Earning our PRIDE

Dear Diary,

Today we put an end to the black and white and grey. Today, we earned ourselves a full rainbow. Full of colours, love, joy, hope and happiness. And most of all, a promise. A promise of a better tomorrow. A promise of a safer tomorrow. A promise of a world where we can all live as equals. Every colour coming together to create something extraordinary beautiful. Today, we’ve earned our PRIDE.

Advertisement

Love is Love

They say if it ends, it wasn’t love to begin with. If it’s over, it never was.

Shouldn’t it be the other way round though? If it ever was, it was love! Even if it were only for a day or a single fleeting second or simply one-sided, if you felt it in your heart, in your mind, in the very being of your soul, it was nothing other than love? Do you mean to tell me that a flower in bloom, which later withers and dies, was never endowed with sweet nectar? Or a Mayfly, which lives but for a day, is not one of God’s loved creations? If something ends, it never began? If something’s over, it didn’t exist?

No, darling. Love just is. And you’re all the more luckier for having felt it, experienced it and lived it. Let’s not smother it with the expectation of being everlasting.

Because

Love is what it is. Not what it ought to be.

So live. And love. And in loving, live once again.

Today is a great day for India! A centuries old, oppressive, discriminatory law was repealed. There’s no need for anyone to live in the closet anymore. You can dress yourself in a rainbow if you want and step out of the closet into a country accepting of love, individuality and choice. Today, love wins! And in doing so, gives us hope.

Featured Image

No Reform in Procedure for Allotment of Cases: Supreme Court

On 6th July, 2018, the Supreme Court laid to rest yet another debate on the question of judicial accountability. In the case of Shanti Bhushan vs. Supreme Court of India and Ors. MANU/SC/0702/2018, a petition filed by Senior Advocate and Former Law Minister, Mr. Shanti Bhushan, it had been contended that concentration of unfettered powers in a single person was anti-democratic. Thus, reforms in the process of determination of were sought.  While conceding that the Chief Justice of India was indeed the Master of Roster, it was argued that the process of allocating cases should be determined by the collegium of senior most judges instead of the CJI alone so as to prevent abuse of power. While the 2 judge bench of Hon’ble Justices A.K. Sikri and Ashok Bhushan decided not to act upon the said petition, they did shed considerable light on judicial accountability and the qualities that need to be possessed by judges. The opinion of the judges have been summarized as follows –

  • On the petitioner’s contention that the role of CJI as the ‘master of roster’ was not based on any constitutional provision, Justice Sikri expressly acknowledged that the Constitution is silent on the role of Chief Justice as the Master of the Roster. However, he added that this role was “based upon healthy practice and sound conventions which have been developed over a period of time and that stands engrafted in the Supreme Court Rules.”
  • Reliance was placed on the cases of Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms vs. Union of India & Anr. And the Asok Pande Case which affirmed the powers of the CJI as the master of the roster. Further, these cases reaffirmed that the CJI was an institution in himself and, thus, his administrative power of allocating cases cannot be delegated to the Collegium.
  • It was observed that –

This kind of system which is devised for the appointment of Judges cannot be replicated when it comes to the role of the Chief Justice as Master of Roster. We have to keep in mind that the Chief Justice, as the head of the Supreme Court of India, and the Chief Justices of the High Courts, have to perform many other functions, on the administrative side, in their capacities as Chief Justices. Framing of the Roster and constituting the Benches is one among them. In case the expression ‘Chief Justice’ is to be interpreted as ‘Collegium’, it would be difficult to have smooth day to day functioning of the Supreme Court, or for that matter the High Courts.

  • However, Justice Sikri reiterated the role of the CJI as that of being ‘first amongst the equals” and thereby clarified that the bench to which a case has been allotted will have complete dominion over the case.
  • The Bench further outlined the qualities to be possessed by a judge such as –

– Wisdom

– Patience

– Fairness and Balance

– Independence of Mind

– Knowledge of the Law

– Moral Courage or Fortitude

– Sense of Practical Reality

– Commitment to Administration of Justice in Accordance with Law

Thus, the Supreme Court has once again refused to entertain reforms to the CJI’s power as master of the roster as against transparency in the procedure of allocating cases. A huge furor had been created in this regard in a press conference on January 12, 2018 wherein the 4 senior most judges of the Supreme Court had expressed concerns about this very issue. However, status quo has been maintained as of now.

Full text of this judgment can be found at – Shanti Bhushan vs. Supreme Court of India and Ors. MANU/SC/0702/2018

The CCI Penalizes Hyundai Motors on the Basis of Relevant Turnover for having indulged in Resale Price Maintenance

Hello everyone!
Keeping in sync with the new direction of this blog as explained earlier today, I have created a new site for all things related to law. It’s called Law and Little Things. It’s objective is to demystify complex legal advancements for the layman. After all, law shouldn’t have to be Latin and Greek considering how much it governs our life, right?
Please go and follow the site if it piques your interest. I’m sharing the latest offering from there hereinbelow.

Law and Little Things

On 15th June, 2017, the Competition Commission of India (“CCI”) found Hyundai Motors Industries Limited (India) (“HMIL”) to be guilty of indulging in Resale Price Maintenance (RPM) having an appreciable adverse effect on market competition. The Final Order passed under Section 27 of the Competition Act, 2002 (the “Act”) is of significance by virtue of being the first order passed in the wake of the recent decision of the Supreme Court (“SC”) in which CCI’s penalizing power was considerably curtailed. The SC’s judgment in the case of Excel Corp. Care vs. The Competition Commission of India, by relying on the principles of equity and proportionality and on foreign competition jurisprudence vis-a-vis affected commerce, validated the concept of “relevant turnover” as introduced by the Competition Appellate Tribunal (“COMPAT”).

Background

Section 27(b) of the Act authorizes the CCI to impose penalty…

View original post 1,026 more words