For months the Centre has rejected to reply to imp RTI queries like EVERYTHING related to d powerful COVID-19 Expert Committee, Vaccines, & more. Documenting it in this thread.
A cut-copy-paste reply to all- "threat to strategic, scientific, economic interests"
1/8
In this reply, @MoHFW_INDIA refuses to reveal any minutes, any agendas, even members of the Committee until recently, any file noting, what work it is undertaking, etc. The same cut, copy, paste answer
D Committee is steering the country's fight against COVID, & vaccination
2/8
On how the vaccines were cleared, based on what data it was cleared, minutes of the Expert committee meetings, and also on what basis @DGCAIndia claimed "110% safe vaccines", the CDSCO under MoHFW too, rejected the RTIs. @drharshvardhan@MoHFW_INDIA 3/8
As Govts and people demand vaccination for all, the Govt refuses to reveal on what basis it restricted vaccination for adults below 60 without co-morbidities.
This, while India exported d highest number of Vaccines to the world while restricting vaccinations in India.
4/8
Again, the cut, copy, paste reply for details, including the creation of the CoWIN App.
Remember, Ministry is supposed to justify rejection of info on sound grounds. Simply invoking exemptions without giving reasons for doing so, is illegal. But sadly...
5/8
On Co-WIN App's source code, the same cut, copy, paste reply.
6/8
Add to these more imp queries like details of bilateral agreements into which India has entered for vaccine supply, purchase agreements with vaccine manufacturers, working of the Joint Monitoring Group, foreign shipments,
all are denied under same cut, copy, paste reply.
7/8
...under "threat to strategic, scientific, economic interests of India", which is Section 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act, also the most misused provision of the law.
Without transparency, there are a lot of problems that ultimately people will have to face and that'll harm us.
8/8
What is very clear, however, is that the Centre is very hostile towards RTIs.
Not saying this without proof-
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
If the nation’s highest judicial chair is surrendered to a candidate of gravely doubtful integrity, Chief Justice B.R. Gavai’s name will be etched as the man who bartered it away.
Will he now hold any moral authority to invoke the ideals of Babasaheb Ambedkar in his many lectures? To preside over compromise of possibly the highest evil while preaching constitutional fidelity would be nothing short of desecration.
The government was very keen on elevating Justice Vipul M. Pancholi to the Supreme Court in May 2025. However, Justice Nagarathna and with Justice Vikram Nath opposed. Justice Nagarathna stood her ground and blocked the proposal.
The government relented only when she, and the rest of the Collegium, agreed to Karnataka High Court Chief Justice N.V. Anjaria’s elevation to the Supreme Court. Anjaria’s parent High Court is also Gujarat.
Justice Nagarathna was apparently assured that a compromise on Anjaria meant that Pancholi’s candidature would be shelved.
However, to her utter surprise, Chief Justice Pancholi’s name surfaced again, mere three months later, and the other Collegium members—Chief Justice Gavai, and Justices Surya Kant, Nath, and J.K. Maheshwari—voted in his favour.
Surendra Gadling’s bail application has become a Kafkaesque file in the Supreme Court. It appears on the cause list, only to vanish. It is mentioned, only to be deferred. It is scheduled, only to be adjourned. The judge presiding over it, Justice M.M. Sundresh, has turned the very act of not hearing into a form of adjudication. A 🧵.
Gadling, a human rights activist, has been in jail under UAPA charges in the Bhima Koregaon case for over seven years now. His bail in another case of arson from 2016 was rejected by the Bombay High Court in February 2023. His appeal has since been pending in the Supreme Court, without a hearing.
The bail plea has been listed 17 times since it was first filed in August 2023.
Of them, 13 times before Justice Sundresh’s bench.
Four times, the matter was not listed despite a promise to list.
When liberty itself is at stake, such judicial lethargy begins to look less like a usual delay and more like a deliberate design.
Once again, a Chief Justice of India finds himself in the throes of a propriety crisis. An important case has somehow made its way before Chief Justice Gavai’s bench, in violation of Supreme Court’s own rules and convention.
Chief Justice Gavai must face an uncomfortable question: Is he any better than his predecessors?
The controversy stems from the aftermath of a remarkable May 2025 judgment known as the Vanashakti case, delivered by a Bench headed by Justice Abhay Oka, consisting Justice Ujjal Bhuyan.
In short, the judgment struck down as “illegal” a 2017 and 2021 procedure systemised by the Environment Ministry for ex-post facto environmental clearance. Any company that failed to get env clearance *prior* to starting the project could do so under the regime after paying a penalty.
2/16
The judgment held this system—which legalised the corporates’ sins later by obtaining clearance post hoc—to be illegal. Remarkably, it also restrained the Union Government from coming up with a similar system in future. Justice Oka retired shortly after this judgment.
The many analyses explaining the Aam Aadmi Party’s poll debacle in Delhi are missing one important player – the Supreme Court. While it dilly-dallied on fixing the grave constitutional crisis, governance suffered. A thread.
It’s not that AAP has never delivered on its promises; Delhi’s health and education landscape saw great changes. But, beginning 2015, bit by bit, the elected government’s powers to govern had been taken away by the Union government, and the judiciary allowed this to happen.
It began in May 2015, with a circular that took away the newly elected @ArvindKejriwal government. What followed was a contentious battle in court. Several hurdles were posed by the bureaucrats. Read more about this in the piece.
It is rather rich of the Supreme Court to preach morality when, not too long ago, not a single Supreme Court judge publicly objected to their Chief Justice presiding over cases despite serious allegations of sexual harassment. 1/10
The condition imposed on @BeerBicepsGuy and "his associates" to not air "any shows " for the time being until further orders is a sweeping condition.
One would expect the highest court to explain why it deemed it necessary to bar someone from their profession and gag their future speech-both fundamental rights. 2/10
Yet, the Supreme Court imposed this condition arbitrarily – paternalistic, sweeping, and entirely unaccountable – emblematic of its mai-baap approach, wherein it sees itself as the ultimate arbiter of all things, unburdened by the need to justify its own excesses. 3/10
#YearInReview: 2024 was profoundly meaningful. I worked on 2 long-form stories—investigating extrajudicial killings and police shootouts in Uttar Pradesh and profiling CJI DY Chandrachud—both of which took 4 months each, eventually published at 6,000 & 16,000 words.
A thread.
In January, for @AJEnglish, I reported how the three new criminal laws and the Telecom Act have the potential to turn India into a Police and Surveillance state. Concern for civil liberty continue. aljazeera.com/news/2024/1/17…
In February, for @Article14live, I reported on the blocking of hate-crime documenter @HindutvaWatchIn's X account and website. I highlighted the loopholes in existing laws that allow the govt such drastic, arbitrary measures. article-14.com/post/takedown-…