Blatant Misuse of Powers under Article 227 by Some Corrupt Madras High Court Judges

Together with the active help, support and willful wrong intervention of two judges of the Madras High Court, the trustees have legally harassed us using the backdoor entry under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. These judges are Justice K. Venkataraman and Justice S. Manikumar. A gist of their misuse of discretionary power of supervision is cited below.

1. Justice K. Venkataraman wrongly entertained C.R.P. No.3314/2007, filed under Article 227 by the trustees on an interim petition granting food, shelter, clothing, medical and all other basic needs and necessities of life. He passed perverse order on 29.01.2008 containing reliefs neither asked by the trustees nor by us.
2. Justice K. Venkataraman wrongly entertained M.P. No.1/2008 in C.R.P. No.3314/2007, again filed by trustees for clarification, using for a second time Article 227. He indiscriminately exercised his powers of supervision for a second time and passed perverse order dated 04.08.2008 illegally modifying his first order dated 29.01.2008, containing reliefs neither asked by the trustees nor by us.
3. Justice K. Venkataraman wrongly entertained M.P. No.2/2008 in C.R.P. No.3314/2007, again filed by trustees for a second clarification, for a third time, again using Article 227. He indiscriminately exercised his powers of supervision for a third time and passed perverse exparte order dated 21.06.2010 illegally modifying his first two orders dated 29.01.2008 and 04.08.2008, containing reliefs neither asked by the trustees nor by us.
4. Justice K. Venkataraman ought to have issued notices to us either through court or directed the trustees to issue private notices to us, in view of the fact that our lawyer had given up Vakalat. He unjustly passed an order dated 21.06.2010 in our absence without giving us a just and fair opportunity to defend ourselves.
5. Having appointed suo motto an Advocate Commissioner, Justice K. Venkataraman failed to base his order dated 21.06.2010 on the report of the Advocate Commissioner. He waited for about 1 ½ years from the date of submission of the report of the Advocate Commissioner to pass his order dated 21.06.2010. He passed exparte order after having unjustly eschewed the line contained in the report that clearly indicated the harassment and victimization caused by Ashram trustees to us.
6. The orders passed by Justice K. Venkataraman dated 29.01.2008, 04.08.2008 and 21.06.2010, using his discretionary power of supervision under Article 227, are perverse, bad in law and were illegally modified under guise of clarification to metamorphose into an eviction proceeding which was not the prayer of the trustees in any of their petitions in the first place.
7. Justice K. Venkataraman and Justice S. Manikumar wrongly entertained C.R.P. No.4219/2010 filed by the trustees, once again under Article 227. They blatantly misused discriminatory supervisory powers and admitted the CRP since the trustees had failed to prefer an appeal at the Pondicherry Appellate Authority and had jumped the necessary legal steps before approaching High Court.
8. Justice K. Venkataraman and Justice S. Manikumar wrongly entertained C.R.P. No.4219/2010 filed by the trustees under Article 227, on an interim petition restoring food and shelter to us since the third party had failed to comply with the Order dated 21.06.2010.
9. Justice S. Manikumar passed perverse order dated 03.08.2012 in C.R.P. No.4219/2010 disregarding the principles of natural justice, balance of convenience and facts and circumstances of the case. He based his order dated 03.08.2012 by further modifying the three illegal orders already passed in C.R.P. No.3314 of 2007 dated 29.01.2008, 04.08.2008 and 21.06.2010 by Justice K. Venkataraman, by colluding with him.
10. Justice S. Manikumar passed final order after more than one year (containing two summer vacations) of hearing the final arguments. He failed to appreciate the case in C.R.P. No.4219/2010 on its own merits because the facts and circumstances and cause of action were different from those in C.R.P. No.3314/2010 and deserved impartial and independent evaluation of the case.
11. Since trial in O.S. No.409/2005 had already begun and was underway, Justice K. Venkataraman and Justice S. Manikumar ought to have waited for the final outcome of the trial before passing orders dated 21.06.2010 and 03.08.2012. They wrongly entertained revisions on interim injunction petitions, exercised discriminate supervisory powers under Article 227 and passed outright eviction orders, a prayer neither made by the trustees nor by us, resulting in an absolutely blatant miscarriage of justice.

THEFT in Sri Aurobindo Ashram?

It is rumored that there has been a huge theft from Sri Aurobindo Ashram to the tune of 8 Crores. Why have the trustees not given a complaint to the police? Or is it that this huge sum has been spent by the trustees while extending hospitality and for the entertainment of three high profile judges who visited the Ashram Trustees 

1. Chief Justice of India, Mr. Justice R.M. Lodha, visited on 16.08.2014
2. Supreme Court Judge, Mr. Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya, visited on 13.09.2014
3. Chief Justice of Madras High Court, Mr. Justice S.K. Kaul, visited on 03.10.2014

Probably that is why Mr. Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya is supporting them so blatantly at the cost of his own personal reputation.

The First Phase of Litigation

The first phase of litigation between the trustees and we five sisters began on and from 23.03.2001. The circumstances and cause of action for all multifaceted arose from the point where Jayashree was brutally assaulted in the presence of one of the trustees of Ashram, one Veda Prakash Johar, who did nothing to stop the inhuman assault. Thereafter the trustees tried their best to suppress the incident of assault. But because of our persistent demand for justice, we were all targeted one by one.

On 21.03.2001 Hemlata was issued a chit saying that her name had been removed from ‘Prosperity List’ of the Ashram. Prosperity List is a list of all the inmates who are being taken care of in every way by the Ashram and are completely dependent on the Ashram for their survival. Based on this chit Hemlata filed a civil suit for permanent injunction on 23.03.2001 in the morning in O.S. No.215/2001 before the Hon’ble I Additional Munsif at Pondicherry. (See postings of 09.01.2001, 30.03.2001 and 13.09.2002)

As a way to shush me for repeatedly demanding and later threatening to go to the police to lodge a complaint for Jayashree’s assault, the trustees punished me by allowing me to take food only through carrier service. I complied for about three weeks then realizing that we were being needlessly targeted, I wrote to the concerned trustees that I was going to resume taking my food at the Ashram Dining Room. On 22/3/2001 I was allowed to take food from the Dining Room counter. But on 23.03.2001 when with my four elder sisters I went for breakfast none of us were given food. (See posting of 24.03.2001).

After I filed O.S. No.215/2001 I was charged with false allegation of misconduct. After issuing appropriate legal notice for defamation I filed a criminal case defamation in S.T.R. No.864/2001 on 03.04.2001 before the Judicial Magistrate I of Pondicherry where the then trustees and their three henchmen were accused of defaming me and spreading lies about me. (See postings of 15.05.2001, 06.11.2001 and 24.11.2004). The accused were acquitted because the judge had been compromised. I have preferred a criminal appeal in Cr.A. No.477/2005 challenging the unjust acquittal and it is pending disposal before the Hon’ble Madras High Court. But till date this case remains the only one where all the trustees appeared in person as accused and faced the Judge and because of this indigestible humiliation the trustees have never forgiven my family and me.

The trustees came to know about this criminal case even before the notice reached them. They were furious and targeted my four elder sisters also. My sisters were issued with an illegal show cause notice backdated to 02.04.2001. This show cause notice already contained the punishment even without going into the veracity of the allegations made against them. My sisters were falsely accused of ‘misbehavior and defiance’. On 09.04.2001 they filed O.S. No.253/2001 challenging the malafide show cause notice issued to them before the Hon’ble I Additional District Munsif at Pondicherry. For ten long years needlessly the battled raged on in this case. (See postings on 15.04.2001 and 09.04.2010)

Since the trustees misrepresented before the Hon’ble Madras High Court, my suit in O.S. No.215/2001 was summarily terminated and Mr. Menon was appointed as the third enquiry officer to conduct an enquiry into the allegations of misconduct leveled against me. He submitted to my lawyer at Madras/ Chennai a perverse undated report and before the trustees could take action based on Mr. Menon’s impugned report I challenged the same on 14.11.2002 by filing O.S. No.668/2002 before the Hon’ble I Additional District Munsif at Pondicherry. (See postings dated 14.11.2002, 03.12.2002, 01.03.2003 and 23.09.2008). The trial has been underway for the past four years and it could have been finished had the trustees not delayed and protracted the proceedings, which they are still doing. The trustees have had to pay fine two times of Rs.2,000/- for failing to conduct the trial of the case.

The easiest way to discredit and humiliate a lady is by casting aspersion on her character, conduct and behavior. This is how all the five sisters were subjected to gross humiliation. As we kept challenging the unjust actions of the trustees the first phase of the litigation unfolded.

Justice - Blind or Blindfolded?

At last yesterday the Order passed by Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya has been put up on the Supreme Court website. The Order goes thus

“In spite of service of notice respondents have not filed affidavit nor appeared in the Court. In the circumstances, we issue bailable warrant against alleged contemnor…”

The beginning of the Order indicates

“(With office report)”

Now if you remember the Office Order mentioned that they have received our letter wherein we have expressed our inability to appear since we have no means and that our plight ought to be considered. (For details see posting of 14.10.2014)

Now isn’t it surprising that even when this letter has been put up before Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya and Justice S.A. Bobde (a fresh Judge), they fail to pay attention to it and mention that we have failed to appear and hence to issue bailable warrant. I can understand Justice Mukhopadhaya’s stance but what happened to Justice Bobde? Or is Justice Bobde too scared to stand up for the truth and correct the wrongdoing of his senior? 

I am speechlessly stupefied at the blatant injustice and miscarriage of justice happening at the Supreme Court. Has justice become blind or blindfolded to cater to selfish interests?

Also pertinent to point out is when we have no resources to pay for appearing before the Supreme Court, how are we supposed to pay for the bailable warrant? Can someone, any person in authority please tell me how we are supposed to achieve this feat? And what happens when we fail to pay the bail after we are arrested? Do we rot in jail or are we supposed to be die of hunger-strike which we shall take recourse to if we are detained?

It seems the arrest warrant has not yet reached the SP of Pondicherry. We have to take one step at a time and see what unfolds and how it unfolds. The Order directing for our arrest is produced below.

Procedure not followed?

What is pertinent to note that in their hurry to harass us the trustees have not themselves followed the law. Apparently some Form-I is required for service of notice, so I am told. But no such form exists either in the notice received through RPAD nor through the court given by the Court Amin.

Miscarriage of Justice by Corrupt Supreme Court Judges

With great difficulty and with an even heavier heart, in spite of losing all hope we were constrained to prefer S.L.P. No.27620/2012 before the Supreme Court of India. Luckily Justice H.L. Gokhale and Justice Nijjar were hearing our case and they granted us stay.

Thereafter our case was temporarily listed in April 2014 and without getting listed in the final list it was adjourned to 15.07.2014. However on 26.04.2014 suddenly our case was preponed by about 1 ½ months and got listed on 29.04.2014 before a new bench comprising of Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya and Justice Ranjan Gogoi. Both these judges were totally biased and without giving us any opportunity to present our case they passed perverse and malafide order in interim petition, especially when the trial was underway in the suit for the past four years. These two judges literally threatened our lawyers when they tried to present our case and under two minutes malafide order of eviction was granted on 29.04.2014 by these judges.

Order dated 29.04.2014 is produced hereunder.

Justice S. Manikumar - Another Compromised Judge?

Even though the police had assisted the trustees in illegally stopping our food they abstained from assisting us to get back our food at Ashram Dining Room. In fact even our complaints for the assault on 22.07.2010 on us by some inmates were registered only under the Magistrate Court’s directions.

The trustees transparent acts of malice and duplicity came to light when knowing fully well and having received the letter dated 25.07.2010 from the Warden of Jenny Working Women’s Hostel, the trustees sent money orders to Jenny Hostel’s address for all of us, but their correspondences to us were all sent at the Ambabhikshu House address, wherein we were still residing.

We filed I.A.No.2094/2010 for restoring our food and all other facilities. Orders were passed allowing us to eat at Ashram Dining Room on 27.10.2010.

Trustees approached directly Justice K. Venkataraman and filed C.R.P. No.4219/2010 and Contempt No.1483/2010 against we five sisters. In fact in Contempt Petition No.1483/2010 Justice K. Venkataraman even named Mrs. R. Vasanthi (the upright judge of PDM who had passed order for restoring food and all other facilities). Thank god some sense prevailed and he did not pursue his vengeance against this most honorable judge.

However Justice K. Venkatarman went on harassing and intimidating my lawyer at Madras High Court, who with great difficulty managed to transfer both C.R.P. No.4219/2010 and Contempt No.1483/2010 to another bench consisting of Justice S. Manikumar.

Justice S. Manikumar also played foul because he was scared of his senior namely Justice K. Venkatarman and in any event corrupt judges always stick together and watch out each other’s back. Anyhow Justice S. Manikumar heard the arguments on both sides in April 2011. He did not record any contempt on our side but he took offence since we had used the word illegal while speaking of High Court order in our counter in the proceedings. We apologized for this mistake.

Generally High Courts and Supreme Court orders are dictated then and there in the open court, at least the directive part. But Justice Manikumar failed to follow procedure. He posted the matter for orders and after more than a year, past two summer vacations, he passed an even more malafide order dated 03.08.2012, not only upholding Justice K. Venkatarman’s order but modifying it still further and literally ordering eviction on an interim petition revision.

Joint Trial Ordered

As the starting point of all our cases is the assault on Jayashree, we felt that it would be better if our cases O.S. No.668/2002 (pending before I Additional Musif, Pondicherry) and O.S. No.409/2005 (pending before Principal District Munsif, Pondicherry) could be jointly tried to meet the ends of justice. We had suffered enough and realized the chaos the trustees created through their misrepresentations and irrelevant documentation in order to clog the proceedings and confuse the issues. Therefore we decided to file a transfer petition for conducting joint trial.

T.O.P. No.85/2007 was filed before the Principal District Judge, Pondicherry for transferring O.S. No.668/2002 from I ADM to be tried together with O.S. No.409/2005 at PDM. The trustees at first refused to appear and were set exparte. When directions were issued in C.R.P. No.3314/2007 for the orders to be passed in the pending T.O.P. trustees filed a petition to permit them to present their objections. Their petition was allowed but the trustees were fined. Ashram Trust and four trustees, (Veda Prakash Johar excluded) was fined Rs.75/- each for failing to respect the court and from abstaining to appear. Trustees paid Rs.375/-. Veda Prakash Johar remained exparte since the trustees had illegally taken away his trusteeship.

On 23.09.2008 order was passed in T.O.P. for joint trial. 

Birth of A.V. Nagarajan’s Impugned Report

For the sexual harassment faced by us we had already approached the Pondicherry Police and the National Commission for Women, New Delhi. Both these statutory institutions were already investigating the matter. But when on 19.09.2004 the police came to arrest Girish Panda in the afternoon, the trustees woke up to the fact that they had better cover their backs.

In the evening at about 5.00 p.m. when I went to Ambabhikshu House the Managing Trustee had pasted a back dated notice of enquiry dated 11.09.2004 informing all and sundry about the enquiry proposed to be conducted by the trustees through Mr. A.V. Nagarajan, which consisted of three phases which in fact amounted to

1. Sexual harassment as alleged by us against the named inmates
2. Some complaints against us by other named inmates
3. Anyone who had a complaint

On 19.09.2004 we wrote a letter to Manoj Das Gupta, Managing Trustee of Ashram, to stop this enquiry since Pondicherry police and NCW were already investigating the case. But he did not desist. The notice was placed on a makeshift notice board at the entrance of Ambabhikshu and in a way whereby passersby on the road could see it clearly.

Thereafter on 28.10.2004 we received summons from A.V. Nagarajan for the first phase of the enquiry - Sexual harassment as alleged by us against a few named inmates. We immediately informed him that he should not conduct an enquiry because NCW and police were looking into the matter. He also paid no heed to us and proceeded as planned. We did not participate because more competent authorized were apprised of our case.

We saw that a chained mental box appeared on a pillar beside the makeshift notice board and a notice was put up relating to the third phase of the enquiry - anyone who had a complaint. Thereafter for over a month A.V. Nagarajan collected complaints. This was an exercise to fabricate complaints against us. Inmates, residents of Ambabhiskhu House as well as non-residents, were pressurized by the trustees, Matriprasad and other henchmen, to give false complaints against us.

Subsequently A.V. Nagarajan issued us notice for the second and third phases of enquiry - some complaints against us by other named inmates & anyone who had a complaint. His notice did not contain the charges that we were supposed to refute and because we could not participate in an enquiry blindfolded, we abstained.

Today we have received a show cause notice dated 24.01.2005 from the trustees enclosing a copy of A.V. Nagarajan’s report dated 10.01.2005. This show-cause notice contains no charges framed against us. Brief perusal of the report also indicates no specific charges leveled against us. In fact the report contains and only gives synopsis of statements, hearsay and assumptions. Pending court proceedings, Nirmal Swain had appeared and participated in the enquiry. He also produced sub-judice documents which are totally irrelevant to the enquiry being conducted. As a lawyer he knows fully well his illegal act. His license to practice should be revoked.

We also found that an incomplete report had been furnished to us since we are not given the statements and documents which form part of the report. Trustees are again resorting to mischief and acting in their usual highhanded manner and suppress our complaints of sexual harassment completely in order to protect their henchmen.

Trustees Deny Breakfast to Five Sisters

After Jayashree was assaulted on 09.01.2001, a group comprising of Nirmal Swain, Girish Panda, Santosh Nayak, Krishna Chandra, to name a few goondas of the trustees, had threatened the trustees that if any action was taken against Krishna Chandra, the whole oriya group would do a mass walk out of Dining Room. Since Ashram Dining Room functions mainly on the strength of the oriyas, the trustees were forced to shut up and tried to suppress the assault on Jayashree. In fact the trustees realizing the potential for future use of this group, readily rewarded Krishna Chandra by facilitating his stay in the Ashram.

But we persisted in my demand for justice to all the trustees, most especially Dilip Datta. In order to stop Hemlata and cover up their inaction the trustees began threatening and harassing me. I was punished and was forced to carry food in tiffin carrier if I wanted to eat. For three weeks I suffered in silence then decided to resume my food at Ashram Dining Room defying the unjust punishment imposed upon me. I first wrote letters to all the concerned trustees informing them of my intention. Then on 22.03.2001 I had my lunch and my dinner at the Ashram Dining Room. However when on 23.03.2001 I went with my four elder sisters to partake breakfast at the Ashram Dining Room at about 7.30 a.m.

All the sisters are denied breakfast. I was manhandled by inmates Manjunath and Satyanarayanamurthy. I gave a written complaint to the police for denial of food, for assault on Jayashree and my manhandling. On 24.03.2001 police called the above named inmates to police station and after questioning them, police issued a Report in Non-Cognizable Offence against my complaint and made wrong entries. Police also mentioned that it was a civil offence and matters should be sorted out with the trustees.

Which law-book states that cases of assault and manhandling and denial of food are civil offences? A new law-book probably as yet unheard of…