There is nobody to expose the nepotism, corruption, in the higher judiciary

Eight judges of the Bombay HC are sons of former judges.From.the very same family there are two judges .Justice Dharmadhikari got his son and nephew appointed as judges of the Bombay HC.Justice Chandrachud, Ex CJI got his son appointed at the age of 40 as a judge of the Bombay HC.The list is endless. The collegium meant naked nepotism. The press has been too soft on it's criticism of the judiciary. The senior lawyers are nothing but sycophants of the worst order; am afraid to say. There is nobody to expose the nepotism, corruption, nay,in a sense hooliganism, in the higher  judiciary. Justice Krishna Iyer, the only soul who had l relentlessly been appealing to the judges to introspect and be worthy of their robes, is no longer with us as a corrective force .

PRESS RELEASE BY MATHEWS J. NEDUMPARA, WHO WAS THERE BEFORE THE FIVE JUDGE CONSTITUTION BENCH OF THE SUPREME COURT IN SUPPORT OF THE NJAC ACT.

1THE NATIONAL LAWYERS’ CAMPAIGN FOR
JUDICIAL TRANSPARENCY AND REFORMS (Regd.)
       304, Hari Chambers, 3rd Floor, 54/68 SBS Marg, Near old Custom House, Fort Mumbai- 400 023.
E-Mail: aminrohini@gmail.com,  mathewsjnedumpara@gmail.com
Cell # +91 98205 35428 ,  022 22626634
Mathews J. Nedumpara
PresidentMrs. Rohini M. Amin
Vice President     
MumbaiBijoy Krishna Adhikari,
Vice President
KolkataNavaneetha Krishnan
General SecretaryParbinder Singh Sethi,
Treasurer

PRESS RELEASE BY MATHEWS J. NEDUMPARA, WHO WAS THERE BEFORE THE FIVE JUDGE CONSTITUTION BENCH OF THE SUPREME COURT IN SUPPORT OF THE NJAC ACT.

16th October, 2015

The National Lawyers’ Campaign for Judicial Transparency and Reforms considers that today’s judgment at the hands of the Five-Judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court holding the NJAC Act as unconstitutional meant a dark day in the constitutional history of India.  The learned Attorney General and Solicitor General, who defended the Government, cannot entirely be able to wash off their hands for their total failure to raise the preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the Writ Petitions at the hands of the Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association (SCAORA) and others, which is the primary reason for the Court allowing the challenge on the Act.  The Writ Petitions were filed under Article 32 of the Constitution whereunder a citizen could approach the Supreme Court directly without recourse to any other forum if his fundamental rights are infringed.  Therefore, a plea that the fundamental rights of SCAORA and other Petitioners is a sine qua non for the maintainability of the challenge to the constitutionality of the Act.  There was no such plea.

2. In Judges-1 case (S.P. Gupta), the Judges who were aggrieved by their transfer to other High Courts/non-reappointment of those who were appointed on ad hoc basis were the parties and, therefore, the Attorney General conceded maintainability of the Writ Petition.  In Judges-2 case, the question of maintainability was omitted to be raised at all.  In Judges-4 case, the present case, the learned Attorney General/Solicitor General not only did not raise the question of maintainability, but did not offer any support to the undersigned who raised the said issue.  The NJAC Act is non-justiciable, for, it is in the realm of legislative policy, not affecting any of the fundamental rights of SCAORA or anyone else.  A PIL under Article 32 will lie only where somebody’s fundamental right is affected and the person whose fundamental rights are so affected is unable to institute a Writ Petition on his own.  In other words, for a PIL to be maintained there must be a “person aggrieved”.  In this case there was no one who claims that he is a “person aggrieved” whose fundamental rights are infringed.  It appears that SCAORA has usurped its jurisdiction to represent the 125 crores people of this country.  The question remains as to whether the people of this country have authorized SCAORA or the eminent lawyers who were using the platform of SCAORA.  It is a misconception, though deep-rooted, that the Supreme Court can declare the law for the land.  The Supreme Court cannot; only the Parliament can declare the law of the land.  The Supreme Court can only interpret the laws; and interpretation constitutes to be in the realm of precedent.

3. The Supreme Court has brought back into existence the collegium system, which meant the superior Courts being literally monopolized by the kith and kin of sitting and former Judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts, celebrated lawyers, Chief Ministers, Governors et al, thereby rendering the concept of diversity in the higher judiciary wholly non-existent.  The collegium system is wholly opaque, absolutely lacking transparency.   Judiciary is one of the most important pillars of our constitutional democracy. Today’s decision will certainly cause irreparable damage to the said great pillar.  A time has come for the ordinary lawyers and ordinary public to campaign for greater transparency in higher judiciary, in the appointment of Judges and for video-recording of Court proceedings.

Jai Hind

(Mathews J. Nedumpara)
President

meet the Honble Chief Minister of Maharashtra seeking: (a) release of the vast expanse of vacant lands at the hands of the BPT for housing and commerce and trade;

🌹Dear All,
The7th  General Body Meeting of the National Lawyers' Campaign for Judicial Transparency and Reforms held today     while expressing it's great concern over demolition of the shanties and homes of the poor and the homeless, so too of the middle class in the purported implementation of the orders of the Bombay HC in the so called benevolent  jurisprudence called PIL which the legendary Justice Krishna Iyer lamented to be a 'ravenous wolf in the clothing of a sheep',and to extend to the affected parties all support and legal aid has also resolved to meet the Honble Chief Minister of Maharashtra seeking: (a) release of the vast expanse of vacant lands at the hands of the BPT for housing and commerce and trade;
(b)so too the release  of the 5000 hectares or so of salt pans for housing of the homeless and the poor;
(c)keep in abeyance all demolition of shanties and homes of the homeless and poor and to regularise wherever such structures are illegal.
🌠🌠🌠🌠
The7th General Body Meeting of the  National lawyers campaign for Judicial Transparency and Reforms also decided to bring up for hearing the WPs  which it's members have instituted in the SC, so too in the HC of Delhi and Bombay  demanding video recording of the proceeding of the SC and HC to secure greater Transparency and Accountability in Higher judiciary as early as it could be.
🙏🙏🙏
Mathews J Nedumpara, President, The National lawyers campaign for Judicial Transparency and Reforms, Mumbai.

meeting of the members and the sympathisers of the "Campaign for Home for All" will be held at my office at Fort, Mumbai at 5.30 pm on 12.10.2015.

🙏My most esteemed brothers and sisters,
🌹A meeting of the members and the sympathisers of the "Campaign for Home for All" will be held at my office at  Fort, Mumbai at 5.30 pm on 12.10.2015.
🌹All in the MJN Clients' Group, so too of the Team N&N, Advocates and staff are requested to be present. The attendance is compulsory, though, the   only whip I carry is a moral one. I have protected a large number of the  members in my clients Group from being dispossessed of their homes, shanties , office premises and properties.🌠 Therefore, I believe they have a moral duty to whole heartedly support me in  my initiative to make  the  dream  of the homeless ,so too the millions who live in match box like apartments and in the most inhuman conditions,nay,in dirt and filth  in the  slums to dream of a liveable  home.🌠 I am taking this initiative because I believe I can contribute my mite to the cause, howsoever, helpless and inconsequential I could be, and no doubt, I would appear to be in the eyes of those who will ridicule and condemn me of this initiative. 🌠 My answer is: the solutions to the difficult problems are not difficult at all. The solutions are simple.🌠What is that one would  need?🌹Answer is simple:Only an idea. 🌹A good idea;that is all🌠
The solution is simple:
Allow the city to go vertical. Utilise the 1/3rd of the 5000 hectares of salt pans in the city for  housing.It is senseless to keep salt pans when land in Mumbai are more  precious than  even gold.🌠 Convert the 1/3rd  into Parks. Not into lawns; but to a real man made garden /forest.🌠.1/3rd for housing stock.🌠1/3rd for offices,shops and malls.🌠Protect the mangroves by setting up large number of sewage treatment plants which will ensure that the mangroves and marine life is saved.🌠Remember, the still water is where the fishes breed and when the still water is as highly polluted as it is today, when the water contains no oxygen at all but only toxins,the mangroves fail to serve it's most important use as a breeding ground  of the marine life.🌠 Toxins in the water Mangroves too.🌠The answer to congestion is greater  congestion only.🌠Allowing the city spread into thousands of kilometres which is the case with Delhi is no answer.🌠For a public transport system to be profitable and to be workable, high density of population is a must.🌠Delhi has more vehicles than the cities of Bombay, Calcutta and Madras,put together.It has more more roads than all the said three cities,nay,even  Bangalore be added.Yet, there is so much of traffic jam in Delhi .🌠That is the reason why the Government is ushering in the idea of a smart city at Rohini,close to Delhi .🌠Am not saying my views are infallible. 🙏All opinions and views are welcome. 🙏Before I part with,I may add that the injustice at hands of the HC judges who enjoy all the comforts of life and power,abusing that  power to render thousands homeless,nay ordering that the water supply to the Shanties be disconnected, their shanties be demolished, electric supply be disconnected,the horrible atrocities on the poor ,the slum dwellers, the pavement dwellers   is what that has made me take this initiative  🌹🙏
Mathews J Nedumpara.

Misbehaviour of D.C. against lawyers in Chandigarh

Bar Council of India prohibits Advocates from addressing the Hon’ble Courts as “MY LORD” and “YOUR LORDSHIP

Bar Council of India prohibits Advocates from addressing the Hon’ble Courts as “MY LORD” and “YOUR LORDSHIP”:

Bar Council of India by invoking its rule making powers under section 49 (i) (j) of the Advocate’s Act passed a resolution and amended the rules of the Bar Council with regard to the addressing of Judges in the Supreme Court, High Court and Sub-ordinates Court . The said resolution is circulated and intimated to all the Registrar’s of Supreme Court and High Court given below:-

Resolved that the following rule made under Section 49 (i) (j) of the Advocate’s Act 1961 be added as Chapter III A in part VI of the Bar Council of India Rules.

“Consistent with the obligation of the Bar to show a respectful attitude towards the Court and bearing in mind the dignity of Judicial office, the form of address to be adopted whether in the Supreme Court, High Court or Sub-ordinate Court should be as follow:-

“Your Honour” or “Honourable Court” in Supreme Court and High Court and in the Sub-ordinate Courts and Tribunals it is open to the Lawyers to address the Court respectfully as “Sir” or equivalent word.

EXPLANATION:- As the words “MY LORD” and “YOUR LORDSHIP” are relics of British Colonial post, it is proposed to incorporate the above rule showing respectful attitude to the Court”.

It is pertinent to note, when once a Rule is made and added to the Bar Council of India Rules and when the same is already circulated and intimated to all the Registrar’s of Supreme Court and High Court, it becomes mandatory on their part and on our part to strictly follow and implement the same.

Advocates are not allowed to openly violate the rules made by the Bar Council

The former Chief Justice of India Justice Y.K. Sabharwal has gone on record by saying as follows:-

“The Lord is only one and He is the GOD, above all of us. I am not GOD.
Judges are not GODS”.

Honourable Judge of Madras High Court, Justice K. Chandru had prohibited the Advocates from addressing the Court as “MY LORD” and “YOUR LORDSHIP” and the said Honourable Judge has put up a notice in the Court Hall which reads as follow : -

“Advocates are requested to desist from using Honorifics such as “MY LORD” and “YOUR LORDSHIP” while addressing this court by adhering to Rule No. 49 (i) (j) framed by Bar Council of India”.

Justice K. Chandru of the Madras High Court has also gone on record by saying to the lawyers to stop speaking in a fawning manner and further observed as follows:

“Make your humble submission before GOD: before me it is enough if you make simple submission”.

Two Honourable Judges of Delhi High Court namely Justice Dr. S. Muralidhar and Justice Ravindra Bhatt who in order to implement and follow the above Rule had directed the Registrars of Delhi High Court to make a note in the Daily Cause List of their respective Courts as follows:-

“Note: Advocates are requested to try and avoid addressing the judges as MY LORD and YOUR LORDSHIP”

STRENGTHEN THE JUDICIARY

🌹Dear All,
Under  the  English Common Law  which was  the law prevailing in India when India became a Republic and which was adopted to be the law of the land under Article 372 (2) of the constitution, the judges of the superior courts enjoy absolute immunity from criminal as well as  civil proceedings for whatever a judge does in  the excersise of his judicial function, howsoever,illegal or malicious it  could be, will not invest in the person injured any legal remedy;an exception to the concept that the law will  not fail to provide a remedy for a man or woman who has suffered an injury.
😳😳😳👇👇
The doctrine of absolute "immunity" which a judge is considered to be invested with has increasingly been universally  recognised to be antithetical to the concept that all power,whatsoever,  excersised by, whomsoever, occupying  a public office is a power excersised in discharge of a public trust and ,therefore, they being  holders of the public trust are liable  to account to the public for the  abuse of power by them and that  even the judges of the higher judiciary could be afforded no exception to the said democratic ethos. All democratic  countries  across the globe , save a few exceptions as ours, certain  mechanism  to secure  judicial  accountability was brought into existence. 😩😩😩😩👇👇👇Unfortunately, in our country absolutely nothing has been done in that direction .On the contrary, the SCI without any discussion, nay, in the  most arbitrarily manner,  by recourse to judicial dicta, ordered that no FIR could ever be registered even of heinous crimes  punishable under the IPC;crimes which have nothing to do with the discharge of the  judicial function by a judge;without the prior written permission of the CJI.😳😳😳😳👇An innocent man who had to  remain incarcerated in jail for 7 years for no offence committed by him  but  because of the gross failure on the part of the judge concerned who had convicted him without affording a fair trial has ,am made to understand ,has initiated certain legal proceedings. I don't have the details of the action at the hands of the unfortunate man.🌹🌹🌹🌹🌹🌹🌹🌹👇👇👇👇😩.Securing of at least some  semblance of Judicial accountability is one of the core agenda of the National Lawyers Campaign for Judicial Transparencym and Reforms.In the next meeting of the NLC, this issue will be included in the Agenda for discussion.
🌹🌹🌹🌹🌹🙏🙏🙏
P.S.
KINDLY JOIN THE NLC, STRENGTHEN THE JUDICIARY 🌹🌹🙏🙏
Mathews J Nedumpara, President, The National lawyers campaign for Judicial Transparency and Reforms.