Pairokar

By: Parmanand Pandey Newspapers and TV news channels have definitely rendered yeoman’s service by highlighting a banal fact that sweepers, janitors and drivers administer medicines and sometimes carry out minor surgeries on the patients in the government hospitals of Uttar Pradesh. This is the same state where during the regime of Ms Mayawati thousands of crores made way to the pockets and purses of politicians and officials in the name of high sounding NHRM Scheme. If the objectives of the scheme were to be believed, rural areas of Uttar Pradesh would have been the ideal places for the healthcare but unfortunately that proved to be moonshine. Many former bureaucrats, Medical officers and politicians have already been caught and some of them are cooling their heels in jails. The corruption of unprecedented scale went on for years together under the nose of rather in complicity with the Chief Minister. But that is no excuse for the present Chief Minister Akhilesh Yadav t

The suggestion of Mr. Purno A Sangma, the Presidential Candidate against Congress sponsored candidate Mr. Pranab Mukherji public debate is a welcome idea.  Although the situation which has obtained after the decision of the political parties, Pranab Mukherji's election is almost a foregone conclusion; yet as any election is an education, which leads to more awaking and maturity of the people, this election will also be very fruitful if Sangma’s proposal is accepted in its proper spirit. This type of debate is nothing new. There are many countries in the world where such debates are organised on television channels. United States of America is a shining example, where nobody can think of becoming the President without undertaking the vigorous campaigning through debates and discussions. It is true that the President of the USA has immense powers and his position cannot be compared with Indian President where he /she is merely a titular head of the state. The President of

Press Council of India’s Chairman Justice (retired.) Markandey Katju is, undoubtedly, an erudite and scholarly person. He has thorough knowledge of law, literature, philosophy and political science. But he suffers from a serious demerit of hunger for publicity. Apart from it, he is highly unpredictable person and himself does not as know as to what he is speaking and what would be its repercussions. Judges are known for their reticence. They are supposed to be the biggest practitioners of 'Look before leap' policy but this theory never applies to Justice Katju. He mistakenly considers it a quality of outspokenness. He is a pundit of English language and people marvel at his beautiful language that he writes but his love for Hindi is known to everybody, who has seen him on the bench of the Supreme Court. He often made gratuitous comments on lawyers and their way of arguments. Even the government officials attending the court cases were not spared by his acid comments a

Article 348 of the constitution of India says that the languages of the Supreme Court and every High Court will be English. However, Article 348 (4) further provides that the Governor of a State may, with the previous consent of the President authorise the use of Hindi language or any other regional language used for any official purposes. Taking recourse to this proviso, some High Courts have allowed to make the arguments etc. in Hindi but the decisions to my knowledge, are delivered in English alone. In my opinion the use of English should be completely dispensed with. This is right or wrong is an altogether separate issue but it underlines the importance of English language in all courts — right from the Apex Court down to the trial courts. Since the principle of stare decicis is applicable for the judicial discipline; the working knowledge of English language assumes much importance. In Common Law system, the precedent is one of the main sources of the law. Hence, every ad

The immediate cause of this writing is the controversy that is going on in the Supreme Court about the need and relevance of the AOR system. I am of the opinion that every advocate must have passed some sort of examination conducted by the particular court to practice there. But it should be not on the pattern of the Advocate-on-Record Examination as is conducted by the Supreme Court of India. It may be interesting to know that there are three types of practicing Advocates in the Supreme Court. The first category is of Senior Advocates, who have been designated by either the High Courts or the Supreme Court of India. Many questions have been raised about the designation of 'Senior Advocates' by different High Courts. Many senior advocates have been able to wangle this designation more by foul means than fair. The level of their arguments in the courts proves the point. But In the Supreme Court also there are two