Sena to back Modi govt in Friday's no-trust vote

New Delhi, Mar 12: The Supreme Court told the Uttar Pradesh government on Thursday that as of now, there was no law that could back their action of putting up roadside posters of those accused of vandalism during anti-CAA protests in Lucknow.

An apex court bench refused to stay the March 9 Allahabad High Court order directing the Yogi Adityanath administration to remove the posters.

The top court, which grilled the Uttar Pradesh government for putting up such posters in public, described the plea as a matter that needed "further elaboration and consideration".

A vacation bench of justices U U Lalit and Aniruddha Bose said a "bench of sufficient strength" would consider next week the Uttar Pradesh government's appeal against the Allahabad High Court order directing the state administration to remove the posters of those accused of vandalism during anti-CAA protests.

It directed the apex court registry to put up the case file before Chief Justice of India (CJI) S A Bobde so that a "bench of sufficient strength can be constituted at the earliest to hear and consider" the case next week.

During the hearing, the bench told Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Uttar Pradesh government, that it was a matter of "great importance".

It asked Mehta whether the state government had the power to put up such posters.

The top court, however, said there was no doubt that action should be taken against rioters and they should be punished.

Mehta told the court that the posters were put up as a "deterrent" and the hoardings only said that these persons were liable to pay for their alleged acts during the violence.

Senior advocate A M Singhvi, appearing for former IPS officer S R Darapuri whose poster has also been affixed in Lucknow, told the bench that the state was duty-bound to show the authority of law backing its action.

He said the action of the Uttar Pradesh government amounted to a "mega blanket" approach of naming and shaming these persons without final adjudication and it was an open invitation to common men to lynch them as the posters also had their addresses and photographs.

Mumbai, Jun 6: Republic TV Editor-in-Chief Arnab Goswami faces a new complaint, this time under the Cable Televisions Network (Regulation) Act, 1995, for allegedly running the television channel "to create communal hatred, religious polarisation and threatening national integrity".

Social activist Nilesh Navlakha last month lodged a criminal complaint with the Commissioner of Police, Pune, through his lawyer Asim Sarode, under Section 2 of the Act.

"We have narrated six prominent, recent debate shows conducted by Goswami in which his arguments and words used were communal in nature which he kept repeating in his shows. The words and tonality are intended to promote communal attitudes and news is based on religious innuendos and half-truths," Sarode contended.

This leads to propaganda based on hatred, religious polarization and communal divide, said Navlakha in a statement.

He further said that the misuse of freedom of expression by Goswami and his channel posed a serious threat before the independent media as it violates the freedom of expression of the viewers, as it is the viewers' right to get correct, complete and true information.

Elaborating about Goswami's behaviour, Navlakha said that he has created what is termed 'Impulse Control Disorder' in psychiatry.
Sarode said: "Intermittent Explosive Disorder is a kind of 'impulse control disorder' which involves sudden episodes of impulsive, aggressive, violent behaviour or angry verbal outbursts in which you react grossly out of proportion to the situation."

They said that there are some more media persons displaying such tendencies in Hindi and English journalism, showing whatever is convenient and blow it out of proportion to give meanings which are out-of-context and disrupts the fabric of democracy while not fitting into journalism's ethics.

The complaint also alleged that Goswami and his channel are actually into "brainwashing" the viewers in a way that they will get converted into haters of some communities and terror for some religions.

"This is not less than running an organised crime syndicate of making the human minds to follow a fanatic terrorist thought process. When WhatsApp group admins are being booked under the law, then why the CTNRA provisions are not being invoked against such tendencies," Sarode asked.

In the complaint, it is pointed out how eminent persons have walked out of Goswami's shows because of his name-calling tactics, like labelling cricketer Sachin Tendulkar "anti-national" in one of his shows.

Navlakha and Sarode claimed that Goswami has violated the Programme Code under the CTNRA, the channel has indicated it is against sovereignty, integrity and security as also against public order, decency and morality, making it a serious issue and a cognizable offence.

It urged the Pune police chief to take suitable action against the wrongs committed to disturb the peace, law and order in society and book Goswami under the CTNRA Section's 16, which attracts a jail term of two years plus fine.

New Delhi, Jun 20: After Prime Minister Narendra Modi said there are no foreign incursions into India, China has once again claimed that Galwan valley of Ladakh union territory is located on the Chinese side of the Line of Actual Control (LAC).

In an official statement on the step-by-step account of the Galwan face-off where 20 Indian soldiers were killed, China's foreign ministry spokesperson Zhao Lijian has said the Galwan valley is located on the Chinese side of the LAC in the west section of the China-India boundary.

"For many years, the Chinese border troops have been patrolling and on duty in this region," Zhao said alleging that since April this year, the Indian border troops have unilaterally and continuously built roads, bridges and other facilities at the LAC in the Galwan Valley.

China has lodged representations and protests on multiple occasions but India has gone even further to cross the LAC and make provocations, Zhao said.

By the early morning of May 6, the Indian border troops, who had crossed the LAC by night and trespassed into China's territory, built fortification and barricades, which impeded the patrol of Chinese border troops, Zhao said adding that they deliberately made provocations in an attempt to unilaterally change the status quo of control and management.

The Chinese border troops, he said, were "forced to take necessary measures to respond to the situation on the ground and strengthen management and control in the border areas."

In order to ease the situation, China and India have stayed in close communication through military and diplomatic channels, he said. "In response to the strong demand of the Chinese side, India agreed to withdraw the personnel who crossed the LAC and demolish the facilities, and so they did.

On June 6, the border troops of both countries held a commander-level meeting and reached consensus on easing the situation. The Indian side, he said, promised that they would not cross the estuary of the Galwan river to patrol and build facilities and the two sides would discuss and decide phased withdrawal of troops through the meetings between commanders on the ground.

"Shockingly, on the evening of June 15, India's front-line troops, in violation of the agreement reached at the commander-level meeting, once again crossed the Line of Actual Control for deliberate provocation when the situation in the Galwan Valley was already easing, and even violently attacked the Chinese officers and soldiers who went there for negotiation, thus triggering fierce physical conflicts and causing casualties."

"The adventurous acts of the Indian army have seriously undermined the stability of the border areas, threatened the lives of Chinese personnel, violated the agreements reached between the two countries on the border issue, and breached the basic norms governing international relations," the spokesperson said.

Beijing, he said, hopes that India will work with China, follow faithfully the important consensus reached between the two leaders, abide by the agreements reached between the two governments, and strengthen communication and coordination on properly managing the current situation through diplomatic and military channels, and jointly uphold peace and stability in the border areas.