Re: [HumJanenge] Voluminous Study : 8 of 16 CJIs corrupt & the list of 16 does not include Mr K G Balakrishnan..

Dear all
Miracle after miracle are happening.
Is it not strange?
Dr JNSharma

On 2/17/11, Dwarakanath <dwarakanathdm@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Vagelaji, I agree with u. I had a similar study in mind and in fact
> studying many of the Judgements delivered by High and Supreme Courts, over a
> long period of time. In some cases, I am so much confused, as to the
> Judgements which some times border on contradictions of earlier ones, In
> some cases the interpretations appears to be bordering on relevancy to
> either the objects or the provisions contained thereat. When my study is
> completed with absolute credence, It will be my pleasure to seek the
> authentications in this regard. I should also be glad to have details of
> what is stated by Mr Prashant Bushan to the SC, in which case, to educate
> myself about the details. Regads, dwarakanathdm, Bangalore
>
> On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 10:13 AM, Vaghela B D <vaghelabd@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Dear All, Supreme Court, with active participation of Litigants,
>> Advocates,
>> past Judges, past Registrars of Courts & the Citizens at large, should
>> conduct the objective data based extensive study to bring out the whole
>> truth for corrective action of stopping judicial corruption - physical &
>> moral - latter one being much more dangerous & deadly for Democracy.
>> Keeping
>> everything wrapped up under secrecy, on the ground that image of Judiciary
>> will be tarnished is ill-concieved and will neither be in the interst of
>> justice nor in the interest of accountability of Judiciary towards the
>> citizens. Regards. Babubhai Vaghela.
>>
>> On Thu, 17 Feb 2011 05:34 IST shak her wrote:
>>
>> >Dear All,
>> >
>> >what will happen to the Judgements given by them by the means of
>> corruption ??
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >From: Vaghela B D <vaghelabd@yahoo.com>
>> >To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
>> >Cc: Dwarakanath <dwarakanathdm@gmail.com>
>> >Sent: Wednesday, 16 February 2011 10:06 AM
>> >Subject: [HumJanenge] 8 of 16 CJIs corrupt & the list of 16 does not
>> include Mr K G Balakrishnan..
>> >
>> >Dear All,
>> >Mr Prashant Bhushan, telling SC, 8 of 16 CJIs corrupt, under oath and
>> sticking to it makes a prudent case for civil society to find out Income
>> of
>> those CJIs and also sitting Justices of SC & HCs of doubtful integrity in
>> the experience of citizens dealing with them day in and day out.
>> >Such details of income / property obtained under RTI or otherwise should
>> be put in public domain for people at large to know that there are some
>> Unholy Cows in higher judiciary also.
>> >That public shaming should help reduce the tendency for corruption -
>> physical or moral.
>> >Regards,
>> >
>> >--
>> >(Babubhai Vaghela)
>> >C 202, Shrinandnagar V, Makarba Road Vejalpur, Ahmedabad - 380051
>> >M - 94276 08632
>> >http://twitter.com/BabubhaiVaghela
>> >About me in Annexure at - http://bit.ly/9xsHFj
>> >http://www.youtube.com/user/vaghelabd
>> >(Administrator - Google Group - Right to Information Act 2005)
>> >
>> http://groups.google.com/group/Right-to-Information-Act-2005/about?hl=en---On
>> Tue, 2/15/11, Dwarakanath <
>> dwarakanathdm@gmail.com>wrote:
>> >
>> >>From: Dwarakanath <dwarakanathdm@gmail.com>
>> >>Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] Ex-CJI Balakrishnan opposes release of his tax
>> returns under RTI
>> >>To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
>> >>Date: Tuesday, February 15, 2011, 11:52 PM
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>Mr.Govind & Mr MK, In my opinion ( I am open for correction, if I am
>> proved wrong)
>> >>"If a Return is filed as a statutory requirement and is available in a
>> public Office and if that return is not marked as a "Confidential
>> Communication" it is generally treated as a information belonging to the
>> Public Office, even though filed by a citizen.. Also, if the Legislators
>> are entitled to access the informatin the Public must be entitled to.
>> Second para of section 8(1) (j) and Setion 11(1) to 11(4) are relevant to
>> the issued under dicussion. Under section 11(1) the CPIO or SPO has to
>> chech whether the information provided by the Third Party (Balki in this
>> case) has been 'marked' ( treated as "Confidential), Only in that case,
>> notice inviting objection of the third party can be issued , if there is
>> no
>> such marking of confidential, the Information Officer is not bound to ask
>> the objection of the third party and can take his own decisions."
>> Regards,
>> dwarakanathdm
>> >>On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 3:00 PM, Govind... Hoping for better <
>> hopegovind@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>Reference:
>> http://epaper.indianexpress.com/IE/IEH/2011/02/15/ArticleHtmls/15_02_2011_001_046.shtml?Mode=1
>> >>>
>> >>>Print edition: Front page, Today's Indian Express
>> >>>
>> >>>Dear friends,
>> >>>When he was in power, he never allowed RTI to be implemented in our
>> supreme Court. I always used to doubt his intention. If you are free,
>> clean
>> handed why do you need to worry.
>> >>>He was one of the most corrupt CJIs and harmed our democracy a lot.
>> Therefore he never allowed RTI to be implemented in judiciary.
>> >>>Do we still say we are living in a democratic country?
>> >>>
>> >>>-- Govind
>> >>>______________________________
>> >>>"The world suffers a lot. Not because of the violence of bad people,
>> >>>But because of the silence of good people!"
>> >>>
>> >>>--Napoleon
>> >>>
>> >>>Govind- 9960704146
>> >>>URL: http://www.wix.com/hopegovind/homepage
>> >>>Blog: http://simplygovind.blogspot.com
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>