Sale of Justice by 100 rs ppl

 DATED: 9.12.2022


To,
The Hon'ble Family Court, Ld. Judge xxxx, 
Northwest District, Rohini, New Delhi

SUBJECT: Allegation of unfair manipulation of hearing dates against the unknown staff of this Hon'ble Court

MOST RESPECTFULLY STATED,

1. That I had filed an urgent application personally (in-person) on 29.10.22 in my matter xx, titled V vs S, seeking physical custody of my beloved son during winter vacations starting 24.12.22. I strongly believe it to be my most basic human right as a first natural guardian to have reasonable access to my child and also as my dharma/responsibility to ensure my child does not grow up without love and care of his father.

2. That On 29.10.22, I was given a hearing date of 5.12.22 for my application. 

3. That I had requested the Hon'ble Court for an early date with the reason that there will be insufficient time on 5.12 to grant me relief before 24.12 as the respondent will try to delay the matter and seek adjournment. The Hon'ble Court in all its kindness had assured that the court will take care of it and it is the responsibility of the court. I was extremely touched by the kind words of the court.

4. That on 5.12.22, my wife came late at 12 PM and sought an adjournment to wednesday citing non-availability of her counsel on 5th (Monday) and 6th (Tuesday).
As I travel from C to D, I requested the court that it will be hard for me to go back on Monday that day and then come back again to Delhi on Wednesday, so kindly give the date on Friday.

5. That The Hon'ble Court gave me the date of 9.12. I was not sure about which day is 9.12, so in order to confirm I asked again which day it is and the reader most clearly told me that it is Friday. I even booked my train ticket for Friday on 5.12.

6. That I am most shocked and surprised to see tonight on 8.12 while searching my case in the causelist of 9.12 that it is not listed. Ecourts show the date for my matter as 19.12. 

7. That I have strong suspicion that a '1' before 9 has been "planted" in an unethical and unfair manner to change the hearing date from '9' to '19'. One possibility is that this is done at behest of the respondent because there remains only last week before winter vacations and the respondent will again find some excuse to seek adjournment to defeat my application.
I have strong suspicion of involvement of a court staff who is very well aware that the Hon'ble Judge has too much workload and cannot monitor such manipulation of dates.  
The staff is very well aware that there will be no traces of the actual date given. 
The staff is also aware of the defense that firstly, I can be blamed for hearing the date incorrectly and even if I am able to lead evidence to prove the truth of my version, it will be simply termed as typo. Such typos can magically turn 8 into 28 and 13 into 18 and the dates can be moved across months and the blame for such typos can be put on workload.

8. That such a late date is also unfair to me when I had filed my application on 29.10 because it takes away my right to appeal due to insufficient time.

9. That If my allegations have iota of truth in it, it should shock the conscience of the nation. Such manipulation is an attack on my right to seek justice for myself and for my child.

10. Lastly, this incident makes me disproportionately upset because my Xmas application seeking similar access in Dec 2021 is still pending because it was listed in last week of Dec 2021 and the previous Hon'ble Judge took the whole week off. I had blamed it on my advocate then for not being able to bring me relief. That's why I am personally following up now and the non-existent safeguards against such manipulation of dates is shocking.

11. It is thus proposed to allow (or perhaps recommend) litigants to record audio/video of proceedings. The Hon'ble Court may issue a notice that recording is allowed but its distribution may be restricted. Such recording will serve as evidence when a particular event happens but the written version is changed in record books for the convenience of one party. There may be some challenges to privacy but corruption is like cancer for democracy and a universal principle can be used which states that "When there will be a war between privacy and corruption, privacy needs to be sacrificed."

12. Such manipulations are not okay. Thus, following prayers are made as a remedy against potentially rogue actor in the system and to safeguard against recurrence of such events in future with ANYBODY!

PRAYERS:
It is most respectfully prayed that:

1.  Dasti copy of order to be provided instantly (within few minutes) post hearing to each party with some watermark of the court and the signatures of Hon'ble Judge may be skipped to save time
OR 
If this is not feasible, let a dasti copy of daily order be sent through email to each party as soon as it is ready or the dasti copy be securely uploaded on the website which can be downloaded by the parties (after optional authentication, if needed for privacy).

2. Allow parties to record audio/video of proceedings which can serve as evidence when a particular event happens but the written version is changed in record books for the convenience of one party.

3. Investigate my allegations and take appropriate actions to uphold the dignity and majesty of the Hon'ble Court.

4. Pass any other order or forward to appropriate authority for proper action in the interest of justice and welfare of this nation.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Chargesheet Vs final report / A, B, C Summary report

Maharashtra police rules as defined in  Bombay Police Manual, 1959, Volume III [referred as The Manual below],   defines two types of police reports which can be submitted to the magistrate by police u/s 173(2) of CrPC. It is the report of police investigation filed at the end of investigation.. a. Charge-sheets (Rule 218 of The Manual) and  b. Final Reports (Rule 219 of Police Manual).  Final report is explained under Rule 219 of The Manual. Rule 219 of The Manual: 219. Final Reports .- (1) When there is no sufficient evidence to justify the forwarding of the accused to a Magistrate, the Police Station Officer or the investigating officer will release the accused person on bail, if he is in custody. (2) The Police Station Officer will then submit a final report to the Magistrate empowered to take cognisance of an offence on a Police report through the Superintendent of Police or the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, as the case may be, in the following three class...
Read more

Judgment Analysis : Yashita Sahu Vs State of Rajasthan (with translation in Punjabi)

Judgment Name : YASHITA SAHU Vs STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS  Citation Code :   (2020) 3 SCC 67 Judgment link :  https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2019/28083/28083_2019_15_1501_19699_Judgement_20-Jan-2020.pdf Court : Supreme Court of India Case Type : CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.  127 OF 2020 (@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL) NO. 7390 OF 2019) Judge : Hon'ble Justice Sh. Deepak Gupta  (author of judgment) Hon'ble Justice Sh. Aniruddha Bose Summary: This judgment talks about  1) Court treats the child as "human" which is shocking (sarcasm :|) and talks about the human rights of a child to get love and affection from both Parent. It talks about the rights of a parent as well as the rights of a child to get "s ufficient visitation rights" . 2) If any court denies the visitation to a parent, a strong reason should also be assigned and can be justified only unde...
Read more

Ad-interim vs interim orders (Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC)

  Rule 1 or Rule 2 of Order 39 are repository of the power to grant injunction.  An order of injunction is always passed under Rule 1 or Rule 2 Order 39 save and except rare orders passed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure.  Rule 1 and Rule 2 of Order 39 do not use the words "interim or ad interim". These are the words coined by the lawyers and the courts merely to indicate the stage at which orders are passed.  Interim order usually remains in force for whole of the period of the suit unless varied under Rule 4 or set aside in appeal.  Ad interim order operates only till the hearing of the application for injunction.  Usually, ad interim order is passed ex parte though it can also be passed when otherwise is present.  It is possible that in a given case at the time of institution of a suit, the plaintiff does not make an application for an order of interim injunction as he feels no necessity in which case only summons of the suit is issu...
Read more