original writ jurisdiction and in the matter of …€¦ · shashi tharoor, dr. rajeev bhasin and...

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

ORIGINAL WRIT JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. OF 2017

AND

IN THE MATTER OF A PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

IN THE MATTER OF:

Dr. Subramanian Swamy & Anr. PETITIONERS

Vs

Delhi Police & Others RESPONDENTS

INDEX

S. No Particulars Page No.

1. Urgent Application

2. Notice of Motion

3. Memo of Parties

4. Synopsis and List of Dates

5. Writ Petition and Affidavits in Support of

the Petitioners

6. ANNEXURE P-1

Being the relevant pages of post-mortem

report no. 77/14 dated 18/01/2014 by the

Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com)

AIIMS Medical Board.

7. ANNEXURE P-2

Being the emails exchanged between Dr.

Shashi Tharoor, Dr. Rajeev Bhasin and Dr.

Anil Gupta.

8. ANNEXURE P-3

Being the copy of relevant pages of the

Subsequent Medical Opinion given by

AIIMS dated 27th

September, 2014.

9. ANNEXURE P-4

Being the copy of letter written by Dr.

Swamy to the Home Minister requesting to

order an SIT investigation headed by the

CBI to enquire into the death of Sunanda

Pushkar.

10. ANNEXURE P-5

Being the copy of relevant pages of the

Subsequent Medical Opinion given by

AIIMS dated 12th

January, 2016.

11. ANNEXURE P-6

Being the copy of letter sent by Hansraj

Gangaram Ahir, the Minister for Home

Affairs to Dr. Swamy rejecting his request


to constitute a multiple agency Special

Investigation Team.

PETITIONERS IN PERSON: DR. SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY

ISHKARAN SINGH BHANDARI

AB 14 Pandara Road, New Delhi 110003;

………Mobile No: 98101 70087

Email: [email protected]

New Delhi

Date




WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. OF 2017

AND


IN THE MATTER OF:


Vs


URGENT APPLICATION

Deputy Registrar

High Court of Delhi, New Delhi

Sir,

Will you kindly treat the accompanying petition and application

as an urgent one in accordance with the High Court Rules and Orders.

The grounds of urgency are that this is a Public Interest

Litigation, and very influential people are involved in the case,

leading to attempts to protect them and the matter has faced a lot of

unnecessary delay already.


It is prayed that the matter be listed on

Yours Faithfully,




………Mobile No: 98101 70087


New Delhi

Date




WRIT PETITION (Criminal) NO. OF 2017

AND


IN THE MATTER OF:


Vs


NOTICE OF MOTION

Sir,

The enclosed writ petition by the petitioners is coming up for hearing

on ________________________




………Mobile No: 98101 70087


New Delhi




WRIT PETITION (Criminal) NO. OF 2017

AND


MEMO OF PARTIES

1. Dr. Subramanian Swamy

AB 14 Pandara Road,

New Delhi 110003

2. Ishkaran Singh Bhandari

AB 14 Pandara Road,

New Delhi 110003 PETITIONERS

Vs

1. Delhi Police through Commissioner of Police

MSO Building, IP Estate,

New Delhi 110095

2. Ministry of Home Affairs through Secretary

North Block,

New Delhi 110011

3. Central Bureau of Investigation through CBI Director


Plot No. 5-B, 6th Floor,

CGO Complex, Lodhi Road,

New Delhi 110003 RESPONDENTS




………Mobile No: 98101 70087


New Delhi

Date


SYNOPSIS

1) The instant Writ Petition seeks a writ/ direction from this Hon‟ble

Court ordering the setting up of CBI headed SIT to investigate in a

time bound manner under a court monitored mechanism under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 the murder case of

Late Sunanda Pushkar in which inordinate delays has been caused

which is a blot on the justice system.

2) The objective of penal law and the societal interest in setting the

criminal law in motion against the offenders with reasonable

expedition is thereby frustrated. The adverse effect of delay on the

society at large is immeasurable. The fear of law and the faith in the

criminal justice system is eroded irretrievably.

3) The case referred to in this Writ Petition is an extreme example of

the slow-motion of the criminal justice process and the extent to

which it can be subverted by the rich and influential. It unfolds the

apparent apathy on the part of all those concerned with the

administration of criminal justice.

4) The fact that influential political personalities and their henchmen

are involved in this case presents an added dimension to the issue

and raises questions on the efficacy of the existing systems and

practices to counter the moves of such influential persons facing

serious criminal charges.

5) Public interest demands that the criminal cases especially those

related to serious crimes are concluded within a reasonable time so

that those guilty are punished. People get frustrated with the system


and lose faith in the rule of law, if at every stage there is delay and

the process of justice is not allowed to take its normal course, more

so, when deliberate attempts are made to subvert and delay the

process to favour influential people.

LIST OF DATES AND EVENTS

S.No Date Event

1. On the night of

January 17 2014

There occurred a mysterious death of Ms.

Sunanda Pushkar wife of a politician and

then Minister of the UPA government Dr.

Shashi Tharoor. No case was registered

and the phone of the deceased which was

handed over to Dr. Tharoor.

2. January 18 2014 Cremation was done within 24 hours of

her death which is not a general practice

in criminal jurisprudence.

3. January 19 2014 Medical Board stated that Pictures of

crime scene, statements / reports of the

doctor who first examined Sunanda after

her death and other circumstantial

evidences required to form a medical

opinion was not submitted by the IO.

Then Union Health Minister and Director

AIIMS presurrized the HOD of forensic

department AIIMS Dr.Sudhir K. Gupta to


tamper with the post-mortem report.

4. January 20, 2014 The post-mortem report and the opinion

vide PM report no. 77/14 of deceased

Sunanda Pushkar were handed over to the

Investigating Sub Divisional Magistrate,

Vasant Vihar, Mr. Alok Sharma as below

:- “ Cause of death as poisoning .

Circumstantial are suggestive of

alprazolam poisoning.”

5. January 26th 2014 Mr. Shashi Tharoor wrote an email to Dr.

Rajiv Bhasin and Mr. Anil Chatta which

has been discussed in Subsequent Medical

Opinion by Department of Forensic

Medicine and Toxicology AIIMS, New

Delhi, dated 27th September, 2014 as

requiring investigation.

6. February 12th 2014 The email of Dr. Anil Gupta, who was a

child specialist at Dubai and a close

family friend of Sunanda Pushkar, has

also been discussed in Subsequent

Medical Opinion by Department of

Forensic Medicine and Toxicology

AIIMS, New Delhi, dated 27th September,

2014 as requiring investigation.

7. March 29th 2014 The IO moved an application for medical


opinion with the CFSL, CBI, Delhi.

Report of viscera which contradicted the

above PM report and viscera showed that

no Alprazolam was present. However the

medical board reiterated the death is due

to poisoning.

8. July 14th 2014 An application was sent by Dr. Swamy to

the Home Minister requesting to order an

SIT investigation headed by the CBI to

enquire into the death of Sunanda

Pushkar.

9. August 28th 2014 IO submitted another retest of viscera

report from FSL, Delhi which again

contradicted the above PM report as the

test showed no Alprazolam. However the

medical board reiterated that the death is

due to poisoning.

10. September 2014 Nine months after she was found

mysteriously dead in a hotel room, Delhi

Police woke up to find that some of the

personal belongings of Sunanda Pushkar

had been missing all this while

11. September 27th 2014 Medical Board gave a comprehensive

subsequent opinion which raised 13

questions which were essentially required


to be addressed, with apprehension of

viscera report and no satisfactory

compliance was performed by the Police

in this context till date.

12. October 1st 2014 It took more than nine months for IO to

submit documents like photographs,

statements of witnesses.

13. October 6th 2014 The statement of Dr. Shashi Tharoor was

recorded after nine months of inordinate

delay from the death of Sunanda Pushkar

and he was not even compelled by the

Police to give a statement on time as is

usually the case in a murder investigation.

14. October 29th 2014 IO further submitted a request letter to

undertake crime scene visit at Hotel Leela,

which was subsequently arranged on 5th

November, 2014.

15. November 5th 2014 When the Medical Board and forensic

Scientists undertook the crime scene after

nine months, fresh evidences were

discovered which were earlier ignored by

the Delhi Police.

16. November 7th 2014 Cloth parcels for laboratory examination

were received by CFSL


17. December 1st 2014 It took months to record statements from

various doctors regarding Sunanda‟s

medical history prior to her death.

18. December 9th 2014 Examination regarding the cloth parcel

received on 7th Nov, 2014 was

commenced.

19. December 29th 2014 The medical board submitted the opinion

giving various inputs for scientific

investigation and reiterating certain

specific points which led to sending the

viscera to FBI, USA.

20. January 1st 2015 A case of murder was registered.

21. September 9th 2015 FBI reports detected Alprazolam and

Lidocaine in all the viscera samples and

cloth samples which confirmed and

endorsed the PM report no. 77/14, dated

20.01.2014, of AIIMS medical Board.


22. December 9th 2015 FBI reports submitted to AIIMS Medical

Board for final opinion on cause of death

which concluded that cause of death in

this case as poisoning and confirmed the

death due to excessive ingestion of tablet

Alprax and also did not rule out the

presence of Lidocaine which is an

injectable poison.

23. August 23rd 2016 Hansraj Gangaram Ahir, the Minister of

State for Home Affairs rejected the

request of Dr. Swamy to constitute a

multiple agency Special Investigation

Team.




WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. _________ OF 2017

AND


IN THE MATTER OF:


Vs


WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING FOR AN

APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION FOR A

COURT MONITORED INVESTIGATION IN THE ABOVE

MURDER CASE.

To the Chief Justice of Delhi and

His Companion Judges

of the Delhi High Court.


THE HUMBLE PETITION OF THE PETITIONER ABOVE

NAMED MOST RESPECTFULLY STATES AS UNDER:

1. That the Petitioners have no personal interest in the litigation

and the petition is not guided by self-gain or the gain of any

other person/institution/ body and there is no motive other than

public interest in filing the writ petition.

2. That the facts in the writ petition are obtained from newspaper

reports, and from certain court cases on the matter, followed up

by painstaking research checked out with reliable sources who

resisted the attempts of subjugation and undue influence.

3. That the Writ Petition has been filed for all citizens of India,

whose security is liable to be affected by the actions

complained of. It is humbly submitted that these persons, not

being privy to all the facts and lacking the skill and expertise to

do so follow them up, are incapable of accessing the Courts

themselves.

4. That the Petitioner No. 1 is a nationally known public figure,

active in politics and public affairs. He is deeply concerned

with the protection of the Rule of Law and the enforcement of

the statutory duties of the Government as well as purity in

public life.

A. The Petitioner holds a doctorate in Economics from the

world famous Harvard University in the U.S.A., where,


before returning to India he had taught Economics – and

he has continued to teach there for some decades in the

summer semester; and he had also taught Economics at

the Indian Institute of Technology in Delhi, as a full

Professor. He is a senior politician, a Member of

Parliament for five terms, who has been a senior Cabinet

Minister in the Central Government, holding the

portfolios of Commerce and Law & Justice, and later he

was Chairman of the Commission for Labour Standards,

a post of Cabinet Rank. Twice he has been elected to the

Rajya Sabha from the State of Uttar Pradesh, to the Lok

Sabha twice from Maharashtra and once from the State of

Tamil Nadu. He has numerous books and articles to his

credit. He has lectured both in India and abroad on

national concerns as well as on Economics. He has

initiated and conscientiously fought many public interest

litigations. He regards this as a duty he owes his country.

B. In particular, the Petitioner No. 1 being a bona fide law

abiding citizen believes that it is his duty to set into

motion the legal process when grave offences which

affect the society at large are brought to his notice which,

in his opinion ,cause a grave miscarriage of justice. It is


this duty he seeks to perform in the instant case, as set

out herein below.

C. Ever since Petitioner No. 1 entered politics in or about

1970, the Petitioner has deemed it his duty to fight

corruption and authoritarianism. He has ever since been a

rallying point in fighting corruption and autocracy in

public life. He has filed a number of Public Interest

Litigations against corruption and other public issues

both in this Hon‟ble Court and in various High Courts in

India. For instance, in the last decade, the Petitioner was

instrumental in exposing the mammoth corruption

involved in the allocation by the Union Government, of

2G Spectrum; where after the Hon‟ble Supreme Court is

monitoring the matter in C.A. No. 10660/2010 in which

matter the Petitioner is an impleaded party.

D. The Petitioner No. 2 is a lawyer of ten years standing and

has previously filed a Public Interest Litigation in the

infamous “Nirbhaya rape case” challenging the Juvenile

Justice (Care and Protection of Protection) Act, 2000 in

which the Hon‟ble Supreme Court had issued a notice

and a separate detailed order upholding its

maintainability. That later the Parliament had amended

the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Protection)


Act, 2015 and incorporated the changes sought by the

Petitioner.

E. The Petitioners are personally bearing the cost of this

Writ Petition.

F. The Petitioners have the means to pay the costs of if any,

imposed by this Hon‟ble Court and on an undertaking to

the Hon‟ble Court in that respect.

5. That the Petitioner has been pursuing these matters as set out

herein below, most notably in a representation to the Prime

Minister.

6. That the Petitioner has previously filed a very large number of

PIL‟s, too numerous to enumerate, two recent sample matters,

both the well-known 2G Spectrum cases are given below :

No.of the case Status Outcome

W.P.(C) No.10/2011 in

the Supreme Court of

India

Disposed off Allowed

(2012)3SCC1

C.A. No.1193/2012 in

the Supreme Court of

India

Disposed off Allowed

(2012)3SCC64


7. That the instant Writ Petition seeks a pronouncement from this

Hon‟ble Court ordering the setting up of CBI headed SIT to

investigate under a court monitored mechanism under Article

226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 in the murder case of

Late Sunanda Pushkar in which inordinate delays have been

caused which are a blot on justice system. The objective of

penal law and the societal interest in setting the criminal law

into motion against the offenders with reasonable expedition is

thereby frustrated. The adverse effect of delay on the society at

large is immeasurable. The fear of law and the faith in the

criminal justice system is eroded irretrievably. The case

referred to in this Writ Petition is an extreme example of the

slow-motion of criminal justice process and the extent to which

it can be subverted. It unfolds the apparent apathy on the part of

all those concerned with administration of criminal justice.

8. That the fact that influential political personalities and their

henchmen are involved in this case presents an added

dimension to the issue and raises questions on the efficacy of

the existing systems and practices to counter the moves of such

influential persons facing serious criminal charges.

9. FACTS:


A. That 3 years since the murder of a prominent woman and

wife of a Union Minister, no accused persons have been

arrested by the Police.

B. That even after lapse of 3 years from the murder of wife

of a Union Minister, no charge-sheet has been filed.

C. That in cases where the investigation agency takes

inordinate delay to protect powerful and influential

accused, a court monitored probe has to be ordered.

D. That initially in the murder case of Late Sunanda

Pushkar, no case was registered, preliminary reports

suggested that death was caused due to drug overdose

namely “Alprax” which was found at the scene of crime.

However, subsequently it was found that Alprax was

never prescribed by any doctor for the deceased.

E. No medicines or tablets were seized from the room till

19th January, 2014.

F. Dr. Tharoor in his statement given to police dated – 6th

October, 2014 mentioned in his letter that “As regards

Alprax 0.5, I wish to state that my late wife used to take

this to enable her to sleep, who prescribed or suggested

alprax to her is unknown to me”, also he stated that “I

had never used Alprax and was not even aware of it till

my wife mentioned it to me that she relied on it to sleep.


To my best of my knowledge nobody in my household,

including Narayan nor Bajrangi, use Alprax or any

similar medication.”

G. That after the hospitalization of Dr. Tharoor in AIIMS at

2.55 mornings on 18.1.2014 vides 2014/030/0005245 on

complaint of uneasiness and palpitation, Aspirin and

Alprax were prescribed after examination.

H. The post-mortem report and the opinion vide PM report

no. 77/14 of deceased Sunanda Pushkar were handed

over to the investigating sub divisional Magistrate ,

Vasant Vihar , Mr. Alok Sharma as below :- “ Cause of

death as poisoning . Circumstantial are suggestive of

alprazolam poisoning. All the injuries mentioned are

caused by blunt forces, simple in nature, not contributing

to death and are produced in scuffle except injury no. 10

which is an injection mark. Injury no. 12 is a teeth bite

mark”, the relevant pages of post-mortem report no.

77/14 dated 17/01/2014 by IO Alok Sharma, SDM of

Vasant Vihar is annexed hereto as ANNEXURE P-1.

I. On 26th

January 2014, Mr. Shashi Tharoor wrote an email

to Dr. Rajiv Bhasin and Mr. Anil Chatta is being quoted

verbatim here as: “Thanks Rajiv. I am forwarding this to

the attention of Dr. Mishra of AIIMS through our mutual


friend Anil Chatta. I recall our fear that without regular

hydration and salt intake she could suffer from recurring

episodes of dangerously low blood pressure, clearly this

must have occurred since she was not eating or drinking

properly for two or three days.” The copy of the emails

exchanged between Dr. Shashi Tharoor, Dr. Rajeev

Bhasin and Dr. Anil Gupta is annexed hereto as

ANNEXURE P-2.

J. This email has been discussed in point no. 11 in

Subsequent Medical Opinion by Department of Forensic

Medicine and Toxicology AIIMS, New Delhi, dated 27th

September, 2014 as requiring investigation. The copy of

relevant pages of the above mentioned medical opinion

given by AIIMS is hereto annexed as ANNEXURE P-3.

K. The email of Dr. Anil Gupta who was a child specialist at

Dubai and a close family friend of Sunanda Pushkar has

been discussed in point no. 12 in Subsequent Medical

Opinion by Department of Forensic Medicine and

Toxicology AIIMS, New Delhi, dated 27th

September,

2014 as requiring investigation. He stated the following

in his email:

i. The deceased told him that she had Lupus and was

consulting an expert for the same.


ii. She had several episodes of plummeting blood

pressure for which I urged her to seek attention of

specialists.

iii. She used to bruise easily and a mere injunction for

blood tests bumping into a piece of furniture could

result in visible bruising.

L. On 29th

March 2014, the IO moved an application for

medical opinion with the CFSL, CBI, Delhi report of

viscera which contradicted the above PM report and

viscera showed that NO ALPRAZOLAM was present.

However the medical board reiterated the death is due to

poisoning.

M. On July 14th July 2014, a letter was sent by Dr. Swamy to

the Home Minister requesting to order an SIT

investigation headed by the CBI to enquire into the death

of Sunanda Pushkar. A copy of the above mentioned

letter is attached hereto as ANNEXURE P-4.

N. Nine months after she was found mysteriously dead in a

hotel room , the Delhi Police woke up to find that some

of the personnel belongings (clothes, footwear, handbag)

of Sunanda Pushkar have been missing all this while.

This clearly shows a botched investigation, done at the

behest of rich and influential.


O. Medical Board gave a comprehensive subsequent opinion

which raised 13 questions which were essentially

required to be addressed, with apprehension of viscera

report, to lead the investigation in the interests of truth

and justice. No satisfactory compliance was performed

by the Police in this context till date.

P. The Medical Board perused all the 211 pages documents

of KIMS submitted by the IO of the deceased and did not

find any abnormal signs or tests, indicating her perfectly

good health.

Q. It took more than nine months for IO to submit

documents like photographs, statements of witnesses.

R. The statement of Dr. Shashi Tharoor was recorded after

nine months of inordinate delay from the death of

Sunanda Pushkar and he was not even compelled by the

Police to give a statement on time as is usually the case

in a murder investigation.

S. IO further submitted a request letter to undertake crime

scene visit at Hotel Leela, which was subsequently

arranged on 5th

November, 2014. The Crime Scene visit

report was reserved with Medical Board due to certain

discrepancies.


T. Deliberate botching of investigation and desire to protect

the influential by the Delhi Police can be seen from the

fact that when the Medical Board and forensic Scientists

undertook the crime scene, fresh evidences were

discovered including broken glass pieces and fluid marks

at the crime scene, smell of urination from the lower

garment of the deceased and the bed sheet which was

earlier ignored by the Delhi Police.

U. FBI reports detected Alprazolam (exceeding prescribed

dose leads to poisoning) and Lidocaine (an

antiarrhythmic drug of heart, and may cause fatality if

administered intravenously) in all the viscera samples i.e.

stomach and its contents, spleen, liver section, half of

each kidney, blood sample, as well as clothing, bed cover

and bed sheet which confirmed and endorsed the PM

report no. 77/14, dated 18.01.2014, of AIIMS medical

Board.

V. FBI reports submitted to AIIMS Board for final opinion

on cause of death. Medical Board in their opinion dated

12/01/2016 concluded that cause of death in this case as

poisoning and confirmed the death due to excessive

ingestion of tablet Alprax and also did not rule out the

presence of Lidocaine which is an injectable poison. The


copy of the relevant pages of above mentioned medical

opinion given by AIIMS is annexed hereto as

ANNEXURE P-5.

W. Hansraj Gangaram Ahir, the Minister for Home Affairs

rejected the request of Dr. Swamy to constitute a multiple

agency Special Investigation Team. The copy of above

mentioned letter is annexed hereto as ANNEXURE P-6.

10. That inordinate delay and deliberate attempts made by Dr.

Tharoor to mislead the investigation in the matter can be made

more clear from the list of events above mentioned as it

indicates that :-

i. Phone of the deceased was handed over to Tharoor

on the same day without prior investigation.

ii. Many data and dates in the phones were found

deleted after seizure by police team.

iii. Body of the deceased was cremated within 24 hrs.

iv. CCTV Footage of main porch of Hotel Leela for

relevant time is missing.

v. Sufficient input was not given to the medical board

by the IO required to form a medical opinion.

vi. The photographs of scene of occurrence have not

been submitted by IO.


vii. The HOD of the forensic department was under a

tremendous pressure of Director of AIIMS, Dr.

Tharoor and Gulam Nabi Azad to give autopsy

report as natural death and clean chit as

communicated by Dr. Gupta.

viii. The preliminary PM report no. 77/14 suggested

death due to Alprazolam poisoning and as it can be

made out that successful attempts were made to

tamper the reports as the latter followed viscera

reports sugested no presence of ALPRAZOLAM .

ix. The viscera were analysed at both the labs CFSL

as well as FSL failed to detect its presence even

when the multiple viscera samples were fresh.

Whereas, Alprazolam was detected by FBI after a

period of more than 1 ½ years in all the viscera.

The same created a legal confusion /stalled

investigation in this case for almost 3 years. This

issue shows the interference of some high profile

people as who don‟t want the truth to come out as

some big scam is behind her death and this is

required to be legally investigated, for the reasons

behind her murder.


x. In regard of the email dated 26th Jan, 2014 & 12

th

Feb. 2014 the AIIMS in its subsequent opinion

dated 12th January. 2016 have been construed that

these emails written after several days of death of

Mrs. Sunanda Pushkar are a desperate effort to

mislead the investigation.

xi. Officers concerned with the case were removed

from investigation by some or the other mode of

instrument.

xii. New facts and evidences like pieces of broken

glass, fluid marks and eatables were discovered

after 11 months of her death showing either the

incompetency or complicity of Delhi Police to

protect the influential.

xiii. It took months to record statements of the

concerned persons (Dr. Tharoor and doctors

concerned with Sunanda‟s health).

xiv. Medical Board and Forensic Scientists were taken

to the crime scene only on 5th November, 2014.

xv. It took 2 months to commence the examination of

the new evidences discovered in November, 2014.

xvi. A year long unnecessary delay was caused in

exchanging letters, collection and recording of


evidences, statements and submissions of the same

by the IO.

xvii. None of the treatment documents of Mrs. Sunanda

Pushkar had mentioned prescription of Tablet

Alprax which was found at the scene of death.

xviii. It took months to record statements from doctors

regarding Sunanda‟s medical history. Prior to her

death, she was thoroughly investigated for

Systemaic Lupus Erythematosus(SLE); however

she was not found to be suffering from Lupus or

any other serious life threatening medical illness.

The email of Dr. Anil Gupta is inconsistent with

the medical history/ reports of the deceased.

xix. During visit to scene of incidence it was noted that

several broken pieces of glass were found on the

carpet and curtains suggestive of forceful handling

of glass which is indicative of scuffle which needs

further explanation.

xx. Inspite of suspicious circumstances, statements

recorded of Nalini Singh, Narayan Singh, medical

reports, a case of murder was registered after a

year long delay on 1st January, 2015.


xxi. FBI reports detected Alprazolam and Lidocaine,

exceeding prescribed dose of Alprazolam leads to

poisoning and Lidocaine is an antiarrhythmic drug

of heart, and may cause fatality if administered

intravenously. This requires further legal

investigation as there was a presence of injection

mark over body of deceased injury no.10 and other

injuries mentioned in PM report 77/14 are

produced by scuffle suggesting that Alprazolam

was forcibly ingested in excessive quantity. There

have been reported cases of homicide by lidocaine

poisoning.

xxii. There was presence of teeth bite mark over the

body of the deceased injury no. 12 as mentioned in

PM Report 77/14 which is suggestive of struggle.

11. This writ petition is filed on the basis of the following grounds

which are set out below without prejudice to each other.

GROUNDS:

A. BECAUSE the incident took place on January 17, 2014 and till

May 26, 2014 Dr. Shashi Tharoor was a Minister in the UPA

government having a great influence in the system, he thereafter

made attempts to influence the Government to hush up the


murder case of Late Sunanda Pushkar, and remains even today

in continuous interference in the police investigation.

B. BECAUSE the Court has the power in appropriate cases, to

order a court monitored probe, where the investigation agency

reports to the Court.

C. BECAUSE the Petitioners are relying on the ratio of the

judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India in the case of

Vinay Tyagi vs. Irshad Ali@ Deepak & Ors. [(Cri. Appeal

Nos. 2040- 2041 of 2012) Para 34] which is reproduced below:

“It can safely be stated and concluded that in an appropriate

case, when the court feels that the investigation by the police

authorities is not in the proper direction and that in order to do

complete justice and where the facts of the case demand, it is

always open to the Court to hand over the investigation to a

specialised agency. These principles have been reiterated with

approval in the judgments of this Court in the case of Disha v.

State of Gujarat & Ors. [(2011) 13 SCC 337], Vineet Narain &

Ors. v. Union of India & Anr.[(1998) 1 SCC 226], Union of

India & Ors. v. Sushil Kumar Modi & Ors. [1996 (6) SCC 500]

and Rubabbuddin Sheikh v. State of Gujarat & Ors. [(2010) 2

SCC 200].”

D. BECAUSE the investigation so far conducted reveals

involvement of several political and other influential


personalities wielding considerable clout and influence to

subvert justice.

E. BECAUSE the Hon‟ble Court can order the SIT or CBI enquiry

even without the consent of State Governments under Art. 226

of the Constitution, 1950.

F. BECAUSE on the afternoon of January 15, 2014 Sunanda

tweeted that she will expose her husband Shashi Tharoor's IPL

frauds. Her tweets were sent as distress signals and hinted that

she knew something crucial regarding the IPL hoax.

G. BECAUSE on January 17th, 2014, early morning

around 4am, she sent messages to four journalists - namely

Barkha Dutt (then with NDTV), Sagarika Ghose(then with

CBB-IBN) and Rahul Kanwal (India Today) and Prema Sridevi

(then with Times Now) to come to the hotel by afternoon to

give interviews on IPL frauds. But it did not happen and before

these interviews she was murdered.

H. BECAUSE the case involves inter-State ramification as Indian

Premier League has participating teams from different states

and that is beyond the ability of Delhi Police to investigate.

I. BECAUSE the case involves international ramifications as

Indian Premier League has huge amount of money involved and

the cricketers belong to different nationalities and IPL has

international acclaim.


J. BECAUSE the matter is now clearly national and trans-national

and at least three nations‟ citizens may be involved i.e. from

India, UAE and Pakistan.

K. BECAUSE it is necessary to discover the truth or to meet the

ends of justice or to examine complex issues.

L. BECAUSE the faith of the people in Indian legal system needs

to be restored as their confidence is shaken that the wife of a

minister has been murdered in the heart of Delhi and the culprit

has not been punished even after more than three years of the

incident.

M. BECAUSE Shiny Thomas who nursed Sunanda during her stay

in KIMS stated that no marks or discoloration at the time of

discharge was present on her body while the P.M. report no.

77/14 mentions injury no. 10 as an injection mark and no

investigation has been done by the Delhi Police in this regard.

N. BECAUSE in view of the fact that unnecessary delay has been

caused.

O. BECAUSE evidences show that an attempt was made by Dr.

Tharoor through the director of AIIMS to pressurize the HOD

of forensic department AIIMS Dr. Sudhir K. Gupta, in the form

of emails, to tamper with the post-mortem report.


P. BECAUSE evidence shows that certain powerful colleagues of

Mr. Tharoor in the Union Cabinet tried to influence the

investigation and get a favourable forensic report.

Q. BECAUSE nine months after she was found mysteriously dead

in a hotel room, the Delhi Police woke up to find that some of

the personal belongings, (clothes, footwear, handbag) of

Sunanda Pushkar have been missing all this while. This clearly

shows a botched investigation.

R. BECAUSE it took more than nine months for IO to submit

documents like photographs, statements of witnesses.

S. BECAUSE after nine months of her death, statement of Dr.

Shashi Tharoor was recorded as he was busy in some work

more important than the death of his wife, nor was he

compelled by the Police to give a statement on time as is

usually the case in a murder investigation.

T. BECAUSE even after FBI reports cleanly confirm the opinion

of the Forensic Department of the All India Institute of Medical

Sciences no strict action has been taken yet.

U. BECAUSE deliberate botching of investigation and desire to

protect the influential by the Delhi Police can be seen from the

fact that when the Medical Board and forensic Scientists

undertook the crime scene, fresh evidences were discovered

including broken glass pieces and fluid marks at the crime


scene, smell of urination from the lower garment of the

deceased and the bed sheet clearly suggests fear of death which

was ignored by the Delhi Police.

V. BECAUSE as the case is totally based on circumstantial

evidence and there are no eye witnesses yet in the case, with the

long passage of time, whatever evidence is there, it will vanish

or be eclipsed. Oral evidence which in most of the cases is vital

to the prosecution, will take a devious or distorted course.

W. That it is necessary to discover the truth or to meet the ends of

justice or to examine complex issues because there has been an

attempt to cause a grave miscarriage of justice.

X. That it is necessary to restore the faith of people in the legal

system as their confidence is shaken because the wife of a

minister has been murdered in the heart of Delhi and the culprit

has not been punished even after more than three years of the

incident.

Y. That at every stage, there is delay and the process of justice is

not allowed to take its normal course, more so, when deliberate

attempts are made to subvert and delay the process.

12. That the Petitioners have not filed any writ petition in any other

court or any other petition of similar nature in any court of law

apart from the instant writ petition before this Hon‟ble Court.


13. That the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution

of India is the appropriate remedy, and no other equally

efficacious remedy is available to the Petitioner given the far

reaching public interest.

PRAYER:

The Petitioners, therefore, pray that this Hon‟ble Court may be in the

interest of justice

A) Issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, for a court

monitored investigation by constituting a multi-disciplinary SIT

consisting of Intelligence Bureau, Enforcement Directorate, RAW,

Delhi Police and headed by CBI in the murder case of Late Sunanda

Pushkar.

B) In the alternative to prayer „A‟ above, call for a time bound

CBI investigation and

C) Pass any other and further orders as this Hon‟ble Court may

deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of this case.

AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS THE PETITIONERS SHALL

AS IN DUTY BOUND EVER PRAY.





………Mobile No: 98101 70087


New Delhi

Date




WRIT PETITION(CRIMINAL) OF 2017

AND


IN THE MATTER OF:


Vs


AFFIDAVIT

I, Subramanian Swamy, aged about 76 years, s/o Sitarama

Subramanian, resident of AB 14, Pandara Road, New Delhi 110003,

do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:

1. That I am Petitioner No. 1 in the above matter, and am fully

acquainted with the facts of the instant case and fully competent

to swear thereto.

2. I have filed the present petition as a Public Interest Litigation.


3. I have gone through the Delhi High Court (Public Interest

Litigation) Rules 2010 and do hereby affirm that the present

Public Interest Litigation is in conformity thereof.

4. I have no personal interest in the litigation and neither myself

nor anybody in whom I am interested would in any manner

benefit from the relief sought in the present litigation save as a

member of the General Public. This Petition is not guided by

self-gain or the gain of any person, institution, body and there is

no motive other than of public interest in filing this petition.

5. I have done whatsoever inquiry/investigation which was in my

power to do, to collect all data /material which was available

and which was relevant for the court to entertain the present

petition. I further confirm that I have not concealed in the

present petition any data/material/information which may have

enabled this court to form an opinion whether to entertain the

petition or not and/or whether to grant any relief or not.

DEPONENT

Verification: Verified at Delhi on this ______ day of _______2017

that the facts stated in paras 1 to 5 hereinabove are true to my personal

knowledge, no part of this Affidavit is false and nothing material is

concealed therefrom.

DEPONENT




WRIT PETITION(CRIMINAL) OF 2017

AND


IN THE MATTER OF:


Vs


AFFIDAVIT

I, Ishkaran Singh Bhandari, aged about 33 years, s/o I. S. Bhandari,

resident of J 205, Saket, New Delhi 110017, do hereby solemnly

affirm and declare as under:

1. That I am Petitioner No. 2 in the above matter, and am fully

acquainted with the facts of the instant case and fully competent

to swear thereto.

2. I have filed the present petition as a Public Interest Litigation.

3. I have gone through the Delhi High Court (Public Interest

Litigation) Rules 2010 and do hereby affirm that the present

Public Interest Litigation is in conformity thereof.


4. I have no personal interest in the litigation and neither myself

nor anybody in whom I am interested would in any manner

benefit from the relief sought in the present litigation save as a

member of the General Public. This Petition is not guided by

self-gain or the gain of any person, institution, body and there is

no motive other than of public interest in filing this petition.

5. I have done whatsoever inquiry/investigation which was in my

power to do, to collect all data /material which was available

and which was relevant for the court to entertain the present

petition. I further confirm that I have not concealed in the

present petition any data/material/information which may have

enabled this court to form an opinion whether to entertain the

petition or not and/or whether to grant any relief or not.

DEPONENT

Verification: Verified at Delhi on this ______day of _______2017

that the facts stated in paras 1 to 5 hereinabove are true to my personal

knowledge, no part of this affidavit is false and nothing material is

concealed therefrom.

DEPONENT


original writ jurisdiction and in the matter of …€¦ · shashi tharoor, dr. rajeev bhasin and...

Documents