Utkarsh K. Shahi 🇮🇳

And the DMK spox repeats a long-debunked falsehood: 1. Justice Muralidhar's transfer was approved by the Collegium two weeks before the said hearing, and his transfer notification was just a formality; the Govt can't transfer a judge without a Collegium recommendation. 2. He never directed the Police to register an FIR! He made prima facie observations, asked police to apply their mind and granted them time to take a decision in accordance with the law. No direction to register an FIR was issued!

Manufactured anti Muslim fear? Are the likes of JeM, LeT, HuM & IM “manufactured” terrorist organizations? Have they not killed thousands of our civilians & soldiers? Are they not Islamist in character and ideology? And Dhurandhar is about terrorism emanating from Pakistan! Why does an Indian Muslim have to feel restless over truth being shown about Pakistani terrorism?

So the opposition has moved this bogus impeachment motion to remove Justice Swaminathan! What is this? A brazen attempt to weaponize impeachment and intimidate the judiciary! The judge’s fault? He delivered a judgment upholding the right of Hindu believers to light a Deepam and practise a long standing ritual on the temple’s land! Besides being anti Hindu, this act is anti rule of law, anti Constitution and therefore anti India too. They know the motion has no chance of success, which exposes their real intent to bully the court for protecting Hindu rights and ancient customs. Using impeachment as a weapon to put political pressure is a shameful stunt to intimidate the higher judiciary in the country. Most importantly, it is a grave assault on the red book they carry in their pockets too!

The Supreme Court in the Ayodhya Judgment clearly held that a reasonable inference could be drawn that the foundation of the mosque was based on a large pre-existing structure of Hindu origins. Justice Nariman has either not read the judgment or is guided by his own bias.

Read the SC Opinion in Presidential Reference No.1 of 2025! The gravest flaw in the TN judgment, graver than even inserting timeline in Art. 201, was its judicial invention of ‘deemed assent’. Glad the Constitution Bench has thoroughly rejected this constitutional fantasy. Assent is a function vested solely in designated constitutional functionaries, and no institution, not even the SC, can usurp that authority. Art. 142 cannot override express constitutional provisions. Separation of powers is not only a cardinal constitutional principle but an inviolable element of the Basic Structure. Any judicial theory that overrides or replaces constitutionally assigned powers is an assault on the Constitution itself; it is the surest way to engineer a constitutional breakdown.