In episode 529 of ThePrint's Cut The Clutter, Shekhar Gupta says the top court’s capital is its own stature and it’s for the court to decide how fragile that stature is.
In episode 526 of ThePrint's Cut The Clutter, Editor-in-Chief Shekhar Gupta discusses the bank nationalisation move on its 51st anniversary, and looks at the political history around it.
In episode 524 of ThePrint's Cut The Clutter, Shekhar Gupta explains what China-Iran's partnership means for India and how they link to the US's nuclear sanctions.
In episode 523 of #CutTheClutter, Shekhar Gupta delves into the controversy surrounding the Harper's Magazine letter, NYT editor Bari Weiss' resignation & growing trend of cancel culture.
In Episode 522 of #CutTheClutter, Shekhar Gupta draws on an article by Beda M. Stadler, an eminent biologist from Switzerland, to underline the importance of studying the immune system for Covid.
In episode 521 of #CutTheClutter, Shekhar Gupta talks about the fundamental contradiction within the Congress party — it is ruled by a strong but ineffective dynasty.
In episode 512 of #CutTheClutter, Shekhar Gupta discusses how the BJP is resembling the Congress in terms of having an all-powerful central command and weak CMs.
In episode 510 of #CutTheClutter, ThePrint’s Editor-in-Chief Shekhar Gupta recalls leadership lessons from John F. Kennedy, Jawaharlal Nehru & Indira Gandhi.
In episode 496 of #CutTheClutter, Shekhar Gupta explains why Delhi should look to Dharavi, Asia's largest slum, which managed to arrest the virus considerably.
Many offices in Telangana have asked their employees to work from home because of heavy rainfall, but it has become impossible due to the internet outages.
The Navy has always been on board with the theaterisation plan, but the Air Force feels splitting up air assets into several theatre commands is futile & will tie up critical systems.
Putin sees this as a victory. Europeans have decided to deal with Trump on his terms for the sake of the larger Western alliance. We look at the lessons for us in India.
There is one word for these kinds of people.- anti-establishments. Whatever, yes whatever the institution does and it is against the wishes of these people, they will cry hoarse. So far so good. But they start imputing motives day in and day out. The court has to decide one way or the other. If they don’t concur with one viewpoint, so be with it. I feel there should be exemplary punishment. It is not to stifle dissent but to maintain the dignity of the institution…..
The initiation of contempt proceedings by the Supreme Court, suo motu, against lawyer-activist Prashant Bhushan for his tweets, is off-key and jarring, not least because of its timing. At a time when matters affecting citizens’ lives and livelihoods vie for its attention, when the
Pandemic has set off social and economic distress at an unprecedented scale and also many cases are in the court challenging abrogation of sec 35A and article 370, two tweets have riled Their Lordships. For the court, in this moment, to invoke its contempt jurisdiction with alacrity against criticism of it is disappointing, and disturbing. Contempt case against Prashant Bhushan shrinks the space Supreme Court has itself created — and hurts the court. They need to look in the mirror time to time if their action meets the requirements of the power vested in them – especially after a criticism
So you all will decide what should be punished and not, as if you a know better than everybody else in the country.
What if a person abuses you daily in your office ? Will you just smile and let it go saying your position is very high and you should not be bothered ? Sir, you will create bad precedents allowing anybody and everybody will abuse and slander each other, which does not help a civil society. This person has been a habitual offender and his behaviour is encouraging others to do similarly. He should have been punished long back.
I think the writer’ views are aptly reviewed in the above comments.However, the journalist frend, despite all his expertise and experience seems to be not aware of the fact that politician is not an institution and has no comparison with an institution much less, with the SC. Need not to mention that the standing of an institution is assessed from its integrity and not by the fragility.
Sir ,Mr Gupta you r seeing only one side of it because here you r prejudiced by the name of accused had it been unknown face from legal fertinity you would have given opposite opinion that nobody should be allowed to get away I think you wake up
But it is the daily routine of Mr.Bhushan to critisize the system may be for publicity. He is thinking the government, the Judiciary should act according to his wishes else he will adversly comment. He thinks he is the only perfect man in this country.
Survival of Democracy and the various Institutions associated with it stands some chance of survival only because there are people like Prashant Bhushan courageously fighting for the common man without fear or favour. But there are also people like you who take pride in supporting present regime, despite tremendous damage it has done to country and its people. Courts are seen favouring executive decisions however they are damaging and inhuman they might be. The recent plight of Lakhs of Migrant Labourers and inhuman situation of over 80 Lakhs People in Kashmir Valley even after laps of about one year AND the approach of Supreme Courts could be few cases for reference.
Precedent?
Is there a precedent when a prominent lawyer from a family of lawyers (nepotism? that is another story for another day) says that (paraphrasing) the Judicial System in India has destroyed democracy – without really substantiating the statements , importantly here, before making this very damaging statement?
When statements are made which are seemingly prejudiced, it may boomerang!
There are Indians in this democracy who feel that Mr. Prashant Bhushan has repeatedly made irresponsible statements in the past.
So, there you are.
Now, you decide whether Media should sit in judgement!
Fine edit in IE today. Shri Prashant Bhushan is a man of integrity, has a good record of public service. There have been instances that have disturbed the public, shaken its faith in the institution. The manner in which allegations of sexual misconduct against Shri R Gogoi, MP, when he was CJI were disposed of was not the SC’s finest hour. It would be tedious to list others. Ordinary citizens are not well versed with the law, consider themselves blessed if they do not come into contact with the judicial system. Shri Arun Shourie has recounted his experiences. However, each Indian understands instinctively the purity of a piece of gold.
There is one word for these kinds of people.- anti-establishments. Whatever, yes whatever the institution does and it is against the wishes of these people, they will cry hoarse. So far so good. But they start imputing motives day in and day out. The court has to decide one way or the other. If they don’t concur with one viewpoint, so be with it. I feel there should be exemplary punishment. It is not to stifle dissent but to maintain the dignity of the institution…..
Some died body eaters and his sympathysers people think that they above the law…..these antinational and so called durbudhijivi must be punished….
If this bike was shown placed over the CJI, then possibly could this bike or its owner be charged for the contempt of the supreme court of India?
The initiation of contempt proceedings by the Supreme Court, suo motu, against lawyer-activist Prashant Bhushan for his tweets, is off-key and jarring, not least because of its timing. At a time when matters affecting citizens’ lives and livelihoods vie for its attention, when the
Pandemic has set off social and economic distress at an unprecedented scale and also many cases are in the court challenging abrogation of sec 35A and article 370, two tweets have riled Their Lordships. For the court, in this moment, to invoke its contempt jurisdiction with alacrity against criticism of it is disappointing, and disturbing. Contempt case against Prashant Bhushan shrinks the space Supreme Court has itself created — and hurts the court. They need to look in the mirror time to time if their action meets the requirements of the power vested in them – especially after a criticism
So you all will decide what should be punished and not, as if you a know better than everybody else in the country.
What if a person abuses you daily in your office ? Will you just smile and let it go saying your position is very high and you should not be bothered ? Sir, you will create bad precedents allowing anybody and everybody will abuse and slander each other, which does not help a civil society. This person has been a habitual offender and his behaviour is encouraging others to do similarly. He should have been punished long back.
I think the writer’ views are aptly reviewed in the above comments.However, the journalist frend, despite all his expertise and experience seems to be not aware of the fact that politician is not an institution and has no comparison with an institution much less, with the SC. Need not to mention that the standing of an institution is assessed from its integrity and not by the fragility.
Sir ,Mr Gupta you r seeing only one side of it because here you r prejudiced by the name of accused had it been unknown face from legal fertinity you would have given opposite opinion that nobody should be allowed to get away I think you wake up
But it is the daily routine of Mr.Bhushan to critisize the system may be for publicity. He is thinking the government, the Judiciary should act according to his wishes else he will adversly comment. He thinks he is the only perfect man in this country.
Survival of Democracy and the various Institutions associated with it stands some chance of survival only because there are people like Prashant Bhushan courageously fighting for the common man without fear or favour. But there are also people like you who take pride in supporting present regime, despite tremendous damage it has done to country and its people. Courts are seen favouring executive decisions however they are damaging and inhuman they might be. The recent plight of Lakhs of Migrant Labourers and inhuman situation of over 80 Lakhs People in Kashmir Valley even after laps of about one year AND the approach of Supreme Courts could be few cases for reference.
Precedent?
Is there a precedent when a prominent lawyer from a family of lawyers (nepotism? that is another story for another day) says that (paraphrasing) the Judicial System in India has destroyed democracy – without really substantiating the statements , importantly here, before making this very damaging statement?
When statements are made which are seemingly prejudiced, it may boomerang!
There are Indians in this democracy who feel that Mr. Prashant Bhushan has repeatedly made irresponsible statements in the past.
So, there you are.
Now, you decide whether Media should sit in judgement!
Fine edit in IE today. Shri Prashant Bhushan is a man of integrity, has a good record of public service. There have been instances that have disturbed the public, shaken its faith in the institution. The manner in which allegations of sexual misconduct against Shri R Gogoi, MP, when he was CJI were disposed of was not the SC’s finest hour. It would be tedious to list others. Ordinary citizens are not well versed with the law, consider themselves blessed if they do not come into contact with the judicial system. Shri Arun Shourie has recounted his experiences. However, each Indian understands instinctively the purity of a piece of gold.