Is the Chief Justice of India above law? Is the Chief Justice "Supreme" than the Supreme Court? Looks like he is, when he mentioned that he will not hear Ms.Setalvad!
I can not accept the argument that the Judiciary can not be blamed for the widespread delay. By blaming the "computer" which chooses a case, he wants to wash his hands off on the backlogs. Judges criticize defendants in open court but when they are at the receiving end, they taste their own medicine and yell "it's bitter".
He knows that being a Constitutional authority he is not above the Constitution. Such emotional outbursts are not part of his job requirement. Nowhere in the Indian Constitution, is it mentioned that a court can refuse to hear a particular person or restrict the right to speak freely.
He knows India is a democracy and he has to live with someone who dares to criticize him.
He knows that he is paid big bucks not to blame the computer but to initiate a change to the algorithm and to those who wrote and approved it.
He also knows "beyond any reasonable doubt" that if he is not willing to hear Ms.Setalvad, he can step aside and let someone else who can.
Finally the judiciary should wake up and smell the "travesty of justice" done to those who died a violent death.
After all, it exists to avert such travesty!
Monday, February 25, 2008
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Conflict of Interest
The Supreme Court’s call for an apology from a Zee News TV scribe is surprising. If a magistrate court can issue warrants on fictitious and bogus complaints on constitutional authorities, one can image the state of a common man. It may be illegal to procure such warrants but the intention is noble which is to bring such corruption to limelight.
The CJI’s sympathy on the magistrate who was suspended gives an impression that a magistrate’s suspension is more important than a potential loss of freedom of a common man. Fortunately the magistrate was reinstated but it is unfortunate that an arrest warrant being a powerful tool that can curtail freedom of an innocent citizen is without proper checks and balances. If one exists, no one would be asked to tender an apology.
One can not discount the theory that there are no “real” victims languishing in jails or chasing their case in a court on such complaints. It is this judicial system that failed to secure the rights of an under trial in Assam who languished in jail for 50 years before being released and awarded Rs.3 lakhs. Another under trial lived in jail for 38 years in UP before being released on bail. The sting operation proved the consequences of such warrants and that innocent citizens were locked up for numerous number of years. Monetary compensation is nothing compared to the lost freedom and liberty.
In my opinion even if a person is forced to forgo a single second of constitutional rights and freedom due to a botched up prosecution, it is the judiciary that has to take the responsibility on its shoulders and undo the wrong.
Asking for an apology from the journalist might pacify the Supreme Court but not those who cling to the branch of the government hoping that it would safeguard their freedom and rights.
The CJI’s sympathy on the magistrate who was suspended gives an impression that a magistrate’s suspension is more important than a potential loss of freedom of a common man. Fortunately the magistrate was reinstated but it is unfortunate that an arrest warrant being a powerful tool that can curtail freedom of an innocent citizen is without proper checks and balances. If one exists, no one would be asked to tender an apology.
One can not discount the theory that there are no “real” victims languishing in jails or chasing their case in a court on such complaints. It is this judicial system that failed to secure the rights of an under trial in Assam who languished in jail for 50 years before being released and awarded Rs.3 lakhs. Another under trial lived in jail for 38 years in UP before being released on bail. The sting operation proved the consequences of such warrants and that innocent citizens were locked up for numerous number of years. Monetary compensation is nothing compared to the lost freedom and liberty.
In my opinion even if a person is forced to forgo a single second of constitutional rights and freedom due to a botched up prosecution, it is the judiciary that has to take the responsibility on its shoulders and undo the wrong.
Asking for an apology from the journalist might pacify the Supreme Court but not those who cling to the branch of the government hoping that it would safeguard their freedom and rights.
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
Jallikkattu
Scores of animals are killed daily for food and apparel. And the Indian Supreme court cried animal cruelty first and had a change of heart later. Now the Indian Supreme court knows something that we don't know? Is Jallikkatu "humane" enough now?
Tax payer's money is spent on providing safety and security for one and all including the bulls and also on the legal team. Why didn't the government spend that on people's welfare? Why don't we have a regulatory authority that frames and enforces rules on what is spent and how it is spent?
Court's precious time was wasted on such a petty thing. Last thing the TN government needs is a regulatory authority to conduct this sport.
Tax payer's money is spent on providing safety and security for one and all including the bulls and also on the legal team. Why didn't the government spend that on people's welfare? Why don't we have a regulatory authority that frames and enforces rules on what is spent and how it is spent?
Court's precious time was wasted on such a petty thing. Last thing the TN government needs is a regulatory authority to conduct this sport.
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Judicial Activism
A two member bench of the Indian Supreme Court mentioned that Judges should have self restraint and should not encroach on the executive and the legislature. Is Judicial activism unconstitutional? If the legislature fails to have a vision, is that constitutional? If the executive branch of the government stands by such a decision and does not kick start a momentum to foresee, is that constitutional?
A smaller bench has to abide by the decision of a larger bench and if they upset or overturn a judicial precedent, is that constitutional? A judge is called an "activist" based on his or her interpretation of the law or based on the legal remedy chosen.
According to our constitution, impeachment is the last resort for judicial mis-conduct. The legislature has not impeached those judges who determined the Jagadambika pal case or the Jharkhand Assembly case, because a conscious mind knows that given the situation it is the "right-thing-to-do". If such a decision enables a court to make a most effective contribution to the government, how can it be termed a judicial aberration or simply put "unconstitutional"?
If all the three organs of the government fail to appreciate and understand, I am not sure how the notion "broad separation of powers" and a "delicate constitutional balance" can co-exist. The broad separation of powers work well only within the network of like minded people. An "activist" judge exists because there exists an inactive legislature and/or an inactive executive branch of the government.
Who is the best of the two evils, an "activist" judge or an "inactivist" member of the parliament?
A smaller bench has to abide by the decision of a larger bench and if they upset or overturn a judicial precedent, is that constitutional? A judge is called an "activist" based on his or her interpretation of the law or based on the legal remedy chosen.
According to our constitution, impeachment is the last resort for judicial mis-conduct. The legislature has not impeached those judges who determined the Jagadambika pal case or the Jharkhand Assembly case, because a conscious mind knows that given the situation it is the "right-thing-to-do". If such a decision enables a court to make a most effective contribution to the government, how can it be termed a judicial aberration or simply put "unconstitutional"?
If all the three organs of the government fail to appreciate and understand, I am not sure how the notion "broad separation of powers" and a "delicate constitutional balance" can co-exist. The broad separation of powers work well only within the network of like minded people. An "activist" judge exists because there exists an inactive legislature and/or an inactive executive branch of the government.
Who is the best of the two evils, an "activist" judge or an "inactivist" member of the parliament?
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
What happens in Malaysia, should stay in Malaysia
Tamilnadu's politicians are bothered about what is happening to minorities in Malaysia. News media pours petrol over the issue. The Indian Prime Minister has taken an unprecedented step and commented on a rally taken out by Malaysian citizens. Malaysian police used batons, tear gas and water canon to stop the rally. The police in India would be doing the same if that happened in India.
Where was the PM when "real" Indian citizens were kidnapped by the Taliban and beheaded? What was the PM doing when an adivasi woman in guwahati was stripped naked and beaten last week? What is he doing for the villagers of Nandigram? What has he done for those who live in camps in Gujarat? Such are few events among a very long list and don't get me started to list'em all now.
What was the PM thinking when he spoke about the Malaysian rally? Who is he to talk about what Malaysian government does to its citizens? And why didn't he comment on a previous rally in Malaysia for electoral reforms? And what would he do if other governments talk about Nandigram and Godhra? Why isn't he talking "more" on the 123 deal? And even here, don't get me started .
One and the only reason I can think of is that he is under immense pressure from the south.
Where was the PM when "real" Indian citizens were kidnapped by the Taliban and beheaded? What was the PM doing when an adivasi woman in guwahati was stripped naked and beaten last week? What is he doing for the villagers of Nandigram? What has he done for those who live in camps in Gujarat? Such are few events among a very long list and don't get me started to list'em all now.
What was the PM thinking when he spoke about the Malaysian rally? Who is he to talk about what Malaysian government does to its citizens? And why didn't he comment on a previous rally in Malaysia for electoral reforms? And what would he do if other governments talk about Nandigram and Godhra? Why isn't he talking "more" on the 123 deal? And even here, don't get me started .
One and the only reason I can think of is that he is under immense pressure from the south.
Friday, June 8, 2007
Unholy status to the holy land
When are we going to get rid off our stigma towards a specific religion? I agree that Tirumala Temple is revered as one of the holy Hindu sites, but to make the entire seven hills and its adjoining areas as "Hindu only" zone is barbaric.
Tirumla is in India and it belongs to Indians. Restricting "access" to a specific place based on religion is nonsense. Yes, the tirumala temple is associated with hinduism, but the winding roads built using tax payer's money is not!
I am sure that the TN government will accord a special status to "Velankanni and its adjoining sea shore" and "Nagoor and a portion of coromandel coast" soon as a quid-pro-quo. May be the same thing can happen to Mylapore and Triplicane. They could be split into multiple pieces and each given a special status.
Let's wait and see.
Tirumla is in India and it belongs to Indians. Restricting "access" to a specific place based on religion is nonsense. Yes, the tirumala temple is associated with hinduism, but the winding roads built using tax payer's money is not!
I am sure that the TN government will accord a special status to "Velankanni and its adjoining sea shore" and "Nagoor and a portion of coromandel coast" soon as a quid-pro-quo. May be the same thing can happen to Mylapore and Triplicane. They could be split into multiple pieces and each given a special status.
Let's wait and see.
Sunday, June 3, 2007
Helmet Rule(s).........
Helmet rules, not just on the 1st June but also the politics of the day (may be the year). The day after it was implemented the government wants to pull the plug by advising the police not to strictly enforce the law.
Why are we kidding ourselves? Why didn't the government say this a day before? The helmet manufacturers and retailers took the opportunity and earned wholesome, also some politicians. Finally the blame was put on the high court that instigated this measure.
History repeats itself once again. During the 80's and the 90's, the same thing happened. What bothers me so much is, such a life saving measure is given a rat's ass.
Why are we kidding ourselves? Why didn't the government say this a day before? The helmet manufacturers and retailers took the opportunity and earned wholesome, also some politicians. Finally the blame was put on the high court that instigated this measure.
History repeats itself once again. During the 80's and the 90's, the same thing happened. What bothers me so much is, such a life saving measure is given a rat's ass.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)