Shaheen Bagh Road Blockade: Certain section of society is aggreived by a law. Validity of law is pending in SC
We are not saying because it is pending in SC, people dont have right to protest.
The question is where to protest. It should not be a place like a street, remarks SC
Democracy works on expression of views. But there are lines and boundaries. They can protest and need not wait for SC Judgment. But issue is if road is the place to hold protests, says Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul.
#ShaheenBaghProtests: Alternate roads have been blocked leading to traffic, says lawyer for intervenor Chandra Shekhar Azad.
Are you as intervenor in a position to go to them and persuade them that to see if protests can be held without blocking the roads", Bench asks Chandra Shekhar Aazad.
#ShaheenBaghProtests: "We are not worried about protests as long as they are not blocking the roads", says Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul.
"They have a fundamental right to protest", remarks Justice KM Joseph.
#ShaheenBaghProtests: Solicitor General Tushar Mehta says protestors are keeping women and children at the front as shield.
#ShaheenBaghProtests: SC dictating order. Says the concern is not in this case alone. Anybody can resort to protests on public roads.
#ShaheenBaghProtests: Court asks Senior Counsel Sanjay Hegde to talk to protestors to persuade them against blocking roads. Hegde can take assistance from any other person.
#ShaheenBaghProtests: SG Tushar Mehta says message should not go that we have been brought to our knees.
#ShaheenBaghProtests: Right to protests has been recognised world over in democracies, especially in India. It is a fundamental right subject only to public order and security of state, says KM Joseph J.
Meanwhile, Senior Counsel Sanjay Hegde and advocate Sadhana Ramachandran to talk to protestors to persuade them to shift protests to an alternate site, says SC.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Sudarshan News and media regulation: Hearing commences before Supreme Court.
Centre has filed a fresh affidavit calling for regulation of digital media before the court takes up issue of regulation of TV channels.
Senior counsel Mukul Rohatgi is appearing on behalf News Broadcasters Federation which has sought impleadment in the matter.
Rohatgi says NBF is the largest body of tv channels in India with 160 members from different parts of the country.
He submits News Broadcasters Association is not representative of news channels and seeks permission to file an affidavit to put forth a self-regulatory mechanism.
Hearing against Sudarshan News commences before the Supreme Court.
Sanjay Hegde enters appearance on behalf of Zakaf Foundation of India.
"I have a watching brief in this matter. We are not a party to this matter," says Hegde.
Justice DY Chandrachud tells Hegde that Sudarshan News has raised substantial issues against Zakaf Foundation.
"But we are not here to investigate into your client. But Sudarshan News has sought to justify their programme on the grounds of your source of funding"
Sudarshan News and UPSC Jihad: Hearing commences before Supreme Court.
Sr. Counsel Anoop Chaudhuri appearing for petitioner says Sudarshan news has filed an affidavit with vague allegations and submits he wants to file a rejoinder.
Shyam Divan says it was difficult to file a detailed affidavit in two days. We (lawyers) are all in different locations.
We were ambushed by various applications/ interventions, he submits.
Sudarshan News files affidavit before Supreme court defending its programme Bindas Bol and the use of the term "UPSC Jehad".
The affidavit largely focuses on foreign funding received by Zakat Foundation, an orgnisation which supports civil service aspirants.
Sudarshan News has claimed that some such funds received by Zakat Foundation are from terror-linked organisations.
The organisations/ individuals named in the affidavit are Madina Trust, Muslim Aid (UK), Zakat Foundation of America and Zakir Naik
The affidavit says the TV channel has no ill-will against any particular community or individual and do not oppose selection of any meritorious candidate
"There is no statement or message in the four episodes broadcast thatmembers of a particular community should not join UPSC"
Supreme Court raises grave concerns about the manner in which debates are conducted by certain television channels.
Justice KM Joseph says many times panellists are not allowed to speak and anchor takes up most of the time and panellists are also half-muted.
Supreme Court berates Sudarshan news.
Here is one anchor who says one particular community is trying to gain access to UPSC. Can anything be more insidious than such claims. Such allegations affect stability of country and also casts aspersions on credibility of exam.
In the UPSC exam, all are subject to same tests, interviews and are assessed by same persons. But the insinuation is one community is trying to infiltrate the UPSC. Can such allegations without factual basis be allowed, asks Justice DY Chandrachud?