Corruption case in India against General Electric Company adjourned to 18 July 2014

https://twitter.com/SeemaSapraLaw

The whistleblower corruption case against General Electric Company - Writ Petition (Civil) 1280/ 2012 (in the matter of Seema Sapra v General Electric Company and Others) - will be next heard in the Delhi High Court on 10 November 2014.

Sunday, 26 October 2014

I am still being poisoned - urgent message from Seema Sapra, General Electric whistle-blower - WP Civil 1280 of 2012, a corruption whistle-blower petition in the Delhi High Court (Seema Sapra v General Electric Company and Others)

Last night, the release of poisonous gases/ fumes into my hotel room continued even after I sent this email. It then resumed very early this morning around 5 am and is continuing since then. 

Seema Sapra 


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Seema Sapra <seema.sapra@googlemail.com>
Date: Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 8:52 AM
Subject: I am still being poisoned - urgent message from Seema Sapra, General Electric whistle-blower - WP Civil 1280 of 2012, a corruption whistle-blower petition in the Delhi High Court (Seema Sapra v General Electric Company and Others)
To: pmosb <pmosb@gov.in>, Amit Shah <amitshah.bjp@gmail.com>, sanjayjain.chamber@gmail.com, director@aiims.ac.in, lggc.delhi@nic.in, "rg.dhc@nic.in" <rg.dhc@nic.in>, Bhim Sain Bassi <cp.bsbassi@nic.in>, joe.kaeser@siemens.com, dch@nic.in, "splcp-vigilance-dl@nic.in" <splcp-vigilance-dl@nic.in>, "splcp-crime-dl@nic.in" <splcp-crime-dl@nic.in>, jtcp-cr-dl@nic.in, "jtcp-nr-dl@nic.in" <jtcp-nr-dl@nic.in>, jtcp-ser-dl@nic.in, jtcp-swr-dl@nic.in, "jtcp-phq-dl@nic.in" <jtcp-phq-dl@nic.in>, jtcp-ga-dl@nic.in, "jtcpt_dtp@nic.in" <jtcpt_dtp@nic.in>, "jtcp-crime-dl@nic.in" <jtcp-crime-dl@nic.in>, jtcp-splcell-dl@nic.in, jtcp-sec-dl@nic.in, "jcpsec@rb.nic.in" <jcpsec@rb.nic.in>, "addlcp-eow-dl@nic.in" <addlcp-eow-dl@nic.in>, jtcp-vigilance-dl@nic.in, jtcp-sb-dl@nic.in, addlcp-crime-dl@nic.in, "addlcpt-dtp@nic.in" <addlcpt-dtp@nic.in>, "addlcp-caw-dl@nic.in" <addlcp-caw-dl@nic.in>, dcp-west-dl@nic.in, addlcp-se-dl@nic.in, "dcp-southwest-dl@nic.in" <dcp-southwest-dl@nic.in>, "dcp-crime-dl@nic.in" <dcp-crime-dl@nic.in>, dcp-eow-dl@nic.in, dcp-splcell-dl@nic.in, dcp-east-dl@nic.in, dcp-northeast-dl@nic.in, "dcp-central-dl@nic.in" <dcp-central-dl@nic.in>, dcp-north-dl@nic.in, dcp-northwest-dl@nic.in, "dcp-south-dl@nic.in" <dcp-south-dl@nic.in>, dcp-outer-dl@nic.in, "dcp-newdelhi-dl@nic.in" <dcp-newdelhi-dl@nic.in>, "dcp-pcr-dl@nic.in" <dcp-pcr-dl@nic.in>, "dcp-southeast-dl@nic.in" <dcp-southeast-dl@nic.in>, dcp-vigilance-dl@nic.in, "sho-tilakmarg-dl@nic.in" <sho-tilakmarg-dl@nic.in>, "sho-tuglakrd-dl@nic.in" <sho-tuglakrd-dl@nic.in>, "addl-dcp2-nd-dl@nic.in" <addl-dcp2-nd-dl@nic.in>, "acp-vivekvhr-dl@nic.in" <acp-vivekvhr-dl@nic.in>, "sho-vivekvhr-dl@nic.in" <sho-vivekvhr-dl@nic.in>, "sho-hndin-dl@nic.in" <sho-hndin-dl@nic.in>, "Madder, Emily" <emily.madder@siemens.com>, "banmali.agrawala@ge.com" <banmali.agrawala@ge.com>, "cmukund@mukundcherukuri.com" <cmukund@mukundcherukuri.com>, rajshekhar rao <rao.rajshekhar@gmail.com>, "vikram@duaassociates.com" <vikram@duaassociates.com>, "sec-jus@gov.in" <sec-jus@gov.in>, "pk.malhotra@nic.in" <pk.malhotra@nic.in>, "ramakrishnan.r@nic.in" <ramakrishnan.r@nic.in>, "jmg.vc@nic.in" <jmg.vc@nic.in>, "cvc@nic.in" <cvc@nic.in>, "hm@nic.in" <hm@nic.in>, "hshso@nic.in" <hshso@nic.in>, "complaintcell-ncw@nic.in" <complaintcell-ncw@nic.in>, "sgnhrc@nic.in" <sgnhrc@nic.in>, "dg-nhrc@nic.in" <dg-nhrc@nic.in>, "newhaven@ic.fbi.gov" <newhaven@ic.fbi.gov>, "ny1@ic.fbi.gov" <ny1@ic.fbi.gov>, "usanys.wpcomp@usdoj.gov" <usanys.wpcomp@usdoj.gov>, "nalin.jain@ge.com" <nalin.jain@ge.com>, "helpline@eda.admin.ch" <helpline@eda.admin.ch>, _EDA-Vertretung-New-Delhi <ndh.vertretung@eda.admin.ch>, _EDA-VISA New-Delhi <ndh.visa@eda.admin.ch>, _EDA-Etat Civil New Delhi <ndh.etatcivil@eda.admin.ch>, "vertretung@ndh.rep.admin.ch" <vertretung@ndh.rep.admin.ch>, "emb@rusembassy.in" <emb@rusembassy.in>, indconru indconru <indconru@gmail.com>, "web.newdelhi@fco.gov.uk" <web.newdelhi@fco.gov.uk>, "conqry.newdelhi@fco.gov.uk" <conqry.newdelhi@fco.gov.uk>, "LegalisationEnquiries@fco.gov.uk" <LegalisationEnquiries@fco.gov.uk>, "delegation-india@eeas.europa.eu" <delegation-india@eeas.europa.eu>, "re-india.commerce@international.gc.ca" <re-india.commerce@international.gc.ca>, "info@new-delhi.diplo.de" <info@new-delhi.diplo.de>, Ambassaden New Delhi <ambassaden.new-delhi@foreign.ministry.se>, "delamb@um.dk" <delamb@um.dk>, "emb.newdelhi@mfa.no" <emb.newdelhi@mfa.no>, "chinaemb_in@mfa.gov.cn" <chinaemb_in@mfa.gov.cn>, "InfoDesk@ohchr.org" <InfoDesk@ohchr.org>, "Press-Info@ohchr.org" <Press-Info@ohchr.org>, "civilsociety@ohchr.org" <civilsociety@ohchr.org>, "nationalinstitutions@ohchr.org" <nationalinstitutions@ohchr.org>, "webmaster@ambafrance-in.org" <webmaster@ambafrance-in.org>, "info_visa_delhi@ambafrance-in.org" <info_visa_delhi@ambafrance-in.org>, "VA@ndh.rep.admin.ch" <VA@ndh.rep.admin.ch>, "indne@unhcr.org" <indne@unhcr.org>, "ambasciata.newdelhi@esteri.it" <ambasciata.newdelhi@esteri.it>, "chinaconsul_kkt@mfa.gov.cn" <chinaconsul_kkt@mfa.gov.cn>, "chinaconsul_mum_in@mfa.gov.cn" <chinaconsul_mum_in@mfa.gov.cn>, "webmaster@mfa.gov.cn" <webmaster@mfa.gov.cn>, "in@mofcom.gov.cn" <in@mofcom.gov.cn>, "sapnachauhan.chauhan192@gmail.com" <sapnachauhan.chauhan192@gmail.com>, "dcbi@cbi.gov.in" <dcbi@cbi.gov.in>, "mr@rb.railnet.gov.in" <mr@rb.railnet.gov.in>, "crb@rb.railnet.gov.in" <crb@rb.railnet.gov.in>, "me@rb.railnet.gov.in" <me@rb.railnet.gov.in>, "mm@rb.railnet.gov.in" <mm@rb.railnet.gov.in>, "ms@rb.railnet.gov.in" <ms@rb.railnet.gov.in>, "secyrb@rb.railnet.gov.in" <secyrb@rb.railnet.gov.in>, "legaladv@rb.railnet.gov.in" <legaladv@rb.railnet.gov.in>, "r_s_chidambaram@cat.com" <r_s_chidambaram@cat.com>, "rathin.basu@alstom.com" <rathin.basu@alstom.com>, "Dimitrief, Alexander (GE, Corporate)" <alexander.dimitrief@ge.com>, "Eglash, Jeffrey C (GE, Corporate)" <jeffrey.eglash@ge.com>, Nanju Ganpathy <nanju.ganpathy@azbpartners.com>, "bradford.berenson@ge.com" <bradford.berenson@ge.com>, "brackett.denniston@ge.com" <brackett.denniston@ge.com>, "jeffrey.immelt@ge.com" <jeffrey.immelt@ge.com>, "john.flannery@ge.com" <john.flannery@ge.com>, "delhihighcourt@nic.in" <delhihighcourt@nic.in>, "pmosb@nic.in" <pmosb@nic.in>, "askdoj@usdoj.gov" <askdoj@usdoj.gov>, "CHAIRMANOFFICE@SEC.GOV" <CHAIRMANOFFICE@sec.gov>, "help@sec.gov" <help@sec.gov>, "fcpa.fraud@usdoj.gov" <fcpa.fraud@usdoj.gov>, "radhakrishnan.k@ge.com" <radhakrishnan.k@ge.com>, "preet.bharara@usdoj.gov" <preet.bharara@usdoj.gov>, "NDwebmail@state.gov" <NDwebmail@state.gov>, "ffetf@usdoj.gov" <ffetf@usdoj.gov>, "fja@federaljudgesassoc.org" <fja@federaljudgesassoc.org>, "supremecourt@nic.in" <supremecourt@nic.in>, "Loretta_A._Preska@nysd.uscourts.gov" <Loretta_A._Preska@nysd.uscourts.gov>, "ombudsperson@corporate.ge.com" <ombudsperson@corporate.ge.com>, Directors@corporate.ge.com, Siemens Ombudsman COM <mail@siemens-ombudsman.com>, compliance.office@bombardier.com, pierre.beaudoin@bombardier.com, william.ainsworth@caterpillar.com, CATshareservices@cat.com, BusinessPractices@cat.com, patrick.kron@alstom.com, keith.carr@alstom.com, Jean-David.barnea@usdoj.gov, reed.brodsky@usdoj.gov, andrew.michaelson@usdoj.gov, ellen.davis@usdoj.gov, eric.glover@usdoj.gov, paul.murphy@usdoj.gov, sandra.glover@usdoj.gov, robert.spector@usdoj.gov, christopher.connolly@usdoj.gov, joseph.cordaro@usdoj.gov, david.jones6@usdoj.gov, daniel.filor@usdoj.gov, amy.barcelo@usdoj.gov, christopher.harwood@usdoj.gov, michael.byars@usdoj.gov, benjamin.torrance@usdoj.gov, sarah.normand@usdoj.gov, elizabeth.shapiro@usdoj.gov, alicia.simmons@usdoj.gov, joyce.vance@usdoj.gov, kenyen.brown@usdoj.gov, karen.loeffler@usdoj.gov, andre.birotte@usdoj.gov, melinda.haag@usdoj.gov, laura.duffy@usdoj.gov, john.walsh@usdoj.gov, david.weiss@usdoj.gov, ronald.machen@usdoj.gov, robert.o'neill@usdoj.gov, pamela.marsh@usdoj.gov, wifredo.ferrer@usdoj.gov, michael.moore@usdoj.gov, sally yates <sally.yates@usdoj.gov>, edward.tarver@usdoj.gov, alicia.limtiaco@usdoj.gov, florence.nakakuni@usdoj.gov, wendy.olson@usdoj.gov, james.lewis@usdoj.gov, patrick.fitzgerald@usdoj.gov, stephen.wigginton@usdoj.gov, david.capp@usdoj.gov, joseph.hogsett@usdoj.gov, stephanie.rose@usdoj.gov, nick.klinefeldt@usdoj.gov, kerry.harvey@usdoj.gov, david.hale@usdoj.gov, stephanie.finley@usdoj.gov, rod.rosenstein@usdoj.gov, carmen.ortiz@usdoj.gov, barbara.mcquade@usdoj.gov, b.todd.jones@usdoj.gov, william.martin@usdoj.gov, richard.callahan@usdoj.gov, beth.phillips@usdoj.gov, michael.cotter@usdoj.gov, deborah.gilg@usdoj.gov, daniel.bogden@usdoj.gov, john.kacavas@usdoj.gov, paul.fishman@usdoj.gov, kenneth.gonzales@usdoj.gov, loretta.lynch@usdoj.gov, richard.hartunian@usdoj.gov, william.hochul@usdoj.gov, john.stone@usdoj.gov, anne.tompkins@usdoj.gov, tim.purdon@usdoj.gov, steve.dettelbach@usdoj.gov, carter.stewart@usdoj.gov, sandy.coats@usdoj.gov, zane.memeger@usdoj.gov, peter.smith@usdoj.gov, david.hickton@usdoj.gov, peter.neronha@usdoj.gov, bill.nettles@usdoj.gov, william.killian@usdoj.gov, jerry.martin@usdoj.gov, edward.stanton@usdoj.gov, jose.moreno@usdoj.gov, carlie.christensen@usdoj.gov, tristram.coffin@usdoj.gov, ronald.sharpe@usdoj.gov, neil.macbride@usdoj.gov, timothy.heaphy@usdoj.gov, bill.ihlenfeld@usdoj.gov, booth.goodwin@usdoj.gov, james.santelle@usdoj.gov, john.vaudreuil@usdoj.gov, christopher.crofts@usdoj.gov, bprao@bhel.in, ajay.sinha@emdiesels.com, armin.bruck@siemens.com, sunil.mathur@siemens.com, benoit.martel@bombardier.com, roland.busch@siemens.com, michael.suess@siemens.com, klaus.helmrich@siemens.com, daniel.desjardins@bombardier.com, james.buda@caterpillar.com, glen.lehman@progressrail.com, alert.procedure@alstom.com, "Warin, F. Joseph" <fwarin@gibsondunn.com>, "Chesley, John" <JChesley@gibsondunn.com>, confidential@sfo.gsi.gov.uk, public.enquiries@sfo.gsi.gov.uk, luis.quesada@ic.fbi.gov, steven.kessler@ic.fbi.gov, henry.gittleman@ic.fbi.gov, renn.cannon@ic.fbi.gov, eric.peterson@ic.fbi.gov, jeff.bedford@ic.fbi.gov, david.brooks@ic.fbi.gov, robert.clifford@ic.fbi.gov, mary.warren@ic.fbi.gov, frank.teixeira@ic.fbi.gov, timothy.langan@ic.fbi.gov, sharon.kuo@ic.fbi.gov, kingman.wong@ic.fbi.gov, daniel.bodony@ic.fbi.gov, christopher.mcmurray@ic.fbi.gov, ralph.hope@ic.fbi.gov, eric.metz@ic.fbi.gov, alejandro.barbeito@ic.fbi.gov, cary.gleicher@ic.fbi.gov, paul.haertel@ic.fbi.gov, greg.cox@ic.fbi.gov, lazaro.andino@ic.fbi.gov, gabriel.ramirez@ic.fbi.gov, tom.sobocinski@ic.fbi.gov, benjamin.walker@ic.fbi.gov, kirk.striebich@ic.fbi.gov, gregory.cox@ic.fbi.gov, katherine.andrews@ic.fbi.gov, carolyn.willson@ic.fbi.gov, mark.nowak@ic.fbi.gov, stuart.wirtz@ic.fbi.gov, lesley.buckler@ic.fbi.gov, daniel.dudzinski@ic.fbi.gov, william.peterson@ic.fbi.gov, connally.brown@ic.fbi.gov, leo.navarette@ic.fbi.gov, lawrence.futa@ic.fbi.gov, gregory.shaffer@ic.fbi.gov, daniel.clegg@ic.fbi.gov, adishaggarwala@yahoo.com, adishaggarwala@hotmail.com, vsondhi@luthra.com, muraritiwari.adv@gmail.com, Priyanka Tyagi <adv.priyankatyagi@gmail.com>, sarlakaushik@yahoo.com, goswamiandassociates@yahoo.co.in, vedbaldev@rediffmail.com, rakeshtikuadvocate@yahoo.com, kkmanan <kkmanan@rediffmail.com>, ars.chauhan.co@gmail.com, Rajiv Khosla <advrajivkhosla@gmail.com>, rakeshkochar@hotmail.com, khatri.surya@hotmail.com, puneet mittal <puneetmittal9@gmail.com>, "advamit.sharma@gmail.com" <advamit.sharma@gmail.com>, Attorneynitin@yahoo.com, Rajesh Mishra <attorney.rmishra@gmail.com>, jaibirnagar@gmail.com, csrhw@csrhw.com.cn, cnriec@chinacnr.com, deepak verma <justicedverma@gmail.com>, dridzu@nic.in, Om Prakash <oplawassociates@gmail.com>, Jatan Singh <jatan_singh@yahoo.com>, Abhijat Bal <abhijat.bal@gmail.com>, asutosh lohia <lasutosh@gmail.com>, Vikram Singh Panwar <vikrampanwar2010@gmail.com>, ashok.bhasin@yahoo.co.in, Aruna Tiku <arunatikuadvocate@yahoo.com>, Sunil Mittal <sunilmittaladvocate@gmail.com>, Meghna Sankhla <meghna@sankhla.in>, Amit Sharma with khosla <advocateas@gmail.com>, Pankaj Kapoor <lawyerpankaj@gmail.com>, "P.H. Parekh" <pravin.parekh@pravinparekh.com>, rakesh.sherawat@yahoo.com, jagdev_advocate@yahoo.com, abhay kumar verma <akvadvocates@gmail.com>, Manan Mishra <manankumarmishra@gmail.com>, ZAFAR AHMED Khan <zakhan52@gmail.com>, anirveda_04@sifymail.com, prabakaran.president.tnaa@gmail.com, vbhatt.adv@gmail.com, faisalrizvi@hotmail.com, advajithts@gmail.com, n_ramchanderrao@yahoo.com, Nilesh Kumar <agrnilesh73@gmail.com>, kunals777@yahoo.com, chairman@ses-surat.org, bhojcthakur@yahoo.com, raj mohan singh tanwar <rmsinghadvocate@gmail.com>, Rohinton Nariman <rohintonnariman@gmail.com>, Satish Abarao Deshmukh <satish.adeshmukh@gmail.com>, info@group30.org, poststelle@sta.berlin.de, public.enquiries@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk, webmaster.greco@coe.int, info@eurojust.europa.eu, poststelle@generalbundesanwalt.de, jthuy@eurojust.europa.eu, ejn@eurojust.europa.eu, collegesecretariat@eurojust.europa.eu, poststelle@bgh.bund.de, secretariat@cepol.europa.eu, CP@ohchr.org, siemens-ombudsmann@rae13.de, mariassy@rae13.de, usgrievance@rb.nic.in, cenvigil@nic.in, sdas@cbi.gov.in, adrkd@cbi.gov.in, jdp@cbi.gov.in, hozeo@cbi.gov.in, hozmdma@cbi.gov.in, hozbpl@cbi.gov.in, hozmum1@cbi.gov.in, hozkol@cbi.gov.in, hozac@cbi.gov.in, hozstf@cbi.gov.in, hozsc@cbi.gov.in, hozbsf@cbi.gov.in, hozpat@cbi.gov.in, hozeo2@cbi.gov.in, jda@cbi.gov.in, jdtfc@cbi.gov.in, hozdel@cbi.gov.in, hozchn@cbi.gov.in, hozhyd@cbi.gov.in, hozne@cbi.gov.in, dop@cbi.gov.in, hobac1del@cbi.gov.in, hobac2del@cbi.gov.in, hobac3del@cbi.gov.in, rajiv.vc@nic.in, rajeev.verma@nic.in, cp.ggn@hry.nic.in, mukul17855@yahoo.com, Ranjit Kumar <sgofficerk@gmail.com>, lnageshwararao@hotmail.com, tusharmehta64@yahoo.com, neerajkishankaul@gmail.com, Narasimha Pamidighantam <psnarasimha@gmail.com>, naqvimukhtar@yahoo.com, cpthakur1@rediffmail.com, Jual Oram <oram.jual@gmail.com>, jualoram@rediffmail.com, SS Ahluwalia <tengrg@gmail.com>, ssa@10grg.com, Balbir Punj <punjbalbir@gmail.com>, bkpunj@gmail.com, maliksatyapal@hotmail.com, prabhatjhabjp@gmail.com, vijaya_999@ymail.com, laxmi_chawla@yahoo.com, Kiran Maheshwari <saikiran.udr@gmail.com>, ananth@ananth.org, "T. C. Gehlot" <mptcgehlot@gmail.com>, mp.tcgehlot@bjp.org, jpnadda@gmail.com, Dharmendra Pradhan <dpdharmendrapradhan@gmail.com>, d.pradhan@sansad.nic.in, Tapir Gao <gaotapir@yahoo.com>, fvg001@gmail.com, Anand Chaudhary <anandchaudhary2009@gmail.com>, rudypr@rediffmail.com, p.muralidharrao@rediffmail.com, ramji.bjp@gmail.com, Satish Velankar <shrivsatish@gmail.com>, saudan.singh@bjp.org, piyush@bjp.org, jshyam48@rediffmail.com, bhupender_advocate@rediffmail.com, Bhupender Yadav <bhupenderyadav69@gmail.com>, "P.K Krishnadas" <krishnadasbjp@gmail.com>, "Dr. Anil Jain" <aniljain.dr@gmail.com>, vinod.pandey@bjp.org, TRIVENDRA SINGH RAWAT <tsrawatbjp@gmail.com>, Rameshwar Chaurasia <rpcnokha@gmail.com>, arti_9@yahoo.co.in, vani_tripathi@yahoo.com, dr.sudhayadav@yahoo.co.in, Sudha Malaiya <malaiyasudha@gmail.com>, Poonam Mahajan R <pmahajanr@gmail.com>, drtamilisai@yahoo.co.in, lois.bjp@gmail.com, Arun Jain <bjparun.jain@gmail.com>, Arun Jain <arun.jain@bjp.org>, bjpinparliament@yahoo.com, "V. Shanmuganathan" <vsnathan7666@gmail.com>, PRAKASH JAVADEKAR <pjavadekar@gmail.com>, shahnawaz@sansad.nic.in, shahnawaz.hussain@bjp.org, Nirmala Sitharaman <nsitharaman@gmail.com>, "Dr. B S Shastri" <dr.bsshastri@gmail.com>, trivedi.sudhanshu@gmail.com, Meenakshi Lekhi <mrs.mlekhi@gmail.com>, Captain Abhimanyu <abhimanyu.bjp@gmail.com>, mjakbar@hotmail.com, president@bjp.org, ajaitley@sansad.nic.in, sushmaswaraj@hotmail.com, fmo@nic.in, cabinet@nic.in, cabinetsy@nic.in, kk manan <kkmananadvocate@gmail.com>, kkmanan@gmail.com, Usama Siddiqui <musiddiqui@gmail.com>, ranarajinder@ymail.com, jawahar@pralaw.in, secy-mci@nic.in, delhimedicalcouncil@gmail.com, sho-civilline-dl@nic.in, sho-kamlamkt-dl@nic.in, sho-gk-dl@nic.in, sho-chandnimahal-dl@nic.in, sho-ptstreet-dl@nic.in, sho-paharganj-dl@nic.in, sho-rkpuram-dl@nic.in, sho-bkroad-dl@nic.in, sho-chanakyapuri-dl@nic.in, sho-vasantvhr-dl@nic.in, sho-vksouth-dl@nic.in, sho-amarclny-dl@nic.in, sho-kmkpur-dl@nic.in, sho-hauzkhas-dl@nic.in, sho-safdarjung-dl@nic.in, sho-malviyangr-dl@nic.in, sho-saket-dl@nic.in, sho-lodhiclny-dl@nic.in, sho-dkuan-dl@nic.in, sho-kalkaji-dl@nic.in, sho-crpark-dl@nic.in, sho-govpuri-dl@nic.in, sho-ipestate-dl@nic.in, sho-mandirmarg-dl@nic.in, sho-kashmirigate-dl@nic.in, sho-rajinderngr-dl@nic.in, sho-karolbagh-dl@nic.in, sho-parsadngr-dl@nic.in, sho-bhrao-dl@nic.in, sho-sadarbazar-dl@nic.in, sho-jamamasjid-dl@nic.in, sho-daryaganj-dl@nic.in, sho-hauzqazi-dl@nic.in, sho-lahorigate-dl@nic.in, sho-anandparvat-dl@nic.in, sho-patelngr-dl@nic.in, sho-ranjitngr-dl@nic.in, sho-dbgrd-dl@nic.in, sho-sarairohilla-dl@nic.in, sho-punjabibagh-dl@nic.in, gurmeharsistani@gmail.com, Rich Verma <rverma@steptoe.com>
Cc: Seema Sapra <seema.sapra@gmail.com>, Seema Sapra <seemasapra@hotmail.com>


Last night, the release of poisonous gases/ fumes into my hotel room continued even after I sent this email. It then resumed very early this morning around 5 am and is continuing since then. 

Seema Sapra 

On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 11:00 PM, Seema Sapra <seema.sapra@googlemail.com> wrote:
Mr Jeff Immelt and All others including Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Police Commisssioner B S Bassi, 

I moved to a different hotel today. 

For the last three hours, some kind of very poisonous gas is being released into my hotel room. 

There is a grave and imminent threat to my life. 

Seema Sapra 


Saturday, 25 October 2014

Urgent- I am being poisoned - message from Seema Sapra, General Electric whistle-blower - WP Civil 1280 of 2012, a corruption whistle-blower petition in the Delhi High Court (Seema Sapra v General Electric Company and Others)

Mr Jeff Immelt and All others including Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Police Commisssioner B S Bassi, 

I moved to a different hotel today. 

For the last three hours, some kind of very poisonous gas is being released into my hotel room. 

There is a grave and imminent threat to my life. 

Seema Sapra 


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Seema Sapra <seema.sapra@googlemail.com>
Date: Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 11:00 PM
Subject: Urgent- I am being poisoned - message from Seema Sapra, General Electric whistle-blower - WP Civil 1280 of 2012, a corruption whistle-blower petition in the Delhi High Court (Seema Sapra v General Electric Company and Others)
To: pmosb <pmosb@gov.in>, Amit Shah <amitshah.bjp@gmail.com>, sanjayjain.chamber@gmail.com, director@aiims.ac.in, lggc.delhi@nic.in, "rg.dhc@nic.in" <rg.dhc@nic.in>, Bhim Sain Bassi <cp.bsbassi@nic.in>, joe.kaeser@siemens.com, dch@nic.in, "splcp-vigilance-dl@nic.in" <splcp-vigilance-dl@nic.in>, "splcp-crime-dl@nic.in" <splcp-crime-dl@nic.in>, jtcp-cr-dl@nic.in, "jtcp-nr-dl@nic.in" <jtcp-nr-dl@nic.in>, jtcp-ser-dl@nic.in, jtcp-swr-dl@nic.in, "jtcp-phq-dl@nic.in" <jtcp-phq-dl@nic.in>, jtcp-ga-dl@nic.in, "jtcpt_dtp@nic.in" <jtcpt_dtp@nic.in>, "jtcp-crime-dl@nic.in" <jtcp-crime-dl@nic.in>, jtcp-splcell-dl@nic.in, jtcp-sec-dl@nic.in, "jcpsec@rb.nic.in" <jcpsec@rb.nic.in>, "addlcp-eow-dl@nic.in" <addlcp-eow-dl@nic.in>, jtcp-vigilance-dl@nic.in, jtcp-sb-dl@nic.in, addlcp-crime-dl@nic.in, "addlcpt-dtp@nic.in" <addlcpt-dtp@nic.in>, "addlcp-caw-dl@nic.in" <addlcp-caw-dl@nic.in>, dcp-west-dl@nic.in, addlcp-se-dl@nic.in, "dcp-southwest-dl@nic.in" <dcp-southwest-dl@nic.in>, "dcp-crime-dl@nic.in" <dcp-crime-dl@nic.in>, dcp-eow-dl@nic.in, dcp-splcell-dl@nic.in, dcp-east-dl@nic.in, dcp-northeast-dl@nic.in, "dcp-central-dl@nic.in" <dcp-central-dl@nic.in>, dcp-north-dl@nic.in, dcp-northwest-dl@nic.in, "dcp-south-dl@nic.in" <dcp-south-dl@nic.in>, dcp-outer-dl@nic.in, "dcp-newdelhi-dl@nic.in" <dcp-newdelhi-dl@nic.in>, "dcp-pcr-dl@nic.in" <dcp-pcr-dl@nic.in>, "dcp-southeast-dl@nic.in" <dcp-southeast-dl@nic.in>, dcp-vigilance-dl@nic.in, "sho-tilakmarg-dl@nic.in" <sho-tilakmarg-dl@nic.in>, "sho-tuglakrd-dl@nic.in" <sho-tuglakrd-dl@nic.in>, "addl-dcp2-nd-dl@nic.in" <addl-dcp2-nd-dl@nic.in>, "acp-vivekvhr-dl@nic.in" <acp-vivekvhr-dl@nic.in>, "sho-vivekvhr-dl@nic.in" <sho-vivekvhr-dl@nic.in>, "sho-hndin-dl@nic.in" <sho-hndin-dl@nic.in>, "Madder, Emily" <emily.madder@siemens.com>, "banmali.agrawala@ge.com" <banmali.agrawala@ge.com>, "cmukund@mukundcherukuri.com" <cmukund@mukundcherukuri.com>, rajshekhar rao <rao.rajshekhar@gmail.com>, "vikram@duaassociates.com" <vikram@duaassociates.com>, "sec-jus@gov.in" <sec-jus@gov.in>, "pk.malhotra@nic.in" <pk.malhotra@nic.in>, "ramakrishnan.r@nic.in" <ramakrishnan.r@nic.in>, "jmg.vc@nic.in" <jmg.vc@nic.in>, "cvc@nic.in" <cvc@nic.in>, "hm@nic.in" <hm@nic.in>, "hshso@nic.in" <hshso@nic.in>, "complaintcell-ncw@nic.in" <complaintcell-ncw@nic.in>, "sgnhrc@nic.in" <sgnhrc@nic.in>, "dg-nhrc@nic.in" <dg-nhrc@nic.in>, "newhaven@ic.fbi.gov" <newhaven@ic.fbi.gov>, "ny1@ic.fbi.gov" <ny1@ic.fbi.gov>, "usanys.wpcomp@usdoj.gov" <usanys.wpcomp@usdoj.gov>, "nalin.jain@ge.com" <nalin.jain@ge.com>, "helpline@eda.admin.ch" <helpline@eda.admin.ch>, _EDA-Vertretung-New-Delhi <ndh.vertretung@eda.admin.ch>, _EDA-VISA New-Delhi <ndh.visa@eda.admin.ch>, _EDA-Etat Civil New Delhi <ndh.etatcivil@eda.admin.ch>, "vertretung@ndh.rep.admin.ch" <vertretung@ndh.rep.admin.ch>, "emb@rusembassy.in" <emb@rusembassy.in>, indconru indconru <indconru@gmail.com>, "web.newdelhi@fco.gov.uk" <web.newdelhi@fco.gov.uk>, "conqry.newdelhi@fco.gov.uk" <conqry.newdelhi@fco.gov.uk>, "LegalisationEnquiries@fco.gov.uk" <LegalisationEnquiries@fco.gov.uk>, "delegation-india@eeas.europa.eu" <delegation-india@eeas.europa.eu>, "re-india.commerce@international.gc.ca" <re-india.commerce@international.gc.ca>, "info@new-delhi.diplo.de" <info@new-delhi.diplo.de>, Ambassaden New Delhi <ambassaden.new-delhi@foreign.ministry.se>, "delamb@um.dk" <delamb@um.dk>, "emb.newdelhi@mfa.no" <emb.newdelhi@mfa.no>, "chinaemb_in@mfa.gov.cn" <chinaemb_in@mfa.gov.cn>, "InfoDesk@ohchr.org" <InfoDesk@ohchr.org>, "Press-Info@ohchr.org" <Press-Info@ohchr.org>, "civilsociety@ohchr.org" <civilsociety@ohchr.org>, "nationalinstitutions@ohchr.org" <nationalinstitutions@ohchr.org>, "webmaster@ambafrance-in.org" <webmaster@ambafrance-in.org>, "info_visa_delhi@ambafrance-in.org" <info_visa_delhi@ambafrance-in.org>, "VA@ndh.rep.admin.ch" <VA@ndh.rep.admin.ch>, "indne@unhcr.org" <indne@unhcr.org>, "ambasciata.newdelhi@esteri.it" <ambasciata.newdelhi@esteri.it>, "chinaconsul_kkt@mfa.gov.cn" <chinaconsul_kkt@mfa.gov.cn>, "chinaconsul_mum_in@mfa.gov.cn" <chinaconsul_mum_in@mfa.gov.cn>, "webmaster@mfa.gov.cn" <webmaster@mfa.gov.cn>, "in@mofcom.gov.cn" <in@mofcom.gov.cn>, "sapnachauhan.chauhan192@gmail.com" <sapnachauhan.chauhan192@gmail.com>, "dcbi@cbi.gov.in" <dcbi@cbi.gov.in>, "mr@rb.railnet.gov.in" <mr@rb.railnet.gov.in>, "crb@rb.railnet.gov.in" <crb@rb.railnet.gov.in>, "me@rb.railnet.gov.in" <me@rb.railnet.gov.in>, "mm@rb.railnet.gov.in" <mm@rb.railnet.gov.in>, "ms@rb.railnet.gov.in" <ms@rb.railnet.gov.in>, "secyrb@rb.railnet.gov.in" <secyrb@rb.railnet.gov.in>, "legaladv@rb.railnet.gov.in" <legaladv@rb.railnet.gov.in>, "r_s_chidambaram@cat.com" <r_s_chidambaram@cat.com>, "rathin.basu@alstom.com" <rathin.basu@alstom.com>, "Dimitrief, Alexander (GE, Corporate)" <alexander.dimitrief@ge.com>, "Eglash, Jeffrey C (GE, Corporate)" <jeffrey.eglash@ge.com>, Nanju Ganpathy <nanju.ganpathy@azbpartners.com>, "bradford.berenson@ge.com" <bradford.berenson@ge.com>, "brackett.denniston@ge.com" <brackett.denniston@ge.com>, "jeffrey.immelt@ge.com" <jeffrey.immelt@ge.com>, "john.flannery@ge.com" <john.flannery@ge.com>, "delhihighcourt@nic.in" <delhihighcourt@nic.in>, "pmosb@nic.in" <pmosb@nic.in>, "askdoj@usdoj.gov" <askdoj@usdoj.gov>, "CHAIRMANOFFICE@SEC.GOV" <CHAIRMANOFFICE@sec.gov>, "help@sec.gov" <help@sec.gov>, "fcpa.fraud@usdoj.gov" <fcpa.fraud@usdoj.gov>, "radhakrishnan.k@ge.com" <radhakrishnan.k@ge.com>, "preet.bharara@usdoj.gov" <preet.bharara@usdoj.gov>, "NDwebmail@state.gov" <NDwebmail@state.gov>, "ffetf@usdoj.gov" <ffetf@usdoj.gov>, "fja@federaljudgesassoc.org" <fja@federaljudgesassoc.org>, "supremecourt@nic.in" <supremecourt@nic.in>, "Loretta_A._Preska@nysd.uscourts.gov" <Loretta_A._Preska@nysd.uscourts.gov>, "ombudsperson@corporate.ge.com" <ombudsperson@corporate.ge.com>, Directors@corporate.ge.com, Siemens Ombudsman COM <mail@siemens-ombudsman.com>, compliance.office@bombardier.com, pierre.beaudoin@bombardier.com, william.ainsworth@caterpillar.com, CATshareservices@cat.com, BusinessPractices@cat.com, patrick.kron@alstom.com, keith.carr@alstom.com, Jean-David.barnea@usdoj.gov, reed.brodsky@usdoj.gov, andrew.michaelson@usdoj.gov, ellen.davis@usdoj.gov, eric.glover@usdoj.gov, paul.murphy@usdoj.gov, sandra.glover@usdoj.gov, robert.spector@usdoj.gov, christopher.connolly@usdoj.gov, joseph.cordaro@usdoj.gov, david.jones6@usdoj.gov, daniel.filor@usdoj.gov, amy.barcelo@usdoj.gov, christopher.harwood@usdoj.gov, michael.byars@usdoj.gov, benjamin.torrance@usdoj.gov, sarah.normand@usdoj.gov, elizabeth.shapiro@usdoj.gov, alicia.simmons@usdoj.gov, joyce.vance@usdoj.gov, kenyen.brown@usdoj.gov, karen.loeffler@usdoj.gov, andre.birotte@usdoj.gov, melinda.haag@usdoj.gov, laura.duffy@usdoj.gov, john.walsh@usdoj.gov, david.weiss@usdoj.gov, ronald.machen@usdoj.gov, robert.o'neill@usdoj.gov, pamela.marsh@usdoj.gov, wifredo.ferrer@usdoj.gov, michael.moore@usdoj.gov, sally yates <sally.yates@usdoj.gov>, edward.tarver@usdoj.gov, alicia.limtiaco@usdoj.gov, florence.nakakuni@usdoj.gov, wendy.olson@usdoj.gov, james.lewis@usdoj.gov, patrick.fitzgerald@usdoj.gov, stephen.wigginton@usdoj.gov, david.capp@usdoj.gov, joseph.hogsett@usdoj.gov, stephanie.rose@usdoj.gov, nick.klinefeldt@usdoj.gov, kerry.harvey@usdoj.gov, david.hale@usdoj.gov, stephanie.finley@usdoj.gov, rod.rosenstein@usdoj.gov, carmen.ortiz@usdoj.gov, barbara.mcquade@usdoj.gov, b.todd.jones@usdoj.gov, william.martin@usdoj.gov, richard.callahan@usdoj.gov, beth.phillips@usdoj.gov, michael.cotter@usdoj.gov, deborah.gilg@usdoj.gov, daniel.bogden@usdoj.gov, john.kacavas@usdoj.gov, paul.fishman@usdoj.gov, kenneth.gonzales@usdoj.gov, loretta.lynch@usdoj.gov, richard.hartunian@usdoj.gov, william.hochul@usdoj.gov, john.stone@usdoj.gov, anne.tompkins@usdoj.gov, tim.purdon@usdoj.gov, steve.dettelbach@usdoj.gov, carter.stewart@usdoj.gov, sandy.coats@usdoj.gov, zane.memeger@usdoj.gov, peter.smith@usdoj.gov, david.hickton@usdoj.gov, peter.neronha@usdoj.gov, bill.nettles@usdoj.gov, william.killian@usdoj.gov, jerry.martin@usdoj.gov, edward.stanton@usdoj.gov, jose.moreno@usdoj.gov, carlie.christensen@usdoj.gov, tristram.coffin@usdoj.gov, ronald.sharpe@usdoj.gov, neil.macbride@usdoj.gov, timothy.heaphy@usdoj.gov, bill.ihlenfeld@usdoj.gov, booth.goodwin@usdoj.gov, james.santelle@usdoj.gov, john.vaudreuil@usdoj.gov, christopher.crofts@usdoj.gov, bprao@bhel.in, ajay.sinha@emdiesels.com, armin.bruck@siemens.com, sunil.mathur@siemens.com, benoit.martel@bombardier.com, roland.busch@siemens.com, michael.suess@siemens.com, klaus.helmrich@siemens.com, daniel.desjardins@bombardier.com, james.buda@caterpillar.com, glen.lehman@progressrail.com, alert.procedure@alstom.com, "Warin, F. Joseph" <fwarin@gibsondunn.com>, "Chesley, John" <JChesley@gibsondunn.com>, confidential@sfo.gsi.gov.uk, public.enquiries@sfo.gsi.gov.uk, luis.quesada@ic.fbi.gov, steven.kessler@ic.fbi.gov, henry.gittleman@ic.fbi.gov, renn.cannon@ic.fbi.gov, eric.peterson@ic.fbi.gov, jeff.bedford@ic.fbi.gov, david.brooks@ic.fbi.gov, robert.clifford@ic.fbi.gov, mary.warren@ic.fbi.gov, frank.teixeira@ic.fbi.gov, timothy.langan@ic.fbi.gov, sharon.kuo@ic.fbi.gov, kingman.wong@ic.fbi.gov, daniel.bodony@ic.fbi.gov, christopher.mcmurray@ic.fbi.gov, ralph.hope@ic.fbi.gov, eric.metz@ic.fbi.gov, alejandro.barbeito@ic.fbi.gov, cary.gleicher@ic.fbi.gov, paul.haertel@ic.fbi.gov, greg.cox@ic.fbi.gov, lazaro.andino@ic.fbi.gov, gabriel.ramirez@ic.fbi.gov, tom.sobocinski@ic.fbi.gov, benjamin.walker@ic.fbi.gov, kirk.striebich@ic.fbi.gov, gregory.cox@ic.fbi.gov, katherine.andrews@ic.fbi.gov, carolyn.willson@ic.fbi.gov, mark.nowak@ic.fbi.gov, stuart.wirtz@ic.fbi.gov, lesley.buckler@ic.fbi.gov, daniel.dudzinski@ic.fbi.gov, william.peterson@ic.fbi.gov, connally.brown@ic.fbi.gov, leo.navarette@ic.fbi.gov, lawrence.futa@ic.fbi.gov, gregory.shaffer@ic.fbi.gov, daniel.clegg@ic.fbi.gov, adishaggarwala@yahoo.com, adishaggarwala@hotmail.com, vsondhi@luthra.com, muraritiwari.adv@gmail.com, Priyanka Tyagi <adv.priyankatyagi@gmail.com>, sarlakaushik@yahoo.com, goswamiandassociates@yahoo.co.in, vedbaldev@rediffmail.com, rakeshtikuadvocate@yahoo.com, kkmanan <kkmanan@rediffmail.com>, ars.chauhan.co@gmail.com, Rajiv Khosla <advrajivkhosla@gmail.com>, rakeshkochar@hotmail.com, khatri.surya@hotmail.com, puneet mittal <puneetmittal9@gmail.com>, "advamit.sharma@gmail.com" <advamit.sharma@gmail.com>, Attorneynitin@yahoo.com, Rajesh Mishra <attorney.rmishra@gmail.com>, jaibirnagar@gmail.com, csrhw@csrhw.com.cn, cnriec@chinacnr.com, deepak verma <justicedverma@gmail.com>, dridzu@nic.in, Om Prakash <oplawassociates@gmail.com>, Jatan Singh <jatan_singh@yahoo.com>, Abhijat Bal <abhijat.bal@gmail.com>, asutosh lohia <lasutosh@gmail.com>, Vikram Singh Panwar <vikrampanwar2010@gmail.com>, ashok.bhasin@yahoo.co.in, Aruna Tiku <arunatikuadvocate@yahoo.com>, Sunil Mittal <sunilmittaladvocate@gmail.com>, Meghna Sankhla <meghna@sankhla.in>, Amit Sharma with khosla <advocateas@gmail.com>, Pankaj Kapoor <lawyerpankaj@gmail.com>, "P.H. Parekh" <pravin.parekh@pravinparekh.com>, rakesh.sherawat@yahoo.com, jagdev_advocate@yahoo.com, abhay kumar verma <akvadvocates@gmail.com>, Manan Mishra <manankumarmishra@gmail.com>, ZAFAR AHMED Khan <zakhan52@gmail.com>, anirveda_04@sifymail.com, prabakaran.president.tnaa@gmail.com, vbhatt.adv@gmail.com, faisalrizvi@hotmail.com, advajithts@gmail.com, n_ramchanderrao@yahoo.com, Nilesh Kumar <agrnilesh73@gmail.com>, kunals777@yahoo.com, chairman@ses-surat.org, bhojcthakur@yahoo.com, raj mohan singh tanwar <rmsinghadvocate@gmail.com>, Rohinton Nariman <rohintonnariman@gmail.com>, Satish Abarao Deshmukh <satish.adeshmukh@gmail.com>, info@group30.org, poststelle@sta.berlin.de, public.enquiries@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk, webmaster.greco@coe.int, info@eurojust.europa.eu, poststelle@generalbundesanwalt.de, jthuy@eurojust.europa.eu, ejn@eurojust.europa.eu, collegesecretariat@eurojust.europa.eu, poststelle@bgh.bund.de, secretariat@cepol.europa.eu, CP@ohchr.org, siemens-ombudsmann@rae13.de, mariassy@rae13.de, usgrievance@rb.nic.in, cenvigil@nic.in, sdas@cbi.gov.in, adrkd@cbi.gov.in, jdp@cbi.gov.in, hozeo@cbi.gov.in, hozmdma@cbi.gov.in, hozbpl@cbi.gov.in, hozmum1@cbi.gov.in, hozkol@cbi.gov.in, hozac@cbi.gov.in, hozstf@cbi.gov.in, hozsc@cbi.gov.in, hozbsf@cbi.gov.in, hozpat@cbi.gov.in, hozeo2@cbi.gov.in, jda@cbi.gov.in, jdtfc@cbi.gov.in, hozdel@cbi.gov.in, hozchn@cbi.gov.in, hozhyd@cbi.gov.in, hozne@cbi.gov.in, dop@cbi.gov.in, hobac1del@cbi.gov.in, hobac2del@cbi.gov.in, hobac3del@cbi.gov.in, rajiv.vc@nic.in, rajeev.verma@nic.in, cp.ggn@hry.nic.in, mukul17855@yahoo.com, Ranjit Kumar <sgofficerk@gmail.com>, lnageshwararao@hotmail.com, tusharmehta64@yahoo.com, neerajkishankaul@gmail.com, Narasimha Pamidighantam <psnarasimha@gmail.com>, naqvimukhtar@yahoo.com, cpthakur1@rediffmail.com, Jual Oram <oram.jual@gmail.com>, jualoram@rediffmail.com, SS Ahluwalia <tengrg@gmail.com>, ssa@10grg.com, Balbir Punj <punjbalbir@gmail.com>, bkpunj@gmail.com, maliksatyapal@hotmail.com, prabhatjhabjp@gmail.com, vijaya_999@ymail.com, laxmi_chawla@yahoo.com, Kiran Maheshwari <saikiran.udr@gmail.com>, ananth@ananth.org, "T. C. Gehlot" <mptcgehlot@gmail.com>, mp.tcgehlot@bjp.org, jpnadda@gmail.com, Dharmendra Pradhan <dpdharmendrapradhan@gmail.com>, d.pradhan@sansad.nic.in, Tapir Gao <gaotapir@yahoo.com>, fvg001@gmail.com, Anand Chaudhary <anandchaudhary2009@gmail.com>, rudypr@rediffmail.com, p.muralidharrao@rediffmail.com, ramji.bjp@gmail.com, Satish Velankar <shrivsatish@gmail.com>, saudan.singh@bjp.org, piyush@bjp.org, jshyam48@rediffmail.com, bhupender_advocate@rediffmail.com, Bhupender Yadav <bhupenderyadav69@gmail.com>, "P.K Krishnadas" <krishnadasbjp@gmail.com>, "Dr. Anil Jain" <aniljain.dr@gmail.com>, vinod.pandey@bjp.org, TRIVENDRA SINGH RAWAT <tsrawatbjp@gmail.com>, Rameshwar Chaurasia <rpcnokha@gmail.com>, arti_9@yahoo.co.in, vani_tripathi@yahoo.com, dr.sudhayadav@yahoo.co.in, Sudha Malaiya <malaiyasudha@gmail.com>, Poonam Mahajan R <pmahajanr@gmail.com>, drtamilisai@yahoo.co.in, lois.bjp@gmail.com, Arun Jain <bjparun.jain@gmail.com>, Arun Jain <arun.jain@bjp.org>, bjpinparliament@yahoo.com, "V. Shanmuganathan" <vsnathan7666@gmail.com>, PRAKASH JAVADEKAR <pjavadekar@gmail.com>, shahnawaz@sansad.nic.in, shahnawaz.hussain@bjp.org, Nirmala Sitharaman <nsitharaman@gmail.com>, "Dr. B S Shastri" <dr.bsshastri@gmail.com>, trivedi.sudhanshu@gmail.com, Meenakshi Lekhi <mrs.mlekhi@gmail.com>, Captain Abhimanyu <abhimanyu.bjp@gmail.com>, mjakbar@hotmail.com, president@bjp.org, ajaitley@sansad.nic.in, sushmaswaraj@hotmail.com, fmo@nic.in, cabinet@nic.in, cabinetsy@nic.in, kk manan <kkmananadvocate@gmail.com>, kkmanan@gmail.com, Usama Siddiqui <musiddiqui@gmail.com>, ranarajinder@ymail.com, jawahar@pralaw.in, secy-mci@nic.in, delhimedicalcouncil@gmail.com, sho-civilline-dl@nic.in, sho-kamlamkt-dl@nic.in, sho-gk-dl@nic.in, sho-chandnimahal-dl@nic.in, sho-ptstreet-dl@nic.in, sho-paharganj-dl@nic.in, sho-rkpuram-dl@nic.in, sho-bkroad-dl@nic.in, sho-chanakyapuri-dl@nic.in, sho-vasantvhr-dl@nic.in, sho-vksouth-dl@nic.in, sho-amarclny-dl@nic.in, sho-kmkpur-dl@nic.in, sho-hauzkhas-dl@nic.in, sho-safdarjung-dl@nic.in, sho-malviyangr-dl@nic.in, sho-saket-dl@nic.in, sho-lodhiclny-dl@nic.in, sho-dkuan-dl@nic.in, sho-kalkaji-dl@nic.in, sho-crpark-dl@nic.in, sho-govpuri-dl@nic.in, sho-ipestate-dl@nic.in, sho-mandirmarg-dl@nic.in, sho-kashmirigate-dl@nic.in, sho-rajinderngr-dl@nic.in, sho-karolbagh-dl@nic.in, sho-parsadngr-dl@nic.in, sho-bhrao-dl@nic.in, sho-sadarbazar-dl@nic.in, sho-jamamasjid-dl@nic.in, sho-daryaganj-dl@nic.in, sho-hauzqazi-dl@nic.in, sho-lahorigate-dl@nic.in, sho-anandparvat-dl@nic.in, sho-patelngr-dl@nic.in, sho-ranjitngr-dl@nic.in, sho-dbgrd-dl@nic.in, sho-sarairohilla-dl@nic.in, sho-punjabibagh-dl@nic.in, gurmeharsistani@gmail.com, Rich Verma <rverma@steptoe.com>
Cc: Seema Sapra <seema.sapra@gmail.com>, Seema Sapra <seemasapra@hotmail.com>


Mr Jeff Immelt and All others including Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Police Commisssioner B S Bassi, 

I moved to a different hotel today. 

For the last three hours, some kind of very poisonous gas is being released into my hotel room. 

There is a grave and imminent threat to my life. 

Seema Sapra 

order dated 4 July 2011 passed by the Supreme Court of India in the pending black money case

Everyone should read the detailed order dated 4 July 2011 passed by the Supreme Court of India in the pending black money case.


ITEM NO.63(PH)                  COURT NO.9              SECTION PIL

             S U P R E M E     C O U R T   O F    I N D I A
                            RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO(s). 176 OF 2009

RAM JETHMALANI & ORS.                                 Petitioner(s)
                               VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                                 Respondent(s)

(With appln(s) for directions and permission to file additional
documents)

WITH SLP(C) NO. 11032 of 2009 (PH)
(With prayer for interim relief)

W.P(C) NO. 37 of 2010 (PH)

W.P.(C) No. 136 of 2011
(With office report)


Date: 04/07/2011   These Petitions were called on for hearing today.

CORAM :
          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. SUDERSHAN REDDY
          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR

For the appearing parties :

                      Mr.   Anil Divan, Sr.Adv.
                      Ms.   Lata Krishnamurthi, Adv.
                      Mr.   R.N. Karanjawala, adv.
                      Ms.   Manik Karanjawala, Adv.
                      Mr.   Sandeep Kapur, adv.
                      Mr.   Ranvir Singh, Adv.
                      Mr.   Ravi Sharma, Adv.
                      Mr.   Pranav Diesh, Adv.
                      Mr.   Karan Kalia, Adv.
                      Mr.   Arjun Mahajan, Adv.
                      for   M/S. Karanjawala & Co.,Adv.

                      Mr. Rajindra Sachchar, Sr.Adv.
                      Mr. Gaurav Jain, Adv.
                      Ms. Abha Jain, Adv.

For Intervenor
K.V.M.PAI             Mr. Krishnan Venugopal, Sr.adv.
                      Mrs. Anuradha Mutatkar, Adv.
                      Mrs. Anagha S. Desai, Adv.
                      Mr. Shyamohan, Adv.

                      Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Adv.


                                     -2-

For UOI                 Mr.   Gopal Subramanium, SG
                        Mr.   H.P. Raval, ASG
                        Mr.   Devansh Mohta, Adv.
                        Mr.   T.A. Khan, Adv.
                        Mr.   Arijit Prasad, Adv.
                        Mr.   Kunal Bahri, Adv.
                        Mr.   B.V. Balaram Das,Adv.
                        Mr.   B. Krishna Prasad, Adv.

                        Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Sr.Adv.
                        Mr. Rajiv Nanda, Adv.

For RR-3 (SEBI)         Mr.   Pratap Venugopal, Adv.
                        Ms.   Surekha Raman, Adv.
                        Mr.   Dileep Poolakkit, Adv.
                        Ms.   Namrata Sood, Adv.
                        Mr.   Anuj Sarma, Adv.
                        for   M/S. K.J. John & Co. ,Adv

                        Mr. Kuldeep S. Parihar, Adv.
                        Mr. H.S. Parihar, Adv.

                        Mr. Sanjay Kharde, Adv.
                        Ms. Asha Gopalan Nair, Adv.

                        Mr.   P.P. Malhotra, ASG
                        Mr.   J.S. Attri, Sr.Adv.
                        Ms.   Sadhana Sandhu, Adv.
                        Ms.   Anil Katiyar, Adv.

                        Mr. Samir Ali Khan, Adv.

                        Mr.   Rajiv Mohiti, Sr.Adv.
                        Mr.   I.P. Bagadia, Sr.Adv.
                        Mr.   Santosh Paul, adv.
                        Mr.   B.V. Reddy, Adv.
                        Mr.   Arvind Gupta, Adv.
                        Ms.   Arti Singh, Adv.
                        Ms.   Mohita Bagati, Adv.

                        Mr. Ashok Kumar Gupta-I, Adv.


           UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following
                               O R D E R


          W.P.(C) No. 176 of 2009

          For     the   reasons    given   in   the   reportable   order

compliance report shall be filed by the respondents with

                                    -3-



respect of all the orders issued by this Court today.

List    this   matter     for    further     directions    in    the   week

following the Independence Day, August 15, 2011.

        The status reports and other documents furnished

from time to time shall be kept in the safe custody of the

Registrar (Judicial).

        The    Registry     is    directed    to     forthwith   despatch

copies of this order to the Chief Secretaries of all the

State    Governments        and     the      Union     Territories      for

compliance.



        I.A.    No.7    ­       application    for     intervention      is

dismissed.



        SLP(C) No. 11032 of 2009
        W.P.(C) No.37 of 2010
        W.P.(C) No.136 of 2011



        List these matters on 5th July, 2011 at the end of

the Board.




  (Sukhbir Paul Kaur)                                 (Renuka Sadana)
     Court Master                                       Court Master


          (Signed Reportable order is placed on the file)

                                                                     REPORTABLE


                      IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                          CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
                WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 176                    OF 2009


RAM JETHMALANI & ORS.                                                    ...PETITIONERS
                                                                 VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                                               ...RESPONDENTS
                                                           WITH

                                I.A.NO.1          OF 2009

                                     O R D E R
                                              I


"Follow the money" was the short and simple advice given by
the secret informant, within the American Government, to Bob
Woodward, the journalist from Washington Post, in aid of his
investigations of the Watergate Hotel break in. Money has
often been claimed, by economists, to only be a veil that
covers    the    real      value     and    the      economy.       As     a    medium    of
exchange,       money      is   vital      for      the    smooth     functioning         of
exchange        in      the     market            place.        However,        increasing
monetization of most social transactions has been viewed as
potentially problematic for the social order, in as much as
it    signifies       a    move    to      evaluating           value,     and    ethical
desirability, of most areas of social interaction only in
terms of price obtained in the market place.
     2. Price based notions of value and values, as propounded
       by some extreme neo-liberal doctrines, implies that the
       values that ought to be promoted, in societies, are the
       ones for which people are willing to pay a price for.
       Values,       and    social      actions,          for    which     an    effective
       demand is not expressed in the market, are neglected,
       even   if     lip      service    is       paid     to    their     essentiality.
       However, it cannot be denied that not everything that

  can be, and is transacted, in the market for a price is
  necessarily good, and enhances social welfare. Moreover,
  some   activities,          even       if     costly        and     without          being
  directly measurable in terms of exchange value, are to
  be rightly viewed as essential. It is a well established
  proposition, of political economy, and of statecraft,
  that the State has a necessary interest in determining,
  and influencing, the kinds of transactions, and social
  actions,       that     occur         within       a        legal        order.       From
  prevention of certain kinds of harmful activities, that
  may    range    from        outright        crimes,          to     regulating          or
  controlling,          and    consequently              mitigating,              socially
  harmful    modes       of   social       and      economic          production,        to
  promotion of activities that are deemed to be of higher
  priority, than other activities which may have a lower
  priority,      howsoever          evaluated            in     terms        of       social
  utility,    are       all   the       responsibilities              of    the       State.
  Whether such activities by the State result in directly
  measurable      benefits         or     not      is     often       not       the     most
  important      factor       in     determining              their    desirability;
  their absence, or their substantial evisceration, are to
  be viewed as socially destructive.
3. The scrutiny, and control, of activities, whether in the
  economic, social or political contexts, by the State, in
  the     public         interest             as         posited           by         modern
  constitutionalism, is substantially effectuated by the
  State "following the money." In modern societies very
  little gets accomplished without transfer of money. The
  incidence      of    crime,      petty      and       grand,      like        any   other
  social phenomena is often linked to transfers of monies,
  small or large. Money, in that sense, can both power,
  and also reward, crime. As noted by many scholars, with
  increasing      globalization,              an    ideological             and       social
  construct,      in     which      transactions              across       borders       are
  accomplished with little or no control over the quantum,
  and mode of transfers of money in exchange for various
  services and value rendered, both legal and illegal,

  nation-states       also     have       begun      to     confront      complex
  problems of cross-border crimes of all kinds. Whether
  this complex web of flows of funds, instantaneously, and
  in large sums is good or bad, from the perspective of
  lawful and desired transactions is not at issue in the
  context of the matters before this Court.
4. The worries of this Court that arise, in the context of
  the   matters      placed    before          us,   are    with    respect   to
  transfers of monies, and accumulation of monies, which
  are unaccounted for by many individuals and other legal
  entities in the country, in foreign banks. The worries
  of this Court relate not merely to the quantum of monies
  said to have been secreted away in foreign banks, but
  also the manner in which they may have been taken away
  from the country, and with the nature of activities that
  may have engendered the accumulation of such monies. The
  worries of this Court are also with regard to the nature
  of activities that such monies may engender, both in
  terms of the concentration of economic power, and also
  the fact that such monies may be transferred to groups
  and individuals who may use them for unlawful activities
  that are extremely dangerous to the nation, including
  actions against the State. The worries of this Court
  also relate to whether the activities of engendering
  such unaccounted monies, transferring them abroad, and
  the   routing      them   back     to    India     may    not    actually    be
  creating    a   culture      that       extols      the    virtue    of   such
  cycles, and the activities that engender such cycles are
  viewed     as   desirable        modes       of    individual     and     group
  action. The worries of this court also relate to the
  manner, and the extent to which such cycles are damaging
  to both national and international attempts to combat
  the   extent,       nature       and     intensity        of     cross-border
  criminal activity. Finally, the worries of this Court
  are also with respect to the extent of incapacities,
  system     wide,     in    terms        of    institutional       resources,
  skills, and knowledge, as well as about incapacities of

  ethical    nature,       in     keeping    an       account       of    the    monies
  generated    by     various       facets       of    social       action       in   the
  country, and thereby developing effective mechanisms of
  control.    These       incapacities       go       to   the      very      heart       of
  constitutional imperatives of governance. Whether such
  incapacities are on account of not having devoted enough
  resources       towards        building        such      capacities,           or       on
  account of a broader culture of venality in the wider
  spheres of social and political action, they run afoul
  of constitutional imperatives.
5. Large amounts of unaccounted monies, stashed away in
  banks located in jurisdictions that thrive on strong
  privacy laws protecting bearers of those accounts to
  avoid scrutiny, raise each and every worry delineated
  above.     First and foremost, such large monies stashed
  abroad, and unaccounted for by individuals and entities
  of a country, would suggest the necessity of suspecting
  that they have been generated in activities that have
  been   deemed      to    be    unlawful.       In     addition,         such       large
  amounts    of    unaccounted         monies         would    also       lead       to    a
  natural suspicion that they have been transferred out of
  the country in order to evade payment of taxes, thereby
  depleting the capacity of the nation to undertake many
  tasks that are in public interest.
6. Many schools of thought exist with regard to the primary
  functions of the State, and the normative expectations
  of what the role of the State ought to be. The questions
  regarding which of those schools provide the absolutely
  correct view cannot be the criteria to choose or reject
  any    specific         school       of    thought           as        an     aid       in
  constitutional               adjudication.            Charged           with         the
  responsibility          of     having     to    make        decisions         in     the
  present, within the constraints of epistemic frailties
  of human knowledge, constitutional adjudicators willy-
  nilly are compelled to choose those that seem to provide
  a reasoned basis for framing of questions relevant, both
  with     respect        to    law,   and       to     facts.       Institutional

  economics    gives       one       such    perspective             which       may    be    a
  useful    guide     for    us       here.       Viewed       from       a     functional
  perspective, the State, and governments, may be seen as
  coming     into     existence              in     order          to      solve,          what
  institutional economists have come to refer to as, the
  coordination       problems         in     providing         public         goods,        and
  prevent    the     disutility            that     emerges          from       the     moral
  hazard of a short run utility maximizer, who may desire
  the    benefits     of    goods       and       services          that      are      to    be
  provided    in     common      to     the       public,          and    yet    have       the
  interest of not paying for their production.
7. Security of the nation, infrastructure of governance,
  including       those     that       relate          to    law     making       and       law
  keeping     functions,             crime     prevention,               detection          and
  punishment, coordination of the economy, and ensuring
  minimal levels of material, and cultural goods for those
  who may not be in a position to fend for themselves or
  who have been left by the wayside by the operation of
  the    economy     and    society,          may       all    be        cited    as       some
  examples of the kinds of public goods that the State is
  expected to provide for, or enable the provision of. In
  as much as the market is primarily expected to cater to
  purely     self    centered          activities             of     individuals            and
  groups, markets and the domain of purely private social
  action     significantly             fail       to        provide        such        goods.
  Consequently,       the     State,          and      government,            emerges        to
  rectify the coordination problem, and provide the public
  goods.
8. Unaccounted      monies,          especially             large        sums     held       by
  nationals    and     entities         with       a    legal       presence          in    the
  nation, in banks abroad, especially in tax havens or in
  jurisdictions       with       a    known       history          of    silence       about
  sources of monies, clearly indicate a compromise of the
  ability of the State to manage its affairs in consonance
  with what is required from a constitutional perspective.
  This is so in two respects. The quantum of such monies
  by    itself,     along    with       the       numbers      of        individuals         or

  other legal entities who hold such monies, may indicate
  in the first instance that a large volume of activities,
  in    the       social       and      the    economic          spheres         within      the
  country are unlawful and causing great social damage,
  both       at    the       individual            and    the       collective         levels.
  Secondly, large quanta of monies stashed abroad, would
  also indicate a substantial weakness in the capacity of
  the State in collection of taxes on incomes generated by
  individuals and other legal entities within the country.
  The generation of such revenues is essential for the
  State to undertake the various public goods and services
  that it is constitutionally mandated, and normatively
  expected by its citizenry, to provide. A substantial
  degree of incapacity, in the above respect, would be an
  indicia         of    the    degree         of    failure         of    the    State;      and
  beyond a particular point, the State may spin into a
  vicious         cycle       of    declining            moral      authority,         thereby
  causing the incidence of unlawful activities in which
  wealth is sought to be generated, as well as instances
  of tax evasion, to increase in volume and in intensity.
9. Consequently, the issue of unaccounted monies held by
  nationals, and other legal entities, in foreign banks,
  is    of    primordial             importance           to     the     welfare        of   the
  citizens.            The    quantum         of    such       monies      may        be   rough
  indicators of the weakness of the State, in terms of
  both   crime          prevention,           and        also    of      tax     collection.
  Depending on the volume of such monies, and the number
  of incidents through which such monies are generated and
  secreted away, it may very well reveal the degree of
  "softness of the State."
10.The concept of a "soft state" was famously articulated
  by the Nobel Laureate, Gunnar Myrdal. It is a broad
  based assessment of the degree to which the State, and
  its    machinery,                is     equipped             to        deal     with       its
  responsibilities of governance. The more soft the State
  is, greater the likelihood that there is an unholy nexus
  between         the    law       maker,      the       law    keeper,         and    the   law

  breaker.
11.When a catchall word like "crimes" is used, it is common
  for people, and the popular culture to assume that it is
  "petty      crime,"        or    crimes        of    passion         committed        by
  individuals. That would be a gross mischaracterization
  of    the   seriousness          of    the     issues     involved.         Far     more
  dangerous       are       the      crimes       that       threaten          national
  security,      and       national       interest.         For    instance,          with
  globalization, nation states are also confronted by the
  dark     worlds       of        international            arms    dealers,           drug
  peddlers,       and      various        kinds       of    criminal          networks,
  including      networks          of    terror.      International            criminal
  networks that extend support to home-grown terror or
  extremist groups, or those that have been nurtured and
  sustained in hostile countries, depend on networks of
  formal and informal, lawful and unlawful mechanisms of
  transfer of monies across boundaries of nation-states.
  They work in the interstices of the micro-structures of
  financial transfers across the globe, and thrive in the
  lacunae, the gaps in law and of effort. The loosening of
  control over those mechanisms of transfers, guided by an
  extreme neo-liberal thirst to create a global market
  that is free of the friction of law and its enforcement,
  by     nation-states,           may     have    also       contributed         to     an
  increase       in     the       volume,        extent      and       intensity        of
  activities by criminal and terror networks across the
  globe.
12.Increasingly, on account of "greed is good" culture that
  has     been    promoted          by    neo-liberal         ideologues,             many
  countries       face       the        situation      where       the        model     of
  capitalism that the State is compelled to institute, and
  the    markets      it    spawns,       is     predatory        in    nature.       From
  mining      mafias       to     political       operators            who,    all     too
  willingly, bend policies of the State to suit particular
  individuals or groups in the social and economic sphere,
  the    raison       d'etre       for    weakening         the    capacities          and
  intent to enforce the laws is the lure of the lucre.

  Even as the State provides violent support to those who
  benefit from such predatory capitalism, often violating
  the    human    rights       of     its     citizens,      particularly         it's
  poor, the market begins to function like a bureaucratic
  machine dominated by big business; and the State begins
  to     function    like        the     market,       where        everything      is
  available for sale at a price.
13.The paradigm of governance that has emerged, over the
  past    three     decades,        prioritizes        the     market,      and   its
  natural course, over any degree of control of it by the
  State. The role for the State is visualized by votaries
  of the neo-liberal paradigm as that of a night watchman;
  and moreover it is also expected to take its hands out
  of the till of the wealth generating machinery. Based on
  the    theories     of       Arthur        Laffer,     and    pushed      by     the
  Washington      Consensus,           the     prevailing       wisdom      of     the
  elite, and of the policy makers, is that reduction of
  tax rates, thereby making tax regimes regressive, would
  incentivise the supposed genius of entrepreneurial souls
  of individuals, actuated by pursuit of self-interest and
  desire    to    accumulate           great        economic    power.      It     was
  expected that this would enable the generation of more
  wealth, at a more rapid pace, thereby enabling the State
  to generate appropriate tax revenues even with lowered
  tax rates. Further, benefits were also expected in moral
  terms ­ that the lowering of tax rates would reduce the
  incentives of wealth generators to hide their monies,
  thereby    saving       them        from    the    guilt     of    tax    evasion.
  Whether     that        is     an     appropriate          model     of    social
  organization       or        not,     and    from     the     perspective         of
  constitutional          adjudication,             whether     it     meets       the
  requirements       of    constitutionalism            as     embedded      in    the
  texts of various constitutions, is not a question that
  we want to enter in this matter.
14.Nevertheless, it would be necessary to note that there
  is a fly in the ointment of the above story of friction
  free markets that would always clear, and always work to

  the     benefit        of     the     society.              The       strength          of    tax
  collection machinery can, and ought to be, expected to
  have a direct bearing on the revenues collected by the
  State.       If        the     machinery              is        weak,       understaffed,
  ideologically motivated to look the other way, or the
  agents       motivated         by    not        so        salubrious        motives,          the
  amount of revenue collected by the State would decline,
  stagnate, or may not generate the revenue for the State
  that is consonant with its responsibilities. From within
  the neo-liberal paradigm, also emerged the under-girding
  current of thought that revenues for the State implies a
  big     government,           and     hence           a    strong        tax      collecting
  machinery itself would be undesirable. Where the elite
  lose     out      in     democratic          politics             of     achieving            ever
  decreasing         tax       rates,        it        would        appear         that        state
  machineries        in        the    hands        of       the    executive,         all       too
  willing      to    promote          the    extreme          versions         of    the       neo-
  liberal paradigm and co-opt itself in the enterprises of
  the    elite,      may       also     become          all       too     willing         to    not
  develop substantial capacities to monitor and follow the
  money, collect the lawfully mandated taxes, and even
  look the other way. The results, as may be expected,
  have been disastrous across many nations.
15.In addition, it would also appear that in this miasmic
  cultural        environment           in         which          greed       is     extolled,
  conspicuous        consumption             viewed          as     both      necessary         and
  socially valuable, and the wealthy viewed as demi-gods,
  the agents of the State may have also succumbed to the
  notions of the neo-liberal paradigm that the role of the
  State ought to only be an enabling one, and not exercise
  significant            control.           This        attitude           would      have        a
  significant impact on exercise of discretion, especially
  in     the     context         of    regulating                 economic         activities,
  including keeping an account of the monies generated in
  various activities, both legal and illegal. Carried away
  by     the     ideology        of     neo-liberalism,                  it    is     entirely
  possible that the agents of the State entrusted with the

  task of supervising the economic and social activities
  may err more on the side of extreme caution, whereby
  signals of wrong doing may be ignored even when they are
  strong.     Instances        of    the        powers   that    be      ignoring
  publicly visible stock market scams, or turning a blind
  eye to large scale illegal mining have become all too
  familiar, and may be readily cited. That such activities
  are allowed to continue to occur, with weak, or non-
  existent,     responses         from    the    State   may,    at     best,   be
  charitably         ascribed       to     this       broader     culture        of
  permissibility of all manner of private activities in
  search of ever more lucre. Ethical compromises, by the
  elite ­ those who wield the powers of the state, and
  those who fatten themselves in an ever more exploitative
  economic     sphere-       can     be    expected      to     thrive    in     an
  environment marked by such a permissive attitude, of
  weakened         laws,     and     of     weakened      law      enforcement
  machineries and attitudes.
16.To the above, we must also add the fragmentation of
  administration.          Even     as    the    range   of     economic,       and
  social       activities           have         expanded,        and      their
  sophistication           increased      by     leaps   and     bounds,        the
  response in terms of administration by the State has
  been   to    create       ever    more       specialized      agencies,       and
  departments. To some degree this has been unavoidable.
  Nevertheless, it would also appear that there is a need
  to build internal capacities to share information across
  such departments, lessen the informational asymmetries
  between, and friction to flow of information across the
  boundaries of departments and agencies, and reduce the
  levels of consequent problems in achieving coordination.
  Life, and social action within which human life becomes
  possible, do not proceed on the basis of specialized
  fiefdoms of expertise. They cut across the boundaries
  erected     as    a   consequence        of    an   inherent    tendency      of
  experts to specialize. The result, often, is a system
  wide blindness, while yet being lured by the dazzle of

              ever greater specialization. Many dots of information,
              now collected in ever increasing volume by development
              of sophisticated information technologies, get ignored
              on account of lack of coordination across agencies, and
              departments,            and       tendency          within        bureaucracy            to
              jealously guard their own turfs. In some instances, the
              failure to properly investigate, or to prevent, unlawful
              activities           could       be       the      result        of      such       over-
              specialization, frictions in sharing of information, and
              coordination across departmental and specialized agency
              boundaries.
          17.If the State is soft to a large extent, especially in
              terms of the unholy nexus between the law makers, the
              law keepers, and the law breakers, the moral authority,
              and     also     the     moral      incentives,          to    exercise        suitable
              control over the economy and the society would vanish.
              Large unaccounted monies are generally an indication of
              that.      In    a   recent       book,      Prof.      Rotberg       states,       after
              evaluating many failed and collapsed states over the
              past few decades:


      "Failed states offer unparalleled economic opportunity ­ but
      only for a privileged few. Those around the ruler or ruling
      oligarchy grow richer while their less fortunate brethren
      starve. Immense profits are available from an awareness of
      regulatory advantages and currency speculation and arbitrage.
      But the privilege of making real money when everything else
      is deteriorating is confined to clients of the ruling elite....
      The nation-state's responsibility to maximize the well-being
      and prosperity of all its citizens is conspicuously absent,
      if it ever existed.... Corruption flourishes in many states,
      but in failed states it often does so on an unusually
      destructive scale. There is widespread petty or lubricating
      corruption as a matter of course, but escalating levels of
      venal corruption mark failed states." 1


          18.India        finds       itself       in    a    peculiar        situation.          Often
              celebrated, in popular culture, as an emerging economy
              that is rapidly growing, and expected to be a future

1    "The Failure and Collapse of Nation-States ­ Breakdown, Prevention and Repair" in "WHEN STATES FAIL:
    CAUSES AND CONSEQUENCES", Rotberg, Robert I., Ed. Princeton University Press (2004).

  economic and political giant on the global stage, it is
  also popularly perceived, and apparently even in some
  responsible         and      scholarly        circles,            and     official
  quarters, that some of its nationals and other legal
  entities have stashed the largest quantum of unaccounted
  monies in foreign banks, especially in tax havens, and
  in   other       jurisdictions       with     strong       laws     of    secrecy.
  There      are     also     apparently        reports,        and        analyses,
  generated by Government of India itself, which place the
  amounts      of    such     unaccounted           monies     at    astronomical
  levels.
19.We do not wish to engage in any speculation as to what
  such     analyses,         reports,     and        factuality       imply          with
  respect to the state of the nation. The citizens of our
  country      can    make,    and     ought     to    be    making,        rational
  assessments of the situation. We fervently hope that it
  leads to responsible, reasoned and reasonable debate,
  thereby exerting the appropriate democratic pressure on
  the State, and its agents, within the constitutional
  framework, to bring about the necessary changes without
  sacrificing cherished, and inherently invaluable social
  goals      and    values    enshrined        in    the     Constitution.           The
  failures are discernible when viewed against the vision
  of the constitutional project, and as forewarned by Dr.
  Ambedkar, have been on account of the fact that man has
  been vile, and not the defects of a Constitution forged
  in   the    fires    of     wisdom    gathered        over    eons       of    human
  experience.          If      the      politico-bureaucratic,                   power
  wielding, and business classes bear a large part of the
  blame,      at     least    some      part    of     blame        ought       to    be
  apportioned to those portions of the citizenry that is
  well informed, or is expected to be informed. Much of
  that citizenry has disengaged itself with the political
  process, and with the masses. Informed by contempt for
  the poor and the downtrodden, the elite classes that
  have     benefited         the     most,      or     expects        to     benefit
  substantially from the neo-liberal policies that would

  wish away the hordes, has also chosen to forget that
  constitutional mandate is as much the responsibility of
  the citizenry, and through their constant vigilance, of
  all the organs of the state, and national institutions
  including political parties. To not be engaged in the
  process, is to ensure the evisceration of constitutional
  content. Knee jerk reactions, and ill advised tinkering
  with the constitutional framework are not the solutions.
  The road is always long, and needs the constant march of
  the citizenry on it. There is no other way. To expect
  instant         solutions,          because         this     law    or    that         body   is
  formed,             without       striving         to    solve     system          wide,      and
  systemic,             problems          that       have      emerged          is       to     not
  understand the demands of a responsible citizenry in
  modern constitutional republican democracies.
20.These matters before us relate to issues of large sums
  of unaccounted monies, allegedly held by certain named
  individuals,               and          loose           associations           of           them;
  consequently we have to express our serious concerns
  from        a       constitutional              perspective.         The       amount          of
  unaccounted            monies,          as    alleged        by    the   Government           of
  India itself is massive. The show cause notices were
  issued          a    substantial          length        of   time     ago.         The      named
  individuals were very much present in the country. Yet,
  for    unknown,            and      possibly        unknowable,          though          easily
  surmisable, reasons the investigations into the matter
  proceeded             at      a     laggardly            pace.      Even       the          named
  individuals had not yet been questioned with any degree
  of    seriousness.                These      are    serious        lapses,      especially
  when viewed from the perspective of larger issues of
  security, both internal and external, of the country.
21.It    is       in     light       of     the      above,     that       we    heard         some
  significant elements of the instant writ petitions filed
  in this Court, and at this stage it is necessary that
  appropriate orders be issued. There are two issues we
  deal    with          below:        (i)      the    appointment          of        a   Special
  Investigation              Team;          and      (ii)       disclosure,              to     the

  Petitioners, of certain documents relied upon by the
  Union of India in its response.


                                  II


22.The instant writ petition was filed, in 2009, by Shri.
  Ram   Jethmalani,     Shri.     Gopal      Sharman,      Smt.     Jalbala
  Vaidya, Shri. K.P.S. Gill, Prof. B.B. Dutta, and Shri.
  Subhash Kashyap, all well known professionals, social
  activists, former bureaucrats or those who have held
  responsible positions in the society. They have also
  formed an organization called Citizen India, the stated
  objective of which is said to be to bring about changes
  and   betterment     in   the        quality    of     governance,      and
  functioning of all public institutions.
23.The Petitioners state that there have been a slew of
  reports,     in     the   media,        and     also     in     scholarly
  publications that various individuals, mostly citizens,
  but may also include non-citizens, and other entities
  with presence in India, have generated, and secreted
  away large sums of monies, through their activities in
  India or relating to India, in various foreign banks,
  especially in tax havens, and jurisdictions that have
  strong secrecy laws with respect to the contents of bank
  accounts and the identities of individuals holding such
  accounts.    The    Petitioners       allege     that    most    of    such
  monies are unaccounted, and in all probability have been
  generated through unlawful activities, whether in India
  or outside India, but relating to India. Further, the
  Petitioners also allege that a large part of such monies
  may   have   been   generated    within        India,   and     have   been
  taken away from India, breaking various laws, including
  but not limited to evasion of taxes.
24.The Petitioners contend: (i) that the sheer volume of
  such monies points to grave weaknesses in the governance
  of the nation, because they indicate a significant lack
  of control over unlawful activities through which such

  monies    are     generated,      evasion       of     taxes,    and    use   of
  unlawful means of transfer of funds; (ii) that these
  funds are then laundered and brought back into India, to
  be used in both legal and illegal activities; (iii) that
  the use of various unlawful modes of transfer of funds
  across borders, gives support to such unlawful networks
  of international finance; and (iv) that in as much as
  such unlawful networks are widely acknowledged to also
  effectuate transfer of funds across borders in aid of
  various crimes committed against persons and the State,
  including    but    not     limited      to    activities       that    may   be
  classifiable       as      terrorist,         extremist,        or     unlawful
  narcotic trade, the prevailing situation also has very
  serious connotations for the security and integrity of
  India.
25.The Petitioners also further contend that a significant
  part of such large unaccounted monies include the monies
  of powerful persons in India, including leaders of many
  political       parties.     It    was     also      contended        that    the
  Government of India, and its agencies, have been very
  lax in terms of keeping an eye on the various unlawful
  activities generating unaccounted monies, the consequent
  tax evasion; and that such laxity extends to efforts to
  curtail the flow of such funds out, and into, India.
  Further, the Petitioners also contend that the efforts
  to prosecute the individuals, and other entities, who
  have secreted such monies in foreign banks, have been
  weak or non-existent. It was strongly argued that the
  efforts at identification of such monies in various bank
  accounts     in     many     jurisdictions           across      the     globe,
  attempts    to    bring     back    such       monies,    and     efforts     to
  strengthen the governance framework to prevent further
  outflows of such funds, have been sorely lacking.
26.The   Petitioners      also      made    allegations          about    certain
  specific incidents and patterns of dereliction of duty,
  wherein     the    Government       of        India,     and    its     various
  agencies,       even    though      in        possession        of     specific

  knowledge about the monies in certain bank accounts, and
  having estimated that such monies run into many scores
  of thousands of crores, and upon issuance of show cause
  notices to the said individual, surprisingly have not
  proceeded        to      initiate,        and    carry        out     suitable
  investigations,           and     prosecute      the     individuals.        The
  individual specifically named is one Hassan Ali Khan.
  The Petitioners also contended that Kashinath Tapuria,
  and his wife Chandrika Tapuria, are also party to the
  illegal activities of Hassan Ali Khan.
27.Specifically, it was alleged that Hassan Ali Khan was
  served    with      an    income    tax     demand     for    Rs.    40,000.00
  Crores    (Rupees        Forty    Thousand      Crores),      and    that   the
  Tapurias were served an income tax demand notice of Rs.
  20,580.00        Crores     (Rupees       Twenty       Thousand     and     Five
  Hundred and Eighty Crores). The Enforcement Directorate,
  in 2007, disclosed that Hassan Ali Khan had "dealings
  amounting to 1.6 billion US dollars" in the period 2001-
  2005.     In     January        2007,    upon    raiding      Hassan       Ali's
  residence in Pune, certain documents and evidence had
  been     discovered       regarding       deposits       of   8.04     billion
  dollars with UBS bank in Zurich. It is the contention of
  the    Petitioners        that,    even     though     such    evidence     was
  secured nearly four and half years ago, (i) a proper
  investigation had not been launched to obtain the right
  facts     from      abroad;      (ii)     the   individuals         concerned,
  though     present         in      India,       and     subject       to     its
  jurisdiction, and easily available for its exercise, had
  not even been interrogated appropriately; (iii) that the
  Union of India, and its various departments, had even
  been refusing to divulge the details and information
  that      would       reveal       the      actual       status      of      the
  investigation, whether in fact it was being conducted at
  all, or with any degree of seriousness; (iv) given the
  magnitude      of     amounts     in    question,      especially      of   the
  demand notice of income tax, the laxity of investigation
  indicates multiple problems of serious non-governance,

  and weaknesses in the system, including pressure from
  political         quarters     to      hinder,            or     scuttle,       the
  investigation, prosecution, and ultimately securing the
  return      of    such     monies;     and        (v)   given      the     broadly
  accepted fact that within the political class corruption
  is rampant, ill-begotten wealth has begun to be amassed
  in massive quantities by many members in that class, it
  may be reasonable to suspect, or even conclude, that
  investigation       was     being     deliberately             hindered    because
  Hassan      Ali    Khan,      and     the       Tapurias,         had     or    were
  continuing to handle the monies of such a class. The
  fact     that      both      Income        Tax     department,            and    the
  Enforcement       Directorate        routinely,         and      with    alacrity,
  seek     the      powers     for     long        stretches        of     custodial
  interrogation of even those suspected of having engaged
  in money laundering, or evaded taxes, with respect to
  very     small     amounts,        ought     to     raise       the     reasonable
  suspicion that inaction in the matters concerning Hassan
  Ali Khan, and Tapurias, was deliberately engineered, for
  nefarious reasons.
28.In addition, the Petitioners also state that in as much
  as the bank in which the monies had been stashed by
  Hassan Ali Khan was UBS Zurich, the needle of suspicion
  has    to      inexorably      turn        to      high        level     political
  interference and hindrance to the investigations. The
  said bank, it was submitted, is the biggest or one of
  the biggest wealth management companies in the world.
  The Petitioners also narrated the mode, and the manner,
  in which the United States had dealt with UBS, with
  respect to monies of American citizens secreted away
  with the said bank. It was also alleged that UBS had not
  cooperated with the U.S. authorities. Contrasting the
  relative alacrity, and vigour, with which the United
  States      government        had      pursued          the      matters,       the
  Petitioners contend the inaction of Union of India is
  shocking.
29.The Petitioners further allege that in 2007, the Reserve

  Bank    of     India       had     obtained         some        "knowledge      of    the
  dubious        character"          of     UBS       Security        India       Private
  Limited, a branch of UBS, and consequently stopped this
  bank from extending its business in India by refusing to
  approve its takeover of Standard Chartered Mutual Funds
  business        in      India.       It       was        also     claimed       by    the
  Petitioners that the SEBI had alleged that UBS played a
  role in the stock market crash of 2004. The said UBS
  Bank has apparently applied for a retail banking license
  in     India,     which       was       approved          in     principle      by    RBI
  initially. In 2008, this license was withheld on the
  ground that "investigation of its unsavoury role in the
  Hassan Ali Khan case was pending investigation in the
  Enforcement Directorate." However, it seems that the RBI
  reversed its decision in 2009, and no good reasons seem
  to be forthcoming for the reversal of the decision of
  2008.
30.The Petitioners contend that such a reversal of decision
  could only have been accomplished through high level
  intervention,           and       that    it        is    further        evidence       of
  linkages between members of the political class, and
  possibly       even        members       of    the       bureaucracy,        and      such
  banking operations, and the illegal activities of Hassan
  Ali     Khan      and      the    Tapurias.          Hence,        the    Petitioners
  argued,      in      the     circumstances               it     would    have    to    be
  necessarily concluded that the investigations into the
  affairs of Hassan Ali Khan, and the Tapurias, would be
  severely compromised if the Court does not intervene,
  and monitor the investigative processes by appointing a
  special      investigation           team       reporting         directly      to    the
  Court.
31.The learned senior counsel for the Petitioners sought
  that this Court intervene, order proper investigations,
  and monitor continuously, the actions of the Union of
  India,    and        any    and    all        governmental         departments        and
  agencies, in these matters. It was submitted that their
  filing of this Writ Petition under Article 32 is proper,

  as the inaction of the Union of India, as described
  above,    violates      the      fundamental        rights    ­    to    proper
  governance,      in   as      much   as      Article     14   provides        for
  equality before the law and equal protection of the law,
  and Article 21 promises dignity of life to all citizens.
32.We   have    heard     the      learned      senior     counsel    for        the
  Petitioners, Shri. Anil B.                   Divan, the learned senior
  counsel for interveners, Shri. K.K. Venugopal, and the
  learned      senior     counsel      for      the   petitioners         in     the
  connected Writ Petition, Shri. Shanti Bhushan. We have
  also heard the learned Solicitor General, Shri. Gopal
  Subramaniam, on behalf of the respondents.
33.Shri. Divan, specifically argued that, having regard to
  the nature of the investigation, its slow pace so far,
  and the non-seriousness on the part of the respondents,
  there is a need to constitute a Special Investigation
  Team ("SIT") headed by a former judge or two of this
  court.       However,       this     particular          plea      has        been
  vociferously resisted by the Solicitor General. Relying
  on the status reports submitted from time to time, the
  learned Solicitor General stated that all possible steps
  were being taken to bring back the monies stashed in
  foreign      banks,   and     that     the    investigations        in       cases
  registered were proceeding in an appropriate manner. He
  expressed       his     willingness          for    a    Court     monitored
  investigation.        He      also   further        submitted      that        the
  Respondents, in principle, have no objections whatsoever
  against the main submissions of the Petitioners.
34.The real point of controversy is, given above, as to
  whether there is a need to constitute a SIT to be headed
  by a judge or two, of this court, to supervise the
  investigation.
35.We   must    express      our     serious     reservations        about       the
  responses of the Union of India. In the first instance,
  during    the   earlier       phases    of     hearing    before        us,   the
  attempts were clearly evasive, confused, or originating
  in the denial mode. It was only upon being repeatedly

  pressed by us did the Union of India begin to admit that
  indeed the investigation was proceeding very slowly. It
  also became clear to us that in fact the investigation
  had     completely      stalled,     in     as    much     as     custodial
  interrogation      of     Hassan    Ali   Khan     had    not    even       been
  sought for, even though he was very much resident in
  India. Further, it also now appears that even though his
  passport    had    been     impounded,      he    was    able    to     secure
  another passport from the RPO in Patna, possibly with
  the help or aid of a politician.
36.During the course of the hearings the Union of India
  repeatedly       insisted     that    the       matter    involves          many
  jurisdictions,          across     the     globe,        and     a      proper
  investigation      could     be    accomplished     only        through      the
  concerted efforts by different law enforcement agencies,
  both within the Central Government, and also various
  State     governments.        However,      the      absence          of     any
  satisfactory explanation of the slowness of the pace of
  investigation, and lack of any credible answers as to
  why the respondents did not act with respect to those
  actions    that    were    feasible,      and    within    the       ambit   of
  powers of the Enforcement Directorate itself, such as
  custodial investigation, leads us to conclude that the
  lack of seriousness in the efforts of the respondents
  are     contrary     to     the      requirements         of     laws        and
  constitutional obligations of the Union of India. It was
  only upon the insistence and intervention of this Court
  has the Enforcement Directorate initiated and secured
  custodial interrogation over Hassan Ali Khan. The Union
  of India has explicitly acknowledged that there was much
  to be desired with the manner in which the investigation
  had proceeded prior to the intervention of this court.
  From the more recent reports, it would appear that the
  Union of India, on account of its more recent efforts to
  conduct the investigation with seriousness, on account
  of the gravitas brought by this Court, has led to the
  securing    of    additional       information,     and        leads,      which

  could aid in further investigation. For instance, during
  the continuing interrogation of Hassan Ali Khan and the
  Tapurias, undertaken for the first time at the behest of
  this Court, many names of important persons, including
  leaders of some corporate giants, politically powerful
  people, and international arms dealers have cropped up.
  So     far,      no       significant             attempt     has       been       made    to
  investigate and verify the same. This is a further cause
  for the grave concerns of this Court, and points to the
  need for continued, effective and day to day monitoring
  by    a   SIT        constituted         by       this     Court,       and       acting   on
  behalf, behest and direction of this Court.
37.In    light     of       the    fact        that    the     issues       are      complex,
  requiring            expertise          and         knowledge           of         different
  departments,              and    the     necessity           of     coordination           of
  efforts across various agencies and departments, it was
  submitted to us that the Union of India has recently
  formed a High Level Committee, under the aegis of the
  Department of Revenue in the Ministry of Finance, which
  is     the      nodal       agency       responsible              for     all       economic
  offences. The composition of the High Level Committee
  ("HLC")         is    said       to     be    as     follows:           (i)       Secretary,
  Department           of    Revenue,          as    the     Chairman;          (ii)   Deputy
  Governor, Reserve Bank of India; (iii) Director (IB);
  (iv)      Director,         Enforcement;             (v)    Director,             CBI;    (vi)
  Chairman,        CBDT;          (vii)    DG,        Narcotics       Control          Bureau;
  (vii) DG, Revenue Intelligence; (ix) Director, Financial
  Intelligence Unit; and (x) JS (FT & TR-I), CBDT. It was
  also submitted that the HLC may co-opt, as necessary,
  representation not below the rank of Joint Secretary
  from      the    Home       Secretary,            Foreign       Secretary,           Defense
  Secretary and the Secretary, Cabinet Secretariat. The
  Union of India claims that such a multi-disciplinary
  group and committee would now enable the conducting of
  an efficient and a systematic investigation into the
  matters concerning allegations against Hassan Ali Khan
  and    the      Tapurias;         and    further         that      such       a   committee

  would also enable the taking of appropriate steps to
  bring   back    the   monies      stashed      in    foreign    banks,   for
  which   purposes      a   need    may     arise     to    register    further
  cases. The Union of India also claims that the formation
  of such a committee indicates the seriousness with which
  it is viewing the entire matter.
38.While it would appear, from the Status Reports submitted
  to   this   Court,    that       the    Enforcement       Directorate     has
  moved in some small measure, the actual facts are not
  comforting to an appropriate extent. In fact we are not
  convinced that the situation has changed to the extent
  that it ought to so as to accept that the investigation
  would now be conducted with the degree of seriousness
  that is warranted. According to the Union of India the
  HLC was formed in order to take charge of and direct the
  entire investigation, and subsequently, the prosecution.
  In the meanwhile a charge sheet has been filed against
  Hassan Ali Khan. Upon inquiry by us as to whether the
  charge-sheet had been vetted by the HLC, and its inputs
  secured, the counsel for Union of India were flummoxed.
  The fact was that the charge-sheet had not been given
  even for the perusal of the                  HLC, let alone securing
  its inputs, guidance and direction. We are not satisfied
  by   the    explanation      offered        by      the    Directorate     of
  Enforcement by way of affidavit after the orders were
  reserved. Be it noted that a nodal agency was set up,
  pursuant to directions of this Court in Vineet Narain
  case given many years ago. Yet the same was not involved
  and these matters were never placed before it. Why?
39.From the status reports, it is clear that the problem is
  extremely      complex,    and     many    agencies       and   departments
  spread across the country have not responded with the
  alacrity, and urgency, that one would desire. Moreover,
  the Union of India has been unable to answer any of the
  questions      regarding         its    past      actions,      and     their
  implications, such as the slowness of the investigation,
  or about grant of license to conduct retail banking by

  UBS, by reversing the decision taken earlier to withhold
  such     a    license       on    the   grounds       that    the       said    bank's
  credentials         were     suspect.      To    this       latter       query,      the
  stance of the Union of India has been that entry of UBS
  would facilitate flow of foreign investments into India.
  The question that arises is whether the task of bringing
  foreign        funds         into       India         override          all         other
  constitutional concerns and obligations?
40.The predominant theme in the responses of Union of India
  before this court has been that it is doing all that it
  can     to   bring        back    the   unaccounted          monies      stashed      in
  various banks abroad. To this is added the qualifier
  that it is an extremely complex problem, requiring the
  cooperation          of    many     different         jurisdictions,           and    an
  internationally             coordinated         effort.       Indeed      they        are
  complex.       We    do     not    wish    to    go    into       the    details      of
  arguments about whether the Union of India is, or is
  not, doing necessary things to achieve such goals. That
  is not necessary for the matters at hand.
41.What    is    important          is    that    the     Union      of    India        had
  obtained       knowledge,           documents         and     information            that
  indicated possible connections between Hassan Ali Khan,
  and his alleged co-conspirators and known international
  arms dealers. Further, the Union of India was also in
  possession of information that suggested that because
  the     international            arms   dealing        network,         and    a     very
  prominent dealer in it, could not open a bank account
  even in a jurisdiction that is generally acknowledged to
  lay great emphasis on not asking sources of money being
  deposited          into    its    banks,       Hassan       Ali   Khan        may    have
  played a crucial role in opening an account with the
  branch of the same bank in another jurisdiction. The
  volume of alleged income taxes owed to the country, as
  demanded by the Union of India itself, and the volume of
  monies,       by    some    accounts       US    $8.04       billion,         and   some
  other accounts in excess of Rs. 70,000 crores, that are
  said to have been routed through various bank accounts

  of    Hassan    Ali       Khan,    and    Tapurias.       Further,      from   all
  accounts it has been acknowledged that none of the named
  individuals have any known and lawful sources for such
  huge quantities of monies. All of these factors, either
  individually         or    combined,       ought     to    have    immediately
  raised questions regarding the sources being unlawful
  activities,         national       security,      and     transfer      of   funds
  into India for other illegal activities, including acts
  against       the     State.       It     was     only    at     the    repeated
  insistence by us that such matters have equal, if not
  even greater importance than issues of tax collection,
  has the Union of India belatedly concluded that such
  aspects also ought to be investigated with thoroughness.
  However, there is still no evidence of a really serious
  investigation into these other matters from the national
  security perspective.
42.The fact remains that the Union of India has struggled
  in conducting a proper investigation into the affairs of
  Hassan        Ali     Khan        and     the     Tapurias.       While        some
  individuals,         whose        names    have    come     to    the    adverse
  knowledge of the Union of India, through the more recent
  investigations, have been interrogated, many more are
  yet      to     be        investigated.           This      highly       complex
  investigation has in fact just begun. It is still too
  early to conclude that the Union of India has indeed
  placed all the necessary machinery to conduct a proper
  investigation. The formation of the HLC was a necessary
  step, and may even be characterized as a welcome step.
  Nevertheless, it is an insufficient step.
43.In light of the above, we had proposed to the Union of
  India that the same HLC constituted by it be converted
  into a Special Investigation Team, headed by two retired
  judges of the Supreme Court of India. The Union of India
  opposes the same, but provides no principle as to why
  that would be undesirable, especially in light of the
  many lapses and lacunae in its actions in these matters
  spread over the past four years.

44.We    are    of     the      firm     opinion      that        in    these     matters
  fragmentation            of         government,          and         expertise        and
  knowledge, across many departments, agencies and across
  various       jurisdictions,           both    within           the    country,       and
  across the globe, is a serious impediment to the conduct
  of a proper investigation. We hold that it is in fact
  necessary to create a body that coordinates, directs,
  and where necessary orders timely and urgent action by
  various institutions of the State. We also hold that the
  continued involvement of this Court in these matters, in
  a broad oversight capacity, is necessary for upholding
  the    rule     of      law,     and    achievement             of    constitutional
  values. However, it would be impossible for this Court
  to    be     involved      in    day    to    day       investigations,          or    to
  constantly         monitor          each     and        every        aspect    of     the
  investigation.
45.The resources of this court are scarce, and it is over-
  burdened with the task of rendering justice in well over
  a lakh of cases every year. Nevertheless, this Court is
  bound to uphold the Constitution, and its own burdens,
  excessive as they already are, cannot become an excuse
  for it to not perform that task. In a country where most
  of its people are uneducated and illiterate, suffering
  from       hunger       and     squalor,         the          retraction       of     the
  monitoring         of    these       matters       by    this        Court    would    be
  unconscionable.
46.The issue is not merely whether the Union of India is
  making the necessary effort to bring back all or some
  significant part of the alleged monies. The fact that
  there is some information and knowledge that such vast
  amounts may have been stashed away in foreign banks,
  implies         that          the      State            has      the         primordial
  responsibility, under the Constitution, to make every
  effort to trace the sources of such monies, punish the
  guilty       where      such    monies       have       been     generated       and/or
  taken abroad through unlawful activities, and bring back
  the monies owed to the Country. We do recognize that the

  degree of success, measured in terms of the amounts of
  monies       brought      back,       is     dependent      on     a    number           of
  factors, including aspects that relate to international
  political economy and relations, which may or may not be
  under our control. The fact remains that with respect to
  those factors that were within the powers of the Union
  of India, such as investigation of possible criminal
  nexus, threats to national security etc., were not even
  attempted. Fealty to the Constitution is not a matter of
  mere        material         success;        but,     and        probably              more
  importantly from the perspective of the moral authority
  of the State, a matter of integrity of effort on all the
  dimensions        that       inform    a    problem       that    threatens            the
  constitutional            projects.          Further,       the        degree            of
  seriousness with which efforts are made with respect to
  those various dimensions can also be expected to bear
  fruit       in    terms        of     building       capacities,             and       the
  development        of    necessary          attitudes       to    take       the        law
  enforcement part of accounting or following the money
  seriously in the future.
47.The merits of vigour of investigations, and attempts at
  law enforcement, cannot be measured merely on the scale
  of what we accomplish with respect to what has happened
  in    the    past.      It     would    necessarily         also       have       to     be
  appreciated from the benefits that are likely to accrue
  to    the    country      in    preventing       such      activities             in   the
  future. Our people may be poor, and may be suffering
  from all manner of deprivation. However, the same poor
  and    suffering         masses       are    rich,    morally          and    from       a
  humanistic point of view. Their forbearance of the many
  foibles and failures of those who wield power, no less
  in    their      name    and    behalf       than    of    the    rich        and      the
  empowered,         is        itself        indicative       of     their           great
  qualities,        of     humanity,          trust    and     tolerance.                That
  greatness        can    only     be    matched       by   exercise           of    every
  sinew, and every resource, in the broad goal of our
  constitutional           project       of     bringing       to    their           lives

             dignity.          The    efforts         that       this    Court           makes    in    this
             regard, and will make in this respect and these matters,
             can        only   be     conceived            as   a   small      and       minor,    though
             nevertheless necessary, part. Ultimately the protection
             of the Constitution and striving to promote its vision
             and        values      is     an    elemental          mode      of    service        to   our
             people.
         48. We note that in many instances, in the past, when issues
             referred to the Court have been very complex in nature,
             and yet required the intervention of the Court, Special
             Investigation Teams have been ordered and constituted in
             order to enable the Court, and the Union of India and/or
             other         organs          of        the        State,        to     fulfill           their
             constitutional obligations. The following instances may
             be noted: Vineet Narain v Union of India1, NHRC v State
             of Gujarat2, Sanjiv Kumar v State of Haryana3, and Centre
             for PIL v Union of India4.
         49.In light of the above we herewith order:


             (i)          That the High Level Committee constituted by the
                          Union       of    India,          comprising         of    (i)     Secretary,
                          Department            of    Revenue;          (ii)       Deputy        Governor,
                          Reserve Bank of India; (iii) Director (IB); (iv)
                          Director, Enforcement; (v) Director, CBI; (vi)
                          Chairman,             CBDT;       (vii)     DG,      Narcotics          Control
                          Bureau;          (vii)      DG,       Revenue       Intelligence;             (ix)
                          Director, Financial Intelligence Unit; and (x) JS
                          (FT & TR-I), CBDT be forthwith appointed with
                          immediate effect as a Special Investigation Team;
             (ii)         That        the        Special            Investigation            Team,        so
                          constituted, also include Director, Research and
                          Analysis Wing;
             (iii)        That       the    above Special Investigation Team, so
                          constituted,               be     headed       by        and     include      the

1   (1996) 2 SCC 199
2   (2004) 8 SCC 610
3   (2005) 5 SCC 517
4   (2011) 1 SCC 560.

       following former eminent judges of this Court:
       (a)    Hon'ble    Mr.    Justice       B.P.      Jeevan       Reddy       as
       Chairman; and (b) Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.B. Shah
       as     Vice-Chairman;           and     that           the      Special
       Investigation Team function under their guidance
       and direction;
(iv)   That      the     Special        Investigation               Team,        so
       constituted,          shall      be     charged              with        the
       responsibilities         and     duties       of      investigation,
       initiation       of     proceedings,          and       prosecution,
       whether in the context of appropriate criminal or
       civil proceedings of: (a) all issues relating to
       the     matters        concerning         and         arising         from
       unaccounted monies of Hassan Ali Khan and the
       Tapurias; (b) all other investigations already
       commenced       and   are    pending,       or       awaiting       to    be
       initiated,       with    respect       to     any       other       known
       instances of the stashing of unaccounted monies
       in    foreign    bank    accounts       by    Indians         or    other
       entities operating in India; and (c) all other
       matters with respect to unaccounted monies being
       stashed    in    foreign       banks    by    Indians         or    other
       entities operating in India that may arise in the
       course of such investigations and proceedings. It
       is    clarified       here    that     within         the     ambit      of
       responsibilities described above, also lie the
       responsibilities to ensure that the matters are
       also    investigated,          proceedings            initiated          and
       prosecutions conducted with regard to criminality
       and/or unlawfulness of activities that may have
       been the source for such monies, as well as the
       criminal and/or unlawful means that are used to
       take such unaccounted monies out of and/or bring
       such monies back into the country, and use of
       such    monies    in     India    or    abroad.         The     Special
       Investigation Team shall also be charged with the
       responsibility          of    preparing          a     comprehensive

        action plan, including the creation of necessary
        institutional          structures         that     can    enable        and
        strengthen           the      country's           battle         against
        generation       of       unaccounted        monies,       and     their
        stashing      away     in     foreign      banks     or    in    various
        forms domestically.
(v)     That      the        Special         Investigation          Team        so
        constituted report and be responsible to this
        Court, and that it shall be charged with the duty
        to     keep     this       Court     informed        of    all     major
        developments by the filing of periodic status
        reports, and following of any special orders that
        this Court may issue from time to time;
(vi)    That all organs, agencies, departments and agents
        of the State, whether at the level of the Union
        of India, or the State Government, including but
        not limited to all statutorily formed individual
        bodies, and other constitutional bodies,                          extend
        all    the    cooperation necessary for the Special
        Investigation              Team       so         constituted           and
        functioning;
(vii)   That the Union of India, and where needed even
        the State Governments, are directed to facilitate
        the    conduct       of     the    investigations,          in     their
        fullest       measure,      by     the     Special       Investigation
        Team so constituted and functioning, by extending
        all    the    necessary        financial,         material,       legal,
        diplomatic       and      intelligence        resources,         whether
        such      investigations             or     portions        of         such
        investigations            occur      inside       the     country       or
        abroad.
(viii) That     the     Special       Investigation          Team       also    be
        empowered       to     further       investigate          even     where
        charge-sheets          have    been       previously       filed;      and
        that the Special Investigation Team may register
        further         cases,         and         conduct        appropriate
        investigations and initiate proceedings, for the

           purpose        of     bringing         back        unaccounted            monies
           unlawfully kept in bank accounts abroad.


50.We   accordingly        direct     the      Union          of    India      to     issue
  appropriate notification and publish the same forthwith.
  It is needless to clarify that the former judges of this
  Court      so     appointed          to         supervise             the        Special
  Investigation Team are entitled to their remuneration,
  allowances, perks, facilities as that of the judges of
  the Supreme Court. The Ministry of Finance, Union of
  India, shall be responsible for creating the appropriate
  infrastructure          and    other        facilities            for      proper    and
  effective functioning of the Special Investigation Team
  at once.
                                      III


51.We now turn our attention to the matter of disclosure of
  various documents referenced by the Union of India, as
  sought by the Petitioners. These documents, including
  names   and      bank    particulars,            relate          to     various      bank
  accounts, of Indian citizens, in the Principality of
  Liechtenstein          ("Liechtenstein"),               a        small      landlocked
  sovereign       nation-state         in      Europe.             It   is     generally
  acknowledged that Liechtenstein is a tax haven.
52.Apparently,      as    alleged      by      the   Petitioners,              a     former
  employee of a bank or banks in Liechtenstein secured the
  names of some 1400 bank account holders, along with the
  particulars        of        such    accounts,              and         offered      the
  information to various entities. The same was secured by
  the Federal Republic of Germany ("Germany"), which in
  turn, apart from initiating tax proceedings against some
  600 individuals, also offered the information regarding
  nationals       and     citizens       of       other       countries         to     such
  countries. It is the contention of the Petitioners that
  even though the Union of India was informed about the
  presence    of    the     names      of     a    large       number         of     Indian
  citizens in the list of names revealed by the former

  bank employee, the Union of India never made a serious
  attempt   to    secure      such     information         and   proceed     to
  investigate such individuals. It is the contention of
  the Petitioners that such names include the identities
  of prominent and powerful Indians, or the identities of
  individuals, who may or may not be Indian citizens, but
  who could lead to information about various powerful
  Indians   holding      unaccounted       monies     in     bank   accounts
  abroad. It is also the contention of the Petitioners
  that, even though they had sought the information under
  the Right to Information Act (2005), the Respondents had
  not   revealed      the     names     nor    divulged      the    relevant
  documents. The Petitioners argue that such a reluctance
  is only on account of the Union of India not having
  initiated suitable steps to recover such monies, and
  punish    the       named     individuals,         and     also    because
  revelation of names of individuals on the list would
  lead to discovery of powerful persons engaged in various
  unlawful activities, both in generation of unlawful and
  unaccounted monies, and their stashing away in banks
  abroad.
53.It was also alleged by the Petitioners that in fact
  Germany   had       offered       such   information,          freely     and
  generally to any country that requests the same, and did
  not   specify       that    the     names    and    other      information
  pertaining     to   such    names    ought    to    be    requested      only
  pursuant to any double taxation agreements it has with
  other countries. The Petitioners also alleged that Union
  of India has chosen to proceed under the assumption that
  it could have requested such information only pursuant
  to the double taxation agreement it has with Germany.
  The Petitioners contend that the Government of India
  took such a step primarily to conceal the information
  from public gaze.
54.The response of the Union of India may be summed up
  briefly: (i) that they secured the names of individuals
  with bank accounts in banks in Liechtenstein, and other

  details with respect to such bank accounts, pursuant to
  an   agreement    of    India    with        Germany       for    avoidance      of
  double taxation and prevention of fiscal evasion; (ii)
  that the said agreement proscribes the Union of India
  from   disclosing       such    names,       and     other       documents      and
  information with respect to such bank accounts, to the
  Petitioners,      even    in     the        context    of        these    ongoing
  proceedings before this court; (iii) that the disclosure
  of   such   names,      and    other    documents          and     information,
  secured from Germany, would jeopardize the relations of
  India with a foreign state; (iv) that the disclosure of
  such names, and other documents and information, would
  violate the right to privacy of those individuals who
  may have only deposited monies in a lawful manner; (v)
  that   disclosure        of    names,        and     other       documents       and
  information      can      be    made         with     respect        to        those
  individuals      with     regard       to     whom     investigations           are
  completed, and          proceedings initiated; and (vi) that
  contrary    to    assertions       by        the     Petitioners,         it     was
  Germany which had asked the Union of India to seek the
  information under double taxation agreement, and that
  this was in response to an earlier request by Union of
  India for the said information.
55.For the purposes of the instant order, the issue of
  whether the Union of India could have sought and secured
  the names, and other documents and information, without
  having to take recourse to the double taxation agreement
  is not relevant. For the purposes of determining whether
  Union of India is obligated to disclose the information
  that it obtained, from Germany, with respect to accounts
  of Indian citizens in a bank in the Principality of
  Liechtenstein, we need only examine the claims of the
  Union of India as to whether it is proscribed by the
  double taxation agreement with Germany from disclosing
  such   information.       Further,          and     most     importantly,        we
  would also have to examine whether in the context of
  Article 32 proceedings before this court, wherein this

  court has exercised jurisdiction, the Union of India can
  claim exemption from providing such information to the
  Petitioners, and also with respect to issues of right to
  privacy of individuals who hold such accounts, and with
  respect     of     whom      no     investigations          have       yet     been
  commenced,       or   only    partially         conducted,        so   that    the
  State has not yet issued a show cause and initiated
  proceedings.
56.We have perused the said agreement with Germany. We are
  convinced that the said agreement, by itself, does not
  proscribe the disclosure of the relevant documents and
  details of the same, including the names of various bank
  account holders in Liechtenstein. In the first instance,
  we   note   that      the    names    of    the   individuals          are     with
  respect to bank accounts in the Liechtenstein, which
  though populated by largely German speaking people, is
  an independent and sovereign nation-state. The agreement
  between     Germany     and    India       is   with   regard       to   various
  issues that crop up with respect to German and Indian
  citizens'     liability       to     pay    taxes      to   Germany          and/or
  India. It does not even remotely touch upon information
  regarding        Indian           citizens'       bank           accounts        in
  Liechtenstein that Germany secures and shares that have
  no bearing upon the matters that are covered by the
  double taxation agreement between the two countries. In
  fact, the "information" that is referred to in Article
  26 is that which is "necessary for carrying out the
  purposes of this agreement", i.e. the Indo-German DTAA.
  Therefore, the information sought does not fall within
  the ambit of this provision. It is disingenuous for the
  Union of India, under these circumstances, to repeatedly
  claim that it is unable to reveal the documents and
  names as sought by the Petitioners on the ground that
  the same is proscribed by the said agreement. It does
  not matter that Germany itself may have asked India to
  treat the information shared as being subject to the
  confidentiality         and       secrecy       clause      of     the       double

    taxation agreement. It is for the Union of India, and
    the   courts,    in   appropriate    proceedings,   to   determine
    whether   such    information       concerns   matters   that   are
    covered by the double taxation agreement or not. In any
    event, we also proceed to examine the provisions of the
    double taxation agreement below, to also examine whether
    they proscribe the disclosure of such names, and other
    documents and information, even in the context of these
    instant proceedings.
  57.Relevant portions of Article 26 of the double taxation
    agreement with Germany, a copy of which was submitted by
    Union of India, reads as follows:

"1. The competent authorities of the Contracting States shall
exchange such information as is necessary for carrying out
the purposes of this Agreement. Any information received by a
Contracting State shall be treated as secret in the same
manner as information obtained under the domestic laws of
that State and shall be disclosed only to persons or
authorities (including courts and administrative bodies)
involved in the assessment or collection of, the enforcement
or prosecution in respect of, or the determination of appeals
in relation to, the taxes covered by this Agreement. They may
disclose the information in public court proceedings or in
judicial proceedings.

2. In no case shall the provisions of paragraph 1 be
construed so as to impose on a Contracting State the
obligation:

               (a)    to carry out administrative measures at
                      variance with the laws and administrative
                      practice    of  that   or   of    the other
                      Contracting State;
               (b)    to supply information which is not
                      obtainable under the laws or in the
                      normal course of the administration of
                      that or of the other Contracting State;
               (c)    to    supply   information     which  would
                      disclose any trade, business, industrial,
                      commercial or professional secret or
                      trade    process,   or   information,   the
                      disclosure of which would be contrary to
                      public policy (order public)"

58.The above clause in the relevant agreement with Germany
  would indicate that, contrary to the assertions of Union
  of India, there is no absolute bar of secrecy. Instead
  the agreement specifically provides that the information
  may be disclosed in public court proceedings, which the
  instant proceedings are. The proceedings in this matter
  before   this      court,    relate       both    to    the      issue   of     tax
  collection with respect to unaccounted monies deposited
  into    foreign     bank    accounts,       as    well      as    with     issues
  relating     to    the     manner     in    which       such      monies      were
  generated,        which     may     include       activities         that       are
  criminal in nature also. Comity of nations cannot be
  predicated upon clauses of secrecy that could hinder
  constitutional proceedings such as these, or criminal
  proceedings.
59.The claim of Union of India is that the phrase "public
  court    proceedings",        in    the    last       sentence     in    Article
  26(1) of the double taxation agreement only relates to
  proceedings relating to tax matters. The Union of India
  claims that such an understanding comports with how it
  is understood internationally. In this regard Union of
  India cites a few treatises. However, the Union of India
  did not provide any evidence that Germany specifically
  requested it to not reveal the details with respect to
  accounts in the Liechtenstein even in the context of
  proceedings before this court.
60.Article 31, "General Rule of Interpretation", of the
  Vienna Convention of the Law of Treaties, 1969 provides
  that a "treaty shall be interpreted in good faith in
  accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to the
  terms of the treaty in their context and in the light of
  its object and purpose." While India is not a party to
  the Vienna Convention, it contains many principles of
  customary       international        law,       and     the      principle      of
  interpretation, of Article 31 of the Vienna Convention,
  provides    a     broad     guideline      as     to    what     could     be   an
  appropriate       manner     of    interpreting         a     treaty     in     the

             Indian context also.
         61. This Court in Union of India v. Azadi Bachao Andolan,1
             approvingly noted Frank Bennion's observations that a
             treaty is really an indirect enactment, instead of a
             substantive legislation, and that drafting of treaties
             is notoriously sloppy, whereby inconveniences obtain. In
             this regard this Court further noted the dictum of Lord
             Widgery, C.J. that the words "are to be given their
             general meaning, general to lawyer and layman alike....
             The meaning of the diplomat rather than the lawyer." The
             broad      principle         of     interpretation,          with     respect       to
             treaties, and provisions therein, would be that ordinary
             meanings of words be given effect to, unless the context
             requires         or    otherwise.         However,     the    fact     that     such
             treaties         are   drafted       by    diplomats,        and     not   lawyers,
             leading to sloppiness in drafting also implies that care
             has to be taken to not render any word, phrase, or
             sentence redundant, especially where rendering of such
             word,      phrase      or    sentence       redundant        would     lead    to    a
             manifestly            absurd        situation,       particularly           from     a
             constitutional perspective. The government cannot bind
             India in a manner that derogates from Constitutional
             provisions, values and imperatives.
         62.The        last    sentence          of    Article    26(1)      of    the     double
             taxation agreement with Germany, "[T]hey may disclose
             this      information          in    public    court      proceedings         or    in
             judicial decisions," is revelatory in this regard. It
             stands out as an additional aspect or provision, and an
             exception, to the preceding portion of the said article.
             It is located after the specification that information
             shared between contracting parties may be revealed only
             to       "persons       or     authorities          (including        courts       and
             administrative           bodies)         involved    in   the      assessment       or
             collection of, the enforcement or prosecution in respect
             of, or the determination of appeals in relation to taxes
             covered by this Agreement." Consequently, it has to be

1   (2004) 10 SCC 1

  understood that the phrase "public court proceedings"
  specified in the last sentence in Article 26(1) of the
  double taxation agreement with Germany refers to court
  proceedings       other    than     those       in    connection          with    tax
  assessment, enforcement, prosecution etc., with respect
  to tax matters. If it were otherwise, as argued by Union
  of India, then there would have been no need to have
  that     last    sentence     in    Article          26(1)     of    the     double
  taxation       agreement     at     all.    The       last     sentence       would
  become redundant if the interpretation pressed by Union
  of India is accepted. Thus, notwithstanding the alleged
  convention of interpreting the last sentence only as
  referring to proceedings in tax matters, the rubric of
  common law jurisprudence, and fealty to its principles,
  leads us inexorably to the conclusion that the language
  in this specific treaty, and under these circumstances
  cannot be interpreted in the manner sought by Union of
  India.
63.While    we     agree    that     the     language          could    have       been
  tighter, and may be deemed to be sloppy, to use Frank
  Bennion's characterization, negotiation of such treaties
  are    conducted     and     secured        at       very     high    levels       of
  government,       with     awareness       of    general        principles         of
  interpretation       used     in    various          jurisdictions.          It    is
  fairly well known, at least in Common Law jurisdictions,
  that legal instruments and statutes are interpreted in a
  manner whereby redundancy of expressions and phrases is
  sought to be avoided. Germany would have been well aware
  of it.
64.The redundancy that would have to be ascribed to the
  said     last    sentence     of    Article          26(1)     of    the     double
  taxation       agreement     with    Germany,         if     the     position      of
  Union of India were to be accepted, also leads to a
  manifest        absurdity,    in     the        context       of     the     Indian
  Constitution.        Such     a     redundancy              would     mean       that
  constitutional       imperatives           themselves         are    to    be     set
  aside. Modern constitutionalism, to which Germany is a

  major contributor too, especially in terms of the basic
  structure doctrine, specifies that powers vested in any
  organ of the State have to be exercised within the four
  corners of the Constitution, and further that organs
  created by a constitution cannot change the identity of
  the constitution itself.
65.The    basic       structure    of      the    Constitution           cannot     be
  amended even by the amending power of the legislature.
  Our     Constitution        guarantees         the     right,        pursuant     to
  Clause (1) of Article 32, to petition this Court on the
  ground that the rights guaranteed under Part III of the
  Constitution have been violated. This provision is a
  part of the basic structure of the Constitution. Clause
  (2)     of    Article       32   empowers         this     Court       to    issue
  "directions or orders or writs, including writs in the
  nature       of    habeas   corpus,        mandamus,      prohibition,           quo
  warranto and certiorari, whichever may be appropriate
  for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by"
  Part III. This is also a part of the basic structure of
  the Constitution.
66.In order that the right guaranteed by Clause (1) of
  Article 32 be meaningful, and particularly because such
  petitions seek the protection of fundamental rights, it
  is imperative that in such proceedings the petitioners
  are not denied the information necessary for them to
  properly articulate the case and be heard, especially
  where    such       information     is     in    the     possession         of   the
  State.       To    deny   access      to    such     information,           without
  citing       any     constitutional            principle        or     enumerated
  grounds       of    constitutional         prohibition,          would      be    to
  thwart the right granted by Clause (1) of Article 32.
67.Further, in as much as, by history and tradition of
  common       law,    judicial      proceedings          are     substantively,
  though not necessarily fully, adversarial, both parties
  bear    the       responsibility      of    placing       all    the     relevant
  information, analyses, and facts before this court as
  completely as possible. In most situations, it is the

  State which may have more comprehensive information that
  is relevant to the matters at hand in such proceedings.
  However,      some    agents       of   the    State       may     perceive       that
  because these proceedings are adversarial in nature, the
  duty and burden to furnish all the necessary information
  rests upon the Petitioners, and hence the State has no
  obligation       to     fully      furnish         such     information.          Some
  agents of the State may also seek to cast the events and
  facts in a light that is favourable to the government in
  the immediate context of the proceedings, even though
  such    actions       do     not   lead       to    rendering          of    complete
  justice in the task of protection of fundamental rights.
  To    that    extent,      both    the       petitioners         and     this    Court
  would be handicapped in proceedings under Clause (1) of
  Article 32.
68.It    is    necessary       for   us    to    note       that     the      burden   of
  asserting, and proving, by relevant evidence a claim in
  judicial proceedings would ordinarily be placed upon the
  proponent       of    such     a   claim;       however,         the     burden      of
  protection of fundamental rights is primarily the duty
  of     the     State.        Consequently,           unless        constitutional
  grounds exist, the State may not act in a manner that
  hinders this Court from rendering complete justice in
  such proceedings. Withholding of information from the
  petitioners, or seeking to cast the relevant events and
  facts in a light favourable to the State in the context
  of the proceedings, even though ultimately detrimental
  to the essential task of protecting fundamental rights,
  would be destructive to the guarantee in Clause (1) of
  Article 32, and substantially eviscerate the capacity of
  this Court in exercising its powers contained in clause
  (2)    of     Article        32,   and       those     traceable            to   other
  provisions of the Constitution and broader jurisprudence
  of    constitutionalism,           in    upholding         fundamental           rights
  enshrined      in     Part    III.      In    the    task     of    upholding        of
  fundamental rights, the State cannot be an adversary.
  The State has the duty, generally, to reveal all the

  facts and information in its possession to the Court,
  and also provide the same to the petitioners. This is
  so, because the petitioners would also then be enabled
  to bring to light facts and the law that may be relevant
  for the Court in rendering its decision. In proceedings
  such as those under Article 32, both the petitioner and
  the State, have to necessarily be the eyes and ears of
  the Court. Blinding the petitioner would substantially
  detract from the integrity of the process of judicial
  decision making in Article 32 proceedings, especially
  where the issue is of upholding of fundamental rights.
69.Furthermore,           we        hold     that       there     is     a   special
  relationship between Clause (1) of Article 32 and Sub-
  Clause (a) of Clause (1) of Article 19, which guarantees
  citizens the freedom of speech and expression. The very
  genesis,     and        the       normative       desirability        of   such     a
  freedom, lies in historical experiences of the entire
  humanity:     unless          accountable,            the   State     would     turn
  tyrannical. A proceeding under Clause (1) of Article 32,
  and invocation of the powers granted by Clause (2) of
  Article 32, is a primordial constitutional feature of
  ensuring    such        accountability.             The     very     promise,     and
  existence,         of         a     constitutional            democracy       rests
  substantially on such proceedings.
70.Withholding of information from the petitioners by the
  State, thereby constraining their freedom of speech and
  expression before this Court, may be premised only on
  the exceptions carved out, in Clause (2) of Article 19,
  "in the interests of sovereignty and integrity of India,
  security of the State, friendly relations with foreign
  States,     public           order,       decency      or     morality,    or      in
  relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement
  to   an   offence"       or       by     law   that    demarcate      exceptions,
  provided that such a law comports with the enumerated
  grounds in Clause (2) of Article 19, or that may be
  provided for elsewhere in the Constitution.
71.It is now a well recognized proposition that we are

  increasingly         being     entwined        in     a    global          network       of
  events and social action. Considerable care has to be
  exercised          in      this       process,            particularly             where
  governments         which      come    into     being          on    account       of    a
  constitutive document, enter into treaties. The actions
  of governments can only be lawful when exercised within
  the four corners of constitutional permissibility. No
  treaty can be entered into, or interpreted, such that
  constitutional fealty is derogated from. The redundancy,
  that the Union of India presses, with respect to the
  last sentence of Article 26(1) of the double taxation
  agreement         with   Germany,      necessarily             transgresses            upon
  the boundaries erected by our Constitution. It cannot be
  permitted.
72.We have perused the documents in question, and heard the
  arguments of Union of India with respect to the double
  taxation       agreement        with    Germany           as    an        obstacle       to
  disclosure.         We    do   not     find     merit          in    its       arguments
  flowing from the provisions of double taxation agreement
  with Germany. However, one major constitutional issue,
  and concern remains. This is with regard to whether the
  names    of        individuals,        and      details             of    their        bank
  accounts,         with    respect      to      whom       there          has    been     no
  completed         investigations        that    reveal          wrong          doing    and
  proceedings initiated, and there is no other credible
  information and evidence currently available with the
  Petitioners that there has been any wrong doing, may be
  disclosed to the Petitioners.
73.Right to privacy is an integral part of right to life.
  This    is    a    cherished      constitutional               value,      and     it   is
  important         that    human       beings     be       allowed          domains       of
  freedom that are free of public scrutiny unless they act
  in an unlawful manner. We understand and appreciate the
  fact    that      the    situation      with        respect         to     unaccounted
  monies        is         extremely       grave.            Nevertheless,                 as
  constitutional adjudicators we always have to be mindful
  of preserving the sanctity of constitutional values, and

  hasty      steps      that        derogate            from      fundamental            rights,
  whether      urged         by     governments              or        private      citizens,
  howsoever        well       meaning           they        may        be,    have       to     be
  necessarily very carefully scrutinised. The solution for
  the problem of abrogation of one zone of constitutional
  values     cannot          be     the       creation          of      another      zone       of
  abrogation       of        constitutional                values.         The     rights      of
  citizens,        to        effectively              seek        the        protection        of
  fundamental rights, under Clause (1) of Article 32 have
  to    be   balanced         against           the      rights         of    citizens        and
  persons      under          Article           21.      The         latter        cannot      be
  sacrificed       on        the        anvil      of      fervid        desire      to       find
  instantaneous           solutions           to     systemic          problems      such      as
  unaccounted        monies,            for     it      would        lead     to    dangerous
  circumstances,              in        which         vigilante            investigations,
  inquisitions          and       rabble        rousing,          by    masses      of    other
  citizens could become the order of the day. The right of
  citizens      to       petition          this         Court        for      upholding         of
  fundamental rights is granted in order that citizens,
  inter-alia, are ever vigilant about the functioning of
  the     State      in      order        to       protect         the       constitutional
  project.        That       right        cannot           be     extended          to     being
  inquisitors of fellow citizens. An inquisitorial order,
  where citizens' fundamental right to privacy is breached
  by fellow citizens is destructive of social order. The
  notion of fundamental rights, such as a right to privacy
  as part of right to life, is not merely that the State
  is enjoined from derogating from them. It also includes
  the responsibility of the State to uphold them against
  the   actions         of    others          in     the     society,         even       in   the
  context     of     exercise            of     fundamental             rights      by     those
  others.
74.An   argument        can        be    made        that       this     Court      can       make
  exceptions       under          the     peculiar          circumstances            of       this
  case, wherein the State has acknowledged that it has not
  acted with the requisite speed and vigour in the case of
  large volumes of suspected unaccounted monies of certain

  individuals.              There       is    an     inherent       danger         in    making
  exceptions to fundamental principles and rights on the
  fly. Those exceptions, bit by bit, would then eviscerate
  the content of the main right itself. Undesirable lapses
  in upholding of fundamental rights by the legislature,
  or     the      executive,           can    be     rectified         by     assertion        of
  constitutional               principles          by      this    Court.        However,       a
  decision by this Court that an exception could be carved
  out remains permanently as a part of judicial canon, and
  becomes         a     part      of    the      constitutional             interpretation
  itself. It can be used in the future in a manner and
  form that may far exceed what this Court intended or
  what the Constitutional text and values can bear. We are
  not proposing that Constitutions cannot be interpreted
  in a manner that allows the nation-state to tackle the
  problems         it      faces.       The     principle         is    that       exceptions
  cannot          be       carved         out        willy-nilly,            and        without
  forethought as to the damage they may cause.
75.One       of    the       chief      dangers         of    making        exceptions         to
  principles that have become a part of constitutional
  law,       through         aeons      of    human       experience,         is       that   the
  logic,          and      ease    of     seeing        exceptions,          would       become
  entrenched as a part of the constitutional order. Such
  logic        would        then       lead     to      seeking        exceptions,            from
  protective walls of all fundamental rights, on grounds
  of expediency and claims that there are no solutions to
  problems that the society is confronting without the
  evisceration              of    fundamental           rights.        That      same     logic
  could then be used by the State in demanding exceptions
  to     a     slew      of      other       fundamental          rights,        leading       to
  violation           of     human      rights       of      citizens       on     a    massive
  scale.
76.It    is       indeed         true     that       the     information           shared      by
  Germany,            with       regard       to     certain       bank       accounts         in
  Liechtenstein, also contains names of individuals who
  appear to be Indians. The Petitioners have also claimed
  that names of all the individuals have been made public

  by certain segments of the media. However, while some of
  the     accounts,       and         the    individuals                holding      those
  accounts, are claimed to have been investigated, others
  have not been. No conclusion can be drawn as to whether
  those who have not been investigated, or only partially
  investigated        and           proceedings          not          initiated         have
  committed any wrong doing. There is no presumption that
  every account holder in banks of Liechtenstein has acted
  unlawfully.        In     these        circumstances,                 it     would      be
  inappropriate for this Court to order the disclosure of
  such names, even in the context of proceedings under
  Clause (1) of Article 32.
77.The    revelation           of     details          of        bank        accounts     of
  individuals,        without          establishment               of        prima   facie
  grounds    to     accuse      them        of    wrong      doing,          would   be    a
  violation of their rights to privacy. Details of bank
  accounts can be used by those who want to harass, or
  otherwise cause damage, to individuals. We cannot remain
  blind     to    such      possibilities,             and        indeed       experience
  reveals that public dissemination of banking details, or
  availability to unauthorized persons, has led to abuse.
  The mere fact that a citizen has a bank account in a
  bank located in a particular jurisdiction cannot be a
  ground for revelation of details of his or her account
  that     the     State        has     acquired.            Innocent           citizens,
  including those actively working towards the betterment
  of the society and the nation, could fall prey to the
  machinations       of     those      who       might      wish        to    damage    the
  prospects of smooth functioning of society. Whether the
  State     itself       can        access       details         of     citizens        bank
  accounts is a separate matter. However, the State cannot
  compel citizens to reveal, or itself reveal details of
  their bank accounts to the public at large, either to
  receive        benefits      from      the       State         or     to     facilitate
  investigations,         and       prosecutions            of    such       individuals,
  unless the State itself has, through properly conducted
  investigations,              within            the        four         corners          of

  constitutional        permissibility,            been    able     to   establish
  prima facie grounds to accuse the individuals of wrong
  doing. It is only after the State has been able to
  arrive at a prima facie conclusion of wrong doing, based
  on material evidence, would the rights of others in the
  nation to be informed, enter the picture. In the event
  citizens,    other       persons      and        entities       have    credible
  information that a wrong doing could be associated with
  a bank account, it is needless to state that they have
  the right, and in fact the moral duty, to inform the
  State,    and     consequently         the       State     would       have    the
  obligation       to     investigate          the        same,     within       the
  boundaries       of    constitutional            permissibility.         If    the
  State fails to do so, the appropriate courts can always
  intervene.
78.The major problem, in the matters before us, has been
  the inaction of the State. This is so, both with regard
  to the specific instances of Hassan Ali Khan and the
  Tapurias, and also with respect to the issues regarding
  parallel economy, generation of black money etc. The
  failure is not of the Constitutional values or of the
  powers available to the State; the failure has been of
  human agency. The response cannot be the promotion of
  vigilantism,      and    thereby      violate          other    constitutional
  values.    The    response      has     to       necessarily       be    a    more
  emphatic assertion of those values, both in terms of
  protection of an individual's right to privacy and also
  the protection of individual's right to petition this
  Court,    under       Clause   (1)     of    Article        32,    to    protect
  fundamental rights from evisceration of content because
  of failures of the State. The balancing leads only to
  one   conclusion:        strengthening            of     the    machinery       of
  investigations,         and    vigil        by    broader       citizenry       in
  ensuring that the agents of State do not weaken such
  machinery.
79.In light of the above we order that:

  (i)     The Union of India shall forthwith disclose to the
          Petitioners         all     those    documents         and     information
          which they have secured from Germany, in connection
          with the matters discussed above, subject to the
          conditions specified in (ii) below;
  (ii)    That the       Union of India is exempted from revealing
          the names of those individuals who have accounts in
          banks    of    Liechtenstein,             and       revealed    to     it    by
          Germany,              with               respect              of            who
          investigations/enquiries are still in progress and
          no information or evidence of wrongdoing is yet
          available;
  (iii)   That    the    names        of    those       individuals       with       bank
          accounts in Liechtenstein, as revealed by Germany,
          with    respect       of     whom        investigations         have       been
          concluded,         either    partially          or    wholly,       and    show
          cause notices issued and proceedings initiated may
          be disclosed; and
  (iv)    That    the    Special       Investigation            Team,    constituted
          pursuant      to    the     orders       of    today    by     this    Court,
          shall take over the matter of investigation of the
          individuals         whose        names    have       been    disclosed       by
          Germany        as     having         accounts           in      banks        in
          Liechtenstein, and expeditiously conduct the same.
          The    Special      Investigation             Team    shall    review       the
          concluded matters also in this regard to assess
          whether       investigations         have       been    thoroughly          and
          properly conducted or not, and on coming to the
          conclusion         that     there        is     a    need     for     further
          investigation shall proceed further in the matter.
          After    conclusion          of    such       investigations          by    the
          Special       Investigation         Team,       the    Respondents          may
          disclose the names with regard to whom show cause
          notices have been issued and proceedings initiated.


80. Compliance reports shall be filed by Respondents, with
respect of all the orders issued by this Court today. List

for further directions in the week following the Independence
Day, August 15, of 2011.
      Ordered accordingly.


                               ................................................J.
                               (B. SUDERSHAN REDDY)



NEW DELHI,                      ................................................J.
JULY 4, 2011.                  (SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR)