"Kapil Mishra to be Delhi’s new Law and Tourism Minister,” tweeted @IndiaToday and others citing “sources” about who would replace Jitender Singh Tomar, as the former Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) law minister was arrested by the police yesterday and resigned.
Mishra, vice chairman of the Delhi Jal Board, is a social entrepreneur and has worked with Greenpeace and Amnesty International, according to his Linked-in profile and Wikipedia. Between November 2012 and July 2013 he was networking and advocacy coordinator at Amnesty, head of the Northern Region of the Retailers Association of India for one year, policy officer and campaigner at Greenpeace for nearly two years, and a history at other NGOs such as Youth for Justice.
By reading the comments you agree that they are the (often anonymous) personal views and opinions of readers, which may be biased and unreliable, and for which Legally India therefore has no liability. If you believe a comment is inappropriate, please click 'Report to LI' below the comment and we will review it as soon as practicable.
Guyyyys, have you considered that the headline reads: that the "new Delhi law minister" is to be Kapil Mishra? Coz that's certainly what was intended, though can understand how it didn't come across ;)
Any reading of new Delhi as New Delhi was unintentional and perhaps could have been avoided by shuffling the headline around, but I assume everyone knows what's intended? :)
@Kian This is still confusing and appears to give a wrong picture. Why can't you just edit the headline to "new law minister of Delhi" and avoid the confusion
As a policy we generally resist making any stylistic changes to copy or headlines unless inaccurate and unless we absolutely have to (in part to resist silly changes requested by law firms frequently).
In this case not sure there's a need for a change. There's no such thing as a New Delhi law minister, so why the confusion? Is it so bad?
threads most popular
thread most upvoted
comment newest
first oldest
first
Any reading of new Delhi as New Delhi was unintentional and perhaps could have been avoided by shuffling the headline around, but I assume everyone knows what's intended? :)
In this case not sure there's a need for a change. There's no such thing as a New Delhi law minister, so why the confusion? Is it so bad?
threads most popular
thread most upvoted
comment newest
first oldest
first