<p>New Delhi: Taking strong note of a PIL seeking sweeping judicial reforms, the Supreme Court on Monday expressed displeasure over what it termed a "publicity interest litigation" and junked the plea, saying the court should not be used as a platform to address cameras stationed outside.</p>.<p>The petitioner had sought a mandate that every court in India must decide a case within a one-year timeframe.</p>.<p>A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and justices Dipankar Datta and Joymalya Bagchi questioned how it could issue a direction mandating that all cases be decided within one year.</p>.<p>The PIL was filed by one Kamlesh Tripathi, who appeared and argued in person.</p>.‘Last opportunity’, SC to Telangana speaker to apprise disqualification of BRS MLAs in two weeks.<p>During the proceedings, Tripathi requested to argue his case in Hindi. Responding to his plea for "bringing change to the country," the CJI said a formal petition was not the appropriate vehicle for such aspirations.</p>.<p>“Aap desh me badlaav chahte haina? Aapko aisa petition daalne ki zaroorat nahi hai, aap ek patra likh kar mujhe bhej dijiye (You want to change the country, right? You don’t need to file such a petition, you can simply write a letter and send it to me),” the CJI said.</p>.<p>The bench was particularly critical of the motive behind the filings of the “publicity interest litigations”.</p>.<p>“Aap log sirf jo bahar cameraman khade hai unke saamne bolne ke liye petition mat daaliye (Do not file petitions just so you can speak in front of the cameras outside),” the CJI said.</p>.<p>Questioning the practicality of the demand made by the petitioner, the CJI asked, "Aap keh rahe hai ek saal mein har court faisla kare? Aisi kitne courts chahiye aapko? (You are saying every court should decide within a year? How many such courts do you want?)" </p><p>"The petitioner, if so advised, may submit a letter on the administrative side to the CJI, with suggestions, if any, for the purpose of judicial reforms. It goes without saying that any such suggestions are always welcome," the bench said in the order. </p>
<p>New Delhi: Taking strong note of a PIL seeking sweeping judicial reforms, the Supreme Court on Monday expressed displeasure over what it termed a "publicity interest litigation" and junked the plea, saying the court should not be used as a platform to address cameras stationed outside.</p>.<p>The petitioner had sought a mandate that every court in India must decide a case within a one-year timeframe.</p>.<p>A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and justices Dipankar Datta and Joymalya Bagchi questioned how it could issue a direction mandating that all cases be decided within one year.</p>.<p>The PIL was filed by one Kamlesh Tripathi, who appeared and argued in person.</p>.‘Last opportunity’, SC to Telangana speaker to apprise disqualification of BRS MLAs in two weeks.<p>During the proceedings, Tripathi requested to argue his case in Hindi. Responding to his plea for "bringing change to the country," the CJI said a formal petition was not the appropriate vehicle for such aspirations.</p>.<p>“Aap desh me badlaav chahte haina? Aapko aisa petition daalne ki zaroorat nahi hai, aap ek patra likh kar mujhe bhej dijiye (You want to change the country, right? You don’t need to file such a petition, you can simply write a letter and send it to me),” the CJI said.</p>.<p>The bench was particularly critical of the motive behind the filings of the “publicity interest litigations”.</p>.<p>“Aap log sirf jo bahar cameraman khade hai unke saamne bolne ke liye petition mat daaliye (Do not file petitions just so you can speak in front of the cameras outside),” the CJI said.</p>.<p>Questioning the practicality of the demand made by the petitioner, the CJI asked, "Aap keh rahe hai ek saal mein har court faisla kare? Aisi kitne courts chahiye aapko? (You are saying every court should decide within a year? How many such courts do you want?)" </p><p>"The petitioner, if so advised, may submit a letter on the administrative side to the CJI, with suggestions, if any, for the purpose of judicial reforms. It goes without saying that any such suggestions are always welcome," the bench said in the order. </p>