From: Seema Sapra <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: Tue, May 2, 2017 at 8:17 PM
Subject: Appearance by General Electric Company whistleblower Seema Sapra yesterday before the Supreme Court of India - re SEC Complaint TCR1439646785831
To: pmosb <email@example.com>, Amit Shah <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Sanjay Jain <email@example.com>, "firstname.lastname@example.org" <email@example.com>, "firstname.lastname@example.org" <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, "firstname.lastname@example.org" <email@example.com>, "firstname.lastname@example.org" <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org, "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com, "firstname.lastname@example.org" <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, "firstname.lastname@example.org" <email@example.com>, "firstname.lastname@example.org" <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, "firstname.lastname@example.org" <email@example.com>, "firstname.lastname@example.org" <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, "firstname.lastname@example.org" <email@example.com>, "firstname.lastname@example.org" <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, "firstname.lastname@example.org" <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, "firstname.lastname@example.org" <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org, "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com, "firstname.lastname@example.org" <email@example.com>, "firstname.lastname@example.org" <email@example.com>, "firstname.lastname@example.org" <email@example.com>, "firstname.lastname@example.org" <email@example.com>, "firstname.lastname@example.org" <email@example.com>, "firstname.lastname@example.org" <email@example.com>, "firstname.lastname@example.org" <email@example.com>, "firstname.lastname@example.org" <email@example.com>, "firstname.lastname@example.org" <email@example.com>, rajshekhar rao <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, _EDA-Vertretung-New-Delhi <email@example.com>, _EDA-VISA New-Delhi <firstname.lastname@example.org>, _EDA-Etat Civil New Delhi <email@example.com>, "firstname.lastname@example.org" <email@example.com>, "firstname.lastname@example.org" <email@example.com>, indconru indconru <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "LegalisationEnquiries@fco.gov.uk" <LegalisationEnquiries@fco.gov.uk>, "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "InfoDesk@ohchr.org" <InfoDesk@ohchr.org>, "Press-Info@ohchr.org" <Press-Info@ohchr.org>, "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "VA@ndh.rep.admin.ch" <VA@ndh.rep.admin.ch>, "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "Dimitrief, Alexander (GE, Corporate)" <email@example.com>, "firstname.lastname@example.org" <email@example.com>, "firstname.lastname@example.org" <email@example.com>, "firstname.lastname@example.org" <email@example.com>, "firstname.lastname@example.org" <email@example.com>, "firstname.lastname@example.org" <email@example.com>, "firstname.lastname@example.org" <CHAIRMANOFFICE@sec.gov>, "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "NDwebmail@state.gov" <NDwebmail@state.gov>, "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "Loretta_A._Preska@nysd.uscourts.gov" <Loretta_A._Preska@nysd.uscourts.gov>, "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Directors@corporate.ge.com, Siemens Ombudsman COM <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, CATshareservices@cat.com, BusinessPractices@cat.com, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, Jean-David.email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, Jonah Spector <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, "Warin, F. Joseph" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "Chesley, John" <JChesley@gibsondunn.com>, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, "Brown, Connally B. (MM) (FBI)" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, Amit Sharma <email@example.com>, Rajesh Mishra <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com, deepak verma <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com, "P.H. Parekh" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, abhay kumar verma <email@example.com>, Manan Mishra <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, Nilesh Kumar <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, raj mohan singh tanwar <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Satish Abarao Deshmukh <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, CP@ohchr.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com, Ranjit Kumar <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com, Neeraj Kaul <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, kk manan <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, Delhi Medical Council <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, "firstname.lastname@example.org" <email@example.com>, "firstname.lastname@example.org" <email@example.com>, Mukul Rohatgi <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com, suresh prabhu <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, Kent Walker <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Eric Schmidt <email@example.com>, David Drummond <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Patrick Pichette <email@example.com>, Jonathan Rosenberg <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Daniel Alegre <email@example.com>, John Fitzpatrick <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, Alex Dimitrief <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, Kathleen Clark <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, Maninder Singh <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Harsh Sharma BCD <email@example.com>, kkmanan <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Avtar Singh Malhotra <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, Deepak Kumar <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "Emergency Medicine, AIIMS" <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org, anupam ranjan <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, Rajesh sagar <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "Dr. Manju Mehta" <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org, Nand Kumar <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org, S K Sharma <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org, Prakash Singh <email@example.com>, ragesh rnair <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, Ramakrishnan S <email@example.com>, Saurabh Kumar Gupta <firstname.lastname@example.org>, sunil verma <email@example.com>, Neeraj Parakh <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Rajiv Narang <email@example.com>, aiims aiims <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, G Karthikeyan <email@example.com>, Gautam Sharma <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Sandeep Singh <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, Rajnish Juneja <email@example.com>, Mahesh Misra <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, Dr G C Khilnani <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com, Karan Madan <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, "firstname.lastname@example.org" <email@example.com>, "firstname.lastname@example.org" <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org, "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, SHO Gurgaon Hardeep Singh Hooda DLF sector 29 GGN <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, "SHO Sector 5, Old Gurgaon Police Department, Haryana" <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, Embassy of Portugal in New Delhi <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com, "firstname.lastname@example.org" <email@example.com>, "firstname.lastname@example.org" <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, Gourab Banerji <email@example.com>, "firstname.lastname@example.org" <email@example.com>, EthicsAndCompliance@starbucks.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, World YWCA <email@example.com>, Suhel.Daud@ic.fbi.gov, Suhel D <firstname.lastname@example.org>, rajiv luthra <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, Scba India <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org, Gaurav Bhatia <email@example.com>, Rupinder Suri <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, Samrat Nigam <email@example.com>, Amarjit Singh Chandhiok <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, Rebecca John <email@example.com>, Saurabh Kirpal <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, Sid Luthra <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Cc: Seema Sapra <email@example.com>, Seema Sapra <firstname.lastname@example.org>
I have filed the criminal appeal (reproduced below) in the Supreme Court of India under Diary No. 10342.
General Electric Company whistleblower
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2016
IN THE MATTER OF
COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION … Respondent
Hon'ble The Chief Justice of India and His Companion Judges of the Supreme Court of India., the appeal/ petition of the Appellant/ Petitioner most respectfully showeth :-
1. This is a Criminal Appeal under Section 19(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 from the judgment dated 17.12.2015 of the Delhi High Court in CONT. CAS(CRL) 2/2014, hereinafter referred to as the impugned judgment. This appeal is filed with a delay of 32 days beyond the 60-day period prescribed in Section 19. An application for condonation of delay is also filed. The impugned judgment dated 17.12.2015 of the Delhi High Court in CONT. CAS(CRL) 2/2014 (Court on its own motion vs. Seema Sapra) is annexed hereto as Annexure A-1.
2. By the impugned judgment, the appellant has been found guilty of contempt of court. The impugned judgment has imposed a punishment of imprisonment for a period of one month; and in addition a fine of Rs. 2,000/- to be deposited within a period of three months with the Registrar General of the Delhi High Court failing which the appellant will undergo a further term of imprisonment of one month. The impugned judgment has further directed that the appellant, an advocate enrolled with the Bar Council of Delhi will not be allowed to argue, whether as an Advocate or in person, except in her defence, before any Bench of this High Court or any court or tribunal subordinate to this High Court for a period of two years. The impugned judgment has directed that a copy of that judgment be sent to the Registry of the Delhi High Court and to all subordinate courts and tribunals, and further that a copy of that judgment be also sent to the Delhi Bar Council for information. The impugned judgment itself directed that the operative part pertaining to imposition of punishment would not operate for a period of three months from 17.12.2015 to enable the "contemnor" to take appropriate steps to exercise her legal remedy.
3. This appeal being filed in person by the appellant begins with a prayer, because the only reason that the appellant-whistleblower-advoca
"Sada durga dahine, sanmukh rahe ganesh, panch dev raksha kare, brahma vishnu mahesh."
4. At the outset, the appellant/petitioner states that being a woman lawyer, she has the greatest respect for both the judiciary and the rule of law. As a whistleblower who complied with her ethical duty of upholding the rule of law even under grave life threats, it is evident that the appellant takes the law seriously. The appellant holds the judiciary and the judicial function in great respect. She has never sought and will never seek a confrontation with the judiciary. She has never intended to scandalize or to disrespect the judiciary or the Court or to bring it into disrepute.
5. This appeal challenging a judgment of the Delhi High Court in a criminal contempt proceeding has its genesis in a whistleblower right to life petition that the appellant had filed in the Delhi High Court i.e., Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/ 2012 in the matter of Seema Sapra v. General Electric Company and Others (hereinafter referred to as the "Writ Petition").
6. This appeal will establish that the appellant is a whistleblower, a lawyer who worked in 2010 for General Electric Company in India and who was compelled to make whistleblower complaints when her legal services were sought to be used for corrupt practices including fraud, forgery, bribery, illegal lobbying etc. in connection with Indian Railway tenders for rail locomotive factories at Marhowra and Madhepura. This appeal will establish that attempts were made to eliminate the appellant with State authorities including the Police and intelligence agencies being used to target and silence the appellant. The appellant managed to file an Article 226 petition in the Delhi High Court. This appeal will establish that this petition languished unheard in the Delhi High Court for 3 years while the appellant continued to be destroyed, physically harmed, attacked, intimidated, harassed, targeted and threatened. This Appeal will establish that a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court wrongfully dismissed that Petitionby a judgment dated 2.3.2015 without hearing the appellant who was the petitioner in that matter in complete violation of the principles of natural justice. This appeal will establish that the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court wrongfully dismissed the whistleblower corruption case against General Electric Company in complete disregard of the material on record before it, in complete disregard of the law and in complete disregard of the appellant's right to life. This appeal will establish that this unsustainable and wrongful dismissal of the writ petition resulted in a cover-up of very serious complaints and evidence of corruption by and favouring General Electric Company facilitated by then Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh and his close aide and then Deputy Chairman of the Planning Commission Mr Montek Singh Ahluwalia. This appeal will establish that the wrongful dismissal of the Writ Petition and the denial of a hearing to the appellant in that matter resulted in gross injustice, and a cover up of attempts to murder the appellant, a cover-up of the fact that the appellant was poisoned, a cover-up of State and police participation in the conspiracy and attempts to silence and eliminate the appellant, a cover-up of the severe targeting that the appellant was subjected to and a cover up of the gross violation of the appellant's right to life. This appeal will establish that the wrongful dismissal of the Writ Petition has resulted in the appellant continuing to be poisoned for the last one year since 2.3.2015, and continuing to be targeted, harassed, intimidated, threatened, defamed and destroyed. This appeal will further establish that a mind-boggling fraud was perpetrated on the Delhi High Court in Writ Petition Civil 1280/ 2012 where an unauthorized person effectively impersonated as the authorised signatory of General Electric Company and two of its subsidiaries and filed patently false and unauthorized affidavits and that the wrongful dismissal of the Writ Petition results in a cover up of this massive fraud on the Court. This appeal will further establish that affidavits filed for the Railway Ministry in the Writ Petition contained multiple instances of perjury and included documents fabricated expressly for the purpose of covering up the corruption by General Electric. Further this appeal will establish that affidavits and status reports filed for the Delhi Police in the Writ petition also contained multiple instances of perjury, and that these affidavits and status reports themselves establish that the police was targeting the appellantand besides actively facilitating her being physically harmed, the police covered up her complaints and fabricated and procured false complaints against her.
7. The same Division Bench of the Delhi High Court which dismissed the Writ Petition ( Justice Valmiki Mehta and Justice P.S. Teji) then proceeded to hear two criminal contempt proceedings which were instituted against the appellant while the Writ Petition was pending and which arose out of facts connected to the hearing of the Writ Petition. This same Division Bench has now after rejecting the appellant's request for recusal, ruled against the appellant in one of the contempt cases and again without permitting the appellant to file a written reply, without hearing the appellant or affording her an opportunity to defend herself has issued the impugned judgment holding the appellant guilty of contempt of court and imposing an extraordinarily harsh punishment on the appellant which includes sentencing her to imprisonment.
8. The appellant states that she has managed to survive for 6 years fighting alone but itis certain that she will be drugged and poisoned in prison and will come out from prison both mentally and physically damaged and incapacitated. It is also certain that this incarceration will be used to falsify medical records for the appellant and to cover up the fact that she has been chronically poisoned, and that this poisoning has caused organ damage and to cover up the fact that the appellant's left ankle was deliberately dislocated in June 2014. The impugned judgment will result in facilitation of the elimination of the whistleblower appellant and in silencing her.
9. This appeal will establish that the impugned judgment in the contempt case is wrong in law and on facts, that it has been issued in violation of the principles of natural justice and without hearing the appellant and without providing her even the most limited opportunity to defend herself. This appeal will establish that the impugned contempt judgment misrecords not only the facts but also the appellant's submissions and defence. This appeal will establish that the impugned judgment is contrary to law and to the relevant material before the court.
10. The appellant does not want to comment on the conduct of the specific Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, but this appeal will establish that the judgments of this particular Division Bench both in the Writ Petition and in the contempt case are wrong, contrary to law and to the material on record, and are unsustainable and perverse.
11. The record of Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/2012 is relevant to this appeal but is very voluminous. The appellant will place the record of the writ petition before this Hon'ble Court in electronic format on a DVD.
A copy of the judgment in the Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/2012 is being filed in a separate volume.
12. A copy of the appellant's cv showing her educational and professional achievements as in 2010 when the appellant ended up as a whistleblower is reproduced below.
Legal Counsel for GE Transportation India in Delhi (2010 – 5 months until September 2010)
Consultant to Microsoft India on Innovation & IP law and policy - 2009-2010 in Delhi (approx. six months)
Visiting fellow at Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations, New Delhi, 2008-2009, working on trade policy, climate change and energy policy
Director – Trade & Policy, at Delhi office of law firm Amarchand Mangaldas, Suresh A. Shroff & Co, 2008. Worked on trade policy, competition policy, nuclear policy, investment policy, India's comprehensive economic cooperation agreements, anti-dumping.
Visiting Fellow at the Institute of International Economic Law, Georgetown University Law Center in Washington DC 2004-2005, worked on trade and investment policy and law
Assisted GE India General Counsel, Ruby Anand as off-counsel from approx. 1999 till 2001
Associate in the office of Soli J Sorabjee, Attorney General of India, 2000-2001
Empanelled lawyer for the Government of India in the Supreme Court of India and the High Court of Delhi in 1999-2001
Lawyer with the litigation law firm of M/s Karanjawala & Co. in New Delhi, 1995-2000
Extensive litigation experience in the Supreme Court of India, the High Court of Delhi, and various special tribunals.
Bilateral and regional trade agreements
Investment policy, bilateral investment treaties
Climate change and sustainable development
Energy efficiency and climate change
Innovation policy, technology transfer and intellectual property
LLM tutor for the World Trade Law joint course at University College London and the School of Oriental and African Studies (2007)
Contract law tutor for 1st Year LLB at the University of Westminster, School of Law as a part-time visiting lecturer (2007)
Guest lectures for the LLM program at Kings College London and University of Leicester law school
PhD studies at Kings College London 2003-2007 (not completed)
Title of proposed thesis: The Place, Treatment, and Meaning of Development in the WTO
Research supervisor - Professor Piet Eeckhout, Kings College London
3 year research fellowship by the Centre for European Law, Kings College London
LLM in Public International Law with distinction at the University of Leicester, 2001-2003
British Chevening scholar
LLB from the Campus Law Centre, University of Delhi - Ist Division. 1995
Diploma in Environmental Law from the Centre for Environmental Law, WWF-India -1994-1995
B. A. Honors in English Literature from St Stephen's College, University of Delhi - 1992
Editorial Assistant for the Journal of International Economic law, 2004-2005 based at Georgetown University Law Center, Washington DC
Internship with the United Nations Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda in Arusha, Tanzania 2002-2003
Article titled "Sustainable Development and the role of the Indian Supreme Court", ASERI (Milan) publication, 2009
Article titled "An Agenda for Teaching International Economic Law in Indian Law Schools", Indian Journal of International Economic Law, 2009, National Law School, Bangalore
Article titled "The WTO System of Trade Governance: The Stale NGO Debate and the Appropriate Role for Non-state actors" in Oregon Review of International Law Journal, volume 11 issue 1, 2009
Chapter titled 'Domestic Politics and the Search for a New Social Purpose of Governance for the WTO: A Proposal for a Declaration on Domestic Consultation' in Debra Steger (ed.) Redesigning the World Trade Organization for the Twenty-first Century, Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 2009
Chapter titled 'New Agendas for International Economic Law Teaching in India: Including an Agenda in Support of Reform' in Colin B. Picker, Isabella Bunn & Douglas Arner, (ed.) INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC LAW - THE STATE & FUTURE OF THE DISCIPLINE, Hart Publishing, 2008
'Ideas of Embedded Liberalism and Current and Future Challenges for the WTO', in Ortino and Ripinsky, WTO Law and Process, British Institute of International and Comparative Law, 2007. pg 330 - 352
Development: Its Place, Treatment, and Meaning at the WTO / Seema Sapra (2006). In: Proceedings of the American Society of International Law Annual Meeting, Vol. 100, pg 223-226
Papers / Conferences
Presented paper titled "An Indian perspective on sustainable development: the role of the Indian higher judiciary" at panel discussion at ASERI, Milan in December 2008
Panelist for EDGE network panel on WTO Institutional Reform at the Inaugural conference of the Society for International Economic Law, Geneva, 15-17 July 2008
Presented paper titled "Developing Countries and Outreach to Non-State Actors in the WTO", at an EDGE network project workshop on WTO institutional reform in March 2008 at Centre for International Governance Innovation, Waterloo, Ontario.
Presented paper titled "The Case for International Economic Law Teaching in India: Possible Agendas Including an Agenda in Support of Reform" at the Annual Conference of the International Economic Law Interest Group of the American Society of International Law at Bretton Woods in November, 2006
Panelist at the sixth Annual WTO Conference hosted by the British Institute of International and Comparative Law in May 2006, on the topic "Doha Development Round: Current and Future Challenges"
Presented paper titled "Development - Its Place, Treatment and Meaning at the WTO" at the 100th Annual Meeting of the American Society of International Law, Washington D.C. 2006.
Presented paper titled "Special and Differential Treatment in international trade law" at the Institute of International Economic Law (IIEL), Georgetown University Law Center in September 2005
Presented paper titled "Constructivism and Special and Differential Treatment in international trade law" at the 2005 conference of the International Law Association, British Branch held at Edinburgh in May 2005
Bar Council of Delhi
Society of International Economic Law
Asian WTO Research Network
13. Questions relevant for this appeal
Is the Appellant a whistleblower? What are the complaints of corruption and what is the evidence?
Has the Appellant been targeted?
Has the Appellant been physically harmed?
Is there a continuing threat to the life of the Appellant?
Has the Indian State, including the Police participated in covering up the corruption complaints and in targeting the appellant-whistleblower?
What were the events of 6.5.2014, the date on which the appellant is stated to have committed contempt of court?
Did the Appellant have an opportunity to defend herself in the Contempt case? Was she given a fair hearing in accordance with law before she was found guilty of contempt?
What is the appellant's response to the contempt notice against her?
Is the punishment accorded by the impugned judgment fair and reasonable?
14. Before proceeding further, the appellant reproduces below an email sent by her on 6.5.2014 setting out what happened on that date. A copy of this email was filed by the appellant on the Court record of Writ Petition Civil. No. 1280/2012 and of CONT. CAS(CRL) 2/2014 in the Delhi High Court.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, May 6, 2014 at 8:10 PM
Subject: Ref: Corruption Complaint against Delhi High Court Judges J. Ravindra Bhat; J. S Muralidhar and J. Vibhu Bakhru in connection with Whistle-blower corruption and right to life Writ Petition pending in the Delhi High Court since February 2012 – Writ Petition (Civil) 1280/ 2012
To: email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Bhim Sain Bassi <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
6 May 2014
(i) Chief Justice of India, Supreme Court of India
(ii) Chief Justice Rohini, 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) Chairman and members of Bar Council of India
(vii) Delhi Police Commissioner
(viii) Registrar Vigilance, Delhi High Court
Ref: Corruption Complaint against Delhi High Court Judges J. Ravindra
Bhat; J. S Muralidhar and J. Vibhu Bakhru in connection with
Whistle-blower corruption and right to life Writ Petition pending in
the Delhi High Court since February 2012 – Writ Petition (Civil) 1280/
Today WP Civil 1280 of 2012 was listed before a special Division Bench
of Delhi High Court Judge S Muralidhar and Judge Vibhu Bakhru.
Yesterday I had both verbally and in writing brought it to the
attention of Chief Justice G Rohini of the Delhi High Court that
neither of these two judges could hear this matter.
I had stated the following in my communication dated 5 May 2014
addressed interalia to the Chief Justice of India and to the Chief
Justice of the Delhi High Court:
"To the Chief Justice of India, the Chief Justice of the Delhi High
Court, and the Registrar General of the Delhi High Court,
It has come to my notice that WP Civil 1280 of 2012 has been marked to
a Division Bench of Justice S Muralidhar and Justice Vibhu Bakhru.
This matter is due to be listed before court tomorrow, i.e., on 6 May 2014.
Neither of them can hear this matter or the connected matters, OMP 647
of 2012 or Criminal Contempt Case 3 of 2012.
I am yet again astonished that WP Civil 1280 of 2012 has been marked
to Delhi High Court judges S. Muralidhar and Vibhu Bakhru, both of
whom cannot hear this matter.
I have complained against Justice Muralidhar of judicial corruption
and have stated that he had been approached by General Electric and
had passed orders in 2012 in OMP 647 of 2012 knowing that those orders
would be used to cover up my corruption complaints against General
Electric and would interfere with the administration of justice in WP
Civil 1280 of 2012. I had in 2012 sought his recusal from OMP 647 of
2012 on this basis. In retaliation, Judge Muralidhar had illegally and
without jurisdiction purported to issue notice of criminal contempt to
me and had purported to initiate criminal contempt proceedings against
me. These orders of Judge Muralidhar were passed without jurisdiction,
in violation of natural justice and it is my case that these orders
have no legal effect.
OMP 647 of 2012 had been transfered to another Bench from Judge
Muralidhar's Bench, hence no recusal order was passed.
Judge Muralidhar cannot hear any of my matters.
Judge Vibhu Bakhru cannot hear WP Civil 1280 of 2012 or the two
connected matters because (1) I had discussed WP 1280 of 2012 with him
before his elevation as a judge; (2) He has frequently represented
General Electric Companies as counsel; (3) He has been accused by me
in documents on the court record in WP Civil 1280 of 2012 of
participating in attempts to cover up my corruption complaints against
General Electric and in victimising me; (4) I have complained that
Vibhu Bakhru ought not to have been appointed a Delhi High Court judge
because of pending perjury proceedings against him in Deepak Khosla's
matters and that he was party to the victimisation of Deepak Khosla by
Judge Suresh Kait; and (5) that as a judge Vibhu Bakhru participated
in targeting S K Srivastava to silence him in connection with money
laundering and corruption complaints against NDTV, P Chidambaram, andGeneral Electric.
I have also complained that Judge Muralidhar was also party to the
targeting of S K Srivastava to silence him in connection with money
laundering and corruption complaints against NDTV, P Chidambaram, and General Electric.
I have informed the Registrar General of the Delhi High Court of the
above facts, and have requested that Chief Justice G Rohini be
requested that WP Civil 1280 of 2012 be not listed before Judge S
Muralidhar or Judge Vibhu Bakhru on 6 May 2014.
My daily complaints emailed to the Supreme Court of India and the
Delhi High Court establish the urgency in WP 1280 of 2012, as does
order dated 22 April 2012 passed in that matter.
Despite this, the matter was not transferred to a different Bench and
was listed in the cause list today before Judge S Muralidhar and Judge
Today, I went to Court 5 where J. Bhat and J. Bakhru were sitting in
their regular Division Bench. The Bench did not convene till 10:45 so
I went to Court 29 where J Muralidhar was sitting singly to check if
the Special DB was convening first. Since I found J Muralidhar already
holding court singly in Court 29, I returned to Court 5. The DB of
Court 5 had still not assembled. Finally when the DB convened in Court
5, I mentioned this matter before Judge Vibhu Bakhru at around 10: 50
am with the permission of the Division Bench he was sitting in with
Judge Ravindra Bhat. I informed Judge Vibhu Bakhru that neither he nor
Judge Muralidhar could hear WP Civil 1280 of 2012 and that I had
informed Chief Justice Rohini about this. I was told by J. Vibhu
Bakhru that I should make this request before his Division Bench with
J. Muralidhar. I then enquired at what time the Special Division Bench
of J. Muralidhar and J. Vibhu Bakhru would convene. J. Bakhru mumbled something saying that it was a Friday and he could not say when theBench would convene. I corrected him pointing out that it was a
Tuesday. Judge Ravindra Bhat intervened and stated that the Special
Division Bench would convene only after the regular Division Bench
comprised of him and J. Bakhru had finished hearing the matters listed
I kept watching the movement of matters in Court 5 where Judge
Ravindra Bhat and Judge Bakhru were hearing their cases. I went inside
this court room once at around 12 pm. I again went to this court room
at around 1 pm and stayed until the DB of J. Bhat and J. Bakhru rose
for lunch. They were proceeding with their board slowly and had at
least 20 matters left when they rose for lunch. I had considered
asking J. Bakhru again at 1:15 what time the special DB would convene,
but J. Bhat and J. Bakhru suddenly rose and left the court room before
I could do so. I therefore decided to return to Court 5 after lunch to
ask when the Special DB would convene. The clear impression given to
me as well as to other lawyers and litigants assembled in court 5 was
that after lunch the regular DB of J. Bhat and J. Bakhru would convene
in Court 5.
At around 1 pm, I sent the following complaint to the Police, the
Registrar General of the Delhi High Court and copied it to several
lawyers. I received no response to this complaint.
Sent: 06 May 2014 13:00
To: Sapra; Seema Sapra; Bhim Sain Bassi; email@example.com
Cc: Rajiv Khosla; Jatan Singh; Abhijat Bal; Ashutosh lohia; Vikram
Singh Panwar; Anoop Bagai; firstname.lastname@example.org; Aruna Tiku; SunilMittal; Meghna Mittal Sankhla; email@example.com; Amit Sharmawith khosla; Laxmi Chauhan; Pankaj Kapoor; firstname.lastname@example.org
Subject: General Electric whistleblower being poisoned in the Delhi
High Court - Seema Sapra - Writ Petition (Civil) 1280/ 2012 in the
Delhi High Court
Sometime about 45-60 minutes ago, I was exposed to some poisonous
chemical in gas/ vapor/ aerosol form on Delhi High Court premises by
someone who was instructed to come close to me and release this
chemical near me.
As a result, I have sudden nausea, some dizziness and light-headedness.
CCTV recordings from Delhi High Court premises must be preserved and
an FIR registered for poisoning and attempted murder.
My corruption whistle-blower writ petition is listed today in Court.
Sent on my BlackBerry® from Vodafone"
Feeling nauseous, I decided to eat a sandwich in the Delhi High Court
I went back to Court No. 5 around 2.20 pm and was shocked to be told
by an intern working with J. Bakhru that the Special DB of J
Muralidhar and J. Bakhru had already sat and heard WP Civil 1280 of
2012. There is a considerable distance to walk between Court 5 and
Court 29. I repeatedly asked Court staff in court where J. Bakhru was
at that time. I was told by one person that he was back in his
chamber. Subsequently, when I tried to confirm this, Court staff in
court 5 refused to answer. They also refused to tell me what had
happened in WP Civil 1280 of 2012 and what the next date of hearing
was. Several lawyers and litigants present in court were witnesses to
my unanswered queries.
Finally J. Bhat and J. Bakhru entered Court 5. J. Bakhru was laughing.
I asked him when the Special DB would convene and he replied that it
had already sat and transferred my matter. I was told that the next
date of hearing was 23 May 2014.
I strongly protested and told J Bakhru that the matter had been
deliberately and deceptively heard in my absence and behind my back. I
told him that the regular Bench in Court 5 had clearly indicated to me
that the Special DB would convene only after the regular bench
completed its board. I reminded them that I was present in court 5 at
1:15 and no contrary information was given to me. I stated that all
three Judges (J. Bhat, J. Muralidhar and J. Bakhru) were aware of the
grave urgency in my matter. I told them I was making daily complaints
of being poisoned. I told them the order dated 22 April 2014 recorded
the fact that I was making complaints of poisoning which were not
being addressed and were being ignored. I stated that I was entitled
to be heard and the matter could not be heard in my absence as had
been done. I requested J. Bakhru that he send a message to J.
Muralidhar and that the Spl DB reconvene so that I could get a shorter
date. Both J. Bhat and J. Bakhru displayed a complete indifference to
what I had submitted. I was told that I should file an application for
date change. I was prevented from making my submissions by a threat
that security would be summoned. I then asked J. Bhat and J. Bakhru if
they did not care that I was being poisoned and if they wanted to find
me dead before WP Civil 1280 of 2012 could be heard. I was then
constrained to ask aloud if J. Bakhru was so corrupt that he did not
care that I was being poisoned.
Let me point out the facts. WP Civil 1280 of 2012 was listed before J.
SK Misra and J. S P Garg through most of March and April and it was
heard twice weekly for about 3 weeks after which S K Misra for
undisclosed reasons suddenly recused on 24 April 2014 after recording
in the order dated 22 April 2014 my statement that I was being
poisoned. After that this matter went to another Spl DB on 29 April
2014 and I asked J. Shali to recuse. The order dictated in court was
that J. Shali had recused, however the signed order stated "list
before another Bench". I asked J. Shali and J. G P Mittal for a short
date and first they insisted on posting this matter on 9 May but upon
my objection, it was posted on 6 May.
On 6 May, the matter went before another disqualified Bench.
J. Bhat and J. Bakhru deliberately deceived me that the Spl DB would
convene only after the regular DB of Court 5 had finished its board.
Then deceptively and corruptly, the Spl DB was suddenly convened
without notice just after lunch. This was a deliberate and planned
ploy to hear the matter in my absence and to adjourn it to a date when
it would not be heard. Adjourning the matter to 23 May 2014, a Friday
and a date very close to the month long summer vacations meant that
this matter would not be heard all through May and June 2014.
There is another element to this corruption. General Electric lawyers
have repeatedly tried to get this matter listed on a Friday when it
will not be heard due to paucity of time on Fridays. Several judges
who were sabotaging the hearing of this matter have repeatedly posted
this matter on a Friday. Finally in March 2014, on a date when Justice
Nandrajog was in charge as Acting Chief Justice, he passed an order on
the administrative side posting the matter on a Tuesday from a Friday
and telling me that he was doing this because this matter would not
get heard on a Friday.
J. Shali and J. G P Mittal had on 29 April 2014 again attempted to
post this matter on a Friday, but on my pointing out J. Nandrajog's
intervention, they had placed this matter on 6 May 2014.
The question I ask is: Both J. Muralidhar and J. Vibhu Bakhru are
aware of the urgency in the matter as recorded in the order dated 22
April 2014. Yet today, both conspired along with J. Ravindra Bhat to
deceive me and to hear this matter in my absence when they knew that I
was in court waiting for this matter. They then recused themselves as
they were required to do (having no other option), yet they then
proceeded to adjourn the matter for 17 days and posted it on a Friday
23 May 2014. The last working day before the June summer holidays is
31 May 2014. Both these judges were fully aware that this matter
would not be heard on 23 May 2014 and that it would end up in July
2014. Further these judges also deliberately prevented this matter
from getting heard for the next three weeks.
Why would a Bench recusing itself give such a long date in the matter?
It is clear that Judges Muralidhar and Bakhru corruptly conspired
today with GE lawyers to prevent my matter from being heard in May
2014 and they did this by corruptly and deceptively holding a hearing
in my absence and behind my back. I was actively misled by J. Bhat and
J. Bakhru as part of this conspiracy about the timing for the hearing
of my matter.
I have earlier had to ask J. Ravindra Bhat to recuse from WP Civil
1280 of 2012 because of reasons which are on the court record. A close
family friend of J. Bhat was targeting me in 2011 and was invoking J.
Bhat's name and position to deceive me.
After I protested to J. Bakhru in Court 5 at 2:45 pm and asked if he
was so corrupt that he did not care that I was being poisoned, I was
told by J. Bhat on the prompting of J. Bakhru that the court would
issue notice to me for criminal contempt. I was told to return at 4
I then went to court 29 and asked J. Muralidhar that a short date be
given in WP 1280 of 2012. At my request, he then modified the date
from 23 May 2014 to 8 May 2014.
I went back to Court 5 at 4 pm. At around 4:30 pm, J. Bhat and J.
Bakhru proceeded to pass an order purporting to charge me with
criminal contempt of court for calling J. Bakhru "corrupt". I refused
to accept any notice and requested that if they were issuing me any
notice then the matter be transferred to a different Bench. An order
has been accordingly passed.
Today's events further buttress my complaints that Delhi High Court
judges are participating in targeting me and are facilitating my
poisoning and the attempted cover up of my corruption complaints
against General Electric.
Justice Ravindra Bhat, Justice Muralidhar and Justice Vibhu Bakhru
today celibately conspired to deceive me so that WP Civil 1280 of 2012
was taken up for hearing in my absence and was adjourned to 23 May
2014 to prevent this matter from being heard all through May and June
2014. This was done to facilitate my ongoing poisoning and destruction
with intent to sabotage WP Civil 1280 of 2012 and to cover up my
corruption complaints against General Electric.
WP Civil 1280 of 2012 has now been listed for 8 May 2014 only after my
strong objection to what took place today.
I am not intimidated by the further attempt by these three Delhi High
Court judges acting at the behest of agents and lawyers for General
Electric to target me by initiation of fresh contempt proceedings
against me. I stand by my charge of corruption against J. Vibhu
Bakhru. He has actively targeted me before he became a judge. On 17
February 2012, there was a conspiracy and attempt to murder me before
this petition was filed. Vibhu Bakhru played a role in that
conspiracy. Vibhu Bakhru has been accused of perjury in pending
judicial proceedings and ought never to have been appointed as a
judge. J. Vibhu Bakhru has close ties to General Electric and its
lawyers. J, Vibhu Bakhru clearly conspired with General Electric's
lawyers today to prevent WP Civil 1280 of 2012 from being heard and to
facilitate my poisoning and eventual elimination.
I ask again, how corrupt is J. Vibhu Bakhru that he does not care that
his corruption will facilitate my poisoning?
I will vehemently defend myself in any contempt proceedings that are
initiated to target me further by J. Ravindra Bhat and J. Vibhu Bakhru
at the instance of General Electric Company and its agents.
I reproduce at the end of this email, the order passed on 22 April
2014 in WP Civil 1280 of 2014.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SEEMA SAPRA ....Petitioner
Through In person.
GENERAL ELECTRIC CO AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Mr. N. Ganpathy and Mr. Manpreet Lamba, Advocates for R 1, 6 and 7.
Mr. Rakesh Sharma and Ms. Renu Malik, Advocates for Mr. P.K. Sharma,Standing Counsel, CBI.
Mr. Om Prakash with Honey Kolawar, Advocates for R-4
Ms. Sapna Chauhan, Adv. for R5/UOI
Mr.Vikram Dhokalia, Advocate for R 16.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P. GARG
O R D E R
Today the petitioner, who appears in person, states as follows:
"I have claimed a grave threat to my life from the State including
the police. I have informed this Court in writing that since January
2014. I have been sleeping in my car outside Gate No.8 of the Delhi
High Court. I have also been informing this Court in writing and
through affidavits filed in this matter that the police has failed to
comply with the protection orders issued by this Court; and that I am
not only being harassed and targeted with police complicity during the
night but I am also being poisoned by deliberate exposure to toxic
chemical, including nerve agents and organophosphates, during the
night. I fear for my life. I have been waking up breathless during the
night on account of such poisoning, and I apprehend that if this
continues, it will result in cessation of breathing and will cause
death; and I further apprehend that the police will then be used to
cover up such murder. I have been making police complaints about these
incidents since January 2014 in writing but the police has failed to
even respond to these complaints. In view of this, I am making an oral
request to this Hon?ble Court that it issue the directions to the
Registrar General of this Court; to the Delhi Police Commissioner; and
to the local SHO; to ensure that the CCTV security camera recordings
maintained both by the Court and by the police in the area where I am
parking my car at night and along the roads leading to that spot; be
preserved, because this will be valuable evidence in support of my
complaints to the police. I have been informed by the Delhi Police
security that such recordings are normally preserved only for a month.
I am, therefore, seeking directions from this Court that these
recordings be preserved for longer than that until my complaints are
addressed and investigated. I am also submitting that such an order
will also result in providing me some measure of protection because
those harming me, including the police, will get the message that the
evidence of what is going on around my car during the night is being
preserved pursuant to the directions of this Court. This is my request
Further, I have also requested the Hon'ble Court to direct the
Registrar General to preserve CCTV footage from the three court
lobbies today because I noticed that a policeman was instructing two
other policemen to target me; and CCTV footage might provide evidence
of contact between the General Electric lawyers and those policemen.
Further, one Sub Inspector Umed Singh from Police Station Nizamuddin,
who is present in Court, was also seen by me speaking with General
Electric lawyers outside the Court."
We have recorded the above verbatim so that there may be no doubt
about the submissions of the petitioner, who also happens to be a
qualified and practicing Advocate registered at the Bar.
This matter has been pending for some time. There is extensive
controversy raised by the petitioner on almost every aspect of the
matter. Apparently, she is also making serious allegations against the
respondents including the Police Authorities to the extent of alleging
a deliberate intent to murder her in a premeditated conspiracy.
Under the circumstances, it is open to the petitioner to file an
appropriate application seeking specific reliefs so that an
appropriate response can also be obtained from the concerned
respondents on every allegation made by the petitioner. As and when
such an application is moved, the same shall be duly considered by
We have now invited the petitioner to continue where she left off on
the previous date of hearing.
We have heard the petitioner from 3:50 PM to 5:31 PM.
Re-notify on 24.04.2014 at 3:30 PM.
SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J
S.P. GARG, J
15. Before addressing the impugned judgment in the contempt matter, it is important to emphasize that the appellant is a whisteblower facing a serious life threat. Not only does she have a dislocated ankle at present, she has also been chronically poisoned since 2010. The petitioner has been subjected to poisonous chemical fumes/ gases and inhalants and this has increased in intensity over the last one year and the last few months and days. The petitioner's lungs have been damaged and are in a worse condition than that of a Bhopal gas survivor. Other internal organs and body systems have also likely suffered damage from the chronic poisoning. The petitioner's hair and nails can be tested to establish such chronic poisoning.
16. The genesis of the matter - The appellant worked as in-house counsel for General Electric Company's business division GE Transportation in India in 2010. She was advising General Electric on its bids for two multi-billion dollar tenders floated by the Railway Ministry to set up diesel and electric locomotive factories and for long-term purchase orders for locomotives. During the course of her work the Appellant discovered multiple instances of corrupt and criminal activities that General Electric executives were engaged in as part of their efforts to secure the tender for the diesel locomotive factory at Marhowra. The Appellant became a threat to these General Electric executives and lawyers and she was drugged. The Appellant raised compliance related concerns during her employment with General Electric as a whistleblower and this resulted in retaliation including the wrongful termination of her contract in complete violation of General Electric's own internal policies. The Appellant continued to pursue her complaints even after her contract was terminated and reported the violations to the relevant authorities both in India and in the United States. The appellant continued to be poisoned and drugged while General Electric in a sham internal investigation covered up the appellant's complaints. All through 2011 and through January and February 2012 the appellant was drugged, poisoned, and isolated. Finally, in February 2012, the appellant managed to file Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/ 2012 in the Delhi High Court.
17. The relief claimed in Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/ 2012
1. Summon the records of Respondent Nos. 2, 4 and 5 on the whistle-blower complaints made by the Petitioner and after examining the records and hearing the Respondents, issue a writ of mandamus to Respondent 4 directing that Respondent 7 be disqualified and Respondent Nos. 1, 6 and 7 be black-listed from the Diesel and Electric Locomotive Tenders (Global RFQ No. 2010/ ME (Proj)/ 4/ Marhoura/RFQ and RFQ No. 2010/ Elect. (Dev0 440/1(1)).
2. Issue writs of mandamus to Respondent Nos. 2, 4 and 5 directing them to respond to and act upon the said whistle-blower complaints in accordance with law.
3. Direct that Respondent No. 2 inquire into the commission of criminal offences (including forgery, bribery and public corruption) arising out of the Petitioner's whistle-blower complaints and direct prosecution of GE employees and government officials and public servants found involved and complicit.
4. Enforce and protect the right to life of the Petitioner and direct that the Petitioner be provided full protection and safety and be immediately relocated to a safe house.
5. Pass such other and further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper.
18. Respondents in Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/ 2012 before Delhi High Court
General Electric Company and two Indian subsidiaries - GE India Industrial Private Limited and GE Global Sourcing India Private Limited
Notice issued on 7 March 2012
Officers of General Electric Company Jeffrey Immelt, John Flannery, Alexander Dimitrief and Brackett Denniston
Notice issued on 19.11.2012 but order issuing notice unclear. Application for clarification of order dismissed without clarification on 26 November 2012
The Central Vigilance Commission
Notice issued on 7 March 2012
The Delhi Police through the Commissioner of Police
Notice issued on 7 March 2012
The Ministry of Railways
Notice issued on 7 March 2012
The Union of India through PMO
notice issued on 7 March 2012
The Central Bureau of Investigations
notice issued on 7 March 2012
Notice issued on 8.11.2012 & again on 21.12.2012
Bombardier Transportation India Limited
Notice issued on 8.11.2012 & again on 21.12.2012
Alstom Projects India Limited
Notice issued on 8.11.2012 & again on 21.12.2012
EMD Locomotive Technologies
Notice issued on 8.11.2012 & again on 21.12.2012
Notice issued on 8.11.2012 & again on 21.12.2012
19. Fraud committed in Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/ 2012 regarding appearance of General Electric Company
Fake Authority Docs issued by Alex Dimitrief & Brad Berenson for General Electric Company. Fraud committed by Alexander Dimitrief & Bradford Berenson in Delhi High Court in Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/ 2012 regarding summons to and appearance by General Electric Company
General Electric Company is a large conglomerate incorporated in the United States. Notice was issued by the Delhi High Court to General Electric Company on 7.3.2012.
Advocate Nanju Ganpathy appeared on 9.5.2012 claiming to represent General Electric Company and continued to appear thereafter. Mr Nanju Ganpathy is a Partner in the law-firm AZB & Partners.
Affidavits were filed on behalf of General Electric Company through one K Radhakrishnan on 3.7.2012 and 3.8.2012. No authority documents establishing K Radhakrishnan as authorized signatory of General Electric Company were produced.
At Appellant's request, order dated 12.10.2012 directed Nanju Ganpathy to produce authority documents to show that K Radhakrishnan was authorized signatory of General Electric Company.
Nanju Ganpathy filed a photocopy of a document self-describing as a Power of Attorney executed by one Alexander Dimitrief on 4.5.2012. This document had a validity of one year.
Appellant discovered that no vakalatnama had been filed so Appellant moved CM 19370/ 2012 (on 6 December 2012).
Electronic case history maintained by the Delhi High Court registry shows a vakalatnama was filed only on 7.12.2012.
Vakalatnama filed on 7.12.2012 did not produce necessary authority documents and was invalid in view of the Supreme Court of India's ruling in Uday Shankar Triyar v. Ram Kalewar Prasad Singh [(2006) 1 SCC 75]
CM 19683/2012 filed by Appellant on 14.12.2012 pointing out that the vakalatnama dated 7.12.2012 was invalid and did not annex the required authority documents.
A new vakalatnama filed on 17.12.2012. This vakalatnama was signed by K Radhakrishnan claiming to be authorised signatory for General Electric Company under a Power of Attorney (POA) dated 4.5.2012 issued in his favour by Alexander Dimitrief of General Electric Company.
Affidavit of K Radhakrishnan filed on 7.1.2013 producing an extract from the Board Minutes of General Electric Company (last revised on November 6, 2009) containing a Board Resolution (hereinafter referred to as the Board Resolution) which describes and limits the authority of individuals to sign documents (including court pleadings) on behalf of General Electric Company.
Nanju Ganpathy filed another vakalatnama for General Electric Company on 16.7.2013. This vakalatnama was allegedly signed by Bradford Berenson on 9.5.2013.
Attached to this vakalatnama dated 16.7.2013 was a photocopy of a document self-describing as a power of attorney allegedly executed on 29 April 2013 by Bradford Berenson on behalf of General Electric Company and apostilled in the United States on 10 May 2013. This was also only valid for one year.
In any event, since the Power of Attorney dated 29.4.2013 was valid only for one year, it ceased to have legal effect from 30.4.2014 onwards.
Therefore, even without going into the authenticity and legal validity of the authority documents and vakalatnamas filed on behalf of General Electric Company, it is clear that General Electric Company was not legally represented by anyone before the Delhi High Court in Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/ 2012 from 30.4.2014 onwards.
Issues concerning these authority documents and vakalatnamas
1. Were the Powers of Attorneys dated 4.5.2012 and 29.4.2013 allegedly executed by Alexander Dimitrief and Bradford Berenson lawful and valid authority documents whereby K Radhakrishnan was appointed as the authorized signatory of General Electric Company for the purpose of Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/ 2012 before the Delhi High Court?
2. Were these documents placed on the court record by Nanju Ganpathy genuine or fraudulent?
3. Did K Radhakrishnan impersonate as the authorized signatory of General Electric Company before the Delhi High Court and file unauthorized and false affidavits?
4. Was Advocate Nanju Ganpathy authorized to represent and appear for General Electric Company?
Who is K Radhakrishnan?
K Radhakrishnan is not an employee of General Electric Company. He has described himself in his affidavits as the company secretary of GE India Industrial Private Limited, a fully owned Indian subsidiary of General Electric Company.
Who is Alexander Dimitrief?
Alexander Dimitrief was Vice President, Litigation & Legal Policy of General Electric Company from 9 February 2007 until November 1, 2011 when he was appointed as General Counsel of GE Energy. Alexander Dimitrief has been appointed as General Counsel of General Electric Company with effect from 1.11.2015.
Who is Bradford Berenson.
Mr Bradford Berenson was appointed as the Operational Officer for Litigation & Legal Policy for General Electric Company on 15 October 2012.
Were the Powers of Attorney dated 4.5.2012 and 29.4.2013 allegedly executed by Alexander Dimitrief and Bradford Berenson legal and valid in law?
The authority of individuals to sign documents (including court pleadings) on behalf of General Electric Company emanates from Board Resolution dated 26.4.1988 as incorporated in the Board Minutes of General Electric Company (last revised on November 6, 2009).
Under this Board Resolution, both Alexander Dimitrief and Bradford Berenson had the authority to sign court pleadings and powers of attorney on behalf of General Electric Company for litigation purposes but they had no authority to further delegate this authority to anyone.
General Electric Company's Board Resolution dated 26.4.1988 stipulates in Paragraph A that certain types of documents/ instruments including court pleadings and powers of attorney can only be signed on behalf of General Electric Company by
(i) corporate officers of the Company who are identified by position as "Authorized Persons";
(ii) by an Operational Officer of the Company where such document pertains to the component or function to which such officer is assigned;
(iii) by a Manager or Acting Manager of the relevant Division or Department of General Electric Company.
K Radhakrishnan is not an employee of General Electric Company and Alexander Dimitrief and Bradford Berenson had no authority to delegate to K Radhakrishnan any authority to execute either court pleadings or powers of attorney on behalf of General Electric Company in relation to Writ Petition Civil No. 1290/2012 filed in the Delhi High Court.
The Powers of Attorney dated 4.5.2012 and 29.4.2013 executed by Alexander Dimitrief and Bradford Berenson respectively were therefore illegal and invalid documents and which therefore conferred no authority upon K Radhakrishnan to represent himself as the authorized signatory of General Electric Company before the Delhi High Court.
K Radhakrishnan therefore effectively impersonated as the authorized signatory of General Electric Company and the affidavits filed by him before the Delhi High Court were unauthorized, false and perjurious.
Brackett Denniston (who retired as General Counsel of General Electric Company on 31.10.2015), Alexander Dimitrief and Bradford Berenson knowingly participated in a criminal obstruction of justice conspiracy to falsify powers of attorney with intent to enable K Radhakrishna to unlawfully impersonate as the authorized signatory of General Electric Company before the Delhi High Court in a whistleblower litigation involving complaints and evidence of corruption by General Electric Company. K Radhakrishnan was used to commit a fraud on the Delhi High Court, on the Government of India and on General Electric Company itself. K Radhakrishnan was used to sign and file false and unauthorized affidavits in the Delhi High Court.
Information about this litigation was suppressed by Brackett Denniston, Alexander Dimitrief, Bradford Berenson and Jeffrey Eglash, all senior level in-house lawyers for General Electric Company.
20. Fraud committed in Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/ 2012 regarding appearance of GE India Industrial Private Limited
Fake Authority Docs for GE India Industrial Private Limited filed in Delhi High Court. Fraud committed in the Delhi High Court in Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/ 2012 regarding appearance of GE India Industrial Private Limited.
One K Radhakrishnan impersonated as authorized signatory of GE India Industrial Private Limited in the Delhi High Court in Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/ 2012 using fraudulent authority documents.
GE India Industrial Private Limited is a wholly owned Indian subsidiary of the US conglomerate General Electric Company. Notice was issued by the Delhi High Court to GE India Industrial Private Limited on 7.3.2012.
Advocate Nanju Ganpathy appeared on 9.5.2012 claiming to represent GE India Industrial Private Limited and continued to appear thereafter. Mr Nanju Ganpathy is a Partner in the law-firm AZB & Partners.
Affidavits were filed on behalf of GE India Industrial Private Limited through one K Radhakrishnan on 3.7.2012 and 3.8.2012. No authority documents establishing K Radhakrishnan as authorized signatory of GE India Industrial Private Limited were produced.
The counter- affidavit of K Radhakrishnan dated 3.7.2012 merely stated that K Radhakrishnan was the authorized signatory of GE India Industrial Private Limited. The affidavit contained a verification clause which was signed but not affirmed before an oath commissioner. Another two-page affidavit of K Radhakrishnan was attached to this counter-affidavit which merely stated that K Radhakrishnan was the authorised signatory of GE India Industrial Private Limited in the matter "pursuant to the powers of attorney executed in my favour in this regard". No power of attorney nor any other authority document was annexed to this counter-affidavit which otherwise contained thirteen annexures with the affidavit itself running into 206 pages.
At Appellant's request, Delhi High Court order dated 12.10.2012 directed Nanju Ganpathy to produce authority documents to show that K Radhakrishnan was authorized signatory of GE India Industrial Private Limited.
Nanju Ganpathy filed a photocopy of a document on 19.10.2012 which was described as a board resolution dated 7 May 2012 passed by GE India Industrial Private Limited which was effective up to 31.3.2013. No power of attorney was produced for GE India Industrial Private Limited.
Appellant discovered that no vakalatnama had been filed so Appellant moved CM 19370/ 2012 (on 6 December 2012).
Electronic case history maintained by the Delhi High Court registry shows a vakalatnama was filed only on 7.12.2012.
Vakalatnama filed on 7.12.2012 did not produce necessary authority documents and was defective and invalid in view of the Supreme Court of India's ruling in Uday Shankar Triyar v. Ram Kalewar Prasad Singh [(2006) 1 SCC 75]
The Supreme Court of India in Uday Shankar Triyar v. Ram Kalewar Prasad Singh [(2006) 1 SCC 75] has ruled that a vakalatnama on behalf of a company must either bear the company seal or it must mention the name and designation of the person signing the vakalatnama (on behalf of the company) below the signature AND a copy of the authority must be annexed to the vakalatnama. The Supreme Court further ruled that if a vakalatnama is executed by a power-of-attorney holder of a party, the failure to disclose that it is being executed by an attorney holder and the failure to annex a copy of the power of attorney will render the vakalatnama defective.
CM 19683/2012 filed by Appellant on 14.12.2012 pointing out that the vakalatnama dated 7.12.2012 was invalid and did not annex the required authority documents.
A new vakalatnama filed on 17.12.2012. This vakalatnama was signed by K Radhakrishnan claiming to be authorised signatory for GE India Industrial Private Limited.
K Radhakrishnan also filed two affidavits dated 17.12.2012 on behalf of GE India Industrial Private Limited.
The first affidavit of K Radhakrishnan dated 17.12.2012 was a reply to CM 18642/ 2012 (it begins at page 3874 of the court record). This affidavit contained the following statement at page 3878 of the court record:
In this affidavit, K Radhakrishnan therefore clearly admitted that no power of attorney in his favour had been issued on behalf of GE India Industrial Private Limited pursuant to the Board Resolution dated 7.5.2012. A bare perusal of the Board Resolutions dated 7.5.2012 shows that it clearly contemplated the execution of a power of attorney in favour of K Radhakrishnan.
The admitted non-execution of a power of attorney in favour of K Radhakrishnan on behalf of GE India Industrial Private Limited shows that K Radhakrishnan was never appointed as the attorney of GE India Industrial Private Limited for the purpose of this writ petition and he was not authorized to sign the vakalatnamas and court pleadings on behalf of GE India Industrial Private Limited.
Further the board resolution dated 7.5.2012 which was produced as an authority document by K Radhakrishnan did not even cover the Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/ 2012 filed in the Delhi High Court by the Appellant against General Electric Company.
The "Proceedings" covered by the Board Resolutions dated 7.5.2012 therefore did not include the writ petition filed by the Appellant against GE India Industrial Private Limited as the subject matter of the Board Resolution was limited to proceedings that GE India Industrial Private Limited might initiate against the Appellant.
The fraud that was perpetrated on the Delhi High Court is extremely evident. In the first instance, the source of K Radhakrishnan's authority to represent GE India Industrial Private Limited was described as a power of attorney in his favor. A board resolution dated 7.5.2012 was then produced which however did not cover the writ petition proceeding and which envisaged the execution of a power of attorney which was admittedly never executed. Vakalatnama was not filed. Affidavits were signed and filed through K Radhakrishnan even though he was not duly constituted as the attorney for GE India Industrial Private Limited.
Once the Appellant pointed out these deficiencies on the court record of the writ petition, a second attempt at fraudulently deceiving the court was attempted by producing a board resolution dated 17.12.2012 which misrepresents itself as a power of attorney.
The second affidavit of K Radhakrishnan dated 17.12.2012 produced a copy of what was described as another Board Resolution of GE India Industrial Private Limited dated 17.12.2012. K Radhakrishnan now claimed to be the constituted attorney for GE India Industrial Private Limited under this Board Resolution dated 17.12,2012.
This new alleged board resolution dated 17.12.2012 is a strange document that masquerades as a power of attorney by itself. It records that the consent of the Boards of GE India Industrial Private Limited is accorded to authorise and appoint K Radhakrishnan (the Company Secretary of GE India Industrial Private Limited) as the attorney of the Company interalia to defend proceedings initiated against the Company by Ms. Seema Sapra in the Delhi High Court. This board resolution does not contain the usual provision that contemplates and authorises the execution of a power of attorney instrument.
Instead in its final paragraph, this board resolution claims to be the power of attorney instrument itself and states: "RESOLVED FURTHER THAT this power of attorney is governed by, and shall be construed in accordance with the laws of India and shall remain in full force and effect until it is revoked by the company in writing or until December 16, 2014 whichever occurs earlier".
The copies of the alleged board resolutions dated 7 May 2012 and 17 December 2012 placed on record were not certified and authenticated as per usual practice and law. The certified minutes containing these board resolutions were not produced.
A comparison of the photocopies of the letterheads containing the two alleged board resolutions for GE India Industrial Private Limited which were filed raises the suspicion that these documents were not genuine. The alleged board resolution dated 7.5.2012 does not bear the company seal. The GE logo on the letterhead on which these board resolutions are printed is illegible. The persons who have signed these documents dated 7.5.2012 and 17.12.2012 are not identified. The letterhead on which the alleged board resolution for GE India dated 17.12.2012 is printed has a blurred and obscured GE logo. Prima facie it appears that the documents filed as board resolutions dated 7.5.2012 and 17.12.2012 are forged and unauthentic.
Both the board resolutions dated 7.5.2012 and 17.12.2012 omitted to mention/ specify the number or cause title or any identifying feature or the nature/ character/ subject matter of Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/2012.
The fact of this fraud committed on the Delhi High Court is further confirmed by a strange provision in the board resolutions dated 7.5.2012 and 17.12.2012. Both these board resolutions provide that the powers conferred "shall not be prejudiced, determined or otherwise affected by the fact of the Company acting either directly or through another agent or attorney in respect of all or any of the purposes herein contained".
This clause was obviously inserted to allow for "unauthorized" instructions to be sent to K Radhakrishnan and Nanju Ganpathy which were not sent directly from GE India but via other unidentified intermediaries/ agents/ attorneys. Multiple layers of separation between the Company (and its legal officers) and court proceedings in Writ Petition Civil No. 1280. 2012 were maintained.
Nanju Ganpahy filed another vakalatnama dated 16.7.2013 also signed by K Radhakrishnan. This vakalatnama also relied upon the alleged board resolution dated 17.12.2012 to establish K Radhakrishnan's authority to act as attorney for GE India.
The Appellant filed CM 10493 of 2013 on 19.7.2013 placing the above facts and objections on record and objecting to K Radhakrishnan being allowed to represent GE India and objecting to Nanju Ganpathy appearing for GE India. This application was unfortunately not taken up for hearing.
On 21.11.2014, the Appellant moved another application being CM No. 18969 of 2014 again seeking directions on these issues. This was also unfortunately adjourned by the Court without being taken up despite the appellant's requests that orders were necessary on these issues.
Writ Petition Civil No. 1280 of 2012 went before a new Division Bench of Judge Valmiki Mehta and Judge P.S. Teji on 19.1.2015. It was adjourned to 20 and then 22 January 2015. On all these three days, the Bench held a formal hearing for about an hour but the appellant was not permitted to argue the matter. The Bench was insistent that the matter had become infructuous. The Bench did not allow Ms. Seema Sapra to argue her case, and repeatedly kept interrupting her. For most of these three hours spread over three days, Judge Valmiki Mehta and Judge P. S Teji kept repeating that the matter was infructuous. They repeatedly interrupted Ms. Seema Sapra to prevent her from arguing the case. The matter was then adjourned to 3.2.2015.
On 19.1.2015, when Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/ 2012 went before Judge Valmiki Mehta and Judge P.S. Teji, all the alleged authority documents filed for the three General Electric respondents had also expired by lapse of time on the following dates.
Despite the Appellant's objections, orders dated 19, 20 and 22 January 2015 passed by Judge Valmiki Mehta and Judge P S Teji recorded the appearance of Manpreet Lamba for GE India, General Electric Company and GE Global Sourcing India Private Limited. The Appellant therefore declared her intent to impugn these orders in a Special Leave Petition to the Supreme Court of India and applied for certified copies of these orders. This intent was also communicated by the Appellant to Judge Valmiki Mehta and Judge P S Teji on 19, 20, and 22 January 2015. The matter was adjourned to 3 February 2015.
The petitioner learnt that on 28 January 2015, some document/s described in the court's electronic filing system as "vakalatnama" was filed under the name of Nanju Ganpathy in this matter under diary no. 37442/2015. The Petitioner repeatedly asked Mr Nanju Ganpathy to supply copies of these documents to the Petitioner but he did not respond.
The Petitioner therefore inspected the court record on 29 January 2015 and looked at the new documents filed through Nanju Ganpathy on 28 January 2015 which had been placed in the court file in folder B.
The Petitioner then filed CM 1882 of 2015 addressing these new alleged authority documents which were actually completely irrelevant documents being passed off as authority documents. The petitioner also sought copies of these documents. This application was listed before the High Court on 3.2.2015. The petitioner also applied for certified copies of the new alleged authority documents filed on 28.1.2015. On 2.2.2015 at around 4 pm, Nanju Ganpathy sent scanned copies of these new authority documents filed on 28.1.2015 to the Petitioner. These were incomplete as the scans excluded the edges of the documents.
Before addressing these new alleged authority documents filed on 28.1.2015, the nature of the hearing on 3.2.2015 is described below.
On 3.2.2015, Judge Valmiki Mehta and Judge P.S. Teji held another hearing for about an hour and a half and suddenly cut off the petitioner who had commenced arguments on the issue of the corruption involving General Electric Company, PricewaterhouseCoopers and Vinod Sharma and declared that they could not give the petitioner further time. They declared that judgment was being reserved. The Petitioner objected stating she had just started her arguments. The Bench ignored her and walked out.
CM 1882 of 2015 and the earlier applications on the issue of appearance by the General Electric respondents were not taken up for hearing on 3.2.2015 or decided.
What were the new documents filed on 28.1.2015?
No new "vakalatnama" was filed. Three documents were filed which were described in the table of contents as:
The first document is what purports to be a Power of Attorney in favor of K Radhakrishnan allegedly executed by Tejal Patil on behalf of GE India Industrial Private Limited, who is described therein as a Director. This alleged POA is dated 8/12/2014 and was valid until 30/9/2015. This alleged POA refers to a Board Resolution dated 10/9/14 and claims to have been executed pursuant to this Board Resolution dated 10/9/14. This document does not mention WP Civil 1280/2012, or OMP 647/2012, or the alleged arbitration before Mr Deepak Verma, or the alleged complaint which was already made to the Bar Council of Delhi against Ms Seema Sapra. This alleged PoA has not been executed on non-judicial stamp paper and is also neither notarized nor attested. No company stamp is affixed. It bears signatures of two witnesses named as Ira Shukla and Shweta Malhotra without any information about who these witnesses are. Prima facie this POA is invalid and fraudulent.
The opening paragraph of this alleged Power of Attorney reads:
Note that this alleged Power of Attorney dated 8.12.2014 did in any case not cover the proceedings in Writ Petition Civil No.1280/2012 instituted against GE India by Ms. Seema Sapra as it was limited to proceedings that GE India might institute against Ms. Seema Sapra.
The second document filed is what is described as a board resolution of GE India Industrial Private Limited dated 10/9/14 which merely refers to another earlier alleged board resolution dated 27/9/12 and purports to extend the validity of the latter resolution to 30/9/15. This is reproduced below.
The third document filed is what is also described as a board resolution of GE India Industrial Private Limited dated 26/9/13 which merely refers to an earlier board resolution dated 27/9/12 and purports to extend the validity of the latter resolution to 30/9/14. This is reproduced below.
So the new documents filed on 28.1.2015 were the following:
i. An alleged Power of Attorney executed by Tejal Patil in favour of K Radhakrishnan which did not apply to Writ Petition Civil. No. 1280/2012.
ii. An alleged Board resolution dated 26.9.2013 which merely extends an earlier board resolution dated 27.8.012 which was not produced.
iii. An alleged Board resolution dated 10.9.2014 which merely extends an earlier board resolution dated 27.8.012 which was not produced.
The new documents filed on 28.1.2015 refer to the following documents which were not produced:
i. A board resolution dated 10.9.2014 referred to in the Power of Attorney dated 8.12.2014 but which board resolution was not produced.
ii. A board resolution dated 27.8.2012 referred to in the alleged board resolutions dated 26.9.2013 and 10.9.2014.
The two alleged board resolutions dared 10.9.14 and 26.9.2013 merely refer to an earlier alleged resolution dated 27.9.12 and purport to extend the latter's validity, which itself has not been produced and whose contents are therefore unknown. So we do not know for what purpose if any, K Radhakrishnan appointed was as attorney of GE India by the alleged board resolution dated 27.9.2012. The failure to produce this alleged board resolution dated 27/9/12 can only mean that no such resolution exists or if it does exist, it is irrelevant.
The fraud played on the Delhi High Court by the impersonator K Radhakrishnan falsely claiming to be the authorised signatory of GE India stands further exposed and established even by the last desperate attempt to file further fraudulent and irrelevant alleged authority documents on record behind the back of the petitioner on 28.1.2015.
A summary of the various authority documents which Advocate Nanju Ganpathy produced for K Radhakrishnan establishes the fraud beyond doubt.
It is basic and settled law that no person can claim to represent a legal entity or a company in court proceedings without being duly authorised in accordance with law and without producing such duly executed authority documents. It is also basic and settled law that no lawyer can represent a party in court proceedings without placing on the record a vakalatnama in his favour duly executed by such party or by its duly authorised signatory.
No Court has the power or discretion to allow a company to be represented in court proceedings by an individual who has failed to produce valid and sufficient authority documents, has failed to establish his authority to represent the company, and who has produced invalid, false, forged and fabricated authority documents. The Court also has no power or discretion to permit a lawyer to represent a party in the absence of a duly executed and valid vakalatnama.
A judgment was issued in Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/2012 by the Bench of Judge Valmiki and Judge P.S. Teji on 3.3.2015 wrongfully dismissing the petition.
This then is how the Division Bench of Judge Valmiki Mehta and Judge P.S. Teji have dealt with the applications pointing out that the authority documents filed for the General Electric respondents were invalid. Instead of hearing and deciding these applications on merits, this Bench prevented the petitioner from arguing, reserved judgment without a hearing, did not accord any hearing on the applications, and in its judgment failed to deal with the submissions of the petitioner, and with the material and evidence on record. It further included the statement in paragraph 19 which conveys the incorrect impression as if this issue was examined by the court. Note that this paragraph in the judgment does not examine whether these authority documents filed were invalid, defective, fraudulent or irrelevant as the petitioner had contended and as elaborate hereinabove, instead the paragraph merely records that these were filed. Without even hearing the petitioner and without referring to her submissions, paragraph 19 conveys the impression that K Radhakrishnan was duly authorised to represent the three General Electric respondents and that Nanju Ganpathy was authorized to appear for the General Electric respondents.
21. A similar fraud was committed in Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/ 2012 regarding the appearance of GE Global Sourcing India Private Limited.
22. There were two applications on the court record of Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/2012 that comprehensively brought out the material and evidence before the Delhi High Court to establish that the petitioner's whistleblower complaints were genuine. These were CM 19501/2012 and CM 7197/2013. Notice in CM 19501/2012 was issued on 21 December 2012. True copies of CM 19501/2012 and CM 7197/2013 are being filed in a separate volume.
23. Just by way of example, the evidence that was available before the Delhi High Court against General Electric and the Ministry of Railways in respect of two of the several whistleblower complaints of the appellant is reproduced hereinbelow for the benefit of this Hon'ble Court.
24. Corruption by PwC and General Electric Company in Marhowra diesel locomotive factory Project. How the Indian Railway Ministry fabricated false documents and evidence to cover up corruption by General Electric Company.
Read below on how the Railway Ministry fabricated false documents and evidence to cover up corruption by General Electric Company. This deals with the issue of PricewaterhouseCoopers and Vinod Sharma.
General Electric engaged in a proscribed corrupt and undesirable practice by using the advisory and lobbying services of one Vinod Sharma for its bid for the 2010 Marhowra and Madhepura tenders and in doing so violated Clause 2.2.1 (d), Clause 4.1.3 a) and Clause 4.1.3 d) of the 2010 Marhowra RFQ and was accordingly liable to be disqualified and blacklisted under Clause 4.1.2. This also amounted to a violation of the conflict of interest clause which was expressly proscribed by the RFQ.
Vinod Sharma is a retired Indian Railways official who after retirement worked with PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC). PwC was appointed as consultant by the Railway Ministry in 2008 to prepare the bid documents for the Marhowra Project and to assist in bid evaluation and Vinod Sharma was part of the PwC team.
Four elements are required to establish as to whether General Electric did commit this corrupt practice and whether it was liable to be disqualified and blacklisted.
i. Did Vinod Sharma work for GE in 2010 on the bid for the Marhowra Project?
ii. Did Vinod Sharma earlier act as an advisor to the Railway Ministry for the same Project?
iii. Did these facts violate clauses of the 2010 Marhowra RFQ which defined corrupt and undesirable practices and conflict of interest?
iv. What were the consequences prescribed by the RFQ for such violation?
i. Material and evidence to establish that Vinod Sharma worked for GE in 2010 on the bid for the Marhowra Project.
· The Appellant in her writ petition described her meetings with Vinod Sharma in the GE office in May, June and July 2010 where Vinod Sharma's gave his advice on the draft bid documents that the GE team had prepared for the Madhepura and Marhowra tenders and met Railway officials along with the GE team on several occasions.
· The appellant also produced on record two internal GE emails referring to Vinod Sharma and his visits to the GE office.
· Even the unauthorised affidavit filed in the writ petition on behalf of General Electric confirmed that Vinod Sharma was working for GE in 2010 on its bids for the Marhowra and Madhepura tenders.
Interestingly this affidavit disclosed that GE India had entered into a written contract with Vinod Sharma, through what the affidavit described as his "company" "Essvee Consultants" effective from 11 Aug 2009. However, a search of corporate records at the Ministry of Corporate Affairs has revealed that there exists no company registered with the Ministry of Corporate Affairs with the name "Essvee Consultants". There is no incorporated company in existence in India whose name begins with "Essvee Consultants".
ii. Material and Evidence to establish that Vinod Sharma had earlier in 2008 and 2009 advised the Railway Ministry on the Marhowra Project and tender
· Internal Ministry of railways 2008 document downloaded by the Petitioner on June 25, 2012 from the Ministry of Railways website at http://indianrailways.gov.i
· An ADB document from November 2008 numbered T A 4998 (IND): Preparing the Railway Sector Investment Program Final Report – Efficiency Improvement. This document includes Mr. Vinod Sharma's name as a representative of PricewaterhouseCoopers (P) Ltd. This document appears to be a consultancy report prepared by PwC for the Ministry of Railways under ADB funding and includes advice on the Electric and Diesel Locomotive Tenders." Copies of relevant extracts from this were annexed as Annexure P-3 to the Appellant's rejoinder affidavit dated 9/7/2012 filed in WP Civil 1280/ 2012. This document establishes that in 2008, Mr Vinod Sharma was working for PricewaterhouseCoopers which was advising the Ministry of Railways on the bids for the diesel locomotive factory.
· A news report dated 3 October 2008 published by Live Mint which stated "PwC is advising the railways on the diesel locomotive bids."
"Govt shortlists five MNCs for $8 bn Indian Railways orders
The firms will compete for deals to build and supply 660 electric locomotives and 1,000 diesel engines"
Rahul Chandran and K.P. Narayana Kumar
Posted Friday October 3, 2008 at 12:46 AM IST http://www.livemint.com/20
· An article titled 'Indian Railways: Steamrolling towards new horizons' by Vineet Unnikrishnan published in the India Law Journal in the fourth quarter of 2008 described the engagement of PwC by the Indian Railways in these terms:
· In its counter affidavit dated 2 July 2012 the Railway Ministry first attempted to mislead the Court by stating that it "has never engaged Shri Vinod Sharma for any work in connection with the said tenders" referring to the 2010 tenders and thereby incorrectly implying that the prohibition on conflict of interest was in respect of the same tender and not the same Project. This was countered by the appellant in her response where it was pointed out that both Clause 2.2.1 (d) and Clause 4.1.3 (a) of the 2010 Marhowra RFQ used the word Project.
· Attempt by the Railway Ministry to mislead the Court by perjury and fabrication of false evidence in its affidavit dated 14 January 2013 filed in reply to CM 19501/ 2012.
· In its affidavit dated 14 January 2013, the Ministry of Railways actually produced two patently fabricated letters which were used to make a false statement in the affidavit that Vinod Sharma did not advise the Ministry on the Marhowra Rail Project. Both these letters are reproduced and analysed below. This conduct by the Railway Ministry where it failed to honestly answer the question as to whether or not Vinod Sharma ever advised the Ministry on the Marhowra Project, and where instead the attempt was to lie based upon fabricated documents is by itself evidence and material sufficient to lead to the inference that the Railway Ministry is trying to hide the true facts. These documents establish that the Railway Ministry has tried to protect GE and to cover up its corrupt practice by deliberately misleading the Court on the point of Vinod Sharma. This conduct by the Railway Ministry it is submitted constitutes perjury and contempt of court and involves a criminal conspiracy to deceive the court and to fabricate false evidence.
· Fabricated letter dated: 27.12.2012 addressed to Chairman-cum-Managing Director, RITES Ltd. from G.K. Gupta, Executive Director Mechanical Engg. (Project) Railway Board filed with the Railway Ministry affidavit dated 14 January 2013
· Fabricated letter dated Dt. 7.1.2013 addressed to Executive Director Mech. Engg. (Proj.) Railway Board from Anil Vij, GGM/RW&IE at RITES filed with the Railway Ministry affidavit dated 14 January 2013
· The second letter from RITES to the Railway Board dated 7.1.2013 refers to a consultancy contract with PwC dated 6.3.2007 and then uses the list of the proposed team composition in the Technical Proposal -Part II of M/s PwC of December, 2006 to state that Vinod Sharma was not a part of the team that worked on that consultancy assignment.
· As a matter of fact, there were two separate consultancy contracts entered into between the Railway Ministry/RITES and PwC.
· The first was the contract dated 6.3.2007 which was a consultancy to advise on the process the Railway Ministry should prefer for setting up its proposed locomotive, coach and wheel manufacturing factories.
A news report dated February 18, 2007 available on the internet at http://www.steelguru.com/india
This contract with PwC dated 6.3.2007 was only for 3 months and this assignment was completed by June 2007. This contract was also not specific exclusively to the Marhowra Project but was for provision of advisory services on development strategy and bid process management for selection of developers for the new proposed locomotive, coach and wheel manufacturing factories.
· In 2008, the Railway Ministry either directly or through RITES entered into another consultancy contract with PwC which is referred to in the internal Ministry of Railways 2008 document downloaded by the Petitioner on June 25, 2012 from the Ministry of Railways website at http://indianrailways.gov.in/r
· So when called upon by the Delhi High Court to answer as to whether Vinod Sharma had advised the Ministry of Railways as part of the PwC team for preparation of bid documents and for bid evaluation for the Marhowra Project and tender in 2008, officials of the Railway Ministry and RITES were made to write fabricated letters dated 27.12.2012 and 7.1.2013 which referred not to the relevant 2008 contract with PwC but to an entirely different, earlier and irrelevant contract dated 6.3.2007 and this letter was then used to create false evidence by way of the RITES reply dated 7.1.2013 which was in turn used by the Railway Ministry to lie on affidavit that Vinod Sharma had not advised the Railway Ministry on the Marhowra Project.
· This lie also stands exposed because the PwC contract dated 6.3.2007 mentioned in the RITES letter dated 7.1.2013 involved advisory on setting up new manufacturing units through International Competitive Bidding under Single Stage Bidding Process based on the RFP framed by PPP cell. The Bid Process that was finally adopted by the Railway Ministry for both the Marhowra and the Madhepura Projects in 2008 involved a two stage bidding process with separate RFQ and RFP stages.
· That there was a deliberate conspiracy to mislead the Court by the Railway Ministry is also evident from the following:
o The letter to RITES from G.K. Gupta, Executive Director Mechanical Engg. (Project), Railway Board dated 27.12.2012 did not provide a copy of the writ petition to RITES. Instead the letter resorts to the falsehood that a copy of the writ petition was available on the website of the Delhi High Court. This letter does not state the conflict of interest complaint against GE, Vinod Sharma and PwC. In fact, it does not even mention Vinod Sharma. This letter which asks RITES for comments on a complaint of corruption and conflict of interest in a pending writ petition for the express purpose of drafting a court affidavit does not even disclose to RITES what the complaint was, and what the issue and facts in contention were.
o The response from Anil Vij, GGM/RW&IE, RITES to Executive Director Mech. Engg. (Proj.), Railway Board dated 7.1.2013 refers to as explained above a contract signed with PwC dated 6.3.2007 and states that copies of the letter of award dated 2.3. 2007 and contract dated 6.3.2007 are attached to the letter, but these attachments were not included in the railway affidavit which produced this letter before the Delhi High Court. This for the obvious reason that the persons who drafted, signed and affirmed the affidavit were aware that this contract dated 6.3.2007 was not the relevant contract and the relevant contract was from 2008. These persons were aware that they were drafting and/or signing a false and misleading statement on oath in an affidavit with intent to mislead the court and to cover up corruption by General Electric Company.
o While the letter dt 27.12.2012 from the Railway Ministry is addressed to the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of RITES, the reply dated 7.12013 from RITES has not been issued by the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, but under the name of one Mr Anil Vij with the words GGM/ RW&IE printed underneath. The letter does not bear a full signature and instead has merely been initialled and even these initials are illegible.
· The affidavit dated January 14, 2013 filed for the Railway Ministry states at page 12 on the issue of Mr Vinod Sharma that: "A bare perusal of the communication dated 07.01.2013 as conveyed by M/s. RITES evidently discloses that Mr. Vinod Sharma was not part of the team nominated by PWC for working on the advisory assignment for the setting up of the DLF, Marhowra".
· It is submitted that this statement in the Railway Affidavit dated 14.1.2013 is false and that the officers who have signed this affidavit authors of the Railway affidavit have attempted to protect themselves by using the words "evidently discloses". The phrase "evidently discloses" is commonly used to distance oneself from a statement of fact and to deny any personal responsibility for the fact being asserted.
· The Affidavit dated 14.1.2013 filed for the Railway Ministry is signed and affirmed by two officers from the Railway Ministry, one of whom is Gopal Krishan Gupta, Executive Director, Mechanical Engineering (Project) Railway Board, the same person who wrote to RITES on 27.12.2012. The other officer is Nihar Ranjan Dash, Executive Director, Electrical Engineering (Development) Railway Board. Both G K Gupta and N R Dash therefore in their affidavit dated January 14, 2013 have denied personal responsibility and ownership of the statement that "A bare perusal of the communication dated 07.01.2013 as conveyed by M/s. RITES evidently discloses that Mr. Vinod Sharma was not part of the team nominated by PWC for working on the advisory assignment for the setting up of the DLF, Marhowra".
· For the reasons set out hereinabove, the statements made on behalf of the Railway Ministry in its affidavit dated January 14, 2013 in paragraphs 17, 18, 20, and 32 on the issue of Mr Vinod Sharma are false and incorrect. These statements and the misleading record produced and sought to be created by the Railway Ministry are clearly the result of a planned conspiracy under advice of lawyers, by Railway Ministry officials to deceive and mislead the court with intent to cover up the corrupt nature of the dealings between Vinod Sharma and General Electric in 2009 and 2010. These statements amount to perjury and the fabrication of documents and evidence attracts the relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code.
Even the affidavit-in-reply verified on 23 March 2013 and filed on behalf of the General Electric respondents contains the following statement:
"The Answering Respondents are unaware of the percentage of text from the 2010 diesel tender documents that is similar to the earlier project documents. Further, the Answering Respondents are unaware of what role, if any, Mr. Sharma or PwC served in reviewing documents associated with the 2008 diesel locomotive tender".
The fact that PwC was advising the Railway Ministry on the 2008 Marhowra tender was public knowledge and widely published. GE executives would have attended formal pre-bid meetings with Railway officials and PwC representatives in 2008. So this statement in this affidavit-in-reply verified on 23 March 2013 and filed on behalf of the General Electric respondents is also false.
· As stated above, a "Sur-Rejoinder Affidavit" dated 23 March 2013 filed for the GE Respondents (Nos. 1, 6 and 7) in Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/2012 states that GE India entered into a written agreement with Vinod Sharma's company, Essvee Consultants, effective August 11, 2009.
There are no records for such company with the Ministry of Corporate Affairs.
A search on the internet for Essvee Consultants shows that there is a website with the domain name http://www.essveeconsultants.c
The "management team" and "contact" pages on this website list the following three names: Sandeep Dutt Sharma, Rajesh Sharma and Rahul Sharma. All three names share the surname "Sharma" with Mr Vinod Sharma. It is pointed out that this Essvee Consultants claims to have been established in 2009.
· General Electric therefore engaged Vinod Sharma in 2009 and 2010 for advice on its bids for the Marhowra and Madhepura Projects. Vinod Sharma had earlier in 2008-2009 been part of the PwC team that advised and consulted with the Railway Ministry on the Marhowra Project and the 2008-2009 Marhowra tender. This PwC team advised on bid strategy, it drafted bid documents, and it evaluated the 2008-2009 Marhowra tender bids including the bid of General Electric.
iii. & iv
The above facts and evidence establish that General Electric violated Clause 2.2.1 (d) [conflict of interest], Clause 4.1.3 (a) [corrupt practice] and Clause 4.1.3 d) [undesirable practice] of the 2010 Marhowra RFQ.
As a result General Electric was liable to be not only disqualified under the 2010 Marhowra RFQ but also liable to be blacklisted from all Railway Ministry Projects for a period of two years under Clause 4.1.1 and Clause 4.1.2 of the 2010 Marhowra RFQ respectively.
· The relevant clauses of the 2010 Marhowra RFQ
25. General Electric Company forged/doctored a Kazakhstan Rail customer certificate for India Marhowra rail tender in 2010. How the Railway Ministry lied on affidavit & fabricated CVC docs to cover-up forgery by General Electric in 2010 Marhowra diesel loco tender.
Read below for how the Railway Ministry has covered up the complaint that a forged/ tampered Kazakhstan Railway customer certificate was submitted by General Electric with its 2010 RFQ Marhowra DLF on 12 July 2010.
Since all documents that can establish this complaint are either in the possession of the Railway Ministry or of General Electric, it is obvious that the appellant cannot produce direct documentary evidence of this forgery. What the appellant can produce is her own insider eye-witness account of what she saw, read and heard when she was working with General Electric in 2010 when this document was forged.
Second the appellant can produce documentary evidence of correspondence exchanged with General Electric lawyers in 2010 and 2011 which establishes that this complaint was not properly and satisfactorily investigated by GE and that GE lawyers attempted to cover up this forgery.
The third and most important type of material and evidence that prima facie establishes the need for investigation of this complaint is documentary evidence that establishes the attempt by the Government of India including both the Railway Ministry and the Central Vigilance Commission to close this complaint without investigation as part of the cover-up of all complaints against GE. This evidence has emerged on the record of Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/2012 in the affidavits and documents filed by the CVC and the Railway Ministry.
It is submitted that evidence of a cover-up by the Government leads to the inference that there is something to hide and the Government did not want to investigate this complaint in accordance with law because the documentary evidence in its possession is harmful to GE.
The Appellant narrated her eye-witness account in the rejoinder affidavits filed by her on July 9, 2012 and on July 23, 2012 and in particular on the correspondence between the her and General Electric exchanged during and after General Electric's purported internal investigation. The appellant also filed a detailed affidavit running into 55 pages exclusively addressing the facts and evidence in connection with her complaint of forgery on October 11, 2012. This affidavit describes in detail the events of July 8, 9, and 10, 2010, the weekend before July 12, 2010 when the technical bid was submitted by General Electric for the Marhowra tender and when the forgery took place.
The brief details of the Appellant's complaint with a brief narration of facts concerning the forgery
Ms. Sapra made the following complaint to General Electric Company on 1.10.2010
Ms. Seema Sapra made the following complaint to the Railway Ministry on 23.12.2010.
Ms. Seema Sapra made the following complaint to Indian Government authorities on 11.1.2011
Ms Seema Sapra received the following communication from the Central Vigilance Commission dated 30.5.2011.
Notice was issued to the CVC and the Railway Ministry (among others) in Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/2012 on 7.3.2012.
The following statement was made in the affidavit dated 2.7.2012 filed for the Railway Ministry.
CVC document produced along with Railway Ministry affidavit dated 2.7.2012
Note that the Railway Ministry affidavit dated 2.7.2012 establishes the following:
The complaint of forgery was not investigated.
The Railway Ministry misled the Delhi High Court that General Electric did not need the Kazakhstan Railway certificate to qualify.
The only finding of the "investigation" was that according to the Railway Ministry, General Electric did not benefit from submitting the Kazakhstan Certificate and that even if that certificate is discarded, General Electric fulfilled the technical capacity criteria.
It was on this basis that the Railway Ministry affidavit dated 2.7.2013 stated the following:
"Thus, investigation has found that the firm M/s. GE Global Sourcing India Pvt. Ltd. has not derived any advantage by submitting the scanned copy. Therefore, no substance was found in the allegation."
Two-point response to this affidavit of the Railway Ministry
i. General Electric did need the Kazakhstan certificate to qualify, therefore this certificate could not be discarded. General Electric did therefore benefit from filing this certificate.
iii. The complaint of forgery has not been investigated.
In her response, the Petitioner also pointed out that the only document produced with the Railway Ministry affidavit dated 2.7.2012 was the CVC document dated 19.9.2011 which did not shed any light on the matter. The Petitioner had therefore submitted in her subsequent applications and affidavits that the Railway Ministry and the CVC be directed to produce the actual investigation report.
Another affidavit dated 1.14.2013 was filed for the Railway Ministry. In this affidavit, the following statement was made in paragraph 172:
"A true copy of the advice received from the Central Vigilance Commission and a true copy of the brief on the investigation conducted by the Railway Board (Vigilance) on the complaint dated 11.01.2011 made by the Petitioner to the CVC are annexed herewith and marked as Annexure R-10 (Colly)."
Attached to this affidavit as Annexure R-10 (Colly) were three documents. These are reproduced below.
The third document was the CVC communication dated 19.9.2011 which has already been reproduced above.
Now this CVC document dated 19.9.2011 refers to four documents :-
(i) an investigation report
(ii) comments of the administrative authorities on the investigation report
(iii) a communication from the RB(Vigilance)
(iv) Communication carrying Railway Board's ID No./2011/VC/RB/10-CVC and dated 12.02.2011
None of these four documents mentioned in the CVC communication have been produced along with the Railway Ministry affidavit dated 14.1. 2013.
Instead there is an unsigned note which verbatim repeats what was stated in the first Railway Ministry affidavit of 2.7.2012. This unsigned note is titled "BRIEF ON THE INVESTIGATION CONDUCTED BY RAILWAY BOARD VIGILANCE ON THE COMPLAINT MADE TO CVC BY MS. SEEMA SAPRA, ADVOCATE". This note refers to a Central Vigilance Commission letter No.1117/RLY/15/124624 dated 11.04.2011 which "had forwarded to Railway Board a copy of e-mail complaint dated 11.01.2011 received in the Commission from Ms. Seema Sapra, advocate,"
Note the discrepancy here. The CVC note of 19.9.2011 which is relied upon to support the closure of the case refers to a Railway Board letter with ID No./2011/VC/RB/10-CVC and dated 12.02.2011.
How did the Railway Board write to the CVC about this complaint (and recommend closure on 12.02.2011) when the unsigned note titled "BRIEF ON THE INVESTIGATION CONDUCTED BY RAILWAY BOARD VIGILANCE ON THE COMPLAINT MADE TO CVC BY MS. SEEMA SAPRA, ADVOCATE" claims that it received the complaint from the CVC on 11.04.2011?
The other document produced with the Railway Ministry affidavit dated 14.1.2013 is an internal Railway Ministry communication dated 25.06.2012 enclosing the unsigned note and referring to it as the "EDME(Project)'s note dated 22.06.2012".
So the Railway Ministry has not produced any report of investigation carried out by its vigilance department or by the CVC.
All it has produced is an unsigned note referred to as the EDME(Project)'s note dated 22.06.2012. EDME refers to Executive Director Mechanical Engineering. Even the name of the officer who has allegedly written this note is not provided.
So there is no investigation report. Instead the Railway Ministry affidavit dated 14.1.2013 attempts to misrepresent and pass off an anonymous unsigned note referred to as the EDME(Project)'s note dated 22.06.2012 as the investigation report of the vigilance branch. Note that the Executive Director Mechanical Engineering is not part of the vigilance department.
So it is clear that there has been no investigation by the CVC or Railway Vigilance on the complaint of forgery. Forged and fraudulent documents suggesting this have been filed with the Railway Ministry affidavits dated 2.7.2012 and 14.1.2013.
False and perjurious statements have been made in these affidavits lying to the Court that the forgery complaint was investigated and that the CVC approved of the investigation and recommended closure of the case.
These false statements include the following false statement made in para 196 of the affidavit dated 14.1.2013:
"it is respectfully submitted that the summary of the investigation report by the Vigilance Directorate, as endorsed by the CVC, has been placed before the Hon'ble Court. In terms of the recommendation, the case has been closed."
The complaint of forgery was not investigated either by the Railway Ministry Vigilance Department or by the Central Vigilance Commission. Instead the attempt has been to cover up this matter and to avoid an investigation into the complaint of forgery.
General Electric did need the Kazakhstan Railways certificate qualify.
Thus the Railway Ministry affidavit dated 2,7.2012 falsely stated that General Electric only needed evidence of manufacture and supply of 1000 mainline Diesel Electric locomotives. As is clear from Clause 3.2.1 (reproduced above), a bidder also needed to provide customer certificates to show that it met the other conditions/ criteria prescribed in Clause 3.2.1. The 1000 locomotives relied upon by a bidder needed to have at least two variants. These locomotives should have been supplied to at least three countries. 200 of these locomotives should have been of at least 4000 HP with AC-AC 3-phase and IGBT technology. And at least 25 of these locomotives should have been of at least 6000 HP.
While General Electric did not need the Kazakhstan Railways customer certificate to certify the requirement for prior manufacture and supply of 1000 locomotives, it did need this certificate to meet the requirement that these locomotives should comprise of two variants (i.e., locomotives with either gauge variations or service application variations). General Electric did not meet the requirement for two variants prescribed by Clause 3.2.1 without the Kazakhstan Railways customer certificate which covered a gauge variant. This was also the internal understanding in General Electric and is recorded on internal General Electric emails.
Further the submission of a forged certificate amounted to a material misrepresentation under clause 2.7.3 of the 2010 Marhowra RFQ and a fraudulent practice under clause 4.1.3 (b) of the 2010 Marhowra RFQ. The submission of a forged/ tampered customer certificate therefore rendered General Electric liable for mandatory disqualification and blacklisting for a period of two years (Clause 4.1.1 and Clause 4.1.2 of the RFQ). It also amounts to the criminal offence of forgery under both Indian and US law.
The Division Bench of Judge Valmiki Mehta and Judge P.S. Teji who wrongly dismissed Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/2012 did not permit the petitioner to argue the matter at all. The Petitioner was unable to even mention the issue of the forgery complaint during the four hearings on 19, 20, 22 January and 3 February 2015 before this Bench, leave alone argue.
Yet without even hearing the petitioner on this issue or indeed hearing anyone else, or examining the court record, or considering the affidavits filed by the petitioner, the judgment dated 2.3.2015 issued by Judge Valmiki Mehta and Judge P.S. Teji includes the following statement:
This is the only reference in the judgment to the court record and it refers to and relies upon a patently false statement made in the Railway Ministry affidavit dated 2.7.2012. This statement has been included in the judgment without hearing the petitioner, without examining the court record, and without considering the affidavits of the petitioner and her submissions therein.
The result is that this judgment which expressly refuses to look at the court record and states this at more than one place, picks up a portion of a Railway Affidavit that amounts to perjury and inserts it into the judgment as if this were a finding of the Court, without hearing the parties.
As elaborated hereinabove, this statement in the Railway Ministry affidavit was not only false but perjurious, intended to mislead the Court, and based upon fabricated documents.
There has been no CVC investigation into the complaint of forgery.
Once again the judgment issued by Judge Valmiki Mehta and Judge P.S. Tegi is deeply flawed. The result is a cover-up of the corruption complaints against General Electric including this particular complaint of forgery.
26. Other material and evidence before the Delhi High Court in connection with the appellant's whistleblower complaints against General Electric Company is being filed in a separate volume.
27. From the above preliminary and incomplete recital above of the appellant's whistleblower complaints alongwith an indication of the kind of material that was available before the Delhi High Court, it is clear that the judgment in the writ petition issued by the Division Benchof Justice Valmiki Mehta and Justice P.S. Teji is wrong. As a result of this incorrect decision, the protection orders (not very useful as they were) passed in favour of the whistleblower-appellant have ended. The appellant's life is put at grave risk as a result of this judgment. The appellant has suffered the consequences of this over the last one year in being deliberately targeted by exposure to highly toxic chemical fumes, gases and inhalants. She has been chronically poisoned over this last year and has even been drugged on a few occasions.
28. The appellant initially wanted to let the matter rest after 2 March 2015 because of the threat to her life. However, the appellant has continued to be poisoned. The petitioner's life has been made hell. She is homeless, has no money, is being prevented from working, is being defamed, and is being chronically poisoned. There is a clear agenda to destroy the appellant-whistleblower. The appellant intends to file a petition under Article 32 before this Hon'ble Court in respect of her whistleblower complaints against General Electric Company and in respect of the past and continued violation of the petitioner's right to life as a result. It is submitted that there is no res judicata bar to the petitioner seeking relief for the continued violation of her right to life under Article 32. Further it is clear that Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/2012 has not been decided on merits, and it had not considered the material before it. Further this petition was disposed in the absence of several necessary respondents who were not present before the court including General Electric Company and its subsidiaries. Other bidders like Siemens AG were not present. The lawyers who appeared for EMD, Alstom and Siemens India did not produce authority documents with the vakalatnamas which were filed. The judgment in the writ petition has not settled the points of controversy therein. The judgment is clearly a non-speaking order. Almost all of the subject matter of that petition has not been considered in this judgment, it is a non-speaking order without reasoning and is nothing but a summary dismissal by the Division Bench and a refusal to adjudicate the matter. Therefore, there is no bar of res judicata to an article 32 petition as per the decision of this Hon'ble Court in Daryao and Others vs The State Of U. P. And Others 1962 SCR (1) 574. The fresh Marhowra tender instituted during the pendency of Writ Petition Civil No. 1280 of 2012 in 2013 has been awarded to General Electric by the Railway Ministry in November 2015. This award is vitiated on account of the cover-up of the corruption complaints against General Electric and the fraud and perjury committed against the Delhi High Court on behalf of General Electric and the Railway Ministry. In any event the law of the land requires that these complaints be properly investigated, the forgery, fraud, corruption and perjury be punished. A fraud committed on the judiciary of the magnitude described above is no small matter that the Government of India can simply ignore.
29. The appellant is also continuing to pursue her remedies against General Electric Company with the US authorities, the FBI, the US Department of Justice and the Securities Exchange Commission. In August 2015, the appellant has filed a complaint with the SEC as a whistleblower through its online complaint intake portal and this complaint has been registered as TCR1439646785831. A copy of this complaint as submitted through the SEC portal web form is reproduced below.
TCR Submitted Successfully - Reference Number: TCR1439646785831
Tell us about your complaint
Please select the option that best describes your complaint
Bribery of, or improper payments to, foreign officials (Foreign Corrupt Practices Act Violations)
Please select the specific category that best describes your complaint
Bribery of foreign officials
Provide additional details about your complaint:
Former General Electric in-house counsel Seema Sapra filed a legal proceeding in the Delhi High Court (Writ Petition Civil No. 1280 of 2012) against General Electric Company and two Indian subsidiaries (GE India Industrial Private Limited and GE Global Sourcing India Private Limited). The Delhi High Court issued notice in this matter to General Electric Company, GE India Industrial Private Limited and GE Global Sourcing India Private Limited on 7 March 2012. A copy of the Delhi High Court order dated 7 March 2012 can be viewed on the Delhi High Court website at http://delhihighcourt.nic.in/d
When did you become aware of the alleged conduct? (mm/dd/yyyy)
When did the alleged conduct begin? (mm/dd/yyyy)
Is the alleged conduct ongoing?
Has the individual or firm acknowledged the alleged conduct?
What is the source of your information? You may select more than one
Conversations; Internal business documents; Publicly available information; SEC filings;
Have you taken any action regarding your complaint? You may select more than one
Complained to firm; Complained to other regulator; Complained to SEC; Complained to law enforcement; Legal action;
Who did you contact and what action did you take?
I have emailed the SEC, the US DOJ, the FBI. I sued General Electric Company in the Delhi High Court.
Who are you complaining about?
Are you complaining about an individual or a firm?
Select the title that best describes the individual or firm that you are complaining about:
Publicly held company
General Electric Company
3135 Easton Turnpike
State / Province:
Zip / Postal Code:
Are you or were you associated with the individual or firm when the alleged conduct occurred?
How are you or were you associated with the individual or firm you are complaining about?
I was working as in-house legal counsel in India helping GE Transportation (US) bid for Indian Rail contracts
Select the type of product involved in your complaint:
Please select the category that best describes your security product:
For other, please provide more information:
Indian rail tenders
Enter the product name(s):
*Are you submitting this tip, complaint or referral pursuant to the SEC's whistleblower program?
*Are you submitting this tip, complaint or referral anonymously? Being able to contact you for further information or clarification may be helpful.
**Are you represented by an attorney in connection with your submission?
State / Province:
Zip / Postal Code:
What is the best way to contact you?
Select the profession that best represents you:
*1. Are you, or were you at the time you acquired the original information you are submitting to us, a member, officer, or employee of the Department of Justice, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Comptroller of the Currency, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Office of Thrift Supervision, the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, any law enforcement organization, or any national securities exchange, registered securities association, registered clearing agency, or the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board?
*2. Are you, or were you at the time you acquired the original information you are submitting to us, a member, officer, or employee of a foreign government, any political subdivision, department, agency, or instrumentality of a foreign government, or any other foreign financial regulatory authority as that term is defined in Section 3(a)(52) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. §78c(a)(52))?
*3. Did you acquire the information being submitted to us through the performance of an engagement required under the federal securities laws by an independent public accountant?
*4. Are you submitting this information pursuant to a cooperation agreement with the SEC or another agency or organization?
*5. Are you a spouse, parent, child, or sibling of a member or employee of the SEC, or do you reside in the same household as a member or employee of the SEC?
*7a. Are you submitting this information before you (or anyone representing you) received any investigative request, inquiry, or demand that relates to the subject matter of your submission from the SEC, Congress, or any other federal, state, or local authority, any self regulatory organization, or the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board?
*8a. Are you currently a subject or target of a criminal investigation, or have you been convicted of a criminal violation, in connection with the information you are submitting to the SEC?
*9a. Did you acquire the information being provided to us from any person described in questions 1 through 8?
10. Identify with particularity any documents or other information in your submission that you believe could reasonably be expected to reveal your identity, and explain the basis for your belief that your identity would be revealed if the documents were disclosed to a third party.
I do not wish to keep my identity public. I have already made my identity as a whistleblower public.
*I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the information contained in this submission is true, correct, and complete to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief. I fully understand that I may be subject to prosecution and ineligible for a whistleblower award if, in my submission of information, my other dealings with the SEC, or my dealings with another authority in connection with a related action, I knowingly and willfully make any false, fictitious, or fraudulent statements or representations, or use any false writing or document knowing that the writing or document contains any false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry.
30. Before proceeding to the impugned judgment in the contempt matter, a brief dissection and discussion of the judgment of the Division Bench in Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/2012 is presented below. The complete judgment is being filed in a separate volume. This judgment is of 100 pages but most of it refers to material not relevant to the merits of the case.
31. The writ judgment begins with the following introduction.
1. This writ petition, which is essentially in two parts qua the causes of action and reliefs claimed, can be in one way disposed of by a very short judgment, because, the first part/aspect and the reliefs claimed with respect thereto of challenge to the 2010 tender process of Railways for setting up manufacturing units for diesel and electric locomotive tenders has become infructuous because the tender process has been cancelled by the Ministry over one and a half years back, and the second part/aspect of the related reliefs of petitioner's claim as a whistle blower for grant of security to her by the State is without any basis whatsoever and hence cannot be granted. The judgment however will have to be a bit prolix in view of the aspect given below, including the aspect that petitioner has caused 28 judges of this Court to recuse from hearing the matter and that there have been over 90 hearings in the writ petition and the interim applications mostly filed by the petitioner.
2. Let us at this stage turn to the relief clauses of the writ petition:-
"1. Summon the records of Respondent Nos. 2,4 and 5 on whistle-blower complaints made by the Petitioner and after examining the records and hearing the Respondents, issue a writ of mandamus to Respondent 4 directing that Respondent 7 be disqualified and Respondent Nos. 1,6 and 7 be black-listed from the Diesel and Electric Locomotive Tenders (Global RFQ No.2010/ME (Proj)/4/Marhoura/RFQ and RFQ No. 2010/Elect. (Dev0 440/1(1).
2. Issue writs of mandamus to Respondent Nos. 2,4 and 5 directing them to respond to and act upon the said whistle-blower complaints in accordance with law.
3. Direct that Respondent No.2 inquire into commission of criminal offences (including forgery, bribery and public corruption) arising out of the Petitioner's whistle-blower complaints and direct prosecution of GE employees and government officials and public servants found involved and complicit.
4. Enforce and protect the right to life of the Petitioner and direct that the Petitioner be provided full protection and safety and be immediately relocated to a safe house. 5. Pass such other and further orders as Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper."
3(i) The first three reliefs pertain to the 2010 tenders process of the Railways for setting up diesel and electric locomotive manufacturing units at Madhepura and Marhowra. A reading of the first three reliefs prayed shows that the petitioner claims that respondent nos. 1,6 and 7, and which are the G.E.Electric Company and its sister companies (hereinafter jointly referred to as G.E); be disqualified from the subject tenders and G.E. be also black listed. Petitioner seeks the related reliefs that respondent nos. 2,4 and 5 i.e Central Vigilance Commission (CVC); Indian Railways, and ; Prime Minister's Office (PMO) respectively, act upon the complaints of the petitioner with respect to the petitioner's claims of forgery, corruption etc with respect to the aforesaid tenders.
(ii) The fourth relief that the petitioner seeks is that the petitioner alleges that her life is in danger on account of her acting as a whistle-blower qua the aforesaid tenders, and therefore, she be provided full protection and safety by the government including by immediate relocation to a safe house.
4. On 31.5.2013, the date fixed in the case, a Division Bench of this Court recorded the statement made by Sh. Rajeeve Mehra, the then Additional Solicitor General(ASG) that the tenders in respect of which the main part of the writ petition pertained to had been cancelled and the entire process has restarted from the beginning. The writ petition therefore at this stage itself ordinarily ought to have been brought to an end, inasmuch as, once the tender process itself had been cancelled, there did not survive any major aspect or issue, except of course the self-serving claim of the petitioner that G.E be black listed on account of allegations made by her of forgery and corruption, but even after the statement of the ASG was recorded on 31.5.2013, over 40 dates of hearings were still fixed in the writ petition, and which really was because petitioner did not want that the proceedings in this petition should come to an end.
5. A few salient features of the case are noted at the very outset since these aspects will run as a golden thread through the entire case discussion, and which are as under:-
(i) The petitioner's averments in the writ petition are basically only self-serving allegations, and there is no independent corroborative basis of documentary evidence to support the allegations which have been made by the petitioner. The documentary evidence which the petitioner relies upon, essentially for the major part pertains to but her own correspondence and communications with different respondents, persons and bodies/entities.
(ii) Petitioner, who is an advocate, and claims to be a whistle blower, was employed with the respondent no.1 as a legal consultant. The contract between the petitioner and the respondent no.1 was for 11 months from 21.4.2010 to 20.3.2011, however, petitioner's services were prematurely terminated in around September 2010. Petitioner therefore is not a dis-interested person acting bonafidely in filing this Public Interest Litigation (PIL), and the writ petition has been filed essentially to get even with her employer for having terminated her contractual services.
(iii) Whenever the writ petition came up before any Bench, the standard operating procedure of the petitioner was for some totally uncalled for reason or the other to cause recusal of the Judges constituting the Bench by expressing lack of confidence in the Bench or making false allegations against the judges constituting the Bench or creating scenes in Courts etc, and which modalities were adapted even before this Bench, and which had to conclude the hearings by passing a judicial order for reserving the judgment in this case.
32. Para 6 which follows merely reproduces the order dated 3.2.2015 by which judgment was reserved.
33. The Writ judgment then contains the following observation in para 7.
7. Before we turn in detail to the conduct of the petitioner including as noticed in the various orders passed by this Court, and that as many as 28 judges of this Court had to recuse themselves from the matter, we would like to set down the various observations of the Supreme Court made in its different judgments with respect to parameters of entertaining and deciding a PIL. Supreme Court has repeatedly held that in sum and substance a PIL litigation as is/was intended can be/is a bona fide litigation and which is not/cannot be a private interest litigation or a politics interest litigation or a paisa income litigation. Courts have come down with heavy hands on the regular misuse of PILs by certain sections of the citizens of this country whereby the entire objects of a PIL were being defeated, inasmuch as the concept of PIL was created by judicial pronouncements with respect to matters of essentially far reaching public interest and for those circumstances where the downtrodden and weak sections of the community could not approach the courts and therefore they were represented before Courts by public spirited persons who filed PILs on their behalf. Wherever underlining is given hereinafter in this judgment, the same is for showing importance/emphasis to the relevant observations.
34. The writ judgment in paras 8-14 then merely refers to and reproduces extracts from various decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on PIL etiquette and PIL abuse. This section comprises about 11 pages out of the 100 page judgment.
35. Then the writ judgment includes the following observations in para 15.
15. Keeping in mind the aforesaid observations of the Supreme Court as regards PILs, it is found that the facts of the present case show that the present writ petition suffers from all the ills which the Supreme Court has reminded time and again that PILs should not suffer from including that they should not be a private interest litigation filed on account of animosity/vendetta. The effect of the present PIL continuing in this court for 90 hearings and over three years, is that the same has resulted in gross and criminal wastage of judicial time, and, time being deprived for the courts to look into cases of other litigants who have been waiting for years together in queue for their cases to be heard in their normal turn. The present writ petition, its filing, its unnecessary continuation in spite of the 2010 tenders being cancelled by the government, unnecessary and repeated applications being filed in the same (running into around 35 in number most of which are only of the petitioner), petitioner levelling all kinds of false allegations against different Benches of this court left right and centre and petitioner making uncalled for allegations against almost anyone and everyone who in some way have been remotely concerned with the subject matter though not really related to the case in any manner, shows that the present case is a classic case of the abuse of the PIL process. In order to show such malafides of the petitioner, some orders which have been passed by different Benches of this Court from time to time would be required to be referred to and such orders would include orders of recusal of different Benches of this Court and the same are as under:-
36. After para 15, the writ judgment merely reproduces verbatim 43 previous orders passed in Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/2012. This starts at page 19 of the judgment and goes on till page 54, a total of 35 out of 100 pages.
37. The following observations are then made by the Division Bench in the judgment in para 16 and 17.
16. A reading of the aforesaid orders shows that petitioner has been unnecessarily and deliberately prolonging the matter without any valid reason. The fact of the matter is that the petitioner basically does not want the case to come to an end. The action of the petitioner has caused gross wastage of judicial time. In spite of hearings being granted to the petitioner, petitioner never seems to be satisfied with the hearings given. Endeavors of Benches of this Court to give relief by passing interim orders, though such interim orders really need not have been passed in favour of the petitioner, had made no difference to the petitioner who has continued with her wayward ways of seeking recusal from different Benches and for arguing quite a few irrelevant points. The record shows that petitioner was holding on to a rented accommodation and from which ultimately she was evicted by means of judicial process initiated by the landlord and it is possibly for this reason one of her prayers was 're-location to a safe house'. Petitioner has made wild and baseless allegations against her neighbours of they trying to poison her and similarly against Max and Apollo Hospitals for allegedly giving false reports and trying to poison her. Petitioner has also made false and repeated allegations against the police of trying to kill her. The indiscipline of the petitioner therefore actually knows no bounds and the present petition therefore does not deserve any consideration by this Court on merits with respect to the writ petition on account of complete failure of the petitioner in exhibiting a bonafide conduct expected of a petitioner in a PIL.
17. It is also relevant at this stage to state that after the 2010 tenders were cancelled, petitioner has sought to desperately continue the writ petition by even questioning the subsequent tender process initiated by the Railways by filing CM No. 7197/2013, and which CM was nothing but rehash of existing allegations which were made in the writ petition of alleged forgery and corruption and tenders being floated with terms to suit G.E. Petitioner cannot be allowed to expand the scope of the writ petition beyond the causes of action pleaded in the writ petition, much less by filing additional affidavits and interim applications.
18. Let us at this stage refer to headings and reliefs of some of the applications filed by the petitioner to show the total lack of responsibility on the part of the petitioner and total frivolousness in moving the applications.
38. Starting with para 18, the writ judgment then merely reproduces the headings and reliefs of 16 applications filed by the appellant / petitioner in the writ petition. This takes up 14 pages out of the 100-page judgment.
39. Para 19 of the writ judgment then states the following.
19. In addition to the above applications there are various other applications filed by the petitioner effectively alleging that the lawyers of respondents no.1,6 and 7 and the attorney empowered by the Board's resolutions of respondent nos. 1,6 and 7 have no right to represent these respondents though there have been filed on record the vakalatnamas, the power of attorneys by GE companies in favour of their officers, notifications and copies of the resolutions of the GE companies authorizing their officers to conduct the present and other litigations initiated by the present petitioner. These applications are as under:-
40. Para 19 of the writ judgment is followed by the mere reproduction of the titles and relief clauses of 7 applications filed by the petitioner on the issue of the fraud regarding the authority documents, representation and appearance of the three General Electric respondents which has been described in detail hereinabove. This section takes up 16 pages out of the 100-page writ judgment.
41. Then in para 20, the writ judgment merely notes another application filed by the petition ad again merely reproduces the title and relief clause of the application. This was an application raising serious conflict of interest issues as the same counsel had appeared both for the Railway Ministry and the CVC.
42. The next relevant section of the writ judgment are the concluding observations which can be divided into 2 parts. Part 1 of the concluding observations in paras 21-24 are the following.
21. We do realize that mentioning of the aforesaid orders, applications and other aspects have made this judgment lengthy but we had no option but to reproduce them, inasmuch as, it was necessary to show consistent lack of bonafides good faith and honesty of the petitioner with respect to the present writ petition. The writ petition is therefore clearly a gross abuse of the process of the law and is liable to be dismissed on these grounds itself without even going into the averments made in the writ petition, however, we would hereafter refer to the writ petition, averments made therein, reliefs claimed therein and certain other aspects to show that the writ petition is nothing but a case of self serving averments of the petitioner with no larger public interest involved at all, and, issues raised of alleged corruption of which neither there is sufficient material for this Court to entertain the writ petition and nor the averments made are bonafide. In fact, the petitioner had filed a complaint with CVC with regard to some of her allegations made in this petition, and the records of this court show that after replying to the petitioner that the complaint has been looked into, CVC ultimately had advised closure of the case and this is so stated in the counter- affidavit of respondents no. 2 and 4/Railways dated 2.7.2012 and the relevant para of the counter-affidavit is para 3 which reads as under:-
"3. That the Central Vigilance Commission vide its letter No. 1117/RLY/16/124624 dated 11.04.2011 had forwarded to Railway Board a copy of e-mail complaint dated 11.01.2011 received in the Commission from Ms. Seema Sapra, Advocate, New Delhi in which the complainant alleged that fake Customer Certificate was submitted by M/s. GE Global Sourcing India Pvt. Ltd. in connection with Request for Qualification (RFQ) for setting up Diesel Locomotive Factory at Marhowra, District - Saran, Bihar. On receipt of the complaint, the matter was got thoroughly investigated and the investigation has revealed that Clause 3.2 related to "Technical Capacity', inter-alia, mentioned that the applicant firm should have manufactured and supplied at least 1000 Mainline Diesel Electric Locomotives over the period of last ten years. Scrutiny of the tender file revealed that as per the Customers' Certificate attached at page 63 to 113 of the RFQ submitted by M/s. GE Global Sourcing India Pvt. Ltd., the company had designed, manufactured and supplied total 2326 mainline Diesel Electric Locomotives over a period of last ten years. Thus, it is noticed that even if the Customer Certificate issued by Kazakhstan Railway for 10 No. of locomotives supplied by M/s. GE Global Sourcing India Pvt. Ltd. is discarded, the firm was fulfilling the 'Technical Capacity' criteria, as the requirement as per clause 3.2 of the RFQ is only 1000 locomotives over the period of last ten years. Thus, investigation has found that the firm M/s. Global Sourcing India Pvt. Ltd. has not derived any advantage by submitting the scanned copy. Therefore, no substance was found in the allegation. The report of investigation was sent to the Central Vigilance Commission and the Central Vigilance Commission after perusal of the Investigation Report and the comments of the administrative authorities thereon has advised closure of the case vide CVC's ID No. 117/RLY/16/145435 dated 19.09.20111 (Annesure R-1)." (underling added)
22. When we read the writ petition and its annexures we doubt whether even notices at all should have been issued in this writ petition. We have already reproduced above the ratios of various judgments of the Supreme Court which require that it is necessary that there must be basis for the averments made in a PIL i.e the averments must be prima facie substantiated and unless that is done, writ petition is liable to be thrown out at the threshold itself. Further, for looking into corruption, a statutory body being the CVC exists, and it is not that merely if the petitioner utters 'mantras' of corruption therefore merely on that ground alone PIL should be entertained. This we are stating because in innumerable number of pleadings of the petitioner and in the hearings before the Court, allegations are made that the respondents are wanting to cover up corruption and in fact petitioner has also (without directly saying so), made innuendoes against different Benches of this Court of trying to cover up corruption by not giving the reliefs as claimed in the writ petition by allowing of the writ petition. There are allegations galore against all and sundry be they officials of GE, officials of Railways, officials of Planning Commission, Advocates, the respondents, officials of contesting respondents, PM office, Senior Advocates of Supreme Court, retired and sitting Judges of Supreme Court etc etc. The writ petition therefore being based only on self-serving averments and self-serving correspondence initiated by the petitioner herself was liable to be dismissed even without issuing notice and in any case the writ petition definitely need not have been continued after the main reliefs of cancellation of 2010 tenders became infructuous as the Government had cancelled the tenders and so recorded in terms of the statement of the then ASG made before the Division Bench of this Court on 31.5.2013. Petitioner, as is her won't, even before this Bench which concluded her arguments, kept on arguing that in spite of cancellation of the tenders, GE be black-listed and that this Court takes cognizance and cancel even of the subsequent tender process of 2013. In our opinion, if a petitioner in a PIL is allowed to keep on expanding the contours of the PIL petition to keep on including every subsequent tender then a PIL will never come to an end. We therefore refuse to look into the allegations made by the petitioner in her various applications and affidavits by which even the subsequent tender process of the year 2013 is being questioned by the petitioner. It is impermissible to expand the scope of the writ petition to a totally new cause of action, and we therefore decline the prayer of the petitioner to expand the scope of the writ petition to allow the petitioner to question the 2013 tenders, much less on account of gross mala fides of the petitioner as already detailed above and whose entitlement to file a PIL on the subject matters, we reject lock, stock and barrel.
23. Therefore, the writ petition has become infructuous so far as the main relief of 2010 tender process is concerned. Issue of black-listing of G.E is an issue which is for the Railways to look into inasmuch as black-listing can only be done under a specified process of a government organization and which only the concerned authority can do with the further aspect that in the opinion of that authority that it is required to be done.
24. In our opinion, for the sake of argument even if we take the averments made in the writ petition in some way to have an alleged case of corruption, however, every case of corruption does not mean that this Court should entertain PILs unless a grave public interest is involved by it being substantiated by specific and detailed pleadings and the requisite independent corroborative documents, but which we find lacking in the present case. Of course, we may hasten to add that there is a case of corruption has not even prima facie been made out because the so called allegations of corruptions are only self-serving averments of the petitioner without any independent and acceptable substantial material to at all substantiate these allegations. Petitioner has totally failed to give prima facie substantiation to her allegations of bribery, corruption etc and just because petitioner is keen on making self-serving wild and reckless allegations against government officials, Ministries, GE companies etc etc does not mean that allegations simply because they are repeated hundreds of times should be read as having any substance in the same. We would at this stage seek to clarify that we are not specifically referring to the allegations of corruption and bribery etc inasmuch, if we will do so, then, we would in fact be looking into merits of issues with respect to a tender process of 2010 and which we need not at all do so inasmuch as the 2010 tender process has been cancelled and recalled long back. At the cost of repetition we would like to state that the averments made in the writ petition having not been substantiated, hence lack legal basis, and thus do not in any manner deserve even a cursory and prima facie acceptance by this Bench.
43. Part 2 of the concluding observations of the writ judgment in paras 25 and 26 are the following.
25(i) The second and only other relief, and the second aspect of the writ petition, is with respect to claim of the petitioner for being provided security on the ground that she is a whistle blower. Petitioner in different applications and in the writ petition has claimed security and even Z+ security on account of averments that there are threats to her life. What are the threats to the life of the petitioner we have already reproduced above and which have been noted in different orders passed by different Benches of this Court. Suffice to say that the said/alleged threat to the petitioner's life is nothing but a figment of imagination of the petitioner. None of the neighbours of the petitioner can be said to have tried to poison the petitioner. None of the hospitals and the doctors alleged by the petitioner have also ever tried to poison or kill the petitioner. There is no basis whatsoever in the allegations against Delhi police and some of its personnel trying to kill the petitioner or harass the petitioner. All allegations made by the petitioner are baseless and self-serving allegations which merit total and complete rejection by this Court. In fact, petitioner is not a whistle blower but is a disgruntled ex-employee of the respondent no.1 and whose services were terminated prematurely and seeing the conduct of the petitioner so far as this writ petition is concerned, we are sure that G.E obviously would not have been able to tolerate the employment of the petitioner with it.
(ii) We would also like to note that issues of threat perception and threat assessment are left to the requisite authorities being the Delhi Police and the Ministry of Home Affairs and both these authorities have filed affidavits in this Court that there is no threat perception to the petitioner and we completely agree with the stands taken by the Delhi Police. The relevant paras of the counter-affidavits of the Ministry of Home Affairs and Delhi Police read as under:-
Para 1 of Counter Affidavit dated 14.1.2013 of Ministry of Home Affairs "1. REPLY TO PARA 1 AND 2: In reply to para 1 and 2 it is humbly submitted by the respondent that provision of security to the petitioner, is the responsibility of the State Government/UT Administration concerned. The local police may provide security, if, as per their local threat assessment, such security is considered necessary. Whereas it is submitted that with regards to the provision of security to whistle Blowers, the Government of India has authorized the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) as the designated agency to receive written complaints for disclosure on any allegation of corruption or misuse of office and recommend appropriate action in respect of employees of the Central Government or of any Corporation established under anyCentral Act, Government Companies, societies or local authorities owned or controlled by the Central Government. It is further submitted that if CVC is of the opinion that the complainants or the witnesses need protection, it shall issue appropriate directions to the concerned Government Authorities, i.e. Delhi Police, in the instant case. Similarly, for her relocation to a safe house on security considerations, it is for the CVC to take a view as to its necessity and give appropriate directions to the Delhi Police. A copy of Resolution No. 371/12/2002-AVD-III, dated 21.04.2004 and CVC Office Order No. 33/5/2004 dated 17.05.2004 under file No.004/VGL/26 and its enclosures, is annexed along with and is marked as ANNEXURE A."
Paras 42 and 43 of the counter affidavit dated 11.1.2013 of Delhi Police "42-43. The contents of para 42-43 are denied except which are specifically admitted hereinunder. Without commenting upon the petitioners apprehension of danger of her life it is submitted that the answering respondent in strict adherence to the order of this Hon'ble high court tried to extend police protection to the petitioner, however on enquiry it was found that the petitioner had been evicted from the tenanted premises at G-4, First Floor, Jungpura Extension in pursuance of the Judgement/decree dated 27.5.2011 passed by the court of Ms. Neelam Singh, ADJ-II, South, Saket Courts. It is submitted that pursuant to the order of eviction, the owner of the premises had filed an execution in which the bailiff was appointed for taking over the possession of the premises.When the bailiff tried to take the possession the same was resisted by the petitioner leading to seeking of police protection by the owner. The owner and the bailiff were granted police assistance and the possession of the premises was taken over on dated 30.5.2012. The copy of proceedings leading to recovery of possession of the rented premises from the petitioner are annexed herewith as ANNEXURE-R3/2 (Colly). It is submitted that after the possession of the premises were taken over, the whereabouts of the petitioner could not be ascertained despite attempts being made through enquiry from various bar Association offices. The copy of letter sent to bar association offices are annexed herewith as ANNEXURE-R3/3 (colly). The petitioner has lately sent a complaint through mail to the commissioner of Police regarding grievance of parking at the Indian Habitat Centre. The complaint is being looked into by the Concerned police station and a concerned officer from the police station Lodhi Colony as tried to contact the Petitioner but despite efforts the petitioner couldn't be contacted either due to her unavailability at her room or due to her mobile being switched off. However the concerned official has given strict instructions to the security at the India Habitat Centre and also to the Beat staff of the local police to look after and secure the petitioner. The copy of D.D. entry showing the visit by police official from Police Station Lodhi Colony are annexed herewith as ANNEXURE-R3/4 (colly).
The complaints made till date by the petitioner to the police have been duly enquired into and found to be highly imaginative and/or an exaggerated narration of fact which discloses no cause for apprehension to either her life or person. The allegation of being drugged/poisoned at the house by the neighbour through holes in her tenanted house were enquired and no such hole was found to have existed. Further allegation of poising through overhead water tank were also frivolous in as much as there exist a single tank on the top through which water is supplied to all the 3 floors of the rented premises and no such problem was informed by anyone living in the other floors of the building. The petitioner had made numerous complaints however nothing substantial was found in the complaint despite enquiry/investigation by the police officials. It is submitted that the allegation of terrorization/intimidation by the Delhi police are entirely false and frivolous. The allegation of conspiracy by the police to isolate the petitioner are also baseless and ill founded. The allegation of being terrorized by alleged harassment by the police are also baseless."
(emphasis is mine)
26. We completely agree with the stands taken up by the Delhi Police and the Ministry of Home Affairs in this regard. Petitioner in the guise of making allegations of threat to human life has in fact caused misery, harassment and turmoil to innumerable number of people including her neighbours, Delhi Police, doctors and even advocates of this Court. Though it may not be relevant for the purpose of disposal of this writ petition, it may be noted that the petitioner who is an advocate has been restrained from going into the canteens of the lawyers of this Court because petitioner kept on making allegations even against lawyers that lawyers were trying to poison her. Petitioner therefore only has access to this court as a lawyer for approaching the courts and not for using the areas to which other advocates have access such as canteens etc.
44. The final observations and directions of the writ judgment in paras 27 and 28 are reproduced below.
27. In view of the above, this writ petition is a totally frivolous and a mala fide petition, and it is also an abuse of the process of the law. The present writ petition was never a genuine PIL and it was only an action of a disgruntled employee who was thrown out of her employment and such a petitioner/employee through this PIL is seeking to take vendetta against her erstwhile employer with whom she has enmity. By the time the judgment in the case was reserved vide order dated 3.2.2015, volumes of the writ petition had reached to number 35 ending at page nos. 12,440.
28. In view of the above, the various orders passed by this Court, and the wild and reckless allegations made by the petitioner against all and sundry including Hon'ble Judges of this Court and the Supreme Court, the present is a classic case of abuse of PIL process where the writ petition must be and is accordingly dismissed with exemplary costs of Rs. 2 lacs to be deposited within 3 months with the Delhi High Court Legal Aid Services Authority and payment of which costs shall be a condition precedent for the petitioner to initiate any fresh independent litigation on any of the subject matters of the present proceedings. All pending applications stand disposed of accordingly.
VALMIKI J. MEHTA,J
MARCH 02, 2015
45. The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in its judgment dated 2.3.2015 issued in Writ Petition Civil. No. 1280/2012 has referred to this petition as a PIL and called the filing of this petition an abuse of the process of the court.
46. In response, the following submissions are made:
(i) Writ Petition Civil. No. 1280/2012 was never a PIL. It was not filed under Delhi High Court PIL rules, it was never described as a PIL, and it was never treated as a PIL by the Delhi High Court itself from February 2012 onwards when it was filed until February 2015. (eg. It was never listed as a PIL before the PIL Bench.) The writ judgment for the first time after a three-year period and out of the blue mislabels it as a PIL contrary to the record.
(ii) The appellant herein, who was the petitioner in the said writ petition had filed it in person as a whistleblower who is both complainant and a witness in the complaints made against General Electric. She had been subjected to physical harm, intimidation, attack and targeting and the said writ petition was also filed invoking her right to life and seeking protection and safe housing. As such the petitioner had an interest in the matter and it was not filed on behalf of a third party but on her own behalf. The petitioner had invoked her fundamental right to life before the Delhi High Court in its Article 226 jurisdiction.
(iii) The Division Bench in the writ judgment merely refers to the fact that the petitioner's contract had been terminated by General Electric Company and from that alone concludes that the petitioner had filed the writ petition in abuse of the court process to seek vengeance. Note that neither was this issue argued before this Division Bench and neither did the Division Bench query the petitioner on this issue. Instead this conclusion was arrived at by this Division Bench without a hearing, and contrary to the material before it, and appears to be a device to taint the petitioner.
(iv) The petitioner is a lawyer who was employed by General Electric Company through its Indian subsidiary to provide legal counsel to the GE Transportation Division. The assignment of the petitioner was not only to provide legal advice for General Electric's bids for the Indian Rail tenders and the Transportation business as such, but she was also given the responsibility to oversee compliance with the law. The compliance function in a corporate is really to ensure that no laws or policies are violated. The petitioner was required under internal policies of General Electric to report any instances of violation of the law by GE entities or employees or even contractors. GE internal policies also prohibit any form of retaliation against someone exposing wrong-doing.
(v) In addition, the code of conduct on ethics prescribed by the Bar Council makes it obligatory for a lawyer, even and especially an in-house lawyer to refuse to permit a client to use the legal services of such lawyer to commit unlawful and unethical acts. An in-house lawyer would become an accessory to crime if she did not report that her legal services were attempted to be used/ or ended up being used in the commission of a crime.
(vi) The petitioner first made complaints internally to General Electric officers as was her right and her obligation.
(vii) Even before these complaints could be investigated, and while a preliminary internal GE exercise of scrutiny of her complaints was still in progress, the petitioner's contract was suddenly and it is submitted unlawfully terminated. This amounted to retaliation against the petitioner and was a violation of GE's own policies and US whistleblower laws.
(viii) The petitioner immediately complained the day her contract was terminated that she was being retaliated against and there was an attempted cover-up.
(ix) This was followed by an internal GE investigation which further attempted a cover-up.
(x) Under the law on disclosure and client confidentiality, the petitioner had the duty to report these legal violations to the authorities in both the United States and in India. She accordingly did that. She also made the media and the lawyer community aware of her whistleblower complaints as a safety measure.
(xi) The petitioner was being physically harmed, drugged and poisoned and was being targeted, intimidated and defamed. Fearing for her life, the petitioner filed Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/2012 in the Delhi High Court.
(xii) The material before the Delhi High Court establishes that the petitioner made serious and substantiated complaints of corruption by General Electric.
(xiii) The material before the Delhi High Court also establishes that the petitioner was targeted, attacked, defamed and physically harmed.
(xiv) Even the documents pertaining to the petitioner's employment with GE, the termination of her contract and subsequent communications from GE establish that the petitioner's expose was not a case of vendetta or vengeance. Some of these crucial documents were part of the Delhi High Court writ record.
(xv) As such, the writ judgment of the Division Bench does great violence to the petitioner when it wrongly and without any basis whatsoever mis-labels her, a whistleblower, as someone who filed an abusive PIL to seek "vengeance".
47. The Appellant will file the full set of orders passed in the writ petition in a separate volume along with her comments thereon.
43 Orders reproduced in judgment
49 Orders neither mentioned nor reproduced in judgment
48. The appellant will file a separate note on the applications which were dismissed by the Division Bench without a hearing.
16 Applications whose prayers reproduced in judgment
24 Applications not mentioned in the judgment
CM No. 19370/2012
CM No. 326/2013
CM No. 522/2013
CM No. 5007/2013
CM No. 5008/2013
2 applications filed on 3.2.2015 which could not even be listed. (filing nos. 59802/2015 and 62111/2015.
49. The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in its judgment dated 2.3.2015 issued in Writ Petition Civil. No. 1280/2012 also wrongly suggests that the petitioner made a prayer for safe housing in the petition only because she had been evicted from her rented premises. This suggestion which the Division Bench makes without any examination of the material before it and without hearing the petitioner cannot be further from the truth about the petitioner's situation which is public knowledge and how she has been forced into homelessness for now almost 4 complete years and how that homelessness has been used to keep the petitioner vulnerable to the targeting directed at her.
50. In response, the following submissions are made:
(i) The petitioner was staying alone in a rented floor at G4, Jangpura Extension at a monthly rent of Rs. 25000 per month since 2008.
(ii) After the petitioner made her whistleblower complaints against GE in July/August 2010, her landlady asked her to vacate. The petitioner sought time.
(iii) The landlady filed an eviction suit in December 2010.
(iv) The petitioner was being drugged and poisoned in that house where she was living alone. She was unable to contest that suit or to follow its progress.
(v) In July and August 2011, the petitioner for the first time made complaints that she was being drugged and poisoned.
(vi) In July and August 2011, the petitioner noticed gaseous fumes in that flat and she wanted to leave it. She moved in with a friend in Gurgaon.
(vii) The Petitioner returned to the house and the targeting continued. Toxic chemicals were introduced into the house to harm the petitioner.
(viii) The petitioner decided to move out. She temporarily checked into the India Habitat Centre using her membership.
(ix) The petitioner then looked at properties to rent and entered into a lease agreement for a one-room set in Defence Colony. She paid an advance of about 1 lakh Rs. by check. She even made a check payment to a property dealer.
(x) She moved into the Defence Colony premises and asked her family to help remove the heavy furniture from the Jangpura house because she intended to vacate it.
(xi) The petitioner was drugged and poisoned in the Defence Colony premises.
(xii) The Petitioner then begged her family to let her stay with them. The petitioner moved to her family's home in Gurgaon. She was drugged and poisoned there. When she confronted her family members, she was told to leave.
(xiii) The petitioner ended up moving back into the Jangpura house because she had nowhere else to go.
(xiv) The petitioner continued to be targeted in the Jangpura house. She was also targeted when she left the house.
(xv) From then onwards the petitioner became more careful about her food and drink.
(xvi) In December 2011 and January 2012, the Petitioner started to re-pursue her complaints against General Electric.
(xvii) The targeting intensified. She started noticing her surroundings and the house and started to make police complaints.
(xviii) The petitioner started going to the courts.
(xix) Fearing for her life, the petitioner told the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court on 17 February 2012 that she was being poisoned.
(xx) Finally, the petitioner filed the writ petition in February 2012.
(xxi) Notice was issued on this petition on 7.3.2012. On 25.5.2012, an order was passed in the writ petition directing the police and other authorities to protect the petitioner and ensure that she was not harmed.
(xxii) On 30.5.2012, while the petitioner was in the Delhi High Court for the writ petition, the police participated in evicting the petitioner from the house. All her belongings including medical records of complaints of poisoning were taken away in her absence and have not been returned till date. The petitioner was left with nothing but her car, her laptop bag which thankfully had her passport, and the clothes on her back.
(xxiii) After spending one night at Claridges hotel for Rs.13000, the petitioner moved into India Habitat Center where she stayed till the first week of July 2012.
(xxiv) The petitioner then moved into the YWCA blue triangle hostel where she stayed for about 3 weeks.
(xxv) Next the petitioner stayed at the Ambassador Hotel for about 3 weeks.
(xxvi) Next the petitioner stayed at Hotel Janpath for a few days.
(xxvii) The petitioner by this time had run out of money and was surviving on her credit card and some funds given to her by people.
(xxviii) The petitioner even contemplated disappearing and went to Jaipur by bus. However, when she was targeted there and she realised she would be followed, she returned to Delhi.
(xxix) On 1 October 2012, the petitioner went to the Delhi Police headquarters. Instead of helping her find accommodation, the petitioner was assaulted on those premises. An attempt was made to harm her.
(xxx) The petitioner moved into Red Fox Hotel in Mayur Vihar for a few days. The Petitioner stayed at a few other places.
(xxxi) The petitioner moved into a dharamsala at the Tibetan refugee colony at Majnu Ka Tila and stayed there approximately from November 2012 until the last week of February 2013. The appellant had run out of funds by now and was surviving by requesting lawyers for money. She spent the months of November and December 2012 and January 2013 and a part of February 2013 staying at this cheap dharamsala in the Tibetan refugee colony of Majnu ka tila in a room costing Rs. 500/750 per night. She did not have sufficient warm clothes that winter. The appellant was asking her colleagues and so-called friends for financial help but they refused. Finally, the appellant could not even pay a bill of Rs. 40,000 at the dharamsala for two months. After she complained she was being targeted there, the appellant was asked to vacate that place.
(xxxii) The appellant with no money and with her classmates and so-called friends refusing to help, started to sleep in her car from 26 February 2013.
(xxxiii) The appellant was initially targeted by policemen in her car and attempts were made to depict her as a prostitute. She was parking her car in the WWF lane, in Defence Colony, outside the World Bank, and in Pandara Park.
(xxxiv) Later the petitioner started parking her car in Rabindra Nagar close to the residence of Special Commission of Police P N Aggarwal.
(xxxv) In June 2013, the petitioner stayed for about two weeks at the Ginger Hotel in East Delhi.
(xxxvi) The Petitioner again started sleeping in her car in Rabindra Nagar.
(xxxvii) In June 2013, an attempt was made to abduct the petitioner in the middle of the night from Rabindra Nagar.
(xxxviii) In June 2013, the petitioner was repeatedly harassed in her car at night. Once when she went to the police-station seeking compliance with a court protection order, she was asked by the SHO to sleep in the police station. On another occasion, a glass bottle was thrown at her in the presence of the police outside Tughlaq Road police station in the middle of the night.
(xxxix) All though the rest of 2013, the petitioner continued to sleep in her car.
(xl) The petitioner not only spent the entire scorching summer of 2013 sleeping in her car, but also spent the entire winter of 2013-2014 sleeping in her car.
(xli) From around December 2013 onwards, toxic chemicals started to be sprayed on the petitioner while she was asleep in her car at night.
(xlii) After Special Commissioner of Police P N Aggarwal retired, he used his security guards to prevent the petitioner from sleeping in her car near his house. She then started sleeping in her car outside the houde of Special Commissioner of Police Dharmendra Kumar in Rabindra Nagar.
(xliii) From around December 2013, the petitioner also started sleeping in her car outside gate 8 of the Delhi High Court.
(xliv) The petitioner continued to sleep in her car until 5 June 2014 when she fractured her left fibula on a very hot day in Gurgaon. She was there looking for a place in a mall to work on this matter because she had no place to stay.
(xlv) The petitioner was taken to Artemis Hospital in an ambulance. Her leg was placed in a cast. She had no place to stay. She finally checked into the Red Fox Hotel in Aerocity that night where she stayed until 9 June 2014. She was in a wheel-chair.
(xlvi) On 9 June 2014, the petitioner's left ankle was deliberately dislocated by Dr. Anuj Malhotra in Fortis Hospital at Vasant Kunj.
(xlvii) The Petitioner left the hospital on 9 June 2014 with her leg in an aircast boot. She actually picked up her car, drove to Ambience Mall to access the internet to find a place to stay. The petitioner had a freshly fractured fibula. She also had a freshly dislocated ankle that she had not been informed about.
(xlviii) The petitioner made a booking at Oberoi Maidens hotel at a reduced price and then on 9 June 2014 drove her car to the Maidens hotel and checked in there.
(xlix) The petitioner stayed at the Maidens Hotel till 23.6.2014. She was targeted at the Maidens Hotel. When she complained the hotel wanted her to leave. On 23.6.2014, the police was used to assault the petitioner who was in a wheel-chair. Her laptop was broken and her phone sim card was destroyed by a policeman. She was forcibly taken to Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital. Attempts were made to create false medical records. She was suddenly asked to leave by the Police.
(l) That night on 23.6.2014, the petitioner slept in her car outside gate 8 of the Delhi High Court.
(li) The next morning, the petitioner checked into the YWCA on Parliament Street where she stayed for a few days.
(lii) The petitioner then moved into the YMCA for a few days where she stayed until 18 January 2014. On 18 July 2014, the petitioner attended the hearing in the Delhi High Court using a walker along with her aircast boot to move. This was the first day that the petitioner walked since 5 June 2014 using both legs after the fracture and ankle dislocation.
(liii) Since then, the petitioner has had to stay in hotels, guest-houses, B&Bs etc. because she could not sleep in her car with her fractured leg and dislocated ankle. She has had to request lawyers for money to do this. Some lawyers have literally made her beg for money and others have turned her away empty-handed or handed over pittances. Some have chosen to insult her.
(liv) The petitioner has been forced to raise money for accommodation because she could not sleep in her car with her dislocated ankle.
(lv) The petitioner was wearing the aircast boot until the end of September 2015. She is now wearing high ankle support hiking boots made by Solomon which cost her Rs. 13000. She needs these boots because the ankle is still dislocated. The petitioner can now walk though very carefully and slowly. She needs to take care that the ankle which has healed in a dislocated position is not stressed or damaged or twisted. She also needs pain relief but instead of medicines the petitioner uses turmeric as an anti-inflammatory and pain-killer. The petitioner cannot squat. She needs to keep her left leg and foot in a comfortable position while sitting and lying down.
(lvi) Right from May 2012, the petitioner has been in a strange situation. She needs accommodation and she needs money. She is able to work but she continues to be targeted. She has also been defamed as being mentally ill. She has no place to stay. She continues to be poisoned wherever she stays in temporary accommodation because she is unable to control her surroundings and environment. It has been made impossible for her to find employment in these circumstances. She has requested several lawyers to help her rent a place but all have refused. If she could rent a place, she would need much less money. Living in hotels and guest houses means that the appellant has needed to spend over a lakh each month simply on accommodation all of which she has had to raise from lawyers. If she could rent a place, she could also control access to the accommodation and thus make it difficult for those targeting her to do so. Meanwhile she continues to be chronically poisoned.
(lvii) The petitioner would like to describe what it has meant being homeless and being forced to sleep in her car for over a year and 3 months. In the height of summer, the petitioner slept in her car drenched in sweat and at the mercy of mosquitoes despite lathering exposed skin with insect-repellent. She first tried sleeping curled up on the back seat of her Santro car but later slept on the back seat with one door open and her legs and feet sticking out. It has meant no access to proper and private toilet facilities. The petitioner has had to urinate on the road side and on occasion even defecate on the road-side or in the open. She has had no access to a toilet at night even when she had her period. She was forced to change her sanitary pads out in the open in the dark. In the early mornings, the petitioner faced a lot of difficulty when she desperately needed to use a toilet. Once it was daylight, it was not possible for the petitioner to use the open. On those desperate occasions the petitioner had to rush to the Lodhi Gardens, or the IIC or India Habitat Center or coffee shops in Defence Colony Market or to the Delhi High Court as early as 7 am to use the toilet. The petitioner even stopped having dinner just so that she would not need to use a toilet urgently in the morning. The petitioner had no place to bathe. She would use a wash cloth to clean herself. Later, the petitioner actually started bathing in the toilets in the Delhi High Court lawyers chambers very early in the morning. She had no place to wash her clothes or to dry them.
(lviii) The petitioner obviously had no place to cook food.
(lix) The petitioner did not have sufficient warm clothes for the winter of 2012-2013.
(lx) For the winter of 2013-2014, the petitioner managed to raise some funds to buy two warm winter jackets and a sleeping bag. She spent this winter sleeping sitting upright in the front passenger seat of her car. She would wear all her warm clothes in layers, slip into the sleeping bag, wear a warm cap, cover her torso with two blankets and then sleep on the front passenger seat with the back reclined. This winter she slept in her car parked in Rabindra Nagar close to the house of Special Commissioner of Police Dharmendra Kumar.
(lxi) In the mornings, the petitioner would go looking for tea and breakfast. Then she would spend the day either in the Delhi High Court, or in a mall or library if the court was closed. In the evenings she would again go to restaurants, cafés and malls or hotels and stay there as late as she could before having to again sleep in the open in her car parked on public streets.
(lxii) All of this happened while the writ petition remained pending unheard for 3 years before the Delhi High Court.
51. Before further describing how the petitioner has been deliberately kept homeless since 30 May 2012, some important facts to establish how rendering the petitioner homeless was a well-planned strategy. The petitioner submits that ever since she became a threat to General Electric in July 2010, every aspect of her life has been manipulated by General Electric acting through its agents. The facts are as follows. Soon after the petitioner made complaints at General Electric, her landlady asked her to vacate. The petitioner was being drugged and poisoned from July 2010 onwards. As a result, the petitioner was unable to contest that suit. In fact, until July 2011, the petitioner hardly left her home. The petitioner complained of poisoning in July/August 2011 and wanted to leave that house. She made several attempts to do so in 2011 even going to the extent of signing a lease and moving into another rented premises in Defence Colony.
52. In a police affidavit dated July 2012 that was filed in the writ petition, it emerged for the first time that the eviction suit against the petitioner was decided way back in May 2011. Despite that, the petitioner was not even informed about the eviction decree either by the landlady or by her lawyer Trideep Pais all through 2011. Not once was she told that an eviction order had been passed and that she should vacate. The first time that the petitioner became aware of the eviction order of May 2011 was on 3 April 2012. On that day, the petitioner was going through medical records from July and August 2011 when she had complained of poisoning. She made two email complaints in the morning of 3 April 2012 pointing out that Max Hospital had manipulated the petitioner's chest Xray films. That same day, after 2 pm, a group of men entered the petitioner's home after breaking a gate lock and started breaking the front door locks. They pushed the petitioner aside. The group of men were shouting that the petitioner and her belongings would be thrown out. There was a lawyer in the group who told the petitioner he had an eviction decree against her. The petitioner asked for a copy of this decree but this was refused. The group of men dispersed after the petitioner complained to the police on email but not before damaging the front door and stealing a set of house keys which were lying near an open window sill accessible from the front staircase. The petitioner made complaints about this.
53. For the rest of April and May the petitioner continued to be targeted. Finally, as stated above, the petitioner was evicted in her absence by the police on 30 May 2012. The petitioner was in the Delhi High Court on 30 May 2012 for a hearing on an application in her whistleblower writ petition. Her phone was on silent. After 4 pm, the petitioner saw a text message sent around 12 pm informing her that persons were present at her house and she was being evicted.
54. The following questions arise which show that the appellant was deliberately targeted:
(i) The eviction suit was decreed against the petitioner in May 2011, why was no attempt made to evict her until April 2012?
(ii) The documents produced with the police affidavit show that the execution decree was obtained by misrepresenting to the Court that the rented premises had been vacated and were empty.
(iii) What was the reason for incident of 3.4.2012? Prima facie it appears that the intent that day was to use a group of men to break open the locks and enter the house, to overpower the petitioner and to destroy property and evidence as part of an eviction process? The intent seems to have been to destroy the medical records that the petitioner was complaining about.
(iv)Coming to 30 May 2012, why was the eviction carried out in the absence of the petitioner. Why was her personal property including medical records taken away? Why was the petitioner not given any notice or an opportunity to pack her belongings and leave?
(v) Given that the eviction orders were not sought to be enforced for a whole year, why was the eviction carried out right then without notice?
(vi) On 25 May 2012, the Delhi High Court had passed an order directing the Police to ensure that the petitioner was not harmed. Was it then not the duty of the Police to at least inform the petitioner in advance of the proposed eviction? Was it not then the duty of the police to at least permit the petitioner the opportunity to pack her belongings and leave? The property that was taken away included crucial documents which had evidentiary value for the writ petition. Did the police not participate in destroying evidence. The property that was taken away included the petitioner's entire wardrobe with expensive clothes and shoes, her laptops, her printer, her hard drives, her financial papers including check books and bank statements, her car registration papers, her books, her academic papers including years of research from the petitioner's time overseas, her PhD research materials, her personal effects including personal items like photographs and mementos of her deceased father, some furniture, an AC, kitchen appliances and utilities. (Other large items like the fridge and beds had already been removed by the petitioner's family in September/October 2011.) Was this property of the petitioner not illegally removed in her absence without notice and without giving her an opportunity to remove it? This property has still not been returned to the petitioner even after nearly 4 years. The petitioner had a large, expensive and extensive wardrobe which the police dispossessed her of on 30 May 2012. Now she has been reduced to wearing the few cheap clothes she can buy after raising funds. She spent a winter without warm clothes while her belongings including expensive and unused expensive winter jackets were unlawfully taken away by the police from the petitioner's home.
(vii)Why was this eviction done in this manner? First it enabled destruction of evidence. Second it resulted in greater financial burden on the petitioner's dwindling resources. Third this would have enabled the police to plant material among the petitioner's belongings. Numerous attempts have been made to falsely label the petitioner mentally ill. The police could have planted false prescriptions or medicines among the petitioner's belongings.
(viii) The fact that this eviction happened 4 days after the Delhi High Court protection order also meant that the police did not have to protect the petitioner in those premises, and the police did not examine the petitioner's complaints that the house had been rigged to introduce toxic chemicals and that the house was being entered into in the petitioner's absence.
(ix) In view of the facts above, the suggestion in the writ judgment that the petitioner filed the writ petition (in February 2012) seeking safe housing because she had been evicted (which happened on 30 May 2012) is not only perverse but again amounts to a great violence against the petitioner.
55. A few disturbing aspects on this issue of the petitioner's homelessness.
(i) Justice P K Bhasin refused to pass any order on the day this eviction happened.
(ii) The petitioner filed an urgent application seeking shelter in July 2012.
(iii) Justice Rajiv Shakdher adjourned this application to October 2012 without granting interim relief. When the petitioner asked him where she would stay, he replied I have no clue. In October 2012, he adjourned the writ and this application to April 2013 again without granting interim relief.
(iv) In December 2012, Justice Nandrajog mentioned the possibility of the petitioner being accommodated in a women's hostel but no orders were passed.
(v) In February 2013, a Bench headed by Justice Geeta Mittal adjourned the writ and this application to May 2013 despite the petitioner's requests for an urgent hearing. The order records that the Bench stated it had no time.
(vi) In April 2013, without hearing the petitioner, Justice Geeta Mittal's Bench suggested that the petitioner consider accommodation from the Ministry of Women and Child Welfare. Since the only accommodation this Ministry offers is Nari Niketans the petitioner rightly rejected this suggestion. The petitioner would have essentially been in a prison in a Nari Niketan. In May 2013, again without hearing the petitioner, Justice Geeta Mittal passed an order permitting the South East district Delhi Police about whom the Petitioner had complained in Jangpura to take the help of an unknown NGO to "protect" the petitioner. This NGO is based in a slum at the outskirts of South East Delhi, This order would have been used by the Police to use this NGO to confine the petitioner.
(vii) In October 2013, despite the petitioner sleeping on the streets, a Bench headed by Justice P K Bhasin adjourned the Writ and the application for shelter to January 2014 thus compelling the petitioner to sleep in her car that winter.
(viii) In May 2014, when the petitioner again pleaded for urgent hearing of the matter because she was sleeping on the street, Justice Sistani laughed and remarked but you should sleep in your house. The matter was then adjourned unheard to 18 July 2014.
(ix) As already mentioned, on 5 June 2014 the petitioner fractured her fibula due to circumstances arising from her enforced homelessness.
(x) The only orders that the petitioner needed was that the government be directed to help her find/ rent safe accommodation where the police would have been forced to protect her in compliance with court orders. The petitioner could have raised funds to pay for this accommodation. She could have started working and earning again once she secured safe accommodation.
(xi) But multiple judges of the Delhi High Court ignored the petitioner's plight. A whistleblower against one of the most powerful corporates in the world was forced to sleep in her car for over 1 year and 3 months despite being before the Delhi High Court in a whistleblower right to life petition. This whistleblower has been maimed for life because of the deliberate dislocation of her left ankle in June 2014 as part of the conspiracy to eliminate and silence her. This happened while the petitioner was before the High Court and while there were court orders for her protection.
(xii) The Bar Council of India and the Bar Council of Delhi also ignored the petitioner's plight, as did the Supreme Court Bar Association and the Delhi High Court Bar Association all of whom the petitioner wrote to for assistance and support.
56. In effect the writ judgment of this Division Bench of the Delhi High Court is not based upon the facts or upon the material before the court. It is a perverse and falsely depicts the appellant -whistleblower as someone who abused the court process and filed a malicious petition seeking revenge and seeking housing from the State because she was evicted.
57. Material to establish that the appellant whistleblower is being targeted and faces a grave threat to her life is being filed in a separate volume. The appellant has posted some of this material on the internet at the following links. The appellant is also filing a separate affidavit in response to paras 25 and 26 of the writ judgment (reproduced above in para 43) where the Division Bench again without hearing the petitioner and without even considering the material before it comes to the perverse finding that the whistleblower has not been targeted and harmed. This judgment fails to consider even the petitioner's rejoinder filed to the alleged police affidavit and the other material before it that established that the police failed to comply with court protection orders and failed to register and investigate the petitioner's complaints of targeting. The police instead falsified complaints against the petitioner. False statements were made by the Police before the Court.
Attempt at thyroid cancer false diagnosis targeting General Electric whistleblower Seema Sapra http://gewhistleblower.blogspo
Dr S K Das of Max Healthcare attempted to poison Seema Sapra, General Electric whistleblower complaining of poisoning by prescribing Haloperidol as a sleeping aid in August 2011 http://gewhistleblower.blogspo
Dr Anuj Malhotra of Fortis Hospital deliberately dislocated the left ankle of General Electric whistleblower Seema Sapra on 9 June 2014 in an attempt to force her into surgery as part of attempts to eliminate her http://gewhistleblower.blogspo
Max Hospitals covered up poisoning complaint & clinical poisoning symptoms including abnormal heart ECG with rightward axis in General Electric whistleblower Seema Sapra http://gewhistleblower.blogspo
Max Healthcare Hospitals covered up poisoning complaint & clinical poisoning symptoms including abnormalities in blood haemogram in General Electric whistleblower Seema Sapra http://gewhistleblower.blogspo
Jayanand Kinnattinkaryail, Regional Security Director for General Electric in India made false police complaint against GE whistleblower Seema Sapra in 2013 http://gewhistleblower.blogspo
Delhi Police assault on General Electric whistleblower Seema Sapra at Oberoi Maidens Hotel on 23 June 2014 http://gewhistleblower.blogspo
Evidence that Delhi Police Inspector Ajay Gupta falsified police records against General Electric Company whistleblower Seema Sapra in June 2013 after facilitating attacks on her as SHO of Tughlaq Road Police Station http://gewhistleblower.blogspo
Fraudulent and False Status Report filed by Delhi Police in General Electric Company corruption litigation in Delhi High Court targeting whistleblower Seema Sapra http://gewhistleblower.blogspo
In July 2013, Delhi Police officer S B S Tyagi, then DCP New Delhi with mal-intent procured publication of an inaccurate news report about General Electric Company whistleblower Seema Sapra thereby violating Court orders directing the Police Commissioner to provide protection to Ms Sapra http://gewhistleblower.blogsp
shards of glass intended to target Seema Sapra, General Electric whistle-blower in January 2012 http://gewhistleblower.blogspo
11 Dec 2015 Pics showing toe nail symptoms of ongoing chronic poisoning of General Electric whistleblower Seema Sapra http://gewhistleblower.blogspo
Pics showing that my car's tyres are being deliberately destroyed by acid or corrosive chemical - General Electric whistleblower Seema Sapra http://gewhistleblower.blogspo
Pics dt 4 Dec 2015 showing that someone cut my car steering - General Electric whistleblower Seema Sapra http://gewhistleblower.blogspo
Video evidence of the two men following General Electric whistleblower Seema Sapra on 9 March 2012 in Saket Select Citywalk Mall http://gewhistleblower.blogspo
pic of man targeting General Electric whistleblower Seema Sapra on 9 September 2011 in Jangpura Extension http://gewhistleblower.blogspo
Car MAP sensor wire cut to target General Electric whistleblower Seema Sapra - pics dated 14 March 2015 http://gewhistleblower.blogspo
pics dated 14 December 2015 showing another car tyre of General Electric whistleblower Seema Sapra destroyed with acid or other corrosive chemical http://gewhistleblower.blogspo
pics dated 27 Aug 2014 showing car tyre of General Electric whistleblower Seema Sapra destroyed with acid or other corrosive chemical http://gewhistleblower.blogspo
Revealing exchange at Legally India website showing General Electric whistleblower lawyer Seema Sapra being targeted http://gewhistleblower.blogspo
Shamnad Basheer targeting Seema Sapra, General Electric whistleblower in a malicious and underhand manner http://gewhistleblower.blogspo
Anonymous abusive, threatening & defamatory messages sent to General Electric whistleblower Seema Sapra through her blog http://gewhistleblower.bl
58. Moving now to the contempt notice issued against the appellant for the events of 6.5.2014 which is the subject matter of the impugned judgment.The appellant has reproduced hereinabove the email complaint she made on 6.5.2014 which describes in detail the events of that day. The facts are as follows. The appellant is a highly qualified and accomplished woman lawyer who was forced to make whistleblower corruption complaints against General Electric. She was drugged and poisoned and targeted. She managed to file Writ Petition Civil 1280/2012 before the Delhi High Court in February 2012 seeking protection. Instead of being protected, the appellant continued to be drugged, poisoned and viciously destroyed ffrom 2012 until 2014 while the petition languished unheard in the Delhi High Court and while the Bench ignored the petitioner's plight. In May 2014, the petitioner had been homeless for 2 years. In May 2014, the petitioner had been sleeping in her car parked on the streets for over 1 year and three months. She had already spent one scorching summer and bone-chilling winter sleeping in her car. In May 2014, the petitioner was being poisoned. Toxic chemicals were being sprayed on her, inside her car while she was asleep. Toxic chemicals were also being released in the petitioner's vicinity or on her person when she tried to work on her whistleblower case in public spaces. Toxic chemicals were also being released near the petitioner on Delhi High Court premises. In May 2014, the petitioner had been financially broke for almost 1 year 10 months. She had been surviving by requesting lawyers for funds for almost 1 year 10 months. She was finding it extremely difficult to raise funds as lawyers were being told not to help her. In May 2014, the appellant was being defamed as mentally ill. She was being socially and professionally ostracized. Lawyers were being told not to interact with her.
59. The appellant was desperate to get her right to life and whistleblower petition heard. She desperately need some interim relief, particularly some orders that would help her find a place to stay. She needed protection. She needed the registration of a medico-legal case for poisoning and a medical examination for poisoning.
60. Instead her matter was not getting heard. A Division Bench of Justice SK Misra and Justice S P Garg which had started hearing the matter suddenly recused in April 2014 without indicating a reason two days after passing an order recording the appellants statement that she was beingpoisoned.
61. On 6 May 2014 the matter was listed before Justice Muralidhar and Justice Vibhu Bhakhru neither of whom could hear the matter. The appellant wanted to press for interim relief on shelter and protection before the summer vacations. As the matter was going to get adjourned on 6 May 2014, the appellant wanted to press for a short date. As described in the email dated 6 May 2014, Justice Vibhu Bakhru misled the appellant as to the timing when the writ petition would be heard and he and Justice Muralidhar adjourned the writ petition to 23 May 2014, a Friday before the summer vacations when it was almost certain the matter would not be heard. The appellant requested Justice Bhakhru to modify the date. The appellant was told she should file an application for change of date. The appellant tried to persuade Justice Bhakhru to change the date. He threatened to have the appellant evicted using court security. It was then that the appellant in a spontaneous tearful emotional outburst asked Justice Ravidra Bhat and Justice Vibhu Bhakhru if J. Bhat and J. Bakhru if
they did not care that the appellant, a whistleblower and a lawyer was being poisoned and if they wanted to find the appellant dead before WP Civil 1280 of 2012 could be heard. It was then that the appellant in a moment o emotional distress stated aloud words to the effect - if J. Bakhru was so corrupt that he did not care that the appellant was being poisoned.
62. After this incident the appellant went to Justice Muralidhar's court and at her request the date in the matter was changed from 23 May to 8 May 2014.
63. On 8 May 2014, the writ petition was listed before Justice Sistani and Justice V K Rao. Justice V K Rao recused from this matter because he disclosed in court that he did not hear matters where Advocate Mr Vkram Dhokalia was appearing as they were from the same lawyers chamber. Mr Vikram Dhokalia was appearing for one of the respondents. The writ petition again ended up getting adjourned unheard to 15.5.2014. On 15.5.2014, the writ petition was listed before Justice Sistani and Justice A K Pathak who refused to hear the matter that day and adjourned it without hearing to 18 July 2014. So the appellant was again in a position where she had no hope of relief till 18 July 2014. The appellant continued to be poisoned.
64. On 5 June 2014, as a direct result of her homelessness and her being poisoned, the appellant fractured her left fibula. On 9 June 2014, the appellant was deliberately harmed by none other than a doctor who was used to deliberately dislocate the appellant's left ankle. An attempt was made to force the appellant into surgery. The appellant was targeted with toxic chemicals even while her leg was fractured. She was assaulted by police in June 2014 after she complained of poisoning, who destroyed her laptop and phone and forcibly took her to Aruna Asaf Ali hospital where attempts were made to falsify medical records.
65. On 18 July 2014, the appellant appeared before Justice Sistani and Justice A K Pathak in a cast and using a walker. She had no laptop and as she was using electronic copies of the court record she could not argue. That day both Justice Sistani and Justice Pathak shouted at the appellant. They intimidated her. Justice Pathak insisted that she argue that day. They took no notice of the fact that the homeless appellant was now before them with a fracture and a dislocated ankle. They ignored the petitioner when she narrated how the police had destroyed her laptop. The order passed that day does not even mention the appellant's fracture. In any case it was impossible for the matter to be heard on 18 July as that was a Friday and there was a tea party and full court reference for a retiring judge. It is submitted that Justice Sistani would have known about these engagements on 18 July in May when this date was given. The matter was now adjourned unheard to 31 July 2014. The appellant was now in an even more difficult situation than in May 2014. In August 2014, the appellant learnt that her ankle was dislocated. On 31 July 2014, with her fracture and dislocated ankle and with no funds to buy a laptop the appellant was forced to seek an adjournment. The matter went to 25 September 2014. And so it continued.
66. The appellant submits that she has full and deep respect and regard for the rule of law, the judiciary, the courts and the judicial process. In a moment of feeling desperate, and of great emotional distress on account of being forced to survive in very difficult circumstances while being denied access to justice, the appellant crossed the line and uttered a statement without thinking before Justice Ravindra Bhat and Justice Vibhu Bakhru. Looking back the appellant agrees that she should not have said those words, But it was a spontaneous outburst on the spur of the moment and the words were spoken without reflection or premeditation.
67. The appellant offers her full and unqualified apology for making that un-necessary and inappropriate statement in court.
68. However as described above, the appellant hopes that this Hon'ble Court will appreciate that very difficult circumstances and the strain of continued targeting for 4 years caused the appellant to have this outburst in court. The appellant's conduct was not malicious and was not intended to scandalize or disrespect the court or to bring it into disrepute.
69. The appellant therefore requests this Hon'ble Court to take a lenient and sympathetic view of the appellant's emotional outburst and to accept her apology.
70. The Appellant, a woman lawyer who has always respected the law, a whistleblower, facing a threat to her life, who has been viciously targeted, who has been chronically poisoned certainly does not deserve the harsh punishment that the impugned judgment imposes. The appellant will be placed in greater danger if she is imprisoned. She will be drugged and poisoned in prison.
71. The impugned judgment has also directed that the appellant, an advocate enrolled with the Bar Council of Delhi will not be allowed to argue, whether as an Advocate or in person, except in her defence, before any Bench of this High Court or any court or tribunal subordinate to this High Court for a period of two years from today. It is submitted that this direction not only amounts to denying the appellant her right to access justice, but also amounts to an unlawful suspension of her right to practice law as an advocate for two years. The Division Bench has clearly erred in issuing this direction in the impugned judgment.
72. It is submitted that as clarified by a constitution bench of the Supreme Court in Supreme Court Bar Association of India v. Union of India (1998) 4 SCC 409, the Delhi High Court Division Bench while disposing off CONT. CAS(CRL) 2/2014 had no jurisdiction to debar the appellant from practicing the profession of law before it and before subordinate courts for a period of 2 years. The law as laid down by the Supreme Court is clear that only the Bar Council can suspend or abrogate an advocate's right to practice law and that too after following due process.
73. Reliance is placed upon the following passages from Supreme Court Bar Association of India v. Union of India (1998) 4 SCC 409.
" The question which arises is whether the Supreme Court of India can while dealing with Contempt Proceedings exercise power under Article 129 of the Constitution or under Article 129 read with Article 142 of the Constitution or under Article 142 of the Constitution can debar a practicing lawyer from carrying on his profession as a lawyer for any period whatsoever, We direct notice to issue on the Attorney General of India and on the respondents herein. Notice will also issue on the application for interim stay. Having regarding to the importance of the aforesaid question we further direct that this petition be placed before a Constitution Bench of this Court."
"This Court is indeed the final appellate authority under Section 38 of the Act but we are not persuaded to agree with the view that this Court can in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, under Section 38 of the Act, impose one of the punishments, prescribed under that Act, while punishing a contemner advocate in a contempt case. 'Professional misconduct' of the advocate concerned is not a matter directly in issue in the contempt of court case. while dealing with the contempt of court case, this court is obliged to examine whether the conduct complained of amounts to contempt of court and if t he answer is in the affirmative, than to sentence the contemner for contempt of court by imposing any of the recognised and accepted punishments for committing contempt of court. Keeping in view the elaborate procedure prescribed under the Advocates Act 1961 and the Rules framed thereunder it follows that a complaint of professional misconduct is required to be tried by the disciplinary committee of the Bar Council, like the trial of a criminal case by a court of law and an advocate may be punished on the basis of evidence led before the disciplinary committee of the Bar Council after being afforded an opportunity of hearing. The delinquent advocate may be suspended from the rolls of the advocates or imposed any other punishment as provided under the Act. The enquiry is a detailed and elaborate one and is not of a summary nature. It is therefore, not permissible for this court to punish an advocate for "professional misconduct" in exercise of the appellate jurisdiction by convening itself as the statutory body exercising "original jurisdiction". Indeed, if in a given case the concerned Bar Council on being apprised of the contumacious and blame worthy conduct of the advocate by the High Court or this Court does not take any action against the said advocate, this court may well have the jurisdiction in exercise of its appellate powers under Section 38 of the Act read with Article 142 of the Constitution to proceed suo moto and send for the records from the Bar Council and pass appropriate orders against the concerned advocate. in an appropriate case, this Court may consider the exercise of appellate jurisdiction even suo moto provided there is some cause pending before the concerned Bar Council, and the Bar Council does "not act" or fails to act, by sending for the record of that cause and pass appropriate orders.
However, the exercise of powers under the contempt jurisdiction cannot be confused with the appellate jurisdiction under Section 38 of the Act. The two jurisdictions are separate and distinct. We are, therefore, unable to persuade ourselves to subscribe to the contrary view expressed by the Bench in V.C. Mishra's case because in that case the Bar Council had not declined to deal with the matter ad take appropriate action against the concerned advocate. Since there was no cause pending before the Bar Council, this court could not exercise its appellate jurisdiction in respect of a matter which was never under consideration of the bar councils.
Thus, to conclude we are of the opinion that this court cannot in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 142 read with Article 129 of the Constitution, while punishing a contemner for committing contempt of court, also impose a punishment of suspending his licence to practice, where the contemner happens to be an Advocate. Such a punishment cannot even be imposed by taking recourse to the appellate powers under Section 38 of the Act while dealing with a case of contempt of court (and not an appeal relating to professional misconduct as such). To that extent, the law laid down in Re: Vinay Chandra Mishra, (1995) 2 S.C.C. 584 is not good law and we overrule it.
An Advocate who is found guilty of contempt of court may also, as already noticed, be guilty of professional misconduct in a given case but it is for the Bar Council of the State or Bar Council of India to punish that Advocate by either debarring him from practice or suspending his licence, as may be warranted, in the facts and circumstances of each case. The learned Solicitor General informed us that there have been cases where the Bar Council of India taking note of the contumacious and objectionable conduct of an advocate, had initiated disciplinary proceedings against him and even punished him for "professional misconduct", on the basis of his having been found guilty of committing contempt of court. We do not entertain any doubt that the Bar Council of the State or Bar Council of India, as the case may be, when apprised of the established contumacious conduct of an advocate by the High Court or by this Court, would rise to the occasion , and take appropriate action against such an advocate. Under Article 144 of the Constitution "all authorities civil and judicial, in the territory of India shall act in aid of the Supreme Court". The Bar Council which performs a public duty and is charged with the obligation to protect the dignity of the profession and maintain professional standards and etiquette is also obliged to act "in aid of the Supreme Court". It must, whenever, facts warrant rise to the occasion and discharge its duties uninfluenced by the position of the contemner advocate. It must act in accordance with the prescribed procedure, whenever its attention is drawn by this Court to the contumacious and unbecoming conduct of an advocate which has the tendency to interfere with due administration of justice. It is possible for the High Courts also to draw the attention of the Bar Council of the State to a case of professional misconduct of a contemner advocate to enable the State Bar Council to proceed in the manner prescribed by the Act and the rules framed thereunder. There is no justification to assume that the Bar Councils would not rise to the occasion, as they are equally responsible to uphold the dignity of the courts and the majesty of the and prevent any interference in the administration of justice. Learned counsel for the parties present before us do not dispute and rightly so that whenever a court of record, records its findings about the conduct of an Advocate while finding him guilty of committing contempt of court and desires or refers the matter to be considered by the concern Bar Council, appropriate action should be initiated by the concerned Bar Council in accordance with law with a view to maintain the dignity of the courts and to uphold the majesty of law and professional standards and etiquette. Nothing is more destructive of public confidence in the administration of justice than incivility, rudeness or disrespectful conduct on the part of a counsel towards the court or disregard by the court of the privileges of the bar. In case the Bar Council, even after receiving 'reference' from the court, fails to take action against the concerned advocate, this court might consider invoking its powers under Section 38 of the Act by sending for the record of the proceedings from the Bar Council and passing appropriate orders. Of Course the appellate powers under Section 38 would be available to this Court only and not to the High Courts. We, however hope that such a situation would not arise.
In a given case it may be possible, for this Court or the High Court, the prevent the contemner advocate to appear before it till he purges himself of the contempt but that is much different from suspending or revoking his licence or debarring him to practice as an advocate. In a case of contemptuous, contumacious, unbecoming or blameworthy conduct of an Advocate-on-Record, this court possesses jurisdiction, under the Supreme Court Rules itself, to withdraw his privilege to practice as an Advocate-an-Record because that privilege is conferred by this court and the power to grant the privilege includes the power to revoke or suspend it. The withdrawal of that privilege, however, does not amount to suspending or revoking his licence to practice as an advocate in other courts or Tribunals.
We are conscious of the fact that the conduct of the contemner of VC Misra's case was highly contumacious and even atrocious. It was unpardonable. the contemner therein had abused his professional privileges while practising as an advocate. he was holding a very senior position in the Bar Council of India and was expected to act in a more reasonable way. He did not. these factors appear to have influenced the bench in that case to itself punish him by suspending his licence to practice also while imposing a suspending sentence of imprisonment for committing contempt of court but while doing so this court vested itself with a jurisdiction where none exists. The position would, have been different had a reference been made to the Bar Council and the Bar Council did not take any action against the concerned advocate. In that event, as already observed, this court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction under Section 38 of the Act read with Article 142 of the Constitution of India, might have exercised suo moto powers and sent for the proceedings from the Bar Council and passed appropriate orders for punishing the contemner advocate for professional misconduct after putting him on notice as required by the proviso to Section 38 which reads thus:-
" Provided that no order of the disciplinary committed of the Bar Council of India shall be varied by the Supreme Court so as to prejudicially affect the person aggrieved without giving him a reasonable opportunity of being heard."
but it could not have done so in the first instance.
In V.C. Mishra's case, the Bench, relied upon its inherent powers under Article 142, to punish him by suspending his licence, without the Bar Council having been given any opportunity to deal with his case under the Act. We cannot persuade ourselves to agree with that approach. It must be remembered that wider the amplitude of its power under Article 142, the greater is the need of care for this Court to see that the power is used with restraint without pushing back the limits of the constitution so as to function within the bounds of its own jurisdiction. To the extent, this Court makes the statutory authorities and other organs of the State perform their duties in accordance with law, its role is unexceptionable but it is not permissible or the Court to "take over" the role of the statutory bodies or other organs of the State and "perform" their functions.
Upon the basis of what we have said above, we answer the question posed in the earlier part of this order, in the negative. The writ petition succeeds and is ordered accordingly".
74. The impugned judgment as well as the earlier writ judgment dated 2.3.2015 are both issued by the same Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprised of Justice Valmiki Mehta and Justice P S Teji. As stated above, the appellant's defence to the contempt notice required her to point out that the writ judgment was wrong, contrary to the material before it, perverse and resulted in covering up the corruption complaints against General Electric and the complaints of the petitioner of targeting and poisoning. As such it was correct and justified on the part of the appellant to request that the Bench of Justice Valmiki Mehta and Justice P S Teji recuse from the contempt case. This recusal request was wrongly rejected. When the appellant attempted to argue before this Bench that it had incorrectly dismissed the writ petition, this Bench did not permit the appellant to make her submissions. Yet the impugned judgment in the contempt matter itself relies upon the writ judgment.
75. The Division Bench of Justice Valmiki Mehta and Justice P S. Teji issued bailable warrants against the appellant earlier in 2015 in the contempt case when she failed to appear for a single hearing. The appellant was being drugged and poisoned. This Bench then insisted that the appellant furnish an address even though it was aware and was again made aware that the appellant was homeless since May 2012 and had no fixed address.
76. On 30.10.2015, this Division Bench closed the right of the appellant to file a reply in the contempt case. This despite the appellant's submission that she was being targeted and poisoned and was homeless. The appellant was then directed to argue. The appellant did not even have the court record of this contempt case with her. Even the limited submissions made by the appellant during the hearing on 30.10.2015 before this Bench have been misrecorded in the order and in the impugned judgment.
77. It is submitted that Para 10 of the Order dated 30.10.2015 which is relied upon in the impugned judgment does not summarize all the submissions, arguments and defence of the appellant. Neither does this paragraph correctly record the appellant's limited submissions made in court that day.
78. The impugned judgment incorrectly records that the appellant had relied upon Justice K.G. Balakrishnan's statement as Chief Justice of India that litigants should not hesitate to report judicial corruption. This was not a part of the appellant's submissions in this contempt case. On 30.10.2015 both the contempt cases against the appellant were listed together. There is an earlier contempt case from 2012 where the appellant had asked Justice Muralidhar to recuse from hearing a connected matter OMP 647/2012. It was in her applications in the other contempt case of 2012 that the appellant had relied upon the said statement of Justice K.G. Balakrishnan. On 30.10.2015 the Division Bench of Justice Valmiki Mehta and Justice P S Teji themselves asked the appellant specifically if she had relied upon such a statement by the Chief Justice. The appellant had answered that she had. This question and answer took place in the context of Criminal Contempt case 3 of 2012 and not Criminal Contempt case 2 of 2014. After this exchange, the Division Bench had insisted that the appellant first address them on the 2014 matter. They ten refused to hear the 2012 matter which was adjourned and is still pending. Yet the impugned judgment incorrectly includes this as one of the appellant's arguments in Criminal Contempt case 2 of 2014. Paragraph 7 of the impugned judgment therefore misrecords the defence of the appellant. Instead as stated hereinabove and in her email of 6.5.2014, the appellant made the statement spontaneously in an emotional outburst without prior reflection in a situation of emotional distress.
79. The impugned judgment also misrecords the appellant's submission in para 8. The appellant submits that it was improper for Justice Bhakhru to be part of the Bench that issued the notice of criminal contempt to her. The Bench of Justice Ravindra Bhat and Justice Bhakhru should have placed the matter before the Chief Justice for the Chief Justice to take a call and if appropriate place the matter before a different Bench. The appellant did not argue that the Delhi High Court itself could not hear the contempt case. The impugned judgment incorrectly records that the appellant made this argument and then conveniently dismisses it as frivolous.
80. It is also pointed out that the impugned judgment is wrong when it states in para 8(ii) that in some cases, criminal contempt matters can be heard by a single judge. In fact, under the Contempt of Courts Act, criminal contempt cases must be heard by a Division Bench and cannot be heard by a Single Judge. This issue is not even relevant for the present case.
In fact, by virtue of Section 18 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 a case of criminal contempt is to be heard by a Division Bench only when the criminal contempt is one under Section 15 of the Act, and thus except in cases covered by Section 15 of the Act a criminal contempt can in fact be heard not only by a Single Judge but the same Single Judge in whose face the contempt is committed
81. In para 9(ii) the impugned judgment wrongly suggests that the appellant lied that a long date was first given to her in the writ petition on 5 May 2014. The impugned judgment states that the court record in the writ case mentions the date in the order as 8.5.2014. Now as stated above the facts are that a date for 23.5.2014 was first given. The date was only changed to 8.5.2014 after the appellant's strong objections and after the exchange in the court of Justice Ravindra Bhat and Justice Vibhu Bakhru. Obviously this date change will not be reflected in the signed order which is signed only after the court rises for the day in the evening. The order will only reflect the changed date. The record of the date change will only be found in the papers and records of the court master's and court-stenographer's notings for the day. In this case, since no order was actually dictated in court in the writ petition on 6.5.2014. any evidence of the date change will only be in the court master's records. There are several witnesses to what transpired in court on that day and therefore it is submitted that the appellant will if called upon produce evidence to establish that such a date change did happen.
82. The appellant had also stated that Justice Vibhu Bakhru had represented/ appeared for General Electric as a lawyer; that she had discussed her whistleblower litigation against General Electric with him; and that she had even emailed Justice Vibhu Bakhru regarding that litigation. In para 10, the impugned judgment calls these self-serving convenient averments and states that the Bench disbelieves the same. In response it is submitted that Justice Vibhu Bhakhru has advised/ represented General Electric as a client. This is a matter of fact which the appellant is ready to establish in a trial. The appellant discussed the General Electric whistleblower case with Justice Vibhu Bakhru in the Delhi High Court premises on more than one occasion and in the presence of other lawyers. In fact, on one occasion, this discussion happened with Justice Vibbhu Bhakhru and Advocate Ms Anuradha Dutt in the ground floor lobby of the Delhi High Court. The topic of this discussion was whether K Radhakrishnan could be appointed the authorized representative of General Electric Company for the writ petition. The impugned judgment, fails to even record that the appellant had sent emails on the subject of her whisleblower complaints and litigation against General Electric to Justice Vibhu Bhakhru.
83. Judge Vibhu Bakhru was appointed as Additional Judge of the Delhi High Court on 17.4.2013. The appellant sent 72 emails between 6.5.2012 and 17.4.2013 to a large group of lawyers including Judge Vibhu Bakhru (email@example.com) all on the subject of her complaints against General Electric, Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/2012 and her being targeted as a whistleblower. As Judge Vibhu Bakhru's email was included in a large mailing list, the appellant's emails to this mailing list of lawyers kept going to Judge Vibhu Bakhru's email even after 17.4.2013 and 19 such emails were sent by the appellant to Judge Vibhu Bakhru's email address. Evidence of all these emails being sent is available on the appellant's Gmail account records (firstname.lastname@example.org). These emails are voluminous and are not being reproduced herein. The Appellant will produce two such specimen emails along with additional documents in a separate volume. The appellant is ready to produce all these emails sent by her to Justice Vibhu Bakhru before this Hon'ble Court.
84. The appellant had told the Division Bench on 30.10.2015 that she had been harassed by the police in court that day and that toxic chemicals were also being released near her on Delhi High Court premises. In para 11 of the impugned judgment, the Division Bench misrepresents this as a defence to the contempt notice. It then again relies upon its incorrect observations in the writ judgment to describe the appellant's complaint of police harassment on 30.10.2015 as wild and unsubstantiated. The appellant submits that since July 2014, the appellant has been harassed by Delhi High Court security police on every date when the writ or the contempt matters were listed. Large numbers of police personnel have been needlessly surrounding the appellant and even entering the court-rooms when her matters were listed. Some of these policemen have also been releasing toxic chemicals near the appellant on Delhi High Court premises. Court-staff and the PSO attached to Justice Valmiki Mehta's court have been party to such targeting using the police. On 30.10.2015, before the hearing, several policemen had surrounded the appellant and some had even stationed themselves inside the court-room. The appellant took pictures of such targeting. She made a complaint on email. Thereafter a large group of policemen surrounded the appellant inside the court-room before the judges entered and demanded that the appellant hand over her phone. The appellant refused and complained of such targeting to the Bench. The appellant has video, audio recordings and pictures to establish police targeting before the hearing on 30.10.2014 and to establish the participation of court staff attached to Justice Valmiki Mehta in such targeting.
85. The impugned judgment is perverse in that it fails to correctly record the appellant's submissions.
86. It is submitted that the appellant's un-premeditated and spontaneous emotional outburst on 6.5.2014 does not amount to contempt of court. There was no intent to scandalize the court or to lower its authority on the part of the appellant. The statement uttered by the appellant in a moment of great emotional distress has not caused any prejudice to the administration of justice or to any judicial proceeding.
87. The recusal by the Bench of Justice Muralidhar and Justice Vibhu Bakhru was for entirely different reasons and in fact the recusal order was already made even before the alleged contempt took place. Therefore, the impugned judgment is entirely wrong in stating that "The contemptuous statement prejudices or interferes or tends to interfere with the due course of judicial proceedings inasmuch as the unsubstantiated contemptuous statement has caused recusal of a Bench of this Court from hearing the matter on 6.5.2015."
88. It is submitted that the appellant's statement uttered without reflection and in a moment of distress does not amount to contempt of court. Neither did this statement interfere with the due course of justice.
89. The appellant further submits that due process require under the Contempt of Court's Act has not been followed and the appellant has been found guilty of contempt in a summary fashion without even being given an opportunity to defend herself.
90. The appellant places reliance upon Section 13 of the Contempt of Court's Act which provides "Contempts not punishable in certain cases. Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, no court shall impose a sentence under this Act for a contempt of court unless it is satisfied that the contempt is of such a nature that it
substantially interferes, or tends substantially to interfere with the
due course of justice."
91. It is submitted that the alleged contumacious statement of the appellant has not in any manner interfered with the administration of the due course of justice. This statement made before Justice Ravindra Bhat and Justice Vibhu Bakhru was not the reason for the recusal by Justice Muralidhar and Justice Bakhru which recusal in fact happened before this statement was made.
92. The appellant submits that her conviction for contempt of court is wrong and requests that it be set aside.
93. The appellant submits that the punishment and prison sentence imposed by the impugned judgment is not only contrary to Section 13 of the Contempt of Court's Act but is inappropriate and extremely harsh.
94. It is pointed out that the appellant had informed Justice Valmiki Mehta and Justice P S Teji on 30.10.2015 of her intention to pursue her whistleblower and right to life complaints before the Supreme Court.
It is submitted that the prison sentence will be used to drug, poison and eventually eliminate the appellant whistle-lower in order to silence her forever.
95. The appellant has offered a full, unqualified and unconditional apology for the statement which she made in the heat of the moment in a deeply distressed emotional state where she was concerned for her safety and survival. The impugned judgment incorrectly records that the appellant is not contrite. The impugned judgment is again incorrect in stating that the appellant had sought to over-awe different judges, The Appellant will file a separate affidavit explaining the circumstances of each and every recusal in WritPetition Civil No. 1280/2012 which is being repeatedly used to target her. The appellant was the real victim of these recusals.
96. It is denied that the appellant was "incorrigible" in the hearings before Justice Valmiki Mehta and Justice P S.Teji in the hearing of Contempt Case 2 of 2014 as stated in para 15 of the impugned judgment. How can the inability of a person (being targeted and poisoned) to file a reply be proof of their incorrigibility.
97. The impugned judgment and the writ judgment both establish that the Division Bench of Justice Valmiki Mehta and Justice P S Teji has not conducted itself in accordance with the requirements of judicial propriety and ethics in hearing these matters and they have not discharged their judicial function in an impartial, objective and unbiased manner.
98. The appellant requests that this Hon'ble Court set aside the impugned judgment and the conviction of the appellant for contempt of court. The appellant also requests that the extremely harsh and un-called for punishment be set aside. The Division Bench exceeded its jurisdiction and authority in effectively suspending the right of the advocate appellant to practice law for two years. This direction also needs to be set aside.
99. The appellant also prays that the operation of the impugned judgment be stayed pending the hearing and decision of this appeal.
100. That the appellant/ petitioner has not filed any other appeal or petition in any High Court or the Supreme Court of India on the subject matter of the present petition.
In the above facts and premises, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased:
(i) To allow the application for condonation of delay in filing this appeal;
(ii) To set aside the conviction of the appellant for contempt of court;
(iii) To set aside the impugned judgment dated 17.12.2015 of the Delhi High Court in CONT. CAS(CRL) 2/2014;
(iv) To accept the unconditional and unqualified apology offered by the appellant and to discharge the contempt notice issued to her by the Delhi High Court on 6.5.2014;
(v) To stay the operation of the impugned judgment pending hearing and decision in this appeal;
(vi) To pass such other orders and further orders as may be deemednecessary on the facts and in the circumstances of the case.
FOR WHICH ACT OF KINDNESS, THE APPELLANT/ PETITIONER SHALL AS IN DUTY BOUND, EVER PRAY.