Letter No.724

From

V. Sabarimuthu

26-3 Vellicode

Mulagumoodu 629167

To

All judges

The Supreme Court of India

New Delhi

Your Excellency

The President of India has afforded a reasonable period of time to the judges to rectify the error.

The common questions of law and fact related to this work include whether the refusal of the judges of the Supreme Court of India to adjudicate 723 petitions violates Article 39 (a), and whether it is constitutional on the part of the President of India to conduct an election to the Indian Parliament – by denying the benefits of Article 19 of the Constitution of India to the people.

The court and the President of India must have noticed that the issues applicable to all citizens predominate over individual issues.

But the court has not even adopted a test to determine whether common issues predominate over individual issues or not.

Everyone knows that rights may be affected by the law suits pending in the courts. Now, the constitutional rights of the people are affected by the non-adjudication of the 723 letters.

The judges refuse to adjudicate them because of the national court-wide conspiracy to rule and plunder India by denying the benefits of Article 19 of the Constitution of India.

Therefore, they hesitate to give injunctive relief directing the Election Commission of India (ECI) to conduct the elections after giving freedom to the people. Their inaction is unconstitutional and it is tantamount to financial suicide. They simply function like the worst terrorists.

   No other citizen of India might have approached the President of India with similar demands. But he has a fiduciary duty to ensure that the interests of the absent class citizens are pursued fully.

Therefore, he can urge the learned judges of the Supreme Court of India to function like judges and discharge their fiduciary responsibilities.

Or, place them under suspension

Or, terminate their services.

Or ask the competent authority to file the First Information Report (FIR) against the judges

Or place his difficulties before the people for open market inspection.

This is letter No. 724

This letter is being submitted to the President of India and to all judges of the Supreme Court of India

V. Sabarimuthu

India

3 -4- 2019

Letter No.723

From

V. Sabarimuthu

26-3 Vellicode

Mulagumoodu P.O. 629167

To

All judges

The Supreme Court of India

New Delhi

Excellencies

        The ZEE TV- an Indian TV channel- on 29 March 2019, reported that Pakistan committed three ceasefire violations in the Poonch district of Jammu & Kashmir. The Times of India reported that there were 12 violations. The Indian army spokesperson did not report anything.

        It is pertinent to recall the word of Boland that “It is the mark of civilization that men present reasons rather than arms”. India and Pakistan must disclose their reasons for their stand in this matter to the public inspection.

Union Finance Minister Mr. Arun Jaitely, on 30 March 2019, said, “A strong economy can enable redistribution of its large resources in order to reduce poverty. Only growth can service the poor”.

        He does not represent even 10 right thinking people in India. He cannot continue as a minister in an atmosphere of freedom. He says that India would flow with honey and milk if he is allowed to plunder the public resources for some more time.

        He talks like a stranger to the Constitution of India

        1300 million people of India do not expect redistribution of money earned by anyone by his own merit.

 But the Government should not deprive 1300 million people of their benefits in violation of Article 39(b) of the Constitution of India. In fact, the people are entitled to restitution of the lost benefits. A fair and efficient adjudication is the only need of the hour. Until then, all Union Ministers – present and past-must be detained.

        Some construct stories like this. “The Constitution of India was not drafted by the people for the benefit of the people. It was drafted by seven men. They were:

1.      Dr. B R Ambedkar (chairman)

2.     N Gopalaswamy Ayyangar

3.     Alladi Krinshnaswamy Ayyar

4.     Dr. K M Munshi

5.     Syed Mohammad Saadullah

6.     N Madhav Rau (he replaced B L Mittal who resigned due to ill health)

7.     T T Krishnamachri (he replaced D P Khitan who died in 1948).

 Dr. B.R. Ambedkar – a person from the Scheduled Caste was the chairman. The Muslim member, Mr. Syed Mohamed Saadullah, went to Pakistan. The rest were Brahmins. Therefore, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar had to obey them. The pen alone belonged to Dr. Ambedkar and the ink belonged to them. Even Ambedkar said that he would be the first person to set fire to the Constitution of India, if permitted”.

But it is a unique constitution. No other constitution bestows benefits to the whole as the Indian constitution. Article 39 alone is sufficient to prove it.  Therefore, all the seven members are like saints and they must be worshipped. One shall not take a prejudiced view against the members of the Brahmin community in this matter. The Indians do not know this. The Supreme Court of India would not allow the people to know it because the opinion emanates from the present man. It is simply individualizing everything.

Article 39 is the nerve centre of the Constitution of India. It has six Sections. For the time being, let us take 39(b) and 39(a)

According to the Section 39(b) “the ownership and control of the material resources of the community are so distributed as best to sub-serve the common good.”

As per this section, the natural resources must remain with the government.

The Supreme Court of India must give effect to this. It has no right to modify, correct or change this section.

   When the judges obliterate this section, the people can write it to the Supreme Court of India and obtain relief.  The court must adjudicate it under Section 39(a). Only if it is adjudicated, the judges can be called justices.

Further, their opinion will become law - called judges law or common law- only when it is duly promulgated.

When the BALCO judgement defrauded the people of benefits under the Constitution of India, the present man told the then Chief Justice of India that he broke the Constitution of India from within. The court should have adopted a single test to determine whether issues applicable to all citizens predominated over individual issues or not. But he individualized the issue and hesitated to administer the benefits of the Constitution to the people.

If the people had known this, they might have thrown the judges and the government into the Indian Ocean long ago.

The court is individualizing the issues even after 722 letters.

1300 million people would place the demand before the President of India, provided they know this. They would seek an injunctive relief to protect their constitutional benefits

The present man fixed the omnipotent judges of the Supreme Court of India because they refused to adjudicate the letters although the strength of Article 39 (a) of the Constitution of India, hard work, perseverance, intuition and the chances bestowed by nature contributed to it. Anyhow, a citizen of India – an ordinary man in the street- has achieved the ultimate in the Indian politics. Anything to be achieved would be a bonus. Everyone can be proud of it. That is why, the present citizen is now the sovereign of the nation. The Chief Justice of India need not envy at this.

There can be no doubt that the judges of the Supreme Court of India refuse to act on grounds generally applicable to the judges. Therefore, they seek the help of the media mafia for their survival. They must introspect, whether they should remain for the promotion of the media mafia or for the 1300 million people.

Their acts and omissions affected all citizens as a whole in the same manner.

   Now, the issue arises out of a single act of the defendants ie judges – the refusal to adjudicate 722 petitions.

A single action of the President of India under the Constitution of India will provide the most effective and efficient mechanism for redressing the defendants (judges) unlawful conduct.

This Letter No.723

V. Sabarimuthu

India

2-4- 2019.

       

Letter No. 722

From

V. Sabarimuthu

26-3 Vellicode

Mulagumoodu P.O. 629167

To

All judges

Supreme Court of India

New Delhi

Your Excellency

        India, on 28 March 2019, expressed its disappointment over the refusal of Pakistan to take immediate, credible and irreversible action against the terror groups at 22 pin locations.

        The contention of India is not a genuine one because Pakistan is willing to allow “Indian visits” on request.

        Further, India lamented that Pakistan refuses to acknowledge Pulwama as a terror attack.

        The above statement also is not a true one.

        Notwithstanding everything, India and Pakistan could make the present line of control as the permanent boundary. This might inhibit the growth of terror groups in Pakistan. The Government of India and the Government of Pakistan must say whether they are agreeable to this suggestion or not.

        The Supreme Court India, on 27 March 2019, conducted a farewell function to Justice A.K. Sikri. Many judges and advocates of the Supreme Court and Delhi High Court attended the function.

        Addressing the function, Attorney General of India Venugopal mentioned Articles 7, 32 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

        Article 32 says that a citizen of India can approach the courts for the violation of his fundamental rights.

        He mentioned many fundamental rights but he chose not to mention the right to information as a fundamental right.

        Chief Justice of India Justice Ranjan Gogoi said, “Great institutions are built on the imprints of people who demonstrate by example. The good deeds and good thoughts are indeed the basis on which institutions strive and grow. This cannot be any truer than it is for the judiciary.

The judiciary as an institution grows on the faith and trust reposed upon it by the people. Judiciary as an institution has a direct interface with the citizenry at all levels. The judges and lawyers are like other faces of the institution.

        It would not be difficult to understand that the judiciary has always grown in the shadows of outstanding personalities whose good deeds and thought have illuminated the path of the billion citizens.

        It is indeed a proud privilege to address this august gathering. The people have come all together to bid farewell to one of the finest among us. A human being who has come to epitomize goodness - always demonstrated invaluable contribution - that goodness of conduct and thought makes to the growth of our institution. Justice Sikri brought fresh insights into the institution.

        I want to describe with some remarkable words Justice Sikri himself used in a case. ‘It is better to be unique than the best because being the best makes a man the number one. But being unique makes you the only one”

        Justice A.K.Sikri, in his farewell address, said, “With power comes responsibility. I believe that wisdom comes from all corners.

There is a prayer which every judge must know. I recite it regularly. Since judges discharge a divine function, I believe that justice is divine. A judge in his prayer is praying to God to be merciful to him so that he is able to administer justice. I will read a portion which goes like this, and I quote, ‘I, mean this day, fulfil all my duties in thy fear and fall into no error of judgement. Give me grace to hear patiently, to consider diligently, to understand rightly and to decide justly. Grant me due sense of humility and I am not to be misled by my wilfulness, vanity and egoism’.

Then, we should remember that we are confronted with difficult cases. We must decide those cases as well. I feel that many times we are confronted with difficult cases. We cannot shy away from them. Judging is one function- (looking at the face of the Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi)-where we cannot avoid taking decisions. We have to do that.

But judges are not morals or intellectual giants, or prophets or calculating machines. We are all human workers. But here intuition plays an important role. I can see with some sense of authority and experience that most of the judges are able to develop extra-ordinary intuitive powers which normally lead them to right decisions. On such occasions, to listen to my intuitions is to identify with my entire awareness, experience or just with my conscience perceptions. My total synthesis into a calm sense of direction coupled with reason shows my right path. I don’t know how far I have succeeded. I have always kept in my mind a pragmatic approach. I always tried to balance conflicting interests. I always tried to acquire a sense of justice. In the process, I have endeavoured to learn from many judges. Justice Benjamin’s ‘Fundamental Duties of a Judge in a Democracy’ and the books like “How Judges Decide”----- 21 celebrated judgements of the Supreme Court of USA….

        I may disclose here that even at this age, 65, there is a child in me. It has kept me in some kind of innocence. This innocence ensures that there is no malice towards anyone and that helps in doing justice.

        Let me make another confession today. By nature, a part of me is feminine. I am of the opinion that in order to do justice one should possess some elements of feminist. After all, the symbol of justice is a goddess ie a female form. No doubt she is shown blindfolded. However, her heart is not shut from where emanates the qualities of imparting justice. It teaches that everyone may not be nice but there is something nice in everything.

        Never keep a fixed image for everyone because people act differently in different situations. It helps in hearing the qualities of justice. Justice which has the attribute of compassion is a female attitude. I will instil the desire of sensitivity which is required in various types of cases and in various circumstances. It is well known that women have six senses including the pragmatic sense…….

        God has made each one of us unique and designed us for a special purpose in life. When we find a purpose, accept it and put all our efforts to fulfil it to find contentment…….

        I have a desire to be more than I am. A desire to increase the boundaries of myself, a desire to feel more, learn more and a desire to grow……

        There was a mild debate over whether a judge shall smile or not.  That is not important. If at all, it is a secondary issue. The test of a good and successful judge is –(looking at the face Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi)- how many smiles are brought on the hapless faces. That is the test”.

       

        Anyone would tell Justice A.K. Sikri is not satisfied with the stand taken by the Supreme Court of India on Article 39(a).

        All constitutions contain provisions for grievance redressals.

        A citizen of India has an inherent right to present his grievances before the Supreme Court of India directly. He has a right to be free from the unfair or irrelevant or invidious treatment of advocates. Therefore, it is not necessary that a citizen must file a writ petition under Article 32 through an advocate. 

        A citizen of India can write letters to the Supreme Court of India for the rectification of its constitutional violations.

        Then, the court must exercise its discretion with complete good faith and honesty to avoid arbitrary conduct.

        But the court has arbitrarily and capriciously failed to adjudicate the letters. It is nothing but breach of statutory duty. Even Justice A.K.Sikri agrees with it

        There are 720 letters. But the dominant theme is not a complex one. The dominant theme is that one among the 1300 million voiceless people approaches the Supreme Court of India. A simple judgement of the court will be equivalent to 1300 million judgements.

        The installation of any government to the exclusion of 1300 million people is an unconstitutional one. The new government would be as illegitimate as the present one. It would not survive in an atmosphere of freedom.

        If these letters come to the notice of the people, the judges cannot escape. Why should a court and a government function like this?

        A citizen of India is not going to write 720 letters to the President of India to police the Constitution of India in future. In this respect, it is a unique work.

But the issue that lies at the core of the letters is not unique or special to the present plaintiff.

There exits an unlawful scheme to prevent 1300 million people from attaining the benefits of Article 19 of the Constitution of India.

Therefore, the claims of all citizens are the same. All arise out of same set of factual circumstances. Whether each citizen of India has been wrongly deprived of benefits pursuant to Article 19 of the Constitution of India or not is the question.

The Supreme Court of India might contend that the deprivation was done by common corporate act. But it refuses to give any prospective injunctive relief!

No other citizen has approached the President of India for the benefits under Article 19. Therefore, the President of India has a fiduciary duty to see that the interests of 1300 million absent class citizens are fairly and adequately protected by him in their absence.

This is letter No.722

This letter is submitted to the President of India and the Supreme Court of India through email

V. Sabarimuthu

India

30-3-2019.

Letter 721

From

V. Sabarimuthu

26-3 Vellicode

Mulagumoodu 629197

India

To

All judges

The Supreme Court of India

New Delhi

Your Excellency

        Mr. Vijay Mallya of Kingfisher Airlines, on 27 March 2019, deplored that the mechanism adopted to solve the Jet Airways was not applied to him and he lost everything. He added that the banks were not ready to accept even the repayments to clear the loan taken by him.

        The Government of India had asked the public sector State Bank of India (SBI) to buy 24% shares of the Jet Airways by giving a huge amount of money. In fact, the SBI was all set to buy 24% shares of the Jet Airways. Apparently, the present President of India intervened to prevent the unconstitutional manipulations. Finally, the SBI took over the Jet Airways.

What the present man knows is his letter in this regard and the result. What happened in between is an imagination only. Mr. Mallya may not be aware of it.

The SBI is now open for further manipulations. As there is no civilian government, everything depends on the stand taken by the President of India.

The source of authority of the President of India is the Constitution of India.

President Mr. K.R. Narayanan wanted to prevent the Public Sector Banks and the Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) from advancing money to some favoured companies in the pretext of buying their shares. He went to the Supreme Court of India for it. But the judges told him not to interfere in the affairs of the judiciary. He stood like a poor man at the gate and returned. Thus, he failed. But he expressed the hope that the “common man” would save the country. He utilized a public meeting at Pune to tell it to the people.

Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam and Mrs. Pratibha Devisingh Patil virtually restrained the banks and the LIC from advancing money to any companies in the pretext of buying their shares.

Mr. Pranab Mukherjee allowed them to buy the shares of those companies that were moulding the public thought in India.

The present President of India has, for the first time, restrained the Government and, therefore, the SBI from buying the shares of the Jet Airways.

Evidently, the amount of authority the President of India hold depends upon the capability of the President of India. Some want to prevent manipulations, some restrict it and some condescend it.

It is a very sensitive area because this money has the potential to raise any private companies with suitable connections to great heights. When this happens, other companies simply perish due to interest burden.

 When the present man asked former Prime Minister of India Mr. A.B. Vajpayee to curtail the unconstitutional manipulations, he said that the “demon would be eliminated”

Though the present man still lives, hundreds of attempts were made to eliminate him. Even now, the Supreme Court of India is not ready to adjudicate the letters because it knew that no absent class citizen could fight for ever.

India, on 27 March 2019, shot down one of its satellites in space with an anti-satellite missile (A-SAT). India is the fourth country in the world to successfully conduct this test. It is a scientific achievement of the Indian Défense Research and Development Organization (DRDO).

The Prime Minister of Pakistan, Mr. Imran Khan, on 27 March 2019, said, “My country would no longer allow terror groups to organize in the Pakistani soil. We cannot afford to be blamed for any terrorist activity like what happened in Pulwama.

We are already cracking down on them - we are already dismantling the whole set-up. What is happening right now had never happened before in Pakistan. I am still apprehensive – before the election in India- I feel that something could happen - I feel that Mr. Modi used Pulwama attack to build this war hysteria.

The Indian public should realize that it is all for winning the election. It has nothing to do with the real issues of the subcontinent”.

Whatever happened, it is good for both countries. The terrorists did not succeed in triggering a war. The statement of Prime Minister of Pakistan shows that India and Pakistan are in for a new phase of peaceful co-existence.

The feeling of the present man is that India would not wage a war with Pakistan in the near future notwithstanding one or two freak terrorist attacks.

A little bit of transparency might solve the problem.  Everyone tells that Kashmir is the real problem. But none in India knows the real issues in it. Pakistan can reveal them through the media to enlighten the people.

The President of India must note that there exists a nation-wide and national court-wide conspiracy to deny freedom of expression. The Supreme Court of India induces the media to accomplish it. ‘Write whatever you want. We will never allow the people to know it. We will see that no man reads your books also. We have the power to subvert Article 39(a)’. This is the stand taken by the Supreme Court of India to 720 letters.

The court does this not to this present man but to 1300 million people. It could be any citizen of India.

The wars that India fought in the past could be attributed to the denial of freedom of expression in India.

The judges of the Supreme Court of India revel in installing one non-civilian government after another by denying the rights of the citizens under Articles 39 (a) and 19.

Their action converts them into the worst terrorists in India. Their terrorism is more devastating than the nuclear devices.

They could be sentenced to not less than ten life terms. But the Indians have to live them.

Therefore, the Supreme Court of India must restrain all non-civilian governments from engaging in any war with the neighbouring countries for any unjust gain.

Now the present President of India has acquired sufficient experience. He has closely observed the nature of his government. He has studied the judicial psychology of the judges. He must be in a position to prevent and rectify the unconstitutional actions of the Government and the judiciary.

The gravest complaint against the Supreme Court of India is that it refuses to adjudicate 720 letters as per Article 39(a) of Constitution of India. There is no zipper clause in the Constitution of India to waive this provision. In fact, Article 39(a) is the heart of the Constitution of India. It is a problem to be solved and not arguments to be won.

This letter No.721

This letter is being submitted to the Supreme Court of India and the President of India through email.

V. Sabarimuthu

India 28-3-2019.

Letter No.719

From

V. Sabarimuthu

26-3 Vellicode

Mulagumoodu P.O.

To

All judges

Supreme Court of India

New Delhi

Your Excellency

Mr. Rahul Gandhi, the leader of the Congress Party, on 26 March 2019, said that he would ensure Re. 6000/- per month to 20% of the poorest Indians.

It was the headline news of many newspapers in India.

It is a good idea although he might have distilled it out of this work. So, all people all over India would be lifted out of the poverty line immediately after the election. Even the NDA would be forced to follow it. Really, happy days are ahead of everyone.

The media reported his words because he allowed the then Prime Minister of India, Dr. Manmohan Singh, to send the money in the Provident Fund and the Pension Fund to unknown destinations. Besides, he helped alienate the natural assets.

The present man has been giving far more valuable ideas for the last 18 years. But the media is not ready to report them. The reason is that they think that the present man did not do anything profitable to them. Moreover, the present man says that the newspapers and the TV channels must be handed over to the voluntary organizations. They cannot fire at themselves.

No wonder that they do not report the views of the present man. When some good things happen due to this work, the media simply attribute it to others.

The political leaders must have the courage to tell the media houses that they should publish news and views according to degree. The leaders should not think that the ideas of others would diminish their importance. In fact, any name one gets after concealing the names of others, is not a name.

Therefore, all political leaders must face ideas with ideas, opinions with opinions and views with views. They must understand that politics is the war between ideas. It is not necessary that one must conduct public meetings or carry out processions and agitations. The present man said this repeatedly.

It is said that ‘politics is nothing but war without bloodshed’. A political leader in India, Mr. Seeman, accepted it quoting a political leader from China. All others must accept it. Therefore, the present man is the No.1 political leader in India. This work is simply an exhaustive war against the present unconstitutional system. The weapon is not gun but the Constitution of India. Either the system or the Constitution of India will survive.

How can the present man claim this? The present man says that he fairly and adequately represents the 1300 absent class citizens. To know this, one must place the ideas and achievements of the present absent class citizen and those of Prime Minister of India Mr. Narendra Modi or any other talented political leader in India before the people. One would find to his amazement that there are not even 10 right thinking people in India to support Mr. Narendra Modi or any other leader in India.

How can a citizen of India place his ideas before the people if the media houses refuse to divulge his views?

The refusal to publish the meritorious views is an offence because it is in conflict with Article 19.

It is not an imaginary grievance to be rejected. It is a real grievance.

To remedy the grievances, one would approach the courts. For this, the courts must be Constitutional in their ways. How can a court be constitutional in its ways?

The court is said to be constitutional in its ways when it functions in a transparent way. When it functions in a transparent way, it cannot go astray. It is said that a judge functions in a glass bowl. The conduct of the hearing is observed by sophisticated advocates and knowledgeable people. The judgements that are not based upon logical and sound interpretation of the constitution would make the judge unacceptable to the people. The people are always concerned with the quality of the decisions.

For this to happen, a judge need not be an expert in law but he must have enough knowledge of law.

When the judges of the Supreme Court of India destroyed the Constitution of India from within on 10 -12-2001, the present man pointed out it to the High Courts and the Supreme Court of India. Any one of the courts should have accepted it as a writ petition or sought a clarification from the present man. It should have shown the letters and the action taken by it to the people. But the judges all over India pretended that they did not receive the letters. They did not consider a man without money as a citizen of India or even a human being.

The present man then sent letters to all political leaders, 250 Members of Parliament, several newspapers, Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) and the President of India. After accepting about 250 letters continuously, the CBI refused to accept the letters sent by post. Now, even the email addresses of the NHRC and CVC are not – apparently- in the public domain.

Thus, the judicial system in India previously and consistently failed to protect the democratic rights of the people in civil life. The court is now over burdened with 719 letters. It refuses to adjudicate them under Article 39(a) and promulgate to the people as per Article 19.

The High Courts in India and the Supreme Court of India can no longer settle this issue due to conflict of interests. Therefore, the present man approached the President of India.

The source of authority of the President of India is the Constitution of India. He is the only competent authority to protect it. He could have asked the Government to file a First Information Report (FIR) for failing to act in conformity with Article 39(a) or against the media houses for their failure to act in conformity with Article 19.

This is letter No. 720

This letter is being submitted to the President of India and to all judges of the Supreme Court of India.

V. Sabarimuthu

India

27-3-2019

Letter No. 719

From

V. Sabarimuthu

26-3 Vellicode

Mulagumoodu P.O. 629167

India

To

All judges

Supreme Court of India

New Delhi

Your Excellency

         The Prime Minister of India, Mr. Narendra Modi. on 25 March 2019, urged the prominent personalities to inspire the people to vote.

         He alienated the public resources to favour his promoters. If he had done it in good faith for the well-being of the people, he could have done so after enlarging the freedom of the people. As he deliberately wanted to steal public assets, he could not enlarge the freedom.

         Prior to this, Mr. Rahul Gandhi, did the same for 10 long years through Dr. Manmohan Singh.

         As Mr. Narendra Modi and Dr. Manmohan Singh did not head any civilian government. They engaged in war or created unwanted tension with the neighbouring countries to plunder public assets. Now, they do not allow others to tell this to the people.

         As they proved dangerous to the nation, they are the two ‘sore spots’ of the system.

         Therefore, the people need a civilian government.

         When the Supreme Court of India adjudicates the cases as per Articles 39 (a) and 19, the people would come to know the things that are in conflict with the Constitution of India and that they would hear men and matters according to degree. This would enable them to form a perspective for voting. Instead of doing this, the people are blindfolded and steered to the polling booths like animals and are being forced to vote for the representatives of the manipulators. It is worse than catching them using a rat trap.

         The people would point out this to the judges. The latter must have an analytical mind and must be able to orient quickly when dealing with vital subject matters raised by the people. But they simply refuse to give heed to weighty issues. If heard, they fear, that the unconstitutional manipulations would be curbed to the disadvantage of their promoters. Therefore, they have not even expressed their willingness to give adequate attention to the matter raised by the present absent class citizen.     

         The judges should have complied with Article 39(a) because it is the ‘safety valve’ of the Constitution of India. Then their adjudication might have made the present man the Prime Minister of India long ago.

         There exists an erroneous belief that the grievance of the present man is of a personal nature. It is not at all true. It is the general grievance of the 1300 million absent class citizens.

         If the President of India ignores this, he simply denies the democratic rights of 1300 million people. The loss to the present man is a small one but the principle is very large.

         Therefore, President of India stands between emancipation and total slavery.

         He must settle the issues that involve a broad question of law at the earliest because complaints often shrink in importance and are easily disposed of once they are brought into the open. Nothing could be achieved through secret moves. The source of his strength would not be the Constitution of India after the formation of a non-civilian government.

         This letter No.719

         This letter is being submitted to the President of India and all judges of the Supreme Court of India.

V. Sabarimuthu

India

26-3-2019

Letter No. 718

From

V. Sabarimuthu

26-3 Vellicode

Mulagumoodu P.O. 629167

India

To

All judges

Supreme Court of India

New Delhi

Your Excellency

         The Bloomberg, on 23 March 2019, said, “The foundation of corporate structure in India is cracking. A fresh coat of paint alone won’t suffice”.

         The opinion gives the impression that the President of India would grant freedom to Indians.

         The present absent class citizen has submitted 717 letters to the Supreme Court of India since June 2001.

         The objective of submitting the letters is not to function as an advice giver, extra-constitutional authority or a policeman but to secure freedom to the people.

         Therefore, the grievance is nothing but the denial of freedom to Indians.

         What is the consequence of denial of freedom?

         The denial of freedom leads to the formation of non-civilian governments.

         What is the meaning of the word ‘grievance’?

         For an Indian, anything that conflicts with the Constitution of India is a grievance.

         The present man says that the Supreme Court of India did not adjudicate 717 letters as per Article 39(a) and promulgate their awards as per Article 19. If it is correct, it a grievance.

         This grievance cannot be adjudicated by the Prime Minister of India, other political leaders, Election Commission of India or the High Courts. The Supreme Court of India alone can do it. As it is overburdened with letters, the present man pointed out the standard method adopted by the judiciary all over the world to adjudicate such issues. The method is: concede all the constitutional demands of the petitioner.

         If the court is obdurate in its refusal to adjudicate the subject matter, the President of India would be constrained to give his final award. There is no other authority to resolve this.

         Imagine that the present man indulges in some wrong doing. Someone might lodge a complaint. If the wrongdoing is in conflict with the Constitution of India, the police would arrest him within 24 hours.

         The present man cannot claim any immunity saying that he saved many Public Sector Undertakings (PSUs) from privatisation or wrote several books or even saved the people from a probable Indo- Pak war. The fact that he wrote 717 letters in 18 years for the freedom of Indians also would not be a sufficient ground for immunity.

         Similarly, the learned judges of the Supreme Court of India are very powerful people. They are so powerful that the media is not ready to utter a word about them even if they commit the greatest of all crimes.

         But the moment the President of India gives his oral or written award to the complaint lodged by the present man, the learned judges would go to jail for their refusal to adjudicate as per Article 39(a) and promulgate their awards as per Article 19.

         If the President of India refuses to gives his award, a non-civilian government would come to power for the fourth time in succession and would keep him in the Presidential Palace as its slave.

         This is letter No.718

         This letter is being submitted to the President of India and the Supreme Court of India through two separate emails.

V. Sabarimuthu

25- 3- 2019

India.