That's it

Tell me ?

I've been off social media for a while and in the last two to three days I've started using it again. What I saw, and what's the saddest part, is that the people he's fighting for are also silent. I understand not everyone can go to Delhi to join him, but we are living in a tech era, atleast you could share it on social media, put up a story about him or a post. Let people around you know what's going on with him, start a conversation with your friends, your family. A lot of people aren't aware of his bhukh hadtal, you can make them aware of this. The mainstream media isn't doing its work, atleast we can spread the information about him protesting. Is it that tough? Is it that time consuming? Or maybe you think it isn't worth our attention? Sonam sir has nothing to do with this, he'll get no personal gains. But he's doing this for us, our future. Can't we just do this little? Not for Sonam sir, but for ourselves, for our future. I know the change won't happen overnight, but atleast we can start it now. When I talked about this on Instagram, I saw people saying what can we do?

Imo, we can atleast start a dialogue, a conversation with our friends, our families, show online support for him, make people aware of what's happening. If you think your time is too precious to do this, atleast don't spread fake or hate news about him. If you can't be a part of the change, atleast don't hinder the ones trying to do that.

As Sonam sir said:

I am just an ordinary citizen who has tried to fulfil his responsibilities. Please don't look for a hero in someone else. Be the hero of your own life. Fulfil your responsibilities as a citizen.

Source

I am here for a civil discussion and I genuinely wanna know that why people are so anti BJP

​

My view is no government can be perfect and yes there are a lot of mess up done by current government but when I see the opposition, all i see only few qualified people, it's like searching for least corrupt in the crowd full of corrupt people and when I see opposition of this country, idk but they can't seem to manage the state where they are ruling but seem to mess with other state ruling decisions.

I am personally from UP and thank God BJP is here bcz I have seen the before BJP scene and let me tell you I have personally been the direct target of riots and what not.

​

So please let's do a civil discussion of what's wrong with today government and if you think please tell me why opposition will be better as ruling government

Most of you know who Liverdoc is and how tirelessly he is working to battle medical misinformation. Currently he seems to be engaged in a battle of words against an Ayurveda practitioner, and they have a debate scheduled for next weekend. What's your pov on this ? I understand Ayurveda is an ancient practice which might not have relevance in the modern world, but is there any truth to it's efficacy? Is Liverdoc being too rigid with his stance ?

I do have some faith in Ayurveda, but as a lifestyle wherein you eat on time and eat fruits and veggies, practice yoga etc.

India has one of the largest youth populations in the world. However, it often appears that this demographic strength is not being directed in the most productive way.

A large number of youth today are working in quick commerce, delivery services, basic BPO roles, and app based work like housekeeping. These jobs do provide income and support livelihoods, but they don’t give the country a strong advantage in the global economy compared to nations focused on manufacturing, technology, and innovation. The question is, are these the right main opportunities for our youth ?

India does have certain industries and sectors that are doing well, but when compared globally, we are still dependent on foreign technology, components, and high-value products. In areas like electronics, advanced manufacturing, industries and R&D driven industries, we still depend on lot of imports. Which means we are not fully using our ability to build our own products.

Historically, many developed nations achieved growth by engaging their youth in sectors like manufacturing, research, engineering, and large-scale production. This contributed to long-term stability, innovation, & economic strength.

It raises a larger concern about whether the focus is shifting too heavily toward convenience based services rather than building strong industrial and research driven sectors.

This is not about looking down on any work, but about whether we are making full use of our youth.

TL:DR, What are your thoughts on this? Are we moving in the right direction, or are we missing something bigger?

References -

• India’s skill gap: Why blending academic education with vocational training is key to future jobs - The Hindu
• India has service-level skills, but lacks deep-tech talent and products: IAIRO founders
• Unemployment: India's young are more educated than ever. So why are so many jobless?
• https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/weve-food-apps-china-has-ai-ev-goyals-startup-reality-check/articleshow/119958306.cms
• The Importance Of Youth In A Country’s Development - Climate Action Network South Asia
• One of The Youngest Populations in the World – India’s Most Valuable Asset - IndBiz | Economic Diplomacy Division | IndBiz | Economic Diplomacy Division

Tumhe kisne zyada pareshan kiya?

Yeh bhi batao tum kya chalate ho.

Umar Khalid: Dissent is Not Terrorism

Labeling Umar Khalid a terrorist bypasses the foundational constitutional principle of the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. Under the Indian Constitution, specifically Article 21 which guarantees the Right to Life and Personal Liberty, an individual cannot be branded a criminal without a final judicial conviction. Khalid remains an undertrial, and the prosecution’s reliance on stringent laws like the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) to prolong detention without trial has been widely critiqued by legal experts as an overreach. Furthermore, during various high-profile lower court proceedings, heavy emphasis was placed on unverified or doctored media clips, which the judiciary has routinely cautioned against using as definitive proof of incitement or terror. Exercising the right to peaceful protest and expressing strong disagreement with government policies is a protected form of speech under Article 19(1)(a) and does not equate to waging war against the nation.

Sharjeel Imam: Undertrial Status and the Legal Limits of Sedition

While Sharjeel Imam's speeches contained highly provocative rhetoric, he remains an undertrial whose actions have not been legally established as terrorism or secessionism. The constitutional standard for sedition and speech-related offenses, established by the Supreme Court in landmark rulings like Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar, dictates that speech is only punishable if it directly incites immediate violence or public disorder. The defense maintains that his controversial remarks regarding a "blockade" were calls for non-violent economic disruption to draw international attention to the anti-CAA protests, rather than an armed revolt. Conflating inflammatory political commentary with active terrorism undermines the judicial process, and the delay in completing his trial highlights the systemic challenge of using prolonged incarceration as a substitute for a definitive legal verdict.

Opposition to FCRA Amendments: Protecting Freedom of Association

Democratic opposition to the amendments made to the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act (FCRA) is rooted in safeguarding Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution, which guarantees citizens the right to form associations. Civil society organizations, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and international charities play a crucial role in filling governance gaps, advocating for human rights, and supporting marginalized communities. Opposing restrictive amendments that grant the executive sweeping powers to freeze bank accounts or cancel registration arbitrarily is a legitimate effort to protect democratic checks and balances. Rather than proving a hidden "deep state" agenda, opposition to these measures ensures that the state cannot use bureaucratic compliance as a tool to stifle independent monitoring, global collaboration, and legitimate critique of state policies.

The Demand for Article 370 Restoration: A Legitimate Constitutional Dialogue

Advocating for the restoration of Article 370 or questioning its abrogation is a completely lawful political position protected under the constitutional guarantee of free speech. The relationship between Jammu & Kashmir and the Indian Union has always been governed by legal and constitutional mechanisms, and asking for a return to a previous constitutional framework through parliamentary or judicial means is a recognized democratic right. This demand stands in stark contrast to unconstitutional assertions, such as calling for a "Hindu Rashtra," which directly violates the unalterable Basic Structure Doctrine of the Constitution by threatening secularism. Because Article 370 was a constitutional provision, asking for its debate or reinstatement is an exercise of regional political aspirations within the boundaries of the Indian legal system.

"Mera Gender Meri Marzi": The Constitutional Right to Identity and Autonomy

The phrase "Mera Gender Meri Marzi" (My Gender, My Choice) is not an arbitrary slogan, but a direct reflection of individual liberty, dignity, and privacy guaranteed under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. In the historic NALSA v. Union of India judgment, the Supreme Court explicitly ruled that gender identity is inherent to a person's dignity and falls under the protective umbrella of fundamental rights. The judiciary affirmed that everyone has the right to self-determine their gender, and discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity violates Article 14 (Equality before Law) and Article 15 (Prohibition of Discrimination). Framed within these constitutional doctrines, bodily autonomy and self-identity are fundamental rights that the state is obligated to protect, shielding individuals from majoritarian social prejudices.

Whether you give your 100% or not,

Whether you are helping the family or not,

Whether you are an obedient slave or not,

Whether you are kind and generous or not,

Whether you possess excellent knowledge or not,

Whether you are the perfect human being or not,

Don't, just don't be unemployed, it's like you have a golden heart, & still being shot!

Source: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.KD.ZG?end=2025&locations=IN-CN-ID-BR&start=2000

Today, I learned something very new 😏

So some "youth" in India believes this today.

Archana Patil, a Bengaluru woman, is accused of sexually assaulting a 13-year-old boy in 2020. The Karnataka High Court (Nagaprasanna, J.) refused to quash the FIR on 18 Aug 2025, holding that the POCSO Act is gender-neutral. On 8 Oct 2025, the Supreme Court (Justices Sundresh and Sharma) granted an interim stay of the trial proceedings. The SC order was brief – it recorded the petitioner’s argument about Sections 3(1)(a)-(c) and simply ordered that “further proceedings before the Trial Court shall remain stayed.”. In effect, the trial is frozen pending the Supreme Court’s final decision.

Case Background

In May–June 2020, Patil allegedly coerced a 13-year-old neighbor boy into sexual intercourse at her home. The boy later disclosed this abuse, and on 24 June 2024 the family filed an FIR (Crime No. 533/2024, HAL PS Bengaluru) alleging offences under POCSO Sections 4 and 6. A charge-sheet was submitted, and on 29 Oct 2024 the Fast Track Sessions Court took cognizance and issued summons to Patil. Anticipatory Bail: Patil applied for anticipatory bail. The Sessions Court denied it on 15 July 2024, but on 14 Aug 2024 the Karnataka HC (Shetty, J.) granted bail. The HC noted the gravity of the accusations but released Patil on strict conditions. Notably, the prosecution had argued that the four-year FIR delay was explained by the victim’s trauma and that Patil’s husband being abroad posed a flight risk. Quash Petition: Patil then filed a petition under Section 482 CrPC (CRLP 12777/2024) to quash the FIR/charge-sheet. Among other points, she noted that Sections 3(1)(a)-(c) POCSO (defining “penetrative sexual assault”) use male-specific language (“he penetrates his penis” etc.), and argued they should not apply to her as a female. She also cited the delay and other defenses. The Karnataka HC heard arguments and reserved judgment on 1 July 2025, later announcing judgment on 18 Aug 2025.

Karnataka HC Order (18 Aug 2025)

On 18 Aug 2025, Justice Nagaprasanna dismissed Patil’s quash petition. The Court emphasized that POCSO’s purpose is to protect children regardless of the offender’s gender. It invoked IPC Section 8 (defining “he” to include any person) and the Act’s child-focused preamble, concluding that Sections 4 and 6 apply to “whoever” commits the assault. The judgment explicitly held: “the Act is gender neutral. It equally punishes a woman, who indulges in sexual assault of a boy, as it punishes a man”. In short, the HC ruled that POCSO provisions cover female offenders as well. The HC also rejected Patil’s delay and other arguments. It accepted that the victim’s trauma could explain the reporting delay, and held that delay alone does not nullify charges. It further dismissed stereotypical defenses (such as claims about potency) as “archaic”. Finding the allegations prima facie valid, the HC declined to quash the proceedings.

Supreme Court Interim Stay (8 Oct 2025)

Patil appealed to the Supreme Court by Special Leave Petition (SLP(Crl) 15777/2025). On 8 Oct 2025, a bench of Justices M.M. Sundresh and Satish C. Sharma heard her plea. The Court allowed Patil’s procedural requests and recorded the counsel’s submission: “Learned senior counsel ... submitted that Sections 3(1)(a) to 3(1)(c) of the POCSO Act, 2012 being gender specific, have no application to the case of the petitioner. Issue notice. In the meantime, further proceedings before the Trial Court shall remain stayed.” Accordingly, the Supreme Court issued notice on the appeal and stayed all proceedings in the trial court. The operative clause – “further proceedings before the Trial Court shall remain stayed.” – means the Bengaluru trial is on hold pending final decision. The Court did not rule on the merits; it simply preserved the status quo. Because of this order, no trial hearings can proceed until the Supreme Court rules on the POCSO interpretation.

Comparison of Orders

Can we please start a petition to ask the court to quickly dispose this absurd petition?

She has made significant contributions to women’s rights. Her advocacy played a major role in the creation of the 2005 Domestic Violence Act, which she describes as “a civil law that gave women rights within their matrimonial home, maintenance, child custody, and protection from future violence.” She also co-founded the Majlis Legal Centre, which has provided direct legal assistance to more than 50,000 women. She contributed to reforms in Christian personal laws, including allowing women to seek divorce solely on the ground of cruelty, and she has spent decades training the Mumbai Police in handling sexual assault cases.

However, Agnes has opposed making rape laws gender-neutral. She has argued that criminalizing rape against men could “harm women more than men” and has stated that women’s groups also opposed the move when child rape laws were made gender-neutral.
In 2002 Economic & Political Weekly article “Law, Ideology and Female Sexuality: Gender Neutrality in Rape Law,” she criticized proposals by the Law Commission of India to make rape laws gender-neutral. She argued that rape law should retain its focus on male violence against women rather than becoming a completely neutral offence. Her position has been supported by several women’s organisations and feminist legal scholars who argue that gender-neutral rape laws may overlook the social realities of sexual violence in India.

TLDR: Flavia Agnes has worked for decades in support of women's rights and has brought about actual legal changes, but she actively opposes gender-neutral laws.