Hindu Rashtra: The will of majority should prevail

As was expected, the reaction to the acquittal of all accused persons including BJP big-wigs such as LK Advani, MM Joshi, Uma Bharati, Sakshi Maharaj, Vinay Katiyar etc. has been an affront to the judiciary since the same is pooh-poohed by the so called secular parties like Congress, Communists, Socialists, AIMIM etc. These self-appointed messiahs of minorities and Dalits have under the garb of offering 'fair' criticism to the verdict on the disputed structure in Ayodhya, have made their intentions to disregard the majesty of the court as some of them had done after the amendments to Article 370 and 35A of the Constitution, enactment of Citizenship Amendment Act, the law banning Triple Talaq and recently passed laws for the welfare of the farmers. AIMIM has gone to the extent of describing September 30 as the 'Black Day' since the judgment has not been on its expected lines.

While, the people of the country have a reason to celebrate the acquittal of falsely implicated national leaders, one fails to understand what prevents Parliament of the day to amend the Constitution and subsequently all other laws to pave the way for declaring India as the Hindu Rashtra.

As is commonly understood, in a democracy the will of majority shall prevail. In other words even if the majority is just a cut above 50%, its will shall prevail. Some people may not like this interpretation, but this is the simple meaning of democracy. The minorities of all hues can reasonably expect from the majority the good will gestures, but not by brow-beating or arm twisting.

Look what has been our experience with the 'so called' minorities in our country. The reaction after the pronouncement of Ram temple verdict was opposing it under the pretext of exercising the Constitutional right of filing the review petition. Even after failing in that attempt, some Muslim organisations have stuck to the guns and openly declared that in future mosque would be constructed by them at the very place of new Ram Mandir. Then let us have a look at the reaction to the passing of the Citizenship Amendment Bill by Parliament. The historical protests at Jamia-Millia and Shaheen Bagh which ultimately culminated into communal violence in Delhi are unforgettable.

The abrogation of Articles 370 and 35A of the Constitution by following the due process of Parliament too has not been swallowed till today by the so called secularist and 'nationalist' parties. Some of them have gone on record advocating cessation of J&K from India to join either Pakistan or China. That is why we have described the reaction to September 30 verdict as on the 'expected line'.

Further, it is no unintentional lapse of the opposition bend wagon that they have refrained from eulogising the court verdict on Mathura issue which truly reflects the independent approach of the judiciary. Further seen in the global context the ongoing war between Armenia and Azer Baijan clearly proves that Muslims and Christians all over the world take side of their respective countries. Imagine, if tomorrow Jehadi elements tried to over-power the government of India with the help of like-minded Muslims from all over the world, who would come to the Hindu majority 'secular' nation?

When the battle lines are drawn clearly, there is no use of beating behind the bush. The will of the majority of this country has to be honoured at any cost sooner or later. If that is so, why keep the Damocles' sword hanging? Let it fall right now and here.

• TSHC fines LIC for abuse of law

In a rare display of anger, the Telangana High Court imposed a fine of Rs.50,000 on the country's premier insurance company Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) for having abused the process of law by filing frivolous appeals before a division bench headed by the Chief Justice Raghavendra Singh Chauhan.

The court observed that the LIC filed said appeals only to escape from the contempt case filed by some job aspirants. Earlier the LIC itself had assured the court that it would consider the job aspirants' cases if they make fresh representation. However, the LIC failed to keep its promise despite the aspirants making fresh representation.

Terming the appeal as misuse of court process, just to escape contempt proceedings, the court slapped a fine of Rs50,000 on the LIC.

• Bombay HC upholds fine on builder

Disposing off the second appeal filed by Renaissance Infrastructure under Sec. 44 of the Real Estate Act against the dismissal of first appeal by RERA Appellate Tribunal which had confirmed the order of the adjudicating officer who had granted compensation of Rs.5.04 crore to the original complainant, observed that 'there is no infirmity in the impugned orders passed by the Appellate Tribunal. The orders do not give rise to any substantial question of law for the consideration of this court.' The court granted 4 weeks time to the appellate builder to comply with its order.

The matrix of the case is that respondent/complainant had purchased 6 plots of land together with pre-engineered steel portal framed rectangular building from the appellant/respondent promoter under an agreement for sale dt. December 10th, 2009. Even after a delay over around 80 months the promoter had not handed over the possession of the property to the respondent/complainant. Following a complaint before the RERA Authority, the latter granted the above mentioned compensation. The builder preferred an appeal before the Tribunal which asked him to deposit 50% of the compensation as per Sec. 43(5) of the RERA Act, for entertaining the appeal. However, the builder failed to pay this amount as a result of which Tribunal dismissed the appeal.

Justice S.C.Gupte after hearing both the sides upheld the order of RERA Authority.

• Calcutta HC chastises Narcotics Control Bureau

At a time when Bollywood has been caught in the whirlpool of drugs and mafia, here comes a very important caution from the Calcutta High Court. The Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) could be benefited from the bail order in the matter of Hiten Roy alias @ Hiru. A division bench comprising Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice Aniruddha Roy chastised the Narcotic and Drug Control authorities for its tardiness in the conduct of the investigation.

In its order passed on September 25, the court highlighted that while considering a bail application, the courts should be guided by 'hard facts and material' to even form a prima facie opinion. The accused was arrested on the basis of statements made by others found possessing drugs. The court noted that the investigating agency had taken no steps to unearth any material against the bigger players and it had relied upon mere statements of persons found in possession of contraband to arrest the bail applicant. Sounding an alarm the court observed "if the courts were to be guided merely by the statements or alleged statements of the persons found to be in possession of contraband, there would be anarchy. Nothing stops the investigating agency from naming any person against whom the investigator may have an axe to grind and suggest that such person was named by the arrested possessor of drugs."