Tuesday, 8 March 2016
Different Coverage of Women's day Rally on 8th March from Gujarat Vidhyapith to Gandhi Ashram
નવગુજરાત સમય > અમદાવાદ
-- આ વર્ષે વિશ્વ મહિલા દિનની થીમ જેન્ડર ઈક્વાલિટી છે. આ થીમ પર લોકોને જાગૃત કરવા યુનાઇટેડ વર્લ્ડ સ્કૂલ દ્વારા એક મહારેલી યોજાઈ હતી. જેમાં સંસ્થાના અધ્યાપકો ઉપરાંત ૨૧૦ જેટલા વિદ્યાર્થીઓએ ભાગ લીધો હતો. યુનાઇટેડ વર્લ્ડ સ્કૂલ ઓફ લૉના ડિરેક્ટર ડૉ. જ્યોત્સના યાજ્ઞિક, ગૂજરાત વિદ્યાપીઠના સામાજિક કાર્ય વિભાગનાં અધ્યક્ષ ડૉ. આનંદીબેન પટેલ અને શાંતિ સંશોધન કેન્દ્રનાં અધ્યક્ષ ડૉ. પુષ્પા મોટીયાણીએ રેલીને પ્રયાણ કરાવ્યુ હતુ. વિદ્યાપીઠથી ગાંધી આશ્રમ સુધી આ રેલી યોજાઇ હતી.
Coverage in Indian Express on 9th March 2016 - Photo News
Coverage in Divya Bhaskar - Ahmedabad City
Coverage in Divya Bhaskar - Gandhinagar edition
DNA# Ahmedabad
Sunday, 6 March 2016
SC judge: Judiciary frequently gives in to pressure
Mar 06 2016 : The Times of India (Ahmedabad)
Justice Rohinton Nariman Says He Pins His Hope On Dissents
Supreme Court judge, Justice Rohinton Nariman, said on Saturday that the Indi an judiciary, like any oth er judiciary of the world, has fre quently given in to pressure during times of trouble, and failed to protect fundamental rights of citizens. He was speaking here on the topic `Judiciary the least dangerous branch?' as part of Justice PD Desai memorial lecture series .Justice Nariman narrated the history of the judiciary in the US, UK during the wars, and of India during the colonial period, to illustrate how judiciary had buckled under pressure.
Equating the troubled times in the West with the Emergency in India, he said the majority of judges let people down and fail to stand up against political power.
However, dissents by courageous judges to protect citizens' rights have later often become the law of the land . Citing the example of Justice H R Khanna, who recorded his dissent in order to uphold the fundamental rights of a citizen during the Emergency, Justice Nariman said: “Fortunately, dissents become law in this country.Unfair majority judgments were either overturned by courts or by constitutional amendments.“ Justice Nariman said he pins his hopes on such dissents.
Speaking about the Supreme Court, he said that what is important is that this institution has been given the greatest power to see that the laws conform to the Constitution and that they are faithfully obeyed.
Putting his hope in the judiciary, the judge said: “As a constitutional lawyer, I have great hope that the institution will always stand up to the great task of guarding fundamental rights, and speaking as a priest, I pray for the same to happen.“
Senior counsel Dush yant Dave, however, did not sound so optimistic. Hinting at the incident in JNU, he said, “I can only pray.This is no time of war, nor is there an emergency now.But the judiciary is facing great challenges due to various reasons including the majoritarian approach.Our judges will have to passionately deal with this.And I can only join Justice Nariman in his prayers.“
Equating the troubled times in the West with the Emergency in India, he said the majority of judges let people down and fail to stand up against political power.
However, dissents by courageous judges to protect citizens' rights have later often become the law of the land . Citing the example of Justice H R Khanna, who recorded his dissent in order to uphold the fundamental rights of a citizen during the Emergency, Justice Nariman said: “Fortunately, dissents become law in this country.Unfair majority judgments were either overturned by courts or by constitutional amendments.“ Justice Nariman said he pins his hopes on such dissents.
Speaking about the Supreme Court, he said that what is important is that this institution has been given the greatest power to see that the laws conform to the Constitution and that they are faithfully obeyed.
Putting his hope in the judiciary, the judge said: “As a constitutional lawyer, I have great hope that the institution will always stand up to the great task of guarding fundamental rights, and speaking as a priest, I pray for the same to happen.“
Senior counsel Dush yant Dave, however, did not sound so optimistic. Hinting at the incident in JNU, he said, “I can only pray.This is no time of war, nor is there an emergency now.But the judiciary is facing great challenges due to various reasons including the majoritarian approach.Our judges will have to passionately deal with this.And I can only join Justice Nariman in his prayers.“
Thursday, 3 March 2016
No freedom without dissent
A democracy without a dissenter in it is impossible. Free men, in the exercise of free thought, will give vent in free speech. No matter how abhorrent the thought, or its manner of expression, a mature democracy will tolerate it, and even encourage its publication.
Nearly a century ago, in 1919, the United States had just finished with
World War I, a war to end all wars. There had been race riots in the
summer and labour strikes in the autumn. A bomb had exploded on the
attorney general’s doorstep. In that year the U.S. Supreme Court was
called to decide the case of Abrams v. United States. The case
challenged the convictions of five Russian-born men who were prosecuted
under the Espionage Act of 1917, as it had been amended by the Sedition
Act of 1918, for “provoking and encouraging” resistance to the
government’s war efforts (and its hostile manoeuvres toward Russia)
through a series of pamphlets. The court sustained the conviction but
one judge, Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., dissented.
A time to stand up
When Holmes circulated his draft judgment to his fellow judges, three of
them came to plead with him not to dissent. They feared a dissent, from
Holmes, could weaken the country’s resolve and give comfort to the
enemy. Holmes had always respected the institution of the Court and, at
times had suppressed his own beliefs for the sake of unanimity. This
time he felt he had to speak his mind. Holmes read his dissent from the
bench and it caused a sensation. It was acclaimed as a monument to
liberty.
Holmes wrote: “But when men have realised that time has upset many
fighting faiths, they may come to believe even more than they believe
the very foundations of their own conduct that the ultimate good desired
is better reached by free trade in ideas — that the best test of truth
is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of
the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes
safely can be carried out. That, at any rate, is the theory of our
Constitution. It is an experiment, as all life is an experiment.”
These very words were cited in India last year by Justice Rohinton
Nariman of the Supreme Court, when the court struck down Section 66A of
the Information Technology Act in the Shreya Singhal case. It freed online speech in India from the threat of arrests and prosecution.
“India, that is Bharat, shall be a union of states,” decrees Article 1
of its Constitution. In reality though, Bharatvarsha-India has in its
nearly 70 years of independence been a disunity of strongly held
political opinions, all of which dissent from each other.
There is an opinion that India has come into its natural inheritance
only after the election of a majority government in May 2014. It is
argued that the past 60-odd years of the Indian Republic were a mere
epilogue to an empire and a Western era that had not fully died in 1947.
The Nehruvian consensus, it is urged, was a hypocritical cloak of
minority appeasement within India, and a subservient bowing to Western
domination abroad.
The counter-narrative of the Left agrees that there has been a
subservience to the West, but it says that appeasement, if any, has been
of the rich and of religious majorities. The third tale told is by
apologists of the ancien régime, who narrate a process of steady
economic rise and containment of social tensions, which have now been
interrupted by a cataclysmic lurch towards virulent nationalism.
Yet another story is told by those who lead people’s movements in
various parts of India, as a tale of perpetual struggle against whoever
is in power in Delhi.
These and other voices have contributed to the medley and melody of the
argumentative Indian life that surrounds alike its villages and cities,
bazaars and malls, and is daily amplified for the nation in television
studios. Except for the twenty months of the Emergency, never has one
voice prevailed to the exclusion of the rest. Nor has it ever been
suggested that an opinion contrary to that of the government is somehow
inimical to national interest. India’s ability to express and
simultaneously contain a million mutinies, has been a source of joy to
its friends and of wonderment to its adversaries. Zulfikar Ali Bhutto,
who had once advocated a thousand-year war with India, proclaimed from
his death-row cell in Pakistan, “India is more heterogeneous than
Pakistan, but India has been kept in one piece by the noise and chaos of
her democracy.”
Why now?
Why then have recent events at the Jawaharlal Nehru University
fanned such a seething rage against dissent in India? What has caused
the majority to react with fear and loathing to mere slogans that have
been heard for decades in some parts of the country? Who are those who
have benefitted from the raising of temperatures of discussion, to the
point where dissent from the majority narrative is seen as
anti-national? When does a protest tip from discontent against
government into sedition against the nation? Is the national consensus
now veering towards a sullen silence, lest any expression of doubt be
construed as support to those who seek India’s balkanisation? Is the
Indian nation so fragile that it can only be held together by strong
leaders benevolently administering the authoritarian structure of a
police state? Is our national identity of such a loose character that it
needs to be shrouded in a cloak of anodyne conformity?
Dissent is not anti-national. This nation has been built on dissents
expressed at crucial times in its history. Kautilya dissented against
the Nandas of Magadh, who were complacent in the face of Alexander’s
invasions. He created the Mauryan empire. The Buddha dissented against
the orthodoxy of his times, and the eightfold path stood revealed. Adi
Shankara dissented against the fading of sanatana dharma and resurrected
it. Shivaji dissented against the kingdoms of the Deccan and the might
of the Mughal empire to lay the foundation of the Maratha empire. The
dissent of the soldiers at Barrackpore and Meerut led to the First War
of Independence in 1857. A long line of dissenters thereafter, from
Lokmanya Tilak to Bose, Nehru and Gandhi, gave us our path to an
independent India. Dr. Ambedkar, a man who dissented from even Mahatma
Gandhi, gave us a Constitution that has endured all these years.
Our Republic has seen its own share of dissenters whose discordant
dissent of the day has led to the wisdom of the morrow. C.
Rajagopalachari’s opposition to Soviet-style planning came to fruition
when P.V. Narasimha Rao and Manmohan Singh dismantled the licence quota
raj. Jayaprakash Narayan’s call for total revolution led both to the
imposition of Emergency as well as the consensus against a dictatorship.
Justice Khanna’s reminder
During the Emergency, Justice H.R. Khanna dissented in the ADM Jabalpur case
and held that the right to life was inherent in humans and not a gift
of the Constitution which could be suspended. The judgment cost him the
office of the Chief Justice of India. A grateful nation, however,
ensured that his portrait hangs in the Supreme Court’s courtroom 2, over
which he last presided. He forever epitomises Charles Evans Hughes
dictum, “A dissent in a court of last resort is an appeal to the
brooding spirit of law, to the intelligence of a future day.”
A democracy without a dissenter in it is impossible. Free men, in the
exercise of free thought, will give vent in free speech. No matter how
abhorrent the thought, or its manner of expression, a mature democracy
will tolerate it, and even encourage its publication. It is better for
an imperfect thought to be voiced and rejected in the marketplace of
ideas, than for it to fester within the warehouses of inexpressible
thought. After all there is no greater idea of democracy than free men,
freely and voluntarily, committing to the requirements of citizenship of
a free country. Only totalitarian regimes suppress dissent and
dissidents. Only a country not yet rid of its colonial hangover of a
government that commands and controls, labels dissent as seditious. A
truly free nation will confidently view even its advocated destruction
as a bad idea that will fail in the marketplace of ideas. This is my
idea of India, secure in its place among the great nations of the world,
confident in its destiny. Dear reader, is it your idea, as well?
(Sanjay Hegde is a senior advocate of the Supreme Court.)
Source: The Hindu
‘Courts should not be swayed by mob hysteria’
The courts should not be swayed by the mob hysteria
while dealing with the sensitive cases of sedition, as the charges in
such matters are often slapped in a premeditated manner, said Supreme
Court lawyer and human rights activist Vrinda Grover, She was reacting
to Wednesday’s order of the Delhi High Court granting bail to student
leader Kanhaiya Kumar.
Ms. Grover, who represented Mr. Kumar in his bail petition, told
The Hindu
that all the facts about the JNU students organising the February 9
event were in the public domain and the court had rightly reached the
conclusion in favour of granting bail to the student leader. .
“However,
we feel that this whole episode of electronic media first highlighting
the university event, followed by the police crackdown, was
pre-planned,” said Ms. Grover, adding that the entire sequence of events
would be revealed if the investigation was free and fair.
Asked
if a petition could be separately filed seeking expunging of some of
the remarks made in the High Court’s order, Ms. Grover said the defence
lawyers’ team would wait for completion of investigation which itself
would reveal the truth.
The Delhi government’s
standing counsel Rahul Mehra, who argued in the court in favour of
granting bail to Mr. Kumar, said justice had been delivered, as it was a
fit case for releasing the student leader on bail. “The bail should not
have been opposed. I am happy that truth has prevailed,” said Mr.
Mehra, reacting to the court verdict.
Whole episode of media highlighting the university event, followed by police crackdown was pre-plannedVrinda Grover,SC lawyer
The bail should not have been opposed.
I am happy that
truth has prevailed
Rahul Mehra,Delhi govt’s standing counsel
Source: The Hindu
We will go by Supreme Court ruling, says Rajnath Singh
Letter should not be entertained, says Congress leader Kharge
Union Home Minister Rajnath Singh said on Thursday that
the Centre was examining the Tamil Nadu government’s request for freeing
the convicts in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case, but made it clear
that the government was constitutionally bound to act by the ruling of
the Supreme Court.
This happened a day after the
State government wrote to the Centre to seek its opinion — necessary
under Section 435 of the Code of Criminal Procedure — on its decision to
remit the life sentences of all the seven convicts. “We received a
letter from the Tamil Nadu government yesterday [on Wednesday] and we
are examining it. But I want to state… that the Supreme Court has given a
verdict and to abide by it is our constitutional responsibility, not
only constitutional but also moral responsibility,” Mr. Singh told
Parliament.
On December 2, 2015, the Supreme Court
held that the Centre and not the State government would have the
“primacy” and that the States could not exercise
suo motu
the power to decide whether or not those convicted in the cases
investigated by the CBI or another Central agency could be released.
The
Congress opposed the AIADMK government’s decision to remit the sentence
of the convicts, calling it “very unfortunate”. “The letter should not
be entertained at all,” Congress leader Mallikarjun Kharge said. “The
assassins must not be released to uphold the integrity of the country
for which Rajivji gave his life.”
However, Congress
vice-president Rahul Gandhi refused to give his opinion, saying it was
up to the government to take a call. The DMK, with which the Congress
has stitched up an alliance, has also wanted the convicts released. DMK
chief M. Karunanidhi has demanded that the Centre take steps for their
release.
Source: The Hindu
Wednesday, 2 March 2016
Tuesday, 1 March 2016
SC to study plea to close Ishrat case trial
Petition seeks contempt action against then Home Minister for concealing facts
The Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed to consider a
petition for closure of all criminal proceedings against Gujarat police
officers in the 2004 Ishrat Jahan encounter case on the basis of the
testimony of the 26/11 Mumbai attack accused David Headley that she and
her three companions were Lashkar-e-Taiba operatives on a mission to
assassinate the then Chief Minister Narendra Modi.
In
an urgent mentioning, a Bench of Chief Justice of India T.S. Thakur and
Justice U.U. Lalit told advocate Manohar Lal Sharma, who filed the
petition, that “it will be listed” in due course. The signal to hear the
petition came even as the Home Ministry agreed to re-examine files to
verify former Home Secretary G.K. Pillai’s claims of “political
meddling.” Mr. Sharma’s petition sought the Supreme Court to initiate “
suo motu
perjury/contempt of court proceedings against the then Home Minister and
the CBI Director for concealing true facts before the Supreme Court and
the Gujarat High Court for filing a false affidavit on the facts about
Ishrat Jahan.”
Mr. Pillai had said an affidavit
submitted in the Gujarat High Court in 2009 about the LeT links of
Ishrat Jahan and her accomplices was changed at the “political level.”
Friday, 19 February 2016
SC declines Cong. plea for a floor test in Arunachal House
Hours before the President's rule was withdrawn in
Arunachal Pradesh, the Supreme Court refused a suggestion by the State's
Congress party leaders to order a floor test to be conducted in the
Arunachal Assembly. The apex court’s decision to lift its order of
status quo in the border State had cleared the road for withdrawal of
the emergency and the possible consequence of a new government being
formed with dissident Congress leader Kalikho Pul as Chief Minister.
Mr.
Pul has already staked his claim to form the government with a majority
backing of 32 MLAs in the Assembly. The Supreme Court on Thursday
refused to intervene in Gauhati High Court's interim stay on the
disqualification of the 14 rebel Congress MLAs who tilted the balance
against the ruling Nabam Tuki government, triggering political crisis
which led to the proclamation of emergency on January 26.
Pushing
for an order for floor test, senior advocate Kapil Sibal said all the
apprehensions of the Congress in Arunachal were coming true.
But
the Bench refused, saying that though a floor test may be a “possible
manner of dealing with the issue,” it could not be done now as the
Supreme Court was still hearing the case.
“We have
suspected all this [alleged bid to revoke President's Rule and install a
new government]. We have told our apprehensions to the court and now
all that are coming true,” Mr. Sibal said. Mr. Sibal raised another
apprehension, asking what would happen if the Centre and Governor J.P.
Rajkhowa swore in a new Chief Minister, but later goes on to dissolve
the House to ensure that power remains in their hand till snap polls
were held.
Sources: The Hindu
Lawyer ignore summons, yet no action
After unleashing violent attacks on journalists and
students on two consecutive occasions, lawyer Vikram Singh Chauhan on
Friday led a “peace march” around the India Gate roundabout, protesting
“defamatory statements” made by the media against him and his
colleagues.
Mr. Chauhan, who has been summoned thrice
by the police, the third summon being issued on Friday, has been
actively participating in marches and public events, but has no found no
time to visit the police station.
He was seen
carrying the Tricolour and raising slogans such as ‘Bharat Mata ki Jai’
at Friday’s rally. Talking to The Hindu later, he said he was yet to
take a call on the police summons served on him so far.
The
lawyer, who on Thursday was felicitated at a Delhi court by some
lawyers for “protecting Mother India” and teaching a lesson to
“anti-national elements”, had made an appeal to fellow lawyers to join
the “peace march” on his Facebook page.
The march was
organised by the Coordination Committee of All the District Bar
Associations of Delhi against “a conspiracy” by the media to tarnish the
image of the legal fraternity in their reports on the violence
witnessed inside and outside the Patiala House Courts on February 15 and
17.
On Friday afternoon, a large group of lawyers,
led by Mr. Chauhan, marched from the Patiala House Courts to India Gate
and back. Yashpal Singh and Om Sharma, two other lawyers who have been
summoned in connection with the violence on the two days, also
participated in the march, said Mr. Chauhan.
Statements
such as “(Umar) Khalid ki zabaan kaat do (cut off Khalid’s toungue)”
were made by a group of lawyers as they returned to the court premises.
Although the march, which started and concluded at Gate Number 2 of the
court, remained incident-free, the slogans were reflective of the
aggression among the lawyers.
Source: The Hindu
SC: Court no stage for political speeches
The Supreme Court on Friday maintained equanimity as a
lawyer loudly protested inside the courtroom when parts of a petition
alleged that the mob violence in the Patiala House courts in connection
with the hearing of a sedition case against JNUSU president Kanhaiya
Kumar was “instigated by the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and other
extremist organisations.”
A Bench of Justices J.
Chelameswar and A.M. Sapre did not lose their poise as R.P. Luthra, a
Supreme Court advocate, interrupted the court with an emotional
outpouring that “he was pained by the portrayal of the RSS as an
extremist organisation”.
“The RSS has taught me that
all women are my mother and sisters... I am hurt, pained,” Mr. Luthra
submitted. He said remarks about the RSS should be expunged from the
petition.
The Bench stopped Mr. Luthra, saying “the court is not a stage for political speeches.”
“We are not interested in who created or designed this... ,” Justice Chelameswar said.
Sources: The Hindu
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)