hehehe………..

Vinay, you have rightly said that the argument is taking a one sided approach. A glass is never half-full alone; it is at the same time half-empty too but you are trying to prove that the aspect of half-full is only truth. Well Friend, what you are saying is one aspect of the incidence. So, I’m stating its another aspect. I ain’t saying that your interpretation is incorrect or wrong. I’m just saying that here is an another aspect of looking at it. That’s it. :D

Ravish simply stated you are comparing apples and oranges here and the argument is taking a one sided approach. I am afraid this is going nowhere and I do not want to sound it like a debate. Honestly I think this debate is reaching a dead end with the comparison of a dictatorship to a move made on discretion when the issue is still about bringing a man to justice. There are a lot of other factors which come into play here than blaming of the judge. If it is a transgression of his powers, I am sure an adequate move will be in order. But at this moment, there is something more important and takes precedence and the rest can be dealt later. I am sure if this move was not made, the man would not have been brought to the court at all and he would have found more reasons to move around free. I think that certainly takes precedence here.

In my first comment I cleared that I was talking in general and I’m not a supporter of Rampal.

Well, that is the difference between leader & commoner. Everything is not easy. It is said when there is a will, there is a way. To transcend law is very easy but to give an ideal obeying the law is a tough task and we expect judges to have leadership qualities not of a commoner. As I see, it isn’t a harsh decision but an easy available one.

Well Vinay, the same logic was applied at the time of starting Police Encounters. The intention behind the concept was good to kill the Mafias and Terrorists who took the advantage of loopholes of legal system but what happened later? You too know how it is still being misused? TADA was imposed for the same reason to check terrorism but it was later revoked due to its extensive misuse. A weapon is neutral; whether it is used for good or bad depends upon the hands which are using it. I’m only worried of delivering judgments from guts ignoring the submitted evidences. This trend is not good in long run as encounters.

I ain’t advocating to leave a perpetrator of serious crimes to go free. I’m saying to do it in right manner without losing one’s temper and patience. And it could be done.

Judges are also human. They too have human feelings and emotions and sometimes they too overpowered by them. Let me give you some examples, a few days ago I heard a statement of Supreme Court Judge who said “If I were the Dictator of India, I’d have made Bhagwad Geeta Compulsory in schools” What kind of statement is this? Should a judge give this type of statement in public forum? What about the understanding on Homosexual Issue? It is scientifically proven fact worldwide that homosexual is a biological thing and is beyond the will of individual. But what is the understanding of a few judges in India? They considered it as an intentional crime.

Well Alok, it’s absolutely fine. I wasn’t contradicting you that time and not now. :) I was just saying that the earlier medical report was also of police which was rejected without having any second opinion from experts of medical field. Now, the second opinion has come, I expect the judge to confiscate the medical practitioner license of those doctors who manufactured the forged medical report as per the provisions of law.

Ravish I am not suggesting that every judge is a clean person nor is any individual. I do agree that there is an impeachment process and the parliament is not going to allow someone to scot free when they make a visible mistake which has a strong impact. And the impeachment process is for removal, it is not for a disciplinary action against someone.

And Ravish, there is no referendum happening for a free will of the judge and there never will be. There are adequate number of checks and balances and sometimes they have to be transcended because the situation demands it. If we go by your premise, then it is fair to leave a perpetrator of serious crimes to go free just cos he can pull a few strings and call for reasons not to appear in front of the court? And I am trying to remind again, it was not one case, it was 43 of them. Which genuine person would have that? And which genuine person would use the devotees as a human shield?

And I think it is an exaggerated comparison of free will exercised here to what you are comparing to. And no one is given the additional power. I am sure that the judge would have done it in consultation and would have taken a few considerations as well before taking an extreme measure. It will be very naive to think that the judge took a decision on free will without any considerations.

Ravish an isolated issue will not become a generic issue and the legal system is fairly protected for anything like that to happen. And it is not about sixth sense, it is about looking at the existing facts. I think there are two aspects to a decision – The purpose and the result. Sometimes it becomes a little hard to focus on every detail as to how something is done and rightly so and that is where discretion comes into play. I agree that there is no short cut to justice and there is no shortcut to an outcome as well. Sometimes harsh decisions have to be taken and they will make sense in the end and in this case I honestly think it does.

And I thought we were talking about this issue here, an isolated one which may or will not have any bearing to the broader one..

Well Vinay, Judges are not liable to Public Interest Case against them but Impeachment procedure inside Parliament. To start impeachment proceedings against a judge needs 2/3 of majority inside a house. And you can imagine the situation… Do you think all judges are dry honest? Well my point is no doubt he had good intention but there are also who don’t have good intentions; who can quote this order and deliver judgments according to their Malafide Will irrespective of the evidences produced before him. I believe we should not give someone more than enough power so that he become unstoppable when start to misuse it. Take the case of Hitler. As I see in larger frame, things aren’t good.

Who is talking about this man! I’ve serious concern regarding larger issues. How one gonna decide whether one is wrong doer or not – as per the provisions of law or gut feeling? As I see, law doesn’t survive but sixth sense. Well dear, end is right; it doesn’t imply that means were also right. But when means are right then end will have to be right. The first one is a easy step which feels good in beginning but have harsh consequences in the end. The second step looks impossible in the beginning but gives ultimate success in the end. Most people do not succeed in their efforts because they choose first option. There is no short cuts of success or justice.

Well Ravish, what will you say about it:

इससे पहले बुधवार की रात रामपाल को गिरफ्तार किए जाने के बाद जरूरी मेडिकल जांच के लिए ऐम्बुलेंस से पंचकूला के सेक्टर 6 स्थित सदर अस्पताल ले जाया गया, जहां उन्हें पूरी तरह से ठीक करार दिया गया। गौरतलब है कि अवमानना के मामले में अदालत में उपस्थित होने से इनकार करने वाले 63 साल के रामपाल दावा कर रहे थे कि वह बीमार है और उन्हें हिसार के बरवाला में सतलोक आश्रम से दो सप्ताह तक चले गतिरोध के बाद गिरफ्तार किया गया था।

Taken from Navbharattimes.com

Ravish quoting from Modi’s speech a couple of days ago, laws are existent to make life simpler but when people use it as an excuse, I think the bigger question is how the law is used and what is it used for. I seriously do not find any lapse of judgement on the judge’s behalf. What was done was completely necessary and rightly so.. And the man’s actions proved how right he was. More than anything else, the procedure and the law would just keep delaying everything in this process and this too would be a pending case in the judicial log without any solution if he waited to follow every single procedure to the letter. Sometimes it does become essential to go beyond it.