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?
“Every day that resident doctors are on strike, several critical medical operations remain on hold. It's not as if the residents are unaware of the effects of their action. But there is no legal principle that the court can lay down and say - this far and no further. That is for the government to do. It can blink if it feels the price the public is paying is too high, or refuse to relent. The Supreme Court ought not have jumped the gun.
There is a reason why the Constitution has not vested the Supreme Court with these powers to take on suo motu cases. Jumping headlong into these matters takes the court straight into a political minefield. The court, despite its best efforts, cannot get an accurate picture of the realities on the ground. Without doing so, it runs the risk of becoming politicised. In the long run, this entirely decimates its legitimacy as an impartial arbiter.”
https://m.economictimes.com/opinion/et-commentary/perils-of-playing-mai-baap-taking-up-a-case-suo-motu-may-be-noble-but-the-court-cant-be-hunting-for-issues-beyond-its-remit/amp_articleshow/113202864.cms
https://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/kolkata/kolkata-protests-on-rg-kar-rape-murder-case-live-updates-september-10/article68624915.ece
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1qEJLSiUaWQ&pp=ygUfUmcga2FyIGRvY3RvcnMgcHJlc3MgY29uZmVyZW5jZQ%3D%3D
It must also be mentioned that advocate Kaustav Bagchi was accused by Sibal of throwing stones at the police and then DYC scolded Bagchi. But Bagchi did no such thing and he too has accused Sibal of lying. He has challenged Sibal to produce the video footage where Sibal claims Bagchi is seen throwing stones.
https://x.com/koustavcp/status/1833162345004036242
It’s very unfortunate that DYC is giving Sibal a disproportionate amount of time, and not giving Bikash Bhattacharya and Karuna Nundy any time, despite them being Senior Advocates. The only saving grace has been Justice Pardiwala asking Sibal tough questions, and Phiroze Edulji interrupting Sibal and pointing out signs of a massive coverup.
I don’t think DYC knows just how unpopular he is among people in Bengal right now. The feeling universally is that DYC should not have butted in and taken up this case, sou moto and instead left it to the Calcutta High Court. The Calcutta High Court has repeatedly been hauling up to TMC for corruption, only to have the Supreme Court stay its orders.
How is everyone missing the "setting" of saffron-green. It has been there since the days of Sarada and Narada cover-ups. For example, how is it that a certain IPS officer is allowed to be both the DGP of WBP and Secy of Info Tech Dept? Also how is it that SC hasn't heard a serious complaint against this IPS by CBI?
Can someone also explain what exactly is the CBI doing with RG Kar case? Everyone knows Green. But WB folks are not sure whether Saffron is a better alternative.