Hacker News Reader

Comment by rustedspoon | Hacker News Reader

The documentary did not even talk about how the Supreme Court of India investigated twice and the first one while the current opposition government was in power, and what conclusion they have reached. No witnesses from who were actually affected on both sides. Not sure if it should even be called a documentary.

View on HN

For anyone wondering - the evidence implicating Modi "vanished". No court will convict someone without evidence and the Indian prosecution in general has a record of doing a shit job in gathering implicating evidence when influential folks are involved.

Also, the one member of the indian bureaucracy who dared to question Modi's role in the riots - Sanjiv Bhatt - was sentenced to life in prison.

I am not sure what the poster here is insinuating with the claim that the case was tried under a different government. In no reasonable democracy are the courts swayed by politics.

if courts aren’t swayed by politics, after 20 years of scrutiny and thousands of witnesses, so many days of investigations the court decided to arrest this person. We either trust the the sanctity of the court or we don’t. If anything, to be neutral the documentary should have kept a lot of time discussing the Supreme courts ruling and either bust it rulings or agree to it, but to totally ignore it.

No, i reject this idea entirely.

Court judgements are made by humans and humans err. This is not the binary you are making it out to be. Indian courts are hamstrung by the rest of the Indian legal system and are routinely used to silence dissent and harass the small fry.

This is not true. Indian courts are very much functional and is not elected by politicians. So they are not as hamstrung as any US courts if you are going to start comparing. Only issue is the long delays involved.

> not elected by politicians.

All judicial appointments need to be approved by the government. Retired judges get plum political appointments including to the Rajya Sabha.

Approved doesn't mean elected via political campaigning. So judges doesn't need to take any political stance to make any political party happy. Of course there is the issue of after retirement appointments. But not every judge does that. Things won't become better if people don't put pressure on representatives to make ethical laws.

> So judges doesn't need to take any political stance to make any political party happy.

The Centre refused to appoint Saurabh Kirpal because he is openly gay. This isn't some wild conjecture, this is the official government position: https://www.barandbench.com/news/law-ministry-says-saurabh-k...

I have 2 words for you: 2G Scam.

> In no reasonable democracy are the courts swayed by politics.

Maybe in movies.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com