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.