Make your own free website on
Judiciary is also responsible for protection of Politics-Crime-Nexus
Home | EXpert Opinion | Letter dated 12th November 2005 | Judiciary is also responsible for protection of Politics-Crime-Nexus

By Post or Emails

Dated 7th December 2005


His Excellency President of India Shri A. P. J. Kalam,

Rashtrapati Bhawan,

New Delhi


Hon’ble Prime Minister Dr. Man Mohan Singh,

New Delhi


Hon’ble Chief Justice of India Mr. Yogesh Kumar Sabharwal,

Through Mr. V. K. Jain, Registrar (Judicial), Supreme Court,

New Delhi


Shri H. R. Bharadwaj,

Union Minister of Law and Justice.

Through Law Secretary,

SH   R. L.   MEENA

New Delhi


His Excellency and Hon’ble Sirs,


In the larger public interest and in the interest of the efficacy of the Judiciary I would like to humbly submit my strong views with reference to interalia following News published in the Times of India, New Delhi editions relating to working of the Judiciary. I hope that Hon’ble Chief Justice of India would be pleased to consider it just in the larger public interest and in the interest of the efficacy of the Judiciary, not beyond that. I am referring following news items which I am using for my views and suggestions:-

  1. News item under heading “CJI tears into Bhardwaj’s remarks”, published on 27th November 2005, according to which Chief Justice of India said that “It is the duty of all concerned to guard against saying anything which might have the effect of undermining he basic and brand confidence of the people in the judiciary.” According to News CJI also said that: diplomacy is alien to the judiciary and it cannot give a judgments which please one and all. When it gives a verdict, some will be displeased and that is unavoidable. “We hear criticism that he executive is running the country at the expense of Parliament or that the courts are running the country at the expense of Parliament and the Executive.” CJI Sabharwal conceded: “Some draw backs and infirmities have crept into judicial system”. But the balance sheet showed huge faith and confidence reposed in it by common men.
  2. News published on 30th November 2005 under heading “Letter to CJI could get you justice: SC booklet”, in which it was described that letters sent to CJI relating to some specific cause of actions, would be treated as Writ Petitions.
  3. News items published in Times of India dated 4th December 2005, relating to millions of the pending cases.
  4. News Item under heading “Prez: Powers of executive have eroded”, which he commented addressing a National Legal Services’ Authority function in which Hon’ble Chief Justice of India Mr. Y K Sabharwal was also present. He made comments that powers of executive have been eroded in practice by judiciary and Parliament.
  5. News Item published on 24th November 2005 under heading: “Proposed bill on Judges shelved.” This relates to two-page reply made by out going Chief Justice of India Mr. R. C. Lahoti on 3oth October 2005 on the eve of his retirement in feedback on the proposed Judges (Inquiry) Bill to replace old act. As per news reports Justice Lahoti has commented: that “CJI should be kept out from the preview of the Act.” He further commented: “It will be a sad day when the holder of the highest office is subjected to an inquiry. It would be enough for him to step down.”
  6. News published on 25th November 2005 under heading: “Retired Indian apex court judges worst arbitrators” referring the comments made by Mr. Horoo Advani, one of the select few Indian Figures respected in the International arena. He interalia says: “They are the worst kind of arbitrators as they treat all arbitration cases as regular judicial cases. This is the reason why our retired Judges are never appointed as chairman of any of the international arbitration penal.”



Before making my submissions, I am affirming on oath that if any of the fact referred by me would be proved as false, I should be liable to face proceedings for Contempt of Hon’ble Supreme Court, without any immunity.


In the context of the News referred under Item No. 1, I call attention of Your Excellencies that fall out of the Communist regimes in several countries including Soviet Russia were caused because the People of Soviet Russia had not governed with the “Right to Expression” which inclusive of the “Right to Information”. These Rights are important instruments for survival of a democracy since these can be proved as strong tools to cause check and balances upon any wrong doings. Therefore, this is my firm view that instead of hiding of a disease this should be every one’s duty to ensure proper diagnosis and to ensure proper treatment, whether sufferer is a man or a system from a ail-ness. In this context I would like to refer my another representation dated 12th November 2005 copy of which is enclosed herewith for ready reference, which I forwarded when Law Minister Shri H. R. Bharadwaj’s comments interalia that: “Justice Krishna Iyer and Justice (P N) Bhagwati were champions of liberty. Where is that jurisprudence now? It has simply vanished and this very Supreme Court has destroyed it.” He further commented that “Lawyers are staving and they are resorting to undue methods.”.


IN the context I must refer my own sufferings from the Politics-Crime-Nexus and fairly commenting that Supreme Judiciary is equally responsible for continuation of my sufferings under such Politics-Crime-Nexus. Views expressed by Hon’ble Chief Justice of India that one cannot give a judgments which please one and all. When it gives a verdict, some will be displeased and that is unavoidable. But, I am a firm views and Hon’ble CJI would also agree me that: it does not mean that a conspiracy should be allowed to prevail in the Supreme Court not to allow one to move a Writ Petition to get justice, since in the respective matter few Renowned Lawyers of country joins hand in glow with Mafia having nexus with powerful Politicians. My charges are very serious and should be addressed either by initiating Contempt Proceedings against me otherwise allowing me to file a fresh Writ Petition.   


With regards to the News referred under item No. 2 relating to evolvement of new method of Writ Petitions under which Letter to CJI may be treated as Writ Petition. This is a first step in right direction to address grievances of people caused by bureaucracy. In this context I humbly submit with request to verify it, that this method is completely based on my ideas and concept referred in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 151 of 1996, filed before Supreme Court. In the aforesaid Writ Petition I have suggested that every Writ Petition filed by Post or otherwise should be registered as a Writ Petition, without listing them for admission. With this object I made detail suggestion to frame Rules Under Article 145(1)( c) of the Constitution. In Rules suggested by me I emphasized that without listing a Writ Petition for admission or for hearing by a Bench Right to remedy can be ensured, in most of the cases of infringement of fundamental rights, once the personnel who infringe the rights of the citizen know that his action might be answerable before Supreme Court.


With reference to News referred under Item No. 3, I must refer that in the aforesaid Writ Petition (Civil) No. 151 of 1996 I also made very important suggestions to ensure good governance, including a Model Draft for New Civil Procedure Code. I am enclosing herewith all such suggestions including detail suggestion to frame Rules Under Article 145(1)(c) of the Constitution, referred in the said Writ Petition for ready reference of Your Excellencies. This is my Humble Submissions that if my Model of Civil Procedure Code is completely adopted, I can explain that without much of new Infrastructure or new Post of Judges it will ensure expeditious Civil Justice Delivery System at the trial courts levels most importantly with improved judicial quality. Judgment with improved judicial quality would impose an practical restrain upon the litigant people who at present are rushing for filing of large numbers of Appeals and then Second Appeals and then SLP, which would ultimately save valuable time of High Courts and Supreme Court to use for betterment of Judicial System. I have taken great pain to make in depth study of the related matters to develop such suggestions. However, on 29th March 1996 the Hon’ble Court of Chief Justice of India, headed by as then was Mr. A. M. Ahmadi in open Court praised for the work done by me and also passed order with reference to my suggestion relating to framing of Rules under Article Article 145(1)( c) of the Constitution: “Place this petition before Hon’ble Chief Justice of India on he Administrative side to consider the regulation of Public Interest Litigation Petitions.”, in spite of the fact that my suggestions were related to filing of all types of Writ Petitions. His Lordship also suggested me to forward Draft of Model for Civil Procedure Code prepared by me to the Law Commission of India. I forwarded it to the Chairman of the Law Commission of India by Registered Post. But, after some time Hon’ble Chief Justice of India as then was Mr. A. M. Ahmadi himself appointed a Committee for recommendation on Civil Procedure Code, which should have been constituted only with reference to said Writ Petition. In fact amendments subsequently made in the Civil Procedure Code were based on Ideas and concept adopted from my Draft of Model for Civil Procedure Code, without recognizing my name or my work, in violation of my “Rights of Copyrights”. Here, once again I submit that if my Model of New Civil Procedure Code would be adopted it would develop a system under which new-comer advocates gets a new avenue to get training for their profession in better way with good experiences with improvement of the professional skills with good income, self reliance and dependence.    


From the rest News Items, this is ample clear that one Constitutional authority is blaming another one for eroding other’s authority, by crossover the Jurisdictions. With regards to Parliament and Executive I am not making any comments, since in my views today’s Politicians are product of a faulty system borrowed from British system, without analyzing that in the context of the Varied Nature of the Indian society and culture and other human weaknesses what would be the result? 


Therefore my statement is fully in respect to functioning of Judiciary. Whenever any one suffers from excess caused by Executive or Administration or even from Parliament he expects that he would get true justice from the Judiciary. In this context this is very important that “Scissors’ wife must be above any of suspicion”. Even slightest mistake at least from Supreme Judiciary can cause severe damage with severe impact upon the democratic system and setup. I fully agree with the balance sheet showed by Hon’ble CJI Yogeshwar Kumar Sabharwal that huge faith and confidence reposed in it by common men. But at the same time I want to point out that from this, it should not be assessed that every thing is going in right direction. For the betterment of Judicial efficacy this would be important to invite fair criticism, which will give a chance to review its situation, as Hon’ble CJI Sabharwal also conceded by saying that “Some draw backs and infirmities have crept into judicial system”. When we talking about Supreme Court, it means it always inclusive of its Registry and Lawyers. Supreme Court can restrain even fair criticism from people by using Contempt of Court proceedings, but this would not improve the system, rather further widen the scope for draw backs and infirmities into judicial system. For instance, my matter was not a matter relates to any Judgment, where it can be claimed that one cannot please one and all. But my mater is relating to conspiracy going on against me in the Supreme Court to cause barricades to obstruct me from moving a Writ Petition, under hand in glow between the respective Lawyers and Respective Officials of the Registry, by misusing their influence or powers, whether they were acted under instructions from any Judge or not I can’t say. However, Supreme Court Registry illegally and criminally refused to register my Writ Petition without any authority or powers. This is my firm charges that in my matter Supreme Court acted to protect Politics-Crime-Nexus between most corrupt politician of the country Shri Jyoti Basu and Mafia Leader Sanjay Kumar Jhunjhunwala, suggesting that Supreme Court have establishes that Judiciary is law unto themselves even above the citizen's rights and Constitutional mandate, contrary to intention of the framers of the Constitution, and that Right to Remedy is not protected in the Supreme Court against influential people, otherwise I am ready to justify if a Contempt Proceeding initiated against me that respective Officials of the Supreme Court Registry acted to cause severe damage to the efficacy of the Judiciary. This type of selective and protective actions cannot protect huge faith and confidence reposed in judiciary by common men forever or for all the times. Therefore, this is my Humble Submission to looked in to my matters, referred in Writ Petitions, since my sufferings is not only extra-ordinary in nature in the entire country, based on open misuse of the powers and abuse of the Authority, but some thing may be exposed beyond it.               


With reference to news relating to important issue of “Accountable Judiciary”, a serious but important question arises whether a SC Judge including Chief Justice is a human being or not? As per Supreme Court Judgments, every SC Judge is also a human being. Therefore another question arises whether being a human being SC Judges including Chief Justice by human error or otherwise can misuse his powers or authority or not? In the light of various SC Judgments this can be easily assumed that when a Judgment of a Bench even headed by Chief Justice is possible as mockery of Justice or a CJI is liable to be prosecuted as per Judgment dated 25th July 1991 in K. Veeraswamy’s Criminal Appeal No. 400 of 1979: (1991) 3 SCC Pages 655 to 755. Therefore, there is no logic to consider a CJI as above the law. In fact in a democracy, such mindset to consider any one including President, Prime Minister and CJI beyond the law are infected with imperialistic attitude with complete contradictory to basic democratic principle and rule that: “no one is above the law”. This attitude is nothing but to protect the scope of non-performance of Constitutional duties or protection of wrong performance. If a Chief Justice of Supreme Court is above the Law he should not have been required to swear an Oath under the Constitution. When he takes Oath it means he agreed to abide by the law and the Constitution.   


In my view, based on my own sufferings in my own Writ Petitions, if Supreme Court, would not have tried to establish that Judiciary is law unto themselves even above the citizen's rights and Constitutional mandate, contrary to intention of the framers of the Constitution, in such case Supreme Court could have easily checked upon the development of large-scale mafia activities under Nexus with powerful politicians. In the recent period, the attitude and mindset of Supreme Court is changed to ensure reduction of litigations without ensuring that quality of justice must be maintained. In this context I must refer another News published at the First Page of the Times of India dated 25th November 2005 under heading: “Raped daughter says he didn’t do it. What now?”. If the story referred in the News is at all true than it indicating that respective judgment pronounced by Supreme Court failed to ensure justice to an accused, and punished him for a crime, which he did not committed.    


I fully agree with the suggestion made by Justice Lahoti, that “before any preliminary enquiry calling of comments from the Judge shout to be proceeded against before making any inquiry”. Rather I am of the view that system should ensure that no one dare to misuse the “Inquiry Forum”, for any wrong intention. My further firm views are that Judicial Accountability Council should not be within the frame work of the Supreme Court, rather it should be a separate Institution, as I am suggesting since 2000, which I have referred in various representations including last one dated 9th November 2005 to Shri H. R. Bharadwaj, Union Minister of Law and Justice, through Law Secretary, SH   R. L.   MEENA, with copies to (1) His Excellency Shri A. P. J. Kalam, President of India, (2)   Hon’ble Chief Justice of India Shri Yogesh Kumar Sabharwal, (3)    Shri Milon Banerjee, Attorney General of India, (4)  Dr. K. N. Chaturvedi, Member-Secretary, Law Commission of India and (5)    Dr. Abhishekh Singhvi, Sr. Advocate, Supreme Court of India, and also referred after my this Letter. 


I hope that Your Excellencies would consider my suggestions just in the larger public interest, democratic values, and also in the larger interest of the efficacy of the judiciary. 


With Best Regards,

Yours faithfully,



Milap Choraria

National Convenor

Movement for Accountability to Public

B-5/52, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi-110085


(1) Former Chief Justice of India Justice J. S. Verma, (2) Former Attorney-General of India Shri Soli J Sorabjee, (3)    Shri Milon Banerjee, Attorney General of India, (4)  Dr. K. N. Chaturvedi, Member-Secretary, Law Commission of India, (5) Dr. L. M. Singhvi, and (6)    Dr. Abhishekh Singhvi, Sr. Advocates of Supreme Court of India either by Email or by Post 











In my Book: A MODEL OF NEW CONSTITUTION FOR INDIA I suggested Constitution of “National Judicial Commission” and its functions in the following manner:  


National Judicial Commission:

(1)    There shall be a National Judicial Commission consisting of all retired Chief Justices of India and other retired Judges of Supreme Court, barring those who are holding any other office of any commission or those whose health does not permits, or those named for any doubt full conduct. The Chairman of the Commission shall be Senior Most Member of the commission on the basis of service records.

(2)    Every member of the National Judicial Commission, time to time, shall be allotted their respective serial numbers on the basis of their seniority, to use at the time of their appointment as a member of a particular Bench.

(3)    No Bench of the Judicial Commission shall be constituted less than seven or more than eleven members.

(4)    Every Bench shall be constituted through a predetermined mechanism, under which no member shall be appointed in two Benches, until all of its members shall be appointed in one of the Bench. This shall be ensured under such mechanism that after every three months every member shall rotate from one Bench to another Bench. Such mechanism shall be evolved by a Bench of National Judicial Commission consisting of all members and shall be transparent to public. A supervising committee consisting of nine seniors most members of the National Judicial Commission shall supervise the compliance of such mechanism.

(5)    Entire proceeding of every Bench of the National Judicial Commission shall be transparent to public and shall be recorded.

(6)    A Bench of National Judicial Commission, consisting of all of its members, shall also make similar provisions and procedures for the State Judicial Commissions.           


Supreme Court

(1)    There shall be a Supreme Court of Bharat consisting of a Chief Justice of Bharat and other number of Judges, as may be recommended time to time, by the National Judicial Commission and sanctioned by the President in consultation with the Government of Bharat.

(2)    Every Judge of the Supreme Court shall be appointed, minimum for seven years, by the President by warrant under his hand and seal on the basis of the recommendations by the National Judicial Commission, after satisfaction on merit.

(3)    The age of a person, to be appointed as a judge of Supreme Court, shall not be more than 58 years, at the time of appointment and shall hold such office till attain the age of 65 years.

(4)    A person shall not be qualified for appointment as a Judge of Supreme Court, unless he is Origin born Bharatiya, and has been for at least seven years a judge of any High Court or is an regular practitioner as Senior Advocate of Supreme Court for more than 10 years.

(5)    The Chief Justice of Bharat Should be appointed, for at least three years and not more than five years, by the President on the recommendations of the full Bench of National Judicial Commission, amongst Judges of the Supreme Court, on the basis of names forwarded by Central Government after considering the names forwarded by the Full Bench (barring the judges named for the considerations) of the Supreme Court.

(6)    A Judge of the Supreme Court, including Chief Justice of Bharat, can be removed by the Full Bench of National Judicial Commission, on the basis of enquiry and investigation made by a judicial committee constituted for the purpose, consisting of one Supreme Court Judge and two Chief Justices of different High Courts.

(7)    A Supreme Court Judge shall not contest any election of any office referred under this Constitution and shall not plead or act in any Court or accept any other job, except as a Chairman or member of any Commission constituted in accordance with the provisions provided under this Constitution, at least for five years from his retirement or resignation or removal.

(8)    Oath.

(9)    Violation of the Oath taken by a Supreme Court Judge shall evident his incompetence to continue as a Supreme Court Judge.

Likewise provisions with some deference have been suggested for the State Judicial Councils.





That I always intended to work for improvement of the system and accordingly in or about 1983 I developed and innovated a Model of New Civil Procedure Code under which justice in Civil Litigations could be possible in expeditious manner, without requirement of much of new infrastructures, or judicial workforce, which in 1985 I forwarded by Registered Post to then Union Law Minister Shri Asok Sen, and after several reminders, in March 1995 I also forwarded by Registered Post to the then Hon’ble Chief Justice of India, as then was Mr. A. M. Ahmadi and then referred in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 151 of 1996 filed on 7th February 1996 before Supreme Court, in which I suggested five suggestions for appropriate changes in existing laws or enactment of new laws. However in the said Writ Petition on 29th March 1996 order was passed without any relevance with the Prayers that “Place this petition before Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India on the administrative side to consider the regulations of Public Interest Litigations”. My object and purpose behind respective suggestion was to define the “appropriate proceedings” for Writ Petitions filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, as such in the said Writ Petition I suggested appropriate Rules Under Article 145 (1) (c) of the Constitution. In the said Writ Petition (Civil) No. 151 of 1996 detail suggestions for appropriate changes in existing Law or enactment of new Law, with reference to following National issues of Larger Public importance:-

(a)     Suggestion on Representation of the People Act. (With object to regulate the Political Parties through a Common Bye-Laws);

(b)     Suggestion for amendment in Section 197 of Criminal Procedure Code and 19 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 to make the Politicians holding High Offices, Public Servants, and Judges accountable before the Law for their Criminal Misconduct;

(c)      Suggestion on Official Secrets Act to ensure transparency in the Government functioning;

(d)    Draft of Model Civil Procedure Code to ensure adjudication of Civil Litigations within Two Years from the date of filing without much of new infrastructure and Judicial Workforce. Under the Draft of the Model Code, people who intended to misuse the platform of the Courts to legitimize their illegal acts, by filing Civil Suits to blackmail the opponent to be refrained to do so.

(e)    Draft of Rules under Article 145 (1) (c) of the Constitution to define appropriate proceedings for Writ Petition, in accordance with Guarantees under Article 32 of the Constitution.


I reproducing the Draft of Model of New Civil Procedure Code, submitted by me in

said Writ Petition:


In view of the considerations, that Justice means Justice in time, the Petitioner had prepared a model of Civil Procedure Code to suggest the replacement against the existing Civil Procedure Code. All concerned may agree with that “Justice delayed Justice denied” in real sense due to long-long-time-taking procedures adopted under the said code for Civil litigations. Such serious situation is responsible for increase of crimes related to such civil litigations.


In the year of 1983-84, the Petitioner had made an indepth study of Civil Procedure Code and its 51 Orders, 703 Rules, and thousands Sub-Rules, besides 151 Sections and several hundred sub-sections and found that the object behind these provisions were to ensure free and fair justice. Butter mixed with honey will be poisonous. Likewise, good Civil Procedure Coder prepared in the line of law in United Kingdom, in India, became instrumental to misuse the Administration of Justice to harass and blackmail the opponents. Some people files litigations thinking that they can obstruct the object of opponent for several years. A democracy cannot survive for a long time unless Justice is protected and ensured. Having this concept in mind, the petitioner had written about the said Model of Civil Procedure Code to the then Law and Justice Minister Shri Asok Sen by letter dated 15th March, 1985 by Regd. Post. In view of Reforms, Globalisation and open Market Economy, the said Model Code has now became more important and the petitioner have understood that their Lordships are eager to evolve a Judicial system under Free, Fair and Fast adjudication of the litigations can be possible. The main reasons for delay in litigations are unwarranted adjournments of trials on various grounds, interlocutory proceedings, which is removed in his model, from the business of trial courts and Advocates have given much more responsibilities, in depth involvement in Administration of Justice and made accountable to their clients.


Model Code was prepared to ensure the Free, Fair and Fast Justice within time bound program described as under:-

                        Service of summons                                                       40 Days

                        Collection of documents by the

Advocates of defendants 60 Days

                        Filling of the Defence                                                      60 Days

                        Interrogations and answers from both

side parties 60 Days

                        Recording of evidence                                                     90 Days

                        Finding of Facts                                                              90 Days

                        Judgments                                                                                 60 Days

                        Maximum adjournments permissible                                60 Days

                                                                                                                        520 Days

Execution of Judgments (If Appeal not filed) 180 Days Total           700 Days


Under this model code, adjudication of litigation, is divided in to four parts. Up to the interrogatories and answers, the record of the suit will kept with the court of the Registrar at a Sub-division level, who will also maintain Registers for the following business:-

a)      Registration of all litigations in one Register irrespective of any Police Stations under the Sub-division.

b)      Publication of a List of the Penal of Advocates; (the entire list of Members of a Bar Association of a Sub-Division will constitute such list on seniority basis.

c)       Filing of the evidences recorded by the Penal Advocates of the litigation who will be appointed on rotation basis.

d)      Allotment of litigations for the courts of Munsif on rotation basis to record findings of facts.

e)      After return of the file of litigation from the concerned court of Munsif, allotment of litigation to a court of Asst. Dist. Judge to pronounce its Judgment.


Now the Petitioner would like to present a brief note on the orders of Model suggested Code which will ensure the Justice within prescribed period irrespective of all consideration.


ORDER-I: Parties to the Suit (against the existing Order I and part of Order XXII) : All interested parties have right to file, participate or defend any suit subject to bear full actual cost including damage due to suit, if failed to establish his / their claim or defence.


ORDER- II: Suits (against existing orders II, IV, VII, XI, XIV): a plaintiff shall file the plaint in prescribed form alongwith duplicate copies of all documents in his possession and on which he relies to file the suit; list of documents which would not be in his possession but at the same time, he relies his claim giving the name and address of possessors of such documents, if plaintiff knows; suggested issues; list of witness all pleadings with full facts and full court fees before the Registrar of Trial Courts at a sub-division  (There will be no provisions for amendment of plaint or pleadings)   


ORDER-III: Recognised agents and pleaders (against existing Order III) : The Advocate of the plaintiff would be accountable to serve the summons and Advocate of the Defendants would be accountable to receive the (copy of the) plaint and other documents from the Court of Registrar. Such Advocates would work in real sense as court officers as well as agents of their clients.


ORDER-IV:            Summons:

(a)    The Advocate being the agent of the plaintiff as the Court Officer in concerned litigation would serve the, summon within 30 days from the date of filing of litigation through his own men as well as by Regd. Post. If in both manner, the service of summon is not possible, he will publish notice in two local newspapers of sub-division stating suit No. name of the Court of Registrar, name and address of the plaintiff and defendants and himself, without referring the cause of the suit. The date of publication of such notice should be treated as service of summons.

(b)    Copies of the plaint and all other documents would not required to send along with the, summon, but shall be deposited with Registrar, from whom, the Advocate being the agent(s) of defendant(s) would, collect such copies within 7 days from the date of service of summons.

(c)    The Advocate of the plaintiff would be empowered to sign the summons in the capacity of court officer in the concerned litigation.


ORDER-V: DEFENCE (against existing Orders VIII, VVV-A, IX, XII and XXIII): The Written Statement under existing code would be replaced by the word defence. The opposite parties shall file their defence within 60 days from the date of service of summons in the same manner of the plaint, alongwith Xerox copies of all documentary evidence in his defence, if any, have in his possession, list of any documents if not in his possession with name and address of possessors of the same, if he knows, list of witnesses in support of his defence, and list of additional issues, if any.


ORDER-VI Documents (Against Existing Order XIII): The discovery of documents would be submitted alongwith the plaint. Under the model Code, the possessor of any documents relating to any litigation automatically become the Receiver of the particular documents in his possession for time being, till disposal of the concerned litigation and should supply True Photocopies of such documents on payment of cost within 7 days from the date of notice from the Advocate of either side in the said litigation.


ORDER-VII: Adjournment: (Against existing Order XVII) Adjournment for total period of 60 days between the filing of the litigation and Judgment can be granted by the District Judge only.


ORDER-VIII:            Interlocutory Orders:

Interlocutory orders like temporary injunction can be granted by the Appellate Court only, which will not effect the adjudication of the main suit at trial courts.


ORDER-IX: Affidavit, the provision will remain as existing, under order IX.


ORDER-X:            Interrogatories:

(a)                Under the proposed code, interrogatories will become a necessary part of the proceedings of the suit, which also will help judiciary to give findings and judgments on the more stronger basis.

(b)                After filing defence by the defendants, in a suit, both the parties will, if any, make a questionnaires in a prescribed form within a limited period, upon opponent parties who in his turn shall bound to make answers within prescribed times in prescribed form, otherwise shall be debarred from contesting the suit.


ORDER-XI:            Jurisdiction:

Instead of present jurisdiction of trial courts based on Police Station, all Civil Suits within all Police Stations under a particular Sub-Division shall be comprised as one Jurisdiction to be vested in the Court of Registrar of such Sub-Division.


ORDER-XII: Recording of Evidences:

(a)                A Court Officer would be appointed for this purpose from penal of Advocates amongst all members of local Bar of a Sub-Division which shall be declared on the first day of each year, without delisting anyone, but on the basis of seniority.

(b)                Recording of the evidences of the witnesses would be duty of this penal;

(c)                This will be the duty of the plaintiff/defendant to produce his witnesses: before the Court Officer within prescribed time to record evidence in presence of the both side Advocates and parties and within the area of court compound;

(d)                Evidences given by the witnesses would be recorded by the Advocates from the said penal on the rotation basis, and in presence of parties and Advocates of both side parties, and signatures of the witnesses, Advocates, of both side parties as well as parties would be taken over in the prescribed form on which evidence would be recorded.

(e)                Evidences would be recorded in triplicate with the help of carbon paper and one copy each would be served to the first Plaintiff and defendant respectively just at the moment of recording of evidence and original would be submitted before the Registrar of the Trial Courts. Xerox Copies of recorded evidence shall be supplied to other plaintiffs or defendants, if any, after certifying as true copy by the Penal Advocate / Court Officers.


ORDER-XIII: FINDINGS: On the basis of allegations, claims made by the plaintiffs the defence filed by the defendants, answer made by both side parties against interrogatories submitted by either party and evidence recorded by the Advocate Penal, the Court of Munsif will make its findings of facts on the prescribed form.


ORDER-XIV: Judgment and Execution of Decree:

On the basis of findings made by the Court of Munsif, the Judgment of the suit after hearing both parties, would be given by a Sub-Judge, who will be assigned the Suit on rotation basis, considering all facts relates to merit of the case and legal side of the suit. If decree is passed, a copy of finding as well as Judgment would be served upon defendant’s Advocate fixing the date of execution of decree. No separate case will be required to be filed for execution of decree under proposed code, but this will be duty of the court to execute the order of decree, if not appealed.


ORDER-XV: COST; If plaintiff succeeds in establishing his case on the basis of merit, he will be entitled to get entire actual cost of the suit and damage caused thereof incurred y him. On the other hand, if he fails in establishing his claim on the basis of merit, he would be compelled to pay all actual expenses and damages incurred y the defendants. If any case lost by either party for the technical or any ground of law, no order would be passed as to the cost.

         She against he in case of female.


(Suggestions to amend or change in the Representatives of Peoples Act)

Suggestion: (1) Power of Election Commission of India to frame Model-By-Laws for Political Parties: The Commission shall have powers to make and / or frame Model-By-Laws to regulate all the matters, affairs, and election, based on representative character, at all level of organizational set up of all Political parties in the country.

Suggestion: (2) Notification of Model-By-Laws

(a)    The Commission, after framing of Draft for Model-By-Laws shall serve copies of the same to all Political Parties, registered with the Election Commission, to submit suggestions for omissions or additions etc., within 6 months from the date of service.

(b)    After receipt of all such suggestions, if any, the Commission shall held joint meeting of all the Political Parties and take a decision on final Model-By-Laws. 

(c)     Within 30 days from the said joint meeting the Commission shall notify the Model-By-Laws for Political Parties, which shall be binding on all Political parties.

Suggestion: (3) Registration of Existing Political Parties:

Within Three Months from the Notification of Model-By-Laws, all Political Parties shall adopt the same and inform to the Commission, otherwise Registration of Existing Political Party automatically stands cancelled.

Suggestion: (4) Registration of New Political Parties:

Any Political Party will be entitled to get registered with the Commission after adoption of Model-By-Laws.

Suggestion: (5) Power of Commission to deregistration a Political Party:

The Commission shall have powers to deregister a Political Party if on enquiry and after hearing satisfy that Model-By-Laws is highly violated.


(Suggestions to amend in Section 197 of Criminal Procedure Code)

After omission of Existing Clause (4) NEW CLAUSE (4) shall be inserted

NEW CLAUSE (4) The Central Government or State Government as the case may be, shall grant or refuse the previous / according sanction within six months from the date of original application for sanction, otherwise the same shall be deemed to be granted / accorded.

CLAUSE (5) The Prosecution proceeding against the Prime Minister of India, Chief Minister of a State, Public Servant holding Post of Secretary rank in the Central or State Government service, any Judge or Magistrate Posted at any District within territory of India shall be filed before Supreme Court.

CLAUSE (6) The Prosecution proceeding against any Minister of a State, and / or Public Servant All-India service (IAS, IPS, and ALLIED Services) except those referred under Clause (5) shall be filed before a High Court having Local Jurisdiction in the matter.

CLAUSE (7) The Prosecution proceeding against any Public Servant except those referred under Clause (5) and (6) shall be filed before a Court of District Session Judge, having Local Jurisdiction in the matter.

CLAUSE (8) Filling Court, after ex-party Prima facie satisfaction (of) complaint, shall transfer the prosecution proceeding for trial and adjudication to any of its sub-ordinate Court(s)

CLAUSE (9) Filling Court, for its ex-party Prima facie satisfaction can call for any record from any authority.


The provisions of Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 shall be amended accordingly.


Suggestions With Regards to Official Secrets Act.

Suggestion (1) DEFINITION : (A) The all activities matters and affairs directly relating with the safety, security and integrity of the Country shall be constitutes as Category “S” (The “S” denotes to secrecy); (B) All other activities matters and affairs, which not covers under Category “S” of Central Government or State Governments or Governmental organisations; Corporations; bodies; public undertaking; public Limited Companies; shall be constitutes as Category “T” (The “T” denotes to Transparent)


Suggestion (2) Right of the Citizen to receive Certified Copy and /or information of any activities matters and affairs relating to Category “T”  

                        Citizen of India have Right to get Certified copy of information, as the Case may be, with regards to activities, matters and affairs of Category “T” on payment of actual cost and fees of stamp as may be prescribed by the authority.


Suggestion (3) Right to Refuse to provide Certified Copy or information:-   

                        Certified copy or information, if applied under suggestion (2) can be refused by the concerned authority describing such activities, matters and affairs under Category “S” which applicant described as Category “T”.


Suggestion (4) Punishment: The misuse of the provisions provided under Suggestion (2) and (3) against national interests or to escape from and to protect some one from prosecution shall be construed as commitment of offence punishable under Indian Penal Code.


Suggestion (5) Punishment for Refusal: If any authority or person wrongfully refuse to provide Certified copy or information if, applied under Suggestion (2) and (3) as the case may be, shall be punishable for six months simple imprisonment and for subsequent refusal the imprisonment shall be doubles.


RULES under sub-clause (c) clause (1) of Article 145 of the Constitution of India, to define appropriate proceedings for Civil Reliefs.


1.                   No premature petition as Remedy for enforcement of Fundamental Rights conferred under Part III of the Constitution for the directions or orders or writs in the nature of Mandamus and / or prohibition, in the matters of civil in nature, shall be filed.

2.                   Maturity shall be construed on expiry of 30 days from the date of Demand for enforcement of Fundamental Rights served upon the head of a Department concerned, against which charges of negligence, or inaction or action which violates the fundamental Rights of any Citizen is made, with clear reference of the matter of violation of particular Article and within said period of 30 days no action on the part of the said head of the said Department is taken to correct the said violation.

3.                   Writ Petition shall be contained the following facts in the first Paragraph.

(a)   Date of violation of fundamental rights;

(b)   Name of the person (public servants accountable for violation of fundamental rights);

(c)    Matter in brief;

(d)   Department, to whom Notice of Demand under Rule (2) has been served demanding enforcement of Fundamental Rights but in vain;

(e)   Thereafter in subsequent paragraphs all facts should be stated in detail in chronological order; and

(f)     Writ Petition should be supported by an affidavit.

4.                   The Cabinet Secretary and / or Chief Secretary of the Central Government and / or respective State shall be made first respondent in the Writ Petition as the case may be. The Head of the respective departments and public servants responsible for violation of the Fundamental Rights shall be subsequent Respondents.

5.                   The Petition can be sent by Registered Post or filed personally before Registrar of Supreme Court.

6.                   THAT After receipt of such Writ Petition, the Registrar shall allot the Temporary Writ Petition (Civil) Number to the Petitioner.

7.                   After receipt of the Temporary Writ Petition (Civil) Number, the Petitioner shall sent a copy of the Writ Petition by Registered Post to each Respondent, informing them that Petition has been Registered as a Temporary Writ Petition (Civil) being Number under Rule 6.

8.                   This will be mandatory duty of each Respondent to file his Reply mentioning each and every fact in detail with photocopies of supporting evidence, if any, supported by affidavit, within 3o days from the date of receipt of copy of such Temporary Writ Petition (Civil). Such Reply shall not hide any thing about the matter referred in the Writ Petition.

9.                   That any thing contained false in the Writ Petition and Reply thereof, filed under Rule 3 and 8 shall be construed as Contempt of the Supreme Court, and person, who affirm such affidavit containing false statement shall be liable for contempt proceeding before Supreme Court.

10.               The each Respondent shall have duty to serve a copy of the reply with all annexures to the Writ Petitioner within 7 days from the date of affidavit, at the address mentioned in the Writ Petition.

11.               That if any of the Respondent restored the Fundamental Rights before affirmation of the affidavit under Rule 8 and the Writ Petitioner satisfy with the same, he shall convey the same to the Registrar of the Supreme Court and in such event such Writ Petition shall disposed off accordingly. Before the disposal the Petitioner of such Petition shall file affidavit(s) confirming the same things, within 30 days from the date of service of Reply by the Respondent.

12.               That if Writ Petitioner not satisfy, with the affidavit (together with reply) of any of the Respondent, he shall file Counter affidavit before the Registrar of Supreme Court, within 30 days from the date of Reply served by the Respondent(s).

13.               That after Counter affidavit from the Writ Petitioner, the Registrar of Supreme Court shall Register, the same as Regular Writ Petition and listed the same for hearing.

14.               That Regular Writ Petition shall be heard on merit by a Division Bench of Supreme Court.

15.               In case of any urgency, a Petitioner can move for any urgent relief with the leave of the Supreme Court without applying any of the above Rules.




Enter content here

Enter supporting content here