A 2016 study, commissioned by the law ministry, says that on average a case takes anywhere between 10 and 15 years to be decided by higher courts in India.
Judges are squabbling, popular confidence is frayed, and the executive is poised to bury the hatchet: in its back. Can an exhausted judiciary fight back?
At a recent event, Justice Chelameswar said that serving judges can talk to the media about issues relevant to the judiciary without violating guideline number 9 of the Judicial Code of Ethics. Experts weigh in on the likely impact on the Indian judiciary.
This edition of 'Off The Cuff' saw Indian Jurist, President of The Bar Association, Fali Nariman in conversation with ThePrint Chairman & Editor-in-Chief Shekhar...
Pressure on judiciary to be transparent has resulted in a travesty – a pilot project in two district courts where proceedings will be recorded without audio.
ThePrint had previously reported that India & Russia are talking about 5 more regiments of the S-400, but no contracts are to be signed during the Russian president's visit.
The India-South Africa series-defining fact is the catastrophic decline of Indian red ball cricket where a visiting team can mock us with the 'grovel' word.
Acts done by women under the combined effect of Brainwashing and alleged love can’t be called Agency. As a women I am of firm belief that a child (male or female) has supreme duty not to bring any disgrace to family. One’s action affects reputation of whole family. Like it or not this is the way social system works. Ignoring parents to marry someone not liked by family is a clear act of selfishness and not love marriage.
The author is biased on this subject and criticising the courts for giving some leniency towards parental custody. I think the author is female and is writing the whole article just on the basis of women’s rights. Parental custody can also be useful in other situations. Let us take for example, religious fundamentalism. Forget about gender here. If a boy wants to go to join ISIS or Kashmiri militants or wants to kill an enemy or wants to drive drunk on the road, would you say it is wrong if parents would rather lock him up in a room and work off the anger and emotions and give some time to heal and think.
The authors article just shows how immature she is. I do not know how old she is. But, consider this, if responsible parents resorted to parental custody of boys or girls to prevent drunken driving or acid attacks or suicides or homicides, will the author argue that since the boy or girl has attained the age of legal maturity and is an adult, they cannot be restrained by parents? Is the author saying that DP YADAV was right in not stopping his son and friends from killing another youth for loving his daughter?
The author needs to think some things through. The judges in high courts are not dumb. Finally, I would like to say that the case of Hadiya was not merely that of a interreligious love marriage, it was also a fear of parents that the girl was being turned towards religious fundamentalism. Is the author going to take responsibility if such a couple turned up under ISIS in Syria and the girl was sold in sex slavery? What action can be taken by the author after the disaster has already happened? Please put things in context in your argument. Any debate has to involve both sides. You do not need a journalism or any higher degree to simply argue your own point of view. Even an uneducated lout can do that.
Acts done by women under the combined effect of Brainwashing and alleged love can’t be called Agency. As a women I am of firm belief that a child (male or female) has supreme duty not to bring any disgrace to family. One’s action affects reputation of whole family. Like it or not this is the way social system works. Ignoring parents to marry someone not liked by family is a clear act of selfishness and not love marriage.
The author is biased on this subject and criticising the courts for giving some leniency towards parental custody. I think the author is female and is writing the whole article just on the basis of women’s rights. Parental custody can also be useful in other situations. Let us take for example, religious fundamentalism. Forget about gender here. If a boy wants to go to join ISIS or Kashmiri militants or wants to kill an enemy or wants to drive drunk on the road, would you say it is wrong if parents would rather lock him up in a room and work off the anger and emotions and give some time to heal and think.
The authors article just shows how immature she is. I do not know how old she is. But, consider this, if responsible parents resorted to parental custody of boys or girls to prevent drunken driving or acid attacks or suicides or homicides, will the author argue that since the boy or girl has attained the age of legal maturity and is an adult, they cannot be restrained by parents? Is the author saying that DP YADAV was right in not stopping his son and friends from killing another youth for loving his daughter?
The author needs to think some things through. The judges in high courts are not dumb. Finally, I would like to say that the case of Hadiya was not merely that of a interreligious love marriage, it was also a fear of parents that the girl was being turned towards religious fundamentalism. Is the author going to take responsibility if such a couple turned up under ISIS in Syria and the girl was sold in sex slavery? What action can be taken by the author after the disaster has already happened? Please put things in context in your argument. Any debate has to involve both sides. You do not need a journalism or any higher degree to simply argue your own point of view. Even an uneducated lout can do that.