Search This Blog

Thursday, July 30, 2009

India's Judiciary - Derelict, Delinquent And Dangerous

Title India: Independence of and corruption within the judicial system (2007 - April 2009)
Publisher Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada
Country India
Publication Date 23 April 2009
Citation / Document Symbol IND103122.E
Cite as Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, India: Independence of and corruption within the judicial system (2007 - April 2009), 23 April 2009, IND103122.E, available at: http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/4a7040ab23.html [accessed 30 July 2009]
Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada - Logo
India: Independence of and corruption within the judicial system (2007 - April 2009)

Transparency International (TI) provides the following summary of India's judicial system:

India's court system consists of a Supreme Court, high courts at state level and subordinate courts at district and local level. The Supreme Court comprises a Chief Justice and no more than 25 other judges appointed by the president. The Supreme Court has a special advisory role on topics that the president may specifically refer to it. High courts have power over lower courts within their respective states, including posting, promotion and other administrative functions. Judges of the Supreme Court and the high court cannot be removed from office except by a process of impeachment in parliament. Decisions in all courts can be appealed to a higher judicial authority up to the Supreme Court level. (2007, 215)

Article 50 of the Constitution of India provides for the independence of the judiciary, stating that "[t]he State shall take steps to separate the judiciary from the executive in the public services of the State" (India 1 Dec. 2007, Art. 50).

Article 124 of India's Constitution states the following in regard to appointment, tenure and impeachment:

(2) [e]very judge of the Supreme Court shall be appointed by the President ... after consultation with such of the Judges of the Supreme Court and of the High Courts in the States as the President deems necessary for the purpose and shall hold office until he attains the age of sixty-five years.

...

(4) A Judge of the Supreme Court shall not be removed from his office except by an order of the President passed after an address by each House of Parliament supported by a majority of the total membership of that House and by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the members of that House present and voting has been presented to the President in the same session for such removal on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity. (ibid., Art. 124 (2) and (4))

As of April 2009, no instances of impeachment have been reported; there was an attempt to impeach Supreme Court Justice V. Ramaswami in 1991 for "misuse of office," but the motion did not pass in the Lok Sabha (the lower house of parliament) (DNA 21 Feb. 2009; The Times of India 9 Sept. 2008). According to a 17 March 2009 Times of India article, a "chargesheet " detailing accusations against High Court Justice Soumitra Sen, as well as his defence, has been prepared by a panel of judges, which will enable members of parliament to debate a motion to impeach him. Justice Sen of the Calcutta High Court was found guilty of misappropriating "sale proceeds" when he was an advocate in the 1990s, although he later repaid the money at the request of the High Court (The Times of India 17 Mar. 2009; India Today 9 Sept. 2008). According to India Today, Sen was found guilty of "misconduct," but was subsequently elevated to the High Court in 2003, while still in possession of the money (9 Sept. 2008).

In 1993, nine judges of the Supreme Court developed a new system for the appointment of judges to the high courts (CJAR 12 Oct. 2007; see also The Hindu 19 Feb. 2009). This system established a "collegium" of senior judges of the Supreme Court to select candidates and make recommendations to the government regarding appointments (CJAR 12 Oct. 2007; The Hindu 19 Feb. 2009).

According to Shanti Bhushan, a former law minister in India writing on behalf of the Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Judicial Reform (CJAR), an organization whose objective is to apply "grassroots pressure" on the implementation of judicial reform in India (n.d.a.), the recommendations of the collegium were "binding" on the government (CJAR 12 Oct. 2007). The government could "return the recommendation [of the collegium] once, but subsequently if it was unanimously reiterated by the collegium, it would have to be implemented" (ibid. 12 Oct. 2007). Shanti Bhushan further states that this system was developed in order to protect the independence of the judiciary, but he also indicates that the system's "performance has been disappointing," because it has not been transparent (ibid.). According to a 19 February 2009 article in The Hindu, the collegium's "selection process is kept secret from the Bar, the legislature and the people." The Asian Legal Resource Centre (ALRC) similarly states that the selection process for judges of the higher judiciary is "non-transparent," additionally stating that "all attempts to make the process transparent have been resisted by the judiciary thus far" (25 Sept. 2007).

According to the World Bank, "[a]lthough India's courts are notoriously inefficient, they at least comprise a functioning independent judiciary" (World Bank n.d.). The World Bank also indicates that in many states corruption investigations have "increased significantly" (n.d.). However, TI states that despite constitutional provisions for the independence and accountability of the judiciary in India, "corruption is increasingly apparent" (2007, 215).

As evidence of corruption, TI cites a high-profile case, wherein 9 people, including a politician's son, were acquitted of their alleged involvement in the murder of Jessica Lal (2007, 215). However, following extensive media exposure, the case was reopened and the son of a senior Haryana Congress leader was convicted of the murder, while two others were convicted of conspiracy and destruction of evidence (Rediff.com 18 Dec. 2006).

Though TI indicates that the upper judiciary "is relatively clean," it states that "[i]n the broader justice institutions corruption is systemic" (2007, 215). Specifically, TI indicates that "[t]here is a high level of discretion in the processing of paperwork during a trial and multiple points when court clerks, prosecutors and police investigators can misuse their power without discovery" (2007, 215). TI additionally indicates that corruption is often caused by case delays and judge shortages, explaining that civilians "seek shortcuts through bribery, favours, hospitality or gifts" (2007, 215-216).

In a 1 April 2009 telephone interview, the South Asia Desk Program Officer of the Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC), who is a lawyer from India, stated that if we are to consider corruption not in strictly financial terms, but also in terms of favours to family members, for instance, then "an alarming number of justices are corrupt" in India. The AHRC Program Officer also stated that "it is possible for justices in India to be bribed, to falsely accuse someone or to falsely acquit someone" (1 Apr. 2009). According to a statement issued by the ALRC, a former Chief Justice of India, Justice S.P. Bharucha, suggested "that about 20 percent of the judiciary in India is corrupt," while a High Court judge suggested that the number was closer to 33 percent (25 Sept. 2007).

In regard to case backlogs, TI provides the following numbers as of February 2006: "33,635 cases were pending in the Supreme Court with 26 judges; 3,341,040 cases in the high courts with 670 judges; and 25,306,458 cases in the 13,204 subordinate courts" (2007, 215). TI specifically refers to India when stating that "lengthy adjournments force people to pay bribes to speed up their cases" (2007, xxiv). A 25 January 2008 Indo-Asian News Service article states that the Supreme Court had 222 cases pending decisions 6 months or more after their last hearing. The article indicates that the Civil Procedure Code does not have provisions for time limits between the hearings and the decisions (Indo-Asian News Service 25 Jan. 2008). The article also indicates that information on the delayed 222 cases was attained by a lawyer through the Right to Information Act (RTI) of 2005 (ibid.).

Citing a United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) report, Global Integrity indicates that, in India, "initiatives like Right to Information (RTI) and e-governance, [as well as] computerization of judicial records for clearing [the] massive backlog of legal cases in courts ... have been instrumental in curbing corruption in the country" (2008). However, Prashant Bhushan, a Supreme Court lawyer and member of the CJAR, alleges that the judiciary is "seeking to effectively remove itself from the purview of the Right to Information Act," using the independence of the judiciary as its justification (CJAR n.d.b).

According to Asian News International, in May 2008, the Supreme Court dismissed a petition that sought to have the assets of judges, including the Chief Justice of India, disclosed under the provisions of the RTI (15 May 2008). The article reports that the People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) filed the petition arguing that the Chief Justice could not withhold asset information "on the mere ground that judges [are] Constitutional authorities" (Asian News International 15 May 2008). However, in January 2009, The Times of India reported that the Central Information Commission rejected the argument that the Chief Justice was exempt from the RTI, ordering the Chief Justice to disclose whether its judges were filing declarations of their assets, as per a 1997 resolution (8 Jan. 2009).

According to The Times of India, in September 2008, 34 sitting judges were accused of being involved in embezzlement within the Ghaziabad court system (10 Sept. 2008). Of those identified, one is a Supreme Court judge, 10 are high court judges and 23 are lower court judges (The Times of India 10 Sept. 2008; see also Thaindian News 23 Sept. 2008). Thaindian News reports that in September 2008 the Supreme Court gave its approval for the Central Bureau of Investigation to inquire into the allegations (23 Sept. 2008). An April 2009 Hindustan Times article indicates that the investigation is ongoing, stating that the Supreme Court asked for the case to be moved from a court in Ghaziabad to Delhi, due to "practical difficulties in conducting the probe" (1 Apr. 2009).

Another corruption accusation involves a former Chief Justice of India, YK Sabharwal; Sabharwal has been accused of making case decisions that furthered the business interests of his sons (Hindustan Times 9 June 2008; ALRC 25 Sept. 2007). A 9 June 2008 Hindustan Times article indicates that the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) forwarded the complaints against Sabharwal, made by CJAR members, to the Ministry of Law and Justice for further action. No further information regarding the investigation of Sabharwal could be found among the sources consulted by the Research Directorate.

Attention to Sabharwal's case decisions were first given media exposure by Mumbai-based Mid Day newspaper staff, who published information indicating that Sabharwal's sons gained "material benefits out of their father's position in the Indian judiciary" (ALRC 25 Sept. 2007; CJAR 13 Oct. 2007). The editor, the resident editor, the publisher and the cartoonist of Mid Day were convicted of "contempt of court" (ALRC 25 Sept. 2007; CJAR 13 Oct. 2007). The four journalists were sentenced to four months imprisonment (Rediff.com 21 Sept. 2007; Mid Day 28 Nov. 2007). According to a 28 November 2007 Mid Day article, the Supreme Court stayed the prison sentence and the case was scheduled for a hearing on 16 January 2008. No further information on the case proceedings could be found among the sources consulted by the Research Directorate.

In October 2008, the Union Cabinet announced that it would introduce the Judges Inquiry Amendment Bill 2008 in parliament (Thaindian News 8 Oct. 2008; Indo-Asian News Service 8 Oct. 2008). A 20 December 2008 article in The Statesman reports that "increasing charges of corruption against the judiciary" precipitated the need to amend the Judges Inquiry Act of 1968. Sources indicate that the Bill carries provisions for a National Judicial Council that would function to investigate allegations of corruption and misconduct of judges from the higher judiciary (Indo-Asian News Service 8 Oct. 2008; The Statesman 20 Dec. 2008; Thaindian News 8 Oct. 2008). According to a document entitled "Bills Passed During 2007-2009" published by PRS Legislative Research, a research initiative that publishes legislative briefs on Bills in India (n.d.a.), the Judges Inquiry Amendment Bill 2008 had not been passed as of February 2009 (n.d.b.).

This Response was prepared after researching publicly accessible information currently available to the Research Directorate within time constraints. This Response is not, and does not purport to be, conclusive as to the merit of any particular claim for refugee protection. Please find below the list of sources consulted in researching this Information Request.

References

Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC), Hong Kong. 1 April 2009. Telephone interview with South Asia Desk Program Officer.

Asian Legal Resource Centre (ALRC). 25 September 2007. "India: Indian Judiciary's Contempt for Accountability and Scrutiny is a Shame." [Accessed 1 Apr. 2009]

Asian News International. 15 May 2008. "Supreme Court Dismisses Petition Demanding Judge's Assets Disclosure." (Factiva)

Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Judicial Reform (CJAR). 13 October 2007. Prashant Bhushan. "Securing Judicial Accountability – Freedom of Speech vs. Contempt: Towards an Independent Judicial Commission." [Accessed 15 Apr. 2009]
_____. 12 October 2007. Shanti Bhushan. "Clean Up the Judiciary." [Accessed 15 Apr. 2009]
_____. N.d.a. "About Us." [Accessed 15 Apr. 2009]
_____. N.d.b. Prashant Bhushan. "Judicial Accountability or Illusion: The National Judicial Council Bill." [Accessed 15 Apr. 2009]

Daily News and Analysis (DNA) [Mumbai]. 21 February 2009. Rajesh Sinha and Rakesh Bhatnagar. "MPs Seek to Impeach Judge." [Accessed 17 Apr. 2009]

Global Integrity. 2008. "India: Corruption Timeline." [Accessed 3 Apr. 2009]

The Hindu [New Delhi]. 19 February 2009. V.R. Krishna Iyer. "Needed, Transparency and Accountability." (Factiva)

Hindustan Times [New Delhi]. 1 April 2009. "SC to Consider Transfer of UP PF Scam Case from Ghaziabad." [Accessed 16 Apr. 2009]
_____. 9 June 2008. Nagendar Sharma. "Ex-chief Justice Under Corruption Panel Scanner." [Accessed 16 Apr. 2009]

India. 1 December 2007. Ministry of Law and Justice. The Constitution of India. [Accessed 9 Apr. 2009]

India Today [Mumbai]. 9 September 2008. Elora Sen. "Justice Soumitra Sen Case Stuns Judicial Fraternity." [Accessed 16 Apr. 2009]

Indo-Asian News Service. 8 October 2008. Arun Kumar and Manish Chand. "Bill for Probe Panel Against Errant Judges Cleared." (Factiva)
_____. 25 January 2008. "Justice Delayed: 222 Cases Await Supreme Court Verdict." (Factiva)

Mid Day [Mumbai]. 28 November 2007. "MPs Cutting Across Party Lines Demand Inquiry Against the Former Chief Justice of India and Defend Mid Day Journalists Sentenced to Jail for Exposing the Nexus Between the Judge's Sons and Mall Builders." [Accessed 15 Apr. 2009]

PRS Legislative Research. N.d.a. "About PRS." [Accessed 16 Apr. 2009]
_____. N.d.b. "Bills Passed During 2007-2009." [Accessed 16 Apr. 2009]

Rediff.com. 21 September 2007. Onkar Singh. "Mid Day Journalists Sentenced to 4 Months in Contempt Case." [Accessed 16 Apr. 2009]
_____. 18 December 2006. Onkar Singh. "Jessica Lal Case: Manu Sharma Convicted." [Accessed 16 Apr. 2009]

The Statesman [New Delhi]. 20 December 2008. "The Statesman (India): Special Article." (Factiva)

Thaindian News. 8 October 2008. "Government to Introduce Judges Inquiry Amendment Bill 2008." [Accessed 16 Apr. 2009]
_____. 23 September 2008. "Supreme Court Approves for CBI Probe into Ghaziabad PF Scam." [Accessed 16 Apr. 2009]

The Times of India [New Delhi]. 17 March 2009. Dhananjay Mahapatra. "Panel to Pave Way for Justice Sen's Ouster." [Accessed 17 Apr. 2009]
_____. 8 January 2009. Manoj Mitta. "CJI not Exempt from RTI Purview, CIC Tells SC." (Factiva).
_____. 10 September 2008. Dhananjay Mahapatra. "UP Cops Want CBI Probe Against 34 Judges." [Accessed 15 Apr. 2009]
_____. 9 September 2008. "Kolkata Judge's Case Adds to Judiciary Woes." [Accessed 17 Apr. 2009]

Transparency International (TI). 2007. Global Corruption Report 2007: Corruption in Judicial Systems. [Accessed 9 Apr. 2009]

World Bank. N.d. "Governance in India." [Accessed 15 Apr. 2009]

Additional Sources Consulted

Oral sources, including: The International Commission of Jurists, Global Integrity, National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), Combat Law, People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL), Cyrus R. Vance Center for International Justice Initiatives, Hindustan Times, a Professor at the National Law University of Delhi, and a Professor at the University of Michigan did not provide information within the time constraints of this Response.

Internet sites, including: American Bar Association, Asia Times, Combat Law, The Economist, European Country of Origin Information Network (ecoi.net), Far Eastern Economic Review, Global Integrity, Human Rights First, IndLaw.com, Ministry of Law and Justice – India, National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL), Supreme Court of India, United Nations (UN) Development Programme, UN Integrated Regional Information Networks (IRIN), UN Office on Drugs and Crime.

Topics: Corruption, Independence of judiciary,

Copyright notice: This document is published with the permission of the copyright holder and producer Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB). The original version of this document may be found on the offical website of the IRB at http://www.irb-cisr.gc.ca/en/. Documents earlier than 2003 may be found only on Refworld.

Wednesday, July 29, 2009

Andhra Pradesh High Court's Pernicious Rebellion Against The Law .

from divakar snatarajan
to cjap@ap.nic.in
date Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 7:28 PM
subject Serious Apprehensions Regarding The Judicial Conduct Of Hon’ble Judge Shri VVS Rao in WP 20182
mailed-by gmail.com



The Chief Justice of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh,

Hon'ble Shri Anil Ramesh Dave,

Andhra Pradesh High Court

Hyderabad. December 10, 2008



Serious Apprehensions Regarding The Judicial Conduct of Hon'ble Judge Shri VVS Rao in WP 20182


Your Honour,

I have been constrained to conclude for the following reasons, that the Hon'ble Judge Shri VVS Rao is conducting this hearing for the admission of my mandamus writ petition, in a frivolous and vexatious manner and with a transparent intention to trivialise, humiliate and defeat me and minimise the onus of the all powerful respondents:

1. Despite repeated requests and mention that I have had to struggle with the Andhra Pradesh High Court Legal Services Committee since a year, the Hon'ble Judge has not made any visible effort to provide me with sound legal counsel. This lapse, in a case as serious as this, is similar to the intriguing insanity of repeatedly sending ill equipped persons into harm's way.

2. The Hon'ble Judge has not taken any notice of the contempt that till date, the State Information Commission has not issued a counter. The SIC's counsel has not even appeared in court.

3. The Hon'ble Judge has gratuitously and reflexively taken every opportunity to jeer and ridicule me in my deprived and defenseless state while remaining mute on the grave infractions committed by the all powerful respondents and by others.

4. After my presentation of the decisive evidence ordered by the Hon'ble Judge, he has granted the respondents an untimely, abrupt and lavish adjournment and since then appears to have lost his initial enthusiasm to conduct the hearing.

Your Honour, I plead with you to kindly help me with a legal counsel, with the necessary intellectual, psychological and professional maturity, to productively partner me in the successful conduct of this important case.

I request you to kindly ensure that the relevant affidavits are meticulously mastered and cases are heard properly by an unimpeachable legal authority, without any dilatoriness, obfuscation or other appearance of bias.

I also request you to take any other actions that you may think fit to compensate me for the delays I have suffered and to restore my confidence in the judicial conduct of the Andhra Pradesh High Court.

Sincerely, I am

Divakar S Natarajan

Attachments:

1. Detailed account of "Serious apprehensions..." 2. "Compelling Criminality" – a bare account of Divakar's individual sathyagraha against corruption




The Chief Justice of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh,

Hon’ble Shri Anil Ramesh Dave,

Andhra Pradesh High Court

Hyderabad November 23, 2008



Re:

STATUS OF: WP 20182 of 2008

STAGE: ADMISSION (GAD) DIVAKAR S. NATARAJAN, HYD V/S STATE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER, HYD & 2 OTHERS

Pet.Advocate: PARTY-IN-PERSON

Res.Advocate: GP FOR GENERAL ADMINISTRATION

SR-Number: / District: HYDERABAD Lower Court Number: Subject: GENERAL ADMINISTRTION DEPT. (MISC.MATTERS)

Last Time Listed On: 21-Nov-2008

Next Date Of Listing: 05-Dec-2008 Misc. Petitions filed: WPMP 26356/2008 Connected Matters:na



Sub: Serious Apprehensions Regarding The Conduct Of WP 20182 of 2008



Your Honour,

On February 20, 2008 I had appealed for the services of the Andhra Pradesh High Court Legal Services Committee through an exhaustively documented and comprehensively descriptive application.

My application documented serious illegalities and maladministration by the State Information Commissioner and the Chief Secretary, Government Of Andhra Pradesh.

It appears that after approximately one month of my application, on 12 March 2008, the Committee sought independent legal opinion from its counsel on the matter. Approximately forty days later, on 25 April, 2008, the advocate advanced his opinions in favour.

Following the receipt of the favourable legal opinion, the Committee then commenced its search for a counsel to represent me.

According to the Secretary, the search was conducted among fledgling lawyers who were looking to augment their nascent practices by performing routine legal chores for the Committee.

They were all shown my papers and one after another they all refused. The Secretary then proceeded to inform me that the Chairman had asked him to inform me that he believed that the Committee had done its best for me and it could do no further.

When I requested him to kindly fix an appointment for me to appeal to the Chairman, he informed me that the Chairman did not wish to meet me or hear my appeal.

Memorably he said, “You cannot argue with a judge”.

I did not give up and immediately called the Hon’ble Judge’s chamber to seek an appointment. I was lucky and the Hon’ble Judge himself picked up the phone and kindly gave me an appointment that very afternoon. He heard me patiently, enquired from me as to why I could not appear as party in person, and when I demurred that I had no knowledge either of all the legal ramifications of my situation nor any experience of judicial procedure or my rights in a court room, he instructed the Secretary to file the papers and recommence the search.

It was decided that the same lawyer who had offered his opinion would be requested to prepare the papers. The papers were prepared by July.

After several false starts– queried and returned by Registry for being filed as a CLP, necessitating another meeting with the Chairman – missing documents – incomplete index etc – the Secretary had entrusted the job to the junior most clerk - they were finally filed on 22nd August 2008.

I have repeatedly informed the hon’ble judges that all the relevant papers may not have been filed.

However, no legal counsel had been appointed yet. This lapse, in a case as serious as this one, is similar to the intriguing insanity of repeatedly sending ill equipped persons into harm’s way.

The case was posted before the Hon’ble Justice N V Ramana and the Secretary whispered into the ears of the hon’ble judge and sought two adjournments.

When the Committee appeared to have finally found a lawyer, she unfortunately took strong exception to my unwillingness to blindly sign the vakalatnama without meeting her.

Memorably she said,” You cannot ask any questions if you come to Legal Services. If you want to ask questions, engage your own lawyer. “

Now the hon’ble judge kindly summoned a senior advocate to his chamber - I was not present - and later instructed me to meet him.

I spent two hours to pick up the papers from the Committee and met him punctually at his residence at the appointed minute.

This lawyer, had not properly informed himself of the facts of my case, but attempted to interrogate me about what my intentions were with my litigation.

This was curious considering that he had not made any assurance that he was accepting my case.

This man finally informed me that he was appearing in a major case the following day and instructed me to present myself before the hon’ble judge and request yet another adjournment.

I had to travel all the way from Begumpet to the High Court just to perform a menial chore and ask for yet another adjournment.

Two days later, when I called this lawyer, he instructed me to ask for another fortnight’s adjournment. When I started to demur, he flatly informed me that he would not accept my case. He did not give me any reasons.

In the meanwhile, the hon’ble judge had perused my affidavits and had issued a fortnight’s notice to the respondents.

When I appeared at his court a fortnight later, the respondents had not prepared their counter.

The hon’ble judge expressed his displeasure, warned that he may have to personally summon the respondents to the court, and gave them another ten days.

When I appeared ten days later, I had to do a lot of running around before I finally discovered that the hon’ble judge VVS Rao would now hear the case.


Hon’ble Judge Shri VVS Rao hears the case:


During the very first hearing, I was perplexed by the hon’ble judge’s apparent lack of preparedness and his unfortunate reflex of making cruel remarks .


The Hon’ble Judge opened by asking me to introduce myself. “Mass communicator? What is that?” I then proceeded to talk about my documentary and gave a sketchy account of what I call my sathyagraha.

Given that my affidavit contained a reasonable account of my work and ordeal, I had to wonder whether the hon’ble judge had chosen to make a spectacle and had sought to belittle me in some fashion.

Later I informed the hon’ble judge that I was severely handicapped because I had not received my constitutional right for competent, independent legal

counsel. “But why cannot you represent yourself?” enquired the Hon’ble judge, “You appear to present yourself quite well.”

I respectfully informed the hon’ble judge, that it was not just a simple matter of presenting myself before a judge.

I informed him that till date I did not have any competent independent legal opinion of the issues and opportunities in my case.

Even as a layman, I was not satisfied with the papers that were filed. I did not know what my courtroom rights were.

“I am aware of my limitations,” I informed the hon’ble judge, “This is a serious litigation and I feel myself to be severely handicapped by a lack of proper counsel and representation.”

“I like to think of myself as an ethical person, but I am not familiar with the processes of the judicial system.”

To my disappointment, the hon’ble judge responded with a comment that was as alarming for its pedestrian, uninsightful nature as it was for its cruel and disparaging spirit.

“Oh!” exclaimed the judge,”Ethical! But no money!”

This was nothing short of a gratuitous verbal slap on my face, but I retained my composure and open mindedness to be able to respond, “True Sir, but my devotion to ethics seems to be perversely validated by the global financial tsunami.”

The hon’ble judge did not respond.

There have been three hearings held on consecutive days since, but during every hearing I have had to raise my voice and counter the hon’ble judge, “Your honour. With due respect you do not appear to be familiar with my affidavits and papers. You appear to be confused.”

My serious request for counsel had been brushed aside.

The respondents’ lawyers were never questioned and during this continuing one sided spectacle, the hon’ble judge was observably too preoccupied with his inquisition to offer me even the plain courtesy of a podium to place my papers.

It was only on the third day, the penultimate day of this four day chunk that the hon’ble judge permitted himself to reveal some grasp of my affidavits.

Given that the nub of the Chief Secretary’s counter is the prima facie absurd assertion that there are no documents to support my claim that the former Chief Minister had made repeated representations to the Former Information & Broadcasting Ministers on my behalf, and my assertion that copies were physically presented to the former CS, presented again in the form of a completely documented CD and also emailed by me to the former Chief Secretary and that these documents appeared to have been wantonly destroyed or lost to justify the administration’s negligence – the hon’ble judge now asked me whether I could produce copies of the emails that I had claimed to have sent to the former Chief Secretary.

I affirmed that I could and informed the hon’ble court that I had indeed forwarded them to the Secretary, Legal Services, the hon’ble judge directed me to produce them in court on the following day.

On the following day I forwarded the same to the hon’ble judge’s email address and informed his office accordingly. The hon’ble judge’s personal secretary then informed me that the hon’ble judge had kindly advised me to present them in a sealed envelope to the Registrar’s office to be forwarded to the court.

I briefed the Secretary, Legal services accordingly but noticed that all that the Secretary had done was put a single copy in a plain envelope, staple it and present the same through his attender to the hon’ble judge’s clerk in the court.

While I was horrified by this willful abuse of procedure and the hon’ble judge grimaced as he received the envelope I noticed that he did not utter a single,reprimanding word.

He scrutinized it and passed it on to the opposing counsel and asked them to make copies for themselves and also present a copy to me.

It does not appear as if this crucial evidence has yet been registered.

Then to my complete surprise, the hon’ble judge chose to adjourn the matter for another fifteen days. He did not ask whether I had any objections.

I believe the hon’ble judge’s adjournment was untimely, abrupt and amounted to a lavish gift to the all powerful respondents at my cost.

The hon’ble judge’s 15 day adjournment was untimely because my emails- including copies of the former CM’s letters, knocked the base out of the respondents’ flimsy assertions.

It categorically proved the falsity of their affidavits and demonstrated that I had done everything I humanly could and that they had abused an already stretched judicial process by willfully provoking my litigation.

To offer them a long adjournment at this point was untimely.

The hon’ble judge’s 15 day adjournment was abrupt. Why a sudden 15 day adjournment after having continuously heard the case for four days?

The hon’ble judge’s 15 day adjournment amounted to a lavish gift to the all powerful respondents at my cost.

If the hon’ble judge had asked me I would have brought to his attention the fact that the respondents had been given ample time to present their counter. The previous judge hearing the case had first given them a fortnight’s notice and then a further ten days.

There can be no question that the hon’ble judge’s 15 day adjournment had the unfortunate appearance of largesse to the all powerful respondents at my cost.

Finally, I have noted with concern, that the case against the State Information Commissioner has till date not been countered by their counsel. Indeed it does not appear that their counsel has even made an appearance in the court.

The hon’ble judge has not yet indicated that he has noticed this casual and contemptuous behaviour of the State Information Commissioner.

Your Honour, for the above reasons I have been constrained to conclude that the Hon’ble judge Shri VVS Rao has conducted this hearing both in substance and style in a frivolous, vexatious manner with a transparent intention to trivialize and humiliate me and favour the all powerful respondents.

The continued dysfunctionality of the Andhra Pradesh High Court Legal Services Committee in my case, since almost a year, and its manifest philosophical confusion and organizational decrepitude analogous to reported situations in which ordinary police stations refuse to record First Information Reports, also begs the serious question whether there exists in the Andhra Pradesh High Court a crushing bias in favour of the rich and powerful that is subsidised by the ordinary embattled citizen.

Your Honour, I plead with you to kindly help me with a legal counsel, with the necessary intellectual, psychological and professional maturity, to productively partner me in the successful conduct of this important case.

I request you to kindly ensure that the relevant affidavits are meticulously mastered and cases are heard properly by an unimpeachable legal authority, without any dilatoriness or any other appearance of bias.

I also request you to take any other actions, that you may think fit to compensate me for the delays I have suffered and to restore my confidence in the judicial conduct of the Andhra Pradesh High Court.

Sincerely, I am



Divakar S Natarajan



Excuse Me, Your Honour ?!?

from divakar snatarajan
to cjap@ap.nic.in
date Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 11:12 AM
subject Re:Serious Apprehensions Regarding The Judicial Conduct Of Hon’ble Judge Shri VVS Rao in WP 20182 dtd December 10, 2008
mailed-by gmail.com



The Chief Justice of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh,

Hon'ble Shri Anil Ramesh Dave,

Andhra Pradesh High Court

Hyderabad. December 18, 2008


Sub: Further to Serious Apprehensions Regarding The Judicial Conduct Of Hon'ble Judge Shri VVS Rao in WP 20182 dtd December 10,2008


Your Honour,

Responding to my telephonic inquiry, your personal secretary kindly informed me yesterday that Your Honour had kindly perused my email to Your Honour and attachments on the above subject and had decided not to take any action.

I shall be deeply grateful if you would kindly confirm to me whether I have heard and understood your response correctly.

Sincerely,
Divakar S Natarajan


A Pernicious Rebellion Against The Law Of The Land

from divakar snatarajan
to cjap@ap.nic.in
date Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 9:52 AM
subject Re:Serious Apprehensions Regarding The Judicial Conduct Of Hon’ble Judge Shri VVS Rao in WP 20182 dtd December 10, 2008
mailed-by gmail.com



The Chief Justice of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh,

Hon'ble Shri Anil Ramesh Dave,

Andhra Pradesh High Court

Hyderabad. December 31, 2008


Sub: Further to Serious Apprehensions Regarding The Judicial Conduct Of Hon'ble Judge Shri VVS Rao in WP 20182 dtd December 10,2008 & December 18,2008


Your Honor,

May I request your kind attention towards the clear and unequivocal statements of the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India, reported in the press yesterday

These views endorse,without any shadow of doubt, my assesment of the conduct of the hearing of my writ petition 20182 , in the court of Hon'ble Judge Shri VVS Rao, as a vitiated spectacle and waste of valuable time.

They reiterate and underscore the reasonableness of my requests made to your kind self.

Given my experiences with APHCLC that I have described to you, the Chief Justice's views indicate that your Hon'ble Court may have been in pernicious rebellion of the law of the land.

A statement of bitter truth.

But it is certainly one that I have laboured mightily over one year to avoid.

Your honour,judicial time is paid for, but mine is not.

My elderly mother, my daughter and myself have been have been humiliated and tortured since two decades, not for any damage that we have inflicted on society, but because of our steadfast refusal to do so.

Your silence does not give us any relief.

I feel now that I have no option but to pray that whatever Muse of Justice there is will kiss your brows with inspiration and enlighten you to seek truth from the facts, carefully consider cause and effect and do justice without fear, favour or ill will and most of all, with speed.

Sincerely,

Divakar S Natarajan


Judicial Game Of "Pass The Parcel" ?



from divakar snatarajan
to cjap@ap.nic.in
date Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 5:23 PM
subject Judicial Game of "Pass the Parcel" ?
mailed-by gmail.com


The Chief Justice of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh,

Hon'ble Shri Anil Ramesh Dave,

Andhra Pradesh High Court

Hyderabad. January 15, 2009


Sub: Further to Serious Apprehensions Regarding The Judicial Conduct Of Hon'ble Judge Shri VVS Rao in WP 20182 dtd December 10, 2008 , December 18, 2008 and December 31,2008.


Your Honour,

It appears that Hon'ble Judge Shri L Narayana Reddy will now hear my nearly year old petition for a mandamus writ.My petition appears as No.105/- in his list, which going by my earlier experience would take close to another ten days to come up.

While this probably represents an improvement over the earlier shocking "file and forget" response, I am unable to read it as anything more than a frail and reluctant admission of delinquency by the Hon'ble Court.

I have to most respectfully submit to Your Honour, that I am not satisfied that the AP High Court has adequately felt the depth and volume of the cynical and unrelenting breach of trust and torture, that it has perpetrated on me over the period of nearly one year through its
slovenly judicial conduct in a matter that has passed prima facie muster of allegations of serious illegality in two of the most powerful offices in the state.

The AP High Court's action to change the Judge hearing my nearly year old petition for a writ,coming as it does baldly and without any explanation,contains no expression of commiseration, compassion, empathy or remorse, no assurance that the previously enacted sordid drama will not be visited on me again and leaves the matter of relief entirely to my currently overburdened imagination.

In the circumstances, the mere act of changing the judge is too nuanced a gesture to be interpreted as anything other than a continuation of spectacle.

The Hon'ble court may want to consider drawing a thicker line that distinguishes self serving gesture from an act of ripe justice.

Sincerely,

Divakar S Natarajan


Thank God For Kasab! Thank God For The Satyam Fiasco !


from divakar snatarajan
to cjap@ap.nic.in
date Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 8:43 PM
subject Thank God For Kasab! Thank God For The Satyam Fiasco!
mailed-by gmail.com

hide details Jan 18


Reply

Follow up message

The Chief Justice of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh,

Hon'ble Shri Anil Ramesh Dave,

Andhra Pradesh High Court

Hyderabad. January 18, 2009


Sub: Further to Serious Apprehensions Regarding The Judicial Conduct Of Hon'ble Judge Shri VVS Rao in WP 20182 dtd December 10, 2008 , December 18, 2008 and December 31,2008 & Judicial Game of "Pass the Parcel" ? of January 15,2009.


You Honour,

May I request your kind attention to the article by Nirmalya Kumar,Co-Director, Aditya Birla India Centre at London Business School,titled "Satyam: Not Yet India's Enron". Times of India January 18,2009.

In this article, Prof Kumar makes the point that unless the Indian system demonstrates the nous to deal with this crisis with the 4Cs,namely, Candour (accepting failure) Contrition (accepting responsibility) Compassion (showing concern for those adversely affected) and Commitment (to solving the crisis), it runs the risk of damaging its credibility as a place where grown ups can make investments and do business.

You may recall that this was more or less verbatim, my prayer to you in my email of January 15,2009.

I once again request you to answer my solemn prayers with the 4 Cs.

Sincerely,

Divakar S Natarajan


The Mafia Does Quietus



from divakar snatarajan
to cjap@ap.nic.in
date Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 1:31 PM
subject The Mafia Does Quietus.



The Chief Justice of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh,

Hon'ble Shri Anil Ramesh Dave,

Andhra Pradesh High Court

Hyderabad. February 2, 2009


Sub: Further to Serious Apprehensions Regarding The Judicial Conduct Of Hon'ble Judge Shri VVS Rao in WP 20182 dtd December 10, 2008 , December 18, 2008 and December 31,2008 , Judicial Game of "Pass the Parcel" ? of January 15,2009 & "Thank God For Kasab. Thank God For The Satyam Fiasco"



Your Honour,

Unfortunately my apprehensions that your kind but mild intervention of changing the Judge would not significantly change the year long partisan, authoritarian and degrading character of the court towards my plea appear to have come true.

The Andhra Pradesh High Court continues to behave like a submissive crony of the Chief Secretary, APGOV and the State Information Commissioner.

* If the Honourable High Court of Andhra Pradesh is unable to enlist the services of a single professionally mature advocate who will partner me, why does the court not come clean in the public interest and say so?

* Once again the court took no notice, when I pointed out that the counsel for the State Information Commissioner had not bothered to, till date, make an appearance in the court or even issue a counter.

* With the submission by the GP for GAD of a material paper containing letter no 44130/I&PR-11/A2/2008-1 dtd 4 December 2008 from Pri Secy to Govt (GAD) to Secy, I&B Govt of India enclosing,

" 1. GMail from Divakar S Natarajan dated 29-07-05 and 20-11-08.
2.Letter from former Chief MInister of AP dated 17.05.1998 17-07-1999 and 03.06.1997.
3.Letter from Member of Parliament(Lok Sabha), Ex Home Minister (not named but Shri Indrajit Gupta) dated 18.12.1999.
4. Letter from Leader of Opposition, Rajya Sabha, New Delhi (not named but Jaipal Reddy) dated 03.06.92."

the GAD's counter has collapsed.

It is evident that the GP for GAD 's counter is false and misleading in its entirety and exposes the reckless and perverse defamation that I and my family were made to suffer all these years because of administrative negligence and inhuman denial at the highest level.

The GP for GAD's counter clearly constitutes a callous abuse of the judicial process.

However, the Hon'ble Judge Shri L Narasimha Reddy hearing my case has not given any sign that he has noticed this collapse and has judged its implications.

Like the famous leg spinner Shri BS Chandrasekhar is reported to have asked of the cagey Kiwi umpire, I too have to ask, "I know he is bowled. But is he out?"

* In my affidavit, I had stated," The government files provided by the Deputy Secretary/PIO GAD, make obvious the following points:

a. The Chief Secretary APGOV has taken a personal interest and has personally directed the disposal of my file.

b. That at every stage, all significant information has been withheld and false and misleading information has been provided.


However, the Hon'ble Judge Shri L Narasimha Reddy hearing my case has, in a clear attempt to mitigate the onus of the all powerful respondent, not made any mention of this nor enquired about the basis or evidence for my claim.

The "government files" that I mention were part of my application to the APHCLSA. Despite my incessant urging, the Secy/ Aphclsc refused to include these papers to support my affidavit.


* The Hon'ble Judge Shri L Narasimha Reddy has indicated via the sneak peek that he gave of his impending judgement, that he intends to endorse the State Information Commission' s fabrications and the most extreme illegality, namely that of administering a public institution like a private estate.


In order to achieve his dubious purpose of subverting the very idea of rule of law and the judicial process as a check and balance on a delinquent administration, he has indicated, that he intends to rubber stamp, the State Information Commissioner's assault on, of all things, my facility with the English language.


A wise and independent judge, in full possession of his faculties, who cares about the continued health and effectiveness of the RTI Act 2005, may have viewed my refusal to be cowed down by the corrupt SIC's repeated intimidation as an unusual -especially given the multiple collapse of so called "independent" professionals in the horrific Satyam fiasco - act of doughty public responsibility.

But this hon'ble judge has indicated that like an adolescent ( authoritarian, sado masochistic) class monitor, willing at all costs to keep the affection of his master, he intends to admonish me for my alleged "excessive rights consciousness".

This is preposterous, considering that independent, informed and patriotic Indian citizens might consider that currently the most egregious example of "excessive rights consciousness" is emanating from the highest court of our land in its infantile (narcissistic) squall to privilege itself from the reach of the RTI Act 2005.

* The Hon'ble Judge's confession of doubts:

Just before concluding his preview of his judgement, the Hon'ble Judge confessed that he did not consider himself perfect and that I could always appeal his judgement.

In the earlier session, I had to request the Hon'ble Judge Reddy to kindly desist from using self disparaging statements as a device to escape responsibility and to covertly shift blame on the the receiving party. A kind of double entendre.

In view of the facts and opinions that I have already listed, it would be appropriate to read the Hon'ble Judge's 'generous' advice as an irresponsible confession of his doubts , confusion and unconscious guilt regarding his impending judgement.

* A mad curial chorus for "quietus"

In the court of the Hon'ble Judge Shri VVS Rao, I heard the GP for GAD request the Hon'ble Judge, " Judge Saab ab isko khatham kar do" " My Lord, now you must put a quietus to this"

His wish was immediately granted." Hahn, my isko abhi khatham kar doonga." "Yes.Yes. I shall put a quietus to this."

That is when I screamed. "This man is lying, Your Honour. The GAD's affidavit is a pack of lies."

The sheer viscerality of my scream must have gotten to the Hon'ble Judge. That is when he asked me whether I could present copies of the former CM's correspondence. This correspondence has demolished the key stone of the GAD's affidavit which has collapsed.

The Hon'ble Judge Shri L Narasimha Reddy surprised me when he said in conclusion, that he had now put a quietus to the matter.

A vibrant judge may be expected to display and demonstrate, "a passion for independence, a passion for justice, a passion to serve the unfolding of life" - Erich Fromm. Anatomy of Human Destructiveness."

To be subject to this open clamour for putting a quietus on me is quiet unpleasant.

Judges do Justice. Hoodlums do quietus.

Your Honour. I request you to kindly request the Hon'ble Judge Shri L Narasimha Reddy to keep his judgement of my WP 20182/08 in abeyance, while you consider a suitable recourse that will serve the ends of justice, keeping in my mind that my resources and confidence are quite close to breaking point.

Sincerely,

Divakar S Natarajan


An Absurdly Prejudiced And Dishonest Judgement


from divakar snatarajan
to cjap@ap.nic.in
date Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 7:57 PM
subject Honour My Constitutional Right For Timely And Effective Legal Counsel And Aid.
mailed-by gmail.com


The Chief Justice of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh,

Hon'ble Shri Anil Ramesh Dave,

Andhra Pradesh High Court

Hyderabad. February 5, 2009


Sub: Further to Serious Apprehensions Regarding The Judicial Conduct Of Hon'ble Judge Shri VVS Rao in WP 20182 dtd December 10, 2008 , December 18, 2008 and December 31,2008 , Judicial Game of "Pass the Parcel" ? of January 15,2009, "Thank God For Kasab. Thank God For The Satyam Fiasco" & " The Mafia Does Quietus" of February 2, 2009



Your Honour,

As feared, the Hon'ble Judge Shri L Narasimha Reddy has dismissed my WP 20182/08.

Given my earlier unhappy experience with the APHCLSA, I have no alternative but to demand your aegis to receive my constitutional right for timely and effective legal counsel and aid, in order that I may consider and pursue my legal options.

Sincerely,

Divakar S Natarajan


Has The Message From Chennai been heard In Hyderabad ?

from divakar snatarajan
to cjap@ap.nic.in
date Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 1:25 PM
subject Has The Message From Chennai Been Heard In Hyderabad ?
mailed-by gmail.com

hide details Feb 23


Reply

Follow up message
The Chief Justice of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh,

Hon'ble Shri Anil Ramesh Dave,

Andhra Pradesh High Court

Hyderabad. February 5, 2009

Sub: Further to Serious Apprehensions Regarding The Judicial Conduct Of Hon'ble Judge Shri VVS Rao in WP 20182 dtd December 10, 2008 , December 18, 2008 and December 31,2008 , Judicial Game of "Pass the Parcel" ? of January 15,2009, "Thank God For Kasab. Thank God For The Satyam Fiasco" & " The Mafia Does Quietus" of February 2, 2009 & Honour My Constitutional Right For Timely And Effective Legal Counsel And Aid or February 5,2009


Your Honour,

Responding to advice from your office, I presented myself before your PS the week before last, to follow up on my request to your kind self .

When I called last week, Mr Sridhar Rao, communicated to me that the feeling was that the APHC could not cooperate with me, because I was "digging into" the judges.

Given that there has been no positive response from your end, I have to assume that your office is with deliberate ambiguity, conveying that it has no qualms about abusing its considerable powers to collude in the cover up of serious illegality in high places and to hound a patriotic sathyagrahi into submission to its ignorant, ill conceived, ragging.

Fortunately the events at the Chennai High Court have come at the right time to demonstrate exactly how our courts revel in being a law unto themselves and in holding innocent people hostages to their diseased vanities.

As a loving and constructive Indian who has sacrificed two of the best decades of his life for the cause of an law abiding society, I am in no mood to humour your vanity.

I hope that the pre Talibanic style events would have sobered sections of the legal community who would at least now see my sathyagraha against Indian idiocy in its proper perspective.

I look forward to an intelligent response from you at your earliest convenience.

Sincerely,

Divakar S Natarajan

Thursday, July 16, 2009

A Little Ethics ?


Retribution Is Good - But Who Qualifies ?


The Raging American was a walking IED .

He was a threat to himself and others.

He was lucky to find Shri Keillor - a reader, thinker and writer with obvious self esteem issues.

He could have found one of those multitude of Americans who pack guns and are itching to test them.

He has probably dehumanised his wife to "quivering jelly" or worse.

His children are probably growing up as potential Michael Jacksons - defenseless against the "normalities" of existence.

He either was or will soon be fired.

Do we "forgive" this carrier of calamities or do we show him some tough love?

But how many among us have any idea what love is?

I was well into my thirties, before I lucked upon a Rabbi's son who could explain love, psychoses and related issues, with a perspective that I found appealing.With only marginal and clearly awkward traces of ethnocentricity or hubris .(Erich Fromm - start with Man For Himself).

Justice is brilliant and necessary, but why is it that 21 centuries after a martyrdom considered significant by a large mass of the ruling elite of the planet and ages of human experience and wisdom we are unable to cast stones and deliver healing and life?

The moral of Shri Keillor's complex parable appears clear - Tat Tvam Asi - That Thou Art and we have a lot of growing up to do.

Welcome to Divakar's Sathyagraha - News and views from Divakar S Natarajan's, "no excuses", ultra peaceful, non partisan, individual sathyagraha against corruption and for the idea of the rule of law in India. Now in its 18th year.

http://sathyagraha.blogspot.com/

I would love to hear from you.

And what's with this software. Shri Keillor's name goes unnoticed but all non anglo saxon stuff is underlined in red !

-- divakarssathya
[Read divakarssathya's other letters]
July 15, 2009 10:36 PM

Where's the anger over cruelty?
Garrison Keillor writing at Salon.com

Friday, July 10, 2009

RTI Act 2005 Abuse In Andhra Pradesh- SIC Cheats! Chief Secretary Lies!

Shri D Subramanyam,
Member Secretary,
Andhra Pradesh State Legal Services Authority,
High Court Of Andhra Pradesh,

Hyderabad. February 20, 2008



Appeal For Legal Services Towards Filing A Public Interest Litigation To Call Attention To Maladministration Of The AP State Information Commission, The Office of the Chief Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh and to seek a remedial writ.


Sir,


Further to our meeting on February 15, 2008, I thank you and Shri T Venkatesvara Reddy, Administrative Officer, for giving me a kind and patient hearing and useful advice on the course to follow to avail the invaluable services of the APSLSA.


I wish to state the following regarding my experiences with AP State Information Commission and later with the Chief Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh.


Andhra Pradesh State Information Commission:

Since I was not familiar with the RTI Act 2005, and since I am not very intimate with our legal processes, I fixed an appointment and met with Shri Radhakrishna, PS to State Information Commissioner Shri CD Arha and on his advice met Shri Mohan Krishniah, Secretary (Law), SIC on Oct O4, 2006.


I drafted my request for information with Shri Krishniah’s advice and his office kindly typed my petition, which met with his approval.


Shri Ramakrishna, then called and fixed an appointment with Ms Soodamani, Dy Secy, GAD at the Secretariat and advised me to hand my petition to her in person.


However when I went to the Secretariat, I was told that the Dy Secy had left and that I could not enter the Secretariat to hand my petition to anybody else.


Two weeks later, on October 23th, after daily telephone follow up by me, I was once again asked by Shri Ramakrishna to meet the concerned officer at the secretariat.


While I was allowed to meet the officer on this occasion, once again she refused to accept my petition, I was made to walk from one corner of the secretariat to the other in the hot sun, taken to the Chief Secretary’s office by another officer of the GAD and this office also refused to receive my petition.


No grounds were offered for the rejection of my petition.


However I left a copy with the tapaal section, and got my petition date stamped.


In this condition, I once again met Shri Krishniah. He advised me to file a complaint, under section 18(1) of the RTI Act which once again was typed by his office and submitted immediately.


Along with the complaint I also submitted a copy of one of my previous emails to the then Chief Secretary Shri Mohan Kanda as reference to my petition for information.


I later learnt that, under the RTI Act 2005, there was no need to do this. There was no need to disclose the reason for my request for information.



Summoned to meet with State Information Commissioner:


Despite calling the PS to SIC on several occasions, I found that he could not provide me with any further information on the progress of my case.


Sometime in late November 2006, the Private Secretary to the Chief Information Commissioner suggested that the Commissioner had expressed a desire to meet me.


When I arrived for my appointment, he informed me that the Commissioner was busy and that he had advised me to meet Shri K Mangapathi Rao, IAS Secretary - Administration.


Shri Rao spoke to me about various general, unrelated subjects, and but did not answer my query regarding the status of my case.


I shared with him all the information in the public domain, regarding the apparent duplicity of the former AP government and the apathy of the present government and the consequent nearly ostracizing effect on the lives and liberties of myself and my family. (This is detailed in “Excellence Vs Perversity” in the appended current file.


A shocking judgment from the Chief Information Commissioner:


It can be seen that the judgment is draconian and does not carry even a bare pretense of the RTI Act 2005.


Standing section 19(5) regarding onus of proof, on its head, the CIC proceeds to plead for the erring PIO.


He does this by concocting a baseless allegation of lack of specificity and insists; repeatedly and in a most outlandish fashion, that I surrender my right to not reveal the reason for requesting the information or any other personal details (Section 6(1) and 6(2).


When I refuse, repeatedly, to gratify his clearly illegal and illicit demand for information, that has no relevance whatsoever for the adjudication of my case, he proceeds to punish me by dismissing my lawful complaint, drafted by his own legal adviser.



Request for information from APSIC dismissed on dubious grounds:


It can be seen that my application dated November 6, 2007, regarding all information, inputs, and advices on the final disposal of my appeal has been dismissed on spurious grounds.


Chief Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh:


On July 18, 2007, I once again sent a request for information to the Chief Secretary.

From Application To Chief Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh.


This request is identical in content and wording to the earlier request faulted by the State Information Commissioner on grounds of lack of “specificity”.


As can be seen, this time “specificity” or the lack of it was never an issue – thus conclusively establishing the falsity of the Commissioner’s allegation.

From PIO (GAD)s 1st response




However, my requests for information have, despite clear evidence of the Chief Secretary’s intervention in the matter, been responded to by a series of false and misleading responses.


My appeals to the appellate authority have been rejected.



My requests for an appointment with the Chief Secretary have not been entertained.


My request for clarifications from the Chief Secretary, filed as a fresh petition under RTI Act 2005, has also been rejected.





Persona Non Grata for my loyalty to the rule of law:


The Supreme Court of India was recently forced to chastise the Government of Andhra Pradesh for the alacrity and doggedness with which APGOV sought to release prisoners serving life sentences after conviction of heinous crimes.


The duplicity with which I have been treated (as described in “Excellence Vs Perversity”) appears to be the other side of the coin of lawless predatoriness that unfortunately appears to have gained force and currency in India today.


My innocent quest to abide by the idea of the rule of law and thus preserve my life and liberty has turned into a virtual struggle for survival.


I have been unable to earn an income since the past two decades. I do not possess a bank account.


In this totally unprovoked contest, I have only been supported by my mother, Smt Kanti Rajan MA BEd – who retired after nearly two decades of service at the Hyderabad Public School, Begumpet and who since the past 12 years has been conducting a Preschool in the Begumpet area.


It is evident that even her enterprise has been seriously hobbled by our family’s unwillingness to conform to the prevailing “kickback culture”.


Under the above circumstances, I appeal for support from your esteemed authority, in order that I receive the satisfactions that I am due under the law.

Sincerely


Divakar S Natarajan


Esteemed readers may click on the documents displayed on the slide show to reach the album. Here the documents are displayed in the right size. The album also has a magnifying glass facility on the top right.

Tuesday, June 23, 2009

Defreezing Comrade Gupta

From Gentle Revolutionary


To read my profile of Indrajit Gupta, please click on the link or the picture. This will take you to Picasa. If the picture appears too small, please click on the picture. It will enlarge and will display a magnifying glass facility on the top right.



I took the first readable draft of Gentle Revolutionary to Harish Khare at The Hindu. Zip... zip...zip... in not more than ten seconds Khare appeared to have read it and put it on his in tray.

"Arre baba, this is just a draft. Give me a response." I pleaded.

"What response ?" Khare grimaced and said nothing.

Harish Khare is too cool to respond to pleas from the likes of a Divakar S Natarajan.

Google "Gentle Revolutionary" today and you will find around four thousand results. Including one from the Soviet archives. But this was a year before Google and I thought I had minted it.

The 2003, Kamal Haasan, Madhavan, starrer "Anbe Sivan" is without a doubt inspired by this article and it would be nice if somebody out there admitted it.

From Shri Indrajit Gupta With My Little One


From Smt Gita Mukherji, Hon'ble Member Of Parliament, Lok Sabha


From Shri Harish Khare

Tuesday, June 16, 2009

Shiney Ahuja Versus The Chief Information Commissioner Of India

In India today, where the systems of delivery of justice are in a frightfully derelict state, mutual consent is a mutual delusion.





A Chief Information Commissioner who has systematically perverted the RTI Act 2005 is no less psychotic, no less heinous and an infinitely larger menace to Indian society than an individual who has run amok.

And those who just stand silently and watch this violence, let me just say, they have lost the right to innocence.

Consider the facts: A suffering Indian citizen, petitions that his life and liberty have been conspiratorially incarcerated since decades, and submits impeccable evidence in support of his plea.

CIC contemptuously dismisses his plea and further counsels the petitioner to submit to the arbitrariness of officials.

This act alone completely violates both the letter and spirit of the law that he is sworn to uphold.

When the suffering but public spirited citizen does not obey his diktat, the CIC punishes him by throwing his appeal into a dark dungeon where it does not emerge until close to two years have passed.

Only in India will we lay hope on a process that comes to a culmination after years.

Self respecting people would consider this process a joke and the people who administer this farce as less classy, but more sinister than The Joker from Batman.



When finally the case does come up, the CIC smugly but relentlessly violates and distorts the petitioners pleas, eagerly laps up the Prime Minister's Office's (no offence to the Prime Minister - I have had a ring side view of how our babus treated another good man in high office) lazy lies and demonstrates once again - as if there were any doubts about that predilection of our babulog - how people in high places can skewer the law with brutal impunity and leave hapless law abiding citizens eating the dust.

And what about India's lapdog press and decadent editorial class ?

That dark mass of Dementors
dutifully photocopy the CIC's handouts of his wisdom and the next morning every sorry Indian is reading about the swashbuckling derring-do of our marvelous baburatna !

Sunday, June 14, 2009

Why Prabhu Chavla, His Esteemed Publication And India's Editorial Class Have Decayed And Are Dangerous

If corruption is eradicated, many of our national problems can be solved. Don't you think people have ignored this menace or accepted it as a necessary evil? June 13, 2009

—Asked by Vijay
vijaydandiwala@yahoo.com

I think people have accepted it as a reality as they have lost hope in the political leadership.

Prabhu Chavla


You are probably an honourable man Shri Chavla, but if you come to me with that attitude, you should not blame me if I conclude that you and your esteemed publication stink.

Why ?

Because you are a powerful man and yet you pass the buck on to the usual suspects - "the people" and "the political leadership"

You have not even applied your mind, just tossing of a pernicious prejudice, which the rest of us have to suffer.

Your apathy is rotten and destructive and you force your dementia down the rest of struggling India!

You and your esteemed visitors are cordially invited to Divakar S Natarajan and Varun Gandhi Cannot Both Be Wrong !http://sathyagraha.blogspot.com/2009/01/excellence-versus-perversity.html
News and views from Divakar S Natarajan's, "no excuses", ultra peaceful, non partisan, individual sathyagraha against corruption and for the idea of the rule of law in India. Now in its 18th year.

Read also about how the CIC has colluded with the PMO to frustrate my Right To Information

Prejudiced CIC Laps Up PMO Lies http://sathyagraha.blogspot.com/ and other posts.

The fact that you may be unconscious about your pathological conformism and servility, is exactly that which makes you , your esteemed publication and India's media in general such a toxic burden for the rest of us.

Wednesday, May 6, 2009

Prejudiced CIC Laps Up PMO Lies

The following is the CIC's "decision" on my appeal.

Complaint No.CIC/WB/C/2007/00653 dated 17.10.2007
Right to Information Act 2005 – Section 18
Complainant - Shri Divakar S. Natarajan
Respondent - Prime Minister’s Office (PMO)

Facts:

By an application of 18.7.07 Shri Divakar S. Natarajan of Begumpet, Hyderabad applied to the CPIO PMO seeking the following information:

“Please provide me with all information, including files and notings, regarding action taken on the matters petitioned vide my emails to Dr. Sanajaya Baru dated 5.12.2005 and Shri Muthu Kumar PMOSB 25.7.05, 26.7.05, 31.7.05, 31.8.05 and five emails on 18.8.05.”

To this he received a response dated 14.8.07 from Shri Kamal Dayani, as follows:

“Your emails on various dates to Dr. Sanjaya Baru, Media Advisor and Shri Muthu Kumar, Director, Media are not readily traceable as the data pertaining to the period is no longer available in the Computers. You may provide details of the letters written by you, if any, in this regard to enable this office to reply accordingly.”

Aggrieved by this response, Shri Natarajan moved his first appeal before Ms. Vini Mahajan Jt. Secretary on 30.8.07 by Email criticizing the response as follows:

“1. It appears to be misdirected to me. This query ought to be directed to Dr. Baru and Shri Muthu Kumar for appropriate results.

2. The RTI Act does not permit any conditions to be imposed on the petitioner by the CPIO to “enable this office to reply accordingly”

It passes my comprehension as to why the CPIO should seek details from me again, when I have already done so.

I am sure you will agree, that prima facie this response from the CPIO appears to be a rather flimsy and frivolous dilatory tactics contravening both the letter and spirit of the “revolutionary” RTI Act 2005 of which our Hon’ble Prime Minister is justly proud.

In the event, I request you to kindly do the needful under the law and procure me the complete information that I have requested.”


The CIC has chosen to leave out the following introduction:

Madam,

Further to my request for information under RTI Act 2005, dtd 18th July,2007 I have received what appears to be a strange and awkwardly worded response from the Director and CPIO Shri K Dayani.

I have been asked "to provide details of the letters written by you "if any" to enable this office to reply accordingly."

Because "the your emails are not readily traceable as the data pertaining to the period is no longer available "in the Computers".

Gentle Reader, would you not have been shocked and amused, if you had received the above response from office of the leader of the emergent IT Super power?

Who could have reasonably imagined that the PMO's email system would have been hacked?

So why does the CIC remain tight lipped about the PMO's clearly incomprehensible communication ?

Why does the CIC have no sympathy for my bewilderment?


Were my complaints justified or not?

Why has the CIC chosen to gloss over the critical fact that the appellate authority did not bother to give me any answer whatsoever.

My very first line in my appeal to the CIC was:

" I am disappointed to state that I have had no response whatsoever from the above appellate authority, regarding my request for information of July 18, 2007."

It is telling that rather than take immediate and summary action, the CIC has chosen to ignore the appellate officer's dereliction and instead has sent my case to the "dungeon" from where it has been allowed to emerge only at the fag end of this government's term.

This PMO officer appears to be some kind of a serial offender. And in other cases has been "admonished" by the CIC - why not in my case?

Have I become a lesser citizen and earned the CIC's wrath because of my two decade long individual,non partisan, ultra peaceful sathyagraha against "the patronage paradigm - the paradigm of shoddiness, irresponsibility, cronyism and corruption that has cretinised us Indians."?

On not receiving a response Shri Natarajan has moved his complaint before us with the following prayer:

“Whether Hon’ble PM has been properly briefed and kept current on my ultra peaceful “no excuse” individual, non partisan, satyagraha against corruption, now in its 17th year.”


Once again,the CIC, with the most egregious prejudice, has chosen to edit the following.

"Has he (the Hon'ble Prime Minister) been made familiar with Dr Baru's (Dr Sanjaya Baru - then the media adviser to the PMO) 1991 Economic Times review of my documentary in Urdu "Hyderabad August 1948."?

Has he been told about the martyr Shoebullah Khan in the context of the recent attacks on Taslima Nasrin in Hyderabad ?"

This was followed up with an Email on 29.11.07 addressed to Chief Information Commissioner seeking an out of turn hearing,
which was not agreed to, upon which the appellant submitted a CD containing three separate files.

It is unfortunate that The Chief Information Commissioner implies that I was asking for something "out of turn" .

He does not appear to have the heart to accept responsibility for the rude,ignorant and prejudiced dismissal of my plea that my life and liberty was incarcerated without the information that I had sought.

The following is the dismissive response. F. No CIC/WB/C/2007/00653 Dtd 31/12/2007

Sir,

Your email dated 14/12/2007 was placed before the Chief Information Commissioner for consideration of your request. The CIC has observed the following.

"This hardly requires for (sic) out of turn hearing. He may be requested to provide copies of documents on which he seeks information to PMO. sd CIC"

This was rudeness verging on the venomous.

Would it not have been more productive and enlightening if the CIC had opted to make public his criteria for "Life and Liberty" consideration?

Would not such a professional response have been reassuring and earned my gratitude?

Evidently earning the gratitude of a solitary sathyagrahi was not a priority for our wordly CIC.


One is a letter addressed to the Jt Registrar praising the efforts of the officials in helping him.

"Praise?" This is a thank you note. Evidence of my scrupulously courteous style. Not "praise".

The second letter is a paper report and the third is a report titled “A resonant validation of an ultra peaceful non partisan 14 years individual Satyagraha against corruption” running into 88 pages.”

The coldness and the lack of affect with which the CIC has refused to apply his mind, his disdainful dismissal of the horror and perversity that has been inflicted on me and the implication that I have somehow grievously erred in submitting copious evidence to support my claim for so called "out of turn" hearing - with due respect, this is Darth Vader stuff. Pure evil.

Rather than take summary action against the derelict PMO official, CIC has left no stone unturned to punish me.

A most vivid instance of "the patronage paradigm's" florid perversity.

In response to our complaint notice Shri Amit Agarwal, Director & CPIO PMO has in letter of 24.4.09 submitted as follows:

“It is submitted that the emails referred to in the application were considered as personal communications and accordingly, no action was taken by the office.

As the emails were not available with the office, the then CPIO had sent a letter dated 14.8.2007 in order to better understand the appellant’s request and respond in light of any correspondence that might have been sent regarding the matter and processed for any action in this office.

As regards, the appellant’s first appeal before the appellate authority in this office (as enclosed with the second appeal to the Hon’ble Commission in the form of an email dated 30.8.2007), it is submitted that despite best efforts, the said emails could not be located in this office.”

The complaint was heard on 27.4.09. The following are present:

Respondents at CIC Studio, New Delhi
Shri Amit Agrawal, Director & CPIO, PMO.
Shri Agam Aggarwal, Section Officer.
Shri Muthu Kumar, OSD, PMO
2
Although arrangement had been made through videoconference with Hyderabad and complainant Sh. Divakar S. Natarajan informed by Notice dated 16.4.2009 regarding the hearing, he has opted not to be present.

In a similar travesty of the RTI Act by the State Information Commissioner in Hyderabad, for which I had to appeal to the High Court, the SIC did not make any appearance, nor even appoint a counsel.

The Hon'ble judge hearing the case obliged the respondent by refusing to hear me,by arguing on his behalf and by producing a rank dodgy judgement.

Given the quality and volume of evidence that was before the CIC, the PMO's admissions of delinquency and the CIC's previous experience with this office, my presence was completely unnecessary.


Finally and most importantly, there is little I could have done to deal with the CIC's deep, subconscious animus against me , his venomous response to my plea for an early hearing, his misleading quotations, his contemptuous dismissal of all evidence of my nearly two decade long ordeal, of "Hyderabad. August 1948" and of course his big, bland lie that I have been provided information by the PMO,that are clearly revealed in his written decision and now open for all to see.

For the record, I have never met the CIC in my life and from what I had seen of him on Lok Sabha Television I had been very hopeful of a truly creative interaction.

Shri Amit Agrawal specifically submitted that the Email addressed to Ms. Vini Mahajan, containing the first appeal remained untraced; hence it had not been dealt with.

To remedy any shortcomings in the receipt of RTI applications through Internet, the Jt. Secretary, PMO has separately taken up the matter with the RTI Cell within the PMO, which also consists of Shri Muthu Kumar, OSD, also present in the hearing, who monitors the RTI correspondence on Internet.

Shri Agam Aggarwal SO PMO submitted that he has spoken to complainant Shri Natarajan on the telephone on the evening of Friday, the 24th April 2009 and explained the position to him. Sh Natarajan has asked for certain documents which have been provided.

Shri Agarwal did call me but only to ask me for my fax number.

I submitted that only government offices with annually expanding budgets had fax machines.

Ordinary people like me used Gmail.

He then asked me for my email address. I then inquired whether he had any of my correspondence with him on file or not?

He confirmed that he indeed had my correspondence on file.

I then requested him to kindly refer to his files for my email address. He said he would and that he would call me back.

He called me back a few minutes later and confirmed that he indeed had my email id. Later that evening, he sent me a copy of his response to the CIC through email.

He could have asked me for a copy of my appeal to the appellate officer. But he did not.

I have clearly and repeatedly stated the details of the information that I sought.

The CIC could have inquired and ascertained from the PMO officials present as to exactly what information was being given to me.

The CIC did not.

In the event,the CIC has vaguely and falsely observed "Sh Natarajan has asked for certain documents which have been provided." And happily closed the case.

Once again, I have no more information on the matters petitioned by me today,than what I had two years ago.

The Prime Minister's Office has given me nothing.


DECISION NOTICE
Having heard the arguments and examined the record, we find that the information held by PMO has indeed been provided to appellant Shri Natarajan.
Shri Natarajan’s petition, however, exposes a possible weakness in the Internet receipt system of the PMO, which is being looked into. Hence there seems no case for our further intervention in this matter.
This complaint is now closed.
Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah)
Chief Information Commissioner
27.4.2009
3
Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges, prescribed under the Act, to the CPIO of this Commission.
(Pankaj Shreyaskar)
Joint Registrar
27.4.2009
4

Thursday, April 30, 2009

The Central Information Commissioner Does A CBI

Last week, out of the blue , I received a notice of hearing from the CIC.

I am an optimist. But not an idiot.

I correctly predicted the CIC's textbook authoritarian response.

A response that does not possess even a whiff of the RTI Act 2005.

A response that is analogous to the CBIs exemplary indulgence of the heinous.


A Matter Of My Life And Liberty. File No. CIC/WB/C/2007/000653 Notice to PMO dtd April 16 2009

from divakar snatarajan
to pkp.shreyaskar@nic.in
cc whabibullah@nic.in
date Sat, Apr 25, 2009 at 1:42 PM
subject A Matter Of My Life And Liberty. File No. CIC/WB/C/2007/000653 Notice to PMO dtd April 16 2009
mailed-by gmail.com



Pankaj P Shreyaskar
Deputy Secretary & Joint Registrar
Central Information Commission
New Delhi.


PMO's Forced, Belated and Lame Response.


Sir,

Your notice has forced the PMO to come up with a response,nearly two years after my application.

It is noticeable that the PMO is unwilling to step out of its nest of denial (of information) which is built out twigs of fragile rationalisations.

As I have observed in my email to you of Mon Jan 21,2008 titled Release My Life And Liberty,

"the delinquency of the PMO is clearly not a minor glitch, but a deliberate and dastardly campaign of silence that is threatening and torturous to me."

To a trained eye, it is obvious that the PMO is looking for some outside help to bale it out of this mess.

Going by the performance of the CIC in my case this far, the PMOs fervent prayers will probably find a torrent of sweet sympathy at your office.

As The Hindu, most delicately observed in an editorial comment on the aftermath of the shoe thrown at Home Minister incident, "our institutions generally exhibit an establishment bias." Or words to that effect.*

I have already replied in detail, in my appeal to Ms Vini Mahajan, Appellate Authority, (email of August 14,2007, Don't Let The RTI Down. Administer RTI in the right spirit.)to PMO's weird contention that emails "not readily traceable due to data pertaining to that period is no longer available in our computers"

The PMOs contention that applicant has "now" filed an second appeal, merely shows that time has a way of congealing in the PMO.
My urgent appeal to the CIC is dated October 12, 2007.

The PMO has in its arbitrary, self serving fashion decided that emails referred to in the application were personal communications.

My observation in my emails that the PMOs silence was "morally bankrupt" does not make them personal communications.

Quite the contrary, the stubborn delinquency of a PMO that publicly takes great credit for the RTI Act 2005, is a matter of considerable public interest.

My correspondence contains appeals from the former Home minister to the former Prime Minister, Padma Vibhushan Kaloji Narayana Rao to the former PM, Appeal from eminent filmmakers to the former PM and Dr Baru's published review of my documentary.

The context for the above are publicly described in my blog http:// sathyagraha.blogspot.com especially Divakar S Natarajan and Varun Gandhi Cannot Both Be Wrong.

So the PMOs contention regarding so called private correspondence is nothing but thinly veiled bragging of over weening authoritarianism, perversity and vindictiveness.

Once again the PMO admits to have misplaced the first appeal.

Why did it not occur to the PMO to write to me to reassure me about their competence and sincerity and request another copy?

It is truly intriguing that the PMO appears to find it so much easier to blandly confess to the CIC regarding its serial incompetence and delinquency !

Sincerely,

Divakar S Natarajan

*"The Indian experience is that law enforcers and investigating agencies almost invariably incline towards the ruling establishment."
Exorcising 1984.The Hindu April 13, 2009


India's editorial class of course is as pure as Bislerijal !

The CIC Sends Me To The "Dungeon" !

The following is the last exchange I had with the office of the CIC.
Till last week.

Release My Life and Liberty !

from divakar snatarajan
to pkp.shreyaskar@nic.in
date Mon, Jan 21, 2008 at 5:13 PM
subject Release My Life and Liberty !
mailed-by gmail.com


Dear Shri Shreyaskar,

Further to my email to you of 17 th January 2007, I have been trying to reach you on the phone all day.

Given that I have not heard anything further, must I assume that the copious and irrefutable evidence that I have presented to support my case for hearing on an out of turn basis, has not been considered at all?

Even as I write this, I have to consider the irony of my defending myself, whereas the law and evidence of delinquency that I have presented make it crystal, that it is an incorrigibly delinquent PMO that has to answer.

Also, this delinquency from the PMO is clearly not a minor administrative glitch, but a deliberate and dastardly campaign of silence that is threatening and torturous to me.

The CIC must consider matters with a warm empathy and not take any offense to my candour, which I have been careful to back up with a flood of prime evidence.

After all, despite all the the gratuitous and barbaric torture and humiliation, there has been no duplicity or double standards in my behavior over all this time.

I look forward to hearing a positive verdict from the CIC, with his kind blessings, at the earliest,.

Sincerely,

Divakar




from Pankaj
to divakar snatarajan
date Tue, Jan 22, 2008 at 10:13 AM
subject Re: Release My Life and Liberty !


Dear Shri Divakar
I had received your CD in the matter. I had gone through that and had placed all of them on the file. Insofar as an out of turn hearing is concerned no such decision has been taken so as on today. However you will be hearing from us about the date in due course. You could not speak to me over telephone since i was in VC hearing for some time.
Regards

Pankaj K P Shreyaskar, ISS
Deputy Secretary & Joint Registrar
Central Information Commission
Old JNU Campus
New Delhi 110067
011-26717354


from divakar snatarajan
to Pankaj
cc whabibullah@nic.in
date Fri, Jan 25, 2008 at 5:09 PM
subject Re: Release My Life and Liberty !
mailed-by gmail.com


Dear Shri Shreyaskar,

Thank you for speaking with me this morning.

I am truly disappointed that CIC has not yet responded to all the information that I have sent.

As you observed, it is unlikely that a citizen resisting corruption,would seek recourse to a claim of threat to life and liberty, if this were not substantially true.

Why would anybody seek out of turn anything, if the normal process was tolerable?

More germane is the incorrigible delinquency of the PMO.

With due respect, why humor bad behaviour?

In the absence of any reasonable response, I am beginning to lose my confidence in this process.

Sincerely,
Divakar

I Beg The Chief Information Commissioner Again...

Is CIC "santhusht" ?

from divakar snatarajan
to pkp.shreyaskar@nic.in
date Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 4:33 PM
subject Is CIC "santhusht" ?
mailed-by gmail.com


Sir,

Thank you for your assurance of Jan 12,2008

Kindly note that a CD containing copious evidence of my nearly two decade long incarceration due to my resistance to corruption, has been sent to you through DTDC courier on 11/01/08. NoF03058774.

In keeping with the spirit of the RTI Act 2005, I shall appreciate more specific information as to how the CIC intends to proceed on this matter and whether I could be of any more assistance in providing information about the brutality I am suffering.

Dates would be welcome too.

Sincerely,

Divakar

Chief Information Commissioner Demonstrates Bias...

"This" is a hiss!

from divakar snatarajan
to pkp.shreyaskar@nic.in
cc whabibullah@nic.in
date Wed, Jan 9, 2008 at 3:32 PM
subject "This" is a hiss!
mailed-by gmail.com


Dear Shri Shreyaskar,

Thank you for your reply of 31-12-07.

I am shocked and pained by the CIC's prejudiced, contemptuous and dismissive response.

To an objective person, it clearly demonstrates the depth of psychological denial in high places about the devastating effects of corruption, lack of accountability etc.

It once again clearly demonstrates the bare, clinical, truth of my contentions in my email to him.

For an objective third party, not so close to the system, it might appear that the RTI Act 2005, was made for me, if not actually inspired by my editorial page article in The Hindustan Times.

However, it appears that CIC without even asking for any evidence, is convinced I am shamming.

I have provided evidence that appellate authority has not even bothered to answer my appeal. I have called her several time and left messages;that were never answered.

This is worse than the appellate authority who was chided by the CIC in Mar 07 for "unbecoming" conduct.

I am unable to provide documents at this stage for reasons that I have mentioned in my note to the appellate authority because such action on my part would constitute a betrayal of "onus of proof "Sec 19(5) .

I am also not clear why CIC has not acknowledged my email of Nov 29,2007.

However, I have attached copious proof of my nineteen year long sathyagraha that never should have been.

I demand that the Central Information Commission find an early and efficient way to deliver me the Information that is my right; the lack of which has my life and liberty incarcerated in a conspiracy of sepulchral silence and deep psychological prejudice.

Sincerely,
Divakar