Corruption of more than 80,000 Crores in bringing circulars of compulsory vaccination and restrictions on entry to local train, malls etc..
- IBA, AIM demands immediate arrest of accused Bureaucrats and Ministers.
- The safest person today are those who have recovered from
Covid 19 and if any relaxation can be given should be given to them first. The
Vaccinated people are not in the safe person’s category.
- But the vaccine mafia gave bribe in thousand of crores to the ministers and bureaucrats and for issuing circulars, directions and orders for giving relaxations in train, mall etc only to vaccinated people.
- Supreme court had clearly laid down the law that such
decisions by any public authority is called as corrupt practice and misuse and
fraud on power by the said authority and ministers and it is a criminal offence
requiring investigation by CBI. One of the penal provision attracted in such
cases is sec 409 of IPC where concerned minister and bureaucrats et al should be
sentenced for a term of life imprisonment. [NOIDA Entrepreneurs Assn. v. NOIDA,
(2011) 6 SCC 508, Vijay Shekha Vs. UOI (2004) 4 SCC 666]
Recently on the basis of above law the Bombay high Court ordered prosecution of Maharashtra’s Home Minister Anil Deshmukh and others.
In the said case ED has arrested two Secretary of Home department and Minister Anil Deshmukh is now absconded.
NEWS IN DETAIL
1. There is enough and robust evidence available now that those who have recovered from Covid-19 develop robust and long-lasting immunity against SARS CoV2, even after mild or asymptomatic infections, and that chances of reinfection among these people, even from the emerging variants of the same virus, are extremely rare or non-existent. The WHO in its interim guidance released on July 2, 2021 has also recognised the fact of acquired immunity in all those who have had previous infection with SARS-CoV-2.
2. There is no evidence to show that those who have recovered from the infection will get any additional benefit from vaccination. There is an elegant study from the Cleveland Health System which has conclusively reported that those infected do not get reinfected, whether vaccinated or not.
3. In India, recent sero-surveys at Delhi and Mumbai have reported a positivity of 50-70%, indicating that a significant proportion of our people have already been infected, reaching the levels of herd immunity, and will not need the vaccine. https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/kids-adults-have-similar-antibodies-sero-survey-101623953000262.html
And many reports of India achieving herd immunity have already appeared. The mathematical models have explained how what percentage of population is required to be infected is also different for different population and with mixing rates fitted to social activity, the disease-induced herd immunity level can be ~43%.
4. That, as per the clear proofs, research and opinion given by the honest physicians, scientists et al, it is an undisputed position that the person who has recovered from corona infection caused due to SARS-CoV-2 virus or even who came in contact with the SARS-CoV-2 is the most safe person and is on much higher footing than the person who is vaccinated. The reasons are very simple that;
(i) The vaccine only injects synthetic spike protein in the body of the person, which trains the immune system to create antibodies to fight the SARS-CoV-2 virus.
On the contrary, the body of person who got cured from the Covid-19 had actually fought with the original corona virus and won the battle and hence has developed the immunity, which is far more superior than the vaccine induced immunity.
(ii) There are very less chances of Covid cured person getting infected again and spreading the infection.
On the Contrary the person who is vaccinated will be get corona, spread infection and die because of Corona.
5. There is no difference between vaccinated and non-vaccinated people. Both have to follow the Covid appropriate behaviour.
Only the Covid cured person is the most safe person.
The High Court of Guwahati, Itanagar Bench, vide its Order dated 19.07.2021 in Madan Mili Vs. UOI 2021 SCC OnLine Gau 1503, held that there was no evidence available either in the record or in the public domain that Covid-19 vaccinated persons cannot be infected with Covid-19 virus, or he/she cannot be a carrier of a Covid-19 virus and consequently, a spreader of Covid-19 virus. In so far as the spread of Covid-19 Virus to others is concerned, the Covid-19 vaccinated and unvaccinated person or persons are the same.
6. However, the vaccine syndicate has captured some bureaucrats and Ministers and has hatched a conspiracy to earn money by cheating the people. They by jeopardizing the life and liberty of people, have tried to run false and misleading narratives and have issued circulars by putting conditions of vaccinations to citizens to avail certain facilities such as travelling through local train, entry to mall etc. Due to said decision many poor and needy people rushed to private hospitals and have to take vaccines at higher rates. It caused a profit of thousand of crores to vaccine and pharma mafias. But common people were got looted.
7. That the above said conduct of bureaucrats in passing such circulars by ignoring the correct and authentic suggestions given by the honest experts of National Task Force is itself proof of corruption by the said people.
That, in NOIDA Entrepreneurs Assn. v. NOIDA, (2011) 6 SCC 508 it is ruled that the undue haste by the public servant in giving contracts, causing wrongful benefit without any justifiable reason, is sufficient ground to draw an inference of malafides and in order to unearth the complete conspiracy the matter need to be investigated by the C.B.I.
It is ruled that when a thing is done in a post-haste manner, mala fide would be presumed." "Anything done in undue haste can also be termed as arbitrary and cannot be condoned in law".
Power vested by the State in a Public Authority should be viewed as a trust coupled with duty to be exercised in larger public and social interest. Power is to be exercised strictly adhering to the statutory provisions and fact-situation of a case. "Public Authorities cannot play fast and loose with the powers vested in them". A decision taken in arbitrary manner contradicts the principle of legitimate expectation. An Authority is under a legal obligation to exercise the power reasonably and in good faith to effectuate the purpose for which power stood conferred. In this context, "in good faith" means "for legitimate reasons". It must be exercised bona fide for the purpose and for none other.
“36. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that these allegations being of a very serious nature and as alleged, the respondent no.4 had passed orders in colourable exercise of power favouring himself and certain contractors, require investigation. Thus, in view of the above, we direct the CBI to have preliminary enquiry and in case the allegations are found having some substance warranting further proceeding with criminal prosecution, may proceed in accordance with law.
34. The State or the public authority which holds the property for the public or which has been assigned the duty of grant of largesse etc., acts as a trustee and, therefore, has to act fairly and reasonably. Every holder of a public office by virtue of which he acts on behalf of the State or public body is ultimately accountable to the people in whom the sovereignty vests. As such, all powers so vested in him are meant to be exercised for public good and promoting the public interest. Every holder of a public office is a trustee. State actions required to be non-arbitrary and justified on the touchstone of Article 14 of the Constitution. Action of the State or its instrumentality must be in conformity with some principle which meets the test of reason and relevance. Functioning of a "democratic form of Government demands equality and absence of arbitrariness and discrimination". The rule of law prohibits arbitrary action and commands the authority concerned to act in accordance with law. Every action of the State or its instrumentalities should neither be suggestive of discrimination, nor even apparently give an impression of bias, favouritism and nepotism. If a decision is taken without any principle or without any rule, it is unpredictable and such a decision is antithesis to the decision taken in accordance with the rule of law. The Public Trust Doctrine is a part of the law of the land. The doctrine has grown from Article 21 of the Constitution. In essence, the action/order of the State or State instrumentality would stand vitiated if it lacks bona fides, as it would only be a case of colourable exercise of power. The Rule of Law is the foundation of a democratic society.”
8. Full Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vijay Shekha Vs. UOI (2004) 4 SCC 666, had ruled that, such order of the State authority is called as “Fraud on Power”. No judgment of a Court, no order of Minister, can be allowed to stand if it has been result of fraud on power. It is ruled that "Fraud on power voids the order if it is not exercised bona fide for the end design. There is a distinction between exercise of power in good faith and misuse in bad faith. The former arises when an authority misuses its power in breach of law, say, by taking into account bona fide, and with best of intentions, some extraneous matters or by ignoring relevant matters. That would render the impugned act or order ultra vires. It would be a case of fraud on powers. The misuse in bad faith arises when the power is exercised for an improper motive, say, to satisfy a private or personal grudge or for wreaking vengeance of a Minister as in S. Pratap Singh v. State of Punjab, (1964) 4 SCR 733 : (AIR 1964 SC 733). A power is exercised maliciously if its repository is motivated by personal animosity towards those who are directly affected by its exercise. Use of a power for an 'alien' purpose other than the one for which the power is conferred is mala fide use of that power. Same is the position when an order is made for a purpose other than that which finds place in the order. The ulterior or alien purpose clearly speaks of the misuse of the power and it was observed as early as in 1904 by Lord Lindley in General Assembly of Free Church of Scotland v. Over town, 1904 AC 515, 'that there is a condition implied in this as well as in other instruments which create powers, namely, that the power shall be used bona fide for the purpose for which they are conferred'. "No public body can be regarded as having statutory authority to act in bad faith or from corrupt motives, and any action purporting to be of that body, but proved to be committed in bad faith or from corrupt motives, would certainly be held to be inoperative."
"'Fraud' vitiates all transactions known to the law of however high a degree of solemnity."
"Fraud as is well known vitiates every solemn act. Fraud and justice never dwell together. Fraud is a conduct either by letter or words, which induces the other person or authority to take a definite determinative stand as a response to the conduct of the former either by word or letter. It is also well settled that misrepresentation itself amounts to fraud. Indeed, innocent misrepresentation may also give reason to claim relief against fraud. A fraudulent misrepresentation is called deceit and consists in leading a man into damage by willfully or recklessly causing him to believe and act on falsehood. It is a fraud in law if a party makes representations which he knows to be false, and injury ensues therefrom although the motive from which the representations proceeded may not have been bad. An act of fraud on court is always viewed seriously. A collusion or conspiracy with a view to deprive the rights of others in relation to a property would render the transaction void ab initio. Fraud and deception are synonymous. Although in a given case a deception may not amount to fraud, fraud is anathema to all equitable principles and any affair tainted with fraud cannot be perpetuated or saved by the application of any equitable doctrine including res judicata." Thus, it is clear a fraudulent act even in judicial proceedings cannot be allowed to stand.
9. That another crucial aspect which ex-facie proves the malafides of the accused is the very fact that the Government itself is not having sufficient stock of vaccine, but they are imposing condition and thereby promoting corruption, as people are rushing to private hospital and black market.
10. In Raman Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan 2000 SCC OnLine Raj 226 it is ruled that an inference of conspiracy has to be drawn on the basis of circumstantial evidence only because it becomes difficult to get direct evidence on such issue – The offence can only be proved largely from the inference drawn from acts or illegal ommission committed by them in furtherance of a common design – Once such a conspiracy is proved, act of one conspirator becomes the act of the others – A Co-conspirator who joins subsequently and commits overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy must also be held liable – Proceeding against accused should be continued and cannot be dropped even if the accused is holding a very high position of a Judge of the constitutional court. In such cases no permission is required before prosecuting such accused.”
You can also download the petition copy with all the proofs by clicking below link