संदेश
The Supreme Court's Shameful Shenanigans - deletion of critically important observations on conversions.
गुरुवार, 27 जनवरी 2011
Yes, the court has surrendered to the unjustified demand of christian
Subject: Re: The Supreme Court's Shameful Shenanigans - deletion of critically important observations on conversions.
community which doesn't represent even 5 % of our population.
But the shameful thing is that the judiciary didn't pay attention to the
sentiments of majority Hindus !
Shivshankar Nair.
Just a few hours after sending this message, I was woken up this morning by my esteemed and valiant soldier friend, Colonel S S Rajan, from Bangalore, who drew my attention to this morning's news items in all the major dailies about the Supreme Court judges having deleted two critical paragraphs in their judgement in the Dara Singh case pronounced last week.
The most important deletion is the following observation :
"It is undisputed that there is no justification for interfering in someone's belief by way of use of force, provocation, conversion, incitement or upon a flawed premise that one religion is better than the other."
And this is the observation that hurt the Christian "soul-harvesters" the most (as you will read in Dayal's comments below).
The most disturbing aspect in this latest venality of the Supreme Court (at least on the part of these two judges (P Sathasivam and Justice BS Chauhan) is that their observations were perfectly legitimate and completely in line with the 1977 judgement of the Supreme Court (a unanimous verdict by a 5 judge Bench).
Clearly, Sri Sathasivam and Sri Chauhan were leaned upon ; otherwise, why should they revise their order, in the absence of a Review Petition or any formal representation ? Their entire conduct in this episode is not kosher at all.This is a clear demonstration that any any padre or mullah can bring the entire Indian governing apparatus to a grinding halt and force the organs of the Republic (in this case, the country's apex court) to eat humble pie.
With the help of some friends, I am studying whether the Supreme Court can change its own verdict after pronouncing it.
In the meanwhile, let us all live with the knowledge that a low-life like Dayal can make the Supreme Court look like a peanut vendor.
Jay Bhattacharjee
____________________________________________________________________
As committed, I am sending you my note analysing the landmark Supreme Court judgement of 1977 (a unanimous decision by a 5 judge Bench) on the constitutional validity of anti - conversion laws. The judgement also pronounced categorically that there was no fundamental right to convert people of other faiths to yours. I had prepared the note in 1999 ; it was reproduced in a few Indic sites and publications.
Please forward this note to that vermin Dayal ; tell him and his low-life cohorts that this whole issue has been decided once and for all.
They keep on blabbering about challenging anti - conversion laws - they should belt up.
The present observations of Justice P Sathasivam and Justice BS Chauhan in the Dara Singh case merely reinforce the categorical views of the bench in 1977.
Jay Bhattacharjee
________________________________________________________________________________
-----------------------------------------------------
Jay Bhattacharjee
Advisor (Corporate Laws & Finance)
Member : Delhi Stock Exchange Ltd.
Tele : (91-11) 4182-8165 / 2651-0174
Telefax : (91-11) 2685-6468
Mobile : (91) 98102-39986
------------------------------------------------------
The most important deletion is the following observation :
"It is undisputed that there is no justification for interfering in someone's belief by way of use of force, provocation, conversion, incitement or upon a flawed premise that one religion is better than the other."
And this is the observation that hurt the Christian "soul-harvesters" the most (as you will read in Dayal's comments below).
The most disturbing aspect in this latest venality of the Supreme Court (at least on the part of these two judges (P Sathasivam and Justice BS Chauhan) is that their observations were perfectly legitimate and completely in line with the 1977 judgement of the Supreme Court (a unanimous verdict by a 5 judge Bench).
Rev. Stainislaus v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1977 SC 908.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 1489 and 1511 of 1974: judgement pronounced in January 1977)
I am sending you my analysis of the 1977 judgement, so that you can get a complete picture. Some of you will be receiving this attachment for the second time within 24 hours, but I am sure you will bear with me.
Clearly, Sri Sathasivam and Sri Chauhan were leaned upon ; otherwise, why should they revise their order, in the absence of a Review Petition or any formal representation ? Their entire conduct in this episode is not kosher at all.This is a clear demonstration that any any padre or mullah can bring the entire Indian governing apparatus to a grinding halt and force the organs of the Republic (in this case, the country's apex court) to eat humble pie.
With the help of some friends, I am studying whether the Supreme Court can change its own verdict after pronouncing it.
In the meanwhile, let us all live with the knowledge that a low-life like Dayal can make the Supreme Court look like a peanut vendor.
Jay Bhattacharjee
____________________________________________________________________
As committed, I am sending you my note analysing the landmark Supreme Court judgement of 1977 (a unanimous decision by a 5 judge Bench) on the constitutional validity of anti - conversion laws. The judgement also pronounced categorically that there was no fundamental right to convert people of other faiths to yours. I had prepared the note in 1999 ; it was reproduced in a few Indic sites and publications.
Please forward this note to that vermin Dayal ; tell him and his low-life cohorts that this whole issue has been decided once and for all.
They keep on blabbering about challenging anti - conversion laws - they should belt up.
The present observations of Justice P Sathasivam and Justice BS Chauhan in the Dara Singh case merely reinforce the categorical views of the bench in 1977.
Jay Bhattacharjee
________________________________________________________________________________
Sorry the earlier message was transmitted, even though it was incomplete.
I can't bear to interact with that vermin, Dayal. Therefore, I am not writing to him .However, the following issue needs to be firmly and categorically tackled :
QUOTE :
But more than anything, we fear such remarks may negatively impact trials in Kandhamal, Orissa and future challenges to so-called 'freedom of religion laws' in various states."
UNQUOTE
The Constitutional validity of anti-conversion laws was unequivocally upheld by the full-bench (5 judges, unanimously) of the Supreme Court way back in 1977 (the Rev. Stanislaus case).
Please write to Dayal and tell him to stop writing this nonsense. If you want, I will send you my detailed note on this landmark judgement.
Jay
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
-----------------------------------------------------
Jay Bhattacharjee
Advisor (Corporate Laws & Finance)
Member : Delhi Stock Exchange Ltd.
Tele : (91-11) 4182-8165 / 2651-0174
Telefax : (91-11) 2685-6468
Mobile : (91) 98102-39986
------------------------------------------------------
0 टिप्पणियाँ:
एक टिप्पणी भेजें