Canada accepts its atrocious present and the past
India and Pakistan must have a comprehensive charter of rights for prisoners
International Court rejects India’s plea for annulment of Pakistan court decision
Political agenda has overtaken constitutional and international law protections
Azhar is still free to go about his regular business in Pakistan
Reminiscent of India, the stolen documents argument sets an “especially dangerous precedent for journalists, who routinely violate foreign secrecy laws to deliver information vital to the public’s interest”.
India has cited the Geneva Conventions while asking for the immediate release of Wing Commander Abhinandan. India objected to the “vulgar display of injured personnel of the Indian Air Force in violation of all norms of international humanitarian law and the Geneva Convention”.
The Indian government, cross party, has shown little creativity in their legal tool kit. Despite Pakistan being named, again and again, as responsible for the attack, no official has been named in an investigation or prosecution, or proceeded against legally. Can the Indian government do so? Currently, with great difficulty, but it can add to its legal arsenal, and use the law to build a case against Pakistan. The law offers a peaceful, accountable and legitimate response to terrorism.
The Right to the Truth relates to the obligation of the State to provide information to victims or to their families or even society as a whole about the circumstances surrounding serious violations of human rights. The domestication of this right in India is a positive sign of dilution of state control and consolidation of constitutionalism. The article attempts to highlight the genesis of this right in International Law, how it finds an implicit space in our Constitution and implications of having the right in documentation of human rights violations and to counter the culture of impunity.
Unlike what the Central Government hopes to secure with its application, the Rafale judgment now stands vitiated by reason of what is said in para 25; it is one of the critical pillars supporting the judgment. Therefore, the outcome of the judgment can no longer be the same should para 25 lose those critical conclusions of “facts” that never took place. Hence, the Court will have to summarily remove its own judgment and rehear the issue.
Our legal system subscribes to the principle of open justice. The prayer for live-streaming of courtroom proceedings has its genesis in this principle. Open courts effectively foster public confidence by allowing litigants and members of the public to view courtroom proceedings and ensure that the judges apply the law in a fair and impartial manner.
