000-tobecategorised

Dr. Ram Puniyani speaks on Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj: He wasn’t like Savarkar; BJP spreading lies The Public India  https://youtu.be/Mbg7sc1jlDQ?t=87   Letter of Shivaji to Auranzeb  was not an apology. He was a clever response to escape . 

The concept of ‘intimate association’, encapsulated under Article 19 of the Indian Constitution, https://theleaflet.in/i-enter-indian-soil-and-my-union-is-no-longer-recognised-as-marriage-petitioners-on-the-foreign-marriage-act-on-day-4-of-the-hearing/   Gursimran Kaur Bakshi· April 25, 2023  Senior advocate Anand Grover averred that the argument of the Union government that homosexual unions did not exist in the subcontinent in antiquity is disproved by a study of history and culture of this region. He pointed out that it has been clearly accepted by the court in National Legal Services Authority versus Union of India (2014) that such relationships did exist during the British period. https://youtu.be/qdZNqTia7fE?t=1817

He also presented an interesting example where the marriage between a cis-male and a cis-female is valid. During the subsistence of the marriage, if the cis-male assumes a female gender, the law does not say that the marriage becomes void or voidable.

Senior advocate Geetha Luthra, for the petitioners, raised the question of ‘invisiblisation’ of marriage of non-heteronormative couples married outside and returning to India. Pointing out the term ‘comity’, Luthra argued that India cannot be lagging behind in terms of constitutional comity as it is a violation of the provision on discrimination under Article 15 (prohibition of discrimination on the grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth) of the Indian Constitution. She also informed the court that most democratic and progressive countries have already recognised non-heteronormative marriages. Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdZNqTia7fE

Vrinda Grover https://youtu.be/qdZNqTia7fE?t=14147  speaks about the Delhi Public Hearing in marriage equality case.. So well argued.. by vrinda for new imagination of family,, going even beyond non-conjugal intimacies..

Advocate Jayna Kothari similarly argued that most transgender persons have no option but to run away from their homes because of discrimination. In this context, the right to marry is extremely crucial as they are given a right to raise a family that can provide psychological and economic support.

PM CARES में 2900 Cr का घोटाला? Rs 2,913 Crore From Government Firms to Modi’s PM CARES Fund  https://youtu.be/iQUL4NSlE_Q?t=64  Apr 25, 2023

PM CARES Fund Not A Fund Of Government Of India, Cannot Be Labelled ‘Public Authority’: PMO To Delhi High Court Nupur Thapliyal 31 Jan 2023 https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/pm-cares-fund-public-authority-rti-act-parliament-govt-pmo-delhi-high-court-220299

Rs 2,913 Crore From Government Firms to Modi’s PM CARES Fund: Report https://thewire.in/politics/rs-2913-crore-from-government-firms-to-modis-pm-cares-fund-report Government-run firms accounted for 59.3% donations that listed entities made to a private fund run by PM Modi, as per Business Standard. The bulk of the amount seems to have come from corporate India’s CSR budgets in its first year.

scrutiny over CSR spending gains increased significance because of the new norms that were amended by the government in September 2022. These amended norms limit the amount of information that companies have to put out in their annual reports on CSR spends.

The status of PM CARES has been controversial for its nature and the lack of transparency around it. The PMO had told the Delhi high court in January that PM CARES is not a “public authority”.