https://twitter.com/barandbench/status/1444926172798722052
Bar & Bench @barandbench
Oct 4
SC: We will transfer the Rajasthan matter here and hear both the cases together. You have challenged the validity of the act, we can decide the validity itself. but what is the question of protests?
Chaudhary: our protests are not limited only to the enactments it is also for in a positive manner that MSP should be included which is a long-standing demand.
SC: Show us your request to the authority on why you want to protest?
SC: When you have challenged the law then why you should be allow to protest. you have to decide whether to come to court, to parliament or streets
Chaudhary: its a concerted effort, the issues need to be addressed
SC: We will transfer the plea from Rajasthan HC and decide validity of the three acts
SC: We have to decide the legal question on when you have approached courts then how can you protest on the same issue.
SC: No one takes responsibility on damage to properties and assets
SG Tushar Mehta: when the matter is before highest constitutional court then what protest?
SC: Which law is there? law is not there.. it is stayed at the time being
AG: Till the validity is decided protests cannot continue
SC: They say there are not part of the protests but they want to protest at jantar mantar
AG: A lot of unfortunate incidents take place during these protests
SC: We have Ld AG wh graciously appeared pursuant to a request made by this court. we deem it appropriate to examine the principle issue as to whether right to protest is an absolute right
SC: more so the petitioner having invoked the legal remedy by approaching the constitutional court should be permitted to or have resort to protest against the matter which is Subjudice.
SC: since plea is pending before rajasthan HC, we direct the same plea to be transferred to this court and hear this plea together with it. we direct registry to summon case details from HC and transfer the case so that both petitions can be heard on Oct 21.
SC: Respondents to file a reply. open to Union of India to file a consolidated reply to both the petitions. we make it clear that plea will proceed for hearing on scheduled date
Yes this is the highest court in the so called largest democracy in the world..
krishan @YeoKrishan
Electoral bonds ka case pada in kale angrejon ke pas aaj tak kuch kiya usspe
SC keval ab govt ki chaatne ke alwa koi kaam nahi karta h
Law ministry ka department ban gaya ek
Pura judiciary kuch families and ek-duki caste ke logo se bhara pada
Sabse makkar log h SC mein
JSingh @j_sssingh
Because you will take generations to dispense your so called brand of justice!!
Meetendra @Meetendra8
How long one has to wait, in last 10 months how many hearings did Your Honour conduct??
TF 1984 @truthfirst1984
SERIOUS QUESTION:
Can there be a protest against the #SupremeCourtOfIndia ?
Or is it unconstitutional ?
frankee chacko @ChackoFrankee
·What about the protest for temple entry issue? #SupremeCourt #India
Joe @sukeshes
All the people who died waiting for their cases to be heard, disagree
Gurpreet Singh @Gurpree33874115
We didn't go any court
arctic2017 @arctic2017
It is the govt and the party in power which is engaging in violence.
shaddy @shaddy55153287
...people look at you with hope ...but SC acting like hopeless
shaddy @shaddy55153287
Wasnt Babri masjid case in SC when it was demolished by so many protesters (gundas) ...SC can take there advice fold it and keep it in there black coats
Dhiraj Gajbhiye @IDhirajGajbhiye
How many matters that SC are handling which are pending since decades?
Har kisi ko #ArnabGoswami ki tarah to SC treat karta nahi hai!
Ajai @ajai_cs
So are our Supreme Court judges suggesting that a citizen has to forefeit his fundamental rights ,before he approaches a court of law? Do the judges realise how ugly that thought is.
Vivek @Vksrhuk
..Supreme Court is destroying the political process in this country it will soon gonna loose its moral authority in this country.
arctic2017 @arctic2017
BS. Public have the right to avail all remedies available. Whoever said this should resign and all his judgments need to be reviewed. No knowledge of law. Gone on a tangent, beating around the bush, going beyond the pleadings and engaging in conjecture and speculation.
The Return of the Humpty Dumpty Court https://indconlawphil.wordpress.com/2021/10/04/the-return-of-the-humpty-dumpty-court/ OCTOBER 4, 2021 GAUTAM BHATIA
...its own recent record on hearing important constitutional cases. ..The Court took six years to hear the constitutional challenge to Aadhaar, during which the Aadhaar project became a fait accompli.
The constitutional challenge to the effective abrogation of Article 370 was filed on 7th August, 2019. Two years have passed. No judgment.
The constitutional challenge to the electoral bonds case was filed in 2018. Three and a half years have passed. No judgment.
When habeas corpus cases were filed after the events of 5th August 2019, then-Chief Justice and now-MP Ranjan Gogoi openly mocked the individuals who had filed them, and many of those petitions were not decided for months.
When, more than a year ago, the journalist Siddique Kappan was jailed by the UP police while on the way to report on the Hathras gangrape, then-Chief Justice Bobde repeatedly adjourned his Article 32 petition, and to this date, Kappan remains in jail without trial.
And apart from all that, what of the farm laws themselves? When the laws were challenged last year, the Supreme Court stayed them under highly dubious circumstances, without providing any substantive reasons for the same, constituted a committee and asked for a report, and after that, has taken no action on the case. How can it be that in circumstances such as these – when there is no accountability regarding the disposal of crucial constitutional cases, and where non-decision directly favours the executive – that Khanwilkar and Ravikumar JJ now see fit to tell individuals that they cannot protest a law if they have challenged it before the Court? This is not simply a moral error, it is rank hypocrisy.
We are living in a time where ambush PILs. .. . The strategic role played by ambush PILs is plain to see, not least that it leaves genuinely affected parties who may otherwise have chosen not to approach the Court with no option but to litigate: it is either that, or risk a contrary judgment in a thrown litigation. In the context of this reality, the Court’s order is deeply disingenuous, suggesting as it does that the act of filing a case necessarily means that the parties have sworn off all other forms of (constitutionally protected) action legislation that affects their interests.