Thursday, June 23, 2011

Review of Supreme Court verdict

June 23, 201
Dear colleague

I disagree with you on three counts:

(a) Verdicts of Supreme Court requires to be “judged” (to use your own word) if it is double meaning. Otherwise no justice will be meted out. The very justification behind the existence of judiciary is rendering justice. Double meaning verdict don’t mete out justice.

(b) These also need to be judged if Supreme Court fails to do justice. There are many Supreme Court decisions that need contestation. By the way, Supreme Court had no role in the reinstatement of parliament.

(c) It is also untrue that review of SC judgment by another bench is happening only now and has not happened in the past. Judgment of division bench (two judge bench) is subject to revision by full bench (bench comprising more than 2 judges) and there have been times when full bench verdicts have been upturned by teams of judges comprising more than 3 judges. The particular verdict we are discussing is an example. A lot of SC judgments have been overturned and lot many cases have been submitted for review which don’t get overturned.

With best regards,


Ratna Sansar Shrestha, FCA
Senior Water Resource Analyst

Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2011 18:11
To: Ratna Sansar Shrestha
Subject: {Disarmed} Re: FW: My article on constituent assembly

Ratna Sansarju,
Let us not judge the judgments of the Supreme Court because they are always double-meaning.

Remember the judgment on the dissolution of parliament by GPK and Manmohan Adhikari which have changed the course of our political history?

Also do you remember the reinstatement of Parliament 4 yrs after formal expiry of life?

Remember its judgment on the President's move of reinstating the then CoAS?

Rightly or wrongly we are witnessing the review of the SC's judgments by another bench...that has not happened in the past.

No comments: