logo
Sentimentalism Is Poor Substitute For Good Governance

Sentimentalism Is Poor Substitute For Good Governance

News18a day ago
Last Updated:
Punjab govt will be better advised to—instead of spending time and energy on constitutional, legal minutiae—focus on fiscal prudence, economic policy framework, good governanc
What does our political class do when they fail on all fronts? Well, it takes recourse to religion, hoping that it could be a useful opiate to numb the cognitive and cogitative faculties of people, thus diverting their attention from the real issues. So, the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) government in Punjab, having failed to improve the situation in the state, is trying to bring a piece of legislation to provide for stricter punishments against sacrilege, including the death penalty.
'We will be convening a special session of Vidhan Sabha on July 10 and 11 to bring a historic legislation for stricter punishment against those found guilty of sacrilege. The Centre should have done it. However, the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) government is bringing it in Punjab as it understands the emotions of the people of the state," AAP spokesperson Neel Garg recently said.
The spokesperson, indeed the state government, needs to understand that there are more important things for people than emotions—things like jobs, decent and healthy life, good human and physical environment. On every count, the AAP government in Punjab has failed.
According to the latest report from the Periodic Labour Force Survey (PLFS) for October-December 2024, there was a steep rise in youth unemployment in urban Punjab. The rate in the 15-29 age group soared from 12.2 per cent in the July-September 2024 period to 14.9 per cent in October-December 2024. Female unemployment rates were higher than male.
It is hardly surprising that the lack of opportunities at home fuels the young Punjabis' impulse to seek greener pastures in other countries. Many of them go to countries like the US and Canada by illegal means. When the US deported many Indians in a humiliating condition, Punjab Chief Minister Bhagwant Mann urged the youth to learn lessons from the recent mass deportation of illegal migrants. He beseeched them to work hard in their native state to make it a frontrunner in the country.
That, however, will be predicated upon objective conditions in the state: that is, fiscal policies and a sound policy framework, which are the sine qua non of growth and development. But the state is spending 86 per cent of its new borrowing to repay old loans.
But legacy debt is not the only burden the AAM regime is condemned to bear; it is doing its own bit—more than a bit actually—to augment the burden. It continued its tryst with freebies. Unsurprisingly, the economy continues to underperform, growing at a pace lower than the national average.
Punjab's agriculture, once booming which made the state the breadbasket of the nation, is worse than languishing. Subsidy-oriented and MSP-based farm policies, both of the Centre and the state, have introduced distortions in the farm sectors and made it adopt anti-environment practices like stubble burning and drawing excessive groundwater.
There is scarcely any spark in the industrial sector; the state rarely appears on the manufacturing map of India.
And then there are drugs. Early this month, the Punjab and Haryana High Court highlighted the dangerous ramifications of the use of cocaine, heroin, etc. Justice Sumeet Goel warned that the crisis is no longer confined to personal addiction but has begun to threaten public order, national security, and the rule of law itself. 'It is the considered view of this Court that cases pertaining to the drug menace, especially those involving manufactured drugs, must be dealt with the utmost strictness and resolve," the High Court declared.
This, four months after the Punjab government set a three-month deadline to declare the state free from drugs! Chief Minister Singh Mann called the time of that decision 'a historic moment as the state government has adopted a zero-tolerance policy against drugs and is launching a crusade against this menace."
Only if government decisions and announcements could transform the world into a paradise!
Since the AAP government in Punjab has failed to save the state and its people from various menaces, it has now decided to shield religion and gods.
Sacrilege has long been an emotionally-charged issue in Punjab. There was an incident of sacrilege of the Guru Granth Sahib at Bargari in 2015. This badly hurt the electoral prospects of the Shiromani Akali Dal-BJP government; specifically, it hurt the Akali Dal; the party is yet to fully recover from it. Since then, successive governments have made repeated efforts to introduce laws mandating harsher penalties for sacrilege.
CM Mann has emphasised that while the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) includes specific provisions related to religious places, it does not explicitly address Sikh scriptures. He believes that since this issue falls under the Concurrent List, the state has the jurisdiction to frame its own legislation on the matter.
Mann and his government will be better advised to—instead of spending time and energy on constitutional and legal minutiae—focus on fiscal prudence, a sound economic policy framework, and good governance.
The author is a freelance journalist. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect News18's views.
view comments
Location :
New Delhi, India, India
First Published:
July 09, 2025, 19:30 IST
News opinion Opinion | Sentimentalism Is Poor Substitute For Good Governance
Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Centre tells Karnataka HC 'chilling effect' not an all-in-all solution
Centre tells Karnataka HC 'chilling effect' not an all-in-all solution

Business Standard

timean hour ago

  • Business Standard

Centre tells Karnataka HC 'chilling effect' not an all-in-all solution

The central government on Friday told the Karnataka High Court that claiming a 'chilling effect' on free speech cannot be an all-in-all solution against reasonable restrictions. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued before the court that reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2) of the Constitution on Freedom of Speech and Expression are an 'elastic' concept that must evolve with the ever-expanding scope of Article 19(1)(a) in today's technologically advanced era. The Karnataka High Court is hearing X (formerly Twitter) Corp's plea against the Centre, challenging the unlawful content regulation and arbitrary censorship through the Ministry of Home Affairs' Sahyog Portal. The Centre is now making its submissions before Justice M Nagaprassana after X argued its case. X Corp has argued that Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act does not confer the government with the authority to issue information blocking orders, and that such orders can only be issued after following the procedure under Section 69A of the Act, read with IT Rules. The social media platform has also argued that content take-down orders under Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology (IT) Act have a chilling effect on its users. While Section 69A empowers the government to block access to information, subject to specific procedures and safeguards, Section 79 serves as an exemption provision, providing a 'safe harbour' for intermediaries. Responding to this, SG Mehta said that the chilling effect is not a defence for disseminating content that is 'not in the interest of society' and that X cannot claim a chilling effect on behalf of its users. He quoted a 2020 case of the Supreme Court where a 3-judge bench had observed that the widening of the 'chilling effect doctrine' has always been viewed with judicial scepticism. Talking about the misuse of technology, Mehta submitted that if, hypothetically, an AI video of the judge saying something against the nation were created, it would not fall within the vires of Section 69A but would unquestionably be unlawful, and this is where Section 79 comes in. "Section 69A is not only about taking down, but also a penal provision. Courts have developed that my fundamental rights of doing something may come into conflict with other persons' fundamental rights, so there is always a competition of fundamental rights—Article 14, 19, 21. Therefore, jurisprudence is developed for balancing competing fundamental rights to achieve constitutional goals." Mehta also argued that to curb the menace, such as fake accounts and posts, 'safe harbour' protection to intermediaries cannot be absolute. Take-down directives issued under Section 79(3)(b) are an exception to the exception of safe harbour, he said. "Similar safe harbour provisions and exceptions to exceptions exist in all jurisdictions of the world. This is the only social media intermediary (X Corp) that has a problem and is before the court. X Corp in some other jurisdictions has been fined, censured, etc. I have shown that certain intermediaries are not complying, and every country is grappling. Any deviation from the exception to safe harbour, taking care, due diligence, etc., is viewed seriously now by all you are informed and you do not follow guidelines, then 'safe harbour' will be lost," Mehta said.

'Don't Want Anything Counter-Productive To Happen': Centre To SC On Nimisha Priya Case
'Don't Want Anything Counter-Productive To Happen': Centre To SC On Nimisha Priya Case

News18

time2 hours ago

  • News18

'Don't Want Anything Counter-Productive To Happen': Centre To SC On Nimisha Priya Case

Last Updated: Attorney General R. Venkataramani told the court that "efforts are on" and the govt's aim is to ensure that Nimisha Priya returns home safely The Supreme Court on Friday asked the Centre to take a decision on a request seeking permission to travel to Yemen to help negotiate a pardon for Indian nurse Nimisha Priya, whose execution has been temporarily halted. A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta was hearing a plea filed by the 'Save Nimisha Priya Action Council'. The petition asked the Union Ministry of External Affairs to use diplomatic channels to save the Kerala nurse, who is on death row in Yemen for the alleged murder of her Yemeni business partner in 2017. Appearing for the Centre, Attorney General R. Venkataramani told the court that 'efforts are on" and the government's aim is to ensure that Nimisha Priya returns home safely. 'We don't want anything counter-productive to happen. We want this woman to come out safely," he said. Senior advocate R. Basant, representing the petitioner organisation, said that while the execution scheduled for July 16 has been stayed, further steps are needed. He requested permission for 2–3 members of the council and a representative of a Kerala Islamic cleric to travel to Yemen to negotiate with the victim's family and seek a pardon. 'Yemen is a country where not just anybody can go. There is a travel ban unless the government relaxes it. Let 2-3 members of the petitioner organisation and a representative of Kerala Islamic cleric be permitted to go to Yemen," Basant said. He also urged the government to consider allowing a representative to be involved in discussions about paying 'blood money" — compensation under Islamic law in death penalty cases. The court, however, declined to pass any direction and instead advised the petitioner to formally submit a request to the government for travel permission. The Attorney General said he could not make any commitments about sending an official representative for negotiations at this stage. 'I don't think anything formally can happen at this point of time," he said. The court has posted the matter for further hearing on 14 August. Meanwhile, the brother of the deceased, Abdelfattah Mehdi, has said there can be no pardon in the case, and insists that Nimisha must face execution. The Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) said on Thursday that India has been providing all possible assistance and is in touch with friendly governments for support. 'We have provided legal assistance and also appointed a lawyer to assist the family. We have also arranged regular consular visits for the family, and we are in touch with both local authorities and the family members to resolve this issue," MEA spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal said during a media briefing. (With inputs from agencies) view comments Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.

Reasonable restrictions on freedom of speech are ‘elastic', must evolve: Centre tells Karnataka HC
Reasonable restrictions on freedom of speech are ‘elastic', must evolve: Centre tells Karnataka HC

Scroll.in

time2 hours ago

  • Scroll.in

Reasonable restrictions on freedom of speech are ‘elastic', must evolve: Centre tells Karnataka HC

The reasonable restrictions on freedom of speech and expression under Article 19 (2) of the Constitution are an ' elastic ' concept that must evolve with changing technology, the Centre told the Karnataka High Court on Friday, reported Live Law. The statement came in response to a petition filed by social media platform X, which has challenged the legality of takedown notices issued under Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act, 2000. This provision states that online intermediaries, such as social media platforms, can lose their safe harbour status if they fail to remove or disable access to content that is used to commit an 'unlawful act' despite being told to do so by government authorities. Removing this status would mean that the platforms would be liable for the content in question. The company has argued that the Centre is misusing this section to bypass the requirements of Section 69A of the Information Technology Act to censor online content. Section 69A states that online content can be blocked on grounds such as national sovereignty, security of the state, friendly relations with foreign countries or public order. In contrast, Section 79(3)(b) does not define an 'unlawful act' and does not contain any review mechanism. X has also argued that the takedown orders create a 'chilling effect' on its users, Live Law reported. On Friday, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, told the court that the argument cannot be used as a defence to justify spreading content that is 'not in the interest of society'. Mehta added that X cannot claim the orders had created a 'chilling effect' on behalf of its users. 'Twitter [former name of X] says they offer a platform where others post and express their opinion,' Live Law quoted the solicitor general as saying. 'If they are only a notice board then how is their right to freedom of speech violated.' Fake 'Supreme Court of Karnataka' account Opposing X's petition, Mehta also showed the bench an account with the name 'Supreme Court of Karnataka', Live Law reported. 'Now I can post anything in that and lakhs and lakhs of people who view that and will say that Supreme Court of Karnataka has said this…and I can remain anonymous,' said Mehta. Mehta said that fake accounts and deepfake videos infringe on the right to privacy and the right not to be abused. To curb such threats, the 'safe harbour' protection for intermediaries cannot be absolute, the legal news outlet quoted Mehta as saying.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store