>It may be that an individual country has to file proceedings in
> its national court but I would think the liability cannot be avoided so
> easily.
You are absolutely right. In the Union Carbide case, an arrest warrant was issued for the CEO Anderson of UC (USA). Anderson was safe as long as he did not visit India. But there are other issues that come up - the fact that an arrest warrant was issued (albiet in a foreign court) does at times raise some issues for him in the US.
(at the least, his 'resume' comes with that accolade).
I am not sure if the US and India have extradition treaties. If they do, then there is the possibility that court orders in India could affect people in the US - sepcially in criminal and national security matters.
> my understanding is that Indian laws or other foreign country laws have no
> jurisdiction over discussions emanating from an US based web-site
Usually, I think that may be true. But if the Indian Govt. were to feel that their national security interests were being harmed, then based on an Indian court order, they could actually request the US to take action against an individual. Post 9/11, these are distinct possibilities.
Most times though, NRIs are safe (if they were breaking Indian laws) if they did not visit India.
> BTW, there have been a lot of discussions in India about the ridiculous
> extent to which Indian courts have exercised its dictatorial "contempt of
> court" rules to stifle criticism and/or discussion of issues the courts
> don't like to see or hear.
Yes, I have heard this regarding the Arundhoti Roy case. She was held in contempt of court, and imprisoned for a day/with a fine.
Courts do make errors in judgement, but I think until and unless they are given that freedom, to make decisions without let or how the political winds blow, they lose their stature and the capacity to render justice.
At times we may not like their decisions (Gore V Bush, 2000), but for the sake of preserving the high court's stature, we do have to abide by the decisions.
BTW: If you have time, here is a take on Roy's contempt - its pro Roy, anti-Indian Supreme Court.
Reading both of these below, the SC was right in its judgement on Roy. She may have been politically correct, but she did break the law.
http://www.alternet.org/story/12582/
and this:
What the Indian Laws do provide for the Courts
Judicial independence
The Constitution seeks to ensure the independence of Supreme Court Judges in various ways. Judges are generally appointed on the basis of seniority and not on political preference. A Judge of the Supreme Court cannot be removed from office except by an order of the President passed after an address in each House of Parliament supported by a majority of the total membership of that House and by a majority of not less than two-thirds of members present and voting, and presented to the President in the same Session for such removal on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity. A person who has been a Judge of the Supreme Court is debarred from practising in any court of law or before any other authority in India.
Powers to punish contempt
Under Articles 129 and 142 of the Constitution the Supreme Court has been vested with power to punish anyone for contempt of any law court in India including itself. Contempt of court is the failure to obey a lawful order of a court, disrespect for the judge, disruption of the proceedings through poor behavior, or publication of material deemed likely to jeopardize a fair trial. ...
Contempt of Court:
Contempt of court is the failure to obey a lawful order of a court, disrespect for the judge, disruption of the proceedings through poor behavior, or publication of material deemed likely to jeopardize a fair trial. A judge may impose sanctions such as a fine or jail for someone found guilty of contempt of court. Typically judges in common law systems have more extensive power to declare someone in contempt than judges in civil law systems. .....This article concerns the common-law legal system, as contrasted with the civil law legal system...
(Extracted from: http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Supreme-Court-of-India#Judicial_independence)
On 9/13/05, Chan Mahanta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Mine is not a legal expert's opinion here, but for all intents and purposes,
> my understanding is that Indian laws or other foreign country laws have no
> jurisdiction over discussions emanating from an US based web-site.
>
> That is not to suggest that someone in Indian territory would be immune from
> Indian laws for expressing something might be considered illegal in India.
>
> BTW, there have been a lot of discussions in India about the ridiculous
> extent to which Indian courts have exercised its dictatorial "contempt of
> court" rules to stifle criticism and/or discussion of issues the courts
> don't like to see or hear.
>
>
>
>
>
> At 11:49 AM -0400 9/13/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Are not internet websites operating internationally? Have not the US courts
> or any other courts in the world for that matter made any pronouncement on
> the subject? It may be that an individual country has to file proceedings in
> its national court but I would think the liability cannot be avoided so
> easily. However, if there is no such finding, I stand corrected.It is
> however a fact that a book banned in one country may be freely available in
> another country. Can that be said of discussions in the internet which is
> accesssible to all and sundry?
>
> The question has other complications. But I stop here.
>
> Bhuban
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> assam mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org
>
>
>
_______________________________________________ assam mailing list [email protected] http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org
