Tuesday, August 16, 2005

I have a question...

What legal standing does the Nanavati commission have?

The terms of reference of the Nanavati commission were: to enquire into the causes and course of the criminal violence and riots targeting members of the Sikh community; the sequence of events leading to and all the facts relating to such violence and riots; whether these heinous crimes could have been averted and whether there were any lapses or dereliction of duty on the part of any of the responsible authorities; to enquire into the adequacy of the administrative measures taken to prevent and to deal with the violence and the riots; and to recommend measures which may be adopted to meet the ends of the justice.

Now, the first three points are best addressed by a criminal court of law, and the last one is a moot point - the trials in the criminal court should be conducted in a fair and timely manner.

The essence of my post is this:

1.What constitutional right does the government have to set up a parallel court - and a toothless one at that?
2.Isnt installation of such a commission a vote of no-confidence passed by the legislature on the judiciary?
3.Can't the judiciary strike down such attempts to subvert the natural course of justice?
4.If I were to murder someone, why should I be tried in a court of law? Why not a commission of inquiry for me? Am I any lesser a citizen than the Tytlers and the Modis?

0 Value-adds:

Post a Comment

<< Home