Appointments of Justices Vijender Jain & Swatanter Kumar as Chief Justices of High Courts appears to have been rewarded for Orders in a Writ Petition (Civil) No. 7790 of 2006 of Delhi H. C., relating to Italian Citizenship of Smt. Sonia/Rahul Gandhi?

A Supreme Court Bench comprising Justices Arijit Pasayat and D. K. Jain:  (TOI: 31/07/07) on 30/07/2007, during the hearing of a matter relating to appointment of Justice Ashok Kumar, as Judge in Madras High Court, sought some information from the Center, to know: ”are Cjis following rules in appointment of Judges?”   

            Incidentally, before the aforesaid hearing, I had also submitted applications under RTI Act, making  queries before the CPIO in the Ministry of Law and Justice, seeking information relating to appointment of Hon’ble Justices Mr. Vijender Jain and  Mr. Swatanter Kumar as Chief Justices of different High Courts, which is still pending due to Stay of Delhi High Court in a matter relating to similar application of Mr. Subhas Chandra Agarwal.  

            The reason behind my applications were to know that whether has there been any rational policy was applied for the elevation of the 4 (Four) Judges from a single High Court, within a short span of time of one year. Hon'ble Justice Markandeya Katju was elevated to the Supreme Court  on 10th April, 2006. Hon’ble Mr. Justice  Vijender Jain was elevated on 28.11.2006 as Chief Justice of Punjab and Haryana High Court, Justice Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, elevated on 04.12.2006 as Chief Justice of Delhi High Court, and Justice Swatanter Kumar, elevated on 31.03.2007 as Chief Justice of Bombay High Court.

            Delhi is the Capital of the Country. Large number of litigations against Union of India are supposed to be filed in Delhi High Court. Judges holding Judicial Office in Delhi have the potentiality of considerable opportunity to approach for their elevation and the Union of India has the potential to exploit the opportunity to take advantage of the situation to get orders of choices of its Bosses. In this context I like to refer one particular matter very much relating to important political figure Smt. Sonia Gandhi.  

            The Hon’ble Supreme Court in its Judgment dated 12th September 2001, in Appeal (civil) No. 4400 of 2000 along with C.A. No.4405/2000 pronounced by R. C. Lahoti J., reported in the AIR: 2001:SC at pages: 3689 to 3703, decided an Appeal filed against dismissal Order of Election Petition filed against Sm. Sonia Gandhi, in which Hon’ble Supreme Court made certain specific observation for the dismissal of the said Appeal. 

            In the light of those observations, I studied the Italian Constitution and Citizenship law of Italy. I understood in clear terms that under the provisions of the Italian Constitution and Citizenship Law of Italy, the Citizenship of Italy for Smt. Sonia Gandhi and Shri Rahul Gandhi are permanently and unequivocally prevailed on hold for its recovering, which they can recover at anytime, within one year form the date as and when they so desires and decides, without any administrative interference. Hence, they are not competent to renounce their allegiance to the Constitution of Italy. Therefore, Smt. Sonia Gandhi and Shri Rahul Gandhi might have to meet the exigencies of their political gains and to keep control over the reins of the power in their hands, they might keeping the whole nation in complete dark about the fact that they cannot revoke their allegiance to the Constitution of Italy and also about the fact that thus they have earned disqualification to be able to contest elections for Parliament of India, even they might have acquired Indian Citizenship, which cannot be beyond the scope of dual citizenship of Italy and also of India. Considering such constitutional provisions, I filed a Writ Petition against Union of India and ors., inter alia challenging the validity of Section 5(1)(c) of the Citizenship Act, 1955 on the inter alia grounds that it has failed to restrain the granting of the Indian Citizenship to Smt. Sonia Gandhi without examining her allegiance to the Constitution of Italy. I also referred the fact that Shri Rahul Gandhi is also Italian by birth as described in detail later in this Article.

            My aforesaid Writ Petition was dismissed by the then Acting Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court Mr. Vijender Jain, in a way even committing the Contempt of the Supreme Court, as the order of dismissal of the Writ Petition was passed in serious contravention of the Supreme Court Ruling that No Court in India can take Judicial Notice of the foreign law. The said Order was also in contravention of those observations made in the aforesaid Judgment of the Supreme Court, describing the reasons for the dismissal of the said Appeal against dismissal of the Election Petition, against Smt. Sonia Gandhi.

Thereafter, I filed Review Petition, on the inter alia on the grounds that ‘No Courts in India can take Judicial Notice of Foreign Law’, but when it was listed for hearing, his Lordship Mr. Vijendra Jain, disbursed the Court for the rest of the day, before the turn of my Review Petition in the said Writ Petition could have been arrived and the Court Officer fixed a Long Date, with or without instructions from Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice. Thereafter, Mr. Justice Vijendra Jain was elevated on 28.11.2006 as the Chief Justice of Punjab and Haryana High Court. All this creates a climate of raising serious doubts whether the elevation was under a compromising situation or not?       

            Subsequently my Review Petition was heard and was also dismissed on 15/03/2007 by a Bench headed by Mr. Justice Swatantra Kumar of  Delhi High Court and within 15 days therefrom on 31/03/2007 he too was elevated as Chief Justice of Mumbai High Court. What a coincidence? 

            Now, I want to know, whether there are any relationship between the aforesaid Orders and respective elevations and appointments of Justices Vijendra Jain and Swatanter Kumar as Chief Justices of different High Courts, or were made without applying any rationale policy or to award them for the aforesaid Orders passed by compromising with the Integrity of the Propriety and Sovereignty of the Constitution of India? Has there been some rating exercise done amongst all the siting judges of the various High Court in the country for  such prestigious slot or it was just a random pick and choose?      

            Here it may be noted that on 9th March, 2007, immediately after the Bench headed by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Swatanter Kumar reserved the Orders in the aforesaid matter and left for his Chamber, the Ld. Counsel Mr. Rajeeve Mehra, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the Government of India, in presence of several other Advocates, did not mind to threaten me to be prepared for dire-consequences, regarding which I have already made a mention in my letter  dated 9th March, 2007, referred above, which was sent to him by Registered Post at 32/9, East Patel Nagar, New Delhi-110008. It means on 9/3/2007  he was fully aware that what is going on in my Writ Petition.

            Now, the basic question that arises is, whether the Counsels appearing on behalf of the Government, are accountable to look after the interest of the public at large or should they perform their professional duties under direction of their political Bosses, even at the cost of jeopardising the Integrity of the Propriety and Sovereignty of the Constitution of India and also in a manner contrary to preserve and safeguard the interest of the consolidated funds of India.

            However, I lodged a complaint on 7th May, 2007, before the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India Mr. K. G. Balakrishanan, against “FIXED ORDERS”, passed by the respective Hon'ble Judges of Delhi High Court, which are passed at the very cost of the Integrity of the Propriety and Sovereignty of the Constitution of India and are in serious violation of the oath taken under Article 219 of the Constitution of India, presumably with a view to safeguard the political horizon of Smt. Sonia Gandhi, since her allegiance to a foreign State  (ITALY) is acknowledged and prevails permanently, unequivocally and irrevocably under the Constitution of Italy and Citizenship Law of Italy.    Therefore, in complaint, I prayed that His Lordship Hon’ble Chief Justice of India Mr. K. G. Balakrishanan, may be pleased to examine whether the Order dated 9th May, 2006 passed by Justice Vijender Jain was contemptuous or not?

      Now I calls upon Smt. Sonia Gandhi and Shri Rahul Gandhi that if they are not power mongers and also do not intend to commit such an act which may amount to be the cheating the entire nation then  this is undoubtedly incumbent upon them to explain as to how and in what manner they can renounce their allegiance to the Constitution of Italy, since their Italian Citizenship unequivocally, irrevocably and permanently exists on hold to recover it within one year from the date, when they so decides, without any administrative interference ?

            In any case, Writ Petition filed by me  that Smt. Sonia Gandhi and Sri Rahul Gandhi cannot renounce their allegiance to the Constitution of Italy, should have been adjudicated, since in support of my pleadings, I have referred the English  translated Version of the Constitution of Italy and Citizenship law of Italy.

            However, much before filing the said Writ Petition, when Smt. Sonia Gandhi submitted her claim to form the Central Government, on 17th May 2004, at about 10.00 AM (morning) I  had sent a Fax Message to His Excellency, the President of India, Dr. A. P. J. Abdul Kalam, conveying interalia that under the Constitution of Italy and citizenship Law of Italy Smt. Sonia Gandhi cannot renounce her allegiance to the Constitution of Italy. After enactment of RTI Act, on 23rd August 2006, I submitted an application, under the Right to Information Act, 2005, to the CPIO, President’s Secretariat, thereby wanted to know that what action was taken by His Excellency Shri A. P. J. Abdul Kalam, on my aforesaid representation through Fax Message to see that compliance of the Article 102 of the Constitution of India is ensured. So, if one is having an “Italian Citizen by Birth”, even if he or she might be claiming to have renounced his/her Italian Citizenship, should be disqualified for being chosen as, and for being a member of either House of Parliament under Article 102 of the Constitution of India.

            Shri Nitin Wakankar, Public Information Officer in the President's Secretariat through Memo Letter No. E-6/DPS/20/08/2006 dated September, 1, 2006 replied interalia that: 'This is to inform you that all communications addresses to the President following the 14th General Election containing various suggestions on the formation of Government including your letter of 17 May, 2004 were accorded due consideration by the President’.

            This is very important that earlier, even  website of the Italian Embassy in Chicago, USA, Quoted as : “PURSUANT TO ITALIAN LAW, IF HOLDER OF ANOTHER CITIZENSHIP, IS ONLY ITALIAN, BECAUSE IN VIEW OF THE LAW IT IS THE ITALIAN CITIZENSHIP THAT PREVAILS OVER ANY OTHER”, But, when I referred the said document in my aforesaid Writ Petition, respective page was removed from the Website, however, I do have a print copy of the same in my possession.

            The aforesaid quotation was based on the following provision provided in the Constitution of Italy:

 (1).      That Clause (1) of Article 14 [Personal Domicile] provides that “Personal domicile is inviolable.”.

(Smt. Sonia Gandhi has already admitted, in her Affidavit before the Presiding Officer for Raibareily Parliamentary Constituency, that she has an Immovable property in Italy.)

 (2)       That Clause (2) under Article 16 [Freedom of Movement] confirms the Constitutional Rights of “Every citizen is free to leave the territory of the republic and return to it except for

obligations defined by law.”

 (3)       That Clause (1) of the Article 54 [Loyalty to the Constitution] provides that “All citizens have the duty to be loyal to the republic and to observe the constitution and 

the laws.”

(4 )       That Clause (3) of Article 48 [Voting Rights] the “Title IV Political Rights law defines conditions under which the citizens residing abroad effectively exercise their electoral right. To this end, a constituency of Italians Abroad is established for the election of the Chambers, to which a fixed number of seats is assigned by constitutional law in accordance with criteria determined by law.”

(under this provision/ Right Smt. Sonia Gandhi and Shri Rahul Gandhi are illegible to exercise their right to Vote for the Italian Parliament.) 

(5)   That Article 56 [The House of Representatives] provides under Clause (1) The house of representatives is elected by universal and direct suffrage. Under Clause (2) The number of representatives is six hundred and thirty, of which twelve are elected by the constituency of Italians abroad while Article 57 [The Senate] provides that under Clause (1) The senate is elected on a regional basis except for the seats assigned to the constituency of Italians abroad. (2) Three hundred and fifteen senators are elected, of which six are elected by the constituency of Italians abroad. (under this provision/ Right Smt. Sonia Gandhi and Shri Rahul Gandhi are illegible  to exercise their right to Vote for the Italian Parliament.)

Citizenship Law of Italy: provides interalia  following important provisions, under which an Italian never can renounce his/her allegiance to the Constitution of Italy:   (1) Under Sub-clause (a) of the Clause 1 of Article 1 of the Citizenship Law of Italy, the Citizen by birth is defined that: “the child of a father or a  mother, who are Italian Citizens.”

(2)        Further under Sub-clause (c) of the Clause 1 of Article 13  of the Citizenship Law of Italy provides that “He who lost the citizenship shall recover it: if he declares he wants to recover it and he resided or he resides in the territory of Republic, within one year from the declaration;”. 

            With regard to the Italian Citizenship of Smt. Sonia Gandhi and Sri Rahul Gandhi, I have submitted several applications under RTI Act, before different Public Authorities, but every public authority has miserably failed to provide required genuine Information.

            As I have earlier stated that Smt. Sonia Gandhi has already declared before the Presiding Officer of the Raibariely Parliamentary Constituency by submitting an affidavit that she has a House in Italy, it is amply clear that “PURSUANT TO ITALIAN LAW, IF HOLDER  OF ANOTHER  CITIZENSHIP, IS ONLY ITALIAN, BECAUSE IN VIEW OF THE LAW IT IS THE ITALAIN CITIZENSHIP THAT PREVAILS OVER ANY OTHER”. Hence, the issue of her Italian Citizenship should have been adjudicated by the Delhi High Court by admitting my Writ Petition. It is not understood as to why the path of dismissal was chosen instead of adjudicating the matter.

Therefore, once again I repeat, reiterate and strongly say that if Smt. Sonia Gandhi has no intention to keep the whole Nation and the citizenry of India, in dark about the legal position of her allegiance to the  Italian Constitution, then it is her ethical, moral as well as legal duty to clear the dust and clouds cast on her position with regard to her allegiance to the Italian Constitution by admitting and submitting an affidavit under Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872, that how and in what manner she can irrevocably, revoke/renounce her allegiance to the Constitution of Italy? With Regard to the  issue of Italian Citizenship of Shri Rahul Gandhi, at time of his birth, his mother Smt. Sonia Gandhi, (wife of late Shr Rajiv Gandhi), unquestionably was an Italian Citizen. Therefore, under Article 1 of the  CITIZENSHIP LAW OF ITALY Shri Rahul Gandhi was Italian by birth at the time of his birth, in terms of Italian Law. At the same time, on the other hand, under Section 3(2) of the (Indian) Citizenship Act, 1995, a person shall not be an 'Indian Citizen by Birth', if his mother or father is not a Citizen of India at the time of his birth, meaning thereby that at the time of birth Shri Rahul Gandhi was not an Indian by birth. Therefore, under which provision, in what manner and at which point of time he was able to acquire the Indian Citizenship? I am still awaiting the answer under the RTI Act .

                        These very questions point to some stark realities and which cannot at any stage be winked away as just an emotional issue, simply because, since Smt. Sonia Gandhi has married an Indian, hence she automatically becomes an Indian. If she might have lived as a Bahu in her residence, one may not have raised such questions relating to her Italian Citizenship, but since  she is very much riding the horse and is in control of the reins of the powers of the Central Government, the issue has acquired legitimacy to become very much relevant  as an important issue relating to the Integrity of the Propriety and Sovereignty of the Constitution of India.

            In case, before the next General Elections for Loksabha, Smt. Sonia Gandhi and Shri Rahul Gandhi do not remove all the ambiguities with regard to their allegiance to the Italian Constitution, then, I may be constrained to contest election from the constituencies, wherefrom, Smt. Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi would be contesting, with a view to bring to light the fact that they never can renounce their allegiance to the Constitution of Italy, provided  I am alive and nots eliminated through political or criminal manoeuvrings.