Fidèle à sa mission, ce site va porter à votre connaissance un texte qui circule sur le web. Le sujet est «la justice».
Son titre (Archana Chitnis: Speedy justice is a Fundamental Right: Madhya Pradesh HC | Bhopal News) est évocateur.
Présenté sous le nom «d’anonymat
», le journaliste est connu et fiable pour plusieurs autres posts qu’il a publiés sur le web.
Il n’y a pas de raison de douter de la fiabilité de ces révélations.
L’article a été édité à une date mentionnée 2023-11-24 21:01:00.
Voilà lle texte mentionné :
The order to dispose of cases was issued by the registrar general (establishment) on December 21, 2022.If a court fails to dispose of 25 of its oldest cases in a quarter, the remainder will be added to their target in the next quarter, it said.
There was a prolonged strike by lawyers across Madhya Pradesh against the order. The HC declared the strike illegal, yet it continued. The HC then took up a contempt petition against the office-bearers of the State Bar council and some District Bar Associations, which is pending.
The OBC Advocate Welfare Association also filed a petition challenging the order. A division bench, comprising Justice Vivek Agarwal and Justice A K Singh, dismissed this petition, holding that speedy justice is a Fundamental Right under Article 21 of the Constitution.
A division bench of the Madhya Pradesh high court has granted a final chance to the Lokayukta and the state government to file a reply to a petition challenging the decision of the Lokayukta to dismiss a complaint against former minister and BJP leader Archana Chitnis.
The petition, filed by Balchandra Shinde, a resident of Burhanpur, alleges that Chitnis invested Rs 3 crore from the Burhanpur Krishi Upaj Mandi in establishing a sugar factory. However, neither was the sugar factory established, nor was the amount returned to Krishi Upaj Mandi. Shinde initially approached the MP High Court with the matter, but the court disposed it.
Subsequently, Shinde filed a complaint with the Lokayukta, which was rejected on the grounds that the matter was over two decades old. He then petitioned the high court, challenging the Lokayukta’s decision to summarily reject the application.
The division bench of Chief Justice R V Malimath and Justice Vishal Mishra issued notices to the state government and the Lokayukta, requesting a response to the petition. During the hearing, the respondents sought more time to respond, which the court granted and gave them a last chance to reply to the petition while deferring hearing of the case by four weeks. Advocate Pranay Chaube represented the petitioner in the case.
Publications sur un thème comparable:
Appel à la justice de l’État/Introduction,Le livre .
La Justice expliquée à ma petite-fille,Le livre .
Philosophie/Absolu/relatif,Le livre . Disponible dans toutes les bonnes librairies.