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.
#SupremeCourt hears plea by BRS President and former Chief Minister K Chandrashekar Rao challenging the Telangana High Court's decision to dismiss his petition against a commission formed by the state government
Sr Adv Mukul Rohatgi: Plain case of political vendetta. Every time the government changes there is a case against the former chief minister
CJI DY Chandrachud: we will clarify that by calling it judicial enquiry they cannot take it outside the scope of the commission @TSwithKCR
Rohatgi: you cannot fix responsibility in a fact finding commission. This was for approval of tariff ..there was a power crisis and thus state bought power from state of chhatisgarh and thus the PPA needed approval from Chhattisgarh state commission and Telangana state commission.
Supreme Court DISMISSES plea by Deputy CM of Karantaka DK Shivakumar to quash CBI's disproportionate assets case against him under provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
A bench of Justices Bela Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma heard the matter.
Trivedi J: How High Can stay the sanction order granted by government? This is unheard of.
Senior Adv Rohatagi (for Shivakumar): That is withdrawn already.
Trivedi J to State: That is different thing but how High Court can grant such order?
Senior Adv Rohatagi (for Shivakumar): We are on a new question, the ground is this court has held that if the predicate offence is only conspiracy, it cannot be a stand alone offence and it has to be added by some other offence as well. I am questioning the FIR lodged by CBI which is completely illegal. I am not on any part by ED. I am on the FIR dated 3.10.20 under PC Act by CBI. Section 17A which has come in 2018 requirement has not been fulfilled (referring to split verdict of Justice Trivedi and Justice Bopanna)
Trivedi J: We cannot quash the case on the basis of split verdict by this court.
Senior Adv Rohatagi: But one judge has ruled in our favor.
Trivedi J: So what, that cannot be the basis of quashing. No quashing at all.
Kejriwal was granted bail by the trial court on Thursday (June 20). The High Court put an interim stay on his bail the next day, after ED challenged the order.
On the same day, Justice Jain reserved his verdict on ED's stay application.
Delhi High Court orders removal of tweets by Congress leaders Ragini Nayak, Jairam Ramesh, and Pawan Khera alleging that journalist Rajat Sharma abused Nayak on live-television.
High Court holds that Congress leaders over-sensationalised the incident and did not remain truthful.
"It cannot be denied that the citizens have a right to freedom of Speech and expression but there was also a corresponding duty to remain truthful to the incident. The X posts berating the plaintiff are nothing but an oversensationalization and depiction of facts which are patently false," the court said.