A Law Student's Contention

A switch was made to democracy from monarchy when kings abandoned the divine duty of serving the people. Without this duty, only the structure of monarch remained as residue, a form without its soul. It was then that broad masses rose up in rebellion to clear away this purposeless post of 'king' and established the aesthetic edifice of Democracy. This process of conclusion of king’s dynasties is not a standalone example, whenever the spirit of the idea has been abandoned such processes have ensued to restore the essence of public service in the leaders by establishing a more efficient system. It may be argued that what happened with King’s in the past is also happening in with the contemporary democratically elected leaders i.e. democracy has lost its essence and its aim of serving the people. Democracy today has become a cliché and is taken synonymous with elections, as soon as elections are concluded the elected representative leaders are nowhere to be found betraying T

A judiciary independent of a king or executive alone is a good thing; but independence from the will of the nation is a solecism, at least in a republican government. -Thomas Jefferson (Declaration of Independence) ‘Independence of Judiciary’, a phrase for which people around the world have sacrificed their lives since time immemorial. It was emphasized by the founding father of our constitution and was made a part of basic structure of the Constitution of India in Keshwananda Bharti v. Union of India (1973) so that it could never be compromised. Supreme Court has been proactive and has been sitting like a watchdog to wreck any attempt made on its independence, NJAC was struck down on the pretext of independence of the judiciary as it was allegedly seen as an attack from the Executive on Judicial Independence. Never to mention, Supreme Court has unpreceded success in recent times also in this mission of theirs. But the question still stands tall, ‘is our judiciary

In an era where the human rights activists are fighting for the abolishing capital punishment terming it as 'inhumane', courts revert to this punishment as a matter of last resort and plenty of safeguards have been put in place. The sentence passed by the trial court has to confirmed by the high court. The decisions of the lower court can go into appeal to the apex court and the decision of the court is final and binding over all courts throughout the territory of the country [1] and the decision of the Supreme Court cannot be challenged before any other court. Article 21 of our constitution gives the right to life to every person which cannot be taken away except by procedure established by law and  Constitutional courts in India are the ultimate guardians of this right. Capital Punishment has always been seen as an attack on the right to life and voices have been raised again and again labeling capital punishment as ‘barbaric’ and ‘inhumane’ which should be done away