The order pointed out that venue transfer was proper to ensure neutral proceedings and the physical safety of defendants and witnesses. The cases are against rationalist Hamid (Narendra) Dabholkar, journalist Nikhil Wagle and others for allegedly connecting Sanatan Sanstha to the killings of famous rationalists and journalists. The judgment brings to the fore a contentious intersection of defamation law, public interest speech, and the longer, contested history of criminal charges and probes into murders of dissidents that many observers and some investigating bodies have tied, directly or indirectly, to members or militants affiliated with the Sanstha.

What is Sanatan Sanstha?

Sanatan Sanstha is a tight-knit, secretive organisation which presents itself as striving to propagate what it terms “Sanatan Dharma” (a term applied to several Hindu religious organisations). In reporting and analysis in the media and among civil society it is most often represented as right-wing Hindu with revivalist inspiration; some aspects of its rhetoric and activities have been condemned by commentators as exclusionist or militant in orientation. The Sanstha, on its own part, has consistently ruled out organisational complicity in crimes and has employed civil law (including defamation cases) to resist those who openly link it with murders. Since the organisation is not a banned group, public characterisations of its ideology and activities are based upon investigative journalism, charge-sheets, and scholarly and journalistic analysis and not upon a statutorily recognised designation.

The Origin, Parties and Claims of the Defamation Suits

Between 2017 and 2018, the Goa-headquartered organisation Sanstha filed multiple civil defamation suits in the civil court, senior division, at Ponda (Goa) against a small group of public figures, including Hamid Dabholkar (son of the slain rationalist Dr. Narendra Dabholkar) and senior journalists such as Nikhil Wagle and others, alleging that statements and publications by them had falsely linked the Sanstha to several high-profile killings and thereby harmed its reputation.

The Sanstha alleged that in a public meeting commemorating Govind Pansare, individuals, including Nikhil Wagle and Dr. Hamid Dabholkar, have made defamatory statements about the Sanstha and the newspaper published those statements under the headline, “New terrorism of anti-nationalists out of selfish motive.” The Sanstha alleged that Hamid Dabholkar, Nikhil Wagle, and others made comment attributing the murders of Govind Pansare and Dr. Narendra Dabholkar to the Sanatan Sanstha. The lawsuits allege the statements were made at their speeches, and the newspaper (Dainik Sakal – Kolhapur Edition) published those speeches in 2017 with the allegations. Sanatan Sanstha has argued that this is false and malicious.

The suits claim massive damages (accounts say up to ₹10 crore in certain cases). The suits were filed amidst a heated, contesting public discussion over whether fringe group members or sympathizers were responsible for the murders of renowned rationalists and journalists.

Those who were sued by Sanatan Sanstha have always argued that their comments were either fair comment, on the basis of investigative journalism and official accusations, or in furtherance of public interest discussion regarding violent attacks on contrarian voices. As a response to the civil suits, the defendants have contended that facing trial in Ponda, near Sanatan Sanstha’s headquarters, risked their safety and the impartiality of proceedings and hence sought transfer of venue to the Bombay High Court. The High Court held that fear of endangerment to life and impartial trial “seemed real and reasonable” and, on 3 September 2025, directed transfer of five such cases from Ponda to a court in Kolhapur, Maharashtra. The order of transfer doesn’t determine the substantive defamation suits; it determines forum and fairness.

The violent events typically associated with the Sanstha – what investigations actually found

Public discourse and multiple investigative reports have linked a small number of violent murders of rationalists, activists, and journalists – specifically the murders of Narendra Dabholkar (2013), Govind Pansare (2015), M. M. Kalburgi (2015), and Gauri Lankesh (2017) – to overlapping suspect networks. The important consideration is that the factual posture varies by case: in each case, investigating agencies (i.e., state SITs, the CBI or ATS) developed conspiracy theories and executed arrests; in some cases, chargesheets alleged persons with organizational affiliation, in other cases courts have framed charges, and in still other cases, the prosecution or conviction remains contested on appeal.

Narendra Dabholkar (August 2013, Pune): Following a lengthy investigation, the CBI arrested several suspects, and in 2021, attempted to invoke UAPA provisions against several suspects, treating the murder as a large-scale conspiracy; the CBI’s case has alleged connections to Sanatan-linked networks and generally has at times referenced certain counts as terror activity. Charges were framed against a group of suspects in September 2021, and the investigation has been contested in special court litigation. Reports describe the CBI inquiring into conspiracies associated and alleging that some accused conspired under the terrorism statute.

Govind Pansare (Kolhapur, February 2015): Police and SIT inquiries led to the arrest of Sameer Gaika, who police labelled an activist for the Sanatan Sanstha; charges were brought, the case moved through courts, and multiple hearings were held about since with varietals on the framing of charges and trials. Local courts granted bail to some accused at times, and the timeline for adjudication of the case by prosecution and hearing judges has been protracted. Police reports from the time conveyed that there were inquiries to assess the political and organizational right-wing networks the accused were part of.

1.  M. Kalburgi (August 2015, Dharwad): There was a Special Investigation Team (SIT) involved in a murder investigation against Kalburgi, which resulted in an extensive chargesheet that detailed many accused and described a plot devised by individuals aligned with an organised group; in its filings, the SIT indicated tactical similarities relating to both Kalburgi’s death and Lankesh’s murder. As was the case with the other murders, portions of the investigative work rested on recovered items, interviews with witnesses, and movements of those later charged; in the Karnataka courts, prosecutions and bail applications have continued.

Gauri Lankesh (September 2017, Bengaluru): The Karnataka police conducted investigatory work (which included an investigation and review by both the SIT/CBI) and publish a lengthy chargesheet in 2018-19 that revealed many accused individuals. The findings also labelled the suggested murderers as part of an organised syndicate. There have been multiple accused arrested, and the court proceedings/hearings have been slow (to date); most recently in early 2025, several of the accused have been released on bail. These issues have touched off public discussion, concern, and criticism of the benefit of a quality investigation into the murder.

In several of these criminal cases, investigators have asserted or placed on record evidence, indicating that individual suspects are associated with networks where individuals have been or currently are members or associates of Sanatan Sanstha; in some cases, evidence is on record to support charges under serious criminal statutes (including sections of UAPA). However, whether there is judicial finding of organizational responsibility, that is, whether Sanatan Sanstha as an organizational entity is found to have ordered, executed or coordinated the killings is a separate but important legal question and in respect of each case is different; and the court record for these cases is mixed: there are a variety of arrests, chargesheets have been filed, some convictions, and continuing appeals and bail orders.

Why are so many accused out on bail?

Bail is the rule and jail is the exception – this is a principle firmly grounded in Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty). Courts consider whether a prima facie case is made out, the seriousness of the charges against the accused, any threat of tampering with evidence or threats to witnesses, as well as the period that the accused has already spent in custody. The Supreme Court has expressed disapproval of those who are detained for extended periods before conviction. For lengthy delay cases, courts also grant bail once the accused has been detained for a significant period.

All four cases have been characterized by investigation delays, piecemeal charge-sheets, and an extended period before the framing of charges. In the Pansare case, for instance, the Bombay High Court of January 2025 noted that the accused had remained in custody for years without a trial, and granted bail on the basis of delay. In the Kalburgi and Lankesh matters, courts have identified extended periods of pre-conviction detention as a reason to grant bail.

Courts are not intended to conduct a mini-trial at bail. If the evidence appears circumstantial or contested or there are gaps in the prosecution’s case (as argued in some defence applications) judges may be more inclined to grant bail, while noting that guilt or innocence will be determined in the trial stage. In these cases, courts have typically debated whether testimony of witnesses, recovery of weapons, or alleged links of conspiracy existed in the case against each accused, and that this gave courts leeway to provide bail pending trial.

Should bail have been reconsidered in the light of the alleged influence of the accused?

Critics – including the families of victims and various civil society groups – say that many of those accused are represented by powerful ideological or organisational networks which present a greater risk of witness intimidation or other similar interference with justice, and thus their influence should be considered more heavily in the bail decision. In practice, the courts in India usually want specific evidence of attempts to tamper or intimidate before using “influence” as a basis to refuse bail. Influence alone, without proof of its misuse, is generally not sufficient.

A more nuanced assessment of the case suggests that stricter scrutiny of bail was warranted, but they could not categorically deny bail. On one hand, there was a notion of ideology behind the crimes – the targeting of rationalists and journalists, and given a history of threats directed at activists, stronger bail conditions could have been imposed, such as electronic monitoring, witness protection, or limits on associational activities. Courts may have also legitimately denied bail where evidence previously documented networks that sheltered the accused, or attempts to tamper with witnesses. On the other hand, blanket denial of bail, merely on the grounds of alleged influence, CT affiliation, or express outrage, could lead to the violation of Article 21. Judicial discretion must be based on clear evidence of the accused intimidating, tampering, or engaging in new criminal activity, not mere conjecture. Otherwise, justice is delayed and denied denies bail and, with each day given that they have been detained, are subjected to a punishment without a conviction, many for over a decade in detention without any judgment.

Free Expressions and Defamation

The central issue in the defamation lawsuits revolves around the conflict between the freedom of expression and the right to reputation. Activists and journalists such as Hamid Dabholkar and Nikhil Wagle contend that their claims that Sanatan Sanstha is linked to the murders of rationalists were made in good faith, based on charge-sheets, investigative journalism, and the larger context of ideological violence. Their view is that this kind of commentary is protected by Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution as a form of fair comment and public interest speech. Sanatan Sanstha argues, on the other hand, that the claim that it is a “terrorist outfit,” or that it can be collectively responsible for crimes allegedly committed by individuals, constitutes defamation and unfairly defames the organisation. The courts will need to carefully balance protecting organisations from false and malicious allegations while allowing for democratic debate in the realm of violent ideas and accountability.

Fair trial and physical safety in a venue

The Bombay High Court’s ruling that the suits would be moved from Ponda, Goa, to Kolhapur, Maharashtra, reflects a common problem in political litigation: how to be confident that a trial will take place in a setting free of intimidation or bias. Transfers of venue under Section 24 of the CPC are not typical; they only become necessary where litigants can show reasonable apprehension and can plead otherwise. Here, the court found that the Sanstha’s physical presence in Ponda would negatively affect the defendants’ ability to safely and without intimidation defend themselves. The order reflects that a fair trial, and the provision for the programs and protection of innocent persons is not only the rules of procedure; it is fundamentally: the practical realities of intimidation, the availability of security, and local influence.

Accountability for Violence Inspired by Ideology

The broader societal issue comes down to how to hold accountable extremist organisations where acts of violence are allegedly executed by individual members, but where demonstrating responsibility by the organisation in court is incredibly challenging. Indian criminal law uniquely focuses on the individual and does not identify or prosecute ideologies unless a group or organisation is banned under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act or other statutes. In the cases of Dabholkar, Pansare, Kalburgi, and Lankesh, agencies and investigators noted patterns of conspiracies, overlapping organizational networks, and ideology in this rationale. Yet, the responsibility of organizations has proven difficult to prove in a court of law, creating an abyss between the public perception of organizational participation and the legal standard of beyond reasonable doubt. This has frustration among victims’ families and civil society, observing delayed or furthermore diluted, meant of justice.

Insights and Recommendations

A key takeaway from this case was the importance of enhancing free speech protections when activists and journalists write about matters of public concerns. Defamation law cannot become a sword that hangs over anyone asking questions about violence, ideology or accountability. The courts can lessen the risk by better applying the fair comment defence, protecting genuine free speech in the public interest against crippling damages claims. There should be a higher standard of malice before punitive damages are awarded.

The guarantee of a fair trial, is equally important. The transfer order by the Bombay High Court shows that venue neutrality is particularly important in cases charged with political controversy. However, fairness does not stop at a transferral; stronger witness protection programmes, neutral monitoring of trials and bail conditions that do not allow for intimidation or interferences are also necessary. In the case of a politically charged criminal trial where the accused is alleged to be part of influential networks, the justice system must have safeguards in place proportionate to the risks.

The larger problem of delay also needs to be addressed. The Dabholkar, Pansare, Kalburgi, and Lankesh trials have gone on for many years, leading to a loss of public confidence and comfort provided to victims’ families. Support for reform like fast-track courts, adequate resources for prosecution, and a requirement for periodic review by a judge may help. Judgments made swiftly would address the system’s reliance on lengthy detention before trial while reconciling the rights of accused persons and victims.

On the point of organisational responsibility, Indian criminal law has focused on individuals. However, if a pattern of violence is happening, and that pattern can be credibly traced to a group or network within the group, then administrative remedies may be appropriate. Monitoring or reporting on financial records, conducting audits of organisations, or creating additional registration requirements could be some possible routes; provided that those remedies provide constitutional protection against arbitrary bans. In this way, the law may honour civil liberties, but still comply with the dangers of violent ideology.

Finally, the judiciary and legislature must address the issue of the misuse of defamation cases as a means of coercion; or as strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs). Procedures like the early dismissal of frivolous cases or cost-shifting to vexatious plaintiffs may help to shield critics from being pulled through the ringer of costly and lengthy litigation. In this way, there can be safeguards for both the right to reputation and the constitutional guarantee of freedom of expression; and the abuse of law will be restrained.

Fundamentally, this occasion is about recommitting India to stand against the persecution of dissent. Rationalists, journalists, and activists play an essential role in a pluralist democracy, and they should not be silenced through the threat of violence or vexatious lawsuits. A vigilant judiciary, independent prosecutors, and legal reform can work together to create a courtroom towards accountability and away from coercion.

(The legal research team of CJP consists of lawyers and interns; this community resource has been worked on by Preksha Bothara)

Related

Gauri Lankesh Murder Case: Chargesheet names Sanatan Sanstha

Free Speech in the Digital Age: A doctrinal analysis of four recent Supreme Court cases on Article 19(1) (a)

Death of a Rationalist: Govind Pansare

Court Acts on Misinformation: FIR against channels for wrongly branding teacher a terrorist

The post Defamation, Dissent, and Democracy: The Bombay High Court’s transfer of Sanatan Sanstha suits appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The autonomous News Broadcasting Standards Authority (NBSA) has passed an order directing Zee News to pay a fine of Rs 1 lakh and telecast a public apology during Prime Time to poet and scientist Gauhar Raza for branding him as an “anti-national”.

The fine is to be paid within 7 days. The apology is to be published on September 8 at 9 p.m. on Zee News, “in Hindi text, in large font size, on full screen, and a clearly audible vioce over in slow speed”.

Zee News had telecast a programme titled ‘Afzal [Guru] Premi Gang’ several times in March last year in which derogatory statements were made against participants in the ‘Shankar-Shaad Mushaira’, held annually to promote Indo-Pak friendship.

An outraged Raza had filed a complaint with the NBSA alleging that he had been “maligned, defamed and hate engineered against him by the malicious, concocted and motivated news telecast carried by Zee News.” The complaint said the programme had aired only selected portions of some of his poems and branded him “anti-national” on the basis of prejudice and malice.    

A joint complaint was filed simultaneously by eminent artists like Ashok Vajpeyi, Shubha Mudgal, Sharmila Tagore and Syeda Hameed. Advocate Vrinda Grover argued on behalf of Raza and other complainants.

The NBSA order observes: “The broadcaster had failed to give an opportunity to professor Gauhar Raza, who was being reported upon, to give his version/views; broadcasting a programme using the footage of JNU incidents with the poetry recital of Raza and giving title to the programme as ‘Afzal Premi Gang ka Mushaira’ was highly inappropriate and derogatory as mere reference by Prof. Gauhar Raza while reciting poetry to ‘Kanhaiya’, ‘Nehru University’ and ‘Rohit Vemula’, could not be a ground to brand the poet, the organizers of Mushaira and the audience as Afzal Premi Gang.”

A press statement issued by Raza said “the NBSA has awarded the highest punishment in its jurisdiction, reaffirming that big media houses cannot trample over the rights of citizens to freedom of speech and expression, which includes the right to dissent”.

Meanwhile, talking to the Indian Express, the editor-in-chief of Zee News Sudhir Chowdhary denied his channel had breached any NBSA guidelines. Claiming that “we follow all journalistic principles and guidelines issued by NBA while telecast of news stories,” Chowdhary said the channel will appeal against the order.

Read the full order.

The post Zee News asked to pay 1 lakh fine, apologise to poet, scientist Gauhar Raza for maligning him as “anti-national” appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Dig a little deeper into this idea (or just read the news) and you will soon find that this is hogwash. Campuses in India, much like the Indian society, are spaces where not only caste flourishes, but it also seeks to cut down on any voice that erupts from the marginalised sections. Yes, more Dalit and Bahujan students are now studying in these campuses than ever, yet as even the most basic conversation with Dalit-Bahujan student shows, their presence has not made their lives easier in these campuses. If anything, these spaces are even more ruthless in clamping down on any dissent especially when such dissent seeks to expose the brutal reality of these campuses.

The death of Rohith Vemula in the Hyderabad Central University in 2016 brought the nation’s attention to the disease of casteism that flourishes in Indian Universities, but as is well known it was neither the first nor the last. Ask the five students of the English and Foreign Language University in Hyderabad who chose to speak against a casteist faculty that had time and again, humiliated students because of their caste. The faculty, Meenakshi Reddy did not stop at that, however. In a move that is unprecedented even in India, she became probably the first faculty to ever file a case of defamation against the five students in 2012 and in fact, she even won her case towards the end of 2016, with the Nampally civil court sentencing the five students to six months of imprisonment. However, that order was challenged and the students were able to get bail. Both parties challenged the order, and the case is in now in the Nampally Sessions Court.

‘We have been made to feel like criminals and hide’

This correspondent met one of the defendants in the premises of a University. The defendant (name not revealed as the case is presently underway) works at a college as a faculty. I asked how he got a job if he had a case against him? “I do not know…maybe the administration does not know”, he says almost with a laugh. “If truth be told, despite having the highest degrees and the required experience, I still feel like my job is more due to luck than because of my degrees,” he adds as he sips his tea.

The entire issue of ‘defaming’ a person revolves around the issue of Dalit-Bahujan students protesting against the casteist practices of Meenakshi Reddy, a faculty at the Department of German, which was consistently ignored by the administration.

In 2011, the Osmania University (OU) police questioned two university professors including Meenakshi Reddy after the National Human Rights Commission (HRC) took notice of R Jayamurugan, a Dalit student pursuing German, who claimed that he was being failed consistently in his semester examinations, which forced him to discontinue the course. In 2012, one more Dalit student, Kush Kumar, from the same department tried to commit suicide by consuming pills after he ‘failed’ his exams. According to the defendants we spoke to, these are not mere unfortunate incidents of students failing to cope up with the pressure. “When different students are pointing out that a certain faculty is consistently biased against students from a certain community, how can that be ignored? What does this show, if not an absolute disregard to the problems that we are facing?” the defendant added.

Of the five defendants-R Bathran, M Sriramulu, Upendra, Satish and Mohan–only Sriramulu was a student of the German department and had alleged discrimination at the hands of Reddy since 2011. Others were merely ensuring their support to Sriramulu through protests and agitations. Bathran, in fact, was merely booked because he provided a platform, Dalit Camera, to Sriramulu to voice his pain and the discrimination he had been facing.

One of the other defendants we spoke to, who is currently working at a state university, said this was again a great example of how casteist Reddy had been. “Our issue did not happen overnight nor did it get over in a week. This issue was written about in various local and national dailies. But she booked Dalit camera? Why? If this does not show her casteist nature, then what does? Bathran had been a student leader here and he had both seen and experienced the casteist nature of a number of faculties here. By booking Bathran also, she showed that she is after Dalit Bahujan students who wish to expose the true nature of the campus,” he added.

The defendants also point out that while the civil court pointed out to the terms like “Reddy harasses’, ‘Feudal Reddy’ were used by the court to point out the act of defamation, but even six months later after the verdict, they are unaware as to what damage was caused to Reddy. “If we defamed her, then she must have suffered because of it, right? How? She continues to be in the same job that she was. How did her life change? We have been humiliated for over five years, forced to live a closed life and have been visiting the courts for the past five years. I cannot apply anywhere now because of this case. Yet somehow, we are still debating over how she was defamed,” one defendant said.

‘The longer this case goes, the more trouble for us’

The two defendants also pointed out that contrary to the perception that the order being challenged was a good thing for them, they are actually worried. “The longer this case goes, the more trouble it will be for us. We are all first-generation learners from our families and all this costs us a lot of money. She is a faculty, so money is not an issue for her but we have to think about it,” said one of the defendants.

“If I lose my job, I have absolutely no clue what options will I be left with. And if this case reaches the High Court, then I am almost sure that we will not win this case,” he added. His fears are not completely unfounded. Reddy is the daughter of Obul Reddy, who served as the Chief Justice of Andhra and Gujarat High Courts and the former governor of Andhra Pradesh, and in fact, in the judgement of the Nampally civil court, the judge who gave the verdict, even took note of this, remarking, “she hails from a good family”. Obul Reddy, the defendant added, had a considerable set of “followers and disciples” in the courts and will only make it difficult for the defendants to expect a fair trial and judgment.

Throughout our conversation, the defendants request that no information be published about where they work or even their job profiles. “I know so many people here (in the campus where we meet) but I hardly meet anyone now because they will ask about the case. At this point, we don’t know what to say to them,” says one of the defendants. When asked if they feel any regret, the answer is immediate. “Never. We did what was right.”

Courtesy: Two Circles
 

The post ‘We have been made to feel like criminals’: How a defamation case is threatening the lives of five Dalit-Bahujan scholars appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Greenpeace activist Priya Pillai will now have to face criminal defamation case filed by a company, with the Supreme Court today disposing of her plea seeking clarification whether a private firm can file a criminal defamation case citing a recent judgement. During earlier hearings on September 5 last year, the Supreme Court had demanded explanations from the Centre saying “it is an important issue. We can’t just let it go. The issue needs to be examined.”

Pillai, against whom Mahan Coal Ltd has filed a criminal defamation case for allegedly carrying out negative publicity and protests over purported irregularities in mining activities, has said that the company can have a civil remedy but not a criminal recourse. A bench of Justices Adarsh Kumar Goel and U U Lalit said nothing remained in the matter as the judgement has already been delivered in the case.

“Nothing remains in the matter. We are disposing of the matter in the wake of the judgement already being delivered on the issue. You have the liberty to persue the remedies as per law,” the bench said.
The court also granted liberty to BJP leader Subramanian Swamy, who sought intervention in Pillai’s plea to file a fresh petition.

Pillai, in her petition, had said “a corporate entity cannot be imprisoned for criminal defamation and can only be fined. As such in the interest of Article 14 and equality before the law, it should be able to seek damages, not imprisonment”.

She had said she was “the victim of an abuse of justice and process, by which the respondent through Mahan Coal has used the criminal defamation provision in a strategy against public participation, association, discussion and advocacy.”

The activist in her plea said that lodging of a criminal defamation case was not limited to this instance alone, but was “part of a pattern of strategic lawsuits against public participation whereby the corporations are using criminal defamation provisions to persecute and limit the discussions and advocacy, and association around issues concerning issues of public interest and participation.”

The plea said “With the intent of crippling the ability of petitioner, of forests community residents and of members and supporters of Greenpeace India Society, to exercise their constitutionally protected rights to freedom of association and freedom of expression, the respondent has embarked on a strategy designed to hijack the Indian justice system for its on private ends, using the criminal defamation provisions to file the instant case not only against the petitioner but also against the international executive director of Greenpeace International.”

Pillai’s petition said that corporations “do not have the same right or interest to be protected as individual citizen from defamation. “Thus individuals such as directors, being allowed to file for alleged defamations as ‘some persons aggrieved’ in section 199 CrPC for the harm of reputation to a company because he can legitimately feel the ‘pinch of it’, is an unconstitutional restriction on the Freedom of Speech and Association with no compelling reasons pursuant to Article 19(2) of the Constitution.”

The post Greenpeace Activist to Face Defamation Trial: SC appeared first on SabrangIndia.

A court on Tuesday sentenced five Dalit students from the English and Foreign Languages University here to six-month imprisonment for defamation. Fourth Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate granted the five — Munavath Sriramulu, Bathran Ravichandran, Mohan Dharavath, M Upender and N Satish — bail and gave them one month to appeal. They will have to pay Rs 5,000 each as surety within seven days.

Unfortunately the decision appears to have overlooked the serious caste based abuse allegedly heaped by the professor, in a position of power, against Dalit students under her watch. Sriramulu and the others accused Reddy of telling Dalit students to go back to their villages and “remove dead skin and make chappals, wash clothes or work in fields”. He alleged that Reddy deliberately changed rules so that she could fail students.

“Students were graded according to the nine-point scale with E grade being lowest, which allowed them to be promoted to the next semester even if they have backlogs. Prof Meenakshi changed the rules three times and removed the E grade which allowed her to fail students,’’ Sriramulu has alleged.

In August 2013, Sriramulu filed a case under SC/ST Atrocities Act against Reddy. It came to light during the cross examination in the court that Reddy was Srirumulu’s teacher only in the first semester. Sriramulu failed to clear the second, third and fourth semesters and was not allowed to sit for exams for the sixth semester due to eight backlogs.

 “Considering the economic and family backgrounds of the accused, this court is of the view that it is not a fit case to impose any fine,’’ the court said.

Germanic Studies department head and Dean Meenakshi Reddy had filed the defamation case against the five in March 2013 after they posted videos, blogs and messages on social networking sites accusing her of making casteist remarks against Dalits. Sriramulu had accused Reddy of failing him and denying him remedial classes after he fell sick.

The students had called Reddy “Hitler’s daughter” and warned her to “change your attitude or face the music’’ in videos uploaded on social networking sites through Dalit Camera. They accused her of targeting Dalit students and deliberately failing them to force them to quit.

Reddy said she filed the case as she was unable to bear the harassment from the five students. “Only Sriramulu was my student but the four others joined and ganged up against me making all kinds of wild allegations,” she said. “After the first semester, Sriramulu failed in all the other semesters and when he could not pass, he started making allegations against me. I faced so much harassment from them.”

Sriramulu had joined the Germanic Studies department in July 2010 as a five-year integrated course student after getting a UGC Junior Research Scholarship.

He alleged that he started facing problems after he failed in the second semester.
 

The post 6 Months Jail for 5 Dalit Students for “Hitler’s Daughter” Comment Against Teacher appeared first on SabrangIndia.

An open letter to the Prime Minister of India

Honourable Prime Minister of India,

I am fifteen years old, and I’m not an anti-nationalist, but I believe that having an opinion that differs from that of the state isn’t a crime.

I’m not an anti-nationalist, but I believe that physical and verbal abuse by lawyers against the accused in a courtroom in the presence of the police is a defamation of our legal system and violation of the Right to Fair Trial as stated in the Article 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

I’m not an anti-nationalist, but I believe that verbal harassment of an accused on National Television in the name of Media Trial is unjustified. I don’t know journalism or media better than those running the news provision system of our country but what I do know is that each journalist or media personnel or any human being for the matter of fact is subjected to converse or debate with another human being with a certain decency and a sense of respect towards other’s opinion.

Defamation of an accused by a journalist by labelling him/her as an anti-nationalist and calling them a shame to the nation is a violation of the article 41 of the Norms of Journalism Conduct published by the Press Council of India in 2010 and a threat to one’s dignity and public image.

I’m not an anti-nationalist, but I do get furious when the media and the government portray an entire university as a hub of anti-national activities just because it’s students stood up and spoke out their opinion.

I’m not an anti-nationalist, but as an aware student and sovereign individual I’m not afraid to put forth my opinion which may be different from that of my government.

I may not be in support of everything the students of JNU have said, but I believe that as students and well informed citizens of a democratic nation they deserve all the chances to speak out their opinions without the fear of being jailed or tried in the court or media or being labelled anti-nationalists.

I’m not an anti-nationalist, but I believe that India is going to complete 70 years as a democratic nation and it is just time that we do away with the Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code which was introduced by the British during the Colonial Rule to suppress the Freedom struggle. Ironically, Bal Gangadhar Tilak and Mohandas Gandhi were also tried under the same law.

Mahatma Gandhi famously commented on this law calling it a law designed to suppress the liberty of a citizen. The presence of such a law poses a threat to a citizen’s freedom of speech and our nation’s democracy.

I’m not an anti-nationalist, but I feel scared that if the student’s of this nation are suppressed for difference of opinion today, the future students of our country would be afraid to speak in times of national crisis because of the consequences of today’s student protests.

All those against the movement by the students all over the country need to realise that none of these students are fighting for themselves. But they are standing up for what the believe is right and opposing what they believe is wrong. All those calling this uprise a political conspiracy by the opposition need to understand that these students aren’t politically motivated today.

Their only motivation is to change the situation in our nation and by suppressing them in such unfair ways all you’re doing is proving them right. They may have political aspirations in the future and they are justified to join politics because the only way to change the issues in the system is to be internally a part of that system.

I’m not an anti-nationalist, but I might be called one for writing this letter.

Yours Truly,

Simar Singh,

A Concerned 15 year old.

Courtesy: Kafila
 

The post I am 15 years old and I am not ‘anti-national’ appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The US-based Human Rights Watch has called upon Bangladeshi authorities to immediately withdraw all criminal charges filed against the editors of the Daily Star and Prothom Alo, the country’s leading newspapers. Bangladesh should repeal its criminal defamation and sedition laws, which violate international standards, said a statement issued by HRW two days ago.

Full text of the statement:

As of the time of writing, the editor of the English-language Daily Star, Mahfuz Anam, faced a total of 54 criminal defamation cases and 15 sedition cases, largely for publishing corruption allegations from military sources several years ago. On February 16, 2016, a court in Narayangunj issued an arrest warrant against Anam in a case filed by a private lawyer.

Fifty-five cases have been filed against Matiur Rahman, the editor of Prothom Alo, Bangladesh’s highest circulation Bengali-language daily newspaper (and the sister paper of the Daily Star), as well as against the newspaper and some journalists associated with the paper, for criminal defamation and “hurting religious sentiment.” Each criminal defamation charge allows for two years’ imprisonment, and each sedition charge for three.

“Criminal charges against editors of the leading newspapers in Bangladesh are a clear attempt to intimidate all media in the country,” said Brad Adams, Asia director. “A government controlling almost all seats in parliament and all national executive authority has to be particularly protective of a free press – or risk turning Bangladesh into an authoritarian state.”

The cases are part of a larger, organized assault on independent media in Bangladesh over several years.

Bangladeshi authorities have closed critical media houses, jailed editors, tried bloggers, and charged journalists with contempt of court for reporting unfavorably on government actions. The editor of Amar Desh newspaper, Mahmudur Rahman, has been jailed without trial since 2013 on charges of sedition and unlawful publication of intercepted conversations.

The editors of the Daily Star and Prothom Alo were among a significant segment of public opinion backing the “minus two” effort by the military when it effectively took power and installed a caretaker government from 2007 to 2009. The military and segments of Bangladeshi society backed a move to remove Sheikh Hasina, the leader of the Awami League and current prime minister, and Khaleda Zia, the leader of the Bangladesh Nationalist Party and a former prime minister. Both were accused of corruption.

The charges against Anam and the Daily Star are related to corruption allegations against Sheikh Hasina and other current government officials based on information provided by the country’s military intelligence service, the director general forces intelligence (DGFI). At the time, the DGFI was leading the “minus two” effort and routinely threatened and intimidated the media and civil society. DGFI was also responsible for extrajudicial killings, torture, and disappearances. The allegations were published in 2007, but the current assault against Anam came about as a result of a February 3, 2016 admission on his part that he relied on uncorroborated information from DGFI when he published the stories. Anam said he regretted having published material without sufficient corroboration.

The assault on speech affects not only the media, but also critical civil society. Journalists report engaging in self-censorship. Activists and human rights defenders have faced charges, arrest, and intimidation. Bloggers who have expressed atheist sentiments have been killed, yet others have faced charges of insulting religious feelings

The charges against Matiur Rahman of Prothom Alo stem from a series of articles the paper ran on alleged irregularities in the purchase of power tillers by a local government office, as well as for running a cartoon in the paper’s political satire section. Rahman surrendered at the Jhalakati jail following an arrest warrant issued in January 2015. He was granted bail and given permission to be physically absent from further hearings in the cases. The cases have not yet been resolved.

Both the Daily Star and Prothom Alo have faced government retaliation for their reporting. Media personnel have alleged to Human Rights Watch that this includes a ban on advertising by large private companies in the two papers. Several corporate sources speaking anonymously stated that they had received these instructions in an article published by Al Jazeera in October 2015.

“Defamation should not be treated as a crime,” Adams said. “If a newspaper intentionally publishes false information that harms an individual’s reputation, then a civil defamation case is the proper remedy, so long as a fair and impartial trial can be assured. But Bangladesh should not be in the business of jailing journalists for what they write.”

Human Rights Watch called for repeal of the sedition law, which is overly broad and vague. The law states that anyone by show or use of force or “any other unconstitutional means” who “subverts or attempts or conspires to subvert the confidence, belief or reliance of the citizens to this constitution or any of its article, his such act shall be sedition and such person shall be guilty of sedition.” Anam faces at least 15 sedition charges.

Bangladesh’s sedition and criminal defamation laws are contrary to the country’s international human rights obligations. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which Bangladesh ratified in 2000, prohibits restrictions on freedom of expression on national security grounds unless they are provided by law, strictly construed, and necessary and proportionate to address a legitimate threat. Such laws cannot put the right itself in jeopardy. The United Nations Human Rights Committee, which interprets the ICCPR, has said that states parties should move toward abolishing criminal defamation and that no one should ever risk imprisonment for defamation.

Human Rights Watch said that laws imposing criminal penalties for peaceful expression are of particular concern because of their chilling effect on free speech. The UN special rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression has stated that with such laws in place, individuals face the constant threat of being arrested and subjected to criminal trials, fines, and imprisonment, as well as the stigma of having a criminal record.

The assault on speech affects not only the media, but also critical civil society. Journalists report engaging in self-censorship. Activists and human rights defenders have faced charges, arrest, and intimidation. Bloggers who have expressed atheist sentiments have been killed, yet others have faced charges of insulting religious feelings. A 2014 media policy banned speech that is “anti-state,” “ridicules the national ideology,” and “is inconsistent with Bangladesh’s culture,” and would restrict the reporting of “anarchy, rebellion, or violence.” The government is currently drafting an onerous and overly broad law on publishing in electronic media.

“These criminal charges are clearly a form of retribution against political enemies of the government,” said Adams. “And while it is going after journalists, the government has taken no action to hold members of DGFI accountable for the extrajudicial killings, disappearances, and torture that took place during the caretaker period. Bangladesh’s sedition and criminal defamation laws need to be repealed, and charges against all media and other critics withdrawn immediately.”

The post Rights body cries halt to sedition mania in Bangladesh appeared first on SabrangIndia.