the legal corner
Bar Owner Sued the Church Authorities for the cause of its destruction, as it was an action because of their Prayer. The Church Denied all Responsibility!!! So, the judge commented, “It’s Difficult to Decide the Case because here we have a Bar Owner Who Believes in the Power of Prayer & an Entire Church that Doesn’t Believe in it” ………………………………..
I don’t know if that’s a true story or not but it is food for thought.
View article: Controversy
Well done India. This is just interesting reading… First gen lawyers of poor background have become judges too:SC By PTI | Published: 27th October 2017 05:47 PM | Last Updated: 27th October 2017 06:15 PM | A+A A- | New Delhi, Oct 27 (PTI) The Supreme Court today rejected the allegation of bias in appointing judges in the higher judiciary, saying that even first generation lawyers belonging to poor background have made to the bench.
The top court rejected the contention that common lawyers with no judicial backup or poor background are not considered for appointment as judges in the higher judiciary. “It is to be clarified that not everyone can be considered. There are even first generation judges from poor background (have been appointed),” a bench of Justices Adarsh Kumar Goel and U U Lalit said. The bench was hearing a plea filed by advocate R P Luthra challenging the appointment of judges in the higher judiciary on the ground that the Memorandum of Procedure (MOP) as mandated by apex court in its verdict passed in 2015, has not been finalised. The bench said if there are only two vacancies, then only two most-deserving candidates out of 100 have to be considered. “We can’t accomodate everyone. This is not possible. The argument that first generation lawyers and those from poor backgrounds are not considered, is wrong,” it said. Luthra said his argument was that in the MOP a mechanism should be devised that lawyers even from humble backgrounds are considered for appointment as judges in higher judiciary. “They (first generation lawyers from poor backgrounds) are not at all considered in the first place. Every advocate should get chance. The MOP should have some mechanism,” Luthra said.
The bench said it was rejecting the prayer which challenges the appointment of judges in apex court and high courts on the ground of delay in finalisation of MOP but would consider the issue, as further delay in finalisation is not in larger public interest. It issued notice to Attorney General K K Venugopal returnable by November 14 and appointed senior advocate K V Viswanathan as amicus curiae to assist in the matter. PTI MNL ABA SJK RKS ARC .
First gen lawyers of poor background have become judges too:SC- The New Indian Express
View original post here: First gen lawyers of poor background have become judges too
I’m grand with the rest of my law degree but one question gets me, I don’t know what to say… outline the role of the judiciary in the legal system, identify one argument for and against the contention that judges create law… My answer is Our law is a combination of legislation (created by parliament in the form of statutes) and common law (created when Judges interpret the law and add further definition to it.
Sometimes this is called “case law.” A good eg is the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. The parliament-made legislation sets out the main criminal offences of assault, battery, ABH and GBH. However, the meaning of “assault” has been interpreted by judges in various cases over the years e.g. R v Ireland, Burstow (1997). Some criminal offences aren’t set out in any legislation e.g. Murder, which is a common law offence – there is no piece of legislation which states that it is an offence to murder someone. Instead, the offence of murder was created by judges in how they interpreted general law and custom.
Id like your input.
This really has me stumped.
Read the original post: