https://t.co/wgbip9xefB
Supreme Court considers the suo moto case "IN RE: TO ISSUE CERTAIN GUIDELINES REGARDING INADEQUACIES AND DEFICIENCIES IN CRIMINAL TRIALS".
Sr Advs Siddharth Luthra and R Basant have submitted a draft rules on criminal practice.
https://t.co/wgbip9xefB
CJI : That is a separate issue. We have a case from Delhi today.
Luthra : That is item 20. I am appearing in that too.
CJI : No, you don't appear in that. We want you to be amicus in that case.
'The deficiencies in trials were found attributable to criminal rules of practice in force. So it was felt necessary to prepare draft rules which can be incorporated in existing rules'.
Notices were issued to Registrar Generals of High Courts, Chief Secretaries/Administrators of States/UTs and Advocate Generals for general consensus on draft rules.
A committee comprising Senior Advs R Basant, Siddharth Luthra and K Parameshwar was constituted to go into the issues after considering the existing rules of all the High Courts. The Committee submitted a report on draft rules.
This court has got responses only of High Courts of Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, Karnataka, Delhi and Allahabad to the draft criminal rules.
In such circumstances, we consider it necessary to call upon the High Courts to submit their reports within 2 weeks. In case HCs cannot do so, the Registrar General of the HC shall remain present in this court on the next hearing date
On failure to do so, the Registrar Generals of HCs must appear on next hearing date with necessary instructions.
Luthra : That was in the early stage. We are seeking response to the report submitted in March 2020.
CJI says that the copy of the report is available in the official website of the Supreme Court and may be accessed from there.
He submits this is response of CJI's suggestion to make him amicus in that case.
More from Live Law
More from India
Many are upset at the bus attacks & Red Fort events during #FarmersProtest.
But have you paused to think what has brought about this situation? While magnifying impulsive actions by some protesters, do you miss to see State's systematic violence and erosion of rule of law?
If you are a believer in Constitution and legitimate processes, then the manner in which the Centre pushed the #FarmLaws & handled the #FarmersProstests should leave you distressed.
First, Centre brings these laws as Ordinances on subjects which are apparently in state list, through a colorable use of concurrent list. Principle of federalism negated, at least in spirit, if not in letter.
Then, bills are passed in Parliament without effective discussions.
No one can say for sure if the bills were actually passed in vote in Rajya Sabha. The whole process was brazenly dubious. The live telecast was stopped amid protests. Really shameful events.
So, lawful processes to address dissent undermined.
#FarmersProtest
#FarmLaws
Then some farm groups approach the Supreme Court raising some pertinent questions on constitutionality. Instead of considering legality, court ventures into political thicket by attempting mediation, that too with a hand-picked committee having only members supporting #FarmLaws .
But have you paused to think what has brought about this situation? While magnifying impulsive actions by some protesters, do you miss to see State's systematic violence and erosion of rule of law?
How it started: How it's going: pic.twitter.com/bwkqp3uYQu
— Manu Sebastian (@manuvichar) January 26, 2021
If you are a believer in Constitution and legitimate processes, then the manner in which the Centre pushed the #FarmLaws & handled the #FarmersProstests should leave you distressed.
First, Centre brings these laws as Ordinances on subjects which are apparently in state list, through a colorable use of concurrent list. Principle of federalism negated, at least in spirit, if not in letter.
Then, bills are passed in Parliament without effective discussions.
No one can say for sure if the bills were actually passed in vote in Rajya Sabha. The whole process was brazenly dubious. The live telecast was stopped amid protests. Really shameful events.
So, lawful processes to address dissent undermined.
#FarmersProtest
#FarmLaws
Then some farm groups approach the Supreme Court raising some pertinent questions on constitutionality. Instead of considering legality, court ventures into political thicket by attempting mediation, that too with a hand-picked committee having only members supporting #FarmLaws .
You May Also Like
I just finished Eric Adler's The Battle of the Classics, and wanted to say something about Joel Christiansen's review linked below. I am not sure what motivates the review (I speculate a bit below), but it gives a very misleading impression of the book. 1/x
The meat of the criticism is that the history Adler gives is insufficiently critical. Adler describes a few figures who had a great influence on how the modern US university was formed. It's certainly critical: it focuses on the social Darwinism of these figures. 2/x
Other insinuations and suggestions in the review seem wildly off the mark, distorted, or inappropriate-- for example, that the book is clickbaity (it is scholarly) or conservative (hardly) or connected to the events at the Capitol (give me a break). 3/x
The core question: in what sense is classics inherently racist? Classics is old. On Adler's account, it begins in ancient Rome and is revived in the Renaissance. Slavery (Christiansen's primary concern) is also very old. Let's say classics is an education for slaveowners. 4/x
It's worth remembering that literacy itself is elite throughout most of this history. Literacy is, then, also the education of slaveowners. We can honor oral and musical traditions without denying that literacy is, generally, good. 5/x
As someone\u2019s who\u2019s read the book, this review strikes me as tremendously unfair. It mostly faults Adler for not writing the book the reviewer wishes he had! https://t.co/pqpt5Ziivj
— Teresa M. Bejan (@tmbejan) January 12, 2021
The meat of the criticism is that the history Adler gives is insufficiently critical. Adler describes a few figures who had a great influence on how the modern US university was formed. It's certainly critical: it focuses on the social Darwinism of these figures. 2/x
Other insinuations and suggestions in the review seem wildly off the mark, distorted, or inappropriate-- for example, that the book is clickbaity (it is scholarly) or conservative (hardly) or connected to the events at the Capitol (give me a break). 3/x
The core question: in what sense is classics inherently racist? Classics is old. On Adler's account, it begins in ancient Rome and is revived in the Renaissance. Slavery (Christiansen's primary concern) is also very old. Let's say classics is an education for slaveowners. 4/x
It's worth remembering that literacy itself is elite throughout most of this history. Literacy is, then, also the education of slaveowners. We can honor oral and musical traditions without denying that literacy is, generally, good. 5/x