HTML

Monday 17 July 2017

Amendment of plaint - Allowed -

*DAILY LEGAL UPDATES (13.07.2017)*

Amendment of plaint - Allowed - Statement of plaintiff not to lead evidence relating to amendment - Trial Court may allow defendant to put any evidence in support of their defence relating to the amendment allowed. (2017(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 817 (Rajasthan)

Cruelty - Business partner of husband does not come within purview of S.498-A IPC. (2017(1) Criminal Court Cases 339 (Allahabad)

Document - Not sufficiently stamped and not duly registered, when it was so required - Cannot be admitted in evidence for any purpose. (2017(1) Civil Court Cases 594 (Hyderabad)

Illegal detention - State to pay compensation of Rs.1 lakh. (2017(2) Criminal Court Cases 344 (P&H)

No instructions - It is difficult for Courts to meet expenditure to issue notice to opposite party, who conveniently avoided process of Court, in case Advocate reported no instructions on behalf of his clients. (2017(2) Civil Court Cases 121 (Hyderabad)

Rejection of plaint - Suit for specific performance - Suit barred by limitation - Plaint rightly rejected. 2016(Suppl.) Civil Court Cases 252 (Rajasthan)

Suit filed by un-registered firm - Not maintainable against any party. 2017(1) Civil Court Cases 156 (P&H)

*Back window*

Ad interim injunction - Alienation - If defendant is permitted to alienate disputed property then it will give rise to multiplicity of suits, which is not legally permissible - Order of status quo, upheld. (2014(3) Civil Court Cases 234 (P&H)

Appeal against conviction - Appellant absconded - Not a ground for dismissal of his appeal. (2010(1) Criminal Court Cases 114   (P&H) (DB)

Contempt of Court  -  Once Court passes an order, parties cannot avoid implementation of that order by seeking refuge under any statutory rule - It is not open to parties to go behind orders and truncate effect of those orders. 2014(2) APEX COURT J 529 (S.C.)

Dishonour of cheque - Complaint before expiry of 15 days from the date on which notice is served - It is no complaint in the eye of law - Merely because at the time of taking cognizance period of 15 days has expired from the date on which notice has been served, Court is not clothed with jurisdiction to take cognizance. 2014(4) Civil Court Cases 305 (S.C.)

Dishonour of cheque - Money lender -  Not debarred from instituting complaint u/s 138 of the Act. (2014(3) Civil Court Cases 780 (Delhi)

Electricity - Meter burnt or completely non functional - Provision of Section 26(6) Electricity Act has no application. (2007(1) APEX COURT J 317 (S.C.)

Khasra entries - Do not convey title of suit property. (2014(3) APEX COURT J 590 (S.C.)

Lease deed - Unregistered - Payment of eleven times penalty under Stamp Act - Does not cure the basic defect of non registration of lease deed. (2014(3) Civil Court Cases 276 (P&H)

O.27.Rr.8-A & 8-B CPC are applicable only to the Government and not to instrumentality or agency of the State. (2014(3) Civil Court Cases 064 (S.C.)

Private defence - Exceeding right by one accused - Guilt of each accused, who had exceeded the right of private defence, has to be dealt with separately - Constructive liability as envisaged u/s 34 IPC is not attracted. 2014(2) APEX COURT J 520 (S.C.)

Res judicata - Where two or more suits have been disposed of by one common judgment but separate decrees, there can be no `former suit' as stipulated by S.11 CPC - Non filing of an appeal against one or more of those suits ought not to preclude the consideration of other appeals on merits and the principle of res judicata would be applicable to the judgment which is common and not to the decrees drawn on the basis of that common judgment. (2014(3) APEX COURT J 763 (S.C.)

Sale deed - Declaration sought by non executant that it is null and void - Required to pay fixed Court fee. 2014(4) Civil Court Cases 699 (M.P.)

Service - Temporary or ad hoc appointment - No person can be appointed even on temporary or ad hoc basis without inviting applications from all eligible candidates. (2014(3) APEX COURT J 374 (S.C.)

Specific performance - Sale consideration payable in instalments within the period stipulated in the agreement not paid - Plaintiff not entitled to decree of specific performance. (2014(3) APEX COURT J 262 (S.C.)

Test identification parade - Accused identified by the witnesses at the time of arrest itself - Holding identification parade would have been a futile exercise/inconsequential. (2010(1) Criminal Court Cases 789 (S.C.)

LABOUR LAW UPDATE

LABOUR LAW UPDATE

Attached herewith is the judgment of High Court, J.K. Mittal & Company vs. Union of India & Ors. dated .12.7.2017 clarifying applicability of GST upon Advocates.  This is perhaps the first ruling on the subject.

  Click here   http://labourlawreporter.net/upload/files/10.pdf

LABOUR LAW REPORTER,
A-43, Lajpat Nagar-2,
New Delhi-110 024
Ph. 011-29830000, 29840000
E-Mail : info@labourlawreporter.co.in
Website : www.labourlawreporter.com

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 17 – Builders & Developers – 10 plots were booked by the complainant –

Consumer Law; Bhojram Verma Vs. Vatsalya Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd. [SCDRC Chhattisgarh, 05-07-2017]

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 17 – Builders & Developers – 10 plots were booked by the complainant – Whether the complainant is a consumer ?  Held, It can safely be presumed that the complainant purchased the above plots for commercial purpose or for re-investment purpose. There is no pleadings or evidence to show that the plots booked by the complainants are exclusively for the purpose of his livelihood by self employment. Therefore, the complainant booked the 10 plots and all agreements were executed in the name of the complainant, hence, the complainant purchased the above plots for commercial purpose. The complainant is not consumer and the dispute between the parties is not consumer dispute, hence the complaint is not maintainable and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

CHHATTISGARH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PANDRI, RAIPUR (C.G.)

PRESENT: – HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.S. SHARMA, PRESIDENT HON’BLE SHRI D.K. PODDAR, MEMBER HON’BLE SHRI NARENDRA GUPTA, MEMBER COUNSEL

Complaint Case No.CC/2016/85

OR D E R Dated : 05/07/2017

Bhojram Verma, S/o Late Awadhram Vrma, Aged about 56 years, R/o : Village Kukurdih, Post – Balodabazar, District Balodabazar (C.G.) … Complainant.

Vs.

1. Local Branch Manager, Vatsalya Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd., Block B-1, Pujari Chambers, Pachpedi Naka, Raipur, District Raipur, Pin Code – 492001 (Chhattisgarh).

Sunday 16 July 2017

Free legal aid

https://googleweblight.com/i?u=https://india.gov.in/application-form-free-legal-services-kerala&grqid=FWwMNize&hl=en-IN

Important Judgments (14/07/2017)

Important Judgments (14/07/2017)

Employees of KSRTC who rejoin duty after availing leave without allowances for taking up employment elsewhere would lose cadre seniority impairing their right to claim cadre promotion - 2017 (3) KHC 631 (FB)

JJ Act, 2015 — Offences against children — Petty offences and serious offences can be tried before Magistrate Court - 2017 (3) KHC 656

Art.226 - Even if order of High Court is wrong, it is not for the Authorities to decide the correctness - 2017 (3) KHC  721 (DB)

Sale of liquor by KSBC – Long queue of people causing nuisance and obstruction – Remedial measures mooted by Court  - 2017 (3) KHC 717

BRC Act – Eviction sought for residential purposes – Each and every member of family is competent to give evidence to prove bona fides of their common need - 2017 (3) KHC 646 (DB)

An order refusing to renew a gun licence issued under the Act is appealable under S.18 of Arms Act - 2017 (3) KHC 668

Liquor - 500 mtr Distance rule — Making of a road within private property of hotel can only be seen as a measure to overreach the distance rule provided by the Apex Court - 2017 (3) KHC 677

Conditions of service of Teachers of Unaided Schools are matters which are capable of being adjudicated upon in exercise of the power under Article 226 - 2017 (3) KHC 687

It is for the State in consultation with the High Court to declare the cadre and its strength of District Judges – Cadre strength is to be calculated on the basis of the posts which are brought in the cadre - 2017 (3) KHC 703 (DB)

Demand of the Bar Council of Kerala by way of resumption fee styled as special fee over and above the resumption fee of Rs 7,000/- prescribed by the Bar Council of India is ultra vires, invalid and illegal - 2017 (3) KHC 14 (SN)

CrPC S.313 - Accused not a highly educated person – Trial Judge framing questions in English and recording answers given by the accused in Malayalam – Held, not proper  - 2017 (3) KHC 13 (DB) (SN)

Possession of arrack – Delay of nearly five years in producing samples before Court – Held, if delay is very long, no amount of explanation in explaining the delay can save the prosecution - 2017 (3) KHC 642

Allegation of misappropriation of money from bank — Ordering removal from service of employee is proper - 2017 (3) KHC 653

JJ Act 2015 – Children’s Court can try offences only if at least one of the offences alleged is punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding seven years irrespective of whether the offence is under IPC or under any other law for the time being in force - 2017 (3) KHC 656

Participation in State level competition on the strength of Court order – Denial of certificates and grade – Not justified - 2017 (3) KHC 662 (DB)

Dismissal from service – Industrial dispute raised after ten years and Government making a reference – Delay fatal - 2017 (3) KHC 665

Subletting — Sharing of possession by tenant with others by inducting strangers into the tenanted premises or diverting exclusive possession of tenanted premises or a portion thereof would attract sublease - 2017 (3) KHC 673 (DB)

BRC Act - Goodwill of a business carried on by tenant is not a factor to be considered in the assessment of comparative hardship - 2017 (3) KHC 694(DB)

Candidate, who was an independent Member belonging to LDF coalition during the term of the Committee, submitting nomination as a candidate of the INC with UDF coalition – Held, amounts to disqualification under the Anti defection Act  - 2017 (3) KHC 697

MACT - Tribunal awarding compensation in excess of what was claimed by the claimants – Appeal by the claimants seeking further enhancement — Not maintainable if they could not bring out anything by which they were deprived of or refused; and was legally entitled to - 2017 (3) KHC 710 (DB)

Malpractice in declaring a patient to be brain dead – Court recommends Central Government and State Government to consider issuance of directives in the matter - 2017 (3) KHC 730 (DB)

Wednesday 12 July 2017

Top Interesting Landmark Judgements(SC) Every Advocates Needs To Know About

Top Interesting Landmark Judgements(SC) Every Advocates Needs To Know About

1. Shreya Singhal V/s Union of India in 2015

The SC held section 66A of the Information Technology Act which allows the arrest for offensive content which is posted through the internet as unconstitutional and hence, struck down by the impugned section. 

2. NALSA V/s Union of India in 2014

The Court recognized rights of the transgender as third genders. Also, ordered government to treat them as minorities. Reservations in jobs, education and other amenities shall also be given to them.

3. Lily Thomas V/s Union of India in 2013

The SC of India held that if any members of a legislative council, member of the legislative assembly or members of Parliament who was convicted of a crime and awarded a minimum of two-year imprisonment, he/she shall lose membership of the House with immediate effect.

4. Naz foundation V/s NCT in 2009

The court decriminalized sexual activities “against the order of nature” which included homosexual acts, as per Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code. But this judgement was overruled in 2013 by the SC of India.

5. Aarushi talwar case in 2008

The involved the double murder of 14-year-old Aarushi Talwar and her 45-year-old domestic servant in Noida, Haryana. The case got a heavy media coverage. Rajesh and Nupur Talwar, parents of the murdered girl were convicted and sentenced them to life imprisonment by Sessions court.

6. Jessica Murder case in 2006

A model in New Delhi working as a bartender was shot dead. The prime accused Manu Sharma who son of Congress MP Vinod Sharma was initially acquitted in February 2006. But later, in December 2006 was sentenced to life imprisonment by a fast track hearing by the Delhi High Court. This Supreme Court of India approved the sentence.

7. Om Prakash Vs Dil Bahar in 2006

The SC held that even if medical evidence did not prove it was rape,a rape accused could be imprisoned on the sole evidence of the victim,

8. Rameshwar Prasad V/s Union of India in 2005

In this case, the petitioner challenged the constitutional validity of a notification. The notification ordered closure of the legislative Assembly of the state of Bihar on the ground that attempts were being made to get majority by illegal means. It also laid claim to form the government in the state if continued would lead to tampering with constitutional provisions. The Supreme Court held that notification was unconstitutional.

9. State of Tamil NaduV/s Suhas Katti in 2004

This was the first case involving sentence under the Information Technology Act 2000 which is related to the posting of offensive messages through the Internet. In this case a family friend of a woman who is divorced was suspected of posting her number on messenger groups which made her to being harassed by vulgar messages. Later the accused friend was convicted and sentenced.

10. Best bakery case in 2006

In 2006 a Special Court in Mumbai was formed which gave conviction to nine out of the seventeen accused. The case is related to fourteen deaths in an arson attack in 2002 on the Best Bakery in Vadodara. After a local court acquitted all 21 accused a retrial was ordered in 2004.

11. Vishaka V/s State of Rajasthan in 1997

This was a case of Public Interest Litigation against Rajasthan state and Union of India by other women groups and Vishaka. The judgment also gives the basic definition for sexual harassment at workplaces along with guidelines to deal with it. This judgement says that every instance of sexual harassment can be considered as violation of fundamental rights.

12. Samatha V/s State of Andra Pradesh in 1997

The Supreme Court said that tribal land, forest land and government land in scheduled areas cannot be leased to non-tribal for mining or industrial or private companies. Such activities can only be done by any government undertakings or by tribal people.

13. Jamaat-e-Islami V/s Hind Union of India in 1995

High Court banned an association due to its illegal activities. But, when this was brought to the SC, decision was reversed due to lack of evidence.

14. R. Rajagopal v/s State of Tamil Nadu in 1994

The case decided that even if a matter became one of public record the right to privacy should be subsisted. Thus right to be let alone is considered as part of personal liberty.

15. Babri Masjid Ayodhya Case in 1994

This case questioned the Constitutional validity of the acquisition of an area beside the disputed site. The SC upheld status quo on the disputed structures.

16. SR Bommai v. Union of India in 1994

In this case court laid down the guidelines in proving a majority under Article 356 of the constitution of India.

17. Indra Swahey v/s Union of India in 1992

The SC upheld the implementation of recommendations which is made by the Mandal Commission. It also defines the “creamy layer” criteria and restated that the quota could not exceed 50%.

18. MC Mehta v. Union of India, 1986

MC Mehta filed a Public Interest Litigation for escape of poisonous gases by a plant in Bhopal. The court in this case extended the scope of Article 21 and 32 of the Constitution of India. The case is also famous as Bhopal Gas Tragedy.

19. Kehar Singh V/s Delhi Administration in 1984

Kehar Singh was accused of involved in the murder of Indira Gandhi. Even though death sentence was upheld by the SC , its accuracy has frequently questioned

20. Maneka Gandhi V/s Union of India in 1978

This case caused a huge noise over the definition of freedom of speech and it is a varied interpretation to the meaning of ‘personal liberty and life’ under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The court held that the procedure must not violate any fundamental rights and it must be fair.

21.Indira Gandhi V/s Raj Narain in 1975

After the order of the Allahabad High Court to vacate seat for malpractices Indira Gandhi declared Emergency . The SC later reversed the decision. The SC also added democracy, judicial review, rule of law and jurisdiction of SC under Article 32.

22. M. Nanavati V/s State of Maharashtra in 1960

In this case Commander Kawas Maneckshaw Nanavati murdered his wife's lover Prem Ahuja. It marked the end of jury trial in India when the officer was let off. The SC overturned the High Court’s decision and held Nanavati not guilty of murder.

23. Champakam Dorairajan V/s State of Madras in 1951

This case concerned about the admission of backward classes to educational institutions led Ambedkar, then the law minister to pilot the 1st -ever amendment to the Constitution.

24. Minerva Mills V/s Union of India in 1980 The SC again applied the basic structure' theory, saying that social welfare laws could not curb fundamental rights.

Advocate Walfare misappropriation

Contempt of Court - Willful or deliberate disobedience - Court can form an opinion only after affording an opportunity to file reply and hearing the appellant

*DAILY LEGAL UPDATES (12.07.2017)*

Contempt of Court - Willful or deliberate disobedience - Court can form an opinion only after affording an opportunity to file reply and hearing the appellant. (2017(1) APEX COURT J 774 (S.C.)

Dispute of civil nature - By itself is no ground to quash the proceedings - It is only after collection of evidence, real nature of dispute can be found - Proceedings cannot be quashed at the stage of investigation. 2016(Suppl) Criminal Court Cases 295 (Bombay)

FIR - Registration of FIR is compulsory/mandatory, if information given to police discloses commission of a cognizable offence. (2017(1) Criminal Court Cases 395 (H.P.)

Maxim - `verba chartarum fortius accipiuntur contra proferentem' - Meaning - Ambiguity in the wording of policy is to be resolved against the party who prepared it. 2016(3) APEX COURT J 325 (S.C.)

Recall of a witness - Change of counsel - Not a ground to recall witness. (2017(2) Criminal Court Cases 178 (H.P.)

Senior Citizen - Mother allowed to live in the house alongwith her daughter - Plea that there is no provision in the Act for reinstatement of daughter - Mother instead of engaging an attendant, desired to be taken care of by her daughter - There is little reason for son to feel aggrieved. (2017(1) Civil Court Cases 745 (Calcutta)

Substitution of L.R's - O.22.Rr.3, 4 CPC is not applicable to execution proceedings. (2017(1) Civil Court Cases 504 (Allahabad)

*Back window*

Administrative law - A Rule becomes operative only from the date of its promulgation by publication in the Official Gazette. 2014(2) APEX COURT J 076 (S.C.)

Arbitration award - Objection with regard to competence/jurisdiction of Arbitral Tribunal cannot be raised for the first time in Court. (2014(3) Civil Court Cases 073 (S.C.)

Counter-claim - For all intents and purposes must be understood as suit - `Counter-claim' is tried jointly with suit filed by plaintiff and has same effect as cross-suit - For all intents and purposes `counter-claim' is treated as plaint and is governed by rules applicable to plaints - `Counter-claim' cannot be allowed to proceed where defendant has already instituted suit against plaintiff on same cause of action. 2014(2) APEX COURT J 584 (S.C.)

Dishonour of cheque - Cheque signed on its face and on the reverse - Goes to show that the said cheque was intended to be used as a 'self cheque' and not issued by accused to any other person. (2010(1) Criminal Court Cases 544 (Karnataka)  

Dishonour of cheque - Jurisdiction - Place, situs or venue of judicial inquiry and trial of offence must be restricted to where the drawee bank is located i.e. territorial jurisdiction is restricted to Court within whose local jurisdiction  the offence was committed i.e. where cheque is dishonoured by the bank on which it is drawn. (2014(3) APEX COURT J 055 (S.C.)

Divorce - Cruelty - Mental cruelty may consist of verbal abuses and insults by using filthy and abusive language leading to constant disturbance of mental peace of the other party. (2007(1) APEX COURT J 634 (S.C.)

Dying declaration - In two parts - Contradictory to each other - First part tutored - Second part inspires confidence so as to consider it to be a dying declaration. 2014(2) APEX COURT J 678 (S.C.)

Expunging remarks against Advocate - While deciding lis conduct of counsel not to be commented upon nor mala fide should be imputed against counsel who is an Officer of Court - Adverse remarks ordered to be deleted from judicial record. (2014(3) Civil Court Cases 373 (P&H)

Gift of immovable property - Right to use property during lifetime of donor retained - It does not in any way affect transfer of ownership in favour of donee by donor - Gift is valid. (2014(3) APEX COURT J 113 (S.C.)

Insecticides - Sample taken from sealed container - Properly stored - It is the manufacturer and not the stockist/dealer/distributor who is liable - Proceedings quashed.  (2010(1) Criminal Court Cases 606 (P&H)  

Marriage of a girl below 18 years of age is void - Police protection not provided to such a run away marriage. (2010(1) Criminal Court Cases 678 (P&H)  

News Report - In civil cases contemporaneous publication of news reporting about cause of accident cannot be brushed aside. (2014(3) Civil Court Cases 644 (Kerala)

Partnership firm - Unregistered - Subsequent registration of firm - Does not cure the initial defect in filing of suit. (2007(1) APEX COURT J 340 (S.C.)

Pleadings have to be true to the knowledge of the parties - In case, the pleading taken by the petitioner is true, he cannot ask for ignoring the same. 2014(2) APEX COURT J 048 (S.C.)

Registered document - Terms of document can be varied/altered by a registered document only. (2014(3) Civil Court Cases 023 (Delhi)

Tuesday 11 July 2017

The review petition of J C.S.Karnan.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) NO. _____ OF 2017
IN
SUO MOTU CONMT.PET.(C)NO.1 OF 2017
(D) No. _________/2017
(Seeking review of the judgments dated 09/05/2017 & 04/07/2017 passed by this Hon’ble Court in SUO MOTU CONMT.PET.(C) NO.1 OF 2017)

Justice C.S. Karnan ………..Review Petitioner
IN THE MATTER OF:
Supreme Court of India
on its own motion … Suo Moto
Versus
Justice C.S. Karnan … Original  Alleged Contemnor/Respondent WITH
IA.NO. OF 2017
Application seeking Bail
WITH
IA.NO. OF 2017
Application seeking exemption from annexing certified copy of the impugned order/judgment
WITH
IA.NO. OF 2017
Application seeking open court hearing
of the Review Petition
AND
P A P E R – B O O K
[FOR INDEX KINDLY SEE INSIDE]

DRAWN AND FILED BY

(MATHEWS J.NEDUMPARA)
&
(A.C.PHILIP)
Advocates for the Petitioner
mathewsjnedumpara@gmail.com
(Mobile: 98205 35428)





RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

SL.NO. DATE OF RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS   PAGE(S)

1. ORDER DATED
2. ORDER DATED
3. ORDER DATED
4. ORDER DATED
5. ORDER DATED
6. ORDER DATED
7. ORDER DATED
8. ORDER DATED
9. ORDER DATED
10. ORDER DATED
11. ORDER DATED
12. ORDER DATED
13. ORDER DATED
14. ORDER DATED
15. ORDER DATED
16. ORDER DATED
17. ORDER DATED
18. ORDER DATED
19. ORDER DATED





IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) NO. _____ OF 2017
IN
SUO MOTU CONMT.PET.(C)NO.1 OF 2017
((Seeking review of the judgments dated 09/05/2017 & 04/07/2017 passed by this Hon’ble Court in SUO MOTU CONMT.PET.(C) NO.1 OF 2017)


1. Justice C.S.Karnan
aged about 61 years,
S/o.Mr.Swaminathan,
Residing at:
1/GB, Rosedale Towers,
New Town,
Kolkotta,

Presently undergoing
imprisonment at
Presidency Jail, Kolkotta …REVIEW PETITIONER

IN THE MATTER OF:
Supreme Court of India
on its own motion … Suo Moto
Versus
Justice C.S. Karnan … Original  Alleged Contemnor/Respondent

1.       The Hon'ble, Supreme Court of India,
represented by
The Registrar General of Supreme Court of India,
Supreme Court of India,
TilakMarg,
New Delhi-110 201,
India. … Respondent/  Suo Moto

2.
3.


PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 137/145 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SEEKING REVIEW OF THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 09/05/2017 & 04/07/2017 PASSED BY THIS HON’BLE COURT IN SUO MOTU CONTEMPT.PET.(C) NO.1 OF 2017.

To

THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA
AND HIS COMPANION JUSTICES OF THE
HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

HUMBLE PETITION OF PETITIONER ABOVENAMED

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH



1. There could be no parallel in the judicial history of any nation to the injustice meted out to the petitioner in the name of upholding the majesty and dignity of the institution of judiciary. The Review Petitioner, though would not ever claim to have never erred or being infallible, he could assert with clean conscience that as a judge and a citizen he had only one thing in mind, one dream, a judiciary which is independent, impartial, which is accountable to the people, for the people and isdrawn from the diverse sections of the society. The petitioner found that in the selection and appointment of judges, the concept of men and women of impeccable character, erudition, impartiality, independence and due representation of diverse sections of the society, particularly of the underprivileged class, from humble economic background and other paramount considerations are not observed. This has meant the higher judiciary representing the elite sections of the society to the deprivation of equally deserving members of the less fortunate in economic and other senses. The petitioner, accordingly, in response to his inner conscience ventured to raise the said issues in the public domain. The petitioner also found some of his own brother judges failing to live upto the higher standards of probity in public life which is expected of them. Deeply pained and hurt, the petitioner thought it  his bounden duty to address the constitutional authority,  though, ordinarily, no judge in his place could have ventured so. To put it pithily, the petitioner happened to address the Hon’ble the Prime Minister of India, the Chief Justice of India, so too other constitutional functionaries, many an injustices and corrupt practices. The allegations of corruption and malpractices the petitioner has leveled against his brother judges meant the petitioner to be isolated and a great amount of disaffection if not anger and hostility leveled towards him. The petitioner is afraid to say that his bonafide and genuine concern was taken otherwise which added  fuel to the fire resulting in the Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India constituting a bench taking suo moto institution of criminal contempt of court proceedings against the petitioner, though the title was civil. The bench accordingly ordered notice to the petitioner and the very same day of  issuance  of notice to the petitioner, it divested the petitioner of all his judicial and administrative functions. The said order meant the petitioner to be removed from office which the President of India alone could, that too on a motion of impeachment, which has received the   rd majority of both home of the parliament, present and voting; that too on proved misconduct, in terms of the Judges Inquiries Act, do. With much respect, it is a universal principle that, only the appointing authority can remove a person from any seat of authority or appointment, and allowing the peers to remove any person will surely lead to chaos in any institutional framework which is run by rule of law.
2. The petitioner appeared on 31st of March, 2017 in response to the notice issued to him and so too sought recall of the order by which his judicial and administrative powers were removed, pointing out that no such jurisdiction is invested in the Supreme Court. The Petitioner even offered an apology for any indiscretion on his part, for to err is human. However his pleas were not acceded to. The said case was adjourned to 01/05/2017, on which date this court was pleased to order for the medical examination of the petitioner to ascertain whether the petitioner is in a fit medical condition to defend himself in the ongoing proceedings and adjourned the case to 09/05/2017.

3. On 09/05/2017, this court found the petitioner to be guilty of contempt of court of greatest nature and sentenced him for imprisonment for six months. In the brief order which was dictated in the open, sentencing the petitioner for imprisonment, it was made clear that a detailed order will be passed in due course.

4.
5. The petitioner on coming to know that he was sentenced without a judgment, without a trial, without charges being framed, without a hearing, without a lawyer to defend him, that too in his absence, instituted an application for the recall of the order. The said  application seeking recall of the order dated 9th May, 2017; so too suspension/stay thereof, pointing out that the said order is one rendered void ab initio, for want of jurisdiction and against the principle of nemo judex in sua causa or nemo debet esse judex in propria causa - no one can be judge in his own cause.  It was pleaded that the Petitioner was not told what exactly is the charge against him; what was the legal provision under which he is charged; what are the allegations constituting the charge; what is the material and evidence on which the allegations are founded; what is the punishment likely to be imposed on him, not to speak of not affording him an opportunity to contradict the evidence, if any, against him.  In the said application and the Writ Petition the Petitioner further pleaded that even assuming that the Act is constitutional, then also the elementary principles of criminal jurisprudence founded on the principles of natural justice, like, presumption of innocence, burden of proof is on the prosecution, that nobody shall be compelled to be a witness against himself, that an accused is entitled to be defended by a counsel, that there could be no sentence without a judgment, that it cannot be that a reasoned judgment can follow after the conviction but, on the contrary, there can be no sentence without there in existence a reasoned judgment etc., ought to be observed. A copy of the application for the recall of the order dated 09/05/2017 is produced herein [without annexure therein] and marked as Annexure- ‘A1’( From Pages___to ___).    For completion of facts, it may be added that the petitioner also filed a substantive petition under Article 32 of the constitution of India, challenging the constitutional validity of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971. The Petitioner instituted the said  Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution seeking a declaration that the entire proceeding at the hands of the Seven-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court culminating in the order dated 9th May, 2017 is unconstitutional and void because it amounted to usurpation of the jurisdiction of the Parliament to remove him from office; akin to re-enactment of the manner in which the power of appointment of Judges to the higher judiciary, which the Founding Fathers of the Constitution had vested in the executive, was usurped by the judiciary by reviving the collegiums system by recourse to judicial legislation.   Another ground taken in the said writ petition was that the right to appeal where conviction is by Supreme Court of India, to a larger bench of the Supreme Court, nay, intra court appeal is an essential ingredient of Right to life and liberty. The brief order dated 9th May, 2017 was dictated in the open Court citing, the need for a subsequent detailed order, which was not pronounced on that day.  The brief order was uploaded on the website of the Supreme Court late in the night of the same day.  The counsel for the Petitioner, who was in Cochin, Kerala, booked the first flight to Chennai, discussed the case with the Petitioner, prepared the Writ Petition and the application to recall the order dated 9th May, 2017 and sought to institute them in the Supreme Court on 11th May, 2017.  Registration of cases in the Supreme Court, to an extent, is computerized.  There are only two provisions for registration of cases in terms of the software in vogue, namely, (a) through an Advocate on Record (AOR) and (b) by Party in Person.  The counsel for the Petitioner; so too his associate Shri A.C. Philip, approached not less than 30 AORs.  However, none of them was forthcoming to be an AOR on behalf of the Petitioner.  With much respect, many of them confided the counsel for the Petitioner, that they are scared of displeasing the Hon'ble CJI; that AORs and the senior counsel practicing in the Supreme Court, unlike the ordinary lawyers who appear in the High Courts and subordinate Courts, do not enjoy the kind of freedom and independence which lawyers as a class, the sentinels of civil liberties and freedoms, ought to enjoy and profess to enjoy.  With much respect, they were too frank to admit that orders of the Supreme Court are extremely discretionary; that more than 80% of the petitions filed under Articles 136 and 32 of the Constitution, which constitute 95% of the work of the supreme Court, are absolutely discretionary and no AOR or a senior counsel could afford to invite the slightest of displeasure of the Hon'ble Judges.

6. Faced with the aforesaid scenario, the counsel for the Petitioner, tendered the Petitioner’s Writ Petition and the application to recall the order dated 9th May, 2017 in the open Court before the Hon'ble CJI at 4.00 p.m. on 11th May, 2017.  On being submitted that the AORs whom the counsel for the Petitioner, had approached have refused to act as an AOR for the Petitioner, the Hon'ble CJI was gracious enough to accept the Writ Petition and the application to recall the order dated 9th May, 2017, which were tendered across the Bar.  The counsel for the Petitioner, realized that through oversight what he tendered across the Bar on 11th May, 2017 was a copy of the Writ Petition and not the original, though the application seeking recall of the order dated 9th May, 2017 was original, which was perused by the Hon'ble CJI, and directed the Registry to accept the original of the Writ Petition.  However, the Registry refused to accept the same, whereupon the counsel for the Petitioner, approached the Registrar General, who too refused to accept the same.  Accordingly, the counsel for the Petitioner, mentioned the matter before the Hon'ble CJI who directed him to deliver the same to the Registrar.  Since the said direction remained to be communicated, the Registrar refused to accept the Writ Petition which compelled the counsel for the Petitioner, to mention the matter once again at 2.00 p.m.  The Hon'ble CJI showed his displeasure on the matter being mentioned for the third time and directed the counsel for the Petitioner, to present the petition in the Registry, which accepted the same readily upon instructions being received from the Court Associate of the Hon'ble CJI.

7. The registry, however, declined to register both the said applications, namely, application for recall, so too, substantive writ petition. The petitioner accordingly instituted chamber appeals by Motion No. (L)46230/2017 & (L) 43130/2017 in challenge of the said orders of the registrar. The copies of the said chamber appeals by Motion No. (L)46230/2017 & (L) 43130/2017 in challenge of the said orders of the registrar is enclosed herein and marked as Annexure- ‘A2’( From Pages___to ___) and Annexure- ‘A3’( From Pages___to ___), respectively.   
8. One of the grounds taken by the registrar in declining the application for recall of the orders in the said contempt of court proceedings, particularly of 09/05/2017 was that the petitioner had addressed a letter to the Registrar General of the High Court of Calcutta, against his counsel Shri. Mathews J. Nedumpara. The allegation was that Shri. Mathews J.Nedumpara had brought an order already prepared by him to be signed by the petitioner seeking issuance of notice on a writ petition seeking registration of an FIR based on the suicide note of Shri.(Late)Kalikho Pul. Former Chief Minister of Arunachal Pradesh. Shri(Late) Kalikho Pul in his note had implicated son of the Chief Justice of India and certain prominent lawyers so too members of the bench as having sought for illegal gratification. In no loss of time, the petitioner instituted a chamber appeal, in challenge of the aforesaid order of the Ld. Registrar, so toowithdrawing the allegation which he has made against his counsel as wholly unfounded, the every word of his letter dated 14th March, 2017, addressed to the Registrar General of the High Court of Calcutta. The petitioner happened to address the said letter under a gross misunderstanding, so too being mislead. The petitioner sought the forgiveness of his counsel, Shri. Mathews J.Nedumpara for having made such an untenable an allegation against him. In the body of the said application and the affidavit, both, the petitioner retracted his allegations. He regretted that his relationship between his lawyer being a fiduciary one of utmost trust and confidence, his letter not only meant outrageous absurdity but also to be a baseless vilification of his own lawyer. A copy of the said chamber appeal along with affidavit has already been produced herein and marked as Annexure- A2(From Pages___to ___).
9. The Petitioner took the aforesaid order and the orders directing him to be subjected to medical examination and issuing a bailable warrant against him as one without jurisdiction and in violation of law and thus a nullity, incapable of commanding observance.  The Petitioner also found the said orders as trenching into the jurisdiction of the Parliament, which is too naked and manifest and as clear as daylight, and as violation of Articles 124 and 217 of the Constitution.  Therefore, the Petitioner, as per his interpretation of the law, did not appear before the Seven-Judge Bench on 01st May, 2017 to which date the case stood adjourned.

10. On 9th May, 2017, the Court, as it appears from the order of even date, heard “Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi, learned senior counsel representing the State of West Bengal, with reference to the medical examination of Sri Justice C.S. Karnan, as also, Mr. Maninder Singh, learned Additional Solicitor General of India, Mr. K.K.Venugopal, learned senior counsel representing the Registrar General, High Court of Judicature at Madras, and Mr. Rupinder Singh Suri, Senior Advocate, in his capacity as the President of the Supreme Court Bar Association, and, with much respect, without any discussion whatsoever at all on the merits of the case or what was argued by them, came to the conclusion that the Petitioner “has committed contempt of the judiciary. His actions constitute contempt of this Court, and of the judiciary of the gravest nature. Having found him guilty of committing contempt, we convict him accordingly. We are satisfied to punish him by sentencing him to imprisonment for six months. As a consequence, the contemnor shall not perform any administrative or judicial functions. Detailed order to follow.” 
11.   As is manifest from the order dated 9th May, 2017, the Supreme Court has barred the Petitioner from performing any of his administrative or judicial function, which has meant his removal from the office of the Judge of the High Court, which a power is not invested in the Supreme Court at all.
12. When the instant petitioner appeared before the Supreme Court on 31stMatch,2017 upon notice, he brought to the notice of the Hon'ble Court that divesting him of his judicial and administrative powers amounts to removing him from his office, which is in the exclusive domain of the President of India upon a motion of impeachment which has received the assent of the Parliament; that the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to impeach him, which its orders have meant, which, to repeat, is in the exclusive domain of the Parliament, for, Parliament includes the President.  On 9th May, 2017 and on the earlier dates on which the contempt of Court case was listed for hearing, with much respect, there was no discussion whatsoever on the very jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to invoke contempt of Court proceeding against a Sitting Judge of a High Court and remove him from office, which is in the exclusive domain of the Parliament, and to imprison him.
13. Since the order dated 9th May, 2017 had directed the police to take the Petitioner into custody forthwith, being faced with the threat of imminent arrest, the petitioner’s counsel was forced to mention the matter seeking emergent constitution of an appropriate Bench, the Supreme Court being on Summer Vacation.  The counsel for the Petitioner, sought to mention the matter at 4.00 p.m. on 12th May, 2017, which also failed since the Hon'ble CJI did not lend his ears and retired to his Chamber.  The counsel for the Petitioner, accordingly met the Registrar (Judicial) who promised to obtain instructions from the Hon'ble CJI.  When contacted subsequently, he was kind enough to indicate that constitution of a Bench and listing of the case is beyond his powers and asked the counsel for the Petitioner, to mention the matter before the Hon'ble CJI.  Accordingly, the counsel for the Petitioner, mentioned the matter before the Hon'ble CJI at 10.30 a.m. on 11th May, 2017 seeking constitution of a Bench on emergent basis, pointing out that the order dated 9th May, 2017 meant the Petitioner being impeached in a manner unknown to the Constitution, as a High Court Judge could only be removed from office by the Parliament; that the Petitioner was convicted without a charge, without a trial, without even a judgment; that in terms of the proviso to Section 12 of the Act a contemnor is liable to be discharged even after his conviction if he tenders an apology, even a conditional one, provided that it is bona fide.  It was further pointed out that such an opportunity of discharge, even after conviction, which is embedded in the Act, which opportunity was extended to Shri Vijay Mallya who too was convicted on the same day under the Act, was denied to the Petitioner and, therefore, it is imperative that the case be listed by constituting an appropriate Bench.  The counsel for the Petitioner, believes that the submissions made by him as aforesaid, which he did in the discharge of his sacred duty which he owed towards his client, the Petitioner, for reasons difficult to be fathomed, incensed the Hon'ble CJI.  To the repeated pleas of the counsel for the Petitioner, the reply of the Hon'ble CJI was, with much respect,  “Go to the press”.  The counsel for the Petitioner, thereafter met the Registrar General who expressed his helplessness in the matter.  The counsel for the Petitioner, is reminded of the words of Mr.  Brougham, the Attorney-General of the Queen, in his defence of Queen Caroline before the House of Lords:-

“I once before took leave to remind your lordships — which was unnecessary, but there are many whom it may be needful to remind — that an advocate, by the sacred duty of his connection with his client, knows, in the discharge of that office, but one person in the world, that client and none other. To save that client by all expedient means — to protect that client at all hazards and costs to all others, and among others to himself — is the highest and most unquestioned of his duties; and he must not regard the alarm, the suffering, the torment, the destruction, which he may bring upon any other; nay, separating even the duties of a patriot from those of an advocate, he must go on reckless of the consequences, if his fate it should unhappily be, to involve his country in confusion for his client’s protection.”

And of Lord Denning:
“An advocate is a minister of justice equally with a judge”, who is bound to protect the interest of his client, fearless of the Judge, unmindful of the client who may stab him from behind, unmindful of the society which may not be kind to him.”

Mustering courage, the counsel for the Petitioner, went to the Hon'ble CJI once again at 2.00 p.m. on 15th May, 2017 and requested that an appropriate Bench be constituted and the case be listed. 

14. Though the Supreme Court has convicted the Petitioner under the Act, he in all humility begs to submit that he did not commit any contempt of Court.  What is the contempt he has committed?  He addressed a letter to the Hon'ble Prime Minister alleging that some of his brother Judges had sold their conscience and indulged in corrupt practices.  A Court and a Judge are not one and the same.  Both are different, though there could be no Court without a Judge.  A Judge is not a Court.  The allegation of corruption made by the Petitioner is against individual Judges.  If the allegations made by him are untrue, it will entail in an action, both civil and criminal, at the hands of the Judges concerned against the Petitioner.  Initiation of contempt of Court proceeding against the Petitioner has meant that nobody in this country could ever dare to be a whistleblower in so far as corruption in judiciary is concerned.  In its judgment in C. Ravichandran Iyer v. Justice A.M. Bhattacharjee,1995 SCC  (5) 457   JT 1995 (6) 339, 1995 SCALE  (5)142, the Supreme Court has held that no First Information Report (FIR) could be registered against members of the higher judiciary without the prior consent of the CJI, which meant immunity for a Judge from investigation even in heinous crimes, without meaning the least that Judges indulge in such crimes.  The contempt of Court proceedings against Shri. Justice Katju and the Petitioner has meant that whoever speak about corruption or criticize the Judges in higher judiciary, no matter it is a settled principle that judgments could be criticized and nobody is above lawand even if a Judge indulges in corruption, he will be subject to the criminal laws of the land, will be proceeded against for contempt of Court and will be convicted and sentenced and even the media will be restrained from reporting the truth.  The Petitioner’s case is no longer the case of an individual who has been convicted and sentenced to imprisonment without a charge sheet, without a trial, without even a judgment, but by a sentence where a reasoned judgment is yet to be delivered, but one concerning the very right of freedom of speech and expression, transparency and accountability in higher judiciary.

15. In the name of independence of judiciary, by the judgments in Judges-2, Judges-3 and the NJAC cases, the power of selection and appointments of Judges to the higher judiciary, which the Founding Fathers of the Constitution had vested in the executive, has been, with much respect, usurped by the judiciary/Supreme Court.  With the order dated 9th May, 2017, even the power to remove a Judge of a High Court has been assumed to itself by it by recourse to the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 even without any discussion as to whether or not any such jurisdiction is vested in the Supreme Court.

16. The nation is at crossroads.  Independence of judiciary is of paramount importance and that is achieved when Judges are appointed by open selection, inviting applications from all eligible candidates and references from all stakeholders, in an open and transparent manner; so too by introducing a mechanism to deal with complaints and grievances against Judges of the higher judiciary without in any manner impinging their independence.  Video-recording of Court proceedings, repealing of the Contempt of Courts Act, abolition of the system of designation of lawyers as Senior Advocates; so too Advocates on Record are all measures without which the dream of a judiciary which is transparent, efficient and accountable to the people will remain a mirage. 

17. The Petitioner’s effort to get undone the injustice caused to him by instituting a Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution and an application seeking recall of the order dated 9th May, 2017, as aforesaid, has failed.  Getting the aforesaid Writ Petition and recall application listed for a reasoned hearing and adjudication in accordance with law, for the moment, is a near impossibility.

18. The Petitioner is denied justice.  The concept of justice is divine; it is his birth right and when justice is denied to him by the highest Court of the land, the only proceedings left is to seek a review of the judgment under Article 137/145 Of The Constitution Of India
19. The Petitioner was arrested on 20/06/2017 in compliance of the order dated 09/05/2017 of this court and is presently lodged in the presidency jail at Kokotta. On 05/07/2017, he came to know that a detailed judgment was uploaded in the website of   Supreme Court of India
20. In the order dated 09/05/2017, in para 22 thereon unfortunately a reference is made to a letter which was addressed to the Registrar General of the High Court of Calcutta by the petitioner on 14th  March, 2017.  Since the unfortunate circumstances, nay, total misconception and misunderstanding upon which petitioner happened to write a letter against his counsel Shri. Mathews J.Nedumpara and Shri. Bijoy Krishna Adhikary , it is unnecessary to deal with the same once again. However for the sake of abundance of caution, with a view to undo the great damage done to my counsel in a great sense of contrition and regret the petitioner reiterate that, the allegation which he has made against his counsel is absolutely incorrect, born out of misunderstanding, being misled.The relationship between the petitioner and his lawyer is of utmost trust and confidence, a privileged communication, and the client is duty bound to confide his lawyer for clarifying any doubts, even if that means, seeking clarifications a hundred times.
21. The petitioner is grateful to his counsel Shri. Mathews J. Nedumpara for all the steps taken, leaving no stone unturned, to protect his freedom and liberty. The petitioner is also deeply obliged to the members of National Lawyers Campaign and it's office bearers for extending their unstinted support to the petitioner so as to uphold the rule of law and personal liberties.

22. Appended is the Appendix: I (in page Nos. __ to ___)-Article 124 & 217  of The Constitution of India, 

23. It is Certified that this is the first review petition filed by the review petitioner against the judgment dated 09/05/2017 & 04/07/2017 and based on the same grounds, no other review petition has been filed by the review petitioners.

GROUNDS

Grounds in support of the reliefs sought for are fairly elaborated in the statement of facts above and hence are not repeated.  The Review Petitioner respectfully submits that paragraphs 1 to ____hereinabove may be read and treated as the grounds in support of the instant Review Petition.  Nonetheless, the Review Petitioner begs to submit that:

A. It is to be understood that Court and judges are not one and the same. Even though the Judge is an essential integral and most important part of the court, not the court in itself. Hence the allegations against the judge has nothing to do with the court itself, and in no way can attract the contempt of court proceedings.  Nothing done by the judges outside the open court are the judicial action, and not protected under the contempt of court Act. Further, scandalising the court and antagonizing the judges are on different footing. Neither can be replaced by the other to bring the person within the meaning of contempt of court Act. Only remedy available is personal remedy by those whose persona are under attack, like the protection available to any other citizens or the constitutional functionaries. The Petitioner with utmost humility reiterates that the judges are not the law unto themselves to proceed suo moto and becoming the judges in their own cases. They have the right to defend themselves in accordance with the law laid down against the defamation, if the allegations are proved to be wrong after proper and credible investigation.  The separate judgment of the two judges in paragraph 5 lays down that: “5. Whether those various allegations made by the contemnor are based on any evidence to establish the truth of the allegations is a matter which cannot be examined in these proceedings.  …………..   What is the appropriate forum and procedure which the contemnor is required to follow for setting the  law in  motion w.r.t.  each  of  the  allegations  made  by  the contemnor are questions to be examined in detail.  Further in paragraph 6 of the said judgment, it continues that:- “Such  complaints,  if  made  to  the  appropriate forum/authority  are  required  to  be  investigated  in  accordance with the procedure established by law relevant in the context of each  of  those  allegations  and  appropriate  further  legal proceedings are to  be initiated,  if  the  investigation reveals  the commission of  any offence cognizable or  non-cognizable or  any other actionable wrong…………...” So, the petitioner with all humility is to say that the said allegations were to be investigated first for it's veracity and truth, before proceedings against the petitioner for the contempt of court, concluding that those allegations are frivolous, without any inquiry and finding by any competent authority.

B. There is no reason to come to pre enquiry conclusion that the allegations are frivolous or malicious, that too when allegations are made out by the person holding constitutional post against the persons who holds similar positions and authorities. It is a prejudiced conclusion under which the instant proceedings are initiated. It weakens the institution of judiciary and gives further strength to the corrupt to perpetuate their corrupt practices, so that nobody is able to criticize great injustices dispensed by such persons of power.


C. The only remedy under law is to proceed under the law of defamation, if the judges against whom allegations are raised, if the persons can defend themselves. Otherwise, they are equal citizens having equal legal rights, and the legal and constitutional rights of the judges are not above the rights of the other citizens, when the personal rights are concerned. There cannot be a violation of equality before law. As a matter of right to equality, no defence is available to the judges too, other than the defences available to protect a citizen against an illegality committed by another person. Nobody has a separate rights and defences. Nobody is above law. The reputation and dignity of all citizens, irrespective of the power, authority and seat occupied by him are equal in footing before law in terms of protection and defence.

D. One  constitutional authority, writing to another constitutional authority alleging corruption in any system of state, cannot be a reason to proceed against by a third constitutional authority without the law laid down or authority flowing out of the constitution. – without the laid down law, authority and procedures by the law made by the parliament without which it will lead to constitutional chaos, deviating from constitutional cosmos.
E. The above proceedings were a knee jerk to the federal structure of the constitution as well. The federal structure of the constitution is the basic structure of the constitution which is inalienable, transcendental and primordial as laid down by this court in the land mark verdict of  Keshavananda Bharati.  The High Court is not a subordinate Court to the Supreme Court and is not enjoying any administrative superintendence.

F. There are procedures laid down by this Hon’ble court-that is not followed, while handling an allegation of corruption against any of the sitting or retired judges. ( Veeraswami case. {K. Veeraswami vs Union Of India And Others [1991 SCR  (3) 189, 1991 SCC  (3) 655, JT 1991 (3)   198,1991 SCALE  (2)150]}) Those procedures laid down by the Supreme Court in the instant case are not followed in handling the issues, whereas the petitioner was sentenced in violation of all legal norms and propriety.


G. It illegal for this court to proceed, based upon unverified facts, wereas the allegations are still unverified for it's veracity by competent authorities. And for that reason, facts cannot be verified after the punishment is imposed. It is for the proper agency to do fact finding by investigation and in no way,  Supreme Court of India  is an investigating agency or fact finding court.
H. If every constitutional authority proceeds against the other constitutional authority, will lead to constitutional chaos-is against the National integrity and unity, which will be under direct threat, if the constitutional authorities enlarge their own jurisdiction against other constitutional authority and proceeds to unseat without the laid down procedures in the constitution. The eventual chaos can directly hit the foundation of the unity and integrity of the nation and its existence. The result will be chaos or constitutional unrest and may be leading to political as well.  Any procedures against the constitutional authority shall be strictly in terms of the procedures laid down by the constitution itself, and cannot be by the whims and fancies of the existing authority, which enlarges its own jurisdiction and usurp upon such jurisdiction of other organs against the constitutional mandate.
I. The instant procedures will lay down a wrong precedent resulting into a constitutional authorities struggling to usurp into powers inter se to scuttle scores and silence other authorities or strip of their powers.  In accordance with Article 138 if the constitution,  Supreme Court of India  can function only within its jurisdiction which is invested upon it by parliament, as the Government of India and the Government of any State may by special agreement confer, if Parliament by law provides for the exercise of such jurisdiction and powers by the Supreme Court, not otherwise.  It can only exercise further jurisdiction and powers with respect to any of the matters in the Union List as Parliament may by law confer.
“Enlargement of the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court
138.
(1) The Supreme Court shall have such further jurisdiction and powers with respect to any of the matters in the Union List as Parliament may by law confer.
(2) The Supreme Court shall have such further jurisdiction and powers with respect to any matter as the Government of India and the Government of any State may by special agreement confer, if Parliament by law provides for the exercise of such jurisdiction and powers by the Supreme Court.”
In the instant case, neither the above conditions are fulfilled to enlarge its jurisdiction. The supreme court on its own motion cannot enlarge its own jurisdiction.
J. Even though supervisory powers are invested in the high court by article 227 over the courts subordinate to it, the Supreme Court is not invested with the jurisdiction or administrative or judicial supervision upon the high courts. The instant case in no way pertains to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme court has by the impugned orders usurped upon the jurisdiction, which is not invested in it.
.”
K. It further violates the Fundamental Rights as envisaged under article 20(1) and 20(3) of the constitution.
“Protection in respect of conviction for offences
20.
(1) No person shall be convicted of any offence except for violation of a law in force at the time of the commission of the Act charged as an offence, nor be subjected to a penalty greater than that which might have been inflicted under the law in force at the time of the commission of the offence.
(2) No person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once.
(3) No person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.”


L. Order-XII,Rule-1 of the Supreme Court Rules,2013 reads as follows:-
“The Court, after the case has been heard, shall pronounce judgment in open Court, either at once or on some future day, of which due notice shall be given to the parties or their advocates on record, and the decree or order shall be drawn up in accordance therewith.”
Where as the judgments dated 09/05/2017 & 04/07/2017 passed by this Hon’ble Court in SUO MOTU CONMT.PET.(C) NO.1 OF 2017 was not pronounced in the open court.
No notice was given to the parties or to their advocates about the pronouncement of the judgment.

M. The decree was not drawn up in accordance with the judgment pronounced, whereas the judgment was drawn up in accordance with the order of conviction which showers no legal sanctity for both making the order and the judgment, both illegal and void ab-initio or non est in the eyes of law.

N. The date on which the judgment was signed is not the date of the judgment, whereas the date of pronouncement of judgment is the date of judgment, and in that way, the date shown in the judgment is wrong, because on 09/05/2017 the said judgment was not pronounced. The order which was pronounced on that day clearly mentions that the “Detailed order to follow.”( Paragraph 2, page-1, order dated 09/05/2017). It clearly shows that there was no other order/judgment passed on that day.

O. The subsequent judgment which was uploaded in the website of the Supreme Court of India on 05/07/2017 shows the date of judgment as pronounced by the 5 judges in the bench as 09/05/2017, which is factually incorrect, as no judgment was pronounced on that day in the open court, making the said order non est in the eyes of law.
P. The said order further endorses that the two judges out of the 7 judges have recorded a separate judgment (Page 49,signature block). Whereas the separate judgment was authored only on 04/07/2017. Again it is a factual inaccuracy that the separate judgment was in existence on 09/05/2017, as per the judgment of that day and hence the said inaccuracy further vitiates the authenticity of judgment. 
Q. Paragraph 30 of the judgment of the Chief Justice of India reads as follows:-
“The matter was finally taken up for hearing on 9.5.2017..........”
It is another indication that the instant judgment was authored on a subsequent date, not on the same day.
R. Paragraph 35 of the judgment of the Chief Justice of India further reads as follows:-

“In the background of the factual  position summarized above, while disposing of the suo-motu contempt petition on 9.5.2017, we had  directed, that no further statements issued by Shri Justice C.S. Karnan would  be  publicized.”  

This clearly shows that the instant judgment was authored on a subsequent day, not on the day as mentioned in the order, making the said order non est in the eyes of law.
S. Order-XII,Rule-5 of the Supreme Court Rules,2013 reads as follows:-
“ Every decree passed or order made by the Court shall be drawn up in the Registry and be signed by the Registrar, the Additional Registrar or Deputy Registrar and sealed with the seal of the Court and shall bear the same date as the judgment in the suit or appeal.”
Further, the decree or order passed by the Assistant registrar, Ms.Renuka Sadana which reads as follows (Page 76 of the judgment):-
“.............the reasons for the same have been recorded in the two separate Reportable signed orders, which are placed on the file.”
It clearly shows that both the judgments were placed on the file on 09/05/2017, whereas the second judgment as referred was authored on 04/07/2017. Rather, a judgment which was authored on 04/07/2017 was placed on the file by the assistant registrar on 09/05/2017 as per the given order of the Ld.Registrar.   This is the clear indication and admission on record making the said order non est in the eyes of law..
T. Further, the listing of the case as per the said order passed by the Assistant registrar, Ms. Renuka Sadana (page No.75)shows that the matter was listed for the passing the said judgment on 09/05/2017 as item No.701, whereas on the said listing, only one order of conviction was passed in the open court, (which is in page no. 77 to 80) and there was no subsequent or continuous opportunity to pass the above judgment as mentioned in the order of the assistant registrar. Anyhow, an order signed on 04/07/2017 could not have been pronounced on 09/05/2017, making the said orders non est in the eyes of law.
U. The endorsement of 04/07/2017 as the date of judgment by the two judges in the concurring judgment is also a factual error, as on that day it was neither listed for the pronouncement of orders, nor it was pronounced on that day in the open court. The date of pronouncement of the order is the date of judgment, and not the date on which it was signed/authored and hence for that reason, the order is void ab-initio, the one which is not pronounced in the open court, making it  not an order itself.




PRAYERS
It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to take recourse to the procedure of review and:


a) declare that the lead judgment and order dated 09/05/2017 & 04/07/2017 passed by this Hon’ble Court in SUO MOTU CONMT.PET.(C) NO.1 OF 2017, passed by the 7 judge  Bench of this Hon'ble Court in the above proceedings are unconstitutional and void being in direct violation of the express constitutional and statutory provisions so too the Fundamental, constitutional, equitable and statutory rights of the review petitioner;

b) pass any such other order or orders/directions as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.
c)
DRAWN AND FILED BY


(A.C.PHILIP & C. J. JOVESON)
Advocates for the Petitioner
mathewsjnedumpara@gmail.com
(Mobile: 98205 35428)
New Delhi.
Drawn on:__.07.2017
Filed on:__.07.2017


IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) NO. _____ OF 2017
IN
SUO MOTU CONMT.PET.(C)NO.1 OF 2017
((Seeking review of the judgments dated 09/05/2017 & 04/07/2017 passed by this Hon’ble Court in SUO MOTU CONMT.PET.(C) NO.1 OF 2017)
Justice C.S. Karnan ………..Review Petitioner
IN THE MATTER OF:
Supreme Court of India
on its own motion … Suo Moto
Versus
Justice C.S. Karnan … Original  Alleged Contemnor/Respondent

A F F I D A V I T
I, Justice C.S.Karnan, aged about 61 years, S/o.Mr.Swaminathan, Residing at: 1/GB, Rosedale Towers, New Town, Kolkotta Presently UNDERGOING IMPRISONMNET AT Presidency Jail, Kolkotta, do hereby solemnly swear and affirm as follows:-
1. That I am the Review Petitioner in the above SUO MOTU CONMT.PET.(C) NO.1 OF 2017. I am fully conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case and hence, I am competent to swear this affidavit.
2.    I state that I have read and understood the contents of the accompanying Review petition paragraph 1 to ________  at page 1 to    ________, Synopsis & List of dates at page B to ____, application for Bail, application for exemption from filing certified copies of the impugned order, Application seeking open Court hearing of the Review Petition and the Application for permission to engage Shri.Mathews J.Nedumpara as my counsel to appear and argue the Review Petition.  The contents of the same are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. 
3.    I state that that the Annexures, filed with the Review Petition are true and correct copies of their respective originals.
Place: Kolkotta                                                                
DEPONENT
Verification
I, the Deponent above named, do hereby verify and state that the contents of the Affidavit are true and correct to my knowledge and belief. No part of it is false and nothing has been concealed there from.
Verified at New Delhi on this the ___th  day of July, 2017.

Place: Kolkotta    DEPONENT





APPENDIX

Articles 137 and 145 of the Constitution of India


“Review ofjudgments ororders by theSupreme Court.

137. Subject to the provisions of any law made byParliament or any rules made under article 145, theSupreme Court shall have power to review any judgment
pronounced or order made by it.

“Rules of Court, etc.

145. (1) Subject to the provisions of any law made byParliament, the Supreme Court may from time to time,with the approval of the President, make rules forregulating generally the practice and procedure of theCourt including—
(a) rules as to the persons practising before theCourt;
(b) rules as to the procedure for hearing appealsand other matters pertaining to appeals includingthe time within which appeals to the Court are to beentered;
(c) rules as to the proceedings in the Court for theenforcement of any of the rights conferred byPart III;
[(cc) rules as to the proceedings in the Courtunder
1[article 139A];]
(d) rules as to the entertainment of appeals under
2sub-clause (c) of clause (1) of article 134;
(e) rules as to the conditions subject to which anyjudgment pronounced or order made by the Courtmay be reviewed and the procedure for such reviewincluding the time within which applications to theCourt for such review are to be entered;
(f) rules as to the costs of and incidental to anyproceedings in the Court and as to the fees to becharged in respect of proceedings therein;
(g) rules as to the granting of bail;
(h) rules as to stay of proceedings;
(i) rules providing for the summary determinationof any appeal which appears to the Court to befrivolous or vexatious or brought for the purpose ofdelay;
(j) rules as to the procedure for inquiries referredto in clause (1) of article 317.
Rules of Court, etc.
(2) Subject to the 1[provisions of *** clause (3)], rulesmade under this article may fix the minimum number ofJudges who are to sit for any purpose, and may providefor the powers of single Judges and Division Courts.
(3) 3[22*** The minimum number] of Judges who are tosit for the purpose of deciding any case involving asubstantial question of law as to the interpretation of thisConstitution or for the purpose of hearing any referenceunder article 143 shall be five:
Provided that, where the Court hearing an appealunder any of the provisions of this Chapter other thanarticle 132 consists of less than five Judges and in thecourse of the hearing of the appeal the Court is satisfiedthat the appeal involves a substantial question of law asto the interpretation of this Constitution the determinationof which is necessary for the disposal of the appeal, suchCourt shall refer the question for opinion to a Courtconstituted as required by this clause for the purpose ofdeciding any case involving such a question and shallon receipt of the opinion dispose of the appeal inconformity with such opinion.
(4) No judgment shall be delivered by the SupremeCourt save in open Court, and no report shall be madeunder article 143 save in accordance with an opinionalso delivered in open Court.
(5) No judgment and no such opinion shall bedelivered by the Supreme Court save with theconcurrence of a majority of the Judges present at thehearing of the case, but nothing in this clause shall bedeemed to prevent a Judge who does not concur fromdelivering a dissenting judgment or opinion.”




Justice C.S. Karnan
Review Petitioner Presently undergoing imprisonment at Presidency Jail, Kolkotta
Dated :___.07.2017
To
The Registrar
Supreme Court of India,
New Delhi.


Subject :

REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) NO. _____ OF 2017
IN
SUO MOTU CONMT.PET.(C)NO.1 OF 2017
Sir,

I hereby authorize Shri Mathew J.Nedumpara/A.C.Philip/ MR.Sonu Beniwal, to file, re-file, to apply for and obtain the proceedings along with the entire Case and also to do the needful in the Registry in the above mentioned case.

Thanking you
     Yours sincerely,


(Justice C.S. Karnan)
Review Petitioner



IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) NO. _____ OF 2017
IN
SUO MOTU CONMT.PET.(C)NO.1 OF 2017
((Seeking review of the judgments dated 09/05/2017 & 04/07/2017 passed by this Hon’ble Court in SUO MOTU CONMT.PET.(C) NO.1 OF 2017)
Justice C.S. Karnan ………..Review Petitioner
IN THE MATTER OF:
Supreme Court of India
on its own motion … Suo Moto
Versus
Justice C.S. Karnan … Original  Alleged Contemnor/Respondent
VAKALATNAMA
I/WeJustice C.S.KarnanAppellants(s)/Petitioner(s)/Respondent(s) /Opposite party in the above Suit/ Appeal: Petition/ Reference do hereby appoint and retain            ______________________Advocate-on-Record of the Supreme Court to act and appear for me/us in the above Proceedings/Suit/ Appeal/ Petition/ Reference and or my /our behalf to conduct and prosecute (or defend) the same and all proceedings that may be taken in respect of my application connected with the same of any decree order passed therein, including proceedings in taxation and application for Review, to file and obtain return of documents, and to deposit and receive money on my/ or behalf in the said Suit Appeal/ Petition Reference and in application of Review, and to represent me/us and to take all necessary steps on my /our behalf in the above matter, I/We agree to ratify all acts done by the aforesaid Advocate in pursuance of this authority.
Dated this the  ___________th  day of  July, 2017

Accepted, Certified and satisfied

Place: Kolkotta
Date:     /07/2017 (Signed) 

MEMO OF APPEARANCE
To,
The Registrar,
Supreme Court of India
New Delhi
Sir,
Please enter my appearance on behalf of the Petitioner(s) /Appellant(s)/ Respondent(s) /Intervener in the matter above mentioned.

Dated this the ______th   day of  July  , 2017
Yours faithfully,

Date:    /07/2017 AOR for petitioner(s)/appellant(s)


IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) NO. _____ OF 2017
IN
SUO MOTU CONMT.PET.(C)NO.1 OF 2017
((Seeking review of the judgments dated 09/05/2017 & 04/07/2017 passed by this Hon’ble Court in SUO MOTU CONMT.PET.(C) NO.1 OF 2017)
Justice C.S. Karnan ………..Review Petitioner
IN THE MATTER OF:
Supreme Court of India
on its own motion … Suo Moto
Versus
Justice C.S. Karnan … Original  Alleged Contemnor/Respondent
VAKALATNAMA
I/WeJustice C.S.KarnanAppellants(s)/Petitioner(s)/Respondent(s) /Opposite party in the above Suit/ Appeal: Petition/ Reference do hereby appoint and retain            ____________________________________Advocate-on-Record of the Supreme Court to act and appear for me/us in the above Proceedings/Suit/ Appeal/ Petition/ Reference and or my /our behalf to conduct and prosecute (or defend) the same and all proceedings that may be taken in respect of my application connected with the same of any decree order passed therein, including proceedings in taxation and application for Review, to file and obtain return of documents, and to deposit and receive money on my/ or behalf in the said Suit Appeal/ Petition Reference and in application of Review, and to represent me/us and to take all necessary steps on my /our behalf in the above matter, I/We agree to ratify all acts done by the aforesaid Advocate in pursuance of this authority.
Dated this the  ___________th  day of  July, 2017

Accepted, Certified and satisfied

Place: Kolkotta
Date:     /07/2017 (Signed) 

MEMO OF APPEARANCE
To,
The Registrar,
Supreme Court of India
New Delhi
Sir,
Please enter my appearance on behalf of the Petitioner(s) /Appellant(s)/ Respondent(s) /Intervener in the matter above mentioned.

Dated this the ______th   day of July , 2017
Yours faithfully,


Date:    /07/2017 AOR for IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) NO. _____ OF 2017
IN
SUO MOTU CONMT.PET.(C)NO.1 OF 2017
(D) No. _________/2017
(Seeking review of the judgments dated 09/05/2017 & 04/07/2017 passed by this Hon’ble Court in SUO MOTU CONMT.PET.(C) NO.1 OF 2017)

Justice C.S. Karnan ………..Review Petitioner
IN THE MATTER OF:
Supreme Court of India
on its own motion … Suo Moto
Versus
Justice C.S. Karnan … Original  Alleged Contemnor/Respondent WITH
IA.NO. OF 2017
Application seeking Bail
WITH
IA.NO. OF 2017
Application seeking exemption from annexing certified copy of the impugned order/judgment
WITH
IA.NO. OF 2017
Application seeking open court hearing
of the Review Petition
AND
P A P E R – B O O K
[FOR INDEX KINDLY SEE INSIDE]

DRAWN AND FILED BY

(MATHEWS J.NEDUMPARA)
&
(A.C.PHILIP)
Advocates for the Petitioner
mathewsjnedumpara@gmail.com
(Mobile: 98205 35428)





RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

SL.NO. DATE OF RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS   PAGE(S)

1. ORDER DATED
2. ORDER DATED
3. ORDER DATED
4. ORDER DATED
5. ORDER DATED
6. ORDER DATED
7. ORDER DATED
8. ORDER DATED
9. ORDER DATED
10. ORDER DATED
11. ORDER DATED
12. ORDER DATED
13. ORDER DATED
14. ORDER DATED
15. ORDER DATED
16. ORDER DATED
17. ORDER DATED
18. ORDER DATED
19. ORDER DATED





IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) NO. _____ OF 2017
IN
SUO MOTU CONMT.PET.(C)NO.1 OF 2017
((Seeking review of the judgments dated 09/05/2017 & 04/07/2017 passed by this Hon’ble Court in SUO MOTU CONMT.PET.(C) NO.1 OF 2017)


1. Justice C.S.Karnan
aged about 61 years,
S/o.Mr.Swaminathan,
Residing at:
1/GB, Rosedale Towers,
New Town,
Kolkotta,

Presently undergoing
imprisonment at
Presidency Jail, Kolkotta …REVIEW PETITIONER

IN THE MATTER OF:
Supreme Court of India
on its own motion … Suo Moto
Versus
Justice C.S. Karnan … Original  Alleged Contemnor/Respondent

1.       The Hon'ble, Supreme Court of India,
represented by
The Registrar General of Supreme Court of India,
Supreme Court of India,
TilakMarg,
New Delhi-110 201,
India. … Respondent/  Suo Moto

2.
3.


PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 137/145 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SEEKING REVIEW OF THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 09/05/2017 & 04/07/2017 PASSED BY THIS HON’BLE COURT IN SUO MOTU CONTEMPT.PET.(C) NO.1 OF 2017.

To

THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA
AND HIS COMPANION JUSTICES OF THE
HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

HUMBLE PETITION OF PETITIONER ABOVENAMED

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH



1. There could be no parallel in the judicial history of any nation to the injustice meted out to the petitioner in the name of upholding the majesty and dignity of the institution of judiciary. The Review Petitioner, though would not ever claim to have never erred or being infallible, he could assert with clean conscience that as a judge and a citizen he had only one thing in mind, one dream, a judiciary which is independent, impartial, which is accountable to the people, for the people and isdrawn from the diverse sections of the society. The petitioner found that in the selection and appointment of judges, the concept of men and women of impeccable character, erudition, impartiality, independence and due representation of diverse sections of the society, particularly of the underprivileged class, from humble economic background and other paramount considerations are not observed. This has meant the higher judiciary representing the elite sections of the society to the deprivation of equally deserving members of the less fortunate in economic and other senses. The petitioner, accordingly, in response to his inner conscience ventured to raise the said issues in the public domain. The petitioner also found some of his own brother judges failing to live upto the higher standards of probity in public life which is expected of them. Deeply pained and hurt, the petitioner thought it  his bounden duty to address the constitutional authority,  though, ordinarily, no judge in his place could have ventured so. To put it pithily, the petitioner happened to address the Hon’ble the Prime Minister of India, the Chief Justice of India, so too other constitutional functionaries, many an injustices and corrupt practices. The allegations of corruption and malpractices the petitioner has leveled against his brother judges meant the petitioner to be isolated and a great amount of disaffection if not anger and hostility leveled towards him. The petitioner is afraid to say that his bonafide and genuine concern was taken otherwise which added  fuel to the fire resulting in the Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India constituting a bench taking suo moto institution of criminal contempt of court proceedings against the petitioner, though the title was civil. The bench accordingly ordered notice to the petitioner and the very same day of  issuance  of notice to the petitioner, it divested the petitioner of all his judicial and administrative functions. The said order meant the petitioner to be removed from office which the President of India alone could, that too on a motion of impeachment, which has received the   rd majority of both home of the parliament, present and voting; that too on proved misconduct, in terms of the Judges Inquiries Act, do. With much respect, it is a universal principle that, only the appointing authority can remove a person from any seat of authority or appointment, and allowing the peers to remove any person will surely lead to chaos in any institutional framework which is run by rule of law.
2. The petitioner appeared on 31st of March, 2017 in response to the notice issued to him and so too sought recall of the order by which his judicial and administrative powers were removed, pointing out that no such jurisdiction is invested in the Supreme Court. The Petitioner even offered an apology for any indiscretion on his part, for to err is human. However his pleas were not acceded to. The said case was adjourned to 01/05/2017, on which date this court was pleased to order for the medical examination of the petitioner to ascertain whether the petitioner is in a fit medical condition to defend himself in the ongoing proceedings and adjourned the case to 09/05/2017.

3. On 09/05/2017, this court found the petitioner to be guilty of contempt of court of greatest nature and sentenced him for imprisonment for six months. In the brief order which was dictated in the open, sentencing the petitioner for imprisonment, it was made clear that a detailed order will be passed in due course.

4.
5. The petitioner on coming to know that he was sentenced without a judgment, without a trial, without charges being framed, without a hearing, without a lawyer to defend him, that too in his absence, instituted an application for the recall of the order. The said  application seeking recall of the order dated 9th May, 2017; so too suspension/stay thereof, pointing out that the said order is one rendered void ab initio, for want of jurisdiction and against the principle of nemo judex in sua causa or nemo debet esse judex in propria causa - no one can be judge in his own cause.  It was pleaded that the Petitioner was not told what exactly is the charge against him; what was the legal provision under which he is charged; what are the allegations constituting the charge; what is the material and evidence on which the allegations are founded; what is the punishment likely to be imposed on him, not to speak of not affording him an opportunity to contradict the evidence, if any, against him.  In the said application and the Writ Petition the Petitioner further pleaded that even assuming that the Act is constitutional, then also the elementary principles of criminal jurisprudence founded on the principles of natural justice, like, presumption of innocence, burden of proof is on the prosecution, that nobody shall be compelled to be a witness against himself, that an accused is entitled to be defended by a counsel, that there could be no sentence without a judgment, that it cannot be that a reasoned judgment can follow after the conviction but, on the contrary, there can be no sentence without there in existence a reasoned judgment etc., ought to be observed. A copy of the application for the recall of the order dated 09/05/2017 is produced herein [without annexure therein] and marked as Annexure- ‘A1’( From Pages___to ___).    For completion of facts, it may be added that the petitioner also filed a substantive petition under Article 32 of the constitution of India, challenging the constitutional validity of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971. The Petitioner instituted the said  Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution seeking a declaration that the entire proceeding at the hands of the Seven-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court culminating in the order dated 9th May, 2017 is unconstitutional and void because it amounted to usurpation of the jurisdiction of the Parliament to remove him from office; akin to re-enactment of the manner in which the power of appointment of Judges to the higher judiciary, which the Founding Fathers of the Constitution had vested in the executive, was usurped by the judiciary by reviving the collegiums system by recourse to judicial legislation.   Another ground taken in the said writ petition was that the right to appeal where conviction is by Supreme Court of India, to a larger bench of the Supreme Court, nay, intra court appeal is an essential ingredient of Right to life and liberty. The brief order dated 9th May, 2017 was dictated in the open Court citing, the need for a subsequent detailed order, which was not pronounced on that day.  The brief order was uploaded on the website of the Supreme Court late in the night of the same day.  The counsel for the Petitioner, who was in Cochin, Kerala, booked the first flight to Chennai, discussed the case with the Petitioner, prepared the Writ Petition and the application to recall the order dated 9th May, 2017 and sought to institute them in the Supreme Court on 11th May, 2017.  Registration of cases in the Supreme Court, to an extent, is computerized.  There are only two provisions for registration of cases in terms of the software in vogue, namely, (a) through an Advocate on Record (AOR) and (b) by Party in Person.  The counsel for the Petitioner; so too his associate Shri A.C. Philip, approached not less than 30 AORs.  However, none of them was forthcoming to be an AOR on behalf of the Petitioner.  With much respect, many of them confided the counsel for the Petitioner, that they are scared of displeasing the Hon'ble CJI; that AORs and the senior counsel practicing in the Supreme Court, unlike the ordinary lawyers who appear in the High Courts and subordinate Courts, do not enjoy the kind of freedom and independence which lawyers as a class, the sentinels of civil liberties and freedoms, ought to enjoy and profess to enjoy.  With much respect, they were too frank to admit that orders of the Supreme Court are extremely discretionary; that more than 80% of the petitions filed under Articles 136 and 32 of the Constitution, which constitute 95% of the work of the supreme Court, are absolutely discretionary and no AOR or a senior counsel could afford to invite the slightest of displeasure of the Hon'ble Judges.

6. Fa

യാക്കോബായ വിഭാഗത്തിനു ഇനി അതേപേരിൽ ഒരു സഭയായി നിലനിൽക്കണമെങ്കിൽ പുതിയ പള്ളികൾ സ്ഥാപിച്ചേ പറ്റൂ.

യാക്കോബായ വിഭാഗത്തിനു ഇനി അതേപേരിൽ ഒരു സഭയായി നിലനിൽക്കണമെങ്കിൽ പുതിയ പള്ളികൾ സ്ഥാപിച്ചേ പറ്റൂ. 2002 മാർച്ച് 20-നു നിലവിലുണ്ടായിരുന്ന ഒരു ഇടവകപ്പള്ളിയിലും അവകാശവാദം നടത്താനോ, അവിടെനിന്നും പിരിഞ്ഞുപോകുന്നതിന് വീതം ആവശ്യപ്പെടാനോ ഈ വിധിമൂലം ഇനി സാദ്ധ്യമല്ല. സ്ഥാവര-ജംഗമ സ്വത്തുക്കളുടെ വീതമോ, സെമിത്തേരി 

അവകാശം പോലുമോ വിട്ടുകൊടുക്കാൻ ഓർത്തഡോക്‌സ് സഭയ്ക്കും സാദ്ധ്യമല്ല. തവണവെച്ച് ഇരുകൂട്ടരും ശുശ്രൂഷകൾ നടത്തുന്ന സംവിധാനവും കോടതി വിലക്കിയിട്ടുണ്ട്.

അര നൂറ്റാണ്ടിനടുത്തായി മലങ്കര സഭയിൽ തുടരുന്ന മൂന്നാം സമുദായക്കേസിന് ഏതാണ്ട് വിരാമമിടുന്ന ഒരു സുപ്രധാന വിധിയാണ് 2017 ജൂലൈ 3-ന് സുപ്രീം കോടതി പുറപ്പെടുവിച്ചത്. കോലഞ്ചേരി, മണ്ണത്തൂർ, വാരിക്കോലി എന്നീ മൂന്നു പള്ളികളുടെ ഭരണാവകാശം ചോദ്യംചെയ്ത് യാക്കോബായ വിഭാഗം നൽകിയതും കീഴ്‌കോടതികൾ തള്ളിയതുമായ കേസുകളിലെ അഅപ്പീൽ ഹർജികൾ തള്ളിക്കൊണ്ടാണ് ജ. അരുൺ മിശ്ര, ജ. അമിതാവ റോയ് എന്നിവരടങ്ങിയ ബെഞ്ച് മലങ്കരയിലെ എല്ലാ പള്ളികളേയും ബാധിക്കുന്ന ഈ വിധി പുറപ്പെടുവിച്ചത്. ജൂലൈ 3 ലെ വിധിയിലെ പ്രധാന വസ്തുതകൾ താഴെ പറയുന്നവയാണ്.

1. 1995-ലെ സുപ്രീം കോടതി വിധി ഇടവകപ്പള്ളികൾക്ക് ബാധകമാണ്. 

2. 1934-ലെ മലങ്കര സഭാ ഭരണഘടനയനുസരിച്ചു മാത്രം ഇടവകപ്പള്ളികൾ ഭരിക്കപ്പെടണം. 

3. 2002-ലെ യാക്കോബായ ഭരണഘടന അസാധുവാണ്.

4. 1934-ലെ മലങ്കര സഭാ ഭരണഘടന ഒഴികെയുള്ള ഉടമ്പടികളും മറ്റും ഇടവകപ്പള്ളി ഭരണത്തിനു ഉപയോഗിക്കാൻ പാടില്ല. കേവലം മൂന്നു പള്ളികളെ സംബന്ധിച്ചുള്ള ഒരു വിധിയാണെങ്കിലും മലങ്കര സഭയിലെ യാക്കോബായ വിഭാഗത്തിന്റെ നിലനിൽപ്പിനെത്തന്നെ പാടെ തകർത്തുകളഞ്ഞ ഒന്നാണ് ഈ വിധിന്യായം എന്ന വിലയിരുത്തൽ പൂർണ്ണമായും ശരിയാണ്. ഇത് മഇത് മനസിലാക്കണമെങ്കിൽ ഈ വ്യവഹാര പരമ്പരയുടെ ചരിത്രം ചുരുക്കത്തിൽ മനസിലാക്കേണ്ടിയിരിക്കുന്നു.

പുലിക്കോട്ടിൽ ജോസഫ് മാർ ദീവന്നാസ്യോസ് അഞ്ചാമൻ മലങ്കര മെത്രാപ്പോലീത്തായും പിന്നീട് മാർത്തോമ്മാസഭ എന്നറിയപ്പെട്ട നവീകരണവിഭാഗത്തിന്‍റെ സ്ഥാപകൻ പാലക്കുന്നത്ത് തോമസ് മാർ അത്താനാസ്യോസും തമ്മിൽ 1877-ൽ ആരംഭിച്ചതും, 1889-ൽ തിരുവിതാംകൂർ റോയൽകോടതി വിധിയോടെ അവസാനിച്ചതുമായ സെമിനാരിക്കേസ് എന്നറിയപ്പെടുന്ന വ്യവഹാരത്തിലാണ് 2017 ജൂലൈ 3 വിധിയിൽ എത്തി നിൽക്കുന്ന വ്യവഹാര പരമ്പരയുടെ മൂലം സ്ഥതിചെയ്യുന്നത്. മാർ ദീവന്നാസ്യോസ് അഞ്ചാമന് ഈ കേസിൽ പരിപൂർണ്ണവിജയം ലഭിച്ചെങ്കിലും അദ്ദേഹത്തെ പിന്തുണച്ചിരുന്ന അന്ത്യോഖ്യാ പാത്രിയർക്കീസ് ഇഗ്നാത്തിയോസ് പത്രോസ് ത്രിതീയൻ നേരിട്ടത് വമ്പൻ തിരിച്ചടിയാണ്. പാത്രിയർക്കീസിന് മലങ്കര സഭയിൽ ലൗകീകാധികാരം (Temporal authority) ഇല്ലന്നും, മലങ്കര അസോസിയേഷന്റെ തിരഞ്ഞെടുപ്പു കൂടാതെ ആർക്കും മെത്രാൻപട്ടം നൽകാൻ പാടില്ലന്നും, മലങ്കര മെത്രാപ്പോലീത്താ സ്വദേശിയായിരിക്കണമെന്നും കോടതി അസന്ദിഗ്ധമായി വ്യക്തമാക്കി.

തന്‍റെ അധീശത്വ മോഹങ്ങൾക്ക് തിരിച്ചടി നൽകിയ ഈ വിധിയെ മറികടക്കാൻ പത്രോസ് ത്രിതീയൻ, അന്ത്യോഖ്യാ പാത്രിയർക്കീസിന് മലങ്കരയിൽ ലൗകീകാധികാരം ഉണ്ടെന്ന് മലങ്കര മെത്രാപ്പോലീത്തായും അസോസിയേഷൻ മാനേജിംഗ് കമ്മറ്റിയും രജിസ്റ്റർ ചെയ്ത ഉടമ്പടി നൽകാൻ തുടർച്ചയായി ആവശ്യപ്പെട്ടു. എന്നാൽ മാനേജിംഗ് കമ്മറ്റിയും, തന്റെ മരണംവരെ മാർ ദീവന്നാസ്യോസ് അഞ്ചാമനും ഈ ആവശ്യത്തിനു വഴങ്ങിയില്ല.

പിന്നീട് കേരളത്തിലെത്തിയ അന്ത്യോഖ്യാ പാത്രിയർക്കീസ് ഇഗ്നാത്തിയോസ് അബ്ദള്ളാ ദ്വിതീയൻ, മാർ ദീവന്നാസ്യോസ് അഞ്ചാമന്റെ പിൻഗാമി വട്ടശ്ശേരിൽ ഗീവർഗീസ് മാർ ദീവന്നാസ്യോസ് ആറാമനോട് ഇതേ ആവശ്യം ഉന്നയിക്കുകയും മുൻഗാമിയേപ്പോലെ അദ്ദേഹവും അത് നിരസിക്കുകയും ചെയ്തു. ഇതിനെത്തുടർന്ന് 1911-ൽ അബ്ദള്ളാ ദ്വിതീയൻ പാത്രിയർക്കീസ്, മാർ ദീവന്നാസ്യോസ് ആറാമനെ മുടക്കി. ഇരുവിഭാഗത്തെയും പിന്തുണയ്ക്കുന്ന കക്ഷികൾ മലങ്കരയിൽ ഉണ്ടായി. പാത്രിയർക്കീസിനെ പിന്തുണയ്ക്കുന്ന വിഭാഗം അന്ന് ബാവാ കക്ഷി എന്നും, മലങ്കര മെത്രാപ്പോലീത്തായോടൊപ്പം നിന്ന വിഭാഗം മെത്രാൻ കക്ഷി എന്നും അന്ന് അറിയപ്പെട്ടു. ഇത് ഒരു വ്യവഹാര പരമ്പരയ്ക്കുതന്നെ തിരികൊളുത്തി. സെമിനാരിക്കേസ്, വട്ടിപ്പണക്കേസ് മുതലായ പേരുകളിൽ. അവയിലെല്ലാം മാർ ദീവന്നാസ്യോസ് ആറാമൻ സമ്പൂർണ്ണ വിജയം നേടി. 1928-ലാണ് ഈ വ്യവഹാര പരമ്പര അവസാനിച്ചത്.

ഇതിനിടയിൽ 1912-ൽ അന്ത്യോഖ്യാ പാത്രിയർക്കീസ് ഇഗ്നാത്തിയോസ് അബ്ദെദ് മസീഹ് മലങ്കരയിൽ ഒരു സ്വതന്ത്ര കാതോലിക്കേറ്റ് സ്ഥാപിക്കുകയും 1889-ലെ റോയൽ കോടതി വിധിമൂലം പാത്രിയർക്കീസിൽ നിക്ഷ്പിതമായിരുന്ന മെത്രാന്മാരെ വാഴിക്കുവാനും മൂറോൻ കൂദാശ ചെയ്യുവാനുമുള്ള അവകാശം നിരുപാധികം മലങ്കരയിലെ കാതോലിയ്ക്കാക്കു വിട്ടുകൊടുക്കുകയും ചെയ്തിരുന്നു. 1928 - 34 കാലം പ്രശ്‌നരഹിതമായി കടന്നുപോയി.

1934-ൽ വട്ടശ്ശേരിൽ മാർ ദീവന്നാസ്യോസ് ആറാമൻ പിൻഗാമിയെ വാഴിക്കാതെ അന്തരിച്ചു. അതിനേത്തുടർന്ന് അതേവർഷം ഡിസംബറിൽ കോട്ടയം എം. ഡി. സെമിനാരിയിൽ കൂടിയ മലങ്കര അസോസിയേഷൻ ബസേലിയോസ് ഗീവർഗീസ് ദ്വിതീയൻ കാതോലിക്കായെ മലങ്കര മെത്രാപ്പോലീത്താ ആയി തിരഞ്ഞെടുക്കുകയും മലങ്കര സഭാഭരണഘടന പാസാക്കുകയും ചെയ്തു. 1934-ലെ ഭരണഘടന എന്നറിയപ്പെടുന്നത് അന്നു പാസാക്കിയ ഭരണഘടനയാണ്. അതോടെ പുതിയ വ്യവഹാര പരമ്പര ആരംഭിച്ചു. പാത്രിയർക്കീസ് കക്ഷി, കാതോലിക്കാ കക്ഷി എന്നാണ് അന്ന് ഇരുവിഭാഗവും അറിയപ്പെട്ടിരുന്നത്. പല കോടതികൾ കയറിയിറങ്ങി 1958-ൽ ഇന്ത്യൻ സുപ്രീം കോടതി കാതോലിക്കാ കക്ഷിക്ക് അനുകൂലമായി വിധിച്ചു. 1934-ലെ ഭരണഘടന സാധുവെന്നും,ബസേലിയോസ് ഗീവർഗീസ് ദ്വിതീയൻ കാതോലിക്കായെ മലങ്കര മെത്രാപ്പോലീത്താ ആയി തിരഞ്ഞെടുത്ത നടപടി ശരിയെന്നും, മലങ്കരയിൽ പാത്രിയർക്കീസിന്റെ അധികാരം മാഞ്ഞുപോകുന്ന ബിന്ദുവിലാണന്നും പരമോന്നത കോടതി വിധിച്ചു. കൂടാതെ പാത്രിയർക്കീസ് കക്ഷി, കാതോലിക്കാ കക്ഷിയ്ക്ക് കോടതിച്ചിലവു നൽകണമെന്നും കോടതി ഉത്തരവായി.സമുദായക്കേസ് എന്നാണ് ഈ വ്യവഹാരം അറിയപ്പെടുന്നത്.

ഇതിനെ തുടർന്ന് പരസ്പര സ്വീകരണത്തിലൂടെ സഭയിൽ സമാധനമായി. പാത്രിയർക്കീസ് കക്ഷി നിരുപാധികം സമാധനത്തിനു തയാറായപ്പോൾ കാതോലിക്കാ കക്ഷി 1934-ലെ ഭരണഘടനയ്ക്കു വിധേയമായാണ് എതിർകക്ഷികളെ സ്വീകരിച്ചത്. എങ്കിലും മുൻ പാത്രിയർക്കീസ് കക്ഷിയിലെ മെത്രാന്മാർക്ക് ഭദ്രാസനങ്ങൾ നൽകിയും വൈദീകർക്കും അത്മായർക്കും സഭയിലെ ഉന്നതസ്ഥാനങ്ങൾ നൽകിയും ഏതാണ്ട് പ്രശ്‌നരഹിതമായിത്തന്നെ ഒരു വ്യാഴവട്ടം കടന്നുപോയി.ഇരുകൂട്ടരും ചേർന്നാണ് 1970-ൽ കാതോലിക്കായുടേയും മലങ്കര മെത്രാപ്പോലീത്തായുടേയും പിൻഗാമിയെ 1970-ൽ തിരഞ്ഞെടുത്തത്. 

1970-നു ശേഷം പ്രശ്‌നങ്ങൾ വഷളാകാൻ തുടങ്ങി. പാത്രിയർക്കീസ് മലങ്കരയിലെ ദൈനംദിന കാര്യങ്ങളിൽ കൈകടത്താൻ ശ്രമിച്ചതും മാർത്തോമ്മാ ശ്ലീഹായ്ക്കു പട്ടമില്ലാ എന്നു കല്പന ഇറക്കിയതും പ്രശ്‌നം രൂക്ഷമാക്കി. അതിനെല്ലാം മകുടം ചാർത്തിക്കൊണ്ട് 1974-ൽ അന്ത്യോഖ്യാ പാത്രിയർക്കീസ് ഇഗ്നാത്തിയോസ് യാക്കോബ് ത്രിതീയൻ ഏകപക്ഷീയമായി ഇപ്പോഴത്തെ തോമസ് പ്രഥമനടക്കം മൂന്നു മെത്രാന്മാരെ വാഴിച്ചതോടെ സംഘർഷം രൂക്ഷമായി. തുടർന്ന് ഒരു സമാന്തര കാതോലിക്കായേയും അനേകം മെത്രാന്മാരേയും അദ്ദേഹവും അദ്ദേഹത്തിന്റെ പിൻഗാമി ഇഗ്നാത്തിയോസ് സഖാ പ്രഥമനും വാഴിച്ചതോടെ രണ്ടാം സമുദായക്കേസിനു തുടക്കമായി. മുന്‍പെങ്ങും ഇല്ലാത്തവിധം ഇത്തവണ എറണാകുളം ജില്ലയിൽ തെരുവുയുദ്ധങ്ങളും പള്ളി പിടിച്ചടക്കലുകളും അരങ്ങേറി. അനേകം പള്ളികൾ പൂട്ടി. രണ്ടാം സമുദായക്കേസിൽ 1995-ൽ 1934-ലെ മലങ്കരസഭാഭരണഘടന വീണ്ടും ശരിവെച്ച് വീണ്ടും സുപ്രീംകോടതി വിധി പ്രഖ്യാപിച്ചു. ഈ വിധി നടപ്പാക്കുന്നതിനെപ്പറ്റിയുള്ള തുടർഹർജികളുടെ ഫലമായി സുപ്രീകോടതി നിരീക്ഷകന്റെ സാന്നിദ്ധ്യത്തിൽ ഇരുവിഭാഗവും സംയുകതമായി 2002 മാർച്ചിൽ പരുമലയിൽ അസോസിയേഷൻ നടത്താൻ ഉത്തരവായി. എന്നാൽ പാത്രിയർക്കീസ് വിഭാഗം പരുമല അസോസിയേഷൻ ബഹിഷ്‌ക്കരിച്ചു. സമാന്തരമായി 2002-ൽ പുത്തൻകുരിശിൽ ഒരു യോഗം വിളിച്ചുകൂട്ടി യാക്കോബായ സുറിയാനി ക്രിസ്ത്യാനി സഭ രൂപീകരിക്കുകയും സൊസൈറ്റീസ് ആക്ട് പ്രകാരം അതിനൊരു ഭരണഘടന ഉണ്ടാക്കുകയും ചെയ്തു. ഇതിനിടെ പലതലത്തിൽ സമാധാന ശ്രമങ്ങൾ നടന്നെങ്കിലും എല്ലാം അവസാന നിമിഷം പരാജയപ്പെടുകയായിരുന്നു കുറച്ചു പള്ളികളെങ്കിലും വീണ്ടും കലാപഭൂമിയായി. ഓർത്തഡോക്‌സ് സഭയുടെ വിധിനടത്തു ശ്രമങ്ങളെ യാക്കോബായ വിഭാഗം തടഞ്ഞതാണ് സംഘർഷങ്ങൾക്ക് ഹേതുവായത്. 1995-ലെ സുപ്രീംകോടതി വിധി ഇടവകപ്പള്ളികൾക്ക് ബാധകമല്ല എന്നതായിരുന്നു അവരുടെ വാദം. രണ്ടു സഭകളായി പിരിയണം എന്നു യാക്കോബായ വിഭാഗം ആവശ്യപ്പെട്ടെങ്കിലും ഓർത്തഡോക്‌സ് സഭ അതിനു വിസമ്മതിച്ചു. ഈ സംഭവങ്ങളുമായി ബന്ധപ്പെട്ടതും മൂന്നാം സമുദായക്കേസ് എന്നു ചിലർ വിളിക്കുന്നതുമായ വ്യവഹാരത്തിനാണ് 2017 ജൂലൈ 3-ന് വിരാമമായത്. ഈ വിധിയുടെ പ്രത്യാഘാതം വിശാലവും ദൂരവ്യാപകവുമാണ്. കേവലം അഞ്ചുപള്ളികളെ മാത്രമല്ല ഇത് ബാധിക്കുന്നത്. 1958-ൽ അവസാനിച്ച സമുദായക്കേസ് മുതൽ മലങ്കരയിലെ മൊത്തം പള്ളികളെ ചേർത്ത്. 1064 പള്ളികൾ എന്നാണ് വ്യവഹരിക്കുന്നത്. ഇന്നവയുടെ എണ്ണം രണ്ടായിരത്തിലധികമാണ്. അവയിൽ 2002 മാർച്ച് 20-നു നിലവിലുണ്ടായിരുന്ന എല്ലാ ഇടവകപ്പള്ളികൾക്കും ഈ വിധി ബാധകമാണ്. അവയിൽ അഞ്ഞൂറോളം പള്ളികൾ തർക്കത്തിലാണ്. നൂറിലധികം പള്ളികൾക്ക് കേസ് നിലവിലുണ്ട്. അവയെല്ലാം 1934 ഭരണഘടനയുടെ പരിധിയിലായി. നിലവിലുള്ള കേസുകളും വിധിനടത്തും ഈ അടിസ്ഥാനത്തിൽ മാത്രമേ സാദ്ധ്യമാവു. 2017 വിധി ബാധകമാകുന്നത് രണ്ടു തലങ്ങളിലാണ്. ഒന്നാമതായി ഇടവക തലത്തിലും ഇടവകാംഗങ്ങളുടെ ഇടയിലും. സത്യത്തിൽ അവരെ ഈ വിധി ബാധിക്കുന്നില്ല എന്നതാണ് യാഥാർത്ഥ്യം. അവരുടെ ആത്മീയ ആവശ്യങ്ങൾക്ക് മുടക്കമുണ്ടാകില്ല. ഇടവകകളുടെ സാമ്പത്തിക ഉൾഭരണ സ്വാതന്ത്ര്യവും 1934 ഭരണഘടനപ്രകാരം സുരക്ഷിതമാണ്. യാക്കോബായ വിഭാഗത്തിന്‍റെ നിയന്ത്രണത്തിലുള്ള ചില പള്ളികളുടെ സ്വതന്ത്ര ഭരണഘടനയിൽ വോട്ടവകാശം ഉള്ളവരും ഇല്ലാത്തവരുമായി അംഗങ്ങളെ പല വിഭാഗങ്ങളായി തിരിച്ചിട്ടുണ്ട്. 1934 ഭരണഘടനയിൽ അത്തരം വിവേചനം ഒന്നും ഇല്ല. 21 വയസു തികഞ്ഞ, സഭാ നിയമങ്ങൾ അനുസരിക്കുന്ന എല്ലാ ഇടവകാംഗങ്ങൾക്കും വോട്ടവകാശമുണ്ട്. പലരും പ്രചരിപ്പിക്കുന്നതുപോലെ 1934 ഭരണഘടന മലങ്കര മെത്രാപ്പോലീത്തായ്‌ക്കോ ഇടവക മെത്രാന്മാർക്കോ ഇടവകപ്പള്ളികളുടെ സ്വത്തിലോ പണത്തിലോ കൈകാര്യകർതൃത്വം ഒന്നും നൽകുന്നില്ല. ഭരണഘടന അനുശാസിക്കുന്ന മുൻഗണനാ ക്രമത്തിൽ (നിത്യനിദാനം, വൈദികരുടേയും പരികർമ്മികളുടേയും വേതനം, അറ്റകുറ്റപ്പണി, സണ്ടേസ്‌കൂൾ… എന്നിങ്ങനെയ ആ മുൻഗണനാക്രമം) പള്ളിപ്പണം ചിലവഴിക്കുന്നുണ്ടോ, പള്ളിപ്പൊതുയോഗം അംഗീകരിച്ച ബഡ്ജറ്റ് പ്രകാരമാണോ പണ ചിലവഴിക്കുന്നത്, കണക്കുകൾ കൃത്യമായി എഴുതുകയും പൊതുയോഗത്തിൽ പാസാക്കുകയും ചെയ്യുന്നുണ്ടോ എന്നീ കാര്യങ്ങളിൽ മേൽനോട്ടം വഹിക്കുക മാത്രമാണ് മെത്രാന്റെ ചുമതലയിൽ വരുന്നത്. അവയാകട്ടെ, ഭരണഘടനാപൂർവകാലത്തും മെത്രാന്റെ അധികാരപരിധിയിൽ ഉൾപ്പെട്ടിരുന്നതുമാണ്. ഈ വസ്തുത വിശദീകരിക്കാൻ ഓർത്തഡോക്‌സ് സഭ ഇതഃപര്യന്തം തയാറായില്ല എന്നത് തെറ്റിദ്ധാരണ വളർത്താൻ കാരണമായിട്ടുണ്ട്. പക്ഷേ ഈ വിധി ബാധിക്കുന്ന ചില ഇടവകകളുണ്ട്. സ്വന്തം ഭരണഘടനയുടേയോ ഉടമ്പടിയുടേയോ അടിസ്ഥാനത്തിലോ, 2002 ഭരണഘടനയുടെ അടിസ്ഥാനത്തിലോ ഭരിക്കപ്പെടുന്ന പള്ളികൾ പ്രതിസന്ധിയിലാകും. അവയൊക്കയും സുപ്രീംകോടതി അസാധുവാക്കിയതിനാൽ അവയുടെയെല്ലാം ഭരണം ഇനി 1934 ഭരണഘടനപ്രകാരം ആക്കേണ്ടിവരും. ഇടവകപ്പള്ളികളുടെ സ്വത്ത് ഇതര ട്രസ്റ്റുകളാക്കി മാറ്റാൻ സാദ്ധ്യമല്ലന്നു മാത്രമല്ല, ഇതുവരെ മാറ്റിയ അത്തരം നടപടികളും അസാധുവാകും. നിലവിലുള്ള ആദയനികുതി - ധനകാര്യ നിയമങ്ങൾ പ്രകാരം അത്തരം പള്ളികൾക്കു ലഭിച്ചിരിക്കുന്ന പാൻനമ്പർ അസാധുവാകും. അതോടെ അവയുടെ ബാങ്ക് അക്കൗണ്ടുകളും മരവിക്കും. അത്തരം പള്ളികളുടെ ഭരണവും നിത്യനിദാനവും വരെ പ്രതിസന്ധിയിലാകും. നിലവിൽ കേസുകൾ ഇല്ല എന്ന് ആശ്വസിച്ചിരിക്കുന്ന യാക്കോബായ വിഭാഗത്തിന്‍റെ നിയന്ത്രണത്തിലുള്ള ഇടവക പള്ളികൾ ഉടൻ നേരിടാൻ പോകുന്ന ഗുരുതരപ്രശ്‌നം ഇതാണ്.

ഈ പ്രതിസന്ധിയ്ക്കുള്ള ഏക പരിഹാരം 1934-ലെ മലങ്കരസഭാ ഭരണഘടന അംഗീകരിച്ച് അതനുസരിച്ചുള്ള ഭരണസംവിധാനം ഏർപ്പെടുത്തുക എന്നതാണ്. അവിടെയാണ് 2017 വിധിയുടെ ആഘാതത്തിന്റെ രണ്ടാമത്തെ തലം ആരംഭിക്കുന്നത്. ആദ്യമായി 1934 ഭരണഘടനപ്രകാരമുള്ള വികാരി നിയമിക്കപ്പെടണം. അദ്ദേഹം അതേ ഭരണഘടനപ്രകാരമുള്ള നിയമാനുസൃത പൊതുയോഗം വിളിച്ചുകൂട്ടണം. ആ പൊതുയോഗം കൈക്കാരനേയും ഭരണസമതിയേയും തിരഞ്ഞെടുക്കണം. അവർ അംഗീകരിക്കപ്പെടുമ്പോൾ മാത്രമേ ഇടവകകളുടെ ഈ സാമ്പത്തിക-ഭരണ പ്രതിസന്ധി അവസാനിക്കൂ. സെമിനാരി വിദ്യാഭ്യസം നേടാത്തവരെ വൈദീകരാക്കരുത് എന്ന് മലങ്കര സഭാഭരണഘടനയിൽ വ്യവസ്ഥ ഉള്ളതിനാൽ ഇപ്പോൾ യാക്കോബായ വിഭാഗത്തിൽ നിൽക്കുന്ന ഒരു നല്ല വിഭാഗത്തിന് ഓർത്തഡോക്‌സ് സഭയിലേയ്ക്കുള്ള പ്രവേശനം സുഗമമായിരിക്കില്ല.

വികാരിയെ നിയമിക്കേണ്ടതും ഇടവക ഭരണസമതിയെ അംഗീകരിക്കേണ്ടതും ഇടവക മെത്രാപ്പോലീത്തായാണ്. ഇടവക മെത്രാപ്പോലീത്താമാരാകട്ടെ മലങ്കര സഭാഭരണഘടനപ്രകാരം തിരഞ്ഞെടുക്കപ്പെട്ട് വാഴിക്കപ്പെട്ട് നിയമിക്കപ്പെട്ടവരായിക്കണം. ചുരുക്കത്തിൽ, യാക്കോബായ വിഭാഗത്തിലെ വൈദികരും മെത്രാന്മാരും ഈ വിധിയോടെ സഭാ സംവിധാനത്തിൽനിന്നും പൂർണ്ണമായി പുറത്തായി. ഒരു പള്ളിക്കു വികാരിയെ നിയമിക്കുകയോ, സ്ഥലം മാറ്റുകയോ, മറ്റേതെങ്കിലും വിധത്തിൽ ഇടവകഭരണത്തിൽ ഇടപെടുകയോ ചെയ്താൽ ഈ വിധിപ്രകാരം യാക്കോബായ വിഭാഗത്തിലെ മെത്രാന്മാർ കോടതിയലക്ഷ്യ നടപടികൾ നേരിടേണ്ടിവരും എന്നതാണ് സ്ഥിതി. അതിനോടൊപ്പം വികാരിയുടെ അനുമതി കൂടാതെ ഒരു മെത്രാനും വൈദീകനും പള്ളിയിൽ പ്രവേശിക്കാനോ കർമ്മം നടത്താനോ സാദ്ധ്യമല്ല എന്ന വസ്തുതയും ഇവരുടെ നില പരുങ്ങലിലാക്കുന്നു.
വൈദികർക്കും മെത്രാന്മാർക്കും രക്ഷപെടാൻ മാർഗ്ഗമുണ്ട്. അവർ മലങ്കര സഭാഭരണഘടന അംഗീകരിയ്ക്കുകയും, അത് ഓർത്തഡോക്‌സ് സഭ സ്വീകരിച്ച് മേൽനടപടികൾ സ്വീകരിയ്ക്കുകയും ചെയ്താൽ മെത്രാന്മാരും വൈദികരും രക്ഷപെടും. യാക്കോബായ വിഭാഗത്തിനു ഭൂരിപക്ഷമുള്ള പള്ളികളിൽ മലങ്കര സഭാഭരണഘടന അനുസരിച്ചു തിരഞ്ഞെടുപ്പു നടന്നാലും ഭരണസമതിയും പക്ഷേ യാക്കോബായ വിഭാഗത്തിലെ അവൈദിക നേതൃത്വ നിരയുടെ സ്ഥിതിയാണ് പരമ ദയനീയം. 1995-ലെ സുപ്രീംകോടതി വിധിപ്രകാരം തിരഞ്ഞെടുക്കപ്പെടുന്ന എല്ലാ സഭാ സമതികളുടേയും കാലാവധി അഞ്ചുവർഷമാണ്. 2017 മാർച്ച് 1-നാണ് പുതിയ മലങ്കര സുറിയാനി ക്രിസ്ത്യാനി അസോസിയേഷൻ രൂപീകരിച്ചതും മാനേജിഗ് കമ്മറ്റിയേയും കൂട്ടു ട്രസ്റ്റിമാരെയും തിരഞ്ഞെടുത്തതും. മിക്ക ഭദ്രാസന കൗൺസിലുകളുടേയും തിരഞ്ഞെടുപ്പും പൂർത്തിയായി. ചുരുക്കത്തിൽ ഏകീകൃത സഭയിൽ അവർക്ക് എന്തെങ്കിലും സ്ഥാനം ലഭിയ്ക്കണമെങ്കിൽ 2022 മാർച്ച് വരെ കാത്തിരിക്കണം. യാക്കോബായ വിഭാഗത്തിനു ഇനി അതേപേരിൽ ഒരു സഭയായി നിലനിൽക്കണമെങ്കിൽ പുതിയ പള്ളികൾ സ്ഥാപിച്ചേ പറ്റൂ. 2002 മാർച്ച് 20-നു നിലവിലുണ്ടായിരുന്ന ഒരു ഇടവകപ്പള്ളിയിലും അവകാശവാദം നടത്താനോ, അവിടെനിന്നും പിരിഞ്ഞുപോകുന്നതിന് വീതം ആവശ്യപ്പെടാനോ ഈ വിധിമൂലം ഇനി സാദ്ധ്യമല്ല. സ്ഥാവര-ജംഗമ സ്വത്തുക്കളുടെ വീതമോ, സെമിത്തേരി അവകാശം പോലുമോ വിട്ടുകൊടുക്കാൻ ഓർത്തഡോക്‌സ് സഭയ്ക്കും സാദ്ധ്യമല്ല. തവണവെച്ച് ഇരുകൂട്ടരും ശുശ്രൂഷകൾ നടത്തുന്ന സംവിധാനവും കോടതി വിലക്കിയിട്ടുണ്ട്. 1889-ൽ തിരുവിതാംകൂർ റോയൽ കോടതി വിധിയേത്തുടർന്ന് നവീകരണ വിഭാഗം സ്ഥാപകൻ പാലക്കുന്നത്ത് തോമസ് മാർ അത്തനാസ്യോസും കൂട്ടരും നേരിട്ടതിനേക്കാൾ വലിയ പ്രതിസന്ധിയാണ് യാക്കോബായ വിഭാഗം ഇന്നു നേരിടുന്നത്. നവീകരണ വിഭാഗത്തിനു നിലനില്പിനായി സ്വന്തം അണികൾക്കിടയിൽ ചൂണ്ടിക്കാണിക്കാൻ വിശ്വസത്തിലുള്ള വൈജാത്യമെങ്കിലും ഉണ്ടായിരുന്നു. എങ്കിലും അവർക്ക് പുതിയ പള്ളികൾ വെച്ചു മാറേണ്ടിവന്നു. ഇന്ന് യാക്കോബായ വിഭാഗം നേതൃത്വത്തിന് അപ്രകാരം ഒരു വിശ്വാസവ്യത്യാസം ഓർത്തഡോക്‌സ് സഭയിൽ ചൂണ്ടിക്കാട്ടാനില്ല. ഉള്ളത് അന്ത്യോഖ്യാ പാത്രിയർക്കീസിന്‍റെ മലങ്കരയിലെ അധികാരം മാത്രം. അതാകട്ടെ മാഞ്ഞുപോകുന്ന ബിന്ദുവിലാണന്നു കോടതി ആവർത്തിക്കുകയും ചെയ്തിട്ടുണ്ട്. ഈ വിധിക്കാസ്പദമായ ഹർജികൾ കീഴ്‌ക്കോടതി മുതൽ എല്ലായിടത്തും നൽകി ഇത്തരമൊരു വിധി എറ്റുവാങ്ങിയത് യാക്കോബായ വിഭാഗം നേതൃത്വമാണെന്ന വസ്തുത അനുയായികൾക്കു വിശദീകരിക്കാനുള്ള ബാദ്ധ്യതയും അവരിൽത്തന്നെ നിക്ഷ്പ്തമാണെന്നതും അവരുടെ പ്രതിസന്ധിക്ക് ആക്കം കൂട്ടുന്നു.

Whats app fwd