Numerous cases of injustice are reported

Because this is India. The greatness of India has been depicted yesterday by sathya Prakash, but what is missing in his write up is that, the greatness of India also include numerous magnificient principles of law never and never to be executed and practice in reality.

Where there is a will there is a way. 

Judicairy doesn't want to take any headache for considering large number of cases as suemotto. Judges are getting good salaries from Government why they want to keep unnecessary headache. Let people suffer that is none of their business. People have to change and fight for justice i.e social revolution. Then only our judiciary will change.

Judiciary is only taking headache for considering cases, which is having media value as sue motto.

This is because several judgments are going unnoticed/unreported. There is no evaluation system of quality of judgments. There is a popular saying "Judgments are delivered and not Justice", which is best suited saying in the present day scenario. Today's judges are sitting on the dais with half-baked knowledge even about the basic procedures and their scope of authority. The High Court judges in many cases have over-stepped their authority while passing interim orders particularly in writ jurisdiction, without worrying about the final orders (whether the writs are maintainable or not). Injustice is sometimes is also caused deliberately due to the appearance of a Senior of a Sitting Judge or a Junior of a Sitting Judge or his past colleague. The Court proceedings may be video-graphed if irregularities/bias are alleged (at the cost of the parties requesting for it). When the proceedings of Assembly and the Parliament are telecast nowadays, why not the Courts proceedings?

Mr. Rao,

Wht U hav said is absolutely right. The ultimate suferrers are the people who could not spend

money whtever the lawyers/other big ppl  expect. and the real cases or ppls are dieing. whether its in higher

court or Supreme court. This is called Manu Dharma our country.Whos there to Question it or if they Question

it whts hppnd is hppnd .B''cous they entitled to strike for even for a T.A. wht will hppn to a common man.

Mr. Rao,

Wht U hav said is absolutely right. The ultimate suferrers are the common people who could not spend

money whtever the lawyers/other big ppl  expect. and the real cases or ppls are dieing. whether its in higher

court or Supreme court. This is called Manu Dharma of our Nation/country.Whos there to Question it or if they Question

it whts hppnd is hppnd to the sufferers and thier fmly's.B''cous Judiciary peoples they are in a position to nial us they verymuch {we hav given them full power to Nail us as long as they want} entitled to strike for even for a T.A. wht will hppn to a common man even if he suffers for Khana.

Mr Rao,

This not only happening in writ its playing a big role in civil cases where Properties are involved.

They will asses our propery before we imagine and start construction a commercial/res.flat and get advance before the cases are over.

Literaly many families are in road...... There is no Authority to Question them

B'Cous they are the Supreme Power.......

This question at this hour ! where CJI himself adviced advocates try not to bring litigations to courts.  Mr. Mohan Das we (the Judiciary) are functioning with one only hand and one leg each extended from opposite sides of a body !  Wait... lets hope the other hand and other leg too grow so that we can takeup suomotto cases as you wish !!. 

On the other hand we are in race to exceed the limits of 'population bearing capacity of the Earth'.  When we are progressing for much more naturally disasterous ends.... suo mottos by courts are silly issues.  We must learn to live as grass to comfort the feet of our politicians who walk on us for their prosperity. 

Democracy is for politicians not for people in the present India.  Our standards will not change until we control population and get the whole population educated and educated population challenging the Govts., on issues like these.   Cry of mere one or two educated... cannot outreach the ones at top of the power pyramid.  Their ears have no room since they are ever busily filled with 'bhajans' of their followers in thousands and lakhs.  And finally Judiciary is not an Income generating industry for them to think much about.

Dear All,

I do not understand the reason of posting this thread - what Mr.Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi want to know and achieve by this.

Regards

Daksh

Injustice is sometimes is also caused deliberately due to the appearance of a Senior of a Sitting Judge or a Junior of a Sitting Judge or his past colleague. as stated by gurunarayana rao which is practically experienced by few lawyers. There are many judges  even today who do not seen the personality of a lawyer, but only deliver the judgements on merits and based upon the records and Annexures put forth before them. Now it is not the thread where this issue to be discussed. But the question is Suo-motto, We have gone throughmany cases in the past where in environmental related cases where suo-motto action was taken by the judicial officials. Is is possible to take su-motto decisions in all the cases,where there are thousands of pending cases still not yet decided. Just we have to understand the difficulties, and the other side of the coin.

Dear  Sir Mr.Sunderaj

As U hav said if a injustice is sometimes happens delibrately ?

What hppns to the True /Merit Cases ?

And affected peoples like us will be buried along with our family ?

B'cous we are incappable of Questioning we let to die and others let live happly ?

Pl Mr. Rao if ur really worried abt Justice not as usal ppl's do something

Generally the judgements are based upon the Evidence and cross examination and documents produced in the trial court. We have to analyse weather the evidence based on the will was done according to the Law. That during the cross- examination if any admissions were given or if will is not proved, then the court would be helpless.

One incidence I remember where a district judge has openely stated ( The case I will cite later after refering my dairy) That I know that the he is the accused,but still I acquite him for lack of evidence.

Sorry there is a typing mistake, I know that the person is guilty of the offence, but still I acquite him for lack of evidence against him.