New Delhi: The situation of courts across India currently is such that cases of all types are entertained. The best example would be a PIL against the BBMP. Going through the petition, Chief Justice of Karnataka High Court Dinesh Maheshwari had strictly warned the BBMP lawyer to have such issues solved right in the corporation itself before people reached the doorsteps of the court.
A similar situation was observed by the Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi, wherein he regretted the way in which all types of cases were and are entertained in the Supreme Court since several years.
Expressing his concern, CJI Gogoi has said, “Anybody can walk in and can get an order from the Apex Court.”
CJI Gogoi says that the court had unnecessarily burdened itself with cases which are extensively based on factual grounds.
The other two judges on the bench were also of the same thought.
CJI Gogoi remarked by saying, “My brothers are also of the same thought. Shouldn’t the cases which have constitutional importance, cases which fight for people’s rights and also the ones which are extraordinary in nature be given preference?”
These remarks were made after the CJI had a word with his fellow judges on the bench namely, Justice K M Joseph and Justice S K Kaul.
Speaking more on this, Justice Gogoi questioned if there was any justification for the cases fought for more than a decade in the Apex Court, whereas similar issues have been resolved in the municipal corporation or at the most the High Court.
“We should go by the appellate court’s view in such matters”, said Justice Gogoi, adding to his observations.
These observations came to the limelight when the case pertaining to the final hearing of a petition which was against the construction and operation of a commercial complex and the parking lot in the surrounding, which was filed by a group of residents from Nariman Point, Mumbai.
While the proceedings were on, the bench had noticed that the construction of the commercial complex was completed in the year 2002-03 and that the authorities were against the views of the residents. Moreover, the residents had failed in providing the necessary evidence to prove that it had caused obstruction of any sort and made them suffer. Considering all these facts, the court dismissed the case.
Prior to this case, there was another case, which was related to the allocation of petrol stations under the discretionary quota. On a similar issue, the Supreme Court had ordered for a cancellation of all allocations which were illegal. This order was passed in the year 1996-97.
Related to the same case, a plea against the issue of show cause notice to cancel the allocation of petrol station which belonged to a person named Manju Kumari was dismissed. Following this judgement, she had knocked the doors of the Supreme Court, where the case is said to be pending for more than a decade now.
When the lawyer was asked to read what was written and said in the show cause notice, the lawyer said that the show cause notice was missing from the petition.
Unhappy and distressed by this, CJI Gogoi, questioned as to what was happening in the Apex Court.
“Anybody can enter the court and get an order, and based on this order, petitioners and others can go on for over a decade”, he added.
Justice Gogoi made an observation and said that the basic procedure to file a case in the Supreme Court was to file the show cause notice, which the petitioner had totally neglected or forgotten. Keeping this in mind, the bench dismissed the appeal.
