US Court has upheld the stay on President Biden’s vaccine mandate.

US Court has upheld the stay on President Biden’s vaccine mandate.

  • The judgment is a tight slap on the Vaccine Syndicate
  • Biden brought in the mandate of vaccination or RTPCR Test at work place
  • United States’ Court found that the rule is ineffective, counterproductive as it is based on incomplete and inaccurate information and therefore unlawful, unconstitutional, illegitimate.
  • Court held that the Mandate’s true purpose is not to enhance workplace safety, but instead to ramp up vaccine uptake by any means necessary
  • Court also observed that the naturally immune people are at less risk and no mandate can be brought to fit one size for all.
  • Similar judgments are passed by India’s Gauhati High Court, Meghalaya High Court and Manipur High Court.

The important observations of the judgment are as under;

“…an ETS (Emergency Temporary Standard) once issued could very well become ineffective or counterproductive, as it may be informed by incomplete or ultimately inaccurate information.”

…the ongoing threat of COVID-19 is more dangerous to some employees than to other employees. All else equal, a 28 year-old trucker spending the bulk of his workday in the solitude of his cab is simply less vulnerable to COVID-19 than a 62 year-old prison janitor. Likewise, a naturally immune unvaccinated worker is presumably at less risk than an unvaccinated worker who has never had the virus. The list goes on, but one constant remains—the Mandate fails almost completely to address, or even respond to, much of this reality and common sense.

…The underinclusive nature of the Mandate implies that the Mandate’s true purpose is not to enhance workplace safety, but instead to ramp up vaccine uptake by any means necessary.

The Mandate is also underinclusive in the solutions it proposes. Indeed, even in its fullest force, the Mandate cannot prevent vaccinated employees from spreading the virus in the workplace, or prevent unvaccinated employees from spreading the virus in between weekly tests.

….unvaccinated to “undergo [weekly] COVID-19 testing and wear a face covering at work in lieu of vaccination.” 86 Fed.Reg. 61,402, 61,402.

an airborne virus that is both widely present in society (and thus not particular to any workplace) and non-life threatening to a vast majority of employees into a neighboring phrase connoting toxicity and poisonousness is yet another transparent stretch.

As OSHA is required to make findings of exposure—or at least the presence of COVID-19—in all covered workplaces.

Every industry covered by the Mandate has had or will have “outbreaks.” As discussed below, this kind of overbreadth plagues the Mandate generally.

The Administration’s prior statements in this regard further belie the notion that COVID-19 poses the kind of emergency that allows OSHA to take the extreme measure of an ETS. In reviewing agency pronouncements, courts need not turn a blind eye to the statements of those issuing such pronouncements. In fact, courts have an affirmative duty not to do so. It is thus critical to note that the Mandate makes no serious attempt to explain why OSHA and the President himself were against vaccine mandates before they were for one here.

“OSHA lacks evidence to conclude that all infectious diseases to which employees may be exposed at a workplace constitute a ‘grave danger’ for which an ETS is an appropriate remedy”). Because it is generally “arbitrary or capricious” to “depart from a prior policy sub silentio,” agencies must typically provide a “detailed explanation” for contradicting a prior policy, particularly when the “prior policy has engendered serious reliance interests.”

…may undermine worker protection by permanently mandating precautions that later prove to be inefficacious. . . . [A]n ETS could only enshrine broad legal standards that are already in place or direct employers to develop COVID-19 response plans specific to their businesses, something employers are already doing. Such a step would be superfluous at best and could be counterproductive to ongoing state, local, and private efforts.

…Additionally, employers may choose any effective method to abate a recognized hazard under the general duty clause.

Accordingly, the petitioners’ challenges to the Mandate show a great likelihood of success on the merits, and this fact weighs critically in favor of a stay.

…OSHA runs afoul of the statute from which it draws its power and, likely, violates the constitutional structure that safeguards our collective liberty.

For these reasons, the petitioners’ motion for a stay pending review is GRANTED. Enforcement of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s “COVID-19 Vaccination and Testing; Emergency Temporary Standard” remains STAYED pending adequate judicial review of the petitioners’ underlying motions for a permanent injunction.

In addition, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that OSHA take no steps to implement or enforce the Mandate until further court order.

OHSA invokes no statute expressly authorizing the rule. Instead, OSHA issued it under an emergency provision addressing workplace “substances,” “agents,” or “hazards” that it has used only ten times in the last 50 years and never to mandate vaccines.

Whether Congress could enact such a sweeping mandate under its interstate commerce power would pose a hard question. See NFIB v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519, 549–61 (2012). Whether OSHA can do so does not.

The Mandate is a one-sizefits-all sledgehammer that makes hardly any attempt to account for differences in workplaces (and workers) that have more than a little bearing on workers’ varying degrees of susceptibility to the supposedly “grave danger” the Mandate purports to address.

It remains unclear that COVID19—however tragic and devastating the pandemic has been—poses the kind of grave danger § 655(c)(1) contemplates. See, e.g., Int’l Chem. Workers, 830 F.2d at 371 (noting that OSHA itself once concluded “that to be a ‘grave danger,’

(And of course, this all assumes that COVID-19 poses any significant danger to workers to begin with; for  more than seventy-eight percent of Americans aged 12 and older either fully or partially inoculated against it, the virus poses—the Administration assures us—little risk at all.) See, e.g., 86 Fed. Reg. 61,402, 61,402–03 (“COVID-19 vaccines authorized or approved by the [FDA] effectively protect vaccinated individuals against severe illness and death from COVID-19.”).

No standard that covers all of the Nation’s workers would protect all those workers equally.”

This kind of thinking belies the premise that any of this is truly an emergency.

In contrast, a stay will do OSHA no harm whatsoever. Any interest OSHA may claim in enforcing an unlawful (and likely unconstitutional) ETS is illegitimate. Moreover, any abstract “harm” a stay might cause the Agency pales in comparison and importance to the harms the absence of a stay threatens to cause countless individuals and companies.

For similar reasons, a stay is firmly in the public interest.

The public interest is also served by maintaining our constitutional structure and maintaining the liberty of individuals to make intensely personal decisions according to their own convictions—even, or perhaps particularly, when those decisions frustrate government officials”.

Download Related Documents :-

Click here to download the judgment

YouTube restores the deleted channel after apologizing for its mistake soon after it receives legal notice

YouTube restores the deleted channel after apologizing for its mistake soon after it receives legal notice

  • YouTube restores the channel showing‘vaccine side effects’, after apologizing for its mistake upon receiving legal notice.
  • Vaccine mafia and corrupt Task Force members suffer a severe setback.
  • Another victory for the Indian Bar Association (IBA) and Awaken India Movement (AIM).
  • A case is likely be filed on YouTube for penalty to the tune of Rs. 1000 crores. (Approx. US $135 million)
  • It’s a great relief to researchers and truth seekers around the world.

In order to cause undue benefit to the vaccine mafia, YouTube and other social media have been working to erase all videos and wipe out all information against the Corona vaccine since the beginning of corona pandemic.

Due to this, the videos of researchers, social workers, doctors, scientists, et al., who were trying their best to expose the fraud and side effects of corona vaccines through the YouTube and other social media, could not reach the common man. Mr. Virendra Singh, a social activist associated with Rajiv Dixit Abhiyan, too became the victim of such injustice. His YouTube channel was deleted by the YouTubefor exposing the fatal side effects of vaccines. Mr. Virendra Singh decided to fight against this fraudulent act and approached the National President of Indian Bar Association, Adv. Nilesh Ojha and sent a legal notice to YouTube, through IBA’s Adv. Abhishek Mishra.

The notice sought legal action against YouTube and Google CEO, Mr. SundarPichai along with other officers of Google and YouTube under Sections 500, 501, 120(B), 34 etc. of Indian Penal Code and Contempt of Court.And notice demanded thatMr. Virendra Singh be compensated with the amount of Rs. 1000 crores. (Approx. US $135 million)

The notice has also levied charges of involvement of YouTube in the conspiracy of mass murders of public by blocking the correct information and running only false narratives that the vaccines are completely safe and are the sole solution against Corona. Because of the said conspiracy, many people took the vaccines and died due to side effects of vaccines. The relevant provisions attracted against YouTube are Section 115, 302, 304, 120 (B), 34, 52, 109 etc. of IPC where the punishment is either death penalty or minimum of life imprisonment.

The notice clarified that YouTube’s work is illegal and violates his client’s right to freedom of speech, which is guaranteed under Article 19 of the Indian Constitution, as well as it is in violation of the rights of the people of the country to obtain accurate information.YouTube has acted in disobedience of the orders of the Supreme Court and the High Court, which protects the freedom of speech and right to know.

Apart from that, YouTube has also violated Article 18 of the UNO Rule – ‘Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights 2005’, which provides for a specific section to encourage the people to discuss and share their views related to every drug and medical treatment.

In addition to this, YouTube has been running one-sided news in support of the Corona vaccines and have been misleading people that vaccines are completely safe and the only option for curing Corona.YouTube is encouraging everyone to get vaccinated and it’s resulting in many deaths of people. YouTube and Google are considered as co-accused in the conspiracy to kill people and helping the conspiracy of the accused who attempted mass murders and other multiplication against people. Hence, all YouTube and Google officials are also liable to be charged and punished under section 120 (B) of Indian Penal Code and under section 10 of the Evidence Act, which provides for the death penalty and life imprisonment.

As soon as the notice was received, YouTube sent an email on November 6, 2021 tendering its apology by admitting its mistake. YouTube has also restoredMr. Virendra Singh’s YouTube channel. This email by YouTube has further strengthened the case of Mr. Virendra Singh. By attributing this victory to all members of the “Awaken India Movement” and “Indian Bar Association”, Mr. Virendra Singh has expressed hope that the correct information will now reach people and the vaccine mafia will soon be jailed.

Download Related Documents :-

Click here to download the Notice sent to YouTube

Click here to download the Apology sent by YouTube

[महत्वाचे] डॉ. स्नेहल लुणावत मृत्यू प्रकरणात कोव्हीशील्ड व्हॅक्सीन बनविणाऱ्या सीरम इंस्टिट्यूट चे मालक आदर पुणावाला, सह दोषी डॉक्टर्स व अधिकाऱ्यांविरुद्ध हत्या, फसवणूक व शासकीय निधीचा दुरुपयोग आदी गुन्हे दाखल करण्याची इंडियन बार असोसिएशनची व इतर संघटनांची मागणी.

[महत्वाचे] डॉ. स्नेहल लुणावत मृत्यू प्रकरणात कोव्हीशील्ड व्हॅक्सीन बनविणाऱ्या सीरम इंस्टिट्यूट चे मालक आदर पुणावाला, सह दोषी डॉक्टर्स व अधिकाऱ्यांविरुद्ध हत्या, फसवणूक व शासकीय निधीचा दुरुपयोग आदी गुन्हे दाखल करण्याची इंडियन बार असोसिएशनची व इतर संघटनांची मागणी.

  •  महिला डॉक्टरचा मृत्यू कोव्हीशील्ड च्या दुष्परीणामांमुळे झाल्याचे भारत सरकारच्या AEFI समितीकडून मान्य.
  • लस पूर्णतः सुरक्षित आहे असा खोटा प्रचार करणारे डॉ. व्ही. जी. सोमाणीडॉ.रणदीप गुलेरीया आणि त्यांच्या सहकारी आरोपींना त्वरीत अटक करण्याची मागणी.
  • लस घेणाऱ्यांमध्ये हृदयविकारांचे व इतर जीवघेण्या दुष्परीणामांचे प्रकार वाढल्याचा दावा.
  • देशातील विविध संघटनांकडून पाठींबा.
  • दिल्लीत/ मुंबईत  निघणार लाखोंचा लोकांचा एतिहासिक मोर्चा.
  • फौ. प्र. संहिताचे कलम ४३ नुसार नागरिक स्वतः आरोपी डॉक्टरांना अटक करणार. 

नवी दिल्ली : लोकांचे आजारापासून रक्षण करणारे कोरोना योद्धा डॉक्टर्सलाच फार्मा माफियाच्या कट कारस्थानामुळे जीव गमवावा लागला असून औरंगाबादच्या डॉ. स्नेहल लुणावत यांच्या मृत्यूस जबाबदार दोषी अधिकाऱ्यांना त्वरित अटक करण्याकरीता व पुढचे मृत्यू रोखण्याकरीता इंडियन बार असोसिएशन, डॉक्टर्स फॉर ट्र्युथ, अव्हेकन इंडिया मुव्हमेंट, स्वदेशी भारत आंदोलन, मानव अधिकार सुरक्षा परिषद, किसान संघटन अश्या विविध ३०० संघटनांनी दिल्ली येथे लाखों लोकांचा  एतिहासिक मोर्चा काढणार असल्याची माहिती समन्वयक श्री. अंबर कोईरी यांनी दिली.

  1. याबाबत सविस्तर वृत्त असे की, डॉ. स्नेहल लुणावत (वय ३२ वर्षे) ह्या नाशिक मधील इगतपुरी वैद्यकीय महाविद्यालय आणि रुग्णालयात अध्यापनाचे काम करीत होत्या.
  2. कोरोनाची लस मार्केट मध्ये येताच व्हॅक्सीन कंपनीच्या लोकांनी भ्रष्ट अधिकाऱ्यांना हाताशी धरुन लस लस पूर्णतः सुरक्षित आहे असा खोटा प्रचार करुन तसेच कोरोना योद्धा यांना लस द्यावीच लागेल असा दबाव निर्माण करुन २८ जानेवारी रोजी त्यांना लस देण्यात आली.
  3. त्यानंतर त्यांना त्रास होऊ लागल्यानंतर स्थानिक डॉक्टरांनी माईल्ड माइग्रेन असल्याचे निदान करून औषधेही दिली होती. दरम्यान, त्या दिल्ली येथे एका कार्यक्रमासाठी गेल्यानंतर त्यांची प्रकृती बिघडली. विशेषत: मेंदूत रक्ताची गाठ झाल्यानंतर नोएडा येथील एका रुग्णालयात त्यांना दाखल करण्यात आले. पंधरा दिवस तेथेउपचार केल्यानंतर त्यांना त्यांच्या वडिलांच्या घरी औरंगाबाद येथील रुग्णालयात दाखल करण्यात आले होते. तेथे सात दिवसांनंतर म्हणजे १ मार्चला त्यांचा मृत्यू झाला.
  4. त्यांच्या कुटुंबीयांनी आधी कोव्हीशील्ड’ लस उत्पादित करणाऱ्या सीरम इंस्टिट्यूट’, पुणे या कंपनीला कळविले आणि त्यानंतर शासनाकडेही तक्रार केली होती. कोव्हीशील्ड’ च्या लसीकरणाच्या दुष्परिणामांमुळेच डॉ. स्नेहल यांचा मृत्यू झाला, अशी तक्रार कुटुंबीयांनी केली होती.
  5. सुरवातीला कोव्हीशील्ड कंपनीने व सरकारी अधिकाऱ्यांनी तो मृत्यू लसीच्या दुष्परीणामांमुळे झाल्याचे मान्य करण्यास नकार दिला. परंतु केंद्र शासनाच्या आरोग्य व कुटुंबकल्याण मंत्रालयाकडे पाठपुरावा केल्यानंतर त्यांनी नियुक्त केलेल्या ‘एईएफआय’ समितीने नुकताच अहवाल दिला असून, महिला डॉक्टरचा मृत्यूझाल्यानंतर त्यांच्या पालकांनी केलेल्या तक्रारीत तथ्य आढळले असून, कोरोना प्रतिबंधक लसीकरणामुळेच  गुंता  गुंत होऊन त्यांच्या मेंदूत रक्ताची गाठ तयार झाली होती. त्यातून उपचारांदरम्यान त्यांचा मृत्यू झाल्याचे केंद्र शासनाच्या आरोग्य विभागाच्या एईएफआय’ समितीने स्पष्ट केले आहे.
  6. वरील प्रमाणेच झालेल्या दुष्परीणामांची दखल घेत १८ युरोपीयन देशांनी मार्च २०२१ मध्ये कोव्हीशील्ड वर बंदी घातली होती. परंतू भारत देशात कोणतीही कारवाई न करता नागरिकांचे जीव धोक्यात घालण्यात आहे.



  1. लस कंपन्यांनी कोरोना काळात खोट्या प्रचाराद्वारे लाखो कोटी रुपये कमाविले असून DGCI चे डॉ. व्ही. जी. सोमाणी व AIIMS चे डॉ.रणदीप गुलेरीया सारख्या भ्रष्ट अधिकाऱ्यांनी ‘लस पूर्णतः सुरक्षित आहे’ असा खोटा प्रचार करुन जनतेला व इतर डॉक्टरांना फसवणूकीने लसीकरणास भाग पडले म्हणून त्यांच्याविरुद्ध हत्येची पूर्वतयारी, हत्या, फसवणूक, शासकीय विधीचा दुरुपयोग आदी गुन्ह्यांसाठी भादंवि ४२०४०९११५३०२३०७३०४३०४-अ५२१९२१९३१२०(बी)३४१०९ आदी कलमांतर्गत फौजदारी कारवाई करण्यासाठी एक तक्रार सी. बी. आय. कडे दि. २८. १०.२०२१ कडे दाखल करण्यात आली आहे. ती तक्रार अव्हेकन इंडिया मुव्हमेंट चे राष्ट्रीय समिती सदस्य श्री. अंबर कोईरी यांनी दाखल केली आहे.


  1. डॉ. स्नेहल लुणावत यांच्या परिवारातर्फे लवकरच रीतसर तक्रार व याचिका उच्च न्यायालयात दाखल करण्यात येणार असल्याची माहिती इंडियन बार असोसिएशनचे राष्ट्रीय अध्यक्ष अँड.  निलेश ओझा यांनी दिली.
  2. लसींच्या दुष्परिणामांमुळे झालेल्या असंख्या मृत्यूची नोंदच घेतली जात नाही व देशातील सामान्य जनता सुद्धा तक्रार देणे व पाठपुरावा करणे अश्या भानगडीत पडणे टाळत आहे.
  3. वर्तमानपत्रात प्रकाशीत एकूण बातम्यांवरुन आत्तापर्यंत ४९०० लोकांचा मृत्यू कोरोना लसीच्या दुष्परिणामांमुळे झाला आहे.


  1. देशात व जगभरात लस घेणाऱ्या लोकांमध्ये हृदय विकाराच्या घटनांमध्ये व तरुणांच्या अकाली मृत्यूमध्ये वाढ झाल्याचे दिसून येत आहे.

या कारणास्तव स्वीडनडेन्मार्कफिनलँड आदी देशांनी कोरोना लसींवर बंदी घातली आहे.


  1. एकंदरीत कोरोना लस म्हणजे ‘रोगापेक्षा इलाज भयंकर त्रासदायक’ अशी स्थिती असून भ्रष्ट अधिकाऱ्यांमुळे नागरिकांच्या वित्त व जिवीत्वाचे नुकसान होत आहे.
  2. मृतकांना न्याय मिळवून देण्यासाठी व पुढील हत्या रोखण्यासाठी त्वरित कठोर पावले उचलणे आवश्यक असून सरकारकडून आरोपी डॉक्टरांविरुद्ध टाळाटाळ होत असल्यामुळे लवकरच दिल्लीत आणि मुंबईत निघणार लाखो कार्यकर्त्याचे संम्मेलन आयोजित करण्यात येणार असून तिथे फौजदारी प्र . सं. चे कलम ४३ नुसार कोणताही नागरिक  आरोपी डॉक्टरांना अटक करू शकतो, त्या अधिकाराचा वापर आरोपींविरुद्ध केला जाईल अशी माहिती मोर्चा चे समन्वयक श्री. अंबर कोईरी व श्री. मदन दुबे यांनी दिली.

त्या आंदोलनाला विविध ३०० पेक्षा जास्त संघटनांनी पाठिंबा दिला आहे.

  1. लस घेतल्यानंतर कोरोना रोगापासून कोणतेही खात्रीलायक संरक्षण नाही. दोन्ही डोस घेतलेल्यांना कोरोना होवू शकतो व तो व्यक्ती कोरोनाने मरु शकतो. तसेच लसीचे दोन डोज घेतलेला व्यक्ती कोरोनाचा प्रसार दुसऱ्यांना करु शकतो. त्याच्यापासून दुसरी लोक सुरक्षीत नाहीत. त्याबाबत भारत सरकारचे रेकॉर्ड व त्याआधारे दिलेले  उच्च न्यायालयाचे आदेश आदी पुरावे उपलब्ध आहेत. [Re: Dinthar 2021 SCC OnLine Gau 1313 , Madan Milli 2021 SCC OnLine Gau 1503, Registrar General Vs. State of Meghalaya 2021 SCC OnLine Megh 130, Osbert Khaling Vs. State of Manipur and Ors. 2021 SCC OnLine Mani 234]
  2. कोरोना लसीच्या विविध दुष्परिणामांची माहिती सर्व नागरिकांना व लस घेणाऱ्या प्रत्येकाला देण्याची जबाबदारी ही लसीबाबतचे कोणतेही अभियान चालविणाऱ्या अधिकारी व कर्मचाऱ्यांनी कर्मचाऱ्यांची आहे. [Airdale NHS Trust Vs. Bland (1993) 1 All ER 821, Montgomery Vs. Lanarkshire Health Board [2015] UKSC 11, Master Haridaan Kumar (Minor through and Ors.) Vs. UOI W.P.(C) 350/2019, Delhi High Court, Order dated 22.01.2019]
  3. लसींच्या दुष्परीणामांची माहिती न देता दुष्परिणाम लपवून अर्धवट माहिती देवून फसवणूकिद्वारे लस पूर्णतः सुरक्षीत आहे असा खोटा प्रचार करुन कोरोना लसीचे डोस घेण्यास लोकांना प्रोत्साहित करने किंवा दबाव आणणे हा फौजदारी स्वरूपाचा गुन्हा घडतो व संबंधित अधिकारी व डॉक्टर्स हे नुकसान भरपाई देण्यास सुद्धा पात्र ठरतात. [Registrar General Vs. State of Meghalaya 2021 SCC OnLine Megh 130, Ajay Gautam Vs. Amritsar Eye Clinc 2010 SCC OnLine NCDR 96]
  4. आपत्ती व्यवस्थापन कायदा २००५ चे कलम ५५ नुसार ज्या शासकीय अधिकाऱ्याने गुन्हा केला आहे त्या कार्यालयातील सर्व अधिकारी व वरिष्ठ हे शिक्षेस पात्र ठरतात.

         “55. Offenses by Departments of the Government.—

         (1) Where an offence under this Act has been committed by any Department of the Government, the head of the Department shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly unless he proves that the offence was committed without his knowledge or that he exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of such offence.”

  1. केंद्र शासनाचे निर्देशानुसार लस घेणे पूर्णतः स्वैच्छिक असून लस न घेतल्यामुळे रेल्वे प्रवास, राशन, कर्मचाऱ्यांचा पगार किंवा इतर कोणत्याही शासकीय किंवा खाजगी सुविधा रोखता येणार नाही. भारत सरकारचे निर्देश खालील लिंक वर उपलब्ध आहेत.


मा. उच्च न्यायालयाने Osbert Khaling Vs. State of Manipur and Ors. 2021 SCC OnLine Mani 234, या प्रकरणात मनरेगा च्या सदस्यांना पगार रोखणे आदी गैरकायदेशीरपणाचे आदेश खारीज केले आहेत. त्यामध्ये उच्च न्यायालयाने स्पष्ट केले की लस घ्यायची किंवा नाही हा निर्णय त्या व्यक्तीने स्वतः घ्यावयाचा आहे.

  1. लस घेण्याकरीता दबाव बनविण्यासाठी कोणत्याही सुविधा रोखने हे भारतीय राज्यघटनेच्या कलम 14, 19, 21 चे उल्लंघन ठरते.

[Re Dinthar Incident Vs. State of Mizoram 2021 SCC OnLine Gau 1313, Madan Mili Vs. UOI 2021 SCC OnLine Gau 1503]

  1. केन्द्र सरकारने स्पष्ट केले आहे की लस घेण्यास कोणतेही बंधन घातले नसल्यामुळे लसीच्या दुष्परीणामांसाठी कोणतीही नुकसान भरपाईची तरतूद ठेवलेली नाही.


यावरून असे स्पष्ट होते की जे अधिकारी लस घेण्यास दबाव आणतील ते सर्व अधिकारी पिडीत व्यक्तीस नुकसान भरपाई देण्यास स्वतः जबाबदार राहतील.

  1. नुकतेच एका २३ वर्षीय युवकाने लस घेतल्याच्या तीन तासाच्या आत त्याचा मृत्यू लसीचा दुष्परीणामांमुळे झाल्यामुळे मृत युवकाच्या आईने लस सुरक्षित असल्याचा खोटा प्रचार करणारे डॊक्टर रणदीप गुलेरिया, डॉ व्ही. जी सोमाणी त्यांच्यासह लस घेण्यासाठी दबाव आणण्यासाठी रेलवे पास साठी लस घेणे बंधनकारक असल्याचा बेकायदेशीर नियम बनविणारे महाराष्ट्राचे मुख्य सचिव सीताराम कुंटे, महापालिका आयुक्त इकबा चहल, सुरेश काकाणी, लस निर्माता कंपनीचे आदर पूनावाला  आदींविरोधात कट रचून फसवणूक , हत्या शासकीय मालमत्तेचा दुरुपयोग लस कंपन्यांच्या फायदासाठी करणे आदी गुन्हयासाठी भादवि 52, 115, 302, 420, 409, 120(B), 109, 34 व आपत्ती व्यवस्थापन कायदा चे कलम 51(b), 55 आदी कलमांतर्गत कारवाई साठी केस दाखल केली आहे.


  1. इंडियन मेडिकल असोसिएशन चे पूर्व अध्यक्ष के.के. अग्रवाल व दिल्लीतील 60 डॉक्टर्स ज्यांनी कोरोना लसीचे दोन्ही डोस घेतले होते त्यांचा मृत्यू कोरोनानेच झाला होता.


  3. लसीच्या दुष्परीणामामुळे लस घेणाऱ्यांचा जीव जावू शकतो. त्यांना बहिरेपणा, अर्धांगवायू, आंधळेपणा, रक्त गोठणे (Blood Clotting) असे गंभीर व जीवघेणे दुष्परीणाम होवू शकतात.

देशात आतापर्यंत ४५०० पेक्षा जास्त लोकांचा मृत्यू लसीच्या दुष्परिणामांमुळे झाला आहे. कोरोना लसीच्या दुष्परिणामामुळे मरण पावलेल्या लोकांची माहिती देणाऱ्या वर्तमानपत्रात प्रकाशीत बातम्या खालील लिंक वर उपलब्ध आहेत.


लसीच्या इतर दुष्परिनामाबाबत इंग्लंडच्या टेस लॉरी यांनी सरकारी रेकॉर्डवरून तयार केलेला अहवाल खालील लिंक वर उपलब्ध आहे.


  1. ज्या व्यक्तींना कोरोना होवून गेला आहे किंवा ज्यांचा कोरोना विषाणूंशी संपर्क आला आहे ती लोक सर्वात जास्त सुरक्षित असून त्यांना कोरोना होवू शकत नाही, ते कोरोनाचा प्रसार करू शकत नाही किंवा ते कोरोनाने मरु शकत नाही. त्यांची प्रतीकारशक्ती हि कोरोना लसींपेक्षा १३ पटींपेक्षा जास्त प्रभावी व गुणकारी असते. अश्या लोकांना लस देणे म्हणजे हा मूर्खपणा असून त्यामुळे त्यांच्या शरीरास नुकसान होवू  शकते. दुष्परीणाम होवू शकतात. अश्या लोकांनी लस न घेणेच योग्य आहे. याबाबत AIIMS चे Epidemiologist  डॉ. संजीव राय व इतर जगप्रसिद्ध डॉक्टर्स व शास्त्रज्ञाचे विविध शोध पत्र खालील लिंक वर उपलब्ध आहे.


  1. त्या व्यतिरिक्त ज्या लोकांच्या शरीरात कोरोनाविरोधी प्रतिकारशक्ती    (Antibodies) तयार झाली आहे त्यांना कोरोना लसीच्या Clinical Trial वैद्यकीय चाचण्यामध्ये सहभागीच करण्यात आले नव्हते म्हणून त्यांना लस देताच येणार नाही हा शास्त्रीय वैज्ञानिक नियम आहे.
  2. ज्या लोकांमध्ये अशी नैसर्गिक प्रतिकार शक्ती निर्माण झाली आहे . भारतात असे ७०% पेक्षा जास्त लोक आहेत. त्यांना लस घेण्याची आवश्यकता नाही. परंतू लस कंपनीचा हजारो कोटींचा फायदा करण्याचा दुष्ट हेतू साध्य करण्यासाठी काही अधिकारी हे सर्वांना लसीची सक्ती करण्यासाठी पत्रके काढून खोटी बातमी प्रकाशीत करून गंभीर फौजदारी अपराध करीत आहेत.
  3. भ्रष्ट मंत्री व सरकारच्या दडपशाहीमुळे लस घेणाऱ्या नागरिकांना लसीच्या दुष्परीणामांमुळे जीवघेणे त्रास झालेले असून कित्येक लोकांचे मृत्यु झालेले आहे. कोणाला  आंधळेपणा, बहिरेपणा येतो, पक्षघात, लुळेपणा आदी दुष्परीणाम भोगावे लागत आहे. हा सर्व प्रकार सामूहिक हत्या, नरसंहार (Mass Murder) मध्ये मोडतो त्यामुळे त्या सर्व गुन्ह्यामध्ये आरोपी अधिकारी व मंत्री हे व्यक्तिशः जबाबदार असून आरोपीविरुद्ध कठोर कारवाई करण्यात येणार आहे.
  4. जनतेच्या पैशावर सर्व सुविधा घेवून नागरिकांचे व देशाचे हित न जोपासता पदाचा दुरुपयोग करून लस कंपन्यांच्या गैरफायद्यासाठी पदाचा दुरुपयोग करणाऱ्या अश्या अधिकारी व मंत्र्यांना भा. द. वि. ४०९ मध्ये जन्मठेपेची म्हणजेच आजन्म कारावासाच्या शिक्षेची तरतूद आहे. सदरचा कोरोना लस कंपन्यांना फायदा पोहचविण्यासाठी आदेश व निर्बंध काढण्याचा  भ्रष्टाचार हा दरवर्षी लाख कोटींच्या पेक्षा जास्त आहे. अश्या भ्रष्ट अधिकाऱ्यांविरुद्ध कारवाई करण्यासाठी सर्वोच्च न्यायालयाने स्पष्ट कायदा ठरवून दिला आहे. [Noida Vs. Noida (2011)6 SCC 527, Vijay Shekhar Vs. Union of India (2004) 4 SCC 666].

त्याच कायद्याच्या आधारे महाराष्ट्राचे भ्रष्टाचारी गृहमंत्री अनिल देशमुखांविरुद्ध गुन्हे दाखल होऊन मंत्रालयातील दोन वरीष्ठ अधिकाऱ्यांना सी.बी.आय, इ.डी यांनी अटक केली आहे. अनिल देशमुख यांना अटक झाली असून परमबीर सिंग हे सध्या फरार आहेत. [Param Bir Singh Vs. State of Maharashtra 2021 SCC OnLine Bom 516]

लस कंपन्यांचा फायदा करण्यासाठी मुख्यमंत्री व टास्क फोर्स सदस्यांकडून जिल्हाधिकाऱ्यांना व जनतेला खोटी माहिती देवून फसवणुकीने लस देण्याचे निर्देश देण्याचा आरोप .

लस कंपन्यांचा फायदा करण्यासाठी मुख्यमंत्री व टास्क फोर्स सदस्यांकडून जिल्हाधिकाऱ्यांना व जनतेला खोटी माहिती देवून फसवणुकीने लस देण्याचे निर्देश देण्याचा आरोप.

  • राज्यपालांकडे गुन्हा दाखल करण्यासाठी परवानगीचा अर्ज दाखल.
  • लस कंपन्यांचा हजारो कोटींचा फायदा होण्यासाठी राज्यातील जनतेचे जीव धोक्यात घालून त्यांना खोट्या माहितीच्या आधारे लस घेण्यास प्रोत्साहित करून जनतेची फसवणूकत्यांचा हत्येचा प्रयत्नजनतेचा निधीचा दुरूयोग केल्याप्रकरणी मुख्यमंत्री उध्दव ठाकरेआरोग्य मंत्री राजेश टोपे सह कटात सहभागी असलेले व २ नोव्हेंबरला मिटींग मध्ये उपस्थित इतर प्रशासकीय अधिकारीजिल्हाधिकारी आदिंविरुध्द लेखी तक्रार मा. राज्यपाल भगतसिंह कोश्यारी यांच्याकडे दाखल करण्यात आली असून त्यामुळे राज्यात एकच खळबळ उडाली आहे.
  • सदर प्रकरणाचा तपास सीबीआयईडी  व आयकर विभागाच्या सदस्यांची एक विशेष टीम (SIT) बनवून त्यांच्यामार्फत करण्यात यावा अशी मागणी अव्हेकन इंडिया मुव्हमेंट चे अंबर कोईरी, फिरोझ मिठीबोरवला व स्वदेशी भारत आन्दोलनाचे-राष्ट्रीय प्रवक्ता-मदन दुबे यांनी केली आहे.

१. मुख्यमंत्री श्री.  उद्धव ठाकरे यांनी दिनांक ०२.११.२०२१ रोजी टास्क फोर्स सोबत घेवून राज्यातील सर्व जिल्ह्याधिकाऱ्यांना असे निर्देश दिले आहेत की, लोकांचे १००% लसीकरण करण्यात यावे.

तो कार्यक्रम राबविण्यासाठी सर्वांना  व  जनतेला उद्देशून  असे  खोटे सांगण्यात आले आहे की;

ज्यांनी लस घेतली आहे त्यांना संसर्गाची खूप कमी भीती असून अशांच्या जिवाला कमी धोका आहे हे सिद्ध झालेआहेत्यामुळे नागरिकांनीदेखील टाळाटाळ  करता दोन्ही डोस घेण्यास प्राधान्य द्यावे.”

२. वरील विधानाचा खोटेपणा हा शासनाच्याच खालील पुराव्यावरून सिद्ध होतो:

२.१ नागपूर येथे कोरोनाची बाधा झालेल्या १३ रुग्णांपैकी लसींचे दोन्ही डोज घेणारे १२ लोक होते. म्हणजेच लस घेणाऱ्यांना संसर्गाची भीती ही सर्वात जास्त (92%) आहे.



“Source:- Free Press Journal.

Date:- Monday, September 06, 2021, 11:02 PM IST

Relevant Important Para to  be taken;
The district guardian minister, Dr Nitin Raut, told the Free Press Journal after a review meeting, ‘‘The third wave has started in Nagpur, which is reporting a rise in positive cases for the last few days. Notably, on Monday, 13 people tested positive for the virus out of which 12 were already vaccinated.”


२.२ मुंबईतील केएममेडीकल कॉलेज च्या विद्यार्थ्यांमध्ये 29 कोरोना रुग्णांपैकी 27 रुग्णांनी लसींचे दोन डोज घेतले होते. म्हणजेच लस घेतलेल्या 93% लोकांना कोरोनाचा संसर्ग होण्याचा धोका आहे.


29 MBBS students at KEM hospital test positive for COVID-19, 27 were fully vaccinated


२.३. बेंगलोर येथे इस्पीतळात येणाऱ्या नवीन कोरोना रुग्णांमध्ये लस घेतलेल्या लोकांचे प्रमाण अधिक आहे.


“Source Name: Deccan Herald


More than half of hospitalised Covid-19 cases among vaccinated in Bengaluru

These hospitalizations are indicative of the extent of vaccine penetration in the public, explained BBMP Chief Commissioner, Gaurav Gupta”

२.४. नॅशनल टेक्निकल अँडव्हायझरी ग्रुप ऑफ इम्युनायझेशन (NTIAGI)  चे पूर्व सदस्य श्री. जॅकोब पुलियल यांनी सर्वोच्च न्यायालयात W.P. No. 607 of 2021 मध्ये दि. रोजी दाखल शपथपत्रा सोबत स्पष्ट पुरावे दिले आहेत की लस घेणाऱ्या लोकांमध्ये कोरोनाचा संसर्ग वाढण्याचे व मृत्यूचे प्रमाण अधिक आहे.


२.५. लसीचे दोष लपवून खोटी माहिती प्रकाशीत करणाऱ्या आरोपीविरुद्ध सी.  बी.आय. कडे तक्रार करण्यात आली आहे.


२.६. केन्द्र शासनाचा आरोग्य मंत्रालयाने दि. २००९२०२१ रोजी दिलेल्या उत्तरामध्ये स्पष्ट केले आहे की लस घेतल्यामुळे काय फायदा होतो याचा कोणताही निष्कर्ष अजून काढण्यात आलेला नाही.

Health Ministry on 20.09.2021 said that, there is no data available regarding longevity of the immune response in vaccinated individuals. The relevant Question & Answer is as under;

 Question-1 Detailed information on approved vaccines to prevent corona outbreaks. As well as detailed information about their time period.

 Answer:-1. Longevity of the immune response in vaccinated individuals is yet to be determined. Hence, continuing the use of masks, hand washing, physical distancing and other COVID-19 appropriate behaviors is strongly recommended.

 This proves the falsity of claim of efficacy of vaccines.

 २.७. याशिवाय ठाणे महापालिका कार्यालयाने दि. 25.10.2021 रोजी प्रख्यात सामाजिक कार्यकर्ते कमलाकर शिनॉय यांना लेखी माहिती दिली आहे की मरणाऱ्या रुग्णांचे कोरोना लसीकरणांबाबत कोणतीही माहिती नोंद करण्यात आलेलीच नाही.

Thane Municipal Corporation

Reply under RTI                                                            Date: 25.10.2021

Question: (C) Number of deaths before and after vaccination before 1st dose, after 1st dose, citizen who die between two doses, after 2nd dose, citizen who die between 2nd dose and 3rd booster dose, after booster dose.

Answer: At present people dying in Thane Municipal Corporation region there vaccination status data is not available with Thane Municipal Corporation mentioned no details or guidelines yet available 3rd booster dose by State. 

३ .अश्याप्रकारे मुख्यमंत्री श्री. उद्धव ठाकरे यांचे दि. 02.11.2021 चे विधान हे पूर्णतः खोटे असल्याचे स्पष्ट झाले आहे. यावरुन हे सिद्ध होते की सर्व आरोपी टास्क फोर्स चे सदस्य हे खोट्या माहितीच्या आधारे नागरिकांची फसवणूक करुन राज्यातील अधिकाऱ्यांवर गैरकायदेशीर पणे दबाव आणून जनतेचे जीव धोक्यात घालण्याचे काम करीत आहेत. हे करण्यामागे त्यांचा उद्देश हा लस कंपन्यांचा हजारो कोटींचा गैरफायदा करण्याचा असल्याचे स्पष्ट होते.

त्याकरिता त्यांच्याविरुद्ध भारतीय दंड विधान चे कलम ४२०, ४०९, ११५, ३०२, ३०४, ३०४-A, १२०(B), १०९, ३४, आदि कलमाअंतर्गत कारवाईसाठी सविस्तर लेखी तक्रार राज्याचे राज्यपाल भगतसिंग कोशयारी यांच्याकडे दाखल करण्यात आली आहे .

४ .लस घेण्याचे अनेक जीवघेणे दुष्परिणाम असून 100% जनतेचे लसीकरण केल्यामुळे जनतेचा कोणताही फायदा होणार नाही. त्याउलट अनेक लोकांचे जीव धोक्यात येणार आहेत. याबाबत AIIMS चे प्रख्यात डॉ. संजीव राय यांची मुलाखत खालील लिंक वर उपलब्ध आहे.


५.केरळ मध्ये सर्वाधिक लसीकरण केल्यानंतरही 40,000 पेक्षा अधिक लोकांना पुन्हा कोरोना झाला आहे. तिथे कोरोनाच्या संसर्गाचे  प्रमाणही सर्वाधिक आहे.

६. लसीच्या दुष्परीणामांमुळे निष्पाप नागरिकांचे बळी जात आहेत. अनेकांना गंभीर दुष्परीणाम भोगावे लागत आहेत.औरंगाबादच्या डॉ. स्नेहल लुणावत यांचा मृत्यू लसीच्या दुष्परीणामांमुळे झाल्याचे भारत सरकारच्या AEFI समीतीने मान्य केले आहे.


७.नुकतेच एका २३ वर्षीय युवकाने लस घेतल्याच्या तीन तासाच्या आत त्याचा मृत्यू लसीचा दुष्परीणामांमुळे झाल्यामुळे मृत युवकाच्या आईने लस सुरक्षित असल्याचा खोटा प्रचार करणारे डॉक्टर रणदीप गुलेरिया, डॉ. व्ही.जी सोमाणी त्यांच्यासह लस घेण्यासाठी दबाव  आणण्यासाठी रेलवे पाससाठी लस घेणे बंधनकारक असल्याचा बेकायदेशीर नियम बनविणारे महाराष्ट्राचे मुख्य सचिव सीताराम कुंटे, महापालिका आयुक्त इकबाल चहल,  सुरेश काकाणी, लस निर्माता कंपनीचे आदर पूनावाला आदींविरोधात कट रचून फसवणूक, हत्या शासकीय मालमत्तेचा दुरुपयोग लस कंपन्यांच्या फायद्यासाठी करणे आदी गुन्हयासाठी भादवि 52, 115, 302, 420, 409, 120(B), 109, 34 व आपत्ती व्यवस्थापन कायदा चे कलम 51(b), 55 आदी कलमांअंतर्गत कारवाई साठी केस दाखल केली आहे.


इंडियन मेडिकल असोसिएशन चे पूर्व अध्यक्ष केकेअग्रवाल व दिल्लीतील 60 डॉक्टर्स ज्यांनी कोरोना लसीचे दोन्ही डोस घेतले होते त्यांचा मृत्यू कोरोनानेच झाला होता


९.लसींच्या दुष्परिणामांमुळे लोकांचे मृत्यू होत असल्यामुळे 11 यूरोपियन देशांनी कोव्हीशील्ड (Astrazenica) या लसीला बंदी घातली होती.


१०. अश्याप्रकारे मुख्यमंत्री उद्धव ठाकरे व टास्क फोर्स सदस्यांनी कट रचून पदाचा दुरुपयोग करून लस कंपन्यांचा हजारो कोटींच्या फायदा व शासनाचा म्हणजेच जनतेच्या पैशाचा अपहार करून भ्रष्टाचारासाठी लोकांचे जीव धोक्यात घातले आहेत व कित्येक निष्पाप नागरिकांच्या हत्या केल्या आहेत.

११.लसींच्या दुष्परिणामांमुळे अनेक लोकांनी लस घेण्यास मनाई केली आहे. त्यामुळे लस कंपन्यांकडून उत्पादीत कोट्यावधी लसींचा स्टॉक पडून आहे. त्यामध्ये पहिला डोज घेतल्यानंतर दुसरा डोज न घेणाऱ्यांची संख्या 11 कोटी पर्यंत असल्याची माहिती केंद्रीय आरोगयमंत्री मनसुख मांडवीया यांनी दिली.

१२.मुंबईत सुद्धा 5 लाखांवर लोकांनी दुसरा डोज घेण्याची तारीख आल्यावर सुद्धा लसीचा डोज घेतलेला नाही अशी माहिती पालिका उपायुक्त सुरेश काकाणी यांनी दिली.

१३.वरील कारणांमुळे लस कंपन्यांनी टास्क फोर्सचे भ्रष्ट सदस्य, भ्रष्ट अधिकारी व मंत्र्यांना हाताशी धरून विविध युक्त्या लढवून व कट रचून लस कंपन्यांचा माल खपविण्यासाठी खोटे नाटे रिपोर्ट व बातम्या पसरवून लोकांना लस घेण्यास प्रोत्साहीत करणे किंवा बेकायदेशीरपणे नियम बनवून दबाव आणून नाईलाजास्तव लस घेण्यास भाग पाडणे असे गैरप्रकार सुरू केले आहेत.

१४. ज्या व्यक्तींना कोरोना होवून गेला आहे किंवा ज्यांचा कोरोना विषाणूंशी संपर्क आला आहे ती लोक सर्वात जास्त सुरक्षित असून त्यांना कोरोना होवू शकत नाही, ते कोरोनाचा प्रसार करू शकत नाही किंवा ते कोरोनाने मरू शकत नाही. त्यांची प्रतीकारशक्ती ही कोरोना लसींपेक्षा १३ पटींपेक्षा जास्त प्रभावी व गुणकारी असते. अश्या लोकांना लस देणे म्हणजे हा मूर्खपणा असून त्यामुळे त्यांच्या शरीरास नुकसान होवू शकते. दुष्परिणाम होवू शकतात. अश्या लोकांनी लस न घेणेच योग्य आहे. तसेच जनतेच्या हजारो कोटी रुपयांचा दुरुपयोग आहे. त्यांना लस देवून भ्रष्ट अधिकारी हे महत्वपूर्ण पुरावे नष्ट करण्याचा प्रयत्नात आहेत. याबाबत AIIMS चे Epidemiologist डॉ. संजीव राय व इतर जगप्रसिद्ध डॉक्टर्स व शास्त्रज्ञाचे विविध शोध पत्र खालील लिंक वर उपलब्ध आहे.


१५. अश्याप्रकारे आरोपी क्र. १ उद्धव ठाकरे यांच्यासोबत त्या मीटींगमध्ये सहभागी सर्व सह आरोपी हे फौजदारी कारवाईस पात्र आहेत.

१६. सर्वोच्च न्यायालयाचे न्यायाधीश डॉ. धनंजय चंन्द्रचूड यांनी दि. 29.08.2021 रोजी स्पष्ट केले की कोरोना संदर्भात सरकार खोटी माहिती देत असून त्याबाबत सत्य परीस्थीती जगापुढे आणण्याची जबाबदारी हा सुजाण नागरिक (Intellectual Citizen) यांची आहे.

तक्रारकरत्याने केलेली मागणी खालीलप्रमाणे आहे ;

i)कोरोनालसीबाबत लस कंपन्यांना हजारो कोटींचा गैरफायदा पोहचविण्याच्या उद्देशाने केंद्र शासनाच्या निर्देशांविरुद्ध जावून खोट्या माहितीच्या आधारे १००% लसीकरणाचे आदेश देवून लोकांचे जीव धोक्यात घालून खोट्या बातम्या पसरविण्याप्रकरणी आरोपींविरुद्ध भादंवि ११५४०९,४२०१६६१२०()३४५२,१०९ आणि आपत्ती व्यवस्थापन कायदा चे कलम ५१()५५५४ अंतर्गत फौजदारी कारवाई करण्यासाठी फौजदारी प्रसंचे कलम १९७ नुसार त्वरीत किंवा अधिकतम ७ दिवसाच्या आत परवानगी देण्यात यावी;

ii)वरीलप्रकरणाचा अहवाल केंद्र शासनास पाठवून निष्पाप नागरिकांच्या हत्या व शासकीय निधीचा दुरुपयोग रोखण्यासाठी महाराष्ट्रात राष्ट्रपती राजवट लावण्याची शिफारस करण्यात यावी;

iii) अर्जदाराच्या जीवाचे काही बरेवाईट झाल्यास सदरचा अर्ज हेच माझे मृत्यूपूर्व बयान समजण्यात येवून आरोपींना माझ्या मृत्यूस जबाबदार ठरवून त्यांच्याविरुद्ध हत्येचा कट रचून हत्या घडवून आणल्याची कारवाई करावी. आरोपींना जामीन न देता तुरुंगात ठेवून केस चालविण्यासाठी सीबीआय व इतर अधिकाऱ्यांनी न्यायालयात अर्ज देण्याचे निर्देश द्यावेत;

iv)अर्जदारास योग्य ते पोलिस संरक्षण पुरविण्याचे आदेश आदेश देण्यात यावेत.

[बिग ब्रेकिंग] लीगल नोटिस मिलते ही यूट्यूब ने गलती मान कर माफी मांगते हुए यूट्यूब चैनल फिर से बहाल किया।

[बिग ब्रेकिंग] लीगल नोटिस मिलते ही यूट्यूब ने गलती मान कर माफी मांगते हुए यूट्यूब चैनल फिर से बहाल  किया।

  • वैक्सीन माफिया को करारा झटका।
  • इंडियन बार एसोसिएशन और अव्हेकन इंडिया मूवमेंट की एक और जीत।
  • यूट्यूब पर दायर होगा 1000 करोड रुपए के जुर्माने का केस।
  • दुनिया भर के शोधकर्ताओं को राहत। 

नई दिल्ली: वैक्सीन माफिया को फायदा पहुंचाने के लिए यूट्यूब और अन्य सोशल मीडिया द्वारा वैक्सीन के खिलाफ का कोई भी वीडियो या जानकारी मिटाने का और यूट्यूब चैनल डिलीट करने का काम कोरोना महामारी के शुरू से ही चल रहा था।

इस वजह से कोरोना वैक्सीन का फ्रॉड और दुष्परिणाम उजागर करने वाले शोधकर्ता, सामाजिक कार्यकर्ता, डॉक्टर, वैज्ञानिकों आदि के वीडियो को यूट्यूब और अन्य सोशल मीडिया द्वारा आम आदमी तक पहुंचाने नहीं दिया जा रहा था उसी अन्याय का शिकार बने राजीव दीक्षित अभियान से जुड़े सामाजिक कार्यकर्ता, वीरेंद्र सिंह ने इस फ्रॉड के खिलाफ लड़ने का निर्णय लिया और उन्होंने इंडियन बार एसोसिएशन के राष्ट्रीय अध्यक्ष  अँड.  निलेश ओझा के वकील अँड. अभिषेक मिश्रा के माध्यम से यूट्यूब को कानूनी कारवाई का नोटिस भेजा।

नोटिस में यूट्यूब और गूगल के सीईओ सुंदर पिचाई सहित अन्य अधिकारियों के खिलाफ भारतीय दंड संहिता के कलम 500, 501, 120 (B) 34 आदि धाराओं के साथ कोर्ट अवमानना के तहत कानूनी कारवाई कर आरोपियों को जेल और वीरेंद्र सिंह को 1000 करोड़ रुपए के मुआवजे की मांग की गई।

नोटिस में यह स्पष्ट किया गया की, यूट्यूब का काम गैरकानूनी है और उनके मुवक्किल के  संविधान  के आर्टिकल 19 के तहत  बोलने की आजादी के संवैधानिक अधिकारियों का उल्लंघन (हनन) करने वाला है इसके साथ ही यह देश की जनता के सही जानकारी प्राप्त करने के अधिकारों का भी हनन है तथा सर्वोच्च न्यायालय और उच्च न्यायालय के आदेशों की अवमानना करने वाला है।

इसके साथ ही यूट्यूब ने यूनो (UNO) के नियम यूनिवर्सल डिक्लेरेशन ऑन बायोइथिकक्स  एंड ह्यूमन राइट्स 2005′ के आर्टिकल 18 का भी उल्लंघन किया है, जिसके तहत हर औषधी और चिकित्सा पद्धति के बारे में सभी लोगों को बहस करने और अपने विचार रखने के लिए बढ़ावा देने का कानूनी प्रावधान है।

इसके अलावा यूट्यूब द्वारा केवल वैक्सीन के समर्थन में एक तरफा न्यूज़ चला कर लोगों को गुमराह कर वैक्सीन लेने के लिए प्रेरित करने के वजह से लोगों की होने वाली मौत के षडयंत्र मे यूट्यूब और गूगल को भी सह आरोपी मानते हुए उनके खिलाफ हत्या के प्रयास और अन्य गुणाह करने वाले आरोपियों के षड्यंत्र को मदद करने के लिए किए गए काम की वजह से भारतीय संहिता के धारा 120 (B)और एविडेंस एक्ट की धारा 10 के तहत यूट्यूब और गूगल के सभी अधिकारियों को फांसी और उम्र कैद की सजा हो सकती है।

इन सब बातों की नोटिस मिलते ही यूट्यूब ने 6 नवंबर, 2021 को अपनी गलती स्वीकार की और माफी मांगते हुए वीरेंद्र सिंह जी का यूट्यूब चैनल फिर से बाहर कर दिया।  यूट्यूब ने गलती मानने की वजह से वीरेंद्र सिंह का केस अब और भी मजबूत हो गया है। वीरेंद्र सिंह ने इस जीत का श्रेय अव्हेकन इंडिया मूवमेंट और इंडियन बार एसोसिएशन के सभी सदस्यों को दिया है और आशा जताई है कि अब लोगों तक सही जानकारी पहुंचेगी और वैक्सीन माफिया को जल्द ही जेल होगी।



  • Gauhati High Court judgment of vaccination is binding and Kerala High Court judgment is illegal, per-incuriam, null and void, vitiated.
  • The Kerala High Court can recall its judgment

1.There are two sets of judgments, one set of judgments specifically prohibit any vaccine mandate and consider any condition imposed by Government as illegal, unconstitutional and null and void.
These judgments are;

i)   Registrar General Vs. State of Meghalaya 2021 SCC OnLineMegh 130

Read More

ii)   Re Dinthar Incident Vs. State of Mizoram 2021 SCC OnLineGau 1313

Read More

iii)   Madan Mili Vs. UOI 2021 SCC OnLineGau 1503

Read More

iv)   OsbertKhaling Vs. State of Manipur 2021 SCC OnLine Mani 234

Read More

The other set consists of two judgments from State of Kerala, which say that the state can put conditions of vaccinations upon citizens:

i) Halvi K.S. Vs. Union of India in W.P. (C) No. 16614 of 2021 [Judgment dated 17.09.2021]

ii) Sanil Narayan Vs. State in W.P. (C) No. 21120 of 2021 [Judgment dated 20.10.2021]


2. Now the question arises as to which of these judgments are binding and which are not.In view of Central Government’s policy and settled law,the judgments which prohibit vaccine mandates are binding and other judgments which support mandatory vaccination or discrimination on the basis of vaccination status, are illegal, per-incuriam, null & void and are not binding.

3. The judgment passed by theKerala High Court is not binding because it does not follow the guidelines of Supreme Court in Pradeep Mehta’s case (2008) 14 SCC 283 and ignores the ratio laid down by the Gauhati, Meghalaya and Manipur High Court.

Secondly, the Kerala High Court also failed to appreciate the provisions of section 38(1), 39(a) of Disaster Management Act, 2005 which mandates that the State Authority cannot work against the Guidelines given by the National Authority i.e. Central Government.

Hence the Kerala Government’s mandate for vaccination and discrimination of unvaccinated people is against the Central Government’s policy decisions that vaccination is voluntary and not mandatory. Central Government has also made it clear that there can be no discrimination on the basis of vaccination status. In fact the concerned officials of Kerala Government should be liable for punishment under section 51(b) & 55 of Disaster Management Act, 2005. But the Kerala High Court did not considered this aspect.

Thirdly, Kerala High Court has also failed to consider the provisions of Article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) & Universal Declaration on Bioethics & Human Rights, 2005.

Therefore, the judgment of Kerala High Court has no precedentry value and is not binding in view of law laid down by the Supreme Court in Mamleshwar  Prasad (1975) 2 SCC 232,ThotaSesharathamma v. ThotaManikyamma [(1992) 4 SCC 312, Narmada BachaoAndolan, (2011) 7 SCC 639, SiddharamMhetre (2011) 1 SCC 694.


4.The decisions given by the Gauhati, Meghalaya, Manipur High Court are based on following factual and legal position:

i) Central Government’s policy is that the vaccine is not mandatory and there can be no condition or discrimination based on the vaccination status of a person;

ii) When vaccinated person is also likely to get infection from corona, they can also be a super-spreader like the unvaccinated people, there is no reason for discriminating between vaccinated and unvaccinated. The discrimination by the state authority is not based on the intelligent differentia. Such discrimination is violative of Article 14, 21 of the constitution of India.

iii) Any restriction can be brought only by amending the judicious Act passed in parliament.Restriction cannot be brought by the authorities by issuing circulars and rules by the State authorities. Arbitrary circulars and executive orders must be quashed.

iv) In OsbertKhaling Vs. State of Manipur2021 SCC OnLine Mani 234,the court also considered and appreciated the choice of a person to not to get vaccinated in pandemic.

“8…. Restraining people who are yet to get vaccinated from opening institutions, organizations, factories, shops, etc., or denying them their livelihood by linking their employment, be it NREGA job card holders or workers in Government or private projects, to their getting vaccinated would be illegal on the part of the State, if not unconstitutional. Such a measure would also trample upon the freedom of the individual to get vaccinated or choose not to do so.

5.The judgment given by the Division Bench of Hon’ble Guwahati High Court. In Re: Dinthar Incident Aizawl Vs. State of Mizoram 2021 SCC OnLineGau 1313, is passed after hearing Union of India. Said judgments are not challenged by the Union of India and therefore they are binding on Union of India. Since the law of constitutional mandate is decided in the said judgment, therefore it is binding on all the authorities in India.

6.In Maharashtra Govt., through G. B. Gore Vs. RajaramPadamwar2011 SCC OnLineBom 2021, it is ruled that if any officer including a Judge refuses to follow the judgement of other High Court ,then such authority shall face action.

As per Supreme Court judgments in Pradip Mehta vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Ahmedabad (2008) 14 SCC 283, the Kerala and all other High Courts in India are bound to refer and explain the ratio laid down by the Gauhati, Meghalaya and Manipur High Court.

7.However in the judgment passed by the Kerala High Court on 20.10.2021 in the case of Sunil Narayan Vs. State (supra), the legal and factual position as decided in Dinthar’s case (supra),is neither referred to nor analyzed and therefore Kerala High Court judgments are vitiated, per-incuriam and null & void.

8.The Kerala High Court has also ignored the mandatory provisions of Article 7 of International Covenant on Civil & Political Rights and Universal Declaration of Bioethics and Human Rights 2005.

          Article 7 of ICCPR;

No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In particular, no one shall be subjected without his free consent to medical or scientific experimentation.

The Articles of ICCPR are binding in India and are followed by the Supreme Court of India.

The provisions of Universal Declaration on Bioethics & Human Rights, 2005(UDBHR) reads thus;

“Article 3: Human dignity and human rights

  1. Human dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms are to be fully respected.

2.The interests and welfare of the individual should have priority over the sole interest ofscience or society.

 Article 6: Consent

1.Any preventive, diagnostic and therapeutic medical intervention is only to be carried out with the prior, free and informed consent of the person concerned, based on adequate information. The consent should, where appropriate, be express and may be withdrawn by the person concerned at any time and for any reason without disadvantage or prejudice.

9. In Pradeep Mehta Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Ahmedabad (2008) 14 SCC 283,it is ruled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as under;

View taken by other High Court though not binding but should be referred and reasons should be mentioned for not following said ratio – Another High Court would be within its right to differ with the said view. But, in all fairness, the High Court should record its dissent with reasons therefore. Thus, the judgment of the other High Court, though not binding, have persuasive value which should be taken note of and dissented from by recording its own reasons.”[Para 24]

10. In Medical Council of India Vs. G.C.R.G. Memorial Trust and Ors. (2018) 12 SCC 564, it is ruled as under;

The judicial propriety requires judicial discipline. Judge cannot think in terms of “what pleases the Prince has the force of law”. Frankly speaking, the law does not allow so, for law has to be observed by requisite respect for law.

A Judge should abandon his passion. He must constantly remind himself that he has a singular master “duty to truth” and such truth is to be arrived at within the legal parameters. No heroism, no rhetorics.

A Judge even when he is free, is still not wholly free; he is not to innovate at pleasure; he is not a knighterrant roaming at will in pursuit of his own ideal of beauty or of goodness; he is to draw inspiration from consecrated principles.

11. In Sundarjas K. BhatijaVs. Collector, Thane, Maharashtra (1989) 3 SCC 396, it is ruled as under;

“Constitution of India, Art.141- PRECEDENTS – Judges are bound by precedents and procedure – When law is clear and settled then Judges cannot use their discretion – They could use their discretion only when there is no declared principle to be found, no rule and no authority. It is a subversion of judicial process not to follow this procedure – it is the duty of judges of superior courts and tribunals to make the law more predictable. The question of law directly arising in the case should not be dealt with apologetic approaches. The law must be made more effective as a guide to behaviour. It must be determined with reasons which carry convictions within the Courts, profession and public. Otherwise, the lawyers would be in a predicament and would not know how to advise their clients. Sub-ordinate courts would find themselves in an embarrassing position to choose between the conflicting opinions. The general public would be in dilemma to obey or not to obey such law and it ultimately falls into disrepute- One must remember that pursuit of the law, however glamorous it is, has its own limitation on the Bench.”

12. In State Bank of Travancore Vs. Mathew 2018 (3) SCC 85, it is ruled as under;

  1. It is the solemn duty of the Court to apply the correct law without waiting for an objection to be raised by a party, especially when the law stands well settled. Any departure, if permissible, has to be for reasons discussed, of the case falling under a defined exception, duly discussed after noticing the relevant law.

18.We cannot help but disapprove the approach of the High Court for reasons already noticed in Dwarikesh Sugar Industries Ltd. v. Prem Heavy Engineering Works (P) Ltd. and Anr. MANU/SC/0639/1997 : 1997 (6) SCC 450, observing:

32.  When a position, in law, is well settled as a result of judicial pronouncement of this Court, it would amount to judicial impropriety to say the least, for the subordinate courts including the High Courts to ignore the settled decisions and then to pass a judicial order which is clearly contrary to the settled legal position.Such judicial adventurism cannot be permitted and we strongly deprecate the tendency of the subordinate courts in not applying the settled principles and in passing whimsical orders which necessarily has the effect of granting wrongful and unwarranted relief to one of the parties. It is time that this tetendency stops.”

13. In Dwarikesh Sugar Industries vs. Prem Heavy Engineering Works (P) ltd. (1997) 6 SCC 450, it is further ruled as under;

29. ….The observation of the High Court that reference to judicial decisions will not be of much importance was clearly a method adopted by it in avoiding to follow and apply the law as laid down by this Court.”

14. Ignorance of basic arguments and factual position and passing the order on irrelevant or less important points makes such judgments null & void and vitiated. [Harshit Agarwal Vs. Union of India (2021) 2 SCC 710, Vijay Shekhar Vs. Union of India (2004) 4 SCC 666]

14.1.  The Kerala High Court in its judgments ignored the precedents of Guwahati, Meghalaya and Manipur High Court and also the following crucial facts;

(i) Policy of Central Government that vaccine is not mandatory and no rule can be brought by any authority to discriminate on the basis of vaccination status.

(ii) The fact that vaccines are no guarantee that you will not get Corona. The outbreaks in Kerala and increase in hospitalization of vaccinated people in various parts of country and across the word proves that vaccination of entire population is not going to serve any public good.

(iii) The State’s authorityhas no power to violate the fundamental rights of the citizen. It can only be done by a law made by the parliament. It is the duty of the High Court to see whether the Act applied by the state is arbitrary and discriminatory.

(iv) The safest persons in the present situation are the covid-19 cured or who have anti-bodies developed due to their coming in contact with Sars-covi-2 virus and their immunity is 13 times better than that of fully vaccinated.

Giving vaccines to such person will cause no benefit but much harm to them. It is also a misuse of public money. All the domain experts of India and Dr. Sanjeev Rai of AIIMS have made written representation to Hon’ble Prime Minister in this regard.


(v) There are more than 67% people who have developed antibodies and hence state authority should explain as to why they are hell bent on only vaccination.

(vi) Mass vaccination is doing no public good.It has no guarantee of protection from corona. On the other hand, it is misappropriation of public money, property and resources to run the agenda/program which is beneficial only to vaccine companies.

(vii) There are many other effective and harmless medicines.

14.2.  Hon’ble Supreme Court in its two landmark judgments has made it clear that if any court passes an order in ignorance of material facts, statutory rules or binding judgments such judgment is null & void, vitiated and per- incuriam.

14.2.1. In Harshit Agarwal vs. UOI (2021) 2 SCC 710, it is ruled that if irrelevant considerations are taken into account for reaching the decision or relevant considerations have been ignored, the decision stands vitiated as the decision maker has misdirected himself in law. Court has ruled as under;

“10. Judicial review of administrative action is permissible on grounds of illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety. An administrative decision is flawed if it is illegal. A decision is illegal if it pursues an objective other than that for which the power to make the decision was conferred [De Smith’s Judicial Review, (6th Edn., p. 225)] . There is no unfettered discretion in public law [Food Corpn. of India v. Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries, (1993) 1 SCC 71]. Discretion conferred on an authority has to be necessarily exercised only for the purpose provided in a statute. The discretion exercised by the decision maker is subject to judicial scrutiny if a purpose other than a specified purpose is pursued. If the authority pursues unauthorised purposes, its decision is rendered illegal. If irrelevant considerations are taken into account for reaching the decision or relevant considerations have been ignored, the decision stands vitiated as the decision maker has misdirected himself in law. It is useful to refer to R. v. Vestry of St. Pancras [R. v. Vestry of St. Pancras, (1890) LR 24 QBD 371 (CA)] in which it was held: (QBD pp. 375-76)

“… If people who have to exercise a public duty by exercising their discretion take into account matters which the courts consider not to be proper for the guidance of their discretion, then in the eye of the law they have not exercised their discretion.”

14.2.2. InVijay Shekhar vs. UOI  (2004) 4 SCC 666, it is ruled as under;

“9. This Court in Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. &Ors. v. Union of India &Ors. (AIR 1986 SC 872) at para 118 has held thus :

“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. Overtown, 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’. It was said by Warrngton, C.J. in Short v. Poole Corporation, (1926) 1 Ch 66 that :

“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.”

In Lazarus Estates Ltd. V. Beasley, (1956) 2 QB 702 at Pp. 712-13 Lord Denning, LJ.said :

“No judgment of a Court, no order of Minister, can be allowed to stand if it has been obtained by fraud. Fraud unravels everything.”

(emphasis supplied)

See also, in Lazarus case at p.722 per Lord Parker, C.J. :

“‘Fraud’ vitiates all transactions known to the law of however high a degree of solemnity.”

All these three English decisions have been cited with approval by this Court in Pratap Singh’s case.”

14.2.3.Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Essel Mining & Industries Ltd., (2005) 6 SCC 675, it is ruled as under;

“4. We find that though the High Court referred to various statutes relating to the mining activities e.g. the Mining Act, etc. it did not indicate any reason as to why it was of the view that the authority issuing the notification lacked statutory power to issue the notification. Though the judgment runs to several pages, after noticing the rival submissions, the High Court in a very cryptic manner, disposed of the writ petition coming to the aforesaid view. It is not the number of pages in a judgment which is relevant. It is on the other hand, the sufficiency of reasons indicated to justify the conclusions. We may only add here that paras 28 and 29 of the judgment which are supposed to contain the conclusions are not only confusing, but also make little sense. They, to quote the immortal words of Lord Sumner in R. v. Nat Bell Liquors Ltd. [(1922) 2 AC 128 : 127 LT 437 (PC)] “speak only with the inscrutable face of a sphinx”. It is “unspeaking order” as classically described by Lord Cairns, IC in Overseers of the Poor of Walsall Overseers v. London & NWR Co. [(1878) 4 AC 30 : 39 LT 453 (HL)] In the fitness of things, therefore, the High Court should rehear the writ petition and dispose of the same by a reasoned order.”

14.2.4.In the case of Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. v. M. Chandrasekhar Reddy, (2005) 2 SCC 481, it is ruled as under;

“14. With respect, we are unable to agree with these findings of the High Court. In our opinion, there is no such thing as unlimited jurisdiction vested with any judicial or quasi-judicial forum. An unfettered discretion is a sworn enemy of the constitutional guarantee against discrimination. An unlimited jurisdiction leads to unreasonableness. No authority, be it administrative or judicial has any power to exercise the discretion vested in it unless the same is based on justifiable grounds supported by acceptable materials and reasons there of.

  1. In our opinion by no stretch of imagination either the extenuating circumstances recorded by the Labour Court or the exercise of its discretion could be termed either as reasonable or judicious. In our opinion even the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench erroneously held that the Labour Court had unlimited jurisdiction under Section 11-A of the Act.”

15.1. That the Kerala High Court not only ignored the legal and factual position laid down by Gauhati High Court but also ignored the provisions of section 38(1), 39(a) of Disaster Management Act, 2005, which mandates that the rules and law made by state authority should be in line with the Central Government’s policy. State authority cannot make any law which is inconsistent with the law and policies framed by the National Authority.

Section 38(1) reads thus;

Subject to the provisions of this Act, each State Government shall take all measures specified in the guidelines laid down by the National Authority and such further measures as it deems necessary or expedient, for the purpose of disaster management.”

Section 39 reads thus;

“Responsibilities of departments of the State Government. —It shall be the responsibility of every department of the Government of a State to—

(a) take measures necessary for prevention of disasters, mitigation, preparedness and capacity-building in accordance with the guidelines laid down by the National Authority and the State Authority;”

15.2.  Hon’ble Supreme Court made it clear that if any court including Supreme has passed any judgment by ignoring binding judgments or obligatory authority or statutory rules then the judgments which is in ignorance is called as per-incuriam and not binding upon any authority.

15.3.  In Mamleshwar Prasad v. Kanhaiya Lal, (1975) 2 SCC 232, it is ruled as under;

“7. Certainty of the law, consistency of rulings and comity of courts — all flowering from the same principle — converge to the conclusion that a decision once rendered must later bind like cases. We do not intend to detract from the rule that, in exceptional instances, where by obvious inadvertence or oversight a judgment fails to notice a plain statutory provision or obligatory authority running counter to the reasoning and result reached, it may not have the sway of binding precedents. It should be a glaring case, an obtrusive omission.”

15.4.  In State of M.P. v. Narmada BachaoAndolan, (2011) 7 SCC 639, it is ruled as under;

“67. Thus, “per incuriam” are those decisions given in ignorance or forgetfulness of some statutory provision or authority binding on the court concerned, or a statement of law caused by inadvertence or conclusion that has been arrived at without application of mind or proceeded without any reason so that in such a case some part of the decision or some step in the reasoning on which it is based, is found, on that account to be demonstrably wrong.

15.5.  In ThotaSesharathamma v. ThotaManikyamma [(1992) 4 SCC 312, a two-Judge Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the three-Judge Bench decision in Karmi v. Amru [(1972) 4 SCC 86] was per incuriam and observed as under;

“10. … It is a short judgment without adverting to any provisions of Section 14(1) or 14(2) of the Act. The judgment neither makes any mention of any argument raised in this regard nor is there any mention of the earlier decision in Badri Prasad v. Kanso Devi [(1969) 2 SCC 586] . The decision in Karmi [(1972) 4 SCC 86] cannot be considered as an authority on the ambit and scope of Sections 14(1) and (2) of the Act.” 

15.6.  In SiddharamSatlingappaMhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694it is ruled as under;

129.Lord Goddard, C.J. in Huddersfield Police Authority v. Watson [1947 KB 842 : (1947) 2 All ER 193 (DC)] observed that where a case or statute had not been brought to the court’s attention and the court gave the decision in ignorance or forgetfulness of the existence of the case or statute, it would be a decision rendered per incuriam.

130.This Court in Govt. of A.P. v. B. Satyanarayana Rao [(2000) 4 SCC 262 : 2000 SCC (L&S) 486] observed as under : (SCC p. 264, para 8)

“8. … The rule of per incuriam can be applied where a court omits to consider a binding precedent of the same court or the superior court rendered on the same issue or where a court omits to consider any statute while deciding that issue.”

  1. Law on Recall of a judgment:-

16.1.  In State of Orissa vs. MamtaMahanty (2011) 3 SCC 436, it is ruled as under;

37. It is a settled legal proposition that if an order is bad in its inception, it does not get sanctified at a later stage. A subsequent action/development cannot Validate an action which was not lawful as its inception, for the reason that the illegality strikes at the root of the order. It would be beyond the competence of any authority to validate such an order……. Once the court comes to the conclusion  that  a  wrong  order  has  been  passed,   it becomes the solemn duty of the court to rectify the mistake rather than perpetuate the same.Whiledealing with a similar issue, this Court in Hotel Balaji&Ors.v. State of A.P. ., AIR 1993 SC 1048observed as under:

“…..To perpetuate an error is no heroism. To rectify it is the compulsion of judicial conscience.

16.2.  In Indian Bank vs. Satyam Fibers (1996) 5 SSC 550, it is ruled as under;

‘‘Section 151 C.P.C. – Power of Court to recall its judgment or order – where the Court is misled by a party or the Court itself commits a mistake which prejudices a party, the Court has the inherent power to recall its order-The judiciary in India also possesses inherent power to recall its judgment or order.

16.3.  In Ravindra Narayan JoglekarVs. Encon Exports Pvt. Ltd 2008 ALL MR (Cri.) 2032,itis ruled as under;

          “In case the order passed by the court is patently contrary to the provisions oflaw, the same cannot be allowed to remain in force as it can result in greatprejudice and irreparable loss to the parties – No amount of technicalities canabstain the High Court from exercising its plenary jurisdiction to do theneedful to wreck the wicked wrong.

16.4. See also:-i)New India Assurance (2019) SCC OnLine SC 1786.

                   ii)Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar  (2011) 14 SCC 770.

  1. Consequences against any Judge not following the mandatory judgments and acting against the law.

17.1.  If any Judge, despite showing him the binding precedents, disrespects these and deliberately acts against the mandates of the law and refuses to respect and follow the binding judgments, then such Judge has to face three fold actions:-

(a) Contempt action before Supreme Court for wilful disregard and defiance of the binding judgments. Any citizen can file the contempt petition in Supreme Court. In a similar case High Court Judge C.S. Karnan was sentenced to six months imprisonment [Re: C.S. Karnan (2017) 7 SCC 1, Prabha Sharma (2017) 11 SCC 77,Baradkanata Mishra (1973) 1 SCC 446, Re: M. P. Dwivedi AIR 1996 SC 2299,Spencer & Com. Ltd. (1995) 1 SCC 259,Somabhai Patel (2001) 5 SCC 65]

(b) Prosecution under section 219, 166, 218, 409, 109, 302 120(B)of I.P.C.

          Sanction to prosecute High Court & Supreme Court Judge can be taken from Hon’ble President of India. It can be filed online on President of India’s portal.

When offences against any Judge are regarding involvement in conspiracy and abating murder of citizen etc. then it is not a part of official duty and no sanction required to prosecute such Judges. [Raman Lal 2001Cri. L.J. 800,Govinda Mehta AIR (1971) 3 SCC 329, ShameetMukharjee2003 SCC OnLine Del 821, Justice Nirma Yadav 2011 SCC OnLine P&H 1541, Jagat Patel 2016 SCC OnLineGuj 4517].

Copy of complaint filed in a similar case against Justice Aniruddha Bose, CJI  N. V.  Ramannacan be downloaded from following.


(c) Such Judge should also facedepartmental action of transfer, suspension,dismissal from service or withdrawal of judicial work as per ‘In – House – Procedure’[Add. District Judge & Sessions Judge ‘X’ (2015) 4 SCC 91, K.K. Dhawan (1993) 2 SCC 56, Umesh Chandra2006 (5) AWC 45 19,Somabhai Patel (2001) 5 SCC 65]

          Supreme Court had withdrawn the work from Justice C.S. Karnan, Justice S.H. Shukla etc.

  1. Case Laws on applicability of section 218 to Judges who passes any order to save the culprit offences of the state.

18.1. Section 219, 218, 166 etc., of IPC reads thus;
219. Public servant in judicial proceeding corruptly making report, etc., contrary to law —Whoever, being a public servant, corruptly or maliciously makes or pronounces in any stage of a judicial proceeding, any report, order, verdict, or decision which he knows to be contrary to law, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.

218. Public servant framing incorrect record or writing with intent to save person from punishment or property from forfei­ture.—Whoever, being a public servant, and being as such public servant, charged with the preparation of any record or other writing, frames that record or writing in a manner which he knows to be incorrect, with intent to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause, loss or injury to the public or to any person, or with intent thereby to save, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby save, any person from legal punish­ment, or with intent to save, or knowing that he is likely there­by to save, any property from forfeiture or other charge to which it is liable by law, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
166. Public servant disobeying law, with intent to cause injury to any person.—Whoever, being a public servant, knowingly diso­beys any direction of the law as to the way in which he is to conduct himself as such public servant, intending to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will, by such disobedience, cause injury to any person, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both. Illustration A, being an officer directed by law to take property in execu­tion, in order to satisfy a decree pronounced in Z’s favour by a Court of Justice, knowingly disobeys that direction of law, with the knowledge that he is likely thereby to cause injury to Z. A has committed the offence defined in this section


18.2.1. The section is concerned with bringing erring public servants to book for falsifying the public records in their charge. The essence of the offence under section 218 is intent to cause loss or injury to any public or person or thereby save any person from legal punishment or save any property from forfeiture or any other charge, BirajaProsad Rao Vs. Nagendra Nath, (1985) 1 Crimes 446 (Ori.)


The actual guilt or innocence of the alleged offender is immaterial if the accused believes him guilty and intends to screen him,HurdutSurma, (1967) 8 WR (Cr.) 68.

18.2.3. The question is not whether the accused will be able to accomplish the object he had in view, but whether he made the entries in question with the intention to cause or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause loss and injury. The fact that the accused conceived a foolish plan of injuring in retaliation of the disgrace inflicted upon him by his arrest is no ground for exculpating him from the offence, NarapareddiSeshareddi, In Re, AIR 1938 Mad 595.

18.2.4.Where the accused increased the marks of particular persons for pecuniary benefits during the course of preparing final record for appointment as physical education teacher, it was held that the offence alleged is clearly made out, Rakesh Kumar Chhabra Vs. State of H.P., 2012 Cr.L.J. 354(HP)

18.2.5. For the purpose of an offence punishable under section 218, the actual guilt or otherwise of the offender alleged as sought to be screened from punishment is immaterial. It is quite sufficient that the commission of a cognizable offence has been brought to the notice of the accused officially and that in order to screen the offender that accused prepared the record in a manner which he knew to be incorrect, Moti Ram Vs. Emperor, AIR 1925 Lah 461.

18.2.6.The Supreme Court has held that, if a police officer has made a false entry in his diary and manipulated other records with a view to save the accused was subsequently acquitted of the offence cannot make it any  less an offence under this section, Maulud Ahmad Vs. State of U.P.,(1964) 2 Cr.L.J. 71 (SC).

18.2.7.Where it was proved that, the accused’s intention in making a false report was to stave off the discovery of the previous fraud and save himself or the actual perpetrator of that fraud from legal punishment, it was held that he was guilty of this offence, Girdhari Lal,(1886) 8 All 633.

Awaken India Movement (AIM) files a Complaint before CBI to arrest Srinath Reddy and other fraudsters at PHFI

Awaken India Movement (AIM) files a Complaint before CBI to arrest Srinath Reddy and other fraudsters at PHFI

  • Misappropriation of Rs. 82 Crores of public money. CBI has already registered an FIR. Fraud done by members of PHFI exposed
  • Indian Bar Association demands that the PHFI’s accused trustees should be added as co-accused and to be arrested soon
  • The accusedhave misappropriated the public money and are therefore liable for offences under section 409,120(B) & 34 etc. of IPC
  • CBI has already registered an FIR and is investigating the case
  • Indian Bar Association shall be sending representation to CBI to add all the trustees of PHFI as accused
  • In a Complaint given by Adv. Ashwini Upadhyay, the Intelligence Bureau has also initiated enquiry against PHFI
  • There is another objectionable issue of payment of high salaries of around Rs. 1 Crore to trustees which should also be investigated
  • The PFHI is getting funds from tainted foundations like ‘Bill &Milinda Gates Foundation’
  • The Parliamentary Committee’s 72nd enquiry report has already exposed the conspiracy of Bill Gates and their entity PATH

As per Section 20 of Indian Trusts Act, the trustees are bound to employ reasonable care, prudence and intelligence. It is their duty to ascertain whether their investment decisions are proper.

In Chapman Vs. Browne (1902)1 Ch. 785, it was case where trustee invested the trust’s money in an improper way without taking proper precaution and legal advice. A case came to be filed against said trustee. The Court declared that the investment was a breach of trust. The Court further ordered that the defaulting trustee should deposit the said amount in Court. The appeal filed by the defaulter trustee was dismissed with cost.

Similar view is taken by the three Judge Queen’s Bench in the case of Jonathan Ingham Learoyd And William Edwin Carter And Elizabeth Whiteley [L.R.] 12 App. Cas. 727it is ruled as under;

The trustees had not acted with ordinary prudence, and were liable to make good the money with interest at 4 per cent from the date of the last payment.

Business men of ordinary prudence may, and frequently do, select investments which are more or less of a speculative character; but it is the duty of a trustee to confine himself to the class of investments which are permitted by the trust, and likewise to avoid all investments of that class which are attended with hazard.

It plainly appears from these answers that the appellants had no information regarding the subjects mortgaged except what was contained in the report of their valuators.

In these circumstances, I think it has been established that, at the time of taking the security, the appellants altogether failed to exercise that ordinary amount of care which the law required of them.Make them liable for an improper and unauthorized investment, at the trial before Bacon V.C.

Such Trustees are liable to be punished under Section 409 of The Indian Penal Code. It reads thus;

409.Criminal breach of trust by public servant, or by banker, merchant or agent.—Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property in his capacity of a public servant or in the way of his business as a banker, mer­chant, factor, broker, attorney or agent, commits criminal breach of trust in respect of that property, shall be punished with 1[imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment of either descrip­tion for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.”
It is settled law by the Supreme Court and High Court that the trustees who did not oppose the misappropriation of money, should also be liable for prosecution and they should not be granted anticipatory bail.
InRajendraRamdasChaudhari Vs The State of Maharashtra and The Superintendent of Police MANU/MH/0111/2009, Hon’ble High Court rejected the bail of such accused and observed as under;

“Misappropriation of public fund. – offences under section Sections 34, 120-B, 201, 406, 408, 409, 420, 465, 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

The present applicant should have opposed such proposals during the meetings, if he was really innocent. Not only that the applicant has attended the number of meetings and signed the proceedings of the meetings. The argument of the learned A.P.P. that the present applicant is vicariously liable for all the bogus loans, sanctioned during his period, has considerable substance and said the contention cannot be rejected at outright.

The present applicant has not opposed any of the bogus loan cases during the meetings in which he attended and signed the proceedings.

If the arguments of the learned A.P.P. are carefully perused, various instances have been cited by the A.P.P. to show that how the loans are advanced illegally to the persons contrary to the Rules and Regulations of R.B.I., provisions of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act and Rules there under and relevant directions issued by the Government from time to time.

Nobody made any attempt to verify whether the borrowers were eligible, whether the proper procedure was followed, whether the sufficient securities were obtained and whether such huge loans were likely to be recovered.

  1. The Supreme Court in the case of Narinderjit Singh Sahni and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. reported in MANU/SC/0644/2001: AIR2001SC3810 has observed that if accused facing a charge under Sections 406409420and 120-B is ordinarily not entitled to invoke the provisions of Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code unless it is established that such criminal accusation is not a bona fide one.
  2. In the case of Ram NarainPoply v. Central Bureau of Investigation with Pramod Kumar Monocha v. Central Bureau of Investigation with Vinayak Narayan Deosthali reported in MANU/SC/0017/2003: 2003CriLJ4801 the Supreme Court has observed thus: 382. The cause of the community deserves better treatment at the hands of the Court in the discharge of its judicial functions. The Community or the Stateis not a persona non granta whose cause may be treated with disdain. The entire community is aggrieved if economic offenders who ruin the economy of theState are not brought to book. A murder maybe committed in the heat of moment upon passions being aroused. An economic offences is committed with cool calculation and deliberate design with an eye on personal profit regardless of the consequence to the Community. A disregard for the interest of the community can be manifested only at the cost of forfeiting the trust and faith of the community in the system to administer justice in an even handed manner without fear of criticism from the quarters which view white collar crimes with a permissive eye unmindful of the damage done to the national Economy and National Interest, as was aptly stated in State of Gujrat v. MahanlalJitamaljiPorwal and Anr. A.I.R. 1987 1321.
  3. The Supreme Court in the case of HimanshuChandravadan Desai and Ors. v. Stateof Gujrat reported in 2006 Cri. L.J. 136 while considering bail application of the applicants therein has observed thus:

Accused a Director of Bank and others involved in Bank Scam – Siphoned off funds of Bank worth crores by bogus loans and fictitious letters of credit in name of their friends, relatives etc. Offence is very serious Evidence showing their prima facie involvement in offence – Having regard to huge amounts involved there is danger of accused absconding, if released on bail, or attempting to tamper with evidence by pressurizing witnesses Refusal of bail is proper.”

Download Related Documents :-

Download the 72nd Parliamentary Committee’s Report

‘No person can be forced to be vaccinated against his/her wishes’ – states the latest affidavit filed by Ministry of Health and Family Welfare

‘No person can be forced to be vaccinated against his/her wishes’ – states the latest affidavit filed by Ministry of Health and Family Welfare

  • Vaccination of teachers or anyone for that matter, is not mandatory
  • Central Government has filed an affidavit in Bombay High Court
  • Maharashtra Government’s unlawfulness exposed

In a new exposure of malafides of State Government, unravelled by the Central Government, it is made clear that the Central Government has never issued any directions for mandatory vaccination. However, the State Government authorities have started pressurizing and harassing teachers and the common man to take vaccines. The affidavit is filed in a Writ Petition No. 1820 of 2021 filed by teaches (Mr. Nelson Fernandes&AnrVs. State of Goa).

The relevant paras of the affidavit dated 08.10.2021 filed by the Under Secretary of Ministry of Health & Family Welfare reads thus;

“9. that the directions and guidelines released by Government of India and Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, do not entail compulsory or forcible vaccination against COVID 19 disease implying that COVID-19 vaccination is completely voluntary for all citizens of India. Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India has not formulated or suggested any policies for discrimination between citizens of India on the basis of their vaccination Status.

“10. That, it is duly advised, advertised, and communicated by MoHFW through various print and social media platforms that all citizens should get vaccinated, but this in no way implies that any person can be forced to be vaccinated against her/his wishes.
“11 That, as per the existing guidelines, there is no provisions for forcing any citizen to book appointment for Covid Vaccination

Download Related Documents :-

Download the copy of Affidavit of Ministry of Health and Family Welfare

Corona scandal and death of a woman: Court orders registration of FIR against six doctors.

Corona scandal and death of a woman: Court orders registration of FIR against six doctors.

The woman had lost her life in a minor operation and the doctors had refused to give her dead body to her family, based on a bogus corona positive RT-PCR test.

Her husband had already done five tests – one RAT and four RT-PCR tests and all were negative, which proved the forgery and dishonesty of the Doctors. The Court directed the police for registration of FIR under offences of conspiracy, forgery, causing death by negligence and destroying evidence.The Police Station at Panvel City has already registered an FIR against six Doctors u. sec 304-A, 465,471,120(B), 201, r/w 34 of IPC.

The court order reads thus;

“6. Now coming to the merits of the present application, it could  be seen that, a woman has lost her life over a minor operation of abortion. As the operation was conducted in the high tide of the ongoing pandemic, therefore, the concerned doctors ought to have scrupulously followed the guidelines of the ICMR regarding testing of the patients before conducting any operation. From the allegations set­ forth in the present application, it could be seen that, there are about 6 reports for COVID­19, out of which one is positive and the others are negative. Shockingly, the sample for these tests were taken in a short span of 3 days. Therefore, the present case appears to   be   case study   material   to   find   out   how   a  person   can   come negative for COVID­19 in just one day. The allegations that, the Gandhi hospital was not releasing the dead body on the guise of the deceased being tested positive for COVID­19 and then eventually allowing   postmortem   to   be   conducted   raises   further   suspicion. Therefore, whether these tests were really conducted or it was used as an excuse to not allow the applicant and his family to know the real cause of death is to be investigated which can be done only by the police machinery. Further, if this allegation has any truth to it then the next thing to discern is why this route was adopted by the non­ applicants. Was it to hide any medical negligence that resulted in the death of the deceased Ashwini?  These things can be brought before   the   Court   which   can   only   be   done   after   a   thorough investigation   by   the   police   machinery.   Therefore,   this   Court   is convinced that, the present application deserves directions under section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. for registering an offence under section 304­A, 465, 471, 201, 120­B r/w 34 of the I.P.C.

The Officer in ­charge of Panvel City police station is  directed as per section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. to register the first information report against the non­ applicants for offence p.u.s. 304­-A, 465, 471, 120­B, 201 r/w 34 of the I.P.C. and investigate in accordance with law.”

Download Related Documents :-

Nishant Thavai Vs. Ramesh Patel (Panvel Court)

Urgent need to rectify the utter disregard for Science regarding children’s corona vaccines

Urgent need to rectify the utter disregard for Science regarding children’s corona vaccines

  • Indian Bar Association (IBA) has sought prosecution of Dr. V.G. Somani, Dr.RandeepGuleria and others for misuse of their position to create a false alarm of emergency in children, while there is no emergency
  • ‘Doctors for Truth’ and Concerned Citizens of India have written to Hon’ble Prime Minister of India on October 7, 2021 regarding urgent need to rectify the utter disregard for Science while deciding corona related measures that have special worrying effects on children
  • IBA has sent its Letter of Representation on October 8, 2021 endorsing the concerns expressed in above mentioned letter and in addition, IBA has called for CBI investigation against Dr. V.G. Somani, RandeepGuleria and others for misuse and fraud on power

More than 100 doctors and more than 1000 members of civil society have signed a letter sent to Hon’ble Prime Minister of India on October 7, 2021 exhorting not to go ahead with vaccination of children as they have already developed immunity and are at no risk of severe Covid. The letter highlights that :

  1. The corona vaccines are not fully approved (approved for restricted use only) without any knowledge of long-term effects.
  2. Experts have confirmed that letting children catch Covid may be safer than giving them vaccines
  3. Our children have already acquired immunity post Covid infection and on the other hand, these experimental vaccines wherever they are rolled out, are not found to be safe enough
  4. Worldwide a cascade of serious Adverse Effects have been seen in adults and children in 2021 after the ‘Emergency Use Authorisation’ was granted for restricted use of Covid-19 vaccines
  5. As per a German Court verdict, that masks, distancing and regular testing of children for Covid-19 should not be done. These measures are not only not useful but are actually harmful

The signatories of the letter demand that:

  1. All Covid-19 vaccine clinical trials on children should be stopped.
  2. The Covid-19 vaccination for children should not be rolled out even if vaccines are given EUA for restricted use, and no vaccines, currently under trial, to be given EUA.
  3. Immediate reopening of schools and colleges without any delay or restrictions as advised by experts.
  4. No testing of asymptomatic children at school or home
  5. No experimental and unapproved drugs should be used in the treatment of children who test positive and/or have Influenza Like Illness (ILI) rather children should be subject to standard of care using proven, tested and repurposed drugs and Ayush protocols under an Integrated Medicine Healthcare approach. It is our experience that experimental drugs have proved harmful for adults in the 1st and 2nd wave.
  6. No testing, tracing, quarantine at mass level either routinely or as part of job, earning activity, entry to certain places or for travel as has been scientifically advised once community transmission has set in.

Indian Bar Association (IBA) has sent its Letter of Representation on October 8, 2021 to Hon’ble Prime Minister, Hon’ble Home Minister, Hon’ble Health Minister, Hon’ble Chief Ministers Hon’ble Health Ministers of all the states of India

While IBA is in full agreement with the facts shared in the letter by Doctors for Truth and Civil Society, it has called for:

  1. Immediate direction to C.B.I. for investigation and prosecution under Section 409, 420, 115, 109, 323, 511, 120(B) etc. of Indian Penal Code and provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act against Dr. RandeepGuleria, and others for misuse and fraud on power in:
    i) Giving Emergency Use Authorization for Children’s Vaccines, when there is no emergency as there is no serious threat to children;
    ii) Running false narratives and conspiracy theories to create fear in the mind of parents, children and teachers about Covid-19, when children are most safe and not having any serious risk from infection from SARS-CoV-2.
  2. Immediately directing investigation about corruption being done to give undeserving advantage of around Rs. 80,000 Crores to children’s Vaccine manufacturers.
  3. Immediate direction for stopping any process for including children’s corona vaccines in National Immunization Programme.

Download Related Documents :-

Download the IBA’s Letter of Representation dated October 8, 2021