Friday, January 19, 2007

Topic for the day - Take 8

Hey guys,

Have to leave the office a little early today. So putting out the topic for the weekend. The topic will stay on till Monday. Thhe analysis for the case will probably also come on Monday if I dont have enought time. But I will drop some hints for further discussions there.

Since we have covered topics in areas like 'economics', 'international politics', 'vague', 'media', 'development' and a case based one, I thot I shud try to be as diverse as possible. So I am adding a political one to the list we have. I will put up a couple economics one in the next leg since people seem to be off-track on economic topics. If you want me to cover any other specific area, pour in your comments.

Here goes the topic
"Judicial intervention in the affairs of Govt and Parliament - Is it a necessity or is the judiciary crossing the line"

p.s. -- While bashing the politicians is fine by me, do not do 'just' that :)

Like to see the learning of the previous GDs being taken forward. As you are getting close to your GD dates, I want to see the quality going notches and the group making it difficult for me to critique and add points.

So go for the kill

Click here for the Complete Analysis of the this topic

Previous topic

Next topic

Labels:

27 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hi, I will also be posting from now on.
Am waiting for someone to start as I dont know much about this topic.

Akash

4:10 AM, January 19, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Though the judiciary is selected by the government itself, the Supreme Court has the authority to undo any of the bills passed by the government.
(Pls correct me if the above is incorrect so I can proceed....)

4:17 AM, January 19, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

START: With Govt. and Parliament being democratic bodies and judiciary an executive body the question that arises is who is supreme and who works in greater public interest? In the current political scenario, with politicians serving their own vested interests, I think judicial intervention is required to bail out the common man.

1>In the recently passed Supreme Court judgment, laws enacted under Article 9 will come under legal jurisdiction. This is because some laws enacted under this article can infringe basic rights defined in the constitution under article 14,19 and 21. The politicians have enacted many provisions for vote-bank politics, Tamil Nadu government proposing a quota of 69% a glaring example.
2> Its not that Judiciary is totally impinging its authority upon the Parliament. Recent Supreme Court judgment with-helding the suspension of 11 MPs as passed by the Parliament is one such recent incident where judiciary has accepted the parliament's views.
3> Judicial intervention has mostly been in cases when government has been incumbent and has failed to execute its responsibilities. The recent ceiling drive in Delhi is another case in example.
4> The Constitution has three wings Legislative, Executive and Judiciary. With Legislative not executing its responsibilties the imperative falls on judiciary that it sees that the essence of constitution is followed both in letter and spirit.

appikap

5:02 AM, January 19, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I agree, we have seen a lot of examples where the politicians have been passing acts just to garner votes.
Also many times the Opposition opposes acts for the sake of it.
For ex. recently after the nuclear agreement with US, BJP criticised the government for compromising over India's interests when BJP itself was trying for such an agreement with the US.
This lets us understand that the motives of politicians are not always in the best interests. In such times the Judiciary is a body that can make judgements without prejudice.

6:28 AM, January 19, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

forgot to add my name to prev post...
Akash :)

6:30 AM, January 19, 2007  
Anonymous b2b said...

Start::
Judiciary is the body of governance which upholds the rights of citizens according to the law of the land. The forms may differ in the types of the governance which exists in the country under question, but it is usually there to assist other institutions of the states.
In India, the parliament acts as the voice of the people with the responsibility of providing voice to common people while following the basic guidelines enshrined in the constitution and with the power to write or amend those guidelines as stipulated in the constitution. The judiciary acts as the custodian and interpreter of the same constitution. Both have their sacrosanct role to play independent of each other, to nurture and to serve the interests of the people of India.

Brief background

The conflict underplayed in the debate is not something new. Since adopting the constitution of India, both institutions have been playing the assigned role. The parliament is people’s voice and it acts on behalf of the people. The judiciary is devoid of emotions and it upholds the law of the land as enshrined in the constitution of India. This leads to situation’s wherein the popular demand of people as manifested by their representatives in the parliament clashes with the directions of the constitution which the judiciary upholds. There have been times when we reach a consensus on those issues and they get resolved amicably, but other times when the conflict is not resolved, the nation treads a careful line and new precedents are set.

Points for judiciary crossing the line --

Judiciary is responsible to be the final interpreter of the constitution; however the same attribute makes the judiciary at times less responsive and restricted to address the social malaise. A case to note is “Right to Property” as enshrined in the constitution. This ensures that legal entitlement of a person’s material wealth and right to buy, sell, and inherit the land, and that no rule of force could take it away against a right holder’s wish. The constitution does not differentiate between rich or poor, black or white, young or old. This meant that the rights of feudal land holders like kings, large land lords were also protected. In a country like ours with historical social imbalances plaguing in myriad forms, this was unacceptable to certain states, which have the power to enforce rule of land in their own state as granted to them in the constitution under the federal structure. So, states like Kerala, West Bengal pushed ahead with their land reforms under the protection of temporary articles/amendments passed in the constitution. While this would enable the states to take away land from large land holders and distribute it to those which they deemed fit, this also went against one of the basic tenet enshrined in the constitution, the right to property of the original land holder who would not wish to give away the land. In cases like this, if judiciary enforces the rule of the land, there would be popular backlash of the people against it. So govt. brings in resolutions in the parliament to avoid direct confrontation. Recent rulings of, the judiciary wherein it can nullify amendments brought by parliament after 1973 under article 9 is a point to be noted, which can at times bring us to moments which are called “constitutional breakdown”.

Points for the necessity of judicial activism --

The pressure of today’s India’s politics has made political parties susceptible to corruption, moral degradation and policies of appeasement. This has led to at times breakdown in the civil functioning of day today affairs. At times inaction and complicity of lawmakers the so called MLA’s and MP’s have brought about legislations which end up protecting their private interests. It is not surprising to see them using govt. machineries to advance their self interest. Regularization of slums, authorization of illegal developments of colonies in metropolitan cities are some of the few notable cases.
Furthermore, all major parties when in rule have shown utter disregard for our environment. In issues like this it is only the judiciary which has to step in so that the so called ad-hoc interpretations of protecting people interest and mockery of legislations can be disbanded and nullified, as unpleasant as they are for the govt.

Conclusion:--

These are just a few brief points under scanner, but they highlight the nature of affairs.
To hold India as a nation, the roles of judiciary and parliament are clearly defined. Yet, they have clashed with each other and at times for good reasons. The fact that both the judiciary and the parliament have been running smoothly together for so long barring some incidents is indeed laudable. They are the pillars of Indian democracy with immense responsibilities.

9:20 AM, January 19, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

START - Democracy of a country rests on three pillars ,namely- the legislature ,d executive nd d judiciary..Each of them have been assigned a specific role 2 play 4 d smooth functioning of a democracy..yet these roles cannot b confined within water -tight compartments..as such there r bound 2 b instances when d actions of 1 appear 2 impinge d domain of d other..2 wat extent these encroachments r permissible nd where do we need 2 draw a line is what is debatable...

Points:

(1)Parliament represents elected representatives of d citizens of a country.The interference of judiciary in d decisions taken by them wud imply that we r undermining their capability of taking decisions that r in d larger interests of d nation..dis can b detrimental 2 their sense of dignity n can reduce their morale .

(2)The members of parliament r accountable 2 d public at large.Any act on their part which is not conducive 4 d people of a nation wud automatically make them suffer in d next elections when d affected parties wud surely correct upon their decision.Judicial intervention wud only make matters worse by giving birth 2 conflicts between d 2..let d citizens act n take d necessary corrective action...

(3)As per d tenets of democracy,judiciary is d prime arbiter of d constitution...as such judicial activism is right in all such cases where d decisions taken by d parliament infringe upon d rights of ny section of society...

(4)A recent case in point is that of d Ninth Schedule..wherein d parliamentarians have given refuge 2 every such law that it intends 2 provide immunity against judicial scrutiny....Such r d cases where judicial activism beecomes a necessity....how else can we expect 2 correct those laws that d parliamentarians have enacted at their whims n fancies 2 please certain sections at d expense of others ...
The decision taken by d supreme cut that even d ninth schedule is subject 2 judicial review..by no means implies that it is crossing d line..on d contrary it is necessary so that d larger interests of d nation is not sacrificed...it is likely 2 correct laws such as that in tamil nadu which provides 69% reservation2 d OBCs..as against d SC's limit of 50..thus judicial actimism will actually rectify d wrongs that find a place.4 various reasons.

(5) Even though d judiciary is not directly accountable 2 d people..people have immense faith in it as an unbiased authority..judicial interference will make sure that they r never cheated at d hands of politicians.

Although inorder to ensure a smooth play on d part of d govt. as well as d judiciary,it is imperative that d judiciary acknowldges n respects d decisions of d parliament..but at d same time ther must b a scope 4 judiciary 2 intervene so that d decisions do not impinnge upon d basic rights of ny citizen..
Moreover, we can even have an unbiased authority 2 govern d actions of d judiciary....this wud ensurea proper functioning of d democracy...

ANYA...

11:02 AM, January 19, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

START:
Inida being a democratic country with the government working for the people have made a great provision for judiciary to contest the ruling passed by government at any point of time. This might be good at certain times but at other times judiciary might just be crossing its limit

1. Checking the administrator is an ideal example brought abt by this kind of system. Although the administrator himself has created this post but who is gonna check them...Judicial system provides the right material to check them...
2. Bringing in true sense of democracy...ppl appealing to Supreme court regarding something not sensible to them...For eg, the reservation quota being appealed to in Supreme Court and the court asking the government to furnish the rite data

-PS

10:34 PM, January 21, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Judicial intervention in the affairs of Govt and Parliament - Is it a necessity or is the judiciary crossing the line"

Start->> The last few years have seen an unprecented increase in cases when the Judiciary steps into fields previously monopolized by Govt. It was sometimes in the name of public interest, sometimes to maintain the integrity of constitution. We may look its effects from various angles ranging from corruption to the supremecy of parliament in constitution.

1) In many cases, the govt. bodies are not fulfilling their duty or ignoring court rulings, therefore, the court has to intervene and pass the judgements inthose areas. For example- the illigal encroachement of shops which sparked the delhi demolition drive and the illigel occupancy of bungloes by MP's in delhi.

2) When the govt. passes any bill which may be for public welfare but threatens the integrity of constitution of basic rights for people, the court has to intervene. for example- the office of profit controvercy.

3) When the govt. has taken up a decision which lacks rational background or proper study, the court has to intervene in public interest in order to seek the rational behind the decision. For example- the OBC quota row where the govt. was unable to provide the court with the latest census data as the dpercentage was based on age old data.

4) India is a democracy and people are considered as supreme. Therefore, people's representatives i.e. the parliament has to be considered as supreme. The court must not intervene in parliament related matters where the autonomy of parliament is questioned.

10:49 PM, January 21, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Regarding Anya's 4th point, It was rational to have 69% quota in Tamil nadu as according to national census, 75% of its population comes under SC,ST or OBC category. Thus, the 9th schedule has helped the govt. to formulate policies depending upon the geo-social nature of the region.

11:09 PM, January 21, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Regarding Anya;s 5th point, yes the judiciary in india is a autonomous body regarded as its citizens as the only organization devoid of corruption and influence. Hence its involvement in matters related to public good is necessary till the extent that it doesnt encroaches upon the rights specifically bestowed upon the govt.

12:06 AM, January 22, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Regarding what Atul said about Anya's point:

I think the move by Tamil Nadu government was more politically motivated rather than welfare for people. If the government wanted to actually aid the welfare of under-privileged, it would have excluded the creamy layer from obtaining the reservation benefits. A recent Supreme Court notification in this regard was over-ruled by the Parliament by passing an ordinance that reservation benefits should stretch to all layers of society. The prime reason behind this was that political parties did not want to lose their creamy layer SC/ST votes.

appikap

2:47 AM, January 22, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Judiciary, legislature and executive are three important tenets which Indian Constitution is based. But due to their roles and responsibility clashing on some matters related to public welfare, there have been numerous instances on which clashes have arisen between the two.

1) In India, More than anything else, Corruption is considered as the Politicians' biggest achievement in the last 50 years. While the judiciary by and large, has been able to achieve a better images in the eye of public due to their better record on performance and integrity front. But still, it doesn't entitle judiciary to be above accountability. Whatever might be the politicians' flaws, they are elected by the people and are accountable to them.

2) Since the politicians have to get a mandate from the people, they have to go to the common people and understand their plight. A Judge, though highly learned, might suffer from an elitist bias and forget Ground realities. A case in point is the state of land reforms initiated by Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru.

3) Since the topic doesn't clearly states India, We can discuss the state of legislature vs judiciary with regards to other democracies too. In UK, executive and legislature are supreme while in US, the constitution is supreme resulting in ultimate powers resting with the judiciary. In India, Since the demarcation of authority isn't very clear, It has lead to a clash between the two at some times.

4) A Study conducted on Judges in India revealed that the lower castes(SC/STs, Dalits) are grossly underrepresented in the Judicial positions. Though merit should never be ignored, An upper caste bias can never be ruled out in a country like India. Therefore, when an issue like reservation is brought up by the politicians for social equality, inherent biases on judges might become a hindrance. Reservation for OBCs was in fact proposed by Mandal commission itself and it is now only that it is being implemented. The Political Class might be wrong in implementing Reservations the way they are doing it now, But one has to agree that the gross differences exist in Indian Society based on caste.

5) Since most of us haven't seen land reforms, We might not understand their significance. But We have to understand that there should be minimal interference from judiciary in Government policy matters, if by and large, it isn't absolutely against the spirit of constitution. For e.g. Indian Economy's liberalization in 1991. If suppose a leftist leaning organization had filed a case against the government against the liberalization and since there was no precedent for liberalization in India before this, it might be possible that courts might have ruled this action of government as against the spirit of constitution which will hurt the poor and benefit only multinationals. Then where would India have been today!! We've to understand that Corruption has to be checked and there can be no two set of laws for citizens and parliamentarians But Judiciary claiming that the spirit of constitution is sacrosanct amounts to saying that Constitution is Gospel (which it is not). Even constitution has to evolve based on changing realities of Society.

6) Even members of Judiciary aren't infallible. There are numerous cases of corrupt judges (a latest example being case of Justice Bhalla where judges are behaving like trade unions and are not willing to punish an erring Judge as he belongs to their own Professional class)

On the other hand, Clearly legislature can't claim to do anything it wants just because it has mandate. As far as saving the skin of their colleagues in cases of corruption is concerned, they'll definitely try to go to any lengths to save them but this act should always be curtailed by Judiciary. But as far as policy matters regarding Public are concerned, We can assume that the legislature should be given precedence over Judiciary as the legislature is accountable to the electorate and a wrong policy measure will in the long run be reversed or changed, for the benefit of the public.

3:09 AM, January 22, 2007  
Blogger Gyan-ee said...

Very good points, especially the counter arguments. The GD is truely good when there are strong arguments and counter arguments. My comments will come tomorrow only.

In the meanwhile, can the police please intervene and kick the ruckus-mongers in Bangalore.

4:40 AM, January 22, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

START:There are two bodies we are speaking about, the parliament & the judciary. What we have to analyze, is whether the premiere decision making body of our country, the Parliament, needs a parent over it. Does it need interference? If not,who ensures that the bills passed, the decisions taken, are not in self-interest? Who watches the watchdog?


More points:
1)Like the is exclusion of controversial Press Note 18 from the RTI act, there may be times, when the Govt may take certain decisions in self interest. In such cases, an independent body, that has nothing to gain from it, should intervene.

2)Beyond a certain level, the common man cannot force a certain bill, or a petition into the Parliament. Only a superior body can, in such cases, ensure that the rights of the citizens are upheld.

3)As the 9th ammendment has shown, the parliament has to be watched, for continuation of old rules, that may obstruct proper bills being passes. Making the Supreme Court superior ensures that there is always a body watching the Govt.

4)The Judiciary is still affected heavily by the Govt. Transfers & promotions are openly changed, as the rulers change. Cases against powerful people are never finished, the witnesses turn hostile.A part of the heavy bribery & corruption plaguing the law is due to this.

Making the functioning of the judiciary independent, even at smaller state levels, would ensure greater transparency & justice.

5)As the case of Afzal demonstrates, even though the courts pass a judgement, the mercy pleas are holding up the case. Doesnt this question the efficacy of the courts?

6)Not only does the judiciary need to intervene, it needs to be independent of the govt at the state, district, every level.

7)There is a perspective, that the intervention of the judiciary may prevent harsh, yet necessary steps from being taken.

8)Of course, the contrary problem could also arise, where the judciary is the primary body, & its rulings are unquestionable.

But the system of hierarchy now, where a lower court can file an appeal with a higher court, should keep that aspect in check.

Aparna

P.S. I have turned the topic a little & gone on to pursue whether the judiciary should be independent of the Govt or not. Is this a deviation?

6:29 AM, January 22, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Regarding Atul's counter argument:

Atul ..while saying that d judicial interference shud b limited 2 an extent ..such that it does not encroaches upon d powers of d govt...,u r failing 2 realise that d constitution has granted rights n powers 2 d govt.2 b used in d interest of d citizens nd not as powers per se..so d Q. of govt.s rights is immaterial if d basic rights of an individual r foregone in d process..hope u got d point.

ANYA..

8:30 AM, January 22, 2007  
Blogger Gyan-ee said...

Akash,

Welcome to the GD sessions. Buy you have to note that you are digressing a little bit when you say opposition parties are not acting responsible :)

Also, 'Supreme Court has the authority to undo any of the bills' --- untrue as some have pointed out later.

Do not ask for permission to pitch in with points. Say what you think is correct and the group/me will correct if wrong.

2:29 AM, January 23, 2007  
Blogger Gyan-ee said...

Appikap,

You have said that "Judicial intervention has mostly been in cases when government has been incumbent and has failed to execute its responsibilities"
---- who decides what is Government’s responsibility and if it has executed it properly or not :)

2:30 AM, January 23, 2007  
Blogger Gyan-ee said...

b2b,

You need to be crisp. You may not get a chance to elaborate that much in an actual GD. I am sure you will make a good essay writer :)

"popular demand of people as manifested by their representatives clashes with the directions of the constitution which the judiciary upholds"
----- Very well put

Very good example of where judiciary shud not intervene with parliament. But crisper please :)

Good example for need of judicial intervention too.

But conclusion not good enough. You have just said like 'this happens and that happens too. Sometimes this is good sometimes that is good. hopefully things will be fine' --- c'mon, you can conclude better with the kind of performance you have shown

2:37 AM, January 23, 2007  
Blogger Gyan-ee said...

Anya,

Good start.

"dis can b detrimental 2 their sense of dignity n can reduce their morale"
---- Senti analysis not allowed :)

"let the citizens take the corrective actions"
---- Very good perspective but you have done a turn around in the next point and said that judicial intervention is required. you need to be consistent.

Decent conclusion too. Though I dont think that the question of an authority watching a judiciary is relevant

2:47 AM, January 23, 2007  
Blogger Gyan-ee said...

PS,

True sense of democracy - wud have liked you to elaborate, but a good point of view.

2:59 AM, January 23, 2007  
Blogger Gyan-ee said...

Atul
Good start.

"fields previously monopolized by Govt" ---- those were the fields that come under govt's responsibilities :))

In many cases, the govt. bodies are not fulfilling their duty --- Agreed but the question is - 'is it for the court to decide' if they are not doing it

When the govt. has taken up a decision which lacks rational background or proper study --- Again the question is, is the parliament answerable to the judiciary??

Your conclusion is the exact opposite of your arguments :)))

Good counter-comments on Anya's points

2:59 AM, January 23, 2007  
Blogger Gyan-ee said...

Appikap,

very good counter-counter-comment.

3:03 AM, January 23, 2007  
Blogger Gyan-ee said...

Himanshu,

Excellent arguments and I need not elaborate on this. You took away most analysis points away from me. You take the trophy for the day.

One mistake -- Even in US, there is conflict between judiciary and parliament.

3:08 AM, January 23, 2007  
Blogger Gyan-ee said...

Aparna,

Excellent start. perfectly fine with you taking the line since you are not digressing but giving it a good perspective.

The points on judicial transfers, judicial hierarchy, afzal, question of judicial supremacy etc are very good

Himanshu, you will have to share the trophy please

Just one disagreement
As the case of Afzal demonstrates, even though the courts pass a judgement, the mercy pleas are holding up the case. Doesnt this question the efficacy of the courts
----- I think that questions the efficacy of clemency in the constitution itself

3:21 AM, January 23, 2007  
Blogger Gyan-ee said...

Excellent GD. First time that two people are taking the trophies and they had to put a great effort to get it too since others had good points too. The trophy went for logical, strong and consistent arguments. And note that Aparna and Himanshu may not have agreed completely with each other. Good and simple starts by most and good points in between too. That makes my job of ‘adding on’ difficult. Let me give it a try though

Fundae:
Two important fundae and strong ones at that.
Many people made statements that judicial intervention is needed when necessary. If you look carefully, that is a junk statement. Everything is needed when necessary, right? The question is who decides when the need is and on what basis do you decide. Do not make such statements in GD.
Some people made strong arguments, but concluded with an opposite stand. Very dangerous.

Some of my ideas on judiciary/parliament/democracy
People said that the parliament has a mandate from its people to rule and judiciary should not intervene, except some cases ---- I would have summed up as, ‘Except when the ‘basic’ rights’ of the citizens are threatened by the parliament should a court intervene. Not otherwise.
For all those who say politicians are corrupt/wrong sometimes and hence judiciary needs to intervene ---- it is the people who elect the parliament, and if bad ones is what they choose to rule them, then that is what they are going to get.
For all those who say politicians do many things for vote bank and populism ---- that’s a fallacy of democracy afterall. If people don’t like it, they will change them next time around. They have to wait, but who can help it
Inspite of the fact that most of the people believed that Manu Sharma was culprit in Jessica Lal case, parliament did not interfere in court’s verdict. It took so many years for the court to correct itself, but as I said we have to wait and we cannot help it
Populist politics ---- that’s the idea of a democracy; the voice of the majority
Delhi illegal encroachments, Delhi CNG conversions etc --- many have said court should intervene in such cases. I feel the opposite. It is not the duty of the court to interfere in ‘administrative matters’ inspite of the fact that court’s interference brought good results in the end is these cases.

Parting shot
Judiciary should self-evaluate to see that it does not interfere in ‘administrative matters’, unless it infringes upon the fundamental rights.

5:31 AM, January 23, 2007  
Blogger Gyan-ee said...

Points made by the group
1. Its not that Judiciary is totally impinging its authority upon the Parliament. Recent Supreme Court judgment with-helding the suspension of 11 MPs as passed by the Parliament is one such recent incident where judiciary has accepted the parliament's views ---- It is impinging but only that it is on the same side. Can judiciary even evaluate parliament is the question
2. Judicial intervention has mostly been in cases when government has been incumbent and has failed to execute its responsibilities ---- who decides what is Government’s responsibility and if it has executed it properly or not :)
3. The motives of politicians are not always in the best interests. In such times the Judiciary is a body that can make judgments without prejudice ---- really?
4. Judiciary is responsible to be the final interpreter of the constitution; however the same attribute makes the judiciary at times less responsive and restricted to address the social malaise. A case to note is “Right to Property” as enshrined in the constitution ------ Excellent point, brownies for you b2b
5. all major parties when in rule have shown utter disregard for our environment. In issues like this it is only the judiciary which has to step in so that the so called ad-hoc interpretations of protecting people interest and mockery of legislations can be disbanded and nullified ---- USA went to war with utter disregard to popular views. Does that mean that the judiciary should have intervened?? It so happens that politicians screw up, but is the judiciary ‘responsible’ to fix it up and is it OUR duty to change the politicians
6. Parliament represents elected representatives of d citizens of a country. The interference of judiciary in d decisions taken by them wud imply that we r undermining their capability of taking decisions that r in d larger interests of d nation ---- good point
7. The members of parliament r accountable 2 d public at large.Any act on their part which is not conducive 4 d people of a nation wud automatically make them suffer in d next elections ---- good point again
8. As per d tenets of democracy,judiciary is d prime arbiter of d constitution...as such judicial activism is right in all such cases where d decisions taken by d parliament infringe upon d rights of ny section of society --- brownie point
9. Bringing in true sense of democracy...ppl appealing to Supreme court regarding something not sensible to them ---- the view of the judiciary being a part of the democracy is very good
10. When the govt. passes any bill which may be for public welfare but threatens the integrity of constitution of basic rights for people, the court has to intervene. for example- the office of profit controvercy ---- Point fine but is the example fitting??
11. When the govt. has taken up a decision which lacks rational background or proper study ---- Is it court’s business to monitor ‘how’ the Government takes its decision.
12. Whatever might be the politicians' flaws, they are elected by the people and are accountable to them. it doesn't entitle judiciary to be above accountability
13. Since the politicians have to get a mandate from the people, they have to go to the common people and understand their plight. A Judge, though highly learned, might suffer from an elitist bias and forget Ground realities. A case in point is the state of land reforms initiated by Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru
14. In UK, executive and legislature are supreme while in US, the constitution is supreme resulting in ultimate powers resting with the judiciary --- factually questionable
15. A Study conducted on Judges in India revealed that the lower castes(SC/STs, Dalits) are grossly underrepresented in the Judicial positions. Though merit should never be ignored, An upper caste bias can never be ruled out in a country like India. The Political Class might be wrong in implementing Reservations the way they are doing it now, But one has to agree that the gross differences exist in Indian Society based on caste ---- excellent viewpoint
16. Judiciary claiming that the spirit of constitution is sacrosanct amounts to saying that Constitution is Gospel --- cool point
17. Even members of Judiciary aren't infallible. There are numerous cases of corrupt judges
18. legislature can't claim to do anything it wants just because it has mandate. As far as saving the skin of their colleagues in cases of corruption is concerned, they'll definitely try to go to any lengths to save them but this act should always be curtailed by Judiciary
19. Like the is exclusion of controversial Press Note 18 from the RTI act, there may be times, when the Govt may take certain decisions in self interest. In such cases, an independent body, that has nothing to gain from it, should intervene
20. Beyond a certain level, the common man cannot force a certain bill, or a petition into the Parliament. Only a superior body can, in such cases, ensure that the rights of the citizens are upheld
21. The Judiciary is still affected heavily by the Govt. Transfers & promotions are openly changed, as the rulers change. Cases against powerful people are never finished, the witnesses turn hostile. A part of the heavy bribery & corruption plaguing the law is due to this
22. the case of Afzal demonstrates, even though the courts pass a judgement, the mercy pleas are holding up the case. Doesnt this question the efficacy of the courts --- I think it questions the efficacy of clemency :)
23. the contrary problem could also arise, where the judciary is the primary body, & its rulings are unquestionable. But the system of hierarchy now, where a lower court can file an appeal with a higher court, should keep that aspect in check --- So the question becomes, who watches the supreme guy (be it court or parliament).

5:34 AM, January 23, 2007  

Post a Comment

<< Home