Ever since the press conference by four senior-most judges of the Supreme Court on January 12, 2018 questioning the administrative functioning of the CJI DipakMisra, speculations were doing rounds whether Justice Ranjan Gogoi would be superseded. But, now it’s clear that the CJI has followed convention of seniority keeping aside all the differences.
'It is a totally concocted letter fabricated to criminalise me and other human rights lawyers, activists and organisations. It is a mixture of innocuous and publicly available facts and baseless fabrication. Various legal and democratic activities such as meetings, seminars, protests have been sought to be delegitimised by alleging that they are funded by Maoists.'
Minal Gadling, the wife of advocate Surendra Gadling, on behalf of the five activists arrested on June 6, 2018 — including her husband Gadling, Professor Shoma Sen, Sudhir Dhawale, Mahesh Raut and Rona Wilson — has approached the Supreme Court seeking intervention in a petition filed by Romila Thapar and others. She has prayed for extending the benefit of Supreme Court’s order passed on August 29, 2018 in Romila Thapar case to all the above-named persons who are under arrest since last two months.
Courts in five different places, including Delhi High Court, Faridabad court, Pune sessions court, Punjab and Haryana High Court and the Supreme Court, have addressed the police’s recent targeting of lawyers, activists and writers, in connection with the Bhima Koregaon violence in petitions filed by concerned members of the academic fraternity.
NHRC had issued notice on June 29, 2018 to the Director General of Police (DGP), Maharashtra calling for a report in connection with the illegal arrests of five human rights defenders namely Surendra Gadling, Rona Wilson, Sudhir Dhawale, Shoma Sen and Mahesh Raut by Maharashtra police on June 6, 2018.
'We the undersigned civil society organisations/ groups/ collectives, have jointly convened this urgent Press Conference to condemn the appalling state actions of reprisals against noted human rights activists and intellectuals, which are clearly politically motivated and an attempt to stifle voices of dissent. The unjustified raids on and arbitrary arrests of the above public spirited individuals who have tirelessly worked for the cause of the poor and marginalized sections of society, are nothing but an attack on Indian democracy and an attempt to undermine the democratic fabric of our society.'
‘Sudha Bharadwaj is an embodiment of the best in our profession — a fearless critic of governmental lawlessness, an emphatic and empathetic advocate amplifying the voices of those who are rarely heard within the corridors of power, and a beacon for future generations of lawyers in this country.’
Teltumbde writes: “The entire process is conducted as though I was a dreaded terrorist or a criminal. The police could have enquired with me whatever they wanted to, either by sending a police official or calling me to the Police Station. But the entire intention is to create an atmosphere of terror and project that I had already done some dreaded crime.”
The RTI application was filed on July 5, 2014 which cited media report stating that Amit Shah, the national president of the Bhartiya Janata Party, would be provided Z-Plus security cover by the Government. This information was denied by the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) of the MHA, citing exemption clause (g) & (j) of the Section 8(1) of the RTI Act, 2005, and has now been upheld by the CIC.
The petitioner, Senior Advocate Indira Jaising herself, had filed a Writ Petition on January 18, 2018 to permit the live streaming of Supreme Court case proceedings of constitutional and national importance, having an impact to the public at large. The primary grounds for the request was based on the mandates under Article 19 and Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which upon a conjoint reading correspond to the right to receive information, and the access to justice through open courts
The issue for debate was whether the States are required to collect quantifiable data to determine “backwardness, adequacy of representation, efficiency in administration” as laid down in M Nagaraj judgment. Senior Advocates PS Patwalia, Indira Jaising, Shanti Bhushan, Rajeev Dhawan argum that the M Nagaraj verdict be reconsidered.
A beacon of free and fair press, anti-Emergency warrior who had served jail time during Indira Gandhi’s regime, a pacifist and advocate of India-Pakistan peace process, and a fierce critic of Hindutva, Nayar was a ‘gentle colossus’ fondly remembered by almost every senior journalist in Delhi today.