Litigants, listen to my words seriously; never invoke Article 226, and certainly not in the Bombay High Court; denial of justice is a fait accompli.
Mathews J Nedumpara1st May 2026. 1.My message is clear from the very title of this article itself. These words are not those of a disgruntled litigant, but of a lawyer who has spent a lifetime in the legal profession and one who has been relentlessly campaigning for judicial transparency and reforms for at least the […]
Why doesn’t a judgment under Article 226 or 32 constitute res judicata?
Mathews J Nedumpara2nd May 2026 The doctrine of res judicata belongs to the realm of evidence. It is for the party who pleads it as a bar to establish it. Ordinarily, a litigant has a right to institute a suit or other proceedings at their sweet will where there exists a cause of action.The doctrine […]
Sabarimala case, an unthinkable waste of judicial time
A nine-judge Bench Supreme Court of India has concluded it’s hearing of the Sabarimala case. It took 16 days. The Supreme Court sits in Division Bench of 2 or 3 judges. A maximum of 17 Benches. 5 hours a day and 200 days in a year. Maximum of 17000 hours. To constitute the 9 judge […]
Supreme Court Judges’ Progeny Chart
The Sabarimala case: an unthinkable waste of judicial time.
Mathews J Nedumpara98205 3542814th May 2026. . A nine-judge Bench of the Supreme Court of India has concluded its hearing of the Sabarimala case. It took 16 days. The Supreme Court sits in Division Benches of 2 or 3 judges—a maximum of 17 Benches. Working 5 hours a day for 200 days in a year, […]
Today’s (May 11, 2026) Supreme Court judgment on Ojha, President of the Gujarat High Court Advocates Association, proves once again that the bar is dead; only a requiem remains.
“Final Act Of Forgiveness” : Supreme Court Keeps Senior Advocate Yatin Oza’s Contempt Conviction In Abeyance Indefinitely https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/supreme-court-keeps-senior-advocate-yatin-ozas-contempt-conviction-in-abeyance-indefinitely-533686 Mathews J Nedumpara98205 35428.11th May 2026. Sri Ojha is a good friend of mine, and I am one of his well-wishers. But I am flabbergasted by the insult he has been made to invite on himself by […]
Suo motu PIL in the matter of ill-treatment of lawyers in the Supreme Court today ie.11th May 26
Mathews J Nedumpara98205 35428Delhi. Suo motu PIL in the matter of ill-treatment of lawyers in the Supreme Court today ie.11th May 26. Across the width and breadth of this country, judges of the superior courts including the SC, I am afraid to say, behave as emperors and ill-treat lawyers and litigants except for a minority […]
Why doesn’t a judgment under Article 226 or 32 constitute res judicata?
The doctrine of res judicata belongs to the realm of evidence. It is for the party who pleads it as a bar to establish it. Ordinarily, a litigant has a right to institute a suit or other proceedings at their sweet will where there exists a cause of action.The doctrine of res judicata means that […]
Litigants, listen to my words seriously; never invoke Article 226, and certainly not in the Bombay High Court; denial of justice is a fait accompli.
Mathews J Nedumpara98205 354281st May 2026. 1.My message is clear from the very title of this article itself. These words are not those of a disgruntled litigant, but of a lawyer who has spent a lifetime in the legal profession and one who has been relentlessly campaigning for judicial transparency and reforms for at […]
ARGUMENT NOTES BY SHRI MATHEWS J. NEDUMPARA IN THE SABARIMALA CASE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIACIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTIONREVIEW PETITION (DIARY) NO. 37946 of 2018INWP (C) NO. 273/2006 Argument notes by Shri Mathews J. Nedumpara, arguing counsel for the Review Petitioners