Right to justice

1. The Preamble reflects what is inside the Constitution. The Preamble talks about justice social, economic and political. An individual is the smallest unit of society. Thus justice to every individual is his right.

2. Part III and IV are nothing but expression or manifestion of principles of justice mentioned in Preamble. Also every right is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution. Many rights are implicit and embedded in various parts. In order to "read into" the Constitution or any law, one needs to develop the art or skill of reading into with a "legal eye". You may also read the following link to undertand how a most basic human and fundamental right, the Right to Keep and Bear Arms can be read in various parts of the Constitution https://www.lawyersclubindia.com/forum/Objections-against-proposed-arms-rules-2015-121734.asp

Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 reads thus:

7B. Arbitration of disputes. – (1) Except as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, if any dispute concerning any telegraph line, appliance or apparatus arises between the telegraph authority and the person for whose benefit the line, appliance or apparatus is, or has been provided, the dispute shall be determined by arbitration and shall for the purpose of such determination, be referred to an arbitrator appointed by the Central Government either specially or generally for the determination of disputes under the section.

(2)  The award of the arbitrator appointed under sub-section (1) shall be conclusive between the parties to the dispute and shall not be questioned in any court.

When a dispute arises between the Central Government and a private individual or an orgnisation, the Central Government, who is a party to the dispute, shall appoint an arbitrator. Is it fair. The award of the arbitrator cannot be questioned in a court of law. Is this justice? Is this constitutional? Where is the right to justice?

Justice Markanday Katju, who gave judgment saying that the right to bear arms was a right guaranteed under the Constitution supported this Section. Please see

General Manager, Telecom vs. M. Krishnan & Anr, Civil Appeal No.7687 of 2004.

Without reading the entire case history, it is difficult to comment about a particular case. Also judges or courts are not infallible. This is one of the reasons why cases move from lower bench or court to higher bench or court.

Leave aside commenting about any particular case. Do you agree the above Sectiom 7B which takes away from the purview of courts any dispute between a citizen and the Government?

A correction:

Do you agree that the above Section 7B, which takes away from the purview of courts any dispute between a citizen and the Government, unconstitutional?

Originally posted by : Dr. MPS RAMANI Ph.D.[Tech]
	A correction: Do you agree that the above Section 7B, which takes away from the purview of courts any dispute between a citizen and the Government, unconstitutional?

Whether I agree or not is not going to make any difference. It is only when any High Court or Supreme Court agrees or Parliament agrees, it will make a difference. Yes it does look like the said provision is against the very principles of equality/ non discrimination before law and natural justice, including those mentioned in the Constitution. Courts are for providing justice, why the person is being prevented from approaching the courts? Who is getting the benefit by such provision? Moreover it looks like this provision is monopolistic in nature and thus against the spirit of Competition Act 2002 and Consumer Protection Act. More opinions(for or against the said provision) can be mentioned by any advocate on this forum specializing in arbitration laws.

Of course opinions expressed here will be no consequence to anybody. This is only sharing views. I attach herewith the gazettee notification dated 1957 regarding this bill and a judgment by Justice Markantay Katju pertaining to this section. The bill introduced in the Parliament does not give any justication for 7B. It was arbitrary. The case came on appeal from Kerala High Court. Neither before the High Court nor before the Supreme Court the Constitutional validity of the Section was questioned by the lawyers on either side. Justice Katju who dealt at length on the Constitutional right of to bear arms was casual with regard to this section. Mr. Krishnan who was the respondent in this case was not represented before the Supreme Court. It may be because he was a small person who could not afford to engage a supreme court lawyer. A judge of the eminence of Justice Katju should safeguard the interests of the weak also even if there was no lawyer to represent him.

My views are same as before. What is your motive in discussing all this? Are you an affected party? If yes, please sit with an advocate, share all the facts of the case and decide further course of action.

Why should I have a motive? I am a citizen of India and I am conscious of my rights. I posted this as a public interest issue. If  ever I have to fight a case I shall do it myself. I can do better than an advocate. 

It appears you are needlessly construing the meaning of word "motive" as "ulterior motive". You certainly have a motive, that is why you have yourself stated that motive is a public interest. Of course you can fight your own case as party in person, at least hopefully you will be able to help make some positive change in the existing laws. Do keep this forum informed about the progress and outcome of the case in this thread itself.

I am sending you 13 pages Pdf file on an article principles of natural justice.I think it may help you to get answers of your question.

https://www.lawpact.org/uploads/PRINCIPLES%20OF%20NATURAL%20JUSTICE.pdf

Kriti