Finance ministry says the proposed revamp will focus on structural reforms, rate rationalisation & ease of living, & will be deliberated upon in the coming weeks.
The project is meant to be a ‘protective shield that will keep expanding’, the PM said. It is on the lines of the ‘Golden Dome’ announced by Trump, it is learnt.
Now that both IAF and PAF have made formal claims of having shot down the other’s aircraft in the 87-hour war in May, we can ask a larger question: do such numbers really matter?
When you silent on unethical behavior of someone your close, you support the act and encourage the one doing so, may it be wrong depends on your minds thinking and your body behavior. Whether you like it or not also depends on your actions or reactions. If you have not reacted despite the fact of bad intentions, you promote the crime & criminal both to repeat it again. If you are honest and feel something unethical behavior of some one, oppose it soon when you feel wrong and instruct not to repeat it again. I think he/she will change your mind and respect you. If you are silent at a time it means you agreed and permit. But after decade(s) you blame someone despite the fact that you have no relation or contact now. You are blackmailing jealously and want to destroy his or her reputation only for your satisfaction not for benefiting the mass. And this should have not to be allowed by the court at this stage.
I would say that the author is wrong for at least 2 reasons.
firstly, civil cases in India are very slow. If your reputation is besmirched, then a civil case lasting 10 or 15 years is just not going to work. Criminal cases go relatively fast, and finish in 2 or 3 years.
The other reason is if you sue somebody for X rupees, you have to deposit a fee of some percentage. That is also a burden if you are defending your name. If civil case is pursued, it is reasonable you should ask for a crippling or huge amount (as a form of punishment) and if you fail, you should pay the litigating costs. In this matter you can see how it works in UK or even the US.
Anyway in a 3rd world place like india where reputations are besmirched routinely and people are ruined, it is not the time to get rid of criminal defamation until and unless extensive reforms happen in judicial system.
Plz do not mix up the issue. Raising such a demand now like decriminalization of defamation case at this juncture will take away the shine & spirit of the Mee too campaign & by knowing the risk still they have come out so boldly against the mighty is a courageous move & Priya had led from front the front & ready to face the challenge. Saying that she lives in Bangalore etc., cannot attend the court hearings in person regularly etc., & court can waive off her personal chances are contradictory statement & help the opponents to play on the weak point of the defendant& project as Judicial prejudice. Already She has gathered sympathy, support & respect by bringing out such an major issue among the general public. Let the court decide about her personal appearance don’t spoil the chance by claiming as if it may not & raising the decriminalization of the defamation cases who knows this case may lead to removal of such an act. Which is bound to go today or tomorrow. Lets not worry about the battery of Lawyers they can only argue but cannot write Judgement.
The Judge you mentioned was earlier alleged he is partial, prejudice, etc., by the opposition parties, the way he heard their case on political instability in forming Karnataka Govt., at an unearthly hour, he became overnight impartial, non-biased, etc., such an unearthly hour conducting the court was not called for as present CJI has made clear which of the cases are really emergency that one can be heard on emergency basis, that s sensible. Lets us not pre-judge the Judges. Let the Judiciary play their role, hereafter the matter is subjudice.
This person by appointing the battery of Lawyers has lost the sympathy of the people, especially, the one fence sitters who were in dilemma to support his claims or not. If it is genuine, as he claimed it is falls accusation to kill his political aspiration etc., A good moderate lawyer or law-firm could have enough to handle his case.
Why one should accept defeat without going to trial. Even Priya goes to jail her sacrifice has brought a courage & respect for the women for their cause & the entire industries like Film, Media, & Corporate world are acknowledge these things are prevail & taken & taking genuine corrective action without further delay irrespective of their stature, intelligence, achievements and also taking serious views & action in adapting & implementing Vishaka guidelines to curb such practices & strict monitoring on such activities. Tx.
As long as it serves the interest of the Crony , Neta ,Babu ,Judge …i.e those who oppress us this will remain . CJI Gogoi has a chance ,but my guess is that if Chanrachud becomes CJI ,he will be like a demolition truck out to wipe out ALL these archaic laws . Keep your fingers crossed . Remember Loya ?
Basically what the author is saying is that I must have the right to make allegations and ruin careers of any person, but I must not suffer any consequences and the person who suffers ruin must simply put up with it. Now that law has been used by an accused to defend himself, the law must be changed so that they can go on with their allegations with impunity.
When you silent on unethical behavior of someone your close, you support the act and encourage the one doing so, may it be wrong depends on your minds thinking and your body behavior. Whether you like it or not also depends on your actions or reactions. If you have not reacted despite the fact of bad intentions, you promote the crime & criminal both to repeat it again. If you are honest and feel something unethical behavior of some one, oppose it soon when you feel wrong and instruct not to repeat it again. I think he/she will change your mind and respect you. If you are silent at a time it means you agreed and permit. But after decade(s) you blame someone despite the fact that you have no relation or contact now. You are blackmailing jealously and want to destroy his or her reputation only for your satisfaction not for benefiting the mass. And this should have not to be allowed by the court at this stage.
I would say that the author is wrong for at least 2 reasons.
firstly, civil cases in India are very slow. If your reputation is besmirched, then a civil case lasting 10 or 15 years is just not going to work. Criminal cases go relatively fast, and finish in 2 or 3 years.
The other reason is if you sue somebody for X rupees, you have to deposit a fee of some percentage. That is also a burden if you are defending your name. If civil case is pursued, it is reasonable you should ask for a crippling or huge amount (as a form of punishment) and if you fail, you should pay the litigating costs. In this matter you can see how it works in UK or even the US.
Anyway in a 3rd world place like india where reputations are besmirched routinely and people are ruined, it is not the time to get rid of criminal defamation until and unless extensive reforms happen in judicial system.
Plz do not mix up the issue. Raising such a demand now like decriminalization of defamation case at this juncture will take away the shine & spirit of the Mee too campaign & by knowing the risk still they have come out so boldly against the mighty is a courageous move & Priya had led from front the front & ready to face the challenge. Saying that she lives in Bangalore etc., cannot attend the court hearings in person regularly etc., & court can waive off her personal chances are contradictory statement & help the opponents to play on the weak point of the defendant& project as Judicial prejudice. Already She has gathered sympathy, support & respect by bringing out such an major issue among the general public. Let the court decide about her personal appearance don’t spoil the chance by claiming as if it may not & raising the decriminalization of the defamation cases who knows this case may lead to removal of such an act. Which is bound to go today or tomorrow. Lets not worry about the battery of Lawyers they can only argue but cannot write Judgement.
The Judge you mentioned was earlier alleged he is partial, prejudice, etc., by the opposition parties, the way he heard their case on political instability in forming Karnataka Govt., at an unearthly hour, he became overnight impartial, non-biased, etc., such an unearthly hour conducting the court was not called for as present CJI has made clear which of the cases are really emergency that one can be heard on emergency basis, that s sensible. Lets us not pre-judge the Judges. Let the Judiciary play their role, hereafter the matter is subjudice.
This person by appointing the battery of Lawyers has lost the sympathy of the people, especially, the one fence sitters who were in dilemma to support his claims or not. If it is genuine, as he claimed it is falls accusation to kill his political aspiration etc., A good moderate lawyer or law-firm could have enough to handle his case.
Why one should accept defeat without going to trial. Even Priya goes to jail her sacrifice has brought a courage & respect for the women for their cause & the entire industries like Film, Media, & Corporate world are acknowledge these things are prevail & taken & taking genuine corrective action without further delay irrespective of their stature, intelligence, achievements and also taking serious views & action in adapting & implementing Vishaka guidelines to curb such practices & strict monitoring on such activities. Tx.
As long as it serves the interest of the Crony , Neta ,Babu ,Judge …i.e those who oppress us this will remain . CJI Gogoi has a chance ,but my guess is that if Chanrachud becomes CJI ,he will be like a demolition truck out to wipe out ALL these archaic laws . Keep your fingers crossed . Remember Loya ?
Basically what the author is saying is that I must have the right to make allegations and ruin careers of any person, but I must not suffer any consequences and the person who suffers ruin must simply put up with it. Now that law has been used by an accused to defend himself, the law must be changed so that they can go on with their allegations with impunity.