Cong should be ashamed of Rahul's visit to JNU campus: Shah

March 5, 2016

Vrindavan, Mar 5: BJP chief Amit Shah today attacked Congress over the JNU row, saying it should be 'ashamed' of Rahul Gandhi's visit to the campus and questioned whether 'anti-national slogans' can be called freedom of speech.

Addressing a meeting of Bhartiya Janata Yuva Morcha, BJP's youth wing, he said the JNU row was about the party's core issue of nationalism and invoked its Ram Janambhumi campaign to buttress his point besides its role in Goa and Hyderabad liberation movement.

"A strange atmosphere has been created. Anti-national slogans are being projected as freedom of expression... Congress should be ashamed that its vice president goes to the campus and says these (slogans) should be heard as there is freedom of expression.

"If these slogans are freedom of expression, then what is treason?" he said seeking Congress chief Sonia Gandhi's views on whether she agrees with her son on this.

Shah asked party workers to work hard to ensure that it remains in power at the Centre for 25 years so that India could become the 'vishwaguru' as it was not possible in five years.

"In five years there could be development and high growth rate and borders could be made safe but if India has to be 'vishwaguru', then it is a must that BJP is in government for 25 years," he said.

Underlining party's Hindutva credentials, he said Prime Minister Narendra Modi attended Ganga aarti with pride and went to Pashupati Nath temple in Nepal to seek blessing.

The party wants India to have top IT and MBA professionals, who also seek their "inspiration" from Swami Vivekananda, he said.

The BJP chief also made fun of former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to attack Congress and hail Modi's leadership, saying Singh visited more countries than Modi but his tours made little impact.

"He would read from two pages he carried with him which were written in English. At times, he would read the speech meant for Thailand in Malaysia and the one for Malaysia in Thailand... Modiji spoke in Hindi in the UN and the whole country felt proud," Shah said.

The biggest work the Modi government has done is to make the country's borders safe, he claimed.

Invoking a number of Centre's schemes aimed at welfare of youth and farmers, he said the government has made a beginning for "miraculous" change in the country.

Comments

thanks uncel amith for your divinely speech...............now its 100 percent sure how knowledgabel you are you fit good for post of joker.

BJP PLEASE STOP UR ADVISE FOR OTHERS , FRIST U NEED NEED TO CLEAR URSELF CREATING THE FAKE EDITED VIDEOS

THEN U R GIVING THE ADICE FOR OTHERS ...... WROST IDEA..

Anyway u people create JNU student leader to become a future leader of India...

dear you need to be ashamed for how you handled JNU case with doctored video. After this issue also educated people think about all the previous issues.

Add new comment

Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.

‘Pay the worker before his sweat dries’: Madras High Court cites Prophet Muhammad’s teaching while ordering settlement of dues

News Network

December 21,2025

Invoking the teachings of Prophet Muhammad—“pay the worker before his sweat dries”—the Madras High Court has directed a municipal corporation to settle long-pending legal dues owed to a former counsel. The court observed that this principle reflects basic fairness and applies equally to labour and service-related disputes.

Justice G. R. Swaminathan made the observation while hearing a petition filed by advocate P. Thirumalai, who claimed that the Madurai City Municipal Corporation failed to pay him legal fees amounting to ₹13.05 lakh. Earlier, the High Court had asked the corporation to consider his representation. However, a later order rejected a major portion of his claim, prompting the present petition.

The court allowed Thirumalai to approach the District Legal Services Authority (DLSA) and submit a list of cases in which he had appeared. It also directed the corporation to settle the verified fee bills within two months, without interest. The court noted that the petitioner had waited nearly 18 years before challenging the non-payment and that the corporation could not be fully blamed, as the fee bills were not submitted properly.

‘A Matter of Embarrassment’

Justice Swaminathan described it as a “matter of embarrassment” that the State has nearly a dozen Additional Advocate Generals. He observed that appointing too many law officers often leads to unnecessary allocation of work and frequent adjournments, as government counsel claim that senior officers are engaged elsewhere.

He expressed hope that such practices would end at least in the Madurai Bench of the High Court and added that Additional Advocate Generals should “turn a new leaf” from 2026 onwards.

‘Scandalously High Amounts’

While stating that the court cannot examine the exact fees paid to senior counsel or law officers, Justice Swaminathan stressed that good governance requires public funds to be used prudently. He expressed concern over the “scandalously high amounts” paid by government and quasi-government bodies to a few favoured law officers.

In contrast, the court noted that Thirumalai’s total claim was “a pittance” considering the large number of cases he had handled.

Background

Thirumalai served as the standing counsel for the Madurai City Municipal Corporation for more than 14 years, from 1992 to 2006. During this period, he represented the corporation in about 818 cases before the Madurai District Courts.

As the former counsel was unable to hire a clerk to obtain certified copies of judgments in all 818 cases, the court directed the District Legal Services Authority to collect the certified copies within two months. The court further ordered the corporation to bear the cost incurred by the DLSA and deduct that amount from the final settlement payable to the petitioner.

Comments