Archive for the 'Delhi High Court' Category

Delhi HC Directive To Upload FIRs

Here is the copy of the judgment:

 

Delhi HC Directive On Upload Of FIRs

______________________________________________________________

A Pledge For The Indian Judiciary

I came across this quote in the judgment issued by Justice Ravinder Bhatt, of the Delhi HC. This is part of his landmark judgment that placed the Indian judiciary under the purview of the RTI Act.

Justice Bhatt quotes from a book of  Dr. Barrack, “The Judge in a Democracy”, which summarizes the values every judge must live by.

In these days and times, when the cancer of corruption is spreading to consume the Indian judiciary, I believe that this must be made the pledge — the standard — that Indian judges must be held to.

This is what Justice Bhatt quotes:

“As a judge, I do not have a political platform. I am not a political person. Right and left, religious and secular, rich and poor, man and woman, disabled and nondisabled, all are equal in my eyes. All are human beings, created in the image of the Creator. I will protect the human dignity of each. I do not aspire to power. I do not seek to rule. I am aware of the chains that bind me as a judge and as the president of the Supreme Court. I have repeatedly emphasized the rule of law and not of the judge. I am aware of the importance of the other branches of government – legislative and executive – which give expression to democracy. Between those two branches are connecting bridges and checks and balances.
I view my office as a mission. Judging is not a job. It is a way of life. Whenever I enter the courtroom, I do so with the deep sense that, as I sit at trial, I stand on trial.””

And in the event that they fall short of anything less than this standard, let’s put them on trial.

__________________________________________________________

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 218 of 2003

Decided On: 09.05.2003

Appellants: Indira Jaising
Vs.
Respondent: Registrar General, Supreme Court of India and Anr.

JUDGMENT

Rajendra Babu, J.

1. A Senior Advocate practising in this Court has filed this petition purporting to be one under Article 32 of the Constitution of India in public interest primarily for the publication of the inquiry report made by a Committee consisting of two Chief Justices and a Judge of different High Courts in respect of certain allegations of alleged involvement of sitting Judges of the High Court of Karnataka in certain incidents and also for a direction to any professional and independent investigating agency having expertise to conduct a thorough investigation into the said incident and to submit a report on the same to this Court.

2. In the Chief Justices’ Conference held in December 1999, 16 clauses formed part of the Code of Conduct in addition to the declaration of assets by the Judges and In-House procedure was suggested in the event of any complaint against any Judge. However, sanction for these guidelines in absent. In our constitutional scheme it is not possible to vest the Chief Justice of India with any control over the puisne Judges with regard to conduct either personal or judicial. In case of breach of any rule of the Code of Conduct, the Chief Justice can choose not to post cases before a particular Judge against whom there are acceptable alegations. It is possible to criticise that decision on the ground that no enquiry was held and the Judge concerned had no opportunity to offer his explanation particularly when the Chief Justice is not vested with any power to decide about the conduct of a Judge. There is no adequate method or machinery to enforce the Code of Conduct. Article 124 provides for appointment of Judges of this Court and also their removal. Similarly, Article 217 dea

Delhi HC: Indian Judiciary Is Subject To RTI Act

Here is the judgment by the Delhi High Court.

With this judgment, the corruption within the judiciary can be exposed.

Here are the magic words:

“In view of the findings recorded above, the first petitioner CPIO shall release the information sought by the respondent applicant,- about the declaration of assets, (and not the contents of the declarations, as that was not sought for) made by judges of the Supreme Court, within four weeks.”

Here is the judgment:  

Delhi HC: Indian Judiciary Is Subject To RTI Act

_____________________________________________________________

Justice Dhingra Explains The Guidelines Used To Determine Child Custody

Here is what Justice Dhingra says while determining an interim child custody case:

“The principles of law in relation to the custody of a minor child are well settled. It is trite that while determining the question as to which parent the care and control of a child should be committed, the first and the paramount consideration is the welfare and interest of the child and not the rights of the parents under a statute. Indubitably the provisions of law pertaining to the custody of child contained in either the Guardians and Wards Act, 1980 (Section 17) or the Hindu Minority and guardianship Act, 1956 (Section 13) also hold out the welfare of the child are predominant consideration. In fact, no statute on the subject, can ignore, eschew or obliterate the vital factor of the welfare of the minor. The question of welfare of the minor child has again to be considered in the background of the relevant facts and circumstances. Each case has to be decided on its own facts and other decided cases can hardly serve as binding precedents insofar as the factual aspects of the case are concerned. It is, no doubt, true that father is presumed by the statutes to be better suited to look after the welfare of the child, being normally the working member and   head of the family, yet in each case the Court has to see primarily to the welfare of the child in determining the question of his or her custody. Better financial resources of either of the parents or their love for the child may be one of the relevant considerations but cannot be the sold determining factor for the custody of the child. It is here that a heavy duty is cast on the Court to exercise its judicial discretion judiciously in the background of all the relevant facts and circumstances, bearing in mind the welfare of the child as the paramount consideration.”

Here is the judgment: J Dhingra: CM(M) No. 752/2000 Ram Murti Chopra and Anr. v. Nagesh Tyagi

More information can be had from here:

INTERPARENTAL CHILD CUSTODY DISPUTES – THE INDIAN EXPERIENCE

___________________________________________________

Justice Dhingra: Maintenance To Be Fixed On Actual Earnings

Here is yet another judgment from Justice Dhingra. This time her states that

“The maintenance is to be fixed on the basis of actual earnings of a person and not on his being able bodied person. In this country, there is no job guarantee given by the government to every able bodied person. Many able bodied persons are jobless in our country. The only job guarantee is under National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme under which 100 days labour work is assured to an unemployed rural person. The husband does not qualify for that. Moreover, the wife is equally able bodied. The wife has failed to show, in this case, any earning of the husband. She did not dispute the facts stated that the van was sold by her, the house was sold by her and she was facing a case filed by the father of the husband in respect of illegal sale of the house. The amount received from sale of the house is with the wife and she must be earning interest on it. She has failed to show any source of income to the husband. The bald allegation of his doing tuition without stating as to what was his educational qualification and to whom he was teaching, would not serve the purpose.”

Here is the judgment:

CM(M) No. 1790/2006 Ritu Raj Kant v. Anita

________________________________________________________

Justice Dhingra Quashed An HMA Case-2008

The Noble Justice Dhingra in action again. This time delivers justice in a HMA case, Parnab Kumar Chakarborthy Vs Ruma Chakarborthy-2008

Here is what he had to say:

  • 3. The petitioner in his petition has stated that the learned Court has taken into account his gross salary while his net salary after deduction was hardly Rs.5,000/-. He had to maintain two houses. He was working in Bhiwadi in Rajasthan as Shift In charge, his daughter from the earlier deceased wife was living at his ancestral house at Rai Barelli with his ailing mother. Thus, he had to maintain two units; one at Rai Barelli and other at Rajasthan. He also pleaded that the learned ADJ had not taken into account the fact that the wife was a professional beautician, who had done diploma in beauty-culture and hair dressing and in the bio data supplied to him at the time of marriage, it was stated that she was a freelance beautician doing the work of beautician. He further stated that the account of expenditure given by the wife would show that she was living in luxury, which was not possible out of the meager income of her father, who was a retired Naval Officer and since she was qualified and was spending a lot so, there was a presumption that she was earning and she had not come to the Court with clean hands.

Here is the judgment:

Justice Dhingra Quashed An HMA Case-2008

_____________________________________________________________________

Joginder Kumar Vs State Of UP – 1994

For reasons unknown, I decided to revisit, possibly, the most important judgment ever delivered by an Indian court.

These words of  Justice MN VENKATACHALLIAH renewed my determination to fight.

No arrest can be made because it is lawful for the police officer to do so. The existence of the power to arrest is one thing. The justification for the exercise of it is quite another. The police officer must be able to justify the arrest apart from his power to do so. Arrest and detention in police lock-up of a person can cause incalculable harm to the reputation and self-esteem of a person. No arrest can be made in a routine manner on a mere allegation of commission of an offence made against a person. It would be prudent for a police officer in the interest of protection of the constitutional rights of a citizen and perhaps in his own interest that no arrest should be made without a reasonable satisfaction reached after some investigation as to the genuineness and bona fides of a complaint and a reasonable belief both as to the person’s complicity and even so as to the need to effect arrest. Denying a person of his liberty is a serious matter. The recommendations of the Police Commission merely reflect the constitutional concomitants of the fundamental right to personal liberty and freedom. A person is not liable to arrest merely on the suspicion of complicity in an offence. There must be some reasonable justification in the opinion of the officer effecting the arrest that such arrest is necessary and justified. Except in heinous offences, an arrest must be avoided if a police officer issues notice to person to attend the Station House and not to leave the Station without permission would do.

Here is this seminal judgment again, reformatted and presented anew:

Joginder Kumar Vs State Of UP – 1994

Original link to Judis: http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/qrydisp.asp?tfnm=11479

Given below is the 3rd report of the National Police Commission that this judgment draws on:

Third Report Of The National Police Commission (From BPRD)

Also given below is a fragment of the First Police Commission:

First Report Of The National Police Commission (Fragment From BPRD)

Compliance orders:

____________________________________________________________


Visitors Since Mar/14/07

  • 3,270,472

Cluster Map

Live Traffic

Archives

Top Rated Posts

Some Interesting Stats On Arrests Of Women

In 1930, the British govt arrested 17,000 women for their involvement in the Dandi Yatra (Salt March). During 1937 to 1947 (10 Years), they arrested 5,000 women involved in the freedom struggle. From 2004 to 2006, the govt of India arrested 90,000 women of all ages under 498A. On the average, 27,000 women per year are being arrested under this flawed law. These are stats from the NCRB.

Copyright Notice:

The content of this blog is copyrighted. You are required to obtain prior permission before locally hosting or reproducing online or in print, any or part of the content. You are welcome to directly link to the content from your site. Page copy protected against web site content infringement by Copyscape MyFreeCopyright.com Registered & Protected Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 Unported License.

Disclaimer:

The family of the writer was tortured by the Indian Police in an attempt to extort over a $100,000 by holding them in custody for over a week. The police, in cahoots with the magistrate and the PP, did this due to the ridiculous allegations made in a 498A case by his embittered ex-wife. She filed the case years after he and his family had last seen her. Thousands of 498A cases are filed each year in India by women seeking to wreak vengeance on their husbands and in-laws. Enormous sums are extorted from intimidated families implicated in these cases by corrupt Indian police officers and elements of the Indian judiciary. The author and his family haven't bribed any public official nor have they given in to the extortion. This blog aims to raise awareness of due process in India. The content of this blog constitutes, opinions, observations, and publicly available documents. The intent is not to slander or defame anyone or any institution and is the manifestation of the author's right to freedom of expression – with all the protections this right guarantees.

Get Adobe Acrobat Reader

You will need adobe acrobat to read most of the documents. Please download adobe acrobat reader. Get Adobe Acrobat For Your System
July 2019
M T W T F S S
« Nov    
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031  

%d bloggers like this: