court fee comparison

നീതി നികുതി കൊള്ളയിൽ നമ്പർ വൺ  കേരളം.

----------------------------------------

നീതിയ്ക്ക് നികുതി എന്നാൽ- 'കോർട്ട്  ഫീസ്' എന്ന ഓമനപ്പേരിൽ ഈടാക്കുന്ന തുക. അഥവാ, ന്യായം തേടി  കോടതിയെ സമീപിക്കുന്ന ഒരാൾ, കോടതിയ്ക്ക് കൂലിയായി ഒടുക്കേണ്ട രൂപ. ഈ തുക കൊള്ളപ്പലിശയേക്കാൾ കൂടുതൽ ആണ് എന്നതാണ് വാസ്തവം. കൊള്ളയോടൊപ്പം പിടിച്ചു പറി കൂടി ഉണ്ട്- അതാണ് ലീഗൽ ബെനെഫിറ് ഫണ്ട് എന്ന പേരിൽ ഈടാക്കുന്ന  ഒരു ശതമാനം അധികം.

ഇതാ കണക്കു നോക്കൂ പത്തു ലക്ഷം രൂപ വായ്പ നൽകിയത് മടക്കി കിട്ടാൻ അന്യായം നൽകിയാൽ, കോടതിയ്ക്ക് കൊടുക്കേണ്ട കൂലി- സംസ്‌ഥാനം- കൂലി എന്ന കണക്കിൽ-

ആന്ധ്രാപ്രദേശ്- 12,426

ബിഹാർ- 18,920//-

ദൽഹി- 12,104

ഗുജറാത്ത്- 23,950

ഹരിയാന- 58,800/-

ഹിമാചൽ പ്രദേശ്-  12,560

ജമ്മുകശ്മീർ- 24,600

കർണാടക- 62,125

മധ്യപ്രദേശ്- 95,000

ജാർഖണ്ഡ് -18,920

മഹാരാഷ്ട്ര- 24,430

ഒഡിഷ- 20,790 

പഞ്ചാബ്- 26,850/

രാജസ്‌ഥാൻ- 62,125

തമിൾ  നാട്- 75,000

ഉത്തർ പ്രദേശ് -75,408 

ഉത്തരാഖണ്ഡ്- 75,408

പശ്ചിമ ബംഗാൾ -. 24,980

ഇനി നമ്മുടെ നമ്പർ വൺ കേരളം-

98,400 + 10000 = 108400- ഒരു ലക്ഷത്തി എണ്ണായിരത്തി നാനൂറു രൂപ!

ഇനി ഇത്രയും കൊടുത്തേക്കാമെന്നു വെച്ചാലും, നീതി കിട്ടുമോ?

 

Explanation for the defects notified by the Registry

MOST URGENT

MATHEWS J. NEDUMPARA 

Advocate

101, Gundecha Chambers, Nagindas Master Rd, Kala Ghoda, Fort, Mumbai, Maharashtra 400001 

E-mail: mathewsjnedumpara@gmail.com Mob:9820535428

10.11.2022

To, 

The Registrar,

Supreme Court of India,

New Delhi. 

Sir, 

Sub: Mathews J. Nedumpara v. The Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India W.P (diary) no. 35794 of 2022- Explanation for the defects notified by the Registry at Serial nos. 4 and 5 – reg.

1. The Registry of the Supreme Court has notified 6 defects of which, except for Nos. 4 and 5, have been cured/rectified. 

Defect no. 4

2. Defect no. 4 is “In Person to clarify the maintainability of prayer G, H and I in view of the subject of the instant petition”. The maintainability of the prayers is a matter falling in the exclusive province of the Hon’ble Court. If the maintainability could be decided by the Registry, then there would not be any need for a court at all. The objection is wholly unmaintainable. Be that as it may, I wish to make it clear that the Registry has not whatsoever indicated the reasons why they consider the prayer G, H and I are not maintainable. I am left with no option than to deduce what it could possibly be.

3. Explanation with regard to Prayer “G”- In jurisprudence, a judicial enquiry falls into two categories: a) concerning the jurisdiction of the Court and b) the merits of the actual controversy. So far as jurisprudence is concerned, there are two kinds of issues, “issues going to the jurisdiction” to borrow an expression of Lord Reid in Anisminic v. Foreign Compensation Commission, (1969) 2 AC 147, and “issues within the jurisdiction”. “Jurisdiction is a verbal coat of many colours” said Justice K.K. Mathew. A suit or proceedings may be barred by cause of action estoppel, nay, res judicata. A suit or proceedings may be barred by limitation/delay, or may be barred by monetary or territorial limits. These questions of jurisdiction are called substantive and adjectival, respectively. So far as the Petitioner/litigants are concerned, the right to institute a petition under Article 32 in itself is considered to be a fundamental right. A court considering a petition under Article 32, as is the case of a Civil Court, is duty bound to adjudicate all questions concerning jurisdiction, whether substantive or adjectival.

4. Since the Registry has not given any indication as to what is on its mind as to the nature of the objection, to repeat, I am forced to make a wild guess. The only thing that comes to my mind is whether the Registry assumes “prayers G, H and I” to be barred by the doctrine of res judicata/estoppel. Assuming that is the case, the Petitioners assert prayers are not barred by res judicata. 

5. The core of the doctrine of res judicata is the adjudication of a lis on its merits, affording the parties concerned a full opportunity to be heard adhering to the natural justice, to adduce evidence and argue their case. If there is no decision on the merits, the doctrine of res judicata has no application at all. The petitions preferred by Petitioner nos. 1 and 2 seeking a declaration that the NJAC judgment is void/review of the same was dismissed, in chambers, without hearing the Petitioners, by way of cyclostyle, brief, cryptic order. There is absolutely no bar of the instant petition by virtue of the doctrine of res judicata. To repeat, in the earlier proceedings nothing was decided on its merits, nor were the Petitioners even heard. 

6. Explanation with regard to Prayer “H”- The objection that prayer “H” is not maintainable is wholly unfounded. Prayer “H” is for a declaration that the rule that a curative petition is maintainable only upon being supported by a certificate of a Senior Advocate is violative of Article 14. The said rule has resulted in denial of the fundamental right of the Petitioners to file a curative petition aggrieved by the dismissal of their review petition. 

7. Explanation with regard to Prayer “I”- The explanation offered above for prayer “G” equally apply for the objections concerning prayer “I”. To repeat, had the Supreme. Court heard the petition seeking review of the NJAC preferred by Petitioner nos. 1 and 2 and rejected the same offering reasons, then, probably, the doctrine of res judicata would have applied. The Court did not hear Petitioner nos. 1 and 2 or record their arguments on the merits of the NJAC issue. The Petitioners, therefore, are not barred by the doctrine of res judicata/estoppel. 

8. Though I have given a separate explanation for each prayer, it was not necessary at all. Whether a declaration ought to be sought or not is the province of the petitioner/plaintiff, and whether to grant it or not is in the province of the Court. The Registry has no role whatsoever with regard to pure questions of law. 

9. As aforesaid, at any rate, these issues are substantial questions of pure jurisprudence, which with all respect to the officers of the Registry, the humble Petitioners submit to be beyond the scope of scrutiny of the Registry. 

Defect no. 5 

10. Defect no. 5 is “in Person to further clarify regarding Respondent no. 5 to 14 as to whether they are necessary parties as clarification at Para 6 Page 8 of the petition is incomplete”. The NJAC case was about the constitutionality of the Constitution 99th (Amendment) Act and the NJAC Act. The said Acts were passed by the Parliament unanimously. It was the will of the people. No Court or authority has power to undo it. But the SCAORA got it quashed behind the backs of the people of this country. They did not bring on the party array any of the political parties, not to speak of even the ruling BJP and the Congress, the principal opposition party. Not a single Member of Parliament was on the party array, the SCAORA played a fraud on the people by obtaining a judgment behind the back of the people of this country. If SCAORA’s petition was assumed to be maintainable, then the principles applicable to a representative suit/class action ought to have been followed. A few lawyers were able to get the NJAC Act quashed because they were powerful. The petitioner/plaintiff is the dominus litus. He/she is the master of the proceedings. It is for him/her to decide who is to be on the party array. If he/she fails to bring the necessary parties on the party array, his/her petition/proceedings is rendered void ab initio. The Registry has no objection that the Petitioners have failed to bring on the party array all the necessary parties. On the contrary, it has objected to the Petitioners bringing the State Governments and the major political parties on the party array. If at all the Petitioner can be faulted, it could only be for not bringing in all the State Governments on the party array. The Petitioner has craved the leave of the Hon’ble Court to do so in due course. The objection of the Registry on this count is, therefore, misconceived. 

11. This explanation, the Petitioners, in all humility, hope would satisfy the Registry and that the petition will be numbered in no delay. 

With kind regards, 

Yours Sincerely, 

MATHEWS J. NEDUMPARA

9820535428

mathewsjnedumpara@gmail.com

doctrine of pleasure

The doctrine of pleasure has its origins in English law. In England, the moral rule is that a civil servant of the Crown holds office during the pleasure of the Crown. This means his services can be terminated at any time by the Crown, without assigning any reason.

The story so far: Kerala Governor Arif Mohammed Khan and the State government have major differences over multiple issues. The latest controversy has arisen after he sought the resignation of several vice-chancellors following a Supreme Court judgment setting aside the appointment of the Vice-Chancellor of a technology university. As a fallout of comments made by the State’s Finance Minister, K. N. Balagopal, the Governor has also sought his dismissal from his Cabinet, declaring that he has withdrawn the pleasure of having him in the Council of Ministers.

Confirmation bias

confirmation bias, the tendency to process information by looking for, or interpreting, information that is consistent with one's existing beliefs. This biased approach to decision making is largely unintentional and often results in ignoring inconsistent information.

For example, imagine that a person believes left-handed people are more creative than right-handed people. Whenever this person encounters a person that is both left-handed and creative, they place greater importance on this "evidence" that supports what they already believe. This individual might even seek proof that further backs up this belief while discounting examples that don't support the idea.

Confirmation biases impact how we gather information but also influence how we interpret and recall information. For example, people who support or oppose a particular issue will not only seek information to support it, but they will also interpret news stories in a way that upholds their existing ideas. They will also remember details in a way that reinforces these attitudes.

History of Confirmation Bias

The idea behind the confirmation bias has been observed by philosophers and writers since ancient times. In the 1960s, cognitive psychologist Peter Wason conducted several experiments known as Wason's rule discovery task. He demonstrated that people tend to seek information that confirms their existing beliefs.

Signs of Confirmation Bias

When it comes to confirmation bias, there are often signs that a person is inadvertently or consciously falling victim to it.3 Unfortunately, it can also be very subtle and difficult to spot. Some of these signs that might help you identify when you or someone else is experiencing this bias include:

• Only seeking out information that confirms your beliefs and ignoring or discredit information that doesn't support them.
• Looking for evidence that confirms what you already think is true, rather than considering all of the evidence available.
• Relying on stereotypes or personal biases when assessing information.
• Selectively remembering information that supports your views while forgetting or discounting information that doesn't.
• Having a strong emotional reaction to information (positive or negative) that confirms your beliefs, while remaining relatively unaffected by information that doesn't.

Types of Confirmation Bias

There are a few different types of confirmation bias that can occur. Some of the most common include the following:

• Biased attention: This is when we selectively focus on information that confirms our views while ignoring or discounting data that doesn't.4
• Biased interpretation: This is when we consciously interpret information in a way that confirms our beliefs.
• Biased memory: This is when we selectively remember information that supports our views while forgetting or discounting information that doesn't.5
  

Examples of the Confirmation Bias

It can be helpful to consider a few examples of how confirmation bias works in everyday life to get a better idea of the effects and impact it may have.

Interpretations of Current Issues

One of the most common examples of confirmation bias is how we seek out or interpret news stories. We are more likely to believe a story if it confirms our pre-existing views, even if the evidence presented is shaky or inconclusive.6 For example, if we support a particular political candidate, we are more likely to believe news stories that paint them in a positive light while discounting or ignoring those that are critical.

Consider the debate over gun control:

• Let's say Sally is in support of gun control. She seeks out news stories and opinion pieces that reaffirm the need for limitations on gun ownership. When she hears stories about shootings in the media, she interprets them in a way that supports her existing beliefs.
• Henry, on the other hand, is adamantly opposed to gun control. He seeks out news sources that are aligned with his position. When he comes across news stories about shootings, he interprets them in a way that supports his current point of view.
  

These two people have very different opinions on the same subject, and their interpretations are based on their beliefs. Even if they read the same story, their bias shapes how they perceive the details, further confirming their beliefs.

Personal Relationships

Another example of confirmation bias can be seen in the way we choose friends and partners. We are more likely to be attracted to and befriend people who share our same beliefs and values, and less likely to associate with those who don't. This can lead to an echo chamber effect, where we only ever hear information that confirms our views and never have our opinions challenged.