We want LI to be one of the friendliest places on the internet, where lawyers and law students help each other with their career related queries and occasionally discuss other stuff that might affect their lives too. In other words:
1. Be kind, respectful and helpful to each other.
2. Be bona fide, truthful, genuine and curious.
3. Assume the best intention of others.
Therefore, in using the site, you must agree to do your best to uphold these community guidelines.
Note that what you find here is written and moderated by anonymous people on the internet.
Therefore everything you read here is very likely unverified, rumour, speculation and/or downright false.
In continuing to read anything here, you must therefore agree not to take anything you read here as factual and that you will exercise due caution, diligence and common sense before acting on any information you may come across here.
You also agree to report any inaccurate or malicious comments with the buttons. Moderators take action within 24 hours, as required and appropriate under law.
Our full terms and conditions apply too.
Do you solemnly agree to all of the above?
Btw, you may want to check how MoGo got and lost the chair at NLS.
Two - You aren't coming from a neutral space, you have a clearly biased view towards one side of the litigants and a possible fan worshipping for DYC.
And that's what all your statements are for.
Curative petition can be filed on very limited grounds. The grounds to find it have to be found in the judgment, not by comments of its authors.
The intention of the legislature, for instance, has to be decided from the words in the statute, not a minister's address in the Parliament. (That's also one of the ways, but not the first way. )
If someone has to file curative, they'll have to find the grounds in the words of the judgment. Not in the words of the author given in the interview.
Secondly, MoGo was a youth Congress activist in his student days and later headed the Congress-aligned think tank the Rajiv Gandhi Foundation. Also close to RaGa. Google and check it out.
MoGo 🤝 RaGa.
My hot take: Justice D.Y. Chandrachud was neither reckless nor out of line - https://youtu.be/vOKMaOhc_5E
To claim otherwise is the intellectual equivalent of throwing mud in a monsoon—messy, pointless, and revealing of the thrower. Where I’d fault him is in choosing his interlocutors: engaging with click-bait artists is like pouring champagne into a gutter.
What really rankles the self-styled custodians of “secular harmony” is that the SC Constitution Bench led by Justice Chandrachud has punctured their balloon of duplicity. For decades, a cynical lobby fattened itself by keeping Ayodhya as a festering sore—an ATM for appeasement politics and an annuity for electoral blackmail. Now that a definitive judgment has cauterised the wound, they’re sulking like pickpockets deprived of a crowded bazaar.
Let’s be clear: this isn’t about constitutional niceties, it’s about the collapse of a cottage industry built on permanent discord. And the tragedy for these merchants of misery is that, this time, the shop has shut for good.