15 Jobs That ChatGPT Might Replace

6. Lawyers and Paralegals

While paralegals and legal administrators are not literal translators, they also have the important job of receiving complex legal documents and converting them into summaries and briefs. As you can already assume, summarizing legal documents into digestible briefs is not an easy task. However, AI has also been useful there.

ChatGPT and its counterparts can easily create legal briefs and even lawsuits out of data fed to them. One doesn’t even need to provide a format as the bot is already up to date with it. However, even if you do, it will dish out all manner of legal documents in a jiffy. And for a working paralegal who focuses on lawsuit research and creation, draft making, and case development, this smells like trouble.

Users on the internet have already started to leverage ChatGPT for drafting lawsuits against individuals and companies. This is worrying as ChatGPT does under a minute which might normally take a few days. Furthermore, AI has even tried to dive into real life with an AI robot coming very close to fighting a court case. While the idea was finally scraped, combined with its already growing capability to create content, it spells trouble for jobs in the legal sector.

ആധാരം രജിസ്റ്റർ ചെയ്യാനുള്ളവർ ശ്രദ്ധിക്കുക. വില്ലേജ് ഉദ്യോഗസ്ഥരുടെ പുതിയ തട്ടിപ്പ് തിരിച്ചറിയുക.

ആധാരം രജിസ്റ്റർ ചെയ്യാനുള്ളവർ ശ്രദ്ധിക്കുക. വില്ലേജ് ഉദ്യോഗസ്ഥരുടെ പുതിയ തട്ടിപ്പ്  തിരിച്ചറിയുക.

ആധാരം ചെയ്യുന്നതോടൊപ്പം തന്നെ പോക്കുവരവും ഓൺലൈനായി സർക്കാർ നടപ്പിലാക്കിയിരിക്കുന്നു. ഇതിലൂടെ പോക്കുവരവ് എന്ന് ദുർഘടം പിടിച്ച പരിപാടി അവസാനിച്ചിരിക്കുകയാണ്. ഭൂമി പോക്കുവരവിനായി ആരും വില്ലേജിൽ കയറിയിറങ്ങേണ്ട ആവശ്യമില്ല. എന്നാൽ വില്ലേജ് ഉദ്യോഗസ്ഥരുടെ പുതിയ തട്ടിപ്പിന് ഇരയാകാതിരിക്കാനും ശ്രദ്ധിക്കുക.

ആധാരം ചെയ്യുമ്പോൾ വില്ലേജിലെ തണ്ടപ്പേര് അക്കൗണ്ടിൽ കരം അടവ് പ്രകാരമുള്ള വസ്തു ഉണ്ടോ എന്ന് സബ് രജിസ്ട്രാർക്ക് ബോധ്യം വരുന്നതിനായി R.O.R (Record of Rights) സർട്ടിഫിക്കറ്റ് വില്ലേജിൽ നിന്നും വാങ്ങണം എന്ന നിബന്ധനയുണ്ട്. R.O.R സർട്ടിഫിക്കറ്റ് ലഭിക്കുന്നതിന് നൂറ് രൂപ ഫീസ് കൊടുത്താൽ മതി. അതിന് വില്ലേജിൽ നിന്നും രസീത് കിട്ടും. അല്ലാതെ വേറേ ഒരുരൂപ പോലും ചെലവാക്കേണ്ടതില്ല.

വില്ലേജിൽ അപേക്ഷ സമർപ്പിച്ചാൽ 5 മിനിറ്റിനുള്ളിൽ സർട്ടിഫിക്കറ്റ് കൊടുക്കാവുന്നതേയുള്ളൂ. എന്നാൽ വസ്തു പരിശോധിക്കണം, വസ്തു അളക്കണം, പ്രമാണങ്ങൾ പരിശോധിക്കണം തുടങ്ങിയ അനാവശ്യ കാര്യങ്ങൾ പറഞ്ഞു ജനങ്ങളെ ബുദ്ധിമുട്ടിച്ച് പണം തട്ടിയെടുക്കുന്ന താണ് പുതിയ തന്ത്രം.

ആധാരം ചെയ്യുവാനുള്ള ആരും R.O.R. സർട്ടിഫിക്കറ്റിന് വേണ്ടി കൈക്കൂലി കൊടുക്കരുത് അങ്ങനെ കൊടുത്താൽ ഇത് ഒരു പുതിയ കൈക്കൂലി സമ്പ്രദായത്തിന് വഴിയൊരുക്കും.

പരമാവധി ഷെയർ ചെയ്യുക.

ഇത്ര നല്ല ഒരു കാര്യം അറിഞ്ഞിട്ട് അത് മറ്റുള്ളവര്‍ക്ക് പകര്‍ന്ന് കൊടുത്തില്ലേല്‍ തെറ്റല്ലേ ആര്‍ക്കെങ്കിലും ഉപകരിക്കട്ടേ. ആധാരം സ്വയം എഴുതി റജിസ്റ്റർ ചെയ്യാൻ സർക്കാർ അനുമതി നൽകി എട്ട് മാസം ആയിട്ടും ഇത് വരെയായി കേരളത്തിൽ ആകെ 200 പേർ മാത്രമേ ഈ സൗകര്യം ഉപയോഗിച്ചിട്ടുള്ളൂ എന്ന വസ്തുത പുതിയതിനെ സ്വീകരിക്കാൻ ആളുകൾക്കുള്ള മടിയും യാഥാസ്ഥിക മനോഭാവവും ആണു കാണിക്കുന്നത്. ആധാരം സ്വയം എഴുതുക എന്ന് വെച്ചാൽ പരമ്പാരഗത ആധാരമെഴുത്തുകാരെ പോലെ പരത്തി എഴുതുകയൊന്നും വേണ്ട. കേരള റജിസ്ട്രേഷൻ വകുപ്പിന്റെ സൈറ്റിൽ 19 തരം ആധാരങ്ങളുടെ കോപ്പിയുണ്ട്. അത് പി.ഡി.എഫ്.ആയി ഡൗൺലോഡ് ചെയ്ത് പ്രിന്റ് എടുത്ത് പ്രസക്തഭാഗങ്ങൾ പൂരിപ്പിക്കുക മാത്രമേ വേണ്ടൂ. അതുമായി റജിസ്ട്രാഫീസിൽ പോയി ആധാരം റജിസ്റ്റർ ചെയ്യാം.

പുരിപ്പിക്കാൻ അറിയില്ലെങ്കിൽ നാട്ടിൽ അറിയുന്ന ആരെക്കൊണ്ടെങ്കിലും പൂരിപ്പിച്ചാൽ മതി. ആധാരമെഴുത്തുകാർ തന്നെ വേണമെന്നില്ല. ആധാരമെഴുത്തുകാരെ കൊണ്ട് പൂരിപ്പിക്കുകയാണെങ്കിൽ തന്നെ പൂരിപ്പിക്കുന്നതിനുള്ള ഒരു ചെറിയ പ്രതിഫലം കൊടുത്താൽ മതി. പഴയത് പോലെ ആധാരത്തിൽ കാണിക്കുന്ന വിലയുടെ ശതമാനക്കണക്കിൽ പതിനായിരങ്ങൾ കൊടുക്കേണ്ടതില്ല. ഒരു ഫോം പൂരിപ്പിക്കാൻ എത്ര കൊടുക്കാമോ അത്രയേ വേണ്ടൂ. 

ആധാരമെഴുത്ത് എന്നത് ഒരു ഫോം പൂരിപ്പിക്കലായി ലഘൂകരിക്കപ്പെട്ടിരിക്കുന്നു എന്ന വസ്തുത കേരള സമൂഹം ഇനിയും മനസ്സിലാക്കിയിട്ടില്ല എന്നത് ലജ്ജാകരമാണ്. ആളുകൾ കാലത്തിനൊപ്പം അപ്‌ഡേറ്റ് ആകാത്തത് നിരാശാജനകമാണ്.

ആധാരമെഴുത്തുകാരൻ ആർക്കും മനസ്സിലാകാത്ത തരത്തിൽ നീട്ടി വളച്ചു എഴുതുന്നതിനേക്കാളും ആധികാരികമായ എഴുത്ത് സർക്കാരിന്റെ റജിസ്ട്രേഷൻ വകുപ്പിന്റെ സൈറ്റിൽ ഉള്ള ഫോം പൂരിപ്പിക്കുന്നതാണ്. എന്തിനാണു വെറുതെ ആധാരക്കൊള്ളയ്ക്ക് അരു നിൽക്കുന്നത്. ആധാരത്തിന്റെ ഫോം പൂരിപ്പിച്ചു കൊടുക്കുന്നതിനുള്ള ഒരു ന്യായമായ പ്രതിഫലം കൈപ്പറ്റിക്കൊണ്ട് പൂരിപ്പിച്ചുകൊടുക്കാനും ആധാരമെഴുത്തുകാരൻ എന്ന രാജകീയ പ്രതാപം അട്ടത്ത് വയ്ക്കാനും ബന്ധപ്പെട്ട എഴുത്തുകാർ തയ്യാറാകണം. എല്ലാ രംഗത്തും കമ്പ്യൂട്ടറൈസെഷൻ എന്നത് കാലത്തിന്റെ അനിവാര്യതയാണു. ആർക്കും തൊഴിലോ പ്രതിഫലമോ ഇത് മൂലം നഷ്ടമാകുന്നില്ല. കൊള്ളയും അഴിമതിയും ക്രമേണ ഇല്ലാതാകും എന്നേയുള്ളൂ.

ശരിക്ക് പറഞ്ഞാൽ ആധാരം എഴുതാൻ എഴുത്തുകൂലി മാത്രം വാങ്ങിയാൽ മതിയായിരുന്നു. എഴുത്ത് എന്ന ഒരു അധ്വാനം മാത്രമല്ലേ അവർ ചെയ്യുന്നുള്ളൂ. അതിനാണു പതിനായിരങ്ങളും ലക്ഷവും എഴുത്ത് കൂലി വാങ്ങിക്കൊണ്ടിരുന്നത്. ഇത് ജനങ്ങളുടെ അജ്ഞത മുതലെടുത്ത് നടത്തുന്ന ആധാരക്കൊള്ളയാണ്. 

ഈ പോസ്റ്റ് ഷെയർ ചെയ്ത് ജനങ്ങളെ ബോധവൽക്കരിക്കാൻ സുഹൃത്തുക്കളോട് അഭ്യർത്ഥിക്കുന്നു.

(Panchayat News)

(കടപ്പാട്)

Lawyer’s Gown Is Only Optional and Not Mandatory Before Any Courts Other Than the Supreme Court or the High Courts: Madras HC

The Madras HC on Wednesday stated that the wearing of a gown is only optional and not mandatory before any courts other than the Supreme Court or the High Courts.

The bench of Justices R. Mahadevan and Mohammed Shaffiq was dealing with the PIL for a writ of declaration to declare the Order passed by the second respondent, insofar as it relates to the imposition of dress code for advocates for appearance before the Tribunal.

In this case, the second respondent passed the impugned order which is in direct conflict with the Advocates Act, 1961 and the rules framed under Section 49 (1) (gg) of the Advocates Act, 1961, in particular, the rules pertaining to the form of dresses or robes to be worn by Advocates. 

In the impugned, circular, reference was made to the earlier notification issued by the second respondent, in the exercise of the power conferred by Rule 51 of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016 to the effect that “every authorised representative as provided in Section 432 of the Act shall appear before the Tribunal in his/her professional dress if any”.

The petitioner has no qualm or quarrel over the earlier notification inasmuch as an Advocate, who is a professional, will have to adhere to whatever dress code prescribed by the Bar Council of India, the Advocates Act and the Rules made thereunder. 

On the other hand, the second respondent invoked the power under Rule 51 of the NCLT Rules, which is exercisable only to regulate the procedures required to administer the Tribunal.

The bench noted that the form of dress or in other words, the dress code to be adhered by advocates, both male and female, before various Courts, Tribunals and forums, is explicit. The mandatory compliance required before the High Courts or Supreme Court has not been prescribed for other forums. There is a clear distinction. 

High Court after referring to a few judgments observed that the impugned order is without jurisdiction and authority, and has no basis in law. It is a trite legal position that the orders of the Tribunals, either judicial or administrative, are subject to judicial review of the High Courts, as they are subordinate to it. From the conjoint reading of Section 34 of the Advocates Act and the Bar Council of India Rules, extracted above, it is clear that only the High Courts can frame rules for dress code for the appearance of the Advocates before it, the courts and Tribunals, subordinate to it. 

110 Legal phrases & Legal Maxim used in Laws that every law student must know.

110 Legal phrases & Legal Maxim used in Laws that every law student must know.

1 Suo moto: own motion

2 Deeming fiction cannot be stretched beyonyd the purpose for which it is created

3 The words used in Law are not used for nothing

4 To invoke Provision : To make use of particular provision

5 Ipso Facto: By this fact alone or because of this matter alone

6 ‘MAY’ may be treated as ‘SHALL’ but ‘SHALL’ shall not be treated as ‘MAY’

7 Tenable: Acceptable in law

8 Redundant Provision : Out of Force or Outdated Provision

9 Quasi : Almost Similar to

10 Quasi Criminal: Almost equal to criminal

11 Jurisprudence: Law relating to particular matter

12 Mensrea: Guilty Mind

13 Ibid: As printed earlier

14 Suo Moto: On its own

15 Prima Facie: On its face

16 Non est: What is not in existence / Non existing thing

17 Call in question: To challenge

18 De Nova: Completely New

19 Sine quo non: Most essential thing

20 Purposes of this Act: Proceeding must be pending

21 Reason to believe Vs Reason to suspect: Refer various caselaws

22 Derived from & attributable to: Derived from refers to direct connection with a particular matter whereas attributable to refers to an indirect connection

23 Mutatis Mutandis: After making necessary changes as may be required

24 Discovery Vs Detection: Discovery is made by the assessee whereas detection is done by the Assessing Officer

25 To Quash: The process of cancelling the proceeding of Assessing Authorities by Judicial Authorities

26 So far as may be: To the extent possible

27 Travisity of Justice : A ridiculous interpretation of a very serious statement, making a mockery of a very serious matter

28 To impugne : To challenge

29 Save as otherwise provided : Except to the extent as oppositely provided

30 If one section is overriding the other section : Use Words “Not withstanding

anything contained in ……”

31 If one section is superceded by the other section : Use words “Save as otherwise provided………..”

32 Other provisions apply in General way: Use words “Without prejudice to the provisions ……………..”

33 Reckoned : Recognised, Counted, Calculated

34 Doctrine of Merger: When an order passed by the lower authority is superceded by the higher authority

35 Doctrine : Principle or saying in general acceptance

36 In Pari Material Pavi Causa: Same material, same content {Eg. Sec. 24B of IT Act,1922 is Pari Material with Sec. 159 of IT Act, 1961. In such a case a judgement given in respect of section 24B would be valid in respect of sec. 159}

37 Per se : By itself

38 Cy Press : As near as possible

39 Tax is always charged, Interest is levied and Penalty is imposed

40 Deductions are admissible, Relief is granted.

41 Return is always furnished, Assessment order is made / passed.

42 De hors : Independent of

43 Order of Injunction of HC : Stay order.

44 Several Liability means separate liability. [Refer sections 168(3), 171(7), 179(1)178(5) & 188A.] 

45 Legatee is a person for whose benefit there exists an asset of a deceased

46 Locus Standi : Directly involved in relation or deal.

47 Garnishee Proceeding : The proceeding which gives Govt. the right to attach (i.e.forcibly take over) any asset from a person who is defaulter.

48 Vitiate Proceedings : To make proceedings null, void.

49 Inter alia : Among other things.

50 Audit Altream partem : It is a principle of natural justice. According to this principle, which is the principle in every civilized jurisprudence, a person against whom any action is sought to be taken or a person whose rights or interests are to be affected should be given a reasonable opportunity to defend himself.

 51 Resjudicata : [Once the decision of HC comes then on that same point again appeal cannot be made.] The issue of Law which has been already decided shall not be pleaded for review.

52 In Limine : At the outset (i.e. at the beginning)

53 Suspended animus : An order under Appeal is not subject to any action by any authority till the order disposing of the appeal is available.

54 Subjudice : Under an appeal to a court, decision awaited.

55 Adjudicate : Consider for judgement. A court adjudicates means gives its decision on a particular matter.

56 Akin : Similar to; of the same type

Coterminus : Similar to; of the same type

57 Impediment : Obstacles or Hindrance.

58 Sine Di: For indefinite period.

59 To deduce : Logically come to the conclusion.

60 Purview : Scope

61 Bounty : Additional Advantage

62 Ad Hoc : Without any particular rate, percentage, proportion.

63 Ad infinitum : Without any Time limit.

64 Ad interim : In the Mean Time

65 Bonafide : Genuine

66 Surmises : Presumptions, own assumptions

67 Defacto : Infact

68 Defjure : In Law, irrespective of whatever the facts.

69 Ejusdem Generis : Of the same kind

70 Ex-gratia : As a matter of grace ir favour

71 Ignorantia Legis known excusat : Ignorance of law is not excused

72 Mesne Profit : Profit earned by somebody by wrongful possession of property.

73 Modus Operandi : Mode of Operation / Manner of working

74 Nexus : Close connection link.

75 Onus probandi : Onus of proof / The burden of Proof.

76 Non obnstante clause : That provision has superceding effect on any other provision

77 Raison D’etre : Reason or justification for existence.

78 Ratio Decidendi : Reason for deciding / Grounds for decision

79 Suijuris : of his own right.

80 Assessee engaged in ……………. : The activity should have started

81 Option Vs Discretion : Whenever choices is available to the assessee in respect of any matter. Law uses the word at his option – for eg:

1. Sec 11(11) – Explanation to Sec. 11 (11)

2. Sec. 23(4)

82 amicus curiae : Friend of court; one who voluntarily or on invitation of the court, and not on instructions of any party, helps the court in any judicial proceedings

83 audi alteram : hear the other side. Both sides should be heard before a decision is arrived at

84 caveat emptor : let the purchaser beware. A ———- implying that the buyer must be cautious, as the risk is his and not that of the seller.

85 cestui que trust : a beneficiary under a trust, the person for whose benefit the trust is created

86 ex officio : by virtue of an office.

87 ex parte : exkpression used to signify something done or said by one person not in the presence of his opponent.

88 fait accompli : An accomplished act.

89 obiter diccum : an opinion of law not necessary to the decision. An exspression of opinion (formed) by a judge on a question immaterial to the ratio decidendi, and unnecessary for the decision of the particular case. It is no way binding on any court, but may receive attention as being an opinion of the high authority.

90 pendente lite : during litigation.

91 per incuriam : through carelessness, through inadvertence. A decision of the court is not binding precedent if given peer incuriam, that is, without the court’s attention having been drawn to the relevant authorities, or statutes.

92 pro tanto : to that extent, for so much, for as much as may be.

93 quid pro quo : the giving of one thing of value for another thing of value; one for the other; thing given as compensation.

94 Ratio Decidendi : Reason for deciding / Grounds for decision

95 res integra : an untouched matter; a point without a precedent; a case of novel impression.

96 rule njsi : a rule to show cause why a party should not do a certain act, or why the object of the rule should not be enforced.

97 in personam : against the person; an act or preceeding done or directed with

reference to no specific person or with reference to all whom it might concern.

98 in rem : an act / proceeding done or directed with reference to no specific person or with refernce to all whom it might concern.

99 inter vivos : between living persons.

100 intestate : a person is deemed to die intestate in respect of property of which he or she has not made a testamentary disposition (“will”) capable of taking effect.

101 intra vires : within the powers; within the authority given by law.

102 ipse dixit : he himself said it; there is no other authority.

103 ipso jure : by the law itself ; by the mere operation of law.

104 lis pe ndens : a pending suit.

105 rule absolute : when, having heard counsels, court directs the performance of that act forthwith.

106 sine die : without delay.

107 stare decisis : to stand by things decided; to abide by precedents where the same points come again in litigation.

108 status quo : existing condition.

109 sub judice : before a judge or court; pending decision of a competent court.

110 ultra vires : beyond one’s power

Cash keeping limit fixed at home: Income Tax Department fixed Cash keeping limit at home, Check new limit immediately otherwise it will be raided

Transaction of more than Rs 20 lakh in cash in a financial year can attract a fine.

It is necessary to give PAN number for depositing or withdrawing cash more than Rs 50,000 at a time.

If a person deposits 20 lakh rupees in cash in 1 year, then he will have to give information about PAN (PAN) and Aadhaar (Aadhaar).

Fine up to Rs 20 lakh may have to be paid for not giving information about PAN and Aadhaar.

You cannot shop for more than Rs 2 lakh in cash.

A copy of PAN and Aadhaar card will have to be given if purchases of more than Rs 2 lakh are made in cash.

The person can come on the radar of the investigating agency on the purchase and sale of property worth more than Rs 30 lakh in cash.

At the time of payment of Credit-Debit Card card, if a person pays an amount of more than Rs 1 lakh in one go, then investigation can be done.

Can’t take cash more than Rs 2 lakh from your relatives in 1 day. This has to be done through the bank.

The limit for donating in cash has been fixed at Rs 2,000.

No person can take a loan of more than 20 thousand in cash from another person.

You will have to pay TDS if you withdraw more than Rs 2 crore cash from the bank

How much fine will you have to pay if you are caught with unaccounted cash at home? According to the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) in this regard, if you are unable to tell the source of money kept at home, then you may have to pay a fine of up to 137 percent.

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