Comments on False affidavits in civil proceedings - Liable for contempt of court

Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 in 1 pages

Anil Satyagraha

Anil Satyagraha

Wrote on 08 January 2017  

@ Dr G. Balakrishnan: Could you please elaborate on the relevance of your comments to the present article?



dr g balakrishnan

dr g balakrishnan

Wrote on 08 January 2017  

see. Dr chandrachud Dhananjay as justice and two other Justices is no dissent on 'secularism of the constitution paradigm as such. It is not to say that the law makers to decide such fundamental issues never meant, that the present law makers among them includes the opposition law makers. they need to be taken into consideration, and that means 'opposition law makers; if it was a healthy strong opposition' that dissent may consider; but such issues like on the Constitutional preferences has to be decided by the backing of 'referendum principle' like in the case of Brexit in the UK; Brexit was adopted through referendum is the obvious way forward for secularism of the constitution ; so it is obvious their dissent is no dissent on Secular ideals as the members of the constitution bench which said that secularism does not mean the political parties can decide issues by 'going away' from the secular fundamental ideals of the constitution of india is my considered opinion; secularism as such the 'basic principle of the indian constitution, in the similar way even 'demonetization is; Modi government alone cannot decide the'demonetization' without referendum to people (referal to the people of india -as citizen is sovereign in india not parliament as it is an instrument under Art 12 it has to refer sch main issues to the people of india, as demonetization is no political policy but people daily issue, so referendum route has to have been adopted by Mod govt, it failed is obvious, that very question is like the UK govt sought referendum on the exit from EU; the referendum said in 52% majority said 'we have to go out of EU' - that only made Cameron to resign on the issue; similar position is in india too; for india is based upon the UK or British constitutional principles; though the British constitution is an unwritten constitution,except magna carta and bill of rights; yet it followed 'referendum' process - why the British parliamentarians are mentally advanced to ensure the major issues ought to go through the 'referendum process' so they followed, they sustained the Breixt even today; so what Mamta WB CM that LK Advaniji ot Arun Jaitleyji be nominated as PM in place of Modiji is indeed a tenable argument, unquestionably as indian constitution s modelled on the British constitution as also the American constitution is my considered opinion, by default, as she sought for different objective, yet her view is correct constitutionally..



dr g balakrishnan

dr g balakrishnan

Wrote on 08 January 2017  

true. see Modiji 's demonetization without people of india approval by a referendum falls under the category of contempt of the very indian constitution is my considered view.


You need to be logged in to post comment






web analytics