Lata Mangeshkar admitted to ICU after testing covid positive

Pope Francis, the beloved spiritual leader of 1.4 billion Catholics worldwide, has passed away at the age of 88. After battling age-related illnesses and spending over a month in the hospital, he departed peacefully, leaving behind a legacy of compassion, humility, and service. His death marks the end of an era and opens a sacred and solemn chapter of transition for the Roman Catholic Church.

The Final Hours and Ancient Rituals

With the pope’s passing, the Vatican enters the interregnum — a time between the end of one papacy and the beginning of another. The camerlengo, the Church's administrator of temporal affairs, performs a centuries-old ritual to confirm the pope’s death. He gently calls the pontiff’s baptismal name three times. If there is no response, the pope is declared dead — a symbolic moment of both loss and tradition.

An earlier custom involved tapping the pope's forehead with a small silver hammer, a practice discontinued after 1963.

The camerlengo then seals the papal apartment and prepares for the destruction of the Fisherman’s Ring and the papal seal — powerful symbols of papal authority. Their destruction signifies the official end of the pontiff’s reign.

A Funeral Rooted in Legacy

In accordance with the constitution Universi Dominici Gregis, the pope’s funeral must be held within four to six days. It will most likely take place at St. Peter’s Basilica, unless otherwise requested by the pope himself. A nine-day mourning period, known as novemdiales, follows the funeral.

The Sacred Search for a Successor

Around 15 to 20 days after the pope's passing, the papal conclave begins — a profoundly secretive and spiritual election process. Cardinals under the age of 80 gather in the Sistine Chapel, cut off entirely from the outside world, including phones and media.

They vote in repeated rounds. After each, ballots are burned. Black smoke rising from the chimney signals no decision. White smoke proclaims that a new pope has been chosen.

"Habemus Papam" — A New Dawn

Once a cardinal is elected and he accepts the sacred role, he chooses a papal name — often in honor of past saints or spiritual inspirations. Then, from the balcony of St. Peter’s Basilica, the senior cardinal deacon steps forward and declares to the world:

“Habemus Papam” — We have a pope.

A moment of silence gives way to thunderous cheers as the newly chosen pope steps forward, greeting the faithful and offering his first blessings. The bells of the Vatican ring out in joy, marking the beginning of a new spiritual journey for the Church and its followers.

Tumakuru: Karnataka Home Minister G Parameshwara announced on Sunday that the much-anticipated caste census report will be formally discussed at a special meeting of the state Cabinet scheduled for April 17. The meeting will focus on the findings and recommendations of the report, which has recently been circulated among ministers.

Speaking at Tiptur in Tumakuru district, Parameshwara noted that the caste census was conducted to ensure equitable access to essential services, education, and employment for downtrodden communities.

“The Congress government, between 2013 and 2018, spent crores of rupees to gather caste-based data from 1.37 crore families,” he said. “However, implementation was delayed by successive governments for various reasons.”

He emphasized the need for careful and informed deliberation and urged political leaders to avoid commenting on the report without studying it. “Nearly 80 per cent of the information in the report is accurate,” the Home Minister said, reinforcing the document’s credibility.

The Cabinet’s decision following the April 17 meeting could have far-reaching implications on Karnataka’s reservation policy and social equity framework.

In a controversial statement that has sparked alarm among legal experts and constitutional scholars, Vice-President Jagdeep Dhankhar criticized the judiciary for allegedly overstepping its bounds, particularly targeting the Supreme Court’s recent verdict that set deadlines for the President and Governors to act on Bills.

“We cannot have a situation where courts direct the President,” Mr. Dhankhar said, suggesting that the judiciary is interfering with the powers of the executive. He further described Article 142 of the Constitution — which empowers the Supreme Court to pass orders necessary to do "complete justice" — as a “nuclear missile against democratic forces, available to the judiciary 24x7.”

This incendiary metaphor has drawn backlash for implying that judicial independence — a cornerstone of democracy — is somehow hostile or dangerous. Critics argue that such rhetoric undermines public trust in the judiciary and risks damaging the careful separation of powers between branches of government.

While addressing the sixth batch of Rajya Sabha interns, the Vice President also referred to a serious incident involving a Delhi High Court judge, Yashwant Varma, from whose residence a large amount of cash was allegedly recovered in March. He questioned the delayed disclosure of the incident and criticized the absence of an FIR against the judge.

“An FIR in this country can be registered against anyone, any constitutional functionary, including the one before you... But if it is Judges, FIR cannot be straightaway registered. It has to be approved by the concerned in the Judiciary, but that is not given in the Constitution,” he argued.

He went on to question why judges, unlike the President and Governors, appear to enjoy immunity not explicitly provided in the Constitution.

“If the event had taken place at his house, the speed would have been an electronic rocket. Now it is not even a cattle cart,” he remarked, criticizing the pace of response and investigation.

Why These Remarks Are Dangerous

While scrutiny of public institutions is necessary in a democracy, the Vice President’s remarks are concerning for several reasons:

1.    Undermining Judicial Authority: By calling Article 142 a "nuclear missile," the Vice President risks portraying the judiciary as a threat rather than a guardian of constitutional rights.

2.    Challenging Separation of Powers: The suggestion that courts should not “direct” the President could erode judicial checks on executive inaction or overreach, especially when constitutional responsibilities are being delayed or ignored.

3.    Eroding Public Confidence: As the Vice President of India — also the Chairperson of the Rajya Sabha — such statements carry institutional weight. Attacks on judicial legitimacy can embolden other political actors to disregard court rulings, weakening the rule of law.

4.    Threatening Judicial Independence: Implying that judges should be more easily prosecuted, without proper due process and internal accountability, could be seen as an attempt to intimidate the judiciary.

5.    Fueling Distrust During Sensitive Times: At a moment when public trust in institutions is essential, these remarks may sow unnecessary suspicion and politicize judicial matters that require careful and independent handling.

The Vice President’s speech has ignited a vital conversation about accountability and judicial conduct. However, framing the judiciary as a rogue institution and questioning its constitutional powers without nuance is fraught with danger. Safeguarding democracy requires mutual respect and balance among all pillars of governance — executive, legislature, and judiciary. When this balance is disturbed through political rhetoric, it threatens not just institutions, but the very foundation of constitutional democracy.