Tuesday, 30 June 2015

Bhagat Singh.

No wonder that the Britishers set up the statue of their running dog Gandhi in London, instead of setting up the statue of their enemy, my hero Bhagat Singh, who really fought against them
 Long live Bhagat Singh, may he shower his blessings on the Indian people from heaven
Shame on the traitor, the loyal British agent Gandhi


An Appeal to all non Muslims to observe roza on 4th July

After discussing with many friends in the Bay Area in California, I hereby appeal to all non Muslims all over the world to observe one day roza on Saturday, 4th July as a token of respect for and solidarity with our Muslim brethren during the holy month of Ramzan.

 The exact time before which sehri ( breakfast ) must be taken, and of iftaar,( the time in the evening after which alone dinner can be taken ) may be ascertained from some Muslim friend. These timings change by one minute every day, and must be strictly observed.

 I may mention that in India for several years I have been keeping one day roza during Ramzan. The wife of my friend Asif Azmi, who is like a younger brother to me, telephones me very early in the morning when it is still dark and informs me that the time by which I must do my sehri is approaching, so I quickly eat some bread and drink a lot of milk and water, because I can have none thereafter till the time of iftaar.

 This year I will have iftaar at the residence of a Muslim lady in Fremont, California, USA  with a group of about 25 others, Muslims and non Muslims. The lady has very kindly consented to have the iftaar at her residence, and provide food for all of us.

  The other non Muslims can form groups and have iftaar at a place of their choice on 4th July.

 Please note that you must not eat or drink after the time of sehri is over, and before the time for iftaar. This is absolutely crucial.

 If this succeeds, it will be a historic step at removing misunderstanding between  different communities. When Navratri begins, I will appeal to non Hindus to keep one day fast during that period.

 It is clarified that by keeping one day roza a non Muslim does not become a Muslim, just as by keeping one day fast during Navratri a non Hindu does not become a Hindu. It is just symbolic of showing respect to other communities

You don't mess with people from Allahabad

 When  the Houses of the Indian Parliament hurriedly passed unanimous resolutions condemning me for my statements about Gandhi and Bose, perhaps thinking that they had done a great deed ( and perhaps their only deed, since they hardly have any meaningful debate or transact any meaningful business in the House, with all the shouting and regular disruptions ), they overlooked one important fact---that I am from Allahabad.
 And you don't mess with people from Allahabad.

Most Indians are asses and sheep

Alexander Hamilton ( 1755-1804 ) was Chief of Staff to Gen. George Washington in the American War of Independence. He later became Treasury Secretary in President Washington's Cabinet.
 During the War of Independence he wrote from his headquarters : " Our countrymen have all the folly of the ass, and all the passiveness of the sheep. They are determined not to be free ".
 The same can be said of 90 ( or is it 95% ? ) Indians . I often say that they do not have brains but gobar ( cow dung ) and bhoosa ( straw ) in their heads.

A Rebellion now and then is a good thing

Thomas Jefferson ( 1743-1826 ), who became the Third President of the United States of America  wrote to a friend :
" A rebellion now and then is a good thing. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of a people. God forbid that we should ever be for 20 years without such a rebellion. The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure. "
The tree of India has been without any manure since 1857. No wonder it is shrivelled and gnarled

It takes all types to make the Indian Judiciary

This story was told to me by a young Brahmin friend of mine ( let us call him Z ) belonging to the U.P.Judicial Service :

 There was once a division bench, i.e. bench of two Judges, in the Allahabad High Court, one of the Judges, Justice X, being a staunch, orthodox Hindu Brahmin, and the other Judge, Justice Y, being a non Brahmin Hindu.

 There was an important case before them in which the question was whether on a certain site stood an ancient Hanuman temple, which had been demolished by the Britishers and a Christian church built on the same. The prayer in the petition was that the church should be demolished , and a Hanuman temple built on the site.

 Now this Justice X, though known to be very honest, had some very interesting traits. Some of these were :

1. He was a confirmed bachelor, and he had a young servant, who was also a Brahmin and a bachelor. Justice X had told this servant that the day he got married he would be sacked.

2. He would cook his food himself, in the old traditional style, using wood, not a gas cylinder or stove. For this purpose, he would wash the wood himself one day, and the next day ( or the day after ), when the wood was  dry, use it for cooking.

3. In his house there was a line beyond which only Brahmins were allowed to enter.

 One day my friend Z visited Justice X, whom he knew intimately, at the latter's residence. Being a Brahmin himself, Z had entry even into the sanctum sanctorum.

There he asked Justice X what would be the fate of the case he was hearing ( about the site of the alleged Hanuman temple ).

Justice X said " The land belongs to Bajrang Bali, and it will always belong to him "

 Z then said that the other Judge, Justice Y, had made oral observations during the hearing in Court that he was not satisfied on the evidence that there was any Hanuman temple on the site.

 To which Justice X retorted " Woh duratma hai. Bhogega apne dushkarmon ka "

 And sure enough there was a split verdict, and now the matter is before a Full Bench of 3 Judges of the Court.

Monday, 29 June 2015

Chir haran aur Bheeshma Pitamah

" Sunu Hanumaana
 Ka chup saadh rahe balwaana ?
  Kaun sa kaaj kathin jag maahi
  Jo na hoye taat tum paahi ? "

So Hanumanji, why are you chup sadhoing ?
 Draupadi jaise desh ka chir haran ho raha hai, Pitamah
 Aur woh bhi Munniyon dwara !
 Kyon aankh moonde khade ho, bharat bhagya vidhata ?

Hindi is an artificially created language

Urdu was the language of all educated people, whether Hindu, Muslim, or Sikh in large parts of urban India upto 1947. The common man in urban India spoke khariboli or Hindustani, of which Urdu was a polished, Persianized form, used by the educated elite ( see my article ' What is Urdu ?' on my blog justicekatju.blogspot.in ).

 Hindi was an artificially created language, in pursuance of the British divide and rule policy, which said that Hindi is the language of Hindus, and Urdu of Muslims. The earlier ' Hindi ' literature was really literature of rural dialects like Avadhi, Brijbhasha, Bhojpuri etc.

Hindi was artificially created by deliberately removing Persian and Arabic words which had become of common use, and replacing them by Sanskrit words which were not in common use, e.g. the word 'zila' or district, was replaced by 'janpad'.

 Once when I was a Judge of Allahabad High Court a lawyer who always argued in Hindi appeared before me with a petition titled ' pratibhu avedan patra '. I asked him what the word 'pratibhu' meant. He said it meant a bail application. I then said that he should have used the word 'bail' or 'zamanat' which everybody understands, rather than the word ' pratibhu ' which no one understands.

 Hindi was thus artificially created by this hatred for Persian or Arabic words, even those words which had passed into common usage, replacing them with words which were not in common usage.
 It may be mentioned that there is a misconception that a language becomes weaker if it borrows words from another language. In fact it becomes stronger, e.g. English, which borrowed from many languages and became stronger.

 The great Persian poet Firdausi who wrote his epic Persian poem the 'Shahnama' had one big defect. He was a strong nationalist, and he bitterly resented the fact that Persia had been conquered by the Arabs. So he tried to remove all Arabic words in his epic Persian poem, even those which had passed into common usage. Of course his attempt failed.

 It may be mentioned that the language of the common man in much of India is Hindustani ( or khariboli ), not Hindi. Hindustani is simple Hindi. In Hindustani we say " udhar dekhiye ". In Hindi we say " udhar avlokan keejiye ", or " udhar drishtipaat keejiye ". No one uses 'avlokan' or 'drishtipaat' in common language. It is an artificially created expression.

My Petition against the Indian Parliament

Both Houses of Parliament had condemned me for my statements calling Gandhi a British agent, and Subhas Chandra Bose a Japanese agent, without even giving me a hearing.

 It is a basic principle of natural justice that no one should be condemned unheard. But paying scant regard to this principle, the Hon'ble members of both Houses of the Indian Parliament all flocked together with one voice to condemn me, like the Queen of Hearts in ' Alice in Wonderland ' who would say ' Off with his head ! ' even before she would give a hearing to someone.

 So I decided to challenge the resolutions of the Houses of Parliament by filing a writ petition in the Supreme Court, my senior lawyer being Mr. Gopal Subramaniam, former Solicitor General of India. Copy of that petition, filed today, is given below :

Original Civil Jurisdiction
Writ Petition (Civil) No.________ of 2015
(A petition under Article 32 Constitution of India)
POSITION OF PARTIES Before the Supreme Court
Justice Markandey Katju, S/o Late Justice S N Katju, Age: 69 Years, Petitioner
1. The Hon’ble Speaker, Lok Sabha (Representing the Lok Sabha), 17, Parliament House New Delhi-110001 Respondent No. 1

2. The Hon’ble Chairman, Rajya Sabha (Representing the Rajya Sabha), 30, Parliament HouseNew Delhi-110001 Respondent No. 2

3. The Secretary General, Lok Sabha, 18, Parliament House, New Delhi-110001 Respondent No. 3
4. The Secretary General, Rajya Sabha,29, Parliament House, New Delhi-110001 Respondent No. 4

(A writ petition under Article 32 Constitution of India)

The Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India
And His Companion Justices of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.
The Writ Petition of the Petitioner above named


1. That, the Petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, inter-alia, seeking quashing of the Impugned Resolutions dated 11.03.2015 & 12.03.2015 that have been passed by the Rajya Sabha & the Lok Sabha respectively and are clearly in contravention of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution that have been consistently upheld and expanded upon by this Hon’ble Court. The Petitioner, thus, has been seriously prejudiced causing grave and irreparable harm to his reputation and life’s endeavour to uphold the Constitution and the rule of law, and in these circumstances, is not left with any other remedy but to approach this Hon’ble Court. Hence this Writ Petition.

1A.  That, the Petitioner addressed a representation via email to the Hon’ble Speaker of the Lok Sabha and the Hon’ble Chairman of the Rajya Sabha on 23.03.2015, highlighting that even though the hearing prior to the passage of resolution against his statement was denied to him, at-least the post decisional hearing be granted to him. However, the Petitioner has received no response thereto. The Petitioner has no other alternative or equally efficacious remedy except the instant Writ Petition. That further, at the time the resolutions were passed, the Petitioner was not physically present in India, and has not returned to India as of the date of filing of this petition and therefore the affidavit in support of this petition is being filed by the Petitioner’s next friend present in India.

2. That, the Petitioner who has a keen interest in academics, Sanskrit, Urdu, History, Philosophy, Science, Sociology, and Jurisprudence, and has written several books, articles, papers in relation to these subjects and publish two posts on his face book page, as also on his blog on 10.03.2015 in respect of Gandhiji and Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose.

3. That, the post in respect of Gandhiji in short made the point that by constantly using religious symbolism in politics for several decades,    Gandhiji, in effect furthered the British Policy of Divide and Rule by alienating the Muslim population of the Indian sub-continent away from the national movement. A true typed copy of the post published by the Petitioner on his face book page on 10th March, 2015 in respect of Gandhiji is annexed herewith as Annexure P-1 (Pages ___ to ___).

4. That, the post in respect of Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose, in short made the point that through his actions knowingly or unknowingly, he ended up perpetuating Japanese imperial interest in the Indian sub-continent. A true typed copy of the post published by the Petitioner on his face book page on 10th March, 2015 in respect of Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose is annexed herewith as Annexure P-2 (Pages ___ to ___).

5. The statements given by the Petitioner, as a private person, are academic in nature and are in fact a manifestation of scientific temper of a citizen. It is submitted that scientific temper is a way of thinking and acting which uses a method. It may include observing physical reality, questioning, testing, hypothesizing, analysing, and communicating.  In fact, Jawaharlal Nehru was one of the first persons to use the term ‘scientific temper’ and advocate the promotion of scientific temper:

"What is needed is the scientific approach, the adventurous and yet critical temper of science, the search for truth and new knowledge, the refusal to accept anything without testing and trial, the capacity to change previous conclusions in the face of new evidence, the reliance on observed fact and not on pre-conceived theory, the hard discipline of the mind—all this is necessary, not merely for the application of science but for life itself and the solution of its many problems",

 (Discovery of India)
Inculcation of scientific temper has since been included as a fundamental duty in Article 51-A (h)
“to develop the scientific temper, humanism and spirit of inquiry and reform;”

The Constitution of South Africa (1997) explicitly provides "Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, which includes.... academic freedom and freedom of scientific research." This to be read along with Article 51-A (h) of the Constitution of India, which embodies similar foundational values.
That, academic freedom to explore significant and controversial questions is an essential precondition to fulfil the mission of educating and advancing knowledge. Academic freedom is necessary not only for faculty members in formal teaching setup but is also necessary for every citizen pursuing spirit of inquiry so that he or she can contribute to the society. The clash of competing ideas is an important catalyst, not only for the expansion of knowledge but also in development of independent critical judgment. Academic freedom encourages new knowledge, different perspectives, competing ideas, and alternative claims of truth, and therefore, to straightaway condemn a person reaching an alternative conclusion on the basis of his personal study is Constitutionally impermissible. It is acknowledged that breadth of knowledge and sophisticated habits of mind, liberal education is the best and most powerful way to build students’ capacities to form their own judgments about complex or controversial questions. In fact, the approach being taken by the Respondents is not conducive to liberal and strong academic growth in the country.

6. That in Devidas Tuljapurkar v. State of Maharashtra & Ors, Criminal Appeal No. 1179 of 2010 (dated 14th May, 2015), this Hon'ble Court has been pleased to hold  as under:
“92. Some of these books praise  Gandhiji, analyse Gandhian thoughts, criticise Gandhian philosophy, express their dissent, disagree with his political quotient and also comment on his views on “Brahamcharya”. On reading of the said books, one can safely say they are the views of the authors in their own way and there is no compulsion to agree with the personality or his thoughts or philosophy. We are reminded of what Voltaire said, “I do not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it” or for that matter what George Orwell said, “If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear”.


Hence, there cannot be any doubt that the Petitioner has not committed any deplorable act in expressing his considered views about Netaji and Gandhiji and the impugned resolutions are liable to be quashed.

7. That, on 11.03.2015 some members of the Upper house of the Indian Parliament i.e. Rajya Sabha raised an issue in respect of these post in the house, inter-alia seeking action against the petitioner herein, and also seeking condemnation of the statement made by the Petitioner herein. It appears from the perusal of these proceedings that the entire statements/post of the Petitioner herein were not even formally placed before the house for its consideration. It is further apparent that neither of the Houses were informed about the view taken by various other scholars.

A true typed copy of the proceedings of the Rajya Sabha on 11th March, 2015, in so far as they relate to the face book post/statement made by the Petitioner herein is annexed herewith as Annexure P-3 (Pages ____ to ____).

8. That, pursuant to the discussion in the Rajya Sabha, the following resolution condemning statement of the Petitioner herein was passed unanimously by the Rajya Sabha on 11th March, 2015.
“This House expresses its unequivocal condemnation of the recent remarks of the former judge of the Supreme Court, Shri Justice Markandey Katju, against the Father of the Nation    Gandhiji and Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose who led the Indian National Army for the freedom of the country.

A true typed copy of the resolution of the Rajya Sabha dated 11th March, 2015 condemning the statement of the Petitioner herein is annexed herewith as Annexure P-4 (Pages _____ to _____).

9. That, on the very next day after the passage of the said resolution in the Rajya Sabha, i.e. on 12.03.2015 members of the Lok Sabha also sought action against the Petitioner herein, and condemnation of his statement. A true typed copy of the discussion in the Lok Sabha dated 12.03.2015 in respect of the Petitioner’s statement/face book post is annexed herewith as Annexure P-5 (page_____ to _____).

10.  That, later on the same day i.e. 12.03.2015 the Lok Sabha passed following statement condemning the statement of the Petitioner.

“Father of the Nation Gandhiji and Netaji Shri Subhash Chandra Bose both are venerated by the entire country. The contribution of these two great personalities and their dedication is unparalleled. The statement given by former Judge of the Supreme Court and former Chairman of Press Council of India Shri Markandey Katju is deplorable. This House unequivocally condemns, the statement given by former Judge of Supreme Court Shri Markandey Katju unanimously.”

A true typed copy of the resolution dated 12.03.2015 passed by the Lok Sabha condemning the statement of the Petitioner herein is annexed herewith as Annexure P-6 (Page ____ to _____).
11. That, the above resolutions passed without jurisdiction by the Rajya Sabha and Lok Sabha without giving the Petitioner an opportunity to be heard, has caused the violation of the Petitioner’s rights under Article 14, 21 and 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution of India. The views expressed by the Petitioner, in particular on Gandhiji’s use of religious symbolism in politics, have been espoused by many historians, etc. in their works. The relevant extract from some of these works is annexed herewith.
(a) True typed copy of the relevant extract from R.P. Dutt: INDIA TODAY, Peoples Publishing House, 10th Edn. 2008, Preface and Pg. 470-472 is annexed herewith as Annexure P-7 (Page ___ to ___).
(b) True typed copy of the extract from Vinay Lal: THE  GANDHIJI EVERYONE LOVES TO HATE, Economic & Political Weekly, October 4, 2008 is annexed herewith as Annexure P-8 (Page ____ to _____).
(c) True typed copy of the extract from Jawaharlal Nehru, AN AUTOBIOGRAPHY, Penguin India (2004) Page 78-79 is annexed herewith as Annexure P-9 (Page ____ to _____).
(d) True typed copy of the extracts from H.M. Seervai, “PARTITION OF INDIA: LEGEND AND REALITY"; Oxford University Press (1994) is annexed herewith as Annexure P-10 (Page ____ to _____).
(e) True typed copy of the extracts from the work Robert D Baird, “The Convergence of Distinct Worlds: Nehru & Gandhi” Pg. 19-39 in Harold Coward (ed.), Critiques of Gandhi, Suny Press (2003)  is annexed herewith as Annexure P-11 (page ____ to ______)
(f) True typed copy of the extracts from the work Timothy Gorringe, “Gandhi & the Christian Community” Pg. 153-169 in Harold Coward (ed.), Critiques of Gandhi, Suny Press (2003) is annexed herewith as Annexure P-12 (page ____ to ______)
(g) True typed copy of the extracts from the work Nikky Guninder Kaur Singh, “The Mahatma & the Sikhs” Pg. 171-191 in Harold Coward (ed.), Critiques of Gandhi, Suny Press (2003) is annexed herewith as Annexure P-13 (page ____ to ______)
(h) True typed copy of the extracts from the work Roland E. Miller, “Indian Muslim Critiques of Gandhi” Pg. 193-126 in Harold Coward (ed.), Critiques of Gandhi, Suny Press (2003) is annexed herewith as Annexure P-14 (page ____ to ______)

12. That, the Petitioner wrote to the Hon’ble Speaker of the Lok Sabha and the Hon’ble Chairman of the Rajya Sabha on 23.03.2015, pointing out that even though the hearing prior to the passage of resolution against his statement was denied to him, at-least a post decisional hearing be granted to him.  A true typed copy of the e-mail dated 23.03.2015 sent by the Petitioner to the Hon’ble Speaker of the Lok Sabha and the Hon’ble Chairman of the Rajya Sabha is annexed herewith as Annexure P-15 (Page ____ to _____).
13.  That, the Petitioner has not received any response from either the Hon’ble Speaker Lok Sabha, the Respondent No. 1 herein or the Hon’ble  Chairman, Rajya Sabha, the Respondent No. 2 herein till date.
14.  That, the Impugned Resolutions dated 11.03.2015 & 12.03.2015 have been passed by the Rajya Sabha & the Lok Sabha respectively are clearly in contravention of the well-established fundamental rights that have been consistently upheld and expanded upon by this the Hon’ble Court. Besides, they are also in violation of the Rules for Procedure and Business framed by both the houses of Parliament under Article 118 of the Constitution.  True typed copy of Chapter XI of Rajya Sabha Rules of Procedure and Business that relate to Resolutions is annexed herewith as Annexure P-16 (Pages ____ to _____). True typed copy of Chapter XIII of Lok Sabha Rules of Procedure and Business that relate to Resolutions is annexed herewith as Annexure P-17 (Page ____ to _____).
15.  That, the Respondent No.1 and Respondent No.2 are not competent to take cognizance of the expressions of free speech of the private person like the Petitioner, as the power under Rule 171 of the Lok Sabha Rules provides that the Resolution must relate to act of Government. In any event, the Houses of the Parliament ought not to take cognizance of academic discussions or seeds of academic discussions in public about issues confronting India’s history.
16. That, the Rule 172 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Lok Sabha only permits resolution in the matter of ‘general public interest’ and the works of the Petitioner reflected in the posts relate to his academic analysis which are not of general public interest. The said rule provides:
“172. Subject to the provisions of these rules, a member or a Minister may move a resolution relating to a matter of general public interest.”

“156. Subject-matter Subject to the provisions of these rules, any member may move a resolution relating to a matter of general public interest.”

17. Thus the Impugned Resolution do not fulfil the jurisdictional requirement, and the necessary jurisdictional facts are lacking.  The present case is not a case of mere procedural irregularity. Further, whether or not the Petitioner’s statement are deplorable or condemnable can only be judged by bodies performing judicial function and cannot be decided by the Lok Sabha or the Rajya Sabha.
18.   That the power to pass resolution as in the instant case, is not a power which depends upon and are is necessary for the conduct  of the business of each House, and is therefore not protected under Article 105.

19. That the power and privilege under Article 105 is subject to other provision of the Constitution and subject to Article 118 i.e. rules made thereunder. Since, the Rules as stated above do not contemplate passing of a resolution against a private person not holding an official position, the Resolution cannot claim any immunity from judicial review. In the instant case, the question of claim of privilege does not arise at all.

20.   The instant Writ Petition does not seek any relief against any member of the Parliament individually.

21. The Petitioner thus has been seriously prejudiced causing grave and irreparable harm to his reputation, and life’s endeavour to uphold the Constitution, fundamental duties, and the rule of law, and in these circumstances, is not left with any other alternative and equally efficacious remedy but to approach this Hon'ble Court on the following amongst other:

A. BECAUSE, this Hon'ble Court  in Devidas Tuljapurkar (Supra) has been pleased to hold that:

B. BECAUSE,  the Parliament (Respondent No.1 and Respondent No.2) lacks the competence and authority to pass the Impugned Resolutions condemning the act of the Petitioner, who is a private person;

C. BECAUSE, the Respondent No.1 and Respondent No.2 are not competent to take cognizance of the expressions of free speech of the private person like the Petitioner, as the power under Rule 171 of the Lok Sabha Rules provides that the Resolution must relate to act of Government. Thus the Impugned Resolution do not fulfil the jurisdictional requirement, and the necessary jurisdictional facts are lacking;

D. BECAUSE, the Impugned Resolutions have been wrongly admitted by Respondent No.1 and Respondent No.2 in quasi-judicial capacity, without first complying with the substantive legal pre-condition of hearing the affected party, and they also lack the fundamental condition. The Speaker of Lok Sabha (Rule 174) and the Chairman of Rajya Sabha (Rule 158) has been permitted by the respective Rules to decide on whether the Resolution is admissible, and the exercise of such power is not only quasi-judicial function but is also amenable to judicial review;

E. BECAUSE the impugned resolutions strike at the very root of a number of fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution of India, including Articles 14, 19, and 21.

F. BECAUSE the passage of the Impugned Resolutions by both the houses of Parliament have denied the Petitioner equality before the law and equal protection of law guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. A Seven Judge Constitution Bench of this Hon’ble Court in Maneka  Gandhiji v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248 has held that either denial of natural justice or arbitrariness, by themselves amount to violation of Article 14. In the present facts, the passage of the resolution condemning a statement, without even placing in its entirety before the respective houses of Parliament and without even giving the Petitioner an opportunity of being heard is both arbitrary and in denial of natural justice.

G. BECAUSE Article 19 (1) (a) which is a salient right guaranteeing the Right to Freedom of Speech & Expression. This Hon’ble Court has expounded upon the Right to Freedom of Speech & Expression in a plethora of judgments and always ruled in favour of upholding this right except when ‘reasonable restrictions’ are required to be placed in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence. The comments made by the Petitioner on his face book page would definitely not fall under any of the defined categories for which ‘reasonable restrictions’ could have been placed, thereby making the passing of the aforesaid resolutions an illegal curtailment of the Petitioners’ right to freedom of speech & expression.
H. BECAUSE the passage of Impugned Resolution have violated the Petitioner’s right to life and liberty guaranteed under Article 21. The right to preserve and protect one’s reputation and the right to being heard before being adversely commented are integral part of Article 21 as held repeatedly by this Hon’ble Court in many different contexts. These decisions include State of Maharashtra v. Public Concern for Governance Trust (2007) 3 SCC 587 (Paras 39 & 41), Sukhwant Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab, (2009) 7 SCC 559 (Para 3), Om Prakash Chauthala v. Kanwar Bhan & Ors., (2014) 5 SCC 417 (Paras 1, 12-15, 21 & 26), Divine Retreat Centre v. State of Kerala & Ors., (2008) 3 SCC 542 (Paras 51-53), State of Bihar v. Lal Krishna Advani, (2003) 8 SCC 361 (Para 6, 8-11), Deepak Bajaj v. State of Maharashtra, (2008) 16 SCC 14;
I. BECAUSE the ratio of the recent judgment of this Hon’ble Court in Shreya Singhal v. UOI dated 24.3.3015 in W.P. (Cri) 167 of 2012 (hereinafter “Shreya Singhal Judgment”) is squarely applicable to the present case and the right of reputation and freedom of speech and expression cannot be taken away in the manner in which the Respondent has done so. In Shreya Singhal (Supra), this Hon’ble Court delved into the content of the expression "freedom of speech and expression". In doing so it explained that there are three concepts which are fundamental in understanding the reach of this most basic of human rights, which are as follows:
“The first is discussion, the second is advocacy, and the third is incitement. Mere discussion or even advocacy of a particular cause howsoever unpopular is at the heart of Article 19(1)(a). It is only when such discussion or advocacy reaches the level of incitement that Article 19(2) kicks in and it is only at this stage that a law may be made curtailing the speech or expression that leads inexorably to or tends to cause public disorder or tends to cause or tends to affect the sovereignty & integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, etc.”
J. BECAUSE, the right under Article 19(1)(a) includes academic freedom and expression as well;
K. BECAUSE, in the present case, even if the Petitioner did not agree with the views of some of the Parliamentarians on Gandhiji & Subhash Chandra Bose, it was definitely not something that was grave enough to cause public disorder or tends to cause or tends to affect the sovereignty & integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States. In other words, the Petitioner had said nothing that transgressed the legal threshold of his right to freedom of speech and expression.
L. BECAUSE the Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression has been interpreted liberally by this Hon’ble Court as well as High Courts of the country to encompass even the right to dissent and also include the right to academic freedom. The Constitution of South Africa (1997) explicitly provides "Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, which includes.... academic freedom and freedom of scientific research." This to be read along with Article 51-A (h) of the Constitution of India.
M. BECAUSE, the individual should be able to order his or her life any way he or she pleases, as long as it is not violative of the law or constitutes an infraction of any order or direction of a duly constituted court, tribunal or any statutory authority for that matter. Amongst the varied freedoms conferred on an individual (i.e., the citizen), is the right of free speech and expression, which necessarily includes the right to criticise and dissent. Criticism, by an individual, may not be palatable; even so, it cannot be muzzled. Many civil right activists believe that they have the right, as citizens, to bring to the notice of the State the incongruity in the developmental policies of the State. The State may not accept the views of the civil right activists, but that by itself, cannot be a good enough reason to do away with dissent.”  The facts in the present case squarely fall within the parameters of this judgment that reiterates the decisions of this Hon’ble Court that there is no obligation on part of the citizen to agree with the views of the state if the dissension by any citizen is expressed or done within the ambit of the law.

N. BECAUSE in Shreya Singhal (Supra) that encapsulates the true spirit and meaning of the Right to Freedom of Speech & Expression is when this Hon’ble Court discusses that every expression used is nebulous in meaning. This Hon’ble Court further held that what may be offensive to one may not be offensive to another. Moreover, what may cause annoyance or inconvenience to one may not cause annoyance or inconvenience to another. Therefore, the only test to curtail the freedom of speech and expression can be if it falls within any of the exceptions to Article 19 (2) of the Indian Constitution, and not whether any person found it offensive or insulting. By passing the aforesaid Resolutions, the Parliament has evidently disregarded the presence of these fundamental freedoms, developed through the enunciations of this Hon’ble Court.

O. BECAUSE this Hon’ble Court in Menaka  Gandhiji upheld that the core of natural justice principle audi alteram partem is that the person being affected must have a reasonable opportunity of being heard, and the hearing must be a genuine hearing and not an empty public relations exercise. This Hon’ble Court further held that the right to a hearing even if explicitly not mentioned in the statute would be implied, thereby ensuring that it is not dispensed with under any circumstances;
P. BECAUSE most recently, this Hon’ble Court in Om Prakash Chautala (Supra) held that right to reputation has become an inseparable facet of Article 21 of the Constitution. No one would like to have his reputation dented. The court also described that reputation is fundamentally a glorious amalgam and unification of virtues which makes a man feel proud of his ancestry and satisfies him to bequeath it as a part of inheritance on the posterity. The Court further held that when reputation is hurt, a man is half-dead. It is an honour which deserves to be equally preserved by the down trodden and the privileged. But perhaps the most important point that is directly relevant to the facts of the case is that the court held that “the advertence has to be sans emotion and sans populist perception, and absolutely in accord with the doctrine of audi alteram partem before anything adverse is said.”

Q. BECAUSE the touchstone of a healthy and viable democracy is whether or not citizens are able to effectively enforce their fundamental rights against even the most powerful arms of the government including the Executive/Legislature.

R. BECAUSE, if the Parliament is able to pass the aforesaid impugned resolution against the Petitioner which is clearly in violation of Petitioner’s fundamental rights, then in effect it would not only illegally curtail important freedoms of the Petitioner in his individual capacity but also diminish the stature of this Hon’ble Court. It is pertinent to note here that the resolution in its very conception and design consistently emphasised that the Petitioner was a former Judge of this Hon’ble Court, thereby giving the impression that the aforesaid impugned resolutions were passed to merely prove that the Parliament was the supreme and most powerful body in the country and can take action against anybody. It is not open to the Parliament to take upon itself the task of adjudicating whether the statement published on the Facebook by the Petitioner are deplorable or condemnable or not;
S. BECAUSE, the Petitioner verily believes that Hon’ble Members of Parliament were not even informed about the basic fact that the facebook/blog post of the Petitioner itself contained the reasons for his opinion on the two key historical figures of the Indian Independence movement, namely Gandhiji & Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose. At least, the entire statement/post of the Petitioner as well as historical works of other scholars ought to have been formally placed before all those present in the House before the comments of the Petitioner were chosen to be condemned.
T. BECAUSE, these aforesaid Impugned Resolutions would send the wrong signal to academics, historians, journalists, students and others that they cannot during the course of their study or research critically inquire or write about any of the key historical figures of India, which is also contrary to the Constitution of India and the values it seeks to protect. If the aforesaid Impugned Resolutions are not struck down, then it would have chilling effect on free speech, and hindering a critical and independent academic engagement with the history of both pre and post independent India, and its key personalities.

U. BECAUSE, the aforesaid Impugned Resolutions have been passed not only in contravention of the well-established fundamental freedoms as upheld by this Hon’ble Court but also against the rules, tradition and history of the law making by the Indian Parliament itself. The rich history of the writing of the Indian Constitution is replete with debates and discussion by some of the finest legal minds on the fundamental rights that were finally incorporated in Chapter III of the Indian Constitution.
V. BECAUSE the passage of the Impugned Resolution is contrary to the procedure and rules framed by both the houses of Parliament themselves in exercise of the power to frame rules under Article 118 of the Constitution of India. Chapter XI of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the Council of States, 8th Edn., August, 2013 (“Rajya Sabha Rules of Procedure and Business”) contains the requirements for passage of resolutions. Rule 157 contained in this chapter, contains the conditions of admissability for a resolution. Rule 157(iii) requires that the resolution “shall not contain…defamatory statements”. Even more importantly, Rule 157(iv) requires that the resolution “shall not refer to the conduct or character of a person, except in their official or public capacity”. Similarly, Chapter XIII of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha (“Lok Sabha Rules of Procedure and Business”) contains the procedure for passage of resolution in the Lok Sabha. Rule 173 (iii) requires that the resolution “shall not contain…defamatory statements” and Rule 173(v) requires that the resolution “shall not refer to the conduct or character of a person, except  in their official or public capacity”
W. BECAUSE, the resolutions passed by the Rajya Sabha and Lok Sabha violate both these aforestated conditions as condemning a view held by the Petitioner is defamatory and also the said statements were made by the Petitioner as a private citizen of a country and the Petitioner as of the date of making this statement does not hold any constitutional, official or governmental post.
X. BECAUSE, that the rule against passage of a resolution against the conduct or character of a private individual is present because the Houses of Parliament ought not to be concerned with the conduct or comment of individuals. This rule further implies that despite this embargo, in case such a resolution in relation to conduct or comment of a private individual is sought to be passed, such a private individual is at least put to notice and heard.

Y. BECAUSE while historical facts are objective, the manner in which one reaches those facts is subjective and therefore opinion on facts will differ.

Z. BECAUSE, the fiery speeches and discussion by the Constituent Assembly on the fundamental rights, particularly freedom of speech & expression and equality point that the aforesaid impugned Resolutions are in direct contravention of the fundamental freedoms envisaged by the lawmakers who gave us the Indian Constitution. It is widely known that the Chairman of the Constituent Assembly, Dr. B R Ambedkar, who had led the Constitution Drafting Process was proudest of Chapter III of the Indian Constitution which provided for these salient and inalienable rights.

AA. BECAUSE none of the reliefs being sought by the Petitioner in this Petition in any manner impact any of the Parliamentary Privileges mentioned in Article 105 of the Constitution of India. While a Constitution Bench of this Hon’ble Court in Raja Ram Pal v. Hon’ble Speaker, Lok Sabha and Others, (2007) 3 SCC 184 has held that the freedom of speech mentioned in Article 105(1) of the Constitution is unrestricted and not subject to Article 19 of the Constitution, the same applies to statements made by individuals within the Parliament and not to resolutions passed by the Houses of Parliament. The Petitioner herein is not impugning any of the statements made by the Hon’ble Members of the Parliament individually, but impugning the resolution passed by the Houses of Parliament as a whole.

BB. BECAUSE, the “Parliament of India” is State as defined in Article 12 of the Constitution.
CC. BECAUSE in fact, the Supreme Court was envisaged to be the protector and the upholder of the Constitution along with the fundamental freedoms envisaged therein. Shrimati G Durgabai, one of the distinguished members of the Constituent Assembly during the Discussion on Abolition of Privy Council Jurisdiction Bill on 17 September 1949, had clearly stated that the Supreme Court will be the highest court of appeal for all high courts and also the judicial authority for the interpretation of the Constitution. She further wished and hoped that the Supreme Court which is going to be the guardian of the Constitution and of the fundamental rights guaranteed therein, will do its function very well and every citizen in India will have the occasion to say that it has protected his rights as a true guardian of this Constitution. Furthermore, that the changes in the political and constitutional independence of the country was hinged on judicial autonomy.

DD. BECAUSE, the abovestated Petitioner’s view in respect of these two historical figures, has also been adopted by many different and well-known historians, belonging to different schools of historiography as also other eminent figures of the era. Therefore, what the Petitioner has stated is not new but draws from well-researched view that many noted historians have already taken on these two historical figures. One may agree or disagree with this view, but it is humbly submitted that there is no reason to condemn this view by the Parliament.  
EE. BECAUSE the spirit of the Constitution of India is to uphold all types of engaged and critical enquiry, research and study into all aspects of constitutional and political history of the country, and these impugned Resolutions will have the effect of muzzling and discouraging any critical thinking or enquiry, and this is further complimented by Article 51-A(h) of the Constitution of India;
FF. BECAUSE the impugned resolutions are otherwise bad in law, procedure and contrary to the Constitution.

Any other ground that may be taken at the time of the hearing with the Leave of the Hon’ble Court.

22. That the Petitioner has not filed any other petition before this Hon’ble Court or before any other court against the Impugned Resolutions.

In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to pass a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ:

A. Quashing the Impugned Resolutions in respect of the Petitioner passed by the Lok Sabha on 12.3.2015 and the Rajya Sabha on 11.3.2015;
B. Directing the Respondent No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 to give the Petitioner a post decisional hearing either himself or through his duly designated lawyer(s), and/or,
C. Pass such other orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of this case

The Great Dissent

 It takes great courage to stand up alone for what is right .

 In Plessy vs. Ferguson, 163 U.S.537 ( 1896 ), Justice Harlan was the sole dissenting Judge against the shameful majority verdict of the U.S.Supreme Court propounding the devious doctrine of ' separate but equal ' which put a badge of inferiority on the black man in USA, and validated a dreadful system of apartheid for over half a century in America.
In his historic judgment Justice Harlan said :

"  In the view of the Constitution, in the eye of the law, there is in this country no superior, dominant, ruling class of citizens.  There is no caste here.  Our Constitution in color-blind and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens.  In respect of civil rights, all citizens are equal before the law.   The humblest is the peer of the most powerful.  The law regards man as man and takes no account of his surroundings or of his color when his civil rights as guaranteed by the supreme law of the land are involved.

The arbitrary separation of citizens, on the basis of race, while they are on a public highway, is a badge of servitude wholly inconsistent with the civil freedom and the equality before the law established by the Constitution.  It cannot be justified upon any legal grounds

If evils will result from the comingling of the two races upon public highways established for the benefit of all, they will be infinitely less than those that will surely come from state legislation regulating the enjoyment of civil rights upon the basis of race.

 We boast of the freedom enjoyed by our people above all other peoples.  But it is difficult to reconcile that boast with the state of the law which, practically, puts the brand of servitude and degradation upon a large class of our fellow citizens, our equals before the law.  The thin disguise of "equal" accommodations for passengers in railroad coaches will not mislead anyone, nor atone for the wrong this day done. "

Katju, thonkte raho

When I was a Judge of Allahabad High Court, I had come to Delhi to attend a function. This was perhaps in 1996 or so, when the SP-BSP alliance was in power in U.P.

At that time illegal house grabbing was being done on a large scale in U.P. by some SP BSP men, which if not stopped would have led to a total collapse of law and order in the state, replacing it with jungle raj ( which I called, following the term used by our ancient thinkers, matsya nyaya,  or the law of the fishes).

To prevent this, I gave very strong judgments against the illegal house grabbing, and called the bureaucrats and police officers who did not stop this as cowards, who were not justifying their salt. by behaving in a cowardly manner before the politicians. I ordered immediate restoration of possession to the rightful owners.

 Appeals were filed against my judgments before the Supreme Court, but they were all dismissed.
 At the function in Delhi, Justice Kuldip Singh, a very senior Judge of the Supreme Court, met me and referring to my judgments, said :

" काटजू, ठोंकते रहो ठोंकते रहो "

Sunday, 28 June 2015

For God's sake, investigate Dattu

 Is the whole country deaf and dumb ?

A fb message. I have deleted the name of the sender :

Jun 24th, 4:25am
जस्टिस मार्कंडेय काटजू का ताजा लेख भारत के मुख्य न्यायाधीश एचएल दत्तू पर कई गंभीर सवाल खड़े करता है.


क्या जस्टिस दत्तू के खिलाफ भ्रष्टाचार के आरोपों की जांच होनी चाहिए? - सत्याग्रह
जस्टिस मारकंडेय काटजू का ताजा लेख भारत के मुख्य न्यायाधीश एचएल दत्तू पर कई गंभीर सवाल खड़े करता है.

Jun 28th, 7:53am
Chief Justice of India.
मी लॉर्ड!
आप पर भ्रष्टाचार के गंभीर आरोप है. लाखों लोग और दर्जनों संस्थाएं उन आरोपों की जांच की मांग कर रही हैं. सार्वजनिक मंचों से डंके की चोट पर आपको भ्रष्टाचारी कहा जा रहा है. आप देश के सर्वोच्च न्यायिक पद पर हैं और आपकी सत्यनिष्ठा सवालों के घेरे में. इसके बावजूद भी आप चुप्पी साधे हुए हैं. आपकी यह असाधारण चुप्पी आपके पक्ष को ही कमज़ोर बनाती है.
यदि आप साफ हैं तो ऐसा दिखना भी जरूरी है, मी लॉर्ड!

14 मई 2015 को जस्टिस मार्कंडेय काटजू ने अपने ब्लॉग पर एक लेख लिखा था. इसमें उन्होंने जस्टिस दत्तू पर लग रहे भ्रष्टाचार के आरोपों को सार्वजानिक किया और साथ ही यह भी बताया कि उन्होंने खुद अब तक इस मामले की जांच के लिए कितने प्रयास किये हैं. इन प्रयासों के बाद भी अब तक किसी भी स्तर पर जस्टिस दत्तू के खिलाफ जांच शुरू क्यों नहीं हुई? क्यों इन आरोपों के बाद भी जस्टिस दत्तू को देश का मुख्य न्यायाधीश बना दिया गया? क्यों उन मीडिया संस्थानों ने भी कोई खोजी रिपोर्ट नहीं की जिन्हें काटजू ने इन आरोपों से संबंधित दस्तावेज सौंपे थे? इस तमाम सवालों का सबसे आसान जवाब यह हो सकता है कि जस्टिस काटजू जिन आरोपों की बात कर रहे हैं वह इतने हलके हों कि उनके आधार पर जस्टिस दत्तू के खिलाफ कोई भी कार्रवाई संभव ही न हो. लेकिन यह जवाब जितनी आसानी से समझ में आता है, उतनी ही आसानी से नकारा भी जा सकता है.

here is the link for the complete report ..


जस्टिस एचएल दत्तू : साफ हैं तो ऐसा दिखना भी जरूरी है, मी लॉर्ड! - सत्याग्रह
देश के सर्वोच्च न्यायिक पद पर बैठे जस्टिस एचएल दत्तू, यदि अपनी सत्यनिष्ठा सवालों के घेरे में होने पर भी चुप हैं तो यह उनके पक्ष को ही कमज़ोर बनाता है.

Ko kahi sakai Prayag prabhau ?

This is my home town, Allahabad. I was raised there, got educated there, practised law there in the High Court, for 20 years  (from 1971 to 1991 ), and was a Judge there ( from 1991 to 2004, when I was appointed Chief Justice of Madras High Court ).

I guess something like 55 of my 69 years were spent in Allahabad. Much of what I am today is because of Allahabad.

When someone asks me to describe Allahabad, my eyes water, and the following lines of Tulsidas from the Ramcharitmanas come to my lips :

" Ko kahi sakai Prayag prabhau
  Kalush punj kunjar mrigrau "
" Who can tell the greatness of Prayag ?
   It destroys all sins, just as a lion kills an elephant "


Indians are like Hanumanji

In the Ramcharitmanas Tulsidas writes :

 "कहइ रीछपति सुनु हनुमाना। का चुप साधि रहेहु बलवाना।।
पवन तनय बल पवन समाना। बुधि बिबेक बिग्यान निधाना।।
कवन सो काज कठिन जग माहीं। जो नहिं होइ तात तुम्ह पाहीं।।
राम काज लगि तब अवतारा। सुनतहिं भयउ पर्वताकारा।।
कनक बरन तन तेज बिराजा। मानहु अपर गिरिन्ह कर राजा।।
सिंहनाद करि बारहिं बारा। लीलहीं नाषउँ जलनिधि खारा।।
सहित सहाय रावनहि मारी। आनउँ इहाँ त्रिकूट उपारी।।
जामवंत मैं पूँछउँ तोही। उचित सिखावनु दीजहु मोही।।
एतना करहु तात तुम्ह जाई। सीतहि देखि कहहु सुधि आई। "

These are lines from Tulsidas'  Ramcharitmanas. When Lord Rama's army reached the sea, no one apart from Hanumanji had the strength to cross the sea to enquire about Sita's welfare and return. But Hanumanji was sitting alone quietly on a rock. So Jamvantji, the king of the bears ( reechpati ) was deputed to motivate him.
 Hanumanji, though very powerful, had forgotten his prowess, due to the curse of some rishis, whose yagya he had disturbed in his childhood. But the rishis said he will recover his powers if someone reminded him of them.
 The above verses should be read as an allegory. Jamvant is me, and Hanumanji are you Indian people, who have forgotten your powers. So I have come to remind you of them.
In the first two lines Jamvant asks Hanumanji why he is silent ? So also, I ask you people of India, why are you silent when the country is in such distress ?
You have the physical strength of Pavan ( the wind ). A storm or typhoon can smash even  huge trees and buildings. And you have not just physical strength. You are also full of of 'buddhi ( intelligence ), vivek ( discrimination ), and vigyan ( science ). Indians are some of the most intelligent people in this world, who discovered the decimal system, plastic surgery, etc in ancient times, and are manning Silicon Valley and science and mathematics departments in North America in USA in the modern times

 The next couplet states : what is there which you cannot do ? You have come here to do Lord Rama's work. On hearing this, Hanumanji's body started growing, until it became as big as a mountain.
 This should be interpreted to mean : Indian people, you underestimate yourselves. You are unaware of your tremedous potential.

 Just as Hanumanji had been given a curse that he will forget his powers until someone reminded him of them, so also Indian people have forgotten their capabilities and potential ( as they were demoralized by the British who spread the false propaganda that Indians were only a race of fools and savages).

 Now that you are being made aware of your tremendous capabilities, you will rise high in the comity of nations, instead of being humiliated and kicked around.

Hanumanji's body is shining like gold ( kanak means gold, and baran means colour  ), and radiance ( tej ) is coming out from his body ( tan ). The same will happen to India, too, once we attain our full potential and become a highly industrialized, prosperous nation.

 Hanumanji then starts roaring repeatedly like a lion ( singhnad kari barambara ), and says he will swallow up the ocean and cross it. That is what you Indians too will start doing, once you know your tremendous powers.

 However, Hanumanji  also has humility ( which we Indians must always have ). He requests Jamvant to give him proper guidance and advice ( uchit sikhavan deejahi mohi ). So even when he is now aware of his tremendous powers he does not lose his modesty.

 And Jamwantji gives him the correct advice : Hanumanji's task is only to go to Lanka and find out Sitaji's welfare. Rescuing Sitaji is the task of Rama. In other words, one must know one's limits

Munni cartoons needed

Now I want some of you to prepare the following cartoons and mail them to me on mark_katju@yahoo.co.in or message them to me on fb : I will then post them on my fb page.
the four badnaam Munnis are dancing, the first singing " Main jhandu baam hui ", the second singing " Main cinema hall hui ", the third singing "  Main atom bomb hui ", and the fourth singing " Main taksaal hui ".

 One can also sing " Shilpa sa phigur, bebo si ada ", and another sing " Aise budhaape ko kar de jawaan "
 Who should be Salman Khan is for you to figure out


Saturday, 27 June 2015

Why the Indian media boycotts me

I was asked by a person in a comment on my previous fb post as to why the Indian media boycotts me. Here is the question, and my answer :

Diwaker Pant
Dear Katju sir,
 I am not getting one thing. You are daily saying something about the country and countrymen. You also blaming CJI and politicians. You are targeting each and every famous personality. But Indian media isn't giving you coverage. Why ? In India if a local leader makes a nonsense comment he will be given coverage on prime t.v. but you as ex Supreme Court Judge are just ignored by media. Why ?

My reply

 The Indian media seems to have conferred together and taken a collective decision to boycott me, apparently for two reasons :

 (1) They have received oral instructions from some very high political authority against whom I have been regularly writing not to give me any publicity, and not to publish anything I write or say. This can be inferred from the fact that I sent many articles which I had written to some leading newspapers for publication. They did not even show me the courtesy to acknowledge the email with which I sent the article.

I do not say that they are bound to publish my articles. That is their editorial discretion. But should not they at least write back saying that they are unable to publish it ( for whatever reason ) ? Do I not deserve at least that much courtesy ?

 (2) I called most media people 'presstitutes', borrowing the word from Gen. V.K Singh. There are some exceptions, some upright journalists like P.Sainath, Karan Thapar, late Vinod Mehta, Ravish Kumar, Rahul Kanwal, N.Ram, etc, otherwise most media people in India are sold out to corporates and have no shame. They have been told by their masters to divert attention of the people, and not to give publicity to the real issues facing the Indian people---massive poverty, massive unemployment, child malnourishment abysmal state of healthcare and good education, farmers suicides, discrimination against minorities, women,etc and instead to  divert attention of the people and focus on non issues like bollywood, lives of film stars, politics ( which has sunk to the lowest level ), cricket, astrology, babas, etc

Are such people not 'presstitutes' ? And no wonder they will boycott me.
 However, the Indian media does not know whom they are dealing with. I am not the kind of man who can be silenced.  I have the social media available to me, and so I will use it to spread my ideas, which I believe are in the national interest

Getting Old

I am going to be 69 years old, and the best description of my condition is in the following verses of the famous Hindi poet Keshav ( 1555-1617 ) :

केशव केशन अस करी जस अरिहूं न कराहिं,
चंद्रवदन मृगलोचनी ‘बाबा’कहि-कहि जाहिं.

Keshav Keshan asi karee, jas ari hu na karahin,
Chandra Badan, mriglochani, Baba kahi kahi jaahin

O Keshav, what havoc these grey hairs have brought to thee
May such fate not befall your worst enemy
 Girls with moonlike bodies and gazelle eyes
 Call me 'Baba' and go their ways.
Sometimes in my Court a short statured lawyer would appear before me. I would tell him/her not to have an inferiority complex, but to feel like Napoleon.
 Napoleon was reputed to be short, but his generals were mostly six footers, like me. Yet the generals would all salute Napleon
 I would then recite the well known couplet of the Hindi poet Bihari ( 1595-1663 ):
" सरसैया के दोहरे ज्यों नावक के तीर
देखन में छोटन लगें घाव करें गंभीर "

Friday, 26 June 2015

Sir Winston and Whiskey

Sir Winston Churchill was once asked about his position on whisky.
Here's how he answered:
"If you mean whisky, the devil's brew, the poison scourge, the bloody monster that defiles innocence, dethrones reason, destroys the home, creates misery and poverty, yes, literally takes the bread from the mouths of little children;

If you mean that evil drink that topples men and women from the pinnacles of righteous and gracious living into the bottomless pit of degradation, shame, despair, helplessness and hopelessness, then, my friend, I am opposed to it with every fibre of my being."

"However, if by whisky you mean the oil of conversation, the philosophic wine, the elixir of life, the ale that is consumed when good fellows get together, that puts a song in their hearts and the warm glow of contentment in their eyes;

If you mean good cheer, the stimulating sip that puts a little spring in the step of an elderly gentleman on a frosty morning;

If you mean that drink that enables man to magnify his joy, and to forget life's great tragedies and heartbreaks and sorrow;

If you mean that drink the sale of which pours into our treasuries untold millions of pounds each year, that provides tender care for our little crippled children, our blind, our deaf, our dumb, our pitifully aged and infirm, to build the finest highways, hospitals, universities, and community colleges in this nation...

Then my friend, I am absolutely, unequivocally in favour of it..!!!
"This is my position, and as always, I refuse to compromise on matters of principle.!!!"

A Cromwell is coming to pack off these jokers

The monsoon session of Parliament is finished even before it has begun ( by inevitable disruption over the Lalitgate, Pankaja, Smriti Irani and other issues ). The winter session is also gone ( over some other issues ). Then the budget session, the session after that, and so on ad infinitum.
 The day is not far off when a company of soldiers led by a Cromwell will march into the Parliament hall, as happened on 20th April, 1653, and pack off these jokers who have become only a burden on the Indian people and leeches sucking the people's blood ( see ' Satyam Bruyat ', my Times of India blog : " A French Revolution is Approaching " )

Let Owaisi sit on dharna or resign as M.P. This drama has gone on too long

Nayeem Uddin
Jun 25th, 11:47am
Dear Sir, with all due respect which I always have for you, please tell me what a politician should be like? I agree with almost all of your views on various issues except a couple of them. Your recent remarks on Asaduddin Owaisi is one I don't agree with. It is because of the efforts put by Asaduddin Owaisi and his party that Abdul Qadeer is on parole. Your criticism, the way you do it (fearless, bold and upright) has always inspired me and thousands of others. However, I would request you to kindly do a little research on MIM party and Asaduddin Owaisi's work before you call him a "dramabaz". It was his party who appointed maximum number of dalits (Non-Muslims). He is the one who always promotes and encourages the secularism of India. I remember that you advised the editor of a Urdu daily too to give dharna for the release of Abdul Qadeer to which the editor didn't respond. What is your view about that editor. I am from Hyderabad and I have seen MIM and Asaduddin Owaisi working at ground level for the upliftment of Muslims and Dalits.

Nayeem Uddin
Jun 25th, 11:51am
I have no objection if you want to display my name with this message, should you wish to post it on your page. Thanks and best regards.

Markandey Katju
Jun 25th, 12:27pm
Why can Owaisi not sit on dharna for Qadeer's pardon ? You people keep trying to avoid my question and obfuscate. Some people commented that I should sit on dharna. But I am not an MP from Hyderabad.  Owaisi is. Let him not do any more drama, and sit on dharna, otherwise he stands exposed. A person who claims to represent all Muslims of India, is not even willing to sit on dharna for pardon to a single Muslim of Hyderabad who has been in jail for 25 years and whose one leg was amputated due to diabetes, and has other ailments. If Owaisi does not now sit on dharna he will stand thoroughly exposed as a person who far from representing Indian Muslims, is only a demagogue and dramabaz

Nayeem Uddin
Jun 25th, 12:46pm
Sir, thank you for the response. I really respect your views. Abdul Qadeer sahab happens to be a distant relative of one of my childhood friends. When I showed him on your FB page the initiative you have taken for his pardon, he had no words to praise you.
Owaisi never claimed that he represents only the Muslims of India. He always tried to be the voice of the voiceless and oppressed, be it Muslims or Non-Muslims. It is the pressure from Police that the Telangana govt is not able to decide for Qadeer's pardon. And those who are asking you to sit on a dharna are just trying to pass the bug on you and I am not of that opinion. Instead, I am very inspired that without even knowing him, you have taken a initiative to seek his pardon. Sir, you can't deny the fact that Asaduddin Owaisi is far better than any other MPs in India today. Thank you once again Sir. I know you are an athiest but still I would say, May God bless you with health, wealth and prosperity and protect you from your enemies.

Markandey Katju
Jun 25th, 4:12pm
All these excuses will not do. Tell Qwaisi to sit on dharna before the CMs house immediately, failing which he stands exposed as a dramabaz and demagogue, and must resign as M.P.
Poor, poor Advani
Poor Advani, the man responsible for the increase of BJP seats in the Lok Sabha from 2 in 1984 to 182 in 1999 by his crafty scheme of inciting communal passions and hatred  through his rath yatras and Ram Mandir stunts, which enabled BJP to come to power in the Centre, has been totally sidelined and left in the cold by his very  proteges, his chelas, whom he had once groomed. What can be more sad ? Et tu Brute !
 But this is nothing unique in history. Von Papen, who became Vice Chancellor of Germany in January 1933, thought he had made Hitler the Chancellor, and so the latter would do his bidding. So also had thought Roehm and the Strasser brothers. Until they learnt ( if they survived at all ) from bitter experience.
 This reminds me of a story.
 Once a wrestling teacher trained a young man, and after several years told him that he had taught the latter all he knew about wrestling.
 On hearing this, the disciple, who had become very arrogant, challenged his teacher to a wrestling bout in the presence of a large number of people. The disciple thought that since he knew as much about wrestling as his teacher, and since he was a younger man, he could easily defeat the teacher, who had become an old man.
 But soon after the bout began the teacher floored the disciple, using a wrestling hold ( daon ) which he had not taught the chela.
 The chela then complained to his teacher that he should have been taught that hold too.
 The guru replied " My son, I knew that one day you may become arrogant and challenge me to a wrestling bout. So I taught you all the holds except this one, just in case it may be needed "
 So Advani made the mistake of teaching his chelas all the 'daons' in politics. He should have kept one in reserve, just in case it was needed some day.


Thursday, 25 June 2015

Bol ki lab azad hain tere
Many relatives and friends of mine have expressed their concern about my personal security when I return to India in view of the various statements I have made about Gandhi, beef ban, burqa, Indian politicians ( whom I have called politisstitutes ), RSS, etc.
Why have I been making these statements ? I have no desire to be a hero or be bumped off or become another M.F.Husain, and i knew the risks involved in what I was doing.
 But I have a duty to my country.
 I saw my country going to dogs, and everyone was turning a blind eye to this.
 Our politicians, who should be behaving like role models and giving correct guidance to the nation had become almost entirely a bunch of rogues, rascals and shameless and incorrigible looters, who had pilfered not crores but hundreds of crores of the nation's wealth and secretly transferred it to foreign secret havens.
 I saw 75-80% of my people living in horrible poverty, with massive unemployment, malnourishment, lack of healthcare and good education, discrimination against women, minorities, dalits, etc
  I saw the 'intellectuals', the educated class of teachers and professionals, who are normally the eyes of society, to be an almost totally bunch of selfish comfort loving class who will not do anything to put at risk their cushy lifestyles, and who have become commercialized.
 Should nobody speak out for India ?
Well, I am going to speak out for my country. Others may be deaf and dumb but I am not.
 I was told by many to be restrained in my utterances. I think it is this 'restraint' which has resulted in the sorry plight in which India finds itself today. Everybody in India practices restraint, which means : make money, and to hell with the country.
 Well, this humble self will not practice restraint.
 Bol ki lab azad hain tere, bol zubaan ab tak teri hai
Modern Hindi literature
Shortly after I was appointed a Judge of the Allahabad High Court in 1991 a friend of mine, a Hindi writer named Neelkant, came to my residence and requested me to be the Chief Guest at a function in Hindustani Academy ( next to Prayag Sangeet Samiti ) in which a book on some aspects of Hindi literature which he had written would be released.
 Ordinarily, after becoming a Judge, I would not attend social functions, as my seniors in the Indian judiciary had advised me that a Judge must live a reclusive life. But then there can be exceptions. Neelkant was such a dear friend ( the last I heard of him was that he was living in Jhunsi, on the other side of the Ganges ) that I could not refuse.
 There was a big crowd at the Hindustani Academy hall that day ( it was probably some day in early 1992 ).. Many speakers spoke, and then I was asked to speak.
   I have been outspoken  throughout my life, and this occasion was  to be no exception. I said that though I had a high opinion of medeival Hindi writers like Kabir, Sur, Tulsi, Rahim, Raskhan, Mira, etc, modern Hindi literature was mostly sub standard, ( I remember I used the words ' daridra' and 'ghatiya' ) and had no place in world literature.
 The really great modern lndian literature, I said, was in Urdu in poetry and Bangla in prose. I especially praised Urdu poets e.g. Mir, Ghalib, Faiz, Firaq, etc. Even amongst the modern Hindi writers the best acclaimed were those with an Urdu background e.g. Premchand, Kishan Chand, Rajinder Singh Bedi, etc
 When I was saying all this, hooting against me started. One Hindi writer stood up and in a loud voice  asked " Aap yahan kyon aaye ? Aise anpadh admi ko kisne Judge bana diya ? " ( " Why have you come here ? Who has made such an illiterate man as a Judge ? " ).
I replied that I had come because I had been invited by the writer of the book which was being released. I also said that if some people did not agree with me they could coolly and politely say that I was mistaken, and they could point out the good things in modern Hindi literature. I said that I had an open mind, it may be I may be having a wrong impression of modern Hindi literature, and if convinced,I could change my opinion about it. But is this the way educated people should express their disagreement with me. ?
But this only further infuriated the motley crowd of Hindi writers and self proclaimed 'literati', and the uproar against me increased.
 When I could not take these insults any more I walked out of the hall saying " You are all a bunch of goondas ".
 Next day the newspapers, both Hindi and English, were full of this incident, and the result was that this gave the book such publicity that all copies of Neelkant's book were immediately sold out, and many more editions were in great demand.
 Neelkant later came to my house and apologized for the misbehaviour of people in the crowd that day, but I told him not to worry. He should write another book on some aspects of Hindi literature, and again call me as Chief guest in the function for its release. I would again call modern Hindi literature 'daridra' and 'ghatiya', which would result in another uproar, and the resultant publicity would again ensure a good sale of the book !
MGNREG Act, 2005
I suppose I will again have to bell the cat, since I do not see anyone  else around to do the job. And no doubt I will be showered with abuses again. But what of that ? As Faiz said " Bol ki lab azad hain tere, bol zubaan ab tak teri hai " i.e. ' Speak out, for your lips are free. Speak out, for your tongue is still yours '. So I will speak out.
The Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee, Act, 2005, which ostensibly ensures 100 days work for every rural household, is nothing but a gigantic hoax, a stunt, like the National Food Security Act, 2013,aimed at getting votes by befooling the public, taking them for a ride, and posing to be their benefactor.
 It is true that there is massive unemployment in the country ( see my blog ' Unemployment in India ' on justicekatju.blogspot.in ). 10 million youth are entering into the job market every year, but only half a million jobs are being created annually in the organized sector of the economy.
 But jobs cannot be created by legislation, otherwise why not simply pass a law that unemployment is abolished, and everyone will be given a well paying job ?
 Jobs are created when the economy is rapidly expanding, but that is not possible within the present system in India. The truth is that presently the Indian economy is lying broadly stagnant.
 Also, we have many welfare schemes in India. But it is the bureaucracy which has to implement these schemes, and the bureaucracy in India is largely corrupt. So apart from the basic objection that employment cannot be created by legislation, another glaring fact is that MNREGA is mired in corruption, as it was bound to be considering the widespread and deeply entrenched corruption in India.
 The MNREGA scheme was to be implemented by the gram (village ) panchayat, but everyone having even a little idea of the social realities of rural India knows that most of these gram panchayats are hotbeds of casteism and centres of corruption. The gram pradhan, and other officials of the gram panchayats, and their relatives have grabbed almost all the gram sabha land which was meant for the common use of all villagers.
 MNREGA is another swindle, fraud and sapna ( dream ) shown by our crooked politicians, our Sapnon ke Saugagar ( dream merchants ), who while pretending to be working for the people's welfare by presenting such schemes, were in fact busy looting the country of not crores, but lacs of crores of rupees which they have taken abroad to secret havens.
 Hari Om

Wednesday, 24 June 2015

इन्हन का बहुत समझावा , ई न मनहीं
बस अब पीट पीट के घर वापस लाये का अहै
ई सब चला अइहीं
Jai Prakash Narayan ( 1902-1979 )
 In my previous post I had called Jai Prakash Narayan, for whom the Union Government is proposing to set up a Memorial at his birthplace, a buffoon.
 Many people furiously attacked me for saying this, and some people asked for my reasons. So let me clarify.
India is facing massive problems of poverty, unemployment, healthcare, malnourishment, etc. Did J.P. have any scientific ideas for solving these problems ? All he proclaimed was ' Sampoorna Kranti ' or ' Total Revolution ' which is so vague an expression that it can mean anything to anybody
 People were fed up of Indira Gandhi  by the mid 1970s, as she had deceived them by her sloga ' Gharibi hatao ', when in fact after her accession to power gharibi continued in India unabated, and even got worse for most Indians. So they were looking for a messiah, a modern Moses who would lead them into a land of milk and sugar. And they found one in J.P.
  Most people in India are like children who can be easily deceived and taken for a ride by a Pied Piper of Hamelin, or a Hitler, who told the German people that they were 'Herrenvolk' or the Master Race, and that the Jews were responsible for all their ills. They are always seeking a 'Sapnon ka Saudagar' ( seller of dreams ).
 Just as Modi sold the dream of 'vikas' in the May 2014 Lok Sabha elections, and Kejriwal sold the dream of ' imaandari ' in the February 2015 Delhi Assembly elections, so also J.P. had sold the dream of ' Total Revolution ' in the 1970s. And the gullible Indian people readily lapped it up.
 What was there in J.P. ? Only vague ideas of Gandhian socialism, devolution of power to the village panchayats ( which Gandhi and Kejriwal also advocated ), and abolition of corruption ( which Kejriwal's mentor, Anna Hazare, another buffoon, also preached ).
 'Gandhian socialism' means nothing, village panchayats are hotbeds of casteism and centres of corruption, and corruption cannot be removed in India for the next 15-20 years, and whoever says to the contrary is either a demagogue or a charlatan ( see my blog ' India in Transition and Corrupt )
  Like his guru Gandhi, whom I have described as a British agent , J.P. was also against a violent revolution. But the truth is that a revolution is never peaceful. As Robespierre, the great leader in the French Revolution of 1789 said in the French National Convention ( see my blog  'Robespierre' on justicekatju.blogspot.in ) : "  Citoyen, voulez vous un revolucion sans revolucion ?" ( Citizens, do you want a revolution without a revolution ?" ).
 J.P. was only a Sapnon ka Saudagar, with no scientific ideas in his head
What is happening in Punjab ?
A fb message from a Punjabi. He permitted me to mention his name, but I think that for his safety it is better to delete it

Hello Markandey Katju Ji,

Sir, I am from Punjab and I would like to share with you some experiences of how minorities feel here. I would be grateful if you could share these on your blog/facebook page.

In Punjab majority of population is now considering Bhindrawala as a Saint. There are many people trying to terrorise other people by putting up big hoardings with picture of Bhindrawala reminding people of the dreaded days of terrorism by him. Not just this, lakhs of cars carry a picture of him with the words " lagda hai fer aana pau " i.e. " It seems I will have to come back again " having a suggestion of spreading terrorism again.

People openly talk of separating from Indian state. In recent Anandpur Sahib celebrations there were slogans raised openly of Khalisatan Zindabad in presence of the so called LEADERS of BJP. They did not raise any voice against these separatists. Sir my forefathers have suffered from brunt of partition earlier. Then they suffered under terrorism. Will they have to suffer again?

Sir, I would also like to bring to your notice about the condition of everyone in a city called Malerkotla .This is the only city in Indian Punjab with a majority, 55% Muslim population My sister is married there and sir she had to go through harrowing experience. Muslim community there do not let Hindus celebrate festivals like Diwali. They come to streets and break glass bottles on road so that Hindus do not come out to celebrate the festival. Shops on Hindus festivals are vandalised.

Eve-teasing of girls has reached new extreme with every passing day. Police officers do not accept complaints against the Muslims. Everyone fears going against them as they get united and outcaste every Hindu who tries to do the same.

Sir, even the slightest criticism of any religion is met with oral and physical violence. I have criticised HIndus, Sikhs and Muslims here. And I have been met with such extreme aggression that is unspeakable.

Sir, the religion here in Punjab has gone haywire. Everyday there are thousands and thousands of processions, extremely loud bhajan, kirtan and shabad gyan by temples and Gurudwaras. In front of these so called religious places, hundreds of people gather coming in their huge cars, honking, creating pollution and create utter ruckus in that 1 hour of their bhakti with which they feel they will get salvation. Sir in my humble opinion no religion talks about use of loudspeakers. Sir the Supreme Court judgement in Church of God case has become a beautiful piece of judgement lying locked in law books only.

Religious intolerance has gone extreme with no one ready to listen to even one bit of criticism of irrational, unscientific and nonsense rituals, customs, nagar kirtans, rath yatras.

There is no place here for atheists like me.

Politically half of Punjab is owned by Badals now. Buses, Cable network, bus routes, shares in businesses, extreme corruption in every aspect are glaring examples of it.

In terms of economy even states like Bihar, Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh are doing better than Punjab.

Sir, I can assure you that if ever Indian revolution starts it will need to be started from Punjab.

My best wishes for your great health in these later years of your life.

Warm regards