Mumbai: Complaint Has been filed against officers of Bombay High Court Staff for obstruction to justice and not discharging their duty under directions of law. Registrar judicial, Assistant registrar and filing clerks has been made accused. The staff of bombay high court was not allowing party in person to file any affidavit, applications in pending matters of Bombay High Court. It is obstruction to justice and violation of article 14 and 21. In Past on 5 Sept 2019 Chief justice bench Mr Pradeep Nandrajog and Justice Bharti Dangre passed order to pay Rs 500000 as penalty and banned filing of petition if penalty was not paid. Earlier also the CJ BHC asked party in person to withdraw all PILs in open court in the interest of respondents. When he denied to withdraw PILs then the bias judges put hefty penalty by suppressing facts and banned filing new petition. After the Complaint to Supreme court the CJ Pradeep Nandrajog Changed the PIL assignment to Justice SC Dharmadhikari bench who was impartial judge. As per Supreme court order Parliament also can not violate the fundamental rights and No person can be restricted to approach court. The Nirbhaya accuses are also exhausting remedy before law and no ban has been imposed on them . This is the case of judicial authoritarianism against Supreme court orders.
Patna High Court,Karra Parasuramaiah vs The State Of Bihar on 2 September, 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.3659 of 2019
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.4117 of 2018
“…It must be remembered that it is the duty of every member of the legal fraternity to ensure that the image of the judiciary is not tarnished and its respectability eroded. The manner in which proceedings were taken by the learned Judge in relation to the writ petition disposed of by a Division Bench exposes a total lack of respect for judicial discipline. Judicial authoritarianism is what the proceedings in the instant case smack of. It cannot be permitted under any guise. Judges must be circumspect and self-disciplined in the discharge of their judicial functions. The virtue of humility in the Judges and a constant awareness that investment of power in them is meant for use in public interest and to uphold the majesty of rule of law, would to a large extent ensure self-restraint in discharge of all judicial functions and preserve the independence of judiciary. It needs no emphasis to say that all actions of a Judge must be judicious in character. Erosion of credibility of the judiciary, in the public mind, for whatever reasons, is the greatest threat to the independence of the judiciary. Eternal vigilance by the Judges to guard against any such latent internal danger is, therefore, necessary, lest we "suffer form self inflicted mortal wounds". We must remember that the Constitution does not give unlimited powers to anyone including the Judge of all levels…”
The Bombay High Court staff getting verbal instructions from top person and banned the petitioner to file IA in all the PILs for miscarriage of justice and accidental slip of facts in orders as per provisions of Supreme court . To benefit the various respondents the staff acted arbitrary . In the RTI reply the PIO of BHC said that no circular , GR , Notification etc has been issued to ban filing of petitioner . As per law the circular has to be passed in respect of court order. Till date no High Court banned any petitioner for filing any case across India. The accused staff followed the verbal instructions and not allowed to exhaust remedy available in Bombay High Court include review petition . The offence in complaint of CRPC 156(3) are cognizable and attract punishment upto 3 years. As per Laitha kumari Judgement the FIR is mandatory in cognizable offence.