The development comes a day after the woman, who accused Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi of sexual misconduct, expressed reservations about Justice Ramana.
Mini deal will likely see no cut in 10% baseline tariff on Indian exports announced by Trump on 2 April, it is learnt, but additional 26% tariffs are set to be reduced.
PTC Industries is investing Rs 1,000 cr in 4 manufacturing plants in UP, has already started supplying titanium parts to BAE Systems for its M-777 howitzers that India also uses.
Public, loud, upfront, filled with impropriety and high praise sometimes laced with insults. This is what we call Trumplomacy. But the larger objective is the same: American supremacy.
The last sentence of this article is:
“She claimed that her husband and brother-in-law, both of whom were head constables, were suspended for a 2012 criminal case that had been mutually resolved.”
Could this have any bearing on her complaint against the CJI? Can we construe that, perhaps, she requested the CJI to “please help” in restoring the services of the two policemen related to her, and the CJI refused, and she decided to launch a fake case against him “to teach him a lesson”?
The above may not be the direct provocation, but I will put 2 FACTS before everyone : 1) in every, I repeat EVERY office where men and women work together, there are umpteen instances of lighthearted banter which can be called sexist or flirtatious. Women themselves wholeheartedly participate in such lightheaded banter. At a later date, if it suits her, a woman can call such banter a nasty insult inflicted on her by one of her male colleagues.
2) the complainant has demonstrated, as evident from the FIR against her dated 3 March, that she has once before threatened a man “to implicate him in a false case”. Not every woman has such a temperament. So many quarrels take place between men and women, but not every woman thinks up THIS ALTERNATIVE at her disposal to settle the argument. The investigation should try to find out if this woman who has complained against the CJI has such temperament – – that she is haughty and revengeful by nature. This in my humble opinion is the most important key to this case. Her friends, colleagues, and relatives should be interviewed to see if this woman has such a spiteful nature IN GENERAL
The last sentence of this article is:
“She claimed that her husband and brother-in-law, both of whom were head constables, were suspended for a 2012 criminal case that had been mutually resolved.”
Could this have any bearing on her complaint against the CJI? Can we construe that, perhaps, she requested the CJI to “please help” in restoring the services of the two policemen related to her, and the CJI refused, and she decided to launch a fake case against him “to teach him a lesson”?
The above may not be the direct provocation, but I will put 2 FACTS before everyone : 1) in every, I repeat EVERY office where men and women work together, there are umpteen instances of lighthearted banter which can be called sexist or flirtatious. Women themselves wholeheartedly participate in such lightheaded banter. At a later date, if it suits her, a woman can call such banter a nasty insult inflicted on her by one of her male colleagues.
2) the complainant has demonstrated, as evident from the FIR against her dated 3 March, that she has once before threatened a man “to implicate him in a false case”. Not every woman has such a temperament. So many quarrels take place between men and women, but not every woman thinks up THIS ALTERNATIVE at her disposal to settle the argument. The investigation should try to find out if this woman who has complained against the CJI has such temperament – – that she is haughty and revengeful by nature. This in my humble opinion is the most important key to this case. Her friends, colleagues, and relatives should be interviewed to see if this woman has such a spiteful nature IN GENERAL
Justice Dhananjay Chandrachud would make a fine replacement.