AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

        When the Supreme Court rejected the petition of Dr Subramanian Swamy two days ago alleging that Sonia Gandhi had filed a false Affidavit before the Returning Officer of Rae Barelli Parliamentary Constituency, not once but twice in 1999 and 2004, I had written in these columns that it was the darkest day in India's legal history. In a widespread and popular response to my article, I have received innumerable letters from senior lawyers, retired High Court and Supreme Court Judges and many other enlightened citizens from all parts of India sharing my concern about the fearsome fall of the Rule of Law in India and many of them have stated in no uncertain terms that the confidence of common people of India in the neutrality and impartiality of the Supreme Court has been shattered into smithereens following the summary rejection of Dr Subramanian Swamy's petition by the Supreme Court.

        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.” Dr Subramanian Swamy reacted with great dignity and restraint when he told the Bench: 'If you take such a large-hearted view that the matter should be dropped, I have nothing more to say.'

        In disposing of a very important and vital petition which affects the life and death of India as an 'Independent and Sovereign Nation' without giving any reasoned and detailed judgement, the Supreme Court of India has derailed the due process of established law led down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India itself (not the Supreme Court of Pakistan or Italy!!) in its Order dated 2 May, 2002 in Civil Appeal No 7178 of 2001 (Union of India v Association for Democratic reforms and another). In this Order the Supreme Court of India has directed as follows:-

        'The Election Commission is directed to call for information on affidavit by issuing necessary order in exercise of its power under art 324 of the Constitution of India from each candidate seeking election to Parliament or a state legislature as a necessary part of his nomination paper, furnishing therein, information on the following aspects in relation to his/her candidature: -

        (1) Whether the candidate is convicted/acquitted/discharged of any criminal offence in the past-if any, whether he is punished with imprisonment or fine?

        (2) Prior to six months of filing of nomination, whether the candidate is accused in any pending case, of any offence punishable with imprisonment for two years or more, and in which charge is framed or cognizance is taken by the court of law. If so, the details thereof.

        (3) The assets (immovable, movable, bank balances etc) of a candidate and of his/her spouse and that of dependants.

        (4) Liabilities, if any, particularly whether there are any over dues of any public financial institution or government dues.

        (5) The educational qualifications of the candidate.'

        THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA in its Press Note No.ECI/PN/24/2002 dated 28 June, 2002, operationally clarified the above orders of the Supreme Court as follows:

        1. The Election Commission, on detailed consideration of the matter, was of the view that the most efficacious manner of implementing the above judgment and order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court would be by amending Forms 2A to 2E appended to the Conduct of Elections Rules 1961 (forms of nomination papers to be filed at elections to Parliament and State Legislatures), and accordingly approached the Government of India in the Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs by the Commission's letter dated 14 May, 2002 for suitably amending the said forms.

        2. Therefore, in pursuance of the said order dated 2 May, 2002 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Commission has made a detailed Order on 28 June, 2002 under Article 324 of the Constitution, containing the norms and modalities to carry out and give effect to the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reproduced in para 1 above. A copy of the said Order bearing No.3/ER/2002/ JS-II/Vol.III dated 28th June, 2002 is annexed hereto.

        A perusal of the Commission's Order will show that the Commission has prescribed, in Para 14(1) of the Order, an affidavit (Annexure-1 to the said Order) which will have to be filed by each candidate at the time of filing his nomination paper for any election to the Council of States, House of the People, Legislative Assembly of a State or Legislative Council of a State. The consequences of failure on the part of the candidate to furnish the said affidavit or to furnish wrong or incomplete information or suppression of any material information have also been spelt out clearly in Paras 14(3) and 14(4) of the Order. The manner of dissemination of the information furnished by the candidate in the said affidavit has also been specified in paras 14(5) and 14(6) of the Order.

        When the Supreme Court of India issued the above Orders on 13 March 2002, making disclosures by contesting candidates for the Parliamentary/ Assembly Elections mandatory, it upheld the fundamental and sovereign right of voters in every constituency to know about the character, antecedents, educational Qualifications and other details of each and every candidate in every Parliamentary/ Assembly Elections constituency in India.

        The litigation in question was on the constitutionality of Section 33B of the Representation of Peoples Act. This section was inserted into the law as the outcome of our Parliament's ill-advised effort in 2002 to curtail the fundamental right of citizens to know the criminal and financial antecedents of candidates. The Supreme Court in its verdict has held this amendment unconstitutional.

        All that Dr Subramanian Swamy had stated before the Lucknow High Court and the Supreme Court was that Sonia Gandhi while filing her Affidavit before the Returning Officer of Rea Barelli Parliamentary Constituency in 2004 General Elections had given false and bogus information relating to her educational qualifications in Cambridge University in gross violation of the Orders of the Supreme Court of India in its Order dated 2 May, 2002 in Civil Appeal No.7178 of 2001 (Union of India v Association for Democratic reforms and another) and subsequently formalized into operational instructions by the Election Commission of India in its proceedings No.ECI/PN/24/2002 dated 28th June, 2002. Thus physically, metaphysically (!), chemically, mathematically and legally Dr Subramanian Swamy has established the fact that Sonia Gandhi has committed the act of perjury which is a punishable offence under the Indian Penal Code (IPC). And yet with all this known, incontrovertible and irrefutable factual background, the Supreme Court of India derailed the Due Process of Established Law by their Cavalier Obiter Dicta in the following manner: “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.”

        Against this background, the mute millions of India would like to put the following questions to the Supreme Court as a matter of article of faith and conscience:

        A. Has Sonia Gandhi violated the directions of the Supreme Court of India and the instructions of the Election Commission of India in regard to the filing of her Affidavit in the manner required under law before the Returning Officer of Rae Barelli Parliamentary Constituency or not? How can this matter of both Substantive and Adjectival Law be dismissed as 'Stale' in Law by the highest Judicial Tribunal in the land?

        B. What is the nationally and internationally accepted legal definition of the term STALE? If no definition is available, is it not the bounden constitutional duty of the Supreme Court of India to refer the matter to a fuller Constitutional Bench in the larger public interest of clearer definition, demarcation and determination of the Rule of Law?

        C. In view of the newly pronounced revolutionary landmark STALE principle in respect of Sonia Gandhi at the highest judicial level, can the mute millions of India safely and correctly assume that the enjoyment of this overriding principle of case law is her sole plenipotentiary prerogative right and open to her alone and to no other India citizen in India ?

        Every self-respecting and responsible citizen of India would like to declare to the Supreme Court of India today that the survival of India as a decent, virile, independent and sovereign nation depends upon the maintenance in every field of action of the highest and purest standards of justice and right dealing. In short they are clamouring for justice. Justice means a prompt, fair and impartial application of known and accepted impartial rules. To conclude in the deathless and timeless words of Jean Jacqes Rousseau (1712—1778): “It is to law alone that men owe justice and liberty. It is this salutary organ of the will of all which establishes in civil rights the natural equality between men. It is this celestial voice which dictates to each citizen the precepts of public reason and teaches him to act according to the rules of his own judgment and not to behave inconsistently with himself. It is with this voice alone that political leaders should speak when they command”. The helpless common people of India are hoping against hope and praying to the Almighty that the Supreme Court of India would not dismiss the above words of Jean Jacqes Rousseau as STALE. Without lapsing into voluntary levity, I wish to say that the common people of India would continue to express such feelings indefinitely till the end of time—till they are dismissed as STALE by the Supreme Court of India and given an unceremonious and undignified burial!