Statues make for better judges in India’s Supreme Court

India’s founders could have installed statues in the Supreme Court to function as judges and these statues would have done a better job than India’s current crop of judges in the Supreme Court. For one, these statues wouldn’t be able to hear any stupid cases. Like the one about Mayawati and her statues.

I am absolutely annoyed over India’s Supreme Court hearing this case. I am no student of law, and would appreciate if any one could point out what I am missing here.

Just to recap, this is the story. Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Mayawati seems to be megalomaniac. She wants to unveil several statues of herself throughout the state, costing taxpayers about Rs. 5.5 billion ($ 120 million). Unsurprisingly, this has riled up several people. Activists are seeking all avenues to stop this nonsense. A common strategy in such situations is to approach the judiciary. So far so good.

They file a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in India’s Supreme Court. For any case there needs to be a litigant, the affected party. Presumably, a few taxpayers file a case against the government claiming that their tax rupees are wasted. For them to have a case shouldn’t the administration have done something unconstitutional, or have broken the law? How can any democratic system allow any case where litigants argue about an administration and legislature’s spending priorities? Some folks might want to spend money on education, some might favor welfare measures, while others might like statues. Aren’t elections meant to settle these issues?

What legal basis do courts have to hear such cases? And what basis are they going to use to make any judgement? Are they going to prevent the government from installing Mayawati’s statues? What if the statues were those of Gandhi? What if the plan was to install one statue of Gandhi? When does a rightful expenditure become wrongful and what authority does the court have? Forget the authority, what capability do they have? How did judges suddenly assume they were smart enough to decide how to allocate a state’s budget?

What next? Are they going to direct the Central Government to invade China?

I usually use the word moron to describe such actors. In this instance, doing so would be insulting to morons.

One interesting outcome of the case is that, the Supreme Court threatened to get the Central Government dismiss the UP State Government if they would not follow the court’s orders. Now, I do agree that any government should faithfully follow any court’s orders. Disobedience should be an impossible solution. Otherwise, our system of Rule of Law would break down. What happens if the Central government refuses to listen to a court’s orders? The court stages a coup?

In this situation, statues serving as judges would have done a better job. They would not have heard this case at all.

“We are morons”: Gujarat State Government

The Gujarat state government banned Jaswant Singh’s book “Jinnah: India-Partition-Independence” and had this to say:

Jaswant Singh’s book questions role of Sardar Patel during the partition of India as well as his patriotic spirit. This is an attempt to tarnish the image of Patel who is considered the architect of modern united India [...] So, the state government has decided to ban the book with immediate effect for wider public interest

Translation: “We are morons. We exercise our constitutional right to be stupid.” My first reaction was, “You could do that?”

On thinking more about it, I must say this would be a really strong defence. What would a judge’s reaction be when one person’s implicit right to be stupid conflicts with another person’s right to free speech?

My endorsement: The party that has promised a time machine

It is election time in India. There are so many parties and factions and coming up with whom I want to endorse has been an intense though exercise. I have finally found a winner. My support goes to the Samajwadi Party (SP) led by Mulayam Singh Yadav.

Parties promise free electricity for farmers, free rice and so on. No party has managed to match SP’s vision. SP promises to invent a time machine and will take us all to a future time where things will be dramatically different. People will no longer be divided on the basis of religion or caste. They will no longer die of old age. There will be no more unemployment. Every one will be employed in hunting and gathering.

More from the party manifesto:

The Samajwadi Party has vowed to work against the use of English in education. [...] Wherever work can be done by hand, computers would be abolished. [...] The SP has also come out against mechanized farming [...]

If you are as ignorant as Sagarika Ghose

This post was copied from http://mssnlayam.livejournal.com/15773.html Please refer to the original version for formatting and comments.

A lot of times in conversations among my friends, I rail against CNN-IBN, especially against Ms. Sagarika Ghose. My friends ask me why?

If you are as ignorant as her (I know you are not), this is what you need to know: In India and most other democracies, an accused is innocent until proven guilty. It is the burden of the government/prosecution to prove before a judge that a person is guilty (though the burden of proving oneself innocent is slowly being moved towards the accused, by various laws passed in India such as TADA, POTA, anti-dowry laws, etc.). It is the fundamental right of an accused to receive “due process” (realities of “due process” in India). “Due process” means access to a lawyer and being heard by an impartial judge. Defending an accused is what a defence lawyer does. And, just because an ignorant news anchor has passed a verdict about a case does not mean the lawyer should shirk on their responsibility. Now, all this is unrelated to the case Sagarika is discussing. It doesn't matter if the evidence is out there; it doesn't matter if the crime is heinous.

One job of the press to educate and enlighten the public. I am appalled that this is what we get for a press in India. Government muzzling the press doesn't look that bad now :)

I am presenting evidence (youtube video) of Sagarika's ignorance. It for you to decide. This is not a criminal trial, and you don't have to be a judge to make your mind :) I feel bad for Ram Jethmalani.

Just to get the big picture, her career according to Wikipedia. She is well accomplished. She is a Rhodes scholar!!!

A recipient of the Rhodes Scholarship, she gained a bachelor's in modern history from Magdalen College and an M.Phil from St Antony's College at Oxford. She has been a journalist in India since 1991 and has worked at the The Times Of India, Outlook magazine and The Indian Express. She is currently a (2006) senior editor and prime time anchor on the news network CNN-IBN.

Somehow, her presence on TV does not reflect these qualifications.

Yeah right, I am awaiting legal approval to become gay

This post was copied from http://mssnlayam.livejournal.com/12404.html Please refer to the original version for formatting and comments.

India's Additional Solicitor General P.P. Malhotra; You Sir, are a first-rate moron.

Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code criminalizes homosexual activity. The Delhi High Court is hearing a case challenging the section's constitutionality. Mr. Malhotra's argument:

“AIDS is spreading and if gay sex is legalised, then people on the streets would indulge in it saying that the high court has given approval for it,” Malhotra said.

I really do not understand why health issues are even being discussed. Shouldn't the challenge be as simple as, “The Indian Constitution guarantees the right to privacy. Therefore private homosexual activities cannot be illegal.”? And the Judges nod their heads and strike the law.

Why is this case not viewed primarily as a human rights issue?