प्रजा अधीन राजा समूह | Right to Recall Group

अधिकार जैसे कि आम जन द्वारा भ्रष्ट को बदलने/सज़ा देने के अधिकार पर चर्चा करने के लिए मंच
It is currently Thu Jul 19, 2018 9:04 pm

All times are UTC + 5:30 hours


फोरम के नियम ; Forum rules


ये फोरम केवल कमेन्ट करने के लिए है ; यहाँ आप नया थ्रेड शुरू नहीं कर सकते | कृपया कमेन्ट करने से पहले फोरम के सारे नियम यहाँ पढ़ें - viewtopic.php?f=19&t=1098

This is a comment only forum. You cannot start a new thread here. Please read the rules of the forum before posting - viewtopic.php?f=19&t=1098



Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 19 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
SR. No. Author Message
11
PostPosted: Thu Jan 31, 2013 3:14 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 2:49 pm
Posts: 596
51) In US out-of-court settlement works becuase the guilty party knows that if he does not co-operate, the other party would go to court, and the court would crack down heavily within few weeks. That is, it is the fear of courts, that makes the "guilty" or the "semi-guilty" party budge down. eg say a hospital in US gave you improper treatement, and you ask for say $100,000/- as damage. The hospital will be eager to settle outside court, and it knows that court is also likely to impose a similar fine. But in India, the hospital-owner knows that he can bribe the j.... and get away, or delay the case of infinite time. So he will not show any eagerness to compromise and let the case in court hang.

So power of ADR (Alternate Dispute Resolution) etc depends basically on the speed/fairness of courts. ADR is add-on processor, provided your basic processor works. If the basic processor (=courts) is defunct, ADR too will prove to be defunct.

quote: The Indian Supreme Court is also rapidly computerising, the Chief Justice said. Case management, including building data bases on case law (“precedence” in Indian legal parlance) ....

The home grown think tanks have realized that they have been total failure, and have agreed to learn (=COPY) from US. Good. But alas !! they are NOT good at even copying from the west. They are copying the lessirrelevant parts of the US system, and ignoring the more relevent parts.

The sucess of justice system in US, as seen from common man's point of view, is due to success of US's lower courts, NOT US's Supreme Court. And the sucess of US courts, perticularly lower courts, is due to its high degree of fairness, high degree of impartiality and lower level of judge/lawyer and judge/criminal nexus. Thats where Indian courts fall short, and thats where we need to learn (COPY) from the US courts. But are our Sc judges studying why US lower courts are so nexusless, compared to India's lower courts? No. They are busy with "other" less relevent issues. There is no point in looking at Supreme Court of US for solutions.

And as usual, NONE of the SC judges will discuss the REAL problem that has been plauging our courts --- corruption in judges, which is practically nil in US, perticularly in lower courts. We need to learn (=copy) the JURY SYSTEM
from US courts, not the lessons on ADR, computers etc.

So nothing useful will come out of this academic exercise.

52)
http://www.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=16432

quote:Rajasthan HC official suspended for seeking exual favours from litigant

Press Trust of India

Jaipur, Novermber 1: A sex scandal has rocked judicial circles in Rajasthan with a Deputy Registrar of high court suspended on the charge of seeking sexual favours for himself and a couple of judges from a woman litigant.

The Deputy Registrar Govind Kalwani, posted in Jodhpur, was served with suspension order by the court administration on Thursday after the Anti-Corruption Bureau formally registered a case against him after a preliminary inquiry, official sources said.

The official has been accused of sexually propositioning a woman, who runs a beauty and health clinic in Jodhpur, for settling a case pending in high court in which she is a party.

The owner of the clinic Sunita Malviya in a complaint accused Kalwani of having visited her clinic offering to get the case settled in her favour in return for sexual favour to him and two judges.

She charged that Kalwani named two high court judges in this connection. He even made a call from her clinic perportedly to a judge in Jaipur, she said.

She produced an audio tape as evidence and cited as a witness Additional Divisional Commissioner, Jodhpur, Prabha Tak, to corraborate her charges against the Deputy Registrar of the high court.

The matter was also raised before a division bench consisting of acting Chief Justice M R Calla and Justice Gyan Sudha Mishra on Thursday by an advocate through a Public Interest Litigation.

53)
Following is especially for you.... I am typing from hardcopy (from England's newspaper/tabloid)so no URL....

" 30000 a year refuse to give evidence

More than 30000 criminal cases are are abandoned because witnesses and victims refuse to give evidence in court or fail to turn up.

And four out of 10 who have given evidence say they would not do so again because they fear intimidation or would not wish to repeate the ordeal of being cross-examined.

The Government (British)acknowledges that justice system has lost confidence of the public because "too few criminals are caught and convicted or are prevented from reoffending".

The problem is universal that in over 90% cases, victims/witnesses refuse to show up. But the reason why system still works in UK/US is that in the remaining 5% - 10% criminals do get convicted with high degree.

Say a career criminal a career criminal commits 2 crimes per week. Then even if a probablity of criminal getting convicted is 5%, chances that he will remain unconvicted after 1 year i.e. 100 crimes is below 1%. i.e. 99% of criminals, if the try to be career criminals will be within bars within 1 year even if justice system is only 5% efficient.

The dark reality in India is that while conviction rate is 5%, the conviction rate for career criminals is below 0.05%. Mostly the criminals who get convicted are sponteneous criminals who have committed beatings/murder out of anger etc or some small time thieves.

The career criminals in India literally walk away free as they have nexuses with judges. And how do these nexuses work? Say a career criminal and his 50 gang-members are in crime business and say generate 20-30 cases every month in the local court. Then ALL 300-400 cases a year go to same 4-5 judges. The career criminal will manage these 4-5 judges and bingo problem solved.

While in Jury System in US/UK, if a career criminal and his gang is generating say 20-30 cases a month or 300-400 cases a month, they will have to bribe 5000 to 6000 Jurors which lot tougher job that managing 4-5 judges. So even today, you dont see crimes like hafta vasuli and gangs beating dalits or blacks in PUBLIC before police station.

So while law/order is worsening in UK/US, there is NO comparison with India.

54) quote: This leads to the question - Are you allowed to audio-tape the proceedings in a courtroom?

It is illegal to tape court proceedings without judge's permission. And judges would NEVER give permission. Why? Many judges have habit of talking rowdly, perticularly before lower class people (I have even seen judges throwing papers in air ; one magistrate I know had habit of insulting low-profile lawyers and would ask questions like "did you clear 10th class exam?").

So most judges would NOT like to get court proceedings tape/video recorded.

Now if one good judges decides to allow taping of courtrooms, the other judges will get be pressurized from jounalists etc to give permission. And most judges dont want this pressure. And so the good judges would NOT allow tape recorder as they know that this decision would displease other judges.

55)
quote:Originally posted by Imtiaz Ahmed:
Can you educate us about how the judiciary is organized from the lowest levels to the highest levels, how judicial officers are selected etc?

Appointments in SC

Formely, SC judges were appointed by PM. Since 1992, Sc judges are being appointed by SC judges. India is the ONLY so called democratic country where SC judges are appointed by SC judges and NOT by elected heads. eg In US, SC judges are appointed by Prez subject to Senate approval.

The process of selecting SC judges is highly confidential and even MPs are NOT allowed to know. Only PM, Law Minister etc would get the info and they may leak it to others, but otherwise, SC judges have made a point that whole process remains a secret affair.

The selection is 100% discretion of SC judges. There are NO written exams, no oral interviews etc. Those who worship judges, say that selection is nased on merit. Those, like me, who are anti-judge, say that selection is 100% based on jaan-pehchaan and khushaamat-khori etc. Many times, Law Ministry officials who have extended favors to judges have been able to become HC judges. This will give some idea about who is right.

Now chief judge is appointed by the outgoing chief judge and is generally the senior most SC judge.

The staff in SC, like clerks, registrar etc are appointed, dismissed, transferred at the wish and whim of SC judges.

Explusion of SC judges
SC judges are Gods. The impeachment process is complex and impossible beyond anyone's imagination. Anyone who thought that such a process can be effective scare crow was/is a complete and total idiot. If our Constitution writers had ever hoped that this impeachment would scare judges, they must have had been addicted.

To impeach a SC judge, the PM has to first form a committee of 3 ppl, of which at least 2 must be ex-judges. Then this committe has to indict the judge. Then MPs will get a chance to vote and 2/3rd MPs must support explusion. Then only the SC judge can be fired.

Suffices to say that this process is useless and complete waste of time.

Appointments in HC

In HC, judges are appointed by SC-judges and HC-CJ. CM has some role to play. But all in all, the process is a closed secret and no one public is ever told about who the new judges might be. Some 50% apppointment is by promotion of judges in lower courts, and some 50% are taken from outside (i.e. some lawyers straight away become HC judges withou ever serving in the lower courts or clearing any exams). Again, judge-worshippers claim that HC-CJ and SC judges select the people on the basis of merit, while anti-judge people like me say that HC-CJ go PURELY by jaan-pehchaan etc.

Expulsion of HC judge
2/3 members of PARLIAMENT (not Assembly) have to vote YES to impeach a HC judge. So HC judge is as safe as a God.

Recruitment in lower courts

In lower courts, the judges are recruited by an open competitive writtem exam conducted by State Public Service Commission, and interview is done by HC judges or retired HC judges chosen by HC-CJ. This process is by and large free of corruption, some exceptions may be there like recent Punjab PSC, where Punjab HC judges has bribed the PPSC Chief to get their kids appointed as Magistrates. Those who appear in the exam, need to be LLB (or LLM?), and have some years of experience in law.

why has judocracy has still not become 100% defunct? it is PURELY becuase many magistrates are recruited by written exam and NOT by jaan-pehchaan. This ensures that studious and intellegent youngmen with no bribe-money or connection, and many of them are non-corrupt, straight forward and upright, are becoming magistrates. It is due to such magistrates, that Indian courts and society is still functioing.

Remove this written exam, and let magistrates be appointed in the same way as HC judges are appointed i.e. allow HC judges can appoint magistrates by jaan-pehchaan, and India's courts will completely collapse within 5 years.

Those who pass the exam are posted as magistrate or junior civil-court judges. Later they can get promoted to sessions court.

The promotion/transfer/suspension and expulsion of lower court judges are 100% discretion of HC judges.

Staff of lower courts

All recuitements/transfer etc of staff such as clerks, registrars etc in done by the chief judge of that Court (such as Chief Metropolitan magistrate, or Principal Sessions judge) or HC-CJ of that state.

The HC-CJ has powers to expell the judge/staff-member WITHOUT providing ay reason, if he wishes. Even PMs dont have that much power over their employees.

Are recruitment of staff by merit or by jaan-pehchaan? IMO it is jaan-pehchaan and reasons we with 3 Karnataka HC judges.

Is the problem with recruitment process

Now while judge-recruitment system has 10s of flaws, the REAL issue is different. Say we need 50000 judges in India. Even if you take the 50000 honestest men and make them judges and place them in 50000 courts in various tahsils/districts, due to constant proximity with local lawyers and local criminals,

1)within 6 months, over 5000 will become moderately corrupt/nexused within 6 months.

2)Within next 6 months, some 4000 of those 5000 would have become extremely corrupt, and 1000 would be still only moderately corrupt. But out of 45000 honest, another 4500 would have become moderately corrupt/nexused.

3)In next 6 months, another 4000 + 4000 = would go extremely corrupt, and some more 4000 would go moderataly corrupt.

So within a few years, over 90% of them would have become corrupt and nexused, and most would be extemely corrupt.

So it doesnt matter HOW you select the judges. The end result is same.

So the US system of selecting 12 twelve at ramdom, and making them temperory judges for a case, and then expelling them once the case is over, is far better than any other recruitement system.

Now is this system American? Is Newton's Law British? This system of "Rapidly Rotating Judges" comes from common sense, and it is time we the common men of India adopt it.


Top
 Profile  
 
12
PostPosted: Thu Jan 31, 2013 3:23 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 2:49 pm
Posts: 596
56) The judges have good reputation mainly becuase of

1)Complete misuse of contempt related clauses to gag small press

2)Dense nexuses SC/HC judges have with super rich who control mediamen which tames the big press

Consider to 2). The SC/HC judges give huge favors to super rich. In return, the super rich, who own mediamen ensure mediamen wont throw mud on judges. So big press wont utter a word.

Now judges cannot please every small mediamen, as there are too many of them. But the small mediamen have no clout, and so judges can immidiately imprison him, by MISUSING contempt laws. So small mediamen also keep their mouth shut, and instead focus on throwing mud on netaa/baabu.

57) quote:nitin, in a different thread says:

In old Bhopal the situation is particularly weird. Both sides,the "P-Secular parties" and the "RSS" maintain their own "force". Violence is resorted to at a drop of a hat. Of course, Old Bhopal is a ghettoised area with some areas having "battle lines" drawn.

Typical situation when courts go over 90% defunct.

quote: New Bhopal (the part developed once state hood was granted) is predominantly peaceful, ...

Same in Abad.

Ever wondered why new cities have less bhailog than old cities? In general, you would expect more bhailog where there more well offs, as well offs have more money. But it is ALWAYS other way, that bhailog are more active in poor areas.

Consider my area, Navarangpura the poshest area of Abad It comes under Metropolitan Court#9 and Court#13. And some near by posh areas are Vastrapur and Satellites. IIRC, they fall under Metro Court#14-15.

The Magistrates in these courts are extremely tough on violent crimes. Why?

1. Many magistrates and almost all HC judges live in those 3-4 areas. So if any magistrate was to cultivate nexus with a violent criminal in THOSE areas, the HC judges would transfer him to hell.

2. The magistrates there make enough from financial cheats, and there are 1000s of them.

Now consider Court#2-5. They cover some of the poor area that is inhibited by lower class and lower middle class. So poor, that that no financial cheat would waste his time there. So the magistrates in those Courts has no option but to serve the bhailog. Also, the other magistrates and HC judges, Nbjs and elitemen/intellectuals etc dont mind if a magistrate in THOSE courts cultivate nexuses with bhailog. After all, it would hurt ONLY the common men who live there and NOT the Nbjie. It will be THEIR problem, not "ours".

So bhai-magistrate nexus is rampan in court#2-5 while non-existent in court#9, 13-15 etc. So bhaigiri is rampant in those area, while you cant find a single bhai in my and near by areas.

tee hee hee hee [Smile]

Abad or Bhopal or anywhere, it is the same story everywhere. Where Nbjie (netaa, baabu, judges, intellectuals, elitemen) live, they ensure that local magistrates dont form nexuses with bhai and their area remains bhailess. While they dont give a damn about rampant bhai-magistrate nexus in other areas.

58) quote:
Rahul:Basically criminals of all creeds and types emerege and become stronger/rampant when courts=judges DELIBERATELY stop punishing the criminals. whether the ruling party if Baath or CPM or RSS or Congress is irrelevent.

Anirban:
While agreeing with Rahulbhai (for the nth time) that judiciary in India is indeed a corrupt institution, it is not that they're always at fault.

Take this case for example. The victim may have cried for police help. The police infiltrated by CPM goons may have dithered and after the incident was flashed by the media, may have registered a FIR. After great reluctance, they may finally arrest a few cadres who're their brethren and file the case in such a way that the hooligans get the bail easily and come out again with renewed vigour to harass the poor woman. Next time she or relatives wouldn't dare to give testimony in the court and the criminals will run away scot free.

The judges have powers to accept complain from victims even in absence of FIR. Not only that, the judge can even take 'refusal to file FIR' as sufficient ground to suspend or even dismiss or even imprison the policeman.

Basically, the pandudom in India has become defunct ONLY becuase judges deliberately dont punish the defunct pandus. Why dont judges punish pandus? Well, in Gujarat where liquor is prohibited, who does the judge call when he wants some liquor? The local pandu or local sarkari vakil, and local sarkari vakil will then call pandu. In short, the pandu-judge nexus is strong enough that pandus can fearlessly committ any atrocities and yet get away without any punishment from the judges.

quote: A judge will deliver verdict based on the case prepared and presented to him, what can a judge do when the police is politicized, the administration is politicized, the entire mechanism is politicized ?

The judge is supposed to give verdict based on witnesses' testimonies. In such cases, there are few physical evidences. Using common sense, one has to decide which witness is correct and which one is liar. In most criminal cases, there is no such thing as "legal complexity".

In India, judges have simple modus operendi to assist the criminals ---- they will throw date after date after date after date to tire the complainer/witnesses. This is perticularly helpful when the comnplainer/witnesses are poor and workers who live on daily wages. While the criminal, whose fulltime business is crimes, has no problem in coming to court again and again.

So it is NOT than goons have infiltrated CPM/RSS/Congress. Due to criminal-judge nexuses, criminals have become powerful enough that political neta have no option but to admit them in their parties. Not only admit them, but neta have to actively compete to get the criminals in their parties. eg in Ahmedabad, there is a criminal named B Bharvad. Due to nexuses with local judges, he has become so powerful that both RSS and Cong were willing to give him Assembly seat. Due to some other equations (caste composition of constituency) he choose congress, but that is beside the point.

Basically, the judges are nurturing the criminals, and once they grow big of course some will become builder, some will become banker, some will become contractors and why not, some may even become neta. But courts=judges imprison the cirminals at early stage, they would never chance to grow big to begin with.

Aside:
Also you correctly pointed out the case of corrupt prosecution in India. Over 99% of sarkari vakils in India are corrupt. And this ONLY because
1)We do NOT have Grand Jury System
2)Our public prosecutors are appointed rather than elected individuals like in many parts of the West.

We should install Grand Jury System and elected PPs to curb this problem.

quote:Rahul: the judges have powers to accept complain from victims even in absence of FIR. Not only that, the judge can even take 'refusal to file FIR' as sufficient ground to suspend or even dismiss or even imprison the policeman.[/i]

Anirban: Rahulbhai knows, I know it, BR members know it. But does the poor woman sitting in her ragtag hut in a remote corner of rural Bengal dreaming only of two square meals a day know it? For her the local 'daroga' is the mai-baap, added to her woes are the cadres who'll not take things kindly if their dictates are defied.

Everyone knows that judges have wide powers, INCLUDING poorest of the poorest. They dont approach the judges, and instead approach pandu/neta for grievences becuase they KNOW that judges will NOT listen. In past, the judges have deliberately treated commons like trash while due to electoral pressure neta give better treatment.

In addition, there are always social worker type lawyers willing to work for free. But alas, most good lawyers these days advice people NOT to file cases. So high is the judicial harassment that no one these days wants to even become a witness in the court, forget complainer.

So the reason why poor dont approach courts=judges is ONLY becuase are defunct. "lack of knowledge" is NOT a reason.

quote: Do you expect this illiterate, semi-clad, half-starved woman leaving her daily chores to move to a court and file a complaint? If you do, then it is plain and simple wishful thinking.

No I dont expect her to walk top judge, becuase the judge will eighter ignore her or ask for a hefty bribe. And by looking at the woman, the judge will guess that she cant afford to pay, so he will just prefer to ignore her. But the fault is of judges, NOT that the poor lady is unaware of court's powers. If courts were finctioing properly, yes, the poor lady would have approached the court. As per expenses, if courts were honest, expenses would be low enough that some social worker can contribute. But in India, due to defunctness of judges, the legal expenses are sky rocketing day by day. So such workers cant help too many people anymore.

quote:Rahul[b] : The judge is supposed to give verdict based on witnesses' testimonies. In such cases, there are few physical evidences. Using common sense, one has to decide which witness is correct and which one is liar. In most criminal cases, there is no such thing as "legal complexity".

[b]Anirban: When a witness/physical evidence finds the puny shanty where he lives will be razed, the modesty of his womenfolk will be violated, the prospect of him languishing in a hell-hole named health centre with broken limbs brightens, then he'll think twice before being the testimony.

Most victims are so much full of hate that they would still take chances, if they know that there is some gurantee that the court=judge will imprison the culprit and ruin his life as well. Most victims file case ONLY for sake of (just) revenge. So the reason why victims in India dont file cases anymore is becuase judges in past have deliberately acquitted criminals after criminals despite witnesses/evidecnes using a simple modus-operandi ---- tire the witnesses till he breaks. So no wonder victims have lost faith in courts.

quote: Rahul: We should install Grand Jury System and elected PPs to curb this problem.[/i]

Anirban: AFAIK, the Jury system was abolished because in a country like India, the jurors too can be easily threatened, intimidated. Installing the Jury System will not solve the problem.

Britishers installed Jury System, and first thing India's neta/judges/intellectuals did after they power was to kill Jury System and replace it by oligarchy of appointed judges. So much for their egalitarianism and democraticness.

judges and Jurors are BOTH liable to threat, bribe etc. The reason why Jury System is SUPERIOR is that in case of Jury System, a career criminal who committs 20-50 crimes (his crimes and crimes by his gang members) a month in an area will need to manage 200-700 Jurors a month, and say 2500 to 8000 Jurors a year. While in judge system, he needs to manage just 2-3 judges who are in-charge of that area. So in judge system, judge-criminal nexus is TRIVIALLY possible. While a Jurors-criminal nexus (nexus between criminals and 5000-8000 Jurors) is an impossibilty.

So overall judge system is HIGHLY NEXUSPRONE. While Jury System is inherently nexusesless and so it is better.

The Jury System was NOT removed as Jurors can be threatened etc. Basically Indian judges killed Jury System ONLY becuase Jury System drastically reduces political powers and bribe-making powers of judges. Jury System also reduces the command and awe that judges would fetch in the society.

TThe neta removed Jury System as in Jury System, a neta who commits 100s of crimes a year will need to manage 1000s of Jurors, a task that is far far more difficult than managing just 3-4 judges. No wonder, neta, like any criminals, prefer judges over Jurors.

And intellectuals, how can they ever accept an egaliatirian idea that commons would give verdict? As per them, ONLY an intellectuals is capable of deciding what is right and wrong. And Indian intellectuals who have been fed with a strong diet of manuwaad can never diget the idea of "rulings by commons". So no wonder why they disliked Jury System.

The Jury System has been in US/UQ for long. There have been rare cases of threats/bribing Jurors, but briberay/nexuses in Jury System is exception, while nexuses(and resulting bribery or favoritism) is a REGULAR FEATURE of judge/regulator system in ALL countries irrespective of culture.

59) Why we need referemdum system in India

I am coming back from a small time meeting where one of the speaker was Hon'ble Law Minister of Gujarat Mr. Ashokbhai Bhatt. The meeting was about "what improvement are possible in judiciary". After the talk etc audience was invited to ask question.

As usual, I asked the question related to integrity of judges and their nexuses with lawyers, crminals etc. And Hon'ble Law Minister politely but firmly requested me NOT to talk about integrity of judges. He also threatened that he would walk out of the meeting if anyone talks about bribery etc in judges. I am SERIOUS, I am not kidding, he expcitly said that he would leave the meeting if anyone make even an iota of remarks against judges.

So I sat down, as I dont like to raise rukuses.

But here is the situation --- LM is neta in-charge of managing the judges. He is the nodal point for framing laws/procedures by which corruption in courts can reduce. And LM himself is refusing (or scared of) even discussing this problem of corruption/nexus in judges. If he cant discuss the problem, framing a law is automatically ruled out.

So now it is given that MLAs/Ministers will NOT even dicuss this problem for whatever reasons. So the following should be clear : neta will NOT solve problem of nexuses in judges.

So then what is the option?

Should citizens start a street fight against corrupt judges? Or is there any civilized option?

The ONLY civilized option left is that citizens themselves be allowed to present draft in Assembly and also DIRECTLY register their YES/NO on such a proposal. This way or that way, we need a referendum-type system.

Does anyone have a better (civilized) option?

Incidently, this also answers the question that Hon;ble BRite Kautilya had raised --- what can commons do to improve courts? Well, it is proven that neta-log are NOT even intersted in discussing corruption in courts. So it is an UTTER waste of time even to discuss the problem/solutions with neta. Since for the time-being, law-making power is in the hands of neta, there is NOTHING citizens can to do enact laws to reduce bribery in courts.

So what can commons do? For the time-being commons should focus on getting laws passed which would enable commons to make laws DIRECTLY without help of neta. Then ONLY laws to curb bribery/nexuses in courts would get made and passed.

60) In many cases, it is 100% courts' fault and since those faults are NOT corrected, one has to twist 100s other laws to addres those problems

The reforms in power sector is a good example of failure of India courts. And instead of fixing courts, we are fixing the power transmission/distribution sector, which has no major problems to begin with.

One of the MAIN reason why so called reforms started in power sector was due to extremely high power theft. This was a non-reason to begin with.

The ONLY reason why power theft was high was NOT becuase power companies were govt-owned, but because courts did not punish the power-theives and the distribution company's staff which had nexuses with the electricity theives. If courts had punished the power thevies and those employees who had nexuses with power theives, the power theft would have been neglible.

I will cite one case that I came across. AEC's lineman's had detected some electricity theft and they filed a case in court. The case came in hearing stage after 11 years. The 3 linemen were needed to be presented as witnesses, of which 1 had retired and another had left company. Both had moved out of Ahmedabad. AEC could NOT bring them as witness and case was dismissed. The electricity thief must have laughed his way out of court.

Same is the problem in GEB. In some areas, such as slums, criminals have setup their own illegal distribution companies, where they collect electricity charges. And the local linemen have nexuses with these criminals. The courts woulkd imprison neighter the lineman nor the criminal. No wonder theft is so high.

Sometimes, I wonder why so many people pay their bills.

Electricity theft is NOT like jewellery theft, that theif can take goods and disappear. He needs to do it on daily basis, round the clock, and it is easy to catch and prove. And there was never a shortage of evidences to prove lineman-thief nexus. But no Indian court (=Indian judge) even imprisond an electricity-theif or a lineman.

All that was needed to stop electricity theft as to imprison the theifs and nexused linemen. Instead, the MPs are wasting time in drafting a complicated law. If the law is made is to reduce electricity theft, it is a complete waste of time. To reduce electricity theft, we need to fix the prosecution (using Grand Jury System, elected prosecutors) and and fix the courts (using Jury Systems). we DO NOT need any new law/reform to reduce power theft.

-------------

The judge-criminal or judge-lawyer nexus is now well known in India. At least it is now well known on BR [Smile] . A kind of nexus is now appearing in India, which is carbon copy of judge-criminal nexus --- regulator-oligarach nexus.

An oligarch is a an owner/director/senior-manager of an oligopoly (or a monopoly in worst case). The new fad, that a regulator will "restarin" these oligarchs from over-profiteering is as irrational as the fad that judges would restrain career criminals. However, like judge-fad was very popular in 70s and 80s, the regulator-fad is now the talk of the town.

Consider the electricity reform bill.

And under existing bill the honest bill-payers' problem will NOT get solved. Why?

The distribution/tramission company can always nexuses with the regulators that he would set an extremely high charge for electricity trasmission/distribution. ....

In most cases, the regulators will be individuals who have served in govt/courts for decades and then becoming regulators. Assuming that such persons will NOT have pre-existing nexuses is naive. And the term of a regulator will be 4-5 years. This is a sufficiently long time to form nexuses.

So now if regulators have nexuses with owners/directors of power company, NO EFFECTIVE regulation in the interest of consumer will occur. So will the regulators be nexusfree? Now if you assume that regulators will be nexusless when appointed and theu will remain nexusfree in their 4-5 year term, there is NOTHING to debate. But THIS BILL has dones NOTHING to ensure that regulator-power_company nexus will not come up. Unless this flaw is addressed, any reformed in powwer sector will NOT help anyone, unless he has nexuses with owners of power company.

All in all, regulators are SAME as judges with change of label. Same bottle, same wine, new label. In many cases, regulators are none but ex-judges. So will regulator-oligarch nexus problem occur is a non-issue --- if judge-criminal and judge-lawyer nexuses could happen, regulator-oligarch nexus (direct or via lawyers) should be assumed as a fact.

In short --- consumers will never see the plus points of this electricity bill due to regulator-oligarchy nexus.


Top
 Profile  
 
13
PostPosted: Thu Jan 31, 2013 7:16 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 2:49 pm
Posts: 596
61) quote:Originally posted by Gerard:
If a criminal has bribed the judge, the jury becomes irrelevent. .... You have a judge in your pocket and no jury will convict you.

True.

which is why in the Jury System I have proposed, there is NO judge, period.

In the case, each side will iteratively get 1 hour of time where they can speak WHATEVER they want and present whatever evidence they want and present who-ever witness they want.

The lawyer of other side can argue before the Jury that such and such evidence should be considered void and that such and scuh witness should be dismissed for such and such reasons. There will be committee of 3 randomly chosen lawyes froma pool of 1000-2000 practinoners, whom Jurors can ask questions and seek guidence. Based on their views and arguments of lawyers, the Jurors will decide whether such and such evidence/witness is valid or not.

So no judge, almost zero possibility of nexuses. There may be baises in Jurors (which are also there in case of judges), but no nexuses.

As such, the Jury System which was in US in 1790s, the judges have much weaker position. The Jurors were free to give verdict against the law, if they think that law was unfair to begin with. The judges did NOT have powers to exclude the Jurors. The judges DID NOT have powers to even interview the Jurors, only lawyers of both sides had that power. The Jurors had powers to decide the length of sentence (below the maximus sentence allowed by law).

Gradually, the American judges started grabbing more and more powers, and this has created many malices in US judicial system too. eg in many drug rekated trials, judges exclude the Jurors who believe that drug-smoking should NOT be treated as a crime. As a rsult, the conviction rate in drug cases has gone phenomenally high.

quote: Now, I have a question for you. How about filing a Public Interest Ligigation (PIL) for this problem?

Unlikely. The problems in judiciary are created by judges, and it is unlikely that judges would solve them. At best, they will work to increase the number of courts/judges. But they will do NOTHING to reduce the problem of judge-lawyer nexus. So PIL's outcome will NOT help citizens much.

AFAIS, the ONLY way to make laws necessary to improve courts is to FIRST enable the commons to pass DIRECTLY without any help from Nbjprie.

62) quote: Sankar Nair:
[Jury System] is the best way to get rid of the influence of organized crime on the justice system. Career criminals will indeed find a jury quite hard to deal with.

Once again, thank you.

[Aside : For past several months, I have been trying my best to get one TRIVIAL point across the BR that Jury System is NOT replacing 1 judge by 12 Jurors, but Jury System means replacing 1 judge by say 50,000 to 60,000 Jurors. Why? Jurors change with EVERY case, and so if a judge in his 30 year = 6500 days career gives say 5000 judgements, those judgements in Jury System will NOT come from mere 12 commons, but 50000-60000 commons. Alas, many BRites still raise the same question "if 1 judge can be threatened/bribed, so can be 12 commons, so what is so good about Jury System"? [Frown] ]

quote: As for non-organized criminals, they will find it practically impossible to subvert the jury system.

True. 99% problems in India are due to frequent/career-criminals. i.e. criminals who commit crimes again and again and again. The non-careers dont create even 1% damage to the economy. Even if conviction rate of non-repeater remains low (and it is low even in west), but if conviction rate of career criminals improve, India will become at par with West.

Now even a conviction rate of 5% in case of career criminal is sufficient. Lets say a gang of 50-100 criminals is committing 1 crime per day. So there are 30 cases against them every month or say 360 a year. In judge system they will all go to same 2-3 judges. In Jury System some 3000 to 4000 Jurors will be handling them.

Now lets say conviction rate in Jury is as low as 5%. i.e. in 95% cases, Jury gets threatened or bribed. Even in that case, in 360 trials, there will be say 15-20 convictions. Some 2-4 convictions are sufficient to break the morale of the other gang members. Basically, after some 5-10 convictions, the gang will disintegrate.

Even if conviction rate for career is as low as 5%, within a few moths, most career criminals will be behind bars or will quit the crime business.

The reason why career criminals are flourishing is because the conviction rate for CAREER-criminals is not even 0.1%. The conviction rate of 7% is becuase there are many stupid non-career poor criminals who dont have a penny to bribe the policeman. sarkari vakil or the judge. And they have often committed a crime out of anger (like brawls) and leave too many evidences. If conviction rate for career criminals become even 5%, India will become a safer place to live.

63) quote:Originally posted by Akash:
In addition to jury system as discussed above, there is a very strong need to increase the number of courts and cut down on the time taken to resolve a case.

Agreed. It is established that we need AT LEAST 60,000 courts while we have ONLY 13000.

Now why is GoI/GoStates NOT spending money on increasing courtrooms?

Lets see how budgets are made. Say the finance Minister wants to make Budget-2003. What is budget? There are some 100-110 departments, and some 5-20 sections in each department, each section is asssigned some specific task/staff. So there some 1000-1500 expense headings under which funds need to be allocated. A mammoth task indeed.

So the budget of 2002 works as a template. To amounts allocated to each of the 1000-1500 heads, add inflationary etc prise rise. This will work as a refined template. Now there needs to be some minor-major fine tuning. You need to take funds away from one head and allocate to other. This a highly dirty process.

Defence budget has to be raised as Pak-threat is looming large. Due to terrorism etc home ministry's budget needs to be raised. Interest/loan repayment has to be done. Some over 50% funds are now already assigned.

Now the cement companies and highway making companies will approach FM/PM/MPs and bribe them to raise highway budget. Almost each MP runs and education NGO which is grant hungry. So MPs and Education Minister force FM/PM to raise education budget. Some intellectual bodies like IIT/JNU/IIM are holy cows must be overfed to obesity.

So at the end, not even a penny is left for court-sector.

In other words, every sector's in-charge come and bribe FM/PM/MPs to raise their budget. But the crores of poor litigants do NOT have any means to bribe PM/FM/MPs. So there is no one to lobby for their needs.

So each year court sector is neglected, as there is no one to lobby (lobby = pay bribe) to raise its funds.

Solution? We MUST allow commons to regsiter YES/NO on bills. Once that happens, a law ensuring that x% of collection of ALL taxes MUST be given to in-charge of court infrastructure. ONLY such a law can save court-sector from startvation. Left to corrupt PM/FM/MPs, ensusing proper fundings to court-sector wioll remain a pipedream.

quote: Thus the corruption and criminality spreads the moral fibre of the society is torn into shreds.

True. And worse is yet to come. As courts become more and more defunct, the commons have to now approach criminals for justice. The criminals are almost running private courts. Even in good states like Gujarat and otherwise OK cities like Ahmedabad, the slums and poor neighborhoods are now under jurisdiction of such private courts. The commons no longer waste their time with pandus/judges. In case a tapori is harassing them, they approach the court-of-bhai for justice.

Call it Disinvestment of court-sector, it is happening.

quote:Gerard: You have a judge in your pocket and no jury will convict you.

Vijh: Still, it would result in greater exposure of citizens to the court process, and vice-versa. There is a chance that among the jurors there will be citizens who will raise a hue and cry (at least outside court) if s/he suspects foul play. Or at least talk about it. What say, RM? What if you were a juror and you thought the judge had been bribed?

The judge can try his best to mislead the Jurors, but Jurors have powers to COMPLETELY ignore the judge and give verdict against the judge's instructions. There have been too many cases like this.

This is perticularly a phenomenon in case o career criminals who are too well know. Lets say Bhai Shiromani Shri Shri Chhota Shakilbhai is on trial. Now Bhai has committed so many crimes, that there will some 200-300 trials against him, with 2000-4000 Jurors. He can start threatening/brbing Jurors, and by 500-600 Jurors, he will run of money/logistic/time. Now even if judges side with Bhai, the Jurors *know* that Bhai is a criminal. So they will just ignore what the judge says, and convict Bhai anyway.

quote: Building awareness is important. Yes, we already "know" that judges are bribed as a matter of routine, but most of us do not directly witness the injustices that are often meted out in our courts.

True. The Jury System changes that as behavior of judges come under microscopic supervision of commons. A judge in his career of 30 years = 7000 days will preside over some 1000-1500 Jury Trials. So comes under scruitiny of 10000 to 20000 Jurors/commons. And he knows that these commons, after the trail will go in the community spread the word.

The other trial judges and HCjs also become conscious of this fact. Suppose they find out that some trial judge is defunct/corrupt. And they know that this fact will get noticed by 1000s and 1000s of Jurors, and this will ruin his reputation and reputaion of all judges. So they take strong/prompt actions to restrain/expel him.

In ALL countries with Jury System, the judges behave better than in countries without Jury System.

In India, the situation is WORST. First, judges no longer get screened by commons. Worse, even if a bribe case comes out, the reporter may land in prison for mentioning it. So judges have a wide open field for themselves.

64)
quote:Originally posted by Khan:
How about allowing TV cameras into the courts? That would reduce corruption somewhat, especially when corrupt judges make unresonable rulings. Let the viewer judge for himself.

I support the idea of putting TV cameras in courts. But recently SC had rejected the idea of allowing cameras in SC during some important trial.

IMO, Parliament should make a law that would allow TV-cameraman to use camera WITHOUT having to seek judge's permission. He can do it only in way that would NOT disturb the court, and judge may expel him if he is headache. But permission to bring camera MUST not be required.

quote: ADDED A LITTLE LATER: BTW, I disagree with the jury system. Initially the Indian system was jury based, but it turned out that that the jurors were letting perpetrators of crimes like sati and wife burning off the hook, because of caste and other social resons.

In those days, judges with Indian background were also pro-sati etc. In europe, bothe judges and Jurors convicted women of being witches which we now all know that it was a hoax. Wrong knowledge leads to error, be judge system or Jury System. So acquital of pro-sati or conviction was witches DOES NOT prove that judge system is better or worse than Jury System.

quote: My position may seem a little imperialistic to some of you, but I fear that this could happen again.

As far as "social" beliefs go, like castism, anti-woman biases etc, BOTH, the commons and learned are at same level. No reason to say that educated judge will less castist etc. So judge system or Jury System, THIS issue remains unresolved. The "bias factor" is immaterial in Jury vs judge debate.

The Jury System's ONLY plus point is that it is nexusless. As far biases go, both are at SAME level.

65) quote:Rahul Mehta: No reason to say that educated judge will less castist etc. So judge system or Jury System, THIS issue remains unresolved. The "bias factor" is immaterial in Jury vs judge debate.

Khan: I think that an educated person (a judge no less with ~7 years of college education) would be less vurnerable to social pressures, JMO.

In UP Sessions court, some 6-7 years ago, an upper caste judge ordered his peons to clean his chamber with Ganga-jal. Why? The chamber was previously used by a SC judhge. When that SC judge complained to HCjs, the press found out and SC MLAs/MPs started making a big noise. The HCjs told the SC judge to withdraw the complain. That SC judge refused. So HCjs transferred that SC judge thrice in next 2 years, and each time he was asked to report to new place within 24 hours. (Basically, a harassment technique).

So you can see now egalitarian the educated persons are.

The "sense of equality" does NOT come from education. Most Nazi leaders were educated, and most priest in ancient India were also educated. Yet they were hard core racist (or castist). Our first Prez, Dr Rajendra Prasad was super educated, and yet he opposed the idea of Universal Franchise (one man one vote) and insisted that only property-owners and educated ones should have right to vote.

The educated ones are smart enough that they can sugar-coat and rationalize their biases and inequalitarian views. Otherwise, in a given geographical area, you pick 100 educated at ramdom and pick 100 illiterate at random, you wont notice much difference when it comes to biases etc.

And nexus is a bigger factor in admin/courts.

ALL IAS-babus are super educated. How many of them are non-corrupt and non-nexused after a career of say few years? ALL judges have education of over 4-7 years. How many remain non-corrupt and non-nexused after a career of a few years?

Now if a judge is nexused, whether he is biased or not, becomes irrelevant.

Even if Jurors are biased, it is unlikely that a career criminal, violent or financian, will be able to form nexuses with 1000s and 1000s of them While that career criminal will manage to form nexuses with 5-10 judges no matter how educated those judges are.

So career criminal will thrive in judge system even if ALL judges are super educated, while he will get convicted even if ALL Jurors are illiterate. Hence Jury System is better for economy/society EVEN in a district where masses are illterate.


Top
 Profile  
 
14
PostPosted: Thu Jan 31, 2013 9:43 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 2:49 pm
Posts: 596
66) quote:Originally posted by amarko:
This just caught my eye!

quote:'Court-on-Phone' inaugurated

HYDERABAD: Litigants, who do not have access to the Internet in finding the status of their cases, can now find out the status on telephone. ... dialling the phone number 24520280. The data on cases is fed into computers, particularly pendency-wise, stage-wise and court-wise along with advocate list.

Isn't it better to reduce the number of pending cases than implement IVRS for them ? [Roll Eyes]
- Amarko.

The phone will be busy most of the time [Big Grin] You will get the ring after some 100-200 tries and some 5 hour of delay [Big Grin] .

The courts in Bihar are planning to use video phones. [Big Grin]

Indian court-sector is full of such dramas --- where instead of solving KEY problem of delay/nexuses, and instead of punishing some criminals they keep churning out such gimmicks.

Here is another gem --- the Law Ministry in Gujarat is wasting money in setting up a National Law School to create better lawyers. It is inviting NRI-intellectuals from Harvard etc to be faculty. The Law School will be another "overfed to obesity" JNU/IIM-type institute.

Law Ministry doesnt have money to create additional lower courts. But they do manage to find money to make expensive Law School. And make ALL courts of Guj-HC air conditioned. (The ac is so powerful, that sometimes you shiver in summer).

All these gimmiks will keep going till commons get right to register their YES/NO in Assembly and/or recall MLAs. Till then, litigants will have NO option but to keep using that phone line. [Big Grin] and [Frown]

And till courts improve, I dont think India will be able to cultivate good tech, eco, tax collection system, and thus good military.

I really think we are running out of time. MNCs have captured Bagdad, Kabul and Islamabad. Within 5 years, MNCs will capture Tehran, and then within next 5 years they will be knocking Delhi's gate. Unless we can fix our courts, which pre-requiste to raise a good eco/tech/mil, it is possible that MNCs will devour India. I hope commons will understand the urgency at which we need to improve our LawMaking-scetor and Court-sector.

67) quote: Sadly the American judiciary has moved to take away power from citizens - even talking about jury nullification outside a courtroom can land you in trouble.

Jury Nullification

The American judges, like Indian judes, habe two (or many more) toungues in their mouth. The Supreme Court of US in some 1970s upheld the Jurors; powers to void a law. The mediamen, which are slaves of elitemen, seldom advertise these judgements. And inside a local court, the judge will tell the Jurors "I will decide the law, you must give verdict as per the law I told you" And if a lawyer tries to explain to Jurors, that they have power to give verdict against the law, if the think that the law is unfair, the judges cancel that lawyer's practining licence.

The judges started grabbing Jurors' powers as early as 1780s. even though it was universally agreed at the time of American Revolution that courts would NOT punish commons without permission of Jurors, many judges started punishing people without Jury Trials. Which is why Thomasbhai Jeffersonjee (one of the few neta in the world that I call as pro-commons and have respect) stood up and introduced 5th Amendment and 7th Amendment which made Jury Trial compulsory. But by 1950s, judges habe even sabotaged 5th/7th Amendments considerably. The American judges rules that while Jury Trial is fundamental right in case of felony, it is NOT a fundamental right in case of misdimenour (minor crimes). A misdeminor can fetch a punishment of upto 6 months. So in some cases, judges would split a criminal action of a person into 5 to 10 acts of minor crimes, deny Jury Trial in each of the cases, and sentence the person 6 months in each case, thus imprisoning him for 3 to 6 years.

judges EVERYWHERE in the world have become atrocious and defunct.

In US, it is easy to see why judges are so atrocious : their promotions etc depend on number of convictions they make. All this nonsense started becuase prisons were privatized. Once prisons were privatized, the prison companies started looting prisoners (a phone call that inmate makes costs him 10 times the phone charge; a pack of cigeratte is often 4 times the street price) and at the same time looting the state. The givernment literally pay through nose to support prisons. And to further increase the profits, they lobbied before lawmakers and judges to raise convictions and also increase the sentences.

Eventually, the US-law-makers and US-judges sold out, and as a result minorest crimes these days in US end up in inhumanly long prison sentences.

The US-judges, in order to increase chances of conviction have started filtering out any Juror, whom they think might acquit the person. eg In US, over 30% to 40% population is strongly opposed to long prison sentences to drug abusers. To many, drug abuse is a mere vice and NOT a crime. So if 12 people are selected at random, and if 10 are needed for conviction, chances are that MOST drug users will get acquitted. Basically, the LawMakers have made mindless drug laws to keep prison-owning companies happy, and no other reason. So what do judges do? They will call 100 commons, and start filtering out those who think that law to punish drug users is wrong. Basically judges are dismantling the Jury System.

In past, the Jurors also had powers to decide the length of prison sentence. They can keep it LESS than maximum allowed iunder the law, not more. The judges in federal courts and many states have also grabbed that power. The argument given is same --- commons are stupid, commons are corrupt etc etc.

The reason why Jury System became weak in US is becuase commons in US
1) DO NOT have procedures to vote directly in the law-making bodies on laws
2)have NO procedure to recall a law-maker
3)have no procedure to expel a judge

So due to weak law-making/recall procedures, the law-makers and judges are becoming more and more rampant.

quote: Particularly abhorrent is the practice of denying the possibility of civilized people, who are against the barbaric (and stupid) notion of the death penalty, of standing in a case with a capital penalty.

I am anti-DP. In almost all states, where judges pwoers to filter Jurors is less, DP is less. This clearly shows that Jurors are less likely to resort to DP then judges, and thus it also proves that Jurors will be ALWAYS LESS atrocious than Jurors.

The best example is Russia. The Russians have realized that the judge system stinketh. So dictrict after district is switching to the Jury System. The judges and elitemen are opposing this and they want Russian Parliament to make laws to curb this Jury System. Some 10 out 90 Districts in Russia today have Jury System. And in districts with Jury System, DP is significantly low than districts with judge system.

================

Back to India:

Now ignore (World - India). Lets focus ONLY on India.

In India, atrocity of judges is mainly due to their nexuses with local criminals and elitemen. The local judges in Bihar, Eastern UP, Orissa etc have dense nexuses with local landlords. Many judges themselves come from landlord families. Most violent and non-violent disputes in the rural areas of those states are directly or indirectly related with land. The judges, irrespective of the law/facts, take sides of the landlord due to nexuses/family-relation. And so to crush the other side, they resort to outright atrocity, like issuing non-bailable warrants on slightest pretext, denying bails, keeping a person as under-trail prisoner for a long time and so forth.

It is sad that while we talk so much abpout pandu-atrocity, NO INTELLCTUAL, I repeat, not even one, has ever bothered to document judicial atrocities in India, perticularly Bihar/UP/Orissa etc.

Unless Jury System comes in Bihar/UP/Orissa, the rular areas of these states will remain in dark ages (or unless they get liberated by MNC-goons). In addition to Jury System, we also need
1)elected public prosecutors
2)Grand Jury System
3)Elected District Police Chief
4)Jury and Grand Jury System over Policemen (Jurors can expel a policemen, if they declare him as "not fit to serve us".)

and above all

5)powers to commons to register his YES/NO DIRECTLY in the District Panchayat and Assembly.

68) http://www.rediff.com/news/2003/apr/30delhi.htm

Former Delhi high court judge arrested in DDA scam

quote:Former Delhi high court judge arrested in DDA scam

Onkar Singh in New Delhi
April 30, 2003

The Central Bureau of Investigation on Wednesday arrested former Delhi high court judge Shameet Mukherjee from his residence in Zakir Hussain Marg in New Delhi on Wednesday in the Delhi Development Authority land scam case.

The anti-corruption unit of the CBI had raided 11 places in New Delhi this morning and scanned through thousands of papers before arresting Mukherjee. He would be produced before a designated CBI judge in Delhi on Thursday.

The places raided included the official residence of Justice Mukherjee and his two houses in Chitaranjan Park in south Delhi. Other places raided by CBI included four houses of Dharam Vir Khattar, a property dealer and prime accused in the case, two residential premises of Vinod Khatri, a hotel owner, and the office and residence of advocate Anshu Aggarwal.

Mukherjee had been dealing with DDA cases during his tenure. Files containing drafts of judgments were recovered from Ashok Kapoor, former assistant to deputy chairman of the Delhi Development Authority, and Khattar's residence during the raids.

The CBI has registered cases against Justice Mukherjee under sections of the Anti-corruption Act, 1988 and sections of the Criminal Procedure Code for criminal conspiracy. Similar cases were also registered against sacked DDA vice-chairman Subhash Sharma, Khattar, Khatri and Kapoor.

Sharma had earlier been arrested in the scam for favouring Modern Public School in Shalimar Bagh and seeking illegal gratification from the school authorities.

Justice Mukherjee had denied his involvement in the scam and tendered his resignation from judgeship on March 31. But he had said his resignation was due to his wife's 'indifferent health'. On April 3 he sought to withdraw his resignation, but by then President of India Dr A P J Abdul Kalam had accepted it.

==========================================

http://www.indianexpress.com/full_story ... t_id=23030

quote:Justice behind veils

Manoj Mitta

Jeff Sutton would not give a fair shake to people with disabilities if they walked into his courtroom,” said a member of the US Senate Judiciary Committee, Tom Harkin. A Democrat senator, Harkin made this uncharitable remark about a lawyer who was recently nominated by the Bush Administration as an appeals court judge. The system of appointing judges is so transparent in the US that every nomination of the president is subject to confirmation by the bi-partisan committee, which holds prolonged public hearings for that purpose. Such a situation is inconceivable in India where the public is delivered with a fait accompli after the president has signed the judge’s warrant of appointment. In the normal course, the only ones who would have prior knowledge of it are a handful of senior functionaries of the executive and judiciary involved in processing the appointment.

By contrast, American senators lay bare the whole record, professional or otherwise, of the nominee during the confirmation hearing. In Sutton’s case, Democrat senators objected to his nomination because as a lawyer he happened to argue in one Supreme Court case against giving any special protection to state employees with disabilities. His lapse, if it can be called so at all, is no big deal by Indian standards. But Sutton had to assure the committee that he would be fair as a judge and ask them not to hold his previous work as a lawyer against his nomination. ‘‘I am trying very hard to show you that I would be an objective judge and that the client I would have is... the rule of law, not a former client,’’ Sutton said. Amid protests from over 150 disabled activists crowded into a room in the Capitol Hill, the Senate finally gave its approval on April 29 by a 52-41 vote.

Just a day later, Delhi was witness to something that can be traced to the absence of any such transparency in judicial appointments in India. The CBI raided the house of [DD-Delhi-HCj] Shamit Mukherjee, who had resigned a few weeks earlier as a judge of the Delhi high court because of his alleged complicity in a scam related to the Delhi Development Authority. The CBI had found high court files of some lucrative DDA cases in a guest house. Taped telephone conversations apparently revealed that those files found their way to that unauthorised place with Mukherjee’s knowledge and consent. The CBI apprised the Chief Justice of India. V.N. Khare, who in turn confronted Mukherjee with the evidence. The buzz in the bar is that Mukherjee has long had links with the land mafia in Delhi — a detail that could well have come out in the open and nixed his appointment if we had adopted a procedure anything like what the US has.

When he subsequently put in his papers, Mukherjee graciously cited his wife’s illness as the reason for his sudden resignation. Our Lordships can’t seem to tolerate transparency even in their resignation letters.

The shame of Mukherjee’s case came close on the heels of the resignation of another judge, Arun Madan of the Rajasthan high court. Madan had to go because a peer-group committee indicted him for soliciting a female doctor in exchange for a judicial favour. Again, the resignation came after much delay and exposure in the media. That did not, however, deter Justice Khare from crowing over the media’s failure to substantiate their reports alleging involvement of Karnataka high court judges in the Mysore sex scandal.

Be that as it may, Madan’s fall is particularly instructive because of the circumstances in which he was first appointed to the Delhi high court in 1993. As a lawyer, Madan had suffered the mortification of being censured by the Supreme Court Bar Association for soliciting work and acting as a tout. The bar association passed a resolution against him and some other lawyers for bringing disrepute to the legal profession. This misconduct should have, under the rules of the statutory Bar Council of India, stripped him of his licence to practice. Instead, as can probably happen only in the Indian judiciary, the man found himself elevated to the bench. Madan had powerful connections — powerful enough to have him sworn in on March 3, 1993, early in the morning at 8 am, well before any lawyers arrived in the high court. And when the lawyers came to know later in the morning about the hush-hush swearing-in, they immediately went on a strike to protest his appointment.

The judiciary’s dereliction didn’t end with that as the the Delhi high court bar association filed a writ petition before the Supreme Court challenging Madan’s appointment on the basis of his already publicised record of misconduct. In an unabashedly self- serving ruling made later in 1993, the apex court said that once the president signs a warrant of appointment, that case is not amenable to judicial review. Significantly, this ruling was made in the larger case through which the Indian judiciary, in the teeth of constitutional provisions, appropriated “primacy” in the matter of judicial appointments. Shamit Mukherjee is only the latest fallout of that 1993 judgement, which legitimised secrecy in appointments.

Long time ago, yours truely, rustic-RM had suggested that judge-appointing procedures in India, where DD-SCjs appoint SC/HC-judges by jaan-pehchaan is the WORST procedure used in the world. The US-system of appointing judges where Prez/Gov appoints and Legislature confims or sometimes in States/Districts, judges are elected is a far superior procedure. Of course, Jury System is The Best of all judge-appointing procedures, where 12 judges (Jurors) are chosen at random from a population of million and dismissed after the case is over.

I hope pro-judge intellectuals will now at least agree that judges in India as thugish as neta, if not more.

======================================================================

http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/prin ... RO02.shtml

Judge accused in DDA scam held

quote: Judge accused in DDA scam held

Sudhi Ranjan Sen

(New Delhi, April 30)

The CBI on Wednesday arrested former Delhi High Court judge Shamit Mukerjee for receiving "illegal gratification" to favour a city-based hotelier.

The judge is understood to have told investigators that he was "entertained" by several "society women" at the offices and guest houses of Dharam Bir Khattar, the key accused in the DDA land allotment scandal.

Among these women was a Delhi High Court lawyer. The liaisons led to problems in his marriage, Mukerjee is believed to have told investigators.

A senior CBI official told the Hindustan Times Mukerjee had "dictated" his statement to investigators on Wednesday. "We did not have to ask him any questions."

Mukerjee, however, denied showing undue favours to the hotelier, Vinod Khatri, or anyone else. The judge's name had been dragged into the DDA allotments scandal after five judicial files belonging to his court were recovered during a raid on Khattar's premises in March. Mukerjee had resigned subsequently, citing "personal reasons".

Neither of the two lawyers believed to be readying to represent the judge in court - senior counsels D.C. Mathur and S.S. Gandhi - would comment on the arrest and alleged confessions. Both said they were yet to be formally approached to take up the case.

Earlier on Wednesday, CBI searched Mukerjee's home on Zakir Hussain Marg. They raided the office and home of Vinod Khatri and four premises belonging to Khattar. The home of Anshu Aggarwal, a woman lawyer at Delhi High Court, was also searched.

According to the CBI's FIR, Mukerjee had agreed to doctor judgments in two civil suits (Azad Singh v DDA, 1493/2002 and Vimla Choudhury v Union of India & othrs, 236/2002) in favour of Khatri. Both suits related to the connecting of Outer Ring Road to the Mehrauli-Mahipalpur Road, and its widening to 45 metres.

CBI officials said Khatri did not want the road built. He allegedly approached DDA's land director Jagdish Chander who put him in touch with Khattar. Khattar introduced him to DDA vice chairman Subhash Sharma and Mukerjee. Subsequently, DDA removed its counsel Gita Mittal from the case.

judge-lawyer "nexus" is somewhat more intense that I thought [Big Grin] .

Such sell out occured ONLY bcuase too many (100s) of cases were to go one single individual. And so a mafia and the judge, both saw that a nexus can be made and would benefit both. Now such thing cant occur in The Jury System as in The Jury System, those 100s of cases would have gone to 1000s of Jurors, and since no one possibly cultivate nexuses with 1000s of individuals, the trials will be nexusfree.

Is there anyone still out there who is pro-judge anti-Jury?

Personally, I would thank judge Shamit Mukherjee as he has convincingly showed how fundamentally flawed the judge system is, and that ut needs to be replaced by The Jury System on ASAP basis.

69)
quote:Originally posted by Shalav:
Fundamental question after all this. I hope it has not been asked before.

What prevents the jury from being bribed, cajoled, threatened? All it will take is a certain number for a mistrial to be declared, in effect letting off the accused till they can arrange another mistrial!

[The question has been asked before]

Both judges and Jurors are liable to bribed or threatened. The difference is that judge is 1000s of times MORE probable to bribery wrt CAREER CRIMINALS who are REAL threat to the fabric of society, economy, day to day life etc.

1)A career criminal (be violent or financial) and his gang members have to commit 100s or 1000s crimes, like extortion/cheating/etc a month in order to sustain

2)This will rsult into 10s and 100s of complaints and cases against them every month.

This is where bribery in Jury System becomes difficult.

In judge system, all these cases will go to some 5-10 judges. So the ganglord has to manage ONLY 5-10 judges and bingo --- acquital becomes easy

But in Jury System, EACH case may land with a DIFFERENT set of 12 Jurors. So if a criminal gang is landing into say 1000 cases a year, it would end up facing 12000 Jurors a year, and the gang lord will have to bribe 12000 Jurors (or at least a big fraction of them).

So to get a high acquittal rate, the gang lord in judge system needs to form nexus with mere 5-10 judges, while in Jury System he needs to form nexuses with 1000s and 1000s of Jurors. The task is 100+ times more difficult.

Now lets say the criminals manage to foil 90% of Jury Trials. But even a 10% conviction rate is sufficient to neutralize career criminals. How?

Say a gang of 50 criminals is committing 100 crimes (beating, extortion etc) a month, and only 10 people file case in court. i.e. say 100-120 cases a year. Say in 90% case Jury get bribed/threatened. But even if 10-15 trails go fairly, and 8-10 gang members land in prison for 2-3 years, this will drastically reduce the morale of remaining gang members.

To sustain, career criminals need almost 100% aquittal rate. Even a conviction rate of 2% is sufficient to break a career criminal, as career criminal commits 10-50 crimes and month, and even 2% rate would be imprisonment in at least 2-3 cases within 2-6 months.

In India, conviction rate is 5%. But that is ONLY with non-career criminals (spontaneous criminals, those who commit crime out of anger or desperation in unplanned way) and do NOT have money to purchase pandu, sarkari vakil and judges. Otherwise conviction of career criminals, like Harshad Mehta or Dawood is unheard in Indian courts.

Putting it another way

1)Jury System is NOT merely replacing 1 judge by 12 Jurors, but it is replacing 1 judge by 1000s (say 500000 Jurors)

2)How? as Jury changes with every trial. So while 1 judge in his career of 30 years = 7000 days will give some 3000-5000 judgements, this task of giving 3000-5000 in Jury System is done by 36000 to 60000 Jurors.

So the career criminals end up facing too many faces.

This is the ONLY reason why OPEN career crimes (like extortion, hafta vasuli etc) are unheard in all the countries with the Jury System. While even countries with high literacy but judge system like Russia, Brazil, Mexico, Latin American countries and many African countries etc have rampant career criminals who work openly.

A specific example. Consider the recent case of Delhi HC-judge Shamit Mukherjee. He was getting 10s of new cases every month in addition to 1000s of pending cases. Say he had 1000 cases with him at a given time. Say some 10% of cases were plump land etc cases. And he was given months and years of time to dispose them. So he had enough time to build nexuses with land mafia. And mafia also saw that cultivating nexus with judge Mukherjee will benefit him in 10s of his own cases, and will enable him to fix the deals by working as mediator in 100s of other cases. And mafia also got months and years to establish nexus with him. And mafia's effort to get benefit in those 100s of cases was not all that high --- just cover one judge and a few sarkari vakils.

Where in Jury System, these 100s of cases would have gone to 1000s of Jurors, and outcome would come in few days as each Jury has ONLY one case. Nne individual can cover 1000s of persons in few days' time, and so most of the verdicts will be NEXUSLESS.

OTHER FACTORS (over and abobe number game) why Jury System is superior
------------------------------

1)The Jurors have ONLY one case in their hand. So the trials run from 10am to 5pm non-stop with next day as next date in most cases. So verdict comes in 1-2 weeks in most cases. So criminals have only a few days to manuver. While in judge system, a judge's term in perticular court is 2-4 years and his career's length is 20-30 years. So lawyers and career criminals have years and decades (not days) to build nexuses with judges. But in Jury System, career criminals have handful of days to build nexuses

2)Since verdicts come in 1-2 weeks, the chances of witnesses/complainer getting tired are less.

3)In judge system, since ONE judge has power to decide 100s of cases in his career, people have to be very picky in case of choosing judges. Due to this, it is NOT possible to appoint 1000s of judges in a short time. So in judge system, the number of judges ALWAYS fall shorts, and so delay in dispensing cases increases. While in Jury System, the judge is more advisor/consultant and so any learned person with clean police record and experience can be appointed as judge. Basically, in judge system, process of appointing judge is as complex as finding a CEO, while in Jury System process of appointing judge is no more complex than recruiting a supervisor. So in Jury System, it is possible to create 1000s of courts in short time and thus allow speedy trials

Mechanism to reduce effect of threat
------------------------------------

If there are too many cases against a person, the next case against him can be moved to a randomly picked district in that state. This way, his local network will NOT be of much use. This way, a career criminals will be faced with trials all over district

Mistrials
---------
In Jury System I have proposed, say there are 12 Jurors. Each Juror will state the punishment. They NEED NOT agree uninanimously. Then 4th lowest punishment will be taken as the sentence. eg say the 12 Jurors propose punishment as (0, 0, 1, 1, 1, 2, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4) years of prison as punishment (0 means no punishment). Then 4th lowest punishment is 1 year, and so 1 year will be punishment. So there whould be no such thing as a mistrial.

70)
quote:Originally posted by Shalav:
ALL YOUR MATHEMATICS MAKES NO SENSE IF THE JUROR IS BRIBED AFTER HIS HER SELECTION!

The numbers DO make sense.

1)1000 cases go to 5-10 judges and while 1000 cases in Jury System go to 1000s of Jurors. so even if the criminal has names/address of Jurors who are selected, he has to approach 1000s of Jurors, which is difficult than approaching 5-10 judges

2)12 Jurors are selected from a population of million and then trial starts within few days, and then it ends in few days. So criminal has ONLY a few days to establish nexus with Jurors, while in case of judge, career criminal has years and years to establish nexuses.

So the numbers DO make sense. And these numbers (quantative analysis) fully explain the emperical evidence that OPEN organized crime, open corruption etc in ALL countries which use Jury System is significantly less than countries which use judge systems

quote: What prevents the accused from bribing, cajoling, threatening a juror AFTER the jury has been selected?

NOTHING. Nothing stops criminal from bribing a Juror or a judge. except that in the Jury System, he will be confronted with a task of bribing 1000s of Jurors as opposed to task of bribing 5-10 judges.

quote: What prevents the court clerk from providing the names of the jurors to the accused so that he can "carry out his nefarious activities" on selected jurors AFTER their selection.

In the procedure I proposed, there is NO such list.

Here are the details of the Jury-selection procedure :

1)Say 50 trials are to start on Monday. So we need 600 Jurors.

2)Then 6000 will be summoned a week ago and asked to report to court.

3)On Moday itself, out of those 6000, 12 will be chosen at random and given trial number #1. Of the remaining 6000-12= 5988, 12 will be chosen and given trial #2. And so forth.

4)The remaining 5400 will be sent back to their homes.

So if one's case is to start on Monday, he may know WHICH 6000 are potential Jurors, but till Monday, no one knows which 12 individuals will be decide a perticular case.

And trials in Jury System are over within 1-2 weeks in over 95% cases as Jurors have only 1 case. So criminal has just a few days to manuever. Compare this with judge system, where a lawyer and career criminals get months and years to form nexus with him.

quote: It is cheaper and easier to bribe/cajole/threaten a couple of "commons" after they have been selected as the jury, than to bribe/cajole/threaten a judge.

It is cheaper to bribe ONE Juror than to bribe one judge.

But is LOT MORE expensive to bribe 1000s of Jurors than bribe 1 judge. Hence when 1 judge is replaced by 1000s of Jurors, bribery in courts reduces.

quote: ... When you say that the "criminal" (which by itself implies presumption of guilt before trial) will be handed a punishment, you are presuming that the jurors WILL find the accused guilty. Makes no sense. Why not just do away with the trial itself and hang them straight away?

I am NOT presuming any guilt.

The Jurors may or may NOT find a person guilty. If 4 (or more) out of 12 Jurors find him innocent, he will be acquitted.

The ONLY advantage of Jury system over judge system is that building nexuses with 1000s of Jurors is next to impossible and certainly far more difficult than building nexus with 1-5 judges.

So the Jury System is far LESS NEXUS-PRONE than judge-system. Thats all, and thats a BIG plus point given it is nexuses becuase of which guilty ones escape despite mountains of evidences.

quote:Originally posted by Shalav:
You are assuming that a "criminal" will not have the time to bribe a juror. Also that the "criminal" will have to bribe multiple jurors in order to ensure that he gets a favourable verdict. But you ignore the fact that jurors names can be given to the criminal AFTER they have been selected to sit in his particular trial. How do you prevent the juror from being bribed - please don't present procedure - just plainly state how you will prevent a juror from being bribed/cajoled/threatened AFTER his/her selection to sit in judgment in the "criminals" case?

Nothing prevents criminal from approaching Jurors. Sequestering (confining Jurors in Govt guest house with NO phone lines, no visits from relative, a la-prison) from selection till the end of the trial helps, but it is NOT fool proof.

But in the Jury System, the criminal has LOT less time to bribe Jurors than time he has to bribe judges in judge system. In The Jury System criminal (accused) has ONLY a few days time, while in judge system, a lawyer has months and years and decades of time to form nexuses.

Also, a career criminal has a a gang of 50-100 criminals, and so at a given time, 5-10 trials may be against his gang-members. He has to manage 50-120 Jurors in a short span of 2-10 days. This is far more difficult than managing mere 5-10 judges in a duration of several years.

I did NOT say that Jury System is 100% nexus-free. I said that it is LOT less nexus-free than judge system. I am COMPARING two systems wrt nexus-prone-ness, NOT making any absolute comment on The Jury System.

quote: If this is so, why fourth lowest? Why not a majority descision? why should the minority descision be imposed on the accused? Or why not the sixth lowest or the second lowest? It doesn't make sense!

It is accepted principle to give benefit of doubt to the accused. A Jury System which has say 13 members and takes 7th (median) vote as punishment will be Jury System with no benefit of doubt. A Jury System with 12 Jurors which takes LOWEST punishment as punishment would be Jury System with too high benefit of doubt (eg in capital punishment, ALL 12 Jurors must agree. Even one disagreement would mean converting capital punishment into life sentence).

Whether it should be 6th lowest vote of 4th lowest vote of 3rd lowest vote in the end will be decided by the citizens of District/State who pass the Jury Acts by Direct Vote in their States/Districts.

My proposal says 4th lowest punishment in Jury of 12 in MOST cases. (In cases of fininacial fine, it is 6th lowest vote, but I would skip the details for now).

quote: Mr Mehta, the jury system rests on the foundation of conviction based on evidence beyond reasonable doubt. It means that even if there is a reasonable doubt the accused shall be let free, rather than risk a wrong-conviction. It seems you want to overturn this basic foundation of the jury system too.

In many states in US, (11 guilty, 1 not-guilty) is conviction.In civil juries (9 guilty, 3 non-guilty) is conviction. In states, which require all 12 guilty, the lawyers of both sides have oppurtunity to exclude potential Jurors out of the randomly chosen citizens (venire). So say 12 people are to be chose, the court will summon say 50. Then prosecution gets oppurtunity to exclude those who may say "not-gulity". The defence will exclude those who they think may say "guilty". But if no one is given chance to exclude people, it would be difficult to get unanimous verdict most of the time.

In short, the states which have uninanimity condition has to allow exclusions to avoid hung Juries. My proposal DOES NOT have exclusion, and so I can make uninamity a condition for verdict.

So 4th lowest lowest is "in-between" situation. 6th lowest punishment would mean zero benefit of doubt and 1st lowest punishment would mean TOO much benefit of doubt.

I am NOT violating any basic prinicple of Jury System. The Jury System is based on ONLY one (hypo)thesis --- that Jurors being large in numbers are less prone to be nexused with criminals compared to judges. Jury System has NO other "basic" principle that I know of.


Top
 Profile  
 
15
PostPosted: Fri Feb 01, 2013 1:16 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 2:49 pm
Posts: 596
71)
quote:Rahul Nothing prevents criminal from approaching Jurors. Sequestering (confining Jurors in Govt guest house with NO phone lines, no visits from relative, a la-prison) from selection till the end of the trial helps, but it is NOT fool proof.

Shalav: If not foolproof why change a system for another just as liable to be corrupted?

Beuase permanet and fixed judges are FAR FAR more prone to nexuses. There is difference between 10% failure and 99.99% failure. In Jury System, the career criminals will be able to crack say 1000 out 12000 Jurors he confronts every year, and so system will fail say 10% to 20% of the time. While in judge system, a career criminal will crack ALL 5-10 judges he contronts within no time, and system will fail in over 99% case.

So reduce failure rate from 99% to 20% (or less), we need to fire judges and bring Jurors onboard.

How does past nexuses help in judge system while they fail in Jury System

Say a career criminal and his gang-members are facing 100 trials in some 2-5 areas. In judge system, all trials will go to some 2-5 judges, while in JurySys they go to SEPERATE 100 Juries of 12 each.

Say the criminal has bribes one Jury, and he gets away. But the next case is with DIFFERENT 12 Jurors or the nexuses he made in PAST trials are NOT useful. He needs to start from scratch.

While in judge system, say a criminal has bribed a judge to get acquittal. Now in the NEXT trial with same judge, he will have LESS problem than he faced first time. Second time, the amount may remain same, but acquittal will be cake walk and judge and criminal have dealth previously. By 3rd, 4th and 10th or 100th trial, the career criminal would have cultivated dense freindship with the judge.

In Jury Syste, the career criminal ha sto start ALL over again in each case. While in judge system, PREVIOUSLY build nexuses work as a CAPITAL investment, and reduce the future costs.

In many courts, the criminals dont even have to approach judges on a case by case basis. A monthly payment of say Rs 1 lakh to Rs 5 lakh is decided, and that would ensure ALL acquitals of him and his gang-members. Since in the Jury System Jurors change with every trial, no such monthly deal is possible.

quote: Sequestering has to imply that the trial is conducted in one shot. What if the accused lawyer falls ill AFTER jury selection and requests postponement of the trial. What about the period after the jury selection and before trial commencement. Are you going to keep jurors in govt guest houses till the lawyer recovers.

In most Jury Trials, the lawyers are NOT allowed to ask for postponement. If witness doesnt show up, the trial proceeds WITHOUT witness.

Same is in judge system. The judge can deny adournment. But reason why judges have to allow it is becuase they are overloaded with work and cant provide continuous trial.

quote: What if the criminal bribes the prosecutor to fall it. Waht if the criminal bribes the judge to fall ill?

Prosecution is made less corruptible using
1)Grand Jury system over prosecution
2)Elected prosecutors

If public prosecutpor is ill, the admin has to appoint ANOTHER prosecutor in his place. If judge falls ill or dies, another judge will takes his position next day. The show goes on, unless Jurors die. Even then, in most cases, there are 18 Jurors, 12 sitting and 6 stand-by. So unless 7 Jurors are killed, the show will go on.

If Public Prosecuto sells out, it is NOT much of a problem. The victim can be allowed to present his own lawyer and cross-examine the witnesses.

eg say street criminals are threatening people for monthly-hafta. Say one has video-tape with recordings of threats/beatings. In the procedures I propose, one can DIRECTLY approach Grand Jurors WITHOUT public prosecutor, and get a trial.

The toughest problem in courts is that judges form nexuses with criminals/lawyers. The criminal-PP nexus is easy to crack by allowing victims to present the case himself or via his lawyer.

quote: Sequestering only works for short trials, you cannot keep people hanging on for ever waiting for one lawyer or the other to recover.

Most (over 90%) trials in Jury System get over in 1-2 weeks. And as far as career criminals go, which have the bulk of the problems in India, conviction rate of 5% is sufficient to get them in prison within 6 months. So even if Jury Trials fail in 10% to 95% cases, career crimes will vanish.

quote:Rahul: in the Jury System, the criminal has LOT less time to bribe Jurors than time he has to bribe judges in judge system. In The Jury System criminal (accused) has ONLY a few days time, while in judge system, a lawyer has months and years and decades of time to form nexuses.

Shalav : So what? If it can be corrupted, then it is no better than the present one.

Wrong.

A system which is fails in 10% to 20% cases is FAR FAR better than one which fails 99% of the time when dealing with career criminals.

quote: Why not propose changes to the present one instead of throwing the baby with the bathwater ?

No one is throwing baby. The baby (i.e. fairness and nexusless in justice is what is need) IMPROVES in The Jury System.

Also, you are free to propose changes that may reduce judge/lawyer and judge/criminal nexus. But as it turns out, no one has been able to make judge system nexusfree even in theory. You are welcom to give a try.

quote:Rahul: Also, a career criminal has a a gang of 50-100 criminals, and so at a given time, 5-10 trials may be against his gang-members. He has to manage 50-120 Jurors in a short span of 2-10 days. This is far more difficult than managing mere 5-10 judges in a duration of several years.

Shalav: So what? He can still corrupt a few jurors as he can corrupt a few judges.

One can corrupt 10 out 10 judges. One cant corrupt 12000 out of 12000 Jurors. The logistic does not allow that. One can corrupt say 1000 out 12000 Jurors, but that would ensure a fiar trial in at least 70% to 90% cases. Thats is good enough to exterminate over 99% of CAREER criminals.

(As for non-career criminals BOTH systems are equally fallible and are alike).

quote:Rahul : I did NOT say that Jury System is 100% nexus-free. I said that it is LOT less nexus-free than judge system. I am COMPARING two systems wrt nexus-prone-ness, NOT making any absolute comment on The Jury System.

Shalav: So you admit the jury system is just as prone to "nexus-prone-ness" as the judge system? Which brings me back to the original question, why change it at all, instead of improving the current system

At least 100 times I have admitted that Jury System is NOT 100% nexus-proof. And I will admit it 101st time. But the difference of nexus-proness in ORDER OF MAGNITUDE perticularly wrt career criminals and lawyers. A lawyer, who has say 10 junior lawyers and takes 1000 cases a year (with the help of juniors)will end up confronting 12000 Jurors. He may be able to crack AT MOST 1000. But even then over 80% trials will be nexusless. While in judge system that lawyer will confront AT MOST 5-20 judges, whom he can EASILY manage. so there is will nexused trial in over 99% cases.

So even in WORST case, Jury System is at least 80% free from lawyer-Juror nexus. While in BEST case, judge system is 1% to 5% free from judge-lawyer nexus.

The difference matters to me. If it seems INSIGNIFICANT to you, sorry I wasted your time.

quote:[/b]Rahul[/b]: The forth lowest number in the SERIES of 12 numbers. Arrange the number in INCREASING order from left to right, and pick 4th number from left.

Shalav: Why increasing order, why not decreasing order? Why the 4th pick, why not the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th, or 12th pick?

The citizens who pass Jury Acts for their States/Districts will decide which nth highest/lowest punishment they seem right. Such questions, like why should fine be Rs 500, and why NOT Rs 501, are not relevent to me at this point.

quote:Shalav; Whats wrong with the benefit of doubt? You are assuming that the accused is guilty even before the jury has reached a verdict, by dismissing any chance for an innocent man to go free with your sequential punishment selection method.

Nothing wrong with BoD. The Jurors will decide how much benefit of boubt the want to give. It is subjective and goes case by case. Thats why we need trial.

quote:Which citizens? What direct vote? What Jury act? Where on Earth do you live?

The Jury System will come by an Act of Assembly/Parliament. I am refering to those Acts as Jury Acts. The citizens will have pass those Acts using means they seem suitable.

quote:Let me put it another way. In a trial by 12 jurors 8 vote for the maximum punishment of 20 years, and 4 vote for no punishment. Therefore if i have understood your system correctly the votes will be as follows

In that case, he will be acuitted, the procedure I proposed.

quote:... you sure dont care much for rights of the accused.

In judge system the judge is supposed to take of rights of accused. In the Jury System, the Juror takes care of the rights of the accused. In judge system, sinc ethe judges get nexused over time, they fail to take care of rights of accused. eg in India, judges kept an accused in prison for 35 years as under-trial prisoner for a charge which if guilty would have resulted into MAX 1-2 years. The judge have done pathetic job of protecting citizens from criminals and protecting innocent accused.

quote: You are trying to convolute and fit a square peg into a round hole in order to support principles which shrug off the basic thinking behind jury trials ...

The BASIC and ONLY principle behind Jury System is that permanent judges are liable to nexuses. If not, there is NO reason to replace judges by Jurors

quote: which is a judgement by ones peers, and which if reasonable doubt exists means that the accused is let off, not given a prison term just because some random thinker thought that was is a good idea.

The Jurors are nexusless and will give sentence ONLY if they are convinced beyond doubt about the guilt. So "beyond reasonable doubt" is built into Jury System. If over 8 out 12 Jurors are convinced that a person needs to be imprisoned, the decision is better than a decision of nexused judge.

72)
quote:Originally posted by Shalav:
Let me understand this correctly. While you want the justice system to change and provide the US as an example of a succesful justice system, you don't want to follow the same procedures and rules and conventions they follow.

In US/UQ. the JurySys's details change from one state to another, and from one county to another. And even in Federal Courts, different Circuits sometimes have different procedures. Same is true for judge system in India --- different states have some differences.

There is NO proforma of Jury System in US as you seem to suggest. The ONLY common aspect in JurySys, is that "5-15 citizens are chosen AT RANDOM, and they have final power to convict/acquit". That is the ONLY main feature of Jury System.

As per features like benefit of doubt etc, different states in US/UQ have DIFFERENT rules and procedures. And same may happen in India, different State/District may adopt different standards. Some may opt for uninanimity, some may opt for 11 out of 12, some may opt of majority verdict etc. These are MINOR issues. The main issue is that --- fixed judges form nexuses with lawyers and career criminals within six months and so they are unfair, while Jurors are less nexusprone.

I am NOT propsing COMPLETE Procedure Code that would cover ALL issues.

quote: You forget the US system can be presented as successful by you only because of the procedures and rules they have, any changes to suit your theories, will make them prone to failure.

NOT true at all. In such cases, Jury System varies from state to state in US, and if details of one state are necessary condition for success, the Jury System should have failed in other states which does NOT follow those details. The reality is that all rules and procedures, irrespective of details, work or fail depending on whether judges/Jurors are nexused or not. In absence of nexus, persons are fairer and just, and so they interpret the rules fairly, or if the rules are unjust they reject it and do otherwise.

NEXULESSNESS is the ONLY necessary and sufficient condition for justice. Random selection of 10-15 indviduals ensures a high degree of nexuslessness, and other procedures cuase minor differences.

quote: You assign advantages to this system when there are none, and discard its faults by making things up as you go along.

If so, please take some time to explain why judges in India and ALL countries with judge system have become so nexused, while Jurors in ALL countries have remaind un-nexused by and large.

quote: All your writings in this issue have failed to convince many people of the advantages of the system, ...

There are people who prefer oligarchy over democracy, and they remain pro-judge. The Jury System is basically meant for pro-democracy anti-oligarchy people, who are looking for means to reduces the domination oligarchy might have in society. If I havent convinced them of Jury System, it is certainly not my fault not is it fault of my arguments.

quote:... and I don't expect people to be writing to their MLA/MP asking for this to be implemented immediately.

I have NEVER asked anyone to write to MLAs/MPs to pass Jury System related Acts. My advice has been to ask MLAs/MPs to pass Direct Vote Acts, so that citizens dont need to see thye f1cking faces of corrupt MPs/MLAs in rest of their lives. If and when DirectVote happens, citizens will NOT need to write to MLAs/MPs and waste their time. They can just register their YES/NO on Jury System related Acts when they get presented in Assembly.

quote:Originally posted by Shalav:
Lets start with the inconsistencies.

Question I.

Why the 4th pick in the series when selecting punishment? Why not any other pick? Is there a statistical reason for this?

Please show what is INCONSISTENT about it? I.e. How does it contradict with any of the previous procedures I have suggested?

Basically, there are 12 Jurors. Both sides, defense and prosecution present arguments, witnesses and evidences. And each Juror decides if the accused is guilty beyond doubt, and how malafide his intention were, and how severe was the crime, and so how much punishment accused deserves. Each Juror gives a number. In case of civil trials, it can be financial amount, in case of criminal trial it be financial fine plus length of prison sentence. Say the punishment is to be length of prison sentence. And the 12 Jurors give prison sentences in years in INCREASING order as (a1, a2, a3, ..., a12) . The number will be 0 if the Juror thinks that prosecution hasn’t been able to prove him guilty beyond doubt.

Now if ALL Jurors recommend SAME identical sentence. There is no dispute. But if length of sentences they recommend differ, the nation needs to make a law by which the police can decide the exact length of sentence.

In extreme case, a state/district can make a law that "lowest of (a1 ... a12) will be taken as sentence". The state/district may also make a law that a6 be taken as a sentence.

My suggestion is a4 (1/3rd - 2/3rd demarcation line) be taken as a sentence.

So, how is this inconsistent with any of the statements I made previously?

If I had said "lets take a3 as sentence" you could have asked SAME question. Why a3 and not a4? Such questions can be raised on EVERY issue? viz why should max sentence form theft be 3 years and 3.5 years?
For that matter, why does a Constitutional Amendment need 67%? Why not 75%? Why not 85%?

Such questions have ZERO significance on judges vs. Jurors debate.

The REAL and ONLY issue in judges vs Jurors is

1)should we call for randomly chose 12 citizen to decide imprisonment and length?

2)should we depend on FIXED cadre of individuals (which will be less 0.01% of population) to decide the imprisonment and its length.

The question "why should we pick 3rd or 4th or 5th lowest sentence" is irrelevant in judge vs Jurors" debate as this question also shows up in judge system and is resolved arbitrarily, not by any mathematical proof. Question appears when we have a bench of 3-5 or more judges. Say there are 9 judges in a bench. Say they suggest punishments as (a1, a2, a3 ... a12)= (0,0,0 , 1,1,2 , 2,3,3) years. Now what should be the length of the sentence? a3? a4? a5?

So since the objection you raised ALSO exists in judge system, it is IRRELEVENT wrt judges vs. Jurors debate.


[Aside : Basically, my arguments that "Jurors are superior than judges" are based on following scheme

1)I have showed that Jurors are FAR FAR LESS NEXUS-PRONE and have less nexuses with lawyers and mafia than judges do. Examples like DDj Mukherjee further proves my point. Thus our courts will be fairer if they use Jurors instead of the judges.

2)Given ANY flaw that is cited in Jury System, I will prove one or both of the following
2a)The said flaw does not exist in Jury System OR
2b)The SAME flaw also exists in the judge system

In case of (2b), the flaw cited in Jury System, even if exists, becomes IRRELEVENT wrt "the judges vs The Jurors" debate.

Please, note --- I am NOT out to prove that The Jury System is the idealest in anyway. I have much humble goal. All I want to establish is that The Jury System is FAR FAR superior than the judge system. Or rather, judge system is far far inferior. And so we, the people of India, should expel ALL judges in lower courts, HCs as well as SC and bring the Jurors onboard.]

73)
quote:Shalav : What qualifies the randomly chosen jury to decide on the length of the punishment, without any basic grounding in law?

Thanks for asking a relevant question. Now I have answered this question at least 10 times in this thread and I have answered this to YOU at least TWICE. Nevertheless, I will answer this question again.

The procedure of randomly selecting 12 citizens [Jurors] from a population of millions is SUPERIEOR than using a fixed cadre of individuals (judges) as within a few months, these fixed individuals cultivate nexuses with lawyers/mafia (mafia = career criminals) who meet these judges almost on daily/weekly basis.

In justice, nexus-less-ness is far far more importance than knowledge of law. Eg. judge Shamit had nexus with mafia Khattar. Say Khattar beats up someone and case goes to judge Shamit. Shamit would just throw date after date after date and thus tire the witness/complainer to run flee. This is exactly what is happening in over 95% of India's 13000 courts. Each judge sitting there is as nexused as pandu, neta or a babu down the street. And you know how nexused our neta are, and judges are equally nexused with criminals/lawyers.

So random selection, (and avoiding repetitions) ensures more nexuslessness, and so Jurors are better than judges.

Also while judges may have better idea of what is written in law-books, they have ZERO knowledge about ground reality. This NOT a fact invented by RM, but a fact also accepted by Supreme Court judges of US as well as esteemed statesmen like Thomasbhai Jeffersonjee and Madisonjee.


quote: Who presents the directions to the jury about what is fair and not fair?

Once again, I have ANSWERED this question to you before.

what is fair/unfair is decided by Jurors. The Jurors may need some guidance about details of the current law. Both lawyers will argue what is written in the law-text and what it would mean. In addition, in my proposal, 3 lawyers are chosen at random from a pool of 100s of lawyers practicing in that district, and these 3 lawyers will be called to preside over that trial. The Jurors can ask guidance about law from these 3 lawyers.

quote:Shalav: The length of the sentence would be what the MAJORITY of the judged propose. Here’s a tip - its known as majority rules. And no; in the bench of judges - a majority decision is not considered arbitrary. A majority is a what most of the judges think therefore it should apply. Fair and non controversial.

The principal that N/2th pick is BETTER than xth pick is accepted by convention; there is NO mathematical/statistical proof that it is better than xth pick. Also, it gives MINIMAL benefit of doubt, and you are assuming that each decision was honest. So there is NOTHING to show that majority-verdict is always better than a super-majority verdict, if one wants to admit the possibility of bribe and want more benefit of doubt.

quote: on the one hand you state that no country uses a majority system, and then in the same para you state unanimity is only where judges lawyers have the power to filter the jury. I don't understand - what happens if the jury is not filtered and there is no majority? Which is what I think you propose for India.

[I would like to correct what I said --- that "no country uses majority verdict in Jury System". It is "no country, other than Scotland, uses majority verdict in Jury System ..."]

Filtering is done BEFORE the trial starts. It only REDUCES the possibility of hung-Jury. Despite filtering there may be hung-Juries.
So even country which use filtering are faced with hung-Jury and have laws to obtain the verdict in case of hung Juries.

[The way filtering reduces the chances of hung-Jury is as follows

Say 12 people are chosen at random. Say 3 are likely to say not-guilty, and 9 are likely to say guilty.

Now instead of 12, say 60 people are chosen. Then 45 are likely to say guilty and 15 are likely to say not-guilty. The prosecution will try to exclude not-guilty-sayers while defense will try to exclude those who may say guilty. Not that they will always succeed in guessing the person correctly, but they will succeed with some probability. So each party can exclude 24 individuals so that (60 - 24*2) = 60 - 48 = 12 are left. The prosecution may be able to exclude all 15 who are likely to say not-guilty, in which case verdict may be unanimous.

Basically, the possibility of unanimity INCREASES due to exclusion/filtering.]

The Jury Systems, when it comes to size and condition for conviction are arbitrary and vary from nation to nation, state to state

The size of Jury also changes. My suggestion is to use 12 Jurors for ALL cases, except when there is no prison sentence and fine is less than Rs 10,000/- in which case 5 Jurors can be used. (Why 12? Why not 10, 11, or 15? Why Rs 10,000/- why not Rs 10,001? And why 6, why not 5? Please dont waste your time bothering me with such question)

Scotland uses 15 Jurors. NZ uses 12 Jurors, but for petty crimes with low punishment, it may be as low as 6. US mostly uses 12 Jurors but smaller Juries are used for petty crimes and pure civil offenses. And NO ONE has any mathematical reason why size should N and NOT (N+1).

For conviction/acquittal conditions also vary.

1)Scotland has NO filtering/exclusions and has 15 member Jury. It requires majority for acquittal/conviction. The judge decides the length of sentence and there is NO rule, but length of sentence does end up depending on whether verdict was unanimous or simple-majority. But since there is no hung Jury, there is seldom a re-trial. Scotland is perhaps the only country which uses majority for conviction/acquittal, otherwise most countries require unanimous or at least a super-majority for BOTH conviction and acquittal.

2)UK has 12 Jurors. (0/1/2 not-guilty, 12/11/10 guilty) is guilty. (10/11/12 not-guilty, 2/1/0 guilty) is not-guilty. Anything else means re-trial. If there hung Jury even in re-trial, it would result into acquittal.

3)In US, some states need unanimous verdict. Some states need (0/1 not-guilty, 12/11 guilty) for guilty and (11/12 not-guilty, 1/0 guilty) for not-guilty. Anything else is hung Jury followed by a re-trial. Many times, prosecutions drop the case after hung-Jury and thus acquittal would follow. Two hung Juries would result into acquittal.

So different countries/states, different ARBITRARY rules. None have mathematical proofs to justify their rules as you have asked for.

quote: Why is a majority decision not fair and the 4th pick better when there is no filtration of the jury by lawyers?

Majority scheme is based on minimal BoD ("benefit of doubt"). A super-majority scheme is based on some higher level of BoD. A unanimous verdict for conviction is to provide MAXIMAL BoD.

Unanimity assumes a very low level of possibility of threat/bribery. "4th pick" reduces the possibility of verdict by threat/bribery, as threatening/bribing 4 Jurors is several times more difficult than threatening/bribing 1 Juror. And 4th pick has MORE BoD than 6th pick i.e. majority.

No country has mathematical reasoning to support the sizes of their Jury and Grand Jury they use. Nor do they have mathematical proofs to justify the conditions for acquittal/conviction or hung-Jury/re-trials.

Now if you have anything for/against the BASIC principle forwarded in this thread that "instead of fixed judges, 12 randomly chosen citizens should be used to decide punishments/acquittals" you are welcome.

For your "why 20 and not 19" type queries, please start some other thread.

quote: The key is that there are judges who guide the jury in those countries which have opted for the jury system.

THERE IS NO COUNTRY WHICH PRACTICES THE JURY SYSTEM WHITHOUT JUDGES - WHICH IS WHAT YOU WANT US TO DO.

-Here is question #2 - Why NOT have judges to guide the jury? All the examples of the jury system that you have presented have judges - Why does your proposal discard judges altogether - what will make your system better than the system already in practice in your example countries?

When I explained that OTHER countries are using ARBITRARY measures to resolve hung Juries, and NO country has mathematical statistical proofs for this strategy, your response was " forget other countries, explain why THIS proposal uses 4th pick". Now when I said "no judges", you say "OTHER COUNTRIES use judges, why don’t you use judges".

Make up your mind --- is "Other Countries" argument is valid or NOT?

[As far as I go, my argument is NOT "other countries". The citizens of INDIA will decide by registering YES/NO.]

Now coming to you question :- why NOT use judges AT ALL.

First, lets clarify what I mean by word "judge". A judge is an APPOINTED individual, who is permanent staff of govt.

In the proposal I suggested --- say there is a case in a district with say 20,00,000 citizens , typical size of an Indian district. Such a district will have say some 1000-2000 lawyers, with more than certain years/case of experience. Then 3 are chosen at RANDOM and will HAVE TO serve as guide to the Jurors.

So like west, the Jurors in my proposal DO HAVE someone to guide them.

But unlike West, these individuals are NOT permanent, they are NOT employees of state, they DO NOT have a career, there is no such thing a promotion, and after the case, they become ordinary lawyer as they were before.

So Jurors do have a guide. But he is NOT permanent employee of the State, and thus not a judge in the conventional sense.

Now when you make statement "all examples you gave [of other countries], have judges ...' it is important to note that judges in those countries are NOT same as judges in India. eg judges in many districts/states in US are ELECTED, not appointed. Even when they are appointed, they are appointed by Prez/Gov and appointment needs at least approval of majority of Legislature. So yes, American courts have judges, but the process of their selection is FAR FAR more democratic than procedures use to appoint Indian judges, where judges appoint judges.

Basically, due to procedures like election of judges, the judges in US are less nexused than judges in India, who do NOT need any approval of citizens.

quote:What will prevent miscarriage of justice - without judges to preside over the trial.

Do you have any statistical proof that chances of miscarriage decrease due to presence of judges? I am NOT asking for proof as such, I am ONLY showing IRREVALNCE of you demand of asking for ‘STATISTICAL PROOF’.

There is NO evidence to support that presence of judge will improve fairness in the court. On the contrary, due to nexuses he has with lawyers/mafia, the fairness will DECREASE. So chances of miscarriage REDUCE by removing the judge and replacing him by 3 individuals who are well trained in law, but less prone to nexus.

Besides, as more and mroe news reports come about bribery of judges, it is clear that judges are NOT trustworty of the job of even guiding the Jurors. So we have no option but to fire them anyway. There are NO good judges left in India and so no good proposal can be constructed using them.

Therefore my proposal is void of judges.

Summary

quote: Q2 - Why no judges to preside over jury trials?

The Jurors need someone to guide them. The lawyers of opposite sides are two guides. In addition there are 3 lawyers chosen at random. There are NO fixed PERMANENT individuals who will serve as guide as individuals in such permanent positions are very likely to get nexused with lawyers and mafia.

quote: Here is forgets the basic principle of the jury system is that ALL of the jury should agree that the accused is guilty or not guilty. Thats why they have 12 people in a jury - the thinking is 12 normal people cannot be wrong in their thinking.

There is NO such principle in Jury System, be past of present.

Scotland NEVER had requirement of uninanimity. UK used (0-1-2 guilty, 12-11-10 not guilty) for not guilty, converse for guilty and rest is hung Jury. Similar in US. Civil Juries seldom used uninimity as pre-condition. So uninanimity is NOT a fudamanetal principle of Jury System, as you say.

quote: With his preposterous 4th pick suggestion he has discarded the basic principle of juries, that ALL HAVE TO AGREE.

Too many countries are doing "preposterous" thing of not using uninanimity.

It is clear that you dont have FAINEST idea about Jury System and keep going on and on with useless questions like "why xth pick".

The fundamental priciple is NOT uninimity but to use RANDOMLY chosen citizens. If uninimity is so holy, one can also have that in judge system, by replacing 1-judge courts by say 5 or more judge courts, and keeping uninimity as condition for judgement. Consider a jusdge system which uses 12 judges and requires uninimity for verdict. Such a system is still judge system and NOT JURY SYSTEM, as the individuals come from a tiny cadre and NOT from general population.

quote: The reason I did not question you so far about why 12 people in the jury is beacuse it is ~800 years of inertia and tradition. Difficult to discard in one shot. IIRC the Magna Carta signed in ~11xx provided for 12 knights to judge an accused guilt or innocence.

Well, for that matter ALL details in almost all laws come by traditions or ARBITRAY decisions of law-makers. eg punishment for check bounce was 1 year and now it is raised to 2 years. No one really asked Law Minister why 2 years and NOT 1.5 years. Or what is the mathematical reason (which is what YOU asked) for deciding the punishment as 2 years?

quote: Furthermore I would seriously rethink the writings of any individual - who wrote about the legal system a 150 years before I was born and in a different country and experiencing different social & political circumstances as well as cultural values from where I am - before presenting his ideas as relevant to my present time and place!!!

Both, judge systems and Jury Systems are 100s of years old. judge system is over 3000 years old concept and Jury System is some 600-700 years old concept. Just becuase a concept is old DOES NOT mean is NOT applicable today.

quote: Are you seriously suggesting that Spooners writings dated ~1850 about the US legal system are relevant to the legal system of modern India circa 2003?

The light bulb was invented decades ago, and is relvent today. Wheel was invented 5000+ years ago and is relevent today.

There is NO expiry dates wriiten on idea etc. And for that matter, judge system, that the individuals belonging to tiny cadre will decide punishment, is ALSO a 5000 year old concept.

So forget 150 years, Jury System is 600+ years old, and it is solution to the nexus-problem Indian courts are facing today.

quote:Originally posted by Shalav:
Why does Rahul insist the jury system is good and the judge system should be swept out completely and trials held without judges?

Becuase
1)existing Indian judges are as nexused as neta. How nexused are neta? Over 99%.

2)Say we expel them, and find another one. The new judges too will get nexused within 6 months.

You suggestion sounds like " yes, some kings were bad. So why replace kingships by procedure of election. Why not fix the king-system itself rather than removing king-system completely and using procedure of election"

quote: Why such a radical proposal ...

Who told you it is a radical proposal?

IMO it is TRIVIAL procedure.

quote: For instance, has anyone ever proposed that lawyers/accused/prosecutors who delay court proceedings should be charged with contempt and jailed.

Clearly you DO NOT have faintest idea about law.

"Has anyone proposed ..." you ask. Sir, this is ALREADY there in law. If a judge thinks that a person is DELIBERATELy delaying a case, he can report it to HC, who has powers to fine and even imprison him. The lower courts can also impose a fine, though not imprisonment. And despite this suggestions, cases get stalled. Why? As I explained, the judges have nexuses with lawyers and they DELIBERATELY dont use this power to curb time-wasting delays.

So we DO NOT need any change in law to reduce stalling. We ONLY need to ensure that judges PUNISH individuals who stall the cases. How? we are back to square one. The judges DO NOT punish lawyers as they have nexuses with them. So we neex nexus-free judges for this, and which is possible ONLY if judges are fired and replaced by Jurors.

quote: Rahul started this thread by presenting data which is disputable. Then he built his case on this suspect data. When he states "95% of the judges are corrupt and/or have formed a nexus with criminal elements" - is this from any statistical study or is this his own worldview?

I said "over 95% of judges are nexused" and there is NO data. And for that matter, ex-Sc-CjI judge Bharucha said some 80% judges are honest and he too had NO data.

Besides, the data about "what % of judges are nexused" is not there becuease judges issued contempt notices to those who wanted to conduct "do you think your judges are honest"-like surveys. In addition, SCjs have blocked seveal reports which were published by in-house committees on nexuses etc of other judges in some specific cases. So I dont have any data on what % of judges are nexused or honest, nobody does, and it is judges' fault -- they are the one who have blocked such surveys/reports.

74)
http://www.outlookindia.com/full.asp?fo ... F%29&sid=1

quote:Judge Dread

A Delhi HC judge, land scams, wine and women. Yet another sordid saga Updates

THE OUTLOOK BUREAU

[Phone conversation]

Justice Shamit Mukherjee: The floor fittings in the house are yet to be installed. Please get it done fast. This time also ensure there is more Scotch and the women have to be better [Big Grin] also...

Khattar: Yes, it will be done soon. Give me a few days.

—Transcript

On Fixed Lines of telephone conversation with the CBI special court That Justice Shamit Mukherjee was partial to attractive women and partying was well known in judicial circles, much before the CBI raids in April revealed his links with the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) scam kingpin, Dharambir Khattar. But the misuse-of-office charges came as a revelation, given his high-profile connections and image. For Mukherjee was part of a charmed circle—which included top lawyers, an additional solicitor general, senior editors and even top bjp leaders.

It was to these connections that Mukherjee owed his various key appointments—first as standing counsel to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi and later, as a judge of the Delhi High Court.

Before his elevation, he was a reasonably successful lawyer, although hardly on the ‘A’ list. Sources in the legal community say his last I-T returns before assuming judgeship ran to about Rs 16 lakh. Mukherjee was also thought to be an amiable judge. Says a senior lawyer of him: "Mukherjee created a decent impression in a high court riddled with nepotism and underhand dealings. His PR was excellent and he was on good terms with everybody." The mandatory IB report on Mukherjee at the time of his elevation also did not contain anything adverse or uncomplimentary.
But the picture that emerges from the CBI tap on Khattar’s six mobile phones is shockingly contradictory. Some of these phones had been given to sacked DDA chairman Subash Sharma and lands commissioner Jagdish Saran. The story the CBI pieced together was a sordid tale of sex, wine and corruption. The investigating agency had to correlate nearly 10,000 conversations and link them with files seized during the raids to make out cases that were legally admissible. CBI sources also pointed out that two more high court judges, allegedly involved in Khattar’s racket, have yet to resign.

The transcripts, currently in the possession of CBI special court judge V.K. Jain, are a veritable Pandora’s box. In fact, some of the leads from the telephone taps are yet to be pursued by the CBI. In one such conversation (which Outlook had access to), Khattar makes a claim to a prime accused in the DDA scam that he was going out with a "chief justice" to "get things done". A reference is also made during the call to money being doled out to some bureaucrats. The code words used: murgi (chicken=Rs 1 lakh) and tota (parrot=Rs 10,000). The investigating agency is now examining if a case of disproportionate assets can be made out against Mukherjee.

In fact, it was Mukherjee’s unseemly enthusiasm to favour businessman Vinod Khatri’s swank south Delhi restaurant, Sahara, by passing an interim order staying the widening of a road that finds him in the CBI net. Without the stay, the restaurant would have been bulldozed. According to CBI officials, it was also at his instance that DDA counsel Gita Mittal was removed from the case when she took a tough line.

Detractors refer to Mukherjee as the ‘wheelchair judge’, a reference to his habit of bringing his paralysed wheelchair-bound wife to judicial and legal dos. It won him a great deal of sympathy and may have even helped him secure the position in the high court. Indeed, one of the points advanced in his favour by friends was that the transfer from bar to bench would give him more time with his wife. "He was socially very active. But after he became a judge, he stopped taking his wife to parties," says a high court lawyer.

The sole point of surprise was that Mukherjee was quick to admit his guilt to the CBI. On the day of his arrest itself, Mukherjee reportedly admitted before a senior CBI official that he had committed "an act of grave indiscretion". Mukherjee also revealed that he was "very fond of women and wine", a weakness he had succumbed to after his wife’s illness.

It was the former trait that brought Mukherjee into contact with Khattar who used to procure girls for him. His plush "guesthouses" in Asiad Village and Jangpura in south Delhi were at the disposal of his "friends", including the judge. Through his contacts in Delhi’s chatterati class, Khattar is also learnt to have provided some women from Uzbekistan to those who preferred "foreign flesh".

Among the women Mukherjee "met" through Khattar were some B-list socialites too. Sources say he was closely involved with high court lawyer Anshu Aggarwal and it was apparently during a rocky patch in their relationship—Aggarwal had become too demanding—that Khattar became close to Mukherjee. Anshu Aggarwal, however, insists Mukherjee was nothing more than a friend.

Aggarwal was also to prove Mukherjee’s nemesis. Four days after the CBI raided Khattar’s premises—as well as those of senior DDA officials—the crucial files linking Mukherjee to the scam came to light. The CBI referred the seized files to then Delhi High Court chief justice Devendra Gupta, who found it pertained to the cases in Mukherjee’s court. Yet, the judgements were in Aggarwal’s handwriting. The cat was out of the bag.

Mukherjee, when asked for an explanation, reportedly claimed he was in the habit of getting his juniors to correct his judgements. As this amounted to judicial misconduct, the matter was referred to the Chief Justice of India. In the meantime, sources close to the jailed judge say a beleaguered Mukherjee tried desperately to meet law minister Arun Jaitley—who had okayed his appointment—and even spent a couple of hours outside his house. But he was unable to contact Jaitley either on phone or in person.

The advice from all quarters was to quit and he did, apparently because he did not want the "sex scandal" part to come out. His marriage had already been under pressure because of his lifestyle. He may also have presumed that as in the case of Rajasthan High Court judge, Arun Madan, he would escape prosecution by resigning. Belatedly realising that the resignation was no protection, he tried to withdraw it. But the President of India, on the advice of the ministry of home affairs and the law minister, ruled that it would be unconstitutional. "He wanted to retract his resignation because he could claim immunity. But that did not happen," said a CBI official.

At this point, Mukherjee seems to have lost his nerve. "He literally began babbling to colleagues over how Khattar had taken advantage of him and how he had been abandoned by his high-and-mighty friends," says a high court lawyer. He told the CBI pretty much the same thing under interrogation, until reined in by his own counsel.

For Mukherjee, the timing of the CBI raids was unfortunate. Another couple of months and his position would have been well-nigh unassailable. His appointment would have been made permanent and nothing short of impeachment could have removed him before retirement.Indeed, a file to this effect had already been moved, but was put on hold soon after the CBI raids.

Mukherjee’s arrest may just be the tip of the

proverbial iceberg. The phone transcripts and Khattar’s interrogation could reveal explosive details that may even implicate senior politicians. So far, the CBI has managed to question Khattar for just half-an-hour since his arrest last month (he has been hospitalised since then). As the case unfolds, there will be many more surprises. Mukherjee has even threatened to go public with the various scams in the high court.

RM had been mentioning since the begining of the time that Indian HC/SC judges are as defunct, corrupt, characterless, alcoholic, "etc" etc as Indian neta, babu, pandu etc down the street. They have nexuses with lawyers, mafia etc just like Nbps. But some Honorables had too high opinion about Indian HCjs'/SCjs' character, interigrity, honesty etc etc etc. And they had upheld that Indian HCjs/SCjs have no nexuses with lawyers/mafia.

[Chest_beating ON]

Is there anyone still out there .... hai koi maai kaa laal ... who still wants to brag about Indian High Court judges' interigity, nexus-less-ness etc?

[Chest_beating OFF]

75)
quote: Sriram Kaushik : [in a different thread]
I have admired some of the little things in the US:

1) Buses stopping at the railroad crossings.
..
4) School buses having standard, prominent color.

I have thought a lot more but I've mentioned that came to my immediate mind. I'm sure there are rules, laws and codes already in place but I wish they get implemented or introduced in a phased manner in India.

This thread is dedicated to curse corrupt judges [Big Grin] , discuss The Jury System, and also to show that ALL differences between India and US are due to differences in speed/fairness between Indian courts and US-courts.

Allow me to explain, how questions like "buses in US stop and railroads and Indian buses often don’t" and "why US-truck-drivers drive more carefully than Indian truck-drivers" are related to differences in courts’ speed/fairness.

The US-courts (= US-Jurors) would PUNISH the bus-driver as well as bus-owning company for such violations like not stopping at a railroad. Whereas Indian-courts (= Indian-judges) are too busy and so they don’t find time for such petty matters.

Now another reason is that US-insurance-companies in US also take such offenses (of crossing the rail roads without stopping) seriously even when they DO NOT result into accident. Why do US-insurance-companies take it seriously, while Indian-insurance-companies ignore it? Because in case accident actually happens, US-courts (=US-Jurors) force insurance-companies and bus-owning-companies to cough up a HUGE compensation on an ASAP-basis. Where Indian-courts (=Indian-judges) take years and years to deliver a compensation that is sub-peanuts even by Indian standard (eg SC-CjI Pathak Carbidewala).

So US-courts (=US-Jurors) punish US-insurance-companies, US-bus-owners, US-bus-drivers when things go wrong, partially or wholly. Whereas Indian-courts stay idle.

So US-bus-owners, scared of US-courts, force US-bus-drivers to go by the book. And US-insurance-companies, due to fear of courts and NO OTHER REASON, take some steps to force US bus-companies to further take more steps.

Somewhat aside : many bus/truck-owners put "call 1-800-ABCDEFG" to report complaints in case truck driver’s driving is rash. Did you notice EVEN ONE, EVEN ONE, such truck in India? No. Why are Us-truck-owners so vigilant? Because they know that US-courts (=US-Jurors) will literally burn their b1lls if truck driver messes up due to rash driving. So they want to kick out such rash drivers no matter how productive they are, at any cost, and so they seek outsiders’ co-operation. Whereas Indian truck owners know that if truck blows away someone, judges like "bring more scotch and [censored] should be better" will preside, and so there is not much reason to worry.

So Sriram Kaushik and all, unless our courts starts PUNISHING people who show such willful negligence, such negligence etc would continue irrespective of how many NGOs preach for how many hours. You can bore the bus/truck-owners or bus/driver to death with bhaashan after bhaashan after bhaashan, but AFAIT, laato ke bhoot baato se nahi maante. Severe financial fines and prisons (in extreme cases) are MUST to change the hearts of these bus/truck owners. So fast/fair court is MINIMALLY necessary and over-sufficient to get ALL the four changes you wished, and many more that will appear in that thread.


Top
 Profile  
 
16
PostPosted: Fri Feb 01, 2013 1:58 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 2:49 pm
Posts: 596
76)
quote: Ponniyin: Part of the problem in the U.S. is that in many states Judges and prosecutors (D.A.s) are elected, and so their tactics and strategy are coloured by populism.

On the other hand, the process of closed door appointments INCREASE nexuses, NOT merit. In India, DAs (= Public Prosecutors) are appointed by Law Ministers, and they end up being puppets, as LM can fire them anyday or make them irrelavent by ensuring that they get no case or not renewing their term. In a nut shell, PPs at state level have become pawns and at central level, they are pawns with 1% spine left.

Same in case of judges. The magistrates know know that ONLY way to become senior judge or HCj is by winning pleasing HCjs/SCjs. So from day one, most of the become "yes sir yes sir" type people.

The election makes a person LESS dependent on meharbaani of seniors. All in all, elected individuals ALWAYS have a stronger spine than appointed ones. And they have more independenyt mind than appointd ones. Despite total disrespect for neta, I would say that neta in India have served commons more than judges have.

77)

http://www.indianexpress.com/full_story ... t_id=23727

Following raids since last night at Chandigarh and Jalandhar, the agency arrested Judicial Magistrate (First Class) Surinder Singh Bhardwaj and District and Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, R M Gupta in a case of corruption...

Bhardwaj was caught red-handed, according to the CBI, while accepting Rs 7 lakh as bribe, allegedly on the behalf of Gupta at his residence in Sector 22-A around 6:30 pm yesterday. The CBI had also raided the Sector 8 residence of Gupta and taken him into custody
Punjab judge, magistrate in CBI net
AMAN SHARMA & ANJU AGNIHOTRI CHABA Posted: May 12, 2003 at 0000 hrs IST CHANDIGARH, JALANDHAR, MAY 11:

When the judiciary is still to recover from the shock over former Delhi High Court judge Shameet Mukherjee’s arrest by the CBI, another case of corruption in the Punjab judiciary is shaking its foundation. Following raids since last night at Chandigarh and Jalandhar, the agency arrested Judicial Magistrate (First Class) Surinder Singh Bhardwaj and District and Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, R M Gupta in a case of corruption.

But Bhardwaj, even as the raids were in progress, managed to fool the CBI by requesting for a meeting with his wife on the first floor of his house and then escaped by sliding down a tree. Bhardwaj continued to elude the officers the entire day despite raids by CBI and the police on the houses of his friends and relatives.

JMIC SS Bhardwaj (left); District Judge Jalandhar Gupta (middle) being produced before magistrate Gupta, it is learnt, was transferred to Jalandhar about a year back from Sangrur and was due to be promoted in a couple of months as a high court judge. Jalandhar Bar Association sources said there had been a number of complaints against him.

Bhardwaj was caught red-handed, according to the CBI, while accepting Rs 7 lakh as bribe, allegedly on the behalf of Gupta at his residence in Sector 22-A around 6:30 pm yesterday. The CBI had also raided the Sector 8 residence of Gupta and taken him into custody.

The two judicial officers are said to have come in contact when Bhardwaj was posted in Jalandhar three years ago, and since then, allege CBI sources, Bhardwaj had been operating as a conduit for Gupta.

The CBI acted following a complaint by Gurwinder Singh Samra, a resident of Kartarpur and an alleged quack at Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital there, who had complained that the local police had registered a number of ‘fake’ cases against him. In some of these, he had managed to obtain bail from Punjab and Haryana High Court but fresh cases were registered. Singh told CBI that in desperation he turned to Bhardwaj who told him he would get his problems solved with the help of Gupta and senior police officers of the district if he paid an amount of Rs 11 lakh. He told Singh he would pass this on to Gupta.

Later, the two, Singh alleged, asked him to file an anticipatory bail application in the court of the sessions judge on May 9 and promised interim relief. He was asked to pay Rs 7 lakh as the first instalment on May 10 and the rest of the amount on confirmation of the bail. The sessions judge granted conditional bail to the complainant on May 10 and fixed the next date of hearing for May 15.

Singh complained to the regional office of the CBI in Chandigarh who verified his complaint, obtained permission from the Chief Justice, Punjab and Haryana High Court, and then laid the trap. On Saturday evening, Singh, along with CBI officials and a team of independent witnesses, landed at Bhardwaj’s residence with Rs 7 lakh — in denominations of 1,000 and 500 packed in two sweet boxes. Bhardwaj accepted the boxes and began counting the currency notes which had been coated with a chemical. The CBI then nabbed him and got his hands washed which turned red owing to the chemical.

Dev Raj, Deputy Manager Vigilance (FCI), Madan Lal, Deputy Manager (FCI), and L R Roojam, District and Sessions Judge (Vigilance), Punjab and Haryana High Court, acted as independent witnesses. CBI SP R S Bhatti got a complaint registered with the Chandigarh police against Bhardwaj today on the charge of escaping from custody under Section 224 IPC. The CBI have already registered a case — RC-14-(A) 2003/CBI/CHD dated May 10, 2003 — on charges of corruption against both judicial officers.

Meanwhile, in Jalandhar, raids at Gupta’s residence were continuing today and some important documents are said to have been sealed by the CBI team. Among them were files of various recent decisions given by him. Some bank papers, diaries and mobile numbers are also said to have been found.

As in Chandigarh, there were independent witnesses during the raid. These included Superintendent, postal department, Chhota Singh, PRO, postal department, Sushil Kumar and PRO, BSNL, B N Gupta.

Last month when high court judge Kiran Lal Anand ahd visited the bar association, senior advocate Surjit Singh Sood had made allegations against Gupta and agreed to give an affidavit in this regard. He repeated this to The Indian Express today on his mobile.

Senior lawyers in Jalandhar today claimed that Bhardwaj, who belongs to Sunam in Sangrur district, didn’t have a very good reputation when he was functioning as Judicial Magistrate First Class cum Civil Judge Junior Division for three years.

78)

quote:‘Shocking... regrettable’: SC on a judge’s conduct

But Justice Amitava Lala of Calcutta HC gets away lightly for order in mortgage case made in ‘glaring’ circumstances

Manoj Mitta

New Delhi, May 10

When the nation’s already in the thick of the Justice Shameet Mukherjee scandal, look at the kind of words the Supreme Court has used to describe the conduct of another high court judge: it ‘‘leaves much to be desired’’ and it’s ‘‘all the more shocking’’ and ‘‘regrettable.’’

But, for all the strictures passed on him by the apex court on April 24, Justice Amitava Lala of the Calcutta High Court has got away lightly for an order of sale he passed in a mortgage case in circumstances found to be ‘‘glaring.’’

The only thing that the Supreme Court did with Lala, who is due to function as a judge for at least another nine years, is that it forbade him to deal with that particular mortgage case which has been reverted to the Calcutta High Court.

While setting aside the order of sale passed by Lala in 1998, a Supreme Court bench comprising Justice S.N. Variava and Justice Brijesh Kumar requested the Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court ‘‘to ensure that the judge who passed the order of sale does not deal with this matter at any stage.’’

The provocation was the sale ordered by Lala in the mortgage case of a Kolkata factory ‘‘at a throwaway price’’ to a businessman called Jatan Surana disregarding the legal procedure of holding an auction. The property was of a company called Dwarka Industrial Development Pvt Ltd which owed Rs 1.32 crore to Indian Bank and Rs 1.10 crore to Industrial Reconstruction Bank of India (IRBI).

Yet, Lala ordered the sale merely at the instance of IRBI which struck ‘‘an understanding’’ with Surana and a group of factory workers. Displaying undue haste, Lala passed the order of sale without giving a proper notice to Indian Bank, which had the biggest financial stake in the matter.

Worse, he did so as a vacation judge on a matter that was already pending before another judge of the high court.

In a striking parallel to Justice Mukherjee’s alleged nexus with members of the bar, the Supreme Court found that Lala acted in tandem with a lawyer, Roop Chand Chakraborty, who had been appointed as a receiver of the property.

‘‘The conduct of the receiver and the court, i.e. the vacation judge, in this episode, leaves much to be desired,’’ the apex court said.

Lala’s order was in the first instance reversed in 1999 on Indian Bank’s petition. It was done by a division bench of the Calcutta high court headed by Justice Ruma Pal, who has since been elevated to the Supreme Court.

Interestingly, Ruma Pal pointed out a tell-tale slip-up of the receiver in the conveyance he executed hastily in favour of Surana. The receiver conveyed ‘‘the assets and properties both movable and immovable including the Hon’ble Justice Amitava Lala in favour of the said Jatan Surana.’’

Upholding Ruma Pal’s judgment, the Supreme Court launched a scathing attack on Lala’s conduct as a vacation judge during the puja holidays in October 1998. The bench headed by Justice Variava said: ‘‘One fails to understand how another application could have been filed in the vacation. It is all the more shocking that it is promptly taken up by the vacation court, along with applications which were not on board and an order of sale passed without giving any opportunity to any party to file a reply and without even making any attempt to ascertain whether a higher price could be obtained.’’

As a corollary, the Supreme Court directed the high court to inquire into the role of the receiver. It also directed IRBI to take departmental action against the officer who struck the deal with Surana. But, oddly enough, the Supreme Court did not deem it necessary to call for a similar probe into the conduct of the high court judge concerned.

This despite the Supreme Court’s claim to have in place an in-house procedure of inquiry to deal with ‘‘deviant behaviour’’ among judges.

There have so far been only three instances on which the Chief Justice of India put the in-house procedure in motion — and all of them have been only as a consequence of external factors such as the press, bar and human rights activists.

The April 24 judgment shows that, even when there was a wide-spread outrage over the Mukherjee controversy, the Supreme Court remains unwilling to enforce judicial accountability on its own.

79)

quote:Even if you have all the correct documents while the local goonda occupying your land has none, the goonda can easily delay any decision on the matter by 10-12 years.

True. That’s mainly due to the judge-lawyer nexus, coupled with the problem that LawMin/CM/FinMin and MLAs are so busy easting bribes that they dont find time to create more courts.

eg just look at judge Shameet Mukherjee. The mafia Khattar had made construction on land that belonged to DDA. And yet, Khattar managed to get a stay order against its demolition.

quote: The corridors of session courts in India are steeped in corruption. Can you blame a commoner if he bribes another local goonda or a paandu to get what is lawfully his instead of going to a court?

In plump cases, DDjs literally demand an arm and a leg worth bribe to obtain what is clearly your right. This is particularly true in land related cases. Even if the land is 100% yours, even if ALL titles and documents are clear and the occupier is NOT a tenant but someone who has illegally encroached the land, the DDj will simply NOT give judgments till he gets a fraction of price of the land, as if it is his birth right.

And no matter how many complaints against lower judges are sent to HCjs, HCjs turn a blind eye against ALL complaints. As far as disciplining lower judges goes, HCjs are waste to time and money.

AFAI think, the judge system is BEYOND repair. The existing judges are simply too soaked in the bribery and nexuses, and there is NO touchstone that can convert them into non-corrupt individuals. One can come with any laws to regulate the lower court judges. but in the end it would be HCjs who would be in-charge of taking the action against lower judges. And given that they have zero stake in improving lower court, there is NO reason to see why and HCj would waste his time in taking action against lower court judges no matter how defunct they have gone.

It is IMPOSSIBLE to stop judges from building nexuses with lawyers and mafia. There is simply too much to gain, and almost nothing to loose. In most cases, no one can even obtain proofs against nexuses anyway. Most judges are smart enough that they will deal strictly thru the lawyers and their relatives in whom they have trust. Many judges have their close relative as lawyers, and they will take payments on behalf of that judge, and if you insist, they will also take it by check and give a receipt as "consulting fees". (one HCj in Gujarat HC has his brother practicing as lawyer. )

The only ones who get caught are stupid and too greedy ones. (The lawyer will keep 10% to 50% as his cut, and some judges want WHOLE of it, and so DIRECTLY start dealing with mafia. That’s when they sometimes get caught. Or some judges are ignorant/stupid enough to discuss bribe details on phone which may get tapped.) But any judge who is even reasonably smart, can cultivate dense nexuses with lawyers/mafia, and can ensure that no one would ever find any proof.

The solution? As I mentioned earlier, if any person is given a FIXED career in court, within 6 months he will become nexused. So the most obvious solution is --- THE JURY SYSTEM. Now lawyer/mafia can ever cultivate nexuses with 100s and 1000s of Jurors and so Jurors will by and large nexusless.

quote:L Dev:And may God help you if the opposing party happens to be a police officer (pandu in the language of the esteemed Rahul Mehta), who will threaten you with dire consequences should you even attempt to file a case against him.

And even God can NOT help if opposing party is a relative of judge or some lawyer who has dense nexuses with judges.

The fact that commons want to avoid courts at all costs speak volumes about quality of courts/judges we have. Compare that with west, where first thing that comes to common's mind when some one hurts him is to file a law suit against him. This shows that extent to which our courts are defunct, particularly compared to the West.

80)
quote: ... A judge in WB will have to seriously worry about his/her personal and family safety if he/she convicts goons belonging to the CPM.

I havent been to WB, but from what I have studied in Guj, and seen in courts, it is unlikely that judges in WB are scared of local CPM goons.

The judge is the MOST muscular person in the town. Not even MP/MLA or worst goon or biggest pandu/babu will dare to challange even a magistrate forget sessions judge. If eney babu/pandu, gets mad at you, judge can save you. But if judge gets mad at you, even God cant save you.

With a flick of pen, a judge can literraly destroy a career of pandu/baabu. So EVERY pandu/babu is scared of judge. With a flick of pen, the judge can cause considerable damage to a neta, though cant do as much damage as he can do to a babu/pandu.

With so much power at hand, in general, it is unlikely that a judge would scared of anyone, unless that person has nexuses with senior judges.

[Now I have heard of 1 case in Gujarat, where goons had harassed magistrate to recollect debt. But that was possible as the goon was so mighty that he had first hand nexuses with HCjs. So the magistrate had to succumb to him. (that goon is now an MLA [Big Grin] [Frown] ) ]

Now what may be happening is that the judge has nexuses, and he deliberately does not punish, and tries to shift the blame by saying "that he is too threatened by local neta".

Anyway, if a judge says that he is scared of criminals, the first thing we should so is to expell him. What the point in having such a judge to begin with.

quote: Say, (i)a judge could be mandatory transferred in a time bound manner from court to court, so that he is not able to develop the 'nexus',

The procedure of transfer is ALREADY there. Every 2-4 years, judges in lower courts are transferred. Almost every promotion is followed by immediate transfer.

Transfers *have* reduced nexuses, but not much. Why?

Today, judges are transferred every 2-4 years. 6 months is enough to form nexuses. So a new judge is nexusless for 6 months and for remaining 1.5 to 3.5 years of his term, he is nexused. Now 6 months is what a young inexperienced judge would take to get nexused. A seasoned judge takes less than 1-2 months to cultivate nexuses. And mostly, when a new judge comes, the previous judge will introduce him to all the key and "trustworthy" lawyers/mafia whom with the previous judge has "dealt" with. So a seasoned judge becomes nexused within a few weeks.

So transfer DOES reduce nexus, but it is NO WHERE close to Jury System.

quote: (ii) Scrap the power enjoyed by the judge to hold any criticism at ransom by labelling all such action as 'contempt of court',

Removal of contempt clauses will ONLY expose the judges, it will NOT convince or force judges to change. Eg pandus in India are over-exposed, still they haven’t changed. Same way, once contempt clauses go, everyone will expose judge, like everyone exposes pandus, and soon judges will become immune to expose. But that will NOT make them reduce their nexuses. They will simply become more shameless than they are today.

quote: (iii) make a law that a judge MUST decide a case in a time bound manner. You could add or take a few.

Time limit on a case DOES NOT reduce judge-lawyer nexus or judge-mafia nexus.

A lawyer with 10-15 juniors will be managing dozens of cases a month. Such a lawyer will get plenty of time and opportunity to form nexuses with a judge whose term is 3-4 years. Same for the mafia. He commits 100s of crime a month and there are 10s of cases against him EVERY week. So he too meets judges almost on daily/weekly basis. So judge-mafia nexus will occur irrespective of length a particular case takes.

The KEY factor is duration of TOTAL time preiod and NUMBER of occasions that judges/laweyers/mafia get to interact with each other, that governs the depth of nexuses. A judge has 2-4 years in a court and 20-30 years in career. Everyone gets a looooong time for to build nexuses with him.

quote:As for jury system, apart from everything else, how do you propose that the jury get selected? Would it be a 'fundamental duty' of every citizen to serve on the jury? ...

1)selection - pure RANDOM selection from voter list of District. Select 18 Jurors per case, 12 main and 6 stand-by.

2)It is fundamental duty, like a military draft. Not appearing after appearing for Jury Summons will result in fine etc to be decided by a Grand Jury or a Jury.

quote: Every process of selection of the jury would still have a subjective bias, however randomly they may be selected.

Rrandom selection (blind people throwing dices to get voter number) will be quite nexusless and bias free, though Jurors may be biased. But then, judge system ALSO is NOT bias-free. So judge system and Jury System are EVEN when it comes to biases.

quote:As for nexus, well if anybody were that desperate to have a decision in his favour, and he had the means, he could bribe his way through the jury as well... So there!!!

Everyone is ALWAYS in desperate to have a decision in his favor.

In case of JurySys, a lawyer/career criminal will be confronting 1000s of Jurors a year as opposed to 2-10 judges in judge system in 2-4 year period. So obtaining 95% acquittal-rate in judge system means bribe 2-10 judges which is piece of cake. While in Jury System, he will need to bribe 100s and 1000s of Jurors even for that. So JurySys is LESS PRONE to corruption, nexuses etc.

Same way, a lawyer with 10-15 juniors will be handling 200-400 cases a year, and will meet SAME 5-20 judges in the tahsil/district on daily/weekly basis. So nexus formation is piece of cake. While in Jury System, that lawyer will meet DIFFERENT 3000 - 4000 Jurors.

So lawyer-Juror nexus will be very rare and less strong compared to lawyer-judge nexuses we see today. Its all a number game --- no deep logic otherwise.


Top
 Profile  
 
17
PostPosted: Fri Feb 01, 2013 9:14 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 2:49 pm
Posts: 596
81)

quote:RonyKJ: Rahul Mehta, what do you think is the root cause of corruption in India? Give me a one word (or two) answer.

In two words --- HIGH NEXUSPRONESS

In a few words : HIGH NEXUSPRONESS, which is due to LOW DEMOCRATICNESS

In a few more words : we have more corruption than the west as

1)The bookkeeping in govt_depts/courts in India poorer that bookkeeping in the west

2)There is LESS democraticness in depts of India compared to West, because of which nexusproneness is high.

(And nexuses kill "rule of law" and create "rule of nexuses".)

eg for 1 . say a policeman wants to get records of all the criminal cases filed against a person in past in entire State/Country. In US it would piece-o-cake fo him. In India, a policeman has NO way to find out all criminal cases filed against a person in say past 10 years in his own police station, forget State/Nation. In short, criminals' records are no organized AT ALL that would allow easy search. In case of land records, situation is worse --- government is not even required to maintain ownership data and whatever incomplete data they have is not organized at all. This INCREASES oppurtunities for officers to create delay and thus extract bribes.

eg for 2: Our courts use oligarchic judge system. Inside a district, ALL court powers are vested in the hands of some 10-100 judges. Compare it with West, where at least part of court powers are distributed in citizenry. The prosecution powers in India are vested in a few 100-500 heads in a district, who are appointed by law minister. In West, there a Grand Jury to supervise them. This increases democraticness in the prosecution. In addition, public prosecutors, governers, prez, local judges, local police chiefs, local education officers etc are often ELECTED by commons NOT appointed by top. This drastically increases democraticness in the executive. In India, except MLA/MP/Panchayat-Member etc EVERYONE is appointed and so has NO REASON to worry about what citizens may want.

So solution to dozens of ADMINISTRATIVE problems in India is to increase DEMOCRATICNESS. How? The procedural details will vary from department to department.

eg. How can democraticness in courts increase?
One way to democratize courts and reduce nexusproneness is to fire the judges and use Jurors.

How can democraticness in prosecution be increased? Grand Jury System. Elected District Attorney. And also allow victims to put their own laywers.

How can democraticness in LEGISLATURES be increased? Allow citizens to DIRECTLY register YES/NO in Assembly etc ; MLA should represent ONLY those who have npot registered a YES/NO. In addition, create procedure by which citizens can change their reps in Assembly etc.

As democraticness will increase, the arbitrariness, atrocities and bribery of Nbjs will reduce.

And other than HIGH NEXUSPRONENESS, there is NO OTHER reason why India is behind the West.

82)

Summary

1. BCI releases names of some 2 SCjs, 16 Delhi HCjs, 7 Mumbai HCjs and 7 Rajasthan HCjs whose close relatives, like wife, son, daughter, father, brother also practice as lawyers in those courts

2. BCI apparently believes that these judges and their relative lawyers have nexuses, and so BCI has demanded to SC-CjI that these HCjs should transferred

3. The gem is : ‘‘There have been allegations that sons and daughters of judges who have barely put in a year or two of practice are filing returns of few crores." judge ka baccha log bahut smaaart hai robert ... [Big Grin]

4. Not so gem, but note worthy is ... " ... Delhi HC framed a rule whereby sons and daughters of judges would get the seniority of their fathers and thus preference over others in the allotment of chambers ..."

link :
http://www.indianexpress.com/full_story ... t_id=24462

quote:Transfer judges from courts where kin practice


Bar Council releases names, warns of action against lawyers if judges are not moved

Kavita Chowdhury

New Delhi, May 22:

The Bar Council of India today released a long list of relatives of judges practicing in the same court and asked the Chief Justice of India to ‘‘transfer these judges’’ failing which the Bar would take action against the relatives. This, the council says, is a bid to check the ‘‘unfair means’’ in the wake of recent corruption cases in the judiciary.

The list includes the names of 18 judges of the Delhi High Court, five of the Bombay High Court and seven from the Rajasthan High Court. The Bar Council says that all the 17 elected State Bar Councils across the country were asked to submit names on May 8 and they are in the process of receiving other such lists.

Hammering home the Rule 6 of the Bar council of India which bars any advocate from appearing before a court or tribunal where a relative is a member, Adish C Aggarwala, vice-chairman, Bar Council of India, said: ‘‘When there is a rule outlining professional ethics, it is not adhered to.’’

According to Rule 6, Part vi, Chapter ii of BCI rules, ‘‘any advocate shall not enter appearance, act, plead or practice in anyway before a court, tribunal or authority mentioned in section 30 of the Act, if the sole or any member thereof is related to the advocate as father, grandfather, son, grandson, uncle, brother, nephew, first cousin, husband, wife, mother, daughter, sister, aunt, niece, father-in-law, mother-in-law, son-in-law, brother-in-law, daughter-in-law or sister-in-law.

‘‘For the purpose of this rule, court shall mean a court, bench or tribunal in which above-mentioned relation of the advocate is a judge, member or a presiding officer.’’

Most of the judges listed by the Delhi High Court Bar Association have more than one relative practicing in the High Court, some as many as three. Also on the list are two Supreme Court judges, an MRTP member and a registrar. (see list).

Terming it as a violation of the Advocates Act, 1961 and the rules framed under it, the Bar Council has lashed out against the practice of ‘‘uncle judges.’’ [Big Grin] ‘‘This is not a sudden decision,’’ says Kailash Chand Mittal, chairman of Bar Council of Delhi.

‘‘There have been allegations that sons and daughters of judges who have barely put in a year or two of practice are filing returns of few crores. How do you explain this?’’

However, the simmering tension among lawyers seems to have precipitated the action. When the Delhi High Court last framed a rule whereby sons and daughters of judges would get the seniority of their fathers and thus preference over others in the allotment of chambers, this was met by loud protests from not only the Bar Association but also the Delhi State Bar Council. These allotments have been subsequently held back by the Court.

==================================================================

Please see the gif on the web-page

http://www.indianexpress.com/full_story ... t_id=24462 )

Following are the names of those nepotic Desi Dork High Court judges as disclosed by BCI, whose close relatives are practicing as lawyers in the same court : (I have manually typed the names from that GIF, so please excuse the typos)



Names of SC judges whose close relatives also practice in SC as lawyers

01. judge Arjun Kumar . . . Son . . . Amit Bansal
02. judge Ajit Pasayat . . .Daughter .Raaj Deepa
03. judge C M Nayar (MRTP judge, NOT SCj) Son Arvin Nayar

Names of Delhi HC judges whose close relatives also practice in Delhi HC as lawyers

01. judge Usha Mehta . . Nephew . . . . . .Rajeev Mehta
02. judge D K Jain . . . Daughter. . . . . Anshu Jain
03. judge S K Mahajan . .Daughter-in-Law . Rutchi Mahajan
. . . . . . . . . . . . .Niece . . . . . . Vibha
04. judge M M Sarin . . .Son . . . . . . . Gaurav Sarin
05. judge R C Chopra . . Son . . . . . . . Sachin Chopra
06. judge O P Dwivedi. . Daughter . . . . .Deepali Dwivedi
. . . . . . . . . . . . .co-brother. . . .S P Singh
07. judge M K Sharma. . .Son. . . . . . . Pradeep Sharma
08. judge Arjun Siki. . .Father. . . . . .N C Siki
. . . . . . . . . . . . .Wife. . . . . . .Madhu Siki
. . . . . . . . . . . . .Brother . . . . .Ravi Siki
09. judge R C Jain. . . .Brother. . . . . S C Jain
10. judge Deven Gupta. . Son. . . . . . . Rajesh Gupta
11. judge Anul Dev Singh Daughter. . . .Juhi Singh
12. judge S K Kaul. . . .Brother . . . .Neeraj Kaul
13. judge Y K Sabarwal. .Brother . . . .Jagmohan Sabarwaal
14. judge S K Argrawal. .Son. . . . . . Ravinder Agrawal
15. judge P Nandrajog. . Brother. . . . Vikram Nandrajog
. . . . . . . . . . . . .Brother. . . . Sudhir Nandrajog
16. judge H R Malhotra . Nephew. . . . .Chirag Malhotra
. . . . . . . . . . . . .Brother . . . .Vir Vikram

Names of Mumbai HC judges, whose close relatives practice as lawyers in Mumbabi HC

01. judge Hemant Gokhale [son is practicing as a lawyer]
02. judge Kakde . . . . . [son is practicing as a lawyer]
03. judge D Chandrachud . [wife is practicing as a lawyer]
04. judge Ajit Shah . . . [nephew is practicing as a lawyer]
05. judge R G Deshpande . [Brother is practicing as a lawyer]

Names of Rajasthan HC judges, whose close relatives practice as lawyers in Rajasthan HC

01. judge A C Goel . . . . . .son is practicing as lawyer
02. judge Khemchandra Sharma. .son . . . .Ashish Sharma
03. judge Rajesh Walia . . . . son . . . . Vikas Valia
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Son-in-law .Manish Sisodia
04. judge Yadram Meena . . . . Son . . . . Rakesh Meena
05. judge H S Pawar . . . . . .Son . . . . Rajesh Pawar
06. judge K K Acharya . . . . .Son . . . . Amitav Acharya
07. judge N N Mathur . . . . . Brother. . .R N Mathur
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Brother . . Govind Mathur
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nephew . . .Sanjay Mathur



[Chest_beating ON]

Is there anyone, ANYONE still out there .... hai koi mai ka/ki laal .... who wants to brag that Indian judges are NOT nepotic ....

[Chest_beating OFF]

Now let me throw some more mud on judges [Big Grin]

There are 24 judges in Delhi HC, as per Delhi HC's web-page. (see
http://delhihighcourt.nic.in/sitting_judges1.htm )
Out of these 24 judges, BCI wants transfer of 16 judges. That is a whoppoing 67%. And these individuals are those who are "accused" of nepotism. To that, add recently expelled judge Shamit Mukherjee. That would make 17 out 25, more than 2/3rd. To that add those, who are "professional" in establishing nexuses, i.e. they will take lawyers only on the seniority basis. And to that add those judges who have nexused with criminals ONLY and they use NO middleman. One would wonder how many judges in Delhi HC are nexusless.

And there is no reason to believe that situation in other HCs are better, as

1)the HC-CjI/SCjs who appoint the HCs in Delhi HC are SAME people who appoint judges in other HCs.

2)the CjI as well as other HCjs get transeferred from one HC to another.

BCI lawyers being in Delhi are more familiar with Delhi HC and so they could come up names of 16 out of 24 judges. The other Bar Councils of States will soon throw more names from their States' HCs. Lets wait till other states' bar council also publish names of nepotic judges in their HCs.

In Gujarat, I know AT LEAST 4 HCjs whose son, duaghter-in-law and brother practice as lawyers. In one case, two brothers were well known lawyers in Gujarat HC. Then one brother becomes judge in Gujarat HC. He is NOT even trasferred after apppointment. So the way things work is --- if a client has a case in that judge's court, he will hire his brother as lawyer/consultant on a DIFFERENT case. Once a hefty fee is paid in CHECK (all white money), the client's will get a favorable judgement the first case -- of course a coninsidence.

The Jury System will indeed solve this nepotism problem, as when 12-18 Jurors are chosen from random, chanaces that their kith/kin will be lawyers, in the same court will be .... practically zero.

The reason why such scandals get LESS highlight is becuase out defunct intellectuals have consistently supported "contempt of judge" law using which judges imprison/harass the individuals who expose the judges. But now the rot in judgedom has increased to such an extent, that even BCI/judges are left with no option but to confess the rot. SC-CjI Bharucha admitted that 20% of judges are rotten, and another HC-judge, judge Micheal, admitted that some 33% judges are rotten. And now BCI is OFFICIALLY demanding transfer of some 67% of Delhi-HCjs.

83)

http://www.indianexpress.com/full_story ... t_id=24896

quote:HC looks at judicial officers’ alleged role in sex scandal

Express News Service

Chandigarh, May 29:

In a major instance of judicial activism, the Punjab and Haryana High Court today took cognisance of the alleged sexual exploitation of three girls in Amritsar by influential persons, including politicians and judicial officers.

Following up on a report first published in the Chandigarh edition of The Indian Express, the court directed the sessions judge of Amritsar to depute a judicial officer to record immediately the statements of the girls, who are former employees of a cable operator.

The sessions judge has been asked to send the statements through a special messenger by tomorrow morning, when the matter will again be taken up.

The Chief Justice of the High Court, Justice Binod Kumar Roy, sitting in a division bench with Justice V M Jain, ordered the DGP of Punjab to ensure the safety of the girls concerned.

Converting a letter from the Punjab Human Rights Organisation (PHRO) into a PIL, the court also made The Indian Express, The Times of India, the CBI, the state of Punjab, through its home secretary and Punjab DGP, and the three girls as parties to the case.

The two judicial officers who thus figure in the PIL are Additional Civil Judge of Nawanshahr, K B Raheja and Judicial Magistrate Rajiv Kalra.

The high court’s intervention comes a day after The Indian Express, on Justice Roy’s communication, handed over a video and two audio tapes to him substantiating the alleged involvement of judicial officers in the Amritsar sex scandal.

[comments --- [Big Grin] I hope that judges will put those tapes on web [Big Grin] , as judges have been torch bearers of so called "transperancy" ]

Justice Roy was also in touch with the PHRO which alleged in its letter that the police had developed cold feet once the names of some serving and retired judicial officers had surfaced during their investigations into the sex scandal. During the court proceedings, advocate R.S. Bains representing PHRO stated that the girls were under threat and he undertook to produce the girls for the purpose of recording their statement.

The Chief Justice observed that the police officers and judicial officers allegedly involved in the scandal were answerable for their conduct under the rules and they would face the consequences if they had breached them. ‘‘It is a serious matter. I cannot shut my eyes,’’ he added.

In the letter treated as the PIL, Justice Ajit Singh Bains (retd), chairman, PHRO, had stated that the Amritsar unit of the PHRO had submitted a complaint to SSP Amritsar on May 22 saying that serious allegations against Siti Cable operators had been supressed due to their influence with police and judicial officers for years. On the basis of the complaint, an FIR was registered.

Justice Bains alleged that the police focussed only on the activities of Sarabjit Singh Raju, named in the FIR. At least two girls had said that the police did not record that portion of their statements in which they had named officers or their description. Justice Bains further alleged that the girls were told to speak only about Raju and his accomplice and not to involve any police or judicialofficer.

He further aleged that the names of two judicial officers had come out in the affidavit given by one of the girls.

The letter names Rajiiv Kalra and K.B. Raheja besides retired Additional Sesions Judge I.C. Agarwal.

The HCjs are merely trying to pretend that they are serious about punishing corrupt/defunct judges. The reality is that so far, HCjs/SCjs have NOT puhsined even one, I repeat, NOT even one, corrupt SCj/HCj or even a lower courts judge. The whole above mentioned exercise from Punjab-HC-CjI is nothing but a CHEAP drama. If HCjs were AT ALL serious about ensuring integrity in lower courts, lower courts would NOT have become a cheap a bazaar that it is today.

Nevertheless, commons are benefitted by this drama -- we have been able to re-confirm the belief that Indian judges as as defunct as Indian neta/pandus etc, and that NOTHING much can be expected from them.

84)

For many of the statutatory or other commissions etc, the guideline/law is that the person holding the chair MUST be a restired HCj/SCj. What is so special about them? Why not an ex-MP or ex-babu? As per judge-fans, a retired HCj/SCj is guaranteed to be mahaa-honest. So if a chair is occupied by ex-HCj/SCj, one can assume 100% intergrity, fairness etc etc etc etc etc

So how honest are India's retired High Court judges?

DDM-Express exposes how defunct retired HCjs who were in charge of selecting petrol pump dealers turned out to be.

Basically, a scandal by retired-HCjs ... read on ...

http://www.indianexpress.com/full_story ... t_id=25018
Former judges pumped up marks, and how!
MANOJ MITTA Posted: Jun 01, 2003 at 0000 hrs IST NEW DELHI, MAY 31:

Is award a recogniti... - By Sadanand PatwardhanFree - exploration o... - By UnpopularVerma report - By DavidVerma comission repo... - By ananthanKiran - By David@kiran - By SivaKargil intrusion - By K.Jaiprakah

When The Sunday Express exposed the petrol pump scam last year, Petroleum Minister Ram Naik sought shelter in the fact that the candidates were chosen by Dealer Selection Boards (DSBs) headed by retired High Court (HC) judges.

But the ongoing inquiry into the scam has laid bare the modus operandi of retired HC judges who provided a legal cover to the allotments made to about 400 politically influential persons at the expense of meritorious candidates.

The public hearings of the committee — comprising former Supreme Court judge S.C. Agrawal and former Delhi HC judge P.K. Bahri — appointed five months ago by the Supreme Court to probe all the allotments exposed last year, have so far dealt with only two of the 20 scam-affected States: Himachal Pradesh and Punjab. The hearings on the Haryana allotments will begin on June 3.

But the pattern of evidence that has already emerged establishes the complicity of retired HC judges, who were appointed as chairmen of the 59 DSBs across the country, in the allotments that seem to have been made on extraneous considerations.

The whole scam is based on an arbitrary marking system by the DSB chairmen, under one or the other of the five heads for evaluating the eligibility of the candidates — personality, capability to arrange finances, educational qualification, capability to provide infrastructure and general assessment. As the DSB records were sealed after the allotment, this is the first time that the details of the marking system have emerged.

The most important candidate to have been examined till now is Akali Dal MP Tarlochan Singh Tur who was selected for a BPCL pump at Sheron, Punjab in December 2000. The DSB chairman who decided in Tur’s favour was former judge of the Punjab and Haryana HC, M.R. Agnihotri, who is currently facing a CBI case of disproportionate assets.

But at the time of Tur’s selection, the marks awarded by the chairman had the same weight as those allotted by each of the other two DSB members, who were oil company officers.

If Tur still managed to get the pump, it was because one of the two members was also partial to him. Both Agnihotri and that member gave Tur an edge, ironically, under the criterion of educational qualification, although he did not study beyond the higher secondary level. This proved fatal to the next candidate empanelled by the DSB, Kavita Wadhwa, who lost by an overall margin of 10 marks despite having BA and BEd degrees.

As it happened, a month after Tur’s selection, the Petroleum Ministry issued fresh guidelines which doubled the weight of the marks awarded by the chairman as compared to the other two members. That set the stage for someone like Agnihotri to swing the selections on his own without the collusion of either of his colleagues in the DSB.

A case in point is the selection, in May 2001, of Anurag Singh Thakur, son of the then Himachal Chief Minister, P.K. Dhumal, for a pump at Mand in Jallandhar district. What clinched the issue for Thakur was a 40-mark lead, given by Agnihotri, over his nearest rival, Manjit Singh, under the criterion of ‘‘capability to provide infrastructure’’.

This despite the fact that Manjit had better credentials because he offered his ancestral property on GT Road in Mand while Thakur only undertook to arrange suitable land within two months of being issued a letter of intent.

On a petition filed by Manjit, the Punjab &Haryana HC quashed the allotment to Thakur in March 2002, holding that his selection was ‘‘made possible solely because the chairman had kept a difference of 40 marks between the two candidates’’ and that it was ‘‘influenced by extraneous reasons.’’

The DSBs have also been lax in enforcing the basic rule that the gross income of an eligible candidate should not have exceeded Rs 2 lakh per annum in the previous year. Most of the politically connected allottees like Tur and Thakur are finding it hard to convince the committee in this regard.

Although Thakur admits to being a director of two private companies in Punjab, the IT returns the Himachal Pradesh Cricket Association chief produced show that his gross annual income in the year 1999-2000 was a measly Rs 1,89,608. This was trashed by a ‘‘field investigation report’’ by the oil company, showing that Thakur had Rs 8,99,436 in one bank account alone at the time of his selection.

More astounding is Tur’s justification for not producing his IT returns. He asserted before the committee that he was exempted from IT, not only for his agricultural income but also for the salary and allowances he drew as an MP.

Tur claimed that his gross annual income from both sources was only Rs 1.70 lakh. The committee also questioned Tur about the requirement that the selected candidate has to be ‘‘a full-time working dealer’’ and that if he was employed, he should produce proof of acceptance of his resignation by his employer.

Vindicating the committee’s concern of his inability to spare enough time for the pump, Tur’s reply was late by over a month because, as he said, he was away in Geneva attending a WTOs-related meeting.

85)

http://www.indianexpress.com/full_story ... t_id=25567

quote:

Bhardwaj gives in, CBI claims ‘arrest’

Aman Sharma

Chandigarh, June 10: After giving the CBI the slip exactly a month ago, suspended Judicial Magistrate S.S. Bhardwaj surrendered this morning. The CBI, however, has another version.

It is worth noting that judge Bhardwaj eloped from police custody thus evaded the arrest and caused so called 'obstruction to justice'. And he was illegally hiding. All this crimes are sufficient for explusion of any govt servant. Yet, the HC-Cj has NOT expelled him, he is ONLY suspended. So much of "fairness" of HCjs.

quote: DDM-express further reporteth:

Though Bhardwaj claimed he gave himself in after the Supreme Court rejected his anticipatory bail plea yesterday, the CBI insisted he was arrested from his relative’s Panchkula residence.

Bhardwaj’s counsel and relatives maintained that he had surrendered.

A cheerful Bhardwaj rubbished charges against him when he was brought for medical examination at General Hospital, Sector 16 by CBI around 8.30 pm. ‘‘I have been framed by the CBI. Gurvinder Samra, the complainant, is lying. I didn’t accept any bribe,’’ said Bhardwaj, who seemed fit. He said he was in Himachal for most of the time before his surrender.

May 10 midnight: Bhardwaj allegedly flees from his residence during CBI raids after being caught red-handed while accepting Rs 7 lakh as bribe on behalf of District and Sessions Judge R.M. Gupta.

The judges have degenerated to this extent, that junior judge act as collection agent for senior judges. Such a practice is quite common in babudom/pandudom and netadom. It is routine for PIs to collect bribes in their areas, keep a fixed % with themselvs and pass the rest to Asst Police Commissioner or DySP. The DySP will keep a pre-aggreed % of this bribes and pass the rest to IGP and so forth.In netadom, this is institutionalized that Ministers' PA will collect bribes and pass it to Minister and Deputy Minister or Minister of State will collect bribes and pass it to the Cabinet Minister. But such collection was so far not heard in judgedom. Mostly judges used to collect bribes via senior lawyers or their relative-lawyers. But now judges have further degenerated and juniors are collecting bribes for seniors.

What next?

quote: DDM-express further reporteth:

May 12: Punjab and Haryana High Court suspends Bhardwaj and Gupta.

May 13: CBI starts internal inquiry to affix blame for negligence.

May 15: Bhardwaj moves anticipatory bail plea in special CBI court.

May 20: Bhardwaj appears on a TV channel; says he was never present at his house during CBI raids. CBI combs Himachal Pradesh for Bhardwaj the same night.

May 22: CBI Special Judge rejects Bhardwaj’s bail plea.

May 24: Bhardwaj approaches High Court for anticipatory bail.

May 29: High Court rejects Bhardwaj’s bail plea.

June 4: Bhardwaj moves Supreme Court.

June 9: Supreme Court rejects bail plea — ENS


The CBI said Bhardwaj was picked up from the Sector 21 Panchkula residence of his cousin, advocate Subhash Chander Sharma, around 10 am following a tip-off. The agency, which was conducting raids in Himachal Pradesh and Punjab for the absconding JMIC, claims it had intensified operations after yesterday’s SC orders.

Till last reports came in, Bhardwaj had not been presented before a magistrate.

Sharma and Bhardwaj’s brother Tejpal, also an advocate, were vehement that the JMIC had given himself up. ‘‘Bhardwaj came to my residence around 7 am from an undisclosed location. As I am also an advocate, he discussed the issue of his surrender with me, saying that he had exhausted all legal remedies available to him,’’ says Sharma. ‘‘Around 7.30 am, we called up CBI’s Assistant Superintendent (ASP) Surinder Pal at his residence from my mobile saying that Bhardwaj wanted to give up. The ASP had given us his number when he raided our ancestral residence at Sonam village a few days ago,’’ says Tejpal.

It is worth noting that Bhardwaj's brother is also a lawyer. Nothing wrong as such, but given that Bhadwaj was corrupt and defunct, commons like myself have VALID reason to be suspicious if he had nexused with his lawyer-brother.

quote: DDM-express further reporteth:

They added the ASP asked them to reach the CBI office at an appointed time. ‘‘Around 10.15 am, all three of us reached the Sector 30 office along with our counsels — Rajan Malhotra and Ashish Sharma — in the latter’s car,’’ said Tejpal. He adds that around half-an-hour later, Bhardwaj was formally arrested by the CBI and they were asked to step outside. ‘‘Now we hear that the CBI is claiming to have arrested him from my Panchkula residence which is an utter lie,’’ Sharma fumed.

When The Indian Express visited Sharma’s Panchkula residence, his son Lokesh Kaushal said no police team had visited the house. He also denied having any knowledge about Bhardwaj’s visit, saying that they were not in touch with him for the last one month. ‘‘I left the house at 8 this morning and have no idea what transpired later.’’ He could not explain why his father had told mediapersons that Bhardwaj had reached their residence at 7 this morning.

The family was also tight-lipped about his whereabouts during his month-long flight.

judge Khare had acquitted judge JW Singh DESPITE overwhelhming amount of OBJECTIVE evidences like audio tapes of conversation between JWS and Bhai Shree Chhota Shakilbhai. In case of Bhardwaj, evidence is LESS objective and the key witness is someone who was an accused. So will judges punish judge Bhardwaj? My guess is : NO , the judges will acquit him. Lets wait for some 2-3 years to get the answer.


Top
 Profile  
 
18
PostPosted: Fri Feb 01, 2013 10:52 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 2:49 pm
Posts: 596
86)

A judge, a gangster and a telephone call

http://www.rediff.co.in/news/1999/dec/22judge.htm

S Hussain in Bombay

In a revelation certain to shake Bombay's legal circles, the crime branch of the city police has acquired a taped conversation between Additional Judge J W Singh of the sessions court, who has been suspended by the Bombay high court, and a Karachi-based don.

The judge is accused of having sought to recover money from an acquaintance using the don's help. The tape has him agreeing to go soft on the gang in case any police cases involving it are brought before his court.

The Bombay police have registered a case of abetment of organised crime and slapped a charge under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act on Singh.

The judge was placed under suspension for controversial judgments in some cases under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. This happened even before the police filed their first information report on November 1.

Singh shot into notoriety after the killing of advocate Liaquat Ali Shaikh on November 17 outside Goregaon railway station. Shaikh is believed to have been the liaison man between Karachi-based ganglord Chhota Shakeel and the suspended judge.

The crime branch filed an FIR on November 1 in the sessions court and also played the taped conversation before a shocked Chief Justice Y K Sabharwal of the high court before seeking his permission to name the judge as an accused.

Singh, Shaikh, Shakeel and his henchman Pydhonie are now charged with criminal conspiracy and intimidation.

Following is an exclusive extract from the sealed audio transcript, which now stands as the technical evidence against the judge and others. The conversation took place when the don called Shaikh on his mobile phone (number 98211 64606) when he was at Singh's building at Sion in north-central Bombay at 1920 IST on March 25. Only the name of the man who allegedly owed Singh money has been withheld. "CS" is Chhota Shakeel.

Shaikh: Salaam Aalaikum!

CS: Walaikum Salaam mian, bolo!

Shaikh: Please speak to Singh saheb, he is in the sessions court and a good man.

Singh: Salaam Alaikum!

CS: Salaam, salaam, boliye.

Singh: I have got to recover some money from somebody. His name is...

CS: Just a moment. Fahreem, give me the pen and diary. Haan, how much?

Singh: Around Rs 40 lakh. It's mine, my son's and son-in-law's together.

CS: What is his shop called?

Singh: X

CS: Accha, the one in Sion?

Singh: Haan, haan.

CS: I know that. I already have his matter involving two crores. But I will clear your money. Anything else?

Singh: No, that's all. (Shaikh then talks to CS who then again talks to Judge Singh regarding police encounters).

CS: Why don't you take any action against the police for the encounters?

Singh: The matter should come before us.

CS: That will come. But even after Jude Aguiari's report, more encounters happened. The police just don't care for the law.

Singh: Anyay hain, atyachar hain (It's unjust).

(CS then goes on to narrate an encounter incident).

CS: In none of the encounters were the police hurt.

Singh: They should, they should [be hurt].

CS: Now what do I do about these officers?

Singh: You are a wise man.

CS: I know I am. Lekin phir aap log hi chillate hain!

Singh: No, we don't say anything.

(CS narrates another encounter incident and then calls off the conversation after speaking to Shaikh).

When the police began digging Judge Singh's record they found that he had acquitted two alleged hitmen of the Chhota Shakeel gang on April 8, following an underhand deal with the gangster.

The two alleged hitmen, Subhash Ramkumar Bind (21) alias Vakil and Shekhar Namdeo Kadam (23) alias Shashi, were arrested from Santosh Nagar chawl in Malad on July 3. An AK-56 assault rifle, two AK-56 magazines with 279 live cartridges, two imported 0.38 bore revolvers and one 9 mm Browning pistol were seized from their hideout.

Bind and Kadam were allegedly involved in four cases of murder and attempts to murder. The Malad police had charged them under relevant sections of the Indian Arms Act and also for murder and assault and filed a chargesheet in the metropolitan count, Borivli on March 3, 1997. The case was referred to the session's court since it involved offences like murder.

The case was tried by Judge Singh who acquitted the two on April 8. The police again have a recorded telephone conversation Chhota Shakeel had with the judge's liaison man, advocate Liqquat Ali Shaikh, on April 9, when CS called Shaikh at his residence on phone number 8057755. This is now part of what legal circles claim as incontrovertible evidence against the accused. An exclusive extract from this telephonic conversation:

CS: Hello, hello, haan!

Shaikh: Salaam bhai!

CS: Were you sleeping?

Shaikh: No, no bhai.

CS: Accha, tell that badawala kalakot (the big one in the black coat) not to worry. We have cleared bees peti (Rs 20 lakhs) from the shop. One of my punters will do it. Actually, it is a matter of 60 to 70 petis.

Shaikh: Today, that matter was before him [Judge Singh] involving Subhash and Shekhar. It got dismissed. Chhut gaye na.

CS: Haan, haan.

Shaikh: She used to cheat in the dealings. Tho Salim ne bola tha thokneka (Salim had sent boys to bump her off).

CS: But these boys had gone and killed builder Narendra Goyal. Then they had gone to knock off Shah but killed her watchman Kamruddin Khan instead. That case was heard today. Both the boys have been acquitted. Both are very good.

The two then talk about getting other 'boys' cleared from the court cases and the conversation ends.

The next day, on April 10, 99, Judge Singh calls up Shaikh. The operative part is given below:

Singh: Hello, Shaikh.

Shaikh: Haan, sir.

Singh: Did you get any call from there [Chhota Shakeel)? It will be good if our work is done...

Shaikh: Yes, he said it will be done. Very soon, sir.

Singh: Please, take my mobile number --- 98211-04193. Can you arrange for a talk from there [CS] tomorrow after 8 pm? I am going out now.

Shaikh: Okay, sir, right sir.

Singh had petitioned the high court and sought the quashing of the FIR against him. However, the HC not only dismissed his petition but also ordered the police to arrest him. Following the high court order, Singh has absconded and the police have spread a dragnet for his arrest.

The manhunt for Singh has extended as far as Nanded and Igatpuri in Maharashtra to Delhi. A team of police officers is already camping outside the Supreme Court to nab Singh if he showed up to file an appeal there. The Bombay police is also in the process of getting a non-bailable warrant issued against him and declare him a proclaimed offender.

This will be first time in the history of the Indian judiciary that a judge will be labelled as a proclaimed offender and it is the second time in the history of the Maharashtra judiciary that a judge will be rapped for favouring gangsters. Earlier, magistrate Nagesh Sevankar was transferred for being soft on another ganglord, Arun Gawli.


Top
 Profile  
 
19
PostPosted: Thu Sep 18, 2014 10:01 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 2:49 pm
Posts: 596
87)

Questioner - Singapore and Israel don't have either right to recall or Jury then how is Singapore almost Crime+corruption free and Israel so strong militarily?

Answer - Singapore has zero industry and zero Military.It is actually a quasi colony of West. European companies. It depends on Eureopean countries for its protection from its two neighbors.

Every major European country keeps its South Asian headquarter in Singapore because it is worried of revolution in other countries. So Singapore has millions of office jobs. It also became trading hub of 10s of countries as all companies have headquarters there.

So it doesnt not have any industry and a "real" military. All its weapons are imported and even then Military is only name sake. Industry makes a society complex and difficult to run. The whole country only has office jobs, which makes it easier to run.

Israel is heavily funded by Jews outside Israel. And the jews outside Israel grew rich and powerful only because those countries have Jury System, RTR etc and Jewish were in elite position in those countries because for centuries have been elite traders in Europe.

Israel has compulsory military training and citizens have to give 1-2 months time for military even after the training for whole life. This kind of atmosphere also helps to reduce corruption at lower levels, makes them innovative and strong militarily.

Lets take examples of countries which depend on their own for agriculture, industries, military etc. A country which gets huge support from outside, from its own people or others, doesnt make a good example for us


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 19 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC + 5:30 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group