Last week, Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar launched an explosive attack on the Supreme Court over an order setting deadline for President to decide on bills. He said said India was never meant to have a democracy where judges function as lawmakers, the executive, and even as a "super Parliament". Just days later, BJP MP Nishikant Dubey criticised the Supreme Court and said that if it wants to make laws, then there is no need for Parliament in the country. Is there an attempt to intimidate judiciary? Experts weigh in
Category
🗞
NewsTranscript
00:00Good evening, hello and welcome. You're with the news today, your prime time destination.
00:04News, newsmakers, talking points, the big talking point, the Trump Vance Jodi.
00:09Good for India or not? What really are the big talking points as Vance meets Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi?
00:19Also, the executive versus judiciary debate will be joined by a senior judge and one of the senior advocates.
00:29As we look at an issue that's becoming increasingly troublesome, let's first take a look at the nine headlines at nine.
00:38U.S. Vice President David Vance meets Prime Minister Modi, the first one-on-one meeting on trade and other issues.
00:45Prime Minister hosts a dinner for the U.S. Vice President visiting Delhi with his family.
00:52Rahul Gandhi in the United States says the election commission has compromised something very wrong with the system.
00:59The BJP targets Rahul Gandhi, accuses him of defaming India on foreign soil.
01:07The next Chief Justice, Justice Gawai, observes in court that the Supreme Court is being accused of encroaching into executive.
01:15His comments come against the backdrop of remarks by Vice President Dhankar on judicial overreach.
01:20BJP MP Nishikran Dube is at it again, now targets XCC.
01:28Qureshi over Waqq Act criticism says Qureshi was a Muslim commissioner.
01:33Qureshi hits back, says judge me by work, not religion.
01:37BJP distances itself from Dube's remark.
01:40Wife of a former Karnataka top cop confesses to murder, murder weapon recovered.
01:48India today accesses wife's WhatsApp chat.
01:50She allegedly killed her husband.
01:54After speculation in Maharashtra over a tie-up between Uddav Thakre and Raj,
01:58Sharad Pawar and Ajit Pawar share a stage for third time in two weeks,
02:03sparking speculation of another family reunion on the Karns.
02:09Flash floods leave a trail of destruction in Jammu and Kashmir's Ramban.
02:14Cripple normal life, rescue operations still underway, connectivity hit by debris on highways.
02:19China warns against trade deals with United States at its expense,
02:25vows countermeasures, China slams the tariff escalation,
02:30says U.S. bargaining with a tiger for its kin.
02:36Pope Francis is dead a day after Easter at 88 years after a prolonged illness.
02:42Head of Worldwide Catholic Church No More was seen as the pro-poor pope.
02:49Prime Minister Narendra Modi and the U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance
03:05have welcomed progress in trade talks.
03:09The two leaders have exchanged their views on regional and global issues.
03:13India and the U.S. have called for dialogue and diplomacy as the way forward.
03:17Prime Minister Modi has said that he looks forward to a Trump visit later this year to India.
03:23This is the first formal visit between J.D. Vance and the Indian Prime Minister.
03:27Mr. Vance is on a three-day personal visit to India,
03:30where he is also expected to be at a wedding in Jaipur.
03:34Let's first get the very latest from our diplomatic affairs editor, Geeta Mohan.
03:39Geeta, largely this visit presumably is ceremonial.
03:45Vance doesn't come with a large delegation to deal with specific issues.
03:49Is this simply about building chemistry between the Modi government
03:53and the new Trump-Vance administration in Washington
03:56as a build-up to what happened when the Prime Minister visited White House a few months ago?
04:01Well, it certainly is, Rajdeep.
04:04This is the second-highest level visit from the United States of America.
04:09But yes, this is not one where delegation-level talks could lead to outcomes
04:14that could lead to announcements.
04:16That certainly will happen when the leadership meets again,
04:19which is Prime Minister Modi and President Trump.
04:22Meanwhile, both sides are working on a bilateral trade agreement,
04:26and that is the focus over here.
04:28For Vice President Vance, this is more of a private visit than an official one.
04:33But yes, the fact that the two sides reviewed progress.
04:37J.D. Vance did not come alone, Rajdeep.
04:39He's come with a delegation from Pentadine and State Department
04:43because they did know that there is going to be a delegation
04:46that will talk between the two sides.
04:48On the Indian side, he had National Security Advisor,
04:51our Indian Ambassador to the United States of America,
04:53Venebh Patra, Foreign Secretary,
04:56with the Ministry of External Affairs Minister, Dr. Jai Shankar.
04:59All of them were there.
05:00And so he came with officials, too,
05:02to ensure that there is proper conversation on specific areas
05:06when they're reviewing bilateral ties.
05:08What's important over here is Prime Minister Narek Ramadi's message
05:12to Vice President J.D. Vance
05:14when he conveyed his greetings to President Donald Trump
05:17and said he looks forward to meeting the U.S. president later this year.
05:21So, in all probability, what we are expecting is
05:25Trump attending the fourth summit that India is to host this year.
05:31Okay.
05:31Geeta Mohan joining us with those details.
05:33Of course, as Geeta said,
05:35this is more of a personal visit that J.D. Vance is having.
05:38You can see him there.
05:39His children very much the attention of most Instagrammers
05:44and, to some extent, in those photographs of Prime Minister Modi as well.
05:49Now, why is J.D. Vance important?
05:52In many ways, the Vice President of the United States is firmly number two.
05:57Donald Trump's presidency is such that he seems to overshadow all else.
06:02But J.D. Vance does matter.
06:04He is the one who often becomes the face of some of the tough decisions
06:08that the Donald Trump government is taking.
06:11He often talks tough to foreign governments,
06:14whether it's been in Europe
06:16or whether it's been to the Ukrainian President Zelensky.
06:20And that often has caused discomfort to counterparts.
06:24This visit to India is also important
06:27because it comes in the middle of trade talks
06:29that are at an advanced stage.
06:31The key question, of course, is
06:33does India trust the Trump-Vance brand of diplomacy?
06:38Take a look.
06:44In the four months in office,
06:46U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance
06:49has practiced a new brand of aggressive diplomacy.
06:54The world saw it first when Vance attended the Munich Security Conference
06:59where he minced no words.
07:01A few months ago, the Scottish government began distributing letters to citizens.
07:05Vance, as many would describe,
07:08lectured Europe on democracy and security.
07:11Within their own homes,
07:13what has seemed a little bit less clear to me,
07:16and certainly I think to many of the citizens of Europe,
07:19is what exactly it is that you're defending yourselves for.
07:23What is the positive vision
07:25that animates this shared security compact
07:28that we all believe is so important?
07:30Vance again hit headlines
07:34when he pulled up Ukrainian President
07:36Vladimir Zelensky at the White House
07:38in the presence of President Trump.
07:41The summit ended without any talks
07:44and Zelensky was asked to leave the White House.
07:47Mr. President, with respect,
07:49I think it's disrespectful for you to come into the Oval Office
07:51and try to litigate this in front of the American media.
07:53Right now, you guys are going around
07:55and forcing conscripts to the front lines
07:58because you have manpower problems.
08:00You should be thanking the President.
08:03Vance's India tour, in comparison,
08:05is a low-key affair
08:06with both countries already
08:08in an advanced stage of trade talks.
08:11The U.S. Vice President is on a personal visit to India
08:16with minimum official engagement.
08:19He is accompanied by wife,
08:20Usha Vance,
08:22sons, Ivan and Vivek,
08:24and daughter, Meera Baird.
08:25The visit sets the stage for future talks,
08:30especially in the strategic sphere.
08:33Bureau Report, India Today.
08:37So is the Trump Vance Jodi good for India?
08:40Can India trust Trump and Vance to deliver?
08:44Is Trump's diplomacy driven
08:46or the Trump Vance brand of diplomacy
08:48driven by optics more than substance?
08:51Joined by two special guests,
08:52Vivek Khaju,
08:53former Secretary of Ministry of External Affairs
08:55and another senior diplomat,
08:57Casey Singh joining us.
08:58I appreciate both of you joining us.
09:00I wanted to share,
09:01get you to share your wisdom
09:02on how India should look at
09:04this entire Trump Vance brand of diplomacy.
09:07Why don't you go first, Mr. Khaju?
09:10How do you see the manner
09:12in which Trump and Vance do their diplomacy?
09:15Is it much more about personal chemistry?
09:18Look, there is no jodi.
09:20There never has been a jodi
09:22between a president
09:23and the vice president
09:24in the United States.
09:26The vice president does jobs
09:29that the president entrusts him
09:31or involves himself
09:33in areas that the president allows him.
09:36So let's be clear
09:37that it's a Trump administration.
09:41Vance does Trump's bidding.
09:43That has always been so
09:45in the United States.
09:48Second,
09:49Vance is,
09:51does Trump's,
09:53if I may use the word occasionally,
09:56his dirty work
09:58in the sense that
09:59if there's an aggressive message,
10:01Trump leaves it to Vance to deliver it
10:04and Vance does it
10:05with great happiness
10:07because Vance appeals
10:08appeals to the same constituency
10:10and wants to build
10:12the same constituency
10:13as Trump does.
10:15Now, third,
10:16as far as this visit is concerned,
10:18you have correctly characterized it
10:21as a personal visit.
10:23And normally,
10:24when such personal visits take place,
10:26and I'm sure
10:26my senior colleague Casey
10:28will bear me out,
10:30you do have
10:31an add-on
10:33with a meeting
10:35between the prime minister
10:37and the visiting dignitary,
10:41if he is an important
10:42visiting dignitary,
10:43such as the vice president
10:45of the United States
10:46necessarily is.
10:48There is the added element
10:51of the fact
10:52that there is
10:52his good lady
10:54who happens to be
10:56of Indian origin.
10:58So I found it curious
11:00when the official statement
11:02or official announcement
11:03of the Ministry of External Affairs
11:05said that this was
11:06an official visit.
11:08There was certain official
11:09official ceremonial
11:12that was done,
11:13but it is not an official visit.
11:15You are absolutely right
11:16in saying it's a personal visit.
11:17My last point,
11:19I do not expect
11:20that this visit
11:21would in any way
11:23contribute
11:24to the tough negotiations
11:26that are going on
11:28between India
11:29and the United States
11:31on tariffs.
11:32If anything,
11:34Vance will deliver
11:35a message
11:36that India
11:38should abide
11:39by what
11:40the president
11:42of the United States
11:43wants.
11:43Okay, let me bring in
11:46Casey Singh
11:46and to take
11:47your last point forward
11:49that Mr. Kadju
11:50just made Mr. Singh
11:51that America
11:52is going to be tough
11:53on trade negotiations
11:54and the next six months
11:55of the Indo-U.S.
11:58relationship
11:59will be determined
12:00by how successful
12:01those trade negotiations
12:03are.
12:04Forget all the optics,
12:05it's nice to
12:05pull the cheeks
12:07of the children
12:08of Mr. Vance.
12:10at the end of the day
12:11your success
12:12or failure
12:13is not going to be
12:14judged by these optics
12:15but by how successful
12:16you are
12:17in culminating
12:18a trade deal.
12:19Is that fair to
12:20is that a fair statement
12:21to make?
12:23That's absolutely correct
12:24and it's not six months
12:25actually it's 90 days
12:26and I think about 15 days
12:27are already over.
12:29So you just have about
12:30a little over two months
12:31left
12:31in which
12:32by then
12:33Trump will again
12:34revisit that
12:35whether he wants
12:36to extend
12:36the duties further
12:38or he wants
12:39to then pick
12:40on some people.
12:41It is correct
12:42as Ambassador Gartu said
12:43totally correct
12:44that Vice Presidents
12:45generally are not
12:46given too much leeway.
12:48Sometimes they are.
12:49Bush Senior
12:50was given a lot of leeway
12:51by Reagan
12:52but mostly
12:53they are in the
12:54shadow of the President
12:55and in case of Trump
12:57that even more so.
12:59You were showing
13:00the footage
13:01of the meeting
13:02with Zelensky
13:03in White House.
13:04The distinct impression
13:06was that actually
13:07Vance jumped in
13:08and exacerbated it.
13:10It was almost
13:10Was that deliberate?
13:11You see
13:11the belief is that
13:13that was also deliberate
13:14that Vance was used
13:15to in a way
13:16corner Zelensky.
13:17I don't know
13:17whether he was used
13:18or he wanted
13:19at that stage
13:20he had not got
13:21much attention
13:21and he knew
13:23that this is the direction
13:24in which Trump
13:25is going.
13:25If you see
13:26Trump is also
13:26a bit surprised.
13:28Otherwise
13:28till then
13:28Trump was
13:29talking in
13:30largely normal way
13:32for about 15 minutes
13:33with Zelensky
13:34but this
13:34exacerbated it.
13:35and started
13:36the whole thing.
13:37So he is very smart
13:39he jumps in
13:40and he is trying
13:41to be useful
13:42to Trump
13:42and we shouldn't
13:43assume that
13:44everything he does
13:45he does
13:45because Trump
13:46has asked him.
13:47Also we will know
13:48what he says
13:49because look
13:50he has not spoken
13:51in Delhi
13:51there is no public
13:52lecture in Delhi
13:52the only public
13:54lecture he gives
13:54is in Jaipur
13:55at the international
13:56center
13:57we will see
13:57what he says.
13:58That may have
13:59some official
14:00message
14:01which he conveys
14:02which he might
14:03have conveyed
14:03personally
14:05to the prime
14:06minister
14:06when he was
14:06talking to them
14:07but essentially
14:08I think India
14:09is also using
14:09him as a messenger
14:10boy
14:11and sending
14:12good vibes
14:13good optics
14:14back to Trump
14:15for whatever
14:15it is worth
14:16but essentially
14:17it's going to be
14:18a tough negotiation
14:19with all the 60
14:20odd countries
14:21and I think
14:22we are not going
14:23to be an exception
14:23so let's see
14:25where that goes
14:25but do those
14:27optics
14:27Vivek Karju
14:28make a difference
14:29do optics
14:30make a difference
14:31when you are
14:32in the midst
14:32of these
14:32tough trade
14:33negotiations
14:34the fact
14:34that India
14:35is among
14:35the few
14:36countries
14:36with which
14:37the Trump
14:38vans
14:39leadership
14:40at least
14:41at the moment
14:41seems to have
14:42developed a decent
14:43chemistry
14:43does that make
14:44a difference
14:44in my experience
14:47no
14:47interests
14:48do
14:48personal
14:50chemistry
14:50plays a very
14:51minor role
14:52and certainly
14:53with Trump
14:53it doesn't
14:54you had Trump
14:55sitting
14:56with the prime
14:58minister
14:59when he said
15:00that India
15:01is a tariff
15:02king
15:02over to that
15:03effect
15:03and while
15:04the prime
15:05minister
15:05was there
15:06he did not
15:07in February
15:08in the United
15:09States
15:10he did not
15:10hesitate
15:11in imposing
15:12his tariffs
15:13so I think
15:14I have always
15:16had deep
15:17suspicion
15:17about the
15:18utility
15:19of this
15:20term
15:20personal
15:21chemistry
15:21yes
15:22in certain
15:23cases
15:23it smoothens
15:24the path
15:26but when
15:27crucial
15:28interests
15:28are involved
15:29its impact
15:31quite frankly
15:33is zilch
15:33and we can
15:34see it
15:35from our
15:35own experience
15:36during the
15:37Modi term
15:38first term
15:39and second
15:40term
15:40in fact
15:42one of those
15:43images of course
15:44was when
15:44prime minister
15:45Modi for example
15:45was with the
15:46Chinese president
15:47on a jhula
15:48or a swing
15:49in Ahmedabad
15:50and then
15:50relation
15:50unfortunately
15:52went the
15:53wrong way
15:53a few
15:53years later
15:54though
15:54Casey
15:55Singh
15:55therefore
15:55should we
15:56move
15:56very
15:57cautiously
15:58with this
15:59particular
15:59administration
16:00in Washington
16:01at the
16:02moment
16:02not get
16:02carried away
16:03by any
16:04sweet talking
16:04that might
16:05happen
16:05behind closed
16:06doors
16:06absolutely
16:07because we
16:08don't even
16:08know what
16:09is Trump's
16:09endgame
16:10there was a
16:10Japanese trade
16:11delegation
16:11which was in
16:12Washington
16:12and after
16:13three four days
16:14they've come
16:14back because
16:15the interlocutors
16:16told them
16:16we don't
16:17know what
16:18is the
16:18endgame
16:18we don't
16:19know what
16:19to tell
16:19you and
16:20what to
16:20settle on
16:21because the
16:22tariffs which
16:23have been
16:24imposed are
16:24very arbitrarily
16:25imposed
16:26they have
16:27nothing to do
16:27with actual
16:28trade complexities
16:29of trade
16:30and so on
16:30so forth
16:30and saying
16:31for instance
16:32gems and
16:33jewellery are
16:33the largest
16:33component of
16:35exports
16:35but America
16:36doesn't export
16:37any large
16:38export of
16:38gems and
16:38jewellery
16:39so how do
16:39you impose
16:40duties on
16:40that
16:41but Trump
16:41doesn't
16:41understand
16:42that
16:42Trump
16:43says it
16:43has to be
16:44a blanket
16:44thing and
16:45therefore it
16:46is going to
16:46be very
16:46difficult to
16:47negotiate a
16:48trade deal
16:49because trade
16:50deals are
16:50based on
16:51matching
16:51interests
16:52balancing
16:53interests
16:53seeing okay
16:54you accommodate
16:55me here
16:55I'll accommodate
16:56you there
16:56so far Trump
16:58has not shown
16:58any propensity
17:00to go into
17:00details or to
17:02show this kind
17:02of flexibility
17:03although his
17:04growing popularity
17:05at home
17:06that may
17:07and one good
17:07thing is
17:08that is the
17:09only positive
17:09signal which
17:10has come out
17:10that he has
17:11not sided with
17:13Israel to
17:13attack Iran
17:14because there
17:15was a division
17:16amongst the
17:17advisors for
17:17the first
17:18time we
17:18saw that
17:19the advisors
17:20around Trump
17:21had two
17:21different approaches
17:22and therefore
17:23he stepped
17:24back which
17:24means as
17:25his popularity
17:26drops he
17:27may be
17:27becoming more
17:28pragmatic
17:29more willing
17:30to listen to
17:30people around
17:31them and
17:31that's where
17:32probably J.D.
17:33Vance can
17:33play some
17:34role but we
17:35don't know
17:35what his
17:35real thinking
17:36is
17:36okay let me
17:37leave it
17:38there I
17:39appreciate both
17:39of you joining
17:40us and giving
17:41us a sense as
17:41senior diplomats
17:42of how one
17:43should tread
17:44with this
17:45Trump Vance
17:45administration
17:46Vivek Karju
17:47Casey Singh
17:48thank you very
17:48much for
17:49joining me
17:49here on the
17:50news today I
17:51want to move
17:51on to our
17:52big story
17:53back home it
17:54is now becoming
17:55every day some
17:56kind of a
17:57face-off between
17:58the highest
17:58judiciary and
17:59the executive
18:00of the country
18:01today the
18:02next chief
18:03justice of
18:04India
18:04justice
18:05B.R.
18:05Gavai in
18:06the court
18:07reacted to
18:08the recent
18:08attacks on
18:09the judiciary
18:09by members
18:11of parliament
18:11and even
18:11the vice
18:12president
18:12without naming
18:13them he
18:14spoke of the
18:15allegations of
18:15judicial overreach
18:16this comes amidst
18:18the political war
18:19that has broken
18:19out after a
18:20BJP MP
18:21Nishikan Dubey
18:22accused the
18:23apex court of
18:24inciting religious
18:25wars in the
18:26country the
18:26BJP may have
18:27distanced itself
18:28from Dubey's
18:29statement but the
18:30damage has been
18:31done many are
18:32demanding contempt
18:33proceedings against
18:35Dubey take a
18:36look at this
18:37special report and
18:38then we'll come to
18:39our face-off
18:40the judiciary in
18:52the firing line
18:53BJP MP Nishikan
18:56Dubey in an
18:57unprecedented attack
18:58on the supreme
18:59court held it
19:00responsible for
19:01communal tension
19:02the MP even named
19:28the chief justice
19:28of India
19:29BJP president J.P.
19:39Nada in a post
19:40on X distanced his
19:42party from the
19:43MP statement but
19:45other party leaders
19:46came out in
19:47Dubey's support
19:48The opposition accused the
20:04ruling party of
20:05targeting the judiciary
20:07The BJP rejected the
20:23Congress charge and
20:24shared a video of
20:25Indira Gandhi reminding
20:26the granule party of
20:28its past
20:28How does Mr. Shah know
20:31what is happening in the
20:32political world?
20:33What are the forces at
20:34work which want to
20:36destroy a developing
20:37economy?
20:38Is a judge competent to
20:39decide that?
20:40Then why have democracy?
20:41Why have elections?
20:44Earlier the Supreme
20:45Court had faced
20:46criticism by Vice
20:47President Jagdeep
20:48Dhankar over its
20:49verdict setting three
20:50month time frame for
20:52the president to decide
20:53on bills passed by the
20:54state assemblies
20:55There is a directive
20:58to the president?
21:01By a recent judgment?
21:07Where are we heading?
21:11What is happening in
21:12the country?
21:14The issue figured in
21:15the Supreme Court on
21:16Monday when lawyer
21:17Vishnu Shankar Jain
21:18mentioned his petition
21:20for using article 355
21:22in West Bengal
21:23Justice B.R. Gawai
21:27reacted saying
21:28you want us to
21:28issue writ of
21:29mandamus to the
21:30president to impose
21:31this?
21:33As it is
21:33we are facing
21:34allegations of
21:35encroaching into
21:36executive
21:37Meanwhile some
21:39lawyers have written
21:40to the attorney
21:41general seeking
21:42permission to file
21:43contempt of court
21:44petitions against
21:45BJP MP Nishikand
21:47Dubey
21:47Bureau Report
21:50India Today
21:51My first guest is
21:55Mahesh Jaitmalani
21:56Senior Advocate
21:57Supreme Court
21:58someone who was
21:59closely associated
22:00with the BJP
22:01and has been a
22:02nominated MP in
22:03Parliament as well
22:04appreciate you
22:05joining us Mr. Jaitmalani
22:07where do you stand
22:09on the question
22:09that is now
22:10increasingly being
22:11raised that
22:12members of the BJP
22:13in some form or
22:15the other are
22:15making a concerted
22:17attempt to
22:17intimidate the
22:18judiciary as seen
22:20by the statements
22:21of their senior
22:21MP Nishikand
22:22Dubey and that
22:23the government is
22:24even using
22:25constitutional
22:25authorities like
22:26Vice President
22:27Jagdeep Dhankar
22:28as part of this
22:29attempt to
22:30intimidate the
22:31higher judiciary
22:31when it is
22:32dealing with
22:33several important
22:34cases and
22:34therefore this
22:35amounts to
22:36contempt of
22:38the judiciary
22:38you know Rajdeep
22:43first of all I
22:44think anybody
22:45who you know
22:46attempts to
22:47intimidate the
22:48judiciary is
22:49indulging in a
22:50completely
22:51misconceived
22:52exercise
22:53doom for
22:54failure because
22:55I don't think
22:56that the
22:56judiciary gets
22:57intimidated I
22:58mean you know
22:59there was a
23:00time perhaps
23:00when you know
23:02things were much
23:02more autocratic in
23:03this country and
23:04I'm talking
23:04particularly about
23:05the emergency
23:06period when
23:07judges were
23:08there was a
23:09slight there
23:09was you know
23:10those two years
23:11where yes judges
23:12were really
23:13intimidated there
23:14was a fear
23:14psychosis created
23:15in the country but
23:16I don't think
23:16either before that
23:17you know I mean
23:18I've been in
23:19practice now for
23:19well nine 42
23:20years and even
23:23then before that
23:24you know I used
23:24to accompany my
23:25father in many
23:27of his celebrated
23:28constitutional cases
23:30where he was
23:31fighting for
23:31freedom and I
23:32never thought the
23:33judiciary was
23:34ever intimidated
23:34except for that
23:35brief period
23:35so I think
23:36this is a
23:37misconceived
23:37notion right
23:38if anybody
23:39has tried to
23:39intimidate the
23:40judiciary is
23:41not likely to
23:42succeed
23:42you know
23:44Mr. Jaitmelani
23:45the fact is
23:46that a BJP
23:47MP like
23:48Nishikan Dubey
23:50stirs a
23:50controversy
23:51alleges that
23:52the Chief
23:52Justice of
23:53India Sanjeev
23:54Khanna is
23:54responsible for
23:55all civil wars
23:56in the country
23:57then goes a
23:57step further
23:58accuses the
23:59Supreme Court
23:59of inciting
24:00religious wars
24:01surely that
24:02when that is
24:03done and when
24:03you have a BJP
24:04MP and a
24:05former Deputy
24:05Chief Minister
24:06of UP
24:06Dinesh Sharma
24:07also joining
24:07in the BJP
24:08social media
24:09army joining
24:10in to
24:10criticize the
24:11Supreme Court
24:12I mean is
24:12there a is
24:13this not an
24:14attempt in
24:14some way to
24:15put pressure on
24:16the Supreme
24:16Court to draw
24:17some kind of
24:17a line
24:18no but why
24:21say intimidation
24:23I mean why
24:23do you
24:24attribute a
24:25motive to
24:26intimidate
24:26maybe a
24:27motive out
24:27of frustration
24:28they may
24:29not have
24:29they may
24:30not be
24:30happy with
24:31for instance
24:32that
24:32Wachs board
24:33case etc
24:34and I'm
24:35not I'm not
24:36I'm not
24:36suggesting they
24:37were justified
24:37if that was
24:38indeed their
24:39motive as
24:40opposed to
24:40intimidation
24:41that it was
24:42a venting of
24:42frustration
24:43because of
24:44a you know
24:45temporary
24:46status quo
24:47order etc
24:48Mr. Jettmelani
24:49I was
24:50you are
24:50saying
24:50venting
24:51frustration
24:51but that is
24:53a very
24:53dangerous
24:53thing
24:54if a
24:54member of
24:55parliament
24:55starts
24:56venting
24:56frustration
24:57in a
24:57manner
24:57making
24:58these
24:58kind of
24:58absurd
24:59claims
25:00against
25:01the
25:01Chief
25:01Justice
25:01and
25:02Supreme
25:02Court
25:02I mean
25:03this would
25:04eventually
25:04head to
25:05a very
25:05serious
25:05constitutional
25:06crisis
25:07if all
25:07of this
25:07is allowed
25:08to
25:08continue
25:09in the
25:09public
25:09domain
25:10surely
25:10sir
25:10well
25:12you know
25:13there I
25:13disagree
25:14with you
25:14I think
25:14if the
25:15motive was
25:16intimidation
25:16it would
25:17be worse
25:17but if
25:18it was
25:18venting
25:18of
25:18frustration
25:19you know
25:19that's
25:19okay
25:20they're
25:20venting
25:21frustration
25:21I mean
25:22they're
25:22disappointed
25:23and
25:24it doesn't
25:25behove
25:26it doesn't
25:26behove
25:26certainly
25:27you know
25:28lawyers
25:29for instance
25:29to
25:30vent their
25:30frustration
25:31in that
25:31manner
25:32but a
25:32layman
25:33might do
25:33that
25:33this happens
25:34so often
25:34a member
25:35of parliament
25:35should also
25:36not do
25:37it
25:37and therefore
25:37you know
25:38since he
25:39was a
25:39member of
25:39parliament
25:40the party
25:40president
25:40has
25:41distanced
25:43himself
25:43from it
25:43and said
25:44his views
25:45are not
25:45our views
25:45it's his
25:46personal view
25:46no no
25:47you're saying
25:48party president
25:49has distanced
25:50himself from
25:50Dubey's remarks
25:51but somewhere
25:52isn't this part
25:53I come back to it
25:54of a concerted
25:55effort
25:55you don't like
25:56the word
25:56intimidate
25:57but to then
25:57bulldoze the
25:58judiciary
25:58I'm not using
25:59the word
25:59intimidate
26:00bulldoze the
26:01judiciary
26:02into falling
26:02in line
26:03on contentious
26:04cases like
26:04the work
26:05board case
26:05for example
26:06Rajdeep
26:11you are
26:12trying
26:12semantic
26:13jugglery
26:14with a
26:14lawyer
26:14you are
26:15now
26:15replacing
26:16the word
26:16intimidation
26:17with
26:18bulldozing
26:18which
26:19you know
26:19to my
26:20mind
26:21is roughly
26:22a synonym
26:23so
26:24but well
26:24okay
26:24I still
26:26don't see
26:27that this
26:27is actually
26:28an attempt
26:29to bulldoze
26:29because I
26:30don't believe
26:30that
26:31anybody
26:32any reasonable
26:33man
26:33with a
26:34modicum
26:34of intelligence
26:35in this
26:35country
26:36would believe
26:36that the
26:37judiciary
26:37which is
26:38a
26:38you know
26:39which has
26:40a lot of
26:40support in
26:41this country
26:41and also
26:42which
26:43you know
26:44is a very
26:44powerful
26:45brethren in
26:46itself
26:46right
26:46can be
26:47intimidated
26:48but you
26:49agree
26:49Mr.
26:50Jaitmalani
26:50that the
26:51kind of
26:51statements
26:51that a
26:52Nishikan
26:52Dubey
26:53has made
26:53are avoidable
26:54and hence
26:54surely should
26:55be censured
26:56you agree
26:56with that
26:57or not
26:57yes
27:00yes
27:01yes
27:02yes
27:02yes
27:02yes
27:03that these
27:04and that
27:04and that
27:05Mr.
27:06Nanda's
27:07the president's
27:08censure
27:09was justified
27:10yes
27:11but some
27:12would say
27:12Mr.
27:13Nanda needed
27:13to do much
27:14more
27:14you need to
27:15do maybe a
27:15show cause
27:16notice
27:16you need to
27:17do much
27:17more than
27:17just simply
27:18say that
27:18you know
27:19these are
27:19his private
27:20remarks
27:20well this
27:23is much
27:23more than
27:24a censure
27:24it's a
27:25clear
27:26enunciation
27:26that this
27:27is not
27:27the party's
27:28view
27:28what more
27:29can you
27:29do
27:30you know
27:31Mr.
27:33Jaitmalani
27:33the problem
27:34is all
27:34of this
27:35is coming
27:35against the
27:36backdrop
27:36of Vice
27:36President
27:37Dhankar
27:37also then
27:38going ahead
27:38and saying
27:39that the
27:39judiciary
27:39the Supreme
27:40Court
27:40is acting
27:41as a
27:41super
27:41parliament
27:42saying that
27:42the Supreme
27:43Court
27:43is using
27:44the powers
27:44it has
27:45under article
27:46142
27:47almost like
27:47a nuclear
27:48missile
27:49against
27:49democratic
27:50process
27:50is the
27:51Vice
27:51President
27:52here also
27:52not
27:53overstepping
27:54his
27:54position
27:55in the
27:55manner in
27:56which he
27:56is going
27:56ahead and
27:57targeting
27:57the
27:58judiciary
27:58well I
28:02mean you
28:02can disagree
28:03with his
28:03choice of
28:03words and
28:04I do
28:04disagree
28:05that 142
28:06was being
28:07used as a
28:07nuclear
28:07missile
28:08I mean
28:08that may
28:10be a little
28:10too strong
28:11a little
28:11too
28:11intemperate
28:12but you
28:13know I
28:14think what
28:15he was
28:15probably
28:16standing
28:16taking up
28:17Kajal's
28:17for was
28:19the case
28:19in hand
28:20mainly
28:20where you
28:21know the
28:21court to
28:23judge
28:23bench
28:24had passed
28:25the judgment
28:26circumscribing
28:29and keeping
28:31a time limit
28:31in particular
28:32on disposal
28:33of bills
28:34by
28:35assent to
28:36bills
28:36by the
28:37governor
28:37and particularly
28:38the president
28:38and you
28:39know this
28:40is the
28:40vice president
28:41speaking right
28:42so he
28:42could be
28:43zealous
28:43about his
28:44jurisdiction
28:44or at
28:45least you
28:46know his
28:47jurisdiction in
28:47times where
28:48he may be
28:48the acting
28:48president
28:49and certainly
28:51speaking for
28:52the president
28:53herself in
28:54this case
28:55that maybe
28:56maybe a
28:56time limit
28:57imposed
28:58and that too
28:59by a two
29:00judge bench
29:00when it
29:01ought to have
29:01been done
29:01by a five
29:02judge bench
29:02was not
29:03in the interest
29:04of propriety
29:05that's one
29:06and secondly
29:07also I think
29:07that it may
29:09be a little
29:09bit of
29:10out of also
29:12a little bit
29:12of peak
29:13that it was
29:13done in a
29:14matter in which
29:15one really
29:16did not
29:16need to go
29:17into the
29:17president's
29:18powers at
29:19all because
29:19that case
29:20was finally
29:20disposed of
29:21by saying
29:22that the
29:22actions of
29:23the governor
29:23were wrong
29:24and that
29:25therefore
29:25the all
29:26the his
29:27decisions in
29:27respect of
29:28all ten
29:28bills were
29:29wrong and
29:30therefore the
29:30question of
29:31him forwarding
29:32bills for the
29:33consideration of
29:33the president
29:34after it had
29:35been a second
29:36time reaffirmed
29:38by the assembly
29:38was totally
29:40misconceived
29:40but but you
29:42know Mr.
29:43Jait Malani
29:43the fact is
29:44in all the
29:44cases where
29:45we are seeing
29:46the whiff of
29:46a judiciary
29:47executive
29:48confrontation
29:49for example
29:50the case
29:50you cited
29:51the governor
29:51of Tamil Nadu
29:53is not
29:53fulfilling his
29:54constitutional
29:54duties by
29:56not giving
29:57assent to
29:57bills passed
29:58by the
29:59legislature
29:59in such
30:00cases where
30:01governors are
30:02seen to
30:02virtually act
30:03as agents
30:04of the
30:04center against
30:05opposition
30:05ruled states
30:06do you agree
30:07that the
30:07supreme court
30:08is duty
30:08bound to
30:09remind the
30:09governors of
30:10not acting
30:10in bad
30:11faith
30:11if the
30:12judiciary
30:12doesn't
30:13act
30:13then who
30:13will
30:14no I
30:16agree I
30:16agree but
30:17perhaps perhaps
30:18perhaps given
30:19the I mean
30:19this is alternative
30:20I'm not I'm
30:21again not saying
30:22that the
30:23decision was
30:24unjustified or
30:25whatever except
30:26for the fact that
30:27it should have
30:27been left to a
30:28larger bench
30:29right but
30:30I'm not saying
30:31it was totally
30:32unjustified the
30:32judgment actually
30:33reads quite well
30:34and you are
30:35right that
30:35it is necessary
30:37for bills to
30:37be passed
30:38expeditiously
30:38I'm not I'm
30:40not differing
30:41even on that
30:41point of view
30:42but but
30:43perhaps perhaps
30:45if if they
30:46had at the
30:46first instance
30:47right given
30:48the fact that
30:49there are
30:49clearly that
30:50the law
30:51making function
30:52right belongs
30:54to the
30:55legislature
30:55right and
30:57the judges
30:58only apply
30:59the law
30:59apply the
31:00law and
31:01they don't
31:01and they
31:02don't create
31:02it right
31:03now when
31:03you put a
31:04time limit
31:04which is not
31:05put there in
31:05the Constitution
31:06you are
31:06reading something
31:07which is not
31:07in the
31:08expressed words
31:09of the
31:09Constitution
31:10it may
31:10make for
31:12an interpretation
31:13that makes
31:15the entire
31:15passing of
31:16bills procedure
31:17more efficacious
31:18right
31:19I concede that
31:20but essentially
31:21the function
31:22belongs to the
31:22legislature
31:23and perhaps
31:24they could have
31:25in the first
31:26instance
31:26right
31:27said that the
31:28legislature
31:29should take
31:29cognizance of this
31:30and pass
31:31appropriate
31:32time limits
31:34if the
31:34legislature
31:34wants
31:35right
31:35whether it's
31:36three months
31:37or six months
31:37but for them
31:38for the judiciary
31:40to put a
31:40specific period
31:41you know
31:43and there may
31:44be other
31:44considerations
31:44which may
31:45suggest that
31:46that period
31:46is not
31:47appropriate
31:47it is best
31:48left to the
31:49legislature
31:49to decide it
31:50let me then
31:51ask you in
31:52conclusion
31:52are you not
31:53worried as
31:54someone who's
31:54been as you
31:55said in the
31:55profession for
31:56decades now
31:57that increasingly
31:58members of
31:59parliament
31:59MLAs
32:00and even worse
32:01constitutional
32:02functionalities
32:03like the
32:03vice president
32:04believe it
32:04is open
32:05season to
32:05target the
32:06judiciary
32:06because the
32:08sense is the
32:08judiciary is the
32:09one body that
32:10can control some
32:11form of executive
32:12over each at the
32:13moment and the
32:14executive doesn't
32:15want that to
32:15happen and
32:16therefore they are
32:16targeting the
32:17judiciary in this
32:18manner
32:18no I you know
32:22I just think that
32:24for a long time
32:25the the the
32:27the present
32:28government for
32:29instance has
32:30conceded a lot of
32:30space it has you
32:31know from the
32:33from the
32:33lawyer case which
32:34was an exercise
32:35in total
32:36misconceived
32:37PIL which the
32:38judiciary itself
32:39said till to
32:40the Rafael case
32:41to the Adani
32:41case all of
32:42which have been
32:42rejected right by
32:43the Supreme Court
32:44itself I think the
32:46government has shown
32:46extreme tolerance and
32:47you know they have
32:49they have to
32:50contested all these
32:50cases right and
32:52all of them have
32:53been dismissed and
32:53found to be without
32:54any reason so
32:55it seems that the
32:57it seems Mr.
32:58Jait Malani the
32:59government shows
33:00extreme tolerance
33:01when the judiciary
33:02supports a decision
33:03taken by the
33:04Modi government
33:05and when the
33:07decision goes
33:07against the
33:08government then
33:09there is an open
33:10season and the
33:11judiciary is
33:12criticized it is
33:13accused even of
33:13inciting a civil war
33:15isn't this a classic
33:16example of intolerance
33:17being shown by the
33:18government
33:19but perhaps you
33:22are perhaps Rajdeep
33:23you are extrapolating
33:24a little bit too
33:24much because this
33:25is one MP right
33:27one MP who has
33:29made a couple of
33:30statements that is
33:31Nishikan Dube right
33:32and it has been
33:34made very clear that
33:35the party doesn't
33:36support it and
33:36certainly the
33:38government doesn't
33:38he doesn't represent
33:39the government he's
33:40not a member of the
33:41government he's a
33:42member of the
33:42legislature right but
33:44does okay does the
33:45BJP in your view
33:47support the idea of a
33:48fully independent
33:49judiciary or not
33:50is the BJP in
33:51support of the
33:52idea of an
33:53independent judiciary
33:54I'm now going by
33:55example yes it
33:57does because the
33:58BJP has by its
34:00conduct repeatedly
34:02respected the
34:03decisions of the
34:04judiciary it is
34:05members of the
34:06opposition who
34:08castigate the
34:09judiciary when they
34:10lose cases which
34:11they think they
34:12ought to win I'll
34:13give you many
34:14examples it is the
34:15it is the it is the
34:17opposition right
34:18which constantly
34:20when they lose
34:20battles in court
34:21tarp and undermine
34:23the judiciary okay I'm
34:25going to leave it
34:26there my jet manani
34:27you're feisty as ever
34:28you've given us what
34:29you believe is your
34:30response to this
34:31judiciary versus
34:32executive face of
34:34appreciate you joining
34:35me let me now get the
34:37judicial angle the
34:38judiciary's angle here
34:39justice Sanjeeb
34:40Banerjee is one of
34:41India's distinguished
34:41jurists former chief
34:42justice of the high
34:43courts of Madras and
34:45Meghalaya joins us
34:46justice Banerjee you
34:48might have heard my
34:49jet milani they're
34:50making a defense in a
34:51way of of his tribe
34:53of politicians suggesting
34:55it they are venting
34:56their frustration they
34:57are not intimidating the
34:59judiciary the Modi
34:59government believes in an
35:01independent judiciary your
35:02response
35:03well we've nothing we've
35:07seen nothing overt to
35:09think otherwise the
35:10government ought to and
35:12appears to believe in an
35:13independent judiciary but
35:15there may be some loose
35:16canons here and there and
35:17you know one should not
35:19take everything that is
35:20said literally or attach
35:22too much seriousness to
35:24it
35:24in public offices judges
35:27are also open to
35:28criticism individuals are
35:30entitled to their opinions
35:32and one should respect
35:33them for it as it is
35:34but I want an honest
35:36answer does this what
35:38Nishikan Dube said
35:39according to you amount
35:40to contempt or not
35:42a direct attack on the
35:44chief justice accusing
35:45him of inciting a civil
35:46war and then suggesting
35:48that the supreme court is
35:49promoting religious wars
35:51across the country while
35:52the court is hearing
35:53sensitive cases is this
35:55not contempt
35:56technically it may be
35:58but such scandalous
36:00allegations are better
36:02left without being
36:06given any any kind of
36:07dignity one should not
36:09take up this matter and
36:11make an issue out of it
36:12because that is exactly
36:13what probably the
36:15government wants how do
36:17you know you're saying
36:19that Nishikan Dube could
36:20well be a loose cannon but
36:22what about when the vice
36:25president of the country who
36:27himself has been a lawyer
36:28says supreme court judges
36:29have no accountability that
36:31they are acting as a super
36:32parliament that they are
36:34using article 142 as a
36:36nuclear missile this is the
36:37vice president of the
36:38country should that not be a
36:40cause of concern
36:40it ought to be to begin with
36:44the office of the vice
36:46president has to be
36:47respected secondly and in
36:49all fairness the matter as
36:52to the president giving
36:54assent or the time that ought to
36:56be taken by the president
36:57may not have been directly
36:59an issue in the matter
37:01pertaining to the Tamil Nadu
37:03governor withholding his
37:05consent or assent that should
37:07have been left at that between
37:09the governor and the state and
37:11not taken beyond to the
37:12president probably probably in
37:14due course it will be taken to
37:16be an orbiter rather than a
37:19binding kind of president but of
37:21course even an orbiter of the
37:22supreme court is is very
37:25important and significant and
37:27the vice president as a lawyer
37:28was venting an opinion which he
37:30is entitled to but you see the
37:33worry is that all these venting
37:35of opinions will eventually lead
37:37to some kind of a face-off sooner
37:39or later between the judiciary and
37:41executive is this is that isn't
37:44that a cause of worry and concern i
37:46mean if i'm sitting in the judge's
37:47chair i'm always going to now look
37:49over my shoulder to see what is the
37:51executive or the vice president
37:52going to say next i don't think
37:54any any any worthy judge does that
37:57or cares for what is said as long
37:58as he does his job properly
38:00secondly and more importantly a
38:03slight friction between the
38:04judiciary and the executive or the
38:06legislative is good for democracy
38:08it's always been when president
38:13roosevelt uh and the new day deal
38:17you know ran into the supreme court
38:20ruling against it he said he wanted
38:22to pack the u.s supreme court with
38:24yes sayers and get rid of the
38:26naysayers so it's it's all over the
38:29world it's not you know look at it as
38:30an isolated incident in india or in
38:33indian politics or politicize it but
38:36at the same time i i think that you
38:39know uh some recent judgments or
38:42sayings by worthy judges have
38:46probably given an impression that
38:48the backbone that is necessary may not
38:51always be there some judgments of
38:53recent times have shown the same kind
38:55of uh uh character let me say yeah but
38:59but as we've seen with the two judge
39:01bench uh uh verdict on governors putting
39:05certain limits on their constitution role
39:07and responsibilities that seems to have
39:09at least given hope that the judiciary
39:10is out there to stop constitutional
39:14functionaries from acting in bad faith
39:17and that should be respected by the
39:19executive instead of targeting the
39:21judiciary would you agree with that
39:22i would agree but again if the
39:25executive or the legislature feels
39:27otherwise then they would bring about
39:29an appropriate law that might negate the
39:31judgment and that they are perfectly
39:34within the rights to do it and
39:36everyone is perfectly within his rights
39:38to kind of a drum up support for such
39:41a situation that does not mean that
39:44there's disrespect yes some of the words
39:46could have been uh better chosen uh the
39:49the obvious disrespect for the office or
39:52the position should probably have been
39:55avoided but uh that doesn't mean there's a
39:57there's any attack or there is any you
40:00know kind of uh planned uh thing to
40:03dismantle the judiciary or to demolish it or
40:06to intimidate it as you uh use with my
40:10issue i use the word also uh justice
40:17banerjee and you know this better than
40:18than many because all of this is coming
40:21against the backdrop also of the way in
40:24which there seems to be an unease in the
40:26executive and the judiciary over the
40:28transfer and appointment of judges uh the
40:31collegium system coming under pressure all
40:34of the you know we had this instance a few
40:36weeks ago where cash was found at the at
40:39the door of a house of a of a high court
40:41judge there seems to be a certain
40:43uneasiness uh particularly when it comes
40:46to appointment of judges their transfers
40:48all of this is leading again i've been a one
40:51fears to some kind of a flashpoint sooner
40:54or later are you saying you're entirely
40:55sanguine that there won't be any such flash
40:58point the undercurrents have always been
41:02there will be there and they are there now
41:06that is something which is the truth but then
41:10one has to navigate it and the judiciary must
41:14show the resilience that
41:17it's position demands you know few attacks here
41:23or there people expressing their opinion
41:24should be ignored if at the same time if you look
41:28at the judgment by the two judge bench
41:30you know you see recommendations made by supreme
41:34port collegiums recommendations remade which become binding on the
41:39government have not been acted upon so therefore probably in the light of the
41:43executive's conduct over the last few years the judiciary felt it
41:49obligatory to set a time limit otherwise there's no constitutional time limit
41:53expressly said but once the constitution says that if this happens the next
41:58the consent should follow or the appointment should follow the appointment has to
42:03follow it can't wait for months or years thereafter so because of this kind
42:08of a reaction because some of the recommendations by the
42:11religion have not been followed despite being re-recommended the
42:15supreme court felt it necessary that now it's time to set some time limits
42:19okay i think i think you've raised several important points and you've given a
42:23much more nuanced opinion it's not black and white and that is often the case in
42:28many of these tricky constitutional issues involving authorities like the
42:33executive and the judiciary justice sanjeeb banerji for expressing your
42:37opinion i appreciate you joining me the judiciary versus executive face-off is
42:41something we will keep tracking my own view is that members of parliament must be
42:46very careful in their choice of words nishikan dubai unfortunately is a serial
42:51offender in that case let me turn to another of our top stories in a
42:57sensational and chilling case coming in from karnataka the former director general of
43:02police om prakash has been murdered allegedly now by his own wife the brutal crime took place at
43:09their bengaluru residence while the retired top cop was having lunch here's a detailed report
43:14former karnataka dgp om prakash is stabbed to death inside his home in bengaluru the police on
43:24monday arrested his wife pallavi and their daughter kruti for questioning according to sources the retired
43:32police officer was seated for lunch when pallavi served him two types of fish moments later a fight
43:38allegedly broke out why pallavi threw chili powder into his eyes before allegedly stabbing him multiple
43:45times in the neck and head the dgp's body was found lying in a pool of blood a plate was still lying near
43:52the table two knives have been recovered from the scene say sources after the murder both pallavi and
43:58her daughter reportedly went upstairs later pallavi herself dialed the police to report the murder
44:04when the police arrived daughter kruti allegedly created a ruckus and locked herself in a room
44:12the officers had to break down the door to take her into custody pallavi meanwhile surrendered and
44:17allegedly confessed to the crime the forensics team is examining fingerprints on the weapons and
44:23collecting more evidence to establish the sequence of events we have got the pm done
44:30we are handed over the body to the sun we have taken to the hsr ground for the formalities and now please
44:39come saris then we will give you all the details come we are investigating it we are investigating it
44:45so
44:56An FIR was filed based on a complaint by the former DGPC.
45:26who alleged that the mother and daughter used to threaten his father.
45:31Sources say Pallavi has been battling schizophrenia for over 12 years.
45:37Pallavi had allegedly told family members that she feared her husband might kill her.
45:43Visagai Raj in Bengaluru, Bureau Report, India Today.
45:47Let's turn to tonight's Get Real India story.
45:50Tonight's story is coming from Nashik in Maharashtra.
45:53The summer has barely begun but water woes are intensifying in parts of Pachnasik.
46:00Several women were seen venturing into a deep well in search of water.
46:04Let's take a look at our Get Real India story tonight.
46:07This video of a woman climbing down a well to fetch water has gone viral.
46:24The images from Borichi Bari village, which is in Nashik district,
46:32revealed the real extent of water scarcity in the region.
46:35All three wells in the village are almost dry.
46:43Draupada Mahanubhav, the woman in the video, tells India today.
47:05Borichi Bari is one of the six villages that fall under Kumbhale gram panchayat.
47:18Villagers walk up to three kilometers every day to the nearest well in Kumbhale for water.
47:24The village is one of the two kilometers away from Kumbhale.
47:54The scarcity of water in Borichibari has led to some unforeseen issues.
48:24Villagers are hoping the Jaljeev admission scheme will solve their water problem.
48:54The Jaljeev admission has a budget of around 7 crore rupees for Kumbhale Gram Panchayat.
49:21Under the scheme, a pipeline linking the area to a lake located 7 kilometers away is under construction.
49:30The villagers are now banking on the success of the project to end their water moors.
49:37With Praveen Thakre, Bureau Report, India Today.
49:40Some things don't seem to change.
49:50The water crisis is amongst that in rural India.
49:54We will continue to show those Get Real India stories, stories that you won't find on Prime Time elsewhere.
50:01Tonight I want to leave you though with a sad story.
50:03Just a day after his Easter address, the Vatican announced the death of Pope Francis on Easter Monday.
50:10Pope Francis was popularly known as the People's Pope.
50:14The Pope of the poor who called on the Church to work for the poor above all else.
50:20He was 88 and leaves behind a legacy of compassion that will serve the Church rather well in the years ahead.
50:28Thanks for watching. Stay well, stay safe. Good night. Shubhratri. Jai Hind. Namaskar.
50:35Dear brothers and sisters, with deep sorrow I must announce the death of our Holy Father Francis.
50:43At 7.35 this morning, the Bishop of Rome Francis returned to the house of the Father.
50:49The bells stolled at St. Peter's Basilica in the Vatican, hours after the announcement of the death of Pope Francis.
51:02So did in Notre Dame Church.
51:04Faithful started to congregate to mourn the first Latin American Pope, who identified himself as the Pope of the poor.
51:12It is a great disappointment, a great loss, a man who has innovated the Church and a man who has left a great mark.
51:24And this, his absence, causes great pain.
51:27Well, I don't live in Rome. I live in Milan and I'm here for Easter.
51:34And I find it very significant that the Pope has died during Easter or the Easter weekend.
51:41I mean, I'm from Argentina. The Pope is Argentinian.
51:44So, you know, it has quite a bit of significance for us.
51:48It is a very sad news, a great loss for the Church and for the whole world.
51:54A Pope who worked so hard for peace and for the good of all.
51:58Let us all pray for him.
51:59He was the first Latin American pontiff who charmed the world with his humble style and concern for the poor.
52:10Pope Francis, in the 12 years of his service, also alienated conservatives with critics of capitalism and climate change.
52:18He was the Pope who made an unscheduled stop to pray at the wall separating Israel from the West Bank town of Bethlehem in a show of support for the Palestinian cause.
52:30Within weeks, on June 8, 2014, Pope Francis hosted Israeli and Palestinian presidents for peace prayers in the Vatican Gardens.
52:40A month later, he apologized in Bolivia for the sins and crimes of the Catholic Church against indigenous peoples during the colonial era conquest of the Americas.
52:54He is the Pope who prayed for dead migrants in the U.S.-Mexico border in 2016 and called out the then presidential candidate Donald Trump as not a Christian for wanting to build a border wall.
53:06Pope Francis was the pontiff who never shied away from criticism or apologizing when proven wrong.
53:15He first accused the Chilean sex abuse victims of slander in his visit in January 2018.
53:22But within months, ordered Vatican investigation and did not hesitate to apologize and admit grave error and secured resignation of Chilean bishops.
53:32He raised his voice for the refugees and tried to clean the clergy of sexual abuse charges with punitive actions.
53:43He is a beacon of humanity for everyone and especially for Argentina.
53:47I hope we take on board this message and we come together as a people and stop fighting so much.
53:52Condolences poured in from across the world as leaders of different faiths all coming together to mourn the man who was a living symbol of simplicity.
54:07Pope Francis has always struggled with pulmonary disease before succumbing to it at the age of 88.
54:13Pope Francis has always struggled with the