Mr President and other public servants at the helm of governance,
I am a free citizen of this country and I know by definition of the term democracy itself that all institutions of the government are subservient to the interests of its citizens. And if you want it on authority of supposedly better knowledgeable people this is what the National Commission to review the working of the Constitution (NCRWC) has said in its report, submitted to the Central Govt in 2002: 'the crucial failure is the innate resistance in governments and governmental processes to the fundamental article of democracy, viz. that all power and all authority flows from the people and that all public institutions are meant solely to serve the public interest. The assurance of the dignity of the individual enshrined in the preamble of the Constitution has remained unredeemed; From this fundamental breach of the constitutional faith flow almost all our present ills. The first and the foremost need is to place the citizens of this country at center-stage and demonstrate this prioritization in all manifestation of governance'.
That he was ultimately denied justice is now history. And the articulation of this injustice by him now is no reason for hauling him up for contempt of court. This actually amounts to intimidation and terrorisation of an upright, honest and patriotic citizen by those public servants who have been unwarrantedly given privileges and authorities beyond that what is required to perform the tasks assigned to them. The only justification for contempt of court to exist on our statutes is to haul up those who wilfully fail to abide by court decisions. But can we count the number of cases where such a positive use has been made by our courts? In Kerala, it was the High Court that declared bandhs illegal. It was upheld by the apex court. I have also read about political parties in Mumbai being penalised for organising bandhs. But in Kerala itself while the public are being put to untold misery by the oft declared hartals which are only a different brand name for the same bandhs, so far no political party has been penalised for such an illegal activity! And then again the high court goes and bans road side meetings also! This is presently on appeal in the apex court. But what does the police do in the meanwhile? Let the political parties do whatever they want and frame cases against small aggrieved groups protesting to bring their grievances before the higher authorities when everything else has failed!
The list of failures of the courts, amounting to serious crimes in themselves, do not end there. Delays, failure to do deliver justice even at the end of criminal delays, corruption, arbitrariness etc are passe in our courts. We have seen K G Balakrishan, as the CJI, declaring illegally that the office of the CJI is exempt from the purview of the RTI Act. Thanks to the simplicity and clarity, this is one law that can be easily understood and interpreted correctly even by a citizen who has studied upto 5th standard. But even this law has been subverted by none other than the information commissioners and the judiciary. It is the judiciary that has set the wrong example of demanding exorbitant fees along with the application and towards cost of information offered also. It is the judiciary which has introduced forms for application and 1st appeal. It is only the judiciary which has introduced fees for 1st appeal when it is actually only an additional opportunity given to the public authority to correct any omissions and commissions of its PIO. And when the whole judicial proceedings is supposed to be in public domain, even copies of judicial orders are denied by its PIOs!
Now here are a few quotes on our judiciary compiled by me and posted as a blog 'Indian judiciary-who said what' at
Your attention is also invited to my online petition, addressed to the President and PM of India to constitute a National Judicial Commission to try and punish guilty judges as per laws applicable to ordinary citizen, at http://www.petitiononline.com/
Let me conclude by quoting from the report of the NCRWC itself.
This what Dr Subash Kashyap has written about the report: 'While no comments are being made on what went wrong in the procedure, priorities and perspective, it may be put on record that several of the recommendations now forming part of the report go directly counter to the clear decisions of the Commission on which the unanimously adopted draft report of the Drafting and Editorial Committee was based'.
Ms Sumithra Kulkarni drove-in the last nails, thus:
1. I believe in a Unified and truly Secular India. However, the Commission debates seemed often to reduce the Constitution to being a platform for divisiveness and not unification.
2. The Commission did not initiate or promote sincere debate in the public with regards to the issues that it was contemplating. The efforts was more to "evade and defer" instead of to "identify issues, table them for debate and to deal with them".
Now Subash Kashyap and Sumithra Kulkarni were the minority, non-judicial members of the 11 member commission, headed by former CJI M N Venkatachaliah and whose 6 members were from the judiciary! The other members of the Commission were B.P. Jeevan Reddy, R.S. Sarkaria and Kottapalli Punnayya (judges of apex/high courts), Soli J. Sorabjee and K. Parasaran (advocates), P.A.Sangma and Sumitra G. Kulkarni (political nominees), Dr.Subhash C. Kashyap and Dr. Abid Hussain ( bureaucrats) and just C.R. Irani, representative from the media!