Legendary SL Bhyrappa.

The passing of legendary Kannada writer S. L. Bhyrappa in Mysuru at a venerable age is profoundly saddening. Even in his nineties, he remained intellectually vibrant and deeply engaged with literature—a testament to his unwavering passion for the written word.
Among his many celebrated works, I have read only one: Parva, a monumental novel spanning nearly six hundred pages. It is a masterful retelling of the Mahabharata, stripped of divine interventions and reimagined through a sociological and anthropological lens. Widely regarded as one of his most acclaimed and debated creations, Parva stands as a towering achievement in Indian literature.
Bhyrappa situates the narrative in the 12th century BCE, grounding it in meticulous research across disciplines—anthropology, geography, and socio-politics. His commitment to authenticity led him on pilgrimages to sites like Kurukshetra, Dwaraka, and Lothal, breathing life into the epic’s historical and cultural backdrop.
What sets Parva apart is its philosophical depth. Each chapter unfolds through the introspective lens of a central character—Kunti, Bhima, Draupadi, Karna, Bhishma, and others—grappling with the moral, emotional, and existential dilemmas of their time. Notably, Krishna is never a narrator; he exists only through the memories and perceptions of others, adding layers of nuance to his presence.
Through Parva, Bhyrappa explores the philosophical essence of the Mahabharata—dharma, war, love, death, and identity—with profound introspection. It is no exaggeration to call Parva his magnum opus, much like Nehru’s Discovery of India, Tolstoy’s War and Peace, Premchand’s Godan, Hazari Prasad Dwivedi’s Banabhatta ki Atmakatha, or Dinkar’s Rashmirathi.
Parva alone is enough to enshrine Bhyrappa ji among the immortals of literary history. His legacy will continue to inspire generations of readers and thinkers. A heartfelt homage to a towering figure in Indian literature.

  Mocking of a Vishnu Bhakt was in Bad Taste

An obiter dicta remark by the Chief Justice of India, while dismissing the Public Interest Petition of a devotee of Lord Vishnu, was entirely unnecessary, although it was exaggerated beyond proportion. This highlights the importance of carefully considering every statement made by those in power or authority, as damage is often done before clarifications are issued. It is worth noting that the Chief Justice quickly expressed respect for all religions.

Recently, a bench comprising the CJI and Justice K Vinod Chandran dismissed a plea seeking orders to reconstruct and reinstall a seven-foot idol of Lord Vishnu at the Javari Temple, part of the UNESCO World Heritage Khajuraho temple complex in Madhya Pradesh. Describing the plea as a Publicity Interest Litigation, the CJI advised the petitioner to ask the deity directly for assistance. If you claim to be a devout follower of Lord Vishnu, then you should straightaway pray and meditate to Him.

However, a person seeking justice from the court cannot be told to pray or meditate for relief. The CJI added, ‘In the meantime, if you are not averse to Shaivism, you can worship there; there is a very large linga of Shiva, one of the biggest in Khajuraho.’ Justice Gavai. It appears to have overlooked the fact that there is a significant difference between a Shaivite and a Vaishnav, even though both are part of the larger Hindu religion.

In the age of social media, where every word spoken by influential figures spreads rapidly, a person holding the high post of CJI cannot afford to be so casual or careless as to offend the sensitivities of millions.

 

 Judiciary Must Embrace Technology 

A struggle is ongoing among lawyers in Delhi regarding the virtual recording of statements and evidence, especially concerning police personnel, in court. Remarkably, neither the Delhi High Court nor the Bar Council of India has clarified the factual position. The facts are that the three laws replacing the IPC, Cr. P C, and the Indian Evidence Act were passed by the Lok Sabha on 21st December 2023 and the following day by the Rajya Sabha. These laws received Presidential assent on 25th December and came into force as Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita (BNS), Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), and Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA) from July 1, 2024.

The strike by lawyers in Delhi began in response to a notification issued on August 13, 2025, by Lieutenant Governor V K Saxena, permitting police personnel to testify via video conferencing from police stations. On September 8, 2025, Delhi Police issued a revised circular directing all police personnel to appear physically in court for deposition and evidence. Obviously, the revised circular can be effective temporarily. Section 530 of BNSS allows trial proceedings to be conducted electronically. Likewise, Section permits evidence recording via audio-video means, and Sections 265 & 266 facilitate remote deposition by prosecution and defence witnesses. Similarly, the Bhartiya Sakhya Adhiniyam also prescribes the video recording of evidence.

Therefore, Section 530 of BNSS is the crucial provision enabling electronic deposition and digital proceedings in criminal cases. This section modernises the criminal justice process by allowing the following to be conducted electronically:

- Issuance, service, and execution of summons and warrants

- Examination of complainants and witnesses via audio-video means

- Recording of evidence during inquiries and trials

- Appellate proceedings and other judicial processes

Key features include:

- Virtual trials: Courts can hold hearings remotely through secure digital platforms.

- Digital evidence: Testimonies and evidence can be recorded electronically, ensuring accuracy and reducing transcription errors.

- Remote participation: Witnesses and parties can join proceedings from different locations, enhancing accessibility.

- Efficiency enhancement: Reduces delays caused by logistics and improves coordination between law enforcement and the judiciary.

This technological introduction will be a game-changer for India's legal system. Hence, embracing technology is essential to making justice more efficient and inclusive.

What is surprising is that lawyers, regarded as the intellectual class of society, began their strike or protest more than a year after all three laws were enacted.

Another important aspect is that technology has revolutionised nearly every aspect of life. Digital payments have almost become standard. Even semi-literate or nearly illiterate Rehriwalas, Panwalas, Mochis, and tailors prefer digital payments. Almost everyone uses the internet and mobile phones. The Supreme Court’s e-filing system has become widely popular and eco-friendly. Bulky Paper books have been replaced by Surface tablets, laptops, and desktops. Libraries are being substituted by e-libraries. Post offices, once riddled with corruption, have become largely obsolete thanks to technology.

Miracles have occurred in the media domain. The day is not far off when print media will become extinct. Medical science is on the verge of a revolution driven by technology.

There is now no need for anyone to stand in queues for hours at banks, railway stations, or airline ticket counters; so why should the introduction of technology be opposed by intellectuals like lawyers? Crores of cases under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are pending in hundreds of courts nationwide, and they could be disposed of within months with modern technology. Efficient case disposal can only be achieved through technological advancement. Until fully implemented, swift case resolution remains elusive. The number of judges—from the Supreme Court down to district courts—may be significantly reduced, providing immense relief to litigants and easing the burden on the public purse. Haven't typewriters become relics of the past in just a few decades?

The Delhi High Court, the Bar Council of Delhi, and the Bar Council of India should have clarified that these laws cannot be altered or repealed by the Lieutenant Governor or any state police, but only by the Parliament of India.

Like

Comment

Share

 Peter Navarro's Misuse of 'Brahmin': A Case of Cultural Ignorance and Hostile Rhetoric

During his tenure as a trade adviser to U.S. President Donald Trump, Peter Navarro made several controversial remarks, but few revealed his superficial understanding of India as clearly as his use of the word "Brahmins." In a Fox News interview defending U.S. tariffs, Navarro claimed that “Brahmins were profiteering at the expense of Indian people.” This statement was not just a political jab; it was a culturally ignorant and offensive mischaracterisation that drew widespread condemnation, including a demand for his dismissal from American Hindus Against Defamation (AHAD).

Navarro's remark appears to stem from a flawed comparison with the American term ‘Boston Brahmins,’ used to describe a historical, elite class in the United States. This analogy fails in the Indian context. In India, ‘Brahmin’ refers to a large and diverse community defined by caste, not by a monolithic economic status. The reality is that the vast majority of Brahmins today belong to the middle or lower-middle class. To use their community’s name as a synonym for "exploiters" is a gross and prejudicial generalisation. Similarly, the word nerd, which was once considered pejorative, has now gained respectability for a laborious person.

The careless use of culturally specific terms is a serious misstep for any diplomat or public official. Words carry immense historical weight. Consider how terms like ‘Yankee,’ once a descriptor for Northern Americans, can now be seen as abusive, or how ‘Juggernaut,’ often used to mean an unstoppable negative force, is derived from Lord Jagannath, a deeply revered Hindu deity. While some words like ‘Pundit’ have retained their positive meaning of a knowledgeable person, the potential for misunderstanding and offence is always present. A public official operating on the world stage cannot afford such linguistic carelessness.

Unfortunately, this comment was not an isolated gaffe. It was part of a larger pattern of inflammatory rhetoric from Navarro. His shameless attempt to label the Ukraine war as the ‘Modi War’ further illustrates his tendency to use baseless accusations to deflect from U.S. policy issues. Ultimately, using the term "Brahmins" to depict exploiters was more than a simple mistake; it was indicative of a hostile and uninformed perspective on India, damaging to diplomatic discourse and reliant on perpetuating harmful stereotypes rather than engaging in good-faith policy debate.

 

Don’t Throw Out the Baby with the Bathwater

Several friends have voiced concerns about my recent post advocating for the integration of technology into the justice system. Their primary worry is that increased reliance on digital tools might embolden law enforcement to act without sufficient oversight, potentially worsening the handling of criminal cases.

But let’s take a step back. Even with traditional methods—where evidence is physically presented—the conviction rate remains below 50%. It’s difficult to argue that introducing technology would somehow erode this further. In fact, the opposite may be true.

At the heart of criminal law lies a fundamental principle: no innocent person should be punished, even if that means some guilty individuals go free. This principle should guide our approach to innovation. Yes, technology has its flaws. But rejecting it outright because of imperfections ignores its potential to streamline procedures, enhance transparency, and reduce opportunities for misuse.

Rather than abandoning progress, we should focus on refining it. With thoughtful implementation and proper safeguards, technology can become a powerful ally in the pursuit of justice—not a threat to it.

As the old saying goes, don’t throw out the baby with the bathwater.