सिविल जज को नहीं पसंद भ्रष्टाचार रोकने वाली याचिका,बिना नियम लिखे आदेश पारित करते है.
2 COMPLAINTS FILED FOR JUDICIAL IMPROPRIETY WITH DISTRICT JUDGE SHRI AK BHATIA FOR ACTION.
VIOLATING SUPREME COURT ORDER OF ACCESS TO JUSTICE, NOT ALLOWING TO EXHAUST REMEDY AS PER SUPREME COURT PROVISIONS IN UMARIA.
CHALLANGING SUPREME COURT AUTHORITY IN UMARIA REGION.
आदिवासी जिले में न्याय की अनदेखी की शिकायत ...
Umaria MADHYA PRADESH : Civil Judge Rajesh Kumar Tiwari ने याचिककर्ता को बंद हुए केस में misc application नही दायर करने दिया । हाल ही में बिना नियम लिखे कई याचिका खारिज कर दी। यह सब याचिका सरकारी भ्रष्टचार और सेवा से जुड़ी थी। जज को अपनी मर्जी से याचिका खारिज करने का कोई अधिकार नहीं । कुछ जुडिशल अफसर सोचते है की कुछ भी आदेश पारित कर दो फिर मामला यहाँ बंद हो जाएगा और याचिकाकर्ता हाई कोर्ट जाए। यही इनका अनुभव कम पड़ गया , याचिकाकर्ता ने आदेश ठीक करने के लिए APPLICATION फाइल करनी शुरू कर दी और कई सुप्रीम कोर्ट के आदेश का हवाला दिया की कोर्ट को अपनी गलती ठीक करनी चाहिए और नियम अनुसार काम करना चाहिए। इसलिए श्री राजेश तिवारी ने सिर्फ एक बंद केस में एप्लीकेशन लिया और अन्य बंद केस को खोलने से मना कर दिया। यह सुप्रीम कोर्ट की अवमानना है। सुप्रीम कोर्ट के दिशनिर्देशों के अनुसार बंद हुई याचिका में एप्लिकेशन लगाई गई। याचिका में सभी नियम कानून और citations का उल्लेख किया गया। कुछ केस बिना बोर्ड पर लिस्ट किए सुनवाई शुरू कर देते है और आर्डर भी पास कर देते है। न अनावेदक से लिखित उत्तर लेते है न लिख कर देने का समय देते है। नियम बताने पर भी नियम नहीं लिखते है और अनावेदक जैसा बर्ताव करते है। यह न्याय के सिद्धांत का हनन है। ये principle of natural justice का violation है। जज राजेश तिवारी अपनी मर्ज़ी से order लिख देते है और बहस में नियम कानून का उल्लेख नहीं करते। उनको पता है कि अगर याचिकाकर्ता की बाते लिखी तो काम करना पड़ेगा जिससे बड़े अधिकारी नाराज़ हो जाएंगे। इसलिए गलत बात लिख कर order pass करते है। सुप्रीम कोर्ट के नियम अनुसार जब order में अपनी बात डालने के लिए आर्जी लगाई तो बंद कमरे मे उसको खारिज कर दिया। जब दो और application देने गए तो लेने से मना कर दिया। यह न्याय के सिद्धांत का उल्हंगन है। यह सुप्रीम कोर्ट के access to justice के order ka violation है.
Civil judge Rajesh Kumar Tiwari passing orders without backing of law in arbitrary manner and without judicial mind in the interest of respondents. He is not recording the submission made by petitioner during argument . It is violation of rule of law. As per supreme court order the judge has to impartial and follow law . He cannot go beyond the constitution as per his will. But Rajesh Tiwari is passing orders contrary to the law. He is not rectifying error in the interest of well wishers as per supreme court provisions. He is violating Apex court ruling of Akram Ansari vs chief election commissioner. Now he not allowing to file application in other disposed matters and obstructing to justice. It will attract contempt case as per SC Full bench ruling in Anita kushwaha Kushwaha vs pushpa sadan 2016 .
As per Allahabad high court ruling judge is god and he cannot do mistake. His act is called judicial authorism and impropriety. Doing injustice in day light will attract contempt action before supreme court. Judge can not violate constitutional rights of citizen and it is their duty to provide fair justice as per rule of law.
HOW A JUDGE/JUDICIAL OFFICER SHOULD ACT
Supreme Court of India
Sadhna Chaudhary vs The State Of Uttar
Pradesh on 6 March, 2020
“20.
It has amply been reiterated by this Court that judicial officers must aspire
and adhere to a higher standard of honesty, integrity and probity. Very
recently in Shrirang Yadavrao Waghmare v. State of
Maharashtra7,
a Division Bench of this Court very succinctly collated these principles and
reiterated that:
“5. The
first and foremost quality required in a Judge is integrity. The need of
integrity in the judiciary is much higher than in other institutions. The
judiciary is an institution whose foundations are based on honesty and
integrity. It is, therefore, necessary that judicial officers (2019) 9 SCC
144.
Page11
should possess the sterling quality of integrity. This Court in Tarak
Singh v. Jyoti Basu [Tarak Singh v. Jyoti Basu, (2005) 1 SCC 201] held as follows:
(SCC p. 203) “Integrity is the hallmark of judicial discipline, apart from
others. It is high time the judiciary took utmost care to see that the temple of justice does not crack from
inside, which will lead to a catastrophe in the justice delivery system resulting in the failure of public confidence
in the system. It must be remembered that woodpeckers inside pose a larger
threat than the storm outside.”
6.
The behaviour of a Judge has to be of an
exacting standard, both inside and outside the court. This Court in Daya Shankar v. High Court of Allahabad [Daya Shankar v. High Court of Allahabad, (1987) 3 SCC 1:1987
SCC (L&S) 132] held thus: (SCC p.1) “Judicial
officers cannot have two standards, one in the court and another outside the
court. They must have only one standard of rectitude, honesty and integrity.
They cannot act even remotely unworthy of the office they occupy.”
7.
Judges are also public servants. A Judge
should always remember that he is there to serve the public. A Judge is judged
not only by his quality of judgments but also by the quality and purity of his
character. Impeccable integrity should be reflected both in public and
personal life of a Judge. One who stands in judgments over others should be
incorruptible. That is the high standard which is expected of Judges.
8.
Judges must remember that they are not merely employees but hold high public office. In R.C. Chandel v. High Court of M.P. [R.C. Chandel v. High Court of M.P., (2012) 8 SCC 58 : (2012)
4 SCC (Civ) 343 : (2012) 3 SCC (Cri) 782 : (2012) 2 SCC Page | 12 (L&S)
469] , this Court held that the standard of conduct expected of a Judge is much
higher than that of an ordinary person. The following observations of this
Court are relevant: (SCC p. 70, para 29) “29. Judicial service is not an ordinary government service and the Judges
are not employees as such. Judges hold the public office; their function is
one of the essential functions of the State. In discharge of their functions
and duties, the Judges represent the State. The office that a Judge holds is an
office of public trust. A Judge must be
a person of impeccable integrity and unimpeachable independence. He must be
honest to the core with high moral values. When a litigant enters the courtroom, he must feel secured that the
Judge before whom his matter has come, would deliver justice impartially and
uninfluenced by any consideration. The standard of conduct expected of a Judge
is much higher than an ordinary man. This is no excuse that since the
standards in the society have fallen, the Judges who are drawn from the society
cannot be expected to have high standards and ethical firmness required of a
Judge. A Judge, like Caesar's wife, must be above suspicion. The credibility of
the judicial system is dependent upon the Judges who man it. For a democracy to thrive and the rule of
law to survive, justice system and the judicial process have to be strong and
every Judge must discharge his judicial functions with integrity, impartiality
and intellectual honesty.”
9.
There can be no manner of doubt that a Judge must decide the case only on the
basis of the facts on record and the law applicable to the case. If a Judge decides a case for any
extraneous reasons then he is not performing his duty in accordance with law.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“If there is a law, Judges can certainly enforce it, but
Judges cannot create a law and seek to enforce it.” The court cannot re-write, re-cast or reframe the legislation
for the very good reason that it has no power to legislate. The very power to
legislate has not been conferred on the courts. Supreme
Court of India ,Pravasi Bhalai Sangathan vs U.O.I. & Ors on 12 March, 2014
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In S G Jaisinghani v. Union of India reported in AIR 1967 SC 1427, Supreme Court held that absence of arbitrary power is the first essential of “Rule of Law” upon which rests our Constitutional system. The Supreme Court ruled that in a system governed by rule of law, any discretion conferred upon the executive authorities must be confined within clearly defined limits.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA, Miscellaneous
Jurisdiction Case No.3659 of 2019,In 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…”
58. It is educative to quote the views
of Benjiman cardazo, the great Jurist in the behalf:
"The judge, even when he is free, is still not wholly free. He is not to
innovate at pleasure. He is not a knight-errant roaming at will in pursuit of
his own ideal of beauty or of goodness. He is to draw his inspiration from
consecrated principles. He is not to yield to spasmodic sentiment, to vague and
unregulated benevolence.
He is to exercise discretion informed
by tradition, methodized by analogy, disciplined by system, and subordinated to
'the primordial necessity of order in the social life.' Patna High Court MJC
No.3659 of 2019 dt.02-09-2019 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.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In
P.N. Duda vs. P. Shiv Shankar [AIR
1988 SC 1208] this court had held that administration of justice and judges are
open to public criticism and public scrutiny. Judges have their accountability to the society and their
accountability must be judged by the conscience and oath to their office, i.e.,
to defend and uphold the Constitution and the laws without fear and favour.
Allahabad
High Court
Sanjay
And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 18 January, 2021
“The explanation given by the concerned Magistrate is not acceptable because if a Judge makes such a mistake, then from where will the general public get fair justice. A Judge acts like a God, he/she should not make mistakes due to haste or excess of work. How will a normal man get justice when a judge makes a mistake because of the excess of his/her work? At the present time, only from the temple of justice like Courts, everyone hopes for right and fair justice.”
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In K.K.Dhawans case
[supra], Apex Court indicated the basis upon which a disciplinary action can be
initiated in respect of a judicial or a quasi- judicial action as follows :
(i) where the
judicial officer has conducted in a manner as would reflect on his reputation
or integrity or good faith or devotion to duty;
(ii) that there is
prima facie material to show recklessness or misconduct in the discharge of his
duty;
(iii) that if he has
acted negligently or that he omitted the prescribed conditions which are
essential for the exercise of the statutory powers;
(iv) that if he had
acted in order to unduly favour a party;
(v) that if he had been actuated by corrupt motive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allahabad
High Court
State Of U.P. And
Another vs Irfan Ahmad Siddiqui on 28 April, 2000
Equivalent citations:
2000 (3) AWC 2045, (2000) 2 UPLBEC 1545
“31. Law
is not meant to come to the aid of those who are guilty of violating the same......The
ancient maxim says-"No one should become rich by the inconvenience of an
other-Nemo debet locuplesari ex alterlaus incommodo………..
36. The above decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Kayastha Pathshala (supra), in fact follows the old maxim-Bonus Judex Secundum, acquumet bonwn Judicat at ecquitation stricto Juri praefet-A good Judge decides according to Justice and equity in preference to strict law.”
Comments
Post a Comment