3 ms·
Hard to give benefit of doubt to elected representatives who wanted to form an investigative committee by themselves to investigate whether they themselves depl
by gigglesupstairs 5y ago
Hard to give benefit of doubt to elected representatives who wanted to form an investigative committee by themselves to investigate whether they themselves deployed Pegasus and spied on country’s citizens. “Yeah, right.”, that’s what SC effectively said to them here.
- cscurmudgeon 5y agoThe problem is that the SC is also corrupt in India and highly undemocratic. Even https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2019/04/india-supreme-court-corruption/587152/ https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2019/04/in... The judiciary acts like the mafia. Then, in 1993, it ruled that only sitting judges would be able to appoint new members of the judiciary. It was a coup of sorts. India’s founding Over the years, the scale of the problem has become staggering. In 2010, Bhushan’s father, Shanti—who, as the law minister in the government that dethroned Indira Gandhi in 1977, had been a key force in repealing many of her draconian decrees—submitted to the Supreme Court, in a sealed document, the names of eight chief justices who he claimed were “definitely corrupt.” His efforts went no further, though he now faces a contempt case of his own.
- gigglesupstairs 5y agoEverything you just said, irrespective of its veracity, is offtopic in this thread. You can/should create a new post if you want to discuss this.
- cscurmudgeon 5y agoThe post is about India's SC. How is discussing its neutrality and corruption make it off topic? The comment I was replying to was discussing the govt appointing its own committee to investigate itself. My point was the supreme court is even more opaque and corrupt. It is not democratically controlled, so the SC investigating here is not necessarily better.