While the Court did not stay the investigation, it directed the police that if they intend to question Kamra, they must do so in Chennai, where Kamra currently resides. Notably, as per the report of LiveLaw, the Court also clarified that if a chargesheet is filed during the pendency of Kamra’s quashing plea, the trial court shall not proceed against him until the High Court has decided the matter. The order made permanent the interim protection that had been granted to Kamra earlier on April 16.

During the hearing, Senior Advocate Navroz Seervai, representing Kamra, argued that the FIR was a direct attack on the comedian’s constitutional right to free speech, guaranteed under Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution. As per the report of Bar and Bench, he maintained that the impugned remarks were part of a larger political satire, a form of commentary that has long been protected in democratic societies. According to Seervai, the term gaddar was used in reference to the 2022 split in the Shiv Sena, when Eknath Shinde and a group of MLAs broke away from the Uddhav Thackeray-led faction and aligned.

Court’s key rulings and procedural safeguards

• Kamra shall not be arrested in connection with the FIR during the pendency of his petition.
• The Mumbai Police is permitted to continue the investigation but must question Kamra only in Chennai, his current place of residence.
• If the police file a chargesheet, the trial court must not initiate proceedings against Kamra until the High Court rules on the quashing petition.
• The police’s notice was issued under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNSS), which does not require arrest. The court recorded this intention of non-arrest in its order.
• Should new material arise, the police may approach the court for further directions.

Arguments presented by Kamra’s counsel

1. Freedom of Speech under Article 19

Senior Advocate Navroz Seervai, representing Kamra, firmly asserted that the content of Kamra’s comedy act falls squarely within the ambit of the right to free speech and expression protected under Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution. He maintained that the performance was satirical in nature, dealt with public political events, and did not fall within the permissible restrictions under Article 19(2).

As per LiveLaw, referring to several judgments of the Supreme Court, including Imran Pratapgarhi v. State of Gujarat, Seervai argued that censorious actions against artists amount to chilling effects and suppress free speech through fear of prosecution. He emphasised that this case was emblematic of the State’s misuse of legal processes, allegedly at the behest of a political party, to intimidate a comedian and send a broader message to dissenting artists.

2. Misuse of police machinery and procedural flaws

Seervai questioned the haste with which the FIR was filed. He pointed out that the complainant, Shiv Sena MLA Murji Patel, reportedly viewed the clip at 9:30 pm on March 23, filed a complaint at 10:45 pm, and an FIR was registered by 11:52 pm on the same night. Summons were issued the following day. As per Bar and Bench, Seervai contended that the FIR process was mechanically executed without due application of mind.

Additionally, he argued that Section 356(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which relates to defamation, was incorrectly invoked since the person allegedly defamed—Eknath Shinde—had not filed the complaint himself.

3. Lack of grounds for Section 353 (1) (b) BNS

The charge under Section 353(1)(b) BNS, which concerns attempts to create fear or alarm leading to offences against the State or public tranquillity, was also challenged. Seervai maintained that Kamra’s act was a factual and satirical account of political developments in Maharashtra, notably the 2022 split in the Shiv Sena and the subsequent change in government. He argued that satire should not be judged at face value and must be assessed from the standpoint of a rational, strong-minded observer.

4. Death threats and intimidation

Highlighting the threats Kamra has received from political workers, Seervai accused the police of harassment by insisting on Kamra’s physical presence despite his willingness to cooperate via video conferencing. He described the police’s approach as a “witch hunt”, citing that audience members and the show’s production team were called for questioning over 60 times.

State Government’s submissions

1. Distinction between humour and malicious targeting

The State’s counsel contended that Kamra’s remarks were not protected by Article 19(1)(a) because they constituted a cognisable offence. According to the State, the content of Kamra’s act crossed the line from satirical critique to “malicious targeting” of an individual. The counsel argued that public figures also possess a right to dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution, and that Kamra’s performance lowered Deputy CM Shinde’s dignity by targeting his appearance and political conduct.

The State rejected the comparison to politicians using similar language, stating that the absence of prior prosecution did not bar lawful action in Kamra’s case.

2. Section 353(2) and political community

The State also argued that Kamra’s clip promoted public mischief under Section 353(2) BNS. The counsel alleged that it contained false information and fostered ill-will. Notably, the State interpreted “community” to include political parties with large followings and common ideology, implying that Kamra’s remarks could foment hostility between political groups.

3. On threats and police conduct

While the State claimed responsibility for Kamra’s safety, it pointed out that Kamra had not filed any formal complaint about the threats. The High Court, however, acknowledged Kamra’s communications indicating fear for his safety and asked the police if his statement could be recorded in Chennai with the assistance of the local police.

When the State argued for liberty to arrest in future if new material emerged, the court responded that the notice under Section 35(3) BNSS already recorded the police’s current intent not to arrest and that the State could not now deny this position.

Background of the case

Kunal Kamra, who is currently residing in Tamil Nadu, had previously secured interim anticipatory bail from the Madras High Court, extended until April 17. The case stems from a Zero FIR initially filed under Sections 353 (1) (b), 353(2), and 356 (2) of the BNS at the behest of Shiv Sena MLA Murji Patel, who claimed that Kamra’s reference to a “traitor” was directed at Eknath Shinde. Although Shinde’s name was not explicitly mentioned in the performance, the MLA alleged that the remarks were clearly intended against him in the context of the Shiv Sena split.

The show, titled Naya Bharat, reportedly covered a range of political and social issues, including commentary on political opportunism, the power of India’s billionaire class, and gender inequality. Following the controversy, Shiv Sena workers vandalised Mumbai’s Habitat Studio, where Kamra had performed. Twelve individuals were arrested in connection with the violence and later released on bail. Kamra maintains that he has been facing death threats ever since.

Kamra subsequently received multiple threats and moved the Madras High Court—since he currently resides in Tamil Nadu—seeking interim anticipatory bail. On April 7, 2025, the Madras High Court extended his interim protection from arrest until April 17. Thereafter, Kamra approached the Bombay High Court seeking quashing of the FIR.

Related:

Comedian Kunal Kamra faces state-sponsored intimidation over satirical remarks on Deputy CM Eknath Shinde

For us to be truly free & independent, both media & judiciary need one another: (Justice) S Muralidhar

Arresting dissent: Punjab Government’s U-turn on farmer protests, protest site bulldozed, farmer leaders detained

Shielded by Power? How Prashant Koratkar’s remains un-arrested, even after making derogatory comments against Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj

“It’s not Aurangzeb’s grave, but a plot to uproot Shivaji Maharaj’s valour!”

The post Bombay High Court grants permanent protection from arrest to Kunal Kamra in FIR over ‘Gaddar’ remark appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Now, as the video uploaded by Kamra has gone viral, he is facing state-backed intimidation for daring to mock Maharashtra Deputy Chief Minister Eknath Shinde in a satirical stand-up routine. Within hours of uploading his show, an FIR was filed against him, Shiv Sena (Shinde faction) workers vandalised a Mumbai venue, and senior political leaders issued open threats, warning that Kamra would not be allowed to move freely unless he apologised. Meanwhile, those responsible for the violence were swiftly granted bail, exposing the stark reality of political power shielding its own while silencing critics. This blatant abuse of state machinery to suppress satire sets a chilling precedent for free speech in India.

Political violence and the state’s selective action

In a blatant display of political intimidation, a group of Shiv Sena (Shinde faction) workers vandalised the Habitat Studio and Hotel Unicontinental in Mumbai’s Khar area, claiming the video had been filmed at these locations. Among those involved in the destruction were several party workers, including social media in-charge Rahul Kanal and leader Kunal Sarmalkar. While 11 individuals were arrested for vandalism, all were granted bail within hours, highlighting the leniency afforded to political loyalists engaging in violent retaliation.

Despite the clear criminality of their actions, Shiv Sena leaders faced minimal consequences, whereas Kamra, whose only ‘offence’ was a joke, is being subjected to legal action. This incident underscores a disturbing double standard: dissenters and critics face police action, while those committing politically motivated violence operate with near impunity.

Explicit threats and calls for retaliation

The campaign against Kamra took an even more sinister turn when Shiv Sena MLA Murji Patel demanded an apology within two days, threatening that the comedian “would not be allowed to move freely in Mumbai” if he refused. Patel went as far as to say that if Kamra was seen in public, Shiv Sainiks would blacken his face—a direct incitement to mob violence. These threats were echoed by Shiv Sena MP Naresh Mhaske, who baselessly accused Kamra of being a ‘hired comedian’ making comments for monetary gain.

Further fanning the flames, political leader Sanjay Nirupam—who recently joined the Shinde-led Shiv Sena—declared publicly that Kamra would be “taught a lesson” at 11 AM the next day. Such statements, made without fear of legal repercussions, indicate a deep-rooted culture of impunity among political actors aligned with those in power.

Adding to the outrage, Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis stated that Kamra “should apologise” for his remarks and implied that comedy must have boundaries dictated by political sensibilities. “There is freedom to do stand-up comedy, but he cannot say whatever he wants,” he said, essentially arguing that speech must conform to the government’s approval. He also dismissed Kamra’s symbolic use of the Constitution, claiming, “Kunal Kamra has posted the same red Constitution book shown by Rahul Gandhi. Both of them have not read the Constitution.” His comments make it evident that Maharashtra’s leadership seeks to redefine free speech by placing political limitations on it.

Maharashtra CM Devendra Fadnavis says, “There is freedom to do stand-up comedy, but he cannot speak whatever he wants. The people of Maharashtra have decided who the traitor is. Kunal Kamra should apologize. This will not be tolerated. There is the right to comedy, but if it is… pic.twitter.com/g7UVXEyfDC

— ANI (@ANI) March 24, 2025

Weaponising the law to suppress speech

The response from Maharashtra’s government further cemented the state’s role in enabling political censorship. Fadnavis’ remarks reflect an authoritarian mind-set where freedom of speech exists only within the confines of state approval. His claim that Kamra was attempting to ‘defame’ Eknath Shinde reveals a fundamental misunderstanding—or deliberate misinterpretation—of free expression. Satire, political critique, and parody have historically been protected speech in democratic societies, and an elected official being offended by a joke does not justify state intervention.

Deputy Chief Minister Ajit Pawar attempted to strike a neutral tone but ultimately reinforced the same logic, stating, “Nobody should go beyond the law, Constitution, and rules.” However, his remarks failed to acknowledge the hypocrisy of the state’s reaction—while Kamra faces legal scrutiny for satire, Shiv Sena workers responsible for actual violence were released on bail within hours.

Crushing artistic spaces through fear

In the wake of the controversy, Habitat Studio, a prominent venue for independent performances, announced a temporary shutdown. The studio issued a statement calling for “constructive conversations, not destruction” and condemning violence as an antithesis to art and dialogue. The forced closure of a venue due to political pressure illustrates the chilling effect such incidents have on creative spaces. When comedians, artists, and venues fear violent repercussions for hosting dissenting voices, the very essence of a democracy is undermined.

https://www.instagram.com/indiehabitat/?utm_source=ig_embed&ig_rid=2d583eff-8829-4cba-a143-187ff34afdcd

The dangerous precedent being set

The Kunal Kamra case is not an isolated incident but part of a worrying pattern where comedians, journalists, and dissenters are systematically targeted for criticising the ruling establishment. The use of legal mechanisms against Kamra, juxtaposed with the state’s lenient treatment of those who resort to violence, sets a dangerous precedent. It signals that speech critical of those in power will be met with legal harassment, while politically sanctioned violence will be tolerated and even encouraged.

In a functioning democracy, public figures—especially elected officials—must be open to criticism and satire. The weaponisation of state machinery against a comedian over a joke signals an alarming drift toward authoritarianism, where dissent is not just discouraged but actively punished. Kamra’s response to this intimidation was simple yet profound—he posted an image of himself holding the Constitution with the caption, “The only way forward.” In doing so, he reaffirmed a principle that the Maharashtra government appears eager to erase: the right to free speech is non-negotiable, and satire is not a crime.

The only way forward… pic.twitter.com/nfVFZz7MtY

— Kunal Kamra (@kunalkamra88) March 23, 2025

Related:

For us to be truly free & independent, both media & judiciary need one another: (Justice) S Muralidhar

Arresting dissent: Punjab Government’s U-turn on farmer protests, protest site bulldozed, farmer leaders detained

Shielded by Power? How Prashant Koratkar’s remains un-arrested, even after making derogatory comments against Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj

“It’s not Aurangzeb’s grave, but a plot to uproot Shivaji Maharaj’s valour!”

The post Comedian Kunal Kamra faces state-sponsored intimidation over satirical remarks on Deputy CM Eknath Shinde appeared first on SabrangIndia.

If Maharashtra pulled a surprise in May-June 2024 and gave a limping opposition,  31 (32) parliamentary seats (out of 48) in the state, four of the six in Mumbai were one by the secular Maha Vikas Aghadi and one narrowly lost, by just 48 votes! Come November 20, this urbs prima, India’s much loved and coveted cosmopolis which, despite being burdened by numbers and a vicious construction lobby continues to dominate people’s dreams and aspirations will again play weather cock for the second largest state in the country. Maha Yuti (MY) or Maha Vikas Aghadi (MVA)? In the 36 assembly seats in the state’s capital, these state elections will throw up huge challenges.

How do things look 27 days before the vote is cast?            

The opposition Maha Vikas Aghadi that has an edge today is not helping matters for itself by the petty procrastinations on seat sharing, a malaise that also dogs the Maha Yuti who with better ‘media management’ continues to control the narrative! Today October 23, poll pundits and MVA workers anxiously await the final seat distribution tally if not the actual tickets distribution. October 29 is the last date for filing nominations and the last date for withdrawals in November 4. Scrutiny of nominations will be on October 30.

Maharashtra has seen a political roller coaster since the last Vidhan Sabha elections in 2019. On the point of forming a government, the Maha Yuti received a jolt when the Maha Vikas Aghadi government was sworn in with Udhav Balasaheb Thackeray as chief minister. His stewardship of the state during the Covid-19 pandemic crisis has been hailed by critics and supporters alike and that plus the support drawn from out of a sentiment of subsequent betrayal by Eknath Shinde is something that (Shiv Sena-UBT) is banking on. Challenged however, by a growing acceptability of the rogue breakaway faction, Eknath Shinde, Udhav Thackeray’s failing health and an absence of accessibility for cadres and satraps is one major drawback that the father-son party, Udhav Thackeray and Aditya Thackeray face. For both him, and Sharad Pawar’s Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) this state election is a question of lasting political relevance and survival. No wonder then that media speculation about the Pawar patriarch’s dream of installing MP from Baramati, Supriya Sule as the state’s first woman chief minister has also been rife. The Indian National Congress (INC) –on the other hand—upbeat,  after a good showing in the Lok Sabha elections, winning 13 Parliamentary seats, has displayed its usual nonchalant arrogance rubbing alliance partners the wrong way, not sprucing up its organisational set up and even internally ‘bargaining’ with the MahaYuti/BJP by individual candidates all of which will severely affect the victory of their own candidates. Finally, the MVA’s distancing and reluctance to have a collaborative discussion with the left, CPI-M, CPI, Peasants and Workers Party (PWP) and the newly formed Progressive Republican Alliance (a front of Dalit organisations and activists formed to counter the Vanchit Bahujan Aghadi-VBA) has further created schisms among the natural support base of the MVA.

This is not to say that all is hunky dory in the Maha Yuti camp either, be it in terms of equations or seat sharing. Shinde’s popularity is a serious stumbling block for the RSS-Phadnavis lobby and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) is still projected by pollsters to fall below 70 or even 60 seats in the final tally. As recently reported, Eknath Shinde’s Shiv Sena is opposing the BJP’s choice of four candidates in the list of 99 released by the party last Monday. These are the seats on Kalyan East, Tbane, Navi Mumbai and Murbad. One narrative that has captured the imagination of the Maharashtrian people is the cynical ‘Gujarati grab’ of projects and resources as epitomised by the Pm-HM combine (Narendra Modi-Amit Shah). Efforts at fielding ‘independent’ well-healed candidates to cut the MVA vote a la Haryana, pressurize Returning Officers (RO) to not follow the rule book in casting and counting of votes etc are aggressively afoot, with the Delhi regime directly allegedly involved.

All this being the case what do the numbers say?

Of the 36 assembly segments in Maharashtra, in 2019, the MVA (that is the INC and NCP Sharad Pawar) had won 12 seats. In the same 36 assembly segments in 2024, during the April-May 2024 Lok Sabha Polls, the MVA was leading in 20 Assembly segments, suggesting one, that after the ignominious split in the SS and NCP (June 2022), the MVA has garnered a wider support base in eight more segments. The presence of the UBT Sena in the MVA is one obvious reason though both this party and Pawar’s NCP have suffered in their parties’ being split.

The 20 assembly segments that MVA leads in are Anushaktinagar, Chembur, Dharavi, Sion Koliwada, Worli, Shivri, Byculla, Mumbadevi, Chandivli, Kurla, Kalina, Bandra East, Versova, Dindoshi, Jogeshwari (east), Ghatkopar (west), Vikhroli, Bhandup west, Mankhurd and Malad. Of these eight seats had been won by the factions and parties that belong to the MahaYuti alliance: Anushaktinagar (sitting MLA Nawab Mallik, NCP-AP), Sion Koliwada (sitting MLA R Tamil Selvan, BJP), Byculla (sitting MLA Yamini Jadhav, Shinde Sena), Dilip Lande- Shinde Sena (Shinde), Kurla (sitting MLA, Mangesh Kudalkar, Shinde Sena), Versova (sitting MLA Bharati Lavhekar, BJP), Jogeshwari east (sitting MLA, Ravindra Vaikar), Ghatkopar (sitting MLA, Ram Kadam, BJP).

Of the rest of the 16 seats, there are some six seats that respective parties have won with narrow margins. These include three seats won by the MahaYuti Alliance and three by the Maha Vikas Aghadi. Of these six, the Chembur assembly seat could be a cake walk for the MVA as both the sitting MLA, Prakash Phatarpherkar of the UBT Sena and the runner up Chandrakant Handore from the INC (who lost by a margin of 19,018 votes) are from the same alliance; similarly in Kalina, the sitting MLA, Sanjay Potnis of the UBT Sena defeated George Abraham of the INC by a mere 4.931 votes and both parties are in the same alliance now.

The major spoiler this time could be the Vanchit Bahujan Aghadi (VBA) that has announced it will contest from Jogeshwari (east), Dindoshi, Malad, Andheri east, Andheri west, Ghatkopar east and Ghatkopar west apart from Chembur. Raj Thackeray’s Mahanavnirman Sena (MNS) has reportedly decided also to contest with his son Amit Thackeray being pitted against Thackeray scion, Aditya Thackeray in Worli.

In the 2019 polls, the Raj Thackeray MNC had been runner up in a significant number of assembly seats: Mahim (Sandeep Deshpande who lost by 18,647 votes),  Shivri Santosh Nalwade by 39337 votes), Mulund (Harshala Rajesh Chavan lost by 57,348 votes), Bhandup West (Sandeep Prabhakar Jalgaonkar who lost by a margin of 29,173 votes), Ghatkopar east (Satish Pawar lost by 53, 319 votes), Magathane (Nayan Kadam who lost by 46, 547 votes). This time in 2024 the MNS has declared its intention of contesting a total of 250 plus seats of the total of 288 assembly seats.

At the end of the day, upcoming weeks of polling, the grit of organizational heft will carry the day. The manipulations and money power –condoned by a pliant ECI—will help the ruling alliance. Does the Maha Vikas Aghadi have it in itself to rise to the occasion?

Related:

M’tra: A blow to BJP-NDA, a shot in the arm for MVA-INDIA

Lok Sabha polls 2024, M’tra: Blow to BJP-NDA, boost for MVA-INDIA

Maharashtra: Save Constitution & Democracy, Dalit Ambedkarites unite, declare support to MVA

The post The curious case of Mumbai Mahanagari’s 36 seats: who holds the winning card? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Mumbai Police had reportedly made 6 teams to find him and had also given an order barring him from leaving the country.  

According to police reports, Mihir Shah’s father, Rajesh Shah, a Shiv Sena leader from Palghar. Rajesh Shah reportedly even helped his son escape and planned to remove the vehicle from the scene. Kaveri was reportedly brutally dragged by the car for over a distance of 1.5 kms. Her husband Pradeep was also injured in the incident. The police have told in court, as per NDTV, that the driver was ‘well aware’ of his actions. 

As per News18, Kaveri’s husband, Pradeep had told the media that he was shouting at the scene of the incident to stop the car, ‘but he did not listen to me.’ 

Reports have stated that the Mumbai Police told the court that Kaveri Nakhwa was pulled off the bonnet of the BMW car and placed on the road by Bidawat and Shah. The car also reportedly ran over her again as they reversed the car.  

As per a report by Hindustan Times, Rajesh Shah arrived at the scene in a Mercedes, spoke briefly with Mihir Shah, and advised him to escape. Later, Rajesh Shah arranged to take the BMW away from the location. Rajesh Shah is a member of the Eknath Shinde faction of the Shiva Sena. He was also arrested after the incident for not cooperating with the police but was soon granted bail by a Mumbai court. 

Earlier this year, a similar incident took place in Pune where a juvenile in a Porsche was accused of hitting two IT professionals while driving. The accused was the son of a prominent builder named Vishal Agarwal. Agarwal reportedly made huge efforts to make sure that his son was not prosecuted for the case of alleged rash driving and hitting the two people. The case raised a huge uproar about corruption and how the rich and famous are exempt from the rule of law. 

Related

June 2024: 10 violent attacks against cattle transporters and 14 cases of communal violence in various states across India

New Criminal Laws: Future risks for democracy and rights in India

IR filed against relative of winning candidate in mumbai north west election over alleged protocol breach

Corruption as an issue in Indian Election Campaigns: the 2024 story

The post Mumbai: Shiv Sena leader granted bail, as son arrested for alleged case of hit and run appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The five-judge bench of CJI DY Chandrachud, Justices MR Shah, Krishna Murari, Hima Kohli and PS Narasimha unanimously gave a decision in a judgement authored by the CJI holding that the Governor was not justified in calling for a floor test. However, the court also held that since former chief minister Uddhav Thackeray did not face the floor test (that has now been held to have taken place in illegal circumstances!) and “voluntarily resigned” as the Chief Minister (CM), the court has not quashed this “voluntarily given resignation”. Had Thackeray faced the floor test, even if the actions of the Governor and speaker are violative of the law, the Court could have restored the status quo ante.

Much has been said in comment on this judgement that has a significant bearing on the overtly political (even partisan) role that Governors have played. Analyist and journalist Suhas Palshikar has publicly said that, “Very strictly speaking, hasn’t the SC actually said that formation of Shinde government doesn’t have legal basis? It may not have ordered removal of the government but once legality is gone, government must go too.”

In eight-odd hearings that took place to a full galaxy of senior advocates etc earlier, the Supreme Court bench had considered the practicalities of reinstating Uddhav Thackeray when he had already resigned after acknowledging that he did not have the required strength of MLAs in the house.

It was in June 2022, that a group of Shiv Sena MLAs led by strongman from Thane, Eknath Shinde rebelled against Udhav Thackeray – saying that the latter’s decision to align with the Congress and the Nationalist Congress Party went against the party’s Hindutva ideology. When it became evident that the rebel MLAs – with the support of the BJP-appointed governor – would call for a trust vote, the Shinde received disqualification notices from the then deputy speaker!

The original Shiv Sena led by Udhav Thackeray, that faction moved the Supreme Court to consider whether the rebels should be disqualified

The Background and Timeline

IN October 2019, after the then conducted Maharashtra State Assembly elections, the BJP got 106 seats, ShivSena got 56, NCP got 53 and INC got 44. In November 2019, the Shiv Sena, the NCP, and the INC formed a post-poll alliance which came to be known as the Maha Vikas Aghadi which then formed the government. This alliance broke a pre-poll alliance between the BJP and Shiv Sena that had fought the elections jointly.

During the entire period of the Covid 19 pandemic, it was chief minister, Udhav Thackeray’s sobre responsive governance that received wide approbation. The refusal to allow Maharashtra to erupt on communal lines, and the curb on hate speech was also noteworthy.

However, after some months of speculation before, serious efforts were made by the central BJP regime and former chief minister Devendra Phadnis to de-stabilise the government. In June 2022 news reports revealed that some MLAs who belonged to the Shiv Sena were meeting with leaders of the BJP. At this time, the office of the Speaker lay vacant, and the functions of the Speaker were being discharged by the Deputy Speaker, Mr. Narhari Zirwal. The issue of the sudden resignation of Nana Patole from the state assembly and the failure of the MVA to appoint a speaker has also been subsequently questioned, even criticised! The Maharashtra Assembly was without speaker since February 4 2021 and  Narhari Zirwal was discharging functions of a Speaker since then until July 3, 2022.

Thereafter, the Shiv Sena fractured into two factions: one led by the then Chief Minister, Mr. Uddhav Thackeray, and the other led by the Group Leader, Mr. Eknath Shinde. Each faction claimed to represent the “real” political party and passed various resolutions pertaining to the affairs of the original party.

Why the Supreme Court did not disqualify the MLAs

The petitioners have relied on Rajendra Singh Rana (supra) to urge that this Court should invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction and itself decide the question of disqualification against the respondent MLAs. Alternatively, it is urged that this Court should direct the Deputy Speaker, Mr. Zirwal, who was performing the functions of Speaker prior to July 3, 2022, to decide the disqualification petitions.

In Rajendra Singh Rana the Supreme Court had observed that it normally remit the matter to the Speaker or Chairman to take a proper decision in accordance with law. However, this Court decided to adjudicate the disqualification petitions since the Speaker failed to decide the same in a time bound manner as the petitions had remained pending for more than three years.

This Court should normally refrain from deciding disqualification petitions at the first instance, having due regard to constitutional intendment. Disqualification of a person for being a member of the House has drastic consequences for the member concerned and by extension, for the citizens of that constituency. Therefore, any question of disqualification ought to be decided by following the procedure established by law. Even in cases where the Speaker decides disqualification petitions without following the procedure established by law, this Court normally remands the disqualification petitions to the Speaker. Therefore, absent exceptional circumstances, the Speaker is the appropriate authority to adjudicate petitions for disqualification under the Tenth Schedule.

The petitioner however submitted that the disqualification proceedings should not be remanded to the Speaker since he has demonstrated himself to be incapable of acting fairly and impartially. in Shrimanth Balasaheb Patil v. Speaker, Karnataka Legislative Assembly (2020) 2 SCC 595 where it was observed that the Speaker does not deserve to be reposed with public trust and confidence if they are not able to dissociate from their political party and if they act contrary to the spirit of neutrality and independence.

The petitioners also challenged the decision of the Speaker to cancel the role/position of Shiv Sena’s Sunil Prabhu as the Chief Whip to argue that the Speaker is impartial. The Court stated that even if it sets aside this decision, it was not a sufficient reason to decide the disqualification petition. The court also discarded the argument that Deputy Speaker must be allowed to decide on disqualifications since the Deputy can perform duties of a Speaker only when office of the Speaker is vacant and the current Speaker was duly elected.

Finally however, the court, said that decision of the Speaker on the question of disqualification is subject to judicial review.

Constitutional sequence in deciding symbol

The petitioners also sought a constitutional sequence from the Court to state that the Election Commission of India (ECI) cannot decide upon which party should get the symbol until the Speaker decides upon the disqualification of members. This proposition was not accepted by the Court since, the Speaker’s order became final only after all avenues for appeal are/were exhausted and the time this would take is uncertain.

“The ECI, which is a constitutional authority, cannot be prevented from performing its constitutional duties for an indefinite period of time,” the court said (Para 148).

How does the ECI decide which party gets the main symbol after defection?

The court observed that in arriving at the decision of which party gets the symbol, “it is not necessary for the ECI to rely on the test of majority in the legislature alone. In cases such as the present one, it would be futile to assess which group enjoys a majority in the legislature. Rather, the ECI must look to other tests in order to reach a conclusion under Paragraph 15 of the Symbols Order.” (Para 150)

“The other tests may include an evaluation of the majority in the organisational wings of the political party, an analysis of the provisions of the party constitution, or any other appropriate test,” the court added. (Para 150)

The court also noted that nothing in the Symbols Order mandates use of a particular test for the ECI to reach a decision. “The ECI must apply a test which is best suited to the unique facts and circumstances of the case before it. The parties in the dispute before the ECI are free to propose a suitable test and the ECI may either apply one of the tests proposed or fashion a new test, as appropriate.” (Para 151)

“An evaluation of whether rival groups are adhering to the aims and objects of the party as incorporated in its constitution, and which of the rival groups is more in consonance with such aims and objects, is an entirely subjective exercise… The ECI must remain a neutral body and refrain from passing a subjective judgement on the approaches preferred by the rival factions.” (Para 153)

The court also clarified that the ECI decision on symbol has a prospective effect and it is not necessary that the decision of ECI must be consistent with the decision of the Speaker on deciding disqualification. Both can run concurrently and can be followed in letter and spirit.

Neither can the disqualification proceedings before the Speaker be stayed in anticipation of the ECI decision.

Can a ‘split’ in party be a defense for the disqualification of member?

The court has refuted this argument.

“No faction or group can argue that they constitute the original political party as a defense against disqualification on the ground of defection,” the court said in view of the deletion of Paragraph 3 under Tenth Schedule of the Constitution. “In cases where a split has occurred in a political party or in a legislature party, members of neither faction may validly raise the defence that they are the political party in the event that each faction files petitions for the disqualification of members of the other faction.” (Para 164)

The Speaker may be called upon to determine who the “real” political party is while adjudicating disqualification petitions. Since Paragraph 3 of Tenth Schedule has been deleted neither factions can be considered to constitute the original political party.

“In arriving at their decision, the Speaker must consider the constitution of the party as well as any other rules and regulations which specify the structure of the leadership of the party. If the rival groups submit two or more versions of the party constitution, the Speaker must consider the version which was submitted to the ECI before the rival factions emerged.” (Para 168)

This means that when the two parties appoint whips the Speaker decides which of the two represent the party.

“Thus, the adjudication of the Speaker on whether a member must be disqualified under Paragraph 2(1(b) would also depend on the decision of the Speaker recognising one of the two (or more) Whips.” (Para 169)

Role of the Governor as per the Constitution

Among the sharpest observations in the judgement are those regarding the role the Governor, Bhagat Singh Koshyari played in this unseemly political controversy. In Paragraph 193, the bench explains how the governor did not have any objective material before him to indicate that the incumbent government had lost the confidence of the house and that he should call for a floor test. Hence, the exercise of discretion by the governor, in this case, was not in accordance with the law, the bench held.

Powers of the Governor: The Executive power of the State is vested in the Governor. Article 163 requires the Governor to exercise their legislative and executive power on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers. Article 163(2) empowers the Governor to exercise their discretionary powers when required by or under the Constitution. It is under this power that the Governor acted and directed Thackeray for a floor test. Article 174(1) provides that the Governor shall from time to time summon the House to meet at such time and place as they think fit, which means calling for a session of the House. Article 175(1) empowers the Governor to address the House and Article 175(2) permits the Governor to send messages to the House whether with respect to a pending Bill or otherwise.

The court held that the power of the Governor to summon the House under Article 174 must be exercised on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers. At the same time, if the Speaker and the Government attempt to circumvent a no-confidence motion, the Governor would be justified in exercising the power under Article 174 without the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers.

Was the governor right in directing a floor test?

After the Governor received letters from the Leader of Opposition at the time, Mr. Devendra Fadnavis, and seven MLAs who were elected as independent candidates, requesting the floor test, the Governor, on June 28, 2022 issued a letter to Uddhav Thackeray. Thackeray challenged the same before the Supreme Court on Juen29 and the court refused to grant an interim stay on the floor test. Thus, Thackeray resigned as the Chief Minister.

The court, in Shivraj Singh Chouhan v. Union of India 2020) 17 SCC 1 held that the decision to call for a floor test should be based on objective material and reasons which are relevant and germane to the exercise of discretion, and not extraneous to it. The Court emphasised that the Governor should not use their discretionary power to destabilise or displace democratically elected governments.

Rule 95 of the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly Rules stipulates that a member who wishes to move a motion of no-confidence in the Council of Ministers shall do so by a notice in writing. “If the Speaker and the Government attempt to circumvent a no-confidence motion, the Governor would be justified in exercising the power under Article 174 without the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers.” (Para 179)

“The power of the Governor to act without the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers is of an extraordinary nature. The exercise of such power has ramifications on parliamentary democracy. Hence, the ambit of the exercise of such power by the Governor must be calibrated to meet the exigencies of situations where the Governor is satisfied on the basis of objective material that there is sufficient cause to warrant the exercise of their extraordinary power. The discretion to call for a floor test is not an unfettered discretion but one that must be exercised with circumspection, in accordance with the limits placed on it by law.” (Para 181)

The court examined the reasons which led to the Governor’s decision to call for a floor test and observed that although the resolution of June 21, 2022 specified that some MLAs of the SSLP were dissatisfied with the functioning of the MVA government, it does not record their intention to withdraw support from the Government and some of these were even Ministers int hat government. On the basis of this resolution the Governor concluded that “a majority of the Shiv Sena MLAs have given a clear indication … that they intend to exit from the Maha Vikas Aghadi Government.” (Para 184)

Even the opposition party did not issue a notice for no-confidence motion against the MVA government.

The Governor had no objective material on the basis of which he could doubt the confidence of the incumbent government. The resolution on which the Governor relied did not contain any indication that the MLAs wished to exit from the MVA government. The communication expressing discontent on the part of some MLAs is not sufficient for the Governor to call for a floor test… Once a government is democratically elected in accordance with law, there is a presumption that it enjoys the confidence of the House. There must exist some objective material to dislodge this presumption. (Para 186)

The political imbroglio in Maharashtra arose as a result of party differences within the Shiv Sena. However, the floor test cannot be used as a medium to resolve internal party disputes or intra party disputes. Dissent and disagreement within a political party must be resolved in accordance with the remedies prescribed under the party constitution, or through any other methods that the party chooses to opt for. (Para 188)

Nothing in any of the communications relied upon by the Governor indicates that the dissatisfied MLAs from the Shiv Sena intended to withdraw their support to the Chief Minister and the Council of Ministers. At the highest, the various communications expressed the fact that a faction of MLAs disagreed with some policy decisions of the party. Whether they would choose to enter deliberations with their colleagues in the House or in the political party, or mobilise the cadres, or resign from the Assembly in protest, or opt to merge with another party, was uncertain. Therefore, the Governor erred in relying upon the resolution signed by a faction of the SSLP MLAs to conclude that Mr. Thackeray had lost the support of the majority of the House. (Para 190)

The Governor also relied upon the letter dated June 25, 2022 from 38 SSLP members claiming that the security provided to them and to their families was illegally withdrawn. The appropriate response of the Governor in such cases is to ensure that the security that they are lawfully entitled to continues to be provided to them (Para 191).

The third communication that the Governor relied on is the letter dated June 21, 2022 addressed by Eknath Shinde to the Deputy Speaker stating that the appointment of Ajay Choudhari was illegal. The court held that this was within the domain of the legislature and discretionary power of the Governor under Article 163 of the Constitution is limited to situations where a constitutional provision expressly provides for it. In any event, the contents of the letter did not indicate anything to suggest that the then-Chief Minister Mr. Thackeray had lost the confidence of the House. (Para 192)

The Governor also relied upon the letters written by Mr. Fadnavis and seven ‘independent’ MLAs, calling upon him to direct Mr. Thackeray to prove his majority on the floor of the House. The court opined that Fadnavis and other could have just moved a motion of no-confidence. A request made by some MLAS for CM to prove majority does not amount to a relevant and germane reason to call for a floor test. Hence, the exercise of discretion by the Governor in this case was not in accordance with law. (Para 193)

Why was Thackeray not reinstated?

The main reason behind why the court did not reinstate the previous government like it had in S R Bommai v. Union of India (1994) 3 SCC 1 and Nabam Rebia & Bamang Felix v. Deputy Speaker, Arunachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly (2016) 8 SCC 1, was that Thackeray did not face the floor test on 30 June 2022 and instead submitted his resignation. The court is not in a position to quash a resignation that has been submitted voluntarily.

The court in its interim order where it had refused to stay the floor test (dated June 30, 2022) had clearly said that

the outcome of the trust vote to be conducted on 30 June 2022 “shall be subject to the final outcome” of this batch of petitions. Since the trust vote was not held, the question of it being subject to the final outcome of these petitions does not arise. (Para 194)

The court also refused to accept the petitioner’s contention that the pendency of disqualification petitions before the Speaker or the Deputy Speaker ought to have resulted in the postponement of the floor test. The court held that the pendency of disqualification petitions does not bar an MLA from participating in the proceedings of the House, which includes a floor test.

The option of initiating a no-confidence motion after the adjudication of disqualification petitions is open to the MLAs. However, this Court cannot stay the proceedings of the House until the disqualification petitions are decided. To do so would amount to interfering with the proceedings of the House. (Para 195)

Was the Governor right in inviting Shinde to form government?

The petitioners challenged the Governor’s discretion in inviting Shinde to form the government since his appointment was barred by Article 164(1B) and that Governor has exceeded the scope of his authority by recognizing one of the two rival factions as being the “real” Shiv Sena.

The court observed that this Article states that the member if disqualified cannot be appointed as a Minister. The bar begins to operate only upon the member of the legislature incurring disqualification, not if the petition for disqualification has been instituted.

The court held that the Governor’s decision to invite Shinde headed collation to form government was justified. This is because the CM post lie vacant on June 29 and on the same day, Fadnavis, wrote to the Governor claiming that 106 MLAs of the BJP extend their support to Mr. Eknath Shinde for the formation of a government, so did 8 independent candidates. The Governor accordingly asked the Shinde led government to prove majority on the floor of the house. Hence, his decision was justified.

Conclusion

1. The correctness of the decision inNabam Rebia (supra)now stands referred to a larger Bench of seven judges;
2. This Court cannot ordinarily adjudicate petitions for disqualification under the Tenth Schedule in the first instance. There are no extraordinary circumstances in the instant case that warrant the exercise of jurisdiction by this Court to adjudicate disqualification petitions. The Speaker must decide disqualification petitions within a reasonable period; .
3. An MLA has the right to participate in the proceedings of the House regardless of the pendency of any petitions for their disqualification. The validity of the proceedings of the House in the interregnum is not “subject to” the outcome of the disqualification petitions;
4. The political party and not the legislature party appoints the Whip and the Leader of the party in the House. Further, the direction to vote in a particular manner or to abstain from voting is issued by the political party and not the legislature party. The decision of the Speaker as communicated by the Deputy Secretary to the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly dated 3 July 2022 is contrary to law. The Speaker shall recognize the Whip and the Leader who are duly authorised by the Shiv Sena political party with reference to the provisions of the party constitution, after conducting an enquiry in this regard and in keeping with the principles discussed in this judgement
5. The Speaker and the ECI are empowered to concurrently adjudicate on the petitions before them under the Tenth Schedule and under Paragraph 15 of the Symbols Order respectively;
6. While adjudicating petitions under Paragraph 15 of the Symbols Order, the ECI may apply a test that is best suited to the facts and circumstances of the case before it;
7. The effect of the deletion of Paragraph 3 of the Tenth Schedule is that the defence of ‘split’ is no longer available to members facing disqualification proceedings. The Speaker would prima facie determine who the political party is for the purpose of adjudicating disqualification petitions under Paragraph 2(1) of the Tenth Schedule, where two or more factions claim to be that political party;
8. The Governor was not justified in calling upon Mr. Thackeray to prove his majority on the floor of the House because he did not have reasons based on objective material before him, to reach the conclusion that Mr. Thackeray had lost the confidence of the House. However, the status quo ante cannot be restored because Mr. Thackeray did not face the floor test and tendered his resignation; and
9. The Governor was justified in inviting Mr. Shinde to form the government.

The Supreme Court, has in its final decision on the issue, certainly clarifies a few cobwebs that surround understanding and application of the Tenth Schedule to the constitution since it was enacted in 1985 to disqualify legislators on the ground of defection. But its inability (or refusal) to provide relief to the petitioner, despite seriously faulting the governor and the speaker for their decisions –held bad in law and unconstitutional– resulting in the unseating of Udhav Thackeray’s government, leaves no lasting judicial solution to an inherently faulty illegal political process.

The complete judgement may be read here:

Related:

M’tra d’ty CM Devendra Fadnavis defends rallies against ‘love jihad’, promises law against mixed marriages

Muslim OBC quota: Don’t make political comments on sub judice matter, says SC

Aurangabad badgered with hate speeches, vandalism and destroying of public property followed in protest supporting name change of Aurangabad

Heated exchanges over minister’s ‘1 lakh love jihad cases’ remark

Electoral blow to BJP on Devendra Fadnavis Nitin Gadkari’s home turf

The post What and Why of the SC judgement on Maharashtra 2022 politics: Shiv Sena v/s Shiv Sena appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Shiv Sena threatens to disrupt an experiment at familiarizing school students with a more balanced understanding of Shivaji. Instead of assuring protection to a pioneering institute, the Mumbai police bulldozes the school management into making a written apology when none is due

While the entire country has been privy to an intense debate on the issue of partisan and narrow readings and interpretations of the past (see CC, August September 2001, January 2001, October 1999 ), Maharashtra in western India  at present ruled by the ‘secular’ Congress–NCP combine but shackled by the rabid Shiv Sena – recently saw brazen attempts at intimidation and unreasoned rhetoric over the introduction of a handbook for history teachers that deals with Shivaji in a balanced and rational manner.

The issue is, the introduction, on an experimental basis, of a handbook to enhance the understanding and learning of history, authored by Teesta Setalvad (through KHOJ — the secular education programme running in several schools) in three institutions run by the Don Bosco group of schools in Mumbai. The handbooks were the result of a ten- month long collaboration between history teachers and the author, aimed at re–working and enhancing the syllabus in history.

The section on Shivaji, among other things, also dealt with the caste background of Shivaji and his rise to power and glory despite these restrictive factors. The handbook also deals with the character of Afzal Khan in a balanced manner. These are the sections that have raised the hackles of the self–styled
custodians of our common history.

The experiment was being conducted with the full knowledge and consent of the parent–teacher associations in two of the three schools since June this year. But in the third school, Don Bosco’s, Borivali, some parents, clearly unhappy with the rational and logical reasoning in the handbook, approached the local shakha of the Shiv Sena after failing to intimidate the principal at a parents’ meeting, into withdrawing the book. Predictably, the Shiv Sena was more than happy to step in!

Shivaji, a Maharashtrian figure, has been selectively valorised by a parochial and downright communal element in Maharashtra, especially over the past two and a half decades. These elements have consistently used threats, bullying and intimidation tactics to stall any effort to improve upon the orientation of the official textbooks. Even the attempt of the Maharashtra State Text Book Board to re–work the history textbooks in tune with the New Education Policy of 1986 was subverted.

The narrow worldview that these forces represent would prefer to hide the bitter struggle of Shivaji with the entrenched Brahminical hierarchy of the time. The story of his coronation detailed by eminent historians (see boxes) is a sorry tale of how even a man who gained such tremendous success and popularity in his lifetime had to find a Brahmin priest from Benaras to perform the ‘purification’ and thread ceremony necessary to legitimise his coronation. The services of the Brahmin priest who consented to perform the ritual had to be compensated with significant monetary largesse.

In recent years, sectarian and divisive outfits like the Hindu Mahasabha, the RSS and the Shiv Sena have frequently resorted to intimidation to gloss over these historical facts. But a rich, alternate tradition in Maharashtra has, through the works of Jayant Gadkari, NR Pathak, Govind Pansare and Sharad Patil, periodically resurrected the real Shivaji. As far back as the late 1950s, [1]veteran trade unionist, SA Dange’s famous lecture Tyanche Shivaji, Aamche Shivaji delivered to workers, protested against the manipulation of Shivaji into a ‘Hindu’ ruler, deliberately ignoring significant efforts made by him within his kingdom to give equal status to persons of different religious persuasions.

For the Shiv Sena, through it’s crude but popular audio cassettes of Marathi povadas (folk songs), the battle between Shivaji and Afzal Khan is a metaphor for (and justification of) their current politics – demonisation of the Muslim minority and legitimisation of the violence used against them. Every time individuals and groups have challenged this parochial rendering of the past to suit crude present-day political ends, intimidation and threats have been used to nip such attempts in the bud.

In the light of this background, it is particularly educative to see how the organs of the state — both the police and the state education department — functioned after the SS delivered its threat to the Don Bosco school management recently.

On the morning of September 17, 2001 after one or two parents had failed to intimidate the school into withdrawing the handbooks — a Shiv Sena Board displayed outside the school threatened a morcha to protest against the ‘derogatory remarks against Shivaji by calling him a Shudra’ and hurting Hindu religious sentiments!

The moment the school contacted me, the author of the handbook, I said we should offer to refer the ‘controversial’ part to a committee of experts but that intimidation and threats to the school should be withdrawn. At the same time, given the violent antecedents of the SS, I approached the police on September 18, requesting protection to the school.

However, instead of supporting the reasonable stand for dialogue and rationality taken by the school management, the local police led by the zonal DCP put relentless pressure on the school management to apologise and withdraw the handbook in order to pre-empt the Sena’s protest. The result: on the morning of the threatened protest, September 19, local Shiv Sainiks assembled in front of the school and publicly distributed xeroxed copies of the apology letter the DCP had forced out of the school management before dispersing in a ‘victorious’ mood. Only the police can tell us how a letter from the school addressed to the police got into the hands of the Shiv Sainiks. If this is not police complicity, English dictionaries would need revision.

No less interesting is the role played by the state education department under a ‘secular’ combine on that day. Representatives of the department descended on the school and extracted an immediate assurance that the handbook would be withdrawn.

Two major issues related to the conduct of public servants arise from the controversy and both have become the subject matter of complaints by the management and the author before the Maharashtra State Human Rights Commission and Maharashtra State Minorities Commission.
One is the conduct of the police, both visible and behind the scenes. Second, is the action of the state education department in seeking to control alternate and dynamic renderings of history.

Throughout the day on Monday, September 17, despite repeated efforts by the school management to contact the local police station for protection from the Shiv Sena, zonal DCP SS Khemkar did not respond. The matter cannot be seen in isolation without considering the fear and terror that an outfit like the SS generates in Mumbai.

Only weeks before this incident, Shiv Sainiks showed their true colours, completely destroying the only hospital of its kind in neighbouring Thane. But for the hospital doctors who did all they could to save patients, several of whom were on life support systems, there is no saying how many may have died in addition to the two patients who could not survive the ordeal. The provocation? The Thane chief of the Sena, Anand Dighe, admitted to the hospital following a road accident, had died due to a massive heart failure. The Thane police commissioner and his police force are now facing an enquiry before the State’s Human Rights Commission for their failure to act against the Sainiks who reduced Rs 9 crore worth of hospital property and equipment to rubble in next to no time. The hospital has since closed down and several hundreds of its employees rendered jobless.

These were the immediate antecedents of the outfit, the Shiv Sena which was threatening Don Bosco, Borivali, with an agitation. Even as the Don Bosco agitation was hanging fire, women Shiv Sainiks had stormed into the chambers of the Mumbai municipal commissioner and roughed him up.
What does the police do in these circumstances to reassure a school management which assumes responsibility for hundreds of young children?

Despite it being made repeatedly clear, by the school management and the author, that the issue was open for dialogue and discussion, the Borivali police through the local DCP SS Khemkar brought enormous pressure on the school to withdraw the handbook completely . Worse still was the conduct of the city’s commissioner of police, MN Singh, whom I contacted on his mobile phone at 9 am on Tuesday, September 18, after trying in vain to get through to him the day before.

The result of the call to the commissioner was the conduct of DCP Khemkar, intimidation and threats made to the school. Behind the scenes, Singh used the Christian connections of former supercop, Julio Ribeiro, to advise the school to “steer clear of controversies”.

At the time, Section 142 (order against assembly with weapons) was in force due to the tensions following the terror attacks in the USA. In view of the sensitive situation and the antecedents of the Shiv Sena, the law and order machinery would have been well within its powers to assume a no-nonsense attitude vis–à–vis the SS. Instead, the commissioner, through DCP SS Khemkar, chose to bulldoze the management of a premier and pioneering educational institution into penning a here–and–now apology and withdrawal of the handbook.

The same approach was followed by the second state institution that entered the picture, the state education department. Under law and the codes governing the SSC school board, there is nothing to prevent schools from using educational material to enhance the syllabus; yet the state government responds to the SS intimidation with uncharacteristic promptness.

Maharashtra, like other states in the country, has seen the mushrooming of several thousand institutions run by the RSS/VHP that freely use supplementary texts that, simply put, spread hatred and division. Does the state government, even under ‘secular’ dispensations, ever ‘dare’ to make any inquiries? Why is it that efforts to rationalise history learning and cleanse it of the cobwebs of bigotry and hatred are such a challenge to our institutions, and not those that blatantly promote bigotry and stereotypes?

The matter presently lies before the Maharashtra State Human Rights Commission. The next date for hearing is November 29. Meanwhile, in a parallel move, the Borivali police station has instituted an investigation under section 153 c (hurting the religious sentiments of a section) against the author of the book. 

(Archived from the October 2001 issue of Communalism Combat)

The post Shivaji in ‘secular’ Maharashtra appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Winter Session of the Parliament has been cancelled this year. It will be merged with the Budget Session next year. The matter came to light when Parliamentary Affairs Minister Prahlad Joshi responded to a letter by Congress MP Adhir Ranjan Chowdhury.

Chowdhury had requested in a letter to Speaker Om Birla, a session to discuss the new farm laws. But Joshi shot down the entire session blaming it on “the extraordinary situation arising out of Covid-19 pandemic” and “the recent spurt in cases, particularly in Delhi”.

Joshi said that the government was inclined to hold the session at the earliest suggesting January 2021 as the start of a combined session.  

However, the Shiv Sena feels that this is just an elaborate ploy to avoid discussing important issues. An editorial in the Shiv Sena mouthpiece Saamna said, “What kind democratic practice is this? The country will remain alive only if voices from the opposition benches are strong in a democracy. The democratic traditions in Parliament inspire the country. Prime Minister Narendra Modi must follow these traditions.” It reminded how even Presidential elections were not cancelled in the US because of the pandemic, “but we are not allowing even a four-day winter session of the Parliament?”

The Saamna editorial chastised BJP members for taking to the streets “for reopening of temples, but refusing to open the temple of democracy”.  

The decision to scrap the Winter Session altogether does appear to be odd in light of a session conducted in September despite the pandemic raging on.  

The post Parliament’s Winter Session cancelled, Shiv Sena smells a rat appeared first on SabrangIndia.

After the violent attack on students of Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) on January 5, 2020, protests took place across the country. In Mumbai, two key protests took place; one at Hutatma Chowk and another at Gateway of India. However, what happened afterwards was even more disturbing.

Together, three police stations; MRA Marg, Colaba and Tardeo, have issued notices under sections 107 (security for keeping the peace) and 110 (security for good behaviour from habitual offenders). As per the terms of the bond, if these people engage in any act that threatens law and order, it would lead to not only confiscation of the surety amount, but also externment from the city!

This effectively discourages them from being part of peaceful protests in future, and thus a violation of the rights to freedom of speech and expression and the right to protest.

Such notices have reportedly been served to as many as 25 people including college students, cultural activists and human rights defenders. The most shocking case was that of Suvarna Salve, a college student and cultural activist who is a part of Samta Kala Manch, who was asked to sign a bond for Rs 50 lakh! Salve had participated in the ‘Occupy Gateway’ protest demanding justice for students who were injured in the attack that took place at the Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) the previous day. In February, Salve was arrested along with 30 others, but later let off on bail. 

Then she was served the following notice on August 24. It seeks an explanation as to why Salve a proceeding should not be initiated against her under Section 110 (e) of the CrPC. The notice also requires at least one of two persons to appear as a “surety”, pledging an amount of Rs 50 lakh, ensuring her good behaviour for the next two years. If she fails, the amount or the property would be confiscated by the state.

Image courtesy The Wire

Others have been asked to post surety upwards of Rs 1 lakh.

Speaking to SabrangIndia, earlier in September when he was served notice, Firoze Mithiborewala had said, “I’m to fill out a bond and stay out of protests. In case of violation, then will be sent outside city as a tadipaar.”

He has now been summoned by the Colaba police to accept his notice on Thursday and according to Mumbai Mirror his hearing will commence before an Assistant Commissioner of Police on October 29.

However, legal experts find ‘chapter proceedings’ against peaceful protesters to be a bit of an overkill. Advocate Ishrat Khan who is representing 13 of the 25 people who have been served such notices, told Mumbai Mirror, “Chapter proceedings are meant for hardened criminals, not these protesters.” They are planning to challenge the notices in court.

The JNU violence protest case

On January 5, 2020, a group of masked goons had entered the JNU campus unleashing terror on students and teachers alike, wielding iron rods and sledgehammers, damaging property and brutally injuring many in the campus. 

Following this, at the press conference held at his residence Matoshree, Thackeray said, “When I saw the news of JNU attack on TV, it reminded me of the 26/11 Mumbai terror attacks.” Saying that students feel “unsafe” in the country, he said, “I will not allow anything like JNU to happen in Maharashtra.”

If the Chief Minister himself was so disturbed by the violence at JNU,why is it then that when students and activists protested the violence by holding demonstrations at Hutatma Chowk and Gateway of India, FIRs were registered against them? Why were they asked to sign bonds and provide sureties for exorbitant amounts? ‘Law and order’ is a state subject, and therefore controlled by the state government. Ball is in your court, Mr. Thackeray.

Related:

JNUTA stands by Suvarna Salve

The post 25 anti-CAA protesters face externment! appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Are the Shiv Sena and the Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) headed for a collision course? After Maharashtra CM and Shiv Sena chief Uddhav Thackeray said that he had no objections with the National Investigating Agency (NIA) taking over the investigations in the Elgar Parishad case, State Home Minister and NCP member Anil Deshmukh said that Thackeray had “overruled” the NCP in doing so.

A miffed Deshmukh said, “The state agencies were investigating the Bhima-Koregaon case. But the Centre handed over the investigation to the NIA. As the home minister, my stand was that the Centre should have taken the state government into confidence before taking the decision. We were putting up our stand in the court in this direction. The chief minister has the right to overrule my stand.”

Sharad Pawar, NCP chief too expressed his unhappiness in the matter, the Hindustan Times reported. He said that while the Centre’s decision directing the NIA to take over the Elgar Parishad case was unfair, the state government’s approval to it was more unfair.

At a press conference in Kolhapur he told reporters, “Maintaining law & order is a state subject. It is unfair to encroach upon the rights of the state and Maharashtra’s support to the move is more unfair.”

This is the first decision of the chief minister that has Pawar has criticized since formation of the Maharashtra Vikas Aghadi (MVA) government — made up of Shiv Sena, NCP and Congress on November 28, 2019.

When the MVA was formed Pawar had written a letter to the CM demanding a probe in the matter by a Special Investigation Team (SIT) headed by an IPS officer. But before the state home department could do so, the Centre transferred the case to the NIA which then asked the Pune sessions court to transfer evidence and records to the special NIA court in Mumbai.

Pawar had then said that the BJP-led government had “abused” its power to book activists and academicians Sudhir Dhawale, Surendra Gadling, Sudha Bhardwaj, Mahesh Raut, Varavara Rao, Arun Ferreira, Vernon Gonsalves, Rona Wilson and Gautam Navlakha and called the arrests a conspiracy.

The Times of India reported that a bureaucrat said that when the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) issued its notification on January 24, the home department asked the law and judiciary department for its opinion on the same, especially keeping in mind Pawar and Deshmukh’s reservations.

The file was brought back to the CM with the department’s views and the CM upheld the same saying it had no objection with the NIA taking over the inquiry.

Violence had broken out near the Bhima-Koregaon war memorial in Pune on January 1, 2018 which Dalits visit to commemorate the participation of the Dalit Mahar soldiers who helped win the fight against the Brahmin Peshwa rulers of Pune in 1818. Post the incident, the Pune police had filed cases against activists for delivering speeches there and allegedly inciting violence, while also claiming that the organizers of the event had links with Maoists.

Related:

Bhima-Koregaon case transferred to NIA to compromise independent probe: Front Line Defenders
Maha Vikas Aghadi bats for release for Bhima Koregaon activists
Bhima Koregaon case: Bail Applications of three social activists rejected by Bombay High Court

The post NCP cross with Shiv Sena’s consent of Bhima Koregaon case transfer to the NIA? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In a strongly worded editorial in its mouthpiece Saamna, the Shiv Sena not only questioned the BJP’s vote bank politics, but also wondered if it would lead to communal violence. The piece said, “There is no dearth of problems in India now but still we are inviting new ones such as CAB. It looks like the Centre has made an invisible partition of Hindus and Muslims over the bill.” It went on to ask, “It is true that there is no other country for Hindus except Hindustan. But by accepting only Hindus among the illegal immigrants…will it be a trigger of a religious war in the country?”

The editorial appeared on the morning of December 9, the same day the CAB was tabled and discussed in the Lok Sabha.

And while it did not reject the CAB outright, the Shiv Sena suggested that the newly minted citizens under CAB not be granted voting rights for 25 years. This is a tactical move, as it allows the Shiv Sena a tight-rope walk balancing its relationship with the BJP at the Center and the Congress and NCP in Maharashtra. In fact, once again genuflecting at Modi’s alter, perhaps out of habit, the Shiv Sena said, “Like Pakistan, PM Modi should teach a strong lesson to other neighbouring countries torturing the communities like Hindus, Sikhs, Christians, Parsis and Jains”. The piece added, “Now, he should ensure that these communities won’t have to leave their respective countries with his similar adventurous actions. This would help in strengthening the country’s internal security as well.” 

The Shiv Sena has 18 MPs in the Lok Sabha and only three MPs namely, Anil Desai, Rajkumar Dhoot and Sanjay Raut in the Rajya Sabha.

The post Shiv Sena slams CAB, accuses BJP of “invisible partition” appeared first on SabrangIndia.