यह हार भी कुछ कह जाती है

यह हार भी कुछ कह जाती है

एक आईना सा दिखाती है। 

कहीं भी ना रुकना तुझे

सबक यही सिखलाती है।

जो ठहर गया वह टूट गया

मकसद उसका तो छूट गया।

जो रहा न कोई संग तेरे,

यह हौसला ही तेरा साथी है।

सांझ ढली तो क्या हुआ

उम्मीद की लौ न बुझे कभी।

एक नई सहर फिर आएगी

एक नई डगर भी लाएगी।

क्या कसर थी बाकी रह गई

क्या कोशिश में थी कमी कोई

क्यों खुद से ना पूछा कभी

क्यों खुद से न पूछा कभी।

जो हैं लोगों के कहकहे,

अक्सर हम को फुसलाती हैं।

 मझधारों से आगे जो बढ़े,

वही दास्तां कहलाती है।

Ratsasan: Memorable Thriller and Spellbound Performance.

The entire nation is shocked at the recent news about circumstances surrounding the suicide of a very great and humble actor Shushant Singh Rajpoot. Equally shocked and upset I am and I have a lot to say about the injustice and gamut of nepotism in the Bollywood, which I will express in a much detailed post.

Friends, last week I was suggested by one of my friends to watch a very interesting Tamil psycho-thriller Ratsasan of 2018. Initially, I thought it to be an ordinary murder-mystery based movie. But, believe me, this movie is a rare gem in the treasure of Indian film industry. 

It has been directed by Ram Kumar and it features Vishnu Vishal and Amala Paul in the lead roles, while Saravanan Naan plays the role of the psychopath. Other actors include Kaali Venkat, and Ramdoss in supporting roles.

The plot of the movie is based on the unending murder spree of young school girls by a psychopath. Vishnu Vishal plays the role of a police officer, who also has interest in film direction. 

The plot of the movie and its direction are piece of art. I will keep you stick to your couch. Every moment of the movie pops up a new twist.     

A Memorable Villain.

Before Ratsasan, I had never seen any of the movies starring Sarvanan. I, even hadn't heard his name. But watching his spellbound performance in the movie, my expectations are much high from him. In my opinion, he is one of the actors that can prove to be the legendary Joker (Heath Leger  from the Dark Knight).

In fact the get up of Sarvanan is unbelievable. In the entire movie, you will be wandering where he is. I would not spoil the surprise. However, I can share his real photo in this post.

PROTECTION OF CIVIL RIGHTS ACT, 1955: CASES

Section 3

State of M.P. v. Puranchand, Madhya Pradesh High Court held for the purpose of section 3, the person prevented must either be professing the same religion as other persons to whom the place is open.

The object of Section 3 is not to create any new rights in favour of untouchables but it is intended only to put them at par with other caste Hindus.

Parameswaran Moorthy v. Vasudeo Kurup, the Kerala High Court held that Section 3 does not confer unfettered and absolute rights to perform religious services that are supposed to be performed only by priests according to religious tenets or to enter such places where such

rituals are being conducted.

In Hindu Religious Endowment Board v. L.T Swamiyar, (AIR 1954 282) the Supreme Court held that there is no unregulated and unrestricted right of entry in a public temple or other religious institution for persons who are not connected with religious functions.

In the case of Venkatraman Devaru v. State of Mysore, the SC held that denominations had the religious freedom to manage their own religious affairs and could hence exclude outsiders from temple ceremonies.

Section 4

Benudhas Sahu v. State (ILR(1962)Cut256) the court held that Section 4 (iv) does not apply to private wells because the owner of private well is free to regulate the use of well by co-villagers. If the owner of private well permitted other people in the village to draw water from the well, it does not means that every villager has a right of access to or right to use the well.

Section 7: Punishment for other offences arising out of untouchability.

In M. Lakshminarayana Reddy vs The Union Of India (AIR 1987) considering the issue of Constitutional validity of Section 7, the court held that Rights conferred under Arts. 14, 19 and 21 cannot be considered as superior to other rights and obligations created by other articles of the same Chapter. The court held that the petitioner did not have a right to do any act that was forbidden by the same chapter.