2. Heard Mr. Rakesh Omprakash Agrawal, Party-in-person for all the applicants, learned Senior Counsel Mr. Rajendra Deshmukh instructed by learned Advocate Mr. A.B. Kadethankar for respondent No.1 - High Court, Learned Advocate Ms. N.N. Gore for respondent Nos. 2 and 5 and learned Additional Government Pleader Mr. P.S. Patil for respondent Nos. 3 and 4.
3. In nut-shell, the party-in-person submits that it is the fundamental right of every citizen that he should have access to justice. A common man should also reach the Courts of law without delay in affordable cost so that his constitutional rights can be protected, especially the constitutional rights enshrined under Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Every legislation and rules thereunder should be in consonance with the basic fundamental rights and therefore, the procedure that ca-10105.21 4 has been laid down by the said Notification, according to the party-in-person is contrary to the fundamental rights under Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. He relied on the observations in Maneka Ganghi vs. Union of India, 1978 (2) S.C.R. 621 wherein it has been held that various articles of the Constitution in Chapter III (Fundamental Rights) were not several, isolated walled fortresses, each not reacting on the other, but, on the other hand, were parts of a great scheme to secure certain basic rights to the citizens of the country, each article designed to expand but never to curtail the content of the right secured by the other article. It was further observed that the law satisfying the requirements of Article 21 would still have to meet the challenge of Article 14 and Article 19 of the Constitution. In regard to Article 21 itself, it was held that the procedure contemplated by the Article had to be fair, just and reasonable, and not some semblance of procedure, fanciful, oppressive or arbitrary. According to the party-in-person when the norms for presentation and conduct of proceedings by the party-in-person have been laid down by the impugned Notifications, it restricts and violates the fundamental rights granted to common man to approach the Courts of law.