Via BBC, New Indian chief justice sworn in
Do we know anything at all about this man? Who is he and why is he ascending to such a powerful position?
We'd even venture to suggest many Indians know more about the new US chief justice (given the public scrutiny he went through) than we do about our own.
Shouldn't this bother us?
Tuesday, November 01, 2005
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Followers
Blog Archive
-
▼
2005
(581)
-
▼
November
(34)
- What In God's Name?!
- Golden Moment!
- Iran Reconsidered
- Blog Mela
- Nepal
- Pope Benedict XVI and the Challenge Ahead
- Harbinger Of China's Future
- Sri Lanka
- Khushboo, Safe Sex and HIV/AIDS
- Fear And Loathing In India
- Women in Indian History
- Sri Lanka
- The Death Of Blogging
- Paradise Now
- Daring Mice
- What's Sex Got To Do With It
- The Quiet Anti-Oil Revolution - Part 2
- Iran and its Satellites
- The Quiet Anti-Oil Revolution - Part 1
- To The Old African Woman, In Her 30s
- India Aging?
- Thoughts on Burma
- The Dilemma in Sindh
- The President
- Random Thoughts
- Indic Mercantilism
- Indian-ness
- Torture
- Generals in Islamabad
- France Aflame
- Natwar Singh and the Oil For Food Scam
- Bravo Chappell, Dravid
- Chief Justice
- Unbelievable
-
▼
November
(34)
7 comments:
PR, I don't think it's such a big deal. In India, the CJ's have a definite and a short term - Sabharwal is on till Jan 2007. US appointments are for life.
Except during Indira Gandhi's time (I think), chief justices in India are selected in a non-controversial manner, purely on seniority, and without anyone superceding anyone else. This has even resulted in some chief justices staying in power for couple of months at the most. As Liberatarian pointed out, the retirement age is fixed.
The cabinet proposes a name, president accpets (or protests), and that is it. Sabharwal has been a senior Supreme Court Judge who has participated in pretty much all the important benches constituted recently.
We hardly know anything about the judges in India because they do not speak out on their views. The outgoing Chief Justice RC Lahoti talked about the need to continue with capital punishment only after he retired... We will know Sabharwal's views when he retires...
I'd go with PR and Jaffna on this one. The media needs to scrutinize Judges as much as it scrutinizes Parlimentarians and other people. The RTI act might help in this one.
(And hopefully that might also lead to a scrutiny of bureaucrats!)
The constitution should take precendence over all, but in judgements where the law is not clear, personal views *are* going to take precendence.
There was an article on rediff by the ex-Chief Economic Advisor to the Govt. of India, where, he said (in his personal view) that India was nowhere going to match China's economy, or is recent economic growth. The whole article was an excercise on the same.
So personal views do matter. For they inevitably influence decisions, except where there are clear choices
It should bother us. More indians blogged about london blasts than delhi blasts.
Hindians and Hindus can never bring things to table , they enjoy the Hidden pleasure of things.
How can you expect any kind of openness in this Hindu society?
The religion and the practices are flawed. I did not say anything about faith!!
Anonymous
You mention that the Hindu religion and practices are flawed. We can contest your opinion. First of all, you are off topic. But anyway, many would say that other religions are just as flawed and erroneous. Regardless, India has a far better record on religious tolerance than any of its bigoted neighbors.
Thankfully the appointment of judges in India does not (usually) lead to controversy and politics
Post a Comment