Repeal UAPA, withdraw cases: DMK, allies remember Stan Swamy on death anniversary
DMK
leaders and their allies on Saturday squarely blamed the Modi govt for the death of 84-year-old tribal rights activist
Stan Swamy
in a Jharkhand prison in 2021, calling it an injustice that cannot be undone.
At an event organised by the Stan Swamy People's Federation (Tamil Nadu chapter) in his hometown of Virugalur to mark his fourth death anniversary, DMK MP Kanimozhi accused the Union government of fostering a climate of fear to silence dissent. "Today, asking questions of the Union government makes you an anti-national or an urban Naxal. That's exactly what happened to Stan Swamy. He wasn't even given water in prison, but he was given names," she said.
Kanimozhi added that she would move a private bill in Parliament to safeguard
human rights
.
VCK leader Thol Thirumavalavan said Swamy was targeted for standing up for dalits and tribals, and was wrongly charged under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). "Amit Shah often says Naxalism will be abolished. For us, Naxals are people who fight for the rights of the people, who fight against the corporates, and who oppose handing over forests, natural resource-rich land, and land belonging to indigenous people to corporations," he said.
"The BJP falsely accused him of plotting to kill Modi. His laptop was hacked to fabricate evidence," he claimed. Swamy's death, he said, was part of a pattern of targeting voices critical of the state. "Gauri Lankesh and Narendra Dabholkar were also killed because of their leftist leanings."
School education minister Anbil Mahesh Poyyamozhi said the DMK will continue Swamy's work for the marginalised. "The Union government falsely implicated him simply for fighting for the marginalised," he said.
"We (DMK) are continuing from where Stan Swamy left off in his fight to uplift the downtrodden," he said.
CPM state secretary K Balakrishnan demanded that the Centre withdraw all cases filed against those named in the Bhima-Koregaon case and repeal the UAPA, calling it a law used to suppress dissent.
Eight resolutions were passed at the event, including demands for a memorial for Stan Swamy, repeal of UAPA, and immediate withdrawal of cases against Bhima-Koregaon accused.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hans India
37 minutes ago
- Hans India
Gadkari's remarks call for ‘Atmanirbhar Bharat 2047' reality check
It is quite rare for an incumbent Union minister to openly admit that, at times, statistical figures may not always reflect the ground realities. It takes guts for a minister to come up with facts that debunk theories floated by the government in power as regards claims about achievements and 'steady' economic growth. Although, on the face of it, India has this year pipped Japan to emerge as the world's fourth-largest economy in terms of GDP, the fact of the matter is that the country is yet to come out of the shackles of economic inequality. UNDP's latest report on Asia-Pacific Human Development states that the addition of around 40 billionaires has taken their count to 143, while, in these intervening years, 46 million Indians have been pushed to the BPL strata. One must give it to the Union Road Transport and Highways Minister Nitin Gadkari, who, on Saturday, dared to come up with some chilling facts and figures that are in stark contrast to the lofty claims of the NDA government at the Centre, which continues to harp on the 'fastest growing major economy' tag. Their projections appear as if the country is doing 'wonderfully well' across sectors, even as the government remains silent on the darker side of the 'vibrant' economy. Expressing concern over the 'rising' number of poor, and wealth getting concentrated in the hands of a limited number of people, Gadkari was bang on with his call for decentralisation of wealth. While lauding former prime ministers P V Narasimha Rao and Dr Manmohan Singh for pursuing growth-oriented economic policies, Gadkari cautioned against unchecked centralisation and the imbalances in sectoral contributions to the GDP. Underscoring the need to focus on creating jobs and uplift the rural folk, he noted, 'There is a need for decentralisation of wealth. Agriculture, despite engaging 65-70 per cent of the rural population, contributes only around 12 per cent.' The minister was not being critical but speaking his heart out, while putting things in their right perspective. Disparity exists even among Indian states, many of which are 'prosperous' while in other States, people continue to stare at abject poverty, Notwithstanding the fact that the country's per capita income has risen from $442 to $2,389 in the last 20 years, the reality is that whatever income and wealth that was generated in these two decades has been garnered by a miniscule section of the population (the elite class) while the misery of the poor has turned nightmarish, despite a multitude of government-sponsored welfare schemes. Many economists assert that the disparity has widened since 2017 following the introduction of Goods and Services Tax (GST) and lowering of the corporate tax rate. Irrespective of the reasons behind the GST move, one must not forget that this hangs as the 'Sword of Damocles', on the middle class and BPL families. People in the know have always wondered at the growing inequality despite the steady economic growth in the past few years. There is a well-orchestrated demand to introduce wealth tax as a measure to check the existing inequality from getting wider, while duly earmarking the revenue so generated for welfare schemes, education and healthcare. Laws should be so tightly framed and implemented that the rich, unwilling to dole out wealth tax, don't make a beeline to tax havens. Viksit Bharat 2027, anyone?
Hans India
37 minutes ago
- Hans India
Even the first citizen is answerable under the RTI Act!
A Telugu phrase says: 'Darina poye daanayya' (anybody who walks in the street). According to Cambridge Dictionary, 'Tom, Dick, and Harry' is an idiom that refers to ordinary people, anyone, or everybody. It's often used to indicate that something is not exclusive and is available to or intended for the general public. The question is: whether a citizen can ask for information from the President of India under the Right to Information Act? Who is a citizen? Should one prove his or her citizenship and if so how? Even a passport is not proof of citizenship, according to the Union Home Minister. This writer also does not have proof of citizenship. Under the Right to Information, a PIO (Public Information Officer), who is supposed to provide information, cannot demand proof of citizenship. Can the PIO prove whether he has citizenship? If a PIO asks for citizenship proof, it means he has denied an individual of RTI. Under the RTI Act, he is liable to pay a Rs 25000 penalty. In this case the question was sent to the President; it is the story of the RTI question. How the RTI gave the 'details' of Fakhruddin Ali Ahmad, former President, is very interesting, as explained by former Central Information Commissioner Shailesh Gandhi. One Subhash Chandra Agrawal had on August 9, 2010, filed a petition under RTI. Shailesh explained: The institutions of democracy had not become robust enough to withstand an assault, and it is imperative for citizens to know the reasons why and how democracy in India was nearly lost. He allowed an appeal, directed the Public Information Officer (PIO) and under-secretary at the President's Secretariat to provide the complete information on the declaration of internal emergency by the then president, Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed. Gandhi said, 'The Commission cannot pass any direction in this regard, as it does not come within the Commission's powers as mandated under the RTI Act. Now that various functionaries like ministers, judges, and Information Commissioners have voluntarily put up details of their assets on websites, it is for the President to take a decision on this matter. The PIO's reply was therefore correct.' The PIO also stated that the issue of whether exchanges between the President of India and the Prime Minister can be revealed under the RTI Act was the subject matter of a petition before the Delhi High Court. The Supreme Court, in a nine-judge bench decision in the SR Bommai & Ors Vs Union of India & Ors (AIR 1994 SC 1918), discussed the meaning and scope of Article 74 of the Constitution of India. Specifically, as regards Article 74(2) of the Constitution of India, the Supreme Court of India observed as follows: '… Then comes Clause (2) of Article 74 which says that the question 'whether any, and if so, what advice was tendered by the Ministers to the President shall not be enquired into in any Court.' The idea behind Clause (2) is this: the Court is not to enquire—it is not concerned with—whether any advice was tendered by any Minister or Council of Ministers to the President, and if so, what was that advice. That is a matter between the President and his Council of Ministers. What advice was tendered, whether it was required to be reconsidered, what advice was tendered after reconsideration, if any, what was the opinion of the President, whether the advice was changed pursuant to further discussion, if any, and how the ultimate decision was arrived at, are all matters between the President and his Council of Ministers. They are beyond the ken of the Court. The Court is not to go into it. It is enough that there is an order/act of the President in appropriate form. It will take it as the order/act of the President. It is concerned only with the validity of the order and legality of the proceeding or action taken by the President in exercise of his functions and not with what happened in the inner Councils of the President and his Ministers. No one can challenge such decision or action on the ground that it is not in accordance with the advice tendered by the Ministers or that it is based on no advice. If, in a given case, the President acts without, or contrary to, the advice tendered to him, it may be a case warranting his impeachment, but so far as the Court is concerned, it is the act of the President…' (Emphasis added) The Supreme Court ruled that this obligation could not be evaded by seeking refuge under Article 74(2) of the Constitution of India. The Supreme Court, while interpreting the scope of Article 74(2) of the Constitution of India, clearly laid down in SR Bommai that Article 74(2) of the Constitution of India merely barred an enquiry into the question whether any, and if so, what advice was tendered by the council of ministers to the president. It did not bar the court from calling upon the council of ministers to disclose to the court the material upon which the President had formed the requisite satisfaction. The material on the basis of which advice was tendered did not become a part of the advice. Even if the material was looked into by, or shown, to the president, it did not take the character of advice. 'Given that the advice tendered by the council of ministers to the president enjoys the Constitutional protection of Article 74(2) and cannot be disclosed to the courts, a citizen under the RTI Act cannot seek information pertaining to such advice. However, the Supreme Court has held that the materials on the basis of which such advice is tendered by the council of ministers or on the basis of which the president forms the requisite satisfaction is not covered by Article 74(2) of the Constitution of India. Since Article 74(2) does not cover such material, it can be accessed under the RTI Act, subject only to the exemptions under the RTI Act.' He wrote in the Second Appeal 'complete and detailed information on all documents/ records/ deliberations/ correspondence/ file notings on declaration of internal emergency in the country by Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed, the then president is not barred from disclosure under Article 74 of the Constitution of India; only the advice received by the then president from the then prime minister is protected from disclosure under Article 74(2) of the Constitution of India (in line with the ruling in SR Bommai) and therefore cannot be provided to the appellant under the RTI Act.' It was based on and the report of Moneylife on the website. 18 June 2013. Being a former President, he committed a serious blunder. How can such a Constitutional wrong be repaired by a Right to Information petition? The people of India need to answer! (The writer is Advisor, School of Law, Mahindra University, Hyderabad)
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
HC: Bar councils don't employ advocates, so no POSH panel
Mumbai: The Bombay HC Monday said the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, will not apply to complaints by advocates to bar councils as there is no employer-employee relationship between them, reports Rosy Sequeira. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now Hearing a petition seeking direction to bar councils to constitute committees to address sexual harassment complaints against advocates, a bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep Marne said the POSH Act will apply to cases where there is a relationship of employer and employee, and the bar councils cannot be said to be "employer of advocates". However, the Act will be applicable to employees of the bar councils. Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep Marne were hearing a petition by UNS Women Association seeking direction to the Bar Council of India (BCI) and Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa (BCMG) to constitute a permanent grievance redressal committee of women advocates in all state bar council offices and bar associations to address sexual harassment complaints against advocates as per the Supreme Court's Oct 2012 directions in Medha Kotwal Lele's case. The petition also sought implementation of the POSH Act and a committee of lawyers, NGOs, and retired women judges to review and look into lacunas in the Act. Senior advocate Milind Sathe, for BCMG, and advocate Shekhar Jagtap, for BCI, submitted that there is no employer-employee relationship between advocates and bar councils. Hence, the establishment of an internal complaints committee (ICC) is not applicable as per POSH Act. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now They said there is a provision for local committees headed by the district collector to receive complaints of sexual harassment for a workplace having fewer than 10 employees. However, neither ICC nor the local committees can be invoked by women advocates. Sathe said under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961, there is remedy for professional and other misconduct. The judges referred to sections of the POSH Act relating to the constitution of ICC and local committees and also considered the definition of employer. In the order, they said it is evident that these provisions will apply to a case where there is a relationship of employer and employee. Therefore, neither BCI nor BCMG "can be said to be employer of advocates" and "therefore the 2013 Act will not apply to advocates," they added. However, the POSH Act will be applicable to employees of BCI and BCMG. Sathe and Jagtap said BCMG and BCI have constituted ICCs to address grievances of their employees. Additional govt pleader Jyoti Chavan said local committees have also been established. The judges noted that as far as the grievance of women advocates is concerned, there is a forum available under Section 35 of the Advocates Act. Disposing of the PIL, they said no further order is required to be passed.
