Chennai, Sep 29: Subramanian Swamy said that justice was delivered
because Prime Minister Narendra Modi did not influence the
disproportionate assets case of Tamil Nadu former Chief Minister J
Jayalalithaa and let it go independently.
Swamy said that initially he also thought that he's fighting against the
leader of one of the biggest political parties in Tamil Nadu and the
case is sure to get influenced.
But when he approached Prime Minister
Narendra Modi for the same, Modi assured him that he will not interfere in
the case and that Swamy can freely go about it legally.
Swamy also agreed to the fact that there was a lot of pressure from a
lot of people and to keep the case going, they had to put in too much
efforts. But he was thankful that the case did not reach the point of
withdrawal.
Swamy said that he was always sure that the court will give the right
judgement and appropriate sentence to Jayalalithaa. "Though it has been a
little late, justice has been delivered."
Jayalalithaa was sentenced to serve four years in jail and asked to pay a
fine Rs.100 crores in connection with a disproportionate assets case by
a Bangalore Special Court.
_________________________________________________________
Unconstitutional power in India.
Nobody makes such a statement in United States. I asked Barack Obama not to interfere in that case; and Barack assured me that he will not interfere; and I could go about it legally without any interference.
Only in India.
Sonia had been the unconstitutional authority in India and had been giving directions to Manmohan Singh.
Now, Subramaniam Swamy has been the unconstitutional authority in India; giving step by step instructions to Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Whether it is Sri Lanka or Israel or Islamic State. Prime Minister Modi listens to Subramaniam Swamy.
Subramaniam Swamy is not a member of Modi cabinet.
Subramaniam Swamy is not a Member of Parliament.
Subramaniam Swamy has no constitutional authority; no responsibility; no accountability.
But in 2014, Subramaniam Swamy is the powerful man in India; who could influence the Prime Minister Modi.
_____________________________________________________________________
Go through the statement, word by word.
It is an insult to the Constitution of India.
It is an insult to the entire Judicial Branch.
It raises questions about the authority and responsibility of the Judicial System in India.
_________________________________________________________________
Subramanian Swamy said that justice was delivered because Prime Minister Narendra Modi did not influence the disproportionate assets case of Tamil Nadu former Chief Minister J Jayalalithaa and let it go independently.
That means Prime Minister could influence;
but chose not to influence the judicial system in India.
_______________________________________________________
Swamy also agreed to the fact that there was a lot of pressure from a lot of people and to keep the case going, they had to put in too much efforts. But he was thankful that the case did not reach the point of withdrawal.
Lot of pressure from a lot of people....
Swamy needs to make that list of people public.
he was thankful....
Thankful to who?
Thankful to that judge; the judge did his duty; you don't need to be thankful for that.
_________________________________________________________
The bottom line is; from Swamy's statement, the judicial system in India doesn't function with total freedom.
People from the Executive Branch could influence the judgement.
_______________________________________________________
Blame it on Magna Carta
Before Magna Carta, the King or the Queen was the judge.
There were no separate Judicial Branch.
Whether it is King Pandyan at Madurai or King Solomon, they delivered judgement instantly.
There was no delay. When Kanngi came to the court of King Pandyan, Pandyan listened to the argument and gave the judgement instantly.
When two mothers came to the court of King Solomon, Solomon listened to the argument and gave the judgement instantly.
Blame it on Magna Carta. We lost that system; now we depend on judicial courts for judgement.
Who is accountable for the delay in delivering the judgement?
Who could be held accountable for the delay of 18 years?
What do we have now?
In democracy, we say the people is king or queen.
And people leader is the King or Queen in democracy.
Does these new Kings or Queens have the wisdom of those ancient kings and queens.
Who could be held accountable for the delay in delivering the judgment for 18 years?
Could we have all the Chief Justices during these 18 years accountable for the delay?
Everything has an expiry date. You cannot drag it forever.
Judges!
If you cannot deliver judgment within its expiry date, then that case goes invalid.
This case is a dead one.
Giving a judgement on this dead case; it is like decorating a dead body.
No comments:
Post a Comment