Unusual points of the SC hearing in #Hathras case:
1. SC questioned the locus of Sr. Adv. Indira Jaising's client [an intervener] but not of the Petitioner. [Though, none of them are affected parties]
2. SG [for State of UP] did not consider the petition as adversarial.
1. SC questioned the locus of Sr. Adv. Indira Jaising's client [an intervener] but not of the Petitioner. [Though, none of them are affected parties]
2. SG [for State of UP] did not consider the petition as adversarial.
3. Does it mean that the petition is collusive?
4. The SC ignored the precedence of sending the petitioner to jurisdictional HC -Allahabad HC. Despite the jurisdictional HC having taken suo motu cognizance of the very same incidence & notices to UP State have already been issued
4. The SC ignored the precedence of sending the petitioner to jurisdictional HC -Allahabad HC. Despite the jurisdictional HC having taken suo motu cognizance of the very same incidence & notices to UP State have already been issued
5. Judicial restraint in so far as the HC's jurisdiction is concerned - was conspicuous by its absence.
6. On the same day, the same Bench, in other matter, indicated its' choice to observe the judicial restraint and wanted the Petitioner to approach the jurisdictional HC.
6. On the same day, the same Bench, in other matter, indicated its' choice to observe the judicial restraint and wanted the Petitioner to approach the jurisdictional HC.
It creates bonafide doubts & uncertainty amongst lawyers as to the governing principles pressed into service by the SC for entertaining petitions & relegating to jurisdictional HCs.
Rule of Law works best when these preliminary issues are founded upon precedence & consistency
Rule of Law works best when these preliminary issues are founded upon precedence & consistency
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
