Mathews J Nedumpara
3rd April 2026
- If you institute a suit, the court will issue summons to the opposite parties. They will appear and will have to file their objections in writing. You will have an opportunity to file your rejoinder. Then the court will frame issues. Both parties will be allowed to lead evidence as also to contradict the evidence appearing against them. The court will thereafter hear both parties and then pronounce its judgment. You can file an appeal as a matter of right both on facts as well as on law.
2. On the contrary, if you file a writ petition, for instance in the Bombay High Court, the Court will hear you for a few minutes and would in all probability dismiss your case. You are flabbergasted. There was no meaningful hearing. No meaningful discussion on facts or law. There is no provision for an intra court Appeal.
3.You are advised to file an SLP in the Supreme Court. You have heard great things about the Supreme Court — the sentinel on the qui vive, namely the protector and guardian of the lives and liberties of the common man. The ultimate hope, the last resort for a citizen denied justice.
Your petition is rejected at the very first hearing. Leave declined. Your SLP is dismissed in 93 seconds. That is the average time an SLP is heard in the Supreme Court. There is no judgment. Only a one-line order: “We are not inclined to entertain the SLP. Dismissed ” Almost all SLPs are dismissed like that of yours. No lawyer would ever complain. Why?
4.You are told a Review will lie under Article 137. You file it in no time hoping you will get justice. Then you are told the Review is rejected. It was heard in Chambers. Heard, by whom? None. Nobody was heard.
5.You then realize that all Review Petitions are dismissed in Chambers; cyclostyled orders are passed.
You are then told that there is a provision for a “Curative Petition”. By this time you would have been wiser to realise that too is an effort in futility. You would have probably read from NLC’s website that all Curative Petitions in civil matters are dismissed. 100% is the rate of dismissal. Yes, in Chambers.
6.You had a case, but you lost it forever because you invoked Article 226.
I am not saying everything is perfect in the civil courts. They are in near shambles.
7.Before the Constitution came into existence, we had no writs in High Courts except for the Chartered High Courts of Calcutta, Madras and Bombay. There too, it was confined to the Presidency towns of Calcutta, Madras and Bombay and not beyond. For instance, in the pre- independence era Madras HC enjoyed no writ jurisdiction over authorities at Madurai.
8.By Article 226, writ jurisdiction was extended to all High Courts. Writs are a discretionary remedy. That meant it is not the law that matters, but the judge’s discretion. Discretion in reality means arbitrariness. Article 226 means nothing but “face law”. The kith and kin of judges, their near and dear ones, immensely profited by this jurisdiction. Writs, which are celebrated as a “bulwark” against the arbitrariness of the executive, as time passed, became a synonym for arbitrariness, favoritism and all sorts of malpractices of the superior courts.
9.This “face law” jurisdiction destroyed our judiciary. The kith and kin of judges and their near and dear ones have hijacked our judiciary. Young lawyers in their late 20s or 30s, sons and nephews of sitting and retired judges, are engaged in matters of high stakes. They are briefed by lawyers even of my age, of their father’s age. The senior lawyers would stand behind them. Why does this happen? For surely they are not engaged for their advocacy skills. Then, what for?
10.For a Chief Justice of a High Court, elevation to the Supreme Court is everything. The CJI’s son is appearing before him. Judges are human. Career matters. He would discharge the board to hear the progeny of the sitting CJI.
11.Not everyone in the judiciary is bad. There are ever so many good men and women as judges and senior lawyers. But why would none of them ask for the abolition of Article 226 and 32? So too, why would none of them ask for the abolition of the collegium and restoration of the NJAC? Why does nobody speak for the re-introduction of the one-third transfer policy? Why does none ask for the abolition of contempt of court? Why does none demand abolition of absolute judicial immunity and instead demand judicial accountability? Why does no one speak against judicial legislation through PILs and suo motu PILs? Why does none speak about the restoration of the pristine glory of civil courts as true constitutional courts which it was under the Government of India Act of 1935? And why does no one speak about the preservation of video recording of court proceedings and ready access to such records to the litigants? Why does none speak about advertisement of vacancies of judges of the High Court and invitation of applications and selection of judges on the basis of merit? Why does none speak about the All India Judicial Service?
12.Why? The reason is: they cannot, because they too are a beneficiary of the system which is unjust and has failed the common litigant. It has only served the dynasties of lawyers and judges.
I find no other reason why I must lead the Campaign for Judicial Transparency and Reforms almost alone.
P.S.
Mrs. Indira Jaising publicly declared that the “square gown” she wears as a designated senior is an insignia of discriminatory practice. She discarded it and wore an ordinary gown. It was a breaking news. Soon after the breaking news effect of her “sacrifice” was lost, she started wearing the square gown again, quietly.