Quality of Justice shows radical mindset of Judges

Thank you very much more  

Sri Nileshwar, it is 624 and not 264. - In view of the Preamble emphasised for a Welfare State, the court established in [A] AIR 1983 SC 624 “ the Courts have the responsibility to interpret the provisions of the Constitution in such a way so as to ensure the implementations of the directive principles and to harmonize the social objectives underlying the directives with the individual rights. This is the mandate of the Constitution not to the Legislature and the Executive only , but to the Courts as well . “
This clearly emphasise that Courts to ever to memorize these before concluding delivery of Justice which naturally be bound to the Constitutional Mandates.
B. - {1994} 1 SCC 243 “ If loss or injury is caused to a citizen by the arbitrary actions of State employees the State is liable to pay compensation to him . Public authorities who are entrusted with statutory function cannot act negligently . “
“UNDER OUR CONSTITUTION SOVEREIGNTY IS VESTED IN THE PEOPLE. Every limb of the Constitutional machinery is obliged to be people oriented . .....”
C. {1996} 3 SCC 212 “ If the Court finds that the Government or authorities concerned have not taken the action required of them by law and this has resulted in violation of the right to life of the citizens, it will be the duty of the Court to intervene . “
D. AIR 1979 SC 1369 The Supreme Court has held that “ Speedy trial is an essential and integral part of the fundamental right to life and liberty enshrined in Art. 21 .
*** Though appears away from present subject, the following 4 have their vital importance that require attention in most of the H.C./S.C. cases.
AIR 1984 SC 803 S.C. held that “ Article 32 does not merely confer power on the Court to issue a direction, order or writ for the enforcement of the fundamental rights but it also lays a constitutional obligation on this Court to protect the fundamental rights of the people and for that purpose this Court has all incidental an ancillary powers including to forge new remedies and fashion new strategies designed to enforce fundamental rights. It is in realisation of this constitutional obligation that this Court has innovated new methods and strategies particularly for enforcing the fundamental rights of the poor and disadvantaged who are denied their human rights and to whom freedom and liberty have no meaning . “
AIR 1987 SC 1087 “ 1. The Court held that the poor in India can seek enforcement of their fundamental rights from the Supreme Court by writing a letter to ay Judge .” Further , “ 2. The Court also held that under Art. 32 it has power to grant remedial relief which includes the power to grant compensation in appropriate cases where the fundamental rights of the poor and disadvantage persons are violated . “ 3. The Court held that the Court can appoint socio-legal commissions or devise any procedure and forge any tools it deems appropriate for the enforcement of fundamental rights of the poor “ .
AIR 1983 SC 339 “ No State had the right to tell its citizens that because a large number of cases of the rich are pending in our courts we will not help the poor to come to the courts for seeking justice until the staggering load of cases of people who can afford rich lawyers is disposed off . “
In {1985} 3 SCC 545 , S.C. declared that “ In view of the fact that 39 {a} and 41 require the State to secure to the citizen an adequate means of livelihood and the right to work, it would be sheer pendentary to exclude the right to livelihood from the content of the right to life “

***** In fact, as many of us know, the method concluding Justice had been varying 1. Judgment goes strictly as per the Text of the Law
2. Judgment upholds Purpose and concept of the Law and, verdicts differently making Justified derivation of the particular Section of the Law.
3. Judgment upholds Justice, Morality, Humanity and Goodness and directs amendments to the Text of the Law and even the Law itself.
All these 3 types are observed and in practice. In 1983, on the issue of Natural Justice : In 1983-84 AIR 1983 SC 130 & ibid.. at p. 142 it was declared that :- “ now there is no doubt that these concepts will play a significant role in judging the validity of a law under Article 14 .”
It was at the concept of Article 14 but, there is possibility of questioning the Law and hence only Constitution was dressed with specific mandate allowing reference to Supreme Court. Even article 32 has its vide scope like the Preamble Guarantee of our Constitution. SINCE OURS IS PEOPLES DEMOCRACY , THERE IS ALWASYS DIVERSION FROM THE REAL OBJECTIVES, CONCEPTS AND PURPOSE OF CONSTITUTIONAL MANDATES AND ITS SUPPORTED LAWS .
Making Judiciary as the constitutionally empowered authority in enforcing the Constitution and its Mandates ONLY STIPULATES, IMPLEMENTS AND CARRIES, THE REAL JUSTICE AND JUSTIFIED PRACTICE strictly as per the Constitution and, the concept of Justice. more  

Dear Sh CSN Sarma,

What is AIR 1983 SC 264 about? You quote a lot of judgements. These are not available to the common citizen and hence a common citizen does not go by court judgements.

It would be appreciated if a small gist of the topic is incorporated in your message. This would be more educative about the topic. more  

Unwise Political selfishness always backend Rowdy sheeters, Law breakers over riding Policing and the very Law and Order and even Law and Justice. more