On Monday, August 29, the Supreme Court was set to hear the plea filed by activist Gautam Navlakha where he sought to be placed under house arrest instead of his current lodgings at the Taloja Central Jail in Navi Mumbai. Navlakha ahad cited lack of basic medical necessities as the reason for seeking transfer, reported Live Law.
However, Justice S Ravindra Bhat, who was on the bench with Chief Justice UU Lalit, recused himself from hearing the matter. CJI Lalit placed the matter before Justice KM Joseph instead, and reportedly said, “Justice Bhat cannot hear (this appeal). This case is not to be listed before a bench with Justice Bhat. List before me on administrative side. This case was listed before me and Justice KM Joseph last. We will have this case listed before a bench with Justice Joseph.”
In April 2022, the Bombay High Court had dismissed Navlakha’s plea requesting that he be kept under house arrest pending trial in the Bhima Koregaon violence case. Instead, the division bench comprising Justices Sunil B Shukre and Govinda A Sanap had directed the Superintendent of Taloja Central Jail to ensure medical facilities are provided to the petitioner.
The National Investigation Agency (NIA) had submitted a list of seventeen draft (proposed) charges against the 15 accused, including the serious charge of waging a war against the country, which is punishable with death or imprisonment for life (section 121 of the Indian Penal Code) before the court. The 15 accused are- Varavara Rao, Anand Teltumbde, Gautam Navlakha, Vernon Gonsalves, Arun Ferreira, Sudha Bharadwaj, Rona Wilson, Shoma Sen, Sudhir Dhawale, Surendra Gadling, Mahesh Raut, Hany Babu, Ramesh Gaichor, Jyoti Jagtap and Sagar Gorkhe.
The NIA charges claim that the accused persons are members of a banned organisation, CPI (Maoist), whose main objective is to establish a Janta Sarkar i.e., people’s Government via a revolution supported by a commitment to protracted armed struggle to undermine and to seize power from the State.
On Monday, August 29, the Supreme Court of India heard a batch of petitions challenging the validity of the ban on wearing hijabs (traditional Islmaic headscarves) in educational institutions in Karnataka, reported LiveLaw.
Several attempts were made over the last three months by the different lawyers to seek urgent posting before the Court. Finally, the Court was set to hear the batch of petitioners today when the court was informed by the Solicitor General Tushar Mehta about the letter of adjournment circulated by the petitioners.
A bench comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and Sudhanshu Dhulia reportedly remarked, “This is not acceptable to us. You wanted urgent listing and when the matter is listed, you want adjournment. We will not permit forum shopping.”
The counsel appearing for the petitioners justified their request for adjournment stating that the advocates were coming from all over India. To this, the Judge remarked that Karnataka was only two and a half hours away (by air from Delhi where the Supreme Court is located).
As Solicitor General Tushar Mehta pointed out that the matter was mentioned at least six times for urgent listing, the petitioners explained that the onset of exams was the reason for the urgency. SG Mehta retorted, “So you mentioned without making preparations?”
Accordingly, the Court refused to give two weeks’ time requested by the petitioners and posted the matter on September 5, 2022.
A batch of 23 petitioners was listed before the bench including writ petitions filed directly before the Supreme Court seeking the right to wear hijab for Muslim girls students and some other special leave petitions which challenge the judgement of the Karnataka High Court dated March 15 which upheld the hijab ban.
Brief background of the case
The hijab controversy had originally erupted in wake of a Government Order issued on February 5 against the wearing of religion specific clothing in schools and pre-university colleges where a uniform has been prescribed. What followed was harassment of hijab-wearing girls on school and college campuses across the state.
Some were surrounded and heckled, others faced intimidation tactics by members and supporters of right-wing Hindutva groups. Some were even denied entry into educational institutions until they removed the traditional headscarf.
The contentious matter underwent several hearings in the Karnataka High Court that examined the following key questions:
Whether wearing hijab is essential practice in Islamic faith, protected under Article 25 of the Constitution?
Whether prescription of school uniform is not legally permissible as being violative of petitioner’s fundamental rights in alia guaranteed under Article 19 (1) (a) that is Freedom of Expression an dArticle 21 that is Privacy, of the Constitution?
Whether the Government Order dated February 2, 2022, apart from being incompetent is issued without application of mind and further is manifestly arbitrary and therefore violates articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution?
Whether any case is made out in WP 2146 of 2022 for the issuance of direction for initiating disciplinary enquiry against respondent no. 6 to 14 and for issuance of Writ of Quo warranto against respondent no. 15 and 16?
The high court ruled that no case was made out for invalidating the Feb 5 Government Order.
Support for Bilkis Bano and calls for justice for her are growing every day. Now, 134 former bureaucrats have written to the Supreme Court about the recent remission of sentence granted to eleven men convicted for gangraping Bilkis Bano and murdering 14 members of ther family including her two-and-a-half-year-old daughter, asking it to “rectify this horrendously wrong decision”.
“We write to you because we are deeply distressed by this decision of the government of Gujarat and because we believe that it is only the Supreme Court which has the prime jurisdiction, and hence the responsibility, to rectify this horrendously wrong decision,” says the letter signed by former civil servants and activists such as Aruna Roy and Harsh Mander, former Mumbai police chief Julio Ribeiro, former Home Secretary GK Pillai, former Cabinet Secretary K M Chandrasekhar, former Lieutenant Governor of Delhi Najeeb Jung, and former foreign secretaries Shivshankar Menon and Sujatha Singh, among others. The letter has been put together under the aegis of the Constitutional Conduct Group.
The letter further says, “So influential were the persons accused of this ghastly crime and so politically fraught was the issue that not only has the case to be investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) instead of the Gujarat police, but it also had to be transferred from Gujarat to a special CBI court in Mumbai, to ensure a fair trial, because of the death threats received by Bilkis Bano.” It adds, “It is also shocking that five out of the 10 members of the Advisory Committee, which sanctioned the early release, belong to the Bharatiya Janata Party, while the remaining are ex-officio members. This raises the important question of impartiality and independence of the decision, and vitiates both the process and the outcome.”
The civil servants urge the Supreme Court, “In view of these glaring deviations from established law, departure from government policy and propriety, and the chilling impact that this release will have, not just on Bilkis Bano and her family and supporters, but also on the safety of all women in India, especially those who belong to minority and vulnerable communities, we urge you to rescind the order of remission passed by the Gujarat government and send the 11 persons convicted of gangrape and murder back to jail to serve out their life sentence.”
Readers would recall that on August 25, the Supreme Court issued notice in the petition moved by CPI (M) Member of Parliament Subhashini Ali, journalist Revathi Laul and Prof. Roop Rekha Verma, challenging the grant of remission of sentences. The State was granted two weeks to respond to the petition.
In Ratiya district of Haryana on August 25th a protest was staged confronting the selling of education by the BJP govt.in the name of the New Education policy. Students assembled from villages of Alika, Kelawa and Malwala.Preceding the rally the students undertook a protest campaign within the villages. They launched a dharna vociferously raised slogans outside the central University gate. Around 700 students were present.
Activists of Shaheed Bhagat Singh Youth Front addressed the gathering. They demanded the re-instatement of retrenched teachers of govt, schools, opening up of all schools closed, Filling of all empty seats prevailing in schools, ,scrapping change in syllabus in name of new education policy,
Leader of Shaheed Bhagat Singh Naujwan Sabha Harpreet Alika spoke about the policy of deliberately closing down government schools and selling education to private mercenaries, literally impoverishing the student community. He gave instances of how many students were walking out of schools. Leader of Shaheed Bhagat Singh Ambedkar Manch Jaskaran Sidhu portrayed how 300 government schools were shut down after the coming of BJP, endangering the future of teachers. He also highlighted how unemployment was reaching a soaring height with the govt.education policy
Most heartening to witness such fierce or determined resistance by the student community to challenge the ruthless education policy of the BJP,which completely backs imperialist designs. It illustrates the spiralling of political consciousness against the pro-rich agenda of the rulers. An organised movement needs to be nurtured to challenge the anti-people education policies and the communalisng of the education system. The student community should never be subdued in undertaking such a path, which do justice to Shaheed Bhagat Singh and Ambedkar.It was the weakness of an organized movement to challenge privatization of education from the 1990’s in the era of liberalisation, which paved the path for the current anti-student policies.
Harsh Thakor is a freelance journalist who covers mass movements around India
Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin speaks at a news briefing at the Pentagon on July 20, 2022. Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images
Less than a month after the Jan. 6, 2021, assault on the U.S. Capitol, Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin took the extraordinary step of pausing all operations for 24 hours to “address extremism in the ranks.” Pentagon officials had been shaken by service members’ prominent role in the events of Jan. 6.
Of the 884 criminal defendants charged to date with taking part in the insurrection, more than 80 were veterans. That’s almost 10% of those charged.
More remarkable, at least five of the rioters were serving in the military at the time of the assault: an active-duty Marine officer and four reservists.
Service members’ involvement in the insurrection has made the spread of extremism – particularly white nationalism – a significant issue for the U.S. military.
The group found about 100 substantiated cases of extremism in the U.S. armed forces in 2021.
The latest instance occurred in July 2022, when Francis Harker, a National Guard member with white supremacist connections, was sentenced to four years in prison for planning an anti-government attack on police. Harker, who carried a picture saying “there is no God but Hitler,” was planning to attack police officers in Virginia Beach, Virginia, with Molotov cocktails and semi-automatic rifles.
Worried, Austin has tightened the rules regarding political speech within the military. The new rules prohibit any statement that advocates for “violence to achieve goals that are political … or idealogical in nature.” The ban applies to members of the military both on and off duty.
Also, for the first time, the new rules prohibit statements on social media that “promote or otherwise endorse extremist activities.”
In light of the stricter policy, it is useful to consider how courts apply the First Amendment in the military context.
Good order and discipline
While soldiers and sailors are certainly not excluded from the protection of the First Amendment, it is fair to say they operate under a diluted version of it.
As one federal judge observed, the “sweep of the protection is less comprehensive in the military context, given the different character of the military community and mission.”
The “right to speak out as a free American” must be balanced against “providing an effective fighting force for the defense of our Country,” a federal judge noted in a separate case.
These and other federal judges point to the military’s need for good order and discipline in justifying this approach.
While never precisely defined, good order and discipline is generally considered being obedient to orders, having respect for one’s chain of command and showing allegiance to the Constitution. Speech that “prevents the orderly accomplishment of the mission” or “promotes disloyalty and dissatisfaction” within the ranks harms good order and discipline, and can be restricted.
In 1974, for example, the Supreme Court ruled that the Army can punish an officer for encouraging subordinates to refuse to deploy.
The officer’s comments included: “The United States is wrong in being involved in the Vietnam War. I would refuse to go back to Vietnam if ordered to do so.”
In 1980, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Army could legally fire an ROTC cadet for making racist remarks during a newspaper interview.
Explaining his political philosophy, the cadet said: “What I am saying is that Blacks are obviously further behind the whites on the evolutionary scale.”
In 2012, a San Diego district court ruled that the Marine Corps can lawfully discharge a sergeant who mocked president Barack Obama while appearing on the “Chris Matthews Show.” At one point the sergeant told the host: “As an active duty Marine, I say screw Obama and I will not follow his orders.”
While each of these statements is protected by the First Amendment in civilian life, they crossed the line in military life because they were deemed harmful to morale and represented what one federal court described as more than “political discussion … at an enlisted or officers’ club.”
The military’s job is to fight, not debate
In deciding these First Amendment cases, courts often hark back to why the military exists in the first place.
“It is the primary business of armies and navies … to fight the nation’s wars should the occasion arise,” the Supreme Court said in 1955.
In a separate case, the Supreme Court declared: “An army is not a deliberate body. It is the executive arm. Its law is that of obedience.”
U.S. soldiers stand to attention at the United States Army military training base in Germany on July 13, 2022.Christof Stache/AFP via Getty Images
Quickly following orders can mark the difference between life and death in combat.
On a national level, the degree to which an army is disciplined can win or lose wars. A mindset of obedience does not come solely from classroom training but from repeated rehearsals under realistic conditions.
As a military judge observed in a 1972 decision, while service members are free to discuss political issues when off duty, the “primary function of a military organization is to execute orders, not to debate the wisdom of decisions that the Constitution entrusts” to Congress, the judiciary and the commander in chief.
New policy bans ‘liking’ extremist messages
The U.S. military’s revised approach to political speech prohibits retweeting or even “liking” messages that promote anti-government or white nationalist and other extremist groups.
Does a restriction this broad comply with legal precedent?
As a law professor who has served more than 20 years in the U.S military, I believe the broader rules will probably be upheld if challenged on First Amendment grounds.
The most comparable case is Blameuser v. Andrews, a 1980 case from the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals where an ROTC cadet espoused white supremacist political views in a newspaper interview.
Amongst other extremist remarks, the cadet told the reporter: “You see, I believe that in the final analysis, the Nazi Socialist Party will take over America and possibly the whole world.”
Finding that the statements harmed good order and discipline, the Seventh Circuit ruled that the Army did not violate the First Amendment when it subsequently removed him from the officer training program.
The cadet’s “views on race relations draw into question his ability to obey commands, especially in a situation in which he regards the military superior as socially inferior,” the Blameuser decision said.
The military has wide latitude in deciding who is deserving of the “special trust and confidence” that comes with military employment. Military officials are free to consider political and social beliefs that are “inimical to the vital mission of the agency” in making hiring and firing decisions, the Blameuser decision said.
Social media posts expressing support for violent political activities will likely be treated in the same way.
As the Seventh Circuit said in Blameuser, by liking or retweeting an extremist message, a service member’s actions are “demonstrably incompatible with the important public office” they hold.
Prayagraj: The meeting of the guide board of Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP), Kashi province, was held on Sunday at Alopi Bagh-based ashram of Jagatguru Swami Vasudevanand Saraswati Ji in Prayagraj.
The unity of Hindu society was emphasized in this meeting. At the same time, the dignitaries have raised their voices for a complete ban on conversion.
Briefing the theme of the meeting, All India Sant Sampark Pramukh Ashok Tiwari said, “The issue of untouchability and ‘Love Jihad’ is serious before the Hindu society which was discussed today.”
Chief Guest Jagatguru Swami Vasudevanand Saraswati asked the saints to leave their Math and temples and awaken the Hindu society for the promotion and protection of Hindus.
“From time to time, the guidance of the society by the saints is necessary for the support of the Hindu religious culture. The awakening of the Hindu society is the solution to the problems of the Hindu society. We have to do the work of bringing our brothers who are away from the mainstream of Hindu society,” he said.
Acharya Jitendra Nath Maharaj of Eknath Peeth said that the roots of Hindu religious culture are so deep that no invader could end it.
“We wish for the happiness of the whole world and our society which has been away from us for some period also stands together in the name of religion and culture. We have to do the work of bringing them into the mainstream. To motivate mothers and sisters, many programs will be organized from time to time through Vishwa Hindu Parishad and saints,” Acharya Jitendra further said.
Mahant of Sacha Baba Ashram, Swami Gopal Das Ji Maharaj who was presiding over the meeting, said, “After Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Movement, Baba Amarnath Yatra, and after protecting Ram Setu, the issue of conversion, love jihad is in front of Hindu society.”
Swami Gopal further said that a ‘Jagrit’ (awakened) Hindu is the leader in the whole world.
Saints present in the meeting of VHP Kashi province have also given their views about Krishna Janmabhoomi in Kashi Vishwanath, Mathura
Mainly, Acharya Jitendra, Maharaj Ghanshyam Acharya, Jamuna Puri, Maharaj Swami Lal Baba, Omkar Giri, Swami Narayan Das, Chandra Bhushan Das, Ram Prapannacharya, Kul Shekhar Acharya, Radhe Giri and Nirmal Sharan Maharaj gave their views.
Moradabad: The Moradabad police have booked 26 people for holding a mass gathering to offer namaz in a house without prior permission from local authorities.
Superintendent of Police (rural), Moradabad, Sandeep Kumar Meena, said, “Scores of people assembled at the house of two local villagers in Dulhepur village in Chhajlet area without any notice and offered prayers. They had been cautioned in the past not to indulge in such a practice at home, following objections from neighbours belonging to another community.”
He said, “An FIR has been registered under IPC 505-2 (statement conducing to public mischief in an assembly engaged in the performance of religious worship) against 16 identified and 10 unidentified persons on the complaint of local Chandra Pal Singh. We are looking for those involved in the case.”
Pictures of people purportedly praying inside the house in ‘large numbers’ at Dulhepur village had gone viral on social media, following which, a few right-wing activists staged a protest and demanded police action.
The protests were called by 22 organisations, including AIDWA, AIPWA, YWCA, AISA, NAPM, AIUWFP among others. Image Courtesy: Facebook
New Delhi: Several rights groups on Saturday organised protests across the country against the remission of life sentences given to 11 convicts by the Gujarat government in the 2002 Bilkis Bano gang-rape case.
The protests took place at Delhi’s Jantar Mantar, Bengaluru’s Freedom Park, and Mumbai, all of them condemning the Gujarat government’s decision and demanded that the convicts’ life sentences be reinstated. The protests were called by 22 organisations, including AIDWA, AIPWA, YWCA, AISA, NAPM, AIUWFP among others.
The 11 men sentenced to life imprisonment in the Bilkis Bano case had walked out of the Godhra sub-jail on Monday, August 15, after the Gujarat government approved their release under its remission policy. The convicts were later garlanded by groups like the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP).
The men had gangraped Bano in a village near Ahmedabad on March 3, 2002, during the riots in Gujarat. She was 19 and pregnant at the time. Fourteen members of her family were also killed in the violence, including her three-year-old daughter whose head was smashed on the ground by the perpetrators.
Citizens have been protesting since the day the convicts were released.
Maimoona Mollah, member of the All India Democratic Women’s Association (AIDWA), who was present at the protest, told NewsClick: “I applaud Bilkis for her courage but this decision is anti-women and at the same time this is an attempt to make Muslim women second class citizens.”
Many protesters present at Jantar Mantar shared Mollah’s sentiments.
Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) student Apeksha Priyadarshi told NewsClick that the circumstances under which this decision was taken was questionable. “Everyone is playing the blame game now. The BJP government is saying that the court released them and the Supreme Court is saying that we had only asked to form a committee. But no one thought of Bilkis and her family.”
She further raised questions about the security of Bilkis and her family now that the 11 convicts were set free by the court. “After this decision, there is fear among the Muslim population around the village of Bilkis and many families are afraid by the release of these heinous criminals,” she said.
Veteran Indian actress Shabana Azmi, who was also present at the Jantar Mantar protest, to extend her support and express solidarity with Bilkis and her family told mediapersons that: “We will only believe the Prime Minister’s tall claims regarding women’s safety when we see the results. Put these criminals in jail in a week, then their words can be believed.”
Azmi also termed a BJP leader’s attempt to save these criminals by portraying them as “cultured and Brahmins”as “disgusting”.
“This country had united and fought in the case of Nirbhaya. People’s struggle is the only way. We will unite and take to the roads for Bilkis till justice is served,” Azmi added.
Accusing the BJP of playing politics over religion, Kavita Krishnan, general secretary of All India Progressive Women’s Association (AIPWA), said: “Today, there is anger across the country due to this decision of the government. The BJP is using it to polarise its Hindu votes. BJP wants to get votes in 2022 on the basis of this incident that happened 20 years ago. But, we have to ask Prime Minister Modi why he is silent on the matter of Bilkis? We want to hear Bilkis name from Modi’s mouth. I dare him!”
In fact, AIDWA had called for protests across the country on Saturday. The women’s organisation informed that similar protests and resistance meetings have been and are taking place in all the states of the country including Uttar Pradesh, Karnataka.
Communist Party of India (Marxist) (CPI(M) Politburo member and AIDWA’s National Vice President Subhashani Ali along with two others, has challenged the decision in the Supreme Court as well. Talking to NewsClick, Ali said: “It is not just a question of justice for women, but whether there will be rule of law in the country or not.”
She further said that people are angry with BJP because of this incident simply because it is against humanity. “This is a long battle that will be fought together,” Ali said.
Image courtesy: Shahbaz Khan/PTI
Representative Image