Pairokar

  A controversy is raging these days over whether non-believers, or more particularly non-Hindus, should be allowed to participate in Garba, the traditional dance performed during the Navratri festival, particularly in Gujarat and Maharashtra. Some argue that if members of different communities wish to participate together, there should be no objection, as such participation can promote cordiality and harmonious relations. But the issue is not quite as simple as it is sometimes presented. If participation is being justified in the name of communal harmony, the principle should apply consistently. Why should participation in one religious festival be singled out while participation in other festivals such as Holi or Diwali is viewed differently? And if the argument is genuinely about social interaction and brotherhood, there should also be no hesitation in allowing Muslim women to participate freely in Garba. A claim of harmony cannot be selective or one-sided. There is also a legit...

According to reports in several newspapers, senior advocates Mahesh Jethmalani and Harish Salve have rightly questioned why an FIR was lodged against a former judge of the Delhi High Court only after burnt currency notes were discovered at his residence. The principle is simple: the law must be the same for all. Yet in this case, excuses were advanced that cast serious doubt on the system's transparency. Consider the hypothetical: if a High Court judge commits murder, can they hide behind judicial immunity? Justice Varma’s case illustrates the problem. Following the cash recovery on March 14, 2025, then CJI Sanjiv Khanna constituted a three-member committee—Justices Sheel Nagu, G.S. Sandhawalia, and Anu Sivaram—to probe the incident. Delhi High Court Chief Justice D.K. Upadhyaya submitted a preliminary report, noting that a fire broke out in the judge’s house while he was in Bhopal. But does physical absence absolve responsibility? If terrorists store an AK-47 in a judge’s reside...

 The Supreme Court of India’s direction to enhance the retirement age of judicial officers in the district judiciary from 60 to 62 years is a welcome and much-needed step. A three-judge Bench, headed by the Chief Justice of India, Justice Surya Kant, and comprising Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana, has directed seven consenting States—Chhattisgarh, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Sikkim, Tamil Nadu and West Bengal—to amend their respective service rules to formally raise the age of superannuation from 60 to 62 years. The Court has further directed the remaining States and Union Territories to take an urgent decision, in consultation with their respective High Courts, within two weeks on adopting the enhanced retirement age. However, the enhancement to 62 years is not automatic. Judicial officers attaining the age of 60 years will be required to undergo a rigorous assessment of their suitability and performance by the concerned High Court before being permitted ...

  Justice Ujjal Bhuyan has recently raised a pertinent question: why, even after 76 years of the Constitution, has the Supreme Court of India never appointed a distinguished jurist as a judge of the Court? The question deserves serious consideration because the Constitution expressly provides for such a possibility. Article 124(3) makes a person eligible for appointment as a Judge of the Supreme Court if he or she is, in the opinion of the President, a “distinguished jurist.” Interestingly, this qualification is specifically provided for the Supreme Court and not for the High Courts. The Constitution, therefore, deliberately kept open a route for bringing persons from outside the conventional pool of judges and practising advocates directly to the Supreme Court. Justice Bhuyan observed that when the collegium system did not exist, one explanation offered by the Central Government was that there was not sufficient depth in Indian academia for distinguished academics to be seriously ...