Fundamental Rights
Fundamental Rights
SURVEILLANCE TO DEMOCRATIC NORMS AND FULL TRANSPARENCY
We believe that the Pegasus spyware is intended to create a chilling effect on freedom of speech which is a brazen constitutional undercutting. Article 19 of the Indian Constitution is the bedrock of a healthy society - people freely able to speak their mind - even when their opinions might go against the majoritarianview or contrarian to establishment is key to overall progress. The Socialist Party (India) stands by its commitment to protecting free speech from due-process-free government intrusion. It especially is against dragnet surveillance. The use of surveillance technology on any resident by any government authority should pass through case-by-case judicial oversight - securing a magistrate’s warrant every time before deploying to use, and never be used for political reasons. Aggregate numbers under surveillance should be available periodically as parliamentary reports. Queries under Right to Information Act should respond fully to requests for warrants from magistrates once the case is adjudicated or not brought to trial. Use of taxpayer funds should always be transparent and subject to independent audit. We will support laws that allow protection to whistleblowers who expose government overreach.
Socialist Party (India) demands that the Prime Minister Office immediately issue an apology acknowledging its shameful role in ecognition of this privacy-abusive and abjectly illegal unconstitutional deployment of surveillance of civil society persons, that the Government of India will identify and issue punitive measures against all government leadershipi nvolved in these egregious violations of Indian Telegraph Act,and the Information Technology (IT) Act, 2000 and commit publicly henceforth to use of solely democratic means including explicitly seeking legislative approval for taxpayer based funding for procurement of such tools, followed by full public and parliamentary debate leading to reform of existing laws leading to lawful targeted surveillance under a judicial warrant.
Endorsed by:
Venkatesh Narayanan, Software technology management professional, Mumbai
SandeepPandey, General Secretary, Socialist Party (India)
LubnaSarwath, Member, National Committee, Socialist Party (India)
ManojSarang, Spokesperson, Socialist Party (India)
BobbyRamakant, Spokesperson, Socialist Party (India)
EitayMack, Human Rights Lawyer, Israel
Why we need to be concerned about the DNA Bill? https://gaurilankeshnews.com/why-we-need-to-be-concerned-about-the-dna-bill/https://gaurilankeshnews.com/why-we-need-to-be-concerned-about-the-dna-bill/ Manavi Atri |
September 10, 2021
The DNA Bill is drowning in vagueness, setting out to make a database of our DNA that renders us vulnerable to targeting and must be opposed.
The stated objective of the Bill is to regulate the use of DNA to identify victims, offenders, suspects, undertrials, missing persons and unknown deceased persons. The category of “suspect” is neither defined by the bill nor by the Indian legal system. This ambiguity in the very meaning of “suspects” allows for an arbitrariness of the State giving it a free hand to collect the DNA of anyone the State thinks is suspect. There is no end to who all can be suspects and without a definition anyone under the sun, can be considered one.
Using DNA for the civil matters such as “issues relating to pedigree, immigration and emigration, establishment of individual identity”, indicate the clear intentions of the State. As Dr Usha Ramanathan articulates, these are political categories and not legal categories. This bill is an attempt to make these political categories definitive. We must keep in mind the recent Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019 and NRC process to understand these political categories.
Delhi High Court stand on Right to be Forgotten explained - Haryana Civil Judge Exam, HPSC Judicial https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEPZgVwaUD4 Sep 2, 2021
SC Upholds TISS Scholar’s Suspension but Reduces Term to Time Already Served By Law Trend May 2, 2025 https://lawtrend.in/sc-upholds-tiss-scholars-suspension-but-reduces-term-to-time-already-served/
A bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Manmohan observed that although the disciplinary action taken by TISS was legally valid and supported by documentary evidence,
A bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Manmohan observed that although the disciplinary action taken by TISS was legally valid and supported by documentary evidence, the interest of justice would be served by allowing the scholar to resume his academic pursuits.
Ramadas, who was pursuing a PhD in Development Studies, was suspended by an empowered committee of TISS on April 17, 2024, for a period of two years and barred from entering any of the institute’s campuses. The disciplinary action stemmed from his alleged involvement in a protest at Delhi’s Jantar Mantar and the screening of a documentary film on the Ayodhya dispute, which the institute claimed violated its honour code and rules.
Senior advocate S Muralidhar, appearing for Ramadas, challenged the disciplinary action, but the Bombay High Court dismissed his plea on March 12, 2024.
Comments: The bench was Justice Dipankar Dutta (ex CJ Bombay high court) and Justice Manmohan (ex CJ Delhi high court).
They ordered that the suspension will not continue any longer and that Ramadas be allowed to continue to with his phd. They neither passed order upholding it nor setting it aside. They said they are not getting into it but are taking a broader approach since he has already suffered loss of one academic year and should not be deprived of his education any further.
Basically, the powers that be do not want judgement on Students right to protest. I am thinking of Rohit Vemula and his velivada protest. He also was a "scholar". We recently celebrated the life of Sanjay Sanghvi, who started his political life fifty years ago with the Xavierian Union agitation and Indira Jaisingh fought tooth and nail to establish the right to protest, against the College Management, refusing admission the next year . Unfortunately, she was robbed of a proper judgement, on the issue of right to protest, as the powers that be forced a midnight "settlement: agreement".
A day after a district magistrate (DM) imposed a blanket ban on protests and public gatherings in Kishtwar district of Jammu and Kashmir, a court on Tuesday (February 11) set aside the “imperialistic” order saying that peaceful protest was “integral part of healthy democracy”. https://thewire.in/law/protests-part-of-healthy-democracy-kishtwar-court-stays-dm-order-banning-public-gatherings
In its order, the court of principal sessions judge in Kishtwar said that the section 163 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, can’t be invoked on “flimsy grounds in the absence of substantial material on record”.
“A blanket ban (on protests) in the whole district (of Kishtwar) impeaches upon the basic fundamental freedom of the citizens and smacks (of) imperialistic attitude and could not stand the test of reason,” the court said, while staying the order.
by Jehangir Ali
12/02/2025
Retired Indian Police Services officer S.R. Darapuri is among six activists who were arrested on October 11 for protesting at a Commissioner’s officer in Uttar Pradesh’s Gorakhpur district with the demand that Dalit families in the state get an acre of land each, Indian Express has reported.
https://thewire.in/government/uttar-pradesh-gorakhpur-darapuri-arrested
“I came yesterday to attend the public meeting organised by the Gorakhpur Ambedkar Jan Morcha regarding issues of Dalit communities and civil rights and the meeting was concluded peacefully. This morning Gorakhpur police came to take me to the police station,” Darapuri wrote on Facebook on October 11.
13/10/2023
Sanjay Rana asked Gulab Devi multiple questions on promises she had made before the elections. After 30 hours in jail, he got bail from a sub-divisional magistrate on March 14.
According to The Quint, an FIR was filed against Rana under Indian Penal Code Sections 323 (Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt), 504 (Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace) and 506 (Punishment for criminal intimidation).
14/03/2023
Jawaharlal Nehru University has put in place new rules that appear to be an attempt to thwart campus protests. Students can be fined up to Rs 20,000 for holding dharnas, and have their admission cancelled or be fined up to Rs 30,000 if they hold gheraos or are accused of violence.
2/03/2023
Right to protest- A Fundamental Right and Types of Protest https://currentaffairs.adda247.com/right-to-protest/
In this article, we have highlighted the Right to Protest and the restrictions of the right to Protest.
Posted bypriyankadasgupta Published On May 24th, 202