Sri Padmanabhaswamy Temple case under argument in the Supreme Court keeps evoking a lot of interest among the public. A Bench of Justices T.S.Thakur and Anil R. Dave is hearing the case.
Gopal Subramanium, the amicus curiae in this case, has recommended fortification of the walls and floor of temple vaults containing precious articles. The Bench has disagreed saying that there is no immediate threat of pilferage. It is not clear what is the basis for this threat perception. The judges have observed that security arrangements have been made and the inventory of all articles has been completed.
Subramanium has also suggested that guards protecting the temple should be suitably armed. Responding to this suggestion, Justice Thakur waxed eloquent expressing his faith (or was it agnostic sarcasm?): "God himself is there. Then there is the Kerala police. (Oh, what a seamless movement from God to Kerala police?) You mean to say if both fail, these guards would be able to protect all?" The parenthetical observation is not of the court.
Apparently logical arguments are at times the antithesis of pragmatism. Availability of 'Redundancy' is very often a basic requirement of risk management. The judges will do better to recognise this.
Gopal Subramanium, the amicus curiae in this case, has recommended fortification of the walls and floor of temple vaults containing precious articles. The Bench has disagreed saying that there is no immediate threat of pilferage. It is not clear what is the basis for this threat perception. The judges have observed that security arrangements have been made and the inventory of all articles has been completed.
Subramanium has also suggested that guards protecting the temple should be suitably armed. Responding to this suggestion, Justice Thakur waxed eloquent expressing his faith (or was it agnostic sarcasm?): "God himself is there. Then there is the Kerala police. (Oh, what a seamless movement from God to Kerala police?) You mean to say if both fail, these guards would be able to protect all?" The parenthetical observation is not of the court.
Apparently logical arguments are at times the antithesis of pragmatism. Availability of 'Redundancy' is very often a basic requirement of risk management. The judges will do better to recognise this.
2 comments:
Now about 280 crores worth gold is accounted missing. Wondering who should be held responsible
Post a Comment