000-tobecategorised

Marathi actor's wife, two others face charges after recitation of Faiz Ahmed Faiz's ‘Hum Dekhenge’  https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/marathi-actors-wife-two-others-face-charges-after-recitation-of-faiz-ahmed-faizs-hum-dekhenge-101747752959037.html  According to a complainant Dattatraya Shirke cited by PTI, the The speaker allegedly said during the recitation, “Jo song ke medium se ye satta hila thi, usi tarah se hamare desh mein bhi takht hilane ki pratha hai. Aaj hum jis daur mein ji rahe hain, ye daur fasciswad ka hai. Ye daur tanasahi ka hai”.

An FIR was registered at the Sitabuldi police station against Pushpa Sathidar and two others associated with the memorial programme under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita sections 152 (endangering sovereignty, unity and integrity of India), 196 (promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion), 353 (statements conducing to public mischief) and 3 (5), which concerns common intention...

..According to Shirke, the speech and recitation of the poem, equated India's government with fascist regimes and also called for political upheaval. The police have launched a probe into the event, collecting digital video evidence of the event and recording statements of those who had attended the memorial programme.

The Supreme Court’s Order in Mahmudabad’s Case  https://indconlawphil.wordpress.com/2025/05/21/how-to-read-a-sentence-the-supreme-courts-order-in-mahmudabads-case/  Gautam Bhatia  One might expect that such a far-reaching order – that effaces two Article 19 rights (freedom of expression and freedom of movement) – would be supported by equally strong reasoning...The Court says that it is setting up this SIT “to holistically understand the complexity of the phraseology employed and for proper appreciation of some of the expressions used in these two online posts.” ...

Does the Constitution proscribe “unpatriotic” speech? Let us look at the constitutional text: specifically, Article 19(2). It immediately becomes clear that the Constitution does not proscribe unpatriotic speech, no matter what our personal views on the subject...

...I must therefore respectfully suggest that the Supreme Court’s order may not be entirely correct in law. The reasons for the constitution of the SIT are puzzling. The gag order is outside the Court’s jurisdiction. The confiscation of the passport appears excessive. In the meantime, it is reported that Mahmudabad’s laptop has been confiscated, and one therefore hopes that the Court’s order does not become an excuse for a roving and fishing enquiry by the police, going beyond the remit of the FIR.

How to Read a Sentence: The Supreme Court’s Order in Mahmudabad’s Case https://indconlawphil.wordpress.com/2025/05/21/how-to-read-a-sentence-the-supreme-courts-order-in-mahmudabads-case/ 
May 21, 2025 Gautam Bhatia One might expect the Court to explain why a Facebook post that fulsomely praised the Indian Armed Forces, before going on to gently suggest that the optics of having a Muslim woman army officer address the army’s press conference would remain only optics without addressing violence against Muslims, merits this judicial response of blood, thunder, and steel. One would search in vain. In its two-page order, the Supreme Court does not consider the substance of the allegations against Mahmudabad, and whether his Facebook post, on a plain reading, meets the ingredients of the offences that he has been accused of (and imprisoned for)...The Court says that it is setting up this SIT “to holistically understand the complexity of the phraseology employed and for proper appreciation of some of the expressions used in these two online posts.”

 Article 19(2). of the Constitution does not proscribe unpatriotic speech, no matter what our personal views on the subject. The reasons for this are two-fold, and they are important. First, what constitutes “patriotism” is deeply subjective, and not at all susceptible to judicial standards – certainly not enough to imprison a man over. 

the Constitution very sensibly does not outlaw “unpatriotic” speech: it, and the framers, recognised that it is futile to try and criminalise contested concepts out of existence. I believe this point important to make, because sometimes the effect of good legal strategy in a particular case can be to narrow the bounds of constitutional rights and freedoms for all other cases. In our desire to affirm Mahmudabad’s patriotism, thus, it is equally necessary to affirm that the Constitution is not in the business of compelling patriotism; it only steps in where speech constitutes incitement to violence or public disorder, and not before.