Swami Rambhadracharya receives Jnanpith Award, says struggle and dedication led to this recognition
Live Events
(You can now subscribe to our
(You can now subscribe to our Economic Times WhatsApp channel
Jagadguru Swami Rambhadracharya was conferred the Jnanpith Award in New Delhi on Saturday, becoming the first saint to receive the honour. After the ceremony, he said the award recognises his decades-long contribution to Sanskrit literature.He also linked the achievement to his commitment to Sanatan Dharma and said the idea of a Hindu nation is rooted in Indian tradition.Speaking to ANI, he said,"The bigger the struggle, the bigger the success. I have struggled for a long time, so the success is also big. For the first time, a saint has been awarded the Jnanpith Award..."He said he has written 250 books, including 150 in Sanskrit. "I have written four Sanskrit epics--Bhargava Raghavam, Song Ramayanam, Dashavatara Teertham, and Ramanandacharya Teertham. Kalidasa wrote two epics, which are sometimes counted as one and a half. I wrote a ten-thousand-page book based on 3,015 sutras, including 55,000 of my own verses."Swami Rambhadracharya said he did not seek help or support for the award.On Friday, President Droupadi Murmu conferred the 58th Jnanpith Award on Sanskrit scholar Jagadguru Rambhadracharya during an event held at Vigyan Bhavan in New Delhi.Speaking on the occasion, the President congratulated Jagadguru Rambhadracharya. She also congratulated Gulzar, who could not attend the Award ceremony, for the Jnanpith Award.She wished that Gulzar soon become fully healthy and active and continue to contribute to art, literature, society, and the country.The President said that literature unites and awakens society. From the social awakening of the 19th century to our freedom struggle in the 20th century, poets and writers have played a great role in connecting people, added the release.Speaking about Rambhadracharya, the President said that he has set an inspiring example of excellence. She praised his multi-faceted contributions and said that despite being physically challenged, he has rendered extraordinary service to literature and society with his divine vision.She added that Rambhadracharya has contributed extensively in both the fields of literature and social service. expressed confidence that by taking inspiration from his glorious life, future generations will continue to move ahead on the right path in literary creation, society-building, and nation-building.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
India Today
7 minutes ago
- India Today
Will come back to finish the job: Preity Zinta's emotional note after PBKS IPL loss
Actor Preity Zinta finally broke her silence after her team, PBKS (Punjab Kings XI) faced a massive defeat in the IPL (Indian Premier League) finals against RCB (Royal Challengers Bengaluru). The actor turned IPL franchise owner expressed that this year was unique in its own way and promised to come back to finish the job, which she said was still half that the tournament did not end the way she wanted to, Preity said the journey was spectacular. "It was exciting, entertaining and inspiring (sic)," she a massive shoutout to the team, especially Shreyas Iyer (popularly called Sarpanch sahab by Punjab Kings fans), she said, "I loved the fight & the grit our young team, our shers showed throughout the tournament. I loved the way our captain, our Sarpanch lead from the front & how Indian uncapped players dominated this IPL (sic)." Speaking about the team's journey to the finals, Preity said, "We smashed records even though we lost key players to injury & national duty, witnessed a pause in the tournament, transferred home games to other states & evacuated a stadium ! We adapted & topped the points table after a decade & fought till the end in an exciting final. (sic) "advertisementTake a look at her post here:Promising the fans to come back even stronger next year, the actor said, "I am so proud of each and every player of Punjab Kings for showing so much character throughout the tournament. A big thank you to each of them and to our support staff and everyone at PBKS for an incredible season (sic)."She went on, "Most of all, a heartfelt thank you to our sher squad - our fans that stood with us through thick and thin. Whatever we are and how far we have reached is all because of you. I promise we will come back to finish the job because, as of now, the job is still half done. See you next year in the stadium. Till then, take care and stay safe everyone. Love you all. Ting! (sic)"RCB managed to defeat PBKS by 6 runs in the finale. It was the first time in 18 years that RCB lifted the trophy in a tough match that took place in Ahmedabad earlier this Reel IN THIS STORY#Preity Zinta
Indian Express
9 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Three-year legal practice rule for judicial services could deter the brightest minds
Written by Shailesh Kumar and Raju Kumar There is no doubt that judges ought to be trained in legal procedures, judgment-writing, evaluating evidence and assessing societal situations. This is particularly so in subordinate courts that are the final arbiters in a majority of cases, and which deal with factual questions, raw emotions, and engage mostly members of marginalised communities. The right question, therefore, is not whether aspiring judicial magistrates in India should have such training, but rather whether such knowledge and experience can only come from three years of practice as an advocate. Let's begin by acknowledging two public secrets of the Indian legal profession. First, a law graduate can obtain a certificate of practice without entering a courtroom. Second, it is still, primarily — and regrettably so — an institution run by caste-, class-, and gender-based networks, and not by merit per se. The 14th Law Commission Report (1958) said that subordinate judicial officers would benefit from three to five years' practice at the Bar, but made an exception for the proposed All India Judicial Services (AIJS) for the higher judiciary, where fresh law graduates could be recruited directly by subjecting them to post-selection training. In the All India Judges' Association I case (1992), the Supreme Court directed the central government to set up the AIJS and allowed fresh law graduates to apply for it with post-selection training. And in the All India Judges' Association II case (1993), the Court emphasised that three years of practice as a lawyer was essential for the subordinate judiciary. Soon after, the Justice Shetty Commission (1999) found that the rule had not drawn the 'best candidates': The most successful ones were nearing 30, while top law graduates chose corporate roles or academia instead. Acting on these findings, the Supreme Court in All India Judges' Association III (2002) struck down the rule to make subordinate judicial careers accessible to fresh law graduates. We must mention here that the first five National Law Universities (NLUs) had already been established, with several batches of NLSIU having graduated by then. After more than two decades, the matter resurfaced on May 20, when the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Gavai, reinstated the three-year legal practice requirement — this time citing High Courts' opinions and without the support of any empirical evidence. The assertion that appointing law graduates without Bar experience has failed in the past is largely anecdotal. The Court mainly relies on the opinion of the High Courts, but there are no research findings to back this broad generalisation. Without empirical evidence, such sweeping policy decisions may do more harm than good. Back in 1999, the Shetty Commission had advised against this very requirement. Its reasoning was straightforward: The new five-year integrated BA LLB (Hons) programme already includes practical training components, such as internships, moot courts, and simulations. So, the Supreme Court should have enquired about the demography and institutional background of graduates who entered the subordinate judiciary since 2002, and whether these were the 'best talent' sought, by outlining certain criteria, to assess if the Shetty Commission's objective remained unfulfilled. Reinstituting the three-year Bar requirement not only disregards that recommendation but also ignores how legal education has evolved to bridge the very gaps this rule claims to address. Many top-performing students from NLUs regularly secure roles at leading law firms or express strong interest in public service. Yet they are now told to wait for three years, regardless of their readiness or aptitude. This delay wastes potential and may discourage some of the best minds from pursuing judicial careers altogether. What about the financial reality? A (discretionary) monthly stipend of Rs 2,000 to Rs 20,000 — where a senior advocate might earn Rs 20 lakh for a single hearing in a higher court — is a severe pay gap and is barely enough to get by, especially in tier-1 and tier-2 cities. For many students — particularly those from SC/ST/OBC communities, economically weaker sections, rural areas, women, or those with caregiving responsibilities — this rule effectively shuts the door on a judicial career before it can begin. After five to six years of education, it unintentionally pushes them into other fields where they can earn a living straight after graduation. The rule favours those who can afford to wait — in other words, the elite class. India already faces a chronic shortage of judges, especially at the district level. By restricting who can apply, this rule reduces the eligible talent pool even further. Fewer recruits mean higher caseloads for sitting judges, longer delays for litigants, and declining public trust in the system's ability to deliver timely justice. Under this new rule, aspiring judges must wait three years, possibly juggling low-paying work or uncertain prospects in the meantime. The alternative should be to invest in what happens after selection, or during the course degree itself. Legal education should incorporate daily courtroom exposure in the final year — similar to the clinical internships followed in medical colleges — as an integral part of the curriculum. In the past, there was a two-part training structure: One part involved real-world learning under experienced judges, while the other focused on classroom-based judicial instruction. This method was not perfect, but it worked — and with some updates, it could serve the purpose well again. Rather than holding people back, the system should focus on preparing them thoroughly once they are in. Let us not assume that the 'best' law students come only from (expensive) NLUs; perhaps the most trained ones do, because of the structural benefits NLU students have in India's several-tier legal education system. Moreover, the learning process for a judge should not end once they take an oath. Like other professionals, judges need to stay updated. One way to do this is by requiring newly appointed judges to undergo structured training — perhaps approximately 200 hours — within their first year and a half on the bench. The goal is to make continuing education a normal part of the job, not a one-time event. The Supreme Court must also examine the quality of training the High Courts provide for probationary magistrates. Research findings from one of the authors, albeit in a specific context, suggest that judicial training has mostly been poor, and there has been resistance — particularly from district judges — to undergo training. This is a serious policy issue with severe implications for the future. Considering that the problems outlined exist, is this the right medicine? The Supreme Court ought to have relied on solid evidence rather than opinions, even if they came from the High Courts. Shailesh Kumar is a Lecturer in Law at Royal Holloway, University of London and a Commonwealth Scholar. Raju Kumar is a legal consultant at Prohibition & Excise Department, Govt of Bihar, and a graduate from Chanakya National Law University, Patna
Time of India
10 minutes ago
- Time of India
Abhishek Singh's historical drama receives praise at special screening in Kolkata
Abhishek Singh , a former IAS officer, is rapidly emerging as one of the most promising new talents in Indian cinema . His debut film, the powerful historical drama 1946: Direct Action Day , is eagerly awaited by audiences. The film was screened at the Cannes Film Festival, where it received an enthusiastic response from international viewers. Adding to its growing acclaim, a special screening was recently held in Kolkata, attended by several prominent political dignitaries, including Suvendu Adhikari (Hon'ble Leader of the Opposition, West Bengal Legislative Assembly). The event was hosted by Dr. Indranil Khan (State President, BJYM West Bengal), along with Shakti Singh (State In-charge, BJYM West Bengal). The film presents a haunting and powerful retelling of the Bengal riots—an often overlooked yet pivotal episode that foreshadowed the Partition of India. With evocative visuals and compelling storytelling, it goes beyond historical reconstruction to explore urgent themes of identity, communal strife, and collective memory.
