SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1982 Supreme(SC) 125

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
 
BEFORE O. CHINNAPPA REDDY, J., VACATION JUDGE
VARINDERPAL SINGH
Versus
HONBLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHARMA AND OTHERS.
Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 769 of 1982
Decided on 2-6-1982

Headnote:

Constitution of India – Article 32 – Petition for special leave - Petition is not maintainable - Writ petition in a matter where petition for special leave against judgment of High Court has ready been dismissed by this Court – Petitioner has now chosen to file this application petition is not maintainable not even a semblance of a question of law or an error of jurisdiction even a remote justification for filing this petition a pity that time of this Court which is becoming acuely precious because of piling arrears has to be wasted on hearing such petitions – Held, Perhaps many such petitions may be avoided if learned counsel who are officers of the court and who expected to assist the court tender proper advice to their clients to members of Ear to realise that the great burden of dispensing justice is a burden which it is their duty to share and it is their duty to see that burden should not be needlessly made unbearable – Judges of this Court are struggling bravely against the odds to tackle the problem of dispensing quick justice without cooperation of geatlemen of Bar nothing can be appeal to members of Ear for their goodwill and cooperation – Court are not able to cooperate and set outhouse in order people to whom all of us arc accountable will surely intervene and ask wiser men than us to tell us what is good for us all Please do cooperate – Petition is dismissed.

ORDER

This is a writ petition in a matter where petition for special leave against the judgment of the High Court has lready been dismissed by this Court. The petitioner has now chosen to file this application under Article 32 of the Constitution. On the face of it the petition is not maintainable. There is not even a semblance of a question of law or an error of jurisdiction. There is not even a remote justification for filing this petition. It is a pity that the time of this Court which is becoming acuely precious because of the piling arrears has to be wasted on hearing such petitions. Perhaps many such petitions may be avoided if learned counsel who are officers of the court and who arc expected to assist the court tender proper advice to their clients. I appeal to members of the Ear to realise that the great burden of dispensing justice is a burden which it is their duty to share and it is their duty to see that the burden should not be needlessly made unbearable. The Judges of this Court are struggling bravely against the odds to tackle the problem of dispensing quick justice. But, without the cooperation of the geatlemen of the Bar, nothing can be done. I appeal to the members of the Ear for their goodwill and cooperation. If we are not able to cooperate and set outhouse in order, the people to whom all of us arc accountable will surely intervene and ask wiser men than us to tell us what is good for us all, Please do cooperate. The petition is dismissed accordingly.

For Citation :  1986 (Supp) SCC 719

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top