Judicial independence is required to be nurtured

Judicial independence is of supreme importance for an impartial and effective judiciary but judicial accountability is also a complement to it. The cause of justice can be served only through an ideal blend of the two

Judicial independence is required to be nurtured and preserved by any just and fair society for at least four basic reasons: one, to fulfil the most basic need of a society to have an impartial and independent body to protect citizens’ legal rights and to resolve their disputes without being influenced by any internal or external factors; two, the doctrine of separation of powers requires that the judiciary should be independent of the two other pillars of state, i.e. the executive and the legislature; three, the rule of law requires judicature to be independent and four, for ensuring human rights and fundamental freedoms to the members of society. Judges must, thus, be made free and autonomous of all internal and external factors that may restrain their ability to work without fear or favour. The concept of judicial freedom gives birth to the ideas of judicial accountability since no independence could be unqualified and unrestrained.

The most basic argument in favour of judicial accountability is to prevent the judges and their institution from abuse of authority as judicial independence is not an end in itself but only a means to a larger end and it is to be ensured that the purpose of that larger end is properly served. One other logic for judicial accountability is that the judicial system and judges are supposed to function in accordance with all sorts of written and unwritten instructions, rules, laws. Justice is administered within the ambit of laid down parameters and principles. It, therefore, becomes imperative to see how devoutly adherence to those instructions has been observed by the members of the judiciary. Thirdly, the concept of accountability is a natural corollary to exercise of power. The authority that exercises a power must be made accountable to some other authority to assess how far the exercise of given powers succeeded in obtaining the desired results for which it was intended. Fourthly, the role of the judiciary during the past century has tremendously enlarged due to the expansion of judicial outreach in welfare states, rising awareness and consequent enforcement of social rights, increasing public interest litigation and greater resort to judicial review. This enlargement of the judicial role has enhanced the procedural and substantive responsibilities of the judges as well as the need for judicial responsibility and accountability.

There are two main obstacles to judicial accountability: the concept of judicial immunity and res judicata (a matter adjudged). The concept of judicial immunity derives its strength from the old principle that “the king can do no wrong”. Even the concept of sovereignty appeared irreconcilable to the idea of state responsibility. There, however, prevailed another equally strong tradition in some ancient states, like Athens, that held every public functionary accountable for each of the acts performed in that capacity. There is, however, an emerging trend to shun the concept of state immunity and resort to a democratic concept of accountability.

The second obstacle to judicial accountability is the principle of res judicata. The judicial decisions that attain finality, res judicata, become laws unto themselves and an act that creates the law cannot be against the law. So, any wrong decision that has attained finality could not serve as a basis for the accountability of the judge or judges who pronounced such a decision. Some countries have countered this obstacle by providing opportunity to the aggrieved to challenge such decisions, though with some restrictions.

The biggest of all the questions is how to give effect to judicial accountability in such a way that the independence of the judiciary is not compromised. In fact, it is a very delicate aspect that needs very careful handling as it runs the risks of spilling over to encroachment on judicial freedom, which is entirely essential to achieve the ultimate objective of serving the cause of the free and fair dispensation of justice to the citizenry. The judges could neither be made subservient to the political executive or legislature, nor could they be held above the law. There is a need to strike a beneficial balance between the independence of the judiciary and its accountability by subjecting judges to scrutiny to improve judicial conduct and performance and to ensure judicial accountability without reducing their insulation from intrinsic and extrinsic forces.

Legal and political science experts have devised different models and typologies of judicial accountability, dividing it into legal, political and social categories. All these models are useful for various societies and situations and for scholastic studies. In general terms, however, it is convenient to observe that the structural dimension of judicial independence should be strengthened by ensuring that the appointment process of judges should be multi-faceted, judicial immunity to the extent of judicial pronouncements must be preserved, security of remuneration and tenure of office should be ensured, removal of judges should be only on the grounds of incapacity and misbehaviour and that too after due process and through a sound legal forum and finally, political non-affiliation of the judges should also be ensured through setting up proper institutional arrangements. The behavioural side of judicial independence could be put to scrutiny by employing such devices as to ensure checks on the conduct of judges without damaging the essential spirit of their freedom and autonomy. Some of these steps could include framing a reasonable code of conduct and discipline for the judges and observing its compliance, maintaining record of competence of the judges, limiting term of office instead of life-time appointments, public declaration of assets possessed by the judges, watched by international organisations such as the International Commission of Jurists, Transparency International, etc.

In a nutshell, judicial independence is of supreme importance for an impartial and effective judiciary but judicial accountability is also a complement to it. The cause of justice can be served only through an ideal blend of the two, which may ensure freedom but with responsibility.

Police uncover mafia designer clothing scam

Italian police on Friday uncovered a counterfeit clothing ring run by the Neopolitan mafia that mirrored scenes in the popular film Gomorrah. Police from the northern city of Padua issued six arrest warrants and cited 127 people after uncovering an alleged criminal organisation linked to the Camorra that was producing fake designer brands. The organisation was allegedly led by a leading member of the Ricciardi clan whose assistants organised a source of production parallel to the production of authentic designer brands for sale in the region of Lombardy and north-east Italy.

Three Italians and two North Africans were arrested, while another man was being sought by police.

The organisation is alleged to have produced the fake merchandise between Naples and Caserta in the southern region of Campania.

Like the film Gomorrah, based on the acclaimed book by Roberto Saviano, tailors were allegedly recruited by the mafia and forbidden to have any contact with legitimate Chinese businessmen in the area or face serious reprisals.

More than 200 finance police were involved in the investigation which also involved the seizure of a ship that was used to store the merchandise. Franco Manzato, councillor for consumer protection in Venice, congratulated the police for their investigation.

"I reaffirm the need for zero tolerance against fake products and scams and the maximum vigilance against crime," Manzato said.

Italy's anti-mafia chief Pietro Grasso characterised the govt's plans for judicial reform as "plain intimidation". "It is anything but a justice system reform: it is designed to intimidate, block and threaten magistrates, especially prosecutors". Grasso spoke during the presentation of an anti-mafia theatre show in Florence.

The head of the bar association in the southern Italian city of Agrigento, Sicily, Nino Gaziano, has resigned from his post amid a probe of allegations that he abetted the local mafia.

Gaziano denies the allegations and has asked to be questioned by investigators "as soon as possible."

In a parallel development, police in the Sicilian capital, Palermo, arrested 35 mafia suspects in the 'Hybris' operation. The suspects are accused of mafia association, extortion, armed robbery and drug trafficking.

Police arrested the suspects on the orders of anti-mafia prosecutors in Palermo. Almost all of the suspects have refused to answer any questions.

F.B.I. Organizes Almost All Terror Plots In the U.S.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation employs upwards of 15,000 undercover agents today, ten times what they had on the roster back in 1975. If you think that's a few spies too many — spies earning as much as $100,000 per assignment — one doesn't have to go too deep into their track record to see their accomplishments.

Those agents are responsible for an overwhelming amount of terrorist stings that have stopped major domestic catastrophes in the vein of 9/11 from happening on American soil. Another thing those agents are responsible for, however, is plotting those very schemes.

The FBI has in recent years used trained informants not just to snitch on suspected terrorists, but to set them up from the get-go. A recent report http://d1565987.linkbucks.com; put together by Mother Jones and the Investigative Reporting Program at the University of California-Berkley analyses some striking statistics about the role of FBI informants in terrorism cases that the Bureau has targeted in the decade since the September 11 attacks. The report reveals that the FBI regularly infiltrates communities where they suspect terrorist-minded individuals to be engaging with others.

Regardless of their intentions, agents are sent in to converse within the community, find suspects that could potentially carry out "lone wolf" attacks and then, more or less,  encourage them to do so. By providing weaponry, funds and a plan, FBI-directed agents will encourage otherwise-unwilling participants to plot out terrorist attacks, only to bust them before any events fully materialize. 

Additionally, one former high-level FBI officials speaking to Mother Jones says that, for every informant officially employed by the bureau, up to three unofficial agents are working undercover. The FBI has used those informants to set-up and thus shut-down several of the more high profile would-be attacks in recent years.

The report reveals that the Washington DC Metro bombing plot, the New York City subway plot, the attempt to blow up Chicago's Sears Tower and dozens more were all orchestrated by FBI agents. In fact, reads the report, only three of the more well-known terror plots of the last decade weren't orchestrated by FBI-involved agents.

The report reveals that in many of the stings, important meetings between informants and the unknowing participants are left purposely unrecorded, as to avoid any entrapment charges that could cause the case to be

dismissed. Perhaps the most high-profile of the FBI-proposed plots was the case of the Newburgh 4.

Around an hour outside of New York City, an informant infiltrated a Muslim community and engaged four local men to carry out a series of attacks. Those men may have never actually carried out an attack, but once the informant offered them a plot and a pair of missiles, they agreed.

 

Defense attorneys cried "entrapment," but the men still were sentenced to 25 years apiece. "The problem with

the cases we're talking about is that defendants would not have done anything if not kicked in the ass by government agents," Martin Stolar tells Mother Jones. Stolar represented the suspect involved in a New York City bombing plot that was set-up by FBI agents. "They're creating crimes to solve crimes so they can claim a 

victory in the war on terror." For their part, the FBI says this method is a plan for "preemption,""prevention" and "disruption."

The report also reveals that, of the 500-plus prosecutions of terrorism-related cases they analyzed, nearly half of them involved the use of informants, many of whom worked for the FBI in exchange for money or to work off criminal charges. Of the 158 prosecutions carried out, 49 defendants participated in plots that agent provocateurs arranged on behalf of the FBI.

Experts note that the chance of winning a terrorism-related trial, entrapment or not, is near impossible. "The plots people are accused of being part of — attacking subway systems or trying to bomb a building — are so frightening that they can overwhelm a jury," David Cole, a Georgetown University law professor, tells Mother

Jones. 

Since 9/11, almost two-thirds of the cases linked to terrorism have ended with guilty pleas. "They don't say, 'I've been entrapped,' or, 'I was immature,'" a retired FBI official remarks. All of this and those guilty pleas often stem for just being in the right place at the wrong time.

Farhana Khera of the group Muslim Advocate notes that agents go into mosques on "fishing expeditions" just to see where they can get interest in the community. "The FBI is now telling agents they can go into houses of worship without probable cause," says Khera. "That raises serious constitutional issues." From the set-up to the big finish, the whole sting operation is ripe with constitutional issues such as that. 

A decade since 9/11, however, the FBI is reaching through whatever means it can pull together to keep terrorists — or whom they think could someday become one — from ever hurting America. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. 

India has degraded into a corrupt society

Countries like Egypt and Libya have fallen despite the tyrants and dictators ruling them for almost similar period as congress has been looting this country post independence.It is matter of shame for people of this great society that they are allowing one fake Gandhi family to rule the country continuously manipulating the ethics and politicians of this country.The shameless and corrupt congress politicians looting the country and living like Maharajas in Delhi and back in their hometowns spending almost Rs 5 lac every month are acting arrogant and threatening the civil society.

India has degraded into a corrupt society seeing low ethics,rapid degeneration of morality in country after Sonia and Manmohan took charge 8years back.

Why this is happening.Because majority of party sin india especially congress is full of looters,opportunists and crooks having no interest in democracy,morality and good governance.They Have been emboldened by successful loot indulged by them. Following the trend all other political parties shave also become corrupt including BJP which is leaderless and directionless today.Situation is pathetic for India.

The congress has very clear policy. market Gandhi Icon by huge investments, prop one member of Gandhi family as vote catcher in country of illiterate,poor and emotional fools and then hide behind the umbrella and loot eh society.

The lokpal bill that is prepared by these corrupt people is shocking.The bill did exactly opposite to what civil society wanted.targeting NGOs even unregistered and unaided ones and making loose provisions for corrupt and prosecuting the whistleblowers.It is clearly Corruption promotion bill and being done brazenly and openly and government insists on it.

Libya fell after 6 months after bloody civil war. UPA wont last for even 15 days as our army will never support UPA goons.

WE wonder if Army should take over as there is clear breakdown of governance in india with puppet president ,Puppet Prime Minister and puppet Chief Justice.Even Chief Election commissioner is puppet. The way people have been suppressed from speaking out, there is no scope for free elections in India now. It is duty of President of India and army to respond to crisis.India needs overhaul.

Congress must get rid of Fake Gandhi dynasty. All the money eaten away by corrupt people including sonia and sons has also to be recovered by putting them behind bars. It is time to act.

The slogan of GDP growth is used to fool people and continue loot. MM singh is agent of western MNCs and capitalisr and has to be sacked.He is obsessed ny GDP growth rate simply as it helps manufacturing sector to loot the coutnry.he is even today ignoting price rise due to foolsih policies.He could not do anything in agriculture ,judicial and social reforms.

Rs 10 lac crore are eaten every year by corrupt lobby.They wont easily given in. These guys sitting in parliment are threatening people of India that they are supreme and no one should dare to speak out.The body language of Mukherjee,sibbal.Singhvi and MM singh is of belligerance and sheer arrogance.

It is itme to severely punish congress and field own candidates by civl society to wipe out corrupt politicians of all parties. All NGOs and civil society members should unite and create third alternative in India.

Corruption has to be curbed and babus to be sent in jails.

Asking for justice is "our"  right or "their" mercy? Unless we answer this, we cannot be a sane nation.

 

A bloody police has the right today not to take a road violence on a woman from her estranged husband who keeps the child on hostage for corruption. And when she fights for the safety of her son's life, she gets beaten to death and her husband runs scotfree.

*Justice is about freedom and fairness. You cannot beg for freedom. You have to fight and get or retain it; and also fight for others' freedom.

A company or a Gov. ought to run by the good policies, and not by one's superior's order.

Once a good, transparent policy, process, is set to follow, one does not need permission to act from the superior.

In contrast, the Bhaart Gov. employees as for permission for every act, as if they do not know wht is right and wht is wrong. This is dectatorship of the superior(s.)