MP High Court Chief Justice Rejected VC For All Citizens

 HIGH COURT HAVE POWER TO MAKE RULES WHICH VIOLATES FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF CITIZENS?

संविधान के रक्षक ही भेदभाव करने लगे

Jabalpur : MP High Court Chief Justice rejected VC for all the citizens/parties . He only want to provide VC facility to more than 65 age people as per SOP. In other high courts/ SC and no such discrimination for VC. Attending court by travelling also increase pollution . State has spent more than 100cr for VC software for only senior citizens? Why E filing for all the citizens , it should be only for senior citizens.

Copy Of Complaint/ Request

From: India RTI News
Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2022 11:20 AM
To: krishnamurty.mishra@aij.gov.in <krishnamurty.mishra@aij.gov.in>; reggenmp13@yahoo.com <reggenmp13@yahoo.com>
Subject: SOP No. 05 /PR / 2022 is contempt Of Supreme Court Order

 

To

1.Hon'ble Shri Ravi Malimath

CJ , MPHC, Jabalpur

2.Learned Shri Krishna Murty Mishra 

Registrar General , MP High Court 

Jabalpur

Respected Sir,

The SOP dated 11/2/22 para 3 is is contempt of SC Order that access to justice is fundamental rights of citizens and non citizens under article 14 and 21 In Anita Kushwaha v. Pushpa Sadan (2016) constitution on bench order.

The line Para 3 " Leaned Advocates / Parties-in-person, aged 65 years and above, may make oral request to the Bench for taking up their case for hearing through virtual mode and the concerned Bench may consider the request accordingly." is VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 14 AND 21 TO ACCESS OF JUSTICE. 

Due to this SOP the Court room technical persons are not enabling the VC link present in HC website and we are unable to appear before Hon'ble Court.

The MP state has not done spending of Rs 100cr approx  for VC only to senior citizens. The Hon'ble High Court cannot pass any rule which violates fundamental rights of citizen. The SOP is silent for other advocates/ party in persons age less than 65 years and residing outside city limit. Yesterday , Due to this SOP the court 11(Shri Rajeev Dubey J) IT assistant denied me to provide link in item no.68. 

Kindly withdraw the para 3 of SOP as it violates aforesaid apex court constitution bench order which is binding for this Hon'ble Court also.

In Commissioner of Central Excise v. M/s Ratan Melting Wire Industries: (2008) 13 SCC 1, the Constitution Bench has held as follows: 

"Circulars and instructions issued by the Board are no doubt binding in law on the authorities under the respective statutes, but when the Supreme Court or the High Court declares the law on the question arising for consideration, it would not be appropriate for the Court to direct that the circular should be given effect to and not the view expressed in a decision of this Court or the High Court. So far as the clarifications/circulars issued by the Central Government and of the State Government are concerned they represent merely their understanding of the statutory provisions. They are not binding upon the Court. It is for the Court to declare what the particular provision of statute says I.T.A.Nos.197 of 2019 & conn.cases and it is not for the Executive. Looked at from another angle, a circular which is contrary to the statutory provisions has really no existence in law" 

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/60075270/ 

Supreme Court of India 

Central Board Of Dawoodi Bohra ... vs State Of Maharashtra & Anr on 17 December, 2004 

Author: R.C.Lahoti 

Bench: R.C.Lahoti Cji, S.V.Patil, K.G.Balakrishnan, B.N.Srikrishna, A.K.Mathur 

 

1. Having carefully considered the submissions made by the learned senior counsel for the parties and having examined the law laid down by the Constitution Benches in the abovesaid decisions, we would like to sum up the legal position in the following terms:-
   
   
   (1) The law laid down by this Court in a decision delivered by a Bench of larger strength is binding on any subsequent Bench of lesser or co-equal strength.
   
   
   
   (2) A Bench of lesser quorum cannot doubt the correctness of the view of the law taken by a Bench of larger quorum. In case of doubt all that the Bench of lesser quorum can do is to invite the attention of the Chief Justice and request for the matter being placed for hearing before a Bench of larger quorum than the Bench whose decision has come up for consideration. It will be open only for a Bench of co-equal strength to express an opinion doubting the correctness of the view taken by the earlier Bench of co-equal strength, whereupon the matter may be placed for hearing before a Bench consisting of a quorum larger than the one which pronounced the decision laying down the law the correctness of which is doubted.
   
   
   
   
   (3) The above rules are subject to two exceptions: (i) The abovesaid rules do not bind the discretion of the Chief Justice in whom vests the power of framing the roster and who can direct any particular matter to be placed for hearing before any particular Bench of any strength; and (ii) (ii) In spite of the rules laid down hereinabove, if the matter has already come up for hearing before a Bench of larger quorum and that Bench itself feels that the view of the law taken by a Bench of lesser quorum, which view is in doubt, needs correction or reconsideration then by way of exception (and not as a rule) and for reasons it may proceed to hear the case and examine the correctness of the previous decision in question dispensing with the need of a specific reference or the order of Chief Justice constituting the Bench and such listing. Such was the situation in Raghubir Singh & Ors. and Hansoli Devi & Ors.(supra).  

 

Kindly amend the SOP and make VC available to all like SC and Other HCs has done. Kindly update the IT assistant of all courts in portal with VC link in pdf format. It is settled law that violation of Hon'ble Supreme court order will attract contempt before apex court. In the interest of justice we are expecting positive reply your end within 7 days.

Regards,

Sapan Shrivastava

9702859636

In Person

Mumbai