Justice G.S. Singhvi: From 2G to Koushal

Justice Singhvi

The decision of the Supreme Court in Suresh Kumar Koushal v. Naz Foundation militates against our core constitutional beliefs and our understanding of fundamental human rights. It undermines the dignity of the LGBT community and trivializes the problems they face. A surprise, then, that it came from a man who has consistently sought to promote a policy of “Constitution above all”.

(4)

D Bhattacharya

December 14, 2013 - 12:00pm

It needs to be appreciated that SC is an adjudicatory body and not a legislative body. People who are frowning upon the judgement are doing so in ignorance of the fact that if the harassment is caused by the police or any other authority, then a competent action needs to be initiated against those very personnel, instead of scrapping off the law, which inherently is the job of the legislature. The failure is of the legislature, if at all be, and certainly not of Supreme Court.

Your Name: 
D Bhattacharya

(4)

Daniel

December 13, 2013 - 3:38pm

The ruling is bigoted. It dismissively refers to only 200 people impacted. If even 1 person is impacted by a corrupt law, it is an injustice. It is as bad as saying 200 people were murdered so it is of no consequence to the courts since it was only 200 people. Of course, millions were impacted by the atrocious ruling. The judge has sent the message that only large groups in India will get any real justice from the court. Look at the plantiffs in this case pressing to take away the constitutional rights of another group. That is appalling no matter how it is worded.

Your Name: 
Daniel

(4)

ABHA CHAWLA MOHANTY

December 13, 2013 - 2:20pm

THE HONORABLE JUSTICE MR G.S SINGHVI "RESTRAINED " REVIEW ON USHER. OF. CORROSION OF CORE BELIEFS OF FARCE OF BIGOTRY OF URBAN ELITE.......NEEDS AN INTERPRET..

Your Name: 
ABHA CHAWLA MOHANTY

(4)

Malavika

December 13, 2013 - 12:55pm

The inability to grasp the fundamental nature of such a right are the ability to read the constitution to ignore the fact that it protects essential identities are products of privilege. Inadvertence, that one may not have known better etc. are sorry excuses, to my mind.

For instance, one may not *reflectively decide* that all the "blue collar staff" (hate to use the term) of a university must be seated separately from the university students and faculty at a university dinner. Perhaps, separate seating was a practice that people have been following for years. That doesn't make the separate seating any less classist or any less egregious. Inadvertence, not knowing better, lack of intention reek very strongly of the worst kind of privilege - privilege they don't know they have. Without checking our own privilege, the fault lines of power - patriarchy, heteronormativity etc. will be here to stay. To my mind then, the inability to check privilege on the part of a judge, trained in the law, constitutionalism etc. is definitely indefensible.

Your Name: 
Malavika

FEATURES

Latest Tweets

Latest Tweets

CONNECT

Follow us on

-->