1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

Writ Petition (CRL.)

of 2013

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.

Petitioner
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

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

Manohar Lal Sharma Advocate

Drawn on : 12.11.2013
Filed on : 16.11.2013

Petitioner-in-person

12
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
Writ Petition (Crl.) no.

OF 2013

IN THE MATTER OF
Manohar Lal Sharma Advocate

Petitioner

Versus
Central Bureau of Investigation & Others

Respondents

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

13

INDEX

1. LISTING PROFROMA

A-A1

2. DATE OF EVENTS

3. Writ Petition with affidavit

1-12

4. Annexure P-1 colly

a. True copy of the Statement of Stella James
published by Journal of Indian law and society dt

13-14

6.11.2013
b. True copy of the times India news paper publication

15-16

dt 12.11.2013

5. Annexure P-2

17

True copy of e-mail dt 12.11.2013 Sent to Stella James

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

18-22

14
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
Writ Petition (Crl.) no.

OF 2013

IN THE MATTER OF
Manohar Lal Sharma Advocate

Petitioner

Versus
Central Bureau of Investigation & Others

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

Respondents

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

Times of India re-published the same news.

12.11.2013

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.