I think that when it comes to legal philosophy, the region of the subcontinent, born of such legal history and constitutional history, has failed to maximize the potential at the start and is now struggling with legal evolution. you cant expect the courts to keep playing the only role. Their rule can only be played through judgments but the legal fraternity in its entirety must play that role. Frankly it is legal philosophy that has suffered in the region's hustle and bustle in the modern world, attempting to gain the package of life.
To be honest, part of the problem is directly attributable to our subjugation by a colonial power and the sudden and abrupt substitution of existing legal systems by the British (=English, not Scottish, although ironically, Macaulay was so innately Scots). We have our laws going off in one direction, with three codes that substitute for either pre-existing case law, in an environment where English systems have been pitchforked into the practices of the country with nothing to form the backdrop. We have the constitution going off in another, with little or no connection to the existing legal system or to legal practice (in the UK, there is no such dilemma; they simply refused to write down a constitution, allowing their laws to do all the heavy lifting). And, just to ensure that the third ring in this three-ring circus is active and busy, the traditional law of the land, as well as traditional practices, in two separate legal systems, of which one is further sub-divided into several parts, continues to hold a grip on popular action. People will turn towards a panchayat, where in the country where their legal system was perfected, they might turn to a court.
alright i will have lunch. see you later joe.
I'm off for the afternoon, so no more entertainment for you, reading my rather shapeless proposals on very sensitive issues.
A bunch of senile old losers who write essays in Oxford English who feel entitled to handout their opinion as gospel and expect common people to pay any heed is the reason the state is destroyed.
That's your opinion, in uncouth English. Does it matter?
Of course you have a point in all this melange. One could not get more common than your common.
The thing is if a law is given absolute importance and is given the importance of supra-law then that law must contain the power to penalize the person that broke such a law. Multiple citations and precedents and jurists have claimed that constitutional law is supra-law so how can such superiority exist if that law cant punish? If a legislator comes to power based on fraud, lies, deception, fake documents then shouldnt he be punished for deceiving the system, the people and the country? ofcourse he should be. If somebody stifles the freedom of speech then should he be punished? ofcourse he should be. Remedy is not the only solution but can only be properly awarded through criminal prosecution.
And this is the vital core of my position.
I have seen, in most cases the courts treat it either as administrative law or at best civil law with remedy which is found in civil law. For example if a person lies in assembly then his membership is revoked. simply Civil punishment. If a department does not do the work he is asked to do then the courts will order him to do it. Simple nothing extraordinary. The officer is not punished for not doing his work but why isnt he punished? Time is spent on that writ, finances are spent so why isnt the officer punished?
This is a huge huge discussion that can only be perfected when scores of jurists write upon it with different ideas and concepts against it and for it.
Until it is criminalised, perpetrators will continue to subvert the system, with perfect confidence that the worst that can happen to him, or to her, is a civil slap on the wrist, rather than a criminal implementation of the punishment of the low justice, or the middle, or the high, to borrow from feudal European practice.
All ideas area breach. That is why they are considered original. Separation of powers in a time when divine right to rule existed, was also a breach. I am not saying this is the solution. If anything this is strict liability and it may lead to strong codification but such ideas are neither bad nor good but those that help the constitutional evolution of the country. Filmer wrote on divine right to rule and in return john locke wrote on separation of powers. his separation of powers saw the parliament as supreme but such clashes brought forth new ideas. We need to start the thinking before we even act.
Sometimes the only role that the half-educated (like me) can play is an incendiary role.
Save it, y'all a bunch of losers who failed, I'm simply watching it from the sidelines. You hate Modi be my guest. That's why people like Sanjay Jha will make sense for me, but you fire them for it.
