Please read the following open letter:
16 February 2014
To
(i)
Chief Justice of India , Supreme
Court of India
(ii)
Chief Justice Ramana, Delhi High Court
(iii)
The Registrar General,
Delhi High
Court
(iv)
Chairman, Bar Council
of Delhi
(v)
All other members of
Bar Council of Delhi
(vi)
The Central Vigilance
Commisioner
(vii)
Delhi Police
Commissioner
(viii)
Registrar Vigilance, Delhi High Court
(ix)
Mr Goolam E. Vahanvati, The Attorney General of India , Supreme
Court of India
(x)
Mr Rajiv Mehra, Additional Solicitor General to
the Union of India , Delhi High Court
(xi)
Mr P K Behera, In-charge Litigation, Union of
India, Delhi High Court
Ref: Complaint against Delhi High Court Judges
Sudershan Kumar Misra and Suresh Kait and against advocate Arvind Nigam concerning
extra-judicial attempts to involve Arvind Nigam in the hearing of Writ Petition
Civil 1280/ 2012 (Seema Sapra v. General Electric Company and Others) to
facilitate the cover up of the corruption complaints against General Electric
and the elimination of the Petitioner/ whistle blower.
Arvind Nigam appeared for a General Electric Company (GECAS)
in 2010 in the Delhi High Court in a matter concerning Paramount Airways and
was instructed by Anuradha Dutt. (See Delhi High Court orders passed in LPA
198/ 2010).
In August 2011, Arvind Nigam advised me to withdraw my
corruption complaints against General Electric by misleading me that this would
stop attempts to eliminate, murder, and physically harm me. This advice placed
me in even greater danger and resulted in my being further poisoned and drugged
and would have resulted in my being murdered if I had not finally managed to
file WP Civil 1280/ 2012 in February 2012.
In February 2012, Arvind Nigam again misguided me by giving
me wrong advice to not include the complaints and evidence of the threat to my
life and of attempts to harm me and medical evidence establishing that I had
been poisoned and that doctors had covered up the poisoning and had facilitated
my elimination by attempting to drug me and to fabricate false medical reports,
in the writ petition that I was proposing to file on my corruption complaints
against General Electric. He advised me to file three separate writ petitions
against General Electric, the Police and against doctors at Max Healthcare and Apollo Hospital
On 16 May 2013, Delhi High Court Judge Gita Mittal who was
participating in the conspiracy to sabotage the hearing of the corruption writ
petition against General Electric and Montek Singh Ahluwalia (WP Civil 1280/
2012) was asked to recuse herself by the petitioner in CM 6096/ 2013. Instead
of recusing herself, Judge Gita Mittal adjourned the application for recusal to
18 July 2013, and appointed Arvind Nigam as amicus curie for the application.
On 16 May 2013, Judge Gita Mittal first attempted to appoint Arun Mohan as
amicus curie in the application. Arun Mohan has close ties to General Electric
and has a long association with GE’s lawyers as a counsel. Further, Arun Mohan
appears to be connected to the poisoning and drugging of the petitioner while
she was living at G 4, FF, Jangpura Extension, where a woman living on the
ground floor Rita Mohan was participating in targeting the petitioner and who
was in touch with Arun Mohan at that time. The petitioner had named Arun Mohan
as being involved in targeting her in an email complaint sent prior to 16 May
2013. That the outcome of the hearing of 16 May 2013 had been decided in
advance is clear from the fact that that the matter was taken up close to 4 pm and Arun Mohan was sitting in
court especially for this matter and he was there because Judge Gita Mittal was
intending to appoint him as amicus in the application. This was the only matter
left before the Bench at that time on 16 May 2013, and there was therefore no
other reason for Arun Mohan (who in any case is an extremely infrequent visitor
to the Delhi High Court) to be present in court.
On 16 May 2013, Criminal Contempt Case 3/ 2012 being used to
target the petitioner/ whistle blower in WP Civil 1280/ 2012 was also listed
before Judge Gita Mittal. Under the Contempt of Courts Act, there is no
provision for a private advocate like Arvind Nigam to be appointed amicus curie
in a criminal contempt hearing. Yet Justice Gita Mittal first appointed Arvind
Nigam as amicus in Criminal Contempt Case 3/ 2012 against the expressed
objection of the petitioner and ignoring the petitioner’s request that the
appropriate State counsel be asked to assist the Court if necessary and not a
private and biased lawyer like Arvind Nigam. Then Judge Gita Mittal appointed Arvind Nigam
as amicus in CM 6096/ 2013 once again despite the objections of the Petitioner.
Judge Gita Mittal was deliberately attempting to involve
Arvind Nigam in the hearing of WP Civil 1280/ 2012.
On 18 July 2013, a junior lawyer first appeared before Judge
Gita Mittal on behalf of Arvind Nigam and stated in Court that Arvind Nigam was
requesting to be excused from acting as amicus in CM 6096/ 2012 as Arvind Nigam
had already communicated to Judge Gita Mittal. Judge Gita Mittal refused to
accept this request and directed the junior lawyer to ask Mr Arvind Nigam to
appear on the next date. What is important is that this establishes that Judge
Gita Mittal and Arvind Nigam had between 16 May 2013 and 18 July 2013 engaged
in private communication regarding WP Civil 1280/ 2012 outside Court and to the
exclusion of the petitioner.
On 18 July 2013, the Petitioner/ whistle blower filed
written submissions in both WP Civil 1280/ 2012 and in Criminal Contempt Case
3/ 2012 where she objected to the involvement of Arvind Nigam in these matters
by raising the following objections:
“It was also inappropriate and
improper for this Bench to appoint an amicus curie to “assist” in hearing and
deciding this recusal application. This matter does not concern any other
lawyer. It is a decision to be taken by the Bench alone.
It was inappropriate and improper
for the Bench to appoint Mr Arvind Nigam, Sr Advocate, as amicus curie for CM
6096/ 2013 and for Criminal Contempt Case 3/ 2012. Mr Arvind Nigam has been
part of the group of lawyers who have participated in harming the petitioner by
destroying her reputation and by spying on her. in August 2011, the petitioner
had first spoke to Arvind Nigam about her complaints against General Electric
after she had realised that her life was in danger. The petitioner had asked
Arvind Nigam for his help and had asked him for advice as to what legal steps
she should take. Arvind Nigam had misguided the petitioner and had encouraged
her to withdraw her complaints against General Electric by telling her that she
would be “safe” if she did that. Based upon Arvind Nigam’s advice, the
petitioner who at that time was terrified and isolated having failed to obtain
assistance from the Police, then Chief Justice H S Kapadia, and from doctors
she consulted at Max Healthcare for poisoning, decided to withdraw her complaints
under duress and sent emails to this effect at the end of August 2011. This act
of withdrawing her complaints placed the petitioner’s life in even greater
danger and after that the petitioner was again isolated and continued to be
drugged and poisoned until she decided to fight back at the end of December
2011.
In January and February 2012,
after the petitioner started to regularly come to the Delhi High Court, the
petitioner was again approached by Arvind Nigam. He was at this time spying on
the petitioner as the petitioner had declared her intention to file legal
proceedings. Arvind Nigam at this time offered to help the petitioner by acting
as her counsel and by providing her with legal advice. The legal advice that
Arvind Nigam offered was wrong and misleading again intended to send the
petitioner down the wrong track. In fact after the petitioner’s first writ
petition was wrongfully converted into a criminal writ petition, the petitioner
decided to withdraw that and file a fresh civil writ petition. At this time, on
or around 27 February 2012, Arvind Nigam asked to look at the revised draft
petition that the petitioner was preparing. He first misguided the petitioner
to split her petition into 3-4 separate petitions separating her request for protection
from the whistleblower complaints and separating the complaints against medical
doctors (for participating in the conspiracy to eliminate her) into a separate
writ petition. After advising the petitioner to do this, Arvind Nigam offered
to read the draft petitions and told the petitioner he would discuss them with
her on 1 March 2012. The petitioner realised that Arvind Nigam was deliberately
providing her with wrong legal advice and that he was trying to delay the
petitioner in filing the new petition while attempts were continuing to
eliminate the petitioner. The petitioner therefore ignored Arvind Nigam’s wrong
advice and instead of waiting till 1 March 2012 to show him the draft petition,
the petitioner went ahead and filed her consolidated writ petition on 29
February 2012. This act of the petitioner in ignoring Arvind Nigam’s motivated
and malafide advice is another act that helped save the petitioner’s life.
Subsequent to these events, Arvind
Nigam continued to spy on the petitioner and report back to General Electric’s
lawyers on what the petitioner was intending. The petitioner was finally
compelled to publicly name in email complaints sent to the authorities and even
in court application(s) that Arvind Nigam was one of the lawyers who was
targeting the petitioner.
The petitioner has made sexual
harassment complaints against Soli Sorabjee and Raian Karanjawala, and Arvind
Nigam is a close friend and associate of both these powerful lawyers.
Given this background, the
petitioner objects to the appointment of and appearance by Arvind Nigam as
amicus curie in WP (C ) 1280/ 2012 and in Criminal Contempt Case 3/ 2012. The
petitioner has in May 2013 made Arvind Nigam aware of her opposition to his
appointment as amicus curie.
The petitioner has already stated
in CM 6096/ 2013 that she has no faith in the Bench of Justice Gita Mittal and
Justice Deepa Sharma.”
It has now come to the attention of the petitioner that
Arvind Nigam was advising a General Electric company (GECAS) in 2010.
As a result of WP Civil 1280/ 2012 exposing corruption
within the Railway Ministry and the Railway Board, CBI investigations of the
Railway Board exposed the attempt of Railway Board member Mahesh Kumar to get
appointed as Member-Engineering by bribing the then Railway Minister Pawan
Bansal through his nephew Vijay Singla. This scam is connected to the
corruption complaints in WP Civil 1280/ 2012 as the evidence produced in the
writ petition also establishes that General Electric had bribed Railway Board
members in the engineering division in 2010. Further, there is a possibility
that the State was/ is using CBI investigations in 2013 and 2014 against
Railway Board members to silence honest officers and to blackmail Railway
officers to participate in the attempted cover up of the corruption complaints
in WP Civil 1280/ 2012.
It has come to the attention of the Petitioner, that in
2013, Arvind Nigam has advised and represented Mahesh Kumar (the Railway Board
member accused of bribing Pawan Bansal through Vijay Singla) in his bail
application in the Delhi High Court.
How then can Arvind Nigam be involved in the hearing of WP
Civil 1280/ 2012?
In any case, as CM 6096/ 2013 was disposed off without a
hearing by Judges Gita Mittal and Deepa Sharma on 22 August 2013, Arvind Nigam
cannot appear in WP Civil 1280/ 2012 any further. The order passed in WP Civil
1280/ 2012 on 22 August 2013 makes it clear that Arvind Nigam was only
appointed as amicus in CM 6096/ 2012 and not in the writ petition. This order
records Arvind Nigam’s appearance as follows:
“Mr.Arvind K. Nigam, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Bhuvanesh
Sehgal, Adv. And Mr.Manish, Adv. in IA No.6096/2013”.
When WP Civil 1280/ 2012 was listed before Judges P K Bhasin
and Siddhartha Mridul, the order dated 9 October 2013 wrongly recorded Arvind
Nigam’s appearance as amicus in WP Civil 1280/ 2012. On 11 October 2013, it was
clarified by both the Petitioner and by Arvind Nigam to Judges P K Bhasin and
Siddhartha Mridul that Arvind Nigam had not been appointed as amicus in the
writ petition. Therefore Judges P K Bhasin and Siddhartha Mridul did not record
the appearance of Arvind Nigam in the WP Civil 1280/ 2012 in their orders dated
8, 10 and 24 January 2014.
The order dated 28 January 2014 passed by Judges Kailash
Gambhir and Sunita Gupta in WP Civil 1280/ 2012 also did not record the
appearance of Arvind Nigam.
The order passed by Judges Sudershan Kumar Misra and Suresh
Kait on the next hearing of WP Civil 1280/ 2012 on 30 January 2014 also did not
record the appearance of Arvind Nigam even though he was present in Court for
Criminal Contempt Case 3/ 2012.
On 11 February 2014, the Special Bench of Judges Sudershan
Kumar Misra and Suresh Kait did not convene. Yet there is an order signed by
this Bench for this date which records the appearance of Arvind Nigam as amicus
in WP Civil 1280/ 2014. This order has not been uploaded on the website of the
Delhi High court. The petitioner inspected the court file of WP Civil 1280/
2012 on 13 February 2014 and was shocked to read that there was an order dated
11 February 2014 signed by both Judges Sudershan Kumar Misra and Suresh Kait in
WP Civil 1280/ 2012 when the Division Bench did not even convene and that this
order again attempts to involve Arvind Nigam in this writ petition by wrongly
recording his appearance as amicus in WP Civil 1280/ 2012 on 11 February 2014.
I brought this mistake to the notice of the court master and other court staff
of Judge Sudershan Kumar Misra on 13, 14, and 15 February 2014 and requested
that the wrong order be corrected. Judge Sudershan Kumar Misra himself did not
hold Court either on 13 or 14 February 2014.
I also contacted Arvind Nigam and sent him the following
text message on 15 February 2014.
“------
SMS ------
To:
+919818776375
Sent:
Feb 15, 2014 15:03
Subject:
Arvind Nigam,
Arvind Nigam, Why does the 11 Feb order in my writ against
GE show your appearance as amicus. You are not amicus in the matter. Did you
mislead the court? I want this error corrrected. Seema Sapra”
I have not received a response from Arvind Nigam to this
message.
Till 15 February 2014, the patent error in the order dated
11 February 2014 recording Arvind Nigam’s appearance as amicus in WP Civil
1280/ 2012 had still not been corrected.
There appears to be a clear conspiracy in these repeated
attempts to somehow drag Arvind Nigam into WP Civil 1280/ 2012 and the intent
appears to be to use him to sabotage the hearing of this writ petition, to
facilitate the cover up of the corruption complaints against General Electric
and to facilitate the elimination of the Petitioner.
Seema Sapra
No comments:
Post a Comment