We are collecting authors'profile. As soon as we get, we update it. Please note this is not official profile. The information including photo is collected from web.
| Contact |
| twitter |
| Linkedin |
...(Express archive photo August, 1975) For me, the month of June is a month of memories: Of events leading upto June 26 — “Emergency Day” as I call it. The time has come to revive some memories of Emergency Day. As for my part, I recall that on June 12, 1975, judgment was pronounced by the Allahabad High Court in the election petition filed by Raj Narain against Indira Gandhi, holding her guilty of corrupt practices and disqualifying her from holding all public offices for six years. A few days later I was told by her lawyer, J.B. Dadachanji, that she had personally requested that I should vet the grounds of appeal against the judgment as also the stay application (to be filed in the Supreme Court) even though her own senior advocate, Nani Palkhivala, had settled them. I was flattered. I went through the papers, suggesting a few changes. When the petition was ready, Siddhartha Shankar Ray and I were in the office of the Law Minister H.R. ...Indian Express on June 26, 2017, 12:10 a.m.
...Because, as I see it, we are on the threshold of a Hindu state (unconstitutional though it be). We are moving — not towards the soft Hindutva that Justice J.S. Verma spoke of in his judgment in the Manohar Joshi vs N.B. Patil case (1995), “not a religion but a way of life”, but the hard Hindutva of V.D. Savarkar — “Hindu Rashtra (state), Hindu Jati (race) and Hindu Sanskriti (culture)”. This is plainly not the state envisaged in the Constitution of India: A constitution that was framed mainly by those who professed the Hindu religion — in a Constituent Assembly of 299, 255 members (85 per cent) were Hindus! You might well say, “What’s surprising about this; after all, it is a country where the overwhelming majority of its citizens are still Hindus” (about 80 per cent). Yes. And for me, for this reason alone, this is a time to recall the days of the internal Emergency. ...Indian Express on March 25, 2017, 1:50 a.m.
...I have been greatly perturbed over the last few days over an otherwise excellent and sober judge in the Supreme Court (Judge No.5 in the hierarchy) going public over the lack of transparency in the working of the collegium system: A controversial system for the appointment of judges of the higher judiciary, but now constitutionally entrenched since the decision in the NJAC case (2015).The stated concern of the judge about a lack of transparency was commendable.But since he went public about it, its implications are the following: One, that the first four members of the collegium were not unduly concerned about “transparency”; two, that their response to this charge must remain mute since the time-honoured principle of judicial rectitude prevents these four judges from going public; three, the public has only one side of the picture, and can never have the other side because that would revive what was once (but now is not) in the public domain — a debate about the efficiency or otherwise of the collegium system. ...Indian Express on Sept. 7, 2016, 12:05 a.m.