Oh just now i read the article by Arundhati Roy published in Outlook. I am preparing for judicial services for an year. I have been studying law for last 8 years and to be very honest this time ( I love her way of expression) I couldn’t find anything in her article which can offend sensibilities of a person belonging to right wing. At most they can blame her for drawing bad analogy or saying what is not true. But contempt of court? Really? I am confused whether the judges are insensitive (for cancelling Prof. Saibaba’s bail) or hyper-sensitive?
by the way here is the link o the article :http://www.outlookindia.com/article/professor-pow/294265
Law is no stranger to prejudice or moral anxieties. Judicial pronouncements can sometimes cast aside constitutional values and defer to societal biases masquerading as righteousness. The recurrence of “collective conscience” in terror cases, where the threat of terrorism looms so large that it can overshadow the lack of evidence, is only too well known. Even so, the December 23 order of the Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court takes one’s breath away. It rejected the regular bail plea moved by the lawyers of Delhi University professor, Saibaba, cancelled his interim bail which allowed him to receive treatment till December 31, and ordered him to surrender within 48 hours. Besides, the court issued a notice of criminal contempt to Arundhati Roy for her article, ‘Professor, POW’, published in Outlook magazine. The order will be remembered for its naked display of contempt for civil rights, partisanship and renunciation of judicial independence.
Rajya Sabha should be abolished. In recent pasts I have heard or read this argument especially from people belonging to right wing. the reason put forward is that loksabha which consists of directly elected members of parliament are real representatives and if a party has majority in loksabha, it should be allowed to pass certain bills successfully without being obstructed by rajya sabha (in which ruling party doesnt have sufficient majority) whose members are indirectly elected. The article I read says that the argument is flawed. firstly because the very purpose of creating another house of parliament is prevent the hasty legislation and secondly because in a first-past-the post-system, lok sabha members cant claim themselves to be only real and true representatives of majority.