Hon’ble Chief Justice of India is as important as Hon’ble Prime Minister. 2010-2020 has witnessed 11 CJIs and 2 PMs. One wonders why 65 is the retirement age for a Supreme Court Judge. He cannot be presumed to be dysfunctional post-65, if at 69 one can be an effective PM. 2000-2010 had witnessed 9 CJIs; […]Read more "The Nature of Judicial Power: An Ungodly Jumble"
538 is the number of former students of National Law School of India University, Bangalore [NLSIU] who ‘demanded’ repeal of The Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 [CAA]. They extended unconditional support to all those who choose to exercise their fundamental right to speech and assembly to ‘express dissent peacefully’. 402 is the number of former students […]Read more "The Myth of Peaceful Protest"
“The use of the term ‘assist’ in the proviso to Section 24(8) of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is crucial, and implies that the Victim’s Counsel is only intended to have a secondary role qua the Public Prosecutor. In our considered opinion, a mandate that allows the Victim’s Counsel to make oral arguments and […]Read more "Section 24(8) of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973"
My Lord, Courts should interpret the Constitution as it would have been understood by ordinary, reasonable citizens alive at the time the Constitution was enacted or Courts should interpret the Constitution as a living organism, one meant to evolve to suit the changing needs and values of contemporary society? “The next loss for Scalia came in […]Read more "The Nature of Judicial Power: Hon’ble Justice Antonin G. Scalia"
Two months ago, Judges 2-3-4-5 of the Indian Supreme Court wrote a long letter to the Chief Justice, complaining of assignment of Benches without any rational basis. Last Friday [*January 12, 2018*], The Judges called a Press Conference, irreversibly provoked by the Bench chosen by the Master of the Roster [The Chief Justice of India], to hear […]Read more "An Alleged Judicial Crisis on Swami Vivekananda’s 155"
The SC in Mohapatra, (2002) 8 SCC 1 had accorded primacy to the opinion of the Hon’ble Chief Justice in the consultative process for appointment of an Orissa Lokayukta. Justice Lokur in Chandrashekaraiah, (2013) 3 SCC 117 however confined the law laid down in Mohapatra to the facts of that case only. It was held that the views expressed […]Read more "Primacy of Views III: The Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013"
The SC in Justice Mohapatra, (2002) 8 SCC 1 had “accorded primacy to the opinion of the Hon’ble Chief Justice in the consultative process for appointment of Lokayukta”. We have been reminded so in Sachchidanand Gupta v. State of Uttar Pradesh, [Writ Petition (Civil) No. 872 of 2015], decided on 28.01.2016. Lokur Saab in Justice […]Read more "Primacy of Views II: Justice Mohapatra, (2002) 8 SCC 1"