The last session of the current Parliament is underway. In the last few years, parliamentary democracy has taken a beating, largely due to the actions of the current government. Several Citizen groups from across India have come together to release a “charge sheet” against the government of India for subverting and undermining Parliamentary democracy.

The objective of the charge sheet is to highlight the collapse of parliamentary democracy due to the ruling party’s deliberate subversions of processes and laws. The charge sheet enlists and shares evidence for eight charges levelled by the people of India against the government.

The following speakers spoke at the press meet:• Father Cedric Prakash ; Human Rights and Peace activist,  Henri Tiphagne; National Secretary, Human Rights Defenders Alert  India,  Maitreyi K; President, All India Lawyers Associations for Justice, Nadeem Khan, National Secretary, Association for Protection of Civil Rights, Priyadarshini; Co-ordinator, Delhi Forum

The “charge sheet” released to the public may be read below:

We the People of India

Vs.

Government of India

“Charge sheet” against Government of India for subverting our parliamentary democracy guaranteed by the Constitution of India

LIST OF CHARGES 

DETAILED EVIDENCE

Charge: No Deputy Speaker in Lok Sabha in violation of Article 93 of the Constitution

Evidence: Since the beginning of the 17^th Lok Sabha on 17^th June 2019, no Deputy Speaker has been elected in Lok Sabha. This is the first time since independence, that the term of a Lok Sabha will complete with the post of Deputy Speaker remaining vacant despite the mandate of Article 93 of the Constitution that stipulates that Lok Sabha ‘shall’ choose a Speaker and a Deputy Speaker as soon as may be. Since the Speaker is usually a nominee of the government, the Deputy Speaker has conventionally been a nominee of the opposition. The nomination is deliberately delayed to establish supremacy of the ruling party in the Lok Sabha.

Charge: Lowest number of sittings in a full term Lok Sabha, controlling Parliament as per its whims, reducing opportunities for holding government accountability

Evidence:

• Earlier the 16^th Lok Sabha (2014-19) had the lowest number of sittings during its five year term – 331 sittings. However, the 17^th Lok Sabha is now likely to have the lowest number of sittings – approximately 278 (including the scheduled Budget Session of 2024). This is markedly lower (approx. 34% lesser sittings) compared to even the NDA’s own first full term – 423 sittings during the 13^th Lok Sabha (1999-2004).
• During 2020, with Covid becoming an excuse, Indian Parliament was in session for only 33 days. Many other democracies across the world held virtual Parliament sessions, debates and even remote voting, but Indian Parliament remained shut for most of the year. In 2020, the Winter Session didn’t happen at all. Even Parliament Standing Committees couldn’t meet to discuss vitally important issues like government’s response to Covid, the migrant exodus etc. during the height of first wave as they were not allowed to meet virtually.
• State Assembly Elections have become an unconstitutional excuse to shorten Parliament sessions. In 2017 and 2022, the Winter Session was delayed and shortened due to assembly elections in some states like Gujarat. In 2018 and 2023, again Winter Session was delayed and shortened due to elections in some states like Rajasthan and Telangana.
• When Govt completes its own agenda for the session, it gets the session adjourned ahead of schedule. Between 2020 and 2022, seven consecutive sessions ended ahead of schedule. The Special Session and Winter Session in 2023 also ended ahead of schedule. When a session ends ahead of schedule, all questions asked for the remaining days lapse, MPs lose opportunities to raise issues of public importance in House. Thus, Parliament ends up becoming a platform for pushing only the agenda of the party in power and not for debating people’s burning issues.

Charge: Bringing more and more ordinances bypassing parliamentary scrutiny, repromulgating ordinances committing a fraud on the Constitution

Evidence:

• Under UPA II government, between 2004-14, 61 Ordinances were promulgated. Between 2014 and 2021, this record had already been broken with 76 Ordinances.
• The Land Acquisition Amendment Ordinance was promulgated three times (2014-15). The Enemy Property (Amendment and Validation) Ordinance was promulgated 5 times in a single year (2016) – a record of sorts. Repromulgation of ordinances is a fraud on the Constitution, as Ordinance making power is to be used only in exceptional circumstances to make temporary provisions.
• The three farm laws were first brought as Ordinance as people were busy surviving the first wave of Covid in 2020.
• In 2023, the Government of NCT of Delhi (Amendment) Ordinance was issued to overturn the Supreme Court judgment giving control over ‘services’ in Delhi to the Govt of Delhi. This is an indication of the failure of the present political dispensation to conduct its work in a more democratic and transparent manner as per the rule of law.

Charge: Introducing Bills without following the democratic process, passing Bills without discussion, in absence of Opposition MPs in House, in undemocratic manner

Evidence:

• So far in 17^th Lok Sabha (as on 21 December, 2023), 86 Bills in Lok Sabha and 103 Bills in Rajya Sabha have been passed with debate time of less than 2 hours.
• In the Winter Session of 2023, after mass suspension of Opposition MPs from both Houses of Parliament, as many as 14 Bills were cleared by either or both Houses of Parliament within just 3 days in which Opposition either did not participate or there was minimal participation.
• During the debate on 3 criminal bills in Winter Session of 2023, 34 MPs participated in Lok Sabha out of which 25 were from BJP alone and similarly in Rajya Sabha, of the 40 MPs who spoke on the Bill, 30 were from BJP alone.
• In the Monsoon Session of 2020, as Opposition MPs boycotted proceedings following the Farm Bill fiasco, for 15 of the 27 Bills passed in that session, Opposition MPs were absent in either or both Houses.
• In the Monsoon Session of 2021, as Opposition protested because the government stonewalled their demand for debate on the Pegasus snooping scandal and farmers’ protest, the Lok Sabha cleared 18 Bills amid protests, spending an average of only 15 minutes on each. Some Bills were cleared within 5-6 minutes.
• In the Monsoon Session of 2023, in just one week Lok Sabha passed 7 Bills with an average time of 21 minutes each only. The controversial Forest Conservation Amendment Bill was passed in Lok Sabha within 33 minutes, only 4 MPs spoke. The Digital Personal Data Protection Bill was debated in Lok Sabha for only 40 minutes, only 8 MPs spoke. In Rajya Sabha the DPDP Bill was debated for only 50 minutes, during which no Opposition MP participated. The Opposition was protesting on the Manipur crisis and demanding a debate.
• A new record was set in the Monsoon Session of 2023, when Rajya Sabha passed the Pharmacy (Amendment) Bill within just 3 minutes. The next day, Lok Sabha cleared two Bills – Central GST Amendment and Integrated GST Amendment Bill – within 3 minutes!
• Many a times, Bills are added to the agenda at the last minute.
  • In 2017, the Enemy Property (Amendment and Validation) Bill was passed in Rajya Sabha, when most Opposition MPs had left on the assurance that the Bill would not be taken up on that day.
  • In 2019, the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Bill was sprung as a complete surprise and pushed through Rajya Sabha without affording MPs any opportunity to read or analyse the Bill.
  • In the Monsoon Session of 2021, as many as 11 Supplementary lists were issued with 9 in Rajya Sabha alone and 6 of these were to list Bills for either introduction or passing, thus divesting MPs of enough opportunities to study, analyze and debate on the Bills. In fact on the last day, the Constitution (105th) Amendment Bill and two other Bill were added to Rajya Sabha’s agenda through a Supplementary list allowing MPs only an hour to move amendments.
  • In Winter Session of 2021, the Government pushed for passage of the Election Laws Amendment Bill (which provides for Aadhaar – Voter ID linking, among other things) on the same day as its introduction without providing MPs any time to prepare for debate. It was taken up for debate in Rajya Sabha on the next day itself with MPs alleging that they were not informed in advance.
  • The three criminal Bills were also introduced as a surprise on the last day of the Monsoon Session, 2023.
  • In the Winter Session of 2023, the Telecommunications Bill was also introduced by including it in the agenda at the last minute.
  • In the last Parliament session of the Govt before elections, on 5^th February 2023 itself, 3 Bills were introduced after including them in the agenda at the last minute.
  • In the last Parliament Session, the originally proposed agenda of the Govt mentioned only 3 Bills, but not only did Govt introduce 3 more new Bills not originally included in agenda, but pushed at least two more Bills pending from previous sessions which were also not part of its agenda.

Charge: Lack of transparency in law making process, not doing proper public consultations, violating Pre-Legislative Consultative Policy and not sending Bills to Standing Committees

Evidence:

• From 71% of all bills being referred to Standing Committees between 2009-2014, since 2019, only 16% of bills have been referred to Standing Committee.
• Only 74 out of 301 i.e. 24.5% of Bills introduced in Parliament were circulated for consultation between 2014 and 2021. Of these 74 Bills, at least 40 were not circulated for 30 days, as specified in the Pre-Legislative Consultative Policy.
• More controversial Bills are sent to Joint Parliament Committees (as Govt decides who gets to be on a JPC). Since, 2014 the following Bills were sent to JPC, chaired by BJP MPs, instead of the relevant Standing Committees, chaired by Opposition MPs:
  • Land Acquisition Amendment Bill
  • Citizenship Amendment Bill
  • Personal Data Protection Bill
  • Forest Conservation (Amendment) Bill
  • Biological Diversity (Amendment) Bill
• Increasingly Committees are also not inviting comments from public and undertaking consultation properly before submitting their reports. The JPC on Jan Vishwas Bill did not invite comments from public. The Standing Committee on Home Affairs chaired by a BJP MP which was studying the three criminal Bills did not invite comments from public. Several Opposition MPs submitted dissent notes alleging that the Committee rushed with the process and only invited selected people to depose before the Committee.
• As per the petition filed in Supreme Court challenging the Forest Conservation Amendment Act, 2023, the JPC on the FCA Bill received 1309 memoranda from the public which were critical of the Bill, but the JPC ignored most of these and failed to make recommendations to improve the Bill.

Charge: Passing Budgets without adequate scrutiny, including problematic provisions like the Electoral Bonds in Finance Bill

Evidence:

• Between 2016 and 2023, on average, 79% of the budget has been passed without discussion. As per the conventional process, Lok Sabha discusses budgets of some Ministries in detail and votes on them separately. After the days allocated for budget discussion are over, the budgets of remaining Ministries are voted upon together without discuss, a process termed as ‘guillotine’. Less number of sittings, short budget sessions, poorly planned agenda of a government not interested in transparent accountability and debate, leads to less and less proportion of the Budget being discussed in detail and more and more of it being passed without discussion.
• The Budget Session of 2018 saw the entire Budget of the government passed within an hour and amidst chaos, without any discussion, i.e., 100% guillotine. This happened as the days allotted for discussion and voting on the Budget saw protests as the Speaker was not accepting opposition’s demand for a no-confidence motion.
• In 2018, the Finance Bill was also passed within eighteen minutes, without any discussion.
• In 2020, the Finance Bill was passed within an hour without any discussion, as the government curtailed the Budget Session ahead of schedule, few days before imposing a nationwide lockdown.
• In 2017, the Finance Bill contained controversial non-financial provisions for restructuring tribunals, allowing anonymous political donations through electoral bonds, making Aadhaar mandatory for applying for a Permanent Account Number, etc.
• In the year 2023-24 also, the entire Budget was passed without any debate within just 8 minutes amid protests and disruptions in the House. The Opposition was demanding a JPC on the Adani scam. The Finance Bill was also passed without any debate within just 35 minutes.
• The Budget Session has a recess in between to enable Standing Committees to scrutinize the Budget of each Ministry in detail. But Govt is giving less and less time to Standing Committees to study Budgets. From a 40 day recess in 2016, the recess came down to only 20 days in 2021.

Charge: Unprecedented number of Opposition MPs suspended in Winter Session 2023, a virtually Opposition less Parliament passed controversial Bills

Evidence:

• It has become a routine practice now – Opposition demands debate and discussion on an issue, government keeps stonewalling and denying debate, opposition protests and disrupts, government uses that as an excuse to push Bills through without debate, amid protests. This time opposition’s protest demanding debate on the Parliament security breach led to an unprecedented 146 MPs from Parliament being suspended. This is the highest number of MPs to have been suspended ever. This amounted to almost 20% of the strength of both Houses and virtually the entire Opposition.
• While most MPs were suspended till the end of the Winter Session, several MPs were suspended indefinitely pending an inquiry by Committee of Privileges against them. Such indefinite suspension is illegal as rules do not empower either the Speaker or the House to suspend MPs beyond the session in which they are suspended.
• After the suspension of MPs, several crucial Bills were pushed through both Houses including the three criminal Bills, the Telecommunication Bill, the Bill for appointment of Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners etc.

Charge: Govt uncomfortable with Questions, Questions asked by Opposition MPs get deleted, Ministries provide evasive responses to questions

Evidence:

• Close to 290 Questions asked by Opposition MPs were deleted after they were suspended from the House during the Winter Session of 2023. There are no rules which provide for Questions of suspended MPs to be deleted.
• This was not the first time this has been done. There are media reports of this happening in 2015 and since then there are records of this happening in 2020, 2021 and again in 2023.
• In 2020, Govt also cited Covid as an excuse to do away with Question Hour altogether during the Monsoon Session of 2020, though under pressure from opposition parties, it agreed to answer questions only in writing. During the Special Session of 2023 also, no Question Hour was conducted and no questions were answered.
• Ministries also evade questions, ignore controversial sub-parts of questions, give misleading or incomplete responses or simply say – data not available. While earlier governments have also tried to evade questions, as no government will be comfortable in answering questions, the current dispensation has demonstrated a particular contempt for people’s accountability.

Finally, therefore this group of citizens has on behalf of, We the People of India, “charged the Government of India” for violating the ideals of democracy, justice, rule of law and accountability enshrined in the Constitution.

Related:

Faultlines in India’s parliamentary democracy

India today has all the markers of a failing democracy. But the situation is not irreversible

The principles of democracy can’t be scarified at altar of majoritarianism: Justice Govind Mathur

By holding up bills, are Governors undermining democracy? 

The post Subversion of Parliamentary Democracy: Concerned Citizens Groups release a “charge sheet” against the government of India appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Jalore Police has filed a chargesheet against the teacher who allegedly beat up a 9-year-old Dalit boy for drinking water from a pot meant for “upper castes”.

Indra Kumar Meghwal, who was allegedly beaten by his teacher,Chail Singh,died in August this year. The Rajasthan Police have now filed a charge sheet in the case. His family claimed that Meghwal was beaten by his upper-caste teacher at a private school when the teacher spotted the young Dalit child drinking water from a matki (earthen pot) intended for the (upper caste)teacher, and became enraged at the same. The child succumbed to his injuries later.

Chail Singh, the accused teacher, has been charged by the police under the Juvenile Justice Act, the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and Section 302 of the IPC, which deals with murder.

The police have not yet discovered any evidence indicating that the boy was beaten up for consuming water from the matki, as told by the case’s investigating officer,  Additional Superintendent of Police Deva Ram Choudhary to the Indian Express. The inquiry into the matki-related issue is still ongoing.

The chargesheet mentions that further investigation is being conducted on certain points of the case under Section 173 (8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).

According to the chargesheet, as reported by the Indian Express, the accused Chail Singh had beaten up and injured deceased Indra Kumar in the school on July 20, on the basis of statements of eyewitnesses, the audio of the conversation between the accused and the father of the deceased in which the accused admits to hurting the deceased, and testimonies of other teachers of the school.

The chargesheet also states that Meghwal’s doctors claimed that the formation of a blood clot had led to his death. The doctors said that a blood clot had formed in an artery that delivers blood to the brain near the neck, which caused an infection in the brain, ultimately leading to Indra Kumar’s death. Additionally, the doctors also suggested that it’s possible that the blood clot formed after the deceased suffered an injury. On the basis of this evidence, Chail Singh has been charged.

According to the Meghwal family’s continuing claim, the young kid was beaten up for drinking water from the earthen pot. The complainant in the case and Meghwal’s uncle, Kishore Kumar, said that they know with surety that Meghwal had been physically assaulted by the teacher for drinking water from the matki, as was reported by the Indian Express. The family further claims that videos of him discussing the incident just before he passed away are also available. If the cause of his death as a result of consuming water from the matki is not mentioned in the final investigation, the deceased’s family will be wronged, says Kumar.

Brief background of the case

According to details available publicly, the 9-year-old Dalit boy was allegedly brutally thrashed by a teacher on July 20, allegedly for touching a pot of water which was apparently only meant for “upper caste”. The boy succumbed to his injuries on August 13 in an Ahmedabad hospital, after being taken to at least six other hospitals in the interim.

It has been alleged by the boy’s father, that when he returned from school, the boy had injuries to his ears and face. Upon being asked about the injuries, the boy told his family that he was beaten up by his teacher. According to the boy’s father, the brutal beating had led to haemorrhage, and the boy’s limbs had stopped working. Singh had also allegedly verbally abused him with castiest slurs.

The accused teacher, Chail Singh was arrested on August 13 after the child’s death and the police have taken statements of his classmates and other students present on that day.

CJP’s complaint to NCSC

Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) had filed a complaint with the National Commission for Scheduled Castes (NCSC) seeking greater protection for the family of the Meghwal. CJP’s complaint also seeks stringent action against the alleged perpetrator.

In the petition, CJP has highlighted the plight of the Dalit community living in India. While giving the detailed account of the offence, CJP has further emphasised on the need for providing further protection under the existing law to the victim’s family to ensure that they upper caste do not further harass the family into withdrawing their complaint.

CJP’s complaint states, “We are aware that an offence has already been registered and are simply urging that further protection under the existing law is also provided to the victim’s family.”The complaint lists provisions under Section 15 A of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 that provide for “protection of victims, their dependents, and witnesses against any kind of intimidation orcoercion or inducement or violence or threats of violence” as well as right of the victim’s family “to be heard at any proceeding under this Act in respect of bail, discharge, release, parole, conviction or sentence of an accused or any connected proceedings or arguments and file written submission on conviction, acquittal or sentencing.”

CJP has urged the Commission to follow the example of the Hathras Rape case, wherein an alleged gang-rape and murder of a 20-year-old woman took place in Hathras in Uttar Pradesh. In the said case, a three-fold protection mechanism had been devised to protect the families of the victim from any kind of pressure. The struggles of many Dalit families who experience atrocities do not end with the crime perpetrated against them. Therefore, keeping in mind the gravity of the situation, CJP has urged the NCSC:

• to immediately hold an investigation and inquiry into this matter with respect to the acts committed by the accused under the Indian Penal Code, the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989;

• to monitor the investigation undertaken by the Rajasthan Police and ensure that there is a fast-track trial and speedy delivery of justice;

• to ensure that the deceased victim’s family receives the necessary relief;

• to ensure that data on such monitoring is made public digitally and that progress in this case is also visible and made public electronically and digitally.

• to take any other action as you may deem fit.

CJP’s complaint may be read here:

Related:

Hate Watch: Dalit boy dies after being allegedly thrashed by teacher; cops deny “caste angle”

NHRC takes suo motu cognizance of 9-year-old Dalit boy’s death

Minor Dalit boy killed, CJP moves NCSC for further protection for family

The post Rajasthan Police files chargesheet in minor Dalit boy’s alleged murder by teacher appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Recently, nearly 500 pages of transcripts of what are allegedly text messages shared between Republic TV’s Editor-in-Chief Arnab Goswami, and Broadcast Audience Research Council (BARC)’s former chief Executive Officer Partho Dasgupta, were leaked.

The leaked pages are allegedly a part of a 3,000-word supplementary charge-sheet filed by the Maharashtra Police against Goswami and his co-accused in a case of alleged tampering of Television Rating Points (TRP). They not only allegedly reveal Goswami’s proximity to top government officials and influence in those circles, but also appear to suggest that this proximity might have led Goswami to have access to top secret information.

The Balakot Bombshell

The excerpts dated February 23, 2019, show Goswami informing Dasgupta at around 10:31 PM that “something big will happen.” To this Dasgupta responded a little later in the chat at around 10:36 PM asking, “Dawood?” Goswami then clarifies, “No, sir. Pakistan. Something major will be done this time.” It is noteworthy that this was three days before the Balakot airstrikes.

Here’s what follows next:

Dasgupta: “Good.”

Dasgupta: “It’s good for big man in this season.”

Dasgupta: “He will sweep polls then.”

Dasgupta: “Strike? Or bigger”

Arnab Goswami: “Bigger than a normal strike. And also on the same time something major on Kashmir. On Pakistan the government is confident of striking in a way that people will be elated. Exact words used.”

It is this last part where Goswami says, “Exact words used” that suggests someone in the know of the impending strike. Speaking exclusively to SabrangIndia, Admiral Vishnu Bhagwat, former Chief of the Naval Staff, a decorated war veteran, and winner of the Param Vishisht Seva Medal (PVSM), and Ati Vishisht Seva Medal (AVSM), explains, “Any aspect of military operations planned or underway has the highest security classification. For Service personnel it is covered under provisions of the Army, Navy and Airforce Acts 1957 (Statutory) and also, the Articles of War which may attract the penalty of Death.” Admiral Bhagwat further explains, “The core of Operations Plans is WHAT, WHERE, WHEN and HOW. Of the above WHERE, WHEN and HOW are the most important.”

The circle of people who have all operational information is extremely tight and prior information is only shared on a need-to-know basis only with people directly involved with the operation. Admiral Bhagwat, was once the Chief of the Naval Staff, and thus knows how tightly operational secrecy is guarded. He explains, “Chiefs of Staff of our Armed Forces and their immediate Ops Staff do not as a rule share the WHERE , WHEN and HOW components of Operational Plans with even the highest Civilian authority of the Government, even in a War Room briefing, except in general terms and if pressed by the Prime Minister do so in general terms avoiding specifics.”

Therefore, the current matter of sharing of sensitive information has at least two players; a high-ranking defense or government official who was the GIVER of the information and Arnab Goswami, the editor-in-chief of a television news channel who was the RECEIVER of the information.

As Admiral Bhagwat explains, “Firstly the GIVER of the information has to have the express authorisation of the Chief of Air Staff or the Chief himself. The RECEIVER of the information is clearly not a person authorised to receive such information no matter at which level of the Govt he was briefed, because that Civilian official too is grievously violating the Law and putting Ops in jeopardy seriously risking lives.”

Thus, the concerns raised about national security are legitimate. “There is no question that this particular PRE ‘D’ Day and Pre-H Hour briefing to a civilian journalist by either a military or Civilian authority is in the most serious category of violation of national security, and as is clearly committed by those in the highest echelons of the Government and the Military, must attract the highest punishment as they are the very upholders of the Laws of the Land in force,” says Admiral Bhagwat, adding, “Passing the buck or covering it up by clever words or subterfuge will not pass and must never be permitted.”

Opposition demands answers

Needless to say, these leaked chat transcripts have set the cat among the pigeons and now nobody, especially Opposition leaders, can stop talking about the leaked chats.

Congress leader, Member of Parliament (MP) and legal eagle, Abhishek Manu Singhvi tweeted, “Arnab’s chats dated 23.02.2019 refer to sharing of Intel re: action along the Pak border. It means someone very senior in Govt is leaking highly confidential info which may endanger the lives of our soldiers & so that mercenary considerations can add to TRPs.”

Arnab’s chats dated 23.02.2019 refer to sharing of Intel re: action along the Pak border. It means someone very senior in Govt is leaking highly confidential info which may endanger the lives of our soldiers & so that mercenary considerations can add to TRPs.

— Abhishek Singhvi (@DrAMSinghvi) January 16, 2021

Another legal scholar and Congress Leader P. Chidambaram, who was incarcerated on allegedly trumped-up charges by a vindictive regime asked, “Did a journalist (and his friend) know about the retaliatory strike on Balakot camp three days before the actual strike?” He went on to demand an explanation from Defence Minister Rajnath Singh asking, “If yes, what is the guarantee that their ‘source’ did not share the information with others as well, including spies or informers working for Pakistan? How did a “For Your Eyes Only” decision find its way to the government-supporting journalist?”

If yes, what is the guarantee that their ‘source’ did not share the information with others as well, including spies or informers working for Pakistan?

How did a “For Your Eyes Only” decision find its way to the government-supporting journalist? @rajnathsingh

— P. Chidambaram (@PChidambaram_IN) January 17, 2021

Eventually, even Rahul Gandhi joined the chorus. At a press conference to purportedly take on the government on the ongoing farmers’ agitation, Gandhi couldn’t resist commenting on Arnabgate. “Sensitive defence information before Balakot was given to a journalist. Even the pilots get such information at the last moment. Top five people (the prime minister, the defence minister, the home minister, the IAF chief and the NSA) had this information. Someone out of them gave him this information. This is criminal. We must find out who gave and the process of the probe should begin but it will not because the PM must have given the information,” alleged Gandhi, adding “If Arnab Goswami knew, I believe Pakistan also knew.”

Congress National Spokesperson, Pawan Khera too asked some tough questions, “As president of the ruling party, why was Amit Shah supposedly influencing TRAI? What was the hold #ArnabGoswami had on the second most powerful man in India – Amit Shah?”

‘As president of the ruling party, why was Amit Shah supposedly influencing TRAI? What was the hold #ArnabGoswami had on the second most powerful man in India – Amit Shah?’ Today’s press conference #GaddarBJPArnab pic.twitter.com/6PedBsb6N0

— Pawan Khera (@Pawankhera) January 20, 2021

Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) leader Tejashwi Yadav tweeted, “Those in Govt will not last for eternity and greedy media persons will not live forever but the damage they are causing to Indian democracy, its institutions & their credibility is irreversible. Not acceptable at all! Shameful!”

Those in Govt will not last for eternity and greedy media persons will not live forever but the damage they are causing to Indian democracy, its institutions & their credibility is irreversible. Not acceptable at all! Shameful!#ArnabGate

— Tejashwi Yadav (@yadavtejashwi) January 17, 2021

Meanwhile, the Maharashtra state government is mulling appropriate action against Arnab Goswami. Home Minister Anil Deshmukh tweeted, “The NCP spokesperson Mahesh Tapase Ji and Pradeep Deshmukh Ji have complained to me today about the leaked WhatsApp conversation between Arnab Goswami and Partho Dasgupta that went viral on social media.” He added, “We will take legal advice on this matter & consult with senior police officers to decide further course of action.”

We will take legal advice on this matter & consult with senior police officers to decide further course of action. (2/2)

— ANIL DESHMUKH (@AnilDeshmukhNCP) January 19, 2021

The Hindustan Times quoted Deshmukh as saying, “On the state level, we are checking if Maharashtra Police can initiate action. I am speaking to senior police officers and have sought legal opinion if action can be initiated under section 5 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923.” 

TRPs trump Pulwama tragedy?

Meanwhile, Arnab Goswami is also in the dock for his comments on the Pulwama attack. A portion of the transcripts from February 14, 2019 deals with the Pulwama attacks, and Goswami’s take on how his channel won the TRP battle have severely tarnished his “nationalist” credentials.

In this exchange, On February 14, 2019, at around 4:19 PM Goswami brags to Dasgupta, “Sir 20 min ahead on the biggest terrorist attack of the year on Kashmir.. only only channel with aground presence”

To this Dasgupta responds asking, “Modi happened yesterday?”

Goswami responds saying, “Have planned some buildup thing after we spoke. Idea to gain massive spike. So used his speech yesterday and pushed it by a bit.” He then went on to say, “This attack we have won like crazy”

The Pulwama attacks shook the nation as 40 security personnel were killed when a asuicide bomber drove into their convoy. It was one of the darkest days the country has seen.

Goswami responds to allegations

However, Goswai has dismissed all allegations against him. In a statement released, he said, “It is beyond absurd to suggest that expecting India to strike back at Pakistan, after the Pulwama attack, was a crime. It was publicly available information and thousands of journalists reported, wrote, broadcast and analysed in the same direction after Pulwama. There are thousands of articles from that time suggesting a hard and tough response from the Indian Forces. The Government stated the same in interviews to our Network and elsewhere, which were broadcast across the world. Two things were made public at that time, officially— 1. That there will be an extremely tough military retaliation by India. 2. That the time and place of the retaliation will be chosen by India.”

Goswami further says, “I am horrified that the Congress party actually thinks that any journalist in India expressing the views publicly stated by the Government is committing a crime. In the last 10 months, from an attempted acid attack on me to framing of fake and false cases to arresting me illegally (in a case which the Supreme Court said had no prima facie merits) to assaulting me, my wife and my son, and slapping cases against them to filing an omnibus case against my entire newsroom and all my editors to putting me in jail on the trumped up charges to assaulting me in custody to interrogating my colleagues for 500 hours to whiplashing my colleague Ghanshyam with a chakki belt in custody and now joining hands with Pakistan to questioning my love and commitment to this great nation. I have been through it all.”

After claiming he has support of “millions of Indians” and schooling Indian media on “introspection”, Goswami signs off with, “Satyamev Jayate! Bharat Mata Ki Jai! Jai Hind!” Perhaps he is trying to repair the damage to his “nationalist credentials” in a bid to remain valuable to those whose political patronage he allegedly enjoys.

Meanwhile, Dasgupta who had been arrested on December 24, for his alleged involvement in the case was denied bail by the Sessions Court on Wednesday. Dasgupta had approached the Sessions Court after a Chief Metropolitan Magistrate’s court turned down his bail plea citing he needed to be kept away from other accused and material witnesses while a probe of the case was on. 

Related:

Republic TV, two others accused of TRP fraud
Republic TV making TRP scam a “media spectacle”: Mumbai Police to SC
Goswami’s Republic Bharat pulled up for hate speech against Pakistan: UK regulator
Right to free speech does not mean a licence to promote hate speech: Editors Guild of India
Court takes cognisance of chargesheet in suicide abetment case against Arnab Goswami
Republic TV and Times Now reportage prima facie contemptuous: Bombay High Court

The post Arnabgate: Evaluating crime and punishment appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Karkardooma Court in Delhi through Additional Sessions Judge Amitabh Rawat has directed the Delhi Police to provide hard copies of the chargesheet to all accused in the Delhi Riots in the matter State of NCT of Delhi vs Tahir Hussain and Ors heard on October 21, 2020. Special Public Prosecutor Amit Prasad represented the State whereas various lawyers appeared for all applicants through the WebEx application.

The order said, “The court directs that the Investigating Agency shall provide the physical copy of chargesheet and accompanying documents to every accused person by next date, without fail.” The ASG while rejecting the State’s submission that its provision of the chargesheet’s soft copy on a pen drive to the accused was sufficient compliance of Section 207 of the CrPC added that, “Even though, it may be desirable to have soft copies of the chargesheet the law still mandates that a hard copy has to be made available to the accused. The provisions of the IT Act cannot be made applicable or overwrite provisions of Section 207, CrPC as it stands today.”

Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure makes the supply to the accused the copy of police report and other documents compulsory. 

The Judge explained further that, “The Investigating Agency is duty bound to supply hard copy of the chargesheet with accompanying documents to the accused. The soft copy is a copy made available for the benefit of the accused/counsel. Accordingly, the court also cannot ask for supply of soft copies in the particular manner which is more comfortable of handy to him.”

The ASG elaborated on the provision and said that, “There is a proviso (in the CrPC) that if any document is voluminous, then instead of furnishing a copy thereof, the court can direct that he be allowed to inspect it either personally or through pleader in court. This proviso indicates that hard copy has to be supplied as this proviso would not apply to soft copy. Moreover, not every accused would be comfortable with a soft copy and the purpose of supply of copy is to provide the accused with necessary material set against him.”

The court sternly responded to the State submission that they would require 15 days’ time to obtain sanction for funds from the Delhi Government to provide hard copies of the charge sheet for all the accused. It said, “The Court is not impressed by the submissions made by the Investigating Officers. Once the charge-sheet has been filed by the Investigating Agency, voluminous as it is, then with some alacrity, a copy of it has to be provided in hard copy to every accused which is also the direction of the court. They may require sanction of funds for the said purpose; however, they were supposed to act promptly.”

The single bench was hearing applications filed by Khalid Saifi, Ishrat Jahan @ Pinky, Meeran Haider, Tahir Hussain, Shadab Ahmad, Natasha Narwal, Asif Iqbal Tanha for a hard copy of the chargesheet. Narwal had also sought an OCR searchable digital copy of the chargesheet.

The matter is expected to be taken up today, when the DCP, Special Cell has also been ordered to be present.

The order may be read here:

Related:

Natasha Narwal of Pinjra Tod gets bail in Delhi Riots Case

Delhi court grants Noor Mohammed bail

Umar Khalid arrested by Delhi Police Special Cell

Umar Khalid arrest: No person can be detained without being informed

The post Furnishing hard copy of Chargesheet to accused mandatory: Delhi court appeared first on SabrangIndia.

It was February 2020, when SabrangIndia had noted that it was probably for the first time in India that women became the face of resistance against fascist policies of the government so prominently. “From Shaheen Bagh to Mumbai Bagh,” it was women who took up the charge to oppose the unconstitutional Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), National Population Register (NPR) and National Register of Citizens (NRC).

In Delhi, the protests had been going on since December 2019, started, nurtured, led by women of all ages. And around mid-February, a collective women from diverse backgrounds and faiths undertook a yatra, visiting all the protest sites in Delhi. The yatra was undertaken to show solidarity with the thousands of women who had been sitting in protest 24×7, to oppose the CAA-NPR-NRC. This group called itself the Mahila Ekta Yatra, or women’s unity tour/journey. The group included eminent activists, lawyers, writers, filmmakers including Shabnam Hashmi, Suroor Mander, Natasha Badhwar, Syeda Hameed, and Saba Dewan.

We were forced to spend 1.5 hours with Delhi Police this Valentine’s Day ! Mahila Ekta Yatra continues on its journey – we are now at Chand Bagh. #WomenReject_CAA_NRC_NPR https://t.co/M5H14JPBFG

— Amrita Johri (@johriamrita) February 14, 2020

Today, this group finds itself named in the controversial chargesheet filed by the Delhi Police in F.I.R No. 59/2020. Here the Delhi Police has accused protestors, activists and students who were peacefully opposing the CAA/NRC/NPR of ‘planning’ ‘conspiring’ and somehow igniting the Northeast Delhi communal violence of February 2020. The charge sheet was filed in September 2020, and has listed the city’s most eminent activists, writers, professors, artists, student leaders, politicians and many more, they have now added the Mahila Ekta Yatra, to that list. Many have been interrogated, asked to join investigations, and arrested.

The organisers and participants of the Mahila Ekta Yatra, have issued a statement strongly contesting the “criminalisation of women’s expression of peaceful dissent and participation as citizens in Indian democracy”.

They add that these “allegations and insinuations” against them are not just false and fabricated, but are a “part of a persistent effort to suppress legitimate, peaceful expression of political opinion and opposition by criminalising it through perverse re-scripting of the truth and facts.” 

The complete statement may be read here:

Related: 

Mahila Ekta Yatra in Delhi to express solidarity with anti-CAA …
North East Delhi Pogrom: India’s top IPS, IAS, eminent former judges to probe riots
Delhi pogrom 2020 reminded me of Mumbai riots 1992: Justice (retd) B N Srikrishna
North-East Delhi Riots: Minorities Commission investigations reveal role of Delhi Police, politicians 
Hate Speech by BJP’s Top Brass fuelled Build Up to Delhi Violence: Minorities Commission
Communal violence was to uproot elected govt: Delhi police riots chargesheet

The post We shall not be intimidated, we shall not be silenced: Mahila Ekta Yatra appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The charge sheet investigating the killing of Delhi Police head constable Ratan Lal, during the anti-minority violence that raged for days in the densely populated North East of Delhi since February 23, has a list of names under its scanner. However, the omission of politician Kapil Mishra’s name has reignited the debate over the riots, and the investigations that have followed. 

On February 23, Mishra led a pro-Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) rally at Maujpur, close to the site of the anti-CAA protest near the Jafrabad metro station. At his rally Mishra, standing next to a uniformed police officer had said, “We will remain peaceful till Trump leaves. After that we will not listen to you.”

In what sounded like an ultimatum to the Delhi Police, Mishra had addressed his supporters and said, “DCP sahab is standing nearby, I am saying this… till Trump leaves we will go from here peacefully, after that we will not even listen to you… if the roads are not cleared. By the time Trump leaves we request you to clear Jafrabad and Chand Bagh. After that we will have to come onto the roads.” His words drew loud cheers from the crowds even as the senior policeman wearing protective gear over his uniform, stood quietly right next to him. 

Massive violence had broken out hours after he said these words, and raged on for days across North East Delhi, with the aftermath still being felt. The video clip of this speech had gone viral and remains easily accessible even now.

Kapil Mishra, who now describes himself on Twitter as a “New Delhi based Hindu, Nationalist Politician”, is not named as an accused or even a co conspirator in the riots that broke out hours after he said these words. 

However, it has been reported that an eyewitness account, recorded in the chargesheet states that the “policeman’s killing was the result of a mob attack after a crowd at Chand Bagh heard about BJP leader Kapil Mishra’s supporters setting fire to the site of an anti-CAA protest.” Policeman Ratan Lal, succumbed to his injuries after an attack by a mob at Gokulpuri, near Chand Bagh. 

“Links of the organisers of the (Chand Bagh) protest site with the likes of DS Bindra (AIMIM), Kawalpreet Kaur (AISA), Devangana Kalita (Pinjra Tod), Safoora, Yogendra Yadav indicate a hidden agenda behind the violence,” Delhi Police has reportedly said. All of the anti-CAA activists named, many of them scholars of prominent universities, have at various times been questioned, arrested and charged under the most serious sections of the Indian Penal Code as well as the UAPA. The case of activist Safoora Zargar, who was recently granted bail, has been a matter of global discussion.

While the right-wing politician’s speech does not seem to have been taken into account, the chargesheet has named activist Yogendra Yadav. According to a report by NDTV, Yadav though not an accused, has been called a co-conspirator, as he was a speaker at a protest at Chand Bagh in North-East Delhi. “Police chargesheet is there, but there is no charge. I’m not an accused. They haven’t said anything against me, except one thing – that I used to come and go and give speeches. It wasn’t a secret. Every speech that I gave is in public domain,” Yadav said in a video statement.

Advocate DS Bindra, told SabrangIndia that he had nothing to do with Chand Bagh protest and he was just involved in serving food to those gathered at Shaheen Bagh, as a part of his langar. He too has been issued a notice by Delhi Police. Bindra asked, “Is serving langar a crime now?” He too is not named in any FIR.

The Indian Express reports that the witness — identified as Najam ul Hasan — was present at the protest but “did not see” the alleged incident on February 24, has claimed that he had heard people at an anti-CAA protest site shout that a pandal had been “set on fire by some of (BJP leader) Kapil Mishra’s people”.

Hasan, reports IE,  has been listed in the chargesheet among “important witnesses” who were “fully aware about the conspiracy and planning” of the protests at Chand Bagh. There are 164 witnesses, including 76 police personnel and seven local residents listed in the chargesheet. As IE reports, Hasan’s statement is crucial as it was “recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC, which is evidence admissible during the criminal trial. It says: “…pandal mein Kapil Mishra ke kuch logon ne aag laga di. Maine yeh dekha nahin, par log aisa shor macha rahe the (The stage was set on fire by some of Kapil Mishra’s people. I did not see it happening, but people were shouting about it).”

In the wake of the gruesome Delhi violence, the Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) had initiated an Online Petition appealing to the Chief Justice of India, SA Bobde, to hold Kapil Mishra – said to be the chief instigator – accountable for instigating violence using hate speech and prosecute him

Kapil Mishra has been a serial hate speech offender, with each threat becoming more blatant by the day. It is imperative that he be held accountable for his words and actions and prosecuted under the relevant sections of the law. The CJP has appealed to the citizens of India to support this Online Initiative for Accountability in Public Life and sign up against the politics of hatred and violence. 

You may sign the petition here.

Related:

MLA Kapil Mishra spews venom against Islam in video
Sikh man who served langar to protesters, named in Ratan Lal murder chargesheet
Rally in Canada in support of a Sikh advocate who organized langar for Delhi CAA protesters
To my utter shock, the police seized my phone citing inquiry into the Delhi violence
Why is Delhi Police using anti-terror law against Jamia Millia Islamia scholars?

The post Kapil Mishra remains invisible and unnamed in Delhi Police charge sheet appeared first on SabrangIndia.

A Delhi court granted extension of 2 months to Delhi Police’s special cell, to probe further and file chargesheet in the Delhi riots case.

The Application was filed by the public prosecutor on behalf of Delhi police (Special cell) for extension of time to file chargesheet till September 17 as per section 43D(2)(b) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). The subsection reads as follows:

“Provided further that if it is not possible to complete the investigation within the said period of ninety days, the Court may if it is satisfied with the report of the Public Prosecutor indicating the progress of the investigation and the specific reasons for the detention of the accused beyond the said period of ninety days, extend the said period up to one hundred and eighty days

The grounds on which the extension of time was sought are as follows:

a)       The case involves a deep rotted and large scale conspiracy and the key conspirators are yet to be arrested

b)      The source of funds is required to be investigated; due to some technical fault, the relevant data from the mobile phone of the accused, Khalid, could not be recovered. Further, due to the pandemic COVID19 the expert technician was not available.

c)       The conspiracy is multi layered and the same needs to be unearthed

d)      Certified copies of complete details of mobile phones of accused are still awaited and same is to be examined for the purpose of investigation

e)      The prosecution sanction u/s 45 of the UAPA and other necessary permission is still awaited.

The counsel for the accused, Bhavook Chauhan stated that the report of the public prosecutor is required to submit to the court, the progress of the investigation and the specific reasons for detention beyond 90 days so that the court can ascertain why some points were not investigated in the stipulated period. He argued that the report does not mention ‘compelling reasons’ for seeking the extension of detention and hence is not maintainable. The counsel also pointed to the casual attitude of prosecution and submitted that extension of time for such attitude would lead to ‘unjustified infringement of fundamental right of the accused”.

On behalf of Safoora Zargar, Trideep Pais submitted that even during the lockdown the police have been making arrets and investigating the case and they cannot claim that due to the lockdown the investigation has been inconclusive.

The Additional Sessions Judge, Dharmender Rana of Patiala House court, held that the public prosecutor’s report shows the development and progress in the investigation, as is requisite, and also gives justification for keeping the accused in further custody. The court observed that the prosecutor’s report highlights that a large number of call details and emails as also IDs of suspects have to be collected; the investigation is voluminous and lengthy, large data pertaining to call details are to be analysed. It further points to the prosecutor’s report mentioning that investigation is concerned with terrorist activities of Indian Mujahideen of causing bomb blast with the aid of associates in Pakistan.

The court held these reasons to be valid in seeking extension of time and granted time to file chargesheet of 2 months i.e. until August 14.

Special cell of Delhi police is handling the case which was registered on March 6 after receiving information that communal riot in Delhi was a result of criminal conspiracy. During investigation more offences were invoked in the case which included charges of sedition, murder, assault on public servant and others as well as under the Arms Act and Prevention of Damage of Public Property Act. Further, on March 21, Khalid and Ishrat Jahan were arrested in the case and later 12 more accused were arrested and remain in custody. The charges under UAPA sections 13 [punishment for unlawful activities], 16 [punishment for terrorist act], 17 [Punishment for raising funds for terrorist act] and 18 [Punishment for conspiracy] were invoked against the accused on April 19.

The same judge, had refused bail to Safoora Zargar, a Jamia Milia Islamia student who is also into the second trimester of her pregnancy while noting that there was prima facie that there was conspiracy to “at least blockade the roads.”

The complete order may be read here.

Related:

Safoora Zargar denied bail under UAPA, on grounds for blocking a road
Police fail to file chargesheet, Amulya Leona gets bail
American Bar Association asks courts to uphold India’s moral and legal obligations and release Safoora Zargar

The post Delhi police granted 2 more months to file chargesheet in Delhi riots case under UAPA appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Image Courtesy: News Click

Signed by the JNUTA president Atul Sood and secretary Avinash Kumar, the statement read, “The General Body remains steadfastly arraigned against any attempt to impose CCS Rules on the teachers of the university, because they are antithetical to the very idea of a University and are thoroughly unsuited and inapplicable to activities that involve teaching and research.”

Protests in the University at proposed amendments to the Ordinance pertaining to the service conditions and tenure of JNU teachers also forced the JNU Vice-Chancellor to withdraw his plans to impose CCS Rules on October 22, 2018 and publicly declare through a press release on the same day that “no CCS Rules have been incorporated in JNU ordinances.”

Controversial CCS (Conduct) Rules 1964 (amended 2014) pg. 6-8

(1) No Government servant shall be a member of, or be otherwise associated with, any political party or any organisation which takes part in politics nor shall he take part in, subscribing in aid of, or assist in any other manner, any political movement or activity.

 (4) No Government servant shall canvass or otherwise interfere with, or use his influence in connection with or take part in an election to any legislature or local authority:

 (ii) resort to or in any way abet any form of strike or coercion or physical duress in connection with any matter pertaining to his service or the service of any other Government servant.  

 (1) No Government servant shall, except with the previous sanction of the Government, own wholly or in part, or conduct or participate in the editing or management of, any newspaper or other periodical publication or electronic media.

No Government servant shall, in any radio broadcast, telecast through any electronic media or in any document published in his own name or anonymously, pseudonymously or in the name of any other person or in any communication to the press or in any public utterance, make any statement of fact or opinion –

(i) Which has the effect of an adverse criticism of any current or recent policy or action of the Central Government or a State Government:

(ii) Which is capable of embarrassing the relations between the Central Government and the Government of any State; or

 (iii) Which is capable of embarrassing the relations between the Central Government and the Government of any foreign State;

Expressing apprehensions about the imposition of the controversial rules, the JNUTA said that imposition of CCS rules in one university will lead to “reverberations in all others and will have a severely adverse impact on higher education in the country through a number of clauses that are inimical to intellectual inquiry. Thus the “JNUTA General Body appeals to teachers associations, unions, civil society and all political parties across the country to stand in solidarity with the JNUTA and the Forty-Eight teachers who have been charge-sheeted.”

It further read, “The GBM would like to point out JNU is an autonomous body created through an Act of Parliament and teachers are not government servants as defined under CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 or CCS (CCA) Rules. Conduct rules framed by the Government for those who have to discharge the specific function of government servants cannot be applied by a University on its teachers. Even CCS Rules are not applicable to all Government servants – for instance the All India Services are governed by other rules. More importantly, through the CCS (Conduct) Rules, government servants (and their family members) are constrained in the exercise of some of the democratic rights guaranteed to all other citizens of the country by the Constitution.The University is not an authority empowered to impose such restraints on anyone, especially the teachers whose specific function requires them to have the very freedom that are constrained by CCS (Conduct) rules. Any reasonable reading of the Code of Professional Ethics for teachers incorporated in the UGC 2018 Regulations and the CCS (Conduct) Rules would make it clear that the two are fundamentally incompatible with each other. The ‘silences’ in UGC Regulations or in the JNU Act and Statutes therefore do not constitute gaps that can be used as a pretext for invoking CCS rules.”

Condemning the imposition of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, the JNUTA statement read, “The JNU Administration’s premise that it has jurisdiction to declare all protests and difference of opinion itself as unlawful in JNU is itself illegal, infringes as it does on teachers’ rights Constitutional rights and the statutory framework of the University. Drawing confidence from these overarching guarantees, the teachers of JNU shall neither be intimidated nor silenced by the threats of the administration. Outlawing protest does not end protest, and only imbues it with another motivation, namely, the defense of the democratic right to protest.”

Related Articles:
 

1. Condemn Discrimination & Humiliation of Asst Prof Rosina Nasir: JNUTA
2. Delhi HC rules in JNUTA’s favour over faculty appointments
3. Release Report on Communal Remarks: Delhi Minorities Commission to JNU

The post Targeting 48 Teachers under CCS Rules anti-Constitutional: JNUTA appeared first on SabrangIndia.