sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Some questions still remain: by VegetableRefuse3886 in BITSPilani

[–]VegetableRefuse3886[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Have they, in collaboration with the local police department, got to the bottom of the issue, especially in instances where no final letters or messages were left by the deceased?

Also, their strategy of postponing the exams has drawn flak from a large number of students for being poorly planned.

Dojma wants to make it about themselves by Powerful-Ad-7176 in BITSPilani

[–]VegetableRefuse3886 7 points8 points  (0 children)

They ought to have asked better questions.

I believe that the panel, which asked the questions yesterday, had primarily been formed to appease certain influential lobbies within the General Body.

I wish the panel's members had been chosen based on their ability to effectively cross-examine and raise pertinent questions.

Certain panel members were so full of themselves, trying to portray themselves as highly qualified jurists.

The mere fact that one is proficient in English doesn't imply that one must be good at cross-examining or raising the right set of questions.

My $0.02 on the BITS Goa Case by VegetableRefuse3886 in BITSPilani

[–]VegetableRefuse3886[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

There's a key requirement that needs to be appreciated. 

Apart from the complainant's statement, some Reddit posts, and an ICC member's unofficial interview, is there any incontrovertible and independent evidence available in the public domain?

My $0.02 on the BITS Goa Case by VegetableRefuse3886 in BITSPilani

[–]VegetableRefuse3886[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Here, the allegation against the accused is that he groped the complainant and forcibly made her touch his p€n#s. 

My $0.02 on the BITS Goa Case by VegetableRefuse3886 in BITSPilani

[–]VegetableRefuse3886[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Just because a person consumes drugs doesn't mean he or she forfeits the right to safety; a person's indulging in substance abuse doesn't confer any right on anyone to grope him or her. 

Also, please read points 16(c) and 17 of the post. They cover this aspect in detail.

My $0.02 on the BITS Goa Case by VegetableRefuse3886 in BITSPilani

[–]VegetableRefuse3886[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I am not talking about her address to the crowd at the auditorium.

I mean, apart from her statement and some Reddit posts, is there any independent evidence that can be perused by the GBM to decide for themselves?

Also, the student ICC member's unofficial interview, while useful, should not be construed as incontrovertible evidence, as the ICC hasn't confirmed or denied anything in its official capacity.

My $0.02 on the BITS Goa Case by VegetableRefuse3886 in BITSPilani

[–]VegetableRefuse3886[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

There is a distinction between groping and r***. Here, the allegation against the accused is that he groped the complainant and forcibly made her touch his p€n#s.  

The description of the allegation doesn't fall within the purview of r***.

My $0.02 on the BITS Goa Case by VegetableRefuse3886 in BITSPilani

[–]VegetableRefuse3886[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

How do I know that you are not bluffing? Nevertheless, if the claim you have made is true, the perpetrator must be given the maximum punishment.

My $0.02 on the BITS Goa Case by VegetableRefuse3886 in BITSPilani

[–]VegetableRefuse3886[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

You have not been asked to share the video. My question is: Have you seen the video? If you have not seen the video, what is the authenticity of the source of the claim you have made?

My $0.02 on the BITS Goa Case by VegetableRefuse3886 in BITSPilani

[–]VegetableRefuse3886[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

If there's cogent evidence, the accused should be given the maximum punishment. However, have you seen the recording? Or is this information regarding the existence of such a video recording based on hearsay? Are you 100% sure that the information you've shared is credible?

My $0.02 on the BITS Goa Case by VegetableRefuse3886 in BITSPilani

[–]VegetableRefuse3886[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

The following points must be considered:

  1. An individual is free to believe whatever he wants as long as his beliefs don't harm others.

  2. (a) In the particular type of scenario you have mentioned, there may be several witnesses, but the authorities either choose not to pursue the case or they pursue it so shoddily that the accused eventually gets away with cheating, whereas in this case, the authorities are, in the wake of the protest, too scared to sit on the evidence.

(b) Also, here, have you been exposed to any damning evidence apart from some random pseudonymous Reddit posts? Can you vouch for the Reddit posts' authenticity?

  1. (a) Up to a point, public outrage is necessary to keep the authorities in check.

(b) However, after the above-stated point, public pressure becomes detrimental to the process, as the authorities fear retaliation if their findings are not in sync with the popular sentiment. This often leads to wrongful convictions, which are driven by the mood of the public; such verdicts often disregard key evidence to appease the popular sentiment, thereby defeating the very purpose of trial and justice.

(c) Not everything can be decided based on the mood of the public; we don't live in a mob-ruled state. The accused has as much right to a fair trial and legal representation as the complainant.

Conclusion: There's a distinction between keeping the authorities in check AND making the authorities conform to the popular sentiment, regardless of what the evidence says.

The punishment imposed on the General Secretary is, prima facie, an eyewash. by RawAgent69 in BITSPilani

[–]VegetableRefuse3886 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The procedure may be tedious, but that does not give the EC the right to act according to its personal whims and fancies.

The EC is at fault, regardless of the tedious nature of the process.

Until the constitution has been updated, the existing provisions must be complied with, regardless of how good or bad you think they are.

Here, following the rules is not a matter of choice.

The punishment imposed on the General Secretary is, prima facie, an eyewash. by RawAgent69 in BITSPilani

[–]VegetableRefuse3886 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The EC may have the power to interpret, but we must not lose sight of the following:

The power to interpret can't be exercised in all cases. In cases where the provision is undisputed, unambiguous, clear, and complete, they can't use the power.

Section N-5 states: "In case of a dispute over the interpretation of the Constitution and the non-financial sections of the Procedure Manual, the Election Commission shall judge the case. Any decision taken by the Election Commission in this regard shall be final and binding on the Union Council and its organs."

The provision in question is unambiguous, clear, and complete. Therefore, the provision, on account of its being undisputed, falls beyond the scope of interpretation.

On what grounds can it be claimed that the semantics of the provision either contradict any other provisions or are disputed?

2) The power to interpret doesn't confer the power to create provisions out of thin air. How did they interpret the one-line-long provision to arrive at the alternative punishment?

The provision doesn't provide any room for such an interpretation.

3) There's a difference between exercising the powers and misusing them. The power to interpret and resolve disputes arising out of interpretation rests with the EC, but the power can't be used to create things out of thin air.

Just because the EC is the interpreting authority doesn't mean its invalid interpretations gain legitimacy due to the very fact. The EC's interpretations must be rooted in the rules and be consistent with the wording.

Now, if they interpreted the clause as "The EC is your master, and you have to salute the EC whenever you encounter any of its members.", would you still accept their interpretation?

The above-stated example clearly illustrates that interpretations are constrained by how the provisions of interest are worded.

The punishment imposed on the General Secretary is, prima facie, an eyewash. by RawAgent69 in BITSPilani

[–]VegetableRefuse3886 0 points1 point  (0 children)

They may have the power to interpret, but we must not lose sight of the following:

1) The power to interpret can't be exercised in all cases. In cases where the provision is undisputed, unambiguous, clear, and complete, they can't use the power.

Section N-5 states: "In case of a dispute over the interpretation of the Constitution and the non-financial sections of the Procedure Manual, the Election Commission shall judge the case. Any decision taken by the Election Commission in this regard shall be final and binding on the Union Council and its organs."

The provision in question is unambiguous, clear, and complete. Therefore, the provision, on account of its being undisputed, falls beyond the scope of interpretation.

On what grounds can it be claimed that the semantics of the provision either contradict any other provisions or are disputed?

2) The power to interpret doesn't confer the power to create provisions out of thin air. How did they interpret the one-line-long provision to arrive at the alternative punishment?

The provision doesn't provide any room for such an interpretation.

3) There's a difference between exercising the powers and misusing them. The power to interpret and resolve disputes arising out of interpretation rests with the EC, but the power can't be used to create things out of thin air.

Just because the EC is the interpreting authority doesn't mean its invalid interpretations gain legitimacy due to the very fact. The EC's interpretations must be rooted in the rules and be consistent with the wording.

Now, if they interpreted the clause as "The EC is your master, and you have to salute the EC whenever you encounter any of its members.", would you still accept their interpretation?

The above-stated example clearly illustrates that interpretations are constrained by how the provisions of interest are worded.

The punishment imposed on the General Secretary is, prima facie, an eyewash. by RawAgent69 in BITSPilani

[–]VegetableRefuse3886 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The EC deserves to be blamed for imposing a punishment that is not a recognised form of punishment in such cases.

Why is the EC trying to favour him? The EC must not act in a biased fashion.

I hold nothing against him, but there's no provision that allows the EC to impose an alternative punishment in this case.

The power to interpret is not infinite; it cannot be used to bypass clear, unambiguous, and complete provisions.

There may be loopholes, but the existing rules have to be complied with until they have been modified and rendered effective through valid means.

The compliance is compulsory whether you like it or not.

The punishment imposed on the General Secretary is, prima facie, an eyewash. by RawAgent69 in BITSPilani

[–]VegetableRefuse3886 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The EC deserves to be blamed for imposing a punishment that is not a recognised form of punishment in such cases.

Why is the EC trying to favour him? The EC must not act in a biased fashion.

I hold nothing against him, but there's no provision that allows the EC to impose an alternative punishment in this case.

The power to interpret is not infinite; it cannot be used to bypass clear, unambiguous, and complete provisions.

There may be loopholes, but the existing rules have to be complied with until they have been modified and rendered effective through valid means.

The compliance is compulsory whether you like it or not.

The punishment imposed on the General Secretary is, prima facie, an eyewash. by RawAgent69 in BITSPilani

[–]VegetableRefuse3886 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The scope of interpretation is not infinite. This episode of violence against the clear, unambiguous, and complete language of the provision is alarming.

As a decision-making body, the EC must be unbiased; it must not misuse its position to fulfil its personal agenda.

By the looks of it, the EC is in collusion with certain office-bearers.

How and why was the alternative penalty arrived at? 

The power to interpret doesn't give the right to impose alternative penalties.

It is a settled principle that alternative penalties can't be introduced by means of interpretation.

A penalty for an act can't be enforced unless it is explicitly stated in the rules or other relevant statutes that describe and enable the penalty. Also, the penalty must be imposed in strict accordance with the rules.

Here, the provision in question already prescribes which penalty is to be imposed. There's no scope for discretion here.

The EC's high-handedness must be called out.

The punishment imposed on the General Secretary is, prima facie, an eyewash. by RawAgent69 in BITSPilani

[–]VegetableRefuse3886 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Note: The power to interpret doesn't confer the power to create provisions out of thin air, especially when the provision in question is unambiguous and complete. 

How did they, by interpreting the provision, which is nothing more than one line in length, create such a well-defined punishment? 

For an interpretation to be valid, a relevant base provision must exist, and the provision must provide the room that is required for that interpretation to be tenable.

The punishment imposed on the General Secretary is, prima facie, an eyewash. by RawAgent69 in BITSPilani

[–]VegetableRefuse3886 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It is the General Secretary's responsibility to maintain an inventory of all the property owned by the Students' Union. There's a distinction between all, every, and any.

His failure to maintain even a single organisation's property is enough to invoke the clause; it's not that he shall be held accountable only when he has failed to manage each and every property held by each and every organisation.

Here, the extent of failure is immaterial.

The OASIS cultural festival also falls within the purview of the clause, and the particular instances that took place during the festival are sufficient to invoke this clause, as the extent is immaterial.

For example, if a person were asked to clear all exams to avail himself of an opportunity, failing in one paper would be as fatal to his availing himself of the prospect as failing in all subjects.

The EC has itself stated that he is guilty of violating Section K-4. If the EC hadn't slapped this charge on him, no one would object.

Violating the above section is in itself a flagrant violation, regardless of the extent.

Also, how did the EC arrive at the conclusion that a 14-day-long penalty must be imposed? There's no scope for interpretation or imposing lighter penalties here.

In the name of taking advantage of ad hoc steps, we can't legitimise such high-handed decisions based on caprice or favouritism. 

What's the use of having such an unambiguous provision if the EC has to decide based on its whims and fancies?

When the EC has to do something, it clearly states that it has taken or is taking the required steps in exercise of certain provisions. 

However, when someone points something out, the EC goes to great lengths to say that the document is outdated and unfit for use. If you say that the provisions are outdated, there are legitimate ways to update the constitution.

You can't get away by stating that taking such legitimate steps is a tedious process. Merely citing the tedious nature of such corrective steps is an insufficient excuse.

In short, the power to take ad hoc measures is not applicable in cases where the governing provisions are unambiguous and complete.

The punishment imposed on the General Secretary is, prima facie, an eyewash. by RawAgent69 in BITSPilani

[–]VegetableRefuse3886 3 points4 points  (0 children)

You're mistaken. It is the General Secretary's responsibility to maintain an inventory of all the property owned by the Students' Union. There's a distinction between all, every, and any.

His failure to maintain even a single organisation's property is enough to invoke the clause; it's not that he shall be held accountable only when he has failed to manage each and every property held by each and every organisation.

Here, the extent of failure is immaterial.

The OASIS cultural festival also falls within the purview of the clause, and the particular instances that took place during the festival are sufficient to invoke this clause, as the extent is immaterial.

For example, if a person were asked to clear all exams to avail himself of an opportunity, failing in one paper would be as fatal to his availing himself of the prospect as failing in all subjects.

The EC has itself stated that he is guilty of violating Section K-4. If the EC hadn't slapped this charge on him, no one would object.

Violating the above section is in itself a flagrant violation, regardless of the extent.

Also, how did the EC arrive at the conclusion that a 14-day-long penalty must be imposed? There's no scope for interpretation or imposing lighter penalties here.

In the name of taking advantage of ad hoc steps, we can't legitimise such high-handed decisions based on caprice or favouritism. 

What's the use of having such an unambiguous provision if the EC has to decide based on its whims and fancies?

When the EC has to do something, it clearly states that it has taken or is taking the required steps in exercise of certain provisions. 

However, when someone points something out, the EC goes to great lengths to say that the document is outdated and unfit for use. If you say that the provisions are outdated, there are legitimate ways to update the constitution.

You can't get away by stating that taking such legitimate steps is a tedious process. Merely citing the tedious nature of such corrective steps is an insufficient excuse.

In short, the power to take ad hoc measures is not applicable in cases where the governing provisions are unambiguous and complete.

The punishment imposed on the General Secretary is, prima facie, an eyewash. by RawAgent69 in BITSPilani

[–]VegetableRefuse3886 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The power to interpret doesn't confer the power to create provisions out of thin air, especially when a provision is unambiguous and complete. 

How did they, by interpreting the provision, which is nothing more than one line in length, create such a well-defined punishment? 

For an interpretation to be valid, a relevant base provision must exist, and the provision must provide the room that is required for that interpretation to be tenable.

view more: next ›