Few independents covering this yet — worth a closer look.
Summary
Summary coming soon.
From the report
These are highly insensitive and irresponsible statements by a person who's holding a constitutional position on whom the entire country looks upon, looks up to. Now, having made these kind of, you know, statements, frankly, in the first instance, he should have apologized to the youth of the country. And secondly, yesterday, what he said the day before was equally irresponsible. Unfortunately, their approach, jurisprudential approach is, I would say, is not up to the mark. This is not the jurisprudential... That's mild language. It's distressing. It's disturbing. It lets down the constitution. It's more than just not up to the mark. Not just the constitution. It is letting down the law, let down by themselves since 1950. If Ramesh Thapar in 1950 said you must intervene, then you are in 2026. You are not willing to follow that. And you still say this is not irresponsible. I'm asking that for the sixth time. And mind you, under Article 141, the law laid down by the Supreme Court is law of the land. It's binding on Supreme Court itself. I repeat my question for the seventh time. You still believe that the refusal to take up the case was not irresponsible? I would not use the word irresponsible. I would say it is unfortunate, it is sad. Those are euphemisms. Yes. Are you shying away from being critical of judges? Well, I am also having sometimes, you know, a little caveat about my…
Lead take from The Wire · always check the original on YouTube
1 independents covering this
Summary
Summary coming soon.
From the report
These are highly insensitive and irresponsible statements by a person who's holding a constitutional position on whom the entire country looks upon, looks up to. Now, having made these kind of, you know, statements, frankly, in the first instance, he should have apologized to the youth of the country. And secondly, yesterday, what he said the day before was equally irresponsible. Unfortunately, their approach, jurisprudential approach is, I would say, is not up to the mark. This is not the jurisprudential... That's mild language. It's distressing. It's disturbing. It lets down the constitution. It's more than just not up to the mark. Not just the constitution. It is letting down the law, let down by themselves since 1950. If Ramesh Thapar in 1950 said you must intervene, then you are in 2026. You are not willing to follow that. And you still say this is not irresponsible. I'm asking that for the sixth time. And mind you, under Article 141, the law laid down by the Supreme Court is law of the land. It's binding on Supreme Court itself. I repeat my question for the seventh time. You still believe that the refusal to take up the case was not irresponsible? I would not use the word irresponsible. I would say it is unfortunate, it is sad. Those are euphemisms. Yes. Are you shying away from being critical of judges? Well, I am also having sometimes, you know, a little caveat about my…
Watch the original on YouTube — we don't rehost full video.
