Seema Sapra - General Electric corruption whistle-blower: the Truth prevails : New application filed by General Electric Company whistle-blower Seema Sapra in the Supreme Court seeking recall of order dated 7/2/2018 appointing Vikas Singh as amicus in her pending appeal

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Seema Sapra <seema.sapra@googlemail.com>
Date: Sat, Feb 24, 2018 at 1:55 PM
Subject: New application filed today by General Electric Company whistle-blower Seema Sapra in the Supreme Court seeking recall of order dated 7/2/2018 appointing Vikas Singh as amicus in her pending appeal - SEC Complaint TCR1439646785831
To: Kapil Sibal <kapilsibal@hotmail.com>, "abdsad@airtelmail.in" <abdsad@airtelmail.in>, "rkpslaw@hotmail.com" <rkpslaw@hotmail.com>, "knbhat@hotmail.com" <knbhat@hotmail.com>, "knbhat@yahoo.com" <knbhat@yahoo.com>, "knbhat@gmail.com" <knbhat@gmail.com>, Dushyant Dave <dushyantdave@gmail.com>, Mukul Rohatgi <mukul17855@gmail.com>, Gopal Subramanium <gs@gschambers.org>, Rajesh R <1976.rajesh@gmail.com>, "vedantavarma@hotmail.com" <vedantavarma@hotmail.com>, "rameshsingh66@gmail.com" <rameshsingh66@gmail.com>, Rebecca John <rebeccamammen@gmail.com>, Gourab Banerji <gkbanerji@gmail.com>, Aman lekhi <aman.lekhi@gmail.com>, Aman Lekhi <lekhi.aman@gmail.com>, "kaminijaiswal@hotmail.com" <kaminijaiswal@hotmail.com>, "sandeepsharma21@gmail.com" <sandeepsharma21@gmail.com>, "krishna.venugopal@gmail.com" <krishna.venugopal@gmail.com>, "SeniorAdv@gmail.com" <SeniorAdv@gmail.com>, "phurbu@gauravpachnanda.com" <phurbu@gauravpachnanda.com>, "senior_advocate_katara@yahoo.com" <senior_advocate_katara@yahoo.com>, "secretary@pachnanda.in" <secretary@pachnanda.in>, "vikas@pahwa.co.in" <vikas@pahwa.co.in>, "keshavparasaran@hotmail.com" <keshavparasaran@hotmail.com>, "vigneaswara@yahoo.com" <vigneaswara@yahoo.com>, "vigneaswara@sify.com" <vigneaswara@sify.com>, "pradeepkumarpradeep@hotmail.com" <pradeepkumarpradeep@hotmail.com>, Pallav Shishodia <pshishodia@yahoo.com>, "ashokpanda007@yahoo.co.in" <ashokpanda007@yahoo.co.in>, "rrsr99@airtelmail.in" <rrsr99@airtelmail.in>, "ssabharwal347@yahoo.com" <ssabharwal347@yahoo.com>, "sensanjiv@yahoo.co.in" <sensanjiv@yahoo.co.in>, "vrreddy080@gmail.com" <vrreddy080@gmail.com>, "krishnan_venugopal@yahoo.com" <krishnan_venugopal@yahoo.com>, Tapash Ray <tapashray362@gmail.com>, "sr_adv_akpanda@yahoo.co.in" <sr_adv_akpanda@yahoo.co.in>, harin raval <harinraval.office@gmail.com>, Justice Ginsburg <justicerbg@gmail.com>, "swhneysawhney@yahoo.com" <swhneysawhney@yahoo.com>, "nagendraraisradv@gmail.com" <nagendraraisradv@gmail.com>, Salman Khurshid <salmankhurshid100@gmail.com>, amit.sibal@amitsibal.com, akhil_sibal@hotmail.com, darpan.wadhwa@gmail.com, Vikas Pahwa <vikaspahwaadv@gmail.com>, Tushar Mehta <tusharmehta.asg@gmail.com>, Ranjit Kumar <kranjit13@gmail.com>, lnageshwararao@hotmail.com, Maninder Singh <ms@singhmaninder.com>, Neeraj Kaul <neerajkishankaul@gmail.com>, Narasimha Pamidighantam <psnarasimha@gmail.com>, Sanjay Jain <sanjayjain.chamber@gmail.com>, Ganesaiyer Rajagopalan <grsenior59@gmail.com>, Rajdeepak Rastogi <advrdrastogi@gmail.com>, ASHOK MEHTA <asgashokmehta@gmail.com>, Ranjit Kumar <sgofficerk@gmail.com>, Ranjit Kumar <ranjitkumarofficial@gmail.com>, Prabhuling K Navadgi <navadgi@gmail.com>, contact@satyapaljain.com, sdsanjay@hotmail.com, sanjay satydarshi <sdsanjayadv@gmail.com>, Atmaram Nadkarni <atmaramnsnadkarni@gmail.com>, pinky anand <pinkyanand@gmail.com>, "help@sec.gov" <help@sec.gov>, "newhaven@ic.fbi.gov" <newhaven@ic.fbi.gov>, tusharmehta64@yahoo.com, "advamit.sharma@gmail.com" <advamit.sharma@gmail.com>, gopi krishnan <jgopikrishnan@yahoo.com>, Subramanian Swamy <swamy39@gmail.com>, Prashant Bhushan <prashantbhush@gmail.com>, pravin@anandandanand.com, pallavi.shroff@amsshardul.com, "rsethi@snrlaw.in" <rsethi@snrlaw.in>, Abhishek Manu Singhvi <drams59@gmail.com>, "Dr.Waiel Awwad" <dr.awwad@gmail.com>, Murali Krishnan <murali@barandbench.com>, Dhananjay Mahapatra <dhananjay.mahapatra@gmail.com>, aneesha.mathur@expressindia.com, Scba India <scbaec@gmail.com>, Vikas Singh <singh.vikas60@gmail.com>, kirti_uppal@yahoo.com, aknigamoffice@gmail.com

I have filed the application reproduced below (and also attached) today in the Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal Diary No. 10342/2016 vide filing diary no. 30030.

It seeks the following relief.

"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to allow this Application and:-

(i) To recall its order dated 7 February 2018 appointing Senior Advocate Mr Vikas Singh as amicus in this matter;

(ii) Record/ clarify that the appellant has not consented to the appointment of Mr Vikas Singh as amicus in this matter, and that the appellant strongly objects to this appointment;

(iii) Record the appellant's submission that she objects to any lawyer or amicus being appointed or being asked to present her case or submissions in this appeal or to report to this Hon'ble Court on the appellant's circumstances, or to represent the appellant or her case in this appeal in any manner or to appear for her or to speak on her behalf or in her absence in this case;

(iv) Issue formal notice as per rules, protocol and practice in suo moto contempt matters to the office of the Attorney General of India;

(v) Grant the appellant, a qualified lawyer, a full and fair hearing in this matter as appellant in person, in accordance with the principles of natural justice and due process guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India;

(vi) To pass such other orders and further orders as may be deemed necessary on the facts and in the circumstances of the case."

Seema Sapra

General Electric Company whistle-blower

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

I.A. NO. OF 2018
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 10342 OF 2016

IN THE MATTER OF

SEEMA SAPRA …Appellant/Petitioner

Versus

COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION … Respondent

APPLICATION FOR RECALL OF ORDER DATED 7 FEBRUARY 2018 APPOINTING SENIOR ADVOCATE MR VIKAS SINGH AS AMICUS IN THIS MATTER

Hon'ble The Chief Justice of India and His Companion Judges of the Supreme Court of India., the application of the Appellant/ Petitioner most respectfully showeth :-

1. This matter was listed before the Hon'ble Court on 7 February 2018 when the following order was passed.

We appoint Mr. Vikas Singh, Sr. Advocate as Amicus Curiae in this case to assist the Court. The petitioner has submitted before the Court that she has no objection.

The Registry is directed to supply a copy of the entire record of this case to Mr. Vikas Singh, Sr. Advocate immediately.

List on 26.03.2018.

2. The appellant is filing the present application for recall and clarification of this order. The appellant is compelled to make the present application and she has no option but to do so, in order to protect herself and her fundamental rights including her right to life and her right to seek justice before this Hon'ble Court.

3. The Appellant strongly objects to the appointment of Mr Vikas Singh as amicus in this matter.

4. The Appellant also strenuously objects to the appointment of any amicus in this matter and the Appellant categorically states that she cannot and does not agree to the appointment of any amicus in this matter, to speak on her behalf or to address the Hon'ble Court on her behalf, or to present or represent her case before this Hon'ble Court, or to present the facts or the law relevant to this appeal before the Hon'ble Court, or to present the Appellant's circumstances and situation before this Hon'ble Court in these or any other proceedings. The appellant does not agree to being represented in this matter through any amicus. She also does not agree to any amicus presenting the case of the appellant before this Hon'ble Court. The appellant seeks to place on record her strongest objection to the appointment of Mr Vikas Singh as amicus.

5. The appellant is a whistle-blower who has made corruption complaints against General Electric Company which the Government of India is attempting to cover up. Several very powerful lawyers have been involved in the ongoing attempt to cover-up these complaints against General Electric Company and they have committed and/ or facilitated criminal offences under both Indian and US law including perjury, forgery, fraud on the Delhi High Court and on General Electric Company and obstruction of justice in an elaborate criminal conspiracy to cover up the appellant's corruption complaints against General Electric Company and to target, silence and eliminate the Appellant.

6. The appellant has also made a complaint of sexual harassment against lawyer Raian Karanjawala and a complaint of sexual harassment, sexual assault and attempted rape against lawyer Soli Sorabjee. Several very powerful lawyers have been involved in the attempted cover-up of these complaints and a very large group of lawyers have participated in targeting, smearing, defaming and threatening the appellant/ complainant of sexual harassment.

7. The appellant submits that on 27 October 2017, another Bench of this Hon'ble Court then hearing this matter had appointed Ms Pinky Anand as amicus in this matter. The petitioner had moved IA 111244/2017 for recall of that order and this Hon'ble Court was pleased to recall that order appointing Ms Pinky Anand as amicus by its order dated 4 December 2017. The appellant refers to and relies upon IA 111244/2017 for the present purpose as well.

8. The appellant submits that apart from containing concerns and reservations specific to Ms Pinky Anand (who is both a next door neighbour and friend of Soli Sorabjee and a friend of Raian Karanjawala and Zia Mody), IA 111244/2017 also set out the appellant's apprehension that any lawyer or indeed any person appointed as amicus in this matter will be influenced to misrepresent the case, situation, and circumstances of the appellant, given the extremely high stakes involved.

9. The appellant submits that given the highly sensitive facts and nature of this case, it is not appropriate to appoint any amicus in this matter whether to speak for or on behalf of the Appellant, or to present the arguments or submissions in this case to the Hon'ble Court instead of or in place of the appellant.

10. The appellant has been permitted to appear and argue in person in the present matter by an order of this Hon'ble Court dated 9 October 2017. The appellant is an accomplished lawyer enrolled with the Bar Council of Delhi since 1995. Her CV is reproduced in the memo of appeal.

11. The appellant has been wrongfully convicted of criminal contempt of court by the Delhi High Court and she has been wrongfully sentenced to prison. The Appellant submits that she will be drugged and poisoned in prison and her health will be destroyed and her past complaints of poisoning will be covered up by the Indian State authorities.

12. The Appellant also submits that her right to practice law and her right to appear as an advocate or even in person before the Delhi High Court and lower courts was wrongfully restricted by the impugned judgment for a period of two years (which period has now elapsed) in violation of several Constitution Bench decisions of this Hon'ble Court. The Appellant has therefore filed IA 123144/2017 seeking reference of this appeal for hearing by a five Judge Constitution Bench of this Hon'ble Court.

13. The appellant submits that she was not accorded a hearing by the Delhi High Court in the contempt hearing, and nor was she allowed to file a written reply to the contempt notice. The impugned judgment was passed without hearing the appellant and in complete violation of the appellant's fundamental right to natural justice in a criminal proceeding where her liberty and very life is now at stake.

14. The Appellant has a right to be fully and fairly heard before this Hon'ble Court in the present appeal which is a first appeal on facts and law. This right to be heard by the Supreme Court is part of the Appellant's fundamental right to due process and procedure established by law and to life and liberty under Article 21, her fundamental right to access justice, and her right to equality under the law under Article 14. The Appellant submits that she cannot be condemned unheard and she has a fundamental right to a full and fair hearing before this Hon'ble Court.

15. This Hon'ble Court has always held that the first appellate court must hear the appeal on facts and law and that it is the first appellant court which is the final arbiter of facts. There are several facts relevant to this appeal which are either incorrectly recorded in the impugned judgment or have been completely ignored by the Delhi High Court. The Appellant is entitled to be heard by this Hon'ble Court on these facts. The Appellant places reliance upon Vinod Kumar vs Gangadhar (2015) 1 SCC 391 and upon other supporting authorities on this point. The appellant has filed IA 122625/2017 with the following prayers as the Delhi High Court records in the matters listed below are essential for the Appellant to be heard by this Hon'ble Court on the relevant facts of the present appeal.

It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to allow this Application and :-

(i) To summon the paper and electronic records of the Delhi High Court in Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/2012, CONT. CASE(CRL) 2/2014, CONT. CASE(CRL) 3/2012, and O.M.P.647/2012;

(ii) To pass such other orders and further orders as may be deemed necessary on the facts and in the circumstances of the case.

16. The appellant apologizes to the Hon'ble Court for any confusion during the hearing on 9 February 2018 which may conveyed an incorrect impression or may have led the Hon'ble Court to mistakenly conclude and record that the appellant had no objection to the appointment of Mr Vikas Singh as amicus.

17. During the hearing, the appellant had reiterated her position and her prayer in pending IA 111244/2017 that in contempt cases, the protocol, practice and procedure followed by the Supreme Court was to issue notice to the Attorney General and had requested that this Hon'ble Court should therefore call upon the Attorney General to assist the Court. The relief sought in IA 111244/2017, which is pending, is set out below.

It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to allow this Application and :-

(i) To recall its order dated 27 October 2017 appointing ASG Senior Advocate Ms Pinky Anand as amicus in this matter;

(ii) Issue formal notice as per rules, protocol and practice in suo moto contempt matters to the office of the Attorney General of India;

(iii) To pass such other orders and further orders as may be deemed necessary on the facts and in the circumstances of the case.

18. However, during the hearing on 7 February 2018, the Hon'ble Court insisted upon appointing an amicus, despite opposition by the appellant, and the appellant felt pressured. During the hearing on 7 February 2018, the Hon'ble Court first asked the appellant to suggest some names for appointment as amicus and then suggested the names of Ms Indira Jaising and Ms Meenakshi Arora, both of whom the appellant objected to. It is submitted that Ms Indira Jaising is a close friend of both Mr Soli Sorabjee and Mr Raian Karanjawala and like Ms Pinky Anand has participated in both smearing and ostracizing the appellant. With respect to Ms Meenakshi Arora, it is submitted that she is a former junior to Mr Raian Karanjawala and is friends with both Soli Sorabjee and Raian Karanjawala. The Appellant had literally begged Ms Meenakshi Arora in 2012 for help in securing a temporary place to stay after she was rendered homeless and penniless while Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/2012 was pending. Ms Meenakshi Arora refused to help the Appellant. Ms Meenakshi Arora was also (wittingly or unwittingly) used in an attempt to drug the Appellant inside the Supreme Court in August 2012 when the Appellant had mentioned in open Court before Hon'ble Justice Kabir of the Supreme Court that she had been rendered homeless and had no place to stay despite being a whistle-blower and despite the fact that the Delhi High Court had issued orders to the Delhi Police and other authorities to protect her as she was a whistle-blower.

19. During the hearing on 7 February 2018, the Hon'ble Court then suggested the name of Mr Vikas Singh who is a senior advocate, former ASG under the Dr Manmohan Singh led UPA Government and the current elected President of the Supreme Court Bar Association. The appellant had stated in Court that she was unsure of Mr Vikas Singh as the SCBA's Twitter account had been used to block the appellant on Twitter, and she had no idea if Mr Vikas Singh was behind this. The Appellant recalls that thereafter the Hon'ble Bench requested the stenographer to delete the sentence that the appellant had no objection to the appointment of Mr Vikas Singh as amicus. Thereafter the Hon'ble Court proceeded to dictate the rest of the order including the time period for the next listing of the case.

20. The Appellant was therefore surprised to find that the order dated 7 February 2018 uploaded on the Supreme Court website contained the statement that the Appellant had submitted that she had no objection to the appointment of Mr Vikas Singh as amicus.

21. The appellant submits that she has a serious objection to the appointment of Mr Vikas Singh as amicus and she would unequivocally like to place this objection on the court record. Mr Vikas Singh does not speak for the Appellant. She does not know him. She has no reason to trust him and every reason to expect that he will be influenced and pressured to act in a manner detrimental to the appellant's interests, rights and cause.

22. The Appellant also submits that she has a serious objection to the appointment of any amicus in the present matter as this further endangers her life and incentivises those trying to eliminate or incapacitate the appellant to do so.

23. The Appellant also submits that she also has specific and strong objections to the appointment of Mr Vikas Singh as amicus in this matter.

24. A copy of a screen-shot that shows that the SCBA's official Twitter account has blocked the Appellant's Twitter account is annexed hereto as Annexure IA-1. The official Twitter account of the SCBA is in all likelihood operated by the SCBA President Mr Vikas Singh or by its Secretary. The blocking of the Appellant by the SCBA on Twitter means that the appellant cannot communicate with the SCBA on Twitter, cannot read the SCBA's tweets, cannot reply to the SCBA's tweets and cannot retweet them. This amounts to a silencing of the Appellant. It amounts to blacklisting her and to ostracizing her. Essentially the SCBA wants to prevent the Appellant who is also a lawyer from being able to engage with the SCBA on Twitter or with those following the SCBA on Twitter. The reason is to prevent the Appellant from communicating with the SCBA community and informing them of her sexual harassment complaints using Twitter and informing them that she is a whistle-blower against General Electric Company corruption being silenced, targeted and poisoned.

25. The Appellant states that she even slept in her car parked outside Mr Vikas Singh's house in Defence Colony in 2013-2014. She was targeted there. Mr Vikas Singh did not help the appellant in any manner despite being aware of her plight and circumstances.

26. Mr Vikas Singh has close ties to the Delhi High Court and Supreme Court bars. He will not expose the lawyers involved in the cover-up of GE's complaints, nor will he expose or condemn those lawyers who have targeted the appellant. The appellant has essentially been cast out by the Bar, while Mr Vikas Singh is a leader of that very Bar and has an interest in maintaining cordial relations with the lawyers targeting the appellant and who have ganged up against her. The Appellant cannot expect justice from Mr Vikas Singh nor can she expect that he will objectively and without undue influence bring the relevant facts and legal issues to the attention of this Hon'ble Court in the present appeal.

27. The first duty of the Appellant is to protect her life, her health and her person. The appellant is 100% certain that the appointment of an amicus in the present matter incentivises the powerful entities and persons targeting the appellant to remove the appellant from the scene by poisoning, drugging, or otherwise incapacitating her to prevent her from appearing in the present case on future hearings and from arguing her own case. The presence of an amicus will mean that the present appeal can be disposed off even in the absence of the Appellant and without hearing the Appellant. The presence of an amicus will mean that if the appellant who is being poisoned is incapacitated, made ill, confined, drugged, or prevented from appearing before this Hon'ble Court for the hearing of this appeal and the other cases of the appellant and the appellant fails to appear, then the amicus will be used through the State, the police or doctors or other persons to cover up the real circumstances of the appellant and to present a factually incorrect account to this Hon'ble Court of the appellant's reasons for absence, of her physical condition or whereabouts. This is a very real apprehension given the facts and background of this case. The documents on record before the Delhi High Court clearly establish that the Police, State agencies including the Home Ministry and the Railway Ministry, and the CBI have been used to target the Appellant-whistle-blower and the errant officers in these agencies will stand exposed when the Appellant presents these facts and documents before this Hon'ble Court. The documents on record before the Delhi High Court establish that doctors at Max, Fortis, Apollo, and at the Delhi High Court health centre were used to target the appellant. The documents on record before the Delhi High Court establish that the appellant's family members are being blackmailed and controlled by lawyers close to Soli Sorabjee and Raian Karanjawala and were used to target the appellant. The appellant has broken off all contact with her family members (her mother, two sisters and a brother) and has not met them or spoken to them since 2011. The appellant states that her family members are dead to her and even her dead body (if she succumbs to the ongoing poisoning) should not be handed over to them. Several lawyers are being used to keep suggesting to the appellant that instead of fighting for her right to life in court, she should approach her family members. This clearly establishes the criminal conspiracy to incapacitate the appellant and to then use her scared and compliant family members to cover up and confine the appellant so that the world can never hear her voice.

28. Imagine that the appellant who is being poisoned, who is also homeless and who is surviving on charity, is poisoned acutely to make her fall ill. She collapses and is admitted to a Government hospital by the Police or by some lawyer, The Appellant fears she will be drugged in the hospital and the police, government doctors or some lawyers or the appellant's family members will be used to convey to the amicus that the appellant has fallen ill naturally. The Appellant might never leave the hospital or she might be confined somewhere or institutionalized by the State or by using the appellant's family. The amicus will then be used to help cover up the appellant's real condition or the fact that she is being poisoned. The amicus will be so used even if the amicus is not part of the criminal conspiracy as the amicus will necessarily depend upon police or third-party accounts of the appellant's condition and whereabouts as the appellant herself would have been removed from the scene. and from public life.

29. The stakes in this matter and the stakes involving the appellant's whistle-blower and sexual harassment complaints which are the reasons for the ongoing threat to the Appellant's life are very high and the persons and entities targeting the appellant who want the appellant dead or eliminated or incapacitated are extremely powerful.

30. The stakes involving the appellant's complaints of corruption by General Electric Company and its ongoing attempted cover-up mean that General Electric Company would be disqualified and blacklisted not only from the multi-billion USD diesel locomotive Marhowra factory contract but from all other contracts and tenders of the Government of India. In addition, GE would be subject to an investigation in the US by the FBI, the SEC and the US Department of Justice both into the corruption and forgery complaints but also into their cover up. Several powerful GE executives and lawyers (including former executives and lawyers) would face criminal liability including prosecution and prison sentences. These include former GE lawyers Brackett Denniston, Jeffrey Eglash, Deepak Adlakha, Ruby Anand, Bradford Berenson and current GE lawyers Alexander Dimitref, Tara Plimpton and Tejal Patel. These include former GE CEO and Chairman of its Board Jeffrey Immelt, and present GE CEO and Chairman of the Board John Flannery, and several other high-level GE executives including former vice-chairman John Rice. These include Pratyush Kumar, a former GE executive who is at present CEO of Boeing India. Two powerful lawyers working with a US law firm Gibson Dunn & Crutcher (F. Joseph Warin and John Chesley) will face obstruction of justice charges. Powerful former Indian bureaucrats including Montek Singh Ahluwalia and Gajendra Haldea will face investigation. The role of former PM Manmohan Singh will come under the scanner. The US investigation into the appellant's complaint that GE paid bribes to obtain this contract will mean that powerful politicians from both the Congress and the BJP will come under the scanner of US agencies. Mr Arun Jaitley has been involved in the continued cover-up of GE corruption under the Government of Mr Narendra Modi. Several lawyers have played a role in sabotaging Writ Petition Civil 1280/2012 before the Delhi High Court and in helping cover up GE corruption and in targeting the appellant. This is not a mere baseless allegation but is established from the court record of Writ Petition Civil 1280/2012 in the Delhi High Court. There have been multiple instances of judicial impropriety in the hearing and disposal of the Appellant's whistle-blower corruption petition against General Electric before the Delhi High Court, being Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/2012. The lawyers who have helped cover up the corruption complaints against General Electric Company include Mr Soli Sorabjee, Mr Raian Karanjawala, Mr A S Chandhiok, Mr Rajiv Mehra, Mr Rajiv Nayar, Mr Dayan Krishnan, Ms Sapna Chauhan, Ms Zia Mody, Mr Nanju Ganpathy, Mr C A Sundaram, Mr Manpreet Lamba and several others.

31. The large group of lawyers who are targeting the appellant, smearing her or socially ostracising her include Soli Sorabjee, Zia Mody, Maninder Singh, Rajiv Nayar, Pravin Anand, Sandeep Sethi, Raian Karanjawala, Mukul Rohatgi, A S Chandhiok, Ruby Ahuja, Nandini Gore, Nisha Bagchi, Abhijat Bal, Siddharth Dave, Vibha Makhija, Kavin Gulati, Nanju Ganpathy, Manpreet Lamba, Ripu Adlakha, Deepak Adlakha, Ronnie Banerji, Anupam Srivastav, Arun Kathpalia, Abhinav Vashisht, Sanjeev Sindhwani, Amit Chadha, Rajeeve Mehra, Gopal Jain, Harish Salve, Dushyant Dave, Tasneem Ahmadi, Shyam Divan, Madhavi Divan, Ritin Rai, Chander Lall, Shyel Trehan, Piyoosh Kalra, Kirti Uppal, Pravin Parekh, Prashant Bhushan, Geeta Luthra, Indira Jaising, Aman Ahluwalia and others.

32. The appellant has been poisoned/ drugged in the Supreme Court and Delhi High Court cafeterias. The Appellant has been and continues to be targeted with toxic chemicals and fumes on the premises of the Supreme Court and the Delhi High Court. Interns, court clerks, junior lawyers, policemen, RAC guards, court staff and even lawyers' clients have been used to poison the appellant with toxic chemicals and fumes inside the Delhi High Court and even inside the Supreme Court.

33. The appellant is being followed 24/7. She is followed by several men on motorbikes and cars. She is followed on the Delhi Metro. She is followed to public spaces/ cafes/ restaurants she is forced to frequent as she is homeless. She is being targeted with poisonous chemicals and fumes wherever she goes.

34. The appellant was rendered homeless and is being compelled to sleep in her car parked outside gate 8 of the Delhi High Court. The appellant is being poisoned at night with highly toxic gases, toxic and acidic chemical fumes and with anesthetic nerve agents and with toxic pesticides when she is asleep in her car at night. Any person can approach the appellant sleeping effectively on the street. The appellant is being chronically poisoned since 2010.

35. In fact, the poisoning of the Appellant has escalated since 7 February 2018. The Appellant has been poisoned with nerve agents, anaesthetic agents and pesticides and with some highly corrosive acidic chemical fumes/ gas while asleep in her car outside gate 8 of the Delhi High Court since 7 February 2018. She could have died or collapsed on any of these nights. In fact, the poisoning has been so intense that the petitioner complained to the Police that her dead body would be found. The appellant relies upon her email complaints to the police since 7 February 2018 (also copied to the Secretary General of the Supreme Court) and on her public tweets to the Delhi Police.

36. The appellant has again been poisoned with some very toxic and acidic chemical fumes for the last few days and nights. The conspiracy and attempt is to poison the appellant and to induce chemical pneumonia and to then pretend that the appellant has fallen gravely ill or that she has succumbed to a sudden fatal illness. The appellant is also being poisoned with anaesthetic and nerve agents at night. These could cause the appellant to slip into a coma or to suffer cardiac arrest.

37. This application seeks to place some relevant facts before this Hon'ble Court.

38. This is an appeal from a contempt conviction and involves issues concerning the life and liberty of the appellant. The Appellant is a whistleblower and a witness in corruption complaints against General Electric Company (GE) and she is being targeted and being chronically poisoned. Her life is in grave danger both from GE and from powerful elements within the Indian State which are being used to silence the appellant.

39. The Appellant has also made public complaints of sexual harassment against Senior Advocate Soli J Sorabjee and Advocate Mr Raian Karanjawala dating back to 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2001. The Appellant has made a public complaint of sexual assault and attempted rape of the appellant by Soli Sorabjee (then Attorney General of India) after plying her with alcohol and drugging her in 2001, when she was working as junior in his office. Mr Soli J Sorabjee continued to sexually harass and pursue the appellant for several years after that. The appellant's life is in danger on both these counts.

40. The appellant has on 11 January 2018 filed a writ petition before the Supreme Court vide filing diary number 1377 of 2018 to seek redress of her complaint of sexual harassment against lawyer Raian Karanjawala and her complaint of sexual harassment, sexual assault and attempted rape against lawyer Soli J Sorabjee in which she has impleaded the Home Secretary, the Commissioner of Police, the Director CBI, Soli Sorabjee, and Raian Karanjawala and has sought the following relief:

PRAYER

It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleasedto;-

(i) Issue a writ of Mandamus to Respondent 1, the Government of India through the Ministry of Home Affairs to act on the Petitioner's complaint forwarded to the President and Prime Minister of India by email dated February 12, 2013 and to constitute a high level complaints committee in accordance with the Supreme Court's directions in Vishaka& Others v. State of Rajasthan & Others and in Medha Kotwal Lele and Others v. Union of India and Others to investigate zandredress the petitioner's complaint of sexual harassment against Mr Soli J. Sorabjee, when the latter held the constitutional post of Attorney General of India;

(ii) Direct the CBI and Police to register an FIR against Soli J Sorabjee for sexually assaulting the petitioner and attempting to rape her after plying her with alcohol and after possibly drugging her;

(iii) Direct the Supreme Court Gender Sensitisation and Internal Complaints Committee to examine the petitioner's complaint of sexual harassment against Raian N Karanjawala;

(iv) In the alternative to prayer (i), direct the Supreme Court Gender Sensitisation and Internal Complaints Committee to examine the petitioner's complaint of sexual harassment against Soli J Sorabjee;

(v) Direct the respondent no. 1 to provide the petitioner with Z+ security;

(vi) To pass such other orders and further orders and to issue such other and further writs as may be deemed necessary on the facts and in the circumstances of the case.

41. The appellant also filed Writ Petition Civil No. 1200 of 2017 against an anonymous blog being used to target and smear the appellant which violates the right to life of the appellant and her other fundamental rights. This writ petition was transferred by the Supreme Court to the Delhi High Court for hearing by order dated 29 January 2018 which is reproduced below. The prayers in this writ petition are also reproduced below. The Appellant submits that the contents of this writ petition are also extremely relevant to the hearing of the present appeal and she places reliance thereon. The Hon'ble Bench of the Supreme Court that transferred this matter on 29 January 2018 comprising of Hon'ble Justice Kurien Joseph and Hon'ble Justice Shantanagoudar both agreed in open court that this anonymous blog violates the right to life of the appellant.

Supreme Court Order dated 29 January 2018 in Writ Petition Civil No. 1200/2017

"In the nature of the prayers made in this writ petition and

having heard the petitioner, who appeared in person, we find no special reason as to why the petitioner should not pursue the grievances before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Petitioner prays that the petition itself may be sent to the

Delhi High Court for being registered as a Writ Petition.

We see no reason to deny such a request. Therefore, the

Registry is directed to transmit the papers to the Delhi High Court for being appropriately dealt with.

The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of.

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of."

PRAYER in Writ Petition Civil No. 1200/2017

"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to;-

(i) Issue a writ of Mandamus to Respondents 1, 2, 3 and 4 to ask Google, i.e., Respondents 5 and 6 to immediately remove this anonymous blog from Blogger as it violates the right to life and other fundamental rights of the petitioner-whistleblower and complainant of sexual harassment;

(ii) Issue a writ of Mandamus to Respondents 1, 2, 3 and 4 to inquire and investigate as to who created and procured the creation of this anonymous blog titled "Seema Sapra Alert" and published at http://seemasapraalert.blogspot.in/

(iii) Issue a writ of Mandamus to Respondents 1, 2, 3 and 4 to inquire and investigate into the use of the email address seemasapraalert@gmail.comand its use to target the petitioner who is a whistleblower against General Electric Company Company and a complainant of sexual harassment against Raian Karanjawala and of sexual harassment and sexual assault against Soli J Sorabjee;

(iv) Direct the Respondents 3 and 4 to register FIRs against the creators and procurers of this blog and the associated email ID for the crimescommitted against the petitioner listed hereinabove in the writ petition and to investigate these crimes in accordance with law and to bring criminal charges against all those involved in procuring, abetting and committing these crimes against the petitioner;

(v) Direct the Respondents 1, 2, 3 and 4 to take legal action against the violation of the Petitioner's right to life and her other fundamental rights by the creators and procurers of this anonymous blog;

(vi) To pass such other orders and further orders and to issue such other and further writs as may be deemed necessary on the facts and in the circumstances of the case."

42. The Appellant has also filed Writ Petition Civil No. 13 of 2018 before the Supreme Court in which she has made a specific complaint of poisoning and in which she has sought the following relief:

PRAYER

It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to ;-

(i) Issue a writ of Mandamus to the Respondents to immediately ensure that the Petitioner whistle-blower is not poisoned or harmed or harassed or targeted or followed in any manner and to ensure that the fundamental right to life of the Petitioner who is a whistle-blower and a complaint of sexual harassment and sexual assault is not violated and that the petitioner who is an advocate, a whistleblower against General Electric Company Company and a complainant of sexual harassment against Raian Karanjawala and of sexual harassment and sexual assault against Soli J Sorabjee is protected and stays safe;

(ii) To pass such other orders and further orders and to issue such other and further writs as may be deemed necessary on the facts and in the circumstances of the case.

43. Writ Petition Civil No. 13 of 2018 was listed before the Supreme Court on 9 February 2018 when at the very outset the appellant sought time to file an additional affidavit and additional documents. According the following order was passed by this Hon'ble Court.

The petitioner, who appears in-person, seeks four weeks' time to file additional documents.

List after four weeks.

44. On 9 February 2018, the Appellant's opening statement before this Hon'ble Court during the hearing of Writ Petition Civil No. 13 of 2018 were that she as seeking an adjournment to file an additional affidavit. The Hon'ble Court was pleased to accept that request and passed the order. After the matter was over and the above-mentioned order had been dictated, the Appellant again addressed the Hon'ble Court and stated that this writ petition had saved her life and that she had been poisoned with some acidic chemical fumes, and that as a result her mouth had become raw like sandpaper, and she had been coughing and producing thick green phlegm/ mucous. Hon'ble Justice Kurien Joseph had then replied "God Bless You".

45. This Writ Petition was filed on 8 January 2018 and a few days after that the poisoning with acidic chemical fumes had stopped and the appellant was no longer coughing, she had no phlegm discharge, her mouth had gone back to normal. The appellant submits that she did not have these symptoms on 9 February 2018 and had not had these symptoms for about two weeks prior to that date. The appellant has described in Writ Petition Civil No. 13 of 2018 the specific incident of poisoning that started after 2 January.

46. Now after 9 February 2018, the Appellant was again poisoned for a prolonged period of time with corrosive acidic fumes when she was in her car outside gate 8 of the Delhi High Court and since then she is again being poisoned with acidic chemical fumes which she can actually taste as bitter on her lips and which are making her mouth raw and rough again.

47. The Appellant also submits that the involvement of lawyers in targeting her and in covering up her complaints and in smearing her is again established by the use of a legal news website at http://www.indialegallive.com which is owned by a lawyer Pradeep Rai and his family members. The court reports for this website also work as Mr Pradeep Rai's juniors. This website has published the following misleading, malicious, false, and defamatory report about the proceedings before this Hon'ble Court on 9 February 2018 in Writ Petition Civil No. 13/2018 which also amounts to contempt of court. The article published at http://www.indialegallive.com/top-news-of-the-day/news/contempt-proceedings-calling-bench-deceptive-43777 is reproduced below.

Contempt proceedings for calling bench 'deceptive'

February 9, 2018

February 9, 201838

Criminal contempt proceedings are on against petitioner Seema Sapra who had called the action of a bench "deceptive" in a comment. The case is before the Superme Court bench of Justices Kurian Joseph and Mohan M Shantanagoudar.

On Friday (February 9) the petitioner presented herself and asked for an adjournment, giving a rather strange explanation that somebody had blown poisonous fumes into her mouth and she wasn't feeling well. While listing the matter after four weeks, the bench also directed her to submit in writing what she was trying to say.

The petitioner, who is also an advocate, had accused Justice Vibhu Bakhru of the Delhi High Court of corruption in an open court. Despite being warned she continued with her allegations on the judge. The petitioner had leveled the charges on account of the formation of a constitution bench comprising Justice S Muralidhar and Justice Bakhru, which according to her was improper and 'deceptive'.

A division bench of Justices Valmiki J Mehta and P S Teji had initiated contempt proceedings against Sapra. The court held that the petitioner's conduct amounts to criminal contempt and was punishable under Section 14 (1) of the contempt of Court Act, 1971. After the initiation of contempt proceedings against her, the petitioner requested for the matter to be heard by another bench as she had the right to under Section 14 (2) of the same act. The court had granted her request.

The matter has been listed after four weeks.

– India Legal Bureau

48. The appellant submits that the following portion of this news report deliberately misrepresents and misreports court proceedings and what transpired during the hearing before this Hon'ble Court. It attempts to mock the appellant's complaint of poisoning, distorts it and misrepresents the Hon'ble Court's order. This clearly amounts to contempt of court. This Hon'ble Court never directed the appellant "to submit in writing what she was trying to say." The Appellant never asked for an adjournment on the ground that 'somebody had blown poisonous fumes into her mouth and she wasn't feeling well."

49. The same online legal news outlet owned by lawyer Pradeep Rai had maliciously published another patently false news report a few days earlier about the proceedings dated 29 January 2018 before this Hon'ble Court in Writ Petition Civil No. 1200/ 2017. This news report which amounts to a clear case of contempt of this Hon'ble Court is reproduced below. The Appellant in fact emailed the news website and contacted it via Twitter to inform them that the news report was blatantly inaccurate and asking them to correct it. There has been no response and the false and misleading report on this Hon'ble court's order dated 29 January 2018 passed in Civil Writ Petition 1200/2017 is still online at http://www.indialegallive.com/top-news-of-the-day/news/sc-dismisses-sexual-harassment-plea-by-lawyer-says-come-under-art-226-43076 The fact that this news website owned by Lawyer Pradeep Rai has failed to remove or correct this news report establishes that this misrepresentation of court proceedings of this Hon'ble Court is deliberate, intentional and motivated and intended to smear the appellant and to cover up her complaint of sexual harassment against Raian Karanjawala and her complaint of sexual harassment, sexual assault, and attempted rape against Soli Sorabjee and has been deliberately published by lawyer Pradeep Rai at the behest of Raian Karanjawala and Soli Sorabjee and their friends/ acolytes. The publication of this news report and its continued publication even after this website was informed of its inaccuracy clearly amounts to a deliberate contempt of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.

SC dismisses sexual harassment plea by lawyer, says come under Art 226

January 29, 201872

The Supreme Court bench of Justices Kurian Joseph and Mohan M Shantanagoudar on Monday (January 29) dismissed an appeal by a lawyer Seema Sapra, registered with the Bar council of Delhi in which she had filed a complaint under article 32 of the Constitution against Soli Sorabjee and Karanjawala for the sexual harassment.

The court decided that the case could not be heard because there were technical inadequacies. Sapra is a whistle-blower as well as an advocate and has submitted that nude photos of the lady advocate have been uploaded on the internet which is in violation of her fundamental right under the constitution. She has also claimed that a blog has been created on the web which also defames her.

The bench asked the appellant why she had come under Article 32 and not gone under Article 226 for violation of her Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty). The appellant said that she has not been heard on merits at the high court and therefore by the landmark judgment which says that when the high court under article 226 does not listen on merits, the petitioner has right to come under Article 32, she has done so.

However, the bench was not satisfied with the arguments presented and dismissed the writ petition and no notice was issued to the respondents.

The bench also directed that the appellant has the liberty to file a writ under Article 226 (Power of High Courts to issue certain writs). The court also asked registry to pay the court fee of the appellant as she is living hand to mouth.

—India Legal Bureau

50. Both the above reproduced false news reports concerning the appellant's writ petitions before this Hon'ble Court are similar in character to the anonymous blog used to target and smear the appellant. They can also be used to convey the false impression to other lawyers and the police that this Hon'ble Court has dismissed the appellant's sexual harassment writ petition whereas that matter is still to be listed for hearing. These false news reports can also be used to convey the false impression to the police and the hench men being used to target the appellant that this Hon'ble Court has dismissed the writ petition of the appellant. http://www.indialegallive.com is an online legal news portal read by lawyers all over India and abroad. Both these false and defamatory news reports were also posted by this news website on Twitter and on Facebook. Thousands of lawyers have already read them and have been misled to believe that this Hon'ble Court has dismissed the appellant's petition complaining of sexual harassment while that petition is still to even be listed for hearing before this Hon'ble Court. Thousands of lawyers have been misled as to the appellant's complaint that she is being poisoned by the mocking and false caricature of the hearing dated 9 February 2018 (in Writ Petition Civil No. 13 of 2018) presented by this website in its news report dated 9 February 2018. These two news reports conclusively establish the role of the members of the bar in targeting the appellant.

51. The Appellant submits that she is a single woman lawyer whereas the powerful male lawyers she has accused of sexual harassment (Raian Karanjawala) and of sexual harassment, sexual assault and attempted rape (Soli Sorabjee) are very influential lawyers with the ability to use their money, contacts, friends, access to power, large number of employees, and acolytes to influence the bar to turn hostile to the appellant. This is common in sexual harassment complaints and the woman complainant often ends up being destroyed. This is what has been attempted in the case of the appellant now for almost 7 years. The #metoo movement in the West that has exposed multiple powerful men in Hollywood, in US and UK politics and in the media, in sport and in several other fields over the last six months has been relatively absent in India with its conservative and misogynist and closed social norms controlled by a strong patriarchy.

52. The appellant submits that a woman lawyer who had complained of sexual harassment at the Hyderabad High Court against some senior advocates was also harassed, smeared, targeted a3nd defamed by the bar and she ended up dead either driven to suicide or she was murdered, and her murder passed off as suicide as is common (see the news report dated 9/7/2000 from the Hindu. The conspiracy and intent has also been to use the bar to smear and defame the appellant, to target her viciously, to poison her, to ostracize her and to eventually eliminate the appellant. The appellant has fought back for justice, truth and her right to life and she will continue to do so.

Online edition of India's National Newspaper

Sunday, July 09, 2000

Why is harrassment in the legal profession high? Tolerance of abuse and suffering in silence is the price women pay to secure their place in the strongly knit hierarchical structure, says KALPANA KANNABIRAN.

THE issue of sexual harassment in the workplace is yet again at the centre of debate. This time the focus is on the legal community and on its resistance to even acknowledge the existence of the problem, leave alone the will to abide by the statutory norms laid down in Visakha and Others vs. State of Rajasthan by the Supreme Court in 1997.

Sangeeta Sharma, a young lawyer practising in Hyderabad committed suicide on June 15 this year. In her suicide note she named three lawyers as being directly responsible for her death. The cause: sexual harassment.

One of the lawyers named, the prime accused, is a senior lawyer who is fairly well known. She had also, prior to her death, maintained a diary in which she had named several (17) lawyers, men and women. Many lawyers are upset over these names, although her father says that Sangeeta has indicated which of these people helped her at various points. In addition, Sangeeta left behind a letter addressed to the Chairman of the Bar Council of Andhra Pradesh dated December 1999, complaining of harassment, but did not submit the letter.

In February 2000, Sangeeta brought her complaint to Asmita, a women's collective in Secunderabad, but was not willing to divulge the names of persons involved in public. Before coming to us, she had spoken about the harassment to fellow lawyers, had been asked to "forget it" by the relatively senior men and had received support from a few women. This was not the first time we had received a complaint from a woman lawyer. There have even been instances of women lawyers being physically assaulted in the premises of the High Court. Slander and character assassination have been experiences too common to complain against. And it was the same problem yet again. The women who brought the complaints were unwilling to divulge names or were unprepared to fight the issue publicly.

We then sent a letter to the Chairman of the Bar Council of A.P., that in the light of the frequency of complaints, the seriousness of the issue and the Supreme Court decision, the code of conduct of lawyers ought to be amended to specifically include sexual harassment within the definition of gross misconduct, and set up mechanisms for dealing with cases, according to the procedure and modalities laid down by the Supreme Court. We did not receive any response. When we reminded the Chairman of the Bar Council of our earlier complaint after Sangeeta's death, we received a reply which said that sexual harassment would fall under the general definition of professional misconduct or any other misconduct. We would need to approach the Bar Council of India and ask for a change in the statute for any specific changes. Meanwhile the investigation into the allegations made by Sangeeta was in progress. According to press reports, two people named in the suicide note were arrested and the third, the main accused had absconded. On June 21, a senior lawyer appearing for the petitioners moved the High Court and obtained a stay on investigations, which to date has not been vacated. This is unfortunate, because, adjournment, whether on counsel's request or resulting from the court's management of work, has always been an impediment to justice. Further, without going into the merits of the case, however arbitrary a claim or an accusation, no conclusion can be reached before the investigation is completed. And courts, over the past 50 years since Independence, surely have to their credit several decisions that block litigation of this kind whose purpose is to stall investigation and a possible consequence the watering down of evidence.

Asmita immediately petitioned the National Human Rights Commission and the National Commission for Women to intervene in the matter and ensure the progress of investigation, sending them press clippings and details of the case. The National Commission for Women responded immediately, with Member Mrs. Shantha Reddy coming to Hyderabad and conducting an enquiry both on the incident and the general issue of sexual harassment in the premises of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. She also met with various women's groups and human rights groups in the city and visited the family of Sangeeta Sharma.

The lawyers feel cornered and clearly uncomfortable with being in the glare of adverse publicity. There is, as a consequence, a concerted attempt to police women who are willing to speak about the problem, or those who see that there is a problem. The argument is that this is an internal matter that concerns the profession and must not be discussed in public. It is something that must be "managed" from within.

On another track is the assertion that Sangeeta was of unsound mind, which is why she committed suicide. She lacked courage. There are any number of women who have worked with the person she has named 15 years ago and vociferously vouch for his good conduct. There are other accounts that men in the profession give most readily about how this is really a "woman's problem" (although "problem" does not adequately capture the nuances of the Telugu word godava), because some women apparently are going around talking about how beautiful they were and yet this person did not so much as make a pass at them, why would he do it to someone as nondescript as Sangeeta? With a postscript: See how silly these women are. There are yet others, "progressive" lawyers, who whisper between cases: "Was she beautiful?"

While there are mixed reactions to this entire episode, and the usual slandering and character assassination of Sangeetha by many of her fellow lawyers, and some women lawyers too, there are several crucial questions that must be addressed now.

We have been arguing for over two decades now that the family is no longer a "private space" outside the reach of the rule of law. Violence, murder (dowry and sati), abetment to suicide, are all matters that are no longer private or internal matters of families. They are criminal offences, which will be investigated and adjudicated in the courts of law, in accordance with due process, so that there is an opportunity for the aggrieved party to establish and prove guilt. In this context, where does the argument that complains of a criminal nature between members of the legal community are "internal to the community" stand?

Our experience as women in India has been that the incidence of violence against women (and sexual harassment is a form of violence) has been highest in closed spaces. Sexual harassment is particularly high in university campuses, and in professions like the legal profession, to name a few. Each of these spaces has a clearly hierarchical structure in which those in subordinate positions are directly dependant for survival and largesse on those above them, and resistance results directly in the cutting off of survival options. In the university system, harassment is particularly high in the science departments (although it is a cause for concern in the arts and humanities as well) where there is an almost total dependence of research students on their supervisors. This was an observation that was made forcefully by several participants at the National Consultation on Sexual Harassment in University Campuses organised in the Central University of Hyderabad in January 1999.

Why is harassment in the legal profession so high and so difficult to speak about? A survey by some law students of problems faced by women lawyers about a year and a half ago, elicited a standard response from women lawyers to several questions: "No Comments". Several have said in private conversation, that not only would they be thrown out of the office they were working in if they were to complain about harassment or make an issue of it, but also word would go around that they have created trouble. Silence and tolerance of abuse is the price women pay for apprenticeship.

Come to think of it, being in a profession for women then is not very different from being in marriage, in a family, in a community. As long as things are smooth, as long as women conform and are acquiescent, there is no problem. Even if you do not submit, if you are silent about the pressure on you or someone you know, you are safe. "No Comments" then, is an important strategy for survival. Interestingly, there is a clear divergence between the views of junior women lawyers and seniors. In the depositions before the NCW member, chaos broke out when juniors asserted the existence of sexual harassment while seniors denied it. An easy and complacent explanation that men often give each other is that women are after all women's worst enemies. The present instance has been no exception.

In the course of defending the person accused of harassing Sangeeta, his supporters have said that Sangeeta was of unsound mind. This is a familiar plea taken in almost all dowry death cases. Two questions immediately come to my mind. What proof is there of the fact that Sangeeta was mentally unsound, considering that the presumption in law is of soundness of mind with contrary requiring proof? And, if she was, does that automatically disqualify her from bringing a charge of sexual harassment? Further, does this imply that women who are of unsound mind cannot be sexually harassed? What is clear is that whether or not Sangeeta was mentally sound, she was consistent in her complaint of sexual harassment over a period of a year, and she was consistent in fixing responsibility. That presumably is sufficient ground for investigation. The accusation of insanity is an instrument of social control. In the present instance, it is one important way of policing women into silence.

To come to the next question. The legal profession, like every other profession, perhaps far more than any other profession, mirrors the cleavages, fissures and conflicts in society. Caste and community are important markers. These were not absent in the issue surrounding Sangeeta's suicide. One of the first issues that were raised by several lawyers was that this is an attempt by a Brahmin woman to take her revenge on a "lower caste" man. This track had to be abandoned almost immediately because the person who took up the case on behalf of Sangeeta's family is a well-known and respected Dalit intellectual and activist while the lawyer for the defendant is an equally well-known upper caste lawyer. Just this presents to us significant intersections of caste, gender and power. But that apart, the fact that a charge of vindictiveness arising from caste was made alone is enough to tell us that the legal profession is not one homogenous, unitary, internally coherent, consensual "community." Add to this the fact that although women qualify in equal proportions to men at the entry point of professional courses (this is particularly true of the premier institutions imparting legal education in the country today), there is a progressive decline in the number of women as one moves up the hierarchy. Parallel to this is the progressive decline of professionals as one moves down in the caste hierarchy. Is it unreasonable then to say that the social profile of the self appointed guardians of honour in the legal profession is predetermined, far from representative, and their capacity to deliver justice severely prejudiced to begin with. differences of interest (particularly political), power, caste, community, gender and a contestation for power along each of these lines will determine whose interests will be "managed," by whom when a complaint of sexual harassment is brought before a community that believes it can govern itself.

Finally, all these arguments are, after a point, irrelevant. The Supreme Court, after careful consideration, and protracted deliberations, reached the conclusion way back in 1997, that in "the absence of enacted law to provide for the effective enforcement of the basic human right of gender equality and guarantee against sexual harassment and abuse particularly against sexual harassment at workplaces, we lay down the guidelines and norms specified hereinafter for due observance at the workplaces and other institutions, until a legislation is enacted for the purpose. This is done in exercise of the power available under Article 32 of the Constitution for the enforcement of the fundamental rights and it is further emphasised that this would be treated as the law declared by this Court under Article 141 of the Constitution." Can the Bar Council of India, and the All India Bar Association please take steps to ensure that the legal profession abides by the law of the land? The first and most urgent step being the amendment of the statute with reference to the code of conduct and devising formal mechanisms to deal with complaints and their formal adoption by all branches and units across the country.

http://www.thehindu.com/2000/07/09/stories/13090646.htm

53. The cover up of corruption by GE has involved a powerful coterie of politicians and lawyers including Arun Jaitley, Soli Sorabjee, Zia Mody, Mukul Rohatgi, Raian Karanjawala, Rajiv Nayar, Maninder Singh and A S Chandhiok. Major frauds have been committed on the Delhi High Court in Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/ 2012, the whistleblower petition filed by the appellant against GE in the Delhi High Court. This powerful coterie of lawyers is also targeting the appellant and is involved in having her being poisoned and in ongoing attempts to eliminate her.

54. These powerful lawyers have also used their colleagues and friends in the legal profession to target the appellant, to defame her and to socially and professionally ostracize her.

55. Mr Soli Sorabjee personally threatened the appellant with harm in February/ March 2011 and told her to drop her complaints against GE. In January 2012, the appellant learnt that Zia Mody (Mr Soli Sorabjee's daughter) was advising GE as legal counsel on the whistleblower complaints of the appellant against GE. Ms Zia Mody's law firm AZB & Partners and her then colleague Mr Nanju Ganpathy have appeared before the Delhi High Court in Writ Petition Civil 1280/2012 (filed by the appellant) as lawyers for 3 GE companies without valid vakalatnamas over a period of three years. They have enabled the filing of false, fraudulent and invalid authority documents and false and unauthorized affidavits before the Delhi High Court in this matter for GE and have enabled forgery, perjury, fraud on the court and unlawful and fraudulent impersonation of three GE companies before the Delhi High Court in Writ Petition Civil 1280/2012 in order to cover up the whistleblower complaints of the appellant against GE as part of an obstruction of justice conspiracy. This evidence has been produced before this Hon'ble Court in the present appeal.

56. Mr Mukul Rohatgi's relative, a lawyer named Anupam Sanghi, was also used to threaten the appellant in 2011. She told the appellant on the phone that if the appellant was saying "everyone had harassed her", then "judges would harass" her if she went to Court.

57. A very large group of lawyers have been openly hostile to the appellant for more than 5 years now because of the appellant's whistleblower complaints against GE, her complaints of fraud and obstruction of justice against lawyer Zia Mody, and her sexual harassment and sexual assault complaints against Soli Sorabjee and Raian Karanjawala. These lawyers have orchestrated and participated in the social and professional ostracization of the Petitioner for 5 years within the community of legal professionals. This group of lawyers has participated in hostile behaviour toward the petitioner which has demeaned, denigrated and dehumanized the petitioner. These lawyers have actively failed to treat the petitioner as a human being with human dignity, leave alone as a woman colleague and woman legal professional and advocate. Social and professional ostracization or boycott of a person by a community has been recognized by the Supreme Court of India as a violation of an individual's right to live with dignity. The appellant has been subjected to a social and professional boycott by the lawyer community for almost 6 years. A group of powerful lawyers with great standing and influence in the Bar have basically acted as a Khap Panchayat and decided that the appellant should be destroyed for daring to make whistle-blower complaints against General Electric Company, for daring to aggressively pursue her whistle-blower petition before the Delhi High Court including exposing lawyers involved in attempts to sabotage that case by filing forged documents and by enabling perjury. This group of powerful lawyers with great standing and influence in the Bar have basically acted as a Khap Panchayat and decided that the appellant should be destroyed for daring to make public complaints of sexual harassment against Raian Karanjawala and of sexual harassment, sexual assault and attempted rape against Soli Sorabjee.

58. The Appellant submits that she has a reasonable apprehension of bias against Mr Vikas Singh who has been appointed as amicus in this matter. The Appellant does not personally know Mr Vikas Singh and has never really interacted with him, Sometime in January 2018, the Appellant met Mr Vikas Singh in the Delhi High Court and tried to speak to him about the Writ Petition she has filed in the Supreme Court of India on 11 January 2018 (filing diary number 1377 of 2018) seeking redress of her complaints of sexual harassment against Raian Karanjawala and sexual harassment, sexual assault and attempted rape against Soli Sorabjee. Mr Vikas Singh was very brusque with the Appellant and tried to avoid speaking to her. When the Appellant persisted, he was forced to listen to the two sentences the Appellant spoke telling her that she had filed such a petition. When the Appellant asked him for his email ID so that she could send him a copy of the writ petition he refused to provide that and told the Appellant to send it to the SCBA.

59. Mr Vikas Singh is the current President of the executive committee of the SCBA. He has won the SCBA election with the support of lawyers. The lawyers targeting me are influential members of the SCBA. They can use the SCBA to influence Mr Vikas Singh. Hundreds of SCBA lawyers can be directly influenced by the powerful lawyers targeting me. Several SCBA lawyers have targeted me. Some have even participated in targeting me with poisonous chemicals on Supreme Court premises either themselves or by using their juniors, interns, clerks and even clients. Some members of the new SCBA executive committee have directly targeted me on Supreme Court premises. These include Mr Chandra Shekhar Ashri, an associate of whose has been having the petitioner poisoned with chemical agents and has himself targeted the appellant with chemical agents. These also include Mr Pijush Kanti Roy whose court clerk has been targeting the Appellant on Supreme Court premises. Past SCBA committee members who are targeting the appellant include Ms Kumud Lata Das and Ms Arna Das. Mr Pravin Parekh's clerk has been targeting the Appellant in the Delhi High Court. Lawyers working with Mr Lalit Bhasin have been targeting the Appellant in the Delhi High Court. Three past Presidents of the SCBA, Mr Pravin Parekh, Mr Dushyant Dave and Mr R S Suri have failed to support the appellant over the last seven years despite repeated appeals. Mr Dushyant Dave refuses to even speak to the appellant, even though she has briefed him on multiple occasions in the past. All three have participated in targeting the appellant.

60. Mr Soli Sorabjee was recently treated with great respect at an SCBA function, even though the SCBA knows about the appellant's sexual harassment, sexual assault and attempted rape complaints against Soli Sorabjee, and even though multiple women lawyers have privately told me they "know" or have "heard" about Sorabjee's misbehaviour and sexual harassment of other women lawyers. When the sexual predatory behaviour of Soli Sorabjee is common knowledge in the Bar, why is the SCBA still honouring Sorabjee and refusing to even acknowledge the appellant's complaints? See the Indian Express news report dated 31 January 2018 reproduced below. The Appellant submits that she would not even be welcome at an SCBA function, even though she too is a lawyer. In fact if the Appellant had even wanted to attend this function, she is certain that she would have been stopped/ prevented by the SCBA executive committee.

The Indian Express

Judges' day out, this time King Lear, Bengali sweets paper the cracks

At a high tea that followed the launch of the SCBA Times, the newsletter of the Supreme Court Bar Association, eleven judges, including the CJI, showed up.

Written by Ananthakrishnan G | New Delhi | Updated: January 31, 2018 11:20 am

From the time four of its most senior judges publicly questioned the conduct of the Chief Justice of India, all eyes have been on the Supreme Court, its judges have been under the spotlight like never before in recent years. But Tuesday afternoon was different.

There was bonhomie over tea, complete with conversations on King Lear and Bengali sweets — a marked departure from the acrimony that has followed the January 12 press conference where Justices J Chelameswar, Ranjan Gogoi, Madan Lokur and Kurian Joseph targeted Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra.

At a high tea that followed the launch of the SCBA Times, the newsletter of the Supreme Court Bar Association, eleven judges, including the CJI, showed up. So did Law Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad. Finance Minister Arun Jaitley, whose name was mentioned in the invitation, did not turn up. Nor did Justices Chelameswar and Gogoi. Also absent was Justice Arun Mishra.

Justice Joseph was the first judge to reach the venue. And when he walked in, CJI Misra shook hands with both Justices Joseph and Lokur.

After the release of the newsletter, all headed for tea where Minister Prasad asked TV camerapersons to leave them alone. Justice Joseph, who joined him at the table with other judges, had everyone smiling, laughing when he said: "They want to see us eating together."

Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra (Right) shakes hand with Justice Kurian Joseph at SCBA event. (Source: Ananthakrishnan)

Prasad engaged Justice Joseph in a conversation on Bengali sweets. CJI Misra called Justice Lokur, who arrived with jurist Soli Sorabjee, to take a seat. Known for his love of literature, the CJI was heard discussing King Lear with Sorabjee while Justice D Y Chandrachud sat beside him, enjoying a samosa.

Justice Joseph was heard asking Sorabjee: "Between you and Fali, who is older?" Pause later, he repeated the question. Sorabjee said he was 87. At this, Prasad exclaimed, "You are 87?" and then added that (former Attorney General) K Parasaran was 91. He told Justice Joseph he had recently been to the Bahamas for a meeting of law ministers and felt proud when he heard people praising the Indian judiciary.

Earlier, speaking at the launch of the newsletter, CJI Misra said: "Somebody wrote a book 'I'm opinionated'. Most welcome. There is a saying in English, do not perpendicularise yourself, meaning thereby when you write I, it means egotism. It means egoism. It means self alone. But everybody has a right to say I'm opinionated. That's his opinion and, therefore, I must say SCBA Times proclaims, announces and states with authority, I have the right of freedom to speak and also express. For that also, I congratulate the editors."

Prasad asked the SCBA and its president, senior advocate Vikas Singh, if the journal could start a debate on the need for simultaneous Lok Sabha and assembly polls.

"Can your journal provoke a debate, a purely Constitutional one, whether we should have simultaneous elections in the entire country? I don't wish to make any political comments. But just now we had two state elections — Gujarat and Himachal Pradesh… we are also going to have elections in Tripura and Meghalaya. Thereafter, we are going to have elections in Karnataka. After two months, we are going to have elections in Chhattisgarh, Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh. And three months thereafter, we are going to have elections… to Lok Sabha."

"Every year, we have five, six, seven… and I'm not speaking of municipal elections. Every election entails heavy expenditure. Once the model code of conduct comes, then there is the problem of not taking any action. So many security personnel are involved in ensuring free and fair elections," he said.

Prasad said people have respect for the judiciary and Supreme Court. "And one thing I definitely see: the respect the people of the country have for the judiciary and the kind of respect people of India have for this great institution, the Supreme Court of India."

http://indianexpress.com/article/india/supreme-court-crisis-judges-day-out-this-time-king-lear-bengali-sweets-paper-the-cracks-5045540/

61. The petitioner has repeatedly appealed to the SCBA for support and help over the last 5 years, however all her appeals have been ignored.

62. The Appellant is standing alone on the side of truth and seeking justice. Standing on the other side is a huge battery of very powerful lawyers and their acolytes. Plus there is the might and influence of General Electric Company and the might of the Indian State.

63. The Petitioner states that as a senior counsel, Mr Vikas Singh will need to maintain cordial relations with the powerful lobby of lawyers targeting the appellant. He will not risk alienating those powerful lawyers for the sake of the appellant who he does not even know personally. It is too much to expect that anyone, even Mr Vikas Singh will stand up to the pressure from GE, from the Indian Government and from powerful lawyers to present the evidence of GE corruption and its cover-up before this Hon'ble Court. The Appellant submits that Mr Vikas Singh will also not be aware of the full facts, as the appeal record does not contain the full facts. In fact, even the Delhi High Court record in Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/2012 does not contain the full facts. Only the appellant has personal knowledge of the complete relevant facts in this matter.

64. The appellant has a reasonable apprehension of bias against any amicus appointed in this matter. This is because the appellant has studied corporate whistle-blower cases worldwide and in all such cases, the whistle-blower's own lawyers are used to sabotage the case and to target the whistle-blower.

65. The appellant has a reasonable apprehension of bias against Mr Vikas Singh based upon the influence of the powerful lawyers targeting the appellant. The appellant apprehends that Mr Vikas Singh might be used to cover up corruption by GE, the frauds on the Delhi High Court facilitated by Ms Zia Mody, and to cover up the poisoning and targeting of the appellant-whistleblower. Mr Vikas Singh might be used to cover up the murder/ incapacitation of the appellant (if that happens during the pendency of this appeal) to prevent the appellant from pursuing this matter and her whistleblower complaints against GE. Mr Vikas Singh might be used to sabotage the defence of the appellant in this appeal by misrepresenting facts to this Hon'ble Court or by suppressing facts and documents that the appellant is relying upon. The appellant apprehends that Mr Vikas Singh will be influenced by Mr Soli Sorabjee, Mr Arun Jaitley, Mr Mukul Rohatgi, Mr Raian Karanjawala, Mr A S Chandhiok and other lawyers.

66. Mr Vikas Singh was appointed as ASG by the UPA Government that was involved in the Marhowra Project scam favouring General Electric Company. Only lawyers with political affiliations are appointed as ASGs. Recently, Mr Vikas Singh has appeared as counsel for BJP leaders.

67. The BJP government headed by Mr Modi is involved in the cover-up of the whistleblower complaints of the appellant against GE. GE is an influential American company which can influence political support for the BJP and for particular BJP politicians within the US establishment. The appellant has reason to believe that Ms Arun Jaitley has been instrumental in helping GE cover up the appellant's whistleblower complaints and in targeting and silencing the appellant.

68. In fact, the involvement of Mr Vikas Singh in this matter as amicus enhances the threat to the life of the appellant as this will make GE and these lawyers more aggressive and fearless in the targeting and poisoning of the appellant knowing that any harm caused to the appellant can then be covered up using Mr Vikas Singh either wittingly or unwittingly.

69. For these reasons, the appellant prays that this Hon'ble Court recall its order dated 7 February 2018 appointing Mr Vikas Singh in this matter as amicus.

70. It is respectfully submitted that the rule, practice and protocol in contempt cases or contempt appeals in suo moto cases is for notice to go to the office of the Attorney General of India, who then assists the Court.

71. The appellant respectfully prays that this Hon'ble Court may instead issue formal notice to the AG Mr K K Venugopal as per protocol, rules and practice.

72. Involvement of any lawyer as amicus in this matter will violate the appellant's right to a fair and full hearing and her right to natural justice in this appeal. It will also result in the denial of justice to the appellant.

73. The appellant also prays that since the very life of the appellant hangs in the balance here, this Hon'ble Court may please give her a full hearing in this matter/.

74. The appellant's right to life is being grossly violated on a daily basis, her life in in danger, and she is being poisoned with chemical poisonous and nerve agents. The appellant's life is hanging by a thread and because of the ongoing poisoning of the appellant, her dead body could be found any day. The appellant is being poisoned with nerve agents, anesthetic agents and poisonous chemical agents while sleeping in her car parked outside gate 8 of the Delhi High Court almost every night. This happened on the previous nights as well (intervening night of 22 and 23 February 2018 and on the intervening night of 23-24 February 2018). She is also being followed 24/7 and is being poisoned with chemicals in public spaces. The appellant is also being poisoned with chemicals inside the Delhi High Court and also inside the Supreme Court of India premises. This can only happen at the behest of these powerful lawyers acting under the protection of the Police.

75. The Appellant again reiterates that the most appropriate course of action would be for this Hon'ble Court to issue notice to the Attorney General if the Court needs assistance.

76. The Appellant also submits that the record of the present appeal before this Hon'ble Court establishes that a man named K R Radhakrishnan was used to unlawfully impersonate as the authorized signatory of General Electric Company and of its two Indian subsidiaries and to file unauthorized and false affidavits. The authority documents produced on his behalf were invalid and fraudulent and possibly forged. Offences of unlawful impersonation in court proceedings, perjury, forgery, obstruction of justice and fraud on the Delhi High Court were committed and these facts are before this Hon'ble Court and are relevant facts for the purposes of the present appeal. These facts establish that the appellant is a whistle-blower and the lawyers who purported to appear for the three GE companies before the Delhi High Court in Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/2012 were used to sabotage those judicial proceedings and false, unauthorized and perjurious affidavits were filed for General Electric Company and its two Indian subsidiaries.

PRAYER

It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to allow this Application and:-

(i) To recall its order dated 7 February 2018 appointing Senior Advocate Mr Vikas Singh as amicus in this matter;

(ii) Record/ clarify that the appellant has not consented to the appointment of Mr Vikas Singh as amicus in this matter, and that the appellant strongly objects to this appointment;

(iv) Issue formal notice as per rules, protocol and practice in suo moto contempt matters to the office of the Attorney General of India;

(vi) To pass such other orders and further orders as may be deemed necessary 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.

FILED BY:

SEEMA SAPRA

APPELLANT/PETITIONER-IN-PERSON

DRAWN ON: 24/02/2018

FILED ON: 24/02/2018

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

I.A. NO. OF 2018
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 10342 OF 2016

IN THE MATTER OF

SEE*MA SAPRA …Appellant/Petitioner

Versus

COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION … Respondent

AFFIDAVIT

I, Seema Sapra, aged 46 years, D/o Late A. R. Sapra, presently homeless in New Delhi, do hereby solemnly state and affirm as under:

1. That I am the Appellant/ Petitioner and am familiar with the facts and circumstances of the case and am competent and authorized to swear this Affidavit.

2. That I have drafted, read and understood the accompanying Application for recall of order dated 7 February 2018 appointing Mr Vikas Singh, Senior Advocate as amicus in this matter and I state that the contents of the application are based on my personal knowledge and on other sources which I believe to be true and correct.

DEPONENT

VERIFICATION:

I, the above-named Deponent, do hereby verify that the contents of the above Affidavit are true and correct to my knowledge, no part of it is false and nothing material has been concealed there from.

Verified at New Delhi on this 24^th day of February 2018.

DEPONENT

Seema Sapra - General Electric corruption whistle-blower: the Truth prevails

Pages

Monday 30 April 2018

New application filed by General Electric Company whistle-blower Seema Sapra in the Supreme Court seeking recall of order dated 7/2/2018 appointing Vikas Singh as amicus in her pending appeal - SEC Complaint TCR1439646785831

No comments:

Post a Comment

My Blog List