Author Amish Tripathi explains why democracy thrives on dialogue and diverse perspectives
Reflecting on the 50th anniversary of the Emergency, Tripathi highlighted the importance of debate and dissent as core elements of India's democratic fabric, urging that these values must be protected to ensure the nation's continued progress.
Speaking to IANS, he highlighted the importance of debate, dissent, and democratic dialogue in preserving the spirit of the nation. 'Look, I am at my core a democrat, right. And I think every point of view has a right to be spoken. And India is not a country that can run well without democratic inter-debates. Democracy by democracy, I do not mean the western paradigm of democracy, because they call it liberal democracy, where they think that America attacking Libya and to enforce their version of democracy on it is democracy, that's not democracy. By democracy, I mean debates between different groups.'
Amish Tripathi described Emergency as a period when one of the most vital elements of democracy—free debate—was forcibly halted. 'What the emergency did is stop this debate. That is what was core wrong with it, right. I am not anti-efficiency, okay, but where this debate stops and that's what the emergency did, because you actually just locked up one side, right. That was what was unfortunate. And that's a lesson we must learn.'
'And not so much about blaming people today for what may have happened 50 years ago, that I think is not helpful, but we must never allow that to happen again, right. Because the kind of people we are, we are basically an argumentative people. And if we don't allow these debates to happen, that's when we end up having chaos in our country. But I also believe that once you've lost a debate, then you have to accept it. It's like, it can't be that I lost the election, so then I think the election itself is unfair. That is not fair.'
Tripathi concluded by reinforcing, 'If I lose a debate in a democratic election, then fine, I have to accept it,' he said, warning against undermining the system just because one doesn't agree with its result.
For the unversed, on June 25, 1975, then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi imposed a nationwide Emergency under Article 352 of the Constitution, citing 'internal disturbance' as the reason for the move.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
News18
2 hours ago
- News18
Can govt appoint trustee of Banke Bihari temple, HC asks UP govt
Prayagraj (UP), Jul 23 (PTI) The Allahabad High Court has sought a reply from the Uttar Pradesh government on whether it can appoint its officials as trustees of the Banke Bihari temple in Mathura, a private temple, by the issuance of the Uttar Pradesh Shri Bankey Bihari Ji Temple Trust Ordinance, 2025. Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal, after hearing amicus curiae Sanjeev Goswami, fixed July 30 as the next date of hearing on a petition filed by Pranav Goswami and another. According to the amicus curiae, 'The temple is a private temple and the religious practice is being carried out by the heirs of the late Swami Hari Dasji. By the issuance of the ordinance, the government is trying to take control over the temple through the back door." The amicus curiae apprised the court that according to the ordinance, there would be two kinds of trustees of the board — nominated trustees and ex-officio trustees. The nominated trustees will be the seers, gurus, scholars, mathadhish and mahants etc. from the Vaishnav tradition as well as followers of the Sanatan Dharma. However, he raised strong objections as to the seven ex-officio trustees, who are officials like the district magistrate, the special superintendent of police and the municipal commissioner of Mathura, which he said would amount to a back-door entry by the state government in the private temple. 'The creation of such a trust amounts to intruding into the Hindu religion by the state government. The Constitution does not provide for the State to practise any religion and take control of any temple," the amicus curiae said. The court, in its order dated July 21, sought the state government's reply and observed, 'The matter requires consideration. Hearing to continue. Put up this case as fresh on July 30, 2025. By that time, the state government would respond to the argument which has been raised by the amicus curiae. PTI COR RAJ RC (This story has not been edited by News18 staff and is published from a syndicated news agency feed - PTI) view comments First Published: July 24, 2025, 01:15 IST Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
The Hindu
2 hours ago
- The Hindu
Secretly recorded conversations may be evidence, but erode spousal trust
In a landmark judgment in a divorce case (Vibhor Garg vs Neha), the Supreme Court has accepted the admissibility of secretly recorded conversations between a married couple as reliable evidence. Vibhor Garg had filed a divorce petition under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in a family court at Bathinda in Punjab on the grounds of mental cruelty by his wife, Neha. The petitioner adduced conversations between him and his wife recorded by him over a period of time without her consent and knowledge to buttress his allegations of mental cruelty. The evidence was admitted by the family court. However, on appeal against its decision, the Punjab & Haryana High Court took an opposing view, holding the secretly recorded calls violative of the fundamental right to privacy as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution. Justice Lisa Gill held that the conversations were in clear breach of the privacy rights, and set aside the decision of the family court. Aggrieved by this decision, the petitioner approached the Supreme Court, which on July 14 ruled in favour of the husband by accepting the recorded conversations, though they were made without the consent and knowledge of the spouse. Complete lack of trust The Supreme Court Bench, comprising Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma, used the recorded conversations to conclude that the marriage in question had reached a point of a broken relationship, where one spouse was actively snooping on the other, denoting a complete lack of trust between them, the very bedrock of a marriage. In essence, the Supreme Court admitted the recorded conversations to decide on the broken marriage rather than as an absolute question of privacy laws. The court also relied on the exception provided in Section 122 of the Indian Evidence Act, which permits the disclosure of recorded marital communications in suits between married persons or proceedings in which one married person is prosecuted for any crime committed against the other. The Bench observed: 'We do not think there is any breach of privacy in this case. Section 122 of the Evidence Act does not recognise any such right. On the other hand, it carves out an exception to the right to privacy between spouses and therefore cannot be applied horizontally at all.' The Family Courts Act, 1984 grants a family court discretion to admit evidence, including reports, statements, documents, information, or other matters, that, in its opinion, will assist in effectively handling a dispute, even if that evidence might not meet the admissibility benchmark under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. This provision allows the family courts to consider a broader range of evidence, including recorded conversations, in deciding matrimonial disputes. The court recognised that instances of mental suffering were very private and recorded conversations assisted the family court in deciding the matter appropriately. It reaffirmed its commitment to a fair trial, an inalienable right provided by Article 21 of the Constitution. Important form of evidence Call recordings have become an important form of evidence in legal proceedings. The Information Technology Act, 2000 and the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 are the primary laws related to electronic records and the admissibility of these records. The admissibility of call recordings in Indian courts has been a matter of debate and controversy for several years. The K.S. Puttaswamy judgment (2017) established privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. However, the Supreme Court, in this case, has interpreted the right to privacy in the specific context of matrimonial discord, the exception provided in the Evidence Act, and the admissibility of relevant evidence in a family court proceeding to decide a case. The judgment reaffirms the admissibility of secretly recorded conversations, based on the precedent set in R.M. Malkani vs State of Maharashtra. The admissibility of recorded electronic evidence was also examined in S. Pratap Singh vs State of Punjab, in which the Supreme Court accepted an unauthorisedly obtained tape-recorded conversation between two parties. The court evaluated the evidentiary value of the tape-recorded conversation and accepted it as evidence only because it was essential to resolving the case. Some believe the judgment will promote spousal surveillance and abuse of privacy laws to be used against an unsuspecting partner in future. Research established that women are generally at the receiving end in a family or a live-in relationship. The male counterpart enjoys greater coercive control. Admission of recorded conversations between spouses will create a greater atmosphere of suspicion, a trust deficit, and an abuse of privacy laws. The admissibility of call recordings in Indian courts depends on several factors, including the authenticity, accuracy, and reliability of the recordings, the relevance and probative value of the recordings to the issue at hand, and the circumstances under which the recordings were made. As technology continues to evolve, the admissibility of electronic evidence, including call recordings, will likely remain a subject of judicial scrutiny and interpretation. The admissibility of electronic evidence, such as recorded telephone or mobile conversations and video clips, often raises concerns regarding the right to privacy. While electronic evidence is accepted in a court of law, it is not generally legal for individuals to record conversations without authorisation due to the violation of the right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution. However, in Vibhor Garg vs Neha, the Supreme Court has emphasised that the use of recorded conversations as evidence is admissible only in cases involving matrimonial or family discord. Only time will tell if the courts in India will be liberal in accepting such evidence in other cases also. (The writer is a former Director-General of Police, Himachal Pradesh; view are personal)
Time of India
3 hours ago
- Time of India
JD(U) MP: EC has no practical knowledge of Bihar, imposed SIR in monsoon
Patna: JD(U) MP from Banka Girdhari Yadav said on Wednesday the Election Commission (EC) has no practical knowledge about Bihar or its history and geography and has imposed the special intensive revision (SIR) on the state in the rainy season, when people are busy with agricultural activities. LJP (RV) chief Chirag Paswan and BJP politician and Union minister Giriraj Singh defended the process on Wednesday, The Banka MP said the one-month limit for submitting documents for voter list revision was impractical. July 25 is the deadline to submit forms along with supporting documents. JD(U) MLA from Parbatta Sanjeev Kumar, too, raised concerns and said many poor people from his constituency who are working outside Bihar were facing problems filling their enumeration forms with the documents required. Yadav said it took 10 days for him to arrange the relevant documents and asked what would happen to his son's voting right as he was in the US. He added that at least six months should be given for this process. However, he said it was his personal opinion and he did not care what the party was saying on the issue. "But this is the truth. If I cannot speak the truth, then why have I become an MP," he said. The Parbatta MLA, meanwhile, questioned the timing of SIR and said a large number of people from Bihar work in other states. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like American Investor Warren Buffett Recommends: 5 Books For Turning Your Life Around Blinkist: Warren Buffett's Reading List Undo "How will they be able to participate in the SIR process in such a short time," he asked, adding that the process should have started by Holi. The ECI says SIR is necessary to remove the names of those who are either deceased or have migrated to other places, or registered twice. The opposition has alleged that the process targets voters from marginalised and poor communities who don't possess the documents ECI requires as it has excluded Aadhaar and EPIC for voter verification. However, Union minister Chirag Paswan accused the opposition of deliberately spreading misinformation about SIR to suit their political narrative. "It is beyond my understanding what the opposition really wants. Is it not correct that after the parliamentary elections they complained about the voter list? They claimed the same thing after the Maharashtra elections. Now, the solution is SIR only. It is not the first time SIR is happening," he said. Union minister Giriraj Singh accused the opposition of politicising a constitutionally mandated process. "They crush the Constitution but take Babasaheb's name. They are worried about the Rohingyas, the Bangladeshis. That's why they are scared," he alleged.
