Kindly
find enclosed the soft copy of the Writ Petition by Adv.Mathews J.Nedumpara, questioning
the hearing of the Salman Khan’s criminal appeal even while said accused was on
bail and merited no such out of turn hearing, while thousands who are equal
citizens as Salman Khan are in jail for years pending hearing of their appeal
against their conviction and sentence.
“All
animals are equal and some animals
are more than equal” more than apply to the current state of affairs in the Bombay
High Court for that matter many other High Courts and even in Supreme Court,
when it comes to preferential treatment of first class and super rich
litigants. A time has come where we heed to two types of courts, a High Court for
the Super Class Lawyers and another for Common Lawyers and common man.
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
Versus
1. The High Court of Judicature at Bombay,
Dr.
Kane Road, Fort,
Mumbai-400
032,
represented
by its Registrar General.
2. The Union of India,
represented
by its Secretary,
Department
of Legal Affairs,
Government of India,
New Delhi- 110001.
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. Shri 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.
TO
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 infra.
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:-
(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:-
(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 practise
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)
permit the petitioner to amend or alter the instant
Writ Petition(Civil), so as to enable him to incorporate the challenge on the
vires of section 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.
b)
Direct Respondent No.2 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;
c)
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;
d)
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;
e)
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 end;
f)
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;
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
BY FILED BY
(A.C.PHILIP) (MATHEWS J. NEDUMPARA)
Advocate Party in Person
New Delhi
Drawn on :
Filed on :
No comments:
Post a Comment