Law – Judiciary

What is Justice?

Some people say that the rule of law must prevail even if the world must perish.

This is very foolish, that is not true justice

What use is the “rule of law”, if it means that it will destroy the world to uphold that rule.

Who made the law, it is it is privileged and elite who made the law to suit the interests of the elite.

The poor, oppressed and underprivileged were not even consulted when the laws were formed.

The law is not absolute, there should be scope for the Arya judge to interpret the law and ensure that punishments are based on the severity of the crime, not based on the severity of the law.

It is the spirit of the Law that matters, not the letter of the Law.

We should deliver and practice Justice, Fairness and Accountability instead of the rule of law.

In the old days the first court was the Village Panchayat, the second court was the Local Court (Nada Kacheri) composed of eminent elders and only the final option was to approach the formal courts.

The colonists destroyed our traditional Panchayat and Nada Kacheri judiciary  system so that villagers would be forced to come to the city.

Our ancient judicial system was fundamentally good and correct justice was given as they knew every one in the village and knew the background of the convict. They knew whether the convict is guilty or not, whether he is was a criminal or a good person based on his past antecedents.

Suitable justice was given correctly and in the village itself.

In the current Judicial System, the Colonial style judge who is addressed as “My Lord” and acts like one will only consider the facts that the advocate puts in the court.

The advocate only knows what he has been told by the defendant.

Also now there are crooked advocates that sell their soul for money — they will try to convince the court to release their criminal client using adjournments and presenting false facts.


The justice system must be swift and impartial.

The people can fight against the transgressor employees of the state and even the Tathagata.

These courts should be able to deliver justice in the shortest possible time not exceeding 4 months.

  • The next courts to be set up are courts to decide policy matters and matters that affect the public at large.  These cases should be decided within 6 months.
  • The next courts to be set up are the courts that involve Criminal conduct.  These cases must be decided within a maximum of 6 months.  For cases of serious criminal offences especially serious violent and sexual offences, fast track courts should be set up which deliver a judgement in 45 days.
  • The next courts are for Civil Conduct.  These cases must be decided within a maximum of 18 months.
  • There should also be a jury of Arya peers or Lok Adalats in cases where Arya judges are not available or for smaller local village/city ward issues.
    These Lok Adalats are not full time daily hearings, but biweekly hearings so people can come on midweek or weekends for a hearing. If biweekly is not possible, at least weekly hearings must be done.

The judges should be specialised in the domain they are going to judge.

We cannot have judges like today who judge all cases even matters that they have little expertise in.

There should be judges for financial matters, criminal matters, civil matters, revenue matters, tax matters, technical matters and finally matters of public policy, constitutional issues and any other issues.*

In fact separate courts should be set up domain wise in the above domains* and cases decided in the time span mentioned above.


Any or all judges can be thrown out at any time before their term by public referendum and 60% majority vote by all law abiding citizens.

The decisions of any judges can be overturned by public referendum with at least 70% majority vote by all local law abiding citizens.

A public referendum of all local law abiding citizens, should be held if minimum of 200 people oppose the decision of the junior most level judge and multiples there of for each seniority level.

Any judge should be investigated by the Lok Pal for malpractice of corruption if there is a petition of more than 100 people against that judge.

I do not believe in the innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

In the courts of law the lawyers control everything and judges can be bought.

If there is a photo or video/audio recording or undisputed evidence or unimpeachable eyewitnesses and if the criminals themselves have accepted their crime, why should we need a court of law and multiple appeals to higher courts.

Once the Judge decides a maximum punishment, let the victims of the crime decide the punishment and let the justice system implement that which has been decided by the victims.

Also in today’s so called legal system, a lot of the undertrials, many of whom are innocent spend years waiting in jail for their cases to come up to be heard and decided.

This is very unfair to an innocent person and they should be compensated well for this atrocity conducted by the state.

Undertrials in jails are not just criminals, but also innocent people who have been framed and are poor, illiterate and also have no resources to hire lawyers.

In many cases because of immense media and public pressure, the police just falsely frame somebody just to show that they are doing their work.

The judges can only decide if a person is guilty or not.

They can only recommend maximum punishment, but the final quantum of punishment must be decided by the parties that have been the victims of the guilty person.

If the party is dead, then the close relatives — parents, spouse, siblings, progeny should decide the punishment for the guilty.

Most of us who can see judge by appearances.

There is an old saying:

Do not judge a book by its cover.  

Hence in all trials the petitioner or the defendant should be completely covered in a burka or behind a hidden screen.

The petitioners and defendants name, race, caste, religion, gender  should never be made known to the judge until the judgement and punishment have been passed.

Perhaps some sort of judicial coding system should be introduced so that the petitioners and defendants name is coded and hidden till the end of the case after the judgement is passed.

Once the judgement has been passed, then the name of the petitioner and the defendant can replace the coding system and be recorded in the petition and in the judgement.

Only in cases which involve policy issues against the state or transgressions by the State or Employees of the State, then the name of the ministry, agency or department in the State against whom the plaint has been made can be made public.

There will be a taluk/district/ court, a state court and a supreme court with divisions as mentioned above.

The should be no ex-parte judgement in any case without hearing both sides of the case and before a defendant is first called at least 3 times to present their defence.

Only in cases of serious physical threat of harm or death or in case of loss of home or livelihood should ex-parte judgement be given.

There should be Arya judges only.

But not just one judge, but at least a bench of 3 for major cases in lower courts, and 3 for major cases in the High court and 5 for major cases in the Supreme Court.

One judge cannot have all the answers.

All these judges will be elected by the people in the judicial system.

The evaluation process of all promotions and increments for judges should be subject to public record and scrutiny if the public has any opposition and a petition of more than 300 people is raised to scrutinise the promotion.

The process of promotion for a judge should also include a 360 degree review of their performance in addition to the traditional performance review by their seniors.

Judges should follow all recruitment, promotion and disclosure norms as given for the Employees of the State.

Arya judges would never have preconceived notions.

They should make an informed decision considering both sides of the story and all facts and more importantly be very objective and dispassionate, but use compassion if the circumstances warrant it.

What do I mean by compassion?

That means do not make a persons family suffer, just make the person suffer unless the family has also benefited from the crime then they also should be punished.

An Arya judge would not imprison someone who is weak, but may try to reform them with their unforced consent or because of the voluntary consent of their immediate family — eg a drug addict, an alcoholic, a pornography addict, a gambler, or whore visitor who only did harm to himself and his immediate family.

But an Arya judge would imprison/punish a drug addict who committed violent robbery or murdered and did bad things to their immediate family or to other people to satisfy their personal needs/wants.

An Arya judge would separate criminals according to their crimes.

A white collar criminal or non violent criminal would never be kept in the same compound as a violent criminal.

White collar crimes would include securities violations and theft of intellectual property and general conning like Martha Stewart.

Non violent criminals do not include child molesters, rapists, corruption and fraudsters who caused death or permanent serious injury to their victims.

Anybody who needs access to a lawyer and cannot afford one should be provided one by the state.

Lawyers for the poor and underprivileged should always be paid for by the state.

Lawyers should always be licensed by the state and have to renew their license every 4 years.

Of course lawyers cannot be overpriced like they are especially in the USA where even mediocre  substandard lawyers charge over $200 and hour.

Even in Bharat lawyers are overpriced.

For any case for poor and underprivileged petitioners, with an annual income of less than Rs 10,00,000, no lawyer should be allowed to bill more than 3 times the hourly wage of a government or government aided primary school Head Master.


If I have left any specialisation out which should be included please use my feedback form and I will include your suggestions.