National Court of Appeals
Mainstream regularization will not be worth it as it would only result in willful disobedience.
The same 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 unimpeded structural violence.
The occupational capacity of the Supreme Court should not be increased.
Simultaneously, the time spent rejecting court cases must be sincerely followed by reputable structures. And I have found an intermediate solution for this.
Each state would have a petitioner obligation template.
It implies that before taking a petition in court (Supreme Court), the applicant’s written statement must be mentioned.
Then, if the applicant is unable to carry out the corresponding related procedures that are necessary, they will face the consequences in future cases that are carried out under their guardianship.
It implies that in case the referred petition cannot be duly substantiated by the action of the petitioner, then, according to the same procedures established by the parliament, future cases based on its conclusions would be delayed.
Added to this, the presentation of cases could be individual. In case the layer is not required to take the deed, it would have to go through a similar written declaration.
It implies that every time a false or defective brief reaches him, he 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 thoroughly filtered through the principles of legal rules.
The reasons behind such an indifferent 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 they feel that no one would take their case to a hearing but they are sure they will get justice on their 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 consequently provide him with a recognized and suitable lawyer to help him present his case.
Such situations mean that the individual will not be able to choose their lawyer, but it is the lower court that will determine the lawyer for them based on the merits of their case.
It paves the way for proper utilization of court time, and I think that in this way about 30 percent of court time would be better utilized.
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.
Therefore, the waiting period would force a petitioner to withdraw their case based on unnecessary daunting procedures or possibly set up recorded hearings.
In addition, for each judge who holds a position on the Supreme Court, he must appear at the (national) attorney hearings on a given day.
It implies, the judge would appear to hear the non-warped cases especially on this specific day every month.
It also says that the judges will hear no more than 3 cases on that day.
Also, the frequently implemented method in transferring the case law from the additional attorney general to the higher court should be customized to the additional needs to avoid deferred action.
That is how; each case would be ready only when it requires due maintenance of procedures as a disbursement mechanism.
I also have thoughts on the Chief Justice. I feel that he should be supported through the subsequent elevation for bringing the completeness of the decree submitted through delay mechanisms.
Therefore, each elevation would ask for a go-ahead from the head of the Supreme Court to appeal for the court structure 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 by the honorable Supreme Court and make sure that the maintenance of vital assignments is done properly through the mistakes that are common during promotions.
It would be better to simply recommend the necessary suggestions on the basis of a written endorsement in favor of a candidate by responding to the recommended suggestions.
Yes, the members of the superior court will have their mental agony, but that must be managed with certain steps through which a separate jurisdiction would analyze their increases and the significant aspects pertaining to the disbursement of the tasks.
