3a Restructuring of the Superior Judiciary

Withdrawal for the time being to its ivory tower to set its own house in order

Problem No. 1. Citizens right to petition

The studies relating to the introduction of Bill of Rights will show that this was treated as the natural right of man, more important than a  fundamental right.

1. In 1967 a scheme of vigilance officers was introduced, but allowed to die a slow death (matter examined as Study No 10 at page 105 of Eradication of Corruption Report 1979)
2. Ombudsman’s Report since the year of its formation in 1983 continues to emphasize the need of establishment of an internal grievance redressal system but with the no effect so far on core administrative sector.
3. The constitution guarantees the citizen the right to be ruled by law (Article 4) has the right to know from the department the law under which he has been dealt with.
4. The Constitution requires that before approaching the court he must avail of the alternate remedy. The alternative remedy must be provided. These and a few other reasons justify a direction from the superior judiciary to provide such a remedy so as to facilitate its own functioning, to avoid delays and conflict and misunderstandings in various organs of state.

Problem No. 2. To clarify its own decisions further

In an earlier decision the Supreme Court laid down that Power conferred by Statute can be exercised even without framing the rules. Actually, the citizens right to know the limits of law under which he is to be dealt with as also as a requirement of good governance, rules are required to be framed and should be framed. Unguided, uncontrolled unregulated power in the hands of politicians and bureaucrats can be and is oppressive and directionless.

Problem No.3. Full awareness and complete harmonious implementation of its own landmark decisions to be ensured.

In a case reported PLJ 1974 Sc 25 at page 35 held 544 A Cr.P.C. “Its provision is mandatory. Compensation is very well understood expression. It is something which is paid to make up for the loss — the court at the penultimate stage of the case may have to receive evidence to determine the question of compensation — financial position of the accused is not material —power to conduct such inquiry — will be necessarily read into it so as to advance the remedy and to give effect to legislative intent. I may be excused for not finding a single example where a court or the police officer or an inquiry officer or an academician noticed or pointed it out.

There are two video one shown on the local television, the smartest police force led by a Mascot Gullo Butt waving his stick in stylish fashion proceeding further and smashing all the cars parked there. While returning he was embraced by a PSP Officer and received a pat on the back by another higher in rank.

The other video was exhibited same week on BBC Urdu Service. It showed the two politicians overseeing the entire performance. I prize the two videos.

Problem No. 4. Immediate Attention Required

Art. 10A of the Constitution introduces the expression” due process”. Dr. Ambedkar, the Indian Law Minister, suggested that this expression has a different meaning in American Jurisprudence and it will not fit in Indian jurisprudence (Let the Research Officers verify it). So far my knowledge goes there are three very basic differences. The one that I remember vividly is that all evidence at criminal trial which is shown to be illegally collected is inadmissible in evidence. In our jurisprudence still followed the principle is that evidence illegally collected is admissible if it has a connection or relevance with the commission of a crime. The Parliament, the Civil Society, the Police, the Bar and the Courts all should consider the problem. Our criminal law already appears to be in some disarray.

Problem No. 5. The concept of Complete Justice to be restated, better understood and wisely applied.

Article 187 of the constitution which confers jurisdiction on the Supreme Court to do complete justice opens with the controlling words subject to clause (2) of Article 175. Can anyone take over the function of making ad-hoc recruitment on the supposed failure of the statutory body like  Public Service Commission to make recruitment? Can one put in abeyance the functioning of a Bench of the High Court on the notoriety of a black coat making thereby notoriety a ladder to leadership in the country? Should the judges given such a privileged position for doing quality brain work should take on doing legwork deriving the self -serving impression that they can run the country better. In the process, all the statutory bodies are likely to be paralyzed or atrophied.