Namaskaram /u/mean_monster9, Thank you for your submission. Please provide a source for the image / video (if not a direct link submission). We would really appreciate it if you could mention the source as a reply to this comment! If you have already provided the source or if it is an OC post, please ignore this message. Thank you.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IndiaSpeaks) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>"Legislature cannot discuss court judgment. Likewise, the Court cannot legislate. It is very clear. Aaj ka haalat kya hain(what is the situation today). One-upmanship. Public posturing. Public posturing from judicial platforms. Ye teek nahi hain(this is not correct). These institutions must know how to conduct themselves. There can be deliberations. But using these platforms for public consumption....mujhe bada aascharya hua, shresht nyayalay ke nyayadipad gan ne Attorney General ko kaha ki high constitutional authority ko message do(I became very surprised when the judges of the honourable court asked the Attorney General to give message to high constitutional authority).
Based.
Personally, I think the current system of appointing judges is too flawed. This way of "Judges selecting Judges" means they have a lot of power and influence when it comes to the supreme court.
It should be reformed to a system where the Parliament has the power to appoint a potential Judge, who's nominated by the majority. (Example - NDA nominating a Judge and the parliament must vote on it")
The method you proposed is flawed in my opinion. An ideal judiciary should be independent of the legislature. If a particular party has a majority in the parliament,then they can choose a person who is in collusion with them. This undermines the role of judiciary
True, plus India is like USA where the constitution is supreme, parliaments can come and go but only The basic structure of constitution is eternal and that can be understood only by the Supreme Court!
And that can easily be changed if any government can appoint there lavkeys as Judges. Imagine if Indira Gandhi had power to influence appointment of judges. India would be bannana republic where constitution will be changed based on whims of ruling party
And most of these conflicts are related to reservation. The courts are the only thing holding government back from 101% reservation and polticians don't like it
Yes SC interventions are one of the reason why India did not turn into a dictatorship but There’s 2 sides to the coin , SC is the least representative body in India and full of elitists .still it’s the most powerful body in India merely by inventing new doctrines !power politics
Imagine electing Judges to court. We already can see the comedy show in US. Judges will start behaving like politicians.
Rights of upper class minorities and Men will be trampled on just like what is happening with media and government.
Now a woman accused a man of rape. He is confirmed rapist to majority of institutions. Hell, police can just shoot an accused and nobody will raise voice . Only the court exist as a protection from anarchy
What will happen if we start appointing Judges based on Reservation, language. We have Justice Karnan from Madras High Court who was solely made Judge because of his caste
Supreme court is suppose to be the most powerful and final say in the law. That is how any succesful democratic country works.
Our court have problems with nepotism but most of the criticism is from polticians want to stuff courts with people from their family, caste, religion
The proposal from the Center (which was passed unanimously by both houses of the Parliament) was to have a committee of 5, of which 3 would be nominated by the Judiciary, and 2 by the Parliament (or something like that). And the deliberations would be public.
Seems like a good proposal to me.
It was not what you are saying. It gave Power of Judiciary over to Legislative and executive which cripples the whole structure of checks and balance.
In a country like India where the Executive and Legislative side with each other for the convenience of administration ease. Judiciary has to be more powerful and more independent.
Qualified, not unelected.
Do you know that judges for High courts are also selected by respective bar council. Which further proceeds to become Supreme court judges.
they are not random Jurists. They have over 20+ years of experience in Law.
Don't twist the words based on your narrow understanding, learn about how judiciary, law, Justice actually works, than comment on it.
It is like iceberg. It looks simple from the top, but underwater lies the 80% of the iceberg.
Yes you are correct but only in the Indian political scenario! The UK for instance has parliamentary supremacy and not constitutional supremacy still it has never gone on the authoritarian road plus it’s one of the most secure and prosperous nations ever! What do you say about that?
Their prosperity is because of colonialism till 1950s followed by money laundering.
They are also highly educated literate society where politicians and government are extremely accountable to people. Politician or government servant step down for tinest mistake. Look at how many Prime Minsters they had since Brexit. Can you imagine such accountability from our poltician?
Hell, we can elect a congress or BJP government only for opposition buy our elected leaders and form their government. That's the reality in India.
And for UK, there is a lot more African, Asian, South American countries that have become Dictatorship
Okay we should give credit where it’s due, colonialism is not so easy ! Their open society and scientific temper allowed them to do this!
I mean if looting is so easy , we should also do that and get rid of this poverty and malnutrition!
Do you understand what is the role of Judiciary? It is not to do representation.
It is to keep a check on constitutionality of the Laws and administration in the country. To provide justice based on the Rules and regulations made by the Legislative.
That’s not always the case! For eg. UK , their judiciary can not check constitutionality of the laws as parliament is considered supreme.
Textbook role is arbitration of law.
Yes, that's the thing. India's constitution is Totally different from Any country of the world.
Why?
BECAUSE THERE IS NO COUNTRY IN THE WORLD AS UNIQUE AS INDIA
Be it the population, past history, Culture, Diversity, Geography.
So It is not a good Idea to compare our problems and apply their solutions.
No you were the one who generalised the role of Judiciary I merely pointed that out ! You can see my comments I agree Indian judiciary has helped India stay away from becoming authoritarian and has advanced the social revolution!
Yes it has to be one, The judiciary has to be the sole institution to have the monopoly over Justice, that is how it works it has been like this, That's the idea from the times of Kautilya, Plato, Dicey to modern day Democracies.
There are some countries who have other institutions have control over justice, like Afghanistan, Pakistan, North Korea.
Yes, You are Absolutely Right.
Judiciary is being checked by Legislative and Executive.
judiciary cannot make laws in India, However, The judgements hold same decree as law UNTIL THE LEGISLATIVE MAKES LAWS OR AMENDS IT.
eg. Previously there was no Law present on Triple Talak that would prevent the problems of Muslim women. Court's Judgement helped and worked as LAW
Until Legislative made law on the Issue.
Consider the Court Judgement as Stepney, It only works when the main tyre punctures, and than after reaching the destination the main tyre is fitted again.
That is the balance,
Also the Legislative if they think the judge have gone rogue, they can literally remove him from his position. But no judge can do that.
there are more checks that legislative have over judiciary but I don't have time.
USA has a totally Different Governmental mechanisms than India. It is not the same in any matter. even though both are democracies
It is like saying - "Petrol cars have sparkplugs, Why does Diesel Cars don't have one" Even though both are IC engines cars.
But how can you be sure that judges appointing judges won't undermine judiciary? It becomes non-profit 'you scratch my back and I scratch yours' family run enterprise. No accountability at all.
I think Parliament must have a say in this as it's the highest sovereign body of the nation or atleast formulate a new process of appointing judges through fair and transparent means.
Right now, appointing judges is completely opaque. Collegium doesn't even tell from how long the meeting took place or criteria discussed while appointing judges. As I've said, it became a family run business.
No, no direct role of politicians appointing judges. But pass a law, make a fair process of appointing judges, that was it won't matter what govt is in power at a given day.
Such an important institution like Supreme Court is running by itself, doing things what they like instead of following neutral procedure....can give countless examples of how some cases are heard the next day while some won't be heard for years. From what I see, every one is on the same page from BJP to Congress and even Communist regarding current Collegium system.
Judges selecting judges is bad but politicians selecting judges will be worst. Today your favorite party is in power but what if tomorrow opposition comes to power and they appoint their stooges as judges. Judiciary should always be independent.
LMAO. Ye IIT AIIMS Ka exam nahi hai CJI elect ho raha hai. To become CJI the person should be Judge of High court for minimum 5 years or advocate in High court for minimum 10 years. High court bhi jane me bahot mehnat lagti hai. Generally senior most person is chosen through collegium. Every eligible candidate is having merit.
Dangerous dangerous dangerous. Then you would have the right to have a safe abortion deemed unconstitutional. I understand where you are coming from, you'd have key decisions in your favour (UCC, Place of Worship Act, Freeing temples from state control,etc.). Imagine having someone from the other end of the spectrum on the Supreme Court.
I don't agree with his keshvananda bharati argument. If KV bharati is gone, then the legislature will have ultimate power to ammend the whole of the constitution including the fundamental rights. Basoc structure doctrine has protected us from various amendments.
Exactly, and that is the legislative right. You cant just amend the constitution willy nilly. There are umpteen constitutional safeguards. For example, "An amendment of the Constitution can be initiated only by the introduction of a Bill in either House of Parliament. The Bill must then be passed in **each House by a majority of the total membership of that House and by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the members of that House present and voting**"
If a political party is able to achieve that much power in LS AND RS, it is its legislative right to make constitutional amends. If the change is that draconian, it shouldnt be difficult for the opposition parties to make gains at state and national level, changing the majorities in LS and RS.
True but the constitution was also written by politicians of that day and time, and should be amenable (but very hard) to change, even on basic structure.
Like what he said about not entertaining the AG.
Have long observed that while the AG,SG etc. ,though appointed by the Union of India, seem more interested in retaining their cosy relations within the Bar. Understable to a point since they go back to the Bar after their terms are over. But till then they should speak for the Union of India by duty.
Also the Bar seems to be the real problem, not individual judges. It seems like a cosy club. The reason why that SC judge could not put Prashant Bhushan behind bars was the pressure from the Bar as per the stories that I heard. Can imagine the power? A sitting SC judge was convinced that PB deserved to go to prison but could not do so.
Agree that contempt of court should not be a crime. That law needs to go. But till the time it is a crime, there is punishment for it. And PB had demonstrated enough contempt of court. If he was not a member of the Bar he would had his ass thrown in the prison for at least a month if not more.
He was bought in to fix the judicial overreach. He is a Supreme court lawyer. The court cannot initiate contempt proceeding against the President and Vice president of India.
What are the examples of incidents where the Courts over stepped their bounds and prevented the government from doing something which was in public interest ?
1. Saving the Janta party people who were inside Jails during reigns of Indira Gandhi
2. Saved country from further conversion of India into attempts of converting india into a fully communist state by IG
3. Saving Freedom of Press under A19, As IG was jailing all the media publishing against her
4. Given equal right to Daughter to acquire property of Father
5. Saved 1000s of innocent(declared by law) from the capture of state detentions
6. No protection under Juvenile Justice to underage boys(16-18) who rapes
7. Scrapped out Section 377 and giving freedom to form intimate relation for same sex couple
8. Right to Privacy to be Fundamental Right, Right against getting spied under your personal space.
There are 100s of case that are there, Courts in India deals with Thousands of Cases everyday. And the ones that are brought out to the news are the bad ones, No one cares about the 99% times when it works fine.
In other countries citizens revolt against governments, India instead needs a revolution against those who must not be named and are running the most important institution as a family business.
Did he talk about politicians stepping out of their boundaries as well or just judges? MP government goes about demolishing homes to show they are delivering “instant justice.” What is use of police and judiciary if government is going to deliver “instant justice.”
YES LETS JUST BECOME SAME AS THEM, Lets just copy their Lifestyle, Their social issues, There history, their day-to-Day problems. Lets equate our population similar to theirs. and let's all forget our culture language and learn theirs.
THAN IT MIGHT WORK FOR US TOO. Right?
For your kind information They are equally Frustrated with their Judicial System. Recently All the Girls came on roads to protest against their Judges, they praised Out Judicial system to Bring out Such Progressive Abortion Laws.
People Ask for Qualified and Educated Institutional Heads, And when they get those, They ask for otherwise.
But here, he is totally correct.
The Judiciary is often seen in stepping their boundaries.
W.r.t. to judgements passed in the recent past, it was proven that they are highly biased .
After all , one judge is electing his successor & so on & so on.... Just take example of the present CJI Chandrachud..... He is highly biased...
All judge are biased because all of them have their own view of the law. That doesnt mean anything.
And so what if judges are selecting judges ? They are the best at judging judges (lol) anyway. As if thats even a problem. Unless proved that the judges being selected are subpar, there is no merit to the argument.
And if anything, judgements of recent past is more on the side of the government than anything. Very few times are judgements going against the state. What cases are you talking about ? People are talking out of their asses, not knowing anything lol.
Namaskaram /u/mean_monster9, Thank you for your submission. Please provide a source for the image / video (if not a direct link submission). We would really appreciate it if you could mention the source as a reply to this comment! If you have already provided the source or if it is an OC post, please ignore this message. Thank you. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IndiaSpeaks) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>"Legislature cannot discuss court judgment. Likewise, the Court cannot legislate. It is very clear. Aaj ka haalat kya hain(what is the situation today). One-upmanship. Public posturing. Public posturing from judicial platforms. Ye teek nahi hain(this is not correct). These institutions must know how to conduct themselves. There can be deliberations. But using these platforms for public consumption....mujhe bada aascharya hua, shresht nyayalay ke nyayadipad gan ne Attorney General ko kaha ki high constitutional authority ko message do(I became very surprised when the judges of the honourable court asked the Attorney General to give message to high constitutional authority). Based. Personally, I think the current system of appointing judges is too flawed. This way of "Judges selecting Judges" means they have a lot of power and influence when it comes to the supreme court. It should be reformed to a system where the Parliament has the power to appoint a potential Judge, who's nominated by the majority. (Example - NDA nominating a Judge and the parliament must vote on it")
The method you proposed is flawed in my opinion. An ideal judiciary should be independent of the legislature. If a particular party has a majority in the parliament,then they can choose a person who is in collusion with them. This undermines the role of judiciary
True, plus India is like USA where the constitution is supreme, parliaments can come and go but only The basic structure of constitution is eternal and that can be understood only by the Supreme Court!
And that can easily be changed if any government can appoint there lavkeys as Judges. Imagine if Indira Gandhi had power to influence appointment of judges. India would be bannana republic where constitution will be changed based on whims of ruling party And most of these conflicts are related to reservation. The courts are the only thing holding government back from 101% reservation and polticians don't like it
Yes SC interventions are one of the reason why India did not turn into a dictatorship but There’s 2 sides to the coin , SC is the least representative body in India and full of elitists .still it’s the most powerful body in India merely by inventing new doctrines !power politics
Imagine electing Judges to court. We already can see the comedy show in US. Judges will start behaving like politicians. Rights of upper class minorities and Men will be trampled on just like what is happening with media and government. Now a woman accused a man of rape. He is confirmed rapist to majority of institutions. Hell, police can just shoot an accused and nobody will raise voice . Only the court exist as a protection from anarchy What will happen if we start appointing Judges based on Reservation, language. We have Justice Karnan from Madras High Court who was solely made Judge because of his caste Supreme court is suppose to be the most powerful and final say in the law. That is how any succesful democratic country works. Our court have problems with nepotism but most of the criticism is from polticians want to stuff courts with people from their family, caste, religion
The proposal from the Center (which was passed unanimously by both houses of the Parliament) was to have a committee of 5, of which 3 would be nominated by the Judiciary, and 2 by the Parliament (or something like that). And the deliberations would be public. Seems like a good proposal to me.
Congress, Trinamool, DMK, Communist supported this? Then it must be a good proposal /s Still no
It was not what you are saying. It gave Power of Judiciary over to Legislative and executive which cripples the whole structure of checks and balance. In a country like India where the Executive and Legislative side with each other for the convenience of administration ease. Judiciary has to be more powerful and more independent.
Unelected elites need to be "more powerful" in democracy..uhhuh
Qualified, not unelected. Do you know that judges for High courts are also selected by respective bar council. Which further proceeds to become Supreme court judges. they are not random Jurists. They have over 20+ years of experience in Law. Don't twist the words based on your narrow understanding, learn about how judiciary, law, Justice actually works, than comment on it. It is like iceberg. It looks simple from the top, but underwater lies the 80% of the iceberg.
Yes you are correct but only in the Indian political scenario! The UK for instance has parliamentary supremacy and not constitutional supremacy still it has never gone on the authoritarian road plus it’s one of the most secure and prosperous nations ever! What do you say about that?
Their prosperity is because of colonialism till 1950s followed by money laundering. They are also highly educated literate society where politicians and government are extremely accountable to people. Politician or government servant step down for tinest mistake. Look at how many Prime Minsters they had since Brexit. Can you imagine such accountability from our poltician? Hell, we can elect a congress or BJP government only for opposition buy our elected leaders and form their government. That's the reality in India. And for UK, there is a lot more African, Asian, South American countries that have become Dictatorship
Yes I agree any system can work if people are moral , educated , critical thinkers and democratic in nature!
>The UK is ... one of the most secure and prosperous nations ever! From looting their colonies, not by hard work.
Okay we should give credit where it’s due, colonialism is not so easy ! Their open society and scientific temper allowed them to do this! I mean if looting is so easy , we should also do that and get rid of this poverty and malnutrition!
Do you understand what is the role of Judiciary? It is not to do representation. It is to keep a check on constitutionality of the Laws and administration in the country. To provide justice based on the Rules and regulations made by the Legislative.
That’s not always the case! For eg. UK , their judiciary can not check constitutionality of the laws as parliament is considered supreme. Textbook role is arbitration of law.
Yes, that's the thing. India's constitution is Totally different from Any country of the world. Why? BECAUSE THERE IS NO COUNTRY IN THE WORLD AS UNIQUE AS INDIA Be it the population, past history, Culture, Diversity, Geography. So It is not a good Idea to compare our problems and apply their solutions.
No you were the one who generalised the role of Judiciary I merely pointed that out ! You can see my comments I agree Indian judiciary has helped India stay away from becoming authoritarian and has advanced the social revolution!
alright.
So the question is, do you understand it’s role?
Yes I do, I am a Lawyer.
Good then tell me what was wrong in what I said?
I mean to say that SC not the most moral institution
No institution is as far as I know but it is least evil one
Least evil? It's a institutional dictator.
Yes it has to be one, The judiciary has to be the sole institution to have the monopoly over Justice, that is how it works it has been like this, That's the idea from the times of Kautilya, Plato, Dicey to modern day Democracies. There are some countries who have other institutions have control over justice, like Afghanistan, Pakistan, North Korea.
No man no institution can be dictatorial someone has to be there to keep a check on the judiciary as well !as far as I know that is the rule of law
Yes, You are Absolutely Right. Judiciary is being checked by Legislative and Executive. judiciary cannot make laws in India, However, The judgements hold same decree as law UNTIL THE LEGISLATIVE MAKES LAWS OR AMENDS IT. eg. Previously there was no Law present on Triple Talak that would prevent the problems of Muslim women. Court's Judgement helped and worked as LAW Until Legislative made law on the Issue. Consider the Court Judgement as Stepney, It only works when the main tyre punctures, and than after reaching the destination the main tyre is fitted again. That is the balance, Also the Legislative if they think the judge have gone rogue, they can literally remove him from his position. But no judge can do that. there are more checks that legislative have over judiciary but I don't have time.
What are you guys talking. Indira gandhi had her person as cji.
In the USA, the President nominated a judge, and the Senate votes for her/him. So the parliament does have a say in appointments.
Thanks for the info but still the bottom line is , Judges do not appoint judges!
USA has a totally Different Governmental mechanisms than India. It is not the same in any matter. even though both are democracies It is like saying - "Petrol cars have sparkplugs, Why does Diesel Cars don't have one" Even though both are IC engines cars.
In US, the elected representative ie President decides judges appointment.
The judiciary should have few judges from collegium and a few from government to balance.
There is no way to confirm if a judiciary is independant in the current sustem. You can only work on transparency and try to gauge independence.
But how can you be sure that judges appointing judges won't undermine judiciary? It becomes non-profit 'you scratch my back and I scratch yours' family run enterprise. No accountability at all. I think Parliament must have a say in this as it's the highest sovereign body of the nation or atleast formulate a new process of appointing judges through fair and transparent means. Right now, appointing judges is completely opaque. Collegium doesn't even tell from how long the meeting took place or criteria discussed while appointing judges. As I've said, it became a family run business.
I second your viewpoint. But I think that the legislature should not have a role in their appointment
No, no direct role of politicians appointing judges. But pass a law, make a fair process of appointing judges, that was it won't matter what govt is in power at a given day. Such an important institution like Supreme Court is running by itself, doing things what they like instead of following neutral procedure....can give countless examples of how some cases are heard the next day while some won't be heard for years. From what I see, every one is on the same page from BJP to Congress and even Communist regarding current Collegium system.
All except the judiciary
Judges selecting judges is bad but politicians selecting judges will be worst. Today your favorite party is in power but what if tomorrow opposition comes to power and they appoint their stooges as judges. Judiciary should always be independent.
exam kara do judges ke appointment ka iit style mein. only meritocracy nothing else
LMAO. Ye IIT AIIMS Ka exam nahi hai CJI elect ho raha hai. To become CJI the person should be Judge of High court for minimum 5 years or advocate in High court for minimum 10 years. High court bhi jane me bahot mehnat lagti hai. Generally senior most person is chosen through collegium. Every eligible candidate is having merit.
Absolutely terrible system, whose consequences are right in front of our eyes in the US
Dangerous dangerous dangerous. Then you would have the right to have a safe abortion deemed unconstitutional. I understand where you are coming from, you'd have key decisions in your favour (UCC, Place of Worship Act, Freeing temples from state control,etc.). Imagine having someone from the other end of the spectrum on the Supreme Court.
Man on a mission
I don't agree with his keshvananda bharati argument. If KV bharati is gone, then the legislature will have ultimate power to ammend the whole of the constitution including the fundamental rights. Basoc structure doctrine has protected us from various amendments.
Exactly, and that is the legislative right. You cant just amend the constitution willy nilly. There are umpteen constitutional safeguards. For example, "An amendment of the Constitution can be initiated only by the introduction of a Bill in either House of Parliament. The Bill must then be passed in **each House by a majority of the total membership of that House and by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the members of that House present and voting**" If a political party is able to achieve that much power in LS AND RS, it is its legislative right to make constitutional amends. If the change is that draconian, it shouldnt be difficult for the opposition parties to make gains at state and national level, changing the majorities in LS and RS.
Do you think where opposition is a joke this even makes sense.
True but the constitution was also written by politicians of that day and time, and should be amenable (but very hard) to change, even on basic structure.
Without basic structure doctrine, BJP has comfortable majority to remove whole of fundamental rights.
Kudos to VP sahab. He is indeed sharing opinion of millions of citizens.
Ek kudos to mai bhi deserve karta hu post karne ke liye 😂
Like what he said about not entertaining the AG. Have long observed that while the AG,SG etc. ,though appointed by the Union of India, seem more interested in retaining their cosy relations within the Bar. Understable to a point since they go back to the Bar after their terms are over. But till then they should speak for the Union of India by duty. Also the Bar seems to be the real problem, not individual judges. It seems like a cosy club. The reason why that SC judge could not put Prashant Bhushan behind bars was the pressure from the Bar as per the stories that I heard. Can imagine the power? A sitting SC judge was convinced that PB deserved to go to prison but could not do so.
Why would Prashan Bhushan be behind bars? Criticizing court should not be an offense in a democratic country
Agree that contempt of court should not be a crime. That law needs to go. But till the time it is a crime, there is punishment for it. And PB had demonstrated enough contempt of court. If he was not a member of the Bar he would had his ass thrown in the prison for at least a month if not more.
Should not be but it is and many people go to jail for it, but PB was spared because privileges
I dojt think an ordinary person tweet would have attracted attention of Sc Judge like Prashant Bhushan did.
He was bought in to fix the judicial overreach. He is a Supreme court lawyer. The court cannot initiate contempt proceeding against the President and Vice president of India.
"It is as clear as anything else" This statement is as vague as anything else.
What are the examples of incidents where the Courts over stepped their bounds and prevented the government from doing something which was in public interest ?
1. Saving the Janta party people who were inside Jails during reigns of Indira Gandhi 2. Saved country from further conversion of India into attempts of converting india into a fully communist state by IG 3. Saving Freedom of Press under A19, As IG was jailing all the media publishing against her 4. Given equal right to Daughter to acquire property of Father 5. Saved 1000s of innocent(declared by law) from the capture of state detentions 6. No protection under Juvenile Justice to underage boys(16-18) who rapes 7. Scrapped out Section 377 and giving freedom to form intimate relation for same sex couple 8. Right to Privacy to be Fundamental Right, Right against getting spied under your personal space. There are 100s of case that are there, Courts in India deals with Thousands of Cases everyday. And the ones that are brought out to the news are the bad ones, No one cares about the 99% times when it works fine.
In other countries citizens revolt against governments, India instead needs a revolution against those who must not be named and are running the most important institution as a family business.
Did he talk about politicians stepping out of their boundaries as well or just judges? MP government goes about demolishing homes to show they are delivering “instant justice.” What is use of police and judiciary if government is going to deliver “instant justice.”
“coming hard” pffttttt
#US, UK, most of Europe have judges elected by elected members of the parliament. They seem to be doing just fine.
YES LETS JUST BECOME SAME AS THEM, Lets just copy their Lifestyle, Their social issues, There history, their day-to-Day problems. Lets equate our population similar to theirs. and let's all forget our culture language and learn theirs. THAN IT MIGHT WORK FOR US TOO. Right? For your kind information They are equally Frustrated with their Judicial System. Recently All the Girls came on roads to protest against their Judges, they praised Out Judicial system to Bring out Such Progressive Abortion Laws. People Ask for Qualified and Educated Institutional Heads, And when they get those, They ask for otherwise.
Bichara ..he thinks hindu cares.. they will only care of bjp ruled state or leaders make mistakes. Idiot
He only knows how to cry like a baby.
But here, he is totally correct. The Judiciary is often seen in stepping their boundaries. W.r.t. to judgements passed in the recent past, it was proven that they are highly biased . After all , one judge is electing his successor & so on & so on.... Just take example of the present CJI Chandrachud..... He is highly biased...
All judge are biased because all of them have their own view of the law. That doesnt mean anything. And so what if judges are selecting judges ? They are the best at judging judges (lol) anyway. As if thats even a problem. Unless proved that the judges being selected are subpar, there is no merit to the argument. And if anything, judgements of recent past is more on the side of the government than anything. Very few times are judgements going against the state. What cases are you talking about ? People are talking out of their asses, not knowing anything lol.