PETITION TO ASSERT RIGHTS OF SELF REPRESENTED LITIGANTS BEFORE JUDICIARY IN INDIA

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 yadavpw@gmail.com