AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

        As an insignificant freelance journalist and a maverick private citizen, as an anti-establishment individualist, with no claim to fame, no title to distinction, no high office as incumbent and no party politics or other organisations to back or boost me to notice by the pseudo-secular mafia of mass media, I derive my simple moral sanction to pen this article from the following inspiring words of George Bernard Shaw (1856-1950):

        'I am and have always been, and shall now always be, a revolutionary writer, because our laws make law impossible; our liberties destroy all freedom: our property is organised robbery; our morality is an impudent hypocrisy; our wisdom administered by inexperienced or mal-experienced dupes, our power wielded by cowards and weaklings, and our honour false in all its points. I am an enemy of the existing order.'

Sonia Gandhi

This is the only way in which I can react to the wayward and lawless ways of our 'noble' judiciary in India. In these columns last month, in an article titled 'The Darkest Day in our Legal History,' I had expressed my shock and concern about the authoritarian manner bordering on medieval judicial (Injudicious!) despotism, totally divorced from the letter and spirit of all known canons of Equity and Natural Justice, in which the Supreme Court of India had summarily dismissed the writ petition of Dr Subramaniam Swamy on the fundamental issue of Sonia Gandhi's (the spiritual and moral heir of Mahatma Gandhi according to our Judiciary!!) false affidavit in 2004 before the Returning Officer of Rae Barelli Parliamentary constituency regarding her non-existent and bogus educational qualifications from the University of Cambridge in England.

Subramaniam Swamy

         A three-Judge Bench comprising Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan and Justices B P Singh and G P Mathur asked Dr Swamy: 'Should the Supreme Court go into all the affidavits to find out they are false or not. Further investigation is not possible into a STALE ISSUE and it should be dropped.' It was a disastrous and disgraceful moment of deliberate dethronement of the Rule of Law, the Rule of Equality before the Law and the Rule of Monarchical Majesty of Law, not at the level of a III Class Magistrate in a remote village in Arunachal Pradesh but at the highest judicial level of the Supreme Court of India in New Delhi. Indeed it was a 'Moment of Nadir' in the tortured and chequered history of the march of Indian law towards the dark valley of judicial death.

        However, for the Supreme Court of India at that moment, Sonia Gandhi shone pure as a crystal of virtue and public morality, apart from setting a supreme example of snow white transcendental truth. Applying these standards of TRUTH set and defined by the Supreme Court of India, the Madras High Court, in a historic judgement delivered on 13 June, 2007 and which will get quoted and re-quoted for centuries to come, directed the Chief Election Commissioner and Tamilnadu Chief Electoral Officer to initiate within six weeks action against AIADMK supremo J Jayalalithaa for filing false declarations in her nominations for four constituencies during the 2001 Assembly elections. All that the Supreme Court of India and our High Courts have to do to dethrone eternal Euclid in the realm of Geometry, is to declare that according to the noblest traditions of our convoluted judicial arithmetic and geometry, 2004 preceded 2001 and not vice versa! Then it will become easier for our Parliament to incorporate this mathematical judicial axiom into our sinking Constitution by amending it. The fact that Jayalalithaa was thrown out by the people of Tamilnadu in the 2006 Assembly Elections is not a 'Stale Issue,' applying the supremely solemn declaration founded on sanctimonious humbug, emanating from the humming sighs of our Men In Robes at the highest levels of our judiciary in our degraded and debauched land today. A Division Bench of Justices Dharmarao Elipe and S Palanivelu gave the directive while passing orders on a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by DMK MP C Kuppusamy in 2002. In a Non-Stale Manner the High Court of Madras declared: 'Persons holding high offices/positions should be role models to the general public and if they venture to commit flagrant violation of rule and laws and that too knowingly, that should not be taken lightly as it would send wrong signals that laws are meant only for general public and not for bigwigs who can go scot free.' Applying this sterling and judicially cast-iron yard stick, DMK MP C Kuppuswamy is a small wig and Jayalalithaa is a big wig. Viewing the whole issue in a sedately and suavely 'stale manner,' perhaps applying the same yardstick pari passu at the level of the Supreme Court of India may be (!!!) neither 'legally feasible' nor 'morally desirable' or 'officially pardonable'! The moral of the Supreme Court story is that Sonia Gandhi is a small wig and the renegade Dr. Subramaniam Swamy is a big wig and he is also guilty of avoidable blasphemy.

        As an irrepressible and indomitable fighter for several public causes, at all costs, in spite of all terror and however long and hard the road may be, Subramaniam Swamy has issued the following statement which graphically presents to the public the 'acts' and 'deeds', 'puerile pronouncements' and 'gaseous effusions' of injustice emanating from our judiciary on vital matters affecting the life of our nation: 'I am moving a Review Petition in the Supreme Court to seek Sonia Gandhi's prosecution for perjury, based on the perceptive observations made yesterday (13 June, 2007) by a Division Bench of the Madras High Court consisting of Justices Dharmarao Elipe and S Palanivelu. The Learned Judges held that the alleged perjury of Jayalalithaa need to be proceeded with because................'

        Applauding the Madras High Court Bench, I want the Supreme Court to review their order of 17 May dismissing my SLP against Sonia Gandhi's false declaration in affidavit on her educational qualification filed in 2004. The First Bench had held that the matter was 'STALE' and that I should be 'large hearted' while pursuing such cases.

        However by comparison with Jayalalithaa, Sonia Gandhi's commission of the offence of perjury is far more serious because Sonia had lied about her educational qualifications. Jayalalithaa had merely furnished wrong and false details relating to the number of nominations filed by her in the 2001 Assembly elections in Tamilnadu. It is also much less 'STALE' since Sonia Gandhi filed a false affidavit in 2004, while Jayalalithaa's false averment was in 2001.

        Hence, there cannot be two standards of justice, one for Sonia Gandhi and another for Jayalalithaa. It violates Article 14 of the Constitution. Otherwise a wrong signal will, to borrow the Madras High Court Bench's words, be sent to the general public that Sonia Gandhi is above the law, and can go scot free. The only contrived 'difference' between Sonia Gandhi and Jayalalithaa is that the latter is from an Indian family background, and has no dynasty to boast.”

        Dr Subramaniam Swamy's brilliant and unassailable expose of the goings on in the decadent judiciary in India, brings to my mind the delightful account by Lord Dunning of the barbaric origin of fiat justitta in Rome in the days of the Roman Empire:

       ''Let justice be done

        As done in Rome''

        'In my coat of arms, I took as my motto, Fiat justitia' Let justice be done believing it to have a respectable origin. I have since discovered that it was first used to excuse the most outrageous injustice. It comes from a story told in Seneca. Pisco sentenced a soldier to death for the murder of Gaius. He ordered a centurion (a Roman official) to execute the sentence. When the soldier was about to be executed, Gaius came forward himself alive and well. The centurion reported it to Piso. He sentenced all three to death. The soldier because he had already been sentenced. The centurion for disobeying orders. And Gaius for being the cause of the death of two innocent men. Pisco excused it by the plea- Fiat justitia, ruat coelum - Let justice be done, though the heavens should fall.'

        Our national misfortune is that we have had very few men of the judicial and moral stature of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes (1841-1935) in our judiciary in our country after our independence. In his famous dissent in the LOCHNER CASE, he said that a judge should be trained to summarily disregard his personal likes and dislikes. He said: 'The correct question to ask is not : 'Do I consider the restriction reasonable but would a reasonable man necessarily consider it unreasonable?' The test therefore is not the subjective view of the judge as to reasonableness but the objective test of the reasonable man which is applied in several branches of the law. We in our country have not realised that if a Judge's social, political and economic theories and views were casually permitted to intrude in his decision on constitutional questions, we will be creating an unmanageable and uncontrollable jungle of POLITICAL JUDICIARY, letting loose an avalanche of unanswerable questions relating to the method of appointment of Judges to the High Courts and the Supreme Court of India. Besides, our Courts are Courts of general jurisdiction and are not limited to the determination of constitutional questions alone. In view of this, if the politics of a Judge becomes material for his appointment to the High Courts and the Supreme Court of India as indeed it has become in all parts of India during the last three decades and more particularly in 'highly communal' Tamilnadu, fair and impartial decision of cases would become impossible by virtue of the fact that the personal views of the judge may often obtrude in his judicial pronouncements. Criminalisation of politics may be disastrous for our nation; but even more disastrous is the politicisation of our judiciary which has kept an even pace, shoulder to shoulder, arm upon arm, along with criminalisation of politics.