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
SC was hearing a PIL that demanded a stay on the release of the movie, claiming that it promotes stereotyping, and hurts the dignity and sentiments of Brahmins.
Who was the chief guest at India's 1st Republic Day parade? 26 Jan was picked to honour which event? As India celebrates its 77th Republic Day, take this quiz by ThePrint.
Shashi Tharoor was in conversation with Vir Sanghvi at The Park, where The Oxford Bookstore announced the longlist of contenders for its 11th Book Cover Prize.
Rejecting imposition of timelines on Governors & President for assent to bills, SC’s bid to frame constitutional interpretation as 'swadeshi' unleashes a range of reactions.
Congress claims Union minister questioned Ambedkar's role in making of Constitution & remarks show 'mindset' of BJP. Khattar made the remarks after meeting widow of IPS Y Puran Kumar.
HC pulled up heirs of Jaipur's ex-royals, giving them a week to drop titles from their petition. Courts have repeatedly noted that titles of nobility conflict with principle of equality.
If the 'math' fails this time, it would have less to do with the voters changing their minds, and more to do with the very ground beneath all calculations being swept away.
Despite damage to key Russian oil infrastructure by Ukrainian drone strikes in March, International Energy Agency data shows Russia’s earnings in March were highest for any month since January 2024.
This special edition of Cut The Clutter, straight from the Siliguri corridor, details the strategic importance of the narrow strip of land in West Bengal, and how it’s a vital link connecting the Northeast to the rest of India.
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