Case Filed against Chief Justice Of Bombay High Court For Violation Of Fundamental Rights

VIOLATING MANY SUPREME COURT ORDERS AND MISUSING POWER AGAINST THE LAW
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 Golaknath vs. State of Punjab [(1967) 2 SCR 762 

 fundamental rights cannot be waived of. To substantiate his plea, reliance is placed on following catena of decisions:

1. R. Jambukeswaran and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., 2004(2) ATJ FB CAT 1;

2. Mani Kant Gupta and Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2004(1) ATJ 349, and

3. Union of Indian and Ors. v. Wing Commander T. Parthasarathy, 2001(1) SCC 158.

 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

1. K.S. Puttaswamy (Retired) v. Union of India, (2019) 1 SCC 1
2. Kwok 64 Wing Hang v. Chief Executive in Council, [2019] HKCFI 2820
3. CPIO v Subhash Chandra Aggarwal, (2019) SCC OnLine SC 1459
4. Modern Dental College & Research Centre v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2016) 7 SCC 353
5. Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, (2015) 5 SCC 1
6. State of Gujarat v. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat, (2005) 8 SCC 534
7. Dharam Dutt v. Union of India, (2004) 1 SCC 712
8. Om Kumar v. Union of India, (2001) 2 SCC 386
9. Pratap Pharma (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Union of India, (1997) 5 SCC 87
10. Sushila Saw Mill v. State of Orissa, (1995) 5 SCC 615
11. Secretary, Ministry of Information & Broadcasting Government of India v. Cricket Association of Bengal, (1995) 2 SCC 161
12. Odyssey Communications Pvt. Ltd. v. Lokvidayan Sanghatana, (1988) 3 SCC 410
13. R. v. Oakes, (1986) 1 SCR 103
14. Indian Express v. Union of India, (1985) 1 SCC 641
15. R v. Goldsmith, [1983] 1 WLR 151
16. Sanjeev Coke Manufacturing Company v. M/s Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., (1983) 1 SCC 147
17. Bishambhar Dayal Chandra Mohan v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1982) 1 SCC 39
18. Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India, (1980) 2 SCC 591
19. State of Bihar v. Kamla Kant Misra, (1969) 3 SCC 337
20. State of Maharashtra v. Himmatbhai Narbheram Rao, (1969) 2 SCR 392
21. Mohammed Faruk v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1969) 1 SCC 853
22. Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 US 444 (1969)
23. Narendra Kumar v. Union of India, (1960) 2 SCR 375
24. Madhya Bharat Cotton Association Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 1954 SC 634
25. State of Madras v. V.G. Row, AIR 1952 SC 196
26. Dennis v. United States, 341 US 494 (1951)
27. Chintaman Rao v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1951 SC 118
28. Abraham v. United States, 250 U.S. 616 (1919)
29. Ex parte Vallandigham, 28 F. Cas. 874 (1863)