| SELL ANNUITY PAYMENT,DONATE YOUR CAR FOR KIDS, ASBESTOS LAWYERS, STRUCTURED ANNUITY SETTLEMENT, ANNUITY SETTLEMENTS, CAR INSURANCE, DONATE CARS IN MA |
|
|
In a landmark verdict, the Supreme Court on Wednesday ordered the government and authorities concerned to make special provisions to promptly hear and clear cases of ‘serious nature’ such as rape, hostage taking and human trafficking. The apex court said victims of such cases have not been able to get timely and ‘effective’ justice.
The court was responding to a petition filed by Uma Tamang of Maiti Nepal, Sunita Danuwar of Shakti Samuha and Sushma Gautam of Forum for Women, Law and Development, in September 2012, demanding an order to the Ministry of Home Affairs and Nepal Police Headquarters to direct District Police Offices to produce the accused in the court during the investigation period itself.
The court on Wednesday ordered its administration, the Office of the Attorney General (OAG) and the Prime Minister’s Office to ensure “continuous hearing” on all such cases. According to the verdict, a case once opened for hearing cannot be adjourned until a judgement is delivered.
Though there is a legal provision that calls for “continuous hearing” on certain cases, it has not been followed as the court administration and the government attorney’s office interpret it as an “optional” provision.
A division bench of Justices Kalyan Shrestha and Baidya Nath Upadhyay on Wednesday said the “continuous hearing” provision in the District Court Regulation is not optional.
The bench also ordered the apex court registrar to form a mechanism in different courts to help facilitate dialogue among different stakeholders in a case, including attorneys of the plaintiff and government attorneys.
The division bench further directed the Monitoring Division of the Supreme Court to keep track of developments in such cases, while also ordering the Ministry of Home Affairs, Nepal Police Headquarters and the OAG to make necessary arrangements to produce witnesses as required by the courts to ensure continuous hearing.
The petitioners had also sought orders in the name of the OAG to direct its subordinate offices to produce witnesses in the court while filing charge-sheets.
The appellants have also sought orders to the apex court administration to ensure that it prepares case hearing calendars in a way that ensures continuous hearing of the cases.
The court was responding to a petition filed by Uma Tamang of Maiti Nepal, Sunita Danuwar of Shakti Samuha and Sushma Gautam of Forum for Women, Law and Development, in September 2012, demanding an order to the Ministry of Home Affairs and Nepal Police Headquarters to direct District Police Offices to produce the accused in the court during the investigation period itself.
The court on Wednesday ordered its administration, the Office of the Attorney General (OAG) and the Prime Minister’s Office to ensure “continuous hearing” on all such cases. According to the verdict, a case once opened for hearing cannot be adjourned until a judgement is delivered.
Though there is a legal provision that calls for “continuous hearing” on certain cases, it has not been followed as the court administration and the government attorney’s office interpret it as an “optional” provision.
A division bench of Justices Kalyan Shrestha and Baidya Nath Upadhyay on Wednesday said the “continuous hearing” provision in the District Court Regulation is not optional.
The bench also ordered the apex court registrar to form a mechanism in different courts to help facilitate dialogue among different stakeholders in a case, including attorneys of the plaintiff and government attorneys.
The division bench further directed the Monitoring Division of the Supreme Court to keep track of developments in such cases, while also ordering the Ministry of Home Affairs, Nepal Police Headquarters and the OAG to make necessary arrangements to produce witnesses as required by the courts to ensure continuous hearing.
The petitioners had also sought orders in the name of the OAG to direct its subordinate offices to produce witnesses in the court while filing charge-sheets.
The appellants have also sought orders to the apex court administration to ensure that it prepares case hearing calendars in a way that ensures continuous hearing of the cases.
0 comments:
Speak up your mind
Tell us what you're thinking... !