1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
Writ Petition (CRL.)
of 2013
IN THE MATTER OF
Manohar Lal Sharma Advocate
S.C.B.A.L.No.-1
Supreme Court of India
New Delhi-110001
Resident of, 31, Gyangudery,
Vrindaban Mathura , U.P.
Petitioner
VERSUS
1. Central Bureau of Investigation
Through Director
Plot no.5-B , 6th floor ,CGO Complex
Lodhi Road New Delhi 110003
2. The Times of India
through Chief Editor
Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg
Near I.T.O., New Delhi
3. Attorney General of India
Shri Gulam Vahanavati
Supreme Court of India New Delhi
4. Journal of Indian Law and
Society,
through chairman
The National University of Juridical
Sciences
Dr. Ambedkar Bhavan
12, LB Block, Sector III, Salt Lake
City,
Kolkata – 700098
5. LegallyIndia.com
Registrar Mesh Digital Ltd
Through chairman
3 Quarry St, Lime Quarry Mews,
Guildford, Surrey GU1 2RD, United
Kingdom
+44 1483 304030
Also
Through Mr. Kian Ganj
Editor of LegallyIndia.com
2
(91-900-405-6651)
6. Stella James
c/o Journal of Indian Law and
Society,
The National University of Juridical
Sciences
Dr. Ambedkar Bhavan
12, LB Block, Sector III, Salt Lake
City,
Kolkata – 700098
Respondents
Writ Petition (PIL) u/a. 32 & 21
of the
Constitution of India Read with
Contempt of
Court Act.
To,
The Hon’ble Chief Justice of India
And His Companion Judges of the
Supreme Court of India.
The Petitioner most humbly showeth,
1. The Petitioner, citizen of India
& by profession an advocate
practicing at the above address, is
filing the present writ petition
(PIL) under Art.32 & 21 of the Constitution
of India read with
Contempt of Court Act for direction
to enquiry, investigate and to
prosecute respondents no.2, no.4,
no.5 and no.6 for their
defamatory and contumacious action
against the judicial
institution, Supreme Court of India
and its Judges, in the interest
of justice. That the Respondent no.
3 may kindly be admonished
for his brazen attempts to derail by
delay the inquiry committee
already instituted by this Hon’ble
Court to delve into the utterly
atrocious allegations leveled against
a recently retired judge of
this Hon’ble Court.
2. The Petitioner in the morning of
12.11.2013 had already
mentioned the salient facts
concerning the actions of the
Respondents to the Hon’ble Chief
Justice of India, and a judicial
3
committee of 3 puisne judges of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court was
kindly instituted to inquire into
the statements widely circulated
and published by Respondents No.2,
4, 5 and No.6.
3. That the Petitioner is filing the
present petition also to decide
inter-alia the following
constitutional questions of law arising
therefrom;-
i. Whether a diaphanous statement of
reference is
sufficient report of offence /
guilt?
ii. Whether publication of such
flimsy statement(s) is not
an offence to defame prestige of a
judicial institution?
iii. Whether said publication is not
malafide and liable to be
punished as a contempt of court?
iv. Whether publication of sheer
statement and skimpy
reference is not an act calculated
to defame?
4. That Respondent no.4 is a foreign
company having its temporary
working office in Delhi, Mumbai
through its editor Mr. Kian Ganj.
belongs to its registrar Mesh
Digital Limited having as above said
address. In fact it is a foreign
company and is working in India
through internet and its editor and
other reporter only. Stella James
does not disclose her identity.
Possibly she also does not belong to
Indian culture/society.
5. The petitioner, who is an
advocate, is duty bound to come forward
to protect and preserve the
reputation of the judicial institutions
which are the only hope of the
general public against the corruption
and scandals of the politicians,
industrialists etc. During the last few
months the Supreme Court & other
high courts and tribunals have
taken stern actions against the
corruption, scandals and
4
exploitations by the politicians and
industrialists, and consequently
these entrepreneurs and speculators
are intent on tarnishing the
sterling image and reputation
India’s high judiciary commands. The
recent FIR lodged by CBI against
Kumarmangalam Birla of Calcutta
and Hindalco for allotment of coal
block has rocked the industrial
classes, as has the entry of the CBI
into the offices of Parliament
itself, causing the vested interests
(under imminent threat of being
exposed) to join hands to concoct a
conspiracy to tarnish and
defame reputation of the judiciary
under the cover of a lady
diaphanously alleging sexual
harassment at the hands of a, now
retired, puisne judge of this
Hon’ble Court. True facts revealed to
the petitioner are as follows:-
A. 6.11.2013, Stella James,
Respondent No.6, alleged in her
“JILS BLOG” that she was harassed by
a recently
retired Supreme Court judge in a
hotel room in
December 2012. Her interview was
published by
Journal of Legal Law and thereafter
the Times of
India published on 12.11.2013, an
obviously hearsay
account, masquerading as a feminist
manifesto,
bereft of specifics such as date,
time, place of sexual
assault etc. The offending interview
is reproduced
below for ready reference.
“Last December was momentous for the
feminist movement in the country –
almost an
entire
population
seemed
to
rise
up
spontaneously against the violence
on women,
and the injustices of a seemingly
apathetic
government. In the strange irony of
situations
5
that our world is replete with, the
protests
were the backdrop of my own
experience.
In Delhi at that time, interning
during the
winter vacations of my final year in
University,
I dodged police barricades and
fatigue to go to
the assistance of a highly reputed,
recently
retired Supreme Court judge whom I
was
working
under
during
my
penultimate
semester. For my supposed diligence,
I was
rewarded with sexual assault (not
physically
injurious, but nevertheless
violating) from a
man old enough to be my grandfather.
I won’t
go into the gory details, but
suffice it to say
that long after I’d left the room,
the memory
remained, in fact, still remains,
with me.”
B. 6.11.2013, On the basis of the
blog post Legallyindia.com,
Respondent no.5, allegedly conducted
her interview
which was published in its website.
True copy of the blog dt 6.11.2013
& times
India news paper publication dt
12.11.2013
are enclosed as Annexure P-1 colly
(13-16)
C.12.11.2013, Times of India,
Respondent No. 2, further
published the similar story in their
news paper, again
without citing specifics of the gory
sexual assaults
allegedly perpetrated by a judge of
this Hon’ble
Court.
D.12.11.2013 Seeing such patently defamatory
publication in the
Times of India, the Petitioner
appeared post haste
before the Hon’ble Chief Justice in
the morning to
6
mention the facts published in Times
of India for a
proper in-house inquiry into such
self evident
contempt of court. As the matter
entirely concerns
the
fresh
widely
published
defamatory
and
contumacious actions of Respondents,
no PIL or
application is needed to be filed in
such cases. Due
to the utterly shocking and
scandalous nature of
allegations, as mentioned by the
Petitioner, Hon’ble
Chief Justice of India immediately,
during lunch
break, instituted a three judges
committee to inquire
into the truth of the allegations as
published and for
further action. However all
advocates, including the
Attorney General Respondent No. 3,
came to know
what transpired in the Hon’ble Chief
Justice’s Court
in the morning.
E. 02.15 p.m. Learned Attorney
General appeared in the court
before the Hon’ble Chief Justice
along with a written
petition asking for action within
VISHAKA judgment
and direction. Despite knowing the
fact that the
Hon’ble Chief Justice has already
appointed a three
judges committee upon mentioning by
the Petitioner,
M.L.Sharma Advocate in the morning,
Respondent
No. 3 was strangely insistent that
his petition be
kept pending for two weeks for
notice.
F. 13.11.2013 Petitioner sent an
e-mail to Ms. Stella James to
find out truth and to help if her
statement is true,
but she did not reply. True copy of
the email dt.
13.11.2013 is being filed as
Annexure P-2 (17)
7
6. That respondent no.5 is a foreign
company as evident from
website whois and analysis report on
Legallyindia.com was run on
16th November 2013 came to the
petitioner knowledge and copy of
the said report dt 16.11.2013 being
filed as Annexure P-3 (18-
21)
7. That the petition is being filed
on the following amongst other
GROUNDS
A. Because a sheer reference to
sexual harassment, even if
stated by a lady, cannot be accepted
as an offence having
actually been committed. The
impugned statement is
deliberately vague on the name(s),
date(s), time and place
where such action / offence was
committed. The name of the
room / hotel is not reflected in the
statement. Such
statements prima facie have no
value, but it was nevertheless
made by the Respondent No. 4 under a
concocted design with
other conspirators just to defame
the judiciary for the
reference period of December 2012
when the nation was
already reeling under violence of
sexual allegations and
conspiracy theories.
B. Because under their concocted
conspiracy, the Respondent
No. 5 also promptly published
Respondent No.4’s interview in
their online edition but again did
not disclose name, place,
time and date of the incident(s).
Such diaphanous publication,
masquerading as a feminist
manifesto, is only to veil and
distract from the concocted and
flimsy nature of their
conspiracy.
C. Because Times of India,
Respondent No. 2, having utter
motive, published the same story
merely on the basis of
8
aforesaid publication in a blog and
the subsequent Legal India
interview. Apparently the Respondent
No. 2 does not care to
verify facts on its own when it
comes to tarnishing the image
and reputation of the Judiciary, the
Supreme Court and its
retired judges. In fact R-2 tried
only to highlight this story
resulting to defame judicial image.
It is not news but is a
defamatory publication may be paid
publication to tarnish
judiciary faith and image in the
world.
D. Because the impugned story is not
even a part of any court
proceeding, FIR or complaint filed
in writing by any one. So it
does not come within the definition
of news too. It is a mirage
of steamy smoke and mirrors created
at the behest of
industrialists and politicians
deeply scarred by the potent
actions of this Hon’ble Court upon
them.
E. Because the strange move of
learned Attorney General to
block and delay the already
instituted inquiry, despite
possessing knowledge about the
morning’s mentioning, also
appears as being done at the behest
of his political bosses to
damage the sterling reputation of
the judiciary and so that
further rumors and innuendos may
circulate against this
Hon’ble Court in particular.
F. Because It needs answering how
the Attorney General could
file a petition so fast, presumably
after due application of his
own mind, upon publication by the
Times of India that
morning, without his having the
prior knowledge of it.
G. Because the sole object of the
Respondent No. 4, 5 & 6, to
publish
blog
posts,
the
subsequent
interview
in
Legallyindia.com and publication by
Times of India along with
9
the ready to hand petition by
learned Attorney General for
action within “Vishaka” judgment, is
only to create a
prolonged media circus to tarnish
the image and goodwill of
the Supreme Court, its Judges and their
reputation upon
vague, and by their maker’s own
admission, unprovable,
allegations of sexual harassment
made by a lady law intern
with no professional standing.
H. Because after the above said
publication a few names have
already started to be abused and
discussed all over India to
portray a defamatory visage of the
Supreme Court’s judicial
goodwill and reputation. A group of
government counsels has
already started to bandy about that
the committee will not
disclose the real truth but will
whitewash the entire scenario.
Therefore via such besmirching
tactics the political bosses
have already succeeded in tarnishing
image of a Supreme
Court judge by concocted
publication. Such publication,
without serious evidence, done by the
Time of India and
followed up by a Petition from the
learned attorney General is
a serious concern if left
unpunished.
I. Because the Petitioner learns
through ancient books,
disclosed and established several
times over, that a lady
rarely speaks truth for solely
Truth’s sake. “Frailty thy name
is woman” once said the Bard of
Avon. For short benefit or
for revenge or for denial a woman
can go to any extent to
wreak revenge. ” Heaven hath no rage
like love to hatred
turned, nor hell a fury like a woman
scorned”. Empires have
fought and fallen due to a lady’s
ego, desire and ambition;
from fair Helen of Troy to Cleopatra
to India’s very own
10
disrobed epic queens. Statement of
Such lady cannot be
relied as a true at all as they
never speak true for short gain,
revenge and also under conspiracy as
has been hatched
herein.
J. Because Stella James, who gave
such defamatory interview
and comments, must be required to
file an affidavit as
evidence in support of her serious
innuendoes and
allegations, and these evidences
must be placed in the public
domain pending inquiry to quell and
quash the vicious rumor
mongers.
K. Because learned Attorney General
was also under a legal duty
to peruse the entire scenario and
call for facts from
administrative sources like CBI and
others and to take steps
accordingly, but it is evident that
he only acted under
direction of his political bosses
merely to defame and push a
hearsay story under the scope of
Vishaka judgment when the
Respondent No.4 herself admittedly
wanted no such thing.
L. Because Respondent No. 6 had
never cared to herself
approach the proper authorities for
action against the
judge(s) even when the entire nation
was in a frenzy over
such concerns and the Government had
constituted the
Justice J.S.Verma Committee on
23.12.2012 to hear from
such victims such as she till
06.01.2013.
M. Because any genuinely affected /
concerned feminist lady
victim sexually assaulted on or
around 24.12.2012, and that
to
one
with
legal
knowledge
&
belong
to
foreign
culture/society, would have jumped
through hoops to assist
such a prestigious committee of
India’s senior legal
11
eminences to ensure that the right
thing gets done for the
women in India, including by
striking down various
discriminatory feminist laws which
ensure that aged women
and unmarried girls are harassed on
motivated complaints
brought by ladies admitted into
their homes through
marriage.
N. Because Legallyindia.com, a
foreign company, have all
intention to defame Indian judiciary
for their own various
object as our country is facing
various hardship and it might
be a part of such international
malafied campaign to tarnish
image of the Indian Judiciary.
Therefore an investigation must
be conducted against the respondent
no.4 , 5 and 6 for
further proper action.
O. Because petitioner apprehends
that it is also a foreign
conspiracy to defame India in either
manner. If such foreign
companies are not called upon for
clarification and legal
action it will be opened a Pindara
box in future for such type
of statements to tarnish reputation,
faith and judicial system
of India. Such action by foreign
company should not be left
lightly in any circumstances.
8. That Petitioner has not filed any
other petition for the subject
matter either before this Hon’ble
Supreme Court or in any High
Court for the relief as prayed for.
PRAYER
Therefore within the aforesaid facts
and circumstances and in the
interest of citizens of India for
justice, equity and fair play this
Hon’ble court
12
a. Be pleased to call judicial
enquiry against the respondent no. 2,
4, 5 & 6 within the supervision
of this Hon’ble court and to
prosecute the respondent no. 2, 4 ,5
& 6 for their concocted
criminal conspiracy against the
Indian judicial systems. AND
b. Be pleased to direct CBI to
collect all true facts and evidence and
to file their report before the
present judicial inquiry committee
for further action and prosecution
in accordance of law in the
interest of justice AND
c. Be pleased to call respondents, Times
of India, Journal of Indian
registrar M/s Mesh Digital Ltd, to
explain about irresponsible
publication of such statement,
without having/publishing any
evidence in support of such
statements, for proper action within
the contempt of court act and in
accordance of law of the
country to provide complete justice
to the Petitioner. AND
d. Pass such other order or further
orders, as this Hon’ble court
may deem fit and proper under the
facts and circumstances of
the case.
AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS, THE
PETITIONER AS IS DUTY
BOUND SHALL EVER PRAY.
Drawn & settled by:
Filed by: Manohar Lal Sharma
Advocate
Manohar Lal Sharma Advocate
Petitioner-in-person
Drawn on : 12.11.2013
Filed on :
16.11.2013
