Posts

Showing posts from October, 2020

WRIT TO CANCEL THE REQUIREMENT OF CERTIFICATE BY SENIOR COUNSEL IN FILING CURATIVE PETITION.

Image
  WRIT TO CANCEL THE REQUIREMENT OF CERTIFICATE BY SENIOR COUNSEL IN FILING CURATIVE PETITION.   Cancel the requirement of certificate by Senior counsel in filing Curative Petition. Human Rights Activist Mursalin Asijat Shaikh from Pusad a remote Tahsil of Yavatmal District  filed the Writ Petition in the Supreme Court.[ Writ Petition Diary No. 21906 of 2020.]                           Mursalin Asijat Shaikh                     District President            Human right security council                                 Said condition is violative of the Art. 14,21 of the constitution which mandates for easy access to justice and justice for all. Poor people will not be able to pay fees of the Senior Counsel and they will be deprived of the facility of curative petition.   The supreme court  in  “ Rupa Ashok Hurra Vs. Ashok Hurra & Anr. ”  reported as  2002 (4) SCC 388 , created new jurisdiction of curative petition after dismissal of  Review petition. But in the said judgment one con
Image
  October 01, 2020 [CONTEMPT CASE AGAINST LAWYER DROPPED NOW JUSTICE DIPANKAR DUTTA IS IN TROUBLE] THOUSANDS OF LAWYERS EXTENDED THEIR SUPPORT TO ADV. BIJOY ADHIKARI TO PRESERVE INDEPENDENCE OF BAR.   Division bench headed by  Chief Justice T. B. Radhakrishnan, with Justice Sanjib Banerjee  dropped Contempt proceeding against Adv. Bijoy Adhikari which was initiated by Single Judge . Independence of Bar and Bench maintained .  Both are winners. Indian Bar Association’s National Co ordination committee head Ishwarlal Agarwal  told media. Court accepted the version of Advocate in his affidavit of apology which pointed out the facts of illegality on the part of Single Judge Dipankar Dutta by not maintaining the social distancing in his court hall and putting the 68 year old lawyers life in danger. It was contrary to the version of Single Judge Dipankar dutta in the order issuing contempt notice. But Division Bench found the submission of Lawyer acceptable and termed the incidence as unfort