RSS' Confusing Stance on Hindu Rashtra
Hyderabad: The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) seems to have a confusing position on the issue of Hindu Rashtra, as seen from its head Mohan Bhagwat’s recent Vijayadashami speech. On one hand, Bhagwat talks about the idea of a Hindu Rashtra, but he also emphasizes the principles of Sanatana Dharma, which promote respect for all religions.
This mixed message leaves many Hindus who are not part of the RSS feeling unsure about where the organization stands. While the BJP, which has political responsibilities, might be hesitant to declare India as a Hindu Rashtra, it’s unclear why the RSS, a non-political organization, cannot take a clear stand on this issue.
The RSS’ unclear position on such a sensitive issue could harm the cause of Hindus more than it helps. If the RSS truly supports the idea of a Hindu Rashtra, it should push the BJP to take decisive action, even if there’s opposition from other political parties or non-Hindu groups.
The safety of Hindus is a growing concern, as violent attacks on the majority Hindu population by armed groups continue. The laws preventing ordinary citizens from owning weapons leave Hindus vulnerable, while their attackers, often trained by terrorist groups, go unpunished. The government and Hindu organizations, including the RSS, must take accountability and address this situation urgently.
It is time for the RSS to clarify its stance on whether India should be declared a Hindu Rashtra, both officially and politically, and if so, to explain how soon that could happen. The BJP, too, should make its position clear and inform the public whether it supports this idea and when it plans to act on it.
Once both the RSS and BJP reveal their positions, the Hindu population can decide on the next steps to safeguard their interests.
SC Cancels Tender Due to Unfair Process
On October 4, the Supreme Court, through a bench of Justices Bela M Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma, overturned a tender awarded to a company. The court applied the Wednesbury principle of reasonableness, which allows for judicial review in cases of arbitrariness or unfairness in the tendering process.
In this case, Banshidhar Construction Pvt Ltd Vs Bharat Coking Coal Ltd, the court noted that while courts usually do not interfere in tender processes, they can step in when there’s a violation of natural justice or fairness. The bench criticized the tendering process as arbitrary and unfair, violating Article 14 of the Constitution, which calls for equality before the law.
Recording Conversations in Police Stations Not an Offense
The Bombay High Court’s Aurangabad bench recently ruled that recording conversations in a police station does not violate the Official Secrets Act of 1923. In the case of Subhash Rambhau Ahare and another Vs. State of Maharashtra, the court stated that Section 3 of the Act does not consider recording a conversation in a police station as an offense. As a result, the FIR against the petitioners was quashed.
Cheque Bouncing Not a Moral Offense, Says Court
The Gauhati High Court ruled that a conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, related to dishonored cheques, does not involve moral wrongdoing. The court, in the case of Sachin Dutta Vs Union of India, said that it is merely a civil issue. The decision came after the Tea Research Association dismissed an employee without proper investigation, solely based on his conviction for cheque bouncing.
Telangana's Lok Adalat Sees Record Case Disposal
Telangana recently set a record in the Lok Adalat by resolving 12 lakh cases and approving compensation worth Rs 200 crore. This achievement marks the highest percentage of case disposal in the country.
South India Expects Supreme Court Bench
Advocates in South India have called for the establishment of a regional Supreme Court bench, particularly in Hyderabad. A round-table conference on October 12 urged the outgoing Chief Justice of India, Dr. D Y Chandrachud, to make a formal announcement regarding this matter. The demand for regional benches has gained support from legal experts, political parties, and the BRS, as it would make access to justice easier and more affordable.
