Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

JUDICIARY (JUDICIAL OVEREACH (JUDICAIRY SHOULD ACT AS ALARM CLOCK NOT TIME…

- - - - BREAKING FROM THE PROTOCOL 4 SENIOR MOST JUDGES OF SC WENT ON TO HOLD A PRESS CONFRENCE REGARDING THEIR DISCONTENT OF SIGNALLING MALAFIDE INTENTION OF CJI... "TO FIX" CASES.. BY THIS THE 4 JUDGES QUESTION OTHER JUDGES ALSO WHOM CJI WOULD ASSIGN CASES...
        
        AND THERE BY QUESTIONING WHOLE JUDICIARY IN SUPREME COURT
      - CJI IS THE MASTER OF THE ROSTER(ENGLISH CONVENTION): CJI ASSIGNING THE BENCH : ITS HIS DISCRETION... BUT THE 4 JUDGES HELD THAT THIS IS BEING EXCERCISED W/O FOLLOWING DUE OF INTEREST ... KEEPING IN MIND THE POLITICAL DYNAMICS(JUDICIARY NOT BEING 100% NEUTRAL)
      - THIS ADMIST ALLLEGATION OF BENCH SHOPPING IN SC IN MEDICAL BRIBE CASE IN ODISHA
        4 JUDGES ALSO ASSERTED THAT CASE OF INVESTIGATION OF JUSTICE LOYA 'S DEATH CJI HAS KEPT IT HIMSELF
      - THIS IS SIMILAR TO INDIRA GANDHI ASSERTED EMERGENCY W/O ACKNOWLEDING THE CABINET... SIMILARLY CJI IS ALLEGED OF CONDUCT
      - SOLUTION:
        
        MULTI- MEMBERISM: LIKE APPOINTMENT WHICH CONSIDERED BY COLLEGIUM OF JUDGES, BUSSINESS OF SC CAN ALSO DONE THROUGH THIS
        
        MULTIMEMBERISM IS WAY OF DEMOCRACY AS IT REDUCES DESCETION WHICH IN TURN REDUCES CHANCES OF CORRUPTION AND ENHANCES ACCOUNTABILITY
        
        FOR EXAMPLE: ELECTION COMMISSION , MPC ARE MULTI-MEMBER BODY FROM A SINGLE MEMBER... AND THERE ARE DEMAND FOR CAG AS WELL
        
        SO THERE IS A NEED OF SUPREME COURT ACT TO BE ENACTED BY PARLIAMENT UNDER ITS ITS POWER GIVEN IN ENTRY 77 OF UNION LIST ... LIKE PARLAIMENT DID IT BEFORE IN JUDICIAL INQUIRY ACT 1968..
        NEW ACT SHOULD BE CONSTITUTED AFTER CONSULTING ALL THE STAKEHOLDERS
        
        PROBLEM IN THIS
        
        WHO WILL ADJUDICATECJI
        
        JUDICIARY HAS IMBIBED ITSELF INTO THE BOUNDARIES OF INDEPENDENCE OF JUDICIRY... THAT HAS MADE IMPOSSIB LE FOR PARLIAMENT TO ACT LIKE 99TH CONSAA HELD BY SUPREME COURT AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL... SO I LIUE OF PUNISHING ERRANT JUDGES WILL THIS PROTECTION BE DILUTED FOR THIS ?.. WHICH HAS ITS OWN RAMCIFICATIONS
    - - SUBASH KASHYUB SAYS: IF ELECTED REPRENTATIVE REPESENTING THE CITIZENS CAN'T MAKE CHANGES THAN WHO WILLL..
      - PREAMBLE SAYS ... WE THE PEOPLE OF INDIA NOT THE WETHE JUDGES OF INDIA ... CITIZENS ARE SOVERIGN IN OUR COUNTRY
      - BUT IT IS SC THAT HAS CHECKED THE RADICAL FORCES TO TAKE OVER THIS COUNTRY IN A UNDEMOCRATIC NEIGHBOURHOOD..
        
        IT IS JUDICIARY THAT HAS PROTECTED THE ETHOS OF CONS. FROM TEMPORARY MAJORITY OF PARLIAMENT
- - - - ART 226 WRIT OF HIGHCOURT SHOWS FRICTION B/W CITIZEN AND GOVT... IT IS NOT A SIGN OF GOOD GOVERNANCE
        
        THIS IS BECOZ OF LACK OF INBUILT GRIEVANCE REDRESSAL MECH. AND SOCIAL AUDIT
      - POOR CORDINATION B/W VARIOUS DEPT OF GOVT.
      - GOVT, STILL NEEDS OFFICIAL LITIGATIONPOLICY