On 11/9/06, Badri Natarajan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This is where I disagree. They seem to be doing a good job but it is against our interests in the long run..
As per the wikipedia entry for judiciary:
In law, the judiciary or judicature is the system of courts which administer justice in the name of the sovereign or state, and provide a mechanism for the resolution of disputes.
So:
There is a difference between interpreting the law and making new ones. While in the above case, they might have made some policies and not laws per say, it is still overstepping the role.
ON a slightly different role, the main failure of the judiciary is in resolving cases.
From some random google searches:
http://www.ficci.com/icanet/quterli/oct-dec2001/OCT4.htm
With backlog of over 30 million cases pending in over 9000 Courts in the country with an average duration of pendency of a decade and more for obtaining a final verdict from court even in criminal matters, the common man's perception of the capacity of the judicial system to deliver IS one of skepticism, if not total cynicism. The development of technology in the country with the advent of effective and efficient communication systems and introduction of computer in the courts and administration of justice, has changed the existing scenario very little in reducing the burden of pendency of cases in the courts. New types of litigations have cropped up and choking the already over burdened system.
>
> This is the best news I have read in a long time.
> Thanks and cheers to the Supreme Court.
Judgment is here:
http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/qrydisp.asp?tfnm=28072
Deepak - I agree with you that it is a bit disturbing to see the judiciary
change its role, but I'm not sure the alternative is any better. I think
they ARE doing a good job.
This is where I disagree. They seem to be doing a good job but it is against our interests in the long run..
As per the wikipedia entry for judiciary:
In law, the judiciary or judicature is the system of courts which administer justice in the name of the sovereign or state, and provide a mechanism for the resolution of disputes.
The term is also used to refer collectively to the judges, magistrates and other adjudicators who form the core of a judiciary, as well as the support personnel who keep the system running smoothly.
Under the doctrine of the separation of powers, the judiciary is the branch of government primarily responsible for interpreting the law.
So:
There is a difference between interpreting the law and making new ones. While in the above case, they might have made some policies and not laws per say, it is still overstepping the role.
ON a slightly different role, the main failure of the judiciary is in resolving cases.
From some random google searches:
http://www.ficci.com/icanet/quterli/oct-dec2001/OCT4.htm
With backlog of over 30 million cases pending in over 9000 Courts in the country with an average duration of pendency of a decade and more for obtaining a final verdict from court even in criminal matters, the common man's perception of the capacity of the judicial system to deliver IS one of skepticism, if not total cynicism. The development of technology in the country with the advent of effective and efficient communication systems and introduction of computer in the courts and administration of justice, has changed the existing scenario very little in reducing the burden of pendency of cases in the courts. New types of litigations have cropped up and choking the already over burdened system.
So my point is : instead of doing what they are supposed to do, viz interpret the law and ensure delivery of justice, the courts have started getting into an administrative mode and trying to govern the country. This has resulted in some improvement in areas such as environment but the danger is that a precedent has been set for judicial interference which could extend to other areas tomorrow.
Over and above this, we have undertrials lodged in jails for long durations largely because their cases dont come up for hearing and they dont have the money to fight it out
Deepak
