CAN A PERSON DIRECTLY FILE A PETITION IN THE SUPREME COURT OR NOT?

 

YES is the answer, if it is for the purpose of enforcement of the Fundamental Rights under part III of the Constitution of India. In such a case, the Court cannot even decline to entertain the Petition. It has to act upon it. This is because the Article 32 of the Constitution of India by which this Right to file the Petition directly in the Supreme Court itself is a Fundamental Right under part III of the Constitution. This Right cannot even suspended by ordinary laws. In other words, it is mandatory for the Supreme Court to act upon it.

It is also true that the High Courts below the Supreme Court are also equipped with similar power under Article 226 of the Constitution. That power is also wider than the power of the Supreme Court in the sense that it can be used not only for the enforcement of the Fundamental Rights, but for other purpose too. Still the fact remains that the Supreme Court cannot abdicate its duty under Article 32 on the ground that the person first not approached the lower court. Otherwise the very purpose of Article 32 would be powerless and purposeless.

(“A FRAUD IN THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION” part of my autobiography detailing my crusade against corruption/scams while in service. To know more go to the link: https://www.amazon.in/FRAUD-INDIAN-CONSTITUTION-M-P-JOSEPH-ebook/dp/B00SQKTADY and enter “LOOK INSIDE” to read the free part.)

 

Further, the Writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 is discretionary in nature, whereas the right to remedy under Article 32 is compulsory in nature. Therefore, if the Supreme Court declines to entertain the Petition for enforcement of the Fundamental Rights under Art.32 only on the ground that the person concerned did not approach the lower court, that itself become a violation of the Fundamental Right of the person concerned. That is the reason why the founding Fathers of the Constitution made the remedy to approach the Supreme Court of India under Article 32 itself is made a Fundamental Right.

In spite of all these safeguards, whether the Fundamental Rights are available to the poor illiterate majority population of India?

Home Page: https://www.manjaly.net

 

 

COMPTROLLER AND AUDITOR GENERAL OF INDIA (CAG) V/s CONTROLLER GENERAL OF ACCOUNTS (CGA)

Basically the word 'Comptroller' is associated with the financial management of computing/accounting of the organisation/government. Auditor is entirely different. In audit also there are two types. One is internal audit which is done by the persons associated with the management of the organisation. Second type is external auditor. It is done by an independent outsider not associated with the management computing/accounting. In CAG both these functions are combined. This is the main reason, though there were some hidden compelling political reasons also, for removing the accounting functions from the CAG and entrusting it to the (CGA) during the 1970s. The transfer of accounting function as far as the Central Government is concerned, is almost complete except compiling, presentation etc. However, in many State Governments, the transfer of accounting is not yet complete. Therefore, the name “Comptroller” is still continued in CAG. Further, Constitutional amendment is also required for the change of name CAG. That might be one of the reasons why allegations were made on the involvement of CAG in some infamous scams like like "fodder scam" in some States. Now the Controller General of Accounts is the apex Accounting Authority of the Central Government and exercises the powers of the President under Article 150 of the Constitution for prescribing the forms of Accounts of the Union and State Governments on the advice of the Comptroller & Auditor General of India. Controller General of Accounts is the principal Accounts Adviser to the Government of India and is responsible for establishing and maintaining a technically sound management accounting system. He also prepares annual Appropriation Accounts (Civil) and Union Finance Accounts for presentation to the Parliament.

Incidentally, the question of spelling mistake of the word “COMPTROLLER” was raised by some readers of my book mentioned as 1 in the below note. 

N.B.:-

[ Also read my books:

1-      A FRAUD IN THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION (eBOOK/PAPERBACK): http://www.amazon.in/FRAUD-INDIAN-CONSTITUTION-M-P-JOSEPH/dp/9352353986  

2-      LTC RULES MADE EASY: www.amazon.in/LTC-RULES-MADE-EASY--date- ebook/dp/B01JO66SLK ]

MAKE THE FUNCTIONING OF THE SUPREME COURT's COLLEGIUM SYSTEM MORE TRANSPARENT +

The proposal of the Government "The criteria for selection of judges to the higher judiciary should be spelt out and must be part of the memorandum of procedure and put up on the websites of the apex court and high courts to make the functioning of the Supreme Court's collegium system more transparent" is a welcome move. But this should also be applied to selection of candidates for election, appointment of Governors, appointments of heads of Constitutional bodies etc. so that people should know on what credentials they are being selected and no other better persons available in India among the over 120 crore people.

my comment in times of india

ALSO VISIT MY FOLLOWING BLOGS/WEBSITE:

indiantravelexperience.manjaly.net

centralemployeesnews.manjaly.net

cagreport.manjaly.net

publiccause.manjaly.net

https://www.facebook.com/afraudintheindianconstitution?ref=aymt_homepage_panel

www.manjaly.net

WHETHER SUPREME COURT CONSENT SHOULD BE TAKEN BY THE PRIME MINISTER IN SELECTING HIS COUNCIL OF MINISTERS?

Please do not forget Indian Legislature is a creation of the Constitution. All three wings of Government be it executive, judiciary or legislature, be it State or Union all are equal in their sphere. Separation of power of these three wings are the basic structure of the Indian Constitution. Whether any Political Party would agree if the court is interfering in the selection of the prime minister. Or do they agree to a proposal that Supreme Court should be consulted (with veto power) by the Prime Minister in selecting his Council of Ministers or Secretaries of the Departments? Similarly whether the legislature would agree to a proposal that Court's consent should be obtained for the election of the Speaker? Court is only interpreting the power and the competence of the Legislature and if they are not competent it, the law passed by them is declared as null and void. Is it not Supreme Court’s power of interpretation? To this extent I do not agree with the statement of the Finance Minister.

SEE THE ORIGINAL COMMENT BELOW:

Times of India comment on 19-10-2015

PLEASE ALSO VISIT MY FOLLOWING BLOGS/WEBSITE:

indiantravelexperience.manjaly.net

centralemployeesnews.manjaly.net

cagreport.manjaly.net

publiccause.manjaly.net

https://www.facebook.com/afraudintheindianconstitution?ref=aymt_homepage_panel

www.manjaly.net