CJI : All the advocates who appeared yesterday(in PILs against farmers protests) are not seen today except for Mr. Dushyant Tiwari
Supreme Court takes up the petitions challenging the constitutionality of farmers laws.
CJI : All the advocates who appeared yesterday(in PILs against farmers protests) are not seen today except for Mr. Dushyant Tiwari
Solicitor General : There is a confusion. The first item is the petitions challenging the validity of laws.
#FarmersProtest
'The petitioner is a citizen residing in Delhi'.
CJI : How is he affected?
Salve : Everybody living in city are affected directly or indirectly.
#FarmersProtest
#FarmersProtest
#FarmersProtest #SupremeCourt
#FarmersProtest #SupremeCourt
#FarmersProtest #SupremeCourt
#FarmersProtest
#FarmersProtest #SupremeCourt
#FarmersProtest #SupremeCourt
#FarmersProtest #SupremeCourt
He refers to the Bombay High Court judgment imposing fines on Shiv Sena for public damages.
#FarmersProtest #SupremeCourt
#FarmersProtest #SupremeCourt
#FarmersProtest #SupremeCourt
Salve : I think this court did not interfere.
CJI : Was the fine recovered?
Salve : I know that the fine has not been recovered.
Salve : I am not saying that. I am say they should identify themselves.
#FarmersProtest #SupremeCourt
#FarmersProtest #SupremeCourt
CJI : That is exactly the point we make. Protest must be non-violent and about issues.
Also you(to Attorney General) will not instigate any violence.
#FarmersProtest #SupremeCourt
#FarmersProtest #SupremeCourt
We saw how successful you have been in negotiations.
#FarmersProtest #SupremeCourt
#FarmersProtest #SupremeCourt
#FarmersProtest #SupremeCourt
SG : Tikri border, Singhu border have been blocked.
#FarmersProtest #SupremeCourt
#FarmersProtest #SupremeCourt
Rahul Mehra (@TheRahulMehra for Delhi Govt) : There are more than hundreds of arterial roads. I do not know where these figures are coming. Court should not accept these oral submissions if they are not on affidavit.
Solicitor General : This is not a platform for playing politics like Delhi vs Union.
#FarmersProtest #SupremeCourt
#FarmersProtest #SupremeCourt
Chidambaram : State has no objection to Court's suggestion that a group of people can facilitate a dialogue between farmers and Central Govt.
@PChidambaram_IN
@PChidambaram_IN
@PChidambaram_IN
@PChidambaram_IN
CJI : We did not use the term in a pejorative sense.
Chidambaram : It is the police who blocked the roads. Police cannot block the roads and blame farmers.
@PChidambaram_IN
@PChidambaram_IN
#FarmersProtests #SupremeCourt
Lawyer for Bharathiya Kisan Union(Bhanu) makes submission :
We are living in "Krishi pradhan" country and not "multi national pradhan" country.
CJI : The grievance is that people of Delhi will go hungry if you block the roads.
#FarmersProtests #SupremeCourt
SG opposes.
Mehra : The Solicitor General might be thinking Delhi Govt has got nothing to do with the protests happening near Delhi.
CJI asks Mehra to wait and not interfere.
#FarmersProtest #SupremeCourt
CJI asks AG : Do you recommend we constituting the committee when they are not represented here?
#FarmersProtest #SupremeCourt
Petitioner's lawyer submits that the the leaders were refusing to speak when they were contacted in the numbers given by the Solicitor General.
#FarmersProtest #SupremeCourt
#FarmersProtest #SupremeCourt
SG also agrees with that.
CJI says he has a function to attend an official funciton in North East next week.
Salve says the matter need not be heard during regular court hours.
My colleagues have also commitments. May be it will be an entirely different bench.
#FarmersProtest #SupremeCourt
AG expresses difficulty.
AG says he will get back after taking instructions.
Solicitor General says it will be tough.
CJI : If the AG is saying he will get back, why are you preempting.
Mehra : The interests of farmers have to be protected.
More from Live Law
More from Court
1) God bless the State of Texas and @KenPaxtonTX What he has just done gives us every chance to save our Republic and our country.
Keep in mind that there are only a few instances where a party can file a direct lawsuit with the U.S. Supreme Court, a state claiming harm by
2) another state is one of those instances.
https://t.co/xvXGDdgDYh
Texas Attorney General @KenPaxtonTX has filed a lawsuit with the Supreme Court seeking and emergency injunction against Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Georgia “from taking action to
3) certify presidential electors or to have such electors take any official action including without limitation participating in the electoral college.”
@KenPaxtonTX argues that arbitrary changes made by the state’s governors, secretaries of states and election supervisors were
4) “inconsistent with relevant state laws and were made by non-legislative entities, without any consent by the state legislatures. The acts of these officials thus directly violated the Constitution.”
The lawsuit states: “these non-legislative changes … facilitated the casting
5) and counting of ballots in violation of state law, which, in turn, violated the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution.” […] “By these unlawful acts, the Defendant States have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens vote, but
Keep in mind that there are only a few instances where a party can file a direct lawsuit with the U.S. Supreme Court, a state claiming harm by
2) another state is one of those instances.
https://t.co/xvXGDdgDYh
Texas Attorney General @KenPaxtonTX has filed a lawsuit with the Supreme Court seeking and emergency injunction against Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Georgia “from taking action to
The ONLY court that can hear the #TexasLawSuit is the Supreme Court of the United States. When a case is between two or more states, the Supreme Court holds both original and exclusive jurisdiction, and no lower court may hear such cases. SCOTUS does not have discretion to ignore
— Robert Barnes (@Barnes_Law) December 8, 2020
3) certify presidential electors or to have such electors take any official action including without limitation participating in the electoral college.”
@KenPaxtonTX argues that arbitrary changes made by the state’s governors, secretaries of states and election supervisors were
4) “inconsistent with relevant state laws and were made by non-legislative entities, without any consent by the state legislatures. The acts of these officials thus directly violated the Constitution.”
The lawsuit states: “these non-legislative changes … facilitated the casting
5) and counting of ballots in violation of state law, which, in turn, violated the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution.” […] “By these unlawful acts, the Defendant States have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens vote, but
You May Also Like
1/ Here’s a list of conversational frameworks I’ve picked up that have been helpful.
Please add your own.
2/ The Magic Question: "What would need to be true for you
3/ On evaluating where someone’s head is at regarding a topic they are being wishy-washy about or delaying.
“Gun to the head—what would you decide now?”
“Fast forward 6 months after your sabbatical--how would you decide: what criteria is most important to you?”
4/ Other Q’s re: decisions:
“Putting aside a list of pros/cons, what’s the *one* reason you’re doing this?” “Why is that the most important reason?”
“What’s end-game here?”
“What does success look like in a world where you pick that path?”
5/ When listening, after empathizing, and wanting to help them make their own decisions without imposing your world view:
“What would the best version of yourself do”?
Please add your own.
2/ The Magic Question: "What would need to be true for you
1/\u201cWhat would need to be true for you to\u2026.X\u201d
— Erik Torenberg (@eriktorenberg) December 4, 2018
Why is this the most powerful question you can ask when attempting to reach an agreement with another human being or organization?
A thread, co-written by @deanmbrody: https://t.co/Yo6jHbSit9
3/ On evaluating where someone’s head is at regarding a topic they are being wishy-washy about or delaying.
“Gun to the head—what would you decide now?”
“Fast forward 6 months after your sabbatical--how would you decide: what criteria is most important to you?”
4/ Other Q’s re: decisions:
“Putting aside a list of pros/cons, what’s the *one* reason you’re doing this?” “Why is that the most important reason?”
“What’s end-game here?”
“What does success look like in a world where you pick that path?”
5/ When listening, after empathizing, and wanting to help them make their own decisions without imposing your world view:
“What would the best version of yourself do”?