[HumJanenge] Re: "Judge Uncle Syndrome" in the High Courts

DEAR SPM

There are some generic complaints our members have about Police.
If you could share your knowledge, for instance on

"Burking" ie. non-registration of FIRs, and how honest citizens
can overcome the SHO's usual bag of tricks.

Sarbajit

On Jan 3, 12:56 am, Sant Mathur <santmat...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Wishing dear friends a happy RTI Act Iimplementation year for all Activist
> ,I may pl be allowed to make a request that any and all aAxtivists could
> mail me any issue involvoing police in the country,giving ,besides the gist
> of the case the following pieces of info:
> 1. Details of aggrieved person,including mobile number
> 2.Name,designation and contact details of cops( at least two levels) who
> could possibly be useful in attending to the issue(s) at hand
> I can whole heartedly assure that as regards attemt to get succour is
> concerned,there will be no let up and no lethargy.
> Its possibly my good fortune that almost invariably whenever and wherever I
> had occasion to intervene results were rather favourably.
> I'm networked with 1500 strong body of IPS officers of the country,virtually
> as a principle contributor to the blog "indiatopcop" and my initials spm are
> well recognised countrywide.
> Help has been rendered by me to persons(RTI Activists or otherwise) in
> hundreds,yearly,in personal and general issues.
> While I would very much wish that no one comes in harm's way,yet should some
> need arise pl just don't hesitate to mail me or even call
> me(919841282324),as I'm available on 24*7 basis.
> spm
> IPS DGP retd
> Chennai
>
> On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 5:47 PM, R. Dua <r.dua1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Regards to all.
> > We all actually avidly follow the discussions here, irrespective of the
> > exact language used.
> > We understand the content, and gain knowledge abt judicial system, or the
> > law enforcement agencies, thru these sites.
> > We also understand that these agencies culpability would not be possible,
> > without being hand in glove with each other.
>
> > Please include, all participants in this as we can see that the corruption
> > disturbs all of us.
> > Pl keep up the good wrk.
> > Thank you.
>
> > On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 9:02 AM, M.K. Gupta <mkgupta...@yahoo.co.in>wrote:
>
> >> If that is the case, it must be condemned and corrective measures are to
> >> be taken but at d same time, security concerns cannot be overlooked. In case
> >> I were in yor place, I must have managed the slip frm my advocate for the
> >> getting the pass to be issued without any hussle.
>
> >> However, Justice Gita Mittal has taken a right step and hope that the DHC
> >> staff will not dare to stop u from entering in the Court on the day of
> >> listing your matters. If this is the treatment meted out 2 u, a highly
> >> knowledgeable, literate and computer savvy, what can b said about the poor,
> >> illiterate and persons wsith rural backgrouod.
>
> >> Dear Sarab, if u can suggest some better system without comproming the
> >> security concerns in comparision to the present, the litigants would always
> >> be grateful 2 u. Such suggestions can b sent to the Court and Security top
> >> brasses for consideration.
>
> >> ------------------------------
> >> *From:* sroy 1947 <sroy1...@gmail.com>
> >> *To:* humjanenge@googlegroups.com
> >> *Sent:* Thu, 2 December, 2010 5:13:16 PM
>
> >> *Subject:* Re: [HumJanenge] Re: "Judge Uncle Syndrome" in the High Courts
>
> >> Dear Guptaji
>
> >> You had no problem in getting a pass because you have an advocate.
>
> >> I refuse to comment on the matter of how/why I was stopped from
> >> reaching the Court in time. This is not the first time it has happened
> >> in this case WPC(542)/2007 and in 2007 Justice Gita Mittal had
> >> recorded my complaint (in daily order) and directed the registry to
> >> ensure that a) my name appeared as respondent-in-person in the
> >> cause list b) that I was to be allowed entry into the court on listed days
> >> for this matter.
>
> >> In April 2010, my name did not appear in the cause list. I was repeatedly
> >> prevented from being issued a gate pass since 9:15 AM. Finally at 10:30
> >> I was issued a gate pass. I reached the court-room at 10:38 to find that
> >> this case (items 16,17,18 and 21) had been "disposed: off. (The court
> >> rises at 10:30). There were 32 supplementaries listed that day (which
> >> as per court's official practice at DHC are taken up before regular
> >> matters)
> >> none of which were heard before me, Regular item nos 1 through 15 were
> >> disposed off in the normal course.
>
> >> The very same day, and before noon I filed an RTI to the PIO on thsi
> >> question. I filed an appeal also which has not been answered. I am not
> >> inclined to file a 2nd appeal since a beneficiary of the corruption is
> >> the CIC which was dropped from the case (at the next hearing date).
> >> The DHC Registry has no explanation to provide to me why these 4 cases
> >> were taken up out of turn and why gate pass was not issued to me till
> >> matter was over. If you doubt me, you are free to file an RTI to DHC
> >> asking to inspect my RTI and associated records. I shall pay for it.
>
> >> Sarbajit
>
> >> On 12/2/10, M.K. Gupta <mkgupta...@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
> >> > Dear Sir,
>
> >> > I attended the High Court hearing on my petition in Sept. 2010 last and
> >> the
> >> > my
> >> > advocate endorsed the specific performa for the issue of pass and there
> >> was
> >> > absolutely no problem in the issue of pass. However there was a quest
> >> of
> >> > about
> >> > 10 persons. I think DISCOM case was pending in the Delhi HC and the
> >> period
> >> > u
> >> > referred that the registry stopped to appear before the Court is prior
> >> to
> >> > Sept.
> >> > 2010.
>
> >> > The information on this will be in your own interest and will boost your
> >> > credibility too. Shall be grateful if u inform
> >> > The Court (High or Supreme) before which you could not plead as u were
> >> > stopped
> >> > by the Registry.
> >> > Date of event.
>
> >> > Regards,
> >> > M K Gupta
>
> >> > ________________________________
> >> > From: Urvi Sukul Singh <usukulsi...@hotmail.com>
> >> > To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
> >> > Sent: Thu, 2 December, 2010 1:56:34 PM
> >> > Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] Re: "Judge Uncle Syndrome" in the High Courts
>
> >> > Dear Mathur Sahab,
> >> > I have the greatest respect for honest people but please don't mind when
> >> I
> >> > say
> >> > this,that,-please clean up your own police backyard,which,believe me,is
> >> rife
> >> > with corruption.And the politicians as well.In terms of both numbers-of
> >> > people
> >> > and rupees--I am sure the politicians here will give everyone a race for
> >> > their,er,money! Leaving the judiciary far far behind!
> >> > Warm regards
> >> > Urvi Sukul Singh
>
> >> > From: Sant Mathur
> >> > Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2010 12:00 PM
> >> > To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
> >> > Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] Re: "Judge Uncle Syndrome" in the High Courts
>
> >> > Corruption in Judiciary is mindboggling.
> >> > There has to be matching reponse from civil society to
> >> control/contain/curb
> >> > it.
> >> > If I were to do real serious research on this subject,how could help
> >> come
> >> > from
> >> > our members? 4 deacdes of distinguished public service(15 years in
> >> vigilance
> >> > and
> >> > anti-corruption area) has provided me quite a deal of experience in
> >> handling
> >> > the
> >> > sensitive issue under consideration
> >> > spm
> >> > IPS DGP retd
> >> > BE MBA PhD
> >> > PS I mean every word of what I've said
>
> >> > On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 9:33 AM, sroy1947 <sroy1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > Dear Guptaji
>
> >> >>I think that you are not aware of the recent security norms imposed in
> >> >>the
> >> >>High Court and Supreme Court nowadays. To issue gate passes to parties
> >> >>in person is now a lengthy process. Let me illustrate the procedure at
> >> >>the
> >> >>Supreme Court. This is as per an Office Order of the Registrar(Admn)
> >> >>dated May 2009.
>
> >> >>1) Parties in person (ie. parties who are not represented by counsel)
> >> >>shall not
> >> >> be allowed to enter high security zone. They may file any papers at
> >> >>the
> >> >>reception counter to the PRO (and for which no receipt is issued) at
> >> >>reception porta cabin. If any clarifications / information is required
> >> >>the PRO
> >> >>will try and inform them after speaking to concerned section.
>
> >> >>2) Parties in person whose case is listed on the day will have to
> >> >>convince the
> >> >>AGM-Security about his need to enter the high security zone. He will
> >> >>be
> >> >>escorted by security personnel to that court and will be escorted
> >> >>back.
>
> >> >>So dear guptaji, All this is matter of record, and I dont want to
> >> >>comment about
> >> >>it.
>
> >> >>Sarbajit
>
> >> >>On Dec 1, 10:29 pm, "M.K. Gupta" <mkgupta...@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
> >> >>> Dear Sarabjit ji,
>
> >> >>> In ur entire mail, u have not informed how the High Court registry
> >> >>> stopped u
> >> >>> from appearing in the case in time in which u werea party/petitioner.
> >> As
> >> >>> v
> >> >>>know,
> >> >>> there is no role of the Registry or no permission from the registry is
> >> > requied
> >> >>> for appearing in a case wherein v r party.
>
> >> >>> Anyway, contine with your 'sincere' efforts trying to bring the
> >> DISCOMS
> >> >>> under
> >> >>> the RTI ambit. For this, not only I but the entire Delhi based members
> >> or
> >> >>> residents of Delhi will be with u.
>
> >> >>> i repeat my aforesaid query and hope to get an answer for enhancing my
> >> >>> and
> >> >>> members knowledge.
>
> >> >>> ________________________________
> >> >>> From: Sarbajit Roy <sroy...@gmail.com>
>
> >> >>> To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
> >> >>> Sent: Wed, 1 December, 2010 6:06:46 PM
> >> >>> Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] "Judge Uncle Syndrome" in the High Courts
>
> >> >>> Dear Gupta ji
>
> >> >>> Whatever you have written about why DISCOMS should be public authority
> >> >>> is not relevant.
> >> >>> It is precisely because of such emotional arguments that you and I
> >> >>> cannot talk to each other in public forums such as this. I believe in
> >> >>> going strictly by the letter of the law.
>
> >> >>> The fact of the matter is that when Habibullah heard the DISCOMS
> >> >>> matter the first time, he had already made up his mind to pass a bad
> >> >>> and unreasoned order declaring them to be public authority. He had
> >> >>> been influenced by
>
> ...
>
> read more »