AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

        All the enlightened and patriotic people in India committed to the sacred cause of survival of consideration of the ideals of equity and natural justice in our Courts of Law, have been shattered by the manner in which a Bench of the Supreme Court of India, headed by its Chief Justice, cast aside a writ petition presented by Dr Subramanian Swami against the false affidavit filed by Sonia Gandhi in Rae Barelli Parliamentary Constituency relating to her fraudulent educational qualifications in the University of Cambridge. Dr Swami, the former Union Law and Commerce Minister and an elected member of the Lok Sabha from Bombay and Madurai, and later an elected member of the Rajya Sabha was indeed 'treated' as a stateless citizen, if not a refugee from Bangladesh, when the Supreme Court callously used the adjective 'STALE' while dismissing his petition. All that Dr Swami was seeking was SUBSTANTIVE JUSTICE in letter and spirit under the SUBSTANTIVE LAW of the Indian Constitution and the Representation of People Act. Likewise he was seeking ADJECTIVE JUSTICE in letter and spirit under the ADJECTIVAL LAW of the India Constitution. Statutory law or written law governs rights and obligations of those who are subject to it. Substantive law defines the legal relationship of people with other people or between them and the state. Substantive law stands in contrast to adjective law (Procedural law), which comprises the rules by which a court hears and determines what happens in civil or criminal proceedings. Procedural law deals with the method and means by which substantive law is made and administered. It means the rules according to which the SUBSTANTIVE LAW is administered, e.g., Rules of CIVIL PROCEDURE. In short it is that part of the Law that provides a method for enforcing or maintaining rights, or obtaining redress for their invasion. Adjectival law (Procedural Law) pertains to and prescribes the practice, method, procedure, or legal machinery by which Substantive Law is enforced or made effective. Both the Rule of Substantive Law and the Rule of Adjective Law in India received a lethal death blow when the Supreme Court dismissed Dr Swami's petition as STALE. By doing so in so brash a manner, the Supreme Court of India indeed behaved like Mughal Emperor Akbar. I am only reminded about the words of the eminent Historian Vincent Smith who viewed Akbar's DIN ILAHI “as an outcome of ridiculous vanity, a monstrous growth of unrestrained autocracy”.

In the India of today thanks to the perverted functioning of our political democracy, we have an unchallenged reign and rule of ignorance at all levels. There is a total parity of self- chosen enthusiastic ignorance at all levels of the Executive, the Legislature and the Judiciary. Top men in the Executive, Legislature and the Judiciary compete with one another with pseudo-secular gusto in their unquenchable quest or thirst for Himalayan ignorance. I am not therefore surprised that our Courts of Law are just not concerned about the sacred 'Knowledge and Wisdom Traditions' in their own field of endeavour. When the Supreme Court used the adjective STALE in Dr. Subramanian Swami's case, it clearly violated the underlying spirit (if not letter!!) of the following words of wisdom of Justice William O Douglas (1898-1980) of the US Supreme Court, who as a very great Judge with a term lasting 36 years and 7 months, remained the longest-serving justice in the history of the American Supreme Court as of 2007. To quote his words from his Judgment in “Craig Vs Harney, 331 U.S. 367, 374 (1947)”:         “There is no special perquisite of the Judiciary which enables it, as distinguished from other institutions of democratic Government, to suppress, edit or censor events which transpire in proceedings before it”. The Supreme Court of India did precisely that in Dr. Subramanian Swami's Case.

LORD BRIDGE

        As a freelance Journalist, I prefer the folly of enthusiasm to the indifference of judicial wisdom. IQ means intelligence quotient. IQ at many levels of our Judiciary in India today, including the highest level of the Supreme Court of India, has come to mean not Intelligence Quotient but Ignorance Quotient, Influence Quotient, Inertia Quotient, Illegality Quotient, Immorality Quotient, Impotence Quotient and Insolence Quotient. IQ can never mean Inspiration Quotient or Illumination Quotient or Integrity Quotient. What should be viewed as scandalous, sacrilegious and nauseating in any civilized society, has become noble, sacred and sacrosanct in today's India. Am I not proclaiming that irony is the gaiety of reflection and the joy of freedom, even if not wisdom?

        In a similar sarcastic diction, Anatole France (1844-1924) wrote with great feeling and passion:

        “To disarm the strong and arm the weak would be to change the social order which it's my job to preserve.

        Justice is the means by which established injustices are sanctioned

        The majestic egalitarianism of the law, which forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.”

        Seeing the helpless deathly fate of the writ petition of Dr Subramanian Swami, founded on absolutely legal and reasonable grounds,

        I am reminded of what Oscar Wilde said in beautiful verse when he was in Jail:

        “Something was dead in each of us,

        And what was dead was HOPE”

        The unfortunate fate of Dr Subramanian Swami's Writ Petition, should make all of us aware of the fact that we are heading for another dark emergency of the kind that Indira Gandhi—Mother-in-Law of Sonia Gandhi—clamped down upon our nation in 1975. We are indeed heading for an Age of Serfdom, with Supreme Court's finally supreme declaration of Super Sonia Gandhi as the Mighty Mahatma Gandhi of today's India. Here again we the helpless masses of India, whatever might be the callous and cavalier contempt of the Supreme Court of India towards us all, I mean “WE THE PEOPLE”, we should all derive our strength from the following inspiring words— words aflame with fire and aglow with light—of Justice William O Douglas: “As night-fall does not come at once, neither does oppression...It is in such twilight that we all must be aware of change in the air—however slight—lest we become victims of the darkness”. I wish to declare on behalf of all the freedom loving citizens of India that the struggle today is between the helpless individual and his sacred power to express himself and the unabashed power structure of an irresponsible, discriminatory and dictatorial State and Government which seeks conformity, suppression and obedience, not through trial and error but through error and terror. This great and ancient nation, thanks to our wicked Government, is identified today more and more with material things and less and less with spiritual standards derived from our tradition of Sanathana Dharma. We have become an arrogant, selfish and greedy nation interested only in US Dollars, British Sterling and Euro Dollars. We are not interested in people and their hopes, urges and aspirations. We need a faith that dedicates us to something bigger and more important than ourselves or our possessions. Today's establishment in the UPA Government is like that of Genghis Khan (1162-1227) or that of George III (1738-1820). If the State and the Government continue to adhere to the tactics of Genghis Khan or George III, the only redress for the masses of India, honoured in tradition, will be an open and armed revolution. To accomplish great things, we must not only act but also dream, not only plan but also believe. Here again I cannot help quoting Anatole France: “For every monarchy overthrown the sky becomes less brilliant, because it loses a star. A republic is ugliness set free.'

        Now it can be asked: “Do academic writers and Journalists have any role to play in all these matters and affairs?” I would like to give an answer to this question from an article by Prof. Glanville Williams in the CAMBRIDGE LAW JOURNAL entitled “The Lords and Impossible Attempts, or Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes?”. His sharp argument in this article led to the overruling by the House of Lords of 'Anderton Vs Ryan'.

        The effect of Prof. Glanville Williams's article was best expressed in the following words of Lord Bridge: “I cannot conclude this opinion without disclosing that I have had the advantage, since the conclusion of the arguments in this appeal, of reading an article by Prof. Glanville Williams entitled “The Lords and Impossible Attempts, or Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes?” (1986) in Cambridge Law Journal. The language in which he criticizes the decision in Anderton Vs Ryan is not conspicuous by its moderation but it would be foolish on that account, not to recognise the force of the criticism and churlish not to acknowledge the assistance I have derived from it.”

        The common man in the street in India will feel free and relaxed only on that day when India becomes capable of producing humble, knowledgeable, wise, courageous, straight-forward, impartial, unfettered, undaunted and public spirited Judges, devoted to the letter and spirit of the Law of our Constitution, in our High Courts and our Supreme Court like Lord Bridge of England.