Judiciary

 

https://www.msn.com/en-in/news/opinion/all-india-judicial-service-exam-will-challenge-dynastic-sway-in-judiciary-but-sc-is-silent/ar-BB1iyY4A?

The judiciary of India is a system of courts that interpret and apply the law in the Republic of India. Let me provide you with an overview of its structure and functioning:

1. Hierarchy of Courts:

   • Supreme Court: The Apex Court in India, responsible for interpreting and applying laws, upholding the Constitution, and serving as the ultimate appellate court. The Chief Justice of India leads the Supreme Court.
   • High Courts: These are the top judicial bodies in individual states, controlled and managed by state Chief Justices.
   • District Courts (Subordinate Courts): These courts operate at the district level and are controlled and managed by District and Sessions Judges.
   • Tribunals: Specialized bodies that handle specific areas of law.

2. Appointment of Judges:

   • Subordinate Judiciaries: Judges are appointed by the governor based on recommendations from the High Court.
   • High Courts and Supreme Court: Judges are appointed by the President of India following recommendations from a collegium.

3. Roles and Duties:

   • Justice Administration: Ensuring fair and impartial administration of justice.
   • Public Interest Litigation (PIL): Allowing citizens to seek legal remedies for public issues.
   • Guardian of the Constitution: Upholding constitutional principles.
   • Hierarchy of Courts in India:
     • Supreme Court
     • High Court
     • District Court
     • Executive / Revenue Court

4. Ancient and Modern Influences:

   • India’s judicial system combines elements from ancient and medieval practices with the common law system introduced by the British East India Company and influenced by other colonial powers and Indian princely states.

In summary, the Indian judiciary operates as a single integrated system, with the Supreme Court at the apex, followed by High Courts and District/Subordinate courts. This decentralized structure allows the judiciary to address grassroots-level issues effectively¹²³⁴.

Certainly! Public Interest Litigation (PIL) is a legal concept in India that aims to protect the interests of the general public. Here are the key points about PIL:

1. Definition:

   • PIL refers to litigation filed in a court of law for the protection of public interest.
   • It addresses matters where the interest of the public at large is affected, such as issues related to pollution, terrorism, road safety, construction hazards, and more¹²³.

2. Origin and Purpose:

   • The term “Public Interest Litigation” was borrowed from American jurisprudence.
   • In India, PILs are not defined by any statute but have been interpreted by judges to consider the intent of the public.
   • PILs empower the public through judicial activism to seek legal remedies for broader societal concerns.
   • Unlike regular litigation, PILs are not initiated by aggrieved parties but by private individuals or the court itself.

3. Scope and Matters Addressed:

   • PILs cover a wide range of issues affecting public welfare:
     • Neglected children
     • Bonded labor matters
     • Atrocities against women
     • Non-payment of minimum wages to workers
     • Exploitation of casual workers
     • Food adulteration
     • Environmental pollution
     • Disturbance of ecological balance
     • Heritage and culture preservation, among others.

4. Objectives:

   • Ensuring justice for all and promoting the welfare of people.
   • Safeguarding group interests rather than individual interests (which are protected by Fundamental Rights).
   • Empowering the judiciary to issue PILs for the enforcement of public interest.

In summary, PILs serve as a potent tool for enforcing legal obligations, promoting justice, and addressing societal concerns. They allow citizens to actively participate in safeguarding public interests¹⁴⁵.

The issue of dynastic sway in the judiciary is a matter of concern and debate. While the Supreme Court plays a crucial role in upholding justice and maintaining the integrity of the legal system, it is essential to address any potential biases or influence.

Here are some points to consider:

1. Independence of the Judiciary:

   • The judiciary is meant to be independent, impartial, and free from external pressures.
   • Any perception of dynastic influence can raise questions about the integrity of judicial decisions.

2. Appointments and Collegium System:

   • The collegium system is used for appointing judges to the higher judiciary (High Courts and Supreme Court).
   • Critics argue that this system lacks transparency and may perpetuate dynastic trends.

3. Transparency and Accountability:

   • Transparency in the appointment process is crucial to maintain public trust.
   • The judiciary should actively address concerns related to nepotism and favoritism.

4. Public Perception:

   • The silence of the Supreme Court on such matters can lead to public skepticism.
   • It is essential for the judiciary to proactively address any allegations and maintain its credibility.

In summary, addressing dynastic sway in the judiciary requires a collective effort from all stakeholders, including the judiciary itself, legal experts, and citizens. Transparency, accountability, and open dialogue are essential to uphold the principles of justice and fairness .

conference

👉commonwealth advocate general and solicitor general conference in India

👉https://www.youtube.com/live/14wutXZPVgM?

लोकतंत्र

 

पूर्ण लोकतंत्र- वे राष्ट्र हैं जिनमें मौलिक अधिकारों और नागरिक स्वतंत्रता का सम्मान किया जाता है। उनके पास जाँच और संतुलन की एक प्रणाली, स्वतंत्र मीडिया और न्यायपालिका और एक सरकार है जो पर्याप्त रूप से काम करती है। लोकतांत्रिक व्यवस्था में उनकी समस्याएं सीमित हैं

दोषपूर्ण लोकतंत्र- ये वे देश हैं जहां स्वतंत्र और निष्पक्ष चुनाव होते हैं, नागरिक स्वतंत्रता और स्वतंत्रता का सम्मान किया जाता है लेकिन वे आलोचकों का उल्लंघन कर रहे हैं और उन्हें दबा रहे हैं। देशों की लोकतांत्रिक व्यवस्था में मुद्दों में शामिल हैं - राजनीति में कम भागीदारी दर, राजनीतिक संस्कृति का अविकसित होना और सरकारी कामकाज अपर्याप्त है

हाइब्रिड शासन- ये वे राष्ट्र हैं जहां चुनावी धोखाधड़ी आम है और स्वतंत्र और निष्पक्ष चुनाव की प्रक्रिया में बाधा बनती है। सरकार किसी भी तरह के राजनीतिक विरोध पर दबाव बनाती है. लोकतंत्र में दोष दोषपूर्ण लोकतंत्रों से कहीं अधिक हैं जिनमें गैर-स्वतंत्र न्यायपालिका, भ्रष्टाचार, मीडिया का उत्पीड़न, अविकसित राजनीतिक संस्कृति और कम भागीदारी दर शामिल हैं।

अधिनायकवादी शासन- ये राष्ट्र पूर्ण राजतंत्र या तानाशाही हैं। इनमें कुछ लोकतांत्रिक संस्थाएँ हो सकती हैं लेकिन वे महत्वहीन हैं। मीडिया राज्य के स्वामित्व में है, सरकार के विरोध की आलोचना को सेंसर किया जाता है, नागरिकों की स्वतंत्रता और नागरिक स्वतंत्रता का इस शासन में कोई स्थान नहीं है। इसके अलावा न्यायपालिका स्वतंत्र नहीं है और स्वतंत्र और निष्पक्ष चुनाव एक सपना है

The image you sent is a map of the world depicting the results of the 2017 Democracy Index, a survey by The Economist Intelligence Unit that measures the state of democracy in 167 countries. ]

The Index divides countries into four categories: full democracies, flawed democracies, hybrid regimes, and authoritarian regimes.

• Full democracies are those that “offer the necessary conditions for a free and fair electoral process, the inscription of political rights, civil liberties, free expression and assembly, and a modicum of political participation.”

• Flawed democracies are those that “fall short of these ideals, yet still provide basic civil liberties.”

• Hybrid regimes are those that “display some of the characteristics of a democracy, but with serious shortcomings in other areas.”

• Authoritarian regimes are those states that “provide limited political participation and basic civil liberties.” https://www.eiu.com/n/campaigns/democracy-index-2022/

The map shows that full democracies are concentrated in North America, Western Europe, and parts of South America and Asia. Flawed democracies are more widespread, but are also found in many of the same regions. Hybrid regimes are more concentrated in Eastern Europe, Africa, and the Middle East. Authoritarian regimes are most common in Central Asia, the Middle East, and North Africa.

The Democracy Index is just one way to measure democracy, and there are other similar indexes that produce somewhat different results. However, it is a widely used and respected measure, and the 2017 map provides a snapshot of the state of democracy in the world at that time.

xxxxxxxxxThe image you sent is a map of the world depicting the Democracy Index according to a 2017 report. The Democracy Index is an annual report that measures the state of democracy in 167 countries. Each country is assigned a score based on five factors: electoral process and pluralism, civil liberties, government functioning, political participation, and political culture.

The four categories used in the Democracy Index are:

• Full democracy (scores 8.01 - 10.00)
• Flawed democracy (scores 6.01 - 8.00)
• Hybrid regime (scores 4.01 - 6.00)
• Authoritarian regime (scores below 4.00)

The specific coloring of each country on the map corresponds to these categories.

Here are some resources where you can learn more about the Democracy Index:

• The Economist Intelligence Unit’s Democracy Index [invalid URL removed]
  
  
  
• Wikipedia article on the Democracy Index

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxThe image you sent is a map of the world depicting the results of the 2017 Democracy Index, a survey by The Economist Intelligence Unit that measures the state of democracy in 167 countries.

The map divides countries into four categories: full democracies, flawed democracies, hybrid regimes, and authoritarian regimes. Here’s a breakdown of the categories:

• Full democracies (dark green): These are nations that “offer the most free and fair elections, civil liberties and political participation.”

  
  
  

• Flawed democracies (light green): These countries have “free and fair elections, but may have limitations on basic political freedoms.”

• Hybrid regimes (yellow): These are nations that “blend some of the characteristics of both democratic and authoritarian states.”

• Authoritarian regimes (orange and red): These are countries with “limited political participation and basic liberties.” An authoritarian regime can be further classified into an authoritarian state (orange) or a totalitarian state (red). A totalitarian state “restricts political freedoms and often uses state control to repress opposition.” https://www.eiu.com/n/campaigns/democracy-index-2022/

The Democracy Index is not without its critics. Some argue that it places too much emphasis on Western political ideals and doesn’t account for other forms of government. https://www.economist.com/media/pdf/democracy_index_2007_v3.pdf

Sarah Ferguson सारा फर्ग्यूसन एक ऑस्ट्रेलियाई पत्रकार, रिपोर्टर और टेलीविजन प्रस्तोता हैं। वह एबीसी टीवी के प्रमुख समाचार और समसामयिक मामलों के कार्यक्रम 7.30 की मेजबान हैं। 

ऑस्ट्रेलियन कम्युनिकेशंस एंड मीडिया अथॉरिटी (एसीएमए) ने पाया कि रिपोर्टर सारा फर्ग्यूसन की  डॉक्यूमेंट्री फॉक्स एंड द बिग लाई ने एबीसी के संपादकीय कोड की सटीकता और निष्पक्ष व्यवहार आवश्यकताओं का उल्लंघन किया है, लेकिन निष्पक्षता मानकों का उल्लंघन नहीं किया है।

मीडिया की पड़ताल कड़वा अंत: एबीसी के कॉर्पोरेट मंदी का कारण क्या था? एबीसी फोर कॉर्नर्स भी अवलोकनीय है

Bitter End: What led to ABC’s corporate meltdown? | Four Corners

SARAH FERGUSON ABC Australia 

https://youtu.be/Zn4tibsUnYM?

Former ABC managing director Michelle Guthrie and former chairman Justin Milne reveal to Four Corners the inside story of the corporate saga that cost them their jobs and rocked the national broadcaster. 

लोकतंत्र में वीआईपी प्रोटोकॉल एक समस्या है

वीआईपी प्रोटोकॉल एक शब्द है जिसका उपयोग सत्ता या प्रभाव वाले पदों पर बैठे कुछ लोगों, जैसे राजनेताओं, मशहूर हस्तियों या धनी व्यक्तियों को दिए जाने वाले विशेष उपचार का वर्णन करने के लिए किया जाता है। वीआईपी प्रोटोकॉल में सार्वजनिक सेवाओं तक अधिमान्य पहुंच, सुरक्षा एस्कॉर्ट, नियमों या विनियमों से छूट, या भव्य स्वागत और उपहार जैसे विशेषाधिकार शामिल हो सकते हैं।

हालांकि कुछ लोग यह तर्क दे सकते हैं कि वीआईपी प्रोटोकॉल इन लोगों के योगदान के प्रति सम्मान या सराहना दिखाने का एक तरीका है, लेकिन इसके लोकतंत्र और समाज के लिए नकारात्मक परिणाम भी हो सकते हैं। इस ब्लॉग पोस्ट में, मैं उन कुछ समस्याओं पर चर्चा करूंगा जो वीआईपी प्रोटोकॉल का कारण बन सकती हैं और इसे क्यों टाला जाना चाहिए या कम से कम किया जाना चाहिए।

वीआईपी प्रोटोकॉल के साथ एक मुख्य समस्या यह है कि यह नागरिकों के बीच असमानता और अन्याय की भावना पैदा करता है। जब कुछ लोगों के साथ दूसरों से अलग या बेहतर व्यवहार किया जाता है, तो इससे आक्रोश, हताशा और अविश्वास पैदा हो सकता है। यह समानता, जवाबदेही और पारदर्शिता जैसे लोकतंत्र के सिद्धांतों को भी कमजोर कर सकता है। वीआईपी प्रोटोकॉल लोगों को यह महसूस करा सकता है कि उनके नेता या संस्थान उन्हें महत्व नहीं देते या उनका सम्मान नहीं करते, और उनकी आवाज़ या हित कोई मायने नहीं रखते।

वीआईपी प्रोटोकॉल के साथ एक और समस्या यह है कि इससे भ्रष्टाचार और सत्ता का दुरुपयोग हो सकता है। जब कुछ लोगों को विशेष अनुग्रह या छूट दी जाती है, तो यह उनके लिए व्यक्तिगत लाभ या लाभ के लिए अपनी स्थिति या प्रभाव का फायदा उठाने के अवसर पैदा कर सकता है। यह हितों या वफादारी का टकराव भी पैदा कर सकता है, जहां वे जनता की भलाई के बजाय अपने या अपने लाभार्थियों के हितों को प्राथमिकता दे सकते हैं। वीआईपी प्रोटोकॉल उन संस्थानों की विश्वसनीयता और अखंडता को भी नष्ट कर सकता है जो इसे अनुदान या सुविधा प्रदान करते हैं, जैसे सरकार, मीडिया या न्यायपालिका।

वीआईपी प्रोटोकॉल के साथ तीसरी समस्या यह है कि यह सार्वजनिक संसाधनों को बर्बाद कर सकता है और सार्वजनिक कल्याण को नुकसान पहुंचा सकता है। जब कुछ लोगों को अत्यधिक या अनावश्यक विशेषाधिकार दिए जाते हैं, तो यह संसाधनों को स्वास्थ्य देखभाल, शिक्षा या बुनियादी ढांचे जैसी अधिक महत्वपूर्ण या तत्काल जरूरतों से हटा सकता है। यह सार्वजनिक सेवाओं के वितरण में अक्षमताएं या व्यवधान भी पैदा कर सकता है, जैसे यातायात भीड़, सुरक्षा जोखिम या पर्यावरणीय क्षति। वीआईपी प्रोटोकॉल समाज के लिए एक बुरा उदाहरण भी स्थापित कर सकता है, जहां लोग अधिक उत्पादक या सार्थक लक्ष्यों पर ध्यान केंद्रित करने के बजाय विशेषाधिकार प्राप्त कुछ लोगों की जीवन शैली या व्यवहार का अनुकरण या आकांक्षा कर सकते हैं।

निष्कर्षतः, वीआईपी प्रोटोकॉल लोकतंत्र में एक समस्या है क्योंकि यह असमानता, भ्रष्टाचार और बर्बादी पैदा करता है। यह लोकतंत्र के मूल्यों और सिद्धांतों को कमज़ोर करता है और नागरिकों के हितों और कल्याण को नुकसान पहुँचाता है। इसलिए, जितना संभव हो वीआईपी प्रोटोकॉल से बचना चाहिए या कम से कम करना चाहिए। इसके बजाय, हमें योग्यता, जवाबदेही और सेवा की संस्कृति को बढ़ावा देना चाहिए, जहां सभी के साथ उचित और समान व्यवहार किया जाता है, और जहां हर कोई आम भलाई में योगदान देता है।

VIP Protocol is a problem in democracy

VIP Protocol is a term used to describe the special treatment given to certain people in positions of power or influence, such as politicians, celebrities, or wealthy individuals. VIP Protocol can include privileges such as preferential access to public services, security escorts, exemptions from rules or regulations, or lavish receptions and gifts.

While some may argue that VIP Protocol is a way of showing respect or appreciation for the contributions of these people, it can also have negative consequences for democracy and society. In this blog post, I will discuss some of the problems that VIP Protocol can cause and why it should be avoided or minimized.

One of the main problems with VIP Protocol is that it creates a sense of inequality and injustice among the citizens. When some people are treated differently or better than others, it can breed resentment, frustration, and distrust. It can also undermine the principles of democracy, such as equality, accountability, and transparency. VIP Protocol can make people feel that they are not valued or respected by their leaders or institutions, and that their voices or interests do not matter. For example, in India, there have been many instances of VIPs violating traffic rules, causing accidents, or delaying flights without facing any consequences. This can create a perception that the law does not apply equally to everyone, and that the common people are at the mercy of the powerful.

Another problem with VIP Protocol is that it can lead to corruption and abuse of power. When some people are given special favors or exemptions, it can create opportunities for them to exploit their position or influence for personal gain or advantage. It can also create conflicts of interest or loyalty, where they may prioritize their own interests or those of their benefactors over the public good. VIP Protocol can also erode the credibility and integrity of the institutions that grant or facilitate it, such as the government, the media, or the judiciary. For example, in South Africa, former president Jacob Zuma was accused of using public funds to upgrade his private residence with features such as a swimming pool, a helipad, and a cattle enclosure. This was seen as a blatant misuse of public money and a sign of corruption and nepotism.

A third problem with VIP Protocol is that it can waste public resources and harm public welfare. When some people are given excessive or unnecessary privileges, it can divert resources from more important or urgent needs, such as health care, education, or infrastructure. It can also create inefficiencies or disruptions in the delivery of public services, such as traffic congestion, security risks, or environmental damage. VIP Protocol can also set a bad example for the society, where people may emulate or aspire to the lifestyles or behaviors of the privileged few, rather than focusing on more productive or meaningful goals. For example, in China, some officials have been criticized for holding extravagant banquets or ceremonies while millions of people live in poverty or face environmental problems.

In conclusion, VIP Protocol is a problem in democracy because it creates inequality, corruption, and waste. It undermines the values and principles of democracy and harms the interests and welfare of the citizens. Therefore, VIP Protocol should be avoided or minimized as much as possible. Instead, we should promote a culture of meritocracy, accountability, and service, where everyone is treated fairly and equally, and where everyone contributes to the common good.

💥Mapped Out

Putins’s wars: From Chechnya to Ukraine

Much of what Vladimir Putin is doing in Ukraine, he has done before in Chechnya. The Russian president’s first war can teach us a lot about what could be ahead in Ukraine. We take a look at Putin’s playbook.

09:00

To the point

Russia’s War On Ukraine: No Strategy in the West?

Ukraine’s position looks increasingly precarious as it fights off multiple onslaughts by Russian troops - as the supply of Western weapons dwindles. Meanwhile NATO members fear they could be Putin’s next targets. How can Russia be stopped? Our guests: Sabine Adler (Deutschlandfunk Kultur), Rafael Loss (ECFR), Roman Goncharenko (DW