1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

Writ Petition (CRL.) IN THE MATTER OF Manohar Lal Sharma Advocate S.C.B.A.L.No.-1 Supreme Court of India New Delhi-110001 Resident of, 31, Gyangudery, Vrindaban Mathura , U.P. VERSUS 1. Central Bureau of Investigation Through Director Plot no.5-B , 6th floor ,CGO Complex Lodhi Road New Delhi 110003 2. The Times of India through Chief Editor Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg Near I.T.O., New Delhi 3. Attorney General of India Shri Gulam Vahanavati Supreme Court of India New Delhi
4. Journal of Indian Law and Society, through chairman The National University of Juridical Sciences Dr. Ambedkar Bhavan 12, LB Block, Sector III, Salt Lake City, Kolkata 700098 5. LegallyIndia.com Registrar Mesh Digital Ltd Through chairman 3 Quarry St, Lime Quarry Mews, Guildford, Surrey GU1 2RD, United Kingdom +44 1483 304030 Also Through Mr. Kian Ganj Editor of LegallyIndia.com At Delhi : KIan.ganj@legallyindia.com

of 2013

Petitioner

2
(91-900-405-6651)

6. Stella James c/o Journal of Indian Law and Society,

The National University of Juridical Sciences Dr. Ambedkar Bhavan 12, LB Block, Sector III, Salt Lake City, Kolkata 700098 Respondents

Writ Petition (PIL) u/a. 32 & 21 of the Constitution of India Read with Contempt of Court Act. To, The Honble Chief Justice of India And His Companion Judges of the Supreme Court of India. The Petitioner most humbly showeth, 1. The Petitioner, citizen of India & by profession an advocate practicing at the above address, is filing the present writ petition (PIL) under Art.32 & 21 of the Constitution of India read with Contempt of Court Act for direction to enquiry, investigate and to prosecute respondents no.2, no.4, no.5 and no.6 for their defamatory and contumacious action against the judicial institution, Supreme Court of India and its Judges, in the interest of justice. That the Respondent no. 3 may kindly be admonished for his brazen attempts to derail by delay the inquiry committee already instituted by this Honble Court to delve into the utterly atrocious allegations leveled against a recently retired judge of this Honble Court. 2. The Petitioner in the morning of 12.11.2013 had already mentioned the salient facts concerning the actions of the Respondents to the Honble Chief Justice of India, and a judicial committee of 3 puisne judges of the Honble Supreme Court was kindly instituted to inquire into the statements widely circulated and published by Respondents No.2, 4, 5 and No.6.

3
3. That the Petitioner is filing the present petition also to decide interalia the following constitutional questions of law arising therefrom;i. Whether a diaphanous statement of reference is sufficient report of offence / guilt? ii. Whether publication of such flimsy statement(s) is not an offence to defame prestige of a judicial institution? iii. Whether said publication is not malafide and liable to be punished as a contempt of court? iv. Whether publication of sheer statement and skimpy reference is not an act calculated to defame? 4. That Respondent no.4 is a foreign company having its temporary working office in Delhi, Mumbai through its editor Mr. Kian Ganj. This website name is legallyindia.com@ privatemonster.com and belongs to its registrar Mesh Digital Limited having as above said address. In fact it is a foreign company and is working in India through internet and its editor and other reporter only. Stella James does not disclose her identity. Possibly she also does not belong to Indian culture/society. 5. The petitioner, who is an advocate, is duty bound to come forward to protect and preserve the reputation of the judicial institutions which are the only hope of the general public against the corruption and scandals of the politicians, industrialists etc. During the last few months the Supreme Court & other high courts and tribunals have taken stern actions against the corruption, scandals and exploitations by the politicians and industrialists, and consequently these entrepreneurs and speculators are intent on tarnishing the sterling image and reputation Indias high judiciary commands. The recent FIR lodged by CBI against Kumarmangalam Birla of Calcutta and Hindalco for allotment of coal block has rocked the industrial classes, as has the entry of the CBI into

4
the offices of Parliament itself, causing the vested interests (under imminent threat of being exposed) to join hands to concoct a conspiracy to tarnish and defame reputation of the judiciary under the cover of a lady diaphanously alleging sexual harassment at the hands of a, now retired, puisne judge of this Honble Court. True facts revealed to the petitioner are as follows:A. 6.11.2013, Stella James, Respondent No.6, alleged in her JILS BLOG that she was harassed by a recently retired Supreme Court judge in a hotel room in December 2012. Her interview was published by Journal of Legal Law and thereafter the Times of India published on 12.11.2013, an obviously hearsay account,

masquerading as a feminist manifesto, bereft of specifics such as date, time, place of sexual assault etc. The offending interview is reproduced below for ready reference. Last December was momentous for the feminist movement in the country almost an entire population seemed to rise up spontaneously against the violence on women, and the injustices of a seemingly apathetic government. In the strange irony of situations that our world is replete with, the protests were the backdrop of my own experience. In Delhi at that time, interning during the winter vacations of my final year in University, I dodged police barricades and fatigue to go to the assistance of a highly reputed, recently retired

5
Supreme Court judge whom I was working under during my penultimate semester. For my

supposed diligence, I was rewarded with sexual assault (not physically injurious, but nevertheless violating) from a man old enough to be my grandfather. I wont go into the gory details, but suffice it to say that long after Id left the room, the memory remained, in fact, still remains, with me. B. 6.11.2013, On the basis of the blog post Legallyindia.com, Respondent no.5, allegedly conducted her interview which was published in its website. True copy of the blog dt 6.11.2013 & times India news paper publication dt 12.11.2013 are enclosed as Annexure P-1 colly (13-16) C. 12.11.2013, Times of India, Respondent No. 2, further published the similar story in their news paper, again without citing specifics of the gory sexual assaults allegedly

perpetrated by a judge of this Honble Court. D. 12.11.2013 Seeing such patently defamatory publication in the Times of India, the Petitioner appeared post haste before the Honble Chief Justice in the morning to mention the facts published in Times of India for a proper in-house inquiry into such self evident contempt of court. As the matter entirely concerns the fresh

widely published defamatory and contumacious actions of Respondents, no PIL or application is needed to be filed in such cases. Due to the utterly shocking and scandalous nature of allegations, as mentioned by the Petitioner, Honble Chief Justice of India immediately,

6
during lunch break, instituted a three judges committee to inquire into the truth of the allegations as published and for further action. However all advocates, including the Attorney General Respondent No. 3, came to know what transpired in the Honble Chief Justices Court in the morning. E. 02.15 p.m. Learned Attorney General appeared in the court before the Honble Chief Justice along with a written petition asking for action within VISHAKA judgment and direction. Despite knowing the fact that the Honble Chief Justice has already appointed a three judges committee upon mentioning by the Petitioner,

M.L.Sharma Advocate in the morning, Respondent No. 3 was strangely insistent that his petition be kept pending for two weeks for notice. F. 13.11.2013 Petitioner sent an e-mail to Ms. Stella James to find out truth and to help if her statement is true, but she did not reply. True copy of the email dt. 13.11.2013 is

being filed as Annexure P-2 (17) 6. That respondent no.5 is a foreign company as evident from website whois and analysis report on Legallyindia.com was run on 16th November 2013 came to the petitioner knowledge and copy of the said report dt 16.11.2013 being filed as Annexure P-3 (18-21) 7. That the petition is being filed on the following amongst other GROUNDS A. Because a sheer reference to sexual harassment, even if stated by a lady, cannot be accepted as an offence having actually been committed. The impugned statement is deliberately vague on the

7
name(s), date(s), time and place where such action / offence was committed. The name of the room / hotel is not reflected in the statement. Such statements prima facie have no value, but it was nevertheless made by the Respondent No. 4 under a concocted design with other conspirators just to defame the judiciary for the reference period of December 2012 when the nation was already reeling under violence of sexual allegations and conspiracy theories. B. Because under their concocted conspiracy, the Respondent No. 5 also promptly published Respondent No.4s interview in their online edition but again did not disclose name, place, time and date of the incident(s). Such diaphanous publication, masquerading as a feminist manifesto, is only to veil and distract from the concocted and flimsy nature of their conspiracy. C. Because Times of India, Respondent No. 2, having utter motive, published the same story merely on the basis of aforesaid publication in a blog and the subsequent Legal India interview. Apparently the Respondent No. 2 does not care to verify facts on its own when it comes to tarnishing the image and reputation of the Judiciary, the Supreme Court and its retired judges. In fact R2 tried only to highlight this story resulting to defame judicial image. It is not news but is a defamatory publication may be paid publication to tarnish judiciary faith and image in the world. D. Because the impugned story is not even a part of any court proceeding, FIR or complaint filed in writing by any one. So it does not come within the definition of news too. It is a mirage of steamy smoke and mirrors created at the behest of industrialists

8
and politicians deeply scarred by the potent actions of this Honble Court upon them. E. Because the strange move of learned Attorney General to block and delay the already instituted inquiry, despite possessing knowledge about the mornings mentioning, also appears as being done at the behest of his political bosses to damage the sterling reputation of the judiciary and so that further rumors and innuendos may circulate against this Honble Court in particular. F. Because It needs answering how the Attorney General could file a petition so fast, presumably after due application of his own mind, upon publication by the Times of India that morning, without his having the prior knowledge of it. G. Because the sole object of the Respondent No. 4, 5 & 6, to publish blog posts, the subsequent interview in Legallyindia.com and publication by Times of India along with the ready to hand petition by learned Attorney General for action within Vishaka judgment, is only to create a prolonged media circus to tarnish the image and goodwill of the Supreme Court, its Judges and their reputation upon vague, and by their makers own admission, unprovable, allegations of sexual harassment made by a lady law intern with no professional standing. H. Because after the above said publication a few names have already started to be abused and discussed all over India to portray a defamatory visage of the Supreme Courts judicial goodwill and reputation. A group of government counsels has already started to bandy about that the committee will not disclose the real truth but will whitewash the entire scenario. Therefore via such besmirching tactics the political bosses have

9
already succeeded in tarnishing image of a Supreme Court judge by concocted publication. Such publication, without serious evidence, done by the Time of India and followed up by a Petition from the learned attorney General is a serious concern if left unpunished. I. Because the Petitioner learns through ancient books, disclosed and established several times over, that a lady rarely speaks truth for solely Truths sake. Frailty thy name is woman once said the Bard of Avon. For short benefit or for revenge or for denial a woman can go to any extent to wreak revenge. ! Heaven hath no
rage like love to hatred turned, nor hell a fury like a woman scorned.

Empires have fought and fallen due to a ladys ego, desire and ambition; from fair Helen of Troy to Cleopatra to Indias very own disrobed epic queens. Statement of Such lady cannot be relied as a true at all as they never speak true for short gain, revenge and also under conspiracy as has been hatched herein. J. Because Stella James, who gave such defamatory interview and comments, must be required to file an affidavit as evidence in support of her serious innuendoes and allegations, and these evidences must be placed in the public domain pending inquiry to quell and quash the vicious rumor mongers. K. Because learned Attorney General was also under a legal duty to peruse the entire scenario and call for facts from administrative sources like CBI and others and to take steps accordingly, but it is evident that he only acted under direction of his political bosses merely to defame and push a hearsay story under the scope of Vishaka judgment when the Respondent No.4 herself admittedly wanted no such thing.

10
L. Because Respondent No. 6 had never cared to herself approach the proper authorities for action against the judge(s) even when the entire nation was in a frenzy over such concerns and the Government had constituted the Justice J.S.Verma Committee on 23.12.2012 to hear from such victims such as she till 06.01.2013. M. Because any genuinely affected / concerned feminist lady victim sexually assaulted on or around 24.12.2012, and that to one with legal knowledge & belong to foreign culture/society, would have jumped through hoops to assist such a prestigious committee of Indias senior legal eminences to ensure that the right thing gets done for the women in India, including by striking down various discriminatory feminist laws which ensure that aged women and unmarried girls are harassed on motivated complaints brought by ladies admitted into their homes through marriage. N. Because Legallyindia.com, a foreign company, have all intention to defame Indian judiciary for their own various object as our country is facing various hardship and it might be a part of such international malafied campaign to tarnish image of the Indian Judiciary. Therefore an investigation must be conducted against the respondent no.4 , 5 and 6 for further proper action. O. Because petitioner apprehends that it is also a foreign conspiracy to defame India in either manner. If such foreign companies are not called upon for clarification and legal action it will be opened a Pindara box in future for such type of statements to tarnish reputation, faith and judicial system of India. Such action by foreign company should not be left lightly in any circumstances.

11
8. That Petitioner has not filed any other petition for the subject matter either before this Honble Supreme Court or in any High Court for the relief as prayed for. PRAYER Therefore within the aforesaid facts and circumstances and in the interest of citizens of India for justice, equity and fair play this Honble court a. Be pleased to call judicial enquiry against the respondent no. 2, 4, 5 & 6 within the supervision of this Honble court and to prosecute the respondent no. 2, 4 ,5 & 6 for their concocted criminal conspiracy against the Indian judicial systems. AND b. Be pleased to direct CBI to collect all true facts and evidence and to file their report before the present judicial inquiry committee for further action and prosecution in accordance of law in the interest of justice AND c. Be pleased to call respondents, Times of India, Journal of Indian Law
and Society, Legallyindia.com@privatemonster.com and its registrar

M/s Mesh Digital Ltd, to explain about irresponsible publication of such statement, without having/publishing any evidence in support of such statements, for proper action within the contempt of court act and in accordance of law of the country to provide complete justice to the Petitioner. AND d. Pass such other order or further orders, as this Honble court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case. AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS, THE PETITIONER AS IS DUTY BOUND SHALL EVER PRAY. Drawn & settled by: Filed by: Manohar Lal Sharma Advocate Petitioner-in-person

Manohar Lal Sharma Advocate Drawn on : 12.11.2013 Filed on : 16.11.2013

12
"#!$%&!'()*&+&!,-(*$!-.!"#/"0! ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Writ Petition (Crl.) no. IN THE MATTER OF Manohar Lal Sharma Advocate Versus Central Bureau of Investigation & Others AFFIDAVIT I, Manohar Lal Sharma S/O Late Shri P.L. Sharma, practicing advocate presently practicing in Supreme Court at S.C.B.A.Lib. No.-1 Supreme Court of India, New Delhi, Petitioner do hereby solemnly affirm, state and declares as under 1. That I am the petitioner in the above writ petition and as such I am aware of the facts of this case and I am competent to swear this affidavit. 2. That contents of this accompanied writ & contents of the date of events ( page B ) writ petition (para 1-8) and (pages 1-11) are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. 3. That filed copy of the annexure P-1 colly to P-3 are true and correct to their original. Deponent Verification I , the above named deponent do hereby declare and verify on oath that the contents of this affidavit are true to my knowledge ,nothing material has been concealed therefrom and no part of it is false. Verified at New Delhi on this 16.11.2013 DEPONENT Respondents Petitioner OF 2013

13

INDEX

1. LISTING PROFROMA 2. DATE OF EVENTS 3. Writ Petition with affidavit 4. Annexure P-1 colly
a. True copy of the Statement of Stella James published by Journal of Indian law and society dt 6.11.2013 b. True copy of the times India news paper publication dt 12.11.2013

A-A1 B 1-12

13-14

15-16

5. Annexure P-2
True copy of e-mail dt 12.11.2013 Sent to Stella James

17 18-22

6. Annexure P-3
True Copy of legallyindia.com website whois and analysis report dt 16.11.2013

14
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Writ Petition (Crl.) no. IN THE MATTER OF Manohar Lal Sharma Advocate Versus Central Bureau of Investigation & Others Respondents Petitioner OF 2013

WITH PAPER BOOK FOR INDEX PLEASE SEE INSIDE Petitioner in person Manohar Lal Sharma Advocate Mob:9810279220

15
Synopsis and Date of Events Sheer statement /reference of sexual harassment without evidence cannot be based for a prima facies offence within the present scenario as stated by a lady intern belongs to foreign culture/society. Principle of a Indian girl of a Indian society cannot be applied upon a lay belong to foreign culture/society. However foreign company legallyindia.com & others

adopted an action for tarnishing image of the Honble Supreme court judges and Indian Judiciary under concocted political conspiracy. However Upon petitioner mentioning/ request three judges judicial committee has been formed to inquire subject matter but injury / damage already done due to such irresponsible publication by Indian media i.e. Journal of Indian law and society and Times of India what cannot be repaired. This are not news but is a paid publication. True facts and dates are as follow:6.11.2013 Journal for India law and society published statement of Stella James as reference about sexual harassment by one of the recent retired supreme court Judges. 12.11.2103 12.11.2013 Times of India re-published the same news. Petitioner mentioned before the Honble CJI and a judicial committee has been constituted for Action. 12.11.2103 at 2.15 p.m. Learned attorney general, without having any evidence in hand and any enquiry, mentioned about his petition for taking action within Vishaka Judgment.
16.11.2103 Knowing about the facts & foreign company involvement and its conspiracy & other facts petitioner is filing the present petition for further action to protect judicial defamation and against the concocted conspiracy played by the respondent no.2 to 6.