Ram:
>>I know the Indian SC does a whole lot more: Some for the
good. And others in clear >contravention of democratic norms.
*** The Indian SC has taken up upon itself ( go look up its
website) to take up issues that go beyond interpreting the
constitution or the laws of the land. It
acknowledges it and justifies it because of desi-demokrasy's
failings ( not exactly in those words however :-)), to provide relief
to the unrepresented, to the downtrodden of society.
That I characterize as 'good'. It is an activist, constructive
stance.
But it has negative consequences too. Such as:
I realize that in the course of interpreting the laws or the
constitution, a high court can and do end up 'legislating' at times.
That is not what I alluded to.
At 4:03 PM -0500 5/3/06, Ram Sarangapani wrote:
C'da
>I know the Indian SC does a whole lot more: Some for the good. And others in clear >contravention of democratic norms.
Thats a blanket statement. Are you saying that the SC is 'legislating from the bench' specially when some rulings don't go in ones favor? Do you have some stark examples?
And what about the ruling against the GOI and the GOA to produce missing ULFA cadres from the Bhutan operation. The wife of one of the missing cadres filed the suit and won and the Govts. lost that case. Was that a bad ruling?
I think the SC is probably one of the best Indian institutions and has more or less kept away from politics and remained independent.
BTW as a 'sidebar': This same Supreme Court, just last month ruled that Indian whiskey manufacturers cannot use the words like Scot, Scotch etc, nor can they say 'like Scotch' in their labels or ads. The suit was brought up before them by a group of English Scotch manufacturers and they won.
--Ram
On 5/3/06, Chan Mahanta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
One would think it is the prerogative of the people and its representatives -- the law-making entities, to make laws to uphold the constitutional mandates. SC merely INTERPRETS the laws of the land.
I know the Indian SC does a whole lot more: Some for the good. And others in clear contravention of democratic norms. That is because of the abject failures of the desi-demokrasy and its law-making bodies.
But should the people let a group of appointed lawyers be the final arbiters of what is their right, instead of attempting to reform and improve its lawmaking bodies?
At 5:16 PM +0100 5/3/06, umesh sharma wrote:
Does Supreme Court have the right to interpret the Indian constitution - and atleast remind the elected officials about what is written therein.
Umesh
Chan Mahanta <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote:
While it is disturbing to see uncontrolled proliferation of alcohol
peddling and consumption in India, where does the SC derive its
mandate to ASK ( read order)
even in desi-demokrasy? Is the SC the SUPREME elected body of the country?
cm
Time has come for total prohibition: SC
[ Wednesday, May 03, 2006 06:20:31 pmIANS ]
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has asked the central and state
governments to take steps to achieve the goal of total prohibition of
liquor as enshrined in Article 47 of the constitution under the
Directive Principles of State Policy.
Expressing serious concern on the ill effects of liquor, a bench of
Justice S.B. Sinha and Justice P.K . Balasubramanyan said: "Article 47
of the constitution clearly casts a duty on the state at least to
reduce the consumption of liquor in the state, gradually leading to
prohibition itself."
The judges said: "It appears to be right to point out that the time
has come for the states and the union government to seriously think
of taking steps to achieve the goal set by Article 47 of the
constitution."
Writing the judgment, Justice Balasubramanyan said: "It is a
notorious fact, of which we can take judicial notice, that more and
more of the younger generation in this country is getting addicted to
liquor.
It has not only become a fashion to consume it but it has also
become an obsession with very many. Surely, we do not need an
indolent nation.
"Why the state in the face of Article 47 of the constitution should
encourage, that too practically unrestrictedly, the trade in liquor
is something that is difficult to appreciate," the bench asked.
"The only excuse for the state for not following the mandate of
Article 47 of the constitution is that huge revenue is generated by
this trade and such revenue is being used for meeting the financial
needs of the state.
What is more relevant here is to notice that the monopoly in the
trade is with the state and it is only a privilege that a licencee
has in the matter of manufacturing and vending liquor," the bench
noted.
The bench passed this order while disposing of an appeal filed by
the Maharashtra government against an interim order passed by the
Bombay High Court on the issue of payment of requisite fee by
distilleries under the Bombay Rectified Spirit (Transport in Bond)
Rules, 1951.
_______________________________________________
assam mailing list
assam@assamnet.org
http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org
Umesh Sharma
5121 Lackawanna ST
College Park, MD 20740
1-202-215-4328 [Cell Phone]
Ed.M. - International Education Policy
Harvard Graduate School of Education,
Harvard University,
Class of 2005
Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
assam mailing list
assam@assamnet.org
http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org
_______________________________________________ assam mailing list assam@assamnet.org http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org
