1. Please find here-in, incorporated as under, my open letter addressed to Hon’ble Chief Justice of India and puisne Judges of Supreme Court of India.
2. I know moral obligation even though not enforceable under the law but would by acknowledgement bring it to the level of legal obligation.
3. Since I do not agree with the act or conduct and/or omission or commission at Rajghat in the name of Satyagrah on 5/6 June 2011 by BJP’s dignitaries-in general and Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha and senior BJP leader Smt Sushma Swaraj-in particular who had set unprecedented example of disrespect to a Samadhi of Father of Nation. This remains unparallel in the history of the civilized world.
4. I hope you all would also help in furtherance of this cause –to bring dignity and purity in political life- because leave it aside Rajghat (Samadhi of Father of Nation), Indian way of life even does not permit to act like this on a place of common man’s eternal rest.
With kind and warm regards
Yours sincerely
Yogesh Kumar Sharma
07 June 2011
********************
Yogesh Kumar Sharma
Advocate & Counselor-at-law
3/65 Dholabhatta Colony,
Ajmer-305008 Rajasthan
e-mail : advocateyksharma@yahoo.co.in
06 June 2011
To
Hon’ble Chief Justice of India and puisne Judges Supreme Court of India,
Tilak Marg,
New Delhi-110 001 (India
e-mail at : supremecourt@nic.in
PRESENT OPEN EPISTLE IS DRAWN & DRAFTED AS A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC – ‘WE-THE PEOPLE’ - HAVING SUFFICIENT INTEREST TO MAINTAIN AN ACTION FOR JUDICIAL REDRESS FOR PUBLIC INJURY ARISING FROM BREACH OF PUBLIC DUTY OF RAJGHAT COMMITTEE AND/OR DELHI GOVERNMENT AND/OR FROM VIOLATION OF PROVISION OF THE CONSTITUTION OR THE LAW AT RAJGHAT BY MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT AND OTHER/S AND SEEK ENFORCEMENT OF SUCH PUBLIC DUTY AND OBSERVANCE OF SUCH CONSTITUTIONAL OR LEGAL PROVISION. THIS IS ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL FOR MAINTAINING THE RULE OF LAW, FURTHERING THE CAUSE OF JUSTICE AND ACCELERATING THE PACE OF REALISATION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL OBJECTIVE "LAW", AS POINTED OUT BY JUSTICE KRISHNA IYER IN FERTILIZER CORPORATION KAMGAR UNION V. UNION OF INDIA AIR 1981 SC 344 "IS A SOCIAL AUDITOR AND THIS AUDIT FUNCTION CAN BE PUT INTO ACTION WHEN SOME ONE WITH REAL PUBLIC INTEREST IGNITES THE JURISDICTION. A FEAR IS SOMETIMES EXPRESSED THAT IF WE KEEP THE DOOR WIDE OPEN FOR ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC TO ENTER THE PORTALS OF THE COURT TO ENFORCE PUBLIC DUTY OR TO VINDICATE PUBLIC INTEREST, THE COURT WILL BE FLOODED WITH LITIGATION. BUT THIS FEAR IS TOTALLY UNFOUNDED AND THE ARGUMENT BASED UPON IT IS ANSWERED COMPLETELY BY THE AUSTRALIAN LAW REFORMS COMMISSION IN THE FOLLOWING WORDS: THE IDLE AND WHIMSICAL PLAINTIFF, A DILETTANTE WHO LITIGATES FOR A LARK, IS A SPECTER WHICH HAUNTS THE LEGAL LITERATURE, NOT THE COURT ROOM (PROF. K.E. SCOTT "STANDING IN THE SUPREME COURT: A FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS" (1973) 86)
Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.H. Kapadia and puisne judges
MAY IT PLEASE YOUR LORDSHIPS,
I, Yogesh Kumar Sharma, age 61 years, do hereby solemnly affirm and state as under that:
1) The Undersigned is Advocate by profession and the calm deposition can easily be determine by a simple fact that in the year of 2001 I unfortunately, suffered severe Stroke but the will power to become civil silk in the field of law can be determined by the fact that I am still practicing as a solo practitioner for odd last 11 years.
2) It is to further reaffirm that I am a semi-retired corporate lawyer rather ready to retire. Since I had served my time, always commanded my job, always done my work. I am ready for a nice permanent stay in remote hamlet of Himachal Pradesh and play chess & do organic farming while doing in little consulting on legal awareness for ignorant, illiterate poor and downtrodden local folk. But since I am too of a generation that always recalls a civic duty that I cannot remain a mere mute spectator when the Samadhi of National Hero – Father of Nation – whom we witness in all Court-rooms including Yours - is misused by political parties for their mileage and ulterior motive and the Delhi government and the Centre is not only becoming a silent privy but is failing in their statutory duty-out of their political compulsion and impulsion- to “preserve, protect and secure” the sacrosanct of pious place which means “a lot” to common masses. In such circumstances for a paralytic old Advocate the only recourse is the judicial head – who is constitutionally bound to be custodian of National Heroes and nation’s emotions, pride and dignity.
3) It is to further reaffirm that as the member of the public, who approaches the Court in cases of this kind, I am not associated with any group, party or organization and is acting bona fide and not for personal gain or private profit or political motivation or other oblique consideration.
4) Further, I want to stress that it is necessary for every Judge to remember constantly and continually that our Constitution is not a non-aligned rational charter. It is a document of social revolution which casts an obligation on every instrumentality including the judiciary, which is a separate but equal branch of the State, to transform the status quo ante into a new human order in which justice, social, economic and political will inform all institutions of national life and there will be equality of status and opportunity for all. The judiciary has therefore a socio-economic destination and a creative function. It has to use the words of Glanville Austin, to become an arm of the socio-economic revolution and perform an active role calculated to bring social justice within the reach of the common man. The British concept of “Justicing”, which to quote Justice Krishna Iyer, is still "hugged by the heirs of our colonial legal culture and shared by many on the Bench" is that "the business of a Judge is to hold his tongue until the last possible moment and to try to be as wise as he is paid to look". May be this approach to the judicial function may be all right for a stable and static society but not for a society like ours which is pulsating with urges of gender justice, worker justice, minorities justice, dalit justice and equal justice between chronic un-equals. The judiciary cannot remain a mere bystander or spectator but it must become an active participant in the judicial process ready to use law in the service of social justice through a pro-active goal oriented approach.
5) On 06 June 2011 I learned through news channel/s that the Supreme Court suo motto issued a notice to the central government over the eviction on Baba Ramdev. An act appreciated by all who in reality are concerned about the dismal and gloomy state of affairs of Country.
6) On the same day in evening I learnt from the news channel/s that while Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha and senior BJP leader Sushma Swaraj was seen dancing and singing whole night at Delhi's Rajghat, other leaders seemed to have enjoyed the night with anti-government chorus and music.
7) Raj Ghat is a memorial to Mahatma Gandhi as it is the cremation site of Mahatma Gandhi. It is a black marble platform that marks the spot of Gandhi's cremation on 31 January 1948. It is left open to the sky while an eternal flame burns perpetually at one end. The memorial has the epitaph Hē Ram, (literally 'O' Ram', but also translated to 'O God'), believed to be the last words uttered by Gandhi. In recent years, it has become customary for foreign dignitaries visiting India India India
8) As per section 2(b) of THE RAJGHAT SAMADHI ACT,1951 – “(b) ” Samadhi ” means the structure built in token of reverence for Mahatma Gandhi at Rajghat on the Western bank of the Jamuna in Delhi, and includes the premises described in the Schedule with all buildings contained therein, together with all additions thereto or alterations thereof which may be made after the commencement of this Act.”
9) As per clause 7 of RAJGHAT SAMADHI RULES, 1952 (Approved by the Government of India in the Ministry of Works, Production & Supply letter No. 3554-W1/52 dated 5th June, 1952)- Access to the Samadhi- 7. (i) Subject to such rules, restriction and levy of charges as may be prescribed by the Committee from time to time, the public shall have a right of access to the Samadhi. (ii) The Committee may prohibit the entry of visitors to the whole or part of the Samadhi premises for a temporary period. (iii) The Committee may authorise the Secretary caretaker or any other employee to expel out of Samadhi premises any person found violating any rules or directions laid down for observance by the visitors and if necessary reasonable force may be used for carrying out the said purpose.[M.O.U.D. notification no. 25011/2/83-w3 dated 5.3.1987] (iv) Such rules or directions may relate to the taking out of shoes and the washing of hands before entering the enclosure where Mahatma Gandhi was cremated, the plucking of flowers, the use of fountain water for drinking or other allied purposes, the spoiling of grassy plots, trees, furniture, building or other valuables within the premises of the Samadhi. (v) The Committee may due provision for the protection of the Samadhi from pollution or desecration.”
10) The place Rajghat is treated as a place to seek atonement for committing the sin of being untruthful to the Court of Law - Justice Kailash Gambhir (Reference- HC directs man to offer prayer at 'Rajghat' for lying- Press Trust Of India New Delhi, March 29, 2010).
11) Further during his visit from Nov 6-9 2010, US President Barack Obama -may be the world's most powerful leader, but when he steps into Rajghat to pay homage to Mahatma Gandhi, he was treated like any other visitor. Even sniffer dogs were prevented though are treated as indispensable from security of high profile VIP. On Nov 4, 2010 it was quoted that Rajghat Samadhi Committee secretary Rajnish Kumar said that the blackstone memorial on the bank of the Yamuna doesn't differentiate between people because that would be against Mahatma Gandhi's principles. So, question arises: how “blackstone memorial” was compelled to add distinction to all those who were present at Raj Ghat in the late evening of 05 June 2011 and shouting, dancing, singing and voicing “anti-government” slogans out of their political extraneous consideration? Is any ordinary citizen allowed to breach the sanctity of that great place? If not, why the law enforcer failed to ensure the same for high profiles present in night of 5 June 11?
12) I believe a khadi scroll was presented to US President in which the seven social sins which Mahatma quoted in 'Young India' in 1925 are imprinted,' the seven social sins are politics without principles, wealth without work, pleasure without conscience, knowledge without character, commerce without morality, science without humanity, and worship without sacrifice. So how Politics without principle can be allowed without a check in today’s India
13) The principal argument on behalf of the undersigned urged with considerable force is that the issue in question deals with national honour, the subject is national honour and the substance of the legislation, executives and judiciary is to create Symbols & Memorials of national honour and protect them from desecration (to divest of sacred or hallowed character or office; to divert from a sacred to a profane use or purpose; to treat with sacrilege; profane)
14) Patriotism and loyalty to the Constitution are matters of feeling and conduct with the human spirit. They are capable of drawing out of man the highest of his noble qualities and supreme sacrifice. They belong to the category of feelings which, at any rate at the present stage of society and world order, man regards as of paramount importance. From such belief flow sentiments of great regard and veneration to objects which symbolize such feelings. The Raj Ghat – a National Memorial- symolises the honour of supreme and unparalleled sacrifice of Mahatma Gandhi, and it is but natural to expect any citizen of India
15) Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution guarantees to all citizens freedom of speech and expression, but Article 19(2) provides that nothing in Article 19(1)(a) shall prevent a State from making any law, in so far as such law imposes reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the said right. Art. 25(1) guarantees to all persons freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise and propagate religion, subject to order, morality and health and to the other provisions of Part III of the Constitution. Art. 51-A(a) of the Constitution enjoins a dub on every citizen of India
16) As per Explanation 4 appended with section 2 of The Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971 states “The disrespect to National Flag means and includes- a. a gross affront or indignity offered to National Flag…”So the corollary suggest that the disrespect to National Memorial means a gross affront(m.-a personally offensive act or word; deliberate act or display of disrespect; intentional slight; insult: an affront to the king) or indignity (m.-an injury to a person's dignity; slighting or contemptuous treatment; humiliating affront, insult, or injury. 2. Obsolete . disgrace or disgraceful action) offered to National Memorial. To add to the gravity the referred “National Memorial” is a ‘Samadhi” – a sacrosanct place.
17) It is very easy for the human mind to find justification for a conclusion which accords with the dictates of emotion. Reason is a ready enough advocate for the decision one, consciously or unconsciously, desires to reach. I will recall the brilliant fling of Shri Arobindo in his poem "Savitri": “An inconclusive play is Reason's toil; Each strong idea can use her as its tool; Accepting every brief she pleads her case, Open to every thought she cannot know.”
18) The present conduct of the group of people who acted and conducted in disgraceful manner involves eminent Member/s of Parliament, but I believe what Theodore Roosevelt aptly quoted, “No man is above the law and no man is below it: nor do we ask any man's permission when we ask him to obey it.”
19) Whether ‘their’ political gimmicks falls into the category of “Moral Turpitude” it is the Custodian of Constitution to decide, what “We, the people” can urge is to check and restrict such “dangerous” practice which are potent enough to cause deliberate injury to their sentiments and national pride.
20) In Ramanatha Iyer's Law Lexicon of India we find moral turpitude explained : “Anything done contrary to justice, honesty, principle or good morals; an act of baseness, vileness, or depravity in the private and social duties, which a man owes to his fellow man, or to society in general contrary to the accepted and customary rule of right and duty between man and man....”. In Corpus Juris Secundum, Volume 53, while dealing with libel and slander, at page 104, referring to what crimes involve moral turpitude, it is stated: “What crimes involve moral turpitude has been the subject or vast contention, extending from the view that moral turpitude inheres in every wilful breach of criminal statute to the position that only those crimes that present such vileness and depravity as arouse the abhorrence of all mankind are intended. A scriptural inhibition has been thought sufficient by some Courts conclusively to ascribe moral turpitude.... depends on the conception of the community. It has been defined as an act of base-ness, vileness, or depravity in the private and social duties which a man owes to his fellow man or society in general, contrary to the accepted and customary rule of right and duty between man and man.” In the foot-note it is stated thus: “Moral turpitude need not be inherent in the nature of the crime itself. It may spring, as here, from an alleged violation of a criminal statute prohibiting under pain of punishment the commission of certain acts.” A reference to the American authorities shows that the term moral turpitude which is not different from moral delinquency, is not a new term, but has been the subject of consideration for centuries. It is found in Roman law. In ancient Rome Roman Republic
21) In Corpus Juris Secundum, Volume 58, giving some of the definitions of moral turpitude ', it is stated (at page 1201): “The term has also been defined as meaning anything done contrary to justice, honesty, principle, or good morals, anything done knowingly contrary to justice, honesty or good morals”. Proceeding, it is found stated therein: “As a legal term, moral turpitude is defined as the quality of a crime involving grave infringement the moral sentiment of the community as distinguished from statutory mala prohibita.” After further definitions, it is stated: “Considerable difficulty has been experienced in application of the term 'Moral turpitude' to the facts of each case. One of the reasons for this is that the term does not refer to legal standards, but rather has reference largley to moral character and state of mind; to those changing morals standards of conduct which society has set up for itself through the centuries. Since standards of moral differ from time to time and at different places, and the concept of moral turpitude depends to some extent on the state of public morals, and is to be determined by the state of public morals and the common sense of the community, and since ' moral turpitude ' is a term which conforms to, and is consonant with, the state of public morals, it never can remain stationary, but it may vary according to the community or the times. It follows therefore that moral turpitude is adaptive, and is a somewhat loose expression, the meaning of which must be left to the process of judicial inclusion and exclusion as the cases are reached and as the standards of society change.” This statement, in my view, sets out the true position. The phrase ' moral turpitude ' has been widely employed in the United States in legislation dealing with immigration, disbarment, revocation of physicians' licences, defamation, and credibility of witnesses, and latitude of interpretation enabled Courts to punish offenders who might under a less elastic terminology virtually escape unscathed.
22) Surely in no modern State can the individual contend that he is the final judge of his legal as well as of his moral duty. It is difficult to postulate and lay down any hard and fast rule or enunciate any cut-and-dried principle as to what crimes may be said to involve moral delinquency. As a concept, it does not lend itself to any precise definition. Frankly, it depends on the ultimate authority which has to struggle to make articulate the norm or Standard of moral behaviour which society expects at any particular period, in any particular case. A fair working rule may be phrased thus : Morals and standards of social behaviour, the duties which one human owes to his fellow being or to the society, are potential materials for the legislator, and, if the breach of the then current moral or social code is also, according to law, an offence, the offence could generally, without probe into its innate character, be held to involve moral delinquency. Difficulty will arise in analysing what laws reflect the moral sense of the community and drawing the line between offences involving moral turpitude, that is, containing in their ingredient an element of lapse from moral standards, and those not so tainted. Also laws are generally permanent, but moral ideas and Standards change, and at times change very fast. Law lags behind, and antiquated laws may stand unchanged penalising what a progressive advanced society considers highly moral and ethical. Some laws may have no relation to ethics or morals, others may have relation to moral values, but in advance of the moral sense of the generality of the body politic. Again, standards in certain facets of moral conduct, and probity would differ according to the place which the delinquent fills, or is to fill in society, his trade, occupation or profession. Higher standards, and sometimes the highest standards of probity and good conduct are called for in certain professions and places of office and power. That heavy punishments are provided for particular offences and law considers them as grave crimes may not always be conclusive of the existence of moral turpitude in the offence, though it may indicate that the act must be inherently of the vilest character. Nor can the severity of the punishment actually meted out in any particular case, or its lightness, determine the issue one way or the other. One element there must be for an offence to take in the taint of moral turpitude-the act must be regarded as immoral or disreputable, unworthy and discreditable in an honest citizen, and discountenanced by society, regardless of whether the act is punished by law as an offence. But bad motive is not a necessary ingredient for being guilty of moral turpitude; a man's view may be perverted and a negation of what society at large considers as moral. The following passage from State v. Malusky 230 N.W. 735 : 71 A.L.R. 190, in Corpus Juris Secundum, Volume 58, at page 1204 is worth quoting in this context: “However much every man may be answerable for his acts to his own conscience, society cannot permit each individual to say for it what is moral and what is immoral. To him who lives only for the gratification of his appetites, there is no immorality in doing so. Some standard must exist according to which the determination as to whether act or conduct is moral or immoral is to be made. That standard is public sentiment-the expression of the public conscience. It may be manifest, unwritten, and more or less nebulous, as legend, as tradition, as opinion, as custom, and finally crystallised, written as the law. Thus the standard is fixed by the consensus of opinion, the judgment of the majority. When the majority is slight, there is, of course, greater opposition on the part of the minority to the standard. The majority may become the minority and the standard change. But, so long as it is established, measurement must be made according to its terms.”
23) Today I am appealing the Apex Court to invoke the writ jurisdiction of Hon’ble Apex Court through my open letter-cum-petition –hurriedly emailed and later to be send by post- as a deep sense of annihilation has developed -which is choking me - by such a disgrace to Father of Nation and moreover his ‘Samadhi’ and for what a “Political gimmick”. The crores of citizen cannot remain handicap and see the Nation pride to be hijacked by “a few” in the guise of “satyagrah”.
24) It is true that there are rules made by this Court prescribing the procedure for moving this Court for relief under Article 32 and they require various formalities to be gone through by a person seeking to approach this Court. But it must not be forgotten that procedure is but a handmaiden of justice and the cause of justice can never be allowed to be thwarted by any procedural technicalities. The Court should therefore unhesitatingly and without the slightest qualms of conscience cast aside the technical rules of procedure in the exercise of its dispensing power and treat the letter of the public minded individual as a writ petition and act upon it.
25) The urgency apart from violation of “Right to live with dignity” is the fact that if the present issue is not arrested immediately it will be lost in disdain and a clear message will not go to those who bend the sanctity of public places of greater sacrosanct and significance to meet out their own ends. It can be well assessed that the present legal wrong or legal injury is caused to a determinate class or group of persons and/or has also violated the constitutional or legal right of such determinate class or group of persons i.e. “We-the people”
26) There can be no doubt that the risk of legal action by any citizen:
• against the State or a public authority for failing in their “statutory duty” to curb such ‘sinister design’ and/or
• political parties who hold Members in Parliament of India and conduct in shallow and unbecoming manner at Samadhi of Father of Nation
will induce the State or such public authority and/or such political parties and/or Members of Parliament to act with greater responsibility and care thereby improving the administration of justice. They all are accountable to Parliament for what they do so far as regards efficiency and policy, and of that Parliament is the only judge; they are responsible to a Court of Justice for the lawfulness of what they do, and of that the Court is the only judge. And the Parliament and Court is accountable to “We-the people”, and of that “We-the people” are the only judge.
27) Before I conclude, I wish I must narrate – in first person- what I suffered on fateful day of August 2001 because it has to do something with the feeling which struck my limb, my heart and my brain today on June 6, 2011:
“Grief did strange things, even sometimes producing a parody of grief ….. my profession does not allow us to afford a running nose before Bench... ”I was sitting in my office alone (in august 2001) and at that moment, as happens so often in the real world the next move came where I least expected it, precisely, I became aware of sudden breathlessness, my pulse was erratic & my breathing shallow, a cold chill went through me, a fluttering in my chest, as if a bird was inside, beating its wings and trying to get out. The sensation frighten me. My forehead was dripping with sweat. I felt queasy, my clothes sodden with perspiration. I sweated with the some kind of fear as I was just reading about the ultimate death by Huntington’s chorea, and at that time, I knew it was the fear of death. I knew, too, I was having some kind of attack and needed help. I began thinking in a detached way : I would telephone and whoever come and whatever was done, I would ask them to send my wife cuz there was something I wanted to tell her. I was not sure exactly what, but if she come the words would find themselves. The trouble was, when I made up my mind to reach for the telephone, I discovered I no longer had the power to move. Something strange was happening to my body. On the left side there was no feeling any more; It seemed I have no arm or leg, or any idea where either was. I discovered I did have some feeling and power of movement in my right side. I tried to get-up, using my right arm as a lever, but the rest of my body failed me and I slid to the floor between the desk and the chair”. Later I remember the doctor’s exact words as he read the reports as that was my death sentence. The doctor said quietly to my son :’Your father’s chances of any substantial recovery are nil. My prognosis is that he will be a hemi-pelagic invalid as long as he lives, with complete loss of power on the left side. I’m dreadfully sorry, but I’m afraid there is no way to break this to you gently’.”; “Time had lost all meaning for me. There was no beginning and no end, and the days & nights flowed into one hand or other in a seamless rhythm. First the hospital then my room become my whole life, the outside world was a foreign, a far way planet”; “The disease has been a big strain on my father. That is often the way it is harder on the family than the patient”. My 85 years old father said at that time :’My son could never feel himself unaided, bathe himself, attended to basic sanitary requirements, open a door, or even write his name’. Could this truly be the way it happened ? This prosaic formal, minor key accompaniment to deepest tragedy; Were these petty Pecksniffian phrase the best that could be found to signal the sudden grievance ending of a lifetime’s work, a once dedicated man’s career ?” “I had built an emotional fortress around myself, and I was determined that no one would ever breach it. Outwardly, I seemed fine. Inside I was sunk in an abyss of deep, with scattered accumulated wisdom, for which we as court-officer are known, desperate loneliness. Even when I was surrounded by people I sat in a lonely chair in a lonely room, in a lonely house, in a lonely world; loneliness can be corrosive, eating away at the spirit. Everyone needs to share joy and glory & pain. Though I never loses faith in law, but tragically loses faith in virtually everything else, perhaps its because of my basic integrity to and great love for the law”; “But whatever else I might be, I was a pragmatist. I long ago recognized that in life there was gambit which you won, others you lost. Sometimes the loss was sudden and illogically not due to your fault. A chance, a quirk, a nettle in grass, could turn an almost-grasped success in to mortifying defeat. Fortunately, for me the reverse was some thing true;”
28) Every citizen wants this melodrama to stop. All forces and counter-forces are running on the money drawn from our taxes. So, ultimately it is we who are at receiving end.
29) I make myself duty bound to appear before Your lordship in any proceeding with further submission and argument of mine.
30) So, therefore, I pray fully request, in the interest of justice, if the court deems it appropriate
A. initiate action against the Member/s of Parliament and others who were involved into political gimmicks in the late evening of 5 June 2011 at Rajghat in the guise of Satyagrah and had breach the sanctity of the place and injured the sentiments and pride of common masses;
B. initiate action against Committee of Rajghat and/or Delhi Government who failed in their statutory duty to “preserve, protect and secure” the sacrosanct of pious place which means “a lot” to common masses.
C. Ask the Centre and State governments for measures to check such ‘dangerous’ and ‘insinuating’ melodramas to be organized at National Memorials and cremation sites.
D. Issue direction to form a committee involving political parties and/or representation from every quarter of society to set the minimum standards while conducting at such places.
E. Any other action deemed appropriate.
For this kind act, I am duty bound shall ever pray.
(YOGESH KUMAR SHARMA)
3/65 RHB Colony
Dholabhatta
AJMER-305 008 Rajasthan
Mobile-09636014289
Email-advocateyksharma@yahoo.co.in
Drawn and drafted at 2350 hrs on 06 June 2011 to be emailed after re-checking on 07 June 2011
2 comments:
Hi! Its a damn good effort. If Court act upon t will be a lesson to all politician and others. Best wishes. Agnishikha
Sir
A very good earnest effort. Professional must take this stand to check such melodramatics as common masses are not well aware of law. I believe Apex court will act upon if pursued more. Praying for success. regards. ritwiz Gaur
Post a Comment