Laws are made for Citizens--not the Citizens are made for Laws

Today I was reading an article by Madabhushi Sridhar (A Professor and Coordinator, Center for Media Law and Public Policy, NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad) throwing light on the constitutional aspects of the capital punishment to Ajmal Kasab and raising questions on the integrity of the Govt.I found his article technically right but it lacks the sense of being human in it.

Though article-72 of the Indian Constitution gives every requester,the chance to appeal again for a judicial review if the plea of pardon(mercy petition) is being rejected by the President yet a Govt can't be blamed for not informing regarding such a provision to the accuser.Here,what the author has blamed that Govt has the responsibility to inform the Kasab regarding the same which it deliberately denied to do so.I am asking,if Govt did it deliberately then also whats wrong in it, after all laws are made for citizens(or persons as said int he article) and not the citizens are made for laws in a democracy.

Why a person who writes an articles puts aside his feelings when it comes to show knowledge on a paper?Why a person instead of listening of his or her own heart and mind tries to express more of his knowledge whether it should be expressed or not ? All what is said is technically right and the examples given are also constitutionally true but for whom it is being written should also be kept in mind while writing .What about the 166 people who killed in the attack when someone calls for another review,this time by the judiciary.After all the law is for the citizens and truth and not for giving a chance by chance to the culprit though just on the name of human rights even when the culpability of the accuser is proved in the apex court.

Writer,Constitution Experts and even nation  need to rethink a lot.

'Ek Thi Freedom of Speech'-The Facebook Row

'Ek Tha Tiger' is a reality or not,don't know but 'Ek Thi Freedom of Speech" is getting realistic these days.It can be predicted by the series of attempts in last few months to shut the voice of people which is getting against you.Recent event of Maharashtra is an active example of the hammer on the table of Article-19-1(a) of the Indian Constitution.

Such coward acts started a ways back but as the last such event which clicks my mind is the literary+cyber+verbal+physical war against 'The Satanic Verses' by Salman Rushdie.One might agree with someone or not but should not hammer on the freedom of speech of that personality and the crux of  the issue is that Govt. also found itself in a whirlpool and so favors the side in majority irrespective of the point that it is abide by the law or constitution or not.People says 'On the name of freedom of speech' one can't hit the sentiments of someone.I say this philosophy is a nonsense if you talk about freedom of speech and right of expression.One should have suffice bearing capability before reacting in a democracy having freedom of speech.Each and every matter or sentence or will have followers or haters,does this mean that the a person won't express his/her views even after living in a democracy which provides the Right of Expression and Freedom of Speech.

Last few months in India include several such examples in which attempts were made to cut the wings of the 'Freedom of Speech',some were desperate and some in progress.A discussion on cutting feathers of 'Right To Information Act',to make CAG a multi-member body,to shoot the messenger and now misusing Article-66(a) of IT-act in accusing two girls who just put there views on the digital canvas on social media.Is this acceptable in the World's largest Democracy??

If you are not agree with someone's view,please be have a patience to bear,think before reaction,that surely would give a better outcome. 

I would again say........People Need to Rethink a lot.