Kapil Parmar wins historic judo bronze for India at Paralympics
Paris, Sep 5: Kapil Parmar bagged India's first-ever Paralympic medal in judo, winning a bronze in the men's 60kg (J1) after convincingly defeating Brazil's Elielton de Oliveira in the play-off here on Thursday.
Parmar produced a superlative performance, dominating his opponent from start to finish to record a 10-0 win in the bronze medal contest.
He had earlier lost to S Banitaba Khorram Abadi in the semifinals, beaten 0-10 by his Iranian opponent.
The J1 class in para judo is for the athletes who suffer from no to very low visual activity. Athletes in this category wear red circles to indicate that they may need guided support before, during and after a contest.
Parmar, who won the silver medal at the 2022 Asian Games in the same category, had earlier beaten Venezuela's Marco Dennis Blanco 10-0 in the quarterfinals.
Parmar was, however, handed a yellow card in each of the two contests on Thursday.
Yellow cards in judo are given for minor violations such as passivity or using a technique that might hinder the opponent or cause injury.
Parmar hails from a small village named Shivor in Madhya Pradesh. As a child, Parmar had a life-altering accident when he was playing in the fields of his village and accidentally touched a water pump, resulting in a severe electric shock.
He was found unconscious by a villager and taken to the hospital, where he remained in coma for six months.
He is the youngest of four brothers and a sister. His middle brother, who is also into judo, often trains with him. Parmar's father works as a taxi driver, while his sister runs a primary school.
Despite the setback, Parmar never gave up his love for judo. He continued to pursue his passion in blind judo, thanks to his mentor and coaches Bhagwan Das and Manoj.
It was not end of the struggle for Parmar who used to run a tea stall with his brother Lalit to make ends meet.
Lalit, his source of inspiration, even now remains his main source of financial support.
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.
Deep societal faultlines persist despite 75 years of independence: Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
Judge cites denial of home to Muslim girl, opposition to Dalit women cooking mid-day meals
Hyderabad, February 23, 2026: Supreme Court judge Justice Ujjal Bhuyan has said that despite repeated affirmations of constitutional morality by courts, deep societal faultlines rooted in caste and religious discrimination continue to shape everyday realities in India.
Speaking at a seminar on “Constitutional Morality and the Role of District Judiciary” organised by the Telangana Judges Association and the Telangana State Judicial Academy in Hyderabad, Justice Bhuyan reflected on the gap between constitutional ideals and social practices.
He cited a recent instance involving his daughter’s friend, a PhD scholar at a private university in Noida, who was denied accommodation in South Delhi after her surname revealed her Muslim identity. According to Justice Bhuyan, the landlady bluntly informed her that no accommodation was available once her religious background became known.
In another example from Odisha, he referred to resistance by some parents to the government’s mid-day meal programme because the food was prepared by Dalit women employed as cooks. He noted that some parents had objected aggressively and refused to allow their children to consume meals cooked by members of the Scheduled Caste community.
Describing these incidents as “the tip of the iceberg,” Justice Bhuyan said they reveal how far society remains from the benchmark of constitutional morality even 75 years into the Republic. He observed that while the Constitution lays down standards of equality and dignity, the morality practised within homes and communities often diverges sharply from those values.
He emphasised that constitutional morality requires governance through the rule of law rather than the rule of popular opinion. Referring to the evolution of the doctrine through judicial decisions, he cited Naz Foundation v Union of India, in which the Delhi High Court read down Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, holding that popular morality cannot restrict fundamental rights under Article 21. Though the judgment was later overturned in Suresh Kumar Koushal v Naz Foundation, the Supreme Court ultimately restored and expanded the principle in Navtej Singh Johar v Union of India, affirming that constitutional morality must prevail over majoritarian views.
“In our constitutional scheme, it is the constitutionality of the issue before the court that is relevant, not the dominant or popular view,” he said.
Justice Bhuyan also addressed the functioning of the district judiciary, underlining that trial courts are the first point of contact for most litigants and form the foundation of the justice delivery system. He stressed that due importance must be given to the recording of evidence and adjudication of bail matters.
Highlighting the role of High Courts, he said their supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution is intended as a shield to correct grave jurisdictional errors, not as a mechanism to substitute the discretion or factual appreciation of trial judges.
He recalled that several distinguished judges, including Justice H R Khanna, Justice A M Ahmadi, and Justice Fathima Beevi, began their careers in the district judiciary.
On representation within the judicial system, Justice Bhuyan noted that Telangana has made significant strides in gender inclusion. Out of a sanctioned strength of 655 judicial officers in the Telangana Judicial Service, 478 are currently serving, of whom 283 are women, exceeding 50 per cent representation. He added that members of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, minority communities, and persons with disabilities are also represented in the state’s judiciary.
He observed that greater representation of women, marginalised communities, persons with disabilities, and sexual minorities would help make the judiciary more inclusive and reflective of India’s diversity. “The judiciary must represent all the colours of the rainbow and become a rainbow institution,” he said.
Justice Bhuyan also referred to the recent restoration by the Supreme Court of the requirement of a minimum three years of practice at the Bar for entry-level judicial posts. While acknowledging that the requirement ensures practical exposure, he cautioned that its impact on women aspirants, especially those from rural or small-town backgrounds facing social and financial constraints, would need to be carefully observed over time.
Concluding his address, he reiterated that the justice system must strive to bridge the gap between constitutional ideals and lived realities, ensuring that the rule of law remains paramount.
