Senior lawyers and prominent residents of Allahabad have petitioned the Chief Justice of the Allahabad Bench of the High Court against sharing the stage with the newly elected chief minister of Uttar Pradesh, Yogi Adityanath.
The memo has requested that Adityanath not be allowed to share the stage with senior judges, Chief Justice and Prime Minister Modi on 2 April, 2017 in light of several pending criminal cases against him.
The event on 2 April is being organised to mark the 150th year celebrations of the High Court. The petition signed by lawyers and social activists was submitted on 25 March, 2017 and is likely to be converted into a public interest litigation soon.
The representation, signed by senior advocates KK Roy, RB Dwivedi, VB Yadav and social activists, Anshu Malviya, Om Dutt Singh, Javed Mohammad and Dr Asheesh Mittal also makes the demand for a high level judicial probe into he pending criminal cases against he UP chief minister.
Considering this state of affairs, “and the heinous criminal cases either pending or likely to be decided by the lower judiciary, (may be some cases were already decided)”, the representation questioned whether “it be appropriate to accommodate such a person with the Hon’ble Judges of Supreme Court, Allahabad High Court and the Judges of lower judiciary upon the dais and that too in the premises of Allahabad High Court.”
Doing so, “will create deep adverse demoralizing effect upon the morals of judges of lower judiciary who had to decide the criminal cases against Shri Yogi Adityanath in future. On the other hand it is a well settled principle world over as well in India that people having criminal records must be kept away from Judiciary. They will know and watch Shri Adityanath accompanying the Judges who are superior to them” and this could not just create an adverse impact but also send a wrong signal to people all over the country, it says.
The memorandum that may be read here lists the cases which were registered and pending before various courts and “were admitted by Shri Adityanath in his affidavit submitted along with his nomination paper in 2014 while contesting election of MP from Gorakhpur parliamentary constituency in U.P.”
The memorandum states that “Several other cases are also registered against him but the details had not been disclosed in this affidavit dated 22.04.2014.”
The memorandum details of other cases registered against Adityanath which are as follows;
1. Case crime no. 58/2007 under section 436 IPC P.S. Tiwaripur Gorakhpur.
2. Case crime no. 99/2007 under section 436, 143, 427 IPC P.S. Gorakhnath Gorakhpur
3. Case crime no. 36/2007 under section 435, 436, 143, 427, 336 IPC and section 4 of Public Property Damages Act P.S. Ghagha Gorakhpur.
4. Case crime no. 99B/2007 under section 435, 436, 143, 427, 336 IPC P.S. Gorakhnath, Gorakhpur.
5. Case crime no. 37/2002 under section 436, 295, 143, 427, 341 IPC and 7 criminal law amendment Act P.S. Ghagha, Gorakhpur.
6. Case crime no. 9/2007 u/s 143/153A, 295, 436, 427, 436, 188 IPC and 7 Criminal Law amendment Act PS Balghat Gorakhpur.
7. Case crime no. 57/2007 under section 436, 147, 336 IPC P.S. Tiwaripur, Gorakhpur.
8. Case crime no. 99D/2007 under section 436, 427 IPC P.S. Gorakhnath Gorakhpur.
9. Case crime no. 99E/2007 under section 436, 427 IPC P.S. Gorakhnath Gorakhpur.
10. Case crime no. 99F/2007 under section 436 IPC P.S. Gorakhnath Gorakhpur.
11. Case crime no. 144/2007 under section 153-A, 427, 295-A, 436 IPC and section 7 Crl Law Amendment Act and 2/3 of the U P Gangsters Act, P.S. Cant, Gorakhpur.
12. Case crime no. 99A/2007 under section 435, 323 IPC and under section 3/4/ Lok Sampatti Niwaran Adhiniyam 1984 P.S. Gorakhnath Gorakhpur.
13. Case crime no. 99C/2007 under section 427 IPC P.S. Gorakhnath Gorakhpur
14. Case crime no. 99G/2007 under section 435, 428, 427 IPC P.S. Gorakhnath Gorakhpur
15. Case crime no. 37/2007 under section 147, 323, 504, 506, 336 IPC P.S. Kotwali, Gorakhpur.
16. Case crime no. 40-A/2007 under section 147, 148, 149, 323, 307, 504, 506 IPC P.S. Gorakhnath, Gorakhpur.
17. Case Crime no. 37-A/2007 under section 147, 323, 504, 506, 336 IPC P.S. Gorakhnath Gorakhpur.
18. Case crime no. 16/2007 under section 147, 153-A, 295, 435, 188, 504, 506, 336 IPC P.S. Kotwali, Gorakhpur.
19. Case crime no. 41/2007 under section 147, 332, 353, 427, 426 IPC P.S. Sahjanwa, Gorakhpur.
20. Case crime no. 65/2007 under section 147, 153-A, 295, 427, 506 IPC P.S. Ghagha, Gorakhpur.
21. Case crime no. 20/2007 under section 147, 153-A, 295-A, 323, 336, 504, 506, IPC P.S Uruwa, Gorakhpur.
22. Case crime no. 2776 of 2008 of police station Cant Gorakhpur under section 153/153A/153/B/295/295B/147/143/395/436/435/302/427/452 IPC and under 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act.
“Besides,” states the memorandum, “ the above cases one writ petition is pending before the Allahabad High Court as Cri Writ no 21733 of 2008 (Parwez vs. State of UP and others). “ Details of this case have been provided, too. This petition prays for independent investigation (not Crime Branch or by Criminal Investigation Department) into the alleged crimes by Adityanath as well a local MLA the Mayor of Gorakhpur Smt Anju Chaudhry and also one Shiv Prasad Shukla who were the named accused persons.”
“This will also be placed in your Honour’s notice that the FIR of case crime no. 2776 of 2008 was registered after a direction issued by Hon’ble Allahabad High Court on September 26, 2008 as published in 2008 (63) Allahabad Criminal Cases page 38 (Parvez Parwaz vs. State of U P and others). After passing of the order by Hon’ble High Court the FIR was registered on November 2, 2008 and investigation started by the police. Later on the matter was transferred to crime branch for investigation by the order of State Government dated November 3,2008. During the pendency of above noted writ petition an affidavit of compliance was filed by the investigating officer of case crime no 2776 of 2008 dated April 24, 2015 stating that, “…on the basis of the statements of the witnesses and the cogent, ample and sufficient evidences, the investigating officer has prepared a Draft Final Report (DFR) and sent on 09.04.2015 to its higher official for its approval and the same is still awaited.”
“Against the order of Allahabad High Court dated September 26, 2008 Smt. Anju Chaudhry one of the accused in case crime no. 2776 of 2008 of police station Cant Gorakhpur under section 153/153A/153/B/295/295B/147/143/395/436/435/302/427/452 IPC and under 7 Criminal law amendment act and others approached the Supreme Court by filling Appeal no. 2039 of 2012 (arising out of SLP (Crl) No. 9475 of 2008) Anju Chaudhry vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others. “
“This SLP was finally dismissed by Hon’ble Supreme Court while affirming the judgement of Allahabad High Court dated 26th September 2008 [2008 (63) Allahabad Criminal Cases page 381] vide its order dated 13th December 2012 [(2013) volume 6 Supreme Court Cases, Page 384. Anju Chaudhry vs. State of U P and others].
“In 2007, when Shri Adityanath was arrested and kept in lock-up, Gorakhpur and its neighbouring districts witnessed at least 22 major riots, most involving him or his henchmen. These arrests, in fact, were the only time the police showed some spine in dealing with him and his outfit. The crackdown was in response to Hindu-Muslim riots that had erupted in and around Gorakhpur, caused primarily by a toxic campaign of communal politics by Shri Adityanath and his group in the run-up to the Assembly elections in 2007. Two persons were killed, property worth crores was burnt, and the area remained under curfew for several days during that January-February period.
“Shri Adityanath and over a dozen leaders of the Hindu Yuva Vahini were arrested while they were marching towards the troubled areas of Gorakhpur on January 28, 2007, a day after he made an inflammatory speech aimed at turning a small criminal incident into a communal riot. The arrest was timed so as to prevent the group from carrying out its threat of burning the tazia-a part of a Muharram procession on January 29. Shri Adityanath remained in lock-up till February, when he managed to get bail.
“It is held by Supreme Court in its judgement dated 2.1.2017 in civil appeal no 37 of 1992 (Abhiram Singh vs. C.D. Commachen) that, “If the Constitution requires the state to be secular in thought and action, the same requirement attaches to political parties too.” It further held that, “Under our Constitution, no party or organization can simultaneously be a political and a religious party”.
“It is also to be brought to Your Honor’s notice that Allahabad High Court is presently seized of a case (Criminal Writ PIL no. 24343 of 2013 Ashutosh Gupta vs. State of UP and others) of very serious nature where the politicians, Parliamentarians’ and Legislators having hefty criminal cases of heinous nature and no action was taken by the State against those persons.
Finally, the memorandum concludes that,
“Because of the presence of Shri Adityanath as a guest on stage in Allahabad High Court will undermine the majesty and independence which it holds in the eyes of masses as their sole protector. This Court had pronounced so many judgments against so many high ranking politicians and others which had put it on the highest pedestal in the judicial arena world over. As we all know that an independent Judiciary is the one that does not make decisions on the basis of political factors and exigencies but on the facts and law on each case against any one high or low without fear and favour.
“It is therefore most humbly and respectfully prayed that Shri Adityanath the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh shall not be invited as guest in the function going to held in the premises of Allahabad High Court on April 2, 2017 considering his criminal antecedents where serious criminal cases of heinous nature are pending against him. It is further requested that in view of his antecedents and pending heinous criminal cases against Shri Adityanath a high level judicial probe be also made part of pending Criminal Writ PIL no. 24343 of 2013 Ashutosh Gupta vs. State of UP and others.”
Courtesy: Sabrang India