Who Is Equal: The Equality Code of the Constitution
Saurabh starts by clearing certain basics for the reader by posing questions like the importance of equality and what exactly do we want to be equal to? Subsequently, in the following chapters, the author goes onto the different dimensions of equality and how it manifests in different fields like education, employment, business, marriage, etc. He goes on to mention how the process of attaining equality needs to carry the contextual realities of the society. Mentioning the famous case from Madras where caste-based reservations existed before the independence of India but were struck down soon after the promulgation of the Constitution by the High Court of Madras and then affirmed by the Supreme Court, terming reservations as unconstitutional. But soon Prime Minister Nehru had to intervene and introduce the first amendment to the constitution and undo the judgement of the Supreme Court. He goes on to state that equality of law shouldn't cement inequalities existing in the society. Subsequently, the author also underlines the imperative significance of equality in our personal lives. Under the paradigm of marriage, he raises marital rape as an important issue which still has not been identified as a crime in our country.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
44 minutes ago
- Indian Express
‘Political speeches are often exaggerated': Telangana HC quashes criminal defamation against CM Revanth Reddy
The Telangana High Court Friday quashed a criminal defamation case against Chief Minister A Revanth Reddy. The case stems from remarks made by the CM against the BJP during the Lok Sabha election campaign at Kothagudem in May 2024. On Friday, the Bench of Justice Lakshman allowed the petition filed by Reddy to quash the proceedings against him in the case pending trial before a Special Judicial First Class Magistrate (JFCM) for Excise cases (designated MP-MLA court) in Hyderabad. He was booked under Section 499 (defamation) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 125 (promoting enmity between classes in connection with an election) of the Representation of the People Act. The complainant, Telangana BJP unit represented by its General Secretary Kasam Venkateshwarlu, contended that the statements, such as 'the BJP, if voted to power, would change the Constitution and abolish reservations to SC/ST and BC communities', were part of a 'fake and dubious political narrative' to confuse voters and promote enmity between communities. The BJP alleged that the speech lowered the party's reputation and caused damage during the 2024 Lok Sabha elections. The Special JFCM for excise cases in August 2024 had issued a summons to Revanth Reddy, asking him to appear personally before it. Subsequently, the chief minister approached the high court challenging the complaint and seeking to stay the proceedings initiated against him. The high court had earlier granted him an exemption from personal appearance before the trial court. The petitioner's counsel, T Niranjan Reddy, informed the court that political speeches should not be the subject of defamation, 'as elections inherently involve parties seeking to lower each other's reputation.' He said the 'alleged speech is a routine activity of a political leader to criticise the opposition and is not defamation,' and that such speeches are protected under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution. The petitioner, among other allegations, argued that the complaint was filed with a political vendetta to harass the petitioner and constitutes an abuse of the legal process. On his part, the counsel for the respondent, Devineni Vijay Kumar, argued that the statements created mistrust and fear among voters, bringing disrepute to the BJP. After hearing both sides, the court rejected the contention of the petitioner that political parties do not enjoy reputation and cannot maintain a complaint for criminal defamation. The court also found neither the complainant (BJP Telangana) nor its representative, Kasam Venkateshwarlu, was authorised by the national unit of the Bharatiya Janata Party to file the complaint. Refraining from discussing the contents of the alleged speech and the issue of its defamatory nature, the court noted, 'Political speeches are often exaggerated. To allege that such speeches are defamatory is another exaggeration.' 'It is trite law that, power of quashing should be exercised very sparingly and circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases. However, where the initiation of criminal proceedings suffers from material defects or where such criminal proceedings constitute abuse of process, the inherent powers can be exercised to quash criminal proceedings,' the court stated in the order.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
HC bins defamation case against CM
Hyderabad: Observing that political speeches are often exaggerated and not to be taken literally, the Telangana high court on Friday quashed criminal proceedings against chief minister A Revanth Reddy in a defamation case filed by the Telangana unit of the Bharatiya Janata Party over remarks he allegedly made during the 2024 general election campaign. Justice K Lakshman held that attempting to make a criminal defamation case out of a political speech would itself be an exaggeration, noting that such speeches are typically charged rhetoric aimed at political opponents. The complaint had been filed by Kasam Venkateshwarlu, general secretary of Telangana BJP, alleging that Revanth made "false, defamatory, and provocative" statements during a public address on May 4, 2024, including accusations that the BJP intended to abolish SC, ST, and BC reservations, if voted to power. The BJP argued that the remarks harmed the party's public image. You Can Also Check: Hyderabad AQI | Weather in Hyderabad | Bank Holidays in Hyderabad | Public Holidays in Hyderabad The complainant sought criminal action under section 499 of the IPC (defamation) and section 125 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. A trial court had taken cognisance of the case, prompting Revanth to seek quashing of proceedings before the high court. Justice Lakshman quashed the case, citing multiple legal grounds. The court found that BJP's Telangana unit is not a separately recognised political party under the Representation of the People Act or the Constitution. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like The World's Most Stunning Blue Flag Beaches Ranked: Top 25 List! Click Here Undo Only the national BJP has such recognition. Therefore, the state unit lacked legal standing to file a complaint independently, it said. The court further noted that Venkateshwarlu had no authorisation from the national BJP leadership to pursue legal action. Since the alleged remarks were directed at the BJP as a whole, only the national party or its duly authorised representative could have filed such a complaint. Justice Lakshman emphasised political speeches inherently allow a wider latitude for criticism and exaggeration, and treating such remarks as criminal defamation could stifle democratic discourse and free speech. Accordingly, the court quashed the proceedings pending before the legislators' court in Hyderabad, holding that the complaint was not legally sustainable. Senior counsel T Niranjan Reddy, appearing for CM Revanth, welcomed the ruling, stating that the judgment upholds the spirit of free expression in political debate. He said the order reaffirms that state units of national parties cannot independently initiate defamation proceedings without explicit authorisation from the central leadership.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
HC upholds tribal woman's right to ancestral land
Jaipur: The Rajasthan High Court ruled in favour of Manni Devi, a woman from the Meena Scheduled Tribe community, affirming her right to ancestral land and striking down an earlier order that denied her claim solely on the basis of her tribal status. The case centred around a property dispute after Manni Devi challenged a 2018 gift deed executed by her father in favour of another family member. Her earlier civil suit was dismissed on technical grounds, prompting her to seek khatedari rights in the revenue court. However, the Board of Revenue rejected her claim in June 2025, citing Section 2(2) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, which excludes Scheduled Tribes from its application unless notified by the Central Govt. Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand overturned the Board's decision Thursday, citing recent Supreme Court rulings, including Tirth Kumar v. Dadu Ram and Ram Charan v. Sukhram, which held that denying property rights to tribal daughters violates their constitutional right to equality. The court emphasised that gender-based discrimination, even under the guise of customary or statutory exclusion, cannot override fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Is it better to shower in the morning or at night? Here's what a microbiologist says CNA Read More Undo The judgment strongly urged the Union Govt to amend the Hindu Succession Act and extend equal property rights to tribal women, calling the existing legal exclusion "manifestly unjustified" after 70 years of independence. Justice Dhand directed the sub-divisional officer in Chaksu to resume proceedings in Manni Devi's suit and adjudicate the matter on its merits without delay. TNN
