New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday brushed aside a petition filed via a legal professional to hunt a route to its Secretary General and the Registry to “stop giving preference to cases filed by influential lawyers and law firms and not to discriminate against ordinary lawyers”. The most sensible courtroom imposed a token price of Rs 100 at the legal professional. Also Read – ICAI CA Exam 2020 to be Postponed? Feasibility of Conducting CA Exams to be Assessed, ICAI Tells Supreme Court
A two-judge bench headed via Justice Arun Mishra heard the plea filed via Reepak Kansal who claimed the apex courtroom government favoured influential attorneys and discriminated in opposition to extraordinary attorneys in reference to the record of issues for listening to. Also Read – After Ban on Chinese Apps, Plea in Supreme Court to Cancel All Business Contracts With China
At one cut-off date whilst listening to the petition, Justice Mishra requested Kansal: “Why are you making such irresponsible comments?” Also Read – Rajasthan Board Exams For Class 10 And 12 to Go Ahead, SC Rejects Plea Seeking Cancellation
The most sensible courtroom advised Kansal that the officers involved have been operating day and night time for the good thing about attorneys, but such feedback had turn out to be a development.
On June 19, the highest courtroom had reserved its order at the topic.
Kansal had previous cited the pressing record of a plea filed via Republic TV Editor-in-Chief Arnab Goswami, whilst his plea filed days prior to Goswami’s took for much longer to be indexed.
The most sensible courtroom had famous that the petitioner used to be unnecessarily dragging Goswami’s case into the topic. “Why are you saying such nonsense?” the highest courtroom had remarked.
Kansal contended in his plea that there used to be a contravention of Fundamental Rights of litigants/extraordinary attorneys/participants of SCBA as assured beneath Article 14 of the Constitution.
“No equal treatment is given to ordinary petitioner/lawyer by the Registry of this court,” stated the plea.
“There is no procedure followed by the Registry, i.e., filing of application for urgent hearing or letter etc, which was necessary for the urgent listing of the cases during the nationwide lockdown”, the plea argued.
The legal professional contended that it used to be not possible for the litigants to pay extra courtroom price or printing fees as illegally demanded via the Registry.
“There is no system to return the excess court fee/charges taken by the Registry. The Supreme Court Bar Association has also got various complaints against the mal-functioning of the Registry. Therefore, a circular was issued by the SCBA on May 29 in this regard,” the plea added.
$(document).ready(function() $('#commentbtn').on("click",function() (function(d,s,id) var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s);if(d.getElementById(id))return;js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src="https://connect.facebook.net/en_US/all.js#xfbml=1&appId=178196885542208";fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);(document,'script','facebook-jssdk'));