know the Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (Cheque bounce case) along wiith landmark judgements

 Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (Cheque bounce case) with Judgments

In the bustling world of commerce, cheques remain a cornerstone of trust-based transactions in India. Yet, when a cheque bounces due to insufficient funds, it not only shatters that trust but can also trigger criminal liability. Enter Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act)—a provision designed to penalize such defaults and uphold the sanctity of negotiable instruments. This blog post delves deep into Section 138, exploring its provisions, procedural intricacies, defenses, and pivotal judicial interpretations. With over 20% of India’s pending criminal cases stemming from cheque dishonor disputes, as noted in the Law Commission’s 213th Report (2008), understanding this section is crucial for businesses, individuals, and legal professionals alike. 1

Drawing from recent Supreme Court rulings, including those from 2025, this guide equips you with actionable insights. Whether you’re a payee seeking redress or a drawer facing allegations, here’s everything you need to know. (Approx. 2,200 words)

The Genesis and Purpose of Section 138

The NI Act, originally enacted in 1881, was a colonial-era law aimed at regulating promissory notes, bills of exchange, and cheques to facilitate trade. 3 However, the rise in cheque-related frauds in the late 20th century prompted a major overhaul. In 1988, through the Banking, Public Financial Institutions and Negotiable Instruments Laws (Amendment) Act, Chapter XVII (Sections 138-142) was inserted to criminalize cheque dishonor. 4

The core objective? To infuse credibility into cheque transactions by treating dishonor as a punishable offense, thereby deterring defaults and promoting a “pay-as-you-promise” culture in commerce. 15 As the Supreme Court observed in M/s. Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd. v. M/s. Galaxy Traders & Agencies Ltd. (2001), Section 138 embodies “strict liability” to safeguard the instrument’s role as a reliable credit tool. 15

Today, with digital payments on the rise, Section 138 still handles millions of cases annually. The 2018 amendments further streamlined processes, introducing interim compensation (Section 143A) and expedited appeals (Section 148), addressing the backlog in magisterial courts.

Key Provisions of Section 138: Breaking Down the Statute

At its heart, Section 138 targets the drawer (issuer) of a cheque that bounces due to insufficient funds or exceeding overdraft limits. Here’s the verbatim text for clarity:

“Where any cheque drawn by a person on an account maintained by him with a banker for payment of any amount of money to another person from out of that account for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability, is returned by the bank unpaid, either because of the amount of money standing to the credit of that account is insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with that bank, such person shall be deemed to have committed an offence and shall, without prejudice to any other provisions of this Act, be punished with imprisonment for a term which may be extended to two years, or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque, or with both.” 0

Essential Ingredients for an Offense

For a successful prosecution, five key elements must align, as outlined in Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Pennar Peterson Securities Ltd. (2000): 14

1 Drawing of the Cheque: The cheque must be issued for a legally enforceable debt or liability (e.g., loan repayment, not a gift or illegal transaction).

2 Dishonor by the Bank: Returned unpaid due to “insufficient funds” or “exceeds arrangement.” Other reasons like “account closed” or “signature mismatch” qualify if linked to evasion, per Nepc Micon Ltd. v. Magma Leasing Ltd. (1999). 9 

3 Demand Notice: The payee must serve a written notice within 30 days of dishonor, demanding payment within 15 days (Section 138 proviso (b)).

4 Failure to Pay: No payment within 15 days of notice receipt triggers the offense.

5 Cognizance by Court: Complaint filed within one month of cause of action (Section 142(b)).

Penalties are deterrent: Up to 2 years’ imprisonment, fine up to twice the cheque amount, or both. Importantly, it’s a compoundable offense, allowing settlement at any stage (Section 147).

Procedural Roadmap: From Dishonor to Verdict

Navigating Section 138 requires precision—timelines are strict to prevent abuse. Here’s a step-by-step guide:

Step 1: Cheque Presentation and Dishonor

The payee presents the cheque within its validity (3 months from issue date, post-2012 amendment). 9 Upon dishonor, the bank issues a memo (e.g., “funds insufficient”). Re-presentation is allowed once, but multiple dishonors don’t create fresh causes of action, as clarified in MSR Leathers v. S. Palaniappan (2013). 23

Step 2: Statutory Notice

Within 30 days of dishonor, send a demand notice via registered post or speed post, specifying the amount and 15-day payment window. Email isn’t sufficient unless proven delivered. Failure here quashes the case.

Step 3: Filing the Complaint

If unpaid, file under Section 142 in the Magistrate’s court within 30 days of the 15-day period’s expiry. Jurisdiction: Post-2015 amendment, it’s the court where the payee’s bank branch is located (Section 142(2)). 1 Attach affidavit, cheque copies, and bank memo.

Step 4: Trial Process

• Summons Trial: Under CrPC (summary procedure via 2018 amendments).

• Interim Compensation: Court may order 20% payment to complainant (Section 143A). 5 

• Evidence and Arguments: Presumption of debt under Section 139 shifts burden to accused. Trial must conclude in 6 months (Section 143).

• Judgment and Appeal: Fine/compensation recoverable as arrears. Appeal lies to Sessions Court within 30 days; High Court via revision.

In In Re: Expeditious Trial of Cases Under Section 138 (2021, reinforced in 2025 guidelines), the Supreme Court mandated timelines to clear the 3-crore-case backlog. 17

Landmark Judgments: Shaping Section 138’s Evolution

Judicial interpretations have refined Section 138, balancing creditor protection with accused rights. Below are five pivotal Supreme Court rulings, including 2025 developments, illustrating its dynamic application.

1. Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod v. State of Maharashtra (2014) 9 SCC 129: Jurisdiction Overhaul

In this landmark, the Court held jurisdiction lies where the cheque is presented for encashment (payee’s bank), overturning earlier views tying it to the drawer’s bank. 17 Facts: A Maharashtra-based cheque drawn on a West Bengal bank led to cross-state confusion. Ruling: “The payee’s diligence shouldn’t be frustrated by territorial hurdles.” Impact: Prompted the 2015 amendment for clarity, reducing forum-shopping. Overruled K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan (1999).

2. MSR Leathers v. S. Palaniappan (2013) 1 SCC 177: Single Cause of Action

The Court ruled that re-presenting a cheque creates only one offense, not multiples. 23 Facts: Multiple notices for the same dishonor. Ruling: “Section 138 demands a singular concatenation of acts—dishonor, notice, non-payment.” Impact: Prevents harassment via repeated filings; overruled conflicting High Court views.

3. Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H. (2010) 5 SCC 663: Leniency in Sentencing

Addressing sentencing disparities, the Court issued guidelines: First offense—probation; repeat—substantive fine; compounding encouraged. 17 Facts: Multiple Section 138 convictions. Ruling: “The provision aims at restitution, not retribution.” Impact: Promotes settlements; courts must record compounding reasons.

4. Rangappa v. Sri Mohan (2010) 11 SCC 441: Presumption Under Section 139

A cornerstone on evidence: Once a cheque is issued post-Section 138 notice, Section 139 presumes a legally enforceable debt—accused must rebut it. 14 Facts: Accused claimed the cheque was a security blank. Ruling: “Presumption is mandatory; mere denial insufficient—probabilities must tilt against the accused.” Impact: Eases prosecutor’s burden; upheld in Krishna Janardhan Bhat v. Dattatraya G. Hegde (2008).

5. Rakesh Bhanot v. Gurdas Agro Pvt. Ltd. (2025 INSC 346, April 1, 2025): IBC Moratorium vs. NI Act

The latest milestone: Does IBC’s Section 96 moratorium (personal insolvency) halt Section 138 proceedings? 20 Facts: Cheques dishonored pre-moratorium; proceedings initiated post. Appellants sought stay, arguing civil-criminal overlap. Ruling: “Moratorium pauses civil recovery, not criminal liability. NI Act’s penal intent prevails over IBC’s rehabilitation focus.” Impact: Creditors can pursue parallel remedies; clarifies post-IBC era conflicts, rejecting stays in ongoing cases.

These judgments underscore Section 138’s adaptability—from territorial fixes to insolvency interplay—ensuring it remains a robust tool for financial accountability.

Common Defenses and Pitfalls for the Accused

If accused, don’t panic—robust defenses exist:

• No Legally Enforceable Debt: Prove the cheque was for a time-barred debt or non-commercial purpose (e.g., John K. Abraham v. Simon C. Abraham, 2014). 17 

• Invalid Notice: Defects in service or content (e.g., no specific demand).

• Payee’s Fault: Alteration of cheque or delayed presentation.

• Mens Rea Absence: Though strict liability, courts consider intent in sentencing (Geekay Exim v. State of Gujarat, 1998). 19 

Pitfall: Ignoring timelines—most cases fail on procedural lapses. Consult a lawyer early; compounding resolves 80% of disputes amicably.

Challenges and Reforms: Looking Ahead to 2025 and Beyond

Section 138’s efficacy is marred by delays: Over 3 crore cases pend, per 2024 NJDG data. The 2025 Supreme Court guidelines in In Re: Expeditious Trial mandate digital filings and virtual hearings to expedite. 6 Proposals include decriminalizing small-value defaults and integrating UPI traceability.

Critics argue it burdens courts with “civil disputes in criminal garb,” yet its deterrent value is undeniable—cheque usage dropped 50% post-2016 demonetization, but bounces persist in SMEs.

Conclusion: Safeguarding Trust in Transactions

Section 138 isn’t just a penalty clause; it’s the bedrock of commercial faith in India. From its 1988 inception to 2025’s IBC clarifications, it evolves to balance deterrence with fairness. For payees: Act swiftly with solid evidence. For drawers: Honor commitments or prepare robust defenses.

A Bill To Remove Elected Representatives,(MP,CM, MINISTERS )

 

A Bill To Remove Elected Representatives,(MP,CM, MINISTERS 

On August 20, 2025, the Indian government introduced three bills in the Lok Sabha aimed at establishing a legal framework for the removal of elected representatives, including the Prime Minister, Union Ministers, Chief Ministers, and Ministers of States and Union Territories, if they are arrested and detained for 30 consecutive days on serious criminal charges. These bills are the Constitution (One Hundred and Thirtieth Amendment) Bill, 2025, the Government of Union Territories (Amendment) Bill, 2025, and the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation (Amendment) Bill, 2025.

There should be an open debate among the people. The law should be designed to prevent corruption but preserve the freedom of democracy and the autonomy of the people.

These bills are dangerous for democracy because:-

1. Attack on democracy – This bill is a major attack on democratic freedom. The Centre will not register an FIR against the Chief Minister, Minister or Opposition leader elected during elections.

2. Attempt to silence the opposition – The Centre wants to bring this law so that the demands of the opposition parties can be met. 30 persons have been jailed due to misuse of agencies (CBI, ED etc) under the control of the Centre.

3. The decision is up to the courts, not the politicians – whether there is a criminal charge against the bank or not, it is up to the court to decide. Being sent to jail does not automatically mean that the bank is guilty. But the condition of losing office without being found guilty is against democratic principles.

4. Centre-state conflict will increase – This law will give the Centre the power to dismiss elected officials of the states. Especially if the opposition parties are not in power.

5. There are already enough laws – there are laws to remove the leaders and ministers on grounds of incompetence, corruption or corruption. This bill will only serve as a tool for political parties.

6. Socio-political impact of the bill – It will make it difficult to impeach any opposition leader and put him in jail for 30 years. This is a betrayal of the electoral rights of the people.

There are vital legal angle to these bills maintainability 

Main Legal Basis

1. Article 164(1) & Article 164(2) – The Chief Minister and the Ministers are solely responsible for the conduct of the State. Their eligibility or disqualification is vested in the Governor and the Legislative Assembly, not in the discretion of the Centre.

2. Article 75(2) – The Union Ministers can also be removed by the President only on the recommendation of the Chief Minister. But this bill breaks the constitutional precedent by making it a condition of vacating office even before the charge is proved in the court.

3. Article 19(1)(a) & (c) – In a democracy, there is a right to freedom of expression and assembly. If an elected leader is falsely accused or imprisoned, then the right to freedom of expression of the people is violated.

4. Article 21 – Right to Life and Liberty guarantees “due process of law”. Only 30 days of imprisonment is sufficient to remove a person from office without a trial.

5. Indian Penal Code (BNS, 2023) – Section 187–190:

o These sections regulate the punishment and imprisonment for serious offences.

Conviction ≠ Conviction. Conviction is the result of investigation, not of guilt.

o Section 452 BNS (corresponding to IPC 409/420 type offences) – Bribery, cheating

Punishment for life is the first offence.

6. Representation of the People Act, 1951 – Section 8:

o Under this Act, if a person is convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for more than 2 years, then he is disqualified.

o However, there is no provision for disqualification on the basis of arrest or detention. This bill is contrary to the existing laws.

7.Constitutional Principle – Presumption of Innocence:

o Every person is presumed innocent until proven guilty by a court of law. This bill violates this principle.

Impact of Proposed Bill

1. If the condition of removing CM/Ministers on the basis of only 30 bodies is met →

o The decision will not be made by the people/lawmakers.

o The decision will be made by the agencies under the control of the Centre (CBI/ED/Police).

2. Thus the role of the Legislature (House) will be reduced → The Executive (Central Government) will gain power.

3. Parliamentary Supremacy will be replaced by Presidential-like Supremacy – where a central person (Home Minister/PM) will decide how long the government will be in power.

Right To Information Act ( A Right That Every Citizen Should Know)

The Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, is a landmark legislation in India that empowers citizens to access information held by public authorities, fostering transparency, accountability, and participatory governance. Enacted on October 12, 2005, it is a critical tool for strengthening democratic governance by ensuring that the government remains answerable to the people.

Key Features of the RTI Act, 2005

1.  Scope: The Act applies to all public authorities at the central, state, and local levels, including government departments, public sector undertakings, and bodies substantially funded by the government.

2.  Right to Access Information: Citizens can request information in the form of records, documents, emails, samples, or any material held by public authorities.

3.  Process:

•  Any citizen can file an RTI application without needing to specify a reason.

•  Public Information Officers (PIOs) are designated to handle requests and must respond within 30 days (48 hours for matters involving life or liberty).

•  Appeals can be made to appellate authorities or Information Commissions if responses are unsatisfactory.

4.  Exemptions: Certain information, such as that affecting national security, personal privacy, or ongoing investigations, is exempt under Section 8. However, exemptions are subject to a public interest override.

5.  Penalties: PIOs can face penalties for delaying, denying, or providing incorrect information without reasonable cause.

Role in Democratic Governance

The RTI Act plays a pivotal role in strengthening democracy by:

1.  Promoting Transparency:

•  It enables citizens to access information about government policies, decisions, and expenditures, reducing secrecy and fostering openness.

•  Example: Citizens have used RTI to expose discrepancies in public spending, such as in infrastructure projects or welfare schemes.

2.  Enhancing Accountability:

•  Public officials are held accountable as citizens can scrutinize their actions, decisions, and use of public resources.

•  Example: RTI queries have revealed corruption in schemes like the Public Distribution System (PDS) or irregularities in recruitment processes.

3.  Empowering Citizens:

•  The Act gives ordinary citizens the power to question authorities, enabling grassroots participation in governance.

•  Example: RTI has been used by individuals and activists to address local issues like poor road conditions, water supply, or school facilities.

4.  Strengthening Rule of Law:

•  By ensuring access to information, the Act reinforces the principle that public authorities are subject to legal and public scrutiny, curbing arbitrary decision-making.

5.  Facilitating Anti-Corruption Efforts:

•  RTI exposes mismanagement and corruption, acting as a deterrent to malpractices.

•  Example: Activists like Anna Hazare leveraged RTI to fuel the anti-corruption movement in India, highlighting systemic issues.

6.  Encouraging Participatory Democracy:

•  It bridges the gap between the government and citizens, enabling informed public discourse and policy feedback.

•  Example: RTI data has been used by civil society to advocate for policy changes in areas like education and healthcare.

Impact and Achievements

•  Social Audits: RTI has facilitated social audits of government programs, such as MGNREGA, ensuring proper implementation.

•  Empowering Marginalized Groups: It has enabled marginalized communities to access information about their entitlements, like rations or pensions.

•  Judicial Support: The judiciary has upheld the RTI Act, with landmark judgments reinforcing its scope and protecting applicants from harassment.

Challenges

•  Implementation Gaps: Delays in responses, lack of awareness, and bureaucratic resistance hinder effective use.

•  Safety of RTI Activists: Over 100 RTI activists have been killed or harassed since 2005, highlighting the need for better protection.

•  Exemptions Misuse: Authorities sometimes misuse exemptions to deny legitimate requests.

•  Backlog in Information Commissions: Appeals often face delays due to understaffed commissions.

Conclusion

The RTI Act, 2005, is a cornerstone of democratic governance in India, empowering citizens to hold the government accountable and participate actively in the democratic process. While it has transformed access to information and exposed systemic issues, addressing implementation challenges and ensuring the safety of applicants are critical to maximizing its potential. By fostering transparency and accountability, the RTI Act continues to strengthen the democratic fabric of India.

Data Privacy Law in India

 Data privacy law in India, focusing on the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (DPDP Act), its background, key provisions, challenges, and practical implications. writing this blog for a general audience with an informative tone, it incorporates recent developments, including the draft DPDP Rules released in January 2025.

India’s Data Privacy Revolution: Understanding the DPDP Act, 2023

In 2025, India stands at the forefront of the global data privacy movement with the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (DPDP Act), its first comprehensive data privacy law. With over 760 million active internet users, India is the world’s second-largest internet market, making robust data protection critical. The landmark 2017 Supreme Court ruling in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India declared privacy a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution, paving the way for the DPDP Act. Enacted on August 11, 2023, and awaiting full implementation, this law balances individual rights with the needs of businesses and government. This blog explores the DPDP Act’s origins, key provisions, challenges, and practical steps for compliance, offering insights for individuals and organizations in India’s digital era.

The Evolution of Data Privacy in India

Until 2023, India lacked a standalone data privacy law. The Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act) and its 2011 Sensitive Personal Data or Information (SPDI) Rules provided limited protections, focusing on basic security practices for digital data. The Puttaswamy judgment in 2017, recognizing privacy as a fundamental right, spurred action. Earlier attempts at comprehensive legislation, like the 2018 and 2019 Personal Data Protection Bills, faced criticism for being overly regulatory or granting excessive government exemptions. After multiple drafts and public consultations, the DPDP Bill, 2022 evolved into the DPDP Act, passed by Parliament in August 2023.

On January 3, 2025, the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) released the draft Digital Personal Data Protection Rules, 2025, open for public feedback until February 18, 2025. These rules aim to operationalize the DPDP Act, with provisions like the establishment of the Data Protection Board of India (DPB) taking effect immediately upon final publication, while others, like consent and breach notification rules, will follow later. This phased approach reflects India’s commitment to balancing innovation with privacy in its rapidly digitizing economy, the fifth largest globally.

Key Provisions of the DPDP Act

The DPDP Act applies to digital personal data—any information identifying an individual, such as names, addresses, or online identifiers—processed within India or by foreign entities offering goods or services to Indian residents. It excludes non-digital data, publicly available data, and data processed for personal use. Key provisions include:

•  Consent and Transparency: Data fiduciaries (entities controlling data use) must obtain explicit, informed consent, accompanied by a clear privacy notice in English or one of India’s 22 constitutional languages. Consent can be withdrawn, and notices must detail data use and grievance redressal options.

•  Data Principal Rights: Individuals (data principals) can access, correct, erase, or restrict their data. For children (under 18) or persons with disabilities, verifiable parental or guardian consent is required.

•  Data Minimization and Purpose Limitation: Data collection must be limited to what’s necessary for a specified purpose, with erasure required once that purpose is fulfilled.

•  Security and Breach Notification: Data fiduciaries must implement safeguards to prevent breaches and notify the DPB and affected individuals within 72 hours of a breach.

•  Significant Data Fiduciaries: Entities handling large volumes of data face stricter compliance, such as mandatory audits and data protection impact assessments.

•  Penalties: Non-compliance can lead to fines up to ₹250 crore (~$30 million USD) for breaches or failure to secure data.

•  Data Protection Board (DPB): The DPB, appointed by the government, oversees compliance, investigates breaches, and imposes penalties, but lacks the regulatory powers of earlier proposed bodies like the Data Protection Authority (DPA).

Notably, the Act grants exemptions for government agencies for purposes like national security or public order, raising concerns about surveillance. It also allows the government to block access to services of non-compliant data fiduciaries after repeated violations.

Challenges and Criticisms

The DPDP Act is a significant step, but it faces challenges. Government exemptions are a major concern, as the Act allows state agencies to process data without consent for benefits, licenses, or security purposes, potentially enabling unchecked surveillance. Human Rights Watch has argued this conflicts with the Puttaswamy ruling’s call for proportionate privacy restrictions. The DPB’s government-appointed structure raises questions about its independence, unlike the more autonomous regulators in the EU’s GDPR.

Cross-border data transfers remain complex. While earlier drafts restricted transfers to specific countries, the DPDP Act allows the government to set rules, but the draft Rules lack clarity on implementation. This affects global businesses, especially with India’s 750 million internet users. Additionally, the Act’s focus on digital data excludes offline data, potentially leaving gaps in protection.

Practical Steps for Compliance

For businesses, compliance with the DPDP Act is critical to avoid hefty fines and build trust:

1.  Conduct Data Audits: Map data flows to identify what personal data is collected, processed, and stored. Tools like Secure Privacy or CookieYes can assist.

2.  Update Privacy Notices: Ensure notices are clear, multilingual, and include consent withdrawal options.

3.  Implement Security Measures: Use encryption and regular audits to prevent breaches. Notify the DPB and users within 72 hours of any breach.

4.  Obtain Verifiable Consent for Children: Verify parental consent for users under 18, avoiding targeted ads or behavioral tracking.

5.  Prepare for Cross-Border Compliance: Monitor forthcoming rules on data transfers to align with global operations.

For individuals, protecting your data starts with awareness:

•  Exercise Your Rights: Request access, corrections, or deletion of your data from platforms or businesses. Use grievance redressal mechanisms or contact the DPB.

•  Review Permissions: Limit app access to unnecessary data, like location or contacts, via privacy settings.

•  Use Privacy Tools: Employ browsers like Brave or extensions like uBlock Origin to block trackers.

Geopolitics 🌍

 

Pseudo Nationalism (Fake Nationalism)

Everyone claims he/she is nationalist, no one wants to get the tag of anti-national . on ground of nationalism we can make someone sentimental we can turn someone ready to do something beyond his reach, but nationalism of many people is false or pretend one. So many of us feel it’s better to keep the lips glued and shut down the feelings and expressions, if we want to escape from being branded as anti-nationalist In this period of pseudo-nationalism But before  go further you must understand the major difference between nationalism & pseudo nationalism. 

Nationalism is a “feeling of love or pride for your own country; a feeling that your country is better than any other”

Pseudo means  “ not genuine; false or pretended”

Pseudo nationalism means “fake nationalism”

Why I am using this term “Pseudo Nationalism” Because without understanding this term we cannot differentiate ourselves from this false nationalism for our country

Pseudo-Nationalism in society 

i) people love’s country but on other hand hates country men on basis's of cast, colors, religion, creed etc

Although we say we love our country but if talk about people of nation  then are still we recognize everyone with his last name, with religion or in religion we find caste, in caste we look for upper caste or lower caste. In short, people try to find religion in name. This type of nationalism is also Pseudo.

ii) people love’s country but don’t have  love for country’s infrastructure like  roads, public places, street 

Although we say we love our country but when it is comes to protect or to keep  clean our  India ranked 168th out of 180 countries in Cleanliness  2020 EPI (Environment Performance Index), according to researchers at Yale and Columbia universities, who say country faces serious environmental health risks, including poor air quality.  This also Pseudo nationalism 

iii) People love’s country but don’t have respect for traffic lights /traffic rules 

We never hesitate to say I am a law-abiding citizen, but we all know how much everyone is abiding law in country, we only abide law due to possibility of penalty.

iv)people love’s cricket but hockey, tennis badminton & other  games are lesser important.

Yes we all love cricket including me yes  I am great fan of cricket but when we talk about other games we all feel lesser important because one who plays cricket for country  he is billionaire for sure but in other games players who represented INDIA they're still struggling for their entity of livelihood. We are second most populated country, but in medal tallies our position below average. I  find one of the reason is media houses who have lesser time stories for other games in television but for cricket even match canceled stories can be headlines for whole day 

V)Politicians like’s  votes not voters

Almost every state of INDIA is under debt / loans. And this debt is to be paid by each and every citizen of INDIA/ local of state in shape of taxes directly or indirectly at present Punjab’s financial crisis is set to worsen with the public debt likely to reach Rs 3.73 lakh crore by 2024-25, according to the latest report of the (CAG)Comptroller & Auditor General of India.

vi)patriotism is stuck somewhere  in  national Flags, national anthems & dates 

There is no doubt that we are emotionally attached with our country but on special dates we filled up  with patriotism/ nationalism  we all got goosebumps while standing on nationalism on special dates, but it is the time show patriotism on each and every day by helping people of country in any manner we are capable. 

The purpose of writing this blog is not to defame my country, but to face the facts and reality of the country. Hope never dies. Because we are the youngest country on the earth most of our population is young & youngsters are having power to lead this country from front in every field to prove that we are nationalist by choice. 

Jai hind 🙏🏼

Shashiveer sharma

Saifuddin Kitchlew (Forgotten Hero of Amritsar )

Saifuddin Kitchlew (15 January 1888 – 9 October 1963) was an Indian freedom fighter, barrister, politician and later a leader of the peace movement. A member of Indian National Congress, he first became Punjab Provincial Congress Committee (Punjab PCC) head and later the General Secretary of the AICC in 1924. He is most remembered for the protests in Punjab after the implementation of Rowlatt Act in March 1919, after which on 10 April, he and another leader Satyapal, were secretly sent to Dharamsala. A public protest rally against their arrest and that of Gandhi, on 13 April 1919 at Jallianwala Bagh, Amritsar, led to the infamous Jallianwala Bagh massacre.^] He was also a founding member of Jamia Millia Islamia. He was awarded the Stalin Peace Prize (now known as Lenin Peace Prize) in 1952. 

Know the saifuddin Kitchlew 

Kitchlew was born to the Kashmiri Muslim family of Azizuddin Kitchlew and Dan Bibi in Amritsar, Punjab. His father owned a pashmina and saffron trading business and originally belonged to a Brahmin family of Baramulla. His ancestor, Prakash Ram Kitchlew, had converted to Islam and his grandfather, Ahmed Jo migrated from Kashmir in the mid-19th century after the Kashmir famine of 1871. 

Kitchlew went to Islamia High School in Amritsar, later obtaining a B.A. from Cambridge University, and a Ph.D. from a German university, before practising law in India (amritsar ) he was the member of amritsar bar association.

Career

On his return he established his legal practice in Amritsar, and soon came in contact with Gandhi. In 1919, he was elected the Municipal Commissioner of the city of Amritsar. He took part in the Satyagraha (Non-cooperation) movement and soon left his practice to join the freedom movement, as well as the All India Khilafat Committee. 

Jallianwala BaghKitchlew was first exposed to Indian nationalism after public outcry over the Rowlatt Acts. Kitchlew was arrested with Gandhi and Dr. Satyapal for leading protests in Punjab against the legislation. To protest the arrest of the trio, a public meeting had gathered at the Jallianwala Bagh, when General Reginald Dyer and his troops fired upon the unarmed, civilian crowd. Hundreds were killed, and hundreds more injured. This act was the worst case of civilian massacre since the Indian rebellion of 1857 and riots broke out throughout the Punjab. 

Political mainstream

Kitchlew rose in the Congress Party, heading its Punjab unit before rising to the post of AICC General Secretary, an important executive position in 1924. Kitchlew was also the chairman of the reception committee of the Congress session in Lahore in 1929-30, where on 26 January 1930, the Indian National Congress declared Indian independence and inaugurated an era of civil disobedience and revolution aimed to achieve full independence.

Kithclew was a founding leader of the Naujawan Bharat Sabha (Indian Youth Congress), which rallied hundreds of thousands of students and young Indians to nationalist causes. He was a member of the Foundation Committee of Jamia Millia Islamia, which met on 29 October 1920 and led to the foundation of Jamia Millia Islamia University. 

He started an Urdu daily Tanzim and was instrumental in the establishment of Swaraj Ashram in January 1921 at Amritsar to train young men for national work and to promote Hindu-Muslim unity. Throughout the 1930-1934 struggles, Kitchlew was repeatedly arrested, and in all spent fourteen years behind bars.

Kitchlew supported a united Indian nationalism against British imperialism and opposed the partition of India, holding that a divided India would weaken Muslims, both economically and politically. 

Post-independence

Kitchlew was opposed to the Muslim League's demand for Pakistan and later in the 1940s became President of the Punjab Congress Committee. In 1947 he strongly opposed the acceptance of the Partition of India. He spoke out against it at public meetings across the country, and at the All India Congress Committee session that ultimately voted for the resolution. He called it a blatant "surrender of nationalism for communalism". Some years after partition and Independence, he left the Congress. He moved closer to the Communist Party of India. He was the founder president of the All-India Peace Council and remained President of 4th Congress of All-India Peace Council, held at Madras in 1954, besides remaining Vice President of the World Peace Council. 

Kitchlew moved to Delhi after his house burnt down during the partition of India riots of 1947, spending the rest of his life working for closer political and diplomatic relations with the USSR. He received the Stalin Peace Prize in 1952  in award ceremony he said " mujhe is baat ki khushi nhi k ye award mujhe mil rha hai mujhe is baat ka garv( proud ) hai k yeh award ek hindustani ko mil rha hai " 

Legacy

in amritsar a chownk namely kitchlew chownk or kacheri chownk is establised.A colony in Ludhiana, Punjab, popularly called Kitchlu Nagar, is named after him. Indian Post released a special commemorative stamp featuring him in 1989. 

The Jamia Milia Islamia created a Saifuddin Kitchlew Chair at the MMAJ Academy of Third world Studies in 2009. 

Kitchlew suffered a cardiac arrest and died on 9 October 1963. On his death, Nehru had remarked, “I have lost a very dear friend who was a brave and steadfast captain in the struggle for India’s freedom”