12 QUESTIONS TO U.S. PRESIDENT, DONALD TRUMP FROM INDIANS

 

Sir,

This is with reference to the denigration of Indians in general and their duly elected leaders in particular:

1. Language used by you in your Truth Social posts shows that your family set-up, education, work place failed to inculcate civility in your spoken language. What do you say?

2. You have called us as ‘laptop gangsters’. Why then are your MNCs recruiting Indians with IT degrees in highest posts?

3. You refer to our motherland as hellhole. Have you thought what the Nativists think about you and your ancestors who took away their land by force?

4. You refer to Indians as bringing their families to US through subterfuge. Does the family system exist among the whites in US or is it all but broken?

5. If you have ever read global history the whites colonized 2/3rds of the world and raised families there including marriage with locals. The locals never took umbrage. Why should you get bothered now?

6. US has taken the benefit of getting readymade doctors, engineers, IT experts, nurses without spending a penny on their education which they received in India. You recruit them as of use to your economy and pay them pittance and make them face racial discrimination. Is the US establishment not into gangsterism?

7. About 15 months earlier you had sent plane-loads of Indians handcuffed, half starved, allegedly on grounds that they were illegal immigrants. Don’t you dare to repeat what you did at that time? This action of yours violated national, international laws.

8. You badly need the services of a psychiatrist to assess your mental health. Are you prepared for that? Else under US state laws restraint can be used to get you to a psychiatric institution for a check-up and for which no court order is needed.

9. You have denigrated progress of Indian economy by calling it ‘dead-economy’ but which is one of the fastest growing economies in the world. Do you understand you are making a laughing stock of US presidency?

10. Do you understand that your present action at Hormuz has destabilized global economy?

11. Would you kindly forget about using nuclear bomb which could threaten countries in the middle east right up to the shores of India?

12. While you should feel free to deal with both Pope and Christ as you like, please show restraint in referring to leaders of India and Indians. Could you honestly inform the world why you are dodging appearance in Epstein files enquiry by Senate House Committee?

India like Iran and China are ancient civilizations about which you need to read up so that you show respect that is due to ancient civilizations.

Thanks.

PIL Watch Group

 

T

Open letter to President Donald Trump

Sir,

Media reports in India indicate certain comments attributable to you and which project India, Indians in bad light. Your choice of words leaves much to desire. Is this really the assessment you have about us Indians?

Thanks,

P.S. Sahni & Shobha Aggarwal

PRESS RELEASE: Supreme Court Seeks Union Government’s Response on Plea Challenging Non-Enforcement of Delhi Rent Act, 1995 for three decades

 

A Bench of the Supreme Court of India comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vijay Bishnoi on Monday, 9 March 2026 directed the Union of India to file its counter affidavit in a writ petition challenging the continued non-enforcement of the Delhi Rent Act, 1995 (“1995 Act”) for nearly three decades.

The Court granted the Union Government four weeks to file its counter affidavit. The petitioner has been permitted to file a rejoinder affidavit within two weeks thereafter. Earlier, on 7 January 2026, the Supreme Court had issued notice to the Union Government in the matter.

During the hearing, the Bench questioned the Government on why the Act has not been notified. The Government counsel sought time to file counter, stating that the matter had come up for hearing for the first time.

The Government also raised a preliminary objection that the petitioner had approached the Supreme Court directly instead of first moving the High Court.

Responding to the objection, the petitioner, Ms. Shobha Aggarwal, who is appearing in person, pointed out that in Common Cause v. Union of India (Judgement dated 8 October 2003), the Supreme Court had declined to issue a writ of mandamus directing the Government to notify the Delhi Rent Act, 1995. In light of that decision, she argued, the High Court would likely have dismissed the petition at the threshold.

The matter will be taken up after the completion of pleadings.

The petition raises an important constitutional question: whether a law duly enacted by Parliament can be kept in abeyance indefinitely – in the instant case for over thirty years – without being brought into force?

Case details:

Writ Petition Civil No. 1177/2025 titled Shobha Aggarwal Vs. Union of India

SC plea questions 30-year old delay in executing Delhi Rent Act of 1995

 

(HT, 14.1.26)

Supreme Court issues Notice to Central Government to explain 30-yr delay by the Executive in Notifying Delhi Rent Act, 1995 despite Presidential approval.

NDH 9.3.26.

Case title: Shobha Aggarwal vs. UOI.

This is not a PIL but a writ petition

Owners welcome SC order

The Public Interest Litigation Hoax in India: its Adverse Impact on the Poor

 by

Shobha Aggarwal

This article is based on a research study conducted by the writer towards the end of the last century and later published in 2005 by the PIL Watch Group as a citizen’s report titled “The Public Interest Litigation Hoax – Truth Before the Nation: A Citizen’s Report on How PIL Fails to Provide Justice to Those Who Need It Most.” The report was widely circulated among lawyers, judges, NGOs, and social activists regularly engaged in filing PILs. We still await a critique of our document.

 

We drew encouragement from Manu Kothari and Lopa Mehta’s campaign critiquing the mainstream management of cancer globally. These professors later wrote that no one in the establishment could challenge their viewpoint. Similarly, when Ivan Illich wrote Medical Nemesis, he was called iconoclastic; today, the medical establishment acknowledges the value of his critique on the limits of medicine.

 

While campaigning with the Report, some organizations privately conceded that they filed PILs even though Supreme Court orders rarely reached victims to provide relief. A number of international publications have cited the Report, less often by the homebred academic journals. [A list of these publications will follow soon.] A section of the national press covered it when it was released at the Press Club of India. Freelance journalists carried half-page features on it. Late Mastram Kapoor, veteran socialist ideologue, drew a parallel between Ram Manohar Lohia’s efforts to file cases for the poor and the original purpose of the earliest PILs. Ram Avtar Shastri, a syndicated journalist, covered it on the front page of Punjab Kesari, and the article was widely reproduced in the vernacular press.

 

We even dared to present our Report to those who had made a business out of PILs. Copies were kept at the Central News Agency, and we were surprised when an individual from Goa ordered 100 copies. Copies from a left-leaning bookshop at the Constitution Club even reached the United States! The Report was covered in Mainstream Weekly, Manushi, Free Press Journal, The Tribune, Jansatta, Punjab Kesari, The Statesman, SACW, Frontier Weekly, Countercurrents.org and The Telegraph. One of the first commendations we received was from APDR, West Bengal. The study remains as relevant today – and stays as uncontested till date – as when it was first published.

 

The idea of Public Interest Litigation was propagated by a handful of Delhi-based Supreme Court lawyers and judges in the late 1970s and early 1980s. In the half-century since its inception in India, PIL has assumed pandemic proportions, spreading even to countries where Indian judicial precedents carry weight. Though originally intended to provide judicial redress to the poor, PIL has been hijacked to advance ideologically driven agendas. Today, very few PILs are filed on behalf of the poor and needy.

 

Much judicial time in the Supreme Court and High Courts is wasted on sprawling, inconclusive proceedings—for example, M.C. Mehta’s mammoth petition on environmental pollution, pending in the Supreme Court since 1985. Forty years on, Delhi’s air and water are more polluted today than they were in 1985. As a result, adjudication of important constitutional issues has taken a back seat.

 

In effect PILs have managed to depoliticize society through subversion of people’s campaigns and movements. It has now become an industry, often sustained by massive foreign funding. PILs flout basic principles of natural justice and lack any sound legal foundation. Far from being a tool of justice, PIL has become a genie that must be put back into the bottle.

 

Abstract - In Public Interest Litigation (PIL) cases hundreds of thousands of poor people in India have been adversely affected to the extent of losing their livelihood, homes and even Constitutional guaranties all in the name of ‘public interest’; even though PIL in India derives its legitimacy as an instrument to provide justice to the underprivileged and the downtrodden. Why have things come to such a pass? The most important reason appears to be that in PILs the principles of natural justice are not followed. For example in the case of Delhi industries the Supreme Court (SC) thought nothing of taking away the livelihood of around one million workers (and their families) without giving them a hearing and displacing them from Delhi where they were rooted for two generations. Where lower adjudicating authorities violate principles of natural justice the affected can appeal to higher judicial bodies. But if the highest court in the land violates principles of natural justice people have nowhere to turn to. This study critically examines the PIL judgements of the Supreme Court of India through the eighties and nineties in the light of principles of natural justice and how they adversely affect the poor.

 

See the full article at: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QlLSNu84dL_uK1blxIaQ3MYyuEdg0lME/view?usp=sharing