After pat on cheek sparks outrage, TN Governor apologizes
_vb_71.jpeg)
Chennai, April 18: Tamil Nadu Governor Banwarilal Purohit on Wednesday apologized to a woman journalist whose cheeks he patted after a press conference, triggering widespread criticism.
In a letter to the journalist, Lakshmi Subramanian, which was circulated to the media, Purohit said: "I wish to express my regret and my apologies to assuage your sentiments that have been hurt."
Purohit said: "You had asked a question when we had got up and were proceeding to leave after the close of the press conference (on Tuesday)."
"I considered that question to be a good one. Therefore, as an act of appreciation for the question that you had posed, I gave a pat on your cheek considering you to be like my granddaughter," he said.
Purohit said he himself has been a journalist for about 40 years.
"I do understand from your mail that you are feeling hurt about the incident. I wish to express my regret and my apologize to assuage your sentiments that have been hurt."
Reacting to Purohit's letter, Subramanian tweeted: "Your Excellency, I have with me your letter expressing regret at what happened at the press conference in Chennai... I accept your apology even though I am not convinced about your contention that you did it to appreciate a question I asked."
Earlier, Tamil Nadu journalists had demanded an unconditioned apology from Purohit for patting the cheek of Subramanian.
Subramanian tweeted a picture in which the Governor is seen patting her cheek at the Raj Bhavan and expressed her shock over his conduct.
The Governor met the media to deny as untrue allegations of a so-called sex scandal at a leading university in the state.
Journalists promptly drafted a letter informing the Governor that his conduct amounted to a non-bailable criminal offence.
"As the Constitutional head of our state of Tamil Nadu, you have crossed the lines of not just basic courtesy but also those of law," read the letter to the Governor.
They pointed out that whatever his intention, he had violated the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 1998.
DMK Rajya Sabha MP Kanimozhi tweeted: "Even if the intention is above suspicion, violating a woman journalist's personal space does not reflect the dignity or the respect which should be shown to any human being."
The journalists had sought an unconditional apology from the Governor and an assurance that he will desist from behaving in this manner in future.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
CJI's remark on Krishna Iyer unwarranted, could have been avoided: Justices Nagarathna, Dhulia
New Delhi, Nov 5: Supreme Court judges B V Nagarathna and Sudhanshu Dhulia on Tuesday took exception to Chief Justice DY Chandrachud's remark during his judgement related to private properties that the Justice Krishna Iyer doctrine did a "disservice" to the broad and flexible spirit of the Constitution.
While Justice Nagarathna said the CJI's observations are unwarranted and unjustified, Justice Dhulia strong disapproved the remarks and said the criticism is harsh, and could have been avoided.
The nine-judge bench comprising Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud and justices Hrishikesh Roy, B V Nagarathna, Sudhanshu Dhulia, J B Pardiwala, Manoj Misra, Rajesh Bindal, Satish Chandra Sharma and Augustine George Masih pronounced the verdict.
The majority verdict pronounced by the CJI overruled Justice Iyer's previous ruling that all privately owned resources can be acquired by the State for distribution under Article 39(b) of the Constitution.
The CJI wrote for himself and six other judges on the bench which decided the vexed legal question on whether private properties can be considered "material resources of the community" under Article 39(b) and taken over by State authorities for distribution to subserve the "common good".
Justice Nagarathna partially disagreed with the majority judgement penned by the CJI, while Justice Dhulia dissented on all aspects.
In a separate 130-page verdict, Justice Nagarathna quoted Chandrachud saying, "Thus, the role of this court is not to lay down economic policy, but to facilitate this intent of the framers to lay down the foundation for an 'economic democracy'. The Krishna Iyer doctrine does a disservice to the broad and flexible spirit of the Constitution."
Justice Nagarathna said merely because of the paradigm shift in the economic policies of the State, cannot result in labelling the former judges of this court as doing a "disservice" to the Constitution.
"It is a matter of concern as to how the judicial brethren of posterity view the judgments of the brethren of the past, possibly by losing sight of the times in which the latter discharged their duties and the socio-economic policies that were pursued by the State and formed part of the constitutional culture during those times.
"Merely because of the paradigm shift in the economic policies of the State to globalisation and liberalisation and privatisation, compendiously called the 'Reforms of 1991', which continue to do so till date, cannot result in branding the judges of this Court of the yesteryears “as doing a disservice to the constitution," Justice Nagarathna said.
Justice Dhulia said the Krishna Iyer Doctrine or O Chinnappa Reddy Doctrine is familiar to all who have anything to do with law or life and based on strong humanist principles of fairness and equity.
"I must also record here my strong disapproval on the remarks made on the Krishna Iyer Doctrine as it is called. This criticism is harsh, and could have been avoided...
"It is a doctrine which has illuminated our path in dark times. The long body of their judgment is not just a reflection of their perspicacious intellect but more importantly of their empathy for the people, as human being was at the centre of their judicial philosophy," Justice Dhulia wrote.
Justice Nagarathna, who is set to take over as India's first woman CJI in 2027, said such observations emanating from this court creates a concavity in the manner of voicing opinions on judgments of the past and their authors by holding them doing a disservice to the Constitution.
She said such observations imply that they may not have been true to their oath of office as a Judge of the Supreme Court.
"I may say that with passage of decades after the enforcement of the Constitution and on India becoming a Republic, the transformative impact of the Constitution has been deep and pervasive not only on governance in the country, whether at the central, state or local level but its impact on the Indian judiciary is also a significant aspect of Indian constitutional development.
"As a result, the basic features of the Constitution including the Preamble, Fundamental Rights, Directive Principles of State Policy, Separation of Powers, Judicial Review and Independence of the judiciary have impacted both governance as well as the judiciary," she wrote.
The top court judge said bearing in mind the goals of the constitution, it is the obligation on the part of this court to consider the correctness of such legislation in light of the vision of the framers of the Constitution as well as the transformative nature of the Indian Constitution and the intent of the policy makers and the law.
"It is in the above background that the Judges of this court have been deciding constitutional issues over the decades. Of course, no particular line of thinking is static and changes are brought about by the State by bearing in mind the exigencies of the times and global impact particularly on the Indian economy.
"Such attempts to create an environment suitable to the changing times have to be also appreciated by the judiciary, by suitably interpreting the Constitution and the laws. But by there being a paradigm shift in the economy of this country, akin to Perestroika in the erstwhile USSR, in my view, neither the judgments of the previous decades nor the judges who decided those cases can be said to have done a disservice to the Constitution," Justice Nagarathna said.
