000-tobecategorised

The Supreme Court’s Order in Mahmudabad’s Case  https://indconlawphil.wordpress.com/2025/05/21/how-to-read-a-sentence-the-supreme-courts-order-in-mahmudabads-case/  Gautam Bhatia  One might expect that such a far-reaching order – that effaces two Article 19 rights (freedom of expression and freedom of movement) – would be supported by equally strong reasoning...The Court says that it is setting up this SIT “to holistically understand the complexity of the phraseology employed and for proper appreciation of some of the expressions used in these two online posts.” ...

Does the Constitution proscribe “unpatriotic” speech? Let us look at the constitutional text: specifically, Article 19(2). It immediately becomes clear that the Constitution does not proscribe unpatriotic speech, no matter what our personal views on the subject...

...I must therefore respectfully suggest that the Supreme Court’s order may not be entirely correct in law. The reasons for the constitution of the SIT are puzzling. The gag order is outside the Court’s jurisdiction. The confiscation of the passport appears excessive. In the meantime, it is reported that Mahmudabad’s laptop has been confiscated, and one therefore hopes that the Court’s order does not become an excuse for a roving and fishing enquiry by the police, going beyond the remit of the FIR.

How to Read a Sentence: The Supreme Court’s Order in Mahmudabad’s Case https://indconlawphil.wordpress.com/2025/05/21/how-to-read-a-sentence-the-supreme-courts-order-in-mahmudabads-case/ 
May 21, 2025 Gautam Bhatia One might expect the Court to explain why a Facebook post that fulsomely praised the Indian Armed Forces, before going on to gently suggest that the optics of having a Muslim woman army officer address the army’s press conference would remain only optics without addressing violence against Muslims, merits this judicial response of blood, thunder, and steel. One would search in vain. In its two-page order, the Supreme Court does not consider the substance of the allegations against Mahmudabad, and whether his Facebook post, on a plain reading, meets the ingredients of the offences that he has been accused of (and imprisoned for)...The Court says that it is setting up this SIT “to holistically understand the complexity of the phraseology employed and for proper appreciation of some of the expressions used in these two online posts.”

 Article 19(2). of the Constitution does not proscribe unpatriotic speech, no matter what our personal views on the subject. The reasons for this are two-fold, and they are important. First, what constitutes “patriotism” is deeply subjective, and not at all susceptible to judicial standards – certainly not enough to imprison a man over. 

the Constitution very sensibly does not outlaw “unpatriotic” speech: it, and the framers, recognised that it is futile to try and criminalise contested concepts out of existence. I believe this point important to make, because sometimes the effect of good legal strategy in a particular case can be to narrow the bounds of constitutional rights and freedoms for all other cases. In our desire to affirm Mahmudabad’s patriotism, thus, it is equally necessary to affirm that the Constitution is not in the business of compelling patriotism; it only steps in where speech constitutes incitement to violence or public disorder, and not before.

Faiz’s ‘Hum Dekhenge’ recited at Vira Sathidar memorial event, wife Pushpa & 2 others booked www.msn.com/en-in/news/India/faiz-s-hum-dekhenge-recited-at-vira-sathidar-memorial-event-wife-pushpa-2-others-booked/ar-AA1F9b5z 

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/05/obituaries/vira-sathidar-dead-coronavirus.html

Singing Faiz’s ‘Hum Dekhenge’ is ‘Sedition’: Nagpur Police Book Organisers of Vira Sathidar Memorial https://sabrangindia.in/singing-faizs-hum-dekhenge-is-sedition-nagpur-police-book-organisers-of-vira-sathidar-memorial/ Sukanya Shantha     May 20, 2025 A group of young cultural activists sang the lyrics of Faiz’s famous poem last week. The police complaint says, 'At a time when the country valiantly fought Pakistani forces, the radical left in Nagpur were busy singing Pakistani poet Faiz Ahmed Faiz’s poem.' 

 Sathidar, an accomplished actor, prolific writer, journalist, and political thinker, died on April 13, 2021, after battling COVID-19 for over a week. Satidhar was also an Ambedkarite and the editor of Vidrohi magazine. Since his passing, his wife, Pushpa, is one of the organisers of the annual memorial. A committee was formed after Sathidar’s death under the name ‘Vira Sathidar Smruti Samanvay Samiti’ which has been instrumental in organising the annual event. This year, social activist Uttam Jagirdar was invited to speak.

The FIR, filed by one local Nagpur resident Dattatray Shirke, cites a news report aired on ABP Majha, a Marathi channel. The channel was likely the first to find issue in reciting Faiz’s poetry in India. In his complaint, Shirke claims, “At a time when the country valiantly fought Pakistani forces, the radical left in Nagpur were busy singing Pakistani poet Faiz Ahmed Faiz’s poem.

Shirke further claims that the line “Takht hilaane ki zaroorat hai (a need to shake the throne)” constitutes a direct threat to the government. However, while the FIR quotes the above line, the actual line in the poem is “sab takht giraye jayenge”. The poem was performed by young Mumbai-based cultural activists from Samata Kala Manch.

Despite an ongoing stay by the Supreme Court on the application of sedition charges, the Nagpur police have booked the organisers and speakers under the section. On May 11, 2022, the apex court had issued a historic order, staying all pending trials, appeals, and proceedings under section 124-A of the Indian Penal Code until the sedition law’s re-examination was complete. Since then, the BJP-led government has replaced the IPC with the BNS. However, the new law does not eliminate the sedition provision. Instead, the BNS introduces Section 152, which closely resembles the sedition law without explicitly using the word ‘sedition’.