Podcasts about high courts

Today my guest is Justice Jasti Chelameswar, who is a former justice of the Supreme Court of India. Prior to his elevation, he served as chief justice in High Courts in Gauhati and Kerala and as a justice in the Andhra Pradesh High Court.  We spoke about his judgments on electoral qualifications, judicial conduct, transparency in judicial appointments, the constitutional right to privacy, separation of powers, and how dissent shapes constitutional interpretation, and much more. Recorded February 25th, 2025. Read a full transcript enhanced with helpful links. Connect with Ideas of India Follow us on X Follow Shruti on X Click here for the latest Ideas of India episodes sent straight to your inbox. Timestamps 00:00:00 - Intro 00:01:27 - Election Law Cases 00:17:15 - Process of Writing Opinions 00:25:38 - Misconduct of Judicial Officers 00:31:34 - NJAC Opinion 00:44:47 - Fundamental Right to Privacy 01:06:29 - Death Penalty Matters 01:15:36 - Outro

In this podcast, Kushal speaks with Kunal Agarwal about the state of sports in India beyond cricket. An Indian Express report recently stated that "according to data compiled by sports law experts, since 2015, approximately 770 lawsuits related to sports and sporting bodies are at different stages in the courts and central tribunals across the country. Of these, 462 are in High Courts and 22 in the Supreme Court." Follow Kunal: X: @kunaldo1 Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/@UCYkTuB76d7Uo4GdlfOzSsDw #sports #cricket #corruption #football ------------------------------------------------------------ Listen to the podcasts on: SoundCloud: https://soundcloud.com/kushal-mehra-99891819 Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/1rVcDV3upgVurMVW1wwoBp Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-c%C4%81rv%C4%81ka-podcast/id1445348369 Stitcher: https://www.stitcher.com/show/the-carvaka-podcast ------------------------------------------------------------ Support The Cārvāka Podcast: Buy Kushal's Book: https://amzn.in/d/58cY4dU Become a Member on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCKPx... Become a Member on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/carvaka UPI: kushalmehra@icici Interac Canada: kushalmehra81@gmail.com To buy The Carvaka Podcast Exclusive Merch please visit: http://kushalmehra.com/shop ------------------------------------------------------------ Follow Kushal: Twitter: https://twitter.com/kushal_mehra?ref_... Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/KushalMehraO... Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/thecarvakap... Koo: https://www.kooapp.com/profile/kushal... Inquiries: https://kushalmehra.com/ Feedback: kushalmehra81@gmail.com Want to create live streams like this? Check out StreamYard: https://streamyard.com/pal/d/5690506426187776

An update on Trump - the tariffs, tesla showroom at the White House, BLM mural pulled down and Palestinian activist arrested. Meghan Markle makes her return to the podcasting world with a new show as does her father in law, King Charles. The High Courts decision on a native title case. The Australian Grand Prix winners and sponsors. Ukraine's agreement to a ceasefire proposal as the US stops aid. Kanye West released song that features both P.Diddy and his daughter North West.

The episode covers key aspects of competition law in India, focusing on the Competition Commission of India's (CCI) approach to mergers and anti-competitive practices. The CCI scrutinizes deals where combined market shares exceed 30-40%, particularly among competitors, but has never blocked a transaction since the merger control regime began in 2011. Indian law generally treats companies and their subsidiaries as a single economic entity, except in bidding markets where group companies must avoid sharing sensitive information. The conversation highlights India's evolving competition law, drawing from mature jurisdictions while tailoring rules for the local market. Foreign investors are typically well-informed about Indian competition laws, aligning with approval processes and rules. The evolving legal landscape is seen as an exciting time for competition law practitioners in India.Our GuestVaibhav ChoukseVaibhav is a Partner in the Firm's Competition Law Practice with over 16 years of experience. He has been practicing competition law since its inception in India, specializing in complex litigation, and merger control, advising clients across diverse industries. His expertise spans complex competition matters before the Competition Commission of India (CCI) and appellate courts.In litigation, Vaibhav routinely advises multinational corporations and industry associations on cartel investigations and leniency, dawn raids, vertical agreements, abuse of dominance, and competition compliance. He has successfully defended global auto-component manufacturers, a multiplex operator, and a leading paper manufacturer in cartel cases. He currently advises major players in the seed, pharmaceutical, cement, and financial sectors in ongoing cartel and vertical restraint investigations. In abuse of dominance matters, he represents Hyundai and Ford in India's first auto-parts aftermarket abuse case and FabHotels in India's first MFN case against MakeMyTrip and OYO. He also represented Nuziveedu Seeds in its abuse of dominance case against Monsanto before the CCI and Delhi High Court. He is also involved in constitutional and procedural challenges to CCI investigations before various High Courts. Recently, he secured a stay on the CCI's investigation against sellers on a leading e-commerce platform from various High Courts.In merger control, he has secured approvals for complex transactions, including ONGC/ NTPC/ Ayana Renewable, Del Monte/ Agro Tech Foods, Coforge/Cigniti, BPEA EQT/Indira/ HDFC Credila, Temasek/Manipal Hospitals, KKR/Hero Future Energies, IBM/Kyndryl, TVS Group restructuring, Ford/Mahindra, Goldman Sachs/ReNew Power (SPAC), and Trafigura/Essar Oil.A prolific author and speaker, Vaibhav contributes to leading competition law journals and newspapers and frequently speaks at industry forums. He is recognized among India's top competition lawyers by Chambers & Partners, Who's Who Legal, Legal500, Forbes Powelist, AsiaLaw, and Global Competition Review.  Vaibhav was recently recognized in Asian Legal Business (ALB) Asia 40 Under 40, 2024 as one of Asia's top 40 legal talents under 40, distinguished as the only competition lawyer on the list.He holds a master's degree in Competition Law from King's College London, where he had the privilege of studying under Prof. Richard Whish KC (Hon) in EU Competition Law. Our HostAjay ShamdasaniAjay Shamdasani is a veteran writer, editor and researcher based in Hong Kong. He holds an AB in history and government from Ripon College, JD and MIPCT degrees from the University of New Hampshire Franklin Pierce Law School, and an LLM in financial regulation from the Illinois Institute of Technology's Chicago-Kent College of Law.His 15-year long career as a financial and legal journalist began as deputy editor of A Plus magazine – the journal of the Hong Kong Institute of Certified Public Accountants. From there, he assumed the helm of Macau Business magazine as its editor-in-chief, and later, joined Asialaw magazine as its deputy editor.More recently, he spent close to seven years as a senior correspondent with Thomson Reuters' subscription-based trade-wire service Regulatory Intelligence/Compliance Complete (previously called Complinet) in Hong Kong. While there, he covered regulatory developments in that city, as well as Singapore, India and South Korea.

The Washington state legislature is looking to ban guns in even more places. The Washington Supreme Court struck down a challenge to signature verification on ballots. ABC News is shutting down FiveThirtyEight along with other jobs cuts. // Big Local: A 3.9 earthquake struck Port Angeles. Everett police are looking for a man that tried to kidnap a woman. A WSU astronomer says we’re going to have a ‘blood moon’ next week. A Bremerton boat builder is struggling with pauses in federal funding. // You Pick the Topic: Scientists have created a “Colossal woolly mouse” in preparation for recreating the woolly mammoth.

This two-episode podcast examines the importance of effective, proactive multi-agency collaboration in adolescent forensic mental health settings. In this discussion, Dr James Gardiner and Dr Enys Delmage cover common presentations and highlight best practices across various environments, including inpatient services, community-based care and in-reach programs to youth justice residences (secure units operated by Oranga Tamariki, where some children remanded by the Youth or High Courts may be placed). This series introduces key topics that will be explored in greater detail at the upcoming RANZCP Section of Child and Adolescent Forensic Psychiatry Conference held in March 2025, Wellington. This podcast will be valuable for professionals working in adolescent forensic settings or those involved with children in the justice system.   Dr James Gardiner is a forensic psychiatrist working at Tū Māia, formerly known as Regional Youth Forensic Services in Auckland.  Most of his work involves delivering in-reach mental health care to the two youth justice residences in Tāmaki Makaurau Auckland.  James has worked as an in-reach psychiatrist in various correctional settings for around 20 years, with the last 10 years working with young people. Dr Enys Delmage is an adolescent forensic psychiatrist working at Ngā Taiohi, a secure inpatient service for young people in Porirua, Wellington. With a specific interest in the interface between mental health and the law in relation to young people, his research primarily explores the international landscape of the minimum age of criminal responsibility. References: UN Office on Drugs and Crime's International Homicide Statistics database World Bank International Crime Rates and Statistics 2000-2025 dataTopic suggestion:If you have a topic suggestion or would like to participate in a future episode of Psych Matters, we'd love to hear from you.Please contact us by email at: psychmatters.feedback@ranzcp.orgDisclaimer:This podcast is provided to you for information purposes only and to provide a broad public understanding of various mental health topics. The podcast may represent the views of the author and not necessarily the views of The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists ('RANZCP'). The podcast is not to be relied upon as medical advice, or as a substitute for medical advice, does not establish a doctor-patient relationship and should not be a substitute for individual clinical judgement. By accessing The RANZCP's podcasts you also agree to the full terms and conditions of the RANZCP's Website. Expert mental health information and finding a psychiatrist in Australia or New Zealand is available on the RANZCP's Your Health In Mind Website.

The Supreme Court on January 30, 2025, permitted High Courts to appoint retired judges on an ad-hoc basis to address the mounting backlog of cases. However, these judges were authorised to hear only criminal appeals as part of a bench led by a sitting judge.  Is the ad-hoc appointment of judges a viable remedy for reducing pendency? Here we discuss the question. Guests: Justice Rajeev Shakdher, former Chief Justice of the Himachal Pradesh High Court; Shadan Farasat, senior advocate based in Delhi Host: Aaratrika Bhaumik

Send us fan responses! Unravel the secrets of global financial and legal sovereignty that not only challenge conventional wisdom but empower you to break free from societal constraints. Imagine a world where strategic financial moves, like investing in Bitcoin and creating LLCs for personal names, become your tools for true independence. Our latest episode promises to transform your understanding of legal systems, highlighting the importance of setting boundaries and the authority of institutions like the High Courts of Justice in London.We journey through the complexities of international laws and trusts, revealing how private instruments such as promissory notes and security agreements can protect your assets and secure your future. We also explore the powerful legacy of family trusts and the necessity of crafting a family narrative to maintain identity and legacy in a globalized world. You'll gain insights into the enigmatic world of private banking and insurance, with a spotlight on Lloyd's of London, emphasizing the importance of self-reliance and strategic asset management.Finally, we explore the intersections of personal sovereignty and spiritual alignment, underscoring the power of love, faith, and a prosperous mindset. By examining historical documents and religious laws, we encourage you to question conventional financial systems and align your financial strategies with your spiritual beliefs. This episode is your guide to achieving true freedom and abundance, urging you to trust in a higher power while navigating life's obstacles with clarity and resolve.FOLLOW THE YELLOW BRICK ROAD - DON KILAMGO GET HIS BOOK ON AMAZON NOW! https://www.amazon.com/Cant-Touch-This-Diplomatic-Immunity/dp/B09X1FXMNQ https://www.amazon.com/CapiSupport the showhttps://donkilam.com

Major Kavish Aggarwala is a retired Judge Advocate General officer from the Indian Army, with a distinguished 11-year career in the legal department. After his service, he transitioned into a legal practice, operating from his law chambers in Delhi. He has represented clients in various high-profile legal matters, including those in the Supreme Court, High Courts, and Armed Forces Tribunals His areas of expertise include military law, intellectual property rights, and family law. Major Aggarwala has been actively involved in advocating for the rights of short service commissioned officers, particularly regarding pensionary and provident fund benefits.

Dr. Tebello is a qualified advocate in the High Courts of Lesotho. Her legal journey commenced in early 2015, serving as a junior advocate focused on cases involving divorces and land matters. During this period, she gained extensive experience in drafting legal documents, handling litigation, and facilitating legal resolutions. Subsequently, she transitioned to the role of a legal advisor for an engineering company, specializing in the Health and Safety department. In 2017, she ventured into legal academia, pursuing an LLM in Environmental Law with a specialization in Mining Law. This advanced degree equipped her with profound insights into mining sector regulations and laws, honing her skills in legal research and issue resolution.   Driven by her passion for legal research and problem-solving, she has currently completed her LLD degree in the private law department (2024). Her research focuses on African Customary Law and its implication on the Rights of Women in South Africa and Lesotho, with special expertise in succession rights, customary marriage rights and traditional leadership rights. This endeavour has significantly broadened her expertise in legal research and refining her writing skills as a legal professional. She is currently a legal researcher at the university of Pretoria & the North West University in Mafikeng, where she continues to interrogate the customary law system and its impact on the rights of women. In Her Free time, Dr. Tebello enjoys podcasting and engaging in challenging topics that bring truth, especially to young people and women! Through Her podcast, entitled ‘SimplySheVoicedPodcast with Dr. Tebello', which is Her online ministry, she equips and empowers the voices of women, by engaging Culture, Law and Religion! She also enjoys being outdoors , laughing out loud, cooking , reading books, spending quality time with friends and family over a good meal! Her old time favourite series is ‘ My wife and Kids!' She is definitely a 90's kid!

Welcome back to THE IAS COMPANION. Today, we delve into the pivotal concept of judicial review, essential for maintaining the supremacy of the Constitution and ensuring conformity of all laws and executive actions to constitutional mandates. Originating in the United States with the landmark case of Marbury v. Madison (1803), judicial review empowered the judiciary to declare laws unconstitutional. In India, this power is explicitly granted by the Constitution, enabling both the Supreme Court and High Courts to review legislative and executive actions. Judicial review in India encompasses constitutional amendments, legislation, and administrative actions. Landmark cases such as Kesavananda Bharati (1973) and the NJAC Act Case (2015) have shaped its contours. This power upholds the Constitution's supremacy, maintains federal balance, and protects fundamental rights, making it a basic feature of the Indian Constitution. Key constitutional provisions like Articles 13, 32, and 226 empower the judiciary in this regard. Judicial review ensures that all governmental actions align with constitutional principles, preserving democratic governance and justice in society. #UPSC #IASprep #civilserviceexam #IASexamination #IASaspirants #UPSCjourney #IASexam #civilservice #IASgoals #UPSC2024 #IAS2024 #civilservant #IAScoaching #aUPSCmotivation #IASmotivation #UPSCpreparation #IASpreparation #UPSCguide #IASguide #UPSCtips #IAStips #UPSCbooks #IASbooks #UPSCexamstrategy #IASexamstrategy #UPSCmentorship #IASmentorship #UPSCcommunity #IAScommunity #UPSCpreparation #IASpreparation #UPSCguide #IASguide #UPSCtips #IAStips #UPSCbooks #IASbooks #UPSCexamstrategy #IASexamstrategy #UPSCmentorship #IASmentorship #UPSCcommunity #IAScommunity --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/theiascompanion/message

Mary chats with author and speaker Jim Fletcher today about justice in the free world. On the heels of a precedence-setting trial involving a former US President, America is waking up to some hard truths - mainly that the justice system has broken down like an old Chevy. The International Criminal Court can try and arrest Bibi but that's merely the tip of the iceberg, as in a global society, justice will be increasingly in the hands of a few and harder to find. We talk about Iran's deceased president who had a hand in October 7, how long will the war go on, and the Jewish students finding their voice at Columbia. How long O Lord? Shameless plug for swag for our listeners/donors! https://www.redpillprints.com/stand-up-for-the-truth - Thanks for YOUR Support!  

Welcome back to THE IAS COMPANION. Today, we explore the Supreme Court of India, a pillar of the country's judiciary with extensive jurisdiction and unique powers. Unlike other supreme courts, it functions as both a federal court and the final court of appeal, akin to the British House of Lords. It serves as the ultimate interpreter of the Constitution, protecting citizens' fundamental rights, and has advisory and supervisory roles, granting it unmatched authority. India's unified judicial system, established with the Supreme Court at its apex in 1950, contrasts with the United States' dual judicial system. This system includes High Courts and subordinate courts, all enforcing both central and state laws, while in the U.S., federal and state laws are enforced separately by respective judiciaries. Detailed in Articles 124 to 147 of the Indian Constitution, the Supreme Court's framework includes its organization, independence, jurisdiction, and procedures, regulated by Parliament. The Court has 34 judges, including the Chief Justice, with appointments made by the President following a consultation process that has evolved to emphasize judicial independence. Judges serve until age 65, with their tenure protected against arbitrary removal. The Supreme Court's powers encompass original, writ, and appellate jurisdictions, advisory roles, judicial review, and interpretation of the Constitution. Its structure and functioning ensure robust oversight of legislative and executive actions, maintaining the rule of law and democratic principles in India. #UPSC #IASprep #civilserviceexam #IASexamination #IASaspirants #UPSCjourney #IASexam #civilservice #IASgoals #UPSC2024 #IAS2024 #civilservant #IAScoaching #aUPSCmotivation #IASmotivation #UPSCpreparation #IASpreparation #UPSCguide #IASguide #UPSCtips #IAStips #UPSCbooks #IASbooks #UPSCexamstrategy #IASexamstrategy #UPSCmentorship #IASmentorship #UPSCcommunity #IAScommunity #UPSCpreparation #IASpreparation #UPSCguide #IASguide #UPSCtips #IAStips #UPSCbooks #IASbooks #UPSCexamstrategy #IASexamstrategy #UPSCmentorship #IASmentorship #UPSCcommunity #IAScommunity --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/theiascompanion/message

In this episode, Ninni Susan Thomas interviews Advocate Vikram Hedge, an Advocate-on-Record at the Supreme Court who practises at courts in Karnataka and Delhi, as well as in other High Courts and Tribunals. The conversation begins by shedding light on the lesser-known aspects of a lawyer's tasks, leading to discussions on common challenges faced by lawyers, litigants, and the public when accessing courts. Issues such as lack of adequate notice before hearings and the uncertainty surrounding court dates are explored. The importance of causelists in addressing these challenges is emphasised, along with suggestions on how they can be improved. Furthermore, the conversation delves into the necessity of listing rules to enhance transparency in the functioning of courts. If you like our podcast, do consider supporting us with a donation at the link below: https://www.dakshindia.org/donate/ References: On issues of listing at the Supreme Court: https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/on-the-listing-of-cases-in-the-supreme-court-explained/article67625314.ece Need for listing practices in courts:: https://www.dakshindia.org/with-a-huge-backlog-of-cases-the-indian-judiciary-should-revisit-the-listing-practices-of-courts/ CREDITS: Host: Ninni Susan Thomas This is a Maed in India production. Producer: Sean D'mello  Sound Design & Mixing:  Vijay Doiphode Project Supervisor: Shaun Fanthome

Recently, President Droupadi Murmu suggested that an All-India Judicial Service (AIJS) will help diversify the judiciary. In the same way that the Union Public Service Commission conducts a central recruitment exam and assigns successful candidates to cadres, the recruitment of judges of the district judiciary is being proposed to be made central, following which they will be assigned to the States. This idea has been discussed in the past and has also been a part of the Union government's official policy for years. However, there has been no consensus on the proposal either from the High Courts or the State governments.  Should an AIJS be created? Here we discuss the question.  Guests:Alok Prasanna Kumar, co-founder and lead, Vidhi Karnataka; Bharat Chugh, a lawyer based in Delhi and a former civil judge Host: Aaratrika Bhaumik 

North Carolina's Supreme Court chief justice heard cases despite a conflict of interest. Experts say judicial ethics at state high courts everywhere don't receive the scrutiny they deserve.

Hello, this is your daily dose of news from Onmanorama. Tune in to get updated about the major news stories of the day.

The Albany Law Review and Government Law Center at Albany Law School hosted a panel discussion exploring judicial selection methods for state high courts employed across the nation. Panelists discussed how judicial selection methods can affect judicial independence, accountability, diversity, and public confidence. Panelists also discussed issues that can arise during the selection process and potential solutions to address these issues. The panel took place via Zoom on October 10, 2023.   Participants: Hon. Leslie E. Stein (ret.) '81 (moderator) — Director of the Government Law Center at Albany Law School and former Associate Judge of the New York State Court of Appeals John F. Kowal — Vice President of Program Initiatives at the Brennan Center for Justice Prof. Chad Oldfather — Professor of Law at Marquette University Law School Prof. Noah Rosenblum — Assistant Professor of Law at the New York University School of Law David J. Sachar — Director of the Center for Judicial Ethics at the National Center for State Courts

The master's offices of South African high courts has been described as being in a state of dysfunctionality by various lawyers who have dealt with the office, as the legal fraternity decries that the office is causing difficulties for their clients who want to tie up deceased estates, set up and liquidate trusts, and appoint overseers. Lawyers complain about unpredictable delays and a lack of control. Among the other issues cited is that the Master's Office struggles with digitization and in-person visits. The office manages the Guardian's Fund, which manages money for legally incapable individuals. Sakina Kamwendo spoke to Louis van Vuren, CEO of the Fidiciary Institute of Southern Africa.

This week, Academy Award-winning director Guy Nattiv discusses his new film 'Golda,' which follows the journey of Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir as she navigates the tense 19 days of the 1973 Yom Kippur War. Nattiv delves into how Helen Mirren, who portrays Golda Meir, expertly embodied the role. He also shares why, being a child of '73, he felt so compelled to tell this story. Tune in to hear the poignant anecdotes from the set and learn about the involvement of war veterans in the filmmaking process. *The views and opinions expressed by guests do not necessarily reflect the views or position of AJC.  Episode Lineup:  (0:40) Guy Nattiv Show Notes: Watch: ‘Golda' opens in US theaters starting August 25th from Bleecker Street / ShivHans pictures–find theater and ticket information at www.goldafilm.com Read: Tough Questions on Israel Answered Listen: Matti Friedman on How the 1973 Yom Kippur War Impacted Leonard Cohen and What It Means Today The Rise of Germany's Far-Right Party and What It Means for German Jews AJC Archives Follow People of the Pod on your favorite podcast app, and learn more at AJC.org/PeopleofthePod You can reach us at: peopleofthepod@ajc.org If you've enjoyed this episode, please be sure to tell your friends, tag us on social media with #PeopleofthePod, and hop onto Apple Podcasts to rate us and write a review, to help more listeners find us. __ Transcript of Interview with Guy Nattiv: Golda Meir [from AJC Archives]: We've suffered because of our stance, which is not just obstinacy, not just because we liked it this way. But I think it has been accepted more and more that we have something at stake, and that's our very existence. Whether the borders are such that we can defend them or not, is a question of to be or not to be. Manya Brachear Pashman:  That's the late Prime Minister of Israel Golda Meir speaking with AJC about fighting wars to defend Israel's existence. The movie Golda premiering in American theaters this week tells the story of one such battle: the Yom Kippur War of 1973 when Egypt and Syria launched a surprise attack against the Jewish state. Here to talk about the movie and why it's an important story to share with the world, especially through Golda Meir's eyes is its Academy Award winning Director Guy Nattiv. Guy, welcome to People of the Pod.  Guy Nattiv:  Hi, Manya. Manya Brachear Pashman:  So Guy, as we just heard from Golda Meir herself, Israel has been defending its very existence since its creation, in war after war after war. Why did you want to direct a film about this particular war, which turned out to be quite a turbulent moment in the life of the Jewish state?  Guy Nattiv:  Well, I was born into this world, in a way. I'm a child of '73. My mom ran to the shelter with me as a baby, my father went to the war. And I grew up on those stories, of Golda, of the war, and I really wanted to know more, but there wasn't any way of knowing more. And I think that 10 years ago, protocols came out and gave a sense of what really happened, protocols from the Agranat Committee, from the war rooms, from the government. All those declassified documents. And that shed a different light on what really happened there, and on Golda. And doing the research on Golda  and talking to people who really knew her, gave me a sense of why we needed to tell the story. It's for my generation and for the generation of my fathers' and mothers'.  Manya Brachear Pashman:  So who made the decision to cast Helen Mirren as Golda Meir?  Guy Nattiv:  I wasn't the one who casted Helen. When I came on board, Helen was already attached. I think that Gideon Meir, the grandson [of Golda], he was the one who thought about Helen first, he said, I see my grandmother in her. And when I came she already read the script, and it was only meeting me to close the circle.  Manya Brachear Pashman:  And what did she bring to the role? Guy Nattiv:  Humor, humanity, wisdom, charm. It's all there. But she brings a lot of human depth to the character. Manya Brachear Pashman:  Were there conversations off camera during the making of the film about Israel, about its history, about the lessons learned in this moment in its history, with Helen Mirren, or other cast members? Guy Nattiv:  Yeah, but the problem is that we don't really learn, right, because look what happened now in Israel. It's the Yom Kippur of democracy. So I don't think we learned enough. Where we are basically in the same situation, as '73, with a leader that is so disattached. At least Golda believed in the judicial system, she believed in High Courts, she was a humanist. She believed in democracy, full democracy. And I think the situation now is so dire. And when I went to protest in Israel, I went to protest with a lot of veterans from the war, who had the t-shirt 'This is the Yom Kippur of democracy.' We're fighting, they're almost fighting again, but this time not because of our enemies, because of ourselves. We're eating ourselves from within. Manya Brachear Pashman:  I'm glad you mentioned the veterans of the war because this was such a painful conflict for Israel. Such a tragic blow to the nation's psyche. More than 2,600 Israeli soldiers were killed, 12,000 injured, nearly 300 taken prisoner. What do you believe this film offers those veterans? Guy Nattiv:  I think it brings a lot of humanity to Golda, who they saw as just the poster, as just a stamp, as just a statue, right? She was somebody who's not human. And I thought that Helen in the way that the film is structured is bringing Golda in a human way. And they see her struggle. And how she cared about those veterans. How she cared about every single person, every single soldier that died in this war. She wrote every name. She took it to her heart. And I thought that was something that veterans would respect. And also what I did is, when I edited the film, I brought five veterans from the front, a lot of them watched the movie in the first cut, the really first offline cut, and they helped me shape the narratives and bring their own perspective to this movie. So I thought that was very cool. Manya Brachear Pashman:  You've made it clear that this is not a biopic about Golda Meir. This is really about this moment in history. Guy Nattiv:  No, it's not your classical biopic, if you want to do a biopic about Golda Meir, you'll have to have a miniseries with eight episodes or more. This is an hour and a half, on a very specific magnifying glass on the requiem of a country. The requiem of a leader. The last of Golda. The last days. Manya Brachear Pashman:  Let's listen to a clip from the film that really shows why Golda Meir was known as the Iron Lady of Israeli politics. Here's Helen Mirren as Golda Meir, sitting across the table from Henry Kissinger, played by actor Liev Schreiber.   Clip from ‘Golda': Golda Meir (portrayed by Helen Mirren): This country's traumatized. My generals are begging me to occupy Cairo. And Sharon is, is like a dog on a leash. Henry Kissinger (portrayed by Liev Schreiber): If you do that you will be on your own. Israel's long term interests will not be served by a fracturing of our relationship, Golda. Sadat has already agreed to the terms of the ceasefire. Golda Meir (portrayed by Helen Mirren): Of course he has. He's on the brink of defeat. It will give him a chance to regroup. You are the only person in the world who could possibly understand what I'm going through. Henry Kissinger (portrayed by Liev Schreiber): Yes, I know how you feel, but we need a ceasefire. Golda Meir (portrayed by Helen Mirren): I thought we were friends, Henry. Henry Kissinger (portrayed by Liev Schreiber): We will always protect Israel. Golda Meir (portrayed by Helen Mirren): Like you did in ‘48? We had to get our weapons from Stalin. Stalin. Our survival is not in your gift. If we have to, we will fight alone. Manya Brachear Pashman:  So Guy, what would you include in a mini series, if you produced a mini-series instead? Guy Nattiv:  I would go to her childhood in Ukraine, probably, I would show her family in Israel. I would show more of her relationship with Lou Kedar, they were really close, her assistant. There's a lot of things that I would do, but not in the format of a feature. Although if you want to do something like you know, a four and a half hour feature, like, used to be in the 80s or the 70s. They were massive, like Gone With the Wind. This is something else. But this is not this movie. This movie is really a specific time in history. Manya Brachear Pashman:  Through her eyes, basically. Guy Nattiv:  Through her eyes. Manya Brachear Pashman:  Yeah. Guy Nattiv:  Under her skin. Manya Brachear Pashman:  I'm curious, if in the making of the film, there were any kind of surprising revelations about cast members or their perspectives, their opinions, or revelations about the history itself. Guy Nattiv:  One of the guys that was a stand-in, he was an extra in the movie. He was at the table of all the ministers. Ephri, Ephraim, his name is. I played the siren in the room. So everybody will get the siren, and the long siren. And he started crying. And he said, I'm sorry, I cannot really stay here for long. And I asked him, why not? He said, because I'm a veteran of the war. I was 21 when I went to the tunnel, and I fought. And he lives in the UK. And we shot the film in the UK and he came and it was amazing. And he came to Helen and me and he showed us photos of him as a 21 year old from the war. It was very emotional, it was surprising, he's only this extra. Who is a war veteran, who's playing a Minister. Manya Brachear Pashman:  Wow. Did he explain why he tried out, or auditioned to be an extra, why he wanted to do this? Guy Nattiv:  He's doing a lot of extra work in the UK. You know, he moved to the UK and is an extra in a lot of movies. And when he saw that this movie exists, he said, I must come, I must be one of those ministers. And we needed a desk full of ministers, you know, and he was the right age. So he's just an extra. That's what he does. I don't know if he thought that he would be in the same situation. I don't think that he thought that. Because he didn't read the script. It was a very emotional moment. And a very emotional moment for Helen. Manya Brachear Pashman: So this was filmed in the UK? Guy Nattiv: It was filmed in an Indian School, outside of London. The Indian abandoned school that was basically huge, like, massive. Arad Sawat, who is my production designer, he basically created the entire kiriya [campus/city], and war room and all the bunker and Golda's kitchen, he built it from scratch, exactly like it was in Israel. And it was crazy. It's just like walking into the 70s. Me, as a grown up, you know, and seeing Helen as Golda. And the commanders. It was surreal. Just surreal. Manya Brachear Pashman:  And how did you gather those kinds of personal details about her life? In other words, like, did you have pictures, plenty of photo photographs to base that on? Guy Nattiv:  My two sources were Adam, her bodyguard, that gave me all the information, and her press secretary, who's 91, who told me everything about her, and books that were available for us, and protocols. It was very specific protocols that showed us how everything went down. Manya Brachear Pashman:  Did Helen spend a lot of time with those people as well to really get a sense, and I'm curious how else she prepared, if you know, how else she prepared for this role, to really embody the former prime minister? Guy Nattiv: It was her own private process. I didn't get into it so much. But I think that she read all the books. She worked with a dialect coach to understand how the Milwaukee accent, to talk in the Milwaukee accent. Walk the walk. I think she prepared also with an animal coach. There's a coach, every actor becomes, every role it's a different animal. And you behave like this animal. You take the physiques of this animal. I think she was a turtle. I think that Golda was more of a turtle. The way she spoke. Everything was so slow. So I think that she became, she did, the way she carried herself like a ship  into this. So it was a lot of metaphors, a lot of stuff, a lot of tools that help actors get into the role. But when I met her, and that was after like three and a half months we didn't talk, she was Golda. It's almost like she got into the trailer as Helen and she came out as Golda. We didn't see Helen, we saw Golda. Even when we spoke and we ate lunch with her, we saw Golda. And so at the end of the 37 days of shooting, I was like, you know, I don't remember how you look like, Helen. And only in Berlin Film Festival, when she gave us Helen Mirren, is where we really saw her. Manya Brachear Pashman:  So you mentioned Berlin, the film has premiered there in Berlin, also has premiered in Israel. I'm curious how audiences have received it in both places. Has it hit different chords in different countries?  Guy Nattiv:  When non Jews see the movie, I mean, they have lack of emotional baggage. And they see it as something foreign in a way. But for Jews, for Israelis, there's a lot of emotional aspects to it. So it's, yeah, it's different. It's a different view. But a lot of people that are not Jews are still really like, this is such an interesting, we didn't even know about her. You know, a lot of people are learning who she was. And they didn't know. It's like she paved the way to Margaret Thatcher. And to Angela Merkel. So they see now what's the origin of that. Manya Brachear Pashman:  That's a really wonderful point, it being filmed in the UK and premiering in Berlin. Guy Nattiv:  [Angela] Merkel said that Golda was her inspiration. Manya Brachear Pashman:  So how do you expect it to resonate here in the United States? Guy Nattiv:  I really feel that it's just starting out right now, we had an Academy screening, and I'm getting amazing text messages from people from that generation. But I also would love for younger generation to know about that and explore Golda. Yeah, I mean, I'm interested to know, to see how it is. But I know that it's very emotional for the Jewish community. I can feel that. Manya Brachear Pashman:  Do you think this film will change how people view Golda Meir and Israel's leaders in general? Guy Nattiv:  I hope it will spark a nerve in a way that we are in the same situation now. And people will see that history repeats itself, in a way. It's not the same exact situation. But it's the blindness that our leaders are in right now. And I hope it will bring a different narrative to the character of Golda, and who she was, not just the poster, not just the scapegoat. Because she was the scapegoat of this war. It was easy to blame her for all the faults of her commanders and all the other human intelligence commanders and what happened there. But it's just, she's not the only one. She's not the scapegoat. She was actually very valuable for Israel, because she brought the shipments from the state, of the planes and the weapons. She was in charge of it. And I think without that, we would probably find ourselves in a different situation. Manya Brachear Pashman:  Golda was the first female head of government in the Middle East. Do you think her gender had something to do with her being blamed or the being labeled the scapegoat, as you said?  Guy Nattiv:  Absolutely. Absolutely. I truly believe that with more female leaders in this world, the world will be a better place. I feel that men proved us wrong. You know, I want to see Tzipi Livni leading Israel again. I want to see more women in key roles and leading countries. I think the world would be a better place.  Manya Brachear Pashman:  Guy, thank you so much. Really appreciate you sitting down with us. Guy Nattiv:  Thank you. 

 It was a fierce football rivalry fought not on the pitch but on social media and at the High Courts of Justice in London.  In this episode, we'll delve into the fierce rivalry between football wives Coleen Rooney and Rebekah Vardy, the libel case that followed, and the rise of WAG culture in Britain.   The cult of the “wag” Who were Coleen Rooney and Rebekah Vardy? Coleen Rooney's revelation  The feud between Coleen Rooney & Rebekah Vardy Rebekah Vardy takes Coleen Rooney to court Trademarking Wagatha Christie  Full interactive transcript, subtitles and key vocabulary available on the website: https://www.leonardoenglish.com/podcasts/vardy-vs-rooney ---You might like:

In this episode, we will discuss the Union Judiciary of India, which is the highest court in the country. We will cover the structure of the Supreme Court, its jurisdiction and powers, and some of the landmark cases that it has decided. We will start by discussing the judicial structure in India. The Indian judiciary is a unitary system, which means that there is a single hierarchy of courts throughout the country. The Supreme Court is at the top of the hierarchy, followed by the High Courts, and then the lower courts. Next, we will discuss the jurisdiction and powers of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has original, appellate, and advisory jurisdiction. Its original jurisdiction is limited to a few specific types of cases, such as disputes between the Union government and the states. Its appellate jurisdiction is much broader, and it can hear appeals from decisions of the High Courts. The Supreme Court also has advisory jurisdiction, which means that it can give its opinion on legal matters to the government. Finally, we will discuss some of the landmark cases that the Supreme Court has decided. These cases have had a significant impact on the development of Indian law and society. For example, the Supreme Court has decided cases on issues such as the right to privacy, the right to education, and the right to a clean environment. This episode will provide you with a comprehensive overview of the Union Judiciary of India. By the end of the episode, you will have a good understanding of the structure, jurisdiction, and powers of the Supreme Court, as well as some of the landmark cases that it has decided. Keywords: Union Judiciary Supreme Court Original jurisdiction Appellate jurisdiction Advisory jurisdiction Landmark cases Right to privacy Right to education Right to a clean environment Call to action: If you are interested in learning more about the Union Judiciary of India, I encourage you to visit the website of the Supreme Court of India. You can also find a number of books and articles on the subject. #IndianJudiciary #SupremeCourtIndia #JudicialStructureIndia #UnionJudiciaryIndia #WritJurisdiction #ContemptOfCourt #OriginalJurisdiction #AppellateJurisdiction #Article32 #Article131 #JudicialReview #FundamentalRights #LegalRights #ConstitutionalLaw #AdministrativeLaw #CriminalLaw #CivilLaw #SupremeCourtCases #IndianLaw

Itumeleng Kekana is an accomplished individual with a Bachelor of Laws (LL.B.) degree from the University of South Africa (UNISA). She is an Advocate of the High Court of South Africa and the founding director of Bathuseng Consulting, a case management company, and Bathuseng Legal.

Itumeleng is a trailblazer who identified a gap and seized the opportunity to combine her entrepreneurial passion with her expertise. This led to the establishment of Bathuseng Consulting, a unique fusion of Law and Occupational Therapy. Throughout her career, she has gained experience in various legal divisions including personal injury claims, labour law, medical negligence, third-party claims and litigation in both Magistrates and High Courts.

Bathuseng Legal, another venture led by Itumeleng, operates as a legal consultancy providing a range of services, including a unique specialization in sports law - and as a sports law agent she brings her expertise to this distinct legal field.

Itumeleng Kekana launched WILEW (Women in Law Empowerment Workshops), a remarkable initiative aimed at empowering women through legal education by providing them with valuable information about alternative career paths within the legal sector. Through these workshops, she strives to support and uplift women in the legal profession.  We would love to hear from you, catch up with us on Instagram @sister_in_law_ and @ma_tumi --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/tebello-motshwane/message

Hosts: Leah Murray and Greg Skordas Leah and Greg talk about federal court cases that have reached high rulings. A federal appeals court has questions about the abortion pill mifepristone and the FDA's approval of it. On the other side, a bill that would ban assault weapons in the state of Illinois was blocked by the Supreme Court. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In this episode, Shrikrishna Upadhyaya and Satya Sahu discuss the findings from the India Justice Report 2022, particularly the vacancies and infrastructure constraints within the judiciary and police and second order effects of the shortages. Do follow IVM Podcasts on social media. We are @IVMPodcasts on Facebook, Twitter, & Instagram. https://twitter.com/IVMPodcasts https://www.instagram.com/ivmpodcasts/?hl=en https://www.facebook.com/ivmpodcasts/ You can check out our website at https://shows.ivmpodcasts.com/featured Follow the show across platforms: Spotify, Google Podcasts, Apple Podcasts, JioSaavn, Gaana, Amazon Music Do share the word with your folks!See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

For any questions, suggestions or queries, you can follow and reach out to us on twitter https://twitter.com/AbhasMishra or our website https://anchor.fm/abhas-mishra We are joined today with one of the youngest mover and shaker at the highest court of the nation. Sansriti Pathak joins us on this episode to discuss her journey from being a lost law student to an Advocate on Record of the Supreme Court with her own independent office and practice. She graduated in first class from University of Pune, obtained great marks in AIBE and scored all India Rank 3 in the prestigious AOR examination. She has multiple case laws and publications in her name as she regularly appears and has been involved in multiple constitutional bench cases and played a key role in carving out points of law in many of them. Presently she has a pan national practice where she is focussed in Supreme Court but travels all across India for matters involving varied questions of law in different High Courts and Tribunals. She is also the Standing Counsel for Daman and Diu, Special counsel for Uttar Pradesh and Panel A counsel for Central Government In this episode we go down the memory lane as she recounts being a good but distracted student and how working with a constitutional expert in her formative years moulded her into one of the sharpest legal minds of her generation. Join us on this roller coaster journey as two introverted first generation lawyers have a friendly chat about how they got here. Reach out to her on: sansriti.pathak@gmail.com Or visit her office: A-62, Gulmohar Park, New Delhi-110049 Phone No. 011-40110710 Views and opinions expressed by the guest are their own and do not reflect the opinions of the channel or the host. None of the views are meant to malign any religion, ethnicity, caste, organization, company or individual. The contents of the show are meant to spread awareness and should not be considered legal advice. Do not imply solicitation. The host will not accept any liability for the actions of the listener. Always consult a lawyer. LinkedIN profile of our Chambers: https://www.linkedin.com/company/76478950/ कानूनी कहानियों और व्याख्यान के लिए सुनें Kanooni Kisse

A version of this essay was published by thepamphlet.in at https://www.thepamphlet.in/en/shadow-warrior-a-deplorable-supreme-court-decision-on-demonetization/The Supreme Court, in a 4:1 judgment, held that the 2016 Demonetization was acceptable. The dissenting judge, well, dissented, saying that it was flawed. This decision sets an awful precedent that will come back to haunt us all, and the judiciary is respectful of precedent. The law of unintended consequences will strike.It is not that demonetization per se was a bad idea, or that it was executed poorly, or that its goals were not met. It was a pretty good idea, it was executed moderately well, and the declared goals, to reduce corruption, terror funding through counterfeit notes, and to increase the proportion of ‘white' money in circulation, were met to an extent. No, the problem is twofold: one, an unprecedented and unwarranted level of judicial overreach and encroachment into the domain of the Executive; two, the common sense principle of fait accompli: this is a done deal, and it is essentially impossible to undo it. The point is that the judiciary has its role, which is in hair-splitting legal jargon and in particular the verbiage of the Constitution. With all due respect, judges are not trained in other disciplines, and would be hard-pressed to understand economics, or engineering, or medicine, or military affairs. They simply will not be able to make judicious decisions (to give them credit, the majority opinion did concede this). But then, they should not take up such cases in the first place. I can imagine motivated petitioners waiting in the wings to now ask the Supreme Court to undo the 1971 Bangladesh War, the decision to impose covid-related mandates, or the Mangalyaan space probe. In fact, you could find somebody to make a cogent argument that the Constitution should not have been accepted in 1950, and that it should be rolled back. There is no end to such litigation, and if it is allowed to proliferate, it would clog up the entire judiciary. Of course, the entire judiciary is already clogged up with 30 million cases, so why open the flood-gates and invite more frivolous litigation?As for the law of unintended consequences, there is the recent experience of the Democrats in the US. After years of claiming ex-President Trump's tax returns would reveal deep, dark secrets, they forced him to reveal them: and it was a damp squib, with nothing of significance, no tax evasion. But the precedent has been set, and the Republicans will now use this to harass every Democrat alleging skeletons in their tax closets. The Indian Supreme Court should stick to its fundamental task: interpreting the Constitution. Not being a lawyer, I cannot say authoritatively that there is no constitutional issue in the anti-demonetization lawsuit, but I doubt it. It is a purely administrative issue, and thus the domain of the Executive, just as making a multitude of daily decisions is. The activist Indian courts have long been accused of interfering in everything while at the same time creating cozy little fiefdoms for themselves, for instance in the continuous creation of post-retirement sinecures for judges, the most recent being the demand that retired judges should be on the committee choosing the Chief Election Commissioner.The most obvious example of bad faith is the judiciary's closed and opaque Collegium system, wherein they nominate and appoint themselves, with the predictable result of nepotism and hereditary elites. It is high time that Parliament put a stop to this, and created new laws that mandate a role for the Executive. The proposed NJAC could be one way forward. If the NJAC is unconstitutional, well then, bring in a constitutional amendment. Many people have talked about judicial reforms; I too took a stab at it a few years ago (“Can we fix the deeply troubled judiciary?” Swarajya, May 2018). One of my points was the radical restructuring of the system into a Supreme Court that only hears constitutional cases, and a new set of regional Courts of Appeal, with status almost equivalent to the Supreme Court, that hear other things beyond the ken of state High Courts. There is a serious concern about which cases the Supreme Court chooses to hear. At the moment, it appears whimsical. Why on earth would the SC hear cases about cricket, which is a mere entertainment? Why on earth would the SC not hear petitions about the 1990s ethnic cleansing of Kashmiri Hindus (it has refused to do so three times already).The terror onslaught in Jammu and Kashmir is not history. We saw with horror the terrorist attack on Hindus in Jammu's Rajouri just days ago, where the attackers reportedly identified Hindus by their Aadhar cards, and then shot them. This is an urgent, ongoing problem, and why does the court refuse to hear it, while at the same time accepting a case on the 1948 assassination of Mahatma Gandhi? Next, someone will file a PIL demanding the undoing of that assassination.Why does the SC accept PILs (Public Interest Litigations) put up by motivated NGOs, often with foreign funding? These people are able to get, through the back door, rapid decisions that affect the entire country, whereas the cases should properly be heard at the local level in District Courts, and only be elevated to the Supreme Court through a proper process if they actually have merit.Apart from this, some actions are virtually impossible to undo: time and tide wait for no man. How could the SC, like King Canute who ordered the waves to retreat, even possibly consider the undoing of demonetization? How will it be done? What about the major moves in digitization that resulted, the UPI revolution, the trillions of rupees flowing through a payment system that is now ubiquitous and available to anyone with a mobile phone?India has now become one of the most digitally connected countries in the world, but the amount of cash in the system is now even greater than at the time of demonetization. Can the court explain why? So it is not as though cash suddenly disappeared. Yes, there was a temporary crunch, and yes, it was hardship for many, but on average, most people have recovered.Malign NGOs have continually opposed national interests: remember Sterlite? Or the Sardar Sarovar dam? By accepting a plea that was clearly inappropriate, probably politically motivated, and in any case something that would be virtually impossible to undo, the Supreme Court has set a poor precedent. The Indian judiciary acts as a law unto itself, unaccountable to anybody else. This is wrong. As the President and the Vice President mentioned recently, it is time the judiciary reformed itself. I suspect it will have to be done forcibly, not voluntarily.1090 words, 3 Jan 2023 This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit rajeevsrinivasan.substack.com

This November marks 10 years of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, or the POCSO Act as it is commonly known. POCSO has been in the news recently - with two High Courts in India, the Karnataka High Court and the Delhi High Court dealing with cases of teenagers, under the age of 18, in consensual relationships. The Karnataka High Court said the Law Commission of India may have to rethink the age criteria in law for consensual sex to address the issue mutual love affairs amongst minor girls and boys, who are aged above 16 but are below 18.  The POCSO Act defines a child as any person under the age of 18, and a child cannot consent.  This is not the first time the debate about age of consent has come up -- in fact, the POCSO Bill when it was originally introduced had a clause recognising consent of minors between the ages of 16 and 18, but this was then removed after the Bill went through a Parliamentary Standing Committee.  Studies have shown that a number of cases filed under the law are by parents, against boys who have eloped with their daughters - leading to many ramifications for the teenage couples, from girls being put into government homes, to boys being held in custody, to families having to go through the process of a case and trial, which can take months, or sometimes years.  But while there are calls to take into consideration the consent of older teenagers, there are concerns too - how can young people be safeguarded from exploitative or unsafe relationships? Will lowering the age of consent be used to justify cases of child marriage or trafficking? How can evolving consent in adolescents be assessed appropriately? Does an act as broad as POCSO need a refocused look?

Guys, here's episode # 2 of the Weekly round-up, catching you up on the weekly, headlines, results & rankings for Professional and College squash game.     Covered this week: Why was Squash mentioned by the Supreme Court? Asal does another candid interview with SquashMad.com The Nation's Cup in New Zealand wraps ups, mixed feelings all around (but not from Bill) College Squash releases it's first rankings list And what was it like at this year's Ivy League Scrimmages, Bill gives his onsite experience Don't forget, send in your fan questions or comments and we will read them on air.  Thanks for listening!   *************** REACH OUT:  FAN FOLLOW UP > The Appendix!! In this segment, we will be sharing the feedback, comments, insights, you name it!  So reach out us on social media or email squashradio@gmail.com. As always, thanks for listening!  

What is a Collegium? It is a group of Chief Justice of India or CJI and the four senior-most judges of the Supreme Court that decides appointments to the apex court. These appointments could be in the form of elevation, when High Court judges are appointed to the Supreme Court or direct appointments when experienced lawyers may be directly appointed as apex court judges. High Courts too have a collegium. They are headed by the chief justice of the court. The next two senior-most judges are part of the HC collegium. However, the HC collegium only makes recommendations for appointments to HC. The final decisions are taken by a collegium of the CJI and two senior-most judges of the SC. This collegium of the three senior-most SC judges also decides transfers of HC judges in the country. What does the Constitution say? Under Article 124, the appointment of Supreme Court judges should be made by the President after consultation with such judges of the High Courts and the Supreme Court as the President may deem necessary. The CJI is to be consulted in all appointments except his or her own. Topsy-turvy land of judicial appointments After the 1981 SP Gupta case, also called the "First Judges case", it was suggested that the executive must have the biggest say in judicial appointments. 12 years later, in 1993, a nine-judge bench in the "Second Judges case" said that the CJI must be given priority in such appointments. This was reinstated in the Third Judges case in 1998. Since then, the judges are appointed by the collegium system. What does the government say? The central government has not been a supporter of the collegium system. According to the government, the current system is not transparent and can be blamed for the high number of vacancies in the judiciary. It has also come under fire for not being representative enough. Women, Dalits and STs are underrepresented in the higher judiciary in India. In 2014, NDA government had brought National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Act to accord a major role to the executive in appointing judges to the higher judiciary. But it was struck down by the Supreme Court in 2015.

There's a flaw in CJI U.U. Lalit's recommendations for Supreme Court judges. It ignores some high courts, women, and ST judges.

Syed Akbar Hussain is from Pakistan. He is founder of The ADR Initiative and established an accredited mediation training program for law students in Pakistan. He is an ACC mediator, arbitrator, and negotiator in the US, China, and Singapore as well as a World Bank Local Expert and Advocate in the High Courts in Pakistan.

On November 5, 1970, Shahnaz Gul was arrested by the Karachi police on charges of killing Mustafa Zaidi. She was represented by S S Shaikh, one of Karachi's most well-known lawyers. The trial was a media circus -- Shahnaz was hounded by press photographers. Dozens of members of the public went to the hearings, hanging around court to catch a glimpse of Shahnaz, whose legendary beauty is still spoken of with reverence in Karachi. Shahnaz's lawyers maintained that she was innocent. Lawyer Sara Malkani joins the episode to talk about the trial, and how women are treated by the criminal justice system in Pakistan, and what has changed for women in the past fifty years.About Sara Malkani: Sara Malkani is an advocate of the High Courts of Pakistan with over 10 years of experience practicing law. She has extensive experience in criminal litigation, family law, labor and employment law, constitutional litigation and international human rights law. Sara has a Juris Doctor from the University of Michigan Law School at Ann Arbor and a B.A. with high honours from Princeton University, where her thesis was awarded the Class of 1869 Prize in Ethics.  Sara actively pursues human rights cases and has an extensive pro bono practice. She is a co-founder and Chairperson of the Women Lawyers' Association, an organization that works to promote gender equality and continuing legal education in the legal profession.  Credits:Image of Shahnaz Gul from Mashriq newspaper, published December 5, 1970. Courtesy the Liaquat National Library archive.

A version of this essay was published by firstpost.com at https://www.firstpost.com/india/a-tale-of-two-supreme-courts-best-practices-from-the-us-and-india-need-to-be-adopted-10875201.htmlI must confess a little shamefacedly that I watched the godawful fuss in the US following the SCOTUS’ overturning of Roe v Wade with some smugness. That was because, at long last, the Supreme Court of India finally threw the book at Teesta Setalvad, R B Shreekumar, Sanjiv Bhatt et al, in what had long been a travesty of justice. I began to think that maybe the Indian system, although glacially slow, has a thing or two to teach the much-ballyhooed Americans.Sadly, my joy was short-lived. Within a week, there was the spectacle of a two SC judge-bench in India harshly criticizing Nupur Sharma. They denied her plea to bundle various FIRs filed in far-off places like Calcutta, expressed personal opinions not germane to the plea, and lectured her on how a blasphemy allegation against her was her fault. They had apparently made up their minds without considering any evidence. I am properly chastened, and I am eating crow. Hubris before nemesis. I should have known. India’s institutions are severely compromised. Even the CJI implied in a speech in the US that India’s institutions are less developed because India is not a “mature democracy”.Thanks for reading Shadow Warrior! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.Earlier, I used to stand in awe of the Indian judiciary. My great-uncle was a Chief Justice, and a family friend was on the Supreme Court. Two friends are or were High Court justices. I have always had a good impression of them. But over time, I began to see problems in the Indian system, and I wrote in 2018 about urgently needed judicial reform in Can We Fix the Deeply Troubled Judiciary?. The PIL (Public Interest Litigation) system has been weaponized, for one thing. The backlog of cases is daunting, for another. Several years later, the same problems have gotten worse, including structural issues about the Supreme Court straying far beyond its remit of interpreting the Constitution. But in India, a judge recently condemned ‘social media’ for alleging that he had violated both decorum and propriety in what an impartial observer might consider extraneous comments.In the US, those who were upset with the SCOTUS’ action roundly abused it; for instance an Indian-origin politician named Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal. I don’t know about the merit of her argument (and based on her ultra-woke-ness, it may have none), but it is very interesting that she could say rude things like this about the court and judges. In India, draconian ‘contempt of court’ provisions would be applied, and the critic jailed, for even mild criticism..That is one of the differences between the US judiciary and the Indian. There are several others. To begin with they are a) selection, b) tenure, c) ambit/remit and jurisdiction, d) appraisal and termination.Thank you for reading Shadow Warrior. This post is public so feel free to share it.Selection and AccountabilityIn the US, quite a few judges are elected: I have seen their names on election billboards, and so far as I can tell this is for state judge positions. That sounds odd to Indians partly because the US is a federation of states, whereas India is a union, and that makes a difference. Anyway, I am under the impression that most judges in say, the California state judiciary, are directly elected by the public. On the other hand, federal judges are appointed by the government, but they also have to go through a confirmation process wherein they are basically grilled by the Senate, i.e. the equivalent of the Rajya Sabha. Thus, elected officials representing individual voters do ‘elect’ the judges. This brings in a level of accountability.There is the obvious flaw that a determined government can “pack” the courts with people they like, especially if they have an ideological ax to grind. This only works, of course, if the Executive Branch can convince a majority in the Senate, i.e. the Legislative Branch. In fact, it is alleged, and it is likely, that ex-POTUS Trump packed the courts with people he liked. Even then, it is hard to make the case that the US Supreme Court is representative of public opinion. Look at how the old school tie works, and how a discreet endorsement here and there might have worked.In India, it is much worse. Judges themselves select new judges, and will not tolerate the Executive branch or Legislative branch getting involved in this. So far as I know, this is unique in the whole world. When the Indian Government suggested a National Judicial Appointments Committee (NJAC) that would have input from the other branches, the judicial branch shot it down claiming it was unconstitutional. I wonder if a National Judicial Service is a good idea, because the obvious rot in the Indian administrative services gives one pause. Common sense suggests a selection mechanism where there is a level of outside input. Without that, there is every incentive to promote friends and relatives of current judges. In fact, it turns out that many current Supreme Court judges are indeed related to former judges or politicians. It would be better to adopt the US system of confirmations by the legislature following a nomination by the government, of course with advice from the judiciary. TenureOnce selected, a US Supreme Court judge is in place for life, until he/she retires voluntarily, or dies, or is impeached. This means judicial appointments can have a very long impact, because a judge may be on the SCOTUS for fifty years. But judges have also been known to change in office, for instance moderating extreme views they might have entered with.In India, Supreme Court judges retire at 65, state High Court judges retire at 62.  On the face of it, this seems like a more sensible system, because the judges are still relatively young and vigorous while on the court. However, there is a pernicious loophole: retiring judges are then absorbed into other positions, which means there is an incentive for them to write judgments that make them attractive to possible future employers. Judges get such substantial pensions and other privileges that it would not be a hardship to place a moratorium on them accepting post-retirement employment. In the US case, it is unlikely that a SCOTUS judge would take up post-retirement employment, even though I wonder if they are explicitly forbidden from doing so. (Even post-retirement POTUSes don’t take up new jobs. They just sort of fade away).A via media on tenure may be a better idea: raise Indian judges’ retirement age to, say 70, considering that people are healthier and live longer these days, and that they have valuable expertise, but strictly forbid any post-retirement employment of any kind, including commissions, arbitration, etc. Ambit/remit and jurisdictionIn my earlier essay, I pointed out the need to bifurcate the top court and to clearly specify its scope. Here the US structure is clearly superior, and could be adopted more or less in toto.For, in the US, the Supreme Court hears Constitutional cases, and only Constitutional cases. All other cases go elsewhere: Federal Circuit Courts that are courts of appeal, and Federal District Courts that are trial courts. I think this fine distinction can be ignored, and India should institute four regional Courts of Appeal that will hear cases that exceed the state High Courts’ jurisdiction, for instance inter-state disputes. One of the issues today is that the SC seems whimsical in what cases it decides to hear, and what it drops. For instance, it declined to hear a case brought by Kashmiri Hindus about their genocide saying the matter was too old, but paradoxically it agreed to hear a case about the Mahatma Gandhi assassination, even though that was much older. And it likes to take up cases on cricket! Besides, certain influential lawyers (and certain NGOs) can get the SC to hear their clients at midnight, while others languish for decades. There must be clear guidelines provided by Parliament perhaps through a Constitutional Amendment. This should also put paid to such quaint notions as “constitutional morality” (Constitutions are not moral documents) or “original intent”, the US version of “basic structure” (who knows what was going on in the minds of the Constituent Assembly; only what they wrote down can be discussed).In addition, the PIL mechanism should be dropped, and all cases required to be filed at the District or Magistrate court, and they should bubble up through the system in case they have merit. It is deeply offensive to watch those with deep pockets, especially malign foreign-funded NGOs, getting their way with little effort by just waltzing directly into the SC.Appraisal and terminationJudges are extremely important members of society, and the Supreme Court in particular is the last refuge for a common man. There should be mechanisms to ensure that the judiciary does not go off on tangents, but that they are working towards the common good of the nation. An ancient judge was executed and flayed alive. His skin was used to upholster a judge’s chair. What is more, his successor, his son, was forced to sit in that chair, on his dead father’s skin, to deliver his judgments. That is barbaric, but it does make a point. Judges must be immaculately neutral and scrupulous.So what is the metric for appraisal? In India, one should be the quick disposal of cases. Pendency is a huge problem, and a good bit of it is because of too few working days: too many holidays, and a two-month vacation in summer and a two week vacation in winter. These days there is no reason not to run the courts in multiple shifts, including a night shift. And most work should be done online, so that litigants needn’t waste time waiting around courthouses all day.There should be clear Key Result Areas, and judges need to be measured on meeting them. These metrics can be determined by Parliament through a Constitutional Amendment. Justice delayed is justice denied, after all.What if a judge fails in these metrics, or in other ways? There was a High Court judge, with the memorable name of Karnan, who was sent to six months’ imprisonment for contempt of Supreme Court. The rules for impeachment should be made more transparent. At the moment, it looks like judges can close ranks and prevent impeachment, or at least make it very difficult in India, and possibly even in the US. There has been only one successful impeachment of a SCOTUS judge so far as I can tell: one Justice Samuel Chase in 1805. But the US senate acquitted him, so he returned to service. I am not aware of a single Indian judge who has been impeached, but surely some deserve to be. While India’s democracy “matures”, there is nothing wrong in taking some lessons from the US about what works. There is no need to import everything wholesale, but pick and choose judiciously. As has been discussed by many, it would be a good idea to also emulate the structure of the US Constitution, a brief document of 10 or so pages. A new Constitution is needed in India, as the prolix version we have now is failing to stand the test of time, as the many Amendments indicate. All the more reason why we need a better-designed Supreme Court to interpret it, and it alone. 1900 words, 5 Jul 2022 This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit rajeevsrinivasan.substack.com

Top #news today:>Govt grants age waiver for Agnipath amid stir>Govt clears appointments, 6 High Courts to get new Chief Justices>Biden on recession: 'Not inevitable but we're in a stronger position'>U.S. NSA: Playing long game with India, engaged in ‘deep' dialogue>Priyanka Chopra shares glimpse of daughter Malti Marie in birthday post for 'nani' Madhu Chopra>Manoj Tiwary wins hearts with adorable gesture for family; Bengal player shows handwritten note after scoring 100Listen here:@HindustanTimes #News #DailyNews #DailyUpdates #currentaffairs #Podcasts #HTSmartCast

This week on Womanity-Women in Unity, in our series on women in law, Dr. Amaleya Goneos-Malka talks to Prof. Nomthandazo Ntlama-Makhanya who is a Professor of Public Law in the Department of Public Law at the Nelson R Mandela School of Law, Faculty of Law, at the University of Fort Hare. Some of her roles include acting as Head of UNESCO Oliver Tambo Chair of Human Rights, serving as the former Commissioner of the South African Judicial Services Commission (JSC) representing the Society of Law Teachers of Southern Africa, acting as a Judge of the High Courts and was appointed as a Non-Judge Member of the South African Electoral Court. Her core area of research is on Constitutional Law with a broader focus on human rights and customary law specifically on socio-economic rights, judiciary, gender equality and women's rights. Our discussion includes: women in leadership, concerted succession planning efforts, transforming gender perspectives, developing practical gender policy frameworks, human rights education that entwines both rights and responsibilities and attaining an academic education to open doors that exceed your expectations. Prof. Ntlama-Makhanya shares how she overcame some of the challenges in her life through focus and a never give up approach, like having a brain tumour and going on to attain her doctorate. She reminds us that your past does not define your future. Tune in for more….

Guest: Ria Ledwaba, SAFA presidential candidate 

20220429 - NYC Congresswoman Nicole Malliotakis On NY Redistricting Maps Denied By High Courts by Kevin McCullough Radio

The High Court has ruled in favour of Grounded Kiwis, finding that the MIQ system was in parts unjustified and operated unfairly. What will this mean for the government... and to voters? David Parker's tax "investigation" – can we all agree they can't fool anyone and clearly want to introduce more taxes for the rich? Is this wise right now? The government is introducing a card for people who are actually exempt from wearing a mask. This seems like a very 2020 thing to do.. do we still need this stuff? A UK study found lunch breaks have reduced from one hour to an average of 29 minutes. Who still takes a lunch break? Jack Tame and David Farrar joined Heather du Plessis-Allan on the Huddle. LISTEN ABOVE 

Validity of reassessment notices issued under the old regime after the implementation of new reassessment provisions has been the subject matter of litigation recently. The Podcast summarizes the findings of different High Courts and highlights the correct position of law on the said issue.  Audio Source: An article published on the LKS website in January 2021 https://www.lakshmisri.com/insights/articles/reassessment-notices-issued-under-old-regime-an-attempt-to-revive-a-dead-law/  Author:  Devashish Jain, Sr. Associate (LKS)  Voice: Ena Chakravorty, Head- PR & Corporate Communications (LKS)  www.lakshmisri.com

ವೀಧಿ ಸೆಂಟರ್ ಫಾರ್ ಲೀಗಲ್ ಪಾಲಿಸಿ ನ ಅಲೋಕ್ ಪ್ರಸನ್ನ ಕುಮಾರ್ ಅವರು ರಾಷ್ಟ್ರದ 73 ನೇ ಗಣರಾಜ್ಯೋತ್ಸವದ ಸಂದರ್ಭದಲ್ಲಿ ಭಾರತ ಗಣರಾಜ್ಯವು ಹೇಗೆ ಸಾಗುತ್ತಿದೆ ಎಂಬುದನ್ನು ಚರ್ಚಿಸಲು ತಲೆ-ಹರಟೆ ಕನ್ನಡ ಪಾಡ್ಕಾಸ್ಟ್ ಗೆ ಹಿಂದಿರುಗಿದ್ದಾರೆ.Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy's Alok Prasanna Kumar returns to the Thale-Harate to discuss how the Republic of India is faring, on the occasion of the nation's 73rd Republic Day.Announcement! You can now watch new Thale-Harate episodes on YouTube with video! Visit https://ivm.today/haratevideo to see all Thale-Harate video episodes.ನಮ್ಮ ತಲೆ-ಹರಟೆ ಕನ್ನಡ ಪಾಡ್ಕಾಸ್ಟ್ ನ 127ನೇ ಸಂಚಿಕೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಅಲೋಕ್ ಪ್ರಸನ್ನ ಕುಮಾರ್ ಅವರು ನಿರೂಪಕ ಪವನ್ ಶ್ರೀನಾಥ್ ಅವರೊಂದಿಗೆ ಗಣರಾಜ್ಯವನ್ನು ಸಕ್ರಿಯಗೊಳಿಸುವಲ್ಲಿ ವ್ಯಕ್ತಿಗಳು, ಸಂಸ್ಥೆಗಳು ಹಾಗು ಸಮಾಜದ ಪಾತ್ರವನ್ನು ಕುರಿತು ಮಾತನಾಡುತ್ತಾರೆ.ನಮ್ಮ ಮೂಲಭೂತಹಕ್ಕು ಹೈಕೋರ್ಟ್ಗಳು ಅಥವ ಸುಪ್ರಿಂ ಕೋರ್ಟ್ನ ದೊಡ್ಡ ಕೇಸಿನ ನಿರ್ಧರದ ಮೇಲಲ್ಲ, ಬದಲಿಗೆ, ನಮ್ಮ ದೇಶದಲ್ಲಿ ಪೋಲಿಸ್ ಠಾಣಿಗಳು ಮತ್ತು ಸ್ಥಳೀಯ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯಗಳು ಹೇಗೆ ಕಾರ್ಯನಿರ್ವಹಿಸುತ್ತವೆ ಎಂಬುದರ ಮೂಲ ನಮಗೆ ನಮ್ಮ ನಿಜವಾದ ಮೂಲಭೂತ ಹಕ್ಕುಗಳ ಅರಿವಾಗುತ್ತದೆ ಎಂದು ತಿಳಿಸುತ್ತಾರೆ.ಕೊನೆಗೆ, ಅಲೋಕ್ ಹಾಗು ಪವನ್ ಅವರ ನಮ್ಮ ಶಾಸಕರು, ಸಂಸದರು ಮತ್ತು ಇತರ ಚುನಾಯಿತಿ ಪ್ರತಿನಿಧಿಗಳಿಂದ ನಾಗರಿಕರಾದ ನಾವು ಏನನ್ನು ನಿರೀಕ್ಷಿಸುತ್ತಿದ್ದೇವೆ ಎಂಬುದರ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಚರ್ಚಿಸುತ್ತಾರೆ. ಬನ್ನಿ ಕೇಳಿ! We often pay more importance to Independence Day and mostly think about the parades on Republic Day. However, it is the Republic of India that protects our fundamental rights, and it is 72 years ago that the Constitution of India came into existence and became the law of the land.On Episode 127 of the Thale-Harate Kannada Podcast, Alok Prasanna Kumar talks to Pavan Srinath about individuals, institutions and the role of society in enabling a vibrant Republic. They discuss how it is not big cases in High Courts and Supreme Courts that decide the true fundamental rights of Indian cities. Instead, rights are truly realised by how police stations and local courts operate in the country. By how India's Criminal Procedure Code and the Indian Penal Code are interpreted, followed or not followed by local authorities. Alok and Pavan also discuss the nature of Indian representative democracy, and what we as citizens have come to expect from our MLAs, MPs and other elected representatives. Alok Prasanna Kumar is a returning guest on Thale-Harate, a prolific writer and researcher, co-founder of the Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy, and a former Supreme Court lawyer.Suggested Podcast Episodes:- ಅಭಿವ್ಯಕ್ತಿ vs ಸ್ವಾತಂತ್ರ್ಯ. Freedom or Expression? (with Alok and Deepika Kinhal)- ಪೌರತ್ವ ಕಾಯ್ದೆ ತಿದ್ದುಪಡಿ. CAA 2019 Explained (with Alok & Sarayu Natarajan)- ರಾಷ್ಟ್ರೀಯ ಪೌರತ್ವ ನೋಂದಣಿ. Understanding the NRC (with Alok & Sarayu)- ಶಾಂತಿಯುತ ಪ್ರತಿಭಟನೆಯ ಹಕ್ಕು. The Freedom to Protest (with Alok & Sarayu)- [English] The Supreme Court in 2020 on The Pragati Podcast (with Alok)- [English] The Anti Defection Law on The Pragati Podcast (with Alok)ಫಾಲೋ ಮಾಡಿ. Follow the Thalé-Haraté Kannada Podcast @haratepod. Facebook: https://facebook.com/HaratePod/ , Twitter: https://twitter.com/HaratePod/ and Instagram: https://instagram.com/haratepod/ .ಈಮೇಲ್ ಕಳಿಸಿ, send us an email at haratepod@gmail.com or send a tweet and tell us what you think of the show!You can listen to this show and other awesome shows on the new and improved IVM Podcast App on Android: https://ivm.today/android or iOS: https://ivm.today/ios and check out our website at https://ivmpodcasts.com/ .You can also listen to the podcast on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Google Podcasts, Gaana, Amazon Music Podcasts, JioSaavn, Castbox, or any other podcast app. We also have some video episodes up on YouTube! ಬನ್ನಿ ಕೇಳಿ!

A version of this essay was published by swarajyamag.com at https://swarajyamag.com/politics/was-it-a-plot-to-assassinate-the-prime-ministerThe events on January 5th were shocking: the PM’s motorcade was stopped for 15 to 20 minutes on a highway overpass, blocked by a group of ‘protesters’. His car, the only black car in the row of white cars, was completely exposed to a possible drone attack, a Stinger missile, a rocket-propelled grenade, or even an IED that could have demolished the structure. The enormity of this situation, and the implications for India’s national security, are astonishing. Here was the Prime Minister of the country with the world’s 5th largest economy and 3rd largest armed forces, a sitting duck, at a location only a few miles away from the Pakistani border. Thank you for reading Shadow Warrior. This post is public so feel free to share it.It cannot be seen as an attack on Narendra Modi, the man, but on the institution of the Prime Minister, and by extension on the Government of India. This, in a country where two Prime Ministers were earlier assassinated. It is almost an existential question. What would happen if Modi were to be killed? I hasten to add that I am certainly not advocating it, as he is the PM, and I have been a fan of his for long. But we have to think of what happens in that eventuality. The same question was asked earlier: what would happen if Modi were to lose the elections? Well, not much. Modi would take his small suitcase, and, as in the famous painting, alight from the train in his hometown in Gujarat and walk home alone, in the rain, with his umbrella. It is not "Après moi, le déluge" as in the Nehruvian vanity: somebody will rule. But the nation will be the loser, just when it is at the cusp of inflection.There have been other dramatic moments in Indian history where one man made a difference. The stray arrow that pierced the eye of Hemachandra Vikramaditya at the second battle of Panipat doomed North India to centuries of Gurkaniya Timurid rule. The beheading of Rama Raya of Vijayanagar by his own renegade troops at the battle of Talikota caused the disastrous end of that bulwark that had protected South India against invaders from the North. It may not be that bad this time if there were to be, in Karan Thapar’s immortal words in 2007, “the sudden removal of Modi”. There are others that could step in. But surely, momentum will be lost, and all those malign forces urging ‘regime change’, especially the Deep State and China and their psy-warfare organs, such as the New York Times and Global Times, will smell blood.Thanks for reading Shadow Warrior! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.I also personally do not think it was an assassination attempt. If it were, it would have succeeded because there was nothing to prevent it. It was more a signal to Narendra Modi that if he dared enter Punjab again, he would be executed. The real question is, what will happen next?We have seen this movie before. In West Bengal, there was massive election-related violence and the wanton killing of BJP and RSS people by TMC cadres. In Kerala, there have been dozens of murders of BJP/RSS people by Communists or Islamists. There were at least two earlier attempts on Modi himself: the first when Ishrat Jehan, Javed (born Pranesh Pillai) and a Pakistani were intercepted driving to Gujarat to eliminate him. The second was the bomb that went off minutes before Modi was to speak in Bihar during election campaigning some time ago. If I were to extrapolate, the federal structure of the Indian Union is itself under strain: opposition-ruled states are acting as little personal fiefdoms that are, in effect, independent nations with only a tenuous link to the Union Government. For instance, just last week, the President of India was apparently humiliated when he had to cool his heels in the Kerala Raj Bhavan after an honorary D Litt to him was denied, allegedly under pressure from the state government (which, however, cleared D Litts for an actress, Shobhana, and a musician, T M Krishna). Opposition-ruled states also did not reduce excise taxes on petrol and diesel, while at the same time opposing bringing those under GST. In Bengal, a Chief Secretary was removed by the GoI, but was re-hired by the state government. In Punjab, the DGP was just installed, hand-picked by an Indian National Congress leader. There are many more instances that we all know of.So there are under-currents of anarchy being implemented nationwide. The bottom line is that a lot of people do not want the BJP to be in power: among them, the urban chatterati who keep pointing out that the BJP only got some 36% of the total vote, while quietly omitting the fact that the sainted Jawaharlal also did not get a clear majority, only a plurality, of the vote while ruling like an arbitrary, absolute monarch for 17 long years. There are several groups hurt by various measures taken by the GoI. Among them is the ‘Chandigarh Lobby’, a group of ex-military middlemen whose handsome commissions earned from foreign arms merchants have evaporated. This explains their schadenfreude when General Bipin Rawat was killed last month, and some of the very same group showed their dismissive contempt for the PM as well.Then of course there are the arhatiyas, or middlemen, who have profited from the aftermath of the Green Revolution. Let us ignore the fact that excessive rice cultivation has led to water tables falling precipitously and groundwater poisoning through pesticide and fertilizer runoff. This is not sustainable: I am reminded of Californians cultivating rice in the desert (see my old column “Water Wars: Cauvery, Chinatown, and Cadillac Desert”). Presumably, these were the ‘protesters’ who stopped the PM’s motorcade. So exactly what are they protesting against? Their demand has already been conceded: the farm bills are withdrawn. No, they have become protesters-for-rent; they are now determined to cause trouble.Proximate, preponderant and root causesAnd that is the proximate cause of the problem. The Indian State, various anarchists have concluded, is a soft state, and they can keep escalating their demands without consequences. These ‘farmer’ protesters (including during their Republic Day 2021 shenanigans), and earlier the Shaheen Bagh protesters, realized that they could, with impunity, hold the GoI hostage. And so they will. What can be done? Clearly, large-scale force against them would boomerang. But doesn’t the GoI know who the street thugs are, as well as their shadowy handlers in India and elsewhere? If the GoI doesn’t know, why doesn’t it know? Where is the humint as well as the reams of surveillance camera video? How about tracking their bank accounts, money transactions and vehicle movements via Aadhar, PAN, UPI and Fastag? Savitri Mumukshu quoted Chanakya on twitter: “A nation has 4 threats. First, from external enemies. Next, from internal enemies helped by foreigners. Third, from external enemies helped by insiders. But most dangerous is when internal enemies are helped by internal spies, like a hidden snake lurking in the home.” As usual, he was right.The intelligence agencies, assuming they are not riddled with moles, must identify, track, and then pick off the ring-leaders one by one, quietly. You know, the 2am knock on the door. Enough already with the kadi ninda! The State must show it will impose discipline: it has a monopoly on violence. A little bit of “iron fist in the velvet glove” is salutary and a deterrent.The preponderant cause, though, is the ridiculous fact that there are elections all the time in India. Yes, ALL THE GODDAMN TIME! This is a serious distraction from the job of governing the country, and politicians must figure out what will win elections, not what is good for the country. It is high time that elections were rationalized, perhaps as follows: every five years there are national elections to Parliament. Half the states must synchronize their elections with these. In between, 2.5 years later there will be elections to the other half of the states (so that their legislatures also have a life of 5 years). If there are problems in any state and the legislatures are dismissed for some reason, President’s Rule will be imposed until the next time their elections are due. In other words, no unnecessary and frequent elections, but only to a timetable. The root cause of the problem, however, is the Indian Constitution, which has mandated the current system of continuous elections. In general, not only for this but for other reasons as well, the Constitution needs to be rewritten because it is a prolix document, largely a cut and paste of the imperial Government of India Act of 1935, with tidbits thrown in from the US and Irish constitutions. Both the constitution and the increasingly bizarre interpretations of it, especially of Articles 25-30 that render Hindus second-class citizens, are problems. A Constituent Assembly should be set up and work should begin on a simple, 10-page document rather than a 500+ page behemoth. It will be the job of the Supreme Court to handle nothing but constitutional cases, which requires judicial reforms, with Regional Courts of Appeal set up to hear inter-state disputes and non-constitutional matters elevated from High Courts. And the National Judicial Appointments Commission needs to be revived as well, with a clear mandate for the legislature to approve the appointment of judges. So there are larger problems that need to be solved. But at the moment, the attack on the Prime Minister needs to be taken as an affront to the dignity of the Indian Union, and whoever instigated or participated in it needs to be taught a lesson. Some heads must roll. Otherwise the impression that India is a Soft State, especially after the mysterious death of the Chief of Defense Staff, will gain currency. We simply cannot afford that. 1600 words, 6 Jan 2022 This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit rajeevsrinivasan.substack.com

In 2017, the Supreme Court, in Independent Thought v. Union of India, refused to delve into the question of marital rape of adult women while examining an exception to Section 375 (rape) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) which allows a man to force sex on his wife. Recent rulings by High Courts have been contradictory — one backed marital rape as a valid ground for divorce, while another granted anticipatory bail to a man while concluding that forcible sex is not an “illegal thing”. Why do differences persist despite the Justice J.S. Verma Committee recommendation to criminalise marital rape? Here we discuss why marital rape has not been criminalised in India yet. Guests: Manuraj Shunmugasundaram, advocate, Madras High Court, and spokesperson of the DMK; Shraddha Chaudhary, lecturer, Jindal Global Law School, Sonepat, and Ph.D candidate (law), University of Cambridge Host: Sudipta Datta Read the Parley article here. Write to us with comments and feedback at socmed4@thehindu.co.in

In this episode, the process and procedure of appointment of Judges to the Supreme Court of India and High Courts are discussed; with a little bit of History.

The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting issued a notification in June seeking comments on proposed changes to the Cinematograph Act, 1952. The most controversial feature of the draft Amendment Bill is that it allows the Union government to call for the re-examination of any film. If passed, this would mean that even after a film is certified and cleared by the Central Board of Film Certification, the government can reverse its decision or ask for the film to be reexamined.  This is the latest in a slew of changes for filmmakers in India. In April, the Film Certification Appellate Tribunal was dissolved by the Ministry of Law and Justice. Previously, if the CBFC did not certify a film or asked for changes that filmmakers did not agree with, they could go to the FCAT for redressal. Now they will have to move to the High Courts. On this episode of The Suno India Show, Suryatapa Mukherjee spoke to filmmaker Leena Manimekalai about these developments for the Indian film industry. Despite receiving awards and acclaim in film festivals, Leena has repeatedly run into trouble with certification. These new changes, she says, have cast doubts on her future as a filmmaker in this country. Additional reading: Cinematograph (Amendment) Bill 2021  Shyam Benegal Committee Report 2016 Justice Mukul Committee Report 2013  See sunoindia.in/privacy-policy for privacy information.

On today's show, we will discuss the case of State of Uttar Pradesh and others v. Dr. Manoj Kumar Sharma, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 460, wherein the Supreme Court reprimanded the practice of certain High Courts to seek personal appearance of officers and exert pressure on them.To read more about it, please visit our Blog http://www.desikanoon.co.in/2021/07/personal-appearance-summoning-officers-contempt-supreme-court.htmlTelegram: https://t.me/Legal_Talks_by_DesiKanoonYouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCMmVCFV7-Kfo_6S42kPhz2wApple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/legal-talks-by-desikanoon/id1510617120Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/3KdnziPc4I73VfEcFJa59X?si=vYgrOEraQD-NjcoXA2a7Lg&dl_branch=1&nd=1Google Podcasts: https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5zaW1wbGVjYXN0LmNvbS84ZTZTcGREcw?sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiuz4ifzpLxAhVklGMGHb4HAdwQ9sEGegQIARADAmazon Music: https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/4b89fb71-1836-414e-86f6-1116324dd7bc/Legal-Talks-by-Desikanoon Please subscribe and follow us on YouTube, Instagram, iTunes, Twitter, LinkedIn, Discord, Telegram and Facebook. Credits: Music by Wataboi from Pixabay Thank you for listening!

One Take Show is honoured to host Ms. Radhika Bishwajit Dubey. Ms. Radhika Bishwajit Dubey is the Partner at Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas, New Delhi. She focuses on dispute resolution relating to corporate and commercial litigation, with a special focus on arbitration (domestic and international). Ma'am regularly represents clients before various fora including Tribunals, High Courts and the Supreme Court in high stakes commercial disputes. Prior to joining the erstwhile Amarchand & Mangaldas & Suresh A. Shroff & Co. in 2010, she worked with a Dubai-based law firm and at the Delhi High Court as a law clerk to Hon'ble Mr Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul. Link to the Article: https://www.legaleraonline.com/within-the-circle/validity-of-unstamped-arbitration-agreements-731259?utm_campaign=pubshare&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=1951091250&utm_content=auto-link&utm_id=1154

In 1951, the Nehru government amended the Fundamental Rights of the Constitution just 15 months after enacting the venerated constitution, which Nehru himself heavily supervised while drafting, just to revive Zamindari abolition laws after the High Courts struck them down for violating Fundamental Rights of the citizens. All of this without an elected parliament, hence without a proper representative mandate and with heavy opposition and objections from within and out of the party. So, what prompted the Nehru government to amend the constitution in a flash and how did the SC deal with the validity of the amendment vis-a-vis zamindari abolition reforms by forming the first ever constitution bench in the matter of Shankari Prasad v. UoI? What were the arguments advanced in the case? Give a 'hearing' to find out!

Telegram: https://t.me/Legal_Talks_by_DesiKanoonYouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCMmVCFV7-Kfo_6S42kPhz2wApple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/legal-talks-by-desikanoon/id1510617120Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/3KdnziPc4I73VfEcFJa59X?si=vYgrOEraQD-NjcoXA2a7Lg&dl_branch=1&nd=1Google Podcasts: https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5zaW1wbGVjYXN0LmNvbS84ZTZTcGREcw?sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiuz4ifzpLxAhVklGMGHb4HAdwQ9sEGegQIARADAmazon Music: https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/4b89fb71-1836-414e-86f6-1116324dd7bc/Legal-Talks-by-Desikanoon  Therefore, let us understand the observations made by the Supreme Court in this regard. The Court started by discussing the scheme of the NI Act and stated that as on 31.12.2019, “the total number of criminal cases pending was 2.31 crores, out of which 35.16 lakh pertained to Section 138 of the Act.” The Court also observed that there are various reasons for such delay in the trials such as issues in service of summons, mechanical conversion of summary cases to summons cases, prolonged mediations, jurisdictional issues etc. Hence, let us discuss the directions given by the Supreme Court to curb the delay in cases relating to the NI Act. Firstly, the High Courts were requested to make sure that the Magistrates record reasons before converting trial of complaints under Section 138 of the NI Act from summary trial to summons trial. Such reasons must be recorded to in writing. Secondly, it was directed that a Preliminary Inquiry must be conducted in Section 138 (Cheque Dishonor) cases to arrive at “sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused, when such accused resides beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the court.” Thirdly, the Court mandated that when an accused resides beyond the territorial jurisdiction of a Magistrate and an inquiry in this regard is conducted, evidence of complainant witnesses shall be permitted to be taken on affidavit and the Magistrate can restrict the inquiry to examination of documents. This step would save a lot of time as travelling time of the witnesses could be cut substantially. Fourthly, Section 219 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, was discussed that provides that a person cannot be tried for more than three offences in a single Trial. The Court observed that suitable amendments are required to be carried out in this section to increase the limit of offences that could be tried at once in a given trial, as many a times, in cases of cheque dishonours, other offences such as forgery, criminal breach of trust, cheating etc. are also involved. So, there are multiple offences. Fifthly, it was directed that wherever there are multiple complaints under Section 138 forming part of the same transaction or arising out of same transaction, the High Courts should issue practice directions to the Trial Courts to treat service of summons in one case under Section 138, as deemed service in respect of all the other complaints filed before the same court that are linked to the same transaction or cause of action. So, if there are multiple cheques that have been dishonoured in a case and there are multiple cases of section 138 pending before the same court, in such cases, service in one case could be treated as deemed service in all the other cases. Sixthly, the Supreme Court reiterated its earlier order that “there is no inherent power of Trial Courts tor review or recall the issue of summons.” Many a times in cases of section 138, multiple summons are issued and the court recall their summons. So, in order to cure such problems, the Court issued this direction. And lastly, there was a Committee that was constituted to look into the delay in Section 138 cases. The Court directed it to further deliberate and discuss the other issues at length. So, what are my concluding remarks? I feel that pendency of Cheque Dishonour cases is one of the biggest issues that has been haunting the Indian Judiciary since quite some time. The guidelines provided by the Supreme Court that we just discussed would be quite profitable to solve this issue to a certain extent. I hope that the High Courts and the Trial Courts implement the same in proper perspective and as expeditiously as possible.

In this case, the Supreme Court discussed the constant abuse of procedural provisions that defeat justice, such as putting up frivolous objections or setting up third parties to contest for the sake of delaying the outcome in a case. BACKGROUND Let us discuss the brief background of this case. The facts of the case at hand are not relevant for the purposes of this show and we just need to know that there was a case that was being contested since last more than two decades and despite having judgment of the Court, the same was not getting implemented because of continuous objections that were raised by the parties and hence, the execution or implementation of the decree was stalled. OBSERVATIONS OF THE COURT Hence, let us understand the observations of the Court. It was observed that as on 31st December 2018, there were 11,80,275 Execution Applications pending in various courts of India and according to the Court, “the execution proceedings which are supposed to be handmaid of justice and sub-serve the cause of justice are, in effect, becoming tools which are being easily misused to obstruct justice.” Further, the Court discussed the scheme of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and the manner in which its provisions are being misused by the litigating parties. However, according to the Court, the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) intends that all questions that may arise in a suit, must be decided in the same trial itself, so as to avoiding multiplicity of proceedings. DIRECTIONS OF THE COURT Therefore, the Court felt that it was constrained to issue certain directions to all the Trial Courts that are dealing with Civil Suits and Execution Proceedings. Firstly, it was directed that in suits relating to delivery of possession, the Trial Court must examine the parties in relation to disclosure of any third-party interest in the suit-property and seek production of documents upon oath. This would ensure that later on third parties do not spring up to cause a delay in the litigation. Secondly, wherever required, a commissioner could be appointed to assess the accurate description and status of the property so that the cases do not get delayed on account of these petty issues. Thirdly, after examination of parties or production of documents or the report of the Commissioner, as the case may be, the Trial Court must add the necessary parties that have not yet been impleaded to the suit, so as to avoid delay and multiplicity of proceedings. Fourthly, under Order 40 of CPC, “a Court Receiver can be appointed to monitor the status of the property in question as Custodia Legis (In custody of Law) for proper adjudication of the matter.” Fifthly, the decrees that are passed must be unambiguous as to the description and the status of the property. Sixthly, in money suits, before settling the issues, the Defendant may be required to disclose his assets on oath to the extent of his liability in the suit and under Order 40 Rule 11 of CPC, the Court should ensure immediate execution of decree for payment of money on Oral Applications itself. This would ensure that in the garb of seeking time for drafting of Applications, no delay could be sought. Seventhly, in Execution Proceedings, the Execution Courts must not issue notice at the behest of third parties in a mechanical manner and no issues ought to be taken up that have already been taken up by or ought to have been take up before, the Trial Court. Eighthly, taking of evidence in Execution Proceedings should be done only in exceptional cases where other methods could not be resorted to, and where frivolous issues are raised in Execution Proceedings, compensatory costs under Section 35A of CPC should be granted to the other party. Ninthly, Execution Proceedings should be decided expeditiously within six months and any further delay should be supported by reasons to be recorded to in writing. Police assistance could also be sought wherever necessary. And lastly, “under Section 60 of CPC, the term “…in name of the judgment-debtor or by another person in trust for him or on his behalf” should be read liberally to incorporate any other person from whom he may have the ability to derive share, profit or property.” So, these were the directions that were issued by the Supreme Court in relation to delay in Execution Proceedings and Civil Suits. Further, the Court also directed the High Courts to update all their rules in relation to Execution Proceedings, within one year, and till such exercise is completed, the directions that we discussed shall remain enforceable. CONCLUSION To sum up, it could be said that delay in civil suits is not a new phenomenon and whenever such issues come up before the Supreme Court, it tries to do something constructive to curb this menace. These directions should prove to reduce the pendency in the Execution Courts and in the Civil Suits. I hope that both the Advocates and the Trial Courts work hand in hand, in enforcement of these directions to reduce delay and prolonged litigations.

[PLEASE NOTE: THE FIRST 30 SECONDS OF THE AUDIO ARE MESSED UP. PLEASE BEAR WITH ME AND IGNORE THAT, THE REST OF THE AUDIO IS FINE. I DON’T HAVE ACCESS TO AUDACITY TO FIX IT UP AS MY PC IS BROKEN RIGHT NOW.]There was an outstanding Doonesbury cartoon from 1980 lampooning then-POTUS candidate Ted Kennedy for making high-flown statements with nothing actionable: the punch-line was, “A Verb, Senator, We Need a Verb!”. I was struck by deja vu when PM Modi made a bold announcement on 7th June that the GoI was (re)assuming full control of vaccine procurement. I think Indians elected PM Modi to take decisive steps, but he has seemingly vacillated recently, so this was a welcome return to form. The decision was also a reiteration of a sound business principle: size matters. Large customer orders always get better terms than smaller ones. It was evident all along that there was no way a motley crew of States would ever get the attention of pharma majors when there is a large supply shortfall.It was apparent that the grandstanding opposition CMs were hoping to do the following:Order the famous Pfizer vaccine at 10-20x the price of Covshield and CovaxinGet supply commitments from Pfizer (and presumably commissions)Then force the GoI through a public outcry to pay for the vaccine anywayObviously, that would have been a win-win for them. But this was doomed from the start, because Pfizer demands sovereign guarantees of indemnity. They asked Argentina to surrender its embassies and warships as guarantees of indemnity in case there were side effects/deaths and legal obligations. “Sub-national diplomacy” is all very well for Biden, but BigPharma is more hard nosed, and they know States have no assets they can seize, and so they will only deal with the GoI.The opposition leaders are not really interested in vaccination, except as a stick to beat PM Modi with. Their support of the super-spreader ‘farmer’ agitation is clear proof of that. They flip-flopped, too. First, they wanted the GoI to allow States to procure vaccines. To their surprise, the GoI agreed. They were caught in a bind: and they had to backpedal furiously, because hardly any Big Pharma bothered to respond to their global tenders, except highly dubious Chinese vaccine makers.So the PM has temporarily shut the politicians down, and they have been shown up. I am reminded of a poem by Oliver Goldsmith, “Elegy on the Death of a Mad Dog”, which says, among other things:But soon a wonder came to light,That shew'd the rogues they lied;The man recover'd of the bite–The dog it was that dy’d.That, of course, is what politicians do: and we price it into our calculations about them. Not that they don’t need some discipline. It would be highly instructive to, say, Mamata Banerjee, who runs a medieval fiefdom, to charge her for culpability in the killings and ethnic cleansings of Hindus in West Bengal by illegal Bangladeshi aliens and/or her party cadres. So would it be to indict the Nehru dynasty scion on his dicey citizenship (British? Italian?) and other sins such as the National Herald kumbhakonam. But there are, in my opinion, three other ‘institutions’ in India that are even more dastardly than politicians, and that need some decisive action. BureaucracyFirst, babudom. I have lost count of the number of ‘open letters’ from retired babus with suggestions for the GoI about how to go about various things. Wonder of wonders, none of these things occurred to them when they were in power and could actually have done something useful. No, then they were too busy applying their lips to the ample mammaries of the welfare state and milking it for all it was worth. IAS/IPS/IFS babus are excruciatingly sensitive to two things: their pension benefits and post-retirement sinecures. I remember a famous Nehruvian babu who joined an evangelical ‘aid’ group at 3x his salary, after going on leave and thus ensuring that his pension benefits would remain intact. It took a lot of shouting to force him to resign from the service and forgo his juicy pension/medical benefits.There have been several other IAS/IPS officers in the limelight recently for all the wrong reasons: one barged into a Hindu wedding in Tripura (I think), slapped the priest, terrorized the attendees, ripped up the permit that allowed them to hold the ceremony at the muhurtam at midnight (as an exception to Wuhanvirus lockdown norms). Another slapped a young man who was stopped on police while proceeding to buy medicines, and slammed his phone to the ground. A third ordered a firing on a Hindu religious procession in Munger, and caused young Anurag Poddar to be shot in the head, and he died in his stricken mother’s arms. So far as I can tell, none of these babus paid for their excesses with a dismissal from service, or even a suspension. They were merely transferred elsewhere. The ecosystem takes care of its own. The latest example is a man who was Chief Secretary, West Bengal. There was gross insubordination on his part when he was 30 minutes late to a meeting with the PM, and then walked out early (the same antics as his Chief Minister). Upon being recalled to the center (after all, the IAS is a central service), he demurred. Shortly after, he retired, and was absorbed into the West Bengal government as a ‘senior advisor’.There is a simple solution: on any transgression, suspend them without pay, and revoke the extremely generous pension and medical benefits pending a judicial inquiry into wrong-doing. Furthermore, make it a service rule that no retired babu can get a new post without its being advertised openly, and inviting qualified applicants, especially from the private sector. If these steps are taken in the case of one, just one, high-handed bureaucrat, the whole lot of them (selected on the basis of a single mandarin exam, with the subjects being ludicrously out of touch with current realities) will think twice about lording it over the public. After all, their job is administration: they should be selected on the basis of the IIM Common Admission Test or the GMAT and trained in the IIMs, and all the rigmarole of the fancy IAS Academy should be dispensed with. The days of generalist babus are over: industry increasingly requires domain knowledge and lateral entrants with short-term contracts. The IPS needs specialized training in law and order; similarly the IFS needs training in diplomacy, trade and geopolitics. These can be add-ons to the basic IIM training. Here’s an appalling example of how those with domain knowledge, not generalist mandarins, are the need of the day. This person is a retired Health Secretary, I am told: JudiciaryIt has been clear as day for some time that the Indian judiciary suffers from deep structural flaws. The most obvious issue is that it is extremely inefficient, and has allowed millions of cases to languish: the Supreme Court has a backlog of 68,000 cases; High Courts together have 58 lakh cases, and District Courts have 3.3 crore cases pending. This is appalling. Judicial overreach is an endemic problem. Instead of fixing itself and ensuring that the unconscionable backlog is cleared in a time-bound manner, judges are encroaching on the territory of the Executive Branch by issuing peremptory orders on things they have no business in, no expertise in, and no value-added to offer in. The solutions are also obvious: 1. Defining the focus of the Supreme Court to be strictly on Constitutional cases, and nothing but: no grandstanding on cricket or other high-visibility but trivial issues, 2. Ensuring that appointments to the high judiciary are vetted and approved by the Parliament and thus the elected will of the people, and also not left to an incestuous, unaccountable Collegium that specializes in nominating sons, nephews and other relatives, 3. Canceling the singularly outrageous device of the Public Interest Litigation (PIL), which has been used by well-heeled and motivated NGOs with foreign paymasters to bypass every check and balance and make a mockery of the process of escalation and appeal. In a 2018 essay, https://swarajyamag.com/ideas/can-we-fix-the-deeply-troubled-judiciary I wrote at length about these issues, so I will not repeat myself.However, there is something the government needs to do: impeach one, just one, of the most outrageous of the judges. I have a candidate in mind, but shall not name names, mindful of draconian contempt-of-court strictures. The same issue with post-retirement sinecures and extravagant pension and other benefits comes up in the case of the judiciary as in that of bureaucrats. I had a great-uncle who was a State Chief Justice, and he had any number of tribunals and other jobs after he retired. I have a friend who was a Justice in a State, and post-retirement somebody is assigned to meet her at airports, carry her bags, and escort her to her flight!MediaThis is quite possibly the very worst and most corrupt institution in the country. It is thoroughly compromised and infiltrated by various vested interests, top to bottom. At one end, there is reason to believe that one of the richest and most visible editors in India was recruited by a New York Times correspondent as an ‘embedded asset’ more than thirty years ago. At the other end, the jibes about ‘2BHK’ journalists strike a chord, given their abject slavishness.Indira Nehru Ghandy demonstrated that India’s journalists, when asked to bend, will grovel. Today, they can clearly be counted on to carry the agendas of any anti-India power: they are for sale.This, of course, is par for the course for journalists everywhere. Some hallowed names in journalism, including science journals, especially British titles, have demonstrated that they are for sale to the highest bidder. Which for all practical purposes these days means they are ‘friends of Xinhua and Xi Jinping’, as the latter have splashed out on information warfare in a big way. Stories that reflect poorly on China tend to be swept under the carpet. The Big Tech social media platforms give themselves airs these days for obvious reasons: they can defenestrate sitting presidents not only from their platforms, but from their seats of power, too. Sometimes there are unintended consequences, as in what happened in Nigeria: Twitter blocked the President, and Nigeria suspended Twitter indefinitely. The ongoing saga of Twitter’s defiance of Indian law would be comical, if it weren’t such black humor. Twitter has thumbed its nose more than once at India: the first incident was when Jack Dorsey, its boss, showed up in India, got himself photographed with a bunch of women brandishing a slogan about “Brahmin Patriarchy”, and was photographed with the PM with body language screaming “arrogance!”.Among many other transgressions, Twitter India in November 2020 deplatformed the scholarly @TrueIndology on flimsy or nonexistent grounds, essentially because they didn’t like him using well-reasoned and well-sourced information to trash leftist mythologies. I said in a podcast at the time that it was a watershed event, and that India should suspend Twitter forthwith. https://rajeevsrinivasan.substack.com/p/podcast-episode-9-trueindology-incidentLater, there was an incident in which Twitter showed Leh in China. Showing the borders of India incorrectly (especially out of malevolence) is a non-bailable offense, which attracts immediate arrest of the perpetrator, which in this case would be Twitter India’s honchos. That was strike two, enough to block Twitter’s IPs in India. I thought that by March 2021 India had enough reason to shut the platform down. https://rajeevsrinivasan.substack.com/p/episode-16-is-india-reining-in-bigtechsocialmediIt’s comically appalling after all this history, and the fact that much bigger fish, such as Facebook, Youtube, etc. have acceded to Indian law, Twitter still goes around acting as though it were a sovereign government ‘negotiating’ with the Government of India on behalf of the “freedom of expression” of Indians. Nobody elected Twitter, did they? Such delusions of grandeur, such megalomania!Why, PM Modi, is this relatively trivial application being given so much importance? Who’s afraid of Virginia Woolf? In reality, Twitter is -- get this -- the world’s No. 16 social media by number of users! It really is the chicken that should be killed to scare the monkeys such as Facebook, YouTube and Whatsapp, who are all watching with interest.And exactly what will happen if Twitter is kicked out of India? I’m not sure what happened in Nigeria, but I suspect not much. Yes, Twitter is a convenient news feed for many of us, but its utility is limited, and other platforms can easily step into the breach, say India’s own Koo. India simply cannot be held to ransom by an app. If India could kick out Tiktok (ironically Biden is revoking the ban on Tiktok by Trump), CamScanner and other Chinese apps, what is the hold that Twitter has over the country? Is it some fear that the New York Times and its Seventh Fleet will suddenly appear in the Bay of Bengal? Oh, wait, the NYT doesn’t have a fleet. Just pull the plug on this whole sorry drama, Mr. Prime Minister. A verb, we need a verb from you: enough is enough. There is no reason to go around broadcasting that India is a Soft State. 2194 words, June 9th, 2021 This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit rajeevsrinivasan.substack.com

Without going into the specific facts of the case, the crux of the matter is that the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad passed an Order wherein it was breathing hot and cold at the same time. Vide the same Order, on one hand, it rejected the Application for Anticipatory Bail under S. 438 of CrPC and on the other hand, it directed the Applicant to “….appear and surrender before the court below within 90 days from today and apply for bail, their prayer for bail shall be considered and decided as per the settled law… Till then, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants.” This Order passed by the High Court was challenged before the Supreme Court on the ground that once the final relief of pre-arrest was declined to the Applicants, there is no protection available to the Applicants under S. 438 of CrPC and hence, the High Court could not have contemplated grant of any such protection. Thus, the moot question to be answered by the Court was as follows: - “Whether the High Court, while dismissing the anticipatory bail applications of the respondents, could have granted them protection from arrest?” Extent of Power Exercisable by the Courts under S. 438 of CrPC The Supreme Court discussed the case of Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1, wherein following propositions were laid down: - 1. Grant of Anticipatory Bail under S. 438 of CrPC is ordinarily not limited to a fixed time period and should enure in favour of the accused till the conclusion of the Trial. 2. Normal conditions under S. 437 (3) read with S. 438 (2) should be imposed while granting Anticipatory Bail and if there are specific facts and circumstances, it is open for the Courts to impose any appropriate condition or introduce any peculiar features depending upon the necessity. Section 438 of CrPC “Section 438. Direction for grant of bail to person apprehending arrest (1) Where any person has reason to believe that he may be arrested on an accusation of having committed a non-bailable offence, he may apply to the High Court or the Court of Session for a direction under this section that in the event of such arrest he shall be released on bail; and that Court may, after taking into consideration, inter alia, the following factors, namely:—….. either reject the application forthwith or issue an interim order for the grant of anticipatory bail: Provided that, where the High Court or, as the case may be, the Court of Session, has not passed any interim order under this sub-Section or has rejected the application for grant of anticipatory bail, it shall be open to an officer incharge of a police station to arrest, without warrant, the applicant on the basis of the accusation apprehended in such application. (2) When the High Court or the Court of Session makes a direction under sub-section (1), it may include such conditions in such directions in the light of the facts of the particular case, as it may think fit, including -….(3) If such person is thereafter arrested without warrant by an officer in charge of a police station on such accusation, and is prepared either at the time of arrest or at any time while in the custody of such officer to give bail, he shall be released on bail; and if a Magistrate taking cognizance of such offence decides that a warrant should issue in the first instance against that person, he shall issue a bailable warrant in conformity with the direction of the Court under sub-section (1).”   What Happens when Application under S. 438 is Rejected? According to the Court, when an Application under S. 438 of CrPC is rejected, it is open to the Police to arrest the Applicant and the Proviso to S. 438 (1) of CrPC does not create any restrictions on the same rather it is merely clarificatory in nature that unless an individual has obtained some protection from the Court, the police may arrest him. The Hon'ble Court also observed that grant or rejection of an Application under S. 438 has a direct bearing on the fundamental right to life and liberty of an individual under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and therefore, the provision “needs to be read liberally, and considering its beneficial nature, the Courts must not read in limitations or restrictions that the legislature have not explicitly provided for. Any ambiguity in the language must be resolved in favour of the applicant seeking relief.” Coming to the question relating to the provision of law under which the Court may issue relief to an Applicant after dismissing their Anticipatory Bail Application, the Court observed that such a power does exist and Section 482 of CrPC “recognizes the High Court's inherent power to pass orders to secure the ends of justice. This provision reflects the reality that no law or rule can possibly account for the complexities of life, and the infinite range of circumstances that may arise in the future.” It was further opined by the Court that it cannot remain oblivious to the peculiar situations that may arise and “there may be circumstances where the High Court is of the opinion that it is necessary to protect the person apprehending arrest for some time, due to exceptional circumstances, until they surrender before the Trial Court.” In such cases, even if a case for Anticipatory Bail is not made out, then also the Court has powers to pass appropriate orders. Similar power is also vested with the Supreme Court of India under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. Thereafter the Court passed a word of caution that “such discretionary power cannot be exercised in an untrammelled manner” and the Court must necessarily narrowly tailer the Order to protect the interests of the Applicant while taking into consideration the concerns of the Prosecution and such an order must be a reasoned one. Held by the Court The Court finally held that the Order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad wherein it rejected the Application under S. 438 of CrPC but granted protection from arrest to the Applicant without assigning any reasons for the same, fails to withstand the legal scrutiny for want of reasons and non-consideration of the concerns of the Prosecution/Investigating Agency. Further, it was also held that the period of 90 days granted to the Applicant cannot be considered to be a reasonable one in the facts of the case. Hence, the Order passed by the High Court was set aside to the extent of granting protection for 90 days to the accused persons.  Concluding Remarks I feel that this case emphasizes the importance of Section 482 of CrPC. Even in the earlier post, we discussed that even in relation to orders framing charges or refusing to discharge, the High Court has the power to look into the same both under S. 397 and S. 482 of CrPC. Thus, where no power could be traced in relation to an exercise of power, then such power could always be traced under S. 482 of CrPC provided that the exercise of power is in a just and reasonable manner. Through this case, the Supreme Court also made clear that even if an Application for Anticipatory Bail is rejected, then also the High Courts are not precluded from granting tailored protection to accused persons. The life and liberty of a person has been put at a higher pedestal by the Supreme Court than the rights of the Prosecution to investigate into the matter. According to the Court, there must be a semblance of balance between the two while passing of any such Order. There are countless situations where the accused persons may take benefit of this Order. For example, if a person is apprehending arrest but is about to get married, then he can approach the Court and even if his case does not fall within the strict contours of S. 438 of CrPC, the High Court may grant him interim protection till the time he gets married. Or if there is a death in the family of a person apprehending arrest, then also the benefit of the culmination of the interpretative process that has transpired in this case could be taken. Life is complex and so are its needs. I agree with the underlying reasoning of the Court that there cannot be a straightjacket formula and when the statute itself confers inherent powers on the High Court, then the same must be exercised beneficially in favour of the individuals though an inane approach bereft of reasoning must be avoided.

Facts in Brief In the instant case, the accused had moved an Application seeking discharge under Section 239 of CrPC contending that he has been falsely implicated. However, his application was dismissed by the Trial Court on the ground that the merits of the case can be gone into only at the later stages of trial. The accused moved the High Court under its revisionary jurisdiction of Section 397 of CrPC but the High Court also declined to entertain the Revision Petition observing that interference in the order framing charges or refusing to discharge is called for in rarest of rare case only to correct the patent error of jurisdiction and the present case is not the one. Important Provisions Section 239. When accused shall be discharged.— If, upon considering the police report and the documents sent with it under Section 173 and making such examination, if any, of the accused as the Magistrate thinks necessary and after giving the prosecution and the accused an opportunity of being heard, the Magistrate considers the charge against the accused to be groundless, he shall discharge the accused, and record his reasons for so doing.  Section 397. Calling for records to exercise of powers of revision — (1) The High Court or any Sessions Judge may call for and examine the record of any proceeding before any inferior Criminal Court situate within its or his local jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior Court, and may, when calling for such record, direct that the execution of any sentence or order be suspended, and if the accused is in confinement, that he be released on bail or on his own bond pending the examination of the record. (2) The powers of revision conferred by sub-section (1) shall not be exercised in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any appeal, inquiry, trial or other proceeding.  Precedents Discussed by the Court  The Court discussed the case of Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd. v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2018) 16 SCC 299, that was relied upon by the High Court to dismiss the Revision Petition of the accused. The High Court had relied upon the following excerpt: - “37. Thus, we declare the law to be that order framing charge is not purely an interlocutory order nor a final order. Jurisdiction of the High Court is not barred irrespective of the label of a petition, be it under Sections 397 or 482 CrPC or Article 227 of the Constitution. However, the said jurisdiction is to be exercised consistent with the legislative policy to ensure expeditious disposal of a trial without the same being in any manner hampered. Thus considered, the challenge to an order of charge should be entertained in a rarest of rare case only to correct a patent error of jurisdiction and not to reappreciate the matter…..” The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reconciled the interpretations provided in Asian Resurfacing (supra) and the case of Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra, (1977) 4 SCC 551, and observed that the “orders framing charges or refusing discharge are neither interlocutory nor final in nature and are therefore not affected by the bar of Section 397 (2) of CrPC.” Further, it was observed that the High Court has inherent powers under Section 482 and other provisions of CrPC to prevent abuse of process or to secure ends of justice. According to the Court, though such discretion is to be exercised carefully yet it does not mean that a hyper technical approach is to be adopted.  Held by the Court The Court concluded by stating that: -  “17. Further, it is well settled that the trial court while considering the discharge application is not to act as a mere post office. The Court has to sift through the evidence in order to find out whether there are sufficient grounds to try the suspect. The court has to consider the broad probabilities, total effect of evidence and documents produced and the basic infirmities appearing in the case and so on. [Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal]. Likewise, the Court has sufficient discretion to order further investigation in appropriate cases, if need be.” Therefore, it was held by the Court that the High Court had committed jurisdictional error in the present case by not entertaining the Revision Petition of the accused and “overlooking the fact that ‘discharge' is a valuable right provided to the accused.” Hence, the case was remanded back to the High Court for its reconsideration in accordance with law.  Concluding Remarks Since my college days, I had been reading and hearing about the Madhu Limaye (supra) case from my professors and friends. Even when I joined litigation, this case continued to influence the revision petitions in which I was involved. Madhu Limaye (supra) is a 1977 Judgment and more than 4 decades have passed since then yet the same question relating to the distinction between interlocutory order and final order in relation to Section 397 of CrPC keeps coming up and time and again, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has to again reiterate that Madhu Limaye (supra) is still a good law. I think there is a tendency to adopt hyper-technical approach by many judges and advocates. No doubt that Section 397 talks about revisionary powers of the High Court and no doubt that S. 397 (2) seeks to bar its applicability against interlocutory orders, but the fact of the matter is that there are other provisions as well in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. One cannot simply overlook Section 482 of CrPC or the other provisions that provide the entire scheme of Criminal Trials. It is a cardinal principle of interpretation that the provisions of any statute have to be construed harmoniously and cannot be looked at into in complete isolation. A level of exactitude is desirable in the legal process but not at the cost of absurdity.  Without lowering the majesty of the High Courts, I think it is high time that the ratio of Madhu Limaye (supra) is applied in its proper perspective in revision petitions and such disastrous situations wherein the right of the accused to seek discharge is completely annihilated does not ever arise. The closing remarks of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in this case are quite pertinent wherein it said that the High Court committed an error by “overlooking the fact that ‘discharge' is a valuable right provided to the accused.” I sincerely hope that this is the last judgment wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India had to reiterate that Madhu Limaye (supra) still holds the field. 

Supreme CourtHigh CourtIt is the principal court of justice in the country.It is the highest judicial body of a state that regulates state,s law and order.It is headed by the chief justice of India.It is headed by the chief justice of the state.There is only one Supreme Court in India.There are total 24 High Courts in India, three of which have jurisdiction in more than one state.Supreme Court has superintendence over all law courts and tribunals of the country.The High Court has superintendence over all courts under its jurisdiction.The judges of Supreme Court are appointed by the President of India.The judges of the high court are appointed by the president of India after consulting the Chief Justice of India and governor of the respective state.The judge of the Supreme Court retires at the age of 65 years.The judge of the high court retires at the age of 62 years.The judge of Supreme Court cannot plead before any court during his or her tenure or after his or her retirement.The judge of high court cannot plead before any court during his or her tenure and after retirement cannot plead in a court below the high court. --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app

In your evening news brief, Supreme Court lauds the role played by the High Courts during Covid-19 pandemic; European Union willing to discuss a proposal to waive intellectual property rights for Covid-19 vaccines and Prime Minister Narendra Modi directs that states should be given help and guidance about leading indicators to ramp up healthcare infrastructure. Download the Deccan Herald app for iOS devices here: https://apple.co/30eOFD6 For latest news and updates, log on to www.deccanherald.com Check out our e-paper www.deccanheraldepaper.com

1. In the case of Bipin Shantilal Panchal v. State of Gujarat, (2001) 3 SCC 1, practices with respect to objections regarding questions to be put to witnesses were enunciated and it was directed that the Court must record answers to all questions, regardless of objections. However, this may lead to prolonged and lengthy cross examination, and more often than not, irrelevant facts having no bearing on the charge or the role of the accused, are brought on record, which often result in great prejudice. 2. The Hon'ble Court considered the mandate of Bipin Shantilal (supra) and observed that under Section 148 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the Court has the power to decide when questions shall be asked and when witnesses can be compelled to answer. The Court, further, observed that under Section 149-154 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the basic rules of cross-examination have been provided and in order to ensure that the record is not cluttered with irrelevant details that could be distracting and prejudicial to the accused, the Presiding Office should decide objections to questions, during the course of the proceeding or failing it at the end of the deposition of the concerned witness. It may have a salutary effect of preventing frivolous objections. Thus, the case of Bipin Shantilal (supra) was modified in above-stated terms. 3. It was also argued before the Court that though from time to time, directions have been issued to conduct day-to-day hearing of criminal trials, yet the same is not possible due to non-availability of witnesses in many cases. Thus, in order to redress this grievance, the Hon'ble Court observed that “the courts in all criminal trials should, at the beginning of the trial, i.e. after summoning of the accused, and framing of charges, hold a preliminary case management hearing. This hearing may take place immediately after the framing of the charge.” In this hearing, the court should consider the total number of witnesses, and classify them accordingly. A date could also be fixed for admission and denial of documents in relation to the accused. The schedule of recording of witnesses should then be fixed, by giving consecutive dates. Each date so fixed, should be scheduled for a specific number of witnesses. 4. In relation to other modalities contained in “Draft Rules of Criminal Practice, 2020”, the Court observed that the Draft Rules of 2021 are annexed with the instant Order and all High Courts and States should take expeditious and appropriate steps to incorporate the same as part of the Rules governing the Criminal Trials. Further, relevant amendments need to be carried out in Police Manuals of various states to bring them in synchrony with the Draft Rules of 2021. Opinion In my considered view, these proceedings that were taken up by the Hon'ble Supreme Court will, if implemented properly, provided a much-needed reform that was long due in criminal proceedings and trials. The Criminal Trials are marred by delay and lethargy leading to loss of faith in the judicial system. The changes suggested by the Court and the Draft Rules are calibrated as at on the one hand, they are bringing much-needed reforms to the system and on the other hand, such changes are easy to implement and are in complete synchrony with CrPC and existing Criminal Procedure Laws. I hope that the High Courts as well the State Governments take up this issue in a serious manner and swiftly implement the Draft Rules of 2021 so that expeditious criminal trials become a reality in India.

While excellent newsletters on specific themes within public policy already exist, this thought letter is about frameworks, mental models, and key ideas that will hopefully help you think about any public policy problem in imaginative ways. Audio narration by Ad-Auris.Global Policy Watch: A Mint With a Role- RSJThe People’s Bank of China (PBOC) has been trialling a form of digital Yuan for the past year. Last week the trials entered their second phase. (Umm, they seem to have more phases for this than for developing their Covid vaccines).The Wall Street Journal woke up to the digital Yuan (paywalled) last week with this article that starts off like a Marquez novel:“A thousand years ago, when money meant coins, China invented paper currency. Now the Chinese government is minting cash digitally, in a re-imagination of money that could shake a pillar of American power.” What’s not to like an article that begins with hyperbole? But there’s some grain of truth there. Before we go further we need to make sense of sovereign digital currencies or what’s now being called Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDC). What’s Money?Like we have written in an earlier post, money performs three roles for us: it is a store of value, it is a medium of exchange, and it is a unit of measure. Through it we save for the future, pay for goods and services and measure the value of very different things using a common unit. These roles mean anything that aspires to be a currency (the usable form of money) should have a relatively stable value over time and should be widely acknowledged as a store of value and unit of account among people. If it does so, the network effect takes over after a while and it becomes a widely used currency. Throughout history, a key feature of a sovereign state was its control over the supply and circulation of money that’s used within its boundaries. The royal mints, after all, have been around for more than two thousand years. As modern nation-states emerged through the 19th and 20th centuries and as global trade increased, central banks emerged to manage the monetary system and provide financial stability. There are three forms of money in any modern economy: Banknotes: These are physical paper currency notes issued by the central bank that we all use in our everyday lives. This is a direct promise by the central bank to pay the holder of the note a specified sum of money. This promise is printed on all currency notes.Bank Deposits: Ordinary people and businesses don’t hoard banknotes to conduct their business. They deposit their money in commercial banks. These deposits are stored in electronic form by these banks. The banks offer two services to their customers. They convert these deposits to central bank money in the form of banknotes when you demand it at an ATM and they offer to transfer your money to someone else through a payment system that exists between banks. Unlike banknotes, your deposits aren’t risk-free. They aren’t backed by any sovereign guarantee. A bank will be able to convert your money into banknotes only if it is solvent and it is able to honour its commitments. We have seen instances of a bank failing to do so in India (Yes Bank, PMC etc).Central Bank Reserves (“reserves”): Commercial banks have their own accounts with the central bank where they deposit their funds. These deposits are used by banks to pay each other to settle transactions between them. The reserves are the other form of central bank money apart from banknotes. These are risk-free and therefore used for settlements among commercial banks. Where does CBDC then fit in?Simply put, a CBDC is a digital form of a banknote issued by the central bank. Now you might think we already use a lot of digital money these days. Yes, there’s money we move electronically or digitally between banks, wallets or while using credit/debit cards in today’s world. But that’s only the digital transfer of money within the financial system. There’s no real money moving. The underlying asset is still the central bank money in the form of reserves that’s available in the accounts that commercial banks have with the central bank. This is what gets settled between the commercial banks after the transaction. This is an important distinction. We don’t move central bank money electronically. But CBDC would actually allow ordinary citizens to directly deal with central bank money. It will be an alternative to banknotes. And it will be digital. CBDC: The Time Is NowSo, why are central banks interested in CBDC now? There are multiple reasons. One, cryptocurrency that’s backed by some kind of a stable asset (also called ‘stablecoin’) can be a real threat as an alternative to a sovereign currency. Stablecoins are private money instruments that can be used for transactions like payments with greater efficiency and with better functionality. For instance, the current payment and settlement system for credit cards in most parts of the world has the merchant getting money in their bank accounts 2-3 days after the transaction is done at their shops. A digital currency can do it instantly. For a central bank, there could be no greater threat to its ability to manage the monetary system than a private currency that’s in circulation outside its control.Two, in most countries, there’s an overwhelming dependency on the electronic payment systems for all kinds of transactions. As more business shifts online and electronic payment becomes the default option, this is a serious vulnerability that’s open to hackers and the enemy states to exploit. A CBDC offers an alternative system that’s outside the payment and settlement network among commercial banks. It will improve the resilience of the payment system. Three, central banks need to offer a currency solution for the digital economy that matches any form of digital currency that could be offered by private players. Despite the digitisation of finance and the prevalence of digital wallets in the world today, there’s still significant ‘friction’ in financial transactions all around us. You pay your electricity bill electronically by receiving the bill, then opening an app and paying for it. Not directly from your electric meter in a programmed manner. That’s just an example of friction. There are many other innovations waiting to be unleashed with a digital currency. Central banks need to provide a platform for such innovations within an ecosystem that they control. CBDC offers that option.Lastly, digital money will reduce transmission loss both ways. Taxes can be deducted ‘at source’ because there will be traceability of all transactions done using CBDC. It will also allow central banks and the governments to bypass the commercial banks and deliver central bank money in a targeted fashion to citizens and households without any friction. The transmission of interest rates to citizens for which central banks depend on commercial banks could now be done directly. While these are the benefits of a digital currency, there are other massive macroeconomic consequences including the loss of relevance of bank deposits that we have with our banks. A CBDC that offers interest would mean we will have a direct deposit account with the central bank. This will mean a move away from deposits in banks to CBDC with the central bank. Also, the nature of a bank ‘run’ will change. Today a bank ‘run’ means a rapid withdrawal of banknotes from a bank by its depositors who are unsure of the solvency of the bank. This takes time and is limited by the amount of money available in ATMs. In a CBDC world, the ‘runs’ will be really quick and only constrained by the amount of CBDC issued by the central banks. Depositors will replace their deposits with CBDC pronto. This secular move away from deposits will increase the cost of funds of commercial banks. They will have to depend on other sources of funds than the low-cost deposits that customers deposit every month in the form of salaries to them. A reduction in deposits will reduce the availability of credit in the system. This will have a repercussion on the wider economy. It will also mean greater demand for reserves from the central bank by the commercial banks to provide credit to their customers. Central banks will increase their reserves and their balance sheets will become bigger. In summary, central banks will become more powerful. China’s Digital Yuan Play For these reasons, I believe CBDC is inevitable in this decade. Central banks will have to contend with the competition of cryptocurrency and the needs of the digital economy. They will find a mechanism to create a ‘platform-based model’ where the central banks create CBDC using a Distributed Ledger Technology (DLT) or a centralised ledger model while allowing private players to provide interfaces for customers to deal with this ledger. They will have to provide some level of comfort on privacy to their citizens by separating the transaction layer of CBDC from the core ledger. But for China, the benefits of a digital Yuan do not just stop there. Beyond these benefits, a CBDC is a boon for a surveillance state as it turns into an ‘eye in the sky’ for every transaction happening in the economy. For China where all banking is owned by the state, the secular shift from deposits of commercial banks to CBDC is also a lesser problem. And most importantly, China is looking at leadership in CBDC to replace the US Dollar in global trade. A digital Yuan is the most feasible option for it to challenge the entrenched ‘dollarisation’ of the physical currencies around the world. 88 per cent of global trade is done using the US Dollar and it is what sustains the Dollar as the global reserve currency. For China to replace the US as the future global superpower, it will have to find ways to make Yuan the reserve currency. An early lead in adopting CBDC for domestic and cross-border payments is a great option to make a real fist of it.China’s early trials in this space will force a response from other large economies on CDBC. The interoperability of sovereign CBDCs and how quickly the US is able to put together a CBDC alliance that counters China will be interesting to watch. In the meantime, I expect the current Chines regime to overplay its hand here like it has been usual for it in the last few years. Expect China to play hardball with the digital Yuan in global trade. This will be an interesting space in geo-economics to watch. PolicyWTF: Casually Banning Films CommitteeThis section looks at egregious public policies. Policies that make you go: WTF, Did that really happen?— Pranay KotasthaneMost film certification authorities in democratic republics categorise movie content according to age-appropriateness and nothing more. But India’s is an exception. The Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) — commonly referred to as the “Censor Board” — also plays the role of a film editor. The CBFC is empowered to ask filmmakers to drop certain scenes. Not just that, the CBFC in its wisdom can just plainly refuse to certify a movie. In such cases, filmmakers have the option of appealing to the reviewing committee of the CBFC. If even that fails, they could hitherto appeal to a 5-member Delhi-based tribunal called the Film Certification Appellate Tribunal (FCAT). This tribunal has now been shut down through an ordinance along with eight other tribunals. The stated intent is that this move will streamline legal recourses. Filmmakers will now have to appeal to High Courts directly and wait for the law to take its own (long) course. In other words, “tareekh pe tareekh, tareekh pe tareekh, tareekh pe tareekh…”You would have already guessed why this is a PolicyWTF. Higher transaction costs, the existing burden on our High Courts, lack of state capacity, yadda yadda yadda. You can read these arguments here, here, and here. I won’t go there.Instead, let’s address the larger PolicyWTF - the CBFC itself. As long as it is a government-appointed body with the power to play the role of a film editor, absurdities will continue. It is for this reason that the Shyam Benegal Committee in 2016 recommended that the CBFC’s powers to modify and change movies should be taken away and it should purely function as a certification body. Exactly what was needed. But it was also exactly what the government wouldn’t allow. And so, five years after that report, we still have a CBFC which is rubbing its hands to also edit OTT content. Moreover, the percentage of films without any cuts fell to its lowest levels over the last 100 years in 2016-17. And now, even the FCAT has been shut down. Clearly, film censorship is going in a direction opposite to what previous committees have recommended. So, is there a solution to this meta policyWTF? Yes, turns out markets can help here. In 2016, my former colleagues Madhav, Adhip, Shikha, Siddarth, Devika and Guru wrote an interesting paper in which they recommended that film certification should be privatised. Deploying the Banishing Bureaucracy framework, they wrote:The CBFC be renamed the Indian Movie Authority (IMA) and that the primary purpose of the IMA would be to license and regulate private organisations called Independent Certifying Authorities (ICAs) which will then certify films. The certificate granted by ICA will only restrict what age groups the film is appropriate for. This is the only form of pre-censorship that is necessary in today’s age as all other restrictions on film exhibition should be applied retrospectively. The choice of ICAs available for producers to approach will render the question of subjectivity moot as the producer can switch to another ICA if unsatisfied with the certificate. The IMA will set the guidelines for the ICAs to follow and will be the first point of appeal.From Privatising Film Certification: Towards a Modern Film Rating Regime, Madhav Chandavarkar et al, Takshashila Discussion Document.In other words, this solution reimagines the CBFC as a body that grants licenses to independent and private certification organisations called ICAs. These ICAs need to adhere to certain minimum threshold criteria set by the CBFC. Beyond these criteria, some ICAs may specialise themselves as being the sanskaari ones trigger-happy to award an “A” certification while others may choose to adopt a more liberal approach. In the authors’ words:This will allow the marketplace of ideas to draw the lines of what kind of content is fit for what kind of audience with the government still being capable of stepping in to curb prurient sensibilities.This solution has the added benefit of levelling the playing field between OTT content and films. Currently, the CBFC has no capacity to certify the content being churned out on tens of streaming services. By delegating this function to private ICAs, the government can ensure adherence to certification norms.In essence. just as governments can often plug market failures, markets too can sometimes plug government failures. Reforming our ‘Censor Board’ requires giving markets a chance.There’s a lot more detail in the paper about grievance redressal, certification guidelines, and appeals procedure. Read it here. PS: A couple of days after the FCAT was shut down in India came the news that Italy on the other hand has abolished all film censorship and moved to a self-certification system instead. Saluti! A Framework a Week:Tools for thinking about public policy— Pranay KotasthaneDr Yuen Yuen Ang is one of the most insightful writers on China’s economy. Her first book explained how China managed to escape poverty. Her second book, China’s Gilded Age: The Paradox of Economic Growth and Vast Corruption has a framework on corruption that’s relevant to us in India.Created based on China’s Gilded Age: The Paradox of Economic Growth and Vast CorruptionThe framework classifies government corruption on two axes — “who in the government engages in corruption?” and “does the money giver get anything in return?”. Four types of corruption result from this categorisation as shown above.Ang claims that in most East Asian economies, the dominant mode of corruption is “access money” — bribes given to political elites with an explicit quid pro quo arrangement. On the other hand, the dominant mode of corruption in India is “speed money” — bribes given to low-level bureaucrats for property registration, a driving license, and so on. Though it intuitively sounds right, I take this result with heaps of salt as it is based on a survey measuring perceived corruption from the eyes of just 15 experts from the countries discussed. Nevertheless, I found the framework interesting. A typology of corruption is a great idea. The book claims that with rising income levels, corruption doesn’t vanish but just gets institutionalised in the ‘access money’ quadrant. To drive the point home, Ang connects these four types of corruption to four kinds of drugs. In her words:“all corruption is bad – they are all drugs – but petty theft and grand theft are like toxic drugs [or drinking bleach, a term suggested by Jordan Schneider]; speed money is like painkillers; access money is like anabolic steroids – they help you grow rapidly but come with serious side effects that accumulate over time.Access money functions as an incentive system for politicians and capitalists to work together, especially when massive infrastructure, involving huge sunk costs, is required for an emerging economy to take off. Access money overpays capitalists to do this, through cheap loans, subsidies, state backing, and in return you get feverish growth that lifts 700 million people out of poverty.”That’s neat storytelling!HomeWorkReading and listening recommendations on public policy matters[Article] Stewart Paterson’s white paper on the Hinrich Foundation site: The digital Yuan and China’s potential financial revolution.[Article] Shyam Benegal on his tryst with CBFC. Money quote: ‘With Bhumika, there were no cuts, no obscenity. According to the censor guidelines, there was nothing that was transgressed, yet it was given an A certificate. I asked, why? They said, the subject of your film is adult. Get on the email list at publicpolicy.substack.com

Guest: Zureena Agulhas | The Master of the High Courts' Western Cape Division See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Validity of an Unstamped Arbitration Agreement There are many agreements wherein the Stamp Act of a particular state requires payment of stamp duty. The Court discussed the jurisprudence behind an Arbitration Agreement and analysed the various judicial precedents in this regard. After doing so, the Court held that: - a. The Court held that “an arbitration agreement is distinct and independent from the underlying substantive commercial contract. Once the arbitration agreement is held to have an independent existence, it can be acted upon, irrespective of the alleged invalidity of the commercial contract.” b. It was further held that in cases of Applications under S.8 (Power of the Court to refer the parties to Arbitration), S. 9 (grant of interim relief before or during the Arbitral Proceedings) and S.11 (Appointment of Arbitrator), of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, the Court can proceed with the Applications to safeguard the subject-matter of the arbitration; however, then the substantive/original contract would have to be impounded and the concerned party is to be directed for payment of the requisite stamp duty in accordance with the relevant local laws. The bottom-line is that deficiency in payment of stamp duty is a curable defect and a chance ought to be provided to the concerned party to cure such defect. The assessment of the stamp duty is generally made by the Collector under the local laws and as such, the findings relating to same could be challenged in separate proceedings as per law.  c. In case where the Arbitrator has already been appointed consensually, the Arbitrator would be obligated to impound the contract/instrument and direct the concerned party to pay the requisite stamp duty. d. SMS Tea Estates Pvt. Ltd. v. Chandmari Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd., (2011) 14 SCC 66, was overruled and the findings of Garware Wall Ropes Limited v. Coastal Marine Constructions and Engineering Limited, (2019) 9 SCC 209, as also, Vidya Drolia v. Durga Trading Corporation, C.A. No. 2402/2019, were found to be erroneous in relation to existence of an Arbitration Agreement.  Is ‘Fraud' an Arbitrable Dispute? The Court discussed various case laws and made a distinction between cases where there are allegations of serious fraud and fraud simplicitor. It held that mere allegations of fraud simplicitor are not a sufficient ground to decline reference to arbitration and there is no express bar in the Arbitration Act with respect to arbitrability of disputes involving allegations of fraud. Therefore, discarding the archaic view that fraud is non-arbitrable and holding it to be obsolete, the Court observed that the civil aspect of fraud can be adjudicated by an arbitral tribunal; “however, the criminal aspect of fraud, forgery, or fabrication, which would be visited with penal consequences and criminal sanctions can be adjudicated only by a court of law, since it may result in a conviction, which is in the realm of public law.” Maintainability of Writ Petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India in relation to Section 8 of the Arbitration Act The Court cited Section 37 (1) (a) of the Arbitration Act and Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, which read as under: -  “Section 37 of the Arbitration ActAppealable orders.— (1) An appeal shall lie from the following orders (and from no others) to the Court authorised by law to hear appeals from original decrees of the Court passing the order, namely:—(a) Refusing to refer the parties to arbitration under section 8; …” “Section 13 (1A) of the Commercial Courts Act13. Appeals from decrees of Commercial Courts and Commercial Divisions.-(1) Any person aggrieved by the judgment or order of a Commercial Court below the level of a District Judge may appeal to the Commercial Appellate Court within a period of 60 days from the date of judgment or order.(1A) Any person aggrieved by the judgment or order of a Commercial Court at the level of District Judge exercising original civil jurisdiction or, as the case may be, Commercial Division of a High Court may appeal to the Commercial Appellate Division of that High Court within a period of sixty days from the date of the judgment or order:Provided that an appeal shall lie from such orders passed by a Commercial Division or a Commercial Court that are specifically enumerated under Order XLIII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) as amended by this Act and Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996).” Thus, the Court held that where is there is availability of a statutory remedy, the Writ Petitions under Articles 226 and 227 would be non-maintainable and liable to set aside. Concluding Remarks Though I have summarized the findings of the Court in this case, yet the Court drew a lengthy judgment and made painstaking efforts to explain the entire jurisprudence behind the existence of arbitration act and arbitrability of dispute. I find it to be a path-breaking case-law that provides much needed respite to the parties who wish to get their disputes arbitrated. Fraud is a touchy issue and countless number of judicial pronouncements had only complicated the matter to understand its arbitrability. The present judgment by the Court is unequivocal in its approach and succinctly puts across the point that the disputes relating to fraud are indeed arbitrable as long as the aspects of penal consequences are not involved. With respect to unstamped arbitration agreements too, the Court observed that deficiency in payment of stamp duty is a separate issue and must be dealt as such and as long as the deficiency in payment of stamp duty is cured by the parties within time, it would not invalidate the arbitration agreement itself. Lastly, the unscrupulous habit of the litigants to approach the High Courts under Articles 226 and 227 would also receive a blow by way of this judgment. There is one small caveat that I wish to add. Though fraud in civil domain has been held to be arbitrable yet parties may try to cleverly bypass the same by invoking frivolous criminal proceedings to oust the arbitrability of fraud. But I guess nothing much could be done about such people except initiate proceedings for malicious prosecution. All in all, it is a ground-breaking judgment and I hope that it would encourage the arbitration scenario in India.

Eminent lawyer Prashant Bhushan posted two tweets criticising the Supreme Court for which he was held guilty of contempt of court. One said that the court had failed to ensure access to justice during the time of the pandemic, the other said that the court had played a role in the destruction of democracy. While of course the case ended up being one of the top highlights from the Supreme Court this year – but do the questions at the heart of it truly represent the state of the Indian judiciary in 2020? Tune in to The Big Story where we bring you a legal roundup of 2020 and what essentially defined the judiciary this year.Producer and Host: Shorbori PurkayasthaGuests: Vakasha Sachdev, Legal Editor, The Quint Editor: Shelly Walia Music: Big Bang FuzzListen to The Big Story podcast on: Apple: https://apple.co/2AYdLIl Saavn: http://bit.ly/2oix78C Google Podcasts: http://bit.ly/2ntMV7S Spotify: https://spoti.fi/2IyLAUQ Deezer: http://bit.ly/2Vrf5Ng

The closed-door dilemma continues as the battle over COVID relief and stimulus plans continues behind closed doors. Prospects are dim that any kind of compromise will be made before the shutdown deadline tomorrow. Once again Boyd asks for lawmakers and politicians to stop hiding behind closed doors and bring the debate where the American citizens can witness them.  ‘Inside Sources with Boyd Matheson,’ Opinion Editor at Deseret News, takes you inside the latest political news and current events, providing higher ground for today's discussions. Listen live Monday through Thursday from 11 am to noon at 1160 AM and 102.7 FM, online at KSLNewsradio.com, or on the app. Listen on-demand as a podcast on your favorite platform or web browser. Follow us on Facebook and Instagram.  Want more Boyd? Don’t forget to listen to his Deseret News podcast ‘Therefore, What?,’ sign up for his weekly newsletter, and follow him on Twitter. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

That patriarchy and biases tend to creep into our everyday lives is not a secret to anybody. But what happens when these biases seep into the functioning of the very body that is supposed to be ensuring that citizens of this country get justice? In this episode of Intersectional Feminism-Desi Style our hosts Pragya and Nishtha are joined by Iswarya Subbiah, a lawyer in High Courts and Trial Courts across India, as they delve into understanding the prejudices that play out in court, the gaps in legal education, and the need for reform in our justice system.

In a system that statistically and routinely disadvantages many groups of society, particularly people of colour. Is there much hope of transforming it from within and is this the best course of action. Hauwa Shehu a prosecutor for crown prosecution service discusses it here   Hauwa is a Criminal Barrister with experience in the Criminal Justice Sector, both domestically in the UK and internationally. Hauwa was called to the Bar of England and Wales in 2013 and joined the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) in 2014.    Hauwa has a breadth of experience prosecuting a range of criminal offences including serious violent and sexual assaults, domestic abuse, hate crime, youth cases and organised crime. She has extensive experience of working with vulnerable victims and witnesses and dealing with cases in the Magistrates, Crown and High Courts.   I.G. @TheGambian @Kultural.Renaissance Twitter: @MomodouTaal

All About: Our Politicised High Court of Justice. Which Law: Should apply in our country? Ottoman, Jordanian, British or our Israeli Law? Who Decides: Our Covid 19 restrictions? The Prime Minister who chose to leave the country in the midst of a second wave for a photo opportunity in Washington, or the ‘know All’ government ministers, or their appointed expert health professional ? Everything is: Trump’s fault. Global warming, the Covid pandemic and the ‘suckers’ who get killed in war! Hear Walter’s reply. The folly: Of the Green New Deal. The Prize to pay: For President Trump's Middle East peace deals. Biden’s Policies: Mainly an echo of President Trump’s achievements. Latest from: The Leifer saga And: BREAKING NEWS The Walter Bingham File 29SEP2020 - PODCAST

We were honoured to host Mr. Surjendu Sankar Das as our guest for the 9th Episode. Mr. Das is a former Dispute Resolution Partner at Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas & Co., New Delhi. He now practices law in Delhi as an Advocate-on-Record (AOR) at the Supreme Court of India. He has successfully handled numerous cases before the Supreme Court, various High Courts, Trial Courts and Tribunals in India. Further, Mr. Das has successfully handled several complex international, domestic arbitrations and challenge/enforcement proceedings. Conversation in the ninth episode is based on the theme: “Shift from Law Firm to Independent Practice: Considerations and Challenges". Mr. Das talks about the shift from a Tier 1 law firm to setting up an independent practice, considerations behind the move, challenges and much more. TCLF ONE-ON-ONE- Through the series, TCLF team aims to interact with the best legal professionals from India and abroad on diverse themes of law.

We are extremely delighted to bring to you all the 5th Episode of TCLF ONE-ON-ONE. We were honoured to host none other than Senior Advocate Mr. Arvind P. Datar as our guest for the 5th Episode. Mr. Datar is a Senior Advocate practising in the Supreme Court, Madras and other High Courts. He has written authoritative commentaries on Constitutional Law, Central Excise and Income Tax Law. He also co-authored the very famous book "Nani Palkhivala: The Courtroom Genius" alongside Sr. Advocate Soli Sorabjee. Conversation in the fifth episode is based on theme: Interpretation of Statutes,Tribunals & Telecom Industry. Mr. Datar talks about his early days as a lawyer, reading voluminous judgements, interpretation of statutes and much more. TCLF ONE-ON-ONE- Through the series, TCLF team aims to interact with the best legal professionals from India and abroad on diverse themes of law. The Contemporary Law Forum (TCLF) is a student run, professionally supported blog established with the primary objective of promoting and publishing quality legal research on contemporary issues of law.

Nako Bo Tebele Esq. is a practicing Attorney, Conveyancer and Notary Public of the Courts of Botswana. She graduated from the University of Botswana in October 2016 and joined Ramalepa Attorneys to date. Nako is a born leader, her duties as both the Practice Manager and a Senior Attorney with the Firm are fulfilled effortlessly. She is a strong debt collection attorney and leads the division in the Firm. She also sits on a number of boards as a company secretary and advices on corporate governance. Nako forms part of the business development team and always strives for ways of expanding business. Currently she runs her flower arrangement company, Flovers, as a florist and puts a smile on people's faces with the work of her hands for which she qualified from Sandy's Floral Academy in Johannesburg, South Africa. Tune in to hear about Nako's journey in the legal profession and how she also applauds men who are deliberate about advancing women's careers in the profession. Tag us on Instagram @nako_tebele @sister_in_law_ NB: Don't forget to rate and review the show. Your feedback is important to me, please send all feedback and (guest) suggestions to advice@sisterinlaw.co.za The same email can also be used to book consultations, request collaborations or paid partnership on the podcast or to advertise your business in the Sister In Law newsletter. To be added to the Sister In Law newsletter mailing list visit https://linktr.ee/tebellomotshwane Stay home. Stay safe --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/tebello-motshwane/message

Coffee and Conversations w/LaKisha 765 The High Courts! Pray over yourself: Psalm 91; Luke 10:19; Revelation 12:11; Matthew 16:19; 2 Timothy 1:7; Psalm 23; Jeremiah 29:11; Jeremiah 1:5 Scripture Reference: Isaiah 53:5; Psalm 22:3; Psalm 100:4; 2 Corinthians 10:5; Psalm 91 Go Be Love Today! LaKishaMJohnson.com You may always contact us @ info@justbeinglmj.com Positioned to impact the world with a message of love and faith. Stay connected and subscribe! For daily devotionals: https://www.lakishamjohnson.com/devotionals Our podcast are now available! http://anchor.fm/justbeinglmj For exclusive content, inspiration, and past favorites: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXQpH5fkmiYgipbtKi7Wukw Thank you for your continued prayer and support! If you would like to sow and support us in your giving; see the information below. We are a 501c3 ministry. 1. PayPal.me/justbeinglmj 2. Cash App-$lmjministry (please put your email in the for line) --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/justbeinglmj/support

What a time we find ourselves in! Facing a lockdown amid this quarantine due to the spread of the Coronavirus! There's a lot of confusion as to what we can and cannot do during this time.Hence, we thought that we'd dedicate a small 4-episode series to spreading legal awareness during this time.On the first episode of this new season of Know Your Kanoon, Amber Rana talks about important topics, namely - whether the quarantine we are stuck in is legit, what are our fundamental duties during this time, when, how & under what circumstances can one apply for a vehicle pass, and lastly the international health regulations, and what are the ministries in India that one can reach out to for help.You can get in touch with Amber at contact@amranaventures.comYou can listen to this show and other awesome shows on the IVM Podcast App on Android: https://goo.gl/tGYdU1 or iOS: https://goo.gl/sZSTU5You can check out our website at http://www.ivmpodcasts.com/

Fasi and Mosharraf are joined by lawyer Umer Gilani and strategic affairs expert Hassan Akbar of the Jinnah Institute. They discuss the General Musharraf verdict, the imminent Indian attack on Pakistan and the state and fate of Prime Minister Imran Khan. Umer Gilani has studied law at the Lahore University of Management Sciences and the University of Washington, Seattle. He is an Advocate of the High Courts of Pakistan and practices in Islamabad. Syed Hassan Akbar is Director Programs at Jinnah Institute. Akbar has co-authored and supervised several nationally representative research studies on democracy, governance, gender and poverty alleviation. He studied at Columbia University and the Lahore University of Management Sciences.

Dr. Diana Kapiszewski is a Provost's Distinguished Associate Professor in the Department of Government. She has authored multiple journal articles and four books, including the award-winning High Courts and Economic Governance in Argentina and Brazil. Her current work examines judicial politics and law in Latin America. One project analyzes institutions of electoral governance and another investigates informal workers' use of legal strategies in the region, focused in Brazil and Mexico. Beyond her work in this field, she is also distinguished and award-winning in the area of research methods, co-directing the Qualitative Data Repository and co-editing the new Cambridge University book series: ‘Methods of Social Inquiry'. Her work has appeared in publications such as Latin American Politics and Society, Law and Social Inquiry, Law & Society Review, Perspectives on Politics, and PS: Political Science and Politics. Table of Contents: Table of Contents: 0:00 Welcome & Introduction 1:17 How did you end up at the Department of Government at Georgetown? 4:34 How do language and culture inform your research? 7:07 What are the driving questions of your book? 13:15 What are the ingredients of success in your research? 19:05 Who should care about combining methods? 21:33 What are the challenges of promoting combining methods in academia? 22:36 What is the qualitative data repository? 25:45 How do you juggle numerous roles? Music: Main Theme: Corporate Technology by Scott Holmes Background: Horizon Soundscapes by RF Soundtracks

India's judicial system operates at three levels: the Supreme Court at the national level, High Courts at the state level, and city or district level courts at the local level. A lot of the public interest in how India's courts are doing is largely directed at High Courts and the Supreme Court, but the most impactful judicial reforms have to start at the local level. Surya Prakash BS joins Pavan Srinath on Episode 114 of The Pragati Podcast to help us understand the functioning of the subordinate judiciary. The Pragati Podcast is a weekly talkshow on public policy, economics and international relations hosted by Pavan Srinath. Surya Prakash BS is Fellow & Programme Director at Daksh, a Bengaluru-based think tank focused on judicial reforms in India and to enable the speedy delivery of justice for all. Surya also hosts the Thale-Harate Kannada Podcast along with Pavan Srinath and Ganesh Chakravarthi. Recently, Daksh released a report on the litigation landscape of Bengaluru rural courts: http://dakshindia.org/litigation-landscape-bengaluru-rural/ If you have any questions or comments, write in to podcast@thinkpragati.com. Follow The Pragati Podcast on Instagram: https://instagram.com/pragatipod Follow Pragati on Twitter: https://twitter.com/thinkpragati Follow Pragati on Facebook: https://facebook.com/thinkpragati Subscribe & listen to The Pragati Podcast on iTunes, Saavn, Spotify, Castbox, Google Podcasts, AudioBoom, YouTube or any other podcast app. We are there everywhere. You can listen to this show and other awesome shows on the IVM Podcasts app on Android: https://ivm.today/android or iOS: https://ivm.today/ios, or any other podcast app. You can check out our website at http://www.ivmpodcasts.com/

On this weeks Farmview, as the BEEF Crisis continues – with the BEEF processors pursuing protesters through the High Courts, we get the views of Pat O' Toole Irish Farmers Journal.Plus We look back at Dungarvan CO Ops - 100 years Celebrations and hear from some of the principals involved

In this episode, we talk about the institutional tug-of-war that has taken place between the judiciary and the political executive over who controls the procedure to appoint judges to the High Courts and the Supreme Court. In this episode we try to unpack why governments have been concerned about exercising some sort of control over the process and why we are presently stuck in an unacceptable situation where almost no one is happy with the way judges are being appointed. You can listen to this show and other awesome shows on the IVM Podcasts app on Android: https://ivm.today/android or iOS: https://ivm.today/ios, or any other podcast app.

Last century, NZ became the first major country to become Nuclear Free. Thanks to the work of dedicated activists supported by thousands of ordinary New Zealanders we are still essentially GE & GMO Free today, too. Can we quickly mobilise the populace, especially loving mothers, so as to empower all district councils, towns and cities nationwide to enact laws against the rollout of 5 G wireless networks? The propaganda war is increasing exponentially as financially flush Telcos, like Spark, Vodafone and 2 Degrees - ‘spin’ the benefits of streaming nonstop media to our smartphones and target our unknowing youth. All the while they are saturating the environment and us with intensifying frequencies from ubiquitous cell phone towers…Now they are planning to place new more powerful radiation-emitting “small cells” around 250 metres apart in our cities and towns. Yet, we have not been told of the ‘health benefits' - as there are none! On the contrary, knowledgeable scientists and health professionals have been warning us against this coming technology as the wireless industry has migrated from 1G to 2G to 3G and 4G. https://www.5gappeal.eu/ . Now “Big Wireless” wants to introduce 5G and flood our neighbourhoods with even more wireless radiation whilst at the same time cancer and ill effects keep escalating countrywide. This is also now slowly overwhelming NZ’s ‘free’ national health system. No, this is not a scare tactic - do the research yourself. 150 years ago - there was no microwave radiation other than extremely low levels from the sun and an occasional pulsar in space - coming in from millions of light years away. Now we are metaphorically wading through a jelly of accelerating magnitude of microwaves and other artificial forms of electromagnetic radiation - and the general health and wellbeing of the populace has not been taken into consideration. Nor has the health of nature, the biota within the biosphere such as animals and especially your pets, your cats and dogs - plus insects, bees and all trees and plants.  http://www.5g.org.nz/2018/10/06/like-trees-enjoy-breathing-oxygen-you-should-oppose-5g/ Where is the scientific evidence proving that this latest technology is safe? It is known (listen to the interview) that the telecommunications industry along with broadcasting - be it TV or radio and in particular the relationship to ‘smart’ phones – had a huge amount of influence in the development of the current standards in NZ as to what sort of level of microwave and other wireless radiation is acceptable and where cellular phone infrastructure can be sited. There was negligible input from people who were advocates for ‘human health’ involved in the process of setting NZ’s current standards. This was an ‘inside’ job, almost completely focussed on how it would benefit the telecommunications industry and profits. What this means that essentially no consideration to ‘due diligence’ or ‘the precautionary principle’ was taken in relation to biological life - meaning we humans! So how do we relay this information to ordinary New Zealanders when we realise that MSM, mainstream media, the Fourth Estate have reneged on their duties to inform you the public. Well, just like the many loving mothers and concerned ordinary New Zealanders back in the 1980’s who did not want to be targeted in a nuclear war between the USA and the Soviet Union - when we had no say what so ever in the matter other than we were obliged to go and do whatever America decreed. So thoughtful New Zealanders became activated and banded together over tea and coffee and gatherings or all manner of situations to convince local council, boroughs, towns and eventually city councillors to enact Nuclear Free Zones across the whole country. That finally when around 105 councils across the nation representing about 76% of the electorate happened, it gave the mandate to David Lange, Prime Minister of the 4th Labour Government to make NZ - ‘Nuclear Free NZ.’ And be a beacon of peace to the world. This continues to be followed up in relation to becoming a GE and GMO Free country as well. With Hastings/Napier becoming GE Free, and all of Northland now becoming the largest GE Free area in New Zealand. However we have arrived at a crunch time. The previous NZ National Government in realising that people power was still prevalent and that GE Free activists were writing submissions, signing petitions and attending meetings and gatherings to advise and invigorate local Councils - that ordinary citizens did not want this unhealthy biotech in their regions. The Government took action. They decided to keep ‘control’ of the narrative by endeavouring to usurp the power of local councils, towns and cities from governing their own local areas and regions. The Government wanted to prohibit councils from passing by-laws banning GE and GMO’s. Fortunately the High Courts of the land sided with the Councils. However, we cannot be at all sure how the present Government will react to such a powerful global technology that is omnipresent and in everyone’s lives. Why? Because (with the exception of putting out a consultation which appears to have been basically intended to elicit feedback from the telecommunications industry) they have remained deathly silent all of this year! So the game plan is to share this information as much as possible especially texting this to family members and talk about this at the table, when hanging out with friends - because there is an imperative for New Zealanders to come together, share, cooperate and collaborate and start the movement to make NZ a 5G Free Country. There is a 5G information website for NZ which is www.5G.org.nz

The Constitutional Court of South Africa handed down the Marijuana ruling that has been termed historical on the 18th of September 2018. Gavin Smith and Gavin Stansfield chat about some of the implications to watch out for in the workplace. The judgment deal with the constitutionality of the prohibition and criminalization of the use of cannabis by adult persons in their private dwellings. The Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act 140 of 1992 (Drugs Act) read together with the Medicines and Related Substances Control Act 101 of 1965 (Medicines Act), prohibits and criminalizes the use, possession, purchase, and cultivation of cannabis by any individual in South Africa. The relevant provisions of the legislation are: 1. Drug Act • Section 4(b) and 5(b) • Part III of Schedule 2 2. Medicines Act • Section 22A(9)(a)(i) • Schedule 7 The Cannabis judgment undoubtedly has implications for South African society. Since the initial challenges launched by Prince (as far back as 2002 and 1998), there are now 33 countries (including Australia, Canada, Spain, and Switzerland) around the world that have decriminalized and legalized the use of cannabis. Attitudes towards cannabis have changed, and continue to change, in many countries. These were facts that the High Courts used in support of its ruling and this was mentioned by the Constitutional Court in the Cannabis judgment. For certain religious groups and persons who make use of cannabis for medicinal reasons, the Cannabis judgment will be seen as a victory for various constitutional rights (including, the right to freedom of religion and the right to privacy). --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/africanperspective/support

The Constitutional Court of South Africa handed down the Marijuana ruling that has been termed historical on the 18th of September 2018. Gavin Smith and Gavin Stansfield chat about some of the implications to watch out for in the workplace. The judgment deal with the constitutionality of the prohibition and criminalization of the use of cannabis by adult persons in their private dwellings. The Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act 140 of 1992 (Drugs Act) read together with the Medicines and Related Substances Control Act 101 of 1965 (Medicines Act), prohibits and criminalizes the use, possession, purchase, and cultivation of cannabis by any individual in South Africa. The relevant provisions of the legislation are: 1. Drug Act • Section 4(b) and 5(b) • Part III of Schedule 2 2. Medicines Act • Section 22A(9)(a)(i) • Schedule 7 The Cannabis judgment undoubtedly has implications for South African society. Since the initial challenges launched by Prince (as far back as 2002 and 1998), there are now 33 countries (including Australia, Canada, Spain, and Switzerland) around the world that have decriminalized and legalized the use of cannabis. Attitudes towards cannabis have changed, and continue to change, in many countries. These were facts that the High Courts used in support of its ruling and this was mentioned by the Constitutional Court in the Cannabis judgment. For certain religious groups and persons who make use of cannabis for medicinal reasons, the Cannabis judgment will be seen as a victory for various constitutional rights (including, the right to freedom of religion and the right to privacy). --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/africabusinessnews/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/africabusinessnews/support

In this podcast, Debtwire talks to tax lawyer Ashish Sodhani of Indian law firm Nishith Desai Associates to parse through the tax issues facing buyers of Indian onshore loans. Ever since India began pushing its largest debtors into bankruptcy in the summer of 2017, the country’s distressed loans have provided the most active trading opportunity for special-situation credit investors in Asia. In addition to needing to learn about the evolving bankruptcy law, investors jumping into the market were confronted with a confounding tax regime that has yet to properly account for new bankruptcy regime. Sodhani is a senior member of Nishith Desai’s International Tax Practice, focuses on cross-border tax and corporate structuring transactions and has been involved in the recent issues relating to applicability of the Minimum Alternate Tax on foreign investors before the High Court. He has represented clients before various forum’s, including Tribunals, various High Courts and Supreme Court of India in relation to disputes on international tax. 0:00 Intro; 4:24 Carry-forward losses; 5:40 Minimum alternative tax; 9:35 Tax risks for loan buyers; 9:50 Capital assets vs biz income; 14:22 Advantage of capital gains; 15:47 Investment structures; 16:27 A.I.F.s; 19:22 ARC/Securitization trust; 23:31 Double taxation – Mauritius/Singapore; 27:05 No certainty; 28:01 Taxman’s subordination

The Constitutional Court of South Africa handed down the Marijuana ruling that has been termed historical on the 18th of September 2018. Gavin Smith and Gavin Stansfield chat about some of the implications to watch out for in the workplace. The judgment deal with the constitutionality of the prohibition and criminalization of the use of cannabis by adult persons in their private dwellings. The Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act 140 of 1992 (Drugs Act) read together with the Medicines and Related Substances Control Act 101 of 1965 (Medicines Act), prohibits and criminalizes the use, possession, purchase, and cultivation of cannabis by any individual in South Africa. The relevant provisions of the legislation are:1. Drug Act•Section 4(b) and 5(b)•Part III of Schedule 22. Medicines Act•Section 22A(9)(a)(i)•Schedule 7The Cannabis judgment undoubtedly has implications for South African society.Since the initial challenges launched by Prince (as far back as 2002 and 1998), there are now 33 countries (including Australia, Canada, Spain, and Switzerland) around the world that have decriminalized and legalized the use of cannabis. Attitudes towards cannabis have changed, and continue to change, in many countries. These were facts that the High Courts used in support of its ruling and this was mentioned by the Constitutional Court in the Cannabis judgment.For certain religious groups and persons who make use of cannabis for medicinal reasons, the Cannabis judgment will be seen as a victory for various constitutional rights (including, the right to freedom of religion and the right to privacy).--- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/africabusinessnews/messageSupport this podcast: https://anchor.fm/africabusinessnews/support --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/africabusinessnews/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/africabusinessnews/support

Fear Today's featured guest is Milosz Pierwola. The topic is "Fear." Let the show begin. Guest Bio Milosz Pierwola went to school for over 21 years, wandering academic corridors in search of inspiration. First, he became a mathematician and economist, then an attorney in NYC and abroad – working on cases in South Africa with the Constitutional Court of South Africa, in London with a Barrister in the High Courts, and as a member of the New York Bar’s Africa Affairs Committee. However, that is not who he is now. Milosz is known as Adventure Milo now and is officially an explorer, a dream he held onto since he was a child. “It was a fairy tale, you know? I told everyone I wanted to be just like Indiana Jones, Odysseus, and Marco Polo… but I was told to get a real job. It was very discouraging.” He details the diverse jobs he attempted to find happiness with but was frustrated by his efforts. Today, however, he could not be happier as he works with award-winning humanitarian organizations in some of the most remote parts of the world. But, even more, he founded the organization Worldin360.com where he uses 360 Cameras to film his adventures and shares them by bringing VR Headsets to orphanages, hospitals, inpatient care centres, and underprivileged schools.

In a bombshell directive, the Delhi High Court has swept aside the AIFF President Praful Patel's authority over the Federation, determining that the election process in December 2016 breached the National Sports Code. We discuss what led to this decision, how the changes enforced by the High Courts will play out, how AIFF top brass may react to this and what might get affected by this. This is an IVM Production; for more such awesome podcasts, come find us: Website: Indusvox.com Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ivmpodcasts Twitter: https://twitter.com/IVMPodcasts Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ivmpodcasts/

This week’s Dumteedum comes from Bye Bye Steve! On this week’s episode we have calls from Lord Louise who’s got issues with Brookfield Luke Hannington who’s playing grown ups Genevieve who’s says cowgate is true to life Bill Gallagher who’s disappointed in the High Courts of Chancery Kosmo who’s feeling uncovered and Emily Thomas who has a plot prediction See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.