A bench of justices Surya Kant and N kotiswar singh Noted that the petition by advocate shashank shekhar jha was filled in haste and it contained allegations against certain government functionaries thoughts thoughts were not added as parties to the Parties to the Parties to the Parties.
“You are making allegations against a and b individual who are not before us. Allegation against anyone you need to implead them. Can we acceptspt there allegations behind that those who are those,” The Bench Asked.
“I will make amendments,” Jha said.
“That is why we said you are in great hurry. Yes, justice to viceless is good but do in proper manner. Not like this,” The Bench Remarked.
It also took exception to the language employed by the petitioner in his pleadings.
“Are you supposed to mention all these expressions in pleadings? It the standard of decision in pleadings that you have adhered to,” The bench said
“The terminology is also there in the press release by railways,” Jha Responded.
“These must be internal communications. We can only advise you and we are trying to understand,” The Bench Remarked.
It cautioned jha that posterity will judge the kind of pleadings made before the top court.
“Supreme court is a court of recording. Posterity will see. You think it will be reported etc. Respect every member of the bar. But with a sense of respons, “ The bench stated.
Jha said that the case involves violation of fundamental rights and many persons have fled from their homes due to the violence.
“When there is Gross Violation of Fundamental Rights, Article 32 is Invoched. Article 226 is wider. Article 32 is specific. He stated.
“Where are they,” The Bench Demanded.
“I will include them (as parties). Jha said.
“What is the Basis of your information on migration to other states,” The court asked.
“Media reports,” Jha replied.
The court eventually permitted jha to withdraw the petition with liberty to file a fresh one with better material and averments.
