Why has Shri. Rashid Khan declined the Rs. 400 Crores offer from a former Supreme Court Judge?
- Shri. Rahid Khan, said he shall never compromise with a person who is corrupt, anti-national and who has polluted the temple of Justice.
Rashid Khan Pathan
Human Rights Security Council
- Shri. Rahid Khan has filed petition in Supreme Court for interim compensation and shall further claim a compensation of Rs. 1,000 crores from the Trial Court and also demand that punishment be mete out to Justice (Retd.) Deepak Gupta and others.
- Lakhs of people to assemble in Delhi upon easing of situation of lockdown to arrest the accused
- Accused Adv. Fali Nariman, Justice (Retd.) Deepak Gupta and others tried to influence Indian citizens to support the Pakistani and Chinese army and have provoked the Indians to speak against Indian Army, Indian government and other Institutions, under the garb of ‘Freedom of Speech’ and ‘Right to Dissent’.
jastice Dipak Gupta
Adv. Fali Nariman
- The complainant Shri. Rashid Khan Pathan who exposed these accused and their syndicate was first threatened with Contempt proceedings and then he was offered Rs. 400 crores for withdrawing his Complaint.
New Delhi :- Renowned Human Rights activist Shri. Rashid Khan Pathan has briefed the media as to why he has refused to accept the offer of Rs. 400 crores from Justice (Retd.) Deepak Gupta and others.
In his response, Shri. Rashid Khan Pathan said;
“Firstly, my complaint is against the anti-national and corrupt elements like Adv. Fali Nariman, Justice (Retd.) Deepak Gupta and others. Hence the question of compromising does not arise.
Secondly, like any upright citizen of this country, I am taking a legal recourse and claiming a compensation of Rs. 1,000 Crore compensation and also demand that the accused Judges be punished for life imprisonment under sections 409, 123, 124-A, 120(B), 34, 469, 471, 474, 192,193,167, 220, 211 etc. of Indian Penal Code"
The background of the case is that the Retd. Supreme court Judge Deepak Gupta and Adv. Fali Nariman are running a syndicate and working towards supporting Pakistani and Chinese Army and in turn, demoralising our Indian Army.
The charge against them as summarised in the complaint is as under;
Main accused Adv. Fali Nariman hatched a Criminal Conspiracy to promote the feelings of hostility to the Indian Army, Police and Government and support enemy Pakistan, Chinese Army and in furtherance of malafide intention to execute said conspiracy published an article on 17.02.2016 in Indian Express under the heading ‘To be Anti Indian is not an offence’ with malafide intention to provide intellectual and moral support to pro-Pakistani pro- Chinese forces and to make public indisposed to obey or support the laws of the realm and Constitution and to promote discontent and public disorder, excite disaffection,hatred and instigating the public to work for ruining the India by violence, terrorism (Banduk Ke Dam Par). Said version of accused proved to be malicious and anti-national after the judgment of Delhi High Court in Kanhaiya Kumar Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) 2016 SCC OnLine Del 1326.
When informant Rashid Khan Pathan, Adv. Nilesh C. Ojha tried to pursue the case before police against these accused, then the accused took the help of Adv. Milind Sathe, Mr. Kaiwan Kalyaniwalla, Justice Rohinton Nariman, Justice Deepak Gupta, Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Adv. Dushyant Dave and Adv. Siddharth Luthra to pressurize the witnesses and informant and misused the Supreme Court machinery to pressurize, falsely implicate and punish informant in a non - existent false and frivolous case by disobeying the Constitution Bench judgments, destroying the Supreme Court records to save the accused and tried to create an atmosphere of fear amongst the law abiding patriot citizens and activists and to demoralize Indian Army and thereby committed offence of sedition and undermined the majesty and dignity of the Rule of Law and therefore all are liable to be prosecuted under section 409, 121, 123, 124-A, 167, 166, 192, 193, 199, 200, 201, 218, 219, 220, 465, 466, 471, 474, r/w 120(B), 34 & 109 of IPC.
The punishment which is likely to be mete out for Justice Deepak Gupta and others can be upto life imprisonment. Also, the black money and property amassed illegally by them can also be seized by the C.B.I. under the provisions of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
So, what is the Law of compensation to the victim of misuse of power by a Judge, under which Shri. Rashid Khan Pathan has claimed a compensation of Rs. 1,000 crores?
Mr. Rashid Khan Pathan was convicted under Contempt for a different charge which was never framed against him and also by creating false and fabricated evidences and by relying on overruled judgements.
In this regard five Judge Bench of in the case in Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj Vs Attorney General Triniad and Tobago (1978) WLR 902, had ruled that the non-framing of charge in a contempt proceeding violates the fundamental rights of the person and he is entitled for a compensation for the mistake of the judge.
In Walmik Bohde 2001 ALL MR (Cri.) 1731 the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court granted compensation for unlawful detention of the petitioner due to the mistake of the judge.
In recent judgement in Sarvapalli Radhakrishnan 2019 SCC OnLine SC 51, Full Bench of the Supreme Court granted Rs. 5 crores interim compensation to be paid by the party who took plea based on the false and fabricated evidences.
Similar law is laid down in S. Vambi Narayan (2018) 10 SCC 804 , Mahmood Azam (2012) 8 SCC 1.
In Veena Sippy 2012 SCC OnLine Bom 339, the petitioner had claimed Rs. 10 Crore compensation as compared to 100 crore paid to Justice (Retd.) P. B. Sawant for defaming him for half an hour for an offence of P. F. Scam in which he was not involved.
In Veena Sippy 2012 SCC OnLine Bom 339, the Court had observed that, Court can grant interim compensation in a Writ Petition and that the petitioner is at liberty to file his case for any amount of compensation before the Trial Court.
Mr. Rashid Khan Pathan shall soon be filing a case for defamation under sections 469,500,501 r/w 120(B) and 34 of I.P.C. and as per sections 357(3) of Cr. P. C. and as per law and ratio laid down in Veena Sippy’s Case he is claiming Rs. 1000 Crore compensation before trial court and Rs. 5 Crores interim compensation before Supreme Court.
In AIR 1969 Pat 194 ( Shailajanand Pande Vs. Gupta ), it is laid down that if a Judge acts without jurisdiction and negligently or in a reckless manner in the matter of arrest of a person, then such Judge is not protected and he is bound to pay the compensation.
In AIR 1994 SC 787 (Lucknow Development Authority Vs. M. K. Gupta) it is ruled that when a Judge commits mistake then compensation has to be recovered from that Judge only.
Adv. Nilesh Ojha
Indian Bar Association
Adv. Vijay Kurle
Maharashtra &Goa State President
Indian Bar Association