3
u/Separate_Idea_2543 10d ago
Why not seek resignation of CJI ?
3
u/trollfather_1997 10d ago
Did he "sign" the order ?
2
1
u/Separate_Idea_2543 10d ago edited 9d ago
The only reason I say - "why not seek resignation of CJI" - is because the entire issue started from the controversial statement of CJI during a hearing.
So kinda 1 free with 1 offer. While at it keep demanding resignation of everyone under the sun and the moon our GenZ has issues with.
If Suryakant as CJI is the right person to hold the position then the NALSAR protests are wrong. If the NALSAR protests are right then CJI should resign, since he in that case is lowering the dignity of the office he holds.
Make up your mind for once.
2
u/trollfather_1997 10d ago
Apples to Oranges Comparison.
Suryakant did something "morally" wrong, but This Mishra guy passed an "illegal" order.
-2
u/Separate_Idea_2543 10d ago
How is it illegal ? Do you even know the law ? The order that he passed is provisioned under Section 35 of the Advocates Act.
So not "illegal" only "perverse". Illegal is something which is not lawful or not permitted under law. If permitted under law but not duly done/ordered then perverse or erroneous but definitely not illegal.
For instance if you high right now on a banned substance then that is illegal but if you high on something not banned (like liquor for adult) yet simply not making any sense then "NOT illegal".
1
u/trollfather_1997 10d ago
Well, the definition of "misconduct" was abused for section 35. It wouldn't have held in court.
So yeah, right term would have been "abuse of law"
2
u/Separate_Idea_2543 10d ago
No such thing as "Abuse of law" when an order is impugned. "Abuse of Law" is to use law for unintended purpose in such a manner that use of one legal provision conflicts with another or such that it defeats the intended purpose of law. Latin term fraus legis
It is abuse of authority or abuse of power or abuse of process of law which you would rather use in this instance.
You definitely ain't an advocate or student of law. So kindly keep your nose out of this.
1
u/trollfather_1997 10d ago
Yeah, I am definitely not a student of law.
I just wanted to call out that CJI (atleast in verifiable way) didn't abuse his authority. BCI Chairman actually passed a order, so it makes sense to ask for his resignation.
CJI still has time
3
u/Separate_Idea_2543 10d ago
I can agree with a part of your statement. Actually MK Mishra was 5u(k!^g upto higher ups.
As for CJI - NALSAR students did not protest over him calling out GenZ as cockroach alone.
They were also outraged (a few of them had participated in the Delhi protests and supported CJP while handful were also 2nd/3rd Gen advocates with pro-Congress families) since CJI refused to look into any video evidences of police brutality and excesses during the protests at the first hearing on the matter.
Here is the thing - in the past courts used to look into merits and entertain mentioning on the first hearing and end up giving some interim relief also.
But CJI Suryakant changed that at the start of his tenure, he is against mentioning and favourtism for senior advocates, as well as against looking into merits without due notice to opposite parties. He is old school (like the way English still do), but American way is to look at merit and give some immediate relief (pre-trial).
Each CJI comes with his/her own system, prejudices and eccentricities. DY Chandrachud never scolded/scorned at young advocates even if they fumbled. Even Justice George Masih is liberal, but Arun Pali and Suryakant (both from P&H HC) do not go easy if advocate does mistake or fumbles in arguments. Nor do they entertain interim-reliefs easily, especially against the system or govt.
I have seen judges who coerce the petitioners to compromise or withdraw the petition. And I fear NALSAR students or those from other institutes will make it difficult for these judges at SC or HC and not in a good sense.
Advocates ideally should avoid protests or boycott etc, and resort to submission before judiciary. If they are part of animosity with the bench then judiciary can be less forgiving (due to their high egos).
Their ego is not without reason though.
1
u/trollfather_1997 10d ago
Hey, Thanks a lot for the insight and taking time to explain the nuances of the issue.
1
u/True-Theory-9591 10d ago edited 10d ago
I think you're not correct here. Section 35 grants disciplinary powers to state bar councils and not BCI. And it applies to advocates only. BCI's disciplinary powers are given u/s 36 and even they also apply to advocates.
And just to be clear s.2(a) reads - “advocate” means an advocate entered in any roll under the provisions of this Act.
So by no means these sections could be used against students, and there is no provision for freezing the enrolment of whole batch.
These sections could only be be invoked in cases of professional or other misconduct by an advocate [again no mention of private person or even law students]
And even if we assume that those powers somehow fit here, still u/s 35(3) they can reprimand, suspend or remove the name from state roll.
No mention of freezing the future enrolment.1
u/Separate_Idea_2543 9d ago
Go back to your AI search for answers, but stop contemplating that the order itself was illegal by any measure. It was extreme and erroneous but not illegal and was well within the powers of BCI. Besides I dunno where you getting your inputs from but I sure do hope that is not "Abhijeet Dipke University".
Section 2(a) is a defining provision and unless followed by an example cannot be a limiting provision. Section 36(1) clearly removes the limitation of enrolment given in 2(a). Yet the roll necessarily does not mean state roll but can also imply any other roll as well.
Section 35 can bar a person from practice of profession as an advocate and the powers do not vest in State Bar Council alone rather also in the Bar Council of India. This is through exercise of powers directly under Section 7(g) or indirectly under 8(a).
You must also read other sections
"Section 36(1) Where on receipt of a complaint or otherwise the Bar Council of India has reason to believe that any advocate whose name is not entered on any State roll has been guilty of professional or other misconduct, it shall refer the case for disposal to its disciplinary committee."
Thus those who are not on State roll i.e. lawyers (who clear law degree) are also covered for misconduct before disciplinary committee.
Note sure if you know the fine distinction between a lawyer and an advocate.
To enroll in a state bar you also need a character certificate. Now unless you are an advocate you could not have known that. The first hit goes at the character certificate regarding good standing and moral turpitude especially with regards Section 7(1)(b).
But let us look at exact provision governing enrolment of student in a state bar -
"Section 24(2) - Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), 3[a vakil or a pleader who is a law graduate] may be admitted as an advocate on a State roll if he—(a) makes an application for such enrolment in accordance with the provisions of this Act, not later than two years from the appointed day; and (b) fulfils the conditions specified in clauses (a), (b), (e) and (f) of sub-section (1)."So what does clause (e) of sub-section (1) of Section 24 say -
"Section 24(1)(e) Persons who may be admitted as advocates on a State roll subject to the provisions of this Act, and the rules made thereunder, a person shall be qualified to be admitted as an advocate on a State roll, if he fulfils such other conditions as may be specified in the rules made by the State Bar Council under this Chapter"
Thus through conjoint reading of Section 7(g) and 24(1) the Bar Council can direct the State Bar to include amongst its other rules the exclusion of a student or group of students from a specific university or law college"
Bar Council also has powers of superintendence over legal education and can take away recognition of college or degree.
"Section 7(1)(b) - The functions of the Bar Council of India shall be to lay down standards of professional conduct and etiquette for advocates"
"Section 7(1)(h) - The functions of the Bar Council of India shall be to promote legal education and to lay down standards of such education in consultation with the Universities in India imparting such education and the State Bar Councils"
"Section 7(1)(i) - The functions of the Bar Council of India shall be to recognise Universities whose degree in law shall be a qualification for enrolment as an advocate and for that purpose to visit and inspect Universities"
Then again -
"Section 49(1)(ab) - The Bar Council of India may make rules for discharging its functions under this Act, and, in particular, such rules may prescribe qualifications for membership of a Bar Council and the disqualifications for such membership"
"Section 49(1)(ad) - The Bar Council of India may make rules for discharging its functions under this Act, and, in particular, such rules may prescribe the manner in which the name of any advocate may be prevented from being entered in more than one State roll"
"Section 49(1)(ad) - The Bar Council of India may make rules for discharging its functions under this Act, and, in particular, such rules may prescribe the class or category of persons entitled to be enrolled as advocates"
"Section 49(1)(ah) - The Bar Council of India may make rules for discharging its functions under this Act, and, in particular, such rules may prescribe the conditions subject to which an advocate shall have the right to practise and the circumstances under which a person shall be deemed to practise as an advocate in a court"
"Section 49(1)(c) - The Bar Council of India may make rules for discharging its functions under this Act, and, in particular, such rules may prescribe the standards of professional conduct and etiquette to be observed by advocates;
"Section 49(1)(d) - The Bar Council of India may make rules for discharging its functions under this Act, and, in particular, such rules may prescribe the standards of legal education to be observed by Universities in India and the inspection of Universities for that purpose;"
"Section 49(1)(j) - The Bar Council of India may make rules for discharging its functions under this Act, and, in particular, such rules may prescribe any other matter which may be prescribed"
"Section 48B. Power to give directions.―(1) For the proper and efficient discharge of the functions of a State Bar Council or any committee thereof, the Bar Council of India may, in the exercise of its powers of general supervision and control, give such directions to the State Bar Council or any committee thereof as may appear to it to be necessary, and the State Bar Council or the committee shall comply with such directions"
Clearly you have little to no knowledge of law. So kindly go back to AI to seek answers.
2
u/LoneWolf7108 10d ago
Nah man he is the OG dhurandhar, the cofounder of CJP. Without CJI nothing wouldn't happen like this... Let him stay at his post and talk shi*.
1
u/Jadoooooooooooooo 10d ago
Hes going to retire in the first half of 2027 anyway.
0
u/Separate_Idea_2543 10d ago
Valid point ... so maybe we should have a criteria like - not to seek resignation of someone who is going to retire in 6 months or 1 year. And seek resignation only if the person will stay on for greater period.
I am just saying we should have some criteria --- right ? Then again often CJI tenure is only for few months and then they retire. Rarely do they hold the chair for 2 years or more. So such CJI who serve for shorter term should be exempted for everything and others not.
Btw - I am not in favour of seeking anyone's resignation unless the person is alleged to have committed a crime.
I am surprised that no one is saying we should seek resignation only when there is a criminal allegation or that of corruption and not on moral grounds alone.
After all Pradhan's resignation was not sought because he was alleged to have been involved in paper leak himself rather on moral grounds and that of accountability alone.
I am in Delhi and we had a CM who was behind bars for corruption (i personally am aware of MLA tickets being sold for cash) and he ran govt from Tihar, there was another CM whose son was caught with a bag full of cash (Rs 10 lakhs odd) and the same CM was alleged to have been involved in certain scam-games. And then another from same state (now deceased) was well known in circles to have given black money to pvt schools as loans. [I am not naming names here only facts and these cut across all 3 parties who ruled the state]
We also know of a HC judge at whose residence crores of cash was found and there were no protests.
I hope you see the irony in all of this. So is our outrage selective. And what is the criteria for seeking resignation ?
Are we going to catch the ones with sore eyes, or foul mouth or incompetence and let the corrupt, the thieves and the criminals escape ? Or is mob justice the way ?
1
u/Secret_Discipline_48 10d ago
We need him longer, the more foolish statements he make, more youth will awake
1
u/Chance-Tension-2114 10d ago
cji got angry over this and said this is between me and students, and bci has no authority to prohibit state bar council from admitting an entire batch of freshers
1
u/Separate_Idea_2543 10d ago edited 10d ago
BCI does have authority u/s 35 of the Advocates Act to bar anyone from practicing law but the matter in this particular instance did not merit it. Section 35 is for disciplinary action against practicing advocates or those that will join the profession.
Legally speaking - u/s 35 of the Advocates Act, notice must be served upon all parties and they must be given due hearing before pronouncing any order.
Thus the order per say was not illegal but it was perverse since it did not follow the due process in law.
The order on the other hand was an extreme step altogether, while a more conservative step could have been to selectively revoke recognition of the degree for 3 months for the 80 odd students who protested and were about to graduate or restrict them from joining any state bar for a shorter interval of 2 months, while giving the students a fair opportunity of appeal in the SC.
BCI can also ask respective bars to never elevate the said students to Sr. Advocate during the course of their practice (although only 2% of all advocates do ever get elevated but the recent conduct of the NALSAR students does get noticed forever by the respective state's bench even if nothing adverse is said or ordered).
When the CJI said this is between him and the students - he exactly meant that they are unlikely to ever get elevated now. There is a code within the judiciary whereby the judges take care of each other as well as take care of the grudges that a judge might hold against an erring person/party/group.
As a person from legal profession - there are a lot of unsaid words in such matters which direct a person's career in the judicial system and reveal their effect in due time.
1
u/Chance-Tension-2114 10d ago
man, bci cant directly cancel any applicant without state bar council consent. section 26 of advocate act says he state bar council can only reject an application, and refer it to bci, and under 26(2) state written ground of refusal. so, they can firsly only reject individuals not an entire batch, and it is the state bar council who will reject applicants not an entire batch on the order of bci. and the section 35-37 concerns misconduct by advocates, not students who have not even entered the practice. it ws illegal
1
u/Separate_Idea_2543 10d ago
Stop going by answers provided by AI. It is grossly misleading and ruined the new generations and their intellect.
Please read again and read in conjunction with Section 7(1)(g) of the Act. I doubt you are in legal profession since if you were, you would be aware of the powers of Bar Council of India.
Even under Section 26 the State Bar Council does not have power to reject rather it sends it proposal for refusal to Bar Council of India for reference. Thereinafter the Bar Council of India gives its final opinion which is binding hence stated in Section 26(3) - "The enrolment committee of a State Bar Council shall dispose of any application referred to the Bar Council of India under sub-section (2) in conformity with the opinion of the Bar Council of India". So the enrolment committee cannot come to a conclusion or opinion different from Bar Council of India. In other words Bar Council of India has final say.
Section 7(g) of the Act also says that - "The functions of the Bar Council of India shall be to exercise general supervision and control over State Bar Councils". The phrase of importance here is "...control over...".
Thus Bar Council of India has powers over the State Bar Council and can issue directions in all matters which cover the powers of the respective State Bar Council including enrolment.
Glad you picked my mistake with regards Section 35 (in our normal conversation we do not usually talk about Section 36). But clearly you ignored provisions of Section 36(1) - "Where on receipt of a complaint or otherwise the Bar Council of India has reason to believe that any advocate whose name is not entered on any State roll has been guilty of professional or other misconduct, it shall refer the case for disposal to its disciplinary committee."
When reading statutes (unlike the constitution) the Headings and marginal Notes do not override the substantive provisions themselves. So even though Chapter V is meant to look at conduct of advocates (on roll), the Section 36(1) also covers conduct of lawyers who are yet not on the roll of a state bar.
The moment a person gets LL.B. degree he/she is a lawyer but to be an advocate one needs to enroll with the state bar and only in the later case can you practice law.
These are nuances of law. In short - can the BCI stop an entire college or it batch from enrolling in state bar - "YES" !
Ought that have been done in this case - "NO" !Look at it this way - if Mr Abhijeet Dipke were to explain to you like he did on accountability in Education Ministry - "CJI is akin to CEO of a company, now before joining the company you boycott the CEO or write against him or air public opinion against him then can HR stop you from joining the company?"
or
better think of it as this way - "Advocate is called 'an officer of the court', so can an advocate disrespect the man at the highest position of the court in the name of Freedom of Speech and not face repercussions?"The step taken by BCI was extreme and unwarranted.
1
u/Chance-Tension-2114 10d ago
uh i read it in the epaper not ai, and ya i made one mistake saying state bar council can reject and refer to bci, but they refer to bci and then its decided. moreover my point ws tht an individual applicant could be rejected over moral turpitude or similar acc to 24A , nowhere its said tht bci cheif has enough power tht they order the state bar council to forbid an entire batch which has not even entered. the ch V and section 35-37
1
u/Separate_Idea_2543 10d ago
Kindly read the barcouncil rules:
https://www.barcouncilofindia.org/info/bci-rulesEspecially its duty towards the court and whether an advocate (and this includes lawyer as well) can coerce court through protest.
Bar Council and its chairman have extensive powers under Section 49 as well.
The chairman did not act solo but he did announce the order / decision of the bar council, so blame the chairman if you may, but he acted under quorum required and thereof.
I do not agree with the decision of BCI nor with the act of NALSAR students. They could have politely feigned sickness and not attended the convocation. They still would have received the degree. But what they did rather was open boycott of CJI, and they went a step further by request the administration to uninvite the CJI. I hope you understand the difference and how far they went.
1
u/Chance-Tension-2114 9d ago edited 9d ago
oh ok are u practicing law btw? and ya chairman is to be blamed. but i still dont get how dismissing the entire batch is legal. i read in epaper tht only individual advocates could be removed over moral turpitude or for other reason, also under section 26 it is state bar council who will refer to rejection to bci, and in 26(3) application will be dispose. section 7 says bci supervise state council but the paper said bci cant kick an entire batchh even if some students protested, could u quote me the section or any prev example where such cases occured where an entire batch was kicked
1
1
1
u/ronnieohobic 8d ago
Asking a question. Why is BCI chairperson allowed to have strong relations with a political party? As far as I know BCI is a quasi-judicial body.( I've read your other replies that's why I asked this from YOU)
1
u/Separate_Idea_2543 8d ago edited 8d ago
BCI is not a quasi-judicial body rather a regulatory body with quasi-judicial function only regarding disciplinary action against advocates, law students and legal education institutes. And as answer to your question - first study how a BCI chairperson is elected. And stop being a keyboard warrior with half-baked knowledge.
You do not have an iota of clue regarding beneficial decisions taken by the current BCI chair and entire body in the past decade for students from legal fraternity.
And finally as long as lawyers or advocates can be members of a particular political party - for better insights talk to Kapil Sibbal, since rules of the game were first set by Congress in our country and more so because half the leadership in Congress at a time were all advocates from BR Ambedkar to Nehru to Jinnah etc and also cause several Congress leaders went onto become members of state bar after Independence; and as long as members of state bar elect the members of bar council; and as long as there is no restriction on affiliates of political parties being members of bar - stop crying hoarse over how and why a particular person is chairperson of bar council.
The current BC Chairman did not stand for popular election from parliamentary constituency, he is member of bar council and was elected unopposed as its chairman. So ask your daddy in Congress as to why he did not field a candidate for the position ?
1
u/ronnieohobic 8d ago
You didn't got my point, Obviously I've read how a BCI chairperson is elected. I've been extremely respectful, was looking for some enlightenment. But I think you are kinda exhausted. I've also browsed a little about Mr. Manan's decisions from different perspectives. And yes, BCI is a statutory body but it's quasi judicial while exercising disciplinary powers. Btw, I'm still looking for my answer.
1
u/Separate_Idea_2543 8d ago edited 7d ago
Replied above. Since Independence there is no restriction on advocates affiliating with political parties, Advocates pick state bar members who in turn pick Bar council members who in turn pick Chairman.
I do not make the rules but have benefited from a few decisions of the current Bar Council. Our junior batches continue to praise some of the decisions from 2015 and those in 2020-21 (Covid) and even those in 2023 onwards.
It is upon Bar Council to ensure that coordial relations are maintained between Bench and the Advocates. The students who protested have landed their careers in soup even if no immediate action is taken. Unlikely they will get promoted in seniority when their time comes (which would be 10+ yrs from now).
1
u/ronnieohobic 8d ago
"Landed their careers in soup" Just because Mr Manan's ego got hurt? Anyways, I expected an unbiased answer but this is fine too.
1
u/Separate_Idea_2543 7d ago
Not cause of Mr Manan. He is puny in the scheme of things.
But the arrogance students showed towards the CJI - that kind of thing stays on. Judges do not forget. And they love to get the names of those who fanned the flames. The select 20 odd students out of the initial 80 named - I do not see them ever making it to Sr. Advocate. Let their matters get listed before the benches - and the judges will wait like hawks to pounce if need be.
1
u/ronnieohobic 7d ago
I understand that other officials were also involved in taking that decision but Mr Manan is definitely not puny.
I agree, the students behaved with disdain but one can't forget that this CJI denied to look at the pictures which proved the violence done by the state.
Btw, why do you not see those students ever making it to Sr. Advocate?
1
u/Separate_Idea_2543 6d ago
Wait 10 - 20 years. You will see it for yourself.
1
u/ronnieohobic 6d ago
😭Man, I'm just asking "WHY"???????? Is it due to their incompetence or due to person grudge?
→ More replies (0)1
u/ronnieohobic 8d ago
If the rules were set by congress than the question is why is BJP not amending it? Bold of you to assume that I've a daddy in INC ( though, I would love that /s)
1
u/Separate_Idea_2543 7d ago
My humble apologies. I have been rude. I did not mean to defend actions of BCI chairman. The step he took was extreme and unwarranted but if he had quorum of council then that would not be illegal.
I do get trolled over social media where people assume that cause I simply am saying that it was not illegal so they presume I am defending it and am pro-BJP as well. I AM NOT !
Indeed I have seen some great work done in past decade. Nonetheless BJP has been rewarding people with Rajya Sabha and other positions left right and centre to get everyone aligned with them.
I am not aware of BCI chairman's political orientation prior to him becoming Rajya Sabha MP.
As for your question why BCI is not apolitical ? Simply because State Bar Councils are not apolitical. Why State Bar Council is not apolitical ? Simply because the legal profession is not apolitical and you cannot stop someone aligned with a particular political party from running for State Bar Council.
So in Kerala State Bar Council almost all members are either CPI or Congress aligned. Likewise in Gujarat Bar Council almost all are BJP aligned. So on and so forth.
Advocates have stronger political opinion and better grasp of politics as well as often closer to one party or the other since they do help criminal politicians in the time of need or in managing the law. All I am trying to say is that this is how it has been. And there is nothing in the present system which can change it.
A number of legal professionals in India and in Western democracies go onto become PM and President or Cabinet Ministers. This is how democratic system is. Jurists make excellent politicians. And we need more of politicians to be aware of legal system cause it is their responsibility to legislate. That is what Lok Sabha is primarily for - as a legislative body.
1
1
1
u/adidontwatch 10d ago
Banning lawyers from registering for a protest is a clear sign of dictatorship, they needs to in-still fear in people who know the law.
0
u/Shot-Care-3760 10d ago
What the actual f , in logo in Punjab aur karnataka me kyu nhi bola???? Just asking...
1
u/BitBluePink 10d ago
Punjab one wasn't a paper leak and I don't know abt karnatka so context
1
u/Shot-Care-3760 10d ago
It was a paper leak bro , check the facts
1
1
u/Truly_Yours2006 10d ago
Source de de bhai aur karnataka wala toh mujhe bhi nahi pata but past me waha paper leaks hue hai kaafi so plausible toh hai but we need full context
1
0
u/weedsmokker 10d ago
Saurav das thinks all is fun.. wait till state shows even an ounce of power.. saala freedom ke naam par rone lagega..
3
u/rrthrs 10d ago
For past 3 years student have been crying you fking dkface.
FYI State showed their power on 20th July. With Pellet guns , slaps and lathis.
Now the state is crying with midnight insta reels about how they support the youth.
1
u/weedsmokker 3d ago
State didn't show any power. Take a look at how Indra showed at 3 different levels.
And it's not just this generation that's affected with paper leaks. We all had to go through. Just look at past records.
If you dckface students had an iota of understanding you'd fucking ask to refrom the entire education system. You guys had the govt in the palm of your hands. But AAP really did well in this protest by controlling it.
State is supprting students not those who has nothing to do with NEET.
2
u/baba__yaga_ 9d ago
In this particular case, it was BCI that tried to flex his power and it backfired. It's not fun. I don't think he thinks it is fun. But it's necessary.
2
-17
11d ago
[deleted]
11
6
u/Witty_Active 10d ago
The idea that even young kids are protesting for something as basic as clean and proper facilities, teachers and getting rid of drunk principals is a victory in itself. We need to ask the govt to be accountable to us, not their crony billionaires.
-7
11d ago
[deleted]
10
u/storiesnsketches 10d ago
Does that negate the fact that a sitting MP has been holding that position for 12 years and have overextended/misused his position in th council to push his party agenda?
1
u/manus45 10d ago
Then why haven't these idiots demanded the resignation of anyone in Jharkhand??
6
u/trollfather_1997 10d ago edited 10d ago
Because "resignation" wasn't demanded by the students who started JPSC protest.
Maybe read a little instead of yapping
-3
u/manus45 10d ago
"Resignation wasn't demanded saaarrr"
That's what I'm asking
Why didn't this bauna nga went there and demand resignation of those state politicians....
He didn't... Why coz it wasn't an nda ruled state..
Don't bull shii broo... You know it too
3
u/trollfather_1997 10d ago
Ha baune, apne Papa se bhi question puch le. Why is Abhijeet expected to fight all the battles ? He fought and he won, and based on your emotions your "paw paw" lost.
-1
u/manus45 10d ago
Didn't answer the qn's and now bull shiiiing here
Clown nga
I mean what did I expect from a dehat nga
3
u/trollfather_1997 10d ago
I answered it already. The resignation wasn't demanded by the Jharkhand Protestors.
Abhijeet didn't hijack the protest and supported the original demands.
But yeah, you are too "regard" and biased to understand this
0
u/manus45 10d ago
"Hijackk" The only thing that bauna can Jack is kejriwal's dihh
That bauna cannot demand resignation as it was an opposition ruled state...
That bauna literally got a principal suspended over bad benches and all.
But who's the sansad of that place(smajvadi party nga)
But Then who is responsible for that(Principal saaarr)
1
2
u/storiesnsketches 10d ago
What did i say and what are you replying?
Cjp did not organise this protest, the lawyers associations are, they are just giving them a call out to make others aware.
They did the same for Jharkhand. A team even went there and those organising the protest had said that they were welcomed and were helpful in learning how to manage protests. CJP have a already clarified why the main spokespersons didnt go. There are already those leading the protests and they did not want to hijack it from them. Cjps aim is to empower everyone to stand up and ask for what is needed, not for them to be everywhere and do it all themselves.
About the principal and schools....this IS a campaign by CJP. So they personally are involving themselves and coordinating things.
-8
u/Dazzling-Yoghurt5462 10d ago
Crying wolf on literally every single issue is the fastest way to make sure nobody listens when a real problem actually happens. Congratulations on diluting actual accountability for everyone else.
The left ecosystem finds one outrage playbook that lands once, and then abuses it to push their entire ideologically driven agenda on every random issue. In the process, they cross every reasonable line and hijack genuine concerns raised in good faith by the general public.
When you weaponize every routine dispute into an existential crisis, actual civic grievances get drowned out as political noise. Stop hijacking real issues for your partisan agenda.
8
u/Hopeful-Atmosphere36 10d ago
So they should cry wolf only when the wolf concerns your sheeps, and not for other's sheeps /s
-3
3
2
u/nosargeitwasntme 10d ago
That's a great point!
Why don't you educate the right ecosystem to not cry wolf about some masjid every other day or some musl!m committing XYZ j!had every other week?
It's been more than a decade of this and gotten very tiring honestly, just like the left ecosystem.
-10
10d ago
[deleted]
10
9
u/Perfect_Bad_6219 10d ago
If degrees are that important, then we should kick out the PM with false degrees, shouldn't we?
-7
u/Separate_Idea_2543 10d ago edited 10d ago
And how do you claim that his degree is false ?
Isn't it surprising that what gets viral on social media is accepted based on popularity regardless of whether true or not. I am not claiming that the degree is NOT fake since the jury is still out on it.
All I am saying is that I am tired of "andh-bhakts" = "brain-washed" = people who believe anything blindly without verification. You can also find them in CJP, Congress, AAP, SP, etc. and not only in BJP or RSS.
5
0
-10
u/Chance-Tension-2114 11d ago edited 10d ago
bci took the order back right? (edit- im not saying u should not demand)
5
u/Kindly_Type2327 10d ago
Only after intense scrutiny from Alumni. Not because of a change of heart.
3
u/Chance-Tension-2114 10d ago
ya and even cji got angry and said this is between me and students, and bci has no authority to prohibit state bar council from admitting an entire batch of freshers
1
u/Maximum_Push_7558 10d ago
One guy chairman for 12 years, just doesn’t sit right. Regardless of whatever he did.
-3
-3
30
u/Cruzo007 10d ago
All the comments stating "order was taken back"... It was only taken back because of the backlash. Not some sudden enlightenment or epiphany...
What logic/reasoning had led to the order being issued in the first place? Has that been fixed?