You must Sign In to post a response.
  • Category: Miscellaneous

    Can we have our independent stand on the Indian judiciary & still remained within law & democratic?

    The Supreme Court of India & the Constitution of India remains the supreme bodies in India who remains the final authorities in terms of decision making & is than within law & at the same time remain democratic.

    What if I disagree with certain specific decisions of the Supreme Court of India or disagree with law created or amended by the Constitution of India through Parliamentarian ways? There have been numerous ways wherein both have played with the sentiments of the majoritarian community. In one of its instance the SC of India has delayed the hearing of Ram temple till Jan'19 but without any date & therefore this might get delayed thereafter too. My question is that if I raise an objection or ask a question in context to this decision than should I be referred to as unconstitutional or unlawful?
  • #652561
    No. Every one has his or her opinion on any matter so is yours. Regarding decision of Ram Mandir SC is delaying it because they also are afraid that their decision may cause riots in the nation as this case is very much related to religion and ultimately the emotions of the people. It's good that that are taking time and keeping it pending for our sake.

    Supreme court decisions are not done by people but the jury of people who work on the facts and evidences. They don't take decisions overnight they do the homework regarding any case and then finalise the judgement.

    It's not unlawful if you are not happy with the judgement of SC as there is always a chance that few percentage of people will not accept the judgement and its very normal but you can't do anything for it.

    Sanjeev

    " It is better to be hated for what you are than to be loved for what you are not" ... Andre Gide

  • #652563
    "Regarding decision of Ram Mandir SC is delaying it because they also are afraid that their decision may cause riots in the nation as this case is very much related to religion and ultimately the emotions of the people."--------If this is the case, then why did Hon'ble Supreme Court intervene in Sabarimala case? Isn't the decision creating unrest?
    Beware! I question everything and everybody.

  • #652568
    This Ram mandir verdict is very old case, If our SC will not give verdict for another 20 years. What will BJP will do keep waiting. Truth is they wanted to delay this as much as possible because if Ram Mandir issue sorted out, there will be no agenda for election for BJP in India. Thats why they made Ram mandir election a Issue from 1990s.

  • #652573
    Supreme court of India is final Interpreter cum Guardian of Constitution, final arbitrator of disputes and court of record within the nation. Supreme court has to keep in its view collective conscience of people, Justice and circumstantial evidence. Supreme court may at times have to decide against the entire population. Parliament on the other hand is for collective will of people. Supreme decides what is right which is very different from the what is on the ground. Also supreme court has to evolve as an Institution. In accordance people can criticize Judicial verdicts constructively. In this very case the verdict is bound to impact the voting of 5 Assembly elections and possibly General elections. Electoral democracy must be for Governance and not for dispute settlement between two communities. Supreme court will consider this circumstance also into its process. Supreme court has clearly said possibility of riots is not the consideration while verdicts.

  • #652574
    @652563 Partha Sabarimala case is less known whereas Ram Mandir case is well known case all over India. Also Ram Mandir case is related to the two religions of India and is very sensitive.
    Sanjeev

    " It is better to be hated for what you are than to be loved for what you are not" ... Andre Gide

  • #652575
    So, according to you, if the tradition followed in a lesser-known temple (although many people won't agree), that tradition can be changed.

    Further, who says Ram Mandir case is related to two religions? Then why Shia Muslims are supporting the construction of a temple at this site?

    Only this much can be stated that the stand of the Supreme Court is not uniform. Further, the Supreme Court examines the issues from the legal point of view, and not from the emotional point of view.

    Beware! I question everything and everybody.

  • #652582
    Supreme Court is an institution which has to provide justice. It has to study the cases with a legal point of view and come out with a reasonable decision so that a justice prevails. It may create emotions or it may create riots but truth is truth. In all the cases courts should work like that only. In one way or other Supreme Court should decide on this Ayodhya case also, I feel.
    drrao
    always confident

  • #652583
    I don't get it that if the courts & judges in India are above belief system & are working on proofs & facts than why so hesitation in going ahead on the basis of the same.

    By the way anyone who are in support of delaying this would be creating more unrestful environment within the country which is more unpredictable & more unexpected to its outcome then who would be responsible for all this.

  • #652854
    @652575 Partha, Shia Muslims are agreeing for Ram Mandir doesn't affect as they are a minority. But Sunnis are still opposing it so it's a battle of two religions and their beliefs.

    Moreover, we can't go beyond SC orders as they are the supremo and might have taken the decisions after considering everything and we are no one to challenge it.

    Sanjeev

    " It is better to be hated for what you are than to be loved for what you are not" ... Andre Gide

  • #652861
    #652854 / Sanjeev Gupta, agrees when you says that, "we can't go beyond SC orders as they are the supremo" but than why so biased towards a one religion or belief system. Have you ever have noticed of such delays or interference in the other religion or beliefs as well?

  • #652876
    A well conceived thread by the author. It is very true that constitution and judiciary are the supreme but there are many instances when amendment to the constitution were done and judiciary started to follow them in taking the forthcoming decisions. So judiciary generally follow the path shown by constitution and directive principles.

    Many times due to public unrest and agitations especially in religious matters, the judiciary also faces difficulty in taking a decision as there are confusing evidences coming to it. In such cases they do not have any other means with them then to linger the case for more evidences and facts for knowing the truth.

    Judiciary can not give hephazard and hasty decisions as they are supposed be the supreme apex body to bring out a resolution to every legal problem.

    Knowledge is power.

  • #652884
    For any matter there can be different viewpoints. A court is seeing and expereiencingthis every day in each case. The two sides will present their version and explanation of the case. They may present practices, tradition, established law and quote about natural justice. The learned judge(s)will then come to their conclusion within the boundaries of their authority and sanction as per law ,as per constitutional intent and as per natural justice.

    As the cases are heard and decided by humans, there can be even errors occurring. The law itself has provided certain remedies.
    One of them is review petition. In some cases there is power of clemency by the sovereign also.

    Once a case is decide those who read or hear about it will naturally have different opinion about the outcome. But such discussions should be within the ambit of academic discussions and to rectify if any error has occurred at all. They can dissect the law provisions quoted in the verdict and explain their own versions and guide the parties concerned (or government) if there is any chance for appeal or review.
    While discussing the case,the persons should not cast aspersions on the integrity of the judges or cause any personal accusations on the judges who decided the case. They can also discuss about legislatures(parliament) making suitable laws in case the judgements stand in contradiction to some reality and practicality,

  • #652885
    #652871 Vedprakash no I have not seen so much delays for any such case. But this is because of the case being highlighted that it has become a fight for pride and SC knows it once they give the judgement in anyone's favour riots will occur. That's why they are delaying the judgement.
    Sanjeev

    " It is better to be hated for what you are than to be loved for what you are not" ... Andre Gide

  • #652953
    We could have our opinion about any verdict. Not all verdict may on our side. but we cannot go against the law passed by supreme court of India. If that occurs then there is no democracy. Our legislature is above the court if they require to make changes to existing law they could. But we should not do any action against law, but we are free to cast our opinion on the issue.

  • #652954
    There is a simple philosophy in the practical life that if justice got delayed then simply the justice got denied. We believe that that there is injustice being going on against a particular faith & community which is not good & we need answer for sure & the same at the earliest.

  • #652975
    The country is guided by a constitution and the Supreme Court delivers the judgement adhering to the constitutional provisions only. Every individual is entitled to express her/his views and that is what democracy is all about. If somebody is not happy with the judgement he cannot take law into his own hands. He can file a review petition to relook into the judgement.

    In India there are different faiths and religions and laws are created keeping in mind all these aspects of the society. Laws are not created keeping in mind about an individual but for the entire population of the country, hence you can always question it if it doesn't please you. For example, the top court issued certain guidelines regarding bursting of firecrackers and many people never bothered to follow it. Now if people are arrested for violating any rules then of course legal proceedings must be initiated against them.

    Now, if you raise any objection or ask a question regarding the delaying of the Ram Temple verdict, then nobody will refer you as unlawful or unconstitutional because as long as you are not engaging yourself to carry out disharmony among people or hut others in any way there is no provision to initiate legal proceedings against you.

    Sankalan

    "Life is easier when you enjoy what you do"

  • #652984
    #652954 Ved it not like that. Sometimes judgements are delayed for some benefits of all.

    Secondly, I have a question about what is going to happen if Ram Mandir is not constructed in Ayodhya?. Will, it has any effect on you?. At least I won't get affected.

    Sanjeev

    " It is better to be hated for what you are than to be loved for what you are not" ... Andre Gide

  • #652989
    Perhaps for Sabarimala temple issue the bench of judiciary is again reviewing the original decision taken by the court itself. We are really a democracy & following the constitution properly without any differences of religion, faith & community.


  • Sign In to post your comments