WHETHER HIMANCHAL PRADESH AND UTTARA KHAND UTTARANCHAL ELECTIONS RESULT TEMPERED BY NEHRU GANDHI DYNASTICAL CONGRESS

WHETHER INDIAN DEMOCRACY IS FRAUD AND FABRICATED PROCESS OF ELECTION?. WHO CREATED An Instruments of oppression?.  – ANTI NATIONALIST FORCES PROMULGATED Institutional corruption

Whether EVM VOTING MACHINE VUNERABLE?.  , WHETHER HIMANCHAL PRADESH AND UTTARA KHAND UTTARANCHAL ELECTIONS RESULT TEMPERED BY NEHRU GANDHI DYNASTICAL CONGRESS USURPATIONS THROGH CONGRESS MANUPULATION BY CHIEF ELECTIOPN COMMISSIONER ON THE INSTRUCTION OF ITALIAN SONIA GANDHI NEXUS WITJH ISI, CIA AND KGB ?. -Legal System Crumbled by its inglorious Research Upon Innocent Citizen Making Mockery to Electorates Parliamentarian Democratic Set Up. WHETHER APPOINTMENT OF  MUSLIMS MINISTERS, CONSTITUTIONAL POSTS and CHRISTIANS APPOINTMENT ON CONSTITUTIONAL POST TO DEFEAT INFIDEL HINMDUS SENTIMENTAL PATRIOTISM?.    –By the promulgation of the Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence developed after the Magna-Carta within the British parliament, one has to understand the growth of legal system started much before the period of British system of governance which is based upon no written law. One has to introspect the legal system at the time of Changez Khan who said that legal system is regulated by strength of the ruler. There was the dictum of the sovereignty vested with the ruler and the legal system was dependent upon the will of the ruler. After the arrival of the logic and perception thereof by the philosophers starting from the time of Plato and Aristotle, which was based upon the vedic traditions of universal applications of transquality amongst the fellow citizens based upon vasudeva kutumbkam, the imparting of justice to the individual seeking protection under the judicial system was predominant. Roman catholics started their existence on the basis of power intoxication and all such norms which were based upon ethical foundation, had undergone a vital change in the philosophy of the legal system by generating the feeling of the supremacy vested with the power of the religion, one has to accept the dictum of the empire. Soon after the birth of Jesus Christ the theory of fagunun based upon the pardon of the criminal after execution of the crime as it was considered that the victim is not supposed to recovered from the heinous crime then why the State having the governance may adopt the role of doing another crime by the theory of punishment. These principles were gradually eclipsed according to the desire of the individual having an authority to control the judicial system which was initially vested with the ruler of the nation. The community of the witness Joseph denounced the concept of nationhood by saying that the citizens of a particular state is a citizen of the world and as such the control of the sovereignty inflicted by the ruler of the nation of the nation will not be accepted for imparting the justice to the litigant. The Doctrine of Litigant rights are supreme and the redressal of the grievances of the affected party is the paramount consideration. Upto this period the ruler of the nation was deciding the cases and only some lucky people subjected to the exploitation were having the access to the justice as the doors of justice were not usually open to the downtrodden society whose fate and welfare was dependent upon the choice of the individual having predomination in the society. Thus, under the Islamic perception of the Legal system, since Maulavi and other religious leaders became an authority to impart the justice to the victim, the judgment of one Maulavi for the same offence was distinguishable on the basis of the ethical approach and soon the people have started realizing that there is the imposition of the will of the judge adjudicating the cause is of much prominence than nay ethical foundation on the basis of which the justice be administered to an individual. The Magna Cart acme to the existence having universal application of its application and the system of the appointment of the judges for imparting justice came into existence only thereafter. Initially the freedom of expression was under the subordination of the sovereignty and nobody was permissible to speak anything derogatory to the existence of the nation and the ruler ruling the nation. However after the charter of freedom of liberty and the statute created in 1644 by Washington, the liberty of individual expression based upon his conscience has taken over the role of predomination and the criticism against the sovereign power became a protected right to the citizens.

 That the legal system based upon four theories of punishment had undergone a vital change and the concept of deterrent punishment in which the criminal may realize that the crime is the bad bargain started from the time of Manu had undergone in the theory of retribution punishment by the expansion of the Islamic domination. Two other theories of preventive detention and the reformative system to the criminals were started under the British domination and without disclosing why the preventive detention is done, the state government has taken the plea that the prevention of the crime is more important and as such the reason for detention is within the realm of the sovereignty and no individual may question the authority of such detention. Under the parliamentarian democratic system of governance of legal system where the parliament acts as Lord Brahma, bureaucrats as Lord Vishnu and Judicial institution system as Lord Shiva having the separation of power had undergone a deflection under the power of the Governor who have been given their right not to sanction the prosecution of the public officer and the State Government may withdraw the prosecution as per the will of the Chief Minister after being imparted in the form of the advice of the Cabinet to the Governor and under section 321  CRPC, the State government became empowered to withdraw prosecution. In this manner after undergoing a vital change in the legal system of governance the theory of the sovereignty as the instrument of oppression in the Anglo Saxon jurisprudence in the legal system can still be glorified under the parliamentarian democratic republican system having control under our constitution and the exploitation of the citizen under the guise of imparting justice can very well be seen when Law and Justice are inimical and are not having the talking terms within the fore corner of our judicial system and the exploitation of the litigant in the system of hierarchy by his advocate and the advocate is being exploited by the individual whims of the judge , and the judge is remained under hierarchical command and ultimately the representative of the people may control the concept of the sovereignty is the law of the nation.