Amongst us, we have Aparna Nandkumar, a famous advocate and a tax consultant. And today's topic is quite interesting for the perspective of a lawyer. To the effect, what is the doctrine of sub-silent show and doctrine of perincurium. These are two aspects wherein normally there's a lot of debate and there's a lot of judgments on what aspects can be considered as perincurium or sub-silent show or as to whether they are same or there are subtle difference between the two. And those who have been connected with the Beyond Law CLC and those who have been watching us on the YouTube channel. We have had Aparna Nandkumar on a previous session somehow due to some technical effect. That session is not there. I was saying that they can watch it, but at the same time I realized that. But without taking much time being a weekend and as we are approaching towards the winter holidays also a request. Aparna to take things forward and explain the things in her usual style of simplicity. And at the same time covering the legal aspects. Thank you Vikas and thank you once again for inviting me. In fact, last occasion, we had a very nice debate or rather a day to date with his Lordship Justice Kothari. And that was on the development of law in the GST aspect. What are the issues faced after the inception of the GST enactments. Now we are on the interpretation of statutes. A particular, not only just, I would not call it strictly an interpretation of statutes. It is more of interpretation of terminology of two terms, especially sub silencio and perincurium. Which is an essential aspect in a lawyer's life when quoting precedence. Now before I go into the concepts of sub silencio and perincurium. I would first take you all, or rather discuss about the doctrine of precedence. There is a history to it. And all of you are very familiar with the Latin maxim, which is Starrie Decises. Ethno, Quieta, Movir, that is the entire Latin maxim. Normally we shorten it and we say Starrie Decises. Starrie Decises is the doctrine of precedence. And the meaning of this Latin maxim is stand by what is decided and do not unsettle the established. Therefore, this is an aspect which is a judicial discipline followed by the courts. And this has been the judicial discipline that has been followed in the English courts as well. And in fact, this particular Latin maxim has been applied as early as 1890s, 1880s, that early this doctrine has been applied. So I will be going through the history of the common law of England and the judgments of the House of Lords. What occasions the judgments were considered as precedents and what occasions there was a deviation from the doctrine, from the established doctrine of precedence. So I will be taking you through these judgments and then the judgments have been followed by the courts of the, by the Indian courts, Supreme Court, and then Supreme Court decisions have been followed by high court, various high courts. So what would be what context and what would be the circumstances in which the concept of subcilent show and perincurium would be applicable and what as because was rightly saying what is the subtle difference between these two terms. So that would be my general outflow of the topic. Okay. So, what exactly would this study diseases mean to the courts. It means, in fact, there is one beautiful English judgment, which I will be referring which say which states in very simple terms what exactly is the doctrine of precedence. Unwavering judicial loyalty is considered to be more important than judicial individuality. It's a very beautiful way in a very simple terms doctrine of precedence has been explained I will say it once again unwavering judicial loyalty is considered to be more important than judicial individuality. Now, tracing the history of the judgments of the English courts, I will be referring to a few judgments, a very interesting judgment, which is be amish versus be amish. The citation is 1859 11 English reports 735. Please sharing the citations later because all the some judgments are also available in Google and some judgments have been referred by the Supreme Court and various high courts, therefore, these judgments are very important. Now in this case, there was a very interesting, you know, aspect which was being discussed. There was a clergy, there was a doctor who had several sons, and one of them was a clergy man. Now, the English law common law of England required that for a marriage to be that is in those days, a marriage to be performed, there must be the presence of a clergyman to solemnize a marriage. Now what happened one of the brothers was a clergyman, he fell in love with the person and without the consent imagine those days just like like our Indian system in those days the consent of the father was necessary. He did not get the consent of the father and he married her and he said this marriage is a valid marriage. This marriage was attacked, the validity of the marriage was attacked by his own brother. And that is why the citation is be amish versus be amish that is one brother attacking the solemnity or the validity of the marriage of his own brother, stating that the presence of the clergyman is necessary to validate a marriage. Now, this the clergyman who got married, he said see I myself am a clergyman and therefore I you can, it is enough if the person that is the man and the wife are there for the marriage to get solemnized. However, if you take it more and say that a clergyman should be present, I myself I'm there, therefore it is a valid marriage. Now what happened, the there was an argument that in an earlier decision a very early very very early decision, which is, I think as much earlier than 1859 this decision itself is 1859 much earlier than that there was a decision, which is Queen versus Willis. In that case, the House of Lord this judgment also came before the House of Lords was rendered by the House of Lords. So, the earlier judgment which was cited by the brother who had launched the case was Queen versus Willis. In that case, the decision by the House of Lords was that there must be the presence of a clergyman as a third person, not as a person himself, in order for a marriage to be validated under the common law of England. And what happened, very surprisingly, it's a beautiful judgment, please go through the judgment. If you see, they would have discussed the judgment and the laws, the common law, all the, you know, the applicable laws, and there would be comments such as, We do not actually agree with the decision of the House of Lords in Queen versus Willis, because what has been stated is not the right law is not the right precedent at all. Nevertheless, we have no choice, but to follow that judgment. And there would be, in fact, an advice to the head of the House of Lords saying that you have to review the judgment, not in this case, that cannot be possible because that point has not been raised, but it should be reviewed in a later judgment. And that the decision, the precedent, the precedent that has been created by Queen versus Willis should be set at naught. Now, subsequently, so this was the earlier position, now subsequently what happened, in fact, to be very precise, at that point of time, the aspect of or the argument of Perinchurium or subsidence was never raised. Subsequently, this judgment that is this Biamish versus Biamish was referred to in a subsequent judgment, which is London tramways. And in that London tramways, there is a observation, a very beautiful observation, which says that a decision by the House of Lords is final. It cannot be set at naught at all, and it can be set at naught only by a subsequent amendment to the laws. I will just give you the exact wording, exact sentence. It reads, a decision of this House upon a question of law is conclusive and nothing but an act of Parliament can set right that which is alleged to be wrong in a judgment of this House. Therefore, this was the position. Now, coming to the exceptions, that is, now, as I said, when is a judgment of precedent? Now, as you all know, there are two parts for a judgment. One is the ratio decided in day and the other one is the obitur dicta. Now, as far as the ratio decided in day is concerned, it becomes a wholesome precedent when all arguments, all points of law are canvassed, are dealt with by the judgment. And if there are any decisions which have already touched upon those points of law or arguments, if those decisions are there, those decisions should also have been dealt with. Therefore, if all these aspects are there, then it becomes a ratio decided in day, which is an authoritative pronouncement of law on the particular subject or particular issue. Subsequently, what happened in the case of Gerard versus Paris? This was the first ever case, which was attacked in a later case on the basis of sub silent show. So I will just explain this Gerard versus Paris and then I'll come to the later judgment in which this Gerard versus Paris was attacked on the basis of sub silent show.  Now, this term sub silent show is actually not much used in the Indian country, it has been used very few judgments you would see. In fact, the first judgment, I think it is of the year 1989, which I would be discussing municipal corporation. Subsequently, they have been discussed, but the aspect of curriculum has been discussed more, have been applied more than the aspect of sub silent show. So what exactly is the term sub silent show? Sub silent show is the, this has been very beautifully brought out or defined by Fitzgerald in Salmon versus Salmon on jurisprudence. The definition is, I'll just just turning the pages so that I'm sorry for making you wait just a minute. Okay, I'm not able to find it right now when I find it. But basically, when a particular point of argument, yes, yes, I found it. I'll just read that so that you will be in a position to understand and then I'll take you to the judgment so that the expression sub silent show is really explained well. The relevant paragraph by Fitzgerald is a decision passes sub silent show in the technical sense that has come to be attached to that phrase when the particular point of law involved in the decision is not perceived by the court or present to its mind. Okay, now how do you understand this particular term? For that I'm going to refer to Gerard versus Paris. This Gerard versus Paris is a, this has oft quoted judgment by the Indian courts by the Supreme Court in municipal corporation. Municipal corporation is a landmark judgment on the aspect of sub silent show, which has been followed by several courts and also current both. Okay, so in this case, in this case of Gerard versus Paris, I'll give you the citation later, I'll give it to you later. So in this case, there were two points of argument. The first point was, what would be the priority as far as the data is concerned that is to satisfy the creditor what is his priority that was the first argument. The second argument was whether garnishing proceedings can be taken against the account held by the official liquidator in in a liquidation proceedings. Now Gerard versus Paris only the first point was canvassed and that was decided. Subsequently, in a decision Lancaster, this Gerard versus Paris was cited as a precedent. So the House of Lord said Gerard versus Paris is not a precedent at all, especially for the second argument because the second argument, although should have been taken because two points of law should have been raised. The first point of law is the priority of creditors. The second one is the whether garnishing proceedings can be launched against the account held by the liquidator. That point was never canvassed was never dealt with. And therefore Gerard versus Paris cannot be cited as a precedent and this particular term sub silent show has been used in that judgment. So for that, I'm going to take you to the judgment of municipal corporation. I'm also going to give you the facts arising in municipal corporation. I'll just take you to the paragraph. So this paragraph, this particular. Yes, yes, it says it passes sub silent show because that point has not been argued at all. So this decision this Gerard versus Paris and Lancaster were referred to by the honorable Supreme Court. Perhaps this is the first case on sub silent show. Which is municipal corporation of Delhi versus. The citation is 1981 SCC 101. Now, this is a very interesting case where there was some squatters that is hawkers who are allowed who are given license by the municipal corporation to carry on trade near a hospital. They were only given license to sit on the payment and do the, you know, daily trade. But what happened, many of them started erecting temporary structures. So the hospital complained to the municipal corporation and the municipal corporation they had the powers under section 322 of municipal corporation act to evict them. So immediately, the, the squatters filed a civil suit before the civil court and stated that see we are holding license. The license has been granted by the municipal corporation and therefore we are entitled to do business there and we can erect temporary structures. The civil court said, see, you have been given a license, no doubt. But then that doesn't mean you can erect temporary structures that cannot be done. So that was the decision. Subsequently, what happened was about 10 or, about some of them, you know, 10 or 15 of them were given permission by the municipal corporation itself to erect temporary, to give, you know, erect temporary stalls to construct some kind of a temporary structure. So what happened, based on that, two other squatters, Jamuna Das and his brother. They approached the honorable Supreme Court under article 32 and sought for a mandamus stating that see people persons were equally place like us, they have been given some kind of a treatment, I mean, better treatment than us they have been given permission by the municipal corporation to erect temporary structures so why not us. So this went on and on and on subsequently what happened at one point of time municipal corporation came up with a sketch. And they said, All right, we will give them permission. And it was in fact in that judgment. It's I think it was in the year 84 1984 in that judgment. No point of law was touched. It was a consent order. The municipal corporation agreed to give them a space to do the, you know, do the trade perform the trade and also give them permission to erect temporary structures. It was a consent order. And there was a specific observation by the honorable Supreme Court that this cannot be considered as a precedent because it is a consent order. Now, after this judgment, there was another squatter called Gurnam Corp. This Gurnam Corp approached the High Court of Delhi and cited the decision in Jamnadas and said, See, when Jamnadas can get the benefit, why not I. So Delhi High Court followed the decision of Jamnadas Supreme Court Jamnadas decision and granted the direction and they directed the municipal corporation to give the same benefit as extended to Jamnadas. Matter was carrots municipal corporation carried it to Supreme Court. And this is the decision municipal corporation versus Gurnam Corp, where the decisions in Gerard versus worth of Paris, and then Lancaster all these decisions have been dealt with very beautifully and this was the first time ever. When the concept of sub silent show has been pronounced by the honorable Supreme Court. So they said, See, the point of law that should have been argued in Jamnadas was whether another, there was another, yes, there was another direction by the Delhi High Court saying that if you're not able to give the space here, you should give an alternative accommodation. So this kind of a direction was too flamboyant and Supreme Court said, See, first of all, the Jamnadas decision is not a precedent at all. It cannot be a precedent because it is a consent order and there is a specific observation by us by the honorable Supreme Court that it should not be treated as a precedent. Nevertheless, it has been followed and it should not have been followed. And why is why is it not a precedent not only for the reason that there's a specific observation there is another yet another reason. The reason being that no point of law has been canvassed by both sides municipal corporation should have said that see we have the right to evict we have the we can give license we mean they have the in fact if you see the section no notice itself is necessary. That's the statute itself says no notice is necessary even if a chair is on the payment they can simply remove it without notice. That is the provision. Therefore, these kind of points of argument were never canvassed. And therefore, it is a subsoil and show it is it has never spoken about any point of law no argument has been taken. And therefore, this is not a precedent. Now this judgment has been followed by many high courts whenever the aspect of parankuriam or subsoil and show has been placed. Now, when the, in fact, I would say the consequences of subsoil and show and parankurum would be the same because the a particular decision would seems to be a precedent. If these two aspects one of these two aspects is present is the theory or is the is the what should I say the concept that has evolved. Now what is parankuriam. In fact, the term parankuriam, you have to go to a one beautiful judgment of the honorable Supreme Court where it has been discussed, which is Poojesh. There is a different. Yes, this is the decision in Narmada Bachao Andolan was a state of Madhya Pradesh, which is 2011. Okay, yeah, 2011 Supreme Court 1989. Okay, so I will just take you to that paragraph very beautifully just been this is paragraph number 59. It says, I'll just read it. It's instead of saying it I think I should read it because it's a beautiful judgment in Korea literally means carelessness in practice, parankuriam is taken to mean per Ignoration. The courts have developed this principle in relaxation of the rule of study diseases. Thus, the courtable in law is avoided and ignored if it is rendered an ignorance of a statute or other binding authority. So you see the subtle difference between sub silencio and parankuriam sub sub silencio would occur or that aspect that doctrine would occur wherever a point of argument, which should have been canvas that is a point of law which should have been canvas has not been canvas has not been touched upon parankuriam would arise where a particular statutory provision or a particular judgment is not referred to which touches upon that point of law arises and that judgment has not been referred to so that is the subtle difference between these two. I will go a little further to explain what exactly is parankuriam. See, in the context of parankuriam, I will just explain one very interesting case which I dealt with, which arose under the commonado value added tax act. It's a because it's a quote experience which I underwent therefore I just wanted to share it with you. See, this is a case where you've all heard of these exempt scripts. So, exempt scripts are intangible goods under the bad act. So, they fall under. See, we have schedules that is a schedule prescribes the rate of tax. So it falls under the first schedule which is 5%. So what happened this particular petitioner, he purchased the exempt scripts and he claimed input tax credit because he sold those scripts and you know sorry he sold plastic granules which was also taxable at 5%. So he said, see I am purchasing exempt scripts at 5%. So I am paying a tax as an input tax. And when I'm selling plastic granules which also falls under the first schedule 5%, I can offset the tax that I paid at the input end. This was the argument. And in fact, the matter went against before the assessing authority. We filed a petition because it is a legal point. We filed a petition. And the argument that was taken by the department was that there is a division bench judgment on the same aspect which is against the assessing. Now, by going through the division bench judgment of the on the, of MetaCycle only, in that this particular aspect that it fell under the first schedule that is this exempt scripts fell under the first schedule was not canvassed. And in fact, there is an observation that it does not fall under any schedule. Okay. But this decision was cited before the honorable single judge, because it was a repetition and repetitions in the MetaCycle comes before the single judge. And before showing the judgment, he was completely in my favor. He said, of course it falls under the first schedule. It can be offset. It's a very open and shut case. But once the division bench judgment was shown to him, he was in a fix. His logic was in a fix. He said, See, there is a division bench judgment, right or wrong judicial discipline demands that I have to follow it. Now, I, I said, in fact, I took the argument of per-inclusion because I said that this aspect that it falls in the first schedule has not been properly decided at all. And if the act itself is very clear that it falls in the first schedule, therefore it can be offset. But then the, if you see the judgment that came, that is the most beautiful aspect of it. The judgment that it's about a 10 to 15 page judgment, 14 and a half pages will be in my favor. The last paragraph would say, yet there is a division bench judgment, which is, which is binding on me because I'm a single judge. Therefore, I have to dismiss the repetition. And I made his logic, but Justice Kothari was sitting in the tax bench at that time. And I took the matter by way of a written appeal. Just by saying, I showed all the 14 and a half pages in the last paragraph, he didn't say anything is an admit interim state. Of course, the matter is not yet heard. Do you see that even though the aspect of per-incurium is present, why I'm trying to say this here is that this per-incurium is a concept that cannot be used everywhere. Because judicial propriety, judicial discipline, which has been oft quoted, oft quoted by the high courts, they say, whether it is right or wrong, that's why I said, I had quoted when I spoke about the doctrine of precedence, I said, Judicial, the term, that's a beautiful saying, it says, judicial loyalty is considered to be more important than judicial individuality. A single judge has to be judicially loyal to the division bench judgment, right or wrong. He is, the judicial discipline has been established in such a way that a single judge cannot comment on the propriety or propriety of the decision by a larger bench. Now, coming to division benches, suppose there are two division benches which differ and this aspect of per-incurium is, you know, canvas or sub-silent show, for that matter. If it is canvas, what would be the reaction by the bench? For that, there is yet another decision by the honourable judge, I thought, is that there, in fact, you have to go through this judgment. I was just going through, in fact, I didn't have the time to go through the entire judgment, it is a full bench. Please go through this judgment because it discusses about precedence, value of precedence, what would happen if one division bench wants to differ from the decision of a division bench, what exactly? It clearly says that if one division bench differs from the view taken by another division bench, whether on the point of per-incurium or sub-silent show or whatever, the right way is only to refer it to a larger bench and then a full bench will be formed and, you know, you all know that, I don't have to go through all this. This decision is, I don't know whether you can, yes, you can access Manupatra, Manupatra, you can take down the decision, the citation, it is Philip Jai Singh versus joint registrar. It was decided on 22-1992. I'll leave you with the citations later. So, aspect of per-incurium cannot be canvassed, it can be canvassed, of course, I'm not saying it should not be canvassed, it can be canvassed but it will not be considered by a single judge when you canvass it as against the decision of a division bench even before another division bench because judicial propriety demands uniformity. So, in what circumstances can per-incurium be canvassed? Okay, I will refer to another decision of the honorable Supreme Court, which is quite a recent decision, unicorn industries. In this, this is a very interesting judgment. It is, I will tell you the citation later. See, this is a case where that the question arose under the central excise enactment, whether exemption which is applicable to the main levy, that is a mother levy, that is tax or duty, excise duty or sales tax or whatever, or customs duty or whatever. So, it should be applicable to cesses, like education says or what is that Krishikalyan says or you know this land says or whatever. Is it, would it be extended to the cesses also was a question. Now, there were two decisions by the honorable Supreme Court, division bench judgment, please remember division bench judgment in SRB nutrients and Bajaj auto, where they confirm the decision taken by the Rajasthan High Court in Banswara and they said, yes. See, whatever is, it is actually an ancillary levy that is a cesses an ancillary levy. So, whatever is applicable to the mother, maybe that is a duty or the tax would be applicable to the cesses also because it is only an ancillary levy. See, you taken by the Supreme Court division bench in two decisions that is SRB nutrients and Bajaj auto. Subsequently, these two decisions came to be looked upon by the larger bench of the honorable Supreme Court in unicorn industries and they found that there was a decision in the year 1986, which is the decision is Modi rubber, Modi rubber union of India versus Modi rubber where the honorable Supreme Court was a larger bench decision, which had dealt with a similar issue and in that decision, the honorable Supreme Court larger bench have taken the view that see tax or duty is an independent levy and it has no bearing on the cesses is also an independent link. Therefore, whatever is applicable, suppose an exemption is applicable to the duty, a central access duty or custom duty, whatever that may be, that cannot be extended to the cesses which is not dependent on the mother levy. You cannot even call it a mother levy, both are independent of each other. So, the two decisions of the division bench that is Bajaj auto and SRB nutrients was set and not as perincurium because it had not considered the decision of the larger bench which had been pronounced in the year 1986. Now, one aspect you have understood what perincurium is because a decision an important decision of the larger bench of the honorable Supreme Court had never been brought to the notice of the division bench of the Supreme Court in these two cases. And therefore, that was never considered and that was that is the reason why it was held to be perincurium. The second aspect that we have to notice is it is a larger bench of the Supreme Court which can say or which can set up not a decision of the division bench on the aspect of perincurium by saying that it cannot be a precedent because it suffers from the fally of perincurium. You understand now. Okay. Okay, now, suppose you are faced with a case where you are arguing a case before the High Court, and you are faced with the Supreme Court decision, which has, you know, pronounced, pronounced the judgment or it has not even dealt with a particular point of argument like in the case of a sub silencio. That aspect has never been touched upon. And you are taking the argument that because this particular argument was never taken was never convinced. Therefore, it is a sub silencio and is not a precedent which can be applied. Can you take that argument is a question. It's a it's a burning question. This aspect has been dealt with by the honorable madras High Court. This is also a very, very beautifully dealt with judgment, which arose in the commercial jurisdiction, which is QD Cetamon QD Cetamon versus P Suresh. Now, before we go to the judgment, I will, the judgment has, has a passing remark they have this is the Lordship Justice Sundar has referred to the English law that arose on this aspect on the doctrine of precedence. There was a case which arose before his Lordship Justice Denning, which is Broom versus Castle, Broom versus Castle, sorry, Broom versus Castle, yes. So in Broom versus Castle see, his Lordship Justice Denning was sitting in the Court of Appeals, which is a lower court, as compared to the House of Lords House of Lords is like our Supreme Court and High Court. So in Broom versus Castle, not Denning took the view that the decision taken by the House of Lords on that particular aspect which he was dealing with in the case of Brooks versus Bernard is not correct. And he said, I will not follow it because the decision by the House of Lords is not correct. He was so bold. So the matter was taken before the House of Lords, that is the appeal as against Lord Denning's, you know, judgment. And the House of Lords came very heavily on Lord Denning and said, see, how can you ever do that? There is something called judicial discipline. Right or wrong, we have pronounced the judgment and you are bound to follow. You cannot disturb, this will only lead to anarchy and you cannot disturb what has been settled by us. And as I told you, the London tram based case, there was a clear cut category decision that any decision by the House of Lords will not be disturbed at all, and it can be done only by a further amendment by the Act of Parliament. Now, there's another case. In fact, in this case, in fact, more interesting. In this case, there was, you know, this also arose before Lord Denning. This is a case which is Shawl's mayor versus Henning, which arose in the year 1975. There was his decision was that, you know, this award for damages could be given in foreign currency. That was his decision. He refused to follow the decision of the House of Lords in United Railways. In United Railways, which was rendered in the year 1961, the House of Lords had taken the decision. Let's see, an award can never be pronounced in foreign currency. You know, imagine an Indian court giving an award in US dollars. It's something like that. So the House of Lords said that cannot be done. No, Lord Denning. Is it see 15 years have passed since 1961. And he uses the word sessante rationing, which means such circumstances cease to exist. Now the circumstances have evolved. Society has evolved. So you cannot fall back upon a decision which was rendered 15 years back, even though it may be House of Lords. Because the circumstances now cease to exist. Therefore, an award can be pronounced in foreign currency. This matter was once again taken before the House of Lords. And in fact, there were two judges. One is Lord Denning, the other judge, he gave a dissenting judgment. And I don't agree with Denning. So matter was taken to House of Lords and House of Lords once again came very heavily, came down very heavily against Lord Denning. Surprisingly, in a subsequent matter, in fact, very next year in 1976, in the case of Milambos versus George Frank, the House of Lords was faced with an identical point, identical point. Whether an award could be pronounced in foreign currency and the House of Lords took the very same view that Lord Denning had taken. So you see, in order to maintain a judicial propriety or judicial discipline, a lower court, however right he or she may be, cannot take a decision contrary to the decision taken by a higher forum. That is judicial propriety. Therefore, whether the aspect of parancourium or subsilent show can be canvased only when, you know, that particular aspect has not been dealt with, but yet the courts will be very, very shy enough to interfere in such cases, because judicial propriety or judicial discipline demands that the doctrine of precedence should not be disturbed. Now, in this particular, the all these decisions were referred to, and the argument that was taken in this QDC term, that is the decision before the metro cycle was that subsilent show is an exception to article 141. Article 141 gives the presidential value to the honorable Supreme Court decisions, which says it is law. It is law laid down by the highest court of the land. But the, his law, Laws of Justice Sundar has referred to a decision of the seven decisions and one important decision, which is Sugundi Suresh Kumar versus Jagdishan, which arose before the honorable Supreme Court in the year 2002. And I will just read that paragraph, because it will make us understand that subsilent show cannot be canvased as an exception against the judgment of the honorable Supreme Court. It is impermissible for the high court to overrule the decision of the apex court on the ground that the Supreme Court laid down the legal position without considering any other point. Okay, so here, please understand this is the, okay, because I said something, okay, we will, we will discuss it. So, it says that this aspect of subsilent, although they have not specifically mentioned this concept, this is what the honorable Supreme Court has meant that the lower court, the high court is can is absolutely not permitted to overrule the decision of the apex court on the ground. That the Supreme Court laid down the legal position without considering any other point. It is not only a matter of discipline for the high courts in India, it is the mandate of the constitution as provided in Article 141 that the law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all courts within the territory of India. Therefore, the concept of subsilent show I'm just winding up now, because I'm just awaiting questions to be asked, because it's an interesting and I am sure most of you may not agree with me, I'm happy about that. So, the concept of subsilent show and Barun Kuryam are only Brahmastras, which can be used only in the right, you know, in the right way. And it cannot be used everywhere, it cannot be used in every forum. You have to be, you have to use it very, very carefully. It may also not be accepted. So, I will just wind up. Yes, Vikas. Vikas. Yeah. So far, only one question. There is. There are two contradictory decisions, both by coordinate judges. Three judges by honorable Supreme Court in Pratish versus state of Maharashtra 2002, which says preliminary inquiry in 340 CRPC is not mandatory and accused cannot participate. But in Sharad Pawar versus Jagmond Dalmia 2016, which says preliminary inquiry is a mandatory in section 344 CRPC and accused can participate, which one holds good as both are by three judges. That's a fantastic discovery. Of course, I have to go through those judgments. But normally another judicial discipline that is usually followed by the courts is the latest is followed, which is the latest? Sharad Pawar versus Jagmond Dalmia. Okay, so the latest is followed, but has the earlier decision been referred to in this judgment? He has not spoken about that. Okay, so we'll look into that. It's an interesting thing. Give me the citation. I will look into it and perhaps, okay. No, he says no, ma'am. Okay. He says no. Okay. Even otherwise, we have a full bench also in shift, which says the larger one view is that the Not discussed. Not discussed. He says not discussed. No, there are two views even in this. I've seen that one says that you have to follow the letter one. Yes. Another says that what you find that it is more prudent, let's assume it is of the same strength. But that the same strength carries maybe refers to a much larger bench which takes into the queue. Perhaps. The decisions referred in that decision also make a difference. Yes. Even though it is by the same strength of judges, suppose in the earlier judgment, it refers to a larger bench. You know, perhaps that could have a, but normally what is followed by the high courts is the Supreme Court is the latest decision is applicable in such cases. And even otherwise. This is not a refer to no larger bench. Okay. Okay. Okay. Please give me the citation. It's interesting. I'll also have a look at it. See every for all of us, it's learning, you know, what I have told what I know I have told you what I have learned I have told you. So whatever you know, please tell me so that it'll be mutual. It's not one sided at all. Yeah. And even otherwise in these also principles that also happens even if in two in one of the judgment it could happen that a statute is considered rules are rules and regulations are concerned. And another is there is no interpretation as such and then there is a judgment. That is why I quoted that judgment about the exit scripts. In fact, in that, in that judgment, if you see the, that particular schedule has not been discussed at all. It's merely says it doesn't fall in any schedule. Actually it follows there is an entry that is it follows falls in the first schedule. And that that being shown to the honorable high court before the division bench then the judgment would have been in favor of the SSC. And we also have a one judgment out here. Latest I'm remembering that was part of leave in cashment. The learned single judge that I do not even want to does not require to be referred to a larger bench because the first judgment is simplicity on the basis of the first thumb rules principles but the rules and a full bench had not been considered. So he says that once the rule has not been considered. The full bench was not brought into the notice to the learner single judge therefore in that particular matter. Subsilent show has been employed then. Yeah. Yes, good. Yeah. So I just was checking it out on the YouTube also we don't have any sessions except that they've said excellent session by Mr. Kanan then the Prithach Sharma says thank you ma'am and Dr. Amrita says it's a great session. Thank you. Yeah, even on the Facebook I was seeing. So thank you everyone. It's a great it's a great learning for me because see I you have given me the opportunity to look into the English laws. Very interesting. Please go through all these judgments. Beautiful language is used. In fact, there is one particular statement which I forgot to mention. I'll just mention that and then we'll wind up. There is one judgment and forgetting which judgment I'll just look through. It says in fact it is a deviation from the doctrine of precedence. It says not all judgments are ex-cathedra statements. Beautiful statement, beautiful way of expressing it. What is an ex-cathedra statement? It has a biblical reference. I believe in those days the pope used to come outside the cathedral and would state principles which were dogmatic principles which had to be followed. There was no you cannot raise a finger. Not a question against the pope. Whatever he said was a law. If he said that the God had only three legs. Yes, God has three legs. That's all. So that was those were called ex-cathedra statements. So there is one judgment which says that see all judgments are not ex-cathedra statements. I look up with judgment. Please go through that. And all the judgments are very beautiful judgments, especially I've mentioned about the Jason case. He was a very renowned judge of the metropolis. A very erudite gentleman. He is no more. But please go through those judgments. This QDC is also a very beautiful judgment. All the judgments that I've cited are very beautifully rendered. One will come to, you know, we'll get to know what exactly is the doctrine of precedence, doctrine of subsidence, all these things. You know, we can have, you can have a very broader view of all these aspects. So thank you very much Vikas for the opportunity. Even otherwise in webinars, we say that we are just giving you a bird eye view. Yeah. And you can always. I will share somebody, Mr. Khandung has asked me to share. I will certainly share. They know that we share the judgments as in when the speaker shares with us. Yes, I will send a mail or WhatsApp view so you can share it with him. I will share it on the WhatsApp. And tomorrow we will have the session of part 10 by Justice V. Ramkumar on charge and discharge on section 222 of CRBC. Two stay connected with us tomorrow at 5 p.m. And thank you for sharing your insights. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. And happy weekend to all of you. Thank you.


Well, hello and welcome to Understand Men Now. I'm Johnathan Asley of JohnathanAsley.com and I'm so excited to be doing this live stream for you today. Our topic, men always respect and understand women who do this. We're gonna talk about three things that they do that's awesome to get that high value guy. Really quickly, if you're brand new to my YouTube channel, please hit the subscribe button, hit the bell so you can be notified of new videos. And if any time during this video, the content resonates with you, please hit that like button so I could be seen in the YouTube algorithms. Really quickly, my coaching is what I call heart centered radical honesty. It's direct, a little tough love and a lot of heart. Occasionally I use expletives to enhance the sentence and if an F bomb or two isn't your cup of tea, I highly recommend suggest logging off right now. And lastly, these are just my thoughts, my opinions, my perceptions by no stretch of the means is this the truth? You have to decide the truth for yourself. And my hope is I can shake you up a little bit to open and expand your consciousness. All right, let's talk about those things. Women can do, how men will respect and understand women, especially if you're doing this. Now it's interesting, I think we would all agree that respect is rather important in a relationship. And I know I've spoken to thousands of women or feels like tens of thousands of women in my coaching career. And I will say respect is one of the most important things from a woman's perspective. And certainly it's true for men as well. Is that we have to feel like this is a person we can trust that we feel that there's a sense of integrity and more importantly beyond the integrity and their character is do they really fit into what I'm looking for in my life? And I would want to differentiate between high value men and say the average guy. And what I mean by the average guy, I mean about that emotionally stunted human being who really doesn't have good EQ and they're very myopic in their dating practice. They're very tunnel vision in their dating practice.   And I know it can be rather frustrating because quite frankly, 80% if not more of those singles looking for love, and this is true of men and women alike who are actually very emotionally stunted and have weak communication skills to truly articulate from themselves to be seen, heard and understood by the other person. It's interesting, I recently, and I mean literally just recently had a conversation with a moment from a dating site. And I really appreciated that from the moment we began talking, we could go to the deeper level of conversation instead of the surface level conversation.  So let's jump into the three things that a woman can do that can absolutely shift your experience in the early stages of dating, mating and relating when you're with this high value guy. Now, I know you're not gonna know he's high value from the beginning. So I just want you to, my invitation for you is to operate from this premise. And hopefully if you're with the right guy, he's going to appreciate it. And if you're with the wrong guy, I promise you he won't, okay? So I'm gonna start and actually this piggybacks on the video I shot this morning, it's called a short that I shot this morning about two things men respect. We're actually gonna expand upon it a little bit more. And that's what gave me the impetus to do this today. So number one, high value men respect women who put in mutual effort in the dating process. Women who put in mutual effort. You know, it's interesting. A lot of conversations in the dating realm, centers around who should pay for a date. And I like what Matthew Hussie said some years ago, and this illustrates the point I'm about to make in a moment, Matthew Hussie and his video about who pays for a date. You can go Google it or YouTube it later. He says, if a man was raised right, he would pay for the date. If a woman was raised right, she would offer to contribute. Now, the point I'm making here is centered around, and by the way, I'm not getting into who invited the other person out whatnot, but in the dating realm today, for the most part, 95% of people are meeting total strangers.  There's no one degree of separation out there. So your first date is actually just a meeting and not necessarily a true date. It's a meeting. So why I think he suggested that is it demonstrates making effort. What men appreciate most, and you know, we could substitute the word respect with appreciation. What men appreciate most is women who make effort. In the video I shot previously, for example, if you've gone on two or three dates with a guy, then you know what? On the fourth date, invite him out. Men appreciate and respect women who make effort in the process. Now, I know you're told men are supposed to lead. Listen, controlling men want to lead the dating process. The controlling men typically want to lead the dating process. Beta men want you to lead the dating process. Let me repeat that. Beta men want you to lead the process. And the high value guy, the high value man, is seeking a life partner. He's looking at it from the perspective of traveling on a two-lane street and your cars are making mutual effort at speed, at the same speed. By the way, let's not get fixated on the who pays for date. I'm just using that as an example in this analogy. But this also includes calling, you know, the fear, a lot of women fear just calling up a guy because you've been told that men are supposed to take charge and be completely in charge because that demonstrates whether or not they're into you. I'm gonna tell you something, ladies, especially for those of you at midlife and my specialty is midlife, after baby making years and before retirement, is men in their 40s, 50s or 60s, they don't have the testosterone level they have in their 20s. They're not totally chasing sex. By the way, when you're told men are on the hunt, they're just on the hunt for sex. It's not they, I want a relationship, I want a relationship. That's not what they're on the hunt for. So when you're actually mutually making effort in the process, we actually respect you more. In fact, I did a study in a men's group I belong to 15,000 men in a group. And I posed a question similar to what I just shared. And over 1,000 of them commented, she's one of a kind, she's a keeper, don't let her go, she's a unicorn. When a woman makes effort in the process, we actually respect you far greater than the expectation, the narrative you've all been sold that men are the leaders of the relationship. So again, controlling men are turned off by women who make effort. Beta men, they want you to make all the effort. The high value man is seeking a mutual, a woman who makes a mutual investment, just like I shared before. All right, number two, and this is hugely important, is a woman who speaks up, a woman who speaks up. One of men's greatest complaints about women, at least I've heard this 1,000 times, is we men are not mind readers. If something is bothering you, if something is on your mind, and it has, and it's material to the relationship or material to the success of the relationship, then please speak up, folks. By keeping your voice, or keeping your voice stifled by not speaking up in relationship, and then weeks go by, and then it begins to fester, and then you blow up at us for what happened, that we couldn't read your mind, we high value men appreciate women who are forthright, who speak their mind, who actually have established their standards and established their boundaries. We are highly attracted to women who express their standards and express their boundaries rather early in the process. And if you're not comfortable with that, then I highly recommend checking out my book, What the Heck Is Self Love Anyway? What the Heck Is Self Love Anyway? Chapter one is speak your truth, do it with kindness. Later on in the book, chapter nine says, if it's sincere and from the heart, you can't say the wrong thing to the right guy.  The minute you ever feel a fear that if I speaking up, someone's gonna break up with you, then he has the power in the relationship. He has the power. And folks, if you're giving your power away to a man, most, again, most men are either controlling or beta, so the controlling guy is gonna abuse it, he's gonna take advantage of you. And the beta guy, how would the beta guy reply when you don't speak your truth? Quite frankly, when you're with the beta guy, you're already in charge of the relationship and he's the one afraid to speak his truth. So it's a lose, lose in both cases, okay? Being with the controlling guy. And by the way, alphas are oftentimes controlling. Let me repeat that, alphas are oftentimes controlling.  But let me tell you something, they don't make really good partners for the most part. By the way, my cup says, swear a little, you'll feel better, swear a little, you'll feel better. As I said before, I do throw an F bomb here or there. All right, so speak your truth. Stop being afraid. Being afraid doesn't help you and quite frankly, you're hurting the relationship when you're afraid to speak your truth. Okay, number three, and that is no pressure, no pressure. Folks, here's the thing. We men are ladies, I should say. Well, let me just say this. When I said folks, I meant ladies, okay? We men have a propensity to believe that you want a relationship more than we do. I'm gonna repeat that. We kind of had this predisposition that you are more needy in relationship than we are. Whether that's true or not, that's a whole nother conversation, but we literally start with that expectation. So the best way to take pressure off of a man who has this expectation is to express your standards very early on in the relationship, and then when your standards aren't being met, express your boundaries. Now standards might look like something like this.  That's my standard, is I'm not looking to date multiple people at the same time and I'm not looking for a woman who dates multiple people at the same time. And certainly if we're being intimate together, the last thing I want is catching cooties from someone else, okay? By the way, does that basically scream I'm a boomer when I use the word cooties? When I was growing up in the 60s, 60s and 70s, I should say cooties was a big word. So with that said, that's my standard and I invite you to express your standard from the get-go because when you do and you set up your boundaries associated with those standards, then you're not putting any pressure on the guy. By the way, I know going back to the previous thing about speaking up, you feel like you might scare a guy away. It's quite the opposite. When you lean into your feelings, not only are you speaking your truth, which is hugely important, you're also taking the pressure off of us when you actually encourage healthy communication in the relationship. You know what fascinates me is I interview hundreds of women in relationships and it fascinates me how few of them they're strung out on a guy, they're absolutely hooked on a guy, but they actually don't have a real deep friendship with the guy, they feel such fear of speaking up and because of that, they're also putting tremendous pressure on the relationship by not speaking up because we're having to fill in the gap of the expectation that you want more than us.  Those who know my languaging is to read the book Eight Dates by Drs. John and Julie Gottman, Eight Dates by Drs. John and Julie Gottman and the reason why I recommend this is you can have deeper conversations about what your standards are and what your boundaries are in relationship because then that takes all the pressure off of the expectation that it's all on the guy and let's be clear, men are rather fucking clueless these days. I mean, ridiculously clueless. Men in their 20s and 30s who are on a hunt for a wife, they are very tunnel vision. They go after what they want. For the demographics in the 40s, 50s and 60s, they're rather clueless because they're no longer on the hunt for a wife and quite frankly, most humans don't know how to blend lives together. Let me repeat that. Most humans in their 40s, 50s, 60s know how to blend lives and let me give you an analogy. You know, I'm in my 50s. Let's consider my life a 450 piece puzzle. And let's say I meet a woman and her life is readily established and she's also close to my age and she has 440 pieces in her puzzle. Here's the problem. A healthy relationship might be 500 pieces. You're going to have to make compromises and changes in each other's lives to be able to take 450 and 440 and make it 500 pieces. And this is why so many of you, I witness you make mistakes over and over again because you have this expectation that love will just solve everything because love is the magic fairy dust to fix incompatibility. Those who know me know my relationship iceberg. Here, I'm going to give it to you really quickly. And that is relationship iceberg. The tip of the iceberg is chemistry. That's what we all see. That's where attraction lies but below the water line is compatibility. Shared values, blendable lifestyles and emotional maturity. That's where the work is. We can all have chemistry. That's the easy part. Although it doesn't feel that way because most of the time in our 40s, 50s or 60s we don't feel attracted to most people because the reality is people in their 50s and 60s are ridiculously out of shape.   They're losing all their body parts or they have to put in body parts to change their body parts. And this is why we're having so many challenges because people focus on the surface above the water and not below the water. And my hope is that my advice expands your horizons, makes you look at things a different way and says, ah, wait a minute. You know what? Maybe that old way I was taught to date should be replaced with a new way to date, mate, and relate and that's my invitation for you all. So just a repeat. To get a man to respect and understand you, I'd like to encourage you to do this. See the dating process as being mutual effort. It's a two lane street. Number two, I highly encourage you to speak up. Speak your truth. Just do it kindly. And remember, you can't say the wrong thing to the right guy. And number three, no pressure.  And a boundary as Brené Brown says is what's okay and what's not okay for me. All right. That gives you the gist of where we're going today. Perfect time to start with our Q and A. Those who are regulars on my live stream know that on my YouTube channel here there's a live chat box for those who are listening to the recording. There's no way to chime in. So those who are listening, you can post a question by writing the word question and then write the word question and then post your question thereafter with a question mark so I can see it. And or you can purchase a super sticker and super chat. Those who know me know that the monies that come in from the super stickers, super chats go to a scholarship fund in the name of my son, Connor Asley, who passed away. There's a picture of him there with me. And it's to help defray the cost of personal development for those who want to do personal development work. And I also donate to the Hoffman process and to Insight seminars. So purchase a super sticker, super chat. And by the way, purchase a super sticker, super chat just to tell me that I'm doing a good job that makes me feel good. And I hope, please do it if you feel like I'm providing value to you. All right, let's jump into the Q and A part. Bum, bum, bum. Oops, let me clean my glasses real quick. All right, let's go swimming. Doug says, ah, yes, interesting. Thank you so much. Let's see, do we have any questions? Post the word question and then write your question there after. Let's see if we have any questions. Lillian says, I'm not a boomer. I am. Tail end, the very tail end of the boomers. All right. When it was reversed, I was in my chaser phase. I told him what I wanted to go vacation now. I love planning vacations. I found a yacht club near our new office. Where do you want to go? I love that. That I did get a question that came in. So I'm going to post it for everyone here. Because I thought this was a good question. So bear with me everyone, bum, bum, bum. Okay, so this question actually came in previously. So the question is Jonathan. I've been told that men are supposed to lead the dating process, but that doesn't feel right to me. What do you say? Jonathan, I've been told that men are the leaders of the dating process. What do you say about that? Great question, so happy you asked that. So what's interesting is that I just had a client call me yesterday. Now this is a client who went through my private coaching program. It's a six week boot camp that I literally retrain your whole thinking on the way we date, mate, and relate. And literally I will tell you I get clients who call me up after they've gone through my boot camp and say, Jonathan, I met a great guy. Jonathan, I met a great guy. Jonathan, I met a great guy. And she went through the boot camp six months ago. And when she finished, I said to her, I had this intuition, she would meet a great guy. And it turns out she did. And what she called me yesterday to give me the 411 on what happened. And what was interesting was they met during, where they lived is in Europe and they were in lockdown some months ago. And so they met online and most of their communication for about two months was online.  And when they were finally able to meet in person they got together in a safe way from what I understand. And they were able to have, they were able to have a date. And she told me they had a really great time. He was really into her. It was very, felt very safe. It felt very comfortable because they had spent some time building up a little bit of familiarity with each other. So when they met it felt very comfortable and safe for her. So what was interesting is after the date he indicated he'd reach out to her and one day went by and two days went by and three days went by and he didn't reach out to her. And she thought that was kind of suspicious based on all the communication they had and everything. And what she was telling me was all her friends said, no, no, don't reach out to him. Don't reach out to him. Don't reach out to him. Men are supposed to chase. Men are supposed to lead. Men are supposed to do this. All the men are supposed to do things. Well, she actually reached out to him and invite him out for a drink. She said, I'm a text message. Hey, I just wanted to check in with you. I think this was the fourth or fifth day. And he said, hey, listen, I just wanted to, I had such a great time. I'd like to take you out for a drink. And he said, sure. And so when they got together for a drink he said, she said, you know, I kind of thought it was a little suspicious that you didn't reach out to me after we had this, what I thought was a good day. And he was very forthright. He said, he said, first off, he apologized. He said, well, two things. He said he wasn't 100% sure she was into him. He wasn't 100% sure she was into him, number one. And number two, he was going through some personal stuff. And so, and he was incredibly grateful she reached out to him. She was so grateful. She reached out to him. Not because he's this beta male, it's because he was a little preoccupied and he was a little uncertain if she was into him. By making that effort, kind of going back to what I talked about earlier, making mutual effort in the process, it turns out they had a great second date. The second date a few days later turned into a third date. The third date turned into a fourth date. And now three months later, she's calling me up to give me the 4-1-1 on everything. They're in a fantastic relationship. So going back to the original question, her advice from her girlfriends was, no, no, no. Men are supposed to chase, men are supposed to pursue, men are supposed to leave. Folks, here at Midlife, it's a whole different ballgame. You can't apply advice for 20 and 30-year-olds to 40, 50 and 60-year-olds. I think one of the things, and this is gonna be me being a little arrogant for a moment, what I think makes me unique as a dating coach is I was married, gone through a divorce, lost all my money in the marketplace, I did drugs and alcohol, I was a train wreck. Then I did personal development work to begin to heal. I found my passion in life being a dating relationship coach. Why I share this is I understand alimony, child support, visitation rights, erectile dysfunction, women are going through menopause, elderly parents going through assisted living, and worse, going through the trauma of losing my child. Those, again, though, there's kinda right there. So I've been through hell. And why I share this with you is most people in their 40s, 50s and 60s go through hell in some way, shape, or form. We call this midlife crisis. And the sad thing is you can't apply advice, this whole masculine energy is supposed to do and feminine energy just leans back and you just sit back and let the man pursue and he'll just gravitate towards you and he's gonna claim you. That doesn't work for the 40s, 50s and 60 categories. We're riddled with flaws, we're riddled with woundedness. This is why I'm such a big proponent of doing the inner work before you do any dating. This is why I continually recommend the book The Hoffman Process, The Hoffman Process, which helps you heal childhood wounds and traumas as well as adult traumas because it causes our negative patterns and limiting beliefs. And what happens is why this is so hugely important in the dating conversation is because most men and women are good human beings. Most men and women are good human beings. They're just bad at the dating process. And the fact is, as I shared before, we come to the table with full lives and this whole narrative that men are supposed to chase and they're supposed to claim you. Yeah, that might sound good to sell you on a program, someone's trying to sell you, but that's not how it works for the 40, 50-year-old catty. Yes, there are controlling men who will chase you. There's no doubt about it. There are beta men that want you to chase them. The high value guy is seeking a partnership. He's seeking that woman is gonna say, hey, sweetheart, can I take you out for a drink? He's looking for that woman that says, hey, sweetheart, you were just on my mind. That's why I called you because I know you've been so indoctrinated that men are supposed to do 99% of the work. Men, as we age, they get tired, okay? We want you to make effort. The emotionally mature men. Emotionally stunted men? Well, here's the challenge. If you don't know how to figure out how to vet for emotional maturity, then I highly recommend checking out the link below to scheduling a discovery call with me to see if working with the coach is right for you. My area of expertise is to help you vet for emotional maturity and teach you the right questions to ask. So coming back to this client, one of the things she said to me when we had our conversation yesterday was how grateful she was that I helped her form all the right questions based on her personality to really vet if this is the right guy for her. And you know the funny thing was when she was coaching with me, she was strung out on some previous guy. All she talked about was some guy that broke up with her six months earlier and all she could talk about was him. And she was so afraid to date by taking the courage and making the investment in herself and going through my program, she put herself out there, met what appears to be a great guy and their relationship is blooming. And you know what, I know this because she finally knows the difference between a guy who's emotionally unhealthy and the guy who's ready to lean into a relationship. So coming back to the original question was here's the bottom line. Don't be afraid to make effort. In fact, I encourage you to make effort because at the, and by the way, for the men who are listening to this on the live chat, I guarantee you they're giving the thumbs up. The quality men who are following my work as well are saying to all of you, yes, ladies, we appreciate women who make effort because that's actually how we respect you even more and we appreciate you more and we're gonna lean in stronger to the relationship. Let me end on this one note. Never make more effort than he. It's a two lane street of effort. It's not doing more. By the way, giving more love doesn't get you more love. Especially if you're with someone who can't give you love. Giving more love is not gonna get you more love. I'm talking about effort is mutual. And that's highly sexy. And so if you really want a relationship that's co-created that has a strong bond, I recommend making mutual effort. Thank you so much for that question. I really appreciate it. All right. I wanna thank Tim for the super sticker. Thank you so much. Anna writes, okay, question. Why would a guy be okay and tell him and you tell him I'm done and calls you and texts you like nothing ever happened the next day? Why would a guy be okay and you tell him you're done? Okay, so if I understand the question correctly is you've told the guy you've ended the relationship and he continues to reach out. Great question.  The little kid inside of him is wounded. And he's upset.  It's like his teacher got upset with him and he's trying to, maybe he's trying to please you. He's trying to show he's making effort. The bottom line is why he does it. Let me be frank with you. Is it relevant? Why do you care about the why? Why do you care about the why? I mean, why is it so important to know why he does it? Real question is why are you still engaging? If you need to block him on your phone, that could be something you can do or maybe you can politely say, hey, listen, I prefer that we have no further communication anymore, but there's probably something you're getting out of it. Let me repeat that. You're probably getting something out of it. The fact that you told him no and he's giving you effort, I suspect, and I'm not saying this is an absolute, but I suspect your ego actually appreciates that because most human ego will appreciate that because the unhealthy ego appreciates it when someone likes us. So I just invite you not to care about the why and I invite you to move on by simply sending a final message and if need be, block him in your life, if that's what you need to do. But the why is irrelevant because I can give you 100 reasons why. It doesn't matter why. What matters most is why are you engaging? That's my invitation for you anyway. Thank you so much for that question and I really appreciate it. All right, let's go swim in. Let's go, oh, here we go. Sin writes, question, do you think chemistry between man and woman overrated and can chemistry develop over time if it's not there when you first meet? Okay, great question. Can chemistry develop over time? So I think for most men, we need to feel physical attraction, otherwise we're not going to make efforts.  The equipment is like this, if we don't feel attracted, the equipment, it doesn't, well, actually take that back. I'll take a quote from when Harry met Sally. In the movie, Harry met Sally, Sally says, or Harry says men and women can't be friends and he says, why?   Okay, so attraction is what we need to be in a long-term relationship, not to get late.  And by the way, that's no disrespect to attractiveness because, you know, beauty is in the eye of beholder. Okay, so I'm not here to suggest that this is related to beauty. I'm relating this to someone attractiveness. We all have a different type.   I work out every day. I mean, so I'd like to think I'm in way better shape. But my point is everybody has a different body type.  That's not me. I'm not the Kardashian butt type. So coming back to chemistry. So for women, I think it's a little bit different. Dr. Pat Allen says men fall in love through their eyes and women fall in love through their ears. And I think what she meant by that is men are visual creatures. We are more, chemistry for us is basically a visual thing. I think for women, it's actually more of an emotional thing. Now, that's not to say you want to date a guy who's missing teeth and got a beer gut the size of Texas. That's not what I'm talking about. But, and I just noticed that women tend to be not as focused on physical attraction to feel chemistry. Now, here's the bottom line though, coming back to chemistry. Chemistry isn't just a physical attraction thing. It's actually an emotional thing. Are you clicking with this other person? I really believe it's not as much about physical attraction as it is about emotional or more so, energetic connection. Do they get your sense of humor? Do they get your sense of humor? Do they appreciate your values, you know? Does your lifestyles fit in with one another? And most importantly, are they emotionally mature? I think something that's highly sexy is emotional maturity. And when I said 80% of the population is emotionally stunted at best, it's one of the reasons why you go on date after date after date and feel no chemistry with someone. Here's the thing, everybody is different. Can it grow over time? I think attraction can grow over time. I think chemistry is either there or it's not. However, attraction can grow over time. And I think chemistry, okay, I'm gonna negate what I said a moment ago, and let me explain why. I think it's there, I said chemistry is there or not. What I mean to say is when two souls connect, it's either there or it's not. I think when two souls connect, it's there or not. And it just takes a little time to develop that connection, okay? We often, sometimes I think there's a soul connection going on and we interpret it as chemistry. Sometimes we can look at the other way around. I'm just here to say is this. So long as you're not repulsed by a guy, if you feel, maybe you may not be attracted to them, but you feel a great energetic connection with them, go out with them two or three times, maybe four times, because you might be surprised. For us men, we hyper focus on physical attraction.  Let's just face it, advertising does nothing but exploit women's beauty. So we've been bombarded by visualization, movies, magazines, and now the internet, it's a bombardment and let's not even get into porn for a second. So for us, physical attraction is rather important. It's not the only thing, it's just as important. And I understand it's important for you as well. Going back to the question, can chemistry develop over time? I do believe you can become more and more attracted to a person over time or worse, you can be very attracted to them beginning and become less and less attracted to them as you get to know them. Let me repeat that one more time. Attraction can grow over time or worse, you can be attracted and lose attraction over time. So I hope that answers your question. That was a great question, Sin, thank you so much. All right, a next question right above it. Question, once a doctor asked me to visit him at work, I refused, I thought it would have, I thought he would have asked me out for a drink. I've been thinking of him lately, should I contact him and see if he is free? So a doctor, so let's be clear, is this a medical doctor or a psychologist because that's absolutely crossing a line of a therapist or a psychologist, okay? Because you're not supposed to date a patient. Actually, I don't know if medical doctors can date a patient. I'm assuming there's probably not an issue there, but it could be. So with that said, here's the thing. Of course you can ask him out for a drink, you can make a suggestion. If you like this person, he's interested in you, absolutely can you connect together and have a drink together, why not? Going back to the conversation about mutual effort, listen, listen, I know you're not afraid, but if you are afraid, this fear that many people are feeling around making effort, let's stop it. Let's pick up our britches and say, you know what, the dating process is no different than making a brand new friend. I'm gonna repeat that, the dating process is no different than making a brand new friend. When you're making a brand new friend, you make mutual effort. This narrative that you've been sold is good for a bunch of 20 and 30 year olds, but if you're in the 40, 50 and 60 year old category, men want you to make effort. So when you make effort, it lets us know you're interested and it takes the pressure off of us because most men are rather clueless. In fact, I continually say ladies, stop expecting men to lead the dating process. You are in charge of your relationship destiny, so start taking charge and don't be afraid to ask them out for a drink. What's the worst, by the way, what's the worst thing that can happen? A drink is 15 bucks each, so you drop $30 plus tax and tip investment in him.  Let's take off the expectations and start leaning into our heart. I highly recommend everybody reading the book if the Buddha dated, if the Buddha dated.  Let me repeat that, it teaches you how to date at a heart-centered place. Isn't that ultimately what you want? Don't you want a heart-centered relationship?  I'm offering an alternate way of looking at it.  Think of it, it really is a clusterfuck because of gender expectations. When we take the expect, by the way, I know men have higher testosterone and women have estrogen and we can talk about the way they were raised and everything. The reality is as humans are riddled with flaws. Biology, instinct, and I know you've heard the narrative about men are provider protectors, women are nurturers and all that stuff, but at the end of the day, we are all just human beings hurting on the inside. The number one emotional health issue for most humans is, I'm not good enough. I'm not lovable and I'm not likable. And dating triggers that like nobody's business. That's why repetitive dating does more emotional damage than good. That's why I wanna teach you how to vet for emotional maturity and how to determine compatibility much sooner before you give your heart away to a guy. So going back to your question, absolutely reach out to him and ask him out for a drink. I think it'd be a great thing to do. Thank you so much for that question. I wanna thank Anna for the super sticker, much appreciated. Doug says, yes, I totally agree. It certainly doesn't end at 61, see? All right, let's go swim in. Do we have any, Tracy's got a question here. Question, how do you get a guy to open up to you that seems very interested in you, but has a lot of walls? He was very wounded from the past. Okay, great question. He was wounded from the past. Okay, couple of things. You can't heal a man. Well, by the way, let me refrain that. You cannot heal another human being. They have to do it on their own. If they've done no personal development work, self-help work, spiritual work or introspective work to heal a past relationship, you're swimming in shark-infested waters. Let me repeat that, depending on how traumatized it was. Now, how do you get a man to open up? Ladies, there's only one formula to get a man to open up and that is speak your truth, do it with kindness. And when I mean to say start expressing your feelings about him and the relationship and invite him to express his feelings. Now, this is what might happen. You spent seven minutes expressing your feelings and then he expresses his feelings, if he does, and he spends 32 seconds and you're going, but I spent seven minutes and he only spent 32 seconds. Ladies, that 32 seconds is 31.9 seconds more than he wanted to do. So be grateful for the 32 seconds and don't make that space in between drama which you can all do. You can all create irrational drama that he did less. Then the next time, you spend seven minutes expressing your feelings but he spends 47 seconds the next time and a minute and a half the next time and a minute the next time. The way to get a guy to open up, it's like an elephant.  One bite at a time. The only way to get a guy to open up is to express your feelings and then invite him to express his feelings about the relationship. Folks, the dating, mating, or relating process is all about, let's just have a good time. It's all about having a good time. You know what? It's only about having a good time.  What's your day like? Oh, did you have a good day? I hope you had a good day. Did you have a fabulous day? Oh, by the way, I hope you had a fabulous day.  Or worse, they're vomiting their problems just to have someone else listen to them. If you really wanna connect at an emotional level, then you must go deeper. That's why, again, I'm gonna repeat this book again. Eight Dates by Drs. John and Julie Gottman. If you wanna get to a deeper conversation, then start having deeper conversations with a guy. And I highly recommend everybody purchasing the book Nonviolent Communication by Marshall Rosenberg. Most women communicate their feelings in a very combative way, a very violent way. And I'm here to say this book should have been titled Compassionate Communication because when you learn compassionate communication, you're gonna have a much greater chance for success. And I wanna invite you, this is a book I haven't talked about in a while, I invite you to learn to read the book, how to be an adult in relationship.   And by the way, ladies, I know you think you're better than men in this area. You are equally as bad. And I know this because I'm out there in the dating realm and I witness it over and over and over again. Most of you are just as emotionally stunted as men. So be careful pointing the finger at men because when you point a finger, there's three fingers pointing back at you. So with that said, fuck, I forgot the original question. I had a brain part there. What was the question? Oh, sorry, that was a different one. Anyways, you get the point of where I'm going. You know me, I go off on all these tangents. All right, thanks so much for that question. I really appreciate it. And I forgot what it was. How to get a guy to open, there it is. How to get a guy to open up. So just to repeat, express yourself, invite him to express yourself and then go from there. Great. Okay, A.M. writes, if the Buddha dated, um, what a concept, yes, I'm getting it. By the way, there's a link to all my recommended books below. Jonathan recommend books. Of all the books I recommend are located below. Hillary says, another great book. I've bought so many of your recommendations. So happy to hear that. All right. Sin says, Jonathan recommends such great books. And by the way, don't forget my book.   All right. Oh, looks like two people are flirting with each other on my chat box. I love it. Someone wants to get the other person's Instagram. Cool. I'm loving it. Um, okay.  What should I do? What should I do? A guy I like shows very little interest. He texts randomly, never inconsistent, never to talk to me. Should I move on and block him? First off, I don't think you should block someone, but listen, if, well, it doesn't even sound like you're dating. You like this guy. So if you like him, listen, be bold, reach out to him, invite him out for a drink, tell him you like him, okay? Invite him out for a drink, tell him you like him. If he's interested, he might jump in. If he's not interested, he won't take you up on the offer. I mean, it really is that simple. Just invite him out for a drink and tell him you like him. And would you be exploring getting to know one another? Either he's going to jump in or he's not.  Because you got to be careful of that. And that's why I teach you in my coaching how to avoid that. But ultimately, it's as simple as that.  And if you need to, then stop communication and move on, okay? It's that simple. Reach out to him and tell him you like him. If he wants, and by the way, I've had women reach out to me. They said, hey, Jonathan, you're an interesting guy. I'd like to take you out for a drink. I've gone out with drinks. In fact, a couple of women, I dated a little bit, but we weren't compatible with one another. We were totally misaligned. Our lifestyles were different. Actually, in my case, most of the time, women are emotionally just, listen, I know it can be intimidating dating a guy like me because I'm not to suggest that I have high emotional IQ. But I certainly have a desire for someone to have emotional IQ at my level. And I recognize just like men, women have weak emotional IQ too. Going back to your question, invite him out, see what happens. Thank you so much for your question. I really appreciate it. I wanna thank Connie for the Super Sticker. Thank you so much. If you wanna purchase a Super Sticker Super Chat, just remember the funds go to a scholarship fund in the name of Connor Asley. Isn't he cute? Oh, now I'm gonna cry. Yesterday, I was driving home and I saw a young boy that looked just like Connor. And it was like a punch in the gut.  No parent should ever see their child lifeless. And I miss his cuteness. I miss his personality. In fact, this book was dedicated to him.  And why I share this with everyone right at this moment is I witness women giving their power away to men.   It's time, I wanna encourage everyone to stand in their power, to stand in their sovereignty, in their self-worth, self-esteem, self-confidence, self-reliance. And just if you can do that in Connor's name, maybe if I give you a little boost and give you some of the love he gave me. And I wanna encourage so many of you to stand in your power because the one thing my beautiful son did, I never witnessed a young person be so in his power the way he was. And he lived life to the fullest, literally up until the last moment. And all right, let me come back to center here. Thank you for letting me ramble. I don't know why I did that. Thank you so much. And thank you so much for the super stickers. I wanna thank Tracy for the super sticker. I wanna thank Ziba, Zibi, Zibi for the super sticker. Oh, Doug, thanks so much for the super sticker. I really appreciate that. Everyone, thank you for allowing me to share that with you all.  Read my book, thank you. All right, let's see what other questions we have before we wrap up today. Leanna says, breaks my heart whenever you get choked up about Connor. Thank you so much. Sin says, I'm so sorry for your loss. Thank you so much. I appreciate that. Lillian says, question. Please explain the difference between allowing him to open up versus being his therapist. Okay, great. Great question. So here's the thing.   And at the same time, you can be ridiculously enabling. I repeat that, you're beautiful creatures. You can be nurturing and enabling at the same time. There's a big difference between someone expressing fears and expressing problems, okay? A lot of men might vomit their problems. They might complain about their ex-spouse. They might complain about their job. They might complain about a coworker. People who complain are just venting. And that when someone's venting, oftentimes they just want you to hold space and listen, but even then, most of the time, they just want you to validate their dysfunction. When a person is really sincere, like when I was dating my significant relationship and I was experiencing some shame around the fact that I lost my quarter million dollar year job and I was being very vulnerable, authentic, and transparent. I'm gonna repeat that, vulnerable, authentic, and transparent. I was sharing something very shameful for me, from me. She just held space. She just held space. And at the end, she just gave me a hug and said, you're loved. Here's the thing. When someone's vomiting their problems or complaints, they're expecting you to validate them. When someone's actually expressing a fear and insecurity, like, and I'll be candid with you. In the dating realm, for me today, I oftentimes talk about my son. I become very vulnerable, authentic, and transparent. And all I'm seeking for a person is not to say anything, just to hold space. Just like ladies, when you want to vent something, you're not asking the guy to fix it. You just want him to hold space. It's the same for men. You don't have to do anything. Just hold the space. Is that sinking in? I hope so. Lillian, thank you so much for that question. Oh, Tim, thank you so much.  He gave a gift to all of us. My son gave us all a gift. I am the portal for Connor right now to spread his love to all of you. So thank you so much. Tracy, Connor sounds like a wonderful young man. Inspiration, believe me.  Boy, if I thought I was a picky eater, he was the pickiest eater on the planet. Oh my God, it was so hard to pick a restaurant for him. But anyway, and I say that with love, by the way. Lisa says, your videos always keep me in line during the dating process. Exactly. Stop listening to the narratives and start shifting. That's my invitation for everyone. All right, let's go. Oh, here we go. Chloe says, question. What does men think about us when we are the one reaching out to him? Okay, yeah. Great question. Here's, when I talk about reaching out ladies, I'm not talking you make five phone calls to every one of his phone calls or you make five text messages to every one of his text messages. That is not what I mean. I don't mean four to his one. I don't mean three to his one. I don't mean two to his one. Here's the thing. If he made effort, you make effort. If you make effort, he should make effort. If he makes effort, you should make effort. If you make effort, he should make effort. And I use the word should, mutual investment into each other. It becomes chasing when he makes effort and then you make effort after, effort after, effort after, effort after. That's chasing, and that's what I mean by, I'm spitting, that's what I mean by making effort. So when he makes effort, you make effort. When you make effort, he makes effort. Is that, it's just that simple. It's that simple. Men appreciate women who make effort. In fact, it actually takes the pressure off of us. Now, if we're not that, if, listen, for guys who just wanna get laid, they're in and out quickly. But umpum. Yeah, guys who just wanna get laid, literally are in and out quickly because they prematurely ejaculate. And I'm just kidding, because most men in their 50s and 60s have a hard time ejaculating. It becomes incredibly harder as we age. There are the exceptions, but most guys have a harder time with that, harder. Anyway, but men who are in it for the short run, they're not looking for a woman to make effort. They make quick effort and they're out. Men who are dysfunctional might feel needy based on your effort. You don't want that guy either.   But we don't wanna go into that anyway. Mutual effort. You make effort, he makes effort. He makes effort, you make effort. That's my invitation for you all. Is that sinking in? All right, let's go swimming. Michelle says, Doug's a great guy. Ladies, great men are following my channel. I love reading that. All right, let's see. If you have a question, post the word question, then write the question out. Oh, Kaz meant say, oops, I meant to ask, should I be patient with him? I love him a lot. He shows his love with his actions. Okay, so those are familiar with the five love languages, the five love languages. If you're not, Google it, buy the book, do the test online. The five love languages are words of affirmation or for us, Leo's words of adoration, physical touch, quality time, acts of service and gifts. If a man is acts of service, that's how he shows love and that's how he typically appreciates love. Most women can be gifts or service, but women typically also want the words because sadly, women tend to need more validation in the relationship than men. I'm gonna repeat that. Women tend to need more validation than men. And a lot of men don't give validation to you in the relationship. Now, genuinely men who are actually in love with their partners tend to be pretty good at it. They might give a ratio of like, for every three times you're giving love, he does two or for every four times he does three or for every five times he does three. So it might be a little lopsided, might feel that way. Here's the thing, if he's giving you love, you're five to three and I don't want it to be too lopsided, appreciate his efforts. If he's genuinely vulnerable, authentic, transparent with you, if he's genuinely making repetitive effort in the relationship, then just be grateful. He might not always say in the words, but the fact that he's showing up consistently is a good indication.    Don't ever read the book, The Rules, because that teaches you manipulative way of short-term attraction and not the real long-term attraction that I talk about. So thank you so much, I appreciate that. Okay, Sunshine says, okay, I just bought your book, Eight Dates and Another One. Well, my book, Eight Dates and Another One, great. All right, we're gonna take one or two more questions or I'm gonna save the last two minutes or few minutes. If you have a personal question for me, please, feel free to ask me a personal question before I wrap up. All right, here's a good one. How do you prevent overgiving from the start? Folks, if he makes effort, you make effort. If you make effort, he makes effort. If he makes effort, you make effort. Overgiving is he made effort and you keep making effort, keep making effort, keep making effort. You may have to keep a scorecard if you feel like you overgive. I don't know. I'm not suggesting that, I don't feel like that's healthy, but the bottom line is this, you've gotta pay attention. By the way, the dance of a relationship should be a mutual dance of getting to know one another. It shouldn't, the right relationship, there's the thing, the right relationships, you don't need to follow my channel when you're in the right relationship. You really don't. So don't worry about the overgiving. Just recognize when it's lopsided, pull back and see where you're at. Okay, great question. Personal question, Jonathan, what are your top three non-negotiables from Sadie? What are my top three non-negotiables? I definitely don't want a smoker. I definitely don't want a smoker. What else? I don't want a complainer. I definitely don't want a complainer. It's interesting, or let me reframe that. I've witnessed some women who have habitual problems. I mean, it's like one problem after another, after another, I just can't stand. I mean, I think some people are addicted to drama and I'm not attracted to that. That's number two. What's my third non-negotiable? Oh, a lack of an open mind. You know, here's the thing. I often ask political, religious, and current event questions to determine how open-minded a person is. They don't have to share my political, religious, or social views, but I ask them questions. If they are rigid in their ideology, that's a deal breaker for me. I'm a moderate. I'm basically a person that sees both sides of the coin. It's kind of a occupational hazard.  So if the ideology is rigid, that's a non-negotiable for me. I just have to be with someone open-minded and I will tell you, at least here in the United States, half of the population is closed. Let me reframe that. Half of the population thinks one way, half of the population thinks the other way. That tells me that 100% of the population is almost ridiculously closed-minded. Not, I'm exaggerating here. It's just, I'm saying that tongue in cheek, but that's how it feels. So thank you for that question. Michelle says, Jonathan looking smart, thank you. Okay, this is a good question. I just found out this great guy has been living with his ex-wife, okay? So what are you gonna do about it? Why are you asking me? What are you gonna do about it? That's the question I have of you. Okay. Trenton said, or Jonathan, great answers. Thank you so much. Jennifer says, yes, discuss politics and religion immediately. Folks, this gives you insight into a person's personality.  It's okay to be friends with some of them, but I don't wanna be in relationship with someone with closed mind. Listen, if a person's ideology is rigid on one side or the other, then they can't see the gray. And quite frankly, life is in the gray. It's not in the extremes. When you live in the extremes, you live a very toxic life in my opinion. And that's just not where I wanna be. So I'm a big proponent of discussing this stuff. All right, let's see. Ram says, question, hello, Jonathan. Would you advise reaching out to a guy who's shut down to focus on getting his life back on track but claims wants to keep you in his life after three months of no contact? Here's the thing, great question. If someone has finally had their emotional awakening in life, it could be years before they're actually emotionally healthy. It could be years. So, and here's the thing, three months is a good start. So you have to decide what's okay and what's not okay for you.  And again, coming back to ladies, I said this in a previous live stream.   You do the work in this book, okay? It's your only chance of having a chance in this. And this might take you eight weeks to do eight dates.  If you really wanna vet this guy then make him jump through some hoops. That's my invitation for you anyway. All right, you know what? That'd be a great place to wrap up today. I wanna come back to the way men always respect and understand of women when you do this. And that is mutual effort, speak up.  And by speaking up, you take the pressure off it by speaking up and taking the mutual effort you're taking the pressure off of him and actually hopefully focusing on the relationship. I wanna thank everyone for allowed me to step into your life today. I really appreciate it. Post a question below. Please share this with your friends. If you wanna work with me as a coach check out the link to a free discovery call pass this video on. I hope I provided value for it to you today. Thank you all for those super stickers and super jacks.  I'm gonna reach into the camera and give you a hug of love if that's okay. I'm gonna ask you to turn to someone, a pet, a teddy bear or pillow and give inner them a hug of love because hugs are a great source of love. And let's face it, we could all use more love in our lives. Thanks a bunch. Bye bye now. Bye bye.