Tag: Mahesh Jethmalani

Full Text: IT Raids on BBC an Attempt to Boost Modi’s Image Among His Supporters, Says N. Ram

Former editor-in-chief of ‘The Hindu’ tells Karan Thapar in an interview that BBC’s credibility is “far greater” than that of the Narendra Modi government.

On February 15, Karan Thapar interviewed N. Ram, former editor-in-chief of The Hindu, soon after Income Tax authorities descended on BBC offices in Delhi and Mumbai to carry out ‘surveys’ in connection with alleged financial irregularities. Barring Modi supporters, many in India and abroad saw the IT raids against BBC as an “act of revenge” for releasing a two-part documentary series, ‘India: The Modi Question’, which has been critical of Modi’s role as chief minister during the Gujarat 2002 riots.

In this 31-minute interview, the veteran journalist suggests that BBC raids were more about sending a message by the government to Modi’s supporters, who view him as a strongman who can take on anyone or any organisation. He asserts that BBC’s credibility is “far more greater” than the Modi government internationally.

Ram says India’s image as a democracy has taken a serious beating with the BBC raids. He also questions the silence on the part of the UK government, particularly of its Prime Minister Rishi Sunak. The interview covers a broad sweep of issues in connection with BBC raids, freedom of the press in India, Modi government, among others. Below is the full transcript of the interview. It has been slightly edited for clarity and style.

§

Hello and welcome to a special interview for The Wire. Are yesterday’s tax ‘surveys’ on BBC offices in Delhi and Bombay, which reportedly continued through the night and will also continue during the day, today, justified? Or, are they an act of harassment or intimidation? Let’s be blunt and honest, an act of revenge by the Modi government? Which of the two? That’s the key issue I shall discuss today with one of India’s foremost journalists, the former editor-in-chief and former publisher of The Hindu, N. Ram.

Mr. Ram, let me start with a general question, I’ll come to details and specifics thereafter. As the former editor-in-chief and publisher of The Hindu, how do you view the income tax ‘survey’ conducted on BBC offices in Bombay and Delhi yesterday, which reportedly continued through the night and are believed to be continuing during the course of the day, today as well, during which time the phones and laptops of BBC employees were reportedly confiscated? How do you view these tax surveys? 

Karan, this is completely unacceptable. This is censorship, creeping censorship which selectively targets critical media organisations and individuals, and this is really part of a pattern. The Editors Guild of India has come out with a very good statement putting it in context showing that it is part of a pattern – and for example, pointing out that in June 2021, there were surveys, more in the nature of raids, against Dainik Bhaskar and Bharat Samachar.

Dainik Bhaskar was critical about the handling of the deaths during the Covid-19 pandemic. Not normally critical of the government, but in this case, very very critical and they paid for it. Then you had the surveys in September 2021 at the offices of Newsclick and News Laundry. The Enforcement Directorate later raided in February 2021 the offices of Newsclick. And of course, we know what happened to The Wire, although it is a different issue you know.

Also read: BBC Raids: Revenge Is What the Voters of the BJP Keep Looking For

I’ve been wondering what is the purpose. It looks like, on the surface, a comedy of follies, but what could be the objective? I think there’s a good insight in Mukul Keshavan’s article in The Guardian which talks about, you know Prime Minister Modi’s struggle to be both an anti-Muslim strongman and global leader, that he has to play one message to his domestic constituency and internationally it goes against that. This must be – you know, we are speculating here a bit – aimed at this domestic constituency because it has got a terrible press abroad, but ironically even in India.

Also read: With BBC Tax Raid, the Modi Cult Makes India the ‘Smother of Democracy’

Absolutely! Now a statement issued by the Income Tax department says that the survey was conducted – I’m now quoting from the statement – “in view of the BBC’s deliberate non-compliance with the transfer pricing rules and its vast diversion of profit”. Journalists yesterday also indicated on television that the survey was confined to the BBC’s financial offices and its news department was not affected. To what extent do these two bits of information make any difference to your view of what happened and is happening? 

Yeah, they would say that. Wouldn’t they? They’re trying to justify this. Usually, if you make an allegation that something was wrong with the finances, the financial integrity of an organisation is a kind of defence. And nothing is ever proved in these cases. It is the process, as the lawyers say, the process is the punishment. It is harassment and nothing comes at the end of it. So, you know, these allegations will be rebutted. They are very vague and sweeping allegations.

We know that the BBC is not a for-profit organisation. It may have some commercial operation outside the UK. As everyone knows, it is funded by the license-free system in the UK and the documentary was on BBC Two and accessible only to a domestic audience and so on. So, you say something else, so that for the time being people are a little puzzled, and it looks like a defence. But, it is a very poor defense, because it is part of a pattern. And which have these organisations targeted? We’ve not heard of any enforcement action against the Adani group. 

Can I interrupt at that point? The audience will have heard you say of the claim made by the IT Department that these are sweeping allegations, it is a poor defence. Would I be right in concluding that you are, therefore, skeptical of the claim made by the IT Department, that the BBC is guilty of deliberate non-compliance with the transfer pricing rules, and you’re also skeptical of the second claim that it is guilty of a vast diversion of profits? You’re skeptical of both of that?

Yes, I would. We’ve not seen any evidence of it. It is suddenly pulled out after the BBC, the two parts were, you know, put out in the UK. So, the timing is, of course, suspicious, more than suspicious the timing is telling, but you know these claims have been made and we’ve seen that in the past nothing has ever been proven, including Enforcement Directorate actions against leading politicians or the opposition. Nothing is ever proven you just make it for the time being to put up a caricature of a defence, I would say in this case. And the other thing, Karan, is let these fellows come out with their names to go on record. The media shouldn’t accept, you know, somebody’s making strong comments or making allegations without being named, anonymous. 

I should point out that what I quoted you was an official statement released by the Income Tax department. There are other sources who’ve said other things going into further detail. Those sources remain unnamed and I’m not quoting them. What I quoted was the official statement put out by the IT department, but let’s come to that very important point you made a moment ago about the timing. The survey happened exactly – precisely three weeks to the date – after the second part of the BBC documentary “India: The Modi Question”. Exactly three weeks later this survey happened. Do you suspect that there’s a connection between the two-part documentary, the government’s clear anger, and this survey? Are the three connected?

Yes, clearly connected. If you pulled 100 Indians or people abroad who have seen this, who are familiar with the circumstances, I would bet that 99 of them would see the connection, because it stares you in the face, and again, I emphasise, this is part of a pattern. You criticise the government beyond a point… and the other point, Karan, is a friend of mine you know, we’re discussing it and he said if a credible organisation makes these allegations that’s all the more damaging. That’s really what inflames them what, you know, pushes them into over-the-top action. And I can’t think of a more credible media organisation in the world than the BBC.

Again citing Mukul Keshavan, he says they are highly credible because they can reach out into their archives and find evidence to back the narrative they are developing in a story and that’s one of the factors that gives them credibility. But their independence, the financial model for the BBC, many of us don’t like what’s being put out if you hold a certain view on a particular war, for example you know, but the BBC has that credibility. And that’s what I think. 

I’m going to, for the sake of the audience, underline and repeat what you said when you referred to the BBC as the most credible organisation in the world, your words were “I cannot think of a more credible organisation in the world than the BBC”. In other words, you’re saying that the Modi government has taken on the most credible media organisation in the world. Tell me how does the Modi government’s credibility in the eyes of the West, compare to the BBC’s credibility in the eyes of the West? 

That’s a hard question. I think Western powers want to woo the Modi government as a counterweight to China, but having said that I would say that the BBC’s credibility – since you put me a direct question – is clearly greater internationally speaking than the BJP government’s or the Modi government’s credibility. Particularly, these facts have come to the fore whether you’re talking about what happened in Gujarat in 2002, and what’s happening today that connection what I referred to as a genetic connection between the two, or the latest action Modi government’s credibility must have taken a huge hit, has taken a huge hit.

Look at the editorial in the New York Times a few days ago or the articles in The Guardian and many places, as against that. So certain Western governments are leaning heavily towards the Modi government but that’s not a reflection of credibility. It’s a question of geopolitics. 

Okay…

And so on. 

Then, let me… 

The BBC’s credibility is greater. 

I’ll just repeat that. The BBC’s credibility is clearly greater than the Modi government’s credibility internationally. Those were, I believe your precise words, I wrote them down as you were speaking. Let me then against that background ask you, and I’ll ask you bluntly, are these tax surveys which for the rest of the world by the way are equivalent to raids, we in India insist our surveys are not raids but the world is reporting them as raids, are these tax surveys or raids in your eyes some form of revenge, or is it an attempt to intimidate the BBC, or is it arguably possibly both? Both revenge and intimidation.  

Let’s look at whether it has intimidated the BBC. I don’t think the BBC will be intimidated by these raids or the so-called surveys, which are really more in the texture of raids. They are not. Is it revenge? It could be a little bit, but again I think it must be aimed at a domestic audience that I think that framework that you’re trying to be both anti-Muslim strongman and a global leader, particularly at this at the time of your presidency of the G20.

Hindu Sena activists demonstrate outside the BBC’s office in New Delhi. Photo: Twitter video screengrab.

I think there’s a profound contradiction here. It’s a hard question because it could be revenge, part of it could be revenge, I don’t think it’s intimidated the BBC at all. In this case because what’s the evidence they’re going to find let’s see, but it is clearly aimed at the domestic audience, which has responded. you know they responded including a spokesman person of the BJP. 

I’ll come to that spokesperson in a moment’s time. But let me, for a moment, put a sort of Devil’s advocate question to you. Let’s assume, for argument’s sake, that the government has got genuine tax-related questions and issues with the BBC. My question is this: Is it even then right for the government of democracy, a country that proudly claims it’s the biggest democracy in the world to treat, what is perhaps the world’s most highly respected media organisation in this way, and particularly in the wake of the controversy after the BBC documentary? Are they no better ways of pursuing your tax concerns rather than these public, intimidating, and clearly designed to humiliate surveys or raids? 

Yes, I think that is indefensible. If there are these concerns there must be a record to go back into your archives and produce/have you raised this with the BBC before? What is the BBC’s response? Put it all in the public realm and then we can judge this, at that point. This is sudden. Suddenly you raised an issue so far as I’m concerned. I have not seen anything to suggest but these concerns were pursued with the BBC earlier. There must be a record, there must be a paper trail on this. So you suddenly pull it out of your hat and say these make these accusations. So where were these concerns before the day before the raid and so on? Have you raised them with them in a civilised way of doing it or a sensible business-like way of doing it would be to raise these concerns. If you had them, assuming again, these concerns are genuine or real or existed before you actually decided on this raid. 

So just to clarify, you’re saying if I’ve heard you correctly, that treating an organisation of the credibility and stature of the BBC in this way is indefensible. there are better ways of pursuing concerns, if you have legitimate concerns there’s a big if there but this is not the right way of pursuing legitimate concerns.

Yes, exactly that’s exactly what I meant. You put it better than I did. 

Let me then come to some of the claims made yesterday at a formal press conference by Gaurav Bhatia, an official BJP spokesperson, and I assume that these claims were made by him to justify the treatment of the BBC. He made three claims on television.

First, he said the BBC has called Holi a “filthy festival”. Then, he said that the BBC had once described a Kashmiri terrorist chief, he didn’t name him but everyone assumes he’s talking about Burhan Wani, as “charismatic” and “youthful”. Thirdly, Bhatia said that the BBC had once claimed that in 1946 Mahatma Gandhi failed to liberate India. Now, it’s quite clear that in 1946 Mahatma Gandhi did not liberate India which happened a whole year later in ‘47. So if the BBC made the claim, it’s not inaccurate, it’s actually correct. But apart from Mr. Bhatia’s conclusion is that this all three claims cannot be tolerated. What do you make of the charges Mr. Bhatia leveled?

I think they are impenetrable charges we have not seen any of this and the BBC doesn’t make statements like that. If some individuals admit a statement is part of a variety of voices, I don’t know about that, but we’ve not seen anything on it and suddenly he makes these allegations. Very often they turn out to be disinformation. So, I think that this reinforces the point. They’re trying to play to a domestic audience and trying to whip up emotions in this. I don’t think the BBC is going to say editorially that Holi is a filthy festival or the other things what does he mean by that; is the BBC one entity? The whole thing, it’s got one voice?

Also read: Tax ‘Survey’ on BBC: The Modi Government Is Behaving Exactly Like Indira Gandhi During the Emergency

The BBC is a news organisation which reports many things sometimes interpret or I don’t there’s not too much editorialising but there could be some opinions expressed in some fashion. Yeah, we don’t know anything about it. But for the official, this spokesperson of a major political party, the leading political party, in the country today, to make that, you know, I mean well, I wouldn’t dignify it, I wouldn’t take it too seriously.  

Okay…  

It only shows they are having a hard time defending the action.

Now, in fact, Mr. Bhatia went one step further he called the BBC, and I’m quoting him, “the most corrupt cooperation in the world”, and then he translated the initials BBC as “Bhrasht Bakwaas Cooperation”, meaning corrupt rubbish cooperation. Is it fitting for the spokesman of the ruling party of India to refer to the BBC in this fashion? 

A crude and vulgar comment is what I’d say about this. I mean such language used must shock people. I mean who would believe that the BBC is the most corrupt organisation. It’s a not-for-profit organisation and funded by a license-free system. It is independent and is regulated by OfCom. You may have your differences with it but to characterise in this way is shameful, disgraceful, and you know vulgar that’s what. You know I’m actually understating my condemnation of such uncivilised words. 

Now separately, Mahesh Jaitmalani – who in his own capacity is the leading lawyer but used to be a member of the BJP’s National Executive and now is a nominated Rajya Sabha MP and was sent to the upper house by the Modi government – claimed on India Today that the BBC has clandestine links with the Chinese company Huawei. He also said that the BBC pension fund has invested in the stocks of Chinese companies owned either by the government of China or in co-partnership with Chinese entrepreneurs and the government. Now, first of all, it’s not wrong for the BBC pension fund to be invested in such companies. Loads of other pension funds would be as well, and secondly, this doesn’t mean that the BBC is getting Chinese money or there’s a Chinese hand behind the BBC which is what Mr. Jaitmalani went on to claim. How do you respond to the allegation made by Mahesh Jaitmalani?  

Again, I found it an impenetrable argument. I listened to it, I was part of a programme where this was featured. The first thing is India has good diplomatic relations with China, and they had some differences over the boundary question but it has good relations. Secondly China is one of India’s, top one or two trading partners. In fact, in 2021, Karan, a difficult year for India-China relations, two-way trade was 125 billion dollars. So you know India has very deep trade relations with China and also there are other business relations that’s the first point.

Secondly, I couldn’t understand Mr. Jaitmalani because you’re talking about BBC, you know he was making an allegation unconnected with the action against the documentary because that was BBC Two and we know that it’s financed by the license-free system. There was no commercial operation involved other than the license-free system for, you know, the documentary aired to a domestic audience. So, I don’t know what he was talking about. It appeared to be an attempt to divert attention by hurling this charge which has no evidence and has been produced, and as you say. If those things that happened those transactions had happened what’s wrong with it? How does it colour the BBC’s depiction of India or 2002 or what’s happening today on Modi versus the Muslim question? 

Absolutely! Now as you pointed out in this interview, what happened yesterday to the BBC, what continued last night, and what is allegedly reportedly continuing through the course of today as well, has made banner hit lines in every major democracy. And my question is simply how much damage will that do to India’s image and standing? 

I think it has already done a lot of damage on top of other things that have come, but since you’ve taken on this highly credible media organisation I think this has done more damage than any previous attack on press freedom or media freedom or free speech and any previous episode of censorship, in fact, more than blocking access to episode one in the first instance. So, I think this has done enormous damage and I’m astonished at this time. Surely, this wouldn’t have taken place these income tax raids so-called survey without approval from the top people in the government.

Screenshot of Income Tax official arguing with a BBC reporter inside the BBC’s Delhi office on February 14. Photo: Twitter

If it did they should come out and distance themselves from this action by the income tax authorities, but nobody believes that because it clearly came from the top, and it’s done enormous damage precisely because the BBC is a highly credible organisation with whom you need not always agree. Very often I don’t on its worldview and so on. So there are many instances that I don’t agree with the way they project it, but that’s no reason for not watching it. That’s the channel you’d go to first.

Absolutely! I’ve got two more questions to put to you before I end the interview. The government and the Prime Minister, Mr. Modi in particular, repeatedly boasts that India is the world’s largest democracy. Of late the Prime Minister has started to claim that India is, in fact, the mother of all democracies. Many people would dispute and question that very seriously, but that is the claim Mr Modi now makes that India is the mother of all democracies after the treatment of the BBC. How will that claim be viewed internationally?

I think it’ll be viewed as coming from somebody whose government is authoritarian. He doesn’t tolerate dissent, criticism, opposition, which tries to impose a certain what they call a Hindu nationalist agenda on everyone domestic, as well as those who comment on India. So, I think it’ll be viewed with, not only with skepticism but it’ll be viewed with you know the lack of, it lacks credibility it completely lacks, something that completely lacks credibility when you make that. We will be seen in the company of Turkey, Turkey’s regime or Hungary’s regime and so on. You may have elections but this is what happens to people who are in the opposition or critics. 

Okay, this year India is the chair of the G20, again this is something that the Prime Minister repeatedly reminds us about and is terribly proud of, and on the 1st of March all the G20 foreign ministers will be meeting in Delhi that’s less than 15 days away. Was this the right time for this punitive action against the BBC?  Is it going to work in our interest or is it going to embarrass us even more?

Yeah, I think clearly this is not the right time, this is in contradiction with what they want to project. But I’m gonna say one thing you know if you are the UK government if you are Prime Minister Rishi Sunak isn’t it very strange that we’ve not heard anything from you so far that you’ve not protested against this, you’ve not raised this issue? I think it’ll be raised by the opposition, by Labour politicians and various others by the media, but isn’t it disgraceful that the UK government, the Tory government headed by Rishi Sunak, has so far at least not been reported having raised this issue? What are you doing making these allegations? What are these about? Because their defence maybe ‘we’ll wait and see’, but I would have expected a self-respecting government, a government which looks after the interests of its democratic institutions to raise their concern publicly, not secretly not in a sealed cover, but publicly, and Rishi Sunak I think has been found very short on this issue, but we know that the Conservatives don’t like the BBC. Many of them don’t like the BBC.  

In this context, I should point out to the audience that newspapers are reporting several of them, not just one, that the British High Commission has true sources not in a statement but through sources let it be known that they are monitoring, whatever that might mean the way the BBC is being surveyed, but even the high commission has not gone on report publicly. No spokesman has come out publicly and they are sitting here in Delhi.

Yeah. If it happened something like that happened to an Indian institution in the UK would not the Ministry of Foreign Affairs or perhaps the Prime Minister’s Office come out with a statement of concern? I think they would. So the UK government, I think this is a pathetic response or a non-response to something that is very serious that’s happened with all these allegations suddenly being held against a highly respected national institution, which is really an international institution today.

I’ll just repeat that last word, that last phrase of yours. “This is a pathetic response from the United Kingdom about what is happening to one of the most respected British institutions there is.” In other words, you feel that Rishi Sunak, very arguably the British High Commission in Delhi, have let down the BBC, and by letting down the BBC they’ve also let down good journalism.

Yes, thank you for that elaboration for clarification I think that’s very true. that’s exactly how it should be formulated and thank you very much for that.

Thank you, Ram, for this interview, and thank you for so openly saying and I’ll just repeat it for the audience,” I cannot think of a more credible organisation in the world of media than the BBC”. And you also said and I’ll repeat it for the audience,” the BBC’s credibility is clearly greater than the Modi government’s credibility internationally”.

That is something that we should all remember, because the damage that has been done is to our country, to our country’s reputation, to our country standing as a democracy, and that means the damage has been done to something that matters to all of us as Indian people. that is the sad conclusion and that damage has been done, it seems by our government’s ham-handed handling of this situation. I thank you for your open, blunt, clear-cut interview. take care and may I add, please stay safe.

Thank you, Karan.

‘Will Project Views of Judiciary in Parliament’ Said Ranjan Gogoi, Three Years On He’s Yet to Speak

The retired CJI’s attendance in parliament has been dismal. But of late, he has neither been seen attending meetings of committees he is part of, nor does he participate in routine parliament proceedings. 

New Delhi: Under attack for accepting the Modi government’s offer of a Rajya Sabha seat upon retiring as chief justice of India, Ranjan Gogoi had said in March 2020 that his presence in parliament would be “an opportunity to project the views of the judiciary before the legislature and vice versa.” 

The Bar Council of India, which defended Gogoi’s controversial nomination, had also struck a similar note at the time:

“We see it as a bridge between the Legislature and Judiciary. This, in fact, would be an ideal opportunity to portray the first hand views of the judiciary before the law makers and vis-a-versa.”

However, with his third year as a parliamentarian coming to a close soon, the former CJI’s record as a parliamentarian provides scant evidence that he has projected views of any kind in the house. And if he was meant to be a bridge, his performance has clearly been as shaky as the one at Morbi.

He is barely seen in parliament, he has not taken part in any debate, and his attendance during the whole of his tenure to date has been 24%. The average attendance rate of parliamentarians who have been in the house as long as him is 79%. These figures are from the performance index maintained by PRS Legislative Research, the think-tank on legislative procedures.

Last December, Gogoi defended his poor attendance record, telling a television channel that as an MP, he goes to parliament when he feels like it. He is not governed by a party whip, being a nominated member, which is why, he said, “I go at my choice and come out at my choice”.

Judging by his performance in every metric used to measure an MP’s role in parliament, the ‘choice’ made by the former CJI is clearly to do little or nothing.

Nominated in March 2020, the only waves Gogoi made in parliament came while he was taking his oath. He was booed by the opposition, which called his appointment a ‘disgrace’.

After retirement from the Supreme Court in November 2019, Gogoi was seen to have got the cushy sinecure as reward for the controversial ‘Ram Janambhoomi-Babri Masjid’ judgment, which the judge first agreed to ‘fast track’ at the Modi government’s insistence. The bench he led ended up handing the site where the illegally demolished Babri Masjid had stood for centuries to the very forces who were directly or indirectly linked to that crime.

So lackadaisical has been the former judge’s performance in the Rajya Sabha that he has not even bothered to deliver a maiden speech – a ritual seen as an initiation ceremony of sorts in parliament. 

His statement – that he would have been better off in terms of pay and emoluments had he been chairman of a tribunal – earned him a privilege motion moved by Trinamool Congress MPs Mausam Noor and Jawhar Sircar. The MPs accused Gogoi of insulting the house. Sources say the matter was examined by the Rajya Sabha legal team which concluded the TMC stand was not tenable as Gogoi never meant to insult the house. The matter ultimately never went to the privileges committee.

Noor told The Wire, “I really don’t know what happened to that motion. They never got back to us.”

While calls and texts to Gogoi went unanswered, what explains the hostility of the house to him, in his own words as per past interviews, is that “the members got back at him because of how he dealt with them in court.”

On the all important job of highlighting issues of public concern by asking questions of the government, Gogoi’s record in the Rajya Sabha is ‘zero questions asked’ so far. On an average, MPs who have spent the same time in the RS as Gogoi asked 96.59 questions. 

Ranjan Gogoi’s record as a parliamentarian, March 2020-December 2022. Source: PRS

To be fair to the former judge, despite the hooting and jeering when he first entered the house, Gogoi’s attendance was 67% in the Budget session of 2020 against 4% the next year but that was mainly because Gogoi too was hit by the pandemic. 

Detailed session-to-session break-up of Ranjan Gogoi’s attendance in parliament, March 2020-December 2022. Source: PRS

Apart from attending house sessions, MPs are also members of various parliamentary committees where they are expected to attend and discuss issues of public interest in greater detail. But here too, Gogoi’s record has been underwhelming.

The former CJI is a member of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and was for nine months a part of the Communications and Information Technology Committee. Gogoi had diligently attended sittings of the External Affairs Committee all through 2020 but faded out by 2021. He was seen attending meetings on July 29, 2020, August 11, 2020, and those on September 7 and 8, 2020. October 19, 20 and 28 again saw Gogoi in attendance. He attended on July 7, 2021, too.

Also read: Petition in Supreme Court Challenges Ranjan Gogoi’s Nomination to Rajya Sabha

Interestingly, in the eight months that he was in the standing committee on communications and IT (C&IT), from September 2021 to May 2022, Gogoi did not attend a single meeting, as per Rajya Sabha committee records.

Among the agenda items he skipped at the crucial committee were five sessions on a key subject –  ‘Safeguarding citizens’ rights and prevention of misuse of social/online news media platforms including special emphasis on women security in the digital space’.

Renominated to the external affairs committee in September 2022, Gogoi has skipped all seven meetings held so far.

Fellow parliamentarians point out that there have been several Bills where the former CJI’s erudition would have helped. A case in point were the three farm laws – now scrapped – and whether the Union government had the powers to formulate laws on subjects that were outside its purview, agriculture being a state subject.

Fellow nominated member, now retired, Swapan Dasgupta, says, “Perhaps because he had a very hostile initiation, Gogoi is now reluctant to attend. He probably feels unwelcome.”

Dasgupta, however, adds that if nominated members do not speak up in parliament, the very purpose of nominating them is defeated. “But why just nominated members?” he asks, “what about the others?”

Dasgupta’s own record as a parliamentarian is exemplary. He had a 90% attendance record and took part in as many as 50 debates.

While others in the legal profession like Mahesh Jethmalani have been seen to be attending the house regularly (96% attendance), MPs Kapil Sibal (53% attendance) and Abhishek Manu Singhvi (42%) have some catching up to do, though they have both asked lots of questions and taken part in debates.

If a hostile house is what daunts Gogoi, perhaps he would do well to heed his own words of 2019: “There is a viewpoint that post-retirement appointment is itself a scar on judicial independence of the judiciary.”

Former Mumbai Commissioner Param Bir Singh Not Traceable, Maharashtra Govt Tells HC

Param Bir Singh’s counsel Mahesh Jethmalani said he had not been declared as an absconder yet.

Mumbai: The whereabouts of former Mumbai police commissioner Param Bir Singh were not known, the Maharashtra government on Wednesday told the Bombay high court.

As the Indian Police Service (IPS) officer was not traceable, it did not wish to continue its assurance that no coercive action (such as arrest) would be taken against him in an Atrocities Act case, the government said.

Senior counsel Darius Khambata, appearing for the state, told a division bench of Justices Nitin Jamdar and Sarang Kotwal that the circumstances had changed.

“He isn’t traceable. In these circumstances, we do not want to continue our earlier statement where the government said it would not take any coercive action against him,” Khambata said.

Param Bir Singh’s counsel Mahesh Jethmalani said he had not been declared as an absconder yet.

“In this case, he was summoned twice and both the times he responded,” Jethmalani said.

The high court was hearing a petition filed by the senior IPS officer seeking to quash the FIR lodged against him under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and relevant IPC sections on a complaint filed by police inspector Bhimrao Ghadge.

The judges adjourned the hearing to the next week.

Ghadge, presently posted in Akola district, has levelled allegations of corruption against Singh and some other officers when Singh was the Thane police commissioner.

Singh pressured him to drop the names of some persons from a case and when he refused, false cases were framed against him, Ghadge claimed.

The FIR was registered under the Atrocities Act as the complainant belongs to an SC community as well as for extortion and some other Indian Penal Code offences.

Singh’s lawyer claimed that the FIR was backlash over Singh’s allegations of corruption against former Maharashtra home minister Anil Deshmukh.

The IPS officer is also facing at least four extortion cases in Thane and Mumbai.

He was transferred from the post of Mumbai police commissioner in March after the arrest of now-dismissed police officer Sachin Waze in the case of an SUV with explosives found near industrialist Mukesh Ambani’s residence and the murder of businessman Mansukh Hiran.

Singh then accused Deshmukh of asking Waze to collect Rs 100 crore every month from bars and restaurants in Mumbai. The NCP leader, who denied the allegation, soon stepped down as minister and is facing a Central Bureau of Investigation probe.

Swapan Dasgupta ‘Renomination’ to RS After Resignation ‘Constitutionally Wrong’, ‘Unprecedented’

Dasgupta had contested on a BJP ticket from the Tarakeswar seat in the assembly election and lost. He will now return to serve the rest of his original term in the upper house despite having resigned his seat.

New Delhi: Former journalist Swapan Dasgupta, who had resigned from Rajya Sabha and unsuccessfully contested the recent West Bengal assembly elections on a Bharatiya Janata Party ticket, has been renominated to the upper house of parliament by the government.

In March, a day after a political row over him contesting as a BJP candidate while also holding the post of an ‘independent’ Rajya Sabha MP emerged, Dasgupta resigned from the upper house. The timing of his resignation had led to controversy.

Dasgupta contested from the Tarakeswar seat in the assembly election and lost.


“In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-clause (a) of clause (1) of article 80 of the Constitution of India, read with clause (3) of that article, the President is pleased to renominate Shri Swapan Dasgupta to the Council of States to fill the seat which has fallen vacant due to his resignation for his remainder term viz – 24-04-2022,” according to a Home Ministry notification.

Dasgupta’s re-nomination, too, has led to speculation online as to whether there is precedence for such a move. Former secretary general of the Lok Sabha P.D.T. Achary told The Wire that there is no clause allowing for renomination under Article 80.

“I don’t remember having come across a case of re-nomination of a person after his resignation. Under Article 80(1)(a) there is a nomination. But there is no renomination. The president can only nominate a person to the Raya Sabha. The notification cannot say that the president is re-nominating him,” Achary said.

“Secondly, Section 154(3) of the Representation of People Act says that a member chosen to fill a casual vacancy shall serve the remainder of the term of his predecessor. Mark the word ‘chosen’, which means chosen through election. It does not apply to a nominated member. It would therefore mean that filling a casual vacancy does not apply to nomination. So, the notification issued by the president re-nominating Dasgupta seems to be defective,” he continued.

Nominated individuals cannot be thought of in the same vein as elected ones, Achary said. “The president nominates men of eminence to the Rajya Sabha. When any such person resigns he conveys his intention not to serve the House and impart his knowledge and wisdom to it. In this respect, he is different from an elected member. Once a nominated member resigns, the president nominates another eminent person not to serve the remainder of the term but a full term of six years. So it is constitutionally wrong to keep the seat reserved and re-nominate a person who had made it clear to the House through his resignation that he no longer wanted to impart his knowledge and wisdom to the House. The problem with this kind of action is that the spirit of the constitution is given a complete burial,” he concluded.

Senior advocate of the Supreme Court, Sanjay Hegde, agreed with Achary on the question of the legality of such a renomination.

“P.D.T. Achary is right that there is no provision for renomination. The President has the power to nominate anyone. However, here, the President is specifically nominating someone who had, barely a month ago, resigned from a post he occupied as a result of the nomination. I refuse to believe that in a country of 1.3 billion people there was no one else available for nomination,” he said.

Hegde also said that this would be a difficult decision to defend in court.

“Even the Presidential power of pardon has been held to be subject to judicial review. If the nomination is tested in court, the court may consider if there was material on record, justifying a second nomination to seat voluntarily forsaken. This case may otherwise present a troubling precedent,” Hegde said.

Congress MP Jairam Ramesh also asked whether this was the first time in the history of the Rajya Sabha that such a thing had happened.

Dasgupta was nominated to the Rajya Sabha in April 2016 and his original term was set to expire in 2022.

In a separate notification, the Home Ministry said the lawyer Mahesh Jethmalani was also nominated to Rajya Sabha by the central government to fill the seat that has fallen vacant due to the demise of Raghunath Mohapatra for the reminder his (Mohapatra’s) term, i.e. till July 13, 2024.

The president, acting on the advice of the government,  has the power to nominate up to 12 individuals – normally but not always renowned personalities – drawn from fields such as literature, science, sports, art and social service to the upper house.

(With PTI inputs)

Note: This article was originally published on June 1, 2021 and republished on June 2, 2021 with P.D.T. Achary and Sanjay Hegde’s opinions. 

Contempt of Court: Won’t Apologise for Tweets, Kunal Kamra Says

The comedian said his view of the Supreme Court has not changed and that he believes the court’s silence on issues of personal liberty cannot go uncriticised.

New Delhi: After attorney general K.K. Venugopal granted his consent to initiate contempt proceedings against Kunal Kamra, the comedian issued a statement saying he does not intend to retract his tweets that were critical of the Supreme Court or apologise for them.

During and after the apex court’s proceedings to decide on granting interim bail to Republic TV editor Arnab Goswami, Kamra posted a series of tweets that were critical of judges and the judiciary. After at least three lawyers wrote to the attorney general, Venugopal decided to grant his consent to initiate contempt proceedings.

Reacting to the development, Kamra said his tweets represented his view that the Supreme Court was “giving a partial decision in favour of a Prime Time Loudspeaker”. He said that the Supreme Court has maintained a silence on the matters of personal liberty in other cases, adding that such conduct cannot go uncriticised.

He suggested to the court that the time allotted to his contempt petition hearing should be allotted to other matters such as petitions against demonetisation and the revocation of Jammu and Kashmir’s special status.

Doubling down on his criticism, the comedian added, “Also in one of my tweets I had asked for replacement of the photo of Mahatma Gandhi at the Supreme Court of India with that of Harish Salve. I would like to add that Pandit Nehru photo should also be replaced with Mahesh Jethmalani (sic).”

Kunal Kamra’s full statement is reproduced below.

§

Dear Judges, Mr KK Venugopal, the tweets I recently put out have been found in contempt Of court. All that I tweeted was from my view of the Supreme Court Of India giving a partial decision in favour of a Prime Time Loudspeaker. I believe I must confess I very much love holding court and enjoying a platform with a captive audience. An audience of Supreme Court judges and the nation’s top most law officer is perhaps as VIP an audience as it gets. But I realise that more than any entertainment venue I would perform in, a time slot before the Supreme Court is a scarce commodity.

My view hasn’t changed because the silence of the Supreme Court of India on matters of other’s personal liberty cannot go uncriticized. I don’t intend to retract my tweets or apologise for them. I believe they speak for themselves. I wish to volunteer having the time that would be allotted to the hearing of my contempt petition (20 hours at the very least, if Prashant Bhushan’s hearing is anything to go by), to other matters and parties who have not been as lucky and privileged as I am to jump the queue. May I suggest the demonetisation petition, the petition challenging the revocation of J&K’s special Status, the matter Of the legality Of electoral bonds or countless other matters that are more deserving of time and attention. To slightly misquote Senior Advocate Harish Salve “Will the heavens fall if more salient matters are allotted my time?”.

The Supreme Court of India hasn’t yet declared my tweets anything as of now but if and when they do I hope they can have a small laugh before declaring them Contempt of Court. Also in one of my tweets I had asked for replacement of the photo of Mahatma Gandhi at the Supreme Court of India with that of Harish Salve. I would like to add that Pandit Nehru photo should also be replaced with Mahesh Jethmalani.

Call to Disband MHA’s ‘Unrepresentative’ Panel for Overhauling Criminal Laws Grows Louder

A group of lawyers and activists have set up an online campaign against the National Level Committee for Reforms in Criminal Laws which they say has been fast-forwarding key procedures.

New Delhi: A group of lawyers and activists have set up a website to call for an email campaign to disband the National Level Committee for Reforms in Criminal Laws with the claim that it is unrepresentative, has been fast-forwarding key procedures and has been keen to leave little time for public consultation.

Constituted on May 4, the five-member panel has been set up by home ministry to review criminal laws. The members of the committee are Ranbir Singh (chairman), G. S. Bajpai, Balraj Chauhan, Mahesh Jethmalani and G.P. Thareja.

The announcement about the formation of the committee was first made by Union home minister Amit Shah in December 2019.

The three main laws that the committee is expected to overhaul is the 1860 Indian Penal Code, 1973 Code of Criminal Procedures and the 1872 Indian Evidence Act. The panel has a timeline of six months to review the laws and make recommendations.

Also read: Activists Question MHA as Torture Left Out of Criminal Law Reforms Panel’s Agenda

There had already been misgivings over the lack of diversity of the committee and transparency in its functioning, as expressed in an open letter signed by retired judges and former bureaucrats.

A new website, ‘disbandthecommittee.in’ had been set up, which explains the concerns around the committee and its actual outcome. It also allows for users to register their concerns by e-mailing their own member of parliament, the home ministry and the committee.

The authors behind the website have cited five major issues with the committee – the non-representative composition, limited time frame for this process, opaque manner of functioning, generalised mandate and question marks on the refusal to bring the Law Commission into the process of rewriting legislation.

Last month, 440 law students from six legal institutions had also written an open letter saying that there was not a single woman or an member of the marginalised communities in the committee.

The students had also pointed out that the online consultation in English excludes most of the population of India from the process.

“…A purely online consultation, with questions only provided in English, completely ignores the reality of the backgrounds of a vast majority of our population. Many places lack access to the internet and more importantly, most of the population is not fluent in the English language – the 2011 census recorded that just over 10% of Indians reported knowing and being able to speak some English,” the letter stated.

Also read: Why Relying on Criminal Law Should Not Be the Answer to a Pandemic

Meanwhile, the website also pointed out that the ongoing pandemic is not an opportune time to undertake such a path-breaking reform, which requires wider outreach and inclusion from all stakeholders.

“The communities most affected by a malfunctioning criminal justice system – that will also be the most affected by the removal or loosening of what safeguards exist in that system – have been the worst hit by the pandemic and are in no position to participate in deliberations to reform the criminal justice system. Representations from several communities have called on the committee to suspend this exercise at least until the pandemic has abated,” said the Citizens Against the Criminal Law Reform Committee.

Veteran Jurist Ram Jethmalani Passes Away, Tributes Pour In

Leaders across political and social spectrum joined in to pay tributes to the 95-year-old.

New Delhi: Eminent jurist and former Union minister Ram Jethmalani passed away on Sunday at the age of 95, his family members said.

Jethmalani breathed his last at 7.45 am at his official residence in New Delhi, his son Mahesh Jethmalani told PTI. Mahesh and other close acquaintances said he had not been keeping well for a few months.

He passed away a few days before his 96th birthday on September 14. Mahesh said his father’s last rites will be performed in the evening at the Lodhi road crematorium here.

Besides Mahesh Jethmalani, the former Union minister is survived by his daughter based in the US. His other daughter, Rani Jethmalani, died in 2011.

Jethmalani was the Union law minister and also the Urban development minister during the Atal Bihari Vajpayee-led NDA government. He also served as the Supreme Court Bar Association president in 2010. He was born in Shikarpur in Sindh province (now in Pakistan) on September 14, 1923 and obtained a law degree at the age of 17.

‘Lost a dear friend’

President Ram Nath Kovind condoled the demise of Ram Jethmalani, a “person of great erudition and intellect”.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi recollected the contributions of Mr. Jethmalani to both the Court and Parliament while condoling his demise.

“I consider myself fortunate to have got numerous opportunities to interact with Shri Ram Jethmalani Ji. In these sad moments, my condolences to his family, friends and many admirers. He may not be here but his pioneering work will live on! Om Shanti,” Modi wote.

CPI(M) general secretary Sitaram Yechury on Sunday expressed grief over the death of the veteran lawyer, and said he had lost a “dear friend”.

Vice President M. Venkaiah Naidu on Sunday said the country has lost a great intellectual and a patriot.

“Deeply saddened to learn about the demise of Shri Ram Jethmalani … one of the brilliant minds of Bharat. In his passing away the nation has lost a distinguished jurist, a great intellectual & a patriot, who was active till his last breath,” the Vice President’s secretariat wrote on Twitter.

Ram Jethmalani’s name will be written in golden words in legal history, said Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, reacting to Jethmalani’s demise.

“Extremely saddened at the passing away of legendary lawyer Ram Jethmalani ji,” the Delhi CM wrote on Twitter.

(With inputs from PTI)

Supreme Court Stays Cases on Suspended DGP, CM Baghel Receives Notice

The notice pertains to the Chhattisgarh government’s “hounding” of suspended DGP Mukesh Gupta with “malafide intention”.

Chhattisgarh chief minister Bhupesh Baghel has been issued a notice by the Supreme Court in a matter filed by his director general of police (DGP) Mukesh Gupta (presently suspended). Others such as senior IAS officer Anil Tuteja and the state, through the chief secretary, have also been issued notices. The notice pertains to the ‘hounding’ of Gupta with “malafide intention” and filing of three FIRs against him.

In an almost unprecedented move, the court has not only stayed the proceedings in all the three cases but issued notices to all respondents to file their replies. Gupta is under investigation by the Economic Offence Wing (EOW) for illegal phone tapping amongst other things. An FIR was also lodged against him at the Supela police station by his brother-in-law, Miki Mehta, who alleged that he had goaded his sister to suicide.

In his 245-page petition, Gupta made some damning allegations against Baghel. The gist is that he is being hounded because he had registered a case against Baghel when he was the ADG of the EOW. He cited other instances where he was “specifically targeted” by an administration bent upon punishing him for having performed his duties in the past.

What may have impressed Justice Arun Mishra and Justice M.R. Shah is that Gupta made a plea for the cases to be investigated by the CBI, thereby signalling his confidence in the fairness of the investigation. The court has also issued notices to the CBI.

Mukesh Gupta. Photo: Screengrab

Mahesh Jethmalani, who appeared for Gupta, successfully demonstrated to the court the malafide intent in Baghel’s approach. He pointed out that Anil Tuteja, who was being investigated for his role in the infamous NAN scam and was under suspension, is the complainant against his client. It is a case of an accused accusing his investigator. Tuteja’s suspension was also revoked by Baghel.

It is also surprising that no lawyer appeared on behalf of the state or the chief minister in the case filed by Mukesh Gupta, despite Chhattisgarh having three additional advocate generals in Delhi.

In a week of reverses for the Baghel government, former chief minister Ajit Jogi also received a reprieve from the Bilaspur high court on Wednesday. The HC stayed the decision of the high powered D.D. Singh committee which found him non-tribal. This has several immediate implications, including Jogi not losing his membership of the state assembly.

The stay also means that both Jogi and his son Amit may get some relief in the FIRs filed against them related to their tribal status. Salman Khursheed had specially come from Delhi to argue the state’s case against Jogi, but could not impress upon the court not to stay the high powered committee’s decision.

Freedom Under Fire: Perfectly Elastic Sedition; Can the Disabled Speak?

A round-up of news, both bad and good, on the rights front from India.

A round-up of news, both bad and good, on the rights front from India.

Credit: PTI/Files

Credit: PTI/Files

Perfectly elastic sedition

Ever since the JNU kand, the term ‘anti-national’ has crept into popular parlance, figuring every other day, when someone gets booked for sedition. But, while at the beginning of the year, we were asking what constitutes being ‘anti-national’, I think the more pertinent question now would be, what doesn’t constitute being ‘anti-national’? The applicability of Section124A seems to be infinitely extendable, with three widely different cases coming up this past week.

Universities seem to ‘breed’ sedition, with the Central University of Haryana joining the league of seditious universities last week. The Wire had reported on September 27 how students and teachers from the university were threatened with sedition by the ABVP for staging Mahasweta Devi’s Draupadi. Offensively ‘anti-national’ was the unflattering portrayal of Indian soldiers in the play, because of which performing the play became an ‘anti-national’ act in itself.

On September 28, former Supreme Court judge Markandey Katju found himself part of the ever-increasing number of ‘anti-nationals’ over a contentious comment – Katju had insisted that Kashmir should be given to Pakistan if they agree to take Bihar as well. Following a complaint by a JD(U) MLC, he was charged under Section 124A, among other things. An unfazed Katju continued to be blithely ‘anti-national’ on social media, palming out several snide remarks, such as the tweet below.

Meanwhile, in Kishtwar, Jammu, 40 people were reportedly booked for sedition for taking part in ‘anti-India’ protests between July 11 and September 13, the Indian Express reported on September 29. Apprehending arrests, the ‘anti-nationals’ are now absconding.

On the same evening, Mahesh Jethmalani, advocate at the Bombay high court, appeared on Times Now to clarify that legal provisions should be made to ensure that anyone who claims Pakistan is a stakeholder in the Kashmir issue can be booked under sedition.

Can the differently-abled speak?

India has not been particularly friendly towards disability. Youth ki Awaaz reported earlier this month that the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Bill in still in parliament, waiting to be passed, while not enough data is being collected by the government to make the legislation viable.

On September 25, the Mint published a story about a village in Karnataka with over 20,000 people with hearing disabilities. The 2011 census had recorded the number of disabled at the village, Alipur, at roughly 11,000. Alipur has taken matters into its own hands over the past few years, with an informal community leader shouldering much of the initiative in ensuring that the disabled in his village can communicate with the outside world. With a substantial number of its residents having hearing disabilities, the area has developed its own sign language, specific to the region’s dialect. This prevents many of the villagers from communicating with people outside because they cannot follow standardised languages such as the Indian Sign Language. However, attempts are being made indigenously, largely by a man who is also disabled, to educate the villagers in standardised sign languages so that they can build a better life for themselves outside the village.

For the differently-abled who manage to overcome several barriers to find a place in a university campus, the very architecture of the institution can become a challenge. For several years, the visually challenged students of JNU have demanded that the campus be made more disabled-friendly. While the administration has constructed a scattering of ramps around the campus to make navigation easier, systematic planning is evidently lacking. On September 28, the JNU Visually Challenged Students Forum announced a demonstration to protest the increasing dog and cat menace on campus. They said that they have long demanded a barrier-free campus that will not be possible if the dog and cat problem persists.

Some students have expressed concern on social media that this privileges human rights over animal rights when a solution that is amenable to both should be sought.

Caste away

Even after Prime Minister Narendra Modi denounced gau rakshaks early in August and the rest of the BJP followed, hesitantly nudging itself towards a more Dalit-inclusive rhetoric, cow-vigilantes struck again on September 26. The victims this time were a pregnant Dalit woman and her family. The reason they were attacked? They refused to move a cow’s carcass. According to the Indian Express, the family was assaulted in Gujarat’s Mota Karja village, when they said they would remove the carcass the next morning, rather than at night as their attackers had demanded.

On September 25, Scroll reported that there were 1,816 recorded instances of crimes against scheduled castes in 2015. Despite the existent law against atrocities, Dalit rights are hindered time and again owing to ineffective implementation. With rising crimes against Dalits, the Maratha demand that the law be repealed is tantamount to demanding that the Dalit community be excluded from justice altogether.

Attempts to empower the community have also been less than heartening. On September 19, IndiaSpend , in a report, claimed to have found that over the last 35 years in Madhya Pradesh, the “Rs 2.8 lakh crore ($42.6 billion) set aside to improve the lives of scheduled castes and scheduled tribes by way of measures like mid-day meals, scholarships and crop insurance was simply not spent.”

If you want to receive regular email updates from this column, subscribe to the Freedom Under Fire newsletter.

If you know of any other incident we should highlight in this column, write to me at titash@cms.thewire.in.