ).


22.7. A copy of the re-joinder in Crl.M.P 574 of 2012, is at ANNEXURE A-

62. (Pg - ).

22.8. A copy of the order of the Hon’ble Court returning the re-joinder in

Crl.M.P 574 of 2012, is at ANNEXURE A-63. (Pg - ).

22.9. On 25.6.12, Mr. Ananda Sharma moved a Crl.O.P.No 17602 of 2012, in

the Hon’ble High Court of Madras under section 407 (1) (c) (IV) CrPC.

22.10. He sought transfer of his father’s murder trial from the Hon’ble

Sessions Court of Puducherry to the Hon’ble High Court of Puducherry

(viz. Madras High Court), as provided-for by the statute. A copy of

Crl.O.P.No.17602 of 2012 dated 25.6.12 is at ANNEXURE A-64 (Pg -

).

22.11. But Mr.Anand Sharma’s petition vanished from the Madras High Court

registry.

22.12. 29 days later, on 23.7.12, a petition was filed in the Hon’ble High Court

of Madras seeking action against its registry officials for concealing Mr.

Anand Sharma’s 407 CrPC petition. Within an hour, the petition re-

appeared and was registered as Crl.O.P 17602 of 12.

22.13. In the interregnum, as many as 2612 cases were registered. A copy of

the petition seeking action against the registry officials dated

23.07.2012, is at ANNEXURE A-65

22.14. The RTI reply of the Hon’ble High Court dated 24.06.2013 is at



22.15. On 25.06.2012, the Chief Judge of Puducherry (Trial Judge) wrote to

Sankararaman’s son in response to his RTI application, and made a

damning claim.

22.16. Trial Judge Mr. Murugan claimed in-writing that the Hon’ble trial court

does not have any information relating to the appointment of Mr.

Devadass as a prosecutor to conduct SC 94 of 2005 (Sankararaman

murder case). A copy of the Letter of the Chief Judge of Puducherry


22.17. Yet, despite not having an appointment order, the learned trial judge

allowed Mr. Devadass to continue to conduct the prosecution as a

Special Prosecutor.

22.18. As regards the copy application which was re-filed by Mr.

Sankararaman’s son, learned Judge Mr. Murugan ordered notices to

each of the 24 accused, and called for their objections as to whether

the murder case records could / should be given to the son and wife of

the murdered Mr. Sankararaman.

22.19. Never in the history of jurisprudence, has a Sessions Judge ordered

notices to the killers, to determine whether the murder victim’s family

could be provided with a copy of the case records. This is yet another

world record. The fourth in this case so far.

22.20. In response to the new trial judge’s notice, the counsel for accused

(including their lead counsel Mr. P. N. Prakash) filed their written

objections.


22.21. Special Prosecutor Mr. Devadass also filed objections claiming that the

tapes are “not tangible and unable to be displayed, as they were

affected by virus”. A copy of the objection dated 16.07.2012 is at


23. Hence, on 23.7.12, Ananda Sharma again moved a Crl.O.P.18598 of

2012 in the Hon’ble High Court of Madras, and sought a direction to the

Hon’ble trial court to send the tapes to a laboratory for curing the

tapes. A copy of the petition Crl.O.P No 18598 of 2012 dated 23.7.12 is


23.1. On 1.8.12, when Crl.O.P 17602 of 2012 came up for hearing, Tamil

Nadu’s Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Maharaja appeared on behalf of

the prosecution, and objected to the plea for transfer.

23.2. This was in gross contempt of the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court

of India which directed that only Puducherry State should appoint a

Prosecutor for the Sankararaman murder case.

23.3. Hence, on 03.08.2012, Mr. Sankararaman’s son wrote a complaint to

the Tamil Nadu State Prosecutor Mr. Shunmugavelayutham. A copy of

the complaint dated 3.8.12 is at ANNEXURE A-70 (Pg - ).

23.4. In spite of the complaint, the Additional Prosecutor of Tamil Nadu again

appeared in the Hon’ble High Court on 06.08.2012, and lied to the

Hon’ble High Court that the same matter was pending in the Hon’ble

Supreme Court. When the petitioner’s side objected, the Hon’ble High

Court passed a docket order as follows, “Learned APP represents that


the matter is seized of by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. For verification

post on 07.08.2012.”

23.5. In response to Mr. Ananda Sharma’s letter, Tamil Nadu’s State

Prosecutor replied on 07.08.2012 claiming that Mr. Maharaja appeared

in court and made the submissions only on the basis of the instructions

given by the DSP, Kancheepuram at 9.35 A.M on 1.8.12. A copy of

Tamil Nadu’s state Public Prosecutor’s reply to Mr. Ananda Sharma’s

letter dated 07.08.2012 is at ANNEXURE A-71 (Pg - ).

23.6. Thereafter, Special Prosecutor Mr. Devadass himself rushed to the

Hon’ble High Court and began appearing in Crl.O.P.Nos 17602 & 18598

of 2012 without the knowledge of the Puducherry State Prosecutor.

23.7. Mr. Devadass argued in the Hon’ble High Court, that the murder case

could not be transferred out of Puducherry because the Hon’ble

Supreme Court of India had transferred the case to Puducherry.

23.8. The Hon’ble High Court closed its ears and refused to understand that

the Hon’ble High Court of Madras is the High Court for Puducherry also

and not just for Tamil Nadu. Section 407 (1) (c) (IV) CrPC provides for

shifting of a case from a Sessions Court to Hon’ble High Court.

23.9. As regards the petition seeking to cure the tapes of the virus, Special

Prosecutor Mr. Devadass informed the Hon’ble High that learned

Sessions Judge Mr. Murugan had passed an order directing him to issue

a copy of the tapes, and that he would be challenging the said order by

filing a revision plea before the Hon’ble High Court.


23.10. Since the applicant Mr. Ananda Sharma himself was unaware of the

order of Mr. Murugan, the Appellant was surprised by the Prosecutor’s

claim.

23.11. Per contra, the Hon’ble High Court had made up its mind, that since it

was the Hon’ble Supreme Court which transferred the trial to

Puducherry, it could not transfer the trial to the Hon’ble High Court of

Madras.

23.12. As such, the Hon’ble High Court began denying the counsel even a

moment’s hearing. She was not even allowed to inform the Hon’ble

High Court that the Hon’ble High Court of Madras was not only the

High Court for Tamil Nadu, but also the High Court for Puducherry.

23.13. Hence, on 17.8.12, the counsel for Mr. Ananda Sharma filed a written

recusal memorandum explaining the denial of hearing and recused

herself from both cases (17602 & 18598 of 2012), quoting rule 15 of

the Bar Council rules, 1975. The recusal was unjustly and unfairly

permitted by the Hon’ble High Court without an iota of remorse.

23.14. The recusal memorandum also sought issuance of a court notice to Mr.

Ananda Sharma to pursue the case himself or engage another lawyer.

A copy of the recusal memo dated 17.08.2012 bearing stamp register

number 35526 is at ANNEXURE A-72 (Pg - ).

23.15. Per contra, the Hon’ble High Court passed an erroneous order dated

17.8.12, stating that it heard the counsel for petitioner Ms.

Vijayalakshmi and that it was posting the case for dismissal on 23.8.12

due to her absence in court.


23.16. Furthermore, the Hon’ble High Court dismissed a connected

miscellaneous petition on the same date, claiming that the counsel was

absent.

23.17. A copy of the Hon’ble High Court’s order dated 17.8.12, in Crl.O.P

18598 of 12 is at ANNEXURE A-73 (Pg - ).

23.18. On 06.09.2012, without issuing notice to Mr. Ananda Sharma, the

Hon’ble High Court dismissed Crl.O.P.No 18598 of 2012, citing the

memo of recusal as having been filed and simultaneously showing the

name of Ms. Vijayalakshmi as “No Appearance” for petitioner.

23.19. As far as Crl.O.P No 17602 of 2012 is concerned, the Hon’ble High

Court stated the counsel’s name and mentioned the recusal memo in

brackets.

23.20. Yet, the Hon’ble Madras High Court dismissed the petition without

issuing notice to Mr. Ananda Sharma. A copy of the order dated

06.09.2012 in Crl.O.P.Nos 18598 of 2012 is at ANNEXURE A-74 (Pg -

).

23.21. A copy of the order of the Madras High Court dated 06.09.2012 in

Crl.O.P.No 17602 of 12 is at ANNEXURE A-75 (Pg - ).

23.22. As challenged by prosecutor Mr. Devadass, the covert order directing

him to furnish a copy of the tapes was challenged by way of a revision

petition.

23.23. Most interestingly, instead of the Prosecutor Mr. Devadass challenging

the order directing him to issue a copy of the tapes to the victim’s son


(as proclaimed by him during the hearings in the Hon’ble High Court), it

was learned defence lawyer Mr. P. N. Prakash who filed criminal

revision case 1026 of 12, on 21.8.12, on behalf of one of the accused

and reportedly obtained a Stay of the Hon’ble trial court’s order.

23.24. A copy of the order of the Hon’ble trial court dated 02.08.2012, is at


23.25. A copy of the revision petition in Criminal revision case No.1026 of 12,

dated 21.08.2012 is at Annexure A-77 (Pg - ).

23.26. After thus driving out the victim’s family by denying them even the case

records, the hostile Approver Mr. Ravi Subramaniam filed petitions in

the Hon’ble High Court in September 2012, seeking bail, not under

section 439 of CrPC, but under section 482 CrPC.

23.27. Approver Mr.Ravi Subramaniam’s 2 petitions under section 482 CrPC,

bearing Crl.O.P.Nos 22836 and 22837 of 2012 sought bail in the

Sankararaman murder, and the Radhakrishnan attempt to murder

cases respectively.

23.28. Whilst Puducherry State objected to grant of bail in the 1st case by

pointing out the breach of conditional pardon and pendency of the 308

CrPC petition seeking revocation of pardon, Tamil Nadu’s Prosecutor

filed a reply affidavit dated 1.10.12, asserting that Tamil Nadu is in the

process of filing a 308 CrPC application for revocation of pardon

granted in the Radhakrishnan attempt to murder case.


23.29. Believing the words of Tamil Nadu, the Hon’ble High Court dismissed

the 2 petitions. A copy of the undated petition in Crl.O.P.No.22837 of

2012, is at ANNEXURE A-78 (Pg - ).

23.30. A Copy of the reply affidavit dated 1.10.12 is at ANNEXURE A-79 (Pg

- ).

23.31. On 12.12.2012, advocate Ms. Vijayalakshmi moved a Writ Petition No

3142 of 2012 in the Hon’ble Madras High Court, challenging the

appointment of Mr. Devadass as Special Prosecutor for Sessions Case

No 94 of 2005 of Hon’ble Sessions Court of Puducherry.

23.32. But this writ petition also vanished after a few initial hearings and its

whereabouts have remained unknown for the past 6 years. A copy of

the affidavit in WP 3142 of 2012 is at ANNEXURE A-80 (Pg - ).

23.33. In the interregnum, on 29.10.2012, the Appellant wrote to the

Registrar General of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras, seeking a copy

of the cyber-crime enquiry-report filed by the police. Since there was

no reply on 14.12.2012, the Appellant again sought (in-writing), a

disclosure of the report and questioned whether the Hon’ble High Court

would list WP 19894/11 for hearing or not. On 26.12.2012, the

Registrar General replied claiming that the “cyber-crime report is under

consideration, and cannot be issued at this stage”. A copy of the

Registrar General’s letter dated 26.12.2012 is at ANNEXURE A-81 (Pg

- ).

23.34. On 21.12.2012, members claiming to be from the Puducherry Bar sent

a signed complaint to the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India, senior judges


and reporters, claiming that a sum of Rupees 20 crores was paid as a

bribe to the new trial judge Mr. Murugan through another judicial

officer. A copy of Puducherry Bar’s complaint is at ANNEXURE A-82

(Pg - ).

23.35. The Appellant mentioned the cyber-crime probe before successive Chief

Justices and requested them to direct listing of WP 19894 of 2011,

since no action was taken on the report. The Chief Justices disagreed

with the Appellant and claimed that action was taken but they refused

to elaborate on that claim.

Advocate Miss Vijayalakshmi’s Fresh Petition

23.36. Hence on 04.02.2013, one of the other 2 original complainants, Ms.

Vijayalakshmi filed a fresh writ petition bearing stamp register number

15776/13, seeking inter alia,

A. Disclosure of the contents of the cyber-crime police report, and

B. To order a comprehensive criminal investigation by the CBI.

23.37. Although this writ petition was registered and assigned Writ Petition

number, forgery was committed by erasing its registration number. By

such forgery the writ petition was re-converted into an unregistered

case.

23.38. This case file (WPSR 15776 of 13) may be called for, to observe the

forgery committed by the Hon’ble High Court of Madras which is visible

to the naked eye.


23.39. The unregistered writ petition (WPSR 15776/13) was then tossed from

bench to bench, wherein as many as 5 successive judges kept recusing

themselves without specifying any reason.

23.40. Eventually the criminals managed to get the writ petition de-listed from

the cause list.

23.41. On 25.10.2013, the lead counsel for the accused Mr. P. N. Prakash was

elevated as an additional judge of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras.

Judgment in the Murder Trial

23.42. On 27.11.2013, the new Sessions Judge Mr. Murugan delivered

Judgment in the Sankararaman murder case namely Sessions Case No

94 of 2005, acquitting all 24 accused, including the 5 fake-accused.

23.43. The cause title of the Judgment cited the name of the advocate who

appeared for the accused as “M/s P. N. Prakash, presently Hon’ble

Justice of the Hon’ble High Court, Madras.”

23.44. The victims of crime could not access a copy of the Judgment, nor was

there any provision in Indian law to provide a copy to the victims of

crime.

23.45. Not a single word was uttered in the 252-page Judgment about the

pendency of the 308 CrPC Petition (Crl.M.P 338/2010) against Approver

Mr. Ravi Subramanian.


23.46. On top of that, Sessions Judge Mr. Murugan directed the Government

to release the Approver under section 306 CrPC if his custody was no

longer required in any other case.

23.47. In his Judgment, Sessions Judge Mr. Murugan observed that there is no

provision for grant of bail to the Approver, and recommended to the

Indian Parliament (through his Judgment) that the Indian Parliament

should re-consider section 306 (4) (b) CrPC which debars an Approver

from seeking bail.

23.48. This is the first time in Indian legal history that a Sessions Judge had

demonstrated the impertinence to advise the Indian Parliament, and

especially to enact a law to bail out self-confessed Approvers.

23.49. Advising India’s Parliament is an area where even the Hon’ble Supreme

Court of India fears to tread even when an enactment would serve the

common good.

23.50. Sessions Judge Mr. Murugan who acquitted all the accused in the

Sankararaman murder case had thus set a World Record (fifth in this

case) by advising the Indian Parliament, and that too, to erase the

existing law and to enact a new law to bail out self-confessed

murderers (Approvers).

23.51. Nevertheless, even though the hostile Approver managed to walk free

after sabotaging the murder case, he had to remain in prison in

connection with the Radhakrishnan attempt to murder case, in which

case also he had secured pardon by turning Approver.


23.52. Hence he filed a bail petition (Crl.O.P No 32406 of 2013), in the Hon’ble

High Court of Madras once again under section 482 Code of Criminal

Procedure suppressing the earlier petitions (As can be deduced from

the absence of any reference to the earlier petition in the detailed court

order).

23.53. Even though Crl.O.P No 32406 of 2013 was hit by res judicata, it was

allowed on 16.12.13 on the ground that the prosecution failed to seek

revocation of Mr. Ravi Subramaniam’s pardon even 17 months after he

turned hostile.

23.54. It may be recalled that on 01.10.2012, Tamil Nadu filed a reply to the

earlier petition, claiming that it is in the process of filing a 308 CrPC

petition to seek revocation of his pardon. But in order to protect the

criminals, no such petition was filed by the State of Tamil Nadu for the

next 14 months. A copy of the Hon’ble Madras High Court order in

Crl.O.P.No.32406 of 2013 is at ANNEXURE A-83 (Pg - ).

Protecting the Self-Confessed Murderer

24. 14 years after the murder, and 8 years after violating the condition of

pardon, the self-confessed Approver Mr. Ravi Subramaniam who

admitted to murder under oath has not even been put on trial for

murder. This is the indeed truly a sensational world record. The sixth in

this case, so far.

25. Similarly, the 15 persons who had sworn (164 CrPC statements) in

favour of the prosecution before the Judicial Magistrate, but had turned

hostile during the murder-trial were never prosecuted for perjury.


25.1. Two of them had gone to the extent of deposing that the Learned

Judicial Magistrate had taken their signatures on blank papers. This is

the seventh World Record in this case.

Ousting His Excellency, the Governor

26. On 8.7.2014, His Excellency, the Lieutenant Governor of Puducherry

signed the file granting sanction to file an appeal against the Hon’ble

trial court’s Judgment in the Sankararaman murder case.

26.1. Within 3 days, word of this development got out and the Governor was

unceremoniously ousted from Governorship overnight on 11.07.2014.

26.2. The Governor somersaulted and convened a press conference to inform

that he was removed only because he signed the file approving the

filing of the appeal. He claimed that he would meet the President of

India to seek justice vis-à-vis his removal.

26.3. This ousting of a Governor in a democratic republic, solely to avenge

his legitimate administrative duty is the eighth World Record in this

case. A copy of the news report dated 25.7.14 is at ANNEXURE A-84

(Pg - ).

Issuance of Real Video-Tapes

27. Upon hearing the plight of the victims, the head of administration in

Tamil Nadu, issued several video tapes to the Appellant including the

ones that were denied by virtue of the Hon’ble Madras High Court’s

stay.


27.1. The Appellant was also informed that the prosecution had filed only

empty cassettes in the Hon’ble trial court, apprehending that the

accused might tamper with it.

27.2. This revelation meant that trial judge Mr. Murugan could not have ever

viewed the tapes.

27.3. Yet he delivered Judgment, acquitting all the accused, without viewing

the videos & audios which were marked as evidence during trial.

Deracination of an innocent Trial Judge

28. In 2015, a court clerk called Mr. Ramesh, and a judge called Mr.

Rajasekar sought an interview (appointment) with the appellant

through Sun TV News reporter whose name is also Mr. Ramesh.

28.1. The 2 Ramesh’s were neighbours in the Madras High Court staff

quarters by virtue of Sun TV news reporter Mr. Ramesh’s wife working

as a staffer in the Hon’ble High Court of Madras.

28.2. The stated purpose of the proposed appointment was to request the

Appellant to withdraw the writ petition filed by Ms. Vijayalakshmi,

WPSR 15776 of 13 on the ground that they were suffering due to

pendency of the writ petition.

28.3. The Appellant granted audience on the condition that they reveal the

truth. This was occasioned by the fact that the Appellant had been kept

in the dark about the outcome of the cyber-crime enquiry for over 3

years.


28.4. The duo claimed that they had been suspended since 2013 and that

their suspension was not being revoked on account of pendency of Ms.

Vijayalakshmi’s writ petition.

28.5. When asked about the reasons for suspension, they admitted to their

involvement in the bribe-tapes, and named several persons including

one Mr. Antony Selvaraj as orchestrators of the bribery.

28.6. The Appellant verified the claims of Additional District Judge Mr.

Rajasekar and ascertained that he was indeed suspended by the

Hon’ble High Court, vide R.O.C.No. 19/2013-con.B2, dated 13.03.2013.

The suspension order of Mr. Rajasekar dated 13.03.2013 is reproduced

at ANNEXURE A-85 (Pg -----).

28.7. When the Appellant questioned the judge Mr. Rajasekar about the role

of the trial judge Mr. Ramaswamy, there was no proper explanation by

Mr. Rajasekar who resorted to prevarication.

28.8. If Mr. Ramasamy was not involved in the bribery, then suspicions

would arise as to whether Sessions Judge Mr. Ramasamy was falsely

implicated to have him removed from the trial and get a person of

choice to deliver judgment in favour of the accused.

28.9. This by implication meant that a conspiracy had been hatched by the

journalist turned lawyers Mr. Subramanian and Mr. Sundararajan to

remove the judge Mr. Ramaswamy from the Hon’ble trial court.

28.10. The suspicions were confounded by the recollection that both Mr.

Sundararajan as well as Mr. Subramani failed to elicit interest in their


writ petition 19894 of 2011 after the removal of Mr. Ramaswamy by

the Hon’ble High Court administration.

29. While so, Ms. Vijayalakshmi’s writ petition (WPSR 15776 of 2013) was last

heard on 14.02.2014 and the contents of the order passed on the said

date were declined to be informed to the Appellant.

29.1. Finally, after a full year, on 06.02.2015, the court order of 14.02.2014

was unofficially issued to the Appellant without a court seal but on

official court stationery.

29.2. The order dated 14.02.2014 permitted the Appellant to remove the 1st

respondent therein, and modify the prayer. When the Appellant tried to

comply with the order, the registry declined to furnish the case record

to carry out the correction.

29.3. Hence the Appellant wrote a letter to the registry dated 18.02.2015.

But there was no response to the letter. A copy of the order dated

14.02.2014, is at ANNEXURE A-86.

29.4. A copy of the letter dated 18.02.2015 is at ANNEXURE A-87 (Pg -----

).

30. On 14.04.2015, the former counsel for the murder accused, namely Mr.

P. N. Prakash was sworn in as a permanent judge of the Hon’ble High

Court of Madras.

30.1. On 12.6.15, immediately after the summer vacation, when the

Appellant was not in Chennai, Ms. Vijayalakshmi’s Writ Petition SR No


15776 of 2013, was suddenly listed for hearing after one and a half

years without prior intimation.

30.2. The Appellant’s junior appeared in court and sought an adjournment on

his behalf, which was denied. The writ petition was dismissed alleging

that the Appellant failed to amend the cause title and prayer as

directed by the earlier order.

30.3. Hence the Appellant invoked the RTI Act and sought details about his

alleged failure to amend the prayer. The Hon’ble High Court in its reply

dated 04.09.2015 claimed that the registry had been directed to furnish

a Xerox copy to carry out the amendment.

30.4. While this claim is untrue, it is common knowledge that amendments to

a pleading need to be carried out in the original of the court record,

and not on a Xerox copy. The order dated 12.06.2015, is at

ANNEXURE A-88.

30.5. A copy of the letter dated 04.09.2015 is at ANNEXURE A-89 (PP -----).

Abuse of Judicial Office by Mr. P. N. Prakash

31. Within 3 weeks of becoming a permanent judge, Mr. P. N. Prakash

embarked upon a mission to get rid of the Appellant in order to protect

the criminals named in the report of the cyber-crime police and those

involved in the Sankararaman murder case including the Approver Mr.

Ravi Subramaniam.


31.1. At this time, Mr. P. N. Prakash was hearing criminal cases as per the

roster.

31.2. Unfortunately for Mr. P. N. Prakash, there were no pending criminal

cases in the Hon’ble High Court of Madras, wherein the Appellant was a

counsel on record.

31.3. So Mr. P. N. Prakash took up 2 pending criminal cases which stood in

the name of the Appellant’s former junior Mr. Mathan Kumar for

hearing.

31.4. In both of them, Mr. P. N. Prakash

A. Totally ignored the merits of each case,

B. Totally ignored the due process jurisprudence,

C. Totally ignored the non-completion of pleadings, and daringly issued

judicial orders directing the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu to institute

disciplinary action against the Appellant without any rhyme or reason.

31.5. It is pertinent to note that the Appellant is not even a counsel in the

said cases.

31.6. It is further pertinent to note that one of the 3 cases was lying

unregistered in the registry for over a year and a quarter.

31.7. What is even more appalling is that the Appellant was not even in

Chennai when these orders were passed. Yet, most of the orders of

Mr. P. N. Prakash state that the Appellant was heard before the orders

were passed.


31.8. Learned Judge Mr. P. N. Prakash quoted passages from various

Judgments of the Hon’ble High Court in the Sankararaman murder-

cum-bribery case, in which (murder-trial) he was the defence counsel

until 2 years earlier.

31.9. Mr. P. N. Prakash also quoted several court orders which were passed

on the circulation notes of the registry without even stating how and

where he had accessed those internal administrative notes of the

Hon’ble High Court from.

31.10. The most bizarre aspect of all this is that there is no allegation

whatsoever against the Appellant in any of the cases.

31.11. Yet, he has been successfully witch-hunted. The list of cases, are as

follows,

A. Crl.O.P 30502 of 2014 -04.08.2015

B. Unregistered Crl.O.P.SR 15125 of 14 - 14.08.2015

C. Crl.O.P 7278 of 2015 - 27.07.2015

Suo Motu Tr. Case No 152 of 2016 of BCI

32. The facts of the first case, namely the FAKE BAIL scandal in Crl.O.P.No

30502 of 2011 of Hon’ble High Court of Madras are as follows,

32.1. On 31.07.2014, one Mrs. Lakshmi, semi-literate villager, and 6 of her

relatives were brutally attacked by land-grabbers in Villupuram district.

32.2. She was admitted as in-patient in Government hospital due to severe

head injuries, while others were discharged as out-patients.


32.3. The FIR (Crime no 127 of 2015) which was registered on the basis of

the intimation given by the hospital outpost police, regarding the attack

on Mrs. Lakshmi and her relatives was closed on the same day.

32.4. The closure of the said case on 31.07.2014 has been concealed from

the knowledge of the jurisdictional Judicial Magistrate till date

(September 2018).

32.5. On the same day (31.07.2014), the attackers lodged a police complaint

against the 7 victims solely to harass them and to prevent them from

lodging their FIR.

32.6. The FIR lodged by the attackers against Mrs. Lakshmi and others was

assigned an earlier number by the police (Crime Number 126 of 2015).

32.7. On 01.08.2014, even as Mrs. Lakshmi was undergoing treatment in

hospital as in-patient, an anticipatory bail petition was filed in the

Hon’ble Sessions Court at Villupuram, for all 7 victims of the attack,

without Mrs. Lakshmi’s knowledge, and without the knowledge of any

of the 6 other victims of the brutal attack.

32.8. This anticipatory bail petition bearing number 5721 of 2014 of

Villupuram Sessions Court, did not contain Mrs. Lakshmi’s signature, or

the signature of any of the 6 other victims.

32.9. The Vakalatnama (memorandum of appearance) in the said case also

did not contain the signature of any of the 7 persons who were shown

as the petitioners.


32.10. When the anticipatory bail petition was listed on 05.08.2014, the Public

Prosecutor did not object or utter a single word (as is evident from the

order).

32.11. The District Judge who heard the petition passed an order stating that

all 7 petitioner(s) are juveniles even though they were all aged

between 40 and 70 years.

32.12. On 05.08.2014, the learned District Judge directed all 7 petitioners

(including Mrs. Lakshmi who was struggling for her life in the hospital)

to surrender before the Judicial Magistrate on or before 18.08.2014,

and execute a bond of Rs.5000/- each with 2 sureties for a like sum.

32.13. He further directed all 7 of them to appear before the police station at

10.A.M and 5.P.M daily until further orders.

32.14. A copy of the fake-bail petition dated 01.08.2014, is at ANNEXURE A-

90 (Pg - ).

32.15. A copy of the vakalatnama dated 01.08.2014, dated 01.08.2014, is at


32.16. A copy of the bail order passed by the Sessions Court at Villupuram in

Crl.M.P.No. 5721/2014 dated 05.08.2014 at ANNEXURE A-92 (Pg -

).

32.17. It was later revealed that in all the orders passed by the Learned

District Judge in various bail petitions, the petitioners were falsely cited

as juveniles and the injured person was falsely shown as having been

discharged from hospital.


32.18. Moreover, there would be no reference to the actual argument

advanced by the advocate concerned, or the objection of the

prosecutor / police. A bail order of the District Judge, Villupuram dated

----------, is at ANNEXURE A-93 (Pg - ).

32.19. Another such bail order of the District Judge, Villupuram dated ----------

, is at ANNEXURE A-94 (Pg - ).







32.23. Since the Public Prosecutor never receives any instructions from the

police, and never objects to such cases, the learned District Judge

never recorded the objections of the prosecution in any of his orders.

32.24. Having been wronged by the system, Mrs. Lakshmi wanted to bring to

the knowledge of the Hon’ble High Court, the manner in which innocent

victims like her were being harassed by the misuse of the court system

in Villuppuram district, which has been the epicentre of the fake-bail

scam for several decades.

32.25. Accordingly on 29.10.2014 her counsel Mr. Mathan Kumar filed a

petition on Mrs. Lakshmi’s behalf, invoking the inherent powers of the


Hon’ble High Court under section 482 CrPC (Crl.O.P No 30502 of 2014)

and sought protection of her life and property.

32.26. Mrs. Lakshmi also sought action against the land-grabbers, the police,

the prosecutor, and the District Judge for entertaining fake bail

petitions, without the knowledge and signature of victims of crime, and

directing their surrender indiscriminately. A copy of the petition in

Crl.O.P.No.30502 of 2014 dated 29.10.14 is at ANNEXURE A-98 (Pg

- ).

32.27. Between 19.11.2014 and 07.04.2015, several learned judges of the

Hon’ble High Court of Madras heard the case in Crl.O.P.No.30502 of

2014 and none of the 3 respondents filed any reply to the Hon’ble

court.

32.28. On 07.04.2015, Crl.O.P.No. 30502 of 2014 was taken up for hearing by

Mr. Justice. P. N. Prakash. When the Appellant appeared on behalf of

the counsel on record, in exercise of Order 3 Rule 3 of the appellate

side rules, the learned judge misbehaved with him, and reserved orders

in the case without hearing the counsel (Appellant) on the facts /

merits of the case.

32.29. The Appellant promptly reported these incidents to the Hon’ble Chief

Justice in writing on the very next day (8.4.15). A copy of the

representation to the Hon’ble Chief Justice dated 08.04.2015 is at


32.30. On 10.4.15, the learned judge Mr. P. N. Prakash claimed (in his final

order dated 4.8.15) that while preparing orders, he noticed that the


signature of the counsel on record Mr. Mathan Kumar was missing on

the vakalatnama in Crl.O.P.No.30502 of 2014, and that he therefore

issued a memo, seeking the explanation of the examiner who

registered the case. A copy of the Vakalatnama is at ANNEXURE A-

100 (Pg - ).

32.31. It is not a case in which the petitioner’s signature was absent on the

Vakalatnama. In fact, the petitioner Mrs. Lakshmi’s signature was

notarised by a local Notary of her domicile district. Even though the

High Court rules require no such attestation, and no other lawyer

secures such attestation in their respective Vakalatnamas for criminal

matters in the Hon’ble High Court of Madras, the Appellant’s former

junior had secured such attestation as a measure of abundant caution.

This deserves praise, not criticism.

32.32. On 16.04.2015, Crl.O.P No 30502 of 2014 which had been reserved for

orders was then suo motu listed for hearing under the caption “FOR

BEING MENTIONED”, and Justice. Mr. P. N. Prakash passed an order

summoning the petitioner Mrs. Lakshmi.

32.33. Justice Mr. P. N. Prakash suo motu impleaded advocate Mr. Selvakumar

who filed an anticipatory bail petition in Lakshmi’s name on the ground

that Mrs. Lakshmi had levelled allegations against him in her petition.

32.34. In response to the memo issued by Mr. Justice. P. N. Prakash on

10.04.2015, the examiner was made to send an explanation on

16.04.2015 admitting to his inadvertence in failing to notice the

counsel’s missing signature, and tendering an unequivocal apology.


32.35. Having admitted to his mistake, the examiner was constrained to

further claim that on 14.11.2014 (viz. 5 months ago), counsel Mr.

Mathan Kumar urged him to pass the case on the same day at the

instance of his senior (naming the Appellant), and that he failed to see

the missing signature. The examiner was constrained to make more

outlandish claims that he was intimidated, the other examiners were

also similarly intimidated, etc.

32.36. A copy of the notice dated 10.04.2015 issued in the personal residential

letter-head of Mr. Justice. P. N. Prakash is at ANNEXURE A-101. (Pg

- ).

32.37. A copy of the explanation of the examiner dated 16.04.2015 is at


32.38. On 22.04.2015, the counsel on record Mr. Mathan Kumar filed a fresh

Vakalatnama bearing his signature, and filed a separate memorandum

explaining the omission, and about his good practice of getting notarial

attestation on outstation Vakalatnamas unlike all other lawyers in the

Hon’ble High Court of Madras. A copy of the memorandum appended to

the fresh Vakalatnama dated 22.04.2015 is at ANNEXURE A-103 (Pg

- ).

32.39. On 03.06.2015, on the basis of the serial misconduct of Mr. Justice. P.

N. Prakash as reported to the Hon’ble Chief Justice, the Appellant

preferred a letter to the Registrar of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras

stating that due to personal and ideological differences, the registry

was requested not to post any of his cases before the learned judge


Mr. P. N. Prakash. A copy of the letter dated 03.06.2015 is at


32.40. On 09.06.2015, an affidavit claiming to be the counter-affidavit (reply)

in Crl.O.P No 30502 of 2014 was filed, not by any one of the 3

respondents but by the state Public Prosecutor.

32.41. The State Prosecutor was made to file this reply by showing the cause

title and the contents of some other case, as if it is a reply to Mrs.

Lakshmi’s case.

32.42. Forgery was then committed directly.

32.43. The case number of a different case was forged by applying whitening

liquid, and the number Crl.OP 30502 of 2014 (Lakshmi’s case number)

was over-written.

32.44. In other words, the counter-affidavit (reply) which was prepared for

another case was passed-off as a counter for Mrs. Lakshmi’s case.

32.45. This forged counter urged action to be taken against the Appellant for

the alleged offence of “mentioning the name of the Public Prosecutor in

the column meant for mentioning the respondent counsel’s name.”

32.46. In other words, the allegation is that the name of the Public Prosecutor

is so sacrosanct that he should be mentioned only by his designation

and not by his name. A copy of the forged counter-affidavit dated

09.06.2015 (with a false cause-title) filed by Tamil Nadu Prosecutor Mr.

Shunmugavelayutham is at ANNEXURE A-105 (Pg - ).


32.47. On 10.06.2015, Mr. P. Selvakumar, the counsel who filed the fake

anticipatory bail petition in the Hon’ble Sessions Court appeared before

the Hon’ble High Court of Madras, and filed an affidavit virtually

admitting to his crime.

32.48. In this affidavit Mr. Selvakumar claimed that it was only an advocate

called Mr. Gandhi who had sent a brief stating that Lakshmi and 6

others were in need of anticipatory bail.

32.49. This clearly establishes that Mr. Selvakumar had never met Mrs.

Lakshmi or any of the other 7 petitioners. Yet he filed anticipatory bail

without the knowledge of the petitioner(s) and obtained surrender

orders. A copy of the affidavit of Mr. Selvakumar dated June 2015 is at


32.50. On 26.6.15, the Appellant wrote a second letter to the Hon’ble Chief

Justice narrating the further misconduct of the learned judge Mr. P. N.

Prakash. A copy of the Appellant’s letter to the Hon’ble Chief Justice is


32.51. On 30.06.2015, the petitioner in the case, Mrs. Lakshmi who was

summoned to Mr. P. N. Prakash’s court stated that she and her

relatives never knew of any Gandhi.

32.52. Thus the petitioner Mrs. Lakshmi stood vindicated that the anticipatory

bail petition of 7 persons was filed, and surrender orders were obtained

without their knowledge and signatures.

32.53. Mrs. Lakshmi stood by every word of her petition. Yet instead of taking

action against those who had admitted to having filed the petition


without her knowledge, learned judge Mr. P. N. Prakash cautioned her

that her stand may invite cancellation of her bail.

32.54. Mrs. Lakshmi responded by saying that when she neither wanted, nor

sought bail, then why should she worry about whether it was granted

or cancelled.

32.55. The learned Judge Mr. P. N. Prakash then left the matter and asked the

Appellant for his explanation to the appeal examiner’s claims.

32.56. The Appellant responded by stating that issues relating to High Court

administration can be enquired on the administrative side only by the

Hon’ble Chief Justice, and his administrative sub-ordinates, and not on

the judicial side in this fashion.

32.57. Relying upon the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in

High Court of Rajasthan vs Ramesh Chand Paliwal, (1998) 3 SCC 72,

the Appellant challenged the jurisdiction of Mr. Justice. P. N. Prakash to

conduct an administrative probe on the judicial side without the

knowledge of the Hon’ble Chief Justice.

32.58. The Appellant informed Mr. Justice. P. N. Prakash that he was willing to

offer any number of explanations to the Hon’ble Chief Justice, if and

when the Chief Justice deemed it fit, to seek an explanation.

32.59. The relevant portions of the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of

India in High Court of Rajasthan vs Ramesh Chand Paliwal, (1998) 3

SCC 72, read as follows,


“23. Just as the Chief Justice of India is the supreme authority in

the matter of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India Establishment

including its office staff and officers, so also the learned Chief

Justice of the Hon’ble High Court is the sole authority in these

matters and no other Judge or officer can legally usurp those

administrative functions or power.

The Chief Justice has been vested with wide powers to run the

High Court administration independently so as not to brook any

interference from any quarter, not even from his brother Judges

who, however, can scrutinize his administrative action or order

on the judicial side like the action of any other authority.

What is, therefore, of significance is that although in Article 235,

the word "High Court" has been used, in Article 229, the word

"Chief Justice" has been used.

The Constitution, therefore, treats them as two separate entities

in as much as "control over Sub-ordinate Courts" vests in the

High Court, but High Court administration vests in the Chief

Justice.”

32.60. However, in violation of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court

and without the knowledge of the Hon’ble Chief Justice, Justice Mr. P.

N. Prakash continued his erroneous activities in contravention of his

judicial duty vis-à-vis Crl.O.P 30502 of 2014.

32.61. While so, when the Appellant was away at his native village, tending to

his pregnant wife, learned Judge Mr. P. N. Prakash passed an order on


04.08.2015, dismissing Crl.O.P 30502 of 2014, and directed the Bar

Council to initiate action against the Appellant for,

A. Impleading the District Judge as a party-respondent, and for,

B. Levelling accusations against advocate colleague Mr.

Selvakumar (who himself admitted to filing the fake bail

petition).

A copy of the order in Crl.O.P.No.30502 of 2014 dated 4.8.15 is at


Abrupt Interim Indefinite Peremptory Suspension

33. On 14.09.2015, the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu was forced to act in

gross contempt for the constitution bench Judgment of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in Bar Association Vs UOI, (1998) 4 SCC 409, and,

A. Without any notice to the Appellant,

B. Without any rhyme or reason, and

C. Without seeking any explanation,

issued an indefinite order abruptly banning the Appellant from

appearing in any court or tribunal. A press release was issued by the

Bar Council for publication of the illegal ban imposed on the Appellant

and his junior. A copy of the interim ban order dated 14.09.2015 issued

to the Appellant’s former junior containing the Appellant’s name is at



34. The Appellant was warned not to use his Bar Council identity card to

enter the High Court premises. The Appellant’s chamber was

surreptitiously vacated. The Appellant’s belongings were taken away by

the High Court officials in his absence. The Appellant’s office furniture

including the steel locker containing case records was stealthily

removed from his chamber and secreted by the court administration

which initially denied such action. A reign of terror was unleashed in

the Hon’ble High Court of Madras to such an extent that not a single

one of the 10,000 plus advocates in Chennai chose to even assist the

Appellant (let alone appear on his behalf in court) to challenge the

illegal ban in court.

Inaction of the Hon’ble Chief Justice

35. On 11.06.2015, the Hon’ble Madras High Court administration

responded to the Appellant’s RTI application and informed that the

Appellant’s representation to the Hon’ble Chief against Mr. P. N.

Prakash on 08.04.2015, was “Closed, as no action could be taken

thereupon”. A copy of the High Court’s letter dated 11.6.15.

36. Left with no option against the above grave injustice, the Appellant

filed a stay petition on 03.11.2015 (Sub-Application number 828 of

2015) in the Hon’ble High Court of Madras, alleging blatant violation of

the Judgment of the constitution bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

37. As already stated, since no advocate was willing to appear for the

Appellant, the Appellant had to file the petition as party-in-person.


37.1. The Appellant quoted and relied upon the dictum laid by the Hon’ble

Supreme Court of India in para 58 of the Judgment reported in (1998)

4 SCC 409, which runs as follows,

“After the coming into force of the Advocates Act, 1961,

exclusive power for punishing an advocate for "professional

misconduct" has been conferred on the concerned State Bar

Council and the Bar Council of India. That Act contains a detailed

and complete mechanism for suspending or revoking the licence

of an advocate for his "professional misconduct”.

Since, the suspension or revocation of licence of an advocate has

not only civil consequence but also penal consequence, the

punishment being in the nature of penalty, the provisions have to

be strictly construed.

Punishment by way of suspending the licence of an advocate can

only be imposed by the competent statutory body after the

charge is established against the Advocate in a manner

prescribed by the Act and the Rules framed thereunder.”

Manipulating the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s interdict

37.2. But in order to dismiss the petition, the division bench chose to omit

the ratio decidendi quoted by the Appellant, and extracted para 71 of

the same Judgment and distorted its meaning, to infer just the

opposite. Para 71 runs as follows,


“Thus, after the coming into force of the Advocates Act, with

effect from 19th May 1961, matters connected with the

enrollment of advocates as also their punishment for professional

misconduct is governed by the provisions of that Act only.

Since, the jurisdiction to grant licence to a law graduate to

practice as an advocate vests exclusively in the Bar Councils of

the concerned State, the jurisdiction to suspend his licence for a

specified term or to revoke it also vests in the same body.”

37.3. The words “specified term” were manipulated to mean interim

suspension.

37.4. So saying, the division bench of the Hon’ble High Court upheld the

indefinite interim ban by distorting an obiter, and superseding the ratio

decidendi.

37.5. When the Appellant sought a certified copy of the order, the Hon’ble

High Court refused to issue the same, and the application for a copy of

the order has been pending for the past 3 years.

37.6. Per contra, a copy of the order was leaked to friendly media, by e-

mail, directly from the chambers of one of the learned judges, who

passed the order. A copy of the stay petition, is at ANNEXURE A-110

(Pg - ).

37.7. A copy of the affidavit filed along with the said stay petition (in sub-

Application 828 of 2015), is at ANNEXURE A-111 (Pg - ).


37.8. A copy of the written arguments filed in the said stay petition (in sub-

Application 828 of 2015), is at ANNEXURE A-112 (Pg - ).

37.9. A copy of the Judgment in (1988) SCC 4 409 is at ANNEXURE A-113

(Pg - ).

38. On 21.04.2016, the Appellant filed a writ petition bearing stamp

register number 53861 of 2016 of Hon’ble High Court of Madras

challenging the order of illegal suspension and sought interim orders of

stay and exemplary compensation of 100 crores. As already stated,

since no advocate was willing to appear for the Appellant in this

petition, he had to file it as a party-in-person.

38.1. The Madras High Court registry refused to register the Appellant’s writ

petition.

38.2. It was returned with an erroneous objection stating that since the

Appellant had been suspended, he could not file any petition.

38.3. The Appellant however re-filed the petition immediately explaining that

he was challenging the said suspension only. But the Hon’ble High

Court of Madras stoutly refused to register the case and refused to post

it for hearing before the learned judges.

38.4. Such was the level of persecution in the Hon’ble Madras High Court

that for more than one year, the Appellant’s writ petition was not listed

even for admission.

38.5. The Appellant had to prefer as many as 5 complaints, to list the petition

for admission, but none of the complaints were even responded-to, let


alone being attended-to. A copy of the writ petition number SR 53861

of 2016 dated 06.04.2016, is at ANNEXURE A-114 (Pg - ).

38.6. A copy of the 5th complaint dated 12.06.2017 is at ANNEXURE A-115

(Pg - ).

Publicly Threatening the Appellant

39. On 26.04.2016, a judge called Mr. V. Ramasubramaniam who had

several years earlier recused himself from hearing Ms. Vijayalakshmi’s

Writ Petition SR 53861 of 13, issued this shocking threat in his farewell

speech on the eve of his transfer to the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra

Pradesh, and that too in the presence of his fellow judges,

“I am not running away from the battlefield, but just positioning

myself at a distance carefully worked out so that long-range

missiles can be fired and the rebel camps completely destroyed.

After all, I am just a phone call away for the Chief Justice.

Therefore, I will continue to call the shots, and haunt you even in

your dreams.”

The news report dated 26.4.16 containing the judge’s threat is


40. Eventually, on 22.06.2017, after running from pillar to post, writ

petition bearing WPSR 53861 of 2016 was posted before a division

bench headed by a Non-Tamil Judge by a benevolent Hon’ble Chief

Justice, who acted with promptitude at the Appellant’s request to have

the matter posted before a Non-Tamil Judge.


40.1. The presiding judge of the division bench made a bona fide bid to give

a quietus.

40.2. Hence he requested the Appellant to file an affidavit expressing regret

and insisted that he did not want to go into the merits of the case. He

expressed his anxiety over the Appellant’s prolonged suspension.

40.3. The presiding judge’s predicament in dealing with allegations against

his fellow judge was palpable. Yet the presiding judge persuaded the

Appellant to adopt the said course of action by invoking the Appellant’s

welfare, the interests of his clients, and that of his family.

40.4. Accordingly, in deference to the wishes of the presiding judge, the

Appellant filed an affidavit expressing regret which was taken on file. It

then directed the Bar Council to appear on the next day, with a view to

convincing it to drop the proceedings.

40.5. Taking advantage of the situation, the Tamil Nadu Judge on the bench

persuaded the Appellant to withdraw Crl.O.P.SR.No.15231 of 2017. The

said case had been earlier filed by the Appellant, seeking a direction to

the Tamil Nadu and Puducherry Governments to implement the

Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India dated 07.01.2014

issued in Kishenbhai Vs State of Gujarat reported in (2014) 5 SCC 108.

40.6. In the said case the Hon’ble Supreme Court had 3 years earlier,

commanded the Home Departments of all States to put in place a

procedural mechanism to examine all cases of acquittal, record the

reasons for failure of each prosecution case, and to initiate

departmental action against the erring police and prosecution officials.


40.7. Considering the bonhomie which prevailed that evening coupled with

pressure exerted by the Appellant’s peers who were anxiously awaiting

a positive outcome, the Appellant withdrew the said case to enable the

Non-Tamil judge to avoid objections from his colleague on the bench.

Sabotage of the Reconciliation Effort

41. On the next day (23.06.2017), the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu’s

Chairman himself appeared in court and declined to abide by the

Division Bench’s advice. The Non-Tamil presiding judge went out of his

way to convince the Chairman by showing him the regret affidavit as

well as the withdrawal endorsement of the Appellant in

Crl.O.P.SR.No.15231 of 2017 and requested him to resolve the issue

and drop the proceedings but the Chairman remained adamant.

41.1. The Division Bench then advised the Chairman to reconcile the

differences by speaking to the Appellant outside the court hall and

passed over the matter.

41.2. During the discussion in the court corridor, the Chairman claimed his

inability to concede stating that he was under pressure and told the

Appellant that he (the Appellant) would be able to realise the pressure

put upon him (Chairman) only if the Appellant were to sit as Chairman

for a single day.

41.3. The learned Advocate General Mr. Muthukumaraswamy, (who had

appeared for the Hon’ble High Court in the Sankararaman bribe tapes


case) also appeared voluntarily, and objected to any relief being

granted to the Appellant.

41.4. Hence the division bench expressed its helplessness and requested the

Appellant to file a petition seeking to return the affidavit of regret.

41.5. Accordingly on 06.10.2017, the Hon’ble High Court passed an order

directing its registry to return the regret affidavit secured by it on

22.06.2017.

41.6. On 30.11.17, the Hon’ble High Court ordered the return of the earlier

affidavits of the Appellant dated 17.04.2016 and 03.08.2017 also.

41.7. As such all 3 affidavits were effaced from the record of the case in

W.P.S.R. No.53861 of 16. Incidentally, the Division Bench took the

consent of the Bar Council of India, before ordering the return of the

affidavits, and recorded such consent in its respective orders.

41.8. The Hon’ble High Court’s order dated 06.10.17 directing its registry to

return the affidavits, is at ANNEXURE A-117 (Pg - )

Hon’ble High Court’s Failure to Adjudicate

42. Finally, when the informal mediation mooted by the Division Bench

headed by the Non-Tamil Judge had failed, the BCI (Bar Council of

India) proposed that the Appellant should attend the Bar Council of

India enquiry in New Delhi. The intention was to decide the disciplinary

proceedings against the Appellant, and thereby render the writ petition

infructuous.


42.1. Handicapped by its failure to decide the merits of the case vis-à-vis the

legitimacy or otherwise of the interim indefinite suspension (despite

handling the case for over 2 years), the Hon’ble High Court directed the

Appellant to participate in the BCI enquiry in Delhi.

42.2. The Appellant expressed his inability to do so, since not a single scrap

of paper had been served upon him. Hence, the Hon’ble High Court

directed the Bar Council of India to serve the same, on or before

05.12.2017.

42.3. It is pertinent to note that although the interim indefinite suspension

order was served upon the Appellant’s former junior, it was not served

upon the Appellant by the Tamil Nadu Bar Council on purpose.

42.4. In fact, even the writ petition questioning the legitimacy of the interim

indefinite suspension was filed only on the basis of the order copy

which had been served on the Appellant’s former junior.

42.5. The order of the Hon’ble High Court dated 30.11.2017 was very

specific,

“Mr. S. R. Rahunathan will serve copies of the proceedings and

all connected papers to the petitioner i.e. Manikandan Vathan

Chettiar, on or before 5.12.17.”

42.6. The Hon’ble High Court’s order dated 30.11.2017, directing the Bar

Council of India to issue the records is at ANNEXURE A-118 (Pg -

).


43. In compliance with the aforesaid order, the counsel for Bar Council of

India sent a 53-page attachment by e-mail to the Appellant on

02.12.2017.

43.1. Upon receipt of the e-mail, the Appellant was shocked to observe that

3 case numbers were mentioned in the proceedings, namely Tr.Case

Nos 151, 152 and 153 of 16, whereas the writ petition pertained only to

the suspension order, which arose out of case no 152 of 16.

43.2. The following are the contents of the 53 pages sent by the Bar Council

of India,

A. Page 1 – Office note of Bar Council of Tamil Nadu

transferring case numbers 151, 152 and 153 to the Bar

Council of India.

B. Pages 2 to 19 – Periodical adjournment proceedings of the

Bar Council of India

C. Page 20 – Covering letter of Bar Council of Tamil Nadu

claiming that it is annexing the pleadings and proceedings.

D. Pages 21 to 23 – docket and adjournment proceedings of

Tamil Nadu Bar Council in a case called Case No D.C.C 47 of

2015.

E. Pages 24 to 26 – Proposed reference made by the Bar

Council to its chairman for orders to initiate disciplinary

proceedings based on the case in Crl.O.P SR 15152 of 2014

of Hon’ble High Court of Madras.


F. Pages 27 – 28 – Office note of the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu,

for transfer of the proceedings to the Bar Council of India as

per section 36-B of the Advocates Act.

G. Pages 29 – 43 – Reply filed in the Bar Council of India by the

Appellant’s former junior.

H. Pages 44-53 – Office note and prohibitory order issued by

the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu addressed to the Appellant’s

former junior.

44. The Appellant informed the counsel for the Bar Council of India of this

and requested him to provide the entire proceedings as directed by the

Hon’ble High Court. The counsel for the Bar Council of India was kind

enough to verify and he replied that the Bar Council of India has issued

a copy of all the records that were on its file.

Absence of Any Material Whatsoever

45. Thus it is clear that the following records were never available on the

file of the Bar Council of India,

(1) No suo motu complaints,

(2) No orders of the Hon’ble High Court in all 3 cases,

(3) No orders of the interim indefinite suspension of the

Appellant,

(4) No proceedings of the Tamil Nadu Bar Council in Case number

(Tr.Case nos, 151 and 153 of 2016),

(5) No piece of any court record, such as pleadings and

annexures in any of the 3 cases and,


(6) No records, relating to any attempt made by the Bar Council

of Tamil Nadu to serve any notice on the Appellant.

(7) In fact, no notice copy also was in existence.

Erroneous proceedings before the Indian Bar Council

46. However, for the record, the Appellant appeared before the Bar Council

of India on 09.12.2017 and filed 2 written submissions seeking a copy

of the records pertaining to Transferred Case numbers 151 and 153 of

2016.

46.1. But since there was nothing on the file of the Bar Council of India other

than the 53 pages listed above, the disciplinary committee of the Bar

Council refused to issue any copy of the records in Tr.Cases 151 and

153 of 16.

46.2. It BCI (Bar Council of India) urged the Appellant to argue the 2 cases

under the pretext that the committee has to decide all 3 cases on the

same day itself by virtue of the Hon’ble High Court’s orders dated

30.11.2017.

46.3. The Appellant clarified that the High Court order covered only Case No

152 of 2016 in which the Appellant had been illegally suspended

indefinitely and that the writ petition itself pertained only to the

challenge mounted against his illegal indefinite interim suspension.

46.4. But the said submission was rejected by the disciplinary committee of

the Bar Council of India.


46.5. In the absence of the records, the Appellant explained his inability to

argue the cases, since he remained clueless about what the

aforementioned 2 proceedings (151 & 153) related-to.

46.6. However, since the Appellant had been fighting the writ petition in the

Hon’ble High Court relating to Tr.Case 152 of 2016, he was in

possession of his collection of records vis-à-vis 152 of 2016.

46.7. Hence the Appellant filed a 12 page written submission as his response

to Tr.Case 152 of 2016.

46.8. In the written submissions, the Appellant relied upon as many as 15

citations including 4 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

46.9. A copy of the written submissions seeking a copy of the records in

Tr.case No 151 of 2016 is at ANNEXURE A-119 (Pg - ).

46.10. A copy of the written submissions seeking a copy of the records in

Tr.case No 153 of 2016 is at ANNEXURE A-120 (Pg - ).

46.11. A copy of the 12 page written submissions in Tr.Case 152 of 2016 is at


46.12. Finally the Bar Council of India reserved orders in all 3 cases, without

even hearing the Appellant on 2 of the cases, namely Tr.Cases 151 of

16 and 153 of 16.

47. On 03.01.2018, when writ petition SR.No.53861/16 was next listed for

hearing, the counsel for the Bar Council of India informed the Hon’ble

High Court of that it was under orders of the Hon’ble High Court of

Madras to decide all 3 cases by 03.01.2018, and that it would do so.


47.1. The Appellant again clarified in vain that the Hon’ble High Court order

pertains only to case no 152 of 17.

Contempt of Court by the Bar Council of India and Life-Ban Orders

47.2. Hence on 30.01.2018, the Appellant sent a contempt notice by e-mail

to the Bar Council of India for its disobeyal of the High Court orders

dated 30.11.2017 pertaining to issue of records, and also for misusing

the High Court order to claim that the order covers Tr.Case numbers

151 and 153 of 2016 as well.

47.3. There was no response to the notice from any of the recipients

including the counsel for the Bar Council of India. A copy of the notice

to the Bar Council of India dated 30.01.2018 is at ANNEXURE A-122

(Pg - )

48. Ignoring the contempt notice, the Bar Council of India pronounced a

common Judgment in all 3 cases on 03.02.2018, but ante-dated it to

09.12.2017.

48.1. The common Judgment banned the Appellant from practising before

any court or authority, for his entire lifetime, as a punishment in case

number 151 of 2016.

48.2. In case number 152 of 2016 also, the common Judgment banned the

Appellant from practising before any court or authority for his entire

life.


48.3. In case number 153 of 16, the common Judgment banned the

Appellant from practising before any court or authority for 5 years. In

this case, the Appellant’s wife Mrs. Vijayalakshmi was also banned.

48.4. Most amusingly, the counsel on record in the case which exposed the

fake bail racket namely Mr. Mathan Kumar was sentenced to a 5 year-

ban, in Tr.Case 152 of 2016, whereas the Appellant who appeared in

court to represent the said Mr. Mathan Kumar (on account of his

absence), in the said case, has been banned for life.

48.5. Similarly in Tr.Case 151 of 2016, the counsel on record has been

banned for 3 years, whereas the Appellant who was neither heard by

the Bar Council, nor the Hon’ble High Court in the parent case, has

been banned for life.

48.6. Furthermore, not one of the arguments made by the Appellant in the

12 page written submissions were ever considered or recorded in the

final order of the Bar Council of India.

48.7. Not one of the 15 Judgments relied-upon by the Appellant in his 12-

page written submission was considered, or even referred-to in the

impugned order passed by the Bar Council of India.

Antecedents of Mr. Narsimha Reddy

48.8. Last of all, the Chairman of the disciplinary committee which passed

the impugned order was none other than former judge Mr. L. Narsimha

Reddy, who had in his Judgment in 2004 criticised the Hon’ble Chief

Justice of India to be on the good books of a murder case accused.


48.9. Mr. L. Narsimha Reddy, had in the same judgment hailed the prime

accused in the Sankararaman murder case as “Draupadi”.

48.10. As seen earlier, Mr. L. Narsimha Reddy admittedly does not believe that

the law will take its own course.

48.11. He is also not an elected member of any Bar Council and as such unfit

to conduct the proceedings per se.

49. On the eve of Mr. Narsimha Reddy’s retirement as the Chief Justice of

the Hon’ble High Court of Patna, Mr. Dharanidhar Jha a learned Judge

of the same High Court had written a letter dated 01.08.2015 to the

Chairman of the Bihar Bar Council accusing Mr. Narsimha Reddy of

A. “Acting like a Moghal Baadshah, and

B. Smashing the whole administration not only of the Hon’ble High

Court, but of the sub-ordinate judiciary also,

C. Steep escalation in corruption all around,

D. Being more interested in seeing his name written on a plaque to

be put up as the mark of inauguration of a particular Sub-

divisional Court,

E. Behaving like a politician,

F. Being sweet tongued because he was unfair and not honest,

G. Taking many decisions against rules settled by the Hon’ble

Supreme Court,

H. Acting in great haste and even passing judicial orders against

rules”,

I. et cetera.


The truth or otherwise of these general allegations made by a sitting

judge of the Hon’ble High Court of Bihar can easily be gauged by a

plain reading of the order of the Bar Council of India written by him,

whereby he has summarily banned the Appellant for double-life.

A copy of the letter written by Justice Mr. Dharanidhar Jha dated

01.08.2015 about Mr. Narsimha Reddy is at ANNEXURE A-123 (Pg -

).

50. On 21.03.2018, the Appellant filed a contempt petition in the Hon’ble

High Court bearing Stamp Register Number 13863 of 18, against the

office bearers of the Bar Council of India for disobeyal of the High

Court’s orders dated 30.11.2017 in WPSR 53861/16. But, as usual, the

contempt petition has not been listed for admission for the past 7

months. A copy of the relevant pleading in contempt petition SR 13863

of 2018 is at ANNEXURE A-124 (Pg - ).

51. Distressed and distraught by the persecution of his son, the Appellant’s

father passed away on 23.02.2018, Hence the Appellant could not file

this statutory appeal within the period of limitation. The delay may

kindly be condoned. A copy of the death certificate of the Appellant’s

father is at ANNEXURE A-125 (Pg - ).

Suo Motu Tr.Case No 151 of 2016 of BCI

52. The facts of the second case, namely the 2G Spectrum Case Cover-Up

scandal is as follows,


52.1. On 16.12.2010, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India began monitoring

investigations carried out by India’s premier investigative agency

namely the CBI (Central Bureau of Investigation) in the world’s largest

corruption case, namely the 2G spectrum scandal.

52.2. The 1.76 trillion rupee scandal led to the arrest of former Indian

Telecommunications Minister Mr. Andimuthu Raja, and Indian

Parliamentarian Ms. Kanimozhi who is the daughter of Mr. M.

Karunanidhi, the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu State in 2010.

52.3. The accused were charged with receipt of a sum of rupees 200 crores

as bribe from one of the beneficiaries of the 2G spectrum largesse.

52.4. However, even before the CBI could swoop down on the money-trail,

destruction of evidence punishable under section 201 I.P.C had taken

place owing to selective leaks from within the CBI.

52.5. Advance information about the CBI’s movements, proposed raids, etc.,

were shared over phone with the accused and their associates which

included Tamil Nadu Police’s Intelligence Chief, Additional Director

General Mr. Jaffar Sait.

52.6. However, details of the cover-up were revealed only in January 2014,

by means of the following 4 telephonic conversations,

A. 23.11.2010 – Between ADGP Mr. Jaffar Sait & Ms. Kanimozhi

Karunanidhi,

B. 31.12.10 - Between ADGP Mr. Jaffar Sait & Mr.

Shanmuganathan (Mr. Karunanidhi’s private secretary),


C. 13.02.11 - Between ADGP Mr. Jaffar Sait & Mr. Sharad

Reddy (MD of Kalaingar TV), and,

D. 16.02.11, - Between ADGP Mr. Jaffar Sait & Ms. Kanimozhi

Karunanidhi,

52.7. These conversations were made available to one Mr. Achimuthu

Shankar who was running a highly popular whistle blower website

called WWW.SAVUKKU.COM.

52.8. Mr. Shankar, who has been hailed internationally as the “Julian

Assange of India” took the tapes to the learned counsel for petitioners

in the main 2G spectrum case Mr. Prashant Bhushan.

52.9. Mr. Prashant Bhushan who was then a leader of the AAP (Aam Aadmi

Party), convened a press conference in Delhi, and published the tapes

on 04.02.2014.

52.10. The CBI swiftly responded within a few hours and issued a statement

claiming that,

“It is in the process of obtaining the recordings / transcripts of

the said conversations after which necessary action as per law

shall be taken.”

52.11. The 4 conversations revealed the following truths,

A. That in the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India monitored 2G

investigation, the accused bribers had 2 to 3 weeks of advance

information about the CBI’s proposed actions vis-à-vis

investigation / raids / arrests etc.


B. That this information was passed on by the bribe-givers to the

bribe-recipients, who communicated it to the Intelligence Chief

of Tamil Nadu Police over phone, and the then Chief Minister

of Tamil Nadu.

C. That an orchestrated cover-up was launched to legitimise the

bribe money.

D. Records running to over hundred pages were fabricated and

ante-dated to show the proceeds of crime (over Rupees 200

crores) were nothing more than an unsecured corporate loan.

E. The cover-up was further compounded by fabricating records

to show that the loan was re-paid.

F. The cash for re-payment was funnelled by procuring illicit

money from certain other named corporates, and accounted-

for as an advance received for future advertisements to be

aired on Kalaingar TV.

G. The conversations refer to other dubious deals including the

transfer of a huge property owned by the TATA group to Ms.

Kanimozhi’s aide besides a power plant. Kanimozhi claimed

that the proceeds were shared at 50 percent.

52.12. After the scandal was thus exposed by Mr.Prashant Bhushan, Mr.

Shankar published the tapes on his ad-free website www.savukku.com

and then lodged an official complaint with India’s premier investigating

agency namely the CBI on 06.02.2014.

52.13. But, the CBI remained deafeningly silent. Hence, Mr. Shankar moved

the Hon’ble High Court of Madras, invoking its inherent powers under


section 482 CrPC and sought a direction to the CBI to register an FIR

on his complaint.

52.14. Mr. Shankar, and his elderly counsel, who normally file such petitions

under Article 226 as a Public Interest Litigation and then go to the

media for the publicity of the case, chose to file this petition as an

adversarial Non-Public Interest Litigation under section 482 CrPC in a

covert manner.

52.15. In practice, PIL’s are normally heard by the first division bench in the

Hon’ble High Court of Madras.

52.16. The abrupt change in strategy and filing of a PIL as an adversarial

criminal litigation can only be understood to mean that Mr. Shankar and

his counsel wanted to avoid a hearing by the first division bench, and

either resort to bench-hunting or was aimed at some other concomitant

purpose.

52.17. As such, they were fully aware that the 482 CrPC portfolio vis-à-vis

“Admission and final hearing in CBI and Prevention of Corruption cases”

had been specifically assigned by the Hon’ble Chief Justice to a learned

Judge called Mrs. Aruna Jagadeesan.

52.18. Curiously, Mr. Shankar’s petition Crl.O.P No 6051 of 2014 was listed for

admission in violation of the roster before another learned judge Mr. C.

T. Selvam.

52.19. On admission day (20.3.14) itself, learned judge Mr. C. T. Selvam

conducted a full-fledged enquiry by hearing not only the petitioner’s


counsel, but also the counsel for CBI, as well as the counsel who

appeared for accused in the 2G trial in New Delhi.

52.20. How the CBI counsel and accused’s counsel assembled in the Non-CBI

court, and especially before admission of the case, remains a mystery.

52.21. Having thus assembled, how and why the petitioner’s counsel as well

as the CBI counsel, failed to object to the lack of jurisdiction to hear

the matter (in violation of the roster) is an even bigger conundrum.

52.22. Finally, the learned judge, Mr. C. T. Selvam dismissed the petition on

the same day citing Anil Kumar vs M. K. Aiyappa’s case (2013) 10 SCC

705 after claiming that in Anil Kumar Vs Aiyappa, the Hon’ble Supreme

Court had laid down the law that,

“Even for registration of a case, under the Prevention of

Corruption Act 1988, prior sanction is a must.”

52.23. This claim of the learned Judge Mr. C. T. Selvam was wholly

inappropriate, incorrect and illegal for the following reasons,

A. Firstly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in Anil Kumar’s

case declared the law, only as to whether a Judicial

Magistrate / Sessions Judge can direct registration of a

corruption case in exercise of powers under section 156 (3)

CrPC and 200 CrPC.

B. Secondly, the 2G case was a case which was being

monitored by the Hon’ble and the CBI would need no

sanction from anyone else in a Supreme Court monitored

case.


C. Thirdly the CBI’s own written communiqué in response to

Mr.Prashant Bhushan’s press conference was not subjected

to judicial scrutiny.

D. Fourthly, no notice was issued to the CBI calling to explain its

stand, on whether it intended to investigate the cover-up or

not.

E. Fifthly, CBI’s counsel ought not to have been shown in the

order as having represented the CBI, at the admission stage,

when the CBI itself had never been called upon to respond to

the contents of the petition.

52.24. The hasty, in limine dismissal order dated 20.03.2014 passed by the

learned judge Mr. C. T. Selvam was not made available for over 2

months thereafter for obvious reasons.

Insidious Retaliation against the Whistle-Blower

53. Despite the dismissal of the petition, and that too after equivocating

and acquiescing to illegal jurisdiction, the damage done to the DMK by

Mr. Shankar was immense. Retaliation however was quick but not as

gentle. It came in the form of a series of cases filed by one Mrs.

Mahalakshmi who is a news reader with Sun TV, which is owned and

run by a top DMK family.

53.1. In addition to being a news reader, Mrs. Mahalakshmi is also a part-

time advocate. As per facts on judicial record of the Hon’ble High Court

of Madras, one Ms. Panimalar is also a TV news reader. Ms. Panimalar

hailed from a Periyarist (atheist) family.


53.2. After a marriage alliance was mooted for Ms. Panimalar, the groom’s

parents backtracked upon coming to know of her family’s ideological

leaning. Mrs. Mahalakshmi allegedly utilised this opportunity to woo Ms.

Panimalar into marrying her second brother.

53.3. Since Ms. Panimalar had no relatives in Chennai, she sought the advice

of her reformist party leader Mr. Kolathur Mani. Mr. Kolathur Mani, in

turn consulted Mahalakshmi’s senior Mr. TADA. Chandrasekar, who was

a member of his political party.

53.4. Another junior of Mr. TADA. Chandrasekar belonged to one Mr.

Seeman’s political party. Both junior and senior reportedly vouched for

the marriage proposal and advised Mr. Kolathur Mani accordingly.

53.5. As per the judicial averments of Mrs. Panimalar, a week before the

wedding, she came to know that Mrs. Mahalakshmi had only one

brother, and that he was already married to one Mrs. Amutha.

53.6. When Ms. Panimalar confronted Mahalakshmi, she claimed that Mrs.

Amutha had been divorced from her brother because she had

reportedly concealed her oral cancer. Mrs. Mahalakshmi told Ms.

Panimalar that Ms. Amutha is related to sand-miner Mr. Vaikundarajan

and Mr. Selvarathinam of Saravana Stores, and that since she had been

divorced under their auspices, Mrs. Panimalar need not worry about

her.

53.7. Ms. Panimalar averred that, Mr. Kolathur Mani advised her that as per

their political ideology, even widows can be re-married, and hence she

could marry a divorcee even if he had suppressed his previous


marriage. Ms. Panimalar added that Mr. Seemaan was however not in

agreement with this logic.

53.8. With limited time left for the wedding, and having incurred huge

expenditure, the marriage could not be called off and had to be held on

schedule viz. 27.02.2012. Despite the marriage being conducted in

Seerthirutha style (without ceremonies), the groom’s family allegedly

forced Ms. Panimalar to fall at the feet of her mother-in-law, and later

at the feet of the widow of one Yagava Muni, who predicted the end of

the world decades ago.

53.9. Thereafter, according to Mrs. Panimalar, her husband and in-laws

indulged in serious repetitive misconduct of grave nature. The

elaborate graphic details of the misconduct are not elucidated in this

appeal.

54. However, what deserves significant mention is that Mrs. Panimalar had

averred that Mrs. Mahalakshmi is the benami for her senior Mr. TADA.

Chandrasekar vis-à-vis immovable properties involved in a multi-billion

dollar fraud case in which Mr. Chandrasekar appears as counsel for the

accused.

54.1. Mrs. Panimalar’s contention is that Mr. Chandrasekar could not overrule

his junior Mrs. Mahalakshmi’s transgressions owing to this financial

equation between them.


Shocking Revelations regarding Chennai’s Judiciary

54.2. Judicial significance of the allegation is compounded by the highly

important fact that successive Hon’ble Chief Metropolitan Magistrates of

Chennai City have been entertaining and allowing petitions filed under

section 317 Cr.P.C and condoning the absence of the prime-accused in

the said case for nearly a decade.

54.3. This is a judicial scandal of titanic proportions since the said accused is

a criminal who is wanted across the globe with an INTERPOL red

corner notice.

54.4. Allowing a series of 317 CrPC petitions for nearly a decade in respect of

an accused who is wanted for decades by the police forces of several

Indian States and several Countries and the fact that he was never

arrested or even been interviewed by the Indian Police is another

World Record, (the 9th in this case).

54.5. Yet, Chennai’s lawyers have been able to appear for him for years

without Vakalatnama, and are able to secure judicial orders erroneously

condoning his absence on each hearing for the past 10 years.

54.6. Mrs. Panimalar also averred that Mrs. Mahalakshmi abused her

professional influence to secure a mutual consent divorce from her

husband even without the presence of her husband in India.

54.7. Mrs. Panimalar averred that Mrs. Mahalakshmi befriended another news

reader called Mrs. Akila and got Mrs. Akila to file for divorce. She


averred that Mrs. Mahalakshmi appeared as counsel for Mrs. Akila in

the said proceedings.

54.8. According to Mrs. Panimalar’s averments, the Akila-Mahalakshmi duo

entrapped Sun TV news head Mr. Raja and Mr. Vetrivendan with

telephonic conversations and photos showing them in close positions

with other women news readers.

54.9. Ms. Panimalar averred that the Mahalakshmi-Akila duo got Sun TV

news Chief Mr. Raja arrested on false charges of sexually harassing

Mrs. Akila. She averred that the duo published intimate photos of Mr.

Vetrivendan with several news readers on the internet to garner

support for their claims.

54.10. Mrs. Panimalar averred that Mrs. Mahalakshmi obtained a huge sum of

money from Mr. Raja and urged the complainant Mrs. Akila to drop the

criminal proceedings against Mr. Raja.

54.11. But when Mrs. Akila reportedly declined to do so, Mrs. Mahalakshmi

allegedly ditched Mrs. Akila and wreaked vengeance by getting as many

as 21 complaints from various news readers alleging that Mrs. Akila

was close to one Mr. Kannan. Hence Sun TV management constituted a

one-man committee to and suspended Mrs. Akila, contended Mrs.

Panimalar.

54.12. Mrs. Panimalar further averred that Mrs. Mahalakshmi withdrew her

Vakalatnama from Mrs. Akila’s divorce proceedings by sending an SMS.

Mrs. Akila reportedly lodged a complaint with the Bar Council of Tamil

Nadu on 2.4.13 against Mrs. Mahalakshmi for alleged professional


misconduct as well as for practising law even while remaining a full-

time employee of Sun TV.

54.13. Mrs. Panimalar also averred that Mrs. Mahalakshmi misused her

influence and got the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu to not only throw out

Mrs. Akila’s complaint but also obtained exemption to work in Sun TV,

and to simultaneously practise as a lawyer.

55. It was in this backdrop that Mrs. Panimalar was allegedly beaten-up on

18.05.2013 by her in-laws and husband at a Chennai mall in front of

200 people.

55.1. 2 days later, after securing and scrutinising the CCTV footage from the

mall, the police registered a case in Crime No 1181 of 2013 of

Aminjikarai police station.

55.2. A police dragnet was laid across Tamil Nadu in view of the public

nature of attack on a media personality namely Mrs. Panimalar.

55.3. Finally, on 23.05.2013, Mrs. Mahalakshmi’s mother and brother were

arrested at Nagore, which is about 600 kilometres from Chennai. Mrs.

Mahalakshmi however could not be touched as she was a Sun TV

newsreader cum part-time lawyer.

55.4. Mrs. Panimalar averred that after the learned Judicial Magistrate

remanded the mother and brother of Mrs. Mahalakshmi, they were

boarded on to a police van parked in Egmore Court campus for transit

to Chennai Central Prison.


55.5. But the co-accused in the case namely Mrs. Mahalakshmi brought

about 25 advocates, besieged the police vehicle, and prevented it from

leaving the court campus. Mrs. Panimalar averred that the gang of

lawyers then pressurised the learned Judicial Magistrate Egmore to

grant bail to the 2 remanded accused immediately. But learned Judicial

Magistrate refused to budge and chose to go on leave instead.

55.6. Mrs. Panimalar further averred that the gang of lawyers bullied the

CMM (Chief Metropolitan Magistrate) to appoint an in-charge

magistrate, and forced him to grant bail immediately.

55.7. Mrs. Panimalar averred that even without issuing notice and without

receiving a reply from the police, bail was thus granted in a case where

the police travelled over 600 kilometers to secure the accused.

55.8. Mrs. Panimalar averred that, having thus come out on bail Mrs.

Mahalakshmi’s mother preferred a false complaint dated 30.05.2013

against the Home secretary, Chennai Police Commissioner, etc., to the

human rights Commission, and that Mr. TADA. Chandrasekar sent a

legal notice demanding 50 lakh rupees from Mrs. Panimalar.

55.9. Mrs. Panimalar further averred that this behaviour of Mr. TADA

Chandrasekar was not even questioned by Mr. Seemaan since

Mr.Chandrasekar was handling Mr. Seemaan’s cases and hence was

scared of him.

55.10. What is even more intriguing is that Mrs. Mahalakshmi’s mother

preferred a complaint against her daughter-in-law Mrs. Panimalar

before the Protection Officer under the Domestic Violence Act


demanding inter alia a sum of Rupees 25 lakhs from the daughter-in-

law.

55.11. Most intriguing is the fact that even when the Protection Officer

declined to entertain the complaint, Mrs. Mahalakshmi obtained an

order from Judicial Magistrate directing the Protection Officer to enquire

the claim.

56. Some of the aforementioned facts / averments including the siege of

the police vehicle and forcing the Magistrate to grant bail were

published in the whistle-blower website www.savukku.com, which had

earlier published the 2G cover-up tapes of Mrs. Kanimozhi Karunanidhi

and ADGP (Intelligence) Mr. Jaffar Sait.

56.1. Mrs. Panimalar averred that Mrs. Mahalakshmi retaliated to the

publication by filing a defamation case before the Learned 14th

Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai, which was taken on file as Calendar

Case 7271 of 2013.

56.2. Mrs. Panimalar averred that Mrs. Mahalakshmi suppressed the

defamation case and filed another proceeding on the same facts before

the Learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Chennai and sought a

direction to the Chennai Cyber Crime police to register an FIR on her

complaint dated 31.05.2013, for alleged offences punishable under

sections 199, 211, 354, 120 (B), IPC, 66-A IT Act and Protection of

Women from Sexual Harassment Act.

56.3. Notwithstanding the fact that sections 199 and 211 require a judicial

enquiry and judicial finding under section 340 read with 195 CrPC, the


learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai directed the Assistant

Commissioner of Cyber Crime to register an FIR and file final report,

even though according to the police, Mrs. Mahalakshmi had not filed

any such complaint dated 31.05.2013.

56.4. However, in view of the CMM Court’s orders, a case in Crime Number

260 of 2013 was registered by the Cyber Crime Police of Chennai. But

since no offence was actually made out, the police refrained from

taking any action in the case.

57. Infuriated over refusal of the cyber-crime police to arrest all her rivals,

Mrs. Mahalakshmi and her brother fabricated an audio conversation as

if Mr. Shankar had threatened her over phone and demanded a sum of

50 lakhs rupees to delete the articles posted on the website. Armed

with this fabricated audio-tape, part-time advocate Mrs. Mahalakshmi

lodged a fresh complaint dated 07.09.2013 with the cyber-crime police

against her

(1) Ex-Husband Mr. Prabhu,

(2) Sister-in-Law Mrs. Panimalar,

(3) Colleague Mrs. Akila,

(4) Akila’s alleged partner Mr. Kannan,

(5) 2G whistle blower Mr. Shankar, etc.,

57.1. Mrs. Mahalakshmi then moved a Crl.O.P No 27389 of 2013 under

section 482 Cr.P.C before the Hon’ble High Court of Madras, and

sought a direction to the Chennai Cyber-Crime Police to register an FIR

vis-à-vis her new complaint.


57.2. Such petitions are normally disposed-off by the Hon’ble High Court of

Madras in batches of 10, 20, 50, or even 200 cases in a single stroke

with a common stereotyped order.

57.3. But in this case, learned judge Mr. C. T. Selvam, passed interim orders

on 07.01.2014 and 30.01.2014. He finally reserved Judgment on

28.02.2014.

57.4. Despite reserving Judgment, the learned judge passed a detailed 3rd

order on 28.02.2014, stating that he was closing the case or now, and

directed that,

“each and every instance of objectionable and vituperative

malignant post would give cause for separate cases and

actions thereupon.”

57.5. This judicial order was an open invitation to individuals (whose

transgressions were exposed on the website), to institute separate

cases for each article published on the popular website

www.savukku.com.

57.6. It was also an indirect diktat commanding the police to institute

separate criminal cases for each article, posted on the website.

57.7. In the said order, the learned judge used the term obscene pictures /

photographs, when none were alleged to have been posted on the

website.


57.8. It is elementary common sense that no sane person would dare to

publish an obscene photograph in a popular anti-corruption whistle

blower website which receives crores of international hits.

57.9. Having reserved orders, the learned judge Mr. C. T. Selvam provided a

special privilege to Mrs. Mahalakshmi as well as the State to seek that

the matter be posted under the head “for being mentioned” as and

when occasion requires.

57.10. This privilege is also a unique record in the annals of the Indian

judiciary, although it may not qualify as a world record.

Probe by a Fake Additional Director General

58. After thus having reserved orders on the plea to direct registration of

an FIR, the learned judge of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras, Mr. C.

T. Selvam appointed a special team headed by a fake “Additional

Director General” to conduct a detailed enquiry into certain aspects of

the case.

58.1. The fake Additional Director General appointed by the learned judge

Mr. C. T. Selvam ran fake organisations called the “NCDRC” (National

Cyber Defence Research Centre), and “NCSSS” (National Cyber Safety

and Security Standards) using the National Emblem.

58.2. Learned judge Mr. C. T. Selvam further directed the fake organisation

called NCSSS (National Cyber Safety and Security Standards) to file a

detailed report about its investigations into the Hon’ble High Court of

Madras.


58.3. Having directed the fake Additional Director General to investigate the

claims of Mrs. Mahalakshmi’s petition, the learned judge Mr. C. T.

Selvam suo motu impleaded the world’s tallest corporate giants,

namely,

A. Google,

B. Facebook, and

C. The Government of India,

D. as respondents in the petty family dispute.

59. Armed with judicial orders of Mr. C. T. Selvam, the fake Additional

Director General, who is suspected to be no more than a school

dropout, initiated correspondence with multinational corporate giants

such as GoDaddy, etc.

59.1. The fake Additional Director General even went to the extent of

sending notices claiming to be the Additional Director General acting

under orders of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras.

59.2. Notices, bearing the sender’s address as “Office of The Additional

Director General, National Cyber Safety and Security Standards, India,

were not only sent to the world’s largest Internet Domain Registrar but

the recipients of the notice were ordered by the fake Additional Director

General to send a status report within 24 hours.

59.3. These apocryphal correspondences / notices were sent from an e-mail

ID bearing domain as ncdrc.in, (National Cyber Defence Research

Centre) with a dot IN domain, (IN referring to India) making a mockery


of the reputation of not only India’s oldest Court but shaming the

Indian nation as a whole.

60. One such notice sent by the fake Additional Director General and

Godaddy.com’s response are reproduced herein. The Hon’ble Supreme

Court of India may kindly note the language employed in the

correspondence.

60.1. The following is a verbatim reproduction,

“FW: Notice to GoDaddy.com - Regarding.

[email protected]

To:[email protected]<[email protected]>

From: c-defence <[email protected] <mailto: c-

[email protected]>>

Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2014 11:11 AM

To: abused; legal

Cc:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]

Subject:RE:Notice to goDaddy.com-Regarding.,

Dear GoDaddy Team,

This is bring to your notice that the Hon’ble High Court of

Madras, India issued an order to block certain websites which

cause serious issues to the society and Internet Service Providers

have blocked the those website as per the order.

2. The enforcement, agencies are search for the owner of the

website. In spite of that the owner of those websites have

started new website called "www.savukku.blog


spot.com<http://www.savukku.blogspot.com>andwww.savukku.

blogspot.in".http://www.savukku.blogspot.in%22.

3. The owner or those website have booked 3 domains

from GoDaddy.com.1.www. ctselvam.com <http:

//www.ctselvam.com>2.www.ctselvam.net<http://www.ctselvam

.net>3.www.ctselvam.in<http://www.ctselvam.in>

4. The issue is that these websites booked under the title C.T.

SELVAM is a name of the Hon’ble Mr. Justice C.T. Selvam, Judge,

Hon'ble High Court of Madras, India. The owner those website

has given provided you the judges details as owner information

while booking and also those sites ae forwarded to

www.savukku.blogspot.in <http://www.savukku.blogspot.in>

5. We believe you understand the seriousness which issue is

causing to us. Hence, we request the godaddy.com to

immediately deactivate those 3 domains and provide the billing

information to us immediately.

6. Therefore, the status report to be submitted within 24 hrs

by GaDaddy.com.

Enclosed: Hon'ble High Court, of Madras Order for your

reference,

Thanks and Regards,

Office of the Additional Director-General

National Cyber Safety and Security Standards India.---”


60.2. The world’s largest domain registrar GoDaddy, responded as follows,

“From: disputes (disputesggodaddy.com)

Sent:Wednesday, August 06,2014 11:42 PM

To:c-defence

Subject: RE: Notice to GoDaddy.co.in-Regarding.

Dear Office of the Additional Director - General

National Cyber Safety and Security Standards,

Thank you for your reply. We are unable to locate the

Hon’ble High court order in the attachments you originally

provided. Please provide a copy of this order, including the

section which states that third parties are to block and

remove any content or website which intermediary link

connecting to any website wherein the word ’Savukku’

figures.

Upon receipt of this documentation, we will be able to

review and determine if we are able to further assist.

Kindest Regards,

Shannon Canedy

Disputes Administrator

GoDaddy”

61. Enraged by this reply, learned Judge Mr. C. T. Selvam passed a judicial

order threatening

(1) Google

(2) Yahoo &


(3) YouTube

that they may render themselves liable to imprisonment for upto 7

years.

61.1. Such intimidatory orders threatening the world’s top corporate giants

on the basis of a part-time advocate’s petty family dispute had the

potential to cause international embarrassment to India not because of

the judicial orders per se but because a Chartered High Court

appointed a fake Additional Director General to issue directions to

multinational conglomerates whose net worth is at times measured as a

percentage of India’s GDP.

62. What is even more damaging to judicial discipline is that the learned

judge of the Chartered Madras High Court namely Mr. C. T. Selvam

even inaugurated a fake NCDRC (National Cyber Defence Research

Centre) and shared the dais with the fake Additional Director General,

thus legitimising a fake organisation.

A copy of the news report dated 09.03.2015, showing the participation

of Mr. C. T. Selvam with the fraudsters is at ANNEXURE A-126 (Pg -

).

63. It is pertinent to note that as recently as 12.07.2018, one Mr.

Arumugam, a fake instructor claiming to be from NDMA (National

Disaster Management Authority) conducted a disaster management drill

in a college run by a trust belonging to the Deputy Speaker of the Lok

Sabha.


63.1. During the drill, the fake trainer was caught on camera while forcing a

girl to jump from the 2nd floor against her will as a result of which she

got hurt and died.

63.2. The video of the killing went viral after which the Coimbatore Police

registered a case and arrested the fake instructor and his associates.

63.3. In other words, it took a video of a college student’s death to stop the

activities of the fake instructor.

63.4. The NDMA did not even bother to lodge a formal complaint, and simply

disassociated itself from the fake instructor and that too via twitter.

63.5. Police investigations revealed that the said fake instructor claiming to

possess a Ph.D from Tokyo University had conducted as many as 1275

disaster management training courses, for several thousand students

by claiming to be a “TRAINING OFFICER, Southern Range, National

Disaster Management Authority of India” and that he was imparting

training on behalf of the Government of India.

64. Similar to the fake instructor, the fake Additional Director, Dr. Amar

Prasad Reddy, claiming to hold a doctorate in philosophy in ‘knowledge

management’ began to make use of the Hon’ble Madras High Court

orders directing him to investigate the Mahalakshmi case for his

criminal activities.

64.1. He began accessing constitutional functionaries such as State and

Central Ministers, Governors and even the Vice-President and President

of India.


64.2. He began misusing the names of several Chief Justices and judges of

the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.

64.3. He created the following additional fake organisations and used the

National Emblem of various ministries of the Government of India,

claiming to be inter alia,

A. Co-Founder & Vice-Chairman of Justice Mohan’s Children’s

University,

B. Chairman, Entrepreneurs Council of India,

C. Founder Member - RAC (Recruitment Analysis Council),

Ministry of Urban Development, Ministry of Youth Affairs and

Sports, Ministry of Finance (Government of India),

D. Project Architect – MSME CONNECT, A joint Venture by NCSSS

& Ministry of MSME, Government of India.

E. Summit Head – National Cyber Safety and Security Standards

Summit 2014 -2015, A Joint initiative of State and Central

Government of India.

F. Material Analysis Prime Committee Member, National Cyber

Crime Reference Handbook, A joint initiative by NCSSS &

Ministry of MSME, Government of India.

G. High level Committee Member, National Institute of Cyber

Security.

H. Standards Formation Committee Member, National Cyber

Safety and Security Standards.

I. Board Member, National Cyber Defence Research Centre.

J. Board Member, Village Development Corporation.


K. Justice Mohan Institute of National Governance.

L. Director General, Women’s Economic Forum, etc., and finally

elevated himself recently as

M. Director General, National Cyber Safety and Security

Standards.

A copy of the profile published by the FAKE Director General is at


65. The modus operandi of this fake Director General, who is no more than

30 to 35 years of age is to host functions/ seminars and conferences by

inviting dignitaries, and collecting money from the attendees. The

following dignitaries participated and addressed the fake conferences

organised by these fake organisations,

A. Dr. Kiran Bedi – Governor of Puducherry,

B. Dr. K. Rosaiah – Former Governor of Tamil Nadu,

C. Dr. AS. Kiran Kumar, former ISRO Chairman,

D. Dr. G. K. Pillai, former Union Home Secretary,

E. Retired High Court / Supreme Court Judges,

F. Serving IAS / IPS Officers,

G. et cetera.

66. Apart from using the videos of the above dignitaries, the websites of

these organisations contained the photographs and messages

purportedly issued by the,

A. President of India

B. Vice-President of India,


C. Prime Minister of India

D. Sitting Judges of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India,

E. Chiefs of Army Staff,

F. Governors of States,

G. Union Ministers of various ministries,

H. Chief Ministers,

I. Vice-Chancellors of various universities,

J. Celebrities, et cetera.

67. The following are the Web-links,

A. www.entrepreneurscouncil.in

B. www.ncdrc.res.in

C. www.wef.org.in

D. www.childrensuniversity.org

E. www.racouncil.in

68. Thus the appointment of a fake Additional Director General (Now fake

Director General) by a Chartered High Court, to investigate a petty and

false woman harassment case on an international arena is yet another

world record in this case (10th world record).

69. In the meantime, the learned elderly counsel Mr. Radhakrishnan, who

appeared for Mr. Shankar in the 2G spectrum cover-up case appeared

before learned Judge Mr. C. T. Selvam and filed a miscellaneous

petition seeking Mr. C. T. Selvam’s recusal from Mrs. Mahalakshmi’s


case. But Mr. C. T. Selvam declined to do so and dismissed the

miscellaneous petition number 3 of 2014.

Initiation of suo motu criminal contempt by a judge against his brother.

69.1. This was not shocking since learned judge Mr. C. T. Selvam had even

instituted suo motu criminal contempt proceedings against his brother

in a crop-harvest dispute in their ancestral lands.

69.2. Judge Mr. C. T. Selvam not only initiated suo motu criminal contempt

against his brother but also directed the registry of the Hon’ble High

Court of Madras to issue a warrant of arrest against his brother.

69.3. Learned Judge Mr. C. T. Selvam further directed the registry of the

Madras High Court to place before him (on the judicial side), copies of

matters wherein his brother had levelled allegations against him.

69.4. The institution of suo motu criminal contempt by a Judge of India’s

oldest Constitutional Court against his brother coupled with the

issuance of a warrant of arrest to produce his brother before his own

court, to face the contempt proceedings is yet another world record

(the eleventh world record in this case so far).

A copy of the order dated 10.07.2014, in suo motu Contempt Petition

1527 of 2014 is at ANNEXURE A-128 (Pg - ).

70. After thus cultivating a fake Additional Director General and passing

judicial orders threatening Google & Yahoo with imprisonment, the next

serious allegation cropped-up. Learned Judge Mr. C. T. Selvam was


accused by Mr. Shankar’s wife of misusing his judicial office and forcing

the Chennai cyber-crime police to arrest her husband illegally.

70.1. Chennai Police never touched Mr. Shankar despite Mr. C. T. Selvam’s

alleged repeated orders / pressure because they knew the falsity of the

case as well as the antecedents of Mrs. Mahalakshmi. In any case, the

Appellant had appeared as counsel for Mr. Shankar and obtained

anticipatory bail in case after case.

70.2. It has even been averred in the pleadings of the law-intern Mrs. Aarthy

Shankar that the learned judge Mr. C. T. Selvam criticised his fellow

High Court Judge who granted anticipatory bail to Mr. Shankar.

70.3. That he is capable of doing so is amply evident sfrom his entire

Judgment criticising the functioning of a fellow High Court Judge, which

has been discussed in the foregoing paragraphs.

70.4. However, in order to avoid repeated wrath of Justice Mr. C. T. Selvam,

Chennai Cyber-Crime police caught hold of one Mr. Pothi and remanded

him to jail, in order to pacify Mr. C. T. Selvam and also claimed to

having shown some progress in the case.

70.5. Mr. Pothi’s arrest was effected in blatant violation of the directions

issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India to prevent wrongful

arrests under section 66-A of the Information Technology Act.

70.6. After several weeks, when Mr. Pothi’s family approached the Appellant,

the Appellant secured bail for Mr. Pothi by appearing as his counsel.


70.7. But the witch-hunt against Mr. Shankar continued and caught in the

cross-fire between the learned judge Mr. C. T. Selvam and the 2G

whistleblower, Mr. Shankar were his

A. Pregnant wife, who was a law intern,

B. Mrs. Panimalar, who is the sister-in-law of Mrs.

Mahalakshmi,

C. Mrs. Mahalakshmi’s ex-husband, etc.,

70.8. The above persons were being targeted and were reeling under

intermittent threats of arrest immediately after each unscheduled

hearing of Mrs. Mahalakshmi’s case.

70.9. They were also clueless about the developments in court since they

were not parties to the case and Mr. C. T. Selvam was hearing the case

abruptly on each occasion despite having reserved Judgment.

70.10. The hearings by Mr. C. T. Selvam were in disobeyal of the roster

assigned by the Hon’ble Chief Justice.

70.11. Hence, Mrs. Panimalar was left with no other option but to initiate

appropriate legal proceedings. To her horror, she found out that Mrs.

Mahalakshmi had illegally obtained her mobile call-logs through her

influence in Sun TV and filed them in the Hon’ble High Court of Madras.

70.12. Hence Mrs. Panimalar filed an application in the Hon’ble High Court of

Madras seeking a certified copy of her telephonic call details filed by

Mrs. Mahalakshmi.


70.13. But the said records filed by Mrs. Mahalakshmi were stolen from the

High Court of Madras immediately.

71. Hence, Mrs. Panimalar ventilated her grievances by lodging the

following 9 complaints vis-à-vis the serial malpractices of Mrs.

Mahalakshmi,

1. Circa 10.2.14 – 3 complaints to the Judicial Magistrates of

Thiruvallur, Egmore & Chief Metropolitan Magistrate

respectively.

2. 07.03.2014 – Complaint with the Registrar General of the


3. 09.03.2014 – Complaint to the Director, Central Bureau of

Investigation, & Registrar General of the Hon’ble High Court of

Madras.

4. 10.03.2014 & 13.03.2014 – Complaints to the Director General

of Police.

5. 11.03.2014 & 12.03.2014 – Complaints to the learned Chief

Justice of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras.

71.1. Yet, not one of the above 9 complaints were acted-upon by any of the

authorities.

71.2. Hence, Mrs. Panimalar chose to protect herself from the threat of illegal

arrest which was looming large due to the periodical pressure that was

being applied on the police.


71.3. Towards that end, in April 2014, Mrs. Panimalar narrated several of the

aforementioned facts, and filed a petition in the Hon’ble High Court of

Madras under section 482 CrPC, (as a Party-In-Person).

71.4. Mrs. Panimalar’s petition sought a direction to the CBI to constitute an

SIT to probe her complaint to the Hon’ble Chief Justice dated

11.03.2014. This petition was assigned stamp register number 15822 of

2014.

Erroneous Application of Legal Principles Governing Impleadment in India

72. Since Mrs. Panimalar had made certain allegations against the learned

judge Mr. C. T. Selvam, she had cited him as a respondent in the said

petition along with others, against whom allegations were levelled.

72.1. It is a practise in the Hon’ble High Court of Madras that if a pleading

contains allegations against any one, and if the said person is not

shown as a respondent, the registry rejects the entire pleading as

defective.

72.2. Such a practice has evolved from a mixture of the law on joinder / non-

joinder of parties, in civil law and gotten mixed-up with the concept of

audi alteram partem, and proclaimed by certain Judgments of the


72.3. That apart, this concept arose from the principle that the person

against whom allegations are made, ought to be given an opportunity

to deny it.


72.4. However in criminal cases such as those seeking registration of FIRs

etc, this principle is rarely followed due to the inherent impossibility in

adopting such a course of action, especially at the pre-FIR stage.

72.5. Similarly, it is also not possible to implead every one against whom

allegations are made in a given pleading, especially when the relief

sought is not directed against such a person(s), against whom the

allegations are made.

72.6. Yet, this practice has percolated into criminal law, and writ petitions are

summarily thrown out on the ground of non-joinder of parties, even

when the parties against whom allegations are levelled, happen to be

judges of the Hon’ble High Court etc.

72.7. One such Writ Petition is W.P.No.34351 of 2007, of the Hon’ble High

Court of Madras in which a Division Bench ruled as follows,

“ 8. The petitioner in the writ petition mainly alleged mala

fide against number of officers of the Tamil Nadu State

Judicial Service, including those belonging to superior and

subordinate judiciary.

Allegations have been made against individual officers

whose names have been shown at different paragraphs.

Though we have noticed some of the allegations as made,

but deliberately do not give the names of such officers as

none of them have been impleaded as party respondent by

name.


The attitude of the petitioner will be clear from the

pleadings.

He has made lot of allegations against one or other officer,

including the District Judge, Chief Judicial Magistrate,

District Munsif, etc., but while making such allegations and

pleadings, apart from the fact that the parties have not

been impleaded as respondents by name, it has not been

pleaded as to whether such statements made are true to

his knowledge or information derived from any record.

In the aforesaid background, we are not inclined to accept

any one or other allegation made by the petitioner against

individual officers, but the manner in which such allegation

has been made shows the nature of the officer, who could

make any sort of allegation without any basis.

This is one of the fact we have noticed for determination

whether such type of officers should be allowed to

continue in the judicial service, even if technically there is

any flaw in the proceeding.”

“ 11. In the present case, we have seen the attitude of the

petitioner who was a judicial officer who made various

allegations against officers without impleading them as

party and without any basis, as noticed above.

The allegations are not of good taste.


One could have understood such allegation if reference of

any evidence would have been given or had it been stated

that such allegations are true to the knowledge of the

petitioner, but the officer did not choose to even say so in

the affidavit. ”

“16. From the allegation made by the petitioner and

records of service, the following facts emerge :-

The petitioner has made unnecessary allegations

against one or other officer by name in the writ

petition, without impleading such officers as party

casting stigma on them and nowhere stated that

such statements are true to the knowledge of the

petitioner or that such statements are based on

information derived from record.

On the other hand, such allegations, not based on

record, reflects the nature of the petitioner; ”

72.8. A plain reading of the aforesaid extracts show that on 3 occasions the

Hon’ble Division Bench found fault with the petitioner therein for not

impleading judges (including those of the higher judiciary) against

whom allegations of mala fide were pleaded.

72.9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has also been consistently

emphasising this principle, although it has been deprecating the

practise of impleading a judge as a contesting respondent in appellate

proceedings against the Judgment tendered by a learned judge.


72.10. However, in cases such as when, Mr. C. T. ,Selvam institutes suo motu

criminal contempt against his brother and issues a warrant of arrest for

his production before his own court, or when he retains a Judgment

reserved case for several years and allegedly forces police-officers to

arrest a particular person who had written factual articles on a whistle-

blower website, it is but necessary to move court, listing out the

allegations and impleading the judge when relief(s) are sought against

the abuse of judicial office perpetrated by the judge.

72.11. A copy of the cause title (Cause Title Alone) of a writ petition filed

against Mr. Selvam citing him as 3rd respondent in W.P.S.R.50755 of

2014, before the Hon’ble High Court of Madras by a counsel called M/s.

Devadason & Sagar, Sunkurama Street, Chennai is at ANNEXURE A-

129 (Pg - ). The Appellant could not access the entire petition due

to his illegal ex-communication.

72.12. Furthermore, India’s Judges do not enjoy any immunity from being

sued, except in case of a demand to initiate civil / criminal prosecution

against them for say delivering a Judgment in favour of one or other of

the parties in the discharge of his / her official duty as a judge.

72.13. Therefore, except when a judge is sought to be prosecuted in a civil

proceeding which seeks damages, or in a criminal proceeding which

seeks punishment against a judge for his action of tendering a judicial

verdict in his capacity as a judge, he is immune from being sued.

72.14. For the record, it must be noted that blanket immunity is specially

conferred only upon the President of India and the Governors of States,


under Article 361 of the Constitution and that too only in respect of

criminal matters. Such privilege / immunity is not available to the Vice-

President of the Indian republic, its Prime Minister or even the Chief

Justice of India.

72.15. Explaining the law on the subject, a Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court of India has emphatically expounded as follows,

“A plain reading of the aforesaid Article (Article 361) shows that

there is a complete bar to the impleading and issue of notice to

the President or the Governor in as much as they are not

answerable to any Court for the exercise and performance of

their powers and duties.

The reason being that most of the actions are taken on aid and

advice of Council of Ministers.

However, it was made clear that the personal immunity from

answerability provided in Article 361 does not bar the challenge

that may be made to their actions.

It was held that, under law, such actions including those actions

where the challenge may be based on the allegations of mala

fides are required to be defended by Union of India or the State,

as the case may be.

It was further clarified that even in cases where the personal

mala fides are alleged and established, it would not be open to

the Governments to urge that the same cannot be satisfactorily

answered because of the immunity granted.


In such an eventuality it was held it is for the respondent

defending the action to satisfy the Court either on the basis of

the material on record or even filing the affidavit of the person

against whom such allegation of personal mala fides are made.

Article 361 does not bar filing of an affidavit if one wants to file

on his own.

The bar is only against the power of the Court to issue notice or

making the President or the Governor answerable.

In view of the bar, the Court cannot issue direction to President

or Governor for even filing of affidavit to assist the Court.

Filing of an affidavit of one's own volition is one thing and issue

of direction by the Court to file an affidavit is another.

The personal immunity under Article 361(1) is complete and,

therefore, there is no question of the President or the Governor

being made answerable to the Court in respect of even charges

of mala fides.

A similar identical provision conferring protection to the Chief

Justice of High Court is conspicuously missing in the Constitution.

Therefore, it is clear that the framers of the Constitution did not

intend extending this complete immunity to the Chief Justice.

In the absence of such express immunity being extended to the

office of the Chief Justice it is not possible to infer any such

immunity to the Chief Justice by implication.”


72.16. In the Judges case, namely S. P. Gupta Vs Union of India, AIR 1982 SC

149, the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India was cited as a contesting

respondent and he proudly chose to file a counter-affidavit.

72.17. It is only now, in the recent past that learned Indian judges of the

various High Court’s have been passing Judgments, according ‘Z’ plus

security to themselves after retirement (former Meghalaya Chief Justice

Mr. Umanath Singh), usurping separate lanes for themselves (judges)

at highway toll booths and demanding immunity from the law for all

their private actions, as has been done in the present case.

73. Similar to Mrs. Panimalar, the wife of Mr. Shankar, who was hounded

by threats to her husband’s life, filed a petition under section 482 CrPC

in a like manner.

73.1. Mrs. Shankar was concerned about the witch-hunt against her

husband, given the fact that she was pregnant and despite securing

anticipatory bail, Mr. Shankar could not come out of hiding due to

imminent threat to his life and freedom, occasioned by the pressure

that was being applied on the police allegedly by the learned judge Mr.

C. T. Selvam and that too in violation of the roster issued by the

learned Chief Justice of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras.

73.2. She was represented by an advocate called Mr. Kalyani, who had filed a

Vakalatnama on her behalf.

73.3. The Appellant filed a Vakalatnama for Mrs. Panimalar in a similar

matter in addition to the petition filed by Mrs. Panimalar in her

individual capacity.


73.4. But all the 3 afore stated petitions filed by the victims of Mrs.

Mahalakshmi were declined to be posted for judicial hearing by the

Hon’ble High Court of Madras for obvious reasons.

73.5. For over a year and a half, the petitions were refused to be posted and

the petitioners almost forgot about their petitions since they were

neither registered nor returned by the registry.

74. Disillusioned with the refusal of the cyber-crime police to arrest Mr.

Shankar, learned judge Mr. C. T. Selvam passed yet an unbelievable

judicial order transferring the investigations into the petty woman

harassment complaint of Mrs. Mahalakshmi to India’s premier

investigation agency namely the CBI. This is yet another record in the

annals of the Indian Judiciary.

Mr.C.T.Selvam, Media & the DMK

75. Mr. C. T. Selvam also directed the banning of the ad-free whistle-

blower website causing consternation among media circles which began

protests condemning the threat to the freedom of the Press.

75.1. The media lapped it up, and India Today published an article headlined

“Activists and lawyers fume over Madras High court order to shut down

savukku.net”.

75.2. It carried another article, “Madras High court orders to shut down

website that exposed 2G tapes”, in which it pointed out that learned

judge Mr. C. T. Selvam had met the then DMK Chief Mr. Karunanidhi


and obtained his blessings on the day he was sworn in as a judge of

the Hon’ble High Court of Madras.

75.3. Veteran journalist, and former BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation)

correspondent Mr. T. N. Gopalan and others instituted protests.

75.4. The Chennai Union of Journalists wrote to the Chief Justice of India

narrating the 2G cover-up scam, the misconduct, antecedents and

abuse of office by Mr. C. T. Selvam.

75.5. It even specified the open court observation of Mr. C. T. Selvam as “Let

that fellow (Shankar) hang”.

75.6. The Journalist Union’s letter dated 16.02.2014 is reproduced at

ANNEXURE A-130 (Pg - ),

75.7. The News Report in the India Today dated 28.2.14 is at Annexure A-

131 (Pg - ).

75.8. The Government’s official photograph showing Mr. C. T. Selvam

obtaining Chief Minister Mr. Karunanidhi’s blessings after issuance of

his warrant of appointment as a High Court Judge is at Annexure A-

132 (Pg - ).

76. A lady advocate called Ms. Sathyabama wrote to the Hon’ble Chief

Justice enclosing details of cases in which Mr. C. T. Selvam had passed

orders in favour of DMK men.

76.1. The list runs as follows,


A. Land-grab case against DMK MLA Mr. Palanisamy’s son Mr.

K. C. P. Sivakumar,

B. Grant of anticipatory bail to DMK’s Mr. P. R. Palanisamy,

kingpin in the granite scam wherein entire hills were

swallowed,

C. Grant of anticipatory bail to Mr. Karunanidhi’s grandson Mr.

Dayanithi Alagiri in the multi-billion granite scam,

D. Grant of anticipatory bail to DMK Ex-minister

Mr. Suba Thangavelan,

E. Grant of anticipatory bail to DMK District Secretary Mr.

Karuppaswamy Pandian,

F. Alleged shielding of the DMK Government’s ADGP

(Intelligence) in a Multi-Crore Housing Scam, etc.,

CBI’s Charge-Sheet Against Mrs. Mahalakshmi

77. Unlike the State police, and unfortunately for Mrs. Mahalakshmi, the CBI

exposed the criminal misconduct of Mrs. Mahalakshmi threadbare.

77.1. On 08.06.2016, the CBI went to the extent of filing a charge-sheet

against the complainant Mrs. Mahalakshmi itself for the offence of

fabricating an audio-tape along with her brother and falsely claiming

that Mr. Shankar had demanded rupees 50 lakhs for deleting an article

about her on his website.


77.2. In other words, the entire courtroom drama played out by Mrs.

Mahalakshmi in the court of Mr. C. T. Selvam for over 3 years since the

release of the 2G Cover-Up tapes were a total farce aimed at silencing

Mr. Shankar and stalling his website which exposed the 2G Cover-Up.

A copy of the charge-sheet dated 08.06.2016 is at ANNEXURE A-133

(Pg - ).

77.3. The CBI gave a clean chit and exonerated Mr. Pothi who was arrested

and incarcerated for weeks together in Mrs. Mahalakshmi’s false case.

77.4. Disappointed with his self-goal, Mr. C. T. Selvam deployed his favourite

weapon namely criminal contempt proceedings, and initiated suo motu

contempt against Mr. Shankar on 21.06.2016, and has retained it as a

safety-valve, and trump-card to restrain Mr. Shankar from exposing

DMK further.

77.5. This proceeding was incorporated as part of the Mahalakshmi case

judgment which Mr. C. T. Selvam had reserved 2 and a half years ago

on 28.02.2014. A copy of the pertinent order of Mr. C. T. Selvam in the

Mahalakshmi case namely Crl.O.P.No.27389 of 2013 dated 28.8.14 is at


Still-Born Judgment in the 2G Spectrum Case

78. As regards the 2G Spectrum trial, even though Mr. Shankar did not

challenge Mr. C. T. Selvam’s ex parte judgment (without hearing the CBI),


the CBI on its own took cognisance of the grand 2G cover-up, presumably

pursuant to Mr. Prashant Bhushan’s press conference in Delhi.

78.1. On 21.04.2015, Indian Newspapers screamed from the rooftops

claiming inter alia that the CBI had informed the Hon’ble Supreme

Court of India on 20.04.2015 about a new FIR that it had registered in

the 2G case against certain accused for forgery and other offences

under India’s Penal Code.

78.2. The Conservative Hindu newspaper dated 21.04.2015 claimed that

“In a fresh development in the 2G spectrum scam cases,

the Central Bureau of Investigation on Monday informed

the Hon’ble Supreme Court that a new FIR has been

registered against certain accused for forgery and offences

under the Indian Penal Code.

The agency said it had stumbled upon evidence in the

form of audio tapes which revealed that a certain accused

allegedly committed acts meant to disassociate him from a

company under investigation in the CBI probe into the 2G

scam.

The development was revealed before a Bench headed by

Chief Justice of India H.L. Dattu by CBI counsel for 2G

scam cases in the Hon’ble Supreme Court and senior

advocate K.K. Venugopal.

Mr. Venugopal, who did not name the accused in question,

apprised the Bench of the FIR and sought its permission to


present it before the Special Court set up to try the scam

cases.

Chief Justice Dattu said the allegations in the report

concerning the development were serious and had to be

heard separately. The Bench fixed the date for hearing on

April 30.”

78.3. Other news reports even quoted the CBI counsel Mr. K. K. Venugopal

as having read out the following paragraph before the Hon’ble Supreme

Court,

“The agency has obtained audio tapes in which the

conversations among the accused were recorded and its

authenticity has been verified,

All persons involved in the conversation are accused in the

2G case and several offences under Sections 120 B

(criminal conspiracy), 193 (giving false evidence), 201

(destruction of evidence), 465 (forgery), 467 (forgery in

valuable security) are made out against them,"

79. Nearly 3 years after registration of the new FIR by the CBI, the Hon’ble

Special Judge Mr. O. P. Saini of the CBI Court in New Delhi pronounced

Judgment on 21.12.2017 acquitting all 17 accused in the mother of all

scams on the plea of want of evidence.

79.1. The learned Special Judge justified his decision to acquit all 17 accused

in the following words,


“ I may also add that for the last about seven years, on all

working days, summer vacation included, I religiously sat in the

open Court from 10 AM to 5 PM, awaiting for someone with some

legally admissible evidence in his possession, but all in vain.

Not a single soul turned up.

This indicates that everybody was going by public perception

created by rumour, gossip and speculation.

However, public perception has no place in judicial proceedings. ”

79.2. Shockingly, there is not a single reference or mention about the

destruction of evidence or about the new 2015 FIR even once in the

1552 page Judgment.

79.3. In other words, the Special Judge had concealed the subsequent

investigation of the CBI regarding the destruction of evidence and

fabrication of false evidence and come to the conclusion of lack of

evidence by trusting and legitimising the hundred plus pages of records

which were fabricated by the accused in Chennai.

79.4. On the basis of the fabricated evidence, Hon’ble Special Judge Mr. O. P.

Saini pronounced the accused not guilty.

79.5. Special Judge Mr. O. P. Saini went on to claim that

“There are many representations on record made by various

prominent public spirited persons before various Authorities

relating to wrongdoing in the instant case.


However, none of them volunteered to enter the witness¬ box.

What does all this mean ?

Apparently this means that nobody had any good or first-hand

material in his possession.”

80. While asserting that nobody had any good or first-hand material in his

possession, Special Judge Mr. O. P. Saini deliberately ignored / overlooked

the first-hand material which the CBI had in its possession and had

submitted to the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India on 21.04.2015.

80.1. Unlike regular Indian Police, CBI had registered the FIR only after

scientifically (forensically) establishing that the accused indeed

fabricated documents to show that they had borrowed rupees 200

crores (bribe amount) as a loan, and cooked-up further records to

show that they re-paid it.

80.2. In other words, the CBI FIR is in reality a charge-sheet, although it’s

nomenclature was still an FIR.

80.3. But Mr. O. P. Saini not only tendered judgment without even framing

charges under 201, 193, 465, 467, I.P.C, but chose to wind up the

mother of all scams without even asking the CBI for a charge-sheet and

without a single reference to the 2015 FIR in his 1552 page judgment.

80.4. The connivance of the CBI is crystal clear. It had chosen to burk the 2G

scam Cover-UP FIR registered in 2015 even in its appeal against Mr. O.

P. Saini’s judgment so as to protect the accused all through the appeal

process as well.


81. Verification of the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s orders on its website shows

that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has made no mention of any such new

FIR registered under sections 201 & 193 IPC.

81.1. CBI’s website which contains the mandatory disclosure of all FIRs has

concealed the 2G Cover-Up FIR registered under sections 201 & 193

IPC.

81.2. The entire media contingent covering the Hon’ble Supreme Court of

India could not have conspired to cook up a lie about the CBI’s 201,

193 IPC FIR which was presented to the Hon’ble Supreme Court of

India on 21.04.2015.

81.3. Curiously, everyone who prosecuted the 2G case, in the Hon’ble

Supreme Court of India, went into silent mode vis-à-vis the vanished

FIR registered by the CBI in 2015 under sections 201, 193 IPC.

82. All this clearly establishes that the 2G scam accused, not only destroyed

and fabricated evidence, but also,

A. Somehow got whistle-blower Mr. Shankar’s petition seeking a

probe into the fabrication to be surreptitiously removed from

Judge Mrs. Aruna Jagadeesan’s cause list,

B. Got the petition posted in Judge Mr. C. T. Selvam’s cause list

and successfully got it dismissed without a whisper of protest

from Mr. Shankar’s counsel, and then,


C. Managed to use Sun TV news reader Mrs. Mahalakshmi’s false

extortion complaint to be listed before Judge Mr. C. T. Selvam’s

court for 4 long years, so as to drive Mr. Shankar underground,

D. Ensured that the CBI does not file charge-sheet in the 2015 FIR

filed under 201 IPC, etc.,

E. Ensured that CBI Court Special Judge Mr. O. P. Saini does not

frame charges under section 201, 193 IPC, etc., for the cover-up,

F. Ensured that CBI Court Special Judge Mr. O. P. Saini ignored the

2015 destruction & fabrication of evidence FIR in toto, and

finally,

G. Got themselves an acquittal with judicial rhetoric from Special

Judge Mr. O. P. Saini accusing the entire nation of not providing

any evidence although he waited from 10 AM to 5 PM on all

working days, including summer holidays, for as long as 7 years.

83. The parallels between the conduct of the Sankararaman murder trial and

the conduct of the 2G spectrum trials are striking.

83.1. In the former, the Approver turned hostile and is being shielded till

date, and not being sent to trial for murder even after 14 years. The

petition of the Special Prosecutor seeking revocation of his pardon as

well as the Cyber-Crime inquiry report regarding alleged bribery of the

trial judge have both been concealed by the courts for over 8 years till

date.


83.2. In the latter, the Cover-up FIR registered in 2015 under sections 201,

193 etc., of the IPC is nowhere to be found and the judgment of

acquittal in 2017 makes no mention of it.

83.3. In the former, the prosecution’s appeal itself was subverted and

surreptitiously removed from the Hon’ble High Court of Madras. In the

latter, the facts pertaining to fabrication of evidence by the accused

were never raised in the prosecution’s appeal.

83.4. If this is how criminal trials are conducted in the largest and most

watched cases in India, then the less said the better about cases which

are not noticed by the public through the media.

84. For the sake of analogy and antecedence, it is pertinent to recall the

sensational BMW case in which 6 people including 3 policemen were

mowed to death in 1999.

84.1. A leading Indian TV channel called NDTV conducted a sting operation

on how defence counsel Mr. R. K. Anand (former Vice-Chairman of the

Bar Council) had suborned an eye-witness. Consequently the Hon’ble

High Court of Delhi found Mr. Anand guilty of criminal contempt and

sentenced him to a 4 month prohibition from appearing before it and

its sub-ordinate courts.

Hon’ble Supreme Court’s Findings on the State of Criminal Justice

and the Role of High Courts in India

85. On Appeal in the R. K. Anand case ((2009) 8 SCC 106), the Hon’ble

Supreme Court of India said,


“What appeared in the telecast was outrageous and tended to

confirm the cynical but widely held belief that in this country the

rich and the mighty enjoyed some kind of corrupt and extra-

constitutional immunity that put them beyond the reach of the

criminal justice system.

All this and several other similar developments calculated to

derail the trial would not have escaped the notice of the Chief

Justice or the judges of the Court.

But there is nothing to show that the Hon’ble High Court, as an

institution, as a body took any step to thwart the nefarious

activities aimed at undermining the trial and to ensure that it

proceeded on the proper course.

As a result, everyone seemed to feel free to try to subvert the

trial in any way they pleased. We must add here that this

indifferent and passive attitude is not confined to the BMW trial

or to the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi alone.

It is shared in greater or lesser degrees by many other High

Courts.

From experience in Bihar, the author of these lines can say that

every now and then one would come across reports of

investigation deliberately botched up or of the trial being hijacked

by some powerful and influential accused, either by buying over

or intimidating witnesses or by creating insurmountable


impediments for the trial court and not allowing the trial to

proceed.

But unfortunately the reports would seldom, if ever, be taken

note of by the collective consciousness of the Court.

The Hon’ble High Court would continue to carry on its business

as if everything under it was proceeding normally and smoothly.

The trial would fail because it was not protected from external

interferences.

Every trial that fails due to external interference is a tragedy for

the victim(s) of the crime. More importantly, every frustrated trial

defies and mocks the society based on the rule of law.

Every subverted trial leaves a scar on the criminal justice system.

Repeated scars make the system unrecognisable and it then

loses the trust and confidence of the people.

Every failed trial is also, in a manner of speaking, a negative

comment on the State's High Court that is entrusted with the

responsibility of superintendence, supervision and control of the

lower courts.

It is, therefore, high time for the High Courts to assume a more

pro-active role in such matters. A step in time by the High Court

can save a criminal case from going astray.

An enquiry from the High Court Registry to the concerned

quarters would send the message that the High Court is


watching; it means business and it will not tolerate any

nonsense. Even this much would help a great deal in insulating a

criminal case from outside interferences.

In very few cases where more positive intervention is called for,

if the matter is at the stage of investigation the Hon’ble High

Court may call for status report and progress reports from police

headquarter or the concerned Superintendent of Police.

That alone would provide sufficient stimulation and pressure for

a fair investigation of the case. In rare cases if the Hon’ble High

Court is not satisfied by the status/progress reports it may even

consider taking up the matter on the judicial side.

Once the case reaches the stage of trial the Hon’ble High Court

obviously has far wider powers. It can assign the trial to some

judicial officer who has made a reputation for independence and

integrity.

It may fix the venue of the trial at a proper place where the

scope for any external interference may be eliminated or

minimized.

It can give effective directions for protection of witnesses and

victims and their families.

It can ensure a speedy conclusion of the trial by directing the

Hon’ble trial court to take up the matter on a day-to-day basis.”


86. While the above castigation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India about

the functioning of the High Courts pertain merely to indifference and lack

of a pro-active role vis-à-vis criminal trials held under their respective

jurisdictions. However, in the instant case, it is the Hon’ble High Court of

Madras which turns out to be either the protagonist or the epicentre of all

the cover-ups and charades.

Hon’ble High Court’s disobeyal of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India

87. Not one of the aforesaid directions / commands of the Hon’ble Supreme

Court of India in the 29.07.2009 R. K. Anand judgment (extracted above)

have been obeyed by the Hon’ble High Court of Madras till this day.

87.1. In addition, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India had vide its above

judgment directed all High Courts to frame rules under section 34 of

the Advocates Act, 1961, which had not been done for 48 years.

87.2. The said Rule number 34 mandates the Hon’ble High Courts to frame

rules governing the conditions subject to which an advocate can

practise before it and courts sub-ordinate to it.

87.3. But even after 9 years of the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s express diktat,

the Madras High Court continues to disobey the Hon’ble Supreme

Court.

87.4. As a matter of fact, the Hon’ble High Court of Madras made a feeble

attempt and put together a vague and ill-drafted set of rules in 2016,

but rushed in to stay the operation of the said rules on its judicial side,


in order to curtail unruly advocates who protested against the

implementation of the rules.

87.5. Hence even though 58 years have passed after legislation and 9 years

have passed since the Hon’ble Supreme Court issued a direction, the

Hon’ble High Court of Madras is unable to enact a simple set of rules to

govern the conduct of advocates practising before it.

87.6. In other words, instead of the Hon’ble High Court deciding whether to

frame rules governing the conduct of advocates, the advocates have

decided whether the Hon’ble High Court of Madras should frame rules

or not.

Suo Motu Tr.Case No 153 of 2016 of BCI

88. The facts of the 3rd case, namely transferred case number (suo motu)

153 of 2016, in which the Appellant and his wife have been banned for 5

years each, are as follows,

88.1. On 31.01.2011, the Appellant appeared as counsel on behalf of his

then colleague Miss. Vijayalakshmi in a bare injunction suit in O.S No

1073 of 2011, of Chennai City Civil Court against her house-owner

(landlord), and secured an injunction against the landlord from evicting

her without following the due process of law. A copy of the plaint dated

31.01.2011, in O.S.No.1073 of 2011, is at ANNEXURE A-135 (Pg.

).

88.2. Instead of filing a petition in the City Civil Court, seeking to vacate the

injunction, Miss Vijayalakshmi’s landlord lodged a complaint against her


in the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu, on 5.11.2013, and sought action for

“Professional misconduct under the Advocates Act”. The landlord’s

complaint dated 05.11.2013 is at ANNEXURE A-136 (Pg. ).

88.3. The landlord used his connections with the Bar Council and made it to

issue a notice to Miss Vijayalakshmi on 02.01.2014. The Bar Council’s

notice called upon her to file 7 copies of her comments (explanation) to

the landlord’s complaint. A copy of the Bar Council’s notice dated

02.01.2014 is at ANNEXURE A-137 (Pg. ).

88.4. The notice also demanded that Miss Vijayalakshmi disclose her

enrolment number.

88.5. The Appellant met the Secretary of the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and

questioned his authority to interfere in a pending civil suit between a

landlord and a tenant that has nothing to do with her profession.

88.6. The Secretary admitted to his faux pas, but insisted that Miss

Vijayalakshmi furnish 7 copies of her explanation to enable him to close

the complaint of her house-owner.

88.7. On 20.01.2014, the Appellant in his capacity as counsel for Miss

Vijayalakshmi was constrained to issue a reply notice pointing out the

secretary’s admission.

88.8. The reply notice further pointed out inter alia that the Bar Council has

no jurisdiction in a pending civil suit and that the Bar Council’s notice

calling for 7 copies of explanation without even knowing her enrolment

number is a sheer abuse of authority viz. Indiscriminate issuance of


notice to an individual without even knowing whether the person is

enrolled in the Tamil Nadu Bar Council.

88.9. The Appellant also pointed out the misconduct of the Bar Council in

disobeying court orders and also lying to the Hon’ble Madras High

Court’s Prime Division Bench headed by its Chief Justice vis-à-vis a case

in which,

A. An advocate called Mrs. Dhanalakshmi had paid a sum of

rupees 6 lakhs as bribe to an Ex-M.L.A for securing her a

post of District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate in Tamil

Nadu’s Judicial Service.

B. The said advocate filed a Crl.O.P.No. 29193 of 2004 in

Hon’ble High Court of Madras, and sought registration of a

criminal case against the Ex-M.L.A. for cheating her of her

money by not securing the promised post of District Munsif

Cum Magistrate.

C. But the Hon’ble High Court of Madras, instead of directing

the police to register an FIR, or dismissing the petition, went

to the extent of directing the inspector of Police to settle the

dispute by paying the cheated amount to the complainant

and further directed the police to arrest the Ex-M.L.A if he

did not settle it.

D. The Hon’ble High Court Judge also directed the Registry of

the Hon’ble High Court of Madras to post the case before

him on 02.11.2004 even if he was posted in any other


portfolio. (viz. In violation of the roster allotted by the

Hon’ble Chief Justice).

E. Finally on 02.11.2004, the court dismissed the petition as

“SETTLED” after recording a memo filed by the complainant

that she had received the cheated amount.

F. In 2006, a writ petition was filed in public interest by the

Anti-Corruption Movement seeking bar council action against

the advocate for bribing the M.L.A to secure the post of

Judicial Magistrate.

G. With a view to getting the writ petition closed without

contest, the Bar Council promised to take action on its own

and the Hon’ble High Court of Madras passed orders to that

effect.

H. But the Bar Council covered-up the matter and disobeyed

the Hon’ble High Court.

88.10. The Appellant’s reply notice also called upon the Secretary of Tamil

Nadu’s Bar Council to tender an unconditional apology, failing which the

Appellant would initiate appropriate action for abuse of office. A copy of

the Appellant’s reply notice dated 20.01.2014 is at ANNEXURE A-138

(Pg. )

88.11. In turn, the Secretary issued a reply notice dated 04.02.2014

emphasising upon his right to demand the enrolment number and

called upon the Appellant to withdraw the allegations made against the


secretary and threatened to place the reply notice before the General

Council of the Bar Council.

88.12. A copy of the reply notice dated 04.02.2014 is at ANNEXURE A-139

(Pg. ).

88.13. On 01.06.2014, the Appellant married his colleague Mrs. Vijayalakshmi.

88.14. On 09.12.2014, the Bar Council issued a notice to the Appellant and his

wife Miss Vijayalakshmi claiming that the Bar Council had passed a

resolution to issue show cause notice to both the Appellant and his

client, and called upon the Appellant to state within 15 days as to why

proceedings should not be initiated against both of them.

88.15. A copy of the notice dated 09.12.2014 is at ANNEXURE A-140 (Pg.

).

88.16. The notice stated that the language used by the Appellant on behalf of

his colleague (Mrs Vijayalakshmi) is (sic) “unbecoming of an advocate

and lack of legal knowledge in issuing notice to the statutory authority”.

88.17. On 09.12.2017, all of a sudden, after nearly 3 years, the issue was

abruptly taken up as a disciplinary proceeding in Tr. case 153 of 2016

by the Bar Council of India sitting at New Delhi.

88.18. As stated supra, when the Appellant appeared before the Bar Council of

India on 09.12.17 and filed a written plea demanding a copy of the

records, the Bar Council of India refused to provide them since there

were none on its file.


88.19. Yet the Indian Bar Council reserved judgment without a single word

being spoken / argued by anyone about the case.

88.20. As mentioned supra, on 03.02.2018 the Bar Council of India

pronounced common judgment ante-dated to 09.12.2017 and imposed

the punishment of suspending the Appellant as well as his wife for 5

years in suo motu Transferred Case 153 of 2016, in addition to the

double-life bans imposed on the Appellant in the other 2 cases.

BCI’s Recalcitrance towards the Hon’ble Supreme Court

88.21. This punishment is in gross violation of the diktat of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court’s Judgment dated 11.12.2017, in Civil Appeal 15540 of

2017 (Kaushal Kishore Vs Balwant Singh) holding that initiation of

disciplinary proceedings against a lawyer for acts that have nothing to

do with his professional conduct is improper and without jurisdiction.

Standing Counsel of the Bar Council of India who appeared against the

Appellant in the impugned Disciplinary proceedings before the

Indian Bar Council is a History-Sheeter and a suspected Fake Lawyer

with a dubious track record in the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.

89. Most importantly, Standing Counsel of the Bar Council of India who

represented the Tamil Nadu Bar Council, in the summary disciplinary

proceeding against the Appellant on 09.12.2017, namely Mr. Ram

Sankar is a history-sheeter and a suspected fake advocate.


89.1. An Ex-Legislator and Ex-Chairman of his hometown municipality Mr. A.

A. Subburaja had as early as 2013 accused Mr. Ram Sankar of

embezzling funds from the municipality by falsely claiming to have

argued a case on behalf of the civic body before the Hon’ble Supreme

Court of India.

89.2. In the process, the Hon’ble Ex-legislator had lodged a complaint with

the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India disclosing the criminal antecedents

of Mr. Ram Sankar as follows,

A. History-Sheeter number 581 of 2006 in Rajapalayam (North)

Police Station,

B. Accused in theft case CC No 610 of 2005 in Judicial Magistrate

Court, Rajapalayam,

C. Accused in CC No 749 of 2005 in Judicial Magistrate Court,

Rajapalayam,

D. Accused in CC No 105 of 2006 in Judicial Magistrate Court,

Rajapalayam, etc.,

89.3. In response to the Ex-legislator’s complaint, Mr. Ram Sankar claiming

to be an advocate in Hon’ble Supreme Court wrote back a letter to a

non-existent person called the “Hon’ble Registrar General of the

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India” on 30.11.2013, seeking action against

the Hon’ble Ex-legislator.

89.4. To top it all, in his complaint to the Non-Existent ‘Registrar General’ of

the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, Mr. Ram Sankar attached his


identity cards issued by 5 different bar associations besides his

enrolment certificate with the Delhi Bar Council, his Provisional Law

degree certificate and 2 letters of conduct from the Bar Council of India

and Bar Council of Delhi dated 04.06.2013 and 11.07.2013 addressed

to “WHOMSOEVER IT MAY CONCERN”.

89.5. But the enrolment certificate issued by the Delhi Bar Council dated

30.07.2012 pre-dates his Provisional Law degree certificate which is

dated 17.09.2012.

89.6. In addition to the dubious law degree, Mr. Ram Sankar in his social

media publications claims to be pursuing his doctorate in law from the

G. D. Goenka University. He even published an End-Semester

Examination Attendance Sheet dated 26.12.2016.

89.7. But even in 2018, the application form of the university mentions no

doctorate courses in law. The UGC in its report dated 03.08.2014

claims that only 4 bachelor of law courses have been approved by the

Bar Council of India from 2014-15 and even for those courses the G. D.

Goenka University could not show their faculty to the UGC during

inspection.

89.8. Apart from the above criminal activities, standing counsel of the Bar

Council of India Mr. Ram Sankar has been claiming to be the Secretary

of the Delhi Tamil Advocates Association, and has been corresponding

and hosting functions with Hon’ble Judges and other dignitaries such as

A. Prime Minister of the Republic of Guyana,

B. Ex-Parliamentarian Mr. VaiKo


C. Tamil Nadu’s Leader of Opposition Mr. M. K. Stalin,

D. et cetera.

Hon’ble Supreme Court’s stand on Appellant’s earlier plea to reform and

De-Criminalise India’s Bar Councils and the Indian Bar

90. On 16.02.2017, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India heard a Public

Interest Litigation filed by the Appellant under Article 32 of the Indian

Constitution before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India which narrated

the criminalisation of the Indian Bar and its Bar Councils, and sought

inter alia,

A. Ban on criminals from the Indian Bar,

B. Withdrawals of Police protection provided to all Criminals who are

practising as lawyers in Indian Courts,

C. Withdrawal of Queen’s Counsel status conferred upon lawyers

who have been convicted of heinous criminal offences,

D. To implement the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of

India issued in 2009 R. K. Anand case to frame rules under

section 34 of the Advocates Act,

E. To compile a register of Advocates on the rolls of the Indian Bar

and to disbar the quack lawyers,

F. To direct a probe into the various financial scandals at the Indian

Bar Council such as the ‘one-man committee scam’, AIBE scam,

college-approval scam,etc.,


G. To transfer all heinous criminal cases against Bar Council office-

bearers outside the province of the occurrence for a time-bound

trial,

H. To appoint an oversight committee to supervise the functioning

of the bar Council of India on the lines of the committee

appointed vis-à-vis the Medical Council of India,

I. To direct disclosure of assets of Bar Council members,

J. et cetera.,

90.1. However, 2 learned judges of 2 different benches of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court of India recused themselves from hearing the

Appellant’s Public Interest Litigation, bearing W.P. (Criminal) No. 16 of

2017, and finally on 16.02.2017, the 3rd bench which heard the case

dismissed it in limine, stating as follows,

“In view of the disciplinary proceedings initiated against

the petitioner by the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and

Puducherry by order dated 14.09.2015 and the interim

order passed by the Bar Council debarring the petitioner

from practicing as an advocate in any Court of law,

Tribunals etc., we are not inclined to entertain this writ

petition.

However, the petitioner would be at liberty to take part in

the disciplinary proceedings instituted against him and

once he is exonerated therein, it will be open for him to

approach this Court or any other Court for such

grievance(s) as has been highlighted in the writ petition.”


90.2. A copy of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in W.P.

(Criminal) No. 16 of 2017 dated 16.02.2017 is at ANNEXUREs A-141

(Pg - ).

Criminalisation of India’s Bar Councils and Disobeyal of the

Hon’ble Supreme Court’s Order in this regard.

91. One year later on 16.02.2018 in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary

Number 6392 of 2018, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India stayed a

slew of directions issued by the Hon’ble High Court to decriminalise the

bar and to disqualify criminals from contesting Bar Council elections. It

also stayed all further proceedings in the case pending before the

Hon’ble High Court on the subject of de-criminalisation of the Indian

Bar.

91.1. However the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India issued a rider that any

candidate contesting the Bar Council elections should disclose his

criminal antecedents in the nomination form.

91.2. But, this order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India was flagrantly

disobeyed by a majority of the candidates and almost all the criminals

who were running the bar council before the elections managed to

conceal their criminal antecedents and got themselves elected in the

present election also for a further term of 5 years from 2018 to 2023.

91.3. This includes the Co-Chairman of the Bar Council of India, and the

Chairman of the Tamil Nadu Bar Council and various other bar leaders

who have suppressed not just attempt to murder cases but also


criminal cases lodged against them by the Registrar General of the

Hon’ble High Court of Madras from time to time.

91.4. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has thereafter not heard the main

case in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary Number 6392 of 2018 for the

past 8 months.

91.5. A copy of the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Special

Leave Petition (Civil) Diary Number 6392 of 2018 dated 16.02.2018 is


Grave Allegations against Judge Mr. P. N. Prakash

by his fellow Indian Judges’.

92. A learned retired Judge called Mr. P. Ramaraj went public claiming that

learned Judge Mr. P. N. Prakash was responsible for the custodial

murder of one Mr. RamKumar, a dalit boy who was attempted to be

murdered in custody on 3 earlier occasions.

92.1. Mr. RamKumar was framed in the brutal and sensational Miss Swathi

murder case. Ms. Swathi was a software engineer with Infosys.

92.2. The video of the highly publicised extempore press conference in which

retired Judge Mr. Ramaraj charged Judge Mr. P. N. Prakash with

murder is available on the following URL,

www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfTBytXkjIc

92.3. Never in India’s judicial history has a retired Judge charged a sitting

High Court Judge of being responsible for a murder.


92.4. Interestingly, Judge Mr. P. N. Prakash chose to remain mum and did

not deny the murder charge made against him in public by retired

judge Mr. Ramaraj.

Madras High Court’s judicial findings against its own sitting judge

Mr. P. N. Prakash.

93. Apart from judge Mr. Ramaraj, a sitting judge of the Hon’ble High Court

of Madras has made a series of judicial findings of serial misconduct

and abuse of judicial office by judge Mr. P. N. Prakash.

93.1. The findings were rendered in the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court

of Madras on 20.09.2017 in Crl.O.P.No.5651 of 2013.

93.2. The Judicial Findings against learned judge Mr. P. N. Prakash include

inter alia,

A. Passing contra judgments vis-à-vis established (settled) legal

principles, instead of referring them to a larger bench for

consideration,

B. Sitting as a single judge and unsettling a 65 year old legal

principle laid down by a division bench & declaring a binding

precedent of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India as per

incuriam, instead of referring it to a larger bench,

C. Writing articles in law journals justifying his judgment wherein

he had over-ruled decisions of larger benches and those of the

Hon’ble Supreme Court,


D. Making references on earlier decisions and then sitting on the

larger bench to hear the references,

E. Passing judgment on the reference made by himself,

F. Dismissing Criminal Appeals at the Admission stage itself,

G. Not taking up petitions seeking suspension of sentence,

H. et cetera.

93.3. A copy of the judgment dated 20.09.2017 in Crl.O.P.No.5651 of 2013 of

Hon’ble High Court of Madras is at ANNEXURE A-143 (Pg - ).

93.4. The abovesaid judgment became final and Mr. P. N. Prakash chose not

to challenge or question the findings of serial misconduct rendered

against him by a co-ordinate judge of the same Madras High Court.

While passing the order the Bar Council of India and

Hon’ble Madras High Court disobeyed MULTIPLE landmark judgments

of Hon’ble Supreme Court.

94. Whereas Articles 141 & 144 of the Indian Constitution prescribe that

the law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India shall be

binding upon all courts in India, and that all civil and judicial

authorities should act in aid of the Indian Supreme Court, the following

judgments are not only being wilfully disobeyed by the Indian Bar

Council and the Indian Government for decades together but they are

also sabotaged by the Hon’ble High Court of Madras which falls under

the administrative & judicial radar of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of

India.


The list of judgments excluding those already highlighted supra are as

follows,

5 -JUDGE CONSTITUTION BENCH JUDGMENTS

1) Hon’ble Supreme Court Bar Association Vs Union of India,

(1998) 4 SCC 409, which commanded that,

“Punishment by way of suspending the licence of an

advocate can only be imposed by the competent statutory

body after the charge is established against the Advocate

in a manner prescribed by the Act and the Rules framed

thereunder.”

was not only violated by the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu by

imposing an indefinite interim suspension order on the Appellant

without even issuing a notice on 14.09.2015, but the said

suspension was also summarily upheld by the Hon’ble High Court

of Madras by manipulating the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s diktat.

As pointed out earlier, the Hon’ble High Court of Madras went to

the extent of publishing the contents of its tweaked judgment on

the media, but has been declining to issue a certified copy of its

verdict to the Appellant for the past 3 years, fearing that it would

be challenged in the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.

2) Uday Shankar Triyar vs Ram Kalewar Prasad Singh (2006) 1 SCC 75,

which commanded that defects in filing of Vakalatnamas should not

lead to decisions otherwise than on merit, and that opportunity for

rectification / curing of defects ought to be given. But in the


Appellant’s case (although he is not even a counsel on record), this

judgment has been breached wilfully, and not a word on merit has

been stated in any of the orders of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras

which form the subject of this appeal.

2 JUDGE BENCH JUDGMENTS

3) Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan Vs Ramesh Chand Paliwal, (1998) 3

SCC 72, wherein it was clearly expounded that,

“ Just as Chief Justice of India is the supreme authority in the

matter of Supreme Court Establishment including its office staff

and officers, so also the Chief Justice of the High Court is the

sole authority in these matters and no other Judge or officer can

legally usurp those administrative functions of power.

The Chief Justice has been vested with wide powers to run the

High Court Administration independently so as not to brook any

interference from any quarter, not even from his Brother Judges

who, however, can scrutinise his administrative action or order

on the judicial side like the action of any other authority.”

However, Mr. P. N. Prakash not only usurped the powers of the Chief

Justice but also concealed it from the Chief Justice and went to the

extent of using his personal residential letter-pad to usurp the powers

of the Chief Justice as explained supra.

4) Ajay Kumar Chaudhary Vs Union of India, (2015) 7 SCC 291,

wherein (in the context of Government servants) it was directed

that,


“We, therefore, direct that the currency of a Suspension

Order should not extend beyond three months if within this

period the Memorandum of Charges/Chargesheet is not

served on the delinquent officer/employee; if the

Memorandum of Charges/Chargesheet is served a

reasoned order must be passed for the extension of the

suspension.”

However, in the Appellant’s case even after 3 years, despite the

directions of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras no charges were

framed, nor was a reasoned order passed but an indefinite suspension

order was prolonged for life.

5) R. K. Anand Vs Registrar Delhi High Court, (2009) 8 SCC 106,

wherein it was directed that,

“All the High Courts that have so far not framed rules

under section 34 of the Advocates Act are directed to

frame the rules without any further delay.

It is earnestly hoped that all the High Courts shall frame

the rules within four months from today.”

However, even after 9 years, the Hon’ble Madras High Court has not

obeyed this direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.

Had it been obeyed, the Appellant may not have been harassed in this

manner.


6) State of Gujarat Vs Kishanbhai Patel, (2014) 5 SCC 108, wherein it

was directed that,

“We direct, the Home Department of every State

Government, to formulate a procedure for taking action

against all erring investigating / prosecuting officials /

officers. All such erring officials/officers identified, as

responsible for failure of a prosecution case, on account of

sheer negligence or because of culpable lapses, must

suffer departmental action.

The above mechanism formulated would infuse

seriousness in the performance of investigating and

prosecuting duties, and would ensure that investigation

and prosecution are purposeful and decisive.

The instant direction shall also be given effect to within 6

months.”

However, even after 4 years, neither the Tamil Nadu Government nor

the Central Government has obeyed this order. Had it been obeyed, the

Appellant may not have been harassed in this manner, and in both the

Sankararaman as well as the 2G cases appellate justice could have

been served.

Reign of Terror – Flabbergasted Indian Lawyers.

95. As mentioned earlier, not a single lawyer in Chennai and Delhi was

willing to represent the appellant before the Bar Council, before the


Hon’ble High Court of Madras and before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of

India till the present lawyer was benevolent and considerate enough to

represent the Appellant before the highest court of the land, namely

the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.

95.1. Despite the Appellant’s standing at the Bar and the grave injustice

meted out to the Appellant, the Appellant was even refused an

audience by almost all top-notch activist lawyers and Bar Association

leaders in the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. They sought a summary

of the brief by e-mail and thereafter chose not to reply and avoided all

contact.

95.2. All of them are fear-struck and desperate to save their own careers and

livelihood, taking a cue from the manner in which the appellant was

being persecuted by the Hon’ble High Court of Madras.

95.3. In addition to the death of the Appellant’s father, the unwillingness of

any lawyer to represent the Appellant is the cause for the delay of

around 6 months in filing this Appeal.

Erroneous Sentencing Policy

96. Whilst murder convicts are welcomed to the Indian bar, lawyers

including serial killers who murder their own clients and loot their

properties do not even face a notice from the Indian Bar Councils and

saintly souls such as the Appellant are imposed with imaginary and

fanciful punishments such as double life-ban and indefinite interim

bans.


96.1. In a recent order dated 16.08.2018, which has been uploaded on the

Tamil Nadu Bar Council’s website, the complainant is shown as the

Superintendent of Police of Nagercoil District. He has alleged that a

lawyer called Mr. Senthil Kumar who is a History-Sheeter with about 5

heinous cases of Attempts to Murder, etc., had attacked a Head

Constable in the District Court on 13.02.2015, and that he had also

attacked an Inspector of Police in the Judicial Magistrate Court on

20.04.2015.

96.2. After examining witnesses and also the victims, the Bar Council of

Tamil Nadu after singing paeans about the nobility of the legal

profession, and after quoting various judgments of Constitutional courts

imposed a measly punishment of 2 years suspension from the legal

profession. In other words the maximum punishment imposed in most

such cases is a 2 year suspension, which is usually further reduced in

appeal.

96.3. A copy of the Bar Council’s order dated 16.08.2018 is at ANNEXURE

A-144 (Pg - ).

Persuading the Appellant’s clients to lodge Complaints

against the Appellant.

96.4. Having overturned the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of

India in order to take revenge from the Appellant, the Hon’ble High

Court of Madras made no arrangements to protect the interests of his

clients who are mostly victims of crime.


96.5. In one case, a rape victim was not summoned by a trial court and a

judgment in the nature of an ex parte order was passed acquitting the

accused for rape due to the absence of legal representation by the

Appellant (owing to the illegal interim suspension without charge) and

absence of the terrified rape-victim.

96.6. When another victim approached the Hon’ble High Court seeking relief

for himself vis-à-vis his cases in which the Appellant is the Counsel-on-

Record, he was goaded to lodge a complaint against the Appellant, and

when he refused, his refusal was brazenly recorded and his writ

petition was thrown out saying that it was a “got up Proceeding”.

96.7. When the said victim wanted to challenge the order of the Hon’ble High

Court, the High Court refused to issue a certified copy of its order for

the past 1 year, although a copy of the order was published in the

press to defame the Appellant.

96.8. Resultantly almost all victims of crime who were being represented by

the Appellant (including on a free of cost basis) have been suffering the

consequences of the institutional vendetta that has been unleashed

upon the Appellant.

96.9. A copy of the High Court order dated 04.09.2017, throwing out the

victim’s plea is at ANNEXURE A-145. (Pg - ).

96.10. The Appellant is consciously refraining from giving out the application

details in which the certified copy was sought, since it is a habit of the

Hon’ble High Court of Madras to return or reject the application by


affixing ante-dated signatures once action is sought to be taken for

misconduct.

96.11. Hence this Hon’ble Court may call for the records and verify the unjust

practice of refusing to issue order copies.

96.12. Similarly the Appellant has not consciously furnished the copy

application number by which the order copy of Sub-Application 828 of

2016 was sought. The case number in the billion dollar scandal cited in

paragraph number 54 has also not been furnished so as to prevent

tampering or destruction of records, once this court is seized of this

appeal. The Appellant is willing and undertakes to provide all the

aforesaid them at any time that this Hon’ble Court may desire to seek

them.

Peremptory Interim Indefinite Suspension Order itself

is suspected to be fake Order.

97. Whereas the Appellant was not served with a single notice of any

proceeding by the Bar Councils even after the Hon’ble High Court

ordered it to do so, it may kindly be noted that when the Appellant’s

former junior wrote to the Bar Council seeking the periodicity of the

suspension order and its legal validity, the Bar Council claimed that

there is no duration of suspension, and that no one objected to passing

the interim order.

97.1. This means that no Bar Councillor had approved or signed the illegal

interim order.


97.2. A Copy of the Appellant’s former junior’s letter dated 04.10.2016, is at


97.3. A Copy of the Bar Councils reply dated 03.11.2016 is at ANNEXURE A-

147 (Pg - ).

Helplessness of even benevolent Chief Justices of the

Madras High Court to take action on the Cyber-Crime Police Report,

despite repeated requests.

98. Apart from the helplessness of successive Chief Justices to take action

upon the report filed by the Cyber-Crime police in 2012, even

benevolent Chief Justices could not act upon the same.

98.1. Even as late as August 2017, the Appellant presented a memorandum

to the learned Chief Justice of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras,

seeking to explain the inaction against Mr. Antony Selvaraj and other

criminals who dethroned trial judge Mr. Ramaswamy, to secure an

acquittal.

98.2. But the Appellant’s representation was not responded-to and seems to

have been simply brushed under the carpet.

98.3. Such is the influence of criminals who have daringly managed to

remove an honest Sessions Judge by fraudulently attributing one of the

voices in bribery audio tape to him, and securing an acquittal after his

dethronement.


98.4. A copy of the Appellant’s latest memorandum to the learned Chief

Justice of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in this regard submitted

around the 8th of August 2017 is at ANNEXURE A-148 (Pg - ).

Execution of the Non-Existent punishment of debarment (Life-Ban) upon the

Appellant, by the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu even before the judgment

was issued by Bar Council of India

99. While browsing the internet recently, the Appellant came to know that

pursuant to the pronouncement of BCI’s judgment in New Delhi on

03.02.2018, the copy of the same was despatched by the registered

post to the Tamil Nadu Bar Council on 06.02.2018.

99.1. Miraculously the Tamil Nadu Bar Council issued and published what it

called a prohibitory order claiming to debar the Appellant for life, on

05.02.2018 itself.

99.2. This is the last world record, namely the thirteenth in this case whereby

a judgment has been executed several days in advance of its issuance

to the executing authority.

99.3. It may be recalled that in Mahatma Gandhi’s case, it took 67 days for

the communication from London to Bombay to be executed.

99.4. In the Appellant’s case it is -1 (minus one) day.

99.5. This by itself clearly demonstrates the conspiratorial and collusive

nature of the Indian Bar Council’s judgment.


99.6. A copy of the so-called Prohibitory order published by the second

respondent is at ANNEXURE A-149 (Pg - ).

99.7. The covering letter issued by the Bar Council of India on 6.2.18 is


Role of Criminals – Grave & Imminent threat to the lives of the Appellant and

family-members of the murder victim Mr. Sankararaman.

100. In the light of the previous history and antecedents of the criminals and

their patrons as narrated in the preceding paragraphs, coupled with the

manner in which a District Judge was ousted, a Governor was

overthrown, and a lawyer (Appellant) ex-communicated from the

judiciary, there is absolutely no protection for the family of the

Appellant as well as the murdered brahmin Mr. Sankararaman during

the subsistence of this appeal and thereafter.

100.1. In light of the Long-range missile threat from judge Mr.

Ramasubramaniam, it is imperative that adequate protection is

provided to the family of the victim, as well as their lawyer (viz.

Appellant and his family) till the disposal of this Appeal.

Role of the UNITED NATIONS – Proceedings of the UN Special

Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges & Lawyers – For Onward

Reporting to the UN General Assembly.

101. The Appellant is given to understand that the United Nations Special

Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers has instituted


proceedings seeking the response of the Indian Government on the

persecution of the Appellant for onward reporting to the United Nations

General Assembly during the upcoming quarter.

102. Hence this Statutory Appeal on inter alia the following

GROUNDS

i. Because REPUBLIC OF INDIA’s Permanent Mission to the UNITED

NATIONS in its note verbale addressed to the President of the United

Nations General Assembly dated 16.10.2014, while beseeching a

membership to the world body’s Human Rights Council prided itself

as,

“one of the first countries to be reviewed under the

universal periodic review mechanism of the Council in April

2008. The second cycle of India’s review in May 2012 was

a culmination of the broad, extensive and inclusive

consultative process involving various ministries and

experts, as well as civil society.”

ii. Because in the said note verbale, Republic of India reiterated its

commitment by claiming that,

“In keeping with its full commitment to human rights and

values, India actively participated in all Council sessions in

a constructive and inclusive manner with a view to

enhancing the effectiveness of the Council in promoting

and protecting human rights the world over.”


iii. Because in the said note verbale, Republic of India voluntarily

committed and pledged to,

“(F) Strive to make the Human Rights Council a strong,

effective and efficient body capable of promoting and

protecting human rights and fundamental freedoms for

all”,

iv. Because in the same note verbale, Republic of India voluntarily


“(J) Co-operate with special procedures, accept requests

for visits and respond to communications”,

v. Because in the same note verbale, Republic of India voluntarily


“(K) Implement the recommendations that enjoyed its

support during the second cycle of the universal periodic

review, as well as continuing its collaboration with civil

society and other stakeholders in an open and constructive

manner in its universal periodic review process”,

vi. Because in the same note verbale, India voluntarily committed and

pledged to,

“(N) Co-operate with treaty monitoring bodies and engage

constructively with them in the context of fulfilling its

human rights obligations”,


vii. Because Principles 1 and 2 of the United Nations Basic Principles on

the Role of Lawyers, 1990, which provides-for assistance of a lawyer

to defend (the appellant in the so-called disciplinary proceedings)

was denied all through due to fear of reprisal that is likely to be dealt

out to lawyers by the Hon’ble High Court of Madras and executed by

means of the abrupt and indefinite, interim suspension of the

appellant by the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu through its illegal order

dated 14.09.2015.

viii. Because Principle 3 of the United Nations Basic Principles on the Role

of Lawyers, 1990, which calls-upon professional associations of

lawyers to co-operate in the organization and provision of services,

facilities and other resources, was totally negated for the same

reasons stated supra.

ix. Because Principles 16 (a) and (c) of the United Nations Basic

Principles on the Role of Lawyers, 1990, which calls-upon

Governments to ensure that lawyers,

I. “Are able to perform all of their professional

functions without intimidation, hindrance harassment

or improper interference, and

II. Shall not suffer, or be threatened with, prosecution

or administrative, economic or other sanctions for

any action taken in accordance with recognized

professional duties, standards and ethics,”


has been totally violated in the appellant’s case, and the appellant

has been illegally penalized solely to protect powerful criminals from

the long arm of the law.

x. Because Principle 19 of the United Nations Basic Principles on the

Role of Lawyers, 1990, which stipulates that,

“No court or administrative authority shall refuse to

recognize the right of a lawyer to appear before it for his

or her client unless that lawyer has been disqualified in

accordance with national law and practice and in

conformity with these principles”

has also been violated in toto by the unjust actions narrated above.

xi. Because Principle 20 of the United Nations Basic Principles on the


“Lawyers shall enjoy civil and penal immunity for relevant

statements made in good faith in written or oral pleadings

or in their professional appearances before a court,

tribunal or other legal or administrative authority.”

has also been violated in toto even though the appellant was not

even a counsel on record therein and also because all statements

made in the pleadings have been admittedly verified and found to be

true by the Hon’ble High Court of Madras itself.

xii. Because Principle 21 of the UN Basic Principles on the Role of

Lawyers, 1990, which stipulates that,


“It is the duty of the competent authorities to ensure

lawyers access to appropriate information, files and

documents in their possession or control in sufficient time

to enable lawyers to provide effective legal assistance to

their clients. Such access should be provided at the earliest

appropriate time.”

has also been violated in toto, not only for the appellant’s clients but

also for the appellant’s case, viz. disciplinary proceedings. The

appellant’s case records and possessions were confiscated and he

was attempted to be intimidated and denied access to court records

as well all through the past 3 years.

xiii. Because Principle 27 of the United Nations Basic Principles on the


”Charges or complaints made against lawyers in their

professional capacity shall be processed expeditiously and

fairly under appropriate procedures. Lawyers shall have

the right to a fair hearing, including the right to be assisted

by a lawyer of their choice.”

has also been violated in toto due to the persecution and fear of

reprisal by the Hon’ble High Court of Madras which has been

elucidated supra.

xiv. Because Principle 28 of the United Nations Basic Principles on the



”Disciplinary proceedings against lawyers shall be brought

before an impartial disciplinary committee established by

the legal profession, before an independent statutory

authority, or before a court, and shall be subject to an

independent judicial review.”

has also been violated in toto, and the sham summary enquiry was

neither fair nor independent, nor subject to an independent judicial

review by the Hon’ble High Court of Madras which has been seized of

the same for the past over 3 years.

xv. Because the aforesaid proposition is clearly evident from the

established antecedents of the Chairman of the disciplinary

Committee Mr. Narsimha Reddy as extracted from his own

judgments delivered when he was a judge of the Hon’ble High Court

as well as the opinions voiced by his own colleague in the Hon’ble

High Court of Patna. This is further evident from the fact that the

Appellant’s peers who are statutorily entrusted with administrative

authority are found to be criminals by various judgments of the

Hon’ble High Court.

xvi. Because Principle 29 of the United Nations Basic Principles on the


”All disciplinary proceedings shall be determined in

accordance with the code of professional conduct and

other recognized standards and ethics of the legal

profession and in the light of these principles.”


has also been violated in toto as evident from the facts of the case

as well as the quantum of punishment.

xvii. Because Principle 2.5 of the Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct

2002, as revised at the Round Table Meeting of Chief Justices at The

Hague, 2002 stipulates that,

”A judge shall disqualify himself or herself from

participating in any proceedings in which the judge is

unable to decide the matter impartially or in which it may

appear to a reasonable observer that the judge is unable

to decide the matter impartially. Such proceedings include,

but are not limited to, instances where,

(2.5.1) the judge has actual bias or prejudice concerning a

party or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts

concerning the proceedings;

(2.5.2) the judge previously served as a lawyer or was a

material witness in the matter in controversy”.

has also been violated in toto, and that too despite repeatedly

informing not only the judge concerned but also the Hon’ble Chief

Justice both orally and in writing.

xviii. Because Principle 85 of the United Nations Basic Principles on the

Independence of the Judiciary as set forth in the Draft Universal

Declaration (Singhvi Declaration) which stipulates that,


”No lawyer shall suffer or be threatened with penal, civil,

administrative, economic or other sanctions by reason of his

having advised or assisted any client or for having represented

any client's cause.”

has also been violated in toto, as evident from the facts of the case as

well as the quantum of punishment.

xix. Because Principle 86 of the United Nations Basic Principles on the



”Save and except when the right of representation by a lawyer

before an administrative department or a domestic forum may

have been excluded by law, or when a lawyer is suspended,

disqualified or disbarred by an appropriate authority, no court or

administrative authority shall refuse to recognize the right of a

lawyer to appear before it for his client, provided, however, that

such exclusion, suspension, disqualification or disbarment shall

be subject to independent judicial review.”

has also been violated in toto, and the appellant has been prevented

from appearing in any court, both before as well as after the life-ban.

xx. Because Principles 87 and 88 of the United Nations Basic Principles on

the Independence of the Judiciary as set forth in the Draft Universal



“87. He (A lawyer) shall have the right to raise an objection to

the participation or continued participation of a judge in a

particular case, or to the conduct of a trial or hearing and,

88. If any proceedings are taken against a lawyer for failing to

show proper respect towards a court, no sanction against him

shall be imposed by a judge or judges who participated in the

proceedings which gave rise to the charge against the lawyer,

except that the judge or judges concerned may in such a case

suspend the proceedings and decline to continue to hear the

lawyer concerned.”

has also been violated in toto, and the concerned judge has himself

instituted proceedings against the appellant and passed several

judgments against the appellant without any rhyme or reason.

xxi. Because Principle 89 of the United Nations Basic Principles on the


Declaration (Singhvi Declaration) which also stipulates that,

“Save as provided in these principles, a lawyer shall enjoy civil

and penal immunity for relevant statements made in good faith

in written or oral pleadings or in his professional appearance

before a court, tribunal or other legal or administrative

authority.”

has also been violated in toto, even though the appellant was not even

a counsel on record in one of the cases, and all statements made in the


pleadings were verified and found to be true by the Hon’ble High Court

of Madras itself.

xxii. Because there is no charge / allegation whatsoever, which warrants

even prima facie contemplation of an enquiry against the appellant vis-

à-vis any of the 3 suo motu BCI Tr. Cases 151, 152 and 153 of 2016.

xxiii. Because in the absence of a prima facie charge / allegation warranting

initiation of a disciplinary proceeding against the appellant, the mala

fides on the part of the former counsel for accused (now learned judge)

Mr. P. N. Prakash stands clearly established by his persistent

misconduct and judicially adjudged abuse of office recorded by his own

colleague-judge of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras.

xxiv. Because the diktat of the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme

Court of India which laid down that no lawyer can be suspended

without establishing the charge against him has been thrown to the

winds, both by the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu, as well as successive

Division Benches of Hon’ble High Court of Madras.

xxv. Because the former defence counsel for the murder accused (now

Judge) Mr. P. N. Prakash of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras has been

hounding the Appellant ever since he became a Permanent Judge in

order to,

A. Prevent the hostile approver Mr. Ravi Subramaniam from

being put up on trial, for the murder of Sankararaman even

14 years after admitting to the gruesome temple murder

under oath,


B. To prevent action from being mooted on the secreted report

of Chennai’s Cyber-Crime police which enquired and

reported about the fake-bribery of a possibly innocent and

honest trial judge who adjudicated the Sankararaman

temple murder case till the arguments stage, and,

C. To prevent Victims of Crime namely the family of deceased

Brahmin priest Mr. Sankararaman from appealing against

the trial court verdict in the said temple murder case.

xxvi. Because another learned Senior Judge of the Hon’ble High Court of

Madras has passed a judgment accusing Judge Mr. P. N. Prakash of a

series of judicial misconducts and abuse of judicial office.

xxvii. Because the Chairman of the Disciplinary Committee which passed the

judgment banning the Appellant for life was planted in the disciplinary

committee to punish the Appellant, knowing fully well that he had

passed a judgment extolling the prime accused in the Sankararaman

murder and even criticized the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India, the

Government of Tamil Nadu, the media, as well as the public in his

judgment.

xxviii. Because in both the Fake Bail case of Mrs. Lakshmi, as well as the False

Extortion Case of Mrs. Mahalakshmi, the appellant’s role ought to be

praised and honoured.

xxix. Because the appellant is entitled to exemplary damages and

compensation on account of the fact that his right to life and livelihood

has been curtailed for the past 3 years, in Mr. P. N. Prakash’s endeavor


to cover-up the cyber-crime police report in the bribe-for-acquittal scam

in the Sankararaman murder case and to protect the approver Mr. Ravi

Subramaniam from being put up on trial for murder.

xxx. Because the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India which has provided-for

immunity to judges from malicious prosecution, arrest, etc., ought to

lay down the law to prevent recurrence of such harassment and threats

to the professional independence of genuine lawyers in India.

xxxi. Because the basic illegal interim suspension in 2015 itself was the

outcome of the forged and fabricated counter-affidavit (showing the

cause title of some other case), procured from the public prosecutor for

the purpose of harming the appellant as referred in annexure A-105,

adverted to earlier.

xxxii. Because the imposition of life-ban on the appellant who is not even a

counsel in the case, and imposition of a ban of 5 years on the counsel

on record for the same stated reasons clearly establishes the fact that

the appellant has been targeted and penalized by criminal elements in

league with their protectors / abettors who are holding high

constitutional office in the Indian Judicial set up.

xxxiii. Because the finding rendered in the opening paragraph in page 9 of the

BCI’s impugned order namely that the Appellant was “being aggressive

and challant to the judiciary”, means nothing because there is no such

word called “Challant” in the English vocabulary.

xxxiv. Because the BCI’s finding against the Appellant in the penultimate

paragraph of the impugned judgment that “even against whom he did


not appear in effect he took the judiciary for a ride by not only availing

but also creating occasions”, is an inexplicable and gibberish finding, in

as serious a matter as sentencing an advocate to a life-ban an, lastly,

xxxv. Because the Judgments of the various Benches of the Hon’ble Supreme

Court of India, including Constitutional Benches were not merely

violated, but distorted, contorted and trampled-upon not only by the

respondents, but also by the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in their

anxiety to resort to Judicial Apartheid of the Appellant. The List of

Judgments are as follows,

A. (1998) 4 SCC 409

B. (1998) 3 SCC 72,

C. (2006) 1 SCC 75,

D. (2009) 8 SCC 106,

E. (2014) 5 SCC 108 and

F. (2015) 7 SCC 291,

xxxvi. Because a fair hearing was denied to the Appellant in the High Court in

case BCI Tr. Case No. 151/2016 relating to Crl. OPSR 15125 of 2014

and 17070 of 2014, owing to the fact that the matter was decided by

the High Court in his absence when the Appellant was unavailable as

he was attending to his pregnant wife at his native place 500 kms from

Chennai.

xxxvii. Because, no proceedings for misconduct have ever been initiated

against the petitioner in the past. He is recognised at the Bar as a

prominent lawyer dealing with cases of the poor and cases of injustice.


xxxviii. Because the disciplinary proceedings were required to be conducted by

the State Bar Council and not the Bar Council of India.

xxxix. Because the State Bar Council was negligent and remiss in conducting

the disciplinary proceedings against the Appellant.

xl. Because the State Bar Council was biased against the Appellant as can

be seen from the fact that it issued a suspension order dated

09.09.2015 without jurisdiction and without any legal authority and

without any show cause notice to the petitioner.

xli. Because the conduct of the proceedings by the BCI were without

jurisdiction and illegal and in any case without application of mind.

xlii. Because the stand of the State Bar Council that the petitioner had

refused to accept service was incorrect. Petitioner never refused to

accept service. As notices upon the Appellant were never served at his

office where he usually worked.

xliii. Because the Madras High Court order dated 14.8.15 could not have

directed the State Bar Council to take out disciplinary action against the

petitioner. All that the High Court could do was to refer the matter to

the State Bar Council and to direct them to consider as to whether

disciplinary action could have been taken.

xliv. Because the findings and observations of the Madras High Court are

perverse and the observations qua the petitioner are excessive and

extreme given the fact that the petitioner has an unblemished record of

service to the poor through his litigation for 15 years.


xlv. Because the impugned peremptory order of the Madras High Court

dated 14.8.15 is vitiated by undue haste in that the petitioner was not

heard in the matter and the petition was disposed off with severe

observations against the petitioner on the very first date when the

petitioner was attending to his pregnant wife at his village.

xlvi. Because the punishment imposed on the petitioner and his wife is

disproportionately harsh and excessive and deserves to be quashed

and set aside.

xlvii. Because the observations of the BCI to the effect that the petitioner did

not attempt to get the papers and that the BCI offered him the entire

record for perusal and that the petitioner refused to see the file are

entirely incorrect. Firstly, petitioner made a specific request to get a

copy of the records to enable him to defend his case vide his written

submissions dated 8.12.17. No order of the BCI was made on this

application.

xlviii. Because the BCI proceeded without any show cause notice to the

petitioner.

xlix. Because the perusal of the impugned order shows that the Bar Council

roamed far beyond the remit of the case which was restricted to three

very specific matters. Particularly, but not restricted to, the reference

made to a writ petition wherein certain observations were made, was

inappropriate because the High Court permitted withdrawal of the

offending remarks by order dated 30.11.17 in WP. SR. 53861 of 2016,

and the relevant part is as under:


“ 3. Having regard to the submissions made by the petitioner as

also by counsels for the respondents, prayer made in the petition

is allowed. The affidavits dated 17.04.2016 and 03.08.2017 filed

in W.P.SR.53861 of 2016 shall be returned to the petitioner. The

Registry will, however, retain an attested photocopy of the same

for the purpose of good order and record.”

l. Because, the impugned order of the Bar Council of India wrongly claims

that the Appellant refused to see the file, even as it unintentionally

discloses the truth by admitting that there was no material on its record

other than the order of the High Court and bar council’s notices.

Therefore in the absence of any records related to the case, and the

repeated and persistent oral as well written demand of the appellant

demanding a copy of the records of the case, there is no question of

refusing to see the file. In fact, only by skimming the contents of the

file, the truth was revealed that there was actually no material

whatsoever to conduct the quasi-judicial disciplinary proceeding.

li. Because, paragraph number 6 of the impugned BCI order contains false

claims that the Appellant had entered appearance through counsel and

that he had been imposed costs. Apart from being factually untrue, the

record of the BCI also betrays such bogus claims.

lii. Because, the false claims and insinuations against the appellant made

in paragraph 6 of the impugned order are hereby flatly and vehemently

denied by the appellant. They have been incorporated in the impugned

order solely for extraneous reasons in order to cover-up the omissions

and commissions of the respondents. For prolixity, the appellant is


issuing this summary denial, and reserves his right to address the false

claims at length during the hearings of the appeal, if the Bar Council

still persists with its false claims.

liii. Because, further incorrect facts have been resorted to in the impugned

order namely in para 8, whereby it is claimed that the appellant had

addressed arguments vis-à-vis Tr.Case 151 of 2016, whereas in para 6

the same impugned order claims that the appellant had refused to

proceed with Tr.Cases 151 of 2016 and 153 of 2016. The fact remains

that the appellant was neither present nor did he argue the case in the

Hon’ble High Court or address the hearings in the BCI. In the Hon’ble

High Court, the Appellant was not present in station when the case was

purportedly adjudged, whereas in the BCI, the appellant could not

address the case for want of records.

liv. Because, it is pertinent to note that even in the petition before the

Hon’ble High Court, the Appellant had issued a nota bene vis-à-vis

issuance of notices to the various respondents as having been left to

the discretion of the court, since they were only proforma respondents,

to facilitate the legal principle of audi alteram partem as enunciated by

various judgments, which have been cited herein.

lv. Because, in the entirety of the 15-page impugned BCI order, the lady

journalist called Panimalar is throughout referred to as Mr. Panimalar,

and the gentleman lawyer who has been punished is referred to as Ms.

Kalyani all through. This demonstrates that the BCI passed orders even

without knowing whether the persons whom it is adjudging is a male or

a female.


lvi. Because, apart from extracting the operative portion of the High Court

order, there is not a word supplied on its own by the Hon’ble Bar

Council of India in its impugned order vis-à-vis case no 151 of 2016.

Hence the facts of the said case necessarily have to be elaborated

hereunder in detail in this appeal at great length for the purpose of

comprehensive understanding of the said virgin case, which has not

been dealt with both by the Hon’ble High Court as well as the Bar

Council of India even in a rudimentary form.

lvii. Because, as regards the second case namely Tr.Case No 152 of 2016,

the impugned BCI judgment in paragraph 10 speaks unintelligibly as

follows, [sic]

“Briefly stated, the facts are that, in respect of 7 persons,

including one Smt. Lakshmi was filed an application for an

anticipatory bail being Cr.M.P.No.5721 of 2014 before the

Session Judge, Villupuram. Though, an advocate by name

Selva Kumar. After hearing both parties the trial court

granted anticipatory bail and the benefit thereof was to

punish the Sessions Judge, for passing orders in the

anticipatory bail petition in Crl O.P. No. 30502/2014 in an

illegal manner.”

lviii. Because, as regards the claim in para 12 of the impugned order

regarding an unpleasant situation etc being created in court, etc., a

reading of this appeal and its annexures will clearly betray the fact that

the unpleasantness was in fact the prelude to the vindictive and

venomous action taken by illegally punishing the appellant, and that


the appellant was in no way responsible for the said unpleasantness as

claimed.

lix. Because, as regards appearance in court, the appellant had clarified in

the BCI itself that Order 3 Rule 3 of the appellate side rules of the

Hon’ble High Court of Madras permits one counsel to appear on behalf

of another, and that office bearers of the Bar Councils themselves

regularly resort to the said provision to appear and that they have

secured innumerable interim and final orders from the Hon’ble Madras

High Court, over the past several decades after invoking the said

provision.

lx. Because, in this case also, apart from verbatim extraction of the

operative portion of the High Court order, there is not a word supplied

on its own by the Bar Council of India in its impugned order vis-à-vis

case no 152 of 2016, leading to the appellant being forced to furnish

voluminous details of the said case in this appeal. The absence of even

rudimentary details in the judgment is a telling and ominous sign of the

manner in which the proceedings in the BCI were conducted.

lxi. Because, the BCI order incorporates its own perception of the

appellant’s mindset and thought process without any scientific basis or

legal rationale. It then goes on a cut-copy-paste spree by extracting

various obiter passed in various cases relating to the Sankararaman

murder case, in cases which the appellant had fought legal battles and

won justice for the murder victims. These were in turn parroted from

the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras authored by Mr. P.


N. Prakash, who was the former defence counsel in the said

Sankararaman murder case.

lxii. Because, the impugned BCI order then adverts to an affidavit filed by

the Appellant in the writ petition against the BCI, and extracts various

headings contained in that affidavit, and portrays those headings as

being offensive whereas the truth is otherwise. In any case the said

affidavit had been permitted to be withdrawn by the Hon’ble High Court

by means of a judicial order, in lieu of a better affidavit, and the misuse

of the said affidavit to draw unnecessary inferences based on the

chapter headings contained in them is to say the least, most

unfortunate. In fact, even the placement of such affidavit before the

disciplinary proceeding of the BCI, and to seek action for filing such

affidavit is itself an act of professional misconduct on the part of the

counsel for the BCI.

lxiii. Because, the impugned BCI order then makes a reference to Tr.Case

153 of 2016, by extracting a few paragraphs from the contents of its

notices which form the subject of the illegal disciplinary proceeding,

and rushes into judgment by imposing e non-existent punishment of

life-bans in Tr.Case Nos 151 of 2016 and 152 of 2016, and 5-year ban

in Tr.Case No 153 of 2016. For the sake of thorough understanding of

this Hon’ble Court, the facts of that case have also been placed on

record in the foregoing paragraphs in the body of this appeal.

lxiv. Because, last but not the least, it is imperative to point-out that in the

so-called disciplinary proceeding, the Tamil Nadu Bar Council had

engaged the standing counsel of the BCI to appear on its behalf,


making the BCI’s impugned verdict the outcome of the prosecutor

being the Judge. In addition, the antecedents of the said counsel

have been narrated in the foregoing paragraphs.

CONCLUSION

103. Thus it is crystal clear that in order to protect the criminals and

lawyers involved in the illegal framing of Puducherry’s Chief Judge

Mr. Ramaswamy and also to protect the murder case approver from

being committed to trial in the 2004 Sankararaman murder case and

to thwart an appeal against the acquittals, their erstwhile counsel

Mr. P. N. Prakash (now judge of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras)

has been consistently misusing his judicial office in league with

others, and had the Appellant ex-communicated from India’s law

courts without any allegations, and without any due process by

means of an unjust disciplinary proceeding judgment .

104. As already pointed out, the Appellant is duty bound to reiterate that

due to his illegal ex-communication by the Hon’ble High Court of

Madras, he is unable to provide documents in the form of annexures

for each and every averment made vis-à-vis Case Numbers 151 and

153, although he has furnished as much documentary corroboration

as could be gathered from the internet as well as his mailbox.


105. Similarly, the Appellant is perforce constrained to furnish a lengthy

appeal since the impugned order makes no sense whatsoever, and

this Hon’ble Court cannot possibly decipher or decode any meaning

upon reading it, and that too when there are no basic proceedings

even on the file of the Bar Council of India which had given rise to

the present Appeal.

106. As such, the Appellant has presented a detailed but pertinent

narrative of facts leading to his illegal life-ban, bearing in mind the

need to avoid prolixity to the extent feasible.

107. Similarly since the impugned order is devoid of any chronological

backdrop, the Appellant is unable to present a chronological

narrative of facts and the Appeal is necessarily interspersed on

occasions in a non-chronological framework.

PRAYERS

Hence this Statutory Civil Appeal Under Section 38 of the Advocates Act

praying, inter alia, that this Hon’ble Appellate Court may be pleased to

kindly,


A. Admit and allow the present Civil appeal under Section 38 of the

Advocates Act and set aside the impugned final order and

judgment pronounced on 03.02.2018 but dated as 09.12.2017,

in SUO MOTU BCI Tr. Case No. 151/2016, SUO MOTU BCI Tr.

Case No. 152/2016 and SUO MOTU BCI Tr. Case No. 153/2016

by Ld. Bar Council of India, New Delhi;

B. Direct the respondent’s to pay exemplary compensation and

damages to the Appellant to the tune of 10 crores Indian

rupees;

C. Direct the appropriate authorities to take action against those

who are behind the illegal purging of the Appellant to achieve

subversion of the trial/appellate judicial processes in the

Sankararaman murder case,

D. Formulate guidelines to protect the Independence of India’s

Lawyers and Judges invoking Article 142 of the Constitution, so

that such guidelines can be sought to be used as a model code

for worldwide enforcement, when the United Nations Special

Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges & Lawyers reports

his findings on the Appellant’s case to the United Nations

General Assembly, in the upcoming session of the world-body,

E. Pass any other order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may

deem fit and appropriate in the interest of justice in the facts

and circumstances of the instant appeal.


AND FOR WHICH ACTS OF JUDICIAL INFALLIBILITY, THE PETITIONER

AS IN DUTY BOUND SHALL EVER BE THANKFUL.

Drawn On: 13.12.2018

Drawn By: Nabila Hasan,

Advocate (Satya Mitra)

Advocate for the Petitioner
