The Supreme Court of India has become a battlefield of collegium politics

The Supreme Court of India has become a battlefield of collegium politics
The Supreme Court of India has become a battlefield of collegium politics
The Supreme Court of India has become a battlefield of collegium politics
The Supreme Court of India has become a battlefield of collegium politics

The Supreme Court of India has increasingly become a battlefield where judicial philosophy, collegium politics, and institutional egos openly clash. Recent events reveal a consistent pattern of dissent and contradictions within the collegium’s decisions, especially concerning judicial appointments. The controversy surrounding the elevation of Chief Justices Alok Arade (Bombay High Court) and Vipul M. Pancholi (Patna High Court) to the Supreme Court has exposed deep fissures within the judiciary.

A rare and significant dissent was recorded by Justice B.V. Nagarathna, a senior judge and prospective future Chief Justice of India, against Justice Pancholi’s appointment. Nagarathna emphasized that Pancholi’s transfer from Gujarat to Patna in July 2023 was not routine, highlighting concerns about procedural transparency and meritocracy. She argued that his elevation, despite ranking 57th in all-India seniority among High Court judges and Gujarat already being represented in the Supreme Court, could undermine the collegium system’s credibility and the administration of justice. Notably, if appointed, Pancholi is slated to become Chief Justice of India from October 2031 to May 2033, a prospect Nagarathna finds counterproductive.

This dissent reflects broader institutional tensions, such as seniority versus merit, representation versus neutrality, and judicial leadership versus internal politics. The absence of women in recent appointments further reveals a glaring gender inclusivity issue. The Supreme Court now has only one woman judge, Justice Nagarathna herself, underscoring systemic gaps in gender representation.

Parallel incidents, such as the Allahabad High Court matter involving Justice Parwala’s lead bench and the “Street Dog” case in Delhi NCR, illustrate the Court’s internal course corrections and responsiveness to public policy concerns. These episodes show an institution simultaneously grappling with sharp critiques, pragmatic adjustments, and public accountability.

The current judicial landscape is at a crossroads. The collegium’s internal dissent and institutional churn could either strengthen the judiciary through transparency and reform or erode long-term credibility and public trust. Justice Nagarathna’s dissent is a clarion call for accountability and openness, stressing that ignoring these issues risks turning the judiciary into a fractured, mistrusted body. The future composition of the Supreme Court, particularly with new Chief Justices in 2027, 2028, and 2031, will shape the judiciary’s trajectory, making transparency not just desirable but essential.

Highlights

- ⚖️ Supreme Court evolving to be a battleground of judicial and institutional conflicts.  

- 🔴 Justice B.V. Nagarathna’s rare and strong dissent against Justice Pancholi’s Supreme Court elevation.  

- 📉 Concerns over collegium system’s credibility due to opaque appointment processes and meritocracy issues.  

- 👩‍⚖️ Gender inclusivity crisis with only one woman judge currently on the Supreme Court bench.  

- 🔄 Internal course corrections exemplified by high-profile cases like the Allahabad High Court and Street Dog matters.  

- ⏳ The judiciary at a critical crossroads with implications for institutional trust lasting decades.  

- 🔍 Transparency and openness urged as the only viable strategy for restoring public confidence.  

Key Insights

- ⚔️ **Institutional Rift and Open Dissent:** The collegium system, which governs judicial appointments, is showing visible cracks with senior judges like Justice Nagarathna openly dissenting. This dissent is not a mere disagreement but a profound challenge to the system’s integrity, signaling a potential shift toward greater transparency or deeper institutional conflict.

- 🏛️ **Meritocracy vs. Seniority Debate:** Justice Pancholi’s appointment controversy highlights the tension between seniority and merit in judicial elevations. His ranking (57th nationally) raises questions about bypassing more senior and possibly more qualified judges, which could undermine morale and the principles of procedural fairness within the judiciary.

- 📊 **Representation Imbalance:** Gujarat’s overrepresentation in the Supreme Court through multiple judges contrasts sharply with underrepresented high courts, raising concerns about regional balance and fairness. This imbalance threatens the perception of neutrality and inclusiveness in judicial appointments.

- 👩 **Gender Inclusivity Deficit:** The stark gender gap, with only one woman judge left in the Supreme Court, exposes persistent systemic issues in promoting gender diversity. The absence of women in recent appointments sends a negative signal about the judiciary’s commitment to inclusiveness and equal representation.

- 🔄 **Judicial Self-Correction Mechanism:** Cases like the Allahabad High Court matter and the Street Dog case demonstrate the Supreme Court’s capacity for self-reflection and correction. The Court’s willingness to retract or modify its orders based on public feedback and logical reasoning reflects a healthy institutional process balancing law, policy, and ethics.

- ⏳ **Long-Term Credibility at Stake:** The appointment controversies and internal disagreements are not transient issues but pose risks to the judiciary’s long-term credibility. Trust deficits emerging now could cast shadows over future landmark decisions, especially as new Chief Justices take charge in the coming years.

- 🔍 **Transparency as a Necessity:** Justice Nagarathna’s insistence on publishing her dissent on the Supreme Court’s website underscores an urgent demand for transparency and accountability. In an age where public trust in institutions is fragile, such openness could be the judiciary’s lifeline to maintaining legitimacy and respect.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court of India is currently witnessing an unprecedented phase of internal contestation, where collegium politics, judicial philosophies, and institutional egos collide in the public eye. The controversy surrounding Justice Vipul Pancholi’s elevation, and Justice B.V. Nagarathna’s dissent, crystallizes the core challenges facing the judiciary: maintaining meritocracy, ensuring fair representation, promoting gender inclusivity, and upholding institutional credibility.

Simultaneously, the Court’s internal course corrections on various cases demonstrate a functioning mechanism of self-regulation and responsiveness, which is vital for democratic governance. However, the judiciary stands at a crossroads. It must choose between embracing transparency, openness, and reform or risking a protracted erosion of public trust and institutional authority.

With the future leadership of the Supreme Court poised to shape the judiciary for decades, the decisions taken today on appointments and institutional reforms will have far-reaching consequences. Transparency, accountability, and inclusivity will be the pillars on which the Court can rebuild its image as a trusted temple of justice rather than a contested battlefield.

The ongoing discourse is not just about individual judges or appointments but about the very soul and future of India’s judiciary. The choice lies with the institution itself, and its ripple effects will resonate through the democratic fabric of the nation.

via Blogger https://ift.tt/4ke5zxQ
August 27, 2025 at 10:25AM
via Blogger https://ift.tt/m39GIFZ
August 27, 2025 at 11:13AM
via Blogger https://ift.tt/NJE0eLv
August 27, 2025 at 12:13PM
via Blogger https://ift.tt/FqyOEVS
August 27, 2025 at 01:13PM

The Supreme Court of India has become a battlefield of collegium politics

The Supreme Court of India has become a battlefield of collegium politics
The Supreme Court of India has become a battlefield of collegium politics
The Supreme Court of India has become a battlefield of collegium politics

The Supreme Court of India has increasingly become a battlefield where judicial philosophy, collegium politics, and institutional egos openly clash. Recent events reveal a consistent pattern of dissent and contradictions within the collegium’s decisions, especially concerning judicial appointments. The controversy surrounding the elevation of Chief Justices Alok Arade (Bombay High Court) and Vipul M. Pancholi (Patna High Court) to the Supreme Court has exposed deep fissures within the judiciary.

A rare and significant dissent was recorded by Justice B.V. Nagarathna, a senior judge and prospective future Chief Justice of India, against Justice Pancholi’s appointment. Nagarathna emphasized that Pancholi’s transfer from Gujarat to Patna in July 2023 was not routine, highlighting concerns about procedural transparency and meritocracy. She argued that his elevation, despite ranking 57th in all-India seniority among High Court judges and Gujarat already being represented in the Supreme Court, could undermine the collegium system’s credibility and the administration of justice. Notably, if appointed, Pancholi is slated to become Chief Justice of India from October 2031 to May 2033, a prospect Nagarathna finds counterproductive.

This dissent reflects broader institutional tensions, such as seniority versus merit, representation versus neutrality, and judicial leadership versus internal politics. The absence of women in recent appointments further reveals a glaring gender inclusivity issue. The Supreme Court now has only one woman judge, Justice Nagarathna herself, underscoring systemic gaps in gender representation.

Parallel incidents, such as the Allahabad High Court matter involving Justice Parwala’s lead bench and the “Street Dog” case in Delhi NCR, illustrate the Court’s internal course corrections and responsiveness to public policy concerns. These episodes show an institution simultaneously grappling with sharp critiques, pragmatic adjustments, and public accountability.

The current judicial landscape is at a crossroads. The collegium’s internal dissent and institutional churn could either strengthen the judiciary through transparency and reform or erode long-term credibility and public trust. Justice Nagarathna’s dissent is a clarion call for accountability and openness, stressing that ignoring these issues risks turning the judiciary into a fractured, mistrusted body. The future composition of the Supreme Court, particularly with new Chief Justices in 2027, 2028, and 2031, will shape the judiciary’s trajectory, making transparency not just desirable but essential.

Highlights

- ⚖️ Supreme Court evolving to be a battleground of judicial and institutional conflicts.  

- 🔴 Justice B.V. Nagarathna’s rare and strong dissent against Justice Pancholi’s Supreme Court elevation.  

- 📉 Concerns over collegium system’s credibility due to opaque appointment processes and meritocracy issues.  

- 👩‍⚖️ Gender inclusivity crisis with only one woman judge currently on the Supreme Court bench.  

- 🔄 Internal course corrections exemplified by high-profile cases like the Allahabad High Court and Street Dog matters.  

- ⏳ The judiciary at a critical crossroads with implications for institutional trust lasting decades.  

- 🔍 Transparency and openness urged as the only viable strategy for restoring public confidence.  

Key Insights

- ⚔️ **Institutional Rift and Open Dissent:** The collegium system, which governs judicial appointments, is showing visible cracks with senior judges like Justice Nagarathna openly dissenting. This dissent is not a mere disagreement but a profound challenge to the system’s integrity, signaling a potential shift toward greater transparency or deeper institutional conflict.

- 🏛️ **Meritocracy vs. Seniority Debate:** Justice Pancholi’s appointment controversy highlights the tension between seniority and merit in judicial elevations. His ranking (57th nationally) raises questions about bypassing more senior and possibly more qualified judges, which could undermine morale and the principles of procedural fairness within the judiciary.

- 📊 **Representation Imbalance:** Gujarat’s overrepresentation in the Supreme Court through multiple judges contrasts sharply with underrepresented high courts, raising concerns about regional balance and fairness. This imbalance threatens the perception of neutrality and inclusiveness in judicial appointments.

- 👩 **Gender Inclusivity Deficit:** The stark gender gap, with only one woman judge left in the Supreme Court, exposes persistent systemic issues in promoting gender diversity. The absence of women in recent appointments sends a negative signal about the judiciary’s commitment to inclusiveness and equal representation.

- 🔄 **Judicial Self-Correction Mechanism:** Cases like the Allahabad High Court matter and the Street Dog case demonstrate the Supreme Court’s capacity for self-reflection and correction. The Court’s willingness to retract or modify its orders based on public feedback and logical reasoning reflects a healthy institutional process balancing law, policy, and ethics.

- ⏳ **Long-Term Credibility at Stake:** The appointment controversies and internal disagreements are not transient issues but pose risks to the judiciary’s long-term credibility. Trust deficits emerging now could cast shadows over future landmark decisions, especially as new Chief Justices take charge in the coming years.

- 🔍 **Transparency as a Necessity:** Justice Nagarathna’s insistence on publishing her dissent on the Supreme Court’s website underscores an urgent demand for transparency and accountability. In an age where public trust in institutions is fragile, such openness could be the judiciary’s lifeline to maintaining legitimacy and respect.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court of India is currently witnessing an unprecedented phase of internal contestation, where collegium politics, judicial philosophies, and institutional egos collide in the public eye. The controversy surrounding Justice Vipul Pancholi’s elevation, and Justice B.V. Nagarathna’s dissent, crystallizes the core challenges facing the judiciary: maintaining meritocracy, ensuring fair representation, promoting gender inclusivity, and upholding institutional credibility.

Simultaneously, the Court’s internal course corrections on various cases demonstrate a functioning mechanism of self-regulation and responsiveness, which is vital for democratic governance. However, the judiciary stands at a crossroads. It must choose between embracing transparency, openness, and reform or risking a protracted erosion of public trust and institutional authority.

With the future leadership of the Supreme Court poised to shape the judiciary for decades, the decisions taken today on appointments and institutional reforms will have far-reaching consequences. Transparency, accountability, and inclusivity will be the pillars on which the Court can rebuild its image as a trusted temple of justice rather than a contested battlefield.

The ongoing discourse is not just about individual judges or appointments but about the very soul and future of India’s judiciary. The choice lies with the institution itself, and its ripple effects will resonate through the democratic fabric of the nation.

via Blogger https://ift.tt/4ke5zxQ
August 27, 2025 at 10:25AM
via Blogger https://ift.tt/m39GIFZ
August 27, 2025 at 11:13AM
via Blogger https://ift.tt/NJE0eLv
August 27, 2025 at 12:13PM

The Supreme Court of India has become a battlefield of collegium politics

The Supreme Court of India has become a battlefield of collegium politics
The Supreme Court of India has become a battlefield of collegium politics

The Supreme Court of India has increasingly become a battlefield where judicial philosophy, collegium politics, and institutional egos openly clash. Recent events reveal a consistent pattern of dissent and contradictions within the collegium’s decisions, especially concerning judicial appointments. The controversy surrounding the elevation of Chief Justices Alok Arade (Bombay High Court) and Vipul M. Pancholi (Patna High Court) to the Supreme Court has exposed deep fissures within the judiciary.

A rare and significant dissent was recorded by Justice B.V. Nagarathna, a senior judge and prospective future Chief Justice of India, against Justice Pancholi’s appointment. Nagarathna emphasized that Pancholi’s transfer from Gujarat to Patna in July 2023 was not routine, highlighting concerns about procedural transparency and meritocracy. She argued that his elevation, despite ranking 57th in all-India seniority among High Court judges and Gujarat already being represented in the Supreme Court, could undermine the collegium system’s credibility and the administration of justice. Notably, if appointed, Pancholi is slated to become Chief Justice of India from October 2031 to May 2033, a prospect Nagarathna finds counterproductive.

This dissent reflects broader institutional tensions, such as seniority versus merit, representation versus neutrality, and judicial leadership versus internal politics. The absence of women in recent appointments further reveals a glaring gender inclusivity issue. The Supreme Court now has only one woman judge, Justice Nagarathna herself, underscoring systemic gaps in gender representation.

Parallel incidents, such as the Allahabad High Court matter involving Justice Parwala’s lead bench and the “Street Dog” case in Delhi NCR, illustrate the Court’s internal course corrections and responsiveness to public policy concerns. These episodes show an institution simultaneously grappling with sharp critiques, pragmatic adjustments, and public accountability.

The current judicial landscape is at a crossroads. The collegium’s internal dissent and institutional churn could either strengthen the judiciary through transparency and reform or erode long-term credibility and public trust. Justice Nagarathna’s dissent is a clarion call for accountability and openness, stressing that ignoring these issues risks turning the judiciary into a fractured, mistrusted body. The future composition of the Supreme Court, particularly with new Chief Justices in 2027, 2028, and 2031, will shape the judiciary’s trajectory, making transparency not just desirable but essential.

Highlights

- ⚖️ Supreme Court evolving to be a battleground of judicial and institutional conflicts.  

- 🔴 Justice B.V. Nagarathna’s rare and strong dissent against Justice Pancholi’s Supreme Court elevation.  

- 📉 Concerns over collegium system’s credibility due to opaque appointment processes and meritocracy issues.  

- 👩‍⚖️ Gender inclusivity crisis with only one woman judge currently on the Supreme Court bench.  

- 🔄 Internal course corrections exemplified by high-profile cases like the Allahabad High Court and Street Dog matters.  

- ⏳ The judiciary at a critical crossroads with implications for institutional trust lasting decades.  

- 🔍 Transparency and openness urged as the only viable strategy for restoring public confidence.  

Key Insights

- ⚔️ **Institutional Rift and Open Dissent:** The collegium system, which governs judicial appointments, is showing visible cracks with senior judges like Justice Nagarathna openly dissenting. This dissent is not a mere disagreement but a profound challenge to the system’s integrity, signaling a potential shift toward greater transparency or deeper institutional conflict.

- 🏛️ **Meritocracy vs. Seniority Debate:** Justice Pancholi’s appointment controversy highlights the tension between seniority and merit in judicial elevations. His ranking (57th nationally) raises questions about bypassing more senior and possibly more qualified judges, which could undermine morale and the principles of procedural fairness within the judiciary.

- 📊 **Representation Imbalance:** Gujarat’s overrepresentation in the Supreme Court through multiple judges contrasts sharply with underrepresented high courts, raising concerns about regional balance and fairness. This imbalance threatens the perception of neutrality and inclusiveness in judicial appointments.

- 👩 **Gender Inclusivity Deficit:** The stark gender gap, with only one woman judge left in the Supreme Court, exposes persistent systemic issues in promoting gender diversity. The absence of women in recent appointments sends a negative signal about the judiciary’s commitment to inclusiveness and equal representation.

- 🔄 **Judicial Self-Correction Mechanism:** Cases like the Allahabad High Court matter and the Street Dog case demonstrate the Supreme Court’s capacity for self-reflection and correction. The Court’s willingness to retract or modify its orders based on public feedback and logical reasoning reflects a healthy institutional process balancing law, policy, and ethics.

- ⏳ **Long-Term Credibility at Stake:** The appointment controversies and internal disagreements are not transient issues but pose risks to the judiciary’s long-term credibility. Trust deficits emerging now could cast shadows over future landmark decisions, especially as new Chief Justices take charge in the coming years.

- 🔍 **Transparency as a Necessity:** Justice Nagarathna’s insistence on publishing her dissent on the Supreme Court’s website underscores an urgent demand for transparency and accountability. In an age where public trust in institutions is fragile, such openness could be the judiciary’s lifeline to maintaining legitimacy and respect.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court of India is currently witnessing an unprecedented phase of internal contestation, where collegium politics, judicial philosophies, and institutional egos collide in the public eye. The controversy surrounding Justice Vipul Pancholi’s elevation, and Justice B.V. Nagarathna’s dissent, crystallizes the core challenges facing the judiciary: maintaining meritocracy, ensuring fair representation, promoting gender inclusivity, and upholding institutional credibility.

Simultaneously, the Court’s internal course corrections on various cases demonstrate a functioning mechanism of self-regulation and responsiveness, which is vital for democratic governance. However, the judiciary stands at a crossroads. It must choose between embracing transparency, openness, and reform or risking a protracted erosion of public trust and institutional authority.

With the future leadership of the Supreme Court poised to shape the judiciary for decades, the decisions taken today on appointments and institutional reforms will have far-reaching consequences. Transparency, accountability, and inclusivity will be the pillars on which the Court can rebuild its image as a trusted temple of justice rather than a contested battlefield.

The ongoing discourse is not just about individual judges or appointments but about the very soul and future of India’s judiciary. The choice lies with the institution itself, and its ripple effects will resonate through the democratic fabric of the nation.

via Blogger https://ift.tt/4ke5zxQ
August 27, 2025 at 10:25AM
via Blogger https://ift.tt/m39GIFZ
August 27, 2025 at 11:13AM

The Supreme Court of India has become a battlefield of collegium politics

The Supreme Court of India has become a battlefield of collegium politics

The Supreme Court of India has increasingly become a battlefield where judicial philosophy, collegium politics, and institutional egos openly clash. Recent events reveal a consistent pattern of dissent and contradictions within the collegium’s decisions, especially concerning judicial appointments. The controversy surrounding the elevation of Chief Justices Alok Arade (Bombay High Court) and Vipul M. Pancholi (Patna High Court) to the Supreme Court has exposed deep fissures within the judiciary.

A rare and significant dissent was recorded by Justice B.V. Nagarathna, a senior judge and prospective future Chief Justice of India, against Justice Pancholi’s appointment. Nagarathna emphasized that Pancholi’s transfer from Gujarat to Patna in July 2023 was not routine, highlighting concerns about procedural transparency and meritocracy. She argued that his elevation, despite ranking 57th in all-India seniority among High Court judges and Gujarat already being represented in the Supreme Court, could undermine the collegium system’s credibility and the administration of justice. Notably, if appointed, Pancholi is slated to become Chief Justice of India from October 2031 to May 2033, a prospect Nagarathna finds counterproductive.

This dissent reflects broader institutional tensions, such as seniority versus merit, representation versus neutrality, and judicial leadership versus internal politics. The absence of women in recent appointments further reveals a glaring gender inclusivity issue. The Supreme Court now has only one woman judge, Justice Nagarathna herself, underscoring systemic gaps in gender representation.

Parallel incidents, such as the Allahabad High Court matter involving Justice Parwala’s lead bench and the “Street Dog” case in Delhi NCR, illustrate the Court’s internal course corrections and responsiveness to public policy concerns. These episodes show an institution simultaneously grappling with sharp critiques, pragmatic adjustments, and public accountability.

The current judicial landscape is at a crossroads. The collegium’s internal dissent and institutional churn could either strengthen the judiciary through transparency and reform or erode long-term credibility and public trust. Justice Nagarathna’s dissent is a clarion call for accountability and openness, stressing that ignoring these issues risks turning the judiciary into a fractured, mistrusted body. The future composition of the Supreme Court, particularly with new Chief Justices in 2027, 2028, and 2031, will shape the judiciary’s trajectory, making transparency not just desirable but essential.

Highlights

- ⚖️ Supreme Court evolving to be a battleground of judicial and institutional conflicts.  

- 🔴 Justice B.V. Nagarathna’s rare and strong dissent against Justice Pancholi’s Supreme Court elevation.  

- 📉 Concerns over collegium system’s credibility due to opaque appointment processes and meritocracy issues.  

- 👩‍⚖️ Gender inclusivity crisis with only one woman judge currently on the Supreme Court bench.  

- 🔄 Internal course corrections exemplified by high-profile cases like the Allahabad High Court and Street Dog matters.  

- ⏳ The judiciary at a critical crossroads with implications for institutional trust lasting decades.  

- 🔍 Transparency and openness urged as the only viable strategy for restoring public confidence.  

Key Insights

- ⚔️ **Institutional Rift and Open Dissent:** The collegium system, which governs judicial appointments, is showing visible cracks with senior judges like Justice Nagarathna openly dissenting. This dissent is not a mere disagreement but a profound challenge to the system’s integrity, signaling a potential shift toward greater transparency or deeper institutional conflict.

- 🏛️ **Meritocracy vs. Seniority Debate:** Justice Pancholi’s appointment controversy highlights the tension between seniority and merit in judicial elevations. His ranking (57th nationally) raises questions about bypassing more senior and possibly more qualified judges, which could undermine morale and the principles of procedural fairness within the judiciary.

- 📊 **Representation Imbalance:** Gujarat’s overrepresentation in the Supreme Court through multiple judges contrasts sharply with underrepresented high courts, raising concerns about regional balance and fairness. This imbalance threatens the perception of neutrality and inclusiveness in judicial appointments.

- 👩 **Gender Inclusivity Deficit:** The stark gender gap, with only one woman judge left in the Supreme Court, exposes persistent systemic issues in promoting gender diversity. The absence of women in recent appointments sends a negative signal about the judiciary’s commitment to inclusiveness and equal representation.

- 🔄 **Judicial Self-Correction Mechanism:** Cases like the Allahabad High Court matter and the Street Dog case demonstrate the Supreme Court’s capacity for self-reflection and correction. The Court’s willingness to retract or modify its orders based on public feedback and logical reasoning reflects a healthy institutional process balancing law, policy, and ethics.

- ⏳ **Long-Term Credibility at Stake:** The appointment controversies and internal disagreements are not transient issues but pose risks to the judiciary’s long-term credibility. Trust deficits emerging now could cast shadows over future landmark decisions, especially as new Chief Justices take charge in the coming years.

- 🔍 **Transparency as a Necessity:** Justice Nagarathna’s insistence on publishing her dissent on the Supreme Court’s website underscores an urgent demand for transparency and accountability. In an age where public trust in institutions is fragile, such openness could be the judiciary’s lifeline to maintaining legitimacy and respect.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court of India is currently witnessing an unprecedented phase of internal contestation, where collegium politics, judicial philosophies, and institutional egos collide in the public eye. The controversy surrounding Justice Vipul Pancholi’s elevation, and Justice B.V. Nagarathna’s dissent, crystallizes the core challenges facing the judiciary: maintaining meritocracy, ensuring fair representation, promoting gender inclusivity, and upholding institutional credibility.

Simultaneously, the Court’s internal course corrections on various cases demonstrate a functioning mechanism of self-regulation and responsiveness, which is vital for democratic governance. However, the judiciary stands at a crossroads. It must choose between embracing transparency, openness, and reform or risking a protracted erosion of public trust and institutional authority.

With the future leadership of the Supreme Court poised to shape the judiciary for decades, the decisions taken today on appointments and institutional reforms will have far-reaching consequences. Transparency, accountability, and inclusivity will be the pillars on which the Court can rebuild its image as a trusted temple of justice rather than a contested battlefield.

The ongoing discourse is not just about individual judges or appointments but about the very soul and future of India’s judiciary. The choice lies with the institution itself, and its ripple effects will resonate through the democratic fabric of the nation.

via Blogger https://ift.tt/4ke5zxQ
August 27, 2025 at 10:25AM

The Supreme Court of India has become a battlefield of collegium politics

The Supreme Court of India has increasingly become a battlefield where judicial philosophy, collegium politics, and institutional egos openly clash. Recent events reveal a consistent pattern of dissent and contradictions within the collegium’s decisions, especially concerning judicial appointments. The controversy surrounding the elevation of Chief Justices Alok Arade (Bombay High Court) and Vipul M. Pancholi (Patna High Court) to the Supreme Court has exposed deep fissures within the judiciary.

A rare and significant dissent was recorded by Justice B.V. Nagarathna, a senior judge and prospective future Chief Justice of India, against Justice Pancholi’s appointment. Nagarathna emphasized that Pancholi’s transfer from Gujarat to Patna in July 2023 was not routine, highlighting concerns about procedural transparency and meritocracy. She argued that his elevation, despite ranking 57th in all-India seniority among High Court judges and Gujarat already being represented in the Supreme Court, could undermine the collegium system’s credibility and the administration of justice. Notably, if appointed, Pancholi is slated to become Chief Justice of India from October 2031 to May 2033, a prospect Nagarathna finds counterproductive.

This dissent reflects broader institutional tensions, such as seniority versus merit, representation versus neutrality, and judicial leadership versus internal politics. The absence of women in recent appointments further reveals a glaring gender inclusivity issue. The Supreme Court now has only one woman judge, Justice Nagarathna herself, underscoring systemic gaps in gender representation.

Parallel incidents, such as the Allahabad High Court matter involving Justice Parwala’s lead bench and the “Street Dog” case in Delhi NCR, illustrate the Court’s internal course corrections and responsiveness to public policy concerns. These episodes show an institution simultaneously grappling with sharp critiques, pragmatic adjustments, and public accountability.

The current judicial landscape is at a crossroads. The collegium’s internal dissent and institutional churn could either strengthen the judiciary through transparency and reform or erode long-term credibility and public trust. Justice Nagarathna’s dissent is a clarion call for accountability and openness, stressing that ignoring these issues risks turning the judiciary into a fractured, mistrusted body. The future composition of the Supreme Court, particularly with new Chief Justices in 2027, 2028, and 2031, will shape the judiciary’s trajectory, making transparency not just desirable but essential.

Highlights

- ⚖️ Supreme Court evolving to be a battleground of judicial and institutional conflicts.  

- 🔴 Justice B.V. Nagarathna’s rare and strong dissent against Justice Pancholi’s Supreme Court elevation.  

- 📉 Concerns over collegium system’s credibility due to opaque appointment processes and meritocracy issues.  

- 👩‍⚖️ Gender inclusivity crisis with only one woman judge currently on the Supreme Court bench.  

- 🔄 Internal course corrections exemplified by high-profile cases like the Allahabad High Court and Street Dog matters.  

- ⏳ The judiciary at a critical crossroads with implications for institutional trust lasting decades.  

- 🔍 Transparency and openness urged as the only viable strategy for restoring public confidence.  

Key Insights

- ⚔️ **Institutional Rift and Open Dissent:** The collegium system, which governs judicial appointments, is showing visible cracks with senior judges like Justice Nagarathna openly dissenting. This dissent is not a mere disagreement but a profound challenge to the system’s integrity, signaling a potential shift toward greater transparency or deeper institutional conflict.

- 🏛️ **Meritocracy vs. Seniority Debate:** Justice Pancholi’s appointment controversy highlights the tension between seniority and merit in judicial elevations. His ranking (57th nationally) raises questions about bypassing more senior and possibly more qualified judges, which could undermine morale and the principles of procedural fairness within the judiciary.

- 📊 **Representation Imbalance:** Gujarat’s overrepresentation in the Supreme Court through multiple judges contrasts sharply with underrepresented high courts, raising concerns about regional balance and fairness. This imbalance threatens the perception of neutrality and inclusiveness in judicial appointments.

- 👩 **Gender Inclusivity Deficit:** The stark gender gap, with only one woman judge left in the Supreme Court, exposes persistent systemic issues in promoting gender diversity. The absence of women in recent appointments sends a negative signal about the judiciary’s commitment to inclusiveness and equal representation.

- 🔄 **Judicial Self-Correction Mechanism:** Cases like the Allahabad High Court matter and the Street Dog case demonstrate the Supreme Court’s capacity for self-reflection and correction. The Court’s willingness to retract or modify its orders based on public feedback and logical reasoning reflects a healthy institutional process balancing law, policy, and ethics.

- ⏳ **Long-Term Credibility at Stake:** The appointment controversies and internal disagreements are not transient issues but pose risks to the judiciary’s long-term credibility. Trust deficits emerging now could cast shadows over future landmark decisions, especially as new Chief Justices take charge in the coming years.

- 🔍 **Transparency as a Necessity:** Justice Nagarathna’s insistence on publishing her dissent on the Supreme Court’s website underscores an urgent demand for transparency and accountability. In an age where public trust in institutions is fragile, such openness could be the judiciary’s lifeline to maintaining legitimacy and respect.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court of India is currently witnessing an unprecedented phase of internal contestation, where collegium politics, judicial philosophies, and institutional egos collide in the public eye. The controversy surrounding Justice Vipul Pancholi’s elevation, and Justice B.V. Nagarathna’s dissent, crystallizes the core challenges facing the judiciary: maintaining meritocracy, ensuring fair representation, promoting gender inclusivity, and upholding institutional credibility.

Simultaneously, the Court’s internal course corrections on various cases demonstrate a functioning mechanism of self-regulation and responsiveness, which is vital for democratic governance. However, the judiciary stands at a crossroads. It must choose between embracing transparency, openness, and reform or risking a protracted erosion of public trust and institutional authority.

With the future leadership of the Supreme Court poised to shape the judiciary for decades, the decisions taken today on appointments and institutional reforms will have far-reaching consequences. Transparency, accountability, and inclusivity will be the pillars on which the Court can rebuild its image as a trusted temple of justice rather than a contested battlefield.

The ongoing discourse is not just about individual judges or appointments but about the very soul and future of India’s judiciary. The choice lies with the institution itself, and its ripple effects will resonate through the democratic fabric of the nation.

नायडू मोदी सरकार को ब्लैकमेल करने पर उतारू संघ के एक वरिष्ठ प्रचारक लिखी ने चिट्ठी

नायडू मोदी सरकार को ब्लैकमेल करने पर उतारू संघ के एक वरिष्ठ प्रचारक लिखी ने चिट्ठी
नायडू मोदी सरकार को ब्लैकमेल करने पर उतारू संघ के एक वरिष्ठ प्रचारक लिखी ने चिट्ठी

 

नायडू दिल्ली पहुंचे और उसके बाद से खबरें तैरने लगी कि नायडू ने सीपी राधाकृष्णन को समर्थन दे दिया है। लेकिन इन सब के दरमियान कहीं से कहीं तक खबर यह नहीं बताई गई कि सीपी राधाकृष्णन को समर्थन तो दिया है लेकिन ब्लैकमेलिंग एक बार फिर शुरू कर दी है। नायडू फिर से मोदी सरकार को ब्लैकमेल करने पर उतारू हो चले हैं। दूसरी खबर। और यह इस वक्त की सबसे बड़ी खबर। संघ के एक वरिष्ठ प्रचारक ने एक चिट्ठी लिखी और उस चिट्ठी में प्रधानमंत्री नरेंद्र मोदी और गृह मंत्री अमित शाह के माथे पर पसीने लाने वाली बातें हैं।

 सवाल यह है कि आज की तारीख में जो तख्त नसी हैं, वह आने वाली कितनी तारीखों तक तख्त पर बैठे रहेंगे? क्योंकि स्थितियां तेजी से बदल रही हैं। हालात तेजी से बदल रहे हैं। और हर गुजरते दिन के साथ कुर्सी हिल रही हैं। कुर्सी के पाएं हिल रहे हैं प्रधानमंत्री नरेंद्र मोदी के। क्या-क्या हुआ है? नायडू साहब की ब्लैकमेलिंग से लेकर संघ द्वारा की जा रही घेराबंदी तक। और बात इसकी भी कि 2012 में जो नरेंद्र मोदी जी ने किया था वो पाप अब भारी पड़ने वाला है। 

प्रधानमंत्री नरेंद्र मोदी  केचेहरे पर एक अलग सी खामोशी, एक अलग सी उदासी, एक अलग सी मायूसी है। इस मायूसी के पीछे का कारण क्या है? कुछ लोग कहते हैं कि सदन में लगते हुए वो नारे वोट चोर गद्दी छोड़। तो कुछ लोग कहते हैं कि तड़ी पार तड़ी पार के नारे। कुछ लोग कहते हैं कि दरअसल यह उदासी यह खामोशी, यह मायूसी इस वजह से है क्योंकि वोट चोरी का भंडाफोड़ हो गया है। लेकिन इससे भी कहीं ज्यादा कुछ अंदर खाने में चल रहा है। सबसे पहले तो जरा 2012 का साल और प्रधानमंत्री नरेंद्र मोदी का एक पुराना पाप आज की तारीख में याद करना

जरूरी है क्योंकि संघ की उस वरिष्ठ प्रचारक ने जो चिट्ठी लिखी है उसमें जो कहा गया है दरअसल 2012 से जाकर जुड़ जाता है। 2012 में एक बड़ा पाप किया था प्रधानमंत्री नरेंद्र मोदी ने। क्या था वो पाप जानते हैं आप? आज की तारीख में मोदी जी को कई बार हो सकता है उस बात पर अफसोस होता होगा। साल था 2012 उत्तर प्रदेश विधानसभा चुनाव और प्रधानमंत्री नरेंद्र मोदी का एक अलग सा क्रेज था। उस वक्त पे प्रधानमंत्री नरेंद्र मोदी को उत्तर प्रदेश में चुनावी रैलियों की जिम्मेदारी दी गई। कहा गया कि आपका समय चाहिए। आपको आना है। उस वक्त वो  गुजरात के मुख्यमंत्री हुआ करते थे। और उन्होंने उस वक्त एक बात कही थी। भारतीय जनता पार्टी के तमाम वरिष्ठ नेताओं से कि जिस प्रदेश का प्रभारी संजय भाई जोशी हो मैं वहां पर चुनावी रैलियों को संबोधित करूं। मैं कदम नहीं रखूंगा। ऐसा नहीं हो सकता। कदापि नहीं हो सकता मैं नहीं आऊंगा।

 संजय भाई जोशी को तात्कालिक तौर पर वहां से हटा दिया गया। नेपथ्य में डाल दिए गए संजय भाई जोशी और फिर 2012 के बाद 2014 का साल आया प्रधानमंत्री नरेंद्र मोदी प्रधानमंत्री की कुर्सी पर विराजमान हो गए वो दिन और आज का दिन संजय भाई जोशी लगातार नेपथ्य में ही रहे हैं।

लेकिन संघ के उस वरिष्ठ प्रचारक ने क्या लिखा उस तरफ चलें उससे पहले एक और बात नायडू ने सीपी राधाकृष्णन को समर्थन देने का ऐलान तो कर दिया है। लेकिन इसके साथ ही साथ एक बार फिर नायडू की ब्लैकमेलिंग शुरू हो गई है। नायडू ने ₹5000 करोड़ मांगे हैं आंध्र प्रदेश के लिए। उन तमाम परियोजनाओं के लिए जो परियोजनाएं लटक गई हैं, अटक गई हैं, भटक गई हैं। जिसकी फाइलें रुक गई हैं। नायडू साहब की जो डिमांड है, वो जब भी दिल्ली आते हैं, झोला लेकर आते हैं और झोला भर के जाते हैं। दरअसल चंद्रबाबू नायडू गले की हड्डी बन चुके हैं इस वक्त पे मौजूदा मोदी सरकार के।एक बात बहुत अच्छे तरीके से समझा देना चाहता हूं कि दरअसल आज की तारीख में केंद्र सरकार की स्थिति यह नहीं है कि वो आंध्रा को लगातार बजट पे बजट देती रहे। नहीं है यह स्थिति।

साथ ही साथ इस बात पर भी गौर फरमाना चाहिए कि बिहार में चुनाव है। बिहार में तमाम परियोजनाओं पर पैसे खर्च हो रहे हैं। बिहार में तो चुनाव है लेकिन आंध्रा में अभी चुनाव है नहीं। और ऐसे में बार-बार जो डिमांड चंद्रबाबू नायडू कर रहे हैं उन्हें पता है कि वो एक बैसाखी हैं। वो एक मजबूरी है और इस वजह से  वो हर बार ब्लैकमेल कर रहे हैं मोदी सरकार को। आज एक बार फिर वही हुआ है। वित्त मंत्री से मुलाकात करी 5000 करोड़ की डिमांड रख दी और यकीन मानिए देश की आर्थिक स्थिति फिल वक्त यह नहीं है कि किसी एक राज्य को सारा पैसा दिया जाए या बार-बार बजट अलॉट किया जाए। ऐसा करते-करते मोदी सरकार खुद भी परेशान हो गई है। खुद भी थक गई है। और जिस दिन ये डिमांड्स नहीं पूरी करेंगे उस दिन मोदी सरकार का क्या होगा? यह मोदी जी को अच्छे से पता है तो उनकी मजबूरियां भी हैं।

 अब नायडू साहब किस तरीके से ब्लैकमेल कर रहे हैं और संघ की तरफ से क्या प्रेशर  आ रहा है और इन सबका मिलाजुला समीकरण क्या बता रहा है कि तख्त के कितने दिन जरा उसको समझिए और  केपी मलिक साहब का एक ट्वीट है। यह ट्वीट केपी मलिक साहब ने कुछ दिनों पहले किया और इस ट्वीट में उन्होंने एक बड़ी खबर ब्रेक कर दी। एक चिट्ठी ब्रेक कर दी। एक ऐसी चिट्ठी जो अभी तक आपके सामने नहीं आई होगी।जो वरिष्ठ प्रचारक हैं जिसने चिट्ठी लिखी है नागपुर को उसका मजमून डाला है और बताया है कि इस चिट्ठी में लिखा गया है:-

 "नियति अपना कार्य करती रहती है किंतु पुरुषार्थ के बिना राष्ट्र का भविष्य उज्जवल नहीं हो सकता इसलिए आज मैं हृदय से कुछ निवेदन कर रहा हूं और इसके साथ ही साथ जो तीसरा पैरा है इस चिट्ठी का वो बेहद खास है। इस चिट्ठी में लिखा गया है आज दुर्भाग्य से दिल्ली स्वार्थ और महिमा मंडल के जयचंदों के कब्जे में प्रतीत होती है। शीर्ष नेतृत्व में वैचारिक शुचिताऔर संघ की सादगी का स्थान चतुराई और आडंबर ने ले लिया है। संगठन और संघ की विचारधारा का उपहास होने लगा है। ऐसे समय में आवश्यकता है संघ के अनुशासन और दंड की। भाजपा का संगठन ऐसे व्यक्ति के हाथों में होना चाहिए जो चरित्रवान हो जिसकी जीवन शैली और व्यक्तित्व संघ की संस्कृति से मेल खाते हो जो छल कपट से दूर रहते हुए व्यवहार कुशलता से नीति और नियम में स्पष्टता रखता हो तथा मां भारती की सेवा के लिए अपने दिन रात को समर्पित कर दे और इसके बाद फिर यहां पर फंसते हैं। 2012 का पाप याद आता है। क्यों फंसते हैं? क्योंकि इस चिट्ठी में लिखा गया है सीधे तौर पर गहन चिंतन मनन के बाद एक ही नाम बार-बार स्मरण में आता है और वो है संघ और भाजपा के लोकप्रिय सिद्धस्थ एवं तपस्वी कार्यकर्ता संजय जोशी का यह केवल मेरा व्यक्तिगत मन नहीं है बल्कि चार दशकों से उनके व्यक्तित्व और कर्तृत्व को निकट से देखने के बाद बनी हुई मेरी गहरी धारणा है। संजय जी का जीवन राष्ट्र सेवा से पूर्णतः समर्पित रहा है। वे पूजनीय बाबू राय राव जी के प्रिय शिष्य रहे हैं। उनके भीतर आत्मबल है।"

यह चिट्ठी ऐसा नहीं है कि रात में सपना आया होगा और किसी ने लिख डाली होगी किसी वरिष्ठ प्रचारक ने ना। बीते कुछ दिनों की स्थितियां ऐसी बन चली हैं कि संघ दो पदों पर अड़ गया। एक तो उपराष्ट्रपति पद उसे चाहिए था। तो फिर सीपी राधाकृष्णन यह खोज कर लाए और सीपी राधाकृष्णन को उपराष्ट्रपति पद का उम्मीदवार बनाया एनडीए का। दूसरी तरफ भारतीय जनता पार्टी के अध्यक्ष का जो चुनाव नहीं हो पा रहा है उसकी सिर्फ और सिर्फ एक वजह है और वो वजह है संघ का अड़ना, संघ का भिड़ना, संघ का भारतीय जनता पार्टी से लगातार लड़ते रहना कि अध्यक्ष तो हमारा होगा, हमारी पसंद का होगा। और यदि संजय भाई जोशी होंगे तो फिर जरा सोचिए तख्त नशी के तख्त पर कितने दिन मोदी जी की जो कुर्सी है वो हर रोज उनसे दूर होती जा रही है। इसके पीछे कारण नायडू भी हैं। कारण बिहार का चुनाव भी है और सबसे बड़ा अगर कोई कारण है तो वह कारण है कि भारतीय जनता पार्टी के लोग खुद ही अंदर खाने बहुत ज्यादा परेशान हो चले हैं। वो संघ की शरण में जा चुके हैं कि भैया कुछ भी करो मुक्ति दिलाओ। 

via Blogger https://ift.tt/gjNcaHZ
August 23, 2025 at 09:45AM
via Blogger https://ift.tt/aET2lfj
August 23, 2025 at 10:13AM

Dynamics within the BJP, the RSS, and opposition leader Chandrababu Naidu

Dynamics within the BJP, the RSS, and opposition leader Chandrababu Naidu

 The Article provides an in-depth political analysis focusing on recent developments involving prominent Indian political figures and institutions, particularly the dynamics within the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), and opposition leader Chandrababu Naidu. The discussion centers on Naidu’s renewed political maneuvering in Delhi, including his public support for CP Radhakrishnan while simultaneously blackmailing the Modi government with demands for ₹5000 crore for Andhra Pradesh’s stalled projects. This financial pressure is portrayed as a significant stress point for the central government, which is already navigating a fragile economic situation and upcoming elections in Bihar.

A senior RSS pracharak’s letter criticizing the current BJP leadership and alleging a departure from ideological purity and discipline is a major highlight. The letter laments that the party leadership has become complacent, driven by self-interest and superficiality, rather than commitment to the RSS’s values. The writer calls for a leader of impeccable character aligned with RSS principles to steer the BJP forward, implicitly endorsing Sanjay Joshi, a long-time RSS stalwart sidelined since 2012. The 2012 incident, when Modi allegedly sidelined Joshi to take charge of Uttar Pradesh election campaigns, resurfaces as a “sin” that haunts the current leadership and fuels internal dissent.

This political narrative is framed against the backdrop of increasing factionalism within the BJP, pressure from the RSS, and strategic calculations ahead of crucial elections. The article also sheds light on the emotional state of key BJP leaders captured in a photograph from a recent parliamentary session, reflecting anxiety and unease amidst allegations of vote rigging and political setbacks.

Highlights

• 🏛️ Chandrababu Naidu publicly supports CP Radhakrishnan but intensifies blackmailing demands on the Modi government for ₹5000 crore.
• 📉 The Modi government faces economic challenges and cannot easily meet demands from Andhra Pradesh amid upcoming Bihar elections.
• 📝 A senior RSS pracharak’s letter sharply criticizes BJP leadership for ideological decline and calls for leadership aligned with RSS values.
• ⚖️ The 2012 sidelining of Sanjay Joshi by Modi is portrayed as a “sin” impacting current BJP internal politics.
• 🔥 RSS exerts strong pressure over BJP’s leadership choices, affecting the party president election and vice-presidential nomination.
• 
  
• Key Insights

• 💰 Naidu’s Blackmail as a Pressure Tactic: Chandrababu Naidu’s demand for ₹5000 crore is not merely financial but a strategic political move to exert pressure on the Modi government. Given Andhra Pradesh’s stalled projects and Naidu’s political leverage, this demand symbolizes a broader negotiation tactic that the central government cannot easily dismiss without risking political fallout in the south. The Modi government’s economic constraints and electoral focus on Bihar mean that Naidu’s blackmailing puts the ruling party in a tight spot, highlighting the complex federal dynamics in Indian politics.

• 🏛️ RSS’s Growing Influence on BJP Leadership: The senior RSS pracharak’s letter reveals the RSS’s increasing intervention in BJP’s internal affairs, particularly its dissatisfaction with the current leadership’s deviation from RSS ideological purity. The demand for a leader embodying RSS’s values, implicitly suggesting Sanjay Joshi, signals that the RSS is actively shaping leadership decisions and party direction. This undermines the autonomy of BJP’s elected leadership and shows the RSS’s pivotal role behind the scenes.

• 🔄 The 2012 Incident as a Lingering Political Wound: Modi’s decision in 2012 to sideline Sanjay Joshi during the crucial Uttar Pradesh elections is framed as a historic mistake (“sin”) that continues to affect BJP’s internal cohesion. Joshi’s sidelining led to long-term factionalism and dissatisfaction within the party ranks, which the RSS now seeks to rectify. This retrospective criticism highlights how past decisions can reverberate years later, influencing current power struggles and leadership contests.

• ⚠️ Internal BJP Factionalism and Leadership Crisis: The BJP appears to be suffering from significant internal factionalism, as evidenced by the delayed appointment of a party president and the need to find a consensus candidate for vice-president. The RSS’s insistence on controlling these appointments reflects an ongoing tussle between elected leaders and the ideological parent body, threatening organizational stability and electoral performance.

• 📉 Political Anxiety Amid Economic and Electoral Pressures: The visible somberness of BJP’s top leaders in the photograph from the recent parliamentary session encapsulates the political anxiety within the ruling party. Allegations of vote rigging, combined with internal dissent and external opposition tactics, have created an environment of uncertainty and vulnerability at the highest levels of government.

• 🗳️ Impact of Upcoming Elections on Political Calculations: The Bihar elections loom large in the central government’s priorities, influencing how funds are allocated and political decisions are made. The government’s reluctance to meet Andhra Pradesh’s financial demands fully is partly due to this electoral focus, showcasing how election cycles drive resource distribution and political bargaining in India.

• This comprehensive analysis reflects the intricate interplay of political strategy, leadership struggles, ideological battles, and economic constraints shaping India’s current political landscape.

via Blogger https://ift.tt/jKDIB4T
August 23, 2025 at 09:59AM

नायडू मोदी सरकार को ब्लैकमेल करने पर उतारू संघ के एक वरिष्ठ प्रचारक लिखी ने चिट्ठी

नायडू मोदी सरकार को ब्लैकमेल करने पर उतारू संघ के एक वरिष्ठ प्रचारक लिखी ने चिट्ठी

 

नायडू दिल्ली पहुंचे और उसके बाद से खबरें तैरने लगी कि नायडू ने सीपी राधाकृष्णन को समर्थन दे दिया है। लेकिन इन सब के दरमियान कहीं से कहीं तक खबर यह नहीं बताई गई कि सीपी राधाकृष्णन को समर्थन तो दिया है लेकिन ब्लैकमेलिंग एक बार फिर शुरू कर दी है। नायडू फिर से मोदी सरकार को ब्लैकमेल करने पर उतारू हो चले हैं। दूसरी खबर। और यह इस वक्त की सबसे बड़ी खबर। संघ के एक वरिष्ठ प्रचारक ने एक चिट्ठी लिखी और उस चिट्ठी में प्रधानमंत्री नरेंद्र मोदी और गृह मंत्री अमित शाह के माथे पर पसीने लाने वाली बातें हैं।

 सवाल यह है कि आज की तारीख में जो तख्त नसी हैं, वह आने वाली कितनी तारीखों तक तख्त पर बैठे रहेंगे? क्योंकि स्थितियां तेजी से बदल रही हैं। हालात तेजी से बदल रहे हैं। और हर गुजरते दिन के साथ कुर्सी हिल रही हैं। कुर्सी के पाएं हिल रहे हैं प्रधानमंत्री नरेंद्र मोदी के। क्या-क्या हुआ है? नायडू साहब की ब्लैकमेलिंग से लेकर संघ द्वारा की जा रही घेराबंदी तक। और बात इसकी भी कि 2012 में जो नरेंद्र मोदी जी ने किया था वो पाप अब भारी पड़ने वाला है। 

प्रधानमंत्री नरेंद्र मोदी  केचेहरे पर एक अलग सी खामोशी, एक अलग सी उदासी, एक अलग सी मायूसी है। इस मायूसी के पीछे का कारण क्या है? कुछ लोग कहते हैं कि सदन में लगते हुए वो नारे वोट चोर गद्दी छोड़। तो कुछ लोग कहते हैं कि तड़ी पार तड़ी पार के नारे। कुछ लोग कहते हैं कि दरअसल यह उदासी यह खामोशी, यह मायूसी इस वजह से है क्योंकि वोट चोरी का भंडाफोड़ हो गया है। लेकिन इससे भी कहीं ज्यादा कुछ अंदर खाने में चल रहा है। सबसे पहले तो जरा 2012 का साल और प्रधानमंत्री नरेंद्र मोदी का एक पुराना पाप आज की तारीख में याद करना

जरूरी है क्योंकि संघ की उस वरिष्ठ प्रचारक ने जो चिट्ठी लिखी है उसमें जो कहा गया है दरअसल 2012 से जाकर जुड़ जाता है। 2012 में एक बड़ा पाप किया था प्रधानमंत्री नरेंद्र मोदी ने। क्या था वो पाप जानते हैं आप? आज की तारीख में मोदी जी को कई बार हो सकता है उस बात पर अफसोस होता होगा। साल था 2012 उत्तर प्रदेश विधानसभा चुनाव और प्रधानमंत्री नरेंद्र मोदी का एक अलग सा क्रेज था। उस वक्त पे प्रधानमंत्री नरेंद्र मोदी को उत्तर प्रदेश में चुनावी रैलियों की जिम्मेदारी दी गई। कहा गया कि आपका समय चाहिए। आपको आना है। उस वक्त वो  गुजरात के मुख्यमंत्री हुआ करते थे। और उन्होंने उस वक्त एक बात कही थी। भारतीय जनता पार्टी के तमाम वरिष्ठ नेताओं से कि जिस प्रदेश का प्रभारी संजय भाई जोशी हो मैं वहां पर चुनावी रैलियों को संबोधित करूं। मैं कदम नहीं रखूंगा। ऐसा नहीं हो सकता। कदापि नहीं हो सकता मैं नहीं आऊंगा।

 संजय भाई जोशी को तात्कालिक तौर पर वहां से हटा दिया गया। नेपथ्य में डाल दिए गए संजय भाई जोशी और फिर 2012 के बाद 2014 का साल आया प्रधानमंत्री नरेंद्र मोदी प्रधानमंत्री की कुर्सी पर विराजमान हो गए वो दिन और आज का दिन संजय भाई जोशी लगातार नेपथ्य में ही रहे हैं।

लेकिन संघ के उस वरिष्ठ प्रचारक ने क्या लिखा उस तरफ चलें उससे पहले एक और बात नायडू ने सीपी राधाकृष्णन को समर्थन देने का ऐलान तो कर दिया है। लेकिन इसके साथ ही साथ एक बार फिर नायडू की ब्लैकमेलिंग शुरू हो गई है। नायडू ने ₹5000 करोड़ मांगे हैं आंध्र प्रदेश के लिए। उन तमाम परियोजनाओं के लिए जो परियोजनाएं लटक गई हैं, अटक गई हैं, भटक गई हैं। जिसकी फाइलें रुक गई हैं। नायडू साहब की जो डिमांड है, वो जब भी दिल्ली आते हैं, झोला लेकर आते हैं और झोला भर के जाते हैं। दरअसल चंद्रबाबू नायडू गले की हड्डी बन चुके हैं इस वक्त पे मौजूदा मोदी सरकार के।एक बात बहुत अच्छे तरीके से समझा देना चाहता हूं कि दरअसल आज की तारीख में केंद्र सरकार की स्थिति यह नहीं है कि वो आंध्रा को लगातार बजट पे बजट देती रहे। नहीं है यह स्थिति।

साथ ही साथ इस बात पर भी गौर फरमाना चाहिए कि बिहार में चुनाव है। बिहार में तमाम परियोजनाओं पर पैसे खर्च हो रहे हैं। बिहार में तो चुनाव है लेकिन आंध्रा में अभी चुनाव है नहीं। और ऐसे में बार-बार जो डिमांड चंद्रबाबू नायडू कर रहे हैं उन्हें पता है कि वो एक बैसाखी हैं। वो एक मजबूरी है और इस वजह से  वो हर बार ब्लैकमेल कर रहे हैं मोदी सरकार को। आज एक बार फिर वही हुआ है। वित्त मंत्री से मुलाकात करी 5000 करोड़ की डिमांड रख दी और यकीन मानिए देश की आर्थिक स्थिति फिल वक्त यह नहीं है कि किसी एक राज्य को सारा पैसा दिया जाए या बार-बार बजट अलॉट किया जाए। ऐसा करते-करते मोदी सरकार खुद भी परेशान हो गई है। खुद भी थक गई है। और जिस दिन ये डिमांड्स नहीं पूरी करेंगे उस दिन मोदी सरकार का क्या होगा? यह मोदी जी को अच्छे से पता है तो उनकी मजबूरियां भी हैं।

 अब नायडू साहब किस तरीके से ब्लैकमेल कर रहे हैं और संघ की तरफ से क्या प्रेशर  आ रहा है और इन सबका मिलाजुला समीकरण क्या बता रहा है कि तख्त के कितने दिन जरा उसको समझिए और  केपी मलिक साहब का एक ट्वीट है। यह ट्वीट केपी मलिक साहब ने कुछ दिनों पहले किया और इस ट्वीट में उन्होंने एक बड़ी खबर ब्रेक कर दी। एक चिट्ठी ब्रेक कर दी। एक ऐसी चिट्ठी जो अभी तक आपके सामने नहीं आई होगी।जो वरिष्ठ प्रचारक हैं जिसने चिट्ठी लिखी है नागपुर को उसका मजमून डाला है और बताया है कि इस चिट्ठी में लिखा गया है:-

 "नियति अपना कार्य करती रहती है किंतु पुरुषार्थ के बिना राष्ट्र का भविष्य उज्जवल नहीं हो सकता इसलिए आज मैं हृदय से कुछ निवेदन कर रहा हूं और इसके साथ ही साथ जो तीसरा पैरा है इस चिट्ठी का वो बेहद खास है। इस चिट्ठी में लिखा गया है आज दुर्भाग्य से दिल्ली स्वार्थ और महिमा मंडल के जयचंदों के कब्जे में प्रतीत होती है। शीर्ष नेतृत्व में वैचारिक शुचिताऔर संघ की सादगी का स्थान चतुराई और आडंबर ने ले लिया है। संगठन और संघ की विचारधारा का उपहास होने लगा है। ऐसे समय में आवश्यकता है संघ के अनुशासन और दंड की। भाजपा का संगठन ऐसे व्यक्ति के हाथों में होना चाहिए जो चरित्रवान हो जिसकी जीवन शैली और व्यक्तित्व संघ की संस्कृति से मेल खाते हो जो छल कपट से दूर रहते हुए व्यवहार कुशलता से नीति और नियम में स्पष्टता रखता हो तथा मां भारती की सेवा के लिए अपने दिन रात को समर्पित कर दे और इसके बाद फिर यहां पर फंसते हैं। 2012 का पाप याद आता है। क्यों फंसते हैं? क्योंकि इस चिट्ठी में लिखा गया है सीधे तौर पर गहन चिंतन मनन के बाद एक ही नाम बार-बार स्मरण में आता है और वो है संघ और भाजपा के लोकप्रिय सिद्धस्थ एवं तपस्वी कार्यकर्ता संजय जोशी का यह केवल मेरा व्यक्तिगत मन नहीं है बल्कि चार दशकों से उनके व्यक्तित्व और कर्तृत्व को निकट से देखने के बाद बनी हुई मेरी गहरी धारणा है। संजय जी का जीवन राष्ट्र सेवा से पूर्णतः समर्पित रहा है। वे पूजनीय बाबू राय राव जी के प्रिय शिष्य रहे हैं। उनके भीतर आत्मबल है।"

यह चिट्ठी ऐसा नहीं है कि रात में सपना आया होगा और किसी ने लिख डाली होगी किसी वरिष्ठ प्रचारक ने ना। बीते कुछ दिनों की स्थितियां ऐसी बन चली हैं कि संघ दो पदों पर अड़ गया। एक तो उपराष्ट्रपति पद उसे चाहिए था। तो फिर सीपी राधाकृष्णन यह खोज कर लाए और सीपी राधाकृष्णन को उपराष्ट्रपति पद का उम्मीदवार बनाया एनडीए का। दूसरी तरफ भारतीय जनता पार्टी के अध्यक्ष का जो चुनाव नहीं हो पा रहा है उसकी सिर्फ और सिर्फ एक वजह है और वो वजह है संघ का अड़ना, संघ का भिड़ना, संघ का भारतीय जनता पार्टी से लगातार लड़ते रहना कि अध्यक्ष तो हमारा होगा, हमारी पसंद का होगा। और यदि संजय भाई जोशी होंगे तो फिर जरा सोचिए तख्त नशी के तख्त पर कितने दिन मोदी जी की जो कुर्सी है वो हर रोज उनसे दूर होती जा रही है। इसके पीछे कारण नायडू भी हैं। कारण बिहार का चुनाव भी है और सबसे बड़ा अगर कोई कारण है तो वह कारण है कि भारतीय जनता पार्टी के लोग खुद ही अंदर खाने बहुत ज्यादा परेशान हो चले हैं। वो संघ की शरण में जा चुके हैं कि भैया कुछ भी करो मुक्ति दिलाओ। 

via Blogger https://ift.tt/gjNcaHZ
August 23, 2025 at 09:45AM

Dynamics within the BJP, the RSS, and opposition leader Chandrababu Naidu

 The Article provides an in-depth political analysis focusing on recent developments involving prominent Indian political figures and institutions, particularly the dynamics within the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), and opposition leader Chandrababu Naidu. The discussion centers on Naidu’s renewed political maneuvering in Delhi, including his public support for CP Radhakrishnan while simultaneously blackmailing the Modi government with demands for ₹5000 crore for Andhra Pradesh’s stalled projects. This financial pressure is portrayed as a significant stress point for the central government, which is already navigating a fragile economic situation and upcoming elections in Bihar.

A senior RSS pracharak’s letter criticizing the current BJP leadership and alleging a departure from ideological purity and discipline is a major highlight. The letter laments that the party leadership has become complacent, driven by self-interest and superficiality, rather than commitment to the RSS’s values. The writer calls for a leader of impeccable character aligned with RSS principles to steer the BJP forward, implicitly endorsing Sanjay Joshi, a long-time RSS stalwart sidelined since 2012. The 2012 incident, when Modi allegedly sidelined Joshi to take charge of Uttar Pradesh election campaigns, resurfaces as a “sin” that haunts the current leadership and fuels internal dissent.

This political narrative is framed against the backdrop of increasing factionalism within the BJP, pressure from the RSS, and strategic calculations ahead of crucial elections. The article also sheds light on the emotional state of key BJP leaders captured in a photograph from a recent parliamentary session, reflecting anxiety and unease amidst allegations of vote rigging and political setbacks.

Highlights

• 🏛️ Chandrababu Naidu publicly supports CP Radhakrishnan but intensifies blackmailing demands on the Modi government for ₹5000 crore.
• 📉 The Modi government faces economic challenges and cannot easily meet demands from Andhra Pradesh amid upcoming Bihar elections.
• 📝 A senior RSS pracharak’s letter sharply criticizes BJP leadership for ideological decline and calls for leadership aligned with RSS values.
• ⚖️ The 2012 sidelining of Sanjay Joshi by Modi is portrayed as a “sin” impacting current BJP internal politics.
• 🔥 RSS exerts strong pressure over BJP’s leadership choices, affecting the party president election and vice-presidential nomination.
• 
  
• Key Insights

• 💰 Naidu’s Blackmail as a Pressure Tactic: Chandrababu Naidu’s demand for ₹5000 crore is not merely financial but a strategic political move to exert pressure on the Modi government. Given Andhra Pradesh’s stalled projects and Naidu’s political leverage, this demand symbolizes a broader negotiation tactic that the central government cannot easily dismiss without risking political fallout in the south. The Modi government’s economic constraints and electoral focus on Bihar mean that Naidu’s blackmailing puts the ruling party in a tight spot, highlighting the complex federal dynamics in Indian politics.

• 🏛️ RSS’s Growing Influence on BJP Leadership: The senior RSS pracharak’s letter reveals the RSS’s increasing intervention in BJP’s internal affairs, particularly its dissatisfaction with the current leadership’s deviation from RSS ideological purity. The demand for a leader embodying RSS’s values, implicitly suggesting Sanjay Joshi, signals that the RSS is actively shaping leadership decisions and party direction. This undermines the autonomy of BJP’s elected leadership and shows the RSS’s pivotal role behind the scenes.

• 🔄 The 2012 Incident as a Lingering Political Wound: Modi’s decision in 2012 to sideline Sanjay Joshi during the crucial Uttar Pradesh elections is framed as a historic mistake (“sin”) that continues to affect BJP’s internal cohesion. Joshi’s sidelining led to long-term factionalism and dissatisfaction within the party ranks, which the RSS now seeks to rectify. This retrospective criticism highlights how past decisions can reverberate years later, influencing current power struggles and leadership contests.

• ⚠️ Internal BJP Factionalism and Leadership Crisis: The BJP appears to be suffering from significant internal factionalism, as evidenced by the delayed appointment of a party president and the need to find a consensus candidate for vice-president. The RSS’s insistence on controlling these appointments reflects an ongoing tussle between elected leaders and the ideological parent body, threatening organizational stability and electoral performance.

• 📉 Political Anxiety Amid Economic and Electoral Pressures: The visible somberness of BJP’s top leaders in the photograph from the recent parliamentary session encapsulates the political anxiety within the ruling party. Allegations of vote rigging, combined with internal dissent and external opposition tactics, have created an environment of uncertainty and vulnerability at the highest levels of government.

• 🗳️ Impact of Upcoming Elections on Political Calculations: The Bihar elections loom large in the central government’s priorities, influencing how funds are allocated and political decisions are made. The government’s reluctance to meet Andhra Pradesh’s financial demands fully is partly due to this electoral focus, showcasing how election cycles drive resource distribution and political bargaining in India.

• This comprehensive analysis reflects the intricate interplay of political strategy, leadership struggles, ideological battles, and economic constraints shaping India’s current political landscape.