Showing posts with label Justice. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Justice. Show all posts
Tuesday, August 26, 2014
Tuesday, May 14, 2013
CBI
In a democracy judiciary, legislature and executive are
independent of each other. Judiciary has the responsibility to ensure
constitutional provisions are not violated.
Criticism of judiciary about coal scam is justified as the
investigation was asked for by it. But judiciary wanting an affidavit by July
10 on making agency autonomous (reported in times of India of may 9, 2013)
amounts to taking over the function of legislature.
Incase CBI has to be autonomous, who will appoint the
functionaries? Should the functionaries be form the IPS, which is part of the
executive? Or, as in case of election commission (which is autonomous) the
president of India appoint them. IPS and state police force should have nothing
to do with CBI. Is this arrangement possible? In my view judiciary should give
comprehensive guidelines for formation of CBI as an autonomous body without
infringing upon the independence of legislature and executive.
Thursday, March 14, 2013
Justice delayed is justice denied
“In a heart rending plea, a
person acquitted of rape charges has moved the Supreme Court
seeking restoration of his lost dignity and honour.
The 2006
Mayapuri rape had shocked the capital as a hearing and speech impaired
pregnant woman was sexually assaulted in a moving car. The petitioner, who was
running a diagnostic centre, was in jail for more than four years before a
trial court acquitted him”.
This news is from Times of India (
In 1960s BR Chopra’s film ‘khanoon’ raised a similar
question. Actor Jeevan ia sentenced to
years in jail for committing a murder. The person murdered is alive.
Jeevan after release from jail shoots the man dead. In the court room Jeevan
questions the judge, “ can you punish a man twice for the same offence? And can
you give back my years spent in confinement?” Solution is not given. Jeevan
collapses in the witness box and is dead.
Thursday, January 27, 2011
Fear of small numbers
Life term adequate for Staines murder convicts: SC
"Though Graham Staines and his two minor sons were burnt to death while they were sleeping inside a station wagon at Manoharpur, the intention was to teach a lesson to Staines about his religious activities, namely, converting poor tribals to Christianity," it said. While condemning killings in the name of religion, the bench also expressed its disapproval of conversion. "It is undisputed that there is no justification for interfering in someone`s belief by way of `use of force`, provocation, conversion, incitement or upon a flawed premise that one religion is better than the other," said the bench.
After thought:
The Bench ordered deletion of this paragraph and replaced it with -- "However, more than 12 years has elapsed since the act was committed, we are of the opinion that the life sentence awarded by the high court need not be enhanced in view of the factual position discussed in earlier paragraphs."
The paragraph ordered to be deleted from the judgment read -- "It is undisputed that there is no justification for interfering in someone's belief by way of `use of force', provocation, conversion, incitement or upon a flawed premise that one religion is better than the other."
It will now be replaced by -- "There is no justification for interfering in someone's religious belief by any means."
Source: Times of India of 21.1.11 and 26.1.11
"Though Graham Staines and his two minor sons were burnt to death while they were sleeping inside a station wagon at Manoharpur, the intention was to teach a lesson to Staines about his religious activities, namely, converting poor tribals to Christianity," it said. While condemning killings in the name of religion, the bench also expressed its disapproval of conversion. "It is undisputed that there is no justification for interfering in someone`s belief by way of `use of force`, provocation, conversion, incitement or upon a flawed premise that one religion is better than the other," said the bench.
After thought:
The Bench ordered deletion of this paragraph and replaced it with -- "However, more than 12 years has elapsed since the act was committed, we are of the opinion that the life sentence awarded by the high court need not be enhanced in view of the factual position discussed in earlier paragraphs."
The paragraph ordered to be deleted from the judgment read -- "It is undisputed that there is no justification for interfering in someone's belief by way of `use of force', provocation, conversion, incitement or upon a flawed premise that one religion is better than the other."
It will now be replaced by -- "There is no justification for interfering in someone's religious belief by any means."
Source: Times of India of 21.1.11 and 26.1.11
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
Advocate speaks the Truth
Sr Advocate Anoop Chaudhary submitted before the CJI on May 1, 2008, “We do not render any service to the litigant-----it would be harsh to make lawyers pay for alleged deficiency in service under the consumer law”. He was appearing for the petitioner advocate V B Joshi challenging a recent verdict of NCDRC.
The verdict of NCDRC was not concerned with winning or losing the case.The Bench tried to reason, “ if an advocate does not pursue the case of a client properly or does not file the documents on time for which the latter suffers, should not be made liable?”
After all Mr Chaudhary was speaking the truth and nothing but the truth.
I wish the Bench had included matters such as taking adjournment on flimsy grounds.
I am posting this and also scanned report of The Times of India of 2nd Dec.2008, just in case it has missed your attention.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)