The Supreme Court will next Monday hear requests challenging the use of emergency powers to block the controversial BBC documentary on Prime Minister Narendra Modi and allegations linked to the 2002 Gujarat riots.A bench comprising Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and justices PS Narasimha and JB Pardiwala took note of the submissions of serial litigant Advocate ML Sharma and senior advocate CU Singh seeking urgent listing of their separate Public Interest Litigations on the issue.In addition to Mr Sharma, another petition has been filed by veteran journalist N Ram, activist-lawyer Prashant Bhushan, and Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra.Advocate CU Singh said that the Centre has invoked emergency powers under IT Rules to remove the links about the documentary from social media, adding that tweets by N Ram and Advocate Prashant Bhushan were taken down, and that the Centre has not yet formally publicised the blocking order. College students in Ajmer were rusticated for screening the documentary, he added.
Union Law Minister Kiren Rijiju slammed the petitioners for "wasting" courts' time.
"This is how they waste the precious time of Hon'ble Supreme Court where thousands of common citizens are waiting and seeking dates for Justice," he tweeted.This is how they waste the precious time of Hon'ble Supreme Court where thousands of common citizens are waiting and seeking dates for Justice. https://t.co/5kouG8Px2K
— Kiren Rijiju (@KirenRijiju) January 30, 2023
ML Sharma's petition terms the Centre's ban on the two-part documentary as "malafide, arbitrary, and unconstitutional".
The PIL also urged the top court to examine the BBC documentary - both parts I and II - and sought action against those who were responsible and involved directly and indirectly with the 2002 Gujarat riots.On January 21, the Centre, using emergency provisions under the Information Technology Rules, 2021, issued directions for blocking multiple YouTube videos and Twitter posts sharing links to the controversial BBC documentary "India: The Modi Question".Mr Sharma said that in his PIL he has raised a constitutional question and the top court has to decide whether citizens have the right under Article 19 (1) (2) to see news, facts and reports on the 2002 Gujarat riots."Whether without having an Emergency declared under Article 352 of the Constitution of India by the President, Emergency provisions can be invoked by the Central Government?" the PIL said. It claimed the BBC documentary has "recorded facts" which are also "evidence" and can be used to further the cause of justice for the victims.Mahua Moitra on Sunday shared the link to the documentary on Twitter, saying "Govt on war footing to ensure noone in India can watch a mere BBC show. Shame that the emperor and courtiers of the world's largest democracy are so insecure (sic)."
The Information and Broadcasting (I and b) Ministry told Twitter and YouTube to block the first episode of the BBC documentary, people familiar with the matter said, a day after British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak distanced himself from the documentary series, saying he "doesn't agree with the characterisation" of his Indian counterpart in the UK's parliament by Pakistan-origin MP Imran Hussain.The ministry told Twitter to remove over 50 tweets on the documentary by Britain's national broadcaster, sources said.India has called the documentary a "propaganda piece" that lacks objectivity and reflects a colonial mindset.Students' organisations and opposition parties across India have organised public screenings of the documentary in protest over the ban orders. Students clashed with college authorities and the police in several campuses after not being allowed to hold screenings, some were briefly detained as well.A Supreme Court-appointed investigation had found no evidence of wrongdoing by PM Modi, who was Chief Minister of Gujarat when the riots broke out in February 2002.
In 2016, Indiana put Donald Trump on the doorstep of the GOP presidential nomination. But eight years later, the state he called “Importantville” delivered his campaign some flashing red warning signs as Nikki Haley cleaned up in the suburbs. By virtue of its late-in-the-nominating-calendar primary, the Hoosier state has always occupied a unique and occasionally powerful perch to make or break candidacies: Sen. Ted Cruz and then-Ohio Gov. John Kasich dropped out immediately after Trump’s victory that year. But the barn-red state also often acts as a pace car for Republicans nationally. And in a primary that saw a record-breaking $98 million splash across the state, according to AdImpact, Tuesday was no exception. A zombie Haley candidacy continued to punch above its weight in the Trumpiest of states: The former South Carolina governor is on track to break 20 percent for the first time since she dropped out of the race two months ago. Outside of the presidential race, it was the p...
Comments
Post a Comment