DEATH
DOES NOT MATTER
* * *
BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA
at Ernakulam
W.A. ( c ) No. 367 of 2010.
in
W.P. ( c ) No. 35016 of 2009.
at Ernakulam
W.A. ( c ) No. 367 of 2010.
in
W.P. ( c ) No. 35016 of 2009.
Dr. Cheriyath Jyothi : Appellant.
V/s
1. The Union of India
2.The State of Kerala : Respondents.
SYNOPSIS
The petitioner is making this writ appeal against the decision on his writ petition W.P. ( c ) No. 35016 of 2009 of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court by the learned single judge dated the 04th of December 2009.
The appellant is the petitioner in the above writ petition and the respondents vide serial no.1 and 2. are the original respondents.
The appellant is the petitioner in the above writ petition and the respondents vide serial no.1 and 2. are the original respondents.
Proof of address of the respondent no. 1 is produced along with this writ appeal and marked ANNEXURE P1.
 |
| From legal |
This is view of the comments made by the learned single judge on December 04, 2009 .
The appellant filed the original writ application W.P. ( c ) No. 35016 of 2009 of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court under article 226 of the constitution of india for the restitution of his fundamental rights, his life and liberties and equality before the law amongst others, guaranteed by the constitution of india and considered sacrosanct.
The learned single judge summarily dismissed the writ petition with what is in effect a one para judgement on 04th of December 2009.
In view of the fact that it might prove counterproductive in the future as far as his intents are concerned, the appellant would most humbly beg to submit to the Hon'ble Court that the statement vide para 3 of the judgement that the petitioner has voiced a grievance that he is being tailed by extremists will be a misrepresentation of facts. The petitioner has put the blame for the denial of his fundamental rights wholly and solely on the under cover agents of the government ( ref. para 18. and para B. and C. of the original WP)
Para 3. of the judgement further states “ . . . . . the petitioner has however not been able to point out any specific instance where his life was threatened . . . . . ” Obviously the learned single judge was completely unaware of the voice record of such a threat marked EXHIBIT P8, which, along with other video clips produced as evidence, was included in a compact disk that was an integral part of the original writ petition.
The petitioner is afraid that the learned single judge had misconstrued the very purpose of the writ petition - it is not a death threat that is the petitioner's concern.
“When I am there, death is not there;
when death is there, I am not there.
Death does not matter”.
The petitioner's problem is Life, “the various problems the petitioner is facing in his life” ( para 3. of the judgement). when death is there, I am not there.
Death does not matter”.
Life as it is mentioned in the fundamental rights of the Indian constitution, and as the petitioner understands it, is not sheer animal existence, or rather vegetable existence, as is the present situation in the case of the petitioner. His concern is not only his personal liberties but the torture and humiliations ( ref. para 19 of the original WP ) he has already undergone and that he will have to put up with at the the hands of the Indian secret police as long as he survives.
The agents of the government involved in this activity are aware of the criminal nature of their actions and have always meticulously avoided a direct confrontation with the petitioner. The petitioner is facing a peculiar situation, a common man, all alone, trying to expose the under cover agents with all the resources of the govt. machinery at their disposal.
All the same, through sheer diligence, the petitioner had produced solid evidence along with the original writ petition in the form of video clips of the dynamic events in his life on a compact disk ( ref. para 22. of the original WP ) . But to the petitioner's utter misfortune this has not been taken cognizance of at all by the learned single judge.
As part and parcel of the harassment and denial of fundamental rights, the petitioner is being denied access to information and his circumstances are such that he perforce has to depend on conjecture many a time. However the petitioner is confident of confirming the truth of his conjectures at a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal.
And it is not exactly “vague averments”, as alleged in the judgement, that the petitioner has been making. A typical example is the denial of the petitioner's right to equality before law by the Hon'ble high court of Kerala ( ref. para G . 1. of the original WP). There is no way the petitioner, on his own, can produce hard proof for the same; but the fact still remains and the world knows it.
Another remarkable instance brought up was the break in that resulted in the bleeding episode during the year 2003 ( ref. para 19. of the original WP) The petitioner has preserved the blood soaked bed sheet as it is till date. Under his present circumstances there is no way the petitioner can expose the culprits on his own ; but that does not make it anything less than a despicable act of crime.
The pivotal point here is whether there is a member of the so called security agencies of the government trailing the petitioner irrespective of the pretexts for doing so. No criminal in his senses is going to admit in a court of law that he has committed a crime. However there has to be official records pertaining to these acts.
In a desperate attempt to gain access to information on the matter the appellant has been making applications under the right to information act 2005 to various CPIOs and SPIOs. There was a very prompt response from the Central Public Information Officer, Ministry of Home of the govt of india and his subordinates in the form of a series of letters ANNEXRE P2 - the ministry obviously had no skeleton in their cupboard.
However the he State Public Information Officer of ministry of home , Govt. of Kerala as well as police commissioner, Thiruvananthapuram has simply refused to respond one way or the other during the allotted thirty days. The Central Public Information Officer of the director of the Central Bureau of Investigation, govt of india has also not responded till date - it could be that, unlike the MoH of the government of india, these set ups do have a skeleton in their cupboard.
The petitioner's most humble contention in the above context is that, though the forces that be, mentioned above, can disregard a request for information by an ordinary mortal like the appellant and coolly get away with it, once a court of law issues a notice, the culprits will have to come out in to the open and the appellant is confident that thereupon the whole racket could be busted.
The appellant's most humble prayer in the above context is that this Hon'ble court may be pleased to set aside the decision of the learned single judge dated December 04, 2009 and admit the writ petition W. P. ( c ) No. 35016 of 2009 and that he may be granted all the prayers vide the original writ petition.
Thanks to the persistent harassment by the secret police, the petitioner is functioning at a fraction of his potential and as such, the petitioner begs this Hon'ble Court to issue urgent interim orders restraining the agencies of the government from interfering with the petitioner's privacy, home and correspondence and command them to withdraw immediately, their personnel and informers let loose on the petitioner.
Dated this 16 th day of January 2010
The agents of the government involved in this activity are aware of the criminal nature of their actions and have always meticulously avoided a direct confrontation with the petitioner. The petitioner is facing a peculiar situation, a common man, all alone, trying to expose the under cover agents with all the resources of the govt. machinery at their disposal.
All the same, through sheer diligence, the petitioner had produced solid evidence along with the original writ petition in the form of video clips of the dynamic events in his life on a compact disk ( ref. para 22. of the original WP ) . But to the petitioner's utter misfortune this has not been taken cognizance of at all by the learned single judge.
As part and parcel of the harassment and denial of fundamental rights, the petitioner is being denied access to information and his circumstances are such that he perforce has to depend on conjecture many a time. However the petitioner is confident of confirming the truth of his conjectures at a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal.
And it is not exactly “vague averments”, as alleged in the judgement, that the petitioner has been making. A typical example is the denial of the petitioner's right to equality before law by the Hon'ble high court of Kerala ( ref. para G . 1. of the original WP). There is no way the petitioner, on his own, can produce hard proof for the same; but the fact still remains and the world knows it.
Another remarkable instance brought up was the break in that resulted in the bleeding episode during the year 2003 ( ref. para 19. of the original WP) The petitioner has preserved the blood soaked bed sheet as it is till date. Under his present circumstances there is no way the petitioner can expose the culprits on his own ; but that does not make it anything less than a despicable act of crime.
The pivotal point here is whether there is a member of the so called security agencies of the government trailing the petitioner irrespective of the pretexts for doing so. No criminal in his senses is going to admit in a court of law that he has committed a crime. However there has to be official records pertaining to these acts.
In a desperate attempt to gain access to information on the matter the appellant has been making applications under the right to information act 2005 to various CPIOs and SPIOs. There was a very prompt response from the Central Public Information Officer, Ministry of Home of the govt of india and his subordinates in the form of a series of letters ANNEXRE P2 - the ministry obviously had no skeleton in their cupboard.
However the he State Public Information Officer of ministry of home , Govt. of Kerala as well as police commissioner, Thiruvananthapuram has simply refused to respond one way or the other during the allotted thirty days. The Central Public Information Officer of the director of the Central Bureau of Investigation, govt of india has also not responded till date - it could be that, unlike the MoH of the government of india, these set ups do have a skeleton in their cupboard.
The petitioner's most humble contention in the above context is that, though the forces that be, mentioned above, can disregard a request for information by an ordinary mortal like the appellant and coolly get away with it, once a court of law issues a notice, the culprits will have to come out in to the open and the appellant is confident that thereupon the whole racket could be busted.
The appellant's most humble prayer in the above context is that this Hon'ble court may be pleased to set aside the decision of the learned single judge dated December 04, 2009 and admit the writ petition W. P. ( c ) No. 35016 of 2009 and that he may be granted all the prayers vide the original writ petition.
Thanks to the persistent harassment by the secret police, the petitioner is functioning at a fraction of his potential and as such, the petitioner begs this Hon'ble Court to issue urgent interim orders restraining the agencies of the government from interfering with the petitioner's privacy, home and correspondence and command them to withdraw immediately, their personnel and informers let loose on the petitioner.
Dated this 16 th day of January 2010
( Cheriyath Jyothi )
Appellant
Appellant
BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA
at Ernakulam
W.A. ( c ) No. 367 of 2010.
in
W.P. ( c ) No. 35016 of 2009.
at Ernakulam
W.A. ( c ) No. 367 of 2010.
in
W.P. ( c ) No. 35016 of 2009.
Dr. Cheriyath Jyothi : Appellant.
V/s
1. The Union of India
: Respondents.
2.The State of Kerala
WRIT APPEAL
UNDER SECTION 5 OF THE KERALA HIGH COURT ACT
Subject: Miscellaneous - restitution of fundamental rights
A. The address for service of the petitioner :
Dr. Cheriyath Jyothi
“mithilam”, povankonam,
Chempazhanthy P.O.,
Thiruvananthapuram, PIN-695587.
B. The address for service of the Respondents:
1. The Cabinet Secretary,
Government of India,
Rashtrapati Bhavan,
New Delhi 110004.
2. The chief secretary,
Government of Kerala,
Govt secretariat,
Trivandrum – 695001
Statement of Facts
The above named appellant most humbly begs to submit as follows :
1. The appellant is making this writ appeal against the decision of the learned single judge dated the 04th of December 2009 on his writ petition W.P. ( c ) No. 35016 of 2009 of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala.
a. The appellant is the petitioner in the above mentioned writ petition.
b. Respondents vide serial no.1 and 2. above are the respondents in the original writ petition.
c. In the context of the comments to the contrary made by the learned single judge in the Hon'ble court on December 04, 2009, copy of a communication vide RTI act 2005 received from the Central Public Information Officer, of the Cabinet Secretariat, Government of India is produced herewith and marked ANNEXURE P1 which proves that the address of the respondent no. 1 given by the petitioner in the original writ petition is the correct one.
2. The appellant filed the original writ application W.P. ( c ) No. 35016 of 2009 of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court under article 226 of the constitution of india for the restitution of his fundamental rights, amongst others, his life and liberties and right to equality before the law, guaranteed by the constitution of india and considered sacrosanct.
3. The crux of the matter is that to the vested interests in the various 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.
i) With the above end in mind the vested interests from among the doctors of Medical College, Trivandrum, who have been working in tandem with the concerned members of the spy net works, scripted the story of the petitioner's insanity with the “dementia hypothesis” as the main pillar on which the facade of the petitioner's insanity was propped up. It is as part of the executive arm of the plan to neutralise the petitioner by hook or crook, that a battalion of plainclothes men from the spy net works of the government along with other paraphernalia have been let loose on the petitioner.
ii) In the year 2002 an obliging police surgeon cooked up a fake enquiry report EXHIBIT P 4 ( para 14. b of the original WP). This enquiry report was considered sufficient justification to stage a break-in into the petitioner's personal residence that resulted in the bleeding episode ( ref. para 19. of the original WP) which the appellant believes was as a result of a highly invasive procedure carried out on him on the sly after putting him out.
iii) The petitioner has a degree in medicine and he had occasion to work under some of the finest professionals in the field of medicine and can with confidence assure the Hon'ble Court that the findings, if any, that the spies and their stooges from medical college trivandrum have produced as the direct out come of the above act of crime, cannot prove anything other than, perhaps, a physical illness.
iv) However, the spy net work and their stooges from the “intelligentsia” in Thiruvananthapuram are under an illusion that by the dastardly crime described in Para 19 of the original WP 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.
1. The appellant is making this writ appeal against the decision of the learned single judge dated the 04th of December 2009 on his writ petition W.P. ( c ) No. 35016 of 2009 of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala.
a. The appellant is the petitioner in the above mentioned writ petition.
b. Respondents vide serial no.1 and 2. above are the respondents in the original writ petition.
c. In the context of the comments to the contrary made by the learned single judge in the Hon'ble court on December 04, 2009, copy of a communication vide RTI act 2005 received from the Central Public Information Officer, of the Cabinet Secretariat, Government of India is produced herewith and marked ANNEXURE P1 which proves that the address of the respondent no. 1 given by the petitioner in the original writ petition is the correct one.
2. The appellant filed the original writ application W.P. ( c ) No. 35016 of 2009 of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court under article 226 of the constitution of india for the restitution of his fundamental rights, amongst others, his life and liberties and right to equality before the law, guaranteed by the constitution of india and considered sacrosanct.
3. The crux of the matter is that to the vested interests in the various 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.
i) With the above end in mind the vested interests from among the doctors of Medical College, Trivandrum, who have been working in tandem with the concerned members of the spy net works, scripted the story of the petitioner's insanity with the “dementia hypothesis” as the main pillar on which the facade of the petitioner's insanity was propped up. It is as part of the executive arm of the plan to neutralise the petitioner by hook or crook, that a battalion of plainclothes men from the spy net works of the government along with other paraphernalia have been let loose on the petitioner.
ii) In the year 2002 an obliging police surgeon cooked up a fake enquiry report EXHIBIT P 4 ( para 14. b of the original WP). This enquiry report was considered sufficient justification to stage a break-in into the petitioner's personal residence that resulted in the bleeding episode ( ref. para 19. of the original WP) which the appellant believes was as a result of a highly invasive procedure carried out on him on the sly after putting him out.
iii) The petitioner has a degree in medicine and he had occasion to work under some of the finest professionals in the field of medicine and can with confidence assure the Hon'ble Court that the findings, if any, that the spies and their stooges from medical college trivandrum have produced as the direct out come of the above act of crime, cannot prove anything other than, perhaps, a physical illness.
iv) However, the spy net work and their stooges from the “intelligentsia” in Thiruvananthapuram are under an illusion that by the dastardly crime described in Para 19 of the original WP 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 question of fundamental rights do not come up at all in his case. Any body can do anything to him and get away with it.
4. If the petitioner's hunch is correct the Hon'ble high court of Kerala had acquiesced in this and even denied him his right to be recognized as a person before the law ( ref. para G. of the original WP ) . In this context, the petitioner most humbly begs to be permitted to quote
“ . . . 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
4. If the petitioner's hunch is correct the Hon'ble high court of Kerala had acquiesced in this and even denied him his right to be recognized as a person before the law ( ref. para G. of the original WP ) . In this context, the petitioner most humbly begs to be permitted to quote
“ . . . 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 has elaborated in detail on the legalities of this aspect in para I to N of the original WP.
5. It is extremely difficult for anyone who is being denied his fundamental rights, that too by the under cover agents of the government through covert operations, to produce concrete evidence to prove the same; and for some one in the peculiar situation of the petitioner, isolated and ostracized and living the life of a pariah, and with no one else having a stake in his prospects, it is almost impossible to do so.
6. All the same, the petitioner through sheer diligence has accumulated enough evidence mainly in the form of movie clips to implicate the culprits. The same was presented as movie clips on a compact disk included in the original WP. The appellant is afraid that the video evidence so produced has not been taken cognizance of at all by the learned single judge.
7. During the course of the last one month, in a desperate attempt to gain access to information, the appellant has been making applications under the right to information act 2005 to various CPIOs and SPIOs.
i) The petitioner would beg to invite the kind attention of this Hon'ble court to an application under the right to information act 2005 that the appellant made to the central public information officer, ministry of home affairs, govt of india ( vide RLAD B 9794 dated 14.12.2009 of TRIVANDRUM RMS) copy of which is produced herewith and marked ANNEXURE P2. The appellant received a very prompt response in the form of a series of letters, from the Central Public Information Officer, MoH of the govt of india and his subordinates, a copy of one of which is produced herewith and marked ANNEXURE P3. The ministry obviously had no skeletons in their cupboard.
ii)Identical copies of the same application mentioned above were sent to certain other central public information officers and state public information officers. The applications sent to State Public Information Officer, home ministry, Govt. of Kerala ( vide SP EL000067807IN dated 14.12.2009 of TRIVANDRUM RMS) as well as State Public Information Officer, police commissioner, Thiruvananthapuram ( vide SP EL000067869 IN dated 14.12.2009 of TRIVANDRUM RMS) did not produce any response, neither positive nor negative within the allotted thirty days. The request to the Central Public Information Officer of the director of the Central Bureau of Investigation, govt of india ( vide RLAD B 9796 dated 14.12.2009 of TRIVANDRUM RMS) also has not produced any response one way or the other till date. The reason for this inaction could very much be that these set ups have some thing to hide!
iii) The additions to the list of respondents in the writ appeal were made in view of the above , amongst other reasons.
8. It was as a last resort and in order to avoid being forced to take the law in his own hands in view of the repeated violations of the petitioner's personal space by the hired thugs of the government agents ( ref. para 17. of the original WP) that the appellant moved the Hon'ble Kerala high court withWP ( c) No.35016 of 2009 . However his petition was summarily dismissed vide the judgement dated on December 04, 2009 .
In view of the above the appellant is humbly seeking appropriate reliefs from this Hon'ble Court on the following mainly among other:
5. It is extremely difficult for anyone who is being denied his fundamental rights, that too by the under cover agents of the government through covert operations, to produce concrete evidence to prove the same; and for some one in the peculiar situation of the petitioner, isolated and ostracized and living the life of a pariah, and with no one else having a stake in his prospects, it is almost impossible to do so.
6. All the same, the petitioner through sheer diligence has accumulated enough evidence mainly in the form of movie clips to implicate the culprits. The same was presented as movie clips on a compact disk included in the original WP. The appellant is afraid that the video evidence so produced has not been taken cognizance of at all by the learned single judge.
7. During the course of the last one month, in a desperate attempt to gain access to information, the appellant has been making applications under the right to information act 2005 to various CPIOs and SPIOs.
i) The petitioner would beg to invite the kind attention of this Hon'ble court to an application under the right to information act 2005 that the appellant made to the central public information officer, ministry of home affairs, govt of india ( vide RLAD B 9794 dated 14.12.2009 of TRIVANDRUM RMS) copy of which is produced herewith and marked ANNEXURE P2. The appellant received a very prompt response in the form of a series of letters, from the Central Public Information Officer, MoH of the govt of india and his subordinates, a copy of one of which is produced herewith and marked ANNEXURE P3. The ministry obviously had no skeletons in their cupboard.
ii)Identical copies of the same application mentioned above were sent to certain other central public information officers and state public information officers. The applications sent to State Public Information Officer, home ministry, Govt. of Kerala ( vide SP EL000067807IN dated 14.12.2009 of TRIVANDRUM RMS) as well as State Public Information Officer, police commissioner, Thiruvananthapuram ( vide SP EL000067869 IN dated 14.12.2009 of TRIVANDRUM RMS) did not produce any response, neither positive nor negative within the allotted thirty days. The request to the Central Public Information Officer of the director of the Central Bureau of Investigation, govt of india ( vide RLAD B 9796 dated 14.12.2009 of TRIVANDRUM RMS) also has not produced any response one way or the other till date. The reason for this inaction could very much be that these set ups have some thing to hide!
iii) The additions to the list of respondents in the writ appeal were made in view of the above , amongst other reasons.
8. It was as a last resort and in order to avoid being forced to take the law in his own hands in view of the repeated violations of the petitioner's personal space by the hired thugs of the government agents ( ref. para 17. of the original WP) that the appellant moved the Hon'ble Kerala high court withWP ( c) No.35016 of 2009 . However his petition was summarily dismissed vide the judgement dated on December 04, 2009 .
In view of the above the appellant is humbly seeking appropriate reliefs from this Hon'ble Court on the following mainly among other:
GROUNDS
A. The appellant made the above writ petition, WP ( c) No.35016 of 2009, for the restitution of his fundamental rights, his life and liberties and equality before the law amongst others, guaranteed by the constitution of india and considered sacrosanct. The learned single judge summarily dismissed the writ petition with what is in effect a one para judgement reproduced below:
“3. The grievances voiced by the petitioner in this writ petition is that he is being tailed by spies and extremists and that his life is in danger. The petitioner has however not been able to point out any specific instance where his life was threatened or his personal liberty attempted to be interfered with. Apart from vague averments and setting out various problems which he faces in life, he has not been able to state with precision what exactly is the threat to his life or his personal liberty. The reliefs prayed for by the petitioner cannot therefore be granted by this court. In such circumstances, I find no ground to entertain his writ petition. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.”
B. First and foremost, in view of the fact that it could turn out to be counterproductive in future as far as the petitioner's intents are concerned, the appellant would most humbly beg to submit to the Hon'ble Court that the statement vide para 3 of the judgement that the petitioner has voiced a grievance that he is being tailed by extremists will be a misrepresentation of facts. The petitioner has put the blame for the denial of his fundamental rights wholly and solely on the under cover agents of the government ( ref. para 18. and para B. and C. of the original WP).
C. The judgement further states “ . . . . The petitioner has however not been able to point out any specific instance where his life was threatened or his personal liberty attempted to be interfered with.. . . . . ” Obviously the learned single judge was literally unaware of EXHIBIT P8 wherein the original voice record of such a threat was reproduced ( ref. para 17. of the original WP).
D. However may that be, when the petitioner, all alone, was facing the hired thugs of the agents of the state, the “gentle man” of BN 400 and his accomplice, who had broken into his residence in the night and were threatening to beat him to death ( ref. Para 17. of the original WP), the petitioner did not cry out for help nor did he loose his cool, leave alone panic; he was trying to make a movie of the incident .
“3. The grievances voiced by the petitioner in this writ petition is that he is being tailed by spies and extremists and that his life is in danger. The petitioner has however not been able to point out any specific instance where his life was threatened or his personal liberty attempted to be interfered with. Apart from vague averments and setting out various problems which he faces in life, he has not been able to state with precision what exactly is the threat to his life or his personal liberty. The reliefs prayed for by the petitioner cannot therefore be granted by this court. In such circumstances, I find no ground to entertain his writ petition. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.”
B. First and foremost, in view of the fact that it could turn out to be counterproductive in future as far as the petitioner's intents are concerned, the appellant would most humbly beg to submit to the Hon'ble Court that the statement vide para 3 of the judgement that the petitioner has voiced a grievance that he is being tailed by extremists will be a misrepresentation of facts. The petitioner has put the blame for the denial of his fundamental rights wholly and solely on the under cover agents of the government ( ref. para 18. and para B. and C. of the original WP).
C. The judgement further states “ . . . . The petitioner has however not been able to point out any specific instance where his life was threatened or his personal liberty attempted to be interfered with.. . . . . ” Obviously the learned single judge was literally unaware of EXHIBIT P8 wherein the original voice record of such a threat was reproduced ( ref. para 17. of the original WP).
D. However may that be, when the petitioner, all alone, was facing the hired thugs of the agents of the state, the “gentle man” of BN 400 and his accomplice, who had broken into his residence in the night and were threatening to beat him to death ( ref. Para 17. of the original WP), the petitioner did not cry out for help nor did he loose his cool, leave alone panic; he was trying to make a movie of the incident .
“When I am there, death is not there;
when death is there, I am not there.
Death does not matter”.
when death is there, I am not there.
Death does not matter”.
The learned single judge, the petitioner is afraid, has completely misconstrued the intents of the writ petition.
It is not a death threat that is the petitioner's concern.
E. The petitioner's problem is “life”, “the various problems the petitioner is facing in his life” ( para 3. of the judgement ) as elaborated in detail in para 22 of the original WP. His concern is not only his personal liberties but also the torture ( ref. para 19 of the original WP ) and the humiliations that he has undergone in the past and that he will have to put up with in the future at the the hands of the Indian secret police.
F. Life as it is mentioned in the fundamental rights of the Indian constitution and as the petitioner understands it, is not just the negative aspect of it, that of preventing a person from being killed, but includes the positive aspects of life, like sustenance for example ( ref. para A. 1. of the original WP ). It certainly is not sheer animal existence, or rather vegetable existence, as is the present situation in the case of the petitioner.
G. The agents of the government involved in this activity are aware of the criminal nature of their actions and have always meticulously avoided a direct confrontation with the petitioner. The petitioner is facing a peculiar situation, a situation that is analogous to a guerilla warfare, but a guerilla war where the guerillas have all the resources of the govt in power at their disposal. Conventional methods will not work in such situations.
H. It is not “vague averments” that the petitioner has been making as alleged in the judgement.
i) A typical example is the denial of the petitioner's right to equality before law that amounts to denial of his fundamental right vide article 14 of the constitution by the Hon'ble high court of Kerala ( ref. para G . 1. of the original WP). There is no way the petitioner on his own can produce hard proof for the same but the fact still remains and the world knows it.
ii) Another remarkable instance brought up was the break in that resulted in the bleeding episode of the year 2003 ( ref. para 19. of the original WP) – the petitioner has preserved the blood soaked bed sheet as it is till date. There is no way the petitioner can produce solid proof for this on his own; but that does not make it anything less than a despicable act of crime.
I. It is extremely difficult for anyone who is being denied his fundamental rights, that too by the covert operations of the under cover agents of the government, to produce concrete evidence to prove the same. For some one in the peculiar situation of the petitioner, isolated, ostracized and harassed, with no one else having a stake in his prospects ( ref. para 2. d and 2. e of the original WP ), it is almost impossible to do so.
J. All the same, the petitioner through sheer diligence has accumulated enough evidence in the form of movie clips and voice records to implicate the alleged culprits. The same were produced as exhibits on a compact disk along with the original writ petition ( ref. para 22. of the original WP ) which to the petitioner's utter misfortune has not been taken cognizance of at all by the learned single judge.
K. As part and parcel of the denial of fundamental rights the petitioner is being denied access to information and as such he has been forced to depend on conjecture. However the petitioner is confident of confirming the truth of his conjectures at a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal.
L. The pivotal point here is whether there is a member of the so called security agencies of the government trailing the petitioner irrespective of the pretexts being put up for doing so. There obviously has to be records of such activity in the concerned departments but no criminal is going to accept in a court of law that he has committed a crime.
i) In this context the petitioner would beg to invite the kind attention of this Hon'ble court to an application under the right to information act 2005 that the appellant made ( vide RLAD B 9794 dated 14.12.2009 of TRIVANDRUM RMS) to the central public information officer, ministry of home affairs, govt of india ( ANNEXURE P2 ) . The petitioner received a very prompt response in the form of a series of letters ( ref. ANNEXURE P3). The ministry obviously had no skeleton in their cupboard.
ii)Identical copies of the same application mentioned above sent ( vide SP EL000067807IN dated 14.12.2009 of TRIVANDRUM RMS) to State Public Information Officer, home ministry, Govt. of Kerala as well as State Public Information Officer, police commissioner, Thiruvananthapuram ( vide SP EL000067869 IN dated 14.12.2009 of TRIVANDRUM RMS) did not produce any response of neither positive or negative within the allotted thirty days. The request to the Central Public Information Officer of the director of the Central Bureau of Investigation, govt of india ( vide RLAD B 9796 dated 14.12.2009 of TRIVANDRUM RMS) also did not produce any response one way or the other till date. The reason for this inaction could very much be that these set ups do have some thing to hide!
THE PETITIONER'S MOST HUMBLE SUBMISSION is that though the powers that be, mentioned above, can disreagard a request for information by an ordinary mortal like the appellant and cooly get away with it, once a notice is issued by a court of law the culprits will have to come out into the open and thereupon, the appellant is confident that, the whole racket could be busted.
F. Life as it is mentioned in the fundamental rights of the Indian constitution and as the petitioner understands it, is not just the negative aspect of it, that of preventing a person from being killed, but includes the positive aspects of life, like sustenance for example ( ref. para A. 1. of the original WP ). It certainly is not sheer animal existence, or rather vegetable existence, as is the present situation in the case of the petitioner.
G. The agents of the government involved in this activity are aware of the criminal nature of their actions and have always meticulously avoided a direct confrontation with the petitioner. The petitioner is facing a peculiar situation, a situation that is analogous to a guerilla warfare, but a guerilla war where the guerillas have all the resources of the govt in power at their disposal. Conventional methods will not work in such situations.
H. It is not “vague averments” that the petitioner has been making as alleged in the judgement.
i) A typical example is the denial of the petitioner's right to equality before law that amounts to denial of his fundamental right vide article 14 of the constitution by the Hon'ble high court of Kerala ( ref. para G . 1. of the original WP). There is no way the petitioner on his own can produce hard proof for the same but the fact still remains and the world knows it.
ii) Another remarkable instance brought up was the break in that resulted in the bleeding episode of the year 2003 ( ref. para 19. of the original WP) – the petitioner has preserved the blood soaked bed sheet as it is till date. There is no way the petitioner can produce solid proof for this on his own; but that does not make it anything less than a despicable act of crime.
I. It is extremely difficult for anyone who is being denied his fundamental rights, that too by the covert operations of the under cover agents of the government, to produce concrete evidence to prove the same. For some one in the peculiar situation of the petitioner, isolated, ostracized and harassed, with no one else having a stake in his prospects ( ref. para 2. d and 2. e of the original WP ), it is almost impossible to do so.
J. All the same, the petitioner through sheer diligence has accumulated enough evidence in the form of movie clips and voice records to implicate the alleged culprits. The same were produced as exhibits on a compact disk along with the original writ petition ( ref. para 22. of the original WP ) which to the petitioner's utter misfortune has not been taken cognizance of at all by the learned single judge.
K. As part and parcel of the denial of fundamental rights the petitioner is being denied access to information and as such he has been forced to depend on conjecture. However the petitioner is confident of confirming the truth of his conjectures at a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal.
L. The pivotal point here is whether there is a member of the so called security agencies of the government trailing the petitioner irrespective of the pretexts being put up for doing so. There obviously has to be records of such activity in the concerned departments but no criminal is going to accept in a court of law that he has committed a crime.
i) In this context the petitioner would beg to invite the kind attention of this Hon'ble court to an application under the right to information act 2005 that the appellant made ( vide RLAD B 9794 dated 14.12.2009 of TRIVANDRUM RMS) to the central public information officer, ministry of home affairs, govt of india ( ANNEXURE P2 ) . The petitioner received a very prompt response in the form of a series of letters ( ref. ANNEXURE P3). The ministry obviously had no skeleton in their cupboard.
ii)Identical copies of the same application mentioned above sent ( vide SP EL000067807IN dated 14.12.2009 of TRIVANDRUM RMS) to State Public Information Officer, home ministry, Govt. of Kerala as well as State Public Information Officer, police commissioner, Thiruvananthapuram ( vide SP EL000067869 IN dated 14.12.2009 of TRIVANDRUM RMS) did not produce any response of neither positive or negative within the allotted thirty days. The request to the Central Public Information Officer of the director of the Central Bureau of Investigation, govt of india ( vide RLAD B 9796 dated 14.12.2009 of TRIVANDRUM RMS) also did not produce any response one way or the other till date. The reason for this inaction could very much be that these set ups do have some thing to hide!
THE PETITIONER'S MOST HUMBLE SUBMISSION is that though the powers that be, mentioned above, can disreagard a request for information by an ordinary mortal like the appellant and cooly get away with it, once a notice is issued by a court of law the culprits will have to come out into the open and thereupon, the appellant is confident that, the whole racket could be busted.
PRAYER
The appellant's most humble prayer in the above context is that this Hon'ble court may be pleased to set aside the decision of the learned single judge dated December 04, 2009 and admit the writ petition ( W. P. ( c ) No. 35016 of 2009 and that the petitioner my be granted all the prayers vide the original writ petition.
INTERIM RELIEF
Thanks to the persistent pestering by the secret police, the petitioner is functioning at a fraction of his potential and as such, the petitioner begs this Hon'ble Court to issue urgent interim orders restraining the agencies of the government from interfering with the petitioner's privacy, home and correspondence and command them to withdraw immediately, their personnel and informers let loose on the petitioner.
Dated this 16 th day of January 2010.
( Cheriyath Jyothi )
petitioner
petitioner
