Jump to content

Talk:Kerala High Court

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Unluck number 13 and Kerala High court

[edit]

The information related to the decision of the Kerala High Court to do away with the number 13 from the serial numbers given to the court rooms, the petition filed by a concerned citizen challanging it, the decision to the Kerala High court to fine the petitioner for filing the petition, and the decision of the Supreme Court of India overruling the lower court judgement are atleast an interesting piece of information (if not a very important piece of information - I think it is.)in a encyclopedia page on Kerala High Court. This is especially so in the context of Section: 51-A (h) of Indian Constitution which says it is the fundemental duty of a citizen to "develop the scientific temper, humanism and the spirit of inquiry and reform" (Section: 51-A (h)). If a Court itself violates it and even punishes a citizen for for upholding it, is it not an important part of the history of the said Court? MANOJTV 00:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Verdict on unlucky number 13 - Relative relevance on the main page

[edit]

Information is to be placed systematically according to its relative significance to the main topic being explained. If you start adding trivia on the very main page of a particular topic, there would be scant space left on its main page for adding key and significant information pertaining to that topic. Every judgment rendered by the High Court of Kerala may be relevant when the topic is High Court of Kerala. There may be numerous such judgments which are reversed by the Supreme Court of India. If we venture to add details of every such judgment to the main page explaining High Court of Kerala, the significant information pertaining to the main topic would be sidelined and the trivia would steal the focus. Is not the verdict of Supreme Court of India in connection to number 13, placed better on the main page connected to the Number 13 than on the main page of High Court of Kerala? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Attokaran (talk • contribs) 15:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Relevance of the verdict on Unlucky Number 13

[edit]
  • This verdict is not just lke any other verdict overturned by the apex court. Here the petitioner was questioning an obnoxious belief practised by the authorities of the honourable Kerala High Court itself in contravention of what the honourable court was supposed to uphold as per the Constituion of India : "develop the scientific temper, humanism and the spirit of inquiry and reform" (Section: 51-A (h)).
  • Again, the decision of the High Court not only to dismiss the petition but to impose a fine on a petitioner who as a citizen was doing his duty as per the Constitution of India is outrageous, as the honourable Supreme Court has pointed out.
  • This portion is more relevant to the article of Kerala High Court than to the page on Number 13. If we add these sort of information about various individuals and institutions from different parts of the world who indulges in superstitious practices related to Number 13, then the article would become unwieldy. Again this specific information also will become obscure, unless a link is provided in the page on Kerala High Court.

Given this, the informaion is added back to the page.MANOJTV 07:32, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy

[edit]

I’ve made a new section for controversy and added the information on No. 13 issues accordingly with relevant references. Thanks.
--Avinesh Jose  T  09:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to side with Attokaran that the info about Room 13 is interesting but not very important and therefore arguably not appropriate for an encyclopedia article. However, the key here is to avoid edit warring and to seek WP:CONSENSUS on the Talk Page. While I wouldn't personally put in the Room 13 info, I don't think it is imperative to take it out either. Let's leave it there for now unless more editors express opposition to having it be in the article.
--Richard (talk) 19:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Attokaran, Please see Wikipedia:Third opinion and I think you may wish to use WP:RFC/SOC also, in order to whether keep this or not (any other process ?). I made this (controversy section) edit based on the user User:MANOJTV expressed opinion above & it was a widely discussed issue in Kerala. However, you had totally reverted my edit. But another user User:High on a tree again undid your edits as you can see in the history. Later you again undid User:High on a tree’s edit. That is the reason why I again reverted your edits. --Avinesh Jose  T  05:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, when I first reviewed the edit history of this article, I considered whether to protect this page to stop edit the warring but decided to leave a message on the Talk Page first. Please do not edit war over this article any more. Discussion is far preferable to a revert war.
--Richard (talk) 07:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is important?

[edit]

So much have been written about the controversy. I agree that it is a useful interesting piece of information. However, I am not clear whether there is a Romm No. 13 now in the building after the Supreme court's ruling.

As far as importance is concerned, is it important to give the details about the facilities in the court building. I think a modern building is expected to have all that.

The name of the present Chief Justice is given in the text. Unless someone takes on the responsibility to update it whenever there is a change it may remain as a wrong entry for long till some one stumbles upon it. It is better to include it only in the table. What is the point in giving date of retirement of persons who have not retired? It is better to give date of birth.

Judicial systems in Travancore and Kochi have been described. Kerala also includes Malabar areas which were under British. Unless that is not included the description will remain incomplete

--K N Unni (talk) 11:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is important?

[edit]

So much have been written about the controversy. I agree that it is a useful interesting piece of information. However, I am not clear whether there is a Romm No. 13 now in the building after the Supreme court's ruling.

After the Supreme Court ruling, one may see a very tricky numbering system claiming to be very much user friendly. In order to get over the 13 issue as also the controversy, court rooms were re-numbered based on the Floor. Now the first floor is having 1A, 1B, 1C and 2nd floor having 2A, 2B and so on....see the trick...there is not even the remotest possibility of 13 court rooms in one floor.... How brainy....=== Mangu18 (talk) 19:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As far as importance is concerned, is it important to give the details about the facilities in the court building. I think a modern building is expected to have all that.

The name of the present Chief Justice is given in the text. Unless someone takes on the responsibility to update it whenever there is a change it may remain as a wrong entry for long till some one stumbles upon it. It is better to include it only in the table. What is the point in giving date of retirement of persons who have not retired? It is better to give date of birth.

Judicial systems in Travancore and Kochi have been described. Kerala also includes Malabar areas which were under British. Unless that is not included the description will remain incomplete.

Was it not at the Kerala Highcourt that a Woman was appointed as a justice for the first time? (Justice Anna Chandy?)

--K N Unni (talk) 12:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Kerala High Court. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:25, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kerala_High_Court&oldid=1203252035"