Judiciary suffers from a deep crisis of credibility

Almost Nil Impact of Bharat Bandh Call of Trade Unions

 On February 12, Jantar Mantar in New Delhi served as a focal point for a major gathering as part of a nationwide general strike (Bharat Bandh). Unfortunately, the gathering drew fewer than 500 people. These people were presented as workers, but most were college students. The demonstration was organised by a joint platform of over 10 Central Trade Unions (CTUs), including CITU, AITUC, and INTUC, as well as the Samyukt Kisan Morcha (SKM). This dismal demonstration by the Trade Unions further proves that workers are no longer interested in their tall talk, as the Unions have miserably failed to protect the interests of the working class in India. Things have also changed. There are now a negligible number of workers. Their way of working has changed. They have become habituated to the new facilities. Therefore, they cannot be herded like the workers of the eighties or even the nineties.

The protesters called for the repeal of the four new labour codes, the restoration of MGNREGA (which they claim has been undermined by recent acts), and the withdrawal of the Electricity Amendment Bill and the Draft Seed Bill. These Trade Unionists are themselves unaware of the nuances of the new labour codes. It will, therefore, be advisable for trade unionists to organise a refresher course on the new labour codes, where they can invite young professionals such as Yajat Kumar of the LLR, the grandson of the legendary lawyer, the late HL Kumar.

Impact of the Strike

The overall impact of the Bandh calls across Delhi and the rest of the country was muted. The strike had some impact in states like Kerala, where public transport and banking were somewhat disrupted. In other regions such as West Bengal and Gujarat, life remained largely normal. Public sector banks saw partial disruptions in some places, as major unions like AIBEA joined the strike, affecting cheque clearances and counter services in several branches.

 

Three Generations of Legal Excellence: The Evolution of Labour Law

The legacy of the late Shri H.L. Kumar, the legendary lawyer and founding editor of the prestigious Labour Law Reporter (LLR), continues to reach new heights through the dedicated work of his son and grandson. Gaurav Kumar and Yajat Kumar have taken up the mantle, ensuring that the foundation laid by the patriarch remains a cornerstone of Indian jurisprudence while evolving for a modern era.

The Dual Pillars of the Kumar Legacy

The family's contribution to the legal field now operates through two strategic strengths:

•        Gaurav Kumar: Continues the tradition of rigorous advocacy, focusing on high-stakes litigation and landmark cases in the Supreme Court and High Courts.

•        Yajat Kumar: Has emerged as a "beacon light" for the media and industrial sectors, bridging the gap between complex statutory requirements and practical corporate application.

A Visionary in Legal Consultancy

Recently, the younger Kumar was bestowed with the "Industry Change Makers Award," a rare distinction instituted by India’s leading publications, The Economic Times and The Times of India. This accolade recognises Yajat Kumar as a premier employment law consultant, a title reserved for those who demonstrate exceptional leadership and a transformative impact on their field.

In many circles, it is whispered that Yajat has become the "New H.L. Kumar," not only matching the brilliance of his grandfather but surpassing traditional boundaries to meet the needs of a globalised workforce.

The Recognition: Why he is a "Change Maker"

The award specifically acknowledged Yajat’s role in reshaping the industry through:

•        Strategic Guidance: Navigating intricate employment issues with surgical precision.

•        Balanced Advocacy: Championing robust legal frameworks that harmonise the interests of both employers and employees.

•        Thought Leadership: Driving the editorial vision of LLR to remain the most trusted resource for legal professionals and HR practitioners.

Mastery of the New Frontier

Perhaps Yajat Kumar’s most significant contemporary contribution is his profound clarity regarding the Four New Labour Codes. As these codes come into force, his "incredible and excellent" understanding has made him an indispensable asset to organisations struggling to navigate the transition.

His dedication to legal excellence and innovation ensures that the Kumar name remains synonymous with the highest standards of Indian labour and employment law.

 

Social Media: An Unguided Missile Needing Regulation

 The growth of responsible media is welcome; no other medium disseminates information or commentary with such speed. However, information circulated on these platforms must often be taken with a pinch of salt. Frequently, we are bombarded with fabricated narratives driven by purveyors with their own axes to grind. These individuals often fail to realise the damage they inflict on the credibility of information and the reputation of the media itself.

The root of this anarchy is a lack of binding ethics or values. While self-regulation is often emphasised, it remains, in reality, a charade. Unlike traditional media, social media lacks a "gatekeeper," making it a double-edged weapon. Artificial Intelligence, otherwise immensely useful, has further empowered bad actors to distort facts and manufacture narratives that suit their agendas.

Just today, we witnessed a prime example of this: a deluge of social media posts claiming that the West Bengal Chief Minister—a law graduate from a lesser-known college—argued the "SIR" (Special Intensive Revision) case in the Supreme Court with the prowess of a senior counsel. Viral photographs depicted her in an advocate’s robes, cementing this false narrative.

The truth, however, is legal and distinct. She appeared before the Court only as a party in person, a right permitted under Indian law. As a matter of fact, no Minister or Chief Minister can appear in court as an advocate.

This prohibition is grounded in Rule 49 of the Bar Council of India Rules, which states that an advocate shall not be a full-time salaried employee of any government or corporation. If an advocate takes up such employment, they must suspend their practice. While the Supreme Court has clarified that MPs and MLAs can practice (as they are elected representatives, not employees), the position for Ministers is different. Ministers hold an "Office of Profit" and perform full-time executive duties; thus, they are precluded from practising law to prevent a conflict of interest.

Despite this clear legal position, fake news about her "brilliant advocacy" is being peddled with reckless abandon. The reality of her performance was starkly different. While she certainly addressed the court, her arguments were legally lacking and, at times, frivolous. The language was untenable.

Ultimately, the issue here is not the Chief Minister, but the medium. Her case is merely a symptom of a larger malady. It is imperative that the government, in consultation with responsible media organisations, evolve a robust regulatory mechanism to force social media onto a path of accountability.

Concerns Over the Notification of New UGC Rules

 

The new rules notified by the University Grants Commission (UGC) on 13 January 2026 have generated significant debate and criticism, particularly among some students from the general category. Several groups argued that the framework could unintentionally create perceptions of reverse discrimination. Protests were reported outside the UGC office in Delhi and in other parts of the country, led by organisations such as the “Savarna Sena.” Their principal concern was that the rules did not clearly specify a parallel grievance-reporting mechanism for general category students and might lead to an increase in complaints and administrative complications. The situation, however, stabilised after the Supreme Court granted an interim injunction.

Critics contend that the rules appear to have been notified without sufficiently wide consultation or careful evaluation of their broader social and institutional impact. One major objection is the expansion of coverage to include additional OBC categories without a publicly presented body of evidence demonstrating widespread systemic discrimination in every newly included group. Opponents argue that existing UGC regulations already provide mechanisms to address harassment and discrimination, and that strengthening implementation may have been preferable to expanding the regulatory scope.

Some commentators also question whether the policy debate has relied too heavily on a limited number of high-profile cases, where facts and conclusions remain contested or complex. They suggest that policymaking in this sensitive area should be grounded in comprehensive data, transparent review, and stakeholder consultation across communities.

At the same time, supporters of broader protections argue that discrimination can exist in varied forms and that preventive frameworks are better created early rather than after patterns become entrenched. This difference in perspective highlights the need for more evidence-based dialogue rather than polarised reactions.

The broader philosophical concern remains: if the long-term social objective is to move toward a casteless society, policymakers must carefully assess whether expanding caste-based regulatory structures helps reduce inequity or inadvertently reinforces social divisions. Some earlier thinkers, including Chaudhary Charan Singh, had suggested that incentivising inter-caste marriages could be a more enduring social reform measure. Such proposals deserve renewed discussion alongside regulatory approaches.

Given the sensitivity of the issue, it would be prudent for the government and regulatory bodies to revisit the rules through wider consultation, clearer drafting, and stronger empirical justification, while keeping the focus on fairness, social harmony, and educational development.

Avoidable Controversy by Swami Avimukteshwaranand

 

The controversy raged by Swami Avimukteshwaranand during the Mauni Amavasya snan (bath) in the Sangam at Prayagraj was unjustified and could have been avoided. His claim to be Shankaracharya of Jyotirmatt is unique and remains contested. Each Shankaracharya is seen as the custodian of one Veda and one Mahavakya, ensuring the preservation of Advait Vedanta.

Although the sterling work for the Vedic religion was done by Rishi Dayanand Saraswati, who was the founder of Arya Samaj, he never favoured the system of Shankaracharya. The location of Jyotishpeeth is Joshimatha in Uttarakhand, North. The Atharva Veda is attached to this Math, and its Mahavakya is: Ayam Atma Brahma, i.e. This self is Brahman.

Sama Veda is associated with the Dwarka Sharda Peetham of Dwarka in the West. Its Mahavakya is Tattwam Asi, i.e. Thou art That. Govardhan Matt is situated in Puri of Odissa. Rigveda is associated with it, and its Mahavakya is Pragyanam Brahma, which emphasises that Consciousness is Brahman, which means pure awareness itself is the ultimate reality. The highly respected Sringeri Sharda Peetham is located in the South at Sringeri of Karnataka, and it is the custodian of the Yajurveda and the Mahavakya is Aham Brahmasmi, i. e. I am Brahman, which is a direct realisation of one’s identity with Brahman.

  Together, the four Mahavakyas form a complete philosophical system, emphasising the non-dual identity of Atman (Self) and Brahman (Absolute Reality). This structure also explains why the Shankaracharyas are revered not just regionally but are considered guardians of the entire Vedantic tradition. Their contribution, however, to the betterment of society has been next to nil as compared to the Arya Samaj.

It was Swami Brahmananda Saraswati, who revived Jyotirmath in 1941. This Jyotirmatt was without any Shankaracharya for centuries.  After his death, Swami Shantanand Saraswati was appointed, but many disciples rejected his claim.  Swami Vishnudevanand Saraswati also claimed the seat, leading to decades of disputes. Swami Swaroopanand Saraswati, a disciple of Brahmananda Saraswati, eventually asserted authority and was widely recognised, though not without opposition.  Swami Avimukteshwaranand Saraswati, Swaroopanand’s disciple, was declared successor in 2022, but his claim is being legally contested by Swami Vasudevanand Saraswati, a disciple of Swami Shantanand.

 Swami Avimukteswaranand could have won the hearts of the people by his conduct, but he always appears to be in a pugnacious mood, giving rise to one or the other controversy.

 

 

Religious Bigotry: A Mark of Backwardness

Every society and religion has faced social evils, but progressive communities have always embraced reform. For instance, Hindu society once struggled with practices such as child marriage, sati, and dowry. These customs, though deeply entrenched, were eventually abolished through legislation and widespread public support.

Similarly, Muslim societies have grappled with harmful practices such as Triple Talaq, Halala, and restrictive interpretations of the Hijab. While some of these issues have been addressed through reform laws, what remains troubling is the resistance from certain community leaders who oppose change. Practices like Misyar marriages among Sunnis and Mutah marriages among Shias persist in some regions, highlighting the need for continued reform.

The eradication of such evils depends on the spread of scientific education and rational thought. Reformers in India raised their voices against sati, child marriage, and dowry, leading to laws that were widely accepted without opposition from Hindu religious leaders. In contrast, within Islam, reform efforts often encounter resistance from fundamentalist and radical elements.

A striking example comes from Turkey under Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, who sought to modernise society and limit religious conservatism. He famously criticised the hijab, calling women in veils “walking tents.” His reforms, however, faced strong opposition, including the Khilafat movement, which was ironically supported by leaders like Mahatma Gandhi despite its regressive stance.

Figures such as Maulana Mohammad Ali Jauhar and Shaukat Ali spearheaded the Khilafat movement, prioritising religious orthodoxy over social progress. The establishment of institutions commemorating such leaders raises questions about the true spirit of secularism.

It is tragic that nations like Turkey and Iran—once seen as pioneers of reform—have regressed into regimes dominated by religious bigotry. Social reform must never be obstructed by religious obscurantism. Leaders and followers of all faiths must adapt to the pace of modern times. Societies that resist progress are destined to remain backward in every sphere of life.