Stewie
Test Debutant
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2008
- Runs
- 15,453
on a side note, should I believe a highly educated Indian politician over some guy on an online forum who has the words "The Last Airbender" in his handle? How much sense would that make? lol
-
Contact the PP Team
BJP moves SC for removal of term ‘secular’ from India’s Constitution’s preamble
- Thread starter The Bald Eagle
- Start date
India cannot be truly secular as long as different laws are applied for different groups.
We have a warped idea of what secularism is. It does not mean people of various faiths and cultures following their own laws and rules. It means everyone following the same law irrespective of their background.
Its funny that some people throw a fit the moment we ask everyone to follow the same law.
We have a warped idea of what secularism is. It does not mean people of various faiths and cultures following their own laws and rules. It means everyone following the same law irrespective of their background.
Its funny that some people throw a fit the moment we ask everyone to follow the same law.
Stewie
Test Debutant
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2008
- Runs
- 15,453
Not only that, but its quite clear some influential and educated people are pushing for India to be not "not secular" which I think it already is.
Cpt. Rishwat
T20I Captain
- Joined
- May 8, 2010
- Runs
- 41,441
Who gets to decide what rules and laws are encoded and which ones are discarded?
The Government and the opposition parties. India already has laws for everyone.
Cpt. Rishwat
T20I Captain
- Joined
- May 8, 2010
- Runs
- 41,441
In that case it is already secular according to your definition, so not sure what your beef is.
Secular on the face. But laws are applied differently for different communities.
Cpt. Rishwat
T20I Captain
- Joined
- May 8, 2010
- Runs
- 41,441
So that means you aren't happy with your own choice for deciding what laws are encoded and which ones are discarded.
Heck no.. Ind has to remain secular with no appeasement .. Just follow the damn law thats all. And BTW, there is a lot of good in these western implants that could be imbibed. Dont want Ind to go down a s.barrell hole by going all religion crazy and stuff like that.
The Ind SC has already dismissed the plea. Good from them. Time to have closing statements on this thread I guess ! Well done Ind SC. No place for this nonsense where religion is the over riding heirarchy.
timesofindia.indiatimes.com
Secularism basic, unamendable part of Constitution, says SC | India News - Times of India
India News: The Supreme Court expressed reservations about a plea to remove 'secular' and 'socialist' from the Preamble, deeming them integral to the Constitution
timesofindia.indiatimes.com
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2023
- Runs
- 14,352
As I said, the biggest takeaway from this thread: BJP supporters are ready to live in a "secular" country if Modi claims so. Otherwise Hindu Rashtra is their dream
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2023
- Runs
- 27,176
Mature enough to keep judicial matters aside: Chief Justice on puja with PM
Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, who is set to retire on November 10, 2024, addressed the controversy surrounding his meeting with Prime Minister Narendra Modi during the Ganesh Puja in September.
He emphasised that such meetings are routine and focused on discussing infrastructure issues related to the judiciary, rather than judicial decisions.
Following the Prime Minister's visit to Chandrachud's home during the festival, the Opposition raised questions regarding the appropriateness of the meeting.
In response, Chief Justice Chandrachud stated, "There is enough maturity among judges of constitutional courts and the heads of the executive to firmly keep aside judicial matters out of the purview of any discussion."
He further clarified, "We know our duties in the democratic system of governance, and the political executive know theirs. No judge, least of them the Chief Justice of India or Chief Justices, can even remotely invite any threat, actual or perceived, to the independence of the judiciary."
Speaking at the Loksatta lecture series, Chandrachud noted that in various states, it is customary for Chief Justices to meet with Chief Ministers. "You never meet for a judicial discussion. And the maturity of our political system lies in the fact that there is a great deal of deference to the judiciary, even in the political class," he added.
Highlighting the need for such meetings, DY Chandrachud pointed to the importance of addressing judicial infrastructure, including new court buildings and accommodation for judges. "For this, you need a meeting of the Chief Justice and the Chief Minister," he said, recalling his experiences as Chief Justice in various High Courts.
The ougoing Chief Justice emphasised that these meetings are essential for maintaining robust dialogue between the judiciary and the government.
"We have to understand that the work of all three arms is dedicated to one and the same goal-the betterment of the nation. So long as we trust this process, I think we must accept that there has to be continuing dialogue," he stated.
He also mentioned that judges sometimes meet political leaders at social gatherings but never discuss their judicial work in those contexts.
OPPOSITION CRITICISM TO PM MODI's PUJA WITH CHIEF JUSTICE
A massive row had erupted following PM Modi's visit to Chief Justice Dy Chandrachud's house. Shiv Sena (UBT) leader Sanjay Raut had asked DY Chandrachud to recuse himself from the case linked to the tussle between Shiv Sena (UBT) and the Eknath Shinde-led Shiv Sena.Party leader Priyanka Chaturvedi expressed a similar sentiment and pointed to the repeated adjournments in the Sena vs Sena case.
"Ganpati puja is a personal issue, but you are taking a camera. The message it sends is uncomfortable. The Chief Justice of India and the Prime Minister are tall personalities. So what can we say if they agreed to put out these photographs in the public domain," RJD leader and Rajya Sabha MP Manoj Jha had said.
BJP spokesperson Shehzad Poonawalla, however, hit out at the Opposition criticism, stating that a 2009 Iftar party hosted by then Prime Minister Manmohan Singh was attended by the then Chief Justice of India KG Balakrishnan.
Maturity in system to not discuss cases: Chief Justice on ‘PM at Ganpati puja’ row
Chief Justice DY Chandrachud said such meetings, like the one he had with Prime Minister Narendra Modi, are important to address judicial infrastructure, including new court buildings and accommodation for judges.
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2023
- Runs
- 27,176
Space For Various Beliefs In Democracy But Should Conform With Constitution: Top Court
The Supreme Court on Friday said in a democracy there was always space for different ideologies but those beliefs had to be in conformity with the Constitution.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan made the remark while refusing to entertain a PIL by an advocate seeking directions to the Centre and Bar Council of India, stating those contesting elections of bar bodies should not be a member of a political party.
"In democracy, there is always scope for different ideologies but that should be in conformity with the Constitution. There is no law, which prohibits an active member of a political party to contest the election of bar bodies. You want us to enact a law. Sorry, it can't be done," the bench said.
Senior advocate Sirajuddin, appearing for PIL petitioner advocate Jaya Sukin, said if the contesting candidates were allowed to be active members of political parties, they would push for their elections.
The bench, however, remarked, "If an office-bearer of the Bar has a political ideology, what's wrong with that? You want to oust Mr Kapil Sibal as the president of SCBA (Supreme Court Bar Association)? You want to oust (Manan Kumar) Mishra (Rajya Sabha member from Bihar) as the chairman of the Bar Council of India?" Justice Surya Kant referred to the contributions of legal luminary Ram Jethmalani, noting the late stalwart held the post of Bar Council of India chairperson and served as the president of the SCBA.
"He was also in Parliament and was affiliated with different political parties. Do you want the country to be deprived of the views and contribution of these brilliant multi-talented persons? Bar bodies are a group of elite members of the society. We don't think that association with political parties will have any effect," the bench underlined.
The top court further asked when the statute was silent on this issue, how could it ask a person, associated with a political party, not to contest elections of a bar body.
"In our opinion, you should also join some political party and have some experience," Justice Kant said in lighter vein.
Sensing the mood of the court, Sirajuddin sought a direction to refer the issue to the Law Commission, but the bench said it was not going to pass any such direction and allowed the petitioner to withdraw the plea.
www.ndtv.com
The Supreme Court on Friday said in a democracy there was always space for different ideologies but those beliefs had to be in conformity with the Constitution.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan made the remark while refusing to entertain a PIL by an advocate seeking directions to the Centre and Bar Council of India, stating those contesting elections of bar bodies should not be a member of a political party.
"In democracy, there is always scope for different ideologies but that should be in conformity with the Constitution. There is no law, which prohibits an active member of a political party to contest the election of bar bodies. You want us to enact a law. Sorry, it can't be done," the bench said.
Senior advocate Sirajuddin, appearing for PIL petitioner advocate Jaya Sukin, said if the contesting candidates were allowed to be active members of political parties, they would push for their elections.
The bench, however, remarked, "If an office-bearer of the Bar has a political ideology, what's wrong with that? You want to oust Mr Kapil Sibal as the president of SCBA (Supreme Court Bar Association)? You want to oust (Manan Kumar) Mishra (Rajya Sabha member from Bihar) as the chairman of the Bar Council of India?" Justice Surya Kant referred to the contributions of legal luminary Ram Jethmalani, noting the late stalwart held the post of Bar Council of India chairperson and served as the president of the SCBA.
"He was also in Parliament and was affiliated with different political parties. Do you want the country to be deprived of the views and contribution of these brilliant multi-talented persons? Bar bodies are a group of elite members of the society. We don't think that association with political parties will have any effect," the bench underlined.
The top court further asked when the statute was silent on this issue, how could it ask a person, associated with a political party, not to contest elections of a bar body.
"In our opinion, you should also join some political party and have some experience," Justice Kant said in lighter vein.
Sensing the mood of the court, Sirajuddin sought a direction to refer the issue to the Law Commission, but the bench said it was not going to pass any such direction and allowed the petitioner to withdraw the plea.
Space For Various Beliefs In Democracy But Should Conform With Constitution: Top Court
The Supreme Court on Friday said in a democracy there was always space for different ideologies but those beliefs had to be in conformity with the Constitution.
www.ndtv.com
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2023
- Runs
- 27,176
No fresh suits until Places of Worship Act hearing ends: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court on Thursday, while hearing the a batch of petitions challenging the constitutionality of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, said that no further suits can be registered in the country till it hears and disposes off the petitions challenging the Act. A Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna and Justices PV Sanjay Kumar and KV Viswanathan heard the matter.
“The matter is sub judice. No further suits can be registered till we hear and dispose of the case. We have the Ram janmabhoomi case also,” the Supreme Court said.
Key provisions under review include Sections 2, 3, and 4, which prevent the conversion of religious sites and lawsuits about their status as of 1947.
The petition argued that the Act stops lawsuits aimed at reclaiming places of worship or changing their status from what it was on August 15, 1947. Petitioners, including religious leaders, politicians, and advocates, claim the Act violates the rights of Hindus, Jains, Buddhists, and Sikhs to restore and manage their places of worship, breaching their constitutional rights under Articles 25, 26, and 29.
No fresh suits until Places of Worship Act hearing ends: Supreme Court
No further mandir-masjid suits till matter heard: Supreme Court on Places of Worship Act 1991
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2023
- Runs
- 27,176
@Bhaijaan @Devadwal what is going on here?No fresh suits until Places of Worship Act hearing ends: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court on Thursday, while hearing the a batch of petitions challenging the constitutionality of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, said that no further suits can be registered in the country till it hears and disposes off the petitions challenging the Act. A Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna and Justices PV Sanjay Kumar and KV Viswanathan heard the matter.
“The matter is sub judice. No further suits can be registered till we hear and dispose of the case. We have the Ram janmabhoomi case also,” the Supreme Court said.
Key provisions under review include Sections 2, 3, and 4, which prevent the conversion of religious sites and lawsuits about their status as of 1947.
The petition argued that the Act stops lawsuits aimed at reclaiming places of worship or changing their status from what it was on August 15, 1947. Petitioners, including religious leaders, politicians, and advocates, claim the Act violates the rights of Hindus, Jains, Buddhists, and Sikhs to restore and manage their places of worship, breaching their constitutional rights under Articles 25, 26, and 29.
No fresh suits until Places of Worship Act hearing ends: Supreme Court
No further mandir-masjid suits till matter heard: Supreme Court on Places of Worship Act 1991www.indiatoday.in
The Act is claimed to infringe on the constitutional rights of Hindus, Jains, Buddhists, and Sikhs under Articles 25 (freedom of religion), 26 (freedom to manage religious affairs), and 29 (protection of cultural rights).
Aang_The_last_airbender
First Class Player
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2024
- Runs
- 2,948
Its called due process of law, its very slow and tedious.
Similar threads
- Poll
- Poll
