Murali's Writeups...

SHOULD WE FIGHT CHINA’S INDIA WAR OR FIGHT FOR THE LIBERATION OF PAKISTAN OCCUPIED KASHMIR? AS ON 04/07/2020 1) During the 1970s, Neville Maxwell’s India’s China War  informed the rest of the world that China had legitimate grievances against the McMahon Line and Tibet’s boundary with India. Actually, before the 1962 War, China gave a fair offer to India to redraw the boundaries on the footing of equality rather than on the footing of superiority that the United Kingdom enjoyed while fixing the boundaries of its colonies and their neighbours.   It is widely speculated now that Mr. V.K. Krishna Menon never believed that China would resort to the use of force and declare a war to redraw its frontiers. Furthermore, Mr. V.K. Krishna Menon was suspicious of a powerful Indian Armed Forces, who might be inclined to draw inspiration from their Pakistani counterparts. Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru also felt that diplomatically India enjoyed more international clout than the People’s Republic

SATHANKULAM TYRANNY- WHAT NEXT?  THE IRONY OF MAIN STORY AND SIDE STORIES IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE ADMINISTRATION  BLOG AS ON 05/07/2020 1) Due to the timely intervention of the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, the report of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kovilpatti, and the deposition of the woman head constable in the Magisterial Inquiry, four of the main accused have been arrested by the Tamil Nadu Police. Arresting the accused within fifteen days of the occurrence of the crime may not be considered as immediate in the circumstances. But the Government should not be accused of unreasonable delay as the Administrative and the Executive process of the Tamil Nadu Government was in operation. Now we understand that the State Government has decided to hand over the matter to the CBI, for investigation. As per the direction of the Madras High Court, the CBCID will continue the investigation until the case is handed over to the CBI. The post-mortems of the victims were concluded

Prologue 1. In my earlier blog , I dealt with the trivia surrounding the ICJ judgement on Kulbhushan Jadhav’s case. Even after the judgement, expectedly, India and Pakistan are continuing to wrangle on the conditions under which ICJ recognized right of Mr. Kulbhushan Jadhav to have Consular Access and his right to have a counsel of his choice. In some ways it is good because so long as the wrangling continues, Mr. Kulbhushan Jadhav’s right to have a natural death will continue except that he will be enjoying that right in a foreign prison. Surely, in due course, Pakistan will review the conviction and sentence, this time, hopefully in a Civilian Court. But even the Civilian Courts of most liberal nations are looking at the issue of terrorism on a different footing. If and when the Review takes place under Pakistani laws, surely the type of evidence that Pakistan has against Mr. Jadhav will definitely come under Global Scrutiny. One of the pieces of evidence that Pakistan will

1. The recent judgement of the International Court of Justice in the case between the arch-rivals of South Asia has brought a lot of cheers to the family of Mr Kulbhushan Jadhav, the Indian  Ministry of External Affairs and the migrants who were compelled to make a living in foreign lands. The object of this blog is not to analyse the legal niceties and the global implications of this Judgement. Instead, this will focus more on the trivia and other incidental issues that surround the judgement. The International Court of Justice, is an Adjudicatory Court modelled after the ‘Continental or Civil Law System Courts’. To begin with, the Statute of the International Court of Justice itself makes it clear that the judgement of ICJ and the Principles of Law decided by ICJ are binding only on parties to the dispute. It will not bind the third parties. Yet, the ICJ as a court has not been averse to citing passages from earlier judgments made by ICJ and PCIJ. Secondly, since ICJ is a civil

1. The offence of ‘Sedition’ as defined under section 124A of the IPC, has been receiving attention periodically. Earlier some very illustrious personalities like Bal Gangadhar Tilak and Mahatma Gandhi were prosecuted and the latter was even convicted of the offence. But then, there is a major difference between then and now. Then, the inhabitants of India were under the authority of British Crown. Now we have our own elected representatives. All Indian citizens have a duty to respect the Indian government, however much they dislike the executive, legislative or even judicial actions of the Indian polity. It is really unfortunate that an accomplished Parliamentarian like Vaiko lost sight of this Fundamental Duty (in a liberal sense of the term!) 2. Mr. Vaiko has been a very passionate supporter of Tamil Eelam and LTTE. It was rumoured at one-point that LTTE wanted to bring about a change in the leadership of DMK (Dravida Munnetra Kazhakam, a dominant party in Tamil Nadu).

PROLOGUE 1. BJP government has, for the second time, captured political power to govern India for another five years. Though the Southern States of Andhra Pradesh and Kerala have rejected the BJP outright, the election results from Telangana and Karnataka are encouraging to the BJP. The state of Tamil Nadu has not only ignored BJP as a political party, but also punished the regional political parties such as PMK, DMDK and the dominant AIADMK for their allegiance to BJP’s political leadership. The voters made it clear that the types of Mr.H. Raja and Mr.S. Ve. Sekar are persona non grata for them. The Tamil voters were upset with BjP for the following: a) The BJP’s failure to exempt Tamil Nadu from NEET examination. b) Unreasonable delay in the constitution of Cauvery Water Management Brand. c) Conversion of Cauvery Delta into Hydro Carbon Zone d) Implementation of Neutrino, Koodamkulam atomic power plant,   Chennai- Salem Seven lane highway etc. e) Political proximity o