R N Ravi's case of Tamil Nadu must be revisited


 The Supreme Court, or any court for that matter, is not a cloistered virtue. The judgments of the courts are matters of record and can be critiqued by citizens of the country. The only limitation is that no motives should be attributed to the judges who deliver those judgments. However, it is a fact that judges are often influenced by their predilections and prejudices.

 Chief Justice Sanjeev Khanna is largely correct when he states that while serving as a judge, he or she does not belong to any religion or caste. Nonetheless, there have been many instances in which judges have revealed their religious biases. For example, while deciding Shayra Bano's case on triple talaq, Justice Nazeer did not sign the judgment because it conflicted with his religious beliefs. The Shayara Bano case was a landmark judgment by the Supreme Court of India, where the practice of instant divorce was declared unconstitutional. Shayara Bano challenged the practice, arguing that it violated fundamental rights like equality and personal liberty under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. The court ruled that Triple Talaq was arbitrary and not an essential religious practice.

This decision was a significant step toward gender justice and the empowerment of Muslim women in India.  Justice Nazeer should have recused himself if he wished to remain detached from the case. To be fair to him, he did not express any bias in the Ayodhya case but remained aloof to demonstrate his agreement with the judgment of the other four judges.

There are two parts to any judgment: ratio decidendi and obiter dicta. Ratio decidendi refers to the legal principle or rule that forms the basis of a court's judgment. It is the binding part of the decision that sets a precedent for future cases. Obiter dicta refer to remarks, observations, or opinions made by the judge that are not essential to the decision. These statements do not have binding authority but may be influential in later cases.

 In simple terms, ratio decidendi is the core legal reasoning that establishes a rule, while obiter dicta include additional comments that may provide guidance but are not legally enforceable. This is why judges should exercise extra caution when making any obiter dicta remarks. The way two judges made obiter remarks about Nupur Sharma was ludicrous, to say the least. They should have expressed regret in open court for their comments, which became more significant than the actual judgment. Therefore, the delicate case of Tamil Nadu Governor N Ravi should have been handled with greater sensitivity, which it duly deserved.

Since it involves interpreting the Constitution, the Supreme Court must give it the importance required to revisit and review the case.

 

 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Hamas does not Deserve any support for its thrashing

       Israel and Hamas war started on 7 th October and has already taken the toll of more than 15 thousand human lives. In the past, no friction with Israel has lasted for more than a week but this time it is still continuing despite the passage of nearly six weeks’ time.  In fact, it is no longer a war but a relentless thrashing of the Hamas terrorists and their sympathisers in the Gaza Strip. According to the latest reports almost the entire Gaza Strip has been occupied by Israel’s forces. Hamas terrorists are hiding like rats in the tunnels, which they have constructed mainly under the hospitals to shield themselves. Terrorists are now targeting hospitals, killing innocent people and blaming Israel’s forces to gain sympathy from the world. But no country has till now come forward to join the war against Israel. Even Iran, Lebanon and Pakistan do not have the courage to face the wrath of Israel.   As a matter of fact, the world can learn a lesson ...
Read more

Law to Weed out Touts is Inadequate and Needs to be Done More

  Law to Weed out Touts is Inadequate and Needs to be Done More The presence of touts is ubiquitous in any court, be it district, High Court or even the Supreme Court. Why only courts- this is a common sight of any government office dealing with the public. So much so, even in the hospitals, touts rule the roost. Police stations remain hovered by the touts all the time. Even an FIR cannot be lodged without the help of the touts. As far as the courts are concerned, touts are found on all their gates itself. Many advocates depend on them because it is they who bring cases to them and in return get good commissions. Many touts have their own independent offices, and they operate by giving a façade of computer operators or typists. That is why, the Advocate Amendment Bill 2023 passed by Parliament the other day is a welcome law.    Verily speaking, the judicial system is swamped with touts. The definition of tout that has been given in the new Advocates (Amendment) Bill o...
Read more

The conduct of Kejriwal and AAP Leaders is Repulsive and Lowest of the Low

 Twenty days have elapsed from the incarceration of Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, firstly in ED’s custody and thereafter in judicial custody. L’ affaire Aam Adami Party and Arvind Kejriwal have been controversial for over a year. He and his party have been claiming from housetops for the purity and transparency in public life. But nobody ever imagined that AAP and particularly its leader Kejriwal would plumb to such an unfathomable depth of immorality and opacity. Now leaders of AAP are saying that Kejriwal will continue to run the government from jail. However, the question is how will it be feasible? Will it not be a gross violation of constitutional propriety? Mr Kejriwal had cocked the snook to the summons of the ED nine times and at long last he appeared at the directions  of the court. If he had nothing to conceal in the liquor gate scam, he could have appeared at the first call but always avoided appearing by saying that the summonses of the ED were not...
Read more