Leave penchant for Hindu rashtra to people, not leaders

Of late, lots of noises are made by the self-proclaimed leaders of the Hindus as well as the Muslims. The leaders of the hue of Asaduddin Owaisi and Mohan Bhagwat have their own narrative.

While the former smells a rat in every decision of the government, be it CAA or NRC or NPR as aimed against Muslims, the latter tries to whitewash such "communal" narrative by proclaiming from the rooftop that all people of India are Hindus.

Apparently, to say the least, both the views are "simplistic." Such statements of the communal elements are nothing but childish manoeuvres trying to fool the gullible common man of whatever religious faith. In short, it is nothing but the vote politics.

Having said that we should also not undermine the import of certain political narratives churned out by the leaders, particularly from the opposition parties.

Their wrath against the government leadership of the present-day could be understood, but we should not pardon them when they belittle, insult and humiliate the judiciary and defence and security forces. They must be condemned in one voice by all people irrespective of their caste, religion or creed.

Interestingly, the term, 'People' occurring as the third word of the preamble to the Constitution of India, is nowhere defined. Perhaps, the founding fathers of the Constitution did not think it necessary to do so.

Hence, the word, People, has to be construed in its generic form. Thus, it is an inclusive expression embarrassing all the inhabitants of India.

This being the case, and we having adopted the democratic form of governance, the elected representative body, Parliament, is the all-powerful organisation and therefore, whether one likes it or not, all decisions taken by Parliament have to be honoured with great humanity and respect.

The Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 having got the seal of approval from the Parliament, has to be honoured, followed and respected by all the people irrespective of their personal liking or disliking.

It, indeed, leaves no scope for further discussion on the matter, leave alone the protests, silent or violent.

In other words, protesting against a law adopted by following the due process of law is nothing but defying the supremacy of the Parliament, that is, the people. Here comes the role of the government.

There can be no two opinions that the government is duty bound to protect, defend and uphold the democratic fabric enshrined in the Constitution.

Therefore, there is nothing wrong if the government disallows any protests against the CAA and obviously nothing wrong if it uses necessary force to quell the violent protests.

Finally, about the Hindu Rashtra phobia. Whether India should be declared as a Hindu Rashtra or not, and if so, how soon or later, are better left to the people of this great nation, called, Bharat.

The likes of Asaduddin Owaisi, Rahul Gandhi, Mamata Banerjee, Sitaram Yechury, Mayawati or Mohan Bhagwat, Giriraj Kishore and Pragya Thakur may try to fish in the troubled waters for petty political gains, but ultimately the voice of the people and people alone shall prevail.

At that time, none of the so-called champions of the Hindus or minorities shall have any say. Hence, let's not lend ear to these vested interests.

Delay must be explained: SC

While reiterating its earlier stand that the court should adopt a liberal approach while dealing with the applications for condonation of delay, the apex court in a recent reportable judgement has added a word of caution that in doing so long delays should not be mechanically condoned without the court satisfying itself that there was 'sufficient cause' for such delay.

Writing the judgement for the three-judge bench, Justice A S Bopanna in Delhi University Vs. Union of India & Others said that due to long delay in preferring appeal by the aggrieved party, certain rights do occur in favour of the other party which the courts should not overlook.

The court also clarified that the courts while dealing with the condonation of delay petitions should not differentiate between the private party and the government.

CAA divides lawyers

Close to the heels of the resolution dated December 22 adopted by the country's apex regulatory body, the Bar Council of India, some 1,000 advocates from different parts of the country have expressed their dissent.

One wonders when the duly elected representative body takes a stand on an issue, how some individual advocates can dare to openly defy the decision of such a representative body!

In fact, by openly expressing their disagreement for whatever reasons, the thousand-and-odd lawyers have indulged in grave indiscipline.

Hope, the all-powerful Bar Council of India (BCI) would take a serious view of the matter and initiate disciplinary action against these 1,000 members without being influenced of their seniority or status.

Be on time on the bench: TS HC to judges

Apparently in a bid to curb the practice of late coming of the presiding judicial officers on the bench and to inculcate the habit of rendering justice with punctuality, the Telangana High Court has taken a bold step in this direction.

The High Court by a circular on December 24 has asked all judges subordinate to it to hold the courts punctually and report the compliance comprehensively on weekly basis to the High Court. Any violation of the directive will be viewed seriously, the Circular adds.

Hope the circular would set right the judges, who in gross negligence skip judicial work from the bench resulting in long delays in the disposal of cases.

For proven adultery no maintenance to wife: Bombay HC

In an important judgement, the Bombay High Court has held that a woman/wife against whom the allegations of adultery have been proved is not entitled to maintenance.

Justice Nitin W Sambre in his common Judgement for two writ petitions on December 18 between Sanjivani Ramchandra Kondalkar (petitioner) and Ramchandra Bhimrao Kondalkar (respondent) observed that sub-section 4 of Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code specifically states that if the allegations of adultery are proved against a woman/wife, she is not entitled to receive any maintenance.

The court said: "If the allegations of adultery are proved against such a woman or inspite of the husband being ready to maintain her and she refuses to cohabit, the woman/wife can be refused payment of maintenance."

UP to set up fast track courts

In a bid to deliver speedy justice to the victims of rape and child abuse, the Uttar Pradesh government has decided to set up 284 Fast Track courts in the State with a mandate to dispose of such cases within 30 days.

This is, indeed, a laudable decision and the short time limit for the disposal of the cases would act as a deterrent to criminals.