- This topic has 52 replies, 46 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 3 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
-
U>Without naming Samay Raina, the Supreme Court on Monday said, “One of them went to Canada and spoke about all of this.” The top court’s remark came after Raina joked about the ‘India’s Got Latent’ controversy during his show in Canada.
>”These youngsters are being oversmart…they think we are an outdated generation probably…one of them has gone to Canada and spoke there…they don’t know the jurisdiction which this Court enjoys and what probably can be done…We don’t want to because they are young, we understand,” Justice Surya Kant said.
These remarks were given during ranveer allahbadia’s case hearing. I wanted to know wether personal remarks are appropriate like these during judicial hearing by the office holders ? Or is it a common practice ?
Source : India Today news article
-
-
SI used to be first in line to blame the judiciary. But recently i have found out that it’s not that the judiciary is at fault. It’s the advocates and police department and bureaucrats of this country who have made the joke out of the judiciary.
-
-
-
DWill my lords be kind enough to look at case like this as seriously as this one?
-
-
U>These youngsters are being oversmart…they think we are an outdated generation probably
What is up with this remark ?
– Why is he using personal remarks like “Oversmart” in a formal judicial setting ?
– Why does he assume samay thinks of them as an outdated generation ? Aren’t such motivated assumptions not deemed quite good practice ?
– How is this helping the thousands of pending cases that actually need urgent attention ? -
-
-
-
-
UHonestly speaking judges are a bit egoistic.
While they may not agree, being on the bench brings a certain kind of “I am above the average person” attitude in the judges. This is not something that is restricted to Supreme Court. The same kind of remarks are made on a daily basis in various lower courts too. At the end of the day we cannot do anything, because they are “lordships” and they can never be held accountable for anything.Read this article. You will understand how beyond accountability are the judges of our esteemed judiciary.
Also remember, not a single thing has happened to the judge accused by Atul Subhash. -
UWhile the judge is clearly overreacting and could have avoided making such a statement, Samay is a fool. Why would he talk about an issue which is before the court? Especially since it is not him but another person (Ranveer Allahabadia) who is in the direct firing line and is seeking protection from arrest. I get that his whole brand is being edgy, but why do something that could potentially piss off the judges and harm the other guy’s chances of getting protection from the court? Ultimately, I believe the court did the right thing and gave Ranveer Allahabadia interim protection from arrest. But Samay is really stupid for talking about something like this while the matter is before the court.
-
-
-
-
AThese are same asshole judges who shit in their pants when they have to take any case that they will need to give judgement against the government.
-
U“What if she is the spokesperson of a party. She thinks she has back up of power and can make any statement without respect to the law of the land.” The sitting judge of the Supreme Court who brought this judgement is Justice Surya Kant.
Padhliya kar thoda
(From a previous case)
-
-
-
SThe same judges talk in a much crude way in their associations/clubs sipping the government sponsored drinks. They don’t repair the system as it is serving very well for them all. They are treated/made demi gods 😔 that is why the west laughs at our judiciary system. All corporate companies read foreign expats trust singapore courts than our comedy courts.
-
-
UAdvocate here.
it is a common practice for judges not only to pass comments but also to praise people for whatever they feel is either good or bad. However since it is not a part of the “official” record, it is not held to be bad. That being said, many advocates have boycotted courts of various judges due to their bad behaviour towards advocates.
-
UGot it. Thanks for responding to original query.
I was waiting for someone to answer it from legal purview.
-
Myes adding to that, while these are noted, reported by news and in some cases live streamed, they are at the end of the day oral conversations between lawyers and judges, so stuff which would be too informal for a judgement is common as observations, especially in the early procedural hearings like in this case – these are not and are not expected to be well thought out, but more or less whatever comes to mind – this is especially true because due to backlog these hearings are resolved quickly
you wont see all this in anything written-
UAnd yet these statements and remarks are givrn more weight and publicity than actuall hearing decision or relief.
I understand where it falters,news articlesfocus solely on catchy remarks.
I think judges need to be more catious even of their informal remarks in a formal setting.
-
U>And yet these statements and remarks are givrn more weight and publicity than actuall hearing decision or relief.
This has been going on since long in the media. Its a tactic to hide the real news by sharing something which will seem outrageous if taken out of context like the judge’s informal conversation with the advocates.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
UI didn’t know that the apex court of this country started deciding cases as per the personal opinions of the judge. Sounds much like a banana republic. It’s shocking that public morality has taken precedence over constitutional morality in this matter. I didn’t know that Art 21 was a dead piece of legislation coz clearly the Apex Court feels that a person cannot talk about what HE’s going through at HIS show. Apart from this statement being problematic what is appalling is the fact that the SC is dictating to Ranveer that he can only create content which is age appropriate for everyone. I mean why is this onus being placed on Ranveer? I don’t see such age appropriate content restriction being placed on big production houses like AltBalaji. Even the previous statement of the presiding judge that the statement made has shaken his conscience. I wasn’t aware that the restriction against freedom of speech kicked in when the personal conscience of anyone is breached even though the word of law is not. Nothing, as much wrong as it may be, can be prosecuted if the law doesn’t prohibit. Looks like the milords missed this basic principle during their law school days.
Everyday the judicial system of the country breaks my believe in the system and surprisingly it’s done more by the constitutional courts who live in ivory towers and have given themselves such a high stature that they are high principled individuals who cannot be ever wrong and they’re above everyone.
I wouldn’t be surprised if contempt is issued against me if any of the protectors of constitution read this. Lol. -
R>I wanted to know wether personal remarks are appropriate like these during judicial hearing by the office holders ? Or is it a common practice ?
In 8 years of practice, I have never heard a single judge in my local court say anything like this. Have they said insulting comments? Yes. Have they mentioned political opinions? Yes. Talking as if they’re superior to everyone around them? Yes. Voicing some of the most ignorant and regressive opinions? Yes. But open threats to people? No.
No, it is not at all appropriate. Judges are supposed to have a higher standard and act as if they are above all this. This Judge’s comments have eroded the image of the judiciary in the eyes of men.
-
-
-
-
