After all, to err is human.
But to accept a mistake and correct it is divine.

In this glaring case of unprecedented injustice, the Supreme Court Judges made serious mistakes, not once, but three times. As a result, three innocent persons languished in jail for several months.

October 1991

In October 1991, a Sessions Court in Shivpuri, Madhya Pradesh convicted Bhoja, Pooran, Balvir and Raghuvir (along with four others  - Sugar Singh, Laxman, Onkar and Ramesh) and sentenced them to 6 years imprisonment on charges of rioting and culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

January 2003

The eight convicts appealed to the Gwalior bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court In January 2003, the High Court acquitted all the accused.

The Madhya Pradesh Government accepted the acquittal of Bhoja, Pooran, Balvir and Raghuvir; but filed appeal before the Supreme Court against the acquittal of the other four.

November 7, 2008

A bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justices Arijit Pasayat, C.K. Thakker and L.S. Panta set aside the High Court order and held all the eight accused guilty in the case, even though

• The Madhya Pradesh High Court had acquitted  Bhoja, Pooran, Balvir and Raghuvir;
•  The Madhya Pradesh Government had accepted the verdict and had not filed any appeal against it, and
• The issue relating to these four persons – Bhoja, Pooran, Balvir and Raghuvir – was not before the Supreme Court (Bhoja, Pooran, Balvir and Raghuvir were not even parties to the case).

Bhoja, Pooran and Balvir surrendered and were put back inside the jail.

March 9, 2010

Bhoja, Pooran, Balvir and Raghuvir  filed a review petition for reconsideration of the matter. The matter went to the same bench, which through another quirk of fate, released the four other persons instead of Bhoja, Pooran, Balvir and Raghuvir.

April 20, 2010

On April 20, Aftab Ali Khan, Advocate for the four accused pointed out the mistake to a bench comprising of  the Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan and three senior most judges, Justices S H Kapadia, Altamas Kabir and R V Raveendran. The Bench promised to examine the matter in May.

April 22, 2010

This matter was widely reported by the media.
In an unprecended move, the Bench comprising of the Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan and three senior  most judges, Justices S H Kapadia, Altamas Kabir and R V Raveendran, convened on an urgent basis, called the lawyers and passed order  “acquitting” Bhoja, Puran and Balbir, who had been languishing in jail due to two wrong consecutive orders passed by the Supreme Court in November 2008 and March 2010.

My humble request

At last a serious error has been corrected and justice has been done to the accused. Or has it been done ?

**    Was it not the duty of the Govt. prosecution to point out on each occasion that the courts orders were wrong, that wrong persons were being sent to jail ?

***  Was it not the duty of the Judges to do their home work ?

*** Was it not the duty of the Present Bench of the Supreme Court  to award damages on their own ?

Do the Supreme Court judges really expect the poor accused to engage in one more round of litigation for damages. Would they have the money and energy to file a case at all.

The Supreme Court should have been magnanimous to award damages to the wronged persons. They can pay such damages from the funds of the Supreme Court or direct the Govt. to pay the same.

But in my humble view, the Supreme Court should award the damages.
That is the least they can do now to rectify all the wrongs done.

Dr. Binoy Gupta, Retd. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai

Even God cannot save this country………  
Supreme Court of India, New Delhi, August 5, 2008

The Supreme Court was hearing a case relating to unauthorised occupation of Government accommodation.

The Bench had suggested that the Government should amend the law to make unauthorised occupation a criminal offence.

Additional Solicitor General, Amarender Saran, told the court that the Union Government had decided not to amend Section 441 IPC (criminal trespass) for prosecuting squatters of Government accommodation in the country. The Government took the stand that the existing provisions under the Public Premises Act were sufficient to evict those unauthorisedly occupying Government accommodation.
The Government further claimed that out of 99,100 government houses, only 300 and odd were under unauthorised occupation for which action had been taken to evict them. This did not satisfy the apex court which said the Government does not have the guts to take on the offenders.

Some Observations of the Bench of the Supreme Court comprising
Justices B N Aggrawal and G S Singhvi.

·         We are fed up with this Government. They don’t have the guts to differ with the opinion of the clerks.
·         Even God will not be able to save this country. In India, even if God comes down, he cannot change our country. Our country’s character has gone. We are helpless.
·         You complain about judicial activism when you are in power. When you are not in power, you come to us for remedy.
·         PILs are being filed by people who are vexed with the approach of the Government on various issues.

Insensitive officials need regular flogging……..

Supreme Court of India, New Delhi, August 8, 2008

Those who have experienced the problems involved in going to a police station and filing a FIR (First Information Report) will advise you never to visit a police station.
You will be advised not to file a FIR and treated worst than a criminal.

A Ghaziabad resident, Lalita Kumari, had to run from pillar to post for registering an FIR after her teenaged daughter was abducted early this year.

Even after registering an FIR on the orders of the Ghaziabad Superintendent of Police on May 11, the local police did not try to search for her daughter. Instead they threatened her to withdraw the FIR.
While hearing this matter, on July 14, 2008, Justice Agrawal had noted his “personal experience” while working as the judge of the Patna High Court, the Chief Justice of Orissa High Court and as Judge of the apex court – that despite the Supreme Court’s strict instruction for prompt registration of FIRs, the concerned police authorities do not register FIRs unless some direction is given by the Chief Judicial Magistrate or the high court or this court.

“Further experience shows that even after orders are passed by the concerned courts for registration of the case, the police does not take the necessary steps. And when matters are brought to the notice of the inspecting judges of the high court during the course of inspection of courts and superintendents of police are taken to task, then only FIRs are registered,” Justice Agrawal had noted.

In a large number of cases, investigations do not commence even after registration of FIRs, and in cases like the present one steps are not taken for recovery of the kidnapped person or apprehending the accused person, Justice Agrawal said.

Justice Agrawal had made some suggestionsfor corrective measures to deal with the callous approach of police in filing criminal cases on the complaints of people.

The bench had suggested that if the police fail to file a criminal case, then the citizen may approach the nearest judicial magistrate, who could direct police to register a First Information Report (FIR).

After this, if the police still fail to register an FIR without any proper reason, the magistrate would be justified in launching contempt to court proceedings against the erring police officer and send him to jail for defying court orders.

Only two states – Uttar Pradesh and Arunachal Pradesh, filed their responses to the suggestion.

Justice Agrawal was very harsh.

Some Observations of the Bench of the Supreme Court comprising
Justices B N Aggrawal and G S Singhvi.
·         Government officials are simply insensitive to the suffering of millions of people across the country. They think they live in ‘Ram Rajya’ (ideal rule). They think it’s their ’swarajya’ (own self-rule, not for the people.
·         This is their style of functioning. They need regular huntering or flogging by  the court to be made to work said.

The bench ordered the chief secretaries and the police chiefs of all states and union territories to file their responses to the court’s July 14 suggestion within two weeks failing which they would be personally summoned to the court and taken to task.

Recommendation

Wake up bureaucrats.  Supreme Court is watching you.