Before the Appellate Authority of the Office of the Attorney General
of India
(Under section 19(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005)
In the matter of:
Milap Choraria,
B-5/52, Sector-7, Rohini,
Delhi-110085 … …
Appellant
-Vs-
Mr. Mukesh Kumar,
PS to Attorney General of India,
Office of the Attorney General of India,
Supreme Court of India,
New Delhi-110001 … …
Assigned CPIO
The most respectfully
SHEWETH:
The Appellant humbly submits the following facts for kind consideration and
necessary orders by the Appellate Authority of the Office of the
Attorney General of India, in conformity
with the provisions of the Right to Information Act-2005:
1. That appellant through his application under
Section 6(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, No. Ref/AG/2009/02 dated 20th March, 2009, sought Certified
True Copy of the Written Opinion given by the Learned Mr. Milon Banerji, Attorney General of India, not to disclose all communications
in connections with and following the 14th General Elections containing various suggestions including letter forwarded
by Smt. Sonia Gandhi, the then newly elected leader of the Congress Party in the Parliament to His Excellency President of
India Dr. A. P. J. Kalam, since such communication contained the actual fact that who initially and actually claimed before
the President of India, to stake the claim for becoming the Prime Minister of India? Whether such claim was for Smt. Sonia
Gandhi or for Dr. Manmohan Singh? Answers of these question are within the fundamental rights of the Appellant to know, which
answer is also directly connected with a question as to whether such a condition is created, whereby everyone may enjoy his
/ her civil and political rights, or whether that condition is suitably modified for the continuation and thereby to establish
the dynastic rule in India, through backdoor maneuvering through misuse and abuse of the powers of various public authorities?
2 That recently, the Prime Minister of
India, Dr. Manmohan Singh, has openly claimed that if the nuclear deal had not gone through, he would have resigned as Prime
Minister. But, this admission, invariably fails to set aside the allegations persistently leveled against Dr. Manmohan Singh
that all the important decisions and appointments supposed to be taken by the Prime Minister, actually emanate from 10th
Janpath, i.e. the residence of Smt. Sonia Gandhi. In fact, in the aforesaid communications connected with and following the
14th General Elections including the letter sent by Smt. Sonia Gandhi to His Excellency the President of India
Dr. A. P. J. Kalam, in her capacity as the then newly elected leader of the Congress Parliamentary Party, reportedly staking
her claim for being appointed and sworn-in as the Prime Minister of India. From one Website: http://www.upholddignityofindia.com/dynamic/index.php, under heading “DO YOU KNOW YOUR SONIA?” Mr. Subramanian
Swamy, claimed in 60 Pages that “Patriotic Indians should thank the President of India (Dr. A. P. J. Kalam) for having
the courage in citing a legal hitch to dissuade Ms. Sonia Gandhi from staking her claim to form the government in May this
year (2004). She therefore did not, as expected on May 17th, (17th May, 2004) become the Prime Minister
of 1 billion plus people of India. It
can now be said that Bharat Mata has been saved from a monumental, devastating, and permanent injury to her national interest
and to the patriotic psyche of Indians.” And that “Therefore, it should be the resolve of every Indian to make
any and every effort that can be made in a democracy, to ensure that Ms. Sonia Gandhi is kept permanently out of reckoning
for any public office. For those who instinctively understand that imperative, this Note has been written to explain the factual
basis for it, and suggest what patriotic Indians can do now to achieve that democratic and patriotic goal.” And that
“My opposition to Ms. Sonia Gandhi is not merely because she is Italian---born. In other democratic countries, including
in Italy, such an issue [of foreign-born
aspiring to be head of government] would not even arise at all because the issue has already been settled by law, that a person
cannot hold the highest public office unless he or she is native born.” The aforesaid claim/appeal of Dr. Subramanium
Swamy may be true or otherwise, but the fundamental point which has to be underscored is that the Citizenry of India cannot
be denied the opportunity to know the true facts behind the scene.
3. That the aforesaid original Application dated
20th March, 2009, along with respective Postal Order was sent back through Memo Letter No. AG/PS/18/2009 dated
1st April, 20009, to the appellant by the above named Assigned CPIO, and refused to supply the requisitioned Information
claiming that the opinion / advice by Ld. AG in law (without describing under which law, except Section 8(1)(e) of the Right
to Information Act, 2005), is privileged communication thus declined to disclose in view of Section 8(1)(e) of the Right to
Information Act, 2005. Hence this Appeal, on the following facts and grounds.
4. That the Republic
of India is a Member of United Nations Organisation (UN) and that one of the Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary,
that was adopted by the Seventh United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders held at
Milan from 26 August to 6 September 1985 and endorsed by General Assembly resolutions 40/32 of 29 November 1985 and 40/146
of 13 December 1985, affirmed interalia that in the “Charter of the United Nations the peoples of the world affirm, interalia, their determination to establish conditions
under which justice can be maintained to achieve international co-operation in promoting and encouraging respect for human
rights and fundamental freedoms without any discrimination, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights enshrines in particular
the principles of equality before the law, of the presumption of innocence and of the right to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law.” From the aforesaid
right to a fair and public hearing means transparent and open public hearing. Similarly 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 ,
interalia, affirm, interalia, their determination to establish conditions under which justice can be maintained, and proclaim
as one of their purposes the achievement of international cooperation in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights
and fundamental freedoms without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights
enshrines the principles of equality before the law, the presumption of innocence, the right to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, and all the guarantees necessary for the defence of everyone
charged with a penal offence. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights proclaims, in addition, the right to be tried without undue delay
and the right to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial
tribunal established by law. Whereas the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights recalls the obligation of States under the Charter
to promote universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and freedoms. The adequate protection of the human rights and fundamental freedoms to which all persons are entitled be they economic, social
and cultural, or civil and political, requires that all persons have effective
access to legal services provided by an independent legal profession. The professional associations of lawyers have a vital role to play in upholding professional standards and ethics, protecting
their members from persecution and improper restrictions and infringements, providing legal services to all in need of them,
and cooperating with governmental and other institutions in furthering the ends of
justice and public interest. The Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers, which have been formulated to assist Member States in their task of promoting
and ensuring the proper role of lawyers, should be respected and taken into account by Governments within the framework of
their national legislation and practice and should be brought to the attention of lawyers as well as other persons, such as
judges, prosecutors, members of the executive and the legislature, and the public
in general. These principles shall also apply, as appropriate, to persons who
exercise the functions of lawyers without having the formal status of lawyers. According to aforesaid basic principles on the “Role of Lawyers: “Lawyers shall at all times maintain the
honour and dignity of their profession as essential agents of the administration of
justice.” And “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.”
5. That in view of the Advocates Act, 1961 and
also in view of the aforesaid Conventions, the functioning of the Judiciary must be open
to public and advocates are the Court Officers. Certainly this is their duty not to disclosure the Information provided
by their Clients to third parties. Whereas, in the instant case the Important Question involved is whether the Government
Advocate and his Opinion / Advice to any public Authority can be covered within the meaning of Advocates and Client relationship,
exempted under Section 8(1)(e) of the Right to Information Act, 2005? Evidently,
the Government Advocate and his Opinion / Advice to any public Authority cannot be covered within the meaning of Advocates
and Client relationship, since every Government Advocates are Law Officer and Public Servants as is being dealt with in detail
hereinafter.
6.
That International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights Adopted and opened for signature, ratification and accession by General Assembly resolution 2200A (XXI) of 16 December
1966, entry into force 23 March 1976, in accordance with Article 49, the
States Parties to the Covenant, Considering that, in accordance with the principles proclaimed in the Charter of the United
Nations, recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is
the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world. Accordance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the
ideal of free human beings enjoying civil and political freedom and freedom from fear and want can only be achieved if ‘conditions are created whereby everyone may enjoy his civil and political rights’,
as well as his economic, social and cultural rights, Considering the obligation of States under the Charter of the United
Nations to promote universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and freedoms. However, regretfully, contrary to
the aforesaid, in India it is not possible
under the constant misuse of the Powers by Powerful Politicians like Smt. Sonia Gandhi, who is continuously committing the
misuse and abuse of the power to grab and hold the reins of the powers under her control, even by taking recourse to illegal
means and methods. Universal Declaration of Human Rights, under Article 19 provides:- 1. Everyone shall have the right to
hold opinions without interference. 2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom
to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of
frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice. 3. The exercise
of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this article carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore
be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary: (a) For respect
of the rights or reputations of others; (b) For the protection of national security or of public order, or of public health
or morals.
7. That the Attorney-General
for India, is appointed under Article 76 of the Constitution of India, with his duty to give advice to the Government of India
upon such legal matters, and to perform such other duties of a legal character, as may from time to time be referred or assigned
to him by the President, and to discharge the functions conferred on him by or under this Constitution or any other law for
the time being in force, and to have audience in all courts in the territory of India. According to Notification No. G. S.
R. No. I(E) dated 1st January, 1987 (up to date up to December, 2005), from F.18(1)/86-Judl. Issued as the Law
Officers (Conditions of Services) Rules, 1987, thereby also described the duties of the Law Officers (which obliviously is
inclusive of Attorney General for India), are described interalia (a) to give advice to the Government of India upon such
legal matters, and to perform such other duties of legal character, as may from time to time, be referred or assigned to him
by the Government of India; (b) to appear, wherever required, in the Supreme Court or in any High Court on behalf of the Government
in cases (including suits, writs petitions, appeal and other proceedings) in which the Government of India is concerned as
a party or is otherwise interested. According to Rule 7 (substituted vide G. S. R. 403 (E) dated 2nd June, 1999),
of the aforesaid Rules, the Attorney General of India shall be paid Rs.25,000/- per month. (This amount may be subject to
subsequent amendment if any.)
8. That according to Article 76 of the Constitution
of India, the Attorney General for India
is a Constitutional Authority, thus is a Public Servant and only entitled to perform his constitutional duty. Under Section
2(c)(i) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and under Twelfth Clause under Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code, all
the Law Officers including the Attorney General of India are also Public Servant. Therefore, all of his duties and functions
as Attorney General of India is performance of his duty as a Public Servant. Therefore,
between the Law Officer of the Government of India
and Public Authority there cannot be any fiduciary relationship. Any Opinion / advice given by any Constitutional functionary,
or law officers (including Attorney General for India) to any Public Authority is just a part of a process of decision making
by the respective Public Authority in the respective matter. Therefore such Opinion / advice given by any law Officer to any
Public Authority can nowhere be covered within the meaning, scope, definition and ambit of the fiduciary relationship between
Attorney General / Law Officer of the Government and aforesaid Public Authority, thus cannot exempted under Section 8(1)(e)
of the Right to Information Act, 2005. In the instant case, Public Authority is the President’s Secretariat (not the
President), which is claiming to have obtained Opinion / advice from the Attorney General of India. Therefore, the aforesaid
refusal by the aforesaid Assignee CPIO, to supply the Information sought by the Appellant, on the ground as exempted under
Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act, 2005, is without any basis. Any Law Officer, including Attorney General of India can not give
any opinion / advice to protect the vested interests of the individuals, actually who is keeping the entire nation in dark
about her permanent allegiance to the Constitution of Italy, with the help of the Public Servants, working under the control
of the Government under the Prime Minister’s Office.
9.
In a recent article written by Justice (Retd. S. C.
Judge) V.R. Krishna Iyer wrote that even Judges are public servants, not bosses,
Contrary to what the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court recently said, the Right to Information Act does cover 'constitutional
authorities.'. The Complete Article is being referred as below:-
·
Absolute power
and egregious error will be totally incompatible, even when the matter involves the judiciary. Justices of the court are no
higher than great Homer who, as Lord Byron put it, sometimes nods off. The 'robed brethren' on the High Bench do sometimes
blink.
·
Perhaps it is
a rare occurrence, but this is what happened when the Chief Justice of India,
the country's highest judicial functionary, claimed that the Chief Justice is not a 'public servant' but a 'constitutional
authority.' It may be true. But every judge is oath-bound to dispense public justice "without fear or favour, affection or
ill-will." Public justice is public service, and obviously judges are public servants. The Right to Information Act, therefore,
does cover 'constitutional authorities', contrary to what the Chief Justice said. His absolutist obiter, coming as it does
from a legal luminary for whom I have high regard, is bizarre and it is a faux pas. Unfortunately, he has, in my legal perception,
slipped into an accidental innocence of jurisprudence.
·
This may, however,
be justly overlooked, having regard to the heavy burden he bears. He has to manage the court, handle a load of judicial work,
frequently make ceremonial journeys, give erudite speeches and interviews, and bear the tremendous strain involved in selecting
higher judicial personnel. Under public pressure or out of vanity, judges often undertake a tremendous amount of non-judicial
work, sacrificing valuable time so necessary to study dockets, hear prolix and logomachic arguments, and write (although some
of them do not do that) judgments laying down the law of the land. Considering this onerous background, we must forsake criticism
of occasional forensic failings.
·
Grave
goof-up
·
How else can
one explain a grave goof-up, made unwittingly, in his saying that judges are not public servants but 'constitutional authorities'?
The latter are, in simple semantics, a higher category of public functionaries. They are a finer, nobler group of public servants,
democratically more accountable and qualitatively more liable than others to furnish information to the people about themselves
and their functions, if it is relevant to the public interest.
·
All important
constitutional authorities, such as Judges, Ministers, the Comptroller and Auditor General, the Accountant General, the Election
Commissioner, and the Speaker of the Legislature, are a fortiori public servants with superior and more profound obligations.
These are not two antithetical categories but are, in public law, of the same class. My candid constitutional camera perceives
both as owing public duties and being liable to pay penalties for any failures — subject to the limitations laid down
by law.
·
The great judge
Jerome Frank, in his book Courts on Trial, said he had little patience with,
or respect for, the view that it is dangerous to tell the public unpalatable truths about the judiciary. He wrote: "I am unable
to conceive… that in a democracy, it can ever be unwise to acquaint the public with the truth about the workings of
any branch of government. It is wholly undemocratic to treat the public as children who are unable to accept the inescapable
shortcomings of man-made institutions… The best way to bring about the elimination of those shortcomings of our judicial
system which are capable of being eliminated is to have all our citizens informed as to how that system now functions. It
is a mistake, therefore, to try to establish and maintain, through ignorance, public esteem for our courts."
·
Democratic
instrumentality
·
I stand solidly
for a judiciary that is a democratic instrumentality, not an occult class of divinity. David Pannick, QC, observed: "We need
judges who are trained for the job, whose conduct can be freely criticised and is subject to investigation by a Judicial Performance
Commission; judges who abandon wigs, gowns and unnecessary linguistic legalisms; judges who welcome rather than shun publicity
for their activities."
·
Information
about judges' wealth, other activities and even private doings, if they affect judicial duties, cannot be kept secret. To
cite David Pannick again: "The judiciary is not the 'least dangerous branch' of government… They send people to prison
and decide the scope and application of all manner of rights and duties with important consequences for individuals and for
society. Because the judiciary has such a central role in the government of society, we should (in the words of Justice Oliver
Wendell Holmes), wash…. with cynical acid this aspect of public life. Unless and until we treat judges as fallible human
beings whose official conduct is subject to the same critical analysis as that of other organs of government, judges will
remain members of a priesthood who have great powers over the rest of the community, but who are otherwise isolated from them
and misunderstood by them, to their mutual disadvantage."
·
Let us not confuse
between the papacy and the judiciary.
·
Judges, like
Ministers, Governors, Presidents, Speakers and a host of other functionaries, are constitutional authorities. And, most emphatically,
they are public servants, not absolutist bosses with vast political power but above democratic accountability. They should
have functional transparency and be fundamentally incorruptible.
·
Indeed, judges
must be free from graft, nepotism, abuse of power, and arrogance. They should be the paradigm of clean personal life, open
and accessible custodians of public justice and paragons of moral excellence and humanist simplicity, sans consumerist craving
and greed to grab. They are a higher cadre with a more sublime calibre.
·
Trustees
of judicial power
·
In short, justices
wear robes on oath under the Constitution as trustees par excellence of judicial power, of course within their legal jurisdiction
and constitutional jurisprudence. The Supreme Court, in a ruling of the Constitution Bench in K. Veeraswami vs. Union of India
(1991 SCC P-655), held that the expression 'public servant', used in the Prevention of Corruption Act, is undoubtedly wide
enough to denote every judge, including judges of the High Court and the Supreme Court. Judges are under the law, not above
it. Your public life, and even private life to the extent it influences your judicial role, should be accountable and transparent
to the public. A plea of secrecy is sinister allergy. Democracy is a disaster if the
President, the Speaker, the Prime Minister and the Chief Justice hide their wealth
and dealings from the scrutiny of 'We, the People of India',
the sovereign of the nation.
·
To err is human
and to forgive is divine. Chief Justice K.G. Balakrishnan is a fine citizen, a sublime soul, a versatile jurist, a graceful
instance of dignity and refinement. If I have erred in disagreeing with his disclaimer of judges being public servants, he
will forgive me. But judges certainly are not divine.
·
The Indian judiciary
must accept Frankfurter, that frank and superlative U.S. Judge who wrote: "Judges as persons, or courts as institutions, are
entitled to no greater immunity from criticism than other persons or institutions. Just because the holders of judicial office
are identified with the interests of justice they may forget their common human frailties and fallibilities. There have sometimes
been martinets upon the bench as there have also been pompous wielders of authority who have used the paraphernalia of power
in support of what they called their dignity. Therefore judges must be kept mindful of their limitations and of their ultimate
public responsibility by a vigorous stream of criticism expressed with candor however blunt."
·
Our judges shall
remain awake and alert and accept the Preamble to the Constitution that makes clear that this republic is 'socialist, secular,
democratic.'
·
We meanwhile
need a judicial appointments and performance commission of supreme stature, its members selected from among the highest judicial,
political and public-spirited wonders of popular confidence.
·
This is essential
to ensure that the finest and most independent members of the fraternity would exercise judicial power, and that they would
be held in the highest esteem by the enlightened wisdom of the people of India.
This desideratum demands a diamond-hard constitutional code that covers every dimension of judicial performance.
10. That even under Section 30 of the Advocate Act, 1961, Right of advocates to practice
(i) in all courts including the Supreme Court; (ii) before any tribunal or person legally authorized to take evidence; and
(iii) before any other authority or person before whom such advocate is by or under any law for the time being in force entitled
to practice. According to the entire Advocates Act, 1961, and Rules frame there-under
function and duty of the Advocate to appear before all courts including the Supreme Court; any tribunal or person legally
authorized to take evidence; and any other authority or person before whom such advocate is by or under any law for the time
being in force entitled to practice, but not entitled to commit any act and deed,
which cannot be adjudicated by a Court of law. Under the Advocates Act, Advocates
are considered as Court Officers and their duties and professional conduct are farmed within the impact, scope, ambit
and definition of a Court Officer.
11. Therefore, the aforesaid Reply dated 1st
April, 2009, made by the P.S. to the Attorney General of India, is against the Appellant’s fundamental rights to know
that who will be or is his (Appellant’s) leader or Prime Minister. Whether Dr. Manmohan Singh became Prime Minister
of India, under such a condition that was created whereby everyone may enjoy his true civil and political rights, or whether
that condition is hijacked by Smt. Sonia Gandhi to establish the dynastic rule in India through backdoors and through misuse
and abuse of the powers of various public authorities, and thus assigned the Office of the Prime Minister of India to Dr.
Manmohan Singh, to control this Office through the gimmick of back-seat-driving? In fact Smt. Sonia Gandhi by misusing the
political powers, which she have gained and grabbed through the Office of the President of Indian National Congress Party,
successfully but illegally and unconstitutionally controlled the Driver’s Seat of the Office of the Prime Minister of
India, when she failed to hold directly the Office of the Prime Minister of India, which she wanted to hold, by hiding the
true facts about her permanent prevailed allegiance to the Italian Constitution, according to which she is liable to be disqualified
even for the office of the Member of Parliament. Now she is also trying to project her son Shri Rahul Gandhi as future Prime
Minister of India, again by hiding the true facts, about permanent prevailed allegiance of Shri Rahul Gandhi to the Italian
Constitution, according to which he too is liable to attract the criteria of disqualification, on the same grounds, even for
the office of the Member of Parliament. But due to embracement of Judicial Officers, they escaped from such disqualification,
as facts stated below.
12. That the aforesaid intentions of Smt. Sonia Gandhi,
to become or make her son Shri Rahul Gandhi as Prime Minister of India, are part of their criminal conspiracy, working under
criminal connivance with some Public Servants, from different Public Authorities, including the Government Law Officers, like
Shri Gopal Subramanium, Addl. Solicitor General of India, who helped her even up to the extent to embrace the respective Judicial
Officers of Delhi High Court to pass unconstitutional Orders (in the Writ Petition filed by the Appellant) even by committing
the contempt of their own Court as well as further committing contempt of Supreme Court Ruling, which were also repeated and
observed by Supreme Court in a Judgment in the Civil Appeal No. 4400 of 2000 (Hari Shankar Jain Appellant –Vs- Sonia
Gandhi), particularly referred under paragraphs 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, and 31 of the Judgment. The aforesaid Contempt
of Supreme Court Ruling was committed just under gratification from the Government of India, by way of the appointments as
Chief Justices of different High Courts, as complained by the Appellant, in his Complaint dated 7th May, 2007, and reminder dated Dated 7th January, 2008, both addressed to
Hon’ble Chief Justice of India Mr. K. G. Balakrishanan. Copies of the same
were also posted to Justice Vijendra Jain, Justice Swatantra Kumar and Mr. Gopal Subramanium, Addl. Solicitor General of India.
Facts regarding Italian Citizen by birth of Smt. Sonia Gandhi and Shri Rahul Gandhi
and their allegiance to the Constitution of Italy acknowledged and prevails permanently,
irrevocably, unequivocally and forever, even if they might have renounced their respective
CITIZENSHIP of Italy.
Citizenship Law of Italy and Constitution of Italy:-
13.
That the Citizenship Law of Italy and Constitution of Italy in the Italian Language are posted in the Website of the Government of Italy: http://www.giustizia.it/cassazione/leggi/191_92.html and http://www.quirinale.it/costituzione/costituzione.htm respectively, which were downloaded by the appellant. While, their English
translated copies were availed by the Appellant from the Websites of renowned International NGO/Organisations. These translations
are prepared by the experts and can only be adjudicated by any Court in India,
under the Indian Evidence Act. That from the English translated copy of the aforesaid documents, it is amply clear that 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 and 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, one never can renounce his/her “Right to Citizenship of Italy”, which undoubtedly prevails permanently, irrevocably, unequivocally and forever,
even if one might have renounced his/her “Citizenship of Italy”, that renouncement is also temporary in
nature, because it is always recoverable at any time even in remote future, on the expiry of one year from the date of their
declaration to the effect in the prescribed manner. Thus, the so-called renouncement is only temporary in character and nature
and is never final. Thus Italian citizen by birth always having allegiance to the Constitution of Italy, even if he/she gets citizenship
of India, under dual citizenship or otherwise.
14. The provision of the Constitution of Italy and Citizenship Law of Italy, with
regards to Citizenship of Italy are as follows:-
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
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;”
d) “after one year from the establishment of the residence in the territory of the Republic, unless he express
renounced within the same term;”
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 54 [Loyalty to the Constitution] (1):
All citizens have the duty to be loyal to the republic and to observe the constitution and the laws.
15. The Italian Embassy in Chicago posted in its Websites, which possibly under influence or otherwise is removed, but
Printed Copy of the same is in the possession of the Appellant, which described Italian Legal position on Italian Citizen
by Birth 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.”
16. That
in view of the aforesaid Italian provisions Smt. Sonia Gandhi and
Shri Rahul Gandhi are “Italian Citizen by birth”, and their allegiance to the Constitution
of Italy are acknowledged and prevails permanently, irrevocably, unequivocally and forever, even if they might have renounced their respective CITIZENSHIP of Italy, as corroborated from the posting in English by the
Embassies of Italy, from various countries mentioned in their respective websites interalia that “Italian citizenship is based on the principal of ius sanguinis (blood
right) by which a child born of an Italian father or mother is Italian, nevertheless, it must be kept in mind that the mother
citizen has only transmitted citizenship to minor children since January, 1948 as a result of a ruling by the Constitution
Court. Italian Citizenship is currently regulated by Law No. 91 of 5 December, 1992, which unlike the previous
law, re-evalautes the importance of individual desire in the gain or loss of citizenship and acknowledges the right to hold
citizenship in more than one country, except in the case of the various provisions of international agreements.”
,
17. Therefore
any Order passed by any Court in India,
by ignoring the mandate of the Constitution of India, can never become final, and cannot be governed by the rule of finality.
Background of the aforesaid application:
18. That
in response to one of the application filed under Right to Information Act, 2005, by the Appellant, the President Secretariat,
through Memo Letter No. E-6/DPS/20/08/2006 dated Sept. 1, 2006,
replied that “all communications addressed to the President following the 14th General Elections containing
various suggestions on the formation of the Government including your letter of 17th
May, 2004 were accorded due consideration by the President.”. According to the Appellant, the aforesaid reply was
not in compliance of Sub-Section (9) of Section 7 of the Right to Information Act, 2005, as the aforesaid information is at
least not covering the information sought by the Appellant that ‘what action
was taken by His Excellency Shri A. P. J. Kalam, on my aforesaid representation through Fax Message’, since the
information supplied by the President’s Secretariat covers only the first part of the information sought, but the concluding
part of the information relating to the action taken by His Excellency Shri A. P.
J. Kalam, after due consideration of the Fax Message by the President, was not supplied. Therefore, the appellant submitted Appeal and also filed subsequent application No. RTI/APJKalam/03/2006 dated
7th October, 2006, in context with the aforesaid Reply, thus wanted certified copies of all communications in connections
with and following the 14th General Elections containing various suggestions including letter forwarded by Smt.
Sonia Gandhi, the then newly elected leader of the Congress Party in the Parliament to His Excellency President of India Dr.
A. P. J. Kalam claiming formation of the Government headed by herself or by some one else, and reply made by His Excellency
to Smt. Sonia Gandhi on or after 16th May 2004, till the formation of the Government headed by the Prime Minister
Dr. Man Mohan Singh, since the aforesaid information could have given actual action taken by the President of India, and perhaps
under the impact of the same, Smt. Sonia Gandhi retreated from her claim to form the Government under her Prime Ministership.
Since, in response to the aforesaid applications, together with First Appeals, replies received from the President’s
secretariat were unsatisfactory, the Appellant had to file Appeal before the Hon’ble Central Information Commission
which was registered as Case No. CIC/WB/A/2006/01003 of 2006.
19. That the aforesaid Appeal was dismissed by the
Hon’ble Chief Information Commissioner, Mr. Wajahat Habibullah, whom
the appellant in earlier cases seen as a person applying true judicious mind to take decisions. But in this particular matter:
Case No. CIC/WB/A/2006/01003 of 2006, he passed an illegal order by inviting the interpretation of the exemption, from the
Preamble of the Right to Information Act, 2005, whereas, he has failed to justify the Order Dismissing the Appeal under any
exemption provided by Section 8(1), 9 and 11 of the Right to Information Act, 2005. It may please be noted that PREAMBLE is defined as, “A preface, an introduction or explanation of what is to follow:
that clause at the head of acts of legislatures which explains the reasons why the act is made. Preambles are also frequently
put in contracts to, explain the motives of the contracting parties, a preamble is said to be the key of a statute, to open
the minds of the makers as to the mischief’s which are to be remedied, and the objects which are to be accomplished
by the provisions of the statutes. It cannot amount, by implication, to enlarge what is expressly given.” However,
this Appellant is still trying hard to find out connections between the appointment of Shri Wazahat Habibullah as Hon’ble
Chief Information Commissioner, and Smt. Sonia Gandhi, since Shri Wazahat Habibullah, acted for about two years, as subordinate
under her as the ‘First Secretary to the Rajiv Gandhi Foundation’. He is also a human being thus failed to come
out from practical human weaknesses. But in any case, his aforesaid Order raises a question whether appointment of Mr. Wajahat Habibullah, as the Chief Information Commissioner, was guided by Smt. Sonia Gandhi with object to obstruct all the information, which may cause damage to herself by any
way? If it is true, then such a condition is created by her against the aforesaid basic democratic principals, where
everyone may enjoy his civil and political rights. Rather such condition, created by her is justifying that she had hijacked
the control of the reins of the powers in her own hands to establish her dynastic rule in India through backdoors and through misuse of the powers of various public authorities.
20. That during the hearing of the aforesaid Appeal
NO. CIC/WB/A/2006/01003 of 2006, against the President’s Secretariat, which was held on 9th October, 2007,
the personnel representing the President’s Secretariat, referred before the Hon’ble Chief Information Commissioner
that the Written Opinion were obtained by the President’s Secretariat from Ld. Mr. Milon Bonerjee, Attorney General
of India, who raised serious objection against supply of the respective Information sought by the Appellant, through aforesaid
applications being subject matter of the above numbered Appeal.
21. That therefore, the Office of Attorney General of
India can give opinion / advice in the national and larger public interests, but cannot give any opinion / advice for the
protection of illegal acts committed by an Individual, to grab supreme power of the State, just because she or he are powerful
politicians, and are thus above the law. Therefore, the aforesaid Refusal of the Information to the Appellant by the above
named Assigned CPIO, is without any basis, rather is just an effort with the sole intention to put a cover on the fact of
alive allegiance to the Constitution of Italy of Smt.
Sonia Gandhi and Shri Rahul Gandhi, which are acknowledged and prevails permanently,
irrevocably, unequivocally and forever, even if they might have renounced their respective
CITIZENSHIP of Italy, which renouncement is temporary in nature, because it is always recoverable at any time even
in remote future, on the expiry of one year from the date of their declaration to the effect in the prescribed manner. Thus,
the so-called renouncement is only temporary in character and nature and is never final. Thus an Italian citizen by birth
is always having allegiance to the Constitution of Italy, even if he/she gets citizenship of India, under dual citizenship or otherwise.
Therefore, Hon’ble Appellate Authority from the Office of the Attorney General of India,
should direct to the above named Assigned CPIO to supply requisitioned Information without any further delay, and free of
charges, in compliance of Section 7(6) of the RTI Act, 2005.
(Milap
Choraria)
Appellant
VERIFICATION
I, Milap Choraria, the Appellant/Applicant
do hereby solemnly affirm and say that the facts stated in the foregoing paragraphs of the Appeal before Appellate Authority
of the Office of the Attorney General for India, are true to my knowledge and I believe to be true. I signed this Verification
on 12th April, 2009, at Delhi.
DEPONENT
