National audience

Conventional regularization will not be worth it, as it would only result in stubborn disobedience.

The same right to fight for justice these days is for the poor only when the Supreme Court takes it.

Violence based on theoretical interference can only force unhindered structural violence.

The occupational capacity of the Supreme Court should not be increased.

At the same time, 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 template on the obligation of the petitioner.

It implies, before taking a petition in court (Supreme Court), the written statement of the applicant must be mentioned.

So if the applicant is unable to carry out the necessary related adjunct procedures, he would face the consequences in future cases to be carried out in his administration.

It implies that in case the submitted petition cannot be duly justified through the petitioner’s action, then, according to the same procedures established by the parliament, future cases based on its conclusions would be delayed.

In addition to this, the presentation of cases could be individual. In case the cape is not required to take the car, it will have to go through a similar written statement.

It implies that every time a false or faulty court order arrives, it will not allow the petitioner to present his case in the Supreme Court.

Such a situation requires the finding of the resulting statement 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 regulations.

The reasons behind such a nonchalant attitude would only result in the Supreme Court’s warning not to waste time with each petitioner citing that it is vital to justice through action.

Also, there would be some provision for a person if they feel that no one would take their case to a hearing and yet they are sure to get justice on their own. You would then have to record the attorneys’ statements citing reasons for not taking your case and send the recordings to a lower court which would consequently grant a recognized and suitable attorney to help you present your case.

Such situations mean that the person will not be able to choose his lawyer, but it is the lower court that will determine the lawyer for him based on the merits of his case.

It sets the path for the proper utilization of court time and I think that this way about 30 percent of court time would be better utilized.

The Supreme Court generally follows 3 optional sentencing days in a calendar year.

During these 3 days, the Supreme Court examines all the cases presented by the petitioner.

Therefore, the waiting period would force the petitioner to withdraw his case based on unnecessary discouraging procedures or possibly set up recorded hearings.

In addition, for each judge who occupies a position in the Supreme Court, he must appear at the hearings of (national) lawyers on a specific day.

It implies that the judge would seem to hear non-formal cases, especially on this specific day of each month.

It also says that the judges will not hear more than 3 cases that day.

In addition, the frequent method used to transfer the case directly from an additional general counsel to a higher court should be tailored for additional needs to avoid deferred action.

That’s how; each case would be ready only when it requires proper maintenance of procedures as a disbursement mechanism.

I also have thoughts on the Chief Justice. I feel like it should be supported through a back lift to bring in the minutiae of the decree brought in through delaying mechanisms.

Therefore, each elevation would request an assent from the head of the Supreme Court to appeal for the court structure that would only have the power to decentralize the huge burden through a written description.

As far as the court in charge is concerned, you would have to sincerely abide by the policies set forth by the honorable Supreme Court and ensure that the maintenance of vital allowances is properly carried out through mistakes that are common during promotions.

It would be better to recommend the necessary suggestions on the basis of a written endorsement in favor of a candidate responding to the recommended suggestions.

Yes, superior court fellows will have their mental agony, but that must be handled by certain steps through which a separate jurisdiction would examine their increments and significant aspects relevant to the disbursement of assignments.