The opinion, counter opinion and reply to counter opinion were all good. But Mr. Iyer is missing one crucial point that can bring down an entire nation. People go to a court of law because they have a difference in opinion. There are always things that are left to interpretation. So when after careful and critical analysis of both the parties a court rules on that matter and in this case the SC, I guess both the states should agree. I see the same problem with various issues involving people's sentiments. If sentiment is given weightage over law, then the whole concept of a "state" and "nation" will collapse.
"I have not questioned the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court at all. I am only asking whether dam safety is a fit subject for judicial determination. If there are divergent expert opinions, can the Supreme Court uphold one opinion as right? That is not a rhetorical question, but one on which I am bewildered and would like to be enlightened."
The opinion, counter opinion and reply to counter opinion were all good. But Mr. Iyer is missing one crucial point that can bring down an entire nation. People go to a court of law because they have a difference in opinion. There are always things that are left to interpretation. So when after careful and critical analysis of both the parties a court rules on that matter and in this case the SC, I guess both the states should agree. I see the same problem with various issues involving people's sentiments. If sentiment is given weightage over law, then the whole concept of a "state" and "nation" will collapse.
ReplyDelete"I have not questioned the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court at all. I am only asking whether dam safety is a fit subject for judicial determination. If there are divergent expert opinions, can the Supreme Court uphold one opinion as right? That is not a rhetorical question, but one on which I am bewildered and would like to be enlightened."