Activist Saket Gokhale writes a letter to CJI alleging SC registry’s attempt to stall his PIL Writ Petition
Activist Saket Gokhale has written a letter to the Chief Justice of India requesting him to look into the matter of some one in Supreme Court trying to protect PM Modi in a petition filed by him
Activist Saket Gokhale, a vocal critic of Prime Minister Modi, has now written a letter to the Chief Justice of India asking him to look into his writ petition. He has alleged that someone in the Supreme Court is trying to protect PM Modi in the case of a writ petition filed by him with respect to undeclared assets in PM Modi’s election affidavits.
In April this year, Saket Gokhale filed a PIL in the Supreme Court seeking a probe into the Prime Minister’s undeclared assets. He was first given a list of defects asking him to file the PIL again. He corrected the flaws almost immediately. He then kept checking the status of the PIL again and again on the website, but it was not cleared.
When he asked the SC registry why the petition has not been cleared yet, he was called to the SC registry for a discussion about more of the “defects” that had popped up in the PIL. Some defects that he had corrected, were there again, and surprisingly, Gokhale was questioned as to why respondent no. 3 (Prime Minister Narendra Modi) was made party. This was a redundant question because the PIL was about PM Modi’s undeclared assets.
He has now written a letter to the Hon. Chief Justice of India, because even after repeated inquiries into the status of his petition and correcting several defects, he is always asked the same thing. Referring to his letter to the CJI, he tweeted that he is praying for the CJI’s kind intervention into his allegation that the Supreme Court registry is preventing the listing of his PIL against PM Narendra Modi.
His letter has the entire sequence of events with the registry listed in it without any prejudice to the details of his PIL.
He shared the letter on social media, describing all the events which led to him finally write to the CJI, seeking redressal for his problems.
He has, in his letter requested the Chief Justice of India to explain to him, a person who is not a lawyer, why he is being questioned on the inclusion of the Prime Minister as a party to his petition. He has asked why his explanation was not taken heed of and questioned why a layman such as him is being prevented from getting his petition up on the listing.
Here is an excerpt from his letter:
“Milord, without getting into the minute details of my case or prejudicing it. I just wish to bring to your notice that my Writ Petition pertains to discrepancies about details on land properties in Gujarat owned by the Honorable Prime Minister which were not declared in his election affidavit.
My petition and prayer specifically pertains to these landholdings of the
Honorable Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
Moreover, one of the Annexures I've relied on in support of my petition is a list of
assets and liabilities of Shri Narendra Modi declared by him in his capacity as the
Prime Minister along with assets and liabilities of other Union Cabinet Ministers
on the PM India website.
I tried explaining this at the Supreme Court registry but my explanation was not
taken heed of.
As a person who is not an advocate/lawyer, I am unable to understand the Supreme
Court Registry demand asking me to explain why has the Prime Minister been
made a party" especially when my Writ Petition pertains to the immovable assets
of the Prime Minister himself.
Moreover, I explained to the registry official that deciding the validity of my listed
respondents and whether to ask me to clarify/dismiss the petition is the prerogative
of the Honorable Judges of the Supreme Court after my petition comes up for
Milord, I believe that there are elements in the Supreme Court registry that are
preventing my petition from being listed for hearing because Respondent Number
3 - the Honorable Prime Minister of India - is a powerful person and is being
protected. The absurd clarification demanded by the Supreme Court Registry,
prima facie, makes me believe that.”