By Post or Emails
Dated 7th December 2005
To,
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:-
- 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.
- 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.
- News items
published in Times of India dated 4th December 2005, relating to millions of the pending cases.
- 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.
- 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.”
- 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.”
MY SUBMISSION AND SUGGESTIONS:
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
Copies
(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.
SUGGESTIONS REFERRED IN THE WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.
151 of 1996 OF THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA:
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:
DRAFT FOR MODEL OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE
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.
MODEL OF ALTERNATIVE CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE
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.
RULES :
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.
(MILAP CHORARIA)
