Facebook India chief has submitted that the Delhi Assembly's committee does not have the Authority to compel him to appear before it, since the same issue was already before a parliamentary panel. @AamAadmiParty@ArvindKejriwal@LtGovDelhi@raghav_chadha
.@secondatticus is set to argue that
"is no law that empowers a State Legislature, including a committee formed by that Legislature, to take coercive action against any person unless it obstructs or impedes its legislative functions." #DelhiRiots
Salve: Privilege is something to be decided by the Assembly. A committee cannot decide whether action on privilege can be taken or not.
(Salve highlights that non presence of Mohan was said to be deemed as "breach of privilege" in the summons)
Salve: This is a serious threat.
Salve: Important points we make are two fold ~
- I have a right u/A 19, and
- The Right to free speech includes right not to speak.
Salve: As a house you may decide whatever you want to do but if I do not want to participate and give my views before the Committee then... And please consider I work for a US based company. I do not want to comment on this politically sensitive issue.
Salve: Wall Street journal has accused Facebook of favouring a certain party but I don't want to get into all this.
My Constitutional rights under Articles 19 and 21 are violated when I am forced to come on oath and give my views.
Salve: As a house they may form whatever committee to look into an issue but when they are forcing me to come on oath and give me views and opinions and testify at the threat of punishment, this is completely contradictory.
Salve: Breach of privilege is not exception under Article 19(2). Contempt of court, yes.
Justice Kaul: What is proposition you are making for which you are citing the judgment? We cannot decide this issue finally at this point which is why we posed the question.
Rohatgi: In the press conference they said that incriminating material was not taken down. If it was not taken down, then everyone has right to move the Court for it.
Everyday Facebook is told to take down material that is in violation of the laws. They could have gone to Court.
Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi is now arguing on behalf of the Respondent.
Singhvi: The case they are trying to make out, cannot be made out.
Justice Kaul: As far as notice is concerned, we are going to issue it. You argue on protective order or relief to be given or not.
Singhvi: Privilege and coercion is projected to get orders from My Lords.
Justice Kaul: You have given them the chance to by sending the orders (summons)
Singhvi: This person is called ONLY AS A WITNESS and no coercive steps...
Justice Kaul: If you are trying to change the legal tenor then it must be in those terms. You may have to take a stand for this Committee... You may have to file an affidavit to clarify this.
Singhvi: The points I am making that can be taken on record are ~
1. only as a witness 2. No coercive action 3. Reason Facebook is called, not as an accused, but want to get safeguard measures from them as to how the platform will not be misused.
Singhvi: He is only being summoned as a witness.
Justice Kaul: This is not what you have said in the notices. You have advised them, advise them better and issue better notices.
Singhvi: I will rectify the order and address the deficiencies that are bothering My Lords.
Justice Kaul: I'm sure you will be able to remedy the notice. And in that press conference, if you have said those things, then you will have to take a stand.
Singhvi argues that the transcript of the press conference read out is misleading because it intended to show that Facebook was misused.
Singhvi urges the Court to record his submissions and points out that Ajit Mohan was required to be present before the Committee today at 3. On account of the hearing, the meeting is deferred.
Singhvi assures the Court that he will file an affidavit addressing all the issues.
#SupremeCourt issues notice on Ajit Mohan's petition.
Court gives one weeks' time to the respondent to file counter affidavit.
Supreme Court records that the Committee will not hold a meeting qua this petition till further orders.
Karnataka HC hears suo motu PIL case registered in connection with June 4 Chinnaswamy Stadium Stampede which left 11 people dead and injured over 50 people. Track thread for updates. Matter before Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice CM Joshi.
Advocate General Shashi Kiran Shetty says judicial commission has now submitted its report covering most of the issues raised, which has to be placed before legislature which is slated to sit in August.
DNA's counsel tells Court that it has challenged judicial commission's report on ground that commission did not follow natural justice principles and DNA's reputation is being affected meanwhile.
Delhi High Court to decide on October 30 the petitions filed by Delhi riots accused Sharjeel Imam challenging trial court order framing charges and quashing of Delhi Police chargesheet in connection with the December 2019 Jamia University violence during the protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA).
Justice Sanjeev Narula briefly heard the matter today.
Advocate Talib Mustafa appearing for Imam - Revision petition is challenging the trial courtβs order on charge. All petitions arise of the same FIR. There is a separate writ petition also. Even prosecutors have come up against the same order.
Karnataka HC Division Bench hears appeal challenging single judge order directing National Law School of India University (NLSIU) Bengaluru to provide 0.5% reservation for transgender students in admissions until it comes out with its own transgender reservation policy.
Justices Anu Sivaraman and Rajesh Rai K are hearing the matter. Senior Advocate KG Raghavan appears for NLSIU, he says that the petitioner who whose plea the single judge order was passed was offered admission but he did not join and "missed the bus."
Raghavan: This was for the 3 year programme.
Raghavan tells Court that petitioner was told to pay the fee for admission to the course, and that he should fill financial aid form if he wished to avail financial aid.
Supreme Court takes suo motu cognisance of a media report highlighting deaths caused by rabies due to stray dog attacks on children and the elderly.
Bench: Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan
#SupremeCourt
Justice Pardiwala: This is a highly disturbing news report titled βCity hounded by strays and kids pay priceβ. It contains extremely troubling details.
Justice Pardiwala: There are reports of hundreds of dog bite incidents from both cities and peripheral areas, many of which have led to rabies infections
Supreme Court will today hear the plea filed by tainted Allahabad High Court judge JusticeΒ Yashwant VarmaΒ challenging the in-house committee report indicting him over the recovery of a large sum of unaccounted cash at his official residence in Delhi
#SupremeCourt #JusticeYashwantVarma
A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and AG Masih to hear the case today #SupremeCourt
Justice Varma has sought a declaration that the recommendation made by the former Chief Justice of India (CJI)Β Sanjiv KhannaΒ for his removal as High Court judge be declared unconstitutional andΒ ultra vires #YashwantVarma #SupremeCourt
Supreme Court to shortly hear the case pertaining to release of #UdaipurFiles movie
#SupremeCourt
The Central government on Thursday told the Supreme Court that the movie Udaipur Files is about a particular crime and not against any particular community
Justice Kant: Have you filed any Petition in HC? How did Mr Sibal say that it was filed. First go to HC and pursue and then come here. Now other side says he is satisfied with central govt order and he does not want to pursue the case here. So you go to HC now. Why waste our time.
Sr Adv Kapil Sibal: This can be transferred to the HC. I can go to the HC but matter was pending here.
Sr Adv Gaurav Bhatia: we are withdrawing it.
Sibal: that is fine ..we will challenge the Central govt order in HC