Fundamental Rights
Fundamental Rights
'What Law have I violated" - Meet the Cartoonist who got a Twitter notice after Govt. complained https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFWZLJaWWII Manjul has critiqued nine Prime Ministers through his cartoons- spanning the years between Rajiv Gandhi and Narendra Modi.. This past week he got a notice from Twitter saying they had been informed by "law enforcement " that his cartoon ( which he shared online ) was in violation of the law. Twitter has not taken any action against him yet or removed his content but said it was merely informing him of the development. He tweeted : “This cartoonist is a sinner, an atheist, and doesn’t consider Modiji as a god.”
Justice (retired) BN Srikrishna, who has chaired a committee of experts on data protection, has told The Indian Express that he is alarmed by the surveillance of phones of Indian human rights activists, lawyers, journalists, and scholars by operatives using a WhatsApp spyware called Pegasus. Asked what the government should do to prevent illegal snooping, Srikrishna said: “Generate strong public opinion against what you see as a clear onslaught on democratic and constitutional rights of citizens.”
Srikrishna was appointed to head the data protection committee on July 31, 2017. The following month, in a landmark decision in the Puttaswamy case, the Supreme Court unanimously upheld right to privacy as a fundamental right under Constitution.
Comment : Unfortunately in 2012, we are seeing this interpreted as the government's right to ask platforms to keep information on originators of posts ( ie asking platforms to do the surveillance for them), through a single point of contact (whom they can influence) without actually setting up a proper law on privacy, or norms and procedures for grievance redressal, as well as transparency and public disclosure of the decisions taken..
Speaking at a poll rally in Kochi, on 24th, ahead of the April 6 state elections. Home MInister said.. “Those involved in the Jhansi nuns’ harassment incident will be brought before the law. I want to assure the people of Kerala that the culprits behind this incident will be brought to justice at the earliest,” https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/shah-promises-action-as-row-over-nuns-harassment-in-up-intensifies-101616612718284.html
Home Minister Amit Shah Friday (26th March in Gauhati) said if the BJP comes to power, laws will be implemented in Assam against “love jihad” and “land jihad”, " Shah assured that “refugees would be granted citizenship, while infiltrators will be thrown out” — https://indianexpress.com/elections/amit-shah-love-land-jihad-elections-7246974/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RG5rNtoS7E
Open Letter from A J Philip.." I saw the video of your party MP, Shri KJ Alphons, meekly submitting a memorandum to you to demand action when you visited his constituency to campaign for him. Has the situation come to such a pass that a BJP MP has to ask the Union Home Minister to take action against the miscreants involved in the attack on the nuns?"
Alas, what we saw in Jhansi are the policemen dancing to the whimsical tunes of your young party workers. They are a bigger threat to the rule of law than the bigots who claim to be the defenders of the Hindu faith...,,Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath and your party have empowered them to harass anyone of their choice like the innocent nuns by enacting notorious laws like the anti-conversion law and the anti-love jihad law. ..
Soon after Yogi became Chief Minister, a group of Christian clergy led by a Saffron-wearing Christian scholar and former IAF officer called on him at his official residence. They had a cold reception there. To break the ice, one of them said that peace was the need of the hour.
Immediately, the CM retorted: “You should teach Christians and Muslims about peace and co-existence. We Hindus believe in Vasudaiva Kudumbakam (the world is one family). You can do whatever but if you convert even one person, I will break your legs”. Crudeness could not have been bolder. It is the same mindset that you have created which is responsible for what happened at Jhansi.
Patricia Mukhim's Facebook post -- “This continued attack on non-tribals in Meghalaya, whose ancestors have lived here for decades, some having come here since the British period is reprehensible to say the least,” Mukhim had written. “The fact that such attackers and trouble mongers since 1979 have never been arrested and if arrested never penalised according to law, suggests that Meghalaya has been a failed state for a long time now.” https://scroll.in/article/978765/patricia-mukhim-interview-one-cannot-be-too-guarded-when-one-is-in-the-pursuit-of-truth
https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/free-speech-citizens-criminal-cases-supreme-court-171739 reports some observations of the Supreme court..
"The intention to cause disorder or incite people to violence is the sine qua non of the offence under Section 153 A IPC and the prosecution has to prove the existence of mens rea in order to succeed. The gist of the offence under Section 153 A IPC is the intention to promote feelings of enmity or hatred between different classes of people. The intention has to be judged primarily by the language of the piece of writing and the circumstances in which it was written and published. The matter complained of within the ambit of Section 153A must, be read as a whole. One cannot rely on strongly worded and isolated passages for proving the charge nor indeed can one take a sentence here and a sentence there and connect them by a meticulous process of inferential reasoning.
"The first test was for the Courts to apply the hate speech prohibition objectively and in so doing, ask whether a reasonable person, aware of the context and circumstances, would view the expression as exposing the protected group to hatred. The second test was to restrict interpretation of the legislative term "hatred" to those extreme manifestations of the emotion described by the words "detestation" and "vilification". This would filter out and protect speech which might be repugnant and offensive, but does not incite the level of abhorrence, de-legitimization and rejection that risks causing discrimination or injury. The third test was for Courts to focus their analysis on the effect of the expression at issue, namely, whether it is likely to expose the targeted person or group to hatred by others. Mere repugnancy of the ideas expressed is insufficient to constitute the crime attracting penalty."
The bench observed that only where the written or spoken words have the tendency of creating public disorder or disturbance of law and order or affecting public tranquility, the law needs to step in to prevent such an activity.
Less than two years after he stepped down as Vice-Chancellor, noted scholar, political scientist and commentator Pratap Bhanu Mehta resigned as professor from Ashoka University Tuesday. Mehta, who is also Contributing Editor, The Indian Express, has consistently, in his writing and public appearances, questioned the ruling establishment. He is considered one of the nation’s foremost scholars on politics and political theory, Constitutional law, governance and political economy.
Asked by The Indian Express if his criticism of the government had anything to do with his exit, the university sidestepped the question.
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
Subcategories
Right to Life Article Count: 0
Right to Privacy Article Count: 12
Free Speech Article Count: 62
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.