This blog post from OBMA critiques the BJP’s alleged “Gujarat-centric” favouritism, discussing the state’s influence in judicial and economic matters, especially in cases like the DHFL scam involving prominent Gujaratis in positions of judicial authority. It points to instances of Gujarat singlehandedly predominating the list of superrich Wilful Defaulters, Gujarati Companies donating astronomical figures through the opaque electoral bonds, tax benefits specific to Gujarat’s Hindu Undivided Families (HUF) system, and recent investment redirections that seems to prioritize Gujarat at the expense of other states. The post argues that these practices uses politically filtered terminologies such as “Gujarat Model” and “Gujarat Pride” to favour Gujarat’s elites, thereby aligning with BJP’s broader Hindutva and crony corporatist agendas, raising concerns over equitable and inclusive governance in India.
Who’s Who: SGI Tushar Mehta and the DHFL Scam
The article explores Solicitor General Tushar Mehta’s alleged political bias and involvement in high-profile legal cases, including defending Ajay Piramal and the RBI-appointed CoC in the DHFL scam. It highlights Mehta’s longstanding connections with BJP figures, casting doubt on his impartiality. The DHFL case involved significant financial misconduct, and Mehta’s defense emphasizes creditor rights while ignoring alleged malpractices. The piece critiques Mehta’s selective justice approach, advocating for public pressure to uphold constitutional principles and unbiased judiciary practices.
Dear DHFL Scam Victims, Know Thy Judge: Hon. Justice S. C. Sharma
The article discusses Justice S.C. Sharma’s role in cases affecting DHFL scam victims. It highlights his recent rulings, such as denying bail to DHFL’s Wadhawan brothers and opposing Aligarh Muslim University’s minority status, suggesting this stance might overlook the context of minority protections. Sharma’s past judgments in favor of vulnerable groups, including the physically challenged and marginalized, offer some hope for fair treatment of DHFL victims. The piece questions if his rulings can stay unbiased amid potential political pressures.
Adios, Mr. Chandrachud!
The article bids farewell to Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, critiquing his tenure and decisions. It argues that he used judicial power to align with the political establishment rather than uphold independence and democratic rights. The piece highlights controversial rulings, his handling of specific cases, and contrasts Chandrachud’s image of a progressive judge with decisions allegedly detrimental to free speech and public welfare. It concludes with concern over the court’s trajectory under his leadership, questioning his legacy and the judiciary’s role in upholding democratic principles.
DHFL Victims, Know Your Judge: Hon. Justice Bela M. Trivedi
The OBMA article provides an overview of Justice Bela M. Trivedi, currently presiding over the DHFL case in India’s Supreme Court. It highlights her judicial background, significant rulings, and perceived alignment with the ruling government, sparking concerns over her impartiality. The article details past controversial case assignments and suggests a pattern of favoring government interests, raising doubts about her stance on justice for DHFL victims amid allegations of corporate and political influence.
Human Rights in India and the DHFL Scam: Knowing through Negations
The article highlights the DHFL scam as a case study in India’s human rights landscape, focusing on the misuse of state mechanisms to silence victims and activists. By examining patterns of harassment, it reveals a troubling trend where dissent against financial misconduct meets state repression. The author argues that this tactic of “knowing through negations” helps illuminate power structures at work in stifling justice. Overall, it’s a critique of how human rights violations often intersect with financial scandals in India.
পুং-তান্ত্রিকের নারীবাদচর্চা ও মানবীবিদ্যার আদ্যছেরাদ্দ
The article critiques the misuse of the term “feminism” in political and societal contexts, particularly in South East Asia, arguing that it is often reduced to superficial appeasement rather than genuine advocacy for gender egalitarianism. The piece also discusses the cultural complexity of the gender question, the superficial use of statistics as such, and the real challenges that Indian women face, such as malnutrition and gender-based violence. Emphasizing philosophical rigor, it highlights issues with binary gender norms in the context of discussing “gender neutral law” and advocates for nuanced, intersectional gender studies.
Do You Want Speedy Justice in Indian Judiciary? Ufff!
The article criticizes delays and inequalities in India’s judicial system, highlighting case backlogs, vacant judicial positions, and alleged biases favoring influential figures. Examples include stalled justice for financial fraud victims and the “culture of adjournments” that worsens case backlogs, with some dating back decades. There are allegations of political interference, judicial corruption, and manipulation in high-profile cases. The article calls for accountability, infrastructure improvements, and a reform of judicial appointments to restore public trust.
“Gods” (or Deities?) as Juristic Persons: Critiquing the Hindutva Idolatry
The article critiques the legal recognition of Hindu deities as juristic persons, a concept used to grant Hindu idols legal rights similar to those of humans or corporations. It argues that this practice, which began under British colonial law, has been appropriated by Hindutva forces to reinforce idolatry and elevate religious sentiments over secular law. By treating deities as legal entities, the article suggests that Hindutva ideology gains leverage in the Indian judicial system, promoting a particular brand of religious identity that influences political and social dynamics. The author calls for a critical examination of this conflation of religion and legal identity, questioning its compatibility with India’s secular framework.
চন্দ্রাহত চন্দ্রচূড়
The Bangla blog post is a satirical critique of Justice Dhananjaya Chandrachud, the Chief Justice of India, highlighting his alleged contradictions between judicial conduct and religious involvement. It sarcastically reflects on his public participation in religious ceremonies, questioning the overlap between personal beliefs and professional duties. The article also touches on broader concerns about the fusion of politics, religion, and judiciary in India, referencing landmark cases like the Ram Mandir judgment and expressing frustration with the current socio-political landscape.
Once in a Blue Moon Academia 