The Dissent That Lost Him the Chief Justiceship
カートのアイテムが多すぎます
ご購入は五十タイトルがカートに入っている場合のみです。
カートに追加できませんでした。
しばらく経ってから再度お試しください。
ウィッシュリストに追加できませんでした。
しばらく経ってから再度お試しください。
ほしい物リストの削除に失敗しました。
しばらく経ってから再度お試しください。
ポッドキャストのフォローに失敗しました
ポッドキャストのフォロー解除に失敗しました
-
ナレーター:
-
著者:
The Dissent That Lost Him the Chief Justiceship
This episode explores the 1976 dissent of Justice H.R. Khanna during India's state of Emergency, when four Supreme Court colleagues ruled the government could indefinitely detain citizens. It delves into the historical roots of judicial independence and the institutional pressures that led to Khanna's pivotal decision.
Person: Justice H.R. Khanna
Date: 1976
Location: India
Event: State of Emergency
Topic: Judicial independence
- In 1976, India was 21 months into a state of Emergency, with civil liberties suspended and the press censored.
- Four Supreme Court justices ruled that the government could detain individuals indefinitely without charge or trial.
- Justice Khanna wrote a dissent arguing that the state cannot deprive a person of life or liberty without the authority of law, even if Article 21 is suspended.
- The concept of judges serving "during good behavior" rather than "at the king's pleasure" originated in England's 1701 Act of Settlement.
- In 1973, Prime Minister Indira Gandhi's government had already bypassed three senior judges to appoint Justice A.N. Ray as Chief Justice, signaling a shift in judicial appointments.
To listen to this podcast ad-free and access premium episodes, try our subscription with a 14-day free trial at obomedia.com.
© 2026 OBOMEDIA. All rights reserved.
This episode and its content (audio, text, and related materials) are the exclusive property of OBOMEDIA and are protected by applicable copyright laws. Reproduction, distribution, editing, or commercial use, in whole or in part, without prior written permission from OBOMEDIA is prohibited. For permissions, licensing, and business inquiries: business@obomedia.com.
adbl_web_anon_alc_button_suppression_t1
まだレビューはありません