Posts

Showing posts from December, 2018

Supreme Courts Puts Rafale Controversy to Rest

                                          Parmanand Pandey Rafale Fighter Jets deal case, decided by the Supreme Court, on 14 th  December, the last working day before it was closed for the winter vacation has actually brought a sort of political tremor in the country. While on the one hand, the people of the country, by and large, and the Indian Air Force heaved the sigh of relief that the deal with the French Dassault company for the supply of the Rafale Fighter Jets has improved its fighting capacity. Another reason for the satisfaction has been that the security of the country has not at all compromised. On the other hand, however, it has sent some political parties into a tizzy, who wanted to make capital out this deal. This judgement of the Supreme Court has unequivocally vindicated the stand of the government, particularly of the Prime Minister Narendra Modi, that his government has acted above board. The government can also take pride that it has kept itself free from

Witness Protection is Necessary for Fair Justice

                                                     Parmanand Pandey The Supreme Court has again voiced its concern for the safety of witnesses, particularly in criminal cases.  The criminal justice is essentially an adversarial system, where the cases are decided on the basis of evidence, be it documentary or oral. Therefore, witnesses play a vital role in facilitating to arrive at correct findings. They are the backbones in the decision-making process. In ‘Mahender Chawla and others vs Union of India and others’, the Supreme Court has said that w henever, in a dispute, the two sides come out with conflicting version, the witnesses become an important tool to arrive at right conclusions, thereby advancing justice in a matter. It is for this reason that the Legal philosopher Jeremy Bentham stated that “witnesses are eyes and ears of justice”. A witness may be a partisan or interested witness but even then, his testimony is relevant, though, stricter scrutiny is required wh