Read Bombay HC order in #ArnabGoswami case. Some thoughts :
1. With respect to FIR on report on Palghar lynching, I tend to agree with reasoning that it may not strictly come under offence of communal incitement, as it was primarily against Congress.
2. But with respect to FIR on report on migrants gathering in Bandra, I have some disagreements. As per the transcript of the debate recorded in the order, Goswami linked the gathering to a Masjid at Bandra and asked why there was a "pattern" of crowds gathering near mosques.
3. Remember, this was happening in the middle of a vile communal campaign following Tablighi Jamaat issue. Clearly, Goswami was tapping into such communal sentiments. He uses dog whistle codes of 'traitors' 'anti nationals'.
4.He had given a communal spin to an incident of migrants gathering on the hope of getting trains, by highlighting the mere presence of a mosque. He manufactured a baseless news with communal overtone. If such a news amid an already communally charged atmosphere does not attract
..Section 153A/153B IPC, I don't know what would.
5. The inference from the show is that a particular minorit group is following a pattern of violating lockdown to harm the country.And this is built on a fake news too. Is it not clear Sec 153A/153B? #ArnabGoswami #RepublicTV
6. Court lets him off the hook saying that he had said during the show that he would have said the same thing, if it had happened in a temple. I don't understand how such a hypothetical statement effaces the effects of the hate speech and communal camping already made.
7. Court's conclusion of "no prima facie case" is based on analysing the statements in isolation, without understanding the real background and context.
8. It is distressing that clear, calculated communal speeches are let off without penal consequences. The HC order in the Arnab Goswami case sends a wrong signal by emboldening proponents of hate speech.
OpIndia @OpIndia_com has published an article written by its Chief Editor Nupur Sharma @UnSubtleDesi targeting LiveLaw @LiveLawIndia. The article is malicious, factually wrong & a blatant misrepresentation of the court proceedings, which can amount to contempt of court. Thread
The summary of the mischievous article is that LiveLaw, in its ‘X’ handle, posted misinformation about a petition filed by Sharjeel Imam.
The thread below will explain how the OpIndia article is terribly wrong.
LiveLaw had posted that Sharjeel Imam’s petition regarding bail in the Delhi riots larger conspiracy case was listed before a bench of Justices Bela Trivedi & SC Sharma on October 22. LiveLaw had also updated that the matter was posted to Oct 25 as it was not taken up that day.
#Thread on the South African Constitutional Court judgment allowing a Tamil Hindu girl to wear nose-stud in school as a cultural practice, which was cited by Sr Adv Kamat in #HijabBan case. Remarkable the manner in which SA court upheld minority rights & cultural diversity.
An interesting aspect from the South African judgment was that it did not go into whether wearing of the nose-stud was an essential or mandatory practice. What matters is if it is a "sincere belief".
Differentiating between mandatory and voluntary practice falls short of Constitutional project which promotes and celebrates diversity. We cannot celebrate diversity by permitting it only when no other option remains - what a beautiful exposition
Petitioner : Expelling student for not wearing uniform disproportionate.
Bench : You're not expelled.
Petitioner : I'm denied entry. Same effect as expulsion.
Bench : If someone expelled from train for not having ticket, can it be termed disproportionate? #HijabBan#KarnatakaHC
A good judgement to read on #MayDay is the 2020 SC judgment which quashed the Gujarat Govt order exempting Factories from paying overtime wages to workers. The Court emphatically said that " a workers’ right to life cannot be contingent on the mercy of employer
or the State"
Notably, the judgment acknowledged that labour rights are "hard won" rights which cannot be diluted citing the excuse of pandemic.
State cannot permit exploitation of workers making their "hard won" rights illusory, SC said. #MayDay2021
During pandemic, State should be more protective of workers than diluting their rights citing difficulties of employer.
"...financial losses cannot be offset on the weary shoulders of
the laboring worker, who provides the backbone of the economy", the Court said.
Scenes from a court after fundamental rights have been linked to fundamental duties.
Lawyer : My client has been jailed for writing against the government.
Judge : Why would anyone write against the govt? Is it something expected of a good citizen?
Lawyer : No my lord. But it may be seen that my client is a dutiful citizen. He has donated to the PMCARES . Has installed all apps of govt. He signs national anthem before movies. Regularly watches republic day parades and the channels of the Republic.
Judge : Oh okay. In that case, bail granted subject to condition that he will use social media only to retweet national leaders for next 10 days.
"once we perform our duties, rights will automatically be safeguarded"
So on this #ConstitutionDay what do we see : 1. Nearly 10 lakh people in JK denied rights to access 4G internet despite SC pronouncements on proportionality principle. 2. Discussions about bringing State monitoring over citizens' decisions to choose life partner and religion.
3. A Supreme Court which is getting increasingly wary of holding the executive to account to the constitution. 4. Increased state intolerance towards citizen movements and protests. Use of sedition, NSA, UAPA to crack down dissent. #ConstitutionDay
5. Parliament which acts like a rubber stamp passing laws without effective discussions. 6. Increased impunity for hate speech against minorities. 7. Election Commission not doing anything to control brazen communal propaganda in elections.