New Delhi: Contempt case filed against Ex Chief Justice Of India Shri Uday Umesh Lalit and Smt Bela M Trivedi for disobeying SC Constitutional bench order that access to justice is fundamental rights. They have violated the petitioners right and upheld the ban on filing any petition at Bombay High Court to protect illegal ICSE Board .
In Past the petitioner filed PIL at Bombay High Court against illegal operation of CISCE ie ICSE and ISC Board at Maharashtra . HRD denied any recognition in an RTI reply . CISCE claimed that he has recognition of all the states with UTs but not HRD in affidavit reply . Justice Pradeep Nandrajog and Bharti Dangre dismissed the PIL without State reply by not following judicial procedure in Sept 2019. They put the cost of Rs 5 Lac and banned petitioner for filing any petition at BHC till paymnent of cost. Later it come to know via RTI that Maharashtra , MP , Delhi has no recognition to ICSE and ISC . The CISCE also accepted at many high courts that no act or executive order is passed in favour of them and it is merely a society . As per HRD Ministry education board can only be established by act of parliament or executive order of state. Later it was also come to know that EX CJ Bombay High Court Pradeep Nandrajog has done schooling from ICSE board school. Inspite of personal interest he heard the petition to secure his own future.
SLP was filed before Supreme court to set a side the ban and direct BHC to decide matter as per merit. During hearing via VC the court was informed that RTI information exposed illegal operations of ICSE board and requested court to set aside ban on petitioner by BHC in PIL 159/2016 . Shri UU Lalit said he can only reduce cost but cannot set aside ban. He neither reduced cost nor set aside ban. He corruptly suppressed the facts against ICSE board illegal operation in order . He did not recorded single line submission of petitioner in the order but recorded submissions of respondent . He willfully and deliberately done contempt of Hon’ble Supreme Court order in Anita Kushwaha vs. Pushap Sudan, ( (2016) 8 SCC 509 ) has held that access of justice is an integral part of the guarantee contained in Article 21 and 14 of the Constitution of India which guarantees equality before law and equal protection of law to not only citizens but non-citizens also.
In Golaknath vs. State of Punjab [(1967) 2 SCR
fundamental rights cannot be waived of.
To substantiate his plea, reliance is placed on following catena of decisions:
1. R. Jambukeswaran and Ors. v. Union of India
and Ors., 2004(2) ATJ FB CAT 1;
2. Mani Kant Gupta and Ors. v. State of Uttar
Pradesh, 2004(1) ATJ 349, and
3. Union of Indian and Ors. v. Wing Commander T.
Parthasarathy, 2001(1) SCC 158.
In Basheshar Nath v. C.I.T., it was held by the
Supreme Court that the fundamental right cannot be waived.
In Olga Tellis v. Bombay
Municipal Corporation, it was held by the Supreme Court that although an
undertaking was given by the appellants before the High Court on behalf of the
hut and pavement dwellers that they did not claim any fundamental right to put huts on pavements or
public roads and that they will not obstruct the demolition of the huts after a
certain date, they could not be estopped from contending before the Supreme
Court that the huts constructed by them on the pavements cannot be demolished because of
their right to
livelihood under Article 21 of the Constitution.
From this decision also it follows that a fundamental right cannot be waived, and there can be no estoppel.
The Kesavananda Bharati judgement
or His Holiness Kesavananda
Bharati Sripadagalvaru and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Anr. (case
citation: (1973) 4 SCC 225) is a landmark
decision of the Supreme Court of India that
outlined the basic
structure doctrine of the Constitution. Justice Hans
Raj Khanna asserted through this doctrine that the
constitution possesses a basic structure of constitutional principles and
values. The Court partially cemented the prior precedent Golaknath
v. State of Punjab, which held that constitutional
amendments pursuant to Article 368 were subject to fundamental rights review,
by asserting that only those amendments which tend to affect the 'basic
structure of the Constitution' are subject to judicial review.
Such practice at SC is common ie passing order by suppression of fact to favour a party. As per SC rulings this type of order passed by fraud has no value in the eye of law.
SUPPRESSION OF FACTS IS FRAUD
Apex Court reported in (2003) 8 SCC 319 titled as Ram Chandra Singh vs. Savitri
Devi & Ors., (2009) 13 SCC 569 titled as Rani Aloka Dudhoria and Ors. vs.
Goutam Dudhoria & Ors. as also another judgment of the Apex Court reported
in (2006) 7 SCC 416 titled as Hamza Haji vs. State of Kerala and Anr. to
support his submission that the commission of a fraud on the court and
suppression of material facts are core issues which vitiate every solemn act;
fraud and justice never dwell together.
Omission of facts amounts to fraud and fraud vitiates solemn act as held by
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hamza Haji vs State Of Kerala & Anr on 18 August,
Part of Para 10:
“It is true, as observed by De
Grey, C.J., in Rex Vs. Duchess of Kingston [ 2 Smith L.C. 687] that: "'Fraud' is an intrinsic, collateral
act, which vitiates the most solemn proceedings of courts of justice. Lord Coke
says it avoids all judicial acts ecclesiastical and temporal".
In Kerr on Fraud and Mistake, it is stated that: "in
applying this rule, it matters not whether the judgment impugned has been
pronounced by an inferior or by the highest Court of judicature in the realm,
but in all cases alike it is competent for every Court, whether superior or
inferior, to treat as a nullity any judgment which can be clearly shown to have
been obtained by manifest fraud."
Part of Para 11:
"Fraud practiced on the court is always ground for
vacating the judgment, as where the court is deceived or misled as to material
circumstances, or its process is abused, resulting in the rendition of a judgment
which would not have been given if the whole conduct of the case had been
Part of Para 12:
“Where fraud is involved, it has been held, in some
cases, that a remedy at law by appeal, error, or certiorari does not preclude
relief in equity from the judgment. Nor, it has been said, is there any reason
why a judgment obtained by fraud cannot be the subject of a direct attack by an
action in equity even though the judgment has been satisfied.”
Quote Part of Para 15:
"it is the settled proposition of law that a
judgment or decree obtained by playing fraud on the court is a nullity and non
est in the eyes of law. Such a judgment/decree --- by the first court or by the
highest court --- has to be treated as a nullity by every court, whether superior
or inferior. It can be challenged in any court even in collateral
“In State of A.P. & Anr. Vs. T. Suryachandra Rao
[(2005) 6 SCC 149], this Court after referring to the earlier decisions held
that suppression of a material document could also amount to a fraud on the
Court. It also quoted the observations of Lord Denning in Lazarus Estates Ltd.
Vs. Beasley (supra) that, "No judgment of a Court, no order of a minister,
can be allowed to stand if it has been obtained by fraud. Fraud unravels everything.”
That Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of in
Vijay Shekhar Vs. Union of India (2004) 4 SCC 666, had ruled that, if any Judge
passes an order by ignoring material on record & considering extraneous
materials then such Judge will be guilty of fraud - on - power.
“Thus, it is clear a
fraudulent act even in judicial proceedings cannot be allowed to stand. In view
of our finding that the complaint filed before the Court of Metropolitan
Magistrate, Court No.10 at Ahmedabad in Criminal Case No.118 of 2004 dated
15.1.2004 is ex facie an act of fraud by a fictitious person, and an abuse of
the process court, every and any action taken pursuant to the said complaint
gets vitiated. Therefore, we think the complaint registered before the
Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No.10 at Ahmedabad in Criminal Case No.118 of
2004 dated 15.1.2004 and all actions taken thereon including the issuance of
non-bailable warrants is liable to be declared ab initio void, hence, liable to
be set aside.”
In Ram Chandra Singh Vs. Savitri Devi and
Others [(2003) 8 SCC 319], this Court held: "15.Fraud as is well known
vitiates every solemn act. Fraud and justice never dwell together. 16. Fraud is
a conduct either by letter or words, which induces the other person or
authority to take a definite determinative stand as a response to the conduct
of the former either by word or letter."
In Shrisht Dhawan v. Shaw Bros. it has been
held that: (SCC p. 553, para 20) "20. Fraud and collusion vitiate even the
most solemn proceedings in any civilized system of jurisprudence. It is a
concept descriptive of human conduct."
DISHONEST RECORDING OF PROCEEDINGS IS GREATEST INJUSTICE:
DELHI HIGH COURT
VINOD KUMAR CHAUHAN
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI , TR.P.(CRL.) 88/2016 VINOD KUMAR CHAUHAN
..... Petitioner versus STATE THR. CBI & ORS. ..... Date of Decision:
53……A Judge who does not honestly and fairly record the proceedings, does the greatest injustice to the parties. A judge is supposed to have no personal interest in a case being tried or dealt with by him. He is always expected to truthfully record the proceedings conducted by him. It is for this reason, that the proceedings recorded by a judge in his orders is accepted as true. If a judge breaches this trust reposed in him, it reflects on his credibility and on his independence and impartiality.
Parties can file IA to recall such fraud order which is also not supported by CRPC 362 .
Since 36 hrs hours has passed registry has not issued diary number of E filed case . The staff may be taking consent of registrars to issue diary number against Lordships. As the ICSE board is very high profile board and many IAS , Judicial communities have their certificates so they protect this board . So why courts are taking actions against other illegal boards claiming govt recognition and giving immunity to ICSE . CISCE has more than 3000 schools across India and collecting Rs 150 cr Approx per annum as affiliation and license fees (Rs 5 Lac per school approx) which is money laundering . Having license of Delhi society and operating education board since 1960. Operating board without license since 1960 is crime under section 3-4 of PMLA act.
SC ORDER ON FAKE CERTIFICATE :
In Chairman and Managing Director, Food
Corporation of India v Jagdish Balaram Bahira (2017) 8 SCC 670(FCI).
In its judgment in FCI, this Court has held:
“48...Where a candidate had been appointed to a reserved post on the basis of the claim that he or she was a member of the group for which the reservation is intended, the
invalidation of the claim to belong to that group would, as a necessary consequence, render the appointment void ab initio. The rationale for this is that a candidate who would
otherwise have to compete for a post in the general pool of unreserved seats had secured appointment in a more restricted competition confined to the reserved category and
usurped a benefit meant for a designated caste, tribe or class. Once it was found that the candidate had obtained admission upon a false representation to belong to the reserved category, the appointment would be vitiated by fraud and would be void ab initio. The falsity of the claim lies in a representation that the candidate belongs to a category of persons for whom the reservation is intended whereas in fact the candidate does not so belong. The reason for depriving the candidate of the benefit which she or he has obtained onthe strength of such a claim, is that a person cannot retain the
fruits of a false claim on the basis of which a scarce public resource is obtained...
A candidate who does so causes detriment to a genuine candidate who actually belongs to the reserved category who is deprived of the seat. For that matter, a detriment is caused to the entire class of persons for whom reservations are
intended, the members of which are excluded as a result of an admission granted to an imposter who does not belong to the class. The withdrawal of benefits, either in terms of the revocation of employment or the termination of an admission was hence a necessary corollary of the invalidation of the claim on the basis of which the appointment or admission was obtained. The withdrawal of the benefit was not based on mens rea or the intent underlying the assertion of a false claim. In the case of a criminal prosecution, intent would be necessary. On the other hand, the withdrawal of civil benefits flowed as a logical result of the invalidation of a claim to belong to a group or category for whom the reservation is
During hearing Justice UU Lalit was aware that if the ban will be lifted then any govt Board passed judge at BHC can recall the order and take action . To secure the interest of such fake board students he set aside the prayer of access to justice and done contempt of constitutional bench order. The 2 judges bench cannot violate 5 judges constitutional bench order
In Central Board of Dawoodi
Bohra Community and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.
[(2005) 2 SCC 673], (para 12), a Constitution Bench of this Court summed up the
legal position in the following terms :
"(1) The law laid down
by this Court in a decision delivered by a Bench of larger strength is binding
on any subsequent Bench of lesser or co-equal strength.
(2) A Bench of lesser quorum cannot disagree or dissent from the view of the law taken by a Bench of larger quorum. In case of doubt all that the Bench of lesser quorum can do is to invite the attention of the Chief Justice and request for the matter being placed for hearing before a Bench of larger quorum than the Bench whose decision has come up for consideration. It will be open only for a Bench of co-equal strength to express an opinion doubting the correctness of the view taken by the earlier Bench of co-equal strength, whereupon the matter may be placed for hearing before a Bench consisting of a quorum larger than the one which pronounced the decision laying down the law the correctness of which is doubted.
As per SC order parliament cannot violate the fundamental rights but High court has done and SC up held the order inspite of constitution custodian and many international commitment. If people will be barred to approach court then people will approach criminals and it will endanger our democracy .
Diary No.- 46405 - 2019
SAPAN SHRIVASTAVA vs. MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT
Dear SAPAN SHRIVASTAVA, your case efiling no. ECSCIN01127972023 , SAPAN SHRIVASTAVA Vs. SHRI UDAY UMESH LALIT is filed with Diary No. 49295 / 2023 on 28-11-2023