Really there is no democracy in India, Rahul ?

Former President of India's grand old party, the Indian National Congress, or Congress for short, Rahul Gandhi has recently proclaimed that there is no democracy in India.

Earlier, fear psychosis had gripped film stars like Naseeruddin Shah and Amir Khan who had audacity to say that they were feeling 'unsafe' in India, but now even the political parties like Congress who has ruled the nation for the longest period, has chosen to join the filmy bandwagon to deride country's present governing clan, is nothing but a reflection of dirty design created by the dirty minds of the people such as Rahul Gandhi.

In a democracy, while people have freedom to express their views freely, including those which may not be palatable to the ruling party, but it does not mean that such freedom is absolute or unbridled. The oft-quoted Article 19 of the Constitution by the opposition groups is deliberately half-quoted. While the first half of Article 19 speaks about the freedom of expression, the other half speaks about reasonable restrictions on such freedom. It is the latter half which is deliberately not quoted by the advocates of freedom of expression because that does not suit their ends.

Rahul Gandhi may have ' n' number of political and personal compulsions, and in fact, he has; but that does not give him a licence to make a sweeping, defamatory remark on the government of the day accusing it of having exterminated democracy in the country. Such a remark or observation coming from a person who has held responsible positions in the oldest political party such as Congress and whose family has 'enjoyed' the fruits of democracy, is not only irresponsible, atrocious, highly objectionable and condemnable but also scandalous and defamatory. It smacks of evil design to incite hatred and violence leading to anarchy in the country.

On the hind side, it is true that considering the current pigmy size political status of Rahul Gandhi who himself is in the soup; people are not likely to take him seriously. However, the government should not let him go only on this count. If he and his party are out of power, it is so because the people did not want them in power any more, if he and his party men are facing court cases, because the people want them to face trial by the courts or if he had to apologise in the highest court of the country because the court had adjudged him a liar. All these and many more are his personal problems, but because of his own desperation, he cannot be allowed to speak all sorts of nonsense against the great country, called Bharat.

Indeed, it is high time to set right such irresponsible elements in the country. All the three pillars of our democracy should rise in unison to defend the high values of democracy at once. And if these Constitutional bodies fail to do so for whatever reasons, then all the lovers of India's democracy should come out in open to guard the nation of such irresponsible elements.

P&H HC says live-in relationship not a marriage

As a jolt to the couples live –in relationship, Justice Aravind Singh Sangawan of the Punjab and Haryana High court in a case, Moyna Khatun & Anr Vs state of Punjab & others has 'opined that the modern trend of live–in relationship cannot be equated with marital relationship,. "It is nothing but the misuse of the process of law and it cannot be morally accepted in a society. Differing from the pervious catena of judgment delivered by the same court, Justice Sangwan rejected the petitioner's plea for protection to interfere. It is significant to note that the boy runaway couple was not of marriageable age.

TS HC convicts District Collector for contempt

A Division Bench of Telangana High Court presided over by the Chief Justice Hima Kohli has upheld the judgment of single judge punishing a district collector and two others for the wilful disobedience of its order under the contempt of Court Act.

Earlier a single bench of Justice Ramchandra Rao had sentenced the contemnor to for three months simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs 2,000 each, besides Rs 10,000 each pay by towards costs to the petitioner.

However, subsequently the division bench granted relief to the contemnor accepting their unconditional apology to the court.

True, granting pardon is prerogative of the court, but this power if exercised sparingly, would stand a strong message to the contemnor. Most of whom are the power-drunken bureaucrats. It would indeed be interesting to know as to who may of the government servant convicted under 1961 have been actually sent behind the bars.

SC on Section of138 of NI ACT

In a important ruling delivered on March 8, the Supreme Court has held that even if the person owes payment to another jointly with someone else, he cannot be held liable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act unless the account on which the cheque was drawn is jointly maintained and that person was a signatory to the cheque.

A division Bench comprising Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice MR Shah held in Alka Khandu Avhad vs. Amar Syamprasad Mishra [CrA 258 OF 2021] that section 141 of the NI Act is related to the offence by companies and it cannot be made applicable to the individuals. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the original complainant has submitted that "Company" means anybody corporate and includes, a firm or other association of individuals.

SC Judge Indu Malhotra retires Justice Indu Malhotra, better known as Sabarimala Judge where she propounded Constitutional morality, retired on March 12.

The ceremonial bench headed by the Chief Justice of India SA Bobde paid rich tributes to the retiring judge and wished her good luck. The short farewell function was attended by the judges of the Supreme Court, the Attorney General of India, Supreme Court Bar Association president and other senior lawyers.