In no civilised country is the head of the government immune from corruption investigation.

It is true that there have been excesses of judicial activism.

Gujarat, which Modi has made the laboratory of Hindutva, is the leading edge of the onslaught of communal fascism in this country.

The Ramaswami case and subsequent attempts to impeach judges have demonstrated the total impracticality of that instrument to discipline judges.

It is a fundamental principle that every institution must be accountable to an authority which is independent of that institution. Yet somehow, the judiciary has propagated a view that the judiciary can only be accountable to itself.

For any unbiased and realistic enquiry against judges, one needs a full time body, independent of the government as well as of the judiciary, with an investigative machinery under its control, through which it can get complaints investigated.

The sword of contempt has kept the judiciary away from searching public scrutiny, particularly within the mainstream media. The judiciary is obviously happy to live with this situation as well.

When the entire administration of the state connives with the perpetrators of violence to thwart justice at every step, clearly there is no rule of law in that state.

With the passing away of Mr Tarkunde, India has lost the father of the Civil Liberties movement in the country.

The Supreme Court's non-transparent attitude on the disclosure of assets is in line with the judiciary's steadfast refusal to allow any transparency in the matter of appointment of judges, or for that matter, in the judiciary as a whole.

The retention of the power to punish for contempt for acts of speech alone, which do not directly interfere with the administration of justice, has removed the last shred of accountability of the higher judiciary in the country.

If public servants are freely allowed to take up lucrative post retirement jobs with companies to whom they have awarded contracts while they were in government, it would open up an easy way for companies to bribe public servants by offering them lucrative post retirement jobs.

If only Rs.10 lakhs on an average were given to each of the less than 1 million villages in the country for rainwater harvesting on the lines pioneered by the Tarun Bharat Sangh in Rajasthan, much of the agricultural land in the country could be irrigated.

PM Narendra Modi had promised to bring back black money, which he said could put Rs 15 lakh in each of our pockets. If he wants to repair his damaged credibility in this regard, we need to see swift and visible action on the Panama Papers.

The secreting of wealth in tax havens is often justified as 'legitimate tax planning.'

I believe that open criticism of any institution is necessary in a democracy, to safeguard the constitutional order.

I am pained that I have been held guilty of committing contempt of the Court whose majesty I have tried to uphold - not as a courtier or cheerleader but as a humble guard - for over three decades, at some personal and professional cost. I am pained, not because I may be punished, but because I have been grossly misunderstood.

Long live democracy!

Every Indian wants a strong and independent judiciary. Obviously if the courts get weakened, it weakens the republic and harms every citizen.

When I said that the court should be willing to suffer even intemperate criticism, I did not mean that people should level intemperate criticism. What I said is even if criticism is intemperate or unfair and bordering on scurrilous and abusive, it will be understood for what it is by the people.

The court's reputation is affected by what people say only if it seems to have a ring of fairness and authenticity.

I said that there is considerable alienation among the people of Kashmir which is primarily because of the human rights excesses by the security forces in Kashmir and the impunity from prosecution given to them by the Armed Forces Special Powers Act.

The lack of judicial accountability exemplified by the lack of a system of selecting judges and of dealing with complaints against them, has indeed led to the system gradually losing its integrity.

The question of burden of proof is relevant only in a situation where there is no evidence either way.