top of page

The Relationship between Democracy and Law

Democracy is a fine thing, there is no disputing that, and I am a Democrat. But running a nation requires democracy to be blended with an appropriate system of law and order so that around 600 Members of Parliament elected by voters given highly dubious choices on who to elect do not get to use their whims and other covert manipulations of politics to implement systems and actions by the State. The actions taken by the State must be based on the law of the land. This law must be decided upon through the implementation of the democratic framework for decision making with considerable expert checks and balances that Members of Parliament would not have a clue about. The decision-making process of Parliament must itself be subjected to the process of law on what Parliament can debate for direct action by the State in order that the actions of a Prime Minister or President can be subjected to judicial scrutiny before it actually takes place. This is the fundamental process for the regulation of a society as a State to prevent authoritarian and misguided rule.

A case in point is the recent vote in the House of Commons that was seen by the Prime Minister Cameron to have given him the ‘green light’ as some form of a mandate to start air-strikes against Islamic State in Syria. The process whereby this decision was made is not the implementation of law because it has not been judicially-scrutinised by a Court of law both on whether Parliament has the power to start such a war and if so what should be the due process for determining the due process of law governing the decision to go to war. This is particularly important in the case of offensive wars. Finally, the option to assess if the due process has been followed must be available to the citizen. It is therefore not sufficient for the government’s own Attorney General to give the legal justification for the action to go to war in terms not only of British law but also international law so that this is to be regarded as a flimsy clearance from the views of a politician rather than a Judge experienced as an expert in this specialised aspect of the law.

Whether or not there is a written Constitution for a State, the appropriate body to determine the lawfulness of Government actions should be a panel of Judges of no less than 9 at a body of law enforcement that can oversee Parliamentary activity in one of its Divisions that should be known as the Supreme Court of the nation where majority voting should be applied on what actions a government can take legally. Citizens must be able to challenge each and every government decision through a Public Interest Litigation process through the High Court up to this highest court of the land.

Thus, it is argued that Parliamentary democracy is not a sufficient process for decision making by the State. It is the starting point for the enactment of laws which need to be tested by these Courts to ensure its congruence with the rest of the laws of the land and in terms of its intrinsic lawfulness. The Supreme Court can and must throw actions by Parliament back to Parliament for reconsideration until the law is accepted as constitutional by the Court. By Parliament is meant both the Upper and Lower Houses who must bow to the law of the land as determined by the Supreme Court.

The law is therefore more important than the implementation of democracy in the governance of a State.

December 5, 2015 Posted by shantanup | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

At 21.30 hours, no emails came today and no comments were inserted in the blog from Egregious or anyone else. It dawned on me that the State may have interfered in blocking my transmission of the email to Egregious (seemingly) so that if something is unleashed on me I will be able to defend myself with the statement that the State interfered in this legal communication that I prepared to pave the way to my application to have this person identified and extradited from the United States to face private prosecution for criminal stalking harassment in my Blog over a long period of time and especially on 4 December 2015 when his comments were on display to the public for various periods of time. If he turns up now it will only be because he is caught with his pants down as a moronic stooge agent of State persecution whose job it was to denigrate my work and destroy my website with apparently stupid purposeless remarks but which were in fact designed to defame and ruin the credibility of my work.

21.40 hours, 5 December 2015

I had submitted a detailed enquiry to Professor Sir Adrian Smith, the Vice Chancellor of the London University concerning the examination of my MSc Dissertation on Urbanisation and Livstock Development in Eastern India and the award of the MSc degree and had submitted this matter as an issue in Greenwich Legalities under ME010463 of Medway County Court to which the Court did not reply and the University too went silent. Then as if related to the additional proceedings undertaken I suddenly I received a transcript letter giving all my marks and agreeing that I had transferred to the MSc but making no mention of the dissertation matter that I had queried.

This letter from the University was designed to place on record that there had been no effective Dissertation submission and indicating that the matter was not closed. I therefore replied to the letter with the following email:


Shan Panigrahi <>


5 December 2015 at 9:59 PM


Mr Craig O'Callaghan

Chief Operating Officer

Transcripts Office

Stewart House

32 Russell Square

London WC1B 5DN

Direct Line: 020 7862 8549

5 December 2015

Dear Mr O'Callaghan

1. Thank you for your letter dated 12 November 2015 that arrived in the post this morning.

2. I am afraid there is an error in this Transcript. It does not record the result of the examination of my MSc Dissertation that was submitted. Please correct this record immediately.

Yours sincerely

Dr Shantanu Panigrahi

3 Hoath Lane



Kent ME8 0SL

United KIngdom

Reply Reply to All Forward More

A very dangerous comment was posted in the Kashif Irfan (Clearly man management post) overnight, as follows: The man-management of Clearly Business Solutions Limited for Shell (UK) by Mr Kashif IrfanView Post 2015/12/06 at 4:57 am: Tanya Tanyastalk@outlook.com92.31.146.230: ‘I was also employed by this rude thieving man. Customers and staff warned me about lash if but I laughed it off. He is the talk of most shell petrol stations and if I am not mistaken he is now working for Barclays. So if you bank with them, you may want to consider changing’.

I trashed the comment as approving it would be libellous and enable Kashif Irfan an entry into suing me for defamation. This was organised by the State. I had already made up my mind to expose Egregious’ role in this persecution with the following blogpost that I created this morning.

An Open Letter issued to Egregious of the USA concerning his posts in this Blog

Dear Egregious

1. I sent you an email from my email account to on 5 Dec 2015 at 7:56 AM (UK-Time) concerning our posted communications of 4 December 2015 late afternoon as it relates to your previous posts in this website. I had written to the email address because this is the email account provided to me by WordPress as belonging to you from the information that posters are obliged to provide when sending comments on the blogposts.

2. For some reason that I cannot yet figure out, forty-five minutes after I sent the above email it got returned to my email inbox as undelivered. Daemon Failure gave me the following accompanying message: ‘Sorry, we were unable to deliver your message to the following address: <>: Remote host said: 554 5.7.1 : Relay access denied [RCPT_TO]’.

3. If was not your regular email address to which I could send you important documents which cannot be displayed on the website for legal reasons so that you receive an explanation of my decisions to delete some of your posts, and comment accordingly, why did you not give your correct email address to this Blogsite for such communications?

4. You have been posting here for a long time and I had said to you once that you are important to me. Are you not interested in the discussions of this Blog anymore? If not why not? – my readers are entitled to know your point of view and I would also like to keep the record of our interactions to date straight.

Yours sincerely

Dr Shantanu Panigrahi

December 6, 2015 Posted by shantanup | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

I felt I had to cover over the blog comment posted by Tanya that I deleted so sent an email to Tanya as follows:

Your comment posted in my Blog

Shan Panigrahi <>


6 December 2015 at 8:40 AM



Hi Tanya

1. I got your message as follows: The man-management of Clearly Business Solutions Limited for Shell (UK) by Mr Kashif IrfanView Post 2015/12/06 at 4:57 am: Tanya

I was also employed by this rude thieving man. Customers and staff warned me about lash if but I laughed it off. He is the talk of most shell petrol stations and if I am not mistaken he is now working for Barclays. So if you bank with them, you may want to consider changing’.

2. I am interested in following this up. Could you give me the dates and the petrol stations that you worked in for Mr Kashif Irfan, and when he left Clearly Business Solutions Limited to join Barclays?