Single Judge dismissed the appellant's appeal challenging the constitution of a Special Human Rights Court, holding that the challenge proceedings were not proper and the impugned orders did not call for interference.
Appeal dismissed with liberty to challenge the notification constituting the Special Court in accordance with law.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~10
of the application of the appellant / petitioner with the observation that the application to place on record certain documents and to list the matter before
the Registrar General of this Court cannot be considered, as no matter is pending before this Court, with liberty to produce the documents before the Court concerned as per law.
Judl./Suptlaw/721-725 dated June 14, 2011, constituting the Special Court of Additional Sessions Judge 01 in each District as Human Rights Court, is being challenged by the appellant in person.
The appellant is required to challenge the notification in an appropriate proceeding and not in this appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent.
Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.
CHIEF JUSTICE
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J
OCTOBER 12, 2018 /aky
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the challenge to the constitution of a Special Court under Human Rights Act can be entertained in an appeal filed under Letters Patent.
Whether the impugned orders of the learned Single Bench require interference on appeal.
Whether liberty can be granted to challenge the notification in accordance with law.
Sardaraman Singh Oberoi
The Union of India & Ors
V. Kameswar Rao
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
