HC Dismisses PIL For Village Courts After Constitutional Changes In J&K   

0

SRINAGAR: The J&K High Court has dismissed a Public Interest Litigation, seeking establishing of village courts at grass root level in Jammu and Kashmir.

A bench of Chief Justice Gita Mittal and Justice Puneet Gupta passed the ordered after submissions before it that as per Schedule-V of the provisions of the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganization Act 2019, the Jammu and Kashmir Delhi Adalats Act 2013 stands repealed.

“In view thereof, this petition does not survive for consideration,” the court said, reported news agency GNS.

Earlier in 2018, the Court had termed very unfair and unreasonable on part of the Government not to establish village courts at grass root level despite passing of legislation in 2013.

The purpose of establishing Delhi Adalats was to “provide access to justice to the citizens at their doorsteps and also for ensuring that Justice cannot be denied to any citizen by reason of Social, Economic or other disabilities as enshrined in the Preamble and under Article 39(A) and 14 of the Constitution.”

The petitioner– Altaf Hussain Drabu— had said that Delhi Adalat Act, 2013 has been published in Government Gazette on 24th October 2013, and had come into force on 03-09-2014 by virtue of SRO 274 of 2014.

However, the petitioner had said that due to the inaction of the erstwhile state authorities failed to implement the Act.

“The Government by SRO 275 OF 2014 had issued notification for the establishment of 22 Delhi Adalats in 22 Districts of the State, but no process had been initiated thereof to make Delhi Adalats functional in the erstwhile State. The Legislature intended to bring the pillars of Justice at the doorsteps of its citizens by passing the Legislation, the petitioner had said.

The Legislation had a Magna-Carta (fundamental rights) effect in opening doors of Justice to Citizens who are not able to secure Justice by reason of Social, Economic or other disabilities as enshrined in the Preamble and under Article 39(A) and 14 of the Constitution, the petitioner had said.

_

About Author

Leave A Reply