Talk:K. M. Nanavati vs. State of Maharashtra

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject_India This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (add comments)
More information about this article...
Peer review K. M. Nanavati vs. State of Maharashtra has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
⚖
Law Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance assessment on the assessment scale.

Contents

[edit] Why "wrongly convicted" is so POV....

While HT's and Sethi's versions may both state that he is wrongly convicted, the "wrongly" would still be POV because - the court or a higher court has not reversed its judgment; pardon implies that the guilt still stands but punishment is revoked due to humanitarian reasons or otherwise good conduct. We don't say Mahatma Gandhi was wrongly arrested. Similarly, while Khushwant Singh and several others hold that Indira Gandhi was wrongly indicted by the Allahabad High Court, the same doen't get figured in her article. Or a way out would be to say that in what was considered to be a wrong conviction by many. In those days, the economic context was different and economic offences wrt imports were punished heavily (by today's standards). --Gurubrahma 14:49, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I hope the current wording now is better. See [1] & [2] for the summary of that case. --Pamri • Talk 15:16, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
It is perfect now. I did not know full details of the other case before. Thanks a ton!! --Gurubrahma 15:54, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Next featured case on Portal:Law

I have nominated this case to be the next featured case on Portal:Law, I have begun the discussion on the talk page there.  BD2412 talk 04:07, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] High court image

Breaks the flow. I get that the edit summary for the inclusion of the image says it's there to provide a break, but just felt it was looking odd. Am fiddling with the size to see if I can make it look better. Saksham 13:13, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Really "The" Deciding Case for Juries?

I am still really curious to know if this was THE deciding case to abolish juries? Is the Indian legal system that swayed by a single case? Gautam Discuss 02:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)