Strat Muse

Politics, predictions, philosophy and the patterns between punches.

[Strat Muse @StratMuse]

@fightbasicz Does he not remember how he dealt blows to the back of head in the fight with Ankalaev?

[Strat Muse @StratMuse]

@satenderlambaa Of course, the unintended Cobra effect of this would be the situation where every driver keeps driving deliberately on the fast lane, refusing to budge unless the car behind pays a fee.🤣
So no, this unfortunately won't work in real life.

[Strat Muse @StratMuse]

Nice concept in theory. You buy the priority pass and google offers the drivers in front a percentage of fee to let your car through. If the driver in front accepts the fee and still refuses to give pass, it can easily be detected by the GPS locations and the feedback left by the driver which bought the pass.
Major chunk of the vehicles on road are trucks and buses and Uber cabs etc. The potential of earning small bucks for these commercial drivers can indeed incentivise them to give pass while they are ferrying the passengers.

[Strat Muse @StratMuse]

The Forbidden fruit is finally on offer! Despite having a good CIBIL score, Scapia rejected my card. Rejected by Federal Bank multiple times.

More importanly, it is perhaps the only LTF card which offers unrestricted access to airport lounge once spends cross 20k.

✅ Applied after Scapia added to BoBCards as a partner and got approved seamlessly!

If you’ve been rejected earlier, it might be worth trying again.

Apply here: https://t.co/RRGoicXV1L

One of the few free travel cards with zero forex markup!
#scapia #lifetimefree #creditcard

[Strat Muse @StratMuse]

@INTERIORPORN1 Toe Stubber 9000

[Strat Muse @StratMuse]

Article 220 of the Constitution restricts retired Permanent Judges of High Court from practicing in their parent high court. They are free to resume their practice in all other High Courts.

Judges who retire as Additional Judges of High Court do not even have this restriction. They can resume their practice in their parent High Court right from next day!

It is only the Members and Chairperson of statutory tribunals on whom this lifetime ban has been introduced vide amendments to Rule 7 of BCI Rules and Rule 16(2) of Tribunal Reforms Act.

The question now arises is this: Where does this presumption of asserting undue influence while resuming practice after retirement arise from? Secondly, why is it only presumed to be applicable on Members retiring from Tribunals and not Judges of High Court?

In fact, case can be made that retired High Court judges carry much more influence, having served at a Constitutional post for a much longer tenure and hence, stricter restrictions should apply on them after retirement. In fact, very recently there was an incident of a retired Chief Justice who contacted a Member of NCLAT seeking favours in a case. Kudos to that NCLAT Member who narrated the entire incident in his order.

Either there should be complete prohibition on resuming practice after retiring from Bench or there should be reasonable restriction like a mandatory cooling-off period applicable to all. The dismal quality of the functioning of Tribunals like NCLT is for all to witness. It is purely because of the reason that advocates with good flourishing practice choose not to apply for the Posts as it would mean a life-time ban on their specialized area of practice after they have served their tenure of 4 years.

This is yet another instance of the "holier than thou" presumption for retired Judges of High Court vis-a-vis retired Members of statutory Tribunals.

[Strat Muse @StratMuse]

Article 220 of the Constitution restricts retired Permanent Judges of High Court from practicing in their parent high court. They are free to resume their practice in all other High Courts.

Judges who retire as Additional Judges of High Court do not even have this restriction. They can resume their practice in their parent High Court right from next day!

It is only the Members and Chairperson of statutory tribunals on whom this lifetime ban has been introduced vide amendments to Rule 7 of BCI Rules and Rule 16(2) of Tribunal Reforms Act.

The question now arises is this: Where does this presumption of asserting undue influence while resuming practice after retirement arise from? Secondly, why is it only presumed to be applicable on Members retiring from Tribunals and not Judges of High Court?

In fact, case can be made that retired High Court judges carry much more influence, having served at a Constitutional post for a much longer tenure and hence, stricter restrictions should apply on them after retirement. In fact, very recently there was an incident of a retired Chief Justice who contacted a Member of NCLAT seeking favours in a case. Kudos to that NCLAT Member who narrated the entire incident in his order.

Either there should be complete prohibition on resuming practice after retiring from Bench or there should be reasonable restriction like a mandatory cooling-off period applicable to all. The dismal quality of the functioning of Tribunals like NCLT is for all to witness. It is purely because of the reason that advocates with good flourishing practice choose not to apply for the Posts as it would mean a life-time ban on their specialized area of practice after they have served their tenure of 4 years.

This is yet another instance of the "holier than thou" presumption for retired Judges of High Court vis-a-vis retired Members of statutory Tribunals.

[Strat Muse @StratMuse]

Article 220 of the Constitution restricts retired Permanent Judges of High Court from practicing in their parent high court. They are free to resume their practice in all other High Courts.

Judges who retire as Additional Judges of High Court do not even have this restriction. They can resume their practice in their parent High Court right from next day!

It is only the Members and Chairperson of statutory tribunals on whom this lifetime ban has been introduced vide amendments to Rule 7 of BCI Rules and Rule 16(2) of Tribunal Reforms Act.

The question now arises is this: Where does this presumption of asserting undue influence while resuming practice after retirement arise from? Secondly, why is it only presumed to be applicable on Members retiring from Tribunals and not Judges of High Court?

In fact, case can be made that retired High Court judges carry much more influence, having served at a Constitutional post for a much longer tenure and hence, stricter restrictions should apply on them after retirement. In fact, very recently there was an incident of a retired Chief Justice who contacted a Member of NCLAT seeking favours in a case. Kudos to that NCLAT Member who narrated the entire incident in his order.

Either there should be complete prohibition on resuming practice after retiring from Bench or there should be reasonable restriction like a mandatory cooling-off period applicable to all. The dismal quality of the functioning of Tribunals like NCLT is for all to witness. It is purely because of the reason that advocates with good flourishing practice choose not to apply for the Posts as it would mean a life-time ban on their specialized area of practice after they have served their tenure of 4 years.

This is yet another instance of the "holier than thou" presumption for retired Judges of High Court vis-a-vis retired Members of statutory Tribunals.

[Strat Muse @StratMuse]

Article 220 of the Constitution restricts retired Permanent Judges of High Court from practicing in their parent high court. They are free to resume their practice in all other High Courts.

Judges who retire as Additional Judges of High Court do not even have this restriction. They can resume their practice in their parent High Court right from next day!

It is only the Members and Chairperson of statutory tribunals on whom this lifetime ban has been introduced vide amendments to Rule 7 of BCI Rules and Rule 16(2) of Tribunal Reforms Act.

The question now arises is this: Where does this presumption of asserting undue influence while resuming practice after retirement arise from? Secondly, why is it only presumed to be applicable on Members retiring from Tribunals and not Judges of High Court?

In fact, case can be made that retired High Court judges carry much more influence, having served at a Constitutional post for a much longer tenure and hence, stricter restrictions should apply on them after retirement. In fact, very recently there was an incident of a retired Chief Justice who contacted a Member of NCLAT seeking favours in a case. Kudos to that NCLAT Member who narrated the entire incident in his order.

Either there should be complete prohibition on resuming practice after retiring from Bench or there should be reasonable restriction like a mandatory cooling-off period applicable to all. The dismal quality of the functioning of Tribunals like NCLT is for all to witness. It is purely because of the reason that advocates with good flourishing practice choose not to apply for the Posts as it would mean a life-time ban on their specialized area of practice after they have served their tenure of 4 years.

This is yet another instance of the "holier than thou" presumption for retired Judges of High Court vis-a-vis retired Members of statutory Tribunals.

[Strat Muse @StratMuse]

Article 220 of the Constitution restricts retired Permanent Judges of High Court from practicing in their parent high court. They are free to resume their practice in all other High Courts.

Judges who retire as Additional Judges of High Court do not even have this restriction. They can resume their practice in their parent High Court right from next day!

It is only the Members and Chairperson of statutory tribunals on whom this lifetime ban has been introduced vide amendments to Rule 7 of BCI Rules and Rule 16(2) of Tribunal Reforms Act.

The question now arises is this: Where does this presumption of asserting undue influence while resuming practice after retirement arise from? Secondly, why is it only presumed to be applicable on Members retiring from Tribunals and not Judges of High Court?

In fact, case can be made that retired High Court judges carry much more influence, having served at a Constitutional post for a much longer tenure and hence, stricter restrictions should apply on them after retirement. In fact, very recently there was an incident of a retired Chief Justice who contacted a Member of NCLAT seeking favours in a case. Kudos to that NCLAT Member who narrated the entire incident in his order.

Either there should be complete prohibition on resuming practice after retiring from Bench or there should be reasonable restriction like a mandatory cooling-off period applicable to all. The dismal quality of the functioning of Tribunals like NCLT is for all to witness. It is purely because of the reason that advocates with good flourishing practice choose not to apply for the Posts as it would mean a life-time ban on their specialized area of practice after they have served their tenure of 4 years.

This is yet another instance of the "holier than thou" presumption for retired Judges of High Court vis-a-vis retired Members of statutory Tribunals.

[Strat Muse @StratMuse]

Article 220 of the Constitution restricts retired Permanent Judges of High Court from practicing in their parent high court. They are free to resume their practice in all other High Courts.

Judges who retire as Additional Judges of High Court do not even have this restriction. They can resume their practice in their parent High Court right from next day!

It is only the Members and Chairperson of statutory tribunals on whom this lifetime ban has been introduced vide amendments to Rule 7 of BCI Rules and Rule 16(2) of Tribunal Reforms Act.

The question now arises is this: Where does this presumption of asserting undue influence while resuming practice after retirement arise from? Secondly, why is it only presumed to be applicable on Members retiring from Tribunals and not Judges of High Court?

In fact, case can be made that retired High Court judges carry much more influence, having served at a Constitutional post for a much longer tenure and hence, stricter restrictions should apply on them after retirement. In fact, very recently there was an incident of a retired Chief Justice who contacted a Member of NCLAT seeking favours in a case. Kudos to that NCLAT Member who narrated the entire incident in his order.

Either there should be complete prohibition on resuming practice after retiring from Bench or there should be reasonable restriction like a mandatory cooling-off period applicable to all. The dismal quality of the functioning of Tribunals like NCLT is for all to witness. It is purely because of the reason that advocates with good flourishing practice choose not to apply for the Posts as it would mean a life-time ban on their specialized area of practice after they have served their tenure of 4 years.

This is yet another instance of the "holier than thou" presumption for retired Judges of High Court vis-a-vis retired Members of statutory Tribunals.

[Strat Muse @StratMuse]

Article 220 of the Constitution restricts retired Permanent Judges of High Court from practicing in their parent high court. They are free to resume their practice in all other High Courts.

Judges who retire as Additional Judges of High Court do not even have this restriction. They can resume their practice in their parent High Court right from next day!

It is only the Members and Chairperson of statutory tribunals on whom this lifetime ban has been introduced vide amendments to Rule 7 of BCI Rules and Rule 16(2) of Tribunal Reforms Act.

The question now arises is this: Where does this presumption of asserting undue influence while resuming practice after retirement arise from? Secondly, why is it only presumed to be applicable on Members retiring from Tribunals and not Judges of High Court?

In fact, case can be made that retired High Court judges carry much more influence, having served at a Constitutional post for a much longer tenure and hence, stricter restrictions should apply on them after retirement. In fact, very recently there was an incident of a retired Chief Justice who contacted a Member of NCLAT seeking favours in a case. Kudos to that NCLAT Member who narrated the entire incident in his order.

Either there should be complete prohibition on resuming practice after retiring from Bench or there should be reasonable restriction like a mandatory cooling-off period applicable to all. The dismal quality of the functioning of Tribunals like NCLT is for all to witness. It is purely because of the reason that advocates with good flourishing practice choose not to apply for the Posts as it would mean a life-time ban on their specialized area of practice after they have served their tenure of 4 years.

This is yet another instance of the "holier than thou" presumption for retired Judges of High Court vis-a-vis retired Members of statutory Tribunals.

[Strat Muse @StratMuse]

With the greatest of respect to the post of Chief Justice of India, it needs to be stated in clear and unambiguous terms. A constitutional office is not a pulpit. A robe is not a licence to dispense invective from the bench.
In one week, the citizens of this country have been told, from the highest court, that unemployed youth are "parasites" and "cockroaches". That those who post online are "anti-social elements". That there are "serious doubts about the genuineness of their law degrees" of lawyers the bench disapproves of. That the country will soon learn "how to deal with the current Chief Justice of India."
This is not new. The same judicial conscience, in 2022, declared that Nupur Sharma's "loose tongue" had "set the entire country on fire", placing on one citizen the moral weight of murders committed by mobs.
Earlier this year, an NCERT Class 8 chapter, which did nothing more than note that corruption exists in the judiciary and described how it is being addressed, invited suo motu contempt, a blanket ban, "heads must roll" pronouncements, and a directive that a Padma Shri scholar and his co-authors be ostracised from every government project. A textbook paragraph, treated as a gunshot. The judiciary, declared to be "bleeding."
Now contrast this with the Justice Yashwant Varma episode. Sacks of currency, allegedly recovered from the residential premises of a sitting High Court judge. No FIR. No investigation in the ordinary course. Sustained efforts by advocates, including Adv. Mathews Nedumpara, knocking at every door, have gone unanswered.
The discomfort I write with is not personal. It is structural. An unelected body of judges selects who wears the robe, through a collegium answerable to no electorate and no merit. The Contempt of Courts Act enables that same robe to silence the courtroom around it. And constitutional convention ensures that no FIR moves against one of their own without internal "consultation." Three locks on the same door, one set of keys.
The post of the Chief Justice of India deserves the respect of every Indian. That is precisely why the occupant of that post owes the nation restraint, not rhetoric. Reasoning, not ridicule. Citizens, whether unemployed, activist, textbook author or lawyer, are not props in a courtroom monologue. They are the sovereign in whose name justice is dispensed.
Fair criticism of judicial conduct is not contempt. It is the price of robes that come without a ballot. Such is the situation that even while posting this, a fleeting thought comes to mind, what if the powers that be, take note of this critical post and decide to crush yet another cockroach who dared to come out.
@advsanjoy @NedumparaJ @mkatju @SauravDassss

[Strat Muse @StratMuse]

His clarification doesn't make sense. He said that he was referring to people with fake degrees who enter the legal profession. Then he goes on to add social media, RTI activism in the same sentence. What does a fake degree have anything to do with social media and RTI queries? Does anynody need a degree, real or fake, to post on social media or to file an RTI?

[Strat Muse @StratMuse]

His clarification doesn't make sense. He said that he was referring to people with fake degrees who enter the legal profession. Then he goes on to add social media, RTI activism in the same sentence. What does a fake degree have anything to do with social media and RTI queries? Does anynody need a degree, real or fake, to post on social media or to file an RTI?

[Strat Muse @StratMuse]

His clarification doesn't make sense. He said that he was referring to people with fake degrees who enter the legal profession. Then he goes on to add social media, RTI activism in the same sentence. What does a fake degree have anything to do with social media and RTI queries? Does anynody need a degree, real or fake, to post on social media or to file an RTI?

[Strat Muse @StratMuse]

His clarification doesn't make sense. He said that he was referring to people with fake degrees who enter the legal profession. Then he goes on to add social media, RTI activism in the same sentence. What does a fake degree have anything to do with social media and RTI queries? Does anynody need a degree, real or fake, to post on social media or to file an RTI?

[Strat Muse @StratMuse]

His clarification doesn't make sense. He said that he was referring to people with fake degrees who enter the legal profession. Then he goes on to add social media, RTI activism in the same sentence. What does a fake degree have anything to do with social media and RTI queries? Does anynody need a degree, real or fake, to post on social media or to file an RTI?

[Strat Muse @StratMuse]

His clarification doesn't make sense. He said that he was referring to people with fake degrees who enter the legal profession. Then he goes on to add social media, RTI activism in the same sentence. What does a fake degree have anything to do with social media and RTI queries? Does anynody need a degree, real or fake, to post on social media or to file an RTI?