प्रजा अधीन राजा समूह | Right to Recall Group

अधिकार जैसे कि आम जन द्वारा भ्रष्ट को बदलने/सज़ा देने के अधिकार पर चर्चा करने के लिए मंच
It is currently Fri Oct 19, 2018 4:03 am

All times are UTC + 5:30 hours


फोरम के नियम ; Forum rules


ये फोरम केवल कमेन्ट करने के लिए है ; यहाँ आप नया थ्रेड शुरू नहीं कर सकते | कृपया कमेन्ट करने से पहले फोरम के सारे नियम यहाँ पढ़ें - viewtopic.php?f=19&t=1098

This is a comment only forum. You cannot start a new thread here. Please read the rules of the forum before posting - viewtopic.php?f=19&t=1098



Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 19 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
SR. No. Author Message
1
PostPosted: Sun Jul 17, 2011 7:47 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 2:49 pm
Posts: 596
1)“I think the entire English Jurisprudence system is flawed and many countries that have used it as a base are suffering from the same.”

---
Who told you that we follow British System? UK has JurySys, we have none. We hd, but Nehry/SCjs killed it. And does UK have SCjs? If yes, how are they appointed?

We are SUFFERING becuz we did NOT follow British system.
-----
Quote:
I don`t know why we need lawyers at all.
-----
Well, Relaince has 100s of cases all over country. You cant expect Anilbhai to appear in every case in every court, right? So he needs a rep. Thats how lawyers become useful.

Lawyers are NOT problems. The judges are problem. The judges entertain ONLY those lawyers who will pay them bribes. Replace judges by Jurors and lawyes will cease to be a nuisance.
JurySys is far far better idea than panel of judges. The Juries are cheap ... dont have ambition of promotion ... dont care about what HCjs would think ... and above all, NO CRIMINAL can form nexuses with 1000s and lakhs of Jurors.
The judges interpret the laws to benefit the criminals who has paid bribe via lawyer. Look when accused is poor and evidences are concrete ... judgements come in WEEKS. Not years, not months, but weeks.
The Jury System is FASTER than judge system as each Jury has only one case and so same case goes from 10am to 5 pm and so judgments come within 4-5 days. In US, most Jury cases end within 1-2 weeks after 1st hearing.
----
2)Quote:
1. The theory of mass injustice against jurors would trigger civil war may be true;

2. ... why should some completely unrelated person pay the price and get dragged into a power struggle because of jury system? If this is the cost/sacrifice people need to make to put the system in place, lets call it that way or lets find a solution for it.

3. however, I am not sure how this can be applied in Indian context as the problems India faces are unique (especially deep TOT between police/neta/criminal nexus) and needs unique solutions.

4.. you can not simply do that by law/force...as they say you can lead a horse to water; but, you cannot make them drink.

----
1. This far fetched. Civil war happens when one community is against another. The judge sys or JurySys has nothing to do with this.

2. The citizens pay the price of the crimes anyway. The JurySys reduces the price citizens will pay compared to the judge sys. As in judge system, big criminals have nexuses with judges relatives and so they always get away.

3. The hafta culture has spread ONLY because we commons dont have Recall/Jury. No pain, no law. The neta, policemen, judges etc see that pain in breaking the law by taking hafta is almost zero, and so they take hafta everyday. Recall/Jury and other laws I have proposed (such as "Trial By Majority with Prior Consent of Accused") create methods by which citizens can inflict pain on neta, policemen, judges who have taken bribes and thus reduce bribes.
4.Citizens have a natural Hatred against criminals, corrupt and tax-evaders. This Hatred against criminals, corrupt and tax-evaders is what makes the Jurors active in the case. Every Juror knows that if criminals gets away, the number of crimes will rise and he or his family member can be next victim. And so every Juror does want criminals behind bars and at the same time wants innocents stay unharmed. So till date, in almost all Juries since 1000 AD, Jurors have shown very minimal tendency to escape Jury Duty - far less that efforts people make to dodge Military drafts or witness summons. IOW, if horse is thirsty, and taken to water, he will drink. So given that Jurors have Hatred against criminals, corrupt and tax-evaders, the Jurors do serve their Jury Duty.



In US and everywhere, elitemen hate JurySys and prefer judge sys as it is possible to buy out a few 100s judges at top and force junior judges via the corrupt senior judges. So elitemen in US for past 200 years have been running campaign to uproot JurySys. They systematically sponsor intellectuals in academia and media to to malign the JurySys. And judges too have been doing same for 200 years.
3)As Jurors Turn to Web, Mistrials Are Popping Up

Last week, a juror in a big federal drug trial in Florida admitted to the judge that he had been doing research on the case on the Internet, directly violating the judge’s instructions and centuries of legal rules. But when the judge questioned the rest of the jury, he got an even bigger shock.

Eight other jurors had been doing the same thing. The federal judge, William J. Zloch, had no choice but to declare a mistrial, a waste of eight weeks of work by federal prosecutors and defense lawyers.


Dont judges read newspaper? Or browse on net? They are cunning enough to lie and say so that they never got information from other sources, where as Jurors were not that cunning and admitted that they often browsed on the case. Internet is public domain. If the Jurors are doing research from public domain sources, that only makes them more informed about the matter and the problem. On one hand, judges complain that Jurors are lazy and merely yawn when case is going on. And now they complain other way.
Quote:
It might be called a Google mistrial. The use of BlackBerrys and iPhones by jurors gathering and sending out information about cases is wreaking havoc on trials around the country, upending deliberations and infuriating judges.


The judges in India have done much worse. eg a judge named as Shamit Mukherjee of Delhi HC (who was later suspended) used to ask lawyers to type the judgments they wanted !! So there is nothing wrong if Jurors use wikipedia to get information.

---
Quote:
And on Monday, defense lawyers in the federal corruption trial of a former Pennsylvania state senator, Vincent J. Fumo, demanded before the verdict that the judge declare a mistrial because a juror posted updates on the case on Twitter and Facebook. The juror had even told his readers that a “big announcement” was coming on Monday. But the judge decided to let the deliberations continue, and the jury found Mr. Fumo guilty. His lawyers plan to use the Internet postings as grounds for appeal. Jurors are not supposed to seek information outside of the courtroom. They are required to reach a verdict based on only the facts the judge has decided are admissible, and they are not supposed to see evidence that has been excluded as prejudicial. But now, using their cellphones, they can look up the name of a defendant on the Web or examine an intersection using Google Maps, violating the legal system’s complex rules of evidence. They can also tell their friends what is happening in the jury room, though they are supposed to keep their opinions and deliberations secret.


The Jurors and judges both are supposed to confine to information obtained during trial. Both get information from outside sources whenever they please and want. And they are not supposed to announce the judgment before due date. And they do whenever they please and want. In case of Jurors, the number is large and so this fact has become public. In case of judges, they have just covered up this fact and then spread a lie other way.

---
Quote:
Judges have long amended their habitual warning about seeking outside information during trials to include Internet searches. But with the Internet now as close as a juror’s pocket, the risk has grown more immediate — and instinctual. Attorneys have begun to check the blogs and Web sites of prospective jurors.


Just as internet is making whole society more informed, it is also making Jurors more informed. And surely, judges and elitemen hate that.

----

Now if communication creates an issue, the solution is trivial --- increase number of Jurors. Which is exactly one feature of the solution I have proposed. As the case becomes more important, the number of Jurors and number of Juries who will hear this case will increase. That way, communication may happen but corruption wont as chances of bribing out majority decreases with increase in number of Jurors.
4)http://www.gujaratsamachar.com/gsa/20070423/guj/gujarat/news1_01.html

Hon'ble Retd Justice Shethana says that over 50% judges are corrupt
-----
Over 90% commons believe that over 95% judges are corrupt.

--

Surely, you next question will be "Do we commons have proof that 95% judges are corrupt"?

I will answer this question. But pls answer following question

1)In your opinion, what % of traffic policemen are corrupt in India
2)Can you provide me proofs than even 5% of traffic policemen are corrupt?

After that we will get on the proofs that 95% judges are corrupt.
In India, judges ONLY imprison poor random criminals and seldom imprison career criminals, as career criminals have judges' relative lawyers on their payroll. So convuction rate in India 6%, but the conviction rate amongst career criminals is less than 0.1%.
------
The problem goes on and on as people support the leaders who do NOT want to solve these problems. The concern of citizens that they want to solve these problems is real. But their voting is hopelessly misguided.
Take 50 large countries of the world. JurySys has been in 10-14 countries for decades and centuries. All these countries have reasonably low corruption fast courts. And judge sys has been in remaining 40 countries have been having judge sys, and it has failed EVERYWHERE except 3-4 countries which were heavily aided by US in many ways (South Korea, Taiwan, Israel). Even Japan, which otherwise has least corruption, has come to conclusion that courts cant be fixed without JurySys. Which is why Japanese Parliament enacted a law in 2005, which makes JurySys legal effective 2009.

---

So JurySys succeeded EVERYWHERE where it went.

judge-sys failed almost everywhere it went.
5)As per bribing, I think you have re-missed the point. In JurySys, you are not replacing judge by 12 Jurors, but replacing him by 50000 Jurors. How? One judge will judge say 200 cases per year or 5000 cases in his 25-35 years of career. In JurySys, this judgments will be given NOT by 12, but 5000*12 = 60000 Jurors. As, when a person serves in Jury, he cannot come to Jury for next several years.

---

And consider a career criminal and his gang of 20-50 criminals who commit say 500-1000 crimes year (extortion, hafta vasuli, beatings), of which say 100-200 a year go to court. Then in judge system, he need to bribe just 5-10 judges in 4 years, whereas in JurySys he will need to bribe 5000-10000 Jurors.


Top
 Profile  
 
2
PostPosted: Sun Jul 17, 2011 8:46 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 2:49 pm
Posts: 596
6)again and again your calculation takes into consideration only two or three contestants. Imagine there are 100 contestants. Really possible when there is a system that works for the benefit of the public.
----
Now lets say there are indeed 200 candidates.

Now expulsion/replacement will happen AFTER one DEO candidate gets approval of at least 110,000 voters. So where is instability in the procedure?

And say a candidate gets 110,000 approvals. How can a candidate get 110,000 votes or even 10000 votes using jaan-pehchaan or nepotism as you claim? If a person is getting Approval from 110,000 it is clear that over 90% of them are NOT from jaan pehchaan or nepotism, but via impersonal means, whatever they may be.
And next, you support procedure where-in 3 SCjs appoint 10-20 HCjs, and assume that such procedure is immune to nepotism !!

You find flaws in character of Savitri and then praise some CSW !!

7)
The specific statement that "JurySys is unimplementable in India in 2007" falls flat as US implemented JurySys in 1750s when education was not even 10%, the means of communications was sending messengers on horses, and carbon paper was also a luxury. India has far more literacy than US of 1750s and means of communication, tracking people etc.
The SCjs abolished JurySys as JurySys reduces bribe money judges get. Also, the judges in 1950s were almost all UC, and hated to see dalits et al in Juries. The JurySys would have resulted into a massive defeat of landlords who were dear to SCjs and most MPs. So MPs, Nehru and SCjs etc dismantled JurySys. And lawyers did not resist as they were scared that judges would ruin their career.

Why should we bother what corrupt nepotic SCjs think about JurySys?
---
Dominica: in india a jury system will not work considering our caste regional and gender and religious biases.

We are merely comparing JurySys with judge-sys.

Lets not compare Juries with Gods and judges with Gods either.

Jurors are castist --- judges are also castists

Equal-equal.

So issue of castism is non-issue in judge vs Jury debate.

--

And judges are NOT secular. They act like secular, as they get bribes from Saud, and MNCs (who since 1980s are on side of Vatican).

--
conviction rate may not be good statistics.

In India, conviction rate amongst poor is high as they dont have money to bribe judges, IPS, govt lawyers. And conviction fetches promotion to IPS, govt lawyers and judges.

Thats why criminals like Manu Sharma (who killed Jessica Lall) get away.

The trial judge gets negative points if the conviction is later overturned by HCjs. So if trial judge thinks accused is rich enuf that he can buy HCj, he will never convict him. But of criminal is poor, the trial judge convicts him ASAP.

----

8)Intellectuals are agents of elitemen, and so are anti-Jury.

which is why these intellectuals in India or even in US, never ever talk about rampant nepotism and corruption in judges from SCjs to Magistrates.

There is no point in listening to these intellectuals aka elitemen-agents.
----
In US the judges have power to filter out Jurors. In good old days, when Jury of 12 is needed, 16-20 people will be chosen at random, and of then 2-3 wont show up (dead, have left district, have already appeared in Jury Trial, related to lawyers, victims, accused etc). And then each party excludes 2-3.

These days, for a Jury of 12, judges summon as many as 100 to 200 people, and exclude as many 75% of them by calling them "biased". This increases the powers of judges --- the chances they can get the judgment they want increases. In the name of removing bias, the judges are adding their economic interests in the trials.

----

In my proposal, to select 12 Jurors, 20 citizens will be chosen at random from district of 200,000 to 500,000 and 12 will be chosen at random from those who show up. The only criteria for expulsion will be relation with someone involved in trial or physical handicap etc. No party will have ANY discretion to expel anyone.

This is reflect a pure unbiased sample from society.

-----
One major advantage of JurySys is that ambition of get promotion plays no role. The judges often give defunct judgments so that elitemen would promote them to higher seats by using their influence on senior judges, neta etc. The Jurors dont have any promotion related attractions.

Another issue is -- sex. Many judges, like judge Sumit Mukherjee of Delhi HCj, used to give judgment favorable to a land mafia as that mafia was providing him steady supply of attractive women. judge Mukherjee also had affair with many attractive female lawyers and used to give the, favorable judgments. With Jurors, such arrangement is far far more difficult.
The people find trivial flaws in JurySys, and then go ahead and embrace judge-sys which is hell hole of flaws. One of 1000 Juries perhaps when corrupt, whereas corruption and nepotism in judge-sys is institutionalized and systemic. one of 1000 Juries get swayed by emotions, where as giving judgment for monetary favor is systemic in judges.

One finds flaws in character of a Savitri, and then accept a CSW.

Ghor Kalyug ... Ghor Kalyug
9)
From pioneer. Sorry, no link

----

With the Constitution spelling out no age criteria for appointing high court judges, a controversy is brewing over the induction of kith and kin of judges even before they achieve the threshold age of 45, fixed by a Supreme Court judgement.

Within a span of six years (January 2001-July 2007), the Government has made an exception to the rule of appointing judges at the minimum prescribed age of 45 in the case of 21 judges.

This information forms part of a response by the Ministry of Law and Justice to an application filed under the Right to Information (RTI) Act.

While the information obtained under RTI revealed the names of the judges along with the age when they got appointed, it was silent on the reason for effecting such hasty appointments.

The reply states, "the Members of the Bar over 40 years and less than 45 years of age may also be recommended for appointment as judges of high courts only if they possess outstanding merit." It fails to specify what constitutes the outstanding merit.

There is some explanation provided on learning that out of the list of 21 names, five are relatives of serving or retired judges. These include Justice Sanjib Bannerjee (son of former Supreme Court judge UC Bannerjee), Justice SC Dharmadhikari (nephew of former SC judge DM Dharmadhikari), Hemant Gupta (son of former Punjab and Haryana High Court judge Jatinder Veer Gupta), Justice Dipankar Dutta (son of former Calcutta High Court judge Salil Kumar Dutta). Besides a lady judge, Justice Indira Bannerjee is the niece of late Justice Padma Khastigir of Calcutta High Court. The Government's reply is, however, silent on some names where information is made "not available". One among the four names that figure in this category includes Justice Pradeep Nandrajog of the Delhi High Court whose father was a Delhi High Court judge.
While the Constitution states that a person having 10 years of experience as an advocate could be one of the criteria to consider appointment of judges to high courts, it is, however, silent on the age bar. Interestingly, two months back, the Government filed a reply in response to a separate RTI petition where the age criteria was fixed at 45 and above along with the condition that his/her annual income should exceed Rs three lakh for three years preceding the appointment.

The applicant, Dev Ashish Bhattacharya, also sought information from the Government on the quota of admitting judges from the lower judiciary in the various high courts. Shockingly, the Government disclosed there is no such quota that is fixed by law. Such an arrangement proceeds on a resolution passed in a Conference of Chief Ministers and Chief Justices in 1993, later affirmed by a Supreme Court order on April 29, 2002. The order suggested that in the normal practice, two-thirds of vacancies must be filled by the Bar and remaining from the judicial services.

Due to this reason, judges from judicial services are appointed high court judges when they are nearing their retirement, which is 62 years. There are others whose case is put on fast track provided they resign from service and join the Bar by serving a Government panel or head a particular Commission or tribunal.

--- END OF PIONEER ARTICLE----

10)
http://www.ndtv.com/convergence/ndtv/st ... 07:00%20PM

Sept 21, 2007

Four journalists of Mid-day were on Friday sentenced by the High Court for writing and publishing articles against former Chief Justice of India Y K Sabharwal.

The sentenced scribes meanwhile asserted, that the articles were solely in public interest.

''For the past 20 yrs, I have been making cartoons on corruption and whenever there is a stink of corruption against a person irrespective of his past, I always make a cartoon.

''Right now, it is 4 months. Even if it is 40 yrs, these cartoons will continue to be made,'' said Irfan Khan, Cartoonist, Mid-Day.

In May this year Mid-day carried a series of articles, alleging that retired justice Sabharwal's sons, both partners in firms which build malls in the capital, benefitted from his orders on sealing.

They claimed the sealing resulted in shop owners having to shift into malls, where rentals shot up.

These reports, the judges said had tarnished the image of the highest court.

The former chief justice refused to comment on Friday, but he has in the past refuted the charges.

This is the first time in the country that journalists have been sentenced for writing against a former chief justice and reactions were swift.

Many have cited the amended contempt law passed in parliament last year, which said truth can be a defence if it is in public interest.

''What has happened today is a bad day for freedom of the press, because the law of contempt is still under debate. The law was framed when India was a very young democracy, the media has played a far more active role since then,'' said Dilip Padgonkar, Senior Journalist.

--------------

Such mindless imprisonment are unheard in JurySys. There are people who have called Jurors idiots on face of Jurors, and Jurors never punished them.
--------

The judges have hanged far far more people than Juries. It has been empirically proven that judges are far more likely to issue death sentence than unfiltered Juries.


Top
 Profile  
 
3
PostPosted: Sun Jul 17, 2011 10:18 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 2:49 pm
Posts: 596
11)
The CM, Gov, PM, Prez only sign the files that are sent by HCjs, SCjs

rohitash: And if these people are honest they will question the appointment of a corrupt judge. Sometimes these people also influence who is appointed as a judge. Eg. Appointment of a supreme court judge under the influence of Indira gandhi after emergency.

The judges made the law (or interpreted the law) in 1992 that SCjs will appoint SCjs a,d SCjs/HCjs will appoint HCjs, and PM/CM shall not question.

Till 1991, PM/CMs appointed SCjs and HCjs.
----
The judges are nothing but agents of elitemen, and worse, most HCjs and SCjs now cater for MNCs. The MNCs etc have hired judges' relative lawyers on their panels, and bingo ... the judges have literally become employees of MNCs.

The profession of lawyering has reduced to judge-fixing.

---

The intellectuals, who are also agents of elitemen, go around telling lies that judges are soul of nation and guardian of constitution and last ray of hope blah blah blah to misguide the youth so that youth doesnt start looking for alternatives. The intellectuals are biggest deceivers.
12)
Somebody ask above that when judiciary cross limits. There were number of incidents but one incident i want to point out is the appointment of the judges.According to the constitution Judges of the S.C. and H.C. have to be appointed by the president in consultation with CJI.But through subsequent judgments they take away this right now a panel of judges suggest the name of a person for judge and president have to agree. Initially president(COM) have veto powers regarding this now judges panel have.Even in US government appoint judges.During a recent case even though president kalam raise serious questions regarding a judge for his appointment as S.C judge(as far as i can remember) but panel of judges didn't listen to president(somebody plzz. tell the name of that judge).Earlier it was the prerogative of president

That judges name was --- Hon'ble Justice Jagadish Bhalla. He was a Justice in UP HC, His wife Rita Bhalla got a plot worth Rs 8 crore for mere Rs 10 lakhs. And Hon'ble Justice Jagadish Bhalla formed a court at 8pm in his home to hear a petition from Anil Ambani and gave a judgment at 11pm, and his son Aarohi Bhalla was the lawyer of Ambani !

When SCjs came to know about these two corrupt deals, they promoted him and appointed as Hon'ble Chief Justice of TN.

Dr AJKP was hostile to promotion of this Hon'ble Justice. Dr APJK insulted Jagadish Bhalla and the Scjs who had selected him by openly refusing to sign his promotion order. When he sent the file back, as rumor mill says, Dr K had attached newspaper cuttings of his corrupt deals. The SCjs insulted Dr k back by re-confirming his promotion.

The rumor mill is clear --- it was Anil Ambani was ensured that Jagadish Bhalla, who was pet of Anilbhai managed that Dr K's objections get sidelined and judge Bhalla does get the promotion.
----
Can you cite even ONE clause of constitution, which after proper translation into local language and put in simplified text, is something that majority of us commons cant understand? AFAIK, there is NOT even one clause in Constitution which is so cumbersome. I say this, because I read Gujarati translation constitution when I was 9th, and I could understand meaning of each and every clause. And I am sure that I no genius, and most my common brethren and sistern are as intelligent as I am.
And if anyone thinks that we commons of India are 2 bit morons, I request him to leave India ASAP. But proposals like "see you commons are 2.2 bit morons ; so some select well bred elitemen with pure blood should rule over you" is flatly unacceptable insult. What is next? A statement like "you (sic) Indians are incapable of running courts, administration etc and so you should hand over courts and administration to firangi"? Then perhaps this firangi Rajmata is whom we should all vote for.

13)
Someone-I was merely saying that for the purposes of appointment of judges, we should ensure that merit and experience and other factors prevail over inherently political factors like caste/region/political idealogy etc.
-----
And how does NjC solve this problem? The existing SCjs dont give a damn to merit and just fill the courts with their relatives and close buddies. IOW, you reject the election procedure on the basis of "lack of merit" and then suggest procedures where merit has ZERO considerations anyway !! To lose something, you must show that that something exists to begin with. The existing system (or NjC) gives ZERO considerations to merit. So the argument that election procedure would result in loss does not hold.

First, please prove that existing appointment are merit based and not nepotism , political based. Till than, there is no case against election procedure.

----

The NjC members will appoint judges on the basis of PERSONAL interest or interests of the people on whom they depend or people who bribe them or people who give fat fees to relative lawyers. So nothing in NjC guarantees that appointment will be on the basis of merit. Whereas if citizens have procedures to replace judges, that ensures that at least corrupt judges (like SC-Cj Khare who gave bail to wealthy pedophiles) get replaced and thus further damage reduces. So procedure of replacement, wherein commons can replace SC-Cj is far far superior than NjC where in number of individuals are small and can be easily bribed out.

----

The Constitution Assembly has ZERO discussion on the problem of nepotism and corruption in judges. Back then, India had JurySys, and so corruption and nepotism in courts was low. The honorable MPs assumed that it would stay, and would get extended. But opposite happened --- the judges (to collect more bribes) killed JurySys and so relative lawyers started cashing in. The Constitution Assembly has no debate on this issue.
-----
Someone-Well , your saying that National judicial comm ("NJC") will not work does not mean anything unless you give convincing reasons.
------
No. You have to give convincing reasons to establish that NjC members will not become corrupt , nepotic like existing SCjs and HCjs. Till date, almost all members in HCs and SC have shown nepotism, corruption that is no less in IAS, IPS and Ministers. So please explain how this mere label of NjC will make any difference.

----

Someone-However nothing can be worse than a open election for appointing judges in this country.
-----
Essentially, what you mean to say is that "we (sic) Indians are not fit for power to elect judges". This is an outright insult on all Indians including myself. well insult apart, this a blatant lie. The judges have solemnly proved that when have powers, they will fill courts with their relatives, make their relatives senior advocates, and will also stoop to the extent of bailing out convicted wealthy pedophiles. So comparison has to be between existing judges and elections. The elections have shown LESS nepotism than appointments in courts. So it is a better process. Case rests.

---

Someone-All you politicians want now is to control the last independent bastion in our country - the higher judiciary - by seeking for elections of judges and then supporting them purely on the basis of caste or other factors rather than merit, offering them their vote banks etc.. Such judges will only be stooges of politicians and their neutrality cannot be ensured and would neither appear in the eyes of a common man.
-------------------
The polity has degenerated as corrupt judges promote criminals, and the criminals ensure that good guys cant stand in election. So voters are stuck with choosing between criminals. And the problem is compounded by lack of replacement procedures. Which is why, I insist on election of Chief judges along with replacement procedures.
-----
Constitutional wisdom agreed that judges should not be elected as this will only make the process political and at the cost of transparency we will compromise on the independence of the judiciary.

In those days country had JurySys. The CA members assumed that JurySys will go on and would get extended. That did not happened --- the judges killed JurySys so that they can get more bribes in courts.

You claim that you are well versed with CA discussions. Well, can you point me debates in CA where they have discussed problems of nepotism and corruption. I bet you cant show me a single page, as there is none. IOW, CA members assumed that HCjs and SCjs will not become corrupt, nepotic as they are today. So much of the debates of CA are in-applicable in the problem raised by the thread starter -- the problem of rampant corruption and nepotism in judocracy.
-----
Someone: Judges must not be made to feel that they owe their appointment either to this politician or to this political party. .

How does procedure of election make them dependent on any leader? In election of judges and officers like CM, Governor, President etc in US and everywhere, people vote for PERSON and not the party.
The judges MUST not be made to feel that they have become judge by nepotism and not by public approval. As of today, almost all judges [rightly] feel that the sole reason they have become judge is because his elder relative was judge who managed the show. This creates a loss of legitimacy in public. When a judge is elected, the citizens KNOW that he did not become judge just because his daddy was judge. Thats why neta have more clout than judges in India in commons. Commons know that people become judges just by pulling strings and using daddies and so have zero respect for judges.
-----
Someone-For your information members of our constitutional assembly came from all walks of life. They not only rejected the concept of electing judges but also rejected the idea of appointment of judges by the Parliament or council of states. And rightly so. These mechanisms, debated throughly in the assembly debates, would have undermined the independence of the judiciary and influenced judicial appointments on political lines.
--------
The CA members suggested that PM shall appoint judges, which is same as MPs will appoint judges in Parliamentary democracy. CA members NEVER EVER wanted judges to appoint the judges which is the case as of today. And you repeatedly keep evading the key question --- can you show me the pages of CA discussion where in they discussed the problem of nepotism and corruption in judges? There are NONE. IOW, we are talking about problem that CA members did not think we would face. If they had considered this problem, they would have also unanimously agreed on election as appointment process is ALWAYS full of corruption, nepotism, whereas corruption in election is low and nepotism is ZERO when constituency size is large.

----

We can discuss further on views of CA AFTER you show pages of CA where in they discussed the problems of nepotism and corruption in judges.
---
Someone: Well clearly you have not read CA debates at all..There is no need to lie, you could just as well have admitted that you have not read the CADs and I would have happily given you CAD citations to look at. There is no point in just going on arguing/ denying a point without any research.
---------
Re-repeatedly, you claim that you have read CA (Constitution Assembly) debates and I havent. Well, I have read all the debates. And you have read all debates, why are you NOT posting CA debates on the issue of corruption and nepotism in judges?

IOW, you are neither posting the CA debates on this topic of corruption and nepotism in SCjs and HCjs. and not you admit that no such debates exist.

Now can you post debates on above topic?

-------------------------

Someone-Please look at CAD Vol. VIII, debates dated May 24, 1949. In particular read (carefully!) the concerns of Mr. Biswanath Das (non-lawyer) from Orissa. His arguments elsewhere in the CADs indicate that he was very apprehensive of judges/ lawyers clout but he too rejected the suggestion of election of judges and instead agreed that judges should be 'selected'.
-------------
Can you post his views on corruption and nepotism in judges?

I bet you wont post any such debate. Because they dont exist. IOW, these CA members had assumed that judges will not indulge into rampant corruption and nepotism. And their assumption now falls flat. So how relevant their views are in solving the problem of nepotism and corruption in judges is one question you simply bother to ignore.

Someone-Judiciary is the only independent and impartial body in our country today and we are proud that it has taken tough stand ..

You are merely stating your opinions, which is fine. But what is of paramount intellectual dishonesty is that you pass your views as FACTS. The judges are NOT impartial. In fact, impartial individual is a biological impossibility. That aside, existing SCjs and and HCjs are corrupt and nepotic to core. They OPENLY support their relatives in bar and business. Bribe collection is all time high and even sexual favors are traded openly (eg Honorable Justice Shamit Mukherjee) and wealthy pedophiles are given bail (eg SC-Cj Khare's landmark bail order in which he gave bail to two wealthy swiss pedophiles despite 200 hours of video evidence and enabled them to flee from India). In addition, SCjs and HCjs have openly supported SEZ act which involves confiscation of land and plethora of tax exemptions though they violate right to equality. So your opinion that judges are impartial is falsified by facts, and yet you pass this opinion as fact. Now they may be independent. But what good is independence of such corrupt and nepotic judges?

---

And your line of argument is interesting. You insist that we commons MUST not have procedure to replace judges. And the arguments you give is NOT by showing how irreplaceable judges will be better for citizenry, but by quoting 60 years old CA debates as if CA people had vision to see events that were to come 60 years later. And re-repeatedly you ignore the FACT that CA people never dreamed that SCjs HCjs will become so corrupt nepotic, and so their views now need adjustment to the reality that over 95% judges are corrupt/nepotic. History is useless unless matched with PRESENT day realities, and this CA debates are one example.

---

You may be proud of judges, but my head hangs in shame when SC-Cj gives bails to pedophiles, and 100% seats are reserved for relatives of senior lawyers and judges.

14)
Kriishnamohan
Under Article 124(1) every Judge of the Supreme Court is appointed by the President of India by warrant under his hand and seal after consultation with such of the Judges of the Supreme Court and of the High Courts in the States as the President “may deem necessary” for the purpose and shall hold office until he attends the age of 65 years: ------- Provided that in the case of appointment of a Judge other than the Chief Justice, the Chief Justice of India shall always be consulted: Provided further that (a) a Judge may, by writing under his hand addressed to the President, resign his office; (b) a Judge may be removed from his office in the manner provided in clause (4).

However, although the office of the Chief Justice of India is different from that of a “Judge of the Supreme Court”, as the words “other Judges” in Clause (1) of Article 124 suggests, the Chief Justice of India is also one of the Judges of the Supreme Court. The general provisions in Clauses (2)-(7) apply to all Judges of the Supreme Court, including the Chief Justice.
It follows that when a Judge of the Supreme Court is appointed Chief Justice of India, he does not cease to be a Judge of the Supreme Court, and that if, for any reason, his appointment as Chief Justice is held to be invalid, he would not necessarily loose his office as Judge.

However, prior to 1993, there was a consensus of opinion that “Consultation” does not mean “Concurrence”, but in 1993 there has been a somersault in opposite direction.
-----
Exactly. The founding fathers of the Constitution wanted SCjs to be appointed by President (read PM or Council of Cabinet Ministers) and NOT by SCjs. But in 1993, the SCjs deliberately mis-interpreted the Constitution and have usurped the power to appoint SCjs and converted Indian courts into their fiefdoms. And the mess has gone on only because we commons dont have procedures to expel SCjs to save the Constitution.

15)
Sanjay Goondaa was kicked out not because he advocated 2 child policy but because he was letting Govt employees, IPS etc use raw force. People rightly opposed the latter not the former. And IPS, babu during emergency had become reckless criminals and main reason was Sanjay Goondaa.There are better ways to reduce population. We dont need criminals like SG to reduce population.


Top
 Profile  
 
4
PostPosted: Sun Jul 17, 2011 10:07 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 2:49 pm
Posts: 596
16)
Nepotism in Judiciary
No one will ever say "I support nepotism in courts". People support nepotism in courts by supporting laws that support nepotism in courts. And they further support nepotism in courts by opposing the ONLY known laws that reduce nepotism in courts. Based on the laws one supports or opposes, once can tell whether he supports nepotism in courts.
------
(now in case you cite judge Bala's being in SC as proof that SCjs are not nepotic, here is my response : CjI Bala's appointment in SCj was once canceled by UC judges and it later happened only when 10s of Dalit MPs and Prez Narayana himself threatened to take dalit atrocity case to UN. So his presence in Supreme Court has been due to CBR in politics, not open mindedness of UC judges)
Jury System is 100% immune to nepotism, cross-nepotism and nexuses. While judge system is immune only to nepotism, it is 100% prone to cross-nepotism and nexuses. Likewise, elections are immune to nepotism, cross-nepotism and nexuses. eg if 10,00,000 voters elect a judge, there is no way there can be nexuses or nepotism or any kind. And if citizens have power to expel judges, and some 10,00,000 voters expel a judge -- it cant be due to individual level nexuses going bad. And large constituencies also rule out casteism.
------
1. Judge Balakrishan was appointed as SCj by CjI Poonchie in year 1997-98. If judge Bala had become SCj at that time, he would have become CjI in 2004 and would have continued for long.

2. The Law Ministry under ABV stalled the file, as ABV, a brahminist himself, and many eminents in legal circle did not like idea that a dalit should become SCj and CjI.

3. Meanwhile, judge Poonchie retired and judge A S Anand became CjI. judge Anand immediately asked ABV-EnronPurush to cancel appointment of judge Bala. IMO, judge ASA asked for this cancellation ONLY because judge Bala was dalit, and judge Anand was anti-dalit.

4. ABV asked judge Anand to re-consider judge Bala's appointment, which he gladly canceled. First incident in SC, where an appointment was cancelled after CjI approved.

5. Prez Narayan, a dalit and a close friend of judge Bala, raised hell, and openly cursed judges of caste bias. judge Anand called press reporters (India Today) at his home, and gave interview in which he personally cursed Prez. First case where CjI invited reporters to him, and first case where CjI publicly curses Prez.

6. Prez Narayan stalled appointments of ALL SCjs and HCjs for 3-4 weeks to give more publicity to the matter that dalit judge's appointment was cancelled. Eventually, he had to give in.

7. Gradually, dalit MPs and activists got together and started asking for CBR in SC. Pressure mounted. Dalit MPs started throwing mud on judge Anand. Many threated to take the case to UN agencies and Amnesty International.

8. judge Anand and ABV got scared of tremendous negative publicity they would get if whole issue becomes a pet issue in international media and Amnesty. So finally, they promote judge Bala into SC.

So it was vote-bank politics and threat of international media which forced UC judges to promote judge Bala. Without this two, SCjs would have never allowed a dalit to become SCj, forget CjI.

The fact that his appointment was first canceled proves a lot.


===========

And what your point? One appointment, that too after so many political pressures, proves that judges are NOT nepotic and not castist? When you get some time, pls go to more appointments, and you will see that Nepotism Based Reservation is 100% in judiciary, spare some cases where political/media pressures becomes unbearably high.
==========
Also, since a dalit was going become CjI, the CjI is now effectively replaced by "committee of 3 senior most judges". CjI no longer had power he used to have 1 year ago.

17)
X wrote:
Justice Balakrishnan seems to be an excellent choice for Chief Justice -- clearly a man who looks out for the public interest. Here's wishing him a productive tenure as chief justice.
------
X,

There is NO "choice" when it comes to CjI. The senior most SCj becomes CjI. Seniority is counted from day he takes oath of SCj.

Previously, from 1951 to 1991, PM used to appoint SCjs and SC-Cj. Then in 1991 the judges all of a sudden found that it was unconstitutional !!! After 40 years, they found that constitution says that SCjs will appoint SCjs and outgoing SC-Cj will appoint SC-Cj. Isn't amazing? It took them 40 years to discover this fact? The constitution says "Prez (PM) will appoint SCjs after consultation with SC-Cj". And the judge in 1991 realized that word "consultation" means binding !!! They must be having 4 digit IQ. Because everyone with 2 digit IQ, like myself, says, consultation means an optional advice.

Then SCjs had to come up with a rule by which they can decide which of them will become Chief justice of India. So the rule they made was "seniority" SC.

===========

Hence, judge Bala was NOT a choice. If SCjs had option to chose, they would not have even allowed judge Bala, a dalit, to become SCj. They showed their true colors in 1998, when his appointment was cancelled by the then SC-Cj A S Anand. It was political mud slinging and threat of internationalization of the issue that forced them to "choose" judge Bala. And this time, it was seniority that forced them to promote judge Bala.

==========

But now CjI doesnt have even 10% of powers CjI had 1 year ago. The new bill clips CjI's wings. If judge Bala takes any step that SCjs dont like, they can simply have a lawyer file a complain against CjI, form a committee of 3 SCjs and give an adverse ruling. And then eminent mediamen will start throwing mud on him, which will then force him to cow down. Also, in past, many powers were with CjI. Now those powers are with "committee of 3 seniormost SCjs".

============

As per judge Bala's being good or bad, he till date has done NOTHING to solve the KEY problem our judocracy faces - rampant judge-lawyer nexus and rampant judge-criminal nexus (direct or via lawyer). He had done nothing to reduce nepotism in judocracy either. He will be just like another judges --- give glossy judgments but do nothing to solve core problems. He may be a good judges, but of no use to us commons.
18)
A wrote:
... I am glad someone found all these public nuisance hartals as unacceptable.


When 24 out of 27 HCjs in Punjab went on strike (mass leave) not even one week's salary was deducted as punishment. judge Bala was SCj when this happened. He did not even move a muscle to punish these judges. So much for his anti-hartal views. If he was truly anti-hartal, why didnt he ask Prez to initiate impeachment procedure to expel all these Punjab HCjs who went on strike? He is just like other SCjs who have double standards - for commons and other for Nbjprie.
-----
Quote:
Speaking for myself, I count his abolishing of public hartals as being of "use to us commons"...as any commoner that has been stuck in traffic or has their plans ruined by these abominations would know.
------

You are mixing the two issues which are at 90 degrees to each other.

The strike has NOTHING to do with traffic disruption.

The traffic disruption is due to rallies, and yes, rallies should be banned. The people should be free to gather in a private ground after providing information to police at least 15 days in advance and/o public ground after permission. They should be thrown in the prison if the walk on roads and disrupt traffic.

But why ban strike? Whats wrong if I decide not to work? How does that disrupt anyone except for emergency services? The employer should free to deduct salary as well as expel striking workers. But why should worker not free to take mass leave?

19)
Quote:
There is no way govt can delay or influence appointment of a SC judges because they have no role to play in it. President of India and CjI of India calls all the shots with the power vested in them by the constitution.


They can delay it for 1-8 weeks.

The PM has power to ask for re-consideration once. ABV-EP actually used this power in 1997-98 so that judge Bala's appointment can be cancelled.

Also, SCjs prepare a list of approved people to be appointed in SC/HC. The file from SC goes to LawMin, and from there it goes to Prez. LawMin can spend 3-4 weeks by making procedural excuses.

This is what was done in 1997. CjI Poonchie selected judge Bala. ABV-EP did not a dalit to become judge. He had option to send the file back for re-consideration. But if he had sent it immediately, the CjI Poonchie would have returned the same list within in no time. So ABV-EP stalled the file for some 3-4 weeks, and then sent it for re-consideration. Meanwhile CjI changed, and new CjI A S Anand was also hostile to judge Bala because of his being dalit.

Thus LawMin/PM can make some difference of some 1-4 weeks, but not more.

Then appointment is confirmed only AFTER Prez signs. The Prez can easily waste 3-4 weeks. This is exactly what Prez Narayana did. When judge Bala's name was cancelled, he was furious. He refused to sign ALL appointments for 3-4 weeks. This was done to get media attention and also internationalize the issue.

In addition, before a person is chosen for HCj, SCjs has to ask CBI to run report on that candidate. If the candidate is say a relative of an SCj, the PM can use this opportunity as "look boss, do me this this this favors, or else I will ruin the CBI report to an extent that the person appears as some habitual criminal". The SCjs can still promote irrespective of the report, but an adverse report can make promotion difficult.
Quote:
32 hostile witnesses in trouble - Most of them will go to jail for committing perjury


The judge, after getting bribes from accused, stall the process for years and years, so that accused gets tons of time and opportunity to threaten the witness.

The witness finally collapses and gives in, and becomes hostile.

And then judges imprison the witness.

We really are in dark ages now.

20)
Kumar wrote:
Judiciary has been delivering some remarkable judgements, which we need to be thankful for.

1. Of the three judges in Punjab who were involved in Punjab Public Service Commission scam, none got even prosecuted

2. One of the above 3 judges, Justice Gill, got her daughter Amol Gill appointed her as Magistrate by paying Rs 65 lakh bribe and getting the examination paper. Even that judge was NOT prosecuted. Amol Gill too was only expelled, NOT prosecuted for her crime

3. The 3 judges in Karnataka HC were caught having liquor-meat party in a hotel outskirt of city with three lady lawyers. The judges were on appointment committee and the 3 lady lawyers got appointed as munsifs the day before party. No judges was even asked to resign

4. The judge J W Singh of Mumbai was taped while having conversation with Chota Shakil, in which he was cutting deal. Despite FSL's testimony that it was JSW's voice, he was acquitted
http://www.indianexpress.com/oldStory/7244/

5. The Magistrate Bhrambhatt in Ahmedabad who sold warrants for Rs 20000 was acquitted and he is now back on the job(http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?235275 )

6. Justice Shamit Mukherjee asking for women and wine from some criminal
(http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?220086 )
7. Transparency International (TI) survey in which TI asked some 25000 commons of India if judges, policemen, GoI hospitals and some 20 services are corrupt.

The judges came No 2. after policemen in corruption.
( http://www.iri.org.in/related_readings/ ... 202005.pdf )
Both nepotism and corruption are one and the same. For that matter, when you give "daan" to God in a temple, does God personally take it? No. You give it to priest or temple trust or whomever. For that way, most PM too directly dont take bribes, they take it via some agents. Morarji Desai too did NOT directly took bribe, he used his son Kanti Desai for that. ABV used his son-in-law Bhattacharya as middleman in Enron and many such deals.

The judges use their relatives as middleman. Sometimes, if the middleman is son, he may not pass the cut as "advance inheritance" , but still the money is judge's property. The money given to judge-putra should be considered as bribe to the Honorable Judge.
----
Neta-neta bad bad
judge-judge good good

You have ZERO evidence to show that even 1% MPs are corrupt. And ZERO evidence to show that even 1% judges are honest.
-----
Kumar wrote:
1. Constitution sanctions general elections only for Lok Sabha. Not even PM, President, Rajya Sabha members etc are directly elected. ...

2. Any change in this arrangement is a big change, and judiciary can dismiss them if they go against the basic structure of the constitution.

1. I am talking about MODIFYING Constitution. So what Consti says is not even relevant. I dont k now why you even raise that issue. The file Constitution.doc has been edited some 100 times in past 60 years. A few more updates wont make a difference.

2. No ,it is not NOT a big change. It is a TRIVIAL change. Also, whether it is big or small should be left for commons to decide. Not judges. If judges dont like the constitution, they are welcome to resign. No one is forcing them to be judges. And procedure to expel judges is very much consistent with basic structure. If not, pls tell me which clauses of basic structures go against it.


Top
 Profile  
 
5
PostPosted: Mon Jul 18, 2011 12:04 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 2:49 pm
Posts: 596
21)
Quote:
... India its own each with its own unique socio-political conditions. In India It will be a first class horror story if judges start canvassing on caste and religion lines for votes just as politicians do. If you don't get this then I don't think it is in my capabilities to continue discussing with you.


Most pro-judges are horribly unaware about social realities of India. They childishly assume that judges will NOT be nepotic and stay un-nexused. The judge system goes against our social setup where nexusism and nepotism runs rampant, and this exactly why I suggest Jury System.

And our unique setup requires more drastic control of citizens over judges, such a procedure to expel them.

And again, you are AVOIDING question on procedure to expel. In a constituency of 15 lakhs voters, no caste is majority, and even they are, they divide into sub caste, and stop voting en-block. So a procedure of recall will have ZERO impact of castism. The voters will resort to expulsion of judge ONLY if the judge is truly horrible.

You opposition and hostility towards procedure of expulsion is evident from the fact that you keep golden silence. But what is more evident is that you dont have ANY argument against procedure to recall.
Quote:
Politicians wield the political power and hold the reins on monetray spending. By this very nature their corruption is orders of magnitude higher than judiciary's can ever be. And by what politicians have been doing to India, I am truly thankful that at least judiciary is holding them in check. ...


Are you kidding? Have you seen Urban Land Ceilings Act trials, where land costs used to run in 100s of crores of rupees? The judges made a killing that would a neta to shame.

And as PILism grows, and as judges wield more and more financial powers, they ability to squeeze money out increases. By throwing a stay order on a project, they can easily force that private party to cough up a few crore. This why most private company's keep judges' relatives on their penal, and pay them well lest such issue would arise.


Kumar wrote:
This argument that we should be able to elect all those people who affect our lives directly, has major flaws. If that were the case we would also end up electing most of the bureaucracy! Problem is that common people can not judge the efficacy of a candidate whose performance depends upon an esoteric skill. Their judgements will be based on rather simple considerations such as those that are used in electing MPs, which could be damaging for jobs that have much more stringent requirements of skills.


You knocked down a strawmen.

When did I or anyone say we should elect ALL officers? First, my argument was that we commons should have procedure to EXPEL ALL and any officer who affect our lives. If not, what else do you insist? That some officer/judge etc may have powers to affect (and thus perhaps ruin) our lives, and we commons should not have even power to expel him in case he misuses this power to benefit his relatives, friends or himself?

The judgeship is NOT a judge's fundamental right. or even a right. It is a power and previlege us commons gave him under an assmuption that he will not misuse it, and so we commons have moral right to terminate that previliege if he misuses that. Why are you hostile to this trivial fact?

If "biwi baccho ka kya hogaa" is an issue, I dont have problem with giving 12 or even 24 months salary to the expelled judge. But why do you insist on immunity from commons? Are you some communist who believe in "life long" employment or some rightist who believe in "hire-fire"? Nothing wrong in being communist, but if you are hostile to hire-fire, just say so.

Also, the judge is a "generalist", he is NOT a specialist like doctor or engineer or scientist. The issue of nexuslessness and lack of nepotic tendencies are more important than IQ or knowledge or skills. So in such cases, lack of nepotism and favoritism is important. And procedure of election is immune to nepotism and favoritism as no one can be be relative or friend of even 5% of 15,00,000 voters. So as far as judgeship goes, procedure of election is superior than EXISTING procedure of appointment, where 3-8 judges gather in a smoke filled dark rooms and pull out names from their hats.
Quote:
The better option is to increase people's control over the executive and make it much more responsive to the people. Rest of the desirables will follow from that.

You are hostile to demands we commons should have procedure to expel judges, PP, police chiefs, CM, MP, MLA, PM, RBI-Guv, DEO etc

And then you say "us commons control over executive" should increase.

Pray, how can the control even exist, forget increse, if we commons dont have powers to expel them.

Now I would just give you a few tips on how to wrestle with judge-worshippers

1)Always start with NEPOTISM in Indian judges, then judge-lawyer nexuses and never with corruption. becuase nepotism and judge-lawyer nexuses are PROVEN. Ask judge-worshipper to enumerate actions he has taken in past or plans to take in future to reduce judge-lawyer nexus and nepotism. The judge worshipper will lose half of the steam.

2)Next raise demand Jurors should replace existing judges, as judges are nexused/nepotic while Jurors are not. Since in step-1, judge-worhsipper has agreed that he has done nothing to reduce nepotism/nexus problem in courts, nor does he know of any solution, it would be hard for him to argue against JurySys.

3)The ask for procedure of expulsion. The judge-phyllics will try their best to ignore the issue of expulsion and give sermons on why election are bad. So each time he says the word "election", interpt him and say that "I asked about proedure of expulsion; whyTH are you talking about election"?

4)Finally, the judge-worshipper will come to "you ... you commons ... you illiterare ...you 2.5 bit morons ... you castist ... you comunalist ... you mob ... you piece of sh1t ... you dont deserve powers to expel judges etc etc ".

5)So you GoTo step(1).

22)
SK Mody wrote:
What do you think was the reason for the initial acquital?
(a) Instructions from higher authorities.
(b) Bribe.
(c) Threats.

The justice S L Bhayana must have played beautifully by NJB rules to get a promotion - or is he being promoted to keep his mouth shut?


The rumors from street lawyers (=facts) I hear are as follows

1)Sri Vinod Sharma, father of Sri Manu Sharma, is worth over Rs 500cr. In addition, Vinod Sharma is son-in-law of Late Sri Shankar Dayal Sharma, former President of India. SDS like most respected neta had been nepotic to the core, and so Sharma clan has clan members everywhere -- public prosecution, CBI, babudom, courts etc. I wont be surprised if Sharma clan has members in Delhi HC and SC.

2)Sri Vinod Sharma was using all his money and clout to acquit his son. Each and every member of Sharma clan was also committed to this goal.

3)judge S L Bhayana wanted promotion, like every judge. This was a godsend opportunity. He asked VS to get him a promotion in HC. SLB's record was horribly defunct, and was not given promotion for years and years. Also, to get promotion into HC, there is a long list of judges' relatives and friends and their relatives and it requires hectic lobbying.

4)VS "convinced" the then Delhi HC-Cj to put and lobby for SLB's name. The HCj at that time was judge B C Patel. He is from Gujarat, and should make all Gujaraties proud, that he promoted SLB. As per the rumors=facts, judge B C Patel was to retire in few months and wanted to make a killing before he goes (he knew that he wont get promoted to SC and Bania and Brahmins in Gujarat were lobbying against him, as he was a Patel)

5)Once a Cj approves a name, the other two judges in the HC collegium will not bother. After that, only SC-Cj can reject it. Vinod Sharma "convinced" SC-Cj not to reject judge Bhayana's name

6)So judge Bhayana got promotion.

As per the deal, on the very day promotion letter came from Prez to Delhi HC, judge Bhayana acquitted the criminals. And after making a one line statement (" accused are acquitted") he dismissed the court in 5 minutes, and went straight into the parking lot and drove to Delhi HC to collect his promotion order.

Everything went by the clock ticks.

There was no threat. No one in India, not even Sri Dawoodbhai, has balls to threaten a judge. If a criminal threatens a judge, whole judiciary will turn against him and knock down his whole empire within days. The "communal" or "tribal" feeling, in which an attack on one member is seen as attack on whole community is very strong in our judocracy. This is main reason why no lawyer even made any allegation of nepotism against judges despite publicly available proofs. He knows that judges will get together and ruin his practice within days, not weeks.

===========

The promotions in HC are 100% based on nepotism and favoritism (NFBR as I call it). Till date, I never heard of a case where money changed hands while promoting a judge into HCjs or even lower courts. This was the first case. India's judiciary has now finally entered the era of "cash and carry" promotion regime we have been seeing in police since 1970s.

==================

In the whole episode, there is one more thing to note. Not even one intellectual, such as Shourie or Jetley or anyone, ever ever asked expulsion of judge SLB. Almost all illuminated individuals I meet are hostile to us rustics' demands that Justice Bhayana must be expelled and insist that he must be allowed to continue his term. Even over 100 out of 99 BRites are hostile to expelling judge Bhayana and insist that he must be allowed to continue. The mainstream India, us commons and rustics, wants judge Bhayana to be expelled. While the illuminated, educated, degree holders, articulate, well learned, well read etc support judge Bhayana.

----------------

Sometimes, I find it amusing when these illuminated individuals on or outside BR demand that muslims should join mainstream India. Well, why dont YOU first join mainstream India, and support expulsion procedure for judges, procedure for registering YES/NO of us commons, land rent over IIMA and other GoI plots etc etc. On each and every demand, the illuminated ones are hostile to mainstream India. And then they advice muslims to join the mainstream.

Allah ki marzi.
Boot kahe kafir hame, Allah ki marzi
23)
Kumar wrote:
Just for example, in Sri Modi's Gujrat, most of the judges will get elected with Hindutva support. Oh the joy & fun!!

Even though, currently I seriously believe that BJP needs to be given a shot at running the country, I wouldn't wish judiciary to be 'tinted' one way or another, green or saffron.


Essentially, you are saying we commons are communists and would fill judocracy with judges who will exterminate muslims.

First, let me publish l a factoid : in 1974(?), these very same Ahmedabad constituency, whose 80% voters were hindu, elected Ehsan Jaffery as MP.

Such a thing is unthinkable today, as later in late 1980s and early 1990s, the CM, MLAs, IPS, IAS, High Court judges and lower court judges started sponsoring muslim criminals en-masse to rob commons. (Why, they promoted muslims criminals and not hindu is outside the scope of this thread.). Sri Latifbhai is one icon, but there are dozens in the list. The gangsters were just few 100 in number, and counter gangs like Bajrang Dal could have killed in no time. But these gangsters had protection from IPS, judges etc and so BD couldn't do anything.

=========

Now here my proposed procedure of expulsion plays role. How dare CM, IPS, IAS, HCjs and LCjs could support criminals to such extent? Because they knew that we commons cant ruin their careers. IOW, if we commons had procedure to expel HCjs, LCjs, police chief etc back in 1980s, this crime problem would not have gone to such extent, and hindu-muslim relations, at least in Ahmedabad, would not have worsened to this extent.

So your argument is incorrect. The protection the judges have is encouraging them to take bribes from criminals and protect them. And so the criminals create a mess, which further divided the society. So lack of the procedure to expel judges is worsening the communal strife, not decrease it as you put.

----
The judges in India have been quite powerful for many reasons. The mediamen and elitemen are big supporters of judge over neta. Most elitemen in 1950s were upper caste, and so were judges and neta. Hence there was harmony. In fact, in 1960, Nehru and other neta SUPPORTED judges when they killed JurySys so that judocrates become more powerful. Not just Nehru, all MPs, BJP (then Jansangh), CPM etc supported this step. If there was any major clash between neta and judges in 1960, MPs would have raised hell. Likewise, when IG removed JurySys from CrPC in 1971, a step that made judges powerful, ALL MPs supported this.

The judge-neta harmony is now in perils. As election went, the % of SC, ST and OBC neta started increasing and so did their power. While since judocracy is by appointments only, NFBR (Nepotism and Favoritism Based Reservation) prevails. So judges are mostly UCs. Now in a large number of avenues in economy, incomes are due to GoI power and licenses and not due to skill. Corruption is one such activity - you need NO skill just need political and police power. Another such area is mining of coal (shallow mines), stones (marble, granite etc) and almost all shallow mines. Here the mining costs are negligible and so are skilled required. Then many GoI contracts. These areas were in the hands of upper caste individuals till 1960s. As % of SC, ST and OBC started increasing in netadom, they started asking for more shares in mines, GoI land, corruption, contracts etc etc.

Now the fight between neta and judges have become intense. The neta are OBC, ST and SC and want their relatives, friends and caste members to get hot positions, mines etc. And existing upper caste members are now using judocrates to protect their interests and judge gel well with them as they too are UC. Which is why these days you see judges taking deep interest in police dept, mines, forest etc etc

The reason why judges are having upper hand is because a large number of neta, mainly upper caste neta, now *want* judges to become more powerful, as if netadom has more powers, that power will go in the hands of OBC elitemen. So a large number if neta in reality are pro-judges than pro-neta.

But as % of SC, ST and OBC neta rise, the balance is tilting. The OBC neta are now demanding CBR in SC and HCs. And to make matter worse, they have decided to align with muslims and so they are getting busload of Saud money. And finally, the Christiantists in India and international arena too are adding fuel to this fire.

In all these neta vs judges and neta vs babu and babu vs judges etc fist fights, we commons have nothing to lose or nothing to gain. We get some entertainment when judges insult neta and neta make scathing remarks on judges. But we commons MUST not take anyone's sides in this fist fights. All these are first anti-common, and then pro-anything or anti-anything.

Just take judges for example. They will yell "neta are bad ... neta are bad". Ask them if supports procedure by which we commons can expel CM, PM etc. He will be OPENLY hostile. Well, if neta are bad, why you dont support procedures that can reduce their powers? Well, because that increases the power of us commons. And if the CM is pro-common, this procedure will not decrease his powers. So while judge is anti-neta, he is MORE anti-common than anti-neta. Which why we commons MUST not support judges.

Likewise, ask any neta, who says that judges are bad. He too is hostile to procedure by which we commons can expel/replace judges. Same reasons.
---
Quote:
one conclusion that might be drawn from this is that power to expel judges must go hand-in-hand with power to expel netas - otherwise the balance would be disturbed.


Agree. I do support procedures to expel/replace CM, PM, MLA, MP and also police chiefs, RBI-Guv etc. But my goal is to create powerful citizenry, NOT to maintain any balance between judges-neta.
Quote:
This would also explain the hostility that judges have to introducing jury system - they are simply protecting their turf. Perhaps they would be less hostile if they felt that there was a corresponding reduction in the power of netas.

The judges are hostile to procedures that would make commons powerful against neta as well.

------
Center blames it on Supreme Court orders-

http://www.hindu.com/2007/01/06/stories ... 691700.htm

Caste fight is now translating into judges vs neta fight OPENLY. Look the above dialog muttered by CjI and ASG. It would put Saas-Bahu dialog of some Ekta Kapoor's K-serial to shame.

The profit margin in mines are huge, particularly shallow mines like granite stones, marble, shallow coal mines and all you need to run these mines is political contacts and a goonda network. Many of the mines come in forests.

Traditionally the mines were run by upper caste. The netadom is now crowded with OBC MPs and SC/ST MPs while judocracy being self replicating oligarchy is still upper caste. Now as OBC elite and SC/ST elite becomes more powerful, they want mines. And MPs being OBC themselves and interested in mining support them. The upper caste neta too are under pressure. So Ministers started favoring OBC miners. So now UC miners are hitting back using their contacts in judiciary.

Forests and mining are PURELY executive matters. The judges are interfering by citing environment and common good as pretext. So they have established a parallel executive as far as forests go.

Now OBC and SC/ST MPs are planning to bring Constitutional Amendment to have CBR in SC and HCs.

Grab the popcorn folks - the fist fights between neta-judges will get more and more dirty.

24)
Neshant wrote:
India's democracy is a joke. A terrorists actually believes he can win an election and has applied to contest. Bribe takers like Sukh Ram have got re-elected, why not terrorists?

CBI to curb Salems political ambitions

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/CBI_ ... 084856.cms

--------
If a person robs half the India, and showers charity in one constituency, he may win. But then why dont policemen/judges of the remaining 10s and 100s constituencies, where he robs, imprison him? The reason is rampant bribery of policemen/judges in those constituencies.

But why do commons in those areas let this loot go on? because they dont have procedures to expel policemen/judges.

So it is lack of democracy which has enabled criminals to become so powerful. Not presence of democracy.

And why Salem's contesting elections? People like judge Bhayana actually got promoted. Isnt that a joke?
---
SCjs are more than well known for anti-SC/ST and anti-OBC judgments. Many times they have tried to derail OBC quota. Some 3-4 years, SCjs cancelled OBC quota in private colleges, and then OBC MPs forced PM to bring a constitutional amendment to bring that back. This year too, SCjs tried their best in hitting OBC elite by raising creamy layer issue.

And all this has nothing to do with justice issue. If SCjs and HCjs gave a damn about justice, they would tried to bring down corruption in judges, nepotism and judge-lawyer nexuses in lower courts and everywhere. The fact they did NOTHING proves volumes.
-----
25)
Some of us praise SCjs for taking an egalitarian stand on OBC and raising issue of creamy layer. Then why those SCj support land and cash subsidies to creamy UCs in IITMs? Why do SCjs support massive land subsidies to private schools which charge Rs 100,000/yr?
---
If goal is to give education, GoI should completely desubsidize IIMs, make IITs part of military and use the money saved and rent earned for primary education. No Nbjprie ever asked for that. That shows that these Nbjprie-buggers dont give a damn about educating us commons, and are only interested in providing best education to Nbjprie-kids and Upper Class kids and upper middle class kids as Nbjprie needs Upper Middle Class for their support. Land/cash subsidy to IIM is just a "Sanskriti School" scam running at much larger level.
Quote:
2.Again when a guy goes to IIM he has got admission not because his father is a UC or a big shot but simply because he belled the CAT and the amenities which he is enjoying are infact a small reward for his effort which again are given to all irrespective of cast/religion.


Say we take a math exam, and two of us appear. Say I score 90 and you score 10. Does this mean I have moral right to rob your wealth/income to pay for my education?

So what if CAT-topper is meritorious? SO WHAT IF THE CAT-TOPPER IS MERITORIOUS? Does that mean that we commons should starve ourseleves, our kids, deny primary education to us commons' kids and feed these meritorious ones with free land and cash? So that they can easily defect and get $100,000 job in Wall Street?

If these CAT toppers are meritorious, [b[they should get a job and pay for their education[/b] rather than becoming a burden on us commons. The scriptures say that "stronger shall protect and support the weaker". Here, we have some meritorious ones robbing us non-meritorious commons !!!
Quote:
3.The point is CBR is being viewed as a privilege and not as a right,hence a wealthy BC does not deserve to get the special treatment,and I dont think you or me should be having any problems with it as long as the CBR benifits those for whom it is meant for.


If "meritorious shall loot the non-meritorious" is OK, there is no harm in tolerating creamy layers. The fact that SCjs are against creamy layer and at the same time support "let meritorious ones loot non-meritorious ones" shows that they are only against OBC-elite.


Top
 Profile  
 
6
PostPosted: Mon Jul 18, 2011 8:21 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 2:49 pm
Posts: 596
26)
Judge slaps fellow judge-
http://www.telegraphindia.com/1070112/a ... 250973.asp
You expect these HCjs and similar such SCjs to be better than MPs?

What nonsene is that "MPs are bad ... so lets give all powers to SCjs"? How do you say that SCjs are less corrupt or less nepotic?
Who says that judges wont do something against constitution? The HCj slapped another HCj. Was that constitutional?
Re : recent 9th schedule judgement

Laws violating Constitution's framework open to review: SC-
http://www.rediff.com/news/2007/jan/11law.htm
Ninth Schedule: What the Supreme Court judgment means-
http://in.rediff.com/news/2007/jan/11indira.htm


The whole thing came as OBCs wanted a pie in self finance colleges and UCs dont want to give them this pie. So when OBCs MPs and MLAS forced CMs/PM to impose 25% CBR for CBR, the UCs went to SC and got it cancelled. Many college owners are relatives of judges or "eminent" lawyers who are buddies of judges. When SCjs cancelled CBR, the OBC MPs made amendment in Constitution and enacted a law to impose CBR for OBC and kept that law in 9th schedule. So judges diluted effect of 9th schedule.

It is just a fist fight between OBC elite an UC elite, where judges are siding with UC elite and MPs, due to vote bank, are siding with OBC elite. Its thug vs thug gang war. The terms like "fundamental rights", "basic structure" are all cover.

We commons MUST NOT side with any of these two gang of thuggies. We must NOT side with MP-thugs and must not side with judocratic-thugs either.

27)
RM, pl. leave aside your biases and look at this dispassionately. Let me spell it out clearly again.

Whether a law passes the test of constitutionality or not is best judged by the SCj's because that is their constitutional mandate, prerogative and expertise.


(Re : biases - I can say same about your bias against us commons)

Thats what SCjs say. They and their fans have interpreted constitution that way and it is their imagination. Most of us commons are now sick of SCjs' corruption and nepotism, and their nexuses with lawyers and elitemen.

Just look at unconstitutional laws like SEZ (separate tax laws in same country violates equality before law). Why do SCjs allow such laws? Because SEZ-owners have hired judge-putras as high paying lawyers and consultants. So much for their fairness.

So in the interest of nation and commons, its is time to clip the wings of SCjs. Thats why I propose procedures by which we commons can elect/expel all judges, including SC-Cj..
---
Btw, you should note one thing. You can call us 105cr commons idiots, and not even 1% common will ask for imprisonment even though all 100% will find the statement distasteful. While, try telling that "judges are idiots", and they will throw you in prison for 6 months. This will give you a hint about who is more liberal and tolerant, and who should have more powers on ANY issue.

And in any case, I will THANK at least you wrote you views in black and white. IMO, you are better than most illuminated postors here, who also believe that we all 105cr commons are 2.5 morons but are scared of writing that. At least, you have courage to write what you think
----

I agree that MPs are defunct, and many MPs like Aruns, MMS, PC, Yechuri, Pramod, ABV, Narendrabhai etc should be thrown into prison for decades for their defunct acts of bribery and passing useless laws. But the SCjs are equally defunct, nepotic and corrupt. Why should I support one goon over another?

There are far far better alternatives such as
1)procedures to expel CMs, PM, MLAs, MPs (which btw judges oppose)
2)JurySys over law-making
3)Jury Trial before punishment is issued

and so forth.

The above laws are immune to nepotism and corruption, that SCjs are soaked into till their nose.

======================

So your point that there should be a check on MPs and a procedure to void their fatwas is correct. But that check should be us commons, NOT some 25 SCjs whose only claim to fame is being sons and nephews of of past SCjs and eminents.
---
So the fair and constitutional answer to private colleges is : convert them in private tuition classes, and force them to pay all taxes we commons pay.

Now once you covert them into private taxable tuition classes with no free lands, the demand for CBR will evaporate.
The minority (Nbjprie) has been able to ruin NOT because SCjs could not cancel 9th schedule laws, but because we commons dont have procedure to expel PM, CMs, MLAs, MPs, police chiefs, judges, PPs, District Education Officer, PPS, RBI-Guv. So called 9th schedule does not play even 1% role.

28)
We now know that judges are no different from some traffic constable when it comes to integrity. (or is my comparing SCj with a common an act of blasphemy?) And so commons want to clip SCjs' wings. They should stripped of the power of questing laws, as they have proved that they are unworthy of it. And till someone worthy of this power appears on this horizon, it is best that power to cancel law remains with us commons ONLY.

======================

I will re-raise my old point : It is interesting that you do NOT even deny my allegations of nepotism and judge-lawyer nexuses in SCjs anymore. Are you accepting these allegations?
-----
The judges prefer to deal with few 10s of people and not 100s and 1000s of people as latter would expose them. Taking bribes from 1000s of builders, traders is not manageable for a judge.
------
Someone wrote:
Currently, apart from a resolution in the Parliament to get rid of a SC judge or the same in the state assembly, what are the checks and balances on the Indian judiciary?


A.The MLAs cant get rid of SCjs or even HCjs. They have no role to play and have no powers either. And 67% of MPs (LS) have to support the motion of impeachment to get rid of SCj or HCj. And other than that, there is NO method to expel an SCj. Most SC-Cj can do is to take work away from him and leave him in corner. In case of HCj, for first one year, SCjs can expel him. But after first year of service, only MPs can expel him, not even SCjs.

IMO, we commons should force PM to enact a procedure by which we citizens can register YES/NO on RTI-applications etc. And using this procedure, within 15 days, we commons will be able enact a procedure by which we can expel SCjs. Once the procedure to expel SCjs comes, the judges will mellow down and reduce their corruption. And in addition, we should install Jury System in Supreme Court and that the problem of corruption/nepotism goes away.

Some people are proposing brain dead proposal of National judocratic Commission. This NjC will only improve elitemen's control over SCjs/HCjs and will make SCjs/HCjs more corrupt than now. This whole NjC proposal is to ensure that each SCj/HCj acts like slave of elitemen, and other than that, NjC has no utility.

29)
Delhi Sealing Drive (BR)
Quote:
Delhi sealing drive was one of the best and rarest moment in India where law breaker were held accountable ...


Really? Law breakers were punished? Did judge Sabharval send even one IAS into prison who had allowed 1000s of illegal construction? And you project judge Sabharval as a judge is very non-compromising about law and ethics. Can you tell me how many corrupt judges has he imprisoned in his life? Can you explain why he approved promotion of judge corrupt judge Bhalla?

The dates tally with events--- judge Sabharval took the sealing case in his hands after his sons became builders. Further, judge Sabharval ignored the new law passed by Delhi Assembly which legalized the mixed use. The judge is supposed to give judgments as per laws made by Assembly, unlsess laws violate fundamental rights. And the new law did NOT violate fundamental rights. Clearly, judge had some motives to give judgments against the laws.

30)
Clean Up The Judiciary-
http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes ... ef-justice
Politicians, judges grab land flouting norms in Bangalore
Quote:
Assembly report indicts allotment policy

It is a shocking tale of nepotism, high-handedness and illegality running amok in Bangalore where encroachment on public land has become the rule of the day. Over 33,000 persons, including private builders and land dealers in nexus with politicians, police officers, bureaucrats and judges have devoured about 30,000 acres of public land in the cosmopolitan city.

This is the finding of a Joint Committee of Legislature on Land Encroachment in Bangalore City/Urban District. The Committee examined 1,100 complaints, visited 90 spots and conducted 200 internal review meetings before tabling its Second Interim Report to the Karnataka Assembly on July 27 this year.

In the 130-page report (with Annexures), a striking revelation relates to the Karnataka State Judicial Employees House Building Cooperative Society (HBCS). The society was established in 1983 with the objective of providing housing to the employees of judicial department. But in brazen violation of norms, nine Supreme Court judges (including one sitting judge), 75 high court judges, politicians, contractors of public works department, police officials and kith and kin of judges, acquired sites in the society.

This is the second report by the Committee on the encroachments in Bangalore City after the first report was brought out in May 2007. Giving the extent of encroachment under its purview, the report states, "The area under encroachment of the different Government departments and statutory bodies reported as in May 2007 is about 30,000 acres in Bangalore Urban District."

Giving details of the extent of encroachment of public land, the report states that 33,812 persons are in unauthorised occupation of land belonging to various Government departments.

The task carried out by the committee preceded the enactment of the Karnataka Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Bill, 2007 awaiting Presidential assent. This law, once in place, seeks to declare land grabbing as a punishable offence.

The inaction, and in some cases collusion on the part of the Government authorities entrusted to acquire and develop public land, is revealed by the committee comprising 12 members of the State Legislative Assembly, five members of Legislative Council, a Principal Secretary, Additional Secretary and Deputy Secretary of the State Government.

Noting its anguish at the state of affairs existing in the Society, the report said, "The judicial Employees HBCS which should have been a model example for other HBCSs to emulate, has become a cesspool of corruption and lawlessness."

The Judicial Employees HBCS enrolled 3,399 members and 1,353 associate members and allotted 2268 sites, each ranging between Rs 75 lakh to Rs 3 crore. The report said, "This included a large number of sites (measuring dimensions of 80x120, 60x90, 50x80, 40x60), allotted to judges of the Supreme Court, high court, their family members, politicians, contractors, officials like police sub-inspectors who cannot be even 'honorary' judicial officers while many regular primary members were not allotted sites."

Several primary members filed a writ petition in the Karnataka High Court in October 2002 under the Judicial Employees Welfare Association. The HC directed interim stay on distribution of sites. Despite it, the society continued allotting plots in violation of the order when the Association filed a contempt petition. The matter came to the Supreme Court, which stayed the HC order on May 11, 2007. Interestingly, Chief Justice KG Balakrishnan who passed the order, further directed that Justice RV Raveendran, who is named one of the beneficiaries in the report, should not hear the matter as and when the matter is taken up.

While politicians, contractors and police officials are easily to be ruled out as members of a judicial employees society, the report states that judges are "ineligible" to be members in the society. This view finds concurrence with a 1995 Karnataka High Court decision that clearly disentitles high court judges from becoming members of any HBCS.

The HC judgment said, "A reading of Clause 7 of the Byelaws, in our view, by no stretch of imagination can include the judges of high court or Supreme Court (sitting, transferred or retired). Even assuming for a moment that certain judges have been allowed to become members of the society, it may be an irregularity in the conduct of business of the society." (ILR 1995{1} Kar 3139)


The committee found it "disquieting" how judges being constitutional functionaries, protected rightly by privilege under the law would become "employees" and act with such readiness to acquire membership and obtain sites. The Board of Directors of the said society had informed the committee there was a separate application form for judges of high court and Supreme Court set apart from that meant for other members.

The Judicial Employees HBCS has till date taken possession of about 157 acres of land from the Government. Besides it has acquired 36 acres of agricultural land, in violation of the existing Land Reforms Act and operates its registered office in the Karnataka High Court building.

While the committee is inquiring into the irregularities in other HBCSs also, the report cites the example of Judicial Employees HBCS as the 'mother of illegalities'. "It is most unfortunate that the Judicial Employees HBCS...has indulged in acts of favour, cronyism, and capricious indifference to law at will, obviously under the hubris that having High Court judges and powerful persons as its members and beneficiaries will ensure immunity to all its illegal acts."


Top
 Profile  
 
7
PostPosted: Mon Jul 18, 2011 8:51 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 2:49 pm
Posts: 596
31)
Burning police station, burning bikes and other Constitutional activities by Chennai lawyers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VS99xpSOIu8
.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OH5LfvczgPs

This happens when judge fixing rules the roost.

----
Corruption = (Per capita discretionary powers) * (Opportunity to Form Nexus at individual level) * (other factors)

When persons have discretionary powers and opportunity to form nexuses, most of them will take bribes. And unless they are too greedy or over confident, they will never ever get caught. eg judges in India almost always use a relative lawyer or an old friend lawyer as a middleman, and so judges never leave any evidences of bribery. Likewise, most income tax babu or most babu take bribes ONLY via CAs or lawyers and never touch the client directly. There is an overhead and a loss, but that ensures that there is no witness or evidence. And even with these trusted friends and relatives, they communicate without direct words. After all, communication is an art of exchanging messages without telling in explicit words. There are some few greedy and over confident judges, PPs, babus etc who want to reduce the overhead and so they speak directly to bribe-giver client , and sometimes get caught. But over time, most babus, judges, PPs, neta etc would learn and deal indirectly only and so corruption will be rampant and yet there will be no "evidence". So "show me the proof that judges take bribes" like arguments are useful in suppressing debates but does improve situation.
32)
SwamyG wrote:
Rahul ji:

1. I believe eGov initiatives when successfully implemented will help reduce corruption. This is just one of the small tweaking that I was talking about.

2. Ravi has already talked about the income and pay scales, hopefully some thing can be done in that area as well;

3. meanwhile we have to get back some dharmic values back into the system. How about introducing 15 mins meditation into the departments that have to face large pressure and stress. All preaching without any income to support is not going to work. Just some thoughts.


1. How will eGov reduce corruption, nepotism in SCjs, HCjs, PM, CMs, District Police Chiefs etc? How will eGov reduce corruption, nepotism in lower court judges? It wont decrease corruption in high/middle places even by 0.5% . eGov reduces corruption at lower level only, which was anyway mere 2% of total corruption. eg How much bribe did Talati too in giving 7/12 certificates in general? Hardly Rs 100. The lion's share of bribery happens when CM gives land without auction. Now that does not decrease even by 0.01% with eGov.

3. Yoga will improve their virility, and so now there will more reason for them to take bribes . So with meditation and yoga, corruption will increase

2. Yes, salaries should increase. But AFTER corruption decreases.
It is hard to convince citizens that salary of IPS, judges should be raised when they see then collecting bribes equal to 10-50 times their salaries. In my model, things are done WITH approval of citizens. I dont see why citizens would approve raise till corruption in IPS, IAS, judges, Ministers decrease. And wgen corruption decreases, many would start leaving services and so citizens will be convinced to raise the salaries.


----
People choose established parties only because they want to get rich quick. Otherwise, it is proven again and again that established parties' leaders want nothing but money and only want workers to campaign. If you think things are different, I welcome you to start attending meetings of any established party. The seniors do not permit any discussion on any good changes necessary in administrations. Seniors only want one topic to discussed - how party can get more votes , more donations etc , more members etc. Pls attend the meetings to get first hand information. I can say this, as I have been in touch with them for over a decade.
-----
33)
http://news.rediff.com/report/2009/jun/ ... erence.htm

At least one big step towards breaking neta-babu nexus.

Quote:
"New Bill to protect bureaucracy from political interference
Aditi Phadnis

When the Civil Services Bill, 2009, becomes an Act, bureaucrats will no longer be at the mercy of the arbitrary transfers and postings regime that operates currently. The Civil Services Bill, 2009, which envisages an enforceable code of conduct for all bureaucrats through a new Central Public Services Authority, will be piloted immediately after the Budget session of the Lok Sabha.

This will provide statutory backing to the conduct of all civil servants and appointments, transfers and postings will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. The Bill is being designed to prevent political interference in the bureaucracy. The CPSA will be the body to professionally manage the civil services. This will include the appointment, performance, promotions, transfers and tenures of civil servants and how they spent the money allotted to departments.

The CPSA will have between three and five members, and will have a chairman who will have the rank of the Chief Election Commissioner. He will be appointed for five years by a committee comprising the prime minister, a judge of the Supreme Court and the leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha. The Cabinet secretary will act as the convenor of the committee. Persons from political parties, Members of Parliament and Members of Legislative Assemblies are debarred from membership of the CPSA. ...."

-------
Quote:
There is now major thrust on removing powers from Ministers and giving those powers to "regulators" . The reason is two folds

1. in Ministers OBCs are becoming more powerful and so now upper caste elitemen want to create a new structure where power will remain with upper caste elitemen only as it was in 1950-90.

2. MNCs too want powers to go with regulators as they are fewer in number and less demanding than Ministers.

This change will NOT benefit us commons at all, In fact, it will only assist MNCs/elitemen in more ruthlessly eliminating whatever small number of pro-poor babus left in babudom. With changes like these, poverty etc will only increase and country will move closer towards naxal-missionary takeover.


------
Corruption in neta-babu-judges will decrease ONLY when a new procedure that gives us commons to expel/imprison neta-babu-judge comes, NOT when one babu is asked to check another babu. eg in Greece in Athens, why didnt Socrates, Aristotle wrote about the problem of corruption? Because it was near zero. Why was it near zero? Because if an officer was suspected, a Jury of 200 to 600 was called and if found guilty, not only he was expelled but would face severe fines and may also face death penalty. IOW, in Greece, the commons had powers to punish individuals and corruption was near zero.

When a new law comes, which merely empowers babu-A to check babu-B, the babu-A will simply dominate babu-B and collect some of the bribes babu-B collected. And he will never ever ask babu-B to reduce his corruption or serve the commons. eg what do all these Lok Ayukts do? What do all these people in Anti-Corruption Buearo and Vigilance Dept do?

So the new proposed solution will ONLY allow elitemen, MNCs etc to have tight control over IAS, IPS. So IAS, IPS will take less bribes from elitemen and MNCs. But their interaction with commons will not change. Of course, the mediamen, who are all slaves of elitemen, will write many good stories about these new laws because it benefits elitemen. But these stories apart, things will remain ditto same for commons
.

-------
34)
Quote:
Assuming jury system is brought back tomorrow, what are the immediate issues to be taken care of to ensure the system functions as expected? I can think of at least few:

1a. For jury system to work, there has to be some sense of trust in the public machinery especially the law enforcement wing; only then people would come forward to be part of jury system and ..

1b. know that if the powerful enemies want to physically harm the jurors or their family, government would provide necessary protection (and not lip service).

2. how do you pick the jurors that can positively contribute to closure of the court case? who decides?

3. how do you protect the jurors from intellectual intimidation? especially jurors coming from economically backward part without necessary education/background. ex: jury mix consisting of itvity, mba types, farmer, steel company worker.

4. A more expensive but equally effective option to streamline would be to capture video of the proceedings
(like third umpire...) and make it available as a public record for the people and media to see. intense scrutiny and psychological effect alone would put so much pressure on the courts that the lethargy/bribing/perjury/bias would gradually take a backseat.


1a. There is no "coming forward" in JurySys. The 12-20 citizens are chosen at random and they better serve the Jury Duty or they will be fined. Jury Duty is a small scale Military Duty --- there is no choice. In the law I am proposing, if say 100 cases are registered in a District, then some 2000-3000 people will be summoned. Some may be dead, some may have left town etc and so out of 3000 say 2600 arrive. Then they will be randomly divided to 100 groups of 26 Jurors each, one Jury per case. The lawyers can interview them for 20 minutes each, and each lawyer will reject 4 candidates. SO we have a Jury of 18. They will be randomly divided into two groups of 12 main Jurors and 6 stand by. Thats it. There is no "coming forward". While JurySys varies from District to District, State to State and Country to Country - random selection is the most pious element of JurySys. Remove random selection, and JurySys is not JurySys, it is just another version of useless and corrupt judge system.

1b. In JurySys, the powerful ganglord will be confronting not one Jury, but 100s of Juries --- one per every complaint against him. eg a person like Shri Dawoodbhai who has 100-200 gangster in Mumbai would face about 100-200 Jury Trials a year against him or his gangsters. With due respect to Shri Dawoodbhai, he cant threaten 2500 Jurors every year. And law to enact JurySys should be has to be seen in conjuction with law I propose via which we commons can recall District Police Chiefs, judges, CM, HomeMin. The criminals like Sri Dawoodbhai and Sri Latifbhai thrive only because High Court judges, Supreme Court judges, Ministers and District Police Chiefs support them. With procedures of recall over SCjs, HCjs, CMs, PM, Ministers and DPC, none of them would dare to support such criminals. So with recallable judges, HomeMin and Police Chiefs, strength of Sri Dawoodbhai will decrease. So there is no way Sri Dawoodbhai can threaten 2000 Jurors a year.

2. [Aside : Nothing against you, but the very question shows you never got a chance to read about JurySys. That is because the budheejeevies you have been listening to in newspaper columns, textbooks etc are so hostile to JurySys never wrote about it lest some reader would become pro-Jury. So look at the tragedy --- even a well informed person like you does not know basics of JurySys.] There is no "selection" in JurySys. the Jurors are chosen at random. In the law I have proposed to enact JurySys in India, Jurors are selected at random from population between 25 years and 65 years.

3. Yes, the Jury will consists of all types from people. In JurySys, each Juror wants to convince other Jurors to agree with him. So if any Juror tries to intimidate another Juror, the second Juror will just stop listening to him. So as a result, you rarely see any Juror trying to intimidate other.

4. In the law I have proposed, recording of all court cases will be compulsory. And they will be aired on-line on internet. IOW, there will 100000 courts in India up from existing 17000, and each will have TV camera connected to internet so that anyone in India can see any courtroom live. The online viewing of Supreme Court benches and ALL High Court benches can start within 1 month, but online viewing of 16000-100000 lower courts will take 5 years. But public disclosure is NOT a solution to nepotism and corruption. Since we commons dont have recall procedures, the judges, IPS take bribe in public and dont give a damn. The public disclosure will only give us information on how defunct each judge is --- it will not solve the problem. So while I support public viewing of ALL courts over internet-TV, the solution is Recall-Jury and not Internet based Court-TV.

35)
Quote:
1. The theory of mass injustice against jurors would trigger civil war may be true;

2. ... why should some completely unrelated person pay the price and get dragged into a power struggle because of jury system? If this is the cost/sacrifice people need to make to put the system in place, lets call it that way or lets find a solution for it.

3. however, I am not sure how this can be applied in Indian context as the problems India faces are unique (especially deep TOT between police/neta/criminal nexus) and needs unique solutions.

4. ... how do you ensure quality of the jury to positively contribute to closure of the court case..

5. you can not simply do that by law/force...as they say you can lead a horse to water; but, you cannot make them drink.


1. This far fetched. Civil war happens when one community is against another. The judge sys or JurySys has nothing to do with this.

2. The citizens pay the price of the crimes anyway. The JurySys reduces the price citizens will pay compared to the judge sys. As in judge system, big criminals have nexuses with judges relatives and so they always get away.

3. The hafta culture has spread ONLY because we commons dont have Recall/Jury. No pain, no law. The neta, policemen, judges etc see that pain in breaking the law by taking hafta is almost zero, and so they take hafta everyday. Recall/Jury and other laws I have proposed (such as "Trial By Majority with Prior Consent of Accused") create methods by which citizens can inflict pain on neta, policemen, judges who have taken bribes and thus reduce bribes.

4. In the proposed laws I have drafted, the Jurors are chosen at random. If anyone has a better Jury selection procedure code, he is welcome to provide an draft of an alternate law. I will specify my YES/NO after reading that law.

5. Citizens have a natural Hatred against criminals, corrupt and tax-evaders. This Hatred against criminals, corrupt and tax-evaders is what makes the Jurors active in the case. Every Juror knows that if criminals gets away, the number of crimes will rise and he or his family member can be next victim. And so every Juror does want criminals behind bars and at the same time wants innocents stay unharmed. So till date, in almost all Juries since 1000 AD, Jurors have shown very minimal tendency to escape Jury Duty - far less that efforts people make to dodge Military drafts or witness summons. IOW, if horse is thirsty, and taken to water, he will drink. So given that Jurors have Hatred against criminals, corrupt and tax-evaders, the Jurors do serve their Jury Duty.

ramana wrote:
The jury system will add further delays to the already tardy justice system. "Delay is the worst form of denial" Parkinson. So if you have ideas for speedy disposal of the cases they are always welcome. I think trying to bringback a system that was abandoned is a non-starter. So within the existing system what changes can be brought about?


Delay is related with number of courts. We have 3 crore pending cases. One court can dispose say at most 100 cases a year. So to dispose 3 crore in 3 years, we have to dispose 1 crore cases a year, which means we need 100,000 courts. How many do we have? Only 16000 of which 2000 are vacant. So solution to delay problem is in manufacturing 100,000 courts and is not related judge-Jury system.

The judge-Jury issue is about nepotism, nexuses and resulting corruption. The judge system all over world, through out past 5000 years has been known for nepotism and nexuses. Take Chief Justice of Hastinapur Honorable Justice Dhritarashtra or modern day judges --- all have proven to be nepotic and nexused. Where as JurySys has been known to immune to nexuses and nepotism from day one when it started in 950 AD in Britain.

So if 100,000 lakh or more Jury based courts are manufactured, the cases would get disposed within 1-2-3 months, and delay would be minimal. Ditto with judge system. If 100,000 judge based courts are manufactured, delay will be minimal. But the judge based courts will reek with nexus, nepotism. This will only enable elitemen and criminals who hire judges relative lawyers to fleece the commons en-masse. Where as Jury based courts will be free from nepotism, nexuses.

-----------
Someone wrote:
1. Key difference is judge knows what he is getting into.....whereas jurors are dragged into this.

2. In countries like massaland, there is a lot of trust and respect for police and justice system (it is not perfect; but on the whole less corrupt than system in India) and jury system work quite effectively. If jury system acts as a mechanism for disciplining police force, then I am all for it.

3. What other options have you considered? What are the pros/cons? Since you are the one who took the pain (I appreciate the effort BTW), you probably have done your research and coming up with recommendations. pls. educate us...


1. The judge is serving willingly where as Jurors are unwilling, but not hostile. Now as of today in India, this goes against judge system because the judge is eager to be a judge because of bribes he gets via relative lawyers. So willingness and eagerness does not make him a better judge.

2. Americans have respect for police and courts, because police and courts are less corrupt and less unfair. And police is less corrupt ONLY because West has been using Coroner's Jury System and Jury System since 950 AD. We often wonder "why policemen in West are less corrupt and defunct than policemen in India". Well, lets ask the same question in different way. "When did policemen in West became better than policemen of India?". Back in 800 AD, you will see that policemen in Britain and India were equally corrupt and defunct - agents to serve the elitemen and beat the commons recklessly. The change in British police came only after 950 AD when Coroner's Jury System came in place where in 6-20 commons were chosen at random to decide if the accused policeman should be expelled. It was only after around 950 AD British police became better than Indian police. Out major 100 countries in the world, some 15 have JurySys and 85 dont. Every country with JurySys has very low corrupt police -- 100% success ratio unseen in sociology and politics. And in judge system, out of 85, only 4-5 countries have low corruption policemen. And some of this countries, like Japan and South Korea are now switching to JurySys.

3. I have considered many options, but JurySys outsmarts all of them when it comes to reducing nepotism and nexuses. It is proven, time tested and has been a winner since the day it first came in 950 AD. The judge system is a 5000 year old failure.


Top
 Profile  
 
8
PostPosted: Wed Jan 30, 2013 11:35 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 2:49 pm
Posts: 596
36) quote:Rahul Mehta says : The punishment is the ONLY known deterent to corruption.

Raj Singh says: Is that so? If we go by the above, then US should have been the most corruption free society in this world. Is that the case? It has the jury system (you have been asking for)and perhaps the harshest possible punishment in its penal code. Do you have any idea as to how many law makers have been caught in every political party in US have been caught on corruption charges? Check that out, first.

US is the BEST example to show that Jury System is the ONLY known cure to corruption. why? Becuase ALL areas in US which come under Jury System have low corruption, while in the SAME country, in the SAME town, the areas which are OUTSIDE the scope of Jury (i.e. completely under regulators/judges) are soaked in corruption and mind boggling irregularites.

eg local policemen, local twon officers in US are by and large non-corrupt. Why? They come are punishable by Jury. While there is significant corruption/irregularity at top level (senator, prez, vc, defence deals etc) as these areas are seldom covered by Juries. Most of the irregularities in these area are dealt by so called "regulators" (quasi-judges) or judges, who seldom take any action.

eg look at corporate US. Jurors have much less control over corporates as they have on police. Corporates are "regulated" by boards like SEC etc. And as we saw, SEC diliberately didnt punish many coporates in past for rigging the books. Even the energy regulators who found Enron's irregularies in past didnt take any harsh action that would detere Enron's directors from rigging energy prices.

Similarly banking in US falls outside Jury as most actions are take by FRBs (Federal Reserve Banks) and rarely a banker will face the Jurors. So banking sector is full of irregularities.

So yes, senators, CEOs, biggies etc in US and everywhere are corrupt as there is no Jury System to DIRECTLY prosecute/imprison them. And unless Jurors are used instead of regulators/judges, the corruption is going to stay.

-Rahul Mehta

37) ) http://www.frontlineonnet.com/fl1915/19150360.htm
Frontline Volume 19, Issue 15. July 20[b]

[b]JUDGES IN THE DOCK

The Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court strips three Judges of the court of work for their alleged role in the scandal involving former Punjab Public Service Commission chief Ravi Sidhu.

PRAVEEN SWAMI

WITH its massive concrete walls, the Punjab and Haryana High Court resembles nothing so much as a fortress, built to secure justice from scrutiny by the world outside. Now the ramparts have been breached decisively. Chief Justice Arun B. Saharya's June 29 decision to strip three corruption-tainted High Court Judges of work is a seismic event, unprecedented in the long struggle for judicial accountability. For the first time in India, Judges have faced administrative action for misconduct, and the event could prove just a precursor to even harsher sanction. But his colleagues are not the only people Justice Saharya has placed in the dock: Punjab Chief Minister Amarinder Singh and his inner circle of advisers must now answer questions that threaten to undermine their legitimacy.

Justice Saharya's orders came in response to credible allegations that three Judges - Justices Amarbir Singh Gill, M.L. Singhal and Mehtab Singh Gill - had participated in former Punjab Public Service Commission (PPSC) chief Ravi Inder Pal Singh Sidhu's colossal jobs-for-cash fraud. Sidhu had organised the manipulation of mark-sheets and the pre-delivery of examination papers to help Justice Amarbir Gill's daughter, Amol Gill, and Justice Singhal's daughter, Sapna Singhal, gain government jobs.

Justice Mehtab Gill's role was even more serious. A childhood friend of Sidhu, the Judge funnelled several candidates through Sidhu's enterprise of fraud. When Amarinder Singh came to power on an anti-corruption platform, Mehtab Gill is believed to have promised legal protection for the PPSC chief and his aides.

All three Judges were indicted in the testimony of Sidhu's closest aides.

The order stripping Justices Amarbir Gill, Singhal and Mehtab Gill of work came after a six-week and still-continuing in-house inquiry conducted by Chief Justice Saharya. In May, Saharya requisitioned the services of the then Punjab Police Intelligence chief A.P. Bhatnagar, who was earlier associated with the Justice J.S. Verma Commission of Inquiry which investigated the Rajiv Gandhi assassination. The decision came after the Punjab and Haryana High Court Bar Association launched a feisty protest against judicial corruption. The lawyers' protests were provoked by an earlier order by Justice K.S. Garewal barring police officials from providing information to the media on the Sidhu scandal, and the media from reporting whatever information they had. This outraged the media as well. In a front-page article, the Editor of The Tribune, asserted "that the people's right to information cannot be compromised with" and added that "we will be damned if we deny them their rightful due".

In key senses, the showdown of June 29 was provoked by sustained efforts to sabotage the investigation in the Ravi Sidhu case. Soon after the PPSC chief's arrest, Punjab Vigilance Department head A.P. Pandey gave out a list of beneficiaries based on the statements of Sidhu's aides. That list, it soon turned out, excluded the names of Judges, senior Indian Administrative Service officers and other influential figures. He also repeatedly claimed that there was no evidence to support allegations that Judges were involved in the scandal. Bhatnagar and his deputy, Inspector-General of Police Sumedh Singh Saini, who had together organised Sidhu's entrapment while receiving a Rs.5-lakh bribe and spearheaded the subsequent investigation, were incensed. Intelligence officials let it be known that they intended to pursue all suspects irrespective of their status. By late May, relations between Vigilance and Intelligence had broken down. While Intelligence officials charged Pandey with wilfully stalling the probe, he in turn demanded their removal. Amarinder Singh's inner circle, sources told Frontline, counselled the slowing down of the investigation, arguing that exposure of the tainted Judges would antagonise the judiciary. Four days before Chief Justice Saharya's order, the entire Intelligence establishment - Bhatnagar, Saini, Deputy Inspector-General R.P. Singh and Superintendent of Police S.S. Mand - were removed from their positions. This round of transfers, as in the case of the events that preceded and followed it, was unprecedented in its scale.

IT is unlikely that the findings of Chief Justice Saharya's inquiry will ever be revealed, but it is clear he would not have acted without considerable evidence at his disposal. What is known, however, makes it hard not to feel deep unease at the Punjab government's response to the events in the High Court. For reasons it understands best, the Vigilance Department seems to believe that the Chief Justice is, so to speak, targeting the wrong set of thieves. "As far as my file is concerned", says Vigilance Department head Pandey, "there are some High Court Judges named. At the time I spoke to the media on this question I had no conclusive evidence. We have some conclusive evidence now, and that evidence has been placed before him. I do not know from where the Chief Justice has found what. I would not like to contradict whatever he is doing."

Pandey's generous refusal to "contradict" the Chief Justice obviously does not settle the issue. When Pandey told the Chandigarh media that he had no hard evidence against Judges and other influential people, he had none against others the Vigilance Department had named, either. All it possessed were the confessional statements of Sidhu's key aides, Randhir Singh Dhira and Jagman Singh. And when the Vigilance Department had hard evidence, it seemed reluctant to act on it. Consider the fact that the former PPSC chief was granted bail in the first of two cases filed against him because no charge-sheet was filed within 90 days as required. Pandey says the decision not to file the charge-sheet was made after "intensive consultation with legal people". "We were advised that since the charges were under the Prevention of Corruption Act a Judge may throw out the case unless we obtained the sanction first", he said. Perhaps he needs new advisers. Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) confers on the accused a right to obtain bail if investigation is not completed in 90 days. The completion of investigation by the police by filing the charge-sheet is one thing; the court's decision to take cognisance of the charge-sheet is another. The issue of sanction falls in the second of these stages, a fact well known to the Central Bureau of Investigation, which often files charge-sheets even while awaiting the grant of official sanction.

Even more curious, no charge-sheets were filed against Randhir Singh Dhira and another key associate of Sidhu, Prem Sagar, and this again enabled them to obtain bail. Pandey explains that "Dhira and Prem Sagar were arrested on the basis of first information report 7, in which we believe now that it is legally prudent to charge Ravi Sidhu alone. We registered a separate case against Dhira and Prem Sagar." The argument makes little sense. If, as Pandey claims, Dhira and Prem Sagar had no role in the first of the Sidhu cases, the Vigilance Department should have immediately filed an application before the trial Judge seeking their discharge. It is, indeed, a serious offence to keep suspects in jail after coming to know of their innocence. Dhira's confession to a Judge in Patiala had also provoked considerable controversy, since he omitted the names of several beneficiaries of the PPSC fraud - in fact 31 of 62 - whom he had earlier named during his interrogation by Intelligence officials. Pandey accepts that a subsequent additional confession made by Dhira was the consequence of media "hulla gulla" (outcry) against the omission.

Sidhu's mother, Prithpal Kaur, along with his brother Reetinder and his wife, played a key role in handling his funds. They have all now left the country. The Vigilance Department claims that this happened because it then had no knowledge of their role in Sidhu's affairs. Assuming this to be true, it still does not explain why no action was taken to prevent them from leaving the country and, even more serious, why no subsequent effort was made to make them return. Speaking to journalists in Chandigarh, CBI spokesperson S.M. Khan rebutted Pandey's claims that the Vigilance Department had asked the agency to take steps to prevent Sidhu's relatives from leaving the country. "My Superintendent of Police", Pandey says, "went and met the officer in charge of Interpol matters to help locate their assets. I also spoke to CBI Director P.C. Sharma who assured us of all help. S.M. Khan may not be aware of the facts." Perhaps not, but this begs the question why no step has so far been taken to revoke the Sidhu family's passports, or secure their extradition.

Wilful inertia, the leitmotif of the Vigilance Department's working, might just have succeeded had it not been for Chief Justice Saharya's commitment to his judicial responsibilities. The transferred Intelligence officials would have been disgraced; their investigation of allegations against Judges put down to personal malice. Given the sheer impunity with which some of the scam-tainted Judges acted, it is possible that they were counting on some such outcome. Justice Mehtab Gill, for example, told both The Indian Express and his colleagues he did not know Sidhu at all. In fact, Sidhu's family had moved to the family home of Justice Mehtab Gill at Charick near Moga after Partition. As a student, the PPSC chief often spent his summer vacation at the Gill home in Charick. That the friendship persisted is evident from photographs of Sidhu's swearing in, which record the Judge's wife and mother engaged in conversation with Prithpal Kaur. Dhira was also invited to the function, and was photographed with Sidhu.

So far, the Chief Minister has made no effort to explain just why he has tolerated the Vigilance Department's appalling lack of resolve. Suspect examination sheets have yet to be examined by forensic experts; dozens of well-placed scam beneficiaries, Amol Gill and Sapna Singhal among them, have yet to be questioned; at least three senior IAS officers named by Sidhu's aides remain wholly un-investigated. All of this is at a par with the past. For four weeks after Sidhu's arrest on March 25, the Vigilance Department came up with precious little information on his activities and repeatedly sought to close the investigation. It was only after Dhira surrendered to Intelligence officials in late April that a clear picture emerged on Sidhu's activities. Another key aide, Jagman Singh, again surrendered to Intelligence officials. Still, the record shows, the Vigilance Department failed to round up further suspects or pursue the new leads - until, that is, Chief Justice Saharya's stinging indictment.

Acting now will not get the Chief Minister off the hook. Full account will have to be given for past failures, most notably the wholesale purge in the Intelligence department. Amarinder Singh's stated reason for the purge was that it had no business registering criminal cases. His advisers perhaps omitted to tell him that - if legal niceties were what provoked his ire - neither did the Vigilance Department, that power being vested by the CrPC in officers-in-charge of police stations. While many argue that criticism of the official conduct of the case will deflect attention from the deep corruption of the Shiromani Akali Dal-Bharatiya Janata Party regime, precisely the converse is true. Should Amarinder Singh now choose not to introspect and review past actions, the door will lie open for the Union government's intervention through the CBI. That, in turn, will subvert the enormous public goodwill generated in the course of Amarinder Singh's anti-corruption campaign.

Meanwhile, in New Delhi, Chief Justice of India B.N. Kirpal will face an even larger challenge. No one but he and Chief Justice Saharya are aware of the sustained discussions they have had on the megaton-sized events in Chandigarh. Chief Justice Saharya has no powers other than to strip the scam-tainted Judges of their work, but the CJI could be considering transferring them to another High Court. Political parties too will have to discover the will to use the final sanction of impeachment. It is now 12 years since the Justice V. Ramaswami scandal broke out, ironically enough in Chandigarh. On that occasion, eminent lawyer P.P. Rao has recorded, three successive CJI advised Justice Ramaswami not to attend to his judicial work, "but none of them took the next logical step of withdrawing work from the judge". And Parliament chose, because of narrow political considerations, not to impeach Justice Ramaswami.

Justice Saharya has marched across the line none dared to cross in 1992. It will now rest on the political establishment to see if it can find the courage to act to establish judicial accountability.
====================================
Given that so many, 20% or many more, judges have been corrupt for long, what the hell OTHER judges been doing for so many years? Isnt it a morela duty of a high court judge to expose the fellow judge if he is corrupt? Isnt it supreme court judge moral responsibility to set traps on corrupt high court judges, do a "Tehelka" on them and then ask Prez to impeach. Of course, the judges THEMSELVES dont have to do this, they can always ask CBI to do the ground work. But reality is : the high/supreme judges have NEVER tried at all, to expose the corrupt judges.

This proves a bigger malice : whether the judges are honest or dishonest, they are LEAST bothered to ensure fabric of judiciary. In other words, even the honest judges are just careless, and good for nothing in fight against corruption.

All in all, this tip of iceberg calls for a thorough CBI-cum-PUBLIC inquiry of judges. The judges MUST be forced to disclose their assets, and their income/wealth tax returns of past few years MUST be published on web, so that citizens can see for themselves.

And finally the key question : say we find and fire the dishonest ones. But whom shall we replace them with. Surely, we cant do WITHOUT courts. Are we EVER going to get honest judges? Answer is : NO. Momment you pick a person, and appoint him as judge for 5-30 years, bingo, within 6 months to 12 mnonths, he will be as bad as the three judges mentioned above. And this FACT is what makes following two things MUST
1)we MUST change "judges" with every trial and
2)for every case, we MUST be select 1-10-12-15-whatever judges RANDOMLY from a wide population rather than a narrow section.

Put 1) and 2), and you have prove that Jury System is MUST.

38) Like HK. Luxumburge, Andora etc, Singapore is a MICRO-COUNTRY, not a country. It has a good dictator, but it is only now growing into a democracy where leaders are elected at rank and file. Due to simple economy (basically administrative/financial services, headquarters of MNCs in Asia, less agriculture, less industry), a dictorial setup and a welfare state has keep corruption in control without a Jury System. That way, even Saudi Arabia has kept corruption under control without Jury System. Thats is NOT the problem at hand. The task is to have COMPLETE political freedom, industry/agriculture based economy not just service based economy, and yet ensure low corruption. This has NEVER happened in a judge system.

39) quote:It's good where there is a minimum literacy level, relatively homogenity of people and minimum income level.

WRONG.
When Jury System came in Britain/US etc, level was education was low and poverty was indeed there. Over 99% of cases DO NOT need any sophisticated knowledge of law anyway.

quote:1: Will Jury system allow illiterates on the jury. ...

I humbly request you spend a week in court, and you will see that over 99% criminal cases run purely by witnesses and over 99% civil cases are sub-trivial. No knowledge of law is needed. As per illteracy, someone can read the document and verify.

quote:2: How will race/caste/religion sensitive cases be handled in jury system

judges are equally castist, So Jury and judge system is equally bad on this issue.

quote: Who can't a jury member who probably earns <100Rs per day, be bribed when a judge who has a bright career and respect and earns significantly more, can also be easily bribed.

A judge within 6 months will cultivate "customized" relationship with lawyers with whom he meets EVERY SINGLE DAY. And he becomes nexused. So judge system is far far more corruption/nexus prone than Jury System.

quote:4: Who will pay for the infrastructure required to incorporate jury system? How much will be the cost of transportantion, food during the day, additional facilities at the courts?

expenses are minor. Will be less than Rs 150 per Juror per day, inlc food, transport and daily renumeration. With 12 Jurors it will be say Rs 1800/day, which is LESS than what judges consume.

quote: 5: How much to be given to jury members for their efforts. How many urban, highly literate, working people will agree to take jury duty for Rs100 per day, still 2 times average per capita GDP. Wouldn't it make the whole sytems jury of the 'underpriviledged'

Jury Duty is COMPULSORY i.e. when Jury Summons are served, the person better serve in Jury or face fine/prison. Jury Duty is small scale military draft. The payment is FIXED irrespective of your income level.

quote: 6: Why can't the guilty bribe the poor jury members in 10-15 days, available to interact with them, who would be invariably poor? For example, how much time does it take for a corrupt traffic violater to bribe a traffic warden in India - Max 30 sec!

In Jury System, say a career criminal and his gang member is committing say 50 crimes in a month in 5-6 different areas. Then in Jury system he will have bribe 600 citizens a month i.e. say over 7000 citizens a year. While in judge system he ha sto bribe ONLY 5-6 judges. Clearly, the Jury System gives a worse uphill task for any career criminal.

Aside, the common men have HATRED againt criminals, as they suffer their acts. While judges NEVER hate criminals. Why?
1. judges ALWAYS live in posh neighborhoods where criminals would never harass people
2. the criminals never harass judges. Instead they would harsss commons
3. criminals PAY HAFTA to judges. So in reality, judges LOVE criminals, they dont hate them.

So since common men HATE criminals, they will crack down on him when they get a chance in the Jury Box.

quote: 7: A number of judges get threats after or during his tenure. They are protected by the govt. statute. Who will one protect millions of jury members & families. In US/UK, this threat problem is much smaller.

The threat problem in US/UK is smaller becuase courts (=Jurors) send criminals to prison while in India, the courts (=judges) DO NOT send criminals inot prison.

quote: For all those blaming judges for the acquittal of Sanjay Dutt/ Sukh ram, What do we know that we are ready to pronounce them guilty, based on highly sensational news-reports?? What is the difference between these news on Sanjay and Tehelka expose on GF, Jetley etc??

In that case, why do you accuse neta of corruption? If there are no proofs against judges, and so judge are non-corrupt, then also assume that neta are non-corrupt. After all there are no porrfs against neta as well.

quote:Alleging that judges have taken bribe cos' they did not punish Sukhram/Sanjay 'sufficiently enough' is either too naive or too 'dictatorial'.

You doing two opposite tasks. A court in a period will dispose say 3 cases a week or say about 150 cases a year i.e. say about 7000 cases in 30 year period. In Jury System, these 7000 cases will be disposed by say 84000 DIFFERENT randomly chosen citizens. While in judge system, these cases will be judges by 1 single judge. In effect, you replacing 84000 citizens by 1 person. And then you criticize dictatorship? The judge, since he has replaced discretion of 84000 citizens, by all means is a micro-dictator. A judge is NOT answerable to citizens or even MPs. He is ONLY answerable to higher judges, who are too busy anyway. So judge system is closer to dictatorship and while Jury System mirrors democracy. You doing two contradictory things : 1. you are bashing dictatorship AND
2. at the same time you are prasing judge-system (and bashing Jury System).

Pls make up you mind. You support democracy (i.e. Jury) or FAR LESS democracy (i.e judge system)

40) quote:D. Gill says : As the jury rule goes, I am amazed to know that Indian courts do not allow it. Before I comment on this I need to get some hard facts.

It is COLD fact that India's neta/babu/judges DO NOT allow Jurors in courts. Period.

Britishers had introduced partial Jury System in Indian in late 1800s and early 1900s. The Indian Supreme Court judges killed in in late 1950s, and the elitemen/mediamen/intellectualls had whole heartedly supported them and so did netas.

In 1972, the neta (MPs) formally buried Jury System by deleting all Jury-related clauses from so called Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).

The reason for not allowing Jury System is simple --- for career criminals, many of whom are elitemen as well, it is possible to bribe a sitting judge, and thus get favorable judgement in 100s of cases in that area. While in Jury System, the 12 Jurors change with every case. So an elitemen or a career criminal, who is facing 100s of cases, will have to bribe 1000s of Jurors, which is next to impossible. So career criminals dislike Jury System and prefer judges.

The intellectuals in India, both Macaulaites as well as Manuwaadies, will bitterly fight on all issues, but will ALWAYS agree on one issue --- that common Indians are stupid illiterate corrupt fool who MUST NOT be given deciding role in courts.

I differ from both. I have tremendous respect for integrity, common sense, and sense of justice of common Indians, and I think they are at least as morally sound citizens of west. And so I think we should allow common citizens (Jurors) to decide upon cases rather than nexus-prone fixed judges.

So as a whole Indian intellectuals too have bitterly opposed Jury System in India. So much so, that even law students are NOT even taught a word about importance of Jury. In fact, even top notched lawyers and retired judges in India have zero information about how Jury System works in US/UK etc.


Top
 Profile  
 
9
PostPosted: Thu Jan 31, 2013 1:19 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 2:49 pm
Posts: 596
41) quote: However how will this speed up the courts?

In Jury System, it is easy to increas ethe number of courts. Why? In judge system, when you increase the number of courts, you will need to hire judges and it is next to impossible to find 1000s of individuals with high integrity. So simply put, it is NOT possible to have 100,000 judge-based courts in India which will be fair and nexus-free. While in case of Jury, the judge has limited administrative/advicing powers 9and is not really a judges). So if you want to create 100,000 new Jury-based courts, within 1 year you can hire the "judges" (who are not really the judges), clerks etc and within 1 year, you *can* create 100,000 nexus-free courts.

So with Jury-system, the number of courts can be raised and thus trials will be faster.

Also, in case of Jury System, one Jury gets ONLY 1 case. There is NO context switch or breaks. So the trials are mostly continious, with hearings starting at say 10.30amd and going all the way till 4.30pm. In judge-system, you ALWAYS fall short of judges and end up giving dozens or 100s of cases to the same judge. So due to context-switch and breaks, the trials become slow and frustrating for the victims.

quote:4. How will this improve the criminal conviction rate in india which now stands at an shocking 4-5% rate?

Law rate is becuase judges have nexuses with layers. In judge-system , same judge sits in the court in that area for 3-4 years and withn a few weeks he cultivates nexuses with lawyers and local career criminals and this nexuses pulls down the conviction rate. How? The nexused judge will deliberately throw date after date to tire the witnesses and once the witnesses are tired, he will acquit the criminal. Now in Jury System since 12 Jurors change EVEREY trail, the it is next to impossible to have a close strong nexus between Jurors and lawyers. As a result, the criminals are more likely to get convicted in the Jury System.

quote:Are you trying to say that court cases which drag on for 20 years (or more) are entirely due to the fault of the judges?

The reason why IMPORTANT cases go on for 10s of years is CORRUPTION of judges and NO OTHER REASON. Yes, judges dont have time for all 20-30 cases that are filed EVERYDAY. But they do have plenty of time for IMPORTANT cases.

eg
1. Madhopura Bank had issued drafts worth 100s of crores of rupees even though it did NOT have any cash. There is provision for prison sentence. Yet the judges are NOT imprisoning them --- some 1.5 year has passed

2. Ketanbhai Parekh had deposisted Rs 150 crore draft of Madhopura Bank in Bank of India. The RBI guidelines are clear --- you can credit the draft ONLY after it is cleared. Yet the manager of bank gave credit to him. Mind you, amount is not some mere thousands of rupees, but whopping Rs 150 crores. The judges has necessary laws/powers to imprison the manager. 1.5 years has passed. No progress.

3. The draft bounced back. As per law, if depositor DOES NOT repay the money of the bounced check/draft againt which he has taken the credit within 30 days, he can be prosecuted. The Bank of India filed a case against him 1.5 years back. It is so called "section-138" case. Again, no progress.

The laws in EACH of the above 3 cases are trivial --- prison. If judges allow 1-2 hours pwer week for this IMPORTANT cases, the verdict can come in mere 2-3 months. But no, the judges DELIBEREATELY treat these cases at par with Rs 5000 cases, and keep throwing 2 month dates.

So the reason why many medium sized crimes go free is fewer courts. But the ONLY reason why the few big fish's cases get delayed is CORRUPTION of judges.

Also why are courts so few in India? The Supreme Court judges and High Court judges are DELIBERATELY slow in filling vacancies in High and Lower courts. As of today, we have about 13000 judgeships (including magistrate-ships) in lower court of which some 10% to 15% are vacant. Now we need AT LEAST 50,000 courts. Why is executive NOT creating additional 37000 seats? What exective (neta) have been saying, and I agree with them on this one, is that "see we have created 13000 seats of which some 2000 are vacant. Let the judges fill out say 1500 and we will create 2000 more. Let them fill another 1500-2000 and we will create 2000 more and so forth" But the judges never fill the vacancies in time, and so number of courts simply dont grow.

42) P Chupankar,

There is one more reason why criminals are more likely to loose in Jury Trials than in judge trials.

A judge leaves in ivory tower. He ois never harassed by criminals on street. Even a Magistrate within 1 year will amasse enough wealth that he, his wife. sons and duaghters will have their OWN cars and never suffer harassment of hoodlooms in street or buses. All these acts of aggressors, as seen from a judge, is "their" problem.

While a juror *is* a common man, and knows that after this trial he will be back to the hell where is lives. He is harassed by criminals, and see them as *his* problem.

Also, a Juror (common man0 has HATRED against career criminals. While a career criminal brings monthly hafta to the judge, and so the judge LOVES a career criminal. The Hatred (against the criminals) is a form of God, which you will see in Jurors and NOT in judges. This Hatred increases the chances of criminals' conviction.

43) http://pib.nic.in/archieve/lreleng/lyr2 ... 20021.html

quote: The pendency of cases in the Supreme Court has come down from 1,04,936 as on December 31, 1991 to 23,012 as on date. However, in the High Courts, the number of pending cases which was 26.51 lakhs on December 31, 1993 has gone up to 36.20 lakhs in August 2002. The pendency of cases in the district and subordinate courts, which was 2.18 crore on December 31, 1995 has now stablised around a little over two crore cases. Some cases are pending for more than 15 years at various levels of the judiciary.

Pendency of cases in the courts is on account of a multiplicity of factors, like increase in litigation and increase in the number of laws, inadequate provision for infrastructural facilities for the judiciary, inadequate strength of judges and supporting staff.

The then Chief Justice of India in his Law Day address on November 26, 2001, stated , "the reason why we do not have more judges across the board is because the States are simply not willing to provide the finances that are required……Each and every State in the country has stated in reply that it has no more money for the judiciary".

At present, the average number of cases pending before each judge of a High Court comes to around 5,600 cases.

Meanwhile, series of steps have been taken by the Government for the speedy disposal of cases. These include simplification of procedures, increase in the number of posts of judges and judicial officers, establishment of special courts, tribunals, adoption of alternative modes of dispute resolution, such as, arbitration, conciliation and establishment of increasing number of Lok Adalats and Permanent Lok Adalats. The Government has also amended the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 to provide for Permanent Lok Adalats to adjudicate cases relating to public utility matters upto the value of Rs. 10 lakhs.

The Centre has also urged State Governments to accord more financial autonomy to the judiciary.

quote:Originally posted by Arun_Gupta:
[QB]http://pib.nic.in/archieve/lreleng/lyr2002/rsep2002/11092002/r110920021.html

Article says : .... The then Chief Justice of India in his Law Day address on November 26, 2001, stated , "the reason why we do not have more judges across the board is because the States are simply not willing to provide the finances that are required……Each and every State in the country has stated in reply that it has no more money for the judiciary".

Can the chief judge explain why some 15% to 20% in High Courts and lower courts are vacant? The State/Central Executive has ALREADY created and funded the positions, but Chief judges have NOT filled them by appointments?

The fault lies more on judges than on neta. First the fill the vacancies, to a level that there are only say 2% to 3% vacancies, and then ask GoI to increase the positions.

The reason why cases in lower court has stagnated at 2.2 crore for past 5 years is that now people are so sick of courts 9=judges) that many just suffer and tolerate injustice rather than complaining before a court (=judges). And everyday, when I was attening courts, I would see that several cases were dismissed as those cases were so old, that victims would have died or accued would have died or witness/victim now refuses to come again and again as he is tired or witness cant be traced anymore (he has moved after so many years) and so forth. Basically, for every case that was resolved, at least 10 were "dismissed" in such way.

quote: Article says: Government for the speedy disposal of cases. These include simplification of procedures, increase in the number of posts of judges and judicial officers, establishment of special courts, tribunals, adoption of alternative modes of dispute resolution, such as, arbitration, conciliation and establishment of increasing number of Lok Adalats and Permanent Lok Adalats. The Government has also amended the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 to provide for Permanent Lok Adalats to adjudicate cases relating to public utility matters upto the value of Rs. 10 lakhs.

Lok Adaalat is a worthless concept. It is OFFICIALIZATION of "sorry no justice, so better compromise for cheap". And while neta/babu/judges pretend that they are taking steps to improve courts ---- reality is that NO step has been taken to reduce the Number One problem of courts -- the jufdge-lawyer nexuses and judge-career_criminal nexuses. So even after all these changes, we will be back to square one.

44) quote: Even for cases tried by a jury, a judge is present, to precide over the proceedings. In India, would we have judges commit to 7-15 days straight to a case?

In Jury System, we ONLY need to worry about competence and comminication skill of the "judge", who is not really a judge but merely a case administrator. Also, he doesnt have much say as finally guilty non-guilty verdict will be given by the Jurors, and the length of sentence too (in the system I am proposing) will be decided by the Jurors. So practically, for 99% trials, any person who has been a class-I or class-II govt officer or a lawyer can work as a "judge" i.e. case-administrator.

In other words, in Jury System, it is peice of cake to recruit 50000 additional judges --- just hold a state-wide competetive exam amongs class-II, class-I employees, bank officers or any professional with over 10 years of experience, and select the best 1000 or 2000 candidates, and train them for 6 months to 1 year.

45) quote:vijayk :

1. A lot of people believe that a jury system will be panacea to all the problems in our judicial system.

2. But the fact that it worked in the US doesn't mean that it would have, could have worked in India.

3. Further, it may not work in India at all.

The RIGHT way to dismiss a proposed ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE is to
1)Find an internal inconsistancy
2)Show that it is logistically (cost-wise) too expenise
3)State ANOTHER procedure which is less expensive and "better"

"Better" in what way?

Since the begining of the time, the REAL problem has has plauged courtrooms is NEXUSES. Ignore each and evry problem, and focus only on nexusism. If you can reduce nexuses, the courts will AUTOMATICALLY improve and so would executive and so would the scoiety.

Now making a general statement that "India is unique" and "so what will work in US wont work in India" etc statement are directionless comments, which are applicable universally against each and EVERY proposed procedure. And how about Laloo's statement "yeh IT-fitee kya hai? IT fitee US mein chal sakata hai, India ek unique case hai" . The reporter asked him about Banglore and Hyderabad and he said "Karnataka or Andhra ki baat alag hai; Bihar ek unique case hai" [Big Grin] . There is NOTHING unique about India as such.

Also its not just that Jury System has worked in US alone, it has worked in EVERY of the 15-20 countries where it has been in use.

Besides, judge system has failed in EVERY country (except some micro countries). So on basis are you saying that judge system will work in India? Just becuase it has failed everywhere, and India is unique, it will work in India? Bad logic.


Top
 Profile  
 
10
PostPosted: Thu Jan 31, 2013 2:09 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 2:49 pm
Posts: 596
46) quote: 1. We won't know for sure but a jury system would have severely affected our society in the initial stages of independence.

2. Our culture and society were deeply divided based on religious and caste identities and still are.

3.1 I have seen even in high educational institutions, students and staff group together based on these considerations.

3.2 Our society was and is still the most discriminatory based on these considerations. As we move away from cosmopolitan cities like capitals to urban and rural areas, socities divide more on caste/religion basis.

3.3 I am sure a jury system will be affected by prejudices and discriminations in our society.

4. After 55 years of independence, we made some progress in managing these prejudices but we need to do a lot more progress in this area for us to effectively replace current system with a jury system.

1. Such general remark is possible on any issue. If you are not sure that Jury System will work, I can also say that how can one be sure that judge system will work. The emperical evidences that judge system has failed EVERYWHERE and that Jury System has succeeded EVERYWHER speaks volume. In addition, there is a simple analytical fact that judges being fixed are more prone to nexuses than Jurors. These two (eperical plus analytical) bases are sufficient.

2. The relegious etc divisons are ALSO seen in judges. As you said educated people are also sometimes castist etc, and hence judges too can be equally castist as Jurors. This point does NOT show that judge system is better then Jury System for Indian context.

3.1. - 3.3 : I agree, but how are judges any better? They have ALL the vices/biases common men have.

4. Most of the postive changes came ONLY becuase of election procedure i.e. participation of common men in the Legislature. So there is NOTHING "we" need to do except increase democraticness everywhere.

==============================

The Jury System, on caste plain, DOES NOT improve nore worsens the situation of courts. But Jury System IMPROVES court as far as nexus/corruption goes.

47) About powers of judges in Jury System
In the system I am proposing the judge has practically no power. He cannot expel/filter a Juror. He cannot decide which evidences Jurors will see or not : the accuser will get 1 hour to present the case; then the defendent will get 1 hour, then accusor and so on. During his time, he can present WHATEVER evidences he wants, and Jurors will decide if evidence is adminissible or not.

Also, the punishment will be decided by Jurors in following way ; say the maximum punishment is say 10 years in prison. Based on evidences, gravity of crime and circumstances, each Juror will decide if the length of the sentence (it will be zero if Jurors thinks it is not gulity). Say there are 12 Jurors. Then say 3rd or 4th or whatever lowest senetnce will decide the prison sentence.

The next hearing date for the Jurors will be decided as follows : both parties can propose what they want the next date to be. Say there are 12 Jurors. Each Juror will select the date he likes, and the majority will decide. In case of tie, the EARLIER date will be the next hearing date.

And so forth ....

Thus judge's role in my proposed Jury System is reduced to mere case co-ordinator and nothing else. It is essential, as the judge is a fixed person and is often nexused with lawyers and career criminals etc.

48) Understanding of laws:
----------------------

I have sat into Ahemdabad Metropolitan Courts for months and months and studied the cases, hearings, arguments etc. I am yet to see a case where you would need knowledge of law to decide guilty or not guilty. In most cases, plain vanilla information is sufficient. No law or no knowledge of law will help you deciding if criminal intended to committ the crime or not. It is PURELY decided by intution. Also, many times, the testimonies of witnesses contradict. Here you have to use intution to decide if the contradiction are mere techinical ( like X will say A had beaten B at 12.10pm while other would say it was 12.30pm) or substantial. And if substancial, who should be considered right or wrong. Should approver be assumed to be truthful? All these are discretion of judge/Jurors.

In short, trials of over 99% cases go by DISCRETION rather than law. Law only states,if X has committed such and such crime, imprison X for say 5 years. But did X actually committ crime? The judges/Juries decide the evidences they see, what they make of the evidenes, and their discretion/personal-judgement. Law doesnt help here much to decide eighter way.

So the argument that Jurors dont know law is not even applicable in 99% cases, as there is nothing to know.

In remaining 1% cases, typically it is complicated corporate trials etc both the parties anyway decide for judge trial. So judge-Jury is not a question there.

So lets stick to these 2-3 MAIN issues i.e. nexusness, numbers etc. Issues like compensation of Jurors, sequestering, keeping them in hotels etc are non-issues. The Britishers managed to run Jury System in India till 1947 and so it is proved that Jury System has no logistic problem in India.

49) quote:mudder says : Salman Khan's jeep runs over pavement dwellers, one dead

http://www.rediff.com/news/2002/sep/28khan.htm

In the early hours of Saturday, he drove his jeep over some people sleeping outside American Bakery on Hill Road junction in Bandra, Mumbai, killing one and causing serious injuries to three persons.

Past :

1. Puru Rajkumaar (s/o Jaani) had run over his mobike while drunk driving, and has ended up killing 1 homeless and seriously injuring the other. The judge let him walk away after mere Rs 35,000/- (rupees thirty five thousand only) fine.

2. Billionaire Bachcha Nandaa junior in his BMW killed half a dozen people including a policeman. The judge ensured that the key witness does not get chance to give testimony for nearly 4 months, there by giving ample time to Nandaa to buy/break the witness. At the end of 4 months, the witness said that it was truck that killed people and injured him, and not a car. The judges gave bail to the billionaire bachchaa and the judge even permitted him to go to US

3. And now Salmaan Khan blows away one more head

Analysis:

IMO, if the judges had punished Puru Rajkumaar, Billionaire da Bachcha and scores of such drunk drivers, it would have given a message to spoilt rich people like Salmaan that you cant just run over people and bribe the judges and get away. And the way judges took bribes and acquitted the drunk drivers, the rich kids have got a right, but bad, message, that drive as wildly as you like, and run over the poor if you may, and you can always bribe the judge and walk away.

Due to this reality, the spoilt kids and spoilt parents have been driving more and more recklessly, and making everyone’s lives miserable.

IMO, if the judges had punished drunk drivers in past, people like Salmaan would have learnt to restrain themselves, and such deaths would have been fewer. May be the guy whom Salmaan killed would have been alive and still with us. Is judges’ rampant bribery a co-reason behind such deaths? IMO, yes.

As long as we have "take a bribe and acquit" judges in India, I dont think reckless driving would decrease pedestrians lives will continue to be miserable.

Deja vu:

The judges will let Salmaan walk free, and mediamen/intellectuals will bash policemen, public prosecutor, accuse them of bribery without any evidences, and will defend judge by saying "oh well, how can judge punish a criminal without witness". And above all, the intellectuals will also bash those who suspect judges of being corrupt and thus protect the corruption in courts.

With judges and intellectuals like these, do we need terrorists? IMO, No, we don`t

50) Now I will take the task of explaining one problem very common in India and unheard in the West - The Bandh.

Ahmedabad Bandh, Gujarat Bandh, Bharat Bandh etc. Not just India, in countries like Brazil, Bandhs are declared by top mafiamen when they or theiur key men get arrested. Not only that, the bandhs DO get enforced.

Now why is that in US UK etc Bandhs almost never happen, and are so frequent in India etc?

Now lets see what Bandh is. One is always free to close his business in protest of something. But no law allows anyone to force others to close someone else's business for no matter how right the reason may be. In fact, in India and elsewhere, the law is AGAINST those who use force/threat etc to make one close his business.

Lets not blame on politicians alone, as there are politicians in US, UK etc too would like to hold cities on ransom if the they can. If given a chance, Al Gore would like to observe a Bandh when re-counting was suspended in Florida, but he didnt even make a Bandh call, as he knew that it would have simply failed.

Now no matter how right the cuase is, no one likes to close his business and loose living. In India, many people live on daily wages and no matter how much they like the cause, they cant like to give up the earnings. If the support the cause, they will happily contribute to an organization that they think will carry out the cause, but they cant close their business, and upset schedules etc.

So clearly, bandhs are sucessful ALWAYS out of fear and NEVER out of support. And bandhs are successful in India, Brazil etc ONLY because a handful of hoodlooms are able to scare the millions of the common men and businesses.

Now suppose there is call for Bandh in say Patna. Say a shopkeeper dares open his shop and some hoodlooms attack him. Will courts in Patna imprison the criminals? Most would call me dumb for even asking such a question. We all know, but are scared of admitting, that these local hoodlooms have lawyers on payrolls, who have powerful nexuses with the local Magistrates, and any case against the hoodlooms is going to fail. So of course, the local courts WILL NOT punish such hoodlooms, unless the crime is too too severe and every newspaper makes an issue out if.

Where as lets say a Assemblyman threatens a business in US to close his shop on a bandh. Needless to say, the courts will imprison the Assemblymen within 1-2 weeks, even if all institions are run by his own party and hsi friends. So it is the fear of court, and no reason, which stops local US neta to enforce a bandh.

Now if the courts in India were to imprison those who threateningly ask for a shutdown and attack the businesses, few hoodlooms would risk attacking shopkeepers publicly. So if courts in India were punishing hoodlooms, there would have been no Bandhs to begin with.

So this FULLY and COMPLETELY explains why Bandhs are so successful thus common in India, why Bandhs would NEVER even happen in US/UK etc.

So now how can we kill these Bandhs?

1)We DO NOT need to raise public awareness and waste time. "Jan Jagriti" is truely a waste-o-time, as people was already Jagrit and dislike bandhs.

2)We DO NOT need a new law. Existing laws in IPC are over-sufficient for courts to imprison a hoodloom who is threatening/forcing a person to close his business. Demand for new laws is like a babu's demand to recruit new staff in an over-staffed PSU where no work gets done as employees are lazy. we are over-lawed country just like an over-staffed PSU. We need to make laws happen, we dont need more laws, and definitely not to solve hoodloom-created problems like Bandh.

3)We ALSO do not need to educate neta. Let the courts imprison the hoodlooms who threaten businesses. Once hoodlooms vanish, the neta will realize the he cant implement a bandh and would stop issuing calls for bandh.

So what do we need to do to tame this Bandhasur?

We ONLY need to improve our courts; ensuring that maximum numbers of hoodlooms who threaten businesses etc land in prison without hurting innocents. Nothing else is needed. And no substiture would do the job.

How do we make courts imprison hoodlooms? Thats another question.

[The local hoodlooms have powerful direct or indirect, via lawyers, nexuses with the local Magistreates. So how can we ensure that Magistrates will punish the hoodlooms ASAP? Thats the question we MUST discuss without worrying about how judges may strike on us for discussing this issue. The longer we keep quite due to fear of retribution, worse the situation will become, and more damage will these hoodlooms create in our lives].

Conclusion
---------

1)Only reason why bandhs are common in India etc and not found in US, UK etc is courts in US etc punish those who forcefully make someone close his business, while Indian courts seldom punish them.

2)Improving courts is sufficient, and perhaps also necessary, to stop the Bandhs.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 19 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC + 5:30 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group