Submitted by dynamicEntr0py t3_yi6ags in worldnews
SmallWhiteShark t1_iui9g2e wrote
Reply to comment by YagaDillon in "Two-Finger Test To Confirm Rape Patriarchal, Sexist": Indian Supreme Court by dynamicEntr0py
Indian judges are not elected by politicians. Judges themselves select further judges. Only the Chief justice of India(CJI) is elected by the government to some extent, but even that person is from one of the supreme court judges. That being said, a judge can still have his own bias and political leanings. There was a case where a judge was allowed to preside over a rape case, where he himself was the accused.
The judgements like this one are dependent a lot on the individual judge's(or the board's) interpretation of the laws. Justice Chandrachud appears to me as a progressive judge, based on the judgements he has given so far.
Indian laws are weird when looked as a group. While marital rape is not outlawed, you have rape on promise of marriage, where one can be booked for rape if he does not marry his partner. Homosexuality is legal, but sodomy is not.
Winds_Howling2 t1_iuilv4i wrote
The word "sodomy" is severely outdated, and the laws pertaining to it can safely be relegated as one of those weird "trivia" laws, provided that homosexuality as a whole is decriminalised.
Like, you can't secure a conviction if you prove before a Court that ass-insertion took place.
phormix t1_iujwp01 wrote
Interesting enough, I believe that particular word/charge actually applies to a sticking the make member anywhere that's not a vagina.
So even those who push for such laws because they're homophobic are probably unwittingly in violation of them if they've ever received/provided a BJ
sawatte_no_ii_desu_k t1_iuiz4ma wrote
> Only the Chief justice of India(CJI) is elected by the government to some extent, but even that person is from one of the supreme court judges.
Wrong, completely wrong.
The Supreme Court introduced the Collegium system (which does not exist in any statute, only in case law), made up of the Chief Justice of India and the four seniormost judges to determine who can be elevated to the Supreme Court and who can become the next CJI. For the appointment of High Court judges, the CJI of the High Court concerned is also invited to the collegium.
However, these recommendations are then sent to the union government, i.e. the executive. The executive can approve, hold or reject nominations. If the executive approves, the names are sent to the President for appointment.
For the Chief Justice of India in particular, so far the convention of seniority has been followed, in which the collegium recommends the next eligible seniormost judge to serve as the Chief Justice. Eligibility in this sense that they have to be younger than 65 years old when they take office. The current CJI, UU Lalit, will only serve in his position for about 2.5 months, having been appointed on 27th August, 2022 and vacating the office on 9th November, 2022.
>rape on promise of marriage
This only applies to wilful fraud, not genuine inability.
College_Prestige t1_iuipnk2 wrote
> Indian judges are not elected by politicians. Judges themselves select further judges.
On one hand, keeping selection out of politicians is great. However, I'm wondering if there is some sort of check against this because having judges select each other with no oversight seems like a terrible idea.
nice_cunt69 t1_iuitnmy wrote
You're right, it has led to a culture of nepotism in the judiciary. But I also want to avoid an American scenario with politicians choosing the judges, idk what the right answer is.
EDMlawyer t1_iuj5nya wrote
Canadian courts have a good balance I think. A shortlist is created by experts of qualified candidates, the elected officials appoint from that list. A judicial review committee exists to evaluate misconduct, and the Chief judge of each (lower) jurisdiction can decline renewals of appointments.
The lower level elected US judges is a bad idea IMO. The whole point of a judiciary is to not be beholden to any interest other than the law - be it public opinion, the party in power, what have you. It's a philosophical issue I have though.
Skeletore-full-power t1_iujfm9t wrote
> The lower level elected US judges is a bad idea IMO.
the idea is that their are 50 states each with their own laws and things. so electing judges that represent your states interest makes sense. in canada isn't there no distinction between criminal courts, it's all federal isn't it.
College_Prestige t1_iujgfjl wrote
Judges are harsher near election season. It's a terrible idea to have elections for judicial posts. 2 people committing identical crimes under the same legal environment shouldn't get different punishments
Skeletore-full-power t1_iuji2a4 wrote
that's more a prosecutor problem than a judge problem. a judge doesn't have to punish any crime if none come to their table.
look at those california prosecutors who just refuse to prosecute.
Skeletore-full-power t1_iujfbqe wrote
america has local elected judges and federal appointed judges. so a state like california has all the judges elected from local traffic court all the way to state supreme court. so their is some balance to it since local judges are who's going to be deciding factors in your day to day life.
rangiton t1_iuiu1wx wrote
It is though, they high-hold themselves as demi-gods, untouchable by the general public and many of them order stupid judgements. In city/district level courts, it's even worse, they don't even come to courts on time, don't talk, don't even hear cases properly, give barely 5-7 minutes to cases, even as serious as murder or rape and then, just give post-date it for 40-50 days and you can't complain anywhere. This is why people fear the system, it's so slow and stupid that it takes years for any kind of case, no matter how truth your case holds or how bigger of a victim you are. Also, rampant corruption and nepotism.
Edit: Forgot one thing, you tweet negative about them and they hold you for contempt so no, you can't even point fingers at their incompetency.
Various-Way-7219 t1_iuiuqhc wrote
There are. It's with president of India, a political position. Who is not part of executive branch, that's PM and cabinet.
Avakayi t1_iuk8q6e wrote
You mean progressive like the wife doesn't have to maintain monagomy and can have have as many lovers as she wants type progressive ? I'm glad that he is bring some good changes but that doesn't mean he is not a extreme sexist towards men.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments