I sent the following letter to the Supreme Court of India and had also telephoned the Court on numerous occasions.
Honourable Chief Justice of India Mr Justice B.K. Balakrishnan's Diary No. 1348/sc/PIL/2007
Thursday, 19 June, 2008 9:41 PM
From: "shantanu panigrahi" <shantanupanigrahi@yahoo.co.uk>
To: supremecourt@nic.in
FOR THE ATTENTION OF MR GERA: FOR ONWARD TRANSMISSION TO THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA MR JUSTICE B.K. BALAKRISHNAN
URGENCY STATUS: IMMEDIATE RULING ON PUNISHMENT TO BE DISHED OUT ON THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA LED BY MR MANMOHAN SINGH FOR COMPLICITY WITH HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN OVER THE DENIAL OF MY INDIAN PASSPORT AND SO MAKING ME STATELESS --- On Thu, 19/6/08, Civil Appeals - Registry <civilappeals.registry@hmcourts-service.gsi.gov.uk> wrote:
From: Civil Appeals - Registry <civilappeals.registry@hmcourts-service.gsi.gov.uk> Subject: RE: Fw: RE: RE: Mr S PANIGRAHI -V-IAIN FLASH GORDON ENTERPRISES LTD - PA/ASH/543/08 To: "'shantanu panigrahi'" <shantanupanigrahi@yahoo.co.uk> Date: Thursday, 19 June, 2008, 9:28 PM
Your message has been received by the court and will be dealt with as soon as possible.
-----Original Message-----
From: shantanu panigrahi
Sent: 19/06/2008 21:28:36
To: civilappeals.registry@hmcourts-service.gsi.gov.uk
Subject: Fw: RE: RE: Mr S PANIGRAHI -V-IAIN FLASH GORDON ENTERPRISES LTD -
PA/ASH/543/08
To
The Law Lords
The House of Lords
19 June 2008
My Lord,
I have exhausted all avenues open to an ordinary citizen to obtain a full Judicial Review of two Employment Tribunal proceedings, which are now combined into one as having been centrally-directed against me, although I do not have any evidence that Her Majesty the Queen personally directed the state-persecution against me.
Does Lord Falconer the Lord Chancellor have any powers to intervene in this
matter?
Yours sincerely
Dr Shantanu Panigrahi
3 Hoath Lane
Wigmore
Near Gillingham
Kent ME8 0SL
Tel 01634 379604
Subject: RE: Your letter dated 6 June 2008
Date: Monday, 9 June, 2008 3:15 PM
From: "Civil Appeals - Registry"<civilappeals.registry@hmcourts-service.gsi.gov.uk>
Add sender to Contacts
To: "'shantanu panigrahi'"<shantanupanigrahi@yahoo.co.uk>
Your message has been received by the court and will be dealt with as soon as possible.
--- On Thu, 19/6/08, ASHFORDET <AshfordET@tribunals.gsi.gov.uk> wrote:
From: ASHFORDET <AshfordET@tribunals.gsi.gov.uk>
Subject: RE: RE: Mr S PANIGRAHI -V-IAIN FLASH GORDON ENTERPRISES LTD -
PA/ASH/543/08
To: shantanupanigrahi@yahoo.co.uk
Date: Thursday, 19 June, 2008, 4:54 PM
Your email was received at the Ashford Employment Tribunal Office on 19/06/2008 and is receiving attention.
Please ensure that any further correspondence sent by email in connection with this case is sent to Ashfordet@tribunals.gsi.gov.uk.
-----Original Message-----
From: shantanu panigrahi [mailto:shantanupanigrahi@yahoo.co.uk]
Sent: 19 June 2008 16:04
To: LONDONEAT
Cc: ASHFORDET
Subject: Fw: RE: Mr S PANIGRAHI -V-IAIN FLASH GORDON ENTERPRISES LTD -
PA/ASH/543/08
To
Mr Jaegar
19 June 2008
Dear Mr Jaegar
1. Please note that the Civil Appeals at the Royal Courts of Justice needs me to have your final report on this case in oder to deal with both this and the University of Greenwich case of 2001-2002 under its Judicial Review.
2. Unless you decide that Appeal is a better course than Judicial Review of prevarications by court staff, please award me £50,000 financial compensation against Mr Iain Gordon.
Yours sincerely
Dr Shantanu Panigrahi
--- On Thu, 19/6/08, shantanu panigrahi shantanupanigrahi@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
From: shantanu panigrahi <shantanupanigrahi@yahoo.co.uk>
Subject: RE: Mr S PANIGRAHI -V-IAIN FLASH GORDON ENTERPRISES LTD -
PA/ASH/543/08
To: admin@iainflashgordonenterprises.co.uk, iain.gordon@planetbeach.com,
iiaingordon@aol.com
Cc: Ashford ET@tribunal.gsi.gov.uk
Date: Thursday, 19 June, 2008, 3:56 PM
To
Mr Iain Gordon
Iain 'Flash' Gordon Enterprises Limted
67 Marion Crescent
Maidstone
Kent ME15 7EH
Tel: 01622 686386
Fax: 01622 686386
By Email: admin@iainflashgordonenterprises.co.uk, iain.gordon@planetbeach.com, iiaingordon@aol.com
19 June 2008
Dear Mr Iain Gordon
1. Thank you for your letter dated 12 June 2008 (attached as an email attachment here) for your re-consideration prior to the Tribunal's proceedings for Constructive Dismissal, in which the workplace harassment perpetrated on me to disrupt my work from before October 2007 have been consistently ignored by you.
2. I repeat that my actions at all times were fully justified, and the CCTV of the incidents will bear this out to Employment Judge Anthony Druce. As such I reject your letter as an attempt to cover up the incidents of harassment on me. I continue to reserve my right to take civil proceedings against Mr Mike Munro and Ms May Parsons for £15,000 damages each compensation, if this letter of your's remains on the company file, or is referred to in any way in my references on my job applications pending consideration. I am not prepared to Appeal in any other manner but with the contents of this emailed letter, because I have taken detailed notes of several meetings which the Tribunal may request me to submit to it in support of my Application, and therefore the files may be subjudice.
3. I trust this clarifies my position sufficiently. Please let me know if you require any further information. As I informed Ms Jenny Moore after she messed up my shift sheet with unjustified markings towards of the end of my shift today, I will go in for my AM shift tomorrow morning if I do not receive a written reply by email before 6.00 pm today.
Yours sincerely
Dr Shantanu Panigrahi
3 Hoath Lane
Wigmore
Near Gillingham
Kent ME8 0SL
This was followed by the following submission:
Subject: PIL Case for dismissal of Honourable Chief Justice of India Mr Justice B.K. Balakrishnan's on his conduct of my Petition (Diary No. 1348/SC/PIL/2007)
Date: Monday, 7 July, 2008 8:55 AM
From: "shantanu panigrahi" shantanupanigrahi@yahoo.co.uk
To: supremecourt@nic.In
To: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
By Email: supremecourt@nic.in
REFERENCE: FOR THE ATTENTION OF MR GERA: FOR ONWARD TRANSMISSION TO THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA MR JUSTICE B.K. BALAKRISHNAN
URGENCY STATUS: IMMEDIATE RULING ON PUNISHMENT TO BE DISHED OUT ON THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA LED BY MR MANMOHAN SINGH FOR COMPLICITY WITH HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN OVER THE DENIAL OF MY INDIAN PASSPORT AND SO MAKING ME STATELESS --- On Mon, 7/7/08, shantanu panigrahi <shantanupanigrahi@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
From: shantanu panigrahi <shantanupanigrahi@yahoo.co.uk> Subject: Fw: Ref: JACO Case 07-420/08-559 To: headofoffice@jaco.gsi.gov.uk Date: Monday, 7 July, 2008, 8:46 AM
--- On Mon, 7/7/08, shantanu panigrahi <shantanupanigrahi@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
From: shantanu panigrahi <shantanupanigrahi@yahoo.co.uk> Subject: Ref: JACO Case 07-420/08-559 To: headofoffice@jaco.gsi.gov.uk Date: Monday, 7 July, 2008, 8:43 AM
To
Sir John Brigstocke, KCB
Judicial Appointments & Conduct Ombudsman
8th Floor
Millbank Tower
London
SW19 4QP
DX 149242 Victoria 13
Email: headofoffice@jaco.gsi.gov.uk
7 July 2008
Dear Sir John Brigstocke
1. At long last you have decided to surface to conduct a review of the proceedings at the OJC, JACO and associated bodies. Why? - did I ask you to do so? In fact I complained about Ms Suzi Rumens to the Parliamentary Ombudsman. And why has this letter of yours been given a Code: 08-559 - when I have not yet submitted a new Complaint Form in view of the fact that there is a Judicial Review of the Case against the University of Greenwich at Civil Appeals, Royal Courts of Justice right now? Or is this why this latter that I have just received is dated 1 July 2008? I need to have your answer also to the question that you avoided answering on my first complaint against Ms Joan Wilson. Further why do all these letters end with the sentence: 'I am sorry that there is nothing more my office can do for you', when you have given me the opportunity to start a fresh case addressing all the issues you have now raised in your review?
2. The OJC clearly has jurisdiction over the Supreme Court of India, not just the Public Interest Litigation Division of that Supreme Court, but over the conduct of the Chief Justice of India, Mr B.K. Balakrishnan (to recommend his immediate dismissal from office); according to the Constituitional arrangement of 1947 which subsequent Republic status left unchanged. Her Majesty the Queen therefore remains the direct monarch of India, not simply its Head by virtue of the arrangements of the Commonwealth: my evidence of dealings with Mr B.K. Balakrishnan proves that. You should also accordingly note that all of the amendments to the Indian Constitution since independence made by successive governements are null and void because these amendments were not submitted to Her Majesty for final sign-off consideration. Since Her Majesty cannot be expected to deal with complicated issues in person, the Office for Judical Complaints was established to deal with these matters. It cannot now be changed without Her Majesty herself making the decision.
Yours sincerely
Dr Shantanu Panigrahi
3 Hoath Lane
Wigmore
Near Gillingham
Kent ME8 0SL
Tel 01634 379604
This was followed by the following email submission:
Subject: FRESH PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION CASE: DR SHANTANU PANIGRAHI -V- GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
Date: Tuesday, 8 July, 2008 10:56 AM
From: "shantanu panigrahi" <shantanupanigrahi@yahoo.co.uk>
To: supremecourt@nic.in
To
The Registrar Judicial
Public Interest Litigation Department
Supreme Court of India
Tilak Marg
New Delhi - 110 001
India
By Email: supremecourt@nic.in
8 July 2008
Dear Sir or Madam
1. I beg to state that I was born in Shillong, India and came to the United Kingdom as a 15 year old dependant of my father, Dr Gopinath Panigrahi, on 28 December 1972, as he began a 3-year Indian Liaison Officer posting (at Kew Gardens, Richmond, Surrey, United Kingdom) on deputation as First Secretary to the Government of India. He was given a Diplomatic Passport for this assignment, whereas the rest of the family were granted ordinary passports by the Government of India. My initial Indian Passport Number was J390207 (issued 13 November 1977, Calcutta, India), but it was renewed once by the Indian High Commission in London.
2. After my family's return to India in 1976, I stayed on in the United Kingdom to continue my father's wish to pursue higher education here (BSc Pharmacology, 1975-1978). Subsequently, in order to get some experience of work I took up an employment offer by the British Governement at the Tropical Products Institute, part of the British Government's Overseas Development Administration. During this employment I continued with my higher studies, which were to result in a PhD (1984-1988), Post-Graduate Diploma in Agricultural Development, with a Mark of Distinction (1990-1994), and Cerificates of Satisfactory Completion of Livestock Development, and Environmental Science (1994-1996). I published over 35 original scientific papers in international journals.
3. During this employment however, I was obliged to obtain a United Kingdom Passport (under a naturalisation certificate) in order to make it easier for me to conduct overseas missions on behalf of the British Government.
4. In 1998, my employment was terminated by the renamed and privatised Natural Resources (which had become part of the University of Greenwich) following a 6 year period of workplace harassment stemming from jealousy and racism. I was not unduly concerned about this (coming as it was from the inhabitants of an imperialist white supremacist State) as I had completed my scientific and agricultural studies and therefore wrote to the Indian High Commission in London immediately (on 12 July 1998 by Recorded Delivery postage) stating that I wished to return to India permanently to continue my Agricultural Development work in my home country. I asked the Indian High Commission to give me back my Indian passport thinking that it had no reason whatsoever to withhold this from me.
5. When the Indian High Commission did not even acknowledge the letter I became concerned that the Indian Government too had been engaged in the harassment on me prior to my employment being terminated (with the projects I had worked on earlier) although I still do not have any evidence to prove this. The situation was that by it's silence on my 12 July 1998 letter I had effectively forced me to stay on in the United Kingdom and pursue the country's judicial processes to try and restore my scientific career and reputation. These were manipulated against me without shame.
6. In punishment on me for exposing the fact that the entire judicial system in the UK was manipulated from behind the scence and the processes of the Parliament were to be dismissed as a pure facade to hide the behind the scenes manipulation of democracy and justice, I was subjected to intense harassment by the United Kingdom State forcing me into a cleaner's job by denial of my Incapacity Benefit payments from October 1998 to August 2006, when I finally recovered fully from the severe depression suffered mentally caused by the harassment, which continued for a further two years. I applied for asylum in India (and in numerous other countries) to the Indian High Commission to escape the persecution. When I managed to move to a petrol station cashier's job closer to home, the UK State manipulated the owner of the francisee-business (Mr Iain Gordon, of Iain Flash Gordon Enterprises Ltd) and the Shell petroleum company which owned the operation to perpetrate further workplace harassment on me under the protection of its' judicial bodies (eg Employment Tribunal and High Court). So today I am out of work and no income, so living on my wife's earnings again.
7. It took me all these 10 years of struggle to obtain the evidence beyond any reasonable doubt the Indian Government had been all along complicit with the United Kingdom Government to destroy my scientific career and prevent me restoring it, and it stopped the Indian High Commission in London from issuing me my Indian passport to let me return to India. I think the Government of India did this to suppress the truth of it's activities against me from the Indian press and the people of India for reasons that need to be uncovered by the Supreme Court of India.
8. I therefore wish to start a fresh Public Interest Litigation Case against the Government of India for this torture that I suffered at its hands over a very long period of time, for which I am applying for substantial financial compensation, and an order to the Indian Government to missue my Indian Passport to facilitate my permanent return now. Accordingly, I should be grateful if you would send me the Forms to register this Claim officially immediately. Please note that I intend to argue the Case in person because the United Kingdom State has manipulated the lawyers who have acted for me in the past to access justice, and I have no money to pay any Indian advocates and barrister.
Yours sincerely
Dr Shantanu Panigrahi
3 Hoath Lane
Wigmore
Gillingham
Kent ME8 0SL
Tel 01634 379604
The Supreme Court finally replied as follows:
Subject:reply
Date: Wednesday, 23 July, 2008 11:16 AM
From: "Bhatia" <supremecourt@nic.in>Add sender to Contacts
To: shantanupanigrahi@yahoo.co.uk
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----
D. No. 13481/SC/PIL/2007 Dated 16th July, 2008 From: Assistant Registrar (PIL ELL) To: Mr. Shantanu Panigrahi , Email: shantanupanigrahi@yahoo.co.uk Sir, With reference to your emails dated 2.6.2008 & 8.7.2008 addressed to the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India and the Ld. Registrar, Supreme Court of India, I am directed to inform you that vide this REgistry's letter dated 5.1.2008 you were informed that no action can be taken on your petition and you were asked to approach the appropriate authority/court for the desired relief. However, if you wanted to file any petition you may file proper petition under the provisions of Supreme Court Rules, 1966 at the filing counter of this Registry either in persons, through an advocate or through e-filing. yours faithfully sd/- ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
I replied exploring the Constitutional realationships between India and the United Kingdom as follows:
Subject: Re: reply
Date: Wednesday, 23 July, 2008 11:32 AM
From: "shantanu panigrahi" <shantanupanigrahi@yahoo.co.uk>
To: "Bhatia" <supremecourt@nic.in>
To Supreme Court of India 23 July 2008 Dear Sir 1. Please be aware that I asked for Honorouble Chief Justice Mr B.K. Balakrishnan's replacement to Sir John Brigstocke, the Judicial Appointments and Conduct Ombudsman, under the Constitutional Arrangements of 1947 and revision for the part-Republic status of India subsquently. 2. All amendements made to the Indian Constitution since Independence are null and void, especially the laws giving special status for scheduled castes places in government jobs and educational establishments as these amount not only to gross violations of the Brahmin's human rights, it is detrimental to the civilised society to have unqualified knowledge-defunct individuals in employment, especially in the Supreme Court of India. 3. I wish to start a fresh PIL Case in Bhubneswar High Court in accordance. Please let me have Leave for registering this Case. Yours sincerely Dr Shantanu Panigrahi 3 Hoath Lane Wigmore Near Gillingham Kent ME8 0SL
There was no further communications from the Supreme Court of India.