Differential treatment for different people by apex court ?



Differential treatment for different people by apex court ?


Differential treatment for different people by apex court ?

Attorney General clears contempt action against comedian Kunal Kamra. If there is an individual, he has tweeted something or if he has mentioned something in his Facebook post, or if he has written an article, or if he has given a speech, and the allegation is that this was in contempt of court, then what will happen. How will the contempt proceedings be initiated against this individual? There are three ways by which contempt proceedings can be initiated against this individual. If the Attorney General of India files a case in the Supreme Court files a case petitions the Supreme Court and says, Dear Supreme Court, whatever content has been generated by individual it amounts to contempt of court. Please punish this individual for committing contempt of court because although you have freedom of speech and expression, guaranteed under Article 19 (1)A of the Constitution. But this freedom of speech and expression is not absolute. There is a reasonable restriction imposed. And there are eight reasonable restrictions imposed on your freedom of speech and expression by the Constitution of India, and one such reasonable restriction is contempt of court. So one way by which contempt proceeding proceedings can be initiated against this individual is if the Attorney General files a case petition before the Supreme Court. The second is If the court takes up this matter Suo Moto that means on its own without somebody approaching the Supreme Court on its own. Supreme Court looks at these tweets, or Facebook posts or these speeches, or this article, and the Supreme Court on its own is initiating contempt proceedings against this individual, and the third way is, a third person can also file a petition before the Supreme Court, calling for contempt proceedings against this individual, but this third person before he can file this contempt petition before the court. This third person has to seek the permission of the Attorney General of India or the Solicitor General of India. In this case of Kunal Kamara, a resident of Aurangabad, and two law students, they petitioned before the Attorney General of India and says, that please permit us that we can file a contempt of court petition before the Supreme Court so that the supreme court can punish Kunal Kamara for committing contempt of court. But what Kunal Kamra did he tweet a few tweets. One such tweet had a photo of the Supreme Court of India, which was painted in saffron, and instead of the national flag, there was the flag of the BJP the Lotus flag which is the symbol of the Bharatiya Janata Party. This amounts to contempt, Attorney General says yes, this is contemptuous, and I'm permitting you, you can file the petition in the Supreme Court.  

What happened, TV anchor, Arnab Goswami was released on interim bail by the Supreme Court Justice Dhananjay Chandrachud and justice, Indra Banerjee they presided over the Supreme Court and released Arnab Goswami on interim bail. Supreme Court said, if we will not interfere in this case, we will be walking on the path of destruction of personal liberty should be protected respected at all costs. And that is why we have to interfere and release Arnab Goswami on interim bail. But the treatment given to Arnab Goswami should have been given to others as well. We wish that the order was passed by the Supreme Court, this order is passed for others as well, because there are others students, social activists, writers, journalists who have been booked under stringent laws, such as UAPA and Public Safety Act in Jammu and Kashmir, in these cases, the Supreme Court is not showing the same level of velocity as a show, in case of Arnab Goswami. 

Let's look at this issue in slight detail. There was an interior designer Anvay Nai he killed his mother according to police and then he also committed suicide, and a suicide note recovered. This suicide note unveiled Anvay Naik alleged that I am committing suicide because I'm under financial stress. I'm in mental agony because three people owe me money. One such individual was Arnab Goswami because according to the suicide Arnab Goswami owed 83 lakh rupees to Anvay Naik, which caused distress, mental trauma, and agony to Anvay Naik because he was under a financial strain, ultimately he killed his mother, and then also committed suicide. So a case was registered against Arnab Goswami because this is abetment to suicide. But in the year 2019, the Maharashtra police closed this case and said there is no evidence against Arnab Goswami so Arnab Goswami should not be prosecuted in this abetment to suicide case. But the year was 2019, after that, there was a change in government in Maharashtra. And now there is a Shiva Sena government, headed by Uddhav Bal Thackeray, who is the Chief Minister of Maharashtra, and every evening nine o'clock Arnab Goswami from the pulpit of Republic TV is leveling allegations against the Uddhav Bal Thackeray criticizing the government of Maharashtra on various grounds, and ultimately in a classic case of political vendetta, Arnab Goswami was arrested in this abetment to suicide case, and this case was already closed in 2019. This old case was reopened and Arnab Goswami was arrested. Should Arnab Goswami have been arrested? In personal senses no. If Arnab Goswami tampers with the evidence or threatens the witnesses or run away from the country, If no then Arnab Goswami should have been released on bail. Because bail is the norm jail is only an exception. Only in exceptional circumstances, if the accused is in a position to tamper with the evidence to threaten the witnesses to run away from the country in such extreme cases, the accused should be denied bail. But Goswami applied for bail before the Bombay High Court, Bombay High Court said no, we cannot release you on bail. You have a remedy available, please approach the Sessions Court. Because you always have the option of approaching the Sessions Court under Section 439 of CRPC. If High Court will interfere in every case, then the sanctity of Sessions Court would get violated, please approach the Sessions Court under Section 439 of CRPC, and this sessions courts should decide within four days, whether bail should be given to you or not. But while this bail application was pending, Mr. Goswami through his lawyer approached to Supreme Court, and Supreme Court showed alacrity heard this petition, very quickly, and released Goswami on bail. Was Supreme Court Right, absolutely, yes. But what about other cases, there is 83-year-old tribal rights activists, Stan Swami. Stan Swami suffering from Parkinson's disease. He had a simple request before the court. He requested please permit me so that I can bring straw and sipper in jail because it becomes very difficult for me to drink the water. After all, I am suffering from Parkinson's disease. National investigation agency says, give us 20 days and we will file a reply. Whether Stan Swami, should be provided straw and sipper in jail or not. Why alacrity was not shown in the case of Stan Swami. Similarly, Sudha Bharadwaj, who has been working tirelessly for tribals for downtrodden sections of the society. She asked for bail on health grounds, the Supreme Court said, Why do you come to us. Instead, you can approach the regular court and ask for bail. You have a strong ground where you can be provided bail by the station's court, don't come to us. So in Sudha Bharadwaj's case, the Supreme Court is asking the petitioner to approach the Sessions Court. But in the Goswami case, the Supreme Court is saying, if we do not interfere in this case, we will be walking on the path of destruction. So in one case, you are showing alacrity, in other cases, you are not showing the same level of urgency, which means differential treatment for different people. And there is another problem as well, some people have challenged the constitutional validity of the electoral bond scheme. This case has not been heard by the Supreme Court in many years. There is a case pending before the Supreme Court challenging the constitutional validity of the citizenship Amendment Act, challenging the way Article 370 was diluted. There are numerous habeas corpus petitions pending before the Supreme Court. But in all these cases judiciary is exhibiting judicial evasion. That means the court is postponing the hearing on many matters concerning fundamental rights constitutional questions that affect the rights of large sections of society. These are not my words. These are the words of various commentators, and editorial.   

Post a Comment