NLU Delhi professor Dr Anup Surendranath, who joined the Supreme Court in May 2014 as deputy registrar (research) under then-Chief Justice of India (CJI) RM Lodha as reported by Legally India at the time, has resigned from his apex court position yesterday.
Surendranath had set up NLU Delhi’s Death Penalty Project and was closely involved in the unsuccessful final appeals of convicted terrorist Yakub Memon, who was executed on Thursday morning.
According to a Facebook post Surendranath wrote:
I have been contemplating this for a while now for a variety of reasons, but what was played out this week at the Supreme Court was the proverbial final nail --- I have resigned from my post at the Supreme Court to focus on death penalty work at the University.
It is in many ways liberating to to regain the freedom to write whatever I want and I hope to make full use of that in the next few days to discuss the events that transpired at the Supreme Court this week.
He added in another post:
It would be silly and naive to see the events of the last 24 hours at the Supreme Court as some triumph of the rule of law --- the two orders at 4pm on 29th July and 5am on 30th July (and the reasoning adopted therein) are instances of judicial abdication that must count amongst the darkest hours for the Supreme Court of India.
He declined to comment further when contacted by Legally India.
The resignation was first reported by Live Law.
Comments
If every IAS / IPS resigned due to ideological differences with the government, where would we be? It's not as if India is executing dozens of death row prisoners every year. It is pretty evident that successive Indian governments are less and less inclined to enforce execution of death row inmates and the in 10-20 years there may well be a repeal.
However, in this case I would speculate (educatedly) that it was a situation like the following:
1. The work was sort-of Chinese-walled, so to speak. I.e., he expressly specified not to work on anything DP related at the SC.
2. When the DP clinic was started up they didn't have a litigation arm and merely did research and interviewed inmates and found external counsel for them - I think their in-house DP litigation project was just started fairly recently.
3. yes, I assume that gradually incompatibility between the two roles must have become greater, which came to a head after the Memon judgment.
4. Irrespective of how you feel about the DP, he clearly has strong anti death-penalty convictions and he probably rightly felt that he could contribute more in his role at NLU Delhi than at the SC (where, let's be honest, how much can one academic really change there?). So when he had to make a decision, I don't think it's surprising or should be criticised that the SC gig was dropped.
Let's say for argument's sake he was a librarian at the SC- would that have been a conflict issue?
Less theoretically, from our previous coverage, it seems like his role was mostly administrative, or like a management consultant:
http://www.legallyindia.com/201405224737/Bar-Bench-Litigation/anup-surendranath-at-sc
[quote]He told Legally India that his role involved personal research and intellectual assistance to the CJI, RM Lodha, and setting up a research unit at the Supreme Court and advising on institutional reform.
The research unit’s role would be to “think about various places in the court where a higher quality of decision making and adjudication can be useful”, he said. For instance, the case admission stage is a crucial stage for the Supreme Court, with which it is presently ill-equipped to deal with. The unit could work towards building a knowledge database that can give judges the authoritative basis to immediately say if a particular case is inadmissible because they are being asked to decide a fact-based, instead of a law-based, question, he said.
“A lot of work has already been done [in this area] and I have to be careful that I am not reinventing the wheel. Being an outsider I have the advantage of not having subscribed to the established logic of the institution. The idea is to suggest how things can be done differently,” said Surendranath.
Surendranath would be looking at the multidisciplinary expertise needed to make the court’s institutional process, such as its filing systems, more efficient. He said that the court has given him the discretion to hire the professionals he needs to assist him, including lawyers, however he is currently studying and familiarising himself with the processes of the court as they exist.[/quote]
If that's his role, I don't know why there would necessarily have to be any conflict?
But even if judgments were drafted, how is that an actual problem, particularly if he never appeared before any of those judges himself and he never helped on anything remotely DP related?
Let's say for argument's sake he was a librarian at the SC- would that have been a conflict issue?
He told Legally India that his role involved personal research and intellectual assistance to the CJI, RM Lodha, and setting up a research unit at the Supreme Court and advising on institutional reform.
If that's his role, I don't know why there would necessarily have to be any conflict?[/quote]
As a lawyer Kian, surely you do not have to be educated about the meaning of conflict of interest. It is a perception and logic does not work.
By your logic even some other sitting SC judge not connected with the Yakub Memon orders / benches could have "spearheaded" the mercy petition. It could well be the case that he too was chinese-walled and anyways had nothing to do with the deliberation of the review bench. Logically fine but perceptually not fine. I doubt the CJI or any lawyer would appreciate such logic.
But clearly nobody can prove or disprove any of these facts and so a perception can arise that our sitting SC judge had a conflict of interest. The same with Anup. He might have been Deputy Registrar (catering-in-charge) for all we know but the fact is that as an officer of the court he should not be seen forming part of such litigation, at least officially. The nonchalant way he continued to be involved in the NLU Delhi Death Penalty Project while being at the Supreme Court is mind-boggling. One expected more sense from a law graduate and law teacher.
This has nothing to do with argument for or against death penalty.
How else are Chinese walls in law firms ever allowed? Former Amarchand Mumbai and Delhi working on opposite sides of the same deal doesn't look great, but in reality you can avoid conflict by having strong Chinese walls in place.
Likewise, here we don't know what actually happened, but just because he worked within the SC does not automatically open up a conflict situation, particularly since:
1. He did not appear or argue personally, as far as I know, but only provided back-end support to the litigating teams.
2. His SC mandate seemed very administrative in its remit.
3. The vast majority of DP work initially was just data gathering and interviews with DP inmates, as far as I understand. I guess later that turned into actively finding counsel to represent them, but again, if he doesn't appear and his position at the SC never even remotely touched on that, then it seems like any potential conflict would have been successfully managed.
I'm not saying it's impossible that there was a conflict, but I am surprised that people assume the worst and seem very certain, perhaps without much evidence, that there was a conflict and that this conflict wasn't accounted for by the SC too?
How else are Chinese walls in law firms ever allowed? Former Amarchand Mumbai and Delhi working on opposite sides of the same deal doesn't look great, but in reality you can avoid conflict by having strong Chinese walls in place.
Likewise, here we don't know what actually happened, but just because he worked within the SC does not automatically open up a conflict situation, particularly since:
1. He did not appear or argue personally, as far as I know, but only provided back-end support to the litigating teams.
2. His SC mandate seemed very administrative in its remit.
3. The vast majority of DP work initially was just data gathering and interviews with DP inmates, as far as I understand. I guess later that turned into actively finding counsel to represent them, but again, if he doesn't appear and his position at the SC never even remotely touched on that, then it seems like any potential conflict would have been successfully managed.
I'm not saying it's impossible that there was a conflict, but I am surprised that people assume the worst and seem very certain, perhaps without much evidence, that there was a conflict and that this conflict wasn't accounted for by the SC too?[/quote]
To answer your points:
1. It is enough that he is officially involved with the NLUD Project, it is enough that he does not deny it. The extent of his role is immaterial. Imagine NLUD got Justice P C Ghose to act as "mentor". Would that have been proper (for the judge)? Ofc not. Same for Anup.
2. You are sadly repeating his job profile. Like I said, to the world at large he is a SC officer and to the world at large he is also interested in a litigation. These two roles are mutually exclusive and cannot be sustained. This is a principle of natural justice and it is for this reason that judges who have family members connected to litigation recuse themselves. Nobody is suggesting that Anup divulged information etc. but he should have had the sense to give up one or the other, preferably in a calm sensible manner without making a circus out of it. The way he has quit has 'attention-seeker' stamped all over it.
3. Your Amarchand example is a poor, poor one. Even while it used to happen (quite rare) it was a sham and caused lots of consternation to their clients. No American or British law firm would indulge in such a practice (correct me if I am wrong here) and there is no doubt that an investigation would have found it grossly unethical.
Chairman, TPSI.
Chairman, TPSI.
I think I might have met him once briefly for a few minutes at some event or party or so, but we have interacted a number of times on the phone (though far less than I've talked with many many other sources).
He seems like a pretty nice and sensible guy though, in case you're interested.
He seems like a pretty nice and sensible guy though, in case you're interested.[/quote]
"Nice Guy"?
That's what the neighbours of Bill Suff (convicted serial killer of 19) said about him.
He has belittled the post that he'd had been selected for. If he was that keenly interested and motivated with his personal pet project then he should never have taken the SC job up in the first place.
I picked it when stories got like 10 likes up or down at most. Nowadays sometimes it might not work 100% completely.
Though considering how controversial this entire discussion is, I think it's fair to call the first comment controversial also... So maybe our algorithm is ok?
I do think we need to revise our 'troll' parameter slightly (and not just for my 'benefit' :) to only apply the tag when a post has more than 30 or however many dislikes, but less than 5 or so upvotes.
As for death penalty being legal, then why have only 4 people been executed in 15 years? The Indian courts have been curtailing the death penalty on a case by case basis as a trend, while internationally one country after another has abolished the DP.
Furthermore, this is actually this is the comment section and I'm entitled to an opinion as much as anyone. If the story is biased, take it up with that, though you'll find that all the mainstream newspapers have carried similar stories today and gone with far stronger angles than we have.
Finally, it has become my somewhat thankless job in recent times, in an effort to clean up the comments section a bit after repeated complaints about anonymous sniping and personal attacks - to try and act as a peacemaker and inject some balance into debates, which can easily be dominated by the very strongly opinionated, bored trolls or those with personal antipathies, vendettas etc, all of whom can hide behind a veil of anonymity.
Those who try to make a counterpoint often get shouted down without a shred of evidence or counterargument.
So, when a debate becomes too one-sided and in my view unreasonable, I think it's my duty to play devil's advocate or put forward some counterviews or arguments.
To be honest, I hoped for a bit more nuance and ability to take disagreement from lawyers in such matters (especially since none of you are arguing under your own name, so what should it matter to you if I disagree with you?).
Now, I don't practice in SC (or Delhi for that matter). As a lawyer litigating in another part of India, I was always under the impression that his NLUD DP project is in some way blessed by the SC (given his position there). If you were to look at some of his social media broadcasts, the distinction is quite blurred.
I believe he was conflicted and should've come to terms with this much earlier.
I'm happy to accept that you believe there was a conflict. But I also think in likelihood the story is not nearly as black-and-white as you make it out to be.
The problem is that almost all comments I've seen on this thread are opinions with very little knowledge of what actually went on. I admit I don't know as much about Surendranath or the interaction between the two roles as I perhaps should, but I admit that as you do in your comment above.
You, and others including me at times, are commenting from a position of relative ignorance with a lot of assumptions, such as "I was always under the impression that his NLUD DP project is in some way blessed by the SC (given his position there)", citing vague social media as your source.
Maybe your impression is your mistake actually, in that case.
Until then, accept my counterpoints and criticism of your anonymous comment with grace please and feel free to provide evidence, rather than more conjecture.
May I also clarify that unlike you, I source of livelihood is the practice of law. I am, unfortunately, not as committed to this debate as you are. I participate to the extent I can. The day I decide to retire (which I have no clue when), I will publish my name and invite you, Mihira, Suhasini and myriad others to engage in debate. Until then, I do admit with a heavy heart that I have to engage in this guerrilla-style, express and disappear dialogue. If you are not fine with it, please alter the rules of your platform.
You don't sound like you are commenting out of malice, but some others clearly do which is where the problems come in.
Ideally I'd like the comment space on LI to be about free expression and criticism, including talk about ideas, principles, criticisms, etc, rather than calling other people childish or 'left-wing intellectuals' as a term of abuse, etc.
I'll do what I can to keep it from veering that way, but as I've said before, the commenting space is mostly out of my control - we try to step in when it gets too crazy.
In the meantime, if all readers can do their part by being a bit nicer, that'd also be cool. :)
+1 and completely spot on.
He joined with full knowledge that the death penalty is part of the law and had been used in the recent past (Kasab and Afzal Guru). It seems more likely that the reasons for his leaving had nothing to do with the death penalty. Maybe the SC did not renew his contract or maybe he had decided his CV-embellishment was complete. Whatever it is, difference of opinion, especially where it concerns the law of the land is far from being a ground for resignation.
OT, I find it bizarre that NLU Delhi and the Supreme Court both allowed him to continue in two different roles (deputy registrar of research as well as project lead). Since NLUD was one of the parties to the Memon mercy plea it would have been an embarrassment for the SC if it was revealed that one of their own staff members was assisting litigation before one of its own benches.
But what I find especially bizarre is how much hate people seem to have for lawyers who are making it their life's work to fight against the death penalty, especially if that hate seems to be coming from the legal community itself.
In the US, there's an organisation called Reprieve, for instance, which does amazing work on the death penalty front to try and help those who don't get adequate representation and end up on death row. Thousands of lawyers from corporate law firms and law schools and the bar and everywhere have volunteered for Reprieve from all over the world and I've literally never heard anyone say anything bad about their work.
But for some reason in India many lawyers seem to believe that not enough people are being executed in India.
I'd be interested to know how a lawyer can marry such an outlook with training in the rule of law, the constitution, human rights, criminology, jurisprudence and so forth, because I feel there is very little data or rational reason to support the death penalty, other than an unsubstantiated feeling that it works as a deterrent, punitively or as an important tool for vengeance.
Before you start shouting me down, I'd actually be interested in a reasoned and rational debate on why you think that lawyers fighting the death penalty are not doing a public service that should be applauded.
Have a look on Twitter and Facebook also - this is a comment on LI's FB page: "So Anup has no sympathy for 257 families.How cruel.shocking.shame."
The discourse around this is coloured by a lot of prejudice, illogic and anger, hence our moderation.
And so my question remains - why do anti-DP activists invite so much opposition in India?
"typical of our left-wing intellectuals" ... " "embellished his CV and looking for better opportunities he exits" "he always knew that the law of the land, as laid down by the SC, is that the death penalty is valid and is to be applied in the rarest of rare cases. Why did he then take up the post? This reminds me of Amartya Sen resigning from Nalanda after using all the benefits."
"typical of our left-wing intellectuals" ... " "embellished his CV and looking for better opportunities he exits" "he always knew that the law of the land, as laid down by the SC, is that the death penalty is valid and is to be applied in the rarest of rare cases. Why did he then take up the post? This reminds me of Amartya Sen resigning from Nalanda after using all the benefits."[/quote]
If you have the patience to read another post Kian you may agree that now you are seeing a devil in every comment that calls out Anup's [...] manner of resigning. Especially given that so many people have made similar remarks there obviously is something amiss.
Person @2 commenting is quite right in his comparison of AS's conduct. Lots of people accept a good "sarkaari" position to embellish their CV but want to get out thereafter as they prefer the flexibility (or pay) of private sector jobs. Unfortunately finding a reason to quit is the problem. In Anup's case he has cited ideological imcompatibility as the criteria, giving the impression that when he joined the SC, they were both on the same page but somehow they have changed track due to the Yakub Memon judgment. That is clearly false; the SC has never taken a position that death penalty should be abolished and AS of all people would have known this when he joined. It is surprising therefore that he suddenly finds his continuing so hard and this smacks of an attempt to showcase some reason in order to quit. DP was just a convenient excuse.
Another issue is the way he quit. Instead of leaving with dignity and putting across his reasons in private to the CJI (which would have shown character, assuming said reasons were valid), he published a rant on FB. This is just kiddish behaviour at its worst. At most, he could have waited for someone (maybe LI) to quiz him about his reasons before venting his views. But nobody asked him and still he went ahead with what can be generously described as a bit of a melodrama. Makes you want to say "Hope the SC screens out [...] in future".
I think he told the CJI on Friday that he resigned, and go knows what they spoke about in private.
If a person is not allowed to talk about their reasons for leaving a post on the Facebook wall, why not? Out of 'respect for the institution'? Contempt of court?
If you disagree with something as a lawyer, in a democracy, you should have the balls to stand up for it and call it out, even if it's a judgment of the SC.
I wish more lawyers had the guts to do that to be honest, as the vast majority are pliant and subservient when faced with any power, whether that be senior, judge or bar councils...
Finally, yes, you are entitled to your opinion and I won't moderate it unless it gets too personal.
But also know that your and others' opinion in this thread does count for a considerable lot less just because it is anonymous. If you were to cite facts rather than just conjecture, fine. But half these comments basically come off sounding like AS pissed someone off once or won a student council election over someone else or made people envious or some such, and now there's payback here veiled as fair comment and opinion on when he's done something controversial that's getting a lot of attention in the press.
If it was such an important point, I wonder why you don't also take it up with him in your own name on FB, which might actually give you the answers you seek?
That said, I think there's a legitimate debate to be had about whether this will work against other 'outsiders' working at the SC in future (as the first comment suggested).
But on that front, we also don't know enough yet about exactly what went down on Friday or generally.
We'll try to get a full interview with AS and find out, particularly since he promised in his FB post that he would speak freely now since he wasn't bound by professional obligations to the SC by virtue of his job.
If a person is not allowed to talk about their reasons for leaving a post on the Facebook wall, why not? Out of 'respect for the institution'? Contempt of court?
If you disagree with something as a lawyer, in a democracy, you should have the balls to stand up for it and call it out, even if it's a judgment of the SC.
I wish more lawyers had the guts to do that to be honest, as the vast majority are pliant and subservient when faced with any power, whether that be senior, judge or bar councils...
But also know that your and others' opinion in this thread does count for a considerable lot less just because it is anonymous.
If it was such an important point, I wonder why you don't also take it up with him in your own name on FB, which might actually give you the answers you seek?
[/quote]
OMG Kian, if you could only hear yourself utter these arguments. You are clutching at straws, flotsam and jetsam for all they are worth.
Resigning in a huff and making a circus of it is quite different from "having balls". Having balls is having the will to leave, not [b]how [/b]you leave.
Now AS may or may not have had the balls (quoting your phrase, not mine) depending on the real reasons why he left. Since nobody knows that (except AS himself), a point you have yourself agreed to when you say we do not know the facts, we should not say he had or did not have the balls to quit.
But what is clearly objectionable is the manner he quit. That is no display of balls, it shows crassness and is boorish. Plain and simple.
The above reasoning is my honest summation of the events as reported, and anonymity has only helped me to submit to you for posting. You could insist that real names be provided in which case I will simply not submit. But I won't change my view based on whether the comment is anonymous or not. Clearly you also realise that without the benefit of anonymity nobody will bother with your website so its a win-win situation.
Basically, please do make your points but don't be a dick about it and be mindful of other people.
A good test is, anonymity or no, whether you could see yourself telling it to the person you're targeting to their face in theory.
If you'd feel uncomfortable in theory, then maybe tone down the language a little until you can?
Though what you're really saying is that ideally we'd have censored 'left-wing intellectual' before publication, which might have stopped this idiotic partisan crap in the comments in the first place?
Sincerely,
Chairman, TPSI.
What has Anup achieved?
Let's see some evidence of your achievements.
He came on a deputation but was part-time working for the body? wow!
One counter is that I think surely the SC itself can also take care of itself - if they'd felt there was a conflict, they could have told him to leave, no?
And I assume they knew exactly the kind of work he was doing at NLU Delhi when he started at the SC, so if there was full disclosure and they presumably had no issue, what's the problem?
http://www.deathpenaltyindia.com/about-us/
Surendranath joined SC as Dy Registrar in May 2014.
One difference one could also see is that CJIs Sathasivam and Lodha definitely seemed far more anti-DP than Dattu. I would imagine that back then his 'research project' or 'clinic' or whatever would have actually been a bonus to him getting the job. Perhaps after the change of guard it became more of a hindrance?
Read this in conjunction with the news report today that the SC did not know about his representation of Memon (and potentially Shabnam and other cases) and is now contemplating action against him for violating the norms of his employment.
Read this in conjunction with the news report today that the SC did not know about his representation of Memon (and potentially Shabnam and other cases) and is now contemplating action against him for violating the norms of his employment.[/quote]
Seems to me the kid didnt understand the gravity of the office he was appointed to.
Setting up clinics and NGOs is all fine and dandy when you're a faculty member at an autonomous law school. When you represent the Supreme Court its another matter altogether.
Earlier I posted that his conduct was immature and shortsighted and he did a flip-flop on the resignation matter. Conflict of interest also. Now I feel in addition he simply did not have a sense of responsibility. I have clerked for a supreme court judge before and have seen them refuse permission to High Courts to be associated with charitable events, pro bono causes, etc. There is no doubt that the CJI would have stopped AS from starting this clinic especially considering it was on an "active" legal issue pending regularly before the court.
He seems to have assumed the SC was a big fancy law school where an academic society could be formed without bureaucratic interference.
I am happy to be corrected that the SC knew of this and blessed his clinic but somehow that does not seem to be the case.
[...]
That sounds like you do allow for just a tiny bit of doubt in your assumption.
I honestly don't fully know the facts, but I have a strong suspicion that you might have to be corrected. I'd be surprised if the SC did not know - they're not stupid, as you seem to imply. AS has been quoted in newspapers, etc in his death penalty work, filed RTIs or whatnot requesting DP stats from high courts and the SC, and from what I vaguely remember from a conversation, expressly asked the SC that he could not work on DP related stuff.
So either the SC judges were hiding under a rock, or they weren't aware of who was working in the registry...
Anyway, until we know the facts, can we stop speculating and assuming the worst?
That sounds like you do allow for just a tiny bit of doubt in your assumption.
I honestly don't fully know the facts, but I have a strong suspicion that you might have to be corrected. I'd be surprised if the SC did not know - they're not stupid, as you seem to imply. AS has been quoted in newspapers, etc in his death penalty work, filed RTIs or whatnot requesting DP stats from high courts and the SC, and from what I vaguely remember from a conversation, expressly asked the SC that he could not work on DP related stuff.
So either the SC judges were hiding under a rock, or they weren't aware of who was working in the registry...
Anyway, until we know the facts, can we stop speculating and assuming the worst?[/quote]
Thankful you're not accusing me of trolling yet.
You don't understand Indian bureaucracy, Kian. It is one thing for the SC / CJI to be "aware" of Anup's extra-curricular work but unless he explicitly sought permission from them to be associated with the clinic / project they cannot be deemed to have given permission. It's not like Prachi leaving early knowing that you'll see her walk by your desk so are presumed ok with it unless you object.
I interact everyday with the court, government, bureaucrats. The logic you give wont find any takers with them. I'm not saying their approach is right or wrong. Just that AS was at best a fool for not understanding this even 9 years after he got his law degree (plus a year at the SC) and at worst in wilful disregard of SC Conditions of Service Rules, rules 34 and 39.
Pretty sure he has done more to harm the anti-death penalty movement by these histrionics than good. Sad for NLU Delhi as well and the kids there. They can do without this kind of negative publicity about one of their faculty members.
One counter is that I think surely the SC itself can also take care of itself - if they'd felt there was a conflict, they could have told him to leave, no?
And I assume they knew exactly the kind of work he was doing at NLU Delhi when he started at the SC, so if there was full disclosure and they presumably had no issue, what's the problem?[/quote]
Most likely the SC frowned on his association with the NLUD project once the Memon petitions reached fever pitch and he was formally or informally ticked off for continuing. Personal views can very well co-exist with institutional views. Even a SC judge who uses sound legal reasoning to uphold the death sentence can privately have his doubts but law is the law.
It displays complete ignorance to argue that because death penalty has been given by the court before, it means they are on the side of retentionists. That would render them biased for any future case. Regardless of how they have decided previously, they are supposed to be neutral in every case so where is the question of inherent conflict?
As long as he recused himself as a deputy registrar from working on anything DP related his his capacity as deputy registrar, then he has as much right, if not more, to approach the court as Swatanter Kumar, the MP judge accused of sexual harassment or anyone else surely.
Trolling is my legitimate purpose in life.
My limited knowledge of existing body of law suggests that calling trolling an offence under the Indian law would be hard, and I assume that since I will be an intern, you won't make me sign any of the onerous contracts.
I am also the chairman to the Pro Trolling Association of Law Students and Law Teachers.
New members are welcome and we are yet to formulate a code of ethics for our members. As a result, one of my esteemed colleagues (who I hold in high esteem for his trolling academic credentials) may end up trolling your website and I will have no control over, or be responsible for, his actions.
I constitute this application to be sufficient diclosure (which as you would appreciate, is quite uncommon). If you find that this application raises ethical concerns for you (and me) when you grant me access to your computer, please feel free to reject my application. I am happy to work as an office boy if that suits you better (it doesn't matter to me because, after all, I am a troll at heart).
However, I regret to inform you that you were not successful.
By way of feedback, I wasn't sure which position you were applying for.
I also wasn't sure whether you were calling me a troll or calling our readers trolls or whether you were trolling the whole world with your post?
That said, we are actually looking for a community manager since I'm probably spending far more time than I have each day in our own comments section.
So if you're seriously interested and can produce your PTALSLT certificate, do send me a line at careers at li dot com etc.
Best of luck for your future career,
Kian
It would be best if you define troll and related terms on your website.
You surely need a community manager. I will instead pursue my career as a serial troller - I have a huge, and ever increasing, community of trollers in a country like India who just like me have nothing better to do than periodically check your website for trollable content.
This, in fact, amuses me -- do you have a secret crush on trollers? It seems they are largely responsible for traffic on your website, and you knowingly encourage them to troll.
Kian, you clearly have done a better job of finding a [...]
B&B - I'm sure you're reading this coz, admit it, you also troll LI - please learn something from Kian.
Chairman, Troll Protection Society of India
You would have preferred if Surendranath had resigned quietly from the SC rather than "shout it out in publicly, claiming moral high ground" (publicly meaning on his FB, I guess).
Unfortunately, lately this has been my experience as well. As long as people are not abusive you should respect their freedom of expression else don't carry this jhanda (flag) of freedom.
Again, let me share my favourite xkcd.com comic on this issue that explains what freedom of speech is and what it isn't. Thank you.
[img]http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/free_speech.png[/img]
My post was certainly not an "outrage". In any case, even if it was,you alone are no one to judge it, LI co-readers would have down voted it, if it was so. You did make a lame attempt to "summarise" (read censor) my comment, but you very slyly overlooked my assertion as to how Anup chose to resign more out of desire to gain attention than due to his principles.
If he intended it, then kudos for him for being very impressive at PR, which isn't easy. But in my experience, most in his shoes underestimate how quickly such news travels. And equally, it could have been possible that the story could have sunk without a trace...
I'm personally surprised by how much it was picked up...
And please stop calling me a hypocrite, etc, just use reasonable words that you might use in a courtroom or something...
Good night, sweet dreams :)
http://www.legallyindia.com/Bar-Bench-Litigation/sc-seriously-objects-to-distorted-news-item-of-reasons-for-anup-surendranath-resignation
One, I think the distinction between the research project and the clinic is critical, because one actively engages with the SC and the other doesn't. The fact that the clinic started after his job makes that relevant.
Two, it is definitely not true that one shouldn't have the right to explain the reasons for leaving a job on fb, or even rant about it on fb. The problem is when you want that rant to be treated as anything but a rant. If you want to be taken seriously by the court, maybe don't act out likea child.
Third, the SC has come out and said that he essentially chose not to continue his position at the SC and has attached his letter to this effect on twitter. If you are going to claim you left for some other reason, at least make the disclosure on Facebook that you've told the SC something else. Nobody will hold that against you.
Fourth, there's absolutely no doubt that an equally likely reading of the situation is that AS got what he wanted out of the registry position and was looking for a way out, and used this as an excuse to get himself some publicity along with an exit. Knowing him, I'm 100% sure this isn't the case, but others that don't know him will have that doubt, mostly because of the way he publicized his exit.
Fifth, there's definitely no conflict of interest between even an employee of the court petitioning the court for relief, and anyone who suggests that should have their head examined. As mihira said above, that seems to assume that the SC has a stated position pro DP, and anyone who has read any part of the jurisprudence from the last 10 years knows that isn't entirely the case.
Sixth, there are trolls, insulters, and generally bad people on both sides. I don't think a lot of the comments you published and responded to were particularly trolly. Maybe your stronger reaction was basis those you couldn't publish
Seventh, the manner of the exit definitely makes it less likely that outsiders will be considered for such posts in the future. While obviously AS has zero duty to think about this when making his decision, its also true that we tend to hold people who do a lot of "other regarding" or "public interest" work to a higher standard, and I think he may have failed that higher standard.
You cover most of the bases. Some thoughts in response:
1. We don't know whether the SC was aware of the new project, or if they maybe even blessed it. If they were made aware of it, wouldn't that be an exoneration?
3. Not sure if there should be a duty to disclose that you wrote a standard form resignation letter in a FB post. Also, we don't know what AS discussed with the CJI on the resignation face-to-face. A lot of this is could-have-should-have. His FB post, in my opinion, is certainly strongly worded and perhaps even unwisely confrontative but so it goes, but am not sure it's fair to call it "childish".
6. Yes, some of the comments we didn't publish were far worse than the ones we did.
Unwisely confrontational = childish imo
Here's hoping the clinic wins the next one (though I doubt very much they will with the current govt). One for the trolls, and the pseudo liberals to think about, is their view on the hanging of the nirbhaya rapists :-)
If Anup S did not resign for personal reasons but rather did so because he felt "ethically constrained" as far as his work on the DP project goes (and that seems to be the case if his FB post is anything to go by although not sure), then doesn't that seem to suggest that the current disposition at SC is pro-DP (or at least Anup S seems to convey that through what many call his "rant" on FB)?
Pardon me, but you're as much or a troll as I am. Lets try to steer the debate in a direction where I feel inclined to continue trolling rather than go around in circles.
Chairman, TPSI (no doubt, self-appointed.)
is when a reasonable lawyer finds herself in a position (or where there is a perception that she is in a position) where representation of one client (broadly speaking, area of interest or in the pursuit of her professional responsibilities - whatever they may be) will cause, or result in, the interests of another client being materially adversely affected or materially prejudiced..
Chairwoman, TPSI
is when a reasonable lawyer finds herself in a position (or where there is a perception that she is in a position) where representation of one client (broadly speaking, area of interest or in the pursuit of her professional responsibilities - whatever they may be) will cause, or result in, the interests of another client being materially adversely affected or materially prejudiced..
Chairwoman, TPSI[/quote]
Very layman indeed.
And besides, the only people still bothering with this thread are clearly:
1. me, and
2. people who disagree with me...
:)