Nilesh Ojha Contempt case : CJI Withdraws case from the Bench of Justice Annirudh Bose

 

TRIUMPH OF TRUTH AND JUSTICE

CJI Withdraws case from the Bench of Justice Annirudh Bose

Year 2019-20 almost all legal portals were hogged by the suo motu contempt proceedings by Hon’ble Supreme Court against Adv. Vijay Kurle, Sh. Rashid Pathan & Adv. Nilesh Ojha (tilted as Re: Vijay Kurle) of they been convicted and sentenced. Followed by the Contempt petition of Sr. Advocate Prashant Bhushan, which almost negated and overruled the premises in convicting Adv. Vijay Kurle & Ors and sentencing them to imprisonment for a period of Three Months and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- whereas Adv. Prashant Bhushan was sentenced for a token sum of Rs. 1/- and Hon’ble SC observing in their judgment that offence by Adv. Bhushan is far aggravated as compared to that of Adv. Kurle & others (Ref: Para 79 of Re: Prashant Bhushan (2021) 1 SCC 745) . 

Legal fraternity is flummoxed of this gracious discrimination.

Adv. Nilesh Ojha President, Indian Bar Association on being contacted informed, that arising out of their conviction filed a substantive petition against Hon’ble Justices L. Nageshwar Rao & Annirudh Bose specifically pointing bias and perjury, subsequently the Hon’ble CJI was pleased to change the assignment out of their bench to the Hon’ble Bench of Justices Ashok Bhushan & R. Subhash Reddy, a rarest of the happening in the annals of Supreme Court, which was duly acknowledged & bar members expressed their gratitude to the wisdom of Hon’ble CJI.

Adv. Nilesh Ojha stated that through RTI and other correspondences with the SC Registry, obtained information which shows the order of conviction against them passed by Justices Deepak Gupta (Retd) &Annirudh Bose was based on concoctions and in making false allegations against the office of the then Hon’ble CJI Ranjan Gogoi. And the bench of Justice Bose in dismissing the review petition, showed a rare judicial indiscipline in even refusing to accept the views of the larger bench of Hon’ble Justice (Retd) Arun Mishra which overruled the judgment of his and Justice Gupta. The convicts Adv. Ojha & others being wondrous of Justice Bose’s misguided obstinacy filed petitions of contempt against Justice Bose and some conspiring offenders viz. Sr. Advocate/s Siddharth Luthra, Milind Sathe & Kaiwan Kalyaniwala. 

Adv. Ojha informed that they having been convicted on fallacious premises un-countenanced by the law, hence had appealed to the inner conscience of the Judges that they discharge their duties as per the settled position of law so that the orderliness of the society isn’t put at stake.

BRIEF BACKGROUND OF THE CASE leading to the run-up in convicting – Adv. Nilesh Ojha, Adv. Vijay Kurle & Sh. Rashid Pathan

1.1. As per order dated 12.03.2019 the Bench of Hon’ble Justices R.F. Nariman & Vineet Saran convicted Adv. Mathews Nedumpera for his alleged inappropriate argument on an earlier date, particularly in contextually referring to Adv. Fali Nariman father of Justice. Rohinton Nariman. The conviction of Advocate Nedumpera was without issuing any show cause notice without any trial and without giving any opportunity to explain his stand.

Adv. Ojha stressed that the order of J. Nariman was grossly illegal for the very reason of being against the fundamentals of Natural Justice & was against the binding precedent by Full Bench of Supreme Court in Dr. L.P. Mishra’s case (1998) 7 SCC 379, Ramesh Maharaj’s case (1978) 2 WLR 902 which mandates that no advocates or any person can be sentenced without issuing show-cause notice clearly mentioning the special charge and without giving him an opportunity to explain his stand. The Nine Judge bench of US Supreme Court had termed such judgments as substantial fraud and such judgment should not be respected by any Court in the world. It observed thus; “In common sense and common honesty, the sentence of the tribunal which first punishes and then hears the party, castigatque, auditque. Such sentences 'as mere mockeries, and as in no just sense judicial proceedings;' and are characterized they 'ought to be deemed, both ex directo in rem and collaterally, to be mere arbitrary edicts or substantial frauds.'  ”[Windsor 93 US 274 (1876) Nine Judge Bench of Supreme Court.]Windsor Vs. Mcevigh (1876) 93 US 274, In Re: Terry 1888 SCC OnLine US SC 238. 

1.2. Adv. Ojha stressed that there is a specific provision in Bar Council Rules mandating complaint against the Judges when there is a reasonable ground for the same. Specific law is laid down in R. Muthukrishnan Vs. The Registrar General 2019 SCC OnLine SC 106. Corroborated in [Indirect Tax Practitioners Association Vs. R.K. Jain (2010) 8 SCC 281, Subramanian Swamy Vs Arun Shourie (2014) 12 SCC 344, Aniruddha Bahal Vs. State 2010 SCC OnLine Del 3365, Lalita Kalita (2008) 1 Gau Lt 800, Re: C.S. Karnan (2017) 7 SCC 1, Bathina R. Reddy Vs. State AIR 1952 SC 149]

1.3. In the saga of intrigue, after getting the knowledge of the complaints against Justice/s Nariman & Saran, Adv. Milind Sathe, known for his dubious standards tried to get support from Supreme Court Bar Association & Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association to nullify the effect of watertight complaint lodged by the Indian Bar Association’s State President, but failed to gain support from them, on the other hand around 149 advocates from Supreme Court in their solidarity to the cause marked their appearance on behalf of Advocate Nilesh Ojha & Adv. Vijay Kurle.)

1.4. Adv. Milind Sathe of Bombay Bar Association (who have been on numerous occasions exposed of his corrupt misdeeds by members of Indian Bar Association) & Advocate Kaiwan Kalyaniwala of Bombay Incorporated Law Society, seized their opportunity, in conspiracy  and in misusing their official position rather in their personal capacity wrote a letter dated 23.03.2019 to the Hon’ble President of India & Hon’ble Chief Justice of India to not to take any action against Justices Rohinton Fali Nariman & Vineet Saran on the complaint given by Adv. Vijay Kurle & Shri. Rashid Khan Pathan. Across various bar associations members wondered the ulterior intent of Advocate/s Milind Sathe & Kaiwan Kalyaniwala apparently attempting to hold the Hon’ble Judges hostage of their largesse, nothing could be more shamefull.

1.5. Adv. Ojha informed that he has information received from the office of Chief Justice of India under RTI wherein the complaint of Sathe & Kalayaniwala was remarked as ‘filed’ means the representation which is non-actionable, frivolous and requires no consideration. [Additional District & Sessions Judge ‘X’ Vs. Registrar (2015) 4 SCC 91].

1.6. After getting knowledge of the refusal of their letter by the Chief Justice of India being taken cognizance of, the said Adv. Milind Sathe dubiously framed the Office Bearers of Indian Bar Associations and noted Muslim Human Rights activist Rashid Pathan. In the build-up to the events against all judicial propriety the Bench of Justices Rohinton Fali Nariman & Vineet Saran took the letter privately from Adv. Milind Sathe and suppressing the fact of refusal by the Chief Justice of India to take action on it and against all judicial discipline straightaway took the cognizance at their own in a case where they themselves are accused.

1.7. The bench of Justices Deepak Gupta (Retd) and Aniruddha Bose, instead of correcting the illegality and taking action against the guilty Milind Sathe etc…, perpetrated the judicial disorderliness and by ignoring the material on record, the binding precedents and the documentary proof, straightaway convicted and sentenced the Advocate/s Nilesh Ojha, Vijay Kurle & Sh. Rashid Khan Pathan against known judicial norms, subsequently reiterated by the larger bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in  Re: Prashant Bhushan (2021) 1 SCC 745 observing that the suo-moto cognizance of contempt should be as per guidelines of P. N. Duda’s case (1988) 3 SCC 167 and the information received by the Bench/Judge should be placed before Hon’ble Chief Justice of India and only CJI can take the decision as to cognizance can be taken or not and if this procedure is not followed then the conviction and sentence stand vitiated as has been ruled in Bal Thackrey’s case (2005) 1 SCC 254.

1.8. In the sidelines Adv. Ojha informed that a contempt petition bearing Provisional Application No 5199/2021 came to be filed against the judges, some of the prayers being - 

i) To hold that, in view of law laid down in catena of decision and more particularly in Raman Lal Vs. State 2001 Cri.L.J. 800, K.Rama Reddy Vs State 1998(3) ALD 305, the fabrication of evidence and tampering of Court record to falsely implicate and sentence a citizen is not a part of official duty of a Judge and such Judge cannot claim  any protection from persecution;

ii) To hold that as per section 3 (2) of Judicial officers protection Act, 1985 and in view of law laid down in Deelip Bhikaji Sonawane Vs State 2003 Cri.L.J. 2003, the Supreme Court is having power to direct the prosecution of Judge involved in utter disregard and defiance to the rights of the citizen as well as the provisions of the law and this being the similar case this Hon’ble Court is empowered to pass appropriate prosecution;

iii) To hold that, as per law laid down by the Constitution Bench and followed in Perumal vs. Janaki (2014) 5 SCC 377, and also in view of the law laid down in Raman Lal vs. State 2001 Cr. L. J. 800, when the judge of a constitutional court is involved in a conspiracy to falsely implicate the petitioner then the matter should be investigated and the court cannot draw any interpretation which makes the petitioner remediless;

iv) To record a finding as per Section 340 of the Criminal Procedure Code that as per record of the office of Chief Justice of India it is clear that, the then Chief Justice of India Shri. Ranjan Gogai on 25.03.2019, found that the letter dated 23.03.2019 require no consideration and therefore passed the remark ‘filed’ and the case was closed, yet Justice (Retd.) Deepak Gupta & Justice Aniruddha Bose pursued false evidence qua the then CJI Shri. Ranjan Gogai of having forwarded the said communication to the Bench of Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman.

Adv. Nilesh Ojha summed up the entire Indian Bar Association’s philosophy in his characteristic nonchalance -  

‘WAQT KA TAQAZZA HAI JUJHO TOOFAAN SEY… KAB TAK CHALO GEY KINARE…KINAREY…’

 DOWNLOAD COPY OF PETITION