Site Title

They met the way most relationships do today.
Same space. Same routine. Same late conversations.
It felt like love.
Maybe it was.
Marriage followed. A family. A child. Photographs that looked complete.
Then reality stepped in.
Love turned into responsibility. Conversations into expectations. Care into calculation. What once felt like destiny slowly became dependence.
Arguments stopped being about issues and started being about blame.
Who sacrificed more. Who suffered more. Who deserved more.
Separation came easier than repair.
Reputation was questioned. Trust was broken. A child was caught in between. Lawyers became part of the family narrative. What began as affection ended as paperwork.
Years later, both moved on. New partners. New beginnings. New smiles. Society moved on too.
But the question stayed.
Was it love…
or was it requirement mistaken for destiny?
Two decades ago, films told us “they are made for each other.”
Reality tells a different story. Even public love stories ended. Today, thousands of ordinary lives repeat the same pattern quietly.
Love does exist.
But love alone is not enough.
Love without maturity becomes dependency.
Love without responsibility becomes entitlement.
Love without patience becomes revenge.
Most people fall in love.
Very few learn how to stay.
Maybe the real lesson is this:
Before asking who is meant for me, we should ask am I ready for what love demands?
#Love #Relationships #Marriage #Divorce #EmotionalMaturity #ModernLife

Abstract:
Public debates often focus on whether a minister must be formally educated to govern effectively. This question, though important, is incomplete. Constitutional democracy does not demand that authority flow only from academic credentials, nor does it presume that education alone produces responsible leadership. The deeper concern arises when both education and power drift away from their constitutional purpose. In a constitutional framework, power is not a privilege but a trust, while education functions as a means to cultivate constitutional values such as reasoned decision-making, equality, and accountability. When education is reduced to credentialism and power to command, public responsibility weakens. The Constitution privileges duties over degrees, demanding ethical restraint, transparency, and commitment to public welfare. The paper argues that legitimacy in governance flows not from formal qualifications or authority, but from the faithful discharge of constitutional responsibility toward society.

Keywords:
Education, Political Power, Constitutional Responsibility, Governance, Public Trust

Author:
Sidheswar Jena
PhD Scholar, Law

Education is commonly understood as the cultivation of reason, judgment, and intellectual autonomy. This reflection argues that when an educated individual relinquishes independent thought in favor of collective noise, education itself loses its meaning. Knowledge without critical engagement becomes passive conformity, and learning without reflection degenerates into mere credentialism. The crowd may offer comfort, validation, or power, but it cannot substitute for reasoned analysis and moral courage. True education demands the capacity to question dominant narratives, resist unexamined consensus, and think beyond popular approval. The erosion of independent thought among the educated not only weakens individual integrity but also undermines the social purpose of education as a force for progress, justice, and rational discourse. In this sense, education is diminished not by ignorance alone, but by the conscious surrender of intellectual independence.

The other evening, my 7-year-old son asked me a simple yet disarming question:
“Dad, when I grow up, will I live separately?”

It took me a moment to respond. I smiled and asked him,
“Tell me, am I big or small?”
He replied, “You’re big, Dad.”

So I asked,
“Then tell me, am I living separately or with whom?”
He thought for a moment and said,
“With Mom, Didi, and me.”

I smiled again and said,
“Then how can you live separately, my son?”
He looked at me, paused, and said softly,
“Yes, you’re right, Dad.”

That brief exchange stayed with me.
In that innocent question lay the truth of our times — that children today are growing up in a world where separation feels normal, and togetherness feels temporary.

We have built societies so nuclear that the idea of living as one family seems like a memory of the past.
And yet, in that small conversation, I found hope — a reminder that the values of love, connection, and family still live in the purest corners of a child’s heart.

Let’s not let those values fade.
Sometimes, the deepest lessons come not from books or laws, but from the innocent questions of our children.

— Sidheswar Jena
PhD Scholar – Law

By Sidheswar Jena, PhD Scholar (Law)

Introduction

The Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime was designed to simplify taxation, but its penalty provisions have sometimes been applied in ways that burden honest taxpayers. A recurring controversy is whether the general penalty under Section 125 of the CGST Act can be imposed in addition to the late fee under Section 47 for delayed return filing. Several recent judicial pronouncements — notably from the Madras High Court — make it clear that such double penalisation is legally unsustainable.

—

Statutory Scheme: Section 47 vs. Section 125

Section 47 (Late Fee): imposes a fixed late fee for failure to furnish returns within time. It is a specific sanction tailored for delay.

Section 125 (General Penalty): provides a residuary penalty of up to ₹25,000, but only “where no penalty is separately provided for such contravention.”

The legislative intent is clear: if a contravention already attracts a specific fee or penalty under the Act, Section 125 cannot be invoked to duplicate punishment.

—

Case Law: Madras High Court’s Clarification

In Tvl. Jainsons Castors & Industrial Products v. Superintendent of GST (2025), the Madras High Court quashed a Section 125 penalty levied in addition to the late fee under Section 47. The Court held:

1. Section 125 is residuary and cannot be mechanically applied where a specific penal provision exists.

2. Imposing both late fee and general penalty amounts to double jeopardy in taxation, which is impermissible.

3. Absence of fraudulent intent or evasion makes the imposition of an additional penalty disproportionate.

The Court’s ruling aligns with earlier practitioner commentary and guidance notes that emphasise the limited role of Section 125.

—

Principle of Proportionality and Harassment Concerns

Penalties are punitive, not compensatory. The doctrine of proportionality requires that sanctions correspond to the nature of the offence. When a taxpayer has already discharged the statutory late fee, layering an additional penalty is excessive and amounts to harassment.

Courts have consistently discouraged such administrative overreach, underscoring that tax compliance thrives on fairness and predictability — not fear.

—

Practical Implications for Taxpayers

If confronted with a Section 125 penalty for late filing:

Primary Defence: Section 47 already prescribes the sanction; Section 125 is inapplicable.

Secondary Defence: No intent to evade, taxes duly paid, delay was procedural.

Procedural Defence: Challenge lack of proper show-cause notice or hearing.

Relief can be sought through writ petitions, appeals, or representation to higher authorities citing the Madras HC decision.

—

Conclusion

The GST framework recognises that not all contraventions merit the same degree of punishment. Section 47 provides a specific and sufficient consequence for late filing — the late fee. Extending Section 125 to such cases is contrary to legislative intent, violates principles of fairness, and amounts to taxpayer harassment. Judicial guidance now reaffirms that officers must exercise discretion lawfully and avoid the temptation to “double punish.

The message is simple: no double penalty where the law already speaks once.

By Sidheswar Jena
PhD Scholar – Law

We often hear people say society is “intelligent.” But if that is true, why does the crowd so easily follow someone who keeps lying—even when those lies are exposed in broad daylight? At the same time, a person who speaks truth clearly and directly is ignored, even abandoned. This contradiction is not just politics or culture—it is psychology.

Repeated Lies Feel Like Truth

Psychologists explain something called the illusory truth effect: when a lie is repeated many times, our brain starts to accept it as truth. Familiar words feel safer than unfamiliar facts. Lies are repeated loudly, again and again, while truth is usually quiet, serious, and said only once. Naturally, the crowd remembers the lie, not the fact.

The Pull of the Crowd

Another reason is herd mentality. Most people do not like to stand alone. If the majority believes in a lie, joining them feels safe, while supporting the truth feels risky and isolating. It is easier to move with the tide than against it.

Lies Are Attractive, Truth Is Heavy

Lies are often sweet. They promise quick fixes, easy answers, or someone to blame. Truth is harder—it demands responsibility, patience, and sometimes sacrifice. People turn away from truth not because they cannot see it, but because they do not want the burden that comes with it.

The Contradiction of “Intelligent Mass”

This creates a painful contradiction. Society, which prides itself on being educated and progressive, ends up rewarding liars while punishing truth-tellers. In reality, the “intelligent mass” often acts not with intelligence, but with fear, greed (lalach), and emotion.

Has Truth Lost Its Value?

Today, truth seems less about facts and more about agreement. If enough people believe a lie, it starts to look like reality. This is why a repeated liar can be celebrated, while an honest person is left alone.

The Hard Reality

The sad truth is this: lies survive because they are easy to hear, while truth is difficult to accept. Until society learns to choose truth over comfort, the liar will continue to be cheered in daylight, and the truth-teller will continue to stand in silence.