Загрузка видео...

Не удалось загрузить видео

На главную

SOMETHING HAS CHANGED. 'ABOVE GOD' MILORDS FEELING PRESSURE. Before becoming CJI, Surya Kant had said 'Collegium System is soul of Judicial independence' Today, same 'CJI' Surya Kant says he will ‘consider’ petition to revive NJAC & end collegium system. What Changed? Ref- Adv Mathews Nedumpara: I urge the court...

117,210 просмотров • 7 месяцев назад •via X (Twitter)

Комментарии: 0

Нет доступных комментариев

Здесь появятся комментарии из оригинального поста

Похожие видео

#WATCH | On a lawyer attempting to throw an object at CJI BR Gavai, President of Supreme Court Bar Association, Senior Advocate Vikas Singh says, "...The second aspect that needs consideration is the role of social media these days in escalating things out of proportion. This original case was a sort of PIL where somebody wanted a Hindu deity which had broken down to be constructed. CJI rightly said that these are matters for the authorities to consider, because there are ASI issues if it is an archaeological structure and religious issues as well. So, accordingly, the petition was dismissed...That statement was misrepresented by social media to give an impression as if the CJI had insulted the deity... This lawyer, for the purpose of seeking publicity has done this exercise and I will beseech the media and social media not to give publicity to this lawyer because his whole purpose is to get publicity. Even if the CJI feels that no action needs to be taken and he has shown a large heart, I think we as the Bar Association owe a duty to the institution and the Bar Council of India owes a duty to the profession. So, after deliberating on this issue in our executive committee will decide on taking action. And I am sure that Bar Council of India should take some action for such conduct because it is completely unbecoming of an advocate. This is something to be condemned in the strongest words so that it does not recur in the future..." (06.10.2025)

ANI

123,889 просмотров • 9 месяцев назад

I want to ask three questions first, which will make it very clear that the BJP is directing and using the Election Commission to damage India's democracy. ❓ Why is it that the CJI was removed from the selection panel of the Election Commissioner? What motivation could there be to remove the CJI? Do we not believe in the CJI? Of course, we believe in the CJI. Why is he not in that room? I sit in that room. It is a so-called democratic decision. On one side, PM Narendra Modi and HM Amit Shah. On the other side, the leader of the opposition. I have no voice in that room. What they decide is what happens. So, why are the Prime Minister and Amit Shah so keen on choosing exactly who the Election Commissioner is going to be? ❓ This is a devastating one. No Prime Minister has done this in the history of India. In December 2023, this government changed the law. They changed the law to make sure that no Election Commissioner could be punished for any action they take while they are Election Commissioners. Why would the Prime Minister and Home Minister give this gift of immunity to the Election Commissioner? Why would they need to give this tremendous gift that no prime minister has ever given before to the election commissioner? ❓ Why was the law with regard to CCTVs and the data that they contain changed? Why was a law put in place that allows the Election Commission to destroy CCTV footage 45 days after the election? What is the need? The answer given is that it is a question of data. But it is not a question of data. It is a question of stealing the election. : LoP Shri Rahul Gandhi in Lok Sabha

Congress

45,738 просмотров • 7 месяцев назад

#WATCH | Delhi | On Supreme Court Judge Ujjal Bhuyan's reported remarks on interference of executive in the collegium system, Advocate Aman Lekhi says, "I tend to agree to the context in which Justice Bhuyan spoke. What is important to note in the case of Justice Sreedharan is three aspects: institutional integrity, perception (of independence), and the worth of law not only as a doctrine but also in practice. I feel that there has been a failure in all three counts. The executive has no role as far as the functioning of judges is concerned. The only involvement which justifies the executive's participation in the process is giving information about judges, which is otherwise not available to the court or the institution... When you are dealing with a sitting judge, no matter what your perception of the judge may be, that is part of the judicial realm. As long as there is no want of judicial integrity or honesty, or any breach of propriety by the judge concerned, it is beyond the executive to interfere... What has been released by the court suggests that Justice Sreedharan's transfer was shifted from Chhattisgarh to Allahabad due to the executive's interference. If something is prompted by the executive and a decision is subsequently re-engineered by the court, the entire process is compromised. That is not how it is supposed to work... Transparency has to fuel belief, not extinguish it, in the efficacy of the process..."

ANI

23,184 просмотров • 5 месяцев назад