LEGAL CIRCLES

* IF NOT YOU MILORD, WHERE WILL PEOPLE GO TO SEEK JUSTICE ?

It is often said that ours is a country ruled by the rule of law. The majesty of law and courts have been duly respected by the 140 odd million people of the country.

The Constitution of India is the Geeta, Bible or Quran for administration of justice. Though the Goddess of justice is supposed to be blind -folded, the courts have, over the years of experience, developed capacity to see truth through the darkness of the blindfold. The courts in our country enjoy an impeccable reputation of being free and fearless. This indeed, augurs well for the health of our judiciary.

However, at times, the presiding deities of these temples of justice behave in an erratic manner. Given the fact that afterall these demi Gods too, are human beings; and therefore, fallible, but when such behaviour assumes a form of definite pattern occuring at definite periodicity and under a definite situation, it really deserves a serious thought. To put it in a nutshell when the matters relating to the interests of the overwhelming majority of Hindus are deliberately assigned to the judges known for their anti-Hindu stand, as was the case with Godhra violence, and judgements are delivered in accordance with the preconceived notions of the particular judge, in such cases certainly the justice is crucified.

Further, under the garb of neutrality or secularism, more often than not, justice is denied to the majority. Nupur Sharma 's case is an eye -opener when the Milords of the highest court not only made uncharitable comments on the victim of Jihadi threats but also squarely denied the legal protection she rightly deserved. Some crass communal elements which have sneaked in to the pious temples of justice , are playing havoc with the judiciary. Take this example. A hard core Jihadi posing as a stand up comedian was insulting the tolerant Hindu society recklessly and mocking Hindu Gods and Goddesses. The governments of Madhya Pradesh and Karnataka had banned his shows. When he declared his intention to have his program in Hyderabad, a petition was filed in the High Court to restrain him. The same came to be listed before a judge with a pre- set mindset. He returned the petition stating that it should be filed as a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) though the petitioner had amply made it clear that as a devout Hindu, his sentiments were hurt by the hurting language which the so called standing comedian uses. In fact, the ploy was to make the petitioner file the matter as a PIL and then impose a heavy fine saying it was devoid of any substance.

Recently, the apex court turned down a plea for granting the Hindus freedom of managing their religious places on par with Muslims and Christians. Even the obnoxious Waqf Act which gives unbridled powers to it to acquire any property, mostly illegally and devests the courts ' jurisdiction has so far not touched by either by the parliament or the judiciary. This statute is a blot on our democracy and the rule of law as it clearly violates the principles of equality and fair play.

Above all, it is quite intriguing that the apex court has recently expressed its reluctance to deal with religious matters ! This is just baffling. If the parliament and courts have no inclination to resolve the valid grievances of Hindus, who will come to their rescue?

* SC UPHOLDS BAN ON REINFORCED CUPS

The Supreme Court on October 20 upheld a Madras High Court 's judgement banning the use of reinforced paper cups saying that it was in the public interest.

A division bench while dealing with an appeal filed by the Tamilnadu and Puducherry Paper Cups Manufacturing Association Vs. The State of Tamilnadu also brushed aside the appellant 's contention that the State government had not issued any notice before taking the decision of banning and observed that even then the ban was made effective after a period of six months and in the meanwhile the appellant was heard on the subject matter.

* SC ISSUES DIRECTIONS FOR SPEEDY DISPOSAL OF CIVIL CASES

In a bid to ensure speedy disposal of civil cases pending in the Taluka and District courts, a division bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justice Ravindra Bhatt and Justice Arvind Kumar issued a slew of directions.

The directions issued in a case titled, Yashpal Jain Vs. Sushila Devi and Others include speedy service of summons, filing of the Written Statement within the stipulated time limit, hearing the case on day today basis and delivering the judgement within the statutory time frame. District Judges and the High Courts have been detected to monitor the case pendency in a time bound manner.

* TWO LAWYERS CONVICTED IN DELHI

In a case causing embarrassment to the legal fraternity, a court in Delhi has found two Advocates guilty of confining illegally, criminally intimidating, extorting etc; of the complainant, one Naresh Jindal.

The complainant was held in illegal confinement by Advocate Ajay Srivastava when the complainant demanded back a cheque for Rs.80,000 which he had given to the lawyer for some gas work. The court, however, acquitted the lawyer duo of the charge of causing hurt voluntarily.

The case titled, State Vs. B.S Arora and another was adjourned to October 27 for deciding the quantum of punishment.