BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA
at Ernakulam
W.P. ( c ) No. of 2009
Dr. Cheriyath Jyothi : Petitioner.
V/s
1. The Union of India
and
2. The State of Kerala
: Respondents.
SYNOPSIS
The petitioner is making this writ application under article 226 of the constitution of India in the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala for the restitution of his fundamental rights in compliance with the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in their orders dated 08 may 2009 ( EXHIBIT P1) in WP (c ) 187 of 2009.
A law abiding citizen of this country, the petitioner is being denied his fundamental rights; his life and liberties are being trampled over by the agents of the government ( ref. Para 22). The petitioner is not aware of any procedure established by law being invoked in denying him his fundamental rights guaranteed by the constitution.
The crux of the matter, as the petitioner understands it, is that to the vested interests in certain govt. agencies and institutions, the petitioner is an “untouchable” and the powers that be, who for all practical purposes is running a parallel system of government, have unanimously decided that this “untouchable” of the twenty first century India should not be allowed to survive. "Untouchability", according to the white man whom this self styled “intelligentsia” in Thiruvananthapuram apes, cannot be a reason for denying some one his life and liberties and as such "insanity" is being used as a facade to achieve the desired end. Murder is messy; so what is being planned is therapeutic annihilation. The basic strategy is to medicalise the petitioner and put him within the remits of the highly obliging mental health professionals who will brand him a vegetable and leave him to rot.
With the above end in mind the “intelligentsia” from among the doctors of Medical College, Trivandrum, who have been working in tandem with the concerned members of the spy net works of the government, scripted the story of the petitioner's insanity with the “dementia hypothesis” as the main pillar on which the facade of insanity was propped up.
The petitioner's information is that he was first “diagnosed” as demented by the learned doctors of Medical College, Trivandrum way back in the mid seventies while he was still a student and there was an effort to terminate his studies and put him under guardianship. During that stage the petitioner had put up with all sorts of humiliating situations for he did not have a choice if he was to have any chance of getting through the examinations.
Once out of the clutches of the “intelligentsia” of Thiruvananthapuram, the petitioner thrived and proved his mettle in all sorts of extremely taxing situations and successfully held highly responsible appointments. This would not have been possible if the initial diagnosis of dementia, an incurable condition, was right.
But back again in Thiruvananthapuram after decades, the old drama of insanity and intellectual impairment is being enacted again with a vengeance; and this time the petitioner refused to be treated as a Pariah. The result was that, as the executive arm of the plan to neutralise the petitioner by hook or crook, a battalion of plainclothes men from the spy net works of the government along with other paraphernalia have been let loose on the petitioner and the spies are making his life miserable.
The petitioner, a novice at teaching, had a highly successful tenure as lecturer in the department of physiology of govt. T.D. Medical college Alleppey to begin with. He moved over to Medical College, Trivandrum to do the MD after he got selection for the above post graduate degree course in Physiology based on merit. The snag here was that if the petitioner managed to get his MD the “dementia hypothesis” and the insanity plank will no more hold water. The vested interests in Medical College, Trivandrum, therefore made every effort to stop the petitioner from getting his post-graduate degree.
He was denied the lecturer trainee appointment by the Director of Medical Education. But this effort was foiled when the then Health Secretary, Government of Kerala, over ruled the Director of Medical Education and the petitioner continued as lecturer and was allowed to do his MD side by side.
Upon this, the Head of the Department of Physiology, Medical College, Trivandrum, with the sole intention of spoiling the entire career of the petitioner, made adverse remarks in the petitioner's confidential report for the year 1996. He later on came to know that over and above the adverse remarks, the reporting officer, in a covert attempt at medicalising the petitioner, had recommended in the secret part of the confidential report that the petitioner be given behavioural therapy; this after the very same person had given him a flattering report and certified that the petitioner is of exemplary conduct in the very previous year 1995.
The petitioner's representation against the adverse Confidential Report was not even taken cognizance of by the Director of Medical Education for four years. The result was a series of writ petitions in the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala ( para 15). The first writ petition, as well as the second one prepared and presented by the petitioner in person, were decided in his favour and a third petition on the same matter presented by the petitioner was admitted by the Hon'ble Court. Acutely aware of the fact that there is no way they can win in a straight fight the concerned agencies started foul play in earnest.
In the year 2002, with the sole intention of framing the petitioner, Dr. G. Sujathan , a police surgeon and enquiry specialist of medical college Thiruvananthapuram, cooked up a document, EXHIBIT P4, christened “inquiry report” ( ref. Para 14. b). The petitioner was kept in the dark about the enquiry and the whole “enquiry” was carried out ex-parte . Though the reason for ordering the enquiry is said to be the petitioner's refusal to take classes, the report shows an obsession with mental illness. The police surgeon finds every action of the petitioner a reason to doubt the “mental status of the subject” and concludes that the insubordination is due to mental unsoundness “harbouring” the petitioner.
This fake cooked up document EXHIBIT P4 which should never have stood up to legal scrutiny, is being used successfully ever since as the pretext for mounting all sorts of atrocities on the petitioner and to pull the wool over the eyes of decision making authorities, thereby sidelining the petitioner from decision making processes.
The petitioner has strong reason to believe that in an effort to clinch the insanity plea and neutralize the petitioner his house was broken into on a February night in 2003 and a highly invasive and potentially very dangerous and even lethal, diagnostic procedure was carried out on him after putting him out ( para 19). Circumstantial evidence suggests that the then Head of the Department of Physiology of Medical College, Trivandrum, Prof. Dr. (Mrs.) K. Vijayalekshmi Menon and other medical doctors were involved in this dastardly crime which is against all the ethical norms of the medical profession. The petitioner has preserved his blood soaked bed sheet as it is - it could contain telltale DNA evidence (EXHIBIT P10).
All that the petitioner would beg to submit to the Hon'ble Court in this context is that there are no biological markers for an individual's memory power, or for his cognitive capabilities as such, for that matter, and, whatever results the spy and his stooges from Medical College, Trivandrum have produced in consequence of the bleeding episode of February 2003 cannot substantiate the “dementia hypothesis” in any way whatsoever.
The proof of the pudding is in the eating and the petitioner has proved his mettle in real life under the most taxing of circumstances. Also, at his age and without any formal legal training whatsoever, he had prepared and presented cases successfully in this Hon'ble High Court as recently as the year 2003 for the first time ( EXHIBIT P5).
But the spy net work and their stooges from the “intelligentsia” in Thiruvananthapuram are under an illusion that by the dastardly crime described above and the out come there of, they have clinched the issue of the petitioners dementia and insanity and in retrospect justified all the criminal activities carried out by them in the past and they have got the license to do whatever they please with the petitioner. The result is that the petitioner is being treated as a vegetable.
The petitioner avers that every one of the problems that he has been facing in his life during the last fifteen years and every stumbling block in the path of his leading a normal, quiet, healthy and fruitful life, is the result of the covert criminal activities of members of the spy net works of the government let loose on the petitioner. The hidden hand of the spy is obvious in instances like the change of mind of the Director of Medical Education, Kerala in the question of the petitioner's appointment as lecturer trainee ( para 5 and para 7. a) and in the exemplary conduct of the petitioner in 1995 turning to behavioural abnormality in 1996 in his confidential report ( para 6. c and para 12 ). The atrocities perpetrated on the petitioner by these government "officers" like the bleeding episode of february 2003 are a disgrace to even the most primitive of societies and amount to torture.
It is extremely difficult for anyone who is being denied his fundamental rights, that too by the agents of the government, to produce concrete evidence to prove the same; and for some one in the peculiar situation of the petitioner, with no one else having a stake in his prospects, it is almost impossible to do so. As such the petitioner's humble contention is that the onus of proof is on the alleged culprits, the agents of the government.
All the same, the petitioner through sheer diligence has accumulated enough evidence to implicate the culprits, with the dynamic events that cannot be reproduced as documents reduced to movie clips on the accompanying compact disk; and the main stumbling block in the petitioner getting at the spies has been that the members of the higher judiciary of this country has been denying him his right to be recognized as a person before the law.
The petitioner has strong reason to believe that the document named the enquiry report, EXHIBIT P4, and the products of the dastardly crime of February 2003 are being used to trick the judiciary into refusing the legal rights of the petitioner ( Ref. Para 15. d. vi) .
“ . . . the position of the courts in a number of countries has been questioned, as some have merely become a “rubber stamp” for the medical decision. Judges or magistrates often make their decisions in the absence of the patient, their representative or witnesses, and confirm the medical recommendation without applying independent thought and analysis to the process.” : WHO resource book on mental health human rights and legislation 13. 1
The petitioner's case is peculiar in that the medical decisions are being taken by people who have an axe to grind.
The petitioner's most humble submission in the above context is that international norms, as elaborated in Paras I to N of the original petition may be strictly adhered to while making decisions on the mental capacity and competence and 0ther aspects of mental health of any person including the petitioner. Governments are under obligation to ensure that their policies and practices conform to binding international human rights law.
The petitioner also begs to invoke the principles of Natural Justice in all matters concerning him.
It could be possible that the powers that be have succeeded in pulling the wool over the judiciary and ex-parte decisions were taken on matters concerning him ( ref. Para 15. d. vi). This would amount to denial of the petitioner's legal rights vide article 14 of the constitution.
The constitution operates as a fundamental law. The government organs including the judiciary, owe their origin to the constitution and derive their authority from and discharge their responsibilities within the frame work of the constitution. The petitioner's humble feeling is that any decision taken by any authority including the judiciary, in contravention of the basic tenets of the constitution will not be binding on the petitioner.
It is very much possible that in the petitioner's case, a relative has been manufactured by the spies to facilitate their plans ( ref. Para 2. d and Para 2. e). The petitioner has been living alone for the last thirty five years and if at all any one of his long estranged relatives is taking an interest in the affairs of the petitioner, an unattached male, at this juncture, it could only be with ulterior motives.
The petitioner respects the rule of law and not the whims of the spies and hence the hired thugs being let loose on the petitioner to terrorize and make him submit ( ref. Para 17 ). In spite of acute provocations the petitioner till date has avoided a confrontation with these hirelings of the spies. However there is a limit for human endurance and the possibility looms large that things might go drastically wrong any time.
“ . . . . . . it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law, . . . . . ”
In view of the above the petitioner most humbly prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus commanding the agents of the state to stop all interference with the petitioner's life and liberties including interference with his privacy, home and correspondence as well as attacks upon his honour and reputation, and that before subjecting him to therapeutic annihilation, he may be given a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal where he has representation in full equality.
The petitioner also prays for such urgent interim orders that restore his personal liberties to him so that he can function at his full prowess in bringing things to their logical conclusion.
The petitioner may be granted all the prayers as per the original petition.
Dated this 12th day of November 2009.
sd.
( Cheriyath Jyothi )
Petitioner
the petition in full
