Judicial dishinesty
prasad
(Querist) 28 September 2017
This query is : Resolved
is it not time now to speak about judicial dishonesty when public receiving judgments based on no facts and by misinterpreting the higher courts judgments after waiting 10 to twenty years.
Guest
(Expert) 28 September 2017
Consent/ Decision of Court can not be Questioned and Should not be Commented. Appeal would be the only Remedy.
prasad
(Querist) 28 September 2017
true, but what is the fate of litigants whose life is based on the result
Guest
(Expert) 28 September 2017
You can better question the dishonesty or insincerity of your own lawyer. A court can be considered as a mediator to two parties, judgement goes in favour of that party who can effectively use or misuse law in his favour. A court has to be convinced on the law points used by both the parties.
Guest
(Expert) 28 September 2017
Mr.N.J.S. Rajkumar's views may perhaps not be in consonance with the Constitutional provisions about freedom of speech. I don't think.that law prohibits any one to speak against the decision/ judgment of a court, if that does not fits within the framework of law. After all judges are also human beings, who can also be prone to errors, if not judiciously dealt with the case.
Guest
(Expert) 28 September 2017
Mr. Jigyasu's opinions have some merits to be given thought over.
Guest
(Expert) 28 September 2017
The Constitution of India has guaranteed freedom of speech and expression to every citizen as a fundamental right. While guaranteeing such freedom, it has also provided under Article 129 that the Supreme Court shall be a Court of Record and shall have all the powers of such a Court including the power to punish for contempt of itself. Similar power has been conferred on the High Courts of the States under Article 215. Under the Constitution, there is no separate guarantee of the freedom of the press and it is the same freedom of expression, which is conferred on all citizens under Article 19(1). Any expression of opinion would, therefore, be not immune from the liability for exceeding the limits, either under the law of defamation or contempt of Court or the other constitutional limitations under Article 19(2). If a citizen, therefore, in the garb of exercising right of free expression under Article 19(1), tries to scandalise the court or undermines the dignity of the court, then the court would be entitled to exercise power under Article 129 or Article 215, as the case may be.
Rajendra K Goyal
(Expert) 28 September 2017
Have to live with the system, till changed.
If litigant is not satisfied with the decision he can go for appeal.
State material facts of the actual problem if any.
Guest
(Expert) 28 September 2017
Constitutional Powers are meant to be exercised rationally, even by the SC or HC, not because someone has commented against or questioned their decision, if does not fit within the framework of laws of the land. if someone feels that injustice has been done, even through appeals, his advocate comments adversely against the judge clearly making a mention that the judge or the court has not applied his mind. If without any cogent reason, judges start taking every comment/ question on the judgments, as contempt of court, nobody can ensure justice to the litigants.
Even the judges of the Supreme Court and High Court may not like that in the democratic country, a layman should be afraid of speaking truth due to the fear of the courts.
Kumar Doab
(Expert) 28 September 2017
By dishonesty do you point that the Presiding Officer was dishonest and the judgment was intentionally faltered!
Same in case of misinterpretation of judgments delivered by Superior Courts;HC,SC!
prasad
(Querist) 28 September 2017
If the judgment itself leads to the conclusion that it is not based on evidence on record and misinterpretation of judgments of Higher courts, can it mean mistake or intentionally faltered. Passage of time brings many amendments to the constitution. If we do not talk, can the allegation of dishonesty be solved. .Lawyers know the articles of constitution and restrictions on fundamental rights. but what about the public perceptive about judiciary. is it not going to loose its dignity.
Guest
(Expert) 29 September 2017
There is no relevance of your personal feelings or assumptions without quoting the instances of dishonesty on the part of the judiciary. There should be no scope of "IF" & "BUT" in any such generic discussion in the absence of evidence about your assumption.
You may better discuss quoting the real instances of dishonesty. However, if you are desirous of general discussions without any case related facts, you may post your query in the Forum section.
R.K Nanda
(Expert) 29 September 2017
no comments for the query.
P. Venu
(Expert) 29 September 2017
What are the facts?
Generally, judicial orders and judgments could be criticised. But such criticism should not degenerate into scandalising the judges or the courts.
prasad
(Querist) 01 October 2017
Sec 92 Evidence Act
AIR 1982 Sc 20 at 23
It is clear to us that the bar imposed by sub-s. (1) of s. 92 applies only when a party seeks to rely upon the document embodying the terms of the transaction. In that event, the law declares that the nature and intent of the transaction must be gathered from the terms of the document itself and no evidence of any oral agreement or statement can be admitted as between the parties to such document for the purpose of contradicting or modifying its terms. The sub- section is not attracted when the case of a party is that the transaction recorded in the document was never intended to be acted upon at all between the parties and that the document is a sham. Such a question arises when the party asserts that there was a different transaction altogether and what is recorded in the document was intended to be of no consequence whatever. For that purpose oral evidence is admissible to show that the document executed was never intended to operate as an agreement but that some other agreement altogether not recorded in the document, was entered into between the parties.
Interpretation by lower court and decided
“Their lordships observed that while discussing the section 92 of Evidence Act, wherein it is observed by their Lordship that any amount of oral evidence is not admissible against the documentary evidence and such evidence is never intended to be acted upon”
So, in the present suit the evidence of PW 2 to 5 not acted upon
1995 (3) ALT 61 (70, 73) DB
8......................... "It is clear to us that the bar imposed by Sub-section (1) of Section 92 applies only when a party seeks to rely upon the document embodying the terms of the transaction. In that event, the law declares that the nature and intent of the transaction must be gathered from the terms of the document itself and no evidence of any oral agreement or statement can be admitted as between the parties to such document for the purpose of contradicting or modifying its terms. The sub-section is not attracted when the case of a party is that the transaction recorded in the document was never intended to be acted upon at all between the parties and that the document is a sham document. Such a question arises when the party asserts that there was a different transaction altogether and what is recorded in the document was intended to be of no consequence whatever. For that purpose oral evidence is admissible to show that the document executed was never, intended to operate as an agreement but that some other agreement altogether, not recorded in the statement, was entered into between the parties."
9. …… the other indication of sale would be that the possession after the transaction would pass to the vendee and not retained with vendor in the absence of special circumstances
Lower court interpreted and decided
The counsel for the plaintiff further relied upon the another decision in 1995 (3) ALT 61 DB is also in respect of section 92 of Evidence Act,
“ Wherein it is observed by their Lordships that oral evidence for the purpose of contradicting, varying, adding to, or subtracting from terms of written contract”
So, that the evidence of PWs 2 to 5 and also PW6 to 8 are not helpful to the case of the plaintiff to discredit the testimony of EX A4 to A6 sale deeds in favour of 2nd defendant executed by the plaintiffs.
Now coming to another decision relied by the plaintiff reported in 2016 (6) ALT 778
Lower court interpreted and decided
“Wherein it is admitted by their lordship an admitted fact if it is reduced into writing, need not be proved, in view of section 58 of the Evidence Act, 1872”
So an admitted fact is in the cross examination of PW1 he stated that it is recited in EX A4 to A6 that the consideration was passed against the documents and also possession was delivered to them
Guest
(Expert) 01 October 2017
In the above quotations, you have not indicated towards any specific nature of dishonesty on the part of the judiciary with specific reference to the nature, characteristics and the circumstances of each individual case. You should not have forgot that reading between the lines does not bear any relevance, unless the judgment order is read with specific reference to the nature, characteristics and the circumstances of each individual specific case, not as of generic discussion.
