To,

1. Commissioner of Police, Mumbai 2. Advocate General of Maharashtra Complainant: Adv. Nilesh C. Ojha

65, Sonawala Apollo Building, 1st Floor, Opp. BSE, Bombay Samachar Marg, Fort, Mumbai-400001.

Accused: 1. Fali S. Nariman Age: Major Occupation: Lawyer

2. Indian Express Newspaper 3. Any other accused who have abetted and

supported the crime.

Subject: 1. Registration of F.I.R. under section 121, 121-

A , 123, 124-A, 153-A, 153-B read with 109, 120(B) & 34 of I.P.C. against Accused and their anti-national organized crime syndicate for their article provoking the citizens to act against the nation of India by stating that being anti-Indian is not offence and thereby supporting pro-Pakistani movement and also giving message to the citizens, abating them to act against nations by twisting the law laid down by higher Courts and putting a distorted version with dishonest concealment of fact with ulterior motive to help the Accused in sedition charges. Also taking action under The Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971.

2. Seizure of properties of accused and depositing it in the Indian Army Shahid Welfare.

3. Direction to appropriate authority to initiate Contempt proceedings against accused in the appropriate court for undue

President

PRSEC

t of India Ca

C/E/2016/02

ase No.

2669

 

interference in the investigation and proceedings.

4. Direction to Bar Council of India to expel the Accused Fali Nariman from roll permanantly for his falling Standard of Professional Ethics and Gross professional Misconduct.

Respected sir, 1. The unfortunate incidence at JNU is well known to everyone.

The Accused are arrested under charge of sedition. The matter is serious involving anti-Indian stand of certain anti-national elements and is under investigation.

2. The incident is about anti-Indian slogans by some

mischievous anti-national elements. 3. That in order to support that anti-national activities and

above that to provoke, abate and instigate to the citizen of our country, the Accused No. 1, Fali S. Nariman conspired with Accused no. 2, Indian Express group and to fulfill their ulterior motive and purposes, they published news under caption "A test of freedom: To be anti-Indian is not a criminal offence, and it is definitely not sedition". A copy of which is attached herewith.

4. The said news article is circulated largely on social media.

And an impression is created that whatever done against our Nation is not offence and all whatever provocation, planning is done is not offence. As per law it itself is an offence under Section 124-A.

5. That the Afzal Guru was sentenced for his war against the

nation and the slogans were in support of that violence which is certainly an offence of sedition. Furthermore, as provision of Section 120-B of I.P.C., once a conspiracy is proved, act of one conspirator becomes the act of others. A co-conspirator who joins subsequently and commits overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy must also be held liable (vide. 2001 Cri.L.J. 800 Justice Dr. B.S. Chauhan).

6. In present case, the conspiracy was to instigate and/or abet

people to wage war against the Nation and kill the people and elected members of the Parliament which was proved and the concerned person was sentenced by the competent Court. Furthermore, the same person Afzal Guru gave interview in electronic media that he was amongst the conspirators.

Then if there was any grievance to the Accused, then the proper course was to defend the case of the Accused before Court of law. Moreover, the truth could have easily been brought to the surface by doing Narco test of Afzal Guru. But at the time of the said trial, the Accused No.1, Fali Nariman kept mum, maybe, being fully aware that the said Afzal Guru is involved in the anti-national activities and legally he can't help them. (Though he appeared in cases against Government like NJAC).

7. Thereafter, the supporters of the anti-national activities, and

more particularly, the supporters of Afzal Guru and Pakistan arranged a program. In the said program, anti-Indian and pro-Pakistan slogans/naras were used. A video clip is also attached herewith. The intention of the said Accused is ex facie clear that they want to destroy our nation India and to bring the rule of Pakistan. This is a clear charge of sedition as defined under section 124-A of I.P.C.

8. That the students were shouting with following slogans;

i. Afzal Hum Sharminda Hai Tere Quatil Zinda Hai Means they want to kill The people responsible for Trial, prosecution and punishment of Afzal. i.e. they want to kill, Police, judge and witnesses.

ii. Bharat Tere Tukde Honge Means; nation India Will destroy/broke in to parts.

iii. Pakistan Zindabad

Means; they wish Pakistan to win in war Between India & Pakistan

9. Needless to mention here that any support or failure to take

action against such anti-national and pro-Pakistani elements, would not only demoralize all Nationalist citizens and Police but also our Army Men, para Military forces who are fighting at the border and laying down their lives in defending our Nation. Any such attempt should be nipped at the bud and if not done then it will lead to lawlessness. Therefore, an attempt to say publically “to be anti-Indian is not a crime and definitely not sedition” appears to be calculated to create a confused atmosphere in the minds of patriots and Nationalist citizens. What if, all the citizens start believing to

be anti-Indian and then accordingly acting under that belief? This mere thought is frightening one. This leaves much to be desired but to say in the least, telling the people to be anti-Indian, is definitely an offence of sedition. It is needless to say that following the JNU incident, the entire Nation appears to be divided. The freedom of free speech and expression, was never so misused as to publically declare anti-Indian slogans as is being presently unprecedentedly seen misused. The law and order has been unprecedentedly erupted as is evident from the fact that in the Patiala House Court premises itself, the Police Couldn’t control the situation when the people, including reportedly lawyers started beating the supporters of anti-Indian and others and that the Apex Court had to step in and appoint a committee to keep a check. It is needless to state that if similar atmosphere is created everywhere then our entire policing and military forces may not be able to control the situation, let alone the Courts having no hands of force. It is therefore utmost required to book the accused, who are bent upon to foment turbulence in the otherwise peaceful society. Needless to add that howsoever one is high, the law shall always be above one.

10. That there is no such law declared by Hon'ble Supreme Court

or any other Court in India which says that the pro-Pakistani and anti-Indian is not an offence. Moreover as per law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Zee Telefilms Ltd. Vs Union of India (2005)4 SCC 649 it is made clear that a decision is trite should not be read as a statute. A decision is an authority for the question of law decided regard to the fact situation obtaining therein. It is trite law that a point not raised before a Court would not be an authority on the said question. In Punjab National Bank's Case AIR 2004 SC 4269 it is ruled that there is always peril in treating the words of judgment as though there are words in a Legislative enactment and it is to be remembered that judicial utterances are made in the setting of the facts of a particular case. One additional or different fact may make a difference between conclusions in two cases. Precedent should be followed only so far as it marks the path of justice, but you must cut out the dead wood and trim off the side branches, said Ld. Denning. The precedent sub-silentio and without argument about pro- Pakistani and anti-Indian slogans are of no moment and cannot be deemed to be a law declared to have binding effect as it is contemplated by Art. 141 of the Constitution of India. If such sub-silentio, are relied then it amounts to using unjust precedents. (vide 1991 (4)

SCC 139). It is therefore, not open for anyone and more particularly accused no. 1 who claims himself to be eminent jurist and Senior Advocate, to rely on, nay distort and misinterpret some of the observations made in the judgments which might have been given in the context of some other facts which are not similar to the facts of the case in issue. But the accused No. 1 Fali Nariman and accused no 2 with mala-fide intention and ulterior motive, published the said article by twisting facts, with a view to misleading one and all and circulated it widely to support the anti-National and pro-Pakistani activities and thereby committed offences under section 124-A , 120-B , 153-A , 109 & 34 etc of I.P.C. The intention was to abet, instigate, provoke the people against nation and support the act of Afzal Guru & his supporters and also to save the accused involved in the case by creating impression in the mind of Judges, witnesses, Police, investigating agency and also to demoralize, discourage and frustrate the Indian Army and Military Forces who are fighting for our Nation by putting their life in danger and also with malafide intention to spread hatred between the two groups that is one Patriot/ Nationalist and lover of our Mother India on one side and hater of India on other side. Therefore the accused are liable to be punished severely.

He misinterpreted law laid down by Supreme Court & Other Courts; The case law relied are against Government. But the offence at J.N.U is against nation India and in support of Pakistan, also in support of terror attack on Parliament. Hon’ble Supreme Court in AIR 2001 SC 1975 Ruled that ‘Misinterpretation of judgment is contempt’. In AIR 2004 SC 4272 it is ruled that if any lawyer tries to mislead the court by relying on inapplicable Case Law then this is the case of ‘Falling Standard of Professional ethics’ Therefore accused Fali Nariman Is liable to be punished under Contempt of Courts Act and also Liable to be expelled from roll for life time of Bar Council for his gross professional Misconduct.

1) AIR 2001 SUPREME COURT 1975

Contempt of Courts Act (70 of 1971), S.2 – Misinterpretation of order of Court - Civil Judge of Senior Division erred in reading and understanding the Order of Supreme Court - Contempt proceedings initiated against the Judge - Judge tendered unconditional apology saying that with his limited understanding, he could not

read the order correctly. While passing the Order, he inadvertently erred in reading and understanding the Order of Supreme Court- Supreme Court issued severe reprimand – Held, The officer is holding a responsible position of a Civil Judge of Senior Division. Even a new entrant to judicial service would not commit such mistake assuming it was a mistake -It cannot be ignored that the level of judicial officer's understanding can have serious impact on other litigants. There is no manner of doubt that the officer has acted in most negligent manner without any caution or care whatsoever- Without any further comment, we would leave this aspect to the disciplinary authority for appropriate action.

2) AIR 2004 SUPREME COURT 4272

Advocates Act (25 of 1961), S.35- Professional conduct - Citing case - Based on case which was overruled by Supreme Court - Matter remitted - Is Falling standard of professional conduct - Deprecated - It is a very unfortunate situation that learned counsel for the accused who is supposed to know the decision did not bring this aspect to the notice of the learned single Judge. Members of the Bar are officers of the Court. They have a bounden duty to assist the Court and not mislead it. Citing judgment of a Court which has been overruled by a larger Bench of the same High Court or this Court to misled the court is a matter of serious concern. - it was duty of the counsel not to cite an overruled judgment - We express our anguish at the falling standards of professional conducts .

3) AIR 1985 SUPREME COURT 28 (Full Bench )

30. Legal profession is monopolistic in character and this monopoly itself inheres certain high traditions which its members are expected to upkeep and uphold. Members of the profession claimed that they are the leaders of thought and society. In the words of Justice Krishna Iyer in Bar

Council of Maharashtra v. M. V. Dabholkar, (1976) 1 SCR 306 at P. 322: (AIR 1975 SC 2092 at P. 2104) the role of the members of the Bar can be appreciated. He said:

"The Bar is not a private guild, like that of barbers, butchers and candlestick-makers' but, by bold contrast, a public institution committed to public justice and pro bono publico service. The grant of a monopoly licence to practice law is based on three assumptions: (1) There is a socially useful function for the lawyer to perform. (2) The lawyer is a professional person who will perform that function, and (3) His performance as a professional person is regulated by himself and more formally, by the profession as a whole. The central function that the legal profession must perform is nothing less than the administration of justice ('The Practice of Law is a Public Utility' The Lawyer, the Public and Professional Responsibility' by F. Raymond Marks et al - Chicago American Bar Foundation, 1972, p. 288-289). A glance at the functions of the Bar Council, and it will be apparent that a rainbow of public utility duties, including legal aid to the poor, is cast on these bodies in the national hope that the members of this monopoly will serve society and keep to canons of ethics befitting an honourable order. If pathological cases of member misbehaviour occur, the reputation and credibility of the Bar suffer a mayhem and who, but the Bar Council, is more concerned with and sensitive to this potential disrepute the few black sheep bring about. The official heads of the Bar i.e. the Attorney General and the Advocate-General too are distressed if a lawyer 'Stoops to conquer' by retort to soliciting touting and other corrupt practices."

It these are the high expectations of what is described as a noble profession; its members must set an example of conduct worthy of emulation. If he falls from that high expectation, the punishment has to be commensurate with the degree and gravity of the misconduct.

If the appellant had been in practice for a period of ten years at the Bar at the relevant time, he had qualified not only for being appointed as a High Court Judge but as a Judge of this Court. This is sufficient to dispel arguments of immaturity.

11. The hate speeches are Against India as Nation and not against ruling Government of India. The Pro-Pakistan movement is against entire nation as it is in conspiracy to favour one nation which is enemy of state. The recent interview of Fali S. Nariman attracts F.I.R. under section 121, 121-A, 123,125 and 153-A & 153 B. The hate speech against India as nation is an anti-national activity and gross misuse of Article 19 of constitution of India. The Act by way of speech against nation is to be condemned and same should not be encouraged but Mr. Nariman being an advocate is encouraging and promoting the same is an act of conspiracy against nation itself. the intentionally circulated improper legal opinion in order to influence and disrupt peace and public law & order. Therefore it attracts the charges under section 121, 121-A, 123, 125 and 153-A & 153 B.

12. That apart from being an offence under relevant provisions of I.P.C. it is also a clear cut case of undue interference in the judicial proceeding and is a contempt of Court. The law of contempt throws a ring of protection around the entire course of litigation, party, witness Judge or Counsel all are integral parts of the process. Anything which tends to impair the legitimate freedom of any of these cannot but result in obstructing the course of justice. Anything which is published which is clearly intended or at least is calculated to prejudice a trial which is pending and the offending article was published with the knowledge of the pending cause and published intended substantially to interfere with the due course of justice and was calculated to create prejudice in the public mind.

In AIR 1954 Kutch 2, it is observed that this kind of news is flagrant contempt, scandalizing the Court and prejudicing the public mind against the prosecution. The editor, the printer and the publisher are responsible for such publication and cannot escape the consequences by pleading that they bonafide got it or that they had no intention to offend the Court proceedings; Intention does not come in at all such matters. It is the result or the consequence of such

publication that counts. It created a disastrous result in interfering with the course of justice. In AIR 1956 Pat (D.B) 321 , it is ruled that an offending act though not influencing the Judge's mind , may affect the conduct of the parties to the proceedings which is likely to affect the course of true justice. Hon'ble Supreme Court in M.P. Lohia's Case 2005 Cri. L.J. 1416 laid down that there could be no media trial.

13. In Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 1986

SC 872 (at Para 76), the Full Bench of Supreme Court, even while upholding the freedom of Press and recognizing its importance, sounded a note of caution. It said,

"This right is one of the pillars of individual liberty - freedom of speech, which our Court has always unfailingly guarded. I wish to add that however precious and cherished the freedom of speech is under Art. 19(1)(a), this freedom is not absolute and unlimited at all times and under all circumstances but is subject to the restrictions contained in Art. 19(2). That must be so because unrestricted freedom of speech and expression which includes the freedom of the Press and is wholly free from restraints, amounts to uncontrolled licence which would lead to disorder and anarchy and it would be hazardous to ignore the vital importance of our social and national interest in public order and security of the State."

14. Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of D. N.

Prasad Vs Principal Secretary 2005 CRI. L. J. 1901, observed as under.

In its Judgement, (1997) 8 SCC 386 , the Supreme Court held as under : "Para-37 : ……….. A trial by Press, electronic media or public agitation is the very antithesis of rule of law. It can well lead to miscarriage of justice...." The Supreme Court said this view in its judgment in In Re : Harijai Singh, AIR 1997 SC 73 : (1997 Cri LJ 58). "Para 10 : But it has to be remembered that this freedom of Press is not absolute, unlimited and unfettered at all times and in all circumstances as giving an unrestricted

freedom of the speech and expression would amount to an uncontrolled licence. If it were wholly free even from reasonable restraints it would lead to disorder and anarchy. The freedom is not to be misunderstood as to be a Press free to disregard its duty to be responsible. In fact, the element of responsibility must be present in the conscience of the Journalists. In an organized society, the rights of the Press have to be recognised with its duties and responsibilities towards the society. Public order, decency, morality and such other things must be safeguarded. The protective cover of Press freedom must not be thrown open for wrong doings. If a newspaper publishes what is improper, mischievously false or illegal and abuses its liberty it must be punished by Court of Law. The Editor of a Newspaper or a Journal has a greater responsibility to guard against untruthful news and publications for the simple reason that his utterances have a far greater circulation and impact than the utterances of an individual and by reason of their appearing in print, they are likely to be believed by the ignorant. That being so, certain restrictions are essential even for preservation of the freedom of the Press itself...." In R. v. Taylor (Michelle Ann) and Taylor (Lisa Jane), (1994) 98 Cr App R 361, an English Appellate Court has this, to say about the impact of the Press coverage of sensational instances on the trial of the matters. ".....Further, it was clear that the Press coverage had been sensational, unremitting, extensive inaccurate and misleading and despite the Judges warning it was impossible to say that the Jury had not been influenced by it. The nature of the publicity was such that a retrial would not be appropriate...." Freedom of Press has been culled out through the process of interpretation, of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, which

reads as under : "Article 19(1) : All citizens shall have the right (a) to freedom of speech and expression" No independent statute or provision exists, either defining or determining the parameters of freedom of Press. The importance of the Press, be it, of print or of electronic media, has been recognized beyond any pale of doubt. In the latter category of cases, the approach has been further cautious and careful. The reason is that any information touching upon the involvement or innocence of a person accused in a crime, even while the trial is pending, is likely to hamper the investigation or impair the trial. Such instances may result in an unsatisfactory and imperfect disposal of the case. It is immaterial whether the impact of the same is felt by the complainant or the accused. In the Criminal Law, as it prevails in India, the State has the sole prerogative to prosecute an individual for committing an offence. It connotes one of the facets of sovereignty. Prosecution, in turn, has several facets, such as investigation and trial. The prosecution is expected to gather the material from its own point of view, to connect the crime to an accused. Any interference with such a process, is prone to mislead or water-down the prosecution, or for that matter, the trial. The freedom of Press, in the context of trial of criminal cases, came to be considered by the Supreme Court in a recent judgment in State of Maharashtra versus Rajendra Jawanmal Gandhi, (1997) 8 SCC 386 : (1997 Cri LJ 4657). The Court expressed its displeasure over the phenomenon, which, it called as "trial by Press, electronic media, or public agitation". 14) Division Bench of Delhi Court, in Court on its own Motion v. Rajiv Dawar, 2007 I AD

(DELHI) 567 , while convicting Lawyer ,was found guilty of criminal contempt and substantially interfering with the administration of justice. In that case, the contemnor made a plea was to bring a quietus to the matter. This submission was rejected by the Bench holding:

"...... To our mind, it is essential that aberrations committed by those who are integral part of the administration of justice are sternly and firmly dealt with. Magnanimity and latitude should be available to those who are not knowledgeable or conversant with the system or commit the offence unwittingly or innocently. We may also observe that throughout these prolonged proceedings, despite several opportunities being available, there has not even been expression of any slightest remorse or regret on the part of respondent-contemnor and he continues to maintain his high ground." That the entire property of the Accused is liable to be seized and After auction the amount is liable to be deposited in the “ Shaheed Sena Jawan Parivar Kalyan Nidhi’’ i.e for welfare of Family members of Shaheed Army men. In view of above, you requested to register the crime against the accused mentioned herein so as to stern a strong signal that Nation is the first and that none who takes anti-Indian stand in India where the all faiths could flourish but for such anti-national stands, will not be tolerated and that Unity of Nation cannot be allowed torn apart. PRAYER : It is therefore Humbly prayed that; i) F.I.R. under section 124-A read with 109, 120(B) & 34 of I.P.C. be registrated against Accused and their anti-national organized crime syndicate for their article provoking the citizens to act against the nation of India by stating that being anti-Indian is not offence and thereby supporting pro-Pakistani movement and

also giving message to the citizens, abating them to act against nations by twisting the law laid down by higher Courts and putting a distorted version with dishonest concealment of fact with ulterior motive to help the Accused in sedition charges. 2) Seizure of properties of accused and depositing it in the Indian Army Shahid Welfare may kindly be ordered. 3) Direction to appropriate authority to initiate Contempt proceedings against accused in the appropriate court for undue interference in the investigation and pending proceedings may kindly be done. 4) Request be made to Bar Council of India to expel the Accused Fali Nariman from advocate roll permanently for his falling Standard of Professional Ethics and Gross professional Misconduct.

Hence this Complaint,

Dated this ___ day of February, 2016

Signature of the Complainant

(Advocate Nilesh C. Ojha)