As I wrote in Part II, I received an email from the Registry in the third week of May 2024 with the Registrar's order dated 31-Jan-2024 dismissing the special leave petition Diary Number 3847 of 2024.
I decided to appeal the Registrar's order. I prepared a review petition and uploaded it on the e-Filing site. The Registry informed me that a Miscellaneous Application appealing the Registrar's order is what needs to be submitted, and not a review petition. So, I prepared a Miscellaneous Application to appeal the order.
In the Miscellaneous Application (MA), I put down in writing more or less what had transpired between the Registry and myself in the course of preparing the special leave petition (SLP). I wrote that I had prepared the SLP based on the Status/Stage and Disposal Type of the Writ Petition Diary Number 23878 of 2023, which stated 'Permission to file SLP/Appeal allowed'. I wrote that on repeated requests for the Registry to clarify where in the Supreme Court Rules 2013 it said that one could not file an appeal against a Supreme Court order, especially given the information in the Disposal Type of the writ petition, I did not receive any reply or clarification. I also stated in the appeal that Article 136 of the Indian Constitution said, '136.(1) Notwithstanding anything in this Chapter, the Supreme Court may, in its discretion, grant special leave to appeal from any judgement, decree, determination, sentence or order in any cause or matter passed or made by any court or tribunal in the territory of India', and that this, to me, was clearly a case of the Supreme Court granting me permission to file a special leave petition. I appealed that, in the light of all this, the Registrar's order be relooked at.
The Registry interacted with me, and I corrected the defects raised in the document and submitted it along with an application to condone delay and another to appear and argue in person. The Miscellaneous Application (MA) was processed and given a Diary Number - 27735 of 2024 - in July. The status of the MA was set to 'Pending Scrutiny' in the e-Filing website.
I traveled to Kerala to my ancestral house in the first week of September as a part of my routine to clear the place of weeds that grow wild during the monsoons. Until recently, internet and phone connectivity had been very poor at this place. However, in the last few months a new network tower by my service provider had come up close to where I lived. I carried my laptop on this visit and found that the internet connection was now good, and I could access my email.
In the third week of September, when I was in Kerala, I received a notification from the Registry saying that the MA was to be listed on 23rd September 2024, in about three days' time. It was to be listed in Court No. 13 as Item Number 18. The presiding judges would be Bela Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma. I did not have enough money to take a flight to New Delhi and pay for accommodation, and there was not enough time to travel by train, even if I was able to get tickets, that is. So, I wrote to the Registry stating that I still faced the same challenges as when I had interacted with the Registrar in September 2023 for the writ petition. I still did not have a smartphone, and my laptop still had the same minimal configurations that were not conducive for a video conferencing. I asked if there were any places around where I was staying in Kerala - such as the District Courts or the Kerala High Court - where I could avail of a video conferencing facility to be present in the hearing. I asked if the hearing would happen in my absence. The Registry replied that I have only two ways of attending the hearing - either physically or through virtual mode - and sent me a notice to attend the hearing.
I scouted around my place in Kerala to see if there were any internet cafes from where I could attend the hearing. I hardly found any, as, obviously, the smartphone has made the internet cafe nearly extinct. The ones I found were more or less non-functional. So, I decided that I had no choice but to attend the hearing by logging into the video conference using my substandard laptop. On the day of the hearing, 23rd September 2024, I logged into the video conference using the URL shared by the Supreme Court. I could see the court being prepared for the day's hearings. I tested the speaker and microphone and found them to be working satisfactorily. The internet connectivity was good as well. I noticed that there were no chat features appearing in the video conferencing application. The time was around 10.00am with the hearing scheduled to start at 10.30am. I sat back to wait and looked up to see that I had been removed from the video conference. A message flashed on the screen saying that the host/moderator had removed me from the video call. I tried to log in again but now got the message that the host had prevented access to the video conference. For about the next one hour, I kept trying to get into the hearing in virtual mode but was denied access. In between, I wrote to the Registry stating that I was being denied access. Finally, I gave up trying to get in and switched off the computer.
Later in the evening, I checked the Supreme Court website and found that there are contact numbers of moderators and court masters for each court published on the day of the hearing. I found a court order had been uploaded against the Case Details of M.A. 27735 of 2024. It said '1. Party is not present when the matter is called out. 2. By way of last opportunity, list the matter on 27.09.2024 (Friday).'
I wrote a letter to the Registry and to the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee (SCLSC) stating that I was having access issues, and if it would be possible to have an amicus curiae for the hearing on Friday the 27th of September.
I was heading back to Bengaluru anyway in the next couple of days. Even though the internet connection at home in Bengaluru was much worse than what it was in Kerala, at least there would be more options for attending the hearing in virtual mode from Bengaluru. When I reached Bengaluru on Thursday, 26th September 2024, I scouted around for co-working spaces to see if any of them could provide me with a computer along with the typical cubicle and internet connectivity that they provided as services. None of them provided computers. You had to bring your own machine and avail of the services there. I found a laptop service center that hired out used laptops near my home and asked them if they would loan me a laptop for a day for the next day's hearing. They refused, stating that they only hired out laptops to corporate accounts and not to individuals. I asked them if they could upgrade my existing laptop from Windows 8.1 to a higher version OS. They said that they could do it. When I checked with them three hours later, I found that the upgrade was not working, since in the first place the existing configuration of my laptop itself did not have enough processor speed and memory to run a higher version of Windows. Seeing my predicament, the service center personnel were kind enough to lend me a laptop for the next day's hearing.
On the next day, 27th September 2024, I went to a co-working space and booked a room for four hours. I logged into the virtual hearing at around 10.00am. The chat features of the video conferencing application were visible now. The video was working fine. I tested for audio and found that the speakers were working fine, but the microphone was not audible. I immediately called the service center and they once more showed great consideration by sending a replacement laptop that I used to log into the video conference once again. By now, court was in progress. I tested the audio of the replacement laptop and again found that the speakers seemed to be working fine but the microphone was not audible. It was too late now to do anything. I also thought that maybe the host or moderator may have disabled the microphone, and that it might be turned on when my item was called out. I asked the host through the chat facility which item was currently in progress, and found that my item was still a long way off.
I watched the court proceedings as it unfolded. Bela Trivedi was in the driver's seat, skillfully dealing with murder, dowry, divorce and financial fraud cases, and imposing costs on petitioners. Satish Chandra Sharma was taking the back seat, and making occasional observations like "They are finding it difficult to address us as Honorable Judges...It is fine if you don't address us as anything..." and "She was burnt alive, mind you!" I noticed that those who argued more with the judges got more time with them, and even if the judges initially tried to dismiss the petition, they started listening when the petitioner persisted. It appears that a hearing in the Supreme Court is more suited for those who are better talkers than listeners. So, even if a person puts down the most crisp, compelling petition in writing, finally at the end of the day it is how they speak with the judges that seems to matter much more than what has been submitted in writing. If one is not much of a talker, then he or she will struggle to have dialogues with the judges. Advocates who are hesitant speakers will probably quickly learn the ropes and start to become more vocal if they want to succeed. The louder and more you shout, the more likely you are to be heard, is the impression I got from the proceedings...
When my Item Number 45 came up, the host/moderator unmuted my microphone in the virtual hearing.
"Please see page 2 of the appeal which shows the screenshot of the Case Details for writ petition Diary Number 23878 of 2023 with the Disposal Type as 'Permission to file SLP/Appeal allowed'. It is on the basis of this that I have filed the special leave petition", I leant forward and said,
"You are not audible. Please unmute the mike", I received a message on the chat from the host/moderator.
I again repeated what I said.
"We cannot hear you", the judges said.
Well, I thought, that is that...So much for presenting my side of the story in the hearing...
"This person had filed a writ petition earlier which was dismissed. Now he has filed this appeal", said Bela Trivedi to Satish Chandra Sharma.
"Impose costs", I think I heard Satish Chandra Sharma say.
"Some person, who claims to be the petitioner has appeared on the video call", Bela Trivedi was, by now, dictating to the court clerk.
When I had read up the general protocol for attending virtual hearings, it said that, on entering the virtual hearing, petitioners/respondents were to identify themselves by holding up their identification document against the web camera. When I got into the web conference, I was not asked by the host/moderator to identify myself. Instead, he/she asked me through the chat facility what my name and item number were and said that he/she would be updating my name in the virtual call to appear as '45. Koshy T Abraham' and this is how it now appeared for all to see. But Bela Trivedi had her doubts about my authenticity. So, I pulled out my driver's license from my wallet and held it in front of the camera.
I then opened the appeal to page 2 and held it in front of the camera pointing at the screenshot of the Case Details. I started signaling with my fingers 'Two...two...two' and saying 'Page 2...Page 2...Page 2'. It was quite comical, to say the least.
'Mr. Abraham, aapko Hindi samaj mein aatha hai?" Bela Trivedi asked.
I was clueless as to what this question had to do at all with the whole proceeding. I believe that I wrote the petitions and the appeal in fairly decent English, decent enough to communicate what I wished to say. So, what the Hindi angle to all this was beats me...
"Somebody in the name of the petitioner is appearing virtually. However, we are not in a position to hear him due to connectivity issue...We do not see any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Registrar ", Bela Trivedi continued her dictation to the court clerk.
I sat back and watched.
When Bela Trivedi had finished her dictation, Satish Chandra Sharma leaned towards his microphone and addressed the court with a faint smile, saying, "This person has filed a petition that everybody in India should be allowed to smoke a joint."
I smiled. Well, there you go...I could not see the reaction of the esteemed advocates present in the court hall to this statement.
By now, the judges had moved on to the next item number.
I exited the video call, packed the laptop and left the place. I went back to the laptop shop and returned the hired laptop. They told me that if I had plugged in a headset, my microphone would have been audible. I said that on my existing laptop there was no need to plug in a headset, the microphone was audible without doing that. They said that different computers have different ways of functioning. Well, that was that...I left my laptop with the service center to see if they could make it functional again. When I got back a week later, they said that it was beyond salvaging. They were kind enough to sell me the very same laptop that I had used in the video call for a cheap price that I was able to afford. When I went home and checked by mail, I saw an email from the SCLSC the day prior to the hearing asking me to submit a list of documents to avail of the service of an amicus curiae as an indigent person. I wrote back saying the case had been dismissed. I also emailed the SCLSC the list of documents that they had required.
So, that is how the appeal against the Registrar's order dismissing the special leave petition went. The judges had said in the order related to the hearing on 23rd September - where I was removed from the call - that the hearing on Friday 27th September was a last opportunity for me. Well, I was there...I could be seen, maybe not recognized by the judges, but I could not be heard...As I said earlier, it appears that no matter how lucidly you present your case in writing, finally what you say or do not say in the hearing is what decides your fate...So, if you are a marketing person then you are best suited for in-court proceedings...
Looking back, it seems to me that Bela Trivedi appeared particularly anxious to dismiss the case, seeing the speed with which she started dictating the court order to the bench clerk. Even though my petitions covered the whole spectrum of freeing the ganja plant and the individual, and all aspects - any person growing as much ganja as he or she wished, and using it however he or she wished - to consume, to sell, barter, or use for any purpose that he or she deemed fit, and even though the petitions covered the vast benefits to state and society that legalization would bring, it had been reduced to the simple act of smoking ganja and whether it was to be allowed or not allowed by the moral guardians of society, the adult parents - the judiciary and legislature - who decide what the little children - the citizens - can eat, drink, grow, buy, sell or smoke...If you want ganja for your own well-being, too bad...Make use of the available options of procuring ganja by paying exorbitant money in the black market...That is how we upper classes do it...If not, have some alcohol or tobacco or opioid medications or other synthetic pharmaceutical medications...If you do not like any of these, or if you cannot afford and access any of these, too bad...Suffer your lot because you are the unfortunate...If you die from consuming too much of any of the state-sanctioned poisons, too bad...You should have chosen some other intoxication instead, like the intoxication of power and money which is what we, the upper classes, love the most...
I have included below the appeal against the Registrar's order, the office reports and court orders related to the two hearings for the appeal. So far, I wrote about the three steps I took at the court - the writ petition, the special leave petition and the appeal against the Registrar's order. In the next part, I will cover my learnings and conclusions from this interaction with the apex judiciary of India regarding the violation of fundamental rights due to ganja and charas prohibition...
So folks, that is how things currently stand...Mumma and papa me lords...the Kapoors...will 'not allow' the indigent Siva to smoke his ganja...Kuch samaj mein aaya ki nahi???
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
Koshy T. Abraham ...Petitioner/Appellant
Versus
Union of India ...Respondent
APPLICATION FOR APPEAL AGAINST REGISTRAR ORDER DISMISSING SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) DIARY NO. 3847 OF 2024
To,
Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India and His Companion Judges of the Supreme Court of India.
The Application of the Petitioner most respectfully showeth:
1. The petitioner above named respectfully submits this application seeking to appeal against the judgment/order of the Ld. Registrar of The Supreme Court of India regarding Special Leave Petition (Civil) having Diary No. 3847 of 2024.
2. In the order dated 31-January-2024, the Ld. Registrar dismissed the Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No. 3847 of 2024, under Order VIII, RULE 6(3) AND (4), stating that 'As per the mandate of law Special Leave Petition arises out of an order of High Court/Tribunals/Other subordinate courts vested with judicial powers. This instant special leave petition is not maintainable since the same has been filed following the dismissal of writ petition by this Hon'ble Court.'
3. The petitioner filed the Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No. 3847 of 2024 based on the Disposal Type of the order passed by the Honorable Judges dismissing Writ Petition (Civil) Diary No. 23878 of 2023. The Disposal Type for the order dated 03-October-2023 dismissing the writ petition Diary No. 23878 of 2023 was given as Permission to file SLP/Appeal-allowed and matter dismissed (including all pending Ias). Please refer to the following screenshot of Case Details for Writ Petition (Civil) Diary No. 23878 of 2023 showing Disposal Type.
4. When the petitioner submitted the Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary Number 3847 of 2024 to the Registry, the petition was rejected by the Registry with the defect raised as "WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 23878/2023 already dismissed on Date : 03-10-2023, Hence, the filed SLP is not maintainable as challenged the passed by this Hon'ble Court Order. You are requested to file complete and proper petition accordance to SCR. 2013."
5. On going through the Supreme Court Rules (SCR) 2013, the petitioner was unable to find under SCR 2013 PROVISIONS REGARDING SPECIAL LEAVE PETITIONS UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION, ORDER XXI, SPECIAL LEAVE PETITIONS (CIVIL), or elsewhere in the SCR Rules, a rule which stated that a Special Leave Petition cannot be filed against an order of the Supreme Court. In addition, Article 136 of the Constitution of India states that '136. (1) Notwithstanding anything in this Chapter, the Supreme Court may, in its discretion, grant special leave to appeal from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order in any cause or matter passed or made by any court or tribunal in the territory of India.' It does not state anywhere in Article 136 of the Constitution that special leave cannot be granted against an order by the Supreme Court, rather it states, 'the Supreme Court may, in its discretion, grant special leave to appeal from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order in any cause or matter passed or made by any court or tribunal in the territory of India.' On requesting the Registry to provide further details of the rules referred, the petitioner did not receive any reply.
6. Given the lack of clarification or response from the Registry regarding a rule which states that one cannot file a Special Leave Petition against an order by the Supreme Court, and given the Disposal Type of Writ Petition (Civil) Diary Number 23878 of 2023 as 'Permission to file SLP/Appeal-allowed', the petitioner again submitted the Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary Number 3847 of 2024.
7. The Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary Number 3847 of 2024 was heard by the Ld. Registrar on 31-January-2024 where he issued an order dismissing the Special Leave Petition as not maintainable, as stated in Point 2 above.
8. The order by the Ld. Registrar also states that 'The petitioner, in a manner trying to indulge himself in the second round of litigation, which is a clear abuse of process of law. The petitioner may file appropriate petition as per law as the appropriate remedy lies elsewhere and not in Special Leave Petition. He is in a manner trying to assail the judges of this Court in a writ petition by filing a special leave petition which is not permissable as per law'. Receiving no response from the Registry, in terms of a rule in SCR 2013 which states that one cannot file an SLP/Appeal against a Supreme Court order, and given the fact that the Disposal Type for the writ petition Diary Number 23878/2023 stated 'Permission to file SLP/Appeal allowed', the petitioner filed the Special Leave Petition Diary Number 3847/2024. The petitioner has no intention to abuse the process of law, nor does he wish to assail the judges. The petitioner only wishes to have his fundamental rights - right to life through right to safe intoxicant, right to safe medicine, right to religious freedom, right against discrimination, and right to livelihood – which are critical for a healthy life, restored. He only wishes to pursue the legal routes available for the same, and seeks the intervention of the Supreme Court - as protector of a citizen's fundamental rights with the power to act on the citizen's behalf - in this matter. As this is a matter concerning an individual's fundamental rights, the petitioner had approached the Supreme Court directly with the writ petition, without approaching any of the lower courts.
9. The petitioner seeks a review of the order passed by the Ld. Registrar as he believes that the order is in error, and that the Special Leave Petition (Civil) 3847 of 2024 is not defective as stated by the Ld. Registrar in his order in this regard.
PRAYER:
The petitioner prays that the order of the Ld. Registrar - that the Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No. 3847 of 2024 is not maintainable as per Supreme Court Rules - be reviewed and reconsidered.
Date: 24-June-2024
KOSHY T. ABRAHAM
(APPELLANT)
Court Order after first hearing on 23rd September when petitioner was removed from the virtual hearing
Office Report submitted by Registry to Court before second hearing on 27th September 2024
Court Order after second hearing on 27th September 2024
No comments:
Post a Comment