Topic: CJI

Supreme court of India is not mere petition house for hearing all the petitions. It is right to impose restrictions on itself on not to hear all matters. It is not a munsif court that would hear everything. Art 32 has not given unfettered power that sci would have to hear anything. Already Indian judiciary is over burdened with cases. Adopting the suitable procedure it should be ensured that only such cases where interpretation of law of highest level is involved which could not be decided properly by the high courts. Supreme court is not fact finding court. What the Hon’ble CJI did is correct. If CJI could not decide anything then I shall have to gather that we are not in democracy but rather in anarchy.

Open letter to the Hon’ble Supreme Court and to all my friends and colleagues at the bar:

Casting allegations or insinuation on my Chief Justice is not just contempt of Court but is most unfortunate and a deliberate attempt to malign the repute, dignity and majesty of the Supreme Court – the highest Court of the land- an embodiment of justice.

I am sorry, but Mr Bhushan has no business to do so, and is totally out of line. He is disrespecting not just My Chief Justice, the Supreme Court, Judiciary but also our Noble Profession of law.

What he calls, unbecoming conduct referring to the Judiciary, I call unbecoming conduct of a lawyer. He is totally out of line, plain wrong and out of his mind too. He has not just committed contempt, but has also embarrassed the noble profession of law by doing this and is setting a terrible example for the young lawyers and law students who look upto him.

I stand firmly in support of my Chief Justice. He is the best Chief Justice that India has had and will have in recent times and even a better human being. Mr. Bhushan should apologise for his bad behaviour and conduct.

Regards,

Anupam Tripathi
Advocate
Supreme Court of India

The Supreme Court is mockery of democracy right from its constitution under constitution of india.The supreme court has tendency to dismiss petition slpc appeal filed through ordinary aor and filed by ordinary citizens in persobwho have no connection with judges without quoting even one reason while hears matters filed by senior advocates This court hears review petition and review application without giving opportunity of argument to ordinary lawyer and party appearing in person on other hand review petitions and application filed through senior advocates having good terms with judges are heard in open court and lawyers in these petition get opportunity of arguments
This court has no respect for constitution of India as art 32 is fundamental right and right to file petition under art 32 is fundamental right and court cannot compel petition to file application requesting supreme court to allow them to appear in person but such practice has imposed restriction and supreme court no authority to impose such restriction
I have requested public information officer of supreme court to provide
No of petition dismissed before issuance of notice
No of review petition heard in chamber without giving opportunity of argument
No of petitions heard in chamber by giving opportunity of oral argument
No of petition heard in open court by giving opportunity of hearing but no into was given to me My first appeal under rti was dismissed
I have no hope from Mr radhskrishna Mathur present CIC who is worst and is not willing to read judgments which are binding on him he has already set right to information into right to deny information.

this action shows his fear due to involvement in the case .

It is customary for India’s judiciary to interfere with the course of justice in order to pander to their pay masters. Nothing new.

In the course of several decades of “stay” Motherass High Court asked my lawyer, in open court, “If he wants to remarry, why does he not become a Moslem? Why is he still a Brahmin?”. After several years of “stay” Karinayithikka High Court tells my lawyer, in open court, that the Indian Penal Code is not applicable here because this is not the US or UK, before letting off 10 accused VIPs (from 2 years SI for defamation and 3 years RI for fabrication of evidence) against whom I had brought a cognized criminal case. Both the stay and the quashing were regardless of law, facts, evidence or procedure. On appeal, the Supreme Court declined to uphold the rule of law.

The judiciary have been enabled to be unaccountable to notions of law, equity and fair play by the executive and superior courts through social engineering appointments and immunity from impeachment among other things and by the Constitution that has enshrined exceptions to both the Rule of Law and Equality under law in the Indian Constitution. Apart from eroding competence and integrity, the resultant culture has bred insouciance and arbitrariness of a very high order. The deleterious effect of this on the National character has been as extreme as the corrosion of education for political convenience. Today the Courts are defenders of the four important principles of any Banana Republic, “Just because you did it does not mean you are criminal”, “Just because the statute book says so, does not make your actions a crime”, “Evidence lies in the perception of the judge”, and “Just because you did not do it, does not mean you are innocent”.

The climate all this has created over the last Seventy Years has ensured a playing field that favours criminals and criminals alone.

The issue is in consonance with the existing trend of Indian (rather, global) polity, society. Those at the helm think they are omni-potent and not answerable… even to the Gods. Ethics are the last strata. Are we heading towards, after committed ‘police’, committed ‘administration’ now the ‘committed’ judiciary……. where judiciary and administration work hand in glove?
May this country awake!