- Introduction
- About me
- My Study on Administration of Justice
- Administration of criminal justice, in reality
- My Grievance
- Doctrine of “Rule of Law”
- My apprehension about the administration of justice in the District of Dindigul
- Contempt of Courts
- My Questions
- Caution
- Conclusion
This is a grievance letter of an advocate who has been simmering for months about the police atrocities and indifferent attitude of the subordinate judiciary of the District of Dindigul in the State of Tamilnadu.
This letter is not intended to tarnish the image of the Indian Judiciary which still has a high place in our Society. However, I’ll be failing in my duty if this letter does not reflect the frustrations of the people of India about the working of the Indian Justice Delivery System. The Judiciary as well as various Governments in India have failed in their duty to make justice delivery system efficient, transparent and more accessible to the poor.
Constitution of India provides an independent and impartial Judiciary in India. However, Dr. Karunanidhi who is an elected Chief Minister of the State of Tamilnadu which is a constitutional office had once expressed his dissatisfaction over the working of the Justice Delivery System in India by saying that “We do not know to whom we should represent to see to it that the adage ‘Justice delayed, Justice denied’ does not come true,” (The Hindu, Dt. 14.11.2009, News item: “Karunanidhi voices regret over apex court decision on dam”).
I believe that the dissatisfaction and frustration in the administration of justice is not only of the Chief Minister of Tamilnadu but also of the several sections of the people living in our country who believe that the Justice Delivery System in India is some how being diluted by some political calculations, albeit I’ve no comments on the particular issue on which Dr. Karunanidhi had expressed his regrets as the same is subjudice.
Injustice or even delay in the administration of criminal justice would be instrumental in creating an atmosphere of menace, because the victims would take retaliatory measures to secure justice. It is to be noted herein that India has now been constrained to wage war against its own citizens, i.e. to combat the armed struggle of the People’s Committee Against Police Atrocities (PCPA), C.P.I. (Maoist) and other naxalite parties, which reportedly have influence among sizeable sections of civil society, the intelligentsia and the youth.
I am an advocate by profession who has been awarded the degrees of Master of Laws (LL.M.) and Master of Arts (M.A.-Political Science) by the University of Mumbai. I am 37 years old.
My native place is Melakkovilpatty which is a village within the limits of Batlagundu Police Station of Dindigul District in the State of Tamilnadu. I am presently living in the city of Madurai. I had to shift my family from Batlagundu to Madurai because of the diluted justice delivery system in the District of Dindigul where I was shown the worst side of the Indian politics.
When I had been practising well before the various Courts of Justice in the Metropolitan City of Mumbai, my parents had instructed me to practise law in the State of Tamilnadu so that I could render legal assistance to the people of my Home State. I, therefore, came over to the State of Tamilnadu to fulfil the wishes of my parents. However,I experienced real depression and became hypertensive at this young age due to the worst and terrible police atrocity in the District of Dindigul.
I chose to become a lawyer because I was told that law is above all and the advocacy is a noble profession. However, it is only after I came down to Dindigul District in the State of Tamilnadu that I realized a fact that the law is not above all but, in reality, all are above law except the law-abiding citizens.
(iii).MY STUDY ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
1. Essential functions of a State
1.Essential functions of a State are (i) Defence of the country against external aggression, (ii) Maintenance of law and order within its territory and (iii) Administration of justice. At all times these functions are basic and no State can survive unless these essential functions are satisfactorily performed.
2.If the State fails to perform them in a satisfactory manner, the Government of such a State will come to an end. All other functions of a State are of a secondary nature.
3.Unless administration of justice is properly and satisfactorily managed, other activities cannot be satisfactorily carried on by people and as such, the State should attach great significance to it.
2. Growth of Administration of Justice
I Stage – Primitive Society
1.In a primitive Society, private violence and violent self-help were used to settle disputes. It was barbaric method of settling disputes.
2.The principle – “might is right” prevailed at that time.
3.A person who suffered any injury or wrong, used to redress the same by taking revenge against his enemy. For that purpose, he had to depend upon his friends and Kinsmen. On account of such circumstances which prevailed then, people formed groups for their own defence, land and security.
4.The circumstances which then existed were extremely bad. There was no security of life and property.
5.The conditions were so hopeless that there was no guarantee of a criminal being punished and, if at all punished, he would be punished in proportion to his crime.
6.In fact, what was a common feature in those days was that one crime was followed by another crime and the chain of crimes continued.
II. Stage
1.In the second stage of Administration of Justice, a man was not allowed to take life for an eye or for tooth.
2.State lagalised and enforced the concept of “a tooth for tooth”, “eye for an eye” and “a life for life”.
III. Stage
1.Indian Justice Delivery System is presently in the third stage of adminiation of justice.
2.Now the State can no longer act as a silent spectator or just a regulator of private vengeance. In a civilized Society, there should be a sound system of Administration of Justice which would impart Administration of Justice in a real sense. Wrong-doers and offenders must always be properly dealt with so that the law-abiding people are given due protection.
3.To-day the State conducts the enquiry or investigation into the criminal acts or other wrongful acts and determines the liability and administers justice.
4.There are provisions of law which enable the parties to go in appeal.
5.In respect of criminal justice even if the victim happens to be an individual, his act is treated as an offence against the Society at large. Therefore, the entire Society or community is concerned with such an act. It is necessary that the Society should be protected from wrong-doers and offenders.
6.Barring a few cases, prosecution is instituted and conducted by the State against the person concerned. Thus, ultimately, punishment is inflicted on the wrong-doer or offender by or in the name of the State.
(iv).ADMINISTRATION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, IN REALITY
1.It is not a news that some of the police and politicians are united with the offenders instead of supporting the helpless victims. However, it is a shocking news that some Courts of law in the subordinate judiciary would turn a blind eye towards their interference in the administration of justice.
2.Dishonest Police officers ordinarily do not register a criminal complaint against the influential offenders either for unlawful consideration or due to political interference. However, even if they happened to register a criminal case against them out of compulsion, they would see to it that the offenders would go scot-free either on technical grounds or on ground of benefit of doubt. Therefore, the victims have to rely upon only the mercy of the Almighty God.
3.The dishonest police, disloyal politicians and corrupt judicial officers are the most terrific and dangerous persons than the frustrated people who take retaliatory measures to secure justice out of disappointment in the Justice Delivery System.
4.I regret that the broad minded, honest and selfless Politicians, Judicial as well as Police Officers who are praise worthy are not recognized by our countrymen. I always salute them for their contribution towards the progress of our country in many respects, including the administration of criminal justice.
1.PRINCIPLE OF “MIGHT IS RIGHT”
1.Administration of criminal justice is presently at the mercy of the State.
.2.Bureaucracy, especially Police Department is not free from political interference.
3.In spite of existence of provisions of laws, Courts of justice, Democratic Governments and other Institutions in India, it is very sad to observe that the influential persons are allowed to follow the principle of “might is right” under the guise of the principle of “Rule of Law”.
RELEVENT QUOTE
“THE LAWS GRIND THE POOR AND RICH MEN RULE THE LAW” – GOLDSMITH.
4.In support of my contention that the principle of “Might is Right” prevails even in today’s India, let us look into the unlawful activities of the Police Officers on basis of records available with the Batlagundu Police Station and its jurisdictional Court of Judicial Magistrate, Nilakkottai in the district of Dindigul of the State of Tamilnadu with reference to the following cases.
(i). C.S.R. Register of Batlagundu Police Station containing entries from 08.09.2007 to 25.09.2007 with special reference to C.S.R. Nos. 475, 501 and 502 and the Book containing duplicate receipts therefor, and also C.S.R. No. 510 dt. 16.12.06
(ii). C.S.R. Register of All Women Police Station of Nilakkottai Containing entries from 20.11.2006 to 23.12.2006 with special reference to C.S.R. No. 180/06.
(iii). F.I.R. Register of Batlagundu Police Station containing entries in Crime Nos. 658/07, 700/07 and 701/07.
(iv). Judicial file of J.M. Court, Nilakkottai, pertaining to Crime Nos. 658/07 (CC.No. 63/09), 700/07, 701/07 and 277/94 (C.C. No. 43/95) registered in Batlagundu Police Station and Crime No. 8/06 (C.C. No. 45/2007) registered in A.W.P.S., Nilakkottai.
(v) Judicial Records of I.D.O.P.No. 113/2007 on the file of District Court of Dindigul.
1- C.C. No. 43/1995 : Crime No. 277 / 1994. Case disposed of in 2007.
(i).Complaint was lodged against 23 accused on 08.07.1994 and charge-sheet was filed in the year 1995 showing all the accused in absconding column after the investigation.
(ii).A-1 being politically influential person for more than 15 years in that area, have been enjoying great support from the Police Officers except a short period when he was arrested by the Police on 20.10.2003 in execution of an arrest warrant pending against him since the year 1995.
(iii).A-5 who is the brother of A-1 was made to be the prosecution witness No.4 in the very same case as per the final report of the Investigating Officer.
(iv).When an accused himself be made to be the prosecution witness in the very same case wherein he and his relatives are still undergoing the trial as accused, is it not the best defence available to the persons accused in that case?(Note : A-5 in C.C. No. 43/1995 who had been made as the prosecution witness as per the final report filed by the Investigating Officer in the very same case, has also been made so in another case, viz. C.C. No. 63/2009 : Crime No.: 658/2007. It shows the conduct of the Investigating Officers to support the offenders whenever A-1 in C.C. No. 43/1995 and his henchmen are the accused in any criminal case registered in the Baltagundu Police Station for more than atleast 15 years.)
(v).Delay in disposal of the case:Criminal case registered in the year 1994 was disposed of only in the year 2007 when A-3 who is the son of main accused therein (A-1) had decided to take up a job with the Secretariat of Government of Tamilnadu. Delay in disposal of the case was reportedly due to abscondance of all the accused especially the A-3 against whom the warrant of arrest remained unexecuted for more than 12 years. (Note : A-3 is reportedly working in the Secretariat of the Government of Tamil Nadu at present and claims himself to be the right hand of a powerful Minister in the Government of Tamilnadu.)
(vi).Political interference in legal profession: A-3 who had approached me in the month of December, 2006, informed me that one of the Minister of the Government of Tamilnadu (name omitted by me) had instructed me simply to move an application for cancellation of arrest warrant issued against A-3 in CC. No. 43/1995 in the year 1995 and also to appear on their behalf to conduct the criminal case as well. However, I refused to move such an application under S. 70 (2) of Criminal Procedure Code because similar application (criminal Miscellaneous petition No. 6399/ 2003 in C.C. No. 43/95) moved on behalf of one of the co-accused who is aged in the very same case had been dismissed by a detailed order of the Hon’ble J.M. Court of Nilakkottai on 22.12.2003 itself.(Note : I was least interested in confirming as to whether the Minister himself had actually instructed me or his name was misused by the persons accused in C.C. No. 43/1995 as they usually do in number of matters.)
(vii).I also did not pay heed to the foul requests of A-3, (1) just to move an application for cancellation of arrest warrant and the rest of the things required for cancellation of the arrest warrant had allegedly been done by him through the Minister and (2) that I should appear on their behalf for conducting the case just for the name sake as they were sure of acquittal from the case.
(viii).Discretion of J.M Court:I learnt thereafter that J.M. Court by exercising its discretion, decided in the year 2007 to cancel the arrest warrant issued by it against A-3, 12 years ago, even though it had rejected similar application filed on behalf of an aged accused in the very same case under the different circumstances on 22.12.2003.
(ix).I also learnt that all the accused were acquitted from the criminal case in the year 2007 based on the material available on record.
(x).I also turned down the request of the accused in C.C. No. 43/95 to file a private complaint of malicious prosecution against the defacto complainant of the very same case and similar other requests, because parties of the both sides are my co-villagers.
(xi).Syndicate of offenders: Accused in C.C. No. 43/95 and their relatives have formed a syndicate to face any criminal case registered against any one of them, collectively by rendering political and financial assistance to each other and also by use of their muscle powers.
(xii).Rejection of foul requests, motive for offenders: Since I have turned down the selfish and foul requests of the above syndicate, the members of the syndicate have been harbouring a grudge against me and determined to cause damage to my reputation and thereby to my profession of law. Some of the Police officers and politicians are also supporting this syndicate on basis of their unlawful understanding between each other.
PRECEDENT
Discretion of an Authority:
“The authority cannot permit its decision to be influenced by the direction of others as this would amount to abdication and surrender of its discretion. It would then not be the Authority’s discretion that is exercised, but some one else’s. If an authority “hands over its discretion to another body, it acts ultravires”, such an interference by a person or body extraneous to the power would plainly be contrary to the nature of the power conferred upon the authority”. A.I.R. 1989 SC 997.
2- C.C. No. 63/2009 : Crime No. 658/2007. Trial pending before J.M. Court.
(i).I am the de facto complainant and most of the offenders are the persons accused in C.C.No. 43/95 who claim themselves to be supporters of the influential politicians. (Please see page no. 9, points (x), (xi) and (xii) to know the motive for the offenders).
(ii).Complaint was timely lodged on 08.09.2007, but intentional delay in registration of F.I.R. on 11.09.2007 was deliberately attributed to defacto complainant by the police.
(iii).Delay in sending the F.I.R. to the nearest Magistrate on 14.09.2007.
(iv).Incorrect particulars were mentioned in the prescribed form of F.I.R. by the police as to the date of occurrence and date of report to the police station to enable the accused to raise “Plea of Alibi” during the trial.
(v).Representation of defacto complainant about unlawful activities of Police Officer [S.I. of Police (L&O)] was not considered by the police higher officers of Dindigul District in spite of an intimation from the Special Cell of Chief Minister of Tamilnadu (Petition No. F / 267749 dt. 22.09.2007).
(vi).Statement of complainant has not yet been recorded by the Police. However, the Investigating Officer has filed fabricated statements of witnesses before J.M. Court, knowing very well about the probability of witnesses turning hostile and retracting their alleged statements to the police.
(vii).Eye witnesses have been made as hear-say witnesses to make sure that the possible omissions and contradictions in their testimony during the trial would be favourable to the accused.
(viii).Defective charge-sheet was filed only on 16.03.2009 after a biased, partial investigation.
(ix).Belated, but ante dated final report was filed before the J.M. Court after a period of 18 months with the obvious intention to dilute the order of re-investigation if any, likely to be passed in the future at the instance of the defacto complainant.
(x).Deliberate omission of the accused persons in the chare-sheet.
(xi).On the contrary, the person who had been specifically mentioned in the complaint as an abettor of the offence, has been included in the list of prosecution witnesses (P.W. 2) in the final report filed by the Investigating Officer. (Note : The same person had been made as accused as well as prosecution witness in the final report filed by the Investigating Officer in C.C. No. 43/95 also).
(xii).Material Particulars were altered by the Investigating Officer both in the records of police station and in the records of J.M. Court even without obtaining the permission of the Judicial Magistrate with the obvious intention of enabling the accused to claim benefit of doubt.
(xiii).I myself being the defacto compalinant in the case, was threatened to face dire consequences by the merciless rowdy and his henchmen at the instigation of the offenders and the Batlagundu Police officers on my cell phone No. 98421 97857 from the cell No. 99421 72878 during the midnight of 25.09.2007, i.e. on 26.09.2007 at 12.35 a.m. and again at 01.06 a.m. I was warned by them to withdraw some cases against them including the criminal complaint in crime No. : 658 / 2007 and also not to file any private complaint against the Batlagundu Police officers. My complaint in this regard was not accepted in Batlagundu Police Station and my complaint by telegram to the Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District on 27.09.2007 (Receipt No. S0035 issued by the Central Telegraph Office, Madurai) was also not registered nor was any enquiry made to me so far.
(xiv).The misbehaviour and rowdyism of the person who had threatened me on my cell phone had been reported in the “Nakkheeran”, a well known Tamil bi-weekly Dt. 21.06.2008 on page No. 15 when he and his henchmen had assaulted brutally the supporters of yet another powerful politician of Trichy on 09.06.2007 in front of the Batlagundu Police Station itself for the simple reason that the victims Van did not allow the Lorry of the offenders to overtake while coming down from the Kodaikkanal hills in the narrow road. As per the report of the above said Magazine, the Batlagundu Police were the mute spectators of the occurrence.(Note : Since the victims in that case were reportedly the supporters of yet another powerful politician, a criminal case was registered against the offenders as Crime No. 269/08 on 09.06.2008 itself. However, it is learnt that this criminal case also has been registered only to satisfy the high command of a political party).
(xv).One of the prosecution witness in whose presence the observation Mahazer was prepared by the Investigating Officer in Crime No. 658 / 2007 : CC. No. 63/09, had reportedly met with a road accident (!) and unfortunately sustained a severe head injury on 19.08.2009 at about 8 p.m. in Batlagundu. Thereafter, I was once again threatened by the offenders on 24.08.2009 to face the similar consequences in the event of deposing against them in CC. No. 63/09: Crime No. 658/07 and also was warned not to conduct any case against them as well as the erring police officers of Batlagundu who had been acting in their favour. Thereafter, witness summons was served on 31.08.2009 in C.C. No. 63/2009. However, since the administration of criminal justice has now been reduced to an empty formality, I am not prepared to depose against the offenders in the J.M. Court of Nilakkottai. (Note : Complaint in Cr.No.701/2007 regarding the possible dangers to the lives of persons likely to depose against the above stated offenders was lodged on 25.09.2007. However, the same has been reported to be false complaint / mistake of fact by the Batlagundu Police after 27 months from the date of registration of F.I.R. God alone knows that what happened to the witness of the observation Mahazer in CC No. 63/09 was a mere accident or an attempt to murder to prevent him and other witnesses from deposing against the offenders in CC. No. 63/09 : Crime No. 658/2007).
(xvi).In this case, the Investigating Officer, politicians and rowdies have seen to it that the charges in the case are likely to fail for paucity of evidence and the prospect of successful prosecution is remote.
(xvii).I had filed a Copy Application No. 292/08 dt. 22.08.2008 for issuance of certified Xerox copy of F.I.R. and my complaint to enable myself to prove the unlawful activities of the police in the Court of law regarding intentional mentioning of incorrect particulars and material alterations in the prescribed form of FIR. Even though my affidavit filed in support of the copy application for issuance of Xerox certified copy would justify my request, the copy application was returned by the Judicial Magistrate of Nilakkottai with a remark “Xerox machine is not available in this court, Hence Xerox copy could not be given”. (Note : Xerox machine is available within the premises of J.M. Court, Nilakkottai. Even if the Judicial Magistrate was not willing to issue a certified Xerox copy, he could have treated my affidavit to be a complaint against the unlawful activities of the Batlagundu Police Officers and could have legally proceeded against them in the interest of justice. However, the J.M. Court did not do the same for the best reasons known to itself.)
(xviii).As an advocate, if I proceed against the unlawful activities of police and other offenders either before High Court or any other Courts of law and in that event, if I am killed as I have been threatened by them, that murder case also would meet the same fate of the CC. No. 63/09 : Crime No. 658/07 and ultimately the murderers would be acquitted from the case. The State also may not seriously go in appeal because I am not an indispensable person for any ruling party in India. This is how the law-abiding citizens would lose faith and confidence in the Justice Delivery System in India and are constrained to surrender some of the dishonest politicians to secure justice (!) in any manner and ultimately, they also would become the habitual offenders in the future. (Note : Nowadays, the Batlagundu Police is unusually interested in confirming whether I would come to J.M. Court of Nilakkottai for deposing in CC. No. 63/09. However, since my deposition would not make any difference in the case, and protection to the witnesses who depose against the offenders including the dishonest Police Officers not being guaranteed, I have decided not to depose in that matter, because I don’t want to be one among those witnesses who were killed in the premises of the Courts of law).
Threats to witness
“If witnesses are in this way deterred from coming forward in aid of legal proceedings, it would be impossible that justice can be administered. It would be better that the doors of the Courts of justice were at once closed” (Lord Langdale).
PRECEDENT
(i). Registration of F.I.R.
“State is duty bound to register a case on basis of information which discloses the commission of a cognizable offence. There is hardly any discretion with the police not to register an F.I.R. or take entry in Daily Diary Register, as the case may be”.
(2007) 1 SCC 1 : 2010 ALL M.R. (Cri.) 244 (Bom.) (F.B.)
2006 (1) Crimes 229 (S.C) and (2009) 1 Mh. L. J. 97 (Bom) (D.B.)
(ii). Complaint before Magistrate
“Nomenclature is inconsequential and there is no specific format for a complaint being made to a Magistrate contemplated under Cr.P.C.”
“A petition cannot be rejected by the Court merely on the ground that it does not contain a proper prayer clause insofar as it discloses commission of a cognizable offence.”
2006 (1) SCC 627 and 2010 ALL. M.R. (Cri.) 244 (Bom) (F.B.)
(iii) Detection and investigation of Crime
“Detection of crime, investigation of crime and to prosecute the offender are some of the pertinent duties of the State in terms of the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Generally, it is not expected of an individual to investigate an offence and collect necessary proof for trial before the Court. It is primary duty of the police to immediately register an F.I.R. and to investigate the matter in accordance with law and not to push any individual to knock the doors of the Courts for inquiry, investigation and trial of an offence”.
(2008) 7 SCC 164 and 2010 ALL M.R. (Cri.) 244 (Bom.) (F.B.)
3.Crime No. 701/07 : C.S.R. No. 502 Dt. 25.09.2007
(i).Offenders being henchmen of powerful politicians and in a well understanding with the police officers of the Batlagundu Police Station, the complaint lodged at first was intentionally registered as a second complaint only after instigating the offenders therein to lodge a complaint against the complainant and his family members.
(ii).Complainant was compelled by the police (S.I. of Police, Crime) to alter the time of occurrence mentioned in the complaint by over writing, with a malafide intention of helping the offenders during the trial.
(iii).Inordinate delay of almost 2 weeks in sending the F.I.R. in crime No. 701/07 to the nearest magistrate whereas the F.I.Rs. registered thereafter had been sent therebefore to the J.M. Court of Nilakkottai.
(iv).The informant / complainant had filed a Copy Application No. 344/2007 dt. 04.10.2007 before the J.M. Court for issuance of certified copy of the F.I.R. in crime No. 701/07 registered in Batlagundu Police Station on 25.09.2007. It is only after being learnt that the said copy application was returned by the J.M. Court, Nilakkottai on 05.10.2007 with the remark “No such F.I.R. is received by this court” that the F.I.R. was sent to the J.M. Court by the Batlagundu Police Station.
(v).Final report has been filed by the Investigating Officer after 27 months from the date of registration of the criminal case. However, he never recorded the statements of the complainant and the eye witnesses so far (!).
(vi).The Investigating Officer has reported the complaint to be a false complaint / mistake of fact after a biased and partial investigation with an eye to shield the wrong-doers.
(vii).The offenders have threatened the complainant on 29.12.2009 through the above stated rowdy to face dire consequences in the event of moving any protest petition against the final report of the Investigating Officer in crime No. : 701/07 before J.M. Court of Nilakkottai.
(viii).Delay of 27 months in submitting the final report before the J.M. Court in Crime No. 701/07 is intentional and with an eye of defeating the purpose of re-investigation, if any likely to be ordered in the future, in view of lapse of long period of time from the date of occurrence.
PRECEDENT
(i).F.I.R.
F.I.R. to be sent to the nearest Magistrate within 24 hrs.
2006 (8) SCALE 433 and (2001) 3 SCC 147
(ii).Delay in investigation
Every effort should be made to avoid delay in the investigation and trial which is harmful not only to the individuals involved, but also to the Society. (Bombay High Court).
(iii).Criminal Trial
“Acquitting the guilty is as much doing injustice as convicting the innocent and both are to be scrupulously avoided” 2009 (2) Mh. L.J. 249 (Bom) (D.B.)
(iv).Inaction on part of Police
“Inaction on part of police authorities cannot be ignored nor can be pardoned. Shielding or trying to shield any wrong-doer itself is a serious offence and assumes more seriousness when it is committed by a person none other than from the police department. Mere disciplinary action in that regard would not be sufficient answer. Held, Court does expect the Government to take a serious note of this and to take appropriate action against the erring police officers and personnel”.
2008 (2) Bom. C.R.(Cri) 272
4.Crime No. 700/2007 : C.S.R. No. 501/2007 dt. 25.09.2007
(i).This is a false theft case registered against me who is an advocate and against my aged parents and brother to coerce me not only to withdraw my complaint against the offenders in crime No. 658/2007 but also to withdraw my appearance as an advocate from the civil case I.D.O.P.No. 113/2007 on the file of District Court of Dindigul wherein some of the offenders had been impleaded as Respondent Nos 2 and 3.
(ii).Moreover, this complaint was lodged at the instigation and dictation of the Investigating Officer himself to prevent me from proceeding against the unlawful activities of the Police Officers working in Batlagundu Police Station.
(iii).Investigating Officer had also threatened me that he would book my aged parents under similar false cases, in the event of anticipatory bail being granted to me in Crime No. 700/2007. I, therefore, did not move any such application. However, I have always been prepared to prove in this case not only our innocence, but also the unlawful activities of the Batlagundu Police Officers working together during the period between 2006 and 2008 and even thereafter. (Note : (1) If this trial is televised lively, the people would come to know as to how the dishonest Police Officers are harassing the innocent persons by misuse of their statutory powers. (2) It is not uncommon that whenever the vigilant victims / complainants are about to take any legal action against the dishonest Police Officers, then they not only register false cases against the victims, but also would instigate the offenders to tease them by defamatory and derogatory statements. Such abusing is intimidatory tactic which eventually results in good sensitive person either to give up to avoid such insults or to surrender to the bullies).
PRECEDENT
“It is not only duty of Investigating Officer to book a real culprit, but also to protect one who is innocent and give assurance to a common man that there will not be unnecessary harassment to him” (Bombay High Court).
5. C.C. No. 45/2007 Case disposed of in August, 2009
(i).Complaint was lodged and registered on 23.12.2006 as Crime No. 8/2006 in All Women Police Station (AWPS), Nilakkottai.
(ii).Accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are the husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law of the defacto complainant respectively.
(iii).Husband of defacto complainant had filed divorce petition in I.D.O.P. No. 84/2006 on the file District Court of Dindigul on 27.09.2006. Defacto Complainant entered appearance in the said petition on 06.11.2006. The criminal complaint happened to be lodged only on 23.12.2006. (i.e. almost after 3 months from the date of initiation of divorce proceedings by A-1)
(iv).Accused being my clients, Crl.O.P. (MD) No. 239/2007 and Crl.O.P. (MD) No. 473/2007 were moved by me before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court under the instructions and on behalf of the accused for grant of anticipatory bail in Cr.No. 8/2006 separately. While granting anticipatory bail to the accused, his Lordship Justice P.R. Shivakumar had observed that under the circumstances, the High Court was not in a position to reject the contention of the counsel for the petitioners / accused that the said complaint was nothing but an act of retaliation for the initiation of the divorce proceedings by the husband of the defacto complainant.
(v).Prosecution Witness (P.W.) Nos. 1, 4, 8 and 9 are the defacto complainant, mother of defacto complainant, Sub-Inspector of Police (AWPS) who registered FIR and Inspector of Police (AWPS) who is the Investigating Officer respectively.
(vi).P.W.1, P.W.4, P.W.8 and P.W.9 among others were examined in the J.M. Court of Nialkkottai on various dates such as 03.04.2009, 24.04.2009, 26.06.2009 and 30.06.2009 respectively.
(vii).Proper scrutiny of the evidence of prosecution witnesses in their cross-examination would reveal the defence side case that the complaint in Cr.No. 8/2006 in CC. No. 45/2007 had been registered on basis of unlawful understanding between the police officers working in AWPS, Nilakkottai and the Police Officers working in Batlagundu Police Station to prevent A-2 from proceeding against the unlawful activities of police in the Court of Law.
(viii).Just before the Investigating Officer was examined as P.W.9 in CC. No. 45/2007 on 30.06.2009, an unknown person who was found with the company of the S.I of Police (Crime), Batlagundu P.S. in the premises of J.M. Court, approached me and said that the Accused in CC. No. 45/2007 had already been paid a huge amount in lumpsum by the Police through the A-1 in CC. No. 43/95 (Name omitted by me). Thereafter, he warned me not to put any embarrassing questions to P.W.9 regarding her investigation of the offence as I had put so many questions to P.W.8 on 26.06.2009 regarding registration of F.I.R. by her in an irresponsible manner.
(ix).When I enquired about it, A-2 in CC. No. 45/2007, who originally denied the so called money transaction between him and the police, later on instructed me not to lead defence side evidence in that case because he was afraid of dire consequences at the hands of the Police Officers. Defence side evidence was, therefore, not led in that case. However, since the accused were acquitted from the case by the J.M. Court of Nilakkottai, I din’t bother about the threats of the unknown man that I should not turn up to that Court thereafter, because I’ve done full justice to my clients in C.C. No. 45/2007.
(Note: If A-2 had been examined as defence side witness and the documents available with him had been exhibited as defence side documents in C.C. No. 45/07, the unlawful activities of the police in connection with C.S.R. No. 510/06 registered in the Batlagundu Police Station on 16.12.2006 would have been proved in the J.M. Court and consequently, the erring police officers could have been punished in the appropriate proceedings likely to be initiated at the instance of A-2 in CC. No. 45/2007. However, it is learnt that A-2 had succumbed to the pressure (!) from the police and politicians)
(x).Testimony of the Investigating Officer as P.W.9 in CC. No. 45/2007 itself is sufficient to initiate penal as well as departmental actions against her for gross negligence and wilful corrupt practice in registration of complaints and investigation of the offences pertaining to family matters.
PRECEDENT
Punishment for negligence : Charge of gross negligence is serious in itself to sustain the penalty of dismissal from service (Bombay High Court).
Decision in W.P. (L) No. 1873/2009 (Bom.) Dt. 25.11.2009.
1.MADURAI BAR ASSOCIATION (MBA)
Madurai Bar Association in its General Body meeting held on 17.09.2007 had strongly condemned the unlawful activities of the Sub-Inspector of Police (L&O), Batlagundu Police Station Vis-a-Vis Crime No. 658/2007 and demanded penal as well as departmental actions against him. It was further resolved to convene a Review Meeting on 25.09.2007 at about 1 p.m. to discuss further developments on basis of the resolutions passed in its General Body Meeting held on 17.09.2007. The resolutions passed by MBA were sent to the police higher officers of the Dindingul District including the Inspector of Police, Batlagundu Police Station.
2.CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS ON 25.09.2007
| Time | Events |
| 25.09.2007 10:29 a.m. | When I was in my house at Batlagundu, the Inspector of Police, Batlagundu P.S. had called me up on my Cell No. : 98421 97857 from his Cell No. : 9894311879 and warned me not to attend the Review Meeting of M.B.A. to be held at 1.00 p.m. He further conveyed to me the warning of a politician that my aged parents would be booked in a theft case and I would have to face similar dire consequences in the event of speaking against Police Officers in defiance of his instruction. |
| 10.40 a.m. | I simply ignored his threats and left for Madurai to attend the Review Meeting of M.B.A. which is 60 kms away from Batlagundu. |
| 1.08 : 10 p.m. | I was informed from my house on my Cell Phone No. 9842197857 that some rowdies who had gathered in front of my house at Melakkovilpatty village with deadly weapons, enquired about me and demanded withdrawal of my complaint lodged in Crime No. 658/2007 in Batlagundu Police Station. |
| 1:08 : 59 p.m. | I immediately called up the Inspector of Police, Batlagundu P.S. on his Cell No. : 98943 11879 and informed him that I would not speak anything against Batlagundu Police Officers in the Review Meeting of M.B.A. in connection with its resolution dt. 17.09.2007 and reported him about the rowdies. |
| 1:09 : 58 p.m. | I further called up the Inspector and requested him to send the Police to my house to arrest the rowdies gathered in front of my house with deadly weapons to assault my family members who remained silent within the house which was locked from inside. |
| 1:23:05 p.m. | On being informed from my house that Police had not yet reached there, I further requested the Inspector to send his police personnel immediately to my house to arrest the offenders. |
| 1:31:14 p.m. | I once again requested the Inspector to send the Police to my house to save my family members from the miscreants. |
| 3:21 p.m. | On knowing that Sub-Inspector of Police (Crime) of Batlagundu P.S. and his team were united with the rowdies instead of supporting the victims (my family members), I called up the Inspector of Police to report him against the unlawful activities of S.I. of Police (Crime) and his team. |
| 4:14 p.m. | I further requested the Inspector of Police to arrest the offenders, but in vain thanks to the political interference. |
| 11:00 p.m. | As I had been threatened by the Inspector of Police at 10.29 a.m., a theft case was registered against me, my aged parents and my brother as crime No. 700/2007 on basis of a false complaint lodged by the offenders accused in Crime No. 701/07 at the instigation and dictation of none other than the investigating officer himself. |
| 11:45 p.m. | The timely complaint lodged by my brother was registered as Crime No. : 701/07 by the S.I. of Police (Crime) as if the same was lodged subsequent to the complaint of the offenders therein. (Note : F.I.R. in Crime No. 701/07 was sent to the nearest magistrate almost after 2 weeks. No steps were taken to record the statements of complainant and eye witnesses nor to arrest the offenders. Final report was filed after 27 months from the registration of criminal case as “False case / Mistake of fact. We were threatened to face dire consequences in the event of moving any protest petition against the final report submitted by Investigating Officer in Crime No. 701/07 of Batlagundu Police Station) |
i.e. on 26.09.2007at 12.35 am and again at 1:06 am
I was in my house at Batlagundu. A rowdy whose misbehaviour and rowdyism has later on been reported in the “Nakkheeran”, a Tamil Bi-Weekly, Dated 21.06.2008 at page No. 15, had called me up on my Cell No. : 9842197857 from the Cell No. 9942172878 to frighten me, inter alia, with the following threats.
(i).That I should not disconnect the call while he was still speaking to me. Otherwise he would come along with his dreadful henchmen to my house to assault my family members during the midnight itself.
(ii).That I should withdraw my complaint lodged in Crime No. 658 / 2007 in Batlagundu Police Station and I should also withdraw my appearance as an advocate from the civil case I.D.O.P.No. 113/2007 filed before the District Court of Dindigul.
(iii).That I should not file any private complaint against the Police Officers working in Batlagundu Police Station, because they were doing only what he had instructed them to do.
(iv).That Madurai Bar Association should not show any interest or interfere with what is being done by the Batlagundu Police. Otherwise, I should be prepared to face dire consequences.
(v).That he would instigate my clients to make complaints against me of professional misconduct so that the Bar Associations might not support me in future.
(vi).That a Politician (name omitted by me) had given him green signal to finish my chapter if I continued to make complaints against his henchmen.
(Note : The rowdy asked me whether I was willing to speak to some powerful politicians in the conference call. I, however, turned down his offer. Names of the politicians omitted by me.)
(vi).That Judges and Police Officers are in his pocket.
.(vi).That my family members would be arrested in false cases and our chapters would be finished in the jail itself.
(vi).That he knew how to divide a Bar Association on the line of political party so that its support if any, would not be beneficial to me.
(vi).That he would go to any extent to protect his henchmen from the clutches of law.(Note : His henchmen including the S.I. of Police (Crime) Batlagundu P.S. and the persons accused in CC. No. 43 / 1995 and CC. No. 63/09 had also joined him and prompted him to threaten me, interalia, with the above words in a drunken mood. They abused me with vulgar words which I cannot reproduce herein).
| 26.09.07 02.09 a.m. | On receiving telephonic threats from the dreadful rowdy and his henchmen, I immediately called up the Inspector of Police from my Cell No. 98421 97857 on his Cell No. 984311879 to complain against them. However, to my shock and surprise, the Inspector did not take it seriously and told me that they being the politicians, I should complain against them only to their political leaders and not to the police station. He further cautioned me not to call up the politicians in that midnight. |
| 09.06 a.m. | Once again I called up the Inspector to inform him that I would go to Batlagundu Police Station to lodge a written complaint against the rowdy and his henchmen. Then he told me that since a theft case had been registered against me and my family members, a politician (name omitted by me) had asked him to arrest me immediately if I went to Police Station. He, however, expressed his regrets for being such a Police Officer who was unable to uphold the majesty of law because of the political interference. |
(Note : It is only at this moment when I realised a fact that India is a Sovereign Country with slavish citizens. Perhaps you might not agree with me if I said that a broad minded dictatorship is the need of the hour rather than the present narrow minded democracy wherein the people have been made to value their votes only with the money).
RELEVENT QUOTE
“EVERYWHERE THERE IS ONE PRINCIPLE OF JUSTICE, WHICH IS THE INTEREST OF THE STRONGER”– PLATO.
| 27.09.2007 at 5.53 p.m. | When my complaint was not accepted in Batlagundu Police Station, I sent a telegram to the superintendent of Police, Dindigul District and requested him to protect my life and that of my family members. However, no feedback from Superintendent of Police. |
| 28.09 2007. 2 p.m. | Madurai Bar Association had once again passed a resolution against unlawful activities of S.I. of Police (L&O) and S.I. of Police (Crime) of Batlagundu Police Station and demanded disciplinary action against them. |
| 01.10.2007 4 p.m. | The above said rowdy had sent his henchmen to my house in Batlagundu on 01.10.2007 with a piece of paper allegedly a copy of my telegram sent to the S.P. of Dindigul District in respect of their telephonic threats to me. They assaulted me and snatched my golden chain and ring weighing 40 gms. and 6 gms. respectively and also thousand rupees of 2 five hundred notes. |
| The miscreants informed me that they were doing it only because I had violated their instructions viz (i) Madurai Bar Association should not interfere with the matter of Batlagundu Police Station and (ii) I should not make any complaint against the henchmen of the politician in the future. (Name of the politician omitted by me) (They referred to the resolution of M.B.A. Dt. 28.09.2007 and my telegraphic complaint sent to S.P. of Dindigul District) | |
| They further instructed me to shift my residence from the District of Dindigul as soon as possible to avoid facing similar circumstances in the future. It is because of their assault and continuous threats that I had to shift my family from Batlagundu to Madurai which is 60 kms. away from my original place of residence. |
RELEVENT QUOTE
“THE EXECUTION OF THE LAWS IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE MAKING OF THEM”– THOMAS JEFFERSON.
PRECEDENT
Call details
(i).Call details of a particular cell phone – Statement giving call details of incoming and outgoing calls of a particular cell phone are electronically printed. So, the possibility of manipulation by human being is overruled. 2009 ALL M.R. (Cri.) 3547 (Bom) (D.B)
(ii).Investigation : Complaints indicating administrative or departmental irregularities, need detailed inquiry - Complaints in substance and nature indicating serious lapses and even element of criminality - Held, there would be every need for their proper examination by a specialized investigating agency or appropriate authority to avoid injustice to the victims and even in the larger public interest –Complaints, therefore, were directed to be examined by the State assisted by Additional Commissioner of Police.2009 (6) ALL M.R. 266 (Bom) (D.B).
(vi). DOCTRINE OF “RULE OF LAW”
1.Many democratic countries including India have accepted doctrine of rule of law. Doctrine of rule of law implies that every person is equal before the law. All Public officials, whether high or low, are under the same responsibility for every act done by them. All laws should bind every one including those who run the Government and the Government itself. The equality of all in the eyes of law minimises the tyranny and irresponsibility on the part of the executive authorities.
2.In the rule of law, arbitrary exercise of power by the executive is practically eliminated. Therefore, there is no possibility of a person being oppressed, harassed or subjected to unjust trial or illegal proceedings. In other words, legal process cannot be abused by the executive by virtue of such rights conferred on the accused person.
3.The judiciary when applying the law to a particular case must do so independently and without any external pressure or control. The judges should decide only according to the rules laid down and not according to their own sense of justice or personal preference.
PRECEDENT
(i). “Where rule of law is strong, people uphold the law not out of fear but because they have a stake in its effectiveness.2010 ALL M.R. (Cri.) 244 (BOM) (F.B)
(ii). “Preamble of our constitution guarantees to a citizen justice, liberty, equality and fraternity. All these are possible only when there is rule of law. Rule of law indicates good governance which requires fair legal frame work that enforce law impartially. Impartial enforcement of laws requires an independent judiciary and an impartial and incorruptible police force.” 2010 ALL M.R. (Cri.) 244 (BOM) (F.B).
(vii).MY APPREHENSION ABOUT THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE IN THE DISTRICT OF DINDIGUL.
1.Administration of criminal justice has now become an empty formality thanks to the dishonest politicians and corrupt police officers.
2.Justice Delivery System in the District of Dindigul is so vulnerable that only litigants of equal status can redress their grievances through legal means.
3.The law enforcement agencies are themselves putting spokes in the wheels of the administration of justice at the cost of majesty of law.
4.Police and politicians are organising Kangaroo Court and victims are coerced by police and rowdies to sign the papers.
5.Uniformed and organised criminals are making the provisions of law meaningless by their fraudulent and unlawful activities.
6.Certain cases are being decided indirectly by the police and politicians in favour of their henchmen instead of allowing the cases to be decided by the Courts of law.
7.Administration of criminal justice is characterised by inefficiency, slowness and lethargy.
8.The policy of our constitutional polity that no person should be regarded as being above the law is only on paper. Principles of equality and fair trial are found only in the text books and not in the practice. There is a wide gap between theory and practice of “rule of law”.
9.Corruption in prosecuting agency is almost institutionalised and an accepted fact. There are some authorities who wilfully and deliberately refuse to discharge their statutory duties by taking illegal gratification and bribe money from the offenders. However, misbehaviour of a judicial officer cannot be easily proved.
10.Many a time, offenders / rowdies being the henchmen of powerful politicians, are protected by police and some times even by judicial officers. This is how the offenders are getting strengthened more and more and the innocent victims are further victimized.
11.Unless the victims are properly advised and the offenders are dealt with severely, the probability of frustrated victims’ taking law in their own hands is not ruled out not only in the District of Dindigul but also in various parts of our country wherein the people are placed under similar circumstances.
PRECEDENT
Administration of Criminal Justice. “It is not only the obligation of the State administration, but for that matter, even of the Courts to ensure that a fair and effective criminal justice system is in place and is implemented. Administration of criminal justice system has two primary facets (i) investigation and (ii) trial leading to punishing the guilty offender”. 2010 ALL M.R. (Cri) 244 (BOM) (F.B).
1.Interference in the administration of justice or with due course of any judicial proceeding amounts to “criminal contempt” under Sec. 2 (c) of the Contempt of Courts Act.
2.The common man in India who has high regards for the judiciary and believe that it has sky high powers, has doubts in his mind if the judiciary has two different scales for applying the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act i.e. the common man on one hand and the Politicians, Government Officials and Judicial Officers on the other hand.
3.I am very sad to point out herein that the activities of some of the judicial officers are such that they are liable to be prosecuted for the contempt of their own Courts.
4.I just avoid sharing hereby my bitter experiences with the subordinate judiciary because if the people came to know thereabout, they would not repose trust in the Indian judiciary.
5.Judicial Officers of the subordinate judiciary should keep in mind that it is not feasible for each and every citizen in India to approach the Courts of superior judiciary to secure justice against infringement of fundamental rights guaranteed by part III in general and under Art-21 of the Constitution of India in particular. Negligent and indifferent attitudes of some of the judicial officers of subordinate judiciary have shaken the public confidence even in the higher judiciary.
PRECEDENT
(i).“Judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalise injustice on technical grounds, but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so.” A.I.R. 1987 SC 1353.
(ii).Purpose of Courts : “The Courts are made for the public at large and for the redressal of their disputes. It is also expected that the justice delivery system should be easily accessible to the citizens and justice should be delivered at the lowest possible cost. Therefore, the easy access, cheaper justice system and speedy decision are the best factors of any judicial system from the view point of the citizen” 2009 (4) Mh. L.J. 242.
(iii).Dishonest Judge : “A single dishonest judge not only dishonoures himself and disgraces his office but jeopardises the integrity of the entire judicial system” (Supreme Court of India)
(iv).Protection of Civil liberties : “Being the protectors of civil liberties of the citizens, the Supreme Court and the High Courts have not only had the power and jurisdiction but also an obligation to protect the fundamental rights guaranteed by part III in general and under Article 21 of the constitution in particular, Zealously and Vigilantly”. (Supreme Court of India).
(i).If a criminal trial is conducted on basis of what I have said herein above and the same is televised lively, I am sure that it will be useful to have all our citizens informed as to how the Justice Delivery System in India functions now. Will the Government and the Judiciary pass necessary directions therefor?
(ii).If I could not prove what I have said, I wish I should be hanged in public. However, I won’t initiate any legal proceeding in the Courts of law because what the offenders have done is not only against an individual but also against the State itself. Who can secure justice when the offenders and the prosecuting agency are either the same or on mutual understanding in the administration of Criminal Justice?
(ii)(a). How is the Judiciary going to assure the citizens of India that it can administer criminal justice satisfactorily, even though the same is practically at the mercy of some of the dishonest and corrupt police officers and politicians.
(iii).The above stated S.I. of police (L&O), S.I. of Police (Crime), Inspector of Police had been working together in the Batlagundu Police Station during the period between 2006 and 2008. The trio have been supportive to the offenders when the victim himself is an advocate and Madruai Bar Association also had strongly condemned the unlawful activities of the Police officers. What would have been the fate of the complaints lodged by the common man in that Police Station during the period between 2006 and 2008 and even thereafter?
(iii)(a). Is it practically possible for the common man to bring out the unlawful activities of the police officers to the limelight?
(iv).What could have been the other unlawful acts of the above stated offenders done for the benefit of the politicians in reciprocation of their support? who could have been the victims thereby, what would be the relief granted to them and how?
(v).I might be eliminated by the interested persons to prevent others from coming out with more such grievance letters. Whose responsibility is it to protect the lives of the law-abiding citizens?.
(vi).Who is going to be the last victim of the police atrocity in the State of Tamilnadu?.
PRECEDENT
Compensation to victims:
(i) Breach of duty by Public Servants – An ordinary citizen or a common man is hardly equipped to match the might of the State or its instrumentalities. Award of compensation acts as a check on arbitrary and capricious exercise of power.
(1994) 1 SCC 243 and (1964) 1 ALL E.R. 367 (410) : 1964 AC 1129
(ii) Purpose of Compensation : It is a sound policy to punish the wrong- doers and it is in that spirit that the Courts have moulded the reliefs of granting compensation to the victims in exercise of the powers conferred on it. In doing so, the Courts are required to take into account not only the interest of the victims and the offenders but also the interest of public as a whole with a view that public bodies or officials do not act unlawfully and do perform their duties properly (Supreme Court of India)
Decision in Civil Appeal No. : 8026 / 2009 (SC) Dt. 03.12.2009.
(iii) Recovery of Amount of Compensation : Constitutional Court would be duty bound to award substantial amount of compensation to party aggrieved in lieu of infringement of fundamental rights of citizens and direct recovery of amount of compensation from the salary of officers in default.
1995 (1) Mh . L.J. 157.
(i).Probability of vital documents being stolen away from the Courts of law at the instance of the offenders is not ruled out. However, I have made an arrangement in such a way that no offender will go scot-free even after my death either natural or unnatural.
(ii).It is learnt that the above stated offenders including police officers have attempted to create a communal disharmony in the village of Melakkovilpatty with an ill motive of consolidating the support of the people in their favour, who might otherwise depose against their unlawful activities if the investigation and trial are conducted in a free and fair manner.
(iii).Even though I am an advocate, I have been subjected to untold sufferings by the above stated offenders, immeasurable harm has been done to me and thereby I have become a patient of High Blood Pressure. In the event of my sudden death due to hypertension related diseases or in an unnatural manner, this grievance letter which would reflect my silent pain of sleepless nights may be treated as my dying declaration.
(iv).Non-maintenance of law and order in a particular State may turn out to be a national or even international problem in the future when the victims form groups to secure justice by violent means. Therefore, National or Union Government of any Democratic Country cannot disown its responsibility by saying that “Law and Order” is the subject of the State List.
(v).If the offenders are allowed to go scot-free in such a way that the victims should rely upon only the mercy of the Almighty God, then in the days to come, there will be provisions of law, Courts of law, but people would not approach the Courts to get their grievances redressed through legal means. If the Justice Delivery System is allowed to be diluted, then the people of India might get ready for the Freedom Struggle – Part II.
1.My grievance is not merely against the above stated offenders but against the entire System that our country has adopted for delivery of justice. Had the System been perfect without any loopholes, the offenders would not have been able to dilute the same.
2.When an advocate himself could not secure justice through legal means due to political interference in the administration of justice, what could be the fate of the common man having little legal knowledge in the present justice delivery system of India?
3.The above facts and circumstances have convinced me that the rule of law is an empty slogan, administration of criminal justice is a mere formality and the political as well as justice delivery systems in India are blame worthy.
NOTE: This is the extract of my letter written to the then Chief Justice of Madras High Court dt.10.03.2010 along with all the relevant documents. The copies of the letter and the documents also had been sent to the Press (Dailies & Periodicals), Political Parties( National & Regional),Bar Associations and Judicial & Non-judicial Authorities all over India. However, unfortunately, all being sailing in the same boat, did not react to my above grievance letter.My grievance letter is based on the documents available in the records of the police stations and the Courts of law within the jurisdiction of the Madurai Bench Of Madras HighCourt in the State of Tamilnadu in South India.
If you are interested in fighting against injustice done to the comman man under the diluted justice delivery system and thereby bring about a foolproof justice delivery system in India, kindly feel free to send your suggestions to info@jeevaganadvocate.com
