Invoke Article 227 to fix errant Judges and Info Commissioners...

Any grievance against the judicial officer / Judge / Magistrate, other than relating to merits of the case, may be recorded before the concerned High Court. Such grievances may include gross misbehavior or insulting behaviour; intimidation of any kind; inordinate delay in passing Order, etc.

YOUR LETTER HEAD

(Make necessary changes in the complaint / Notice, as may be required considering the circumstances of each case and statutory requirements, if any)

Date:

To,
The Hon’ble the Chief Justice

The Hon’ble  _______High Court,

Subject: Please exercise Powers of Superintendence under Article 227 of Constitution of India.

The Hon’ble the Chief Justice,

1.      Summarize the whole case in one Para.

2.      THE FACTS OF THE CASE:

Instructions:

a)     Any grievance against the judicial officer, other than relating to merits of the case, may be stated herein, which may include gross misbehavior or insulting behaviour; intimidation of any kind; inordinate delay in passing Order, etc.

b)     In respect of grievances on merits of the case, remedy provided under the law may be adopted.

3.      The Complainant craves leave to reproduce the notable observations of Hon’ble Apex Court in this respect. [Reproduce as may be applicable to the facts of the case.]

(2011) 10 SCC 1

Para 80: The mandate of Article 235 of the Constitution is that the High Court has to maintain constant vigil on its subordinate judiciary as laid down by this Court in High Court of Judicature at Bombay through its Registrars V/s. Shirishkumar Rangrao Patil and Another (1997) 6 SCC 339. In the said case, this Court has explained that the lymph nodes (cancerous cells) of corruption constantly keep creeping into the vital veins of the judiciary and need to stem it out by judicial surgery lies on the judiciary itself by its self- imposed or corrective measures or disciplinary action under the doctrine of control enshrined in Articles 235, 124(6) of the Constitution, and therefore, it would be necessary that there should be constant vigil by the High Court concerned on its subordinate judiciary and self introspection.

Para 81: Judicial service is not a service in the sense of an employment as is commonly understood. Judges are discharging their functions while exercising the sovereign judicial power of the State. Their honesty and integrity is expected to be beyond doubt. It should be reflected in their overall reputation. There is no manner of doubt that the nature of judicial service is such that it cannot afford to suffer continuance in service of persons of doubtful integrity or who have lost their utility.

Para 82: As explained by this Court in Chandra Singh and others V/s. State of Rajasthan & another (2003) 6 SCC 545, the power of compulsory retirement can be exercised at any time and that the power under Article 235 in this regard is not in any manner circumscribed by any rule or order. What is explained in the said decision by this Court is that Article 235 of the Constitution of India enables the High Court to assess the performance of any judicial officer at any time with a view to discipline the black sheep or weed out the deadwood, and this constitutional power of the High Court cannot be circumscribed by any rule or order.

Para 83: Moreover while upholding the orders of compulsory retirement of judicial officers who were working in the State of U.P., following weighty observations have been made by this Court in para 13 of decision in case of Nawal Singh V/s. State of U.P. and another (2003) 8 SCC 117: -

"13. It is to be reiterated that for keeping the stream of justice unpolluted, repeated scrutiny of service records of judicial officers after a specified age/completion of specified years of service provided under the Rules is a must by each and every High Court as the lower judiciary is the foundation of the judicial system. We hope that the High Courts would take appropriate steps regularly for weeding out the dead wood or the persons polluting the justice delivery system."

Para 98: The expression "control" has been elucidated in several reported decisions of this Court, the leading case being Shamsher V/s. State of Punjab (1974) 2 SCC 831. The "control" vested in the High Court is a mechanism to ensure independence of the subordinate judiciary. Under Article 235 of the Constitution, the control over the subordinate judiciary, vested in the High Court, is exclusive in nature, comprehensive in extent and effective in operation and it is to subserve a basic feature of the Constitution, i.e., independence of judiciary. Among others things, it includes - (a) (i) disciplinary jurisdiction and a complete control subject only to the power of Governor in the matter of appointment, dismissal, removal and reduction in rank of District Judges and initial posting and promotion to the cadre of District Judges, (ii) in Article 235 the word `Control' is accompanied by the word `vest' which shows that the High Court alone is made the sole custodian of the control over the judiciary, and (iii) Suspension from service of a member of judiciary with a view to hold disciplinary enquiry; (b) transfers, promotion and confirmation of such promotions, of persons holding posts in judicial service, inferior to that of District Judge; (c) transfer of District Judges; (d) recall of District Judges posted on ex-cadre posts or on deputation on administrative posts; (e) award of selection grade to the members of the judicial service, including District Judges and grant of further promotion after their initial appointment to the cadre; (f) confirmation of the District Judges who have been on probation or are officiating after their initial appointment or promotion by the Governor to the cadre of District Judges under Article 233; and (g) premature or compulsory retirement of Judges of the District Courts and of Subordinate Courts.

Para 99: The scheme envisaged by the Constitution does not permit the State to encroach upon the area reserved by Articles 233, 234 and first part of Article 235 either by legislation or rules or executive instructions. Article 235 has no concern with the conferring of jurisdiction and powers on the Court but it only relates to administrative and disciplinary jurisdiction over the subordinate Courts. Therefore, the conferment of power of the prescribed authority by the State Legislature on the Judicial Officers cannot be construed to mean that the power of the High Court under Article 235 is inoperative or inchoate as High Court alone is the sole authority competent to initiate disciplinary proceedings against Subordinate Judicial Officers or to impose various punishments including passing of order of compulsory retirement on verification of the service record. The State is least competent to aid and advise Governor on such subjects. While the High Court retains the power of disciplinary control over the subordinate judiciary including power to initiate disciplinary proceedings, suspend them during enquiries and impose punishment on them, but when it comes to the question of dismissal, removal or reduction in rank or termination of services of judicial officers on any count whatsoever, the High Court becomes the recommending authority and cannot itself pass the orders. The formal order to give effect to such a decision has to be passed by the State Governor on the recommendations of the High Court. In disciplinary proceedings if an action is taken by the High Court against the judicial officer the recommendations made by the High Court bind the Governor and he is left with no discretion except to act according to the recommendations. The Governor, under the scheme of Articles 233, 234 and 235 of the Constitution cannot refuse to act in terms of the recommendations made by the High Court on the ground that he is not aided and advised by the Council of Ministers and this is the true import of total control of the High Court over the Subordinate Judiciary.

Para 193: Further this Court in M.S. Bindra's case (Supra) has used the phrase `preponderance of probability' to be applied before recording adverse entry regarding integrity of a judicial officer. There is no manner of doubt that the authority which is entrusted with a duty of writing ACR does not have right to tarnish the reputation of a judicial officer without any basis and without any `material' on record, but at the same time other equally important interest is also to be safeguarded i.e. ensuring that the corruption does not creep in judicial services and all possible attempts must be made to remove such a virus so that it should not spread and become infectious.

Para 195: It is a matter of common knowledge that the complaints which are made against a judicial officer, orally or in writing are dealt with by the Inspecting Judge or the High Court with great caution. Knowing that most of such complaints are frivolous and by disgruntled elements, there is generally a tendency to discard them. However, when the suspicion arises regarding integrity of a judicial officer, whether on the basis of complaints or information received from other sources and a committee is formed to look into the same, as was done in the instant case and the committee undertakes the task by gathering information from various sources as are available to it, on the basis of which a perception about the concerned judicial officer is formed, it would be difficult for the Court either under Article 226 or for this Court under Article 32 to interfere with such an exercise.

(2001) 3 SCC 54

Para 16: We must not be understood as meaning that any conduct of a subordinate Judicial Officer unbecoming of his and demanding a rebuff should be simply overlooked. But there is an alternate safer and advisable course available to choose. The conduct of a Judicial Officer, unworthy of him, having come to the notice of a Judge of the High Court hearing a matter on the judicial side, the lis may be disposed of by pronouncing upon the merits thereof as found by him but avoiding in the judicial pronouncement criticism of, or observations on the 'conduct' of the subordinate Judicial Officer who had decided the case under scrutiny. Simultaneously but separately in-office proceedings may be drawn up inviting attention of Hon’ble Chief Justice to the facts describing the conduct of the subordinate Judge concerned by sending a confidential letter or note to the Chief Justice. It will thereafter be open to the Chief Justice to deal with the subordinate Judicial Officer either at his own level or through the inspecting Judge or by placing the matter before the Full Court for its consideration. The action so taken would all be on the administrative side. The subordinate Judge concerned would have an opportunity of clarifying his position or putting forth the circumstances under which he acted. He would not be condemned unheard and if the decision be adverse to him, it being on administrative side, he would have some remedy available to him under the law. He would not be rendered remediless.

(2011) 12 SCC 137

Para 38: We cannot ignore that the integrity of the officers functioning in the administration is of utmost importance to retain the confidence of the litigants in the fairness of the judicial system. If there is any complaint in this behalf, the Chief Justice is expected to act on behalf of the High Court to see to it that the stream of justice does not get polluted at any level.

(2011) 11 SCC 324

Para 24: In a country governed by rule of law, nobody is above law, including judicial officers. In fact, as judicial officers, they have to present a continuous aspect of dignity in every conduct. If the rule of law is to function effectively and efficiently under the aegis of our democratic setup, Judges are expected to, nay, they must nurture an efficient and enlightened judiciary by presenting themselves as a role model. Needless to say, a Judge is constantly under public glaze and society expects higher standards of conduct and rectitude from a Judge. Judicial office, being an office of public trust, the society is entitled to expect that a Judge must be a man of high integrity, honesty and ethical firmness by maintaining the most exacting standards of propriety in every action. Therefore, a judge's official and personal conduct must be in tune with the highest standard of propriety and probity. Obviously, this standard of conduct is higher than those deemed acceptable or obvious for others.

All discretionary powers, especially judicial powers, have to be exercised within reasonable bounds, known to the law. The discretion has to be exercised in a systematic manner informed by reason. Whims or fancies; prejudices or predilections cannot and should not form the basis of exercising discretionary powers.

4.      The Complainant finally submits that –

a)     In 1897, Justice Holmes, an American Jurists issues a paper in which he put forward a novel way of looking at law. He says- if one wishes to know what law is, one should view it through the eyes of a bad man, who is only concerned with what will happen to him if he does certain things in deviation to established laws. .

b)     Sir Lionel Fox, an acclaimed Penologist (20th Century) of England, quotes the example of an eighteenth century Judge who passed the sentence of death, saying, you are to be hanged not because you have stolen a sheep, but in order that others may not steal. So evident is the truth of this perceptible simple logic, if applied generously by presiding Hon'ble Judges, may virtually end disorder in the society.

c)     Offenders are to suffer by punishment not because they were malignant or mischievous, but because others may not behave malignant and mischievous. Punishment is thus a method of forcing good behaviour. However, the deterrence is zero if there is no certainty to the punishment. The gravitation of sin to sorrow should be as certain and analogous as that of earth to the sun.

5.      Reliefs [As may be suitable and applicable to the facts of the case]

a)     The Hon’ble Court be pleased to direct an Inquiry to be completed in a time bound manner;

b)     The Respondent No.1 be compulsorily retired;

c)     Criminal action be initiated against Respondent No.1;

d)     In the alternative of Prayer Clause (b) above, the Hon’ble Court may pleased to take Su Moto cognizance of the act of Criminal Contempt of the Court committed by Respondent No.1.

Thanking you

With due Respect

____________

The Constituent of

We the People of India

Attachments and Annexures

(a)

(b)

Few basic Points about recording of Notice / Complaints:

1.      Notice must be given to a person who is legally entitled to receive & is directly responsible to answer the issues raised in the Notice.

2.      It is desirable to give notice by Regd AD, by Speed Post AD.

3.      Check if any statutory conditions are to be complied with while giving Notice.

4.      A combined reading of Section 27 of General Clauses Act, 1897, r/w Section 114 [illustration (f)] of Evidence Act, 1872, a Notice / Letter sent by Regd Post or Speed Post, on the correct address, there would be a presumption that the said Notice  / Letter was duly served on the said address. However, the presumption is rebuttable on a consideration of evidence of impeccable character. The person claiming that he has not received the said Letter / Notice may lead evidence before the Court to rebut the presumption by showing that the address mentioned on the cover was incorrect or that the postal authorities never tendered the registered letter to him or that there was no occasion for him to refuse the same.

5.      It is very important to bear in mind that if a person knowingly issues a Notice for any claim to which he is not entitled to under the law, and if by the Notice he is going to cause mental harassment or mental alarm to the recipient of the Notice, he may be alleged to have committed the offence of criminal intimidation under section 503 of IPC 1860; or if any person knowingly makes a false complaint, he may be held guilty of having committed offence u/ss 181, 182 or 211 of IPC, 1860.

Legal issues !!

If you are facing any of these issues like (a) Recovery of Moneys (b) Immovable property disputes (c) grievances against Municipalities & Govts., including challenge to legitimacy of laws etc. (d) grievances against illegalities and highhandedness of Police like illegal arrests, refusal to register FIR, deliberately flawed investigations, etc (e) False FIRs (f) False Claims (g) False evidences (h) Grievances against Judges (i) Illegal or perverse Orders of the Courts / Tribunals, among others.

or

If you are looking for draft of any legal proceeding; or if you want to know the nature and attribute of any legal proceeding; or if you want to know the procedure followed in any legal proceeding; or if you want to know the grounds on which any order of the court / tribunal is challenged; or if you are facing any frivolous litigation.

Law Referencer: https://www.litigationplatform.com/

Thank you.