Pairokar

   Judiciary Must Embrace Technology  A struggle is ongoing among lawyers in Delhi regarding the virtual recording of statements and evidence, especially concerning police personnel, in court. Remarkably, neither the Delhi High Court nor the Bar Council of India has clarified the factual position. The facts are that the three laws replacing the IPC, Cr. P C, and the Indian Evidence Act were passed by the Lok Sabha on 21st December 2023 and the following day by the Rajya Sabha. These laws received Presidential assent on 25th December and came into force as Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita (BNS), Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), and Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA) from July 1, 2024. The strike by lawyers in Delhi began in response to a notification issued on August 13, 2025, by Lieutenant Governor V K Saxena, permitting police personnel to testify via video conferencing from police stations. On September 8, 2025, Delhi Police issued a revised circular directing all police pe...

During his tenure as a trade adviser to U.S. President Donald Trump, Peter Navarro made several controversial remarks, but few revealed his superficial understanding of India as clearly as his use of the word "Brahmins." In a Fox News interview defending U.S. tariffs, Navarro claimed that “Brahmins were profiteering at the expense of Indian people.” This statement was not just a political jab; it was a culturally ignorant and offensive mischaracterisation that drew widespread condemnation, including a demand for his dismissal from American Hindus Against Defamation (AHAD). Navarro's remark appears to stem from a flawed comparison with the American term ‘Boston Brahmins,’ used to describe a historical, elite class in the United States. This analogy fails in the Indian context. In India, ‘Brahmin’ refers to a large and diverse community defined by caste, not by a monolithic economic status. The reality is that the vast majority of Brahmins today belong to the middle or ...

  Don’t Throw Out the Baby with the Bathwater  Several friends have voiced concerns about my recent post advocating for the integration of technology into the justice system. Their primary worry is that increased reliance on digital tools might embolden law enforcement to act without sufficient oversight, potentially worsening the handling of criminal cases. But let’s take a step back. Even with traditional methods—where evidence is physically presented—the conviction rate remains below 50%. It’s difficult to argue that introducing technology would somehow erode this further. In fact, the opposite may be true. At the heart of criminal law lies a fundamental principle: no innocent person should be punished , even if that means some guilty individuals go free. This principle should guide our approach to innovation. Yes, technology has its flaws. But rejecting it outright because of imperfections ignores its potential to streamline procedures, enhance transparency, and reduce...