A word for justice provider Judge

Therefore,despite the fact that allowing promissory estoppel to found a cause of action would seriously dilute the principle which requires consideration to support a contractual obligation, This new principle,which is a child of equity brought into the world with a view to promoting honesty and good faith and bringing law closer to justice should not be held in fetters but allowed to operate in all its activist magnitude, so that it may fulfill the purpose for which was conceived and born.
( From M/s Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Vs State of Uttar Pradesh- 12 Dec 1978 )

Our SC approved and discussed law as such

Law is not a mausoleum. It is not an antique to be taken down, dusted, admired and put back on the shelf.It is like an old but vigorous tree having its roots in history, yet continuously taking new grafts and putting out new sprouts and occasionally dropping dead wood. It is essentially a social process, the end product of which is justice and hence it must keep on growing and developing with changing social concepts and values.
Otherwise, there will be estrangement between law and justice and law will cease to have legitimacy Though " continuity with the past is a historical necessity," Conformity is not to  be turned into a fetish.
( M/s Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Vs State of utter Pradesh-12 Dec 1978)

Vijay Minerals V Bikash Deb -AIR1996 Cal 67 

Contract Act- Some useful citations from Indian  Courts:-
1) Suraj Besan and Rice Mill V FCI- AIR 1988 Delhi 224- By providing a clause in tender notice,  the Government cannot take away the right to revoke an offer
2) Rajendra Kumar Verma V State of MadhyaPradesh-- A person who makes an offer  is entitled to withdraw his offer
3) Managing Committee ,S GA High  School V State of Bihar and others- AIR 1981 Pat 271
4) Union of India V Gopal Chandra - AIR 1978 SC  694
5) State of MP V Goberdhan Dass- AIR 1973 SC 1164
6) Bhagwati Enterprises V Rajasthan State Road Transport  Corporation- AIR 2006 Raj 233

A contract of  employment is governed by the contract act- AIR 2003 SC 253
The submission of tender is in nature of an offer.
Display of goods in a show-case, show -window with a price tag is only inviting offer.

When something is agreed to by two or more competent persons voluntarily with a view to bind each other and create mutual  rights and duties ,such understanding not tainted with fraud, misrepresentation, coercion and occurred with identical object, purpose,subject and object for mutual lawful promises is a contract.
If the relationship so created is insulated in such a way as to prevent or restrict the free flow of consent, understanding,aims and object the relationship may fall short of contract and may take a shape of other legal terms that may give rise to other civil or criminal consequences.
A judge has to deal with all such types of contracts,quasi contracts, neo-contracts, anticipated contracts,, disputed contracts,repudiated contracts, tainted contracts, unfair contracts,legal contracts, illegal contracts,void contracts (contract non-est),voidable contracts, impossible contracts, private contract, public contract ( tort),express contract,implied contract.
  

Constitution and its philosophy are the fundamentals of law of the land . There can be no law against constitutional mandate or philosophy or basics.
Similarly social evolution is the result of implied or express social proposals and acceptance thereof. Society developed on the doctrine of mutuality.Mutuality is the essence of all contracts and obligations or rights and duties.Otherwise good-faith,  good intention and clarity of aim -object-subject ,terms and conditions makes the mutual understanding the foundation of all the transactions in a civilized law governed society.
Contracts and their nature, relations between the parties to the contract, are the foundation of all civil or criminal laws and even equity and fair play.

Knowledge of law for citizen and others is required to know how the state/society  wants /directs him to conduct himself and how his interests are viewed in a particular time frame.social frame,political frame or geographical frame. Law defines the relation of an individual and his dignity,status with the society.Law is the manifestation of state's will and vision that governs the society.
Executive wing has to administer it.
A Judge has to examine why the law is there and how the law has to be applied in the given circumstance to achieve maximum compliance of the law so that the aim and object of law can be secured. Law is only a road map and a judge has to travel through it and build the mansion of justice that may inspire society and individual.

A judge dealing with problems relating to contracts has to examine whether there is an enforceable- valid -legal contract in which the terms and conditions are ascertainable and the capacity,status ,understanding ,intention of the parties is visible and whether they parties intend to act upon the same and whether  the contract was a possibility and is still a possibility.
Contracts give rise to civil consequences and  now a days in India to get justice in civil cases is not prompt and so there is a growing tendency to present a civil matter as a criminal law matter or as a constitutional concern or as a public concern in order to create or add an urgency tag.Judges must be attentive.

Please hear the S C

Mobile View

Main Search Forums Advanced Search Disclaimer

Cites 5 docs

The Indian Penal Code, 1860

Section 309 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860

K.S. Paripoornan (Ii) vs State Of Kerla on 20 October, 1994

The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973

Rajdeo Sharma vs State Of Bihar on 14 May, 1999

Citedby 8 docs - [View All]

Vishal And Anr. vs State Of M.P. on 10 August, 2004

Umesh vs State Of Kerala on 25 November, 2004

Laxman Das vs Deoji Mal And Ors. on 2 September, 2002

Government Of Andhra Pradesh vs Madanlal, Ips And Anr. on 12 February, 2002

Association Of Victims Of Uphaar ... vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors. on 4 April, 2002

User Queries

murder

cross examination

remand

murder doctypes:judgments

leave to appeal

section 309

"cross examination"

custody

shambhu nath

summon

leave to appeal doctypes:judgments

section 309 citedby:1501595

examination of witnesses

"state of u.p.

Supreme Court of India

State Of U.P vs Shambhu Nath Singh And Ors on 29 March, 2001

Author: Thomas

Bench: K Thomas, R Sethi

CASE NO.:
Appeal (crl.) 392 of 2001
PETITIONER:
STATE OF U.P.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
SHAMBHU NATH SINGH AND ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 29/03/2001
BENCH:
K.T. Thomas & R.P. Sethi
JUDGMENT:
THOMAS, J.
Leave granted.
L...I...T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T..J
Witnesses tremble on getting summons from courts, in India, not because they fear examination or cross- examination in courts but because of the fear that they might not be examined at all for several days and on all such days they would be nailed to the precincts of the courts awaiting their chance of being examined. The witnesses, perforce, keep aside their avocation and go to the courts and wait and wait for hours to be told at the end of the day to come again and wait and wait like that. This is the infelicitous scenario in many of the courts in India so far as witnesses are concerned. It is high time that trial courts should regard witnesses as guests invited (through summons) for helping such courts with their testimony for reaching judicial findings. But the malady is that the predicament of the witnesses is worse than the litigants themselves. This case demonstrates the agony and ordeal suffered by witnesses who attended a Sessions court on several days and yet they were not examined in full. The party who succeeded in dodging examination of such witnesses finally enjoyed the benefit when the Sessions Court acquitted them for want of evidence. The only casualty in the aforesaid process is criminal justice.
This appeal by special leave is by the State of U.P. against the order of acquittal of the respondents and also against the order of a Division Bench of the High Court of Allahabad refusing to grant leave to appeal against acquittal. How the situation reached can be narrated now after referring to the facts of the case summarily.
Nine persons were arraigned before a Sessions Court to face the charges of murder, attempt to murder and rioting etc. Those nine persons are the respondents in this appeal. The trial judge included Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 149 of the IPC among other offences in the charge framed against the respondents. The allegations, inter alia, are that the respondents formed themselves into an unlawful assembly at about 8 P.M. on 22.6.1982 and armed with the deadly weapons including firearms, they caused the murder of one Ram Bachan and serious injuries to some other persons.
Prosecution cited Jiyawoo, Paras and Indresh Singh as eye witnesses and offered to examine them and other witnesses to prove the charge against the respondents. We are told that Jiyawoo was examined as PW-1, but his cross- examination was not completed on the same day. Hence, the trial court adjourned the case to some other day and then to some other day and like that to so many days. According to the learned counsel for the appellant State, PW-1 Jiyawoo had appeared in court on 9th and 15th of November 1994, 8th December 1994, and then on 12th Januanry, 7th February, 24th June, 25th August and 25th September of 1995. In spite of the fact that the witness turned upon on those days he was not cross-examined due to one reason or the other for which the witness is not at fault. Copy of the proceeding papers submitted before us showed that one or the other accused was absent on most of those days and the cross-examination of PW-1 could not be undertaken for that reason. The Public Prosecutor in the trial court filed an application on 11.7.1995 for adopting punitive action against the accused for the dilatory tactics and the Sessions Court posted the case to 25th August, 1995 with a warning to the accused that no further adjournment would be given for cross-examination of PW-1. But the presiding officer happened to be on leave on 25th August, 1995 and hence the case was posted to 25th September, 1995. Though PW-1 was present on that day also he was not examined. Ultimately the case stood posted on 4.1.1996. But on that day PW-1 happened to be absent and an application for adjournment was presented on his behalf. The trial judge dismissed the said application and closed the prosecution evidence and pronounced the judgment on 9.1.1996 acquitting the accused for want of evidence.
It is pertinent to point out that the trial judge expressed misgivings about the police that they and the accused in the case would have colluded together for not producing evidence against the accused. This is what the Sessions Judge has said on that score:
A perusal of the file in the present case shows that the said matter is pending before the sessions court since 1991 and five years have passed while the prosecution side have been given 45 dates for producing evidence but the prosecution has still failed to lead any evidence, whereas the prosecution side had filed the list of 34 witnesses in the court. It is regretted and it appears to be a handiwork of the police administration and it can be safely derived thereof that the police and the prosecution side have colluded with the defence side, and therefore they have not produced any witness in the court. The conduct of the police (at police station Autraulia) has put a question mark on the performance of the police.
After the order of acquittal was passed the State moved the High Court seeking leave to appeal. A Division Bench of the High Court of Allahabad refused to grant leave to appeal, for which learned judges wrote only two sentences as under:
Heard learned A.G.A. Perused the impugned judgment. We do not find any good ground for interference by this court in appeal. Leave to appeal is refused.
If the Sessions Judge had succumbed to the collusive tactics of the parties in serious offences like murder by acquitting the accused on the ground of want of evidence in spite of witnesses being present on a large number of dates the public confidence in the efficacy of the administration of criminal justice would be further drained considerably. In the present case, when PW-1 was examined in chief the court should have posted the case to the next working day for completion of cross-examination of that witness. What a pity when a Sessions Court was engaged in adjourning and again adjourning the case at long intervals in spite of the presence of eye witnesses willing to be examined fully. If the trial court thought it fit to close the evidence on a day when the witness could not be present, the accused would have had the last laugh.
We make it abundantly clear that if a witness is present in court he must be examined on that day. The court must know that most of the witnesses could attend the court only at heavy cost to them, after keeping aside their own avocation. Certainly they incur suffering and loss of income. The meagre amount of Bhatta (allowance) which a witness may be paid by the court is generally a poor solace for the financial loss incurred by him. It is a sad plight in the trial courts that witnesses who are called through summons or other processes stand at the doorstep from morning till evening only to be told at the end of the day that the case is adjourned to another day. This primitive practice must be reformed by presiding officers of the trial courts and it can be reformed by every one provided the presiding officer concerned has a commitment to duty. No sadistic pleasure in seeing how other persons summoned by him as witnesses are stranded on account of the dimension of his judicial powers can be a persuading factor for granting such adjournments lavishly, that too in a casual manner.
Section 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the Code) is the only provision which confers power on the trial court for granting adjournments in criminal proceedings. The conditions laid down by the legislature for granting such adjournments have been clearly incorporated in the section. It reads thus:
309. Power to postpone or adjourn proceedings- (1) In every inquiry or trial, the proceedings shall be held as expeditiously as possible, and in particular, when the examination of witnesses has once begun, the same shall be continued from day to day until all the witnesses in attendance have been examined, unless the Court finds the adjournment of the same beyond the following day to be necessary for reasons to be recorded.
(2) If the Court, after taking cognizance of an offence, or commencement of trial, finds it necessary or advisable to postpone the commencement of, or adjourn, any inquiry or trial, it may, from time to time, for reasons to be recorded, postpone or adjourn the same on such terms as it thinks fit, for such time as it considers reasonable, and may by a warrant remand the accused if in custody:
Provided that no Magistrate shall remand an accused person to custody under this section for a term exceeding fifteen days at a time.
Provided further that when witnesses are in attendance, no adjournment or postponement shall be granted without examining them, except for special reasons to be recorded in writing.
Provided also that no adjournment shall be granted for the purpose only of enabling the accused person to show cause against the sentence proposed to be imposed on him.
The first sub-section mandates on the trial courts that the proceedings shall be held expeditiously but the words as expeditiously as possible have provided some play at the joints and it is through such play that delay often creeps in the trials. Even so, the next limb of the sub-section sounded for a more vigorous stance to be adopted by the court at a further advanced stage of the trial. That stage is when examination of witnesses begin. The legislature which diluted the vigour of the mandate contained in the initial limb of the sub-section by using the words as expeditiously as possible, has chosen to make the requirement for the next stage (when examination of witnesses has started) to be quite stern. Once the case reaches that stage the statutory command is that such examination shall be continued from day to day until all the witnesses in attendance have been examined. The solitary exception to the said stringent rule is, if the court finds that adjournment beyond the following day to be necessary the same can be granted for which a condition is imposed on the court that reasons for the same should be recorded. Even this dilution has been taken away when witnesses are in attendance before the Court. In such situation the court is not given any power to adjourn the case except in the extreme contingency for which the second proviso to sub-section (2) has imposed another condition, provided further that when witnesses are in attendance, no adjournment or postponement shall be granted without examining them, except for special reasons to be recorded in writing.
(emphasis supplied)
Thus, the legal position is that once examination of witnesses started the court has to continue the trial from day to day until all witnesses in attendance have been examined (except those whom the party has given up). The court has to record reasons for deviating from the said course. Even that is forbidden when witnesses are present in court, as the requirement then is that the court has to examine them. Only if there are special reasons, which reasons should find a place in the order for adjournment, that alone can confer jurisdiction on the court to adjourn the case without examination of witnesses who are present in court.
Now, we are distressed to note that it is almost a common practice and regular occurrence that trial courts flout the said command with immunity. Even when witnesses are present cases are adjourned on far less serious reasons or even on flippant grounds. Adjournments are granted even in such situations on the mere asking for it. Quite often such adjournments are granted to suit the convenience of the advocate concerned. We make it clear that the legislature has frowned at granting adjournments on that ground. At any rate inconvenience of an advocate is not a special reason for bypassing the mandate of Section 309 of the Code.
If any court finds that the day to day examination of witnesses mandated by the legislature cannot be complied with due to the non co-operation of accused or his counsel the court can adopt any of the measures indicated in the sub-section i.e. remanding the accused to custody or imposing cost on the party who wants such adjournments (the cost must be commensurate with the loss suffered by the witnesses, including the expenses to attend the court). Another option is, when the accused is absent and the witness is present to be examined, the court can cancel his bail, if he is on bail (unless an application is made on his behalf seeking permission for his counsel to proceed to examine the witnesses present even in his absence provided the accused gives an undertaking in writing that he would not dispute his identity as the particular accused in the case.)
The time frame suggested by a three-Judge Bench of this court in Rajdeo Sharma vs. State of Bihar{1998 (7) SCC 507} is partly in consideration of the legislative mandate contained in Section 309(1) of the Code. This is what the Bench said on that score:
The Code of Criminal Procedure is comprehensive enough to enable the Magistrate to close the prosecution if the prosecution is unable to produce its witnesses in spite of repeated opportunities. Section 309(1) Cr.P.C. supports the above view as it enjoins expeditious holding of the proceedings and continuous examination of witnesses from day to day. The section also provides for recording reasons for adjourning the case beyond the following day. In Rajdeo Sharma (II) vs. State of Bihar {1999 (7) SCC 604} this Court pointed out that the trial court cannot be permitted to flout the mandate of Parliament unless the court has very cogent and strong reasons and no court has permission to adjourn examination of witnesses who are in attendance beyond the next working day. A request has been made by this Court to all the High Courts to remind all the trial judges of the need to comply with Section 309 of the Code. The request is in the following terms:
We request every High Court to remind the trial judges through a circular, of the need to comply with Section 309 of the Code in letter and spirit. We also request the High Court concerned to take note of the conduct of any particular trial judge who violates the above legislative mandate and to adopt such administrative action against the delinquent judicial officer as the law permits.
We believe, hopefully, that the High Courts would have issued the circular desired by the apex court as per the said judgement. If the insistence made by the Parliament through Section 309 of the Code can be adhered to by the trial courts there is every chance of the parties co- operating with the courts for achieving the desired objects and it would relieve the agony which witnesses summoned are now suffering on account of their non-examination for days.
It is no justification to glide on any alibi by blaming the infrastructure for skirting the legislative mandates embalmed in Section 309 of the Code. A judicious judicial officer who is committed to his work could manage with the existing infrastructure for complying with such legislative mandates. The precept in the old homily that a lazy workman always blames his tools, is the only answer to those indolent judicial officers who find fault with the defects in the system and the imperfections of the existing infrastructure for his tardiness in coping up with such directions.
In some states a system is evolved for framing a schedule of consecutive working days for examination of witnesses in each sessions trial to be followed. Such schedule is fixed by the Court well in advance after ascertaining the convenience of the counsel on both sides. Summons or process would then be handed over to the Public Prosecutor incharge of the case to cause them to be served on the witnesses. Once the schedule is so fixed and witnesses are summoned the trial invariably proceeds from day today. This is one method of complying with the mandates of the law. It is for the presiding officer of each court to chalk out any other methods, if any found better, for complying with the legal provisions contained in Section 309 of the Code. Of course, the High Court can monitor, supervise and give directions, on the administration side, regarding measures to conform to the legislative insistence contained in the above section.
We have no doubt that in this case a miscarriage of justice has occasioned due to the failure of the trial court to comply with the mandatory directions contained in the Code. Criminal justice cannot be allowed to be defeated solely on account of inaction or lapses of the court in adhering to the mandates of law. When the State of UP moved the High Court of Allahabad, in this case, seeking leave to appeal, the above aspect should have been considered by the learned Judges and set right the grave miscarriage of justice occasioned on account of flouting the directions of law.
We, therefore, allow this appeal and set aside the order of the acquittal passed by the trial court. We direct the trial court to proceed with the further examination of PW-1 and examination of other witnesses to whom the court should issue process if so requested by the prosecution. (It is open to the prosecution to produce such witnesses without bothering the Court to issue summons to them). The case shall be disposed of after taking all the remaining steps, in accordance with law.
This appeal is disposed of in the above terms.

Who planned this divorce- whetherirwasintentional

Judicial Brethren - Wear Wholesome Outlook
The Constitution of India provides for three tier judicial pyramid.
 District Judiciary is its foundation and base
. The Supreme Court is the Summit Court.
 In between is the High Court of each state.
 All the three play a vital role in the justice delivery system.
One of the sources for elevation to the High Court is the District Judiciary.
Its link with the Constitution is important in our constitutional system.
 The use of the expression ‘Subordinate Courts’ in article 235 is not healthy.
 Equally, article 228 de-links the district judiciary from the Constitution.
 Under article 228, the High Courts can withdraw a case from the District Court involving interpretation of the Constitution.
 During the course of last more than 60 years, one does not know, how many cases may have been withdrawn.
But the direct consequence of this provision (article 228) has been that the District Judiciary stands divorced from the Constitution of India.
 This is a retrograde provision. This provision needs reconsideration in the light of our experience.
 In fact, this deprives our district judiciary of that ‘wholesome’Constitutional outlook.
The judicial brethren at all levels need to wear wholesome outlook.
The mental make-up makes all the difference. Therefore, Think positive. Act positive. Do positive.
Be not suspicious. A suspicious judicial mind would hamper the doing of justice.
The judicial brethren must bring change in their outlook. This change is must. It is not difficult.
 It is, in fact, possible.
Alfred Nobel was the inventor of dynamite. Over 100 years ago, he was
reading the morning news paper. To his utter surprise, he found his name in the
obituary column. The newspaper had reported the death of a wrong person by
mistake. The obituary read, “Dynamite king dies. He was the merchant of death”.
Alfred Nobel asked himself, this is how I am going to be remembered ? He felt
depressed. His feelings and emotions took charge of him. After sometime, he
composed himself. He gave serious thought as to what he should do so that he is
remembered for something good. He created a Trust. He instituted the great Nobel
Prize.
 This change in his mental make-up and outlook enriched and continues to
enrich the whole world. May it be in the field of Literature. Medicine. Science.
Economics. Peace. In such variety of fields, the sound minds which make rich
Pcontribution are honoured and awarded the Nobel Prize every year. This change has
made Alfred Nobel immortal. He is no more. His fragrance continues.
Accordingly, if the judicial brethren cultivate and wear wholesome outlook, it
would make all the difference in the justice delivery system of our country. To do
justice is service of the noblest kind. To do justice is divine. It is only the fortunate
one who gets an opportunity to do justice.
The judicial brethren are human beings.
 Harold Laski once wrote to justice
Holmes : “He wished that people could be persuaded to realize that judges are
human beings; it would be a real help to jurisprudence”.
 Both, the people and the judges need to realize that judges are human beings.
To be a good judge, be a good human being. Knowledge of law is not that important as it is to be a good human being. Minus this, it would be difficult to be a good judge.
Shakespeare wrote : judge not so that ye be not judged. It is difficult to
subscribe to this. Judge so that ye be also judged.
The judicial brethren must not be
scared or worried that they are being judged. They must wear the judicious
conscious. Judicious outlook. Perform the duties of your office without fear or favour.
Affection or ill will. A judge is answerable to his conscious. This is the constitutional
mandate.
Socrates gave four way test for a judge :
Hear courteously;
Consider soberly;
Answer wisely; and
Decide impartially.
This four way test sums up the outlook of the judicial brethren.
Justice A.K. Sikri in the recent High Court Judges’ Conference at the National
Judicial Academy, Bhopal suggested four virtues of a judge.

Judicial Courage is the first virtue. A judge must be courageous. Must be
bold. The courts often face difficult situations. Unless, the court has the virtue of
being bold, it would fail in it constitutional obligation
.
Judicial Temperament is the second virtue which the judicial brethren must
possess. They must be cool and clinical. They must not be temperamental.
 If a judge loses his temper, he would not be able to do justice.
Lord Denning died 100 and plus.In his court, a lady argued her own case. She was given a patient hearing. The petition came to be dismissed. The lady got furious. She lost her temper. There were three books lying in front of her. She picked up each book one by one to hit Lord Denning. Lord Denning saved himself. He ducked. Each time the lady missed the target. No more books Lord Denning kept his cool. Didn’t say a word. The lady walked up to the exit door. Stopped. She said, how cool even in a war situation. She
walked out. Lord Denning said, a matter of sudden provocation.

 Still another example of judicial temperament. In London Times, some time back, a story appeared.
Alongwith the story, there were photographs of three Lords of House of Lords. The
caption was : “Old Fools”. One of the Lords happened to come to India. Fali Nariman
happen to meet him. He asked him about the story that had appeared. The Lords
were described as “Old Fools” and yet no contempt notice was issued? He smiled.
He asked, what was there to issue the contempt notice ? ‘Old’ is a matter of ‘Fact’.
‘Fool’ is a matter of ‘Opinion’. Why contempt notice ?
How cool. How balanced. 
This is reflective of the judicial temperament.
Under the Indian Constitution, there is a fundamental duty for every citizen to develop scientific temper.
 The judicial brethren would be able to render wholesome justice, if they are able to cultivate the virtue of
cool mind. Control temper. Justice would flow.
Judicial Wisdom is the third virtue. Sound minds are not easily liable to
extraneous considerations. It is not known, whether any Nobel laureate may have
fallen prey to any such dubious practice. The book ‘Legends in Law’ written by V.
Sudhish Pai is a store-house. It has portrayed brilliantly some of our great judges and
lawyers. Soli Sorabjee while writing about the book has recorded : ‘A feeling of awe
and reverence is generated as we witness the procession of the greats unfolded
before us’. This book should become compulsory reading for the judicial brethren. It
is full of judicial wisdom. Knowledge for doing justice is necessary.

Judicial Independence is the fourth virtue. This goes to the root of the
Institution of judiciary. If rule of law is to be sustained, judicial independence is the
raw material which is needed for its sustenance. Indian higher judiciary is perhaps
the strongest. Its contribution is sue generis. Matchable with other systems. Around
the globe. Second to none. The brethren in black robes has played its innings. Infact,
it continues to play. This in itself does not mean that we are flaw-less. That there are
no aberrations in our system. We need a judicial Ombudsman with constitutional
fabric.
The four way test and the four judicial virtues constitute the judicial culture. It is
this culture which unites and binds the brethren. If the brethren would wear this
judicial cultural outlook, the judicial brethren will be able to render wholesome justice.
The nation is hungry for justice. Come forward. Do not lag behind. This is your
constitutional obligation. Attitude determines the altitude.
(Balram K. Gupta)
Director
National Judicial Academy
IndiaJudicial Brethren - Wear Wholesome Outlook
The Constitution of India provides for three tier judicial pyramid. District
Judiciary is its foundation and base. The Supreme Court is the Summit Court. In
between is the High Court of each state. All the three play a vital role in the justice
delivery system. One of the sources for elevation to the High Court is the District
Judiciary. Its link with the Constitution is important in our constitutional system. The
use of the expression ‘Subordinate Courts’ in article 235 is not healthy. Equally,
article 228 de-links the district judiciary from the Constitution. Under article 228, the
High Courts can withdraw a case from the District Court involving interpretation of the
Constitution. During the course of last more than 60 years, one does not know, how
many cases may have been withdrawn. But the direct consequence of this provision
(article 228) has been that the District Judiciary stands divorced from the Constitution
of India. This is a retrograde provision. This provision needs reconsideration in the
light of our experience. Infact, this deprives our district judiciary of that ‘wholesome’
Constitutional outlook.
The judicial brethren at all levels need to wear wholesome outlook. The mental
make-up makes all the difference. Therefore, Think positive. Act positive. Do positive.
Be not suspicious. A suspicious judicial mind would hamper the doing of justice. The
judicial brethren must bring change in their outlook. This change is must. It is not
difficult. It is, infact, possible.
Alfred Nobel was the inventor of dynamite. Over 100 years ago, he was
reading the morning news paper. To his utter surprise, he found his name in the
obituary column. The newspaper had reported the death of a wrong person by
mistake. The obituary read, “Dynamite king dies. He was the merchant of death”.
Alfred Nobel asked himself, this is how I am going to be remembered ? He felt
depressed. His feelings and emotions took charge of him. After sometime, he
composed himself. He gave serious thought as to what he should do so that he is
remembered for something good. He created a Trust. He instituted the great Nobel
Prize. This change in his mental make-up and outlook enriched and continues to
enrich the whole world. May it be in the field of Literature. Medicine. Science.
Economics. Peace. In such variety of fields, the sound minds which make rich
Page | 2
contribution are honoured and awarded the Nobel Prize every year. This change has
made Alfred Nobel immortal. He is no more. His fragrance continues.
Accordingly, if the judicial brethren cultivate and wear wholesome outlook, it
would make all the difference in the justice delivery system of our country. To do
justice is service of the noblest kind. To do justice is divine. It is only the fortunate
one who gets an opportunity to do justice.
The judicial brethren are human beings. Harold Laski once wrote to justice
Holmes : “He wished that people could be persuaded to realize that judges are
human beings; it would be a real help to jurisprudence”. Both, the people and the
judges need to realize that judges are human beings. To be a good judge, be a good
human being. Knowledge of law is not that important as it is to be a good human
being. Minus this, it would be difficult to be a good judge.
Shakespeare wrote : judge not so that ye be not judged. It is difficult to
subscribe to this. Judge so that ye be also judged. The judicial brethren must not be
scared or worried that they are being judged. They must wear the judicious
conscious. Judicious outlook. Perform the duties of your office without fear or favour.
Affection or ill will. A judge is answerable to his conscious. This is the constitutional
mandate.
Socrates gave four way test for a judge :
Hear courteously;
Consider soberly;
Answer wisely; and
Decide impartially.
This four way test sums up the outlook of the judicial brethren.
Justice A.K. Sikri in the recent High Court Judges’ Conference at the National
Judicial Academy, Bhopal suggested four virtues of a judge.
Page | 3
Judicial Courage is the first virtue. A judge must be courageous. Must be
bold. The courts often face difficult situations. Unless, the court has the virtue of
being bold, it would fail in it constitutional obligation.
Judicial Temperament is the second virtue which the judicial brethren must
possess. They must be cool and clinical. They must not be temperamental. If a judge
loses his temper, he would not be able to do justice. Lord Denning died 100 and plus.
In his court, a lady argued her own case. She was given a patient hearing. The
petition came to be dismissed. The lady got furious. She lost her temper. There were
three books lying in front of her. She picked up each book one by one to hit Lord
Denning. Lord Denning saved himself. He ducked. Each time the lady missed the
target. No more books Lord Denning kept his cool. Didn’t say a word. The lady
walked up to the exit door. Stopped. She said, how cool even in a war situation. She
walked out. Lord Denning said, a matter of sudden provocation. Still another example
of judicial temperament. In London Times, some time back, a story appeared.
Alongwith the story, there were photographs of three Lords of House of Lords. The
caption was : “Old Fools”. One of the Lords happened to come to India. Fali Nariman
happen to meet him. He asked him about the story that had appeared. The Lords
were described as “Old Fools” and yet no contempt notice was issued? He smiled.
He asked, what was there to issue the contempt notice ? ‘Old’ is a matter of ‘Fact’.
‘Fool’ is a matter of ‘Opinion’. Why contempt notice ? How cool. How balanced. This
is reflective of the judicial temperament. Under the Indian Constitution, there is a
fundamental duty for every citizen to develop scientific temper. The judicial brethren
would be able to render wholesome justice, if they are able to cultivate the virtue of
cool mind. Control temper. Justice would flow.
Judicial Wisdom is the third virtue. Sound minds are not easily liable to
extraneous considerations. It is not known, whether any Nobel laureate may have
fallen prey to any such dubious practice. The book ‘Legends in Law’ written by V.
Sudhish Pai is a store-house. It has portrayed brilliantly some of our great judges and
lawyers. Soli Sorabjee while writing about the book has recorded : ‘A feeling of awe
and reverence is generated as we witness the procession of the greats unfolded
before us’. This book should become compulsory reading for the judicial brethren. It
is full of judicial wisdom. Knowledge for doing justice is necessary.
Page | 4
Judicial Independence is the fourth virtue. This goes to the root of the
Institution of judiciary. If rule of law is to be sustained, judicial independence is the
raw material which is needed for its sustenance. Indian higher judiciary is perhaps
the strongest. Its contribution is sue generis. Matchable with other systems. Around
the globe. Second to none. The brethren in black robes has played its innings. Infact,
it continues to play. This in itself does not mean that we are flaw-less. That there are
no aberrations in our system. We need a judicial Ombudsman with constitutional
fabric.
The four way test and the four judicial virtues constitute the judicial culture. It is
this culture which unites and binds the brethren. If the brethren would wear this
judicial cultural outlook, the judicial brethren will be able to render wholesome justice.
The nation is hungry for justice. Come forward. Do not lag behind. This is your
constitutional obligation. Attitude determines the altitude.
(Balram K. Gupta)
Director
National Judicial Academy
India

लक्ष्य तक की यात्रा के लिये न तो कोई सहयात्री मिलतें हैं, न कोई वाहन,कोई शिड्यूल भी बनी बनाई नहीं मिलती- एडवांस बुकिंग का तो प्रशन ही नहीं---- सच -दिशा भ्रम न हो इस ख्याल के साथ ऐकला चलो रे और हाँ, रूकना मत, मैं भी कहूँ तो भी नहीं, जब विश्वास हो जाये कि अब चल पड़ना है तब बिना साइत संजोग देखे मूट्ठी बधी, भृकुटी तनी, दाँत पर दाँत चढ़ाया, सजग, सावधान,सरल चल दिया---- लक्ष्य खुद रू-बरू हो ते जायेंगें, पर तब भी रूकना मना है-, अभी और चलते जाना है----

Proportionate, calm-within & full strength living- dts my cup of life- my morning tea cup

My mark-sheet yesterday is open for all and right now I am trying to improve my yesterdays performance- I learn not from 91 that I got but from "8" +"1" that I have still to earn - This 1x9 is my Journey; I am my own competitor; miles to go before I sleep and that too there must be footprints- ney not yours, but mine

मैं सतरंगे सपने बेचता हूँ,
अपनी आँखों में उगाये सपने बेचता हूँ
मेरे साथ नींद लिये सपने बेचता हूँ ।
तुम्हारी नींद उड़ा दे वे सपने भेजता हूँ
मुझे जगा दिया था जिसने ,वे सपने,
आज मैं तुम्हें भेजता हूँ

सपनों को अपना बना लेना
अपनों को अपना सपना दिखा लेना
बड़ी बात है बस इसीलिये
मैं सतरंगे सपने बेचता हूँ,
वे सपने भेजता हूँ
तुम्हें भेजता हूँ

प्रश्न खड़े करना सीखो। प्रश्नों को सलीके से पूछना सीखो।
प्रश्न दागना एक कला है। सामने वाले के सामने प्रश्न को शान्ति से रख भर देना, फिर प्रतिक्रिया का इन्तजार, बस यही तो सीखना है।
प्रश्न पहचानना भी कला है। प्रश्नों का संभालना भी कला है। जाने कब किस प्रश्न का जबाब कहाँ मिल जाये।
सभी प्रश्नों का जबाब तत्काल न तो दिया जा सकता हैं न तत्काल जबाब देना जरूरी है। किसी किसी प्रश्न का जबाब देने में तो पीढ़ियाँ लग जाती है।

खुछ प्रश्न सार्वकालिक होते हैं।


प्रश्न प्रश्न ही होते हैं, और कुछ नहीं।उनका अपना संसार होता है।
उत्तर प्रश्नों की दुनिया या परिवार के अपने नहीं पराये होते हैं, उत्तरों के भरोसे प्रश्नों से पार नहीं पाया जा सकता।
प्रश्न स्वयंभु होते हैं, निराकार होते हैं।अटल होते हैं।अनन्त होते हैं। प्रश्न बहुरुपिया किस्म के होते हें- मायावी होते हैं।
प्रश्न देखने से, सुनने से, पढ़ने से, ज्ञान से अनायास बढ़ते है, पैदा हुए ही जाते हैं, थमने का नाम नहीं।
समय , काल ,परिस्थिति कुछ भी बदलते ही वही प्रश्न पुनः हाजिर हो जाता है।प्रश्न कई बार कतरों में आते हैं।
आपस में लड़ते झगडते आते हैं। प्रश्नों में आपस में बैर, प्रेम तथा प्रतियोगिता होती है।प्रश्न बुलाने पर नहीं आते, बिना बुलाये आते ही दिखते हैं। प्रश्न उत्तर के रूप में भी आते हैं , कई बार एक ही प्रश्न कई प्रश्नों का उत्तर बन जाते हैं।
प्रश्न पालने नहीं चाहिये। तुरत चलता किजिये। दिमाग खराब कर देते हैं । फसाद की जड़ होते हैं ये प्रश्न ।इस डाल से उस डाल, गौरैया की तरह उड़ते फिरते हैं- गिलहरी की तरह फुदकते चलते हैं-नाचते चलते हैं।
दिन-रात, समय-कुसमय कुछ भी नहीं देखते।, जब मन किया चले आये। आने का भी तरीका नहीं। कभी एकदम से ठीक आँख के सामने, पलक झपकते।,कभी सोचतै सोचते। कभी सपनों में तो कभी नाचते -घोरते-। कभी- कभी तो इतने चुपचाप की पता ही नहीं चलता कि प्रश्न बगल में ही खड़ा है और व भी कब से।

रास्ते खड़े नहीं रहते,
न वे ठहरते है
मंजिलों की बाट जोहते
रास्ते कभी रूका नहीं करते।
मंजिले न भी हो तो
रास्ते होश नहीं खोते
पस्त नहीं पड़ते
सुस्त होना रास्तों की फितरत नही।
नदी, नाले या पहाड़
रास्ते को रोक नहीं पाते
रास्तों को नहीं चाहिये
खास किस्म की मट्टी
या कि खास तरह का मौसम
रास्ते तो पैदा हो जाते हैं
समुद्र की छाती पर।
गहराइयों में भी रास्ते बने मिलते है
शुन्य से व्योम तक
नभ से अवनी तक
पहाड़ से पाताल तक
प्रकाश से अन्धकार तक
ये रास्ते आज के नहीं है
मंजिले बनाये जाने के बहुत पहले ही
रास्ते बने बनाये थे
रास्ते अनन्त है
रास्ते  रूप लिये तो हैं ही
रास्ते अरुप भी है
रास्ते विचार भी है
रास्ते यात्रा है
रास्ते कल्पना ही नहीं
यथार्थ भी है
रास्ते केवल मंजिलों के लिये नहीं होते
रास्ते रास्तों के लिये भी होते हैं
रास्ते वहाँ भी होते हैं
जाँ रास्ते नहीं होते
रास्ते अन्धेरे रास्तों से भी होते हैं
रास्तैबंद रास्तों के बाद भी होते हैं
रास्ते आकाश, पाताल-
या कि आग औ पानी
घड़ी, साईत -संजोग
झंझावात या आघात
नरम हो या गरम
से डरा नही करते
रास्ते मंजिलों के लिये
न रुकते हैं
न झुकते है
मंजिले खुद चल कर आती है
रास्तों के पास
रास्ता ही तो मंजिल का अस्तित्व है
रास्ता ही तत्व है
रासते पर चलना ही धर्म है
पथिक का धर्म
मंजिल का मर्म्
रास्ता ही तो है

जिसे आप सुन्दर मानते हैं, या जानते हैं वह आपके बनाये पैमानों पर नापा तौला या बना -बनाया या परखा गया सौन्दर्य है, आपकी सीमा के बाहर वह क्या है उसे आप नहीं जानते। उसी प्रकार आपकी सीमा के बाहर बहुत कुछ है।
 आपकी सीमा के अन्दर भी अनन्त मूल्य हैं, मापदन्ड है- उनपे कसे जाने पर आपकी कल्पित सुन्दरता का क्या होगा , कम से कम मैं तो नहीं ही जानता।
सुन्दरता पूर्णतः व्यक्तिगत धारणा है।
उसी प्रकार न्याय भी।
समाज ने व्यवस्था के लिये कुछ व्यापक मापदन्ड स्विकार किये-करवाये हैं।
कुछ समय के साथ स्वतः स्वीकृत हुए, कुछ मजबूरी में विकल्प न रहने के कारण  स्वीकार कर लिये गये।
इन सब के बाद भी हमारा, आपका जो व्यक्तिगत सोचना था, व्यक्तिगत हित था, हमारी जो व्यक्तिगत धारणा थी वह सब समाज  के साथ जब -तब बेमेल हो ही जाती है, संघर्ष पर उतर  ही आती है और हम समाज के दृष्टिकोण में  बदलाव के लिये प्रयास करने लगते हैं।

Effect of SLP dismissal in limine: The law revisited

Effect of SLP dismissal in limine: The law revisited

Compiled by me from the web- I thought it to be useful- originally penned by one Tarun Jain 

The Constitution of India, vide Article 136, vests extraordinary jurisdiction in the Supreme Court. It vests with the Supreme Court the discretion to entertain an appeal against any decision or order of any court or tribunal. It thus also provides a limited relief against all such orders in respect of which no appeal has been provided. However in as much as the jurisdiction in this respect is discretion-bound, there is every change that the Court may not exercise it, thereby implying that no appeal can be preferred against such orders. This has been a cause for problem in as much as the doctrine of precedent in concerned.

Once a matter forms the subject-matter of consideration of the Supreme Court, in view of Article 141 of the Constitution, the opinion expressed by the Court forms a binding precedent and demands follow-up by all courts in the country. When it comes to filing of a petition seeking special leave to appeal in terms of Article 136 and where the Court is no inclined to grant leave, there is hardly an expression of opinion by the Supreme Court in as much as the order does not record any reason for such dismissal of petition. Such dismissals, called as in limine dismissals, whether constitute binding precedent and thus require to be followed by other courts forms the subject-matter of discussion in this post.

The law to this effect was culled out by Justice R.C. Lahoti in Kunhayammed case which forms the leading case in this regard. In a recent decision the Supreme Court revisited the law on this issue and explained the effect of an in limine dismissal of the SLP, while also discussing the relationship in respect of the doctrine of merger in the following terms;

7. The questions do arise as to whether such an order of withdrawal passed by this Court amounts to confirmation/approval of the judgment and order of the High Court and as to whether appellant could be treated differently. 

8. There is no dispute to the settled proposition of law that dismissal of the Special Leave Petition in limine by this Court does not mean that the reasoning of the judgment of the High Court against which the Special Leave Petition has been filed before this Court stands affirmed or the judgment and order impugned merges with such order of this Court on dismissal of the petition. It simply means that this Court did not consider the case worth examining for the reason, which may be other than merit of the case. Nor such an order of this Court operates as res judicata. An order rejecting the Special Leave Petition at the threshold without detailed reasons therefore does not constitute any declaration of law or a binding precedent. [Vide The Workmen of Cochin Port Trust Vs. The Board of Trustees of the Cochin Port Trust & Anr. AIR 1978 SC 1283; Ahmedabad Manufacturing & Calico Printing Co. Ltd. Vs. The Workmen & Anr. AIR 1981 SC 960; Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. AIR 1986 SC 1780; Supreme Court Employees’ Welfare Association Vs. Union of India & Ors. AIR 1990 SC 334; Yogendra Narayan Chowdhury & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. AIR 1996 SC 751; Union of India & Anr. Vs. Sher Singh & Ors. AIR 1997 SC 1796; V.M. Salgaocar & Bros. (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax AIR 2000 SC 1623; Saurashtra Oil Mills Assn., Gujrat Vs. State of Gujrat & Anr. AIR 2002 SC 1130; Union of India & Ors. Vs. Jaipal Singh (2004) 1 SCC 121; and Y. Satyanarayan Reddy Vs. Mandal Revenue Officer, Andhra Pradesh (2009) 9 SCC 447].

9. In State of Maharashtra Vs. Digambar AIR 1995 SC 1991, this Court considered a case wherein against the judgment and order of the High Court, special leave petition was not filed but when other matters were disposed of by the High Court in terms of its earlier judgment, the Authorities approached this Court challenging the correctness of the same. It was submitted in that case that if the State Authorities had accepted the earlier judgment and given effect to it, it was not permissible for the Authority to challenge the subsequent judgments/orders passed in terms of the earlier judgment which had attained finality. This Court repealed the contention observing that the circumstances for non-filing the appeals in some other or similar matters or rejection of the SLP against such Judgment in limine by this Court, in some other similar matters by itself, would not preclude the State Authorities to challenge the other orders for the reason that non-filing of such SLP and pursuing them may seriously jeopardize the interest of the State or public interest.

10. In Kunhayammed & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Anr. AIR 2000 SC 2587, this Court reconsidered the issue and some of the above referred judgments and came to the conclusion that dismissal of special leave petition in limine by a non-speaking order may not be a bar for further reconsideration of the case for the reason that this Court might not have been inclined to exercise its discretion under Article 136 of the Constitution. The declaration of law will be governed by Article 141 where the matter has been decided on merit by a speaking judgment as in that case doctrine of merger would come into play. This Court laid down the following principles:-

“(i) Where an appeal or revision is provided against an order passed by a court, tribunal or any other authority before superior forum and such superior forum modifies, reverses or affirms the decision put in issue before it, the decision by the subordinate forum merges in the decision by the superior forum and it is the latter which subsists, remains operative and is capable of enforcement in the eye of law.

(ii) The jurisdiction conferred by Article 136 of the Constitution is divisible into two stages. The first stage is upto the disposal of prayer for special leave to file an appeal. The second stage commences if and when the leave to appeal is granted and the special leave petition is converted into an appeal.

(iii) Doctrine of merger is not a doctrine of universal or unlimited application. It will depend on the nature of jurisdiction exercised by the superior forum and the content or subject-matter of challenge laid or capable of being laid shall be determinative of the applicability of merger. The superior jurisdiction should be capable of reversing, modifying or affirming the order put in issue before it. Under Article 136 of the Constitution the Supreme Court may reverse, modify or affirm the judgment-decree or order appealed against while exercising its appellate jurisdiction and not while exercising the discretionary jurisdiction disposing of petition for special leave to appeal. The doctrine of merger can therefore be applied to the former and not to the latter.

(iv) An order refusing special leave to appeal may be a non-speaking order or a speaking one. In either case it does not attract the doctrine of merger. An order refusing special leave to appeal does not stand substituted in place of the order under challenge. All that it means is that the Court was not inclined to exercise its discretion so as to allow the appeal being filed.

(v) If the order refusing leave to appeal is a speaking order, i.e., gives reasons for refusing the grant of leave, then the order has two implications. Firstly, the statement of law contained in the order is a declaration of law by the Supreme Court within the meaning of Article 141 of the Constitution. Secondly, other than the declaration of law, whatever is stated in the order are the findings recorded by the Supreme Court which would bind the parties thereto and also the court, tribunal or authority in any proceedings subsequent thereto by way of judicial discipline, the Supreme Court being the Apex Court of the country. But, this does not amount to saying that the order of the court, tribunal or authority below has stood merged in the order of the Supreme Court rejecting the special leave petition or that the order of the Supreme Court is the only order binding as res judicata in subsequent proceedings between the parties.”

11. The Court came to the conclusion that where the matter has been decided by a non-speaking order in limine the party may approach the Court for reconsideration of the case in exceptional circumstances. 

Have a look at the decision.

Penned by Tarun Jain on 7/14/2010

 Marking Exhibits
Justice R.C. Lahoti pronounced a landmark judgment, in Sudir Engineering Company vs Nitco Roadways Ltd., which deals with the entire law relating to the marking of exhibits and tendering documents in evidence. The Bench has held that mere marking of an exhibit on a document does not dispense with the formal proof thereof. The relevant extracts from the judgment are reproduced hereinbelow;

(6) Let me now look at the law. Any document filed by either parly passes through three stages before it is held proved or disproved. These are : First stage : when the documents arc Filed by either party in the Court; these documents though on file, do not become part of the judicial record; Second stage: when the documents are tendered or produced m evidence by a party and the Court admits the documents in evidence. A .document admitted in evidence becomes a part of the judicial record of the case and constitutes evidenee. Third stage: the documents which are held 'proved, not proved or disproved' when the Court is called upon to apply its judicial mind by reference to Section 3 of the Evidence Act. Usually this stage arrives the final hearing of the suit or proceeding.

(7) Order 13 Rule 4 sub-rule (1) of the Civil Procedure Code provides as under :- 

4.( 1 ) ' Subject to the provisions of the next following sub-rule, there shall be endorsed on every document which has been admitted in evidence in the suit the following particulars, namely :- (a) the number and title of the suit, (h) the name of the person produced the documents, (c) the date on which it was produced, and, (d) a statement of its having been so admitted; and the endorsement shall be signed or initialled by the Judge. (2) xxx xxx xxx (Punjab & Haryana amendment) :- "Provided that where the Court is satisfied that the 'document, not endorsed in the manner laid down in the above rule, was in fact admitted in evidence, it shall treat the document as having been properly admitted in evidence unless non-compliance with this rule has resulted in miscarriage of justice." - Haryana Gaz., 11-6- 1974, Pt.III (L.S.) p.687." (underlining by me)

(8) I am firmly of the opinion that mere admission of document in evidence does not amount to its proof. 8.1Admission in evidence of a party's document may in specified cases exclude the right of opposite party to challenge its admissibility. The most prominent examples are when secondary evidence of a document within the meaning of Sections 63-65 of the Evidence Act is adduced without laying foundation for its admissibility or where a document not properly stamped is admitted in evidence attracting applicability of Section 36 of Stamp Act. 8.2 But the right of a party disputing the document to argue that the document was not proved will not he taken away merely because it had not objected to the admissibility of the document. The most instructive example is of a Will. It is a document required by law to he attested and its execution has to he proved in the manner contemplated by Section 68 of the Evidence Act read with Section 63 of the Succession Act. The party challenging the Will shall not be excluded from demonstrating at the final hearing that the execution of the Will, though exhibited, was not proved is statutorily required.

(9) The law laid down by the Supreme Court in Sait Taraji Khimechand VS. Yelamarti Satvam is :- 'The mere marking of an exhibit does not dispense with the proof of documents'

(10) Two Division Benches of Lahore High Court Ferozchin VS. Nawnb Khan, Air 1928 Lahore 432 and Hari Singh VS. Firm Karam Chand, Air 1927 Lahore 115 have clearly held that the admission of documents under Order 13 Rule 4 Civil Procedure Code does not bind the parties and unproved documents cannot be regarded as proved nor do they become evidence in the case without formal proof

(11) I have looked into the provisions of Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules 1967 also. Chapter Xiii Rule 3 provides for documents admitted in evidence being numbered in such manner as the Court may direct. 11.1 There is an Original Side Practice Direction (No.3 of 1974), which vide puras 6 and 7 provides :- 6. The Court Master of the Court shall lake charge of every document or object put in as an exhibit during the trial of any case and shall mark or label every exhibit with a letter or letters indicating the parly by whom the exhibit is put in or the witness by whom it is proved, and with a number, so than all exhibits put in by a party, or proved by a witness, arc numbered in one consecutive scries. 7. The Court Master .of the Court shall examine all documents produced or offered in evidence and bring any apparent insufficiency of the court fee or other stamps to the notice of the Judge for orders. He shall endorse all documents admitted in evidence and all documents rejected with the particulars required by law and sign or initial such endorsement. (underlining by me) 11.2 A bare reading of this Practice Direction shows that it is not artistically drafted 'Proved' as used in para 6. is nothing else except used loosely for 'put in' 'produced' or 'tendered'. After all the question of proof is not answered by Court during the statement of witnesses simultaneously with production of documents nor does the Court Master decide upon proof of documents. Para 7 makes it clear that endorsement file by the Court Master of exhibit number, on a document is 'admission in evidence' and not proof of a document.

(12) In Baldeo Sahai VS. Ram Chander & Ors., Air 1931 Lahore 546 it was said :- 

"There are two stages relating to documents. One is the stage when all the documents on which the parties rely are filed by them in Court. The next stage is when the documents 'MC. proved and formally tendered in evidence. It is at this later stage that the Court has to decide whether they should be admitted or rejected. If they are admitted and proved then the seal of the Court is put on them giving certain details laid down by law, otherwise the documents are resumed to the party who produced them with an endorsement thereon to that effect." A reading of the report shows that it was the practice of the Court to endorse the documents soon on their filing which practice was deprecated and hence slopped. The word "proved" has been used by the Division Bench in the sense of 'proposed to be proved' as is clear from its having been used Along with the word 'tendered' or "admitted" in evidence. The word proved has been loosely used for describing the stage after fling of the documents, when the Court would decide only whether they should be admitted or rejected. The Division Bench cannot be read as holding that the document is not to be endorsed with an Exhibit number unless and until proved. As staled in para 6 hereinabove, the stages of tendering/admitting/rejecting in evidence and holding a document proved - are two distinct and different stages, not one. They are respectively the second and third stages

(13) Admission of a document in evidence is not to be confused with proof of a document.

(14) When the Court is called upon to examine the admissibility of a document it concentrates only on the document. When called upon to form a judicial opinion whether a document has been proved, disproved or not proved the Court would look not at the document alone or only at the statement of the witness standing in the box; it would take into consideration probabilities of the case as emerging from the whole record. It could not have been intendment of any law, rule or practice direction to expect the Court applying its judicial mind to the entire record of the case, each lime a document was placed before it for being exhibited and form an opinion if it was proved before marking it as an exhibit.

(15) The marking of a document as an exhibit, be it in any manner whatsoever either by use of alphabets or by use of numbers, is only for the purpose of identification. While reading the record the parties and the Court should be able to know which was I he document before the winless when it was deposing. Absence of putting an endorsement for the purpose of identification no sooner a document is placed before a witness would cause serious confusion as one would be left simply guessing or wondering while was the document to which the witness was referring to which deposing. Endorsement of an exhibit number on a document has no relation with its proof. Neither the marking of an exhibit number can be postponed till the document has been held proved; nor the document can be held to have been proved merely because it has been marked as an exhibit.

(16) This makes the position of law clear. Any practise contrary to the above said statement of law has no sanctity and cannot be permitted to prevail.

(17) Every Court is free to regulate its own affairs within the framework of law. Chapter Xiii Rule 3 above said contemplates documents admitted in evidence being numbered in such manner as the Court may direct. I make it clear for this case and for all the cases coming up before me in future that the documents tendered and admitted in evidence shall be marked with numerical serial numbers, prefixed by Ex.P if filed by plaintiff or petitioner and prefixed by Ex.D if filed by defendant or respondent.

(18) Reverting back to the case before me, let the report of Notary Public be endorsed with an exhibit number by the Court Master.

Please hear , note and consider ( marked by me)-
Compiled from web

Simplify Language Of Laws Of Land: PM – By Mukesh Jhangiani

Oct10

March 6, 2005
Simplify Language Of Laws Of Land: PM*
By Mukesh Jhangiani
United News of India
New Delhi (UNI) – Prime Minister Manmohan Singh today launched India’s first national legal literacy mission: 2005-10 with a call to simplify the language of laws of the land.

”The complex legal language of our statutes acts as a hurdle to legal literacy… compounded by the intricacies of legal language in judicial pronouncements,” Dr Singh told invitees at the launch at Vigyan Bhavan in New Delhi.
He said ”an attempt should be made to simplify the language of the law so that any one who reads judgements and laws can easily understand their true meaning.”
The legal literacy mission is intended to empower millions of disadvantaged and other Indian citizens through awareness and free legal aid.
”This mission is a step in the direction of empowering people to enjoy their rights,” Dr Singh said. ”Equality in law requires equal access to law for this noble principle to translate into reality.”
Prime Minister Singh reminded that Article 39A of the Constitution gives a directive to the States to ensure that the operation of the legal system promotes justice on a basis of equal opportunity.
”It directs the State to provide free legal aid with the aid of suitable legislation or schemes. It also directs it to ensure that opportunities for securing justice are not denied to any citizen for reason of economic or other disabilities.”
He said the dictum that ignorance of law is no excuse ”creates a duty on the part of government” to make people aware of laws it enacts.In spite of their publication in Gazette, due to low literacy, a majority of the population is not aware of its rights and duties, he said. ”This is an initiative that is dear to me and has my whole hearted support,” Dr Singh said.
The Mission has identified a set of beneficiaries it immediately expects to address: children, minority communities, victims of militancy, victims of crime, disaster and disease, child and bonded labour, landless farming community, dalits and tribal communities, especially in the northeast, farmers hit by droughts and floods, trafficked girls and sex workers and the poorest of the poor.
”From Ignorance to Legal Empowerment” was the goal proclaimed as part of the Mission’s emblem and mascot unveiled by the Prime Minister jointly with India’s Chief Justice Ramesh Chandra Lahoti and Law and Justice Minister Hans Raj Bhardwaj.
Justice Lahoti recalled the founding fathers’ vision of India as just and equitable for all citizens, but said ”this dream is yet to find fruition.”
In the 21st century– 57 years after independence– ”concepts such as just and equitable remain unfamiliar for the millions of people who still remain beyond the safety net of law and justice.”
Justice Lahoti said when citizens, particularly marginalised or underprivileged groups, know what the law has to offer them, they can recognise and challenge the injustices forcefully.
”The first step towards that knowledge of the law, which can transform people’s lives, is legal literacy.”
Bhardwaj told audience that the Mission was aimed at addressing the farthest geographical areas and the most vulnerable sections of the population in the first phase.
”The people need to be told the benefits of legal aid… otherwise they will continue to resign to their fate for exploitation and discrimination.”
The ceremony was also attended by Supreme Court Judges N Santosh Hegde and Y K Sabharwal and a number of other sitting and retired Judges, including Chief Justices of various High Courts.
Justice Hegde, Chairman of the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA), which has undertaken the Mission, reminded that legal aid was not charity– but an obligation of the State ”enshrined in Article 39A of our Constitution.”
He said NALSA was formed for this very purpose– ”to provide free and competent legal services and encourage the general public to settle their disputes amicably.”
A note of caution and realism was struck by Justice Sabharwal, Chairman of the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee.
”I must emphasise,” Justice Sabharwal said, ”that from Ignorance to Empowerment is a long journey and let us not hope that one NALSA will achieve it in next five years like a magic.”
”Only providing legal aid to settle a dispute is not a solution for the progress of our country.
”The solution lies in our hands if we can grant these people a window of social justice by way of monitoring why such benefits meant for them have not been delivered to them and if not delivered to them, then who in this country is responsible for such a lapse.
”We need to set examples of accountability in our Governance,” Justice Sabharwal said.
Asked afterwards whether legal literacy would include informing beneficiaries as to delays or other inadequacy involved in litigation, Justice Hegde said the effort would be to have matters resolved through pre-trial options.
These include Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) techniques such as conciliation, mediation, arbitration and so on. Litigation would be the last step, he said.
Justice Lahoti said three steps were being taken to reduce pendencies in courts.
They included relying in a big way on ADR, making justice delivery system more effective and introducing information technology in judiciary.
Justice Lahoti also mentioned two major studies which have been undertaken jointly along with Asian Development Bank and the United Nations Development Progamme to identify shortcomings in the system.
Asked about inquiry commissions, some of which end up in the archives, Justice Lahoti said governments– he was not referring to incumbent government– sometimes buy time by appointing inquiries essentially to let tempers cool.

Copy-paste-compiled from Manupatra from web for  academic purpose-

Subject : Jurisprudence
	Title :       “no Government Wants Strong Judiciary”…………………..don’t Blame Judiciary For…
	Author : Mr. Aniket Pandey
	Aniket Pandey* The governments are under an obligation to provide an adequate machinery for justice, to appoint more judges and to give them better emoluments and facilities, to build more court houses, to enact better laws, to devise better dispute resolution procedures, and to administer more effectively and equitably, rather than to blame lawyers and judges for the increase and proliferation of litigation. -Former Chief Justice of India, R C Lahoti We must realize that the reason why Judiciary in India is respected is because of the confidence which it has, over the years, come to enjoy amongst masses for unbiased, impartial discharge of its constitutional functions without fear or favour, or enmity or affection. The strength of Indian Judiciary lies in its impartiality, its integrity and its independence. However, it lies in the perception that Judges are free from every form of prejudice and that in discharging their duties. The very confidence of the people of India in the confidence and impartiality of the judiciary which constitutes the moral foundation upon the judiciary which neither has finances nor the physical facilities to ensure compliance and effective implementation of its orders. In a democratic form of government, judiciary occupies a special position. While the bureaucracy is also a permanent set-up, it is under the direct control of the politicians. Judiciary is given a special position, though its budget is ultimately in the hands of politicians. Though the constitution mandates a few items including the expenditure on salaries, allowances and pensions of judges of the Supreme Court, the functioning of the judiciary is still largely dependent on the  of the politicians, whose partiality because of their party interests and selfishness is a matter of common knowledge. Independent judiciary is not a pleasant thing for the politicians. As sometimes, they want their political opponents to be punished for their criminal acts, they have got to tolerate the judiciary as a necessary evil. The reluctance of the politicians to promote courageous, honest and efficient judiciary in the country is borne out from the fact that the allocation for judiciary in the 10th Five-Year Plan (2002-07), was only Rs 700 crore, i.e. 0.07% of the total Plan outlay. The budgetary allocation for judiciary in most of the states is less than 1% towards judiciary. The Supreme Court-approved salary hike for judicial officers has not been implemented. Recently when the Supreme Court pronounced that in the Amar Singh phone tapping case only one witness has been examined in the last four years, because of repeated adjournments, the Bench of Justices G S Singhvi and A K Ganguly observed with anguish: “This case should have been over in three months. Adjournments have become a cancer to the institutions… The system has already become sick. What can be the expectation of the common man for speedy justice? Even in Supreme Court, a special leave petition takes eight years to reach final hearing… We all give sermons. We go to National Judicial Academy and give lectures to judicial officers asking them to speed up disposal of cases. But where is the infrastructure? They are already under heavy burden. There are only lectures, committees and commissions, but no solutions.” On February 22, 2011 (Friday) the Supreme Court held that the meager budgetary provisions by the Centre and states impeded setting up of additional courts and infrastructure needed to speed up the justice delivery system. In this connection the Supreme Court observed:[1] “No government wants strong judiciary”. It is only on the paper. Look at the budgetary allocation. It is less than one %,” the bench remarked while pointing out that the judiciary is overloaded and a large number of courts need to be set up across the country for speedy justice delivery.[2] Pointing out the infrastructural problem and growing vacancies in the judiciary, the court said “it is a very difficult situation. If by chance the government does it (setting up more courts), then we have difficulty in getting competent people.” Dispensation of justice is also impeded by not filling the posts of Judges in High Courts. [3] For example: the sanctioned strength of Allahabad High Court is 100. There are 10 lakh of cases pending here. It has been functioning for long with just 45 judges. The High Courts of Gujarat, Rajasthan, Punjab and Haryana, Andhra Pradesh, Patna, Calcutta, Bombay, Karnataka and Jharkand also deserve special mention in having the posts of judges vacant for long. Out of a total pendency of 41.83 lakh cases pending in the 21 High Courts of this country, these ten High Courts account for 68%. The number of vacancies in the trial courts is also alarming. Out of 17090 judicial officers having a pendency of 2.78 crore of cases, 3070 posts are vacant. Recently speaking at the 17th Commonwealth Law Conference in Hyderabad, Mr Singh said, “Our judges, while interpreting laws, have also widened their scope and reach as lawgivers. The judicial process has a dynamic role to play both as the guarantor of justice to litigants and as upholder of the constitutional conscience. But at the same time, it has to be ensured that the basic structure of our Constitution is not subordinated to political impulses of the moment or to the will of transient majorities.” Underlining the need for the judiciary to adapt itself to a fast-changing world to retain its relevance, Mr Singh said the role of courts and judges in making law an instrument of social stability and progressive change cannot be over-emphasized. [4] The truth is that the Government feels uncomfortable and embarrassed when its partisan decisions are challenged and nullified by the judiciary. Left to itself, the Government of the     day would never have ordered an inquiry into the 2G Spectrum plundering as it was afraid of losing power in the event of withdrawal of support by its coalition partner, the DMK. The   former Minister  for Telecommunication, A Raja, not only ignored the suggestions of Union Minister for Law M. Veerappa Moily and then Minister for Finance P Chidambaram, but also defied the Prime Minister’s instructions. His successor, Mr Kapil Sibal, has trashed the Comptroller and Auditor-General’s report, suggesting that the loss to the exchequer was ‘zero’ and not a presumptive `1.76 lakh crore as indicated by the CAG report. [5] The judiciary is an important pillar of any democracy. In India, it has performed creditably and stood the test of time in spite of what self-serving politicians might say. But for judicial intervention, many wrongs would never have been set right. Although, it can be said with some surety is that crime cannot be hidden for long. It is but natural that politicians will feel unhappy when pulled up by the judiciary. The judiciary’s job however, is not to please politicians but to uphold the law of the land. Despite rumblings in political parties, it should be remembered that the judiciary has by and large acted creditably. Its decisions are independent of political compulsions. India has adopted a universal democratic pattern under which it is perfectly within the domain of the judiciary to tell other branches of the state what they should be doing, where they have transgressed and what are their limits of power. Instead of finding fault with the judiciary, the Prime Minister and his Government would do well to ensure speedy justice for the commonman.[6] Conclusion In an ideal situation, the judiciary will refrain from intruding into the domain of the executive and the legislature and stick to applying and interpreting the law. But when there is cynicism about the seriousness and impartiality of the Government in stemming corruption, maintaining checks and balances as has been mandated by the Constitution becomes imperative. Irrespective of what any politician may say or feel, the judiciary must continue doing its job without being swayed by either pressure or criticism. The politicians in charge of the governmental machinery in India are giving step-motherly treatment to the system of judiciary. The age-old saying, ‘Justice delayed is justice denied’, is deliberately neglected. The judiciary does not get the priority it deserves both in administrative and financial matters. In the interest of democracy, this trend should change. The youth of India have to ensure this.