When Judge was Judged for giving Justice

 Judge interprets Law correctly, Penalised

Justice Pushpa Ganediwal of Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) recently gave few judgments.

FEMINISTS JUDGED THE JUDGE'S JUSTICE AND JUSTIFY HER REMOVAL FROM PROMOTION TO SUPREME COURT OF INDIA.

As it is, the power of Feminists in India seems to be more than even CJI. See how, CJI needs to justify their courtroom exchange now a days, which feminists objected to.

There are 3 major questions that came to us for our Opinion. Thanks to the Magazine for publishing our views, but then, it is imperative to detail our responses to those questions:

Q.1. Do you agree that the condition of skin-to-skin contact is justified to constitute the offence under Section 8 of the POCSO Act?

Our Response: The act is clearly defined in terms of the "touch" the specific body parts as an offence under the specific section. Every Kind of a wrong touch, has a different gravity and different punishment. In the said judgment, unfortunately, the Media has re-written the words of the Hon'ble court, while convicting the presiding Judge itself. The Court had clearly mentioned that this doesnt come under the definition of aggravate assault, as what the accused was charged for. It is important to also note that the Hon'ble Court, did CONVICT the accused, under the applicable correct Section. Issue with India (which is driven by feminism), is that the only punishment that they like to see is just Death Penalty. There is a very strong feminist push to do away with the Principle of Natural Justice. Feminists, dont like to hear that Law should ensure that not 1 innocent has to suffer, even if 100 criminals are spared. They actually just want 100 Innocent MEN to be given Death Penalty just to satiate their objective of convicting 1 criminal. Though, the same feminists start the counter push when it is about Criminal Women. It is a known fact that whenever you see a Bail petition from a Female Criminal, "I am a Female" is a default ground. This is itself a big question mark on us as a country if we really believe in the spirit of Equal Protection of Law and No Discrimination Based on Gender, or not, as provided under the Fundamental Rights, by Constitution of India. Feminism, under it's commercial benefit, has no regard for the Constitution of India or Universal Declaration of Human Rights (to which India is a signatory).

Q.2. Do you think that judgements should strictly balance and measure the quantum of punishment with the degree and nature of the offence committed OR else there should be a harsher punishment to deter others and setting precedent at the cost of the accused?

Our Response: Every Offence, it's gravity, IRRESPECTIVE OF GENDER, must define the quantum of punishment. If harsher punishment is the only deterrent, should India start give Death Penalty for Jumping a Traffic Signal or give a Life Imprisonment for a nagging Wife, accused of disturbing Public Peace under 107/51 CrPC? Crimes are big and small. Giving harsher punishment, if it was a solution, taking cue from recent times where it was found that of all pick pockets in Delhi metro, 90% were women, these 329 women should be given death penalty. Right? But then, we are a country where not even 1 woman has been executed, even if a death penalty is awarded.

Q.3. Do you think this unprecedented step of SC Collegium is premature, arbitrary and unjustified at the stage when the Supreme Court has not even heard the petition of the Attorney General and Justice Pushpa has not been given the opportunity of being heard?

Our Response: The decision of BOTH the SC Collegium AND the Law Ministry to keep the promotion on hold of any judge, who dares to write a spade as a spade, is detrimental for Justice, detrimental for the society. And it is clear, how myopic or Media driven such steps are from the Ministry/SC Collegium, as they never found anything wrong in the judgment given by the same judge in case of Vijayashree vs Dr. Nishant on 08/Jan/2021 (Second Appeal No. 125 of 2019). In this judgment the Hon'ble Bombay HC, Nagpur Bench, Justice Pushpa V. Ganediwala J., ordered Alimony payment to a DIVORCED wife, even when no application for the same was made to the Family Court. The court was even so quick to ignore the terms of the Mutual Consent Divorce in this case w.r.t. Alimony. But SC Collegium / Law Ministry would never find such judgments objectionable because, doing injustice to a man, is absolutely bearable for India. Only when there is a seemingly, alleged injustice to female gender, is when India wakes up. And Ironically, we are still made to believe that we are a Patriarchal Society. Indeed very sad state of affairs in the World of Justice.

THIS IS EXACTLY THE REASON, I AM SOMETIME VERY DOUBTFUL IF VIDEO RECORDING / PUBLIC VIDEO ACCESS WOULD BE PRO-JUSTICE ANYMORE?

I SUSPECT THEN JUST LIKE CJI, ALL JUDGES WILL BE UNDER CONSTANT FEMINIST FIRE FOR THEIR PROCESS TOWARDS DELIVERING ORDERS/JUSTICE.