SC intentionally flooded with papers to forestall judges from taking on circumstances: CJI MV Ramana

SC intentionally flooded with papers to forestall judges from taking on circumstances: CJI MV Ramana

Litigants are flooding the Supreme Court with truckloads of paperwork to “terrorise” judges into not studying them in order that the circumstances by no means come up for a listening to, Chief Justice of India MV Ramana stated on Friday. He recommended that “lobbies” could also be at work to stymie essential court docket hearings.

“We are not hearing this. We have received 58 volumes of paper,” CJI Ramana stated in a case. “We have to engage a lorry to transport the papers,” the CJI stated, drawing consideration to what has turn into a really traditional incidence in each high-stakes case within the high court docket.

“This is not funny. Volumes and volumes are filed to terrorise judges so that they can’t read or hear the cases,” the CJI stated, hinting at “lobbies” at work to intimidate judges by sheer paper work in order that the case by no means comes up in any respect. He was sitting immediately alongside Justice Surya Kant.Solicitor General Tushar Mehta who appeared for the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) within the case discounted any such chance.

“We are not going to hear the matter today. You all sit together and file a convenience compilation,” the CJI stated, posting the case for an extra listening to on Aug 18.


Paperwork regardless of the court docket selling e-filing, and reducing down on insisting on bodily copies has all the time been the bane of the justice supply system. Tonnes and tonnes of paper not solely end in lakhs of timber being lower down yearly, but additionally additional bathroom down the system identified for its delays. Truckloads of paper could seem an impossibility however are a daily function in all high-stakes industrial circumstances. Copies of appeals, judgement appealed from and paperwork for and towards the case and annexures should not solely produced however in separate units for every of the judges within the case to learn individually.As a end result, judges are a harried lot and hold adjourning these circumstances for lack of time to learn these voluminous paperwork.

The case concerned a problem to the brand new TRAI guidelines issued in Jan 2020 which set a cap on the MRP to be charged for each channel by a broadcaster. Though the Bombay High Court has since upheld the principles, these have been challenged by the Indian Broadcasting & Digital Foundation.

Source link