Indian Political Corner | All Updates & Discussions.

[ashok321]

https://twitter.com/x/status/769165597640912896

 

[IndoCarib]

Haji Ali Shrine Give Full Access To Women, Says Court. Not Ok, Says Trust

http://www.ndtv.com/mumbai-news/wil...-court-verdict-today-1450588?pfrom=home-india

 

[ashok321]

https://twitter.com/x/status/769168195588685824

https://twitter.com/x/status/769160726371979264

https://twitter.com/x/status/769017246006009856

While Modi wastes his time on election preparations & following "GUNDAS" on Twitter:

https://twitter.com/x/status/769136029055881216

https://twitter.com/x/status/769172550588964869

https://twitter.com/x/status/769107268889477120

 

[ashok321]

https://twitter.com/x/status/769164037519122432

http://www.dailyo.in/politics/abhij...aturvedi-trolls-maneka-bjp/story/1/12601.html

https://twitter.com/x/status/769176111716511744

 

[ashok321]

https://twitter.com/x/status/769190353249439744

 

[IndoCarib]

Why only Chhotepur, why not probe Kejriwal’s Ford funding: Cong to AAP

Punjab Congress chief Captain Amarinder Singh asked Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) convener and Delhi chief minister Arvind Kejriwal as why he does not get his own Ford Foundation funding probed along with the funding of Sucha Singh Chhotepur.

http://www.hindustantimes.com/punja...cong-to-aap/story-B9Ns6k4dNzyxcGRmXCoY1J.html

 

[ashok321]

Kanhaiya, Umar, Anirban didn't misuse liberty: Police to court:

Slap on right wingers face here:

 

[ashok321]

Ulu banana Modi se sikho:

https://twitter.com/x/status/696727399237423105

 

[Grevion]

First this -
Supreme Court refuses to change 20-ft cap for Dahi Handi
pyramids
http://indianexpress.com/article/in...-for-dahi-handi-pyramids-maharashtra-2994856/
Supreme Court is Sharia Court. The Indian Judiciary is acting against the interest of Hindu majority.

And then this -
The Haji Ali Dargah ruling: Bombay High Court’s verdict is a win for Indian women
http://m.firstpost.com/india/the-ha...ct-is-a-win-for-the-indian-women-2978108.html
Indian Judiciary is back to being secular. Its a great judgement and is a victory for womens and their fundamental rights.

And now this -
Can't order establishment of 'Ram Rajya' in the country: Supreme Court
http://m.timesofindia.com/india/Can...ry-Supreme-Court/amp_articleshow/53873727.cms

All the three rulings above are totally unrelated but have alot of similarities. The question here is - should the Judiciary interfere in centuries old religious theologies? (But that's what they do right? To conclude what's morally correct and ethical as per the laws adopted by the legislative assembly).

If not then what should be the right course of action when a petitioner appeals against the violations of basic fundamental rights guaranteed under various sections of the constitution. The system has failed the comman man of this country and asking the judiciary to interfere when many are ready to act against the rulings of the court is not a very bright scenario for the future of this nation.
Tagging everyone I can here -
@PARIKRAMA @anant_s @Joe Shearer @Levina @ranjeet @GURU DUTT @arp2041 @Nilgiri @SarthakGanguly @magudi @ashok321 @nair @Nair saab @Prometheus @zebra7 @danger007 @Indrajit @hellfire @Soumitra @Robinhood Pandey @jamahir (if you are still alive here then please comment and stop being a lurker) @Local_Legend @gslv mk3 @Sky lord @illusion8 @others.
Ps- can we discuss it here or do we need to create another thread for it?

 

[Nilgiri]

The question here is - should the Judiciary interfere in centuries old religious theologies?

I personally think yes/no (depends). If someone doesn't like how his/her religion does something....they should be free to leave and join another or start their own.....or leave religion all together.

But for resolving such situations, the reasons should be held to the complete theological rigour of the religion itself. In many cases (esp in Hinduism which really has multiple theological streams) there is enough flexiblity, debate and leeway for what we identify as progressive/liberal/inclusive norms.

But it would be wrong to impose on a religious structure something that is anathema to it. Best to create offshoot religions for people to join and then reform the ownership of religious structures along the lines of their intrinsic cultural heritage for all Indians and use an appropriate time-share format or any other number of novel ideas to have access for everyone with respect and tolerance as required.

One size fits all is not going to work in religion.

 

[Joe Shearer]

The point is not very clear to me.

There is no adjudication taking place on religious theologies. If the Court is asked in its capacity of interpreter of the Constitution to rule on an apparent conflict between religious theology and the Constitution, it may do so. If in doing so, it rules that the Constitution must prevail (any other ruling is not possible as it will amount to judicial rejection of the Constitution) over religious theology, it is a ruling for the Constitution, not a ruling against theology.

If a citizen claims that his theology demands the immolation of a widow on her husband's pyre, he is in breach of the Constitution and its legal system, and is a criminal, and taking shelter behind the theology will not help him. If a citizen claims that a certain sect holds beliefs about the nature and incidence of prophethood which are repugnant to that citizen or to the theology that the citizen adheres to, and wishes to take action on his own against that sect, he is in breach of the Constitution and its legal system, and is a criminal, and taking shelter behind the theology will not help him.

I suspect that a close judicial examination of Section 295 of the Indian Penal Code is overdue; it may be unconstitutional.

 

[Indrajit]

All the three rulings above are totally unrelated but have alot of similarities. The question here is - should the Judiciary interfere in centuries old religious theologies? (But that's what they do right? To conclude what's morally correct and ethical as per the laws adopted by the legislative assembly).

If not then what should be the right course of action when a petitioner appeals against the violations of basic fundamental rights guaranteed under various sections of the constitution. The system has failed the comman man of this country and asking the judiciary to interfere when many are ready to act against the rulings of the court is not a very bright scenario for the future of this nation.

Indian appellate courts are going about these matters in a very haphazard manner imo. Some of the cases they are pronouncing judgment on seem to indicate seriously misplaced priorities. Take the cases on the right to worship cause, is that the most relevant -whether women are allowed into certain temples or mosques or is more relevant to see that civil laws governing the rights of a much bigger segment have to be fairer than they are?

The Haji Ali case was decided on the courts interpretation of the quran and whether it prohibits women from entering some areas or not. That, in my view is a slippery slope, the courts should stick with the constitutional rights & be wary (will have to in some cases but generally) of entering that particular realm of interpreting religious texts. The judgment on the Shani temple case was by actually using an old law made to prevent discrimination against dalits and make it applicable to secure entry for women. A clever way of doing things but using an indirect approach as opposed to the Haji Ali case.

The rulings on the Dahi Handi cases (and to some extent the Jalikattu cases) are quite simply a case of misplaced activism & a silly & avoidable case of judicial overreach. It will backfire & opens the higher judiciary to accusations of being selective in terms of which religion they chose to interfere with.

The courts will be much better served if they urgently look at civil laws & how they affect women & whether such laws are unconstitutional wrt fundamental rights.

 

[ashok321]

https://twitter.com/x/status/769373877449347072

 

[ashok321]

https://twitter.com/x/status/769268236877791232

 

[Levina]

All the three rulings above are totally unrelated but have alot of similarities. The question here is - should the Judiciary interfere in centuries old religious theologies? (But that's what they do right? To conclude what's morally correct and ethical as per the laws adopted by the legislative assembly).

i agree these were centuries old customs, but may be we were following customs which were bereft of morality, like ppl from lower castes not allowed to visit temples, gender inequality, sati and child marriages. So to me it sounds fine when SC passes laws overriding such customs and traditions.

If not then what should be the right course of action when a petitioner appeals against the violations of basic fundamental rights guaranteed under various sections of the constitution. The system has failed the comman man of this country and asking the judiciary to interfere when many are ready to act against the rulings of the court is not a very bright scenario for the future of this nation.

Our biggest problem as a nation is, people are aware of their rights but not their duties. Had it been obligatory we would not have faced such a day.
Article 25 of our constitution mentions an individual's right to practise a religion of his choice but that is subject to public order, morality and health.
I support SC's decisions. This,inter alia, ensures that people of the country realise law of the land comes before religion.