India A Secular Country, A Religious Group In Majority Can't Resist Other Community's Fundamental Right To Hold Religious Processions, Festivals: Madras High Court
"It is not healthy for a democratic nation if religious bigotry is tolerated. Intolerance of any kind, from any religious community, must be curtailed and outlawed "The Madras High Court recently made this observation. A dispute involving a long-standing dispute between Hindu and Muslim residents (in a village) over the conduct of certain Hindu festivals/Religious Procession was before the bench of Justice N. Kirubakaran and Justice P. Velumurugan.
"India is a secular country, and the fact that one religious community is the majority in a given area cannot be used to prevent other religious festivals or processions from passing through that area."
What is your view on this?
"Entire Social Fabric Of Society Would Get Disturbed": P&H High Court Refuses To Grant Protection To A Live-In Couple
The Punjab and Haryana High Court refused to grant protection to a live-in couple who allegedly faced threats from the girl's family after their elopement on Wednesday (May 12), stating that "if such protection as claimed is given, the entire social structure of the society will be disrupted."
In this order, Justice Anil Kshetarpal's bench said, "Petitioner no. 1 (Girl) is only 18 years old, while petitioner no. 2 (Boy) is 21. They claim to be living together in a live-in relationship ship and seek protection for their lives and liberty from petitioner no. 1's (Girl's) relatives."
"If the claimed immunity is provided, the entire social structure of society will be disrupted. As a result, there is no basis for granting the immunity."
Do you think refusal was right?
Conviction Of A Juvenile By JJ Board Is Not A Disqualification for Employment, Requirement Of Its Disclosure Violates His Privacy, Art.21: Allahabad High Court
The Allahabad High Court recently ruled that using a candidate's criminal conviction as a juvenile to shape an opinion about his suitability for an appointment is arbitrary, unlawful, and unconstitutional under Article 14 of the Indian Constitution.
Furthermore, the Court has held that an employer cannot ask an applicant to reveal details of criminal prosecutions they have faced as a juvenile and that the obligation to disclose details of criminal prosecutions they have faced as a juvenile is a violation of the child's right to privacy and reputation guaranteed under Article 21.
Do you think this is a violation of Art 21?
Retain States' Power To Identify SEBCs: Centre Seeks Review Of Supreme Court's Interpretation Of 102nd Constitution Amendment
The Central Government has filed a review petition challenging the Supreme Court's 5-judge bench decision that the 102nd Constitution Amendment removed state governments' ability to recognize and inform Socially and Economically Backward Classes (SEBCs).
On May 5, a Supreme Court constitution bench, while considering the constitutionality of the Maratha quota, ruled by a 3:2 majority that, following the 102nd Constitution Amendment, only the President has the power to inform SEBCs, and that states' power is limited to making recommendations.
The majority, comprising Justices L Nageswara Rao, Hemant Gupta, and S Ravindra Bhat, held that the consequence of the amendment was only related to the power of the Centre to identify SEBCs for the central list, while the minority, comprising Justices Ashok Bhushan and S Abdul Nazeer, held that it was only related to the power of the Centre to identify SEBCs for the central list.
What is your say on this?