Saturday, Nov 29, 2003
Saturday, Nov 29, 2003 |
| Opinion | ||||
|
News:
Front Page |
National |
Southern States |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
Advts: Classifieds | Employment | Obituary | Opinion
-
Letters to the Editor
Sir, — I refer to your editorial, "Curtains on a legal saga" ( Nov. 26 ). If there is no statute that defines `what is punishable and how' under section 169, what is the use of having such a Section in place? If the Government Order defining the `Code of conduct' is not a `binding rule of action', could the same interpretation be applied to all government orders? What is the purpose of government orders? Why should the Government and court spend honest taxpayers' money to draft philosophical and moral guidelines for the political class, especially if these guidelines are not going to be used to enforce law and carry out justice?
M. Borkar,
Sir, — The strictures passed by the Supreme Court against the Tamil Nadu Chief Minister, Jayalalithaa, in the TANSI cases on moral grounds are more pronounced than the sentence of the special court. There is no room for jubilation; on the contrary, it requires self-analysis by the person concerned.
M. Nagu,
Sir, — The Supreme Court's query whether "there can be one law for small officials of the Government and another one for the Chief Minister" is relevant. One hopes that in future, those holding high office in the Government should be a stellar example for others to follow.
Mani Natarajan,
Printer friendly
page
News:
Front Page |
National |
Southern States |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
|
|
|
The Hindu Group: Home | About Us | Copyright | Archives | Contacts | Subscription Group Sites: The Hindu | Business Line | The Sportstar | Frontline | The Hindu eBooks | Home |
Copyright © 2003, The
Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of
this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of
The Hindu
|
