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?
Please study for your courses or CLE as applicable
/s
Nepal and Bhutan citizens may be considered for Government of India jobs. But Nepal and Bhutan Citizens cannot become Judges in India. Therefore they also cannot assist Judges in the judicial process by acting as Law Clerks. There is a Constitutional Bar. Justice Gavai's decision is wrong.
even after this, you call it stellar
>Judges must be Indian Citizens. As a corollary, their researchers must also be Indian Citizens
This is your logical fallacy. /post.
To understand the objection, consider whether Justice Gavai could have declared that two law clerk positions in the Supreme Court of India will be reserved for Law Graduates from the USA? He could not have done that. Similarly he cannot legally or constitutionally do this for Bhutan Law Graduates.
Another thing, Why was Justice Gavai having official meetings with Heads of States in both Bhutan and Mauritius. If these were merely courtesy meetings, it would be unobjectionable. But the press reports project the Bhutan meetings of Justice Gavai with the King and the Prime Minister as furthering Bhutan India ties. The Judiciary in India does not play a constitutional role in external affairs of the Country. These kind of engagements by our Judges are a form of Judicial transgression into Affairs of the State and must not be encouraged by the Government of India. These kind of engagements by Judges transgress into the domain of the executive and are contrary to the principle of separation of powers.
Why must these questions be asked. It is because accountability requires asking questions and offering critiques. India does not have Kings of any kind. Everyone including the Judiciary must be held to scrutiny.