|
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
(Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction)
O.S. No. 2199 OF 2003
IN THE MATTER OF:
Shree Narayan Singh ….Plaintiff
Vs
Union of India & Ors. …..Defendants
SUIT FOR DECLARATION
AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION.
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:
1. That the plaintiff, herein is a loyal, patriotic and law abiding Indian - a follower of Buddhism and a direct disciple of 16th Karmapa. That the 16th Karmapa died in Oct. 1981 in the USA and the process to find and install the 17th Karmapa began subsequently. That the Karmapa is the Head of the Karma Kagyu School or ‘panth’ of Himalayan Buddhism.
2. That the Defendant No.3 is the Head of the Gelugpa School or ‘panth’ of Himalayan Buddhism. The above two panths viz. the Karma Kagyu and the Gelugpa, are mutually exclusive and totally independent of each other.
3. That the Karma Kagyu tradition of Tibetan Buddhism was established in the 12th century by the First Gyalwang Karmapa; whilst the Gelugpa tradition was established in the fifteenth century by Tsongkhapa.
4. That the Defendant No. 3, came to exist in the mid sixteenth century. He was forced to flee his country on 31st March, 1959 after which no country, including India, recognises him as a ‘deposed head of state'. He is referred to merely as The Spiritual Leader of Tibetans and not as the God King of Tibet, as Tibet is now a part of the Peoples' Republic of China. That as such defendant No.3 exercises no religious or temporal power over the Karma Kagyu tradition which is now an internationally acknowledged tradition which has transcended its limitations of Tibetan racism and nationalism. Thus defendant No.3 has no jurisdiction over the Karma Kagyu tradition at all!
5. That the inordinate interest by the Defendant No.3 in the selection of the 17th Karmapa is an alarming situation for the country and has given rise to a piquant situation known as the Karmapa Controversy.
6. That after the death of 16th Karmapa in 1981, a child recognized by Indian sadhakas to be the 17th Karmapa and Indian incarnation of the Karmapa was born amidst various wonderful events on January 6, 1983 in Darjeeling. Ven Drinchen Rinpoche of Mungpo, now deceased, of Darjeeling Distt. West Bengal, officially enthroned this boy as the 17th Gyalwang Karmaa at a simple ceremony at 'Six- mile Basti' in a Mani Lhakhang or Temple near Darjeeling, WB, summer 1986. This news flashed throughout Darjeeling and this boy continues to be ignored by the Tibetan leadership for the simple reason that he is not Tibetan and will not play into their hands by subscribing to the purported requirements of Tibetan Nationalism particularly racism.
7. It is respectfully submitted that the Govt of the Peoples' Republic of China has also taken an inordinately keen interest in the installation of the 17th Karmapa. In fact Defendant No.4 was the first person ever to be recognised by the Chinese Govt as the first Living Buddha, in the history of Communist China in direct contradiction with its communist ideology. He was officially enthroned by the Chinese Govt in Tibet in September 1992. Moreover the Govt of the Peoples’ Republic of China has categorically stated that defendant No.4 is its official representative amongst the Tibetan peoples. This is recorded in the video “Karmapa - The Two Ways of Divinity”.
8. That the Chinese have a long term game plan of annexing the various Himalayan regions in the name of Buddhism and they have also decided to establish a base in Sikkim.
9. That the easiest method available to them is to install their own candidate as the Karmapa. Therefore, in 1992, the Chinese Government declared a young boy defendant No. 4 herein as the 17th Karmapa with the support of defendant No.5, a Tibetan Refugee resident in India, who strangely enough also holds a diplomatic passport issued by the Royal Govt of Bhutan.
10. That Defendant No.5 holds a dual citizenship which is not permitted under Indian laws. Defendant No. 5 needs to be compelled to decide as to whether he wishes to remain in India as a Tibetan Refugee enjoying the facilities provided as such, or as a Bhutanese national. However, Defendant Nos. 1 & 2 have taken no action against this anomaly till date.
11. That the Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 -- Government of India -- has been fully aware of these Chinese intentions and has thus refused permission to have the 17th Karmapa brought to India and ritually installed at the Seat of the Karmapa at Rumtek Monastery, Dharma Chakra Centre, Rumtek, PS Ranipool, Dist Gangtok, East Sikkim.
12. It is respectfully submitted that in August 1994, the Defendant No.1 -- Ministry of Home Affairs had issued a warning circular No. 28/94 dated 2.8.1994 stating therein that Defendant No.5 should not be allowed to enter in India from abroad, on the basis of his pro Chinese and anti Indian activities. This ban held good for four years until it was lifted in August 1998 under the most peculiar of circumstances.
13. That despite the opposition of Intelligence Bureau and CBI, the ban on entry of Defendant No.5 into India was lifted and even though he was restrained from visiting Darjeeling district, he had done so in summer 1999 under the totally false pretext of attending the requirement of his purported cousin Lama Gyaltsen, General Secretary of Kalu Rinopche's monastery in Sonada, Darjeeling, for which the GOI had granted permission even though it knew fully well about this deception. Clearly something is seriously amiss.
14. That in May 1997 the then Chief Secretary of Sikkim having deeply analyzed various aspects of the Karmapa Controversy, had submitted a confidential report to Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and various intelligence agencies. The report of Chief Secretary of Sikkim clearly explained the existence of a Chinese long term game plan to annex the Buddhist Himalayan regions of India. It was also warned that through the selection of Defendant No.4 as the 17th Karmapa, the Govt. of the People's Republic of China was targeting the soft underbelly of the country, using religion to bring about the secession of Sikkim from India. This is amply borne out by the recent claims to Arunachal Pradesh made by the Govt. of the PRC even as the Prime Minister was visiting China earlier this year.
15. That Chinese intentions in the Himalayan regions are clearly suspect and there is no extent to which they will not go to achieve their aims through the use of Buddhism and ethnicity as excuses.
16. That Defendant No.4, a resident of the Tibetan Autonomous Region of the Peoples' Republic of China, had made headlines on January 5, 2000 when he had emerged in Dharamsala, HP under the most peculiar of circumstances, eluding the watchful eyes of Defendant Nos. 1 & 2.
17. That it is maintained by Defendant Nos.3- 5 that he had entered India having supposedly made a miraculous and grueling escape from his monastery in Tshurphu, near Lhasa, the capital of the Tibetan Autonomous Region in the middle of winter, successfully evading the ever watchful eyes of the Chinese Army and intelligence agencies. The far fetchedness of such an assertion can hardly elude this Hon’ble court which may only suspect a deepseated conspiracy against India.
18. That the Govt of the Peoples' Republic of China, after a protracted silence, had issued a statement to the effect that the Karmapa had gone to India to collect the Black Vajra Crown of the Karmapa and other religious objet d'art from Rumtek Monastery and bring them back to the Tibetan Autonomous Region of the PRC. This in itself should have raised alarm bells in Defendant Nos.1 & 2 making them extremely cautious concerning Defendant Nos.3-5.
19. The Defendant No. 1 and 2, completely ignoring earlier reports of the Intelligence Bureau, CBI, the report of Chief Secretary of Sikkim, took no steps to verify the issue in all its ramifications. It did not care to verify the identity, age and so on of Defendant Nos.4 but granted him full protection of the state based merely on presumptions and suppositions deriving from the assertions of Defendant No.3. It needs to be emphatically stated here that Defendant No.3 is a highly sino-centric and rabid nationalist who is willing to compromise the national interests of his host country for his own petty ends. His elder brother Gyal Thondup, in fact lives in Beijing as is known to Defendant Nos. 1 & 2. In fact, it is he who controls the decision making processes particularly of Defendant No. 3 from China.
20. That on the contrary Defendant Nos.1 & 2 pampered the escapee at the behest of Defendant No.3 taking his statements on the identity and purported age of Defendant No.4 for granted. The issue here is ‘Does Defendant No.3 have the authority and jurisdiction, or is he authorised by law to issue birth certificates or identity papers to another person in India, even though he may be Tibetan in origin and can any such purported document be considered as legal and valid?’
21. That on 2nd February 2001, Defendant Nos.1 & 2 granted refugee status to Defendant No.4 ignoring totally the provisions of the International Convention on Refugee 1951. At that juncture the Cabinet had been in an emergency meeting to discuss the Latur Earthquake. It would appear that the grant of refugee status then to Defendant No.4 was of equal national significance!
22. That it is respectfully submitted that article 32 of the International Convention on Refugee 1951 clearly provides that a contracting State can expel a refugee on the ground of National Security or Public Order, falsification of identity, misrepresentation of facts such as age, and so on.
23. That on 5-8 January 2000, Andrew Whitehead, the BBC correspondent who had covered the arrival of defendant No.4 in Dharmasala, HP stated equivocally in his reports that defendant No.4 appeared more mature than the 14 ½ as he was supposed to be as the 17th Karmapa. The Indian media has also carried out detailed reports questioning the authenticity of defendant No.4 as 17th Karmapa.
24. In April 2000, the defendant No.4 was sent for a thorough medical checkup to the Post Graduate Institute of Medical Research, Chandigarh where a panel of doctors under its then Director Dr. S. K. Sharma. After keeping him in the institute for nearly three weeks and conducting extensive medical tests, this panel had arrived at the conclusion that the person they had examined was a fully grown adult of 24-26 years old rather than the 15 year old boy as claimed by Defendant Nos..3 - 5.
25. That however, Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 have suppressed these reports and have since taken no action against this conspiracy, which is a national threat. Reports of these medical examinations had by then been leaked out to the press published in many leading newspapers like Amar Ujala, Chandigarh, Nabharat Times, New Delhi amongst others.
26. It is respectfully submitted that it needs to be explained here that since the 16th Karmapa passed away in October 1981 his incarnation traditionally would have been born only subsequently. Hence by no stretch of imagination the 17th Karmapa -- his incarnation could have been medically more than 18 years of age in 2000. Thus, the attempts to foist Defendant No.4 (biologically 24 years old) on this country as being the 17th Karmapa, purportedly 15, surely indicates the existence of a deep-seated conspiracy against this country.
27. That Defendant No.3 has also issued a birth certificate to Defendant No.4 giving his date of birth as 26-6-1985. This certainly raises questions concerning the constitutional legality of the purported Govt. of Tibet in Exile led by Defendant No. 3 in India as also the purported sanctity of the Defendant No.3 and his loyalty towards India. The purported document clearly uses the Seal of the former Govt. of Tibet in Lhasa. Moreover, it has the word Govt. of Tibet written in Tibetan.
28. That there is no law in this country which authorizes Defendant No.3 to issue a birth certificate or a certification of identity to any person in India. That he has done so is beyond his jurisdiction and Defendant Nos. 1 & 2 have no legal reason to accept such a document concerning any person in India as being legal, valid and binding and that too without verifying the same.
29. At the root of this Karmapa controversy is the supposed 'Prediction Letter' left behind by the late 16th Karmapa. It has emerged that the printing on the personal stationery, handwriting and signature on the said Prediction Letter are certainly not those of the late 16th Karmapa, neither is the idiom in accord with any other writings of the 16th Karmapa. Moreover the idiom and handwriting is very similar to that of Defendant No.5. Similarly other details mentioned such as the supposed year in which the reincarnation is to be born is stated as the Earth Ox year according to the Sino-Tibetan calendar. This occurs every 60 years with the last such year having been 1949 AD, the next is to be 2009 AD. Such anomalies definitely need to be seriously investigated by this Hon'ble court as Defendant Nos.1 & 2 have not considered it in the national interests to do so until now.
30. That Defendant Nos.1 and 2, have not even cared to send that purported ‘Prediction Letter’ for a proper forensic analysis in spite of the earlier report of the Chief Secretary of Sikkim of May 1997 as also repeated requests by other prominent members of the Karma Kagyu tradition or panth who do not accept the purported recognition of Defendant No. 4 as the seventeenth Karmapa as given by Defendant No. 3.
31. That the above clearly suggests that the Govt. of Peoples’ Republic of China is using religion i.e. the 17th Karmapa for the purpose of secession of Sikkim from India and the GOI is apparently mysteriously collaborating with this evil intent.
32. That the video documentary titled 'Karmapa - Two Ways of Divinity', shot in Beijing, parts of the Tibetan Autonomous Region and New Delhi, produced in the Czech Republic 1996 clearly shows the original person and age of Defendant No.4.
33. That moreover a DVD titled ' The Flight of a Karmapa' prepared by Nacht Vision 2001 is in three parts. That the first part of DVD shows how Defendant No.4 purportedly escaped from Tibet with the help of the authorities of the PRC and clandestinely entered Nepal and then into India. This is an eye opener, highlighting the conspiracy of China to install its own candidate as the Karmapa in India so as to annex the Buddhist Himalayan regions of India and to bring about the secession of Sikkim from India. It also shows the direct involvement of Defendant No.3 in this purported escape.
34. That the second part of DVD shows the manner in which the original boy, installed as the 17th Karmapa in Tibet, has been replaced by Defendant No.4 who is in fact an impersonator. This may be verified forensically by sending the video documentary and video clips of Defendant No. 4 taken in Bodh Gaya in 2001. Forensic science has advanced to such a degree so as to be able to digitally compare images of two people, even though taken at different times, and ascertain with certitude as to whether the two are of one and the same person. The indulgence of this Hon’ble court is prayed that this be done forthwith to facilitate in unraveling this exceptional conspiracy.
35. That the third part of this DVD, contains a report on the PGI, Chandigarh evaluating the age of Defendant No.4. That in spite of such compelling evidence, Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 continue to distance themselves from the Karmapa Affair even though it directly impinges on the national security and public interests of this country.
36. That after the purported recognition of Defendant No.4 by Defendant No.3 in 1992, the law and order situation in Rumtek Monastery, Dharma Chakra Centre, Rumtek, as mentioned above, deteriorated considerably as Tai Situpa and his followers attempted to wrest control of the Seat of the Karmapa by force. All the residents of the monastery were compelled to sign an oath of allegiance to the Defendant No.3 as their sovereign accepting that Defendant No.4 is the genuine Karmapa. Those who did not do so were forced to leave the monastery in one way or another.
37. That in 1993 anarchy prevailed and Tai Situpa and his followers humiliated, beat up and forcibly evicted some 50 or 60 monks of the 16th Karmapa who had been living there peacefully for decades and managing the affairs of the monastery. Their belongings were also confiscated. These monks have subsequently moved down about 2 kms from the monastery and are living in miserable conditions there. These incidents have been reported in Hindustan Times under the heading 'Chinese Coup in Sikkim Monastery' Aug 1993.
38. That yet again in March 1996 the followers of the defendant No. 3 and defendant No.5 had attacked the Karmapa International Buddhist Institute, B-19 Qutab Institutional Area, New Delhi 110 019 in broad daylight shouting and pelting stones and so on. They tried to force their entry into the institute but were prevented from doing so by those legitimately inside. Thus, it is clear that the followers of the Defendant Nos.3-5 have scant respect for the laws of this country and wish to impose their own decisions on the Union of India irrespective of any other consideration. It needs to be emphasised here that these people who are attempting to be the arbiter of India’s destiny are foreigners of Tibetan origin who have been merely given asylum in India!
39. That the plaintiff has repeatedly raised his voice against the defendant No.3 and the fake 17th Karmapa, Defendant No.4 by making several representations to the Government.
40. That the plaintiff was assaulted by a group of about 20 Tibetans at 1230 hrs in Patna in front of the High Court on 12.12.98 where he and two other unarmed Indians were demonstrating peacefully, having placed banners proclaiming that the Defendant No.3 is a refugee in India, not a king, the Chinese Karmapa is a fake and that the Defendant No.5 is a Chinese Agent. They were also distributing copies of an article in Hindi titled ‘A Conspiracy is being Hatched to dismember Sikkim from India’ written by Jai Shankar Gupta and published in Hindustan, New Delhi Aug 1998.
41. That it is also relevant to point out that some other persons/organizations have already filed cases against the defendants e.g., Suit No. 40 of 98 is currently pending against defendant Nos.5 & Ors. in the court of the DJ, Gangtok and a recent order of the Hon’ble HC of Skkim in CWP No.5/2003 is an eye-opener & gives a glimpse of the machinations beings hatched against the Union of India by defendant Nos. 3-5.
42. Subsequently during a peaceful visit on 25-5-2002, Saga Dawa, the holy day observed by Himalayan Buddhists as the day the historical Buddha gained enlightenment et al, to Dharma Chakra Centre, Rumtek, Sikkim, the plaintiff and his 8 yr old son, both dressed as Lamas, were accosted by a group of loyalists of defendant Nos.3-5. One lay person named Karma Dradul threatened the plaintiff and his family to face dire consequences if the plaintiff did not sign document accepting defendant No.3 as his sovereign and his selection of defendant No.4 as 17th Karmapa as being absolutely correct. The plaintiff was compelled to leave the monastery in great humiliation. The plaintiff has already made complaint to Director General of Police, Government of Sikkim, Gangtok, but to no avail. That after this incident, the pltff has been informed that the CISF has been deployed in Rumtek Monastery, displacing the Sikkim Police and is now directly in-charge of security there with watchtowers and so on having been erected. Clearly the Government of India is worried about the alarming situation but hesitant to take any action against defendant Nos. 3-5 necessitating this petition.
43. On April 26, 2003, the Defendant Nos.3-5 in collusion with various locals, started a fire in the tent of The Great Bombay Circus, then showing in Munger, Bihar at about 2030 hrs even as the plaintiff was inside watching the show. Newspapers later reported that two bombs had been found barely 80' from where the plaintiff had been seated.
44. That from the above it is now clear as daylight that Defendant Nos. 3-5, particularly Defendant No. 4, are misusing religion to destabilise the country and bring about a degeneration in the quality of life.
45. The defendant No. 1 and 2 are empowered by the Constitution of India to take action against the misuse and subversion of religion for political and other purposes.
46. That the plaintiff is still receiving the threats for not bowing down before Defendant Nos. 3-5 and is apprehensive about his safety and that of his family's life and property.
47. It is asserted that the Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 have failed to establish and consider the:
i) authenticity of the purported Prediction Letter said to have been written by the 16th Karmapa.
ii) the manner in which Defendant No.4, a Tibetan national and a high profile functionary of the Govt of the Peoples' Republic of China, surreptitiously entered India near Gorakhpur, UP, early Jan 2000, without having a proper refugee status and without relevant travel documents.
iii) the circumstances behind the grant of refugee status to defendant No.4, 13 months after his surreptitious entry into India. That in fact there is a whole mechanism which facilitates the illegal infiltration of Tibetans from the Tibetan Autonomous Republic, through Nepal and Peoples Republic of China, through Nepal, claiming refugee status in India. Defendant Nos. 1-2 have done absolutely nothing to stop it & book these conspirators who pose a direct threat to national security, while Defendant Nos. 3-5 gloat over the inaction of Defendant Nos. 1-2 who are in this manner actually abetting the anti national activities of Defendant Nos. 3-5.
iv) the medical report of PGI, Chandigarh relating to the age of defendant No.4 and the reasons for it being suppressed by Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 -- the Government of India.
v) why no effort has been made by the Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 to ascertain the authenticity of the person claiming to be defendant No.4, the 17th Karmapa, with reference to his biological age and other issues mentioned above?
vi) why the Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 have been unwilling to acknowledge the role of the Govt of the Peoples' Republic of China in the Karmapa Affair and grant top priority in the interests of the national security of the country?
vii) why, even though the Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 have consistently been informed of the duplicity being perpetrated concerning the said defendant No.4 portrayed as the 17th Karmapa, by this plaintiff and others in the national interest, it has taken no action until now in this matter? This is with specific reference to the video documentary titled 'Karmapa - Two Ways of Divinity' produced in the Czech Republic 1996 and the DVD titled 'The Flight of a Karmapa', showing the manner in which Defendant No.4 purportedly escaped from Tibet and entered into India, the replacement by the Chinese of the original person of Defendant No.4 by the person currently masquerading as being so, and so on, prepared by Nacht Vision Productions 2001 both of which have been handed over to various intelligence agencies by various persons.
viii) why the defendant No. 1 and 2 are lax in dealing with the followers of Defendant Nos. 3-5 even though they have brazenly broken the law on various occasions and continue to do so. In fact, India Today July 22, 2001 reports of the free availability of banned drugs through Dharamsala under the watchful eyes of Defendant Nos. 3-5 indicating their strong links with the ISI of Pakistan.
48. It is stated that Defendant No. 1 and 2 have not taken any action to declare Defendant No.4, the 17th Karmapa declared by Defendant No.3 is an impostor and order his expulsion under article 32 of The International Convention on Refugees 1951 on the grounds of National Security and public order for the reasons stated above.
49. The plaintiff also served a legal notice dated 16.06.2003 to Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 as per the requirement of Section 80 of the CPC, under registered cover, has been duly served upon the defendant No. 1 and 2. However, they have failed to take corrective measures or to respond to or comply with the legal notice dated 16.06.2003.
50. That the cause of action to file the present suit arose in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants on Aug / Sep 1992 when at the instance of defendant No.5, the defendant No.3 officially recognised defendant No.4 as the 17th Karmapa by faxing his approval from the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro and which was ratified a few days later by the Govt of the Peoples' Republic of China. The cause of action to file the present suit arose in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants when on various dates since Sep 92 and May 1997 during the course of which various law and order problems arose in Rumtek and about 50 legitimate monks were forcibly thrown out of Rumtek Monastery, by Defendant No. 5 and his followers, instigated by Defendant Nos.3 & 4 in Rumtek, Sikkim. The cause of action to file the present suit arose in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants in March 1996 when the followers of the defendant Nos.3 launched an attack on the Karmapa International Institute, B-19 Qutab Institutional Area, New Delhi 110 019 and elsewhere. The cause of action to file the present suit arose in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants in May 1997 when the then Chief Secretary of Sikkim having deeply analyzed various aspects of the Karmapa Controversy had submitted a confidential report to Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 -- GOI, and various intelligence agencies. In this he refers to the existence of a Chinese long term game plan to annex the Buddhist Himalayan regions of India. He warned that through the selection of Defendant No.4 as the 17th Karmapa, the Govt. of the People's Republic of China was targeting the soft underbelly of the country, using religion to bring about the secession of Sikkim from India. The cause of action to file the present suit arose in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants in January 5, 2000 when the defendant No.4, a resident of the Tibetan Autonomous Region of the People's Republic of China appeared in Dharamsala, H.P. India in an illegal manner and Defendant No.1 and 2 -- GOI overlooked the threat to national security arising therefrom. The cause of action to file the present suit arose in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants again in Jan 2000 when the Govt of the Peoples' Republic of China issued statements to the effect that Defendant No.4 had gone to India to collect the personal belongings of the Karmapas and bring them back to the PRC. The cause of action to file the present suit arose in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants on 2nd February 2001 when at the behest of defendant No.3, the defendant No.4 was granted a refugee status. The cause of action to file the present suit arose in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants in 1997 when the video documentary titled 'Karmapa - Two Ways of Divinity', prepared in the Czech Republic was released. The cause of action to file the present suit arose in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants in 2001 when NACHT Vision Production 2001 released a DVD titled 'The Flight of a Karmapa' showing how defendant No.4 escaped from Tibet and entered into India. The DVD also highlighted the conspiracy of China to install its own candidate as the Karmapa in India so as to annex the Buddhist Himalayan regions of India and to bring about the secession of Sikkim from India. The cause of action also arose on 25th May 2002 when the Plaintiff was besieged at Rumtek Monastery by followers of Defendant Nos. 3-5. in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants is continuing and subsisting and shall so continue and subsist till such time the defendant No. 1 and 2 do not take any action against defendant No. 3, 4 & 5 and declare the defendant No. 4, the 17th Karmapa declared by defendant No.3 is an imposter and order his expulsion under article 32 of The International Convention on Refugees 1951 on the grounds of National Security and public order.
51. The offices of defendant No. 1 and 2 are within the territorial jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court and the cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court.
52. The plaintiff has valued the suit for the purposes of pecuniary jurisdiction at more than Rs…………….,hence this Hon’ble Court has the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the present suit.
53. The value of the suit for the purposes of court fees and jurisdiction on the relief of mandatory injunction is valued at Rs……and a court fee of Rs………is affixed thereon, the relief of permanent injunction is valued at Rs………and court fees of Rs…is affixed thereon. Therefore, a total court-fees of Rs……..has been paid. The plaintiff undertakes to pay any additional court-fees in the event the relief granted by the Hon’ble Court exceeds the current valuation.
PRAYER
It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to:
a) pass a decree of declaration in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants declaring the Defendant No. 4, the 17th Karmapa declared by Defendant no.3 is not only wrong and untenable but that Defendant No.4 is also an imposter.
b) pass a decree of declaration ordering the expulsion of Defendant No.4 on the grounds of National Security and Public Order, misrepresentation of facts such as age, identity, impersonation and so on.
c) pass a decree of permanent injunction restraining the Defendant No.3 & 5, their servants/agents from interfering in any and all matters of the Karma Kagyu School or “panth” of Himalayam Buddhism.
d) cost of the suit may be allowed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
e) Any other further order, relief or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem just and proper may also be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
Plaintiff Through counsel
Dr. Surat Singh & Associates
Advocates
304, Lawyers’ Chambers
Delhi High Court, New Delhi
Place : New Delhi
Dated: November 2003
VERIFICATION
Verified Delhi on this day of November 2003 that the contents of para to of the plaint are true and correct as per official record and knowledge of the plaintiff and contents of para
to are believed to be correct on the basis of information received. Last para is prayer to this Hon’ble Court.
Plaintiff
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
(Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction)
O.S. No. 2199 OF 2003
IN THE MATTER OF:
Shree Narayan Singh ….Plaintiff
Vs
Union of India & Ors. …..Defendants
AFFIDAVIT
Affidavit of Shree Narayan Singh, s/o late Raghubar Narayan Singh, r/o 'Uddiyana', Dalip Mahal, Mohalla Purabsarai, PS Kotwali, Town, PO & Distt. Munger, Bihar, 811 201, presently at New Delhi.
1, the above named deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:
1. That the deponent is plaintiff in the above noted case and is fully conversant with the facts of the case.
2. That the contents of accompanying plaint for declaration and permanent injunction has been drafted by my counsel under my instructions and the contents of same read over to me and the same are true and correct to my knowledge.
DEPONENT VERIFICATION:
Verified at Delhi on this day of October 2003 that the contents of above affidavit are true and correct to my knowledge and nothing has been concealed there from.
DEPONENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
(Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction)
O.S. No. 2199 OF 2003
IN THE MATTER OF:
Shree Narayan Singh ...Plaintiff
Vs
Union of India & Ors. ...Defendants
AFFIDAVIT
Affidavit of Shree Narayan Singh, s/o late Raghubar Narayan Singh, r/o 'Uddiyana', Dalip Mahal, Mo Purabsarai, PS Kotwali, Town, PO & Distt. Munger, Bihar, 811 201, presently at New Delhi.
1, the above named deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:
1. That the deponent is plaintiff in the above noted case and is fully conversant with the facts of the case.
2. That the contents of accompanying application under order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with section 151 CPC has been drafted by my counsel under my instructions and the contents of same read over to me and the same are true and correct to my knowledge.
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION:
Verified at Delhi on this day of November 2003 that the contents of above affidavit are true and correct to my knowledge and nothing has been concealed there from.
DEPONENT
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
(Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction)
O.S. No. 2199 OF 2003
IN THE MATTER OF:
Shree Narayan Singh ….Plaintiff
Vs
Union of India & Ors. …..Defendants
APPLICATION UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 READ WITH SECTION 151 CPC FOR AD-INTERIM INJUNCTION.
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:
1. That the plaintiff has filed accompanying suit against the defendants seeking a decree of declaration and permanent injunction and the same is pending disposal before this Hon’ble Court.
2. That the plaintiff has a very good prima facie case and is likely to succeed.
3. That the plaintiff would suffer and irreparable loss and injury if defendant No. 3 - 5 are not restrained from interfering the Karma Kagyu School or “panth” of Himalayam Buddhism of which the plaintiff is a follower. Defendants No. 3 is the leader of Gelugpa School or ‘panth’ of Himalayam Buddhism and has nothing to do with Karma Kagyu School or ‘panth’ of Himalayam Buddhism, whereas Defendant No.5 is known for his close Chinese links.
4. That the balance of convenience is also in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants.
5. That the plaintiff has no other efficacious remedy except to seek indulgence of this Hon’ble Court.
PRAYER
It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to:-
i. pass an ad-interim injunction restraining the defendants No. 3 - 5 from interfering in any affair of the Karma Kagyu School or “panth” of Himalayam Buddhism of which the plaintiff is a follower.
ii. pass an ad interim injunction restraining the defendant No. 3-5 from creating any threat/nuisance for the plaintiff.
iii. Any other further order, relief or direction, which this Hon’ble Court may deem just and proper may also be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
Plaintiff
Through counsel
Dr. Surat Singh & Associates
Advocates
304, Lawyers’ Chambers
Delhi High Court, New Delhi
Place: New Delhi
Dated: November 2003
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
(Ordinary Original
Civil Jurisdiction)
O.S. No. 2199 OF 2003
IN THE MATTER OF:
Shree Narayan Singh ….Plaintiff
Vs
Union of India & Ors. …..Defendants
LIST OF DOCUMENTS
Sl.No. DESCRIPTION PAGES
1. Annexure P-1 (Colly)
Copy of Short History of the
Karma- Kargyu Lineage along with
The Lineage and Subsects chart
2. Annexure P-2
Copy of video “Karmapa - The Two Ways of Divinity”
3. Annexure P-3 (Colly)
Newspapers cuttings showing the report of
Medical examination done at PGI Chandigarh.
4. Annexure P-4
A copy of birth certificate issued by
Defendant No.3.
5. Annexure P-5
A copy of the purported Prediction Letter
Supposedly left behind by 16th Karmapa.
6. Annexure P-6
Copy of DVD/VCD titled 'The Flight of a Karmapa'
prepared by Nacht Vision 2001.
7. Annexure P-7
Video Clips of Defendant No. 4
taken in Bodh Gaa in 2001.
8. Annexure P-8
Copy of article titled ‘A Conspiracy is being
Hatched to dismember Sikkim from India’
published in Hindustan Times in August 1998.
9. Annexure P-9
A Copy of order of the Hon’ble HC
of Skkim in CWP No.5/2003
Plaintiff
Through counsel
Dr. Surat Singh & Associates
Advocates
304, Lawyers’ Chambers
Delhi High Court, New Delhi
Place: New Delhi
Dated: November 2003
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
(Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction)
O.S. No. 2199 OF 2003
IN THE MATTER OF:
Shree Narayan Singh ….Plaintiff
Vs
Union of India & Ors. …..Defendants
APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 151 CPC DIRECTING THE DEFENDANTS TO PRODUCE CERTAIN DOCUMENTS.
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:
1. That the plaintiff has filed accompanying suit against the defendants seeking a decree of declaration and permanent injunction and the same is pending disposal before this Hon’ble Court.
2. That the plaintiff has a very good prima facie case and is likely to succeed.
3. That the plaintiff would suffer and irreparable loss and injury if defendant No. 1-2 are not directed to produce the file of PGI Chandigarh where the age of the 17th Karmapa was ascertained for the proper adjudication of the matter.
4. That this Hon’ble Court may also direct the defendant Nos. 3-5 to produce the purported Prediction Letter of the Karmapa controversy for the proper adjudication of the matter.
5. That the plaintiff has no other efficacious remedy except to seek indulgence of this Hon’ble Court.
PRAYER
It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to:-
(i) pass an order directing defendant No. 1-2 to produce the file of the PGI, Chandigarh where the age of Defendant No.4 is already examined before this Hon’ble Court.
(ii) pass an order directing Defendant Nos. 3-5 to produce the original of the purported Prediction Letter in this Hon’ble court and then send it for forensic examination.
(iii) Any other further order, relief or direction, which this Hon’ble Court may deem just and proper may also be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
Plaintiff
Through counsel
Dr. Surat Singh & Associates
Advocates
304, Lawyers’ Chambers
Delhi High Court, New Delhi
Place: New Delhi
Dated: November 2003
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
(Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction)
O.S. No. 2199 OF 2003
IN THE MATTER OF:
Shree Narayan Singh ….Plaintiff
Vs
Union of India & Ors. …..Defendants
AFFIDAVIT
Affidavit of Shree Narayan Singh, s/o late Raghubar Narayan Singh, r/o 'Uddiyana', Dalip Mahal, Mo Purabsarai, PS Kotwali, Town, PO & Distt. Munger, Bihar, 811 201, presently at New Delhi.
1, the above named deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:
1. That the deponent is plaintiff in the above noted case and is fully conversant with the facts of the case.
2. That the contents of accompanying application under section 151 CPC has been drafted by my counsel under my instructions and the contents of same read over to me and the same are true and correct to my knowledge.
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION:
Verified at Delhi on this day of November 2003 that the contents of above affidavit are true and correct to my knowledge and nothing has been concealed there from.
DEPONENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
(Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction)
O.S. No. 2199 OF 2003
IN THE MATTER OF:
Shree Narayan Singh ….Plaintiff
Vs
Union of India & Ors. …..Defendants
MEMO OF PARTIES
IN THE MATTER OF:-
Shree Narayan Singh,
S/o late Raghubar Narayan Singh,
R/o 'Uddiyana', Dalip Mahal,
Mo Purabsarai, PS Kotwali, Town,
PO & Distt. Munger, Bihar, 811 201
…..Plaintiff
Vs.
1. Union of India
Through its Joint Secretary (NE),
Ministry of Home Affairs
North Block, New Delhi.
2. Union of India
Through its Joint Secretary
Ministry of External Affairs
South Block, New Delhi.
3. Tenzing Gyasto @ the Dalai Lama
Leader of Tibetans
R/o Thekchen Choling
P.O. Mcleod Ganj
Dharamshala, Dist. Kkangra, H.P.
4. Urgyen Trinlay Dorje
C/o The Dalai Lama
R/o Thekchen Choling
P.O. Mcleod Ganj
Dharamshala, Dist. Kangra, H.P.
5. Tai Situ Rinpoche
S/o Dondup Tsering
R/o Sherab Ling
P.O. Sensal
Distt. Kangra, H.P.
7. The Director
Post Graduate Institute
Chandigarh.
… Defendants
Plaintiff
Through counsel
Dr. Surat Singh & Associates
Advocates
304, Lawyers’ Chambers
Delhi High Court, New Delhi
Place: New Delhi
Dated: November 2003
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
(Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction)
O.S. No. 2199 OF 2003
IN THE MATTER OF:
Shree Narayan Singh ….Plaintiff
Vs
Union of India & Ors. …..Defendants
SUIT FOR DECLARATION
AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION.
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:
1. That the plaintiff, herein is a loyal, patriotic and law abiding Indian - a follower of Buddhism and a direct disciple of 16th Karmapa. That the 16th Karmapa died in Oct. 1981 in the USA and the process to find and install the 17th Karmapa began subsequently. That the Karmapa is the Head of the Karma Kagyu School or ‘panth’ of Himalayan Buddhism.
2. That the Defendant No.3 is the Head of the Gelugpa School or ‘panth’ of Himalayan Buddhism. The above two panths viz. the Karma Kagyu and the Gelugpa, are mutually exclusive and totally independent of each other.
3. That the Karma Kagyu tradition of Tibetan Buddhism was established in the 12th century by the First Gyalwang Karmapa; whilst the Gelugpa tradition was established in the fifteenth century by Tsongkhapa.
4. That the Defendant No. 3, came to exist in the mid sixteenth century. He was forced to flee his country on 31st March, 1959 after which no country, including India, recognises him as a ‘deposed head of state'. He is referred to merely as The Spiritual Leader of Tibetans and not as the God King of Tibet, as Tibet is now a part of the Peoples' Republic of China. That as such defendant No.3 exercises no religious or temporal power over the Karma Kagyu tradition which is now an internationally acknowledged tradition which has transcended its limitations of Tibetan racism and nationalism. Thus defendant No.3 has no jurisdiction over the Karma Kagyu tradition at all!
5. That the inordinate interest by the Defendant No.3 in the selection of the 17th Karmapa is an alarming situation for the country and has given rise to a piquant situation known as the Karmapa Controversy.
6. That after the death of 16th Karmapa in 1981, a child recognized by Indian sadhakas to be the 17th Karmapa and Indian incarnation of the Karmapa was born amidst various wonderful events on January 6, 1983 in Darjeeling. Ven Drinchen Rinpoche of Mungpo, now deceased, of Darjeeling Distt. West Bengal, officially enthroned this boy as the 17th Gyalwang Karmaa at a simple ceremony at 'Six- mile Basti' in a Mani Lhakhang or Temple near Darjeeling, WB, summer 1986. This news flashed throughout Darjeeling and this boy continues to be ignored by the Tibetan leadership for the simple reason that he is not Tibetan and will not play into their hands by subscribing to the purported requirements of Tibetan Nationalism particularly racism.
7. It is respectfully submitted that the Govt of the Peoples' Republic of China has also taken an inordinately keen interest in the installation of the 17th Karmapa. In fact Defendant No.4 was the first person ever to be recognised by the Chinese Govt as the first Living Buddha, in the history of Communist China in direct contradiction with its communist ideology. He was officially enthroned by the Chinese Govt in Tibet in September 1992. Moreover the Govt of the Peoples’ Republic of China has categorically stated that defendant No.4 is its official representative amongst the Tibetan peoples. This is recorded in the video “Karmapa - The Two Ways of Divinity”.
8. That the Chinese have a long term game plan of annexing the various Himalayan regions in the name of Buddhism and they have also decided to establish a base in Sikkim.
9. That the easiest method available to them is to install their own candidate as the Karmapa. Therefore, in 1992, the Chinese Government declared a young boy defendant No. 4 herein as the 17th Karmapa with the support of defendant No.5, a Tibetan Refugee resident in India, who strangely enough also holds a diplomatic passport issued by the Royal Govt of Bhutan.
10. That Defendant No.5 holds a dual citizenship which is not permitted under Indian laws. Defendant No. 5 needs to be compelled to decide as to whether he wishes to remain in India as a Tibetan Refugee enjoying the facilities provided as such, or as a Bhutanese national. However, Defendant Nos. 1 & 2 have taken no action against this anomaly till date.
11. That the Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 -- Government of India -- has been fully aware of these Chinese intentions and has thus refused permission to have the 17th Karmapa brought to India and ritually installed at the Seat of the Karmapa at Rumtek Monastery, Dharma Chakra Centre, Rumtek, PS Ranipool, Dist Gangtok, East Sikkim.
12. It is respectfully submitted that in August 1994, the Defendant No.1 -- Ministry of Home Affairs had issued a warning circular No. 28/94 dated 2.8.1994 stating therein that Defendant No.5 should not be allowed to enter in India from abroad, on the basis of his pro Chinese and anti Indian activities. This ban held good for four years until it was lifted in August 1998 under the most peculiar of circumstances.
13. That despite the opposition of Intelligence Bureau and CBI, the ban on entry of Defendant No.5 into India was lifted and even though he was restrained from visiting Darjeeling district, he had done so in summer 1999 under the totally false pretext of attending the requirement of his purported cousin Lama Gyaltsen, General Secretary of Kalu Rinopche's monastery in Sonada, Darjeeling, for which the GOI had granted permission even though it knew fully well about this deception. Clearly something is seriously amiss.
14. That in May 1997 the then Chief Secretary of Sikkim having deeply analyzed various aspects of the Karmapa Controversy, had submitted a confidential report to Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and various intelligence agencies. The report of Chief Secretary of Sikkim clearly explained the existence of a Chinese long term game plan to annex the Buddhist Himalayan regions of India. It was also warned that through the selection of Defendant No.4 as the 17th Karmapa, the Govt. of the People's Republic of China was targeting the soft underbelly of the country, using religion to bring about the secession of Sikkim from India. This is amply borne out by the recent claims to Arunachal Pradesh made by the Govt. of the PRC even as the Prime Minister was visiting China earlier this year.
15. That Chinese intentions in the Himalayan regions are clearly suspect and there is no extent to which they will not go to achieve their aims through the use of Buddhism and ethnicity as excuses.
16. That Defendant No.4, a resident of the Tibetan Autonomous Region of the Peoples' Republic of China, had made headlines on January 5, 2000 when he had emerged in Dharamsala, HP under the most peculiar of circumstances, eluding the watchful eyes of Defendant Nos. 1 & 2.
17. That it is maintained by Defendant Nos.3- 5 that he had entered India having supposedly made a miraculous and grueling escape from his monastery in Tshurphu, near Lhasa, the capital of the Tibetan Autonomous Region in the middle of winter, successfully evading the ever watchful eyes of the Chinese Army and intelligence agencies. The far fetchedness of such an assertion can hardly elude this Hon’ble court which may only suspect a deepseated conspiracy against India.
18. That the Govt of the Peoples' Republic of China, after a protracted silence, had issued a statement to the effect that the Karmapa had gone to India to collect the Black Vajra Crown of the Karmapa and other religious objet d'art from Rumtek Monastery and bring them back to the Tibetan Autonomous Region of the PRC. This in itself should have raised alarm bells in Defendant Nos.1 & 2 making them extremely cautious concerning Defendant Nos.3-5.
19. The Defendant No. 1 and 2, completely ignoring earlier reports of the Intelligence Bureau, CBI, the report of Chief Secretary of Sikkim, took no steps to verify the issue in all its ramifications. It did not care to verify the identity, age and so on of Defendant Nos.4 but granted him full protection of the state based merely on presumptions and suppositions deriving from the assertions of Defendant No.3. It needs to be emphatically stated here that Defendant No.3 is a highly sino-centric and rabid nationalist who is willing to compromise the national interests of his host country for his own petty ends. His elder brother Gyal Thondup, in fact lives in Beijing as is known to Defendant Nos. 1 & 2. In fact, it is he who controls the decision making processes particularly of Defendant No. 3 from China.
20. That on the contrary Defendant Nos.1 & 2 pampered the escapee at the behest of Defendant No.3 taking his statements on the identity and purported age of Defendant No.4 for granted. The issue here is ‘Does Defendant No.3 have the authority and jurisdiction, or is he authorised by law to issue birth certificates or identity papers to another person in India, even though he may be Tibetan in origin and can any such purported document be considered as legal and valid?’
21. That on 2nd February 2001, Defendant Nos.1 & 2 granted refugee status to Defendant No.4 ignoring totally the provisions of the International Convention on Refugee 1951. At that juncture the Cabinet had been in an emergency meeting to discuss the Latur Earthquake. It would appear that the grant of refugee status then to Defendant No.4 was of equal national significance!
22. That it is respectfully submitted that article 32 of the International Convention on Refugee 1951 clearly provides that a contracting State can expel a refugee on the ground of National Security or Public Order, falsification of identity, misrepresentation of facts such as age, and so on.
23. That on 5-8 January 2000, Andrew Whitehead, the BBC correspondent who had covered the arrival of defendant No.4 in Dharmasala, HP stated equivocally in his reports that defendant No.4 appeared more mature than the 14 ½ as he was supposed to be as the 17th Karmapa. The Indian media has also carried out detailed reports questioning the authenticity of defendant No.4 as 17th Karmapa.
24. In April 2000, the defendant No.4 was sent for a thorough medical checkup to the Post Graduate Institute of Medical Research, Chandigarh where a panel of doctors under its then Director Dr. S. K. Sharma. After keeping him in the institute for nearly three weeks and conducting extensive medical tests, this panel had arrived at the conclusion that the person they had examined was a fully grown adult of 24-26 years old rather than the 15 year old boy as claimed by Defendant Nos..3 - 5.
25. That however, Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 have suppressed these reports and have since taken no action against this conspiracy, which is a national threat. Reports of these medical examinations had by then been leaked out to the press published in many leading newspapers like Amar Ujala, Chandigarh, Nabharat Times, New Delhi amongst others.
26. It is respectfully submitted that it needs to be explained here that since the 16th Karmapa passed away in October 1981 his incarnation traditionally would have been born only subsequently. Hence by no stretch of imagination the 17th Karmapa -- his incarnation could have been medically more than 18 years of age in 2000. Thus, the attempts to foist Defendant No.4 (biologically 24 years old) on this country as being the 17th Karmapa, purportedly 15, surely indicates the existence of a deep-seated conspiracy against this country.
27. That Defendant No.3 has also issued a birth certificate to Defendant No.4 giving his date of birth as 26-6-1985. This certainly raises questions concerning the constitutional legality of the purported Govt. of Tibet in Exile led by Defendant No. 3 in India as also the purported sanctity of the Defendant No.3 and his loyalty towards India. The purported document clearly uses the Seal of the former Govt. of Tibet in Lhasa. Moreover, it has the word Govt. of Tibet written in Tibetan.
28. That there is no law in this country which authorizes Defendant No.3 to issue a birth certificate or a certification of identity to any person in India. That he has done so is beyond his jurisdiction and Defendant Nos. 1 & 2 have no legal reason to accept such a document concerning any person in India as being legal, valid and binding and that too without verifying the same.
29. At the root of this Karmapa controversy is the supposed 'Prediction Letter' left behind by the late 16th Karmapa. It has emerged that the printing on the personal stationery, handwriting and signature on the said Prediction Letter are certainly not those of the late 16th Karmapa, neither is the idiom in accord with any other writings of the 16th Karmapa. Moreover the idiom and handwriting is very similar to that of Defendant No.5. Similarly other details mentioned such as the supposed year in which the reincarnation is to be born is stated as the Earth Ox year according to the Sino-Tibetan calendar. This occurs every 60 years with the last such year having been 1949 AD, the next is to be 2009 AD. Such anomalies definitely need to be seriously investigated by this Hon'ble court as Defendant Nos.1 & 2 have not considered it in the national interests to do so until now.
30. That Defendant Nos.1 and 2, have not even cared to send that purported ‘Prediction Letter’ for a proper forensic analysis in spite of the earlier report of the Chief Secretary of Sikkim of May 1997 as also repeated requests by other prominent members of the Karma Kagyu tradition or panth who do not accept the purported recognition of Defendant No. 4 as the seventeenth Karmapa as given by Defendant No. 3.
31. That the above clearly suggests that the Govt. of Peoples’ Republic of China is using religion i.e. the 17th Karmapa for the purpose of secession of Sikkim from India and the GOI is apparently mysteriously collaborating with this evil intent.
32. That the video documentary titled 'Karmapa - Two Ways of Divinity', shot in Beijing, parts of the Tibetan Autonomous Region and New Delhi, produced in the Czech Republic 1996 clearly shows the original person and age of Defendant No.4.
33. That moreover a DVD titled ' The Flight of a Karmapa' prepared by Nacht Vision 2001 is in three parts. That the first part of DVD shows how Defendant No.4 purportedly escaped from Tibet with the help of the authorities of the PRC and clandestinely entered Nepal and then into India. This is an eye opener, highlighting the conspiracy of China to install its own candidate as the Karmapa in India so as to annex the Buddhist Himalayan regions of India and to bring about the secession of Sikkim from India. It also shows the direct involvement of Defendant No.3 in this purported escape.
34. That the second part of DVD shows the manner in which the original boy, installed as the 17th Karmapa in Tibet, has been replaced by Defendant No.4 who is in fact an impersonator. This may be verified forensically by sending the video documentary and video clips of Defendant No. 4 taken in Bodh Gaya in 2001. Forensic science has advanced to such a degree so as to be able to digitally compare images of two people, even though taken at different times, and ascertain with certitude as to whether the two are of one and the same person. The indulgence of this Hon’ble court is prayed that this be done forthwith to facilitate in unraveling this exceptional conspiracy.
35. That the third part of this DVD, contains a report on the PGI, Chandigarh evaluating the age of Defendant No.4. That in spite of such compelling evidence, Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 continue to distance themselves from the Karmapa Affair even though it directly impinges on the national security and public interests of this country.
36. That after the purported recognition of Defendant No.4 by Defendant No.3 in 1992, the law and order situation in Rumtek Monastery, Dharma Chakra Centre, Rumtek, as mentioned above, deteriorated considerably as Tai Situpa and his followers attempted to wrest control of the Seat of the Karmapa by force. All the residents of the monastery were compelled to sign an oath of allegiance to the Defendant No.3 as their sovereign accepting that Defendant No.4 is the genuine Karmapa. Those who did not do so were forced to leave the monastery in one way or another.
37. That in 1993 anarchy prevailed and Tai Situpa and his followers humiliated, beat up and forcibly evicted some 50 or 60 monks of the 16th Karmapa who had been living there peacefully for decades and managing the affairs of the monastery. Their belongings were also confiscated. These monks have subsequently moved down about 2 kms from the monastery and are living in miserable conditions there. These incidents have been reported in Hindustan Times under the heading 'Chinese Coup in Sikkim Monastery' Aug 1993.
38. That yet again in March 1996 the followers of the defendant No. 3 and defendant No.5 had attacked the Karmapa International Buddhist Institute, B-19 Qutab Institutional Area, New Delhi 110 019 in broad daylight shouting and pelting stones and so on. They tried to force their entry into the institute but were prevented from doing so by those legitimately inside. Thus, it is clear that the followers of the Defendant Nos.3-5 have scant respect for the laws of this country and wish to impose their own decisions on the Union of India irrespective of any other consideration. It needs to be emphasised here that these people who are attempting to be the arbiter of India’s destiny are foreigners of Tibetan origin who have been merely given asylum in India!
39. That the plaintiff has repeatedly raised his voice against the defendant No.3 and the fake 17th Karmapa, Defendant No.4 by making several representations to the Government.
40. That the plaintiff was assaulted by a group of about 20 Tibetans at 1230 hrs in Patna in front of the High Court on 12.12.98 where he and two other unarmed Indians were demonstrating peacefully, having placed banners proclaiming that the Defendant No.3 is a refugee in India, not a king, the Chinese Karmapa is a fake and that the Defendant No.5 is a Chinese Agent. They were also distributing copies of an article in Hindi titled ‘A Conspiracy is being Hatched to dismember Sikkim from India’ written by Jai Shankar Gupta and published in Hindustan, New Delhi Aug 1998.
41. That it is also relevant to point out that some other persons/organizations have already filed cases against the defendants e.g., Suit No. 40 of 98 is currently pending against defendant Nos.5 & Ors. in the court of the DJ, Gangtok and a recent order of the Hon’ble HC of Skkim in CWP No.5/2003 is an eye-opener & gives a glimpse of the machinations beings hatched against the Union of India by defendant Nos. 3-5.
42. Subsequently during a peaceful visit on 25-5-2002, Saga Dawa, the holy day observed by Himalayan Buddhists as the day the historical Buddha gained enlightenment et al, to Dharma Chakra Centre, Rumtek, Sikkim, the plaintiff and his 8 yr old son, both dressed as Lamas, were accosted by a group of loyalists of defendant Nos.3-5. One lay person named Karma Dradul threatened the plaintiff and his family to face dire consequences if the plaintiff did not sign document accepting defendant No.3 as his sovereign and his selection of defendant No.4 as 17th Karmapa as being absolutely correct. The plaintiff was compelled to leave the monastery in great humiliation. The plaintiff has already made complaint to Director General of Police, Government of Sikkim, Gangtok, but to no avail. That after this incident, the pltff has been informed that the CISF has been deployed in Rumtek Monastery, displacing the Sikkim Police and is now directly in-charge of security there with watchtowers and so on having been erected. Clearly the Government of India is worried about the alarming situation but hesitant to take any action against defendant Nos. 3-5 necessitating this petition.
43. On April 26, 2003, the Defendant Nos.3-5 in collusion with various locals, started a fire in the tent of The Great Bombay Circus, then showing in Munger, Bihar at about 2030 hrs even as the plaintiff was inside watching the show. Newspapers later reported that two bombs had been found barely 80' from where the plaintiff had been seated.
44. That from the above it is now clear as daylight that Defendant Nos. 3-5, particularly Defendant No. 4, are misusing religion to destabilise the country and bring about a degeneration in the quality of life.
45. The defendant No. 1 and 2 are empowered by the Constitution of India to take action against the misuse and subversion of religion for political and other purposes.
46. That the plaintiff is still receiving the threats for not bowing down before Defendant Nos. 3-5 and is apprehensive about his safety and that of his family's life and property.
47. It is asserted that the Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 have failed to establish and consider the:
i) authenticity of the purported Prediction Letter said to have been written by the 16th Karmapa.
ii) the manner in which Defendant No.4, a Tibetan national and a high profile functionary of the Govt of the Peoples' Republic of China, surreptitiously entered India near Gorakhpur, UP, early Jan 2000, without having a proper refugee status and without relevant travel documents.
iii) the circumstances behind the grant of refugee status to defendant No.4, 13 months after his surreptitious entry into India. That in fact there is a whole mechanism which facilitates the illegal infiltration of Tibetans from the Tibetan Autonomous Republic, through Nepal and Peoples Republic of China, through Nepal, claiming refugee status in India. Defendant Nos. 1-2 have done absolutely nothing to stop it & book these conspirators who pose a direct threat to national security, while Defendant Nos. 3-5 gloat over the inaction of Defendant Nos. 1-2 who are in this manner actually abetting the anti national activities of Defendant Nos. 3-5.
iv) the medical report of PGI, Chandigarh relating to the age of defendant No.4 and the reasons for it being suppressed by Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 -- the Government of India.
v) why no effort has been made by the Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 to ascertain the authenticity of the person claiming to be defendant No.4, the 17th Karmapa, with reference to his biological age and other issues mentioned above?
vi) why the Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 have been unwilling to acknowledge the role of the Govt of the Peoples' Republic of China in the Karmapa Affair and grant top priority in the interests of the national security of the country?
vii) why, even though the Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 have consistently been informed of the duplicity being perpetrated concerning the said defendant No.4 portrayed as the 17th Karmapa, by this plaintiff and others in the national interest, it has taken no action until now in this matter? This is with specific reference to the video documentary titled 'Karmapa - Two Ways of Divinity' produced in the Czech Republic 1996 and the DVD titled 'The Flight of a Karmapa', showing the manner in which Defendant No.4 purportedly escaped from Tibet and entered into India, the replacement by the Chinese of the original person of Defendant No.4 by the person currently masquerading as being so, and so on, prepared by Nacht Vision Productions 2001 both of which have been handed over to various intelligence agencies by various persons.
viii) why the defendant No. 1 and 2 are lax in dealing with the followers of Defendant Nos. 3-5 even though they have brazenly broken the law on various occasions and continue to do so. In fact, India Today July 22, 2001 reports of the free availability of banned drugs through Dharamsala under the watchful eyes of Defendant Nos. 3-5 indicating their strong links with the ISI of Pakistan.
48. It is stated that Defendant No. 1 and 2 have not taken any action to declare Defendant No.4, the 17th Karmapa declared by Defendant No.3 is an impostor and order his expulsion under article 32 of The International Convention on Refugees 1951 on the grounds of National Security and public order for the reasons stated above.
49. The plaintiff also served a legal notice dated 16.06.2003 to Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 as per the requirement of Section 80 of the CPC, under registered cover, has been duly served upon the defendant No. 1 and 2. However, they have failed to take corrective measures or to respond to or comply with the legal notice dated 16.06.2003.
50. That the cause of action to file the present suit arose in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants on Aug / Sep 1992 when at the instance of defendant No.5, the defendant No.3 officially recognised defendant No.4 as the 17th Karmapa by faxing his approval from the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro and which was ratified a few days later by the Govt of the Peoples' Republic of China. The cause of action to file the present suit arose in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants when on various dates since Sep 92 and May 1997 during the course of which various law and order problems arose in Rumtek and about 50 legitimate monks were forcibly thrown out of Rumtek Monastery, by Defendant No. 5 and his followers, instigated by Defendant Nos.3 & 4 in Rumtek, Sikkim. The cause of action to file the present suit arose in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants in March 1996 when the followers of the defendant Nos.3 launched an attack on the Karmapa International Institute, B-19 Qutab Institutional Area, New Delhi 110 019 and elsewhere. The cause of action to file the present suit arose in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants in May 1997 when the then Chief Secretary of Sikkim having deeply analyzed various aspects of the Karmapa Controversy had submitted a confidential report to Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 -- GOI, and various intelligence agencies. In this he refers to the existence of a Chinese long term game plan to annex the Buddhist Himalayan regions of India. He warned that through the selection of Defendant No.4 as the 17th Karmapa, the Govt. of the People's Republic of China was targeting the soft underbelly of the country, using religion to bring about the secession of Sikkim from India. The cause of action to file the present suit arose in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants in January 5, 2000 when the defendant No.4, a resident of the Tibetan Autonomous Region of the People's Republic of China appeared in Dharamsala, H.P. India in an illegal manner and Defendant No.1 and 2 -- GOI overlooked the threat to national security arising therefrom. The cause of action to file the present suit arose in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants again in Jan 2000 when the Govt of the Peoples' Republic of China issued statements to the effect that Defendant No.4 had gone to India to collect the personal belongings of the Karmapas and bring them back to the PRC. The cause of action to file the present suit arose in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants on 2nd February 2001 when at the behest of defendant No.3, the defendant No.4 was granted a refugee status. The cause of action to file the present suit arose in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants in 1997 when the video documentary titled 'Karmapa - Two Ways of Divinity', prepared in the Czech Republic was released. The cause of action to file the present suit arose in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants in 2001 when NACHT Vision Production 2001 released a DVD titled 'The Flight of a Karmapa' showing how defendant No.4 escaped from Tibet and entered into India. The DVD also highlighted the conspiracy of China to install its own candidate as the Karmapa in India so as to annex the Buddhist Himalayan regions of India and to bring about the secession of Sikkim from India. The cause of action also arose on 25th May 2002 when the Plaintiff was besieged at Rumtek Monastery by followers of Defendant Nos. 3-5. in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants is continuing and subsisting and shall so continue and subsist till such time the defendant No. 1 and 2 do not take any action against defendant No. 3, 4 & 5 and declare the defendant No. 4, the 17th Karmapa declared by defendant No.3 is an imposter and order his expulsion under article 32 of The International Convention on Refugees 1951 on the grounds of National Security and public order.
51. The offices of defendant No. 1 and 2 are within the territorial jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court and the cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court.
52. The plaintiff has valued the suit for the purposes of pecuniary jurisdiction at more than Rs…………….,hence this Hon’ble Court has the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the present suit.
53. The value of the suit for the purposes of court fees and jurisdiction on the relief of mandatory injunction is valued at Rs……and a court fee of Rs………is affixed thereon, the relief of permanent injunction is valued at Rs………and court fees of Rs…is affixed thereon. Therefore, a total court-fees of Rs……..has been paid. The plaintiff undertakes to pay any additional court-fees in the event the relief granted by the Hon’ble Court exceeds the current valuation.
PRAYER
It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to:
a) pass a decree of declaration in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants declaring the Defendant No. 4, the 17th Karmapa declared by Defendant no.3 is not only wrong and untenable but that Defendant No.4 is also an imposter.
b) pass a decree of declaration ordering the expulsion of Defendant No.4 on the grounds of National Security and Public Order, misrepresentation of facts such as age, identity, impersonation and so on.
c) pass a decree of permanent injunction restraining the Defendant No.3 & 5, their servants/agents from interfering in any and all matters of the Karma Kagyu School or “panth” of Himalayam Buddhism.
d) cost of the suit may be allowed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
e) Any other further order, relief or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem just and proper may also be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
Plaintiff
Through counsel
Dr. Surat Singh & Associates
Advocates
304, Lawyers’ Chambers
Delhi High Court, New Delhi
Place : New Delhi
Dated: November 2003
VERIFICATION
Verified Delhi on this day of November 2003 that the contents of para to of the plaint are true and correct as per official record and knowledge of the plaintiff and contents of para
to are believed to be correct on the basis of information received. Last para is prayer to this Hon’ble Court.
Plaintiff
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
(Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction)
O.S. No. 2199 OF 2003
IN THE MATTER OF:
Shree Narayan Singh ….Plaintiff
Vs
Union of India & Ors. …..Defendants
AFFIDAVIT
Affidavit of Shree Narayan Singh, s/o late Raghubar Narayan Singh, r/o 'Uddiyana', Dalip Mahal, Mohalla Purabsarai, PS Kotwali, Town, PO & Distt. Munger, Bihar, 811 201, presently at New Delhi.
1, the above named deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:
1. That the deponent is plaintiff in the above noted case and is fully conversant with the facts of the case.
2. That the contents of accompanying plaint for declaration and permanent injunction has been drafted by my counsel under my instructions and the contents of same read over to me and the same are true and correct to my knowledge.
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION:
Verified at Delhi on this day of October 2003 that the contents of above affidavit are true and correct to my knowledge and nothing has been concealed there from.
DEPONENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
(Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction)
O.S. No. 2199 OF 2003
IN THE MATTER OF:
Shree Narayan Singh ….Plaintiff
Vs
Union of India & Ors. …..Defendants
AFFIDAVIT
Affidavit of Shree Narayan Singh, s/o late Raghubar Narayan Singh, r/o 'Uddiyana', Dalip Mahal, Mo Purabsarai, PS Kotwali, Town, PO & Distt. Munger, Bihar, 811 201, presently at New Delhi.
1, the above named deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:
1. That the deponent is plaintiff in the above noted case and is fully conversant with the facts of the case.
2. That the contents of accompanying application under order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with section 151 CPC has been drafted by my counsel under my instructions and the contents of same read over to me and the same are true and correct to my knowledge.
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION:
Verified at Delhi on this day of November 2003 that the contents of above affidavit are true and correct to my knowledge and nothing has been concealed there from.
DEPONENT
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
(Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction)
O.S. No. 2199 OF 2003
IN THE MATTER OF:
Shree Narayan Singh ….Plaintiff
Vs
Union of India & Ors. …..Defendants
APPLICATION UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 READ WITH SECTION 151 CPC FOR AD-INTERIM INJUNCTION.
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:
1. That the plaintiff has filed accompanying suit against the defendants seeking a decree of declaration and permanent injunction and the same is pending disposal before this Hon’ble Court.
2. That the plaintiff has a very good prima facie case and is likely to succeed.
3. That the plaintiff would suffer and irreparable loss and injury if defendant No. 3 - 5 are not restrained from interfering the Karma Kagyu School or “panth” of Himalayam Buddhism of which the plaintiff is a follower. Defendants No. 3 is the leader of Gelugpa School or ‘panth’ of Himalayam Buddhism and has nothing to do with Karma Kagyu School or ‘panth’ of Himalayam Buddhism, whereas Defendant No.5 is known for his close Chinese links.
4. That the balance of convenience is also in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants.
5. That the plaintiff has no other efficacious remedy except to seek indulgence of this Hon’ble Court.
PRAYER
It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to:-
i. pass an ad-interim injunction restraining the defendants No. 3 - 5 from interfering in any affair of the Karma Kagyu School or “panth” of Himalayam Buddhism of which the plaintiff is a follower.
ii. pass an ad interim injunction restraining the defendant No. 3-5 from creating any threat/nuisance for the plaintiff.
iii. Any other further order, relief or direction, which this Hon’ble Court may deem just and proper may also be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
Plaintiff
Through counsel
Dr. Surat Singh & Associates
Advocates
304, Lawyers’ Chambers
Delhi High Court, New Delhi
Place: New Delhi
Dated: November 2003
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
(Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction)
O.S. No. 2199 OF 2003
IN THE MATTER OF:
Shree Narayan Singh ….Plaintiff
Vs
Union of India & Ors. …..Defendants
LIST OF DOCUMENTS
Sl.No. DESCRIPTION PAGES
1. Annexure P-1 (Colly)
Copy of Short History of the Karma- Kargyu Lineage along with The Lineage and Subsects chart
2. Annexure P-2
Copy of video “Karmapa - The Two Ways of Divinity”
3. Annexure P-3 (Colly)
Newspapers cuttings showing the report of Medical examination done at PGI Chandigarh.
4. Annexure P-4
A copy of birth certificate issued by
Defendant No.3.
5. Annexure P-5
A copy of the purported Prediction Letter
Supposedly left behind by 16th Karmapa.
6. Annexure P-6
Copy of DVD/VCD titled 'The Flight of a Karmapa'
prepared by Nacht Vision 2001.
7. Annexure P-7
Video Clips of Defendant No. 4
taken in Bodh Gaa in 2001.
8. Annexure P-8
Copy of article titled ‘A Conspiracy is being
Hatched to dismember Sikkim from India’
published in Hindustan Times in August 1998.
9. Annexure P-9
A Copy of order of the Hon’ble HC
of Skkim in CWP No.5/2003
Plaintiff
Through counsel
Dr. Surat Singh & Associates
Advocates
304, Lawyers’ Chambers
Delhi High Court, New Delhi
Place: New Delhi
Dated: November 2003
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
(Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction)
O.S. No. 2199 OF 2003
IN THE MATTER OF:
Shree Narayan Singh ….Plaintiff
Vs
Union of India & Ors. …..Defendants
APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 151 CPC DIRECTING THE DEFENDANTS TO PRODUCE CERTAIN DOCUMENTS.
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:
1. That the plaintiff has filed accompanying suit against the defendants seeking a decree of declaration and permanent injunction and the same is pending disposal before this Hon’ble Court.
2. That the plaintiff has a very good prima facie case and is likely to succeed.
3. That the plaintiff would suffer and irreparable loss and injury if defendant No. 1-2 are not directed to produce the file of PGI Chandigarh where the age of the 17th Karmapa was ascertained for the proper adjudication of the matter.
4. That this Hon’ble Court may also direct the defendant Nos. 3-5 to produce the purported Prediction Letter of the Karmapa controversy for the proper adjudication of the matter.
5. That the plaintiff has no other efficacious remedy except to seek indulgence of this Hon’ble Court.
PRAYER
It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to:-
(i) pass an order directing defendant No. 1-2 to produce the file of the PGI, Chandigarh where the age of Defendant No.4 is already examined before this Hon’ble Court.
(ii) pass an order directing Defendant Nos. 3-5 to produce the original of the purported Prediction Letter in this Hon’ble court and then send it for forensic examination.
(iii) Any other further order, relief or direction, which this Hon’ble Court may deem just and proper may also be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
Plaintiff
Through counsel
Dr. Surat Singh & Associates
Advocates
304, Lawyers’ Chambers
Delhi High Court, New Delhi
Place: New Delhi
Dated: November 2003
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
(Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction)
O.S. No. 2199 OF 2003
IN THE MATTER OF:
Shree Narayan Singh ….Plaintiff
Vs
Union of India & Ors. …..Defendants
AFFIDAVIT
Affidavit of Shree Narayan Singh, s/o late Raghubar Narayan Singh, r/o 'Uddiyana', Dalip Mahal, Mo Purabsarai, PS Kotwali, Town, PO & Distt. Munger, Bihar, 811 201, presently at New Delhi.
1, the above named deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:
1. That the deponent is plaintiff in the above noted case and is fully conversant with the facts of the case.
2. That the contents of accompanying application under section 151 CPC has been drafted by my counsel under my instructions and the contents of same read over to me and the same are true and correct to my knowledge.
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION:
Verified at Delhi on this day of November 2003 that the contents of above affidavit are true and correct to my knowledge and nothing has been concealed there from.
DEPONENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
(Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction)
O.S. No. 2199 OF 2003
IN THE MATTER OF:
Shree Narayan Singh ….Plaintiff
Vs
Union of India & Ors. …..Defendants
MEMO OF PARTIES
IN THE MATTER OF:-
Shree Narayan Singh,
S/o late Raghubar Narayan Singh,
R/o 'Uddiyana', Dalip Mahal,
Mo Purabsarai, PS Kotwali, Town,
PO & Distt. Munger, Bihar, 811 201
…..Plaintiff
Vs.
1. Union of India
Through its Joint Secretary (NE),
Ministry of Home Affairs
North Block, New Delhi.
2. Union of India
Through its Joint Secretary
Ministry of External Affairs
South Block, New Delhi.
3. Tenzing Gyasto @ the Dalai Lama
Leader of Tibetans
R/o Thekchen Choling
P.O. Mcleod Ganj
Dharamshala, Dist. Kkangra, H.P.
4. Urgyen Trinlay Dorje
C/o The Dalai Lama
R/o Thekchen Choling
P.O. Mcleod Ganj
Dharamshala, Dist. Kangra, H.P.
5. Tai Situ Rinpoche
S/o Dondup Tsering
R/o Sherab Ling
P.O. Sensal
Distt. Kangra, H.P.
7. The Director
Post Graduate Institute
Chandigarh.
Defendants
Plaintiff
Through counsel
Dr. Surat Singh & Associates
Advocates
304, Lawyers’ Chambers
Delhi High Court, New Delhi
Place: New Delhi
Dated: November 2003
|
