Talk:Dipak Misra

Additions to lede

Wikipgraphy, please discuss here regarding your recent additions to the article. Adamgerber80 seems to think that your additions were newsy and not encyclopedic. Can you offer any counter arguments? —Gazoth (talk) 05:35, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Adamgerber80 Gazoth The Judgements quoted i.e. the remark by a CJI - Dipak Misra with regard to Chief Justice of India being the supreme authority to dictate how the Judiciary is going to function (in his "master of the roster" remark) is a landmark judgement for the Indian Democracy. It moves away from the earlier understanding of collegium system after the Three Judges Cases which was more consensus based, it also departs from the idea of collective responsibilities that is so pervasive in Indian Constitution. The incidence was further worsened by the neglect of CJI Misra towards the issues raised by other SC Judges who are junior to him. It is because of this significant development, , the 2018 Supreme Court of India crisis gathered centre stage, with the press conference of these other judges. Without mentioning this background it is impossible to fully explain the 2018 SCI Crisis.

Even the mention of the exact medical college corruption case of bribing the SC Judges is essential to clarify the background. The aim of these additions in not just to include facts in these pages but also to trace the development of Judiciary in India, particularly after the incidences like National Judicial Appointments Commission. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikipgraphy (talk • contribs) 10:40, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

@Wikipgraphy: This article is on Dipak Misra, not on the crisis. I don't see any reason why 60% of the lede should be about the crisis and that too about a particular detail without any proper introduction. Whatever might be the significance of remarks he made on the Supreme Court, I don't see how it belongs to the lede of a biography. Also, a few of the lines that you added to the "Controversy" section such as In March 2018, many opposition parties in Rajya Sabha are mulling over moving for an impeachment motion against the CJI Dipak Misra is just news and is of little encyclopedic value. If and when they initiate a motion to impeach, it might become relevant but not right now. —Gazoth (talk) 16:43, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

@Gazoth: Agreed, to put the details in lede is debatable. Also the additional lines in controversy section was unnecessary. But the details of the judgement, his remarks and the crisis must be placed in CJI Dipak Misra's bio, as just like his notable judgments these form the important judgments by him, albeit controversial. Even it is this incident that may mark as some of the toughest stands of him against other judges viewpoints in his Judicial career. Wikipgraphy (talk) 05:46, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

@Wikipgraphy: Sure, we can add a few lines under "Notable judgements" section regarding the "master of roster" judgement. However, the text needs to be free of WP:COPYPASTE and WP:PARAPHRASE issues. Your previous addition copied text from The Hindu article almost word for word. —Gazoth (talk) 06:54, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Wikipgraphy You are currently adding a lot of content which is not relevant here (per WP:NOTNEWS) and also changing existing WP:NPOV content. We don't have to add every news article which appears about him here. Plus they have to be given due WP:WEIGHT and not make this article about the controversy. In addition, your editing behavior is not ideal. Please discuss your changes here and gain consensus first. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 23:57, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

@Gazoth: @Adamgerber80: The location of the said judgement can be under "Notable Judgements" or "controversial Judgments". As far as issues of WP:COPYPASTE and WP:PARAPHRASE is concerned, they are inevitable to a certain extent in questions of law related topics, for a different choice of words changes the intended message by the speaker.

The additions with respect to these developments were also added in the 2018 Supreme Court of India crisis page, which was again reverted by Adamgerber80. The following additions are absolutely necessary to explain the crisis i.e.: "In November 2017 a Constitution Bench, led by the Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra, declared that “the Chief Justice is the master of the roster and he alone has the prerogative to constitute the Benches of the Court and allocate cases to the Benches so constituted.” The immediate trigger for this was a direction by a two-judge Bench (led by Justice Jasti Chelameswar) that a petition regarding a medical college corruption case, involving an alleged conspiracy to bribe Supreme Court judges, be heard by a Bench of the five senior-most judges of the Supreme Court."

Additions like these require paraphrasing. Even in cases of such remarks with respect to judiciary in India one has to walk a tight rope of not inviting "criminal contempt of court" charges and yet there is a need to showcase the facts with respect to problems in Judiciary, thus paraphrasing allows for the most effective way to explain the most recent developments. Wikipgraphy (talk) 10:50, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Wikipgraphy The content of the judgement needs to be included, not here, but on 2018 Supreme Court of India crisis page. It is going into too many details here which is not required. Also, your argument about notable Judgments in case of this judgment to be mentioned on this page is weak. By far that is not his most notable judgment and is only relevant because of the 2018 Supreme Court of India crisis. Thus it belongs there. In my opinion, there is no need to paraphrase the judgment. The text you add is not easy to understand for the average reader and must be more lucid. In addition, we need another source to back this up and make it more concrete and be careful of WP:NPOV. I propose a rough text draft on the lines of

"In 2017, a petition was filed in the Supreme Court regarding a corruption case which involved a former Orissa High Court judge, Justice Ishrat Masroor Quddusi. The petition alleged that the high court judge was attempting to influence the outcome of a case in the Supreme Court. On 13 November 2017, a two judge bench of the Supreme Court, consisting of Justices J. Chelameswar and Deepak Gupta, referred the case to a constitution bench comprising of the five senior most judges of the Supreme Court. A five judge Constitution bench led by the Chief Justice Dipak Misra overturned the previous judgement stating that the Chief Justice is the master of the roster. The judgement entailed that it was the sole prerogative of the Chief Justice to constitute a bench and allocate matters and that no judge could take up this matter on their own." ([1],[2],[3], [4])

I think this gives enough perspective to the case. Thoughts? Adamgerber80 (talk) 13:37, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

@Adamgerber80: I disagree with your assessment that "master of roster" judgement is not notable enough. It is quite notable, since it triggered a series of events that led to the 2018 Supreme Court of India crisis. It deserves to be included under "Notable judgements" section of this page. —Gazoth (talk) 14:29, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Gazoth IMO, mentioning the judgement in a couple of sentences is fine. But describing it in greater detail as I did above is not for this page. More case details belong in 2018 Supreme Court of India crisis as a separate section. Also, agree with your comment on paraphrasing below. It is possible to present the case without having to paraphrase the SC judgement. Adamgerber80 (talk) 01:14, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

@Adamgerber80: Yes, of course, a couple of sentences with a mention that it precipitated the crisis is good enough. —Gazoth (talk) 10:05, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

@Wikipgraphy: I'm afraid that avoiding copy-paste and close paraphrasing issues are hard requirements for any content seeking inclusion in Wikipedia. If you're unable to avoid these issues, it is better not to add the content to Wikipedia in the first place. Just as a clarification, quoting someone with clear attribution does not count as copy-paste. —Gazoth (talk) 14:29, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

@Adamgerber80:@Gazoth: The addition can read-

"In 2017, a petition was filed in the Supreme Court regarding a corruption case which involved a former Orissa High Court judge, Justice Ishrat Masroor Quddusi. The petition alleged that the high court judge was attempting to influence the outcome of a case in the Supreme Court. On 13 November 2017, a two judge bench of the Supreme Court, consisting of Justices J. Chelameswar and Deepak Gupta, referred the case to a constitution bench comprising of the five senior most judges of the Supreme Court. A five judge Constitution bench led by the Chief Justice Dipak Misra overturned the judgement of the two judge bench, stating that the Chief Justice is the "master of the roster" and has the sole prerogative of allocating cases to benches . On 12 January 2018, the four senior most SC judges after CJI Dipak Misra i.e. Jasti Chelameswar, Ranjan Gogoi, Madan Lokur, and Kurian Joseph, raised concerns over the adverse impacts of the administrative process of Supreme Court under Dipak Misra. The judges in their letter to the media highlighted that the constitution regarded the CJI as "first among equals" and the convention of recognizing the privilege of the CJI to form the benches was only for "disciplined and efficient" transaction of business of court but not a recognition of superiority. Wikipgraphy (talk) 07:16, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

References

Wikipgraphy and Adamgerber80, since this addition is planned for 2018 Supreme Court of India crisis, it would be better if this discussion took place on that article's talk page so that other editors who watch that page can chime in too. Wikipgraphy, your reference is a bit lacking, as you are summarizing from the original letter. It would be advisable to find reliable, secondary sources that summarize the letter to avoid WP:NPOV and WP:PROPORTION issues. The word "highlighted" should also be replaced as it might be construed as expressing that one point of view is factual while the other is not. —Gazoth (talk) 10:05, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

"Notable judgements" section

The section is now too long and probably suffers from balance issues. Most judgements seem to derive their notability from people or events connected to the case rather than the judgements themselves. For example, the judgement on 2012 Delhi gang rape case is fairly routine on its own and is only notable due to the notoriety of the crime and the popular protests that followed it. Such judgements should probably be listed in the "Career" section, instead of having a paragraph devoted to it in the "Notable judgements" section. In my opinion, this section should be restricted to judgements that set a precedent or significantly changed the interpretation of law. —Gazoth (talk) 11:39, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

@Gazoth: I agree with this. Let's make a list of notable judgments which should be included. IMO, at a casual first pass, (1)Nirbhaya, (2) SC Roster, (3)C S Karanan seem notable. Adamgerber80 (talk) 03:52, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

@Adamgerber80: I don't think the Nirbhaya judgement was particularly significant from the perspective of law. It was fairly routine (apart from the notoriety of the crime, of course) as it did not set any precedent or changed the interpretation of law. Even the quantum of punishment is not unprecedented, as death penalty had been awarded previously in cases involving rape and murder. I think a line in the career section is sufficient for it.

Agree with you on the other two. I would also add the judgement on reservations in promotions and the Cauvery judgement. —Gazoth (talk) 04:11, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

@Gazoth: I agree with your assessment about the Nirbhaya judgement. I missed the Cauvery judgement which seems to be an important one, in my earlier list. Overall, I am in agreement with your suggestions. Let's wait for a few days to see if other editors have any views on this. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 05:57, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

@Gazoth: This discussion needs to be revisited and updated based on recent cases. However, IMO, we should be careful when talking about 377 since it already has a page of it's own and does not nee to much information here. Let's take this to it's logical conclusion and clean up the notable judgment section. Adamgerber80 (talk) 00:43, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

@Adamgerber80: Let's wait till he retires. It's only a couple of days away. He has participated in a lot of significant judgements in the past 2-3 weeks and there might be more in the next 2 days. —Gazoth (talk) 00:52, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

@Gazoth: Sure. My point was that this needs to be addressed at some moment in time because the editor currently piling content on there is not participating and we will have to cull it. Adamgerber80 (talk) 23:37, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Indian Chief Judicial Magistrate

Deepak misra is a retired Chief Judicial magistrate of India. Ranjan Gagoi is the Chief Judicial magistrate.

Ajithkarukachal (talk) 19:33, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes that will be updated. He only retired yesteday aka October 2. Adamgerber80 (talk) 20:23, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Addition to Controversy

Trickipaedia, WP:BOLD doesn't free you from the burden of providing citations to support the material that you are introducing. Material can be removed solely because it lacks citations. However, in this case it wasn't removed solely because of that. The material that you added is contentious, and fails to adequately attribute the statement. Such material cannot stay without appropriate citations. Additionally, you are supposed to discuss your edit upon being reverted per WP:BRD, not restore it again without adequately addressing the issue. —Gazoth (talk) 17:16, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

You are edit warring unnecessarily. There is nothing contentious here by adding that legal experts have warned against this kind of behaviour of SC judges demanding impeachment of CJI due to his "working style". I will add the citation soon. Do not start an edit war.--Trickipaedia (talk) 17:28, 13 March 2019 (UTC)