The development comes a day after the woman, who accused Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi of sexual misconduct, expressed reservations about Justice Ramana.
Temba Bavuma highlighted the irony of facing racism in India, a brown-skinned nation that had stood firmly against apartheid. If there was ever a figurative slap in the face, this was it.
While global corporations setting up GCCs in India continue to express confidence in availability of skilled AI engineers, the panel argued that India’s real challenge lies elsewhere.
Without a Congress revival, there can be no challenge to the BJP pan-nationally. Modi’s party is growing, and almost entirely at the cost of the Congress.
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.