Here Charitable Individualism is the key!… nothing less.


In the adversarial form, it is none of the judge’s duty to plead a point or even in favour of any party’s interest. The justices of the supreme court have assisted the writ petitioner by suggesting to him that he would have a good case, if he could file a contempt petition against the chief minister of tamil nadu for having enforced the bandh despite the court ruling against the bandh. It seems to be advisorial litigation and not adversarial litigation. The issue to be decided should have been as to- if the chief minister and the party president are one and the same, which way could he go in a situation like this. Would there be conflict of interest if he in his capacity as party chief act illegally, can he be detained under the law? if not, he should be prohibited, as the immunity enjoyed cannot override the operation of the rule of law ! Only his overt support could be taken cognizance of in law and therefore any overt act which smacks of conflict of duties ought to be judicially settled one way or the other.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: