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.

 Embracing Technology in Justice:  Online Hearings and Evidence Recording Deserve Support

With the enactment of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) in 2023, India has taken a decisive step toward modernizing its criminal justice system. Replacing the outdated Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), the BNSS introduces provisions that embrace digital tools to streamline legal processes and reduce unnecessary burdens on all stakeholders.

Yet, it is perplexing that a section of the legal fraternity in Delhi opposes the recent notification issuEmbracing Technology in Justice:  Online Hearings and Evidence Recording Deserve Supported by the Lieutenant Governor, which permits police personnel to record evidence and statements from designated locations within their respective police stations. This move aligns perfectly with the spirit and letter of the BNSS, which applies uniformly across the country—not just to Delhi.

Let us examine key provisions of the BNSS that underscore the legitimacy and utility of digital procedures:

• Section 183(1): Magistrates may record confessions or statements via audio-video electronic means, in the presence of the accused’s advocate.
• Section 176: In rape cases, victims may give their statements at a location of their choice, including their residence, using audio-video means—even mobile phones.
• Section 180(3): Police officers are empowered to record witness statements electronically, ensuring each record is accurate and distinct.
• Section 530: Trials, inquiries, and appellate proceedings may be conducted through electronic communication or audio-video platforms.

In an era where digital transformation is reshaping every sector—from education to governance—it is counterproductive to resist similar progress in the judiciary. The insistence on physical hearings and manual recording of evidence not only consumes valuable time and resources but also causes undue inconvenience to witnesses, especially police personnel who are often pulled away from critical duties.

What is even more surprising is the support extended by the Bar Associations of the High Court and the Supreme Court to the striking advocates. Rather than opposing technological integration, these bodies should champion it, guiding the legal community toward a more efficient, accessible, and transparent system.

The hybrid model of court functioning—combining physical and digital modes—is not a compromise; it is an evolution. It respects tradition while embracing innovation. Intellectuals and legal professionals alike must recognise their role in facilitating this transition, not obstructing it.

India’s justice system must march forward with the times. The tools are here. The law supports them. It’s time the mindset followed suit.

 

Beyond the Degree: Why Leadership Isn't Defined by Formal Qualifications

  

 

The recent political uproar surrounding the Prime Minister's educational degree is a misguided distraction that amounts to little more than foolishness. This emphasis on academic credentials over proven ability reveals a superficial understanding of what truly qualifies someone for high office.

This isn't a new political tactic. Decades ago, when Rajiv Gandhi was poised to become Prime Minister, the formidable Sharad Pawar of Maharashtra was also a contender. V. N. Gadgil, then a General Secretary of the AICC, tried to dismiss Pawar’s candidacy by questioning his proficiency in English. Unfazed, Mr. Pawar responded to journalists that if English proficiency was the main requirement, then a university professor would be the most logical choice for Prime Minister.

Pawar’s clever and sharp reply remains relevant today. It is the perfect rebuttal to the modern antics of demanding academic certificates from elected leaders. To do so is to ignore the democratic mandate of millions who elected them.

History is full of influential Indian leaders whose impact far exceeded their formal education. The first Education Minister of India, Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, had no formal education or degree. If a degree were the ultimate criterion, many stalwarts would have been disqualified. K. Kamaraj and M. Karunanidhi of Tamil Nadu were towering figures despite lacking extensive formal schooling. Similarly, leaders like Chaudhari Devi Lal, Om Prakash Chautala, and Rabri Devi held high office without academic accolades, and rightly so. Today, Tejaswi Yadav, who did not complete high school, is a significant political force in Bihar. Their careers prove that political skill is not born in a classroom.

Ultimately, a leader is judged by their actions and abilities. The Prime Minister's qualifications are evident in his performance. His skill as an orator, his capacity to generate and implement ideas, and his ability to turn complex concepts into tangible policies are hallmarks of a truly qualified leader.

Therefore, those who obsess over a paper degree show a deep ignorance of history and leadership. In their attempt to undermine a political opponent, they only end up making themselves look foolish in the court of public opinion.

Media's freedom is a fundamental right and an essential part of the constitution; any campaign to elevate it to the status of a fourth pillar is sheer absurdity.

 Some journalists and their so-called organisations seem to possess an abysmally low or almost non-existent understanding of the Indian constitution. They are advocating for the media to be granted the status of a fourth pillar, akin to the Legislature, the Judiciary, and the Executive. The notion of the press as the "fourth pillar" of democracy is widely acknowledged, particularly in democratic nations, though it is not a formal designation recognised across all countries. It serves as a metaphor for the press's role in holding power accountable and informing the public.

In India, the press is often described as the fourth pillar and is constitutionally protected; however, it operates within a framework of laws that balance freedom with other societal values, such as national integrity. While freedom of the press is explicitly provided under the First Amendment of the US Constitution, in India, it is implied under Article 19(1)(a). Hence, the freedom of speech and expression is a fundamental right available to every citizen, regardless of their level of education or status.

In this context, a reference can be made to Phoolan Devi, known as the bandit queen, who later became a member of Parliament. She applied to publish a newspaper from her native district of Mirzapur in Uttar Pradesh. The District Magistrate refused to forward her application to the Registrar of Newspapers of India on the grounds of her illiteracy. The matter escalated to the appellate authority, the Press Council of India. The then-Chairman, Justice P. B. Sawant, summoned the District Magistrate, who appeared along with an Advocate, stating how an illiterate person could serve as the printer, publisher, and editor of a newspaper. Justice Sawant asked whether it was expected that an editor should know everything if a newspaper carried diverse items such as business, sports, politics, crime, and education. The District Magistrate responded that this could be handled by other journalists employed by the newspaper, to which Justice Sawant pointed out that, similarly, Phoolan Devi could employ journalists for her publication. Ultimately, she obtained the necessary permissions to launch the newspaper. This exemplifies the beauty of the Indian Constitution.

Therefore, those demanding that the media be designated as the fourth estate are oblivious to the fact that such inclusion in the fundamental rights ensures full freedom for every journalist. Thus, the demand to establish it as a fourth pillar is not only absurd but impossible, as the basic structure of the constitution cannot be altered, as decided by the Supreme Court in the Keshavanand Bharti case.

 

PRESS COUNCIL MUST BE DISBANDED FOR CONSTITUTING A MEDIA COUNCIL

 

The Press Council of India is a wholly redundant body. It is akin to a crowing hen, which is neither fit for God nor men and becomes a burden on the exchequer. It allows for self-regulation, which is often disregarded rather than adhered to. Section 14 of the Press Council Act stipulates three types of ludicrous punishments. The first is a warning; the second is a reprimand/admonishment, and the third is censure after conducting an inquiry. There is practically no material difference among all three so-called punishments.

Additionally, the Council can require newspapers to publish details of inquiries against them if it deems it necessary for the public interest. However, it cannot investigate matters that are already pending in a court of law, and its decisions cannot be challenged in court. The PCI primarily functions as a moral watchdog, ensuring that the press operates with integrity and accountability. It has no jurisdiction over the electronic or internet media.

When the Press Council was enacted on the recommendations of the first Press Commission, which was headed by Justice GS Rajyadhyaksha, who was then a judge of the Bombay High Court. The First Press Commission of India was appointed in September 1952 and submitted its report in 1954, and in the next year, i.e. 1955, the Working Journalist Act was enacted.

Other Members of the First Press Commission

The other members of the Commission included Dr. C.P. Ramaswami Aiyar, a distinguished lawyer, administrator, and politician, who played a significant role in the Madras Presidency and Travancore, serving as the Dewan of Travancore from 1936 to 1947. Acharya Narendra Dev, an eminent academician and a socialist leader, who had also served as the Vice-Chancellor of the Banaras Hindu University and the Lucknow University. Dr. Zakir Hussain, an academician and later the President of India, Dr VKRV Rao, who was the founder of the Delhi School of Economics and subsequently became a Central Minister, P. H. Patwardhan, a key leader in the Marathwada Liberation Movement, which played a crucial role in the integration of the region into India after independence. Shri Patwardhan also struggled against the Nizam of Hyderabad, which led to its annexation in 1948, Tribhuvan Narayan Singh, a journalist, a veteran freedom fighter, and a well-known politician, later became the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh, Jaipal Singh Munda was an influential Indian politician, a writer, and sportsman, a member of the Constituent Assembly of India who passionately advocated for the rights of tribal communities. He also captained the Indian hockey team to its first-ever Olympic gold medal in 1928. J. Natarajan, known for his work on the history of Indian journalism, was also a member of the first Press Commission. The other two members were A.R. Bhat, an academician and a scientist, and M. Chelapathi Rau, an eminent journalist and the then Editor of the National Herald. The Commission made several significant recommendations that laid the groundwork for the regulation and development of the press in independent India.

Establishment of a Press Council was a crucial recommendation of the First Press Commission

The Commission suggested instituting a statutory Press Council as a quasi-judicial body to safeguard the freedom of the press, maintain and enhance journalistic standards, and formulate a professional code of conduct. The Press Council of India was subsequently established in 1966 based on this recommendation, but unfortunately, it failed to achieve its objectives.

Appointment of a Registrar of Newspapers for India

The Commission recommended the creation of a Registrar of Newspapers to maintain detailed records of newspapers and periodicals, verify circulation claims, and track ownership patterns. The RNI was established in 1956 and has since outlived its utility. Introduction of a Price-Page Schedule, which is now meaningless in the current digital media landscape, was also recommended by it.

Enactment of the Working Journalist Act

The Commission recommended measures to ensure fair wages and better working conditions for journalists, leading to the Working Journalists and other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Services) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955. Given the unprecedented growth of electronic and internet media, print media has been relegated to an insignificant position. Furthermore, it has now been subsumed in the four labour codes.

Press Council of India Needs to be Disbanded

Therefore, the very establishment of the Press Council of India was meaningless and questionable from the very beginning. However, its worthlessness has now accentuated to an extent that it needs to be disbanded immediately, and a Media Council representative in character and consisting of eminent journalists, jurists, trade unionists, conscientious public figures, and parliamentarians, should be enacted and constituted to serve as the watchdog of the media in the truest sense of the term.

(The writer has served as a member of the Press Council of India for two terms, six years, in the early nineties)

Anchor cannot be held responsible for the views of panellists

 The Supreme Court bench consisting of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Manmohan delivered a remarkable judgment on 13th June, which should be praised for promoting the freedom of speech and expression as enshrined in the Constitution of India. On 6th June, the Andhra police arrested one Mr K Srinivas Rao, an anchor of the Telugu TV channel Sakshi, for allegedly abetting defamatory and derogatory remarks made by a panellist on his show about Amravati, the new capital of Andhra Pradesh. Amravati is located very close to Vijayawada. The judges stated that the anchor Rao did not make any statement himself; rather, it was one of the participants who contemptuously remarked that Amravati was becoming the ‘capital of sex workers.

There is no doubt that these days, the panellists are invited by the TV channels that subscribe to the views and ideas of those particular channels. They are given the freedom to speak only if they adhere to the channels' views; if their opinions do not suit the channels, the participants are grilled and silenced. This is why panellists often express ideas that are unworthy of their positions. For example, if a newspaper publishes something that is not in good taste, the editor cannot hide behind the excuse that the views belong to the writer, which may not align with the philosophy or thinking of the newspaper. Firstly, the newspaper will not publish anything detrimental to itself, and secondly, if something is deemed inappropriate, it will edit the material. 

Here, however, the Channel anchor stated that it was not its view, but rather the assertion of the guest, V V R Krishnam Raju, who had claimed that Amravati was like a sex capital. It should be noted that the Channel Sakshi is regarded as a mouthpiece of the YSR Congress Party, which is firmly opposed to the Amaravati capital project initiated by the TDP during its previous term in power. Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Manmohan asserted that Mr Rao was merely hosting the TV show and that the statement is not attributed to him but to a panellist over whom he had no control. The bench asked for the AP government's response to the petition of the Anchor seeking to quash the FIR against him. However, the Court cautioned Rao not to involve himself in any defamatory statements or permit any panellist to make such a statement on live TV shows.

 

India has instilled fear in Pakistanis by calling their nuclear bluff.

India has decisively defeated Pakistan in a war that lasted only three days; otherwise, Pakistan would not have requested or even agreed to a ceasefire. Wars between even very strong and weak countries have often continued for months. The Vietnam War, also known as the Second Indochina War, was unique; it lasted for two decades. It was fought in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia. North Vietnam received support from China and the Soviet Union, while the South was backed by the United States, Thailand, Australia, and South Korea.

The war commenced on 1 November 1955 and concluded on 30 April 1975. The US began direct military involvement in Vietnam in 1964, which lasted until 1973. Today, the Vietnamese refer to this conflict as the Resistance War Against America. From 1965 to 1973, the US expended $120 billion on the conflict. An estimated 58,200 Americans lost their lives, while around 110,000 were injured. Two million Vietnamese perished, and an additional twelve million became refugees. In 1976, Vietnam was unified as the Socialist Republic of Vietnam.

 Similarly, Russia launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine on 24 February 2022. Since that time, the conflict has escalated, with intense fighting ongoing across various regions, resulting in thousands of casualties on both sides.

The Gaza-Israel conflict began on 7 October 2023, when Hamas executed a large-scale attack on Israel from the Gaza Strip, leading Israel to declare war and commence military operations. By May 2025, the conflict had caused over 52,000 deaths in Gaza, representing about 2% of the territory’s population. Additionally, around 1,700 Israelis have died, including those killed in the initial attack on 7 October. The war has also led to extensive destruction, with over two-thirds of Gaza’s buildings damaged or destroyed.

In summary, wars can endure for many years; however, in the case of India and Pakistan, Indian forces brought the Pakistanis to their knees in just four days. A significant achievement of this brief conflict was that India revealed the empty threats of Pakistan’s nuclear blackmail. Even Western sources indicate that Indian forces have nearly obliterated Pakistan's nuclear facilities, rendering the so-called Islamic nuclear bombs ineffectual for the future. This is a considerable accomplishment for the Modi government, and hopefully, Pakistan will reconsider engaging in any further terrorist activities, especially given Modi's clear stance that retaliation will now be the new norm. Instilling fear in the enemy's heart is a greater victory than mere killing. 

Only technology can eradicate corruption and improve the lives of individuals.

Corruption and bribery are undermining the foundations of our country. These vices flourish under the noses of the government, regardless of the party or person in power. However, it must be noted that the current government has initiated some positive steps to address the roots of corruption, yet much more remains to be done. Even a low-ranking official or employee in a government department earns significantly more than their salary would suggest. This highlights why candidates invest substantial amounts to secure government positions. A current of corruption flows from top to bottom. Given the mindset of the people, it is often assumed that corruption cannot be eradicated. Nevertheless, it can be largely mitigated, not through human intervention but via technological advancements.

Not long ago, when the only methods to remit money were through money orders, hand delivery, or cheques, corruption was rampant. It could take weeks to reach the intended recipient, leaving them in a difficult situation in the meantime. Postmen would accept bribes for distributing money orders. Now, technology has eliminated the need for human intervention, allowing money to be transferred in mere seconds. Even bank clerks previously profited from processing cheques. I have witnessed firsthand the myriad problems faced by pensioners in receiving their pensions. At the start of each month, it was a common sight to see long queues of pensioners outside designated bank windows. They were often accompanied by a younger relative, who would pocket the money from the pensioners and send them back home by bus or auto. The funds were rarely used by the pensioners themselves. Fortunately, with the technology of Direct Bank Transfer (DBT), pensioners no longer need to queue outside banks, as pension amounts are transferred directly to their accounts.

In courts, litigants had to bribe court clerks merely to learn the dates of hearings; however, now there is no need to waste time in courts, as the entire case history can be accessed via mobile phones or computers. Previously, one had to run from pillar to post to obtain a certified copy of an order or judgment to appeal to higher courts, but this process has been streamlined as it can now be accessed from court websites. The Modi government deserves credit for enhancing the use of technology in courts. Similarly, the attestation of documents has significantly reduced the burdens on students. In the past, they had to wait in queues outside the offices of gazetted officers to have their documents attested, but this requirement has now been abolished.

 Under the Pradhan Mantri Kisan Samman Nidhi (PM-KISAN) scheme, eligible landholding farmer families in India receive Rs 6,000 annually. This amount is distributed in three equal instalments of Rs 2,000 every four months. While the total disbursed amount varies slightly depending on the number of eligible beneficiaries, recent data provides an overview of the annual distribution. The 19th instalment, disbursed in February 2025, transferred an estimated Rs 22,000 crore to approximately 9.8 crore beneficiaries. The 18th instalment, released in October 2024, saw over Rs 20,000 crore distributed to more than 9.4 crore farmers. Based on these statistics, it is evident that the annual distribution under PM-KISAN constitutes a significant amount, typically exceeding Rs 60,000 crore. The late Rajiv Gandhi was entirely correct in stating that 85 per cent of the money sent from the government was gobbled up by intermediaries, with only 15 per cent reaching the actual beneficiaries. Had there been no facility for Direct Bank Transfer, farmers would have been deprived of at least 80% of what they currently receive. Therefore, for corruption to be substantially eradicated, technology, particularly AI, should be utilised to its fullest potential across courts, hospitals, police departments, and other sectors.

 

Only artificial intelligence can alleviate the burden on courts

The staggering number of pending cases in various courts across the country has exceeded 5.2 crore. District Courts are inundated with over 85% of these cases, while High Courts and the Supreme Court also contend with a significant number of unresolved cases. Over 180,000 cases have been pending for more than 30 years. Land and property disputes account for 20% of all pending cases and 66% of all civil cases. The number of cases is likely to rise in the coming days for various reasons. The reality is that as long as technology, particularly Artificial Intelligence (AI), is not utilised, incidents of fraud, cheating, false cases, and even legitimate cases will continue to escalate. According to a report published by Niti Aayog in 2018, at the current disposal rate, it would take more than 324 years to clear the backlog.

According to a report published on 13th May in the Hindustan Times, a case of forgery has emerged. In this case, the Supreme Court has withdrawn its ruling in a land dispute after it was brought to its attention that the favourable verdict was obtained through a fabricated settlement and a "ghost" respondent.

On 13 December 2024, the Supreme Court quashed the orders of a Muzaffarpur trial court and the Patna High Court, which were based on a purported compromise agreement between the petitioner and the respondent. However, it was discovered that the supposed respondent was an impostor, and the real respondent was unaware of the proceedings, only learning of the order five months later. He promptly approached the Supreme Court through his lawyer, alleging that the order had been obtained through fraud, deception, and the suppression of material facts.

The petitioner in the case has not only violated legal and ethical norms but has also perpetrated fraud upon the court, which, if not rectified, will embolden such mala fide litigants to continue their deceitful practices, according to the plea. Notably, the original order recorded the appearance of four advocates for the fictitious respondent. However, during a new hearing, a lawyer representing an advocate who had previously appeared informed the bench that he is 80 years old and has not practised law recently.

This situation further underscores the importance of employing Artificial Intelligence (AI), which will aid in identifying cheating, fraud, and forgery by both advocates and litigants. For instance, AI can meticulously adjudicate cases involving land compensation, chalan, and cheque bouncing. Through the proper use of AI, the number of cases could be reduced by more than 50 per cent in under six months.

 

SCBA must organise a farewell for Justice Bela Trivedi before she formally retires

 

 The SCBA's failure to organise the customary farewell party for Justice Bela M. Trivedi on her last working day brings the SCBA's malaise to the forefront. It must be condemned in the strongest possible terms by everyone. She is one of the few judges who have risen from the ranks to the top court through hard work, diligence, honesty, and commitment. She will retire in June, when the courts will be closed for the summer holiday. Therefore, May 16 was her last working day. She would not hold court for the remaining days in May, as she would be away in a foreign country to attend a family function. 

SCBA has not provided any explanation, much less a plausible one, for its failure to organise the farewell party. Since Kapil Sibal has been the President of the SCBA for many terms, he was at least expected not to politicise the matter. Rumours abound that she was the Law Secretary in Gujarat when Shri Narendra Modi was the Chief Minister, but that could not be a reason for not honouring her with a ritualistic farewell party. She was not appointed to her position based on political affiliations. If this were the reason, many judges would never have been elevated to the bench because they were cardholders of certain political parties. 

Justice Baharul Islam, a staunch communal person, was a Member of the Rajya Sabha before being appointed to the Gauhati High Court. His appointment to the Supreme Court shortly after retiring from the High Court was also very controversial. M. Fathima Bivee was appointed to the Supreme Court many months after she retired from the High Court. Later, she became the governor of Tamil Nadu, which is a political post.  

An illustrious Justice V.R. Krishna served as a Minister in the Namboodiripad government of Kerala before serving as a judge in the Supreme Court. Justice Koka Subba Rao resigned three months before his retirement to contest the presidential election. Justice Mohammad Hidayatullah's brother, Mohammad Ikramullah, was the first foreign secretary of Pakistan who pressured his brother to shift to Pakistan, but there was no ill will against him. Justice Hidayatullah served as the Chief Justice of India. He was also the Vice President of India and acted as the President of India on multiple occasions. 

Justice K.S. Hegde was a member of the Rajya Sabha before his appointment to the Supreme Court. Later, following his supersession, he resigned and contested in the Lok Sabha election to become the Speaker of the House. Many have served as active politicians and worked as judges in the judiciary. 

Since many of the SCBA members are politicians opposed to the current Narendra Modi government, they have exposed themselves to unethical behaviour towards a lady judge who is allegedly close to the current political dispensation. 

There is still time for the SCBA to feel remorse and organise a grand farewell for Justice Bela Trivedi before she formally retires in June. That would certainly be an exculpatory move for the SCBA; otherwise, posterity will never forgive or forget the present office-bearers.

 

 

Shameless Nitwits discourage taking action against the Terrorist Pakistan

 There is no death of dishonest nitwits, who try to justify the terrorism in Pahalgam by asking silly questions, why there was slackness in security. Many do not want any response from the Government of India, as it will further aggravate the situation against those cowards who killed 28 persons after profiling their religion. To ensure the religion of their targets, they asked for their names, undressed them to see their private parts to be sure that they were circumcised. Many even went to the extent of taking a guarantee that no Kashmiri could have done this despicable work, forgetting the fact that it was because of the involvement of local Kashmiris and politicians that the terror survived for very long in Jammu and Kashmir.

It is a glaring fact that terrorists cannot operate without local sleeper cells. During the Bombay blast case, a lot of the local Muslim population was involved in giving refuge to terrorists, who had come from Pakistan. The same was the case in the Red Fort attack and the Parliament attack cases.

The terrorist attack on the Red Fort in Delhi occurred on December 22, 2000. It was carried out by the Pakistani terrorist group Lashkar-e-Taiba. Terrorists were indeed armed from outside, but it could not have been possible without local support. Similarly, the terrorists' attack on the Indian Parliament occurred on December 13, 2001. Five heavily armed terrorists from the group Jaish-e-Mohammed stormed the Parliament complex in New Delhi, leading to a fierce gun battle. The attack resulted in the deaths of nine people, including six security personnel, two Parliament staff members, and a gardener. The attackers were killed before they could enter the main building, preventing what could have been a far worse tragedy. But one thing is certain that the loyalty of a large number of Muslims cannot be taken for granted. They owe more allegiance to their religion that gives them identity than to the country or society.

Thus, so long vast majority of Muslims do not shed their religious notoriety and feel proud of the country of their birth and their ancestry, it would be almost impossible to curb and control Islamic terrorism. These Islamists have extra-territorial loyalty, otherwise, there is no reason to find slogan shouting and communal riots at many places in the country over the victory or defeat of Pakistanis in cricket or other sports. The communal tension in Murshidabad is an example of outside loyalty of local Muslims more from Bangladesh and other Muslim countries than for India. These loafer Muslims can be set right in two ways. One is to deal with them very stringently, and the second is to take the help of organisations like Arya Samaj to take them back to their old religion, which can be said to be Ghar Wapsi (home-coming) in simple parlance

Fifth Columnists Must be Crushed to Demolish Pakistan-Sponsored Terrorism

 Fifth Columnists Must be Crushed to Demolish Pakistan-Sponsored Terrorism

 One wonders to find the abundance of fifth columnists in the country. Their only aim is to obfuscate the issues and Islamic and Pakistani terrorists. It appears that if Pakistan wins against India, they will be happier because they want to settle scores with Narendra Modi by putting all the blame on him. Countless shameless people have no qualms about accusing Prime Minister Narendra Modi of the security lapse. These people are so obsessed with anti-Modi feelings that they have no hesitation in supporting the demons of Pakistan. Perhaps they feign ignorance of the fact that no amount of security can make a system foolproof. Did 9 /11 happen in America because of any security lapse? Did any American ask for the resignation of the President of America or any other person responsible for what had happened? No, not at all. Did the attack by Hamas take place in the Gaza Strip of Israel because of any security lapse? It was unthinkable for any bird, as they say, to flutter safely in the area, yet Hamas had struck. Was there any laxity in security in the Parliament House in December 2001 or on 26/11 of 2008 in Mumbai? As a matter of fact, no amount of security can prevent terrorist attacks unless their morale is crushed. That is what the Modi government has done, and that is the reason that no terrorist activities have taken place for the last more than a decade; otherwise, during the previous regime, it was difficult to move out of houses without fear of any terrorist attack. Almost every month, some or other terror attacks took place either in buses, trains, bazars or parks before Modi came to power. Those who are criticising the Modi government are providing cover fire to Pakistan, and they must be hauled up. Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi were killed despite the best security available to them.The need, therefore, is to come down heavily on these home-grown anti-social elements, who are ready to sell their souls for money from anti-Indian forces operating from abroad. Most of the politicians belonging to the opposition parties are either illiterate or have no understanding of the current geopolitics. Shockingly, many Indian journalists are found holding briefs for Pakistani/ Islamic terrorism. At a time when the whole world is facing Islamic terrorism, any support to them for the sake of petty vote bank politics will cause incalculable harm to the country. The time is to remain united and stand solidly behind the government to break Pakistan into many pieces.

 

R N Ravi's case of Tamil Nadu must be revisited

 The Supreme Court, or any court for that matter, is not a cloistered virtue. The judgments of the courts are matters of record and can be critiqued by citizens of the country. The only limitation is that no motives should be attributed to the judges who deliver those judgments. However, it is a fact that judges are often influenced by their predilections and prejudices.

 Chief Justice Sanjeev Khanna is largely correct when he states that while serving as a judge, he or she does not belong to any religion or caste. Nonetheless, there have been many instances in which judges have revealed their religious biases. For example, while deciding Shayra Bano's case on triple talaq, Justice Nazeer did not sign the judgment because it conflicted with his religious beliefs. The Shayara Bano case was a landmark judgment by the Supreme Court of India, where the practice of instant divorce was declared unconstitutional. Shayara Bano challenged the practice, arguing that it violated fundamental rights like equality and personal liberty under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. The court ruled that Triple Talaq was arbitrary and not an essential religious practice.

This decision was a significant step toward gender justice and the empowerment of Muslim women in India.  Justice Nazeer should have recused himself if he wished to remain detached from the case. To be fair to him, he did not express any bias in the Ayodhya case but remained aloof to demonstrate his agreement with the judgment of the other four judges.

There are two parts to any judgment: ratio decidendi and obiter dicta. Ratio decidendi refers to the legal principle or rule that forms the basis of a court's judgment. It is the binding part of the decision that sets a precedent for future cases. Obiter dicta refer to remarks, observations, or opinions made by the judge that are not essential to the decision. These statements do not have binding authority but may be influential in later cases.

 In simple terms, ratio decidendi is the core legal reasoning that establishes a rule, while obiter dicta include additional comments that may provide guidance but are not legally enforceable. This is why judges should exercise extra caution when making any obiter dicta remarks. The way two judges made obiter remarks about Nupur Sharma was ludicrous, to say the least. They should have expressed regret in open court for their comments, which became more significant than the actual judgment. Therefore, the delicate case of Tamil Nadu Governor N Ravi should have been handled with greater sensitivity, which it duly deserved.

Since it involves interpreting the Constitution, the Supreme Court must give it the importance required to revisit and review the case.

 

 

Directions to the President and Governors are a constitutional overreach by the Supreme Court

How can there be any difference in the views of Vice President Jagadeep Dhankhar regarding Article 142 of the Constitution, that it should not be used as a nuclear missile, but rather for complete justice, which is the intent of the Constitution? Despite having extraordinary powers, it is not accurate to say that the Supreme Court can do no wrong. The infamous case of ADM Jabalpur versus Shivakanta Shukla is a permanent stain on the judiciary, i.e. the Supreme Court, when it suspended fundamental rights to life. This case primarily addressed whether citizens could file a writ of habeas corpus to challenge unlawful detention during the Emergency.

The Supreme Court's overreach has been felt many times in matters concerning constitutional posts. The cause of the current controversy is the recent case of ‘State of Tamil Nadu versus Union of India.’ In this case, the Supreme Court practically directed the Governors and the President of India to clear the bills within three months of their passage by the legislatures. However, the Supreme Court overlooked the provisions of Article 361 of the Constitution, which provides immunity to the President and Governors from legal proceedings while they are in office.

The President and Governors are not answerable to any court for actions taken in their official capacity. No criminal proceedings can be initiated or continued against them while they hold office. No arrest or imprisonment orders can be issued against them during their tenure. Civil proceedings related to personal acts can be initiated only after a two-month notice. This article of the constitution ensures that the highest constitutional authorities can perform their duties without legal distractions. Therefore, the President and Governors do not fall within the purview of Article 142 of the Constitution. This was why the late Somnath Chatterjee, the former speaker of the Lok Sabha, even refused to accept the notice of the Supreme Court, for which he was lauded by all believing in constitutional propriety.

The Supreme Court has committed many egregious mistakes, and this ruling will likely join the category of judgments made during the Emergency when it justified the suspension of Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty), meaning that individuals could not challenge their detention in court. This decision was widely criticised for undermining fundamental rights.

Likewise, Keshav Singh’s case revolves around the conflict between the privileges of the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly and the judiciary's authority. Keshav Singh, a member of the Socialist Party, was accused of contempt of the UP Legislative Assembly after distributing pamphlets alleging corruption by a Congress MLA. The Assembly sentenced him to seven days in jail. However, Singh filed a writ petition in the Allahabad High Court, challenging his detention. The High Court granted him bail, which led the Assembly to charge the judges and Singh's lawyer with contempt as well.

This case raised significant constitutional questions regarding the balance of power between the legislature and the judiciary. Similarly, Bihar also experienced tensions between the judiciary and legislative privileges in 1997. These cases underscore the delicate balance among the different branches of government. It is therefore crucial that all the organs of democracy understand their limitations. The Supreme Court cannot give directions to High Courts. That is why, in its judgments, the Supreme Court requests the High Courts and never directs them, as High Courts are also constitutional courts, and the Supreme Court does not have any advisory jurisdiction over them.

Supreme Court is Wrong in Saying that Urdu is Free from Religious Obstinacy

  

Facts are sacred, comments are free. Therefore, every person under 19 (1) (a) has the right to free speech and expression, which includes the right to reasonable criticism of the law courts or any executive action. Similarly, section 5 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 states that a person is not punishable for contempt of court if he or she publishes a reasonable comment on the merits of a matter that has been heard and determined or if a person publishes a fair comment on the merits of a matter that has already been heard and determined.

The issue involved here is the Urdu language, which has been a bone of contention right from its inception in India. There is hardly any doubt that Urdu and Hindi are of the same genre. The only difference is the script. While Marathi, Hindi, and Nepali are written in Devanagari, Gujarati, Bengali, and Punjabi also share many similarities with the Devanagari script. However, a particular community is responsible for making Urdu a communal language, as this community insists on writing Urdu in the Arabic-Persian script. It was promoted more by the medieval Muslim rulers than by the common people.

In all the states where Urdu is the second language, its growth has been retarded for two reasons: one is its alien script, and the other is its support by a particular religious community, which has stubbornly refused to accept any change. Otherwise, there seemed to be no reason why Urdu should be foisted upon the people of West and East Pakistan, where not even a fraction of the people could speak this language. Even today, those who are fighting for the signboard of the Patur Municipal Council to be written in Urdu along with Marathi belong to only the Muslim community. They do not fight for homogeneity but for a separate identity. Thus, the lecturing of the Supreme Court on Urdu is injudicious, uncalled for, and has no connection with reality.

Judges of High Courts and the Supreme Court nurse a false notion that they know all, forgetting the fact that the Supreme Court is supreme, not because it is infallible, but because it is final. Urdu is undoubtedly a sweet language, and its growth will depend upon its acceptability by other communities, especially if its script is changed from Arabic-Persian to ancient Devanagari. For this, the obstinacy of Urduwalas belonging to a particular religious community will have to eschew its tenacity.