Not Vacating Office or Residence After Losing Power Is Indefensible

A disturbing trend appears to be emerging among some politicians who, after being voted out of office, show reluctance to abide by the rules and conventions governing the relinquishment of power and official privileges. In a democracy, respect for the people's mandate requires not only accepting electoral defeat but also gracefully surrendering the offices, residences, and privileges attached to power.

Two examples that attracted public attention are those of Mamata Banerjee and Rabri Devi, both former Chief Ministers of their respective states. The country witnessed an unprecedented constitutional situation when Mamata Banerjee, despite losing the Assembly election, did not immediately relinquish office. Ultimately, the Governor had to intervene and administer the oath to the new Chief Minister. Such incidents undermine democratic norms and set an unhealthy precedent.

The conduct of Rabri Devi and her husband, Lalu Prasad Yadav, who together dominated Bihar's politics for nearly one and a half decades, has also raised serious questions. Rabri Devi is presently the Leader of the Opposition in the Bihar Legislative Council, while her son, Tejashwi Yadav, serves as the Leader of the Opposition in the Bihar Legislative Assembly.

Rabri Devi has been residing at 10 Circular Road, Patna, since demitting the office of Chief Minister in 2006. However, in November 2025, the Bihar Government earmarked and formally allotted 39 Hardinge Road as the official residence of the Leader of the Opposition in the Legislative Council. Since she has already been provided an official residence in her current capacity, there appears to be little justification for continuing to occupy a bungalow that has since been allotted to a serving minister.

The issue assumes greater significance in light of the Patna High Court's 2019 judgment striking down the policy that allowed former Chief Ministers to retain government bungalows indefinitely. The court made it clear that such residences are public property meant for current constitutional and public functionaries, not for the lifetime use of former office-holders. While the government has honoured Rabri Devi's entitlement by allotting her an alternative official residence, her insistence on retaining the same bungalow risks conveying the wrong message. Rather than challenging the government to evict her, it would be far more appropriate to resolve the matter amicably and in accordance with the law.

This is not the first time that questions have been raised about the conduct of former holders of high office. When Akhilesh Yadav vacated the official residence of the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh, he was accused of removing fixtures and causing damage to the property, drawing widespread criticism in the media.

The larger question is why some individuals who have occupied the highest public offices find it difficult to observe the very rules and conventions that they once administered. Public office carries not only authority but also the responsibility to set an example. A graceful exit after the loss of power strengthens democratic institutions; resistance to it weakens public faith in them. Whatever the political affiliation of the individuals concerned, refusal to vacate official residences or relinquish official privileges after their entitlement has ceased is difficult to defend from any perspective.

Some Changes Brought by the Modi Government Are No Less Than Revolutionary

 The Modi government has ushered in several transformational changes over the past twelve years from the perspective of ordinary citizens.

The first major change is that young men and women from modest backgrounds no longer have to run from pillar to post to get their documents attested by gazetted officers. Earlier, they often had to visit government offices or even the homes of officials, and many were compelled to pay small bribes to peons or staff members merely to have their documents signed and verified. This not only wasted the time of the youth but also that of the officers and their staff. Prime Minister Narendra Modi ended this cumbersome practice through an announcement made from the ramparts of the Red Fort (Lal Quila).

The second significant step was the opening of zero-balance bank accounts for the poorest sections of society without burdensome paperwork. Instead of forcing poor citizens to repeatedly visit bank branches, bank officials themselves reached out to them. At the time, the initiative was ridiculed by critics and political opponents, but it ultimately brought millions of underprivileged people into the formal banking system.

The third major reform is the Direct Benefit Transfer (DBT) scheme, under which lakhs of beneficiaries now receive government assistance directly into their bank accounts. In the past, a substantial portion of welfare funds meant for the poor was siphoned off by middlemen and corrupt officials. Today, however, the money reaches the intended beneficiaries directly, ensuring transparency and minimising leakages.

Long queues of pensioners outside bank counters during the first week of every month were once a distressing ordeal for elderly citizens. For many senior citizens, standing for hours to collect their pensions was nothing short of traumatic. However, thanks to the DBT system, much of this hardship has disappeared, as pension amounts are now credited directly into their bank accounts. One only needs to speak to pensioners to understand the immense relief and convenience this reform has brought to their lives.

Another landmark initiative has been the construction of household toilets, popularly referred to as “Izzatghars,” which has brought about a social revolution, especially in rural India. Chaudhary Charan Singh, when he was the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh, once remarked at a public gathering that he avoided travelling by road in the evenings because roadsides were lined with people defecating in the open. One could imagine the hardship faced by newly married women in villages, particularly if they suffered from illness during the daytime. The construction of toilets has therefore provided dignity, safety, and immense relief to rural women, many of whom remain deeply grateful for this change.

Digital payments, too, have emerged as a technological revolution, and much of the credit for their widespread adoption goes to Modi. When digital payment apps were first introduced, several self-styled economists and opposition leaders mocked the initiative. Today, however, even small shopkeepers, artisans, and daily-wage workers use digital transactions with ease. Their countless small payments collectively amount to thousands of crores of rupees every day, serving as a fitting response to those who once dismissed the idea.

Twisha Sharma's death must be thoroughly probed to establish trust in the law

 A young and beautiful girl, Twisha Sharma, lost her life a few days ago in Bhopal, where she was married to an advocate who has been absconding since Twisha's death but has recently surrendered in Jabalpur instead of Bhopal, where he lives with his family. Twisha's mother–in–law has been handling the media and the police. The public wants to know the real story of Twisha's death. While her parents and younger sister lay all the blame on the mother-in-law and her husband, on the other hand, the mother-in-law, Mrs Giribala Singh, a former judge in the District Judiciary of Madhya Pradesh, is quite influential, and she has been passing the buck to her daughter-in-law, Twisha Sharma, for her death.

The mother-in-law, Giribala Singh, alleges that Twisha was schizophrenic and had a split personality. She used to take drugs, although she is reported to have died because of a ligature caused by ropes tied around her neck. Giribal Sigh says that she did it in the moments of extreme depression. However, what Mrs Giribala Singh says must be taken with a pinch of salt. Why have the police not been able to produce even a single prescription slip to suggest that she was undergoing treatment for a split personality? Giribala Singh’s conduct further deepens the cloud of suspicion because she made 40-odd phone calls to the judges and police officers to talk about Twisha’s death, but she still feels shy about talking to the media and other persons.

Be that as it may, this case must be thoroughly probed to come to the bottom of the truth and to restore the confidence of the people in the law and law-enforcing agencies. The allegations of Twisha’s parents and her brother should not be thrown to the wind, made in frustration, as they may prove to be important clues.

Lawyers Must Not Be Oversensitive to Criticism

 It is difficult to understand why some people tried to make a mountain out of a molehill over the Chief Justice of India’s obiter remarks about certain “parasites” and “cockroaches” masquerading as lawyers. The controversy ought to have ended after the CJI promptly clarified his remarks. Judges ordinarily speak through their judgments, and comments made during court proceedings—whether in repartee or in a lighter vein—should not be seized upon to malign a judge merely because he refuses to yield to pressure. Judicial decisions, once in the public domain, may certainly be criticised, but such criticism must remain free from personal attacks or imputations of motive against the judge concerned.

Coming to what Justice Surya Kant observed, it would not be entirely unfair to say that many law colleges in the country deserve closure. More than a decade ago, the then Solicitor General of India, Gopal Subramanium, who was also served temporarily as the  Chairman of the Bar Council of India by virtue of the office he held, introduced and implemented the All India Bar Examination (AIBE), intending to ensure that only those possessing at least a basic knowledge of law and a genuine interest in the profession are enrolled by the State Bar Councils. Initially, the measure did help filter entrants to some extent. While many competent and talented young lawyers continue to join the profession, there has simultaneously been an influx of persons armed with fake degrees from dubious institutions. Counterfeit law colleges and the lax registration systems of some State Bar Councils have enabled numerous fraudulent practitioners to enter the profession.

In many places, it is often remarked—sometimes cynically—that students unable to secure admission elsewhere choose law colleges merely to obtain hostel facilities while preparing for other competitive examinations. Such trends have unfortunately diminished the reputation of the legal profession. Even today, mofussil lawyers are frequently viewed as occupying one of the lowest rungs in the marriage market.

A visit to almost any court reveals overcrowded courtrooms and congested corridors. This, however, is not always a reflection of passion for the profession; in many cases, it is a consequence of widespread unemployment. A few years ago, when vacancies for peons were advertised, dozens of law graduates reportedly applied. When questioned about accepting a Class IV position despite holding law degrees, some candidly replied that at least the job guaranteed a monthly salary sufficient to sustain them, whereas legal practice often failed to cover even the costs of robes and transportation. In many district courts, one can also find touts functioning in the guise of lawyers. Such elements often receive tacit support from sections of the Bar for petty gains, ultimately bringing disrepute to the profession as a whole. There are many other drawbacks. For those who come from good families and are well-connected, the legal profession is like a lottery for them, but for most of the youngsters, this is highly disappointing.

Therefore, remarks made by the CJI in good faith should be viewed as an opportunity for introspection rather than outrage. Constructive criticism aimed at improving the profession ought to be welcomed. After all, the Chief Justice of India is the head of the country’s judicial system. If those at the highest-level refrain from acknowledging systemic defects, who else will initiate the process of reform?

Two hundred years of Hindi Journalism

 Udant Martand (The Rising Sun) was first published in Calcutta (now Kolkata) on 30th May 1826 by Pandit Jugal Kishore Shukla, a lawyer and freedom fighter from Kanpur. Originally a pleader from Kanpur, Shukla moved to Calcutta to practise and earn his livelihood. Calcutta offered the most lucrative opportunities for a legal professional at that time. He dedicated his resources, intellect, and career to the newspaper, advocating for the native Indian population against colonial laws. His decision to launch India's first Hindi weekly newspaper was influenced by several distinct professional and logistical factors.

In the early 19th century, Calcutta was the epicentre of India's nascent print culture. The city possessed the essential resources required to start a newspaper—such as established printing presses, a steady paper supply, and early Devanagari typesetting capabilities—which were entirely unavailable in Kanpur or the wider North-Indian Hindi belt. Thus, Calcutta has the distinction of publishing the first Hindi newspaper from a non-Hindi-speaking area.

While residing in Calcutta, Shukla observed a flourishing media landscape featuring journals in English, Bengali, and Persian/Urdu. He recognised a profound irony: although millions spoke Hindi across the subcontinent, and a significant Hindi-speaking mercantile community lived right in Calcutta (centred around areas like Bara Bazar), they had no printed voice. He is credited with having elevated the language to a medium of formal public discourse. The Marwaris living in Calcutta must be commended for extending all support to Pandit ji for venturing to bring out the newspaper, although it could survive only one and a half years, closing in December 1827 due to the British government's refusal to grant postal free concessions, creating an insurmountable financial strain on the newspaper.

Hindi journalism has made giant strides in the last two hundred years. More than in the print medium, its remarkable presence can be seen in electronic, web, digital, and social media. Hindi has now become a universal language. What to say of India, it is difficult to ignore Hindi even in the most advanced countries of the world. The very purpose of journalism is communication, which the Hindi media is doing superbly. Film, military, and railways have contributed a great deal to the growth of Hindi, but Hindi journalism has been the precursor of it all.

Therefore, it is our solemn duty to remember those rishis like Jugal Kishore Shukla, Pandit Ambika Prasad Vajpayee, and Babu Rao Vishnu Rao Pradakar, who brought recognition to Hindi journalism and helped it grow like a banyan tree.

Indian Federation of Working Journalists pays glowing tributes to the heroes of Hindi journalism on its 200th anniversary.

Has Mamata’s License been Restored?

 

The appearance of Mamata Banerjee in the robes of an advocate at the Calcutta High Court on the 14th of May is very surprising. She may be a law graduate or even enrolled as an advocate with the State Bar Council, but if she has had her licence restored by the State Bar Council in four days, that would be truly surprising. Even the Bar Council of India has sought certified copies of the original records relating to Mamata Banerjee from the State Advocate’s Roll.

Until the 8th of May, she remained the Chief Minister of the State. The Governor then dismissed her government, as neither she nor her party had been returned to power. As an MLA or MP, she could certainly have practised, but as a minister, she could not, as she would then be a public servant. Earlier, before the assembly elections, she appeared before the Supreme Court, but not as a lawyer, rather in a personal capacity. She was allowed to address the court for half an hour, but it was difficult to make head or tail of what she said. At that time, she claimed only to be a law graduate.

Therefore, the State Bar Council must bring forth all facts to inspire the confidence of the people in the advocacy, because presently, many charlatans pose as advocates.

 

Not only the Number of Judges, but AI will be required to revolutionise the Judicial System

 

The Union Cabinet has recently approved a proposal to increase the sanctioned strength of judges in the Supreme Court of India from 34 to 38. The proposal is to be implemented through the bill, which would amend the existing 1956 law governing the Court’s sanctioned strength.

The stated reasons, as published in the newspapers, are rising pendency of cases (reported to be around 92,000–93,000 cases), the need for quicker disposal of matters, enabling more Constitution Benches and regular benches to function simultaneously. This would be the first increase since 2019, when the strength was raised from 32 to 34.

In fact, even this number of 38 will be inadequate, which should be further increased, as now there is no dearth of space or infrastructure. However, the pendency cannot be reduced only by increasing the strength of judges, so long as Artificial Intelligence is not used effectively. For this purpose, the judges, staff members and advocates should be properly trained. It should be compulsory for the Bar Associations to mandatorily train the Advocates. If any advocate is unable to undergo, he/she should not be allowed to remain in the actual practice. Such advocates can be effectively used for other purposes. AI must be made compulsory in law schools and colleges for the benefit of new entrants.

 It is everybody's case that delayed justice amounts to denial of justice, but it should not be hurried justice as well, because that is bound to recoil upon the Bench, the Bar and the Clients. The training in AI must be imparted to all related to the judicial process; otherwise, the judicial system will become a mockery, for which the entire system would be held guilty by posterity. AI will also be able to eradicate large-scale corruption in the judiciary.

 The Supreme Court now handles not only constitutional adjudication but also massive special leave jurisdiction under Article 136, public interest litigation, election disputes, commercial matters, criminal appeals, and service cases. Therefore, increasing the number of judges is almost inevitable.

AI can assist justice but cannot replace judicial reasoning. It may, however, help in identifying precedents, summarising records, detecting inconsistencies, transcription, translation, scheduling, and reducing administrative burdens.

 

The Case for the Impeachment of Justice Yashwant Varma

 It is a troubling anomaly that, more than a month after tendering his resignation on April 9, 2026, Justice Yashwant Varma remains a judge of the Allahabad High Court on paper. While his resignation awaits formal acceptance by the President, the shadows of the March 2025 discovery—unaccounted, half-burnt currency found at his residence—continue to loom over the integrity of the higher judiciary.

The Investigative Trail

The evidence against Justice Varma is substantial. Following a fire at his official residence, an In-house Enquiry Committee found "strong evidence" that the judge exercised "tacit or active control" over the storeroom where the cash was discovered. When the judge refused to resign voluntarily in May 2025, the matter escalated to Parliament. On August 12, 2025, Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla admitted an impeachment motion backed by over 140 MPs and constituted a three-member committee under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968.

Justice Varma’s response followed a familiar script of procedural delay. He challenged the inquiry in the Supreme Court, claiming the Speaker's unilateral formation of the committee was invalid. In January 2026, the Supreme Court dismissed his petition, ruling that safeguards for judges cannot be allowed to paralyse the removal process. Having exhausted his legal shields, the judge resigned just as the inquiry panel was set to conclude its probe.

The Constitutional Lacuna

Legally, this situation tests the limits of Article 217(1). While the 1978 Gopal Chandra Misra precedent suggests a resignation is typically final upon receipt, the spirit of the law was never intended to provide a sanctuary for "proved misbehaviour."

By requesting "immediate effect," Justice Varma is not merely seeking retirement; he is seeking to render the parliamentary process infructuous. This strategy has been used before to evade the ultimate constitutional censure:

• Justice Soumitra Sen (2011) resigned after the Rajya Sabha passed an impeachment motion but before the Lok Sabha could vote.
• Justice P.D. Dinakaran (2011) resigned before proceedings reached their logical end.

The Need for a Final Verdict

Allowing a resignation to serve as a "get-out-of-jail-free" card sets a dangerous precedent. It allows a judge to avoid the loss of pension and retirement benefits that a formal impeachment would entail, effectively rewarding a strategic exit.

Accountability is not just about removal; it is about transparency. The public has a right to know the origin of the "half-burnt" cash and the extent of the alleged corruption. To let Justice Varma "wriggle out" via a resignation letter is an admission of systemic helplessness.

For the sake of public trust, the President should consider delaying acceptance of the resignation until the Judges Inquiry Committee submits its findings. Impeachment proceedings must reach their logical conclusion to ensure that the writing on the wall is not an invitation to flee, but a mandate for justice.

 

 

Mamata Government Must Immediately Be Dismissed to Promulgate President Rule

 There is little doubt that, in the last few days, Mamata Banerjee has gone completely insane. She urgently needs proper mental treatment. Although earlier she was also known for her bizarre behaviour, which was considered a sign of her struggling nature.

A politician can indeed sink to any level to gain and retain power, but it is difficult to imagine that a politician like Mamata Banerjee could reach the lowest ebb in public life, and even after being comprehensively defeated at the hustings, refuse to vacate the post of Chief Minister. She talks very highly of morality, constitution and compassion, but her actions are entirely contrary to what she preaches. In fact, there is a world of difference between what she says and what she does.

She contested the election in the name of constitutional democracy, but now, very shockingly, refuses to step down after her and her party’s defeat in the elections.

Thanks to the sagacity of the Election Commission of India and the Central forces, the elections to the Bengal assembly were, for the first time, the most peaceful, despite all efforts by the goondas to create mayhem. Now, while everything was going smoothly, she created a constitutional crisis by refusing to resign as Chief Minister.

The Governor, therefore, has no choice but to dismiss her government under Article 172, read with Article 164, to maintain peace and tranquillity. Thereafter, he will have to constitute the assembly and administer the oath of office of the Chief Minister to a person who enjoys the confidence of the House.

While the political tension is palpable, it's worth separating the heated rhetoric from the constitutional reality. Article 172(1) dictates that a Legislative Assembly exists for exactly five years from its first meeting. For the current assembly, that clock runs out today, May 7, 2026.

Once the term expires, the government no longer has a legal assembly to be responsible to. If a Chief Minister doesn't resign by then, the Governor doesn't just have an option but a constitutional obligation to ensure a government that reflects the new mandate is sworn in.

Under Article 164(1), the Chief Minister and Council of Ministers hold office "during the pleasure of the Governor." Conventionally, the "pleasure" is withdrawn only when a government loses a floor test. In this scenario, where the election results are clear, and the incumbent has even lost her own seat, the Governor can legally withdraw that "pleasure" if the CM refuses to step down after the results are notified.

With the assembly term ending in less than 24 hours, the Governor will have to formally invite the leader of the majority party to form the government. And dismiss the current cabinet if no resignation is tendered, citing the expiration of the assembly's term and the withdrawal of "pleasure" under Article 164.

The AoR Examination Must Not Be Cancelled

 

The decision of the Supreme Court’s Advocate-on-Record (AoR) Examination Committee not to hold the AoR Examination in 2026 is deeply disappointing and difficult to justify. The reason reportedly offered—that the existing number of AoRs is already adequate—is flimsy, arbitrary, and contrary to the principles of fairness and professional opportunity.

The AoR system is not merely an internal administrative arrangement. It is the gateway through which advocates earn the right to independently file and conduct matters before the Supreme Court. Closing that gateway for an entire year amounts to denying deserving lawyers an opportunity they have spent years preparing for.

The numbers themselves tell a different story. About twenty-five years ago, only 10 to 15 candidates would pass the examination annually. Today, hundreds qualify. In 2024, more than 350 candidates cleared the examination out of nearly 1,200 who appeared. In 2025, only 207 passed out of more than 1,550 candidates. The pass percentage dropped sharply from nearly 30 per cent in 2024 to less than 14 per cent in 2025. These figures hardly suggest an uncontrolled flood of AoRs.

There are clear reasons why more lawyers now qualify. First, the legal profession today attracts far brighter and more committed students than it did decades ago. Earlier, many students entered law courses as a fallback while preparing for other competitive examinations. Today, law is often a first-choice profession, pursued seriously and competitively from the outset.

Second, the old Accountancy paper—long regarded as a stumbling block despite being only of school-level difficulty—has been removed. Its elimination naturally enabled meritorious candidates to focus on subjects genuinely relevant to Supreme Court practice.

But even assuming the Committee believes too many candidates are passing, cancellation is the worst possible remedy. If standards need tightening, make the examination tougher. Raise the bar. Test drafting, procedure, ethics, and court craft more rigorously. Permit only the deserving to succeed. But do not abolish the opportunity itself.

Every candidate is already required to undergo one year of mandatory training under a senior AoR with at least ten years’ standing. Many young lawyers have devoted time, effort, and income to complete this rigorous requirement. To deny them an examination after such preparation is manifestly unfair.

If the Committee’s logic is accepted, then whenever a profession appears crowded, entry examinations should simply be suspended. Should law colleges be shut for a few years because there are too many lawyers? Should medical admissions be halted because there are too many doctors? The absurdity of the proposition is self-evident.

More importantly, the very rationale of restricting AoRs by geography has weakened in the digital era. With e-filing, virtual hearings, online defect curing, and paperless systems, the old insistence on maintaining offices within a 16-kilometre radius of the Supreme Court has become outdated. A lawyer can now effectively work from any part of India—and even from abroad.

The Supreme Court has consistently spoken of access, merit, and modernization. The cancellation of the AoR Examination moves in the opposite direction. It restricts access, penalizes merit, and ignores technological reality.

The Examination Committee should urgently reconsider its decision and hold the AoR Examination in 2026. Standards must be preserved—but opportunity must not be denied.

 

Contempt Petition Against Video Recording of the Court Proceedings is Misconceived

 An advocate, Vaibhav Singh, has filed a contempt of court petition in the Delhi High Court against some people for uploading reels of Arvind Kejriwal's arguments before Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma. Firstly, this petition should not have been filed because it runs counter to transparency in the court, unless, of course, it has not been edited dishonestly. There has been a long movement for the live streaming of the court proceedings of all the courts, because in that case, the clients and general public can watch what is going on in the courts.

If the live streaming of the Parliament and assemblies can be managed, why can't the same be done for the courts? Thankfully, the Supreme Court of India made a historic decision on the live streaming of its proceedings. Every difficulty brings certain good things along with it. Thus, we find that Covid-19 brought virtual hearings for cases, which proved to be an immense blessing in disguise.

Therefore, the very filing of the contempt of court petition was misconceived. Secondly, why was the recusal by one of the judges made dramatic, when the petition should have been dismissed at the first instance, as it was nothing but publicity interest litigation?

In all fairness, the High Court should have allowed the live streaming of the proceedings, but if it did not allow, then it should have firstly enquired about the lapses by the court staff because it was next to impossible for any individual to have meticulously recorded the proceedings.  In fact, there was nothing to be concealed, but by this petition, unnecessary publicity is being given to a person who does not deserve it. The motive of the person who got it recorded and made it viral is very clear: he wanted to get the public sympathy for the wrongs done by him when he was in authority.

As they say, sunlight (transparency) is the best disinfectant and therefore, transparency should be encouraged, particularly by the constitutional courts. Moreover, live recordings are always factual, and there is no crime involved in the factual reporting, as it is the very fundamental right of every citizen to know the factual status. Hence, there is no point in giving undue publicity to any person by not dismissing the petition in limine

The "Hellhole" Label Fails to Define the Indian Diaspora

 

The "Hellhole" Label Fails to Define the Indian Diaspora

While Donald Trump’s sweeping characterisation of India and China as a "hellhole" is certainly provocative, it is an assessment that ignores the profound differences in how these two immigrant groups contribute to and integrate into American society. Trump is often viewed as unpredictable and unfathomable. Still, his rhetoric fails to account for the undeniable fact that the Indian diaspora has become an indispensable pillar of the United States.

Unlike other groups that may focus primarily on commercial volume, Indians who settle in the U.S. generally do so through a foundation of high qualifications and rigorous hard work. While a small minority might seek entry through unconventional means—such as the arduous "donkey routes" or the strategic timing of births to secure citizenship—the vast majority are well-educated professionals who act as vital assets. In fact, many of America’s manufacturing and professional industries would face a risk of collapse if the Indian workforce were removed en bloc. Despite often being more diligent and highly qualified than their local counterparts, many Indians accept lower salaries at mid-level positions, performing their duties without unnecessary fuss.

Furthermore, the level of cultural and social integration among Indians is arguably higher than that of any other immigrant community. Indians typically possess a command of the English language that rivals or exceeds that of native-born Americans. Their commitment to their chosen country is reflected in their lifestyle choices, from adopting local food habits to raising families that are deeply rooted in American communities.

Ultimately, disparaging India by clubbing it with China is unjustified. While the Chinese presence is numerically larger and often concentrated in specific business sectors in Western America, the Indian contribution is defined by professional excellence and deep-seated loyalty. Rather than dismissing such nations with broad strokes, there is a clear need for a more nuanced understanding of how specific immigrant groups have strengthened the nation's fabric.

Justice must not only be done, but must also appear to have been done

 On 13th April, the former Chief Minister of Delhi, Shri Arvind Kejriwal, argued his case in the High Court of Delhi for the recusal of Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma from hearing his case. In a lengthy argument of more than an hour, he raised ten points as to why she should not hear the case. The most damning ground was that, since she is sympathetic to the philosophy or ideology of a particular party, which is his political enemy, he has genuine reasons to believe he will not receive fair justice from the court presided over by her. He specifically mentioned that she has attended four programmes of Adhivakta Parishad, which is closely linked with the Bharatiya Janata Party, which is hostile to him and his party. Shri Kejriwal wants a judge of impeccable integrity to hear his case and decide the matter. Justice Sharma has reserved the order.

There is no doubt that justice should not only be done, but it should also appear to have been done. On the 15th of April, Kejriwal levelled another allegation to impeach her integrity, namely that her two children, son and daughter, are on different panels of the Central government; therefore, she can hardly be expected to dispense fair justice to him.

However, if the logic of Shri Kejriwal is accepted on its face, nobody can function as a judge in most of the cases. Most of the judges, right from the Supreme Court to the subordinate courts, have their near and dear ones working in government organisations and corporate houses, where they perform their duties. Here, the accepted norm is that nobody will practise in the court where any relative of theirs is a judge. This is very fragile ground. From this logic, Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma cannot be kept under the scanner. Preventing any judge from attending any function organised by an organisation having proximity with any political party is a far-fetched theory. If this logic is accepted, then it will amount to direct curtailment of the fundamental rights of an individual. Thus, this argument or allegation of Kejriwal stands on a very weak footing. There have not been one or two but hundreds of examples where judges have been active members of political parties, but nobody has raised any doubt over their justice or jurisprudence. Justice VR Krishna Aiyer is the most shining example of it, whose judgments have been appreciated by one and all.

Another point is that if it were not Kejriwal, could any ordinary person, or as they say, any aam aadmi, have got this opportunity to address the court? Kejriwal used this marathon opportunity to level allegations, left and right, against the court. In all fairness, he should have been asked to file the affidavit instead of being allowed to make a political speech in the court.

Procedure is the First Casualty in Allahabad High Court

 The recent proceedings before the Allahabad High Court in the alleged dual citizenship case against Rahul Gandhi offer a troubling reminder: in moments of urgency, it is often procedure that is sacrificed first—and with it, the legitimacy of the outcome.

At the core lies a simple, non-negotiable rule: audi alteram partem—no one should be condemned unheard. Yet the initial direction to register an FIR appears to have been issued without hearing the person most affected. The Court’s subsequent recall of its own order was not just corrective; it was necessary. But the question lingers—how was such a lapse allowed to occur at all?

Equally concerning is the route taken. After the trial court declined relief, the petitioner bypassed the statutory mechanism under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and moved the High Court directly. The Supreme Court of India has repeatedly cautioned against precisely this practice. High Courts are not meant to be first-stop forums for FIR registration; they are constitutional courts of last resort.

This was never a routine criminal complaint. Allegations involving citizenship—particularly those tied to foreign documentation—demand careful investigation, evidentiary rigour, and procedural discipline. Short-circuiting that process risks turning serious legal questions into spectacles.

To be clear, constitutional courts do have the power to direct registration of an FIR. But that power is exceptional, not every day. When exercised without due caution, it blurs the line between judicial oversight and executive function.

What ultimately saved the situation here was timing. The order was reconsidered before it was signed. Had it been finalised, the Court would have become functus officio, and the path to correction would have been far more complex.

The larger lesson is straightforward: substance cannot come at the cost of process. If allegations are serious, they must be investigated thoroughly and impartially. But that investigation must begin the right way, through the right forum, and with the right safeguards. Because in the rule of law, how you proceed is often as important as what you decide.

 

Abdul Basit must be sent to a mental asylum

 

Anyone who has seen the rubbish talk of Abdul Basit, the former envoy of Pakistan to India, will hardly doubt that he has gone mad and needs to be admitted to a mental asylum. Look at what he says: if there is any attack by the USA on Pakistan’s nuclear installations, Pakistan must first attack Delhi and Mumbai. This reveals his insanity, Jihadi mentality and diabolical hatred for India. It appears that he is unaware that ‘Operation Sindoor’ has only been suspended, not stopped.

Pakistan’s image is of a beggar country. No organisation or country is willing to lend even loans or alms to this ungrateful nation. In the name of Islam, it has entered into a mutual aid cooperation with Saudi Arabia. Still, it has not even spoken a word against the bombardment of oil installations by Iran in Saudi Arabia. Pakistan has been carrying out terrorist explosions in India, but now receives the same reply from Afghanistan, and no country is coming to help her, knowing her history of dishonesty. Pakistan is untrustworthy to its own co-religionists and friends. This beggar cannot go against the USA, and at the same time, it can never ignore its co-religionists. The killing of Osama Bin Laden from its military garrison is a glaring example of Pakistan’s treachery.

The days are not far off when Pakistan will be disintegrated into at least four parts. Its nuclear projects will be destroyed by none other than the Baloch, Sindhis and Pashtuns. It is said that India-haters like Abdul Basit get more support from India than anywhere else, so it is necessary to identify such snakes and punish them.  

 

The Supreme Court to Clarify the Definition of “Industry”

 

New Delhi, IFWJ Headquarters
Circular No. 5/2026

Comrades,

The Nine-Judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court of India has concluded three days of hearing in
Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa and State of U.P. v. Jai Bir Singh.

Your organisation, the Indian Federation of Working Journalists (IFWJ), presented its submissions through the Secretary-General, who is also an Advocate-on-Record before the Supreme Court of India.

The IFWJ strongly emphasised the Triple Test theory of “industry”, as laid down by Justice V. R. Krishna Iyer in the landmark seven-judge bench decision of 1978. The test lays down three essential conditions:

1.      Systematic Activity – The activity must be organised and structured (e.g., factory, hospital, educational institution).

2.      Employer–Employee Relationship – There must exist cooperation between employer and employees, irrespective of profit motive.

3.      Production/Distribution of Goods or Services – The activity must aim at satisfying human wants or needs, including sectors such as healthcare, education, and transport.

Justice Krishna Iyer had also clarified those sovereign functions of the State—such as police, judiciary, and core governmental functions—as well as domestic services, fall outside the scope of “industry.”

The IFWJ highlighted that, from the perspective of workers, the nature of the institution—whether charitable, religious, or educational—is immaterial. For instance, if hundreds of workers are engaged in preparing laddoos for the Tirupati Temple, they should be afforded protection under labour laws, just like workers in any commercial establishment. Similarly, a driver’s entitlement to protection should not depend on whether he is employed by a school, a factory, or any other institution.

Following the decision in Bangalore Water Supply, several cases raised concerns about the breadth of the definition. In State of U.P. v. Jai Bir Singh (2005), a Constitution Bench referred the issue to a larger bench. Subsequently, in 2016, then Chief Justice T. S. Thakur recommended that the matter be placed before a Nine-Judge Bench.

After nearly four decades, the present Chief Justice has constituted the Nine-Judge Bench to finally settle the law. A definitive and authoritative interpretation of “industry” is now expected.

The IFWJ also opposed the subsuming of the Working Journalists Act under the Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code, 2020, and advocated for an expanded scope to include journalists working in electronic, digital, and social media.

The Bench is headed by the Chief Justice of India and comprises Justices B. V. Nagarathna, P. S. Narasimha, Dipankar Datta, Ujjal Bhuyan, Satish Chandra Sharma, Joymalya Bagchi, Alok Aradhe, and Vipul M. Pancholi.

Thanking you,
With greetings on the occasion of Navratri and Eid al-Fitr.

Sincerely yours,
Paramanand Pandey