Retired Supreme Court judge Justice Madan Lokur speaking about free speech and role of judiciary in the backdrop of Prashant Bhushan contempt case.
Lokur says many citizens expressing their views think they are within the limits of free speech while state thinks the citizens are transgressing the limits.
So what can citizens do? They cannot take to streets or resort to violence. They can only continue to speak.
The state then resort to measures like charging such citizens with the offence of sedition.
Sedition is being used as an iron hand to curb free speech which is an over reaction to people expressing views.
Sedition is a serious offence. It was used against great persons like Bal Gangadhar Tilak, says justice Lokur.
Justice Lokur refers to sedition cases in Punjab etc.
Lokur J says many people are put in jail on the ground that what citizens say is fake news.
Another way in which free speech is curbed is by misreading the statements of citizens, says Lokur J.
Lokur J refers to a case from UP where a speech calling for unity and integrity of country was used to keep the person who gave the speech in preventive detention on the ground that speech was against integrity. He was released by Allahabad HC.
(The case is of Dr. Kafeel Khan).
"On the other hand, those who call for violence and breaking up things, nothing happens to them", says justice Lokur.
Lokur J. highlights Pendency and non- transparency as two issues which are plaguing judiciary.
Judiciary has to be transparent.
There are 3 crore cases pending in Indian courts. Judiciary has to prioritise its concerns. It has to tell is what it is doing, says Lokur J.
As regards Prashant Bhushan's case, Lokur J. says it was an expression of his opinion.
Advocate Prashant Bhushan will deposit Rs. 1 fine with the Supreme Court registry today.
He is addressing the media outside SC. He maintains that the fact that he is depositing fine does not mean he agrees with SC judgment and will contest the judgment in review petition.
• • •
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?