Democratic Institutions

Stenographer for the Prosecution: The Bail Order in Umar Khalid’s Case  Gautam Bhatia 24 March 2022  https://indconlawphil.wordpress.com/2022/03/24/stenographer-for-the-prosecution-the-bail-order-in-umar-khalids-case/  Also avaliable at  https://thewire.in/law/umar-khalid-denied-bail-order-uapa-judiciary-stenographer-prosecution 

a close reading of the sixty-one page long bail order, the denial of bail to Umar Khalid is based entirely upon an act of judicial stenography: the Court reproduces the statements in the chargesheet, refuses to examine them on their own terms, refuses to engage with the defence’s examination of them, and finally – and most importantly – fills in inferences of guilt where the prosecution’s case is vague or missing particulars.

The implications of this are both obvious and frightening. The bail order takes us to a position where the Prosecution can write literally anything in its UAPA chargesheet – vague, inconsistent, implausible, ex facie false, things that you would laugh at if someone presented them to you and tried to make your believe them – and we will have a bail order that will reproduce those statements, park all objections for a trial that will not finish for the next ten years, and ensure that people remain in jail all that time. This is the embodiment of a broken criminal justice system – broken not just by the UAPA and its language, but broken by judges who, somewhere in all this, seem to have forgotten the judicial role as being one that tempers and confronts State abuse.

The bail order takes us to a position where the prosecution can write literally anything in its UAPA chargesheet and the court will park all objections for a trial that will not finish for the next ten years.

These courts have pointed out that, given how strict the UAPA’s threshold requirement is for granting bail, it behoves the judge to subject the prosecution’s case (which is the only case that exists at the time of bail) to equally strict scrutiny: both on the necessity of factual evidence being concrete and specific, and on the question of whether the legal standard under the UAPA is made out.

Inquilab Zindabad slogan will stay relevant till people continue their struggle against diverse inequalities  https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/the-idealism-behind-inquilab-zindabad-indian-freedom-struggle-umar-khalid-delhi-high-court-7941740/

S Irfan Habib writes: Now, it’s at the centre of a Delhi High Court deliberation which sought to know the context in which Umar Khalid, accused in the February 2020 riots in the Capital, used the term inquilab, with the judge saying that ‘revolution’ by itself “isn’t always bloodless”.

Bhagat Singh was even more definitive in his statement in the court on June 6, 1929. He said: “Revolution (Inquilab) is not a culture of bomb and pistol. Our meaning of revolution is to change the present conditions, which are based on manifest injustice.” Bhagat Singh agrees with a quote he cites in his prison diary, which says a radical revolution is not utopian, “What is utopian is the idea of a partial, an exclusively political revolution, which would leave the pillars of the house standing.”

The HSRA aimed at such a revolution (Inquilab) which would usher in a new era, demolishing the existing socio-economic and political structure of the Indian society. Their revolution was not for anarchy or lawlessness but for social justice.

Thus, we need to comprehend the meaning of Inquilab or revolution and the slogan Inquilab Zindabad in the context of its history. It will stay relevant till the people continue their struggle against diverse inequalities and oppressions.

Delhi HC Faults Umar Khalid's Remarks Against PM Modi Again  https://thewire.in/rights/delhi-hc-faults-umar-khalids-remarks-against-pm-modi-again Hearing his bail plea, the court said that he 'could have used some other words' for the PM in his February 2020 speech while saying that a call for revolution need 'not [be] necessarily bloodless'.

"Deliberate Inaction of Govt...Not Good For Health Of Democracy": CJI Ramana Says As PM Modi Watches
509,595 views Apr 30, 2022 "Chief Justice of India N V Ramana today said that the Constitution provides separation of power among the three organs of the state, and one should be mindful of the 'Lakshman Rekha' while discharging their duty.
""Constitution provides separation of power among three organs and the harmonious function between three organs strengthens democracy. While discharging our duty, we should be mindful of Lakshman Rekha,"" said the Chief Justice of India.

Citizen vs State vs Liberty  P Chidambaram on May 8, 2022  https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/citizen-vs-state-vs-liberty-7905914/ 

A Nation Waits

There are several cases pending in the Supreme Court of India touching upon liberty. Among them are:

• the demonetization case: can the State demonetise 86 per cent of the currency, without notice, depriving millions of people of food and medicines for several days?
• the electoral bond case: can the State make a law that provides for anonymous and unlimited donations to political parties by corporates (including loss-making companies) and ingeniously connects crony capitalism, corruption and contributions to the ruling party?
• the Lockdown: can the State impose a total lockdown without notice to the people and render millions without a home, food, water, medicine, money and means of travel to their permanent places of residence?
• Repeal of Article 370 of the Constitution: can the State dismember a state that had joined the Union under an Instrument of Accession into two sub-state units without obtaining the consent of the people or of the legislature of the state?
• Sedition: can the State slap charges of sedition under Section 124A of the IPC on any one who opposes or mocks the State’s actions?
• Encounters & Bulldozers: can the State employ methods like encounters and demolitions to quell dissent or protests by the people?There is a deliberate and determined attempt to strike at the very foundations of the Indian State. There is a stealthy attempt to deprive the people of their liberty and inalienable rights by chipping at the margins. In the World Press Freedom Index 2022, India has slipped to 150 among 180 countries. Vigilant citizens have knocked on the doors of the Supreme Court, the self-described sentinel on the qui vive.

Supreme Court Directs Uttarakhand Govt To Prevent Hate Speeches At Roorkee Dharam Sansad Mehal Jain 26 April 2022 https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/supreme-court-directs-uttarakhand-govt-to-take-measures-prevent-hate-speeches-at-roorkee-dharam-sansad-197539

The Supreme Court on Tuesday asked the Uttarakhand Government to take measures to prevent hate speeches in Dharam Sansad which has been planned at Roorkee27th April 2022. "You will have to take immediate action. Don't make us say something. There are other ways of preventive action. You know how to do it!",

A bench comprising Justices AM Khanwilkar, Abhay Sreeniwas Oka and CT Ravikumar was hearing an application filed by journalist Qurban Ali and Senior Advocate Anjana Prakash (former judge of Patna HC) seeking criminal action against alleged hate speeches made during Dharam Sansad meets. 

https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2022/1152/1152_2022_3_9_35326_Order_26-Apr-2022.pdf "This application pertains to the event which has already taken place on 17th to 19 April 2022 in Una, state of Himachal Pradesh. Counsel for the state of Himachal Pradesh on instructions submits that necessary preventive measures were already taken and after the event, corrective steps as required in terms of the decisions of this court in Tehseen Poonawalla (2018) and a subsequent case have also been taken up by the concerned authorities. He prays for some time to place the same on record by way of affidavit. We direct that the affidavit of Secretary, home department be filed in that regard on or before me 7 of May 2022. List this application on May 9, 2022 along with connected cases.

During the course of hearing of this application, Mr Sibal pointed out that he has received instructions to state that an event has been planned at Roorkee of the same type for tomorrow and an application is being filed in the registry in the course of the day in that regard. Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand submits that all preventive measures have been taken as exposited in the decisions referred to above and the concerned authorities are more than confident that no untoward situation or unacceptable statements are made during such event and whatever is necessary in terms of the decisions of this court, all such steps will be taken by the concerned authorities. We direct the Secretary, Home Department, of the State of Uttarakhand to place the above position on record and to also to state about the corrective measures by the concerned authorities as and when required before the next date of hearing".