Signed 11/3000
Online Signatures: 11
Judiciary is essential for success of Democracy. Justice on equal terms to all as per rule of law is basis of happy survival. However in India, access to justice & delivery of justice have become unreliable, unaffordable and unending, mainly because the situation is being exploited by legal fraternity for their survival. Common struggle for survival is wangled with disputes & grievances and litigations have become inevitable. The cost of litigation has escalated beyond per capita income. In present system with reliance on advocates’ access to justice and justice, has become privilege of few rich, especially criminals and an unachievable mirage for common man. Common man is forced to invoke right to remedy by personal appearance as enshrined in Constitution of India or in laws like order III of 'Code of Civil Procedure".
But judiciary has become an exclusive ground for legal fraternity to earn without an accountability and responsibility. Party in Person is master of facts and his presence cannot be denied in interest of profession of advocates for proper adjudication. Advocate being expert in law can be additional optional but never be a substituted for litigant. A Party in Person does not get justice on equal terms even before Honble Supreme court of India. And because Honble Supreme court of India does so, same percolates in lower judiciary.
Author was compelled by situation to appear in person before all levels in Indian Judiciary. And with numerous examples in his kitty to prove the point, it has been observation that there is need for an explicit procedure to assert support & protect rights of self-represented litigants on equal terms as advocates before judiciary.
Public Interest litigation, with Ref id 4446/20 has been filed before Honble Supreme court of India. The questions raised are
a. What is supposed to have prevalence in delivery of justice in Supreme Court of India, rights of litigant as per rule of law or discretion of judge violating rule of law?
b. What is of prime importance before Indian Judiciary in delivery of justice, submission of raw facts of the case by self-represented litigant or facts manipulated by an advocate?
c. Is it not responsibility of government to ensure, facilitate and avail timely justice as per rule of law, to self-represented litigants without any impediment, merely on the basis of only bare true chronological facts, with evidence?

d. Can party in person be denied justice, as per rule of law and, as guaranteed under constitution of India because of lack of knowledge of law?
e. Is not the law, meaning any Ordinance, order, bye-law, rule, regulation, notification, custom or usage having in the territory of India the force of law, to screen competency of Party in Person , or apply mandatory conditions for filing appeal, inconsistent with derogation of the fundamental rights of party in person, be void?
f. When access to justice by appearance through party in person, recognized agent or an advocate is allowed on equal footing, like under statute order III of 'Code of Civil Procedure", then, can the individual opinion, rules or procedures framed by courts be selective or discriminative for support in access to justice?
g. Can justice be denied to Party in Person because the courts are flooded with cases by learned advocates with frivolous/vexatious petitions?
h. If all are equal before law then why some cases, just by mentioning are taken early and others ignored for years? Why cases without mentioning lag for years?
i. Can right to remedy u/s 32 of Constitution of India be denied to Party in Person against order of Honble Supreme court of India amidst possibility of orders being passed by breach of rights of litigants, without check, accountability or responsibility?
j. Can justice be denied to Party in Person as per precedent (Article 141 of Constitution of India) laid down by earlier judgments, in cases to recall an order obtained by fraud or error apparent?
k. When the state is bound by responsibility to ensure fundamental rights of party in person and it is well known that Party in person is handicapped by lack of law knowledge, then is it not responsibility of State to support with information essential to secure his fundamental rights, at least on par or more than for advocates are supported to do their business?
l. Is it not an offence towards party in person when an advocate known to be learned in law, files case against party in person, knowingly with untenable pleas, against some established provisions of the statute, causing undue delay, harassment, humiliation, pain, loss and damages to party in person?
m. Is it not an offence towards party in person when a judge, who is entrusted with authority and duty to dispense justice only as per provisions of the statute, established principles or evidence on record, passes an order knowingly in defiance with any provisions of the statute, established principles or evidence on record, which benefits the other side?
n. Is it not responsibility of government to ensure accountability, and responsibility as per rule of law while passing orders, and prompt check, relief thereon and punish those who frustrate or deny rights to litigants/Party in Person as guaranteed under Constitution of India?
And the relief sought is as follows,
1 'Honble Court' may be pleased to direct the Government of India to enact a procedure/law to ensure access to justice, protect equality before law, mandatory principles of law, in consonance with provisions of Constitution of India, to self-represented litigants, on following basic grounds, but not limited to in nature thereof:
a. Establishing a dedicated front desk to guide self-represented litigants.
b. Installation of interactive website to guide self-represented litigants.
c. Access to all facilities to self-represented litigants like library, stationary, waiting rooms, parking, toilets, etc. in courts on par with advocates
d. No filtering of access to justice, by additional interaction or competency certificate.
e. Process driven (controlled),depending mainly on written time bound submissions, like list of events with evidence, rejoinder, sur-joinder binding
f. Format/ contents of order/judgment standardized
g. Even trial Courts/judges/authorities to be assisted with 2 time bound internal reports on issues involved, and laws/principles of law applicable, violated, defended, etc.
h. Pleadings of opponent advocate, being learned law officer of court, strictly restricted within rule of law. Only legally tenable grounds with reference of specific rule of law to agitated. Vexatious, frivolous, vague & blunt statements barred.
i. Authorities/judges, being entrusted with authority to dispense justice as per Rule of law, to adhere strictly to rule of law. All grounds to be ascertained with reference to rule of law.
j. Appellant courts to take prompt & effective note, mandatorily, of violation and initiate proceedings as per sec 209/210, or 409 of IPC. Further Establishment of Adjudicatory tribunals/mechanism to check violation of Rule of law by advocates/judges & to direct jmfc/police to act upon it.
2 While Govt takes action on the subject, the 'Honble Court' may initiate whatever steps possible within its authority with immediate effect.
Applicant is not seeking any additional right, but assertion of existing rights as per provisions under Constitution of India, or statute.
Such measures are already developed and implemented as PRE SE in USA, Canada and all democratic countries or colonies under the crown. Communists’ countries also support self-represented litigants heavily with internal reports. We need something to suit Indian conditions, some mix of best of two.
Applicant requests that the matter may be circulated amongst knowledgeable people in the line and invites support and suggestions in the matter. Phone 9881711288 or email id
The Petition was also marked to:
 - sgofficerk@gmail.COM
Dear Mr. Yadav, I have appeared in 16 cases before the Karnataka District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum ( Succeeded in 15), 4 cases before the State Commission 6 (100% success), and 6 PILs in the High Court of Karnataka Succeded in 4, got cost imposed in one and lost one-AS PARTY-IN-PERSON. MY EXPERIENCE HAS BEEN PLEASANT. BUT STILL, I HAVE SIGNED THE PETITION. ALL THE BEST more  
May 11
i am really overwhelmed by the response and support on mobile, still i would like involve in discussion to be strong on points. Therefore please continue with your queries and objections. more  
Aug 30
Dear Mr. Yadav, if I have understood your petition correctly, your point is that every person should have right to present his own case himself and he should not be compelled to hire advocate. If it is so, your petition is totally misconceived and misdirected. Since day one, every person can present his own case himself. There is no law which bars a person from presenting his own case in any court, including Supreme Court. Accordingly no need of your petition. However if I have failed to understand your petition, let me know. Sorry for any inconvenience.caused to you. more  
Aug 30
U r absolutely right sir, there is a specific provision that litigants can present their own case. This fact has been well appreciated by law makers as a litigant is primarily king of facts. But in practice it is not the case in India even before supreme court of India.There is an inert strong resistance. there are plenty illegal obstacles. impediments deliberately created.There are no facilities like availability of formats, citations use of libraries, or clerks assistance given though they are more required by a party in person.. i have personally faced this at all levels. And it is with examples to show possibility of denial of Justice and equality before law meted to party in person that i have filed the petition. and there is no prompt & EFFECTIVE remedy for such lapses.A party in person has to appear for interaction before appearing on own, he has to file application allegedly u/s 32 of advocates' Act, though it is established principle that an order passed by fraud, error apparent on face/record,or suppression of facts can be recalled still the registrar of Supreme court does not record an application, and challenge to order of Registrar are dismissed without an inquiry when filed by Party i person, remedy U/a 32 of CoI against order of Supreme court i not allowed, Remedy of Curative is not allowed to party in person unless a competency certificate from a senior counsel is attached. Etc etc. Immediate relief in Urgent matters of illegal sale of property or illegal arrest is openly denied till presented thru advocate. etc etc there is no prompt relief either before appellate courts or any special mechanism. Appeals/complaints as per Sec 209/210 or 409 u/IPC are mocked at.
Am i correct sir ? more  
Aug 30
This situation is due to Neglecting Judiciary from 1963 and set Insufficient and Inadequate SINCE AFTER 1975 as is evident from SC Order (1987) 4 SCC 649 resulted Because of Highly Empowered Politically tagged constitute Authority . This is why Requisite Reforms are necessary TO UPHOLD THE STATUS , EMPOWERMENT AND RESPONSIBILITY OF JUDICIARY AND THE APEX COURT on issues of Constitutional Guarantees Basic Objectives AS WELL AS JUSTICE TO GENERAL PUBLIC Removing inequalities and inabilities between RICH and POOR Strictly as far as possible Upholding Clause 2 to 6 of Article 19 as well as Articles 39 A and 32 read with 37 ,. 36 , 12 . more  
Aug 09
It appears that Mr. Yadav wants to go ahead with the petition, in any manner whatsoever. All the best Mr. Yadav. However due to my view conveyed earlier, I won't be signing the Petition. more  
Aug 30
u r right . but as per article 361 President is immune. There cannot be a legal case against him in Indian Judiciary. PIL is against Union Of India and not President. Petition in Local circles is filed more with intention to bring to notice of the president,generate awareness, gauze importance, and invite suggestions, and may not be acted upon. Even if he has to act he may direct it to Law Ministry or directly to Supreme Court for assessing and for needful further necessary action. He may just be a signatoree to finality in the matter. more  
Aug 09
As stated, the PIL already filed by you in the subject is pending in the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, kindly indicate as to why this parallel action of moving petition to the Hon'ble President of India too! In the normal course, when a matter is subjudice - that too in the highest Court of the land - it would be apt either to wait for its outcome or withdraw it to explore alternative remedies. more  
Aug 09

Related Petition

    • Medlife EHealth plotform fraud

      Medlife EHealth plotform accepting online orders for supply of medicines and payments by raising Vonline Vouchers but not supplying all the medicines but retaining the balance amount with them onl...

      By B.p Nutaki
    • Leave the Planet

      Respected Officer, As Nasa Found New Habitable Zone Planet I Request US Presidents with their Clients to Leave the Planet Immediately as Myself also has to Work here and Make my Career Growth ...

      By Sheejith KC
    • Hospitalo ki beimani

      Beiman privet hospita

      By Lalji Bhanushali
    • Frauds of J.V.G.F..Limited under liquidation.

      We the senior citizens have not been able to sleep, we have been hunted by the financial scam of J.V.G.F.Ltd.The longest legal litigation which shattered the lives of middle class senior citizens. ...

      By Prasad U.b.s


      By ARUMUGAM Shanmugavelayudam
    • Rights of tenants

      We are being forced to pay more than(almost) double of the electricity bill that we consume

      By Dipankar Sen
    • Loss of Income and Character

      Kindly Consider My Complaint and Acknowledge accordingly. Sheejith KC (Indian Citizen ) posted a Resource 25 years of My Currencies Inside India 1994 onwards My Currencies wha...

      By Sheejith KC
    • Myself Request My Indian Citizen Rights

      Respected Officer, Myself Request My Indian Citizen Rights and Answering the call for My Fundamental Duties. Till date No Documented Certification received postally as ...

      By Sheejith KC
    • can I suite against a corporation that, they forcibly taken resignation letter from a General M

      I Suresh S joined in the company in 2012 and working hard for the company, but all of a sudden in the Month of March 2019 head HR asked me to submit resignation, that I have not done, so they ...

      By Babji SADASIVUNI
    • Misuse of housing owners societies funds

      Executive members of housing owners societies missed nearly 2 crores of collected funds from common association accounts .

      By Venkateswara Rao Chaganti
Enter your email and mobile number and we will send you the instructions

Note - The email can sometime gets delivered to the spam folder, so the instruction will be send to your mobile as well

All My Circles
Invite to
(Maximum 500 email ids allowed.)