By Sunanda Vashisht on
On March 8, 2013, BBC published an article titled ‘Why are Indian women being attacked on Social Media?’. The story interested me instantly. As a woman who spends considerable amounts of time voicing my opinions on social media platforms, I was glad BBC chose to do a story on online abuse, something I encounter almost every day. However I was appalled when I read the contents of the article. The story that Divya Arya, journalist with BBC Hindi, wrote, is high on hearsay and low on research. The story is not in keeping with the high journalistic standards one would expect from a reputed news organisation like BBC. It is deeply flawed and biased on many accounts.
Arya interviewed three celebrities for her interview. Sagarika Ghose, well-known television anchor and author, Kavita Krishnan — who has been introduced in the story as a “Delhi-based activist” but really should have also been introduced as a member of Left-wing party CPI(ML) — and Meena Kandaswamy, well-known poet and activist. Sagarika Ghose has been saying that women abused on Twitter in India tend to be “liberal and secular”. The author seems to have done no research to verify if that is indeed true. The definition of ‘Liberal and Secular’ is often warped in India but that is a topic for another day. Life on Twitter is no easier for women who tend to identify themselves with the Right. In fact, the choicest abuses loaded with sexual innuendo, pejorative name-calling and incessant mocking is what these women face every day on Twitter. It would have made Arya’s story more balanced if she had also interviewed Smriti Irani , Vice President of BJP; Meenakshi Lekhi, lawyer and national spokesperson for BJP; or Madhu Kishwar, noted writer and feminist who does not identify herself as ‘Right Wing’ and is currently retelling the Gujarat story, which is enough to invoke the ire of many who call themselves ‘liberal and secular’. These women too face abuse and sexual harassment on Twitter. By interviewing only self-proclaimed ‘liberal and secular’ women; the story loses credibility and becomes yet another diatribe against one ‘group’ on social media, this time using the platform of BBC.
Ghose is further credited with saying “The abusers are Right-wing nationalists, angry at women speaking their mind. They have even coined a term for us — ‘sickular’.” I have followed Ghose’s Twitter feed for a long time. The abuses she gets are mostly from anonymous handles. It is incorrect (and smacks of a deep-seated bias) to use a blanket term like ‘Right-wing nationalists’ for all abusers. Nobody knows who these handles belong to. For all we know, these abusers might be impostors who use Hindu symbols as their display pictures. To paint the entire ideological Right as abusers is being facetious. If Arya had done a little more research, she would have known that Ghose and most other celebrity journalists (with some notable exceptions) retweet either effusive praise or virulent abuse. They never acknowledge or answer a hard-hitting question about their journalistic work. If Ghose indeed wanted to fight abuse on social media, she would not give it political flavour. She would also call out those ‘liberal and secular’ voices who might agree with her but abuse Smriti Irani, Madhu Kishwar, Meenakshi Lekhi and many other women like me who are not celebrities but face harassment for speaking our minds. While Ghose takes offence to the word ‘sickular’, I wish Arya had asked about the infamous and pejorative coinage Ghose is credited with – ‘Internet Hindu’.
The article further informs that Ghose has stopped putting her views on Twitter and uses it only to disseminate information about her shows and will only retweet abusive tweets. I am not sure how this is different from what she did before, because she hardly ever has had any constructive debates on Twitter.
As a mother myself, I can imagine the trauma Ghose must have gone through when her daughter’s name and school details were put on Twitter. Cyber stalking and bullying of women is a reality and if we call it Right-wing bullying or Right-wing stalking, we are only strengthening the bullies. Bullies have no ideology. Their only purpose is to bully.
There are no good abusers and bad abusers or ‘our’ abusers and ‘their’ abusers. All abusers must be confronted by those who wish to end abuse in social media. I never saw Ghose, Krishnan or Kandaswamy, all accomplished writers, write any columns about Congress member Amaresh Misra who openly abuses, threatens rape and murder and uses the most uncouth and abusive language. He was never called out openly by ‘liberal and secular’ celebrities. At best, they managed only a conspiracy of silence. It is no wonder then that abuse is a huge problem, because there is no will to confront it. All the instances of abuse quoted in the article by anonymous Twitter handles are abominable, but I wish Arya had also quoted instances where known people who acknowledge that they work on behalf of Congress or are Congress supporters are seen threatening and ridiculing women.
Twitter is a relatively new medium. In India, it is fast becoming a powerful medium for an alternate narrative because mainstream media is widely perceived to be biased and dominated by Left-liberal voices. Valid Right-wing voices, gagged for years, have finally found a platform here. Mainstream media has long tried to dismiss fringe rogue elements like Ram Sene as ‘Right-wing’. Credible Right of centre voices have had very little visibility in electronic or print media. With the churning of the Indian Right that has been happening in the last few years, there is suddenly a movement to suppress it again. That is why there is a concerted attempt to paint all ‘Right’ voices on social media as abusive.
Twitter is a wonderful medium that self-regulates. I have seen that abusive voices attract fewer followers and are mostly ignored in constructive debates. Abusive handles derive encouragement from famous celebrities who sometimes indulge them if they happen to say what they like to hear. Instead of a concerted attempt to paint all abusers Right-wing and render the debate counterproductive, if there is a concerted attempt to call out all abuse, no matter where it comes from, we will make some headway in countering this menace.
As a woman I have faced much harassment on social media, but I am not alone. In fact, women who happen to be on the Right face more abuse than anybody else for the simple reason that they have no ecosystem that stands by them. As Madhu Kishwar often says, she has been abandoned by her Left-liberal friends for her recent writings about Gujarat. In fact on social media, none of the famous celebrities who have been quoted in this BBC piece or otherwise have stood up for her when she was and continues to be abused and viciously trolled.
Only way we can fight abuse in Social Media and real life is by standing up to trolls and at the same time not encouraging those who abuse our ideological rivals. Abuse is a very small part of the whole new world that social media has opened up for us. Twitter has democratised discourse greatly. News has become a two-way street finally. It would be grave injustice if in the name of abuse we play politics to gag responsible voices that may not agree with us. It is indeed very unfortunate that a respectable news organisation like BBC would carry a one-sided, biased, and clichéd report on an important topic like online abuse faced by Indian women.
Source: http://www.niticentral.com/2013/05/10/when-it-comes-to-online-abuse-some-some-victims-dont-matter-to-left-liberals-76229.html
Dismissing the PIL, the division bench of SC observed it was not appropriate for Bhatt, an IPS officer, to move such a petition for "publicity".
Bhatt and PUCL had jointly moved the PIL before the Gujarat High Court seeking a direction to the commission probing into the post-Godhra riots to summon Modi since its terms of reference provided for examining the CM's role. The petitioners had also sought a direction to the panel to submit its final report with the Governor of Gujarat, and not to the CM, since his role was to be examined.
The PIL was dismissed by the HC in October last year following which the petitioners had approached the apex court with an appeal.
The state government's counsel, Devang Vyas, said the petition was dismissed on the ground that the Commission could summon a person if it felt it was needed.
Vyas said the court also made an oral observation that it was not appropriate for an IPS officer to move such a petition for "publicity".
- See more at: http://www.indianexpress.com/news/don-t-file-pil-for-publicity-sc-tells-bhatt/1113998/#sthash.ZuaIaZNT.LykRFKgX.dpuffg
On March 8, 2013, BBC published an article titled ‘Why are Indian women being attacked on Social Media?’. The story interested me instantly. As a woman who spends considerable amounts of time voicing my opinions on social media platforms, I was glad BBC chose to do a story on online abuse, something I encounter almost every day. However I was appalled when I read the contents of the article. The story that Divya Arya, journalist with BBC Hindi, wrote, is high on hearsay and low on research. The story is not in keeping with the high journalistic standards one would expect from a reputed news organisation like BBC. It is deeply flawed and biased on many accounts.
Arya interviewed three celebrities for her interview. Sagarika Ghose, well-known television anchor and author, Kavita Krishnan — who has been introduced in the story as a “Delhi-based activist” but really should have also been introduced as a member of Left-wing party CPI(ML) — and Meena Kandaswamy, well-known poet and activist. Sagarika Ghose has been saying that women abused on Twitter in India tend to be “liberal and secular”. The author seems to have done no research to verify if that is indeed true. The definition of ‘Liberal and Secular’ is often warped in India but that is a topic for another day. Life on Twitter is no easier for women who tend to identify themselves with the Right. In fact, the choicest abuses loaded with sexual innuendo, pejorative name-calling and incessant mocking is what these women face every day on Twitter. It would have made Arya’s story more balanced if she had also interviewed Smriti Irani , Vice President of BJP; Meenakshi Lekhi, lawyer and national spokesperson for BJP; or Madhu Kishwar, noted writer and feminist who does not identify herself as ‘Right Wing’ and is currently retelling the Gujarat story, which is enough to invoke the ire of many who call themselves ‘liberal and secular’. These women too face abuse and sexual harassment on Twitter. By interviewing only self-proclaimed ‘liberal and secular’ women; the story loses credibility and becomes yet another diatribe against one ‘group’ on social media, this time using the platform of BBC.
The abuse no one talks about_02
Ghose is further credited with saying “The abusers are Right-wing nationalists, angry at women speaking their mind. They have even coined a term for us — ‘sickular’.” I have followed Ghose’s Twitter feed for a long time. The abuses she gets are mostly from anonymous handles. It is incorrect (and smacks of a deep-seated bias) to use a blanket term like ‘Right-wing nationalists’ for all abusers. Nobody knows who these handles belong to. For all we know, these abusers might be impostors who use Hindu symbols as their display pictures. To paint the entire ideological Right as abusers is being facetious. If Arya had done a little more research, she would have known that Ghose and most other celebrity journalists (with some notable exceptions) retweet either effusive praise or virulent abuse. They never acknowledge or answer a hard-hitting question about their journalistic work. If Ghose indeed wanted to fight abuse on social media, she would not give it political flavour. She would also call out those ‘liberal and secular’ voices who might agree with her but abuse Smriti Irani, Madhu Kishwar, Meenakshi Lekhi and many other women like me who are not celebrities but face harassment for speaking our minds. While Ghose takes offence to the word ‘sickular’, I wish Arya had asked about the infamous and pejorative coinage Ghose is credited with – ‘Internet Hindu’.
The article further informs that Ghose has stopped putting her views on Twitter and uses it only to disseminate information about her shows and will only retweet abusive tweets. I am not sure how this is different from what she did before, because she hardly ever has had any constructive debates on Twitter.
As a mother myself, I can imagine the trauma Ghose must have gone through when her daughter’s name and school details were put on Twitter. Cyber stalking and bullying of women is a reality and if we call it Right-wing bullying or Right-wing stalking, we are only strengthening the bullies. Bullies have no ideology. Their only purpose is to bully.
There are no good abusers and bad abusers or ‘our’ abusers and ‘their’ abusers. All abusers must be confronted by those who wish to end abuse in social media. I never saw Ghose, Krishnan or Kandaswamy, all accomplished writers, write any columns about Congress member Amaresh Misra who openly abuses, threatens rape and murder and uses the most uncouth and abusive language. He was never called out openly by ‘liberal and secular’ celebrities. At best, they managed only a conspiracy of silence. It is no wonder then that abuse is a huge problem, because there is no will to confront it. All the instances of abuse quoted in the article by anonymous Twitter handles are abominable, but I wish Arya had also quoted instances where known people who acknowledge that they work on behalf of Congress or are Congress supporters are seen threatening and ridiculing women.
Twitter is a relatively new medium. In India, it is fast becoming a powerful medium for an alternate narrative because mainstream media is widely perceived to be biased and dominated by Left-liberal voices. Valid Right-wing voices, gagged for years, have finally found a platform here. Mainstream media has long tried to dismiss fringe rogue elements like Ram Sene as ‘Right-wing’. Credible Right of centre voices have had very little visibility in electronic or print media. With the churning of the Indian Right that has been happening in the last few years, there is suddenly a movement to suppress it again. That is why there is a concerted attempt to paint all ‘Right’ voices on social media as abusive.
Twitter is a wonderful medium that self-regulates. I have seen that abusive voices attract fewer followers and are mostly ignored in constructive debates. Abusive handles derive encouragement from famous celebrities who sometimes indulge them if they happen to say what they like to hear. Instead of a concerted attempt to paint all abusers Right-wing and render the debate counterproductive, if there is a concerted attempt to call out all abuse, no matter where it comes from, we will make some headway in countering this menace.
As a woman I have faced much harassment on social media, but I am not alone. In fact, women who happen to be on the Right face more abuse than anybody else for the simple reason that they have no ecosystem that stands by them. As Madhu Kishwar often says, she has been abandoned by her Left-liberal friends for her recent writings about Gujarat. In fact on social media, none of the famous celebrities who have been quoted in this BBC piece or otherwise have stood up for her when she was and continues to be abused and viciously trolled.
Only way we can fight abuse in Social Media and real life is by standing up to trolls and at the same time not encouraging those who abuse our ideological rivals. Abuse is a very small part of the whole new world that social media has opened up for us. Twitter has democratised discourse greatly. News has become a two-way street finally. It would be grave injustice if in the name of abuse we play politics to gag responsible voices that may not agree with us. It is indeed very unfortunate that a respectable news organisation like BBC would carry a one-sided, biased, and clichéd report on an important topic like online abuse faced by Indian women.
Source: http://www.niticentral.com/2013/05/10/when-it-comes-to-online-abuse-some-some-victims-dont-matter-to-left-liberals-76229.html
The
Supreme Court Thursday dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL)
filed by suspended IPS officer Sanjiv Bhatt and a civil rights
organisation, People's Union for Civil Liberty (PUCL), that had sought a
direction to Justice Nanavati Commission to summon and examine Chief
Minister Narendra Modi in connection with the 2002 riots in the state.
- See more at:
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/don-t-file-pil-for-publicity-sc-tells-bhatt/1113998/#sthash.ZuaIaZNT.LykRFKgX.dpuf
The
Supreme Court Thursday dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL)
filed by suspended IPS officer Sanjiv Bhatt and a civil rights
organisation, People's Union for Civil Liberty (PUCL), that had sought a
direction to Justice Nanavati Commission to summon and examine Chief
Minister Narendra Modi in connection with the 2002 riots in the state.
- See more at:
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/don-t-file-pil-for-publicity-sc-tells-bhatt/1113998/#sthash.ZuaIaZNT.LykRFKgX.dpuf
The
Supreme Court Thursday dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL)
filed by suspended IPS officer Sanjiv Bhatt and a civil rights
organisation, People's Union for Civil Liberty (PUCL), that had sought a
direction to Justice Nanavati Commission to summon and examine Chief
Minister Narendra Modi in connection with the 2002 riots in the state.
Dismissing the PIL, the division bench of SC observed it was not appropriate for Bhatt, an IPS officer, to move such a petition for "publicity".
Bhatt and PUCL had jointly moved the PIL before the Gujarat High Court seeking a direction to the commission probing into the post-Godhra riots to summon Modi since its terms of reference provided for examining the CM's role. The petitioners had also sought a direction to the panel to submit its final report with the Governor of Gujarat, and not to the CM, since his role was to be examined.
The PIL was dismissed by the HC in October last year following which the petitioners had approached the apex court with an appeal.
The state government's counsel, Devang Vyas, said the petition was dismissed on the ground that the Commission could summon a person if it felt it was needed.
Vyas said the court also made an oral observation that it was not appropriate for an IPS officer to move such a petition for "publicity".
- See more at: http://www.indianexpress.com/news/don-t-file-pil-for-publicity-sc-tells-bhatt/1113998/#sthash.ZuaIaZNT.LykRFKgX.dpuf
Dismissing the PIL, the division bench of SC observed it was not appropriate for Bhatt, an IPS officer, to move such a petition for "publicity".
Bhatt and PUCL had jointly moved the PIL before the Gujarat High Court seeking a direction to the commission probing into the post-Godhra riots to summon Modi since its terms of reference provided for examining the CM's role. The petitioners had also sought a direction to the panel to submit its final report with the Governor of Gujarat, and not to the CM, since his role was to be examined.
The PIL was dismissed by the HC in October last year following which the petitioners had approached the apex court with an appeal.
The state government's counsel, Devang Vyas, said the petition was dismissed on the ground that the Commission could summon a person if it felt it was needed.
Vyas said the court also made an oral observation that it was not appropriate for an IPS officer to move such a petition for "publicity".
- See more at: http://www.indianexpress.com/news/don-t-file-pil-for-publicity-sc-tells-bhatt/1113998/#sthash.ZuaIaZNT.LykRFKgX.dpuf
The
Supreme Court Thursday dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL)
filed by suspended IPS officer Sanjiv Bhatt and a civil rights
organisation, People's Union for Civil Liberty (PUCL), that had sought a
direction to Justice Nanavati Commission to summon and examine Chief
Minister Narendra Modi in connection with the 2002 riots in the state.
Dismissing the PIL, the division bench of SC observed it was not appropriate for Bhatt, an IPS officer, to move such a petition for "publicity".
Bhatt and PUCL had jointly moved the PIL before the Gujarat High Court seeking a direction to the commission probing into the post-Godhra riots to summon Modi since its terms of reference provided for examining the CM's role. The petitioners had also sought a direction to the panel to submit its final report with the Governor of Gujarat, and not to the CM, since his role was to be examined.
The PIL was dismissed by the HC in October last year following which the petitioners had approached the apex court with an appeal.
The state government's counsel, Devang Vyas, said the petition was dismissed on the ground that the Commission could summon a person if it felt it was needed.
Vyas said the court also made an oral observation that it was not appropriate for an IPS officer to move such a petition for "publicity".
- See more at: http://www.indianexpress.com/news/don-t-file-pil-for-publicity-sc-tells-bhatt/1113998/#sthash.ZuaIaZNT.LykRFKgX.dpuf
The
Supreme Court Thursday dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL)
filed by suspended IPS officer Sanjiv Bhatt and a civil rights
organisation, People's Union for Civil Liberty (PUCL), that had sought a
direction to Justice Nanavati Commission to summon and examine Chief
Minister Narendra Modi in connection with the 2002 riots in the state.
Dismissing the PIL, the division bench of SC observed it was not appropriate for Bhatt, an IPS officer, to move such a petition for "publicity".
Bhatt and PUCL had jointly moved the PIL before the Gujarat High Court seeking a direction to the commission probing into the post-Godhra riots to summon Modi since its terms of reference provided for examining the CM's role. The petitioners had also sought a direction to the panel to submit its final report with the Governor of Gujarat, and not to the CM, since his role was to be examined.
The PIL was dismissed by the HC in October last year following which the petitioners had approached the apex court with an appeal.
The state government's counsel, Devang Vyas, said the petition was dismissed on the ground that the Commission could summon a person if it felt it was needed.
Vyas said the court also made an oral observation that it was not appropriate for an IPS officer to move such a petition for "publicity".
- See more at: http://www.indianexpress.com/news/don-t-file-pil-for-publicity-sc-tells-bhatt/1113998/#sthash.ZuaIaZNT.LykRFKgX.dpuf
Dismissing the PIL, the division bench of SC observed it was not appropriate for Bhatt, an IPS officer, to move such a petition for "publicity".
Bhatt and PUCL had jointly moved the PIL before the Gujarat High Court seeking a direction to the commission probing into the post-Godhra riots to summon Modi since its terms of reference provided for examining the CM's role. The petitioners had also sought a direction to the panel to submit its final report with the Governor of Gujarat, and not to the CM, since his role was to be examined.
The PIL was dismissed by the HC in October last year following which the petitioners had approached the apex court with an appeal.
The state government's counsel, Devang Vyas, said the petition was dismissed on the ground that the Commission could summon a person if it felt it was needed.
Vyas said the court also made an oral observation that it was not appropriate for an IPS officer to move such a petition for "publicity".
- See more at: http://www.indianexpress.com/news/don-t-file-pil-for-publicity-sc-tells-bhatt/1113998/#sthash.ZuaIaZNT.LykRFKgX.dpuffg
The
Supreme Court Thursday dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL)
filed by suspended IPS officer Sanjiv Bhatt and a civil rights
organisation, People's Union for Civil Liberty (PUCL), that had sought a
direction to Justice Nanavati Commission to summon and examine Chief
Minister Narendra Modi in connection with the 2002 riots in the state.
Dismissing the PIL, the division bench of SC observed it was not appropriate for Bhatt, an IPS officer, to move such a petition for "publicity".
Bhatt and PUCL had jointly moved the PIL before the Gujarat High Court seeking a direction to the commission probing into the post-Godhra riots to summon Modi since its terms of reference provided for examining the CM's role. The petitioners had also sought a direction to the panel to submit its final report with the Governor of Gujarat, and not to the CM, since his role was to be examined.
The PIL was dismissed by the HC in October last year following which the petitioners had approached the apex court with an appeal.
The state government's counsel, Devang Vyas, said the petition was dismissed on the ground that the Commission could summon a person if it felt it was needed.
Vyas said the court also made an oral observation that it was not appropriate for an IPS officer to move such a petition for "publicity".
- See more at: http://www.indianexpress.com/news/don-t-file-pil-for-publicity-sc-tells-bhatt/1113998/#sthash.ZuaIaZNT.LykRFKgX.dpuf
Dismissing the PIL, the division bench of SC observed it was not appropriate for Bhatt, an IPS officer, to move such a petition for "publicity".
Bhatt and PUCL had jointly moved the PIL before the Gujarat High Court seeking a direction to the commission probing into the post-Godhra riots to summon Modi since its terms of reference provided for examining the CM's role. The petitioners had also sought a direction to the panel to submit its final report with the Governor of Gujarat, and not to the CM, since his role was to be examined.
The PIL was dismissed by the HC in October last year following which the petitioners had approached the apex court with an appeal.
The state government's counsel, Devang Vyas, said the petition was dismissed on the ground that the Commission could summon a person if it felt it was needed.
Vyas said the court also made an oral observation that it was not appropriate for an IPS officer to move such a petition for "publicity".
- See more at: http://www.indianexpress.com/news/don-t-file-pil-for-publicity-sc-tells-bhatt/1113998/#sthash.ZuaIaZNT.LykRFKgX.dpuf
The
Supreme Court Thursday dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL)
filed by suspended IPS officer Sanjiv Bhatt and a civil rights
organisation, People's Union for Civil Liberty (PUCL), that had sought a
direction to Justice Nanavati Commission to summon and examine Chief
Minister Narendra Modi in connection with the 2002 riots in the state.
Dismissing the PIL, the division bench of SC observed it was not appropriate for Bhatt, an IPS officer, to move such a petition for "publicity".
Bhatt and PUCL had jointly moved the PIL before the Gujarat High Court seeking a direction to the commission probing into the post-Godhra riots to summon Modi since its terms of reference provided for examining the CM's role. The petitioners had also sought a direction to the panel to submit its final report with the Governor of Gujarat, and not to the CM, since his role was to be examined.
The PIL was dismissed by the HC in October last year following which the petitioners had approached the apex court with an appeal.
The state government's counsel, Devang Vyas, said the petition was dismissed on the ground that the Commission could summon a person if it felt it was needed.
Vyas said the court also made an oral observation that it was not appropriate for an IPS officer to move such a petition for "publicity".
- See more at: http://www.indianexpress.com/news/don-t-file-pil-for-publicity-sc-tells-bhatt/1113998/#sthash.ZuaIaZNT.LykRFKgX.dpuf
Dismissing the PIL, the division bench of SC observed it was not appropriate for Bhatt, an IPS officer, to move such a petition for "publicity".
Bhatt and PUCL had jointly moved the PIL before the Gujarat High Court seeking a direction to the commission probing into the post-Godhra riots to summon Modi since its terms of reference provided for examining the CM's role. The petitioners had also sought a direction to the panel to submit its final report with the Governor of Gujarat, and not to the CM, since his role was to be examined.
The PIL was dismissed by the HC in October last year following which the petitioners had approached the apex court with an appeal.
The state government's counsel, Devang Vyas, said the petition was dismissed on the ground that the Commission could summon a person if it felt it was needed.
Vyas said the court also made an oral observation that it was not appropriate for an IPS officer to move such a petition for "publicity".
- See more at: http://www.indianexpress.com/news/don-t-file-pil-for-publicity-sc-tells-bhatt/1113998/#sthash.ZuaIaZNT.LykRFKgX.dpuf
The
Supreme Court Thursday dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL)
filed by suspended IPS officer Sanjiv Bhatt and a civil rights
organisation, People's Union for Civil Liberty (PUCL), that had sought a
direction to Justice Nanavati Commission to summon and examine Chief
Minister Narendra Modi in connection with the 2002 riots in the state.
Dismissing the PIL, the division bench of SC observed it was not appropriate for Bhatt, an IPS officer, to move such a petition for "publicity".
Bhatt and PUCL had jointly moved the PIL before the Gujarat High Court seeking a direction to the commission probing into the post-Godhra riots to summon Modi since its terms of reference provided for examining the CM's role. The petitioners had also sought a direction to the panel to submit its final report with the Governor of Gujarat, and not to the CM, since his role was to be examined.
The PIL was dismissed by the HC in October last year following which the petitioners had approached the apex court with an appeal.
The state government's counsel, Devang Vyas, said the petition was dismissed on the ground that the Commission could summon a person if it felt it was needed.
Vyas said the court also made an oral observation that it was not appropriate for an IPS officer to move such a petition for "publicity".
- See more at: http://www.indianexpress.com/news/don-t-file-pil-for-publicity-sc-tells-bhatt/1113998/#sthash.ZuaIaZNT.LykRFKgX.dpuf
Dismissing the PIL, the division bench of SC observed it was not appropriate for Bhatt, an IPS officer, to move such a petition for "publicity".
Bhatt and PUCL had jointly moved the PIL before the Gujarat High Court seeking a direction to the commission probing into the post-Godhra riots to summon Modi since its terms of reference provided for examining the CM's role. The petitioners had also sought a direction to the panel to submit its final report with the Governor of Gujarat, and not to the CM, since his role was to be examined.
The PIL was dismissed by the HC in October last year following which the petitioners had approached the apex court with an appeal.
The state government's counsel, Devang Vyas, said the petition was dismissed on the ground that the Commission could summon a person if it felt it was needed.
Vyas said the court also made an oral observation that it was not appropriate for an IPS officer to move such a petition for "publicity".
- See more at: http://www.indianexpress.com/news/don-t-file-pil-for-publicity-sc-tells-bhatt/1113998/#sthash.ZuaIaZNT.LykRFKgX.dpuf
The
Supreme Court Thursday dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL)
filed by suspended IPS officer Sanjiv Bhatt and a civil rights
organisation, People's Union for Civil Liberty (PUCL), that had sought a
direction to Justice Nanavati Commission to summon and examine Chief
Minister Narendra Modi in connection with the 2002 riots in the state.
Dismissing the PIL, the division bench of SC observed it was not appropriate for Bhatt, an IPS officer, to move such a petition for "publicity".
Bhatt and PUCL had jointly moved the PIL before the Gujarat High Court seeking a direction to the commission probing into the post-Godhra riots to summon Modi since its terms of reference provided for examining the CM's role. The petitioners had also sought a direction to the panel to submit its final report with the Governor of Gujarat, and not to the CM, since his role was to be examined.
The PIL was dismissed by the HC in October last year following which the petitioners had approached the apex court with an appeal.
The state government's counsel, Devang Vyas, said the petition was dismissed on the ground that the Commission could summon a person if it felt it was needed.
Vyas said the court also made an oral observation that it was not appropriate for an IPS officer to move such a petition for "publicity".
- See more at: http://www.indianexpress.com/news/don-t-file-pil-for-publicity-sc-tells-bhatt/1113998/#sthash.ZuaIaZNT.LykRFKgX.dpuf
Dismissing the PIL, the division bench of SC observed it was not appropriate for Bhatt, an IPS officer, to move such a petition for "publicity".
Bhatt and PUCL had jointly moved the PIL before the Gujarat High Court seeking a direction to the commission probing into the post-Godhra riots to summon Modi since its terms of reference provided for examining the CM's role. The petitioners had also sought a direction to the panel to submit its final report with the Governor of Gujarat, and not to the CM, since his role was to be examined.
The PIL was dismissed by the HC in October last year following which the petitioners had approached the apex court with an appeal.
The state government's counsel, Devang Vyas, said the petition was dismissed on the ground that the Commission could summon a person if it felt it was needed.
Vyas said the court also made an oral observation that it was not appropriate for an IPS officer to move such a petition for "publicity".
- See more at: http://www.indianexpress.com/news/don-t-file-pil-for-publicity-sc-tells-bhatt/1113998/#sthash.ZuaIaZNT.LykRFKgX.dpuf
No comments:
Post a Comment