Letter No.710

From
V. Sabarimuthu
26-3 Vewllicode
Mulagumoodu P.O. 629167
To
All judges
The Supreme Court of India
New Delhi
Your Excellencies

The Prime Minister of India, Mr. Narendra Modi, washed
the feet of four or five sanitary workers yesterday. The media
gave great coverage to this again and again.
Former Prime Minister of India Mr. A. B. Vajpayee
touched the feet of a poor woman from the Tamil Nadu State,
Mrs. Chennapillai, for alienating the public assets like the
BALCO, VSNL, IPCL, HZL without her knowledge.
The present Prime Minister of India, Mr. Narendra Modi,
washed the feet of the sanitary workers for keeping the present
man away from their discerning eyes. Is it right on his part to do
like this after taking away their right to know men and matters?
Is he not treating them like animals?

Union Finance Minister Mr. Arun Jaitely, on 24 February
2019, said that some people did not contest for a seat in any
local bodies, but they aspire to become prime ministers.
It is not necessary that a man must stand in a local body
election prior to becoming the Prime Minister of India.
However, any aspirant must ‘fairly and adequately’ represent the
absent class citizens to become the Prime Minister of India.
Dr. Manmohan Singh had been a bureaucrat. He did not
enter in any electoral contest to secure the votes of the people.
He was a representative of the vociferous section of the people.
However, he used to say that he possessed the power of the
ballot box. He repeatedly teased the militant people to seize
power through the ballot box. Above all, he told the Supreme
Court of India that he was a resident of the Assam State.
He functioned as the Prime Minister of India for 10 years,
denied freedom to Indians and alienated their resources in the
pretext of a New Economic Theory.
The present situation is a different one.
On one side, there is unlimited manipulated money and
everything that goes with it. They are the embodiments of
corruption. The leaders enjoy the mass support. The people
believe that there are no people apart from them. All the TV
channels and the newspapers continuously glorify ‘a pair’ of
people. Did they do anything to the nation while in power?
Nothing. They alienated the public resources to their promoters.
They represent the vociferous section of the people.

In contrast, the present man has no money or mass support.
He says that he ‘fairly and adequately’ represents the voiceless
absent class citizens.
How can a man represent all absent class citizens? This
happened because the Supreme Court of India chose not to
deliver judgements over his letters. If they had judged the letters,
the present citizen might have become a prime minister along
ago.
Could the Supreme Court of India refuse to deliver
judgements? If there is rule of law, it is not possible.
But the act of delivering judgements is not easy.
The first point in the first letter demands the court to
abolish the policy of bulk buying to avoid big commission. The
demand is a constitutional one. But, the judgement would affect
A, B or C.
The second point demands the court to give contract works
in pieces. Any judgement would affect the interests of X, Y or
Z. Therefore, the judges chose not to judge the letters. Thus,
advocate Mr.Prasant Bhusan obtained over 709 judgements for
mere mentioning. In contrast, the present man got no
judgements for 709 meritorious petitions.
The present Chief Justice of India can recall all retired
judges to give their verdicts to the meritorious letters they
received during their time. Or he can devise any other method to
dispose of all letters. Anyone would say that he is now woefully
overburdened because his predecessors did not do their duty.

After removing salary from the consolidated fund of India,
the chief justices should not have failed to do their duty. The
present man pointed out this long ago.
If the court fails to respond to a grievance within a
specific time, the alleged grievance must be settled in favor
of the petitioner. This is the standard method followed all over
the world to settle grievances.
Therefore, the court must settle the grievances in favor of
the present absent class citizen
The Supreme Court of India ‘must necessarily survey the
broad spectrum of interests involved and determine where
the interests of the people truly lie’. Everyone must know this.
If the court thinks that the two men accused of alienating
the public assets ‘fairly and adequately’ represent the absent
class citizens, it can maintain the status quo.
Alternatively, if it thinks that the present man ‘fairly and
adequately’ represents the absent class citizens, it can defer the
elections to give adequate time for preparation.
The President of India also must contribute his share to
protect the democratic rights of the individuals in civil life.
This is letter No.710
V. Sabarimuthu
India
25-2-2019