000-tobecategorised

S S on Whatsapp: 23.08.23
rteoSsdonpigm0t910lhf52hi3fu63cflc197g16u1692mc3g7iug61gufga ·
Following their recent intervention at the private event in the HKS Bhavan in Delhi where several citizens had gathered to discuss some pressing issues, within closed doors, the Delhi Police needs to put out an announcement, in the public interest, about what kind of conversations it thinks can be had, between consenting adults, within private spaces, homes, offices, etc. that will not, henceforth, attract its punitive and restrictive attention.
While I am aware of section 144 of the IPC (which remains operational in a state of suspended animation until the draft text of the Bharatiya Nyaya Samhita translates into actual law) and that it can restrict the number of people who can gather in a public space, I am not aware of the exact police powers that can prevent invited people from gathering in a non-public space. For reasons of transparency, so that we all know what’s what, we should be informed of what we can or cannot do, can or cannot say, in private spaces, in Amrit Kaal.
Is, for instance, a conversation at the dining table within a home, or at lunch time amongst colleagues in a workplace, about, say, the price of tomatoes, permissible, or, can that be construed to constitute a threat to the security of the state?
Is the whisper of pillow talk, overheard through the paper-thin walls of a hostel room or apartment, over a post-coital cigarette, about the resignation of a professor after something that they had written, likely, now, to attract an unexpected midnight knock? Should people, just to be abundantly cautious, apply for anticipatory bail before indulging in pillow talk?
Perhaps, to make things clearer and easier, the Delhi Police could also publish a set of guidelines about permitted silent gestures. So that citizens do not, inadvertently let slip an unauthorised raised eyebrow, an illegitimate refusal to smile, or an untimely roll of the eyes, that can detract from the dignity of India’s G20 Presidency, or from the majesty of some other important national initiative.
Next, it should also inform us about permissible and impermissible thoughts, feelings and stray hunches, that remain unexpressed, but in circulation, within the consciousness and interiority of individuals, without ever finding public expression.
I ask this because I am sure that the Delhi Police and it’s masters in the Ministry of Homicidal Affairs know well that a silence that simmers, contagiously and continuously, can be just as ‘subversive’, in the long run, as speech

In another blow to academic freedom at the Indian Institute of Science (IISc), Bangalore, civil rights activist Teesta Setalvad was initially denied entry to the institute on Wednesday, where she was scheduled to give a talk. The faculty intervened after the institute’s security tried to block her entry, the Telegraph reported.

https://thewire.in/education/iisc-disallows-teesta-setalvads-talk-on-communal-harmony-faculty-intervenes 

17/08/2023

Monopolies and the Constitution: A History of Crony Capitalism by Steven G. Calabresi https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/facultyworkingpapers/214/

Despite the post New Deal rational basis mindset, this article has shown that state antimonopoly clauses in particular have
proven to be important for striking down a number of economic regulations that grant special
privileges to some at the expense of others—licensing requirements, taxes designed to benefit
preferred industries, monopolies to do business with the government, and price controls designed
to benefit insiders. Antimonopoly clauses can also be used to strike down laws such as licensing
requirements where the court finds that the laws grant special privilege absent any health and
safety concerns.

The right to compete, and more fundamentally, the right to earn an honest living, is a
basic right embodied in U.S. constitutional law. There is substantial evidence, from the English
and colonial history, from debates on the federal constitution and its ratification, from the history
of the Fourteenth Amendment, and from state constitutional law, to show that this is the case.
However, the longstanding use of rational basis review has meant that the courts have too often
surrendered to a legislative process that is dominated by well-entrenched interest groups seeking
monopoly rents from the state. It means that fundamental economic liberties too often go
unprotected by the courts. In short, the use of rational basis review has meant that “property is at
the mercy of the pillagers.”485 As this article has shown, however, “the constitutional guarantee
of liberty deserves more respect—a lot more.