When somedays ago, I started a blog , I had written about a lady blogger how she inspired me eventhough all her blogs were fully crap. Now, I think that I am suffering from that social stigma of being crappy blogger. i have almost exhausted all the topics to write on and i lack any new topic to talk on. However, I am trying to write something notwithstanding the fact that the decreasing quality of blog has become a matter of worry.
In most of the blog posts, I have posted my own feelings and I have narrated about me. It seems that the entire blog is mecentric. and even in this blog, whole issues revolve around me.
This time, I am writing my blog contents in my notebook before I type and publish in my blog. So, any reference to current time amounts to time when I will be writing in my notebook.
Let me, start now. I am in the classroom. This is our third hour and we are discussing Justice Benzamin M. Cardozo’s Article on “Judicial Process” in our “Interpretation of Statutes, Judicial Process, and Legislative Drafting”.
J. Cardozo is very interesting man in terms of his legal literature. He was a judge in New York Court of Appeals for many years. Achieving very vast experience in rendering judgement, J. cardozo wrote a very significant but very small book on “The Nature of Judicial Process”.
It makes a very boring reading to almost all of us except you are psycho-philosopher like me who can digest Triple X movies to the Shrimad Bhagwat Gita from one or another philosophical perspectives.
Cardozo writes in almost ambigious, monotonous, boring and in uninteresting manner but he is a classic man in terms of explaining ‘decision making process’ in court. In the monotonous styles of the book, we can find the hidden intellect of justice Cardozo. Every lawman as well as layman, if they can grasp the meaning, will be will be highly benefitted if he or she reads this book.
The fundamental questions invloved in decision making are a)how to decide? b)why to decide? and more importantly why in that way and why not in another way matters be decided? Of Course, everybody who has responsibility of pronouncing judgement in court of law faces this situation. Just the fact that our LORDS and JUSTICES sit on the chair or on the bench of court does not enhance their intellectual ability to decide. Reasoning given to supplement the judgement is highly valuable. So, the Concept of Justice to J. OJHA (who was promoted to SUPREME COURT JUSTICE during King’s Regime) and J. RAYAMAJHI may differ on the question of “FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION” and it can not be the matter of any surprise.
Few Days ago, I read a paper by J. KALYAN SHRESTHA on “Rights of women on ancestors’ Property in Nepal”. That paper showed how lightly the issues are being taken by our Supreme Court of Nepal. according to the Paper, Supreme Court Nepal decided, that SUPREME COURT does not want (BE CAREFUL, Their LORDSHIPS did not tell that they can not rather they DO NOT WANT) to invalidate some laws on property matters though these laws, prima facie (on face), are violative of constitution of Nepal because it may distort the longstanding traditions, customs, usages, and social fabric of Nepalese Community.
What a FUNNY Judgement !!!!!!! Before This, I never read any judgements of any country deciding on the way Nepalese Supreme Court adopted.
The judgement might have been reversed by now, but I am just citing one example to show how funny and fallacious approach was being taken by LORDS. Their Lords must change their psyche of thinking.If we read J. Cardozo, he says that the final cause of the law is the welfare of the society. Then, our lords must reconsider any such matters that come before them on the light of Cardozo’s thinking. Do above mentioned judgement enhance the welfare of the society? The Need of the Hour is at least, starting to think on the issues from broad equity/welfare jurisprudence.