+Karthik Cs I think the current generation has a problem with accepting themselves and others accepting them.... and thats why they need the listeners to accept every line they say and they end up using right right right right...
+Karthik Cs lack of self confidence.It's less of a habit or a practice and more of an inner psychological temptation to be assured in frequent intervals that their views are being accepted.
1) Check from 54:08 for a video editing error showing the 2nd Last speaker sitting and giving her speech in centre at the same time! :) 2) The debate was good. Loved how Mr Tulsi drove the point that no democracy in the world has judges being appointed by only judges! 3) We don't have faith in corrupt judiciary as well
In the description of the video, please put in the name of the debaters and also whether they are for or against. Also put information about when and where the debate was held. You could also publish the results of the poll made during the course of these debates in the description of the video. The second speaker who is speaking against the NJAC is repeating the word "right' too much. Could you please edit it out? The repetition of that word is causing me a headache.
I think the debate comes down to whether the two eminent persons have to be elected by a unanimous decision by the PM, LO and CJ or a 2/3 decision. If the way to nominate those two people is concrete, I think the NJAC could work
Hello NL, This is a good start. But I have to agree like some others below, the TimesNow debate was a better one. May be you should think of debate, instead of the current format of speeches and rebuttals only during questions. Abhinandan, As another user pointed out, it might be wise to use a bell, instead of shouting loud, which I think disturbs the pace of the speaker (at 9 min). And please choose speakers, who can speak. Ira reddy (I hope, I got the name right), was just adding right after each word. It was annoying. I think the opposition speakers just added right after each sentence or word, because they did not believe in what they said (of-course except Mr. Bhattacharya who was the only better speaker amongst opposition, though he was also more into anti-politician rhetoric). Finally, on Gaurav who was appreciated by Pinky Anand : I think Pinky Anand was right, he was the better speaker among 2 opposition speakers (Bhattacharya is in is own right above these people), but that doesn't mean much, because if you take away all the "right" words from Ira's speech, there was almost no content. Thanks, Guru
+Guruprasad Nekkare Would like to add, echoing another viewer below. Claims of "people having more faith in judiciary" is hallucination of the opposition speakers. "Going to court" is a scary word for many Indians (Hindu or Muslim , Sikh or Christ or something else, just clarify Gaurav) irrespective of NJAC or collegium.
Excellent debate organised. Very pertinent points put forwarded from both the sides. Runours about judges appoint judges. Looking in to USA, UK, CANADA well exposed. We have to focus on India, indians, our society, our character in day to day life, and parliamentarian and so on....... More such debates shoyld be organised in future.
Indian Judiciary of-course is not without any issues within. However any intervention or interference from the outside would for sure make the things worse. It is not to choose between Collegium or NJAC, it is to arrive at a decision to make Indian judiciary better (daunting task). We have a simple example from Indian Higher Education system. The Higher education system in the country has reached a moribund state and this is only because politicians in this country (simply the servants of the corporations) hold the power to define education policy in the country.
Government of India has sovereignty but ignored to revoke authorization in favor of Supreme Court in 1950 to deal with British colonial legislation anti India.
After listening to the young opponents to the proposition, it appears a street rhetoric w/o the intellectual backing. Why not appoint the judiciary to run this country if they r so pure n pious !
many of them said people have faith in judiciary, i will tell you how much faith we have, after 13 years we came to know no one was driving salman's car. we have forgotten when did 2G scam happened, laalu was convicted he is out on bail and won the election (well he winning was not judiciary's fault or it was not a fault). These were big cases like that crores are pending as we are informed. Now let me tell the common mans view, if I have any issue i will try to sort it out of court as we believe going to court just delays things, eg. when i riding a bike and police stops me and asks fine, i will ask the reason, he will say rash driving, i will say no i was not, he will say 'pay fine now come to court tomorrow' this sentence is enough for us to pay fine. people having faith in judiciary not totally true. I expect somethings from the country like better roads, good schools, safe city, good transportation, above all these justice. I can give my opinion once in five years for the former needs, what about justice?
Every Judge is a human being so do have political biasing ( been a member of political party prior or after retirement ) so "The prime issue is how to ensure selection of impartial n unconnected person" to the higher/highest seat of Justice. This most important has has not been touched in the debate. 2. The problem lies a CJI selects other two other Judges in arbitrary manner. It is illegal which can not be believed as just. 3. It kills the will of constitution, otherwise CJI could only appoint other Judges it would have been so provisioned in the constitution. Why was it left to President of India. If it was intended that only So logically colleguem is unconstitutional. 4. Only power hunger n prevailing corruption has forced the SC to enjoy it. 5. I.mportant is reduces the President to a rubber stamp, bound to submit to the recommendation of CJI. It derogatory to his post. 6. Further the selection by 2 or 3 judges have creating well known lobbies in courts, fairly prejudiced n biased making mockery of IJS. An advocate manipulates proceeding in the court of the judge or bench he can influence to get favourable decision. 7. It is the holy duty of System to identify or punish the black sheep, who are habitual law breakers.The country has seen enough of drama of a Chief Justice of HC, against whom a contempt petition was lodged by bench of SC which tried to sue him. But he himself in his own court tried to punish SC judges. The IJS failed to punish him. 8. Fact remains apart from delays, the general public experiences rumpus corruption starting from lower judiciary to top. It is rotten n infected by cancerous corruption, with nexus of advocates, courts, its staff, police and even Judges. Rather advocates charges fee accordingly to the crimes n manipulations required, namely police n judges too. 9. It is a open secret that powerful people never get punished locked behind bar may be the criminals, politicians, financial offenders, celebrities, even anti nations. Ever one of them get bail, n rarely punished. Just because the system has collaped totally as well it is on sale. Those can efford r enjoying. 10 How to appointment few judges can't "redress the problem", but real issue is how to ensure that corrupt do not occupy the higher seat of Justice. New system may be an initial step only. 11. Conclusion : (a) The list of highly corrupt judges is published by various HC bar councils. Such individual must be punished other wise amounts to mockery of Law.. (b) When a HC Judge after retirement, admits that he was offered bribe of 20 crores. System should have punished the guilty to refine stop the wrong practice. 12. I suggest man be relaced by machine, i.e. modern technology/ computers, which can sure reduce the load on courts as well eliminates corruption. (d) The advocates and judges be given +marking for each win and -ve on loose, as well upheld or reversed by higher courts. 12. If a judge or advocates with certain negative must be sutably punished or rewarded by terminating their licence or service.
We live in an era where the task of performing checks and balances is vested in media and investigative journalism. I am quite comfortable with that. It is fundamentally, by its very nature, a corrupt practice to have the executive (politician) appoint adjudicating officers. To me such practices are suggestive of departure from the principle of separation of powers. One drawback of the collegium system of appointing adjudicating officers is that, it creates a competitive bureaucratic environment for "practicing" judges, which in certain instances may lead to delay in dispensation of justice or tweaking of decisions & judgements so as to have an impact on the career path of adjudicating officers, and not necessarily entertain the spirit of dispensing what ought to be fair and reasonable for litigants. Not a pleasant news for the people. I suggest the task of producing adjudicating officers through a competitive mechanism be vested in educational institutions (i.e. Judicial College). For example; The judge bidding for the position of the Chief Justice (CJ) or Justice of the court of appeal is to claim that position based on how well he/she performs at the Competency Test specific to the position, conducted by the Judicial College. I believe my suggestion is worthy of receiving consideration. Try it out!
Bolo..she has talked about judiciary protecting minotority because other bodies are there for majority..what a badda logic ..us judiciary only for protecting minority rights.. I mean come on there can be a more foolish argument
Need for NJAC is not just for the sake of complying constitution, but to bring authority, responsibility, accountability. But unfortunately collegium is all about authoritativeness and nothing else.
Not just it got very annoying, But people giving speeches instead of debating on logical points is absurd.. right? Well, it's not like I expect anything from a girl named 'Pinky'.
Why do the younger speakers have the habit of adding "right" at the end of each sentence? Its objectionable practice at so many levels, right?
+Karthik Cs It is irritating RIGHT !
+Karthik Cs I think the current generation has a problem with accepting themselves and others accepting them.... and thats why they need the listeners to accept every line they say and they end up using right right right right...
+Kumar k kumar p right right
+Karthik Cs lack of self confidence.It's less of a habit or a practice and more of an inner psychological temptation to be assured in frequent intervals that their views are being accepted.
+Karthik Cs Right?
You are saying that this Ira girl has won many international debates with such incoherent articulation and using so many "right" and "like" ??
1) Check from 54:08 for a video editing error showing the 2nd Last speaker sitting and giving her speech in centre at the same time! :)
2) The debate was good. Loved how Mr Tulsi drove the point that no democracy in the world has judges being appointed by only judges!
3) We don't have faith in corrupt judiciary as well
In the description of the video, please put in the name of the debaters and also whether they are for or against. Also put information about when and where the debate was held. You could also publish the results of the poll made during the course of these debates in the description of the video.
The second speaker who is speaking against the NJAC is repeating the word "right' too much. Could you please edit it out? The repetition of that word is causing me a headache.
Sorry but TimesNow's National debate on NJAC was much better.
Better than Art 370 debate. The 2nd speaker was good with points but "right" word really does annoy listeners
I think the debate comes down to whether the two eminent persons have to be elected by a unanimous decision by the PM, LO and CJ or a 2/3 decision. If the way to nominate those two people is concrete, I think the NJAC could work
Could you please focus the camera on the imminent people while their names were called during the end. The cameraman could have done a better job.
god, how many time opposition speak "RIGHT, " LIKE everything makes so much sense with a "RIGHT" at the end of the sentence.
informative indeed...well conducted..good job
Conduct the debate with some sensible persons.
What happened at 54:10 . Was she debating or not! ;) #EditingTypo.
Hello NL,
This is a good start. But I have to agree like some others below, the TimesNow debate was a better one. May be you should think of debate, instead of the current format of speeches and rebuttals only during questions.
Abhinandan,
As another user pointed out, it might be wise to use a bell, instead of shouting loud, which I think disturbs the pace of the speaker (at 9 min).
And please choose speakers, who can speak. Ira reddy (I hope, I got the name right), was just adding right after each word. It was annoying. I think the opposition speakers just added right after each sentence or word, because they did not believe in what they said (of-course except Mr. Bhattacharya who was the only better speaker amongst opposition, though he was also more into anti-politician rhetoric).
Finally, on Gaurav who was appreciated by Pinky Anand : I think Pinky Anand was right, he was the better speaker among 2 opposition speakers (Bhattacharya is in is own right above these people), but that doesn't mean much, because if you take away all the "right" words from Ira's speech, there was almost no content.
Thanks, Guru
+Guruprasad Nekkare
Would like to add, echoing another viewer below.
Claims of "people having more faith in judiciary" is hallucination of the opposition speakers. "Going to court" is a scary word for many Indians (Hindu or Muslim , Sikh or Christ or something else, just clarify Gaurav) irrespective of NJAC or collegium.
Excellent debate organised. Very pertinent points put forwarded from both the sides. Runours about judges appoint judges. Looking in to USA, UK, CANADA well exposed. We have to focus on India, indians, our society, our character in day to day life, and parliamentarian and so on.......
More such debates shoyld be organised in future.
I think j sai Deepak should have been here
Thanks to help me understand better
Good debate helps one to understand appointment of judges of s c
00:20 Is SAMDISH from Scoopwhoop the camera guy?
Little sound quality
Indian Judiciary of-course is not without any issues within. However any intervention or interference from the outside would for sure make the things worse. It is not to choose between Collegium or NJAC, it is to arrive at a decision to make Indian judiciary better (daunting task). We have a simple example from Indian Higher Education system. The Higher education system in the country has reached a moribund state and this is only because politicians in this country (simply the servants of the corporations) hold the power to define education policy in the country.
too much rhetoric from the girl's side.
Government of India has sovereignty but ignored to revoke authorization in favor of Supreme Court in 1950 to deal with British colonial legislation anti India.
After listening to the young opponents to the proposition, it appears a street rhetoric w/o the intellectual backing.
Why not appoint the judiciary to run this country if they r so pure n pious !
Akash Patnayak is a gem.
Please someone counts the number of Right right :P
+Debtirtha Das Right?
That was very irritating thing that ...saying right.right.right.....
Ira is completely talking superficially and not logically or legally.. she is all talking about perceptional things..
could've been conducted with better panelists..
Cannot agree more.
KTS TULSI sir ... Destroyed em all!
👍
many of them said people have faith in judiciary, i will tell you how much faith we have, after 13 years we came to know no one was driving salman's car. we have forgotten when did 2G scam happened, laalu was convicted he is out on bail and won the election (well he winning was not judiciary's fault or it was not a fault). These were big cases like that crores are pending as we are informed. Now let me tell the common mans view, if I have any issue i will try to sort it out of court as we believe going to court just delays things, eg. when i riding a bike and police stops me and asks fine, i will ask the reason, he will say rash driving, i will say no i was not, he will say 'pay fine now come to court tomorrow' this sentence is enough for us to pay fine. people having faith in judiciary not totally true.
I expect somethings from the country like better roads, good schools, safe city, good transportation, above all these justice. I can give my opinion once in five years for the former needs, what about justice?
Every Judge is a human being so do have political biasing ( been a member of political party prior or after retirement ) so "The prime issue is how to ensure selection of impartial n unconnected person" to the higher/highest seat of Justice. This most important has has not been touched in the debate.
2. The problem lies a CJI selects other two other Judges in arbitrary manner. It is illegal which can not be believed as just. 3. It kills the will of constitution, otherwise CJI could only appoint other Judges it would have been so provisioned in the constitution. Why was it left to President of India.
If it was intended that only So logically colleguem is unconstitutional.
4. Only power hunger n prevailing corruption has forced the SC to enjoy it.
5. I.mportant is reduces the President to a rubber stamp, bound to submit to the recommendation of CJI. It derogatory to his post.
6. Further the selection by 2 or 3 judges have creating well known lobbies in courts, fairly prejudiced n biased making mockery of IJS. An advocate manipulates proceeding in the court of the judge or bench he can influence to get favourable decision.
7. It is the holy duty of System to identify or punish the black sheep, who are habitual law breakers.The country has seen enough of drama of a Chief Justice of HC, against whom a contempt petition was lodged by bench of SC which tried to sue him. But he himself in his own court tried to punish SC judges. The IJS failed to punish him.
8. Fact remains apart from delays, the general public experiences rumpus corruption starting from lower judiciary to top. It is rotten n infected by cancerous corruption, with nexus of advocates, courts, its staff, police and even Judges. Rather advocates charges fee accordingly to the crimes n manipulations required, namely police n judges too.
9. It is a open secret that powerful people never get punished locked behind bar may be the criminals, politicians, financial offenders, celebrities, even anti nations. Ever one of them get bail, n rarely punished. Just because the system has collaped totally as well it is on sale. Those can efford r enjoying.
10 How to appointment few judges can't "redress the problem", but real issue is how to ensure that corrupt do not occupy the higher seat of Justice. New system may be an initial step only.
11. Conclusion :
(a) The list of highly corrupt judges is published by various HC bar councils. Such individual must be punished other wise amounts to mockery of Law..
(b) When a HC Judge after retirement, admits that he was offered bribe of 20 crores. System should have punished the guilty to refine stop the wrong practice.
12. I suggest man be relaced by machine, i.e. modern technology/ computers, which can sure reduce the load on courts as well eliminates corruption.
(d) The advocates and judges be given +marking for each win and -ve on loose, as well upheld or reversed by higher courts.
12. If a judge or advocates with certain negative must be sutably punished or rewarded by terminating their licence or service.
We live in an era where the task of performing checks and balances is vested in media and investigative journalism. I am quite comfortable with that.
It is fundamentally, by its very nature, a corrupt practice to have the executive (politician) appoint adjudicating officers. To me such practices are suggestive of departure from the principle of separation of powers.
One drawback of the collegium system of appointing adjudicating officers is that, it creates a competitive bureaucratic environment for "practicing" judges, which in certain instances may lead to delay in dispensation of justice or tweaking of decisions & judgements so as to have an impact on the career path of adjudicating officers, and not necessarily entertain the spirit of dispensing what ought to be fair and reasonable for litigants. Not a pleasant news for the people.
I suggest the task of producing adjudicating officers through a competitive mechanism be vested in educational institutions (i.e. Judicial College).
For example; The judge bidding for the position of the Chief Justice (CJ) or Justice of the court of appeal is to claim that position based on how well he/she performs at the Competency Test specific to the position, conducted by the Judicial College.
I believe my suggestion is worthy of receiving consideration. Try it out!
Such a boring way of conducting a debate by Abinandan sekri.Now i realise y Arnab goswami debates sustains our interest
Bolo..she has talked about judiciary protecting minotority because other bodies are there for majority..what a badda logic ..us judiciary only for protecting minority rights.. I mean come on there can be a more foolish argument
Right,right,right,right😂
Need for NJAC is not just for the sake of complying constitution, but to bring authority, responsibility, accountability.
But unfortunately collegium is all about authoritativeness and nothing else.
Is isha jain BJP supporter?
Because she says 'right' after efery sentence. 😂
Not just it got very annoying, But people giving speeches instead of debating on logical points is absurd.. right?
Well, it's not like I expect anything from a girl named 'Pinky'.
+Scrublord Her name is Ira, Pinky Anand was teh previous speaker.