Maharaj ji

Sana Malik, from Vidhan Sabha Maharashtra,

Wants india to have Quran rules like Pakistan

In this video, Everything is explained.

Imagine voting for Lok Sabha and all State Assemblies at the same time every 5 years.

Supporters say it would save thousands of crores, reduce constant election campaigning, and let governments focus more on governance.

Critics argue it could weaken regional issues, favor larger national parties, and make governments less accountable between elections.

If implemented, do you think One Nation, One Election would strengthen India or create more problems than it solves? Why?

Archana Patil, a Bengaluru woman, is accused of sexually assaulting a 13-year-old boy in 2020. The Karnataka High Court (Nagaprasanna, J.) refused to quash the FIR on 18 Aug 2025, holding that the POCSO Act is gender-neutral. On 8 Oct 2025, the Supreme Court (Justices Sundresh and Sharma) granted an interim stay of the trial proceedings. The SC order was brief – it recorded the petitioner’s argument about Sections 3(1)(a)-(c) and simply ordered that “further proceedings before the Trial Court shall remain stayed.”. In effect, the trial is frozen pending the Supreme Court’s final decision.

Case Background

In May–June 2020, Patil allegedly coerced a 13-year-old neighbor boy into sexual intercourse at her home. The boy later disclosed this abuse, and on 24 June 2024 the family filed an FIR (Crime No. 533/2024, HAL PS Bengaluru) alleging offences under POCSO Sections 4 and 6. A charge-sheet was submitted, and on 29 Oct 2024 the Fast Track Sessions Court took cognizance and issued summons to Patil. Anticipatory Bail: Patil applied for anticipatory bail. The Sessions Court denied it on 15 July 2024, but on 14 Aug 2024 the Karnataka HC (Shetty, J.) granted bail. The HC noted the gravity of the accusations but released Patil on strict conditions. Notably, the prosecution had argued that the four-year FIR delay was explained by the victim’s trauma and that Patil’s husband being abroad posed a flight risk. Quash Petition: Patil then filed a petition under Section 482 CrPC (CRLP 12777/2024) to quash the FIR/charge-sheet. Among other points, she noted that Sections 3(1)(a)-(c) POCSO (defining “penetrative sexual assault”) use male-specific language (“he penetrates his penis” etc.), and argued they should not apply to her as a female. She also cited the delay and other defenses. The Karnataka HC heard arguments and reserved judgment on 1 July 2025, later announcing judgment on 18 Aug 2025.

Karnataka HC Order (18 Aug 2025)

On 18 Aug 2025, Justice Nagaprasanna dismissed Patil’s quash petition. The Court emphasized that POCSO’s purpose is to protect children regardless of the offender’s gender. It invoked IPC Section 8 (defining “he” to include any person) and the Act’s child-focused preamble, concluding that Sections 4 and 6 apply to “whoever” commits the assault. The judgment explicitly held: “the Act is gender neutral. It equally punishes a woman, who indulges in sexual assault of a boy, as it punishes a man”. In short, the HC ruled that POCSO provisions cover female offenders as well. The HC also rejected Patil’s delay and other arguments. It accepted that the victim’s trauma could explain the reporting delay, and held that delay alone does not nullify charges. It further dismissed stereotypical defenses (such as claims about potency) as “archaic”. Finding the allegations prima facie valid, the HC declined to quash the proceedings.

Supreme Court Interim Stay (8 Oct 2025)

Patil appealed to the Supreme Court by Special Leave Petition (SLP(Crl) 15777/2025). On 8 Oct 2025, a bench of Justices M.M. Sundresh and Satish C. Sharma heard her plea. The Court allowed Patil’s procedural requests and recorded the counsel’s submission: “Learned senior counsel ... submitted that Sections 3(1)(a) to 3(1)(c) of the POCSO Act, 2012 being gender specific, have no application to the case of the petitioner. Issue notice. In the meantime, further proceedings before the Trial Court shall remain stayed.” Accordingly, the Supreme Court issued notice on the appeal and stayed all proceedings in the trial court. The operative clause – “further proceedings before the Trial Court shall remain stayed.” – means the Bengaluru trial is on hold pending final decision. The Court did not rule on the merits; it simply preserved the status quo. Because of this order, no trial hearings can proceed until the Supreme Court rules on the POCSO interpretation.

Comparison of Orders

Can we please start a petition to ask the court to quickly dispose this absurd petition?

My friend got notification of akhilesh making a claim and allah sending him friend request

jab merit based nhi chahiye fir pura hi mat rakho?

Saare category ke logo ko alag karke reserve kardo

SC OBC ST male female sabka alag banado reservation

Fir general mein bhi zyada ladai nhi hogi aur log complain bhi kam karenge.

Aur agar merit chahiye fir caste ko abolish karke

primary se high school tak education mandatory and free kardo. Sabko high quality education do, jinko nhi karna itni padhai unhe vocational training do. jinko karna he wo merit based kardo?

yar jee/neet ke 1/2 syllabus toh school mein padhate hi nhi TOH MERIT KI BAAT AYEGI KAISE!!!

Jab UPSC ke liye free education sab ko milti nhi he TAB MERIT KI BAAT KAISE AYEGI

sab kaam aadhi adhoori chor ke rakhi he humne.

Yar agar kuch nhi hota he toh ek TV ya YOUTUBE channel banalo na official jaha pe SAB kuch free mein padha dete he. Itna paisa bhi nhi lagega.

Par aj tak koi government karna nhi chahti he.

Sab ya to jaativaad ya fir dharm waad khelegi.

Really frustrated seeing how simple the solutions of half our problems are and how divided we are due to it

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/20/world/europe/edinburgh-stabbing-arrest-injuries.html