&w=3840&q=100)
SC urges self-regulation, stresses value of free speech on social media
A bench comprising Justices B V Nagarathna and KV Viswanathan was hearing a plea of one Wazahat Khan booked in FIRs in several states, including West Bengal, for his objectionable posts on X against a Hindu deity.
On June 23, the top court granted him interim protection from coercive action till July 14. Khan had filed a complaint against another social media influencer Sharmistha Panoli for allegedly making communal remarks in a video.
Offensive comments should not be made in response to similar posts, his lawyer said in court.
The citizens must know the value of the fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression. The State can step in case of violations Nobody wants the State to step in (sic), Justice Nagarathna said.
The judge continued, All this divisive tendency on social media has to be curbed. The bench clarified it did not mean censorship.
"There should be fraternity among citizens," the bench said, as it considered framing guidelines on freedom of speech and expression for citizens.
The bench underlined the reasonable restrictions under Article 19 (2) of the Constitution on freedom of speech and expression, saying they had "rightly been placed".
The bench, in the meantime, extended the interim protection from arrest to Khan till the next hearing in the case and asked the counsel to assist it in dealing with the larger issue of self regulation of freedom of speech and expression of citizens.
Khan was arrested by Kolkata Police on June 9. He moved the apex court alleging that FIRs and complaints have been lodged against him in several states, including Assam, West Bengal, Maharashtra and Haryana, for certain old tweets made by him.
The FIRs were in retaliation to a complaint filed by him against Panoli, who was arrested and later released on bail, he argued.
"I have deleted all of them and apologised," his counsel said, submitting Khan was perhaps "reaping what he has sown".
His counsel argued that the first FIR, according to the petitioner, was dated June 2.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Print
37 minutes ago
- The Print
In TDP letter to CEC on Special Intensive Revision, praise, suggestions, and echoes of Oppn's concerns
While recognising the SIR as 'a valuable opportunity to ensure that the electoral rolls are updated in a fair, inclusive, and transparent manner,' the TDP stated that 'to ensure voter confidence and administrative preparedness, the SIR process should be conducted with sufficient lead time, ideally not within six months of any major election'. In a four-page submission to Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar in New Delhi Tuesday, the Chandrababu Naidu-led party has red-flagged some contentious matters like the timing and verification linked to citizenship. Hyderabad/New Delhi: Amid the Opposition bloc's objections to the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in poll-bound Bihar, the Telugu Desam Party (TDP), a key NDA partner, has highlighted several considerations for the Election Commission (EC) in conducting the exercise. Many of these suggestions echo the Opposition's concerns. Opposition parties are questioning the exercise, taken up 3-4 months before the Bihar polls. The timing of the ECI's exercise in Bihar is a concern which the Supreme Court also highlighted while hearing petitions opposing the SIR process. The SC in its order listed three questions the petitioners raised, one of them being: 'The timing for undertaking the present exercise including the time line given for preparation of the Draft Electoral Rolls, objections, etc, and the final publication of Electoral Roll, considering the fact that Bihar State Assembly elections are due in November, 2025, for which notifications will come weeks in advance'. Seeking clarity on SIR purpose, scope, the TDP said that it should be 'limited to electoral roll correction and inclusion'. 'It should be explicitly communicated that the exercise is not related to citizenship verification, and any field instructions must reflect this distinction,' it added. In its order directing the SIR in Bihar last month, the ECI had cited Article 326 of the Constitution, which says that elections to the Lok Sabha and the legislative assemblies shall be on the basis of adult suffrage. This, the provision says, means 'every person who is a citizen of India and who is not less than eighteen years of age…shall be entitled to be registered as a voter at any such election'. However, during the hearing on petitions challenging the Bihar electoral roll revision, lawyers appearing for the petitioners had taken objection to the ECI determining 'citizenship' through the revision exercise. For instance, senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for RJD MP Prof Manoj Kumar Jha, asserted that it is only the Government of India that can contest a person's citizenship and not a 'small officer of the EC'. The TDP said voters already enrolled in the most recent certified electoral roll should not be required to re-establish their eligibility unless specific and verifiable reasons are recorded. 'In line with the judgment of the Supreme Court in Lal Babu Hussein v. Electoral Registration Officer prior inclusion creates a presumption of validity, and any deletion must be preceded by a valid inquiry,' the party said in its submission adding that 'the burden of proof lies with the ERO or objector, not the voter, especially when the name exists in the official roll.' The petitioners challenging the revision in Bihar have relied on a 1995 judgment the TDP also cited. In this verdict, the Supreme Court had taken objection to the generalised removal of individuals who were voters in past elections, and them being asked to prove their eligibility to find their place back in the rolls. It had asserted that in cases in which persons were voters in previous elections, it would be presumed that before entering their names, the concerned officer must have gone through the procedural requirements under the statute. The party requested the commission to issue 'clear procedural guidance stating that deletion of any voter must be based on a reasoned order, proper notice, and an opportunity to respond.' 'Where voters are unable to submit documents at the time of visit, stage-wise verification should be permitted, instead of immediate exclusion.' 'Nothing to do with SIR in Bihar' A delegation of TDP leaders including AP unit chief Palla Srinivasa Rao, MPs Lavu Sri Krishna Devarayalu, Byreddy Shabari, Prasada Rao, and party leader Jyothsna Tirunagari submitted the suggestions to ECI, on a day party supremo is also in New Delhi. 'Our submissions have nothing to do with the SIR in Bihar. It is part of our party's larger support for reforms in the election processes, be it eradication of duplicate cards or other matters. We want technology-enabled electoral roll management.,' Tirunagari told ThePrint. Though Andhra Pradesh is not due for assembly elections until 2029, the ruling party requested the ECI to start the process in the state as early as possible. The ECI, in its order announcing the Bihar revision had also said that it has decided to begin such a revision in the entire country for 'discharge of its constitutional mandate to protect the integrity of the electoral rolls', but was starting the exercise in Bihar since it will go to polls this year. Since Andhra Pradesh has high levels of seasonal migration, particularly from rural and coastal regions, SIR should deploy mobile BLO units and accept temporary address declarations to prevent exclusion of such workers and displaced families, TDP said in the letter. (Edited by Gitanjali Das) Also Read: No legal, valid 'citizenship' document that's issued—how it puts big question mark on ECI's Bihar exercise
News18
an hour ago
- News18
2003 Bengaluru Techie Murder: SC Upholds Life Sentence Of Law Student Fiancée & Others, But...
Last Updated: The court let the convicts seek pardon from the Karnataka governor under Article 161, citing the crime as a result of youthful misjudgment rather than inherent criminality The Supreme Court on July 14 upheld the conviction and life imprisonment of a then BA-LLB student, her boyfriend, and two others for the murder of her fiancé in 2003. However, while affirming their culpability, the court granted them liberty to seek pardon under Article 161 of the Constitution, noting the psychological and circumstantial complexities that surrounded the crime. A bench of Justices MM Sundresh and Aravind Kumar dismissed the appeals filed by Kum Shubha alias Shubhashankar and co-accused Arun Verma, Dinesh alias Dinakaran, and Venkatesh, challenging the Karnataka High Court's decision upholding their conviction and sentence for the murder of BV Girish, a 26-year-old software engineer employed with Intel, Bengaluru. The murder, which occurred just two days after the victim's engagement to Shubha, was, in the court's words, not the result of innate criminality but a 'dangerous adventure born out of emotional rebellion and wild romanticism". The court held that the prosecution had successfully established the chain of circumstantial evidence, including continuous call records between Shubha and the co-accused, pointing to a clear conspiracy and 'meeting of minds". The court also acknowledged the mental state of the girl, observing that 'the voice of a young ambitious girl, muffled by a forced family decision, created the fiercest of turmoil in her mind." Ita remarked that this inner conflict, paired with emotional entanglements, culminated in the tragic loss of an innocent life and simultaneously derailed the lives of four young individuals. The bench, however, made it clear that empathy could not override culpability. 'We cannot condone her action as it resulted in the loss of an innocent life," the court said, while also noting that years had passed since the crime and that the appellants were no longer the same individuals they were at the time of the offence. Two of the four convicts were teenagers at the time of the incident, while Shubha had just crossed that threshold. The fourth accused, a 28-year-old man, was recently married and had a child when the appeal was decided. The court acknowledged their middle-aged status today, observing that 'adrenaline-pumped decisions of youth must sometimes be revisited through the lens of reform, not just retribution". Liberty to Seek Pardon While dismissing the appeal and affirming the life sentence, the court invoked Article 161 of the Constitution, allowing the appellants to file petitions for gubernatorial pardon before the governor of Karnataka. The bench expressed hope that the constitutional authority would take into account the entirety of the circumstances surrounding the case. 'We would only request the constitutional authority to consider the same, which we hope and trust would be done by taking note of the relevant circumstances governing the case," the judgment stated. The court granted the convicts eight weeks to file the pardon plea and ordered that they shall not be arrested and that their sentence shall remain suspended until the governor's decision is made. What Happened? According to the prosecution, Shubha was unwilling to marry Girish and confided in her college friend and romantic partner, Arun Verma. Moved by her distress, Verma sought help from his cousin Dinesh, who, in turn, brought in his teenage friend Venkatesh to execute the plan. The engagement took place on November 30, 2003. Two days later, on December 3, Shubha invited Girish to dinner. On their return, they stopped at the 'Air View Point" along the Airport Ring Road to watch planes land, a popular hangout spot in Bengaluru. It was there that Girish was attacked with a steel rod by an 'unknown assailant" and left with critical head injuries. He succumbed to the wounds the following day in the hospital. While initially appearing as a random act of violence, investigations soon revealed a web of mobile communication between the accused. The prosecution's case rested primarily on circumstantial evidence, supported by call detail records (CDR), which placed the accused in constant contact before, during, and after the murder. The trial court convicted all four under Section 302 (murder), read with Section 120B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code. The High Court affirmed the conviction, following which the appeals landed before the Supreme Court. In perhaps the most humanising portion of the verdict, the SC refrained from using the harsh language usually associated with murder convictions. It instead focused on the circumstances of compulsion, familial pressure, and emotional immaturity, concluding that while the crime cannot be forgiven, the convicts deserve the opportunity for rehabilitation. 'This Court seeks to view the matter from a different perspective, only for the purpose of giving a new lease of life to the appellants," the judgment said, striking a rare balance between justice for the deceased and reformative justice for the offenders. Under Article 161, a governor has constitutional power to pardon, remit, or suspend a sentence. The Supreme Court's order does not mandate such relief but merely permits the convicts to make the request. The final decision lies with the governor of Karnataka, who must weigh the circumstances, including the gravity of the offence and the passage of time, before granting any clemency. Until then, the sentence imposed on the convicts remains suspended, and they won't be taken into custody. About the Author Sanya Talwar Sanya Talwar, Editor at Lawbeat, has been heading the organisation since its inception. After practising in courts for over four years, she discovered her affinity for legal journalism. She has worked More Get breaking news, in-depth analysis, and expert perspectives on everything from politics to crime and society. Stay informed with the latest India news only on News18. Download the News18 App to stay updated! view comments First Published: Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
The Hindu
an hour ago
- The Hindu
As Assam CM defends eviction drives, Opposition sniffs ploy to clear space for corporate houses
Jiten Gohain is the head of one of 218 families evicted during a drive the authorities in Assam's Lakhimpur district carried out on July 3 to reclaim 78 acres of Village Grazing Reserve (VGR) land across four locations. On July 8, the district's Sub-Divisional Land Advisory Committee approved the allotment of 1.5 kathas (4,320 sq. ft) of land each to 21 families evicted, in one of the fastest such exercises. Among them were 12 belonging to the Ahom community, which is seeking Scheduled Tribe status, to which Mr. Gohain belongs. District Commissioner Pronab Jit Kakoty said the eviction drive was conducted following 'due process'. He said the affected families, which failed to produce land ownership documents, were served notices on June 29. 'I had a larger plot from where we were evicted, but the government has at least provided some space,' Mr. Gohain said. Abul Hasan Sheikh, one of some 200-odd Bengali-speaking Muslim families evicted from Lakhimpur, is not sure if the government would be equally 'generous' to provide him an alternative plot. He is originally a resident of western Assam's South Salmara-Mankachar district along the border with Bangladesh. Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma named him and at least a dozen others from faraway districts – most of them Muslim-majority – to underline the alleged 'agenda of demographic invasion by strategically occupying lands in areas dominated by indigenous communities'. 'An analysis has revealed that the families evicted from Lakhimpur included 76 from Barpeta, 63 from Nagaon, seven from Goalpara, and two from South Salmara-Mankachar. Why should someone from South Salmara go to Lakhimpur instead of going to West Bengal, about 50 km away?' Mr. Sarma told reporters on Tuesday. 'Voter list deletions' The Chief Minister said more than 50,000 people have been evicted from 'protected areas, wetlands, VGR and PGR (Professional Grazing Land), government khas (land owned by the government that has not been settled) and wasteland, and those belonging to satras (Vaishnav monasteries) and namghars (prayer halls)' over the past few weeks. According to the State's Revenue and Disaster Management Department, the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation of 1986, the Land Policy of 1989, and a 2011 Supreme Court judgment mandate protection of government and village common lands. It also cites the violation of the Assam Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act of 2010 as a punishable offence. After the BJP came to power in Assam in May 2016, the first eviction drive was carried out in three fringe villages of Kaziranga National Park and Tiger Reserve. Two persons, including a minor girl, were killed during the eviction based on a Gauhati High Court order in September 2016. 'Most of those evicted are listed as voters in places from where they came. We have asked the authorities from where they were evicted to delete their names from the electoral rolls to eliminate duplicate names,' Mr. Sarma said. Citing the case of the 12 Ahom families, the All Assam Minority Students' Union has demanded rehabilitation for the evicted Muslim families. It claimed many people had lands they were evicted from before these were declared as reserve forests. The Opposition parties have criticised the eviction drive for disproportionately targeting the minority communities. 'The Supreme Court and the National Human Rights Commission should take note of the eviction during the court holidays in Assam to target poor Muslims. The government must first provide adequate rehabilitation and only then undertake eviction,' All India United Democratic Front MLA Rafiqul Islam said. 'The BJP government has been projecting the evicted people as Bangladeshi. The government provided a compensation package of ₹14.72 crore to 332 families evicted from Kaziranga. People evicted [in 2021] for the Gorukhuti project [Darrang district] were compensated and given land in the Dalgaon area. Why is the government doing so if these people are Bangladeshi?' Congress leader and advocate Aman Wadud said. Others pointed out that the Dhubri district administration has asked 1,400 families displaced from Chapar town, reportedly to make space for a thermal power plant by the Adani Group, to relocate to a sandbar in the middle of the Brahmaputra river. 'Politics of polarisation' 'The eviction is being carried out for two reasons. Firstly, they want to clear land for corporate houses. Secondly, evicting minorities paves the way for the politics of polarisation... so that the Hindu voters back the BJP, especially in eastern Assam, where it is facing challenges,' Raijor Dal MLA Akhil Gogoi said. Lurinjyoti Gogoi, the chief of Assam Jatiya Parishad (AJP), said eviction drives are a form of the tried-and-tested ploy of weaponising the 'Bangladeshi issue' before the poll. The Assembly poll in Assam is due by May 2026. 'The Chief Minister claims he is doing everything for the indigenous people. In reality, more tribal families have been evicted than the Muslims. In Karbi Anglong, 20,000 Adivasi, Karbi, and Naga families have been evicted to hand over 18,000 bighas of land to the Reliance Group,' the AJP leader claimed. In Assam, one bigha is equivalent to 14,400 sq. ft. He also cited 9,000 bighas of land 'to be handed over to the Adani Group' in Dima Hasao district, 45 bighas 'taken away' from the Adivasis for a hotel project near Kaziranga, and 75 bighas for a Patanjali project in the Golaghat district. 'It is evident why the government is on a land acquisition spree. Of the 49,000 bighas cleared, only 6,000 bighas were under the occupation of the religious minorities,' the AJP leader said.
