Installation of CC TV cameras are must in order to curb the grown tyranny and corruption in judiciary.

Why were we deprived from visiting the court proceedings in my own case by the security personnel in the name gate pass ?

Mahesh Pratap Singh Yogi M P Singh yogimpsingh@gmail.com

Attachments21/07/2016

to presidentofind.pmosbsupremecourturgent-actionhgovupcmupcsup
Petitioner was not allowed to attend the proceedings of his case by the security personnel as they were directed by the chief justice of High court of judicature at Allahabad. Whether it is justified to curb petitioner from attending the court proceedings on flimsy ground in the name security of few people. Your applicant and hisson both having the Adhaar card in the name ID but security personnel were adamant  to not allow by adhering to directive to chief justice as their obligatory duty to pursue the directives issued by the office of chief justice  .
21 July 2016
15:30
With due respect your applicant wants to draw the kind attention of the Hon’ble Sir to the following submissions as follows.
1-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that please take a glance of status of the case ipsofacto obvious that case was listed for hearing before the court on 19-July-2016.
Case Status – Allahabad
Pending
Writ – A / 20121 / 2006 [Mirzapur]
Petitioner:
RAJENDRA PRATAP SINGH
Respondent:
STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS
Counsel (Pet.):
P.C. CHAUHAN
Counsel (Res.):
C.S.C.
Category:
Service-Writ Petitions Relating To Secondary Education (non Teaching Staff) (single Bench)-Salary And Allowances
Date of Filing:
10/04/2006
Last Listed on:
19/07/2016 in Court No. 7
Next Listing Date:
To be listed on 25/11/2016
This is not an authentic/certified copy of the information regarding status of a case. Authentic/certified information may be obtained under Chapter VIII Rule 30 of Allahabad High Court Rules. Mistake, if any, may be brought to the notice of OSD (Computer).
2-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that gate pass can be only available  either through staffs of court if advocate may seek. Which implies that a petitioner can easily be deprived from attending the case proceedings which is his fundamental right. Most surprising is that same is being done by the chief justice High court of judicature at Allahabad.
3-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that justice seeker is the essential component of the case instituted in any court of law by him and deprive justice seeker from attending the case instituted by him which law of land justify it? Why High court of judicature interested in proceedings by not allowing petitioners or their credible relatives?
4-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that to provide security to the judicial members ,Advocates and litigants itself is the obligatory duty of the state government under the monitoring of central government through His Excellency. It is unfortunate that by taking the recourse of issue of security , protectors of constitutional rights itself violating the constitutional rights of citizenry and making the proceedings of court more cumbersome.
5-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that to ensure the ID of an individual in this country is the Adhaar card more authentic ,more credible and easily accessible to citizenry consequently instead of closing the gate of High court for the people of this country specially weaker section , those measures must be adopted which may not breach the rights of citizenry.
6-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that Open Court
Common law requires a trial in open court; “open court” means a court to 
which the
public has a right to be admitted. This term may mean either a court that has been formally convened and declared open for the transaction of its proper judicial business or a court that is freely open to spectators.
·         Civil: All court proceedings, including court hearings on discovery and pre-trial motions are presumed open. To close a proceeding, the court must find that (1) limiting public access serves an overriding interest; (2) there is a substantial probability that interest will be prejudiced without closure; (3) the closure order is narrowly con-structed to serve that interest; and (4) there is no less restrictive way to protect that interest. The order to close a proceeding must state the factual and legal bases on the record. (NBC Subsidiary, Inc. v. Superior Court, 20 Cal. 4th 1178 (1999) CRC 243.1) The court must give public notice that it intends to hold a hearing before closing a courtroom.
This is humble request of your applicant to you Hon’ble Sir that It can never be justified to overlook  the rights of citizenry by delivering services in arbitrary manner by floating all set up norms. This is sheer mismanagement which is encouraging wrongdoers to reap benefit of loopholes in system and depriving poor citizens from right to justice. Therefore it is need of hour to take concrete steps in order to curb grown anarchy in the system. For this your applicant shall ever pray you Hon’ble Sir.
                             Yours  sincerely
                            Rajendra Pratap Singh By his son Yogi M. P. Singh  Mobile number-7379105911
Mohalla-Surekapuram, Jabalpur Road District-Mirzapur , Uttar Pradesh ,India .
The Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed to the Centre’s request to install CCTV cameras in courtrooms, but without audio recording. After years of hesitance, the bench of Justices A Goel and UU Lalit passed the order after considering the views of the government, which had been pushing for CCTV cameras in courtrooms for enhanced transparency, The Telegraphreported.
To begin with, the top court has directed all 24 high courts in the country to oversee the installation of CCTV cameras – without audio recording – in at least two districts in each state and Union Territory. Only small states and Union Territories where the high court felt installing cameras was not plausible currently will be exempt from the order.
The direction comes with a notable caveat – the recording will not be available to the public under the Right to Information Act. “We make it clear that the footage of the CCTV cameras will not be available under the RTI Act and will not be supplied to anyone without permission of the concerned high court,” the bench asserted, according to The Indian Express.
Mahesh Pratap Singh Yogi M P Singh <yogimpsingh@gmail.com>
Whether every one is alike before the law in this largest democracy in the world really.
1 message
yogimpsingh@gmail.com <yogimpsingh@gmail.com> 1 November 2016 at 20:24

To: “supremecourt@nic.in” <supremecourt@nic.in>, “secy-cic@nic.in” <secy-cic@nic.in>
Cc: “pmosb@pmo.nic.in” <pmosb@pmo.nic.in>, “urgent-action@ohchr.org” <urgent-action@ohchr.org>, “presidentofindia@rb.nic.in” <presidentofindia@rb.nic.in>
Bcc: cmup@up.nic.in, hgovup@up.nic.in, csup@up.nic.in

Please take a glance of  Date of Decision:   4.11.2015 passed by Hon’ble chief information commissioner of India but not complied by CPIO High court of judicature at Allahabad .
Why CPIO High court at Allahabad didn’t comply the order passed by central
information commission.
Mahesh Pratap Singh Yogi M P Singh <yogimpsingh@gmail.com>
    9:01 PM (1 minute ago)
    to pmosb, supremecourt, cj, urgent-action, secy-cic, dhirendra.k, hgovup, cmup, csup
Whether independence of judiciary means tyranny and lack of transparency and accountability if not so then why public authority High court of judicature at Allahabad took under teeth the order passed by constitutional functionary central information commission. In ancient India ,Kings used to hang bell at the door of palace so that no justice seeker may be deprived from right to justice but here no justice is available to common citizenry unto death. It seems that honesty has been out of context otherwise no such serious issues concerned with mockery of provisions of constitution may arise before us.
01 February 2016
19:29
    
With due respect your applicant wants to draw the kind attention of the Hon’ble Sir to the following submissions as follows.
  1. 1-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that 
                                   CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION2nd Floor, ‘B’ Wing, August Kranti Bhavan,  Bhikaji Cama Place, NEW DELHI­110 066 TEL: 011­26717355 
                          Appeal No. CIC/CC/A/2014/001147/VS
Appellant: Shri Yogi M.P. Singh,           Mohalla­Surekapuram,     Jabalpur Road,         Distt. Mirzapur, U.P.   
Respondent:                    Central Public Information Officer, Allahabad High Court,           Allahabad.                                                                  
   Date of Hearing:      26.10.2015      
Date of Decision:   4.11.2015
                                                              O R D E R
RTI application: 1.The   appellant   filed   an   RTI   application   dated   18.3.2014   seeking   information regarding copy of counter affidavit submitted by Director Secondary Education Arth­1 Allahabad.   The PIO responded  on 27.3.2014.     The  appellant  filed first  appeal  dated 31.3.2014 with the first appellate authority.  The FAA responded on 5.5.2014. The appellant filed second appeal on 24.9.2014 with the Commission.
 Hearing: 2. The appellant participated in the hearing through audio.   The respondent did not participate in the hearing. 
 3. The appellant referred his RTI application dated 18.3.2014 and reiterated the points mentioned in the RTI application.  The appellant stated that he wanted to know whether the Director Secondary Education has filed counter affidavit in writ petition No. 20121 of 2006 or not.  The appellant further stated that if the Director Secondary Education has filed the counter affidavit, then a copy of counter affidavit should be provided 
Decision: 4. The respondent is directed to provide the appellant, within 30 days of this order, information sought in the RTI application.  The appeal is disposed of.  Copy of decision be given free of cost to the parties. (Vijai Sharma) Chief Information Commissioner   Authenticated true copy
  1. 2-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that repeated representations made before the CPIO ,High court of judicature at Allahabad by your applicant but aforesaid direction passed by Hon’ble chief information commissioner of India on 04/11/2015 was not complied by central public information officer of High court of Judicature at Allahabad. Whether it is justified on the part of public authority ,High court of judicature at Allahabad. Hon’ble Sir may be pleased to take a glance of attached documents with this representation.
  2. 3-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that whether the act of the central public information officer ,High court of judicature at Allahabad is not lowering the dignity of courts in India. Whether such act on the part CPIO is not tantamount to assault on set high standard norm ,ethical values and impeccable integrity of temple of justice. To whom CPIO wants to shield by not revealing the sought information ? In view of your applicant ,working style in judiciary must be crystal clear instead of such inscrutable sphinx.
Please take a glance of attached documents with this representation.
 This is humble request of your applicant to you Hon’ble Sir that It can never be justified to overlook  the rights of citizenry by delivering services in arbitrary manner by floating all set up norms. This is sheer mismanagement which is encouraging wrongdoers to reap benefit of loopholes in system and depriving poor citizens from right to justice. Therefore it is need of hour to take concrete steps in order to curb grown anarchy in the system. For this your applicant shall ever pray you Hon’ble Sir.
                                                                 Yours  sincerely
                                                     Yogi M. P. Singh Mobile number-7379105911
Mohalla-Surekapuram, Jabalpur Road District-Mirzapur , Uttar Pradesh ,India
Sent from Windows Mail


Mokery of Right to Information Act 2005 by High court itself.pdf
560K

Mahesh Pratap Singh Yogi M P Singh yogimpsingh@gmail.com

Attachments18 Feb

to pmosbpresidentofind.supremecourturgent-actioncmuphgovupcsupDCdgdigadmigadm
मोदी सर लगभग साल बीतने वाला है मोहम्मद अकरम के के लिए  CRPF को  हमने फीस पे किया एक ही प्रार्थनापत्र के लिए उपरोक्त रिक्रूटिंग एजेंसी ने दो बार फीस लिए एक बार का फीस वापस करने के लिए लगभग दो सौ पत्र दिए आपको किन्तु आज तक ज्यादा ली गई फीस वापस नही की गयी और आप कहते है आप के यहा भ्रस्टाचार नही है |
आपके यहा चपरासी ४००००.००  रुपये पर मंथ पाता है लेकिन देश की आधी आबादी भुखमरी के कगार पर है आप  को सिर्फ चपरासी दिखाई पड़ता है और जो परिवार रोज भूख की वजह से मरते वे आप को दिखाई नही पड़ते जब की समाचार पत्रों की सुर्खियाँ बनती है अक्सर भूख से हुई मौते |
मोदी सर मंरेगा जाँच का आदेश केन्द्रीय जांच ब्यूरो द्वारा माननीय उच्च न्यायालय  द्वारा कांग्रेस के समय में ही हुआ था उस समय चार महीने में मिर्ज़ापुर जनपद में उपरोक्त जांच एजेंसी की टीम आठ बार आई थी किन्तु आप जब से सत्ता में है एक भी बार नही आई और आप का कार्यकाल ढाई साल बीत गया और अब टीम आई जब विधान सभा इलेक्शन का नोटीफीकेशन जारी हुआ | इससे स्पस्ट है की आप की सरकार कांग्रेस से ज्यादा ईमानदार है कांग्रेस के समय में केंद्रीय मंत्री जेल जाता था आप के समय में चपरासी भी  जेल नही जाता |
श्री मान जी कोई ऐसा कार्यालय नही है जहा घुस न  माँगा जाता हो पेशी तो जबरदस्ती ली जाती है प्रार्थी खुद इसका भुक्तभोगी है आप दस रुपये के नोट दिलवा दे हर बार पेशी में दे कर ख़त्म हो जाएगा और हम बिना दिए लौटे तो बुला के लेंगे | पहले दो रुपये लेते थे फिर पांच रुपये अब दस रुपये लेते है हास्यास्पद बात यह है की अधिकारी और मजिस्ट्रेट वही बगल में बैठे रहते है | भ्रस्टाचार वेतन बढ़ाने से नही घटेगा बल्कि इमानदारी को प्रमोट करने से बढ़ेगा |
श्री मान जी आपने अपने ढाई साल के कार्यकाल में लोकपाल की नियुक्ति को अमर्यादित तरीके से रोक रखा है और हर देशवासी इसको समझता है यहा पर भी आप संबिधान  के उपबंधो की रक्षा की क्यों की कांग्रेस तो उसी समय लोकपाल ला रही थी किन्तु आप मजबूत लोकपाल हम लोगो को देंना चाहते है जो की भ्रस्टाचार को समूल नष्ट कर देगा किन्तु ऐसा लगता है की मजबूत लोकपाल के लिए यह पांच वर्ष पर्याप्त नही है देश की जनता को पांच वर्ष का समय और देना होगा |
पारदर्शिता और जवाबदेही के लिए जनसूचना अधिकार २००५ कांग्रेस द्वारा लाया गया किन्तु उसे भी प्रभावहीन बना दिया गया न्यायालय तो पहले ही जनसूचना अधिकार के तहत सूचनाए देने से परहेज करते थे और अब ब्यूरोक्रेसी भी नही देना चाहती | केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग और राज्य सूचना आयोग महज आदेश पारित करते है उन आदेशो का कोई असर नही होता है |

2 comments on Installation of CC TV cameras are must in order to curb the grown tyranny and corruption in judiciary.

  1. Petitioner was not allowed to attend the proceedings of his case by the security personnel as they were directed by the chief justice of High court of judicature at Allahabad. Whether it is justified to curb petitioner from attending the court proceedings on flimsy ground in the name security of few people. Your applicant and hisson both having the Adhaar card in the name ID but security personnel were adamant to not allow by adhering to directive to chief justice as their obligatory duty to pursue the directives issued by the office of chief justice

  2. The appellant referred his RTI application dated 18.3.2014 and reiterated the points mentioned in the RTI application. The appellant stated that he wanted to know whether the Director Secondary Education has filed counter affidavit in writ petition No. 20121 of 2006 or not. The appellant further stated that if the Director Secondary Education has filed the counter affidavit, then a copy of counter affidavit should be provided
    Decision: 4. The respondent is directed to provide the appellant, within 30 days of this order, information sought in the RTI application. The appeal is disposed of. Copy of decision be given free of cost to the parties. (Vijai Sharma) Chief Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: