proceedings

BJP Leader Writes to AG Seeking Consent to Initiate Contempt Against Andhra CM

Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay said the letter by the Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister scandalises the authority of the SC and HC both.

New Delhi: An advocate wrote to Attorney General K.K. Venugopal seeking his consent to initiate contempt proceedings against Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy and his press advisor for making allegations against a Supreme Court judge.

BJP leader and lawyer Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay said the letter by the Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister scandalises the authority of both the Supreme Court and the high court and interferes with the judicial proceedings and the administration of justice.

Even worse, if this kind of precedent were allowed, political leaders would start making reckless allegations against judges who do not decide cases in their favour and this trend would soon spell the death knell of an independent judiciary,” Upadhyay wrote in his letter.

I am therefore seeking your kind consent under Section 15(1)(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 read with Rule 3 of the Rules to Regulate Proceedings for Contempt of the Supreme Court, 1975 to initiate criminal contempt against Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy, Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh and Shri Ajeya Kallam, Press Advisor of the Government of Andhra Pradesh, he said.

Also read: In Y.S. Jagan v Justice Ramana, Modi Government Wins, Regardless of Outcome

According to Upadhyay’s letter, the actions of these two individuals constitute grave criminal contempt of the Supreme Court of India and the High Court of Andhra Pradesh.

It has been two weeks since the release of Reddy’s letter in the public domain, and as yet, there has been no suo-motu contempt action initiated by the Supreme Court, the advocate said in his letter.

In an unprecedented move, the chief minister wrote to the CJI, alleging that the Andhra Pradesh High Court was being used to “destabilise and topple my democratically elected government.”

He had requested the CJI to look into the matter and consider initiating steps “as may be considered fit and proper to ensure that the state judiciary’s neutrality is maintained”.

The chief minister had alleged that the senior apex court judge had proximity to TDP chief Chandrababu Naidu and that a “former judge of the honourable Supreme Court placed this fact on record”.

Supreme Court Slams ‘Inordinate Delay’ by Government Authorities in Filing Appeals

The bench said a preposterous proposition is sought to be propounded that if there is some merit in the case, the period of delay is to be given a go-by.

New Delhi: The Supreme Court has deprecated the inordinate delays by government authorities in filing appeals before it and said they must pay for wastage of judicial time and such costs can be recovered from officers responsible.

A bench headed by Justice S.K Kaul said the apex court cannot be a place for the governments to walk in when they choose to ignore the period of limitation prescribed in the statute.

We have raised the issue that if the government machinery is so inefficient and incapable of filing appeals/petitions in time, the solution may lie in requesting the Legislature to expand the time period for filing limitation for government authorities because of their gross incompetence. That is not so, said the bench, also comprising Justice Dinesh Maheshwari.

Till the statute subsists, the appeals/petitions have to be filed as per the statues prescribed, the bench said in its order while dealing with an appeal filed by Madhya Pradesh after a delay of 663 days.

The top court noted the explanation given in the application for condonation of delay which stated that it was due to unavailability of documents and process of arranging them and also that in bureaucratic process works, it is inadvertent that delay occurs.

We are constrained to pen down a detailed order as it appears that all our counselling to government and government authorities have fallen on deaf ears i.e., the Supreme Court of India cannot be a place for the governments to walk in when they choose to ignore the period of limitation prescribed, it said.

The bench said a preposterous proposition is sought to be propounded that if there is some merit in the case, the period of delay is to be given a go-by.

If a case is good on merits, it will succeed in any case. It is really a bar of limitation which can even shut out good cases. This does not, of course, take away the jurisdiction of the court in an appropriate case to condone the delay, it said.

The bench noted that such approach is being adopted and the object appears to be to obtain a certificate of dismissal from the Supreme Court to put a quietus to the issue and thus, say that nothing could be done because the highest court has dismissed the appeal.

It is to complete this formality and save the skin of officers who may be at default that such a process is followed. We have on earlier occasions also strongly deprecated such a practice and process. There seems to be no improvement, it said.

The purpose of coming to this court is not to obtain such certificates and if the government suffers losses, it is time when the concerned officer responsible for the same bears the consequences, the bench noted.

Also read: SC Appoints Justice Madan B. Lokur as One-Man Panel to Help Prevent Stubble Burning

The top court said no action is taken against the officers, who sit on the files and do nothing, and it is presumed that the court would condone the delay.

We are thus, constrained to send a signal and we propose to do in all matters today, where there are such inordinate delays that the government or state authorities coming before us must pay for wastage of judicial time which has its own value. Such costs can be recovered from the officers responsible, the bench said.

It noted in its order that no doubt, some leeway is given for government inefficiencies but the sad part is that authorities keep on relying on judicial pronouncements for a period of time when technology had not advanced and a greater leeway was given to the government.

The bench, which dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay, imposed a cost of Rs 25,000 on Madhya Pradesh and said it be deposited within four weeks with the Mediation and Conciliation Project Committee.

The amount be recovered from the officers responsible for the delay in filing the special leave petition and a certificate of recovery of the said amount be also filed in this court within the said period of time, it said.

The bench made it clear that if its order is not complied within time, it would be constrained to initiate contempt proceedings against the chief secretary of the state.

‘Let Allahabad High Court Deal With Hathras Case,’ Says Supreme Court

When other lawyers expressed the wish to argue, the apex court said: “We don’t need the assistance of the whole world”.

New Delhi: The Supreme Court Thursday said the Allahabad high court should be allowed to monitor the Hathras case in which a 19-year-old Dalit woman was brutally gang raped by her own admission and died of serious injuries.

The top court, which was hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) and several intervention pleas filed by activists and lawyers, was told that no fair trial was possible in Uttar Pradesh as the investigation has been botched up considerably.

A bench headed by Chief Justice S.A. Bobde, said, “Let the high court deal with it. We are here if there is any problem.”

Besides Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, the hearing saw a battery of senior advocates like Harish Salve, Indira Jaising and Siddharth Luthra appearing for various parties.

When other lawyers expressed the wish to argue, the apex court said: “We don’t need the assistance of the whole world”.

The hearing also witnessed deliberations on the victim’s identity, on the fact that it should not be disclosed and that her family members and witnesses be given full protection.

The lawyer appearing for the victim’s family demanded that the proceedings of the case be shifted out of Uttar Pradesh to a court in the national capital.

The apprehension of not getting a fair trial in the state was also raised by Indira Jaising who also made submissions on witness protection.

Tushar Mehta referred to a recent affidavit filed by the Uttar Pradesh government which sought to offer details on the purported security provided to the victim’s family and witnesses in the case.

Referring to the compliance affidavit, Mehta said the victim’s family had informed that they had engaged a lawyer. While Mehta said that the victim’s family had also requested that the government advocate pursue the case on their behalf, it is also a fact that the family had filed a petition with the Allahabad high court, noting that the local administration was not allowing them to venture out of the house or meet people.

Also read: Are You Aware of Amended Definition of Rape, HC Asks UP Cop Who Denied Hathras Victim Was Raped

Senior advocate Harish Salve, appearing for DGP of Uttar Pradesh, said that a request has been made before the bench that CRPF should be deployed for security of witnesses.

“Whoever your lordships feel, can give protection,” Salve said, adding that it should not be construed to be any reflection on the state police.

Mehta said, “The state is completely non-partisan”.

During the hearing before the bench, also comprising Justices A.S. Bopanna and V. Ramasubramanian, advocate Seema Kushwaha, appearing for the victim’s family, said they want that after investigation, the trial be held in a court in Delhi.

She said that CBI should be asked to submit the status report of investigation directly in the apex court.

Mehta said factual position is that the state government had already said it has no objection and anybody can conduct the probe and CBI has taken over the investigation on October 10, 2020.

The law officer said that the victim’s identity should not be revealed in any manner as it is not permissible under the law.

Senior advocate Indira Jaising, representing one of the intervenors, said the accused should not be heard at this stage.

She added, “We don’t expect a fair trial in the state of UP. The investigation has been botched up”.

“We want intensive monitoring of the case by a Constitutional court,” Jaising said, adding that a special public prosecutor should be appointed by the apex court in the case.

Also read: Hathras Case: ‘3-Fold Security Mechanism’ for Protection of Victim’s Family, UP Govt Tells SC

“We are not satisfied with the protection given to the victim’s family and witnesses by Uttar Pradesh. Let protection be given by CRPF as was done in Unnao case,” she said, adding, “It is the very government against whom the victim’s family have grievances”.

Senior advocate Siddharth Luthra, who appeared for one the accused, said that details of the case are all over in the media.

“You go to the jurisdictional high court,” the bench told Luthra.

The Solicitor General opposed one of the applications filed by an organisation which has sought to transfer the investigation in the Hathras incident to the CBI.

“The Supreme Court should direct that nobody should collect money in the name of the victim. We have seen this in the past. I oppose this IA,” Mehta said.

One of the intervenors argued that probe into the case should be conducted by a court-monitored special investigating team.

Donald Trump Pulls Out of Virtual Presidential Debate, Could Hold Rally on Saturday

Opinion polls show Biden leading Trump nationally, though the race appears closer in battleground states that could decide the outcome.

Washington: President Donald Trump added more turbulence to the U.S. election campaign on Thursday, pulling out of an October 15, 2020, debate with Democratic rival Joe Biden after it was changed to a virtual event and saying he may hold a rally in Florida on Saturday.

Trump, who was hospitalised for three days after disclosing last Friday he had tested positive for the novel coronavirus, blasted the format change announced by the non-partisan commission in charge of the debates and expressed concern his microphone could be cut off.

“I’m not going to waste my time on a virtual debate. That’s not what debating is all about,” Trump said in a nearly hour-long phone morning interview with Fox Business. “You sit behind a computer and do a debate – it’s ridiculous, and then they cut you off whenever they want.”

On Thursday night, he told Fox News he was feeling “really good” and might return to the campaign trail on Saturday night, possibly with a rally in Florida. His physician said in a memo Trump had completed his course of therapy and could return to public engagements on Saturday.

Trump said he would likely get tested for COVID-19 on Friday.

Trump‘s decision not to participate in a virtual debate means the second and final debate between the two White House contenders will be on October 22, 2020, less than two weeks before the November 3, 2020, election. In lieu of the October 15, 2020, debate, Biden’s campaign quickly arranged a town hall-style event in Philadelphia that night to be hosted by ABC News.

The chairman of the debate commission, Frank Fahrenkopf, told the Associated Press the switch to a virtual format was not being reconsidered.

Some Trump advisers questioned his decision not to participate in the new debate format, arguing he would miss an opportunity to make his case to millions of voters tuned in, a source familiar with the situation said.

With Trump‘s handling of the pandemic dominating the campaign, a new Reuters/Ipsos poll showed Americans are steadily losing confidence in how the president has managed the health crisis with his net approval on the issue hitting a record low.

The poll taken Tuesday through Thursday found 37% of American adults approved of Trump‘s handling of the pandemic and 59% disapproved. The net approval rating of negative 22 percentage points is the lowest in the poll dating back to March 2, 2020, and has steadily declined over the last 10 days.

Trump‘s rejection of the shift in the debate format sparked a flurry of statements back and forth between the two camps. Trump‘scampaign proposed holding another debate on October 29, 2020, which Biden’s campaign rejected.

Also read: Trump’s Taxes, Pandemic Record Dominate VP Debate as Harris, Pence Trade Blows

“We set the dates. I’m sticking with the dates,” Biden told reporters. “I’m showing up. I’ll be there. And in fact, if he shows up, fine; if he doesn’t, fine.”

Even before his illness was announced, Trump‘s performance in the chaotic first debate with Biden last week prompted calls for a change in format. Trump constantly interrupted and talked over both Biden and the moderator.

Some had proposed giving the moderator in future debates the power to cut off any candidate who disrupted the proceedings. The debate commission said nothing about muting the participants in its announcement while describing the new format as needed “to protect the health and safety of all involved.”

As Election Day approaches, early voting has exceeded records. More than 6 million ballots have been cast as Americans change their behaviour to avoid possible infection at polling places amid a pandemic that has killed more than 210,000 Americans.

Opinion polls show Biden leading Trump nationally, though the race appears closer in battleground states that could decide the outcome.

‘I’d love to do a rally’

Saying he was feeling “really good,” Trump said on Fox that he was ready to resume campaign rallies. Such rallies, particularly held indoors, have raised concern among public health experts about spreading the virus.

“I’d love to do a rally tonight. I wanted to do one last night,” Trump said, adding that “if I’m at a rally, I stand by myself very far away from everybody.”

Trump has not been seen in public since he returned to the White House from the hospital, although he has released several videos.

Also read: Ahead of Presidential Election, Trump Administration Imposes New Curbs on H-1B Visas

U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines say people who are severely ill with COVID-19 might need to stay home for up to 20 days after symptoms first appear. The White House has not provided detailed information on the severity of Trump‘s illness and has refused to say when he last tested negative for the virus.

The back-and-forth followed a debate on Wednesday between the two running mates, Vice President Mike Pence and Democratic vice presidential nominee Senator Kamala Harris, that was far more orderly than the Trump-Biden encounter.

Biden raised more than $12 million on the day of the debate, a campaign aide said.

Harris was joined by Biden in the battleground state of Arizona on Thursday for an event with Native American leaders and a bus tour to meet with small-business owners and voters in Phoenix and Tempe on the second day of early balloting in the state.

(Reuters)

Sudarshan TV: SC Discusses Injunction, 3 Parties Apply to Join Case Based on ‘Hate Speech’ Report

In a counter-affidavit submitted to the court, the Centre has once again urged for guidelines to regulate digital media.

New Delhi: The Supreme Court said on Monday, September 21, that it will take up the hearing of the plea against the contents of Sudarshan TV’s ‘Bindas Bol’ programme on Wednesday, September 23.

The court had on September 15 restrained the channel from airing its show, a promo of which had claimed that it will unveil a conspiracy by Muslims to “infiltrate” the civil services. Entering the civil services in India involves sitting for competitive examinations which are open to all citizens.

Monday’s arguments largely focused on the nature of the Supreme Court’s injunction, on whether this restraining order is justified and what its wider implications could be.

“Postponement order not a punitive measure but a preventive measure,” LiveLaw quoted advocate Shadan Farasat, who was originally representing three students who had petitioned the Delhi high court, as having said, justifying the restraining order.

Farasat also said that it is crucial to note that situations of genocide arise when the majority feels they are targeted and cited the examples of the Nazis, Rwanda and the Buddhists’ treatment of Rohingya Muslims.

Advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain held that his client Sudarshan TV had followed the programme code.

Also read: ‘Let Message Go to Media That a Particular Community Can’t Be Targeted’: SC in Sudarshan TV Hearing

A bench of Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Indu Malhotra and K.M. Joseph, hearing the case, had also held that the Zakat Foundation, which has been named by Sudarshan TV as the coaching centre for Muslim UPSC aspirants that has received dubious foreign funding, could pursue a relevant path of redressal if it feels it has been defamed.

“Hate speech is for a targeted group,” said Justice Chandrachud.

The bench had earlier taken a dim view of the portrayal of Muslims in the show and had used previous hearings to say that in the show, “free speech becomes hatred”.

“We have to look after a nation of the future which is cohesive and diverse,” it had said, adding, “Let this message go to the media that the country cannot survive with such agenda.”

Centre asks for digital media guidelines

Meanwhile, in a counter-affidavit submitted to the court, the Centre has alleged that the self-regulatory mechanisms in place for addressing complaints against TV and print media are “effective and ensures impartiality”.

It urged the Supreme Court not to lay down guidelines and “widen the scope of [the] present petition,” LiveLaw has reported.

As it has done before, the Centre has also pushed forward its demand for a check on digital media.

““Apart from spreading venomous hatred, deliberate and intended instigation to not only cause violence but even terrorism it is also capable of indulging in tarnishing the image of individuals and institutions. The said practice is, in fact, rampant,” the Centre said.

3 organisations move court seeking impleadment

On Monday, rightwing website OpIndia, along with the Indic Collective Trust and Upword Foundation, moved Supreme Court seeking impleadment to join the ongoing case against Sudarshan TV over its telecast of the show.

Advocate J. Sai Deepak, who submitted the application, said that OpIndia had prepared a report that could help Supreme Court come to a conclusion on what counts as “hate speech.”

The three parties have alleged that the current case is a one-off instance, reported LiveLaw, and have said that there are apparently nearly “100 instances where Indic faiths and Indic communities have been the subject of “blanket stereotyping, generalization and demonization.”

‘Indic’ is the term the right-wing uses to differentiate religions like Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism from ‘Abrahamic’ religions, i.e. Islam, Christianity and Judaism.

‘Let Message Go to Media That a Particular Community Can’t Be Targeted’: SC in Sudarshan TV Hearing

Taking a dim view of how Muslims have been represented in the show, the bench cited the fact that the show “contained a pictorial representation of a Muslim with a beard, skull cap and green face, with flames in the background.”

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday questioned Sudarshan TV over its ‘Bindas Bol’ programme, which had claimed to be a big expose on the conspiracy by Muslims to infiltrate into government service, and asked whether the media can be allowed to target whole communities.

On September 15, the top court had restrained the channel from telecasting episodes of the show, saying that it appeared to vilify Muslims.

Taking a dim view of how Muslims have been represented in the show, the bench, led by Justice D.Y. Chandrachud cited the fact that the show “contained a pictorial representation of a Muslim with a beard, skull cap and green face, with flames in the background.”

According to LiveLaw, Justice Chandrachud said that even the live chat aired on the topic on Sudarshan TV had an objectionable tenor “because of comments such as ‘Chor ki daari mein tinka. Yahaan pe chor bhi hain, daari bhi hain‘.”

The apex court, while hearing a plea against the programme, said the channel is entitled to break a story but it cannot brand the entire community and alienate them by doing such stories.

“This is the real issue. Whenever you show them joining civil services, you show ISIS. You want to say that Muslims joining civil services is a part of a deep-rooted conspiracy. Can the media be allowed to target whole set of communities?” the bench, also comprising Justices Indu Malhotra and K.M. Joseph, said.

“Painting all candidates as carrying out an agenda shows the kind of hatred. This is the element of concern,” said the bench.

“Here free speech becomes hatred. You can’t brand every member of the community. You alienate the good members too by divisive agenda,” it said.

Also read: Sudarshan TV’s ‘UPSC Jihad’ Episode is an Assault Not Just on Muslims but on the UPSC Too

The bench told senior advocate Shyam Divan, who was representing Sudarshan TV, that the court has no problem with the story on investigative journalism on funding from terror linked organisations but it cannot be said that Muslims are carrying out some agenda by going for UPSC services.

“Let a message go to media that a particular community cannot be targeted. We have to look after a nation of the future which is cohesive and diverse,” it said, adding, “Let this message go to the media that the country cannot survive with such agenda.”

“We are a court and seen as to what happened during emergency and it is our duty to see that the human dignity is preserved,” said the bench.

During the hearing conducted through video-conferencing, Divan said the channel has no problem with any individual from any community joining the civil services on merit.

“Channel wants to complete the broadcast. We are not running away anywhere. As far as the four episodes are seen as whole then a cuss word here and there should not ignite the jurisdiction of this court to impose a pre-telecast ban,” he said.

However, the bench said, “Look at the tenor of the statements. Audience says all things which has been elicited by the show. We have no issue with the NGO or sources of funding. There issue is you implicate a whole community as taking over the civil services.”

Divan told the bench that channel would file an affidavit with regard to the alleged offensive content of the programme as pointed out by the court.

The bench observed, “We know how an injunction order will be looked like. I am afraid that there will be injunctions galore and we don’t want that to be the law of land. We want to give your client a good faith option.”

Zakat Foundation link

Earlier in the day’s proceeding, the bench asked Zakat Foundation, an NGO which provides training to students aspiring for civil services, whether it wanted to intervene in the case following allegations of foreign funding from some terror linked organisations to its Indian set up.

The bench told senior advocate Sanjay Hegde, appearing for Zakat Foundation, that an affidavit filed by Sudarshan TV has allegations of foreign funding against his client.

In its affidavit, Sudarshan TV through the channel’s head Suresh Chavhanke, has said:

“The Answering Respondent [Chavhanke] has used the words UPSC Jihad because it has come to the knowledge… through various sources that Zakat Foundation has received funds from various terror-linked organizations.”

“It is not that all contributors to the Zakat Foundation are terror-linked. However, some of the contributors are linked to organizations or are organizations that fund extremist groups. The funds received by the Zakat Foundation, in turn, are used to support aspirants for IAS, IPS or UPSC.”

The bench told Hegde that some Foreign Contribution Regulations Act (FCRA) records with regard to foreign funding have been filed by the TV channel and it is upon his client to intervene in the matter or not.

Hegde said Zakat Foundation does not conduct any residential programmes and only pays the fees of the IAS coaching classes. He added that his client is a charitable organisation and has been supporting non-Muslims as well and this kind of social service is not known even in government circles.

The channel has also filed an application in the apex court seeking live telecast of the hearing in the matter.

(With PTI inputs)

Hateful Content: Delhi Assembly Panel Summons Facebook Official

Last month, Facebook had said its social media platform prohibits hate speech and content that incites violence and these policies are enforced globally without regard to political affiliation.

New Delhi: A Delhi Assembly panel has issued a notice to Facebook India vice president and managing director Ajit Mohan asking him to appear before it on September 15 in connection with complaints about the social media platform’s alleged deliberate and intentional inaction to contain hateful content in the country.

“Summon was issued based on scathing depositions of the key witnesses as well as incriminating material submitted by them on record,” an official statement stated on Saturday.

The summoning by the Delhi Assembly panel on peace and harmony follows a recent Wall Street Journal report which claimed that one of Facebook’s senior India policy executives intervened in internal communication to stop a permanent ban on a Bharatiya Janata Party lawmaker from Telangana after he allegedly shared communally charged posts.

“We hereby summon you (Ajit Mohan) to appear before the committee on September 15, 2020, at Noon at MLA Lounge- 1, Delhi Vidhan Sabha, to record your deposition on oath and participate in the proceedings carried out by the committee,” Delhi Assembly’s deputy secretary said in the notice sent on September 10.

Last month, Facebook had said its social media platform prohibits hate speech and content that incites violence and these policies are enforced globally without regard to political affiliation.

“We prohibit hate speech and content that incites violence and we enforce these policies globally without regard to anyone’s political position or party affiliation.

“While we know there is more to do, we’re making progress on enforcement and conduct regular audits of our process to ensure fairness and accuracy,” a Facebook spokesperson had said.