The writer is a senior advocate and former president of the Supreme Court Bar Association
Dushyant Dave writes: As during the freedom struggle, the movement taught us that unjust and unconstitutional laws must always be opposed by citizens.
Dushyant Dave writes: A pattern of the government using law to target critics and minorities grows clearer by the day. Judiciary must intervene.
Dushyant Dave writes: Selection of deserving judges is essential to ensure independence of judiciary. The Collegium must do its best in this task
The new Chief Justice must seriously introspect and review the actions of his immediate predecessors, free himself of the bias in constituting benches and allocating cases and take concrete steps to revitalise the administration of justice.
One can only hope that the police and, especially the judiciary, the subordinate judiciary, will see through this game to catch the culprits and not the innocents.
Dushyant Dave writes: Centre's farm laws will create monopolies in agriculture production and trade, and hurt farmers.
One can only hope and trust that the Supreme Court as an institution, and the Court comprising of all the judges, would act suo motu to stop gross miscarriage of justice and ensure that a citizen is not deprived of his liberty by its wrongful decisions and orders.
Let us hope the judiciary re-calibrates itself in this direction because they are the last and only hope. Political parties and their leaders have clearly sounded the bugle: Constitution aside, we want power.
So far, we have done well with the virus, though not with the economy. The nation must think and act, out of the box. Experts from the fields of finance, agriculture, business, human resources, medicine, law, amongst others, must be assembled immediately as a core group to manage the crisis.
Why is it that the two powerful organs — the Parliament and judiciary — are totally silent on the present suffering of millions of citizens? Why is it that workers, the poor and the downtrodden, and farmers, are completely left to fend for themselves?
The SC should not have made all media subservient to the government by directing that the former “refer to and publish the official version about the developments”. Such an order could be justified only during an emergency and that too by the executive, subject to challenge before the courts.
Providing the government time to file FIRs “at an appropriate time” is deeply disturbing. The Court being the guardian of the Constitution and parens patriae of citizens of Delhi was bound to have acted with alacrity.
India, for the first time since 1947, is facing a direct confrontation between hardliners and liberals, between political ideologies, and sadly, between the majority and minority communities among its great people.
One can only hope that the Court introspects and intervenes forthwith to stop any bloodshed in the country, and assuage the sentiments of a large section of the society, which feels they are no longer wanted.
Hopefully, the chief justice designate will dispel any wrong message sent to the judiciary and the nation in time to follow with his decisions and actions.
Judicial apathy sends terribly wrong signals to future perpetrators, who may justifiably believe that they may ultimately be acquitted, and in any case will be bailed out pending trials.
In Rafale case, Supreme Court has to weigh the imperatives of public debate against its stated position of discouraging frivolous PILs.
The higher judiciary has become the bulwark against hate crime in India.
Emergency has been rightly decried in recent weeks. But Babasaheb’s advice to a young republic on dictatorship must be heeded in post-2014 India.
Arun Shourie’s new book is essential reading to understand the successes and failures of the Indian judiciary, in particular the brilliance and shortcomings of its approach and judgments
Judges must recuse themselves from hearing cases where there is potential conflict of interest
Chief Justice of India is exercising his power to constitute benches, allocate cases in a manner that raises questions about independence of judiciary.
Anil B. Divan proved that the legal profession is indeed a noble one