DON'T BURN YOUR SHIRT FOR KILLING A LICE

'We the people of India----enact and give to ourselves this constitution'. This is the preamble of our constitution and every Tom, Dick and Harry for some time now has been repeatedly quoting first three words of preamble, i.e. 'we the people'. These people forget what has been the resolution of people of India - The resolution is that people of India will govern themselves in accordance with provisions of the constitution.

The constitution broadly creates a federal structure for governance. It envisages elected legislatures for central and state governments. It also ensures elections at regular intervals.
I have no dispute with those who believe corruption is all pervasive in this country and very serious efforts are needed to get this menace under control. I also agree that the parliament and state legislatures have failed in their duty to give people of India a clean, efficient and responsive govt. As such one can not have any dispute with Shri Anna Hazare.

In order to make parliament to do what people of India want them to do, people of India are also bound by the constitution. As u can not have an extra constitutional executions u can not have legislations by extra constitutional powers. Unfortunately never in any elections so far has corruption been presented as an issue.
The question could be asked, how do we make parliament to pass an effective anti graft law? The answer would be make it an issue go to people, come to power and legislate. If it is not possible create public opinion in favour of your thoughts so that political parties at elections promise to do what u want them to do OR raise the public opinion to such a pitch that the rulers make the laws u want them to make.
In such a case, govt of the day should get scared of a possible defeat in next elections.
In this scheme of constitution there is no scope for coercion. Anna's methods cannot be supported by anyone who believes in constitutionalism. These methods are dangerous. Anna has been able to collect a few lakh of people across the country and is fasting. Unless parliament signs on dotted lines he will not break his fast.
Maybe he is doing it for a good cause. However, if this becomes a precedent, it could be used for dangerous causes too.
Imagine Shri Narindar Modi going on fast till Muslims are disenfranchised. Can't Mr Modi collect more people then what Annaji has been able to collect?
We have problem of corruption. Fight against it but not at the cost of system. After all, what makes India different then those countries which got Independence in last century? It is the institutions it has built. Don't destroy them. Improve there functioning.
I will close this blog with an old Kashmiri proverb, 'u don't burn ur shirt for killing a lice'

Comedy of---------

When somebody makes an attempt to influence an honest judge, he has three options:

1. Refuse to hear the case

2. Consider the matter; and if on merits it deserves to be decided in favour of the person who tried to influence, transfer the case. But if on merit, matter has to be decided against the person, decide.

3. Expose the person; don't hear the matter but initiate contempt proceedings.

I know from my own experience and experience of my friends that usually the first option is exercised by most of the judges. It is because somehow, judges believe that power of contempt should be exercised sparingly. However, it is debatable.

This difficulty is suffered usually by new judges because after sometime at the bench, people know whether a judge is approachable or not.

In my view, justice Raghupati was wrong to publicly disclose only a part of information. Either he should have kept mum and decided the matter on merits, or he should have recused himself without disclosing reasons. When he disclosed that he was being approached, he should have initiated contempt proceedings. I do not understand why did he write a letter to chief justice of Madras. After all, it was not an administrative matter.
But once a letter had been received by chief justice why did he forward it to chief justice of India. Prima-facie a matter of contempt had been brought to his notice.

Chief justice of Madras high court had ample powers to initiate contempt proceedings.
In my view, the chief justice of india could have not proceeded in the matter. But why did he say that Raghupati had not mentioned the name of any minister, when actually he had mentioned rajas name.
Lot of explaining has to be done by many.

Tale of two cities

As a consequence to making children's education a fundamental right parliament enacted an Act and created a commission known as national commission of protection of child rights.
The commission recently convened a public hearing at Chennai to listen to grievances of people.I was invited to be a member of jury.Hundreds of complaints were heard and redressed.

Some time back tamil nadu govt had fixed fee for students of private schools.Against this decision teachers of thirty thousand schools had gone on strike for two days.the parents of students of these schools complained against teachers and management.they wanted compensation.I was surprised to see dozens of people arguing vehemently against teachers who went on two days strike against the interest of students. Besides seeking monetary compensation these people also wanted teachers to teach their children on holidays.

In Srinagar teachers did not teach their students for six months and nobody complained.

perverse judgment

A judgment by a court of law includes identification of points of contentions between the litigants and adjudication of such issues in accordance with law. Unfortunately, both these tasks have not been performed by three learned judges of Allahabad high court while disposing of the sixty year old Ayodhya dispute suit. The issues which had been framed have not been decided and the issues which were not even framed have been decided.
Lord ram is bhagwan is a matter of faith and can neither be proved nor disproved in a court of law. But lord Ram was born at a particular place is surely a question of fact.
The judges have have not taken into consideration the law of evidence applicable to courts in India. In fact, it is a judgement not based on rule of law. If this judgment is not set aside, it will create a precedent which can have dangerous consequences for the country.

Even if every citizen of India accepts the partition of suit property as decreed by court, even then this judgment should be challenged. The solution decreed by court can be a solution by compromise and if it is done I will have no objection as a student of law, but if the decree is accepted it will be a tragedy as far as civil law is concerned.
I have briefly tried to mention my reservations about the judgment. I have read almost ten thousand pages to write a paper for a seminar. If any student of law has any inputs he may send those so that the paper is as comprehensive as possible.