...Judging the Judges--2nd Layout & 10 Sitting HC Judges

                                                                                 Image Copyright: en.wikipedia.org

Continuing the series––Judging the Judges––it is felt that there is a need to mention the details of 14 sitting High Court of Karnataka Judges who have availed sites from the Karnataka State Judicial Employees House Building Co-operative Society (KSJE HBCS).

That the aforementioned society has formed its second Judicial Layout in Kanakapura (1st in Yelahanka) is something many people are yet to learn about.

But already, 10 sitting judges of High Court of Karnataka have, in violation of the bye-laws the previous reports have mentioned, got sites allotted in their favour at the Kanakapura Judicial Layout while serving as judges at the High Court.

They are Justices C R Kumarswamy, Vasudevan Jaganathan, H N Nagamohan Das, Ajit J Gunjal, N K Patil, N Kumar, A B Hinchigeri, Anand Byrareddy, S Abdul Nazeer and Mohan M Shanthanagoudar. And they were all allotted sites in a span of three months between July and September 2006.

As per the available documents, Sale Deeds have been drawn in favour of these judges who have got sites in Kanakapura measuring 4,000 sq ft each for Rs 9.6 lakh each despite the Deeds mentioning that the market price is Rs 28 lakh. The discounted price was considered by virtue of them being “members” of the society.

Four of these 10 judges, A B Hinchigeri, Anand Byrareddy, S Abdul Nazeer and Mohan M Shanthanagoudar signed the Sale Deeds on August 19, 2006.

Having accessed these Deeds and compared the asset declaration made by some of these judges on the website of the High Court, revealed that in one particular case, a judge’s wife has also been able to get an allotment of a judicial site, albeit in a different layout.

Justice Mohan Shantanagoudar was allotted site number 205 in the Kanakapura Judicial layout while his wife, Sunita Shantanagoudar was allotted site number 1,902 in the Judicial Layout at Yelahanka measuring 2,100 sq ft through a Sale Deed dated October 11, 2002 for Rs 3 lakh. This has been declared by Justice Shantangoudar in his asset declaration made public on the High Court website.

The other four are Manjula Chellur, V G Sabhahit, H G Ramesh and K Baktavatsala, who have got sites at the Yelahanka Layout. Of these, Baktavatsala has sold his site.

For details of their other violations, please consult the table posted along with the first report that broke this story.

'Judges not Holy Cows'

                           Activist Medha Patkar         image copyright: kalpana.it

Although her remarks have nothing to do with the series being brought out by the authors of this blog, it was thought fit to quote her on why judges must be brought under the Janlokpal Bill.

“Judges are not holy cows,” she said during a talk on Lokpal Bill at a College premises here on Sunday. And suggested that they be under the Bill.

Further, criticising how governments define ‘public purpose’ while acquiring land she said: “It is not fair. Even governments must be disallowed from forcibly acquiring land.”

In ten years, between 1992-2002, 180 lakh hectares of agricultural land has been snatched from the hands of households for such purposes, taking away from their livelihoods. “This is 15 per cent of the lands,” she said, adding that in some states it was as high ass 27 per cent.

...Judging the Judges--His Honour!

 "In the matters of truth and justice, there is no difference between large and small problems, for issues concerning the treatment of people are all the same."   image copyright: ethnos.gr




In 1991, while hearing the case of Narayana Reddy versus the State of Karnataka, the High Court observed: “In case of house building societies formed in respect of employees of any organisation or industry the membership should be confined to the employees who may continue as members even after retirement and the societies should be prohibited from enrolling outsiders as members.” 

As said in the first report, all the judges have been allotted sites at the Judicial Layout in total disregard of this judgement. And among the judges who have accepted the sites is former Chief Justice of Punjab and Haryana High Court M Rama jois, who incidentally passed the aforementioned judgement.


Jois was allotted site number 1422 meauring 8,051 sq ft on April 18, 1996 (after his judgement) for Rs 2,46,240. 

When the authors had contacted him for his opinion on Union Labour Minister Mallikarjun Kharge's dauther having been allotted a site in the same Layout, he had said: "As held in my judgement, any particular society is formed for a specific purpose and thereby, must adhere to the same while allotting the site. A third party cannot be allotted the site."

And on asked whether High Court and Supreme Court judges were members of the judicial department, he said: "...Strictly speaking, we (High Court and Supreme Court judges) are not employees of the judicial department."

But as soon as the matter about him having a site was brought up, he, very cautiously took shelter under the Subramani versus Union India case's petition being dismissed by the High Court of Karnataka. However, that he cannot take shelter under that judgement has been reported in the previous report in the words of the judge who passed that order. (read Justice Saldana's remarks in the previous two stories)
 Hopefully, the concerned will take notice of the violations and initiate actions to correct the same...

...Judging the Judges --Needy deprived of housing?

Even as the genuine members--the needy and poor--continued waiting for the allottment of sites, Judges, in violation of several laws got their sites allotted.         image copyright: biobreak.wordpress.com











Continuting the series––Judging the Judges––the authors, Chethan and Sandeep bring to you the details of other violations of law these judges have indulged in in a bid to avail sites from the said society.
 
Barring the basic violation of ineligibity that was discussed in the previous report, it is found that these people have at least three more violations.
But before we venture into those details it is noteworthy that these judges, some of who have heard cases for and against other house building co-operative societies, have breached the very spirit of co-operative societies.
 
That housing societies get lands under concessional rates to serve the poor and the needy is not something these people are unaware of. Yet, call it greed or disregard, they vie for a pie of land that must belong to the deservant, who are in real need of such housing.
 
According to a Supreme Court observation (in Ishwar Nagar society versus Parma Nand Sharma, last year): “Co-operative societies are the best system which can suit the needs of poor and weaker sections…Thus, the cooperative societies like the present one which seek to obtain the land at concessional rate from the government and to build houses must necessarily have a limitation in that only members who are in real need of houses should be permitted to become members and to take the benefit of land allotment.”
 
And in a city where land prices are kissing the skies, deprivation of housing to the needy middle class is unpardonable. What one needs to note is that these sites were allotted at shocking rates: ranging from Rs 25 to Rs 240 per sq ft between 1994 and 2006. Land prices in this period were never below 1,000 per sq ft even in the mid-1990s.


The violations: 


Clause 10(A) of the society bye-laws prescribe that a member be ineligible for site allottment if her/he or even her/his family own other residential properties in Bangalore. And it also prevents multiple allottments of sites.
But throwing the rules out of the window, many judges, who owned residential properties prior to the allotment have availed sites from the society, even as the genuine members of the society waited endlessly for their allotment. This according to Justice Saldana is serious a transgression.
 
Those in violation of Section 10 (a) include Retired Chief Justice of Karnataka High Court and Bharatiya Janata Party Rajya Sabha member, M Rama Jois, sitting SC judge H L Dattu, M N Venkatachalaiah, Retired Supreme Court Judge and former Karnataka Lokayukta Shivaraj V Patil, and Retired Supreme Court Judge R V Raveendran, amongst others.
 
Some of the judges have also violated Claus-10 (B) of the bye-laws which states that members should have spent at least five years working in the Judicial Department. The ‘territorial jurisdiction’, at the time of allottment was limited to BDA limits.
 
Those in violation of this law include Retired Supreme Court judge G T Nanavati (who headed the Commission of Inquiry into the post-Godhra riots), Retired Supreme Court Judges S Mohan and P Venkatarama Reddi, and sitting Supreme Court Judge Justice Tirath Singh Thakur, amongst others.


Also, each sale deed states that a site allottee must not sell the site within 10 years from its    purchase aimed at preventing commercial use of the property. However, several judges have since sold the properties allotted to them at prices several times higher than the price at which they bought it, thereby making profits. The sale deed also stipulates that the site owners construct houses within two years of purchase. Several sites still lie vacant, probably anticipating a rise in the value of the land. More than 70 per cent of the Judges have violated these conditions.



Reactions from some of the key people:

Registrar of Co-operative Societies, while expressing concern over all the reported violations in the housing societies, Hegde said: “...We have taken notice of the matter and an inquiry is in the process, we will take suitable action if the inquiry shows discrepancies in the functioning of the society.”

Sippe Gowda, President of KSJDE HBCS said: “There are several reports that have  been brought to my notice. Most of these allocations happened before my term. The matter is rightly before the court now and I (society) will take appropriate action as directed by the court.”

K Narayanaswamy, Director of Co-operative Audit, Government ofKarnataka, while acknowledging that there could be irregularities said: “Where there is money and land there are complaints. But I do not have powers to take suo moto action. If any one of the members officially files a complaint or petition before us we will take action.”

Y Umesh, Prinicpal Secretary Co-operative Department, who is currently out of town, reacting to the matter said: “There are contentions and that is why there is an inquiry. Once that report is complete, suitable action will follow.”

Judging the Judges...

                                               For representation only. Copyright of geschichteinchronologie.ch

In a series of stories that will occupy this space, the first one, titled ‘Judging the Judges’ deals with housing society scam that 82 prominent people from the judicial fraternity have indulged in, including two sitting Supreme Court judges.

A reading of this article might not necessarily help change the eroding faith in the judicial system of the country, but the authors’ intention is not the further deplete the faith as much as it is to let people know what our judges, whom we trust to uphold the law of the land are indulging in.
           Read on...
 

Judging the Judges is  a story of 82 judges from the higher judiciary violating Bye-laws of the employees house building  co-operative society, the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 and several directions and judgements of various High Courts and the Supreme Court and availing sites from the Karnataka State Judicial Department Employees House Building Cooperative Society Limited (KSJDE HBCS).
 

A pain-staking investigation from a close source who wishes to be annonymus has provided the authors of this blog documents that show the judges' involvement (see table for the names of the judges, their designations and the violations).

The story:
 

When Corruption and abuse of office for personal gain appeared to have reached alarming proportions and  the Supreme Court has taken up a few high-profile corruption cases, which is seen as a step in the right direction, the documents available reveals more than 80 judges has been allotted residential sites by Karnataka Judicial employees House building Co-operative Society Limited, in violation of its Bye-laws.

Among the judges, there are two sitting Supreme Court Judges, Tirath Singh Thakur and H L Dattu, two retired Chief Justices of India,  M N Venkatachalaiah and S Rajendra Babu and seven retired SC judges: K Jagananath Shetty, S Mohan, former Karnataka Lokayukta N Venkatachala, G T Nanavati, Shivraj V Patil, P Venkatarama Reddi and R V Raveendran.

The list also contains, V Gopala Gowda, the sitting Chief Justice of Odisha High Court, and 10 retired chief justices of various high courts: D M Chandrashekar, V S Malimath, M Rama Jois, K A Swamy, S A Hakeem, N Y Hanumanthappa, Kumar Raja Ratnam, Subray Rama Nayak and Samindar Rudrayya Bannurmath.

Besides, it includes 14 sitting judges of the Karnataka High Court: Manjula Chellur, V G Sabhahit, N Kumar, Patil Naganath, K Bhaktavatsala, Ajit J Gunjal, Mohan Shantanagoudar, H G Ramesh, Abdul Nazeer, H N Nagamohandas, Ananda Byra Reddy, Ashok B Hinchigeri, V Jagannathan and C R Kumaraswamy.
The others are other retired judges.

While there are several violations, a separate story on which will be uploaded soon, the basic and common violations among all these judges is that they have availed sites from an employee housing society even as they are not employees of the said department. This is in violation of Clause-10 and 53 of the bye-laws of the society.

Clause 10 of the bye-laws deals with the rights of the members regarding the eligibility for allotment of sites/flats/houses and prescribes under section B that: “She/he is an employee of the judicial department in Karnataka and has put in a minimum continuous or intermittent service of five years in Karnataka.”

Further, Clause-53 that deals with allotment of sites/flats/houses/apartment and prescribes that: “…The society shall allot sites/flats/houses only to members who are eligible as per bye-law number10. A member shall produce a certificate from his employer regarding his employment and a length of service in Karnataka.”
 

But according to Articles 124 (2) and 217 of the Constitution Supreme Court and High Court judges are appointed by the President by warrant under his seal and, therefore, are not employees of any particular State Government’s Judicial Department.

And speaking to the authors one of the violators, former chief justice of Punjab and Haryana High Court M Rama Jois said: “...Strictly speaking HC and SC judges cannot be employed by anybody!”

Also, a full bench of the Supreme Court of India, comprising Y V Chandrachud, P N Bhagawati, V R Krishaiyer, N L Untwalia and Fazalali Syed Murtaza, in the case of Union of India versus Sankalchand Himatlal Sheth and Anr notes: “…In fact, a High Court Judge has no employer: he occupies a high constitutional office which is co-ordinate with the executive and the legislature.”

Alike many judges, Jois said: “...But there was a case (Subramani versus Union of India) before the High Court of Karnataka and the petition was dismissed.” The implication derived at thereby, is that it is legal for these judges to avail sites from the society.

But, when contacted former Karnataka High Court Judge Saldana, who was one of the two judges, who passed the judgement said: “Nobody can take shelter under my judgement. The petition was dismissed because we did not have the jurisdiction.”

October 12, 1995, in the case of Subramani versus Union of India the High Court (Saldana and Baktavatsalam, the latter no more) had said: “A reading of Clause-7 of the bye-laws, in our view, by no stretch of imagination can include the judges of High Court or Supreme Court (sitting, transferred, retired). Even assuming for a moment that certain Judges have been allowed to become members of the Society, it may be an irregularity in the conduct of the business of the Society.”

Despite of this judgement which clearly specifies the allottment as irregular, and which Saldana claims to be final as the Supreme Court did not admit an SLP of this case filed before it, several judges have taken sites from the society.

                                                                             

                                                                         see the table below for more details, separate story based on different designations of the judges will follow soon. The related documents have not been uploaded fearing unauthorised use.