Comments on: Mud http://www.criticaltwenties.in/lawthejudiciary/mud Powered by Webshore Wed, 02 Sep 2015 13:53:54 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Dimple http://www.criticaltwenties.in/lawthejudiciary/mud#comment-11084 Dimple Sat, 19 May 2012 20:16:29 +0000 http://www.criticaltwenties.in/?p=1867#comment-11084 Excellent post, Eesvan. Why do you not write here any more? Excellent post, Eesvan. Why do you not write here any more?

]]> By: Alok http://www.criticaltwenties.in/lawthejudiciary/mud#comment-2328 Alok Tue, 04 Jan 2011 09:56:36 +0000 http://www.criticaltwenties.in/?p=1867#comment-2328 As Arghya and me pointed out in our comments earlier, Justice Jain's understandable (if not justified) reaction was not just about criticism of the particular Bench hearing the matter but about undermining the Supreme Court as an institution by approaching another body when the Court was seized of the matter and the same was pending with the Court. Amnesty International's criticism of the Binayak Sen judgement stands on a different footing because the verdict is already out, and there is no bar on anyone commenting on the merits and demerits of the judgment of a Court. Naturally, an appeal will lie in accordance with law and that Court will decide the matter accordingly, but the criticizing the judgment of a Court stands on a complete different footing from approaching other authorities when the Court is seized of the matter. Apart from the fact that indicates little faith in India's highest judicial body (which has actually ensured some action against the culprits) it's also a great way of undermining one's own case. As Arghya and me pointed out in our comments earlier, Justice Jain’s understandable (if not justified) reaction was not just about criticism of the particular Bench hearing the matter but about undermining the Supreme Court as an institution by approaching another body when the Court was seized of the matter and the same was pending with the Court.

Amnesty International’s criticism of the Binayak Sen judgement stands on a different footing because the verdict is already out, and there is no bar on anyone commenting on the merits and demerits of the judgment of a Court. Naturally, an appeal will lie in accordance with law and that Court will decide the matter accordingly, but the criticizing the judgment of a Court stands on a complete different footing from approaching other authorities when the Court is seized of the matter.

Apart from the fact that indicates little faith in India’s highest judicial body (which has actually ensured some action against the culprits) it’s also a great way of undermining one’s own case.

]]>