Do not stand with eyes closed while'cheer haran' of judiciary is taking place
Mr. Shanti Bhushan has sent me another email :
" Mrs. Dattu was working as a bank manager which fact has important consequences. Many other Judges had also been allotted plots in the same scheme. So for the scheme, Judges were being regarded as employees. So it would hardly be misconduct for accepting an allotment in these circumstances. Non disclosure of assets may not be a misconduct. Concealment of husband's name in sale deeds while being a suspicious circumstance may not be treated as proof of misconduct on the part of the husband "
I sent this reply to him :
You have raised 4 points in your latest email:
1. Mrs. Dattu was working as a bank Manager.
My response : If that is so then the family income becomes even more. So clearly section 79A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, which prohibits a person whose family income is above Rs. 2 lacs from buying land, has been grossly violated.
Section 79A states :
" Section 79-A. Acquisition of land by certain persons prohibited. - (1) On and from the commencement of the the Karnataka Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1995, no person who or a family or a joint family which has an assured annual income of not less than 1[rupees two lakhs] from sources other than agricultural lands shall be entitled to acquire any land whether as land owner, landlord, tenant or mortgagee with possession or otherwise or partly in one capacity and partly in another "
2. Other Karnatak High Court Judges were also allotted plots in the scheme ( for providing plots to Karnataka High Court employees )
My response :This implies that if others did a wrong, Dattu can also do a wrong. So since many others are committing a theft or robbery, Dattu can also do so.
3. Non disclosure of assets may not be misconduct
My response : Dattu has not disclosed in his list of assets a palatial house, standing on 1200 sq.m. land, which may be worth Rs. 50 crore. I had sent you photographs of the house by email. Where did he get the money for buying/building this house, as well as acquiring the other assets belonging to him and his family ?
4. Concealment of husband's name while being a suspicious circumstance, may not amount to misconduct
My response : Such concealment, coupled with the other illegalities and irregularities, clearly points to Dattu's guilt. Why should the father's name, and not the husband's, be mentioned in the numerous sale deeds ?
In a previous email you mentioned that unless the government is willing to investigate you and/or COJA cannot do anything. Surely you can approach the government and request it to investigate into the allegations.
It is said that Caesar's wife must be above suspicion. So must the CJI
Sir, you are the Bheeshma Pitamah of the Indian judiciary, who has fought against corruption all your life. I beseech you once again : do not stand with eyes closed while the 'cheer haran' of the Indian judiciary is taking place. Instead, do your duty, as Lord Krishna said to Arjuna