Reported By:
| Edited By: Jagdeesh Chandra |Source: DNA |Updated: Dec 03, 2017, 06:30 AM IST
A: India is gaining respect in the world. Apart from 183 votes in the general assembly; all 15 members of the Security Council voted in our favour, which means that all the countries in the world wanted India’s representation in the international court.
A: I believe it was victory of India’s rising clout. It was victory of Indian people.
A: Of course, to an extent that is a key aspect. There are huge expectations from so many countries. Besides, India’s justice system is quite old, it is therefore necessary to give it representation in the international court. They want to reap benefits of our justice system perhaps that was the reason behind the support from so many countries.
A: I see a paradigm shift. Earlier, developed countries had a major say but now developing countries too must get attention and many are getting aware of it.
A: Thanks to its current image, India will play a key role in other international organisations.
A: Its basic mandate is to resolve disputes and tension between two countries amicably and establish peace. It was witnessed in many cases that International Court’s judgment reduced tension between two countries. Cambodia and Thailand accepted International Court’s decision on the temple issue.
A: International Court decides cases between two countries, not the individual cases. ICJ can only decide a matter when the two countries give consent. It has jurisdiction but the ICJ functions on the basis of consent. Only after getting consent international board of justice decides a case.
A: It is quite an interesting question that the International Court has no power against contempt. When the court’s ruling is not accepted, there is no subsequent action. However, the Court has a reputation and its judgments generally get due respect from the countries. The court has played a major role in the world peace.
A: Legal education has somewhat changed. National law schools are providing quality education but scope of improvement is always there. We have to catch up with law universities in the world. The subjects taught in our law schools should have connection with problems of the society. We should train lawyers who can contribute in resolving problems in the society. Law colleges should not spend much time on laws that are redundant.
A: PIL has enhanced Supreme Court’s reputation. If used honestly, it can do well for the society. There have been some instances of its misuse therefore the court will have to be alert to ensure the objective behind a PIL has no ulterior motive.
A: The roles are defined in constitution. Moving beyond the limit is not correct but how to decide the limit.
A: It’s a relatively new trend because children are attracted to the high remunerations in this field.
A: Some lawyers charge too much and there is need to provide justice at affordable cost, which can be achieved by encouraging alternative methods including mediation and arbitration. Legal aid can be provided. Lok Adalat can be an effective tool.
A: The cases in which poor people got relief were the most satisfactory. There was rain basera case that benefited lakhs of people as central and state governments established many street shelter homes and provided better facilities like water and doctor in them. Asking the government to provide food grain at BPL rates in 50 poorest districts was also quite satisfactory. To find reasons for school dropout and instruction for construction of separate toilets for girls in colleges were also important.
A: Yes, it hurts a lot. Selection of judges should be done carefully. It can resolve the problem to a large extent. Judiciary is quite important but not even one percent of budget is spend on it. Judges are over burdened. The judiciary and executive have to work in tandem.
