War is spreading across the world, and many countries, including ours, are at risk of getting involved. The current global situation involves powerful countries like the US, Russia, NATO, China, Israel, and Ukraine. This has created a sense of uncertainty, and it seems like no one knows for sure what will happen next. However, what is clear is that we need to start preparing, as our participation in this conflict might be inevitable.
The United Nations (UN), which is supposed to help bring peace, is struggling to make an impact. Countries are not listening to each other, and Israel has even labeled the UN Secretary-General as unwelcome. Although this might be out of frustration, many other countries share similar feelings about the UN’s inability to act. If things continue like this, the UN could face the same fate as the League of Nations, which failed to prevent war in the past.
Given the seriousness of the situation, our country must come together and create a plan to face the potential threats. Article 352 of the Constitution allows the President to declare an emergency if there is a serious threat of war or external aggression. For this to happen, the Prime Minister and the Council of Ministers must first pass a resolution, which is then sent to the President for approval. With rising internal conflicts and hostile neighbors, the situation is becoming increasingly dangerous.
There is some hesitation about declaring an emergency because of the negative history of the 1975 emergency, which was imposed for political reasons. However, not all emergencies are bad. For example, the emergency declared during the 1962 war with China and the 1971 war with Pakistan was necessary and accepted by the public. The problem lies in the intention behind declaring an emergency—if it’s for the nation’s safety, it is necessary, but if it’s for personal gain, it is wrong.
In today’s context, declaring an emergency might be necessary to protect the nation. We must prepare for the worst before it’s too late, and the Constitution provides the legal framework to do so. Once an emergency is declared, the government can enforce laws like the Defence of India Act to ensure national security.
In conclusion, the government must take immediate and serious steps to protect the country’s safety and sovereignty, considering the rising global tensions.
—
Tirupati Laddu Investigation: Supreme Court Appoints SIT
The Supreme Court of India has formed a new Special Investigation Team (SIT) to look into allegations of adulteration in the making of the famous Tirupati Laddu. Devotees had raised concerns about the possible use of animal fat in the Laddu prasadam.
The court was hearing a case filed by Dr. Subramanyan Swami and others. While forming the new SIT, the court emphasized that it was not commenting on the previous SIT formed by the state government. The new SIT will be supervised by the Director of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and will include two CBI officers, two state police officers, and one officer from the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI).
—
Allahabad High Court Questions Use of ‘Honourable’ Prefix
The Allahabad High Court raised concerns about the use of the prefix ‘Honourable’ in addressing government officials. Justice J. J. Munir asked for clarification on the protocol after noticing that the Collector of Etawah addressed the Kanpur divisional commissioner as ‘Honourable Commissioner.’ The court pointed out that while the prefix is used for ministers and sovereign functionaries, it may not be appropriate for other government officials.
—
Delhi High Court Grants Compensation for Dog Attack
The Delhi High Court awarded Rs. 2.5 lakh ex-gratia to the family of a five-month-old infant who tragically died in a dog attack. The court noted the need for a balanced approach to managing stray dogs and ensuring public safety.
The victim’s mother had asked for Rs. 50 lakh in compensation, claiming negligence by municipal authorities. However, the court did not find sufficient evidence to prove whether the dog involved was a stray or a pet. The petitioner was allowed to seek further relief in a civil court.
—
Gujarat Government Reports Demolition of Religious Structures
The Gujarat government informed the state High Court that it had demolished 604 unauthorized religious structures in public places over the last two months. This action was taken after the court’s order to remove illegal constructions. Out of the demolished structures, 318 were in district areas and 286 were in municipal corporation areas. Some structures were relocated, and a few were regularized.
—
Telangana Advocates Protest Against Police Misconduct
Advocates in Telangana staged protests on October 3, boycotting work in many courts. The protests were sparked by an incident in which a police officer allegedly insulted and assaulted an advocate near Hyderabad. A delegation of lawyers also met with the Director-General of Police, demanding strict action against the officers involved.
