- This topic has 9 replies, 4 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 3 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
-
RI’m still not convinced even after all this time that the statement by the one or both judges in his bail case that what ranveer Allahbadia said was “obscenity” was an appropriately statement to make. NOT because it’s necccesarily wrong but they seemed to be implying that this is how they would judge on the issue if it was a question of law. Can the supreme court still be trusted as an institution that rules based on the law rather than non legal considerations ? I’m not necccesarily saying it was wrong of them but I’m not sure
-
-
RStill not convinced bro. Like SC said before that judges shouldn’t make statements that would indicate bias before a hearing or trial even starts. But they’re not following that ? What am I missing
-
UWhat bias? Those judges heard those recordings and made their remarks based on their vast experience of handling such cases. Even the lawyer agreed that those remarks were uncivilized. So what bias is there?
I am actually concerned that you are wasting your time on this issue when there are better things for you to do. Now tell me am I being biased because I personally dislike such youtubers or is it justified based on the multiple posts you are creating, notwithstanding the current comments that “you are not convinced”? Even the article you linked does not justify your stand.
-
R>What bias? Those judges heard those recordings and made their remarks based on their vast experience of handling such cases. Even the lawyer agreed that those remarks were uncivilized. So what bias is there?
There are other judgements that state that vulgarity ≠ obscenity in every instance in the legal sense. Sure those statements were uncivilized, cringe and pathetic. But legally there is established precedent.
>I am actually concerned that you are wasting your time on this issue when there are better things for you to do. Now tell me am I being biased because I personally dislike such youtubers or is it justified based on the multiple posts you are creating, notwithstanding the current comments that “you are not convinced”? Even the article you linked does not justify your stand.
No. I dislike such youtubers too. But I’m more concerned that you don’t see a problem with the fact that judges can make blanket statements on issues that a pre judicial in nature. Wouldn’t this be against judicial ethics in almost any other country ? What am I missing here ? I just don’t want the judiciary to make judgements based on public outrage because it sets a precedent against rule of law.
-
U*sigh* the matter before the court was should judge grant him interim relief based on the FIRs which were regarding public obscenity. Lawyer agreed it was vulgar but questioned is it to the level of criminal offence. Judge made a counter remark that if his statements are not obscene than what is obscene. Lawyer did not counter that. What do you expect then? There is a concept of “reasonable person” when looking into criminal offences.
Lawyer was suppose to defend that. He couldnt. Judge is correct in asking the reasoning from the lawyer himself that will any “reasonable person” make such remarks. But inspite of that Judge gave him interim relief. What more do you want?
-
-
-
-
-
-
HIt is quite unfair of you to blame judges for making comments during a hearing. In a court case, there are a lot of exchanges between the lawyer and the judge, and only a small part of it forms part of the order passed by the Court. What is of importance is the order that gets passed by the court. Take the Allahabadia case for example. Judges made comments during the hearing but ultimately gave him the relief he asked for. While they expressed their opinion that what the guy said was crap, it did not affect the judgment passed. He was granted bail. Most social media only focus on the remarks made orally by the Court without focusing on the fact that the main relief sought i.e. bail, was granted.
-
-
SYour post/comment has been removed because it appears to be a hypothetical scenario or academic question, violating Rule 3. This subreddit is for real legal issues.
If you have questions about this removal, please [contact the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/LegalAdviceIndia).
-
