*
This titled article in The Hindu today was an interesting
read. The Judge (Justice V. Ramasubramanian of the Madras High Court ) has given four cases where, to a
non-legal minded person like me, the judgments were either blind or illogical.
Real quixotic decisions! Read them and enjoy the vagaries of judges and
judgments.
The Judge states that some countries are giving ‘awards’
for stupid court decisions. “Luckily, such awards have not been instituted in
India”. This concluding statement led to a roaring laughter from the audience,
which was a pack of legal luminaries.
I think the Government or the whole society does
something about this! We need one such award, desperately!
* * *
*
One legal link to another legal thing!
The University which awarded the Ph.D. degree tro
Christober formed a committee and made a decision that the Ph.D. given to
Chritober was not an inter-disciplinary degree.
U.G.C., the ultimate authority in higher education, has given in its latest decision that a principal
of a college should have a Ph.D. in relevant subject.
For a non-legal person like me, it sounds very simple,
just a black-and-white case. A person is
occupying the principal seat by wrong means. The whole pedestal of his very appointment
to the post is so shaky and wrong. But the court in its recent judgment says
that his appointment with a non-acceptable degree and the modus operandi were
all quite right and legal.
Though the U.G.C. has given very clearly the basic requirements
for a principal the court sends it back to U.G.C. and to the Madurai University
- “the validity of the
qualification could be decided by Madurai Kamaraj University in consultation
with the UGC within three months”.
And for taking such a decision THREE
MONTHS time is donated!
I don’t get it !
* * *
*
Heard that Lady Justice was made blind folded only from the 15th
Century. Wonder why. Till then she had a sword and a balance. But now she is
with a balance and sword but is completely blind folded. If revered judges make a
decision like this .. then it has to be meaningful and right. They say that it
is for objectivity.
But still I have my own doubts.
She is blindfolded. So she would not know which is
black and which is white! She has to simply go by the “weight” in the balance. But
would she know what is in the balance. Will it be just legal points in favour
or against the accused. But the “weight”
could be “anything”. How will she know what is in balance, since she has to go
simply by the “weight of the materials” alone? “Weight” could be “ANYTHING”!
Wish she opens her eyes too …to SEE what is there in her balance!
Some strange thoughts …!
* * *
*
Viswaroopam, a Tamil movie is banned. The complainant
goes to the court. One judge lifts the ban. The very same night the case goes back
to court. Now another set of judges
brings the ban again. All on their own legal explanations interpretations.
Wonder how legal points suit both the sets of judges
and how these legal points become so pliable. Luckily (or unluckily) the
complainant did not go to the supreme court.
We missed to see the extent of the
pliability of the legal points.
Great (pliable) legal points …!
* * *
*
