We want LI to be one of the friendliest places on the internet, where lawyers and law students help each other with their career related queries and occasionally discuss other stuff that might affect their lives too. In other words:
1. Be kind, respectful and helpful to each other.
2. Be bona fide, truthful, genuine and curious.
3. Assume the best intention of others.
Therefore, in using the site, you must agree to do your best to uphold these community guidelines.
Note that what you find here is written and moderated by anonymous people on the internet.
Therefore everything you read here is very likely unverified, rumour, speculation and/or downright false.
In continuing to read anything here, you must therefore agree not to take anything you read here as factual and that you will exercise due caution, diligence and common sense before acting on any information you may come across here.
You also agree to report any inaccurate or malicious comments with the buttons. Moderators take action within 24 hours, as required and appropriate under law.
Our full terms and conditions apply too.
Do you solemnly agree to all of the above?
As for the OED, I think I was clear with the 17th century and 19th century flip, no? You will get your answer on the use of 'judgement' a few centuries ago if you read the OED page again. Judges exercise judgement to pronounce a judgment. I am willing to die on this hill. Also, you say British English but OED clearly states 'judgment' is also the exclusive word for a court pronouncement in American English.
The distinction is not artificial - it has meaning, which is why the CPC, CrPC and Constitution use 'judgment' exclusively. There is a difference between the distinction between 'labor' and 'labour,' and 'judgment' and 'judgement' - these are not two spelling conventions but these convey separate meanings.
Look at this, the Supreme Court causelist, where matter are listed "for judgement". https://main.sci.gov.in/jonew/cl/2022-10-11/M_J_2_96_38899.pdf
The debate is age-old and not very authoritative for the most part but based on common useage, though many judges seem to use most interchangeably and in line with fashions:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/08/16/judgment-or-judgement/
https://www.legalcheek.com/2016/11/is-it-judgment-or-judgement/
We're not sure there's an 100% authoritative answer, but your argument that judgment is the thing a court renders, is one well made, dogshit aside.
'235. Judgment of acquittal or conviction.—(1) After hearing arguments and points of law (if any), the Judge shall give a judgment in the case.' In cases tried summarily, s. 264 applies and it says '264. Judgment in cases tried summarily.—In every case tried summarily in which the accused does not plead guilty, the Magistrate shall record the substance of the evidence and a judgment containing a brief statement of the reasons for the finding.'
The 2006 CrPC plea bargaining amendments also use 'judgment', as in s. 265F, which says, '265F. Judgment of the Court.—The Court shall deliver its judgment in terms of section 265E in the open Court and the same shall be signed by the presiding officer of the Court.' Then, of course, there is the entire Chapter XXVII on judgments which exclusively uses the spelling 'judgment.' The CrPC does not once feature the 'judgement' spelling.
Okay, now the Constitution of India. #11.1.1.A specifically cites art. 374. What does it say? Let us read: ‘374. Provisions as to Judges of the Federal Court and proceedings pending in the Federal Court or before His Majesty in Council — (…) (2) [T]he judgments and orders of the Federal Court delivered or made before the commencement of this Constitution shall have the same force and effect as if they had been delivered or made by the Supreme Court.
(3) Nothing in this Constitution shall operate to invalidate the exercise of jurisdiction by His Majesty in Council to dispose of appeals and petitions from, or in respect of, any judgment (…).’
What is the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court? The Constitution says ‘132. Appellate jurisdiction of Supreme Court in appeals from High Courts in certain cases.—(1) An appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court from any judgment, decree or final order of a High Court (…).’ Now, I will not reproduce each and every section here, but arts. 132-137 exclusively use ‘judgment’ and so does the entirety of the Constitution of India. Nowhere is ‘judgement’ used as commenter 11.1.1.A claims as (false) evidence.
Not enough evidence? I got you fam. The CPC exclusively uses 'judgment' (except for one s. 24 which was a 1976 amendment). What does the court pronounce after the case has been heard? Let us read s. 33 together, shall we?
'33. Judgment and decree.—The Court, after the case has been heard, shall pronounce judgment, and on such judgment a decree shall follow.'
Okay, but what does a foreign court, pronounce? A judgment, still. See ss. 13 and 14. The same spelling is used in the CPC Orders and Rules, e.g., OIR4, OXIIR6, OXIVR2.
The Oxford English dictionary, which is as definitive as it gets for the English language, mentions specifically that since the 19th century 'judgement' has become a common spelling, flipping the trend found in the 17th century where 'judgment' was prevalent. However, British legal contexts and American English continue to use 'judgment' as the spelling for court pronouncements. This is why 'judgement' means, well, 'ability to make considered decisions' and 'judgment' means 'A decision formally made in regard to a matter under consideration in a court of law' as per the OED.
I know many of you may not have paid subscriptions to the OED so as to get this information, so I have uploaded a screenshot of the entire page here, with highlights on the relevant portions: https://we.tl/t-QeNlrHI6Nf
So yes, I stand by my stance that 11.1 is dogshit, even more because of their reply in 11.1.1.A. I thought this would be obvious to people, but not only is that blatant misrepresentation a 'featured' comment but is also a highly upvoted one, not ‘contested.’ My comment is trollish and contested – way to go LI! TIL that ‘contested’ does not mean fact-check failed, because clearly the featured comment was not fact-checked, and I thought mine was so obvious I could presume this knowledge in a forum for lawyers.
As far as your issue with the "featured" tag goes... quite a strange obsession, I must say. Any particular reason you feel that comment is "dogshit"? It does rely upon merriam webster for all it's worth.
2. Yes. They smoked and drank regularly.
3. Not particularly. But again, nobody hung out with them (at least none that I know), so if any violence was being it perpetrated, it was off campus and in the manner displayed on text.
4. Nobody spoke with them, so their attitude really had no place to come out. They had money though.
5. go figure.
6. How would anyone from the college know this? You think we keep a John Wick-style roladex to keep tabs on hits/kills? This question makes you sound like a dumb-dumb.
Regarding drugs and violence, while violence towards fellow students is certainly one of the parameters to detect a potential criminal/rapist, I don't think the same is true for drugs. As you know, Jindal has a notorious drugs culture. But 99% of the users are not violent or misogynistic.
Regarding the attitude of being spoilt and bratty kids, unfortunately this is a characteristic endemic to the newly rich political class/trader class/agricultural class in certain pockets of North India. In these pockets there is a culture of crassly showing off newly acquired wealth. I'm not saying it doesn't exist in South India or Gujarat or Maharashtra, but not to the same extent.
#11.1 has cited Merriam Webster. #11.1.1.A cites court orders and statutes.
You cite nothing for your made-up distinction. The fact is, no reputable source (dictionaries, court orders, statutes, or any other recognisable practice) recognises such distinction.
Yeh kaise 100 rupye wale lawyers ho yaar jo theek se authority laa ke apna argument substantiate nahi kar sakte, rather you just resort to calling the comment "dogshit". lol.
In any case, if your point is to refer to the orders from courts to decide what the correct spelling should be (what an absurd methodology!), you may also find usage of the word "judgement" in:
Code of Criminal Procedure
Constitution (Art. 374)
The words "judgment" and "judgement" interchangably in:
Delhi High Court Rules Chapter 11 - https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/writereaddata/upload/CourtRules/CourtRuleFile_AF9J1IE4.PDF
Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Sunil J. Kinariwala (Supreme Court) - https://indiankanoon.org/doc/952721/
Ge Capital Transportation vs Rahisuddin Khan (Del HC) - https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1987479/
R.K. Aggarwal And Others vs State Of Haryana (P&H HC) - https://indiankanoon.org/doc/145651945/
Simply search for "judgement" on SCC and several thousand results come up.
It's just pathetic what anonymity allows people like you to do - resort to absolutely disgusting method of discourse while not even being correct.
Also, LI mod, why is this crap argument devoid of legal merit 'featured'? Bada 'fake news' rote ho for websites in other threads when they are linked and yet you confidently feature a comment which is blatantly wrong. If you scream 'fake news' enough, you will become the fake news yourself. Please remove the feature flag from this dogshit comment.
Itna guh likhne se pehle koi bhi ek high Court ya Supreme Court ka actual order copy (including present case) dekh lete to itna teetar nahi ban rahe hote tum. See what HCs and SCs use unless Fowler ya Safire tunhaare sage maama lagte ho. Cheers!
Are there anyone who knows about Hardik Sikri/Karan Chabbra/Vikas Garg here?
This is just for academic curiosity -
1. How were they as people?
2. Did they use drugs?
3. Where they violent?
4. Did they have wealthy spoiled influencial Indian brat attitude 'I am rich, I can murder or rape and still get away with it'?
5. They have engaged senior counsels. How much would have defense lawyer services costed so far?
6. Apart from this rape - any other criminal incidents?
"Judgement" and "judgment" are both accepted spellings.
[quote]Judgment can also be spelled judgement, and usage experts have long disagreed over which spelling is the preferred one. Henry Fowler asserted that "the OED [Oxford English Dictionary] prefers the older & more reasonable spelling. Judgement is therefore here recommended…." William Safire held an opposite opinion, writing, "My judgment is that Fowler is not to be followed on his spelling of judgement." Judgement is in fact the older spelling, but it dropped from favor and for centuries judgment was the only spelling to appear in dictionaries. That changed when the OED (Fowler's source) was published showing judgement as an equal variant. Today, judgment is more popular in the U.S., whereas both spellings make a good showing in Britain.[/quote]
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/judgment
All you had to do was a simple Google search buddy.
2. WhatsApp chats corroborate the testimony of the prosecutrix. They show the kind of relationship that existed between the main convict and the prosecutrix. They also show the multiple blackmail attempts. Messages literally saying I will ruin your life, buy a sex toy, send me photos right now or there will be consequences ("hungama").
The coercion is very well shown, especially when considered in light of the testimony of the prosecutrix (let us not pretend that the WhatsApp chats are the only evidence. An entire trial was held with the top lawyers involved. Had something substantial come out in the cross-examination, that would had been raised before the HC as well. Rather, the lawyers use Tukaram (lol) to say consent ki definition hi galat hai.
3. Where is it even coming from? The HC gave Vikas Garg the benefit of doubt, it does not mean that the prosecutrix's version is false or unbelievable. He got the benefit of doubt because the WhatsApp chats are insufficient to corroborate the parts of his involvement. So due to lack of corroborative evidence, he has been let off. Not because of utter lack of evidence. Not because the court believes he was falsely implicated. But only because the court did not want to convict him based solely on the victim's testimony (which, too, is legally permissible btw).
Where do you even come to "vengeance"? From which part of the judgement - or any other material - do you gather that any of this was for vengeance?
I know most of you here are law students and are taught to question everything, think critically, et al. But ffs, apply the critical thinking properly, and not just for the sake of it. Read the judgement, see the chats, see the arguments. All you appear to have done is raise questions to doubt the judgement without any basis. Zabardasti ka devil's advocate only to cause victim blaming.
You'd have a better chance citing ADM Jabalpur to a constitution bench and succeeding
1. Was it a consensual polyamorous relationship between the lady and three boys?
2. Does the WhatsApp chat prove rape? Was coercion shown in these chats?
3. Why did the lady (victim) implicated Vikas Garg - is it just because he told he wouldn't corroborate the victim's story - this is what is given in the judgement?
If the lady does this act of implicating a person for vengeance, how can her story be believed?
AT CHANDIGARH
Reserved on 28th July, 2022
Pronounced on 30th September, 2022
CRA-D-653-DB-2017 (O&M)
Karan ....Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana ...Respondent
CRA-D-662-DB-2017 (O&M)
Hardik ....Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana ...Respondent
CRA-S-2396-SB-2017 (O&M)
Vikas Garg ....Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana ...Respondent
CRR-3142-SB-2017 (O&M)
X ....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN
(Yes I know it can be found on the website but not very familiar with the P&H HC Website)
My first reaction is that the victim got justice in a relatively short period, by Indian standards. In India, rapists and murderers roam around scot free for decades as courts sleep on cases. Possibly the court took this case seriously, possibly the victim had top lawyers. Either way, a positive result.
My next reaction is that the judgement is a lot more sensitive than the disgraceful and misogynistic judgement by the trial judge in Haryana, who character assassinated the victim and let off the accused. But still I disagree with the acquittal of Vikas Garg and reasons given.
Next, on reading the judgement you will see the behaviour of the rapists described in detail: it is just SICKENING. Honestly, I just stopped reading after a point.
Finally, I expect there may be comments here taking potshots at Jindal for admitting such students. While it is true that these students were goons and not interested in studies, remember that a CLAT topper in NLSIU was accused of sexual abuse and gaslighting recently. The first reaction on Twitter by a lot of people was "Oh, he is a CLAT topper". That tells you about our prejudices.