Venugopal

RS Drops MP’s Question on Whether NRIs Were Deported, Asked to Stop Aiding Farmers

Congress MP K.C. Venugopal’s question to the MEA was not in the list of finally admitted questions cleared to be answered on December 2.

New Delhi: A question listed for parliament by a Congress MP on whether NRIs were being asked by authorities to stop financially assisting the farmers’ protest has been dropped from the final list of questions for December 2, Indian Express has reported.

In late October, The Wire had reported how US-based billionaire Darshan Singh Dhaliwal had been deported from the Delhi airport and said that he had been specifically targeted by immigration officials ever since he began funding a langar at the farmers’ protest site in Singhu, on January 6, 2021.

“When I went to the immigration counter, the officials told me to wait…After two hours, they told me that I will have to go back to the US. When I asked why I was being denied permission to enter India, the immigration officials asked the same questions that they had been asking earlier too – why I organised the langar at Singhu border and who is paying for it. They said if I wanted to enter India, I should stop funding this langar,” Dhaliwal had told The Wire.

The PIO businessman said that ever since he started organising the supply of food for the protesting farmers at Singhu border, he had come to India three times – in January, in April and now in October. “Whenever I came to India, the immigration officials would ask me why I was supporting the farmers’ protest and who was funding the langar,” he had added.

Darshan Singh Dhaliwal serving farmers at Singhu border during one of his recent visits to India. Photo: By arrangement

Rajya Sabha MP K.C. Venugopal had sought to know from the Minister of External Affairs if a number of NRIs based outside India were harassed at the airports and even sent back from airports in the country, the details of such action in the last three years, whether some of them had been asked to stop helping farmers agitating against the three (now repealed) farm laws and the details of these actions, if they had been taken.

The question had been provisionally admitted and was scheduled to be answered on December 2.

Indian Express spoke to unnamed sources who said emails were sent on November 23 to concerned offices of the MEA to seek inputs on provisionally admitted questions, including Venugopal’s, by November 29. “Venugopal’s questions, however, did not find mention in the tentative list of Finally Admitted Questions cleared by the ministry on November 26,” Express‘s report notes.

This tentative list contained questions on easing of travel restrictions, Passport Seva Kendras, salaries of people living and working abroad, membership in the Nuclear Suppliers Group, human rights violations against Tamil people in Sri Lanka, and so on.

The final admitted questions list for the Rajya Sabha, which was cleared on Monday for the December 2 session, has all questions approved in the tentative list except Venugopal’s question, which was missing in the tentative list too.

“Earlier they used to give a clear reason for dropping a question but this time they have only conveyed it orally,” Venugopal told the newspaper, referring to this method of functioning as ‘clear cut dictatorial’.

The report notes that admissibility of questions is the sole decision of the Rajya Sabha chairman, who is Vice-President Venkaiah Naidu.

The Union government, during the earlier Monsoon Session, had moved to disallow a question in the Rajya Sabha seeking details of whether the government entered into a contract with the Israeli company NSO Group, which sells the Pegasus spyware. The government said that the “the ongoing issue of Pegasus” is subjudice after “several PILs have been filed in the Supreme Court”.

Reports by the Pegasus Project, an international consortium of media organisations, including The Wire, have revealed that politicians, journalists, activists, Supreme Court officials were among those who may have been targets of surveillance by an Indian client of the NSO Group. The military-grade spyware is only sold to “vetted governments”. The Indian government has neither denied nor confirmed purchasing the hacking software.

SC Anguished Over Incidents of Threat to Judges, Says IB and CBI Not Helping Judiciary

The bench termed the issue serious and told Attorney General K.K. Venugopal that some interest has to be taken to help the judiciary.

New Delhi: Expressing concern over the incidents of judges getting threats and abusive messages, the Supreme Court Friday said the Intelligence Bureau (IB) and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) are not helping the judiciary at all and there is no freedom to a judicial officer to even make such complaints.

The apex court said there are several criminal cases involving gangsters and high-profile persons and at some places, judges of the trial courts as well as high courts are being threatened not only physically but also mentally through abusive messages on WhatsApp or Facebook.

“In one or two places, the court ordered CBI inquiry. It is very sorry to say that CBI has done nothing in more than one year. At one place, I know, CBI has done nothing. I think we have expected some changes in CBI’s attitude. But there is no change in the attitude of CBI. I am sorry to observe this but this is the situation,” said Chief Justice N.V. Ramana, who was heading a bench which also comprised Justice Surya Kant.

The bench told Attorney General K.K. Venugopal that in criminal cases where high-profile persons are involved, if they do not get expected orders from the court, they start maligning the judiciary.

“This is a new trend developed in the country unfortunately. There is no freedom to a judge even to give a complaint. Such a situation is created,” said the bench, which was hearing a suo motu case on the issue of safeguarding courts and protecting judges in the wake of recent incident of alleged mowing down of a judge at Dhanbad.

The CJI said when the judges complain to the police or the CBI or others, these agencies do not respond.

“They think it is not a priority item for them. The IB, CBI – they are not helping the judiciary at all. I am making this statement with a sense of responsibility and I know the incident that is the reason I am saying this. I do not want to divulge more than this, the CJI said.

The bench termed the issue serious and told Venugopal that some interest has to be taken to help the judiciary.

Venugopal said judges dealing with criminal cases are very vulnerable and said there has to be safety measures for them.

Also read: Supreme Court Registrars, Lawyers of Key Clients , Justice Arun Mishra’s Old Number on Pegasus Radar

He said judges are more vulnerable than the bureaucrats who take decisions within the four corners of their rooms.

Venugopal said he would file his written note on the issue.

Meanwhile, the bench issued a notice to the CBI after it was informed by the Jharkhand government that investigation into the death of the judge in Dhanbad has been handed over to the probe agency.

The apex court also asked all the states to file status reports explaining what security they are providing to the judicial officers.

At the outset, Jharkhand’s advocate general Rajiv Ranjan told the bench that the state had constituted a 22-member special investigation team (SIT) which had arrested the two drivers of the auto-rickshaw which had hit the judge when he was on morning walk on July 28.

Ranjan said the case has now been handed over to the CBI.

“So, you have washed off your hands?” the bench said.

To this, Ranjan said SIT had collected several evidence, and since the area is a border district with West Bengal, there might be a larger conspiracy and cross-border implications.

“We will hear the Jharkhand matter on Monday (August 9). We are issuing notice to the CBI,” the bench said.

It asked Jharkhand’s counsel whether they have provided adequate security at the residence of judges in the state.

The counsel said orders have been issued and adequate police protection has been provided at the residences and colonies of the judicial officers.

Referring to the Dhanbad incident, the bench said it is an unfortunate case where a young judicial officer lost his life.

“We cannot ignore the state’s negligence. We know in Dhanbad area there are mafias, coal mafias. Advocates were killed, judges were attacked but in spite of that, state has not done anything,” the bench observed.

The state’s counsel apprised the bench about the steps being taken in this regard and also about beefing up of security in court premises by installing more CCTV cameras and having boundary walls.

Also read: India’s Oligarchy Shuts the People Out – And the Constitution Is To Blame

The bench observed that hardened criminals cannot be stopped by these boundary walls.

During the hearing, the bench told Venugopal that a writ petition was filed in the apex court in 2019 seeking certain directions, including on security in court premises and also to create an environment where the judges can work independently.

In that case, it appears that Government of India has not filed any counter affidavit so far, the bench said.

When Venugopal said he would look into it, the bench asked him to ensure that counter affidavit is filed so that the court can take a final call in the matter.

The petition filed in 2019 was also taken up for hearing by the bench along with the suo motu case.

The apex court asked the states to file status report regarding security provided to the judges and posted it for hearing on August 17.

District and Sessions Judge-8 of Dhanbad court, Uttam Anand, was out on morning walk on July 28 when he was killed by an auto-rickshaw at Randhir Verma Chowk near the district court in the Sadar police station area.

On July 30, the top court had taken suo motu cognisance and had sought a status report within a week from Jharkhand’s chief secretary and the DGP on the probe, saying reports and video clippings suggested it was not a case of simpliciter road accident.

(PTI)

SC Revives Free Speech Debate After Issuing Notices to Kamra, Taneja for ‘Contemptuous’ Tweets

The Attorney General’s consent to initiate contempt of court proceedings against Kamra and Taneja appears to have left the bench with no option, but to issue notice, even though it is based on the absence of any ingredients of “criminal contempt”.

A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justices Ashok Bhushan, R. Subhash Reddy and M.R.Shah, on Friday, issued notices to stand-up comedian Kunal Kamra and cartoonist Rachita Taneja for their tweets on the apex court, which according to the petitioners, constitute contempt of court. The bench has asked Kamra and Taneja to respond to the notices within six weeks, while dispensing with their presence during the hearings for the time being.

The bench’s notices to Kamra and Taneja followed Venugopal’s consent to initiate contempt proceedings against them, as requested by some petitioners.

In his recent interview to NDTV, Venugopal said that freedom of speech on social media should not be curbed and any move to do so may invite litigation, adding that it is unbecoming of a “healthy democracy”. Venugopal, however, justified the contempt cases initiated by the Supreme Court saying it does so only in the rarest of rare cases, that is, only when lines are crossed.

In his interview to the Times of India, Venugopal said he was fed up with the number of requests seeking his consent for initiation of contempt for alleged contemptuous social media posts. “I walk a tightrope and give consent only in extreme cases where there is a deliberate attempt to denigrate the SC or its judges with derogatory posts. This is a new phenomenon on social media – to dare and attempt to invite contempt proceedings through such posts. They are daring the SC to take action. If the SC initiates contempt action against them on the basis of consent given by me in a few cases, it could send a sobering message to all not to abuse the right to free speech on social media platforms,” Venugopal said in that interview. According to him, he has only given consent for filing contempt petitions against those who have used extremely intemperate language and published obnoxious cartoons.

Also read: Kunal Kamra and the Elasticity of Justice

Under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, the Supreme Court may take action on its own motion or on a motion made by the AGI or Solicitor General. In practice, if the petitioners who seek to initiate contempt of court proceedings against individuals secure the AGI’s or SG’s consent, then they are deemed to have fulfilled the requirement under Section 15. Although the AG’s consent or lack of consent does not bind the bench, the Ashok Bhushan bench appears to have issued notices to the two out of deference to the AGI.

AG’s vulnerable consent

But the question of whether Kamra and Taneja’s tweets were “extremely intemperate” and “obnoxious”, would remain to be decided. Even if they are, the question whether they could scandalise or tend to lower the authority of any court, let alone interfere with the due course of any judicial proceeding or obstruct the administration of justice in any other manner needs to be answered, in order to fulfil the ingredients of contempt of court, as defined by the Contempt of Courts Act.

According to Venugopal’s reply to one of the complainants, who sought his consent, the four tweets by Kamra were “not only in bad taste but clearly cross the line between humour and contempt of court”. This must have been sufficient for the bench to infer that the proceedings need not be initiated. For the Act is not meant to be used against those opinions which are in “bad taste” or those which merely cross the line between humour and contempt, as if these are two clearly-drawn binaries.

The AG has clearly failed to give his nuanced view on when humour ceases to be humour, and becomes contempt of court. Again, the Act does not seek to punish all acts of contempt of court, but only those which scandalise, or interfere with due course of justice, or obstruct the administration of justice. As AG has not formed even a prima facie view on these, his mere observation that the tweets crossed the line between humour and contempt, without throwing light on which of the ingredients of contempt that they satisfied, should not have been taken seriously by the bench.

On Kamra’s tweet in which he was seen holding up his fingers with the text: “One of these two fingers is for CJI Arvind Bobde…ok let me not confuse you, it is the middle one”, Venugopal’s reply was that it was grossly obnoxious, and would equally be an insult to the Supreme Court of India.

Again, the AG is wrong to suggest that it amounts to contempt of court because something which is grossly obnoxious and even intended to be an insult to the Supreme Court of India, can still fall short of the ingredients outlined in the Act, while defining criminal contempt. The Act is not meant to punish all obnoxious views or insults about the court. Even if the AG’s view that the tweet is vulgar and obnoxious is conceded, how does it tend to lower the authority of the court as well as undermine the confidence that the litigant public has on the institution itself – as stated by him in his reply to the complainant – is not at all clear.

Also read: Attorney General Venugopal Would Be Shocked at US Comedians Making Fun of Judges

For the fact remains that it is difficult for anyone including the AG to prove these vague assertions convincingly, as Kamra’s followers on Twitter are most likely to consider them as utterances of a comedian, and enjoy them for their entertainment value. To suggest that the “confidence of the litigant public on the court has been undermined” is again an impressionistic statement, and is not even one of the listed ingredients of criminal contempt in the Act. Again, merely saying – as the AG does – that the tweets tended to lower the authority of the court cannot help to connect the dots between the alleged acts of contempt with the definition of criminal contempt. The AG’s view fails to explain, and merely relies on conjectures and surmises, which are hardly sufficient to form a prima facie view.

Cartoonist Rachita Taneja. Photo: Facebook/Rachita Taneja

Taneja tweeted a cartoon depicting the BJP, Supreme Court, and a reporter with the text “Tu Janta Nahi Mera Baap Kaun Hai (You don’t know who my father is)”. Law student Aditya Kashyap who sought AG’s consent for initiating contempt proceedings against Taneja, also referred to another tweet by her dated August 7, in which she stated: “Let’s not forget how we got here”. She is also accused of tweeting a caricature suggesting a quid pro quo relationship between the judiciary (as represented by the former CJI, and now Member of Parliament, Ranjan Gogoi) and the Centre in delivering the Ayodhya judgment.

The AG, in his reply to Kashyap, stated that Taneja’s tweets portrayed that the ‘Supreme Court of India was biased towards the ruling party”. Again, the AG appears to have drawn an erroneous inference that a view suggesting a bias of the Supreme Court towards the ruling party could satisfy any of the three ingredients of criminal contempt as defined under the Act (Section 2 [c]). Similar views have been expressed by many writers in their analytical pieces in newspapers and news websites in recent times.

If a judgment of the court leads one to infer that it is biased towards one of the litigants, it should be considered as a statement of fact, because the court, while settling any dispute, is bound to satisfy one party and disappoint the other. As a corollary, the court is likely to be biased in favour of the stand taken by that party in the case, which is satisfied with the outcome. The court’s bias in favour of the stand of one party to a dispute may be, without causing any offence to the court, could be interpreted as bias in favour of that party, considering the demands of brevity while tweeting.

As AG’s interviews reveal, he may be said to suffer from doublethink or cognitive dissonance. One cannot stand for the freedom of social media users – as the AG claims he does – even while recommending initiation of criminal contempt proceedings against what appear to be innocuous tweets.

Also read: Backstory: Journalism and the Power of Laughter

On Thursday, the Bombay high court observed that ‘Tareekh pe Tareekh (adjournment after adjournment)’ is a fact, and criticism regarding frequent adjournment of cases will not be viewed harshly. Justices S.S. Shinde and M.S. Karnik chose to be generous, when their attention was drawn to a tweet by Sunaina Holey, a litigant, whose case seeking quashing of FIRs against her was being adjourned repeatedly. Holey’s allegedly objectionable tweets against government officials including Maharashtra chief minister, Uddhav Thackeray triggered a slew of FIRs against her.

According to Bar and Bench, Justices Shinde and Karnik had observed on December 15, that judiciary must not waste precious time on contempt hearings which can otherwise be utilised for hearing important questions of law. Contempt of court powers, Justice Shinde had reportedly said, should be used only as a last resort and should not be used against a lay person criticising courts or judges.

Are the AG and the Supreme Court listening?

‘Attack on Free Speech’: Artists Condemn Contempt Proceedings Against ‘Sanitary Panels’ Cartoonist

The statement also said that artists were compelled to “raise questions about the social and political context we live in, which includes the functioning of the Supreme Court”.

New Delhi: Over 600 members of the artistic community have issued a statement in solidarity with cartoonist Rachita Taneja, the creator of webcomic Sanitary Panels.

“We believe this is an attack on her right to free speech and expression and, by extension, an attack on us all,” the statement said and demanded that contempt proceedings against Sanitary Panels be dropped.

Last week, the Attorney General for India, K.K. Venugopal, approved contempt proceedings against Taneja over drawings that she uploaded on her page Sanitary Panels that were critical of the Supreme Court.

The statement, which has been endorsed by members of the comics and creative community condemned the clearance granted by the attorney general and urged the court to uphold debate, dissent and dialogue. The statement also said that as artists, the signatories were compelled to “raise questions about the social and political context we live in, which includes the functioning of the Supreme Court”.

The signatories also held that art and cartooning had a specific role in society “which is rooted in the possibilities of creative and critical debate” and said that Taneja’s sketches were part of a tradition that had kept the culture of debate and dialogue on governance and politics alive through peaceful and creative means.

Also read: ‘Sanitary Panels’, Contempt and Arrests: A Brief History of Political Cartoons in India

“We believe that our government and our judiciary should be capable of accepting criticism and responding to it in a spirit of self-assessment and self-reflection rather than pouncing on it and stifling it,” the signatories said and held that art was a crucial medium that kept society from becoming a “servile citizenry”.

The recent contempt proceedings initiated against Prashant Bhushan and Kunal Kamra, the artists said, revealed an inclination to “censor those who are outspoken against the ruling dispensation” and further added that the Supreme court was obliged to protect the rights of citizens. “Instead it is creating an atmosphere of fear in which anything can be deemed contempt of court,” it said.

“Such authoritarian actions are unacceptable to us as artists and members of the creative community of India,” the artists said.

Full text of the statement is reproduced below.

Statement in Solidarity with Sanitary Panels by the Comics and Creative Community

We, the undersigned members of the comics and creative community, strongly condemn the clearance granted by the Attorney General to initiate contempt proceedings against Rachita Taneja, creator of Sanitary Panels. We believe this is an attack on her right to free speech and expression and, by extension, an attack on us all.

We are compelled as artists to raise questions about the social and political context we live in, which includes the functioning of the Supreme Court – as Rachita has done in her work. Art, and especially cartooning, has had a relationship with society which is rooted in the possibilities of creative and critical debate. Rachita Taneja’s art practice is situated in a long tradition of cartooning which has kept alive this culture of debate and dialogue on contemporary governance, court cases and anti-people policies through peaceful and creative means. We believe that our government and our judiciary should be capable of accepting criticism and responding to it in a spirit of self-assessment and self-reflection rather than pouncing on it and stifling it. This power of art is crucial in keeping us from slipping into becoming a servile citizenry.

The pattern of criminal contempt proceedings against dissenters like Prashant Bhushan, Kunal Kamra and, now, Rachita Taneja reveals a desire to censor those who are outspoken against the ruling dispensation. This misuse of law undermines the fundamental rights of anyone raising questions. The Supreme Court should be protecting the rights of citizens to do so, instead it is creating an atmosphere of fear in which anything can be deemed contempt of court. Such authoritarian actions are unacceptable to us as artists and members of the creative community of India.

We demand that these proceedings against Sanitary Panels be dropped, and that the Court instead uphold debate, dissent and dialogue which are at the heart of any democracy.

List of Signatories to the Statement in Solidarity With Sanitary Panels by the Comics and Creative Community

A Chakraborty	Student
Aafreen Islam	Fine art student
Aakash Arasu	Freelance illustrator and Comics creator
Aakriti Chandervanshi	Architect/ Photographer
Aashna	Student
Aastha Koli	Student
Aayush Gulati	Student, Faculty of Fine Arts, Vadodara
Aayushi	Designer
Abbas Momin	Self employed
Abdul Ghaffar	Private Service
Abhiram
Abhirami G	Student
Abhishek Singhania	Advocate
Abhishek Yadav
Adhir Ghosh	Musician
Aditi Guha
Aditya Doshi	Filmmaker
Aditya Menon	_
Aditya Singh	Digital Marketer
Afrah
Aftab Alam Ali	Screenwriter
Aharna M	Human
Aisha	Scholar
Aishwarya Bhatia	Student
Aishwarya Ganeshan	Graphic designer
Aishwarya Pandey	Sr. Art director
Aiswarya	Dentist
Ajin	Animator
Ajinkya Jamadar	Architect
Ajoy David	Designer
Akansha	Artist
Akhil Unnikrishnan	Writer
Akhila G N	Art Student
Akshathaaa
Akshay Bhoan	Student
Akshay Sethi	Visual artist
Alankrita Amaya	Children’s book illustrator
Alexis
Alia S.	Illustrator and theatre practitioner
Alice Barwa	Student
Alisha	I stand by Sanitary Panels
Alka Singh	Filmmaker
Allan Jacob	Mechanical Engineer
Aman	Student
AMBIKA NAIR	Freelance Legal editor
Aminul Islam	Citizen of India
Amit Kharbanda	Citizen
Amrit Nagpal	Student
Amrita Ahluwalia	Housewife
Anahat	Student
Anand	Visual artist
Anand Radhakrishnan	Illustrator
Ananda Dhar-James	Musician
Ananya
Ananya Mishra
Anarya	Artist and art educator
Anchit	Artist
Anga Art Collective	Artist Collective
Angel Jolly	Student
Aniruddha	Student
Aniruddha Sen Gupta	Writer
Anish Talpade	Comic Artist
Anjali k	Architect
Anjali Singh	Student
Anjana Balyan	Student
Anjni Shah	Student
Ankit Kapoor	Artist
Ankita	Student
Ankita Acharya
Ankita Basak	Student of Literature.
Ankita Gupta
Anmol Thakkar
ann maria	Student
Anna Dasgupta	Independent
Anna Maria Joseph	Student
Anne Gorrissen	Teacher
Ansari Nazminnaz	TGT Science (KVS)
Anshav Maheshwari	Student
Anshuka Mahapatra	Fine arts student
Anu	Teacher
Anupam	Visual art practitioner
ANUPAM ARUNACHALAM	Writer, illustrator
Anupam Debnath	Ph.D Scholar
Anupam Saikia, Visual Artist, Assam
Anupriya	Indian citizen
Anuraag Mehandiratta
Anuradha Prasad	Freelance
Anurag	Artist
Anurag	Artist, (B.tech. IIT Roorkee)
Anushka Kalro	Designer
Anushree Gupta
Anushya Pradhan	Freelance
Aparna	Yoga teacher
Aparna Gopinath	Actor Clown
Aparna Kapur	Writer
Apoorva	Student
April	Artist
Apurba Behera	IT engineer, trainer and artist
Apurva Hegde
Arathy sasidharan	Psychologist
101.Aravind Senan	Artist
102.Aravind Valsarajan	Student
103.Archana S.	Animation TD
104.Archie	Visual Artist
105.Areeba Adeeb	Student
106.Arfa Asif	Illustration artist
107.Arindam Phani	Researcher
108.Aritra Halder	Assistant Professor
109.Aritro Bhattacharya
110.Arka Maity	Student
Arko Saha	Arko Saha
112.Arnav Binaykia	Student
113.Arnika Ahldag	Academic, curator
114.Arpita Gaidhane	Artist
115.Arpita Sarkar	Student
116.Arun Kishor	Communication designer
117.Arun Prasad	Comic Book Archivist
118.Arun Prasad	Comic Book Archivist
119.Arun Prasad	Comic Book Archivist
120.Arun ps	Graphic designer
121.Aruna Manjunath	Artist
122.Arundhati Sen	Student
123.Arunima Bose	Independent Artist
124.Aryan Kumar Jha	Student
125.Arzu Mistry	Artist
126.Asfiya	Student
127.Ash khandekar
128.Ashil Shaji	Animator/ student
129.Ashima Kaushik	Design Student
130.Ashish Avin	Editor, artist
131.Ashutosh	Artist
132.Ashutosh Shankar	Filmmaker
133.Asmita Meshram	Social Media Manager
134.Astha
135.Athira	Student
136.Athira	Accounts Assistant
137.Athira R
138.Atreyee	Bharatiya
139.Aurindam Banerjee
140.Avanish Chandrasekaran	Cartoonist
141.Avik Kumar Maitra	Illustrator
142.Ayesha Najeeb
143.Ayesha Punvani	Production Designer
144.Ayesha samah	Artist
145.Ayisha Shahul	Kerala
146.Ayushi	Illustrator
147.Bazik Thlana	Visual Artist
148.Bhagwati Prasad	Artist
149.Bhamati
150.Bhavna	Artist
151.Bhawna Saroha
152.Bhrigu Sharma	Artist and Teacher
153.Bidisha M	Researcher
154.Bikram Sidhu	Artist
155.BLAISE JOSEPH	ARTIST, ART EDUCATOR
156.Brandon Fernandes	Concept Artist
157.C G Salamander	Comic writer
158.C P Sunil	Architect
159.Catherine joshi	Bandra
160.Catherine Rhea	Curator at Brainded India
161.Clyde Dmello	Zinester, artist and lecturer
162.Crystal Mitzi
163.Culture Worker Support Group (CWST)	Registered arts & culture support group
164.Dabu Mayanglambam	Artist
165.daly	house wife
166.Dapoon Rai Dewan	Animator and Comic artist
167.Debadrita	Research Scholar
168.DEBADRITA SAHA
169.Debajit Saha	Student
170.Debanjana Nayek	Assistant Professor
171.Debanshu	Practicing Artist
172.Debjyoti saha	Animation filmmaker
173.Deepa	UX Designer
174.Deepa Kamath	Graphic Designer
175.Deepikadsz	Manager
176.Deepsheka	2D Digital Artist
177.Deeptha Achar	academic
178.Deewakar Ojha	2D Artist
179.Deirdre Basumatary	Student
180.Denis	Owner
181.Devadeepa Das	Student
182.Devang Vagh	Artist
183.Devishree Pawar	Artist
184.Dhanush Venkat	Student
185.Dhara
186.Dheera Paleri	PhD Scholar
187.Dhruv	Student
188.Dilshad Raut	Drop the charges against the writers
189.Dipani sutaria	Ecologist
190.Dipankar Khasnabish	NA
191.Dipankar Sengupta	Animator, illustrator
192.Dipra arora	Student
193.Diptarup Ghosh Dastidar	Assistant Professor

194.Dipyaman Sanyal	NA
195.Divya	Accountant
196.Divya Sethi	Doctor
197.Divya Singh
198.Diya	Artist
199.Dr Iqbal Farooqui	Consultant
200.Dr. Anwesha Mukherjee	Researcher at Technical University Munich
201.Eshna Benegal	Editor, Writer, Content Creator
202.Farhan
203.Farzan Shaikh	Sr Engineer
204.Francis	Engineer
205.Frank	Engineer
206.Gargi	Dr
207.Gargi chandola.gargi@gmail.com	Artist
208.Garima Joshi	Designer
209.Gaurang k	We, the undersigned members of the comics and creative community, strongly condemn the clearance granted by the Attorney General to initiate contempt proceedings against Rachita Taneja, creator of Sanitary Panels.
210.Gaurav Tiwari	Software Engineer
211.Gaurav Wakankar	Animator
212.Geeti Barai	Illustrator
213.George Joseph	Data Analyst
214.George Mathen	Artist
215.gitanjali iyer	Artist
216.Gokhularaj	Employee at consulting firm
217.Govind S	Category Marketing Manager
218.Gowri O	Content Creator
219.Gunjal	Student
220.Gunjan Kaul	Designer & Educator
221.Gurpreet Sidhu	Designer
222.Hana	Artist
223.Hani	Chartered accountant
224.Hari	Student
225.Harikrishna Sureshkumar	Auditor
226.Harikrishnan	Industrial Designer
227.Harshad	Accountant
228.Harshil Vora
229.Harshita	Marketing graduate
230.Hetvi Pathak
231.Hina katariya
232.Hrishitonoy Dutta	Visual Artist
233.I Das	Student
234.Iffat Nawaz
235.Ikroop Sandhu	Illustrator
236.Ila Patil	Director and Partnership Manager
237.Iman Khan	Self employed
238.Isha Manchanda
239.Ishan Mohan	Film maker
240.Ishan Shah	Student
241.Ishani K B	NGO worker
242.Ishita Biswas	Artist
243.Jacob Mathew	Entrepreneur and consultant
244.Jagrup Kaur	N/A
245.Janet	Artist
246.Jayesh V	Marketing
247.Jeebesh Bagchi	Artist
248.Jennifer yasmin	Artist
249.Jeremy Stoll	Comics Creator and Professor of Science & Social Science
250.Jeson Dias
251.Jhalak	Artist
252.Jhanvi	Artist
253.Jharna	Shah
254.Jnanasiddhy Bommisetty	Patent analyst
255.Joe Paul Cyriac	Photographer
256.John	Student
257.Jubly B Das	Student
258.K C	Artist
259.K pandey	Doctor
260.K Uma	Water management consultant
261.Kai
262.Kamalika jashu	Graphic Designer
263.Kamil akhter	Artist
264.Kamran Akhter	Visual Artist
265.Kanika	Student
266.Karen mathias	IT professional
267.Karo	Artist
268.Karthik Duraisami	Engineer.
269.Karthika	Animator
270.Karthika Vattakavil	Student
271.Kashish Saxena	Student
272.Kasturi Das	student
273.Kaumudi S	Head of Product
274.Kaushik Ramanathan	Designer
275.Kaveri Gopalakrishnan	Illustrator + Art Director
276.Kavya	Student
277.Kavya Saxena	Design student
278.Keith	Ind
279.Kesiya Ann Babu	Student
280.Khushi arora	Student
281.Kiran Kumar S	IT Professional
282.Komal	Student
283.KR Rajan	Concerned Citizen
284.Krishna	Student
285.Krishna	Student
286.Krishnapriya C P	Artist
287.Kruttika Susarla	Independent illustrator, comic maker
288.Kshiraja Krishnan	–
289.Kumar chand	Photographer
290.Laboni Das	PhD Research Scholar
291.Lakshmi	Designer
292.Lal Poster (Gulal Salil)	Graphic Journalist, IndiaSpend
293.Laxmi Gaydhane	Student
294.Leslie Raju
295.Litty
296.Lokesh Khodke	Comics Artist
297.Lokesh Malti Prakash	Bhopal
298.Mahesh	Procrastinator
299.Mahima
300.Mahima Vaidya	Quality engineer
301.Maithili	Illustrator
302.Maithri Shankaranarayanan	Architect
303.Maitreiyee Krishna
304.Malaika Dhar James	Artist Poetess
305.Malavika Navale	Designer
306.Malik Maaz
307.Malini	Student
308.Malini Kochupillai	Social Entrepreneur
309.Manasi Parikh	Visual Artist
310.Manasvita Maddi	Student
311.Manaswi	Employee
312.Mandeep Singh Raikhy	Choreographer
313.Manish Kumar Gupta	Senior software engineer
314.Manisha Naskar	Artist
315.Mansha Paliwal	Fellow artist
316.Mansi Chauhan	Student
317.Mathew	Corporate executive
318.Matilda	Home maker
319.Mayank adil	Indian
320.Mayank Raghav	Cad operator
321.Mayu	Student
322.Mayuri Ghosh	Editor, Delhi
323.Megha	Student
324.Megha	Interior designer
325.Megha Mahindru	Editor
326.Meghamala Ghosh	UGIII Student, Presidency University, Kolkata
327.Meghna	NA
328.Micah Alex	Researcher
329.Mili Mukim	Student
330.Mitrajit Chandra	Sculptor
331.Mitushi Agarwal	Business
332.Mohamed Adil	Student
333.Mohit Adlakha	Artist
334.Molly	Student
335.Monica Narula
336.Mou Das
337.Mugdha Mahalanabish	Freelance Writer
338.Mukul Sagar	Scientist
339.Muskaan	Graphic designer
340.Mythri	Student
341.Nakshtra Pant	College Student
342.Nakul	Graphic designer
343.Namita Ekka	Student
344.Namita Sunil	Illustrator
345.Nandita	Comic book artist
346.Nanditha	I write
347.Narendran K	Artist
348.Narendran Nair	Student
349.Naveen Bagalkot
350.Navya	MBA student, IIM Calcutta
351.Nayna Yadav	Assistant professor
352.Neekita Singh	Artist
353.Neelima	Illustrator and designer
354.Neha Jain	Children’s Media Producer and Curator
355.Neha kudchadkar	Artist
356.Neharika Gurung	Senior designer
357.Nelson Thangjam	Private employee
358.Nevaj
359.Nikhil Nair	Analyst
360.Nikhita Prabhudesai	Animator, pre-production artist
361.Nikite	Visual designer
362.Nilanjan Chowdhury	Animator/illustrator
363.Niloufer Wadia	Freelance illustrator and artist
364.Niloy Duttagupta
365.Nimish Sharma	Artist
366.Nimmy Joshi	Potter
367.Nipun Kuzhikattil	Engineer
368.Nirmal Amin	Artist/Architect (pastiche.in)
369.Nisarg Shah
370.Nithya	Design Editor
371.Nitin Gupta	Content creator
372.Niyan	Artist
373.Niyati D	Curator
374.Niyati Joshi	Book editor
375.Noor	Student
376.Noureen Abdulla	Architecture student
377.Oaishik Bhattacharya	Research Scholar
378.Om Gadhe	The proceedings should be dropped. As a country, instead of moving towards tolerance, we are going the opposite direction and that will bring nothing but destruction.
379.Omkar bagwe	Artist
380.Orijit Sen	Artist
381.P.N.Praveen	Architect
382.Paripsa Pandya
383.Parmita Mukherjee
384.Parthasarathi	In complete solidarity with Sanitary panels. The actual work of art is not to please but to evoke. Freedom is only possible if opinions are shared freely.
385.Payal	Independent comics creator and researcher
386.Percy
387.Pinaki De	Graphic Designer, Professor
388.Pooja Das Choudhury	Architect
389.Pooja Jadhav	Partnerships Manager
390.Pooja Madhavan	Home chef
391.Pradeep Patil	Designer
392.Prajwal Shetty	Artist and CA
393.Prakruti maitri	Student
394.Pramod Menon
395.Pranav	Student
396.Pranav	Student
397.Pranavdeep P B	Student
398.Pranitha	Unemployed
399.Pranitha	Student
400.Pranitha Lekkala	Student
401.Prarthita Guha	Freelancer
402.Prarthna Singh	Photographer
403.Prathyusha	Content Writer & Photographer
404.Preksha tater	Artist
405.Premjish Achari	Curator
406.Priya Kuriyan	Children’s book illustrator
407.Priyani Pranab
408.Priyanka
409.Priyanka D’Souza	Student
410.Priyendra	Student
411.Protick Ghosh	Vice President, AIESEC in Kolkata
412.Puja Kundu	Animator
413.Rachana	Artist
414.Rachel Spence	Poet/Arts journalist
415.Radha Sunder	Filmmaker, designer
416.Radhika	Student
417.Rahil Jain
418.Rahul Basu	Assistant professor
419.Rahul Bharti	Software Developer
420.Rahul Mukherjee	Artist, Educator and scholar.
421.Rai
422.Raj Laha	Student
423.Rajarshee Bhattacharjee	Citizen of India
424.Rajdeep Atha	Artist
425.Rajlakshmi Dastidar	College Student
426.Rakesh Khanna	Director, Blaft Publications
427.Rakesh Nagdawane	Student
428.Rakhi Sehgal
429.Ramandeep Singh	Business Consultant
430.Ramish Rizvi	..
431.Raniya Ashraf Ali	Student
432.Ranjit Kandalgaonkar	Visual artist
433.Rashmi Devadasan	Editor
434.Rashmimala	Visual artist
435.Reebu	Student
436.Reethee	Law Student
437.Reji	Artist
438.Renu Yadav	Lead, Brand
439.Renuka chowdary
440.Renuka Paul	Mahatma Gandhi National Fellow
441.Reshmakhatoon	Artist
442.Reshmi Mohan
443.Revati Ramesan	Instructional Designer
444.Rhea	Writer
445.Richa Jairaj	Activist
446.Ricky Saldanha
447.Riddhi A	User researcher
448.Riddhi Dastidar	Writer
449.Rimpa	Scholar
450.Rinish Valsan	Architect, writer
451.Rinku Sam	Artist
452.Rishabh Chauhan	PR executive
453.Rithika
454.Rithika Mariam	Student
455.Riya	Freelance Illustrator
456.Riya Kumari	Student
457.Riya Parikh	Teacher
458.Robin Chakraborty	Illustrator
459.Roby George	Engineer
460.Rohan Chakravarty	Cartoonist
461.Rohini Kejriwal	Writer
462.Rosette Johnson	Student
463.Roy	Student
464.Rubi	Artist
465.Rubina	Artist
466.Ruby Paulson	Copywriter
467.Rudra	Self employed
468.Rukminee Guha Thakurta	Design Consultant
469.Ryan Steve Menezes	Comic artist
470.S. Rana	Producer
471.SA	Sa
472.Sabari	Art director
473.Sagar Bhat	Design student
474.Sagar Shah
475.Sagar Sschdeva
476.Sagnik Yadaw	PhD Scholar, K.U.
477.Saira	Student
478.Saloni Nathan	Urban Designer
479.Samarpita Chanda	Student
480.Samarth Kapoor	Student / freelance illustrator
481.Sameen	Content writer
482.Sameer Kumar Ayyagari
483.Samidh Sadhu	Student
484.Samprikta Ganguli	Student
485.Samyuktha Suresh	Student
486.Sanchit Agarwal	Freelance Writer and Illustrator
487.Sanchita	Self employed
488.Sanjula
489.Sankeerth	Software Engineer
490.Sanket Jadia	Artist
491.Sanket Prakash Khade	Artist
492.Santhosh S	Writer
493.Santosh Dash	Associate Professor
494.Sappho	Student
495.Saptarshi Chakrabarti	Student
496.Sarah	New Delhi
497.Sarah M.	Trivandrum
498.Sarah Vattappilly	Designer
499.Sarbajit Sen	Cartoonist and Comics artist
500.Sarthak	Student
501.Sashwat	Student
502.Saswata Mukherjee	Animator , Illustrator, Filmmaker
503.Satvik Bhatnagar
504.Savani	Design Student
505.Sayan Mukherjee	PhD student
506.Shahana hameed	Designer
507.Shaheer SM	Sound engineer
508.Shailja
509.Shakti	Artivist
510.Shalaka Pai
511.Shamik
512.Shamvabee Chakraborty	Teacher
513.Shantanu Nakade	Senior manager
514.Sharodiya Dutta	Senior UI Artist
515.Sharvari Deshpande	Student
516.Shavez	Digital Marketing Manager
517.Sheena	Art director
518.Shefalee Jain	Artist
519.Shikha Sreenivas	Writer
520.Shiladitya Bose	Visual designer
521.Shilpa	Design consultant
522.Shilpa Wankhede	Student
523.Shilpaa Anand	Associate Professor
524.Shivangi Mariam Raj	Independent Researcher
525.Shivangi Singh	Artist
526.Shivani SP	Content creation
527.Shivendra Pratap Singh	Writer
528.Shreya	Category Manager
529.Shreya
530.Shreya M	Designer
531.shreyas	student
532.Shreyas Dutta	Comic Artist
533.Shreyas Dutta	freelance artist
534.Shriya Singh	Writer
535.Shruti Bhiwandiwala	Designer
536.Shruti Lal	Animator
537.Shruti Pandey	Student
538.Shruti Ravi	Writer
539.Shruti Sunderraman	Executive Editor
540.Shubham
541.Shubhi Agarwal	Student
542.Shuddhabrata Sengupta	Artist and Writer, Raqs Media Collective
543.Shukla Sawant	Artist and academic
544.Shweta Sonawane	COO
545.Sid	Designer
546.Siddhant Keswani	Student
547.Silvester
548.Simran Malhotra	Content marketer
549.Simran Varm	Freelance Writer
550.Smitha Susan Varghese	Student
551.Sneha Samanta	Journalist / content writer
552.Snehal	Freelance communication designer
553.Snehal dongre	Visual designer
554.Snehal Jacob	Artist
555.Snigdha Gupta	Finance professional
556.Snigdha Rao	Creative Director
557.Sofia Karim	Artist
558.Sohini	Union karyakarta, Bihar
559.Sohini Sengupta	Student
560.Sohrab Hura
561.Sona Solgy	Student
562.SONA SUNNY	Student
563.Sonam Chaturvedi	Artist, educator
564.Sooryaprakash	Animator
565.Soumik Nandi	Post Graduate Student
566.Soumya Hakke	Student
567.Sounak Biswas	Student
568.Spriha Kundu	Junior Designer
569.Sreelakshmi sasikumar	Freelance artist
570.Sreya	Miss
571.Sreyashi Dastidar	Self-employed
572.Sridhar Rajagopal	Branding and communications consultant
573.Srishti Berry	Student
574.Srujani Kamineni	Product Manager, Adobe
575.Stuti	Student
576.Stuti Mamen
577.Suheel Nazeet	Student
578.Sujith
579.Sujoy Chakravarthi	Ph.D. Research Scholar, EFL University Hyderabad
580.Sukanya kadam	Operation manager
581.Sukh Mehak Kaur	Artist
582.Sumit Dey	Social worker
583.Sumita Sarkar
584.Suprosanna Shit	PhD Student
585.Surabhi
586.Surabhi
587.Sushanth N S	Copywriter
588.Susruta Mukherjee	Freelance Artist
589.Suvani Suri	Independent artist
590.Svabhu kohli	Artist
591.Svetlana Naudiyal	Film Curator
592.Swapna	Professional
593.Swapnil Dhotre	Self Employed
594.Swastik Chakraborty	Student
595.Swathi Krishna	Mathematician
596.Swathi Mohan	Architect
597.Tanaya Jagtiani
598.Tanvi Desai	Freelance Copywriter
599.Tarini sethi	Artist
600.tasmai paul	Student
601.Tejal Tawde	Student
602.Teju Jhaveri	Illustrator
603.The Artist Spud	Artist
604.Thea Oatman	Freelance Artist
605.Tilottama Bhowmick	Visual Artist
606.Tina	Student
607.Tina Thomas & Pratheek Thomas	Co-founders, Kokaachi
608.Tirna Sarkar	Student
609.Titas Chakraborty
610.Trina	Student
611.Tripti Bhatter	Artist and designer
612.Tripti Bhatter	Artist and designer
613.Trishnendu Ghosh	Service
614.Tvishaa Shah	Illustrator
615.Uddhav Ghosh
616.Uma Sharma	Animator
617.Upamanyu Das	Editorial Analyst
618.Urjit	Self employed
619.Urmila Shastry
620.Usha thakur	Student
621.V SRINIVASAN	Visual artist
622.Vaidehi Sadiwala	I support sanitary panels as they have raised voice against things which need to be discussed and criticized
623.Vaishnavi Gandhi	Art student
624.Vaishnavi KV	Student
625.Vanshika Babbar	Student
626.Varnika (go by Nikku)	Undergrad student
627.Varsha	Content Writer
628.Varsha	Artist
629.Varunika Saraf	Artist and Art historian
630.Vasudha
631.Vasvi Oza	Artist
632.Ved Prabhudesai	Illustrator
633.Veraat singh	Visual artist
634.Vidita	Illustrator
635.Vidya Gopal	Illustrator
636.Vidyun Sabhaney	Artist
637.Vijay
638.Vikash yadav	Executive
639.Vinay Bharghav
640.Vinita Zutshi
641.Viplavi	College student
642.Vipul Sangoi	Designer
643.Viraaj Arora
644.Vishal	Student
645.Vishal Prajapati	Businessman
646.Vishnu Baiju	Student
647.Vishnu m Nair	Visual Artist
648.Viveck Nagarajan	Independent Creator
649.Vivek Muthuramalingam	Documentarian
650.Vivian	Photographer
651.VP	None
652.Vrutangi Dabhiya	Student
653.Vydianathan
654.Washif khan	Doctor
655.Yamini Sharma	Visual Artist
656.Yashasvi Diptivilasa	Product Manager
657.yashwardhan keswani	Student
658.Yogita	Illustrator/Artist
659.Ze k	Illustration artist

Rajya Sabha: Congress Members Raise Reports of ‘Data Mining’ by Chinese Firm

After the issue was raised by K.C. Venugopal and Rajiv Satav, chairman M. Venkaiah Naidu asked the minister of parliamentary affairs to take note of it.

New Delhi: Congress members in Rajya Sabha on Wednesday expressed concern over a media report that suggested tracking of over 10,000 prominent Indian individuals and organisations by a Chinese technology company and asked the government whether it has taken note of the matter.

After the issue was raised by two Congress members, K.C. Venugopal and Rajiv Satav, during the Zero Hour, Rajya Sabha chairman M. Venkaiah Naidu asked the minister of parliamentary affairs to take note of it and inform the minister concerned.

“I would like to invite the attention of this House through you chairman, shocking news which is related to national security and privacy of Indian citizens,” Venugopal said.

He said the Indian Express has reported that a Shenzen-based technology company with links to the Chinese government, and the Chinese Communist Party, is tracking over 10,000 Indian individuals and organisations in its global database of foreign targets.

“This includes…very shocking, the president of India also you the vice president of India, the prime minister of India and the opposition leaders, including Congress president, chief ministers, MPs, the Army chief, and industrialists,” Venugopal said.

Also Read: Chinese Company ‘Monitors’ Top Indian Politicians, Bureaucrats and Defence Officials: Report

The Chinese company has also collected the database of bureaucrats in key positions, judges, scientists, academicians, journalists, actors, sportspersons, religious figures and activists, he added.

“This is a major area of concern. I would like to know from the government whether it has taken note of it. If so, what action has been taken,” Venugopal asked.

The Congress leader also charged that the government was not answering and discussing reports regarding Chinese intrusion in border areas.

Echoing his views, Satav said this is a very serious issue.

“The government should give clarification. Truth should come out. How can a Chinese company spy on prominent people,” Satav said.

To this, Naidu asked the minister of parliamentary affairs to take note of the matter.

“It has appeared prominently. So inform the minister concerned and see what can be done and find out the veracity also,” the Rajya Sabha chairman said.

Indira Gandhi’s Emergency Was Open and Face-to-Face, Dictatorship Today Wears a Mask

India’s ‘cow-faced-tiger’ dictatorship seems to have used the judiciary to repress the voice of public interest by using Prashant Bhushan’s tweets as an excuse.

During a recent phone conversation with senior counsel Ravi Varma Kumar, I asked him, “How is the Supreme Court doing?”

We were talking in the background of the judgment by the three-judge Supreme Court bench which found that Prashant Bhushan’s tweets were in contempt of the court.

Ravi said, “The judiciary itself makes an allegation; it initiates proceedings itself and then proves the case, and then passes a judgment saying the allegations have been proven that is what has happened in our Supreme Court.”

The three-judge bench did not even seriously take account of the reply submitted by Bhushan before passing its orders. I felt like visiting the Supreme Court to ascertain whether the statue of the goddess of justice, who has a blindfold on and carries balancing scales so that she may be fair, still exists. Because the judgment by this court was blind.

The Supreme Court lawyer, Gautam Bhatia, captures this judgment well with a metaphor, “It reminds me of the times I used to take a football from the halfway line, dribble it across the pitch, and kick it into the goal – without any opposition players on the field.”

This is the game that has been played in the judiciary.

Also read: The Prashant Bhushan Contempt Case is About Power and Politics, Not Law

So what is in Bhushan’s tweet? It goes like this:

“When historians in the future look back at the last six years to see how democracy has been destroyed in India even without a formal Emergency, they will particularly mark the role of the SC in this destruction, and more particularly the role of the last four CJIs.”

This tweet should have given reason for reflection. This tweet, and the other on the impact of the lockdown on justice, should have been seen as product of distress. The distress one feels while trying to save the sinking dignity of the court. But Bhushan’s tweets have been described by the three-judge bench as acts which shake the very roots of the judiciary. And they have passed judgment as if their emotions are the law. But they have also acted out of fear.

Today, fear has overwhelmed not just the judiciary, but the entire country, including the executive, the legislature. This fear has not even spared the media. This fear has not allowed any autonomous institution to remain autonomous. We get a clue about this fear in what Justice Markandey Katju said:

“But Gogoi (I refuse to call him justice) committed much greater misconducts, of various kinds, and practically prostrated before the BJP-run government and handed over almost the entire Supreme Court to the political executive, giving up its solemn duty of protecting the rights of the people.”

That is precisely why, when those political leaders who take their oath of office in the name of the constitution, state that, “We have come to change the constitution”, nobody dare accuse them of contempt. Even if they burn the constitution, it will not be contempt of the courts. But the tweets of Prashant Bhushan that seek to protect the dignity of the court are seen as contempt by these judges. After seeing this, Justice Markandey Katju’s words flooded my mind.

Also read: Supreme Court, Prashant Bhushan and the Sentence Conundrum

India has probably never had to endure such a plight since Independence. Even during the time of Indira Gandhi’s Emergency, one could find at least some pockets of resistance within the judiciary, the Election Commission, the federal system of the country, the Reserve Bank of India, CBI, media etc. That Emergency was like a tiger. Indira Gandhi was an aggressive dictator. It was all face-to-face. Yet, even if repressed, protests overflowed.

But now? What exists now is a ‘cow-faced tiger emergency’. It comes across masked as a saviour. But behind the mask, the regime does all that is not supposed to be do. It never comes face-to-face. Instead, what we call the four pillars of the constitution, together with all autonomous institutions as well as the country’s federal structure, have had their necks slashed and spines crushed. It’s true that these institutions still have their form. But they are barely half-alive. As a consequence, they can only work after understanding the gestures and desires of the cow-faced-tiger, the dictator who oversees the political executive.

In order to make this more understandable, consider what happened in the United States. President Donald Trump put out a call to law enforcement – “dominate…you have to dominate” – in response to the nationwide flare up of violence triggered by the killing of George Floyd, an African American man, by the Minneapolis police. In response to Trump’s call, the Houston police chief, Art Acevedo, fearlessly stated,

“This is not about dominating. It is about winning hearts and minds… We don’t want ignorance to ruin what we have managed to do to restore normalcy…Let me just say this to the President of the United States…Please, if you don’t have something constructive to say, keep your mouth shut”.

Also read: All the Times the Supreme Court Turned a Nelson’s Eye to Injustice

If you take this and apply it to our situation then everything will become self explanatory.

Now when you come to India, under Prime Minister Narendra Modi, called a “versatile genius” by a Supreme Court judge, India is drowning under the ignorant blows of demonetisation, GST etc. Unemployment is eating us away. The country is moving from poverty to hunger. The government can only run on the selling of public wealth to private companies. So a surgery has been done at the level of more or less all fundamental government institutions, including the judiciary, media, CBI, RBI etc to control the flare up of public ire. Because of all this, the public interest today has been orphaned.

Prashant Bhushan has dedicated his entire legal career to this orphaned public interest. After consigning the public interest to the garbage dump, the aim is now to repress its very voice. India’s ‘cow-faced-tiger’ emergency seems to have used the judiciary to repress the voice of public interest by using Prashant Bhushan’s tweets as an excuse.

While writing all this, after overcoming anger, pain and regret, I thought that maybe – just maybe – Bharat Mata must be warming up for the birth of a leadership with the potential of a Gandhi-Ambedkar-JP, hence this allegation against Bhushan; hence the political imprisonment of this land’s conscience with the arrest of Anand Teltumbde and others.

Devanoora Mahadeva is a Kannada writer who has been conferred with the Padma Shri as well as the Sahitya Akademi award both of which he returned in protest against the growing intolerance in the country. A public intellectual and Dalit activist he has been a guiding force to various social movements in Karnataka and the country.

Translated from the Kannada by Rashmi Munikempanna

Prashant Bhushan 2020 Contempt: SC Reserves Judgment, Asks ‘What Is Wrong in Seeking Apology?’

The bench led by Justice Arun Mishra held that Bhushan’s affidavit too had remarks that were “disparaging.”

New Delhi: The Supreme Court’s hearing on sentencing in the case of contempt of court against lawyer Prashant Bhushan ended in late afternoon on August 25 with the bench led by Justice Arun Mishra expounding on the role of an ‘apology’ and saying that Bhushan’s affidavit too had ‘disparaging remarks’. The bench has reserved judgment on the sentence.

On August 14, the same bench had found Bhushan guilty of criminal contempt for two of his tweets, one on the Chief Justice of India posing on a bike and another on the judiciary as a whole. On August 20, the top court had granted time till August 24 to Bhushan to reconsider his statement refusing to apologise.

Bhushan has maintained that he will not apologise, both at the first sentence hearing and in a supplementary affidavit filed on August 24.

Also read: Apologising Will Be ‘Contempt to My Conscience’, Prashant Bhushan Tells SC

During the August 25 hearing, Attorney General for India K.K. Venugopal asked the Supreme Court to be ‘compassionate’ in its treatment of Bhushan, while at once holding that, “He [Bhushan] should withdraw all statements in its entirety and express regret.”

“Bhushan says the Supreme Court has collapsed, is it not objectionable?” asked the bench, which also had Justices B.R. Gavai and Krishna Murari.

“The court can speak through orders only and even in his affidavit, Bhushan has made disparaging remarks against the judiciary,” the bench told the AG.

Also read: Here’s What the AG Wanted to Say About the Judiciary, Before Justice Arun Mishra Stopped Him

When Venugopal insisted that the court drop the case if there is an expression of regret and if Bhushan’s supplementary affidavit is dropped, the Justice Mishra said, “How can the affidavit be withdrawn when they insist that it should be considered?”

As the bench reconvened, with senior lawyer Rajeev Dhavan, Justice Mishra held forth on the apology question.

LiveLaw quoted him as having said:

“Tell us what is wrong in using the word ‘apology’? What is wrong in seeking apology? Will that be reflection of the guilty? Apology is a magical word, which can heal many things. I am talking generally and not about Prashant. You will go to the category of Mahatma Gandhi, if you apologise. Gandhi ji used to do that. If you have hurt anybody, you must apply balm. One should not feel belittled by that.”

The impassioned stress on an apology came from the bench after Dhavan was critical of its contempt judgment and labelled the bench’s attempts at getting an apology out of Bhushan as coercive.

“The order which says that it will only accept unconditional apology is an exercise of coercion,” Dhavan said.

He also cited Bhushan’s right to defence. “An apology cannot be made to escape the clutches of law. An apology has to be sincere,” LiveLaw quoted Dhavan as having said.

Dhavan sought to stress that he too has been critical of the Supreme Court, in over 900 articles on the apex court itself. He also addressed Justice Mishra, seeking to remind him of a previous instance of leniency:

 ”I remind Justice Arun Mishra that when he was a Chief Justice of Calcutta high court, your Lordships did not initiate contempt against Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee for her comments that judges are corrupt. Your Lordships took into account her position as Chief Minister.”

Dhavan also maintained that retired Justice Madan B. Lokur, retired Justice Kurian Joseph, Arun Shourie have been among those who have made public comments in the case.

Meanwhile, a new Supreme Court bench will hear the 2009 contempt case against Bhushan and journalist Tarun Tejpal next month, with the Justice Mishra bench noting that there are “broader issues” which need to be deliberated at length. Justice Mishra is scheduled to retire on September 2.

Congress Writes To Zuckerberg Over Facebook’s Alleged Bias, Demands Probe

The AICC general secretary said reports that indicate the social media giant relaxed its hate speech rules to favour BJP leaders is a ‘damning and serious allegation’ of “interference” in India’s electoral democracy.

New Delhi: The Congress on Tuesday wrote to Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, saying the Wall Street Journal‘s story that the social media giant relaxed its hate speech rules to favour BJP leaders is a ‘damning and serious allegation’ of its India units “interference” in the country’s electoral democracy.

In a letter to Zuckerberg, Congress general secretary K.C. Venugopal demanded a time-bound high-level inquiry into the conduct of Facebook India leadership team and their operations. He also demanded that pending the internal investigation and submission of the report, the company should “consider a new team to lead Facebook India operations so as to not influence the probe”.

Also Read: Afraid of Angering BJP, Facebook Ignored Hate Speech Rules for Party’s Anti-Muslim Posts: Report

“Set up a high level inquiry by Facebook headquarters into the Facebook India leadership team and their operations and submit a report to the Board of Facebook within one or two months. The report should also be made public,” Venugopal said in the letter.

Congress repeatedly raised issue of bias with many Facebook executives. Would suggest to set up a high-level inquiry into Facebook India leadership team & submit report to Facebook Inc. within a reasonable period of time: KC Venugopal,AICC Gen Secy to Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg pic.twitter.com/Gahb5lnrgI

— ANI (@ANI) August 18, 2020

Both Facebook and the BJP have come under attack after the report was published. In its response, Facebook on Monday said the company’s social media platform prohibits hate speech and content that incites violence, adding these policies are enforced globally without regard to political affiliation.

However, Facebook, which counts India among its largest markets globally, acknowledged that “there is more to do”.

In his letter, Venugopal said that the fact that Facebook India deleted the hate speech posts mentioned in the WSJ article after the newspaper’s enquiries is a ‘clear admission of guilt’. He is it is deeply disturbing that Facebook may be a “willing participant in thwarting the rights and values that the founding leaders of the Congress sacrificed their lives for”.

He said though the contents of the WSJ article were deeply disappointing to the Congress party, “it was not a surprise revelation”. The party has repeatedly raised the issue of bias with many executives of Facebook and WhatsApp but in vain, he said. WhatsApp is owned by Facebook.

It is not too later for Facebook to correct its course, the AICC general secretary said, requesting ‘remedial action’ in the form of a ‘thorough and impartial investigation’ into Facebook India’s operations and practices.

He made some suggestions, including that the US publish all instances of “hate speech posts since 2014 that were allowed on the platform.” He said though the WSJ article mentions hate speech posts made by at least three other politicians that were wilfully permitted by Facebook India, on closer inspection, there are bound to be “thousands of such insidious posts”.

Also Read: Watch | Why Did Facebook Not Remove BJP-Linked Anti-Muslim Hate Posts?

He said the Congress and other political parties have raised the issue in India’s parliament, adding that his party has also demanded a probe by a parliamentary committee into “this very serious issue of Facebook’s interference in world’s largest electoral democracy”.

Venugopal said the Congress is joined by other leading political parties in “expressing fear over Facebook’s purported role in manipulating India’s electoral democracy”.

He hoped that Zuckerberg will appreciate that the allegations of bias are a matter of ‘grave concern’ to not just India but the world. “We hope that you give this issue the utmost priority for resolution and win back the trust and confidence of the 400 million Indians [who] use Facebook and WhatsApp,” he said.

Kashmir 4G Case in SC: Centre Offers to Submit Minutes of Special Meeting in Sealed Cover

If allowed by the court, this may well dilute the allegations of contempt of court against the centre.

On Thursday, the Attorney General for India, K.K. Venugopal, offered to place the minutes of the meetings of the Special Committee – constituted by the Supreme Court on May 11 to promptly review the ban on 4G mobile internet in Jammu and Kashmir – before the Supreme Court in a sealed cover.

The Special Committee comprises the Secretary of the Ministry of Home Affairs, the Secretary of the Department of Telecommunications, and the Chief Secretary of the government of Jammu and Kashmir.

The offer came during the hearing of the matter by a bench comprising Justices N.V.Ramana, R.Subhash Reddy and B.R.Gavai. Huzefa Ahmadi, who is senior counsel representing the petitioner, Foundation for Media Professionals (FMP), complained that there was no information available in the public domain about the workings of the Special Committee.

This, Ahmadi argued, went against the spirit of the Supreme Court’s previous decision in Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India where it was clearly held that orders must be published to allow an aggrieved person to challenge them before courts.

Ahmadi also highlighted the suffering of the people in Jammu and Kashmir who are being deprived of telemedicine and online education during the COVID-19 pandemic while the rest of the country is able to enjoy these facilities.

Also read: ‘Third World Region of a Third World Country’: How Kashmir Struggles With the Coronavirus

In response, Venugopal claimed that the Special Committee had held two meetings so far on May 15 and June 10. According to him, the Special Committee examined the impact of internet restrictions on education, health, business activities and freedom of speech. “However, since there has been a rise in terrorism in the region, the Special Committee decided to defer the issue for two months after its last meeting,” Venugopal told the bench.

Since the constitution of the Special Committee on May 11, 2020, four orders have been issued by the government under the Telecom Suspension Rules 2017 to extend internet restrictions in Jammu and Kashmir. The most recent of these orders was issued on July 8, 2020, and it directs slowdown of mobile internet speed in Jammu and Kashmir to 2G till July 29.

Also read: Hours After Restoration of Low-Speed Mobile Internet in Kashmir, Service ‘Temporarily’ Suspended

The order, uploaded on the Supreme Court’s website, however, is silent on the AGI’s sealed cover offer. It simply says:

“Learned Attorney General for India undertakes to file reply affidavit to the contempt petition within a week’s time. He is permitted to do so. List the matters after one week.”

If the reply affidavit is accompanied with a sealed cover, the petitioner’s ability to file a proper counter to the reply will be limited as the petitioner’s counsel will not get access to the minutes of the meetings of the Special Committee.

The FMP filed the contempt petition itself on June 9, since there was no information available in the public domain about the Special Committee, and its constitution, as directed by the Supreme Court. The minutes of its meetings, therefore, are important to find out whether it examined the material placed on record by all parties and considered the viability of less restrictive alternatives, suggested by the FMP.

Prior to filing the contempt petition, FMP had also sent two representations to members of the Special Committee, urging them to comply with the directions of the Supreme Court, but it did not receive any response.

Also read: Why Modi Government is in the Dock for Contempt of Court in Kashmir 4G Internet Case

However, it is not clear whether the AGI wanted to submit only the minutes of the Special Meeting or the reply affidavit itself in a sealed cover, as the counsel could not make it out because of the limitations of hearing through a video link.

When Ahmadi expressed his concern over the minutes of the meeting not being made public, the bench asked the Centre to mention whatever it wants to in its reply affidavit. This has led to considerable anxiety over whether the bench has given its tacit nod to the AG’s sealed cover offer.

Law on sealed covers

In Dr. Subramanian Swamy v. Arun Shourie, (Contempt Petition (CRL) No.11 of 1990), decided by the Supreme Court’s five-judge constitution bench on July 23, 2014, the respondent prayed that, in view of the sensitive nature of the facts, he would choose to refrain from setting out those facts in the affidavit but would prefer to put them in the form of a signed document in a sealed cover for the perusal of the court, which might be treated as an integral part of the counter affidavit.

Also read: Supreme Court Verdict on 4G in Jammu and Kashmir Undermines the Rule of Law

The court recalled that it had rejected Shourie’s prayer on March 4, 1991, because “the procedure suggested by the respondent was not an acceptable procedure and was inconsistent with recognised form of the pleadings”.

Thereafter, Shourie was granted liberty to withdraw the sealed cover from the court and given an opportunity to file an additional affidavit. In this case, Swamy had arraigned Shourie as the respondent in the contempt petition filed by him, for his editorial in The Indian Express on Justice Kuldip Singh, then a sitting judge of the Supreme Court.

As the editorial criticised Justice Kuldip Singh in his capacity as the chairman of the inquiry commission, set up to probe allegations against the former chief minister of Karnataka, Ramakrishna Hegde, the defence was that it did not amount to contempt of court. The Supreme Court held in this case that merely because a commission of inquiry is headed by a sitting judge of the Supreme Court, it does not become an extended arm of the court.

Although there are many examples of the Court accepting sealed covers with information from the litigating parties even after Swamy v. Shourie, the court appeared to do so reluctantly in some cases where it felt it ought to give reasons for the same.

In the Alok Verma case, the Supreme Court justified the submission of the report of the Central Vigilance Commissioner (CVC) in a sealed cover as a one time measure in view of the “peculiar facts” of the case, in order to maintain the sanctity of the institution of the Central Bureau of Investigation and public confidence in it.

The reliance on sealed covers by the former CJI Ranjan Gogoi when it came to the National Register of Citizens and Rafale cases had led to outcomes which were generally perceived as unsatisfactory and unjust.

It is well settled that Section 123 of the Indian Evidence Act which enables the state to claim privilege over a confidential document, has to be read with Section 162 of the same Act, which enables only the court to decide whether the claimed privilege could be permitted.

SC Issues Notice to Lawyer Prashant Bhushan on Contempt Plea by AG and Centre

Venugopal said in his petition that Bhushan’s tweets “scandalise or tend to scandalise and lower or tend to lower the authority of this court”.

New Delhi: The Supreme court on Wednesday sought a response from activist and lawyer Prashant Bhushan on contempt pleas by Attorney General (AG) K.K. Venugopal and the Centre for his tweets allegedly criticising the court over the appointment of M. Nageswara Rao as interim Central Bureau of Investigation director.

Bhushan was given three weeks to reply.

A bench of Justices Arun Mishra and Naveen Sinha said it would deal with the larger question of whether it is open for lawyers or any other person to criticise the court in a sub judice matter which would lead to influencing public opinion.

Criticising the court may also lead to interference in the course of justice, the bench added.

“This issue required to be heard in length, notice issued,” it said, listing the matter for further hearing on March 7.

Bhushan, in his tweets, alleged that the Centre, represented by Venugopal, misled the apex court on the issue of Rao’s appointment.

On Tuesday, the Centre moved the apex court seeking initiation of contempt proceedings against Bhushan for his tweets and said they amounted to making false statement in a pending case. This was days after Venugopal’s contempt petition against Bhushan.

Venugopal, in his contempt plea, referred to the extracts of the minutes of the meeting by the high powered selection committee comprising Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Justice A.K. Sikri and leader of the largest opposition party Mallikarjun Kharge.

The Centre’s plea also referred to the contents of Venugopal’s petition and submitted that they be also read as part of its plea.

Venugopal’s petition referred to Bhushan’s February 1 tweets in which he alleged that the government appeared to have misled the apex court and perhaps, submitted fabricated minutes of the meeting of the high powered selection committee.

Through his tweets, Venugopal said, Bhushan appeared to have deliberately intended to cast aspersions on the ‘integrity and honesty’ of the AG who had placed the minutes of the meeting before the apex court during the February 1st hearing.

On February 1st, a bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra was hearing a petition filed by NGO Common Cause challenging the Centre’s decision to appoint Rao, an IPS officer, as interim CBI director.

Venugopal said in his petition that Bhushan’s tweets “scandalise or tend to scandalise and lower or tend to lower the authority of this court”.

He said during the hearing on February 1, he had handed over to the bench the minutes of meeting of the high powered committee (HPC) held on January 9 and 10.

According to the petition, signatures of all the three members of the committee were affixed in the decision taken by the panel.

Venugopal said Bhushan, in one of his tweets on February 1, had said, “I have just confirmed personally from the leader of opposition Mr Kharge that no discussion or decision in HPC meet was taken re-appointment of Nageswara Rao as interim Director of CBI. The govt appears to have misled the court and perhaps submitted fabricated minutes of the HPC meeting.”

The attorney general said the statement/confirmation attributed to Kharge could never have been made by him for the simple reason that he himself had signed the minutes of the meeting which also contained the final decisions of the HPC.

“If the minutes of the meeting were to be fabricated, the members of the HPC who constituted the majority would have to be parties to such fabrication as their signatures are contained on the very same page on which the decision is recorded in the minutes,” the plea had said.