My words thru your mouth
Never ever the-hindu missed a single opportunity to entertain me. Nowadays it has become a contest between my friend and I to predict how the great hindu will "report" a news sanitising it by the "secular and liberal" holy waters.
On the last day of his tenure the former Chief Justice of India(CJI) Shri. R.C.Lahoti expressed his view lack of political will to fight terror. In that he has also expressed his personal view that 'capital punishment should exist'. This had received a proper burial, a one-liner in the famous India's Leading news paper. Yes, because his views were like that of a blasphemous rhetoric of "fundamentalists", fit to be issued a "secular"fatwa. Unfortunately those words turned out to be from a CJI's mouth and a complete silent burial of his view was not possible, so it earned a reluctant one-liner. Moreover, Shri. Lahoti's personal view about the death penality was a clear departure from the personal view of the new CJI Shri. Sabharwal. That "clear departure" was not noted by this scion of inteligensia.
However, yesterday, the new CJI Shri. Y.K.Sabharwal has mentioned that new anti-terror laws are for the legislature to decide. Yes, everyone knows that -- judicial cannot enact laws; its legislature prerogative. But that news got into as the (af)front page feature news with photo of new CJI. With an arm twist of what the new CJI has mentioned.
Here is the excerpt of the arm-twist:
Where is the "clear departure" in Shri. Sabharwal's statement from the statement of the former CJI Lahoti as noted by the paper? Lahoti said is "we need anti-terror law and our politicians lack the will". It very well indicates/re-iterates the new CJI's statement "legislature to decide".
The only difference I feel was in the personal opinion about the death penality wherein both (the new CJI and his predecessor) expressed diametrically opposite PERSONAL views. Since these two were personal views, both have carefully expressed their view when they were NOT officiating as CJIs. It clearly emphasize the personal part of their opinion and clearly avoids any bias tag to CJI office.
Such arm-twist reporting is classic "The-Hindu" act of putting its words in the mouth of others and thrusting into the throat of its readers.
Entertainment unlimited is the mantra of this great 125+ year old Mount Road Mahavishnu.
On the last day of his tenure the former Chief Justice of India(CJI) Shri. R.C.Lahoti expressed his view lack of political will to fight terror. In that he has also expressed his personal view that 'capital punishment should exist'. This had received a proper burial, a one-liner in the famous India's Leading news paper. Yes, because his views were like that of a blasphemous rhetoric of "fundamentalists", fit to be issued a "secular"fatwa. Unfortunately those words turned out to be from a CJI's mouth and a complete silent burial of his view was not possible, so it earned a reluctant one-liner. Moreover, Shri. Lahoti's personal view about the death penality was a clear departure from the personal view of the new CJI Shri. Sabharwal. That "clear departure" was not noted by this scion of inteligensia.
However, yesterday, the new CJI Shri. Y.K.Sabharwal has mentioned that new anti-terror laws are for the legislature to decide. Yes, everyone knows that -- judicial cannot enact laws; its legislature prerogative. But that news got into as the (af)front page feature news with photo of new CJI. With an arm twist of what the new CJI has mentioned.
Here is the excerpt of the arm-twist:
The newly sworn-in Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Justice Y.K. Sabharwal said on Wednesday that it was for the legislature to decide whether the country needed stronger anti-terrorism laws.
Addressing a press conference at his residence, he said: "This is for the legislature to decide. It is none of the judiciary's business."
This was a clear departure from the statement of the former Chief Justice, R.C. Lahoti on Monday that the country needed a new law to tackle terrorism and that the political leadership lacked the will to frame such a law. He also said he would not air his personal views on the death penalty. It was for the legislature to decide what the maximum and minimum punishment should be for each offence, he added.
Where is the "clear departure" in Shri. Sabharwal's statement from the statement of the former CJI Lahoti as noted by the paper? Lahoti said is "we need anti-terror law and our politicians lack the will". It very well indicates/re-iterates the new CJI's statement "legislature to decide".
The only difference I feel was in the personal opinion about the death penality wherein both (the new CJI and his predecessor) expressed diametrically opposite PERSONAL views. Since these two were personal views, both have carefully expressed their view when they were NOT officiating as CJIs. It clearly emphasize the personal part of their opinion and clearly avoids any bias tag to CJI office.
Such arm-twist reporting is classic "The-Hindu" act of putting its words in the mouth of others and thrusting into the throat of its readers.
Entertainment unlimited is the mantra of this great 125+ year old Mount Road Mahavishnu.
posted by Kupps at 3:37 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home