INDIA’S NO. 1 WHISTLE-BLOWER SUGGEST SOLUTION FOR INDIAN JUDICIAL FIGHTS
INDIA’S NO. 1 WHISTLE-BLOWER SUGGEST SOLUTION FOR INDIAN JUDICIAL FIGHTS
Hussain Mueen Farooq. ANTI CORRUPTION COUNCIL OF INDIA(Chairman). The name pronounce and stands for justice in his battle to fight against corruption he has brought to the book of central bureau of investigation and anti corruption bureau of all states in india. By way of getting legal traps and exposing corrupt officials, legislators, parliamentarians and most of the corrupt judges in the country.
For the past 20 years he has engaged war against corruption in the country without surprising having invited many enemies in his task fighting against corruption. His duty towards fighting against corruption ended up threat to his life according to the state and central intelligence report he has constant life threat presently he has been provided Y category round clock gun man security by the honorable high court of karnataka. He is also recognized by Dr. N. Santosh Hegde former lokayukta of karnataka state and present director general and inspector general of police. Sri R. K. Dutta the honorable high court of karnataka in the bench of former justice Jagannath was also observed that in several judgement and orders that Shri Hussain Mueen Farooq was an instrument in assisting the C.B.I in several cases. Further the court observes that Sri Hussain Mueen Farooq is an agent of C.B.I. The other words he can call as informer of C.B.I.
When our editor questioned Hussain Mueen Farooq on ongoing judicial mockery between the inferior court and superior court in india. he has shared his opinion referring to THE JUDGES (Inquiry act 1968) dated 5th December 1958.
An act to regulate the proceeders for the investigation and proof of misbehavior or incapacity of a judge of the supreme court or of a high courts and for the presentation of an address by the parliament to the president and for matters connected their with.
Be it an acted by parliament in the 19 year of the republic of india as follows:-
- Short title and commencement
(1) this act maybe called the judges enquiry act 1968
(2) It shall come in to force on such date as the central government may, by notification in its official gazette, appoint.
- Definition — in this act, unless the context otherwise requires, –
(A) “Chairman” means the Chairman of the council of states;
(B) “Committee” means a committee constituted under section 3;
(C) “Judge” means a judge of supreme court or of a high court and includes the chief justice of india and the chief justice of a high court;
(D) “Prescribed” means prescribed by rules made under this act;
(E) “Speaker” means the speaker of the house of the people;
(3) Investigation into misbehavior of in capacity of judge by committee. –
(1) If notice is given of a motion for presenting an address to the president praying for the removal of a judge signed, –
(a) in the case of a notice given in the House of the people, by not less than one hundred members of that house;
(b) in the case of a notice given in the council of states, by not less than fifty members of that council;
Then the speaker or, as the case may be, the Chairman may, after consulting such persons, if any, as he think fit and after considering such materials, if any, as may be available to him, either admit the motion of refuse to admit the same.
(2) if the motion referred to in sub-section (1) is admitted, the speaker or, as soon as may be, for the purpose of making an investigation
Into the ground on which the removal of a judge is prayed for, a Committee consisting of three members of whom–
(a) one shall be chosen from among the Chief Justice and other judges of the supreme court;
(b) one shall be chosen from among the Chief Justice of the High Courts;
(c) one shall be person who is, in the opinion of the speaker or, as the case may be, the Chairman, a distinguished jurist;
Provide that where notice of a motion referred to in sub-section (1) are given on the same day in both House, the Committee shall be constituted jointly by the speaker and the chairman;
Provide further that where notice of a motion as been admitted in both Houses and where such
motion has been admitted in both Houses, the Committee
shall be constituted jointly by the Speaker and the Chairman:
Provided further that where notices of a motion as aforesaid
are given in the Houses of Parliament on different dates, the
notice which is given later shall stand rejected.(3) The Committee shall frame definite charges against the
Judge on the basis of which the investigation is proposed to
(4) Such charges together with a statement of the grounds on
which each such charge is based shall be communicated to
the Judge and he shall be given a reasonable opportunity of
presenting a written statement of defence within such time as
may be specified in this behalf by the Committee.
(5) Where it is alleged that the Judge is unable to discharge the
duties of his office efficiently due to any physical or mental
incapacity and the allegation is denied, the Committee may
arrange for the medical examination of the Judge by such
Medical Board as may be appointed for the purpose by the
Speaker or, as the case may be, the Chairman or, where the
Committee is constituted jointly by the Speaker and the Chairman, by both of them, for the purpose and the Judge
shall submit himself to such medical examination within the
time specified in this behalf by the Committee.
(6) The Medical Board shall undertake such medical
examination of the Judge as may be considered necessary
and submit a report to the Committee stating therein whether
the incapacity is such as to render the Judge unfit to continue
(7) If the Judge refuses to undergo medical examination
considered necessary by the Medical Board, the Board shall
submit a report to the Committee stating therein the
examination which the Judge has refused to undergo, and
the Committee may, on receipt of such report, presume that
the Judge suffers from such physical or mental incapacity as
is alleged in the motion referred to in sub-section (1).
(8) The Committee may, after considering the written statement
of the Judge and the medical report, if any, amend the
charges framed under sub-section (3) and in such a case,
the Judge shall be given a reasonable opportunity of
presenting a fresh written statement of defence.
(9) The Central Government may, if required by the Speaker or
the Chairman , or both, as the case may be, appoint an
advocate to conduct the case against the Judge.
(4) Report of Committee.–
(1) Subject to any rules that may be made in this behalf, the
Committee shall have power to regulate its own procedure in
making the investigation and shall give a reasonable
opportunity to the Judge of cross-examining witnesses,
adducing evidence and of being heard in his defence.
(2) At the conclusion of the investigation, the Committee shall
submit its report to the Speaker or, as the case may be, to the Chairman, or where the Committee has been constituted jointly by the Speaker and the Chairman, to both of them, stating therein its findings on each of the charges separately
with such observations on the whole case as it thinks fit.
(3) The Speaker or the Chairman, or, where the Committee has been constituted jointly by the Speaker and the Chairman, both of them, shall cause the report submitted under subsection (2) to be laid, as soon as may be, respectively before the House of the People and the Council of States.
(5) Powers of Committee.– For the purpose of making any investigation under this Act,
the Committee shall have the powers of a civil court, while
trying a suit, under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in
respect of the following matters, namely :-
(a) summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person and
examining him on oath;
(b) requiring the discovery and production of documents;
(c) receiving evidence on oath;
(d) issuing commissions for the examination of witnesses or
(e) such other matters as may be prescribed.
(6) Consideration of report and procedure for presentation of an
address for removal of Judge.–
(1) If the report of the Committee contains a finding that the Judge is not guilty of any misbehavior or does not suffer from any incapacity, then, no further steps shall be taken in either House of Parliament in relation to the report and the motion pending in the House or the Houses of Parliament
shall not be proceeded with.
(2) If the report of the Committee contains a finding that the Judge is guilty of any misbehavior or suffers from any incapacity, then, the motion referred to in sub-section (1) of section 3 shall, together with the report of the Committee, be taken up for consideration by the House or the Houses of Parliament in which it is pending.
(3) If the motion is adopted by each House of Parliament in accordance with the provisions of clause (4) of article 124 or, as the case may be , in accordance with the clause read with article 218 of the Constitution, then, the misbehavior or incapacity of the Judge shall be deemed to have been
proved and an address praying for the removal of the Judge shall be presented in the prescribed manner to the President by each House of Parliament in the same session in which the motion has been adopted.
(7) Power to make rules.–
(1) There shall be constituted a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament in accordance with the provisions hereinafter contained for the purpose of making rules to carry out the purposes of this Act.
(2) The Joint Committee shall consist of fifteen members of whom ten shall be nominated by the Speaker and five shall be nominated by the Chairman.
(3) The Joint Committee shall elect its own Chairman and shall have power to regulate its own procedure.
(4) Without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of subsection (1), the Joint Committee may make rules to provide for the following among other matters, namely :-
(a) the manner of transmission of a motion adopted in one
House to the other House of Parliament;
(b) the manner of presentation of an address to the President for
the removal of a Judge;
(c) the traveling and other allowances payable to the members of the Committee and the witnesses who may be required to
attend such Committee;
(d) the facilities which may be accorded to the Judge for defending himself;
(e) any other matter which has to be, or may be, provided for by rules or in respect of which provision is, in the opinion of the Joint Committee, necessary.
(5) Any rules made under this section shall not take effect until
they are approved and confirmed both by the Speaker and the Chairman and are published in the Official Gazette, and such publication of the rules shall be conclusive proof that they have been duly made.
If the issue of the judiciary is not sorted out at the intervention of his excellency the president of india then days are near where country will end up in civil war. The other option is our honorable supreme court has empowered to try international arbitration. In view of this, the matter can be referred to international court of justice to avoid such mockery situation in the country in the interest of justice and equity for the people of India who has fully faith in the Indian judiciary system.