The interim order of the Madras HC in the case ‘Ananda Vikatan Productions Pvt. Ltd. And Others v. Union of India’ have brought attention to the critical importance of safeguarding journalistic freedom in India. The case involves Ananda Vikatan Productions Pvt. Ltd. (Vikatan), a prominent Tamil weekly publication, whose entire website was blocked pursuant to an order of the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The central government cited a cartoon published on the site—depicting the Indian Prime Minister and the then-President of the United States—as a threat to India’s sovereignty and foreign relations.

Freedom of speech and its nexus with the press freedom

Freedom of speech is integral to any democratic setup, often described as the very cornerstone that supports all other liberties. In India, Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution explicitly protects every citizen’s right to free speech and expression—an umbrella under which press freedom thrives. The press itself is commonly recognized as the “fourth pillar of democracy,” reflecting its mission to remain independent of the executive, legislature, and judiciary.

In the United States, the landmark “Pentagon Papers” decision (New York Times v. Sullivan) underscored that the press must do more than merely transmit information between government officials and the public: it should operate as a neutral institution, shining a light on governmental functions and exposing any shortcomings. Although the Indian Constitution does not explicitly mention the freedom of the press by name, the Supreme Court has long affirmed in cases like Sakal Papers v. Union of India that freedom of speech and expression is a broad genus, of which press freedom is a vital species. Open discourse, critiques, and reporting on the functioning of government serve the public interest—so whenever laws or administrative measures threaten to muzzle the press, courts bear the responsibility to strike them down and uphold the Constitution.

The blocking of Vikatan’s website

1. Government’s action
   On 25.02.2025, the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting issued an order blocking the entire website of Vikatan. Officials argued that a caricature published by the magazine undermined India’s friendly relations with a foreign state, thus justifying the action under Section 69A of the IT Act and the “reasonable restrictions” outlined in Article 19(2) of the Constitution.
2. Vikatan’s response
   Vikatan challenged the blanket ban as excessive. They maintained that political satire and commentary lie at the heart of a free press. Shutting down an entire website over a single image, they argued, was disproportionate and infringed upon both their editorial independence and the readers’ right to information.

The Madras high court’s interim order

On 06.03.2025, Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy granted partial relief:

• Limited removal of content: The Court held that blocking the entire domain was unnecessary. It directed the publishers to temporarily remove only the specific cartoon in question.
• Unblocking the site: Once the offending material was taken down, the Union of India was to promptly restore access to the rest of the website.
• Further hearing: The Court set a date two weeks later for the central government to file its counter-affidavit, at which time it would scrutinize whether the caricature truly warranted any continued restriction.

This approach aligns with the principle of proportionality, a concept clarified by the Supreme Court in various judgments, including Shreya Singhal v. Union of India. Courts have insisted that restrictions on speech must be the least intrusive possible—removing only the offending material, rather than imposing an overbroad restriction affecting legitimate content or expression.

The order in the case Ananda Vikatan Productions Pvt. Ltd. And Others v. Union of India (WP 7944 of 2025) Delivered by Madras HC Bharatha Chakravarthy J on March 6, 2025 may be read here:

By granting Vikatan temporary relief and restricting the blocking order to only the particular caricature, the Madras High Court has made an important statement about press freedom in the digital era. This nuanced approach promotes a healthy environment for political satire and commentary, without dismissing national security or foreign-policy concerns. As India continues to rely on digital platforms for information and debate, the balance struck in cases like Vikatan serves as a reminder that freedom of speech particularly the freedom of the press remains the lifeblood of any vibrant democracy.

Related:

Targeting Press Freedom: The unexplained censorship of Vikatan and the erosion of free speech

The post Madras HC unblocks Vikatan site appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Brief background of the petition:

The court was hearing a petition moved by K.Thangarasu @ K.Thangaraj to seek police protection for holding a festival at a temple. The petitioner claimed to be the Hereditary Trustee of Arulmighu Sri Ruthra Maha Kaliyamman Alayam. The petitioner had requested police protection in order to ensure that no undesirable situations occurrs during a celebration proposed to be held between July 23 and August. It was purported by the petitioner that the said celebration takes place every year during the Aadi month.

Arguments of the state:

The State submitted to the court that there was an ongoing dispute going on between two parties regarding the festival’s conduct. Furthermore, it was said that despite the Tahsildar presiding over a Peace Committee meeting, no agreement could be accomplished so far. There was also a disagreement about who would maintain the Vinayagar idol inside the shrine. It was provided to the court that to contain the dispute, the Tahsildar issued an order that no one should keep the Voinayagar idol inside the temple. In view of the above-mentioned submissions, it was argued by the State that granting permission for the festival would result in law-and-order issues. 

Observations of the court:

After hearing the submissions of both the parties, the court expressed dismay that the temple festival has become a stage for groups to show their strength and perpetuate violence. 

“The purpose of a temple is to enable the devotees to worship God for peace and happiness. However, unfortunately, temple festivals are perpetuating violence and it is only becoming a centre stage for groups to show who is powerful in the particular area. There is no devotion involved in conducting these festivals and rather it has become a show of strength by one group or the other. This completely defeats the very purpose of conducting temple festivals,” the court observed in its order. (Para 6)

The Bench of Justice Anand Venkatesh stated that it is a better option to close such temples in order to prevent violent incidents if these celebrations just serve to perpetuate conflict between different groups. The court further added that the whole purpose of having a temple is of no use unless a man drops his ego and goes to the temple to seek blessings. 

“If temples are going to perpetuate violence, the existence of temples will have no meaning and in all such cases, it would be better to close down those temples so that the violence can be averted. Till the man drops his ego and goes to the temple seeking for the blessings of the god, the whole purpose of having a temple is of no use,” the court added in its order. (Para 6)

The court also stated that many groups are more concerned in displaying their strength than they are in being devoted to God. In addition to this, the court remarked that although the Police and the Revenue department have essential jobs to do, they frequently spend time and resources trying to settle disagreements between the groups. 

“The time and energy of the Police and Revenue department is unnecessarily wasted in resolving dispute between the groups, who are fighting over their right to conduct the temple festival. The Police and Revenue have got other important functions to perform and their time is wasted by trying to resolve the dispute between two groups who have no devotion to God and are more interested in showing their strength over the other. In the considered view of this Court, the precious time of the Revenue and Police cannot be wasted in disputes of this nature,” the court observed in its order. (Para 7)

Thus, the court observed that there was no question of providing police protection and the parties had liberty to conduct festival peacefully without their ego coming to the forefront. The court also directed the police to interfere and take necessary action in case of law-and-order problem and stop the festival from proceeding, if necessary. (Para 8)

Thus, the court dismissed the said petition without imposing any costs.

The complete order may be read here:

Related:

Hindu temples & their economic worth, VHP-backed ‘Know your temple’ initiative

Now ‘Hindu Rashtra’ enters temples in Maharashtra, Goa and Karnataka

Devotees of Sarkara Devi temple want ‘RSS men’ to leave temple alone, they’re ‘causing agony, fighting with sticks’: Kerala

Plea in Kerala HC alleging illegal encroachment in temple by RSS

Hindu temple faces backlash for demanding removal of Kazi Nazrul Islam’s picture from dance institute’s program

Strict action if RSS shakhas are allowed on temple premises: Travancore Devaswom Board warns officials

Man lynched for accidentally breaking two fingers of idol in Hindu temple

Harmony vs disharmony in 2 states: Kerala temple welcomes Muslims; MP temple fires Muslims

The post Temple festivals used to display strength, perpetuate violence, better to have them closed: Madras HC appeared first on SabrangIndia.

While the two judges may have agreed on the aspect of maintainability, they had differed on the issue of the powers of the ED to seek custody and the legality of the minister’s arrest.

The ED had arrested Balaji in a case based on accusations for money laundering associated with the cash-for-jobs scam that he was allegedly involved during his tenure as the Transport Minister between 2011 and 2016.

While delivering the judgment, Justice J. Nisha Banu of the division bench had made some crucial observations regarding the issue of the powers of the ED to seek custody of an arrested person. Justice Banu had held that the Habeas Corpus petition was maintainable since the order of custody passed by the Principal Session Judge was without jurisdiction and authority, and therefore, illegal. She had further observed that since the ED officers do not have the powers of a Station House Officer under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), they could not have moved for custody of the Minister.

“Under the present scheme, the officers empowered to arrest under Sec 19 of PMLA, 2002, are required to produce the accused to the competent court within 24 hours of arrest and seek only judicial remand and the same may be ordered by the judicial magistrate under the extant provisions of the Act. In effect, ED cannot hold custody of any person beyond the first 24 hrs of arrest,” said Justice Banu, as provided by LiveLaw.

Power of ED to seek custody of the persons arrested:

Following are the observations made by Justice Banu in her verdict regarding the powers of the ED, it’s the misuse and bypass of law:

On the question of ED’s powers to seek police custody, Justice Banu observed that since the officers under the PMLA are not given powers of a police officer, they could not seek police custody. She emphasised that the officers empowered to make arrest under Section 19 of the PMLA are primarily required to produce the accused to the competent court within 24 hours of arrest and can only seek judicial remand.

“It is the scheme of the Constitution and the statutes that no person shall be detained beyond 24 hours for any offence under any law passed by the parliament except under a judicial order passed by a competent court. This applies to all investigating agencies including Police officers. Meaning, an accused or suspect will be available for custodial interrogation immediately after arrest for 24 hours for all agencies after which they have to necessarily produce the detenu to a competent court for further orders.” the judge said in her judgment. (Para 8.4)

Justice Banu further opined that though normally CrPC governs the powers of arrest, search and seizure, these powers are entrusted to Officers enforcing the Special Acts like NDPS, Customs, FERA, PMLA etc.

“Usually, the officers who file final report under Sec 173 CrPC after completion of investigation are police officers. The officers under special laws usually file complaint (Private) under Section 200 of CrPC after investigations. However, that alone is not the test to determine whether a particular officer has the powers of a police officer or not though it is the dominant test. The colour and character of the powers entrusted with the officers will determine whether the officers enforcing special enactments can be termed as police officers,” the judge said in her judgment. (Para 8.2)

Furthermore, Justice Banu observed that since custody heavily impinges on the fundamental right of citizens, Section 167 of the CrPC is the lone provision under which it can be awarded. No special act has ever intended to empower officers to seek custody otherwise than through the provisions of Sec 167 CrPC.

“Wherever officers are empowered to conduct investigations, the machinations of CrPC becomes applicable. If any of the above provisions is violated the detention becomes illegal. Thus parliament has consciously maintained a balance between the fundamental right to liberty and the need for restraining persons in conflict with laws and the need for custodial detention to conduct investigations,” Justice Banu stated in the judgment. (Para 8.4)

Justice Banu also provided that it has been indicated in The Central Excise Act, 1944, The CGST Act, 2017 and FERA, 1973 that Section 167 applies to only those officers who enjoy the powers of a station house officer by virtue of them being empowered to act as an officer in charge of a police station under the CrPC and the concerned special acts.

“Similar provisions to empower ED Officers as Station House Officers are not provided under PMLA, 2002. It appears that the Parliament has consciously omitted to confer with the ED Officers acting under PMLA, 2002 the power of a Station House Officer,” Justice Banu stated in the judgment. (Para 8.5)

The judge subsequently added that the decision to not empower ED Officers appears “a conscious bridle considering the sweeping powers granted to the authorities under the Act. Though the offences of Money Laundering is distinct from any or all of the scheduled offences under PMLA, 2002, there is a bar on the ED officials to suo-moto file ECIR for the offence of money laundering. An FIR or Complaint by a competent authority in a predicate offence is a sine qua non for ED officials to initiate a proceeding under the PMLA,” Justice Banu provided in the judgment. (Para 8.8)

Furthermore, Justice Banu pointed that Chapter IV of PMLA, 2002 obligates the Banking Companies, Financial Institutions and intermediaries that are normally touted as the routes to integrate laundered money back into the system to provide information to the Enforcement Directorate officials in the format so desired and keep records.

“It is a sweeping power that can help identify the trails of the proceeds of crime and the trails of the laundered money to confiscate property that are proceeds of crime so also to complete substantial meaningful investigations. It was observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary & Ors vs UOI & ors the proceeding under PMLA, 2002 is more in the nature of inquiry proceedings and not investigations. The collection of evidences to track the POC and money laundering trail are predominantly documentary in nature. Therefore, it appears that the Parliament in its wisdom did not see the need for custodial interrogation for proceedings under PMLA, 2002 beyond the first 24 hours of arrest.” (Para 8.9)

Regarding the maintainability of the Habeas Corpus petition, Justice Banu pointed out that while, on the face of law, it could seem that the said petition cannot be maintained once a legal remand order is issued, the same would rely on the nature of the detention.

Justice Banu drew distinctions between preventive detention and detention for an offence, noting that while in the former, a breach of procedural safeguards is of no consequence following a valid judicial remand, in the latter, a breach of procedural safeguards at the time of arrest will vitiate the proceedings and a writ of habeas corpus would be admissible.

Justice Banu also pointed out that on June 16, the Principal Sessions Judge remanded Balaji to police custody for an eight-day period, despite the fact that on June 15, the High Court had clearly stated in its interim order that he would remain in judicial custody.

Justice Banu thus concluded that the Principal Sessions Judge’s custody order was unconstitutional since it was made without jurisdiction and without legal authority because the ED employees lacked the authority of a police officer to request custody.

“The order fails the test of legality both of law and omission to follow judicial discipline and we have no hesitation to hold that the detention at the time of hearing the Habeas Corpus Petition is illegal. Accordingly, we hold that Habeas Corpus Petition is maintainable in the facts and circumstances of this case,” she noted in Para 9.9 and Para 9.10 of the judgment.

The judgment can be read here:

From the verdict pronounced by Justice Banu as well as the reasonings provided in the judgment, it can be said that, in the assessment of this Judge, the ED crossed all  limitations placed on the agency, provided under the PMLA while seeking police custody as they did not have the required entrusted powers.

Notably, the said petition has now been placed by the Chief Justice of Madras High Court SV Gangapurwala before Justice CV Karthikeyan of the Madras High Court.

“Drastic powers given to ED”: Harish Salve to the Supreme Court

On the same day, July 4, Senior Advocate Harish Salve, while appearing on behalf of directors of realty group M3M, told the Supreme Court that the ED has been vested with enormous powers in probing money laundering cases and should be reined in lest it endangers individual liberty.

“These are drastic powers given to the ED. If Lordships do not rein them in, no one is safe in this country. See how the arrest was done. They were cooperating. Arrest was in violation of my rights then surely this Court can… These powers need to be reined in. 14 days they have been inside,” Salve had told a bench of Justices AS Bopanna and MM Sundresh, as provided by the Bar&Bench.

Justice Sundresh, in a lighter vein, had also remarked, “You are right. It is a cat-and-mouse game. They are using the law.”

Herein, the Supreme Court was hearing a batch of pleas, including challenges to a recent Delhi High Court order that had refused to interfere with the arrest of M3M directors, Basant Bansal and Pankaj Bansal in a money-laundering investigation related to a bribery case against a former judge.

Need to bring the Enforcement Directorate under scanner?

In the month of May, 2023, more than 500 citizens, rights activists, women’s groups, students and academics had written an open letter condemning the “misuse” of the PMLA and ED against scholars and activists who are raising constitutional issues and accountability from the government.  In the said letter, the following was written, “several women scholars and activists have been summoned repeatedly, made to wait long hours, often interrogated without any woman officer present throughout, asked to furnish documents over and over again, in an Enforcement Directorate investigation”, said a report in the Wire. It was further written that hat the ED should exercise “great responsibility and discernment in the persons and cases where they choose to use the PMLA, and certainly not use it to intimidate opponents, activists and intellectuals.”

The opposition parties have accused the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) of misusing federal agencies multiple times over the years. With the general elections coming up in the following year, the opposition has criticised the Bharatiya Janata Party for frequently employing the Enforcement Directorate against its political rivals.

Significantly, the Union government changed money laundering rules even in the month of March, greatly expanding the window through which the ED can examine the financial records of people and organisations. It was determined that the aforementioned action would have broad ramifications because it greatly increased the already expansive range of powers of the central agency.

In September 2021, a report by the Financial Express had provided that 121 political leaders were booked by the ED since the PM Narendra Modi came to power in the year 2014, and out of that number, as many as 115, or 95% of them are opposition party members.

The PMLA law has faced several criticisms, which include non-reporting of grounds of arrest, arrest of persons without ECIR (similar to FIR) copy, strict bail conditions, etc. Even last year, in the month of August, a PMLA Court had referred to the ED as a “vengeful complainant,” and had stated that the ED cannot seek an extension of custody “eccentrically and whimsically.”

Unfortunately, however, by an comprehensive judgement July 27, 2022, the Supreme Court (‘SC’) in the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, upheld the constitutional validity of various provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2022 (‘PMLA’), including Sections 3, 5, 17, 19, 45 and 50.

Related:

Siddique Kappan directed to furnish 2 sureties of Rs 1 lakh each for Bail Proceedings under PMLA

Arrest of Shiv Sena MP, Sanjay Rautt a ‘Witchunt’ & ‘Illegal’ says PMLA Court granting him bail in Money Laundering case

Women, Sick & Infirm may get bail under PMLA: Delhi HC

ED a ‘vengeful complainant’: Mumbai PMLA court

Strong condemnation after ED questions researcher Navsharan Singh

The post Madras HC: Legal bar on ED’s detention, split verdict, PMLA case against Senthil Balaji appeared first on SabrangIndia.

A bench comprising of Justices R Subramanian and L Victoria Gowri declined to order an interim stay of the offering of Namaz at Nellithopu and directed the Hindu Religious & Charitable endowment to respond to the petition and file their counters within four weeks. The court also added that there was no harm caused by offering of Namaz for 30 minutes and that it would not have any consequences for any particular person.

Who filed the petition?

The petition was filed by the State Organisation Secretary of Aghila Bharatha Hanuman Sena, Ramalingam. In his petition, Ramalingam submitted that devotees who went to pray at the Kasi Viswanathar Temple, situated at the top of Thirupparakundram used to take rest and have their food at Nellithoppu. He submitted that while so, the Jamath Members of Sikkandar Badhusha Dharga started offering Namaz at the said Nellithoppu place.

He further submitted that the Jamath members usually offered their prayers at the Pallivasal (Mosque) and that this type of incident has never happened before. It was added by him that the Sikkandar Badhusha Dharga is also situated at the Thirupparakundram Mountain and there were other vacant lands available for offering prayers nearby.

According to Ramalingam’s submission, the Jamath members’ act of offering Namaz in Nellithopu caused disturbances and inconveniences to the public. He alleged that after the prayers, they left behind food waste and plastic, littering the pathway. Additionally, the Jamath members laid claim to the Thirupparakundram Arulmighu Subramania Swamy Thirukoil Mountain, referring to it as the “Sikkandar Mountain,” and he accused them of attempting to encroach on the land and create law and order issues.

Court’s decision

However, the court was not inclined to grant the interim injunction and adjourned the said plea. The court also expressed that there would be no harm caused by allowing thirty minutes of Namaz and assured that it would not inconvenience anyone.

Related:

Muslim man peacefully offering Namaz at UP railway station “offends” Hindutva leader

Muslims attacked while offering Namaz in Haryana

Open display of “welcome to Akhand Hindu Rashtra” accepted while “discomfort” over Namaz being offered in basement, is this the New India?

Delhi & Gurugram: Obstruction of namaz, assault on Muslims

UP: 26 booked for holding ‘unlawful’ assembly for namaz at home

The post “No harm caused by thirty minutes of Namaz, won’t inconvenience anyone”: Madras HC appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Chennai: The Madras High Court on Thursday directed the Tamil Nadu police to grant permission to the RSS to conduct a state-wide march and musical procession on October 2.

The single bench of the Madras High court represented by Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan orally directed the state police to grant permission to the RSS march by September 28.

A group of RSS functionaries had approached court stating that the Tamil Nadu police was prejudiced against their organisation and was sitting on their request for granting permission to the march.

The petitioners said that the RSS was planning to conduct marches accompanied by musical processions only in 50 spots across the state and that the RSS was a nationalist organisation.

They also informed the court that the march has to be held on October 2 as it is a Sunday closest to the foundation day of the organisation, September 27. They also claimed that the date was also chosen as it was Mahatma Gandhi’s birthday also and the RSS was conducting the programme nationally.

The petitioners said that the march was intended for promoting communal and social harmony.

The petitioners also stated that no participant will carry any arms and that no inconvenience would be caused to the general public due to the march.

The state government in its argument said that the organisation had not given the exact details of the spots where the programme would be organised and hence the police was yet to grant a decision.

The single bench of the Madras High Court orally directed the state police to grant permission before September 28 to the programme with reasonable restrictions.

The court also said that it would give a detailed order on the petitions later.

Courtesy: The Daily Siasat

The post Madras HC directs TN Police to give permission to RSS march on Oct 2 appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Supreme Court, on January 14, issued notice in the plea filed against Madras High Court order transferring investigation of Thanjavur minor’s suicide case to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The appeal has been filed by the Tamil Nadu Director General of Police who has maintained throughout that all directions of the court were duly followed and all investigation was going as per procedure.

The impugned order dated January 31, was passed in response to a petition filed by the father of the deceased girl who stated that he had lost confidence in the state police’s investigation after the school was exonerated by the state’s Education Department of allegations of attempted forcible religious conversion and the Superintendent of Police (SP) ruled out angle of conversion in the initial phase of the investigation.

While the bench of Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Bela M Trivedi issued notice, it refused to interfere with the CBI investigation and allowed the probe to continue. The bench told the State that the evidence be handed over to CBI and that it should not treat this as a prestige issue.

The bench also issued notice in the petition filed by the congregation which runs the school where the deceased girl was studying at the time. The bench questioned Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi appearing for the DGP on which aspect was it aggrieved, was it on the observations made by the court or the direction for CBI probe. Mr Rohatgi said it was aggrieved by both aspects.

“With great respect, this was not a case of any other ramifications. The HCs interferes and day to day orders are passed. A dying declaration is on record. This is not an exceptional case. This is not a case that should reflect on the police of the state. Why such a big issue is made about it? Every day HC is passing order,” Rohatgi submitted, as reported by LiveLaw. However, the bench stated that the circumstances during the pendency of the case “weighed with the High Court” while passing the impugned order.

Senior Advocate P Wilson appeared for the state and submitted that the High Court overstepped by ordering CBI probe since the single bench only had jurisdiction to deal with the state police investigation. The prayer in the petition was only for  a CID probe and the CBI probe was pleaded for only orally in court.

Background

The court’s observations in the impugned order ranged from making comments about the name of the village being “Michealpatti” to make it appear that conversion angle is probable, to quoting from popular culture references to show how characters in movies defied attempts at religious conversion, to casting aspersions on the SP that she wanted to divert attention from the conversion angle in the case.

The case has caused a major political row with the involvement of a Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) leader who recorded the statement of the minor girl. On January 28, a petition was submitted to Thanjavur district collector by residents of Michaelpatti village stating that “unidentified persons are coming to their village and trying to create communal disharmony.” According to reports, the villagers told officials that they “are being asked to speak against the school where the class 12 student was studying.” They added that their own children have studied in the school and there is no question of forced conversions.

In the order, the court cast serious aspersions on the state police carrying out the investigation stating, “The attempt of the police appears to be to derail the investigation…. It is too early in the day for the police or the politicians to jump to conclusions. But they have done so. That is why, the petitioner is apprehensive that if the investigation continues to remain in the hands of the State police, he will not get justice. His apprehension is justified.”

While ordering transfer of investigation to CBI, the court said, “The foregoing circumstances cumulatively taken will definitely create an impression that the investigation is not proceeding on the right lines. Since a high ranking Hon’ble Minister himself has taken a stand, investigation cannot continue with the State Police.”

Related:

Thanjavur minor’s suicide: Madras HC orders case transfer to CBI; rife with prejudices, hints at ‘religious conversion’ angle
Thanjavur: Villagers submit petition to DC about elements trying to create communal disharmony
MP High Court warns state against “moral policing” in interfaith marriage where wife converted willingly

The post Thanjavur minor suicide: SC allows CBI probe to continue, issues notice appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In some relief to digital news platforms including television news channels that are part of the Indian Broadcasting and Digital Foundation (IBDF), the Madras High Court has restrained the government from taking action against them till the case is heard next on January 25, 2022.

The IBDF, that has among its members several national and regional news channels, including those owned by the Sun TV network and many online, digital and OTT streaming platforms, had challenged the Rules 8-19 of Part III of the of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules 2021. Part III pertains to Code of Ethics and Procedure and Safeguards in Relation to Digital Media.

The court granted four weeks to the Centre to file its counter-affidavit in the matter, and clearly stated in its order, “In the meanwhile, the respondents are restrained from taking any coercive action against the petitioners without seeking permission of the Court.”

The matter will be heard next on January 25, 2022.

This story will be updated with the order copy once it becomes available.

Brief Background

SabrangIndia had reported earlier on how the Government of India had notified the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules 2021 in February this year. The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MEITy) had at that time issued a press release saying it had come up with these guidelines “amidst growing concerns around lack of transparency, accountability and rights of users related to digital media and after elaborate consultation with the public and stakeholders” and that the code has “been framed in exercise of powers under section 87 (2) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and in supersession of the earlier Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines) Rules 2011.” There were rules for both social media as well as digital and OTT platforms.

These were widely criticised as a means to legalise government scrutiny and control of news media, and this challenge to freedom of press led to the Rules being challenged in different courts.

In August 2021, the Bombay High Court had granted interim stay on the operation of Rule 9 of the Information Technology Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 (2021 Rules) for infringing Freedom of Speech and Expression as conferred by Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. The bench headed by Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and also comprising Justice GS Kulkarni also opined that prima facie Rule 9 is ultra vires the provisions of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act) being beyond the delegated power. This was in connection with a writ petition filed by The Leaflet against the 2021 Rules, on the ground that they are ultra vires the IT Act. The PIL was filed by journalist Nikhil Wagle. The counsels for both petitioners argued that the 2021 Rules are ex facie draconian, arbitrary and patently ultra vires the provisions of the IT Act and the provisions of Articles 14, 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. Read more here.

The Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF) had analysed the various Rules and raised concerns about regulating content on OTT platforms like Netflix, Amazon Prime etc. and even given examples of the ongoing Tandav controversy where the Allahabad High Court has recently denied pre-arrest bail to Amazon executives. IFF saw this as a means to enable government censorship by way of a virtual backdoor entry in the rules, calling it “grossly unconstitutional”.

In September, the Madras High Court observed that certain rules of the IT Rules 2021 impinge upon the freedom of press and pose a threat to democracy. While refraining from passing an independent order, the bench of Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice PD Audikesavalu had at that time referred to the Bombay High Court’s order which has stayed the operation of sub-rules (1) and (3) of Rule 9 and observed that the same has pan-India effect.

The IT Rules, 2021 were challenged by Digital News Publishers Association which is a grouping of 13 leading media companies in the country — ABP Network Private Limited, Amar Ujala Limited, DB Corp Limited, Express Network Pvt Ltd, HT Digital Streams Ltd, IE Online Media Services Pvt Ltd, Jagran Prakashan Limited, Lokmat Media Private Limited, NDTV Convergence Limited, TV Today Network Limited, The Malayala Manorama Co (P) Ltd, Times Internet Limited and the Ushodaya Enterprises Private Limited.

The petitioner particularly challenged Rule 9 of the IT Rules. Rule 9 (3) provides for ensuring observance and adherence to the Code of Ethics by publishers operating in the territory of India as laid down in the Appendix to the Rules. It requires a publisher to have self-regulation as well as an oversight mechanism by the central government and also states that any publisher 2021 Rules, a publisher referred to in rule 8 who contravenes any law for the time being in force, shall also be liable for consequential action as provided in such law, which has so been contravened.

The court raised concerns that the said oversight mechanism by the central government could endanger democracy as it would rob the media of its independence. Read more here.

Related:

Ethics Code for Social Media, rules for OTT platforms, online news
IFF analyses new social media Ethics Code and digital media rules
The wide terms of the IT Rules 2021 have a chilling effect on freedom of speech: Bom HC
IT Rules: Oversight mechanism may rob the media of its independence, says Madras HC

The post Madras HC restrains action against digital news platforms under IT Rules 2021 appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The High Court has sought a detailed response from the state government and the Centre over allegations of exorbitant and unreasonable price being charged by private hospitals, in contravention of the government order that has fixed the maximum cost to be charged for Covid-19 treatment.

The petitioner approached the court stating that private hospitals are charging exorbitantly upto Rs.2,00,000 for ten days of treatment. The hospitals, depending upon their grade, can charge up to Rs. 15,000 per day, but some hospitals are allegedly charging around Rs.1,00,000 per day.

Further, it was stated that by way of an order, the Government had directed the private clinical establishments to allocate minimum 50 percent of the total bed capacity for treating Covid-19 patients, since this was declared an international health emergency. However, the petitioner submitted that private hospitals were not providing beds as directed in the Government Order and there was no proper mechanism available for implementation of the Government orders.

Court’s observation

Justices MS Ramesh and B. Pugalendhi, at the outset, appreciated the valuable services rendered by the doctors, nurses, health workers and all other frontline workers during this unprecedented crisis.

At the same time, it perused some receipts provided by the petitioner and said, “exorbitant charges have been collected by some hospitals, even during this difficult time, which cannot be permitted. The hospitals are taking advantage of the Covid-19 Pandemic situation, it appears, making use of it to collect exorbitant charges.”

Accordingly, the court has sought the following details from the Centre and State government:

1. Whether the Government Orders from the Health and Family Welfare Department are strictly complied with in its letter and spirit?

2. How is the Government monitoring the implementation of the aforesaid Government Orders?

3. Whether the maximum cost for Covid-19 treatment as directed by the Government in the aforesaid Government Orders is exhibited in a prominent manner in the private hospitals enabling the general public to know about the charges and the details of the authority to whom any complaint regarding the exorbitant charges and violations of the said Government Orders, can be lodged?

4. What is the penal provision or penalty contemplated for violation of the aforesaid Government Orders and who is the authority monitoring the implementation of the aforesaid Government Orders?

5. How many complaints have been received by the Government for violation of the said Government Orders and what is the action taken on the complaints, if any?

6. Why not the Government maintain a separate portal giving the availability of the private hospitals and their bed capacity along with the fees structure in the portal, as maintained by Uttar Pradesh and Delhi, etc.

7. The Government Order mentions that the beneficiaries under the Chief Minister’s Comprehensive Health Insurance Scheme are covered in the empanelled private hospitals and if so, how many persons have been treated under the scheme so far.

8. Whether under the Tamil Nadu Employees Health Insurance Scheme, the Government servants are entitled to take treatment for Covid-19 in the private hospitals?

The matter will be heard on May 12.

The order may be read here: 

Related:

All you need to know about Mucormycosis
Covid-19 has completely exposed Delhi’s medical infrastructure: High Court
Will Union Minister Santosh Gangwar’s letter to UP Chief Minister exposing O2 shortage, make a difference?
Allahabad HC not satisfied with DM Meerut’s response over oxygen shortage

The post Pvt Hospital allegedly charges Rs. 1 lakh per day for Covid treatment: Madras HC seeks response from gov’t appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Madras High Court, on May 6, refrained from passing any directions to any authorities and took stock of the Covid situation in the state, while appealing to the Centre to take immediate steps to meet the needs of oxygen in the state. The bench of Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy  was informed by officials that the reserves have been used up to the extent that there may be a further day’s reserve, but there may not be oxygen to supply in adequate quantity on Saturday.

The court identified that the main concern was oxygen supply to Tamil Nadu. The court was informed that the state has a production capacity of about 400 MT per day and that the south-western districts would be served by a Palakkad unit which would supply about 40 MT of oxygen per day. On the other hand, the daily requirement is 450MT.

In a meeting held on May 2, with the Centre and few other states, Tamil Nadu was allotted 475 MT of oxygen. However, in the allocation order issued on May 5, Tamil Nadu was not included.

It was further submitted that in the meeting, Tamil Nadu agreed to allow at least 25 MT of oxygen to be supplied by a plant in Sriperumbudur to Andhra Pradesh or Telangana in lieu of the supply from Palakkad, Kerala of 40 MT per day being retained. However, in the subsequent allocation order that was issued by the empowered committee put in place by the Central Government, not only did Tamil Nadu not figure, the Sriperumbudur allocation to Andhra Pradesh or Telangana was recognised therein, but the Palakkad supply to southern and western districts of Tamil Nadu found no mention. The officials informed the court that it is a critical situation and the reserves have been used up to the extent that there may be a further day’s reserve, but there may not be oxygen to supply in adequate quantity on Saturday.

The court said that in the present situation it is making an appeal for equitable distribution. “The Union and the empowered committee should take immediate steps in such regard to ensure adequate supply of oxygen to the State of Tamil Nadu to meet the needs. This must be ensured by tomorrow, so that the emergency that the officials speak of – of the reserves supply running out by Saturday – does not happen,” the court stated. The court also mentioned that the Sterlite unit is unlikely to produce oxygen till next week.

The court also suggested that the oxygen generating machines installed by Defence Research and Development Organisation should be installed in big cities like Chennai, Coimbatore and Madurai.

The officials informed the court that 95% percent oxygen beds remain occupied and measures have been initiated to augment bed capacity, including oxygenated bed capacity. The officials further informed the court that measures are being taken to set up centres in major cities, including Madurai and Coimbatore for release of Remdesivir directly to private hospitals or patient parties.

The court is also awaiting the inquiry report on the incident in Chengalpattu where 12 patients died.

While the court considered the submissions made by the petitioners, it was not inclined to pass any directions. It said, “It is not necessary to impose conditions on beleaguered officials and administration at this stage and to allow them to function as freely as possible and without directions of Court confusing matters”. The court only appealed to the officials to ensure that citizens’ needs are met and whatever is in the power of the authorities may be done to prevent further suffering.

The case will be next heard on May 12, if not required by any other untoward circumstances earlier.

The order may be read here:

Related:

Covid-19: Scientists say a third wave is inevitable; is India prepared?

Covid-19: Assam struggles as 90 Tea Garden workers test positive

Hauling up officers won’t bring oxygen: SC stays Delhi HC’s contempt notice to Centre

The post Madras HC appeals to Centre to ensure adequate oxygen supply to Tamil Nadu appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Madras High Court has quashed proceedings against a person booked for protesting the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) while asserting that the Constitution bestows fundamental rights such as freedom of speech and right to assemble peacefully.

The petitioner, Jafar Sathick, sought quashing of FIR registered against him for protesting the CAA. The FIR was registered in March 2020 on the charge that the petitioner and others by their act had not only committed public nuisance, but also caused hindrance to the free flow of vehicular traffic on the road.

The bench of Justice R Hemalatha observed that during the said protest, no untoward incident took place and the FIR also does not disclose any acts of violence. The court unequivocally emphasised that the Constitution of India gives its Citizens the right to freedom of speech and expression, assemble peacefully and without arms, to form Associations and Unions and to move freely throughout the Territory of India under Article 19 of the Constitution.

The court, thus, allowed the petition and quashed the FIR against the petitioner.

The order may be read here:

Related:

Tripura HC quashes FIR against man charged for misleading FB post about pro-CAA number

Mere presence of accused at Red Fort cannot justify incarceration: Delhi court on R-Day violence

Protect arrestee’s human rights: Lawyers send open letter to UNHRC

The post Madras HC quashes FIR against CAA protestor, upholds freedom of speech appeared first on SabrangIndia.