Advocate Deepak Khosla, who complained to Delhi high court chief justice (CJ) G Rohini yesterday against metropolitan magistrate Niti Phutela’s recusal and transfer of his case to another judge, has filed a criminal defamation case against Phutela in the Saket district court, asking for Rs 50 crore in damages.
Khosla is representing former Delhi law minister Somnath Bharti in the case against him over the midnight raid and arrest of Ugandan women. Phutela was hearing arguments on 3 November in this case.
Khosla had complained to the CJ that Phutela had recorded in her order that he had used “unparliamentary language” and was “insulting the court” whereas he had only asked her to record his submissions “verbatim” and “not in the unusual sort of English that she was resorting to”. Phutela
He has now filed a criminal complaint against the magistrate, stating:
The accused made certain averments in the order dated 3-11-2014 which are patently defamatory, statements which, as per her own knowledge, are false. The said statements have tarnished the reputation of the complainant and damaged his social standing and goodwill in society. These malicious, vexatious, false and incorrect statements were made with a sole motive to malign the fine professional and personal standing and image of the complainant in his professional, social and personal circles, and to cause him to suffer material and personal/mental injury and anguish thereto, thus, giving rise to Cause of Action to the complainant against this accused.
[…] while it was always open to her to have referred the matter to the Hon’ble Delhi High Court under Section 15(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act, and/or have administratively referred the incident to Hon’ble the chief justice of the Delhi High Court, she, however, had no authority/jurisdiction to set out such remarks in her “supplementary” order specially dictated by her for this defamatory purpose. All the more so when the matter in relation to which she set pit the remarks, as per her now stand taken in the first order passed on 3-11-2014 stood closed.
The case is listed for hearing in Saket at 2pm on Friday, said Khosla.
After Phutela recused herself, another magistrate yesterday transferred the matter back to the chief metropolitan magistrate (CMM) again, after Khosla wanted an earlier hearing date than the magistrate was able to offer.
threads most popular
thread most upvoted
comment newest
first oldest
first
Mademoiselle,
For those who are not so familiar with the subject, I thought I’d share that our Legislature has not approved blanket immunity for Judges in India.
The consequences for Judges of their actions are, therefore, 2-fold : civil, and criminal. As regards the former, Judges in India have complete immunity from the civil consequences of their actions, provided they are either acting within their jurisdiction, or, even if they have acted outside their jurisdiction, have, nonetheless, exercised "good faith" in determining whether or not they were acting within jurisdiction. [And the 104th Law Commission Report makes it clear that “good faith” will have to be adjudged by the tighter standards laid down in Section 52 of the Indian Penal Code, and not by the more benevolent standards laid down in Section 2(22) of the General Clauses Act].
But as regards the latter, there is no immunity whatsoever for the criminal consequences of their actions.
The position in India is, therefore, more or less in line with the situation of judicial immunity to criminal consequences in other parts of the world e.g. UK, USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc.
As far as using scandalous or otherwise defamatory language in their orders is concerned, the Supreme Court has already settled the issue in the case of A. M. Mathur vs. Pramod Kumar Gupta (AIR 1990 SC 1737) that a judge cannot pass negative personal remarks on any of the parties before them, unless the remarks are absolutely connected and integrally / directly relevant to the disposal of the case. This means that should a Judge, notwithstanding the binding dicta of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, repeat such words, he is not just liable for defamation’s criminal consequences, but the civil consequences as well, as his such act, because of Art. 141, would be outside his jurisdiction.
To demonstrate the legal conclusion (i.e. that judges do not have immunity from the criminal consequences of their actions), it is worthy to take note that the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court, in the case of “State of U. P. vs. Tulsi Ram (AIR 1971 ALLAHABAD 162 (V.58 C 34)”, has already held that a Magistrate illegally committing someone to wrongful confinement is liable to tort (damages), which can obviously be recovered also under Section 357(3) of the CrPC. The same view was reiterated by the Madras High Court in 2013 in the case of Magistrate Gunavathi.
In the case of B. S. Sambhu vs. T. S. Krishnaswamy (AIR 1983 SC 64), it was settled by the Supreme Court that when it comes to defamation of a party, since the act of defaming a person is no part of the “official” or “judicial” duty of a judge, there is no requirement for obtaining sanction under Section 197 of the CrPC.
In similar vein, in the case of Kamla Patel vs. Bhagwandas (AIR 1934 Nagpur 123), it has been settled by the Hon’ble Nagpur JC’s Court, that there is no protection under the Judicial Officers Protection Act, 1850 to a person acting judicially or officially who defames somebody, simply because it is not a part of the official duty or judicial duty of a Judge or a Judicial Officer to defame somebody.
So…….if I were you, I would watch this space ! I don’t think Deepak Khosla is so stupid as to pick up cudgels without doing his homework first !
Last year, in HP, he sued 2 Magistrates, 2 PPs and 3 SHOs for Rs. 1 crore before the Shimla High Court. The High Court rewarded his courage and effort at system-cleanup by not only dismissing his petition, but imposing (supposedly) “exemplary” costs. He took only the costs portion (i.e. not the merits of the dismissal) to the Supreme Court, and got the costs knocked off. See the order of 28-10-2014 in SLP (Crl) No. 1550 of 2014.
This means that you won’t be saddled with costs if you, acting bona fide, sue a Judge.
With the costs (and the attendant criminal contempt threatened by the HC) out of the way, he now is seeking a review of the HC judgement, the bar of Section 362 CrPC notwithstanding.
You really want to mess with this man ?
Judis of supremecourt says no record. You have a copy of it by any chance ?
Can some one post a link please.
Actually, for Nelson's-Eye clowns like you, surely even the Supreme Court doesn't exist. Come on, what proof do you have that it exists ? Come on ? Tell us !!!
To be priced at Rs. 18,999 for a 1 volume, meagre, 160-page copy, just because it will also have a red bulb embedded in it on the cover, which can be triggered to flash by the lawyer at will. Expected by the publisher to be a huge sell-out, because all lawyers are expected to carry it when they're arguing in Court, and displaying to the Judge the fact that they're carrying the book in a rather prominent way, so that the Judge gets.....err.....the message, when he is perceived by the arguing lawyer to be acting outside his jurisdiction. This way, since court proceedings will also start to be vide-recorded by that time, the Judge can’t subsequently say that he acted in good faith while attempting to determine that he was acting within his jurisdiction, because the lawyer can rebut by pointing out that he flicked the red bulb to go on and off, to warn the Judge that he was now treading outside his jurisdiction, but still the Judge acted, rushing in headlong where…errr….OK, angels….fear to tread.
Any truth in this story ? Or just another existentially-fraudulent flaky-wakey story ?
P. S. Does this Deepak Khosla exist ? Does anybody have proof ? Maybe he's just a legal fiction created by Legally India....a juristic entity, so to speak....anyone actually met him in real life ? Or even seen or heard him ? I'm sorry, but my leg's been pulled enough.....let's get real, guys ! Let's talk hard verifiable facts only. No more anonymous posts here....I mean, if there is no order posted in the SC on his (alleged) matter, then “he” doesn’t exist, right ? And who is this SexisPLexis, anyway ??? I also want to talk to them for my own book ! On Deepak Khosla !!!
I was personally with him in Court on 27-10-2014 and 28-10-2014, and I strongly believe that it was only because of his spirited-but-respectful 3-hour defence of my cause that the Ld. Magistrate was convinced that she must direct the Police to reply to my application for seeking further / proper investigation (whose corollary is that she could not routinely take cognizance). It was only because of his sound-in-law insistence that the Delhi Police is now compelled to file not a truncated 1-2 page hodge-podge reply, but a detailed “para-by-para” reply to the 16-page application filed by him on my behalf, which application clearly reveals the patent bias in the farcical and one-sided (so-called) investigation.
While I was not present in Court on 03-11-2014 when the incident with Ld. MM Ms. Niti Phutela happened, however, based on events recounted to me by persons present, I am more than convinced that Mr. Khosla was neither at fault, nor was the aggressor.
I also believe that had the Court’s proceedings been recorded, the Ld. MM would not have taken the excessive liberties with Mr. Khosla that she has taken on 03-11-2014, which liberties have now resulted in her being sought to be prosecuted by him. As regards the latter, knowing him, I am sure he knows perfectly well exactly what he is doing, so I wouldn’t write off his legal strategy in such haste as some others on this site have done.
For those who are interested in the subject of video-recording of court proceedings, please visit the Aam Aadmi Party webpage (www.aamaadmiparty.org/manifesto-2014), and download the Party’s Manifesto. At Clause 12.4, you will see the following set out clearly as one of our Manifesto promises, our firm and unwavering commitment, our unequivocal promise :
12.4. Proceedings of all court cases would be video-recorded and made available to ordinary citizens.
During my tenure as Law Minister of the State of NCT of Delhi, I have (already) formally approved on file the starting of video-recording of all court proceedings, and also, their live telecast. The latter has been approved by virtue of proposed (regional) amendment of Sections 153-B of the CPC and 327 of the CrPC, so that it is obligatory for every Court in Delhi to televise its proceedings live. I am confident that when we come to power, this long-cherished dream of every clean-minded person – of the true “Swachh Bharat” citizen – of every resident of the true “Swachh Bharat” - will be a reality within15-20 days of our resuming office. (Please : do use this post to remind me – rather, if this does not happen.)
I have emailed a copy of our Manifesto and the State Government’s file noting on the subject (lawfully obtained from the Govt. by a citizen under the RTI Act) to the Editor of this website ; anyone interested may obtain a copy directly from him, or he may like to post it on the website to enable anyone interested to download the same.
I am firmly committed to the Rule of Law, which starts by ensuring that the very Legislators and Judges who frame and enforce the Law are themselves gauged and judged by the very same Law that they have been entrusted by the public to frame and/or enforce.
It’s not just Charity that begins at home ; so does Accountability, not to mention Transparency.
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 1550/2014
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 24/07/2013
in CRLM No. 4007/2013 passed by the High Court of H.P. At Shimla)
DEEPAK KHOSLA Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF H.P. AND ORS. Respondent(s)
(With office report)
(For final disposal)
Date : 28/10/2014 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.A. BOBDE
For Petitioner(s)
Petitioner-in-person
For Respondent(s)
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
We have heard petitioner-in-person and perused
the impugned order dated 24th July, 2013 passed by the
High Court of H.P. at Shimla in Crl. Misc. No. 4007 of
2013. Taking into consideration the nature of the
case, while we are not inclined to interfere with the
substantive portion of the judgment, we are of the
view that it was not a fit case for imposing cost on
petitioner.
In the circumstances, while we do not issue
any notice to any of the respondent, as the order we
intend to pass will not affect any of the respondent, we
set aside the part of order dated 24th July, 2013 at
para 63 wherein cost of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five
Thousand) has been imposed on the petitioner.
However, it will be open to the petitioner to
raise all the issues before Judicial Magistrate who may
decide the same uninfluenced by order passed by the
High Court and this Court.
The special leave petition stands disposed.
(Neeta) (Usha Sharma)
This message is from a Deepak Khosla admirer.
Secondly, I am the 2nd-last man to run for public office (the last man being yet to stand up and declare himself so). Besides, I've got too much to do in my life to spend it "being obligated" to listen to moaning-and-groaning of others (the meek ?) just to keep my spot. In any case, even if I am fancily "posturing" with sound-bites just for your consumption, you will be immensely glad to know that since I was conferred with my Yell-Yell-Bee degree only in in July 2013, I neither qualify to become Standing Counsel for Delhi (there is no post of Advocate General in Delhi) nor - hold your breath - a Judge !
(Unless, of course - heh heh - I file a writ, demanding a change in the existing rules.....which I am not inclined to do, because I, like anybody else, hate failure ! And such a writ is bound to fail.)
Lastly, you don't seem to get the real point. The issue is more whether my complaint against the Magistrate Judge is meritorious - meaning, truthful on facts, and if it will succeed in law (because of immunity) ; you seem to presume (as a knee-jerk given) that she is totally innocent, and the complaint is only to intimidate / terrorise (or to garner cheap publicity), and that the law totally precludes any such motion. Well, wrong on all counts.
Advocates terrorising Judges ? You've got it ass-backwards, my friend !
Wait a minute : are you a Judge, sneaking an incognito peek at the portal ? To learn, perhaps, whether you are, indeed, "100 %" immune, just as you were told by your predecessors before you took up the other-wise thankless job ?...lol....Well, you're not....
You are absolutely spot on - I am glad that you don't qualify to become standing counsel.
I have seen enough of courtroom to learn that judges can be unresonable but so can the lawyers. Therefore, I can't believe that in the countless cases in which the costs were imposed on you, the judges were always always at fault. Probably a study which Kian can do - "which lawyers attract most costs". In this case I suspect the need to make noise with elections around the corner was more important that reforming the judicial system. It definitely requires guts to take the system head on, but in this manner and for such causes is promoting anarchy.
BTW I think you should check with your client whether you can describe people "like me" with the terms you have used in first paragraph and your description of the manner in which people "like me" cast our votes (if you are so interested, in the following manner - reading every single line of manifesto, debating it with friends / colleagues, evaluating past performance on local issues (none for AAP at the time of last elections), reaching a conclusion within our own circle and listing to the gut feelings while pressing the button). He may have some other thoughts about your choice of words. Your profound thoughts in your reply above and zealous defence of your own case (rather than his) may have undesirable effects on your clients' prospective voter. Just a suggestion - that's why, just like Mr. Bharti, you should hire an external advocate for your case rather than jeopardising your clients' case as well as his candidature by mixing your own issues (i.e. alleged defamation) with his. Oh!! wait a minute - is that what was the intended from the beginning - make noise, blur the issues, sue the police / judges, sue the bloggers (possible next step) and once elections are over quietly settle after a year or two.
Also note (in mirth) that you've been tracking my various cases. Bully for you ! (Btw, if you want some gyaan to add to your already-vast gyaan on whether a Court has power to impose costs, read the petition before the SC, on which they passed the order dated 28-10-2014. SC waiving costs imposed on a petitioner who sued a Judge : do you know why ? Because they didn't want to adjudicate the real issue before them and hold that the HC - and, therefore, by extension, the SC - had no power to impose costs ! You should have been present in the SC that day.....quite amusing).
Thanks for the gratuitous advice (both to me and, sneakily, to my "client"), but you know what they say about free advice : usually worthless. (And my client is an adult, a lawyer, and a politician to boot....to sum up, he wasn't "born yesterday"....so, rest assured, he knows exactly what the "up" as well as "down" implications / consequences of my strategies are. And if you think what happened was bad, then watch this space by Monday...)
I'll answer the rest of your post if and when you have the courage to reveal your identity. And if you feel remaining anonymous gives you any protection, clearly, you need an update on net technology, so here it is (gratuitous, of course, so - going by my own mantra - possibly worthless) : LI can track every post by its IP address. So, even if you post anonymously, you can be "hunted down" with the help of a Court of Law....lol....all one will have to do is make LI a witness to the suit (or even party), get a discovery / interrogatory order, and bingo ! Down comes the curtain, with you standing behind, your hands covering your face in embarrassment...of course, if you were smart, and had been posting from a "community" address, such as a cafe, or similar, that may be different...but then, if they have CCTVs installed, then again the outcome would be different.
But if you wish to discuss anything seriously in a civilised manner, over a cup of whatever, please feel to call and meet (98 110 54200)...the fact that you've posted and posted again (and no doubt will post again...lol....OK, so reading that last line, now you stubbornly won't...but now, reading that last line, now you stubbornly will....) you seem to be a intelligent, sensitive and aware person. Who knows what may come out of it ? Maybe AAP may give you a ticket ? For counter-balance to all those "Nazis" that, according to you, they are putting up as candidates ?
Off course a sentence could be worthless and so can be free advice - but was it an advice or an expression of personal thoughts outlining the strategy is for a reader to judge.
I wonder that in one day from "gullible" and "manipulable" why I became "intelligent" "sensitive" and "aware" (off course the terms have significance only if you were serious to have a "cup of whatever" or may be the entire sentence was only meant for me to reveal my identity). If you are serious enough, I will indeed have that "cup of whatever" at an opportune moment but not presently. And no I do not wish to receive a ticket, least from AAP.
Again I will state I agree with the objectives of Mr. Bharti but I question the methods. With this can we agree to disagree and leave the discussions here.
Errr.....did I say that an intelligent, sensitive, aware person cannot be gullible / manipulable at the same time ? I didn't. Because in the world that I live in, he very much can.
But if I did, and you actually believed that, then that just proves that very same point, doesn't it ? Namely, that an intelligent, sensitive, aware person like you can also be gullible and manipulable enough to believe that an intelligent, sensitive aware person cannot be gullible and manipulable ? (No, don't ask me to repeat that, 'coz I couldn't, I'm so lost myself in its twists and turns...lol...)
And you're still missing - or choosing to miss - the main point. Pity.
Anyway, this ping-pong on LI with a faceless person, with communications that are meant more for you / me than the general readers of LI, has gone on long enough so - please feel free to continue to hide behind LI's burqua, and keep your identity a State secret. "Overall strategy", "shut down a collective voice", "anonymous posts" et al......this is all paranoia on your part.......believe me, I'm just an easy-going, keep-it-simple-and-fun kind of guy, whose face goes red more from laughter (and wine helps both) than from anger. So, since the invite was genuinely meant, if you do actually pick up the phone to join me to have your cup of whatever whenever, I doubt you would go away angry, disgusted or disappointed....even though we may agree to continue to disagree.
And feel free to vote for the Congress, BJP, or whoever.....I am indifferent, as I am totally apolitical.But you should strongly consider giving change a chance (whatever the word change translates into for you), if for no other reason but the fact that the mere threat of change keeps the powers-that-be on their toes.
Did it ever strike you that Somnath Bharti's "clean-up" drive (not "raid" - that's the "Goebbels'-target" in you again !) was the act of a local resident who was fed up (because Bharti, himself, lives there), of the local MLA who was only performing his promised duty (as he was the MLA of that area, besieged with with local citizens of the area imploring him to stop all the rubbish going on, his assistance being sought because the local Police was not doing it, and who were not doing it because they were getting a weekly cut from the crime), and not of the Law Minister of the State of NCT of Delhi ?
Or is it that, in your "prim-and-proper" "la-di-da" world, once you're the Law Minister, you must put your own concerns as a local resident on the back-burner ?
Sheesh !
But wait a second : you say you're an ex-voter. So, you got conned by AAP ? Given that they're not very sophisticated, how bright does that make you ?
And you can email me directly, if you want : . (Unless, of course, you prefer to continue to strut and bait facelessly on this site for all to see.)
threads most popular
thread most upvoted
comment newest
first oldest
first