Nepotism in the Indian Legal system

The jurisprudence on controversial topic like the right to privacy and the right to euthanasia is curtailed because intellectual enrichment they have a head start in life. The judiciary is the only organ of the state which is selected in secrecy and not elected so that it stands alone in not being accountable to the India republic for its judgment but only accountable to itself.

This is why the controversy over the fact that one -third of 33 senior advocates recommended for judgeship in India largest high court Allahabad court and blood relative of sitting or former Supreme Court judge or judges of the Allahabad high court lawyers from the Allahabad and the Lucknow Bar Association send a message protest to the union Law Ministry against this recommendation which has resulted in the letter asking the largest high court Allahabad court and blood relative of sitting or former Supreme Court judge or judges of the Allahabad high court lawyers from the Allahabad and the Lucknow Bar Association send a message protest to the union Law Ministry against this recommendation which has resulted in the letter asking the intelligence bureau to do a thorough background check on this lawyer in 2010 the then Chief Justice of India TS Thakur has rejected at the 11 advocate so that only 19 judges were appointed the list of 33 names Allegedly   include the brother-in-law of A setting Supreme Court judge and the first cousin of another great Sun and nephew for former Supreme Court and Allahabad High Court judge have been recommended for gaps up apart from a senior advocate who is a law partner of the wife of senior Delhi political what does they augur for the judiciary?

         The Jurisprudence on controversial topic like the right to privacy and the right to euthanasia is curtailed because intellectual enrichment is not always restricted to Judge Family alone all thought they have a head start in life CJI Deepak Mishra is himself nephew of the 21st CJI Ranganath Mishra who was alone a Congress MP from 1998 to 2004 after the demitting the CJI office proving the politics and justice do mix all through we are supposed to believe they do not.

A part from 50 word sentence in his judgement Replete with bombastic vocabulary CJI Deepak Mishra judgement on the instant triple Talaq leave it to the legislature to decide but Supreme Court judge are supposed to feel in the gaps when there is no legislation on a subject so that justice is seen to be done in a secular democracy forget about religious use with implied the CJI may not be widely read on science.

Judicial activism need creative judge who will innovated to ensure that Muslim women and the terminally ill treated on par with the rich when there is no legislation judge can embark on social engineering to ensure that the social economic and political justice Main Sun in the Preamble to the constitution is not mere cinema but become a reality for all.

Again on the issue of euthanasia CJI Deepak Mishra headed five judge constitution bench to hear a reference made due to conflicting judgement on this issue he as a quoted from the Hindu scripture such as Jal Samadhi of Lord Ram to justify  him stand the suicied is not necessarily an offence but in a secular , sovereign, socialist ,democracy ,public which is in the Preamble of the Constitution  proclaims India to be, allusion to jal Samadhi are unscientific and retrogressive.

It judge takes on oath to uphold the constitution and not obsolete religious view to which he may subscribe this is why Judiciary need to ensure that those who are selected to its hallowed rank have Proven intellectual credentials because of agree with established norms prove intellectual bankrupted Whereas to decent and lay down norm whereas is a no legislation on a subject proves that a judge is an intellectual giant

To revert to the euthanasia debate again the Supreme Court has delivered just for judgement in the last 24 year old which have been overturned to enrich the pocket of senior advocate in the apex court due to debate and discussion the first judgement known as P. Rathinam case was delivered in 1994 by the two judge which held that the right to life include the right to die with dignity because every right has a positive and negative connotation just as the right to free speech includes the right to keep silent but P. Rathinam place was overruled in 1996 by the two judge bench of Gian Kaur case which did not especially deal with euthanasia but recognised that the right to die with dignity content with article 21.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s