IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF INDIA
CRIMINAL
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
I.A.
NO. 30030 OF 2018
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 the Hon’ble Court on 7 February 2018 when
the following order was passed.
|
We appoint Mr. Vikas Singh, Sr. Advocate as
Amicus Curiae in this case to assist the Court. The petitioner has submitted
before the Court that she has no objection.
The Registry is directed to supply a copy
of the entire record of this case to Mr. Vikas Singh, Sr. Advocate immediately.
List
on 26.03.2018.
|
2.
The appellant is filing the present application for recall and
clarification of this order. The appellant is compelled to make the present
application and she has no option but to do so, in order to protect herself and
her fundamental rights including her right to life and her right to seek
justice before this Hon’ble Court.
3.
The Appellant strongly objects to the appointment of Mr Vikas Singh as
amicus in this matter.
4.
The Appellant also strenuously objects to the appointment of any amicus
in this matter and the Appellant categorically states that she cannot and does
not agree to the appointment of any amicus in this matter, to speak on her
behalf or to address the Hon’ble Court on her behalf, or to present or
represent her case before this Hon’ble Court, or to present the facts or the
law relevant to this appeal before the Hon’ble Court, or to present the
Appellant’s circumstances and situation before this Hon’ble Court in these or
any other proceedings. The appellant does not agree to being represented in
this matter through any amicus. She also does not agree to any amicus
presenting the case of the appellant before this Hon’ble Court. The appellant
seeks to place on record her strongest objection to the appointment of Mr Vikas
Singh as amicus.
5.
The appellant is a whistle-blower who has made corruption complaints against
General Electric Company which the Government of India is attempting to cover
up. Several very powerful lawyers have been involved in the ongoing attempt to
cover-up these complaints against General Electric Company and they have
committed and/ or facilitated criminal offences under both Indian and US law
including perjury, forgery, fraud on the Delhi High Court and on General
Electric Company and obstruction of justice in an elaborate criminal conspiracy
to cover up the appellant’s corruption complaints against General Electric
Company and to target, silence and eliminate the Appellant.
6.
The appellant has also made a complaint of sexual harassment against
lawyer Raian Karanjawala and a complaint of sexual harassment, sexual assault
and attempted rape against lawyer Soli Sorabjee. Several very powerful lawyers
have been involved in the attempted cover-up of these complaints and a very large
group of lawyers have participated in targeting, smearing, defaming and
threatening the appellant/ complainant of sexual harassment.
7.
The appellant submits that on 27 October 2017, another Bench of this
Hon’ble Court then hearing this matter had appointed Ms Pinky Anand as amicus
in this matter. The petitioner had moved IA 111244/2017 for recall of that
order and this Hon’ble Court was pleased to recall that order appointing Ms
Pinky Anand as amicus by its order dated 4 December 2017. The appellant refers
to and relies upon IA 111244/2017 for the present purpose as well.
8.
The appellant submits that apart from containing concerns and reservations
specific to Ms Pinky Anand (who is both a next door neighbour and friend of
Soli Sorabjee and a friend of Raian Karanjawala and Zia Mody), IA 111244/2017
also set out the appellant’s apprehension that any lawyer or indeed any
person appointed as amicus in this matter will be influenced to
misrepresent the case, situation, and circumstances of the appellant, given the
extremely high stakes involved.
9.
The appellant submits that given the highly sensitive facts and nature
of this case, it is not appropriate to appoint any amicus in this matter whether
to speak for or on behalf of the Appellant, or to present the arguments or
submissions in this case to the Hon’ble Court instead of or in place of the
appellant.
10.
The appellant has been permitted to appear and argue in person in the
present matter by an order of this Hon’ble Court dated 9 October 2017. The
appellant is an accomplished lawyer enrolled with the Bar Council of Delhi
since 1995. Her CV is reproduced in the memo of appeal.
11.
The appellant has been wrongfully convicted of criminal contempt of
court by the Delhi High Court and she has been wrongfully sentenced to prison.
The Appellant submits that she will be drugged and poisoned in prison and her
health will be destroyed and her past complaints of poisoning will be covered
up by the Indian State authorities.
12.
The Appellant also submits that her right to practice law and her right
to appear as an advocate or even in person before the Delhi High Court and
lower courts was wrongfully restricted by the impugned judgment for a period of
two years (which period has now elapsed) in violation of several Constitution
Bench decisions of this Hon’ble Court. The Appellant has therefore filed IA
123144/2017 seeking reference of this appeal for hearing by a five Judge
Constitution Bench of this Hon’ble Court.
13.
The appellant submits that she was not accorded a hearing by the Delhi
High Court in the contempt hearing, and nor was she allowed to file a written
reply to the contempt notice. The impugned judgment was passed without hearing
the appellant and in complete violation of the appellant’s fundamental right to
natural justice in a criminal proceeding where her liberty and very life is now
at stake.
14.
The Appellant has a right to be fully and fairly heard before this
Hon’ble Court in the present appeal which is a first appeal on facts and law. This
right to be heard by the Supreme Court is part of the Appellant’s fundamental
right to due process and procedure established by law and to life and liberty
under Article 21, her fundamental right to access justice, and her right to
equality under the law under Article 14. The Appellant submits that she cannot
be condemned unheard and she has a fundamental right to a full and fair hearing
before this Hon’ble Court.
15.
This Hon’ble Court has always held that the first appellate court must hear the appeal on facts and law
and that it is the first appellant court which is the final arbiter of facts.
There are several facts relevant to this appeal which are either incorrectly
recorded in the impugned judgment or have been completely ignored by the Delhi
High Court. The Appellant is entitled to be heard by this Hon’ble Court on
these facts. The Appellant places reliance upon Vinod Kumar vs Gangadhar (2015)
1 SCC 391 and upon other supporting authorities on this point. The appellant
has filed IA 122625/2017 with the following prayers as the Delhi High Court
records in the matters listed below are essential for the Appellant to be heard
by this Hon’ble Court on the relevant facts of the present appeal.
|
It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed
that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to allow this Application
and :-
(i) To
summon the paper and electronic records of the Delhi High Court in Writ
Petition Civil No. 1280/2012, CONT. CASE(CRL) 2/2014, CONT. CASE(CRL) 3/2012,
and O.M.P.647/2012;
(ii) To pass such other orders and further
orders as may be deemed necessary on the facts and in the circumstances of
the case.
|
16.
The appellant apologizes to the Hon’ble Court for any confusion during
the hearing on 9 February 2018 which may conveyed an incorrect impression or
may have led the Hon’ble Court to mistakenly conclude and record that the appellant
had no objection to the appointment of Mr Vikas Singh as amicus.
17.
During the hearing, the appellant had reiterated her position and her
prayer in pending IA 111244/2017 that in contempt cases, the protocol, practice
and procedure followed by the Supreme Court was to issue notice to the Attorney
General and had requested that this Hon’ble Court should therefore call upon
the Attorney General to assist the Court. The relief sought in IA 111244/2017,
which is pending, is set out below.
|
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.
|
18.
However, during the hearing on 7 February 2018, the Hon’ble Court
insisted upon appointing an amicus, despite opposition by the appellant, and the
appellant felt pressured. During the
hearing on 7 February 2018, the Hon’ble Court first asked the appellant to
suggest some names for appointment as amicus and then suggested the names of Ms
Indira Jaising and Ms Meenakshi Arora, both of whom the appellant objected to. It
is submitted that Ms Indira Jaising is a close friend of both Mr Soli Sorabjee
and Mr Raian Karanjawala and like Ms Pinky Anand has participated in both
smearing and ostracizing the appellant. With respect to Ms Meenakshi Arora, it
is submitted that she is a former junior to Mr Raian Karanjawala and is friends
with both Soli Sorabjee and Raian Karanjawala. The Appellant had literally
begged Ms Meenakshi Arora in 2012 for help in securing a temporary place to
stay after she was rendered homeless and penniless while Writ Petition Civil
No. 1280/2012 was pending. Ms Meenakshi Arora refused to help the Appellant. Ms
Meenakshi Arora was also (wittingly or unwittingly) used in an attempt to drug
the Appellant inside the Supreme Court in August 2012 when the Appellant had
mentioned in open Court before Hon’ble Justice Kabir of the Supreme Court that
she had been rendered homeless and had no place to stay despite being a
whistle-blower and despite the fact that the Delhi High Court had issued orders
to the Delhi Police and other authorities to protect her as she was a
whistle-blower.
19.
During the hearing on 7 February 2018, the Hon’ble Court then suggested
the name of Mr Vikas Singh who is a senior advocate, former ASG under the Dr
Manmohan Singh led UPA Government and the current elected President of the
Supreme Court Bar Association. The appellant had stated in Court that she was
unsure of Mr Vikas Singh as the SCBA’s Twitter account had been used to block
the appellant on Twitter, and she had no idea if Mr Vikas Singh was behind
this. The Appellant recalls that thereafter the Hon’ble Bench requested the
stenographer to delete the sentence that the appellant had no objection to the
appointment of Mr Vikas Singh as amicus. Thereafter the Hon’ble Court proceeded
to dictate the rest of the order including the time period for the next listing
of the case.
20.
The Appellant was therefore surprised to find that the order dated 7
February 2018 uploaded on the Supreme Court website contained the statement
that the Appellant had submitted that she had no objection to the appointment
of Mr Vikas Singh as amicus.
21.
The appellant submits that she has a serious objection to the
appointment of Mr Vikas Singh as amicus and she would unequivocally like to
place this objection on the court record. Mr Vikas Singh does not speak for the
Appellant. She does not know him. She has no reason to trust him and every
reason to expect that he will be influenced and pressured to act in a manner
detrimental to the appellant’s interests, rights and cause.
22.
The Appellant also submits that she has a serious objection to the
appointment of any amicus in the present matter as this further endangers her life
and incentivises those trying to eliminate or incapacitate the appellant to do
so.
23.
The Appellant also submits that she also has specific and strong objections
to the appointment of Mr Vikas Singh as amicus in this matter.
24.
A copy of a screen-shot that shows that the SCBA’s official Twitter
account has blocked the Appellant’s Twitter account is annexed hereto as
Annexure IA-1. The official Twitter account of the SCBA is in all likelihood
operated by the SCBA President Mr Vikas Singh or by its Secretary. The blocking
of the Appellant by the SCBA on Twitter means that the appellant cannot
communicate with the SCBA on Twitter, cannot read the SCBA’s tweets, cannot
reply to the SCBA’s tweets and cannot retweet them. This amounts to a silencing
of the Appellant. It amounts to blacklisting her and to ostracizing her.
Essentially the SCBA wants to prevent the Appellant who is also a lawyer from
being able to engage with the SCBA on Twitter or with those following the SCBA
on Twitter. The reason is to prevent the Appellant from communicating with the
SCBA community and informing them of her sexual harassment complaints using
Twitter and informing them that she is a whistle-blower against General
Electric Company corruption being silenced, targeted and poisoned.
25.
The Appellant states that she even slept in her car parked outside Mr
Vikas Singh’s house in Defence Colony in 2013-2014. She was targeted there. Mr
Vikas Singh did not help the appellant in any manner despite being aware of her
plight and circumstances.
26.
Mr Vikas Singh has close ties to the Delhi High Court and Supreme Court
bars. He will not expose the lawyers involved in the cover-up of GE’s
complaints, nor will he expose or condemn those lawyers who have targeted the
appellant. The appellant has essentially been cast out by the Bar, while Mr
Vikas Singh is a leader of that very Bar and has an interest in maintaining
cordial relations with the lawyers targeting the appellant and who have ganged
up against her. The Appellant cannot expect justice from Mr Vikas Singh nor can
she expect that he will objectively and without undue influence bring the
relevant facts and legal issues to the attention of this Hon’ble Court in the
present appeal.
27.
The first duty of the Appellant is to protect her life, her health and
her person. The appellant is 100% certain that the appointment of an amicus in
the present matter incentivises the powerful entities and persons targeting the
appellant to remove the appellant from the scene by poisoning, drugging, or
otherwise incapacitating her to prevent her from appearing in the present case
on future hearings and from arguing her own case. The presence of an amicus
will mean that the present appeal can be disposed off even in the absence of
the Appellant and without hearing the Appellant. The presence of an amicus will
mean that if the appellant who is being poisoned is incapacitated, made ill,
confined, drugged, or prevented from appearing before this Hon’ble Court for
the hearing of this appeal and the other cases of the appellant and the
appellant fails to appear, then the amicus will be used through the State, the police
or doctors or other persons to cover up the real circumstances of the appellant
and to present a factually incorrect account to this Hon’ble Court of the
appellant’s reasons for absence, of her physical condition or whereabouts. This
is a very real apprehension given the facts and background of this case. The
documents on record before the Delhi High Court clearly establish that the
Police, State agencies including the Home Ministry and the Railway Ministry,
and the CBI have been used to target the Appellant-whistle-blower and the
errant officers in these agencies will stand exposed when the Appellant
presents these facts and documents before this Hon’ble Court. The documents on
record before the Delhi High Court establish that doctors at Max, Fortis,
Apollo, and at the Delhi High Court health centre were used to target the
appellant. The documents on record before the Delhi High Court establish that
the appellant’s family members are being blackmailed and controlled by lawyers
close to Soli Sorabjee and Raian Karanjawala and were used to target the
appellant. The appellant has broken off all contact with her family members
(her mother, two sisters and a brother) and has not met them or spoken to them since
2011. The appellant states that her family members are dead to her and even her
dead body (if she succumbs to the ongoing poisoning) should not be handed over
to them. Several lawyers are being used to keep suggesting to the appellant
that instead of fighting for her right to life in court, she should approach
her family members. This clearly establishes the criminal conspiracy to
incapacitate the appellant and to then use her scared and compliant family members
to cover up and confine the appellant so that the world can never hear her
voice.
28.
Imagine that the appellant who is being poisoned, who is also homeless
and who is surviving on charity, is poisoned acutely to make her fall ill. She
collapses and is admitted to a Government hospital by the Police or by some
lawyer, The Appellant fears she will be drugged in the hospital and the police,
government doctors or some lawyers or the appellant’s family members will be
used to convey to the amicus that the appellant has fallen ill naturally. The
Appellant might never leave the hospital or she might be confined somewhere or
institutionalized by the State or by using the appellant’s family. The amicus
will then be used to help cover up the appellant’s real condition or the fact
that she is being poisoned. The amicus will be so used even if the amicus is
not part of the criminal conspiracy as the amicus will necessarily depend upon
police or third-party accounts of the appellant’s condition and whereabouts as
the appellant herself would have been removed from the scene. and from public
life.
29.
The stakes in this matter and the stakes involving the appellant’s
whistle-blower and sexual harassment complaints which are the reasons for the
ongoing threat to the Appellant’s life are very high and the persons and
entities targeting the appellant who want the appellant dead or eliminated or
incapacitated are extremely powerful.
30.
The stakes involving the appellant’s complaints of corruption by General
Electric Company and its ongoing attempted cover-up mean that General Electric
Company would be disqualified and blacklisted not only from the multi-billion
USD diesel locomotive Marhowra factory contract but from all other contracts
and tenders of the Government of India. In addition, GE would be subject to an
investigation in the US by the FBI, the SEC and the US Department of Justice
both into the corruption and forgery complaints but also into their cover up.
Several powerful GE executives and lawyers (including former executives and
lawyers) would face criminal liability including prosecution and prison
sentences. These include former GE lawyers Brackett Denniston, Jeffrey Eglash,
Deepak Adlakha, Ruby Anand, Bradford Berenson and current GE lawyers Alexander
Dimitref, Tara Plimpton and Tejal Patel. These include former GE CEO and
Chairman of its Board Jeffrey Immelt, and present GE CEO and Chairman of the
Board John Flannery, and several other high-level GE executives including
former vice-chairman John Rice. These include Pratyush Kumar, a former GE
executive who is at present CEO of Boeing India. Two powerful lawyers working
with a US law firm Gibson Dunn & Crutcher (F. Joseph Warin and John
Chesley) will face obstruction of justice charges. Powerful former Indian
bureaucrats including Montek Singh Ahluwalia and Gajendra Haldea will face
investigation. The role of former PM Manmohan Singh will come under the
scanner. The US investigation into the appellant’s complaint that GE paid
bribes to obtain this contract will mean that powerful politicians from both
the Congress and the BJP will come under the scanner of US agencies. Mr Arun
Jaitley has been involved in the continued cover-up of GE corruption under the
Government of Mr Narendra Modi. Several
lawyers have played a role in sabotaging Writ Petition Civil 1280/2012 before
the Delhi High Court and in helping cover up GE corruption and in targeting the
appellant. This is not a mere baseless allegation but is established from the
court record of Writ Petition Civil 1280/2012 in the Delhi High Court. There
have been multiple instances of judicial impropriety in the hearing and
disposal of the Appellant’s whistle-blower corruption petition against General
Electric before the Delhi High Court, being Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/2012. The
lawyers who have helped cover up the corruption complaints against General
Electric Company include Mr Soli Sorabjee, Mr Raian Karanjawala, Mr A S Chandhiok,
Mr Rajiv Mehra, Mr Rajiv Nayar, Mr Dayan Krishnan, Ms Sapna Chauhan, Ms Zia
Mody, Mr Nanju Ganpathy, Mr C A Sundaram, Mr Manpreet Lamba and several others.
31.
The large group of lawyers who are targeting the appellant, smearing her
or socially ostracising her include Soli Sorabjee, Zia Mody, Maninder Singh,
Rajiv Nayar, Pravin Anand, Sandeep Sethi, Raian Karanjawala, Mukul Rohatgi, A S
Chandhiok, Ruby Ahuja, Nandini Gore, Nisha Bagchi, Abhijat Bal, Siddharth Dave,
Vibha Makhija, Kavin Gulati, Nanju Ganpathy, Manpreet Lamba, Ripu Adlakha,
Deepak Adlakha, Ronnie Banerji, Anupam Srivastav, Arun Kathpalia, Abhinav
Vashisht, Sanjeev Sindhwani, Amit Chadha, Rajeeve Mehra, Gopal Jain, Harish
Salve, Dushyant Dave, Tasneem Ahmadi, Shyam Divan, Madhavi Divan, Ritin Rai,
Chander Lall, Shyel Trehan, Piyoosh Kalra, Kirti Uppal, Pravin Parekh, Prashant
Bhushan, Geeta Luthra, Indira Jaising, Aman Ahluwalia and others.
32.
The appellant has been poisoned/ drugged in the Supreme Court and Delhi
High Court cafeterias. The Appellant has been and continues to be targeted with
toxic chemicals and fumes on the premises of the Supreme Court and the Delhi
High Court. Interns, court clerks, junior lawyers, policemen, RAC guards, court
staff and even lawyers’ clients have been used to poison the appellant with
toxic chemicals and fumes inside the Delhi High Court and even inside the
Supreme Court.
33.
The appellant is being followed 24/7. She is followed by several men on
motorbikes and cars. She is followed on the Delhi Metro. She is followed to
public spaces/ cafes/ restaurants she is forced to frequent as she is homeless.
She is being targeted with poisonous chemicals and fumes wherever she goes.
34.
The appellant was rendered homeless and is being compelled to sleep in
her car parked outside gate 8 of the Delhi High Court. The appellant is being
poisoned at night with highly toxic gases, toxic and acidic chemical fumes and
with anesthetic nerve agents and with toxic pesticides when she is asleep in
her car at night. Any person can approach the appellant sleeping effectively on
the street. The appellant is being chronically poisoned since 2010.
35.
In fact, the poisoning of the Appellant has escalated since 7 February
2018. The Appellant has been poisoned with nerve agents, anaesthetic agents and
pesticides and with some highly corrosive acidic chemical fumes/ gas while
asleep in her car outside gate 8 of the Delhi High Court since 7 February 2018.
She could have died or collapsed on any of these nights. In fact, the poisoning
has been so intense that the petitioner complained to the Police that her dead
body would be found. The appellant relies upon her email complaints to the
police since 7 February 2018 (also copied to the Secretary General of the
Supreme Court) and on her public tweets to the Delhi Police.
36.
The appellant has again been poisoned with some very toxic and acidic
chemical fumes for the last few days and nights. The conspiracy and attempt is
to poison the appellant and to induce chemical pneumonia and to then pretend
that the appellant has fallen gravely ill or that she has succumbed to a sudden
fatal illness. The appellant is also being poisoned with anaesthetic and nerve
agents at night. These could cause the appellant to slip into a coma or to
suffer cardiac arrest.
37.
This application seeks to place some relevant facts before this Hon’ble
Court.
38.
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.
39.
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.
40.
The appellant has on 11 January 2018 filed a writ petition before the
Supreme Court vide filing diary number 1377 of 2018 to seek redress of her
complaint of sexual harassment against lawyer Raian Karanjawala and her
complaint of sexual harassment, sexual assault and attempted rape against
lawyer Soli J Sorabjee in which she has impleaded the Home Secretary, the
Commissioner of Police, the Director CBI, Soli Sorabjee, and Raian Karanjawala
and has sought the following relief:
|
PRAYER
It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed
that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleasedto;-
(i) Issue a writ of Mandamus to
Respondent 1, the Government of India through the Ministry of Home Affairs to
act on the Petitioner's complaint forwarded to the President and Prime
Minister of India by email dated February 12, 2013 and to constitute a high
level complaints committee in accordance with the Supreme Court's directions
in Vishaka& Others v. State of Rajasthan & Others and in Medha Kotwal
Lele and Others v. Union of India and Others to investigate zandredress the
petitioner's complaint of sexual harassment against Mr Soli J. Sorabjee, when
the latter held the constitutional post of Attorney General of India;
(ii) Direct the CBI and Police to
register an FIR against Soli J Sorabjee for sexually assaulting the
petitioner and attempting to rape her after plying her with alcohol and after
possibly drugging her;
(iii) Direct the Supreme Court Gender
Sensitisation and Internal Complaints Committee to examine the petitioner's
complaint of sexual harassment against Raian N Karanjawala;
(iv) In the alternative to prayer (i),
direct the Supreme Court Gender Sensitisation and Internal Complaints
Committee to examine the petitioner's complaint of sexual harassment against
Soli J Sorabjee;
(v) Direct the respondent no. 1 to
provide the petitioner with Z+ security;
(vi) To pass such other orders and
further orders and to issue such other and further writs as may be deemed
necessary on the facts and in the circumstances of the case.
|
41.
The appellant also filed Writ Petition Civil No. 1200 of 2017 against an
anonymous blog being used to target and smear the appellant which violates the
right to life of the appellant and her other fundamental rights. This writ
petition was transferred by the Supreme Court to the Delhi High Court for
hearing by order dated 29 January 2018 which is reproduced below. The prayers
in this writ petition are also reproduced below. The Appellant submits that the
contents of this writ petition are also extremely relevant to the hearing of
the present appeal and she places reliance thereon. The Hon’ble Bench of the
Supreme Court that transferred this matter on 29 January 2018 comprising of
Hon’ble Justice Kurien Joseph and Hon’ble Justice Shantanagoudar both agreed in
open court that this anonymous blog violates the right to life of the
appellant.
|
Supreme Court Order dated 29 January 2018
in Writ Petition Civil No. 1200/2017
“In the nature of the prayers made in this
writ petition and
having heard the petitioner, who appeared
in person, we find no special reason as to why the petitioner should not
pursue the grievances before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India.
Petitioner prays that the petition itself
may be sent to the
Delhi High Court for being registered as a
Writ Petition.
We see no reason to deny such a request.
Therefore, the
Registry is directed to transmit the papers
to the Delhi High Court for being appropriately dealt with.
The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed
of.
Pending
application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.”
|
|
PRAYER in Writ Petition Civil No. 1200/2017
“It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed
that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to;-
(i) Issue a writ of Mandamus to Respondents
1, 2, 3 and 4 to ask Google, i.e., Respondents 5 and 6 to immediately remove
this anonymous blog from Blogger as it violates the right to life and other
fundamental rights of the petitioner-whistleblower and complainant of sexual
harassment;
(ii) Issue a writ of Mandamus to
Respondents 1, 2, 3 and 4 to inquire and investigate as to who created and
procured the creation of this anonymous blog titled "Seema Sapra
Alert" and published at http://seemasapraalert.blogspot.in/
(iii)
Issue a writ of Mandamus to
Respondents 1, 2, 3 and 4 to inquire and investigate into the use of the
email address seemasapraalert@gmail.comand its use to target the petitioner
who is a whistleblower against General Electric Company Company and a complainant
of sexual harassment against Raian Karanjawala and of sexual harassment and
sexual assault against Soli J Sorabjee;
(iv) Direct the Respondents 3 and 4 to
register FIRs against the creators and procurers of this blog and the
associated email ID for the crimescommitted against the petitioner listed
hereinabove in the writ petition and to investigate these crimes in
accordance with law and to bring criminal charges against all those involved
in procuring, abetting and committing these crimes against the petitioner;
(v) Direct the Respondents 1, 2, 3
and 4 to take legal action against the violation of the Petitioner's right to
life and her other fundamental rights by the creators and procurers of this
anonymous blog;
(vi) To pass such
other orders and further orders and to issue such other and further writs as
may be deemed necessary on the facts and in the circumstances of the case.”
|
42.
The Appellant has also filed Writ Petition Civil No. 13 of 2018 before
the Supreme Court in which she has made a specific complaint of poisoning and
in which she has sought the following relief:
|
PRAYER
It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed
that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to ;-
(i) Issue a writ of Mandamus to
the Respondents to immediately ensure that the Petitioner whistle-blower is
not poisoned or harmed or harassed or targeted or followed in any manner and
to ensure that the fundamental right to life of the Petitioner who is a
whistle-blower and a complaint of sexual harassment and sexual assault is not
violated and that the petitioner who is an advocate, a whistleblower against
General Electric Company Company and a complainant of sexual harassment
against Raian Karanjawala and of sexual harassment and sexual assault against
Soli J Sorabjee is protected and stays safe;
(ii) To pass such other orders and
further orders and to issue such other and further writs as may be deemed
necessary on the facts and in the circumstances of the case.
|
43.
Writ Petition Civil No. 13 of 2018 was listed before the Supreme Court
on 9 February 2018 when at the very outset the appellant sought time to file an
additional affidavit and additional documents. According the following order
was passed by this Hon’ble Court.
|
The petitioner, who appears in-person,
seeks four weeks' time to file additional documents.
List
after four weeks.
|
44.
On 9 February 2018, the Appellant’s opening statement before this
Hon’ble Court during the hearing of Writ Petition Civil No. 13 of 2018 were
that she as seeking an adjournment to file an additional affidavit. The Hon’ble
Court was pleased to accept that request and passed the order. After the matter
was over and the above-mentioned order had been dictated, the Appellant again
addressed the Hon’ble Court and stated that this writ petition had saved her
life and that she had been poisoned with some acidic chemical fumes, and that as
a result her mouth had become raw like sandpaper, and she had been coughing and
producing thick green phlegm/ mucous. Hon’ble Justice Kurien Joseph had then
replied “God Bless You”.
45.
This Writ Petition was filed on 8 January 2018 and a few days after that
the poisoning with acidic chemical fumes had stopped and the appellant was no
longer coughing, she had no phlegm discharge, her mouth had gone back to
normal. The appellant submits that she did not have these symptoms on 9 February
2018 and had not had these symptoms for about two weeks prior to that date. The
appellant has described in Writ Petition Civil No. 13 of 2018 the specific
incident of poisoning that started after 2 January.
46.
Now after 9 February 2018, the Appellant was again poisoned for a
prolonged period of time with corrosive acidic fumes when she was in her car
outside gate 8 of the Delhi High Court and since then she is again being
poisoned with acidic chemical fumes which she can actually taste as bitter on
her lips and which are making her mouth raw and rough again.
47.
The Appellant also submits that the involvement of lawyers in targeting
her and in covering up her complaints and in smearing her is again established
by the use of a legal news website at http://www.indialegallive.com which is owned by a lawyer Pradeep Rai and his family
members. The court reports for this website also work as Mr Pradeep Rai’s
juniors. This website has published the following misleading, malicious, false,
and defamatory report about the proceedings before this Hon’ble Court on 9
February 2018 in Writ Petition Civil No. 13/2018 which also amounts to contempt
of court. The article published at http://www.indialegallive.com/top-news-of-the-day/news/contempt-proceedings-calling-bench-deceptive-43777 is reproduced below.
|
Contempt proceedings for calling bench
‘deceptive’
February 9, 2018
February 9, 201838
Criminal contempt proceedings are on
against petitioner Seema Sapra who had called the action of a bench
“deceptive” in a comment. The case is before the Superme Court bench of
Justices Kurian Joseph and Mohan M Shantanagoudar.
On Friday (February 9) the petitioner
presented herself and asked for an adjournment, giving a rather strange
explanation that somebody had blown poisonous fumes into her mouth and she
wasn’t feeling well. While listing the matter after four weeks, the bench
also directed her to submit in writing what she was trying to say.
The petitioner, who is also an advocate,
had accused Justice Vibhu Bakhru of the Delhi High Court of corruption in an
open court. Despite being warned she continued with her allegations on the
judge. The petitioner had leveled the charges on account of the formation of
a constitution bench comprising Justice S Muralidhar and Justice Bakhru,
which according to her was improper and ‘deceptive’.
A division bench of Justices Valmiki J
Mehta and P S Teji had initiated contempt proceedings against Sapra. The
court held that the petitioner’s conduct amounts to criminal contempt and was
punishable under Section 14 (1) of the contempt of Court Act, 1971. After the
initiation of contempt proceedings against her, the petitioner requested for
the matter to be heard by another bench as she had the right to under Section
14 (2) of the same act. The court had granted her request.
The matter has been listed after four
weeks.
– India Legal Bureau
|
48.
The appellant submits that the following portion of this news report
deliberately misrepresents and misreports court proceedings and what transpired
during the hearing before this Hon’ble Court. It attempts to mock the
appellant’s complaint of poisoning, distorts it and misrepresents the Hon’ble
Court’s order. This clearly amounts to contempt of court. This Hon’ble Court
never directed the appellant “to submit in writing what she was trying to say.”
The Appellant never asked for an adjournment on the ground that ‘somebody had
blown poisonous fumes into her mouth and she wasn’t feeling well.”
|
On Friday (February 9) the petitioner presented herself and asked for
an adjournment, giving a rather strange explanation that
somebody had blown poisonous fumes into her mouth and she wasn’t feeling
well. While listing the matter after four weeks, the bench also directed
her to submit in writing what she was trying to say.
|
49.
The same online legal news outlet owned by lawyer Pradeep Rai had maliciously
published another patently false news report a few days earlier about the
proceedings dated 29 January 2018 before this Hon’ble Court in Writ Petition
Civil No. 1200/ 2017. This news report which amounts to a clear case of
contempt of this Hon’ble Court is reproduced below. The Appellant in fact
emailed the news website and contacted it via Twitter to inform them that the
news report was blatantly inaccurate and asking them to correct it. There has
been no response and the false and misleading report on this Hon’ble court’s
order dated 29 January 2018 passed in Civil Writ Petition 1200/2017 is still online
at http://www.indialegallive.com/top-news-of-the-day/news/sc-dismisses-sexual-harassment-plea-by-lawyer-says-come-under-art-226-43076 The fact that this news website owned by
Lawyer Pradeep Rai has failed to remove or correct this news report establishes
that this misrepresentation of court proceedings of this Hon’ble Court is
deliberate, intentional and motivated and intended to smear the appellant and
to cover up her complaint of sexual harassment against Raian Karanjawala and
her complaint of sexual harassment, sexual assault, and attempted rape against
Soli Sorabjee and has been deliberately published by lawyer Pradeep Rai at the
behest of Raian Karanjawala and Soli Sorabjee and their friends/ acolytes. The
publication of this news report and its continued publication even after this
website was informed of its inaccuracy clearly amounts to a deliberate contempt
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.
|
SC dismisses sexual harassment plea by
lawyer, says come under Art 226
January 29, 201872
The Supreme Court bench of Justices Kurian
Joseph and Mohan M Shantanagoudar on Monday (January 29) dismissed an appeal
by a lawyer Seema Sapra, registered with the Bar council of Delhi in which
she had filed a complaint under article 32 of the Constitution against Soli
Sorabjee and Karanjawala for the sexual harassment.
The court decided that the case could not
be heard because there were technical inadequacies. Sapra is a whistle-blower
as well as an advocate and has submitted that nude photos of the lady
advocate have been uploaded on the internet which is in violation of her
fundamental right under the constitution. She has also claimed that a blog
has been created on the web which also defames her.
The bench asked the appellant why she had
come under Article 32 and not gone under Article 226 for violation of her
Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty). The appellant said that she
has not been heard on merits at the high court and therefore by the landmark
judgment which says that when the high court under article 226 does not
listen on merits, the petitioner has right to come under Article 32, she has
done so.
However, the bench was not satisfied with
the arguments presented and dismissed the writ petition and no notice was
issued to the respondents.
The bench also directed that the appellant
has the liberty to file a writ under Article 226 (Power of High Courts to
issue certain writs). The court also asked registry to pay the court fee of
the appellant as she is living hand to mouth.
—India Legal Bureau
|
50.
Both the above reproduced false news reports concerning the appellant’s
writ petitions before this Hon’ble Court are similar in character to the
anonymous blog used to target and smear the appellant. They can also be used to
convey the false impression to other lawyers and the police that this Hon’ble
Court has dismissed the appellant’s sexual harassment writ petition whereas
that matter is still to be listed for hearing. These false news reports can
also be used to convey the false impression to the police and the hench men
being used to target the appellant that this Hon’ble Court has dismissed the
writ petition of the appellant. http://www.indialegallive.com is an online legal news portal read by
lawyers all over India and abroad. Both these false and defamatory news reports
were also posted by this news website on Twitter and on Facebook. Thousands of
lawyers have already read them and have been misled to believe that this
Hon’ble Court has dismissed the appellant’s petition complaining of sexual
harassment while that petition is still to even be listed for hearing before
this Hon’ble Court. Thousands of lawyers have been misled as to the appellant’s
complaint that she is being poisoned by the mocking and false caricature of the
hearing dated 9 February 2018 (in Writ Petition Civil No. 13 of 2018) presented
by this website in its news report dated 9 February 2018. These two news
reports conclusively establish the role of the members of the bar in targeting
the appellant.
51.
The Appellant submits that she is a single woman lawyer whereas the
powerful male lawyers she has accused of sexual harassment (Raian Karanjawala)
and of sexual harassment, sexual assault and attempted rape (Soli Sorabjee) are
very influential lawyers with the ability to use their money, contacts,
friends, access to power, large number of employees, and acolytes to influence
the bar to turn hostile to the appellant. This is common in sexual harassment
complaints and the woman complainant often ends up being destroyed. This is
what has been attempted in the case of the appellant now for almost 7 years.
The #metoo movement in the West that has exposed multiple powerful men in
Hollywood, in US and UK politics and in the media, in sport and in several
other fields over the last six months has been relatively absent in India with
its conservative and misogynist and closed social norms controlled by a strong
patriarchy.
52.
The appellant submits that a woman lawyer who had complained of sexual
harassment at the Hyderabad High Court against some senior advocates was also
harassed, smeared, targeted a3nd defamed by the bar and she ended up dead
either driven to suicide or she was murdered, and her murder passed off as
suicide as is common (see the news report dated 9/7/2000 from the Hindu. The
conspiracy and intent has also been to use the bar to smear and defame the
appellant, to target her viciously, to poison her, to ostracize her and to
eventually eliminate the appellant. The appellant has fought back for justice,
truth and her right to life and she will continue to do so.
|
Online edition of India's National
Newspaper
Sunday, July 09, 2000
Why is harrassment in the legal profession
high? Tolerance of abuse and suffering in silence is the price women pay to
secure their place in the strongly knit hierarchical structure, says KALPANA
KANNABIRAN.
THE issue of sexual harassment in the
workplace is yet again at the centre of debate. This time the focus is on the
legal community and on its resistance to even acknowledge the existence of
the problem, leave alone the will to abide by the statutory norms laid down
in Visakha and Others vs. State of Rajasthan by the Supreme Court in 1997.
Sangeeta Sharma, a young lawyer practising
in Hyderabad committed suicide on June 15 this year. In her suicide note she
named three lawyers as being directly responsible for her death. The cause:
sexual harassment.
One of the lawyers named, the prime
accused, is a senior lawyer who is fairly well known. She had also, prior to
her death, maintained a diary in which she had named several (17) lawyers,
men and women. Many lawyers are upset over these names, although her father
says that Sangeeta has indicated which of these people helped her at various
points. In addition, Sangeeta left behind a letter addressed to the Chairman
of the Bar Council of Andhra Pradesh dated December 1999, complaining of
harassment, but did not submit the letter.
In February 2000, Sangeeta brought her
complaint to Asmita, a women's collective in Secunderabad, but was not
willing to divulge the names of persons involved in public. Before coming to
us, she had spoken about the harassment to fellow lawyers, had been asked to
"forget it" by the relatively senior men and had received support
from a few women. This was not the first time we had received a complaint
from a woman lawyer. There have even been instances of women lawyers being
physically assaulted in the premises of the High Court. Slander and character
assassination have been experiences too common to complain against. And it
was the same problem yet again. The women who brought the complaints were
unwilling to divulge names or were unprepared to fight the issue publicly.
We then sent a letter to the Chairman of
the Bar Council of A.P., that in the light of the frequency of complaints,
the seriousness of the issue and the Supreme Court decision, the code of
conduct of lawyers ought to be amended to specifically include sexual
harassment within the definition of gross misconduct, and set up mechanisms
for dealing with cases, according to the procedure and modalities laid down
by the Supreme Court. We did not receive any response. When we reminded the
Chairman of the Bar Council of our earlier complaint after Sangeeta's death,
we received a reply which said that sexual harassment would fall under the
general definition of professional misconduct or any other misconduct. We
would need to approach the Bar Council of India and ask for a change in the
statute for any specific changes. Meanwhile the investigation into the
allegations made by Sangeeta was in progress. According to press reports, two
people named in the suicide note were arrested and the third, the main accused
had absconded. On June 21, a senior lawyer appearing for the petitioners
moved the High Court and obtained a stay on investigations, which to date has
not been vacated. This is unfortunate, because, adjournment, whether on
counsel's request or resulting from the court's management of work, has
always been an impediment to justice. Further, without going into the merits
of the case, however arbitrary a claim or an accusation, no conclusion can be
reached before the investigation is completed. And courts, over the past 50
years since Independence, surely have to their credit several decisions that
block litigation of this kind whose purpose is to stall investigation and a
possible consequence the watering down of evidence.
Asmita immediately petitioned the National
Human Rights Commission and the National Commission for Women to intervene in
the matter and ensure the progress of investigation, sending them press
clippings and details of the case. The National Commission for Women
responded immediately, with Member Mrs. Shantha Reddy coming to Hyderabad and
conducting an enquiry both on the incident and the general issue of sexual
harassment in the premises of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. She also met
with various women's groups and human rights groups in the city and visited
the family of Sangeeta Sharma.
The lawyers feel cornered and clearly
uncomfortable with being in the glare of adverse publicity. There is, as a
consequence, a concerted attempt to police women who are willing to speak
about the problem, or those who see that there is a problem. The argument is
that this is an internal matter that concerns the profession and must not be
discussed in public. It is something that must be "managed" from
within.
On another track is the assertion that
Sangeeta was of unsound mind, which is why she committed suicide. She lacked
courage. There are any number of women who have worked with the person she
has named 15 years ago and vociferously vouch for his good conduct. There are
other accounts that men in the profession give most readily about how this is
really a "woman's problem" (although "problem" does not
adequately capture the nuances of the Telugu word godava), because some women
apparently are going around talking about how beautiful they were and yet
this person did not so much as make a pass at them, why would he do it to
someone as nondescript as Sangeeta? With a postscript: See how silly these
women are. There are yet others, "progressive" lawyers, who whisper
between cases: "Was she beautiful?"
While there are mixed reactions to this
entire episode, and the usual slandering and character assassination of
Sangeetha by many of her fellow lawyers, and some women lawyers too, there
are several crucial questions that must be addressed now.
We have been arguing for over two decades
now that the family is no longer a "private space" outside the
reach of the rule of law. Violence, murder (dowry and sati), abetment to
suicide, are all matters that are no longer private or internal matters of
families. They are criminal offences, which will be investigated and
adjudicated in the courts of law, in accordance with due process, so that
there is an opportunity for the aggrieved party to establish and prove guilt.
In this context, where does the argument that complains of a criminal nature
between members of the legal community are "internal to the
community" stand?
Our experience as women in India has been
that the incidence of violence against women (and sexual harassment is a form
of violence) has been highest in closed spaces. Sexual harassment is
particularly high in university campuses, and in professions like the legal
profession, to name a few. Each of these spaces has a clearly hierarchical
structure in which those in subordinate positions are directly dependant for
survival and largesse on those above them, and resistance results directly in
the cutting off of survival options. In the university system, harassment is
particularly high in the science departments (although it is a cause for
concern in the arts and humanities as well) where there is an almost total
dependence of research students on their supervisors. This was an observation
that was made forcefully by several participants at the National Consultation
on Sexual Harassment in University Campuses organised in the Central
University of Hyderabad in January 1999.
Why is harassment in the legal profession
so high and so difficult to speak about? A survey by some law students of
problems faced by women lawyers about a year and a half ago, elicited a
standard response from women lawyers to several questions: "No
Comments". Several have said in private conversation, that not only
would they be thrown out of the office they were working in if they were to
complain about harassment or make an issue of it, but also word would go
around that they have created trouble. Silence and tolerance of abuse is the
price women pay for apprenticeship.
Come to think of it, being in a profession
for women then is not very different from being in marriage, in a family, in
a community. As long as things are smooth, as long as women conform and are
acquiescent, there is no problem. Even if you do not submit, if you are
silent about the pressure on you or someone you know, you are safe. "No
Comments" then, is an important strategy for survival. Interestingly,
there is a clear divergence between the views of junior women lawyers and
seniors. In the depositions before the NCW member, chaos broke out when
juniors asserted the existence of sexual harassment while seniors denied it.
An easy and complacent explanation that men often give each other is that
women are after all women's worst enemies. The present instance has been no
exception.
In the course of defending the person
accused of harassing Sangeeta, his supporters have said that Sangeeta was of
unsound mind. This is a familiar plea taken in almost all dowry death cases.
Two questions immediately come to my mind. What proof is there of the fact
that Sangeeta was mentally unsound, considering that the presumption in law
is of soundness of mind with contrary requiring proof? And, if she was, does
that automatically disqualify her from bringing a charge of sexual
harassment? Further, does this imply that women who are of unsound mind
cannot be sexually harassed? What is clear is that whether or not Sangeeta
was mentally sound, she was consistent in her complaint of sexual harassment
over a period of a year, and she was consistent in fixing responsibility.
That presumably is sufficient ground for investigation. The accusation of
insanity is an instrument of social control. In the present instance, it is
one important way of policing women into silence.
To come to the next question. The legal
profession, like every other profession, perhaps far more than any other
profession, mirrors the cleavages, fissures and conflicts in society. Caste
and community are important markers. These were not absent in the issue
surrounding Sangeeta's suicide. One of the first issues that were raised by
several lawyers was that this is an attempt by a Brahmin woman to take her
revenge on a "lower caste" man. This track had to be abandoned
almost immediately because the person who took up the case on behalf of
Sangeeta's family is a well-known and respected Dalit intellectual and activist
while the lawyer for the defendant is an equally well-known upper caste
lawyer. Just this presents to us significant intersections of caste, gender
and power. But that apart, the fact that a charge of vindictiveness arising
from caste was made alone is enough to tell us that the legal profession is
not one homogenous, unitary, internally coherent, consensual
"community." Add to this the fact that although women qualify in
equal proportions to men at the entry point of professional courses (this is
particularly true of the premier institutions imparting legal education in
the country today), there is a progressive decline in the number of women as
one moves up the hierarchy. Parallel to this is the progressive decline of
professionals as one moves down in the caste hierarchy. Is it unreasonable
then to say that the social profile of the self appointed guardians of honour
in the legal profession is predetermined, far from representative, and their
capacity to deliver justice severely prejudiced to begin with. differences of
interest (particularly political), power, caste, community, gender and a
contestation for power along each of these lines will determine whose
interests will be "managed," by whom when a complaint of sexual
harassment is brought before a community that believes it can govern itself.
Finally, all these arguments are, after a
point, irrelevant. The Supreme Court, after careful consideration, and
protracted deliberations, reached the conclusion way back in 1997, that in
"the absence of enacted law to provide for the effective enforcement of
the basic human right of gender equality and guarantee against sexual
harassment and abuse particularly against sexual harassment at workplaces, we
lay down the guidelines and norms specified hereinafter for due observance at
the workplaces and other institutions, until a legislation is enacted for the
purpose. This is done in exercise of the power available under Article 32 of
the Constitution for the enforcement of the fundamental rights and it is
further emphasised that this would be treated as the law declared by this
Court under Article 141 of the Constitution." Can the Bar Council of
India, and the All India Bar Association please take steps to ensure that the
legal profession abides by the law of the land? The first and most urgent
step being the amendment of the statute with reference to the code of conduct
and devising formal mechanisms to deal with complaints and their formal
adoption by all branches and units across the country.
Copyright © 2000 The Hindu
|
53.
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.
54.
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.
55.
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 over a period of three years. 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.
56.
Mr Mukul Rohatgi’s relative, 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.
57.
A very large group of lawyers have 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. These
lawyers have orchestrated and participated in the social and professional
ostracization of the Petitioner for 5 years within the community of legal
professionals. This group of lawyers has participated in hostile behaviour toward
the petitioner which has demeaned, denigrated and dehumanized the petitioner.
These lawyers 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. The appellant has been
subjected to a social and professional boycott by the lawyer community for
almost 6 years. A group of powerful lawyers with great
standing and influence in the Bar have basically acted as a Khap Panchayat and
decided that the appellant should be destroyed for daring to make whistle-blower
complaints against General Electric Company, for daring to aggressively pursue
her whistle-blower petition before the Delhi High Court including exposing
lawyers involved in attempts to sabotage that case by filing forged documents
and by enabling perjury. This group of powerful lawyers with great standing and
influence in the Bar have basically acted as a Khap Panchayat and decided that
the appellant should be destroyed for daring to make public complaints of
sexual harassment against Raian Karanjawala and of sexual harassment, sexual
assault and attempted rape against Soli Sorabjee.
58.
The Appellant submits that she has a reasonable apprehension of bias
against Mr Vikas Singh who has been appointed as amicus in this matter. The
Appellant does not personally know Mr Vikas Singh and has never really
interacted with him, Sometime in January
2018, the Appellant met Mr Vikas Singh in the Delhi High Court and tried to
speak to him about the Writ Petition she has filed in the Supreme Court of
India on 11 January 2018 (filing diary number 1377 of 2018) seeking redress of
her complaints of sexual harassment against Raian Karanjawala and sexual
harassment, sexual assault and attempted rape against Soli Sorabjee. Mr Vikas
Singh was very brusque with the Appellant and tried to avoid speaking to her.
When the Appellant persisted, he was forced to listen to the two sentences the
Appellant spoke telling her that she had filed such a petition. When the
Appellant asked him for his email ID so that she could send him a copy of the writ
petition he refused to provide that and told the Appellant to send it to the
SCBA.
59.
Mr Vikas Singh is the current President of the executive committee of
the SCBA. He has won the SCBA election with the support of lawyers. The lawyers
targeting me are influential members of the SCBA. They can use the SCBA to
influence Mr Vikas Singh. Hundreds of SCBA lawyers can be directly influenced
by the powerful lawyers targeting me. Several SCBA lawyers have targeted me.
Some have even participated in targeting me with poisonous chemicals on Supreme
Court premises either themselves or by using their juniors, interns, clerks and
even clients. Some members of the new SCBA executive committee have directly
targeted me on Supreme Court premises. These include Mr Chandra Shekhar Ashri,
an associate of whose has been having the petitioner poisoned with chemical
agents and has himself targeted the appellant with chemical agents. These also
include Mr Pijush Kanti Roy whose court clerk has been targeting the Appellant
on Supreme Court premises. Past SCBA committee members who are targeting the
appellant include Ms Kumud Lata Das and Ms Arna Das. Mr Pravin Parekh’s clerk
has been targeting the Appellant in the Delhi High Court. Lawyers working with
Mr Lalit Bhasin have been targeting the Appellant in the Delhi High Court. Three
past Presidents of the SCBA, Mr Pravin Parekh, Mr Dushyant Dave and Mr R S Suri
have failed to support the appellant over the last seven years despite repeated
appeals. Mr Dushyant Dave refuses to even speak to the appellant, even though
she has briefed him on multiple occasions in the past. All three have
participated in targeting the appellant.
60.
Mr Soli Sorabjee was recently treated with great respect at an SCBA
function, even though the SCBA knows about the appellant’s sexual harassment,
sexual assault and attempted rape complaints against Soli Sorabjee, and even
though multiple women lawyers have privately told me they “know” or have
“heard” about Sorabjee’s misbehaviour and sexual harassment of other women
lawyers. When the sexual predatory behaviour of Soli Sorabjee is common
knowledge in the Bar, why is the SCBA still honouring Sorabjee and refusing to
even acknowledge the appellant’s complaints? See the Indian Express news report
dated 31 January 2018 reproduced below. The Appellant submits that she would
not even be welcome at an SCBA function, even though she too is a lawyer. In
fact if the Appellant had even wanted to attend this function, she is certain
that she would have been stopped/ prevented by the SCBA executive committee.
|
The Indian Express
Judges’ day out, this time King Lear,
Bengali sweets paper the cracks
At a high tea that followed the launch of
the SCBA Times, the newsletter of the Supreme Court Bar Association, eleven
judges, including the CJI, showed up.
Written by Ananthakrishnan G | New Delhi |
Updated: January 31, 2018 11:20 am
From the time four of its most senior
judges publicly questioned the conduct of the Chief Justice of India, all
eyes have been on the Supreme Court, its judges have been under the spotlight
like never before in recent years. But Tuesday afternoon was different.
There was bonhomie over tea, complete with
conversations on King Lear and Bengali sweets — a marked departure from the
acrimony that has followed the January 12 press conference where Justices J Chelameswar,
Ranjan Gogoi, Madan Lokur and Kurian Joseph targeted Chief Justice of India
Dipak Misra.
At a high tea that followed the launch of
the SCBA Times, the newsletter of the Supreme Court Bar Association, eleven
judges, including the CJI, showed up. So did Law Minister Ravi Shankar
Prasad. Finance Minister Arun Jaitley, whose name was mentioned in the
invitation, did not turn up. Nor did Justices Chelameswar and Gogoi. Also
absent was Justice Arun Mishra.
Justice Joseph was the first judge to reach
the venue. And when he walked in, CJI Misra shook hands with both Justices
Joseph and Lokur.
After the release of the newsletter, all
headed for tea where Minister Prasad asked TV camerapersons to leave them
alone. Justice Joseph, who joined him at the table with other judges, had
everyone smiling, laughing when he said: “They want to see us eating
together.”
Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra (Right)
shakes hand with Justice Kurian Joseph at SCBA event. (Source:
Ananthakrishnan)
Prasad engaged Justice Joseph in a
conversation on Bengali sweets. CJI Misra called Justice Lokur, who arrived
with jurist Soli Sorabjee, to take a seat. Known for his love of literature,
the CJI was heard discussing King Lear with Sorabjee while Justice D Y
Chandrachud sat beside him, enjoying a samosa.
Justice Joseph was heard asking Sorabjee:
“Between you and Fali, who is older?” Pause later, he repeated the question.
Sorabjee said he was 87. At this, Prasad exclaimed, “You are 87?” and then
added that (former Attorney General) K Parasaran was 91. He told Justice
Joseph he had recently been to the Bahamas for a meeting of law ministers and
felt proud when he heard people praising the Indian judiciary.
Earlier, speaking at the launch of the
newsletter, CJI Misra said: “Somebody wrote a book ‘I’m opinionated’. Most
welcome. There is a saying in English, do not perpendicularise yourself,
meaning thereby when you write I, it means egotism. It means egoism. It means
self alone. But everybody has a right to say I’m opinionated. That’s his
opinion and, therefore, I must say SCBA Times proclaims, announces and states
with authority, I have the right of freedom to speak and also express. For
that also, I congratulate the editors.”
Prasad asked the SCBA and its president,
senior advocate Vikas Singh, if the journal could start a debate on the need
for simultaneous Lok Sabha and assembly polls.
“Can your journal provoke a debate, a
purely Constitutional one, whether we should have simultaneous elections in
the entire country? I don’t wish to make any political comments. But just now
we had two state elections — Gujarat and Himachal Pradesh… we are also going
to have elections in Tripura and Meghalaya. Thereafter, we are going to have
elections in Karnataka. After two months, we are going to have elections in
Chhattisgarh, Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh. And three months thereafter, we
are going to have elections… to Lok Sabha.”
“Every year, we have five, six, seven… and
I’m not speaking of municipal elections. Every election entails heavy expenditure.
Once the model code of conduct comes, then there is the problem of not taking
any action. So many security personnel are involved in ensuring free and fair
elections,” he said.
Prasad said people have respect for the
judiciary and Supreme Court. “And one thing I definitely see: the respect the
people of the country have for the judiciary and the kind of respect people
of India have for this great institution, the Supreme Court of India.”
http://indianexpress.com/article/india/supreme-court-crisis-judges-day-out-this-time-king-lear-bengali-sweets-paper-the-cracks-5045540/
|
61.
The petitioner has repeatedly appealed to the SCBA for support and help
over the last 5 years, however all her appeals have been ignored.
62.
The Appellant is standing alone on the side of truth and seeking
justice. Standing on the other side is a huge battery of very powerful lawyers
and their acolytes. Plus there is the might and influence of General Electric
Company and the might of the Indian State.
63.
The Petitioner states that as a senior counsel, Mr Vikas Singh will need
to maintain cordial relations with the powerful lobby of lawyers targeting the
appellant. He will not risk alienating those powerful lawyers for the sake of
the appellant who he does not even know personally. It is too much to expect
that anyone, even Mr Vikas Singh will stand up to the pressure from GE, from
the Indian Government and from powerful lawyers to present the evidence of GE
corruption and its cover-up before this Hon’ble Court. The Appellant submits
that Mr Vikas Singh will also not be aware of the full facts, as the appeal
record does not contain the full facts. In fact, even the Delhi High Court
record in Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/2012 does not contain the full facts.
Only the appellant has personal knowledge of the complete relevant facts in
this matter.
64.
The appellant has a reasonable apprehension of bias against any amicus
appointed in this matter. This is because the appellant has studied corporate
whistle-blower cases worldwide and in all such cases, the whistle-blower’s own
lawyers are used to sabotage the case and to target the whistle-blower.
65.
The appellant has a reasonable apprehension of bias against Mr Vikas
Singh based upon the influence of the powerful lawyers targeting the appellant. The appellant
apprehends that Mr Vikas Singh 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. Mr Vikas Singh 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. Mr Vikas Singh 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 Mr Vikas Singh will be influenced by Mr Soli Sorabjee, Mr Arun Jaitley, Mr
Mukul Rohatgi, Mr Raian Karanjawala, Mr A S Chandhiok and other lawyers.
66.
Mr Vikas Singh was appointed as ASG by the UPA Government that was
involved in the Marhowra Project scam favouring General Electric Company. Only
lawyers with political affiliations are appointed as ASGs. Recently, Mr Vikas
Singh has appeared as counsel for BJP leaders.
67.
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.
68.
In fact, the involvement of Mr Vikas Singh 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 using
Mr Vikas Singh either wittingly or unwittingly.
69.
For these reasons, the appellant prays that this Hon’ble Court recall
its order dated 7 February 2018 appointing Mr Vikas Singh in this matter as
amicus.
70.
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.
71.
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.
72.
Involvement of any lawyer as amicus in this matter will violate the appellant’s
right to a fair and full hearing and her right to natural justice in this
appeal. It will also result in the denial of justice to the appellant.
73.
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/.
74.
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 nights as well
(intervening night of 22 and 23 February 2018 and on the intervening night of
23-24 February 2018). 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. This can only happen at the behest of these powerful lawyers
acting under the protection of the Police.
75.
The Appellant again reiterates that the most appropriate course of
action would be for this Hon’ble Court to issue notice to the Attorney General
if the Court needs assistance.
76.
The Appellant also submits that the record of the present appeal before
this Hon’ble Court establishes that a man named K R Radhakrishnan was used to
unlawfully impersonate as the authorized signatory of General Electric Company
and of its two Indian subsidiaries and to file unauthorized and false
affidavits. The authority documents produced on his behalf were invalid and
fraudulent and possibly forged. Offences of unlawful impersonation in court
proceedings, perjury, forgery, obstruction of justice and fraud on the Delhi
High Court were committed and these facts are before this Hon’ble Court and are
relevant facts for the purposes of the present appeal. These facts establish
that the appellant is a whistle-blower and the lawyers who purported to appear
for the three GE companies before the Delhi High Court in Writ Petition Civil
No. 1280/2012 were used to sabotage those judicial proceedings and false,
unauthorized and perjurious affidavits were filed for General Electric Company
and its two Indian subsidiaries.
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 7 February 2018 appointing Senior Advocate Mr
Vikas Singh as amicus in this matter;
(ii)
Record/ clarify that the appellant has not consented to the appointment
of Mr Vikas Singh as amicus in this matter, and that the appellant strongly
objects to this appointment;
(iii)
Record the appellant’s submission that she objects to any lawyer or
amicus being appointed or being asked to present her case or submissions in
this appeal or to report to this Hon’ble Court on the appellant’s circumstances,
or to represent the appellant or her case in this appeal in any manner or to
appear for her or to speak on her behalf or in her absence in this case;
(iv)
Issue formal notice as per rules, protocol and practice in suo moto
contempt matters to the office of the Attorney General of India;
(v)
Grant the appellant, a qualified lawyer, a full and fair hearing in this
matter as appellant in person, in accordance with the principles of natural
justice and due process guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution
of India;
(vi)
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: 24/02/2018
FILED ON: 24/02/2018
IN THE
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
I.A. NO. OF 2018
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 7 February 2018 appointing Mr Vikas Singh, 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 24th day of February 2018.
DEPONENT
No comments:
Post a Comment