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
The Supreme Court on Monday (March 17) said that courts should not issue gag orders against media organisations and emphasised that fair criticism of a judicial order cannot be construed as contempt of court. 'Courts Can't Pass Gag Orders:' Says SC While Hearing ANI vs Wikipedia Case - The Wire
A bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan made the observations as it expressed concerns over a Delhi High Court directive requiring Wikipedia to remove within 36 hours a page that related to a pending defamation suit of Rs. 2 crore filed by news agency Asian News International (ANI) against the platform, reported Hindustan Times.
The bench also questioned the Delhi high court’s order in October last year which said that criticism of a judicial order by Wikipedia amounted to “interference in court proceedings.”
“Sometimes, someone says that you are sitting here with a preconceived mind or that you are not giving a proper hearing. People say things, and we have to tolerate it,” said the court.
18/03/2025
The letter, which is dated June 4, said the student was “involved directly in executing the play”, which was titled ‘Raahovan’, and also barred him from being recognised with “gymkhana awards”. https://thewire.in/education/iit-bombay-punishes-students-ramayana-play
The student was to pay the fine by July 30, the letter read, adding that “any violation of the above conditions [would] lead to further strictures”.
According to the Times of India, which cited a student, at least seven other students were punished for having some role in the play, with graduating students fined Rs 1.2 lakh and junior students fined Rs 40,000 and barred from using the IIT’s hostel facilities.
One associate of the punished students told the Indian Express that the play, which was performed in March, was a “feminist” reinterpretation of the Ramayana and that neither the audience nor the judges had objected to it.
But the IITBforBharat account claimed in a post last month that at least 40 students filed complaints against the play with the institute’s authorities, demanding the students involved in the play be penalised and that a “cultural council” apologise publicly, among others.
20/06/2024
On May 19, YouTuber and political commentator Dhruv Rathee posted a 29-minute video titled ‘The Narendra Modi Files | A DICTATOR Mentality?’.
https://thewire.in/rights/dhruv-rathee-modi-video-vasai-police-adesh-bansode
The video, like most of his work, went viral in no time and garnered over 15 million views. In this video, Rathee critically looks at Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s governance over the past two decades – first, as the chief minister of Gujarat and then as the country’s prime minister. He terms his approach “dictatorial”.
While the video continues to be widely shared across social media platforms, the Vasai-based Manikpur police have considered sharing of this video a “crime”.
The police have registered an FIR against Adesh Bansode, a city-based lawyer and also a state secretary of the Communist Party of India (Marxist–Leninist) for sharing the video on a WhatsApp group of lawyers.
A first information report was subsequently registered and Bansode was booked under section Section 188, 171 (F), 171 (G) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 123(4) of the Representation of the People Act (RPA). Section 188 applies when a person tends to or causes danger to human life with his disobedience; Section 171 (F) defines punishment for undue influence or personation at an election and Section 171 (G) is applied when a person makes false statement in connection with an election.
01/06/2024
Sixteen prominent academics released a statement expressing concern over the prolonged detention without trial of writers, journalists and activists who were critical of the Union government.
Nobel laureate Amartya Sen has voiced his support for this statement, among whose authors are author Amitav Ghosh and political philosopher Martha Nussbaum.
28/03/2024
Educate cops on free speech: Supreme Court quashes FIR on Article 370 protest, greeting Pakistan.
The bench of Justices A S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan said,
“Every citizen of India has a right to be critical of the action of abrogation of Article 370 and the change of status of Jammu and Kashmir.” It said “describing the day the abrogation happened as a ‘Black Day’ is an expression of protest and anguish. If every criticism or protest of the actions of the State is to be held as an offence under Section 153-A, democracy, which is an essential feature of the Constitution of India, will not survive”.
Section 153-A of the Indian Penal Code penalises “promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony”
“The right to dissent in a legitimate and lawful manner is an integral part of the rights guaranteed under Article 19 (1) (a). Every individual must respect the right of others to dissent. ..“But the protest or dissent,” it said, “must be within four corners of the modes permissible in a democratic set-up...Pointing to “the WhatsApp status of the appellant” Hajam, it said, “This is an expression of his individual view and his reaction to the abrogation of Article 370 of the Constitution of India” and “does not reflect any intention to do something which is prohibited under Section 153-A. At best, it is a protest, which is a part of his freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a).”..
Setting aside the High Court ruling, the bench said “the High Court has held that the possibility of stirring up the emotions of a group of people cannot be ruled out… “The test to be applied,” it said, is “not the effect of the words on some individuals with weak minds or who see a danger in every hostile point of view. The test is of the general impact of the utterances on reasonable people who are significant in numbers. Merely because a few individuals may develop hatred or ill will, it will not be sufficient to attract clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 153-A of the IPC”.
Subcategories
Right to Life Article Count: 0
Right to Privacy Article Count: 12
Free Speech Article Count: 61
Ban on films, documentaries by Government e.g documentary on PM by BBC. Debate on censorship, opinion, statements by media people, leaders, screening of film on Modi at universities etc.