Democratic Institutions
Citizen vs State vs Liberty P Chidambaram on May 8, 2022 https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/citizen-vs-state-vs-liberty-7905914/
A Nation Waits
There are several cases pending in the Supreme Court of India touching upon liberty. Among them are:
- the demonetization case: can the State demonetise 86 per cent of the currency, without notice, depriving millions of people of food and medicines for several days?
- the electoral bond case: can the State make a law that provides for anonymous and unlimited donations to political parties by corporates (including loss-making companies) and ingeniously connects crony capitalism, corruption and contributions to the ruling party?
- the Lockdown: can the State impose a total lockdown without notice to the people and render millions without a home, food, water, medicine, money and means of travel to their permanent places of residence?
- Repeal of Article 370 of the Constitution: can the State dismember a state that had joined the Union under an Instrument of Accession into two sub-state units without obtaining the consent of the people or of the legislature of the state?
- Sedition: can the State slap charges of sedition under Section 124A of the IPC on any one who opposes or mocks the State’s actions?
- Encounters & Bulldozers: can the State employ methods like encounters and demolitions to quell dissent or protests by the people?There is a deliberate and determined attempt to strike at the very foundations of the Indian State. There is a stealthy attempt to deprive the people of their liberty and inalienable rights by chipping at the margins. In the World Press Freedom Index 2022, India has slipped to 150 among 180 countries. Vigilant citizens have knocked on the doors of the Supreme Court, the self-described sentinel on the qui vive.
Supreme Court Directs Uttarakhand Govt To Prevent Hate Speeches At Roorkee Dharam Sansad Mehal Jain 26 April 2022 https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/supreme-court-directs-uttarakhand-govt-to-take-measures-prevent-hate-speeches-at-roorkee-dharam-sansad-197539
The Supreme Court on Tuesday asked the Uttarakhand Government to take measures to prevent hate speeches in Dharam Sansad which has been planned at Roorkee27th April 2022. "You will have to take immediate action. Don't make us say something. There are other ways of preventive action. You know how to do it!",
A bench comprising Justices AM Khanwilkar, Abhay Sreeniwas Oka and CT Ravikumar was hearing an application filed by journalist Qurban Ali and Senior Advocate Anjana Prakash (former judge of Patna HC) seeking criminal action against alleged hate speeches made during Dharam Sansad meets.
https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2022/1152/1152_2022_3_9_35326_Order_26-Apr-2022.pdf "This application pertains to the event which has already taken place on 17th to 19 April 2022 in Una, state of Himachal Pradesh. Counsel for the state of Himachal Pradesh on instructions submits that necessary preventive measures were already taken and after the event, corrective steps as required in terms of the decisions of this court in Tehseen Poonawalla (2018) and a subsequent case have also been taken up by the concerned authorities. He prays for some time to place the same on record by way of affidavit. We direct that the affidavit of Secretary, home department be filed in that regard on or before me 7 of May 2022. List this application on May 9, 2022 along with connected cases.
During the course of hearing of this application, Mr Sibal pointed out that he has received instructions to state that an event has been planned at Roorkee of the same type for tomorrow and an application is being filed in the registry in the course of the day in that regard. Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand submits that all preventive measures have been taken as exposited in the decisions referred to above and the concerned authorities are more than confident that no untoward situation or unacceptable statements are made during such event and whatever is necessary in terms of the decisions of this court, all such steps will be taken by the concerned authorities. We direct the Secretary, Home Department, of the State of Uttarakhand to place the above position on record and to also to state about the corrective measures by the concerned authorities as and when required before the next date of hearing".
The Bombay High Court has held the Superintendent of Central Prison, Nagpur - Anupkumar M. Kumre - guilty of contempt and sentenced him to seven days' simple imprisonment for selectively denying prisoners emergency parole during the Covid pandemic.
The superintendent had denied 35 poor prisoners their residual fundamental right of emergency parole, most of whom could not afford to challenge the denial. On the other hand, six ineligible prisoners were released on emergency parole.
The bench observed that its real concern was the selective application of binding precedent of the court affecting the liberty of the prisoners and subversion of the rule of law.
How systemic issues like pendency sustain the Indian judiciary’s corruption problem https://theleaflet.in/judicial-accountability/how-systemic-issues-like-pendency-sustain-the-indian-judiciarys-corruption-problem At the heart of the matter are long standing ailments such as India’s massive case backlog of over 5 crore cases
The lack of transparency in judicial appointments, inadequate accountability mechanisms, and the judiciary’s resistance to external oversight further compound the issue. For example, the in-house mechanism for addressing judicial misconduct, overseen by the Chief Justice of India, has been criticised as opaque and ineffective, with no FIR permitted against a judge without the CJI’s approval. The courts are not too enthusiastic about providing information in RTI. ..
In Transparency International’s 2013 Global Corruption Barometer, 45 percent of surveyed households viewed the judiciary as corrupt, and when Indian respondents were asked to give a score between ‘1 to 5’ regarding how corrupt they believed the judiciary to be, Indians gave an average score of 3.3.
लोकसभा स्पीकर om birla का झूठ - mahua moitra ने संसद में खोली पोल -ashok Wankhede की रिपोर्ट ? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=doPDpb8FQaQ Apr 15, 2022
Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla on Monday pulled up TMC MP Mahua Moitra after she attributed certain remarks to the Chair on UAPA bill. The TMC MP, who took part in a discussion on the Criminal Procdeure (Identification) Bill, 2022, accused the Speaker of backing UAPA amendment bill when it was brought in the Parliament. The Speaker however took strong exception to TMC MP's remarks, suggesting he never made any comments and asked Moitra not to cite him without verifying. While TMC MP insisted that she was not misquoting the Speaker, two union minister slammed Moitra -- accusing her of false attribution. Watch the video https://hwnews.in/shows/news-report/what-did-mahua-moitra-say-that-made-lok-sabha-speaker-om-birla-angry-1349876
Uproar In Lok Sabha | BJP MPs Interrupt Mahua Moitra's Speech After She Quoted Speaker Om Birla https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xqKJxseiD8w
Apr 4, 2022 While speaking in the Lok Sabha during a discussion on the criminal procedure identification bill, 2022, Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra said that the UAPA has been misused. Moitra also quoted Speaker Om Birla during her speech, which led to protests from BJP MPs who interrupted her speech. Speaking on the bill, Moitra argued how this bill can prove to be "dangerous". Calling the provisions in the bill a "violation of fundamental rights", she urged Home Minister Amit Shah, who was present in the Lok Sabha during her address, to send the bill to a Standing Committee.
Opposition MPs join LS speaker Om Birla in criticising Mahua Moitra for disrespecting the post of Chair https://www.opindia.com/2022/02/opposition-mp-join-speaker-om-birla-in-criticising-mahua-moitra-for-disrespecting-post-of-chair/ 4 February, 2022 In a series of tweets posted yesterday, Mahua Moitra accused the Lok Sabha Speaker of interrupting her and not allowing her allotted time of 13 minutes to complete her speech.
Subcategories
Fourth Estate
For Free speech and Media Rights see Fundamental Rights under Civil Liberties