IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
I.A. NO.
111244 OF 2017
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 10342 OF 2016
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 10342 OF 2016
IN THE MATTER OF
SEEMA SAPRA …Appellant/Petitioner
Versus
COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION
… Respondent
I
N D E X
______________________________________________________
Sl. No. PARTICULARS PAGES
________________________________________________________
1. Application with prayer
for recall of order dated 1-13
27 October 2017 appointing ASG Senior
Advocate
Ms Pinky Anand as amicus in this
matter with
affidavit
FILED BY:
SEEMA SAPRA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER-IN-PERSON
DRAWN ON: 30.10.2017
FILED ON: 30.10.2017
CRIMINAL
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
I.A.
NO. OF 2017
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 10342 OF 2016
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 10342 OF 2016
IN THE MATTER OF
SEEMA SAPRA …Appellant/Petitioner
Versus
COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION … Respondent
To
Hon'ble The Chief Justice of India and His Companion Judges of the
Supreme Court of India., the application of the Appellant/ Petitioner most
respectfully showeth :-
1.
This matter was listed before Court on 27 October 2017 when the
following order was passed.
|
Heard.
We request Ms. Pinky Anand, learned
Additional Solicitor General, to assist the Court as amicus in the matter.
The Registry is directed to furnish a set
of appeal papers to Ms. Pinky Anand.
Post
on Monday, the 20th November, 2017.
|
2.
Senior Advocate Ms Pinky Anand who was sitting in Court in the first row
on the last date of hearing has been appointed as amicus in this matter. The Appellant objected in Court on that day to
this involvement of Ms Pinky Anand in this matter and submitted that she would
file an application objecting to this. The present application is therefore
being filed seeking recall of this order dated 27 October 2017 appointing Ms Pinky
Anand as amicus in this matter. This application seeks to place some relevant
facts before this Hon’ble Court.
3.
This is an appeal from a contempt conviction and involves issues
concerning the life and liberty of the appellant. The Appellant is a whistleblower
and a witness in corruption complaints against General Electric Company (GE) and
she is being targeted and being chronically poisoned. Her life is in grave
danger both from GE and from powerful elements within the Indian State which
are being used to silence the appellant.
4.
The Appellant has also made public complaints of sexual harassment
against Senior Advocate Soli J Sorabjee and Advocate Mr Raian Karanjawala
dating back to 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2001. The Appellant has made a public
complaint of sexual assault and attempted rape of the appellant by Soli
Sorabjee (then Attorney General of India) after plying her with alcohol and drugging
her in 2001, when she was working as junior in his office. Mr Soli J Sorabjee
continued to sexually harass and pursue the appellant for several years after
that. The appellant’s life is in danger on both these counts.
5.
The cover up of corruption by GE has involved a powerful coterie of
politicians and lawyers including Arun Jaitley, Soli
Sorabjee, Zia Mody, Mukul Rohatgi, Raian Karanjawala, Rajiv Nayar, Maninder
Singh and A S Chandhiok. Major frauds have been committed on the Delhi High
Court in Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/ 2012, the whistleblower petition filed
by the appellant against GE in the Delhi High Court. This powerful coterie of
lawyers is also targeting the appellant and is involved in having her being
poisoned and in ongoing attempts to eliminate her.
6.
These powerful lawyers have also used their colleagues and friends in
the legal profession to target the appellant, to defame her and to socially and
professionally ostracize her.
7.
Mr Soli Sorabjee personally threatened the appellant with harm in
February/ March 2011 and told her to drop her complaints against GE. In January
2012, the appellant learnt that Zia Mody (Mr Soli Sorabjee’s daughter) was advising GE as legal counsel on the
whistleblower complaints of the appellant against GE. Ms Zia Mody’s law firm
AZB & Partners and her then colleague Mr Nanju Ganpathy have appeared
before the Delhi High Court in Writ Petition Civil 1280/2012 (filed by the
appellant) as lawyers for 3 GE companies without valid vakalatnamas. They have
enabled the filing of false, fraudulent and invalid authority documents and false
and unauthorized affidavits before the Delhi High Court in this matter for GE
and have enabled forgery, perjury, fraud on the court and unlawful and
fraudulent impersonation of three GE companies before the Delhi High Court in
Writ Petition Civil 1280/2012 in order to cover up the whistleblower complaints
of the appellant against GE as part of an obstruction of justice conspiracy. This
evidence has been produced before this Hon’ble Court in the present appeal.
8.
Mr Mukul Rohatgi’s niece, a lawyer named Anupam Sanghi, was also used to
threaten the appellant in 2011. She told the appellant on the phone that if the
appellant was saying “everyone had harassed her”, then “judges would harass”
her if she went to Court.
9.
Ms Pinky Anand is a close friend and confidante of Arun Jaitley, Soli
Sorabjee, Zia Mody, Mukul Rohatgi, Raian Karanjawala, and Rajiv Nayar. She is
particularly close to Mr Soli Sorabjee, Raian Karanjawala and to Mr Arun
Jaitley. The appellant submits that if this Court asks Ms Pinky Anand to define
her relationship with these lawyers, she will call them her friends.
10.
See the following statement that appeared in an India Today news report dated
30 October 2014 titled “The Indispensable Mr Jaitley” available at
http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/arun-jaitley-narendra-modi-finance-defence-company-affairs-minister/1/398317.html
“Rohatgi,
in fact, is not Jaitley's only friend in the Supreme Court. Solicitor-General
Ranjit Kumar as well as all four Additional Solicitors General- Pinky Anand,
Maninder Singh, Neeraj Kishan Kaul and P.S. Narasimha-are Jaitley acolytes, ….”
11.
Ms Pinky Anand has been openly hostile to the appellant for more than 5
years now because of the appellant’s whistleblower complaints against GE, her
complaints of fraud and obstruction of justice against lawyer Zia Mody, and her
sexual harassment and sexual assault complaints against Soli Sorabjee and Raian
Karanjawala. Ms Pinky Anand has
participated in the social and professional ostracization of the Petitioner for
5 years within the community of legal professionals. Ms Pinky Anand along with
a group of lawyers has participated in hostile behaviour toward the petitioner which
has demeaned, denigrated and dehumanized the petitioner. She has been part of a
group of lawyers who have actively failed to treat the petitioner as a human
being with human dignity, leave alone as a woman colleague and woman legal
professional and advocate. Social and professional ostracization or boycott of
a person by a community has been recognized by the Supreme Court of India as a
violation of an individual’s right to live with dignity. I have been subjected
to a social and professional boycott by a group of lawyers including Ms Pinky
Anand for almost 6 years.
12.
Involving Ms Pinky Anand in this matter who has displayed a clear bias
against the appellant and who is biased in favour of this coterie of powerful lawyers
targeting the appellant (and which lawyers are also behind the threat to the
life of the appellant) is akin to making these lawyers the arbiter of the appellant’s
fate and life.
13.
The appellant has a reasonable apprehension of bias against Ms Pinky
Anand based upon the influence of these lawyers and their close friendship with
her. The petitioner apprehends that Ms Pinky Anand might be used to cover up
corruption by GE, the frauds on the Delhi High Court facilitated by Ms Zia
Mody, and to cover up the poisoning and targeting of the appellant-whistleblower.
Ms Pinky Anand might be used to cover up the murder/ incapacitation of the appellant
(if that happens during the pendency of this appeal) to prevent the appellant
from pursuing this matter and her whistleblower complaints against GE. Ms Pinky Anand might be used to sabotage the
defence of the appellant in this appeal by misrepresenting facts to this
Hon’ble Court or by suppressing facts and documents that the appellant is
relying upon. The appellant apprehends
that Ms Pinky Anand will be influenced by Mr Soli Sorabjee, Mr Arun Jaitley, Mr
Mukul Rohatgi and Mr Raian Karanjawala and will act as a proxy for these
persons in this matter.
14.
Ms Pinky Anand is a close friend of the lawyers from whom the appellant
is facing a threat to her life. As such, it is submitted that it is against all
principles of natural justice to appoint Ms Pinky Anand as amicus in the
present matter,
15.
Ms Pinky Anand has also been a prominent BJP member and continues to be
one. She has been the party spokesperson for the BJP. The BJP government headed
by Mr Modi is involved in the cover-up of the whistleblower complaints of the
appellant against GE. GE is an influential American company which can influence
political support for the BJP and for particular BJP politicians within the US
establishment. The appellant has reason to believe that Ms Arun Jaitley has
been instrumental in helping GE cover up the appellant’s whistleblower
complaints and in targeting and silencing the appellant.
16.
In fact, the involvement of Ms Pinky Anand in this matter as amicus
enhances the threat to the life of the appellant as this will make GE and these
lawyers more aggressive and fearless in the targeting and poisoning of the
appellant knowing that any harm caused to the appellant can then be covered up
with the assistance of Ms Pinky Anand.
17.
For these reasons, the appellant prays that this Hon’ble Court recall
its order dated 27 October 2017 appointing Ms Pinky Anand in this matter as
amicus.
18.
It appears that Ms Pinky Anand, Mr Mukyl Rohatgi and his junior Mr
Saurabh Kirpal manoeuvred to be present in court on 27 October 2017 during the
hearing of this matter.
19.
After the hearing of this matter on 27 October 2017, the appellant saw
Mr Saurabh Kirpal laughing at the appellant with Ms Pinky Anand outside the
Court. Mr Saurabh Kirpal was turning Ms Pinky Anand against the appellant by
telling her that the appellant had been making complaints against Mr Arun
Jaitley.
20.
It is respectfully submitted that the rule, practice and protocol in
contempt cases or contempt appeals in suo moto cases is for notice to go to the
office of the Attorney General of India, who then assists the Court.
21.
The appellant respectfully prays that this Hon’ble Court may instead issue
formal notice to the AG Mr K K Venugopal as per protocol, rules and practice.
22.
Involvement of Ms Pinky Anand in this matter will violate the appellant’s
right to a fair and full hearing and her right to natural justice in this
appeal. Involvement of Ms Pinky Anand in this matter will mean the denial of
justice to the appellant.
23.
The appellant also prays that since the very life of the appellant hangs
in the balance here, this Hon’ble Court may please give her a full hearing in
this matter/.
24.
The appellant’s right to life is being grossly violated on a daily
basis, her life in in danger, and she is being poisoned with chemical poisonous
and nerve agents. The appellant’s life is hanging by a thread and because of
the ongoing poisoning of the appellant, her dead body could be found any day. The
appellant is being poisoned with nerve agents, anesthetic agents and poisonous
chemical agents while sleeping in her car parked outside gate 8 of the Delhi
High Court almost every night. This happened on the previous night as well
(intervening night of 29-30 October 2017). She is also being followed 24/7 and
is being poisoned with chemicals in public spaces. The appellant is also being
poisoned with chemicals inside the Delhi High Court and also inside the Supreme
Court of India premises. In fact, even while drafting this application, today
on 30 October 2017 sitting in the litigants’ canteen inside the Supreme Court,
the appellant has been targeted and poisoned with chemicals using court clerks,
lawyers and even clients. This can only happen at the behest of these powerful
lawyers acting under the protection of the Police.
PRAYER
It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may
graciously be pleased to allow this Application and :-
(i)
To recall its order dated 27 October 2017 appointing ASG Senior Advocate
Ms Pinky Anand as amicus in this matter;
(ii)
Issue formal notice as per rules, protocol and practice in suo moto
contempt matters to the office of the Attorney General of India;
(iii)
To pass such other orders and further orders as may be deemed necessary
on the facts and in the circumstances of the case.
FOR WHICH ACT OF KINDNESS, THE APPELLANT/ PETITIONER SHALL AS IN DUTY
BOUND, EVER PRAY.
FILED BY:
SEEMA SAPRA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER-IN-PERSON
DRAWN ON: 30/10.2017
FILED ON: 30/10/2017
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
I.A. NO. OF 2017
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 10342 OF 2016
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 10342 OF 2016
IN THE MATTER OF
SEE*MA SAPRA …Appellant/Petitioner
Versus
COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION
… Respondent
AFFIDAVIT
I, Seema Sapra, aged 46 years, D/o Late A. R. Sapra, presently homeless
in New Delhi, do hereby solemnly state and affirm as under:
1. That I am the Appellant/ Petitioner and am familiar with the facts
and circumstances of the case and am competent and authorized to swear this
Affidavit.
2. That I have drafted, read and understood the accompanying Application
for recall of order dated 27 October 2017 appointing ASG Ms Pinky Anand, Senior
Advocate as amicus in this matter and I state that the contents of the
application are based on my personal knowledge and on other sources which I
believe to be true and correct.
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION:
I, the above-named Deponent, do hereby verify that the contents of the
above Affidavit are true and correct to my knowledge, no part of it is false
and nothing material has been concealed there from.
Verified at New Delhi on this 30th day of October 2017.
DEPONENT
No comments:
Post a Comment