ADV.

ABHISHEK MISHRA
Office: 2 & 3, Floor, Kothari House, 5/7 Oak Lane, A R Allana Marg, Near
Burma Burma Restaurant, Fort, Mumbai - 400 023.

Mob. No. +91 –9082530797 Email: adv.abhishekmishra1@gmail.com

Date: 30th September, 2021.

To,
1. Mr. Suraj Rao
Resident Grievance Officer for YouTube
Google LLC - India Liaison Office
Unit No. 26 The Executive Center,
Level 8, DLFCentre,Sansad Marg,
Connaught Place, New Delhi - 110001
E-Mail: support-in@google.com

2. Google Signature Towers,

691, Delhi – Jaipur Expressway,
Silokhera, Sector 15 Part 2,
Sector 15, Gurugram, Haryana 122001
support-in@google.com

3. Ms. Susan Wojcicki

Chief executive officer
YouTube, Video Sharing Company
Google LLC, D/B/A YouTube
901 Cherry Ave San Bruno,
CA 94066 USA

Page 1 of 49
4. Mr. Sundar Pichai
Chief Executive Officer
Google LLC, D/B/A YouTube
901 Cherry Ave
San Bruno, CA 94066
USA

Subject:- (i) Compensation of Rs. 1000 Crores for

defamation and violation of my client’s
fundamental right to speech by blocking his
Youtube account, when my clients video/post
was based on legal evidences and within the
framework of legal mandates.

(ii) Immediately stopping the misinformation

campaign run by you with ulterior motives to
help the vaccine mafias and cheat the public
and thereby putting citizens’ life into jeopardy.

(iii) Immediately stopping the Contempt of Hon’ble

Supreme Court and Hon’ble various High
Courts in India.

(iv) To immediately start respecting & following the

Constitution of India and our country’s
domestic laws and also to act as per United
Nations Universal Declaration on Bioethics,
2005 & International Covenant on Civil &
Political Rights.

Page 2 of 49
Sir,

Under the authorization and instructions of my client Mr. Virender Singh, R/o
C-1/26, Street No.05, Raja Puri, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi -110059, I, the
undersigned, serve you the legal notice as under:

1. That my client believes in dissemination of information for the public at

large. All the posts are based on sound data and have scientific origin. He
is exercising his constitutionally guaranteed right of freedom of speech
and also performing his constitutional duty to spread awareness to
develop a spirit of enquiry and reforms.

2. However, you Noticee seem to have a feeling that you are above the law
and our constitution of India and also above International laws made by
United Nations regarding freedom of speech and right of people to know.

3. Under the said illusion, you Noticee have deleted few posts of my client.

4. Brief details of the posts/Videos & channel which were deleted and
restricted by you. History of the posts:-

Videos Removed from Youtube Channel :

https://www.youtube.com/virendersingh16

1) Video Removed on 25th Aug 2020, Video URL

https://youtu.be/1oyNLBbX7mg

2) Video Removed on 07th Nov 2020, Video URL:

https://youtu.be/F7pan4j6P0A

3) Video Removed on 08th Nov 2020, Video URL:

https://youtu.be/nLlPMBb22Kw

4) Removed Video URL:

Page 3 of 49
 https://youtu.be/RGYa-BOtNFM

5) Removed Video URL:

https://youtu.be/1fA7KOnzSrs

6) Video Removed on 05th Dec 2020, Video URL:

https://youtu.be/wha0CjILglA

7) Video Removed on 01st May 2021, Video URL:

https://youtu.be/LQn2Y35srjU

Videos Removed from Youtube Channel :

https://www.youtube.com/rajivdixittrust

➢ Removed Video URL: https://youtu.be/2_AATlznPhA

➢ Removed Video URL: https://youtu.be/asWW-2jOXh8

Below is the URL to one of my Channel which was deleted

permanently:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_h9y-NX6lZASu7I3bUgadw

5. That, the videos were regarding my client’s fair opinion and its duty to
expose frauds, faults, ineffectiveness and side effects of vaccines and
other offences by the vaccine syndicate. Therefore the act of You Noticee
No. 1, 2 & 3 in deleting the said video is violative of Constitution of India
and also Article 18 (3) of Universal Declaration on Bioethics and
Human Rights, 2005 (UDBHR) which reads thus;

Article 18 – Decision-making and addressing bioethical

issues

Page 4 of 49
 1. Professionalism, honesty, integrity and transparency in
decision-making should be promoted, in particular
declarations of all conflicts of interest and appropriate
sharing of knowledge. Every endeavour should be made to
use the best available scientific knowledge and methodology
in addressing and periodically reviewing bioethical issues.

2. Persons and professionals concerned and society as a

whole should be engaged in dialogue on a regular basis.

3. Opportunities for informed pluralistic public debate,

seeking the expression of all relevant opinions, should be
promoted.”

6. That, Your act is also contempt of Hon’ble High Court & Hon’ble
Supreme Court’s binding precedents. In Secretary General, Supreme
Court of India Vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal, 2010 SCC OnLine
Del 111, it is ruled as under;

“The right to information is thus embedded in Articles 14,

19(1)(a) and 21 of the Constitution.

42. …The right to information may not always have a

linkage with the freedom of speech. If a citizen gets
information, certainly his capacity to speak will be
enhanced. But many a time, he needs information, which
may have nothing to do with his desire to speak. He may
wish to know how an administrative authority has used its
discretionary powers. He may need information as to whom
the petrol pumps have been allotted. The right to information
is required to make the exercise of discretionary powers by
the Executive transparent and, therefore, accountable

Page 5 of 49
because such transparency will act as a deterrent against
unequal treatment.

32. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948

adopted on 10th December in Article 19 said:

“Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and

expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions
without interference and to seek, receive and impart
information and ideas through any media and regardless of
frontiers.”

33. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

(ICCPR) was adopted in 1968. Article 19 of the Convention
reads as follows:
(1) Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without
interference;
(2) Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression,
this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart
information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers,
either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art or
through any other media of his choice.”

India has ratified the ICCPR. Section 2(d) read with 2(f) of
the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 clarifies ‘human
rights’ to include the rights guaranteed by the ICCPR.

34. The Convention of the Organisation of American States

and European Convention on Human Rights also
incorporate specific provisions on the right to information.

36. In Benett Coleman v. Union of India, (1972) 2 SCC 788 :

AIR 1973 SC 106, the Court held that the impugned

Page 6 of 49
Newsprint Control Order violated the freedom of the press
and therefore was ultra vires Article 19(1)(a) of the
Constitution. The Order did not merely violate the right of
the newspapers to publish, which was inherent in the
freedom of the press, but also violated the right of the
readers to get information which was included within their
right to freedom of speech and expression. Chief Justice Ray,
in the majority judgment, said:

“It is indisputable that by freedom of the press is meant the

right of all citizens to speak, publish and express their views.
The freedom of the press embodies the right of the people to
read.” (para 45)

37. In a subsequent judgment in Indian Express Newspaper

(Bombay) Private Ltd. v. Union of India, (1985) 1 SCC 641 :
AIR 1986 SC 515, the Court held that the independence of
the mass media was essential for the right of the citizen to
information. In Tata Press Ltd. v. Maharashtra Telephone
Nigam Ltd., (1995) 5 SCC 139, the Court recognized the
right of the public at large to receive ‘commercial speech’.

38. The concept of the right to information was eloquently

formulated by Mathew, J. in The State of UP v. Raj Narain,
(1975) 4 SCC 428: AIR 1975 SC 865, in the following words
: (para 74)

“In a government of responsibility like ours, where all the

agents of the public must be responsible for their conduct,
there can be but few secrets. The people of this country have
a right to know every public act, everything that is done in a
public way, by their public functionaries. They are entitled to

Page 7 of 49
know the particulars of every public transaction in all its
bearing. The right to know, which is derived from the
concept of freedom of speech, though not absolute, is a
factor which should make one wary, when secrecy is claimed
for transactions which can, at any rate, have no
repercussion on public security, see New York Times
Co. v. United States, (1971) 29 Law Ed. 822 : 403 U.S. 713.
To cover with veil of secrecy, the common routine business,
is not in the interest of the public. Such secrecy can seldom
be legitimately desired. It is generally desired for the
purpose of parties and politics or personal self-interest or
bureaucratic routine. The responsibility of officials to
explain and to justify their acts is the chief safeguard against
oppression and corruption.”

39. In the case of S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, 1981 Supp

SCC 87 (para 65), Bhagwati, J (as he then was) emphasising
the need for openness in the government, observed:
65. The demand for openness in the government is based
principally on two reasons. It is now widely accepted that
democracy does not consist merely in people exercising their
franchise once in five years to choose their rules and, once
the vote is cast, then retiring in passivity and not taking any
interest in the government. Today it is common ground that
democracy has a more positive content and its orchestration
has to be continuous and pervasive. This means inter alia
that people should not only cast intelligent and rational
votes but should also exercise sound judgment on the
conduct of the government and the merits of public policies,
so that democracy does not remain merely a sporadic
exercise in voting but becomes a continuous process of
Page 8 of 49
 government - an attitude and habit of mind. But this
important role people can fulfil in a democracy only if it is
an open government where there is full access to information
in regard to the functioning of the government.”

7. That, you have acted against the Constitution of India, which guarantees
freedom of speech. You Noticees 1 and 2 have prohibited my client from
performing his constitutional duties as enshrined under Article 51 (A) of
the Constitution, to expose the malpractices in any institution. It is worth
to quote the wordings of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Indirect
Tax Practitioners Association Vs. R.K. Jain, (2010) 8 SCC 281, where
it is ruled as under;

Voltaire expressed a democrat's faith when he told, an

adversary in arguments:

“I do not agree with a word you say, but I will

defend to the death your right to say it.”

Champions of human freedom of thought and expression

throughout the ages, have realised that intellectual paralysis
creeps over a society which denies, in however subtle a
form, due freedom of thought and expression to its members.

"Freedom of the Press is the Ark of the Covenant of

Democracy because public criticism is essential to the
working of its institutions. Never has criticism been more
necessary than today, when the weapons of propaganda
are so strong and so subtle.”

A person like the respondent can appropriately be described

as a whistleblower for the system who has tried to highlight

Page 9 of 49
the malfunctioning of an important institution and there is
no reason to silence such person.

Intellectual advances made by our civilisation would have

been impossible without freedom of speech and expression.
At any rate, political democracy is based on the assumption
that such freedom must be jealously guarded .

Though all the winds of doctrine were let loose to play

upon the earth, so Truth be in the field, we do injuriously
by licensing and prohibiting to misdoubt her strength. Let
her and Falsehood grapple;

whoever knew Truth put to the worse, in a free and open

encounter?... Who knows not that Truth is strong, next to
the Almighty; he needs no policies, no stratagems, no
licensings to make her victorious; those are the shifts and
defences that error makes against her power ...."

A whistleblower is a person who raises a concern about

wrongdoing occurring in an organization or body of people.
Usually this person would be from that same organization.

15. In the land of Gautam Buddha, Mahavir and Mahatma

Gandhi, the freedom of speech and expression and freedom
to speak one's mind have always been respected. After
independence, the Courts have zealously guarded this most
precious freedom of every human being. Fair criticism of the
system of administration of justice or functioning of
institutions or authorities entrusted with the task of deciding
rights of the parties gives an opportunity to the operators of
the system/institution to remedy the wrong and also bring
about improvements. Such criticism cannot be castigated as
an attempt to scandalize or lower the authority of the Court
Page 10 of 49
 or other judicial institutions or as an attempt to interfere
with the administration of justice

“But, like other liberties, this also must be limited."

Krishna Iyer, J. agreed with C.J. Beg and observed:

"Poise and peace and inner harmony are so quintessential to

the judicial temper that huff, "haywire" or even humiliation
shall not besiege; nor, unveracious provocation, frivolous
persiflage nor terminological inexactitude throw into
palpitating tantrums the balanced cerebration of the judicial
mind. The integral yoga of shanti and neeti is so much the
cornerstone of the judicial process that criticism, wild or
valid, authentic or anathematic, shall have little purchase
over the mentation of the Court. I quite realise how hard it is
to resist, with sage silence, the shafts of acid speech; and,
how alluring it is to succumb to the temptation of
argumentation where the thorn, not the rose, triumphs.
Truth's taciturn strategy, the testimony of history says, has a
higher power than a hundred thousand tongues or pens. In
contempt jurisdiction, silence is a sign of strength since our
power is wide and we are prosecutor and judge."

What the respondent projected was nothing but true state of

the functioning of CESTAT on administrative side and to
some extent on judicial side.By doing so, he had merely
discharged the constitutional duty of a citizen enshrined
in Article 51A(h).

8. Similarly in the case of Anirudha Bahal vs. State 2010 SCC OnLine
Del 3365, it is ruled as under;

Page 11 of 49
“DUTY OF A CITIZEN UNDER ARTICLE 51A(H) IS TO
DEVELOP A SPIRIT OF INQUIRY AND REFORMS -
Constitution of India mandates citizens to act as agent
provocateurs to bring out and expose and uproot the
corruption - it is a fundamental right of citizens of this
country to have a clean incorruptible judiciary, legislature,
executive and other organs and in order to achieve this
fundamental right, every citizen has a corresponding duty
to expose corruption wherever he finds it, whenever he
finds it and to expose it if possible with proof so that even if
the State machinery does not act and does not take action
against the corrupt people when time comes people are
able to take action

Chanakaya in his famous work 'Arthshastra' advised and

suggested that honesty of even judges should be periodically
tested by the agent provocateurs. I consider that the duties
prescribed by the Constitution of India for the citizens of this
country do permit citizens to act as agent provocateurs to
bring out and expose and uproot the corruption

I consider that one of the noble ideals of our national

struggle for freedom was to have an independent and
corruption free India. The other duties assigned to the
citizen by the Constitution is to uphold and protect the
sovereignty, unity and integrity of India and I consider that
sovereignty, unity and integrity of this country cannot be
protected and safeguarded if the corruption is not removed
from this country. - I consider that a country cannot be
defended only by taking a gun and going to border at the
time of war. The country is to be defended day in and day

Page 12 of 49
 out by being vigil and alert to the needs and requirements
of the country and to bring forth the corruption at higher
level. The duty under Article 51A(h) is to develop a spirit of
inquiry and reforms. The duty of a citizen under Article
51A(j) is to strive towards excellence in all spheres so that
the national constantly rises to higher level of endeavour
and achievements I consider that it is built-in duties that
every citizen must strive for a corruption free society and
must expose the corruption whenever it comes to his or her
knowledge and try to remove corruption at all levels more
so at higher levels of management of the State.

9. I consider that it is a fundamental right of citizens of this

country to have a clean incorruptible judiciary, legislature,
executive and other organs and in order to achieve this
fundamental right, every citizen has a corresponding duty to
expose corruption wherever he finds it, whenever he finds it
and to expose it if possible with proof so that even if the
State machinery does not act and does not take action
against the corrupt people when time comes people are able
to take action either by rejecting them as their
representatives or by compelling the State by public
awareness to take action against them.

The rule of corroboration is not a rule of law. It is only a

rule of prudence and the sole purpose of this rule is to see
that innocent persons are not unnecessarily made victim.
The rule cannot be allowed to be a shield for corrupt.

9. That, your act of deleting the video of my client has caused a great
damage to the image and reputation of my client and he has suffered a lot

Page 13 of 49
 of pressure, mental torture, annoyance, inconvenience apart from
monetary losses.

10. That, the contents of my client’s videos were based on the sound beliefs
and all his views expressed were legally admissible views. He was
expressing his opinions which is permissible as per Indian laws. My
client’s only intention was to make people aware and to help them to
protect from any misinformation or agenda run by the pharma syndicate.
But you noticee YouTube deleted it without any lawful reason.

Hence, you are guilty of offences under section 500, 501 r/w 120 (B) &
34 etc. of IPC.

11. Needless to mention here that, the act of stopping, hiding, removing,
suppressing, concealing and twisting material facts from any
patient/citizen and leaving him no option but to adopt the option of
dangerous vaccines is a preparation of offence as defined under section
511 of IPC and if any person dies due to such acts of commission and
omission, then you noticees will be liable for offence of murder of said
person as defined under section 115 & 302 of IPC. Law is made clear in
the case of Airedale N.H.S. Trust v. Bland, (1993) 2 WLR 316 : (1993)
1 All ER 821, where it is ruled as under ;

“6………If the patient had been capable of deciding

whether or not he wished to be treated, and had either not
been asked for his consent or had refused it, the doctors
would have been criminally liable since consent is normally
an essential element in proper medical treatment. ………..

7. Murder. It has been established for centuries that consent

to the deliberate infliction of death is no defence to a charge
of murder. Cases where the victim has urged the defendant
to kill him and the defendant has complied are likely to be
rare, but the proposition is established beyond doubt by the
Page 14 of 49
law on duelling, where even if the deceased was the
challenger his consent to the risk of being deliberately killed
by his opponent does not alter the case.

Again, as has been pointed out (Skegg, Law, Ethics and

Medicine (1984), p.169 et seq.) if the switching off of a
ventilator were to be classified as a positive act, exactly the
same result can be achieved by installing a time-clock which
requires to be reset every 12 hours: the failure to reset the
machine could not be classified as a positive act. In my
judgment, essentially what is being done is to omit to feed or
to ventilate: the removal of the nasogastric tube or the
switching off of a ventilator are merely incidents of that
omission: see Glanville Williams, Textbook of Criminal
Law , p.282; Skegg , pp.169 et seq.

A. Criminal liability/murder

It is the submission of the Official Solicitor that the

withdrawal of artificial feeding would constitute murder.
The Official Solicitor has been criticised for using emotive
language in this case. In my judgment this criticism is
misplaced: much the most difficult question is indeed
whether the proposed course of action is, in law, murder
notwithstanding the best motives from which everyone
concerned is acting.

Murder consists of causing the death of another with intent

so to do. What is proposed in the present case is to adopt a
course with the intention of bringing about Anthony Bland's
death. As to the element of intention or mens rea, in my
judgment there can be no real doubt that it is present in this

Page 15 of 49
 case: the whole purpose of stopping artificial feeding is to
bring about the death of Anthony Bland.

As to the guilty act, or actus reus, the criminal law draws a

distinction between the commission of a positive act which
causes death and the omission to do an act which would
have prevented death. In general an omission to prevent
death is not an actus reus and cannot give rise to a
conviction for murder. But where the accused was under a
duty to the deceased to do the act which he omitted to do,
such omission can constitute the actus reus of homicide,
either murder (Rex v. Gibbins and Proctor (1918) 13
Cr.App.R. 134) or manslaughter (Reg. v. Stone [1977] Q.B.
354) depending upon the mens rea of the accused. The
Official Solicitor submits that the actus reus of murder is
present on two alternative grounds, viz. 1. the withdrawal of
artificial feeding is a positive act of commission; or 2. if
what is proposed is only an omission, the hospital and the
doctors have assumed a duty to care for Anthony Bland
(including feeding him) and therefore the omission to feed
him would constitute the actus reus of murder.

12. The abovesaid law is made a law of India as per Supreme Court judgment
in Common Cause case (2018) 5 SCC 1, It is also followed recently in
Meghalaya Vs. State of Meghalaya 2021 SCC OnLine Megh 130
which is regarding the corona vaccines.

13. Section 115 & 302 of Indian Penal Code read thus;

“115. Abetment of offence punishable with death or

imprisonment for life—if offence not committed.—
Whoever abets the commission of an offence punishable with
death or 1[imprisonment for life], shall, if that offence be not
Page 16 of 49
committed in consequence of the abetment, and no express
provision is made by this Code for the punishment of such
abetment, be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to seven years, and
shall also be liable to fine; If act causing harm be done in
consequence.—and if any act for which the abettor is liable
in consequence of the abetment, and which causes hurt to
any person, is done, the abettor shall be liable to
imprisonment of either description for a term which may
extend to fourteen years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Illustration A instigates B to murder Z. The offence is not
committed. If B had murdered Z, he would have been subject
to the punishment of death or 1[imprisonment for life].
Therefore A is liable to imprisonment for a term which may
extend to seven years and also to a fine; and if any hurt be
done to Z in consequence of the abetment, he will be liable to
imprisonment for a term which may extend to fourteen years,
and to fine. CLASSIFICATION OF OFFENCE Para I:
Punishment—Imprisonment for 7 years and fine—According
as offence abetted is cognizable or non-cognizable—non-
bailable—Triable by court by which offence abetted is
triable—Non-compoundable. Para II: Punishment—
Imprisonment for 14 years and fine—According as offence
abetted is cognizable or non-cognizable—non-bailable—
Triable by court by which offence abetted is triable—Non-
compoundable.

302. Punishment for murder.—Whoever commits murder

shall be punished with death, or 1[imprisonment for life],
and shall also be liable to fine.”

Page 17 of 49
14. That You noticee involved in a conspiracy to supress the data and run
only one false narrative that vaccines are safe and only solution. In
furtherance of said sinister plan, You at your own have uploaded many
videos of many captured doctors to spread misinformation that ‘vaccines
are completely safe and the only available complete solution against the
Covid-19.

15. Falsity of all your advertisements, interviews, false narratives and

conspiracy theories have been exposed from the following;

(i) Vaccine is not a solution against corona since people getting

two doses of vaccine are also infected with corona and some have
died.

Link:

1. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1gFR9YyJnjxTu3-Q-D2uG-
PmF7uAG4cDp/view?usp=sharing
2. https://theprint.in/health/at-least-60-delhi-doctors-have-died-
in-2nd-covid-wave-families-are-left-to-pick-up-
pieces/661353/
3. https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/dr-kk-aggarwal-ex-chief-
of-india-medical-association-ima-dies-of-covid-19-
coronavirus-2443827

(ii) Vaccines are not safe at all and vaccines are having several
death causing & other side effects.

Link:

1. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1uikc1a6_KDzUx7HNLrfw
aI1NJRt0D_YP/view?usp=sharing
2. https://u.pcloud.link/publink/show?code=kZ03dwXZcrC28
I987y41sJlCLpBSUbgJHz07

Page 18 of 49
 (iii) The immunity developed in the person due to his/her coming
in contact of SARS-CoV-2 is far superior than the vaccines. It is at
least 13 times superior than the immunity developed due to
vaccines

Link:

Natural immunity 13 times more effective than vaccine

immunity

https://youtu.be/6v5VrpgXPm4

16. However, you noticee run only unilateral and false narrative and have
always tried your level best to suppress & conceal the true information
from common people. This is in fact an offence of luring the people to
take medicine by misrepresenting the public at large. It is an offence
punishable under section 420 r/w 120(B) & 340 of I.P.C.

17. That Hon’ble Meghalaya High Court in Registrar General, High Court
of Meghalaya Vs. State of Meghalaya 2021 SCC OnLine Megh 130,
ruled by High Court as under;

“Thus, by use of force or through deception if an unwilling

capable adult is made to have the „flu vaccine would be
considered both a crime and tort or civil‟ wrong, as was
ruled in Airedale NHS Trust v Bland reported at 1993 AC
789 = (1993) 2 WLR 316 = (1993) 1 All ER 821, around
thirty years (30) ago. Thus, coercive element of vaccination
has, since the early phases of the initiation of vaccination
as a preventive measure against several diseases, have been
time and again not only discouraged but also consistently
ruled against by the Courts for over more than a century.

Page 19 of 49
 However, vaccination by force or being made mandatory by
adopting coercive methods, vitiates the very fundamental
purpose of the welfare attached to it.”

18. That in a case of misinformation campaigne like you, the accused

company GlaxoSminthkline recently paid $ 3 Billion (around Rs. 2228
Crores) to the victim.

Link:- https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/glaxosmithkline-plead-guilty-
and-pay-3-billion-resolve-fraud-allegations-and-failure-report

Relevant extracts from article reads thus;

“GlaxoSmithKline to plead Guilty and pay $ 3 Billion to

Resolve Fraud Allegations and Failure to Report Safety
Data.

GSK agreed to plead guilty to a three-count criminal

information, including two counts of introducing misbranded
drugs, Paxil and Wellbutrin, into interstate commerce and
one count of failing to report safety data about the drug
Avandia to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Under
the terms of the plea agreement, GSK will pay a total of $1
billion, including a criminal fine of $956,814,400 and
forfeiture in the amount of $43,185,600. The criminal plea
agreement also includes certain non-monetary compliance
commitments and certifications by GSK’s U.S. president and
board of directors. GSK’s guilty plea and sentence is not
final until accepted by the U.S. District Court.

GSK will also pay $2 billion to resolve its civil liabilities

with the federal government under the False Claims Act, as
well as the states. The civil settlement resolves claims
relating to Paxil, Wellbutrin and Avandia, as well as

Page 20 of 49
additional drugs, and also resolves pricing fraud
allegations.

“Today’s multi-billion dollar settlement is unprecedented in

both size and scope. It underscores the Administration’s firm
commitment to protecting the American people and holding
accountable those who commit health care fraud,” said
James M. Cole, Deputy Attorney General. “At every level,
we are determined to stop practices that jeopardize patients’
health, harm taxpayers, and violate the public trust – and
this historic action is a clear warning to any company that
chooses to break the law.”

“Today’s historic settlement is a major milestone in our

efforts to stamp out health care fraud,” said Bill Corr,
Deputy Secretary of the Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS). “For a long time, our health care system
had been a target for cheaters who thought they could make
an easy profit at the expense of public safety, taxpayers, and
the millions of Americans who depend on programs like
Medicare and Medicaid. But thanks to strong enforcement
actions like those we have announced today, that equation is
rapidly changing.”

This resolution marks the culmination of an extensive

investigation by special agents from HHS-OIG, FDA and
FBI, along with law enforcement partners across the federal
government. Moving forward, GSK will be subject to
stringent requirements under its corporate integrity
agreement with HHS-OIG; this agreement is designed to
increase accountability and transparency and prevent future
fraud and abuse. Effective law enforcement partnerships and

Page 21 of 49
 fraud prevention are hallmarks of the Health Care Fraud
Prevention and Enforcement Action Team (HEAT) initiative,
which fosters government collaboration to fight fraud.”

19. That your office is not providing the full and correct information which is
need of the hour in the interest of public.

19.1. A Hon’ble High Court in Samson Arthur Vs. Quinn Logistic India Pvt.
Ltd. and Ors. MANU/AP/0623/2015: [2016] 194 Comp Cas 100
(AP) called such act as an offence under sec. 192,193 etc. of Indian Penal
Code.

“SUPPRESSIO VERI SUGGESTIO FALSI – The

suppression of relevant and material facts is as bad as a
false representation deliberately made. Both are intended
to dilute- one by inaction and the other by action.
Suppression of the truth is equivalent to the suggestion of
what is false.

B] A false statement willfully and deliberately made, and a

suppression of a relevant and material fact, interfere with
the due course of justice and obstruct the administration of
justice.

E] It is the duty of the Court, once false averment of facts

are discovered, to take appropriate steps to ensure that no
one derives any benefit or advantage by abusing the legal
process. Fraudulent and dishonest litigants must be
discouraged. It is the bounden obligation of the Court to
neutralize any unjust and/or undeserved benefit or
advantage obtained by abusing the judicial process.

Page 22 of 49
 F] Dishonesty should not be permitted to bear fruit and
confer benefit to the person who has made a
misrepresentation.”

19.2. That section 420 of I.P.C. reads thus;

“Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code

“420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of

property.—Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces
the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or
to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable
security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is
capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to
fine.”

19.3. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bhanwar Kanwar Vs. R.K.Gupta (2013) 4

SCC 252, had ruled as under;

“19. The National Commission has already held that

Respondent 1 was guilty of unfair trade practice and
adopted unfair method and deceptive practice by making
false statement orally as well as in writing. In view of the
aforesaid finding, we hold that both Prashant and the
appellant suffered physical and mental injury due to the
misleading advertisement, unfair trade practice and
negligence of the respondents. The appellant and Prashant
thus are entitled for an enhanced compensation for the
injury suffered by them. Further, we find no reason given by
the National Commission for deducting 50% of the

Page 23 of 49
 compensation amount and to deposit the same with the
Consumer Legal Aid Account of the Commission.

20. We, accordingly, set aside that part of the order passed
by the National Commission and enhance the amount of
compensation at Rs 15 lakhs for payment in favour of the
appellant with a direction to the respondents to pay the
amount to the appellant within three months. The appeal is
allowed but there shall be no separate order as to costs.”

19.4. GlaxoSmithKline to Plead Guilty and Pay $3 Billion to Resolve Fraud

Allegations and Failure to Report Safety Data

Largest Health Care Fraud Settlement in U.S. History

Global health care giant GlaxoSmithKline LLC (GSK) agreed to plead

guilty and to pay $3 billion to resolve its criminal and civil liability
arising from the company’s unlawful promotion of certain prescription
drugs, its failure to report certain safety data, and its civil liability for
alleged false price reporting practices, the Justice Department announced
today. The resolution is the largest health care fraud settlement in U.S.
history and the largest payment ever by a drug company.

19.5. It is also contempt of law laid down in Secretary General, Supreme

Court of India Vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal, 2010 SCC OnLine
Del 111, it is ruled as under;

“42. Professor S.P. Sathe, in his brilliant work on right to

information (“Right to Information” : Lexis Nexis
Butterworths, 2006) stated that there are certain
disadvantages of treating the right to information as situated
exclusively in Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. According

Page 24 of 49
to the learned author, the right to information is not
confined to Article 19(1)(a) but is also situated in Article 14
(equality oefore the law and equal protection of law) and
Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty). The right to
information may not always have a linkage with the freedom
of speech. If a citizen gets information, certainly his capacity
to speak will be enhanced. But many a time, he needs
information, which may have nothing to do with his desire to
speak. He may wish to know how an administrative authority
has used its discretionary powers. He may need information
as to whom the petrol pumps have been allotted. The right to
information is required to make the exercise of discretionary
powers by the Executive transparent and, therefore,
accountable because such transparency will act as a
deterrent against unequal treatment. In S.P. Gupta's case,
the petitioners had raised the question of alleged misuse of
power of appointing and transferring the Judges of the High
Court by the Government. In order to make sure that the
power of appointment of Judges was not used with political
motives thereby undermining the independence of the
judiciary, the petitioners sought information as to whether
the procedures laid down under Articles 124(2) and 217(1)
had been scrupulously followed. Here the right to
information was a condition precedent to the rule of law.
Most of the issues, which the Mazdoor Kisan Shakti
Sangathan of Rajasthan had raised in their mass struggle for
the right to information, were mundane matters regarding
wages and employment of workers, such information was
necessary for ensuring that no discrimination had been
made between workers and that everything had been done

Page 25 of 49
according to law. The right to information is thus embedded
in Articles 14, 19(1)(a) and 21 of the Constitution.

38. The concept of the right to information was eloquently

formulated by Mathew, J. in The State of UP v. Raj Narain,
(1975) 4 SCC 428 : AIR 1975 SC 865, in the following
words : (para 74)
“In a government of responsibility like ours, where all
the agents of the public must be responsible for their
conduct, there can be but few secrets. The people of
this country have a right to know every public act,
everything that is done in a public way, by their public
functionaries. They are entitled to know the
particulars of every public transaction in all its
bearing. The right to know, which is derived from the
concept of freedom of speech, though not absolute, is
a factor which should make one wary, when secrecy is
claimed for transactions which can, at any rate, have
no repercussion on public security, see New York
Times Co. v. United States, (1971) 29 Law Ed. 822 :
403 U.S. 713. To cover with veil of secrecy, the
common routine business, is not in the interest of the
public. Such secrecy can seldom be legitimately
desired. It is generally desired for the purpose of
parties and politics or personal self-interest or
bureaucratic routine. The responsibility of officials to
explain and to justify their acts is the chief safeguard
against oppression and corruption.”

Page 26 of 49
39. In the case of S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, 1981 Supp
SCC 87 (para 65), Bhagwati, J (as he then was) emphasising
the need for openness in the government, observed:
65. The demand for openness in the government is based
principally on two reasons. It is now widely accepted that
democracy does not consist merely in people exercising
their franchise once in five years to choose their rules
and, once the vote is cast, then retiring in passivity and
not taking any interest in the government. Today it is
common ground that democracy has a more positive
content and its orchestration has to be continuous and
pervasive. This means inter alia that people should not
only cast intelligent and rational votes but should also
exercise sound judgment on the conduct of the
government and the merits of public policies, so that
democracy does not remain merely a sporadic exercise in
voting but becomes a continuous process of government -
an attitude and habit of mind. But this important role
people can fulfil in a democracy only if it is an open
government where there is full access to information in
regard to the functioning of the government.”

Liability to Provide Information

46. Every public authority is liable to provide
information. “Public authority” has been defined by
Section 2(h) as any authority or body or institution of
self-government established or constituted - (a) by or
under the Constitution; (b) by any other law made by
Parliament; (c) by any other law made by State
Legislature; (d) by notification issued or order made by

Page 27 of 49
 the appropriate Government, and includes any - (i) body
owned, controlled or substantially financed; (ii) non-
Government Organisation substantially financed, directly
or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate
Government. By virtue of Section 24, the Act does not
apply to the Intelligence and Security Organisations
specified in the Second Schedule. However, the
information pertaining to the allegations of corruption
and human rights violations shall be required to be given
by such authorities subject to the approval of the Central
Information Commissioner.

47. The Act does not merely oblige the public authority to
give information on being asked for it by a citizen but
requires it to suo moto make the information accessible.
Section 4(1)(a) of the Act requires every public authority
to maintain all its records duly catalogued and indexed in
a manner and the form which facilitates the right to
information under the Act and ensure that all records
that are appropriate to be computerised are, within a
reasonable time and subject to availability of resources,
computerised and connected through a network all over
the country on different systems so that access to such
records is facilitated. Section 4 spells out various
obligations of public authorities and Sections 6 and 7 lay
down the procedure to deal with request for obtaining
information.”

20. It is apt to reproduce the excerpts from the speech delivered by Supreme
Court of India’s Judge Shri. Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud on 28
August, 2021 in Justice MC Chagla Memorial Lecture 2021.
Page 28 of 49
“Understandably, the State does not often adjudicate upon
scientific truths but it does provide them its tacit approval when it
decides to form policies based on them. As such, all policies of
the State can be assumed to have been formed on their basis of
what the “truth” of our society is. However, this by no means
leads to the conclusion that the States cannot indulge in
falsehood for political reasons, even in democracies. The role of
the United States in the Vietnam War did not see daylight until
the Pentagon Papers were published. In the context of the
COVID-19 pandemic, we see that there is an increasing trend of
countries across the world who are trying to manipulate data on
the COVID-19 infection rate and deaths. Hence, once cannot
only rely on the State to determine the “truth”.

The second means of determining the “truth” is by ‘experts’ such

as scientists, statisticians, researchers, and economists who can
verify knowledge. Because of their expertise in a given area, the
citizens are often expected to bow down to their determination of
the “truth” since it does not suffer from the malaise of political
bias. However, this is not always true because while experts may
not have political affiliation, their claims are also subject to
manipulation due to reasons such as ideological affinity, receipt of
financial aids or personal malice. These ‘experts’ are also often
employed by think-tanks who conduct research to support specific
opinions.

However, postmodernist scholars have correctly noted that while

the facts in themselves may be accurate, their selection,
arrangement, and the conclusions drawn from them are subject
to the individual realities of the person making these
determinations. As such, the opinion of an ‘expert’ cannot really
be considered as the objective “truth” even when based upon true
Page 29 of 49
facts because it is one possible opinion based on those facts, and
not the only one. Hannah Arendt notes that this cherry-picking of
facts in one’s favor has given rise to “spin”, in which the citizens
are not technically told a lie but the facts are selected in a way to
provide only a version of the “truth”, which then helps
manufacture the consent of the unsuspecting citizens.

This leaves us with the third means of determination of truth, which

is through deliberation and discussion by the citizens – by
paralleling, combining, and expounding the claims of truth in the
public sphere. It is often argued that scientific truth that is
dependent on the knowledge of the experts and truth that is out of
the reach of the common man due to non-transparency by State
actors, cannot be verified by the common man due to the evident
lack of expertise in that field of science and lack of information in
the public forum. However, as responsible citizens, we should put
these ‘truth providers’ through intense scrutiny and questioning,
to convince ourselves of the veracity of the claims made by them.
For this, it is also equally important for those making truth claims
to be transparent and conspicuous. We must together endeavour to
create and encourage a culture that is conducive for deliberation
of truth, particularly because “truth” dances on a fine balance
between facts and opinions. However, this brings us to the question
of who should be the citizens to take up this role?

Similarly, Noam Chomsky, in his celebrated article The

Responsibility of Intellectuals which was written in the context of
the United States’ ongoing involvement in the war in Vietnam,
noted that it was the duty of the “intellectuals” to speak the truth
and expose the lies of the State and its ‘experts’.

Page 30 of 49
As such, it is important to remember that every person – rich or
poor; male or female or belonging to a third gender; Dalit or
Brahmin or otherwise; Hindu, Muslim or Christian or belonging to
any other religion – has the inherent capacity to identify the truth,
and differentiate it from falsehood. This capacity to identify the
truth stems from common knowledge, experiences in life, their
individual struggles, and much more. However, many of them are
unable to participate in this process because of systemic
oppression which either does not provide a platform for their
voices or works to minimise their actual impact. Hence, while
considering the role of citizens in determining the “truth”, we must
keep in mind that this does not refer only to the elite, privileged
class of intellectuals but includes everyone. Therefore, it is
imperative upon us to create an environment where this becomes
possible.

This is also keeping in line with the ideas of John Stuart Mill, who
in his seminal work Liberty elucidated on the disadvantage of
suppressing opinions and stated.

“The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion

is, that it is robbing […] those who dissent from the opinion,
still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they
are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for
truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit,
the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth,
produced by its collision with error.”

As such, Mill was a firm believer in the “market place of ideas”,

where given enough time, the truth would always prevail over
falsehood. However, we must test the veracity of this claim in
present time, in what is now being called the “post-truth” world.

Page 31 of 49
“Speaking truth to power” aims to wield the power of “truth”
against the powerful, be it an imperial power or even an all-
powerful State. Crucially, the assumption is that the act of
speaking the “truth” will counter-act power, and obviate a
predisposition towards tyranny.

At the outset then, it is important to consider why “truth” is so

important to democracy, which is the form of governance adopted
in order to prevent the tyranny of the few.

Truth Commissions immediately upon gaining independence

from a totalitarian regime or after coming out of a period fraught
with human rights violations. These Commissions function to
document, record and acknowledge the “truth” of earlier regimes
and violations for future generations, so as to not only provide
catharsis to the survivors but also prevent any possibility of
denial in the future . In a different context, this role can also be
played by Courts which have the ability to document information
from all the parties involved, after due process has been followed.
In the suo motu cognizance of the COVID-19 pandemic taken by
our Supreme Court, we have acknowledged this very role in the
context of the pandemic.

However, the relationship that truth shares with democracy is that

of both a sword and a shield. The scope for extensive deliberation,
particularly in the age of social media, exposes multiple “truths”
so much so that it seems like we live in an “age of lies”, and that
shakes the very foundation of a democracy. The citizens should
arrive at a consensus on at least the basic facts that are backed by
both science and society to form collective decisions. Hence, if
deliberations are censored by the State or if we either
subconsciously or deliberately censor them, we would discern just

Page 32 of 49
one “truth” – one that is not challenged by us. In contrast,
deliberation by multiple groups with differing viewpoints will
pave way for correction of errors in this “truth”. Ideas will be
aggregated, and the entire process will help in the emergence of a
creative solution that no one person could have thought of
individually.

This then brings us to the ‘pragmatic’ theory of truth, which

defines “truth” in terms of ‘opinions’. It is in this context that
Sophia Rosenfeld, an eminent historian, notes that due to the
increasing belief of people in the non-existence of impartial ‘facts’
and their legitimate sources, people’s idea of “truth” has become
more instinctive, where “truth” is whatever feels right to them. In
essence, ““[t]ruth” has become personal, a matter of subjective
feeling and taste and not much different from an opinion” .
However, a quick glance through history will teach that individuals
sometimes tend to have opinions that may not be morally justifiable
to others.

As such, women and black Africans were not treated as citizens

because they were – according to those who held power and could
wield words – cunning, manipulative, and weak. Hence, the very
fact that these opinions are acknowledged today for their racist
and sexist overtones lends credence to argument that “truth”
cannot be akin to an opinion, since that would allow for personal
prejudices to creep into its determination. It is in this vein, that
Daniel Patrick Moynihan, an American politician, sociologist,
and diplomat had said that “everyone is entitled to [their] own
opinion, but not [their] own facts”

As such, it was argued by philosopher Michel Foucault that

different societies are engaged in different “regimes of truth”.

Page 33 of 49
Even within such societies, different sections are governed by
different truths, with often those in dominant positions imposing
their version of the truth upon others. Hence, facts and opinions
cannot be confined to water-tight compartments when they overlap
in various instances in their relationship with “truth”. The opinion
of a person is conferred the status of a ‘fact’ and subsequently
“truth” depending upon the power they yield in society. This was
also confirmed in a 1994 study by a historian of science named
Steven Shapin, when he noted that even at the height of the
Scientific Revolution in seventeenth century England, truth was
closely linked to an elite culture of honour, wealth, and civilized
comportment and was not a universal standard.

The first of these was factual or forensic truth, which we would

describe as “scientific” truth since it is determined on the basis of
facts and is the most commonly understood definition of “truth”.
However, it is the other three which were extremely peculiar. The
second was personal or narrative truth, which was based upon the
cathartic benefit of storytelling, where every person who was
affected by the apartheid regime could come forward and tell their
story in public hearings. The third was social or "dialogue" truth,
which was defined by Justice Albie Sachs of the Constitutional
Court of South African as “the truth of experience that is
established through interaction, discussion and debate”. The basis
of this truth often arose from the dialogue surrounding the work of
the Truth Commission, which happened in an entirely public
setting. And finally, the fourth was healing and restorative truth,
where the Truth Commission offered an acknowledgment of the
crimes committed against the survivors by putting the facts
collected by them in their proper political, social, and ideological
context.

Page 34 of 49
While someone’s speech may not be removed from the internet, it
can be effectively drowned out by flooding the internet with
massive amounts of information to the contrary. This will ensure
that many people do not even read the original speech or will be
unconvinced of its truth.

This tendency to exhibit ‘epistemic spillovers’ has led to the

manifestation of multiple truths. No consensus is reached on the
identification of “the truth” due to our tendency to not be able to
accept or even consider the views of those whom we reflect to be
different from us. We subconsciously filter the “truth” that does
not align with our interest.

Indeed, social media corporations can be afforded some of the

blame because their interface and algorithms help increase
existing polarization. But doing so only ignores the deeper
underlying issues in our communities. People often have such
differing conceptions of the “truths” because their realities are
very different to one another.

Finally, as citizens of a democracy that is India, we need to commit

ourselves to the search for “truth” as a key aspiration of our
society. I had mentioned earlier that our national motto is
“Satyamev Jayate” or “Truth Shall Prevail”. It is crucial that we
etch this into all our hearts, and work towards living up to it by
developing the right temperament. We can do this by questioning of
the State, ‘experts’ and fellow citizens in order to determine the
“truth”, and then speaking this truth to them, if they choose to
ignore or deny it.

I will not deny that the challenge before us is tough and requires
constant effort from all of us. I hope every single citizen of India
does their bit in honouring the memory of the great Justice Chagla

Page 35 of 49
 by speaking truth to power and working towards bettering our
democracy!”

21. Section 505 (i) (b) of Indian Penal Code reads thus;

“Section 505(1)(b) in The Indian Penal Code:-

(b) with intent to cause, or which is likely to cause, fear or

alarm to the public, or to any section of the public whereby
any person may be induced to commit an offence against
the State or against the public tranquillity.”

22. Section 54 of Disaster Management Act, 2005 reads thus;

“54. Punishment for false warning:-

Whoever makes or circulates a false alarm or warning as to

disaster or its severity or magnitude, leading to panic, shall
on conviction, be punishable with imprisonment which may
extend to one year or with fine. —Whoever makes or
circulates a false alarm or warning as to disaster or its
severity or magnitude, leading to panic, shall on conviction,
be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to one
year or with fine.”

23. You were fully aware that in future the issue might come before the Court
and in order to frustrate the rights of the victim and to help the vaccine
syndicate, you both conspired, connived and ran the narrative with an
ulterior motive to be used in court to misguide and mislead the concerned
Judge. Hence it is also an offence under Section 192, 193, etc. of I.P.C.

24. Section 192 & 193 of Indian Penal Code reads thus;

“192. Fabricating false evidence:-

Page 36 of 49
 Whoever causes any circumstance to exist or 1[makes any
false entry in any book or record, or electronic record or
makes any document or electronic record containing a false
statement], intending that such circumstance, false entry or
false statement may appear in evidence in a judicial
proceeding, or in a proceeding taken by law before a public
servant as such, or before an arbitrator, and that such
circumstance, false entry or false statement, so appearing in
evidence, may cause any person who in such proceeding is
to form an opinion upon the evidence, to entertain an
erroneous opinion touching any point material to the result
of such proceeding, is said “to fabricate false evidence”.

193. Punishment for false evidence:-

Whoever intentionally gives false evidence in any stage of a

judicial proceeding, or fabricates false evidence for the
purpose of being used in any stage of a judicial proceeding,
shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for
a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be
liable to fine, and whoever intentionally gives or fabricates
false evidence in any other case, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may
extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Explanation 1.—A trial before a Court-martial; 1[***] is a

judicial proceeding. Explanation 2.—An investigation
directed by law preliminary to a proceeding before a Court
of Justice, is a stage of a judicial proceeding, though that
investigation may not take place before a Court of Justice.

25. Section 500 & 501 of Indian Penal Code reads thus;

“500. Punishment for defamation:-

Page 37 of 49
 Whoever defames another shall be punished with simple
imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or
with fine, or with both.

501. Printing or engraving matter known to be

defamatory:-

Whoever prints or engraves any matter, knowing or having

good reason to believe that such matter is defamatory of any
person, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a
term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with
both.”

26. Needless to remind You that as per the law of conspiracy as explained in
Raman Lal vs. State of Rajasthan 2000 SCC OnLine Raj 226, the
circumstantial evidence is also sufficient for the prosecution of You
notice. It is ruled as under;

“Conspiracy – I.P.C. Sec. 120 (B):-

Apex court made it clear that an inference of conspiracy has

to be drawn on the basis of circumstantial evidence only
because it becomes difficult to get direct evidence on such
issue – The offence can only be proved largely from the
inference drawn from acts or illegal ommission committed
by them in furtherance of a common design – Once such a
conspiracy is proved, act of one conspirator becomes the act
of the others – A Co-conspirator who joins subsequently
and commits overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy must
also be held liable – Proceeding against accused cannot be
quashed.”

Page 38 of 49
27. That You noticee are criminal and conspirators of offences against entire
humanity. You helped the vaccine syndicate Bill Gates, Dr. Anthony
Faucci & others in committing the offences of mass murders and
genocide. You people are responsible for the loss of livelihood of Billions
of people. You have destroyed the dreams of many children, youth &
adults. Because of your act of commission and omission, citizens were
unable to get the correct information and under deception they were
compelled to take vaccines.

28. That my client tried to educate people but You Noticee obstructed my
client from performing his Constitutional duties and because of your act
of commission and omission, my client got defamed in the society at
large, and therefore you Noticee are liable to pay a compensation of Rs.
1000 Crores to my client within a period of Seven Days.

29. The abovesaid proportion of compensation for causing defamation of my

client is based on the judgment of Civil Court Senior Division, Pune in
the case of Mr. Parshuram Babaram Sawant vs. Times Global
Broadcasting Co. Ltd. In the said case, a compensation of Rs. 100
Crores was granted for defamation on electronic media for half an hour.

30. Said judgment is again referred by Hon’ble Bombay High Court

(Division Bench) in the case of Veena Sippy Vs. Mr. Narayan Dumbre
& Ors. 2012 SCC OnLine Bom 339, where it is ruled as under;

“20….We must state here that the Petitioner in person has

relied upon an interim order passed by this Court in First
Appeal arising out of a decree passed in a suit. The decree
was passed in a suit filed by a retired Judge of the Apex
Court wherein he claimed compensation on account of act
of defamation. Considering the evidence on record, the
Trial Court passed a decree for payment of damages of Rs.
100/- crores. While admitting the Appeal and while
Page 39 of 49
considering the prayer for grant of stay, this Court directed
the Appellant-Defendant to deposit a sum of Rs. 20/- crores
in the Court and to furnish Bank Guarantee for rest of the
decretal amount as a condition of grant of stay. However,
this Court directed investment of the amount of Rs. 20/-
crores till the disposal of the Appeal. The interim order of
this Court has been confirmed by the Apex Court.

23….

i. We hold that the detention of the Petitioner by the

officers of Gamdevi Police Station from 5th April,
2008 to 6th April, 2008 is illegal and there has been a
gross violation of the fundamental right of the
Petitioner guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution
of India.

ii. We direct the 5th Respondent-State of Maharashtra

to pay compensation of Rs. 2,50,000/- to the Petitioner
together with interest thereon at the rate of 8% per
annum from 5th April, 2008 till the realization or
payment. We direct the State Government to pay costs
quantified at Rs. 25,000/- to the Petitioner. We grant
time of six weeks to the State Government to pay the
said amounts to the Petitioner by an account payee
cheque. It will be also open for the fifth Respondent -
State Government to deposit the amounts in this Court
within the stipulated time. In such event it will be open
for the Petitioner to withdraw the said amount.

iii. We clarify that it is open for the State Government

to take proceedings for recovery of the amount of

Page 40 of 49
 compensation and costs from the officers responsible
for the default, if so advised.

iv. Petition stands dismissed as against the

Respondent No. 4.

vi. We make it clear that it will be open for the

Petitioner to adopt a regular remedy for recovery of
compensation/damages in addition to the amount
directed to be paid under this Judgment.”

31. You are requested to go through the case against You noticee where You
were fined with 1,00,000 euros by the German Regional High Courts.

The excerpts from the news article are produced here for your ready
references.

“Recently YouTube has been fined 100,000 euros by the

German Higher Regional Court at Dresden after it wrongly
deleted a user’s video which showed massive pandemic
lockdown protests in Switzerland – and then failed to
reinstate the video ‘immediately’ after the court ordered it to
do so on April 20.

Meanwhile, a so-called independent fact-checker website

FactCheck.org was exposed to be funded by the same $1.9
billion vaccine lobby group that it is supposed to check. The
site is a Facebook partner whose articles are used to censor
critical voices on the social media platform. It is headed by
the former CDC director, which is again a conflit of interest.

In a shocking revelation came to light that Google and

USAID funded research conducted by Peter Daszak’s
EcoHealth Alliance – a controversial group which has

Page 41 of 49
 openly collaborated with the Wuhan Institute of Virology on
“killer” bat coronavirus research – for over a decade.

In a move against this Big Tech censorship of free speech,

Poland is planning to make censoring of social media
accounts illegal.

“Algorithms or the owners of corporate giants should not

decide which views are right and which are not,” said the
prime minister of Poland, Mateusz Morawiecki. “There can
be no consent to censorship.”

Link:

https://greatgameindia.com/youtube-pandemic-fine-
german-court/

32. Contempt of Supreme Court and Hon’ble Delhi High Court:-

32.1. That your act also amounts to Civil Contempt for wilful disregard and
defiance of Hon’ble Supreme Court & Hon’ble Delhi High Court
judgment in the above mentioned cases and more particularly in:

(i) Tata Press Ltd. Vs. Maharashtra Telephone (1995) 5 SCC 139.

(ii) Benett Coleman Vs. UOI (1985) 1 SCC 641.

(iii) State Vs. Raj Narain (1975) 4 SCC 428.

(iv) Secretary General of Supreme Court Vs. Shubhash Chandra

Agarwal 2010 SCC OnLine Del 111.

32.2. That in Re: M.P. Dwivedi (1996) 4 SCC 152 Hon’ble Supreme Court
had ruled as under;

“17. As laid down by this Court

Page 42 of 49
 “Contempt of court is disobedience to the court, by acting in
opposition to the authority, justice and dignity thereof. It
signifies a wilful disregard or disobedience of the court's
order; it also signifies such conduct as tends to bring the
authority of the court and the administration of law into
disrepute”. (See: Baradakanta Mishra, Ex-Commr. of
Endowments v. Bhimsen Dixit [(1973) 1 SCC 446 : 1973
SCC (Cri) 360 : (1973) 2 SCR 495] , at p. 499 SCC p. 449,
para 11.”

32.3. In Priya Gupta v. Addl. Secy. Ministry of Health and Family

Welfare, (2013) 11 SCC 404, the Supreme Court held as under:-

“19. It is true that Section 12 of the Act contemplates

disobedience of the orders of the court to be wilful and
further that such violation has to be of a specific order
or direction of the court. To contend that there cannot
be an initiation of contempt proceedings where
directions are of a general nature as it would not only
be impracticable, but even impossible to regulate such
orders of the court, is an argument which does not
impress the court. As already noticed, the Constitution
has placed upon the judiciary, the responsibility to
interpret the law and ensure proper administration of
justice. In carrying out these constitutional functions,
the courts have to ensure that dignity of the court,
process of court and respect for administration of
justice is maintained. Violations which are likely to
impinge upon the faith of the public in administration of
justice and the court system must be punished, to

Page 43 of 49
prevent repetition of such behaviour and the adverse
impact on public faith. With the development of law, the
courts have issued directions and even spelt out in their
judgments, certain guidelines, which are to be operative
till proper legislations are enacted. The directions of
the court which are to provide transparency in action
and adherence to basic law and fair play must be
enforced and obeyed by all concerned. The law
declared by this Court whether in the form of a
substantive judgment inter se a party or are directions
of a general nature which are intended to achieve the
constitutional goals of equality and equal opportunity
must be adhered to and there cannot be an artificial
distinction drawn in between such class of cases.
Whichever class they may belong to, a contemnor
cannot build an argument to the effect that the
disobedience is of a general direction and not of a
specific order issued inter se parties. Such distinction, if
permitted, shall be opposed to the basic rule of law.

23. … The essence of contempt jurisprudence is to

ensure obedience of orders of the Court and, thus, to
maintain the rule of law. History tells us how a State is
protected by its courts and an independent judiciary is
the cardinal pillar of the progress of a stable
Government. If over-enthusiastic executive attempts to
belittle the importance of the court and its judgments
and orders, and also lowers down its prestige and
confidence before the people, then greater is the
necessity for taking recourse to such power in the
interest and safety of the public at large. The power to
Page 44 of 49
 punish for contempt is inherent in the very nature and
purpose of the court of justice. In our country, such
power is codified…”

(Emphasis supplied)

32.4. In State of Gujarat v. Secretary, Labour Social Welfare and Tribunal

Development Deptt. Sachivalaya, 1982 CriLJ 2255, the Division
Bench of the Gujarat High Court summarized the principles as under:-

“11. From the above four decisions, the following

propositions emerge:

(1) It is immaterial that in a previous litigation the

particular petitioner before the Court was or was not a
party, but if a law on a particular point has been laid
down by the High Court, it must be followed by all
authorities and tribunals in the State;

(2) The law laid down by the High Court must be

followed by all authorities and subordinate tribunals
when it has been declared by the highest Court in the
State and they cannot ignore it either in initiating
proceedings or deciding on the rights involved in such
a proceeding;

(3) If in spite of the earlier exposition of law by the

High Court having been pointed out and attention
being pointedly drawn to that legal position, in utter
disregard of that position, proceedings are initiated, it
must be held to be a wilful disregard of the law laid
down by the High Court and would amount to civil

Page 45 of 49
 contempt as defined in section 2(b) of the Contempt of
Courts Act, 1971.”

(Emphasis supplied)

32.5. In the case of Makhanlal Waza v. State of J&K, (1971) 1 SCC 749, it
is ruled as under;

“6. The law so declared by this Court was binding on

the respondent-State and its officers and they were
bound to follow it whether a majority of the present
respondents were parties or not in the previous
petition.”

(Emphasis supplied)

32.6. Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 reads thus;

“12. Punishment for contempt of court :-

(1) Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act or in any
other law, a contempt of court may be punished with simple
imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or
with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees, or with
both: - (1) Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act
or in any other law, a contempt of court may be punished
with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six
months, or with fine which may extend to two thousand
rupees, or with both\:" Provided that the accused may be
discharged or the punishment awarded may be remitted on
apology being made to the satisfaction of the court.
Explanation. - An apology shall not be rejected merely on
the ground that it is qualified or conditional if the accused
makes it bona fide.
Page 46 of 49
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for
the time being in force, no court shall impose a sentence in
excess of that specified in sub-section (1) for any contempt
either in respect of itself or of a court subordinate to it.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in this section,
where a person is found guilty of a civil contempt, the court,
if it considers that a fine will not meet the ends of justice and
that a sentence of imprisonment is necessary shall, instead of
sentencing him to simple imprisonment, direct that he be
detained in a civil prison for such period not exceeding six
months as it may think fit.
(4) Where the person found guilty of contempt of court in
respect of any undertaking given to a court is a company,
every person who, at the time the contempt was committed,
was in charge of, and was responsible to, the company for
the conduct of business of the company, as well as the
company, shall be deemed to be guilty of the contempt and
the punishment may be enforced, with the leave of the court,
by the detention in civil prison of each such person:
Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall
render any such person liable to such punishment if he
proves that the contempt was committed without his
knowledge or that he exercised all due diligence to prevent
its commission.
(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (4),
where the contempt of court referred to therein has been
committed by a company and it is proved that the contempt
has been committed with the consent or connivance of, or is
attributable to any neglect on the part of, any director,
manager, secretary or other officer of the company, such

Page 47 of 49
 director, manager, secretary or other officer shall also be
deemed to be guilty of the contempt and the punishment may
be enforced, with the leave of the court, by the detention in
civil prison of such director, manager, secretary or other
officer. Explanation. - For the purposes of sub-sections (4)
and (5), -
(a) “company” means any body corporate and includes a
firm or other association of individuals; and
(b) “director”, in relation to a firm, means a partner in the
firm.”
33. That the offences committed by You Noticee are continuing ones and my
client’s defamation is still going on.

34. Hence, you are hereby called upon to;

(i) Publish an apology on Facebook / Youtube / Twitter.

(ii) Pay my client a compensation of Rs. 1000 Crores for defamation

through Demand Draft (DD) within 7 days of receipt of this
notice.

(iii) Remove restriction and restore the videos forthwith.

(iv) Immediately stopping the misinformation campaign run by you

with ulterior motives to help the vaccine mafias and cheat the
public and thereby putting citizens’ life into jeopardy.

(v) Immediately stopping the Contempt of Hon’ble Supreme Court and

Hon’ble various High Courts in India.

(vi) To immediately start respecting & following the Constitution of

India and our country’s domestic laws and also to act as per United
Nations Universal Declaration on Bioethics, 2005 & International
Covenant on Civil & Political Rights.

Page 48 of 49
35. You are further called upon to resist & desist from assigning yourself to
the post of a Judge of a Court and to decide the rival claims of the parties
as to whether taking vaccine is good or bad. You are usurping the
jurisdiction of the Court and thereby posing yourself above the law and
committing Contempt of Court.

36. Please take a note that, this notice is independent of and given by
reserving our rights to initiate criminal prosecutions under sec. 499, 500,
501, r/w 120(B), 34 etc. of Indian Penal Code and under Section 12 of
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 r/w Article 129, 215 of the
Constitution of India in the competent courts and even if you pay
compensation amount of Rs. 1000 Crores will not permit you in law, for
claiming discharge or exoneration from prosecution.

37. Under these circumstances, please take a serious note of this notice.

Notice charges of Rs. 25 Lacs are levied upon you.

Place: Mumbai
Date: 30/09/2021.
Sincerely

Adv. Abhishek Mishra

Page 49 of 49