Should Shri Srinivasa Murty draft the petition to
the Chief Justice of India or not is the crux of the issue discussed here.
We had carried the suggestion of sending a petition to CJI
with the caption
Here, by putting
the word 'ALSO' we meant, while Shri Murty goes
ahead with whatever initiative he has taken in certain matters
which is appreciated by others, we may 'also' send a petition to CJI
at the appropriate time, yes of course, by those
conducting the case. We have already
taken such initiatives like Petition to Cabinet Secretary,
Letter for intervention of Rahulji etc. Petition to CJI should
be a matter like this. And such a petition need not be
signed by the pensioners. Suffice it to mention before the CJI
in an appropriate but brief petition that the pension
matter involves a matter of grave importance involving pensioners
and a decision in the matter is sought during their life time itself and this
will be well appreciated by the CJI/SC judges most of whom are very
senior citizens. We can also cite the example of Mumbai HC
in the matter. -Ed.
Dear Friends,
Can we 'write' to the Chief Justice of India? Why not? Anybody can do any thing. I think Shri Panchamiya has already done it recently. Let's wait for the outcome.
And one active co-pensioner wants me to draft the petition citing Mumbai HC Circular dated 12/08/1999 in support of his suggestion. My good old friend Shri R K Viswanathan has already responded through the Chronicle, discounting the utility of the suggested move giving his logic.
Even if the circular under reference can be taken seriously, please refer to its concluding sentence which reads; "This Circular shall be applicable to the High Court and its Benches as well as Courts subordinate to it". So, the Circular per se doesn't help us, the super senior citizens, at least before the Supreme Court. Let us focus on more serious steps ahead.
Having said so, the fact that the petitioners in our on-going pension cases before any Court, are all senior citizens (and that many are over seventy and even eighty already), is certainly a strong point to press for. We have to make sure that the Sr Advocates arguing for us do sensitize the Bench, at the right point of time during the course of arguments in the right manner. I am never tired of repeating and sharing my first hand experience of watching Their Lordships of higher judiciary, that they are never un-receptive to any relevant point properly presented by the Counsel. That is part of the court-craft and a treat to watch, if we choose our Advocates right. We no doubt need Counsel with big name and high standing who receive due attention from the Bench, though the most expensive Advocate, need not be the best, if he is not 100% sure of the facts of the case. Quite often, he is too busy to take the full brief from the client and harps unduly on one or two finer points of law and bungles on essential facts. We will be watching helplessly from the visitors' gallery and end up heart broken. I have no doubt that this time around, we and our leaders don't let things go wrong on any of these critical aspects of the 'case management' which includes (a) perfect drafting of the petition comprehensively, clearly and with zero errors and (b) the Advocate on Record as well as the Sr Advocate, allow us sufficient time to brief them fully and (c) the Counsel 'own' the case as much as we the clients do.
One may have an excellent case in law and in equity like what the LIC Pensioners undoubtedly are fighting now, but the success in Court can still elude if the petitions are shabbily drafted and the Advocates are inadequately briefed.
I am sorry, I drifted. I am only rehearsing the tasks to be able to assist our leaders better.
Thanks and regards,
M. Sreenivasa Murty
Formerly RM (Legal) & Law Officer, SC Zone
106, Hill County Nizampet Road, Bachupally
HYDERABAD 500090