4 ms·
The Indian constitution too gives the President the power to pardon someone convicted. However, the Supreme Court has since clarified that this power is not abs
by thisislife2 1y ago
The Indian constitution too gives the President the power to pardon someone convicted. However, the Supreme Court has since clarified that this power is not absolute, and the court can subject it to a judicial review. ( https://compass.rauias.com/current-affairs/pardoning-powers-president/ https://compass.rauias.com/current-affairs/pardoning-powers-... ).
- SanjayMehta 1y agoYou're comparing our (flawed) democracy with a fake democracy.
- efnx 1y agoHonest question- which one is fake?
- LauraMedia 1y agoAt this point in time? Both
- account42 1y agoWhat about two years ago?
- ponector 1y agoIs it a democracy if there are only two parties? Is it a democracy if people vote to chose electors, not for the actual candidate? One can argue China is a democracy, they have elections as well.
- MiguelX413 1y ago> Is it a democracy if there are only two parties? Is it a democracy if people vote to chose electors, not for the actual candidate? I don't see why not
- thisislife2 1y agoParent poster was considering ways on how to limit abuse of a certain political power, and I thought they may be interested on how other countries handle it. (Not though that I am not sure our indian approach is necessarily right - the Supreme Court of India is considering the Presidential powers of pardon only as a remedy to some judicial injustice / miscarriage. But sometimes there can be a political reason too, to pardon somebody. For example, someone cited the Lincoln example of pardoning the confederates. Legally, that may not be sound (ignoring crimes committed by them) but politically such things may be necessary to heal a society and create politically stability. And in such cases, the judiciary is not the right institution to make a judgement call on whether a political pardon was right or not.)
- ASalazarMX 1y ago> You're comparing our (flawed) democracy Sweet child. It was never a full democracy, I'd qualify it as a developing democracy, depending on how much damage this administration does, and when does USA enact the urgent reforms needed to transform into a full-fledged democracy. Right now it's an oligarchy, capitalism as a political system. Money is a crucial component of campaigns, bribery is rampant, impunity becomes progressively less subtle. It had good PR after WW2 though, but reality hasn't matched the propaganda. I say it from another eroding democracy, it seems like true democracies are incompatible with populous countries.
- SanjayMehta 1y agoI think you've mixed up India and the US. For what it's worth, India still has options. The US is a sham democracy.