VIOLATING MANY SUPREME COURT ORDERS AND MISUSING POWER AGAINST THE LAW
रक्षक ही भक्षक बना !
रक्षक ही भक्षक बना !
New Delhi: Writ petition has been filed against Chief Justice of
Bombay High Court Shri Pradeep Nanrajog for violating fundmental
rights of petitioner in various PIL's. The petitioner Sapan
Shrivastava claimed the violation of article 14 and 21 which is
fundamental rights of citizen. As per petitioner, Justice Pradeep nandrajog is suppressing
documents in orders and imposing heavy penalty of Rs5 Lac on petitioner in
education board PIL . He also closed the doors to exhaust remedy by ordering
ban on filing at Bombay High Court so that petitioner cannot add
documents in order by filing IAs. The Learned Judge was so bias in past
that he rejected the RTE admission of his son because the father file 25 PILs
so he cannot have income less than Rs 1Lacs. Shri Pradeep also directed to do
social service in tribal area to petitioner in railway motorman dress PIL. He
disposed his maximum PILs by casual orders against the law which is offence
under IPC 219 .
IPC 219. Public servant in judicial proceeding
corruptly making report, etc., contrary to law.—Whoever, being a public
servant, corruptly or maliciously makes or pronounces in any stage of a
judicial proceeding, any report, order, verdict, or decision which he knows to
be contrary to law, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description
for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.
The Petitioner
Sapan Shrivastava has also made respondent to Smt Bharti Dangre J and Shri Nitin
Jamdar J as they where companion judges at the time of passing order. As per
Hon'ble Supreme Court order Parliament has also no right to violate the
fundamental rights of citizens. Even Supreme Court is not putting ban on filing
of Nirbhaya Accuses to file petitions and exhaust all remedy but a party in
person is banned to secure the interest of rich people.
If Judges will
be bias then people will loose faith in judiciary .
Soon the
hearing will start at supreme court.
The Supreme Court acts as the Custodian of
Constitution of India because the Constitution itself has empowered the
Judiciary to review the laws enacted by the Parliament. Article 14 of the Constitution
states that if the law enacted by the legislature is ultra vires to the
Constitutional provisions, the Supreme Court gets the power to review and
repeal it.
Administration of justice is a
solemn and sacred function. It is not like executive function. The people of
this country have entrusted to the Judiciary very onerous responsibilities. It
is for the higher Judiciary to maintain the balance between the Executive, the
Legislature and the Judiciary. In a society governed by the rule of law,
Judiciary has a vital role to play. It is for the Judiciary to protect' the
fundamental rights of the citizens as their custodian and guardian. It is for
us to ensure that a citizen is not denied of his right of life liberty and
property except in accordance with the law. The functions which are entrusted
to the Judiciary are of utmost importance and their significance has to be
borne In mind by judicial officers. May be judicial officers may not be
performing the functions of a Constitutional Court, but the way they conduct
the proceedings in the Court in an
adversarial system, creates the confidence in the people at the grass root
level which ultimately strengthens the functioning of the entire Judicial
system.
PARLIAMENT COULD
NOT RESTRICT FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS
In Basheshar Nath v. C.I.T., it was held by the
Supreme Court that the fundamental right cannot be waived.
In Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, it was held by the
Supreme Court that although an undertaking was given by the appellants before
the High Court on behalf of the hut and pavement dwellers that they did not
claim any fundamental right to put huts on
pavements or public roads and that they will not obstruct the demolition of the
huts after a certain date, they could not be estopped from contending before
the Supreme Court that the huts constructed by them on the pavements cannot be
demolished because of their right to livelihood under Article 21 of the Constitution. From this
decision also it follows that a fundamental right cannot be waived,
and there can be no estoppel.
Anita Kushwaha vs. Pushap Sudan,
( (2016) 8 SCC 509 ) has held that access of justice is an integral part of the guarantee
contained in Article
21 and 14 of the Constitution of India which
guarantees equality before law and equal protection of law to not only citizens
but non-citizens also.
Constitution of India – Fundamental Rights under Part III and restrictions thereof – Internet Shutdown – Restrictions under Section 144, Cr.P.C. – Freedom of the Press.
Case Law Reference
- K.S. Puttaswamy (Retired) v. Union of India, (2019) 1 SCC 1
- Kwok 64 Wing Hang v. Chief Executive in Council, [2019] HKCFI 2820
- CPIO v Subhash Chandra Aggarwal, (2019) SCC OnLine SC 1459
- Modern Dental College & Research Centre v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2016) 7 SCC 353
- Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, (2015) 5 SCC 1
- State of Gujarat v. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat, (2005) 8 SCC 534
- Dharam Dutt v. Union of India, (2004) 1 SCC 712
- Om Kumar v. Union of India, (2001) 2 SCC 386
- Pratap Pharma (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Union of India, (1997) 5 SCC 87
- Sushila Saw Mill v. State of Orissa, (1995) 5 SCC 615
- Secretary, Ministry of Information & Broadcasting Government of India v. Cricket Association of Bengal, (1995) 2 SCC 161
- Odyssey Communications Pvt. Ltd. v. Lokvidayan Sanghatana, (1988) 3 SCC 410
- R. v. Oakes, (1986) 1 SCR 103
- Indian Express v. Union of India, (1985) 1 SCC 641
- R v. Goldsmith, [1983] 1 WLR 151
- Sanjeev Coke Manufacturing Company v. M/s Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., (1983) 1 SCC 147
- Bishambhar Dayal Chandra Mohan v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1982) 1 SCC 39
- Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India, (1980) 2 SCC 591
- State of Bihar v. Kamla Kant Misra, (1969) 3 SCC 337
- State of Maharashtra v. Himmatbhai Narbheram Rao, (1969) 2 SCR 392
- Mohammed Faruk v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1969) 1 SCC 853
- Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 US 444 (1969)
- Narendra Kumar v. Union of India, (1960) 2 SCR 375
- Madhya Bharat Cotton Association Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 1954 SC 634
- State of Madras v. V.G. Row, AIR 1952 SC 196
- Dennis v. United States, 341 US 494 (1951)
- Chintaman Rao v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1951 SC 118
- Abraham v. United States, 250 U.S. 616 (1919)
- Ex parte Vallandigham, 28 F. Cas. 874 (1863)
Comments
Post a Comment