Criticising Babri Masjid demolition is not ‘anti national’, says Bombay HC

Scroll.inIndependentCenter5 hr. ago

The Bombay High Court ruled that expressing the opinion that the Babri Masjid in Ayodhya should not have been demolished does not constitute 'anti-national' behavior. The court quashed externment orders against two members of the Social Democratic Party of India, who were banned from entering Mumbai for a year. The court emphasized that citizens have the right to hold differing views and criticized the selective application of such measures against individuals based on their religious affiliation. The case involved protests linked to the Waqf Amendment Bill, air pollution concerns, and the Babri Masjid demolition. The court pointed out that the state failed to provide evidence supporting claims that the petitioners' actions would cause societal unrest, and stressed that externment is an extreme measure requiring strict adherence to legal standards.

Bias read (Center): The article presents a balanced judicial perspective, focusing on the legal arguments and constitutional principles rather than taking a partisan stance. While the issue of the Babri Masjid demolition is highly politicized, the court's ruling emphasizes legal reasoning and due process, avoiding a sl

The WireIndependentCenter2 days ago

The article discusses the controversy surrounding the use of certain offensive words—represented here as B*, C*, M*, and F*—in Indian society. It explores how these terms, often used in casual conversation, have become a point of contention, particularly among sections of the population who find them derogatory. The piece highlights the sensitivity around language and its impact on social harmony, especially in a diverse country like India. It also touches upon the broader debate about freedom of speech versus respect for cultural and religious sentiments. The article does not take a clear stance but presents the issue as a growing concern within public discourse.

Bias read (Center): The article frames the discussion neutrally, presenting both the concerns of those offended by the language and the counterargument about free speech. There is no overtly biased language, and the article avoids taking a side, focusing instead on the societal debate itself.