- 25 minutes ago
The big focus of this episode of India First is the war of words between the BJP and DMK over the lighting of lamp at Deepathoon.
Category
🗞
NewsTranscript
00:00Good evening, the BJP and the DMK are locked in a deadly battle over the lighting of a lamp at an ancient temple in Tamil Nadu.
00:10The BJP has accused the DMK of being anti-sanatan dharm.
00:14The DMK has hit right back, saying that the BJP is trying to repeat the Babri moment, this time in Tamil Nadu.
00:23Meanwhile, 56 legal luminaries, there are former Supreme Court judges and High Court judges who've written a letter saying that the effort or the attempt that's being made to impeach a sitting judge of the High Court in Tamil Nadu, it's nothing but an attempt to intimidate the judiciary.
00:45The Tamil Nadu dharm yod, that's our top focus on India First.
00:53One state in India has become a symbol of anti-sanatan dharma.
01:04Deepam Rao ignites Parliament's storm.
01:12BJP slams Talon's Sarkar on the pathoon.
01:15There are laktis for the devotees. Hindus are lakti chayas. Despite the court, others are not allowed.
01:26DMK pushes the judge impeachment move.
01:3156 judges back the High Court judge.
01:33Amit Shah says the opposition is protecting its Vought Bank.
01:53Deepam dispute turns into political flashpoint.
01:56That's a big focus on India First.
01:59And the judge in question, Justice J.R. Swaminathan, he's in the eye of a storm.
02:07Over the 6th century, Thiruparan Kundram, Subramanyam Swami Temple, lamp lighting.
02:13And this is lamp lighting on an ancient pillar in Madurai.
02:17He ordered that this festival lamp be lit.
02:21Because he believes this is asserting the essential, you know, the lamp lighting is essential to assert possession.
02:31The BJP and the DMK, backed by the India Bloc.
02:35Now they've crossed swords in Parliament.
02:37This move to impeach a sitting High Court judge.
02:40And then multiple former judges, they've come out in support.
02:44We'll get you all sides of the story.
02:46I'm Gaurav Sawant as always.
02:47Let's get started with the headlines on India First.
02:54It's game over for the Goa club killers.
02:58The Luthra brothers brought to Bangkok.
03:01Bangkok en route their deputation to India.
03:04Embassy to issue a travel certificate after their passports was suspended.
03:07After the government crackdown on Indigo, the airline has now appointed a civil aviation advisor to probe the mess.
03:19This comes after DGCA terminated four flight operation inspectors over the airline's recent spate of flight cancellations.
03:33India Today Impact.
03:34Rahul Gandhi demands a discussion on air pollution.
03:37Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiran Jiju opens the door to a pollution debate.
03:49Anurag Thakur raises deep-pump controversy in Lok Sabha, accuses the DMK of an anti-Hindu bias.
03:56More than 50 judges condemn the impeachment motion against a sitting High Court judge.
04:02Landmark moment for the India Today group on the 50th anniversary of the India Today group.
04:15Media legacy meets market history as the leadership rings the NSE bell.
04:20The deep-pump controversy in Tamil Nadu has now burst onto the national stage.
04:38There were dramatic clashes on ground to a full-blown political storm in Parliament.
04:43The BJP has accused the DMK of being anti-Sanathan, having a very pronounced anti-Sanathan mindset, contempt of court, and even targeting a sitting High Court judge.
04:55More than 50 former judges have stepped in defence of Madras High Court judge.
05:00The DMK government has questioned the Deepathoon itself.
05:05The battle has only intensified because the DMK government made a huge statement in court,
05:13saying there was no historical precedence of this lamp-lighting.
05:18We get you more in this report.
05:30The Madurai Deepam Rao exploded in the Parliament.
05:43BJP leaders tore into the DMK, accusing it of anti-Sanathan mindset.
05:47One state in India has become a symbol of anti-Sanathan dharma.
05:54Their ministers are making statements against Sanathan dharma.
06:02They objected when the Prime Minister was doing his duty for the Ram Temple.
06:10He also accused the DMK of being in contempt of the court.
06:15The Madurai bench of Madras High Court came down strongly on the Tamil Nadu government.
06:22This after devotees were blocked from lighting the Deepam despite a Madras High Court order.
06:46DMK has been pushing for impeachment of the Deepam case, judge saying his verdict was biased.
06:50Earlier this week, Home Minister called the move a bid to oppose their vote back.
06:55The Madurai Deepam Rao has been pushing for impeachment to oppose their vote back.
07:25But the most dramatic twist came from outside politics.
07:3056 former judges have penned a letter in support of Justice Swaminathan,
07:36calling the impeachment motion filed by DMK an alliance weaponization of a constitutional process
07:41and a brazen attempt to browbeat judges who don't align politically.
07:46The letter warns that such actions cut at the roots of democracy,
07:50intimidate the judiciary, target judges for their ruling
07:53and ultimately undermine judicial independence.
07:58Meanwhile, inside the courtroom, the debate turned sharper.
08:01DMK today questioned the very existence of Deepathoon itself.
08:06The bench asked why the Deepam could not be moved to the pillar for better visibility.
08:10The state said visibility cannot justify altering a decades-old custom
08:15and said the court can intervene only if a custom was broken,
08:19which, it argued, has not been proven.
08:23With no end to dispute on site, the question that remains,
08:27is this dispute about religious rights or political narratives?
08:31With Pramod Madhav, EuroReport, India Today.
08:33So, Pramod Madhav reporting there.
08:39Let's now deal with this subject at two different levels.
08:42One, at a legal level and then at a political level.
08:45Before I bring in our political guests and our analysts,
08:47I want to quickly bring into this conversation
08:49Justice S. N. Dhingra, former judge of the Delhi High Court.
08:53He's one of the signatories to this letter that called for an impeachment effort,
08:58that called for an impeachment and he, these judges, former judges and legal luminaries
09:03have said this is an attempt to intimidate the judiciary.
09:08Justice Dhingra, welcome, sir.
09:10Why do you see this impeachment motion moved by over 100 MPs
09:16seeking the removal of Justice Swaminathan
09:18as a brazen attempt to browbeat judges, sir?
09:23You see, we, as a judge, myself and you see what is reported from in newspapers,
09:33we have seen these politician advocates browbeating judges inside the court.
09:40These advocates who are in politics and who consider themselves above law,
09:45they keep browbeating judges in the court.
09:48Now, this is for the first time, this is an unprecedented move
09:54that you start impeachment proceeding against a judge who has delivered judgment,
10:01which is not to your liking.
10:03So that is something very dangerous for the whole institution.
10:09You have remedy, the remedy of appeals to the division bank,
10:14remedy of appeals to the Supreme Court, SLP, then rich petitions.
10:22Bypassing all the remedies which are available to you,
10:26you have started impeachment proceeding on the ground that this judgment is based on ideology.
10:34You can grant any judgment being based on ideology.
10:38So you get a weapon of demoralizing judges on the ground that the judgment is based on ideology
10:46and using impeachment as a weapon to threaten the judges.
10:53I consider this is highly, highly insensitive, highly objectionable and preposterous.
10:59Okay, Justice Dhingra, how will concerns of alleged ideological bias or deviation,
11:08you know, from a division bench ruling,
11:11these are some of the issues that have been raised by opposition MPs.
11:14How will these be addressed if, how will their concerns be alleged, sir?
11:20Only by appealing in a superior court?
11:22You see, every judgment can be appealed before the superior judge on the basis of merits,
11:32not on the basis of individual judges' qualities or his bias.
11:39If the judgment speaks for itself, you can challenge the judgment.
11:44That look, in the judgment, these are the paragraphs which show that this is contrary to law.
11:52A judgment has to comply with constitutional norms.
11:56And a high court judgment has to specifically ensure that it is constitutional.
12:01If the constitution provides that all communities are equal before law,
12:08all religions are equal before law,
12:11and you cannot prevent a religion from performing its rituals
12:18because another religion is objecting,
12:21or you cannot create a situation that law and order will,
12:27the situation of law and order,
12:29by your own deliberate act and accuse the judge
12:32that look, because he has given the judgment,
12:36so law and order situation will be created,
12:40whereas you are creating law and order situation
12:43by not allowing rituals to be performed
12:46in accordance with the judgment.
12:48Okay, so let me then take it specifically, sir.
12:52The impeachment notice cites three very specific instances,
12:56and serious ones are that
12:58compromised impartiality,
13:01a conduct which is not seen as secular,
13:05undue favoritism,
13:06and a pattern of decisions reflecting a particular ideology, sir.
13:11Can these concerns be dismissed as wholly inadequate
13:16as the letter seems to do,
13:18without acknowledging, if proven,
13:20that these are very, very serious charges, sir?
13:23You see, these charges can be labeled in the spectrum of any judge
13:29for any judgment.
13:31You call him, you call a judgment unsecular.
13:34Why?
13:35Because it is not to your liking.
13:37In such cases, there will be two parties.
13:41One, the petitioner, other will be the opponent.
13:45If petitioner belongs to A community,
13:47an opponent belongs to B community,
13:50the decision has to be given in favor of either A or B.
13:54Now, the moment you give decision in favor of A community,
13:58then you are non-secular.
14:00If you give decision in favor of B community,
14:03you are non-secular.
14:04What is the definition of secularism?
14:07It is for the judge to decide
14:09which way the rights or constitutional right of the party lies.
14:15Not the secularism is not going to decide
14:18how the judgment is going to be delivered.
14:22These are constitutional rights given by the Constitution.
14:25And I may give similar 20 judgments
14:29in which I uphold the right of constitutional right of a party.
14:34Does that mean that a judge has no right
14:37to uphold the constitutional right of a community or party
14:42and he can be branded unsecular?
14:47It is something unheard of
14:49that you say that this judgment is unsecular
14:53because a judgment has not to stand the test of secularism.
14:58I am sorry.
14:59Judgment has to stand the test of constitutionality
15:03whether the consideration has been on merit or not on merit.
15:10If the judgment is on merit,
15:12then where is the issue of secularism?
15:17Absolutely.
15:18So, let me then,
15:19and permit me, Justice Dhingra,
15:21to go into a specific charge.
15:23And in the media,
15:25it's extensively been reported,
15:27TKS Ilan Gowan of the DMK
15:29has alleged that Justice J.R. Swaminathan
15:32intentionally, according to him,
15:36overruled a two-judge bench
15:38to aid what he called was a BJP-backed agenda,
15:43even comparing the Deepam order
15:46to a Babri Masjid-style attempt to create a communal flashpoint.
15:52Now, sir, how would you look at this,
15:54that the charge that is being leveled,
15:56a single judge overturning a division bench order, sir?
16:00You see, a single judge can differ with the even Supreme Court judgment.
16:07If the judgment is not applicable to the facts of the case,
16:13he can say this is not applicable and I don't follow this judgment.
16:18There have been cases even before me
16:20where I refused to follow Supreme Court judgment.
16:23There were two Supreme Court judgments,
16:25one in favor of plaintiff,
16:27other in favor of defendant.
16:30And the earlier judgment,
16:32which was in favor of plaintiff,
16:34was by three judges.
16:36The later judgment was given by two judges of Supreme Court
16:39without considering the earlier judgment.
16:42So I did not follow even Supreme Court judgment.
16:46You see, overruling a judgment
16:47is not something new in India.
16:50Supreme Court itself has been overruling its own judgments
16:54on the basis of very ideology itself.
16:58See, ADM Jabalpur judgment
17:00was overruled later several times by many judges.
17:04And Golakhna judgment was also overruled by later judgment.
17:10You see, the ideology of earlier judges
17:15was different from later judges.
17:18So the later judges overruled the earlier judgment.
17:22They considered the constitution,
17:25the interpretation of contribution given by them
17:29as the correct interpretation.
17:31And the earlier interpretation was overruled.
17:34Is there something new in it?
17:37See, why we refer the, you see, judges,
17:40five judges banished,
17:43then seven judges banished,
17:44then 11 judges, 13 judges,
17:46because we consider collective wisdom
17:49of more judges will be more better
17:52instead of two judges, three judges.
17:55So that is the reason
17:57that overruling takes place.
18:00Overruling is a regular feature of this country,
18:03judiciary.
18:05It is not something new.
18:05Just as Dhingra,
18:07if an order is not followed
18:09by the government or the administration,
18:12can a high court judge go beyond
18:15issuing contempt of court notice
18:18or subsequently proceedings?
18:20Can he, for example,
18:22direct authorities,
18:24not the state police,
18:26but a central armed police force
18:28to provide security?
18:29Or would that be seen as judicial overreach?
18:32And in your view,
18:34how should this issue have been addressed, sir?
18:36You see, do you think
18:37the orders and judgments
18:40passed by courts
18:42should be only paper judgments
18:44not implemented by the administration?
18:47A judge and a court must ensure
18:50that the judgment given by him,
18:54if not overturned by the superior court,
18:58must be implemented.
18:59He has to devise methods
19:01of getting the judgment implemented.
19:04Nobody can be allowed
19:05to sit on the judgment
19:06on any ground whatsoever.
19:09Otherwise,
19:10all courts will become
19:12mere paper tigers.
19:14You pass a judgment
19:15and the administration says,
19:17sorry,
19:18we cannot implement it
19:20because of law and other situation.
19:22We cannot implement
19:23because our ideology is different.
19:26You can take any number of excuses.
19:29But would that not be judicial overreach
19:32and judge going into the domain
19:35of the executive, sir?
19:36I cannot get the judgment implemented.
19:39He has to get the judgment implemented.
19:43Fair enough.
19:45Justice Deegra,
19:46for joining me here
19:47on this India Today special broadcast,
19:49many thanks, sir.
19:50We'll be tracking the story very closely.
19:52I'm now throwing it open
19:53to a wider political debate
19:55and Justice Deegra.
19:56Do feel free to stay on, sir,
19:59if convenient,
19:59with you.
20:00Let me now bring in
20:01our political guests
20:03and our analysts,
20:04Mr. Sarvanan.
20:05A. Sarvanan is the spokesperson
20:06for the DMK
20:07joining us on this broadcast.
20:08Rohan Gupta
20:09is the national spokesperson
20:10of the Bharatiya Janata Party
20:12joining me on the show.
20:13Shekhar Iyer
20:14is a senior journalist
20:15and analyst
20:16joining us on the show.
20:17Dhananjai,
20:18Mr. K.V. Dhananjai
20:19is an advocate
20:20in the Supreme Court.
20:20Gentlemen,
20:21welcome.
20:22Mr. Sarvanan,
20:23Anurag Thakur
20:24in Parliament asked
20:25why are Hindus
20:26being subjected
20:26to discrimination
20:27in Tamil Nadu,
20:29a state which
20:30he believes
20:31is becoming
20:32a symbol
20:33of anti-Sanathan
20:34dharm.
20:35Quoting statements
20:36or citing statements
20:38of DMK ministers
20:40in the past
20:41against Sanathan dharm.
20:42Your take
20:43on this, sir?
20:44Yeah.
20:45It is
20:45farthical.
20:47Irony
20:48jumped from the cliff
20:49and committed suicide
20:50when Anurag Thakur,
20:53the Goli Maro Salanga
20:54famous Anurag Thakur
20:56is speaking about
20:57protecting religion.
20:59What other credibility
21:00he has
21:01except that
21:02making hate speeches.
21:03Apart from that,
21:04what credibility
21:05does this gentleman
21:05have?
21:07That apart,
21:08and Mr. Dingra,
21:09former judge
21:10of the Delhi High Court
21:11was waxing eloquence
21:12about secularism,
21:14was waxing eloquence
21:15about judicial independence
21:17and all that.
21:18Where did he go
21:19when Justice Muralidar
21:20was transferred
21:21midnight?
21:22He ordered an FAR
21:23against this same gentleman
21:25who made a hate speech.
21:27Goli Maro Salanga,
21:29that is his only high point
21:30in his political career
21:32when Justice Muralidar
21:33wanted to have
21:34an FAR against him,
21:35he was transferred
21:36midnight.
21:37He was made
21:38as a chief justice
21:39to the Madras High Court.
21:40He was not even
21:41allowed to do that.
21:42That is the kind
21:43of intimidation
21:45BJP practices.
21:46BJP does not
21:48have any moral
21:49right to talk
21:50about the independence
21:51of judiciary.
21:53This is one aspect.
21:54The other aspect is,
21:56when you speak
21:56of Sanatana Dharma,
21:58see,
21:59there is a fundamental
22:00difference.
22:01You,
22:02people from
22:03North India,
22:04especially people
22:05from this media
22:06and the BJP,
22:08they use
22:08Sanatana Dharma
22:09in synonymity
22:11with Hinduism.
22:12For us,
22:13Hinduism does not
22:14mean Sanatana Dharma.
22:15For us,
22:16Sanatana Dharma
22:16represents the
22:18rigid caste hierarchy
22:19practiced in Hinduism.
22:20We oppose that
22:21rigid caste hierarchy.
22:23And when we speak
22:25of which party
22:26is the party
22:27which is working
22:28for the welfare
22:29of the Hindus,
22:30nobody can be
22:31DMK.
22:32BJP is just
22:33doing lip service.
22:35They just want
22:35votes on the name
22:37of people.
22:37Sir,
22:37I may disagree
22:38with you on a lot
22:39of aspects,
22:39but we leave that
22:40for another debate
22:41and especially
22:42on Sanatana Dharma.
22:43you may have
22:44your belief
22:45on that,
22:46but I want to
22:46bring in Rohan Gupta
22:47to respond.
22:49Rohan Gupta,
22:50the Tamil Nadu
22:50government
22:51and the Hindu
22:52Religious Charitable
22:54Endowment Department
22:55argued that
22:56there was no
22:56hereditary,
22:58family duty,
22:59ritual grant
22:59or historic precedent
23:01for lighting a lamp
23:02at that very
23:03specific pillar
23:04and doing so
23:05could disrupt
23:06communal harmony
23:07and create a
23:08law and order
23:08situation.
23:09They maintained
23:10that the tradition
23:11of lighting a lamp
23:12at a usual spot
23:13was followed,
23:14sir.
23:15Respond to what
23:16Mr. Sarvanand
23:16said and to my
23:17question.
23:19See,
23:19this is a serious
23:20issue when these
23:21people talk about
23:22constitution and
23:23you know,
23:24institution,
23:25constitution,
23:26insult of court,
23:27what they are doing
23:27now.
23:28This is not only
23:28insult of Hindutu
23:29or Sanatana.
23:31This is larger
23:31insult of our
23:32judicial system.
23:33What they are
23:34talking about.
23:34It is as simple
23:35as that.
23:36Any high court
23:37order needs to
23:37be implemented.
23:38Whether you feel
23:39wrong, right,
23:40all these things,
23:40yes, you have
23:41system of
23:41appealing,
23:42but how dare
23:43you stop the
23:44implementation of
23:45high court order
23:45which is already
23:46passed.
23:47And eye-opening,
23:47this is really
23:48shocking.
23:49The whole country
23:50has to see that
23:50this government
23:51which has been
23:51famous for making
23:52anti-Sanatana
23:53statement,
23:54anti-Hindu
23:54statement,
23:55now they have
23:56stood to such
23:57a low level
23:57for their
23:58appeasement
23:58politics that
23:59they have
23:59stopped
24:00implementation of
24:01high court order.
24:02What more
24:02you can expect?
24:03Definitely,
24:04they can disagree
24:05with whatever
24:06has happened.
24:06But does that
24:07give them power
24:08as a state
24:09government to
24:09defy the
24:10order of
24:10high court?
24:12No, it
24:12doesn't.
24:13Give them
24:13for implementation.
24:16There was a
24:16lati charge
24:17against the
24:17Hindu devotees.
24:18Why?
24:19Is this India
24:21or something
24:22else?
24:22Are we outside
24:23India?
24:24No, we are
24:25part of India.
24:25This is shocking
24:26that wherever
24:26Indian government
24:27governments are
24:28there, this is
24:29going to happen
24:29to Sanatana.
24:30This is really
24:31shocking.
24:31And again,
24:32they are bringing
24:32impeachment motion.
24:34Why?
24:35What is
24:35happening?
24:35I will
24:36complete
24:36impeachment in
24:37just a moment.
24:38But on the
24:38specific issue of
24:39Sanatana, Mr.
24:40Sarvanan wants to
24:40respond.
24:41Go ahead, sir.
24:41Yeah, yeah.
24:42See, again,
24:43again, there is
24:43this misconception.
24:45See, the
24:45Tamil Nadu
24:46government was
24:48not in a
24:48position to
24:49implement the
24:49order because
24:50law and order
24:51has to be
24:52maintained by the
24:53state government.
24:53Let us recall
24:54what Mr.
24:54Amitsha said
24:55on the
24:56Sabri Malad
24:56issue.
24:57Why are you
24:57taking some
24:58marriage?
24:58Mr. Sarvanan
24:59speak on this
24:59issue.
25:00Don't divert.
25:01Shut up.
25:01Shut up.
25:01Don't divert.
25:02You stop on
25:03this issue.
25:03Don't divert.
25:05I don't need
25:06your advice.
25:06Don't divert.
25:08You speak on
25:09this issue.
25:10You speak on
25:11this issue.
25:11Don't divert.
25:13How dare state
25:14government not
25:14implement order
25:15of high court?
25:17How dare a
25:18state government
25:18not implement
25:19high court's
25:20order?
25:21One by one.
25:22Let one
25:22person speak.
25:24Give me a
25:24moment.
25:25Give me a
25:25moment.
25:26General,
25:26I know
25:27tempers and
25:28emotions are
25:29very high.
25:30But can we
25:30have Mr.
25:31Sarvanan
25:31complete his
25:31point and
25:32Mr. Gupta
25:32will come
25:33back to
25:33you immediately.
25:34Mr. Sarvanan
25:35complete your
25:35point.
25:36Request all
25:36our guests
25:37kindly keep
25:37it civil.
25:38Go ahead
25:38sir.
25:39Ten seconds.
25:39What Mr.
25:40Amit Shah said.
25:41Please don't
25:42pass orders
25:42which cannot be
25:43implemented in
25:44matters of
25:45religious freedom.
25:46This is what
25:46Mr. Amit Shah
25:47said on
25:48Sabri Malad
25:48issue.
25:49That order was
25:50appealed and
25:50it was recalled.
25:51And here we
25:52were waiting for
25:53this appeal.
25:54And what
25:54these persons
25:55are not
25:55devotees.
25:56They are
25:56miscreants.
25:57They want to
25:58create communal
25:58disharmony in
25:59the state of
25:59Tamil Nadu.
26:01Thousand Amit Shah
26:02cannot do
26:03anything.
26:03As our chief
26:04minister rightly
26:04points out.
26:05Tamil Nadu is
26:06always out of
26:07control to Delhi.
26:08Your head
26:09settling narrative
26:10will not work in
26:11the state of
26:12Tamil Nadu.
26:12This judge has
26:13deliberately did
26:15not follow a
26:16division bench
26:17judgment of the
26:18same high court.
26:19And Mr. Justice
26:20Digra says you can
26:21overrule a
26:21judgment.
26:22Single judge
26:23cannot overrule a
26:24division bench
26:24judgment.
26:26I'll get Mr.
26:26Dharanjaya to
26:27cover on the
26:27legal aspect.
26:28Okay.
26:29Now Mr. Rohan
26:30Bhikta wants to
26:30quickly respond to
26:31you.
26:31Give me 10
26:31seconds.
26:32Go ahead sir.
26:33See this is the
26:34problem.
26:35If Mr. Sarwanan
26:36shouts on the
26:36debate and feels
26:37that he's right,
26:38what are you
26:38talking?
26:39You are not
26:39implementing high
26:40court order.
26:41You can disagree
26:42with the high
26:42court judge.
26:43No don't
26:44speak in
26:44between.
26:44Mr. Sarwanan
26:45only Mr. Rohan
26:46Don't shout.
26:47Don't shout.
26:48Please keep
26:48quiet.
26:49Please keep
26:49quiet.
26:50Don't speak.
26:51My point is
26:52simple.
26:53Even if they
26:53disagree with the
26:54high court judge
26:54order, what
26:55power the state
26:56government gets
26:57not to implement
26:58that?
26:58I have a very
26:59very simple
26:59question.
27:00Does the state
27:01government believe
27:01in constitution?
27:02Yes.
27:03Do you respect
27:03judiciary?
27:04Yes.
27:04Definitely you
27:05go to supreme
27:06court if you
27:06feel something
27:07is wrong has
27:07happened.
27:07But how can
27:08you stop
27:08implementing
27:09high court
27:09order?
27:10That shows
27:10the height of
27:11appeasement
27:12politics.
27:13That shows the
27:14height of
27:14insult.
27:15that shows
27:16height of
27:16allergy to
27:17sanatan.
27:18That is my
27:18point here.
27:19You can
27:19definitely
27:20disagree with
27:20my point
27:21Mr. Sarwanan.
27:22I want to
27:23bring in
27:24Mr. Dhananjai
27:25into this
27:25conversation.
27:26I'll come
27:26back to you
27:26gentlemen.
27:27I have to
27:28bring in
27:28Mr. Dhananjai.
27:29Can a
27:29court order
27:30lighting of
27:31a lamp
27:32lead to a
27:32communal
27:33flare up
27:33in an
27:33ancient
27:34temple?
27:35Mr. Dhananjai
27:36is it not
27:37the job of
27:37the administration
27:38to ensure
27:39that a
27:40court order
27:40is followed
27:41and law and
27:42order maintained?
27:44It is of
27:44course the
27:45duty of the
27:45government to
27:46abide by the
27:47orders of a
27:47court.
27:48But the
27:49facts of this
27:49case I think
27:50are somewhat
27:50different.
27:51Now let's
27:51come to the
27:52impeachment motion
27:52itself.
27:53I think that's
27:53an overkill.
27:54I don't believe
27:55an impeachment
27:56motion would
27:57lie in the
27:58manner that the
27:59DMK is
27:59suggesting.
28:00But having
28:00also said
28:01that, I
28:02think what
28:02the Honorable
28:03Justice did
28:04I think was
28:05kind of an
28:05overkill on the
28:06facts of this
28:07case.
28:07you're not
28:09going to
28:09basically allow
28:11CISF, Central
28:13Industrial Security
28:14Force, to
28:15accompany somebody
28:16to a temple.
28:17More so when
28:17the whole
28:18practice itself
28:19is at some
28:20level mired in
28:21doubt, number
28:22one.
28:22Number two,
28:23and whatever
28:23judgment would
28:24be given by a
28:25learned single
28:25judge of a
28:26high court,
28:26certainly is not
28:27the final word
28:28in this country.
28:29It would be
28:29open to an
28:30appeal by the
28:31affected party
28:32before a
28:32division bench.
28:33So the
28:34court could
28:34not have
28:34said, I
28:35am going to
28:36pass an
28:36order and
28:37it must be
28:37executed within
28:38the next 24
28:39hours or 48
28:39hours.
28:40And if it
28:40was not
28:40executed, the
28:41court could
28:42have reserved
28:42contempt or
28:44for that matter,
28:44the court could
28:45have reserved
28:45consideration for
28:46another time.
28:47So that order,
28:48I believe, was
28:49not quite
28:50warranted.
28:50But that
28:51doesn't mean
28:51that the DMK
28:53is justified in
28:53insisting on
28:54an impeachment
28:54because errors
28:56happen all the
28:56time.
28:56Now that's just
28:57my subjective
28:58opinion.
28:58It's entirely
28:59possible.
29:00The majority
29:00don't believe
29:00that the judge
29:01was wrong in
29:02law.
29:02It's possible
29:03that...
29:03So let me
29:04bring in
29:04Shekhar Iyer
29:05for an
29:06analyst's
29:07view on
29:08this.
29:09Shekhar Iyer,
29:10the DMK
29:11fears a
29:12babari
29:12repeat in
29:13Tamil Nadu
29:14words to
29:14that effect
29:15and says
29:15their effort
29:16was only to
29:17ensure that
29:17there is no
29:18communal flare-up
29:19in an area
29:20where both
29:20Hindus and
29:21Muslims have
29:21lived in
29:22communal harmony
29:22for a very
29:24long time.
29:25Would the
29:26lighting of a
29:27lamp have
29:28lit a
29:28communal fire?
29:31What if
29:31there is no
29:33question of
29:33any babari
29:34happening in
29:35Tamil Nadu
29:36because Tamil Nadu
29:36is a completely
29:37different scenario.
29:40I think what
29:41the DMK is
29:42worried now is
29:43and the way
29:44they went about
29:45this, the
29:46government
29:47particularly and
29:48the party is
29:49largely because of
29:50another factor.
29:51It is not
29:51babari they are
29:52worried about,
29:53another babari
29:53or another
29:54they are worried
29:55about Vijay and
29:56this party
29:57because they
30:00feel that
30:01this new
30:02party that
30:03has come
30:03could cause
30:04the minorities
30:05who have been
30:06voting for
30:06DMK all year
30:08after year
30:08in election
30:09after election
30:10they could get
30:11a choice and
30:12they could shift
30:13to Vijay
30:14and the fact
30:15that he is
30:16back in public
30:17action, he has
30:18been holding
30:18meetings, he
30:19did one in
30:19Puducheri, there
30:21have been several
30:21restrictions for
30:22him to hold
30:23meetings in
30:23Tamil Nadu, but
30:24sooner or later
30:25as elections
30:26come, he is
30:27going to be
30:28out in the
30:28field, they
30:29are more
30:29worried about
30:30the impact
30:30of that, here
30:31the whole idea
30:32going to the
30:33extent of
30:34seeking impeachment
30:36and accusing
30:36that particular
30:37judge that he
30:39was favoring a
30:39community and
30:40that because
30:41that's a kind
30:42of narrative
30:42they feel if
30:44they can bring
30:44in that anti
30:45Brahmin narrative
30:46that will help
30:47in causing
30:48distunity among
30:49Hindu groups,
30:50but their fear
30:51is Vijay and
30:52the Tamu
30:52Vintri Kachi,
30:53nothing to do
30:54with the creation
30:54of a idea
30:55in the
30:56Tamil Nadu.
30:57That's a very
30:58interesting point
30:58you raised.
30:59Everybody knows
30:59about it.
31:00Yes, yes, Mr.
31:02Sarwanan, that's
31:02your fear, you
31:04know, when the
31:04BJP says what
31:05you're doing is
31:06blatant Muslim
31:07appeasement or
31:08minority
31:08appeasement, this
31:09is a two-pronged
31:11strategy that the
31:12DMK is adopting,
31:13divide the
31:14Hindus, retain the
31:15Muslim votes.
31:17See, that's
31:18what, let me
31:19begin by saying
31:20that the DMK
31:21is a party which
31:22works for the
31:23upliftment of the
31:24Hindus, unlike the
31:25BJP.
31:26BJP is worried
31:27only about just a
31:30particular group of
31:31Hindus, the upper
31:32caste Hindus.
31:33They're not worried
31:33about anybody else.
31:35But BJP, DMK is a
31:37party which is for
31:38the majority of the
31:39Hindus, whatever
31:41said and done.
31:42And when it comes
31:43to Tiruparan
31:43Gundram, last
31:44hundred years, it
31:45has been lit in the
31:46same place on the
31:47eve of elections.
31:49The BJP thinks it
31:49can reap electoral
31:51dividends by trying
31:52to light a deep
31:53pump near Dargah,
31:54which has not
31:55happened.
31:55And today, the
31:56archaeological survey
31:57of India has given
31:59a clear reply that
32:01that deep
32:02a stone where the
32:03single judge wanted
32:04the deep pump to
32:05be lit is a
32:06survey stone.
32:07What kind of a
32:08joke is this?
32:09The judge orders
32:10deep pump to be
32:12lit in a survey
32:13stone built by
32:14the English.
32:15Is this what a
32:16thousand-year-old
32:17tradition?
32:17That survey stone
32:18itself comes into
32:19existence some
32:20hundred years back.
32:22So this is what
32:23the issue is.
32:24And these
32:25questions...
32:25Rohan Gupta wants
32:25to respond.
32:26Just a moment.
32:27Just a moment.
32:27When these
32:28persons, when they
32:30were asked to go
32:31and light, what did
32:32they do?
32:33They attacked the
32:33policemen.
32:34They are not
32:35devotees.
32:36They are thugs.
32:37And they are from
32:38a political
32:38party.
32:39So there is an
32:40agenda behind
32:41this.
32:42Rohan Gupta wants
32:44to respond because
32:44Rohan Gupta, the
32:45DMK, says in
32:46Tamil Nadu, it's
32:47the flame of
32:48equality that
32:49has been lit and
32:51will continue to
32:52shine.
32:52Nobody can
32:53extinguish it.
32:54They are saying
32:55you are trying to
32:56light a communal
32:58fire in the
32:58state.
32:59I will expose
33:00the duplicity.
33:01Now he says
33:02that order was
33:03different and
33:04BJP wanted to
33:04do different.
33:05Then why they
33:05are doing for
33:06impeachment motion
33:07then?
33:07If they are
33:08not against
33:09the order,
33:10then this is
33:10the double
33:10standards.
33:11If you are
33:11not against
33:12the order,
33:12you should
33:13have implemented
33:13what has been
33:14ordered.
33:14Then why you
33:15have stopped
33:15the implementation
33:16of the order
33:16and you have
33:17gone to a
33:17Supreme Court
33:18against the
33:18order?
33:19So don't
33:19talk double
33:19things.
33:20Don't talk
33:20about Hindus.
33:21Hindus have
33:22seen enough
33:22insult from
33:23DMK, enough
33:24insult of
33:24Sanatan.
33:25I think that
33:25should be shame
33:26to this
33:26government who
33:27has not
33:27implemented
33:28court order
33:29just because
33:30of their
33:30political
33:30benefits,
33:31just because
33:32of their
33:32mentality of
33:34appeasement
33:35politics.
33:35What are you
33:36talking about?
33:37You yourself
33:38are deviating
33:39from the
33:39truth.
33:40You are
33:40yourself
33:40negating
33:41your original
33:41argument.
33:42Either you
33:43are with
33:43the judge
33:44order or
33:44you are
33:44against the
33:45judge
33:45order.
33:45If you
33:46are with
33:46the judge
33:46order,
33:47please
33:47implement
33:47the spirit
33:48of the
33:48order which
33:49has been
33:49passed.
33:49Don't go to
33:50Supreme Court.
33:51That clearly
33:51shows what
33:52is your
33:52mindset and
33:53people of
33:53Tamil Nadu
33:54will not
33:54leave you.
33:55Where is
33:55the question
33:55of upper
33:56caste Hindus
33:56here?
33:57It is
33:57question of
33:57Sanatan.
33:58It is
33:58a question of
33:59lots of
33:59devotees who
34:00go to the
34:00temple
34:00regularly.
34:01I will
34:06explain within
34:0810 seconds
34:08how BJP is
34:09anti-Hindu.
34:11See, in
34:11the all
34:12India medical
34:12seat quota,
34:1327%
34:14seats should
34:15be reserved
34:15for OBD.
34:16Don't
34:16highlight Mr.
34:16Sarvanand.
34:17BJP failed to
34:17do that.
34:20You answer
34:22on this
34:22point.
34:24You answer
34:24are you with
34:25the judge or
34:25you are against
34:26the judge?
34:26You please
34:28tell very
34:28clearly, are
34:29you with the
34:29judge or you
34:30are against
34:30the judge?
34:30I know you
34:31are rattled.
34:32Are you with
34:32the judge
34:32or you are
34:33against the
34:33judge order?
34:34Don't divert
34:35Mr.
34:35Sarvanand.
34:36You are
34:36caught badly.
34:39Gentlemen,
34:39give me a
34:41moment because
34:41I want to
34:41bring in Mr.
34:42Dhananjai on
34:43the legal
34:43aspect of
34:44this.
34:44And though
34:45Mr.
34:45Dhananjai,
34:46you have
34:46spoken that
34:47it's an
34:48overreach to
34:49move in for
34:49an impeachment.
34:51But the
34:51letter says
34:52if the
34:52MPs have
34:53reason,
34:54even if that
34:54is taken at
34:55face value,
34:56they're
34:56insufficient for
34:57impeachment.
34:58Is there
34:59merit in the
34:59contention that
35:00this is actually
35:01an attempt not
35:02to impeach but
35:03only to
35:04intimidate judges
35:05to stay in
35:06line?
35:08Yeah, I
35:08believe so.
35:09I don't think
35:10anybody takes
35:11this motion very
35:11seriously.
35:12It's just that the
35:13constitution prescribes a
35:14certain number of
35:15signatures to get a
35:16motion admitted.
35:17So I believe that
35:18many signatures have
35:19come about already.
35:20And I don't believe
35:21there is any
35:21prospect of the
35:22judge being
35:23impeached.
35:23But there is
35:24every prospect
35:25that look at
35:26what happened in
35:27some other
35:27cases.
35:28Sometimes judges
35:28simply resign.
35:30And there's a
35:30possibility that
35:32the judge might
35:32be hurt with
35:33what just
35:33happened.
35:34And there's
35:34also a
35:35possibility that
35:35feeling intimidated,
35:37he may consider
35:37resignation.
35:38That's not good
35:39for the judiciary.
35:40And the
35:41DMK, if it
35:42believes it has
35:42valid arguments
35:43to impeach the
35:44judgment, that
35:45they should have
35:45done.
35:46They should have
35:46promptly filed an
35:47appeal.
35:47They don't have
35:47to take days
35:48together to file an
35:49appeal against an
35:50order of a single
35:50judge.
35:51They could do that
35:51overnight.
35:52And courts, in
35:53fact, sometimes
35:54accept in
35:54emergent situations
35:55appeals filed
35:56midnight and all
35:57that.
35:58They should have
35:58done so.
35:59So I believe this
36:00is at some level
36:01a kind of an
36:02intimidation and
36:03it should not be
36:04successful.
36:05And it's
36:05understandable that
36:06several judges
36:07have come in
36:08support or
36:09rather against
36:10the impeachment
36:11motion.
36:11And it's
36:12important for the
36:13judiciary also to
36:14take a tough
36:15stand against it.
36:16I don't think the
36:17impeachment motion
36:17was warranted at
36:18all.
36:19And I also don't
36:19believe it's backed
36:20up by sufficient
36:21research.
36:21You see, to
36:22make an
36:22allegation that
36:23a judge is
36:24favoring a
36:25certain community,
36:25it's easier to
36:26make that
36:26allegation.
36:27It's going to
36:28be very difficult
36:28to back it
36:29up with data,
36:30to provide
36:30many judgments.
36:31And I don't
36:32believe that
36:32DMK perhaps
36:33has that research
36:35with them.
36:35It's just a
36:36wide allegation
36:37that here is a
36:38judge who is,
36:38I mean, I do
36:39not know anything
36:40about the judge.
36:41I do not know
36:41about the truth.
36:42And the fact
36:42that it's not
36:43just the DMK
36:44opposition India
36:45blocs, whether
36:46it's the
36:46Congress Party,
36:47the Samajwadi
36:48Party, including
36:49Uddhav Thakre,
36:50Shiv Sena,
36:50there are so
36:51many who
36:52are signatories
36:53to this
36:54Shekharai
36:54year.
36:55But I want
36:56to ask you
36:57another question
36:57on what
36:59Rastriya
36:59Swayamsevak
37:00Sarsangchalak
37:01Mohan Bhagwat
37:02said on the
37:04lines of
37:05Hindu awakening
37:06in Tamil Nadu
37:08and that will
37:09bring the
37:10desired result.
37:11How do you
37:12read that
37:12statement?
37:12That really
37:17gives ammunition
37:18to the DMK
37:19government to
37:20go before the
37:21court and
37:21say in a
37:21matter like
37:22this,
37:22the courts
37:24will have to
37:24defer to the
37:25wisdom or
37:26judgment of
37:27the executive.
37:27I want to
37:30just quickly
37:31bring in
37:31Shekharai
37:32here on
37:32what Mohan
37:33Bhagwat,
37:33the RSS
37:34chief said
37:35that there's
37:35Hindu awakening
37:36taking place
37:37in Tamil Nadu.
37:38Now, in the
37:38light of this
37:39Tiruparan Kundaram
37:41case, how do you
37:42see that, sir?
37:44Tiruparan Kundaram
37:45is considered
37:46one among the
37:47six abords of
37:48Lord Muruga
37:48or Karthikeya
37:49as we know
37:50in the north.
37:51It's a very
37:52sacred to all
37:52Tamil and what
37:54has happened is
37:55because of
37:56actions of the
37:56DMK government
37:57and the
37:58DMK party
37:59and also
38:00its sister
38:03organizations like
38:04Dravidur Karagam
38:05who have been
38:06constantly attacking
38:07Hindu symbols and
38:08as a way of
38:09their political
38:09narrative,
38:11gradually what
38:11has happened is
38:12there has been
38:13a kind of a
38:14counter reaction.
38:16The fact that
38:16even this whole
38:17episode has been
38:18blown up by the
38:19DMK to impress
38:20upon the
38:21minorities that
38:22we are the
38:23ones who can
38:23safeguard you if
38:24this becomes a
38:25big problem like
38:26Ayodhya.
38:27Because Muslims
38:28did not object to
38:29lighting of the
38:29lamp on a
38:30particular day.
38:31That is Karthikey.
38:32Karthikey is a
38:34festival of lights
38:34like Deepavali.
38:36Like Deepavali.
38:37The whole idea
38:38was to convey to
38:40the minorities
38:41before elections,
38:42look, we are the
38:43ones guarding you.
38:44We are even there
38:45to protect you from
38:45a future problem.
38:47So do not
38:48consider other
38:48options like the
38:49Vijayistabal
38:51ventricart sheet.
38:51That is the
38:52political messaging
38:53involved.
38:53That's where they
38:54went to the extent
38:55of moving an
38:55impeachment motion
38:56going very well.
38:58That will never be
38:58accepted.
38:59You cannot move an
39:00impeachment motion
39:01on the basis of
39:02an order or a
39:03judgment.
39:04So there is a lot
39:05of political intent
39:06in this messaging.
39:07history.
39:07And it's very
39:09interesting and it's
39:09only likely to
39:10intensify in the
39:11days and weeks
39:12ahead.
39:12We will be
39:12tracking that
39:13story very
39:13closely.
39:14Gentlemen, I
39:14want to thank
39:14you.
39:14The India Today
39:16group is marking
39:1750 years of
39:19fearless journalism
39:20and influence
39:21rang the
39:22National Stock
39:23Exchange ceremonial
39:25bell.
39:26Now that's a
39:26powerful symbol
39:27at the heart
39:28of India's
39:29markets.
39:30The ceremony
39:31brought together
39:32two institutions
39:33that have shaped
39:34modern India.
39:36The newsroom
39:37that chronicled
39:38the journey of
39:39our country and
39:41the exchange that
39:42powers India's
39:43economic engine.
39:46Four, three, two,
39:49one.
39:52The iconic bull
39:54at the entrance
39:54to the National
39:55Stock Exchange
39:56in Mumbai.
39:57And holding it
39:58by the horns,
39:59Arun Puri,
40:00chairman of the
40:01India Today
40:01group, Kalipuri,
40:03vice chairperson
40:04and managing
40:05director.
40:11Bringing India's
40:12biggest news
40:13room and India's
40:14biggest stock market
40:16together in a
40:17moment that blends
40:18media legacy with
40:19market history.
40:22This afternoon at
40:24the National Stock
40:24Exchange, the
40:25leadership of the
40:26India Today group
40:27marked a historic
40:28milestone, 50 years
40:30of journalism,
40:31credibility and
40:32influence with the
40:33NSE ceremonial bell
40:35ringing ceremony.
40:36A walk through India's
40:40financial nerve centre.
40:42A quiet reminder of
40:44how markets and
40:45media together shape
40:46the national
40:47narrative.
40:48The exchange and
40:50the newsroom, two
40:51institutions that have
40:52questioned and
40:53powered India's
40:54growth story.
40:56Inside the NSE atrium,
40:58the stage was set to
40:59chronicle the 50-year
41:01journey of India Today
41:02Group, from print to
41:04television to digital
41:05dominance.
41:09Today, journalism at
41:11the India Today group
41:12is digitally empowered,
41:14where storytelling
41:14transcends platforms
41:17and where credibility
41:18and candid,
41:19constructive
41:20conversations, not clicks
41:22and TRPs, become the
41:24most valuable currency.
41:26We carry forward the
41:28same promise that
41:30defined us in 1975, to
41:34always ask the
41:35difficult questions, to
41:37always stand tall in the
41:38face of power, to
41:40always serve the people
41:41of India with integrity
41:43and courage.
41:45Thank you to our
41:46readers, our viewers and
41:48the extraordinary teams
41:50who pour their passion
41:51into this institution
41:53every single day.
41:54To all of you, I
41:56offer my deepest
41:58gratitude.
41:59Thank you NSE for
42:00this honour.
42:02Thank you India for
42:0350 remarkable years.
42:06The bell we ring today
42:07is for the next chapter
42:08for India and for
42:10India Today.
42:11The NSE bell, a
42:13timeless tradition, an
42:14icon that echoes the
42:16exchange's genesis and
42:18symbolises confidence,
42:19momentum and the next
42:21chapter in India's
42:22financial story.
42:2350 years from print to
42:27television, to many
42:29television channels, to
42:31business channels and
42:32now through social media,
42:34through web and the same
42:36people, same team doing
42:39that is amazing and for
42:41me literally we all grew
42:43up reading India today and
42:47now we actually go to sleep
42:50watching Aaj Thak and so
42:53that is what tells you that
42:55honest journalism has a
42:59place in life and in the
43:01life of AI, life with AI.
43:0312 seconds, 11, count with
43:06me.
43:06The countdown begins, all
43:08eyes on the bell.
43:09The chairman, the vice
43:11chairperson and managing
43:13director, the India Today
43:14group CEO, the NSE MD and
43:17CEO, together at the heart of
43:20India's financial marketplace.
43:22Congratulations,
43:23congratulations.
43:26Please do on stage, stay on
43:28stage, Mr. Puri.
43:29A historic ring, a landmark
43:34partnership and a moment that
43:36brings together the power of
43:38information and the force of
43:39markets.
43:41Interestingly, the partnership on
43:42the floor pushed the nifty over
43:44the 26,000 level for the first
43:46time in five days.
43:48From the trading floor, the
43:51celebrations moved to the iconic
43:52Business Today Most Powerful
43:54Women Awards 2025, honoring
43:57leadership, excellence and impact
43:59of women in corporate roles.
44:01Bureau Report, Business Today TV.
Be the first to comment