CJI vs SG, CJI: How Can You Not Standy by Parliament ?

Поділитися
Вставка
  • Опубліковано 1 жов 2024
  • CJI vs SG, CJI: How Can You Not Standy by Parliament ? #supremecourt #lawchakra #legal
    Visit Our Website:- lawchakra.in/
    Patna High Court Karnataka High Court Live Stream.
    #Patnahighcourt #SupremeCourtofIndia #Supremecourt
    Courtesy :- Supreme Court of India
    Books on Constitution:- amzn.to/3rqFpbh
    Tools Used for editing:- amzn.to/3EelR1r
    For business Enquiries:- enquire@lawchakra.in
    #SupremeCourt#Mussorrie #advocate #lawyer #legal #livehighcourt #indianlaw #law #live #court #argument #criminaljustice #guiltyminds #learnadvocacy #courtlive #justicelive #lawmotivation #beajudge #ias #judge #law #legal #patnahighcourt #justiceashutoshkumar #judiciary #motivation #learnlaw #IAS #supremecourtofindia #IPS #2022 #Patnahighcourtstream #orissahighcourt #SupremeCourt #Orissahighcourt#GujaratHighCourt
    #Law #Chakra#JusticeAshutoshkumar
    *This Video is strictly for Legal Awareness & Education Purpose only.📚
    🙏 Follow us on twitter, Instagram and facebook.
    @Lawchakra
    👉Twitter
    / lawchakra
    👉 Instagram.
    / lawchakras
    📑*Fair Use Policy -*
    Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the copyright act 1976, allowance is made for fair use for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favour of fair use.

КОМЕНТАРІ • 214

  • @tamoghnapramanick2735
    @tamoghnapramanick2735 8 місяців тому +40

    How can a law officer of the executive branch of the government say I don't stand by the law of the land made by the legislature?

    • @insearchof9090
      @insearchof9090 8 місяців тому +11

      Becouse current law officer doesn't have the responsibility towards the laws passed under other law officer of some bygone government. Law officer of government is a law officer, not advocate for the government that he has to speak only "FOR" his client.

    • @tamoghnapramanick2735
      @tamoghnapramanick2735 7 місяців тому +3

      @@insearchof9090 the executive is bound by the laws made by the legislature until the concerned law has been amended. Why has the government not amended the said law?

    • @insearchof9090
      @insearchof9090 7 місяців тому +5

      @@tamoghnapramanick2735 becouse your are slow. This issue has been put into the court with a PIL against government's advances to be made on the law. Now, until it's merit isn't decided by court, legislature can't touch the old law, which exactly Tushar Mehta said to CJI and CJI didn't followup knowing the validity of claim. He went on convention that "law officer has to be in approval of government, always, as he represents government, which is the basis of his hired position".
      Did u understand what I just said? Becouse i doubt it given your ability to understand the content already given in video.
      Have you ever seen a law made by any gov, which has gone into PIL and while it is in the courts, government changed it and now fighting the PIL on the changed laws. Courts would stop the legislature.

    • @subbaraotanguturu9271
      @subbaraotanguturu9271 7 місяців тому +1

      Don't know? All could be amended, fresh law could be passed and even repeal the law passed by parliament by parliament itself.

    • @insearchof9090
      @insearchof9090 7 місяців тому +1

      @@subbaraotanguturu9271 not when it is subjudice. For some cases, this is hard and fast rule. You are witnessing such one case as above.

  • @YoutuberManiac-i9l
    @YoutuberManiac-i9l 8 місяців тому +64

    All amendments made during emergency should be revisited and expunged if not needed or detrimental.

    • @subbaraotanguturu9271
      @subbaraotanguturu9271 7 місяців тому +2

      Exactly. To be true every law passed could be reviewed, amended, fresh law could be passed and even withdrawn. Parliament has power to do.

    • @sudhirchandra9790
      @sudhirchandra9790 7 місяців тому

      The parliament need to do that

    • @subbaraotanguturu9271
      @subbaraotanguturu9271 7 місяців тому

      @@sudhirchandra9790 Yes. There is no time now. Modi do if he comes back to power with enough majority. That's why he is not taking any risk. He even welcoming all who abused him. RSS, BJP aim is bigger one not taking revenge like other parties. Dangerous Islamists( not general Muslims, conversion mafia ( not ordinary Christians should bet and LeLis to be sterilised . Khan Mary (Sonia) anti Hindu party should be forced to bite dust. Modi is no Vajpayee. Carrot and stick policy will be ensured. Of course all Hindus should vote him otherwise it's not possible. Ayodhya about temple only? Uniting Hindus, make them vote united like Muslims and Christians.

  • @nitinnimkar1654
    @nitinnimkar1654 8 місяців тому +85

    The same SC sat on Farm Laws passed by Parliament. The same SC said I don't see 85% of the farmers who are supporting these farm laws on roads.

    • @vishalvaidya6065
      @vishalvaidya6065 8 місяців тому +9

      Correct. Height of hypocrisy displayed by Milords!! 🙄🙄🙄

    • @Ind_u.
      @Ind_u. 8 місяців тому +2

      Yeah thr government said the same.

    • @shubhamsharma8508
      @shubhamsharma8508 7 місяців тому +1

      Supreme Court can do that not govt employee 😐

    • @mg7685
      @mg7685 7 місяців тому

      @@subbaraotanguturu9271 get help!

    • @srinivasanr1565
      @srinivasanr1565 7 місяців тому +1

      Least accountable
      Least responsible.

  • @maheshnaik6557
    @maheshnaik6557 8 місяців тому +7

    Then why did they consume a lot of resources for article 370 for Kashmir 😂

  • @rajeshmonga5170
    @rajeshmonga5170 7 місяців тому +5

    CJI SIR ❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤

  • @KishorJoshiMCh
    @KishorJoshiMCh 8 місяців тому +56

    As per MiLords, What happened to the supreme status of Parliament in the case of NJAC ?

    • @sasthamaniiyer9718
      @sasthamaniiyer9718 7 місяців тому +13

      You have not understood. In any ACT passed by the parliament it is only the judiciary who can refuse to agree, after due process of trial and arguments. A representative of the Govt cannot but abide by the law when judiciary has not pronounced any judgment against that particular law.

    • @geroldjoy3986
      @geroldjoy3986 7 місяців тому

      Fool parliament cannot change the basic structure of the constitution. Independence of judiciary is paramount in a democracy

    • @subbaraotanguturu9271
      @subbaraotanguturu9271 7 місяців тому +1

      Exactly. Hypocrites to the core.

    • @subbaraotanguturu9271
      @subbaraotanguturu9271 7 місяців тому +1

      ​@@sasthamaniiyer9718The same Parliament reviewed the status and the passed fresh bill by authority given to parliament. It is within it's right to amend,pass fresh bill and withdraw as well.

    • @loveall2024
      @loveall2024 7 місяців тому +1

      Well said jury should thank their stars that SG did not quote that example

  • @Sameer-oy7im
    @Sameer-oy7im 7 місяців тому +2

    there are no Muslims in decision making in parliament there are no Muslim in lawyers who is arguing each other, there are no muslims in supreme court who he is hearing the debate, first make sizeable muslims part of process and then debate anything about so personal to muslims

  • @RC_1968
    @RC_1968 8 місяців тому +5

    cji 😅😅😅 wow ..he says parliament is supreme ...SC overturn judiciary reforms, hears cases against caa, 370 abrogration by parliament etc...laughable hypocrisy by chandru

    • @arjunporali7169
      @arjunporali7169 8 місяців тому

      Parliment have to be supreme in democracy... In india judicial activism is high..

  • @Positive_Videos_calm
    @Positive_Videos_calm 8 місяців тому +28

    Laws made in the past should be revisited and made ammendments according to the present societal needs

    • @ninderPB
      @ninderPB 8 місяців тому +1

      Beautiful comment ❤

    • @Pratik6554
      @Pratik6554 6 місяців тому

      Like UAPA

    • @hwt_123
      @hwt_123 5 місяців тому

      But under supervision of SC and LOA.

  • @WanderReacts
    @WanderReacts 7 місяців тому +20

    I don't understand how the same SC accepted and heard Article 370 if parliament is supreme they should not have accepted the case into court. If there is an issue with the law where the people will go. SC can't change the amendment but they can suggest what could be done.

    • @AbhiiiYadavvvv
      @AbhiiiYadavvvv 7 місяців тому

      I think You're reading wrong books😂

    • @WanderReacts
      @WanderReacts 7 місяців тому

      @@AbhiiiYadavvvv it is you are not at all reading any book i will buy it for you kid. :)

    • @devidast1123
      @devidast1123 7 місяців тому +1

      Art 245 will make it clear that the Constitution, not the Parliament, is supreme. Art 13(2) and Art 37 will nail any further doubts. Art 370 was written when J& K had not become a part of India. It had acceded to India in 1947 through the Instrument of Accession, which was an international treaty, granting specific powers to India, and Art 7 of the treaty provided that no provision of any future Constitution of India would be applicable without specific acceptance. The Constitution of India was then in the making only. It was in 1956 that the Constituent Assembly of J&K, though the un-amendable S. 3 of its Constitution, made all provisions of the Constitution of India and all laws passed by Parliament pursuant thereto applicable and enforceable proprio vigore in J& K. Integration with India became complete in 1956.

    • @Amoeba_chess
      @Amoeba_chess 7 місяців тому

      Parliament is not last truth.

  • @keithfernandes7350
    @keithfernandes7350 7 місяців тому +19

    The Judiciary is educated and follows the Constitution unlike the local elected representative who mostly is a slumlord or earning from dubious means laundered thru political means

  • @seeme777
    @seeme777 8 місяців тому +4

    😢😢😢😮nowadays atrocious of lawyers and judges increased enormously blackmailing for money we need unbiased judicial systems unbiased police systems 🎉4r

  • @RC_1968
    @RC_1968 8 місяців тому +12

    Will cji explain Why 20% populated cult in India is getting Minor!ty benefits & jobs in Kerala and Kashmir States where they are in complete Majority?
    .
    Why is there No definition of "Min0rity" in our Constitution and even 20% populated group is considered as "Minority" compared to other relig0ns which are below 2% populated? Why 20% group is not treated as Second largest Majrity instead of Minrity? And consider that WAKF Board holds 3rd largest land in India after Defence and Raiways?
    .
    Why only 2002 Gujarat is talked about when there have been numerous other incidents (Naokhali, Moplah, Marichjhapi, Ajmer, Kashmiri Pandits, not to forget the Mughal Rule)?
    .
    Why STSJ and voicing Ola Uber 5 times a day over loudspeakers is considered okay as 'Freedom of Speech' but chanting JSR is considered as H@te Spech?
    .
    Why mocking and making fun of H religon in Bollywood, Comic Shows etc is considered as 'Freedom of Speech' but same thing on the Cult is not okay and considered as Izlm0phbia?

    • @agsitaraman3270
      @agsitaraman3270 8 місяців тому

      Is it the job of CJI to explainthese things

    • @khadirkhan9681
      @khadirkhan9681 8 місяців тому

      A nonsensical and hate filled typically "Andhbhakt" reply.

    • @fearlessnoob47
      @fearlessnoob47 8 місяців тому +2

      @@khadirkhan9681 He's right. If muslims get reservation in Hindu majority population states. Hindus should get reservation in muslim captured states.

  • @ilavarasankannaiyan8671
    @ilavarasankannaiyan8671 7 місяців тому +2

    Tushar Mehta should not assume CJI to be a RSS cadre like him

  • @Ooh_snap
    @Ooh_snap 7 місяців тому +2

    He is so disrespectful & arogant he doesn't hv patience what so ever to llisten.

  • @finishgoogl7960
    @finishgoogl7960 5 місяців тому +1

    Jab tak collegium system rahega, aur bhai-bhateejavad ke chalte ghatiya judges select /appoint hote rahenge, tab tak SC mein aisee hi quality ke judges, and unke waise hi whimsical decisions aate rahenge. Parliament should impeach some judges and appoint better read learned judges

  • @abhishekdhyani9070
    @abhishekdhyani9070 8 місяців тому +3

    then what about CAA,NRC and farmer act ,new driver bill all were passed by parliament

    • @marcos-1210
      @marcos-1210 8 місяців тому +1

      Now we don't have Emergency or extended Parliament

  • @AbhishekKumar-td4mb
    @AbhishekKumar-td4mb 8 місяців тому +9

    Clappings 👏👏

  • @Er.badmash_bunty
    @Er.badmash_bunty 8 місяців тому +36

    Salute to CJI ❤
    Parliament is supreme to make a law and SC is supreme to check the law whether it is under steel frame of constitution or not.
    Once again the CJI upheld sovereignty of the Constitution..
    That argument of CJI's 44th amendment दिल जीत लिया..

    • @tsrini68
      @tsrini68 8 місяців тому +4

      It is constitution is supreme & not parliament. Why SC needed if parliament is supreme? CJI telling in different context.

    • @sathyamjyanamanantham
      @sathyamjyanamanantham 8 місяців тому +1

      6​@@Sahil-lover-gy6djtill when reservations should continue? 75 years is not enough?

    • @sathyamjyanamanantham
      @sathyamjyanamanantham 8 місяців тому +2

      If any sc/st/obc people working in government jobs or coming under tax bracket, what is the need of reservations?

    • @ajaykumarsingh702
      @ajaykumarsingh702 8 місяців тому

      ​@@sathyamjyanamanantham
      This is never about need or economic conditions.
      Don't you know ?
      Reservation is based on CASTE.

    • @indf3782
      @indf3782 8 місяців тому

      This is against very concept of democracy. They r not elected but selected and they are very much corrupted not by small folks like you but global hegemone and deep state. The problem is their power now exceeds even the mps and cabinet minister which you folks voted out from yourself.

  • @goldentunes1218
    @goldentunes1218 7 місяців тому +1

    A Load of bullshit not respecting Parliament 🙄

  • @Arkapravo
    @Arkapravo 7 місяців тому +9

    When I see these arguments it makes me feel proud that justice reigns supreme in my country.

    • @finishgoogl7960
      @finishgoogl7960 5 місяців тому +1

      fooling yourself, these sold out judges are selling out the country to george soros, cia & china

  • @guardiansubash2779
    @guardiansubash2779 7 місяців тому +1

    Always problematic all over the world

  • @Heisenberg.7
    @Heisenberg.7 7 місяців тому +6

    Parliament is supreme 😂😂😂 NJAC laugh at corner 😂

    • @hendy553
      @hendy553 7 місяців тому +4

      Chapri comment "laugh at the corner"

    • @indiathatis2987
      @indiathatis2987 7 місяців тому +1

      ​@@hendy553😂

    • @LuckySingh-po1rr
      @LuckySingh-po1rr 7 місяців тому +3

      Brother judiciary is there to maintain checks on the arbitrariness of the legislature and executive you should study basic polity atleast if you are watching a video on a yt channel based on law

    • @navneetparmar3084
      @navneetparmar3084 7 місяців тому

      ​@@LuckySingh-po1rrsame parliament is there to keep check on MILORDS, they are doing everything else solving already pending cases

    • @Pratik6554
      @Pratik6554 6 місяців тому +1

      ​@@indiathatis2987 parliament has no right of authority over the judiciary

  • @deepblue6216
    @deepblue6216 6 місяців тому

    CJI exudes arrogance n prejudice towards Mehta... albeit very softly... but it is still arrogance

  • @RDayal-qr6ip
    @RDayal-qr6ip 8 місяців тому +2

    Why are Muslims only and not Convents etc. The genesis can be that India was Founded edu medium in UP.

    • @indiantiger699
      @indiantiger699 7 місяців тому

      The problem could also be that they build schools and you don't 😂

  • @srinivasanr1565
    @srinivasanr1565 7 місяців тому +1

    I think a Act or amendment by Parliament must be sent back to the sane to revise it, if the judiciary may feel so.

  • @ravindra6055
    @ravindra6055 5 місяців тому

    Farm Law was passed in old Tea Shop of Modi cji knows that.. So he jumed up... 370 was redone by Vishwahindu parishad so he got urgent urge to discuss that..

  • @rathinbanerjee7136
    @rathinbanerjee7136 5 місяців тому

    Hope this confirms that the Judiciary will be stripped of its power if Modi is reelected. Some judges are resigning and joining the BJP/RSS.

  • @Jshsn-tq4hr
    @Jshsn-tq4hr 6 місяців тому

    So arguing for the government or in individual capacity ? It is agreeable that if individually then he is correct in accepting or denying as one own will. He should have argued that on government Side it is so as enacted by parliament itself being done by elected minsiters. The question ask was whether government wouldn’t accept the enactment/amendment or whether you accept or denied. At this juncture, he should have replied in a way as stated above being representing the government/ parliament.

  • @anvivek
    @anvivek 8 місяців тому +2

    CJi is contradicting himself

  • @BVMS
    @BVMS 8 місяців тому +2

    BENCH SHOULD LISTEN

  • @vinodpillai1058
    @vinodpillai1058 8 місяців тому +10

    If Parliament is supreme as CJI says then why was NJAC struck down by Supreme Court?

    • @de4u2c
      @de4u2c 8 місяців тому +4

      Don't ask logical questions which goes against the narrative.

    • @Muleslover
      @Muleslover 8 місяців тому +3

      But SC is tester of law. That's why sc had trucked down the NJAc.

    • @abhimanyusingh6761
      @abhimanyusingh6761 7 місяців тому

      ​@@MulesloverDo you think self appointment of judges by the judges for the judges i.e collegium system is better than NJAC ??
      How shameless these judges are ??

    • @3datul
      @3datul 7 місяців тому

      @@abhimanyusingh6761 remove collegium through parliment and then see how these judges are reacting to that !

    • @Pratik6554
      @Pratik6554 6 місяців тому

      ​@@abhimanyusingh6761 collegium is always better then NJAC. NJAC is brought by government to send their sanghi judge in supreme court higher positions

  • @abdulrashidkhan2196
    @abdulrashidkhan2196 7 місяців тому

    Tushar Mehta is incompetent always singing song of BJP.

  • @ManiJanarthsnan
    @ManiJanarthsnan 8 місяців тому +1

    Law offucer with sisil.modi criminal arguing fir a criminal govt

  • @ManiJanarthsnan
    @ManiJanarthsnan 8 місяців тому +1

    Talking about somnath snd sesham are you not allieed to kerp some idiots as election commission

  • @moviessuperhit2573
    @moviessuperhit2573 7 місяців тому +2

    Congratulations cji

  • @vimalkochhar9636
    @vimalkochhar9636 8 місяців тому +36

    I salute toTushar Mehta SG who is facing 7 judges bravely.

  • @SmileHappyly
    @SmileHappyly 8 місяців тому +18

    Excellent argument by the SG

  • @ravindra6055
    @ravindra6055 5 місяців тому

    Cji can not digest the fact don't tell him naked truth it's bitter

  • @RC_1968
    @RC_1968 8 місяців тому +4

    How Ms population grows from 5 percent in 1947 to 20 percent in 2024 in India? But Hindu, Sikh, Chrtstan population reduces to single digit in Pakistan, Banglesh and Afghanistan? So where is persction evident on the basis of these facts?
    .
    How leading Ms Film Stars (Khans brigade, Dilip, Katrina etc), Music Directors (Anu Malik, A Rahman etc) Singers (Javed Ali, Rahat Khan, Atif, Noora), Cricketers (Pathan brothers, Azhar, Kaif, Shami) Businessmen (Wipro, Cipla etc) floursh and make wealth in India being cried as such an oppssd Country?
    .
    How the Ms Political breed (Abdullahs,Owaisis, Mehb00ba etc) and Jounos (Arfa, Rana, Saba, Sayma) who cryng oppresson regularly travel abroad in luxury flights and have their children studying in bestest of universities abroad?

    • @mohammadsheeraz144
      @mohammadsheeraz144 8 місяців тому +1

      Irrelevant statement to this case.

    • @khadirkhan9681
      @khadirkhan9681 8 місяців тому +1

      A very biased and hate filled communal reply. You must be an "Andhbhakt."

  • @rajeshkhakkhar1568
    @rajeshkhakkhar1568 8 місяців тому +5

    Excellent SG .who is law officer???

  • @chinnu8330
    @chinnu8330 6 місяців тому

    Are all SC hearings related to muslims?

  • @somenchowdhury4957
    @somenchowdhury4957 8 місяців тому +14

    Why does not the CJI
    Let the counsel talk?
    Strange !!! Very strange. The court is supposed to listen to articles and not be the arguing counsel himself.
    We are fed up with Judge Chandrachur. No other judge talks.
    Very strange Supreme Court and has no dignity whatsoever.

  • @milansopariwala1350
    @milansopariwala1350 8 місяців тому +1

    Amendment kis paristithi me kiya gaya hai yeh dekhna kyu jaruri nahi hai?

  • @s.t.chandrasekharbabu132
    @s.t.chandrasekharbabu132 5 місяців тому

    SG says he doesnt stand by the law of the land.

  • @devidast1123
    @devidast1123 7 місяців тому

    His oath of office. But, how can the Court have taken political sides right from 1950> Schedule Three oath and S 166 IPC r/w S 44 IPC does not allow it.

  • @ankushsrc
    @ankushsrc 7 місяців тому

    Its funny and ironic how people consider them so intelligent but unable to get what CJI is saying. Those mentioning farm laws or NJAC , please listen what SC is saying they are saying that the law officer if govt cant say they dint agree with parliament , sc can and will interprent things , thats rheir mandate but the govt themselves can't disagree with the constitution , if they do they must vring Constitutional ammendment (which SC can review too if needed ).

  • @SHARPHINDU
    @SHARPHINDU 7 місяців тому

    Before Thsy decide the case let bench decide who and what makes a minority.. 20% is minority 😅😅

  • @chandrashekhargaunekar1322
    @chandrashekhargaunekar1322 7 місяців тому +1

    Well argued by SG, kudos to him

    • @ivanalick5319
      @ivanalick5319 6 місяців тому

      That we have sent during bond hearing gilli billi

  • @srinivasanr1565
    @srinivasanr1565 7 місяців тому

    Parliament is Supreme unless... its in case of judiciary, eg NJAC.

  • @SHARPHINDU
    @SHARPHINDU 7 місяців тому

    Law does not need not be Muslim. Why bench is not accepting. Thst amme dment 55 has sucessed the old processing

  • @pradeepchoorapetty1752
    @pradeepchoorapetty1752 6 місяців тому

    If Parliament is supreme then why did the supreme court strike down the NJC

  • @nseetaramrao
    @nseetaramrao 5 місяців тому

    The CJI and his team ask probing and their assumptions as questions to SG but don’t do the same to opposition lawyers

  • @thelifeanddimension
    @thelifeanddimension 7 місяців тому

    Independent judiciary means not dependent...on parliament too... some day parliament may dissolve democracy and install autocracy😂😂😂 so where people can go and ask😮

  • @AvinashRohakale-bg8sz
    @AvinashRohakale-bg8sz 7 місяців тому

    Desh me shiv sach aahe ❤️🕉️ esliye shiv aase hi mili bhagat rahegi rishwat or bhrashtachar ki vajah se ❤️ shiv sach aam Aadmi or Kisan koi bhi kuch nahi kar sakta na aap logo ko dekh kar yese log raha hai ❤️🕉️

  • @கதிரவன்-ங3ண
    @கதிரவன்-ங3ண 7 місяців тому

    Will the SG accept a muslim teach Upanishad? It is a great tragedy that the CJ has to teach the SG what is his role.

  • @sonisx6104
    @sonisx6104 7 місяців тому

    Mehta ji is booked for H#|| ...... few days n counting

  • @sukhparhar
    @sukhparhar 8 місяців тому +14

    Tushar is illogical. He doesn't accept Law paees by Parliament of India and is hiding behind a HC judgement to claim it's in limbo rather than have the Parliament pass another law overruling that amendment, AND, of course, pay the political cist for it. His comparison to laws passed in Emergency are misleading and purile.

    • @prakharrathi1427
      @prakharrathi1427 8 місяців тому +14

      How are the arguments of SG misleading? Eat some almonds before opening your mouth

    • @sukhparhar
      @sukhparhar 8 місяців тому +4

      @@prakharrathi1427 Because he says he doesn't accept a law passed by Parliament. That's why. Please hear what he says and what the SC Judge warns him to be very careful about before opening his mouth. Hope you can comprehend spoken English.

    • @bv6168
      @bv6168 8 місяців тому +4

      ​@@sukhparhar CJI is congress stooge.

    • @Positive_Videos_calm
      @Positive_Videos_calm 8 місяців тому +1

      You didn't understand the whole video 😂😂😂😂😂😂

    • @sukhparhar
      @sukhparhar 8 місяців тому

      @@Positive_Videos_calm Ohh, ok

  • @Pratik6554
    @Pratik6554 6 місяців тому +2

    SG is not representing the union of India and rather the ruling party.

  • @arpitchauhan3041
    @arpitchauhan3041 7 місяців тому

    Ye kya logic h ki jo b emergency k samay me bill pass hue chahe wo unconstitutional hi kyu n ho unhe parliament hi rectify kre ki ye past me sahi ni hua to fir court ka meaning hi kya h.. Ese to kl pariyament ye bol de ki ab kbi election ni hoge yhi govt continue kregi to court usme kya kregi ki ye decision parliament hi sahi kre..

  • @nanjarajshivaiah8985
    @nanjarajshivaiah8985 7 місяців тому

    the same court sat and i believe is still on the case by bhusan regarding previous lok sabha election total votes in many constituencies not tallying with votes cast...

  • @loveall2024
    @loveall2024 7 місяців тому +2

    Super SG

  • @Prakhar_Kumar00
    @Prakhar_Kumar00 6 місяців тому

    btw, these people were not even letting SG say what he wanted to say

  • @BhaaratMaata
    @BhaaratMaata 8 місяців тому +1

    This coward CJI should either disolve SC surrendering to an illiterate PL of Gujarat or dismise Modi for violating his Oath.

  • @KK-qc2qs
    @KK-qc2qs 7 місяців тому

    SG words does not sound democratic at all...

  • @keerthinarayan6526
    @keerthinarayan6526 7 місяців тому

    SG Tushar Mehta well argued against 7 Judges

  • @Sureshprabhu11
    @Sureshprabhu11 6 місяців тому

    Incompatible lawyer or solicitor

  • @ravindra6055
    @ravindra6055 5 місяців тому

    Courts have their own hypocrisy

  • @PurshotamSingh11
    @PurshotamSingh11 8 місяців тому +3

    कभीं कभी ऐसा लगता है जो काम अंग्रेजो ने किया आज उसी को आज कोर्ट भी आगे बढ़ा रहे है और वो भी उन्हीं की भाषा में

  • @shabirmd
    @shabirmd 7 місяців тому

    sc speaks one and gives different judgement.

  • @Sureshprabhu11
    @Sureshprabhu11 6 місяців тому

    Supreme sir .. your views are accurate and accepted

  • @hindupurprahalad1720
    @hindupurprahalad1720 8 місяців тому

    There is nothing like you can not amend the constitution. So many amendments were made. How SC stuck down NJAC and Farm laws? Can CJ explain this?

    • @offred6013
      @offred6013 8 місяців тому

      Did SC struck down farm laws😂😂😂

  • @PardeepDev-n8g
    @PardeepDev-n8g 7 місяців тому

    😂😂😂😂😂 acha tarika hai logo sacchai se dur rakhne ka zubaa hi badal do Jo aam admi ko samjh hi n aye😢😢

  • @rajanpatel57
    @rajanpatel57 6 місяців тому

    parliament is supreme !

  • @dayanandrajak4270
    @dayanandrajak4270 8 місяців тому

    Parliament jo bolega
    Wo cji karega

  • @HimanshuYadav-kf8ky
    @HimanshuYadav-kf8ky 8 місяців тому

    Bunch of bla bla

  • @ManiJanarthsnan
    @ManiJanarthsnan 8 місяців тому

    Hus nasres vouce has got a dog

  • @ManiJanarthsnan
    @ManiJanarthsnan 8 місяців тому

    Rinbing indua from no where

  • @FM-fh3nx
    @FM-fh3nx 8 місяців тому

    Sharia court

  • @revolutionarymen1655
    @revolutionarymen1655 7 місяців тому

    Which case?

  • @debeshbhattacharyya4946
    @debeshbhattacharyya4946 7 місяців тому +2

    SC judges especially CJI BECOME STUMBLING BLOCK OF INDIA'S PROGRESS. MORE THAN SEVENTY THOUSANDS CASES ARE PENDING YET THEY ARE WASTING TIME TO HEAR UNNECESSARY CASES. THESE INEFFICIENT JUDGES NEED TO BE REMOVED IMMEDIATELY.

  • @subbaraotanguturu9271
    @subbaraotanguturu9271 7 місяців тому

    Not stand by parliament? Doesn't he know amendments that take place, laws passed even withdrawn? Then? Wrong legislation which found now repealed. That's all. What about their not accepting NJAC bill passed by parliament, reviewing EC,CBI director appointment bills passed by parliament reviewed by it?

    • @Worldofnaagins2995
      @Worldofnaagins2995 7 місяців тому

      But Supreme court can't cancel/abolish the laws passed by the parliament!!
      This powers only rest with parliament!!
      That's why Parliament is supreme.

    • @subbaraotanguturu9271
      @subbaraotanguturu9271 7 місяців тому

      @@Worldofnaagins2995 Not answered how NJAC bill annulled by it?

  • @ManiJanarthsnan
    @ManiJanarthsnan 8 місяців тому +2

    Evm machine hatao and desh bahao

  • @Jasmeet-Singh-Sahib
    @Jasmeet-Singh-Sahib 7 місяців тому +2

    Lets have reservation in Supreme Court for the post of Judges.

  • @3datul
    @3datul 7 місяців тому +1

    sumpreme Kotha is proving it again !
    When it was farmer laws, when it was 370 and be it demonetization , vaccines and many more why this kotha accept them at all for hearing since those were passed by parliament already still this chandu bai wants to poke his nose in that ? and now here he want us to follow a law created some 150 years ago ? what a hypocritic judge he is ! kick him out he does not deserve to be a SC judge ! remove collegium through parliment and then see how these judges will react !

  • @almondnine
    @almondnine 7 місяців тому +1

    missing bela trivedi to add balance to the bench

    • @Pratik6554
      @Pratik6554 6 місяців тому +1

      Ah Bela Trivedi the law secretary during the modi gujrat cabinet

  • @Advswayamofficial
    @Advswayamofficial 7 місяців тому

    👍

  • @ashusoni3527
    @ashusoni3527 8 місяців тому +2

    when was this live streamed ? date?

  • @ManiJanarthsnan
    @ManiJanarthsnan 8 місяців тому

    Fir get

  • @Mukul_Bhandari
    @Mukul_Bhandari 7 місяців тому +6

    Excellent argument by Tushar mehta

  • @vipulpaliwal13
    @vipulpaliwal13 8 місяців тому +1

    Long live Judiciary

  • @aditygrover
    @aditygrover 8 місяців тому

    What is this case discussion about?

    • @insearchof9090
      @insearchof9090 8 місяців тому

      Should AMU be given national madarsa status or not.

    • @aditygrover
      @aditygrover 8 місяців тому

      @@insearchof9090 It is already a Madarsa. Govt should just not fund it. I can't believe I once thought of studying there for my Engineering.

    • @insearchof9090
      @insearchof9090 7 місяців тому

      @@aditygrover 😂

    • @pantomime3896
      @pantomime3896 7 місяців тому +1

      @@insearchof9090What about BHU national castism temple

  • @dhulipalavenkateswararao7932
    @dhulipalavenkateswararao7932 8 місяців тому +1

    Mr Tushar mehata may become CJ also

  • @milansopariwala1350
    @milansopariwala1350 8 місяців тому +1

    CJI kaise pressure kar sakta hai kisi bhi party ko amendment accept karne ko?🤔

    • @azzam687
      @azzam687 8 місяців тому +1

      Bhai kya boo rahe ho toda soch lo bolne se phle 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🥲

  • @avirdee5421
    @avirdee5421 7 місяців тому +1

    SUPREME CIRCUS

  • @keerthinarayan6526
    @keerthinarayan6526 8 місяців тому

    When one Nation one flag,why can't institution one for all understand so called democratic country

  • @BuduGanta
    @BuduGanta 8 місяців тому +1

    Law chakra ko bahut bahut dhanyavad ji lekin Desh bachao evm hatao 🎉🙏🇮🇳

    • @rudr_nl
      @rudr_nl 8 місяців тому +5

      Chandigarh me phir kyo ro rhe ho?😂

    • @milansopariwala1350
      @milansopariwala1350 8 місяців тому +2

      #saynotoballotvoting

    • @milansopariwala1350
      @milansopariwala1350 8 місяців тому +1

      ​@@rudr_nlyes 😂

    • @milansopariwala1350
      @milansopariwala1350 8 місяців тому

      EVM bhi nahi chahiye ballot bhi nahi chahiye toh kya sidhe sidhe virodhio ko he election winner declare karde? 🤬🤯

    • @trsharma3895
      @trsharma3895 8 місяців тому

      In EVM case some people may not be aware that before Congress introduced these,there used to be Honda raj to forcibly force bulk voting by not allowing genuine voters to vote.Therefore EVM is most safe voting system

  • @thelifeanddimension
    @thelifeanddimension 7 місяців тому

    Secularism is basic principles of democracy

  • @pawanjain3859
    @pawanjain3859 8 місяців тому +2

    This sg Tushar Mehta is unfit to be law officer. He does not know basic law. And this bench is impotent to not check such conduct

  • @கதிரவன்-ங3ண
    @கதிரவன்-ங3ண 7 місяців тому

    SG’s arguments are not balanced because he has lost his balance. It is preposterous to think that a law officer can speak against his own party., viz., the govt. it is beyond the brief given to him. CJ pulled him up rightly.