The Supreme Court said it had no objection to extending the mediation process in the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute if the mediators were optimistic about the result.
Joseph says independence of judiciary needs to be protected like the ‘chastity of a virgin’. Minister Jaitley says judges are being bullied via social media.
The Patiala House Court gave bail to Manav Sharma, nearly a week after it granted bail to his co-accused in the case Tapan Chakraborty, also a former SC staffer.
David Nigel John Syms, an accused in the AgustaWestland case, is co-director of two firms along with Christian Michel. The firms have also been named in the chargesheet.
The petition, heard by a bench led by CJI Ranjan Gogoi, claimed that Indira Jaising & Anand Grover’s Lawyers Collective misused foreign funding under FCRA.
Some Ladakh-based journalists alleged that BJP leaders, including state president Ravinder Raina, had offered them bribes to 'influence outcome of elections'.
The woman, who has accused CJI Ranjan Gogoi of harassing her while she was working at his home office, will also seek damages for 'human rights violations'.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has no intention of being drawn into another attritional war with Hezbollah. His commanders they are unlikely to win.
Under this model, battery is provided to EV owners on a subscription basis or lease. With more people open to buying EV cars, the lower upfront cost could likely drive wider acceptance.
The armoured platform is India's first amphibious infantry combat wheeled vehicle. Last year, the Royal Moroccan Armed Forces had procured 90 military trucks from the Tata Group.
How come Indonesia, Malaysia, Turkey and Sri Lanka remain constitutional, democratic and stable despite Islam and Buddhism respectively, but Pakistan, Bangladesh and Myanmar don’t?
If one steps back from dry legalese, the contesting parties that are before the apex court, to the larger societal issue. This is a dispute between two dominant communities. For some / many Hindus, it is an article of faith that the contested site is the exact spot where Lord Ram was born. It should be commemorated by the construction of a temple in his honour. No other outcome is acceptable. If a mosque that had stood on the site for more than 450 years had to be demolished, accompanied by riots and loss of life, that is a price worth paying. For the Muslim community – notwithstanding the fact that the mosque may have fallen into disuse and there are several contemporary instances of a mosque being relocated, to subserve a political purpose – the movement leading upto demolition and the manner in which this issue has been kept alive represent an assault and a continuing threat to their security. All the more in light of what has happened over the last five years. 2. For the Muslim community – or the Sunni Waqf Board, as lawful owner of the land – to “ show magnanimity “, give up their “ claim “ would be seen by many of their members as an act of abject surrender, almost cowardice. Keep turning the other cheek. Promising them another site, even the funding to construct a grand mosque, would be no more than thirty pieces of silver. Both Muslims and Hindus understand in their hearts that it is not about constructing one more religious structure. It is like a tiger scent marking his territory. An act of ownership, dominion, exclusion. Either or. 3. After so much political capital has been expended on this issue by the Right, where is the question of accepting anything less than the unencumbered site, for construction to start. The arbitrators would be smoking hashish borrowed from the sadhus if they believe any award other than in favour of the temple would ever be accepted, not flung contemptuously out of the window. 4. Also the question of representation. How do either the arbitrators, or the contesting parties believe for a moment that anything agreed to them would be accepted by all of India’s Hindus and Muslims. On objective, scientific issues like sharing of river waters, the apex court’s awards are often received poorly on the ground, leading to violence and civil strife. On as emotive an issue as this, a “ compromise “ brokered by the apex court would be dead on arrival. It may be pleased to rule, judicially, judiciously on the well defined legal issues before it.
Why Muslims should be magnamoniuos, let this time big brother show courage and follow the truth and construct grand mosque.
If one steps back from dry legalese, the contesting parties that are before the apex court, to the larger societal issue. This is a dispute between two dominant communities. For some / many Hindus, it is an article of faith that the contested site is the exact spot where Lord Ram was born. It should be commemorated by the construction of a temple in his honour. No other outcome is acceptable. If a mosque that had stood on the site for more than 450 years had to be demolished, accompanied by riots and loss of life, that is a price worth paying. For the Muslim community – notwithstanding the fact that the mosque may have fallen into disuse and there are several contemporary instances of a mosque being relocated, to subserve a political purpose – the movement leading upto demolition and the manner in which this issue has been kept alive represent an assault and a continuing threat to their security. All the more in light of what has happened over the last five years. 2. For the Muslim community – or the Sunni Waqf Board, as lawful owner of the land – to “ show magnanimity “, give up their “ claim “ would be seen by many of their members as an act of abject surrender, almost cowardice. Keep turning the other cheek. Promising them another site, even the funding to construct a grand mosque, would be no more than thirty pieces of silver. Both Muslims and Hindus understand in their hearts that it is not about constructing one more religious structure. It is like a tiger scent marking his territory. An act of ownership, dominion, exclusion. Either or. 3. After so much political capital has been expended on this issue by the Right, where is the question of accepting anything less than the unencumbered site, for construction to start. The arbitrators would be smoking hashish borrowed from the sadhus if they believe any award other than in favour of the temple would ever be accepted, not flung contemptuously out of the window. 4. Also the question of representation. How do either the arbitrators, or the contesting parties believe for a moment that anything agreed to them would be accepted by all of India’s Hindus and Muslims. On objective, scientific issues like sharing of river waters, the apex court’s awards are often received poorly on the ground, leading to violence and civil strife. On as emotive an issue as this, a “ compromise “ brokered by the apex court would be dead on arrival. It may be pleased to rule, judicially, judiciously on the well defined legal issues before it.
Wonderful. One way or another, this issue had to be pushed beyond the general election. A hardy staple on the menu, every five years.