Section 377

  • Thread starter Thread starter warthog
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies Replies 784
  • Views Views 102,972
looks like the judgment may be revoked
conflict of interest


Correct me if i'm wrong, but I do not see the word 'revoke' in that article nor was there any indication of it.

Let's see what comes out as there is no response yet, to actually confirm this is the case.

And what is that exactly ?

The allegation that the judge involved, was part of a case a decade earlier so maybe he is not the right person to be on the bench.

But if you read the ruling is it evident that this was the only judge presiding in the case ?

They use the word 'we' in the ruling, so can anyone enlighten us as to who 'we' is, cos i see one other justice's name in there too.

I'm not sure what happens in this case.
 
^ What happens is that cases of this nature are decided by what is called a "Division Bench." In this case, it was the Division Bench - I that decided it. "I" indicates that this was a bench with the Chief Justice of Delhi on it. So the two judges were the Chief Justice A.P. Shah, and Justice Muralidhar. The Chief Justice being the senior judge in the bench, and the allegations of "conflict of interest" being against Justice Muralidhar, the chance of "conflict of interest" gets watered down. And the other thing that waters down these allegations is the sheer detail that the judgment has gone into. But like I said, it's an interesting point as to whether or not Justice Muralidhar should have recused himself.As for right to bear arms, warthog, your memory and your argument skills leave much to be desired. If you remember correctly, I never said I was against having that right. In fact I clearly expressed that it was an avenue worth exploring and shouldn't be dismissed so easily. But as the story goes, in your black and white world, people are either right (i.e. they agree with you) or they are wrong (i.e. they disagree with you). And either they totally agree with you or totally disagree with you.
 
The Chief Justice being the senior judge in the bench, and the allegations of "conflict of interest" being against Justice Muralidhar, the chance of "conflict of interest" gets watered down.

So Justice Muralidhar was NOT the most senior on the bench during this ruling ?


And the other thing that waters down these allegations is the sheer detail that the judgment has gone into.


Right, so why rerun the case ?

The oppositions arguments were pretty weak anyway. So is it clear that the verdict would be different given any other judge ?

They should make a movie out of this. Anyone watching the arguments would be easily convinced of their merits.


But like I said, it's an interesting point as to whether or not Justice Muralidhar should have recused himself.

What if we look at Justice Muralidar as playing devil's advocate here.

He's ready to repeal 377, but he wants a good show to back up his ruling :)

Now had this been a very tight race, then i think its a fair argument that it should be redone, but the opposition got totally creamed :D

I'd say their best attack to date has been this charge. So evidently, they are unable to win on the strength of their arguments.
 
So Justice Muralidhar was NOT the most senior on the bench during this ruling ?
No, obviously not. The Chief justice is the senior most judge in the High Court.

Right, so why rerun the case ?

The oppositions arguments were pretty weak anyway. So is it clear that the verdict would be different given any other judge ?

They should make a movie out of this. Anyone watching the arguments would be easily convinced of their merits.

What if we look at Justice Muralidar as playing devil's advocate here.

He's ready to repeal 377, but he wants a good show to back up his ruling :)

Now had this been a very tight race, then i think its a fair argument that it should be redone, but the opposition got totally creamed :D

I'd say their best attack to date has been this charge. So evidently, they are unable to win on the strength of their arguments.
One of the basic principles in law is that justice must not just be done but must be seem to be done. In other words a mere likelihood of bias is enough to vitiate a proceeding - actual bias need not be done. For example, if there is a disciplinary enquiry against a government officer, and his wife is on the panel that's conducting the enquiry, then the fact that she would likely to be biased is bad enough, and it doesn't need to be shown whether she actually was biased or not (primarily, because it would be impossible to show that).
This case is a little different, in that there isn't an allegation of bias towards a person but towards an issue. But honestly speaking, there's one fact taht can make all the difference - whether Justice Muralidhar filed the earlier writ petition in his own right or as a lawyer representing another person / organization. If it's the first, then yes, I think it creates a conflict. But if it's the latter, then IMHO there is no conflict as it is a lawyer's duty to best represent a client regardless of his/her own personal feelings and sentiments about the issue. So if it was a case that was brought to him and all he did was his legal duty as an officer of the court then I think it's a weak allegation. But if he brought the case himself (i.e. in his own name) in that he was the Petitioner himself, then yes, there's an issue.

And I agree from a place that is the most neutral and unbiased within myself - the opposition did a horrendous job arguing the case. At one point they argued that homosexuality = promiscuity and therefore it leads to AIDS, to which the judges rightly retorted that perhaps they should just outlaw sexual promiscuity then (in the sense that even heterosexual promiscuity would help spread AIDS).
 
But honestly speaking, there's one fact taht can make all the difference - whether Justice Muralidhar filed the earlier writ petition in his own right or as a lawyer representing another person / organization. If it's the first, then yes, I think it creates a conflict. But if it's the latter, then IMHO there is no conflict as it is a lawyer's duty to best represent a client regardless of his/her own personal feelings and sentiments about the issue. So if it was a case that was brought to him and all he did was his legal duty as an officer of the court then I think it's a weak allegation. But if he brought the case himself (i.e. in his own name) in that he was the Petitioner himself, then yes, there's an issue.

From the TOI article

the advocate Janak Raj Jai contended that Justice Murlidhar had himself filed a writ petition in 1994 as a lawyer in the high court seeking quashing of Section 377 of the IPC.

Jai said Justice Murlidhar had appeared as intervenor in the original writ petition on behalf of an organisation "AIDS Bedhav Virodhi Andolan."

Is it clear that is only the latter case here or both ?
 
From your quotes it appears that he was only doing his job as a lawyer representing his client. IMHO there's no conflict there. If that same organization was involved in the case now, then definitely there would have been, but I believe that organization didn't play any role in the latest proceedings.

The way I see it is like this - a lawyer's legally binding duty is to represent his/her client to the best of his/her ability, and in doing so it's necessary for him/her to put aside his/her own opinion, feelings and sentiments about the client / the issues, and to assist the court in coming to a logical and lawful conclusion. So for example when that whole Jessica Lal thing broke out, and people were lashing at Ram Jethmalani for taking the case on behalf of the accused, 99% of the people (including..no..scratch that... especially the media) were talking out of their ass when they were saying he shouldn't have taken the case. It is a legally binding duty for a lawyer to take any case that comes to him which is in the ordinary realm of the type of law he/she deals in and the client is willing ot pay his/her fees.

So coming back to the issue at hand, I don't think in contesting the earlier writ, Justice Muralidhar in any way was expressing his own personal feelings or opinions. That's why IMHO there's no conflict. (But yes, that's my opinion and it will be interesting to see what views the Supreme Court takes of this, if any).
 

what is with this warthog fetish.DO i have to post in every thread so you can know my view?
 

Similar threads

Navjot Singh
Delhi court is looking into whether sale of sex toys is against Section 377
Replies
5
Views
1,522
Sushubh
IBF
Section 375 (2019)
2
Replies
12
Views
744
Sushubh
Sushubh
IPC SECTION 300
Replies
0
Views
1,280
Sushubh
Sushubh
Star Trek: Section 31 (2025)
Replies
8
Views
2,147
Sushubh
Back