Have some self-respect man. Musharaff is being prosecuted by Pakistanis because of his sins against Pakistani constitution. What motive could India possibly have to orchestrate this?
Of course their current policy has to change.
But I thought selling alcohol to Muslims in Pakistan is against the law. Which means the burden of scrutiny is on the seller. Otherwise the law would be something like 'muslims should not drink alcohol'. So the seller probably has no option but to...
I believe Pakistani passport mentions religion on it? So the best solution for the owner is to allow access to non-Pakistanis + Pakistani non-Muslims. Right?
Even I was pi$sed off reading the blog. But the owner justified himself well in the Der Spiegel translation. There are enough people who will charge the owner of conspiring to deIslamize Pakistan and 'spoil' young Pakistanis.
I think it is not that bad a measure. What the law makes sure is that if you are living in Delhi with an honest water connection, you should be allowed to have enough water for daily needs. Getting basic minimum food is a right in India now(something both BJP and Congress voted for and it...
The usual perception(probably with a hint of racism) is that the largest group of non-UK born residents is actually from Pakistan. Many of them prefer to not have documentation(to say it diplomatically, or plainly they outstay their visas).
Hold your horses. Prashant Bhushan has already been snubbed by AK once(calling Bhushan's public comments as his personal opinion). Let us wait for confirmation from Kejriwal.
That much is obvious.
It is upto the judiciary to tell us what the law was made for, which is another word for interpretation. It is also upto the judiciary to tell us whether it makes sense to follow a precendent in this case. It WAS an interpretation.
Well genius, who is it that tells us...
What you are talking about is just one way of interpreting the law.
Judicial interpretation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Indian Supreme Court showed in the Shah Bano case that the interpretation can be done according to the times(going against the normal practice of paying maintenance for...
Who decides what the law was introduced for? That is where the courts come in. In that sense it is left to the interpretation of judges. The whole purpose of judiciary and Supreme Court is to make this interpretation. If you ask the lawyers who were arguing the case for decriminalizing...
The family's evacuation is a secondary issue. It is an indication of how US treated this case. The main issue here is that a consul from a sovereign country is mistreated. Nobody gives a hoot about what image Indian justice system has among US citizens. It is a screwup of a government in...
How law works in India is immaterial for USA. It is not USA's business to help Indian citizens escape Indian law.
It is not just what the word evacuate meant. But the act of pulling out citizens of a friendly country implicitly calling the country's justice system as inferior. Indian courts are...
May be they thought 'we will deal with them later'. May be Jinnah's talk on Pakistan is for all minorities is meant to be a candy for the religious. The Ahmedis were thinking they are fighting for Pakistan where they will be equals. The champion muslims were thinking Ahmedis were fighting for...
IPC does not explicitly mention homosexuality. Rights activists were earlier hoping that SC will not interpret homosexuality as against nature.
Quoting the relevant section from wikipedia:
Holding the same standard of conservatism, I am betting any PDA over and above kissing will be...
Don't you have any shame saying what you just said? In Raymond Davis' case, after he killed two people, his name was added into a US diplomats list. Obama, the president of USA then claimed that Davis had immunity(diplomatic immunity by the way). By the time, the whole world knew that he was a...
Dude. Indian Supreme Court called gay sex as an unnatural act. Do you think they will interpret Secion 294 as you meant? No way. In India kissing in public is obscene.
I am not particularly interested in Bangla politics. But a point to note for Bangla friends here: Sooner or later the caretaker setup should go away. Caretaker setup says that the democracy in a country is not mature enough. It says a government cannot conduct elections without being able to...
Nobody is arguing over the jurisdictions of US government organs here. The net result is a snub to India.
Does the law of the country also requires to 'evacuate' citizens of a friendly country from the purview of the local law?
Ask Preet Bharara what it means...