Defamation, criminal conspiracy case against Khera lodged over his ‘multiple-passport’ claims against Assam CM's wife. HC has allowed transit anticipatory bail.
New Delhi: A year after the controversy of alleged cash recovery at his official residence, Allahabad High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma submitted his...
The interplay between Articles 25 and 26 is central to the Sabarimala reference, which a nine-judge Supreme Court bench led by CJI Surya Kant is hearing.
The agency rejected Kejriwal’s allegation of ‘ideological bias’, calling his plea for the judge’s recusal in the excise policy case hearing ‘wholly vexatious’.
The court noted that the SRB, by rejecting the man’s plea for premature release ten times, had acted contrary to the Remission Policy, 2004, and DRP Rules, 2018.
The over four-hour long proceedings in SC saw the Centre making strong arguments against the subjective concept of constitutional morality, which the top court has invoked in the last few years.
Sabarimala reference will ultimately decide whether 1948 constitutional compromise between religious freedom and social reform still holds in India where religion is both intensely personal and fiercely political
Posts on X from 2013 to 2017 were highlighted by AoR Amita Sachdeva, ‘a devout follower of Sanatan Dharma’. HC has issued notices to Ayyub, Delhi Police, MeitY and X.
PILs are increasingly dominated by 'busybody or meddlesome interloper' petitions filed for 'notoriety or cheap popularity', often at behest of political or business rivals, it argues.
Since the bulk of citizens did not regard drinking as a crime, they had no respect for the prohibition laws and did not cooperate with the police, wrote MV Venkata Rao in 1962.
We now live in a world order that will keep shifting. India must use this window. This also means we remain disciplined enough not to be knee-jerked into reacting to what Pakistan sees as its moment in the sun.
This is one of the worst blogs i came across on this site.
It mistakes a flaw into a wisdom. The author argues that Articles 25 and 26 were intentionally designed to let courts dismantle traditions in the name of reform. But that’s not wisdom, that’s a choice the Assembly made, and she’s validating it by calling it balance.
Articles 25 and 26 cannot both exist equally. One protects individual rights to challenge practices, and the other protects a community’s right to govern itself. The courts have made the first one win by using the language of ‘social reform.’ This isn’t balance. It’s the judiciary deciding it has the right to rewrite what happens inside temples.
A thousand-year-old ritual is now being judged by a framework that’s barely seventy or eighty years old. The courts are deciding what matters inside sacred spaces they don’t understand. By the time people realize what’s happened, the traditions will already be gone, and articles like this will have made it all sound reasonable and progressive.
The real problem is that the Constitution itself is built on a foreign way of thinking about governance. It cannot protect the way Indic civilization actually manages its own institutions. And this article makes sure nobody questions that problem by dressing it up as wisdom.
If sabrimala judgement is reversed, it will open a pandoras box from accepting polygamy to triple talaq as non discriminatory religious practices by few denominations. Religious plurality argument is highly subjective
This is one of the worst blogs i came across on this site.
It mistakes a flaw into a wisdom. The author argues that Articles 25 and 26 were intentionally designed to let courts dismantle traditions in the name of reform. But that’s not wisdom, that’s a choice the Assembly made, and she’s validating it by calling it balance.
Articles 25 and 26 cannot both exist equally. One protects individual rights to challenge practices, and the other protects a community’s right to govern itself. The courts have made the first one win by using the language of ‘social reform.’ This isn’t balance. It’s the judiciary deciding it has the right to rewrite what happens inside temples.
A thousand-year-old ritual is now being judged by a framework that’s barely seventy or eighty years old. The courts are deciding what matters inside sacred spaces they don’t understand. By the time people realize what’s happened, the traditions will already be gone, and articles like this will have made it all sound reasonable and progressive.
The real problem is that the Constitution itself is built on a foreign way of thinking about governance. It cannot protect the way Indic civilization actually manages its own institutions. And this article makes sure nobody questions that problem by dressing it up as wisdom.
What a disaster.
If sabrimala judgement is reversed, it will open a pandoras box from accepting polygamy to triple talaq as non discriminatory religious practices by few denominations. Religious plurality argument is highly subjective