Submitting public petition for suo moto cognizance for the DHFL Scam and the problems of security of the decision-makers: a letter to the Chief Justice of India

Posted on 11/08/2021

|| यतो धर्मस्ततो जय: ||

DEDICATED TO LATE UTTAM ANAND

ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DHANBAD, WAS KNOCKED DOWN BY AN AUTORICKSHAW 28^TH 

JULY WHEN HE WAS JOGGING IN THE MORNING

“The investigating agencies do not respond when judges complain about threats… In one or two places, the court ordered CBI inquiry. It is very sorry to say that CBI has done nothing in more than one year. At one place, I know, CBI has done nothing. I think we have expected some changes in CBI’s attitude. But there is no change in the attitude of CBI. I am sorry to observe this but this is the situation.” – Sri Nuthalapati Venkata Ramana

Dhanbad Judge Death: CBI, IB Not Helping Judiciary, Says SC As It Issues Notice To Probe Agency  VIEW HERE ⤡  (As reported on 9^th August, 2021 ©The Leaflet)          

Institutional need to create a safe environment for judicial officers: SC VIEW HERE ⤡ (As reported on 6^th August, 2021 ©The Outlook)           

TO

Sri Nuthalapati Venkata Ramana,

The Honourable Chief Justice,

The Supreme Court of India

Sub: Submitting public petition for suo moto cognizance for the DHFL Scam and  the problems of security of the decision-makers

Dear Mr. Ramana,

With reference to our letter⤡ dated 22^nd July, 2021, we are herewith submitting the public petition for relieving DHFL victims from the catastrophic financial abuse as described in the previous letter to you.

An Appeal for Suo Moto Cognizance for the Victims of the DHFL Scam (24^th July, 2021)

We are appealing to your kind self for deploying Suo Moto Cognizance for the benefit of the helpless, anguished DHFL Scam victims, whose human rights are infringed. They cannot afford the cost of the legal cases. They are not so rich to reach your space of justice.

However, we are more concerned with “other” variables (in the context of monopoly and crony anti-green military-industrial society⤡) that not only influence the judgement but also hamper you and your family’s safety.   As one of the undersigned is a prematurely retired central government gazetted officer, he had undergone the same experience. Safety, security and even justice for the decision-makers are at stake.

On the other hand, the victims in this context of this DHFL Scam⤡ are either scared to participate in the digital non-violent civil disobedience movement (may be they [many of them are senior citizens] are not tech-savvy) following successful contemporary generation Z’s  digital movements, (e.g., Stop Adani Movement in Austrelia⤡, Occupy Wall street Movement⤡, Telangana Mahila Congress’ postcard campaign⤡ etc.) or cannot afford to pay the cost of expensive legal cases. They cannot cross many doorkeepers (as mentioned in Franz Kafka’s novel “The Trial”, Chapter 9) before appealing to you. Furthermore, the deadly pandemic situation makes their pecuniary condition more than worse.

Moreover, some persons are eager to fish in the troubled water by mediating redundant untimely legal cases—most of the cases were naturally disposed off. We are reiterating here Mahatma Gandhi’s enunciation regarding judiciary:  

 “I have no desire to convince you that they (lawyers) have never done a single good thing…That the Congress owes the lawyers something is believable. Lawyers are also men, and there is something good in every man. Whenever instances of lawyers having done good can be brought forward, it will be found that the good is due to them as men rather than as lawyers. All I am concerned with is to show you that the profession teaches immorality; it is exposed to temptation from which few are saved.

The Hindus and the Mahomedans have quarrelled. An ordinary man will ask them to forget all about it; he will tell them that both must be more or less at fault, and will advise them no longer to quarrel. But they go to lawyers. The latter’s duty is to side with their clients and to find out ways and arguments in favour of the clients to which they (the clients) are often strangers. If they do not do so they will be considered to have degraded their profession. The lawyers, therefore, will, as a rule, advance quarrels instead of repressing them. Moreover, men take up that profession, not in order to help others out of their miseries, but to enrich themselves. It is one of the avenues of becoming wealthy and their interest exists in multiplying disputes. It is within my knowledge that they are glad when men have disputes. Petty pleaders actually manufacture them. Their touts, like so many leeches, suck the blood of the poor people. Lawyers are men who have little to do. Lazy people, in order to indulge in luxuries, take up such professions. This is a true statement. Any other argument is a mere pretension. It is the lawyers who have discovered that theirs is an honourable profession. They frame laws as they frame their own praises. They decide what fees they will charge and they put on so much side that poor people almost consider them to be heaven-born.

Why do they want more fees than common labourers? Why are their requirements greater? In what way are they more profitable to the country than the labourers? Are those who do good entitled to greater payment ? And, if they have done anything for the country for the sake of money, how shall it be counted as good?

….Those who want to perpetuate their power do so through the courts. If people were to settle their own quarrels, a third party would not be able to exercise any authority over them. Truly, men were less unmanly when they settled their disputes either by fighting or by asking their relatives to decide for them. They became more unmanly and cowardly when they resorted to the courts of law. It was certainly a sign of savagery when they settled their disputes by fighting. Is it any the less so, if I ask a third party to decide between you and me? Surely, the decision of a third party is not always right. The parties alone know who is right. We, in our simplicity and ignorance, imagine that a stranger, by taking our money, gives us justice.”

—Hind Swaraj (1915)

We do not wish to add anything more after such a radical enunciation. For taking a relief, we may look into a popular movie’s (Lage Raho Munna Bhai) clipping for elaborating the above enunciation of Mahatma Gandhi:

We have so far (as on 11/08/2021, at 10:50 am) gathered only 367 signatures out of 77 thousands DHFL FD-holders. However, in democracy, numbers matter. In response to such proposition, we wish to cite Socrates’ dialogue with Crito, when Socrates was sentenced to death by the virtue of majority’s decision:

Socrates: But why, my dear Crito, should we care about the opinion of the many? Good men, and they are the only persons who are worth considering, will think of these things truly as they happened.

Crito. But do you see, Socrates, that the opinion of the many must be regarded, as is evident in your own case, because they can do the very greatest evil to anyone who has lost their good opinion.

Socrates: I only wish, Crito, that they could; for then they could also do the greatest good, and that would be well. But the truth is, that they can do neither good nor evil: they cannot make a man wise or make him foolish; and whatever they do is the result of chance.

However, Socrates got justice 2,400 years after his death by consuming hemlock. Justice delayed, justice denied?

Not guilty: Socrates narrowly acquitted 2,400 years after death VIEW HERE ⤡ (As reported on 26^th May, 2012 ©RT Question More) 

This type of reverting back of the older judgment has also been observed in the inquisition of Galileo, when the Vatican City rectified them:

After 350 Years, Vatican Says Galileo Was Right: It Moves VIEW HERE ⤡ (As reported on 31^st October, 1992 © The New York Times)  

Keeping in mind the famous dictum: “International law is the vanishing point of jurisprudence“, may we then save our souls by taking our recourse to international law on the ground of universal human rights at the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR)?

Source: United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, OHCHR (p. 27), Foundational Principle (A), Access to Remedy (25)

Amazon scores big win as India court stalls Future’s $3.4 bln retail deal VIEW HERE ⤡ (As reported on August 06, 2021 ©Reuters)

Supreme Court Stops Big Bazaar-Reliance Deal Worth Rs 24,000 Crore; Big Victory For Amazon? VIEW HERE ⤡ (As reported on Feb 23, 2021 ©Trak.in)

As Amazon has got relieved from a neutral arbitrator, may we likewise have to take United Nations’ help by losing our faith in the Indian ramshackled judiciary [Judiciary ramshackled, going to court is useless: Ex-CJI Ranjan Gogoi  VIEW HERE ⤡ (As reported on 14th February,  2021) © The Indian Express]? 

We are ashamed of the repeated intervention of international courts, e.g., Vodafone⤡ and Cairn’s⤡ cases.

Yours Sincerely,

Dr. Debaprasad Bandyopadhyay

Mrs. Rupa Bandyopadhyay

Mr. Akhar Bandyopadhyay

ON BEHALF OF ALL ANGUISHED, AILING DHFL FD HOLDERS  [USUAL DISCLAIMERS APPLY]

बहुजनहिताय बहुजनसुखाय च॥

(“For the happiness of the many, for the welfare of the many”)