English हिन्दी
Connect with us

India News

Justice Shah: Is this what the value of human life’s coming to?

Published

9 years ago

on

Justice Shah delivers the MN Roy Memorial Lecture, courtesy YouTube

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]In his lecture on nationalism, he was critical of the apex court’s judgements and upheld freedom of speech

By Sucheta Dasgupta

Former Delhi High Court chief justice Ajit Prakash Shah has provided a whole lot of constructive criticism for the Indian judiciary. Speaking at the MN Roy Memorial Lecture last week, Justice Shah (retired) looked critically into two Supreme Court judgments, one Supreme Court decision, one High Court order, a law and the demand for one made by a leading public figure.

Justice Shah criticized the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the constitutionality of criminal defamation in Subramaniam Swamy vs UOI case in May 2016. Congress vice-president Rahul Gandhi, Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and BJP leader Subramanian Swamy had challenged the constitutional validity of sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code, providing for criminal defamation. “Right to free speech is not absolute. It does not mean freedom to hurt another’s reputation which is protected under Article 21 of the Constitution,” the Supreme Court had ruled.

Known for his bold judgements, especially the one which decriminalised homosexuality in 2009, the ex-judge, who retired in 2010, also slammed the top court’s November 2016 order directing all cinema halls across India to play the national anthem before the start of a film, and requiring the audience to stand up as a “show of respect”.  “The order of the Court, which seems a little short on reasoning to help understand how such an interim order was passed, befuddles and seems contrary to the spirit of the Constitution and past precedent, Bijoe Emanuel [in this historic 1986 case, a family of Jehovah’s Witnesses won the permission not to sing the national anthem in school, arguing that the act violated their right to worship] which made it clear that we cannot be forced to sing the anthem. It is important to remember that the right to free speech and expression also includes the right not to speak or express ourselves,” Justice Shah explained. “However, under the guise of ‘law’, the Court has now stepped in and restricted our fundamental rights,” he said, adding: “The order may have ensured that cinema audiences throughout are now standing before the national anthem plays, but what the Court fails to have realised is that such an action is a performance, motivated by fear of being beaten up, rather than genuine respect and love for the anthem. In the end, it has actually undermined patriotism amongst fellow Indians”.

Next in his line of fire was the apex court’s decision in March to examine Azam Khan’s statement (that the Bulandhshahr gang-rape, of a woman and a minor, was an “opposition conspiracy”) in the light of the question that it itself raised— whether or not the right to free speech under Article 19(1)(a) is to be controlled singularly by the language under Article 19(2) or it is also impacted by the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. Outrageous as Khan’s comment is, for which he later apologised—and the Supreme Court rejected his apology—Justice Shah rightly pointed out that the answer to the aforesaid question may “have a profound impact in restricting the scope of Article 19(1)(a) and undermine our constitutionally guaranteed [fundamental] right”. Besides, he argued, how can one fundamental right be conditional to another one? After all, the remedy of all crises arising out of free speech is more free speech, and everyone is entitled to their opinion, however worthless or malformed those may be.

But, even the Bombay High Court has on occasion failed to protect the right to free speech, Justice Shah said. “Recently [February], it constituted a three-member committee (comprising two lawyers) to give a report on the scenes in the movie Jolly LLB-2 it found ‘objectionable’, because it was prima facie of the view that certain scenes—those involving a cowering judge and some dialogue between the lawyers—were in contempt of the judiciary and the legal profession. Mind you, this was a movie where the CBFC, i.e. the Censor Board, has given the requisite certification for its release. It was also a case where the High Court entertained the writ petition (later converted to a PIL) based only on two trailers and some photographs. The Bombay High Court’s order [directing deletion of four scenes from the film], the report of the three-member ‘committee’, and the proximity of the release date, essentially forced the producers and director of the movie to ‘compromise’ and undertake to make the requisite modifications and deletions to the objectionable scenes,” he maintained.

Justice Shah made a cogent argument for repeal of Section 124-A of the Indian Penal Code, infamous as the sedition law. He reminded his audience of the history of the law, introduced by the British to crush dissent by our freedom fighters. He drew his listeners’ attention to the fact that the United Kingdom, from which India inherited it, has abolished it in 2009. Citing the Supreme Court’s judgement in the 1962 Kedarnath Singh vs State of Bihar case, wherein it limited the application of the law to “acts involving intention or tendency to create disorder, or disturbance of law and order, or incitement to violence”, he said it had been inappropriate to view the JNU sloganeering incident in the same light. Nevertheless, he said, the broad scope of the law “allows it to be used by the state to go after those who challenge its power—whether it is the JNU students, activists such as Hardik Patel and Binayak Sen, authors such as Arundhati Roy, cartoonists such as Aseem Trivedi, or the villagers of Idinthakarai in Tamil Nadu protesting against the Kudankulam nuclear power plant”. Sedition charges seldom stick, but the harassment they cause is immense, he said, completing his argument.

Finally, Justice Shah called for a unanimous rejection by citizens of RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat’s demand for a national law against cow slaughter. “Preventing people from eating the food they want and effectively forcing a life choice on them undermines any feelings of nationalism and unity… We must be wary of forcing a single ideology or way of living on the entire country, especially a country as diverse as India, where states such as Kerala or the various states in the northeast consider beef a staple part of their diet. One reads multiple reports about slaughterhouse crackdowns in UP, crackdowns that are primarily targeted at Muslim butchers, leaving lakhs of people with fear, but without stable employment. We also recently had the horrific incident in Una where seven Dalits were beaten by cow-vigilantes for alleged cow slaughter. And how can we forget the lynching of Akhlaq, who was suspected for allegedly storing and consuming beef, but where the first thing that was sent for forensic examination was not his body, but the food that is in the fridge. Is this what the value of human life comes to?” Justice Shah said, reminding his audience that “only free souls can create abiding cultural values; they may physically belong to one particular class or geographically to a particular country; spiritually, they transcend all social and territorial limitations”.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]

Related Topics:
Continue Reading

India News

CBSE denies OSM portal data breach, terms online allegations misleading

CBSE has strongly dismissed social media allegations of a security breach in its On-Screen Marking (OSM) portal, clarifying that the exposed URL is a mere testing site containing no actual student data or exam marks.

Published

6 hours ago

on

May 26, 2026

By

CBSE

The Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) has refuted viral claims circulating on social media regarding a security breach in its On-Screen Marking (OSM) portal. In an official statement, the national education board dismissed the allegations, labeling them completely false and highly misleading.

The clarification comes after social media posts suggested that sensitive student records and internal assessment systems had been compromised by unauthorised actors. Media reports indicate that the board has categorically denied any leak of actual student marks or examination-related details.

Testing site hosted no real student details

According to the statement released by the board, the web address highlighted in the viral allegations belongs strictly to a testing environment. The board clarified that this URL is utilized purely for internal evaluations, data sampling, and platform reviews during development phases.

The board firmly reiterated that no live student details, official scoreboards, or active examination data are stored on this testing site. Authorities have advised stakeholders and students to refrain from panic and avoid circulating unverified rumors that challenge the integrity of the examination system.

Continue Reading

India News

Congress Dismisses Karnataka Leadership Transition Rumors After Six-Hour Delhi Meet

The Congress party has rejected ongoing rumors regarding a leadership change or a rotating Chief Minister formula in Karnataka, stating that a recent six-hour meeting in Delhi focused strictly on the upcoming Rajya Sabha and MLC elections.

Published

6 hours ago

on

May 26, 2026

By

The Congress party has strongly downplayed the intense political buzz surrounding a potential leadership transition or a change in the Chief Minister’s post in Karnataka. Following a marathon six-hour meeting with the state’s top leadership in New Delhi, the party explicitly rejected the ongoing speculation, labeling it as having “no reality.”

A brief statement issued to the media after the high-level meeting advised against spreading rumors, clarifying that the discussions were entirely centered on upcoming electoral strategies rather than structural changes within the state government. The party stated that the deliberations solely revolved around the state’s three vacant Rajya Sabha seats and the upcoming Member of Legislative Council (MLC) elections.

Rajya Sabha and MLC Polls Take Center Stage

The high-stakes meeting was attended by Congress President Mallikarjun Kharge, senior leader Rahul Gandhi, and party General Secretary KC Venugopal, alongside Karnataka Chief Minister Siddaramaiah and Deputy Chief Minister DK Shivakumar.

Briefing the media post-meeting, KC Venugopal stated that conversations were strictly confined to the Rajya Sabha and MLC elections, emphasizing that there is no truth to any other political speculation. Chief Minister Siddaramaiah also confirmed that the agenda of a potential cabinet expansion or a leadership shift did not come up during the six-hour-long discussion.

Background of the Power Struggle

The question of leadership in Karnataka has remained a recurring theme for over a year. Supporters of Deputy Chief Minister DK Shivakumar have consistently maintained that the central leadership promised a rotating Chief Ministership arrangement when the government was formed after the 2023 assembly elections.

Speculation had intensified recently as the ruling government faced local anti-incumbency pressures alongside renewed political activity from the opposition bench. Some internal reports had even indicated a push from within certain sections of the high command, including Priyanka Gandhi Vadra, for a leadership revamp.

Balancing Caste Equations and Party Structure

The central leadership has navigated the situation cautiously to maintain political stability. Chief Minister Siddaramaiah, 80, commands a powerful “Ahinda” support base—a coalition comprising minority communities, backward classes, and Dalits. This social alliance was crucial in helping the party navigate the traditional Vokkaliga and Lingayat caste dynamics during the 2023 elections.

Although the rotation issue had previously gained significant momentum when the government completed two years in office, the party high command had chosen to maintain the status quo to avoid any adverse electoral impact in neighboring assembly elections, such as in Tamil Nadu. With those elections concluded, supporters of the 64-year-old Deputy Chief Minister had expressed optimism for a transition. Shivakumar currently holds the dual responsibility of being the Deputy Chief Minister as well as the state Congress chief, signaling his critical organizational value to the party. However, for the time being, the party high command has firmly signaled that the current leadership structure will remain unchanged.

Continue Reading

Cricket news

Bowlers may hold the key in high-stakes IPL 2026 Qualifier 1 at Dharamsala

Although the media build-up centers on the batting heavyweight clash between Virat Kohli and Shubman Gill, the IPL 2026 Qualifier 1 in Dharamsala is set to be decided by the bowling consistency of Bhuvneshwar Kumar and Mohammed Siraj.

Published

14 hours ago

on

May 26, 2026

By

Flat pitches, towering sixes, and relentless run-scoring have defined the Indian Premier League (IPL) 2026 so far. However, when Gujarat Titans (GT) and Royal Challengers Bengaluru (RCB) lock horns in Qualifier 1 at the Himachal Pradesh Cricket Association (HPCA) Stadium in Dharamsala, the contest could ultimately hinge on the bowlers.

The HPCA Stadium has proved to be unforgiving for bowlers due to its short boundaries. A teaser of what could unfold was evident during recent net sessions, where Gujarat Titans’ Jos Buttler and Royal Challengers Bengaluru’s Tim David regularly launched monstrous hits out of the stadium. In the three matches played at this venue this season, teams crossed the 200-run mark five times, with the lowest score being 199/8. An average of nearly 25 maximums per match has been hit here, promising another potential run-fest.

Moving past the Kohli vs Gill narrative

While media attention focuses on the iconic battle between the ‘King’ Virat Kohli and the ‘Prince’ Shubman Gill—hailed as the heir to Indian cricket’s batting legacy—the true deciding factor might lie elsewhere. Both batters look in pristine touch. Gill occupies the second spot in the Orange Cap race with 616 runs from 13 matches, trailing behind his opening partner Sai Sudharsan. Meanwhile, Kohli has bounced back from a brief mid-tournament slump by smashing a sparkling century, taking his tally to 557 runs this season.

Despite the incredible batting firepower on display, the bowling units are expected to dictate which team blinks last. Media interactions with team managements highlighted that consistency and self-belief within the respective bowling departments have been the defining traits of both squads this season.

Powerplay battles to decide the finalist

For RCB, veteran pacer Bhuvneshwar Kumar leads the charge alongside Kagiso Rabada for GT, with both spearheads locked as the joint-highest wicket-takers across the two sides at 24 wickets each. Bhuvneshwar holds a slight edge due to a superior economy rate. Close behind them is GT’s Mohammed Siraj, who has taken 17 wickets so far. With supporting acts like Josh Hazlewood, Jason Holder, Prasidh Krishna, Rasikh Salam Dar, and spinners Rashid Khan and Krunal Pandya in the mix, the match promises an intriguing tactical battle.

Gujarat Titans’ assistant coach Vijay Dahiya acknowledged that negotiating Bhuvneshwar Kumar in the powerplay will be a massive task, but reminded that GT possesses equal firepower in Siraj and Rabada. “If you talk about the powerplay, our numbers are among the best in this tournament,” Dahiya stated.

RCB captain Rajat Patidar echoed similar views, placing immense faith in his bowling attack to stop GT’s prolific opening duo of Gill and Sudharsan. “Our strength is bowling. The way we bowl in the powerplay will be very crucial. We’ll look for early wickets and that is what we have done throughout the tournament,” Patidar remarked.

In a tournament dominated by towering batting displays, the team whose bowling unit holds its nerve under the Dharamsala lights will seal a direct spot in the IPL final.

Continue Reading

Trending

© Copyright 2022 APNLIVE.com