Skip to main content

Every matter is important and equal treatment is the backdrop of the Constitution

In Atanu Chattopadhyay Vs. Justice Debangsu Basak and Ors., Petitioner alleged that, because of the inaction on the part of the Respondents, the Petitioner has been denied justice and the Ministry of Law and Justice must take care and responsibility before nominating the advocates as the Hon'ble Judges of the Court, who are not fit for such posts. The Petitioner consistently harped upon denial of access to justice and injustice perpetrated upon him in not acceding to his prayer either listing as per his desire before the particular Judge and refusal to release the matter as he has inculcated a sense of bias against a particular Judge. 

Issue involved in present is whether any cause of action is pleaded leading to denial of access to justice and such allegations and/or aspersions have any legal or factual basis. 

While dismissing the Writ Petition, the court held tt is not open to any person to make scandalous, disparaging and intemperate remarks directly on the Judges or their judicial act with intent to undermine the majesty of the Court and inculcate any adverse notion against the judicial system of the country to gain publicity. It is one thing to say that the criticism against the conduct, act and the orders of the Judges in dignified and healthy manner but it is totally different when the language and the expressions impair and hamper the administration of justice. 

The impartiality, fairness and transparency lies in course of the judicial dispensation and if the learned Judge, the Respondent No. 2 herein does not find any urgency in the matter to give precedence to the Petitioner's application over the other matter, it cannot be taken as an act infringing any right of the Petitioner. The Judges in the country dealing with large cases and every citizen in the country has equal right to have its matter taken by the Court. Giving precedence to one matter as the Petitioner is appearing in person shall overreach the rights of the other person. There cannot be any discrimination between the right of each individuals guaranteed under the law. Every matter is important and equal treatment is the backdrop of the Constitution. The entire allegation is unfounded, unsubstantiated, far to speak of any truth in it. The Court should not permit any litigant to initiate a proceeding on disparaging, scurrilous and intemperate remarks against the Judges and such person should be dealt with seriously. 

Though present Court feels that, immediate action is warranted against the Petitioner for such scurrilous remark made against the Judges, yet considering his lack of understanding of the law and the functioning of the judicial system, this Court does not intend to initiate a contempt proceeding against the Petitioner but must make a remark that he should be vigilant, cautious and careful in initiating proceeding of such nature in future. Though imposition of costs is inevitable, yet bearing in mind the submission advanced by the Petitioner that, he is homeless and have no substantial income, this Court does not impose cost for this frivolous litigation. 


Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Michigan House Approves 'Right-to-Work' Bill

Amid raucous protests, the Republican-led Michigan House approved a contentious right-to-work bill on  Dec 11 limiting unions' strength in the state where the (Union for American Auto Workers)  UAW was born. The chamber passed a measure dealing with public-sector workers 58-51 as protesters shouted "shame on you" from the gallery and huge crowds of union backers massed in the state Capitol halls and on the grounds. Backers said a right-to-work law would bring more jobs to Michigan and give workers freedom. Critics said it would drive down wages and benefits. The right-to-work movement has been growing in the country since Wisconsin fought a similar battle with unions over two years ago. Michigan would become the 24th state to enact right-to-work provisions, and passage of the legislation would deal a stunning blow to the power of organized labor in the United States. Wisconsin Republicans in 2011 passed laws severely restricting the power of public s...
Post a Comment
Read more

Power to re-assess by AO and disclosure of material facts

In AVTEC Limited v. DCIT, the division of the Delhi High Court held that AO is bound to look at the litigation history of the assessee and cannot expect the assessee to inform him.  In the instant case, the Petitioner, engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling of automobiles, power trains and power shift transmissions along with their components, approached the High Court challenging the re-assessment order passed against them. For the year 2006-07, the Petitioner entered into a Business Transfer Agreement with Hindustan Motors Ltd, as per which, the Petitioner took over the business from HML.  While filing income tax return for the said year, the petitioner claimed the expenses incurred in respect of professional and legal charges for the purpose of taking over of the business from HML as capital expenses and claimed depreciation. Article referred: http://www.taxscan.in/assessing-officer-bound-look-litigation-history-assessee-delhi-hc-read-order/8087/
Post a Comment
Read more

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more