Is TN CM Jayalalithaa correct to approach Supreme Court for the Diesel Hike?

The doctrine of separation of powers among the executive,legislature and judiciary has been stretched too far in Indian democratic debates. It has always been the stand of the executive to claim every issue falling within the parameters of 'government' and hence in the domain of executive. Also, the theoretical separation of an independent legislature, is a myth in India, where the ruling coterie controls, directs and dictates actually the legislative action by listing as 'official' business. The anti-defection law, which was vociferously supported by the so called 'elite' of India, is a potent weapon to subjugate the elected representatives. It was opposed only by the socialist camp, in minority and fragmented amongst several political parties. Compare this to the USA, where the 'most powerful' executive President, has to lobby for each vote in both houses, for every one of his proposals, and can not take for granted the vote of his own party's legislators.

The theory of supremacy of legislature over judiciary was canvassed in India, was opposed only by the 'rightist' Swatantra and the then Bharatiya Jan Sangh. This was in the aftermath of Golaknath vs State of Maharashtra in 1967 and Keshavananda Bharati Vs State of Kerala, in which the Supreme Court asserted its constitutional mandate, to review every one of acts of all the three organs of power, with the touchstone of the constitution.

With unexpected support of the theoretical 'left' and 'left-leaning' parties, the ruling aristocracy, plunged the country into what Acharya Kripalani, called as 'the whole country has been turned into a prison', in 1975. Notwithstanding the retrogade ADM Jabalpur Vs Shukla (1976) decision, during emergency with an almost confessional statement by a judge constituting majority, after the emergency, it is still the Keshavananda Bharati case on which this nation STILL SURVIVES, (Incidentally the said seer of Edneer Mutt is still alive and mostly available at Bangalore mutt.) Thus one determined sannyasi is responsible for saving India from the combined oppressive forces of the Executive and Legislature(s), by preserving right to resort to a forum of the Supreme Court, against oppression.

When decisions are taken by an organ of oppressive bent of mind, to abrogate right to a reasonable life of citizens, then it is not only a right but a duty of every citizen to challenge such decisions in the Supreme Court.It must be widely known that the union and state governments of this country are the largest litigators clogging the court mechanism, and in almost 80% of such cases the State fails, thereby proving to the hilt their own wrong-doings ab initio. So, the theory of burdening the court with 'unnecessary' litigation, is committing harakiri.

I have refrained consciously, any observation or opinion on the person or the office held by the said person or bona fides of the decision of the person, quoted in the question and dealt with the larger issue involved as persons are not important, but issues are.

She is without doubt correct because the ultimate authority to decide upon a pardon is the President.The State govt can at pleasant advise remission of the sentence to the next higher authority which could be the valuable government who, as you know,has been dithering in the subject of Afzal Guru regardless of the President having rejected the mercy petition.Consequently when even the superb authority will also be overruled,most likely the center has usurped the right to itself proving to the arena at large that the President's put up is a ceremonial one created for favoring the sycophants of the political party in power at the time the farce of the presidential election is held.Accordingly the President stands emasculated if a man and "deuterused" if a woman. Have a howdy.

TN CM JJ needs to understand Supreme Court does not and cannot run the nation. People of India elect their government to run the country, and that government take decisions and defines policy.

I have said many times and I repeat, government should stop giving subsidies on petroleum products, government should come out of business of running oil firms, airlines etc. We have not elected government to do business but to administer the nation.

Having said that, government should provide alternatives, like I don't care if they increase petroleum price 4 folds but first they should improve the infrastructure and provide proper local transportation, they should provide much better mode of transportation than good trains. The individual vehicles not only create more accidents on the road causing fatality but also are second largest contributor to green house gas omission. Thus it is better to demotivate these vehicles and encourage mass transit.

Happy republic day....

It has become the fashion of the day to approach the SC for every darned thing.Besides being meaningless,it is wasting the SC's precious time.As it is the SC is already observed to be encroaching on and usurping the powers of the Legislature.Somebody should draw the line clearly demarcating the areas of the three main centers of power.It would be wrong for the SC to interfere in this matter.Any appeal filed in this regard should be summarily thrown out.And she should be fined for filing frivolous complaints.

Have a Nice Day.

wellcome back .

All these guys holding SC sacrosanct against INC resolutions have suddenly started " nibbling the state bread". They are sure it's BJP with Modi in high seat in 2014, so they are warming up (their XXX).

These blockheads claiming expertise in politics and economics ignored that recently SC asked government " Whether there is substance in FDI or just fooling people ?"

I think a shrewd shrew ( ha ha ha !) like her wants SC to ask gov." How it benefits economy to have oil prices linked to market or just squeezing people?"..

No question of correctness but it is a political game aiming at the coming Lok sabha election.Price or increase in cost is to keep the balance of economy in the interest of a particular industry.It is up to the Government to bear the cost by subsidiary or by other means.Supreme Court may not be in a position to intervene in policy matters.

if it is in the faith of truth will triumphant always then it is totally wrong . money alone will triumphant

dharumi you mean judgement are purchased and not delivered