Skip to content

Rahul Gandhi… articles on the net

August 15, 2010

http://www.r2iclubforums.com/forums/showthread.php/14301-Rahul-Gandhi/page2

First of all Rahul’s full portfolio here:
http://www.nilacharal.com/enter/celeb/Rahul-Gandhi.asp

Now to some comments..

Given his position where he is a son of Sonia Gandhi, he could have easily become a deputy prime minister but he rejected even a small ministry in the present govt.

This is termed as Power without Responsibilities. When you can use country’s resources as you wish, control things as you want, without having to really ‘work’ by taking a minister post, why wouldn’t you? Ruling by proxy is the most efficient way. I was hearing a speech by Donald Trump once which was highlighting the benefit of leveraging assets without actually owning them, I thought of Gandhi family, particularly Rahul & Sonia.

Quote Originally Posted by LoveIndia View Post
He has balance, energy, understand the local issues, always travels to rural areas (Tribal), bachelor who has time to spend with full commitment and brings atleast a few solution to take care of the issues, …

Since you brought the bachelor stuff, this is termed as Pleasure without responsibilities. When he gets what he wants in private life without making any commitment, a.k.a., marriage as they call in Indian tradition, why bother?

And if I may take a step further & recount the dynasty’s drool over white women..

After all Great Grand Father drooled over a married white women when the country was being split…

.. and was lighting Edwina’s cigarettes when millions were dying in India due to his highly stupid acceptance of a criminal partition plan, that he even hid from his mentor Mahatma. Lier!

And his father drooled over another White woman after getting drunk in bars.. here pictured getting her Kwality ice cream during those years.

Now our prince-charm is living with his Spanish (not Columbian as he says) GF for years… What’s India’s future dynasty lady’s name? Veronique ‘fake’ Gandhi?

Mum’s the last word!

August 15, 2010

http://www.deccanchronicle.com/tabloids/mum’s-last-word-853

Quick question single ladies — what do you get when you cross an Alpha male with a Mama’s Boy? Ah, any one of your exes, you say? You know this already, you are not alone. Women across the country are wondering what to do when their successful, intelligent, independent, manly-men turn into simpering little boys who need Mummy’s approval. And if mummy says ‘no’, then the fat lady has indeed sung — it’s over.
Take Wadia scion Ness: young, successful, dating one of the few ‘thinking’ actresses in Hindi cinema. But Ms Zinta was kept dangling while Ness tried to win Maureen’s approval. Four years on, Mama’s will prevailed and the relationship went kaput.

Danseuse and interior designer, Vani Ganapathy looks at the situation with cynicism. “I think they just use their mothers as an excuse. They’re either bored or maybe the relationship has not evolved. In the case of celeb men, a lot of hype is built when it is assumed that the mother is not in favour. And the men play along.”

But the stories persist. Ranbir Kapoor showed his heart ultimately belonged to mummy Neetu Kapoor Singh. Neetu apparently believed Deepika Padukone was not ‘ideal bahu’ material for the Kapoor khandaan.

Or arguably India’s most eligible bachelor (with arguably India’s most intimidating potential mother-in-law) politician Rahul Gandhi has rumouredly said ciao to his long-standing Columbian girlfriend because mama Sonia did not approve. “You have to be strong minded to be able to stand up to your family,” says model Raghu Mukherjee. “Guys opt to go with mama’s advice because if things go wrong, they may not get family support and may even be cut off from the inheritance!”

But even self-made men, like our celebrity cricketers are guilty. Cricketer Harbhajan Singh rumouredly introduced actress Geeta Basra to his parents. But that’s over and Bhajji has gone public saying he’ll get married soon because his mum wants a bahu.

Awww. Yuvraj Singh may have been nuts about Kim Sharma but when mama Shabnam tut-tutted about her, that relationship was stumped. And they’re both following cricketer Rahul Dravid’s footsteps who allegedly dated actress Raveena Tandon but refused to acknowledge the relationship because mama Dravid didn’t like his filmy alliances.

The million dollar question is: what makes grown-up successful men go running back to mummy when it comes to matters of the heart? Echoing the psychological core of hours of saas-bahu soaps, Dr Anand Rao, clinical psychologist says — having helicoptered over their education, wardrobes and lives, most mothers want to retain emotional control. A daughter-in-law not chosen by them is perceived as a threat. “They resort to emotional blackmail and usually, these sons are too strongly attached to their mothers and often given into their demands.”

It’s in the DNA, ladies, like it or lump it. When you’re being wooed with the mere paas gadi hai, bungalow hai, bank balance hai line,’ what you need to really listen for is the quietly whispered ‘mere paas maa hai.’

My girlfriend is Spanish: Rahul Gandhi

August 15, 2010

My girlfriend is Spanish: Rahul Gandhi

http://www.expressindia.com/news/fullstory.php?newsid=30839
Vrinda Gopinath
Posted online: Wednesday, April 28, 2004 at 1151 hours IST
Updated: Thursday, April 29, 2004 at 1427 hours IST

Amethi, April 28: Rahul Gandhi may have just got himself a new job. The fifth-generation heir of the Nehru-Gandhi dynasty is all set to become a parliamentarian from Amethi and the excitement and anxiety is palpable.

Campaigning is over, the day of reckoning has come. However, Rahul would like the world to believe he is only serving his dharma. “I don’t care if I win or lose this election,” he says, sitting in his garden, as rain clouds gather over Amethi.”I am here as a sensible, responsible Indian, because I want to help people get on track, from being distracted by dangerous issues like religious and caste hatred.”

But is he surprised at the Rahul effect.

“Obviously something is very wrong if a 33-year-old can just pop up and get this kind of attention. If the BJP had done well, I would not have got this response.”While Rahul launches into a soliloquy on trade and economics (like “wherever we’ve succeeded is despite the Government”), guess which industry Rahul is looking to revive? Following in the footprints of his father and uncle, it is none other than the automobile industry. “It is where a lot of jobs lie,” he says.

He says he has learnt his lessons of humility from the working class ethics of England. “I could have joined politics soon after my father died,” explains Rahul, “but I was just 19 and had nothing to offer. I made a commitment to myself, I will do it one day. After studies in the US, I risked my life to do away with my guards to lead a regular life in England…I worked for five years. I’m glad I did it.”

Now that he has rejected the regular job, regular life, what happens to his regular gal? “My girlfriend’s name is Veronique not Juanita,” laughs Rahul, “She is Spanish and not Venezuelan or Colombian. She is an architect not a waitress, though I wouldn’t have had a problem with that. She is also my best friend.” He met her in his university in England.

Has he already proposed to her? “Hmm”, he answers with a huge smile, “I am not sure when I will be settling down.” Would he not be breaking many hearts here? “I hope not a lot of hearts,” he grins, “You cannot make everyone happy.”

Adil Shahryar: Paperwork as in US archives before Presidentrial Clemency by Ronald Regan

August 13, 2010

http://www.archives.gov/news/john-roberts/accession-60-89-0372/doc023.pdf

http://www.archives.gov/news/john-roberts/accession-60-89-0372/doc002.pdf

http://www.archives.gov/news/john-roberts/accession-60-89-0372/doc057.pdf

Memorandum
Subject Date
Correspondence from Charlton Heston August 17, 1982
Concerning Criminal Conviction of
Adil Shahryar
To The Attorney General From John Roberts k
In a letter to you dated August 9, Mr. Heston appealed
to you to look into the federal prosecution of Adil Shahryar,
who is the son of an Indian government official. The official
is a friend of Mr. Heston’s, and Adil himself has been a guest
in the Heston home.
On August 30, 1981, Adil was arrested by state authorities
in Miami for hotel arson. This arrest led federal authorities
to another crime committed by Adil. Briefly, Adil contracted
to ship video tapes from Florida to London. Adil obtained a
shipping container, and a place for it on a vessel, but in lieu
of videotapes filled the container with scrap paper and two
explosive firebombs. The FBI, with a search warrant, discovered
the phony shipment and bombs prior to their placement on board
the ship. The only reason the container was still on the dock
and not on board the ship was because the ship was late
reaching port.
Adil was tried in federal court, before a jury, on five
counts: (1) attempting to firebomb a ship; (2) false statements
on various certificates in connection with the shipment;
(3) mail fraud; (4) making of a firearm (the bombs); and
(5) use of a firearm (the bombs) in the commission of a felony.
The case was airtight: evidence linked Adil to the purchase of
the bomb materials, and he had only an incredible story
attempting to pin the blame on two associates to present in
defense. He was convicted and sentenced, after a sentencing
hearing, to 35 years. The judge indicated he viewed the
attempted firebombing of the ship as very serious. Adil had
what the prosecutor described as a “superb” defense attorney
during the trial, though Adil fired him before the sentencing
hearing. The original state arson charges are still pending
against Adil. The assistant U.S. attorney who tried the
case concluded that Adil was “dangerous and deserves every
day of the 35 years he got.”
The case is very sensitive and has high visibility in
India. Indian officials have already been to see the assistant
U.S. attorney. I have drafted the attached reply to Mr. Heston
for your signature.
Reproduced from the holdings of the:
National Archives & Records Administration
Record Group: 60 Department of Justice
Accession # 60-89-372
Box 30 of 190
Folder: John G. Roberts, Jr. Misc.
2859 COLDWATER CANYON DRIVE, BEVERLY HILLS, CALIFORNIA 90210
August 9, 1982
Dear Mr. Attorney General:
Justice is a complex matter, and perfect justice
is perhaps beyond our reach. That admitted, I nevertheless
bring to your attention a case of which you
may already be aware, that I feel involves a miscarriage
of the American tradition of fair and reasonable
treatment before the law. I do so partly because I
know the young man in question, but also because my
experience in India this July convinced me that a
grave mistake had been made which reflects unfavourably
against the U.S.
The subject is an Indian citizen, Adil Shahryar,
whose father I’ve known well since 1960, when he was
Indian Ambassador to Spain. Adil himself has been a
guest in our home, and we always thought of him as a
fine boy. His father is Mohammed Yunus, a highly respected
member of both of Mrs. Ghandi’s governments,
and a key figure there since before Independence,
when he was a close friend of Mahatma Ghandi. He is
currently chairman of the Trade Fair Authority of
India. Adil’s mother is a professor of Indian history
at the University of Dellhi. We knew the boy when he
was a student here at Berkeley.
Lydia and I have just returned from Delhi, where
we were guests in Mr. Yunus’s home and were shocked
t^ 1 e-irn -hat Adil has been imprisoned in Florida
under a consecutive sentence of thirty five years for
a complicated set of charges involving attempted but
unconsummated arson and fraud. Mr. Yunus believes
his son is totally innocent, as does Adil’s American
lawyer. Of course I can’t make any judgment on his
guilt or innocence. I do feel that the matter deserves
some further attention, and that the sentence is, to
say the least, remarkably harsh. That Adil was
jailed for several months without arraignment, then
held on bail of $1,250,000.00, and that his two
confederates have gone scot-free, is mystifying. Mr.
Yunus has sent me a summary of the matter which I
will enclose with this letter.
Reproduced from the holdings of the:
National Archives & Records Administration
Record Group: 60 Department of Justice
Accession # 60-89-372
Box 30 of 190
Folder: John G. Roberts, Jr. Misc.
CHARLTCIN HESTON 0
I cannot judge the parameters of the case, but I
do know that Adil had two brain operations here in
California, after a motorcycle accident. Once, a
guest in our home, Adil came with his head still in
bandages. Though his prognosis at that time was-not
good, he apparently recovered. Nevertheless, Adil’s
American lawyer, Richard Hammer (who no longer represents
him), insists that Adil was found guilty
because he personally antagonized the judge (Federal
Court Judge J.W. Kehoe) with his arrogant and overbearing
manner. Hammer even found it necessary to
have psychiatric appraisals done. Adil was found
sane, but it’s easy for me to believe that he may
have undergone some drastic mental changes since I
last saw him.
I know you may have received other appeals on
this matter, but I feel I must express my understanding
of the case, as well as my deep concern, and
to urge that if any other solution can be found, such
as deportation, this might be considered.
Lydia and I happened to be in Delhi on the day
Hinckley was declared innocent. An Indian official
remarked to us that we Americans had a strange country,
where a man could shoot the President and get off
scot-free, while another could launch a failed fraud
and get thirty-five years. I had no answer for him.
I’m sorry to add this to your problems. Still,
I’m heartened by the insight and calm moderation
you’ve brought to the heavy responsibilities you’ve
undertaken. Perhaps you can ask one of your staff to
bring these qualities to bear on this case.
Lydia and I both applaud you. Our best to Jean
as well; we hope to see you soon.
As ever,
Reproduced from the holdings of the:
National Archives & Records Administration
Record Group: 60 Department of Justice
Accession # 60-89-372
Box 30 of 190
Folder: John G. Roberts, Jr. Misc.
Adil Shahryar was arrested at Miami on 30th August,
on a charge that he had attempted to set fire to the Sheratc
Beach Hotel there. In reality, it was he who informed the
management about the fire and it was on the basis of this
information that a tragedy was averted. The management
was naturally appreciative of his timely warning and
shifted him to another room.
A day earlier to his arrest, Adil had a tiff with
two men – Bill Hill and Dick Lawsont who were entrusted witl
the task of procuring and shipping a consignment of
Programmed Video Cassettes to London. But since the goods
were not ready for shipment and the valadity of the
Letter of Credit was about to expire, they informed Adil
about a plan to cover up the delay and save cancellation
of the Letter of Credit. Adil didn’t agree, as he was anxic
to get the stuff delivered in London and receive his
normal commission. This greatly incensed the two, as they
felt that according to their plan the shippers won’t
accept a damaged container and thus the valadity of the
Letter of Credit would be automatically extended. This
arson case is still pending with the State of Florida.
Wnile in detention, Federal charges were levelled
against Adil that (a) he had filled the container with
scrap paper instead of video cassettes and (b) placed an
explosive in it with the intent of endangering a ship.
This detection took place when he was in jail. He was
also asked to furnish a bail of $ 1.25 million.
The facts of the case are that Adil had a genuine
Transferable Letter of Credit for t-he supply of vi deo
cassetteso The consignment was neither insured nor booked
in a ship So the question of defrauding anyone or
endangering a ship doesn’t arise. nTe two absconding
persons, who got Adil arrested in the first place on an
arson charge, later implicated him in other cases, and
are still at large. Their arrest warrants were issued
in April ’82o
The Federal cases were taken up after several monthc
This was contrary to the Speedy Trial Act, which provides
trial to begin within seventy days from the date of
information/arrest 0 Being under detention and with such
a huge amount of bail to be furnished, Adil was unable to
defend his interests during the initial months. He was
subsequently convicted by Federal Judge Jarmes Kehoe on
May 17, 1982 in five .cases to consecutive terms totalling
35 years.
Reproduced from the holdings of the:
National Archives & Records Administration
Record Group: 60 Department of Justice
Accession # 60-89-372
Box 30 of 190
Folder: John G. Roberts, Jr. Misc.
2S59 COLDWATER CANYON DRIVE
BEVERLY HILLS, CALIFORNIA 90210
Mr. William French Smith
The Attorney General
Washington, DC
i
I
II
I
I
Reproduced from the holdings of the:
Natieonl Archives & Records Administration
Record Group: 60 Department of Justice
Accession # 6 0 -89-372
Box 30 of 190
Folder: John G. Roberts, Jr. Misc.
·C:.
X.9..mw
tlhUSA
·~·a-r·u~l~~.j . i 20:4d
I

MemorandumSubject DateCorrespondence from Charlton Heston August 17, 1982Concerning Criminal Conviction ofAdil ShahryarTo The Attorney General From John Roberts kIn a letter to you dated August 9, Mr. Heston appealedto you to look into the federal prosecution of Adil Shahryar,who is the son of an Indian government official. The officialis a friend of Mr. Heston’s, and Adil himself has been a guestin the Heston home.On August 30, 1981, Adil was arrested by state authoritiesin Miami for hotel arson. This arrest led federal authoritiesto another crime committed by Adil. Briefly, Adil contractedto ship video tapes from Florida to London. Adil obtained ashipping container, and a place for it on a vessel, but in lieuof videotapes filled the container with scrap paper and twoexplosive firebombs. The FBI, with a search warrant, discoveredthe phony shipment and bombs prior to their placement on boardthe ship. The only reason the container was still on the dockand not on board the ship was because the ship was latereaching port.Adil was tried in federal court, before a jury, on fivecounts: (1) attempting to firebomb a ship; (2) false statementson various certificates in connection with the shipment;(3) mail fraud; (4) making of a firearm (the bombs); and(5) use of a firearm (the bombs) in the commission of a felony.The case was airtight: evidence linked Adil to the purchase ofthe bomb materials, and he had only an incredible storyattempting to pin the blame on two associates to present indefense. He was convicted and sentenced, after a sentencinghearing, to 35 years. The judge indicated he viewed theattempted firebombing of the ship as very serious. Adil hadwhat the prosecutor described as a “superb” defense attorneyduring the trial, though Adil fired him before the sentencinghearing. The original state arson charges are still pendingagainst Adil. The assistant U.S. attorney who tried thecase concluded that Adil was “dangerous and deserves everyday of the 35 years he got.”The case is very sensitive and has high visibility inIndia. Indian officials have already been to see the assistantU.S. attorney. I have drafted the attached reply to Mr. Hestonfor your signature.Reproduced from the holdings of the:National Archives & Records AdministrationRecord Group: 60 Department of JusticeAccession # 60-89-372Box 30 of 190Folder: John G. Roberts, Jr. Misc.2859 COLDWATER CANYON DRIVE, BEVERLY HILLS, CALIFORNIA 90210August 9, 1982Dear Mr. Attorney General:Justice is a complex matter, and perfect justiceis perhaps beyond our reach. That admitted, I neverthelessbring to your attention a case of which youmay already be aware, that I feel involves a miscarriageof the American tradition of fair and reasonabletreatment before the law. I do so partly because Iknow the young man in question, but also because myexperience in India this July convinced me that agrave mistake had been made which reflects unfavourablyagainst the U.S.The subject is an Indian citizen, Adil Shahryar,whose father I’ve known well since 1960, when he wasIndian Ambassador to Spain. Adil himself has been aguest in our home, and we always thought of him as afine boy. His father is Mohammed Yunus, a highly respectedmember of both of Mrs. Ghandi’s governments,and a key figure there since before Independence,when he was a close friend of Mahatma Ghandi. He iscurrently chairman of the Trade Fair Authority ofIndia. Adil’s mother is a professor of Indian historyat the University of Dellhi. We knew the boy when hewas a student here at Berkeley.Lydia and I have just returned from Delhi, wherewe were guests in Mr. Yunus’s home and were shockedt^ 1 e-irn -hat Adil has been imprisoned in Floridaunder a consecutive sentence of thirty five years fora complicated set of charges involving attempted butunconsummated arson and fraud. Mr. Yunus believeshis son is totally innocent, as does Adil’s Americanlawyer. Of course I can’t make any judgment on hisguilt or innocence. I do feel that the matter deservessome further attention, and that the sentence is, tosay the least, remarkably harsh. That Adil wasjailed for several months without arraignment, thenheld on bail of $1,250,000.00, and that his twoconfederates have gone scot-free, is mystifying. Mr.Yunus has sent me a summary of the matter which Iwill enclose with this letter.Reproduced from the holdings of the:National Archives & Records AdministrationRecord Group: 60 Department of JusticeAccession # 60-89-372Box 30 of 190Folder: John G. Roberts, Jr. Misc.CHARLTCIN HESTON 0I cannot judge the parameters of the case, but Ido know that Adil had two brain operations here inCalifornia, after a motorcycle accident. Once, aguest in our home, Adil came with his head still inbandages. Though his prognosis at that time was-notgood, he apparently recovered. Nevertheless, Adil’sAmerican lawyer, Richard Hammer (who no longer representshim), insists that Adil was found guiltybecause he personally antagonized the judge (FederalCourt Judge J.W. Kehoe) with his arrogant and overbearingmanner. Hammer even found it necessary tohave psychiatric appraisals done. Adil was foundsane, but it’s easy for me to believe that he mayhave undergone some drastic mental changes since Ilast saw him.I know you may have received other appeals onthis matter, but I feel I must express my understandingof the case, as well as my deep concern, andto urge that if any other solution can be found, suchas deportation, this might be considered.Lydia and I happened to be in Delhi on the dayHinckley was declared innocent. An Indian officialremarked to us that we Americans had a strange country,where a man could shoot the President and get offscot-free, while another could launch a failed fraudand get thirty-five years. I had no answer for him.I’m sorry to add this to your problems. Still,I’m heartened by the insight and calm moderationyou’ve brought to the heavy responsibilities you’veundertaken. Perhaps you can ask one of your staff tobring these qualities to bear on this case.Lydia and I both applaud you. Our best to Jeanas well; we hope to see you soon.As ever,Reproduced from the holdings of the:National Archives & Records AdministrationRecord Group: 60 Department of JusticeAccession # 60-89-372Box 30 of 190Folder: John G. Roberts, Jr. Misc.Adil Shahryar was arrested at Miami on 30th August,on a charge that he had attempted to set fire to the SheratcBeach Hotel there. In reality, it was he who informed themanagement about the fire and it was on the basis of thisinformation that a tragedy was averted. The managementwas naturally appreciative of his timely warning andshifted him to another room.A day earlier to his arrest, Adil had a tiff withtwo men – Bill Hill and Dick Lawsont who were entrusted witlthe task of procuring and shipping a consignment ofProgrammed Video Cassettes to London. But since the goodswere not ready for shipment and the valadity of theLetter of Credit was about to expire, they informed Adilabout a plan to cover up the delay and save cancellationof the Letter of Credit. Adil didn’t agree, as he was anxicto get the stuff delivered in London and receive hisnormal commission. This greatly incensed the two, as theyfelt that according to their plan the shippers won’taccept a damaged container and thus the valadity of theLetter of Credit would be automatically extended. Thisarson case is still pending with the State of Florida.Wnile in detention, Federal charges were levelledagainst Adil that (a) he had filled the container withscrap paper instead of video cassettes and (b) placed anexplosive in it with the intent of endangering a ship.This detection took place when he was in jail. He wasalso asked to furnish a bail of $ 1.25 million.The facts of the case are that Adil had a genuineTransferable Letter of Credit for t-he supply of vi deocassetteso The consignment was neither insured nor bookedin a ship So the question of defrauding anyone orendangering a ship doesn’t arise. nTe two abscondingpersons, who got Adil arrested in the first place on anarson charge, later implicated him in other cases, andare still at large. Their arrest warrants were issuedin April ’82oThe Federal cases were taken up after several monthcThis was contrary to the Speedy Trial Act, which providestrial to begin within seventy days from the date ofinformation/arrest 0 Being under detention and with sucha huge amount of bail to be furnished, Adil was unable todefend his interests during the initial months. He wassubsequently convicted by Federal Judge Jarmes Kehoe onMay 17, 1982 in five .cases to consecutive terms totalling35 years.Reproduced from the holdings of the:National Archives & Records AdministrationRecord Group: 60 Department of JusticeAccession # 60-89-372Box 30 of 190Folder: John G. Roberts, Jr. Misc.2S59 COLDWATER CANYON DRIVEBEVERLY HILLS, CALIFORNIA 90210Mr. William French SmithThe Attorney GeneralWashington, DCiIIIIIReproduced from the holdings of the:Natieonl Archives & Records AdministrationRecord Group: 60 Department of JusticeAccession # 6 0 -89-372Box 30 of 190Folder: John G. Roberts, Jr. Misc.·C:.X.9..mwtlhUSA·~·a-r·u~l~~.j . i 20:4dI

http://www.archives.gov/news/john-roberts/accession-60-89-0372/doc002.pdf

®ffiu of th1 Attlrneip rnupra

j Bzt^mgtmi.a (. 0. –

October 4, 1982

Dear Chuck:

Thank you for your letter of September 1, further

concerning the case of Mr. Adil Shahryar.

In your most recent letter you indicated that you

are seeking information concerning the case so that you

could pass this on to Mr. Shahryar’s father. At my request

a member of my staff has consulted with the Assistant

United States Attorney in Miami who is handling the

Shahryar case and has learned that Mr. Shahryar’s father

and other persons acting on Mr. Shahryar’s behalf have already

had extensive meetings with the Assistant United States

Attorney to discuss the case. It is also my understanding

that Mr. Shahryar is represented by counsel and that his

counsel is pursuing an appeal of the federal conviction.

Adil Shahryar’s counsel should be able to provide the father

or others interested in the case guidance on how best to

proceed “rom Adil’s perspective.

In any event I am certain that the Assistant United

States Attorney handling the case stands ready to meet again

with Mr. Shahryar’s father to discuss the case to the extent

this is appropriate and consistent with his obligation —

and mine — to see that the laws be vigorously enforced.

As you say, of course, I must avoid not only the fact but

the appearance as well of interfering in this pending case

or disrupting the normal course of proceedings.

I hope all is well with you. With my warmest personal

regards,

Sincerely,

William French Smith

Attorney General

Mr. Charlton Heston

2859 Coldwater Canyon Drive

Beverly Hills, California 90210

National Archives & Records Administration

Record Group: 60 Department of Justice

Accession # 60-89-372

Box 30 of 190

Folder: John G. Roberts, Jr. Misc.

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of the Attorney General

Counselor to the Attorney General

September 10, 1982

NOTE FOR JOHN ROBERTS:

Ah the eloquence of Charlton Heston.

And he’s a Hollywood Republican too!

WhTat thinkest thee after reading

this epistle? Can we provide him with

“information?’

The AG would like to be as helpful

as he can, appropriately and consistent

with the appearance as well as the

fact of non-interference.

X/f

National Archives & Records Administration

Record Group: 60 Department of Justice

Accession # 60-89-372

Box 30 of 190

Folder: John G. Roberts, Jr. Misc.

r5~i…..2….5………..N.

2E5I9 COLDWATER CANYON DRIVE, BEVERLY HILLS, CALIFORNIA 91210

September 1, 1982

Dear Mr. Attorney General:

I appreciate your thoughtful response to

my inquiry into the case of Adil Shahryar. Of

course I fully appreciate both your respect

for our judicial system and your sworn duty

to avoid even the suggestion of interfering

in its process. If you inferred from my

letter that I imgagined you might do otherwise,

I must apologize.

What I sought was information. While I

share your conviction that our courts compare

favorably with any in the world, they are,

like human nature, imperfect. Lacking

access to the record in Adil Shahryar’s case

and aware only that his sentence was of

Draconian severity, I had thought someone on

your staff might inform me more fully, so

that I could pass on to his father advice

usef:ci- in his effort to secure a review.

Certainly his knowledge of the Indian system

of justice is not likely to provide guidance.

I realize that it is perhaps impossible

to respond constructively in this matter

without at least seeming to interfere in due

process. Of course you must not do that, nor

would I want you to. What I want is surely

what we all deserve: your best efforts to

preserve and enhance the rule of law we enjoy

in our country. Thanks for your unswerving

efforts to this end.

Box 30 of’ 10

F d-D Jt

National Archives & Records Administration

Record Group: 60 Department of Justice

Accession # 60-89-372

Box 30 of 190

Folder: John G. Roberts, Jr. Misc.

CHARLTON HESTON

http://www.archives.gov/news/john-roberts/accession-60-89-0372/doc057.pdf

ifftr of t34 Attornt (raenda

an 4fi]mtm11X+ f. 2a5$n

August 27, 1982

Mr. Charlton Heston

2859 Coldwater Canyon Drive

Beverly Hills, California 90210

Dear Chuck:

Thank you for your letter of August 9, concerning

the criminal conviction of Mr. Adil Shahryar.

I can, of course, appreciate the distress that a

criminal conviction and incarceration must cause to those

close to an individual defendant. I am afraid, however,

that it would not be appropriate for me to intervene in

this matter in any way. Mr. Shahryar was convicted of

serious crimes after a full trial before a jury of his

peers, and was sentenced by the judge according to law.

I understand that he is pursuing an appeal of his

conviction.

As a trusted and respected friend of longstanding,

you know that I would not lightly turn aside a request

from you. In circumstances such as these, however, we

must rely on the American criminal justice system. That

system requires the prosecution to prove guilt beyond a

reasonable doubt, and affords the accused every opportunity

to defend himself. It is the best system I know of for

vindicating the innocent.

I know you will understand that I am in no position to

do anything other than abide by the verdict of that system.

I hope that 1ll is well with you and Lydia. You know

I join many others — and the American people generally —

in applauding the public service you continue to render on

so many different fronts. We in Washington hope that your

selfless activities will continue to inspire others.

Best regards.

Sincerely,

Winiam French Smith

Attorney General

Reproduced from the holdings of the:

National Archives & Records Administration

Record Group: 60 Department of Justice

Accession # 60-89-372

Box 30 of 190

Folder: John G. Roberts, Jr. Misc.

Corrupted Woman Magistrate Took Bribe to Convict Husband in Dowry Case

August 8, 2010

In the High Court of Judicature at Madras

Dated: 30.07.2010

Coram:

The Honourable Mr.Justice ELIPE DHARMA RAO
AND
The Honourable Mr.Justice K.K.SASIDHARAN

WRIT PETITION NO.15983 OF 2007

R. Kalarani … Petitioner

Versus

1. Madras High Court
rep.by its Registrar General
Chennai-60104.

2. The State of Tamil Nadu
rep.by the Secretary to Government
Law Department
Fort St.George
Chennai-60 009. … Respondents

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to G.O.(D).No.280 Home (Cts.IA) Department dated 2.3.2007 passed by the second respondent, quash the same and direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits, including arrears of pay and allowances.

For Petitioner .. Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan
Senior Counsel
for M/s.P.V.S.Giridhar Associates.

For Respondents .. Mr.A.Jenasenan
for R.1

Mr.G..Desinghu
Spl.Govt.Pleader
for R2

*****

O R D E R

ELIPE DHARMA RAO, J
The petitioner challenges the proceedings of the second respondent dated 2 March, 2007 whereby and whereunder she was dismissed from service.

2. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner would contend thus:-
(i) The petitioner was appointed as a Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate I Class as per proceedings in G.O.Ms.No.1517 dated 16.11.1999. After initial training as District Munsif, she was posted as Judicial Magistrate I Class at Dindigul.

(ii) While she was functioning as Judicial Magistrate, Dindigul, a criminal case for dowry harassment and related offences was filed by one Sundareswari in Crime No.19/1999 before All Women Police Station, Dindigul. After investigation, a charge sheet was laid against the accused before the Judicial Magistrate Court at Dindigul. The case was taken on file in C.C.No.97 of 2000. After elaborate trial, the accused was acquitted as per judgment dated 9.1.2001. The judgment was partly confirmed by the High Court.

(iii) While acquitting the accused, the petitioner passed strictures against the police officers for filing a false case. As a result, the police, the Assistant Public Prosecutor and the father of the complainant were inimically disposed of towards the petitioner. Therefore they preferred a false complaint alleging that the petitioner has demanded bribe of Rs.20,000/- from the father of the complainant for convicting the accused. The complaint was preferred on 21 February, 2001. However, after three months, the complainant Marimuthu changed the story and he has come up with a story that the petitioner has demanded bribe of Rs.2,00,000/-.

(iv) The petitioner was placed under suspension by order dated 29 November, 2001. She was served with a charge memo on 21 March, 2003 enumerating eight charges, which reads thus:-

Charge No.1:-
That you Tmt.R. Kalarani, Civil Judge (Junior Division)/J.M.F.C. now under suspension, while functioning as Judicial Magistrate No.I, Dindigul had applied for Casual Leave for one day on 22.5.2000 and permission to avail the Holidays on 20.5.2000 and 21.5.2000 to go to Madurai for personal reasons, but proceeded to Kodaikanal with family members thus you had deliberately and wantonly suppressed the facts of proceeding to Kodaikanal with ulterior motive and thereby committed the acts of dereliction of duty, suppressing the facts and giving false information to the superiors, misuse of power and abuse of power and conduct unbecoming of a Judicial Officer and thereby rendered yourself liable to be punishable under the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules;

Charge No.2:
That you Tmt.R. Kalarani, Civil Judge (Junior Division)/J.M.F.C. now under suspension, while functioning as Judicial Magistrate No.I, Dindigul during the course of the trial in C.C.No.97/00 on the file of the said court demanded from Thiru B.V.R.Marimuthu one of the witnesses in the said case to hire a car for you, to proceed to Kodaikanal; that you, your family members along with the said Thiru B.V.R.Marimuthu travelled in that hired car bearing Registration No.T.N.V.2757 to Kodaikanal on 20.5.2000; that you stayed at Kodaikanal in”Valley View” Hotel, arranged by the said Thiru Marimuthu from 20.5.2000 to 22.5.2000 , that you along with your family members and the said Thiru Marimuthu met Thiru Kurian Abraham, then Chairman Kodaikanal Municipality at his residence on 20.5.2000, in connection with the said C.C.97/2000, discussed with them about the case; that you with your family members, Thiru Marimuthu and Thiru Kurian Abraham took various photographs at his residence, took tiffin along with them and thus mingled with the litigants of the case, which you ought not to have done, thereby indulged in corrupt practices and committed the acts of misuse of power, abuse of power, failure to maintain the dignity and decorum expected from a Judicial Officer and conduct unbecoming of the Judicial Officer and thus rendered yourself liable to be punished under the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules.

Charge No.3
That you Tmt.R. Kalarani, Civil Judge (Junior Division)/J.M.F.C. now under suspension, while functioning as Judicial Magistrate No.I, Dindigul, while conducting the trial in C.C.No.97/2000 on the file of the said Court, demanded a sum of Rs.20,000/- from Thiru B.V.R.Marimuthu father of the complainant Tmt.Sundareswari in the said C.C. and one of the witnesses in the said case for convicting the accused; that you received a sum of Rs.10,000/- from the said Thiru B.V.R. Marimuthu on 21.5.2000 at Kodaikanal in the presence of Thiru Kurian Abraham, Chairman, Kodaikanal Municipality thus indulged in corruption and corrupt practices and committed the acts of abuse of power, misuse of power and conduct unbecoming of a government servant and thereby rendered yourself liable to be punished under the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules.

Charge No.4
That you Tmt.R. Kalarani, Civil Judge (Junior Division)/J.M.F.C. now under suspension, while functioning as Judicial Magistrate No.I, Dindigul during the course of the trial in C.C.No.97/00 demanded from Thiru B.V.R. Marimuthu, father of the complainant Tmt.sundareswari in the said C.C and one of the witnesses in the said case to make a Judges Chair for you, that the said Thiru Marimuthu had spent a sum of Rs.5,000/- and made the chair, as demanded by you and handed over it to you; that you received the said Chair and did not pay any amount for making the said Chair, that you were using the same in the Court thus indulged in corruption and corrupt practices and committed the acts of misuse of power, abuse of power and conduct unbecoming of a government servant and thereby rendered yourself liable to be punished under the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules.

Charge No.5
That you Tmt.R. Kalarani, Civil Judge (Junior Division)/J.M.F.C. now under suspension, while functioning as Judicial Magistrate No.I, Dindigul during the course of trial in C.C.No.97/00 on the file of the said court, contacted Thiru B.V.R. Marimuthu, the father of the complainant in C.C.No.97/2000 and one of the witnesses in the said case, to come to your residence; that when he came to your residence on 1.1.2001 at 10.00 a.m. you demanded from him a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- for convicting the accused; that when he refused to the demanded amount, you on 9.1.2001 acquitted all the accused in the said CC as he did not pay the demand amount thus committed the acts of corruption and corrupt practices, abuse of power, misuse of power and conduct unbecoming of a government servant and thereby rendered yourself liable to be punished under the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules.

Charge No.6
That you Tmt.R. Kalarani, Civil Judge (Junior Division)/J.M.F.C. now under suspension, while functioning as Judicial Magistrate No.I, Dindigul had fixed an A.C.Plant in the first floor of your quarters, altering the structure of the quarters without obtaining the prior permission from the Principal District Judge, Dindigul as required; that you had not given the particulars relating thereto in the asset and liability statement submitted by you to the High Court and thereby violated the provisions of the Government Servants, Conduct Rules and Committed the acts of dereliction of duty, suppressing and conduct unbecoming of a government servant and thereby rendered yourself liable to be punished under the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules.

Charge No.7
That you Tmt.R. Kalarani, Civil Judge (Junior Division)/J.M.F.C. now under suspension, while functioning as Judicial Magistrate No.I, Dindigul in C.C.No.370/06 on the file of the said court, levied a fine of Rs.100/- in C.M.P.No.708/2000 against the accused for contempt of Court; that the said amount was ordered to be paid to the Legal Aid Authority at Dindigul, that the fine amount of Rs.100/- was collected and the receipt issued; that on verification the said amount was neither entered into the fine Register nor committed to the Government Account either on the said day or on the next day, thereby committed the acts of mis-appropriating the said amount, dereliction of duty, negligence and failed to maintain proper account in accordance to rules and thereby rendered yourself liable to be punished under the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules.

Charge No.8
That you Tmt.R. Kalarani, Civil Judge (Junior Division)/J.M.F.C. now under suspension, while functioning as Judicial Magistrate No.I, Dindigul during the course of hearing in C.C.No.165/2000 when the A.P.P.II attached to the said court was on Medical Leave and the incharge A.P.P had not appeared before you on the said day, that you had recorded in the notes paper unilaterally treating P.Ws.1 to 3 as hostile witnesses without the endorsement of the A.P.P.II or in charge A.P.P concerned and thus committed the acts of dereliction of duty, negligence, violation of court procedure and falsification of Court records and conduct unbecoming of a Judicial Officer and thereby rendered yourself liable to be punished under the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules.”

(v) The petitioner submitted her explanation on 5 May, 2003 denying the charges. She also produced as many as seventeen documents as annexures, to show the falsity of the case pleaded by the complainant. However, her explanation was not accepted and as such an enquiry was ordered into the charges. The enquiry commenced on 25 June, 2005. The Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry in a hasty and prejudiced manner. Ultimately, the Enquiry Officer reported that the petitioner was guilty of all the charges. After the enquiry report dated 14 October, 2005, the petitioner was given an opportunity to submit a further representation. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted her representation, pointing out the infirmities in the enquiry and in the findings of the Enquriy Officer. However without a fair and objective consideration of the explanation and ignoring her defence totally, an order of removal was passed on 2 March, 2007. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

3. The first respondent has filed a counter in answer to the contentions raised in the writ petition. The material contentions read thus:-

(i) There were series of complaints of corruption against the petitioner in the year 2001 and the complaints were referred to the Vigilance Cell of the High Court. The Vigilance Cell, after enquiry, submitted a report, based on which, charges were framed against the petitioner under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. The Principal District Judge, Tirunelveli was appointed as the enquiry officer to enquire into the charges. Subsequently, the Principal District Judge, Dindigul was appointed as the Enquiry Ofifcer. A detailed enquiry was conducted by the Enquiry Officer duly complying with the principles of natural justice and he held, charges 2 to 6 and 8 as proved and charge No.7 as partly proved.

(ii) The findings of the Enquiry Officer were placed before the Administrative Committee and the Committee, at its meeting held on 4 April, 2006, resolved to accept the findings of the Enquiry Officer and directed to furnish a copy of the findings to the petitioner for further representation.

(iii) The representation received from the petitioner was placed before the Administrative committee on 8 August, 2006 and thereafter, before the Full Court, by circulation. The Full Court, after considering the findings of the Enquiry Officer and the reply submitted by the petitioner, resolved to accept the findings of the Enquiry Officer and it was further resolved to remove the petitioner from service. Accordingly, the Government was addressed for issuing orders, imposing the penalty of removal from service on the officer. Accordingly, the impugned order was passed.

4. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner made extensive submissions in the light of the evidence adduced before the Enquiry Officer as well as his report. The principal contentions read thus:-

(a) The complainant Marimuthu in his original complaint stated that the petitioner demanded a sum of Rs.20,000/-. However, subsequently, he changed his version and alleged that there was a demand for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-. Therefore, the evidence of such untrustworthy and an interested witness cannot be believed.

(b) The complaint was preferred only after delivery of the judgment in C.C.No.97 of 2000. The complainant was aggrieved by the acquittal of the accused. It was not a bonafide complaint, as it was made with a view to tarnish the image of the Judicial Officer and to wreak vengeance against her.

(c) The petitioner, though initially informed the officers that she was proceeding to Madurai, subsequently informed the Court staff over phone that her journey was only to Kodaikanal. She stayed only in a private hotel. Therefore, there was nothing wrong in changing the destination and, as such, the charge relating to her journey to Kodaikanal has no basis.

(d) The petitioner has no acquaintance with the complainant Marimuthu. Therefore, it cannot be said that she was in the company of the witness, though in the photograph taken from the premises, he was also present.

(e) P.W.2 Kurian Abraham, in his evidence before the Enquiry Officer, submitted that he has not seen the actual acceptance of money by the petitioner. According to him, only a cover was given to the petitioner by the complainant. However, the complainant in his evidence as well as in the complaint submitted that the amount was paid to the petitioner in the presence of P.W.2. Therefore, no credence could be attached to the evidence of such witness, whose evidence is full of contradictions.

(f) P.W.2 – Kurian Abraham was not a man of good character as he was involved in land grabbing and other offences. Therefore, the evidence of such a person must be ignored.

(g) Though there were other complaints also preferred against the petitioner, all those complaints were found to be false later and the complainants’ named therein informed the Enquiry Officer that they have not made any such complaints. Therefore, there was a conscious attempt to implicate the petitioner in false charges.

5. In reply, the learned counsel for the first respondent would contend thus:
(a) The receipt of money by the petitioner was proved through the evidence of P.W.1 – Marimuthu and P.W.2 – Kurian Abraham.

(b) The photographs taken on 21.5.2000 would clearly prove the presence of the petitioner along with the complainant and therefore, the petitioner cannot be heard to say that she was not aware of the complainant, who was very much present in the residence of P.W.2 on the date of her visit.

(c) The petitioner has also made the complainant to procure a chair and the same was proved through the evidence of one S.M.Pandi P.W.5. Therefore there were clinching evidence against the petitioner which only made the Enquiry Officer to hold all the charges proved.

6. The petitioner was functioning as Judicial Magistrate I Class at Dindigul. A case in C.C.No.97 of 2000 was pending on her file. P.W.1 -Marimuthu and her daughter Sundareswari/the de-facto complainant were examined on 17.5.2001. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be heard to say that she has not seen the complainant Marimuthu before.

7. The petitioner left the Headquarters on the premise that she was proceeding to Madurai. However, she changed her programme and proceeded to Kodaikanal on 20.5.2000. Admittedly, on 21.5.2000 she was found in the residence of P.W.2 Thiru Kurian Abraham. P.W.1- Marimuthu was also there along with him. Various photographs taken from the bungalow of P.W.2 would clearly show the presence of P.W.1 along with the petitioner.

8. It is true that the complainant has stated that money was paid in the presence of P.W.2. When P.W.2 was examined as a witness, he has, very categorically, stated that while the petitioner was sitting in the hall of his house, P.W.1 Marimuthu had given a cover to her and he did not know as to what was there in the cover. It was also his evidence that both of them spoke for sometime and thereafter Marimuthu told him that he had given Rs.10,000/- to the Magistrate. Even though P.W.2 was cross examined at length, he consistently took the stand that a cover was given to the petitioner in his presence. We do not find any reason to disbelieve the evidence of P.W.2. Even according to the petitioner, P.W.2 has no animosity towards her. Though an attempt was made to show as if there were criminal cases pending against P.W.2, subsequently, it was brought out that those cases ended in his favour, holding him not guilty of the charges levelled against him. Merely because there were criminal cases against P.W.2 earlier, it cannot be said that his evidence has to be rejected in toto. The evidence of P.W.2 has to be considered in the light of the photographs taken from his bungalow. Those photographs give a clear indication that the petitioner was in the company of P.Ws.1 and 2. The Assistant Public Prosecutor was also present along with the petitioner on 21.5.2000 in the bungalow of P.W.2. The photographs would clearly show that the witness Marimuthu was talking to the petitioner as well as to her husband. Thus, the presence of the petitioner along with P.W.2 is beyond dispute. The petitioner being a Judicial Officer has no business to go to a private residence and to remain there in the company of the father of the complainant, whose case was pending before her.

9. It is true that P.W.1 has improved his case subsequently. Originally it was his case that the demand was for a sum of Rs.20,000/-. Subsequently he had changed his version and projected as if the petitioner demanded a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-. The change of the version, subsequently, cannot be taken to disbelieve the evidence given by P.W.1 in its entirety. Things would have been different in case the petitioner was not found in the company of P.W.1. She was found at Kodaikanal with P.W.1. The photographs speak volumes themselves. The strict principles of the Evidence Act, requiring proof beyond reasonable doubts, have no application to the disciplinary proceeding and what is required is the preponderance of probability.

10. From what has been discussed supra, it is clear that there were clinching evidence against the petitioner in respect of the charges relating to receipt of illegal gratification by her from the father of the de-facto complainant in a criminal case. Therefore, we hold that the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer, pertaining to charges 1 to 3, were supported by sufficient evidence.

11. The fourth charge relates to procurement of a chair by the petitioner through P.W.1 at the cost of Rs.5,000/-. The evidence of P.W.5 Pandi, who made a chair as well as the evidence of P.W.6 Sivakumar gives a clear indication that the chair was ordered by P.W.1 at the instance of the petitioner. It was the evidence of P.W.5 that the amount was paid only by P.W.1 and the chair was delivered in the residence of the petitioner.

12. Though P.W.5 was cross examined by the petitioner, his evidence with respect to making the chair and delivery of the same to the petitioner remain unchallenged. Therefore charge No.4 was also proved.

13. Since the finding in respect of charges 1 to 4 are sufficient for arriving at an irresistible conclusion that the petitioner was involved in acts of corruption, which is unbecoming on the part of a Judicial Officer, there is no necessity to look into the other charges, as it will not at all tilt the balance in favour of the petitioner.

14. The learned Senior Counsel placed reliance on the following judgments.
(i) AIR 1988 SC 1395 (Ishwar Chand Jain v. High Court of Punjab and another).
(ii) 2007 (4) SCC 247 (Ramesh Chander Singh v. High Court of Allahabad and another).
(iii) 1993(2) SCC 49 (UOI & another v. R.K.Desai)
(iv) 2001(6) SCC 491 (P.C. Joshi v. State of UP & Others)
(v) 1998(5) SCC 493 (R.C.Sood v. High Court of Rajasthan & Others)
(vi) 1999 (7) SCC 409 (Zunjarrao Bhikaji Nagarkar v. UOI & Others)
(vii) 2004(3) Law Weekly 230 (S. Thirupathy v. State of Tamil Nadu and another)

(i) In Iswar Chand case (AIR 1988 SC 1395), an anonymous complaint was received against the Judicial Officer. In the said case, there were certain mistakes committed by the judicial officer in the initial stage of his service and it was found that orders were passed without there being any corrupt motive. It was only in such circumstances, the Supreme Court observed that if judicial officers are under constant threat of complaint and enquiry on trifling matters and if High Court encourages anonymous complaints to hold the field, the subordinate judiciary will not be able to administer justice in an independent and honest manner.

(ii) In Ramesh Chander Singh case (2007(4) SCC 247), again it was for initiating action against the judicial officer on the basis of the judicial order passed by him. The Supreme Court held that for initiation of such proceedings, there should be strong grounds to suspect the officer’s bona fides and the order itself should be actuated by malice, bias or illegality.

(iii) In R.K.Desai’s case (1993(2) SCC 49), the misconduct was one relating to the decision taken by an officer in exercise of judicial/quasi-judicial function. The Supreme Court held that no disciplinary action would lie even though the decision was palpably erroneous.

(iv) In P.C.Joshi case (2001(6) SCC 491), the District Judge incharge granted stay of disconnection of telephone for non-payment in a consumer dispute case filed by a Senior Government doctor. When disciplinary proceedings were taken against him, the Supreme Court observed that it was a case of bona fide and erroneous exercise of judicial powers and such matters cannot be treated as misconduct at all.

(v) In Zuniarrao Bhikaji Nagarkar case (1999(7)SCC 409), the delinquent was the Collector of Central Excise. The basis for initiating action against him was the order passed by him in a proceeding which arose under the Central Excise Act. Since it was only an error of judgment, the Supreme Court observed that if every error of law were to constitute a charge of misconduct, it would impinge upon the independent functioning of quasi-judicial officers like the delinquent. The Supreme Court was of the view that it was not possible to take departmental proceedings on the sole ground that the delinquent committed an error of law.

(vi) In S.Thirupathy case (2004(3) Law Weekly 230), the charge against the Judicial Officer was regarding alteration of the compensation amount from Rs.67,000/- to Rs.50,000/- and replacement of certain pages in the common order by typing in separate sheets. The other charge relates to acceptance of bribe from an accused in a sessions case and the subsequent conviction on account of refusal of the accused to pay the bribe amount. When it was found that the complaint originated only from the accused and that too, after pronouncing the judgment of conviction against him, the Division Bench observed that more should be the care and caution when a litigant before the Subordinate Judge himself is the complainant and who had an axe to grind, having suffered an adverse judgment.

15. The precedents relied on by the learned Senior Counsel has absolutely no relevance to the facts on hand. Those were all cases where an error of law, committed by the Officer in his function as a judicial officer/quasi judicial authority, were taken as basis for initiation of departmental proceedings. The judgment of the Division Bench in Thirupathy case stands on a totally different footing. In the said case, the accused himself preferred a complaint against the learned District Judge and there were no other materials to connect the District Judge with the alleged misconduct.

16. The facts of the present case are entirely different. The petitioner was well aware of the proceedings in C.C.No.97 of 2000 pending on her file. P.W.1, who is none other than the father of the complainant was examined on 17.5.2001. The complainant was also present on that day for examination. The petitioner applied for one day casual leave on 22.5.2000 and sought permission to avail the holidays on 20.5.2000 and 21.5.2000 and also to leave the headquarters on the evening of 19.5.2000 after completing her regular work. While leaving the Headquarters it was represented that she was going to Madurai. However, she proceeded to Kodaikanal on 20.5.2000. According to P.W.4 she took the petitioner, her husband and her child in the car bearing Registration No.TNT-2757 and they reached Kodaikanal in the evening. She was taken to the residence of P.W.2 on 21.5.2000. The presence of the petitioner along with P.Ws.1,2 and 7 got proved through the photographs marked as Exs.P.2 to P.4. The charge of acceptance of bribe was proved through the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2. The charge with respect to the procurement of a chair at the cost of P.W.1 was proved through the evidence of P.Ws.5 and 6. Therefore, there are materials undoubtedly pinpointing the involvement of the petitioner in the act of collecting illegal gratification.

17. The petitioner was a member of the lower judiciary. The lower judiciary is the back bone of the judicial system. Any shake in the foundation of the said system would affect the very judicial structure and people would lose faith in the system. The public expects a clean and efficient judiciary committed to the cause of justice. Judicial Officers commands respect from the public. Their public life has a direct bearing on their judicial work. The judiciary is the last resort of the people and in case the judicial officers are also tempted to accept illegal gratification for discharging the judicial functions, the very system would crumble on its own weight.

18. There is no dispute that the High Court should protect the judicial officers from unnecessary attacks on their integrity without any materials or in matters wherein they have acted purely within the parameters of law. There is a corresponding responsibility and duty cast on the High Court to weed out the corrupt elements from the judiciary. The acts of misconduct of a microscope minority in the judicial service would tarnish the image of the entire judiciary. In any case, the High Court, exercising control over the judiciary, is equally bound to preserve the confidence of the people in the justice delivery system.

19. In NAWAL SINGH v. STATE OF U.P. (2003(8) SCC 117), the Supreme Court observed that judiciary stands on a different footing and no other service could be compared with the judicial service. The observation reads thus:
“At the outset, it is to be reiterated that the judicial service is not a service in the sense of an employment. Judges are discharging their functions while exercising the sovereign judicial power of the State. Their honesty and integrity is expected to be beyond doubt. It should be reflected in their overall reputation. Further, the nature of judicial service is such that it cannot afford to suffer continuance in service of persons of doubtful integrity or who have lost their utility.”

20. The case of a Judicial Officer, like the petitioner, cannot be decided on the principles applicable to a regular departmental proceedings. Even for regular departmental proceedings, as has been observed supra, strict rules of evidence are not applicable. Normally, it is not possible to prove the corrupt charges by way of positive evidence. In matters regarding disciplinary proceedings against the judicial officers, adherence to strict and sophisticated rules of evidence are not necessary. In case the materials produced before the enquiry officer give an indication that there are materials pointing out the improper conduct of the judicial officer, there was no other option than to give a positive finding against the delinquent. Sufficiency of evidence to prove the findings, in matters like this, are beyond scrutiny. If there is some evidence which connects the delinquent with the charges, it is sufficient to take action against the judicial officer. Therefore, in matters relating to charges of corruption, strict view has to be taken. However, there cannot be any doubt that the Judicial Officer, should be protected from the motivated complaints being lodged against them by unscrupulous elements and the persons with vested interest and doubtful integrity.

21. The evidence adduced before the enquiry officer, if viewed in the light of the photographs marked as Exs.P.2 to P.4, would conclusively prove charges 1 to 5 framed against the petitioner. The finding record ed by the Enquiry Officer in respect of those charges would be sufficient to impose the punishment of dismissal from service. All these aspects have been considered in their proper perspective by the Enquiry Officer and also by the Disciplinary Authority.

22. Therefore, we are of the view that no interference is called for in the order impugned in this writ petition.

23. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.

(E.D.R.,J) (K.K.S,J)
30.07.2010
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No

Tr/

To
1. Madras High Court
rep.by its Registrar General
Chennai-60104.

2. The State of Tamil Nadu
rep.by the Secretary to Government
Law Department
Fort St.George
Chennai-60 009.

ELIPE DHARMA RAO,J
AND
K.K.SASIDHARAN, J
Tr
PRE-DELIVERY ORDER IN
W.P.No.15983 OF 2007

30.07.2010

Nature and Life and us

June 30, 2010

there was a time when man explored nature. his existence was based on his conquests.

1) what is the aim and purpose of this life?

2) WHO ARE YOU?

3) WHAT IS LIFE?

4) what is love?

……love is the feeling where pain is accepted for happiness forgoing ego.

5) what is a soul?

…..soul is unnatural

6) why do we have this feelings of happiness, sadness,anger?

….because we build expectations with others nd hence

7)are u happy?

………i not not happy. i over ran my 100 m race.

8)WHAT IS SUCCESS?

…….triumph over nature is success

9)why i feel frustated?

………becoz u r tense.. let go ur expectations nd breathe easy. u r locked inside

10) i am sad! why?

……….-> u wanted to be more happy than before?

11) why do we always have expectations in life?

………….-> to defeat nature

12) i am not satisfied nor contend with my life.don’t know what to do and what exactly i want?

……….–>wait dear… dont think this way.->pursue with calmness of the sea. mix with the nature.

13)difference between realisation and self-realisation?

………..->there is no realization when u r admist nature

14) try to think urself as seeking to seek nature than outwit in nature

15)why do we always have some or other thoughts?

……………–> we dont actually.. if we do.. we wont be thinking on why we have thoughts.

Govt is NOT aware about extravagant Marriages

June 26, 2010

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS
RAJYA SABHA
UNSTARRED QUESTION NO 3148
ANSWERED ON 23.04.2008
EXTRAVAGANCE IN MARRIAGE CEREMONIES CAUSING SOCIAL TENSION .
3148 . PROF. P.J. KURIAN

(a) whether Government is aware of the extravagance in marriage ceremonies in the country which is increasing social tension;

(b) if so, whether Government proposes to bring legislation to control such extravagances;

(c) if so, the details thereof; and

(d) if not, the reasons therefor?
ANSWER
MINISTER OF STATE IN THE MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS

(DR. SHAKEEL AHMAD)

(a): No such reports have been received by the Government.

(b): No, Sir.

(c) & (d): Does not arise.
http://164.100.47.5/qsearch/QResult.aspx