JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR,J. - (1.) The application for permission to appear and argue in person is allowed.
(2.) When the instant writ petition originally came up for hearing on 27.3.2017, this Court passed the following order: "1. Mr. Rajiv Daiya has entered appearance on behalf of the petitioner. He is not a qualified advocate, but he appears in this case in-person, on behalf of the Suraz India Trust, in his capacity as its Chairman. We have had the opportunity to hear him on some occasions. In the above view of the matter, the Registry was required to furnish to this Court, details of all the petitions filed by Suraz India Trust. In compliance thereof, the same have been provided to us, in a separate compilation. 2. One set of the aforesaid compilation has been handed over to Mr. Daiya in the Court today. We would request him to respond to the same, so as to enable us to determine whether he should be permitted to file petitions in public interest, on account of the apparent indication in the compilation furnished to him, that he has never succeeded in any petition despite the long list of cases filed on behalf of Suraz India Trust. He may respond, within four weeks from today. 3. Post of hearing on 24th April, 2017." (emphasis is ours)
(3.) It is necessary to record, that the details of all the petitions, filed by Suraz India Trust, were placed on the record of this case, by the Registry, on the asking of the Chief Justice (in his administrative capacity). The information had been sought by him, because on earlier occasions, petitions filed by Suraz India Trust (- all raising causes in public interest), were found to be devoid of any merit, and were summarily dismissed. A brief summary thereof, is being extracted hereunder: "SUPREME COURT OF INDIA PIL (WRIT) SECTION The status of matters filed by Suraz India Trust is given below: Sl.No. Nature of Matter Date of Filing Relief Sought Status/Remarks 1 (i) W.P.(C) No.136/2009 26.3.2009 (a) Direct the respondent Election Commission of India to follow the mandatory provisions of rule 49-B(1) of the Rules of 1961 meant for preparation of balloting unit of voting machine in the forthcoming MP election of 2009 containing such particulars and such language which may enable the Elector to formally express his choice by ballot in case he decides to refrain from voting Dismissed on 4.5.2009 (ii) R.P.(C) No. 1041/2009 in W.P.(C) No. 136/2009 19.5.2009 (a) The order impugned dated 4.5.2009 may kindly be recalled and reviewed, and the written submissions may kindly be ordered to be taken on record and the same may kindly be ordered to be treated as part and parcel of the review petition, and the notice may kindly be issued to the Election Commission as the onus to prove their action shift upon the respondent in view of the settled proposition of law laid down in the cases and as averred hereinabove in para 6(E), and the writ petition may kindly be ordered to be tagged and adjudicated with the Writ Petition No. 161 of 2004 (PUCL and anr. vs. UOI and anr.) Dismissed on 15.9.2009 2 (i) W.P.(C) No. 241/2009 4.5.2009 (a) Declare the provisions of rule 2(1)(c), 4(1), 5(3), 5(5)(ii), 6, 7(1)(b), 9(1), 10(1), 10(2) and 12 of the Rajasthan Right to Information (High Court and Subordinate Court) Rules, 2006 as ultra virus same being inconsistent with and in contravention to the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005 Dismissed as withdrawn on 14.9.2009 3 (i) W.P.(C) No. 280/2009 25.6.2009 (a) Declare the provisions of Rule 3 Order 40 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966 as ultra-virus same being inconsistent with and in contravention to the provisions of Article 137 and 145 so also Article 14 of the Constitution of India Dismissed on 19.10.2009 (ii) R.P.(C) No. 884/2010 In W.P.(C) No. 280/2009 4.11.2009 (a) The order impugned dated 19.10.2009 may kindly be recalled and reviewed, and the writ petition may kindly be adjudicated on merits and demerits of the case after hearing both the parties Dismissed on 2.2.2010 4 (i) W.P.(C) No. 439/2009 19.9.2009 (a) Quash and set aside the order/circular No. F.20/Judl./2009 dated 5th May, 2009 of Ld. Registrar (Judl.), Supreme Court of India, being violative of Article 14 and 32 of the Constitution of India Dismissed on 10.9.2010 (ii) R.P.(C) No. 17/2011 in W.P.(C) No. 439/2009 17.9.2010 (a) The Order impugned dated 10.9.2010 may kindly be recalled and reviewed, and the writ petition may kindly be decided after issuing the notice to the respondent and after hearing both the parties on the merits and demerits of the case in the interest of justice Dismissed on 2.2.2011 5 (i) W.P. (C) 469 of 2009 10.9.2009 (a) Declare the section 47 and 128 of the Criminal Procedure Amendment Act, 1923 as ultra-virus and unconstitutional Disposed of on 6.12.2010 (ii) R.P.(C) No. 1030/2011 In W.P.(C) No. 469/2009 3.1.2011 (a) The order impugned dated 6.12.2010 may kindly be recalled and reviewed, and the writ petition may kindly be decided after issuing the notice to the respondent and after hearing both the parties on the merits and demerits of the case in the interest of justice Dismissed on 26.4.2011 (iii) I.A. D.No. 92906 of 2016 (Application for adjudication of PIL Petition No. 10605 of 2015) pending before Delhi High Court in W.P. (C) 469/2009 13.12.2016 (a) The AC may kindly be appointed in light of the order dated 6.12.2010 passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court Lodged vide Order dated 18.1.2017 of Ld. Registrar J-I (iv) I.A. No. 4 (Appeal by way of I.A. against Ld. Registrar's Order) and I.A. No. 5 (Condonation of delay) in W.P. (C) 469 of 2009 (dismissed matter) 6.2.2017 (a) This appeal may kindly be accepted and allowed and the impugned order dated 18.1.2017 passed by the Registrar (J-I) may kindly be quashed and set aside and the above writ petition may kindly be ordered to be placed before the Hon'ble Division Court as provided under the provisions of Sub Rule (1) and (2) of Rule 1 of Order 38 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 to protect the fundamental right of the petitioner enshrined under Article 32 of the Constitution of India and to meet the ends of justice Pending for listing 6 (i) W.P. (C) 204/2010 10.9.2009 (a) Adjudicate the legal questions raised in para 3 of the writ petition; (b) Reconsider and review the law laid down by 9 Judges Bench passed in the case of Supreme Court Advocate-on-Record Association Vs. Union of India and Ors. (reported in (1993) 4 SCC 441) so also in the case of Special Reference No. 1 of 1998 (reported in (1998) 7 SCC 739); Dismissed on 7.1.2013 (ii) Application for restoration of Writ Petition 4.2.2013 (a) Application for restoration may kindly be accepted and allowed and writ petition may kindly be restored to its original number Lodged vide Ld. Registrar's order dated 23.2.2013 (iii) Appeal against the registrar order dated 23.2.2013 (I.A. No.5) 1.4.2013 (a) Application may kindly be accepted and allowed and writ petition no. 204/2010 may kindly be restored. Dismissed on 3.7.2015 (iv) Contempt Petition (C) D 20400/2013 5.7.2013 (a) to direct the Contemnor to make compliance of the orders dated 4.4.2011 and 9.11.2012 Lodged vide Ld. Registrar's order dated 27.7.2013 (v) Appeal by way of I.A. against registrar order dated 27.7.2013 (IA No.7) 27.8.2013 (a) Appeal may kindly be accepted and allowed and the contempt petition may kindly be posted for preliminary hearing before the Hon'ble Court. Dismissed on 3.7.2015 (vi) Contempt petition (C) D 22286 /2014 11.7.2014 (a) Direct the Contemnors not to interfere with the judicial proceedings of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and not to obstruct the administration of justice; Lodged vide Ld. Registrar's order dated 16.8.2014 (vii) Appeal by way of IA against registrar order dated 16.8.2014 (I.A. No.9) 27.9.2014 (a) appeal may kindly be accepted and allowed and the contempt petition may kindly be posted for preliminary hearing before the Hon'ble Court. Dismissed on 3.7.2015 (viii) R.P.(C) 3486/2015 27.7.2015 (a) Order impugned dated 3.7.2015 may kindly be recalled and reviewed, and the writ petition may kindly be restored and be adjudicated by a larger Bench in compliance to the orders dated 4.4.2011 and 9.11.2012 passed by Hon'ble Court. Dismissed on 15.12.2015 (ix) Contempt Petition (C) D2868/2016 22.1.2016 (a) Direct the respondent Chief Justice of India, Supreme Court of India to make compliance of the orders dated 4.4.2011 and 9.11.2012 in their letter and spirit. Lodged vide Ld. Registrar's order dated 9.2.2016 (x) I.A No. 1 (Appeal by way of I.A. against Ld. Registrar's Order dated 9.2.2016) along with application for the condonation of delay 29.2.2016 (a) Appeal may kindly be accepted and allowed and the contempt petition may kindly be placed before the Hon'ble Court as provided under the provisions of Rule 5 of the Rules of 1975. Dismissed on 20.3.2017 7 (i) W.P. (C) 209/2015 26.5.2015 (a) to declare the Constitution (Ninety Ninth Amendment) Act, 2014 and the National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, 2014 being unconstitutional and ultra vires; Disposed of on 16.12.2015 (ii) Application for recalling of order dated 12.5.2015 18.3.2015 (a) Recalling of the order dated 12.5.2015 may kindly be allowed and the matter may kindly be referred to the large bench Lodged vide Ld. Registrar's order dated 4.6.2015 (iii) Appeal by way of I.A. against registrar order dated 4.6.2015 (I.A. No.4) 9.6.2015 (a) Appeal may kindly be accepted and allowed and the I.A. for Recalling of Order dated 12.5.2015 may kindly be for placed before the Hon'ble Court as provided under the provisions of Rule 1(2) of Order 38 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 Disposed of on 15.7.2015 (iv) Application for recalling of order dated 15.7.2015 3.8.2015 (a) Recalling of order dated 15.7.2015 may kindly be allowed, and the matter may kindly be referred to the larger Bench. Or in the alternative, the matter may kindly be placed before the Hon'ble Chief Justice for constitution of Bench of of appropriate strength. Lodged vide Ld. Registrar's order dated 12.8.2015 (v) Appeal by way of I.A. against registrar order dated 12.8.2015 (I.A. No.5) 31.8.2015 (a) Appeal may kindly be accepted and allowed and the I.A. for Recalling of Order dated 15.7.2015 may kindly be for placed before the Hon'ble Court as provided under the provisions of Rule 1(2) of Order 38 of the Supreme Court, 2013 Dismissed on 17.2.2017 (vi) R.P. (C) 83/2016 16.11.2015 (a) The judgement impugned dated 16.10.2015 may kindly be recalled and reviewed, and the matter may kindly be referred to the larger Bench for deciding the controversy as to which one of the two methods i.e. Constitutional Method OR Collegium Method will continue after declaring NJAC unconstitutional and void. Dismissed on 1.3.2016 8 (i) W.P. (C) 303/2010 10.9.2009 (a) Reconsider the law laid down in the case of K. Veeraswami (reported in 1991(3) Judgement Today p. 198) by the larger bench in the changed circumstances. Dismissed on 10.9.2010 (ii) R.P. (C) 1994/2010 14.12.2010 (a) Order impugned dated 10.9.2010 may kindly be recalled and reviewed, and the writ petition may kindly be decided after issuing the notice to the respondent and after hearing both the parties on the merits and demerits of the case in the interest of justice. Dismissed on 14.12.2010 9 (i) W.P. (C) D.No. 2910 of 2016 22.1.2016 (a) Set aside the order dated 7.1.2013 passed in Writ Petition (C) No. 204 of 2010 (Suraz India Trust versus Union of India and Another) by rectifying the error ex debito justitiae; Lodged on 2.7.2016 (ii) I.A. No. 1 (Appeal by way of IA against Ld. Registrar's Order dated 2.7.2016) 22.7.2016 (a1) This appeal may kindly be accepted and allowed and the impugned order dated 2.7.2016 passed by the Registrar (J-I) may kindly be quashed and set aside and the above writ petition may kindly be ordered to be placed before the Hon'ble Division Court as provided under the provisions of Sub Rule 1(1) of Order XXXVIII of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 to protect the fundamental right of the petitioner enshrined under Article 32 of the Constitution of India and to meet the ends of justice I.A. 1 was lastly listed before the Court on 27.2.2017 and directed to be listed on 10.4.2017 10 (i) W.P. (C) D. No. 41438 of 2016 13.12.2016 (a) Set-aside the order dated 1.3.2016 passed in Review Petition (C) No. 83 of 2016 titled Suraz India Trust vs. Union of India by rectifying the error ex debito justitiae Lodged vide Order dated 20.1.2017 of Ld. Registrar J-I 11 (i) W.P. (C) 210 of 2016 (Main matter: W.P. (C) 295 of 2016) 8.2.2016 (a) Direct the respondent Union Law Minister to abide by the oath taken by him and further to maintain and sustain the oath taken by the President of India Dismissed on 20.3.2017 12 (i) W.P.(C) No. 880/2016 20.11.2015 (a) Declare the provisions of section 3 of the Judges (Enquiry) Act, 1968 as unconstitutional and void; the same being inconsistent and in contravention to the provisions of Article 124(4) of the Constitution of India Listed on 20.1.2017. Next date of hearing: 27.3.2017 The matters summarized above, were taken up for hearing, in 64 different proceedings. The summary extracted hereinabove, affirms the position, that Suraz India Trust, has not been successful in any matter. 4. After the hearing of this case on 27.3.2017, the instant petition came up for consideration on 24.4.2017. During the course of hearing on 24.4.2017, Suraz India Trust was represented by its Chairman, Mr. Rajiv Daiya. We granted him liberty, to make a voluntary statement to this Court, if he considered appropriate, that Suraz India Trust would henceforth, not file any petition urging a cause in public interest. This offer was extended to him, because it prima facie appeared to the Court, that the litigation initiated by the Trust was thoughtless and frivolous. We had made it clear to Mr. Rajiv Daiya, that in case he made such a statement, the matter would be closed, and assured him, that no further consequences would follow. Alternatively, he was asked to file a response, to establish the bona fides of the Trust. On his desire to file a reply, he was afforded an opportunity to do so, by 28.4.2017. In fact, this was the second opportunity granted to him. On the first occasion, i.e. on 27.3.2017, he was required to file his response, within four weeks. It is obvious, that there was ample opportunity for the petitioner, to reflect on the liberty granted to it, to obtain advice and counsel, and thereupon, to take a conscious decision, one way or the other. 5. When the matter was taken up for hearing at 11.30 A.M. today, Mr. Rajiv Daiya stated, that he would assist this Court, without any written response. He therefore took a conscious decision, not to adopt the course suggested to him, by this Court on 27.3.2017. At the very outset, it was acknowledged by Mr. Rajiv Daiya, that the factual position referred to in the compilation furnished to him (as detailed in para 3 above) was correct. While assisting this Court, the petitioner referred to some documents which had been placed on the record of this case, and to other additional documents, which the petitioner furnished to us during the course of hearing. We accepted all the documents, and agreed to hear Mr. Daiya. 6. The first letter brought to our notice, dated 20.1.2011, was addressed by the Under Secretary to the Government of India to this Court. The text of the aforesaid communication is reproduced below: "I am directed to forward herewith (in original) a representation dated 27.12.2010, along with its enclosures, of Shri Rajiv Daiya, Chairman, Suraz India Trust, Rajmata Ji Ka Nohra, Near Fateh Sagar, Jodhpur, received through the President Secretariat, vide their letter no. P1/E/0601110044, dated 6.1.2011, for appropriate action. 2. It is requested that the grievances/complaints under reference may be looked into at the earliest under intimation to the applicant." It is important to indicate, that through the above correspondence, a representation dated 27.12.2010, filed by Mr. Rajiv Daiya, in his capacity as Chairman, Suraz India Trust, was forwarded to this Court for appropriate action. Mr. Rajiv Daiya, also placed reliance on a similar letter, dated 13.2.2013. The text thereof is also reproduced below: "I am directed to forward herewith a representation dated 5.11.2013 (in original) received from Shri Rajiv Daiya, Chairman, Suraz India Trust, Raj Mataji Ka Nohra, Near Fateh Sagar, Jodhpur, Rajasthan for appropriate action. 2. It is requested that the grievance/complaint under reference may be looked into and action taken as deemed appropriate under intimation to the applicant at an early date." The instant communication was forwarded by the Deputy Secretary to the Government of India, to this Court, for appropriate action. The action sought was based, again on a representation (dated 5.11.2013) filed by Mr. Rajiv Daiya, Chairman of Suraz India Trust. 7. It was the pointed contention of Mr. Daiya, that none of the representations, filed by him, was appropriately dealt with by this Court. In order to demonstrate his dissatisfaction, in the manner in which this Court - on the judicial side, and on the administrative side - by the Registry, was dealing with his petitions and representations, he invited our attention to a communication dated 27.12.2010, which he had addressed to the Chief Justice of this Court, and to all the then sitting Judges of this Court, in his capacity as Chairman, Suraz India Trust. It was pointed out, that the aforesaid communication was forwarded to the residential addresses of Hon'ble Judges, so as to invite their attention to his complaints, while they were relatively free, to visualize his grievances and protestation. In the communication dated 27.12.2010, Suraz India Trust, demanded action against the Registrar (J) - Shri T. Sivdasan and the Assistant Registrar PIL (Writ) - Shri Vimal Jaitely. The first four paragraphs of the instant communication, narrate the anxiety of Mr. Rajiv Daiya. The same are reproduced hereinbelow: "1. That it is humbly submitted that the petitioner served a Notice upon Shri T. Sivadasan, the Registrar (Judicial) and Shri Vimal Jaitely, the Assistant Registrar PIL (Writ) on 8.10.2010 through speed post for contempt of Hon'ble Supreme Court in creating obstruction in getting justice as well as disrespecting the proposition of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of (1) Nilima Priyadarishini v. State of Bihar (AIR 1987 SC 2021); (2) Prem Chand v. Excise Commissioner, UP (AIR 1963 SC 996); and (3) M.V. Vali Pero v. Fernandeo Lopez (AIR 1989 SC 2206) as also for initiating criminal prosecution under Section 210, IPC for making reports maliciously and contrary to law. A copy of the notice dated 8.10.2010 is enclosed herewith and marked as Annexure-A. 2. That this notice dated 8.10.2010 was served upon Shri T. Sivadasan and Shri Vimal Jaitely in personal/individual capacity with a view to bring into their kind notice about their misconduct and abuse of power and post. The Registrar (Judicial) and Assistant Registrar PIL (Writ) and while performing their duties as such, have abused the process of law and have acted in contravention to the provisions of the law of the land, and are still acting as if they are above the law and they do not have any faith in the law of the land and our Constitution as well. 3. That even when the notices were served upon both the authorities in their individual capacity and by name, and it is an admitted position that these papers were not sent as a document under the provisions of Supreme Court Rules, 1966 nor the notices served upon in personal capacity fall under the category of documents to be dealt with by the Registry for adjudication after registering the documents, nor these are papers to be denied to accept by the Registry which were sent in personal/individual capacity just to bring into the kind notice about contravention of the law. The petitioner thought it proper first to apprise the Registrar (J) and Assistant Registrar PIL (Writ) themselves about their errors/mistakes through the aforesaid Notice, so that the same may be rectified and may not be repeated in future. But they have been still acting in contravention to the provisions of law in returning these notices to the petitioner by letter dated 30.10.2010 (dispatched on 90.11.2010 and received on 12.11.2010) while mentioning therein that the documents received by post are not entertainable under Order 10, Rule 6 (1) of Supreme Court Rules, 1966. Thus, it is height of abuse of power and post so also abuse of process of law. A copy of the letter dated 30.10.2010 returning the notices to the petitioner is enclosed herewith and marked as Annexure-B. 4. That it is also very pertinent to mention here that the petitioner drawn kind attention of Hon'ble Supreme Court by representation dated 2.11.2009 for acting in contravention to the provisions of the law of the land, but the same was never placed before the Hon'ble Chief Justice, so that the petitioner could be provided proper opportunity to plead the cases pending adjudication. A copy of the representation dated 2.11.2010 addressed to the (1) Hon'ble President of India; (2) Hon'ble Prime Minister of India; and (3) Hon'ble Chief Justice of India is enclosed herewith and marked as Annexure-C. The said representation dated 2.11.2009 was forwarded to the Ministry of Law and Justice, wherefrom the representation sent to the Hon'ble Prime Minister was forwarded in original to the Registrar (Judicial) for redressal of the grievances vide communication dated 13.9.2010, and likewise the representation addressed to Hon'ble President of India was also forwarded in original to the Registrar (Judicial), for redressal of the grievances vide communication dated 20.9.2010, but all in vein, because this representation was neither put up before the Court for taking judicious note of the same nor the same was placed before the Hon'ble Chief Justice in the administrative capacity, and the Registry had sit tight over the said representation. The copies of the communications dated 13.9.2010 and 20.9.2010 are enclosed herewith and marked as Annexure-D and Annexure-E respectively." (emphasis is ours) 8. In order to support the impropriety and wrongfulness expressed in the letter, dated 27.12.2010, Suraz India Trust had appended a number of enclosures with its above letter (dated 27.12.2010). One of the letters to which our pointed attention was drawn, had been addressed to Smt. Pratibha Patil - the then President of India. The subject of the aforesaid communication reveals, that the same was addressed to the President of India, besides the Prime Minister of India, and the Chief Justice of India. This course of action had been adopted, according to the petitioner, to draw their attention against the Supreme Court of India, for having acted in contravention of the law. The opening paragraph of the instant communication, dated 2.11.2009, depicts the crux of the grievance of the Suraz India Trust. The same is reproduced below: "1. That at the very outset, it is humbly submitted that when a person violates the provisions of the law of the land, it amounts to civil/criminal wrong, but when the Courts of law does not follow the provisions of law enacted for adjudication of the matters of litigants and commits judicial dishonesty, what is the remedy to such a victim? Nothing can be more serious than such judicial dishonesty. There are various orders of Courts and Competent Authorities in the matters of petitioner which are not being complied with resulting into contempt of Court, but of no avail." (emphasis is ours) 9. Having understood the tenor and text of the grievances of Suraz India Trust, it is also necessary for us to observe, that disparaging remarks were contained therein, not only with reference to Judges of the Rajasthan High Court, but also with reference to Judges of this Court. With reference to the three Judges of the Rajasthan High Court, besides the Chief Justice, the views of Suraz India Trust, are contained in paragraph 9 (of the communication dated 27.12.2010). The same is essential to understand the tenor of the grievance of the Trust, and is therefore being extracted hereunder: "9. That it is humbly submitted that it appears that the Registrar (Judicial) Shri T. Sivdasan and Assistant Registrar PIL (Writ) Shri Vimal Jaitely have come in rescue of judiciary of Rajasthan. The petitioner has filed a Contempt Petition against the then Chief Justice of Rajasthan Shri Narayan Roy and three Judges of Rajasthan High Court which was diarized at Diary no. 28301 of 2010 on dated 7.9.2010. But the same is not being placed before the Bench for its adjudication deliberately, and possibility of rejection of the same on technical grounds by the Registry cannot be ruled out, even when the contempt is said to be committed against the Court and it is between the Court and contemnor. On the one hand, the contempt petition is not being placed before the appropriate bench for adjudication and on the other hand, the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur is not issuing notice even after hearing the matter various times in contempt petition no. 1/2006 (Rajiv Daiya v. Umesh Garg and another) nor the subordinate judiciary (presently pending before the Judge, Economic Offences, Jodhpur) is getting compliance of summons (even after the specific orders of High Court in Cr. Misc. Petition no. 626/2001 Rajiv Daiya v. State of Rajasthan) which is lying pending at the stage where it was in the year 1999, nor anything is being done from year 2004 in criminal trial initiated on the complaint of the petitioner side in Cr. Case no. 210/2004 (State v. Chandraveer Singh and Ors.) pending before Munsif and Judicial Magistrate no. 3, Jodhpur. It can safely be inferred from the above facts and circumstances that the judiciary of Rajasthan is in collusion with the Registry of Hon'ble Supreme Court which is waiting for end of litigations filed by the petitioner and pending adjudication before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, so that they can proceed thereafter in above narrated pending matters and pass the orders in these cases according to their whims and fancies. Therefore, these matters are almost kept in abeyance from last so many years, and nothing is being done in these cases. This corroborates and supports the allegations of the petitioner against the High Court of Rajasthan and its subordinate judiciary so also the Registry of Supreme Court which is vehemently prejudiced to the petitioner." (emphasis is ours) 10. Insofar as Judges of this Court are concerned, the position adopted by Suraz India Trust is apparent from the factual narration recorded in the first enclosure (to the letter dated 27.12.2010), dated 8.10.2010. The instant communication, dated 8.10.2010, was addressed to Shri T. Sivdasan, Registrar (Judicial) and Shri Vimal Jaitely, Assistant Registrar, PIL (Writ). Suraz India Trust, in the above letter, indicated the details of various matters in which the Trust has approached this Court. The remarks with reference to this Court, were recorded in paragraph 7 thereof, which is reproduced below: "7. That the applicant apprehended that he cannot ventilate his grievance against the Justice Imparting Agency, and therefore, he was hesitant to approach the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which is clear from the notice dated 25.2.2009 (annexed with complaint dated 2.11.2009 at pages 11 to 13), he had made a specific submission that he cannot get justice from Hon'ble Supreme Court, Paras 1 to 6 of the said notice dated 25.2.2009 are reproduced hereinunder for ready reference: "1. That at the very outset, it is humbly submitted that under the legal framework of the Constitution, the People of India govern themselves through the Functionary of Executive as per the statutory provisions promulgated under the system as enshrined in our Constitution, and the judiciary has been bestowed upon the power to adjudicate the disputes and controversies brought before it, as per the provisions of law. The Supreme Court and High Courts under Article 32 and 226 vest the right to test the legislative law at the anvil of Chapter III of the Constitution of India under extra ordinary jurisdiction meaning thereby that the Constitution of India is supreme in our country, and the Judges and Chief Justice of High Courts take oath to uphold the Constitution and laws of the land while entering into their offices. 2. That since the applicant has moved the Mercy Petition to the Hon'ble President of India when he has experienced time and again that the higher judicial officers have come in rescue of lower judicial officers, and the applicant being the victim of judicature of Rajasthan as he is victim of all the tiers of the judiciary of Rajasthan which includes the Judicial Magistrate, Assistant Chief Judicial Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate, Additional District Judge/District Judge, Dy. Registrar/Addl. Registrar, Registrar General, High Court Judges including Chief Justice, and with this view, he has not approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court because there is every likelihood that now the Hon'ble Supreme Court may come in rescue of Judicature of Rajasthan. To make it more clear your attention is drawn that there are three Judges presently holding the office in the Hon'ble Supreme Court who have relation not only from Rajasthan but from Jodhpur, and as experienced so far by the applicant he has reason to apprehend that he cannot get justice from Hon'ble Supreme Court. Taking this view into matter, the applicant considered it appropriate to make a complaint in the form of Mercy Petition so as to be considered by the Hon'ble President of India himself being the Appointing and Terminating Authority and with further view that the applicant would be provided ample opportunity of hearing as he has bulky material so as to prove his contentions by making order for enquiry as was conducted in the case of Hon'ble Justice of Kolkata High Court Shri Somesh Mitra, and thereafter, the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India Shri K.G. Balakrishnan has recommended his case for impeachment. 3. That the applicant has not approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court on yet another ground that the applicant sought various information from the Public Information Officer, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur, wherein there is a non-responding attitude of the First Appellate Authority under RTI Act. The applicant moved to the Hon'ble President of India so that the record of the High Court may be called that may prove the contentions of the applicant, so as to make out he (sic) of contempt of Hon'ble Supreme Court with incomplete material in aforementioned circumstances. 4. That it is out of place to mention here that the applicant has a reasonable apprehension that the Ministry of Law and Justice is trying to suppress the complaint of the applicant so as to avoid enquiry into the matter allowing the applicant to put up the material on record as a piece of evidence. The applicant has experienced that higher judicial officers have come in rescue of lower judicial officers, but it is experience for the first time that the President Secretariat so also the Ministry of Law and Justice has come in rescue of Judiciary which has drafted the bill for making complaints against the Judges. Whether the action of bringing the said bill into Parliament is merely an illusion? 5. That the notice of contempt petition upon six Judges of Rajasthan High Court including the Chief Justice is merely an iceberg seen out of the water to your goodself, there is a very big piece of ice floating beneath the water surface which has remained unseen and if come into limelight, may prove a BURNING SCAM of the country and the name of your goodself may found place in the pages of the history. Admittedly, neither your goodself nor the Ministry of Law and Justice is competent to make any interference in the judiciary which is clear from the order of dismissal dated 5.2.2009. Under such circumstances, it is in the interest of justice that the Mercy Petition dated 29.9.2008 and Complaints dated 14.11.2008 and 22.12.2008 deserves to be either placed before the Hon'ble President of India for decision or in the alternative, the same may be forwarded to the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India which is competent to proceed into the matter under the provisions of Article 129 of the Constitution of India. In case of any hindrance and obstruction on your part will certainly amount to obstruction in administration of justice and punishable for contempt of Hon'ble Supreme Court. 6. That it is a case where the faith of applicant has been lost in judiciary/justice imparting agency, and it is the pious duty of the President Secretariat being the part and parcel of the Parliament to honour the Sovereign of the Nation 'We the people of India'. Therefore, the Mercy Petition dated 29.9.2008, Complaints dated 14.11.2008 and 22.12.2008 may either be put up before the Hon'ble President of India or in the alternative to forward the same to the Hon'ble Supreme Court with the recommendation to place the same before the Bench comprising of Hon'ble Chief Justice of India he being the head of the Judiciary for taking such decisions in light of the law laid down in the case of K. Veeraswami v. Union of India by Constitutional Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court (reported in 1991(2) R.C.R.(Criminal) 559 : JT 1991 (3) SC 198). If the applicant still remains unheard, the President Secretariat the more particularly Your goodself will be solely responsible for the consequences. The concerned abstract of the law laid down in the case of K. Veeraswami is reproduced for ready reference:- "Undoubtedly, respect for the judiciary and its public credibility and dignity has to be maintained in order to ensure respect for the Judges in public and also for the decisions rendered by the Judges... If these things are allowed to go unnoticed it will create serious inroad on the dignity, respect and credibility and integrity of the high office which a Judge of the Supreme Court and of the High Court occupies resulting in the erosion on the dignity and respect for the high office of the Judges in the estimation of the public. As has been suggested by my learned Brother Shetty, J. that the President is given the power to appoint the Judges of Supreme Court as well as of the High Court by warrant under his hand and seal and similarly even after passing an address by both the Houses of the Parliament in the manner provided in Article 124, clauses (4) and (5) and (sic) placed before the President, a Judge cannot be removed from his office unless an order to that effect is passed by the Parliament.... In order to adequately protect a Judge from frivolous prosecution and unnecessary harassment the President will consult the Chief Justice of India who will consider all the materials placed before him and tender his advice to the President for giving sanction to launch prosecution or for filing FIR against the Judge concerned after being satisfied in the matter." (emphasis is ours) A perusal of the highlighted portion of the letter reproduced above reveals, that the Trust had cast serious aspersions against three Judges of the Rajasthan High Court, besides its Chief Justice. It is also apparent from the extract reproduced above, that Suraz India Trust had also allegedly issued notices of contempt, to six Judges of the above High Court, besides its Chief Justice. This vilification extended to all levels of judicial officers in the State of Rajasthan, including District Judges, Additional District Judges, Chief Judicial Magistrates, Assistant Chief Judicial Magistrates and Judicial Magistrates. The condemnation of the Trust, included officers of Rajasthan High Court, including its Registrar General, Additional Registrars and Deputy Registrars. The Chairman of the Trust had written the above letter to the then President of India, by assuming the position, that he did not expect any justice from the Supreme Court, as there were then, three Judges of the Rajasthan High Court, in this Court. In this veiled narration, the Trust clearly identified the concerned Judges of this Court. The denunciation in the above letter, extended even to the Ministry of Law and Justice, as the Chairman of the Suraz India Trust felt, that it would rescue the judiciary, by suppressing its complaints. 11. The presentation of Suraz India Trust, during the course of hearing, through its Chairman - Mr. Rajiv Daiya, was indeed disturbing, in view of the insinuations levelled not only against six Judges of the Rajasthan High Court, besides its Chief Justice, but also against three Judges of this Court, besides its Chief Justice. Mr. Rajiv Daiya was very candid in explaining to this Court, that the factual position depicted in the latter part of the above letter (which has been extracted hereinabove), was indeed the truth, and emerged out of his actual and personal experiences. 12. In order to demonstrate, the truthfulness of the position expressed in the foregoing paragraph, Mr. Daiya placed reliance on an order passed by this Court, in Suraz India Trust v. Union of India 2012(1) S.C.T. 796 : (Writ Petition (C) no. 204 of 2010), wherein, a two-Judge Division Bench of this Court inter alia observed in its motion-Bench order dated;