IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. OF 2015
IN THE MATTER OF
Mathews J. Nedumpara
Adult, Indian Inhabitant,
residing at Harbour Heights, “W” Wing
12-F, 12th Floor, Sassoon Docks,
Colaba, Mumbai-400 005. …PETITIONER
1. The Union of India,
represented by its Secretary,
Department of Legal Affairs,
Government of India,
New Delhi- 110001.
2. The High Court of Judicature at Bombay,
Dr. Kane Road, Fort,
Mumbai-400 032,
represented by its Registrar General.
3. The State of Maharashtra
represented by its Chief Secretary,
Government of Maharashtra,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-400 032.
4. The Chairman,
Bar Council of India,
New Delhi.
5. The President,
Bombay Bar Association,
High Court of Judicature at Bombay,
Original Side, Room No. 57,
3rd Floor, High Court Main Building,
Mumbai 400 032.
6. The President,
Advocates Association of Western India,
High Court of Judicature at Bombay,
Appellate Side, Room Nos.18 & 36,
High Court Main Building,
Mumbai-400 032.
7. Mr. Salman Khan,
Age 49 Years,
Occupation: Film Actor,
111A, Galaxy Apartments,
B.J. Road, Bandstand,
Bandra (West),
Mumbai-400 050 …RESPONDENTS
PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SEEKING
DECLARATION AND OTHER RELIEFS.
THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND
HIS COMPANION JUSTICES OF THE
HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
THE HUMBLE PETITION OF THE PETITIONER ABOVE NAMED
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH
1. The Petitioner is a citizen of India and is a lawyer by
profession, principally practicing in the High Courts of
Kerala, Bombay, Delhi and Punjab & Haryana and, to an
extent, in the Supreme Court of India. The legal status
of the Respondents is manifest from the very cause title
and, therefore, requires no elaboration.
2. The Petitioner is instituting the instant Writ Petition for
enforcement of his fundamental rights to be treated
equally, nay, to put in other words, to secure an end to
the prevalent practice in all Courts in the country, the
Supreme Court and High Courts in particular and more
particularly in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay,
of the preferential treatment given to the lawyers
designated as Senior Advocates and the kith and kin of
Judges and senior lawyers, who are afforded pre-
audience over the lawyers who hail from humble
backgrounds, the first generation lawyers – the sons and
daughters of taxi drivers, teachers et al. The treatment
meted out to the lawyers who represented the cause of
Shri Salman Khan, Respondent No.7 herein, meant to be
the last straw that broke the camel’s back in so far as
the tolerance of the ordinary/common class of lawyers
as opposed to the privileged ones, the upper class,
which, in turn, means the discrimination to which the
ordinary litigants represented by the ordinary lawyers
are subjected to. The Petitioner is a person aggrieved,
for, he has always suffered such discrimination; he has
always felt as unfairly treated in comparison to the
privileged class of lawyers, the Senior Advocates, kith
and kin of Judges, not to speak of the senior lawyers as
a class. The Petitioner thought of elaborating to this
extent, lest he should be seen that the instant is a
petition which falls under a jurisprudence called PIL
which has been put to so much of abuse, it being
lamented as a “ravenous wolf in sheep's clothing” by
legendary Justice Krishna Iyer. The Petitioner wants to
make it expressly clear that the instant petition does not
belong to that category; it is not a PIL. PIL is where the
person aggrieved, out of his poverty, ignorance and
such other disadvantages, could not approach this
Hon'ble Court himself and is allowed to be represented
by someone else acting pro bono publico for vindication
of his rights. Here the Petitioner himself is instituting
the Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution.
The issue which the Petitioner intends to highlight in the
instant petition and the remedy which he hereby seeks
maybe of great public concern, as well, but that does
not alter the nature of this petition being a Writ Petition
under Article 32 of the Constitution by the person
aggrieved for the enforcement of his fundamental rights.
3. The Petitioner has nothing against Respondent No.7, the
superstar. He is neither a fan nor a foe of Respondent
No.7. However, the Petitioner has to make a reference
about the privilege which Respondent No.7 would not
have enjoyed had all lawyers are treated alike when the
question of the priority in the matter of listing and
hearing of criminal appeals which are pending before the
High Court of Judicature at Bombay is concerned. The
Petitioner does not intend to speak a word about the
actual merits of the case of Respondent No.7 as to
whether he is innocent or guilty, whether the evidence
was properly appreciated or not, whether the application
of the law at the hands of the Hon'ble High Court which
acquitted him was proper or not etc. The only point
which the Petitioner intends to highlight is his right to be
treated equally, nay, not to be discriminated qua the
privilege class of lawyers, those designated as Senior
Advocates, and the kith and kin of Judges and senior
lawyers.
4. The High Court of Judicature at Bombay maintains two
cause lists, one the Daily Board and the other the
Supplementary Board. The Supplementary Board is
heard in priority over the Daily Board. While the Daily
Board is prepared by the Registry based on whatever
principle they follow, which the Petitioner is not in a
position to comment upon, the Supplementary Board is
prepared upon the express orders of the Court, upon a
mentioning being made before it stating the urgency. In
principle, there is nothing wrong with the practice of a
Supplementary Board being drawn up upon specific
directions of the Court to hear matters which require
emergent consideration. But, in practice, it has meant
two High Courts within a High Court, a High Court of the
poor lawyers and litigants and another of the rich and
upper class privileged lawyers, a class consisting of
Senior Advocates, the kith and kin of Judges and senior
lawyers. On every working day at 11.00 a.m. the upper
class lawyers come with a praecipe, put across the
urgency of their case, probably in the Victorian English
and accent, the praecipe is granted and based on such
praecipes a Supplementary Board is prepared, which is
heard in precedence over the Daily Board. Very often,
the whole day is consumed in the hearing of the
Supplementary Board and the Daily Board is never taken
up. It is incorrect to say that there are only two classes
of lawyers, the untouchable class of common lawyers
and the upper class consisting of Senior Advocates and
the kith and kin of Judges and senior lawyers. In the
upper class also there is a further division – the super
elite, the highest of the high class and the high class.
The super class lawyers, undoubtedly the designated
Senior Advocates, the so-called legal luminaries and
iconic figures, appear with other lawyers; they are given
a royal treatment. That is what had happened in the
case of Respondent No.7; so too in many other VVIP
cases, which make the common man believe that there
are three justice delivery systems – one for the common
man, yet another for the elite and still yet another for
the super elite. The social media is inundated with the
common man showing its exasperation as to how the
justice delivery system is allowed to be manipulated to
soothe the interests of the super rich and the total
neglect of the interest of the common man. The
Petitioner does not intend to go into that, except to say
that so long as we remain as a democracy the justice
delivery system cannot survive for long if the faith of the
common man in it is allowed to be eroded. The
Petitioner needs only to quote legendary Justice Krishna
Iyer who lamented way back in 1981 that ''One day the
people of this country will rise and say that we don't
want this magnificent red stone edifice on the Curzon
Road (now “Bhagavan Das Road”) because it is seen to
be counterproductive and in turn the High Courts".
5. Having stated at the very outset that the intention of the
Petitioner is not to target respondent No.7, much less go
into the correctness of the decision of acquitting him,
and the primary purpose of the Petitioner being far
noble and laudable, he wishes to point out that
Respondent No.7 was, or, to put it differently, the
lawyers representing him were, given preferential
treatment all throughout. The Petitioner does not wish
to go into the details. Preferential treatment was given
to Shri Harish Salve when he appeared before Hon'ble
Shri Justice A.M. Thipsay of the Bombay High Court
when Respondent No.7 was granted bail on the very
same day on which he was convicted by the Sessions
Court. Since the Petitioner does not wish to make any
further reference to the perceived preferential manner in
which the lawyer of Respondent No.7 was treated, he is
not arraigning either Shri. Harish Salve or Hon'ble Shri
Justice Thipsay as parties to this petition. The focus
here is far narrow and as simple as a man of less than
ordinary intelligence can comprehend without any
difficulty.
6 Criminal Appeal No.572/2015 preferred by Respondent
No.7 in challenge of his conviction and sentence, which
in the ordinary course would have taken a minimum of
another 5 years, if not more, to be finally dispose of,
was taken up, heard and allowed on 10/2/2015 in just
220 days from the date of its institution. There is a literal
explosion in the social media of many a preferential
treatment or favouritism which the common man
perceives in the case of Respondent No.7. Without
uttering a word about the merits of the case of
Respondent No.7, the Petitioner finds himself too small a
province where there could be no two opinions. The
Petitioner wishes to elaborate the same a little further
7. The 18 High Courts have as many as 52,921 criminal
appeals pending across the country, and 657 criminal
appeals in Bombay High Court itself, the average time
for such disposal of a criminal appeal span to around 13
years, of which the said appeal was 572nd one of 2015
being filed on 6 May 2015. In vast majority of these
cases, the accused persons are in jail. It does not
require much intelligence to conceive that appeals where
the accused persons are in jail and that too for more
than 5 or 10 or 15 years ought to be heard in priority
over other cases where the accused, as the case of
Respondent No.7, are on bail. This principle, though so
fundamental, is allowed to be violated day in and day
out. As aforesaid, the appeal of Respondent No.7 was
instituted only on 6 May 2015; he was on bail; there
was no great urgency for his case to be heard on
priority, out of turn, but it was heard in priority over
other cases in which the accused are in jail for several
years. Counsel for Respondent No.7 mentioned the
matter before Hon'ble Shri Justice A.R. Joshi moving a
praecipe, which was granted; the case was listed for
hearing and the Hon'ble Judge recorded the matter as
part-heard, with the result that even after change in the
roster, Respondent No.7’s appeal remained with the
same Judge who discharged the remaining Board for 22
days and heard the counsel for Respondent No.7 for
days and days and delivered the judgment on
10/12/2015, just 10 days prior to his retirement on 20th
December, 2015. The Petitioner does not wish to cast
any imputation on the Hon'ble Judge; so too the
celebrated lawyers who represented Respondent No.7.
The Petitioner does not harbour such thoughts even in
his wildest of dreams. The Petitioner is on a narrow
realm that all litigants, no matter the litigant is poor or
rich, powerful or super powerful, VIP or VVIP; so too the
lawyers, whether he comes from a humble background
or is one designated as a Senior Advocate or is son of a
Judge or senior lawyer, should be treated equally. The
equality concept of the Constitution is one of its most
inalienable, transcendental and primordial basic
features. Equality before law and equal protection of
law is all pervasive, omnipresent, the very soul and
quintessence of our Constitution. However, that is often
violated, sometimes nakedly, as is done in the case of
Respondent No.7.
8. Ubi jus, ibi remedium – where there is a right there is a
remedy – is a fundamental principle of law. The fact
that lawyers are treated unequally, as elaborated above,
cannot be denied. Ordinarily, the solution to such upper
class and lower class within the community of lawyers
ought to be found a solution at the hands of the
legislature, particularly since Sections 16 and 23 of the
Advocates Act, 1961 are primarily instrumental for such
class/caste system which is in prevalence. The solution,
therefore, is repeal of Sections 16 and 23 of the
Advocates Act or seek a declaration at the hands of this
Hon'ble Court that the said Sections are void and
unconstitutional. In the instant case, therefore, as has
been dealt with in the following paragraphs, such a
remedy is sought for. However, since the advent of the
jurisdiction called PIL, which the Petitioner finds
absolutely uncomfortable with, as has been stated in
paragraph 2 supra, this Hon'ble Court, so too certain
High Courts, has literally entered into the province of
legislature and has been enacting laws in the purported
exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 32 of the
Constitution by recourse to a mechanism called PIL. By
Judges-2 and Judges-3 cases, a new system of
appointment of Judges where the Judges appointed
themselves was introduced. Though the Parliament
sought to bring in a new system of appointment of
Judges where the civil society has participation, that was
struck down and this Hon'ble Court embarked upon an
exercise of improving the collegium system, which is
nothing but an action in the domain of legislation. The
Petitioner does not accept or approve the judicial
legislation as constitutional. But his opinion is of little
consequence. The Petitioner, therefore, has to accept
the fact that the Court can legislate and exercise even
the constituent power of the Parliament to amend the
Constitution. If that be so, then this Hon'ble Court in
exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 32 could bring
into place a mechanism to deal with complaints against
Judges, as in the instant case, giving preferential
treatment to elitist lawyers and taking up the cases of
celebrities in priority over those underprivileged and
poor who are denied bail pending adjudication of their
appeals, pending for several years. As of now, there is
no law under which a citizen or lawyer aggrieved of
discriminatory treatment and issues of far more
ramifications involving corruption and other malpractices
could get redressal. The Judicial Standards and
Accountability Bill, 2012 is yet to see the light of the
day. All that is in existence is the Charter/Resolution
called “Restatement of Values of Judicial Life” passed by
the Supreme Court of India in its Full Court meeting held
on May 7, 1997, which was ratified and adopted by
Indian Judiciary in the Chief Justices’ Conference 1999.
9. Since in the instant petition the Petitioner is challenging
the constitutional validity of Sections 16 and 23(5) of
the Advocates Act, 1961 and Rules made there under,
nay, a declaration that the said Sections and the Rules
are unconstitutional and void, it is only appropriate that
the persons affected, and in particular the Advocates
designated as Senior Advocates, are given notice and
afforded due opportunity to partake in the adjudication
of the case. Since the issue raised directly involves the
designation of Advocates as Senior Advocates already
made and those under contemplation in the Supreme
Court of India and various High Courts, principles of
natural justice require that notice be served on the
Advocate Generals, the Bar Councils of the various
States and the various High Courts through the Registrar
Generals or such other appropriate mechanism. A
prayer to the said effect is made in this petition. The
Petitioner is willing to meet such procedural
requirements which this Hon'ble Court may deem
appropriate to be complied with by him in due course of
time. Incidentally, the Petitioner may be pardoned if he
were to point out that in certain PILs, which are filed in
this Hon'ble Court day in and day out, where rights of
the public at large are involved and even the rights,
liberties and properties of crores and crores of people of
this country are involved, such principles are never
observed or are required to be observed. One such
classic example is the NJAC case. The NJAC case was all
about legislative policy which under no stretch of
imagination can be said to be justiciable. Assuming that
it is justiciable, then except a few elite senior members
of the Bar, Presidents of certain Bar Associations and a
handful of celebrated lawyers, none other was heard.
10. The Advocates Act, 1961 (“Act”, for short), which was
enacted to give effect to the recommendations made by
the All India Bar Committee in the year 1953, taking
also into account the recommendations of the Law
Commission in the realm of judicial administration,
provides for establishment of an All India Bar Council,
integration of the Bar into a single class of legal
practitioners known as Advocates, prescription of
uniforms and qualifications for admission into the
profession of law, creation of autonomous Bar Councils,
one for all India and the other for the individual States.
The Act also provided for division of Advocates into two
classes, one as “Senior Advocates” and the other as
“Advocates”, “by virtue of his ability, standing at the Bar
or special knowledge or experience in law”. The words
“special knowledge or experience in law” are very
important to be noticed. The Act, in enacting Section
16, which provides for division of lawyers as Senior and
other Advocates, has chosen to adopt the system
prevalent prior to independence when neither
Constitution of India nor Articles 14, 19 and 21 thereof
were in existence. The division of lawyers as upper class
and lower class is a vintage of the feudal system. Legal
profession was considered to be a noble one, for only
the feudal lords alone took up the said profession and all
lawyers and Judges were the elite, the feudal lords, the
blue blooded aristocratic class. Mahatma Gandhi had
dealt with about it briefly in his autobiography “My
Experiments With Truth”. All the Queen’s counsel were
recognized as Senior Counsel who, by tradition, were
elevated as Judges. The legal profession in India too,
during the pre-independence era, was primarily
dominated by the elite, the feudal lords, the upper class
and the rich. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar was the sole exception.
11. The Petitioner begs to refer to the recommendations of
the Law Commission of India; so too of the All India Bar
Committee which, if one were to make an objective
reading, contain no justification for continuation of the
English tradition of Queen’s counsel and others. The
said recommendations, which offer no rational basis for
division of Advocates into two classes, unfortunately,
happened to be enacted into law by virtue of Sections 16
and 23 of the Act. Section 16, which permits the
division of lawyers into two classes, is extracted below
for ready reference:-
“16. Senior and other advocates. –
(1) There shall be two classes of advocates,
namely, senior advocates and other advocates.
(2) An advocate may, with his consent, be
designated as senior advocate if the Supreme Court or a
High Court is of opinion that by virtue of his ability, standing
at the Bar or special knowledge or experience in law he is
deserving of such distinction.
(3) Senior advocates, shall in the matter of their
practice, be subject to such restrictions as the Bar Council of
India may, in the interest of the legal profession, prescribe.
(4) An advocate of the Supreme Court who was a
senior advocate of that Court immediately before the
appointed day shall, for the purposes of this section, be
deemed to be a senior advocate:
Provided that where any such senior advocate makes
an application before the 31st December, 1965, to the Bar
Council maintaining the roll in which his name has been
entered that he does not desire to continue as a senior
advocate, the Bar Council may grant the application and the
roll shall be altered accordingly.”
12. Under the English tradition, the Queen’s counsel
representing the realm had always a right of pre-
audience. By virtue of Section 23 of the Act, the said
practice came to be enacted as the law of the country.
The Petitioner has no qualm about it. Under Section 23,
the Attorney General; so too the Solicitor General,
Additional Solicitor General and Advocate Generals are
invested with the right of pre-audience. Sub-sections
(1) to (4) of Section 23 deal with the right of pre-
audience which they enjoy. The Petitioner has no
quarrel about it, but in addition to the right of pre-
audience given to them by virtue of sub-Section (5) of
Section 23, “Senior Advocates” too shall have right of
pre-audience over other Advocates. The said provision
strikes Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution, which
are to be read together, at their very root. Apart from
the Law Officers representing the Central and State
Governments, as aforesaid, lawyers who are designated
as Senior Advocates, by virtue of Section 16 and sub-
Section (5) of Section 23 of the Act, enjoy a right of pre-
audience over other Advocates. The said provisions
mean cementing further the casteism, the menace of
upper class and lower class, a curse of the country for
centuries, being allowed to be statutorily recognized in
the legal provision. The ramification thereof to state it
to be catastrophic is an understatement. Section 23 of
the Act is extracted for ready reference as infra:-
“23. Right of pre-audience. –
(1) The Attorney General of India shall have pre-audience
over all other advocates.
(2) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (1), the
Solicitor-General of India shall have pre-audience over all
other advocates.
(3) Subject to the provisions of sub-sections (1) and (2),
the Additional Solicitor-General of India shall have pre-
audience over all other advocates.
(3A) Subject to the provisions of sub-sections (1), (2)
and (3), the second Additional Solicitor-General of India
shall have pre-audience over all other advocates.
(4) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (1), (2), (3)
and (3A) the Advocate General of any State shall have pre-
audience over all other advocates, and, the right of pre-
audience among Advocates-General inter se shall be
determined by their respective seniority.
(5) Subject as aforesaid-
(i) Senior advocates shall have pre-audience over
other advocates; and
(ii) The right of pre-audience over senior advocates
inter se and other advocates inter se shall be
determined by their respective seniority.”
13. The casteism prevalent in the legal profession meant
that the elite class of, say 5000, could monopolize 95%
of the revenue from the legal profession, which today is
nothing but an industry, the Petitioner is extremely
painful to say so, and which is cornered by 5% of the
legal fraternity. The said 5% are the elite class
consisting of the kith and kin of sitting and former
Judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts,
celebrated lawyers, Chief Ministers, Governors et al and
a few first generation lawyers who are all politically
connected or are close to big industrial houses. The
voice of the other first generation lawyers, the sons and
daughters of ordinary citizens, farmers, school teachers,
taxi drivers etc., who come from far flung villages of the
country and who had not the privilege of being educated
in public schools, is never heard. The high judiciary in
India, be it elevation of an Advocate as a Judge of the
Supreme Court or of a High Court or designation of an
Advocate as a Senior Advocate, has been allowed to be
vitiated by private interest, the interest of the kith and
kin of sitting and former Judges of the Supreme Court
and High Courts, celebrated lawyers, Chief Ministers,
Governors et al and a few first generation lawyers who
are all politically connected or are close to big industrial
houses.
14. Section 23 (5) of the said Act, which confers a privilege
upon a Senior Advocate for pre-audience over other
Advocates, is in patent violation of the principles of
equality before law under Article 14 and right to practice
any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or
business under Article 19. The Petitioner’s experience
as a lawyer of more than 30 years’ standing convinces
him that “lower caste” lawyers who come from humble
backgrounds, who have studied in vernacular language,
sons and daughters of farmers, school teachers, taxi
drivers etc, far excel the elite class of lawyers who are
designated as Senior Advocates when it comes to depth
of knowledge, elegance and style of drafting etc. He can
cite hundreds of examples in this regard. But such
talented lawyers - merely because they have no
godfather, they are not the kith and kin of Judges and
other elites, they do not belong to the chambers of
celebrated lawyers – are never allowed to blossom and
their talents are nipped in the bud itself. It is time that
the cabal system of designation of a lawyer as a Senior
Advocate is dispensed with and all lawyers are treated
equally. By doing so, no heaven will fall; all that could
happen is to bring an end to the inbreeding. If the
current system of the kith and kin of sitting and former
Judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts,
celebrated lawyers, Chief Ministers, Governors et al,
monopolizing the august office of the Judges of the
higher judiciary, so too being designated as Senior
Advocates, will continue, then the Indian judiciary will
be deprived of the diversity of genes which alone could
provide immunity to the corpus of the legal profession/
judiciary to protect itself from the diseases such as
corruption, nepotism and malpractices. Neither in
animal kingdom nor in plants inbreeding is permitted; it
is against the very law of the nature. It is worthwhile to
note that certain species like elephant foot, nay, even
banana plants have become extinct because of
inbreeding, being divested itself of its vital diverse
genes, which alone could have protected it from the viral
attacks.
15. Looking from a practical and realistic point of view,
whatever could be the upsurge of public opinion, the
near revolution which found exposition in the social
media, nay, to an extent, in the electronic and print
media, it is of little consequence, but the fact that public
opinion cannot be ignored forever has to be accepted.
In the ultimate analysis, no Court can ignore public
opinion. As said by Victor Hugo, “no army can stop an
idea whose time has come”. Therefore the Petitioner
believes that it is high time that a mechanism to deal
with complaints at the hands of litigants and lawyers
against Judges is put in place. The most ideal thing is
for the Parliament to pass the Judicial Standards and
Accountability Bill, 2012 with the urgency and expedition
it calls for. Hence, in the instant petition the Petitioner
seeks a mandamus to that effect. The other alternative,
though fraught with dire consequences, is for the
Supreme Court to enact laws, as it has done in Judges-
2, Judges-3 and Judges-4 cases, in substitution of the
Parliament, in respect of which seeds were sown by the
Charter/Resolution called “Restatement of Values of
Judicial Life” passed by the Supreme Court. Yet another
measure, which is imperative, is to secure repeal of
Sections 16 and 23 of the Advocates Act; so too seek a
declaration from this Hon'ble Court that the said
Sections are unconstitutional and void. Hence, the
instant Writ Petition.
GROUNDS
Grounds in support of the reliefs sought for are
fairly elaborated in the statement of facts above and
hence are not repeated. The Petitioner respectfully
submits that paragraphs 1 to 15 hereinabove may be
read and treated as the grounds in support of the
instant Writ Petition.
16. The Petitioner has not filed any other Petition/Appeal/
Application before this Hon’ble Court or any other High
Court seeking similar reliefs as are sought in this Writ
Petition.
P R A Y E R
It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble
Court may graciously be pleased to:
a) direct Respondent No.1 to pursue in all earnestness the
Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill, 2012, though
beyond that no mandamus could be sought at the hands
of this Hon'ble Court;
b) evolve a mechanism to deal with complaints by litigants,
lawyers and the public at large against corruption,
malpractices and other impropriety at the hands of the
Hon'ble Judges of the higher judiciary since no law exists
as of date to deal with such complaints;
c) declare that the Charter/Resolution called “Restatement
of Values of Judicial Life” passed by the Supreme Court
of India in its Full Court meeting held on May 7, 1997,
which was ratified and adopted by Indian Judiciary in the
Chief Justices’ Conference 1999, with further
modifications and improvements, which could be made
possible by inviting opinions and suggestions from the
Bar Council of India, Bar Associations, lawyers and
public at large, as done in Judges-4 case regarding the
collegium system, is the law to deal with complaints
against Judges of the higher judiciary;
d) direct the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India, in exercise of
his jurisdiction as the pater familias, to ensure that in
the drawing up of cause list and hearing of cases by the
Supreme Court and High Courts certain definite
principles are identified and they are strictly
implemented and complaints of special treatment to
super celebrated litigants and lawyers are brought to an
e) permit the Petitioner to arraign as additional
Respondents all the lawyers who have been designated
as Senior Advocates by the Supreme Court of India in
exercise of the power conferred on it under the Supreme
Court Rules, 2013 and/or to cause notice to be issued to
them/served upon them in any other appropriate
manner, nay, in terms of Order VIII Rule 1(2) of the
Code of Civil Procedure; so too to the learned Advocate
Generals of the various States;
f) permit the petitioner to amend or alter the instant Writ
Petition, so as to enable him to incorporate the
challenge on the vires of Sections 16 & 23(5) of the
Advocates Act, 1961 if so found appropriate in due
course since it is felt that it will be more appropriate to
institute a separate writ petition in challenge of the vires
of the said sections of the Advocates Act, 1961 ; and
g) pass such further and other orders as this Hon’ble Court
may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances
of the case as also in the interest of justice.
DRAWN AND FILED BY
Petitioner-in-person
‘Harbour Heights’, ‘W’ Wing
12-F, 12th Floor, Sassoon Docks,
Colaba, Mumbai-400005.
e-mail : mathewsjnedumpara@gmail.com
Filed on :
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. OF 2015
IN THE MATTER OF
Mathews J. Nedumpara. …PETITIONER
The Union of India & Ors. …RESPONDENTS
I.A. NO. OF 2015
APPLICATION FOR PERMISSIO
TO APPEAR AND ARGUE THE CASE IN-PERSON
P A P E R - B O O K
(FOR INDEX KINDLY SEE INSIDE)
Petitioner-in-person
‘Harbour Heights’, ‘W’ Wing
12-F, 12th Floor, Sassoon Docks,
Colaba, Mumbai-400005.
e-mail : mathewsjnedumpara@gmail.com
Filed on :
I N D E X
Sl. No. Particulars Page Nos.
1. Listing Proforma
2. Writ Petition with Affidavit
3. Application for permission to appear and
argue the case in-person.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
I.A. NO. OF 2015
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. OF 2015
IN THE MATTER OF
Mathews J. Nedumpara. …PETITIONER
The Union of India & Ors. …RESPONDENTS
APPLICATION SEEKING PERMISSION
TO APPEAR AND ARGUE THE CASE IN PERSON
THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND
HIS COMPANION JUSTICES OF THE
HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
THE HUMBLE PETITION OF THE PETITIONER ABOVE NAMED
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH
1. The Petitioner has filed this Writ Petition before this
Hon’ble Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of
India. The Petitioner is not repeating the facts of the
case in this Application for the sake of brevity and,
therefore, the contents of the Writ Petition be read as
part and parcel of this Application. .
2. The Petitioner is a Lawyer by profession who has
enrolled himself as such in the year 1984 and has been
in the profession for the last three decades. The
Petitioner is also the President of National Lawyers
Campaign for Judicial Transparency and Reforms, an
organization which has been in existence for the last 10
years, a voluntary Association of lawyers from different
parts of the country who are committed and dedicated
themselves to the cause of greater transparency and
reforms in judiciary. Therefore, the Petitioner is
intending to appear and argue the instant case in-
person. Hence, the Petitioner be permitted to appear in-
person for arguing the present Writ Petition before this
Hon’ble Court.
P R A Y E R
It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble
Court may graciously be pleased to:
a) permit the Petitioner to appear and argue the present
Writ Petition in-person before this Hon’be Court ; and
b) pass any such other order or orders/directions as this
Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of
The Registrar
Supreme Court of India
Subject : Writ Petition (Civil) No. of 2015
(Mathews J. Nedumpara
Vs.
The Union of India & Ors.)
I, do hereby, authorize Mr. Prakash Chandra Sharma, to file
and also to do all needful in the Registry on my behalf in the
above mentioned case.
Thanking you,
(MATHEWS J. NEDUMPARA)
Petitioner-in-person
‘Harbour Heights’, ‘W’ Wing
12-F, 12th Floor, Sassoon Docks,
Colaba, Mumbai-400005.
e-mail : mathewsjnedumpara@gmail.com
16.12.2015
The Registrar
Supreme Court of India
Subject : Writ Petition (Civil) No. of 2015
(Mathews J. Nedumpara
Vs.
The Union of India & Ors.)
Kindly enter my appearance as Petitioner appearing in-person
in the above mentioned case.
(MATHEWS J. NEDUMPARA)
Petitioner-in-person
‘Harbour Heights’, ‘W’ Wing
12-F, 12th Floor, Sassoon Docks,
Colaba, Mumbai-400005.
e-mail : mathewsjnedumpara@gmail.com
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
I.A. NO. OF 2015
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. OF 2015
IN THE MATTER OF
Mathews J. Nedumpara. …PETITIONER
The Union of India & Ors. …RESPONDENTS
I, Mathews J. Nedumpara, Advocate, aged about 56 years, residing at
Harbour Heights, “W” Wing, 12-F, 12th Floor, Sassoon Docks, Colaba,
Mumbai-400 005, presently at New Delhi, do hereby solemnly swear
and affirm as follows:
1. That I am the Petitioner appearing in-person in the above
mentioned case and I am fully conversant with the facts and
circumstances of the case. Hence, I am competent to swear to
this Affidavit.
2. That the accompanying Writ Petition containing paras 1 to
……… at pages 1 to , and the Application seeking
permission to appear and argue the case in-person has been
drafted my me. I have gone through the contents of the same,
which are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and
belief. No part of it is false and nothing material has been
concealed therein.
I, the above named Deponent, do hereby verify and state that the
contents of this Affidavit are true and correct to my knowledge and
belief. No part of it is false and nothing is concealed therefrom.
Verified at New Delhi on this the 15th day of December, 2015.
No comments:
Post a Comment