Guests: Vinod Sharma, Political Editor, Hindustan Times, J Sai Deepak, Adovate, Delhi High Court, Satya Prakash, Legal Editor, The Tribune, Justice BA Khan, Former Chief Justice, J&K High Court Anchor: Frank Pereira
@@mangalorelove Sai Deepak is a Mechanical engineer from ANNA UNIVERSITY and then Did Law from IIT Kharagpur and then practicing Lawyer in SC since 2009 .. He is too good and one will get educated every time you listen to his argument
Mr. Vinod Sharma the days of yes sir is gone.Younger generation started to ask hypothetical questions and legally/logically corner the Supreme Court. Very well articulated J. Saideepak
Sai Deepak is so brilliant even judges are introspecting on their position. After all, Judges are not God. They are humans subjecting to natural interpretational excesses
Satya Prakash sir addressed the journalism students in my college. The topic was contemporary approach on fourth pillar of democracy. But as soon as floor was opened to the questions the topic totally shifted to CAA, NRC. 🤩🤩I really liked his replies to them.
What was shocking was the supreme court was seeking evidence of triple talaq in Quran and said that Quran does not permit triple talaq. What if Quran permits it ?? What if sabrimala issue was permitted in hindu texts ? What if sati is permitted in hindu texts ? Fundamental to religion then ? Will the honorable court look constitution or look religious scriptures ?? This is deplorable .
I think they're rechecking the Quran to find the evidence that what the supporters of triple Talaq are saying have any religious validity or not..WHICH IS COMPLETELY FINE..There is no problem in rechecking things to find the evidences but yes, I do agree that the question still remains the same..Even if it has a religious validity should we accept it or not..Also Hindu pseudo liberals don't have to get super excited about it as if by criminalising the triple Talaq they are doing a great service to Muslim women..There are problems in Hindu religion too but the problem with pseudo Hindu liberals is that they try to pretend that we are very broad minded and demonise the Muslim men by calling them extremists..You don't have to act like the rescuers of Muslim women..Also, what Mr. Khan is saying should be given some importance too..If it's a misuse then the people who are misusing the practice should be held accountable for that..and also if it is proved that it's a misuse the solution becomes much easier in my eyes..
@@EverythingEsoteric11 it is not completely fine. The court cannot be the expert in checking / judging personal laws of jews , hindus , muslims , christianity , skhism , buddhism etc. The question arises again : if there is a validity of the practice , eg. stoning to death for adultery , in the faith and court finds it has religious validity - then will the court allow it ? if yes then court is a kangaroo court , if not then what is the whole point of unnecessary checking the religious validity of some practices which are not in accordance with basic human rights , rule of law and constitutional morality ? if untouchability has religious validation , then will the court allow it ? why to go and check the religious validity of practises which are from stone age and does not conform to modern society based on rule of law ?
Right to religion. I want to marry 5 woman . It's written as acceptable and encouragable in my religion But the court is violating my right to religion.
The enterprisers of debates on Rajya Sabha TV under this enlightening program BIG PICTURE if at all read the comments made here.. please consider the suggestion to extend the alloted time of discussion on certain issues like these. It is very frustrating to hear the moderator to jump in the middle saying... "I am running out of time.." when the panelists actually begin to speak..
Mr. Khan, according to this Hindus can also say that caste system should not be abolished because it is not practiced as actually it was formed, which didn't had any hatred for other castes.
As justice Khan making a statement that Quaran is gods made and constitution is man made, Somebody can give Clarification to me bec I heard and read in net that prophet Mohammed teaching are listed in Quaran( if i correct ) then how it is considered that is gods made law or something. If so then God given a loophole to discriminate particular section( Women) in the same community.
Quran, is a collection of verses , which is believed to be presented to the prophet muhammed (s a) from god by a time span of 13 years through angel jib'reel (a s) . And all the versus were collected and brought under a book after the death of the prophet by the swahabah in the order and arrangements taught by the prophet himself. There will be no loop holes in the quran , but the interpretation of verses by some makes quran discriminatory of women. you have to check quran english version and its explanation to understand it. I am unable to explain all these things to you as I dont know accurately to explain the correct scenario in the case of talaq which explains in the chapter al NIsa' of the quran . You can check yourself
History of Islam needs to be studied. Prophet was bonafide, so I have heard some saints say. But how much of his words were preserved, how much of his character was narrated as it is, these are under question mark. After the Prophet there were many people, not all honest who took rein of Islam. Be a Judge yourself but study first.
Many a times people take a Jibe at Islam. I don't like that. But the twisted things that are written can't be ignored because a group of terrorists called ISIS are claiming entirely that they are just following the words written in Islam.
Wish you could give behind the scenes..at the end when Mr.sharma turned his face to Mr.sai deepak..to discuss something ,I want to hear that discussions..😀
Justice B A Khan showed his true colours... A man bound by Constitution, a protector of it, says that Tripla Talaq is God's words and Art 21 is man made. Hence laws of Quran i.e. Shariah should triumph over Constitution of India.
I have one question sir if we are live in a democratic country then why we have not one law for everyone for its every citizens. Why every community have their personal law.????
What a contrast between this discussion and the debates (shouting matches) devoid of content, rationality or value on the mainstream channels. Is it fair to say that the mainstream channels reflect the actual level of civility of the so called civil society?
@*😎* Well said.. In the same way -- By law eliminate use of the JAATHI ( Caste ) name in News channels - You just see how they exploit - For cabinet expansion the TV show says which communituy gets what seat - JATS / Takurs/ Marata/ Sikh and during election analysis they go overboard on JAATHI calculation. to be completely stopped . Belive me I did not know these JATHI so well but for its coverage on TV
@*😎* Totally false.. I 100 % disagree. Marriage is purely a private affair .. Does that mean the last reserved category caste girl marries Brahmin boy social injustice ends ..? This is nonsense - -- Inside the house, I am totally private and none can enter without my permission including law. Political patronage - caste-based vote banks and vested interest politicians will ensure caste will remain forever not 50 or 100 Year .. Institutional corruption requires these complex rules such as RESErVATION is required to suck TAX payer money on regular basis. Nothing to do with the upliftment of the down trodden and all.
@*😎* If it is a social issue then why do we have constitutional rights for reservation written in the constitution - At least under law, everyone should be equal .. Social issues to be handled in society only not in courts. If someone is killing and called honor killing that is bad-- address that. If my daughter marries outside my caste or without my knowledge I may be sad but will not kill her for sure - KILLING IS PERMITTED in one religion as religious activity what do you say for that .. ? They may even argue in courts killing others is my religious freedom under Article 25 - Fortunately, our courts are goodwill definitely not allow that even to talk
Vinod sharma? Murder is illegal If there's murders even after criminalisation of it Would you say let the society evolve and donot make a law on it !??
Every time talking about time...what is the definition of time! For untouchability law was was at one go, for dowry it went quick but for triple talaq since shah bano case( Rajiv Gandhi time) till now still talking about time! Had it not been the majority government the law would have not been passed even for another 100 years !
In a Modern democratic country where power of the state is derived from each and every individual citizen, it is the duty of the state to fulfill its obligation to protect the unalienable rights also as far as the religious community's rights are concerned every possible attempt should be made to reconcile the legal mandate with the scriptural one which will, for most of the time,converge on humanistic grounds but if divergences occur then ultimately rule of the land has to prevail and the actual implementation of the law can be long drwan process with help of all the relevant stakeholders
Yyyy always u r out of time.....please extend the show to 45 minutes or 1 hour....valuable discussions...r cut short...without making any valuable remarks...or d real debate is not happening.. please extend d show timings....else it is mere waste of calling such learned people on stage...n not allowing them to put their ideas....n rushing saying.. out of time....
what a narrow minded view of vinod sharmaji if reforms are not popular(acceptable to majority of society) there will be backlash-if we go by this logic then there will be no reforms in hindu personal laws,it is enlightned people like raja ram mohan roy,eshwar chandra vidya sagar,Dr br ambedkar who were progressive enough to see the future of society(at that time also there was backlash) but they stood for reforms thats why we are here So reforms always unpopular when they implemented,I am not a supporter of BJP but why people like vinod sharma,kurshid,kapil sibal thinking these reforms in muslim personal laws in political terms they are doing more harm to muslim society
A simple answer is VOTE BANK POLITICS. Without knowing that this trend will eat us only one day. As Sai Deepak says we are cutting the branch of tree we are sitting on
Khan: instant triple talaq is not from Quran Sai Deepak : lets assume it is 🤣🤣 Now people wont let +ves of Islam to come out ... Islam is grey, not black ... So are all other religions
Jehad scared Secularist chew their so called "neutral opinion" when it comes to Islam while they try to become macho on any trivial issue against hindus Sai deepak sir point blank on target
People reading my comment should google the recent verdict on the christian mayor of Jakarta. Only in primitive societies like ours do we have courts debating questions like - what was the word of God and what exactly does the holy book says. The makers of the constitution had a politically charged atmosphere in which they made the constitution. All those inefficiencies have empowered huge imbalances in society- caste, religion, gender, etc.
Vidond Sharma - Is an Old man with old thoughts .. Just because he can speak in English and he is in Delhi he is called. Otherwise, he needs to retire and make ways for people like Satya Prakash. Sai Deepak will bulldoze these people and make his way boldly
En apradheo ke hemt dkhea kese lal ko chhore krk fer os bchh ko palna dkt t bd dkt jebhn bhr dkte dalna keraym mrd chhr gunada puran hd dkt arst barnt hot hthkde sja jl tehad jl tdpa tdpa k mar g en ds deroheo chhot seg sn of sugr seg sarthe geram udhnna arst
Enke sare perprte nelam kharej gro p bendojr nelmbt jo chhoreya dkte mar kat krk gr bnaa khte khrede bo sb kharej jmen sb srkare gro p bedojr chhlae jay on hot so far endeya hendustan
J Sai Deepak is high on constitutional steroids, sitting as if he is an authority on it and shaking his head in a disapproving way to whatever anyone is saying. One can't be a good speaker without listening, but it seems as if he is already thinking about the reply before someone else stops speaking.
