gre SHAMBOLLIC: Legal B-grade eagles gk

Tuesday, November 14, 2006

Legal B-grade eagles

As a lay, except for a semester, I recognize the humility with which you must approach the Law and the machinations of the Legal system. Then 2 things caught my eye in the journals today:
One thing noone, however humble they are, must have to tolerate, is mystification and delays. But this is what we have on the plate today:
1. Apex court rejects plea for probe against Kumaraswamy
Maja: Apex Court? What's that?
Me: Just a fancy way of referring to the Supreme Court. Don't let that imtimidate.
Maja: weeji. ok. I won't. Let me get over it first. *simmer, twitch*
(5 minutes lapse)
Me: Ok. Finished reading the article?
Maja: O ya ya. I'm not too happy with so much of what I read here.
Me: Like what?
Maja: Well, why was a valid plea for action against offences, rejected?
Me: What kind of offences are we talking about?
Maja: Offences under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act (and other relevant laws)
Me: Ok. But what were these offences exactly. And who is suspected of being guilty?
Maja: The petitioner, that is the guy who brought the case before court in the first place to intitate proceedings...
Me: I know what a petitioner is. Get to the point.
Maja: OK ok.
Me: SO? What offences and by whom?
Maja: Offences of this kind - Acquisition of huge property and amassed wealth in the State.
Me: Who does the petitioner makes these allegations against?
Maja: The Chief Minister, H D Kumaraswamy, his family members, and Minister for Forests, C Chennigappa.
Me: My My!
Maja: Exactly.
Me: But one second. What's wrong with acquiring a lot of property and wealth? If you're rich you're bound to have lots of money, right? What's wrong with that?
Maja: Weeji!!! What are you saying ya???
Me: Well what? I'm being reasonable. If you're rich... that's the definition after all, right? Don't just over-react. Explain.
Maja: All right. I will. From my sketchy knowledge of some citations in past cases, and from what I think is reasonable as well, I will tell you something.
Me: What?
Maja: It is not the fact that they are in possession of some wealth and property, that is being alleged by the petitioner.
Me: Then what?
Maja: But that their assets are disproportionate to known sources of income; possibly also that their path to acquisition of property was easier by virtue of position; possibly also that they have acquired property that was previously disallowed from claims for private possession, etc. I don't know about these last few. Other laws and not just the PCA have been cited, please note.
Me: Ok. Hey you have a point even with just the first point. I remember the disproportionate assets cases being brought against Jayalalitha as well. And I don't know what became of that.
Maja: Me neither.
Me: So did the Supreme Court admit this petition?
Maja: I'm sorry. But I have to compose myself. This part sets my teeth grinding.
Me: O. Take your time then
[Maja grinds his teeth against a grindstone. Sparks fly.]
[5 minutes later]
Maja: I'm back
Me: So did the Supreme Court admit this petition?
Maja: No. It didn't. It rejected the plea.
Me: What??? On what grounds!?? Pray tell.
Maja: Well let me just use Chief Justice Y K Sabharwal's own words here:
"we have serious doubts about the bon fides of the petitioner. It seems obvious that someone is behind the petition of this type."
Me: Well!! Obviously someone's going to be behind a petition!
Maja: And that's what the counsel (for the petitioner) replied, "Undoubtedly".
Me: Well i'm glad he said so. And then what happened?
Maja: To this the Bench replies: "let them come to court. We cannot permit them to fire from somebody else's shoulders. Why can't political parties who are behind (this?) come to this court"
Me: I don't get this at all. But please read the remainder of the Bench's text.
Maja: Right. Bench: "We have serious doubts about the bona fides of the petitioner who is a memeber of the legal preofession. It is not approporiate for a member of the legal profession to lend his name to file a petition of this nature. We are not converened about the merits and demerits of the allegations raised in the petition...we are concerned with the bona fides of the petitioner approaching the court in a PIL."
Me: !
Maja: Wait and this is how it concludes: Bench: "Let a proper petitioner approiach the appropriate forum. We decline the prayer in the petition with costs quanitifed at [...] to be paid to the Legal Services Authority."
Me: I have so much to contest in this statement!
Maja: Lets meet on this in the evening, ok? Need to meet the dentist
Me: Ok then.
[TO be continued ...]
posted by Finny Forever at 8:22 AM


Post a Comment

<< Home