Make your own free website on Tripod.com
Allegiance2ItalianConstitution
Application dated 14th October, 2008 to prosecute Justice Vijendra Jain and Justice Swatantra Kumar
Home | Do You Know Your Sonia? - by Dr. Subramanian Swamy | Supreme Court Judgment - 2001 | My Delhi High Court Writ Petition | Petition for Review of Order dated 9th May, 2006 | Attorney General of India or Attorney of Smt. Gandhi? | Complaint dated 7th May, 2007 against Justice Vijendra Jain and Justice Swatantra Kumar | Reminder dated 7th January 2008, to CJI | Application dated 14th October, 2008 to prosecute Justice Vijendra Jain and Justice Swatantra Kumar

Milap Choraria

Editor: SUCHNA KA ADHIKAR(Hindi) RTI TIMES (English)

AUTHOR OF THE BOOKS: (1) A MODEL OF NEW CONSTITUTION FOR INDIA; and (2) COMPLETE SYSTEM FAILURE UNDER POLITICS-CRIME-NEXUS

Convenor                    :    Movement for Accountability to Public (MAP)

The then Member                           :        Sub-Committees on Finance & Marketing Under Working Group on SSI Sector for Ninth Five Year Plan Constituted by the Government of India

Author of 250 Articles                      ;       Published in the most of DAILY Hindi Newspapers in India

Ex. Hoy. Gen. Secy.                        :        INDIAN COUNCIL OF SMALL INDUSTRIES (ICSI), Calcutta

President                                    :        Federation of Aluminium Users Association of India

Secretary                                                 :       Tamkor Vikas Samity (Rajsthan)

Life Member                                          :       Transparency International (India), H.O.Berlin (Germany)

Websites:  http://milapchoraria.tripod.com/msp    /   http://rtitimes.net  / https://lists.riseup.net/www/arc/rti-times  E-Mail:  milap_choraria@yahoo.com

B-5/52, Sector-7, Rohini,

Delhi-110085                                                           Dated the, 14th October, 2008

 

To,

Her Excellency President of India Smt. Pratibha Devisingh Patil,

Rashtrapati Bhawan,

New Delhi-110004

 

Hon’ble Chief Justice of India Mr. K. G. Balakrishanan,

5, Krishna Menon Marg,

New Delhi-110011

 

Application for previous sanction to prosecute Mr. Justice Vijendra Jain, the then Acting Chief Justice of Delhi High Court and Mr. Justice Swatantra Kumar the then Judge in Delhi High Court, for passing the “ORDERS”, in serious violation of the Supreme Court Law: (Under Article 141 of the Constitution of India) against apparent gratification of appointments as Chief Justice of Punjab & Haryana High Court and Mumbai High Court respectively to favour Smt. Sonia Gandhi and Shri Rahul Gandhi, who’s allegiance to a foreign State (ITALY) which acknowledged and prevails permanently, unequivocally and irrevocably under the Constitution of Italy and Citizenship Law of Italy.

 

Her Excellency and Hon’ble Lordship,

 

That “Corruption in the Judiciary”, is the serious subject matter of the ‘public debate’, due to recent considerable exposures of the matters of corruption in the Judiciary. While, we in India, failed to follow the “Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary”, adopted and endorsed by the General Assembly of UNO, resolutions 40/32 of 29 November 1985 and 40/146 of 13 December 1985. A case of Corruption, in the Higher Judiciary is much more serious, comparative to a case of corruption in the lower judiciary. A wrong Order passed under good faith, cannot be considered as a crime. But, when a Judge, knowingly and with mal-intention resulting in misfeasance and ill-feasance, passes any Order, same is a considerable Serious Crime, since it violates the Human rights of the victim of the Order. Thus should be dealt with the compliance of the aforesaid “Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary”. But, my experience suggests that we in India, failed to establish any appropriate mechanism to deal with complaint against judges, in accordance with the aforesaid basic principles. However, during the preparation of this application under a bid to bring in transparency and accountability in judiciary, the Cabinet on 8th October, 2008, decided to introduce the Judges (Inquiry) Amendment Bill, 2008 in Parliament, approved setting up a National Judicial Council to probe complaints against judges of higher judiciary. However, initiative from the Government is not assurance that aforesaid Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary, will be implemented, since on December 19, 2006, too it introduces the Judges (Inquiry) Bill, 2006, in the Lok Sabha which now would be withdrawn, because a parliamentary standing committee which had examined it had sought several amendments.

                             

Similarly, for safeguarding the Human Rights, the “Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers”, were also adopted by the Eighth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders, Havana, Cuba, 27 August to 7 September 1990. The Role of Lawyers, set forth below, has been formulated to assist Member States including India, in their task to promote and ensure proper role of lawyers. But, in this matter, too, we are not ready to follow them seriously, as a result, few scrupulous lawyers, are creating bad effects against their ‘Duties and Responsibilities’, formulated by the aforesaid principles, including: 12. Lawyers shall at all times maintain the honour and dignity of their profession as essential agents of the administration of justice; 14. Lawyers, in protecting the rights of their clients and in promoting the cause of justice, shall seek to uphold human rights and fundamental freedoms recognized by national and international law and shall at all times act freely and diligently in accordance with the law and recognized standards and ethics of the legal profession. 15. Lawyers shall always loyally respect the interests of their clients.

 

The Government Advocates are mandated by the law to ensure safeguard the interests of the larger public interests, since they are appointed, at the Cost of Consolidated Fund of India. But, our experiences are quite different, which suggest that they are more busy to get better personal benefits, by protecting the vested interests of the powerful and influential people, who control reins of the powers.   

 

Important Relevant Legal Points, regarding Italian Constitution and law.

Followings are the important provisions of the ‘Constitution of Italy’ and ‘Citizenship Law of Italy’, which are required to be adjudicated under Indian Evidence Act, 1872, as a ‘matter of fact’, without taking judicial notice of foreign law, in terms of Supreme Court Rulings, to decide issue regarding allegiance of Smt. Sonia Gandhi and Shri Rahul Gandhi to the Constitution of Italy, acknowledged and undoubtedly prevails permanently, irrevocably, unequivocally and forever, and even if she might have renounced her Citizenship of Italy, since she cannot renounce her “Permanent Right to Citizenship of Italy”, under which Italian Citizenship is always automatically recoverable, at any time, on the expiry of one year, from the date of her declaration, without any administrative orders:

 

CITIZENSHIP LAW OF ITALY NEW PROVISIONS ON NATIONALITY

ART.1

1. Citizen by birth is: a) the child of a father or a mother, who are Italian citizens;

ART.13 (Accordingly Shri Rahul Gandhi was child of Italian mother, thus he too become Italian Citizen by birth)

1. “He who lost the citizenship shall recover it:”

c) “if he declares he wants to recover it and he resided or he resides in the territory of the Republic, within one year from the declaration;” (Accordingly Smt. Soniya Gandhi as well as Shri Rahul Gandhi are entitled to automatically recover their Italian Citizenship, within one year, if they so desire by declaring. It means their renouncement is not permanent)

d) “after one year from the establishment of the residence in the territory of the Republic, unless he express renounced within the same term;”

Besides aforesaid legal position of the foreign law, I also filed document posted in the Websites of Italian Embassy in Chicago describing Citizenship law of Italy in the following manner:

“PURSUANT TO ITALIAN LAW, A CITIZEN OF ITALY, EVEN IF HOLDER OF ANOTHER CITIZENSHIP, IS ONLY ITALIAN, BECAUSE IN VIEW OF THE LAW IT IS THE ITALIAN CITIZENSHIP THAT PREVAILS OVER ANY OTHER.”

“FURTHERMORE, THE LAW DOES NOT PROHIBIT THE INDIVIDUAL FROM HOLDING ANOTHER PASSPORT ISSUED BY A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT/STATE. SUCH PASSPORT HOWEVER IS AT ANY RATE IRRELEVANT IN FRONT OF THE ITALIAN AUTHORITIES, AS A SITUATION OF DOUBLE OR MULTIPLE STATUS CANNOT BE INVOKED BY A PERSON TO SUBTRACT HIMSELF FROM RESPECTING FULLY ITALIAN LAWS, WHICH INTER ALIA, PUNISHES THE ITALIAN CITIZEN WHO TRAVELS ACROSS ITALIAN BORDERS WITHOUT THE ITALIAN PASSPORT, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, EVEN TO RESIDE IN A FOREIGN COUNTRY.” (Accordingly Indian Passports of Smt. Sonia (Sonya) Gandhi and Shri Rahul Gandhi, are irrelevant, whenever they travels in Italy, where they should carry Italian passports.)

Constitution of Italy

Part-I, Title-I: Article 14 [Personal Domicile] (1): “Personal domicile is inviolable”;

Part I, Title IV, Article 16 [Freedom of Movement] (2): “Every citizen is free to leave the territory of the republic and return to it except for obligations defined by law.”

Title IV Political Rights

Article 48 [Voting Rights] (3): “The law defines the conditions under which the citizens residing abroad effectively exercise their electoral right. To this end, a constituency of ‘Italians Abroad’ is established for the election of the Chambers, to which a fixed number of seats is assigned by constitutional law in accordance with criteria determined by law.”

Article 56 [The House of Representatives]

(1) The house of representatives is elected by universal and direct suffrage.
(2) The number of representatives is six hundred and thirty, of which twelve are elected by the constituency of italians abroad. (Accordingly Smt. Sonia (Soniya) Gandhi and Shri Rahul Gandhi, if they so desire, are unquestionably quite eligible to Vote for the House of Representatives of Italy)

(3) Eligible are voters who have reached the age of twenty-five on election day.

(4) Having set aside the seats assigned to the constituency of italians abroad, the distribution of seats among the constituencies is calculated by dividing the population of the last general census by six hundred and eighteen, and distributing the seats in proportion to the population of each constituency, based on the quotients and the largest remainders.

Article 57 [The Senate]

(1)    The senate is elected on a regional basis except for the seats assigned to the constituency of italians abroad.

(2)    Three hundred and fifteen senators are elected, of which six are elected by the constituency of italians abroad. (Accordingly Smt. Sonia (Soniya) Gandhi and Shri Rahul Gandhi, if they so desire, are unquestionably quite eligible to Vote for the House of Representatives of Italy)

(3)    No Region shall have fewer than seven senators; Molise has two senators and the Aosta Valley one.

(4)    Having set aside the seats assigned to the constituency of italiens abroad, the distribution of seats among the regions is calculated proportionally to the population of the last general census, based on the quotients and the largest remainders.

 

On 21.11.2006, Delhi High Court, pronounced a Judgment, in the Writ Petition (C) No. 2960/1999 and Civil Misc. Petition No. 9837/2005 filed by Rashtriya Mukti Morcha, which was filed with the following prayers, as it appears, and the extracts from the 1st part of the aforesaid Judgment are referred below:

 This writ petition was filed in the year 1999 with the following prayers :-
(i) the President had no discretion in the matter and he should have invited the acknowledged leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha during the process of consultation and not a person who was not the elected member of the House;

(ii) the disregard to the well established Constitutional Convention has hurt the basic structure of the Constitution;

(iii) no person who is not a citizen within meaning of Article 5 of the Constitution has the right to be elected or appointed to any public office under the Constitution;

(iv) the recognition granted by the Election Commission under Section 29A of the Representation of People Act, 1951 is limited by the Constitution to only to such political party/parties which has/have as its/their office bearers citizens who come within meaning of Article 5 of the Constitution;

(v) no person who does not satisfy the requirements of Article 5 can be appointed in the Union/State Council of Ministers.?

However, as prayers (i) and (ii) no longer survive the petitioner is insisting on prayers (iii), (iv) and (v) of the writ petition.”

 

Whereas, another Writ Petition (Civil) No. 7790 of 2006 of Delhi High Court against Union of India and Others, filed by me, was with the following prayers relating to the issue of the allegiance to the Constitution of Italy:

a)       Issue a writ of Certiorari to declare Section 5(1)(c) read with Section 5(2) of the Citizenship Act, 1955, Ultra vires of the Constitution of India, as it unconstitutionally allowed to grant and confirm the Citizenship of India to the Respondent No. 6 (Smt. Sonia Gandhi) contrary to the facts that her allegiance to the Constitution of Italy is irrevocably, unequivocally and undoubtedly acknowledged and always prevails under Sub-clause (a) of the Clause 1 of Article 1 read with Sub-clause (c) of the Clause 1 of Article 13 of the Citizenship Law of Italy read with Part I under Title I under Article 14(1) and 16(2) under Part I, Title IV, Article 48(3) and 54(1) of the constitution of Italy;

b)       ISSUE a writ of Certiorari  to declare that the Respondents No. 6 and 7 (Smt. Sonia Gandhi and Shri Rahul Gandhi) are disqualified to be member of either House of the Parliament pursuant to Article 102 of the Constitution of India as their allegiance to the Constitution of Italy irrevocably and unequivocally acknowledged and always prevails beyond any doubt under Sub-clause (a) of the Clause 1 of Article 1 read with Sub-clause (c) of the Clause 1 of Article 13 of the Citizenship Law of Italy read with Part I under Title I under Article 14(1) and 16(2) under Part I, Title IV, Article 48(3) and 54(1) of the constitution of Italy;

c)       ISSUE a writ of Certiorari to declare that the Respondents No. 6 and 7 (Smt. Sonia Gandhi and Shri Rahul Gandhi) are not competent to solemnly affirm (or swear) to bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of India under Third Schedule under Article 84 (A) and Article 99 of the Constitution of India since their allegiance to the Constitution of Italy irrevocably, unequivocally and undoubtedly always prevails since they cannot renounce their “Absolute Right to Recover Citizenship of Italy”, even if they might have renounced their respective Citizenship of Italy, such renouncement does not stand in view of the legal position of Legal Right of “Italian Citizenship by birth” protected under the mandatory provision of Sub-clause (a) of the Clause 1 of Article 1 read with Sub-clause (c) of the Clause 1 of Article 13 of the Citizenship Law of Italy read with Part I under Title I under Article 14(1) and 16(2) under Part I, Title IV, Article 48(3) and 54(1) of the constitution of Italy, as they can recover it at any time just within one year from the time of their respective declaration;

 

Therefore, in view of the aforesaid legal position of the Italian Law, and the issue raised by me in my Writ Petition, the Judgment in the aforesaid Writ Petition filed by Rashtriya Mukti Morcha is beyond the scope to decide squarely the issues raised by me. Following List of Dates will help to expose that how Hon’ble Mr.Justices Vijendra Jain and Swatantra Kumar misused their Constitutional Offices of Judges of High Court to favour Smt. Sonia Gandhi and Shri Rahul Gandhi against apparently as gratification by way of their appointment as Chief Justice of High Courts. 

List of Dates

Dates

Short Description

29.11.85 / 13.12.19

“Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary” is adopted and endorsed by General Assembly of United Nations Organisation’s resolutions No. 40/32 of 29 November 1985 and 40/146 of 13 December 1985.

27.08.90 / 07.09.90

“Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers” were Adopted by the Eighth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders, Havana, Cuba.

12.09.01

Judgment was pronounced by Supreme Court by Bench comprised: CJI, R.C. Lahoti & Doraiswamy Raju, in CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 4400 of 2000, WITH C.A. No.4405/2000, in the Hari Shanker Jain Vs. Sonia Gandhi. This matter was dismissed because Appellants failed to adduce any prima facie evidence.

17.05.04 at 10.00 am

I Faxed a Message to His Excellency the President of India, and raised objection against claim of Smt. Sonia Gandhi to become Prime Minister. Now, I got Information under Right to Information Act, 2005, from the Presidents secretariat that His Excellency President of India, considered my aforesaid Fax Message, though same is incomplete information.

2006

Aforesaid Writ Petition (C) No. 7790 of 2006 of Delhi High Court was filed by me.

09.05.06

The then Acting Chief Justice Vijendra Jain observed, you have more experience than us, ... …   (If some one has not influenced His Lordship, then how he knows anything about me?).

09.05.06

My Writ Petition (C) No. 7790 of 2006 of Delhi High Court was dismissed, by Bench headed by the then Acting Chef Justice of Delhi High Court Mr. Vijendra Jain, committing contempt of Supreme Court Law, by taking Judicial Notice of Foreign Law.

29.05.06

I filed Petition dated 24th May, 2006, under Section 151 of the CPC, for Restoration of the aforesaid Writ Petition, since the same was dismissed unconstitutionally by taking Judicial Notice of the foreign law, contrary to the Supreme Court Law;

21.08.06

I submitted application under Right to Information Act, 2005, to know why my aforesaid Petition was kept on hold under the garb of scrutiny for quite a long period by the High Court Registry.

11.08.06

 

With sole object to obstruct Information Seekers like me from seeking information, thus Rules were framed and issued by the then Acting Chief Justice of Delhi High Court, Vide No. 180   Rules/DHC, including Rule 4(iv): fixing fees 500 Rupees Per application.”

29.09.06

Matter was listed in the Cause List of the Hon’ble High Court

29.09.06

His Lordships, the then Acting Chief Justice Mr. Vijendra Jain, disbursed the Court for the day, after 12.30 (Noon), before the turn of the hearing of the said matter could have been arrived.

29.09.06

Order was recorded: “Adjourned at request to 1.12.2006.”, but without recording as to who has sought the adjournment.

21.11.06

Bench headed by Justice Vijendra Jain pronounced Judgment in the matter of Rashtriya Mukti Morcha vs. Union of India and Ors., including Smt. Sonia Gandhi: in Writ Petition (C) No. 2960/1999 and Civil Misc. Petition No. 9837/2005

28.11.06

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vijender Jain Becomes Chief Justice of Punjab & Haryana High Court, which he held till 1.10.2008.

08.12.06

Matter was listed against 1.12.2006, before the Bench headed by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Swatantra Kumar, while it should have been listed before the Bench headed by Chief Justice’s Court, since it was dismissed by the Bench headed by the Court of Acting Chief Justice of Delhi High Court. However, upon hearing me, the Hon’ble Court in the Open Court in presence of several Advocates, passes an order to admit my Petition under Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC, which I filed under Section 151 of the CPC, with further directions that on the next date, Court will hear arguments on point of admission of the Writ Petition. But subsequently perhaps it transpired that the Order was recorded in quite a different manner, corruptly recording that I sought adjournment and adjourned to 12.01.2008, without describing any reasons for the adjournment. 

03.01.07

I filed Copy of the Judgment of the Delhi High Court, in the Writ Petition filed by Rashtriya Mukti Morcha, Vide filing diary No. 307.

08.01.07

In consideration of Direction dated 8.12.2006, I filed written submission in support of the ‘Admission of the Writ Petition’.  

12.01.07

Government pleader, sought adjournment. 

09.02.07

Government pleader, under criminal misconduct and in violation of their Official Duties, made false pleadings. Hon’ble Court recorded their false pleading, by ignoring and not recording my strong objection. Matter was adjourned on the corrupt recording of the Order, falsely recording that I sought adjournment to study judgment of Delhi High Court on the Judgment of Rashtriya Muti Morcha. The question of studying the same does not arise at all, since I had filed copy of the same said Judgment on 3.1.2007, so there is no point of validity in saying that I sought adjournment to study the aforesaid Judgment.

20.02.07

Subsequently I also filed CMP No. 3312 of 2007, on 20th February, 2007, under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, in view of the false and corrupt pleadings made by the Government Advocate, on 09.02.2007.

09.03.07

Hearing was complete but the Order was reserved, without fixing the next date.

15.03.07

Order was pronounced, by the Bench headed by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Swatantra Kumar, without prior fixing a date for the same.

31.03.07

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Swatantra Kumar, becomes Chief Justice of Bombay High Court

My aforesaid Writ Petition (C) No. 7790 of 2006 of Delhi High Court, was fully based on relying upon the legal requirements, which appeared by way of the observations, made in the judgment of the Supreme Court, in the (Appeal) case of Hari Shankar Jain vs. Smt. Sonia Gandhi AIR 2001 SC 3689, in the Civil Appeal No. 4400 of 2000 (Hari Shankar Jain Appellant –Vs- Sonia Gandhi), including in paragraphs 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, and 31. Aforesaid Appeal was dismissed by the Supreme Court, because respective Appellants failed to adduce any prima-facie evidences, necessary for adjudication of the aforesaid Appeal. Whereas, in my aforesaid Writ Petition, I made strong averment and placed prima facie strong evidences, according to which, Smt. Sonia Gandhi is having allegiance to the Constitution of Italy, acknowledged and undoubtedly prevails permanently, irrevocably, unequivocally and forever, and even if she might have renounced her Citizenship of Italy, since she never can renounce her “Permanent Right to Citizenship of Italy”, under which Italian Citizenship is always automatically recoverable, at any time, on the expiry of one year, from the date of suo-moto declaration, to the effect, in the prescribed manner, without any administrative orders.

 

I have with me, true photocopies of the ‘Constitution of Italy’ and ‘Citizenship Law of Italy’ in Italian language, print copies of which taken outs from the Website of the Government of Italy. Besides, I filed in the said Writ Petition, photocopies of the Italian Constitution and Citizenship Law of Italy in English, translated by the renowned experts, which under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, should be considered as an Expert’s Opinion, till otherwise not proved.                                      

 

That on 9th May, 2006, immediately at the start of the hearing, on the point of the admission of the aforesaid Writ Petition, the Hon’ble the then Acting Chief Justice Mr. Vijendra Jain, made observations pointing towards me that: you have more experience than us, but are you aware about 1946’s fascist invasion in the Italy. I wanted to know, the source of such information about me, which was not divulged. However, I placed such observation, on record, in Petition dated 24th May, 2006, filed under Section 151 of the CPC, for Restoration of the aforesaid Writ Petition. The aforesaid observation made by Mr. Justice Vijendra Jain is evident of strong evidence that some one must have influenced him against me. My apprehension is also based on the fact that in one of the Writ Petitions filed by me in Supreme Court, Mr.Gopal Subramanium (Now Addl. Solicitor of India), and Mr. S Murlidhar (now Judge in Delhi High Court), were Respondents. However, in serious Contempt of Supreme Court Law, that no court in India can take Judicial Notice of a Foreign Law, and in serious violation of the aforesaid “Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary” the Bench headed by the then Hon’ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Vijendra Jain, on 9th May, 2006, though recording the Order, which does no where reflects the true picture of what I prayed and what pleadings I had made, my aforesaid Writ Petition was dismissed, by misusing his Constitutional Office and abusing his position as Judge of the Hon’ble High Court.  

                                                    

However, on 29th May, 2006, I filed an application dated 24th May, 2006, under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code for restoration of the Writ Petition, by recalling the aforesaid Order dated 9th May, 2006, on the grounds interalia that “NO COURTS IN INDIA CAN TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE OF THE FOREIGN LAW”. Myself, being a person of very little academic qualifications, just a Sixth Class pass certificate from a small village, along with my aforesaid petition, under Section 151 of CPC, I also took care to file my ‘Written Arguments’ in support of the said petition. The matter of the said Petition was listed only after a lapse of 4 months i.e. on 29th September, 2006. However, to my utter surprise, His Lordships, the then Acting Chief Justice Mr. Vijendra Jain, was only pleased to disburse the Court for the day, just after 12.30 (Noon) of 29.9.2006, before the turn of the hearing of the said matter could arrive. This amply suggests that he was not mentally prepared to hear the said Petition, as he was well aware the wrong side of his aforesaid order. However, when the respective Court Order dated 29.09.2006, was retrieved from the Internet, it was revealed that the Order has been recorded as “Adjourned at request to 1.12.2006.”, without describing or even mentioning that at whose request the adjournment was made, since Court had never reassembled again on that day. Meanwhile, before the next date of 1.12.2006, on 28.11.2006, Mr. Justice Vijendra Jain was sworn as Chief Justice of Punjab and Haryana High Court. Hence, there is a serious apprehension that he was gratified through the aforesaid appointment as Chief Justice of a High Court, for having managed the situation through passing some illegal and unconstitutional Orders, as was also done by the Bench headed by him, to favour Smt. Sonia Gandhi and Shri Rahul Gandhi.  

                                                  

On 8th December, 2006, matter was listed against 1.12.2006, before the Bench headed by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Swatantra Kumar, while it should have been listed before the Bench headed by Chief Justice’s Court, since it was dismissed by the Bench headed by the Court of Acting Chief Justice of Delhi High Court. However, upon hearing me, the Hon’ble Court in the Open Court, in presence of several Advocates, passes an order to admit my Petition under Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC, which I filed under Section 151 of the CPC, with further directions that on the next date, Court will hear the arguments on point of admission of the Writ Petition. But subsequently perhaps it transpired that the Order was recorded in quite a different manner, corruptly recording that I sought adjournment and adjourned to 12.01.2008, without describing any reasons for the adjournment.

 

After adjournment from 12th January, 2007, to 9th February, 2007, the Government pleader having an after thought and unfortunately under criminal misconduct, intentionally made corrupt pleadings, that the issue raised in my Writ Petition was already decided in the Judgment dated on 21.11.2006, of this Hon’ble High Court (Delhi) in the Writ Petition (C) 2690/1999 and CM No. 9837/2005, in the matter of Rashatriya Mukti Morcha, and submitted copy of the judgment. Not only that, the Government pleader also started raising preliminary objections, while they were only entitled to do so only when the Court had Ordered i.e. on 8th December, 2006, to admit my said Petition, interalia with regard to the maintainability of the Writ Petition on the ground that the same is beyond the preview and scope of the provisions of the Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the cost imposed has not been paid. I strongly opposed such false, untenable and corrupt pleadings, since I had not filed the Petition under Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC, it was the Hon’ble Court itself suo-moto, admitted the same under Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC, against my Petition filed under Section 151 of CPC. The Penalty imposed upon me was also a subject matter of the aforesaid petition dated 24th May, 2006. More importantly this was fully within the knowledge of the Government Advocates that the issue raised in my aforesaid Writ Petition was never adjudicated upon and decided in the so-called Writ Petition of the Rashtriya Mukti Morcha. In spite of this, the Hon’ble Bench headed by Justice Swatantra Kumar knowingly recorded the aforesaid false and corrupt submissions made by the Government Pleaders, while on the other hand intentionally abstained to record my strong objections raised in the matter, based on my study of the Judgment in the matter of Rashtriya Mukti Morcha, copy of which I had filed, Vide filling Diary No. No. 307 dated 3.1.2007, much much earlier to their aforesaid false and corrupt pleadings.  

 

Now a dangerous trend of curbing the freedom of speech in India has been emerging. The opponents who don’t fall in line with the wishes of the ruling elite are bullied into silence by employing the fascist weapons of intimidation. Most individuals are forced to give up their right of freedom of speech when confronted with massive power of the state. The government in power in India has been using the state’s machinery against individuals and organizations considered to be its enemies or those who do not wish to tow blindly their line, by forcing them to keep away from exercising their legal democratic rights. Time and again black sheep judges’ also oblige them. I am just a common Citizen of India, whereas Smt. Sonia Gandhi and Shri Rahul Gandhi are not only VVIPs but are amongst those who have a control on those who holds the reins of powers in India. As such the then Hon’ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Vijendra Jain, the Hon’ble Mr. Justice Swatanter Kumar and Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. N. Aggarwal, all of Delhi High Court, in serious violation of the aforesaid basic principal of “Independence of the Judiciary”, and “Equality before Law”, through their aforesaid management in passing unlawful and Corrupt Orders, virtually,  decided that being a common man, I have no fundamental right of expression to raise such an important issue, against a powerful and influential person and thus in their eyes, I committed a crime, so, they even went to the extent of imposing a penalty of Rs.10,000/- upon me. Whereas, the respective Hon’ble Judges were responsible for knowing-fully disobeyed and committed contempt of the Supreme Court Law that ‘No Courts in India can take Judicial Notice of Foreign Law’, thus also committed the contempt of their own Court(s). The Government Advocates namely Mr. Gopal Subramanium, and Mr. P. P. Malhotra, both Addl. Solicitor General of India, Mr. Rajive Mehra, Advocate, were equally responsible for not performing their duties as Court Officers, rather they misused their public offices, by knowingly making false and corrupt pleadings.      

 

Smt. Sonia Gandhi is leader of an important National Political Party and her party controls the reins of the power and in that way to an extent she could also affect the working of the office of the Prime Minister, therefore she is morally and legally liable to be clean before the citizenry of India, and as such should have come out with true facts in order to keep the 120 Crores Citizens of this Country, well informed by disclosing about her allegiance to the Italian Constitution. Why chose to keep it under wraps? This is a very pertinent and an important issue, because Smt. Sonia Gandhi has already submitted a declaration before the Election Authority of Rae Barreily Parliamentary Constituency, at the time of filing her candidature form, to contest the Election for the 14th Loksabha, wherein she has admitted that she owns One Immovable Property in Italy. Not only that in her aforesaid affidavit before the Election Authority, she has used her name as: Soniya Gandhi and not Sonia Gandhi, as she is commonly known and publicized, through out the length and breath not only of this country, but the world over. Why so? According to the aforesaid website of the Italian Embassy in Chicago, whenever she will be in Italy, she is bound to travel only with the Italian Passport. These are very serious issues, which could have been adjudicated as a “matter of fact”, by admitting aforesaid Writ Petition. But, respective Hon’ble Judges of the Delhi High Court, miserably and knowing fully failed to perform their Constitutional duties, to favour Smt. Sonia Gandhi and Shri Rahul Gandhi.

       

In this context, one more important point is necessary to be brought into focus. Before the formation of the Government after the Elections for 14th Loksabha, on 17th May, 2004, at about 10.00 in the morning, I, Faxed a Message to His Excellency the President of India. Now I got the Information under Right to Information Act, 2005, from the Presidents secretariat that His Excellency President of India, duly considered my aforesaid Fax Message. However, the aforesaid reply was not complete. Hon’ble Chief Information Commissioner being the first Secretary to the Rajiv Gandhi Foundation, worked under Smt. Sonia Gandhi, and I have reason to believe that some where unwittingly he did not allow the disclosure of the respective Important Information in full.

 

However, by order dated 15th March 2007, the Hon’ble Bench headed by His Lordship Mr. Justice Swatantra Kumar adjudicated my aforesaid application filed for the restoration of Writ Petition (C) No. 7790 of 2006 of Delhi High Court, totally ignoring the arguments made by me in the Written Statements, in the most corrupt manner and also falsely recorded interalia that “all the controversies raised in the petition as well as the application under consideration has been squarely discussed and decided against the petitioner by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Rashtriya Mukti Morcha (supra). The petitioner has also relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Hari Shankar Jain vs. Smt. Sonia Gandhi AIR 2001 SC 3689 wherein it was held that despite grant of certificate of citizenship under Section 5(1)( c) of the Citizenship Act, 1955 and name of the petitioner appearing in the voter’s list, the question of citizenship could be raised in an election petition before the High Court and the Apex Court dismissed the petition. It was further stated that the presumption of validity and legality is attached to such certificates and till the time such certificate were cancelled, withdrawn, annulled, the returned candidate would be a citizen of India. The reliance placed by the petitioner on this case is no help to him and in any case as the similar question has already been answered by a different Division Bench of this Court in the Case of Rashtriya Mukti Morcha (supra), we find no justification whatever to recall the order in question.”. This type of corrupt recording by a Judge of the Hon’ble High Court is a very serious matter of corruption, is a stigma on the Judicial Process.

 

That their lordships further corruptly recorded in the said Order dated 15th March, 2007 that “The petitioner, who appears in person, has been filing application after applications without any purpose and in fact, in our opinion, has abused the process of law.” In fact the words ‘abused the process of law’ is under favoritism and is borrowed from my own Petition, CMP No. 3312 of 2007 filed on 20th February, 2007, which I filed ‘for direction upon the Union of India not to abuse the process of the Hon’ble High Court and to submit their Objection, if any, in writing’ in consideration of corrupt and false pleadings made by the Government Pleaders, by falsely and corruptly citing the Judgment in the Writ Petition of Rashtriya Mukti Morcha, and not only that, the Hon’ble Bench further went to extent of recording a false and corrupt order by citing that portion of the Judgment of the Supreme Court, which has no relevance nor any bearing relevant to the issues raised by me in my Writ Petition. 

                                         

Another reason, might be that in my petition dated 20th February, 2006, I recorded the true fact with reference to proceedings of the His Lordship’s Court dated 8th December, 2006:the Petitioner has filed the instant Petition under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, for the restoration of the Writ Petition after recalling the entire Order dated 9th May, 2006, inclusive of the imposition of the cost. On 8th December, 2006, when the matter was come up for hearing the Hon’ble High Court suo-moto and verbally observed to admit it under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code. At that point of time, the Respondents: the Union of India was entitled to rose, if having any bona fide preliminary objection at all. But, the Counsel of the Respondent was intended to abuse the process of the Hon’ble High Court, and to misguide the Hon’ble Court, thus abused the process of the Hon’ble Court pleading with the false and in-correct facts (with regards to Judgment of Rashtriya Mukti Morcha)”.

 

Here, I would like to clarify my position with regard to the aforesaid Order dated 15th March, 2007, which states that “The petitioner, who appears in person, has been filing application after applications without any purpose and in fact, in our opinion, has abused the process of law.”. In this regards I would like to say that I had to file a total of 4 (Four) Civil intermediary Misc. Petitions, in my aforesaid Writ Petition, as under:-

(1) CMP No. 11950 of 2006 filed on 29th May, 2006 under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code,

with prayer for restoration of the Writ Petition;  

(2)    CMP No. 11951 of 2006 filed on 29th May, 2006, as written arguments in support of aforesaid CMP No. 11950 of 2006;

(3)    CMP No. 948 of 2007, filed on 8th January, 2007, as written submission in support of the admission of the Writ Petition, once the Hon’ble Bench headed by the Hon’ble Mr. Justice Swatanter Kumar of Delhi High Court  during the hearing of the matter on 8th December, 2006 Ordered that on the next date, Court will hear the issue of admission of Writ Petition; and

(4)    In consideration of the false and corrupt pleadings made by the Advocates on behalf of the Union of India, that the issue raised in the Writ Petition (Civil) No. 7790 of 2006, was already decided in the Writ Petition (C) No. 2960 / 1999, filed by Rashtriya Mukti Morcha, I had to file on 20th February, 2007, a Petition as CMP No. 3312 of 2007, for direction upon the Union of India, not to abuse the process of the Hon’ble High Court and to submit their Objection, if any, in writing.

 

However, without prior fixing any date, the Hon’ble Bench headed by His Lordship Mr. Justice Swatantra Kaumr on 15th March, 2007, pronounced the Order. Thus, I was made to miss to attend the Hon’ble Court, at the tie when the aforesaid Order was being passed. However, within 16 days from the aforesaid Order dated 15th March, 2007, on 31st March 2007, Mr. Justice Swatantra Kumar was sworn as Chief Justice of Bombay High Court. Under the Right to Information Act, 2005, I wanted to see the file of appointments of Mr. Justice Vijendra Jain and Mr. Justice Swatantar Kumar as Chief Justices of other High Courts, but I was not allowed, creating a logical and serious apprehension that they were gratified through their appointment, as Chief Justice of High Courts, for passing the aforesaid illegal and unconstitutional Orders.     

                                                             

That Notices along with copies of respective petitions were served upon Smt. Sonia Gandhi and Shri Rahul Gandhi at their residential addresses: 10, Janpath, New Delhi, through Post. But, they decided not to oppose the Writ Petition by filing Vakalatnama, just to escape from the disclosure of the true facts, about their allegiance to the Constitution of Italy, since they were fully aware and confident that the Government Advocates themselves, ignoring their official duties, would do the job of protecting their vested interests. This was further apparent on 8th March, 2007, in clear terms, when after hearing of the aforesaid matter and disbursement of the Bench, Government Pleader Mr. Rajive Mehra started provoking other Advocates against me. When I opposed his criminal conduct, he in a criminal manner threatened me by using an unethical language: ‘JAA CHARR HATT’, which I put on record by mentioning in a letter dated 9th March, 2007, to him sent through Registered Post.

       

The aforesaid Orders passed by the aforesaid Judges were not made under any good faith, nor in conformity with the law of the land, rather made against gratification received by way of appointments as Chief Justice of different High Courts, which they recorded corruptly and contrary to the law, as described above, thus they committed crime punishable under various Sections including Section 120B, 161, 162, 219 of the Indian Penal Code, and Section 7(d), 12, 13(1)(d)(ii) and 15 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

 

Thus I submit this application under Section 197 of Criminal Procedure Code and Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, for sanction to prosecute Mr. Justice Vijendra Jain and Mr. Justice Swatantra Kumar. I hope that in the larger interest of the “Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary”, this application will be decided in an expeditious manner.     

 

With Best Regards and Respects,

Your Honor’s faithfully,

 

 

(Milap Choraria)

Copies to:

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vijendra Jain, the then Acting Chef Justice of Delhi High Court; and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Swatantra Kumar, the then Hon’ble Judge in Delhi High Court, through Registrar General of Delhi High Court;

Shri Milon Banerjee, Attorney General of India;

Mr. Gopal Subramanium, Additional Solicitor General of India;

Mr. P. P. Malhotra, Addl Solicitor General of India;

Mr. Rajive Mehra, Advocate;

Smt. Sonia Gandhi; 

Shri Rahul Gandhi; and  

To be posted in Websites: http://rtitimes.net/blacksheeps-1 / https://lists.riseup.net/www/arc/rti-times  / others   

http://blacksheeps-in-judiciary-01.tripod.com/
MILON K. BANERJEE,
ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR INDIA, 10, MOTILAL NEHRU MARG, NEW DELHI.

19, F-ROAD, MAHARANI BAGH, NEW DELHI-110 065, TEL.26834845, 26912552, 23018122 FAX: 26324479

P.P. MALHOTRA, ADDITIONAL SOLICITOR GENERAL (DELHI) 21, UDAY PARK, NEW DELHI-110 049. TEL.26969333, 26565722, 26515333(R), 23386368(CH), FAX: 26865222. Email: ppmandco@del3.vsnl.net.in.

GOPAL SUBRAMANIUM, ADDITIONAL SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA (SUPREME COURT), AB-7, PURANA QUILA ROAD, NEW DELHI., B-5/7, SAFDARJUNG ENCLAVE, AFRICA AVENUE, NEW DELHI-110 029. TEL.26186051, 26187029, 26198888(R), FAX: 26101428, 23070677, 23070641(O)

 

 

 


Milap Choraria

Editor: SUCHNA KA ADHIKAR(Hindi) RTI TIMES (English)

AUTHOR OF THE BOOKS: (1) A MODEL OF NEW CONSTITUTION FOR INDIA; and (2) COMPLETE SYSTEM FAILURE UNDER POLITICS-CRIME-NEXUS

Convenor                    :    Movement for Accountability to Public (MAP)

The then Member                           :        Sub-Committees on Finance & Marketing Under Working Group on SSI Sector for Ninth Five Year Plan Constituted by the Government of India

Author of 250 Articles                      ;       Published in the most of DAILY Hindi Newspapers in India

Ex. Hoy. Gen. Secy.                        :        INDIAN COUNCIL OF SMALL INDUSTRIES (ICSI), Calcutta

President                                    :        Federation of Aluminium Users Association of India

Secretary                                                 :       Tamkor Vikas Samity (Rajsthan)

Life Member                                          :       Transparency International (India), H.O.Berlin (Germany)

Websites:  http://milapchoraria.tripod.com/msp    /   http://rtitimes.net  / https://lists.riseup.net/www/arc/rti-times  E-Mail:  milap_choraria@yahoo.com

B-5/52, Sector-7, Rohini,

Delhi-110085                                                           Dated the, 14th October, 2008

 

To,

Registrar General of Delhi High Court,

Delhi High Court,

Delhi-110003

 

Hon’ble Sir,

 

Two Sets of Copies of my application for previous sanction to prosecute Mr. Justice Vijendra Jain, the then Acting Chief Justice of Delhi High Court and Mr. Justice Swatantra Kumar the then Judge in Delhi High Court, for passing the “ORDERS”, in serious violation of the Supreme Court Law: (Under Article 141 of the Constitution of India) against apparent gratification of appointments as Chief Justice of Punjab & Haryana High Court and Mumbai High Court respectively to favour Smt. Sonia Gandhi and Shri Rahul Gandhi, who’s allegiance to a foreign State (ITALY) which acknowledged and prevails permanently, unequivocally and irrevocably under the Constitution of Italy and Citizenship Law of Italy, are enclosed herewith.

 

Since, with me, I have no residential addresses of Hon’ble Mr. Justice Swatantra Kumar and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vijender Jain. Therefore, this is my humble request you to forward the same to them.

 

With Best Regards,

 

Yours faithfully,

 

 

Milap Choraria


Milap Choraria

Editor: SUCHNA KA ADHIKAR(Hindi) RTI TIMES (English)

AUTHOR OF THE BOOKS: (1) A MODEL OF NEW CONSTITUTION FOR INDIA; and (2) COMPLETE SYSTEM FAILURE UNDER POLITICS-CRIME-NEXUS

Convenor                    :    Movement for Accountability to Public (MAP)

The then Member                           :        Sub-Committees on Finance & Marketing Under Working Group on SSI Sector for Ninth Five Year Plan Constituted by the Government of India

Author of 250 Articles                      ;       Published in the most of DAILY Hindi Newspapers in India

Ex. Hoy. Gen. Secy.                        :        INDIAN COUNCIL OF SMALL INDUSTRIES (ICSI), Calcutta

President                                    :        Federation of Aluminium Users Association of India

Secretary                                                 :       Tamkor Vikas Samity (Rajsthan)

Life Member                                          :       Transparency International (India), H.O.Berlin (Germany)

Websites:  http://milapchoraria.tripod.com/msp    /   http://rtitimes.net  / https://lists.riseup.net/www/arc/rti-times  E-Mail:  milap_choraria@yahoo.com

B-5/52, Sector-7, Rohini,

Delhi-110085                                                           Dated the, 14th October, 2008

 

To,

Hon’ble Chief Justice of Delhi High Court Mr. Ajit Prakash,

Delhi High Court,

Delhi-110003

 

Hon’ble Sir,

 

Please find herewith a copy of my application for previous sanction to prosecute Mr. Justice Vijendra Jain, the then Acting Chief Justice of Delhi High Court and Mr. Justice Swatantra Kumar the then Judge in Delhi High Court, for passing the “ORDERS”, in serious violation of the Supreme Court Law: (Under Article 141 of the Constitution of India) against apparent gratification of appointments as Chief Justice of Punjab & Haryana High Court and Mumbai High Court respectively to favour Smt. Sonia Gandhi and Shri Rahul Gandhi, who’s allegiance to a foreign State (ITALY) which acknowledged and prevails permanently, unequivocally and irrevocably under the Constitution of Italy and Citizenship Law of Italy, are enclosed herewith.

 

Since, name of one of sitting Judge of Delhi High Court is mentioned in my aforesaid application, and based on my own experiences, I have also raised some question about the working of the High Court Registry.

 

With Best Regards,

 

Yours faithfully,

 

 

Milap Choraria 


Milap Choraria

Editor: SUCHNA KA ADHIKAR(Hindi) RTI TIMES (English)

AUTHOR OF THE BOOKS: (1) A MODEL OF NEW CONSTITUTION FOR INDIA; and (2) COMPLETE SYSTEM FAILURE UNDER POLITICS-CRIME-NEXUS

Convenor                    :    Movement for Accountability to Public (MAP)

The then Member                           :        Sub-Committees on Finance & Marketing Under Working Group on SSI Sector for Ninth Five Year Plan Constituted by the Government of India

Author of 250 Articles                      ;       Published in the most of DAILY Hindi Newspapers in India

Ex. Hoy. Gen. Secy.                        :        INDIAN COUNCIL OF SMALL INDUSTRIES (ICSI), Calcutta

President                                    :        Federation of Aluminium Users Association of India

Secretary                                                 :       Tamkor Vikas Samity (Rajsthan)

Life Member                                          :       Transparency International (India), H.O.Berlin (Germany)

Websites:  http://milapchoraria.tripod.com/msp    /   http://rtitimes.net  / https://lists.riseup.net/www/arc/rti-times  E-Mail:  milap_choraria@yahoo.com

B-5/52, Sector-7, Rohini,

Delhi-110085                                                           Dated the, 14th October, 2008

 

To,

Shri Hansraj Bhardwaj,

Hon’ble Law Minister of India,

Shastri Bhawan,

Delhi-110001

 

Hon’ble Sir,

 

Please find herewith a copy of my application for previous sanction to prosecute Mr. Justice Vijendra Jain, the then Acting Chief Justice of Delhi High Court and Mr. Justice Swatantra Kumar the then Judge in Delhi High Court, for passing the “ORDERS”, in serious violation of the Supreme Court Law: (Under Article 141 of the Constitution of India) against apparent gratification of appointments as Chief Justice of Punjab & Haryana High Court and Mumbai High Court respectively to favour Smt. Sonia Gandhi and Shri Rahul Gandhi, who’s allegiance to a foreign State (ITALY) which acknowledged and prevails permanently, unequivocally and irrevocably under the Constitution of Italy and Citizenship Law of Italy, are enclosed herewith.

 

On the basis of information received by me under Right to Information Act, 2005, I have came to know that for safeguarding the Human Rights of Citizenry of Country, there are no Rules and Regulation are applied in terms of “Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary”, adopted and endorsed by the General Assembly of UNO, resolutions 40/32 of 29 November 1985 and 40/146 of 13 December 1985 and the “Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers”, as were also adopted by the Eighth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders, Havana, Cuba, 27 August to 7 September 1990, to appoint Government Advocates nor any Guidelines are exists according to which accountability of the Government Advocates can be fixed, as I have experienced in the above matter.

 

This is for appropriate steps in the matter, to ensure that in future no Government Advocates can misuse his Office, which he holds at the cost of consolidated fund of India.

 

With Best Regards,

 

Yours faithfully,

 

 

Milap Choraria 

 

Copy to Secretary Ministry of Law and Justice, Department of Legal Affairs, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi-110001


Milap Choraria

Editor: SUCHNA KA ADHIKAR(Hindi) RTI TIMES (English)

AUTHOR OF THE BOOKS: (1) A MODEL OF NEW CONSTITUTION FOR INDIA; and (2) COMPLETE SYSTEM FAILURE UNDER POLITICS-CRIME-NEXUS

Convenor                    :    Movement for Accountability to Public (MAP)

The then Member                           :        Sub-Committees on Finance & Marketing Under Working Group on SSI Sector for Ninth Five Year Plan Constituted by the Government of India

Author of 250 Articles                      ;       Published in the most of DAILY Hindi Newspapers in India

Ex. Hoy. Gen. Secy.                        :        INDIAN COUNCIL OF SMALL INDUSTRIES (ICSI), Calcutta

President                                    :        Federation of Aluminium Users Association of India

Secretary                                                 :       Tamkor Vikas Samity (Rajsthan)

Life Member                                          :       Transparency International (India), H.O.Berlin (Germany)

Websites:  http://milapchoraria.tripod.com/msp    /   http://rtitimes.net  / https://lists.riseup.net/www/arc/rti-times  E-Mail:  milap_choraria@yahoo.com

B-5/52, Sector-7, Rohini,

Delhi-110085                                                           Dated the, 14th October, 2008

 

To,

Joint Secretary (Foreigners),

Ministry of Home Affairs,

Government of India,

Room No. 4, Jaisalmer House,

26, Man Singh Road,

New Delhi-110011

 

Hon’ble Sir,

 

On the basis of information received by me under Right to Information Act, 2005, I have came to understand that under the political influence, the Government of India is not ready to examine the fact that Section 5(1)(c) read with Section 5(2) of the Indian Citizenship Act, 1955 is void and enacted against the integrity of the proprietary and sovereignty of the Constitution of India, allowing thereby to Smt. Sonia Gandhi to solemnly affirm (or swear) to bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of India under Section 5(2) of Indian Citizenship Act, 1955 by granting Indian Citizenship, under Section 5(1)( c) of Indian Citizenship Act, 1955, thereby further allowing her to solemnly affirm (or swear) to bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of India under Article 84(A) and / or Article 99 of the Constitution of India, who’s allegiance to a foreign State (ITALY) which acknowledged and prevails permanently, unequivocally and irrevocably under the Constitution of Italy and Citizenship Law of Italy.

 

I know the Government of India not going to perform its Constitutional duty, eve though please find herewith a copy of my application for previous sanction to prosecute Mr. Justice Vijendra Jain, the then Acting Chief Justice of Delhi High Court and Mr. Justice Swatantra Kumar the then Judge in Delhi High Court, for passing the “ORDERS”, in serious violation of the Supreme Court Law: (Under Article 141 of the Constitution of India) against apparent gratification of appointments as Chief Justice of Punjab & Haryana High Court and Mumbai High Court respectively to favour Smt. Sonia Gandhi and Shri Rahul Gandhi, who’s allegiance to a foreign State (ITALY) which acknowledged and prevails permanently, unequivocally and irrevocably under the Constitution of Italy and Citizenship Law of Italy, are enclosed herewith.

 

With Best Regards,

 

Yours faithfully,

 

 

Milap Choraria 

 

Enter content here

Enter supporting content here

TRUTH SHALL PREVAIL