
A rare blend of legal wisdom and Sanatana Dharma
Representingthe Center for Brahmin Excellence (CBE) along with four other members (Harkara Srinivasa Rao, Cheruvu Rambabu, Sesha RSR Prasada Kondapalli, and Vijay Oddiraju), I had the privilege of spending an enriching 45 minutes on July 27, over a thoughtful interaction, with the distinguished legal luminary and former Supreme Court judge, Justice V Ramasubramanian.
The Chairperson of the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) exemplifies the ideal blend of intellect, integrity and public service.
Justice Ramasubramanian's humility, sincerity, and measured wisdom left a deep impression on us. As we entered his hotel room, he initiated the conversation, by warmly acknowledging my blog post (Why not the next vice-president be a Brahmin), which insightfully addressed the question of Vice-Presidential candidacy for the Brahmin community in the ensuing election.
The NHRC team while in Hyderabad, conducted a two-day (July 28 and 29) open hearing at Dr MCR HRD Institute, to address cases of human rights violations in Telangana.
Justice Ramasubramanian not only shared a couple of heart touching personal anecdotes that included as to how he stood at the financial crossroads immediately after his retirement, but also narrated how he had witnessed the divine miracles of God. He reflected on how he made a conscious decision to live within his own means after retirement.
The result of his leaning on faith eventually culminated in his elevation as NHRC Chairperson. He credited this particularly phase to divine grace. All these reflected his deep commitment to self-reliance and simplicity, grounded in the values of dharma.
Reflecting on the larger forces at play in human life, he spoke of the power of punya (virtue) accumulated by the ancestors. The virtuous deeds of forebears, he explained, can manifest as blessings to the future generations, bringing strength to the mind, body, and fortune.
Justice Ramasubramanian also shared briefly significant parts of his speech at the felicitation function of spiritual teacher Samavedam Shanmukha Sharma, with rare frankness about spiritual matters that weigh heavily on sincere seekers of truth.
He explicitly expressed his concern on many of his contemporaries, who had gradually drifted away from the path of dharma-an individual's moral responsibilities or duties. 'The pursuit of material survival had eclipsed the pursuit of spiritual truth. In their preoccupation with worldly obligations and economic anxieties, many had consciously or unconsciously abandoned their dharmic duties and inner disciplines.
It was not just a matter of individual choices but a collective forgetting, a civilizational forgetfulness creeping in, even among those who once stood close to the fire of wisdom', he opined.
According to Justice Ramasubramanian, it is time to take stock of how the cultural transmission chain has weakened. For instance, he cited that, in the pursuit of modern life, practices such as daily prayers or frequent visits to temples have slipped away. He called for a quiet but determined revival of such traditions, so that that the subsequent generations could rediscover spiritual identity. He made a genuine appeal to every Hindu household that children must be introduced to dharma early and intimately.
Every parent, he said, should ensure that their children should be guided in simple daily prayers by making them stand before the image of God at home, reciting at least one shloka, and be taken to temples regularly, not as a ritual formality, but as a formative spiritual experience. Such seemingly small acts 'shape the soul and anchor one's life in the eternal values of Indian tradition'.
With intellectual precision and spiritual depth, he brought in the example of Sadguru Jaggi Vasudev, referencing him not as a celebrity Guru but as a contemporary voice speaking to the timeless wisdom of the vedas. In yet another spiritual narrative that transitioned seamlessly to a subject visibly close to his heart, and also that blended theology with environmental consciousness,
He revealed the birth and mission of Adi Shankaracharya, and said that 'Lord Shiva himself incarnated as Adi Shankaracharya' to restore cosmic balance. He noted that during the cessation of Vedic Rituals such as Homas by some, ecological and spiritual disequilibrium emerged. With the advent of Shankara's divine mission, this was realigned. Depicting it as divine mystery, he presented an evidence-based elucidation that it was a cosmic essentiality.
Justice Ramasubramanian differed with unfair tendencies of rationalism, where sacred symbols are stripped of meaning and turned into academic curiosities, without substantiating aptly. He affirmed that, precisely in such times of decline and distortion, the divine intervenes through Avatars or Incarnations. The birth of Adi Shankaracharya, was one such divine intervention. He further elaborated how God Agni together with Lord Shiva incarnated as Adi Shankara, to revive the flameof Sanatana Dharma when it was flickering dangerously low. He said that sacred intervention, preserved, rearticulated, and re-anchored the eternal path in the consciousness of Bharata. In one of the most compelling parts of his talk, he traced the symbolic and metaphysical cycle of divinities, Agni, Varuna, Indra, Soma, Vayu and Surya, who in the Vedic pantheon are part of a larger network of vedic Gods representing various aspects of the cosmos and human existence. Ignoring their significance, by dismissing the Vedas, amounts to intellectual arrogance and spiritual blindness, he cautioned.
We, the five CBE members, presented the vision, goals, and ongoing initiatives of the organization, right from its conceiving, launching, civil services advocacy program, proactive role in several ways etc. Justice Ramasubramanian appreciated the effort and acknowledged the significant decline in Brahmin representation, particularly of south Indian Brahmins, in national policy and administrative roles. He acclaimed CBE efforts that seek to reverse this trend.
In this framework, it may not be out of context if the subject the ensuing Vice-President election is discussed. After ten years in office under Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan (a beacon of philosophical insight), two years under VV Giri, three years under R Venkataraman and five years under Shankar Dayal Sharma, the last Brahmin to hold the post, strangely not a single Brahmin was ever considered for this august office in the last 33 years!
The reasons may be political, apolitical, or shaped by evolving democratic factors. While democracy rightly celebrates diversity, the legacy of Brahmin leadership merits serious reflection. Selection of a Brahmin for the V-P post carries subtle, yet profound, advantages in India's pluralistic democracy. It can restore long-overdue balance and reaffirm the country's commitment to diversity in leadership and inclusive constitutional values.
Despite representing dispersed and non-dominant community, Brahmins have contributed significantly in education, constitution, law, spiritual, civil services, and science, among others but the number is on the decline.
The multifaceted Justice V Ramasubramanian stands as an exemplary Vice-President candidate. He brings to public life a rare combination of legal wisdom and Sanatana Dharma. The interaction was a momentous occasion for me as I could present my Telugu book 'Sajiva Vahini sanatana Dharmam' to Justice Ramasubramanian.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


NDTV
10 minutes ago
- NDTV
"Plea Not Worth Entertaining": Supreme Court Setback For Judge In Cash Row
The Supreme Court has knocked back Justice Yashwant Varma 's challenge of an in-house committee that recommended his impeachment over burnt piles of money found at his Delhi home in March. The recommendation - delivered by then-Chief Justice Sanjiv Kumar - has legal sanction and is constitutionally valid, as was the three-judge committee, the court said Thursday morning, ruling Justice Varma's petition "not worth entertaining" and reproaching him for his not "confidence-inspiring" conduct. This clears the way for the impeachment process initiated last month. Justice Varma - who could become the first High Court judge in independent India to be removed from office - will now be investigated by Parliament under Articles 124, 217, and 218 of the Constitution. In his writ petition Justice Varma, listed as 'XXX' in the records, had offered the two-judge bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and AG Masih five reasons why he could not be sacked. These included questions over the jurisdiction and authority of the in-house committee to investigate a sitting judge. Justice Varma argued the committee ignored questions he had raised, and that could speak to his innocence, and denied him a fair hearing. He also argued that neither the Chief Justice of India nor the Supreme Court had 'power of superintendence', i.e., they cannot take disciplinary action against High Court judges, because their tenure is protected by the Constitution. He also argued his colleagues' recommendation "usurps parliamentary authority... it empowers the judiciary to recommend removal of Judges from constitutionally-held office". Justice Yashwant Varma Impeachment The impeachment process began July 21, i.e,. on the first day of the current Parliament session. Over 145 MPs - from the opposition and the government's ranks - submitted a notice to Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla calling for an investigation into Justice Varma and the cash-at-home row. What Is Impeachment? It is a constitutional mechanism to remove a sitting judge - specifically those from the Supreme Court or a state High Court - from his/her office. Once appointed, judges cannot be removed from office without an order from the President, who, in turn, requires consent from Parliament. NDTV Explains | How Do You Remove A Sitting Judge? Impeachment Explained The Constitution does not actually refer to the word 'impeachment', but the procedure to remove judges is outlined in the Judges Inquiry Act of 1968 and mentioned in two constitutional provisions - Article 124 (for Supreme Court judges) and Article 218 (for those from High Courts). How Is Impeachment Done? An impeachment motion can be introduced in either House of Parliament. At least 50 Rajya Sabha MPs must sign the motion - which is a record of the intention to impeach - for it to proceed further. In the Lok Sabha that number is 100. Once that threshold is reached, the Chair of the former or the Speaker of the latter, depending on which House admits the motion, will review the available materials.


Hindustan Times
10 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
SC junks Justice Varma's plea against in-house inquiry, CJI's recommendation
The Supreme Court on Thursday dismissed the petition filed by Justice Yashwant Varma challenging the legality and findings of an in-house judicial inquiry that affirmed 'strong inferential evidence' of his involvement in the discovery of sacks of charred currency at his official residence in Delhi this year. Justice Yashwant Varma. (PTI) Delivering the judgment, a bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and AG Masih affirmed the legality and constitutional validity of the inquiry mechanism, holding that it did not violate fundamental rights or constitutional provisions. 'With these observations, we have dismissed the petition,' Justice Datta said in court. The ruling came days after the court had reserved its verdict, having heard extensive arguments from senior advocates Kapil Sibal and Mukul Rohatgi for Justice Varma. In its ruling, the apex court framed six legal and constitutional questions and answered all against Justice Varma. While noting that his conduct 'did not inspire confidence,' the bench said, even as it proceeded to examine the matter due to the important legal issues raised. The court held that the in-house inquiry mechanism has legal backing and has been consistently upheld in earlier Supreme Court judgments. It also rejected Justice Varma's contention that such inquiries create a parallel mechanism outside Articles 124 and 217 of the Constitution, which lay down the procedure for the removal of judges. The bench ruled that the process followed did not infringe on Justice Varma's constitutional or fundamental rights. Except for the release of a video showing the charred cash, which the court noted did not impact the outcome, the then Chief Justice of India (CJI), Sanjiv Khanna, and the committee 'scrupulously' followed the laid-down procedure. The court rejected the argument that the CJI's May 8 recommendation to the President and the Prime Minister for Justice Varma's removal was unconstitutional or made without affording him a hearing. 'The in-house procedure does not contemplate a hearing before the CJI or the collegium,' the bench said. The court also dismissed a related plea filed by advocate Mathews Nedumpara seeking registration of an FIR into the matter, saying he had placed incorrect facts before the court. Earlier, while reserving its verdict on July 30, the court defended the role of the CJI in safeguarding institutional integrity, saying the top judge of the country is 'not a mere post office' but a constitutional functionary empowered to take proactive measures. It rejected Justice Varma's contention that the in-house committee's recommendation for removal overstepped its constitutional mandate. 'The recommendation for removal has to go. It is more than persuasive. When the CJI recommends removal, it virtually amounts to a death knell for a judge,' Sibal argued. But the court had then said the ultimate decision rests with Parliament, which is not bound by the CJI's recommendation. The bench, during the July 30 hearing, also pointed out that the Judges' Protection Act allows for non-punitive steps to be taken by judicial authorities in the interest of the institution, adding that the term 'otherwise' in the law gave the court and the CJI a broad mandate to preserve judicial integrity. Justice Varma, a former judge of the Delhi high court, came under scrutiny in March this year after sacks of charred currency were recovered from his official residence following a fire. He was stripped of judicial work and repatriated to his parent high court at Allahabad soon after. The CJI initiated an in-house inquiry, which concluded with a finding of 'strong inferential evidence' linking Varma to the incident. The May 3 report was forwarded by then CJI Khanna to the President and Prime Minister, triggering Varma's legal challenge. While Justice Varma's legal team argued that principles of natural justice were violated, including denial of cross-examination and personal hearing before the CJI, the court maintained that the in-house mechanism is limited in scope and not a full-fledged trial, with the final decision on removal resting with Parliament. The judgment now clears the way for potential parliamentary proceedings, which began with 145 Lok Sabha MPs and 63 Rajya Sabha MPs submitting notices in Parliament for his removal on July 21, the opening day of the monsoon session. Earlier, the three-member in-house panel, comprising then high court chief justices Sheel Nagu, GS Sandhawalia, and Justice Anu Sivaraman, concluded its findings on May 3. Though it found no direct evidence linking Justice Varma to the charred currency, the report stated that his conduct 'belied the trust' reposed in a constitutional judge and warranted impeachment proceedings. Varma has denied all wrongdoing, terming the case a conspiracy, and in a letter to CJI Khanna on May 6, rejected the latter's suggestion to resign or opt for voluntary retirement.


Time of India
17 minutes ago
- Time of India
WBJEE 2025 results deferred yet again following Calcutta HC contempt order
The declaration of the West Bengal Joint Entrance Examination (WBJEE) 2025 results has once again hit a legal roadblock, with the Calcutta High Court ordering an immediate halt to the release of the results just hours before the scheduled announcement. This latest judicial intervention has sent shockwaves across the academic community, particularly among thousands of engineering and pharmacy aspirants waiting in anticipation for their ranks. WBJEE 2025: Court bars result release pending review Justice Kausik Chanda of the Calcutta High Court, in a sharply worded order, initiated suo motu contempt proceedings against the WBJEE Board on Wednesday. The decision came after candidates alleged that the board had violated the court's May 21 directive, linked to ongoing concerns about admission irregularities and merit list preparation. As a consequence, the High Court has stayed the declaration of WBJEE 2025 results, as well as all subsequent counselling and admission processes, until a division bench delivers a verdict on the board's appeal. WBJEE 2025 results: From Supreme Court relief to high court setback The order comes just weeks after the Supreme Court of India had stayed an earlier High Court judgment that barred the WBJEEB from using the state's revised OBC list for this year's counselling. That Supreme Court ruling had cleared the way for the results to be declared, and WBJEEB had confirmed that the results would go live on August 7, 2025. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Learn More - How Donating Sperm May Boost Your Income SpellRock Undo However, Wednesday's dramatic turn has rendered that plan null and void. Aspirants left adrift amid legal tug-of-war Students and parents are once again caught in a state of confusion and anxiety, as the uncertainty surrounding the WBJEE result intensifies. The board had already released provisional answer keys and completed evaluation—meaning the results were ready for publication before the court order halted the process. The delay in admissions now threatens to clash with other national-level counselling schedules, including JoSAA and private university intakes, complicating matters further for candidates aiming at multiple options. Next steps: Awaiting division bench decision With the High Court making it explicitly clear that no further steps may be taken by the board, the focus now shifts to the division bench hearing, which will determine the immediate fate of the WBJEE 2025 admission cycle. Until then, the West Bengal 2025 results remain frozen, and over one lakh candidates are left in an academic limbo—awaiting justice and clarity in a season already burdened by institutional delays and judicial overhang. Ready to navigate global policies? Secure your overseas future. Get expert guidance now!