Hezbollah Pleads for Mercy After Lebanon Bombardment
Hyderabad: After a severe bombardment in Lebanon, Hezbollah militants have been forced to plead for mercy on humanitarian grounds. This comes after Hezbollah fired around 8,000 deadly weapons at Israel. In the past, during the 2006 war between Israel and Lebanon, Hezbollah had to surrender to Israel, and in return, Israel showed leniency after taking an assurance from Hezbollah to live peacefully in the future.
However, after recovering from their earlier defeat, Hezbollah resumed its aggressive stance. Acting as a proxy for Iran, Hezbollah, along with other groups like Houthi and Hamas, began attacking Israel again. Governments in Lebanon, Yemen, and Palestine have been largely ineffective in stopping these violent actions by militant groups. As a result, violence has escalated once more in the region.
Lessons for Bharat
The ongoing conflict between Israel and militant groups like Hamas, Houthi, and Hezbollah offers lessons for India (Bharat). While Israel is militarily stronger and highly prepared for war, India still lags behind in several aspects. Unlike Israel, where the civilian population is trained for warfare, India has yet to adopt a similar level of preparedness. Furthermore, Israel’s political opposition stands united in supporting Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu during this time of war, whereas India’s opposition parties are often seen as working against the ruling party, creating internal divisions.
In India, there is a need to address critical issues such as terrorism, foreign infiltration, and extremism more seriously. The public remains vulnerable to violent attacks as they lack the means to protect themselves. The government’s approach towards these issues has been criticized as too lenient.
Constitutional Responsibilities
The Indian Constitution obligates its three organs – the Legislature, Executive, and Judiciary – to protect the life and property of every person in the country. However, past events like the Mopla genocide, post-partition killings, and other instances of violence have shown that these institutions have sometimes failed to protect citizens. It is important for these bodies to prioritize the safety of the people above all else, and perhaps India can take inspiration from Israel’s approach to national security.
Supreme Court on High Court’s Revisional Powers
Recently, the Supreme Court of India ruled that High Courts cannot convert an acquittal into a conviction while using their revisional powers. This decision was made in a case titled C.N. Shantha Kumar vs. M.S. Srinivas. The court explained that under Section 401(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C), a High Court can only ask the trial court to reconsider a case but cannot directly turn an acquittal into a conviction.
The case in question involved a dishonored cheque, where the trial court initially convicted the accused, but the appellate court later acquitted him. The High Court had reversed the acquittal and convicted the accused, which the Supreme Court found to be beyond its powers.
Madras High Court on Trademark Infringement
In another case, the Madras High Court ruled that a confusingly similar or deceptively similar trademark can harm the legal owner’s reputation. The case was between GM Modular Private Limited and K. Dalpat Singh & D. Pepi Devi. The court ordered the removal of trademarks “GM Pipes” and “GMware” from the Trade Marks Register, as they were seen as damaging to the original trademark holder.
Karnataka High Court on Slogans
The Karnataka High Court recently ruled that shouting slogans like “Bharat Mata Ki Jai” does not hurt religious sentiments or promote communal disharmony. This decision was in response to a case concerning an FIR filed under Section 153-A of the Indian Penal Code. The court quashed the FIR, stating that such slogans should not be seen as offensive or hateful.
New BCI Guidelines for Law Students
The Bar Council of India (BCI) has issued new guidelines for law students, effective immediately. These include criminal background checks, declarations about simultaneous degrees or other academic programs, and the collection of biometric attendance records. Law institutions, referred to as Centers of Legal Education (CLE), will be responsible for enforcing these rules. Failure to comply could result in severe consequences, including the withdrawal of recognition from the institution.
Students will also be required to sign an undertaking stating that they will follow these guidelines. Institutions must ensure compliance before issuing marksheets and certificates to students.
