The Supreme Court on Wednesday dismissed a petition against Malayalam novel “Meesha”, whose serialisation in a leading vernacular weekly was withdrawn earlier by the author following threats by suspected right-wing outfits.

The Bombay High Court on Tuesday declined to stay a lower court order for framing of charges in a case against Lt. Col. Srikant P. Purohit and 13 other accused in connection with the 2008 Malegaon blast.

Purohit had challenged the decision of the lower court in the high court, seeking a stay on the framing of charges on September 5, the critical pre-trial process in the case.

On August 29, Special Judge Vinod Padalkar of the NIA Special Court had ruled that charges would be framed against Purohit and the remaining 13 accused in the Malegaon case.

Besides challenging the Special Court order, Purohit also sought a stay on the proceedings until the court finally decided on the applicability of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, under which all the 14 main accused, among them Sadhvi Pragnya Singh Thakur, have been charged, besides provisions of the Indian Penal Code and other laws.

He also questioned the sanction granted by the Maharashtra government in January 2009, for his prosecution and the dismissal of his plea seeking a discharge from the case by the Special Court in December 2017.

The development came exactly 10 years after a powerful low-intensity bomb planted on a motorcycle ripped through a crowded Muslim-majority locality of Malegaon town in Nashik, on September 29, 2008, killing seven and injuring over 100 people.

Purohit, who was granted bail in 2017 after spending nine years in custody, is currently posted at the Military Station in Colaba, south Mumbai.

The 14 accused (including Purohit) are: a former Major Ramesh Upadhyay, Sadhvi Pragnya Singh Thakur, a self-proclaimed seer, Sudhakar Dwivedi alias Dayanand Pandey, Rakesh Dhawde, Sameer Kulkarni, Sudhakar Chaturvedi, Pravin Takalki, Shivnarayan Kalsangra, Shyam Sahu, Ajay Rahirkar, and Jagdish Mhatre, besides two absconders, Sandeep Dange and Ramchandra Kalsangra.

Indian Army Chief General Bipin Rawat, who doesnt carry a cellphone, on Tuesday said soldiers could not be denied access to the social media and they should be allowed to use smartphones within a line of controlled discipline.

He said the Indian Army needed to make optimal usage of the social media in the advanced age of communication and information.

“The social Media gaining momentum faster than we thought. (If we don’t catch up) we will be left far behind and we will be fire fighting again,” General Rawat said, speaking at a seminar on “Social Media and Armed Forces”.

“Information is one of the pillars of national power. There is no way the Armed Forces can remain away from that,” he said

“We have received advice that we should advise our soldiers to stay away from the social media. Can you deny a soldier a smart phone? Can you deny soldier a smartphone at home or prevent his family to own one. If you can’t prevent usage of smartphone, it is best to allow it (the access to social media).

“The social media is here to stay. Soldiers will use the social media. Our adversary will use the social media for psychological warfare and deception. We must leverage it to our advantage.”

The Army Chief said the social media could be used in combating proxy war, cross-border terrorism but drew a note of caution, saying it was “important to have means of imposing discipline” among the soldiers regarding their social media behaviour.

He, however, said he himself didn’t possess a cellphone but that should not mean that his force should be denied of it.

“I don’t have a cellphone and when someone asks me my cellphone number I just give them (any random number) 9868… and if it turns out to be an 11-digit number I just say cut the last digit.

“But we (the Indian Army) have to engage, remain engaged and benefit (from the use of social media).

“In modern day warfare, information warfare is important and within it, we have started talking about Artificial Intelligence. If we have to leverage Artificial Intelligence to our advantage, we must engage through the social media as a lot of what we wish to gain as part of Artificial Intelligence will come via social media.”

The views by the Army Chief came months after the social media policy for soldiers was criticized when a senior Army officer was allegedly honey-trapped by an ISI agent through Facebook.

The Defence Ministry set out guidelines for the soldiers on the usage of the social media. They have been asked not to use photos in uniform as profile pictures on WhatsApp, Facebook or any other platforms.

The guidelines also bar them from clicking on advertisements on social media sites alluring for prizes/awards, exposing official identity, revealing their rank, unit name and location or anything related to their work, accepting friend request from unknown users.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday said interim bail granted to Bhushan Steel’s erstwhile promoter Neeraj Singal by the Delhi High Court in an alleged Rs 2,500-crore fraud case will continue.

A bench of Justice A.M. Khanwilkar and Justice D.Y. Chandrachud said it was only allowing the interim bail to continue and stayed the interim order passed by the high court on other aspects and transferred the matter to itself.

The court said the operation of the rest of the judgement regarding various aspects, including the SFIO’s power to arrest and investigate, will be deliberated later.

The high court, while granting interim bail to Singal, had made some pertinent observations with respect to Section 212 of the Companies Act.

Section 212 of the Companies Act is a code as far as the procedure for arrest, investigation and prosecution of the offences under the Companies Act is concerned.

In the apex court it was contended by the SFIO that the investigation report under Section 212 (15) is not the final report as contemplated under Section 173 CrPC and it is only “for the purpose of framing charges”.

The court’s order came on the plea of Serious Frauds Investigation Office’s (SFIO) plea challenging the grant of the bail to Singal. The Centre too had moved the court challenging the high court order.

The SFIO had accused Singal of siphoning off Rs 2,500 crore of public funds. It had argued before the top court that his release will cause grave harm to the ongoing investigation, which has reached an advanced stage.

Singal is out of jail after the bail was granted on his habeas corpus petition filed by his mother. The counsel appearing for Singal’s mother had contended that his arrest was illegal as the complaint was made under one law and his arrest was made under another.

Imposing conditions while granting interim bail to Neeraj Singal and directing him to co-operate with the investigation, the high court had on August 29 said that “he shall not be compelled by the SFIO to sign his statement under Section 217 (4) read with Section 217 (7) of the Companies Act.”

Section 217 of the Companies Act lays down the procedure and powers of the inspectors.

It had also said that the interim bail would continue “till an investigation report is filed in the Special Court in terms of Sections 212 (14) read with Section 212 (15) Companies Act, at which stage the petitioner will, if it so necessitated, have to seek regular bail from the Special Court, subject of course to the further orders in the main writ petition.”

Attacks on the Border Security Force (BSF) personnel and cross-border crimes will be on the agenda of talks between Bangladeshi and Indian frontier forces when they meet for the 47th bi-annual conference between from Monday onwards.

The Indian delegation, headed by K. K. Sharma, Director General (DG) BSF, will hold discussion with the Bangladesh delegation, headed by Major General Shafeenul Islam, DG, Border Guard Bangladesh (BGB), in Delhi.

The BSF in a statement said it would discuss issues of attacks on its personnel by the Bangladeshi criminals, cross-border crimes, and action against insurgent groups and border infrastructure, among other things.

The BGB has listed among its agenda, issues of trans-border crimes, smuggling of narcotics from India to Bangladesh, arrests of Bangladeshi nationals by BSF, expansion of crime-free zones.

The last such talks were held at Dhaka between the two forces during April 23-27, 2018.

“The joint India-Bangladesh guidelines for border authorities – 1975 envisage that there should be frequent contacts between the border authorities of two countries concerned to discuss the matter of immediate administrative concern,” the BSF statement said.

(IANS)

Justice M Sathyanarayanan of the Madras High Court on Friday reserved the judgement in the case pertaining to disqualification of 18 AIADMK MLAs who were disqualified on September 18 last year for siding with TTV Dinakaran.

The Supreme Court had on June 27 said that Justice M Sathyanarayanan of the Madras High Court would hear and decide the plea of 18 disqualified AIADMK MLAs.

On June 14, a division bench of the Madras High Court had given a split verdict on petitions challenging the disqualification of these legislators. The high court had delivered divergent verdicts on whether the 18 MLAs deserved to be disqualified under the anti-defection law by Speaker P Dhanapal for approaching the Governor and seeking the removal of Chief Minister K Palaniswami.

After this, the court had ruled that the senior-most judge after the high court Chief Justice would now hand-pick a third judge, who will hear the matter afresh.

Had the court quashed the disqualification of MLAs, the Palaniswami government would have been in trouble.

After the disqualification, 18 lawmakers supporting TTV Dinakaran moved Madras High Court on September 18 challenging the Tamil Nadu Speaker P Dhanapal’s order. The lawmakers were then disqualified under 1986 Tamil Nadu Assembly Members party defection law.

Tamil Nadu Assembly Speaker P Dhanapal had on September 18 last year disqualified the 18 MLAs owing allegiance to side-lined party leader T T V Dhinakaran on the grounds that they had tried to pull down the AIADMK government in the state.

(PTI)

The Supreme Court today held that a member of a Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe community cannot claim the benefit of reservation in government employment in other states if his or her caste is not notified there.

A five-judge Constitution bench headed by Justice Ranjan Gogoi unanimously held that a person belonging to Scheduled Caste in one state cannot be deemed to be a Scheduled Caste in other states where he migrated for the purpose of employment or education.

The bench, which also comprised Justices N V Ramana, R Banumathi, M Shantanagoudar and Justice S A Nazeer, held “A person notified as Scheduled Caste in state A cannot claim the same status in another state on the basis that he is declared as Scheduled Caste in state A.”

Justice Banumathi, however, disagreed with the majority view on the aspect of applicability of central reservation policy on SC/ST in the national capital territory, Delhi.

The bench with a majority of 4:1 held that so far as Delhi is concerned, the central reservation policy regarding SC/ST would be applicable here.

The verdict came on a batch of petitions that had raised the issue whether a SC/ST in one state can seek reservation in another state where his caste is not notified as SC/ST.

The bench was also seized of the question whether SC/ST people of other states can seek quota benefits for government jobs in Delhi.

While countering Pakistan’s latest attempt to raise the Kashmir issue at the Security Council, India has said that it hopes the new government of Prime Minister Imran Khan would work constructively to build the region and free it from the scourge of terrorism.

“Pacific settlement (of disputes) requires pacific intent in thinking and pacific content in action,” India’s Permanent Representative Syed Akbaruddin said Wednesday at the Council suggesting a new approach for the new government.

“Regurgitating failed approach which has long been rejected is neither reflective of pacific intent nor a display of pacific content,” he emphasised after Pakistan’s Permanent Representative Maleeha Lodhi suggested the Council should resuscitate initiatives on Kashmir from 70 years ago.

“We hope that the new government of Pakistan will, rather than indulge in polemics, work constructively to build a safe, secure and developed South Asian region free of terror and violence,” Akbaruddin said.

The session on mediation and settlement of disputes was presided over by Tariq Mahmood Ahmad, the British Minister of State for the Commonwealth and the UN.

Lodhi referred to decades-old failed Council efforts and invoked the 1948 Council resolution setting up the UN Commission for India and Pakistan (UNCIP) for investigating and mediating the Kashmir dispute.

However, UNCIP in a resolution on August 13 that year clearly stated that the Pakistan government “agrees to withdraw its troops from that state” and “endeavour to secure the withdrawal” tribesmen and Pakistanis “who have entered the state for the purpose of fighting.”

Islamabad has failed to keep that assurance and ironically, Lodhi asserted that the Council’s failure to resolve the Kashmir dispute put its credibility was at stake.

The UNCIP admitted in 1949 its failure to mediate the dispute and closed down.

Lodhi suggested that the Council could refer disputes to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) for an advisory opinion under the UN Charter.

She went further offering her own interpretation of the Charter’s provisions for the Council’s intervention in threats to peace and claimed that it could even unilaterally enforce an advisory opinion from the ICJ over-riding the principle that parties to the dispute have to agree to the court’s jurisdiction.

Akbaruddin questioned if the UN and the Council were even capable of mediating disputes, asserting that they were hobbled structurally and would not come to the mediation process “unencumbered.”

The Council’s permanent members had veto powers and without their full cooperation mediators cannot act effectively, he said.

Moreover, the “tortuous decision-making process, imbued with political trade-offs saps the UN of necessary dynamism and flexibility in pursuing mediation” and makes responses to changing circumstances in the mediating process difficult, he added.

Therefore, he said, “upgrading, expansion, or revamping of (the UN) Secretariat rules and regulations” would not work and it would “be more realistic to look at functional solutions rather than structural ones”.

“Rather than try and throw in the UN lap intractable issues, perhaps, a more pragmatic approach is required,” he added, suggesting that the world look at “alternate solutions which use the competencies of the UN more judiciously”.

Ahmad brought in as a speaker Archbishop Justin Welby of Canterbury, who is the spiritual head of a Christian sect, the Church of England.

Another speaker was Mossarat Qadeem, a Pakistani described as an activist for women and the marginalised, who spoke of empowering women as mediators.

(IANS)

Activists’ arrest over alleged caste incitement also draws condemnation from rights groups and opposition parties.

India’s Supreme Court has asked the Indian government to explain the arrests of five prominent activists in connection with caste violence that took place earlier this year.

The high-profile arrests triggered outrage and protests across India on Wednesday.

“Dissent is the safety valve of democracy. If you don’t allow the safety valve, the pressure cooker will burst,” Justice Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud, who is among the three judges hearing the case at the Supreme Court, observed.

The arrested human rights activists received a reprieve from the top court, which directed that they be held under house arrest instead of police custody.

On Tuesday, searches were carried out at the homes of poet Varavara Rao in the southern city of Hyderabad; activists Vernon Gonsalves and Arun Ferreira in Maharashtra, trade union campaigner and law professor Sudha Bhardwaj in Faridabad; and civil liberties activist Gautam Navalakha in New Delhi. Subsequently these five were arrested.

Police said the activists had spurred Dalits in the face of a pride event at Bhima Koregaon in January that spilled over into weeks of violence and protests across Maharashtra state.

Dalits, at the lowest rung of the Hindu caste system, have suffered thousands of years of exclusion and extreme poverty.

On Wednesday, protests were held across India by 37 civil rights groups and enraged Indians protested on social media even as activists warned of a further crackdown on those defending human rights in the country.

The police are also probing the alleged connection of those arrested to Maoist rebels who have been involved in an armed struggle for decades against Indian security forces.

Maoist rebels, also known as Naxals, claim to fight across states in central and eastern India, for the rights of tribals, poor farmers and landless labourers.

On Twitter, Indians shared their outrage and trended #MeTooUrbanNaxal.

The police had also arrested five Dalit activists in June this year in connection with the same case.

The government has been trying to silence those who are defending the defenceless, said Supreme Court lawyer Prashant Bhushan, who challenged the arrests at the top court on Wednesday.

“This is an outright attempt to intimidate human rights activists, dissenters and silence those who are opposed to the fascist policies of this government,” Bhushan told Al Jazeera.

“What those arrested have in common, they are our finest rights activists speaking out against the government. They are standing up for the rights of the poor and the marginalised in this country,” he added.

The Supreme Court will resume hearing the case on September 6.

Joint Commissioner of Pune Police Shivaji Bodkhe confirmed the arrests but refused to answer questions from report.

India’s National Human Rights Commission has sent a notice to the government of Maharashtra asking them to explain the arrests while Amnesty International has called it a “crackdown on human rights activists”.

The ruling Bharatiya Janata party has defended the crackdown.

“Those arrested are violent people who are conspiring against Indian society. Maoism is a banned ideology, so what do you expect?” BJP leader and Member of Parliament says Rakesh Sinha

“India is neither Saudi Arabia nor China. The doors of the judiciary are open to them if they think they are innocent. Let there be a free and fair trial,” he added.

But the arrests have brought back into the spotlight the debate about what some called the shrinking space for dissent in India under the government of Hindu nationalist Narendra Modi.

Gauri Lankesh, journalist and a strident critic of the current ruling party and its ideology, was killed last year, while a left-wing student leader Umar Khalid survived an assassination attempt this month.

Critics also pointed to the several arrests of Dalit activists including leaders like Chandrashekhar Azad who has been imprisoned under India’s draconian National Security Act since last year as examples of the right-wing government’s clampdown on tolerance and freedom of expression.

(Aljazeera)

Describing dissent as a safety valve, the Supreme Court on Wednesday directed that the five human rights activists arrested by Maharashtra Police should be kept under house arrest until the next date of hearing on September 6.

In a huge relief to the activists, an apex court bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra ordered house arrest on a petition filed by eminent historian Romila Thapar and four others challenging the Tuesday arrests.

Taking a dim view of the crackdown, Justice D.Y. Chandrachud said: “Dissent is a safety valve of democracy. If it is not allowed, the pressure cooker will burst.”

He noted that the arrests had taken place nine months after the activists were linked to the violence at Bhima-Koregaon in Maharashtra.

Talking to reporters later, lawyer Prashant Bhushan said the Supreme Court had issued notices to the central and Maharashtra governments.

Those arrested on Tuesday included Varavara Rao in Hyderabad, Gautam Navlakha in Delhi, Sudha Bharadwaj in Haryana and Arun Ferreira and Vernon Gonzalves in Maharashtra.

They were to have been taken to Pune but would now be sent home and put under house arrest.

(IANS)