vijay wrote:

suni51 wrote:

The murders of Rajiv Gandhi and Beant Singh were crimes against individuals but in case of Memon he is guilty of serial blasts that killed hundreds of innocent people and injured several times more. There is no comparison in between these cases.

 

Then why where they awarded death sentences? So now a mathematical formula needs to be evolved to lonking numer murders and death sentence punishment.

 

I am a 'nobody' on manufacturing formulas on such matters but that's how I felt. As far I am concerned I would like to see all criminals wiped out without delay as normally taken by the Indian judiciary. I see no reason why (and how) a petition can be filed in a lower court once President and Supreme court have already given their verdict. I wish I knew a little more about these matters. 

suni51 wrote:

vijay wrote:

suni51 wrote:

The murders of Rajiv Gandhi and Beant Singh were crimes against individuals but in case of Memon he is guilty of serial blasts that killed hundreds of innocent people and injured several times more. There is no comparison in between these cases.

 

Then why where they awarded death sentences? So now a mathematical formula needs to be evolved to lonking numer murders and death sentence punishment.

 

I am a 'nobody' on manufacturing formulas on such matters but that's how I felt. As far I am concerned I would like to see all criminals wiped out without delay as normally taken by the Indian judiciary. I see no reason why (and how) a petition can be filed in a lower court once President and Supreme court have already given their verdict. I wish I knew a little more about these matters. 

 

Also how can Supreme Court award death sentence and then on subsequent reviews change it to life sentence. Also why the death sentence is not carried out for 10 or 20 years and then a political party asks them to be released. It is not understandable.

There are two versions on Yaquib Memon's hanging. One is He has to be hanged because he was responsible for killing many humans. The other version is a retired RAW official who coordinated the operation to bring Yaquib Memon back feels Yaquib doesn't deserve gallows. But left his opinion inconclusive. And he was silent about his deed of causing loss of  human lives.

Religion is not really the issue. The issue is uniformity of application of law. I find that is lacking in India. I read the other day that the Naithari killer who killed some 40-50 woman and kids and raped many of them has got a reprieve from Allahabad high court and his sentence is converted to life in prison. Also dreaded terrorists like Bhullar have been spared the noose. In India there is no uniformity of application of law. i have a gut feeling that perhaps Yakub Memon may yet be spared.

A confused state can not have uniformity in application of laws.

vijay wrote:

A confused state can not have uniformity in application of laws.

 

I feel that the lower courts go strictly by words in statute but the High Ciurts and Supreme Courts fo beyond written text of law and here the personal bias or prejudice works. This is vouched by the fact.that on same issue high courts decide differently anf addto confusion. Ultimately law is implemented diffently according to jurisdiction of High Court till Supreme Court overrules some decisions and gives final ruling.   

Gulshan Kumar Ajmani wrote:

vijay wrote:

A confused state can not have uniformity in application of laws.

 

I feel that the lower courts go strictly by words in statute but the High Ciurts and Supreme Courts fo beyond written text of law and here the personal bias or prejudice works. This is vouched by the fact.that on same issue high courts decide differently anf addto confusion. Ultimately law is implemented diffently according to jurisdiction of High Court till Supreme Court overrules some decisions and gives final ruling.   

 

But the question is how can lower courts hear cases already decided by higher courts.

Gulshan Kumar Ajmani wrote:

vijay wrote:

A confused state can not have uniformity in application of laws.

 

I feel that the lower courts go strictly by words in statute but the High Ciurts and Supreme Courts fo beyond written text of law and here the personal bias or prejudice works. This is vouched by the fact.that on same issue high courts decide differently anf addto confusion. Ultimately law is implemented diffently according to jurisdiction of High Court till Supreme Court overrules some decisions and gives final ruling.   

 

The  very fact "Courts' decisions and interpretations be it Apex court or High court  vary as mentioned by you support the version of Vijay. Definitely a state of confusion is prevailing in the judiciary system.

 

rambabu wrote:

Gulshan Kumar Ajmani wrote:

vijay wrote:

A confused state can not have uniformity in application of laws.

 

I feel that the lower courts go strictly by words in statute but the High Ciurts and Supreme Courts fo beyond written text of law and here the personal bias or prejudice works. This is vouched by the fact.that on same issue high courts decide differently anf addto confusion. Ultimately law is implemented diffently according to jurisdiction of High Court till Supreme Court overrules some decisions and gives final ruling.   

 

The  very fact "Courts' decisions and interpretations be it Apex court or High court  vary as mentioned by you support the version of Vijay. Definitely a state of confusion is prevailing in the judiciary system.

 

 We copied the British system of justice, but they reformed their justice system. Unfortunately in India the old  system continues and that is the reason for confusion  in the judiciary. That is one reason the trials carry on for years and death sentences are not executed also fore decades. There is an inbuilt state of confusion in our judicial system. Just as an example the Madras high court had asked a rape victim to talk to her rapist and try and solve the problem till the Supreme court came down heavily and the order was recalled. 

 

MG Singh wrote:

rambabu wrote:

Gulshan Kumar Ajmani wrote:

vijay wrote:

A confused state can not have uniformity in application of laws.

 

I feel that the lower courts go strictly by words in statute but the High Ciurts and Supreme Courts fo beyond written text of law and here the personal bias or prejudice works. This is vouched by the fact.that on same issue high courts decide differently anf addto confusion. Ultimately law is implemented diffently according to jurisdiction of High Court till Supreme Court overrules some decisions and gives final ruling.   

 

The  very fact "Courts' decisions and interpretations be it Apex court or High court  vary as mentioned by you support the version of Vijay. Definitely a state of confusion is prevailing in the judiciary system.

 

 We copied the British system of justice, but they reformed their justice system. Unfortunately in India the old  system continues and that is the reason for confusion  in the judiciary. That is one reason the trials carry on for years and death sentences are not executed also fore decades. There is an inbuilt state of confusion in our judicial system. Just as an example the Madras high court had asked a rape victim to talk to her rapist and try and solve the problem till the Supreme court came down heavily and the order was recalled. 

However, it is certain there exists a " State of Confusion" in Indian judiciary. Now it is time for all essential amends. Please suggest some ways to make Indian Judiciary more effective.