Hyderabad:
India and Israel share many similarities despite their differences in size. Israel, with a population of around 1 crore, has about two-thirds of its people following Judaism. Similarly, in India, approximately 80% of the population practices Sanatana Dharma, also known as Hinduism. Both Judaism and Hinduism are ancient religions, and both countries are officially secular. Israel has recognized Hebrew, an ancient language, as its official language. In contrast, India has not yet recognized Sanskrit as an official language, even though many Indian languages originate from Sanskrit. For a language to thrive, it needs royal or state support, which Sanskrit currently lacks.
In both countries, Muslims make up about 18% of the population. However, there’s a difference between the Muslims in Israel and those in India. Israeli Muslims have not protested against military actions on Muslim countries like Lebanon, Palestine, Syria, Iran, Iraq, and Yemen. On the other hand, some Indian Muslims have expressed strong reactions against perceived injustices towards Muslims in these countries.
For example, a Muslim MP from Hyderabad recently shouted “Jai Palestine” after taking his oath, ignoring a violent attack by the Palestinian group Hamas on Israeli civilians last October. This attack involved taking about 350 men, women, and children as hostages. Despite this, there has been little sympathy or condemnation of the attack from Indian leaders who champion democracy.
Israel has shown resilience and commitment to freedom, harmony, and religious tolerance, despite being surrounded by numerous Muslim-majority countries. It has consistently fought against extremist elements. The world must unite to combat extremist forces to ensure peace and harmony prevail over fanaticism.
The radicalization of some Muslims can be attributed to ill-educated or illiterate religious teachers. These teachers often misinterpret the teachings of Prophet Mohammed and the Quran to maintain control over their followers. The true teachings of Islam emphasize humanity, peaceful coexistence, harmony, and prosperity. Educating the masses about these principles could diminish the influence of those promoting violence and discord.
This task is challenging but essential. Until then, peace-loving nations must actively oppose extremist forces to maintain global peace and prosperity.
SC Opens Gates for Creation of Creamy Layers by States
On August 1, a seven-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India, led by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud, overturned a 1984 judgment. The court ruled that states can sub-categorize reserved communities for education and job reservations. This decision was made by a 6:1 majority.
The bench included Justice B R Gavai, Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Bela M Trivedi, Justice Pankaj Mithal, Justice Manoj Misra, and Justice S.C. Sharma. The ruling in the case “State Of Punjab and Ors. v. Davinder Singh and Ors.” laid down guidelines for sub-categorization. However, Justice Bela M Trivedi dissented, arguing that states should not override presidential orders on reservations.
This landmark judgment resolves the debate over whether sub-categories can be created within reserved categories.
Chhattisgarh HC Sets Aside Dismissal Order
Justice Goutam Bhaduri of the Chhattisgarh High Court recently overturned the dismissal of an Anganwadi worker. The court found that the dismissal occurred while her case was pending and that she was not given a chance to defend herself, which violated natural justice principles.
In the case “Ansusuiya Bai Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others,” the court relied on a Supreme Court judgment in “Dharampal Satyapal Ltd Vs. CCE.”
Kerala HC on Voyeurism
The Kerala High Court dismissed a petition to quash a case filed against doctors and a hospital for sharing a video of a cesarean surgery on WhatsApp. The court deemed the act a serious violation of the woman’s privacy.
In the case “Sunil P and Another Vs. State of Kerala,” the court found that the police had recovered the video from the accused doctor’s mobile, and thus, the case required no interference.
Prima Facie Proof Necessary to Draw Presumption Under Section 90 of Evidence Act
Justice Gautam Kumar Choudhary of the Jharkhand High Court ruled that the age of a document alone is not enough to presume its execution. There must be some prima facie proof to support such a presumption under Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act.
In the case “Sanjeeda Begum and others Vs. Mohd. Eqbal,” the court dismissed a second appeal, finding no error in the lower court’s judgments.
