Does PM require visa to visit AMU?
Never in the history of free India so much leeway was given to the opponents of a prime minister as has been the case now
Never in the history of free India so much leeway was given to the opponents of a prime minister as has been the case now. From writing a joint letter to the then President of the USA to hurling defamatory abuses and threats of violence, the Modi-BJP haters have crossed all limits of decency in voicing opposition to the prime minister addressing the netizens on the occasion of centenary celebrations of Aligarh Muslim University.
The Constitution of India bestows upon every citizen, including the prime minister who is also a citizen, certain fundamental rights. In particular, Articles 14, 15, 19 and 21 besides the Directive Principles are the hallmark of our democracy. The Tukde-Tukde and Gupkar gangs duly supported by fanatic elements such as Progressive Front of India (PFI) and a host of Jihadi elements have undoubtedly only one agenda; and that is to over-throw the elected government and create a civil-war like situation in the country. Undoubtedly, to achieve this goal they would go to any extent including 'inviting' the proclaimed enemies of the country like China and Pakistan.
Though, the Prime Minister's calm and composed response to such barking brigades have shown their rightful place, the nation is aghast as to how long the rope of leniency these extremist, communal and secessionist element deserve! By taking the undue advantage of the liberal Constitution and its enforcement, the anti-India elements seem to have been hell-bent upon destroying the very spirit of the Constitution.
Indeed, when the chief executive of the country could be openly threatened by the criminal and anti-national gangs, imagine the plight of the common man in the country. The democracy is based on the principle of 'rule by majority support' and the former prime minister Atal Behari Vajpayee had guts to step down honouring this principle. In other words, what works for the formation of a government and its removal from power, should also work for electing the people's representatives. Then, what deters political parties, including obviously the 'largest' party of the country (and the world) to pronounce from the roof-top and include this in their election manifestos that they stand for the 'majority' electorate and if elected, would honour their hopes and aspirations ? And it is an open secret that an overwhelming majority aspires for what is popularly known as the Hindu Rashtra. There being no provision for plebiscite in the Constitution, the only way to materialise this dream of the majority is through the electoral process.
It is quite intriguing to learn that when certain political parties can brazenly seek votes in the name of 'minorities' and 'dalits and under-privileged', what prevents the 'largest' party to openly stand for the 'majority'! Believe it or not, the time has come now to call a spade a spade. All goody-goody talks of Ganga-Jamuni Tehzib have evaporated like yester-year's slogan of Hindi-Chini Bhai Bhai. The double-speak of the so-called Hindu protagonists have done more harm than good to the interests of the majority community.
In the backdrop of such a situation any further efforts to convince or win-over the anti-national divisive forces would only result into further deterioration of the law and order situation and it would not be too far when the country would plunge into chaos and anarchy. Therefore, the people in power should not remain blind to the explosive situation and take extra-ordinary measures to crush all the Jihadi, Khalistani and other extremist elements to save the country that is, "We,the people of India".
Judges in the dock!
The week witnessed unsavoury incidents in the judicial fraternity. The Bihar government by a notification dated December 21 dismissed 3 of its lower judiciary officers for objectionable and improper conduct. The judges in question were found to be in the company of several Nepali women during their stay in a hotel. Initially, they were caught by the local Nepalese police.
In another incident, a District Judge who used an Audi car of an accused to visit the camp court in Mussoorie on 21 and 22 December was suspended Uttarakhand High Court on the charges of misconduct.
It augurs well that the Judges too are under the scanner of higher judiciary and the government. In the result, it could be hoped the fabric of judiciary would get washed thoroughly and ultimately emerge much more brighter.
Police protection for A Non striking lawyer
The High Court of Madras recently granted police protection to one, G.Sivakumar,an advocate who had dissented to the boycott call of courts given by the Nagercoil Bar Association. The High Court also permitted the petitioner to use the Bar Association hall while granting stay on his suspension from membership of the Association.
Indeed, this is a laudable approach of the high Court and in tune with the consistent judicial pronouncements of several High Courts and the Supreme Court decrying the unhealthy practice of boycott of courts and creating hurdles in the normal functioning of the courts by the Bar Associations.
Fatwa not legal: Delhi Hc
A single judge bench of Justice Pratibha M Singh of Delhi High Court has held that Fatwa (command/order) issued by a Muslim clergy (Moulvi) is neither legal nor valid in the eyes of law.
Relying on the Supreme Court's verdict in Vishwa Lochan Madan vs Union of India and others, the Court observed that Fatwa does not satisfy the requirements of a legally binding document and that they do not trace their origin to validly made law. Further, the court observed that a Fatwa cannot be imposed on a third party.
The verdict came in a property dispute between Mohd. Ashraf and others vs V Abdul Wahid Siddique.
African HR court terms vagrancy laws as colonial perception
In a unanimous verdict, the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights has declared that vagrancy laws covering the homeless, poor, unemployed are in compatible with the provisions of Children's and Women's Rights Protocol. The court described the vagrancy laws as outdated and relics of colonialism.