Who authorized the courts to create laws or remove laws? Only the legislature can create or modify laws. The judiciary can only remove a law the new law is against an existing law. The SC outlawed the Judicial Appointments Commission passed by the Lok Sabha, the Rajya Sabha and 16 states as the 99th Constitutional Amendment Act-2014. If the judiciary transgresses into making laws, it will soon rule that death penalty is illegal.
Re: the court transgresses into the functioning of legislature
by vinod kumar k on Sep 06, 2018 11:38 PM
The NJAC was not against any existing law but only against the Collegium procedure conveniently created by the judiciary.
Re: Re: the court transgresses into the functioning of legislatur
by mandook raj on Sep 07, 2018 07:20 AM
This is the most irrational judgment. If sex is biological and innate, why should the Hon'ble court prohibit sex with children and animals? The present decriminalization of gay sex will promote, encourage and spread abuse of children by some religious orders. The judgment is more emotional than rational. It is populist.
Re: 377-SC
by sachchidanand dhar on Sep 06, 2018 04:26 PM
So-afterall- there is some truth to the allegations that Indian Constitution is a copy of British Constitution. I always suspected that. No wonder , India remained laggard in development. No independent thinking ever.
Re: Re: 377-SC
by Patriotic Indian on Sep 06, 2018 05:08 PM
You should be aware of that Indian Constitution is a mixture of British and US Constitutions with some additions as per the need.
Re: Re: Re: 377-SC
by mandook raj on Sep 07, 2018 07:23 AM
There is no British Constitution. Britain has only codified laws, no written constitution. There are a number of indian laws enacted by the British Government. Laws are different from Constitution.
1-Basically, The court has pointed out that Constitution is inconsistent with itself, and , in its interpretation. Same court and some other judges have interpreted it differently. 2-A resolute defendant can appeal against this judgement in the same court- and a different set of judges can reverse this verdict too. 3-How will the law be applied to those minorities who have separate personal laws? 4-"History owes apology to LGBTQ community"....Who is history? Does it mean the historians? Like Romilla Thapar and Irfan Habib ? Have they not hidden the fact that Babar was a homo? That during Turkish and Roman empires in middle ages ,castration of pre puberty boys was not uncommon? 5-Is it true that court wants people to change their mindset? Is it not true that Court's role is to interpret the constitution, and not change peoples' mindsets??????What will they do to those who don't change their mindsets?