National Court of Appeals
Mainstream regularization will not be worth it, as it would only result in stubborn disobedience.
The very right to fight for justice these days is for the poor only when the Supreme Court deals with it.
Violence based on theoretical interference can only force unhindered structural violence.
The occupational capacity of the Supreme Court should not be increased.
Simultaneously, the time spent in rejecting court cases must be sincerely followed by reputable structures. And I have found an intermediate solution for this.
Each state would have a template on the obligation of the petitioner.
It implies that before taking a petition in court (Supreme Court), the petitioner’s written declaration must be mentioned.
Then, if the applicant is unable to carry out the necessary related formalities, he will face the consequences in future cases that are carried out under his guardianship.
It implies that in case the referred petition cannot be duly justified through the action of the petitioner, then, under the same procedures established by parliament, future cases based on its findings would be delayed.
Added to this, the presentation of cases could be individual. In case the layer is not required to take the write, it would have to go through a similar written statement.
It implies that every time a false or defective brief arrives, it will not allow the petitioner to present his case in the Supreme Court.
Such a situation requires the determination of the resulting declaration and its registration in the court of first instance by means of a sentence. It means that each case would be carefully filtered through the principles of the legal rules.
The reasons behind such a nonchalant attitude would only translate into a warning not to waste the Supreme Court’s time with each petitioner citing that it is vital to justice by way of action.
Also, there would be some provision for a person if he feels that no one would take his case to a hearing but he is sure to get justice on his own. He would then have to record the lawyers’ statements citing reasons for not taking his case and send the recordings to a lower court which would then provide him with a reputable and suitable lawyer to help him present his case.
Such situations imply that the individual will not be able to choose his lawyer, but the lower court will determine the lawyer for him based on the merits of his case.
It paves the way for the proper use of court time and I believe that in this way about 30 percent of court time would be put to better use.
The Supreme Court generally follows 3 optional trial days in a calendar year.
During these 3 days, the Supreme Court analyzes all the cases presented by the petitioner.
Thus, the waiting period would force a petitioner to withdraw his or her case based on unnecessary burdensome proceedings or possibly set up recorded hearings.
In addition, for each judge who holds a position in the Supreme Court, he must attend the (national) attorney hearings on a certain day.
It implies, the judge would appear to hear the undistorted cases especially on this specific day each month.
It also says that the judges will not hear more than 3 cases on that day.
In addition, the frequent method implemented in the transfer of the right of the case from the additional attorney general to the superior court must be customized according to the additional needs to avoid deferred action.
That is how; each case would be ready only when it requires due maintenance of the procedures as a disbursement mechanism.
I also have thoughts about the Chief Justice. I feel that he should be supported through the subsequent elevation for bringing the completeness of the decree presented through delay mechanisms.
Therefore, each elevation would ask for a go-ahead from the head of the Supreme Court to appeal to the structure of the court that would only have the power to decentralize the enormous burden through a written description.
As for the court that is in charge, it would have to sincerely abide by the policies set forth by the honorable Supreme Court and ensure that vital assignments are properly maintained through mistakes that are common during promotions.
It would be better to simply recommend the necessary suggestions on the basis of written support for a candidate responding to the recommended suggestions.
Yes, the members of the superior court will have their mental agony, but that must be handled with certain steps through which a separate jurisdiction would analyze their increases and the significant aspects pertaining to the disbursement of the tasks.
