Definition has been provided above.Note that part on status.
“keep’ is a word being used in India to indicate the woman one has illicit relation with on a temporary basis, with or with out the knowledge of the wife. In fact,it is called as ‘Chinna Veedu’ ( mini house-loose translation), in Tamil and many other regions use similar terms to indicate such liaisons.
What is the lawyer objecting to?
‘Keep’ means the same as’ Concubine’
A Rose by any name is a Rose(though the simile is funny)
Can she suggest a better name?
Say like one night stand?
Probably His lordships should have called them as ‘virtuous women’.
As for as calling men who have been ‘kept’ as such- I do not think men shall have any objection to it.
Or still, a better word may be introduced.
Story:
Senior government lawyer Indira Jaisingh created quite a flutter in the Supreme Court on Friday by strongly objecting to the use of the word “keep” in a judgement on the right of maintenance for women in live-in relationships.
An angry Additional Solicitor General, Indira Jaising, told a Bench of Justices Markandey Katju and T S Thakur that the word used in the judgement was highly objectionable and needed to be expunged.
“How can the Supreme Court of India use the word ‘kept’ in the 21st century against a woman. Can a woman say that she has kept a man?” she asked.
What sort of doublespeak is this? ‘I do not know about any review petition, including ND Prakash’s petition in the Bhopal case. I do not recollect the filing of the said review petition’ Review petitions are usually similar and thus dismissed. You can’t hold people vicariously liable. It’s not that a judge is always right. It’s because it’s the final word that we’re right.” ‘You can’t hold people vicariously liable.’
What a cheek!Union carbide is ‘vicariously liable? This is not travesty of justice, but willful murder of Justice.He should be impeached. By the way what post was he holding when Bhopal tragedy took place and when it came for hearing and where? It is the bounden duty of a judge to refer to records;it is not as though the review petition was filed orally.A judge, it is presumed would go through records.Thank god! he he has not said that he did not recall Law!
‘It’s not that a judge is always right. It’s because it’s the final word that we’re right.”
What non sense!Why play with words?Even by English grammar the statement means that , the sentence means he is right. Fact is he is wrong legally and morally.
Story:
A day after NC Prakash spoke to TIMES NOW about his review petition being dismissed by former Supreme Court Chief Justice A H Ahmadi in the Bhopal gas tragedy, Justice Ahmadi has spoken exclusively to TIMES NOW , stating that he doesn’t recollect any review petition being filed in the case.
Former SC Chief Justice Ahmadi said, “I do not know about any review petition, including ND Prakash’s petition in the Bhopal case. I do not recollect the filing of the said review petition. Review petitions are usually similar and thus dismissed. You can’t hold people vicariously liable. It’s not that a judge is always right. It’s because it’s the final word that we’re right.”
This statement from Ahmadi comes just a day after ND Prakash insisted that Justice Ahmadi is lying. He added that the court records can prove that Justice Ahmadi rejected a review petition even without viewing merits of the case.
Petitioner Prakash said, “On behalf of Bhopal Gas Peedith Sangharsh Sahyog Samiti, we had filed a review petition on November 29, 1996. Justice Ahmadi rejected the petition in March 1997. This is a fact on record, this can be easily verified by court records. In fact, he rejected it even without going through the merits in the case.”
On Monday, after over 25 years, eight people were convicted for the world’s worst industrial disaster and sentenced to two years in prison. About 20,000 people were killed in the Bhopal Gas tragedy of December 2-3, 1984. All those convicted, however, got bail the same day itself.
Those convicted in the case include Mahindra & Mahindra chief and former Union Carbide of India Chairman Keshub Mahindra. However, there was no word on Warren Anderson, the then Chairman of Union Carbide Corporation of the US, who was declared an absconder after he did not subject himself to trial in the case that began 23 years ago. The former executive lives in suburban New York. http://www.timesnow.tv/Now-Justice-Ahmadi-changes-line/articleshow/4347003.cms#write
Dinakaran should have made the Judiciary hang its head in shame.But..no.SC and CJI are hiding behind legal mumbo jumbo, obscuring the issue.If th SC found him unfit to be chosen for SC as a Judge, how come he is allowed to continue as Justice in Karnataka?Is it that if you are not qualified enough to be recommended to SC, you are qualified to become CJ in a State.No reasons have been given for this funny stand.Now SC rules that no reason need be given for Judgments under RTI.This is precisely the reason that RTI must include judges’ reasons for a particular judgement.
Now that SC has declared its helplessness what is wrong in Justice Kumar’s blog?If his facts are wrong prosecute him.I know you can not for many a skeleton shall tumble out from the cup board and the fact is he s factually correct and morally Right.
The moral authority of the Chief Justice of India “is of no value or significance” if he cannot make an “erring judge” fall in line – this is the view of Justice D.V. Shylendra Kumar of the Karnataka High Court.
The “erring judge” in this case, though not named, is the chief justice of the Karnataka High Court, Justice P.D. Dinakaran, who is facing corruption charges.
The comments by Justice Kumar on his blog have raised important questions.
Top jurists say that issues unheard of in the higher judiciary – corruption, indiscipline, caste bias, etc – are the main reasons behind such airing of views.
However, opinion is divided on the extent to which a serving judge should exercise his freedom of expression – the way Justice Kumar has done.
Justice Kumar had in another context said a majority of judges were in favour of making their wealth details public. This led to a voluntary disclosure of wealth by Supreme Court judges.
Now he wants Justice Dinakaran, against whom impeachment proceedings have been initiated in the Rajya Sabha, to go on leave.
Justice Dinakaran has rejected the demand.
Following the rejection of his demand, Justice Kumar took an unusual step. He made his views public by posting his views on the blog.
“This kind of response from the Chief Justice (Dinakaran) has only confirmed my worst fears that he may even now continue to abuse and misuse his powers (including the powers to recommend the names of persons to be appointed as judges of the High Court after eliciting the views of his colleagues in the collegium) even when he is no more discharging his duties as Chief Justice of the HC,” Justice Kumar wrote on his blog on December 17.
But this was only a precursor to the bombshell he dropped on December 25. Without attacking Chief Justice of India (CJI) K.G. Balakrishnan, Justice Kumar said bluntly in public what was being whispered in legal circles so far.
Referring to the Justice Dinakaran issue and the helplessness of the CJI in the matter, he wrote on his blog: “The concept
that the Chief Justice of India, being the head of judiciary in the country, and therefore, can exercise his moral
authority to ensure that erring judges fall in place and behave themselves, is a misnomer and misconception.”
Going a step further, the judge used an expression many jurists completely disagree with. Justice Kumar compared the institution of the CJI to a “serpent without fangs”.
/ˈkɒŋ.kjʊ.baɪn/
/ˈkɑːn-/ n [C]
You must be logged in to post a comment.