Make your own free website on Tripod.com

sunbothj.jpg

Interim application 17/09/2007

Summary | PM Order | Photos | Legislation | Expert Reports | Links | High Court | HC 12/10/07 | Supreme Court | UK Police report

Six and a half years in a mortuary freezer in London, UK and seven months in a mortuary freezer in Delhi, India, yet the allegations that British doctors deliberately killed baby Sunaina Chaudhari with 170 times overdose of ranitidine and lethal potassium chloride injections immediately before her death, and removed her internal organs including eyeballs, tongue and brain, four days before the post-mortem, are yet to be properly investigated on the body of the 5 month old Indian baby girl.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

 

C.M. NO. ________ OF 2007

IN

W. P. (C) NO. 6179 OF 2007

 

(PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION)

 

 

IN THE MATTER OF:

 

Social Jurist,

A Civil Rights Group& Anr.                                   ….. Petitioners

 

 

Versus

 

Union of India & Ors.                                            ….. Respondents

 

AND

 

IN THE MATTER OF:

 

Dean, Maulana Azad Medical College

Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg

New Delhi 110002                                               …..Respondents

 

 

APPLICATION ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER NO.2 UNDER SECTION 151 CPC FOR DIRECTION

 

 

 

 

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:-

 

          We are grateful for the Hon’ble court requesting affidavits from the six respondents at the hearing of 03/09/2007, but we hereby wish to make an interim application for the urgent post-mortem to take place on the body of baby Sunaina Chaudhari, deceased on the following grounds:-

 

1.       The mother of baby Sunaina, Sadhana Chaudhari, is an Indian born British citizen and baby Sunaina’s father, Rajesh Kumar, an Indian Citizen.  Rajesh has issued an authority letter for his wife to act on his behalf.  Sadhana’s parents and family moved to the UK in 1968.  Her father, Ved Parkash Chaudhari, is a lawyer from Delhi University.

 

2.          Sadhana and Rajesh were married in Delhi in 1995 and lived in Jullunder for some time.  Rajesh came to India in January 2007 after requesting the release of the body of baby Sunaina, but unfortunately, the body of baby Sunaina was not released at that time.  Since the release of the body to the family on 08/03/07, Sadhana has now returned to India with the body of her baby Sunaina.  The family of baby Sunaina state that the investigations carried out into the death of baby Sunaina in the United Kingdom were not complete, and that, therefore, the results of the two post-mortems and inquest, claiming that the child died of natural causes, are wrong.        

 

3.          A request for an investigation into the death of baby Sunaina is a modest one to merely establish whether criminal acts were committed by public servants in a UK hospital, against a helpless, innocent, 5 month old baby girl and her family.

 

4.          It is hereby submitted to the Hon’ble court that this matter is of a very sensitive nature, and most distressing and traumatic for a bereaved family and should be brought to its natural conclusion without further delay.   The family believes this matter requires truth and justice, not only for the family and for baby Sunaina, but also for humanity at large internationally.  There were many organ scandals in the UK at the time of Sunaina’s death.  The British Government ordered the Bristol Royal Infirmary Inquiry and the Royal Liverpool Childrens Inquiry to address the widespread stealing of organs from children, prior to post mortem and without the knowledge or consent of the parents.  Sunaina’s case Is much more serious in that the family had already made criminal allegations against doctors, prior to and immediately after baby Sunaina’s death.

 

5.          Sadhana has been in India now since 20 March 2007 and she received a letter via the Prime Minister’s Office requesting the urgent post-mortem to be conducted on the body of baby Sunaina on 26/04/2007.  Subsequently, Sadhana received a refusal letter from Delhi Government on 3/08/2007. On 24/8/2007, the Delhi Government agreed to order the post mortem on the body of baby Sunaina at Maulana Azad Medical College

 

6.          During the court hearing of 03/09/2007, there was no objection raised by any of the six respondents in this case for conducting the post-mortem on the body of baby Sunaina.  Hence there is no reason why the Hon’ble court does not issue the order for the conducting of the post-mortem.

 

7.          It may be considered by the Hon’ble court that the failure of the Maulana Azad Medical College to conduct the post-mortem on the body of baby Sunaina, following the hearing of 22/08/2007, and thereafter, whilst the respondent had ordered the post-mortem in the letter dated 24/08/2007, constituted contempt of court. A true copy of the letter dated 24.08.2007 and the accompanying letter dated 27/08/2007 is enclosed hereto as Annexure-A.

 

 

8.          It may be considered by the Hon’ble court that the written submission by the Maulana Azad Medical as to why they refused the conducting of the post-mortem on the body of baby Sunaina, after the respondent had ordered the post-mortem to be conducted in the letter dated 24/08/2007, constituted contempt of court.

 

 

9.          It may be considered by the Hon’ble court that the oral evidence given by Dr Khanna on behalf of the Maulana Azad Medical as to why they refused the conducting of the post-mortem on the body of baby Sunaina, after the respondent, Principal Secretary of Health, Delhi NCT, had ordered the post-mortem to be conducted in the letter dated 24/08/2007, constituted contempt of court.

 

 

10.       It may be considered by the Hon’ble court that the written evidence submitted by Dr Khanna on behalf of the Maulana Azad Medical College, as to why they refused the conducting of the post-mortem on the body of baby Sunaina, after the respondent, Principal Secretary of Health, Delhi NCT, had ordered the post-mortem to be conducted in the letter dated 24/08/2007, constituted contempt of court by Dr Khanna.

 

11.       It may be considered by the Hon’ble court that the oral and written submissions by Dr Khanna at the invitation of Delhi Govt. at the court hearing of 03/09/07, constitutes contempt of court by the respondent, Principal Secretary of Health, Delhi NCT, in that the Delhi Govt. had themselves ordered the post-mortem of baby Sunaina in their letter dated 24/8/2007.  Incidently, a copy of this letter was never sent to the first Petitioner, namely Social Jurist, by the respondent, Principal Secretary of Health, Delhi NCT. 

 

12.       Verbal  assurance were given to the petitioners by the Central Govt. Counsel, immediately prior to the hearing of 03/09/07, that his understanding was that the post mortem on the body of baby Sunaina had already been ordered by Delhi Govt. some time earlier and that it should have already been done by the time of the hearing.  

 

13.       It is most respectfully submitted to the Hon’ble court that since the Maulana Azad Medical College and Delhi Govt. have failed to comply with the order by the Delhi Govt. to conduct the post-mortem on the body of baby Sunaina, the Hon’ble court may use its own intelligence to order the conducting of the post-mortem at another reputable institution such as AIIMS or Lady Harding Medical College.

 

14.       The Maulana Azad Medical College is now added as a Respondent in this interim application for failing to conduct the post-mortem as ordered by the Delhi Government. 

 

15.       Submissions were made by Forensic Pathologist Dr Khanna, that the formalin used to embalm the body of baby Sunaina on 13/03/2007, is a poison causing deterioration of the body and it is hereby submitted that any deterioration of the body since the date of the instruction from the Prime Minister’s office, namely 26/04/2007, is the responsibility of the Union of India.  Furthermore, if at any time in the future, there are any allegations of a criminal nature against any of the medical staff involved by the countries of which they are a ctitizen, it may be considered internationally, that the failure of the Indian authorities to execute their own orders for the conducting of the post mortem on the body of baby Sunaina could be construed, or misconstrued as an unofficial cover-up to assist the UK authorities. 

 

16.       The Criminal Justice (International Co-operation Act 1990) refers to Police to Police co-operation with investigations into war crimes, drug trafficking, hijackers, hostages and terrorists.  The Hon’ble court may consider the international trafficking of human organs and body parts following suspicious deaths an equally serious criminal offence.

 

17.       Baby Sunaina was a victim of corporate crime and corporate criminal cover ups by a chain of bent public servants abusing  their positions in the public health sector within the UK.  On protesting the scandals surrounding the death of baby Sunaina, the family of baby Sunaina fell victim to the Freemason influences in the UK, and further feel that the influence of Freemasons is equally rife in New Delhi, India.  The family also feel that the crimes being committed against multinational members of the public in the UK by multinational public servants in the UK are being endorsed by the ambivalence and inaction of the Delhi Govt. of India, contrary to the Indian Prime Minister’s orders and contrary to the Indian Central Govt.’s order to conduct the investigation into the death of baby Sunaina.

 

18.       Baby Sunaina’s family made enquiries from the internet and found details of Professor Anil Agarwal of the Maulana Azad Medical College prior to baby Sunaina’s repatriation.  They wrote to the Dean.  Professor Anil Agarwal, a world renowned Forensic pathologist of India, was the obvious first choice for the family.  I understood that Professor Anil Agarwal had received several threatening phone calls not to conduct the post mortem on the body of baby Sunaina.  I also understood at one point that a transfer was being considered for Professor Anil Agarwal from the Maulana Azad Medical College.   I also understood that Vivek Rae, the new Principal Secretary for Health & Family Welfare held a meeting with Professor Anil Agarwal prior to the refusal letter from Spl. Secretary (H&FW), Mr. Balachandran dated 03/08/2007.

 

19.     It is noteworthy for the court that a Grade 3 star Police Inspector from Inderpuri Police station visited the residents of my previous address and took an affidavit enquiring what relationship I had with them and where I was staying.  Immediately afterwards, the residents of my previous address telephoned me in a most distressed and terrified state.  A few hours later my telephone went dead.  Subsequently, I discovered that my mobile sim card had been accessed remotely, whilst I was in possession of it, without my permission and my other contacts had been telephoned by the Police making similar inquiries.   I wrote a complaint to the Police Commissioner.  A true copy of the Police Complaint dated 03.09.2007 is enclosed hereto as Annexure-B.

 

20.       It is noteworthy that the petitioners had not received a copy of the written submission of Dr Khanna discussed during the hearing of 03/09/2007.   Professor Anil Agarwal has never intimated any objection to the family for the conducting of the post-mortem on the body of baby Sunaina. 

 

21.       The extent of the evil involved in the death of baby Sunaina cannot be fathomed by any human being.  She was isolated from her family in a hospital as a result of perjury by Dr Anand Shrisalkar and Dr David Leonard Robinson at 11pm on 20/10/2000 that she was dying when in fact she was being given drug overdoses and being denied the oxygen she needed from the drug overdoses.  She was prescribed potassium chloride which is known to cause the heart to stop.  Dr Solebo, who was with Sunaina immediately before her suspicious death, told the family that Sunaina’s heart did stop suddenly.

 

22.       The following TV documentaries and programmes have been aired in India as well as internationally:-

 

31/03/2007: Three and a half hours documentary with live interview of the mother of baby Sunaina in Delhi as well as via live satellite from the UK (maternal grandfather of baby Sunaina, Ved Parkash Chaudhari, aunt of baby Sunaina, Neelu Chaudhari, and father of baby Sunaina, Rajesh Kumar) broadcast by live satellite from UK, shown on Star News from Noida, Delhi, detailing the foul play in the death of baby Sunaina in the UK with interviews of doctors, paediatricians and Forensic pathologists supporting investigations on the body of baby Sunaina, phone-ins by NGO’s and women’s groups supporting the mother; a 60% public poll supporting the mother fighting for the truth and another 20% supporting a fight for compensation.  Another 20% supported the mother laying baby Sunaina to rest.

 

07/05/2007: Half hour documentary broadcast from Noida, Delhi on Star News, celebrating the positive response from the Prime Minister’s office dated 26/04/2007, in anticipation of an imminent investigation into the death.

 

13/06/2007:  One hour live documentary broadcast from Noida, Delhi on Sahara Samay, broadcast in India and half an hour internationally, focusing on the unnecessary delays by the Delhi Govt.  Dr Harsh Vradhan, Ex Health Minister criticized the insensitive behaviour of the Ministers in the delays and referred to their “unofficial” behaviour.   

 

23/06/2007:Four half hour live documentaries broadcast from Noida, Delhi, one in English and three in Hindi, broadcast internationally on Aaj Tak, detailing the foul play in the UK and complaining about the unnecessary delay by the Delhi Govt.

 

26/06/2007:Half hour documentary by Zee News, broadcast from Noida, Delhi, internationally detailing foul play in the UK and the unnecessary delays by the Delhi Govt. 

 

08/08/2007:Half an hour live interview by Sahara Samay broadcast from Noida, Delhi, internationally detailing the foul play in the UK.

 

23.       It is most respectfully submitted to the Hon’ble court that any considerations by the court as to whether the evidence from the proposed post mortem may or may not be admissible in any investigations outside India, as the basis for granting the post-mortem or not, are contrary to the rules of natural justice and outside the consideration of the substantive matter before the court, since all parties are agreed that the investigation into the death should take place and to take place immediately. 

 

24.       It is further most respectfully submitted to the Hon’ble court that the petitioner gave oral evidence during the hearing of 22/08/2007, that one of the paediatric consultants at King George Hospital, Ilford, Essex, UK, namely Dr Anand Shirsalkar, ordered the oxygen required by baby Sunaina to be switched off and as a result of the drug overdoses prescribed by hospital doctors, her blood oxygen level fell to 37.4%.  Dr Shirsalkar informed the parents at the time that he had come to the UK from Bombay.  It is possible that Dr Shirsalkar was an Indian Citizen at the time of death of baby Sunaina and hence he may be required to assist Indian Police with any possible criminal investigation following the findings of the post mortem on the body of baby Sunaina, under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 and the Indian Penal Code, where crimes have been committed by Indian nationals outside India.

 

25.       During the hearing of 22/08/2007, the respondents were asked by the Hon’ble court to either do the post-mortem or to give reasons why they were not going to do the post-mortem.  The respondents asked the Hon’ble court for an extension of time until the 03/09/2007 to enable them to do this but by the hearing of 03/09/2007, had failed to do either the post-mortem or give the reasons for not doing it.  In the absence of both, the failure of the Hon’ble court, on the 03/09/2007, to issue the order to conduct the post mortem on the body of baby Sunaina, whilst no reasons were submitted by any respondent and whilst the post-mortem had not been conducted by the 03/09/2007, constitutes an abuse of process of law by the Hon’ble court.

 

26.       Furthermore, the admission of both oral and written evidence of a third party, which is not a respondent, and the consideration of this evidence at the hearing of 03/09/2007 by the court, constitutes an abuse of process of law by the Hon’ble court.

 

27.       The body of baby Sunaina was released by the Coroner to the funeral directors Dignity, on 08/03/2007.  It was embalmed in the UK on 13/03/2007, and, accompanied by all the proper documentation, it was repatriated in a zinc lined coffin wrapped as a parcel and couriered to Heathrow airport on 17/03/2007.  The sealed coffin was received at Delhi Airport by Penzy Morgan Funeral Directors on 18/03/2007, and transported by them to Pahar Ganj mortuary.  The parcel containing the sealed coffin remains sealed to this day.  There is no possibility that the body has been tampered with in any way by any third party.

 

28.       It is requested to the Hon’ble court that the post-mortem be conducted with video recording so as to provide additional evidence to substantiate the findings of the post mortem examination in case it is required in the UK.  It is also most humbly requested  that the investigations omitted from the two post-mortems and inquest in the UK, namely, chromosome test with chromosomal photographs, molecular DNA, vitreous toxicology, organ verification, including eyes and MRI scan etc are carried out as part of the investigation into the death. 

 

29.       The body is being stored in a freezer of Pahar Gunj mortuary at substantial cost and it is respectfully submitted to the Hon’ble court that the respondents may be considered as responsible for the cost of the storage of the body since 26/04/2007 to the time of post mortem. 

 

30.       It is most regrettable that the family had no other choice but to bring the body of baby Sunaina from the UK to India, their birth land, in desperation, under threat of the body being destroyed by the UK authorities, without the proper investigations having been carried out. 

 

31.       It has already been considered by the Hon’ble judges in this case that the post-mortem should not be delayed further whilst procedures etc. are being framed, as the latter could take up to 10 years to frame. 

 

32.       It is under these very exceptional circumstances that the family of baby Sunaina is making this interim application in this most unusual matter on grounds of Criminal Justice (International Co-operation Act 1990), United Nations Convention of Human Rights, Human Rights laws (Right to life, Right to family) and humanitarian grounds for the post mortem to be conducted on the body of baby Sunaina immediately.

 

33.       On the above basis, the family is seeking urgent relief from the Hon’ble Court with an immediate order for investigation including conducting of the post mortem on the body of baby Sunaina Chaudhari.

 

 

                         

MS. SADHANA CHAUDHARI,

PETITIONER NO 2,

36D Hazara Park, Chandra Nagar West, Delhi 51,

Mobile 09953034531

NEW DELHI, DATED:  07.09.2007


 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

C.M. NO. ________ OF 2007

IN

W. P. (C) NO. 6179 OF 2007

 

(PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION)

 

 

IN THE MATTER OF:

 

Social Jurist,

A Civil Rights Group & Anr.                                  ….. Petitioners    

 

Versus

 

Union of India & Ors.                                            ….. Respondents

AFFIDAVIT

 

        I, Sadhna Chaudhari w/o Mr. Rajesh Kumar, aged about 46 years, permanent address 27, Robinia Close, IIford, Essex, IG6 3AJ, U.K. present address 36-D, Hazara Park, Gali No.5, Chandra Nagar (West) Delhi-110051, do hereby solemnly affirm and state as under:-

               

1.    That I am the petitioner no.2 and am fully conversant with the facts and circumstances of the present case and I am competent to swear the present affidavit.

 

2.    That I have gone through the contents of the accompanying application under section 151 CPC for directions and have understood the same and say that the facts and submissions as made therein are correct and true to my knowledge.

 

DEPONENT

VERIFICATION

          Verified at Delhi on this    day of September, 2007 that the facts as stated in the above affidavit are correct and true to my knowledge and nothing material has been concealed therefrom.

 

DEPONENT


IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

C.M. NO. ________ OF 2007

IN

W. P. (C) NO. 6179 OF 2007

 

(PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION)

 

 

IN THE MATTER OF:

 

Social Jurist,

A Civil Rights Group & Anr.                                  ….. Petitioners    

 

Versus

 

Union of India & Ors.                                            ….. Respondents

 

 

NOTICE OF MOTION

 

 

 

                    TAKE NOTICE that the accompanying C.M. No.________ of 2007 in W.P. (C) No. 6179 of 2006 will be listed before Court on _________ at 10.30 O’ Clock to the forenoon, or so soon thereafter as may be convenient to the Court.

 

 

 

 

 

 

          MS. SADHANA CHAUDHARI,

PETITIONER NO 2,

36D Hazara Park,

Chandra Nagar West, Delhi 51,

     Mobile 09953034531

NEW DELHI, DATED:  07.09.2007   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

 

To,

 

          The Deputy Registrar,

          High Court of Delhi,

          New Delhi.

 

 

C.M. NO. ________ OF 2007

   IN

W. P. (C) NO. 6179 OF 2007

(PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION)

 

IN THE MATTER OF:

 

Social Jurist,

A Civil Rights Group & Anr.                                  ….. Petitioners    

 

Versus

 

Union of India & Ors.                                            ….. Respondents

 

 

APPLICATION FOR URGENT HEARING

 

Sir,

 

          Will you kindly treat the accompanying application under section 151 CPC for direction as an urgent one in accordance with the High Court Rules and Orders

 

1.       The ground of urgency are:  -

 

“As the prayers made in the petition are of urgent nature”

 

 

 

 

                                                                    Yours faithfully,

 

 

 

 

          MS. SADHANA CHAUDHARI,

PETITIONER NO 2,

36D Hazara Park,

Chandra Nagar West, Delhi 51,

     Mobile 09953034531

NEW DELHI, DATED:  07.09.2007   


IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

 

C.M. NO. ________ OF 2007

 

IN

 

W. P. (C) NO. 6179 OF 2007

 

(PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION)

 

 

 

IN THE MATTER OF:

 

Social Jurist,

A Civil Rights Group & Anr.                                  ….. Petitioners    

 

Versus

 

Union of India & Ors.                                            ….. Respondents

 

 

I N D E X

 

 

 

S.NO.          PARTICULARS                      COURT FEES    PAGES

                                                                          (RS.)

 

1.

Notice of Motion

 

A

 

2.

Application for Urgent Hearing

 

B

 

5.

Application on behalf of the petitioner no.2 Under Section 151 CPC for direction with affidavit

 

 

 

 

1 – 13

6.

Annexure-A

Copy of the letters dated 24/08/2007 & 27/08/2007

 

 

 

 

14 - 15

7.

Annexure-B

Copy of the Police Complaint dated 03.09.2007

 

 

 

16

 

 

 

 

 

 

          MS. SADHANA CHAUDHARI,

PETITIONER NO 2,

36D Hazara Park,

Chandra Nagar West, Delhi 51,

     Mobile 09953034531

NEW DELHI

DATED:  07.09.2007   

 

High Court New Delhi

10/09/2007