#indian judicial system

[yangthejeong]

It’s been probably over a month since this incident but it’s somehow always been on the back of my mind. It scares me so much. So much. She was at her workplace. her workplace.

and I can’t with the “not all men” because of course not all men are creeps but how do I know??? Women as old as 80 and girls as young as 5 aren’t safe at their workplaces, schools, even at home.

I’m really scared for humanity, looking at certain comments in Instagram regarding this incident, made me deactivate my account.

i really do not know what else to write, it’s something I wanted to get off my chest.

from the abhorrent sex crimes in south korea, to femicide in the united kingdom, to women and girls in afghanistan losing the right to be seen and heard in public. misogyny is the most prevalent form of oppression around the world, yet, is the one that is the least taken seriously by governments and society as a whole.

[townpostin]

Jamshedpur: Nagadih Mob Lynching Case Hearing Delayed

Four accused absent, court sets new date for statements Jamshedpur court postpones proceedings in 2017 lynching case, warns of arrest warrants for future absentees. JAMSHEDPUR – The Jamshedpur court’s hearing of the notorious Nagadih mob lynching case faced a setback on Tuesday. Four accused individuals failed to appear before ADJ-1 Vimlesh Kumar Sahay’s court, hindering the recording of…

[awesomengers]

Court - Marathi Movie Review

Discover the raw realism and profound social commentary of Chaitanya Tamhane's "Court" in this insightful film review.

Chaitanya Tamhane’s “Court” is not just a film; it’s a profound exploration into the convoluted corridors of the Indian judicial system. Through a Kafkaesque lens, Tamhane meticulously crafts a narrative that not only dissects the intricacies of legal proceedings, where truth and justice often seem like distant relatives at a dysfunctional family reunion. But the film also serves as a searing…

[astrosblogs]

Duty to step in even in small matters, guard liberty: CJI after Rijiju’s remark

Two days after Union Law Minister Kiren Rijiju, pointing to the high pendency of cases, said if the Supreme Court “starts hearing bail applications… all frivolous PILs” it will add “a lot of extra burden on the Court”, a bench led by Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud remarked Friday “it is in the seemingly small and routine matters involving grievances of citizens that issues of the moment, both in jurisprudential and constitutional terms, emerge”.

The bench, also comprising Justice P S Narasimha, said that “right to personal liberty is a precious and inalienable right recognised by the Constitution” and lack of intervention by the Court can even lead to “serious miscarriage of justice”.

The CJI also announced that the Supreme Court will not have any vacation bench during the winter recess starting December 19. “There will be no benches available from tomorrow till January 2, 2023,” he said.

A day earlier, Rijiju had told Rajya Sabha “there is a feeling among people of India that the long vacation which the courts obtain is not very convenient for justice-seekers” and it is his “obligation and duty to convey the message or sense of this House to the judiciary”.

As per practice, the Supreme Court usually has vacation benches only during the long summer vacation between March and July but has no such bench during the winter recess.

The CJI’s remark on the “right to personal liberty” being “a precious and inalienable right” came in an order directing that the sentence imposed on a man, convicted under the Electricity Act, will run concurrently and not consecutively.

The offender, one Iqram, had been sentenced in nine cases for theft of electricity equipment belonging to the Uttar Pradesh electricity department. He had been sentenced to two years’ simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs 1000 in each of the nine cases.

“The facts of the present case provide another instance, a glaring one at that, indicating a justification for this Court to exercise its jurisdiction as a protector of the fundamental right to life and personal liberty inherent in every citizen. If the Court were not to do so, a serious miscarriage of justice of the nature which has emerged in the present case would be allowed to persist and the voice of a citizen whose liberty has been abrogated would receive no attention,” the bench said.

“The history of this Court indicates that it is in the seemingly small and routine matters involving grievances of citizens that issues of the moment, both in jurisprudential and constitutional terms, emerge. The intervention by this Court to protect the liberty of citizens is hence founded on sound constitutional principles embodied in Part III of the Constitution. The Court is entrusted with judicial powers under Article 32 and Article 136 of the Constitution of India. The right to personal liberty is a precious and inalienable right recognised by the Constitution. In attending to such grievances, the Supreme Court performs a plain constitutional duty, obligation and function; no more and no less,” the CJI, writing for the bench, said in the order.

[makingcontact]

The Rest of the Story: Indigenous Resistance

U.S. Supreme Court building, credit: wikimedia commons In this episode, we revisit two stories concerning indigenous rights we’ve covered in the past. In the first half, Rebecca Nagle joins us to discuss the Supreme Court decision to uphold the Indian Child Welfare Act and why the legitimacy of the law is so important to tribal sovereignty. We also talk about the right’s legal strategy in the…

[kesarijournal]

India's Legal Labyrinth: A Satirical Guide to Understanding BNS2, BNSS2, and BSB2

**Once Upon a Time in a Legal Wonderland:**In the grand democratic theatre of India, where laws are often more dramatic than Bollywood blockbusters, we’re witnessing the introduction of three legal musketeers: Bharatiya Nyaya (Second) Sanhita (BNS2), Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha (Second) Sanhita (BNSS2), and Bharatiya Sakshya (Second) Bill (BSB2). They’re set to replace old legal classics – the IPC,…

[studylaws]

Article 121 of the Indian Constitution: Restrictions on Discussion in Parliament

The Indian Constitution is a comprehensive document that lays down the fundamental principles and framework for governance in the country. Among its many provisions, Article 121 addresses the restrictions on the discussion of certain matters in the Parliament. This article focuses on a specific aspect of Article 121, which pertains to the discussion regarding the conduct of judges in the…

[hotvintagepoll]

Propaganda

Madhubala (Mughal-e-Azam, Barsaat Ki Raat, Mr. & Mrs. '55)—The Venus of India; heart-throb of all who saw her; responsible for the sexual awakening of every single desi lesbian I know (including me!) And my god, she is breathtakingly beautiful. Look at the subtle grace with which she moves, and that smile - the kind of radiant smile that can make you laugh with sheer delight, or cry because of its hidden pain. Those wild curls! That Cupid's bow! The way she tilts back her head and smiles at you with mischief dancing in her eyes! She has a way of looking at the camera that makes you feel she's sharing a private joke just with you; it's something about that quizzical twist of the lips and eyebrows. As an actress, she is inimitable; she seems to effortlessly inhabit roles ranging from a heart-broken courtesan to a laughter-loving socialite. Fun fact : she's had quite the fan following in Greece! Stelios Kazantidis even wrote a song as a tribute to her.

Olivia de Havilland (Adventures of Robin Hood, Gone With the Wind, The Heiress)— The woman who took on the Studio System at the height of their power and Won! A double Oscar winner! Is magnetic and beautiful in everything she's in and gave us all the juicy scandal with her sibling rivalry with Joan Fontaine! Before the Oscar Slap was the Oscar sister snub! Also everything she wears in Robin Hood she makes beautiful even a purple green and orange monstrosity how does she do it! Anyway this scene is one of my old Hollywood favourites

This is round 3 of the tournament. All other polls in this bracket can be found here. Please reblog with further support of your beloved hot sexy vintage woman.

[additional propaganda submitted under the cut.]

Madhubala:

An icon of Bollywood, who was well known for her beauty and has continued to inspire performances and songs into the 21st century. She was at times described as "the number one beauty of the Indian screen" and "the biggest star in the world".

SHE IS EVERYTHING AHHH. JUST LOOK AT HER SMILE-

She's been nicknamed the Marilyn Monroe of India and was one of the highest paid actresses in the Hindi film industry (the term Bollywood did not exist yet) during the 1950s. Also an extremely talented dancer and singer

SHE'S JUST SO STUNNING, like seeing her eyes IMMEDIATELY CAPTIVATES YOU, THE DANCING, THE BEAUTY!!!!!!!!! She worked in Bollywood for over 20 years and passed away at a sad early age of 36, BUT THE IMPACT SHE HAD WAS UNMATCHED!!!!!

That sassy sideways glance she does always has me WEAK AT THE KNEES. And when she's making silly faces at the camera to mimic someone ahhhh my gay little heart <3

Olivia de Havilland:

She is just perfection. She has a smile that is looks like it is barely holding back, and yet so reserved as well.

Broke the contract system and won freedoms for actors (the de Havilland Law is still in effect I believe). 2 time Oscar winner. Beautiful and smart

She legally challenged the movie studios' unfair contracts and won, setting a precedent for other actors to be treated more fairly. This was at great cost to her financially and essentially getting her blacklisted for years but the resulting judicial opinion is still known as the De Havilland Law and has won her a great deal of praise and admiration.

Her performance in The Heiress is one of my all-time favorites, she’s so good at making melodrama feel real and grounded without sacrificing any of the passion/drama.

Serenely beautiful, she struck a balance between crowd-pleasing fluff and prestigious drama. Famously at odds with her equally successful sister Joan Fontaine, she was too much of a lady to ever say anything public. Successfully sued Ryan Murphy for portraying her as a saucy gossip in Feud.

the period costume + eye patch combo in That Lady is just an absolute serve

She has the most adorable and cherubic face and voice

[harmonyhealinghub]

Honouring Truth and Reconciliation Day: Remembering the Importance of Orange Shirt Day

Shaina Tranquilino

September 30, 2023

In recent years, there has been a growing recognition of the importance of truth and reconciliation in acknowledging and healing the wounds caused by historical injustices. Canada's Truth and Reconciliation Day, recognized on September 30th annually, serves as a crucial reminder that understanding our past is essential for building a more inclusive and harmonious future. In conjunction with this day, Orange Shirt Day stands as a poignant symbol of remembrance and reflection concerning the devastating impacts of residential schools. This blog post aims to shed light on both events' significance and highlight why they deserve our attention.

1. Understanding Truth and Reconciliation:

Truth and Reconciliation Day holds immense value as it acknowledges the painful history experienced by Indigenous peoples in Canada due to colonization policies such as the Indian Residential Schools system. The objective is not only to remember but also to foster an environment where dialogue, empathy, and understanding can flourish between Indigenous communities and non-Indigenous Canadians.

2. Recognizing Orange Shirt Day:

Orange Shirt Day complements Truth and Reconciliation Day by focusing specifically on raising awareness about residential schools' traumatic legacy. Initiated by Phyllis Webstad's story when her new orange shirt was taken from her upon arrival at a residential school, this day reminds us of the countless children who were stripped of their culture, language, identity, dignity, and familial bonds.

3. Learning Lessons From Our Past:

By commemorating these days collectively, we acknowledge that recognizing historical wrongs paves the way for healing intergenerational trauma. It prompts us to reflect on how similar systemic injustices persist today within various societal structures—education systems, healthcare disparities, judicial processes—among others.

4. Promoting Education & Awareness:

Educating ourselves about Indigenous history should extend beyond one designated day or month; however, Truth and Reconciliation Day provides an opportunity for all Canadians to engage in learning about the diverse cultures, traditions, and contributions of Indigenous peoples. It encourages us to become active participants in reconciliation efforts by challenging stereotypes and fostering inclusive spaces.

5. Fostering Reconciliation:

Reconciliation is a journey that involves listening, understanding, respect, and dismantling systemic barriers. On this day, let's strive for meaningful reconciliation by recognizing the rights of Indigenous peoples and promoting their self-determination while building bridges between communities based on mutual trust and understanding.

Truth and Reconciliation Day signifies an essential step towards healing historical wounds, acknowledging past injustices, and promoting unity among Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities. Together with Orange Shirt Day, it reminds us that we must confront uncomfortable truths if we genuinely seek reconciliation in our society. Let us embrace these days as opportunities to learn from our history, amplify Indigenous voices, work towards positive change, and build a future where cultural diversity thrives within an atmosphere of truth, compassion, justice, and respect for all.

[beardedmrbean]

An 18-year-old schoolboy was shot and killed by so-called cow protection vigilantes in India after they chased him for miles over suspicion of being involved in cattle smuggling.

The incident took place in Faridabad in the northern Indian state of Haryana on 23 August, days after a migrant worker was beaten to death by another cow vigilante group in the state’s Charkhi Dadri district over suspicion of consuming beef.

Cows are considered sacred and worshipped by many Hindus, the religion that makes up a large majority of India’s population. Cow vigilante groups are accused of enforcing, often violently, Indian laws banning cattle slaughter and beef consumption.

Scores of cow “protectors” in recent years have been accused of using violence to carry out extra-judicial activities, often finding themselves at odds with law enforcement. Yet their activities have also received a degree of public support from those who believe they are defending the Hindu faith. Their activities have seen an increase since prime minister Narendra Modi came to power in 2014 as the head of the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).

The vigilantes were allegedly searching for cattle smugglers when they chased Aryan Mishra’s car for about 18 miles (30km) before opening fire, reported NDTV.

Five members of the group have been arrested in connection with the incident. The accused, identified as Anil Kaushik, Varun, Krishna, Adesh, and Saurabh, claimed they had received information that smugglers were active in the area in large Renault Duster and Toyota Fortuner cars, hoping to pick up cattle.

Mishra and his friends, Harshit and Shanky, were in a Renault Duster car when they were stopped by the vigilantes. The occupants of the car are said to have had a prior dispute with another individual, mistook the vigilantes for their rivals and sped away.

The vigilantes, convinced that the occupants were cattle smugglers, chased the car and opened fire, hitting Mishra. When the car finally stopped, the attackers fired another shot into Mishra’s chest, resulting in his death, reported India Today.

According to the police, the suspects initially attempted to mislead the investigators, saying they threw the weapon into a canal. However, it was later recovered from Kaushik’s home, police said. The arrested men are currently in police custody, and further investigation is underway.

The killing of Mishra comes on the heels of another brutal incident in Haryana where Sabir Malik, a migrant worker from West Bengal, was beaten to death by a group of cow vigilantes on 27 August on suspicion of consuming beef. Authorities arrested seven individuals, including two minors, in connection with Malik’s death, as the state grappled with the rising tide of such crimes.

Hardline Hindu groups have been demanding a complete ban on cow slaughter across India, with several states enacting strict laws against it. Critics say that these laws have emboldened the vigilantes, leading to an increase in attacks on those accused of killing cows for meat or leather – predominantly people from the minority Muslim community and those on the lower rungs of India’s ancient caste system.

Last week, a 55-year-old woman died, reportedly of a panic attack, after police raided her home in Bijnor in Uttar Pradesh state to see if she was storing beef. In the end their searches showed she wasn’t.

Uttar Pradesh enforces strict laws against cow slaughter, with violations punishable by up to 10 years in prison and a fine of up to Rs500,000 (£4,500). The state’s anti-cow slaughter law not only bans the animal’s killing, but also the sale and transport of beef.

In the neighbouring state of Madhya Pradesh, authorities bulldozed the homes of 11 people in June after allegedly finding beef in their refrigerators and cows in their backyards. Police later claimed that the homes were demolished for being illegally built on government land, without providing evidence.

In September last year, police arrested Mohit Yadav, better known by his alias Monu Manesar, after he was accused of inciting deadly religious violence in the north Indian state of Haryana in July.

The head of a unit set up by a hardline Hindu group to protect cows, he was detained for allegedly uploading “objectionable and inflammatory” posts in the run-up to religion violence in Nuh in which at least six people were killed and several injured. He was also accused in the murder of two Muslim men in the neighbouring state of Rajasthan.

In April last year, four members of the right-wing group All India Hindu Mahasabha were arrested in Uttar Pradesh for allegedly slaughtering cows to falsely implicate Muslim men. The arrests were made after police uncovered the group’s involvement in filing a false complaint against four Muslim men for alleged cow slaughter.

In March 2023, police in Bihar arrested three men in connection with the death of a Muslim man, Naseem Qureshi, who was attacked because he was suspected of carrying beef.

On 1 September, an elderly Muslim man was assaulted by his co-passengers on a moving train in Maharashtra’s Nashik district on suspicion of carrying beef. Police arrested three men allegedly involved in the incident after a video of the assault went viral on social media.

The Independent is the world’s most free-thinking news brand, providing global news, commentary and analysis for the independently-minded. We have grown a huge, global readership of independently minded individuals, who value our trusted voice and commitment to positive change. Our mission, making change happen, has never been as important as it is today.

[thestudyiashindi]

Balancing Rights and Welfare.

In India, the Rights and Welfare to own property and the government’s power to take it for public good have often conflicted. This ongoing debate was highlighted in a recent case, Property Owners Association v. State of Maharashtra, decided by the Supreme Court of India. The case focused on an important question: Should private property always be considered something that can serve the entire community? This question is not new; India’s leaders have faced it since the 1970s when socialist ideas inspired changes to the Constitution. Today, the Supreme Court’s decision seeks to balance property rights with public welfare, considering both personal freedoms and the country’s changing needs.

The 25th and 26th Constitutional Amendments for Rights and Welfare

In 1971, the Indian government introduced two important amendments—the 25th and 26th—to support socialist ideals. These amendments aimed to give the government greater control over property to promote fairer distribution of resources. Under the 25th Amendment, the term “compensation” in Article 31 was replaced with “amount,” meaning that the government could pay less than market value when acquiring private land. It also added Article 31C, giving priority to Articles 39(b) and (c) of the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP), which support the distribution of resources for the common good and prevent wealth from gathering in only a few hands.

The 26th Amendment went further, abolishing special payments to former princes, known as “privy purses.” This helped establish an equal society where everyone could benefit, not just a privileged few. Together, these amendments encouraged a system where the government could control resources to help everyone, especially the less fortunate.

Strengthening Public Welfare Through Articles 39(b) and 39(c)

The changes to the Constitution allowed the government to enforce Articles 39(b) and (c) more strongly. Article 39(b) calls for resource distribution to benefit everyone, while Article 39(c) works to prevent wealth concentration. With the 25th Amendment, the government could acquire land more easily to build schools, hospitals, and other public resources. This amendment prioritised public welfare over individual property rights, which meant the government could take land if it would help a larger number of people.

The Supreme Court Case: Property Owners Association v. State of Maharashtra

Recently, the Supreme Court revisited the question of property rights in the case Property Owners Association v. State of Maharashtra. The case arose from a law passed by the Maharashtra state government in 1986, which allowed the government to take over poorly maintained buildings from landlords and give them to tenants. This was meant to protect tenants from unsafe living conditions. However, landlords argued that this law violated their property rights.

Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, representing the majority of the judges, decided that not all private property could automatically be taken by the government for community purposes. Instead, the Court ruled that only certain types of property could be considered “material resources of the community,” depending on factors like scarcity, necessity, and the benefit to the community. This new approach means that the government can only acquire private property when it clearly serves the community’s interests.

Balancing Rights with Judicial Review on Rights and Welfare.

The Court’s ruling placed limits on the government’s power to acquire private property by strengthening the role of judicial review. Judicial review allows courts to examine government actions and decide whether they are fair and just. Previously, the government could simply claim that a law followed Article 39(b) and avoid judicial review. Now, however, the Court requires a case-by-case examination to ensure the law truly benefits the public and respects property owners’ rights.

Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, in his dissenting opinion, argued that Parliament should have the final say on what counts as community resources, since elected representatives are responsible for making decisions on public welfare. Meanwhile, Justice B.V. Nagarathna added that personal items, like someone’s clothes or furniture, should never be considered community resources, emphasising the importance of respecting individual privacy.

Socialist Roots and the Shift to a Balanced Approach

The new ruling is a shift from India’s earlier socialist view, inspired by judges like Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer and Justice O. Chinnappa Reddy, who believed that all property could be controlled by the government to benefit society. This older view supported nationalisation and wealth redistribution, but India’s economic direction has since changed. The Court’s ruling acknowledges this shift and supports a welfare model that balances private ownership with public needs rather than focusing solely on socialist ideals.

The judgment also brings in the concept of “intergenerational equity.” This means that today’s property owners have a responsibility to future generations, ensuring that resources are used wisely and are available for the next generation. This idea encourages sustainable development and responsible ownership, aligning with a vision of long-term community welfare.

The Influence of Past Interpretations

The recent judgment also revisits and adapts earlier interpretations of property rights. In the past, Justice Krishna Iyer argued that all essential resources should serve the community and that the government should be able to control them. However, today’s Court chose a more balanced approach, recognising that while public welfare is essential, private property rights are also valuable in a modern, market-driven economy. This change reflects India’s growth from a strictly state-controlled economy to a mixed one that respects both private and public interests.

The Case’s Broader Socio-Economic Impact

This ruling comes at a time when India balances socialism with capitalist growth. After independence, the government often took over private industries to build a state-led economy. Over time, however, private investment has become essential to the nation’s economic growth. This Supreme Court ruling supports this new approach, respecting both community needs and private investment.

For property owners, the ruling offers protection, assuring them that their land cannot be taken without reason. It encourages a stable environment for people and businesses to invest without fearing that the government will take away their property unfairly. For the government, it means any property acquisition must be justified as genuinely benefiting the public.

The Continuing Story of Property Rights

This case reminds us of Saeed Akhtar Mirza’s film Mohan Joshi Hazir Ho, where the character Mohan Joshi fights for his right to live in a safe home despite his landlord’s neglect. Like in the film, this legal battle has gone on for decades, with both landlords and tenants waiting years for a decision. Although the nine-judge bench’s decision offers clarity, it leaves some questions open, as another bench will decide if the 1986 law is constitutional.

The judgment illustrates how the law can help people while also respecting personal property rights. It shows that both sides—property owners and the government—can be protected through fair laws.

Future Implications of the Judgment

The Supreme Court’s judgment has several long-term implications for both property owners and the government. First, it reinforces the right to private property, establishing that private ownership is not only constitutionally protected but also respected within the legal framework. For property owners, this judgment is a form of protection, as the government must now follow clear guidelines and provide fair compensation if it wishes to acquire private property​.

For India’s investment climate, this judgment is also significant. By protecting property rights, the Court has created a stable environment for investors. This move encourages individuals and companies to invest in private property without the fear of sudden, unjust acquisition by the state. As a result, this judgment can have a positive impact on India’s economy, supporting both domestic and foreign investments.

Conclusion

India’s journey with property rights reflects a continuous search for balance. The 25th and 26th Amendments gave the government greater control for public welfare, but today’s Supreme Court decision adds important safeguards for individuals. By allowing the government to take property only when it serves the community and compensating owners fairly, The Property Owners Association v. State of Maharashtra judgment protects both individual rights and public welfare. It represents a new direction in Indian constitutional law, rejecting a one-size-fits-all approach to eminent domain, and emphasising the importance of fairness and justice in government policies. This judgment is a milestone that reflects India’s evolving socio-economic landscape. It sets a guiding example for future cases, helping India grow as a country where personal responsibility and community needs are respected. As India develops, this balanced approach supports a vision of fairness and inclusion, ensuring that both private rights and public welfare are equally valued in the nation’s future.

[sanjana1967]

Title: Whether Judiciary is State or not

Article 12 in Part III of the Indian Constitution provides the definition of the term "state." It includes the Government and Parliament of India, the Government and Legislature of each State, and all local or other authorities under the control of the Government of India within the territory of India. Understanding the meaning of the State under this Article is crucial as it empowers us to hold institutions accountable for violating our rights. Initially, the term "state" was narrowly interpreted, with the Judiciary holding only government-controlled bodies accountable. However, over time, the concept has evolved to widen the scope of the State and increase its liability. This raises the question of whether the Judiciary falls under the definition of the State according to Article 12.The Judiciary can potentially violate citizens' Fundamental Rights through administrative functions and judicial decisions. Administrative functions, such as the appointment of courtroom officers, fall under the State's ambit, ensuring that terms of appointment and employment do not violate fundamental rights. Judicial decisions, especially in cases related to writ petitions and fundamental rights violations, can also lead to rights being infringed. If judges make incorrect judgements or allow incriminating questions in violation of Article 20(3), citizens' rights can be compromised.

Considering the Judiciary as a State raises challenges regarding accountability and the preservation of its integrity. If the guardian of fundamental rights is held responsible for rights violations, the Judiciary's credibility could be undermined. Questions arise about handling violations by the Supreme Court, which is tasked with safeguarding fundamental rights. Additionally, concerns emerge about addressing instances where the courts exceed their powers. In such cases, seeking remedies under Article 32 becomes essential to address violations of fundamental rights. The concept of State Action in the United States of America has developed directly from the Constitution itself, as established in the Virginia v. Rives case. This doctrine upholds the principles of natural justice and asserts that any judgment that denies an individual the right to be heard is in violation of due process and therefore invalid.

Furthermore, it has been recognized that judicial decisions can be considered as state action under the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. Consequently, the US Constitution includes provisions for holding the Judiciary accountable in cases of fundamental rights violations. Many constitutional experts, including H.M. Seervai, argue that the Indian Judiciary should be classified as a part of the definition of State under Article 12. This is based on the fact that various articles grant the judiciary powers akin to those of a state, as evidenced in articles 145 and 146 of the Indian Constitution.

(i) The Supreme Court is empowered to make rules for regulating the practice and procedure of Courts.

(ii) The Supreme Court is empowered to make appointments of its staff and servants; decide its service conditions.

The laws established by the Supreme Court are considered the law of the land as specified in Article 141 of the Indian legal system, which follows common law principles. Therefore, a judgment passed by the Supreme Court could impact the Fundamental Rights of Citizens. Article 20(2) specifies that no individual can be penalized twice for the same offense, serving as a guideline for the Judiciary, often referred to as the State. The question at hand is whether the judges can be held accountable for their decisions, potentially leading to infringements on minority rights in certain situations. While there have been instances where rights may have been violated, it is advisable not to subject these decisions to the jurisdiction of the State as it could result in a scenario where a majority of judgments are contested, ultimately undermining the rule of law.

This matter remains unresolved. In the case of Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra, the Supreme Court confirmed that no judicial proceeding could be deemed as violating any Fundamental rights. It is firmly established in legal doctrine that higher courts of justice do not fall under the categories of 'state' or 'other authorities' as outlined in Article 12. This principle was recently reinforced in the case of Riju Prasad Sarmah v. the State of Assam, drawing from the precedent set in the case of Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar And Ors vs State Of Maharashtra, The majority of the nine-judge bench stated that judicial functions should not fall under the definition of "state," with only administrative functions being subject to judicial review. The Supreme Court has allowed its administration to be reviewed but has safeguarded its judicial functions from potential challenges. Constitutional scholars have advised against bringing the Judiciary's judicial functions under the scope of the State, as this could lead to confusion and public dissatisfaction if court decisions were constantly questioned. It is uncertain how Supreme Court judgments can be prevented from violating rights, and there is no clear mechanism for reviewing the decisions of the body responsible for examining the Supreme Court's judgments.

References:

The Constitution of India, 1950, Art.12.

The Constitution of India, 1950. Art. 14.

The Constitution of India, 1950, Art. 20(3).

The Constitution of India, 1950. Art. 32

Virginia v. Rives, 100 U.S. 313 (1880, Supreme Court of the United States).

6. H.M. Seervai, Constitutional law of India, p.155 (1st Ed.)

7. The Constitution of India, 1950, Art. 145-146.

8. The Constitution of India, 1950, Art. 141

9. The Constitution of India, 1950, Art. 20(2)

[townpostin]

BR Sarangi New Chief Justice of Jharkhand High Court

Justice B.R. Sarangi Appointed as Head of State Judiciary The appointment of Justice B.R. Sarangi as Jharkhand High Court’s Chief Justice marks the end of a six-month vacancy in this crucial position. RANCHI – Justice B.R. Sarangi (Vidyut Ranjan Sarangi) has been appointed as the new Chief Justice of the Jharkhand High Court, filling a position that had been vacant since December 28,…

[protoslacker]

Native Cinema Showcase All films on demand November 17–24, 2023

The National Museum of the American Indian’s Native Cinema Showcase is an annual celebration of the best in Native film. For this year’s theme, we highlight films of Indigenous perseverance that inspire, uplift, and triumph against adversity—stories that prevail against the judicial system, generational trauma, and cultural appropriation through love and complex relationships, self-worth, and humor.

[finilia]

Story idea

So there are so many prego Gaon fanfics there so i wanted to write one for you guys.

So some guys can get pregnant and one of them is Gaon and his mother and his eldest brother. Yeah he has three older brothers and three younger sisters. As the middle child he both baby and the second mother to all of his siblings. He can get into heat but there are no betas or alphas and pregamales can be strong being nothing to do with estrogen in their bodies.

I like one night stand trope too much so this going to be an one night stand trope too. So he gets pregnant with Yohan’s child in his last year of law school at the Mentor support party.

He then completes his last year and with the baby on the go. He becomes Mama Gaon to his sweet little boy. Don't ask me name I still have to decide that.

After five years he gets a job as judge in the supreme court its a promotion from being a chief judge at high courts. I am just relying on Indian law system I will do my good research on korean judicial system afterwards.

Then ..... he meets Yohan as the chief judge at supreme court and he is one of the associate judges .

What do you think should happen?

write down below. I need ideas . Plus Gaon did not tell Yohan about this so please put that to the notice.

And oh! We will have some cute father son quips too!!!!

SQUEALS!!!! I am so excited.

[curatorsday]

Saturday, November 18, 2023

I found out this morning that the National Museum of the American Indian’s Native Cinema Showcase started yesterday. I'm so excited! It's online and runs from November 17 to November 24. Click the link below to check it out!

Image is a screen capture from their website. Text reads: Welcome to Native Cinema Showcase. All films on demand November 17-24, 2023. The National Museum of the American Indian's Native Cinema Showcase is an annual celebration of the best in Native film. For this year's theme, we highlight films of Indigenous perseverance that inspire, uplift, and triumph against adversity - stories that prevail against the judicial system, generational trauma, and cultural appropriation through love and complex relationships, self-worth, and humor.