Maverick lawyer from Mumbai, Mathews J Nedumpara, had two of his writ petitions listed before two different benches at courts 3 and 4 on Wednesday, 13 April.
But the petitions were so similar in tone and tenor, that both benches had a long arguments with him, before dismissing them.
The one at court 3 sought a direction from the two-judge bench of justices JS Khehar and C Nagappan, to declare the judgment in the NJAC case and the collegium system unconstitutional and void.
The one at court 4 sought the court’s direction to abolish the system of senior advocates.
At court no 4, which came up first in the before noon, Justice Dipak Misra lost his cool when Nedumpara began to argue, even though he had engaged his counsel, who was on his legs. Justice Misra asked Nedumpara to disengage his counsel, before arguing himself.
When both did not listen, Justice Misra asked them to come back at noon, and tell the bench whether he had disengaged his counsel or not. When Nedumpara appeared to give a lecture, Justice Misra asked him not to.
Nedumpara then returned at 12, spoke about how people think speaking good English will make them eminent. He had a dig at the system that promotes only those who speak good and fluent English as senior advocates.
Justice Misra then talked about his own humble background of studying in a Oriya medium school in a village, and said it had never been a handicap, as he imagines.
Justice Shiva Kirti Singh, who was sitting with Justice Misra, told Nedumpara that there were limitations in all spheres of life and that we can’t change the system overnight.
At court no 3, Justice JS Khehar asked Nedumpara whether he had read the NJAC judgment, which answered all his queries. When Nedumpara persisted, Justice Khehar asked whether he would argue addressing the bench, instead of looking at the media persons, as he seemed to be more interested in seeing his name in print these days.
As a good Christian, you must go to the Church, Justice Khehar told Nedumpara, and that his not going to the Church is not good.
On the NJAC judgment, Justice Khehar said Nedumpara’s rights as a litigant are closed, and that he can’t file a fresh writ petition like this to agitate the same issues. “If somebody has a brainwave, should it all be raised again and again.
It is not acceptable”, Justice Khehar said. “We have heard Nedumpara for half an hour. He has not raised a single point. It is dismissed”, he said while dictating the order at 1:40 pm
Comments
With all respect to Legally India reporting, it is my solemn duty to bring into the notice of the editorial board, the disservice this news is doing to the real facts.
First of all, both the petitions, which this news item reports are poles apart, one for the fair appointment system of judges, inviting applications from the eligible candidates and the other against the preferential treatment to some selected advocates in courts. It was against the preferential treatment given to the powerful and rich criminals and other litigants, even when the poor are languishing in jail without trial and bail. The petitioner, through the said petition had never asked for the abolition of the system of senior advocates, even though that shall be an ideal to be sought. But the news item wrongly says that the said petition sought to abolish the system of senior advocate designation.
Further, in Court No.4, Mr.Nedumpara had not engaged any advocates, whereas the news has again reported the fact wrongly. It was a petition, where the petitioner drafted, filed and appeared as party-in-person, without engaging any advocates, for which he had even removed his robes, while appearing.
I was personally present at the argument, and the dig which Mr.Mathews Nedumpara did was against the undeserving appointments as Sr. Advocates, which is twisted by this report, as if he had a dig at the deserving appointments. I do not know, this twisting is inadvertent or deliberate. And in court No.3 also, I was personally present and Mr.Nedumpara had made arguments, throughout, looking at the bench and never looked at the media and addressed. Even the bench had never commented that he is ‘looking’ to the media and addressing. With respect to the issue of going to church, what Mr.Nedumpara had told the bench is not reflected here. What he told is that, he does not go to any church or temple, but only to courts, which is the temple of justice. It showed his respect of temple of justice. But reading the report, it exposes half the truth to mean that he disrespect the church/temple. It is a reporting of half truth, which is dangerous than naked lie.
I hope, being a responsible news publisher, Legally India will correct this reporting errors, which are so misleading and incorrect, if not malicious. Let me try to believe that it is not done intentionally. Still the tone in which these misleading news appears on this site of a responsible news publisher is unfortunate and painful. Hope the Editorial Board/Chief Editor will take appropriate remedial action immediately. Adv.A.C.Philip.
Paragraph 14 of his petition clearly states that he wants the senior advocate system to be abolished:
http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2804409-Mathews-Nedumpura-writ-petition-128-2016.html
The story did not state that he took a dig at deserving appointments.
The story was based on observations by judges and Nedumpara in court. Obviously this report can not be the complete story.
If there are factual errors, we are happy to stand corrected, but the report is an accurate reflection of what happened in court, and no one can deny that the judges were losing patience with Mr Nedumpara (rightly or wrongly).
But it is not our job to take sides in this matter - it is for the reader to infer from the report.
As respect to him talking to media persons, that was verbatim what Justice Khehar said.
We accept that we had missed out some of the lead-up and context to the 'church' comments (although Justice Khehar did say exactly what we quoted in the story) and are happy to stand corrected on that front.
If you have any other concerns, please feel free to let us know in the comments.
Best regards,
Kian
A judge must not express his/her views about who should attend church and, despite that jewel of a comment, the story reads not-so-factual.
I make this comment as a fan of Legally India. Its your call to consider the spirit of my comment, or debate the letters thereof.
What do you have to say to the scores of comments below that allege that you published a half baked and half true story?
Nation wants to know.
Regards,
ARNAB
Mr Nedumpara clearly has many supporters and well-wishers, which is nice, but I don't think there's anything in this article which is factually inaccurate or a particularly unfair representation of what happened in court.
The fact is that the bench had little patience for a petition seeking to annul the NJAC judgment (which, to be honest, seems slightly over-ambitious and unrealistic - expecting the judges to annul NJAC judgment now, after the amount of time already spent on it, seems highly unlikely.)
As for the seniors petition, wouldn't that have made more sense to have been filed as an intervenor in the currently ongoing senior counsel challenge by Indira Jaising?
In any case, it doesn't seem like some major injustice has been done here, considering the case loads the judges face. The petitions were a bit of a leap of faith that the judges simply didn't feel merited further hearing, and one can have sympathy for that.
"Legally India", journalist is the fourth pillar of democracy. The pillars should stand firm and do its duty unbiased instead of leaning against each other!! If two pillars stand together, the structure comes down!!
I have had the opportunity to be a part of these proceeding, therefore, its my duty to inform you that this article has provided the public with least information possible. There were so many points raised by Mr. Nedumpara, which were ignored by our Hon'ble Judges.
The only problem with our Justice system is when they want to suppress or ignore an issue, very conveniently they pass a non speaking order, instead of recording the submission.
Regards
The facts of the case and the arguments and judicial observations are factully incorrect and misleading
Secondly, how Justice Keher acted as a Judge in writ petition filed against gis own judgment in NJAC case? I think we should appreciate Mr. Nedumpara for showing courage to say Spade a Spade before Supreme Court. Supreme Courts institution requires serious introspection in it. Unfortunately, the article is written with an angle to show Nedumpara in poor light.
Legallyindia is frustrated by the popularity of an raising advocate with backbone advocate Mathews J nedumpara.
Please refrain from this kind of reporting.
You are not going to extinguish an upcoming fire of NLC.
Hope you will study well and rereport this again
The LiveLaw instance is here, though it's not really their fault since it was based on incorrect reports in other papers, and they promptly remedied the error:
http://www.legallyindia.com/scoi-reports/3-newspapers-face-sc-for-contempt-over-wrong-afspa-report-as-livelaw-avoids-action-with-deft-apology
Move forward and work, do you matters and keep reporting respectively
NLC will be holding its General Body Meeting on Wednesday 20th of April at 5.30pm at it's registered office at Hari Chambers, Fort, Mumbai.
National Lawyers Campaign for Judicial Transparency and Reforms
AN INTRODUCTION:
1. This is a body painstakingly conceived and nurtured by Mr Mathews J. Nedumpara, an icon of sufferings, ridicule and persecution at the hands of certain pests infesting our otherwise Supreme Judiciary.
2. This body of powerful men and women, is a broad spectrum campaign at showing doors to the ones unduly holding on to the Chairs meant, by our founding fathers, to be occupied by men and women of impeccable integrity.
3.Rule 1 of the code of professional ethics mandates Advocates to take action against errant Judicial officers.
4. Article 51-A(a), (b), (c), (h),(i)and (j) of the Constitution of India mandates the Citizen to Protect the Constitution, sovereignty and integrity by resorting to the procedure taught by our freedom fighters, to develop spirit of inquiry and Reforms, to safeguard public property (Judiciary is a public property), and strive individually and collectively so that nation rises to higher levels of endeavour and achievement.
Hence, we are duty bound to unite and act.
5. The primary reforms aimed at are three:
a. Abolition of the opaque Collegium system of appointing Judges that has hitherto promoted nepotism, as the appointments are given to legal heirs, juniors and friends of sitting judges.
b. Implementation of Live audio-video recording of Judicial process
c. Stopping the misuse of Contempt of Court Law
This is a Citizens' movement, every citizen, lawyer or not, is a member of this campaign!!
C. J. Joveson,
Jt. Secretary, NLC