Monday, 10 September 2012

Cartoonist's Arrest is Illegal


Aseem Trivedi did nothing illegal by drawing the cartoons and putting them on the net.

 
In a democracy many things are said, some truthful and others false. I often used to say in Court when I was a Judge that people can call me a fool or crook inside Court or outside but I will never take contempt of court proceedings, because either the allegation is true, in which case I deserve it, or it is false, in which case I will ignore it. These are occupational hazards, and politicians , like Judges, must learn to put up with them.

Cartoons are part of democracy and part of the freedom of the media guaranteed by Article 19(1) (a) of the Indian Constitution. Hence arresting him was itself a crime called wrongful arrest and wrongful confinement under sections 341 and 342 of the Indian Penal Code, and those who arrested him should themselves be arrested and tried and given harsh punisment if convicted. It seems that some authorities in India are becoming increasingly intolerant, as in the case of arrest of a farmer by the Chief Minister of West Bengal only because in a public meeting he said that the Chief Minister had not kept her election promises.

In fact arresting a cartooniist or any other person who has not committed a crime is itself a crime  under the Indian Penal Code called wrongful arrest and wrongful confinement.

If the policemen who arrested him say that they were only carrying out the order of some superior authority (whether political or administrative) this is no defence, because an official should not obey an illegal order. For instance, if a policemen is told by a higher authority to commit a murder or burglary or rape, he should disobey this illegal order, otherwise he should be tried and if found guilty given harsh punishment.

In the Nuremberg Trials the Nazi war criminals took the plea that orders are orders, and that they were not guilty as they were only carrying out the order of their superior Hitler. This plea was rejected and the International Tribunal said that they should have dosobeyed such orders as they were illegal, and accordingly many of them were hanged.

The charge of sedition against Aseem is wholly unsustainable since in 1962 in the case of Kedar Nath Singh vs. State of Bihar (which can be seen online) the Indian Supreme Court held that it is only speech which incites to violence which is seditious. Merely criticizing the government or creating disaffection against it is not sedition. In fact to hold otherwise would completely subvert democracy, in which people have a right to criticize the government. Aseem's cartoons certainly did not incite to violence, though they may have severely criticized politicians.

Politicians and police authorities must learn to be tolerant and take criticism in their stride. In a democracy it is the people who are supreme, and all authorities, whether political or administrative, are only servants of the people. Surely the master has a right to criticize his servant if he thinks that the servant has done something wrong.

The behaviour of the policemen who arrested Aseem was wholly illegal and unacceptable, since India is a democracy with a Constitution having the Fundamental Rights of freedom of speech and liberty.
 
-Justice Katju

42 comments:

  1. It is writer's opinion that Aseem Trivedi's work is not illegal. And what may be legal consequences of his illegal detention. But writer has not given details here why Aseem Trivedi's work is not illegal.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Sir, I am surprised, rather taken aback, by your comment. I am not qualified enough to comment on a retired judge.
    You always have right to accept or ignore a criticism as an individual. But institutions and roles have to be respected. A simple example is when you were in chair, lawyer or accused or witness no one will address you Mr Katju. They addressed you always "My lord". Because they are addressing not Mr. Katju but the chair itself.

    It is highly deplorable for a retired judge to pass judgement based on emotions rather than practice of the law.

    This particular cartoonist should had targeted the people in the incumbent government instead of constitution. Are there are shortcomings in constitution? There are forums to make amends. But disrespect to constitution in any form is a CRIME. And should not be tolerated.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is the constituion which gives freedom of Speech your comment shows how little you know about constituion. Shame that becuase of ppl like you the rogue elements in India are using colonial laws to rule India like the East India company.

      Delete
    2. Please read my response Mr. Basudev Mahapatra.
      I can retort to a nameless person in same way. But that goes nowhere.
      Please read Indian history and culture before East India Company. British might have formulated it in stricter form. But sedition was always considered offense.

      Delete
    3. Bro, I have checked Aseem Trivedi's Faebook account and I did not find his cartoon on Indian Parliament is of a good taste at all. But arresting him because of creating that cartoon is against the very idea of democratic values. Political class in the country should learn that tolerance is a virtue and one of the most important ingredients of any modern democracy. “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it” – French Revolution, one of the greatest events of modern history taught this way back in the late 18th century (arguably, this was written by Voltaire in one of his letters). The political class in this country are so ill-educated that even after 62 years of us becoming an official Republic they have not learnt the idea of free speech and democracy.

      Delete
    4. Arup,


      The disturbing trend today is starting from politicians to common man on the street, passing judgement as it suits their interest or understanding.
      We do not want debate right and wrong in any sort of framework.
      Law of the land is part of democracy. But we want to define and redefine everything time to time. Of course we have great treasure of quotes from world except India.:-)

      Look at an incident in Kashmir where security of a Minister attacked local traffic SI. The victim appeared on almost all TV channels.
      We do not have any other on-the-spot detail but there is demand to remove the minister.

      Take the case of Sharukh attacking security at Wankhade. He said he reacted to man-handling of children by the security person.
      Nobody demanded arrest of Sharukh. On contrary many accepted his version and justified his action.

      Do you see the contrast? We believe a popular person is always right, regardless his acts can be subjected to law of land or not.

      You think the education has helped all those people voicing in above cases?

      I once again request you to read my response to Mr. Mahapatra.
      If we can decide what is sedition and what is not, based public perception only, there is no need for courts.
      So the point is not exactly about right or wrong, but how to decide and who will decide.

      Do you still think some cartoonist or activist should not be arrested in the name of "democratic values"?

      Then our politician will demand "arrest me only if highest court of the law convicts me".

      Delete
    5. Bro, what are you talking about? What is the relevance of the Sharukh Khan and the Kashmir minister incident with Aseem Trivedi incident?

      You have asked, who and how should the decision be made what's right or wrong. First of all it was never right for the 'Gestapo' force of Bombay to be so over active and arrest Mr. Trivedi when thousands of criminals of severe crimes roam free on the streets. But since the case has come in front of the judiciary they must take their call. That does not mean the civil voice should keep mum. It is one of the primary criteria of a modern democracy to have a vibrant civil society. So, let judiciary take it's call, at the same time no one can silence the people's voice - that's democracy.

      It is definitely your democratic right not to agree with me or not to support Aseem Trivedi's cartoons. But as Justice Katju has already mentioned, it is not legal to arrest Mr. Trivedi for drawing those toons and publishing them on the net. I myself checked the 'controversial' work on Mr. Trivedi's Facebook account and did not find that one of any good taste. But as long as I believe in democratic values I would fight for his right to draw more and more of such cartoons. The day I stop standing by Aseem's right to express (and also your right to disagree with me) and demand his arrest instead my democratic values would die at that very moment.

      Delete
    6. Arup,

      Your statement
      "First of all it was never right for the 'Gestapo' .... severe crimes roam free on the streets."

      Indicates that justice should be rendered in a queue. :-)

      "civil voice should keep mum"... do not jump to extremes. I am cautioning against public 'frenzy' in the name of democracy. Absolute truth will same in any kind of ruling.

      Agreeing and disagreeing are fine. What surprises me is a retired judge passing public judgement in the jurisdiction of working judge(s). If arrest was illegal courts would have set Aseem free and punished (least censured) the police. But it did not happen. What should we infer now? Courts too part of 'Gestapo'? If so it applies to only this particular court or all courts now and in the past?

      You and me are allowed some degree of error owing to ignorance of law. But not any sitting or retired judge.

      IMO, 'Public trial' and 'Media Trail' are dangerous than tyranny.

      You continue to argue that Aseem's right to express is absolute and can not be subjected to verification under law.

      One Attorney General informed on a TV channel that Supreme court clarified that Article 91(1)(a) cannot be applied to cases under 124-A.



      Delete
    7. Bro, I have never said that any freedom is absolute, no right can ever be so. If you want to assume that out of my comment that is up to you. I can only pity on your understanding. I shall never be able to agree to your views on civil rights. What is 'frenzy' according to you, that is just a strong voice of common man according to the people who loves democracy. But I believe that is not something I would be able to explain to you.

      What Media and civil society (a retired judge is also part of that) are doing that is only making our democracy stronger. They have not passed any judgement, they have raised their voice for what they think is right. By the way, what do you think media's role should be in this case? Should they be just the silent spectators or should they support the police act? I believe that would make you happy if I am not wrong.

      On a different note, are you a Congress man in any case?

      Delete
  3. Sir,

    I doubt there lies much reason to obey and respect an institution which is a mere farce and no more represents the intention and objective which is its corner stone. The Parliaments represents the will of the people, this Constitution was adopted by 'We, The People', who solemnly resolved to give unto our selves this Constitution and ensure, Justice, Liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship...

    I am thankful to Justice Katju who has, being at the paramount position of Chairman of Press Council of India, been so forthcoming in guarding the hapless cartoonist's freedom of belief , thought and expression... a belief which so many share but very few dare to share...

    ReplyDelete
  4. I think that Justice Katju is right. I think that "respect" and "insult" is a state of mind. Good things generate emotion of "respect" and bad things generate the emotion of "insult". Both "respect" and "insult" could be bad when given to undeserving. For example, if you respect Ajmal Kasab for killing people then that respect would be bad and similarly if you insult a doctor for creating a life saving drug then that insult would be regarded as bad. Therefore I think that even insulting is allowed under our constitution if the insult is reasonable. Additionally, I do not think that Aseem has insulted any one except the corrupts and I consider that corrupts deserve it.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Wish PCI were given more teethes to take action on such issues as well; Damn this policy paralysis of central government!!

    ReplyDelete
  6. There is no choice but to agree that political establishment is responsible for present affairs. But people have enough options to overcome this. For more than six year by now majority mainstream media had shown huge pro-establishment bias. Thus marginalizing other political parties. They carried out character assassinations based on videos and public opinion. Liberals thought too participated with a false feeling the they saving nation from communal and anti-progress forces. Freedom of expression was used to destroy images of political parties and other conservative social groups. Now that the 'consent generation' is complete, establishment will not tolerate any freedom of expression on any form of media including social media.

    Common man thinking himself wise by passing judgement based on some videos and biased statements. But failing to realize that opening up gates for anarchy. Do not forget politicians also using the same public support to escape law. We netizens make comments that may or may not reach anyone important in the case. But these politicians are able to gather people and demonstrate in-front of courts. Media very much know this technique but never exposes to safe guard its own interests.

    ReplyDelete
  7. The administrative executive must be straighten up a little by any action possible , they claim to follow orders yet commit most heinous atrocities , just in yesterday issue of inext newspaper there was another case of custodial death where the accused was beaten and he committed suicide by taking poison . This was again a case of inter religious marriage , where father of muslim girl has reported abduction when clearly they both left their families by their own accord . I implore you to address these issues in society this is heinous violation of orders in
    Lata Singh v State of Uttar Pradesh 7th july 2006

    http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1364215/
    Media must take a responsible role and must help to change the society's feudal mindset , there is something wrong with priority of electronic media , dress of Kareena Kapoor is apparently more important than need to remove social evils , promote logical thinking , death of innocent people and heinous crimes such as custodial deaths .

    As for insult and contempt of court and contempt of ministers (lol) , I think a significant line should be drawn between contempt , insult and critical review . If criticism is logical and based on factual grounds , I don't suppose there should be a fear of legal liability or apprehension of arrest or punishment.


    However respected Sir for sake of simple disagreement , I do not support the idea that an honest man of integrity and character should be vandalized be it a Judge or Minister or any other constitutional authority and they should simply ignore it , because though hear say evidence is invalid in court in general rule but in day to day world , hear say talks grab momentum and does result in vandalizing a man or woman and also for some people honor and pride means more than any money or power .
    I have the view the seat of the person should be respect yet if the actions of the person sitting on the seat are in contrast with unwritten code of conduct of responsible authorities ( be it of Judge , ministers , or any other authority) its liable to be criticized .

    ReplyDelete
  8. Dear Mr Prabhakar Rao, I am extremely sorry while commenting on your comment over Justice Katju's commentary on the recent controversy over cartoonist's arrest.
    As you gave your thoughtful idea of attacking people in the system, that would be grossly personified or taken as attack on a person and would have been easy for the lords in our system to undermine the work of the cartoonist or a journalist. So, the cartoonist tried to target the system and and tried to say what kind of a face the national emblem has taken for the very innocent commonman. The cartoonist tried to present his view and the condition of the common man before the system that has grossly become a mask for people in power.
    Theoritically, the constitution guarantees our fundamental rights including the right to speak and the cartoonist has tried to tell how the system has gone wrong making the common man just a victim to it. As against the system, the cartoonist never went to physically assault or disrespect the national emblem which would have been a crime! In this case where the police under the systemic mask has arrested the cartoonist Aseem Trivedi is just nothing but a crime on the part of the Police as it is meant to terrorise people exercising their fundamental right to speak.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear sir,

      maybe you are 100% correct and Police action could be totally wrong.
      But I would like to raise two points.
      First the cartoonist has ample scope to prove his innocence, provided he (and others) believes in Judiciary. Then we can demand punishment to the police.
      Second is attempt to decide right and wrong on the streets using public emotion rather than in right forum.

      I too heard some of the constitutional guarantees but never read anything in particular.
      There were times when people used "...to my knowledge..", "..as far as I know...", "... in my opinion..." when citing important matters pertaining constitution and law.
      Now? Just everybody asserting fundamental rights granted by constitution. I am sorry to say but look at your own response. It simply grants absolute freedom of expression.
      How can you be so sure that freedom of expression is absolute and it can be asserted in simple words?
      I believe that constitution has defined certain limits to the rights. And of course courts are there to clarify in case of ambiguity.
      Honestly, I would like to dump this constitution, if it really granted such absolute freedom without bounds and that cannot be questioned or objected to.

      You may see the arrest as terrorizing people. But I see it other way round. If police does not arrest an accused, whatever he/she is and the complaint, I see police "letting off" offenders.

      I summerise the situation
      1. A few prejudiced against establishment decided and declared the cartoonist innocent.
      2. These shepherds lead the educated English speaking sheep to join the chorus.
      3. Thus influence even the judiciary in favor of the cartoonist.

      Though not exact, this is how any accused politician trying to get away under "conspiracy", "innocent until proven" blah blah.
      Activists seems a step ahead and deciding on the streets.


      I would like to add one final thing.
      To my knowledge, there are two kinds of movement, against bad practices or against bad rulers. Very rarely both.
      In first we fight practices and not persons and in second one we fight persons and not practices.
      Somehow Team Anna (maybe IAC too) has strange objective.
      They do not question visible corrupt practices by present rulers but demand constitutional changes for accountability.
      They should realize whom they are batting for. And of course the general 'frenzy' public too.

      Delete
    2. Are you Congress supporter or activist.

      Delete
    3. >>> Are you Congress supporter or activist.

      Do you really think so even after I said "They do not question visible corrupt practices by present rulers" (emphasis on present rulers).

      Delete
  9. For quite some time, particularly during the unnecessary ruckus in Parliament over a cartoon involving Dr. Ambedkar and Nehru, many eminent citizens have opined that when the very politicians involved in the cartoon, viz. PM Nehru and Dr. Ambedkar, took it sportingly, the politicians of the day shouldn't create so much hue and cry over a 60 year old cartoon, with the ulterior motive of appeasing their vote-banks. Similarly, while some of the cartoons of Aseem Trivedi may be perceived to be in poor taste, many proponents of freedom of expression believe it doesn't merit the legal action it has landed the cartoonist it. Besides, judging an act like this on the basis of a century-old legislation is preposterous, to say the least. Legislation should keep pace with the norms and changing dynamics of society. Hence, instead of targeting artists and satirists who depict politicians or political institutions like the legislatures in a certain way, the politicians must do what they have been elected to do - legislate in the larger interests of the people of the country. In this regard, I believe for over 60 years our elected leaders have done a disservice to the country by continuing with the statutes enacted during the British era - the very establishment they fought against for 'freedom' and 'independence'. But then, gone are the days when we had politicians who rose about petty politics and became statesmen who are respected by not just their followers but also their opponents. It is this pettiness of our present-day politicians which has encouraged and inspired creative professionals like cartoonists to depict them and dysfunctional political institutions like the Parliament in controversial ways. As Justice Katju says, the politicians must learn to tolerate and accept such satire and criticism, and ignore them if they can't develop a sense of humour to laugh it off - while they expect the people of India to develop a sense of humor to laugh off the spate of mega-scams which have come to light in recent times.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I agree with Justice Katju and wish to add what Australian CJ Gleeson said about the issue: "People who only say things that are popular and that are greeted with general applause do not need a right of free speech. Freedom of speech only matters when a person wants to say something that will displease somebody else. It may matter a great deal when a person wants to say something that will displease a lot of people". See http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/boyerlectures/lecture-4-aspects-of-the-commonwealth-constitution/3476228

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, while you have quoted the Australian CJ in the right context, it is quite obvious that right to free speech means right to say / express one's views which are contrary to that of most others, particularly against the govt of the day. Mahatma Gandhi was one of the first to be tried under the draconian sedition law during British rule, so he had strong views against it. He's believed to have said "Sedition is the greatest service one can do for one's nation". This implies expressing dissent against the incumbent establishment. You don't need a 'right' to follow the herd.
      However, having said the above, I do feel that no right can be absolute, and has to be exercised within certain parameters. For instance, right to expression can't mean right to defame someone or some institution, by hurling profanities or drawing them in an undignified manner.

      Delete
  11. @ Katju
    "Sedition is the highest moral duty of a citizen" – M.K. Gandhi.
    We all Indians looking for help and support from justice but few of them are politicly corrected spoiled and you are one of them. We Indians hate like you people who complaint against Aseem Trivadi.
    Aseem did right and showed us real picture. Who are you to complaint against such activist. Take back your complaint and release Aseem.

    ReplyDelete
  12. @ Katju
    "Sedition is the highest moral duty of a citizen" – M.K. Gandhi.
    We all Indians looking for help and support from justice but few of them are politicly corrected spoiled and you are one of them. We Indians hate like you people who complaint against Aseem Trivadi.
    Aseem did right and showed us real picture. Who are you to complaint against such activist. Take back your complaint and release Aseem.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I disagree with you sedition quote and Mahatma Gandhi was not right on every single thing he uttered . Sedition (based on lies or religious fanaticism) is most dangerous thing for a democracy (that too an infant democracy) of India . Effort should be made to society more progressive not chaotic , sedition leads to catastrophe and anarchy , refer section 124A in detail and its object , it has a reason for being in penal code .


      As for cartoonist what he did was nothing of sort of sedition it was humorous display of what was going on in India these days ( scams on scams ) , a cartoonist or any other person must not be arrested because he has a different opinion from general masses because what is generally believed is not necessarily correct . If I may , with permission of anonymous , borrow quote of CJ Gleeson (originally posted here by anonymous ) Chief justice Gleeson of Hight Court of Australia said about the issue: "People who only say things that are popular and that are greeted with general applause do not need a right of free speech. Freedom of speech only matters when a person wants to say something that will displease somebody else. It may matter a great deal when a person wants to say something that will displease a lot of people" . It entirely fits the situation .


      Finally responding to your emotional outburst signified by following statements of yours :
      "We all Indians looking for help and support from justice but few of them are politicly corrected spoiled and you are one of them. We Indians hate like you people who complaint against Aseem Trivadi."

      "Aseem did right and showed us real picture. Who are you to complaint against such activist. Take back your complaint and release Aseem."
      Have you even read the "title" of the blog post ? let alone the content of the blog post . Justice Katju concurs the view that arrest of cartoonist was illegal and his arrest is unlawful .

      What are you exactly on about kind madame ? A statement of advice , emotional outburst always results in embarrassments .

      In a famous play of Winslow Boy by Terrence Rattigan , character named Robert Morton who was the lawyer in defense of protagonist and displayed an immutable character when government even offered to appoint him Lord Chief Justice so that he may decline the case and he refused , said an excellent sentence explaining his coldness in normally emotional situations " Emotions muddy the issue , cold and clear logic must always be the weapon of a lawyer . "

      Delete
    2. Dear Lucius,

      We meet again!

      I wanted to ask this question to the person who was criticizing Justice Katju, "What were you smoking, before commenting?" Either it's an attempt to grab some cheap publicity or fanaticism has taken over her mind.

      Your comments were cogent as usual. But I bet it will be too subtle for a semi-literate to read, let alone interpret.

      Cheers!

      Delete
    3. seems like you are one of those struggling jobless lawyers roaming around the courst in search of some case. Not your fault Paapi peth ka sawaal hai.. you made a cartoon of yourself.

      Delete
    4. Well, I choose to ignore such nonsensical comments. And "court" is not spelt as "courst". Educate yourself, oh ignorant.

      Delete
  13. @Shweta: You are an idiot (Yes, I will use harsh language). Firstly, What is this way to address someone honorable? "@Katju" No "Justice" or "Mr.". Did you ever go to school or not?
    Did you even read this article? Justice Katju is blaming the Govt. and asking it, not to take any action on Aseem Trivedi. Only an ignorant like you can accuse Justice Katju of filing a complaint against Aseem and making sure he is behind bars.

    People like you are nothing but a 'monkey on the computer keyboard'.

    That's it!

    ReplyDelete
  14. Unconfirmed reports say that Aseem Trivedi was not arrested for either sedition or cartoons.

    The Court had issued Summons to him to appear in a private complaint which he deliverately ignored and avoided. Consequently Non Bailable Warrant was issued against him. He chose not to appear and get that cancelled which was a routine thing to do. Instead he surrendered and refused to take bail. Magistrate had no options but to keep him in custody.

    I repeat I have no access to the case papers to ascertain the truth but this is based on information. I am sure Sir Katju can easily get the correct facts.

    If the above facts are true then Aseem Trivedi has played a big fraud on the entire nation by his stage managed drama.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. hmm another case-less berojgaar lawuyer in search of some case... papi peth ka sawaal hai.. but good you made a cartoon of urself !

      Delete
    2. I agree with adv. Anirban Roy. If it is found true, Sir, with due respect, you have also committed no less a fraud. Please clarify.

      Delete
  15. Respected Sir
    As per the statement of your post where you mention that speech incites violence which is seditious.
    I fail to understand hence why has Sh Jagdish Tytler not been hence charged with Sedition, given the media reports that his speech induced violence in Odisha where the female police constable was severely manhandled.
    will someone have to file a case against the speaker whose speech induced violence and only then he will be charged?
    I am unaware of this aspect hence the query.
    Please enlighten!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @Unknown:

      A speech that incites violence certainly calls for the charges of sedition. However, politicians across party lines use several legal loopholes, and get away with it. For example, in the argument you cited, Jagdish Tytler would claim, he led the mob (intended for a peaceful protest) went wild. And since there is no evidence (which stands in the court of law), he will be escape the punishments. Likewise, the Thackeray family is known to make hate-speeches. But then, they will cite it to be a private function and claim that their words did not directly incite violence.

      Hope your query was fairly answered.

      Cheers!

      Delete
  16. It was good to see justice Katju coming in support of aseem and taking on state machinery by horns:)

    ReplyDelete
  17. >>> If the policemen who arrested him say that they were only carrying out the order of some superior authority (whether political or administrative) this is no defence, because an official should not obey an illegal order. For instance, if a policemen is told by a higher authority to commit a murder or burglary or rape, he should disobey this illegal order, otherwise he should be tried and if found guilty given harsh punishment.

    With all due respect to Justice Katju, I could not help but laugh at above stuff. To my knowledge orders to a policeman by superiors do not include murder, rape etc. Arrest, mob dispersion, custody are some kinds of orders a policeman must carry out. Justice will never delivered in any case, should every individual in law and order apply discretion. A corrupt policeman can let off a criminal under the pretext of discretion.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Check out how SiliconIndia is pawning Journalistic ethics for money: https://www.facebook.com/angsuman.chakraborty/posts/238809762908538

    ReplyDelete
  19. A fresh reading.. Really, was a true account of the case and a head on approach.. Kudos

    ReplyDelete
  20. Firstly I understand that I am lucky because you are connected through this blog for this my thanks to you. I am from taat patti school so it might not be possible to write English as you all written. Just I come on subject My lord, I have gone all contents which you have drawn. I am of the view that Mr Aseem Trivedi did committed illegal act drawing the attention through his cartoon he waged into a symbol of national hood. In the democracy the guranted its citizen trough fundamental right in fact we are living in the democratic state but so for as expression of thought is concerned the certain limitation is there, in every article of the constitution says that you shall have right accept prescribed procedure of law, whenever a person has committed any offence under IPC at that time the fundamental right usually to ignored, we has established the procedure by that way we are functioning in each organ of the state

    1. Whether only this way you can condemned the system in the corruption?
    2. Whether he has right to demonstrated his cartoon which is our national symbol?
    So far I have gone through my observation that in world history, all the revolutionist has demonstrated his idea within the ambit of our territorial culture and conventional law because of that all reformer has had succeeded fully demonstrated his idea which affected not only confined to his country but accepted at all human being across the country and they all accepted by all the social, political, historical beyond the territory. The thought is exception which likely to be impact of beyond territory that is why the Hobbes , Lock, Russo, Marx, Gandhi and all scientific stalwarts has unanimously accepted by human being but all the person did not fractured to the ethical norms. Which is established of our forefather of the society.

    3. Whether satya mev jayte, is wrong when that concept was developed in the Upnishad Period ,?

    I am of the view that in past it was not wrong and today it is relevant and further it shall deem to be have exited
    4. Whether all the protesting and condemning way come and end ?
    In my personal opinion about this issue is that one you have condemned or given new concept ,which is completely should have came under national ethical value. I am not in fauve of rigidity but by condemned any thing which should have based upon our old ethical value. Such as
    ‘’ सत्यम ब्रूयात प्रियं ब्रूयात ना ब्रूयात सत्यम अप्रियम’’
    That is our national ethical standard. Whether on that parameter deem fit and proper?


    ReplyDelete
  21. Arrest of Aseem was undoubtedly done by TRAITORS!

    ReplyDelete