Did Facebook just play a great Indian matchmaker and unite the Right, Left, and Centre?

September 2, 2020

Image Courtesy:cio.economictimes.indiatimes.com

It is the strangest of times in the history of social media in India, when both the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and the Congress have accused social media giant facebook of political bias. The latest salvo has come from Union Minister for Information and Technology Ravi Shankar Prasad, who has written a firmly worded letter to Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg. Prasad has alleged that the Facebook India team has activated a campaign to target those alleged with the “right-of-centre ideology”.

Ravi Shankar Prasad has told Mark Zuckerberg that there have been “documented cases” of bias and inaction displayed by Facebook. Prasad’s letter to Zuckerberg follows similar missives from the Congress party. The Congress had alleged that there was a “nexus” between the Bharatiya Janata Party and Facebook.

However Ravi Shankar Prasad has now added to Mark Zuckerberg’s confusion and alleged that “in the run up to 2019 General Elections in India, there was a concerted effort by Facebook India management to not just delete pages or substantially reduce their reach but also offer no recourse or right of appeal to affected people who are supportive of the right-of-centre ideology.” He told Zuckerberg that he was “also aware that dozens of emails written to Facebook management received no response,” and stated that “the cases of bias and inaction are seemingly a direct outcome of the dominant political beliefs of individuals in your Facebook India team.”

The minister, in what is perhaps the first official government backed ‘warning’ to Facebook, says he wrote the letter “to raise serious concerns, some of which we have also raised in the past with senior officials of Facebook.” He said Facebook should be “visibly seen” as being fair towards “users of diverse beliefs and ideologies” and even though “individuals working in any organization may have their individual likes or dislikes, but that must not have any bearing on the public policies and performance of the organisation.”

He even pinpointed Facebook employees in the India team, “Right from the India Managing Director to other senior officials, is dominated by people who belong to a particular political belief. People from this political predisposition have been overwhelmingly defeated by the people in successive free and fair elections. After having lost all democratic legitimacy, they are trying to discredit India’s democratic process by dominating the decision-making apparatus of important social media platforms. Facebook is the latest tool in their arsenal to stoke internal divisions and social disturbances.”

Prasad said it was “problematic” that “Facebook employees are on record abusing the Prime Minister and senior Cabinet Ministers of India while still working in Facebook India and managing important positions. It is doubly problematic when the bias of individuals becomes an inherent bias of the platform. And it is unacceptable when political biases of individuals impinge on the freedom of speech of millions of people.”

Prasad has also accused Facebook of “selective leaks from within your company to try to portray an alternate reality” and condemned it stating that this amounted to “interference in India’s political process through gossip, whispers and innuendo”.

Here is the letter as shared by Amit Malviya who heads BJP’s Information & Technology wing.

The letter got an interesting response from the Left leadership too. Sitaram Yechury posted:

“The last resort of the guilty is to hurl baseless charges against the Left. Let a JPC probe the nexus between the Facebook & BJP-Modi government.”

The last resort of the guilty is to hurl baseless charges against the Left.
Let a JPC probe the nexus between the Facebook & BJP-Modi government.
The refusal to constitute a JPC is more eloquent ….. pic.twitter.com/a5lWYaiWwY
— Sitaram Yechury (@SitaramYechury) September 2, 2020

Meanwhile, Facebook representatives are expected to appear before a Parliamentary committee today, September 2. They were summoned to explain their side after allegations were made that Facebook allows hate content posted by those affiliated with the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and the right-wing. Facebook came into the limelight after an expose in the Wall Street Journal over its allegedly selective allowance of hate speech on its platform. Opposition parties demanded a probe and Parliamentary Standing Committee on Information and Technology led by Congress leader Shashi Tharoor convened a sitting. The representatives of the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology are also expected to attend.

The Delhi Assembly’s Committee on Peace and Harmony has also decided to summon Facebook officials in its next meeting following incriminating evidence by witnesses of the social media giant’s complicity in aggravating February 2020 Delhi riots.

As reported by SabrangIndia before, Facebook has its own community standards that protect public safety, human rights and technology. According to its Community Standards, Facebook considers the public interest value against the risk of harm. It specially mentions that expressions that threaten people are not permitted, it will remove language that incites serious violence. If there is any physical harm or indirect threat to public safety, the social media giant claims it will remove the content and work with law enforcement. But management of the fine balance between free speech and hateful or inflammatory speech requires a greater understanding of India’s diversity, the religious sentiments of people of different faiths and the country’s questionable track record when it comes to communal violence.

Vadodara man booked for not disclosing religion during sale of property

September 2, 2020

Image Courtesy:navbharattimes.indiatimes.com

In a shocking incident in Vadodara, a Parsi man from was booked for failing to disclose religion while selling his property to a Muslim man. The charges against him were filed under the Gujarat Prohibition of Transfer of Immovable and Provision for protection of Tenants from Eviction of Premises in Disturbed Areas Act.

This Act prohibits the sale of property in a ‘Disturbed Area’ to a person of a different religion without the permission of the District Collector, in a purported bid to maintain communal harmony by preventing changes to demography.

Enacted in 1991 and modified in 2005, the Disturbed Areas Act as it is commonly referred to, says “Where the State Government, having regard to the intensity and duration of riot or violence of mob and such other factors in any area of the State is of opinion that public order in that area was disturbed for a substantial period by reason of riot or violence of mob, it may, by notification in the Official Gazette declare such area to be a disturbed area.” In order to transfer immovable property in a Disturbed Area, a person must make an application to the District Collector.

The Act applies to communally sensitive areas in Ahmedabad, Vadodara, Himmatnagar, Bharuch, Surat, Godhra, and Kapadvanj. Fresh amendments were passed in July 2019 by the Gujarat Assembly, but held back allegedly by the Ministry of Home Affairs in January 2020. The ministry reportedly sought greater clarification as to the definition of “immovable property” and also sought to know if provisions of the act violate any other law and the Indian Constitution. In February 2020, large swathes of Khambhat town in Anand district were also placed under the Disturbed Areas Act for five years.

The proposed amendments reportedly gave greater power to the District Collectors to gauge whether the sale would lead to ‘polarisation’ or ‘improper clustering’ that had the potential to cause disturbance in future. It also allowed for imprisonment of people violating the act from anywhere between three to five years. The fine amount was also increased from the original Rs 1,000/- to Rs 1,00,000 or ten percent of the value of the property.

The entire act may be viewed here:

In the present case, according to the Times of India, the accused, one Feroze Contractor, a resident of Vasna Road in Vadodara, was booked for cheating and forging documents to sell his plot in Samarpan Society to Feroze Patel and his family.

The offense was registered at the JP Road police station on Sunday, on a complaint filed by the society president Manish Malhotra who alleged that Contractor did not disclose that he was Parsi while applying for permission from the District Collector to sell his plot. He also alleged that Contractor had failed to disclose that the sale deed was signed between Contractor and Patel in June last year. It was only when Patel started construction on the plot that residents discovered it had changed hands.

Dr Kafeel Khan released at midnight from Mathura Jail

September 2, 2020

Dr Kafeel Khan who was granted bail by Allahabad High Court on September 1 was released from Mathura jail around midnight. The order came on Tuesday morning and when his family went to Mathura jail to seek his release, the jail authorities refused to do so citing non-receipt of the order.

His wife, Shabista Khan, tweeted from her Twitter account

Even after high court order they are not releasing drkafeel from mathura jail @Troll_Ziddi @007AliSohrab @Iamsabbag @kashaf512 @SanjayAzadSln @yadavakhilesh @priyankagandhi
— Dr Shabista Khan (@ShabistaDr) September 1, 2020

Before Khan was finally released at midnight, Khan’s brother Adeel Khan said, “The authorities are not releasing Dr Kafeel Khan and are trying to implicate him again under some other charge. If he is not released from jail today, we would file a contempt petition in the High Court on Wednesday. The Mathura jail authorities are saying that they do not follow the order of the court but the orders of the District Magistrate, and they can’t release Dr Kafeel until they receive the orders from the DM of Mathura,” as reported by News18.

Khan’s lawyer, Irfan Ghazi, alleged that he tried to meet the DM, Aligarh regarding Khan’s release but the DM did not meet him. “Mathura jail administration informed at around 11 pm that Dr Kafeel will be released, and at around midnight, he was released,” Khan’s lawyer Irfan Ghazi told PTI. His family said they would file a contempt petition at the high court the very next day if Khan was not released on Tuesday; but fortunately, it didn’t come to that.

“I will always remain thankful to all my well-wishers, who raised their voice for my release,” Khan told PTI after his release. “The administration was not ready for release, but because of the prayers of people, I have been released. In Ramayana, Maharshi Valmiki had said that the Raja should act for ‘Raj Dharma’. In UP the ‘Raja’ is not doing ‘Raj Dharma’ but is doing ‘Baal Hatth’ [being stubborn like a child].”

Dr Khan’s mother Nuzhat Parveen said she will finally be able to “see, touch and feel” her son. “I am very happy that my son is coming out of the jail. I will be able to see him, touch him and feel him after a long time,” she added. “My son is a good person and he is never against the country or society. Today is my daughter-in-law’s birthday as well, and we are carrying a cake with us as she is in Mathura.”

Khan said that the Yogi government could frame him in any other case. He thanked the judiciary for ruling in favour of his release. In a sarcastic vein, he added that he wanted to thank the Special Task Force of the Uttar Pradesh Police for not killing him in an encounter while taking him from Mumbai to Mathura, reported Scroll.

Khan was arrested on January 29, 2019 for his allegedly provocative speech at Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) during a protest against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA). He secured bail and as he was to be released on February 13, charges under the National Security Act (NSA) were slapped against him. He has been in detention since then, as the state government extended his detention twice.

The Allahabad High Court, in expedited hearings, ordered for immediate release of Khan while setting aside the detention order issued against him and deeming the extensions of detention orders to be illegal. The court held that the speech on the basis of which Khan was detained did not amount to threatening peace and tranquility of the city. Rather, the court said that his speech gave a call for national unity and integrity.

Businesspersons on the street: A day in the life of street vendors

September 2, 2020

The workday begins in the evening for food-seller Mohammad Irshad. As office workers rush back home, he opens his stall ready to offer savory items like kathi rolls, chicken rolls.

“Nearly, 70 percent of office workers in Delhi are dependent on food stalls. Yet, during the pandemic we are among the first shooed away,” he said.

Irshad prides himself for his business that he started with his friend in 2002.

“My parents were labourers in Bihar. I came to Delhi wanting to start my own business and finish my education at the same time,” said Irshad.

Both of these dreams came true for him after he and his friend started their own food stall. The two used to watch YouTube videos, learn from their friends or watch other cooks at work until they figured out how to make the snacks. Each borrowed about Rs. 5,000 from their friends and went about the Red Fort area looking for materials to build the stall.

“We first started working at Suraj Vihar in East Delhi and within a few days, we had to deal with RWA [Resident Welfare Association] officials. They claimed we did not have the right to work there,” he said.

Over the last 18-20 years, Irshad said that such interrogation by resident officials, police and municipality workers had only increased. “You get used to it,” Irshad said dismissively.

The first time he faced the police, Irshad agreed to pay the officer monthly to stay out of trouble. It took him years to finally stand up to them and ask them not to bother him.

Over time, he figured out how to defend his business. Until 2010, Irshad had not known he could use the police-given fine receipts as proof of his business. Nor did he know that he didn’t need to pay the police but had to file for a food license instead. In 2013, he finally applied for the license with the help of an NGO Janpahal and now works with a food license.

One of his regular customers, a lawyer at the Supreme Court encouraged him to participate in the local Town Vending Committee (TVC.) He is now a TVC member of Sahdara South zone, East Delhi.

“I still wanted to help other people. So, I founded an organisation, Ekta Rehdipatri Sangh, to help other vendors file for their documents,” he said.

Before the pandemic, Irshad used to spend about three hours daily preparing for the food. He earned about Rs. 8-10,000 a month. Even so, he argued that food-sellers fare the worst among all the vendors. He reasoned that other vendors sell dry items such as mufflers, toys and only have to be wary of the police. On the other hand, food-sellers sell wet-items.

“We have to watch out for three kinds of people: the Corporation officials, the health officers and general body officers,” said Irshad.

The health officials end up being the most critical of food vendors despite a food license.

“The health officials are among the first to ridicule our vending rights,” he said.

Another problem Irshad mentioned is that a majority of hawkers do not know their own rights. Therefore, they do not know what to do when the police or municipality officials take away their goods. The vendors are charged with Rs. 4000-5000 fine while their stalls are thrown into the municipality trucks, damaging property bought with their hard-earned money.

“A lot of us are scared. The corporation officials either don’t know or don’t care about our rights. But the law is for everyone. They should listen to us,” he said.

He alleged that this is the biggest cause of corruption – a complete dismissal of others rights.

Even before the enactment of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood And Regulation Of Street Vending) Act, the Supreme Court had explicitly said on September 9 2013, that those vendors who have received a fine prior to this date should not be bothered.

When asked about the Vendors Act, Irshad said the law properly protects vendors’ rights on paper. However, he wishes that the authorities would provide the services mentioned in the Act such as grievance redressal committees.

“When we approach the court with our grievances, we are told to go to the TVC officials. However, even that committee had its first election in 2018 although the Act was made in 2014,” he said.

Regarding the stigma related to vending he said, “You might call me a vendor but I am a businessman.”

Irshad said that the only difference between a vendor and a businessman with a shop is that vendors have “a sword hanging over them.” They don’t know when they’ll be forced into more harassment.

Similarly, he questioned why stalls are cleared from the streets every time a big personality comes to the town.

“The reason is simple. They do not want to show poverty. To them, the stalls are a symbol of poverty,” he said.

Irshad’s pride in his work is in stark contrast to how Vijayalaxmi Gaikwad, a flower-seller in Mumbai, entered the profession.

Widowed at the age of 20 years, Vijayalaxmi became a flower-seller like her mother to take care of her daughter. Taking a loan of Rs. 200-300 from her mother, she began selling flowers outside Saint Joseph High School in Vikhroli, her alma mater. She never had to deal with school children except on teacher’s day but tried to hide away from the professors.

“For the first two months, I hid her face from my teachers. I was embarrassed to be seen selling flowers on the street,” she said. However, as time went by, Vijayalaxmi received the encouragement of her teachers and friends and began focusing on her work.

“Good job. You have nothing to be shy about – that’s what my teachers and friends used to tell me. Slowly, I gained pride towards my work,” said Vijayalaxmi.

Before the lockdown measures were enacted, she used to earn Rs. 200-300 per day and Rs. 2000 during festivals. Nowadays, she lives at her home in Kalwa waiting for the trains to start once again. The working of the trains is vital for her work.

Every day, Vijayalaxmi boarded the 11 AM train to Dadar station to buy 10-12 kgs of varying flowers such as lilies, jasmine, mogra, chrysanthemum. The first part of this process involved pleasant talks with wholesalers. During the latter half, her real work began as she took the goods back to Vikhroli. Balancing the huge bags of flowers on her heads, she boarded the women’s special compartment and stood to the side, waiting to get off at her platform.

“Once I had to throw the flowers at Ghatkopar station because the crowd completely crushed the flowers and then pushed it off at the station. I have to protect those flowers from dirt and the fishmongers in the train. No one will buy the flowers otherwise,” she said.

Vijayalaxmi weaved the flowers into garlands and gajra, often bought for religious purposes. Accordingly, cleanliness played as big a role in her work as it did for Irshad except she did not have to deal with the officials’ harassment.

Even so, as the President of the Azad Hawkers Union, Vijayalaxmi has had her fair share of conflicts with authority figures.

“The BMC and police used to trouble us a lot. Technically, they are only allowed to keep us away from the streets till 9 PM. But there have been days when I have had to come to Vikhroli at 11 PM or 12 AM along with other officials to help other vendors being harassed by the police,” she said.

Vijayalaxmi agreed that there was an issue of crowding as more and more vendors gathered in one area and hindered the pedestrians. Police often came there for such reasons. However, she complained of the manner in which the fines were charged to them in such situations.

“They used to charge Rs. 1250 and then gave us a receipt that read Rs. 1200. For street vendors, those Rs. 50 make a big difference,” she said.

As in the case of Delhi, the Bombay High Court had previously said that hawkers working prior to 2014, should be given certificates. Over a lakh vendors were also identified in a 1997 survey conducted by Tata Institute of Social Sciences and the Youth for Unity and Voluntary Action (YUVA) called the ‘Tata YUVA Survey.’ However, the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) called for another survey which has created a lot of confusion regarding new vendors, said Vijayalaxmi.

Although living in different cities, under different circumstances, Irshad and Vijayalaxmi have similar complaints. The man-handling of their goods by municipal officials, the illegal confiscations by police and the lack of respect towards their profession.

“Other people are given due respect for their work. However, we never receive any appreciation for anyone. We do not ask for applause but the government could at least ensure that our rights are protected,” she said.

Guilty as charged: Investigators, judge, jury and executioners of TV news ‘debates’

September 2, 2020

Image Courtesy:indiatvnews.com

Investigations probing Sushant Singh Rajput’s death have three central agencies working on multiple leads. However, for over two months now, the frenzied mobs of television news reporters, egged on by their bosses helming prime time shows, are hounding anything that moves around the building where Singh’s partner, actor Rhea Chakraborty lives. Egged on, sometimes on live TV, by those anchoring ‘investigations’, and hosting pretend ‘trials’ on prime time TV, these reporters are seen haranguing any visitor to the housing complex, demanding answers to absurd questions. It is a given that the news anchors and their reporters have declared actor Rhea Chakraborty guilty of somehow causing the death of her partner, actor Sushant Singh Rajput. The official investigation agencies, however, have made no such allegations.

Among other things, she has been called “Vishkanya” or poisonous woman, a phrase that once belonged to tacky film scripts of the 80s, but now even used by eminent personalities such as senior politician lawyer Subramanian Swamy. “Shake down Vishkanya Rhea we will get the plot of drugging SSR and murder. For that custodial interrogation required. Which means she will be arrested soon. The big unravelling for the national interest is smashing of the narcotics network,” he demanded in a social media post. And then went on to say similar things to the TV anchors conducting the ‘investigation’.

Shake down Vishkanya Rhea we will get the plot of drugging SSR and murder. For that custodial interrogation required. Which means she be arrested soon. The big unravelling for the national interest is smashing of the narcotics network.
— Subramanian Swamy (@Swamy39) August 30, 2020

Dr Subramanian @Swamy39 always walks the talk,he is not going to let go if India’s national interest is compromised says Popular anchor @RShivshankar @TimesNow On his relentless efforts for justice to #SushantSingRajput #SSRJune14Truth @jagdishshetty pic.twitter.com/V4bxxpmKCL
— Mahesh Joshi (@MaheshJoshi_MJ) August 31, 2020

Investigations into various aspects of Sushant Singh Rajput’s death are now officially being conducted by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), India’s national investigation agency, which it was tasked to do by the Supreme Court of India on August 19. Later the Narcotics Control Bureau, national drug law enforcement agency and the Enforcement Directorate, the national economic law enforcement intelligence agency joined to investigate specific angles that emerged. None of that seems to make a difference to India’s leading television ‘journalists’, from carrying on a parallel investigations, often streaming, and screaming live on TV debates.

Thirty-four-year old Sushant Singh Rajput died, allegedly by suicide on June 14, and by July 25, his father KK Rajput and the family, had filed a first information report in Patna, his hometown, allegedly accusing Rhea Chakraborty and five others, of abetment to suicide. the death. For months now, multiple non experts have since then spewed half baked opinions on everything ranging from mental health issues, post mortem investigations, nepotism, drugs, and even witchcraft.

The unofficial investigation by the media, who have chosen to ignore issues of national concern such as rising cases of Covid-19, floods, starvation deaths, murders, and even the national economic crisis, and instead have decided to shred a woman’s character for the voyeuristic audiences. The media trail is illegal, and unethical to say the least. The Press Council of India in fact issued a media advisory on August 28. It has asked the media “to adhere to the Norms of Journalistic conduct in covering cases under Investigation.”

According to the PCI statement, it has “noted with distress that coverage of the alleged suicide by a Film actor by many media outlets is in violation of the Norms of Journalistic Conduct and, therefore, advises the Media to adhere to the Norms framed by the Press Council of India”. It added that “ the Media should not narrate the story in a manner so as to induce the general public to believe in the complicity of the person indicted. Publishing information based on gossip about the line of investigation by the official agencies on the crime committed is not desirable. It is not advisable to vigorously report crime related issues on a day to day basis and comment on the evidence without ascertaining the factual matrix. Such reporting brings undue pressure in the course of fair investigation and trial.”

The PCI also advised media houses to “refrain from giving excessive publicity to the victim, witnesses, suspects and accused as it will amount to invasion of their privacy rights. Identification of witnesses by the Media needs to be avoided as it endangers them to come under pressure from the accused or his associates as well as investigating agencies.”

It has unequivocally advised the media “not to conduct its own parallel trial or foretell the decision to avoid pressure during investigation and trial.” According to the PCI, the “reporting of the alleged suicide by the actor by some of the newspapers is also in violation of the norms formulated by the Council for reporting on suicide.” The PCI norms clearly prohibit publishing stories about suicide prominently “and advises the media not to unduly repeat such stories. The media is expected not to use language which sensationalise or normalises suicides or presents it as a constructive solution to the problems. The Media is advised not to use sensational headlines or use photographs, video-footage or social media links while reporting on suicide cases.”

However, all of the above violations continue to be done by many mainstream media houses. Most continue to victimise and attack Rhea Chakraborty, and only two media houses, NDTV, and India Today, gave her a platform to air her side of the story. The others, prominently Republic TV, and Times Now, continue to project her as one of the prime suspects, and alleged that there are political connections in the case, as well as the involvement of the ‘drug’ mafia as well.

Taking note of this escalating situation, the Network of Women in Media, India, (NWMI) has strongly denounced the media trial being carried out by a section of TV news channels in the Sushant Singh Rajput case. The NWMI reiterates that the “coverage of the case smacks of crass sensationalism and voyeurism, with TV news channels setting up kangaroo courts to declare individuals guilty even as an investigation is ongoing.”

It notes that “each day brings with it a new low in TV news channels’ coverage, from leaking private chats to making fact-free insinuations to splashing triggering images of the deceased.” The NWMI stated that while it upholds the media’s right to cover a case, in the public interest, with relevant facts, the “reporting should be carried out respecting journalistic norms of fairness, balance, impartiality and factual accuracy. The media must be mindful of its power to shape public opinion and remain alert and responsible in its reportage.”

The NWMI has made the following demands from the media fraternity:

1: End the media trial of Rhea Chakraborty and let investigating authorities do their job freely and fairly. There is currently a complaint against Chakraborty that three investigating authorities are probing. Journalists cannot and must not call for her arrest before the agencies finish their probe. It should be noted that at this juncture of the investigation — when there is not even a chargesheet in place — journalists cannot declare individuals guilty.

2. Respect the privacy of individuals involved in the case, including that of Sushant Singh Rajput. It is distressing to find channels leaking out details of his mental health when these details are clearly not meant for public consumption.

3. Report responsibly on issues of mental health. According to The Lancet, 197·3 million Indians suffer from mental health issues, including 45·7 million with depressive disorders and 44·9 million with anxiety disorders. In such a scenario, the media plays a huge role in shaping society’s response to mental health issues. It is extremely irresponsible for channels to make erroneous statements on depression and its symptoms. TV news anchors should immediately stop the guesswork on the state of Sushant Singh Rajput’s mental health and let agencies carry out their probes. In the meantime, news anchors are requested to use their reach to start a responsible dialogue on mental health issues with doctors and experts in the field.

4. Several conspiracy theories from social media are making their way to primetime news. Journalists must carry out due diligence and not mindlessly give space to conspiracy theories from social media.

5. Videos emerging from around Rhea Chakraborty’s apartment complex in Mumbai bear testimony to how news reporters from some news channels have turned into full-time harassers. A delivery man and a guard at the apartment complex were relentlessly hounded by reporters, who made a mockery of the exercise of news gathering. Editors and proprietors should note that they are party to this degeneration of TV news as a medium, and restore basic human decency to the profession.

However, none of that seems to have made an impact on TV news channels yet, for whom, even badly reported news is good news as long as it gets them views.

Chronology of developments in Sushant Singh Rajput death probe.
TIMES NOW is the only channel that’s keeping you ahead of others with its SIT EXPOSES, stings & breaking news.
Stay tuned to TIMES NOW.#SSRTrueStory #SSRJune14Truth #RheaLieCaughtOut #SushantCaseBreakthrough pic.twitter.com/KVQYiQ1QoQ
— TIMES NOW (@TimesNow) September 1, 2020

#ReportForSSR | After 45 days of investigative reports, there is an attempt to block Republic from reporting on the SSR case. Do you support Republic’s #ReportForSSR campaign?
— Republic (@republic) September 1, 2020

Prashant Bhushan contempt case: The judgment behind the Re. 1 penalty

September 1, 2020

Image Courtesy:thewire.in

The Supreme Court, on August 31, imposed a fine of Re. 1 on Prashant Bhushan for criminal contempt of court and if he failed to pay the amount, he would have to undergo 3 months imprisonment and will be debarred from practicing in the Supreme Court for 3 years. While this was the operative part of the judgment and widely reported, the reading of the entire judgment gives the whole picture behind how the bench came to decide upon the penalty. It clearly shows how the bench, comprising Justices Arun Mishra, BR Gavai and Krishna Murari, reasoned the seemingly nominal penalty it imposed. It also raises the question; is the SC also trying to put the ball in the Bar Councils’ court?

Reference to Bhushan’s affidavit in response

Throughout the proceedings, the sentencing judgement is the first time, the bench quoted from Bhushan’s affidavit in response while holding that “it is more derogatory to the reputation of this Court and would amount to further scandalizing and bringing administration of justice in disrepute”.

The court referred to Bhushan averments about the court surrendering to the majoritarian executive, formation of benches by Chief Justice, withdrawal of the case which was filed questioning the decision of rejection of impeachment motion moved against the then Chief Justice, blaming the court for Ayodhya verdict and so on. The Court said that the averments are neither in the public interest nor bona fide one and are just reckless allegations against the institution of administration of justice.

In defence of judges

Coming to the defence of judges, the court observed, “The Judges have to express their opinion by their judgments, and they cannot enter into public debate or go to the press. It is very easy to make any allegation against the Judges in the newspaper and media. Judges have to be the silent sufferer of such allegations, and they cannot counter such allegations publicly by going on public platforms, newspapers or media… Thus, it is necessary that when they cannot speak out, they cannot be made to suffer the loss of their reputation and prestige, which is essential part of the right to live with dignity.”

About duty of the Bar

About the duty of the members of the Bar, the court stated, “The Bar is supposed to be the spokesperson for the protection of the judicial system… The Bar and Bench are part of the same system i.e. the judicial system, and enjoy equal reputation. If a scathing attack is made on the judges, it would become difficult for them to work fearlessly and with the objectivity of approach to the issues. The judgment can be criticized. However, motives to the Judges need not be attributed, as it brings the administration of justice into disrepute.”

Speaking about scandalising the court, the court held, “Hostile criticism of the judges or judiciary is definitely an act of scandalizing the Court. Defamatory publication concerning the Judge or institution brings impediment to justice”.

Purging for contempt

The court held that merely undergoing the penalty imposed on a contemnor is not sufficient to complete the process of purging himself for contempt. It held that in order to purge criminal contempt something more than an apology is needed; the Court has to be satisfied as to the genuineness of the apology to make an order that contemnor has purged himself of the contempt.

But before the contempt is purged, the advocate could suffer the consequences of Rule 11 of the Rules which postulates that in case the advocate has been found guilty of contempt of court, his authority to act or plead in any court stands snapped.

The court referred to Pravin C. Shah v. K.A. Mohd Ali and Anr which upheld Rule 11 of the Rules framed by the High Court of Kerala under Section 34(1) of the Advocates Act, 1961 which states that, “No advocate who has been found guilty of contempt of Court shall be permitted to appear, act or plead in any Court unless he has purged himself of the contempt”.

The court also referred to the press conference held by former senior most judges of the Supreme Court on January 12, 2018. Bhushan had justified his averments basis this press conference. The court opined, “We hope it was the first and the last occasion that the Judges have gone to press, and God gives wisdom to protect its dignity by internal mechanism, particularly, when allegations made, if any, publicly cannot be met by sufferer Judges. It would cause suffering to them till eternity.”

About the tweets

The court, while making a final reference to the two tweets, the court stated, “It is not expected of a person who is a part of the system of administration of justice and who owes a duty to the said system, to make such tweets which are capable of shaking the confidence of general public and further making wild allegations in the affidavit thereby further attempting to malign the said institution.”

The court further held that “Fair criticism is not to be silenced, but an advocate has to remind himself/herself, where he/she crosses the zone of propriety, and the Court cannot continuously ignore it, and the system cannot be made to suffer. When the criticism turns into malicious and scandalous allegations thereby tending to undermine the confidence of the public and the institution as a whole, such a criticism cannot be ignored.”

About going to press in a subjudice matter

The court held that, “In a sub judice matter, releasing such statement to the press in advance is an act of impropriety and has the effect of interfering with the judicial process”. The court held that the fact that Bhushan went to press after being convicted for contempt means the tolerance of the court was being tested by resorting to unscrupulous methods.

Decision on sentencing

Firstly, the court refused to recall its judgement convicting Bhushan of contempt, as suggested by Senior Advocate Rajiv Dhavan, the counsel for Bhushan. “While sentencing, we have to act with objectivity in relation to the person and the actual effect,” the court observed.

The court held that while the public has the right to criticize, they are “required to abstain from imputing improper motives to those taking part in the administration of justice.”

The court was also perturbed that Bhushan mentioned in his supplementary statement dated August 24 that the court asked him to take 2-3 days to reconsider his statements while the court’s order states that time was given to the “contemnor to submit unconditional apology, if he so desires”.

The court held, “Virtual exchange during the course of the proceedings is not what is the order of the Court but it could be a tentative expression of that exchange during the course of hearing. However, ultimately what is final is the order of the Court.”

“It would have been better if the aforesaid part was not mentioned in the supplementary statement, but we cannot stop anybody from making any statement, but we consider it not to be a proper statement as to what should have been the words in the order of the Court. We have not coerced the contemnor to submit the apology and have clearly mentioned that time was given to submit unconditional apology, “if he so desires”.

Thereafter, referring to Attorney General’s submission that Bhushan may retract his statement and submit an apology, the court stated, “When seniormost functionary in the legal profession of the stature of the learned Attorney General was giving an advice to express regret and withdraw the wild allegations a lawyer of such a long standing was expected to give due respect to it.”

The court further, categorically stated about debarring Bhushan from practicing law, “Pursuant to the conviction in a criminal case, the Bar Council of India can suspend the enrolment, if it so desires. It is also open to this Court to debar from practicing in a Court”.

Declaring the sentence

In its finality, the judgment states that the court is not “afraid of sentencing the contemnor either with imprisonment or from debarring him from the practice”. The court further stated that Bhushan’s conduct reflects adamance and ego, which has no place to exist in the system of administration of justice.

While considering the penalty to be imposed, the court observed, “we cannot retaliate merely because the contemnor has made a statement that he is neither invoking the magnanimity or the mercy of this Court and he is ready to submit to the penalty that can be lawfully be inflicted upon him for what the Court has determined to be an offence.”

The court said that despite giving him several chances to apologize and save the grace of the institution as well as himself as the officer of the court, he has shown no regret and hence the court is imposing an appropriate sentence upon him.

The court stated that it is showing magnanimity and imposing a nominal fine of Re. 1 to be deposited by September 15 by Bhushan failing which he shall undergo a simple imprisonment for a period of three months and further be debarred from practising in this Court for a period of three years.

The complete judgment may be read here.

JNUTA stands by Suvarna Salve

September 1, 2020

Image Courtesy:thewire.in

In January this year, Suvarna Salve, a cultural activist associated with the Samta Kala Manch participated in the ‘Occupy Gateway’ protest demanding justice for students who were injured in the attack that took place at the Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) the previous day. In February, Salve was arrested along with 30 others, but later let off on bail. However, her troubles didn’t end there.

Now, The Wire reports that the Mumbai police have sought a surety of Rs 50 lakh from the 24-year-old. What’s worse, despite the fact that she had been booked in connection with only one instance, the police have labeled her a “habitual offender”.

According to The Wire report the notice was issued on August 24 and it seeks an explanation as to why Salve a proceeding should not be initiated against her under Section 110 (e) of the CrPC. The notice also requires at least one of two persons to appear as a “surety”, pledging an amount of Rs 50 lakh, ensuring her good behaviour for the next two years. If she fails, the amount or the property would be confiscated by the state.

Image Courtesy: The Wire

It is noteworthy that the Occupy Gateway protest saw over 300 people, mostly students and activists coming together to protest the brutal attack on JNU students. However, the manner in which Salve has been targeted suggests that this is nothing but an intimidation tactic to silence dissenters.

The protesters had been named in two separate FIRs at Colaba and MRA Marg police stations and were booked under sections 141, 143 and 149 (unlawful assembly) and 341 (wrongful restraint) of the Indian Penal Code, along with section 37 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951.

Now, the JNU Teacher’s Association has come out in support of Salve. In a statement released JNUTA said, “The JNUTA expresses its concern at reports that the Mumbai Police has slapped a notice on student and cultural activist Suvarna Salve of the Samata Kala Manch whereby it is seeking surety of a whopping Rs 50 lakhs from her.”

Further expressing gratitude and solidarity JNUTA said, “The JNU community is eternally grateful for the solidarity and support it received from across the country and the world when it was targeted in a systematic orgy of violence that was aided and abetted by the Police, the University Administration and the JNU Security. It therefore is duty bound to raise its voice when one of those who came out in JNU’s support is singled out to be targeted and persecuted in this way in what appears to be an attempt to silence the voice of someone who has been raising her voice against the injustices that remain a feature of India’s social reality.”

The JNUTA has urged “the Maharashtra Government, a Government with which many who had also spoken out against the violence in JNU are associated, to intervene and ensure that this reprehensible action against Suvarna Sule is withdrawn immediately.”

The entire statement may be read here:

Assam gov’t adamant on NRC reverification

September 1, 2020

The Assam government has reiterated its stand on the results of the National Register of Citizens (NRC), demanding that a verification be carried out for at least 10-20 percent of the people included in the list.

Senior minister Chandramohan Potowary reportedly told the Assembly, “We had given an affidavit in the Supreme Court saying that there should be re-verification of 20% included names in the districts bordering Bangladesh and 10% in the rest of the districts,” adding, “We need a re-verification because people of Assam want a correct NRC.”

The disappointment with the NRC became evident shortly after the final list was published on August 31, 2019. At that time Himanta Biswa Sarma, a powerful minister in the Assam state government had alleged that names of illegal Bangladeshi immigrants had been included in the NRC. He had demanded that a reverification of 20 percent of the names be carried out in border districts, and 10 percent names be verified in other districts. Several local groups like All Assam Students Union (AASU) had also backed this demand.

Heads rolled and the first official to be shown the door was Prateek Hajela, who was replaced as the State coordinator of NRC by Hitesh Dev Sarma amidst much controversy. Assam Public Works, the NGO that is at the center of the NRC case in the Supreme Court demanded a complete reverification of the list. But the apex court rejected the plea. It now appears that the state government is exploring the option for moving court with a fresh plea for reverification.

However, it is noteworthy that a form of reverification to the extent of reassessing the inclusion of siblings and family members of declared foreigners did take place which led to the publication of the Additional Exclusion list on June 26, 2019 excluding over 1 lakh people. Moreover, during the claims and objections process, documents of people whose citizenship was under the scanner were scrutinised again.

The Assam government’s refusal to accept the NRC thus puts in limbo not only the 19 lakh people excluded from the final NRC, but also the 3.11 crore people who were included, rendering an expensive and tedious exercise moot. It is also a colossal waste of public funds. While official estimates place the expenditure on the NRC exercise at approximately Rs 1,600 crores, the figure leaps past the Rs 11,000 crore mark if we take into account expenditure that will be incurred by people to defend their citizenship; lawyer’s fee, transportation, documentation etc.

How we arrived at this figure
As per advocates and people related to Foreigners’ Tribunals (FT), each and every person excluded from NRC must pay an amount of at least Rs 30,000/- to advocates to fight their cases in the FT. An additional Rs 30,000/- is spent on travel, communication and arranging for witnesses to appear before FTs. In this way, at least Rs 60,000/- is spent by every person on FT cases to prove them to be Indian. In this way, for 19,06,657 people excluded from NRC, the expenditure comes to at least Rs 57,19,97,10,000/- as advocate’s fees and Rs 57.19,97,10,000/- for expenditure on communication and travel for FT appearance for victims, their family members and witnesses. It means Rs 11,439,94,20,000/- will be the minimum expenditure to be borne by the 19,06,657 people excluded from the final NRC.

1...911912913...2,697 Page 912 of 2,697

Did Facebook just play a great Indian matchmaker and unite the Right, Left, and Centre?

Vadodara man booked for not disclosing religion during sale of property

Dr Kafeel Khan released at midnight from Mathura Jail

Businesspersons on the street: A day in the life of street vendors

Guilty as charged: Investigators, judge, jury and executioners of TV news ‘debates’

Prashant Bhushan contempt case: The judgment behind the Re. 1 penalty

JNUTA stands by Suvarna Salve

Assam gov’t adamant on NRC reverification

JOIN OUR MAILING LIST

JOIN OUR MAILING LIST

Important Links

Other Links

CONNECT