You’ll understand why people often turn to courts for social issues like pollution, but also learn about the judiciary's specific role in ensuring processes rather than fully taking over policymaking. You’ll grasp the challenge courts face when dealing with complex, multi-dimensional problems, realizing their role is often to push authorities along rather than dictate solutions. You’ll discover how the Indian judiciary has been a global leader in environmental law, setting groundbreaking precedents like the 'polluter pays' principle and sustainable development. You’ll gain insight into Delhi’s unique constitutional setup, which explains why governance issues in the capital can be so complex and layered. You’ll learn about the significant effort to create a gender handbook, aimed at changing how legal language describes women, especially victims, by emphasizing their dignity and autonomy. This clip highlights how even language used in legal settings can carry outdated, colonial baggage, and why it's crucial to update it for contemporary relevance. You’ll get a sense of how modern judges often come from very diverse, grassroots backgrounds, shaping their unique perspectives on justice. The speaker touches on the increasing media scrutiny faced by judges today, giving you insight into the public attention they now navigate. You’ll explore how India's Supreme Court made waves globally by decriminalizing homosexuality, setting a precedent that resonated internationally. You’ll understand the nuanced legal debate around same-sex marriage, discovering why the court felt it was a matter for Parliament, not judicial decree, though a civil union was suggested. You’ll be surprised to learn how India's laws on medical termination of pregnancy are actually far more progressive than in many other parts of the world, even for unmarried women and beyond typical limits. This clip helps you see how Indian legal decisions, like those on LGBTQ+ rights and abortion, are closely watched and can influence jurisprudence across borders. You'll discover the significant efforts made to make Indian courts more accessible and 'disabled-friendly,' moving beyond just physical infrastructure to ensure reasonable accommodation. You'll hear a very personal reflection on how a judge's own life experiences, particularly raising children with special needs, deeply shape their understanding and approach to disability rights. This clip offers a powerful perspective shift, encouraging you to view disability not as a medical problem of an individual, but as a social issue where societal barriers are the real challenge. You'll be fascinated to learn how the judge's family life, specifically his daughters, influenced his adoption of a comprehensive vegan and cruelty-free lifestyle, extending beyond diet to include choices like not using silk or leather. So very often the role of judicial review is to push things along as opposed to merely taking decisions on your own. So doctrines such as the polluter Pace principle or the principle of sustainable development, the precautionary principle, the principle of intergenerational equity, which means that we hold the environment in trust for future generations... these are all the result of judicial evolution. According to the speaker, what is the primary function of judicial review when courts intervene in complex policy areas like pollution? Which of the following principles are cited as examples of judicial evolution in India's environmental law? What is a key constitutional feature that makes Delhi's governance unique ("su-generis") compared to other Indian states? The Supreme Court introduced a Gender Handbook. What was its main objective? How did the speaker's personal experience of living with specially-abled children influence his judicial approach to disability? You'll hear the fascinating reason why the landmark Ayodhya judgment didn't have individual judges' signatures—it was all about presenting a united, institutional voice. This clip reveals how judges, despite handling cases rooted in centuries of history, still apply strict, established legal processes to ensure fairness. You’ll understand the crucial difference between healthy public critique of a judgment and the concerning trend of personally trolling judges, as explained by the speaker. You'll get an inside look at how judges carry the immense weight of decisions that impact billions of people, always aware of the wider societal context. You’ll hear how a judge’s words can be completely twisted and misconstrued on social media, especially when complex thoughts are compressed into short clips. The speaker shares a deeply personal insight into how they find calm and sustenance amidst the intense conflicts inherent in judicial work, which might surprise you. You'll learn why a judge's personal faith doesn't, and shouldn't, interfere with their ability to deliver impartial justice to people of all backgrounds. This section highlights how factors like caste are sometimes crucial to consider in legal cases, especially when dealing with issues like intersectional discrimination or social transformation. You'll understand why the judiciary's role is to scrutinize laws and executive actions against the Constitution, rather than acting as the political opposition. This clip clarifies how the Supreme Court strategically decides which cases to prioritize, navigating demands to hear everything from long-pending constitutional matters to recent, high-profile issues. You'll be impressed by the sheer volume and significance of other critical constitutional cases the Supreme Court has handled, cases that don't always grab headlines but shape the nation. The speaker makes it clear that the Supreme Court firmly resists attempts by highly resourced individuals or political parties to dictate which cases should be heard or prioritized, upholding judicial independence. You'll get a detailed, insider's view of the collegium system, realizing it's a multi-layered process for judicial appointments, far more complex than just 'judges selecting judges'. This section helps you grasp how India's judicial appointment system contrasts sharply with others, like the American model, particularly in its approach to political influence. You'll be encouraged to hear how competitive examinations for entry-level judiciary roles are bringing a significant increase in women recruits, setting the stage for greater diversity in the future. The speaker assures you that progression through the judicial ranks is primarily based on seniority and a solid record, reinforcing that connections don't pave the way to the top. You'll discover how technology, like AI-assisted translation of judgments into regional languages, is making justice far more accessible and comprehensible to every citizen. This part challenges you to rethink the common 'liberal' versus 'conservative' labels applied to judges, explaining why these political tags don't accurately capture a judge's nuanced work. You'll gain insight into how judges constantly reflect on and re-evaluate their own past judgments, always striving for greater clarity and even being open to correction if needed. The speaker clarifies that a judge's independence is robust and not swayed by age or mere social pleasantries with politicians, reassuring you that external factors don't impact their decisions. a decision was taken consciously by all the judges together that there shall be no attribution of authorship to the to the judgment. Um, and the reason for that was we all felt that it's important to send this message across that everyone, one of us, ... We stand together on this issue and we speak with one voice. during my tenure as a chief justice, we have refused to be dictated by any third party on which cases to decide. Why did the judges decide not to attribute authorship to the Ayodhya judgment? According to the speaker, what is the primary role of the judiciary in a democracy? What is the speaker's view on a judge's personal faith affecting their ability to do justice? What common perception about the collegium system does the speaker state is incorrect? Who primarily decides the order in which cases are to be heard in the Supreme Court?