There are the precedents of overruling the previous law after interpretation of the provision contain therein. The decision of the Supreme court is having a binding effect but even the legislation has got the power to over-rule the said precedent. Sometime on account of various consideration and the ideology of an individual judge assigned with the responsibility for having an interpretation to the provisions of law, may be swept away by the impulsive arguments for declaring ratio-descend which is alter after the efflux of time and during the intervening period number of the cases are decided on the wrong judgement having the foundation of incorrect notions leading to miseries of number of the litigated but the system has yet not been evolved to provide a check and balance by the judicial system. Here are the instances of formulation of the larger bench not only in case of the conflict of the decision but by the gradual advancement of the general law in respect of its enforceability in a particular situation. The case of Sampat Kumar was overruled in L. Chandra kumar case after a gap of about ten years leading to a situation that this period the basic feature of the constitution of India empowering and individual for approaching the Honble High Court for challenging the judgement of C.A.T remained unassailable by the poor litigants serving before the Central Government. The substantial question of law and formulation thereof is a further dimension for imposing the restrictions upon the power of second appeal before the High Court. It is seldom found that in concurrent finding, there is substantial injustice suffered by the litigant. The judgement is not vitiated on the legal issues but such issues are dealt with contrary to the pleading on record. Thus when there is a malafide intention of the subordinate court to dealt with the issue involved in a civil case, it is very difficult to get the substantial justice. It is said that fraud and justice do not dwell together as fraud neither defend nor create any right. In such a situation, the justice is far away from the approach of the poor litigant who has come forward for the protection of his right before the court of law. There are so many obstacle in the process wherein even if it is found that there is the infraction of valuable rights conferred upon a citizen but in absence of the remedy due to the rigmarole of technicalities of limitation, an other procedural justice, he is helpless to get the enforcement of such rights from the court of law. There should be a system in which one may espouse his cause by laying the security to certain extent for adjudication of his cause. The maxim that if there is a right, there should be a remedy for the enforcement of such right through the process of law may be made applicable in such circumstances. That a poor person is dying through starvation and also on account of inadequate medical facility which are inherent rights conferred to a citizen under Article 21 of the constitution of India by implication. On the other hand, a criminal under preventive detention is provided every sort of the luxury on the cost of the public while he is confined in jail for violating the law. If the government is incapable to provide the minimum guarantee of food and shelter and also to the employment to a qualified citizen in service, there is no justification, which may permit the State Government to invest exorbitant expenditure for maintaining the criminal through such protection. Thus an existing structure of the society is based on the orientation of such policy which are artificial for demonstration but such policy are not meant for the protection of the citizen.
Posted on: Fri, 18 Apr 2014 04:15:38 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015