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

Dear all
For Advocates also there is a line and they have to produce a
photocopy OF THEIR IDENTITY CARD, ISSUED BY BAR COUNCIL on every time
he has to enter the Supreme Court or any office in SC.
For client in-person is very lengthy procedure. The local
people must approach the Supreme Court to relax it.I am also have to
stand in line to get an entry pass on every date I visit SC and have
to furnish a photocopy of my Identity card.
At least for Advocates, there should not be any restruction
if they have & carry Identity card of Bar council.
As I have certain cases in SC, i feel lot of inconvenience
to get a photocopy of my identity card every time, as I have to go to
SC from Lucknow High Court.
Regards
Dr JN Sharma
ADVOCATE/HUMAN RIGHTS ACTIVIST

On 12/2/10, sroy1947 <sroy1947@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 the BJP and NGOs like SNS to declare them as public
>> authorities. I had sought information about tariff and regulatory
>> issues from the DERC. It was the DERC which took the stand that
>> DISCOMS are a public authority, not me.
>>
>> The first time matter reached High Court, I properly put all these
>> facts before the Court by way of detailed affidavit. None of the other
>> Respondents (CIC, DERC, GoNCTD) cared to file affidavit. The Court
>> therefore remanded the matter back to CIC to reconsider and pass a
>> detailed order. The Court also passed caustic observations (orally)
>> about CIC's failure to hear the DISCOMS (3rd party) before passing
>> orders prejudicial to them.
>>
>> When the matter was reheard at CIC, I placed on record the official
>> notifications of GoNCTD constituting the DISCOMS. These were gazette
>> notifications which the GoNCTD had later destroyed at the DISCOMS
>> behest. As the 4 ICs (ie. 1CIC + 3 ICs) were unable to draft an order
>> which would stand up to the Court's scrutiny, I had to draft the order
>> for them.
>>
>> It was promptly appealed by the DISCOMS. Their sole issues for the
>> last 3 years is that the CIC is not competent / empowered to pass
>> orders declaring them to be public authority. DISCOMs entire
>> grievance/lis is with CIC.
>>
>> Recently, a particular judge has gone to great lengths to assist the
>> DISCOMS by his orders. These orders are matter of public record and
>> speak for themselves. That is all I shall say in this matter.
>>
>> Sarbajit
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 5:33 PM, Mahendra Kumar Gupta
>>
>> <mkgupta1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Dear Sarabjit,
>>
>> > The case is eye opener while the DISCOMS are dealing with Public, using
>> > government land and offices of DESu, anserable to Electricity
>> > Regularatory
>> > and Delhi Govt, but still are out of purview
>> > of RTI Act.
>>
>> > However, I request to enlighten us how the Registry of the High Court
>> > stopped you to appear in the case on time and from the details given by
>> > u, I
>> > understand that u r the petitioner.
>> > Last time, I heard tht the DHC has referred back the case to CIC for
>> > reconsideration, please inform about the status of the case and matter
>> > for
>> > the benefit of the members. . This is very important issue concerning
>> > all
>> > the citizens.
>>
>> > On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 12:46 PM, Dr. Jagnarain Sharma
>> > <dr.jagnarainsha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> dear Roy
>> >> i have also suffered a lot
>> >> Regards
>> >> Dr JN Sharma
>>
>> >> On 11/28/10, sroy 1947 <sroy1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >http://pib.nic.in/release/release.asp?relid=67078
>>
>> >> > It is not only Judge Uncle syndrome.in the High Courts.
>>
>> >> > There is another sinister and secret association which controls the
>> >> > Judiciary.
>> >> > Its motto is clear, when 1 of the parties (or their advocate) is a
>> >> > member
>> >> > and
>> >> > the others are not, the judge MUST favour his brother irrespective of
>> >> > the
>> >> > merits of the case. You can spot them by their secret signs and
>> >> > symbols,
>> >> > such as the metal of their pens, and the number of pens they are
>> >> > allowed
>> >> > to wear to indicate their "degree" within the brotherhood.
>>
>> >> > Take my one of my own long pending cases in the Delhi High Court. The
>> >> > writ
>> >> > where DISCOMS of Delhi challenged CIC's order holding them to be
>> >> > Public Authority.
>>
>> >> > At the very first hearing they arranged that matter was listed in
>> >> > 2006
>> >> > before a judge
>> >> > whose brother practices in the same high court and has represented 1
>> >> > of the DSCOMS
>> >> > previously on numerous occasions. They got an ex-parte state order in
>> >> > their favour
>> >> > which carries on till today. In April 2010 the ASG Chandiok appeared
>> >> > for
>> >> > DISCOMS
>> >> > (who vociferously claim not to be Govt) and despite the opposite
>> >> > party
>> >> > being
>> >> > 2 bodies of Govt, and secured an order allowing CIC to be dropped as
>> >> > a
>> >> > party
>> >> > and all hearings to be frozen till further notice. I was prevented by
>> >> > the High Court
>> >> > Registry from reaching the court in time to voice my objections. The
>> >> > judge who passed
>> >> > these orders is the toast of the NGO chatterati circuit for his bold
>> >> > orders.
>>
>> >> > The state of the judiciary is a reflection of the sate of the nation
>> >> > today. As someone who
>> >> > has been attending the superior courts for almost 30 years now, I can
>> >> > say that the gangrene
>> >> > has corrupted all the courts in the land, and there is no hope till
>> >> > they are all amputated.