The balance of power between the legislatures and the debate between the judiciary and the executives has surfaced again, leading to a lot of hatred. There is much to say about every aspect of this latest battle, although Genesis is that the ruling actually determines his/her decision on the bill passed in the state assembly, and the governor may have sat or submitted the president or simply refused to agree, even though the bill has been passed twice.
It also seems to be a bit too much to point out that the criticism of the judiciary is, given that holders of constitutional posts like the Vice President actually declared the war, while suggesting a goal to fight back through floating political consensus, and through floating a concept of a national commission, there will be comments on appointing executive executives.
Whether the vice president, who held a largely ceremonial position, has not surpassed his power to call for action on the NJAC. However, even most sensitive matters cannot deny his opinion, and the Vice President may only elaborate on the subject of judicial overrepresentation in promoting his freedom of speech, and even though he does this in an adversarial manner, his speech will not be as good as his freedom of speech.
The order was made by two judges of the Supreme Court, which implies Overreach, because the order clarifies how the president, a constitutional body, serves as head of state, must agree to appoint all members of all the supreme judiciary, who imposes a deadline on her deadline for the decision of the bill passed by the Legislature.
It can be argued that the governor’s actions or inaction are issues, but if, ideally, a constitutional benchmark rather than any two members of the Supreme Court, then ideally, they have proved the balance of power, which proved them proved the balance of power. Of course, the right to seek remedies is that the coalition government can appeal orders in the top courts.
It threatens to bring the problem to the courts of the people in typical ways, which are those who get the mandate of domination from the voters and thus have a moral advantage in wielding power – as often shown in Indian political history, including the worst crisis when democracy is in an emergency in an emergency – all these parameters will contribute to the vicious atmosphere.
Logic may prevail on the issue of the Supreme Court’s committee appointing judges, although it may provide scope for nepotism and preference. The executive government is one party to about 80% of the lawsuits in the country, if the absolute power of appointing a judge is 80% of the lawsuits nationwide by the country.
It is difficult to be considered fair for an administrator to designate a judge involved in a state legal dispute. Remember, the golden principle is that justice must not only be done, but can be seen as doing. However, these important constitutional issues must be resolved in a calm atmosphere without excitement.
