Ever since the introduction and passage of the controversial law, a unique alliance of people’s organisations and opposition political parties have come together, on four separate occasions to protest this law that spells doom for free expression, the right to protest and dissent. In April 2025 and then again in July 2025, there have been protests around this legislation.

Pune: Call to resist “state repression”

In Pune, under the leadership of Supriya Sule (MP), National Working President of the NCP (Sharad Pawar faction), a mass gathering was organized at the Babasaheb Ambedkar Memorial near Pune Station. City NCP president Prashant Jagtap called on citizens to resist the law, warning that it empowers the state to directly imprison dissenters and silence public opposition.

1 of 7

Mumbai: Opposition Action Committee leads joint protest

In Mumbai, the Janasuraksha Bill Opposition Action Committee led a protest at Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj Maidan, Dadar, from 4–8 pm. The meeting was chaired by Com. Prakash Reddy (CPI) and attended by leaders across the political spectrum:

• Congress – Dhananjay Shinde
• NCP (Sharad Pawar faction) – Rupesh Khandke
• CPI(M) – Com. Shailendra Kamble
• CPI – Com. S.K. Rege, Amir Kazi, Com. Nana Parab
• Peasants and Workers Party – Com. Rajendra Korde
• Hum Bharat Ke Log – Feroze Mithiborwala
• CPI(ML) – Com. Vijay Kulkarni
• APCR – Shakir Shaikh, Adv. Inamdar
• Autonomous women’s organisations and civil liberty activists from Forum against Oppression of Women among others.

A message of solidarity was also sent by MLA Sachin Ahir (Shiv Sena–UBT). Multiple people’s organisations pledged participation.

1 of 7

Loh and Rural Maharashtra: Constitution and democracy defended

In Loh, a demonstration began with floral tributes at the statue of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, followed by slogans:

• “Long Live the Constitution”
• “Repeal the Anti-People Public Security Act”
• “Down with the Fadnavis-Shinde-Ajit Pawar Government”

Leaders including Com. Rameshwar Pawal (CPI-M), Milind Sawant (Congress), Rameshwar Bahirat (Shiv Sena–UBT), and Bhai U.R. Thombal (Shetkari Kamgar Paksha) condemned the Act as an assault on democratic rights. Protesters reminded that 10 lakh signatures and over 1.24 lakh written objections were submitted to the Governor, but the government still “bulldozed” the Bill through the Assembly.

1 of 4

Other District Actions

• Kolhapur: Maha Vikas Aghadi held a sit-in at the Collector’s office, led by Congress’s Harshvardhan Sapkal and district leaders; a memorandum was submitted.

महाराष्ट्र प्रदेश काँग्रेस कमिटीच्या आदेशानुसार व प्रदेशाध्यक्ष हर्षवर्धन सपकाळ साहेबांच्या नेतृत्वात महाराष्ट्र जनसुरक्षा विधेयका विरोधात राज्यव्यापी आंदोलन करण्यात आले.
कोल्हापूर जिल्हा काँग्रेस कमिटी व महाविकास आघाडीच्या वतीने जिल्हाधिकारी कार्यालय,कोल्हापूर येथे ठिय्या आंदोलन… pic.twitter.com/q2wPjfi8cL

— Maharashtra Congress (@INCMaharashtra) September 10, 2025

• Solapur: Protesters burnt an effigy of the Act in a symbolic rejection.

1 of 4

• Manchar: A large gathering under MVA banner denounced the Act.

• Palghar district: Demonstrations were staged at Dahanu, Palghar, Vasai, Wada, Vikramgad, Jawhar, and Mokhada.

1 of 2

• Beed, Shevgaon (Ahmednagar), Hingoli, Dhule, Gadchiroli, Gondia: District-level agitations with party workers and civil society activists submitting memoranda.

1 of 22

Opposition’s Stand

Across locations, including Shahada, Nandurbar, Shambhajinagar and Satara, western Maharashtra, speakers reiterated that the MSPS Act violates Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution, criminalises dissent, and grants unchecked powers to the state. They demanded its immediate repeal, warning that Maharashtra risks becoming a “police state.”

Slogan on everyone’s lips was: Not Public Security, but Public Oppression Bill!”

Related:

Azad Maidan erupts in protest as Maharashtra set to enact sweeping law aimed at silencing dissent

From Sindhudurg to Mumbai, Maharashtra erupts in protest against repressive public safety bill

Maharashtra Rises in Protest: State-wide agitation against draconian Maharashtra Public Safety Bill on April 22

The post Protests across Maharashtra denounce the Public Security Act as unconstitutional and anti-democratic appeared first on SabrangIndia.

This case, which challenged the expulsion of a sitting Member of the Legislative Council (MLC) for alleged misconduct, brought to the forefront the inherent tension between the need to maintain order and decorum within legislatures and the imperative to safeguard democratic representation and the individual rights of elected representatives. In a way, it is also a check on majority parties trying to have their way in legislative houses on account of their brute majority.

Facts and context

The controversy leading to the legal challenge began with the expulsion of Dr. Sunil Kumar Singh, an MLC from the Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD), by the Bihar Legislative Council (BLC) in July 2024. The expulsion was a consequence of alleged derogatory remarks made by Dr. Singh against the Chief Minister of Bihar, Nitish Kumar, during the budget session in February 2024. These remarks reportedly included sloganeering, using the term “Palturam” to suggest the Chief Minister’s propensity for political alliances, mimicking his body language.

Dr. Singh, a senior RJD leader known for his critical stance against the ruling Janata Dal (United) (JDU)-Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) coalition, found himself facing disciplinary action in a politically charged environment. Following a complaint, the matter was referred to the Ethics Committee, where Dr. Singh initially sought exemptions from appearance. While another MLC involved in the same incident expressed regret, Dr. Singh reportedly questioned the committee’s authority. Ultimately, the Ethics Committee recommended Dr. Singh’s expulsion, a recommendation that was subsequently ratified by a majority vote in the BLC.

Dr. Singh challenged his expulsion by filing a writ petition in the Supreme Court, arguing that the punishment was disproportionate to the alleged misconduct.

Arguments

Dr. Singh contended that his remarks were merely a reflection of public opinion and that a much lighter punishment was given to another MLC involved in the same incident [Para 4(d)].

The Bihar Legislative Council, on the other hand, justified the expulsion as necessary to maintain the discipline and decorum of the House, citing Dr. Singh’s history of alleged misconduct and defiance [Para 6(e)]. It was also argued that the court does not have jurisdiction to decide on this issue due to the restrictions imposed by Article 212 on Courts to not inquire into proceedings of the legislature.

Judgement

On Jurisdiction to decide on a matter under Article 212

Article 212 of the Constitution states as follows:

212. Courts not to inquire into proceedings of the Legislature

(1) The validity of any proceedings in the Legislature of a State shall not be called in question on the ground of any alleged irregularity of procedure.

(2) No officer or member of the Legislature of a State in whom powers are vested by or under this Constitution for regulating procedure or the conduct of business, or for maintaining order, in the Legislature shall be subject to the jurisdiction of any court in respect of the exercise by him of those powers.

This, by literal reading, means that courts do not have jurisdiction over the proceedings of the legislature. In this case, the decision of the Ethics Committee was on the basis of the proceedings of the legislature meaning that there was an element of confusion as to whether the Supreme Court had jurisdiction or not.

The Court clarified this by holding that while Article 212(1) of the Constitution imposes limitations on judicial interference in legislative proceedings based on procedural irregularities, however as in the present case, that this immunity does not extend to substantive decisions, especially those affecting fundamental rights [Para 12].

The Court considered the Ethics Committee’s recommendation for expulsion as an administrative function, thus subject to judicial review based on the principle of proportionality.

On expulsions effect on representative democracy

The democratic process in the legislatures, according to the court, relies on the active participation of all members and a brief absence can impede a member’s ability to contribute to critical legislative discussions and decisions. Therefore, it clarified that, while representation of the constituency is not the sole factor in determining the punishment to be imposed on a member, it nonetheless remains an important aspect that merits due consideration [Para 59].

The court stated that when the punishment inflicted on a member, is prima facie harsh and disproportionate, Constitutional Courts owe a duty to undo such gross injustice and review the proportionality of such disqualifications or expulsions.

The two-judge bench, comprising Justices Surya Kant and N.K. Singh, held that the expulsion was “highly excessive” and “disproportionate” to the nature of the offense [Para 88].

The Court traced the evolution of the doctrine of proportionality in Indian constitutional law, referencing seminal cases such as Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), Bacchan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980), and Modern Dental College and Research Centre v State of M.P. (2016). The Court emphasized the importance of the electorate’s right to representation and deemed the seven months Dr. Singh had already spent out of the council as sufficient punishment, ordering his immediate reinstatement [Para 88(d)].

Doctrines of proportionality and double proportionality

The principle of proportionality, which formed the bedrock of the Supreme Court’s judgment, is a cornerstone of Indian constitutional law, extending across various legal domains. Rooted in the ideals of fairness and the safeguarding of fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, this doctrine dictates that the severity of a punishment should be commensurate with the gravity of the offense.

For example, if someone commits a wrong like smoking a cigarette in a public space, it is a disproportionate action to have her house demolished. Instead, there should be a proportional punishment for such wrong. According to the court, the test of proportionality is satisfied by considering a myriad of non-exhaustive factors such as fairness, justice, absence of vindictiveness, predominance of objectivity, adherence to natural justice, fair play, and the recognition of mitigating circumstances etc.

While this doctrine is used in service matters and administrative law matters, it is also widely used in constitutional matters. In this context, according to the Supreme Court, the test of proportionality largely seeks to identify whether the restriction sought to be placed on the right is proportionate to the objective sought to be achieved by the restriction.

According to the court, the disproportionate punishment of elected representatives by legislative bodies carries significant democratic consequences. Such actions can undermine democratic values by depriving the electorate of their chosen representative, thus silencing their voice in the legislature [Para 58]. Moreover, the fear of excessive disciplinary measures can create a chilling effect on democratic frameworks, according to the court [Para 22].

Since the authority (legislative council) dealing with the question of expulsion of Dr. Singh, by virtue of dealing with him—it is also dealing with the electorate that put him there in that house, their voices, aspirations and democratic rights. The Supreme Court stated as follows in this context:

“While dealing with individuals, such as the Petitioner, it is imperative that disciplinary measures are undertaken with due regard to the principles of proportionality and fairness. The House, in the exercise of its authority to regulate its own proceedings and maintain order, must not lose sight of the necessity for a calibrated and judicious approach.”

The court essentially carved out the jurisdiction for itself by differentiating the proceedings of the legislature and ‘legislative decision’ with the latter not being immune from judicial scrutiny under Article 212. Thereafter, it examined whether expulsion passes the well-established test of proportionality or not. In this context, it stated as follows:

“In fact, this aspect is already prescribed in the Rules governing the procedure of the BLC. In this regard, our attention was drawn to Rule 10, Chapter 36 of the Bihar Vidhan Parishad – Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business, which provides for the penalties that the Ethics Committee may recommend. A perusal of the provision depicts that if the Committee finds a member violating the code/rules, it may recommend: (a) Censure, (b) Reprimand, (c) Suspension from the House for a specified period; and (d) any other punishment as deemed fit.” [Para 74]

Given the applicable provisions and the underlying objective of imposing penalties on members of the House, we are of the view that the primary purpose of imposing penalties is to discipline the members and ensure the smooth and orderly functioning of the House. A more measured and balanced approach would have sufficed to address the misconduct while upholding the dignity and decorum of the House. [Para 76]

By saying that the (above) punishment Dr. Singh served was sufficient, the Supreme Court directed to reinstate him to legislative council. It also quashed a press note of the Election Commission which spoke about by-elections for Dr. Singh’s constituency.

On guidelines to consider while taking action against members of legislatures

The Court, critically, also laid down an indicative list of parameters to consider while scrutinising the proportionality of actions taken by the House against its member(s). They are as follows:

1. Degree of obstruction caused by the member in the proceedings of the House.
2. Whether the behaviour of the member has brought disrepute to the dignity of the entire House.
3. The previous conduct of the erring member.
4. The subsequent conduct of the erring member, such as expressing remorse, cooperation with the institutional scrutiny mechanism.
5. Availability of lesser restrictive measures to discipline the delinquent member.
6. Whether crude expressions uttered are deliberate and motivated or a mere outcome of language largely influenced by the local dialect.
7. Whether the measure adopted is suitable for furthering the desired purpose; and
8. Balancing the interest of society, particularly the electorates, with those of the erring members.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision demonstrates judicial innovation in the interpretation of Article 212 of the Indian Constitution. This case is significant as it clarifies the scope of judicial review over legislative actions concerning the discipline of its members. The Court creatively interpreted Article 212, distinguishing between “proceedings in the legislature” and “legislative decisions”, and held that the latter can be subject to judicial scrutiny, especially when they affect fundamental rights. Whether this proactive nature will seep into other cases like those involving defection is yet to be seen.

The judgement may be read here.

(The author is part of the legal research team of the organisation).

Related:

SC: Recent judgment in the Imran Pratapgarhi case, what are police powers under section 173 (3) BNS?

Tamil Nadu’s opposition to NEP 2020’s three-language formula: a federal pushback against central imposition

India at the Crossroads: The delimitation exercise and its implications for democracy

The post Bihar: SC frowns on disproportionate punishment of opposition legislators & its democratic consequences appeared first on SabrangIndia.

First, there was the public scepticism on whether, Apple, a company based in the Silicon Valley had a sufficiently robust internal method of checking internal threat algorithms –or they were faulty—and had announced an investigation into the security of Apple devices. There were demands that the company “soften the impact of the warnings”. Second, they apparently, according to The Post, also summoned an Apple security expert from outside the country to a meeting in New Delhi, where government representatives pressed the Apple official to come up with alternative explanations for the warnings to users, the people said. They spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive matters.

Not coincidentally, in more recent weeks, The (Washington) Post, in collaboration with Amnesty, has reported on new cases of infections on phones belonging to Indian journalists. More investigations by both The Post and a New York security firm iVerify found that opposition politicians had been targeted, adding to the evidence suggesting the rather brazen and continued use, by the Indian government of powerful surveillance tools.

Further, in addition, Amnesty had showed The Post evidence it found in June that suggested a Pegasus customer was preparing to hack people in India. Amnesty asked that the evidence not be detailed to avoid teaching Pegasus users how to cover their tracks. “These findings show that spyware abuse continues unabated in India,” said Donncha Ó Cearbhaill, head of Amnesty International’s Security Lab. “Journalists, activists and opposition politicians in India can neither protect themselves against being targeted by highly invasive spyware nor expect meaningful accountability.”

Meanwhile, ironically, the report also states that the NSO spokesperson Liron Bruck said that the company does not know who is targeted by its customers but investigates complaints that are accompanied by details of the suspected hack. “While NSO cannot comment on specific customers, we stress again that all of them are vetted law enforcement and intelligence agencies that license our technologies for the sole purpose of fighting terror and major crime,” Bruck said. “The company’s policies and contracts provide mechanisms to avoid targeting of journalists, lawyers and human rights defenders or political dissidents that are not involved in terror or serious crimes.”

During the Modi government and the BJP representatives open attempts to arm-twist the visiting Apple official, the person reportedly stood by the company’s warnings. However, the aggressive intensity of the Indian government effort to “discredit and strong-arm Apple” has seriously disturbed executives at the company’s headquarters, in Cupertino, Calif., and illustrated how even Silicon Valley’s most powerful tech companies can face pressure from the increasingly authoritarian leadership of the world’s most populous country, India. India is also a huge technology market in the coming decade.

This incident also is symptomatic of the dangers faced by those critical of the government in India and the lengths to which the Modi administration will go to deflect suspicions that it has engaged in hacking against its perceived enemies, according to digital rights groups, industry workers and Indian journalists.

At the end of October 2023, most of the 20 plus people who received Apple’s warnings have been openly critical of Modi or his long time ally, Gautam Adani, an Indian energy and infrastructure tycoon. This included a prominent politician from West Bengal state, a Communist leader from southern India and a New Delhi-based spokesman for the nation’s largest opposition party. Among the journalists who received notifications, two stood out: Anand Mangnale and Ravi Nair of the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project, a non-profit alliance of dozens of independent, investigative newsrooms from around the world. Siddharth Varadarajan, a co-founder of the Indian digital media outlet the Wire, received one of Apple’s Oct. 30 warnings. Amnesty found that the same hackers that broke into Mangnale’s phone had tried to do the same to Varadarajan’s.

It was on August 23, 2023 that the OCCRP emailed Adani seeking comment for a story it would publish a week later alleging that his brother was part of a group that had secretly traded hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of the Adani Group conglomerate’s public stock, possibly in violation of Indian securities law. A forensic analysis of Mangnale’s phone, conducted by Amnesty International and shared with The Washington Post, found that within 24 hours of that inquiry, an attacker infiltrated the device and planted Pegasus, the notorious spyware that was developed by Israeli company NSO Group and that NSO says is sold only to governments. An Adani spokesperson not just denied this but accused OCCRP of conducting a “smear campaign against the Adani group. While the top guns in the Modi administration kept mum, Gopal Krishna Agarwal, a national spokesman for the BJP, said any evidence of hacking should be presented to the Indian government for investigation.

Incidentally, the Modi government has never confirmed or denied using spyware, and it has refused to cooperate with a committee appointed by India’s Supreme Court to investigate whether it had. It may be recalled that two years ago, in 2021, the Forbidden Stories journalism consortium, which included The Post, found that phones belonging to Indian journalists and political figures were infected with Pegasus, which grants attackers access to a device’s encrypted messages, camera and microphone.

All the details of the controversy may read in The Washington Post here. David Kaye, a former United Nations special rapporteur on free expression who has testified before an Indian Supreme Court committee probing the government’s suspected use of Pegasus, said the recent reporting by The Post and its partners “further shifts the burden onto the Indian government to disprove the allegations that it uses these kinds of tools.” ”Especially after this information, the government absolutely has to be honest and transparent,” Kaye said. “But the accretion of evidence suggests this is not divorced from the broader assault by the Modi government on the freedom of expression and the right to protest.”

Related:

Pegasus Project: 5 targeted journalists move SC, say have been subject to intrusive hacking

‘Government-backed attacks’: Google warned 500 Indians against hacking

The post GoI targeted Apple days after the Hi-tech cos notified journalists & opposition politicians of phone hacking: Washington Post Exclusive appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In a surprise revelation, which may send shock wave among those who consider agitations as a democratic right and believe this right is being eroded by the powers-that-be, nearly 95 percent of the respondents in a recent survey in Gujarat have justified the government’s use of CCTV as a means to control political movements of all sorts.

The highest in India, this is followed by two-thirds of the respondents from Uttar Pradesh and Haryana (65% and 64% respectively) completely supporting CCTV use for clamping down on protests. The result comes amidst sharp increase in mobile surveillance and drones by the police in the recent past in these States.

Says the report, “A State-wise analysis revealed that in Andhra Pradesh and Gujarat, more than 85 percent believed that the use of CCTVs by the police in their areas has increased”, adding, “More than two out of three respondents from Gujarat reported a significant increase in the use of mobile surveillance and drone technologies by the police in their localities in the past 4-5 years.”

The survey, carried out by Delhi-based non-profits Common Cause and Lokniti – Centre for the Study of Developing Societies (CSDS), and titled “Status of Policing in India Report 2023 Surveillance and the Question of Privacy” (SPIR 2023), also reveals that, in sharp contrast, respondents from West Bengal, Punjab and Karnataka “were not as enthusiastic in their support.”

“Only one-third of the respondents (29%) from Bengal completely justified the use of surveillance footage to curb dissent. The number is slightly higher in Punjab (36%) and Karnataka (37%)”, it notes.

Seeking to explore public opinions and experiences regarding digital surveillance, SPIR 2023 has been prepared against the backdrop of “recent developments, such as the Supreme Court’s recognition of the right to privacy and discussions surrounding data protection, have intensified debates around privacy and surveillance”, the report claims.

It has also been prepared in context of recent concerns regarding “allegations of illegal government surveillance using the Pegasus spyware and the enactment of the Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act, 2022, which grants police the power to collect biometric information from suspects and detainees”, it adds.

In order to prepare the report, Common Cause, in collaboration with the Lokniti Programme of CSDS, conducted a face-to-face survey with 9,779 individuals across 12 Indian States and UTs to understand perceptions around digital surveillance. At the same time, the organisers conducted Focused Group Discussions (FGDs) with “domain experts, in-depth interviews with serving police officials, and an analysis of media coverage of surveillance-related issues”.
Admitting that the survey suggests “a lack of public awareness regarding critical issues” pertaining to “digital surveillance by the government”, helping the authorities to easily to go in for curbs on “freedom of expression”, the report underlines, however, the “support for any form of surveillance decreases with a decline in the respondent’s socioeconomic status”, with the “poor, Adivasis, Dalits, and Muslims” being “least trustful of the police.”

Regarding the overall use of drones by state agencies, a State-wise comparisons suggest that respondents from Gujarat (81%) and Uttar Pradesh (72%) showed substantially high levels of support. Respondents from Karnataka (60%) also indicated moderate support, but relatively higher opposition to this was seen in Punjab (17%) and West Bengal (17%).

At the same time, the report notes, “Across the occupation category, the lowest levels of support were observed amongst farmers (14%)”, adding, “Relatively lower levels of support for drone usage by government agencies amongst farmers is a noteworthy finding, especially in view of the fact that the Centre has been pushing for incentivising the use of drones for farming.”

Coming to the impact of surveillance by police and government through drones on people, while across India four of every ten (43%) respondents said that it is justified ‘to a great extent’, “Significant support came from States such as Gujarat (63%), UP (57%) and Delhi (56%). In contrast, the opposing States were Kerala (30%) and Punjab (14%)”.

Also, “the highest proportion of respondents from Gujarat supported the usage of drones by the police for law enforcement (95%), followed by Kerala, (94%) and Andhra Pradesh (91%); while Assam, Karnataka, and Punjab stood at the opposite end of the spectrum”, the report says, adding, “Those from Assam were least likely to support police usage of drone for rule enforcement, those from Gujarat were most likely to support.”

At the same time, pointing out that “over four of five people in Gujarat support drone usage by government to quell dissent”, the report notes, “While doing a State-wise comparative analysis, we found that in BJP-ruled States such as Gujarat (85%), Haryana (67%), and Uttar Pradesh (65%), the support for using drones for curbing political protest was highest”.

On being asked if they felt that political parties view their photos, messages, videos or searched objects from their phones or computers, the report says, “A little less than two-thirds, about 65 percent, disagreed.” But out of the 16 percent that agreed, a significant proportion of 27 percent belonged to Gujarat and Karnataka. “Conversely, a significant proportion of respondents from Kerala (83%) and Tamil Nadu (74%) disagreed that political parties can view their data.”
Ironically, despite wide support to digital surveillance, fear on its usage prevailed among large sections. Thus, “those in Haryana (41%), Gujarat (33%), and Delhi (32%) were very scared of provoking legal action by expressing their political opinions online, whereas in Karnataka, Maharashtra and Kerala not many people exhibit their fear of legal action for posting political or social opinion.”

Asked whether they think the police should be able to collect the biometric details (such as fingerprint, footprint, iris, retina scan, facial recognition, etc.) of all suspects, including those who haven’t been declared guilty by the court, while close to half (48%) across India agreed that police should be allowed to collect such details, “a large proportion of the respondents from Haryana (74%), Gujarat (69%) and Delhi – NCT (65%) were of the opinion that police should have this power.”

“Conversely”, the report states, “A significant proportion of respondents from Tamil Nadu (56%) and Karnataka (54%) were of the opinion that police should not be allowed to possess such powers. Those belonging to the Adivasi community (44%) were significantly more likely to oppose giving the power to the police to collect biometric data, as compared to the general caste group (28%).”

*Editor, Counterview

Courtesy: https://www.counterview.net

The post Survey: Gujarat tops in ‘supporting’ digital surveillance to curb opposition, protests appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Congress MP Shashi Tharoor, who has served as  under Secretary General of the United Nations, has continued to keep the spotlight on India’s export of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), and other drugs, to the United States of America, in face of a possible ‘retaliation’ if the earlier ban continued.

Today, on April 8, Tharoor bounced the ball back in the court of  US President Trump and asked him to give something back in return for HCQ, “Mr President @realDonaldTrump, since India has selflessly agreed to give you the supply you seek of hydroxychloroquine, will you grant India first priority in sharing with us any #COVID19 vaccine that might be developed in US labs?”

Mr President @realDonaldTrump, since India has selflessly agreed to give you the supply you seek of hydroxychloroquine, will you grant India first priority in sharing with us any #COVID19 vaccine that might be developed in US labs? @USAndIndia @USAmbIndia @PMOIndia https://t.co/M7Pze4d9CC

— Shashi Tharoor (@ShashiTharoor) April 8, 2020

On April 7, he had  also taken on Trump’s claim on the medication,  “Never in my decades of experience in world affairs have I heard a Head of State or Govt openly threatening another like this. What makes Indian hydroxychloroquine ‘our supply’, Mr President? It only becomes your supply when India decides to sell it to you.” he said.

Senior Congress leader and its working committee member  Randeep Singh Surjewala, had reflected a collective ire against the Centre’s decision to restart exporting hydroxychloroquine after  US Presidents said he may ‘retaliate’ if India did not comply. Surejewala’s short video that he posted on social media sums up the collective reaction Of the Opposition, as well as many citizens who were taken aback at how swiftly the ban was lifted on the slightest pressure from Trump.

Dear Prime Minister,

“India First” & “Indians First” is the “Raj Dharma” before you open the export of life saving drug, hydroxychloroquine!

Follow Smt. Indira Gandhi’s template.#COVID2019
Our statement-: pic.twitter.com/Wn3NVHnsSz

— Randeep Singh Surjewala (@rssurjewala) April 7, 2020

Lifting the ban, Opposition parties have said that was a betrayal of Indians whose needs for medicines should be priorities before any exports are allowed. “No one can browbeat, pressurize or intimidate India. Smt. Indira Gandhi laid the template for future governments. In fight against #COVID, Indian have a first right over life saving drug hydroxychloroquine! Time to follow “Raj Dharma” & “India First” policy!” posted Surjewala. 

Prime Minister Modi’s quick response to the US President’s statement is seen as a sign of weakness by many. Indian political leaders have said that the PM should have, in fact, stood up to the US president’s intimidating words. According to CPI(M) general secretary Sitaram Yechury, the statement by the US President was unacceptable and PM Modi had, “succumbed to the threat by allowing the export. That this happened after an expensive gala was organised for him by Modi, instead of preparing to contain Covid-19, shows how this government has let down India.”

The statement by US President is unacceptable. But Modi govt has succumbed to the threat by allowing the export. That this happened after an expensive gala was organised for him by Modi, instead of preparing to contain Covid-19, shows how this govt has let down India. https://t.co/3g1K4Q0bfi

— Sitaram Yechury (@SitaramYechury) April 7, 2020

According to news reports, Yechury also said that India should prioritise the medical  requirements of Indians first as the nation is fighting against Covid-19 pandemic. He said that India could not afford to risk any “shortages of crucial drugs here. There are no compromises in this struggle to protect Indian lives.”

Senior leaders, who themselves have been at the forefront of fighting the pandemic in their own states have also criticised the fact that the ban was lifted without even consulting state governments. According to a report in the Hindu, Rajasthan Chief Minister Ashok Gehlot has criticized the export of HCQ and said PPEs and other lifesaving equipment has also been exported by the Indian government recently. “A huge number of PPEs and ventilators were exported in the last few days. No details of this have been provided by the Centre yet. This is beyond our understanding,” he said. All the equipment, specially PPEs need to be stockpiled as the Coronavirus pandemic progresses to the next stages across India. According to Gehlot, the Rajasthan government may have to import  PPEs from China to combat the shortfall. “It is a question of life and death. The Centre will have to consider all the aspects. We have to save the lives of people. That should be the first priority,” he said.

Prime Minister Modi and President Trump have always showcased their interactions at massive political events, in India recently and in America before that, as ‘friendship’ between two nations. However is this the time to be friendship, or responsible leadership, is what many are asking. 

Why would Trump even mention ‘relailation if he was a friend of India?’ was a point raised. Congress’s media in-charge Randeep Singh Surjewala had said Trump has no right to threaten India or put pressure on Prime Minister Modi to lift the ban on import. “We hope Modi will take diplomatic measures against such language used by the US President and ensure the safety of Indians,” Surjewala said.

News reports quoted Congress leader and Member of Parliament, Rahul Gandhi saying that  retaliation should not be a factor, “India must help all nations in their hour of need but lifesaving medicines should be made available to Indians in ample quantities first,” he said.

The demand for the drug in the US has been fueled by the president himself mentioning it as a possible cure. However, leading american scientists, including White House coronavirus task force member Anthony Fauci, said the reports that the drug might work were “anecdotal, and said there needs to be further study before its use is encouraged.”

According to Bloomberg Indian manufacturers exported and fulfilled around 47%  of hydroxychloroquine requirements of the U.S, last year. This would have come to a standstill after the ban on the anti-malaria drug that had been “touted by President Donald Trump as a “game changer” for treating the coronavirus” said the report.

India’s export ban, it explained, was aimed at ensuring enough domestic supply for Indians to use. Trump’s personal endorsement of HCQ had set off a massive stockpiling of the anti-malaria medication around the world, said another Bloomberg report. Many countries had banned exports of various items, from food grains, to masks, to certain medication and equipment, to prioritise and meet domestic needs and demands first.

Related:

Shortage of PPEs, asymptomatic patients putting healthcare staff at risk?
ICMR revises Covid-19 testing protocol

The post Nobody can intimidate India, nor threaten us: Opposition to PM appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Akhilesh Yadav’s meeting in Kannauj and an incident associated with it has generated vast media attention. For the future of the young scion’s role in Uttar Pradesh politics, it is significant. At a meeting at Kannauj on February 15, a BJP supporter reportedly walked to the front and first raised the issue of unemployment. Believing that this youth could well highlight the incompetence of BJP govt both at the Centre and State, Akhilesh Yadav invited him near the dias! Instead, the young man used the platform to raise the slogan of “Jai ShriRam”. At first, Akhilesh Yadav reacted normally and made some astute political points. But when the sloganeering continued unabated, the SP supremo lost his cool. Yadav’s response is now being analysed critically in some political quarters, in an atmosphere that today prevails in Namo’s New India. It reveals a strategy of the BJP to deliberately send such a youth to the Kannauj rally to provoke Akhilesh Yadav.

The entire transcript of Akhilesh Yadav’s reponse is not objectionable in the first instance but he lost his cool which was not expected of him and which flies in the face of his image of a collected politician. Akhilesh Yadav has very well nurtured his political image as a sincere politician with a mix of humility and modesty with modernity in the past two years since he has taken complete control over the party. There is now no room for criminals, more respect for women and their promotion in leadership is visible. Outright cronyism has taken a back seat. Earlier, the bitter and often, petty family feuds within the Samajwadi Party came out in the open but ideologically Akhilesh Yadav remained steadfast. Through this political churning, a new political party emerged creating a picture of an outfit where clean politics mattered. Something similar to the Aam Aadmi Party’s  kind of politics in Delhi where Arvind Kejriwal with his own image countered the distractions which had been (deliberately) brought into the Delhi campaign by the BJP! This was a cynical ploy of the “the party with no difference” with its attempt to centre the political discourse around the religious identity divide between Hindus and Muslims where Shaheen Bagh, the India Pakistan (cricket) match, ‘Goli’ (gun shots) and ‘Gaali’ (abuse) was brought to the fore.

BJP knows this strategy well: that it is the image of the leadership that wins an election! Rather than working to better the image of their own leadership, it is far easier to target and shame the political image of opponents. The BJP has done this well and with easy because of the vast propaganda mill that they control. This is visible in their strategy vis a vis Rahul Gandhi and in fact, the entire Gandhi family. They have, in fact, have reaped political benefits nationally by doing so.

Now two years down, the UP elections in 2022 are a big battle that looms; a battle which the BJP will leave no stone unturned to win. Akhilesh Yadav today has the best chance to win. Already there are murmurs in political circles, words a la Arvind Kejriwal, to the effect that “ab desh mein kaam ki rajneeti chalegi” and Akhilesh Yadav is best suited to represent that “Kaam ki Rajneeti” in UP. Knowing this full well, the political machinery of the BJP wants to damage this image of Akhilesh Yadav where his image of being sincere, non-corrupt and hard working and his efforts for development in developing infrastructure in the health, power, education and women empowerment sectors remain fresh in the minds of the state’s electorate. A deepening of this image will be detrimental to the BJP’s poll prospects in UP where –in the present scenario —BSP’s is fast losing the political oppositional space and the Congress is rudderless. This makes for the possibility of a sharp, two way fight in UP between the BJP and Akhilesh Yadav in 2022. As was evident in Delhi and Jharkhand (2019, 2020), a two way fight against a strong regional party opponent in the state elections makes BJP lose.

Under these testing circumstances, for Akhilesh, the best strategy is to nurture upon his image of responsible and sincere leader. Despite and inspite any provocation from the BJP, he should not fall into their trap from where they can target and shame his image. If he nurtures this calmly, we have a serious electoral battle ahead of us, in 2022 in UP.

(The writer is director, Centre for Objective Research and Development (CORD))

The post Can Akhilesh Yadav emerge as UP’s Go-To Opposition leader in 2022? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Sonia Gandhi on Thursday, led a Congress walkout from the Lok Sabha after the Speaker disconnected the microphone the moment a party MP mentioned the Prime Minister’s Office while flagging a growing controversy over electoral bonds, The Telegraph reported.

Congress MP Manish Tewari said the Electoral Bond Scheme was originally meant for the Lok Sabha elections but the PMO had intervened to allow it for state polls too. Before his microphone was disconnected, Tewari had said the government had “made corruption official” by its decision to disregard the RBI’s objections to the bonds.

The brouhaha over electoral bonds has been going on for a long time now. So, what exactly are electoral bonds and why are they deemed so controversial?

What are electoral bonds – First introduced with the Finance Bill (2017), the electoral bond scheme was notified by the Central government on January 29, 2018. An electoral bond is like a promissory note that can be bought, digitally or by cheque, by any citizen or company incorporated in India from select branches of the State Bank of India. The citizen can then donate the bond to any party of his / her choice. Electoral bonds do not bear the donor’s name.

Issued in multiples of Rs. 1000, Rs. 10,000, Rs. 100,000 and Rs. 1 crore, they are valid for only fifteen days. They are available for purchase for 10 days in the beginning of every quarter – the first 10 days of January, April, July and October. They are tax deductible with donors being eligible for tax exemption provided IT returns are filed by the political party.

The Narendra Modi-led government had clarified that electoral bonds were being introduced to keep a tab on black money exchanging hands during election funding. According to it, the absence of electoral bonds would have left donors no option but to donate in cash, siphoning money off their businesses.

Why the controversy– The biggest controversy surrounding electoral bonds has been the one related to ‘anonymity’. Neither the purchaser of the bond, nor the political party receiving the funds is required to disclose the donor’s identity. This means, shareholders of a corporation and voters will remain unaware of the source of a political party’s funding.

Experts are of the view that if the electoral bonds scheme had been introduced to bring about greater transparency, the government must not restrain from allowing details of such donations to be made public. Opponents also say that it could lead to an influx of black money and because of the non-disclosure of the donors, the donations made through these bonds are equivalent to money laundering.

Under the electoral bond scheme, foreign companies, including shell companies can now donate how much ever they prefer, to political parties without having to disclose the details of their contributions in the annual statement of accounts.

The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) and Election Commission of India (ECI) both have been critical of the scheme’s anonymity clause.

Last Friday, the Supreme Court (SC) refused to stay the usage of electoral bonds for political donations, but said that all parties must reveal the details to the Election Commission by May 30.

A report published by The Quint in 2018 found that bonds carry an alphanumeric code which can be seen under a UV light. At the time, the Finance Ministry issued a press release stating that security features had been built in to eliminate chances of forgery or presentation of fake bonds, but is not noted in any record by the bank and can’t be used to track a donation. This was confirmed in an RTI filed by Commodore Lokesh Batra.

This means, while the public remains in the dark about such information, the government will have access to all the details with regards to the purchase and donations; which just means they are likely to not only have details about bank accounts and transactions, but also political preferences.

Another controversy unearthed by the RTI and reported by the Huffington Post was that the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) directed the Finance Ministry to break its own rules to approve the unscheduled and illegal sale of electoral bonds for state assembly elections on two separate occasions, when the rules allowed for only four 10-day windows in January, April, July and October, apart from an additional 30 days sale in years when a general election is scheduled.

The PMO’s intervention to open extra windows for political donations via electoral bonds is significant because the limited sale periods were intended as a precaution against money laundering. As HuffPost India has reported, the Reserve Bank of India had initially recommended that the bonds only be sold twice a year for a short duration.

SBI was supposed to sell the first tranche in April 2018, but the first round was opened a month earlier in March 2018 instead. Rs 222 crore worth of bonds were bought in this round, with 95% going to the BJP.The following month, in April 2018, SBI opened another window for political donation — in this, bonds worth another Rs 114.90 crore were purchased and donated.With the Karnataka state elections due in May 2018, the PMO instructed the finance ministry to open a special and extra window of another 10 days.

(Source – The Huff Post)

Who got how much?

The Quint reported that around Rs. 6,000 crore worth of electoral bonds were sold in the Financial Year 2018 – 19, out of which over Rs. 4,500 crore went to the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).

While state political parties have filed their annual audit reports, the last date to file the same being October 31, the BJP is yet to file it with the Election Commission (EC). Section 139 4B of the IT Act requires a political party to furnish total income including the exempted contributions with all particulars to the EC. If the party fails to meet the deadline with regards to the filing of the annual audit report, the EC can only send a show cause notice seeking a reply for the delay.

The Congress claims that it received Rs. 550 crore in electoral bonds and has submitted the report to the EC, but the EC has not made the report public yet.

The Trinamool Congress (TMC) received Rs 97.28 crore, the Telangana Rashtra Samithi (TRS) received Rs. 141.50 crore, the Janata Dal United (JDU) received Rs. 35.35 crore, the Biju Janata Dal (BJD) received Rs. 213.50 crore and the YSR Congress Party (YSRCP) received Rs. 99.84 crore through electoral bonds.

Data shows that there were few takers for electoral bonds of lower denominations, with almost 92% of the Rs. 6,000 crore collected through the 12 rounds of electoral bonds issued between March 2018 and October 2019 was in the highest denomination of Rs. 1 crore. This, completely contradictory to the justification the Finance Ministry had given. When the RBI suggested that the bonds be in an electronic form and not paper, the ministry had said, “The physical mode is necessary at least initially to popularise Ebs (electoral bonds) and cover people of all strata. Small donors may not be familiar and comfortable with the digital processing and would like to get a physical bond.”

(Source – The Telegraph)            

Who opposed

The Congress and the Communist Party of India (CPI – M) have always vehemently opposed the electoral bond scheme. Apart from these parties, the Shiromani Akali Dal (SAD) has also raised objections regarding the same.

While the Congress and CPI (M) have opposed the anonymity criteria, stating that details of both, recipients and donors should be made public for better transparency, the SAD has said that only profit-making companies should be allowed to make donations through electoral bonds.

Congress treasurer Motilal Vohra had said, “I am afraid this will not ensure transparency in electoral funding; on the contrary, it will be a completely opaque mechanism.”

The CPI General Secretary Sudhakar Reddy wrote, “There is a demand from the people that political parties funding should be transparent. It is a justified demand to understand whether ruling parties are in quid-pro-quo with vested interests or corporate houses. In fact, the present method of political funding is more transparent than the secretive amendments you (ruling party) are introducing”, demanding the immediate rollback of the “secretive political bonds scheme”.

The BJP overruled the RBI’s decision, arm-wrested SBI into accepting expired bonds and did not submit its audit report in time. Today, after the SC refused to stay the sale of bonds, the party is accusing opposition parties of protesting against the electoral bond scheme claiming they will no longer be able to indulge in corruption, calling them an alliance of defeated and dejected politicians. If this is the case and the BJP is pro-transparency, why has it not filed its reports with the EC yet? Or is it just another well thought out Big Brother move to slyly spy on its public?

Related:

Govt Made SBI Accept Expired Electoral Bonds Sold In Illegal Window

Yes, its BJP that received maximum corporate donations in 6 years: ADR report

SBI issued electoral bonds worth Rs 3,622 crore in March and April: RTI

Electoral Bonds: SC directs all parties to reveal political funding details to EC

The post Electoral bonds: Why the BJP is batting so hard for it appeared first on SabrangIndia.

On 22 August, 2019 leaders of most major opposition parties demonstrated at the national protest site, JantarMantar, New Delhi, India from 11 a.m. to 1.15 p.m. The all party demonstration was organized to urge immediate release of leaders detained in J & K; to save democracy and to protect human rights. The call for this action was given by the DMK President, M.K. Stalin. Supporters of DMK from Delhi joined in large numbers.

While the attendance at the protest was in hundreds the body language of the opposition leaders; the tone and tenor of their speeches and statements; the stingingly sharp criticism of Modi Government’s action on Kashmir; no mincing of words;the political ambience of the meeting; the electrifying environment created by the playing of a Tamil song with lilting tunes at the start of the function – all sum up the mood at the gathering. The pain, anguish and outrage at the August 5 decision of the Modi government was all too discernible. The protest was attended by leaders of DMK, Congress (I), CPI, CPI (M), Indian Union of Muslim League, Samajwadi Party, National Conference, Trinamool Congress, RashtriyaJanta Dal, LoktantrikJanata Dal. Shehla Rashid of J & K Peoples’ Movement was also present.

Before the leader addressed the gathering the following slogans were raised repeatedly for a few minutes:
 

• Release the political leaders detained in J & K immediately
• Resume telecom services in the valley
• Restore democracy in J & K
• Restore normalcy in J & K

The message in the slogans formed the resolution adopted at the protest.

The sixteen odd leaders spoke in Tamil/Hindi/English and stressed:
 

• “Our (National Conference) leaders don’t know why they have been arrested. I will return to Kashmir and inform the people that so many supporters are there in India willing to extend hand-in-hand support.”[National Conference representative]
• “Promises were made to Kashmiris by our ancestors who fought for India’s freedom; those in power today appear to be fighting those very freedom fighters through their action in Kashmir … Kashmir has become an open air prison.” [SharadYadav]
• “Please tell us what is the crime they have committed that they are behind bars, it is our right to know.” [Dinesh Trivedi]
• “Country’s unity cannot be maintained with a bandook (gun) and the army. BJP’s action in Kashmir is antinational.” [Brinda Karat]
• “Time to hold each other’s’ hand. If we are silent today – doomsday awaits us. We voted against the government in Parliament.” [RJD]
• “We condemn what is happening. Abrogation of Article 370 is undemocratic, unconstitutional and an assault on democracy. There is a sininster attempt to push through RSS agenda of Hindu Rashtra. There is curfew all over; jails are full in J & K. We should reach out to people of J & K; call for nationwide protests.” [D. Raja]
• “Media is muzzled; does not have access in J & K; jails in U.P. are being used to house Kashmiris arrested in the valley; this is a dangerous situation.” [Ram GopalYadav]
• “Mulkka, kaumkaitanabheenamiyaargire, kisurkhiyaandekhateheehaath se akhabaargire…

With the start of the 2^nd term of the government a reign of dictatorship has started. Today the struggle against dictatorship has also started.” [Manish Tewari]
 

• “Government’s swoop down in Kashmir seizing J & K through military take over; the Constitution has been manipulated to pave the way for a Hindu Rashtra.” [SitaramYechury]
• “We (DMK) have a national outlook; steps in whenever constitutional norms are in danger.”[DMK representative]
• “Something grave is happening in J & K. Only international media knows it. Indian media is covering Kashmir but the telecast is not being allowed. We are no longer living in democracy.” [GhulamNabi Azad]

Placards carrying the following messages (in Hindi, English and Tamil) were displayed:
 

• Release all political leaders, workers and ordinary people arrested in Kashmir.
• BJP-RSS-NDA Government stop assaults on the Indian Constitution.
• Stop assaults on rights of people in J & K.

Dozens of workers, members of CPI (ML) New Democracy came out in support carrying placards with messages:
 

• Do not trample federal structure
• Restore democratic rights of people of J & K
• Restore Article 370.

Some Delhi based, non-party political activists also joined the protest in solidarity. As we walked away after the protest was over, one of us – who had attended J.P.’s rally of 25^th June, 1975 – commented that though J.P.’s rally was attended by around a lakh of people at RamlilaMaidan, Delhi the political message sent out by today’s protest is as loud and clear as it was then in 1975!

(Dr. P.S. Sahni & Shobha Aggarwal are members of PIL Watch Group. Email: pilwatchgroup@gmail.com)

Courtesy: Counter Current

The post Most Major Opposition Parties Demonstrate At New Delhi In Support of Kashmiris; Protest Reminiscent of J.P.’s 25 June, 1975 Rally appeared first on SabrangIndia.